Forging The Crown

Centro Ricerche e Documentazione sull’Antichità Classica
47
MONOGRAFIE
The kingdom of Bithynia arose during the age
of Alexander and his successors, and, thanks to
its ambitious and charismatic kings, became the
C.E.R.D.A.C.
dominant power in the Propontic area within a few
decades. This book explores its emergence through
Monografie 47 an in-depth analysis of the surviving sources in
order to reassess its role in the Hellenistic political
1. Piana Agostinetti P., Documenti per la protostoria della 28. G alimberti A., Adriano e l’ideologia del principato.
landscape.
Val d’Ossola S. Bernardo di Ornavasso e le altre necropoli 29. Bearzot C., Vivere da democratici. Studi su Lisia e la
preromane. democrazia ateniese.
2. Ianovitz O., Il culto solare nella «X Regio Augustea». 30. Carsana C.-Schettino M.T. (a cura di), Utopia e Utopie
3. Letta C., I Marsi e il Fucino nell’antichità. nel pensiero storico antico.
4. Cebeillac M., Les «quaestores principis et candidati» aux Ier 31. Rohr Vio F., Publio Ventidio Basso. Fautor Caesaris, tra
et IIeme siècle de l’empire. storia e memoria.
5. Poggio T., Ceramica e vernice nera di Spina: le oinochoi 32. Lo Cascio E., Crescita e declino. Studi di storia dell’eco-
trilobate. ELOISA PAGANONI was awarded her doctorate
nomia romana.
6. Gambetti C., I coperchi di urne con figurazioni femminili nel 33. Migliario E.-Troiani L.-Zecchini G. (a cura di), So-
from the University of Padua in 2017 and is
Museo Archeologico di Volterra. cietà indigene e cultura greco-romana. Atti del Convegno currently a post-doctoral fellow at Ca’ Foscari
7. Letta
C.-D’Amato S., Epigrafia della regione dei Marsi. Internazionale Trento, 7-8 giugno 2007. University of Venice. Her research interests focus
8. Zecchini G., Aezio: l’ultima difesa dell’Occidente Romano. 34. Zecchini G., Ricerche di storiografia latina tardoantica II. on the history of Hellenistic Asia Minor, Greek
9. Gillis D., Eros and Death in the Aeneid. Dall’Historia Augusta a Paolo Diacono.
A HISTORY OF THE KINGDOM OF BITHYNIA FROM ITS ORIGIN TO PRUSIAS I

10. Gallotta B., Germanico.
epigraphy, and local historiography. She has
35. R aimondi M., Imerio e il suo tempo. published several articles on these topics.
11. Traina G., Paludi e Bonifiche nel mondo antico. Saggio di 36. C ristofoli R.-Galimberti A.-Rohr Vio F. (a cura di),
archeologia geografica. Lo spazio del non-allineamento a Roma fra tarda Repubbli-
12. R occhi G.D., Frontiera e confini nella Grecia Antica.
ca e primo principato.
13. L evi M.A., I Nomadi alla frontiera.
37. Z ecchini G. (a cura di), L’Augusteum di Narona.
14. Z ecchini G., Ricerche di storiografia latina tardoantica.
38. H ölkeskamp K.-J., Modelli per una Repubblica.
15. Agostinetti A.S., Flavio Arriano. Gli eventi dopo Alessandro.
39. B earzot C. Landucci F. (a cura di), Alexader’s Legacy.
16. L evi M.A., Adriano Augusto.
17. L evi M.A., Ercole e Roma. 40. Bianchi E., Vulci. Storia della città e dei suoi rapporti con
18. L anducci Gattinoni F., Duride di Samo. Greci e Romani.
19. AA.VV., L’Ecumenismo politico nella coscienza dell’Occi- 41. C ristofoli R.-Galimberti A.-Rohr Vio F. (a cura di),
dente. Alle radici della casa comune europea. Costruire la Memoria. Uso e abuso della storia fra tarda
20. AA.VV., L’ultimo Cesare. Scritti riforme progetti poteri repubblica e primo principato.
congiure. 42. Pellizzari A., Maestro di retorica, maestro di vita: le lettere
FORGING THE CROWN

21. AA.VV., Identità e valori. Fattori di aggregazione e fattori teodosiane di Libanio di Antiochia.
di crisi nell’esperienza politica antica. 43. C asella M., Galerio. Il tetrarca infine tollerante.
22. AA.VV., Integrazione mescolanza rifiuto. Incontri di popoli, 44. Schettino M.T. - Zecchini G. (a cura di), L’età di Silla.
lingue e culture in Europa dall’Antichità all’Umanesimo. Atti del Convegno “Istituto italiano per la storia antica” -
23. AA.VV., Modelli eroici dall’antichità alla cultura europea. Roma, 23-24 marzo 2017.
45. Schettino M.T., Prospettive interculturali e confronto poli-
A HISTORY OF THE KINGDOM OF BITHYNIA
24. AA.VV., La cultura storica nei primi due secoli dell’Impero
Romano. tico da Augusto ai Severi.
25. Prandi L., Memorie storiche dei Greci in Claudio Eliano. 46. Prandi L. (a cura di), EstOvest. Confini e conflitti tra
FROM ITS ORIGIN TO PRUSIAS I

26. Chausson F., Stemmata aurea: Constantin, Justine, Théodose. Vicino Oriente e mondo Greco-Romano.
FORGING THE CROWN

27. Colonnese C., Le scelte di Plutarco. Le vite non scritte di 47. Paganoni E., Forging the Crown. A history of the Kingdom
greci illustri. of Bithynia from its origin to Prusias I.
«L’ERMA» di BRETSCHNEIDER
Eloisa Paganoni
Eloisa Paganoni
E. PAGANONI - FORGING THE CROWN
ISBN 978-88-913-1895-4
On the Front cover:

Statuette of satyr from Nicomedia, 2nd century B.C.
«L’ERMA» di BRETSCHNEIDER Archaeological Museum of Istanbul, inventory 5985.
Paganoni cope Moncerdac 47.indd 1 15/01/20 11:04

CENTRO RICERCHE E DOCUMENTAZIONE
SULL’ANTICHITÀ CLASSICA
MONOGRAFIE
47
ELOISA PAGANONI
Forging the Crown
A History of the Kingdom of Bithynia

from its Origin to Prusias I
«L’ERMA» di BRETSCHNEIDER
Roma - Bristol
ELOISA PAGANONI
Forging the Crown
A History of the Kingdom of Bithynia
from its Origin to Prusias I
© Copyright 2019 «L’ERMA» di BRETSCHNEIDER

Via Marianna Dionigi, 57 70 Enterprise Drive, Suite 2
00193, Roma - Italia Bristol CT, 06010 - USA
www.lerma.it
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored, or transmitted

in any form or by any means without written permission of the publisher.
Il volume è stato sottoposto a procedura di Peer-Review
Sistemi di garanzia della qualità

UNI EN ISO 9001:2015
Sistemi di gestione ambientale

ISO 14001:2015
Eloisa Paganoni
Forging the Crown
A History of the Kingdom of Bithynia from its Origin to Prusias I:
«L’ERMA» di BRETSCHNEIDER, 2019 - 280 p. 24 cm. -
ISBN (BROSSURA) 978-88-913-1895-4

ISBN (PDF) 978-88-913-1898-5
CDD 930
1. Ancient History
This Volume has been made possible with the Contribution of the
Dipartimento di Culture e Civiltà dell’Università degli Studi di Verona
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface................................................................................................ VII
Introduction ........................................................................................ IX
CHAPTER ONE. BITHYNIA BEFORE THE KINGDOM OF BITHYNIA................. 1

1. The Origin of the Bithynians ................................................... 1
2. Bithynia and the Bithynians in the Archaic and Classical Ages. 10
CHAPTER TWO. THE BIRTH OF A NEW KINGDOM. BITHYNIA IN THE AGE

OF ALEXANDER THE GREAT AND THE DIADOCHS (334-280 BC) .......... 23
1. The Turning-Point. Bas and Zipoites in the Late 4th Centu-
ry BC ........................................................................................ 23
2. Troubled Years 301-280 BC. Zipoites’ Politics between Ex-
pansion and Defence ................................................................ 29
3. Zipoites: from Ruler to King.................................................... 37
4. Independence ........................................................................... 43
CHAPTER THREE. BUILDING THE HEGEMONY. THE KINGDOM OF BITHYNIA

UNDER NICOMEDES I AND ZIAELAS (279-229 BC) ............................. 45
1. 279-277 BC Nicomedes I’s Wars ............................................. 45
2. Fragments of Nicomedes I’s Politics ....................................... 58
3. International Recognition......................................................... 68
4. The Traditional Portrayal of Nicomedes I, Hellenisation and
Peer Polity Interaction.............................................................. 70
5. From Nicomedes I to Ziaelas ................................................... 76
6. Ziaelas in His Father’s Footsteps ............................................. 81
7. An Appraisal of the Reigns of Nicomedes I and Ziaelas ......... 95
CHAPTER FOUR. BITHYNIA AND THE RISE OF ROME IN THE EAST

(229-182 BC) ................................................................................ 97
1. The Early Years of Prusias I ..................................................... 97
2. Great Expansion in a Changing World. Prusias I’s Politics in
the Turn of the 2nd Century BC ................................................ 110
3. Prusias I’s Last Years. Deescalation to West and Escalation to
East ........................................................................................... 129
4. Prusias I’s Politics between Economy and Propaganda, Hel-
lenising and National Claims ................................................... 140
5. A Final Assessment of Prusias I ............................................... 148
Conclusion ......................................................................................... 151
Appendix. Epigraphic Evidence ........................................................ 157
Abbreviations ..................................................................................... 191
Bibliography ...................................................................................... 195
Kings of Bithynia ............................................................................... 239
Tables ................................................................................................. 241
Index .................................................................................................. 251

PREFACE
This work originates from my PhD dissertation Bithynia. Politics of

a Hellenistic Kingdom, which I submitted to the University of Padua in
March 2017. I owe a debt of gratitude to many people, first of all, to my
supervisors, Luisa Prandi and Thomas Corsten, for their generous advice,
constant encouragement and endless patience.
Words cannot express my gratitude to Franca Landucci, who initiated me
into Hellenistic history and drew my attention to the kingdom of Bithynia.
She has carefully followed my work during these years, providing me with
insights and thought-provoking suggestions. My research has benefitted
from feedback from many scholars who commented on individual parts
of this work. I am particularly indebted to Domitilla Campanile, Andrew
Meadows, Federicomaria Muccioli, Christof Schuler, Giuseppe Squillace,
and Peter Thonemann. Michael Wörrle disclosed to me the meaning of a
mysterious abbreviation. Marco Bonechi suggested many good readings to
me, one of which was fundamental to this work. Raffaela G. Rizzo helped
me with designing the maps. Thomas R.P. Coward kindly proofread the
English for me. My warmest thanks to all of them. Any mistakes that remain
are my own.
I thank several institutions for their support in making this work pos-
sible. The University of Padua awarded me a three-year PhD fellowship,
which also funded my stays in Vienna (2014-2016) and Oxford (spring
2016). The Jacobi Fellowship from the Deutsches Archäologisches Insti-
tut allowed me to spend some fruitful weeks at the Kommission für Alte
Geschichte und Epigraphik in Munich in summer 2016. I prepared and
revised the manuscript for publication while I was a research fellow at Ca’
Foscari University of Venice. In the final stages of revision I benefitted
from a fellowship of the Istituto Italiano per la Storia Antica.
My parents, Angelo and Margherita, have always supported and en-
couraged me. This book is dedicated to them.
INTRODUCTION
The dominant view reduces the Hellenistic world to the realms of the
Antigonids, Seleucids, Ptolemies and Attalids. A cursory look at the main
reference works, encyclopaedias, handbooks and companions confirms
this perception. Among the countless contributions, three works can serve
as an example.
In the second edition of the Cambridge Ancient History, the seventh
(divided into two parts), eighth and ninth volumes deal with the Hellenistic
centuries1. The first part of the seventh volume has the illustrative subtitle
The Hellenistic World and its chapters on the historical account focus on
the establishment of the kingdoms of the Diadochs. The second part and
the eighth volume are entitled The Rise of Rome to 220 BC and Rome and
the Mediterranean to 133 BC respectively. Their titles reveal that the his-
tory of the Greek world in the 2nd-1st centuries BC is conceived as the his-
tory of the rise of Rome in the East. It follows that the historical narrative
pivots on Rome, its enemies (Philip V, Perseus, and Antiochus III) and its
friends (the Attalids). This approach is confirmed by the ninth volume on
The Last Age of the Roman Republic 146-43 BC. The narrative of the his-
tory of the Hellenistic East is limited to a chapter of roughly thirty-pages
(from a volume of more than nine hundred pages), which deals with the
wars against Mithridates VI, the last enemy of Rome in the East.
The 2003 A Companion to the Hellenistic World introduces the reader
to many aspects of the Hellenistic period2. The second section entitled Pro-
tagonists is composed of four chapters on The Ptolemies and Egypt, The
Seleukids and Asia, Macedon and the Mainland, 280-221, and The Attalids
of Pergamon.
In 2017 the second edition of Le monde hellénistique appeared3. It in-
cludes chapters on the rise of the Hellenistic kingdoms down to 276 BC,
Egypt in the 3rd-1st century BC, the Seleucid empire in the 3rd century BC,
1
CAH2 VII.1 and 2; VIII; IX.
2
ERSKINE 2003.
3
GRANDJEAN et. al. 2008, 2nd ed. 2017.
X ELOISA PAGANONI
Macedonia until the end of the Antigonids, followed by two chapters on the
Eastern Mediterranean and Greece in the later Hellenistic era. Like the two
aforementioned works, the 2017 handbook ‘selects’ the protagonists of the
Hellenistic age according to the ‘traditional’ approach. Furthermore, as far
as we can see from the table of contents, the kingdoms ‘disappear’ from the
account when they enter the sphere of Roman influence. The chapters about
the second half of the Hellenistic age, indeed, are devoted to Greece, the East,
and the Ptolemies, the last dynasty to capitulate to Rome. The reader has the
overall impression that the Hellenistic era was, broadly speaking, the ‘age of
the kingdoms’, and that this era came to an end when Rome entered the East.
This idea is not new in scholarship. Johann Gustav Droysen, the father
of Hellenism, planned to describe the history of the Eastern Mediterra-
nean from Alexander’s to Cleopatra’s death. But in fact he concluded his
Geschichte des Hellenismus with the account of the Greek and Asiatic
situation in the 220s, that is, before the arrival of Rome4. In the histori-
cal account at the beginning of The Social and Economic History of the
Hellenistic World, Michail Rostovtzeff called this ‘age of the kingdoms’
the ‘Hellenistic balance’, in contrast with the following decades between
the 220s and the 130s BC, when, he thought, the ‘decay of the Hellenistic
monarchies’ took place5.
The picture of the Hellenistic world is deeply affected by Rome. Its
entrance in the East is considered a turning-point. Afterwards, the history
of the Hellenistic world is presented as a step of Roman imperialism. The
years between the age of Alexander and the coming of Rome are reduced
to a mere preamble to Rome’s conquest of the East. The account of them
focuses on the Macedonian monarchies and the Attalids, in other words,
those kingdoms that were the most involved in the rise of Rome in the East.
Modern scholars are not solely responsible for this situation. Due to the
loss of nearly all of Greek local and general Hellenistic historiography, they
mostly depend on the Histories of Polybius, the Historical Library of Dio-
dorus of Sicily, the Ab urbe condita of Livy, the Roman History of Appian
and Justin’s summary of the Philippic Histories of Trogus. In what survives
of the first four works, the narrative on the Hellenistic centuries coincides
with the account of Roman imperialism. As a consequence, it focuses on the
Hellenistic kingdoms (Macedonia, Syria, Egypt and Pergamum) that were
in contact with Rome, and information is limited on Rome’s relations with
4
DROYSEN 1952-1953. Cf. MARI 2019, p. 18.
5
ROSTOVTZEFF 1941, pp. 24-73.
INTRODUCTION XI
them. Nearly nothing is said about the Eastern situation; the inter-state re-
lations between the kingdoms and with other Hellenistic entities are com-
pletely overlooked unless they concern Rome. The universal history of Tro-
gus has been defined as ‘una storia «non romana» e, se non proprio contro
Roma, almeno senza Roma’6. The unique perspective of this work, however,
cannot remove the fact that only a summary of Justin survives. It often offers
a viewpoint different to events told in other sources and testifies to episodes
otherwise unknown. On the other hand, Justin’s information turns out to be
unreliable in some cases. When trustworthy, it is sometimes difficult to con-
textualise within the historical frame the Roman focused sources depict. In
fact, the history of the Hellenistic realities between the age of the Diadochs
and the oncoming of Rome in the East is barely known to us.
This contributes to the bi-dimensional, simplified, and incomplete view

of the Hellenistic world still in vouge. It allows little room for the other
protagonists of that world, which are generally called with the diminishing
designation of ‘minor kingdoms’ in contrast to the monarchies ruled by
Macedonian dynasties, Macedonia, Syria and Egypt7. Nonetheless, from
the 1980s onwards, scholarship has taken a fresh interest in these king-
doms, testified by a growing number of monographs on Pontus, Cappado-
cia, Galatia, Commagene, Armenia, Parthia, and Bactria8. With regard to
the kingdom of Bithynia, recent contributions include the monographs by
Henri-Louis Fernoux and Christoph Michels9. These works provide fresh
insights on the society of Hellenistic Bithynia and the cultural politics of
its kings respectively.
The historical account, which informs the background of their stud-
ies, dates back to some decades ago, though. It was elaborated in a long
season of studies that began in the late 19th century. In 1861 Karl A. E.
Nolte presented the dissertation De rebus gestis regum Bithynorum usque
ad Prusiae I mortem10. A few years later Theodor Reinach devoted two
essays on the history and coinage of the kingdom of Bithynia11. In 1925 Jo-
hann Sölch published the paper Bithynische Städte im Altertum12. In 1953
6
SANTI AMANTINI 1981, p. 26.
7
Cf. GABELKO 2017, pp. 319-321.
8
SCHOTTKY 1989; STROBEL 1996; LERNER 1999; ARSLAN 2004; PRIMO 2004; FACELLA 2006; COLOROU
2009; PANICHI 2018.
9
FERNOUX 2004; MICHELS 2009.
10
NOLTE 1861.
11
REINACH 1888; REINACH 1902.
12
SÖLCH 1925.
XII ELOISA PAGANONI
Giovanni Vitucci wrote the first monograph on the Bithynian kingdom

with the title Il regno di Bitinia13. It was the only volume on Hellenistic
Bithynia for decades. Notwithstanding, it never became a reference work.
This purpose was fulfilled by the entries about Bithynia and the Bithynian
kings, which appeared in the Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertum-
swissenschaft between the 1890s and 1970s14. In 2005, fifty-two years af-
ter Vitucci’s work, Oleg Gabelko presented the monumental monograph
NСтОрия ВиϕинСKОго царСтва, an updated history of the kingdom of
Bithynia15. Regrettably, it has remained unknown to non-Russian speaking
scholarship. Nearly no European or American scholar mentions it, and it
is difficult to find a copy in Western libraries. In fact, the current inter-
pretation of the politics of the kingdom of Bithynia is based on contribu-
tions published in the 1970s. They show the faults of the traditional storia
evenemenziale, among which the little effort to contextualise events. This
traditional approach conceived the history of a political entity just as a se-
quence of events. Its politics were not interpreted in light of the wider his-
torical context, and they did not contribute to the definition of this context.
Despite recent progress, an easily accessible and updated study on the

history of Hellenistic Bithynia is still lacking. This book aims to contribute
to filling this gap through a reassessment of the emergence of the Bithyni-
an kingdom in the Hellenistic world. It is a political history of Bithynia in
the ‘age of the kingdoms’. It points out the conditions that allowed the rise
of the kingdom and investigates the agency of the kings, who ruled before
Bithynia entered Rome’s sphere of interest, Zipoites, Nicomedes I, Ziaelas
and Prusias I. This work explores their domestic and foreign policies, as
far as can be ascertained from the sources, in order to determine the role
of the kingdom of Bithynia in the Hellenistic world. Outlining the rise
and consolidation of this kingdom involves reassessing the history of the
whole of northern Asia Minor in the first decades of the Hellenistic era. It
reconsiders the history of this region taking Bithynia as the focus of the
historical analysis. The investigation of Bithynian politics reveals the con-
tact networks of powers involved in this region. In this way, it contributes
to the understanding of the interests that shaped the history of this area.
Although the evidence from the 3rd-early 2nd century BC is scanty, the
13
VITUCCI 1953.
14
MEYER 1897; GEYER 1936; GEYER 1936a; GEYER 1936b; GEYER 1936c; HABICHT 1957; HABICHT 1957a;
HABICHT 1972; HABICHT 1972c.
15
GABELKO 2005.
INTRODUCTION XIII
state of sources about the kingdom of Bithynia is appreciably different from

others. To outline the role of Bithynia in the ‘age of the kingdoms’, we can
rely not only on sources mentioned above but also on Memnon’s On Hera-
clea. What survives of this work is a long summary of Books IX-XVI, that
constitutes Codex 224 of Photius’ Bibliotheca. It is a detailed account of the
history of the Propontic area from the 4th to the 1st centuries BC. It provides
a decisive contribution to the understanding of the history of the kingdom
of Bithynia, especially in its earliest decades. Here and there, it is affected
by the consequences of works which are preserved as a summary. Photius’
narrative is in some cases unclear or imprecise. Some episodes for which it
is the only testimony are difficult to contextualize. However, scholars agree
that the historical information that Photius preserves is reliable16.
The wealth of information and the local perspective of the summary of
Memnon’s work, which also provides a glimpse into domestic events, is a
source of regret for the loss of local literary production on Bithynia. It should
have been remarkable, judging from the number of the authors who are known
to have devoted a work to this region or one of its cities. Two fragments sur-
vive from the On Nicaea by a certain Menecrates, who is often identified with
the 2nd-century-BC Menecrates of Tralles17. Demosthenes of Bithynia, who is
supposed to have lived in the Hellenistic age, wrote the Bithyniaka, an epic
poem in at least ten books18. In the second half of the 2nd century BC, Nicander
of Chalcedon composed the Misadventures of Prusias, a satiric work on Pru-
sias II19. The works of Asclepiades of Myrlea, active in the 2nd-1st century BC
included a Bithyniaka in at least ten books20. Alexander Polyhistor wrote an
On Bithynia21. The obscure Artemidorus of Ascalon was the author of an On
Bithynia of which nothing is extant but the title22. Arrian of Nicomedia wrote
his Bithyniaka in ten books recounting the history of his country from the ori-
gin to the end of the kingdom23. A few fragments of these works are extant and
most of them concern geographical and mythological information. However,
16
YARROW 2006, pp. 109-110; PAGANONI 2015, pp. 61-62. On Photius, see HÄGG 1973; HÄGG 1975;
SCHAMP 1987; WILSON 1992; BEVEGNI 1996. On Memnon and his work, see JANKE 1963; DESIDERI 1967; DE-
SIDERI 1970-1971; DUECK 2006; YARROW 2006, passim; ARSLAN 2011; HEINEMANN 2010; Billows, Nymphis
BNJ 432, Biographical Essay; DAVAZE 2013; TOBER 2013, pp. 387-414; GALLOTTA 2014; PAGANONI 2015.
17
Trachsel, Menekrates, BNJ 701.
18
Trachsel, Demosthenes, BNJ 699.
19
Trachsel, Nikandros, BNJ 700.
20
Trachsel, Asklepiades, BNJ 697.
21
Blakely, Alexandros Polyhistor, BNJ 273 FF 12-13, 125 with Commentary and Biographical Essay.
22
Trachsel, Artemidoros BNJ 698.
23
Jacoby, FGrHist 156, FF 14-29, 57-109 with Commentary; STADTER 1980, pp. 152-161; DANA –
DANA 2014, pp. 27-32.
XIV ELOISA PAGANONI
they attest to the existence of a thriving local tradition, that was probably in
part produced at the Bithynian court24.
The research on some aspects about Hellenistic Bithynia, such as interna-
tional relations and cultural and economic politics, benefits from numismatic
and epigraphic evidence as well as from literary sources25. The coinage of
the Bithynian kingdom has raised the attention of scholars since the time of
Theodor Reinach. The achievements of decades of studies have been recently
concentrated in the handbook on the coinage of northern Anatolia by Oliver
D. Hoover, which is now the standard reference work26. The documents from
Bithynia are collected in the catalogues of inscriptions from Cius/Prusias ad
Mare, Prusa ad Olympum, Bithynium, Myrlea/Apamea, Pylai, Cierus/Pru-
sias ad Hypium and Nicaea of the series Inschriften griechischer Städte aus
Kleinasien27. The absence of a volume about Nicomedia is remarkable. For
this city the only reference remains the first part of the fourth volume of the
Tituli Asiae Minoris28. Other inscriptions relevant to this research are pub-
lished in other corpora. It is therefore difficult to acquire an overall overview
of this evidence, its value and the matters it raises. For this reason, I collect
it in an appendix. It intends to be a useful tool for the reader looking for texts
and translations as well as an update of the scholarship about each document.
It reassesses the main matters and provides a proper space for issues that
would be relegated to a footnote in the historical account.
NOTE
Translations from Greek and Latin are my own.
Personal and place names have been Latinized (e.g. Byzantium, Nicaea instead
of Byzantion, Nikaia) except for unfamiliar names or names usually quoted in the
Greek form (e.g. Tios). Words, such as institutions, epithets, and special designa-
tions, are transliterated (e.g. boulē).
24
PAGANONI 2016 with further literature on the authors of these works.
25
Archaeologic sources too could offer a valuable contribution to the historical investigation, but no
extensive excavations, bringing to the light the Hellenistic layers, have been so far conducted in the Pro-
pontis.
26
HOOVER 2012, pp. 206-226.
27
IK Kios; IK Prusa ad Olympum; IK Klaudiu Polis; IK Apameia und Pylai; IK Prusias ad Hypium; IK
Nikaia. MAREK – ADAK 2016 collect the inscriptions from Bithynia that have been found after the publication
of these corpora. Unforunately, they do not provide new evidence for the history of the kingdom of Bithynia.
28
TAM IV, 1. See also DÖRNER 1941; DÖRNER 1952; ROBERT 1980.
CHAPTER ONE
BITHYNIA BEFORE THE KINGDOM OF BITHYNIA
1. THE ORIGIN OF THE BITHYNIANS
Ancient sources often call the Bithynians Θρήικες οἱ ἐν τῇ Ἀσίῃ1,

Βιθυνοὶ Θρᾷκες2, Θρᾷκες Βιθυνοί3, Θρᾷκες οἱ περὶ Βιθυνίαν4 or Θρᾷκες οἱ
Βιθυνοί5 and their region – broadly corresponding to the Propontic penin-
sula – Βιθυνὶς Θρᾴκη6, Θρᾴκη ἡ ἐν τῇ Ἀσίᾳ7, Asiae Bithynia8 or Thracium
Bosphorum9. These names refer to the Thracian ethnicity of the Bithynians,
which is confirmed by onomastics and archaeological evidence10. Literary
sources explain that they were among the Thracian tribes that passed from
Europe to Asia in remote time. The information is fragmentary, occasion-
ally unclear and sometimes not trustworthy, as usual for distant events, but
it produces a sufficiently detailed account of the peopling of the Propontic
peninsula. Herodotus first relates the migration of the Thracians:
the Thracians... who crossed over to Asia were called Bithynians. Formerly,
they were called Strymonians – as they themselves say – since they lived by
the Strymon11.
1
Hdt. VII, 75.
2
Thuc. IV, 75, 2.
3
Xen. An. VI, 4, 2; Ps. Scylax 92.
4
Diod. XIV, 38, 3.
5
Arr. An. I, 29, 5. In his account of the arrival of the Bithynians in the Propontis, Appian (Mithr. 1)
uses the words τὴν Θρᾳκῶν τῶν Βιθυνῶν to describe a region near to Byzantium (therefore in Europe). For
the whole passage, see below in this chapter.
6
Xen. Hell. III, 2, 1.
7
Xen. An. VI, 4, 1; cf. 2, 17, where the Asiatic coast of the Propontis is referred to as τῆς Θρᾴκης.
8
Sall. Hist. III, 50.
9
Mela I, 14.
10
About onomastics and toponymy, see DURIDANOV 1980; CORSTEN 2007; MICHELS 2009, pp. 12-13 n.
5. ÖZLEM-AYTAÇLAR 2010; AVRAM 2013; OnomThrac, pp. LXXIX-LXXXII. About archaeological sources,
see below p. 6 n. 42.
11
Hdt. VII, 75: Θρήικες... δὲ διαβάντες μὲν ἐς τὴν Ἀσίην ἐκλήθησαν Βιθυνοί, τὸ δὲ πρότερον
ἐκαλέοντο, ὡς αὐτοὶ λέγουσι, Στρυμόνιοι, οἰκέοντες ἐπὶ Στρυμόνι.
2 ELOISA PAGANONI
Herodotus focuses on the name change of the Thracians who moved to

Asia, identified here with the Bithynians only. In doing so he locates the
region they inhabited in Europe. It was the area along the Strymon, today’s
Stryma, which has its source in the Vitosha Mountains and flows into the
Aegean Sea near Amphipolis12.
Elsewhere, Herodotus13 lists the Thracians among the peoples subject
to Croesus, and what seems a gloss14 clarifies that they were Thynians and
Bithynians. In this case, the Bithynians are associated with another Thra-
cian tribe, similar by name, which supposedly passed into Asia with them.
In this regard Strabo is explicit. In Book VII, he records both the Bithyni-
ans and the Thynians among the Thracian tribes migrating to Asia15, and
in Book XII, he says:
It is commonly accepted that the Bithynians, who formerly were Mysians,

changed their name after the Thracians, the Bithynians and Thynians, who
settled in the region16.
As with these passages, sources often couple the Thynians with the
Bithynians17. The assonance of their name created some confusion already
in ancient times18, but actually they were two distinct tribes that inhabited
different areas in Europe. The Bithynians, as we have seen, lived in the
Strymon valley, while the Thynians occupied the south-eastern Thrace,
bordering the Black Sea19. Most of them were still living there in the Clas-
sical and Hellenistic periods. This suggests that just a few of them passed
to Asia. The same conclusion cannot be drawn confidently for the Bithyni-
12
For the identification of the European land of the Bithynians with the Strymon’s valley, see also
Jacoby, FGrHist 156, F 77a (deriving from Herodotus); Eus. II, 66-67 Schoene. Cf. Pliny (NH V, 142-143),
who says that Asiam Bithyniamque... ea appellata est Cronia, dein Thessalis, dein Malianda et Strymonis
(‘Asia Bithynia... was called Cronia, then Thessalis, then Malianda and Strymonis’).
13
Hdt. I, 28.
14
MACAN 1908, p. 99 n. 75.
15
Strabo VII, 3, 2.
16
Strabo XII, 3, 3: οἱ μὲν οὖν Βιθυνοὶ διότι πρότερον Μυσοὶ ὄντες μετωνομάσθησαν οὕτως ἀπὸ τῶν
Θρᾳκῶν τῶν ἐποικησάντων, Βιθυνῶν τε καὶ Θυνῶν, ὁμολογεῖται παρὰ τῶν πλείστων.
17
Jacoby, FGrHist 156, F 77a; Eust. De capta Thess. p. 30 l. 26; Porphyr. Quaest. homericarum ad
Il. XIII, 3, 5.
18
Pliny (NH V, 145) says that the Bithynians were the Thynians who changed name after crossing over
to Asia and also HANNESTAD 1996, p. 68 thinks so.
19
On the Thynians, see MEYER 1897, col. 513; LENK 1936; FOL [– MARAZOV] 1977, pp. 141-142; LENDLE
1995, pp. 431-433; MIHAILOV 1991, pp. 604-605; STRONK 1995, pp. 185-186; MÜLLER 1997, p. 959; VON
BREDOW 2002; WEBBER 2011, pp. 203-204. About the Thynias region near Salmydessus, see OBERHUMMER
1936; MÜLLER 1997, pp. 922-924; VON BREDOW 2002b.
BITHYNIA BEFORE THE KINGDOM OF BITHYNIA 3
ans, as their presence in Europe in the historical time is too scarcely at-
tested20.
The Bithynians and Thynians came from different areas of Thrace and
continued to live separately when they settled in Asia. Fragment 77a of
Arrian, probably from Book I of the Bithyniaka for content21, records the
migration of the Thracians into Asia and describes the land the Thynians
and Bithynians inhabited:
It is also said that at that time the Bithynians occupied the region from the Bos-
porus to the Rhebas. The Thynians inhabited the mountainous region border-
ing on the Pontus as far as the river Cales, as the Thynians and the Bithynians
were neighbouring peoples22.
It is clear from the reference to ‘that time’ that Arrian is dealing with the
situation in a distant past, probably close to the arrival of the Thynians and
the Bithynians in Anatolia. According to him, the territory of the Thynians
extended as far as the river Cales, the current Alaplı Çayı, which flows
into the sea a few kilometres south-west of the promontory of Heraclea
Pontica23. The Bithynians inhabited the area between the Bosporus and
the river Rhebas, that was – Arrian said above – a tributary of the river
Sangarius. It corresponds to the modern Gökçe Suyu, that flows south of
Askania Lake24. The rivers Cales and Rhebas constituted the southern bor-
ders of the Thynians and the Bithynians who inhabited the eastern and the
western Propontic peninsula respectively, as confirmed by other sources.
Toponymy suggests the presence of the Thynians on the shores bordering
20
According to the edition of MEINEKE 1877, Strabo XII, 3, 3 says: καὶ σημεῖα τίθενται τοῦ μὲν τῶν
Βιθυνῶν ἔθνους τὸ μέχρι νῦν ἐν τῇ Θρᾴκῃ λέγεσθαί τινας Βιθυνούς (‘[As for the migration of the Bithyni-
ans] they present as evidence of the Bithynians that in Thrace some people are still called Bithynians’). In
his edition, LASSERRE 1981 ad loc. prefers the alternative reading handed down by the manuscript tradition:
καὶ σημεῖα τίθενται τοῦ μὲν τῶν Βιθυνῶν ἔθνους τὸ μέχρι νῦν ἐν τῇ Θρᾴκῃ λέγεσθαί τινας Μαιδοβιθυνούς
(‘they present as evidence of the Bithynians that in Thrace some people are still called Maidobithynians’). It
is risky to turn this passage into the only evidence of the presence of the Bithynians in Europe in historical
times, most of all in the light of the alternative reading that refers to the Maidobithyoi. They are generally
identified with the Maidoi, who are attested by other sources. About them, see LENK 1928; DANOV 1972, p.
185 n. 1; VON BREDOW 1999; BORA 2017.
21
Cf. PAGANONI forth.
22
Jacoby, FGrHist 156, F 77a: Λέγεται δὲ καὶ ὅτι τὴν ἀπὸ Βοσπόρου γῆν ἕως ἐπὶ Ρήβαντα Βιθυνοί
ποτε κατέσχον. Τὴν δὲ αὐτοῦ ἐπέκεινα ἐπὶ Πόντον ὀρεινὴν οἱ Θυνοὶ ἔσχον ἄχρι ποταμοῦ Κάλητος, ὡς εἶναι
ὁμόρους τούς τε Θυνοὺς καὶ τοὺς Βιθυνούς.
23
ŞAHIN 1986, p. 146; STROBEL 1996, pp. 193-194; TALBERT 2000, Map 52, E-G 2.
24
DÖRNER 1964, col. 909; ŞAHIN 1986, pp. 144-147; STROBEL 1996, p. 192 n. 149; ROELENS-FLOUNEAU
2018, p. 297. About the homonymous river Rhebas flowing through the northern Propontic peninsula, cor-
responding to the modern Riva Deresi, see ŞAHIN 1986, pp. 144-147; STROBEL 1996, p. 192 n. 149.
4 ELOISA PAGANONI
the Black Sea: about thirty-five kilometres north-west of the Sangarius’

mouth, there was the island of Thynias25. As for the Bithynians, Arrian’s
information fits with what is known about their spread in the Hellenistic
and Imperial times when they are attested in the today’s Yalova peninsula
between the Astacenean Gulf and the area of Cius and Myrlea26.
Only Arrian and a few other authors27 set a clear distinction, at least
for what concerns geography, between the Bithynians and Thynians.
Most sources just speak of ‘Bithynians’ and ‘Bithynia’ in regard to the
inhabitants of the Propontic peninsula and the region they occupied. Ar-
rian himself does so in his Anabasis, where he describes the Propontic
area at the time of Alexander28. Moreover, literary evidence testifies to
the presence of the Bithynians in the area originally occupied by the
Thynians. According to Xenophon29, the Bithynians were settled on the
eastern Propontic shores and according to Mela30, the island of Thynias
was inhabited by the Bithynians. Pliny says that Bithyniae Thynias had
got to be called Bithynia31. Again, there is nearly no historical infor-
mation about the Thynians of Asia. These elements invite us to con-
clude that the Thynians assimilated themselves to the Bithynians32. This
process was presumably facilitated by the ethnic similarity of these two
tribes. Although it was already in an advanced stage in Xenophon’s time,
it was not yet complete at the beginning of the 3rd century BC when the
latest information about the Thynians dates back33.
The accounts of the Thracian migrations connect the Bithynians to the
Mysians and the Bebrycians. These were two other Thracian tribes that
seem to have occupied the Propontic peninsula before the Bithynians and
Thynians34. Some sources35 claims that the Bithynians (and Thynians) set-
25
About this island, see ZIEGLER 1936; DÖRNER – HOEPFNER 1989; VON BREDOW 2002a; BITTNER 1998,
pp. 125-126; RADT 2008, p. 354.
26
Polyb. IV, 50, 2-4; 52, 6-9; Strabo XII, 3, 7.
27
Plin. NH V, 150: tenent oram omnem Thyni, interiora Bithyni (‘the Thynians occupy the coast, the
Bithynians the hinterland’); Steph. Byz. s.v. Ψίλιον: ποταμὸς μεταξὺ Θυνίας καὶ Βιθυνίας (‘a river between
Thynia and Bithynia’).
28
Arr. An. I, 29, 5.
29
Xen. An. VI, 4, 1-2.
30
Mela II, 98.
31
Plin. NH V, 151.
32
BURSTEIN 1976, p. 9.
33
Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 9, 5. On the Thynians see also Nep. Datames 2.
34
On their ethnicity, Strabo VII, 3, 2. On the Bebrycians, see RUGE 1897; PRÊTEUX 2005, esp. pp.
246-250; FERRARI 2011, pp. 164-165; CHIAI 2017, p. 109. On the Mysians, see SCHWERTHEIM 2000; DEBORD
2001; WEST 2013.
35
App. Mithr. 1; Eus. II, 66-67 Schoene; cfr. Sall. Hist. III, 50.
tled in the lands of the Bebrycians, while others36 say it was in those of the
Mysians. Strabo37, then, says that the Mysians established themselves in
the lands of the Bebrycians. These pieces of information set in one area –
the Propontic peninsula and the nearby region – four Thracians tribes, the
Bithynians, Thynians, Mysians and Bebrycians. They suggest that these
tribes migrated in different waves and that the Bosporus was the ‘gate of
Asia’ for them38. The Bebrycians arrived first, the Mysians followed, then
it was the turn of the Bithynians and Thynians. These two latter pushed the
Mysians westwards to the region they inhabited in the historical age. As
for the Bebrycians, they left no significant trace in the ethnic landscape of
northern Asia Minor. As we read in Pliny, Eratosthenes already listed them
among the perished peoples39; they were probably assimilated to the other
inhabitants of the region like the Thynians.
In the passage on the establishing of the Bithynians in Asia at the begin-
ning of the Mithridatikē Appian covers historical information with the veil
of myths:
The Greeks think that the Thracians who marched to Ilion with Rhesus – Rhesus
was killed by Diomedes by night in the manner Homer says in the poems – fled
to the outlet of the Pontus at the site where the crossing to Thrace is shortest.
Some say that since they found no ships they remained there and took posses-
sion of the country called Bebrycia. Others say that after crossing over to the
country beyond Byzantium, which is said to be of the Thracian Bithynians, they
settled by the river Bithya and were forced by hunger to return to Bebrycia. They
called the region Bithynia, instead of Bebrycia, from the river by which they had
previously settled. Or perhaps the name was changed by them insensibly with
the lapse of time since Bithynia is not very much different from Bebrycia. Some
think so. Others say that the first one who ruled them was Bithys, the son of Zeus
and Thracia. (Bithys and Thracia) gave name to the two countries40.
36
Strabo XII, 3, 3; 4, 8. According to Herodotus (VII, 75), the Mysians and the Teucrians expelled the
Bithyinians from their lands in Europe. Arrian (Jacoby, FGrHist 156, F 97) and Pliny (NH V, 143) hint
at the presence of the Halizones in the area occupied by the Bithynians (cf. DANA 2016, p. 222 n. 294).
These almost unknown people, that is already attested by Homer (Il. II, 856; V, 39) and lived in northern
Asia Minor, might be part of the indigenous substratum on which the Thracian tribes overlapped. On the
Halizones, see DAN 2012-2013.
37
Strabo XII, 3, 3; XIII, 1, 8.
38
Cf. SIEGERT 1983, pp. 75-76; ÖZLEM-AYTAÇLAR 2010, pp. 507-508 and n. 8.
39
Plin. NH V, 127.
40
App. Mithr. 1: Θρᾷκας Ἕλληνες ἡγοῦνται τοὺς ἐς Ἴλιον μετὰ Ῥήσου στρατεύσαντας, Ῥήσου [γὰρ]
νυκτὸς ὑπὸ Διομήδους ἀναιρεθέντος ὃν τρόπον Ὅμηρος ἐν τοῖς ἔπεσι φράζει, φεύγοντας ἐπὶ τοῦ Πόντου
τὸ στόμα, ᾗ στενώτατός ἐστιν ἐς Θρᾴκην ὁ διάπλους, οἳ μὲν οὐκ ἐπιτυχόντας πλοίων τῇδε καταμεῖναι καὶ
τῆς γῆς κρατῆσαι Βεβρυκίας λεγομένης, οἳ δὲ περάσαντας ὑπὲρ τὸ Βυζάντιον ἐς τὴν Θρᾳκῶν τῶν Βιθυνῶν
6 ELOISA PAGANONI
Appian hands down two traditions about the settling of the Bithynians.
Both present the Bithynians as Thracians who escaped from Troy after
their leader Rhesus was murdered. These traditions thus place the migra-
tion of the Bithynians after the Trojan War, commonly dated to 1184 BC
on the basis of Eratosthenes41. The arrival of the first Thracians in Asia Mi-
nor is attested by the sudden appearance of Thracian building techniques
and pottery in c. 1200 BC42. The archaeological datum is echoed in the Il-
iad, which mentions the Mysians43. As the Homeric poem contains no ref-
erence to other Thracian tribes44, these ones are supposed to have migrated
after the end of the Trojan War45. This conclusion is perfectly in line with
the traditions Appian hands down about the Bithynians and the Thyni-
ans and with Eusebius as well, who dates their settlement to 972 BC46.
λεγομένων παρὰ Βιθύαν ποταμὸν οἰκῆσαι καὶ λιμῷ πιεσθέντας ἐς Βεβρυκίαν αὖθις ἐπανελθεῖν καὶ Βιθυ-
νίαν ἀντὶ Βεβρυκίας ἀπὸ τοῦ ποταμοῦ, παρ’ὃν ᾤκουν, ὀνομάσαι ἢ καὶ τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῖς ἀλόγως σὺν χρόνῳ
παρατραπῆναι, οὐκ ἐς πολὺ τῆς Βιθυνίας παρὰ τὴν Βεβρυκίαν διαφερούσης. ὧδε μὲν ἔνιοι νομίζουσιν,
ἕτεροι δὲ Βῖθυν ἄρξαι πρῶτον αὐτῶν, παῖδα Διός τε καὶ Θρᾴκης, οὓς ἐπωνύμους ἑκατέρᾳ γῇ γενέσθαι. Cf.
Sall. Hist. III, 50: Igitur introrsus prima Asiae Bithynia est, multis antea nominibus appellata. Nam prius
Bebrycia dicta, deinde Mygdonia, mox a Bithyno rege Bithynia nuncupata (‘So inwards there is first Asia
Bithynia that was called by many names earlier. It was said Bebrycia, then, Mygdonia and now it is called
Bithynia after the king Bithynus’).
41
Jacoby, FGrHist 241, F 1d; cf. BLEGEN 1975, p. 163.
42
BLEGEN 1975, pp. 163-164; BRYCE 2006, pp. 66-68; DE BOER 2007, pp. 127-129; ÖZDOĞAN 2011,
p. 673; BELTRAME 2015, p. 64; CHIAI 2017, pp. 34-35. Until a very recent time, findings that attested to a
Thracian presence in Asia in this period came from Troad mostly. A dome-structure tomb in the modern
village of Ku(r)tluca, twenty-three kilometres away from ancient Nicomedia, dating to the 4th century BC,
had been considered as the earliest evidence of Thracian material culture from the Propontc peninsula for
a long time (MANSEL 1970, pp. 175-176; MANSEL 1974; HODDINOTT 1981, p. 120; HANNESTAD 1996, p. 89;
CORSTEN 2007, p. 120 n. 9; MICHELS 2009, p. 12 n. 5 and p. 267 n. 1356; GÜNEY 2012, p. 69; on Thracian
tombs, see ARCHIBALD 1998, pp. 283-303; STOYANOVA 2015). But recent excavations brought to light frag-
ments of Thracian pottery dating around 1200 BC (AYDINGÜN 2015).
43
Hom. Il. II, 858; X, 430; XIV, 512; XXIV, 278.
44
The spread view considering the Phrygians one of the Thracian tribes moving to Asia (e.g. OLSHAUS-
EN 2000, col. 965; ROLLER 2011, pp. 560-561; SAMS 2011, p. 607; ZAHARIADE 2013) on the basis of Hero-
dotus (VII, 73) and Xanthus (Jacoby, FGrHist 765, FF 14-15) is not confirmed by evidence (DREWS 1993;
TUNA et al. 1998).
45
CARRINGTON 1977, pp. 118-119; ÖZLEM-AYTAÇLAR 2010, pp. 507-508; GÜNEY 2012, pp. 66-67. Ar-
rian (Jacoby, FGrHist 156, F 60) says that the Thracians were expelled from their European lands by the
Cimmerians. On this basis and in contrast with the archaeological evidence, some scholars argue that the
Thracians moved to Asia in the 8th-7th century BC (REINACH 1888, p. 93; MEYER 1897, coll. 510-511; DANOV
1972, p. 184; STRONK 1995, p. 40; DE BOER 2007, pp. 131-133). BURSTEIN 1976, pp. 7, 102 n. 81 tries to
conciliate the information from Arrian and the other sources. In his opinion, Arrian means not the histori-
cal but the mythic Cimmerians. Nicolaus of Damascus (Jacoby, FGrHist 90, F 71) preserved an anecdote
dating the migration of the Thracians at the time of the Lydian king Alyattes in about the first half of the 6th
century BC. According to Jacoby (FGrHist 90, F 71, Commentary, pp. 253-254) the narrative is modelled
on an episode in Herodotus (V, 12) having as protagonists not the Thracians but the Paeonians. Cf. CORSTEN
2007, p. 121 n. 2.
46
Eus. II, 66-67 Schoene.
Accordingly, scholars place the arrival of these tribes in Asia Minor in the
turn of the 1st millennium BC47.
The passage of Appian closes with three traditions about the origin of
Bithynia’s name. The first one derives it from the otherwise unknown river
Bithya, which supposedly flowed near Byzantium48. We find here a trend
already attested in Herodotus who claims that the Bithynians were earlier
named after the river by which they lived in Europe49. The second one con-
siders Bithynia the corrupted form of Bebrycia, again deriving the toponym
from a geographic element. The last one shows an ennobling tendency, which
links the region’s name with the eponymous hero. However, neither of these
can be considered the true origin of the place name. Since regions are usually
named after the people inhabiting them50, Bithynia’s name probably derives
from the Greek form of the name of the Thracian tribe living there51.
At the turn of the 1st millennium BC, the Bithynians and Thynians took
the place of the Bebrycians and Mysians in the Propontic peninsula. The
peopling of this region was not completed yet. When the Bithynians and
Thynians had already definitely settled, the Greeks colonized the Bosporus
and the Black Sea coast52. They founded Cius, Astacus, Olbia, Chalcedon
and Heraclea Pontica on the most favourable spots along the shore. By
occupying areas so far controlled by the Bithynians, they raised the ri-
valry, which characterised the Greek-Bithynian relations in the Classical
and early Hellenistic ages.
The accounts on the geography of Bithynia testify to the layered eth-
nic landscape of the Propontic area. They show how the settlement of the
Greeks affected the extension of the lands of the Bithynians. The earliest
passage relevant in this regard is in Thucydides. In the description of the
Athenian operations in the Propontis in summer 424 BC, he says:
And not long after Lamachus sailed into Pontus, laying at anchor in the river
Cales in the territory of Heraclea, he lost the ships as much rain fell (in that
region) and after the flood went suddenly down; he himself and his army came
by land through the country of the Thracian Bithynians (who are in Asia on the
other side) to Chalcedon, a colony of the Megarians in the mouth of Pontus53.
47
CARRINGTON 1977, pp.118-119; ÖZLEM-AYTAÇLAR 2010, pp. 507-508; GÜNEY 2012, pp. 66-67; KLEU 2013.
48
OBERHUMMER 1897; GOUKOWSKY 2001, p. 126 n. 13.
49
Hdt. VII, 75.
50
GARCÍA-RAMÓN 1998.
51
Cf. GABELKO 2005, p. 70.
52
On the Greek colonisation of the Black Sea, see TSETSKHLADZE 1996; TSETSKHLADZE 1998; BURSTEIN 2006.
53
Thuc. IV, 75, 2: καὶ οὐ πολὺ ὕστερον ἐς τὸν Πόντον ἐσπλεύσας Λάμαχος, ἐν τῇ Ἡρακλεώτιδι
8 ELOISA PAGANONI
This passage suggests that the Bithynians were inhabiting the inland Pro-
pontic peninsula as the Athenians crossed their land to come from the terri-
tory of Heraclea to Chalcedon. It contains no evidence to establish how vast
Chalcedon’s chōra was, but it is supposed to have been very far reaching54; it
likely corresponded to the northern edge of the Propontic peninsula. Thucy-
dides provides a piece of information about the southern borders of the
Bithynian lands. The river Cales is said to be in the land of Heraclea. Since,
according to Arrian55, it delimited to the east the territory of the Thynians
in prehistorical time, it follows that the Greeks founding Heraclea occupied
some lands of the Thynians/Bithynians. This is confirmed by Pseudo Scylax,
who attests the presence of the Heracleans on the island of Thynias56. Xeno-
phon says that Bithynia bordered on the territory of Heraclea but he does not
point out any geographical element as delimitation57. This may be found in
Arrian58, who claims that at the time of Alexander the land of the Bithynians
extended as far as the river Sangarius. The same information is in Strabo. He
describes Bithynia at his own time, when the region was a Roman province
together with Pontus:
the Paphlagonians and Mariandynians and some of the Epicteti delimit Bithynia
on the east; the Pontic Sea from the outlets of the river Sangarius to the mouth
of the sea at Byzantium and Chalcedon on the north; the Propontis on the west;
on the south Mysia and the so-called Phrygia Epiktētos, the one which is also
called Hellespontine Phrygia59.
ὁρμίσας ἐς τὸν Κάλητα ποταμὸν ἀπόλλυσι τὰς ναῦς ὕδατος ἄνωθεν γενομένου καὶ κατελθόντος αἰφνιδίου
τοῦ ῥεύματος: αὐτὸς δὲ καὶ ἡ στρατιὰ πεζῇ διὰ Βιθυνῶν Θρᾳκῶν, οἵ εἰσι πέραν ἐν τῇ Ἀσίᾳ, ἀφικνεῖται ἐς
Καλχηδόνα τὴν ἐπὶ τῷ στόματι τοῦ Πόντου Μεγαρέων ἀποικίαν.
54
AVRAM 2004, p. 979.
55
Jacoby, FGrHist 156, F 77a.
56
Ps. Scylax 92; AVRAM – HIND – TSETSKHLADZE 2004, pp. 955-956.
57
Xen. An. VI, 4, 1-2: τὸ δὲ χωρίον τοῦτο ὃ καλεῖται Κάλπης λιμὴν ἔστι μὲν ἐν τῇ Θρᾴκῃ τῇ ἐν τῇ
Ἀσίᾳ: ἀρξαμένη δὲ ἡ Θρᾴκη αὕτη ἐστὶν ἀπὸ τοῦ στόματος τοῦ Πόντου μέχρι Ἡρακλείας ἐπὶ δεξιὰ εἰς τὸν
Πόντον εἰσπλέοντι. καὶ τριήρει μέν ἐστιν εἰς Ἡράκλειαν ἐκ Βυζαντίου κώπαις ἡμέρας μακρᾶς πλοῦς: ἐν
δὲ τῷ μέσῳ ἄλλη μὲν πόλις οὐδεμία οὔτε φιλία οὔτε Ἑλληνίς, ἀλλὰ Θρᾷκες Βιθυνοί (‘This place which is
called Calpe Harbour is in Asiatic Thrace; and this part of Thrace extends from the mouth of the Euxine
as far as Heraclea, on the right to one who sails into the Euxine. For a trireme the journey to row from
Byzantium to Heraclea is a day-long, and between them there is no other city, either friendly or Greek,
but Bithynian Thracians’). About Calpe Harbour, today’s Kirpe on the eastern coast of the Propontic
peninsula, see MANFREDI 1986, pp. 242-244; LENDLE 1995, pp. 384-389; DEBORD 1998, pp. 142-143;
STRONK 1995, p. 63.
58
Arr. An. I, 29, 5.
59
Strabo XII, 4, 1: τὴν δὲ Βιθυνίαν ἀπὸ μὲν τῆς ἀνατολῆς ὁρίζουσι Παφλαγόνες τε καὶ Μαριανδυνοὶ
καὶ τῶν Ἐπικτήτων τινές, ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν ἄρκτων ἡ Ποντικὴ θάλαττα ἡ ἀπὸ τῶν ἐκβολῶν τοῦ Σαγγαρίου μέχρι
τοῦ στόματος τοῦ κατὰ Βυζάντιον καὶ Χαλκηδόνα, ἀπὸ δὲ δύσεως ἡ Προποντίς, πρὸς νότον δ᾽ ἥ τε Μυσία
καὶ ἡ ἐπίκτητος καλουμένη Φρυγία, ἡ δ᾽ αὐτὴ καὶ Ἑλλησποντιακὴ Φρυγία καλουμένη.
If in the Hellenistic and Imperial ages the Sangarius was the southwest-
ern border of Bithynia, one can conclude that the land seized by the Greeks
of Heraclea went from the Cales to the Sangarius’ mouth. The Thracian
Thynians/Bithynians probably continued to live there, but the area became
part of the chōra of Heraclea. As for the other borders of Bithynia, they are
clear to us when identified with natural elements, such as the shores of the
Propontic peninsula. They are less clear when Strabo refers to peoples or
ancient regions: they had shifting borders in ancient times and are not easy
to ‘translate’ in current geographical terms. From the east to west Strabo
mentions the Paphlagonians, an indigenous people that inhabited northern
Anatolia as far as the river Halys60, the Mariandynians, a people of un-
known origin who settled in the lands around Heraclea Pontica61, Phrygia
Epiktētos, a region south of Mt. Olympus62, and Hellesponitine Phrygia,
which extended to the Hellespontic coast. With regard to the southwestern
border, Strabo63 says elsewhere that the land of the Bithynians extended as
far as the river Gallos, a tributary of the Sangarius. The identification of
this river is debated but most scholar recognise it in the today’s Mudurnu
Suyu, that flows through the region of Bithynium64.
In sum, the evidence in our sources indicates that the Bithynians (and
the Thynians) inhabited a wide area corresponding to the Propontic pen-
insula as far as the Sangarius and the region of Askania Lake as far as the
Gulf of Cius to the east and Mt. Olympus to the south, and possibly includ-
ing the region of Bithynium65. However, the territory of the Bithynians
rulers, which became the core of the Hellenistic kingdom, was smaller.
Judging from the targets of their earliest military actions known to us, it
was limited to the Propontic peninsula as far as the Gulf of Astacus66.
60
On the Paphlagonians, see BARAT 2013; BEKKER-NIELSEN 2014.
61
Strabo (VII, 3, 2; XII, 3, 4; XIV, 5, 23) says that the Mariandynians were a Thracian tribe, but their
ethnicity is questioned by scholars (BURSTEIN 1976, pp. 6-11; MANFREDI 1986, p. 240; BITTNER 1998, p. 10;
SHIPLEY 2011, p. 160; GÜNEY 2012, p. 76 n. 351). On the Mariandynians, see BURSTEIN 1976, pp. 6-11, 28-
30; IVANČIK 1997. About their status, see the bibliographical references below p. 14 n. 90.
62
About this region, see below, pp. 129-131.
63
Strabo XII, 3, 7.
64
ŞAHIN 1986, esp. pp. 125-129, 149; STROBEL 1998; TALBERT 2000, Map 86, AB, 3; RADT 2008, p. 353;
ROELENS-FLOUNEAU 2018, p. 297. For remarks about this identification, see GUINEA DÍAZ 1997, pp. 83-87,
154-158. About the traditional identification of the Gallos with the current Gökçesu, see RUGE 1910; cf.
GUINEA DÍAZ 1997, pp. 83, 155-156; RADT 2008, p. 353.
65
ŞAHIN 1986, p. 146; HANNESTAD 1996, p 68; STROBEL 1996, pp. 193-194; STROBEL 1997, col. 698;
MICHELS 2009, p. 12; GÜNEY 2012, p. 68.
66
DÖRNER 1964, coll. 908-909; HABICHT 1972, col. 449; STROBEL 1994, p. 35; KOBES 1996, p. 115;
STROBEL 1996, pp. 194-196; FERNOUX 2004, p. 31; CORSTEN 2007, p. 123; KLEU 2013. MAREK 1993, p.
21 n. 184: ‛Ihr (i.e. of the Bithynians) früher Herrschaftsbereich ist stattdessen viel eher in den Bergen
10 ELOISA PAGANONI
2. BITHYNIA AND THE BITHYNIANS IN THE ARCHAIC AND CLASSICAL AGES
The earliest information about the history of the Propontic peninsula

concerns the arrival of Thracian peoples from Europe in the late 2nd-early
1st millennium BC67. Then, we know nothing until the time of the Greek
colonisation. According to Stephanus of Byzantium, in the first half of
the 6th century BC the Lydian king Alyattes founded the city of Alyatta
in Bithynia68. The foundation of this city might have been connected with
the conquest of Bithynia. In this case, the new settlement could serve to
strengthen control over the recently seized region69. Herodotus confirms
that Bithynia was part of the Lydian kingdom. With regard to Croesus,
Alyattes’ successor, he says:
Going on time and having been subjugated almost all the peoples living west of
the river Halys, with the exception of the Cilicians and Lycians, Croesus held
subject under him all the other people. These were the Lydians, Phrygians,
Mysians, Mariandynians, Chalybes, Paphlagonians, the Thracian Thynians
and Bithynians, Carians, Ionians, Dorians, Aeolians, and Pamphylians70.
When Cyrus defeated Croesus, traditionally in 546 BC, the lands of

the Lydians were annexed to the Persian empire. The earliest evidence
for Bithynia under the Achaemenids concerns Darius I’s administrative
reform that organized the empire in satrapies. According to Herodotus the
third satrapy included
the Hellespontians who lived on the right of the entrance of the straits, the
Phrygians, the Thracians of Asia, the Paphlagonians, the Mariandynians, and
the Syrians71.
am mittleren Sangariosbogen zu suchen’. Contra STROBEL 1996, p. 193 n. 150; CORSTEN 2007, p. 123
n. 10.
67
According to Diodorus (II, 2, 3), before the Bithynians settled, the region was seized by Ninus, the
mythic king considered to be the founder of the Assyrian empire. FORLANINI 2013, pp. 43-45 thinks that the
territory of the Hittites extended as far as the Sangarius or even beyond it. GÜNEY 2012, p. 66 argues that
the Propontis was under control of the Kaskas.
68
Steph. Byz. s.v. Ἀλύαττα.
69
70
Hdt. I, 28: χρόνου δὲ ἐπιγινομένου καὶ κατεστραμμένων σχεδὸν πάντων τῶν ἐντὸς Ἅλυος ποταμοῦ
οἰκημένων: πλὴν γὰρ Κιλίκων καὶ Λυκίων τοὺς ἄλλους πάντας ὑπ᾽ἑωυτῷ εἶχε καταστρεψάμενος ὁ
Κροῖσος. εἰσὶ δὲ οἵδε, Λυδοί, Φρύγες, Μυσοί, Μαριανδυνοί, Χάλυβες, Παφλαγόνες, Θρήικες οἱ Θυνοί τε
καὶ Βιθυνοί, Κᾶρες, Ἴωνες, Δωριέες, Αἰολέες, Πάμφυλοι.
71
Hdt. III, 90: ἀπὸ δὲ Ἑλλησποντίων τῶν ἐπὶ δεξιὰ ἐσπλέοντι καὶ Φρυγῶν καὶ Θρηίκων τῶν ἐν τῇ Ἀσίῃ
καὶ Παφλαγόνων καὶ Μαριανδυνῶν καὶ Συρίων. About the Persian satrapies and Herodotus’ related pas-
The territorial district described by Herodotus was in northern Anatolia. It

was called either satrapy of Hellespontine Phrygia or satrapy of Dascylium
after its administrative centre and it included the lands of the Bithynians
that Herodotus refers to as Thracians of Asia72.
The next piece of information dates back to 480 BC when the Bithyni-
ans, like many other peoples of the Achaemenid empire, took part in
Xerxes’ expedition against the Greeks under the leadership of a Persian
general73. Then, sources inform us about the realtions between the Bithyni-
ans and the Greeks. The Bithynians were in contact with the Greeks since
these settled on the Propontic shores74, but the earliest pieces of evidence
of their interaction date to the late 5th-early 4th century BC. Although frag-
mentary and unclear in terms of chronology, this information contributes
to the understanding of the relations between the Bithynians and the cities
of Astacus, Chalcedon and Byzantium. The earliest piece of evidence is
preserved in Memnon and concerns the Megarian colony of Astacus that
was re-founded by the Athenians in 435 BC:
After it (i.e. Astacus) resisted many attacks from its neighbours and was of-
ten exhausted by wars when the Athenians founded it after the Megarians, it
finished its misfortunes and it gained great renown and power. At that time
Doidalses was ruling over the Bithynians75.
We read that in the 5th century BC Astacus suffered continuous attacks of

‘neighbours’ (who were undoubtedly Bithynians), and only the interven-
tion of the Athenians relieved its situation. This passage is the first attesta-
tion of the Bithynians as players in the political scenario of Asia Minor.
So far nearly nothing is known about them. In these few words they liter-
ally ‘appear’ in the history as a people organised under a ruler, Doidalses,
who was causing serious problems to a polis76. We cannot say how the
sage (III, 89-96), see CAMERON 1973; CUYLER YOUNG 1988, pp. 87-91; JACOBS 1994, esp. pp. 31-39; DEBORD
1999, pp. 69-82; BELLONI 2000, p. 160; ASHERI 2005, pp. 305-307.
72
On this satrapy, see DEBORD 1999, pp. 91-110; BELTRAME 2015.
73
Hdt. VII, 75; Diod. XI, 2, 1.
74
Cf. DEBORD 1998, p. 142; FERNOUX 1999, p. 175.
75
Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 12, 3: αὕτη πολλὰς ἐπιθέσεις παρά τε τῶν ὁμορούντων ὑποστᾶσα καὶ
πολέμοις πολλάκις ἐκτρυχωθεῖσα, Αθηναίων αὐτὴν μετὰ Μεγαρέας ἐπωικηκότων, ἔληξέ τε τῶν συμφορῶν
καὶ ἐπὶ μέγα δόξης καὶ ἰσχύος ἐγένετο, Δοιδαλσοῦ τηνικαῦτα τὴν Βιθυνῶν ἀρχὴν ἔχοντος. On the date of
the re-foundation of Astacus by the Athenians, see DAVAZE 2013, p. 370; ROBU 2014, p. 214.
76
Cf. VITUCCI 1953, p. 14; FERNOUX 1999, pp. 187-188; DAVAZE 2013, pp. 369-371; ROBU 2014, pp.
213-215. For the occurrences of Doidalses’ name in inscriptions and its correct form, see LGPN V.A, p.
146; DAVAZE 2013, p. 368 n. 971; OnomThrac, p. 155.
12 ELOISA PAGANONI
Athenians stopped the raids of the Bithynians, but the situation seems to
have evolved quickly. According to Strabo77, Doidalses re-founded Asta-
cus after the Athenians. Admitting that this information is correct78, the
Bithynian ruler succeeded in seizing the city finally79. The conquest of
Astacus is generally dated between 412 BC and aftermath of the battle
of Aigospotamoi (405 BC)80. Doidalses likely exploited the weakening of
Athenian power in the Propontic area during in the last phase of the Pelo-
ponnesian War. After the re-foundation by Doidalses nothing is known of
the relations between the Bithynians and the Asaceneans until the Hellen-
istic age. At that time, sources attest that the city was no longer under the
control of the Bithynians81.
The conflicts between the Bithynians and Astacus concerned the fer-
tile lands of the Propontic peninsula that were essential to their survival82.
These also were a point of contention in the conflicts between the Bithyni-
ans and Chalcedon and Byzantium. The earliest information in this regard
is found in Diodorus. He sets the chronological frame of the account of the
sixteenth year of the Peloponnesian War (416 BC) by some synchronisms.
Among the events of that year he records a military expedition of the Chal-
cedonians and the Byzantians against the Bithynians:
The Byzantians and the Chalcedonians, taking the Thracians with themselves,
made war with a great number of men against Bithynia, plundered the region,
77
Strabo XII, 4, 2.
78
TOEPFFER 1896, p. 125 considers the conquest of Astacus by Doidalses ‘historisch unmöglich’, and
SCHOTTKY 2002 says that Strabo’s information ‘ist wohl ein Mißverständnis’.
79
Cf. MEYER 1897, col. 515; MEYER 1905, col. 1266; VITUCCI 1953, p. 14; HARRIS 1980, p. 860; ASHERI
1983, p. 41; HANNESTAD 1996, p. 69; FERNOUX 1999, pp. 187-188; SCHOTTKY 2002; Keaveney – Madden,
Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 1-3, Commentary; HEINEMANN 2010, p. 225; GÜNEY 2012, p. 75; DAVAZE 2013, pp.
369-371; ROBU 2014, pp. 213-215.
80
ATL I, p. 472 ; LASSERRE 1981, p. 169 n. 4; ASHERI 1983, p. 41; STROBEL 1996, p. 191; STROBEL 1997a;
DEBORD 1998, p. 141; DEBORD 1999, p. 91; HEINEMANN 2010, p. 225 n. 818; ROBU 2014, p. 215 n. 426.
81
See below, pp. 25-27. Polyaenus (II, 30, 3) refers that the tyrant of Heraclea Clearchus (364-352
BC) besiged Astacus and he adds that during the operations against the city he organised a military force to
guard against raids of the Thracians (i.e. the Bithynians). It is assumed that Clearchus, maybe upon request
of the Astacenians themselves, intended to put an end to the control of the city by the Bithynians (BELOCH
1922, p. 138; SÖLCH 1925, p. 145 n. 4; FERNOUX 1999, p. 187; ROBU 2014, pp. 212-213, 215). The passage,
yet, proves at most that the Bithynians still were a serious threat for the Greeks (cf. VITUCCI 1953, p. 14;
BURSTEIN 1976, pp. 129-130 n. 64; DAVAZE 2013, pp. 360-371; GÜNEY 2014, p. 416). About the possible
reference to the siege of Astacus by Clearchus in Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 1, 2, see BURSTEIN 1976, p. 50;
BITTNER 1998, p. 31; Keaveney – Madden, Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 1, Commentary. On Clearchus’ western
politics, see BURSTEIN 1976, pp. 54-58; SAPRYKIN 1997, p. 135; BITTNER 1998, p. 31; DEBORD 1999, pp. 300-
301; ROBU 2014, pp. 212-213.
82
About the relevance of agriculture in economy of the Greek colonies of the Propontic and Black
Sea areas, see TSETSKHLADZE 1998a, p. 68.
and destroyed many of their small settlements after besieging them, carry-
ing out deeds of exceeding cruelty. They slew many prisoners, both men and
women and children83.
Diodorus does not describe the background of this expedition. As far as

we can understand from this passage, at that time the Chalcedonians were
attempting to consolidate their control over the lands they contended with
the Bithynians; during this military action they were supported by the Byz-
antians, who brought a force of Thracians from Europe84. The intervention
of Byzantium has been interpreted as an expression of the so-called soli-
darieté mégarienne, the friendship linkage that tied the Megarian colonies
on the basis of their ancestral kinship85. It manifested itself in the aid the
Megarian colonies brought one to another on several occasions. The earli-
est collaboration between Byzantium and Chalcedon dates to the Archaic
era, when Chalcedon sent epoikoi to help Byzantium against the Thra-
cians86. Then, it was Byzantium to aid Chalcedon against the Bithynians
in the expedition here in question and on another occasion in the early
Hellenistic period87.
The Byzantians, however, were not moved just by feelings of solidar-
ity towards their ‘kinsmen’ on the other side of the Bosporus. They were
probably defending their own interests. Since the 3rd century BC, literary
sources attest to a peraia of Byzantium in Asia, which stretched from the
Gulf of Astacus to the area of Cyzicus, interrupted by the chōrai of Myrlea
and Cius88. It included some lands inhabited by the Bithynians, and this
explains the statement of the 3rd-century-BC historian Phylarchus:
83
Diod. XII, 82, 2: Βυζάντιοι δὲ καὶ Καλχηδόνιοι παραλαβόντες Θρᾷκας ἐστράτευσαν εἰς τὴν Βιθυνίαν
πολλοῖς πλήθεσι, καὶ τήν τε χώραν ἐπόρθησαν καὶ πολλὰ τῶν μικρῶν πολισματίων ἐκπολιορκήσαντες
ἐπετελέσαντο πράξεις ὠμότητι διαφερούσας· πολλῶν γὰρ αἰχμαλώτων κρατήσαντες ἀνδρῶν τε καὶ γυναικῶν
καὶ παίδων ἅπαντας ἀπέσφαξαν. Even guarding against overestimating the lexical datum, it is worth noticing
that the word πολισμάτιον, here used to refer to the Bithynian settlements, occurs just seven times in Diodorus,
who commonly uses κώμη to mean ‘village’. The choice of πολισμάτιον, which is a diminutive with the
same root as πόλις (cf. LSJ s.v. πολισμάτιον), and the reference to sieges by the Greeks may suggest that the
Bithynian settlements were fortified. On the Chalcedonian-Byzantian expedition, cf. NEWSKAJA 1955, p. 95;
FERNOUX 1999, p. 188; FERNOUX 2004, p. 28; GABELKO 2005, p. 103; GÜNEY 2014, p. 423.
84
It is unclear whether these were Thracians living in the chōra of Byzantium or, as BOSHNAKOV 2003,
p. 195 thinks, the Odrysians allied with Byzantium.
85
ROBU 2012, pp. 183-189; ROBU 2014, pp. 211-213; BARAT 2012; ROBU 2014a, p. 193; cf. GÜNEY
2014, p. 423.
86
Hesychios of Miletos BNJ 390, F 7, 20-23; ROBU 2014, pp. 208-209, 278-292.
87
Plut. Mor., 302 e-f; see below pp. 29-31.
88
Polyb. IV, 50, 2-4; Strabo XII, 8, 11; ROBERT 1949, pp. 38-44; WALBANK 1957-1979, vol. I, pp. 504-
505; GABELKO 1996; FERNOUX 2004, pp. 32-33 n. 50; GABELKO 2005, pp. 103-111; ROBU 2014, pp. 289-290.
According to Strabo (XII, 8, 11), the westernmost Byzantian lands were near the Dascylitis Lake, close to
14 ELOISA PAGANONI
The Byzantians are said to dominate the Bithynians as the Lacedaemonians did
with the helots89.
Phylarchus compares the condition of the Bithynians to that of the helots,

but the Mariandynians may be a closer term of comparison for what con-
cerns geography and status. The Mariandynians had been subdued by the
Greeks who founded Heraclea Pontica and lived as agricultural serfs ‘be-
tween freedom and slavery’90. If this parallel rests on a solid foundation,
the Bithynians who lived in the peraia of Byzantium were in a similar con-
dition and had become subject to the Byzantians when the latter had had
established their territory on the opposite coast91. The expedition here in
question is the earliest episode that suggests the existence of the peraia of
Byzantium. It is possible, at least in theory, that Byzantium established it
throughout this expedition. Likewise the peraia could already exist in 416
BC92. In this case, no evidence allows us to determine when it was created.
One of the possibilities sets its formation at the time of the foundation of
Byzantium, when the Greek colonists would have looked for fertile soil
on the other side of the Bosporus because of the continuous attacks of the
Thracians93.
The 416 BC expedition was a local event, whereas the next episode is to
be placed for certain within the last phase of the Peloponnesian War94. In
Cyzicus. The location of this lake had been considered unknown for a long time (WALBANK 1957-1979,
vol. I, p. 504), but it is now identified with the today’s Manyas Lake (e.g. TALBERT 2000, Map 52, B-C, 4;
ÜNVER 2016, p. 299). The influence of Byzantium over the coast of the Yalova peninsula is confirmed by
epigraphic evidence. Some inscriptions (the earliest ones are IK Apameia und Pylai 117; 121; 123; 125,
dating to the 2nd-1st century BC) show a clear Doric influence, mostly in onomastics (IK Apameia und Pylai,
pp. 47-48; GABELKO 1996, pp. 125-126). Other documents refer to a hieromnemos, the eponymous official
of Byzantium (IK Apameia und Pylai 114, dating to the 2nd century AD; CORSTEN 1991, pp. 81-87 nr. 1 =
SEG 41 [1991] 1102, dating to the 1st-2nd century AD; cf. ROBERT 1949, pp. 34-38; WIEMER 2002, p. 202
n. 24). Cf. Steph. Byz. s.v. Ἀστακός: πόλις Βιθυνίας... ἔστι καὶ χώρα Βυζαντίων, ὡς Θεόπομπος (‘city of
Bithynia... it also is territory of the Byzantians as Theopompus [says]’).
89
Phylarchos BNJ 81, F 8: Βυζαντίους φησὶν οὕτω Βιθυνῶν δεσπόσαι ὡς Λακεδαιμονίους τῶν
εἱλώτων.
90
Poll. III, 83: μεταξὺ δ’ ἐλευθέρων καὶ δούλων; BURSTEIN 1976, pp. 9-11, 28-30; CORSARO 1983, p.
529; BURFORD 1993, pp. 203-205; CORSARO 2001, pp. 32-33; PARADISO 2007; THOMPSON 2011, pp. 195-196.
91
LOTZE 1959, pp. 57-58; PAPAZOGLOU 1997, pp. 50-52; THOMPSON 2011, pp. 195-196; RUSSELL 2017,
pp. 192-194.
92
GABELKO 1996; GABELKO 2005, p. 110-111; GABELKO 2006, p. 219. Contra HABICHT 1970, pp. 116-
121 and STROBEL 1996, pp. 193, 256, who argue that Byzantium established its peraia in the 270s BC.
93
ROBU 2014, p. 288; Landucci, Phylarchos BNJ 81, F 8, Commentary. About the conflicts between
Greeks and Thracians in Bosporan area, see ISAAC 1986, pp. 230-231; LOUKOPOULOU 1989, pp. 185-190;
LOUKOPOULOU – ŁAITAR 2004, pp. 912-913. Concerning Greek-Thracian relationships in northern Aegean
area, see TSIAFAKI 2018.
94
On the events of the Peloponnesian War in Asia Minor, see DEBORD 1999, pp. 203-232, esp. 220-222.
408 BC, during his campaign against the Propontic cities, Alcibiades de-
feated Chalcedon, although the satrap of Dascylium Pharnabazus and the
Spartans assisted the city95. When the Chalcedonians were informed that
Alcibiades was coming, they entrusted their goods to the φίλοι Bithyni-
ans96, so that they guarded them. This was not enough. Under the threat of
a war, the Bithynians delivered what belonged to the Chalcedonians to the
Athenians and signed an alliance with them97. Unlikely the earlier events,
on this occasion there was a form of collaboration between Chalcedoni-
ans and Bithynians. We see, therefore, that their relations changed a few
years after the 416 BC expedition. It might be argued that this change was
connected to the outcome of the previous expedition. The Chalcedonians
might had prevailed in 416 BC and compelled the Bithynians to accept an
agreement. It is impossible to determine what was agreed. But it is likely
that the Bithynians were compelled to to put an end to their continuous
attacks for the time being. The effect of this agreement might be found
in the episode Plutarch narrates, where non-belligerency turned into col-
laboration98.
Doidalses was leading the Bithynians when the Athenians re-founded
Astacus in 435 BC and he still was in power some years later when he
himself re-founded this city in approximately 405 BC. By implication, he
was the chief of the Bithynians when Chalcedon and Byzantium made an
expedition against them and when the Athenians attacked Chalcedon99.
No evidence allows us to establish when he died, but we know that he was
succeeded by Boteiras. This is mentioned only by Memnon100. As far as
can be seen in Photius’ summary, Memnon recorded his name (Thracian
like the one of his predecessors) and his lifetime (seventy-six years), but
he did not specify if Boteiras was connected to Doidalses by a blood tie101.
Boteiras died in 377 BC, and his son Bas succeeded him102. No deed can
be attributed to Boteiras and it is doubtful whether he was already ruling at
the time of the following episodes related by Xenophon.
95
Xen. Hell. I, 3, 2-4; Plut. Alcibiades 29; ARSLAN 2011a.
96
Plut. Alcibiades 29, 3.
97
Xen. Hell. I, 3, 2-4; Plut. Alcibiades 29, 3.
98
Cf. ROBU 2014, p. 211 n. 413.
99
Doidalses’ rule is broadly dated to the second half of the 5th century BC (Keaveney – Madden,
Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 12, 3, Commentary).
100
Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 12, 4.
101
Cf. VITUCCI 1953, pp. 12-13 n. 3; SCHOTTKY 2002; DAVAZE 2013, p. 371. On Boteiras, see also
KIRCHNER 1897. Boteiras’ name is nowhere else attested (cf. LGPN V.A, p. 103; OnomThrac, p. 64).
102
Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 12, 4.
16 ELOISA PAGANONI
The earliest of them is in the Hellenika. In winter 399 BC, during the
Spartan-Persian War, the Spartan general Dercylidas plundered the region
without any complaint by Pharnabazus, as the Bithynians often made war on

him103.
A few months later the raids of Dercylidas, the Ten Thousand led by Xeno-
phon reached Bithynia and set their camp at Calpe Harbour104. For all the
time they spent there – about three weeks105 – they plundered the region and
attacked the villages of the Bithynians repeatedly. Xenophon recounts in de-
tail two clashes in his Anabasis. The first one occurred when the Greeks ar-
rived at Calpe Harbour. Some of them moved to attack, but after the counter-
attack by the Bithynians, they were surrounded on a hill and their comrades
in arms rescued them by a stratagem106. As with this, the second episode
began with a raid of the Greeks, but this time the Persian authority inter-
vened107. The day after the raid a battle took place. The Persian horsemen
sent by Pharnazus and the Bithynians fought against Xenophon’s mercenar-
ies108. The clash finished with the retreat of the Bithynians and the Persians
and from that moment on there was no resistance to Greek raids109.
Xenophon is the only evidence about the interaction of the Bithynians
with the Persian authority, and in this regard, two key points emerge from
his account. Firstly, the Bithynians often rebelled. For this reason Pharn-
abazus welcomed any factor, such as Dercylidas and his soldiers, that
could weaken them, even temporarily. Revolts confirm that the Bithyni-
ans were building up a sort of autonomy, which also manifested itself
in the wars against the Greek cities. They yet – this is the second point
– still were subordinated to the satrap. By intervening against the Ten
Thousand, Pharnabazus affirmed his power over the Propontic peninsula
and the Bithynians. In the battle against the Ten Thousand the Bithynians
fought not just at the side of the satrapal troops but at the orders of the Per-
103
Xen. Hell. III, 2, 2: οὐδὲ τοῦ Φαρναβάζου πάνυ τι ἀχθομένου: πολλάκις γὰρ οἱ Βιθυνοὶ αὐτῷ
ἐπολέμουν.
104
Xen. An. VI, 2, 17. About Xenophon’s project to found a colony at Calpe, see MANFREDI 1986, p.
242; STRONK 1991, pp. 97-100; DEBORD 1998, pp. 142-143; HØJTE 2008, pp. 156-158.
105
MANFREDI 1986, p. 244.
106
Xen. An. VI, 3, 2-26; MANFREDI 1986, pp. 241-242; LENDLE 1995 pp. 379-385; STRONK 1995, pp.
63-75; GABELKO 2005, pp. 113-115.
107
Xen. An. VI, 4, 23-27.
108
Xen. An. VI, 5, 7-31; LENDLE 1995, pp. 400-401; STRONK 1995, pp. 115-118; GABELKO 2005, pp.
115-118.
109
Xen. An. VI, 5, 31; 6, 1.
sian generals110. This proves Pharnabazus’ authority over the Bithynians,

and it suggests that they, like the indigenous peoples, such as the Mysians
and Paphlagonians, provided troops to the Persians111. Pharnabazus sent
the Persian cavalry because he perceived the Ten Thousand as a danger.
He could accept raids against local populations as far as they turned to
an advantage to himself. But he could not tolerate Xenophon and his sol-
diers, who were planning to cross to Phrygia and to head to the heart of
his estate112. This also explains the decision to withdraw during the bat-
tle. Pharnabazus ordered his generals to prevent the Ten Thousand from
heading to the inland of his satrapy. Once understood that they would
have never done so, the Persians had no reason to fight any longer.
The most recent achievements about the interaction between local peo-
ples and Achaemenid power have gone beyond the bi-dimensional model
‘dominant people – subject peoples’. It is now accepted that the Persians
looked for support of the local élites and involved them in the manage-
ment of power113. This guaranteed to the Persians the control of their vast
territory – a control that they could obtain in no other way, since they
were a minority in most parts of the empire. To no surprise, this favoured
the rise of local autonomies most of all in the peripheries114. These forms
of autonomy were intrinsic to the Achaemenid administration and even
fundamental for its existence, but created conditions for revolts115. It is
difficult to say to what extent they affected the stability of the Achaeme-
nid empire and to what extent Greek sources overstate them in order to
stress the weakness of the Persians116. With regard to Hellespontine Phry-
110
Cf. MAFFRE 2007, p. 128, Table 1, nr. 39.
111
WEISKOPF 1989, pp. 32-33; SEKUNDA 1988, pp. 182-184; MAFFRE 2007, pp. 120-121, 126. On the
ethnic components of the Achaemenid army, see DUSINBERRE 2013, pp. 89-93. About the Persian-Bithyni-
an interactions weaving between collaboration and competition, see SCHOLTEN 2007, p. 18. According to
WEISKOPF 1989, p. 32 n. 50 and DEBORD 1999, p. 95, the passage of Xenophon (An. VII, 8, 25) saying that
Pharnabazus was ἄρχων of the Bithynians proves the firm power of the satrap over the Bithynians. But this
passage cannot serve as evidence because it is in fact an addition by a late editor of the Anabasis (BROWNSON
1922, p. 370 n. 1; LENDLE 1995, pp. 486-487; BROWNSON – DILLERY 1998, p. 650 n. 15; MASQUERAY 2009,
p. 174 n. 1).
112
Xen. An. VI, 4, 24.
113
MAFFRE 2007; BELTRAME 2015, pp. 73-79 (with literature); BRIANT 2015; cf. FERNOUX 1999, pp.
181-182.
114
Local dynasts are attested, for instance, in north-western Anatolia in the 5th-4th century BC (BELT-
RAME 2015, p. 74 n. 60), Lycia (ASHERI 1983, pp. 58-65; POTTER 2007) and Caria (REGER 2007). About forms
of autonomy in Hellespontine Phrygia, see below in the text.
115
Cf. WEISKOPF 1989, pp. 15-16.
116
MAFFRE 2007, pp. 120-121; BELTRAME 2015, p. 74 n. 61. About the structural weakness of the
Achaemenid system, see WEISKOPF 1989, pp. 14-19.
18 ELOISA PAGANONI
gia, however, it is well known that the political situation of the satrapy
was particularly unstable throughout the 4th century BC. Since the 360s
BC, it was shaken by the so-called Great Satraps’ Revolt and the lack of
a strong central power endured in the following decades117. This condi-
tion promoted the strengthening of those who were already exercising any
form of power in the eastern part of the satrapy118. Since the 5th century
BC local dynasts, who were connected with the satrapal family, but with
a great degree of autonomy, ruled the portion of Mysia around Cius119. In
the late 5th century BC, sources record the Paphalgonian rulers Korylas
and Otys, who were fighting against the Greek cities and rebelling against
the Persian authority120. Then, there were the Bithynians, whose condition
between autonomy and subordination was similar to that of the Paphlago-
nians.
As we have seen, they also competed with the Greek cities for the
Propontic soil. Conflicts between indigenous people and Greeks are at-
tested elsewhere in the Pontic region121. As with the relationship with the
Achaemenid power, scholars try to go beyond the traditional view that
presents the interaction of these groups as exclusively conflictual. They
highlight regional differences and look for traces of peaceful interaction
and exchange in archaeological evidence122. However, such evidence is
absent in the Propontic peninsula123 and conclusions are based only on
Greek literary sources, which refer almost exclusively to conflicts. Joseph
B. Scholten observes that the ‘binary opposition may be an inappropriate
generic characterization for ethnic interaction in Anatolia’, but ‘in the case
117
On the Great Satraps’ Revolt, see WEISKOPF 1989; HORNBLOWER 1994; DEBORD 1999, pp. 301-426.
On the satrapy of Dascylium in those years, see also PRIMO 2002.
118
On the local powers in the eastern Hellespontine Phrygia, cf. FERNOUX 1999, pp. 181-182; PAGANONI
2019, pp. 139-140.
119
On these dynasts, see MEYER 1879, pp. 31-38; OLSHAUSEN 1978, col. 398; IK Kios, pp. 26-30;
MCGING 1986, pp. 248-253; MCGING 1986, pp. 13-15; SEKUNDA 1988, pp. 180-181; BALLESTEROS PASTOR
1996, pp. 22-25; KOBES 1996, pp. 96, 118; BOSWORTH – WHEATLEY 1998, pp. 155-161; DEBORD 1999, pp.
96-104; PRIMO 2002; PRIMO 2004, pp. 11-34.
120
Xen. An. V, 5-22; VII, 8, 25 (about this passage, cf. the remark above p. 17 n. 111); Nep. Datames
2; Aelian. V. H., I, 27; Athen. IV, 144d, 25; X, 415d, 8; DEBORD 1999, pp. 112-115; FERNOUX 1999, p. 182;
MAFFRE 2007, pp. 120-121; BARAT 2013, pp. 153-154. On the condition of the Paphlagonians within the
Achaemenid empire, see also JOHNSON 2010, pp. 142-159; BRIANT 2015, pp. 180-181.
121
DESIDERI 1967, pp. 415-416; FERNOUX 1999, pp. 187-189; AVRAM – HIND – TSETSKHLADZE 2004, pp.
926-927; SCHOLTEN 2007, pp. 17-20; GÜNEY 2012, p. 78.
122
Among the others, TSETSKHLADZE 1998a; FERNOUX 1999; HØJTE 2008, pp. 151-152; RUSSELL 2017,
pp. 165-204.
123
Cf. e.g. LLOYD 1956, p. 6; BOADRAM 1980, p. 239; TSETSKHLADZE 1998a, pp. 14, 18; AVRAM 2004, p.
975; IVANOVA 2013, p. 277.
of the Bithynian-Greek relations it has at least some initial validity’124.

The collaboration between the Bithynians and the Chalcedonians in 408
BC might suggest that realty was more complex and maybe ‘less extreme’
than what it appears125. There is no point in overrating the episode126, but it
is possible that the Greek-Bithynian interaction weaved between conflict
and (forced?) collaboration over time.
Gocha R. Tsetskhladze127 has recently introduced the chronological
component in the interpretation of the Greek-indigenous relationships. Ac-
cording to him, the contacts were peaceful in the early phases and became
conflictual from the Classical age when ‘local (proto?)kingdoms’ – to use
his words – arose. This change might have been more apparent than real.
For the Archaic age we mainly depend on the archaeological evidence,
that tends to highlight exchanges and peaceful coexistence. Instead, since
the 5th century we are dependent on the accounts of Greek historians, who
focused on conflicts but were often silent about periods of peace.
Tsetskhladze, however, rightly stresses that conflict is mostly attested
in areas where the indigenous populations had a political organization. The
Bithynians first came into contact with the Greeks when these ones settled
on the Propontic shores and with the Persians when the Achaemanids con-
quered the Lydian empire. But the earliest information about them dates
back to the late 5th-4th century BC and it deals with several conflicts. During
the same period, we know of Bithynians rulers. Memnon lists Doidalses,
Boteiras, Bas and Zipoites, who became the first king of Bithynia128. Doid-
alses is considered the founder of what would have become the Bithynian
royal house129, but there is no reason to assume that he was the first-ever
Bithynian ruler. The Bithynians are supposed to have a tribal organisation
similar to the European Thracians130, and thus, the existence of a chief
leading the clans was intrinsic to their social organization. Some sources
may hint at other Bithynian dynasts. Dionysius Periegetes says that the
124
SCHOLTEN 2007, p. 18. Cf. FERNOUX 1999, pp. 179-182; ROBU 2014, pp. 208-209, 211.
125
HANNESTAD 1996, p. 69.
126
Cf. SCHOLTEN 2007, p. 20 n. 20 ‘(it) does not offer a counterbalancing example of good Bithynian-
Greek relations’.
127
TSETSKHLADZE 2017, pp. 28-29.
128
Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 12, 3-5. About Bas and Zipoites, see below pp. 23-44.
129
KLEU 2013: ‘although Memnon does not mention this explicitly, Doidalses is considered to have
been the founder of the Bithynian dynasty’; MICHELS 2013, p. 6. SCHOLTEN 2007, p. 17 n. 1 speaks of ‘Bo-
teirids’, i.e. the dynasty ‘from Boteirias, the earliest certain member of the line’, with reference to the blood
tie between Boteiras and his successors.
130
CORSTEN 2007, esp. p. 128; GÜNEY 2012, p. 79; MICHELS 2013, p. 11; cf. ARCHIBALD 2015, esp. pp.
385-388.
20 ELOISA PAGANONI
Gulf of Moucaporis, probably to be identified with today’s Beykoz limanı

on the Bosporus, was named after a king of the Bithynians131. Recently
it has been argued that Moucaporis was a member of the dynasty ruling
Bithynia in the Hellenistic age132. In absence of evidence in this matter, it
remains possible that he was one of the rulers of pre-Hellenistic Bithynia,
whom Dionysius Periegetes anachronistically calls ‘king’. Appian claims
that Prusias II was the most important
of the forty-nine kings who ruled the country before the Romans133.
The passage alludes to the organization of the Bithynians under a single

leadership since a very distant time. Scholar brands it as pseudo-historical
for the anachronistic use of word βασιλεύς and the high number of ‘kings’134.
In the form we read in Appian, this tradition can be a creation of royal propa-
ganda to legitimatise the power of the Hellenistic kings of Bithynia through
the invention of a list of rulers that potentially went back to the settlements
of the Bithynians in the Propontic peninsula, judging from the long list of
entries135. Nevertheless, it contains a kernel of truth admitting that it refers to
the existence of many rulers before the Hellenistic age.
While, as seems, the presence of a chief was implicit in Bithynian soci-
ety, and so Bithynian rulers existed ‘since ever’136, sources suggest that the
Bithynians increased their position progressively. Conflicts with the poleis
and the Persian authority prove that the Bithynians were eager to build up
their own estate. The later developement into an independent kingdom is a
further proof of their ambitiouns. Not by chance, in regard to pre-Hellen-
istic Bithynia, scholars speak of a kingdom in nuce137. It is impossible to
determine the stages of the development from indigenous population under
131
Dion. Per. 96. On the identification of this site, Müller, GGM, vol. II, p. 83; BELFIORE 2009, p. 319 n.
197. For the occurrences of Moucaporis’ name, see LGPN V.A, p. 324. About the attestations and distribu-
tion of Mouc- names, see OnomThrac, pp. 243-244 and Fig. 3.3.
132
GABELKO 2017, p. 325.
133
App. Mithr. 2: τῶν δὲ πρὸ Ῥωμαίων αὐτῆς βασιλέων, ἐννέα καὶ τεσσαράκοντα ἐφεξῆς γενομένων.
134
DAVAZE 2013, p. 371. VIERECK – ROOS 1962, p. 419 notice that the manuscript tradition is in part
corrupted and argue that the text refers to the number of years the kings of Bithynia ruled (cf. VITUCCI 1953,
pp. 12-13 n. 3).
135
Cf. DAVAZE 2013, p. 371, who assumes that Appian echos ‘une tradition bithynienne, laquelle avait
pour objectif de faire remonter le plus loin possible dans le temps la royauté en Bithynie afin sans doute de
renforcer sa légitimité’.
136
GUINEA DÍAZ 1997a, pp. 251-252; MICHELS 2009, p. 13.
137
JONES 1971, pp. 147-149 defines ‘kings’ Doidalses, Boteiras and Bas; VITUCCI 1953, p. 12: ‘staterello
autonomo’; ASHERI 1983, p. 41: ‘nascente regno bitino’; FERNOUX 1999, p. 188: ‘embryon du royaume’;
GÜNEY 2012, p. 81; cf. SCHOLTEN 2007, p. 18.
Persian power to independent kingdom in nuce. Nevertheless, such a pro-

cess was ongoing and possibly in an advanced stage in the 5th-4th century
BC. At that time, the lack of strong Achaemenid power over the Propontic
peninsula boosted it138. Far from the administrative centre of the satrapy,
the Bithynians were free to increase their power, waiting for the occasion
to realise their ambitions of independence.
138
Cf. GUINEA DÍAZ 1997a, p. 252; PAGANONI 2019, pp. 139-140.
CHAPTER TWO
THE BIRTH OF A NEW KINGDOM.

BITHYNIA IN THE AGE OF ALEXANDER THE GREAT
AND THE DIADOCHS
(334-280 BC)
1. THE TURNING-POINT. BAS AND ZIPOITES IN THE LATE 4TH CENTURY BC
In 378 or 377 BC Bas succeeded his father Boteiras. Like this one, he is
nearly unknown to surviving sources. The only information about him is in
Photius’ summary of Memnon’s history. It records that Bas lived seventy
years and ruled fifty and it deals with one victory:
... Bas who also defeated Calas, Alexander’s general, who was prepared in an
excellent manner for the battle, and ensured that the Macedonians kept away
from Bithynia1.
The clash occurred in the last years of Bas’ rule, at the time of Alexan-
der’s campaign. The enemy of Bas, Calas, had a noteworthy career, which
reached the peak at that time2. He took part in the Battle at the Granicus3
and shortly after was appointed satrap of Hellespontine Phrygia4. In this
position, he strengthened Macedonian control over the region. He seized
the χώρα τῆς Μέμνονος, which is supposed to be the land of Memnon of
1
Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 12, 4: Βᾶς… ὃς καὶ Κάλαν τὸν ᾽Αλεξάνδρου στρατηγόν, καίτοι γε λίαν
παρεσκευασμένον πρὸς τὴν μάχην, κατηγωνίσατο, καὶ τῆς Βιθυνίας παρεσκεύασε τοὺς Μακεδόνας
ἀποσχέσθαι. The phrase ‘(Bas) also defeated Calas’ suggests that Memnon may have dealt with other vic-
tories of the Bithynian ruler that Photius did not include in his summary. According to MEYER 1897a, Bas
is mentioned in Bekker Anecdota 1181 recording Βᾶς τοῦ βᾶ (‘Bas son of Bas’) who ἱστορεῖται δὲ οὗτος
βασιλὲυς Πόντου (‘he is said [to be] the king of Pontus’); cf. GABELKO 2005, p. 124. About Bas, see MEYER
1897, col. 515; MEYER 1897a; BERVE 1926, p. 104; BILLOWS 1990, p. 441; SCHOTTKY 2002a; GABELKO 2005,
pp. 124-126; HECKEL 2006, p. 71; GÜNEY 2012, p. 81; DAVAZE 2013, p. 372; KLEU 2013.
2
About Calas, see BERVE 1924; BERVE 1926, pp. 188-189; HECKEL 1994, p. 93; HECKEL 2006, pp. 74-75;
HECKEL 2016, pp. 217-218.
3
Diod. XVII, 17, 4.
4
Arr. An. 17, 1.
24 ELOISA PAGANONI
Rhodes in Troad5. In 332 or 331 BC he led a campaign in Paphlagonia

probably against the Persians who had sought refuge there after the Battle
of Issus6. The expedition against Bas is to be framed within these politics
of consolidation: Calas tried to establish control over the Bithynians and to
deprive them of the autonomy that they had gained under the Persians. Ca-
las’ campaign took place between his appointment as satrap and the death
of Bas in 328 or 327 BC7, but it is impossible either to date it more closely
or to prove any connection with the expedition in Paphlagonia8.
By referring to the military skills of Calas and his troops, Memnon ex-
alts Bas’ success. There might be a trace of pride in stating explicitly that
this victory prevented the Macedonians from taking control over Bithynia.
The tone of Memnon’s passage, along with the knowledge of the rise of a
Bithynian kingdom, affect the assessments about Bas’ victory. It is con-
sidered a turning point and the first stage of the birth of the Bithynian
independent state9. However, its impact is possibly overrated. There is no
hint at the scale of the conflict and Bas’ victory seems to confirm that the
Macedonians were not interested in affirming a strong power over the Pro-
pontis10. In any case, it is a matter of fact, this victory marked the begin-
5
Arr. An. I, 17, 8. For the debated identification of Memnon’s lands, see BOSWORTH 1980, p. 131;
HECKEL 1994; PAGANONI 2019, pp. 137-139 n. 5 (with literature).
6
Curt. IV, 5, 13; BILLOWS 1990, pp. 43-45; PAGANONI 2019, pp. 140-142.
7
BERVE 1924; BERVE 1926, p. 188; VITUCCI 1953, p. 13; STROBEL 1996, pp. 190-191; HECKEL 2006,
p. 75; SCHOTTKY 2002a, MICHELS 2009, p. 13. BURSTEIN 1976, p. 73 dates Calas’ campaign to 327 BC.
LEHMANN 2015, p. 181, dates Bas’ victory to 330/29 BC; DEBORD 1999, p. 159 n. 12, places it ‘peu avant
la mort d’Alexandre’.
8
Likewise, no evidence supports the widespread opinion that Calas died in the battle against Bas
(BADIAN 1961, p. 18; HECKEL 2006, pp. 75, 298 n. 171; HECKEL 2016, p. 218). This assumption (BERVE 1926,
p. 188; VITUCCI 1953, p. 13; BURSTEIN 1976, p. 73; BILLOWS 1990, p. 45 and n. 85; DEBORD 1999, p. 159,
BATTISTINI 2004) served only to explain the appointment of Demarchus as satrap of Hellespontine Phrygia
a few years before Alexander’s death (Jacoby, FGrHist 156, F 1, 6; on Demarchus, see BERVE 1926, pp.
133-134; BADIAN 1961, p. 18; BATTISTINI 2004a; HECKEL 2006, p. 108). With regard to the ‘disappearance’
of Calas, BADIAN 1961, p. 18 suggests that he fell into disgrace in Alexander’s eyes along with his relative
Harpalus the Treasurer.
9
BILLOWS 1990, p. 441: ‘Bas... established the independence of Bithynia by defeating Alexander’s sa-
trap of Hellespontine Phrygia’; SCHOTTKY 2002a, col. 913: ‘Hierdurch (i.e. thanks to the victory over Calas)
wurde die Entstehung eines unabhängigen bithynischen »Reiches« begründet’; MICHELS 2013, p. 6: ‘Mit
der erfolgreichen Abwehr makedonischer Eroberungsversuche unter Bas und Zipoites betrat Bithynien die
Bühne der hellenistischen Staatenwelt’.
10
VITUCCI 1953, p. 13: ‘Nessuna idea precisa possiamo farci delle proporzioni del conflitto, ma
nell’insieme è facile arguire che esso dové essere di piccola entità, perché da parte macedonica si era ap-
pena agli inizi della grande spedizione contro i Persiani, mentre d’altro canto le risorse del regno bitinico
non possiamo valutarle che modeste’; according to JONES 1971, pp. 148-149, Calas’ defeat confirms that
‘Alexander showed little interest in northern Asia Minor’; GUINEA DÍAZ 1997a, p. 252: ‘Alejandro... non se
molestó en reparar la derrota que infligió el rey bitinio Bas a su sátrapa Calas’. About the scarce interest of
Alexander in northern Asia Minor, cf. ASHLEY 1998, p. 185.
THE BIRTH OF A NEW KINGDOM 25
ning of Bithynian independence. For centuries Bithynia had been part of

the Persian empire. When this disappeared Alexander wished to take the
Great King’s place, but failed to include the region in his sphere of influ-
ence. Bithynia was free from any external power. This condition promoted
– if not boosted – the process of consolidation that the Bithynians were
undertaking at least from the late 5th century BC, and that would have led
to the rise of the kingdom in a few years.
When Bas died aged seventy in 328 or 327 BC, his son Zipoites suc-
ceeded him11. As with the other Bithynian rulers, Memnon12 provides some
biographical information: Zipoites ruled for forty-eight years, died aged
seventy-six in 280 or 279 BC and had four sons. The first years of his
rule are completely unknown. No source deals with his engagement either
with the Greek cities or with the satrap of Dascylium, who now embodied
the Macedonian authority13. We may infer from this silence that Zipoites
was not involved in the First and Second War of the Diadochs which saw
Antigonus Monophthalmus taking control of Asia Minor. Zipoites is men-
tioned for the first time in the account of the Third War of the Diadochs.
While besieging the Ptolemaic fortress of Tyrus in 315 BC, Antigonus
Monophthalmus charged his generals to secure the north-eastern border-
lands. Antigonus’ nephew and lieutenant Polemaeus was sent to northern
Asia Minor. He first moved to Cappadocia, then crossed to Paphlagonia
and Bithynia, and finally went to Lydia14.
With regard to his passage in Bithynia, Diodorus says:
Afterwards, when (Polemaeus) advanced through Bithynia and found the king
11
Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 12, 5.
12
Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 12, 5; cf. MEYER 1897, col. 516; MEYER 1925, p. 108; VITUCCI 1953, p. 20;
HABICHT 1972, col. 448; VOLKMANN 1979, col. 1538; BILLOWS 1990, p. 441; KOBES 1996, p. 114; STROBEL
1996, p. 190; SCHOTTKY 2002b; FERNOUX 2004, p. 31; GLEW 2005, p. 134; HECKEL 2006, p. 273; HECKEL
2006, p. 273; Keaveny – Madden, Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 6, 3, Commentary; WATERFIELD 2011, p. 172;
KLEU 2013; SCHOLZ 2015, p. 155.
13
According to BERVE 1926, p. 163, BATTISTINI 2004 and BATTISTINI 2004a, Calas’ successor as satrap of
Hellespontine Phrygia Demarchus was defeated and killed by Zipoites. They thus propose for Demarchus
what is commonly supposed for Calas (see above p. 24 n. 8). In the case of Demarchus yet, not only is there
no evidence about his death, but there is no evidence of any clash with Zipoites either.
14
For the debated chronology of 321-311 BC I follow the proposal of STYLIANOU 1994 and BOIY 2007,
which has been gathering consent (LANDUCCI 2011; MEEUS 2012; for an alternative proposal, see BOSWORTH
1992). For the date of Polemaeus’ expedition to 315 BC, cf. MEYER 1897, col. 515; BEVAN 1902, vol. I,
p. 95; BELOCH 1925, p. 234 n. 1; VITUCCI 1953, pp. 14-15; HABICHT 1972, col. 449; KOBES 1996, p. 115;
BITTNER 1998, p. 78; FERNOUX 2004, pp. 30-31; AVRAM 2004, pp. 977-978; GLEW 2005, p. 136; MICHELS
2009, p. 266; ROBU 2014, p. 216. WEHRLY 1968, p. 49 and BILLOWS 1990, pp. 217, 441 prefer 314 BC. ORTH
1993, p. 32 fluctuates between 314 and 315 BC. On Polemaeus, see BILLOWS 1990, pp. 425-426.
26 ELOISA PAGANONI
of the Bithynians Zibytes, who was besieging the city of the Astacenians and
the Chalcedonians, he forced him to abandon the siege. After he made alli-
ances both with these cities and with Zibytes and took hostages from them, he
proceeded toward Ionia and Lydia15.
As far as we read, in 315 BC Zipoites (here mentioned as Zibytes16) was

laying the siege to Astacus and Chalcedon. Aside from the possibly inaccu-
rate description of Zipoites’ operations – he seems to wage war against both
these cities at the same time17 – Diodorus adds a new piece to the understand-
ing of the relations between the Bithynians and the Greek cities. The latest
information before the Hellenistic era presented Astacus in the hands of the
Bithynians and Chalcedon in good relations with them18. At some time this
situation changed and in 315 BC we find Zipoites in war with both these cit-
ies. His operations are usually considered the first stage of an expansionist
plan to take control over strategic harbours, which would have been decisive
for the economic and political development of Bithynia19. Without any doubt,
the control over harbours could be a relevant goal to Zipoites. However, this
assessment seems to be affected by the role Bithynia would have gained in
trade after the foundation of Nicomedia20. No element, I think, suggests that
this war was different from the previous conflicts between the Bithynians
and the Greeks. Zipoites and the Greeks were probably competing for the
Propontic hinterland, which was the main source of livelihood for both of
them21. Consequently, if Zipoites’ war against Astacus and Chalcedon might
have had ‘maritime implications’, it firstly had ‘terrestrial aims’.
15
Diod. XIX, 60, 3: μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα πορευθεὶς διὰ Βιθυνίας καὶ Ζιβύτην τὸν βασιλέα τῶν Βιθυνῶν
καταλαβὼν πολιορκοῦντα τήν τε τῶν Ἀστακηνῶν καὶ Χαλκηδονίων πόλιν συνηνάγκασε λῦσαι τὴν
πολιορκίαν. ποιησάμενος δὲ συμμαχίαν πρός τε τὰς πόλεις ταύτας καὶ πρὸς τὸν Ζιβύτην, ἔτι δὲ λαβὼν
ὁμήρους προῆγεν ἐπὶ Ἰωνίας καὶ Λυδίας.
16
For a list of the forms of Zipoites’ name, see LGPN V.A, p. 191; OnomThrac, p. 395.
17
If Diodorus’ information is correct (cf. GABELKO 2005, p. 132), Zipoites had many soldiers and excel-
lent military equipment, able to stand up to the siege of two cities several kilometres apart from one another
at the same time. It is however more likely that Diodorus awkwardly sums up his source. A trace of his
carelessness survives in the text, which refers to τῶν Ἀστακηνῶν καὶ Χαλκηδονίων πόλις (‘the city of the
Astacenians and the Chalcedonians’).
18
Strabo XII, 4, 2; Plut. Alcibiades 29, 3; above pp. 12, 14, 15.
19
VITUCCI 1953, p. 14: ‘La fascia costiera del Ponto essendo in massima importuosa, si cercava uno
sbocco al mare nella Propontide, e il porto che per primo si offriva alle mire espansionistiche dei sovrani
di Bitinia era appunto quello di Astaco’, cf. p. 16: ‘... (la) lotta di Zipoites per assicurarsi uno sbocco sulla
Propontide’; HABICHT 1972, col. 449; FERNOUX 2004, p. 31: ‘L’expansion du royaume bithynien dès le
début du IIIe s. av. J.-C. marca una rupture très nette dans l’histoire des cités de la region... La recherche
d’un débouché pratique sur la Propontide fut la première priorité de la monarchie’; cf. BITTNER 1998, p. 64.
20
See below pp. 61, 64.
21
Cf. above p. 12.
According to a Macedonian perspective, Diodorus’ narrative focuses on

Polemaeus. Apparently intervening only diplomatically22, in a short time
he put an end to Zipoites’ sieges to Astacus and Chalcedon and restored
peace in the western Propontic peninsula23. He established an alliance be-
tween Antigonus Monophthalmus, Chalcedon, Astacus and Zipoites, and
took hostages to secure the agreement. Polemaeus left the condition of the
Bithynians unchanged: they remained independent and entered in alliance
with Antigonus24. One might wonder why Polemeus negotiated with a lo-
cal dynast such as Zipoites. Polemaeus’ task was to reinforce Antigonid
influence over the Propontic area in order to prevent a possible attack of
Cassander from Europe25. He probably had not enough time and numbers
to make war against Zipoites. And in any case, he would not have done
so. Any conflict in the area would have favoured Cassander. For this rea-
son Polemaeus made his best to stop the war of Zipoites against Astacus
and Chalcedon. Ultimately, Polemaeus’ decision was imposed by the cur-
rent situation. By allying with the Bithynians, Antigonus unwittingly was
the first Macedonian ruler to recognise them as independent. He accepted
them as counterparts and an autonomous political entity, like Astacus and
Chalcedon.
According to Dennis Glew, Antigonus (through Polemaeus) would
have granted Zipoites with generous offers for the intervention of Nico-
medes son of Aristander from Cos. This one was a philos of Antigonous,
who became involved in the relations between Antigonus and the cit-
ies of the Aegeus and Asia Minor on several occasions26. According to
Glew, Nicomedes interceded for Zipoites during the negotiations with
Polemaeus and the Bithynian ruler thanked him by naming his first-born
22
Cf. VITUCCI 1953, p. 16; GLEW 2005, p. 136 n. 36.
23
Cf. TOEPFFER 1896, p. 136; ORTH 1993, p. 32.
24
JOUGUET 1932, p. 348; TARN 1953, p. 489; DORYSEN 1952-1953, vol. II, pp. 218-219; VITUCCI 1953,
p. 20; HABICHT 1972, coll. 449-450; cf. WATERFIELD 2011, p. 172. Contra MEYER 1897, col. 515; HANNESTAD
1996, p. 92 n. 29: ‘I suggest that Antigonos’ action should be seen as an indication of his de facto sovereign-
ty over Bithynia’. Doubts on the status of Bithynia at Antigonus’ times in BILLOWS 1990, pp. 239 n. 3, 251,
278, 308, 441, who however admits (p. 308): ‘he (i.e. Antigonus) left the Bithynian dynast in undisturbed
control of his native realm’. GABELKO 2005, pp. 132-133 agrees with Billows.
25
Cf. BEVAN 1902, vol. I, pp. 95-96; VITUCCI 1953, p. 15; FORTINA 1965, pp. 52-54; HABICHT 1972,
col. 450; GABELKO 2005, p. 134; WATERFIELD 2011, pp. 108-109. Accordingly, Polemaeus’ intervention in
Bithynia was not due to the mere desire of helping two Greek cities threatened by a local dynast, as some
scholars assume (see e.g. JOUGUET 1932, p. 348; VITUCCI 1953, p. 15; ORTH 1993, p. 40: ‘Im Auftrag des An-
tigonos kommt Polemaios ὁ ἀδελφιδοῦς den belagerten Kalchedoniern zur Hilfe’; GLEW 2005, p. 136: ‘By
assaulting Astacos and Chalcedon, the Bithynian was, in effect, challenging both Antigonus’s hegemony
and his policy toward the Greeks’).
26
About him, see GLEW 2005, pp. 1135-137; DANA – SAVALLI-LESTRADE 2019, pp. 16-17.
28 ELOISA PAGANONI
son after him. Glew’s proposal offers an explanation of the introduc-

tion of Nicomede’s name in the Bithynian dynasty. Recently Madalina
Dana and Ivana Savalli-Lestrade have argued that Nicomedes’ support
to Zipoites was connected with Coan interests in the Black Sea area27. In
their opinion, Nicomedes could have acted in view of already existing
realtions between Cos and Zipoites or to establish new ones. In any case,
this would reveal the growing relevance of Zipoites in the early Hellen-
istic political landscape. It could set the beginning of the firm relations
between the Bithyninan dynasty and Cos in the late 4th century BC28.
The 315 BC alliances fell within Antigonus’ policies to strengthen in-
fluence over the Propontic region. In 318 BC he had taken Hellespontine
Phrygia29; in 315 BC, along with Astacus, Chalcedon and Zipoites, he also
allied with Heraclea30; between 318 BC and his death, he re-founded a
settlement on Askania Lake with the name of Antigonea31. With regard to
Zipoites, the 315 BC alliance was the beginning of a ‘long, peaceful rela-
tion’32 with Antigonus. The lack of evidence of conflicts in the Propontic
area in the period of Antigonus suggests Antigonus’ influence over the
region and over Zipoites33.
27
DANA – SAVALLI-LESTRADE 2019, p. 17.
28
About the relations the kings of Bithynia and Cos, see below pp. 68, 81-82, 86-88, 176-177.
29
Diod. XVIII, 50, 5-52, 2.
30
Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 4, 6; cf. VITUCCI 1953, p. 14; WEHRLI 1968, p. 49; FRANCO 1993, pp. 141-142;
BILLOWS 1990, pp. 113, 217, 441; GLEW 2005, p. 136; PAGANONI 2019, pp. 154-156.
31
Strabo XII, 4, 7; Steph. Byz. s.v. Νίκαια; TSCHERIKOWER 1927, p. 46; BILLOWS 1990, pp. 296-297;
COHEN 1995, pp. 398-400; GUINEA DÍAZ 1997, pp. 23-25; FERNOUX 2004, pp. 30-31; MICHELS 2009, p.
263. According to a scholion on the Notitiae Episcopatuum (3 143, note), probably deriving from Ar-
rian’s Bithyniaka (AVRAM 2004, p. 976), the original settlement was named Helicore (MERKELBACH 1985,
pp. 1-2; MERKELBACH 1987, p. 10; IK Nikaias, vol. II.3, T 1; TALBERT 2000, Map 52, F4. The reliability
of this information is questioned by GUINEA DÍAZ 1997, pp. 305-307). CHOEN 1995, p. 398 and DEBORD
1998, p. 144 prefer the form Angkore handed down by Steph. Byz. s.v. Νίκαια, instead of Helicore. The
original settlement was thought to be a Greek colony (MERKELBACH 1985, pp. 1-2; MERKELBACH 1987, p.
10), but it was more probably an indigenous/Thracian village (GUINEA DÍAZ 1997, pp. 19-23, 305-307).
DELORME 1960, p. 216 n. 1 sets the re-foundation by Antigonus in 316 BC, WEHRLI 1968, pp. 83-84 in
309-307 BC. About the unlikely identification of Antigonea on Askania Lake with the city Stephanus of
Byzantium s.v. Ἀντιγόνεια calls Antigonea near Dascylium, see CORSTEN 1988, pp. 59-61; MAREK 1993,
p. 15; COHEN 1995, p. 392.
32
GLEW 2005, p. 136.
33
Cf. VITUCCI 1953, p. 16: ‘Finché durò intatta la potenza di Antigono, egli (i.e. Zipoites) non riuscì a
realizzare le sue mire di conquista’; BILLOWS 1990, p. 442: ‘The successful assertiveness of Zipoites against
Lysimachos, Seleukos, and Antiochos forms a marked contrast to his quiescence under Antigonos’ rule,
testifying to Antigonus’ power and, perhaps, his conciliatory policy’; GABELKO 2005, pp. 132-133; GLEW
2005, p. 136.
2. TROUBLED YEARS 301-280 BC. ZIPOITES’ POLITICS BETWEEN EXPANSION

AND DEFENCE
In 301 BC the death of Antigonus Monophthalmus opened a new sea-

son of political instability. Antigonus’ son Demetrius unsuccessfully tried
to preserve the domains of his father against the other Diadochs, first of all
Lysimachus, who took control of Asia Minor. In this context, local con-
flicts in the Propontic peninsula began again. Zipoites resumed his aggres-
sive politics against both the poleis and those who succeeded Antigonus in
ruling Asia Minor34.
In the Quaestiones Graecae Plutarch recounts a war between Zipoites
and Chalcedon that is presumably to be ascribed to these years:
(The Chalcedonians) were in war against the Bithynians, being provoked with
every pretext. When Zeipoites was king, they, with the army and receiving the
aid of the Thracians, set fires and laid waste to the country. When Zeipoites
attacked them near the so-called Phalion, they, who fought badly for rashness
and indiscipline, lost over eight thousand soldiers. And they were not com-
pletely annihilated at that time just because Zeipoites granted a compromise to
please the Byzantians35.
The development of events is clear: during a war, Zipoites and the Chalce-
donians fought at Phalion, Zipoites won, but the hostilities ceased because
of the intervention of Byzantium. It is less clear when this war occurred. The
only chronological indication comes from the mention of Zipoites, which
dates the war between the late 4th and early 3rd century BC. The phrase
Ζειποίτου δὲ βασιλεύσαντος (‘when Zipoites was king’) in itself is not de-
cisive to date the episode after Zipoites proclaimed himself king: it could be
an anachronistic reference to the royal title like many others in our sourc-
es36. According to many scholars37, Plutarch is telling some episodes related
to the war Polemaeus stopped in 315 BC38. Diodorus’ account of the 315
34
35
Plut. Mor., 302 e-f: πόλεμος ἦν αὐτοῖς πρὸς Βιθυνοὺς ἐκ πάσης παροξυνομένοις προφάσεως·Ζειποίτου
δὲ βασιλεύσαντος τούτων, πανστρατιᾷ καὶ Θρᾳκῶν ἐπικουρίας προσγενομένης, ἐπυρπόλουν καὶ κατέτρεχον
τὴν χώραν. ἐπιθεμένου δὲ τοῦ Ζειποίτου περὶ τὸ καλούμενον Φάλιον αὐτοῖς, κακῶς ἀγωνισάμενοι διὰ
θράσος καὶ ἀταξίαν ὑπὲρ ὀκτακισχιλίους ἀπέβαλον στρατιώτας· καὶ παντελῶς μὲν οὐκ ἀνῃρέθησαν τότε,
Ζειποίτου Βυζαντίοις χαρισαμένου τὰς διαλύσεις.
36
VITUCCI 1953, pp. 15-16; HABICHT 1972, col. 450; cf. below pp. 37-38.
37
MEYER 1897, col. 515; RUGE 1919, col. 1557; MAGIE 1950, p. 1194 n. 36; IK Kalchedon, p. 94;
BOULOGNE 2002, p. 423 n. 269; FERNOUX 2004, p. 30; ROBU 2014, pp. 211-212; ROBU 2014a, pp. 193-194.
38
Diod. XIX, 60, 3; see above pp. 25-27.
30 ELOISA PAGANONI
BC events tells about the sieges by Zipoites against Chalcedon and Astacus
and the cessation of hostilities due to an Antigonid general. Plutarch refers
to raids in which the Chalcedonians were supported by the Thracians, a vic-
tory of Zipoites and the intervention of Byzantium. The relevant differences
in these accounts cannot just be due to different perspectives, Macedonian
one in Diodorus and local one in Plutarch39. The accounts have nothing
in common but the reference to Zipoites and Chalcedon. It is difficult to
demonstate that they deal with different phases of the same war. Rather,
they may describe two different conflicts. The war related by Plutarch is to
be set in a moment when Zipoites was free to carry out aggressive politics,
in other words, when there was no strong power over him. This rules out
the years 315-301 BC when Zipoites suffered the influence of Antigonus,
and keeps open two possibilities. Either to set this episode the in ‘dark’
years of Zipoites’ rule from the succession to Bas to 315 BC. Or, as seems
preferable to me, in the aftermath of Antigonus’ death when Zipoites was
carrying out the last moves toward the title of king40.
According to Plutarch, Zipoites began the war by provoking the Chal-
cedonians ‘with every pretext’, which likely means by plundering their
land. The Chalcedonians responded devastating the Bithynian lands with
the support of the Thracians41. The answer of the Bithynian ruler was im-
mediate and his raids gave a start to a battle at Phalion42. The Chalce-
donians were defeated and lost many men – if Plutarch is right, nearly
the whole male population of the city perished43 – but this battle did not
mark the end of the war. The victory boosted Zipoites, who would have
been determined to continue the hostilities if the Byzantinas had not inter-
vened. Like in 416 BC, Byzantium aided Chalcedon against the Bithynians
pursuing to the ancient solidarieté mégarienne44. According to Plutarch,
39
Plutarch’s account may derive from a local history of Bithynia (BOULOGNE 2002, p. 423 n. 267).
40
VITUCCI 1953, pp. 15-16; HABICHT 1972, col. 450; BILLOWS 1990, p. 441; ORTH 1993, p. 40; KOBES
1996, p. 115-116; STROBEL [– WIRBELAUER] 1999, col. 154; SCHOTTKY 2002b, col. 817; GABELKO 2005, pp.
139, 141. KOBES 1996, pp. 115-116 connects the episodes related by Plutarch with Zipoites’ wars against
Lysimachus (about these wars, Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 12, 5, below pp. 31-34). About the introduction of
the royal title see below pp. 37-41.
41
It is worth noting that Greek sources stress the aggressive attitude of indigenous people, but episodes
like the 416 BC expedition of Chalcedon and Byzantium (Diod. XII, 82, 2; above pp. 12-14) and this one
suggest that reprisals were the key feature of the wars for the fertile lands.
42
This place, otherwise unknown (cf. HABICHT 1972, col. 450), was probably in the chōra of Chalcedon,
and its name might have been connected with a topographical feature.
43
In view of the nature of the work, Plutarch may provide an exaggerate number (VITUCCI 1953, pp.
15-16; HABICHT 1972, col. 450).
44
ROBU 2014, p. 212; ROBU 2014a, p. 193; cf. ROBU 2012, pp. 183-189. On the 416 BC war, see Diod.
XII, 82, 2; above pp. 12-14.
‘Zipoites granted a compromise to please the Byzantians’45. These latter

are told neither to take part in military operations nor to lead negotiations.
However, they decisively influenced the outcome of the war by ‘affect-
ing’ Zipoites’ decision. They had leverage over Zipoites, who was worried
about their possible reprisals. The danger was closer than what one could
think: Byzantium controlled some territories in Asia that were inhabited
by the Bithynians and almost bordered on Zipoites’ chiefdom46. The in-
volvement of Byzantium sheds light on the intervention of the Thracians in
aid of Chalcedon. Plutarch describes the Thracian contingent by the word
ἐπικουρία, that means ‘aid’ or ‘auxiliary force’47. So, the Thracians could
be either mercenaries hired by the Chalcedonians or a force sent by an
ally. The second option is more likely in view of the long-lasting alliance
between Chalcedon and Byzantium, and the influence of the latter over
Zipoites’ decision to stop the war. If so, we can outline the role of Byzan-
tium more in detail. It not only ‘persuaded’ Zipoites to sign a compromise
but also sent a force of Thracians to Chalcedon.
This episode concerns the relations between Chalcedon, Byzantium and
the Bithynians. The information about contacts with Heraclea and Astacus
also hints at conflicts between Zipoites and Lysimachus. In the account
of Zipoites’ attack to Heraclea in the late 280s BC Memnon recounts the
cause of his hostility against the city:
Zipoites, the ruler of the Bithynians... was hostile to the Heracleans, earlier for
Lysimachus, then for Seleucus (as he was in disagreement with each of them)48.
According to this passage, the origin of Zipoites animosity to Heraclea was

related to Lysimachus and Seleucus, that is, by the contacts of the city with
them49. In concrete terms, Heraclea probably supported them against the
Bithynians. As for Lysimachus, Heraclea entered in friendly relations with
him in the late 4th century BC when he married Amastris, who was rul-
ing the city after the death of her husband50. Later this friendship became
45
Plut. Mor., 302 f: Ζειποίτου Βυζαντίοις χαρισαμένου τὰς διαλύσεις.
46
On the peraia of Byzantium, see above and below pp. 13-14, 105-106.
47
LSJ s.v. ἐπικουρία.
48
Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 6, 3: Ζιποίτης δέ, ὁ Βιθυνῶν ἐπάρχων, ἐχθρῶς ἔχων ῾Ηρακλεώταις πρότερον
μὲν διὰ Λυσίμαχον, τότε δὲ διὰ Σέλευκον (διάφορος γὰρ ἦν ἑκατέρωι). About Zipoites’ attack see below,
pp. 36-37.
49
BITTNER 1998, p. 60.
50
Diod. XX, 109, 6-7; Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 4, 9; SEIBERT 1967, pp. 93-94; BURSTEIN 1976, p. 81;
LUND 1992, p. 75; FRANCO 1993, pp. 141-142; BITTNER 1998, pp. 44-45.
32 ELOISA PAGANONI
closer: Lysimachus took control of the city in 289 or 284 BC and turned
it in his stronghold on the Black Sea51. This guaranteed to Lysimachus the
support of Heraclea. The city aided him on two occasions at least: earlier in
the preamble of the Battle of Ipsus52 and then, in view of Memnon, during
the operations against the Bithynians53.
The destruction of Astacus by Lysimachus, told by Strabo54, could be
related to his wars against the Bithynians. Lysimachus is supposed to have
razed this city to the ground because it was in Bithynian hands55. In 315 BC
Zipoites had tried to conquer Astacus, but he had come to nothing due to
Polemaeus’ intervention. If he was controlling the city when Lysimachus
destroyed it, as generally assumed, it follows that he made another un-
documented but successful attempt. This is to be placed after Antigonus’
death, when Zipoites restarted his expansionistic politics in detriment of
the Greek cities56.
It is often argued that a passage of Pausanias testifies to the foundation
of Astacus by Zipoites and thus confirms the seizure of the city by the
Bithynian ruler57. In the description of the temple of Zeus in the sanctuary
of Olympia, Pausanias claims:
As for the statues set up in the round buildings, the one made of amber rep-
resents Augustus the Roman emperor, the one made of ivory is said to be a
portrait of Nicomedes, the king of the Bithynians. The name of the greatest
city in Bithynia was changed (in Nicomedia) after him; formerly it was called
Astacus, and its first founder was Zipoites, a man of Thracian origin according to
his name58.
51
LUND 1992, pp. 119-120; FRANCO 1993, pp. 140-149; SAPRYKIN 1997, pp. 154-157; BITTNER 1998,
pp. 44-61.
52
Diod. XX, 109, 6-7.
53
Cf. HEINEN 1972, pp. 38-39; BURSTEIN 1976, p. 84; BILLOWS 1990, p. 441; SAPRYKIN 1997, p. 151.
54
Strabo XII, 4, 2.
55
MEYER 1897, col. 515; MEYER 1925, p. 109; VITUCCI 1953, pp. 16-17; HABICHT 1972, col. 451; FRANCO
1993, p. 139; MAREK 1993, p. 21 n. 188; HANNESTAD 1996, p. 71; KOBES 1996, p. 116; STROBEL 1997, col.
116; FERNOUX 2004, pp. 30-32; GABELKO 2005, p. 138; ROBU 2014, pp. 215-216.
56
BELOCH 1925, p. 234; FRANCO 1993, p. 139; ORTH 1993, p. 32; STROBEL 1996, p. 191; STROBEL 1997,
col. 116; STROBEL [– WIRBELAUER] 1999, col. 154; GABELKO 2005, p. 141. Contra those who date the seizure
of Astacus to 315 BC (VITUCCI 1953, p. 16; HABICHT 1972, col. 451; FERNOUX 2004, pp. 31-32; ROBU 2014,
p. 216).
57
MAGIE 1950, p. 1184 n. 10; VITUCCI 1953, p. 16 and n. 4; HABICHT 1972, col. 451; BURSTEIN 1976,
p. 143 n. 34; LESCHHORN 1984, pp. 269-270; BILLOWS 1990, p. 441; MAREK 1993, p. 21 n. 188; ORTH 1993,
p. 32; KOBES 1996, pp. 228-229; FERNOUX 2004, pp. 34-35; SCHOTTKY 2002b; DAVAZE 2013, p. 375; ROBU
2014, pp. 215-217.
58
Paus. V, 12, 7: αἱ δὲ εἰκόνες αἱ τοῖς κατασκευάσμασι τοῖς περιφερέσιν ἐγκείμεναι, ἡ μὲν τοῦ ἠλέκτρου
βασιλέως Ῥωμαίων ἐστὶν Αὐγούστου, ἡ δὲ τοῦ ἐλέφαντος βασιλέως Νικομήδους ἐλέγετο εἶναι Βιθυνῶν. ἀπὸ
It is well-known that Astacus was founded by the Megarians59. Only Pau-

sanias mentions as first founder a certain Zipoites, who was Thracian by
ethnicity as his name and Pausanias himself confirm. Pausanias, then, says
that Nicomedes I refounded Astacus in Nicomedia, which is recorded by
many other sources60. Although Pausanias specifies no kinship between
Zipoites, the first founder, and Nicomedes I61, the former is generally iden-
tified with Nicomedes I’s father Zipoites. And yet, the passage does not
suggest that they lived nearly at the same time, as a possible kinship would
require. Instead, the phrase ἐξ ἀρχῆς, meaning ‘in origin’, ‘from the be-
ginning’ literally, seems to refer to a distant time. On these grounds, the
first founder mentioned by Pausanias cannot be easily identified with the
Hellenistic ruler of the Bithynians. But, the fact that they were namesakes
may be not a chance. This situation recalls the case of Prusa ad Olympum.
This city was founded by Prusias I in the early 2nd century BC, but sources
record a foundation by a certain Prusias who lived in the Archaic period62.
This latter Prusias is considered a mythic hero, a sort of ‘projection’ of the
Hellenistic king who founded the city63. On comparison with this case, it
is permissible to wonder whether the Zipoites mentioned by Pausanias too
was a mythic projection64. Like Prusias I in the case of Prusa ad Olym-
pum, Zipoites (the Hellenistic ruler) permanently annexed Astacus to the
Bithynian chiefdom. It is possible that the royal propaganda celebrated
this success of the founder of the Bithynian kingdom by creating the tradi-
tion we read in Pausanias. Presenting Astacus as a Bithynian settlement
legitimised the claim of the Bithynians over the city. The homonymy of
the mythic founder and the historical conqueror, then, strengthened the
message.
If these remarks have some validity, the passage of Pausanians pro-
vides at most an indirect attestation to the seizure of Astacus by Zipoites.
Likewise, the passages so far examined allude to wars between Zipoites
and Lysimachus. The only explicit testimony in this regard is in Memnon:
Zipoites, who became illustrious in war and killed one of the generals of Lysi-
τούτου δὲ καὶ τῇ μεγίστῃ τῶν ἐν Βιθυνίᾳ πόλεων μετεβλήθη τὸ ὄνομα, Ἀστακῷ τὰ πρὸ τούτου καλουμένῃ· τὰ
δὲ ἐξ ἀρχῆς αὐτῇ Ζυποίτης ἐγένετο οἰκιστής, Θρᾷξ γένος εἰκάζοντί γε ἀπὸ τοῦ ὀνόματος.
59
About the accounts on the foundation of Astacus, see ROBU 2014, pp. 201-213.
60
See below pp. 60-61.
61
Cf. the commentary ad locum by [POUILLOUX –] JACQUEMIN 1999, p. 170.
62
Strabo XII, 4, 3; Steph. Byz. s.v. Προῦσα; see below pp. 144-147.
63
64
MICHELS 2013, p. 9 n. 33: ‘Möglicherweise ist aus der Passage ein erster Wiederaufbau zu erschlißen’.
34 ELOISA PAGANONI
machus and drove the other far from his own domain, after having prevailed in
battle over Lysimachus himself etc.65
As far as we see, Zipoites clashed with two lieutenants of Lysimachus and

with Lysimachus himself66. It is impossible to say either when these battles
occurred during Lysimachus’ rule over Asia Minor or if they were con-
nected with other episodes known to us67. But it is clear from Memnon that
Zipoites won all of them. According to these pieces of information, Lysi-
machus made not one war, but several attacks against Bithynians. They are
to be framed in his operations to establish control over the Propontis68. He
allied with Heraclea and re-founded Antigonea in Nicaea69. These cities
became the outposts for his attacks against the Bithynians. While Anti-
gonus had set a strong influence over this region through a wide alliance
network including the Bithynians, Lysimachus strove for a domain with-
out satellite states. His attempts, however, were frustrated. Lysimachus not
only did not manage to subdue Zipoites, but Zipoites continued to grow
stronger throughout his rule. Sources preserve just a few hints at his suc-
cesses, but they should have been meaningful since one of them, occurring
in 297 BC, was celebrated as the birth of the kingdom70.
As already said, Memnon records the contacts of Heraclea with Seleu-
cus among the causes of Zipoites’ hostility to this city71. This is the only
hint at relationships between Zipoites and Seleucus, that seem to have not
65
Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 12, 5: Ζιποίτης, λαμπρὸς ἐν πολέμοις γεγονώς, καὶ τοὺς Λυσιμάχου
στρατηγοὺς τὸν μὲν ἀνελών, τὸν δὲ ἐπὶ μήκιστον τῆς οἰκείας ἀπελάσας ἀρχῆς, ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτοῦ Λυσιμάχου…
ἐπικρατέστερος γεγονώς κτλ. A few words of Justin (XVI, 3, 3: Inde Thraciae ac deinceps Heracleae bel-
lum intulerat, ‘Then [Lysimachus] had moved against Thrace and Heraclea’) may allude to Lysimachus’
wars against the Bithynians (HABICHT 1972, col. 452; GABELKO 2005, pp. 136-137).
66
Cf. REINACH 1888, pp. 94-95; MAREK 1993, p. 21; HANNESTAD 1996, pp. 71-72; KOBES 1996, p. 116
and n. 20; STROBEL 1996, pp. 191-192; GLEW 2005, p. 136; DAVAZE 2013, pp. 373-374.
67
VITUCCI 1953, p. 18 says: ‘nell’insieme pare assai poco probabile che Lisimaco, condotta personal-
mente una spedizione contro la Bitinia, toccasse una sconfitta’ and HABICHT 1972, coll. 452-453 and HEINEN
1972, p. 36 agree with him. According to them, this evaluation supports the opinion that the battle where
Zipoites defeated Lysimachus was at Curupedium, in which Zipoites would have supported Seleucus.
About the inconsistency of this hypothesis, see below, pp. 40, 160-162.
68
Cf. VITUCCI 1953, pp. 16-17; BILLOWS 1990, p. 441; LUND 1992, p. 105; MAREK 1993, pp. 20-21;
HANNESTAD 1996, p. 71; GABELKO, pp. 135-136; DAVAZE 2013, p. 248; MICHELS 2013, p. 14.
69
Strabo XII, 4, 7; Steph. Byz. s.v. Νίκαια; Eust. Il. II, 863; TSCHERIKOWER 1927, pp. 46-47; LESCHHORN
1984, pp. 255-257; FRANCO 1993, pp. 139-140; COHEN 1995, pp. 398-400; HANNESTAD 1996, p. 71; GUINEA
DÍAZ 1997, pp. 26-27; STROBEL 2000; FERNOUX 2004, pp. 30-31. The most extensive study on Nicaea from
its origins to the Roman era is GUINEA DÍAZ 1997. On mythic traditions concerning the foundation and the
eponymous nymph, see GUINEA DÍAZ 1989; GUINEA DÍAZ 1992; GUINEA DÍAZ 1997, pp. 294-312; PERÒ 2013.
70
71
Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 6, 3.
been friendly. Like Lysimachus, Seleucus probably attacked the Bithyni-

ans with the support of the Heracleans72. Whereas the alliance between
Lysimachus and Heraclea is well documented, it is difficult to detect con-
tacts between Heraclea and Seleucus in our sources. The only certain in-
formation in this regard dates after the defeat of Lysimachus in 281 BC
and alludes to not-friendly relationships73. However, in light of the passage
concerning the Bithynian attack, Heraclea (or a Heraclean party) likely
supported Seleucus against the Bithynians. In absence of determing indi-
cations we can only speculate about the context of Seleucus’ attack. Most
scholars set it in the few months between Curupedium and the death of
Seleucus since the scanty evidence of Seleucus’ interest in the Propontis
(testified by the contacts with Heraclea) dates back to that period74.
Seleucus’ attack had to be unsuccessful since his successor Antiochus
I made another expedition against the Bithynians while reasserting control
over the peripheral areas of the empire in the aftermath of his accession to
the throne. Memnon notes the campaigns of Antiochus’ generals Patrocles
and Hermogenes of Aspendus75. The latter was charged to seize Heraclea,
but after receiving an embassy from the city, he accepted to sign an alli-
ance76. Then
(Hermogenes) turned towards Bithynia through Phrygia. When he was caught

in an ambush by the Bithynians, he himself and his army were destroyed, even
if he showed deeds worthy of a man in front of the enemy77.
Memnon states that Hermogenes was defeated and killed by the Bithyni-
ans but does not mention who was their leader. In addition, as a result of
72
BEVAN 1902, vol. I, p. 99; VITUCCI 1953, p. 18; HABICHT 1972, col. 454; BILLOWS 1990, pp. 441-442;
73
Memnon BNJ 434 F 1, 7, 1-4; HEINEN 1972, pp. 38-39; GRAINGER 1990, pp. 183-184; BITTNER 1998, pp.
57-61. Some scholars (MEYER 1925, p. 110; HEINEN 1972, p. 38; SAPRYKIN 1997, pp. 162-163; BITTNER 1998,
p. 60) argue that Seleucus was in contact with the Heraclean party hostile to Lysimachus before 281 BC.
74
BEVAN 1902, vol. I, p. 99; VITUCCI 1953, pp. 19-20; HABICHT 1972, col. 453; BURSTEIN 1976, p. 87;
HANNESTAD 1996, p. 73; KOBES 1996, p. 117; BITTNER 1998, pp. 60, 78. Contra BURSTEIN 1976, p. 84 dates
the attack of Seleucus to the early years of Lysimachus’ rule over Asia Minor. MEYER 1925, p. 110 and
HEINEN 1972, pp. 38-39 place the episode after Lysimachus took control over Heraclea, either in 289 or 284
BC; SAPRYKIN 1997, p. 151 proposes 284 BC.
75
Memnon presents Hermogenes’ and Patrocles’ campaigns as separate events, but Hermogenes was
probably an assistant commander of Patrocles (VITUCCI 1953, p. 20 and n. 2; GRAINGER 1990, pp. 198-199;
BITTNER 1998, p. 66; MEHL 1998, col. 442; contra OTTO 1912, col. 868).
76
Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 9, 1-2; GRAINGER 1990, p. 199; BITTNER 1998, p. 79.
77
Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 9, 2: ἐπὶ τὴν Βιθυνίαν διὰ τῆς Φρυγίας τραπόμενος. ἐνεδρευθεὶς δὲ ὑπὸ
τῶν Βιθυνῶν, διεφθάρη τε αὐτὸς καὶ ἡ σὺν αὐτῶι στρατιά, ἀνδρὸς ἔργα τὸ καθ᾽ ἑαυτὸν εἰς πολεμίους
ἐπιδειξάμενος.
36 ELOISA PAGANONI
Photius’ excessive shortening of Memnon’s narrative, the context of this

episode is quite unclear. Immediately after Hermogenes’ defeat indeed it
recounts the war of Antiochus I against Zipoites’ successor Nicomedes I78.
One could doubt whether Hermogenes’ defeat occurred under Zipoites or
Nicomedes I. But the second possibility is ruled out by another passage of
Photius’ summary, that records
(Zipoites) prevailed in battle... over Antiochus, son of Seleucus, the ruler of

Asia and the Macedonians79.
This sets Hermogenes’ attack between Antiochus’ accession in autumn

281 BC and Zipoites’ death, for which terminus ante quem is the earliest
mention of his successor Nicomedes I in 280-279 BC80.
The attack of Zipoites on Heraclea also dates back to the last years of
his rule. We have already mentioned this episode, but it is here worth con-
sidering the passage of Memnon in full:
Zipoites, the ruler of the Bithynians, who was hostile to the Heracleans, ear-
lier for Lysimachus, then for Seleucus (as he was in disagreement with each
of them), showing his viciousness, made an attack against them. However,
his army did what it did not without suffering damages; it suffered things not
much more tolerable than those it carried out81.
The passage describes the degeneration of relations between the Bithyni-

ans and Heraclea, caused by Heraclea’s support of Lysimachus and Seleu-
cus. Memnon provides us with a clear chronology. It sets Zipoites’ attack
78
79
Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 12, 5: καὶ ᾽Αντιόχου τοῦ παιδὸς Σελεύκου ἐπικρατέστερος γεγονώς, τοῦ τε
τῆς ᾽Ασίας βασιλεύοντος καὶ τοῦ Μακεδόνων.
80
MEYER 1897, col. 516; MEYER 1925, p. 108; VITUCCI 1953, pp. 19-20; HABICHT 1972, col. 454; VOLK-
MANN 1979, col. 1538; BILLOWS 1990, p. 441; KOBES 1996, pp. 114, 117; STROBEL 1996, p. 190; FERNOUX
2004, p. 31; GABELKO 2005, p. 143; GLEW 2005, p. 134; HECKEL 2006, p. 273; SCHOTTKY 2002b; HECKEL
2006, p. 273; Keaveny – Madden, Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 6, 3, Commentary; WATERFIELD 2011, pp. 172,
208; KLEU 2013. This already short timespan might be further narrowed down to the only war season within
it, i.e. summer-autumn 280 BC (OTTO 1912, col. 862; HABICHT 1972, col. 454; BILLOWS 1990, pp. 441-442;
GRAINGER 1990, p. 199; STROBEL 1994, p. 35; SAPRYKIN 1997, p. 165; MICHELS 2009, p. 265 n. 1342; COȘKUN
2011, p. 94; DAVAZE 2013, p. 327). Cf. BITTNER 1998, p. 66: ‘um 279 BC’. The earliest information about
Nicomedes I is in Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 9, 3.
81
Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 6, 3: Ζιποίτης δέ, ὁ Βιθυνῶν ἐπάρχων, ἐχθρῶς ἔχων ῾Ηρακλεώταις πρότερον
μὲν διὰ Λυσίμαχον, τότε δὲ διὰ Σέλευκον (διάφορος γὰρ ἦν ἑκατέρωι), τὴν κατ᾽ αὐτῶν ἐπιδρομήν, ἔργα
κακώσεως ἀποδεικνύς, ἐποιεῖτο· οὐ μὴν οὐδὲ τὸ αὐτοῦ στράτευμα κακῶν ἀπαθεῖς ἔπραττον ἅπερ ἔπραττον,
ἔπασχον δὲ καὶ αὐτοὶ ὧν ἔδρων οὐ κατὰ πολὺ ἀνεκτότερα. According to BURSTEIN 1976, p. 143 n. 35 (cf.
DAVAZE 2013, p. 241), Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 5, 1 might concern the warring relations between Heraclea
and the Bithynians.
against Heraclea after Lysimachus and Seleucus had attempted to subdue

the Bithynians. It follows that Zipoites attacked the city after Seleucus’ ex-
pedition and before his own death82. Memnon’s patriotic attitude stresses
Zipoites’ disloyal behaviour and diminishes the range of his victory by
recording the many losses among the Bithynian troops. In this campaign
Zipoites is supposed to have seized a wide portion of the Heraclean chōra,
corresponding to what Memnon calls thynis gē and maybe Cierus83. If so,
this event reveals Bithynian politics in the aftermath of the rise of the king-
dom. Far from being an isolated episode, as it seems from Memnon, the at-
tack against Heraclea was the last stage of a war that almost led to Zipoites
seizing the city.
3. ZIPOITES: FROM RULER TO KING
Zipoites expanded the Bithynian heartland by conquering Astacus and

some Heraclean lands. These territorial expansions were not the most im-
portant achievement of his successful policies, though. Sources suggest
that he took the title of king at some point. In doing so he turned Bithynia
into a kingdom. The Bithynians had got their independence in their victory
over Alexander’s satrap Calas. But when Zipoites declared himself king,
he, in effect, claimed that Bithynia was an independent power. Literary
sources are in disogreement about when this happened84. In the account
of Polemaeus’ campaign (315 BC), Diodorus calls Zipoites βασιλεὺς τῶν
Βιθυνῶν, ‘the king of the Bithynians’85. According to Plutarch, the bat-
tle at Phalion, supposedly dating after 301 BC, occurred Ζειποίτου δὲ
βασιλεύσαντος, ‘when Zipoites was king’86. Memnon calls Zipoites ὁ
82
MEYER 1897, col. 516; DROYSEN 1952-1953, vol. II, p. 42; HABICHT 1972, col. 453; BILLOWS 1990, pp.
441-442; MAREK 1993, p. 21; KOBES 1996, p. 117; BITTNER 1998, pp. 78-79. Some scholars (MCGING 1986,
p. 17; BILLOWS 1990, pp. 441-442; GABELKO 2005, p. 163) set this episode before Hermogenes’ attack. They
argue that it was Heraclea who asked the Seleucid general to attack the Bithynians to avenge Zipoites’
attack. As far as we see in Memnon, however, Hermogenes’ alliance with Heraclea and the clash with the
Bithynians were stages of the same campaign to incorporate the Propontic peninsula into the Seleucid em-
pire (SAPRYKIN 1997, pp. 165-167; cf. VITUCCI 1953, p. 20).
83
For discussion about this hypothesis and the identification of the thynis gē, see below p. 50. There is
no evidence that Zipoites also seized the area where Bithynium would have been founded (see below pp.
141-142) as STROBEL 1996, p. 203 argues.
84
Cf. REINACH 1888, p. 95 n. 1; HABICHT 1972, coll. 451-452; LESCHHORN 1993, p. 187; HANNESTAD
1996, p. 93 n. 34; KOBES 1996, p. 84 and n. 46.
85
Diod. XIX, 60, 3.
86
Plut. Mor., 302 e.
38 ELOISA PAGANONI
Βιθυνῶν ἐπάρχων, ‘the chief of the Bithynians’87, and the successors of

him kings88. But, he says that Zipoites’ father Bas ἐβασίλευσε, ‘ruled as a
king’, over the Bithynians89.
A decisive contribution comes from the numismatic evidence. Some
silver tetradrachms and a gold stater minted under Nicomedes II, Nico-
medes III and Nicomedes IV record an era starting in October 297 BC90.
All these coins have Nicomedes II’s portrait on the obverse, so that only
the indication of the year on the reverse distinguishes Nicomedes III’s and
Nicomedes IV’s series91. This suggests that it was Nicomedes II who intro-
duced this era. He is supposed to have done so immediately after ascend-
ing the throne because the earliest of these coins date to the first year of
his reign (149 BC). Hellenistic royal eras were later creations. Their foun-
dation year celebrated the rise of the kingdom that supposedly coincided
with the introduction of the royal title92. These eras were an expression of
royal propaganda. Kings had interests in dating the rise of their kingdoms
as early as possible. These eras, thus, probably indicated an earlier year
than the actual beginning of the kingdom. With regard to Bithynia, we can
say that the Bithynian kings presented 297 BC as the official date of their
independence at least from the mid-2nd century BC.
Scholars generaly simplify the issue and conclude that Zipoites took the
royal title in 297 BC93. The following matter is on what occasion he did
87
Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 6, 3.
88
Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 9, 3; 10, 1; 14, 1; 19, 1; 22, 5.
89
Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 12, 4.
90
For a list of these coins, see LESCHHORN 1993, pp. 484-485. According to DE CALLATAŸ 1986, pp. 22-
24, a part of these series was minted by Nicomedes IV’s brother Socrates. REINACH 1888, pp. 95, 131-133
pointed out 297 BC as the beginning year of this era. Afterwards, in Recueil général des monnaies grecques
d’Asie Mineure, he proposed 298 BC (WADDINGTON et al. 1908, p. 217). Some scholars agreed with Rein-
ach’s latter proposal (MAGIE 1950, pp. 1194 n. 32, 1200-1201 n. 49; DROYSEN 1952-1953, vol. II, pp. 390,
430; VITUCCI 1953, p. 17 n. 2; SHERWIN-WHITE 1984, p. 162 n. 14; IK Prusa ad Olympum 1, p. 8; MERKEL-
BACH 1990, p. 100; KOBES 1996, p. 84), but BENNETT 1961, pp. 460-463 presented strong points in favour of
the former one, which is now commonly accepted (MEYER 1897, col. 516; FRUIN 1934, p. 30; POLLAK 1970,
pp. 51-52; PERL 1968, pp. 299-306; HABICHT 1972, col. 451; KLEINER 1974, p. 8; BURSTEIN 1976, pp. 142-
143 n. 29; HARRIS 1980, p. 861; LESCHHORN 1984, pp. 179-180; DE CALLATAŸ 1986, p. 12 n. 86; BENGTSON
1987, p. 127; GLEW 1987, p. 24 n. 3; GEHRKE 1990, p. 45; SULLIVAN 1990, p. 344 n. 17; LANDUCCI 1992, p.
158; MAREK 1993, p. 21 n. 189; HANNESTAD 1996, p. 72; FERNOUX 2004, pp. 31, 35; HECKEL 2006, p. 273; JA-
KOBBSON 2009, p. 508; POVALAHEV 2011, p. 148 n. 33; ROBU 2014, p. 216). In doubt MAREK 2009, pp. 39-40.
91
PERL 1968, p. 299; LESCHHORN 1993, pp. 178-179.
92
Cf. JAKOBBSON 2009, p. 507: ‘(royal eras) celebrate the independence of a dynasty, that is the birth
of a new kingdom’.
93
MEYER 1897, col. 516; BELOCH 1925, p. 234 n. 1; SCHÖNERT-GEISS 1978, p. 610; HABICHT 1972,
coll. 451-452; HARRIS 1980, p. 861; BILLOWS 1990, p. 441; GEHRKE 1990, p. 45; LANDUCCI 1992, p. 158;
LESCHHORN 1993, pp. 186-187; HANNESTAD 1996, p. 72; KOBES 1996, p. 84; SCHOTTKY 2002b, col. 817;
FERNOUX 2004, pp. 31, 35; HECKEL 2006, p. 273; ROBU 2014, p. 216. The Bithynian royal era might have
so; or rather, what event the mid-2nd-century-BC royal era celebrated as

the rise of the kingdom. According to Karl J. Beloch94, it was the seizure
of Astacus. This episode was for certain important to Zipoites and his suc-
cessors and played some role in their propaganda95. It was the successful
conclusion of seizure attempts recorded by the sources since the time of
Doidalses, and the city turned into the capital of the kingdom when it was
re-founded in Nicomedia96. Most scholars, however, prefer the proposal
of Reinach97, who connects the royal era with Zipoites’ victories over the
generals of Lysimachus and Lysimachus himself98.
The end of Lysimachus’ power over Asia Minor was interpreted as a
turning point in the Propontic area. A few coins from Nicaea, Prusa ad
Olympum, Apamea, Nicomedia, Tios and Bithynium minted in 61-47 BC
are dated according to an era beginning in 282/1 BC99. This era was already
in use many decades before if, as seems, it appears in an inscription from
Prusa ad Olympum dating to the 180s-170s BC100. The beginning year is
supposed to refer to the victory of Seleucus over Lysimachus at Curupe-
dium in February 281 BC; but speculations about the introduction or other
matters related to this local era find no confirmation in the scanty evidence.
According to Wolfgang Leschhorn101, Nicaea first introduced this era to
celebrate the end of Lysimachus’ control and the inclusion to Zipoites’
domain. He accepts the widely-spread opinion that it was Zipoites who an-
nexed Nicaea to the kingdom of Bithynia in the aftermath of Curupedium.
However, a careful reassessment of the evidence suggests that the seizure
been introduced in Pontus by Mithridates Eupator (REINACH 1888, p. 132; BENNETT 1961, pp. 460-461;
PERL 1968, pp. 300-306; MCGING 1984, p. 14; LESCHHORN 1993, pp. 82-86; POVALAHEV 2011, p. 148; cf.
HANNESTAD 1996, p. 93 n. 33; PRIMO 2004, p. 238). About the probably incorrect information in Syn-
cellus (525, 593) concerning the duration of the kingdom of Bithynia and the year of its independence,
see FRUIN 1934, pp. 35-36; PERL 1968, pp. 323-328; LESCHHORN 1993, pp. 187-188; GABELKO 2009.
94
BELOCH 1925, p. 234 n. 1; cf. ROBU 2014, pp. 216-217.
95
See above, pp. 32-33.
96
See below pp. 61- 62.
97
REINACH 1888, pp. 131-133, followed by MEYER 1897, col. 516; DROYSEN 1952-1953, vol. II, pp. 390,
430, vol. III, p. 57 n. 49; VITUCCI 1953, p. 17 n. 2; PERL 1968, p. 323; HABICHT 1972, coll. 451-452; WILL
1979, p. 137; HARRIS 1980, p. 861; BENGTSON 1987, p. 127; BILLOWS 1990, p. 441; LESCHHORN 1993, pp.
186-187; STROBEL 1996, p. 192; GRAINGER 2007, p. 144.
98
Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 12, 5; see above pp. 33-34.
99
For a list of these coins, see LESCHHORN 1993, p. 486. On this era, see FURIN 1934, pp. 30-33; LE-
SCHHORN 1993, pp. 191-197; MAREK 1993, pp. 21-24; STROBEL 1996, pp. 201-203. About the foundation
year, cf. ROBERT 1937, p. 232; MAGIE 1950, p. 1254 n. 68; VITUCCI 1953, p. 17; PERL 1968, p. 328 and n. 123;
HEINEN 1972, p. 36 n. 114. According to FRUIN 1934, pp. 30-33 this era begun in 283/2.
100
IK Prusas ad Olympum 1, see below Appendix nr. 2.
101
LESCHHORN 1993, pp. 194-196.
40 ELOISA PAGANONI
of Nicaea occurred under Nicomedes I102. The fact that Nicaea was likey
embedded to Bithynia later than what Leshhorn supposes undermines his
proposal.
According to Karl Strobel103, the Battle of Curupedium had a special value
for the cities of Bithynia as Zipoites took part in it at Seleucus’ side. This re-
mark is grounded on another wide-spread assumption: Zipoites was involved
in the Battle of Curupedium104. As aready said above105, scholarships tends to
give little regard to Memnon’s information about the victory of Zipoites over
Lysimachus106. According to them, Zipoites would not be able to win over
Lysimachus, and so he was allied with someone more powerful on that occa-
sion. This is identified with Seleucus, the definitive winner over Lysiamchus.
Memnon’s information is thus considered an allusion to Zipoites’ involvement
in the Battle of Curupedium. This assumption would be proved by the famous
tombstone of Menas son of Bioeris, the Bithynian chief of infantry who died
Κούρου ἐμ πεδίωι107. Regardless of the speculations about this debated docu-
ment, the point is to understand whether it may be considered as evidence of
anything. The answer would be in the affirmative under one condition: that
Menas’ tombstone dates to the early 3rd century BC. The dating of this docu-
ment relies on no internal reference, but on lettering and style of the reliefs in
the upper part of the stone. Upon these criteria, the inscription is alternatively
placed in early 3rd century BC or in 2nd century BC108. There is no decisive ar-
gument in favour of either of these proposals, and the validity of both of them
is questionable. These criteria indeed are not reliable due to the impossibility
of tracing the evolution of script and art in Hellenistic Bithynia. Accordingly,
the tombstone of Menas can substantiate no hypothesis, and the involvement
of Zipoites at Curupedium remains the subject of scholarly speculation109.
If the Bithynian royal era alluded to Zipoites’ victories over Lysimachus
and his generals, Bithynian propaganda presented Lysimachus as the last ob-
stacle to the rise of the kingdom. The local era attested in several cities of
Bithynia depicted the final defeat of Lysimachus as the beginning of a new
epoch of freedom. Thus, these eras, which co-existed since the mid-2nd century
102
See below p. 60.
103
STROBEL 1996, pp. 201-202.
104
See refernceces below p. 160 n. 13.
105
See above p. 34 and n. 67.
106
Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 12, 5.
107
IK Kios 98; see below Appendix nr. 1.
108
See the discussion below pp. 159-160.
109
Cf. HANNESTAD 1996, pp. 71-72.
BC, broadcasted a similar message110. They presented Lysimachus as the bitter

enemy of the kingdom and the cities, and his defeats as a turning point of the
history of both of them. But they referred to events of different relevance. The
royal era was connected to Zipoites’ victories, which had a local impact, but
would have been presented as pivotal to the kingdom. The local era referred to
the Battle of Curupedium as a turning-point for the whole of Asia Minor. The
fact that, to our knowledge, this victory had no role in Bithynian propaganda
could corroborate the idea that Zipoites was not involved. There is another
point to raise. Royal and civic eras seem to have been the creation of separate
and non-communicating entities (the kingdom and the cities). Nicomedes II
would have introduced a royal era ‘in competition’ with the local era already in
use. Furthermore, the fact that both these eras referred to a victory over Lysi-
machus rendered him (or better, each defeat of him) the only ‘reference point’
for the history of all institutions of the Propontic area. This is theoretically pos-
sible, but – I think – not fully convincing. Whereas a connection between the
local era and the Battle of Curupedium is likely, the beginning year of the royal
era can easily refer to an episode different from a victory over Lysimachus.
Lise Hannestad rightly states that ‘our sources are simply too meagre to tell us
which event may have led to the assumption of the royal title’111.
By founding Zipoition, Zipoites carried out an act fit for a king. Mem-
non says that
after having prevailed in battle over Lysimachus himself and Antiochus, son of
Seleucus, ruler of Asia and the Macedonians, (Zipoites) founded a city named
after himself at the foot of Mount Lyperos112.
The location of this city is unknown113. This is the only attestation of

Mount Lyperos and any attempt to identify it with other places known
to us has been unsuccessful114. Scholars, however, suppose that Zipoi-
tion was in the Bithynian hinterland and it possibly served to strengthen
110
About the co-existence of these eras, cf. MAREK 2009, p. 40.
111
112
Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 12, 5: καὶ αὐτοῦ Λυσιμάχου, εἶτα καὶ ᾽Αντιόχου τοῦ παιδὸς Σελεύκου
ἐπικρατέστερος γεγονώς τοῦ τε τῆς ᾽Ασίας βασιλεύοντος καὶ τοῦ Μακεδόνων, κτίζει πόλιν ὑπὸ τῶι
Λυπερῶι (?) ὄρει τῆι αὑτοῦ κλἡσει ἐπώνυμον. Cf. Steph. Byz. s.v. Ζιποίτιον: πόλις Βιθυνίας, ἀπὸ Ζιποίτου
βασιλέως (‘city in Bithynia [named after] king Zipoites’).
113
Cf. MEYER 1897, col. 516; VITUCCI 1953, p. 20; HABICHT 1972, col. 454; MAREK 1993, p. 21 n. 188;
KOBES 1996, p. 84 n. 44; MICHELS 2009, pp. 264-265.
114
The identification with the site Λύ[π]εδρον, in turn unknown, mentioned in an Attalid dedication
(OGIS 298, l. 4; Appendix nr. 10; IvP I 65, p. 52; OGIS 298, p. 467 n. 4; REINACH 1888, p. 96 n. 1; RUGE 1927;
MAGIE 1950, pp. 1196-1197 n. 39; VITUCCI 1953, pp. 55-56; HABICHT 1957, col. 1100; HANSEN 1971, p. 99;
42 ELOISA PAGANONI
Zipoites’ control on an area recently annexed115. In light of Memnon’s

words, Benedikt Niese116 argues that Zipoition was founded after the vic-
tory over Hermogenes in 280-279 BC. Christian Habicht117 rejects this
proposal stating that Memnon’s chronology cannot be considered reliable.
Even if he does not present decisive arguments, scholars seem to agree
with him. Most of them118 date the foundation to 297 BC or immediately
after. So, they place the introduction of the royal title, Zipoites’ victories
over Lysimachus, and the foundation of Zipoition in one moment. In this
way, they propose an attractive, though unfounded, synchronism. More
cautiously others119 conclude that the foundation of Zipoition occurred
at any time after the acquisition of the royal title. These too connect the
foundation of Zipoition with kingship. The implicit reference is to the
Graeco-Macedonian basileia that included foundation and re-foundation
of cities among the acts characterising a king120. Independently from what
was the concrete exemplum Zipoites was following121, by founding Zipoi-
tion he showed to imitate the example of the Diadochs and to recognise
the key patterns of an emerging model of kingship122. In fact, he began
to promote propaganda that his son Nicomedes I would have developed.
HABICHT 1972, col. 455; MCGING 1986, p. 25; tentatively FERNOUX 2004, pp. 34-35) is just a guess based on
assonance of these name places.
115
ROSTOVTZEFF 1941, p. 568; VITUCCI 1953, p. 20: ‘fondazione di carattere militare’ or a ‘stazione su
una via di traffico commerciale’; HABICHT 1972, col. 454; FERNOUX 2004, p. 35: ‘la seconde hypothèse (by
Vitucci) conduirait plutôt à situer la cité dans l’intérieur des terres’; MICHELS 2009, pp. 265-266. There is
no evidence that Zipoition would have been the capital of the kingdom in Zipoites’ mind as many think
(ROSTOVTZEFF 1941, p. 568; LESCHHORN 1984, p. 269; SARTRE 1995, p. 36; SARTRE 2003, p. 68; cf. MICHELS
2009, p. 265). Some scholars (JONES 1971, p. 419 n. 6; STROBEL 1997a, col. 116; FERNOUX 2004, p. 35) argue
that Zipoition is to be identified with Astacus in light of Pausanias (V, 12, 7). Against this, LESCHHORN 1984,
p. 269 n. 1 and MICHELS 2009, p. 266 n. 1352 note that Astacus was re-founded as Nicomedia shortly after
by Nicomedes I (below pp. 60-62). If Astacus had been Zipoition, Nicomedes would have carried out an
act of damnatio memoriae toward his father.
116
NIESE 1899, p. 73.
117
HABICHT 1972, coll. 454-455; cf. MICHELS 2009, p. 265 n. 1342.
118
TSCHERIKOWER 1927, p. 50; ROSTOVTZEFF 1941, vol. I, p. 446; JONES 1971, p. 149; LESCHHORN 1984,
pp. 268-269; BILLOWS 1990, p. 441; KOBES 1996, pp. 117, 227-228; FERNOUX 2004, pp. 35-36; MICHELS
2009, p. 265; MICHELS 2013, p. 9.
119
HABICHT 1972a, col. 460; COHEN 1995, pp. 408-409. Cf. HABICHT 1972, coll. 454-455; MICHELS 2009,
p. 265 n. 1342.
120
On Hellenistic kingship, see VIRGILIO 2003; ECKSTEIN 2009; HANNESTAD 2013; GRAINGER 2017.
121
According to SCHOLTEN 2007, p. 19 Zipoites was imitating the Thracian king Seuthes, but MICHELS
2009, p. 54 (cf. MICHELS 2013, pp. 9-12) rightly notes that he had ‘closer models’, such as Antigonus
Monophthalmus and Lysimachus who re-founded Antigonea/Nicaea in the years of Zipoites’ rule.
122
ROSTOVTZEFF 1941, p. 568; VITUCCI 1953, pp. 20-21: ‘ma la notizia (about the foundation of Zipoi-
tion) ha la sua importanza soprattutto perché ci mostra Zipoites muoversi anche in questo campo sulle orme
dei maggiori sovrani ellenistici, mentre il nome prettamente greco del suo figlio e successore Nicomede...
pare racchiudere in sè l’ambizioso programma di inserirsi nel sistema politico dei nuovi potentati sorti nel
This propaganda featured ‘Hellenistic’ or ‘Hellenising’ marks beside

Thracian-national elements123.
4. INDEPENDENCE
In the first years of his rule, Zipoites continued the wars with the Greek
cities for the fertile lands of the Propontis. In 315 an official of Antigonus
Monophthalmus put an end to one of these conflicts and signed an alliance
with Zipoites. With this act, Antigonus was the first among the Diadochs
to accept the independence the Bithynians had gained after the Persian
empire had collapsed. On the other hand, this alliance clamped down on
Zipoites’ expansionistic ambitions that manifested again after Antigonus’
death. In that context, Zipoites carried out new wars against the poleis and
obtained relevant successes in seizing Astacus and some lands of Hera-
clea. Meanwhile, he drove back Lysimachus, Seleucus and Antiochus who
repeatedly tried to take Bithynia. After one of these military successes (or
another not recorded in the surviving sources), Zipoites is supposed to take
the title of king and to turn Bithynia into a kingdom.
This was the last step of a long process which had begun when the
Bithynians were under the Persian rule. The satrap’s leverage over them
had never been strong on account of the distance of Bithynia from Das-
cylium, the administrative centre of the satrapy. It was further weakened
throughout the 4th century BC when the Great Satraps’ Revolt caused a
deep instability in Asia Minor. After the arrival of Alexander and the con-
sequent disappearance of the Achaemenid empire, the Bithynians became
de facto independent and their new situation received official sanction un-
der Zipoites. The prolonged absence of a firm power over Bithynia was
a key condition to the rise of the kingdom124. However, this alone is not
mondo greco-orientale’; LESCHHORN 1984, p. 269 and n. 1; LESCHHORN 1993, p. 187; HANNESTAD 1996, p.
74; MICHELS 2009, p. 54; MICHELS 2013, pp. 9-12.
123
About the cultural aspects of Bithynian politics and the interpretation of Hellenization, see below
pp. 70-76.
124
REINACH 1888, pp. 82-95; SARTRE 1995, p. 36: ‘Si Bas avait été vassal des Perses, au moins nomi-
nalement, son fils Zipoitès se trouvait libéré de cette tutelle. L’effondrement des Achéménides créait
l’occasion de transformer l’autonomie de fait dont jouissaient les Bithyniens en une réelle indépendance’
(cf. SARTRE 2003, p. 67); HANNESTAD 1996, p. 72: ‘The reason for the rise of the minor kingdoms in Asia
Minor is explained by the historians as a result of the sheer size of the Seleucid kingdom. However,
one might ask whether the situation in Bithynia was not to a large extent simply a continuation of that
during the Achaemenid rule, which seems to have left a fair amount of room for enterprising local dy-
nasts’; in his analysis on the rise of local dynasties in Anatolia, KOBES 1996, p. 85 groups the dynasts
44 ELOISA PAGANONI
enough to explain the establishing of an independent state. No kingdom

would have ever existed without highly-capable, ambitious leaders125.
Sources do not deal with the personality of the first Bithynian rulers, but
they probably had good military skill judging from their deeds. With re-
gard to Zipoites, he was not only a capable military leader but also the first
ideologist of Hellenistic Bithynia. He founded a state that took the shape
of a Hellenistic kingdom.
of Bithynia, Pontus and Cappadocia ‘die sich im Verlauf der Zersetzung des Achämenidenreiches im 4.
Jahrhundert eine unabhängige Position schufen, die es ihnen ermöglichte, noch nach dem Alexanderzug
und den Diadochenkriegen ihr Territorium zu behalten und auch zu vergrößern’. Wrongly STROOTMAN
2013 claims that under Antiochus I ‘the vassal states Bithynia and Pontos became autonomous kingdoms’.
125
The case of the Paphlagonians is meaningful in this sense. Their condition under the Acheamenids
was similar to the Bithynians’, and like them, they did not endure a firm Macedonian influence. Neverthe-
less a Paphlagonian state never arose. Cf. PAGANONI 2019, p. 159.
CHAPTER THREE
BUILDING THE HEGEMONY.

THE KINGDOM OF BITHYNIA
UNDER NICOMEDES I AND ZIAELAS
(279-229 BC)
1. 279-277 BC NICOMEDES I’S WARS
Nicomedes I, the eldest of Zipoites’ four sons, ascended the throne

of Bithynia at the death of his father in late 280 or early 279 BC1.
The first pieces of information about his rule are in Chapters 9-11 of
Photius’ summary of the history of Heraclea by Memnon. Due to the
excerptor’s intervention, the narrative of these chapters appears to be
an unclear series of juxtaposed episodes2. It is difficult to understand
both the relation of one episode with another and their connection with
events known from other sources. The earliest of these episodes is re-
counted after the account of Zipoites’ ambush on Hermogenes, the gen-
eral of Antiochus I:
When Antiochus had decided to march against the Bithynians for this reason
(i.e. Zipoites’ ambush), their king Nicomedes sent ambassadors to Heraclea
asking for an alliance. He received a positive answer, having promised aid in
exchange in similar moments and need3.
Antiochus I’s attack on Nicomedes I is explicitly connected with the vic-

tory of Zipoites over the Seleucid general. So, it apparently occurred short-
1
Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 12, 5-6; GEYER 1936, col. 493; SCHOTTKY 2000; MICHELS 2009, p. 433.
Nicomedes I supposedly was born in 325-310 BC (GLEW 2005, pp. 134-135).
2
DAVAZE 2013, pp. 335-336; PAGANONI 2015, p. 63.
3
Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 9, 3: διὰ ταῦτα δὴ ἐπιστρατεύειν ἐγνωκότος ᾽Αντιόχου κατὰ Βιθυνῶν, ὁ
τούτων βασιλεὺς Νικομήδης διαπρεσβεύεται πρὸς ῾Ηράκλειαν συμμαχίαν αἰτῶν, καὶ τυγχάνει τῆς
σπουδῆς, ἐν ὁμοίοις καιροῖς καὶ χρείαις τὴν ἀμοιβὴν ὑποσχόμενος. On Zipoites’ ambush, Memnon, BNJ
434, F 1, 12, 5; above pp. 35-36.
46 ELOISA PAGANONI
ly after the Bithynian success in 280-279 BC4. The narrative of Photius’

Chapter 9 continues with some episodes that are said to be contemporane-
ous to Antiochus’ attack, but, as far as we see, not directly linked with it5.
Then, Chapter 10 refers to an alliance between Nicomedes I and Heraclea
to confront Antiochus I again:
At the same time a war began between Antiochus, son of Seleucus, and Anti-
gonus, son of Demetrius, confronting great armies on both sides, and it lasted a
long time. The king of Bithynia Nicomedes allied with the latter, many others
with Antiochus. Since Antigonus was in conflict with Antiochus, this latter
undertook the war against Nicomedes. Nicomedes collected forces from else-
where and sent an embassy to the Heracleans asking for an alliance6.
The account seems to describe the same events told in the former pas-
sage. Protagonists and developments are the same, and most of all, these
events are presented as contemporaneous to those of Chapter 97. In the first
passage, Nicomedes I asked the Heracleans for aid to face an apparently
isolated attack by Antiochus I. Nicomedes’ request, instead, is here con-
nected with a war between Antiochus and Antigonus II Gonatas, in which
Antiochus attacked Nicomedes because he was an ally of Antigonus. The
only other evidence about this conflict is in the Prologus of Trogus’ Book
XXIV that dealt with:
The war which was fought in Asia between Antigonus Gonatas and Antiochus,
son of Seleucus8.
In the light of this information, scholars think that in c. 279-278 BC Antio-
4
BITTNER 1998, p. 79; GABELKO 2006, pp. 221-222; COȘKUN 2011, p. 94; cf. BURSTEIN 1976, p. 144 n.
58; DAVAZE 2013, p. 335.
5
Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 9, 4-5; below in the text.
6
Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 10, 1-2: Κατὰ δὲ τοὺς αὐτοὺς χρόνους ᾽Αντιόχωι τῶι Σελεύκου καὶ ᾽Αντιγόνωι
τῶι Δημητρίου, μεγάλων ἑκατέρωθεν στρατευμάτων ἀντιπαραταττομένων, κινεῖται ὁ πόλεμος, καὶ χρόνον
συχνὸν κατέτριψε· συνεμάχει δὲ τῶι μὲν ὁ τῆς Βιθυνίας βασιλεὺς Νικομήδης, ᾽Αντιόχωι δὲ πολλοὶ ἕτεροι.
οὕτω δὲ συρραγεὶς ᾽Αντίοχος ᾽Αντιγόνωι, τὸν πρὸς Νικομήδην χειρίζεται πόλεμον. ὁ δὲ Νικομήδης
ἀλλαχόθεν τε δυνάμεις ἀθροίζει, καὶ συμμαχεῖν πρὸς ῾Ηρακλεώτας διαπρεσβευσάμενος κτλ. Keaveney
– Madden, Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 10, 2 translate the sentence οὕτω δὲ συρραγεὶς ᾽Αντίοχος ᾽Αντιγόνωι,
τὸν πρὸς Νικομήδην χειρίζεται πόλεμον as follows: ‘Antigonus, having thus come into in conflict with
Antiochus, undertook the war against Nicomedes’. It is clear that they confuse Antiochus and Antigonus
and consequently return an interpretation, which is opposite to the meaning of text. A correct translation is
proposed by DAVAZE 2013, p. 343, who considers Antiochus the subject of συρραγείς and χειρίζεται: ‘Entré
ainsi en conflit avec Antigone, Antiochos entreprit la guerre contre Nicomède’.
7
Cf. SAPRYKIN 1997, pp. 166-167; DAVAZE 2013, pp. 328-329, 340.
8
Trog. Prol. XXIV: Bellum quod inter Antigonum Gonatam et Antiochum Seleuci filium in Asia gestum est.
BUILDING THE HEGEMONY 47
chus and Antigonus clashed in Asia and the latter was supported by Nico-
medes I9. The war would have been caused by Antiochus, who would have
tried to pass into Europe to compete with Antigonus for the throne of Mac-
edonia but would have been stopped by Nicomedes10. Sources and schol-
arship present this as a fair fight between two kings. In other words, they
look at these events in light of the situation after the Battle of Lysimachia
in 277 BC, when Antigonus already had taken the throne. In 279 BC yet,
Antigonus was no more than a mercenary captain who was looking for a
territory. He was not in the position to engage a war with the Seleucid king.
The pieces of information at our disposal are to be read – I think – from
the perspective of the first passage in Photius/Memnon. The war was not
between Antiochus and Antigonus but between Antiochus and Nicomedes
I. The Seleucid king attacked Nicomedes to accomplish the mission of
Hermogenes, that is, to subdue Bithynia11. In support of this, it is worth
noting that Antiochus I and Nicomedes are the protagonists of Memnon’s
following narrative. The relationships between Heraclea and the Bithyni-
ans had never been good. Notwithstanding, Nicomedes asked the city for
help. This decision suggests that he was running a serious risk. The search
for external aid (it is noteworthy that the text speaks of a collection of
forces from elsewhere) could be the key to explain Antigonus’ involve-
ment. Under the threat of a war, Nicomedes could have hired him and his
soldiers of fortune.
While the danger was concrete to Nicomedes, it was not to Heraclea.
The city had just signed an alliance with Hermogenes to secure itself from
attacks12. However, when Nicomedes asked for aid, Heraclea put aside the
rivalry and joined him to fight against Antiochus I13. Heraclea probably
hoped of freeing itself from the alliance of convenience with Antiochus. If
successful, Heraclea would have removed the Seleucid threat maybe defin-
9
BELOCH 1925, pp. 561-562; GEYER 1936, col. 493; TARN 1913, pp. 160-164; VITUCCI 1953, pp. 23-25;
WELLES 1970, p. 480; MATHISEN 1978, pp. 72-74; WILL 1979, pp. 109, 142-143; BURASELIS 1982, pp. 110-
119; WILL 1984, p. 116; STROBEL 1991, pp. 114-115; STROBEL 1994, p. 36; STROBEL 1994a, p. 73; KOBES
1996, p. 184 n. 65; STROBEL 1996, pp. 205, 214; SAPRYKIN 1997, pp. 166-168; DAVAZE 2013, pp. 328-329,
340-342.
10
TARN 1913, pp. 160-162; BURASELIS 1982, pp. 110-119; DAVAZE 2013, pp. 328-329, 340-341. WILL
1979, p. 109 (cf. WILL 1984, p. 116) supposes that Antigonus tried to build a personal domain in Asia Minor
and so caused Antiochus’ reaction.
11
Cf. CORRADI 1929, pp. 110-118; MCGING 1986, p. 17; BITTNER 1998, p. 79, who thinks that Antiochus
I’s ‘Hauptinteresse’ was the conquest of Bithynia; FERNOUX 2004, p. 32 n. 48.
12
Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 9, 1-2; see above p. 35.
13
Cf. BITTNER 1998, pp. 79-80; SARTRE 2003, p. 68. GEYER 1936, col. 493 assumes that Nicomedes I and
Heraclea were already allied before Antiochus I’s attack.
48 ELOISA PAGANONI
itively. After a possible, short collaboration with Seleucus14, this threat had
remained constant. In 281-280 BC Heraclea had allied with Mithridates I
of Pontus, Byzantium and Chalcedon in order to address it. The alliance
of these powers marked the beginning of what scholars call the Northern
League15. Soon this network extended: in 279 BC it included Nicomedes I
who asked Heraclea for aid16.
The only military operations connected with the war between Nicome-
des I and Antiochus I concerns the antecedents of a naval battle that never
happened:
(Nicomedes I) received thirteen allied triremes and then he set against the fleet
of Antiochus. And although they set against each other for some time, neither
of them began the battle, but they dispersed without having done anything17.
Nicomedes gathered some ships probably from the Heracleans18. Then,

just as Antiochus, he displayed his forces. Neither of them, yet, initiated
conflict.
After the first reference to Nicomedes I’s war against Antiochus and his
alliance with Heraclea, Photius’ Chapter 9 deals with Heraclea’s recover-
ing of some lands and a war between Heraclea and a certain Zipoites ‘who
ruled over Thynian Thrace’19. These events are related neither to the war of
Nicomedes and Antiochus nor to Nicomedes’ alliance with Heraclea, but
they are said to be contemporary to them. Furthermore, they are actually
framed between the two references to Nicomedes’ war against Antiochus
and his alliance with Heraclea in Photius’ Chapters 9-10. For these rea-
14
See above pp. 34-35.
15
Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 7, 2; DESIDERI 1967, pp. 408-411; HEINEN 1972, pp. 38-39; WILL 1979, pp.
138-139; SAPRYKIN 1997, pp. 161-178; BITTNER 1998, pp. 63-69; GALLOTTA 2010; DAVAZE 2013, pp. 284-
287. MCGING 1986, pp. 16-20 has doubts about the involvement of Mithridates I, but contra see STROBEL
1996, p. 213; cf. BURSTEIN 1976, p. 88; WILL 1979, p. 138; DAVAZE 2013, pp. 286-287.
16
Cf. VITUCCI 1953, pp. 22-23; BURASELIS 1982, p. 116; STROBEL 1991, pp. 114-115; MITCHELL 1993,
pp. 15-16; STROBEL 1994, pp. 35-36; STROBEL 1994a, pp. 73-74; STROBEL 1996, p. 205; SAPRYKIN 1997, pp.
167-168; BITTNER 1998, pp. 79-80; GABELKO 2005, pp. 168-169; DAVAZE 2013, pp. 341-342. The common
assumption that Antigonus Gonatas was involved in the Northern League implicitly acknowledges to him
the status of political counterpart, but as said above, at that time he probably was a mercenary of Nicomedes
I. In this sense, it is worth remarking that he is not mentioned in any operation of the Northern League.
17
Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 10, 2: τριήρεις ιγ συμμάχους λαμβάνει, καὶ λοιπὸν ἀντικαθίσταται τῶι τοῦ
Αντιόχου στόλωι. ἐπὶ χρόνον δέ τινα ἀντικαταστάντες ἀλλήλοις, οὐδέτεροι μάχης ἦρξαν, ἀλλ᾽ ἄπρακτοι
διελύθησαν.
18
VITUCCI 1953, pp. 23-24; HABICHT 1972b, col. 455; StV III, pp. 100-101; DAVAZE 2013, p. 331.
However, it cannot be ruled out that other members of the Northern League sent some aid.
19
Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 9, 4-5.
sons, scholars look for any connection among these pieces of information.
They aim to restore a picture as coherent as possible of the events that
involved Nicomedes, Antiochus and Heraclea in the early 270s BC. About
Heraclea’s land recovery Photius writes:
Meanwhile, the Heracleans recovered Cierus and Tios and the thynis gē by
paying a lot of money. As for Amastris (that also had been taken away with the
others), they did not succeed, although up to that time they wanted to regain it
both by war and by money, because Eumenes who was controlling it, gave it,
through an irrational impulse, to Ariobarzanes, the son of Mithridates, as a free
gift rather than to the Heracleans who were offering money20.
The issue of Amastris is the better-known to us21. Amastris founded the city
through synoecism and named it after herself following her divorce from
Lysimachus. After her death, Lysimachus seized the city and appointed
Eumenes, the elder brother of Philetaerus, as its governor. At some time,
likely after the death of Lysimachus, Heraclea tried to recover Amastris
repeatedly. It both attacked Eumenes and offered him money. Neverthe-
less, he preferred to hand over the city to Ariobarzanes, the crown prince
of the new-born kingdom of Pontus. This decision discloses the hostility
of Eumenes to the democrats who were ruling Heraclea after 281 BC. He
was still loyal to the late lord of Heraclea Lysimachus.
Heraclea instead succeeded in recovering Tios, Cierus, and the thynis
gē. Tios was a Milesian colony on the Black Sea east of Heraclea22. It is un-
known when it became part of Heraclea’s chōra, but it was for certain un-
der its control when it was annexed to Amastris maybe by Lysimachus23.
As far as we see in Memnon, the fate of Tios diverged from Amastris’ in
279 BC when Tios became a possession of Heraclea again. Cierus was a
settlement on a secondary branch of the river Hypios. It is supposed either
20
Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 9, 4: ἐν τούτωι δὲ ῾Ηρακλεῶται τήν τε Κίερον καὶ τὴν Τῖον ἀνεσώσαντο
καὶ τὴν Θυνίδα γῆν, πολλὰ τῶν χρημάτων δαπανήσαντες· τὴν δὲ ῎Αμαστριν (ἦν γὰρ καὶ αὐτὴ μετὰ τῶν
ἄλλων ἀφηιρημένη) καὶ πολέμωι καὶ χρήμασι βουληθέντες τέως ἀναλαβεῖν αὐτήν, οὐ κατώρθωσαν, τοῦ
κατέχοντος αὐτὴν Εὐμένους ᾽Αριοβαρζάνηι τῶι Μιθριδάτου παιδὶ προῖκα μᾶλλον παραδοῦναι ταύτην ἢ
παρέχουσι χρήματα τοῖς ῾Ηρακλεώταις διὰ τὸ τῆς ὀργῆς ὑπαχθέντος ἀλόγιστον.
21
Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 4, 9; 5, 4; 9, 4; Strabo XII, 3,10; JONES 1971, p. 150; MCGING 1986, pp. 17-19;
FRANCO 1993, pp. 150-153; COHEN 1995, pp. 383-384; MAREK 1996; SAPRYKIN 1997, pp. 151-157, 171-174;
AVRAM – HIND – TSETSKHLADZE 2004, p. 960; COȘKUN 2011, p. 94; Keaveney – Madden, Memnon BNJ 434,
F 1, 9, 4, Commentary, DAVAZE 2013, pp. 252-253, 239-240, 332-333.
22
On Tios, see RUGE 1937; MAREK 2002; AVRAM – HIND – TSETSKHLADZE 2004, pp. 963-964; ATASOY
2012; ATASOY 2013; ÖZTÜRK 2013; ATASOY – YILDIRM 2015.
23
Strabo XII, 3, 10.
50 ELOISA PAGANONI
to have developed from an indigenous settlement or to have been a colony

of Heraclea24.
The identification of what Memnon calls thynis gē (‘land of Thynis’)
is debated. The designation recalls the Thynians. Accordingly, scholars
identify this area with a region inhabited by this tribe25. A proposal that had
some success identifies the thynis gē with the eastern Propontic shores26,
that is, with most of (if not all) the land of the Thynians. It has been noted,
however, that Memnon refers to the region of the Thynians in the very
next passage and calls it ἡ Θυνιακή... Θράικη (‘Thynian Thrace’)27. It is
unlikely that in a few lines the same region is called with two different
names. Furthermore, to assume that Heraclea claimed back the eastern
Propontic shores would mean that it had gained control of a good part of
the Thynian/Bithynian chiefdom. For these reasons, some scholars28 prefer
to see the thynis gē in the island of Thynias and maybe some land on the
opposite coast. This second assumption has – I think – some validity. It
rests on the assonance of thynis gē with the island of Thynias and the fact
that Heraclea exerted a strong influence over this island29. But, there is
another (in my opinion better) possibility. The thynis gē could be the area
between the mouths of the rivers Sangarius and Cales30. This region was
part of the lands the Thynians had occupied when they had settled in Asia
and once the Greeks had founded Heraclea, it had passed under the control
of the city. This area complies with the key features the thynis gē should
have. It was inhabited by the Thynians and it had been under Heraclea’s
control. Moreover, this proposal does not assume an excessively extended
and unproved expansion of Heraclea in the Thynian/Bithynian chiefdom.
Judging from the extent of the recovered lands, Heraclea had lived
through hard times in the previous years. It had lost a good part of its
territory, but no source records under what circumstances. In light of the
hostile relationships between Heraclea and the Bithynians, Zipoites is sup-
posed to have taken Tios, Cierus and the thynis gē from Heraclea in his
24
On Cierus, see RUGE 1921; STROBEL 2001, col. 492; AVRAM – HIND – TSETSKHLADZE 2004, p. 929;
DEBORD 1998, p. 142. According to BURSTEIN 1976, p. 55, Heraclea seized Cierus at the time of Clearchus.
25
About the land of the Thynians, see above pp. 3-4.
26
NIESE 1899, p. 72; BURSTEIN 1976, p. 138 n. 59; KOBES 1996, pp. 117; SCHOTTKY 2000; GABELKO 2006,
pp. 221-222.
27
Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 9, 5; MEYER 1897, col. 512; STROBEL 1996, p. 213; DAVAZE 2013, p. 331.
28
MEYER 1897, col. 512; Keaveney – Madden, Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 9, 4, Commentary; DAVAZE
2013, p. 331.
29
In this regard, see BITTNER 1998, p. 126; AVRAM – HIND – TSETSKHLADZE 2004, p. 955 with literature;
cf. Ps. Scymn. F 34.
30
STROBEL 1994, p. 36; STROBEL 1996, p. 213; BITTNER 1998, p. 79 n. 483.
281-280 BC campaign31. Such an assumption has suggested a connection

between the recovering of these lands and the alliance of with Nicomedes.
This one would have promised to return them to Heraclea in exchange for
aid against Antiochus I32. The money that, according to Memnon, Hera-
clea paid for these territories would have compensated Nicomedes for the
territorial loss33. Against this hypothesis, it has been pointed out that no
evidence testifies that the Bithynians controlled Tios, Cierus and the thynis
gē; these areas may have been in the hand of other local dynasts34. We can
add that Zipoites unlikely could have seized so extended and not neigh-
bouring areas. Considering the route he probably followed in his campaign
against Heraclea, he might have at most conquered the thynis gē and per-
haps Cierus35. But it is unlikely that he went beyond Heraclea and reached
Tios. Another point of the traditional hypothesis raises some difficulty.
Heraclea would have not only provided military support to Nicomedes,
but also paid money in exchange for the lands. This depicts Nicomedes
as the dominant figure in the agreement, but he was not since he, and not
Heraclea, was looking for help.
Due to these remarks, the reliability of Memnon’s passage must be re-
considered. In shortening the account of Heraclea’s ‘recovery campaign’,
Photius groups the successful steps in contrast to the failure of Amastris
and focuses on the latter. He devoted just a few words to the former ones,
but Memnon probably dealt with them separately and in detail. It is pos-
31
MEYER 1897, col. 516; RUGE 1921; GEYER 1936, col. 493; RUGE 1937, col. 858; DROYSEN 1952-1953,
vol. II, p. 430; VITUCCI 1953, pp. 18-19, 22-23 and n. 4; HABICHT 1972, coll. 453; HABICHT 1972b, coll. 455-
456; StV III, pp. 100-101; MCGING 1986, pp. 16-17; MAREK 1993, p. 21; ORTH 1993, p. 32; STROBEL 1994,
p. 35; KOBES 1996, p. 117; STROBEL 1996, pp. 212-213; SAPRYKIN 1997, pp. 151, 162; BITTNER 1998, pp.
64 and n. 396, 67, 84 and n. 512; SCHOTTKY 2000; STROBEL 2001; MAREK 2002, col. 609; SCHOTTKY 2002c;
FERNOUX 2004, pp. 30, 32; GABELKO 2005, p. 142; GABELKO 2006, pp. 221-222; MICHELS 2009, p. 275; GAL-
LOTTA 2010, pp. 95-96; DAVAZE 2013, pp. 329-331, 339. About Zipoites’ campaign against Heraclea, see
Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 6, 3; above pp. 36-37.
32
MEYER 1897, col. 516; RUGE 1921; GEYER 1936, col. 493; RUGE 1937, col. 858; DROYSEN 1952-1953,
vol. II, p. 430; VITUCCI 1953, pp. 22-23 and n. 4; HABICHT 1972b, coll. 455-456; StV III, pp. 100-101;
MCGING 1986, pp. 16-17; STROBEL 1994, p. 35; KOBES 1996, p. 117; STROBEL 1996, pp. 212-213; SAPRYKIN
1997, pp. 169, 172; BITTNER 1998, pp. 64 and n. 396, 67, 84 and n. 512; SCHOTTKY 2000; STROBEL 2001;
MAREK 2002, col. 609; SCHOTTKY 2002c; FERNOUX 2004, pp. 30, 32; GABELKO 2006, pp. 221-222; MICHELS
2009, p. 275; GALLOTTA 2010, pp. 95-96; DAVAZE 2013, pp. 329-331, 339.
33
VITUCCI 1953, pp. 22-23 n. 4; HABICHT 1972b, coll. 455-456; StV III, pp. 100-101; DAVAZE 2013, p.
331; cf. SAPRYKIN 1997, p. 169 n. 15.
34
CORRADI 1929, pp. 112-114; StV III, p. 112; BURSTEIN 1976, p. 144 n. 58; DAVAZE 2013, pp. 332-333.
However, GABELKO 2006, p. 221 n. 61 notes that no dynast is attested in the region. JONES 1971, p. 150
assumes that Nicomedes helped Heraclea to recover its territories not during the war against Zipoites but
later, suggesting that these lands were not under Bithynian control.
35
Cf. SAPRYKIN 1997, p. 162.
52 ELOISA PAGANONI
sible that Heraclea lost and recovered Tios, Cierus and the thynis gē at dif-
ferent times. Considering what said above, it is possible to distinguish the
case of Tios from those of Cierus and the thynis gē. Nothing can be said
about the former. We cannot know who took this harbour on the Back Sea,
or when it was taken. But we can wonder whether the Heracleans paid to
have it returned to them. The traditional reconstruction, instead, remains
the most likely, at least for sake of economy, for the thynis gē and maybe
Cierus. Zipoites could have conquered these lands, and Nicomedes I could
have promised them back to Heraclea.
However, the promise of Nicomedes was not enough. According to
what Photius’ Chapter 9 recounts immediately after Heraclea’s ‘recovery
campaign’, the city undertook a war to recover these lands:
At about the same time, a war between the Heracleans and Zipoites the Bithyni-
an who ruled over Thynian Thrace occurred. In this war, many Heracleans,
who fought bravely in a noble manner, fell. Zipoites was winning by force but
when an allied army came in aid of the Heracleans, he covered with shame his
victory by flight. Those who had been defeated took up and burnt their corpses
without fear and then, after taking control of all for which the war took place,
they brought back into the city the bones of the dead soldiers, burying them
with splendour in the monument to the noblest men36.
Memnon introduces a certain Zipoites who ruled over the lands of the
Thynians, i.e. the eastern Propontic peninsula, when Nicomedes I was
king. His position is confirmed by the only other source about him, Livy,
who says that he ‘controlled some part of Bithynia’37. To understand the
role of Zipoites in the complex situation of 279 BC, it is essential to focus
on his status and his relations with Nicomedes and Heraclea. He is sup-
posed to have been Nicomedes I’s younger brother although sources do
not record any blood tie between them38. Nothing suggests that he gained
36
Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 9, 5: ὑπὸ δὲ τοὺς αὐτοὺς χρόνους ἐκδέχεται τοὺς ῾Ηρακλεώτας ὁ πρὸς
Ζιποίθην τὸν Βιθυνὸν πόλεμος, ὃς τῆς Θυνιακῆς ἐπῆρχε Θράικης, ἐν ὧι πολέμωι πολλοὶ τῶν ῾Ηρακλεωτῶν
γενναίως ἀνδρισάμενοι κατεκόπησαν. καὶ νικᾶι μὲν κατὰ κράτος ὁ Ζιποίτης, συμμαχίδος δὲ δυνάμεως τοῖς
῾Ηρακλεώταις ἐπελθούσης, φυγῆι τὴν νίκην καταισχύνει. οἱ δὲ ἡττημένοι τοὺς σφετέρους νεκροὺς ἀδεῶς
ἀναλαβόντες καὶ καύσαντες, εἶτα καὶ πάντων κύριοι περὶ ὧν ἦν ὁ πόλεμος καταστάντες, καὶ τὰ ὁστᾶ τῶν
ἀνηιρημένων ἀνακομίσαντες εἰς τὴν πόλιν, ἐπιφανῶς ἐν τῶι τῶν ἀριστέων ἔθαψαν μνήματι.
37
Liv. XXXVIII, 16, 8: Ziboetam, tenentem partem Bithyniae.
38
BEVAN 1902, p. 134; BELOCH 1927, p. 212; GEYER 1936, col. 493; VITUCCI 1953, p. 21; HABICHT
1972b, col. 455; NACHTERGAEL 1977, p. 166; WILL 1979, p. 142; STROBEL 1991, p. 115; MITCHELL 1993, p.
16; KOBES 1996, p. 117; STROBEL 1996, p. 78; SAPRYKIN 1997, p. 168; BITTNER 1998, p. 67; SCHOTTKY 2000;
his position by force39, and consequently his control over the lands of the
Thynians could have been legitimate. It follows that he was involved in the
management of the kingdom in a position subordinated to Nicomedes40.
Anyway, the earliest information about him concerns a war with Hera-
clea, which was allied with Nicomedes at that time. This entails that the
relations between Nicomedes and Zipoites changed in the short time span
between Nicomedes’ accession and his alliance with Heraclea. Zipoites
probably rebelled against his brother41. He could have exploited the war
between Nicomedes and Antiochus I to oust his brother and become king
of Bithynia. Memnon’s account, however, suggests a connection between
Zipoites’ revolt, the alliance with Heraclea and Heraclea’s recovering of
the thynis gē and Cierus. As the one controlling eastern Bithynia, Zipoites
supposedly was directly administrating the land Heraclea claimed back42.
So, when Nicomedes returned Heraclea these territories, he felt deprived
of what he considered his own and opened a war against his brother and
the city43. In support of this, we ought to note that the war between Zipoites
and Heraclea broke out over territory44.
The development of the conflict is not completely clear as Photius’
intervention affects the account. Apparently, Heraclea was about to be
defeated when an allied force (probably from Nicomedes I45) compelled
Zipoites to withdraw. The second part of the account is less clear. We read
that ‘those who had been defeated’ (οἱ δὲ ἡττημένοι) buried the soldiers
and returned to their city after recovering the lands that had been the point
of contention. These were for certain the Heracleans in view to the refer-
ence to their return to the city. The allusion to their defeat could be a sur-
vival of Memnon’s narrative, which probably dealt with a defeat Zipoites
inflicted over the Heracleans before their definitive victory.
After the naval battle that never occurred between Nicomedes I and
Antiochus I, Memnon records a new alliance of Nicomedes, this time with
the Galatians:
SCHOTTKY 2002c; GABELKO 2005, p. 173; GABELKO 2006, p. 221; MAREK 2010, p. 264; WATERFIELD 2011, p.
209; DAVAZE 2013, pp. 331, 337; KLEU 2013a.
39
CORRADI 1929, p. 114; KOBES 1996, p. 117; DAVAZE 2013, p. 337.
40
SAPRYKIN 1997, p. 168; SCHOTTKY 2002c; KLEU 2013a; GABELKO 2017, p. 325. According to KOBES
1996, p. 117, Zipoites might have received these lands from his father Zipoites ‘als Besitz testamentarisch’.
41
CORRADI 929, p. 114; KOBES 1996, p. 117; SCHOTTKY 2000.
42
For bibliography, see above n. 40.
43
BEVAN 1902, p. 134; BITTNER 1998, p. 67; SCHOTTKY 2000; GABELKO 2006, pp. 226-227.
44
Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 9, 5.
45
HABICHT 1972b, coll. 456-457.
54 ELOISA PAGANONI
Since the Galatians had come to Byzantium and laid waste to most of its terri-
tory, the Byzantians, weakened by the war, sent embassies to their allies need-
ing aid. They all gave help according to their abilities. The Heracleans gave
four thousand gold coins (the ambassadors indeed asked for such an amount).
After a short lapse of time, Nicomedes arranged by a treaty that the Galatians,
who had made the raids against the Byzantians, passed into Asia. They had
often tried to do so but had always failed since the Byzantians had prevented
them. The treaty: the barbarians shall always be friendly disposed towards
Nicomedes and his descendants; and they shall ally with none of those who
send them embassies without the approval of Nicomedes. Rather they shall be
friends to his friends and enemies to those who are not his friends; they shall
be allies of the Byzantians, by necessity, and of the Tians, the Heracleans, the
Chalcedonians, the Cierians and of some other rulers of peoples46.
The Byzantians asked their allies (probably the members of the Northern
League) for help against the Galatians that were besieging them. As far
as we infer from what Heraclea did, they were required to contribute to
the considerable tribute the Galatians claimed. This had some effect, but
Byzantium was definitively free from the threat of the Galatians only when
Nicomedes I signed an agreement and allowed them to cross into Asia in
278/7 BC47. Livy also relates these events in the digression on the Gala-
tians in Book XXXVIII:
46
Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 11, 1-2: Επεὶ δὲ Γαλάται πρὸς τὸ Βυζάντιον ἧκον καὶ τὴν πλείστην
αὐτῆς ἐδήιωσαν, τῶι πολέμωι ταπεινωθέντες οἱ ἐν Βυζαντίωι πέμπουσι πρὸς τοὺς συμμάχους, δεόμενοι
ὠφελείας. καὶ παρέσχον μὲν πάντες ὡς εἶχον ἰσχύος, παρέσχον δὲ καὶ οἱ τῆς ῾Ηρακλείας (τοσοῦτον γὰρ
ἡ πρεσβεία ἤιτει) χρυσοῦς τετρακισχιλίους. μετ᾽ οὐ πολὺ δὲ Νικομήδης τοὺς Γαλάτας, οἷς ἡ καταδρομὴ
τῶν Βυζαντίων ἐγεγένητο, πολλάκις μὲν ἐπιχειρήσαντας <εἰς> τὴν ᾽Ασίαν περαιωθῆναι, τοσαυτάκις δὲ
ἀποτυχόντας, οὐκ ἀνεχομένων τὴν πρᾶξιν Βυζαντίων, ἐπὶ συνθήκαις ὅμως παρασκευάζει περαιωθῆναι.
αἱ δὲ συνθῆκαι· Νικομήδει μὲν καὶ τοῖς ἐκγόνοις ἀεὶ φίλα φρονεῖν τοὺς Βαρβάρους, καὶ τῆς γνώμης τοῦ
Νικομήδους χωρὶς μηδενὶ συμμαχεῖν τῶν πρὸς αὐτοὺς διαπρεσβευομένων, ἀλλ᾽ εἶναι φίλους μὲν τοῖς
φίλοις, πολεμίους δὲ τοῖς οὐ φιλοῦσι· συμμαχεῖν δὲ καὶ Βυζαντίοις, εἴ που δεήσοι, καὶ Τιανοῖς δὲ καὶ
῾Ηρακλεώταις καὶ Καλχηδονίοις καὶ Κιερανοῖς καί τισιν ἑτέροις ἐθνῶν ἄρχουσιν.
47
On the arrival of the Galatians in Asia, see LAUNEY 1944, p. 232; StV III, p. 112; NACHTERGAEL
1977, pp. 164-167; MCGING 1986, p. 17; MITCHELL 1993, p. 15; KOBES 1996, p. 117; STROBEL 1996, p.
213; BITTNER 1998, p. 80; MITCHELL 2003, p. 283; SARTRE 2003, pp. 72-75; GABELKO 2006, pp. 215, 223;
STROBEL 2006, pp. 95-96; COȘKUN 2011, p. 87; COȘKUN 2012, p. 57. The date is inferred from Pausanias (X,
23, 14), who places the passage of the Galatians into Asia under the archonship of Democles (278/7 BC;
cf. DINSMOOR 1931, pp. 30, 45). The alliance of Nicomedes with the Galatians is usually interpreted as a
consequence of the separate peace Antigonus Gonatas and Antiochus I signed in late 279 or 278 BC (Iust.
XXV, 1, 1). Losing the support of Antigonus against Antiochus, Nicomedes would have looked for help
from the Galatians (GEYER 1936, col. 493; VITUCCI 1953, pp. 25-26; HABICHT 1972b, col. 457; WILL 1979,
pp. 142-143; BURASELIS 1982, p. 117; STROBEL 1991, p. 116; MITCHELL 1993, p. 16; STROBEL 1994, p. 36;
KOBES 1996, p. 117; STROBEL 1996, p. 213; BITTNER 1998, p. 81; KLEU 2013a). For the date of the separated
peace, cf. GEYER 1936, col. 493; LAUNEY 1944, p. 229; WELLES 1970, pp. 478-480; HABICHT 1970, p. 84 n.
3; IK Ilion, p. 89; WILL 1979, pp. 109, 142; BURASELIS 1982, pp. 116-117; STROBEL 1991, p. 115; STROBEL
There, when they had penetrated as far as Byzantium, fighting against those who
resisted and imposing tribute upon those who sought peace, they occupied for
a considerable time the coast of the Propontis, having the cities of the region as
tributaries. Then the desire to cross into Asia seized them, hearing from their
neighbours how great the richness of that land was, and after having taken Lysi-
machia by treachery and occupied the whole Chersonesus by force of arms, they
came down to the Hellespont. There, as they saw Asia separated by a narrow
strait, their souls were even more inflamed by the desire to cross; and they sent
messengers to Antipater, the prefect of that coast, about the crossing. When this
thing was dragging out longer than they had hoped, another new revolt broke out
between their leaders. Lonorius with most of the men went back to Byzantium
where he had come from; when Macedonians were sent under cover of being
an embassy by Antipater to spy, Lotarius took from them two-decked ships and
three cruisers. Thanks to these, day after day and night after night, within a few
days he transported his whole force. Not long after Lonorius, with the help of
Nicomedes, king of Bithynia, crossed from Byzantium. Then the Gauls were
once again united and provided with a force Nicomedes who was moving a war
against Ziboetas, who held some part of Bithynia. And, principally for their help,
Ziboetas was defeated and all Bithynia passed under the power of Nicomedes48.
Livy and Memnon agree upon two points: the Galatians wished to cross
into Asia and Nicomedes I signed a treaty with those who wasted the lands
of Byzantium. In both accounts, Nicomedes I seems to have acted on his
own, and not on behalf of the Northern League, as it is often stated49. The
1994, p. 36; SCHOTTKY 2000; DAVAZE 2013, pp. 341-342. The peace between Antigonus and Antiochus
would also be mentioned in IK Ilion 32, ll. 13-16 (BENGSTON 1944, pp. 336-337 n. 1; WILL 1979, pp. 109,
143; HABICHT 1970, p. 84 n. 3; WELLES 1970, p. 479; IK Ilion, p. 89 ). It is supposed that this peace was
sealed by the marriage of Antigonus with Antiochus’ sister Phila (Vita Arati I, p. 7; IV, p. 20; WELLES 1970,
pp. 479-580; WILL 1979, p. 109; SAPRYKIN 1997, p. 167), but see the doubts in BURASELIS 1982, p. 117.
48
Liv. XXXVIII, 16, 3-9: ubi cum resistentibus pugnando, pacem petentibus stipendium imponendo Byz-
antium cum pervenissent, aliquamdiu oram Propontidis, vectigalis habendo regionis eius urbes, obtinuerunt.
Cupido inde eos in Asiam transeundi, audientis ex propinquo, quanta ubertas eius terrae esset, cepit; et
Lysimachia fraude capta Chersonesoque omni armis possessa ad Hellespontum descenderunt. Ibi vero ex-
iguo divisam freto cernentibus Asiam multo magis animi ad transeundum accensi; nuntiosque ad Antipatrum
praefectum eius orae de transitu mittebant. Quae res cum lentius spe ipsorum traheretur, alia rursus nova
inter regulos seditio orta est. Lonorius retro, unde venerat, cum maiore parte hominum repetit Byzantium;
Lutarius Macedonibus per speciem legationis ab Antipatro ad speculandum missis duas tectas naves et tris
lembos adimit. Iis alios atque alios dies noctesque travehendo intra paucos dies omnis copias traicit. Haud ita
multo post Lonorius adiuvante Nicomede Bithyniae rege a Byzantio transmisit. Coeunt deinde in unum rursus
Galli et auxilia Nicomedi dant adversus Ziboetam, tenentem partem Bithyniae, gerenti bellum. atque eorum
maxime opera devictus Ziboeta est, Bithyniaque omnis in dicionem Nicomedis concessit. Cf. Iust. XXV, 2, 11.
49
DESIDERI 1967, pp. 409-410; WILL 1979, pp. 142-143; STROBEL 1996, pp. 213, 241; SAPRYKIN 1997,
pp. 169-170: ‘It (i.e. the agreement with the Galatians) was organized by consent and under a direct partici-
pation of the Northern League in order to use these tribes against Antiochus I’; BITTNER 1998, pp. 80-82;
GABELKO 2006, p. 223.
56 ELOISA PAGANONI
key role Nicomedes played clearly emerges from the treaty of alliance.
Memnon probably quoted the treaty and Photius hands down a form close
to the original document in style50. The first part of the agreement concerns
the relations between Nicomedes I and the Galatians, and presents the for-
mer in a dominant position. The Galatians not only should have ‘the same
friends and the same enemies’, according to the standard formula, but they
also should ask Nicomedes for approval before allying with anyone else.
The second part extends the alliance to Byzantium, Heraclea, Chalcedon,
Cierus and Tios51, and other unmentioned dynasts52 if needed. The mem-
bers of the Northern League were cited in the treaty, but no hints suggests
that they promoted the agreement. They probably asked to be involved
in it to guard against raids of the Galatians. In fact, they benefitted from
Nicomedes I’s independent decision53.
Nicomedes allied with the Galatians to face his brother Zipoites54. This
is clear both in Livy and Memnon. They also record that the help of the
Galatians was decisive to Nicomedes’ victory over his brother. In Photius’
Chapter 11, after the alliance treaty, we read:
Having the Heracleans as allies first, after arming the barbarians against the
Bithynians, Nicomedes took control over their lands and massacred the inhab-
itants. The Galatians split up the rest of the booty among themselves55.
50
About Nicomedes’ role, see VITUCCI 1953, p. 25; GABELKO 2005, p. 182. About the style of the agree-
ment, cf. MITCHELL 1993, p. 16, who says that the passage has ‘a look of authenticity’; DUECK 2006, p. 49;
TOMASCHITZ 2007, p. 568: ‘Paraphrase des Symmachie-Vertrages’; ARSLAN 2011, pp. 391-392; DAVAZE
2013, p. 353; PAGANONI 2015, p. 63. Contra GABELKO 2005, pp. 182-184 sees clear evidence of Memnon’s
or Photius’ intervention on the text. The agreement between Nicomedes and the Galatians is generally con-
sidered an alliance (GEYER 1936, col. 493; StV III, pp. 111-112; JONES 1971, p. 150; HABICHT 1972b, coll.
458-459; NACHTERGAEL 1977, p. 166; KOBES 1996, p. 117; COȘKUN 2013, p. 84). But according to STROBEL
1996, pp. 213, 241, despite the style, it was a ‘Söldervertrag’. Through it Nicomedes hired the Galatians as
mercenaries (cf. STROBEL 1991, p. 116; STROBEL 1994a, p. 73; STROBEL 2002, p. 5; STROBEL 2006, pp. 95-96;
STROBEL 2007, p. 367; STROBEL 2009, p. 122). Contra COȘKUN 2013, p. 84.
51
At the time of the agreement, Heraclea had succeeded to recover Cierus and Tios, which are recorded
as independent in the alliance treaty (BURSTEIN 1976, p. 144 n. 58; SAPRYKIN 1997, pp. 168-169; GABELKO
2006, pp. 221-222; DAVAZE 2013, pp. 335-336).
52
According to STROBEL 1996, pp. 213-214, 241, these rulers were Mithridates I and Ariobarzanes of
Pontus and the dynasts of Paphlagonia.
53
Cf. VITUCCI 1953, p. 25; DAVAZE 2013, p. 354 argue that ‘en effet, il paraît peu probable que le
Bithynien ait agi sans l’accord des membres de la Ligue du Nord et encore moins sans celui de Byzance,
quand bien-même ce fut lui qui mena les négociations’.
54
Cf. VITUCCI 1953, pp. 25-26; NACHTERGAEL 1977, p. 166; MCGING 1986, p. 17; MITCHELL 1993, p. 16;
SCHOTTKY 2000; SCHOTTKY 2002C; COȘKUN 2013, p. 74; KLEU 2013a.
55
Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 11, 5: Νικομήδης δὲ κατὰ Βιθυνῶν πρῶτον, συμμαχούντων αὐτῶι καὶ τῶν
ἐξ ῾Ηρακλείας, τοὺς βαρβάρους ἐξοπλίσας, τῆς τε χώρας ἐκράτησε καὶ τοὺς ἐνοικοῦντας κατέκοψε, τὴν
ἄλλην λείαν τῶν Γαλατῶν ἑαυτοῖς διανειμαμένων.
Photius’ Chapter 12 reports an assessment on Nicomedes I which contains

another allusion to the end of the war against Zipoites and the alliance with
the Galatians:
Nicomedes... who had become to his brothers not a brother but a public ex-
ecutioner. However, this man also strengthened the kingdom of the Bithynians
most of all since he joined the Galatians crossing into Asia56.
Memnon focuses on the hard punishment of Zipoites and his supporters

(the Bithynians mentioned in Photius’ Chapter 11)57. Zipoites had been
considerably weakened by the defeat in the war against Heraclea. Never-
theless, Nicomedes I’s conduct towards the defeated enemies, and most
of all his agreement with dangerous allies, such as the Galatians, suggest
that in 278-277 BC he still was in a serious danger and he did not prevail
easily58. After the success of Heraclea, Zipoites seems to have had a sud-
den and apparently inexplicable strengthening. This raises the hypothesis
that he received an external support. The only one who had some interest
in helping him was the other enemy of Nicomedes I, Antiochus I59. There
are no hints at Antiochus’ operations in the Propontis after the aborted
naval battle with Nicomedes I and his allies60. But, if Zipoites became
his longa manus, this proves that he continued to hope of taking control
56
Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 12, 6: ... Νικομήδης... τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς οὐκ ἀδελφὸς ἀλλὰ δήμιος γεγονώς.
ἐκρατύνατο μέντοι καὶ οὗτος τὴν Βιθυνῶν ἀρχήν, μάλιστά γε τοὺς Γαλάτας ἐπὶ τὴν ᾽Ασίαν διαπεραιωθῆναι
συναράμενος.
57
Cf. STÄHELIN 1907, p. 6; HABICHT 1972b, col. 458; STROBEL 1996, p. 117. GABELKO 2006 assumes
that Nicomedes punished all Bithynians. Only Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 12, 6 refers to the involvement of
Nicomedes’ other brothers in the war. They are supposed to have been put to death together with Zipoites
(GEYER 1936, col. 494; SCHOTTKY 2000; SCHOTTKY 2002b; COȘKUN 2011, p. 94). Regardless of their fate, at
least one of them survived, as he reappears in our sources after the death of Nicomedes I (Memnon BNJ
434, F 1, 14, 2; see below pp. 77-78; cf. HABICHT 1972c, col. 390; DAVAZE 2013, p. 388).
58
Liv. XXXVIII, 16, 7-8; Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 12, 6.
59
NIESE 1899, p. 75; BERVE 1902, p. 137; CORRADI 1929, p. 114; STROBEL 1991, pp. 115-116; MITCHELL
1993, p. 16; STROBEL 1996, p. 205; GABELKO 2006, pp. 222-223 and n. 68; GRAINGER 2014, p. 137. Accord-
ing to HABICHT 1972b, col. 458, a passage from Trog. Prol. XXV proves that Zipoites was allied with An-
tiochus: ut Galli transierunt in Asiam bellumque cum rege Antiocho et Bithunia gesserunt: quas regiones
Tyleni occuparunt (‘when the Galatians passed into Asia, they fought against King Antiochus and Bithynia,
these areas the Tyleni inhabited’). Even if this passage may refer to the wars against Antiochus and Zipoites
(Bithunia probably indicates Zipoites’ troops; cf. HABICHT 1972b, col. 458), it cannot be considered as
reliable evidence for its own character of summary. About the probably wrong Tyleni in Trogus’ text, see
EMILOV 2010, pp. 71-72.
60
Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 10, 2; cf. BITTNER 1998, p. 80; COȘKUN 2012, p. 58: ‘With their arrival the
Galatians once more upset Antiochus’ claim to supremacy over Asia Minor, for its northern territories
became practically independent’.
58 ELOISA PAGANONI
of Bithynia61. The war of Zipoites intertwined with the one of Antiochus.

The conflict that had broken out for the return of some land to Heraclea
turned into a war for the kingdom. If Zipoites had won, he would have be-
come the new king and a vassal of the Seleucids. Through clever moves,
however, Nicomedes prevented this situation that would have changed
the history of Bithynia. The contribution of the Galatian force was deci-
sive for the successful outcome of the war against Zipoites (and his ally
Antiochus possibly). In absence of other evidence, it is likely that the
conflict lasted not for long after the Galatians crossed, and it was maybe
resolved in the next war season in 277 BC62.
2. FRAGMENTS OF NICOMEDES I’S POLITICS
Upon Nicomedes I ascended the throne, he had struggled against ex-

ternal and internal threats to preserve his power and to safeguard the inde-
pendence of Bithynia. The victory over Antiochus I and Zipoites marked
a new beginning. From that moment on, Nicomedes focused on strength-
ening and enlarging the kingdom. His policies brought to completion the
transformation of Bithynia into a kingdom and fostered its institutional,
political and economic development.
Information in this regard is fragmentary and the earliest pieces ap-
61
WILL 1979, pp. 142-143, STROBEL 1994, p. 36, GABELKO 2006, p. 223, and COȘKUN 2011, p. 94 speak
of a direct involvement of Antiochus in the Propontis.
62
HABICHT 1972b, col. 458; MITCHELL 1993, p. 16; STROBEL 1994, p. 36; STROBEL 1996, p. 78; SCHOTT-
KY 2000; GABELKO 2006, p. 224; COȘKUN 2011, p. 94. Zosimus (II, 37, 1, ll. 1-14) hands down the so-
called Phaennis’ oracle: Ὦ βασιλεῦ Θρῃκῶν, λείψεις πόλιν· ἐν προβάτοισιν | αὐξήσεις δὲ λέοντα μέγαν,
| γαμψώνυχα, δεινόν, | ὅς ποτε κινήσει πατρίας κειμήλια χώρας, | γαῖαν δ’ αἱρήσει μόχθων ἄτερ. Οὐδέ σέ
φημι | σκηπτούχοις τιμαῖσιν ἀγάλλεσθαι μάλα δηρόν, | ἐκ δὲ θρόνων πεσέειν, οἷον κύνες ἀμφὶς ἔχουσι. |
Κινήσεις δ’ εὕδοντα λύκον γαμψώνυχα, δεινόν·| οὐδ’ ἐθέλοντι γὰρ αἰνὸν ὑπὸ ζυγὸν αὐχένα θήσει. | Δὴ
τότε Βιθυνῶν γαῖαν λύκοι οἰκήσουσι | Ζηνὸς ἐπιφροσύναισι. Τάχος δ’ ἐπιπέσσεται ἀρχὴ | ἀνδράσιν οἳ |
Βύζαντος ἕδος καταναιετάουσι. | Τρὶς μάκαρ Ἑλλήσποντε, θεόκτιτα τείχεά τ’ ἀνδρῶν, | <.........> θείαισιν
ἐφετμαῖς | ἣν λύκος αἰνόλυκος πτήξει κρατερῆς ὑπ’ ἀνάγκης (‘King of the Thracians, you will leave a
city. In your cattle, you will grow a great lion, with crooked talons and terrible, which will destroy the
treasures of your homeland and will take your land without toil. And I say to you that soon you will lose
the royal honours, you will fall from the throne surrounded by dogs. You will disturb an asleep wolf, with
crooked talons and terrible, which will put a beastly yoke on your unwilling neck. Then wolfs will inhabit
the land of the Bithynians according to the will of Zeus. Soon the power will pass to the men who live on
the Byzantian seat. Three times blessed Hellespont, walls created by the gods for the men… for the gods’
command, before which the horrible wolf will crouch down, compelled by necessity’). It is considered a
post eventum prophecy about the crossing of the Galatians into Asia (PARKE 1982; MITCHELL 1993, p. 15;
STROBEL 1996, pp. 240-241; PASCHOUD 2000, pp. 255-259 nn. 49-50; GABELKO 2006). It may allude to the
struggle between Nicomedes and Zipoites, but in view of its nature it cannot serve to the historical analysis,
as GABELKO 2006 claims.
pear to allude to territory expansion. One of these, handed down by Justin,

seems to be related to the alliance with the Galatians:
So (the Galatians) were called by the king of Bithynia to help him. When the
victory was won, they partitioned the kingdom with him and called that region
Gallograecia63.
Justin says that Nicomedes assigned some lands to the Galatians immedi-
ately after the victory over Zipoites. The land assignment and the victory
appear not only chronologically close but also interrelated. The land as-
signment seems to be the reward for the support against Zipoites64. The
lands Nicomedes donated are identified with the portion of northern Phry-
gia from the Sangarius to southern Paphlagonia that was later included in
Galatia65. If we take Justin at his word, the land donation occurred in c.
277 BC and Nicomedes was already in possession of these lands. Since
no Bithynian presence is attested in that area, Nicomedes is supposed to
have seized it before handing over it to the Galatians66. In lack of further
evidence, the validity of such a reconstruction has been questioned67. The
waekness of this proposal rests, in my opnion, in the chronological frame
assumed for Nicomedes I’s conquest of Phrygia. Admitting that this con-
quest actually occurred, it could be hardly set in 279-277 BC, when Nico-
medes was facing Antiochus I and Zipoites. On the other hand, Justin’s
information cannot be rejected in toto. According to Arrian68, Nicomedes’
first wife was a Phrygian woman. Nearly nothing is known about her69, but
63
Iust. XXV, 2, 11: itaque in auxilium a Bithyniae rege invocati regnum cum eo parta victoria divi-
serunt eamque regionem Gallograeciam cognominaverunt. According to the Prologus of the book, the
Galatians took control over regiones Tyleni. But about this, see above p. 57 n. 59..
64
Cf. STROBEL 1996, p. 255.
65
GEYER 1936, col. 493; VITUCCI 1953, pp. 26-27; STROBEL 1991, pp. 119-120; SCHOTTKY 2000; STROBEL
2002, p. 6; STROBEL 2006, pp. 95-96; STROBEL 2007, p. 367; STROBEL 2009, pp. 122-123. On Galatia, see
MITCHELL 1993, pp. 19-20, 42-58; STROBEL 1996, pp. 79-105 passim; STROBEL 1997b; DARBYSHIRE et al.
2000; STROBEL 2002; STROBEL 2009.
66
JONES 1971, p. 150; STROBEL 1991, pp. 119-120; STROBEL 1994a, pp. 73-74; STROBEL 2006, p. 96;
STROBEL 2002, pp. 5-6; STROBEL 2007, p. 367; COȘKUN 2012, p. 69.
67
MEYER 1925, p. 111 n. 1; VITUCCI 1953, p. 27: ‘il testo allegato di Giustino... è formulato in maniera
assai vaga e non contiene elementi che giustifichino una tale conclusione’; cf. GABELKO 2005, p. 187.
68
Jacoby, FGrHist 156, F 29.
69
She is mentioned only by Arrian (Jacoby, FGrHist 156, F 29; cf. Tzetzes Chil. III, 115, ll. 950-
987) and Pliny (NH VIII, 144). They both recount the tragic death of her, who was torn to pieces by
the Nicomedes’ dog. According to Arrian, her name was Ditizele, while according to Pliny it was Con-
singi. In view of this difference, BELOCH 1927, p. 212 n. 1 argues that Arrian and Pliny recounts two dif-
ferent episodes. But this discrepancy could be just apparent, since consingi is likely a textual mistake
for coniuge vel sim. (REINACH 1888, p. 100 n. 1; HABICHT 1972c, col. 388; CORSTEN 2006, pp. 121-124).
60 ELOISA PAGANONI
her ethnicity suggests a possible linkage between the marriage and the con-
quest of some part of Phrygia. In this case, Justin’s information would be
trustworthy at least in one regard: Nicomedes seized a part of that region.
From Nicomedes I’s reign, Nicaea and the area of Lake Askania seem
to be included in the kingdom of Bithynia70. It is yet difficult to know when
they were annexed. Lysimachus had used Nicaea as an outpost against
the Bithynians71. It follows that the Bithynians probably seized it after
his death72. Both Zipoites and Nicomedes could have conquered the city,
but most scholars73 are inclined to the former. However, it is unlikely that
Zipoites campaigned to the west against Nicaea in the short time between
the Battle of Curupedium and his death. At that time he was fighting with
Seleucus and Antiochus I. In those months he also carried out out a cam-
paign against Heraclea74. This leads us to prefer Nicomedes, who also had
some interest in the south, as his possible campaign in Phrygia testifies75.
The expedition in the area of Lake Askania was not necessarily related to
the one in Phrygia. But like this one, it probably occurred after the defini-
tive victory over Zipoites.
After 277 BC, Nicomedes expanded his realm. Some conquests were
temporary as they were ceded to the Galatians. Others (Nicaea and the
region of Lake Askania) remained part of the Bithynian kingdom as long
as it existed. Nicaea and the region of Lake Askania were important acqui-
sitions for their wide, fertile soil76 and their role in river trade with inland
Asia Minor77. But the episode revealing the forward-looking and ambi-
tious plans of Nicomedes I was the foundation of Nicomedia in the second
half of the 260s BC78. The city raised on the coast opposite to Astacus,
and it was peopled with the Astacenians who had survived the destruction
70
FERNOUX 2004, p. 40; MICHELS 2013, p. 12.
71
See above p. 34.
72
Cf. RUGE 1936b, col. 229; JONES 1971, p. 150; GUINEA DÍAZ 1997, p. 28.
73
KEIL 1902, p. 258; MEYER 1925, pp. 109-110; BELOCH 1927, p. 458-461; VITUCCI 1953, pp. 17-18;
JONES 1971, p. 150; BURSTEIN 1976, pp. 84, 87, 144 n. 57; LESCHHORN 1993, pp. 195-196; MAREK 1993, p.
21; COHEN 1995, pp. 398-400, esp. n. 4; HANNESTAD 1996, pp. 71-72, 89; STROBEL 2000; MICHELS 2009, p.
264; HOOVER 2012, p. 195; MICHELS 2013, p. 12.
74
Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 6, 3; see above, pp. 36-37.
75
HARRIS 1980, p. 861; SARTRE 1995, p. 36: ‘Nicée est annexée (sans doute par Nicomedes Ier)’; cf.
76
DEBORD 1998, pp. 144-145 n. 60 with literature.
77
GUINEA DÍAZ 1997, p. 157.
78
Chronicon Paschale, p. 328 dates it to Ol. 128.3 (= 266/5 BC), Hieronymus (Eus. II, 121 Schoene) to
Ol. 129.4 (= 261/0 BC), and the Armenian version of Eusebius (Eus. II, 120 Schoene) to Ol. 129.1 (= 264/3
BC); cf. LESCHHORN 1984, p. 271 n. 1; COHEN 1995, pp. 400-401.
of their city by Lysimachus79. Nicomedia was, in fact, a new foundation.

It was a substitute and heir of Astacus. It preserved the city-state insti-
tutions of Astacus80 and hosted the cult of the ancient city81. In absence
of archaeological excavations, the scanty information about the city plan
and monuments mostly derives from Imperial literary sources. Hellenistic
Nicomedia had city walls and an acropolis82. Within the walls, there were
the royal palace83 and the temples of Zeus and Magna Mater Cybele84.
Pliny records the existence of a forum, that probably corresponded to the
Hellenistic agora85, and a canal to drain water, the excavation of which
started in Hellenistic times but was never completed86.
The foundation of Nicomedia boosted the economic development of the
kingdom87. The territory of the city, probably corresponding to the chōra
79
Strabo ΧΙΙ, 4, 2; Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 12, 1 and 6; Paus. V, 12, 7; Jacoby, FGrHist 156, F 63;
Steph. Byz. s.v. Νικομηδεία; Chronicon Paschale p. 328; Eus. II, 120-121 Schoene; Syncell. 523; RUGE
1936, coll. 490-491;VITUCCI 1953, pp. 27-29; LESCHHORN 1984, pp. 269-276; COHEN 1995, pp. 400-402;
DEBORD 1998, p. 144; STROBEL 2000a; FERNOUX 2004, pp. 36-37, 66; MICHELS 2009, p. 267; MICHELS
2013, pp. 9-11. The choice to abandon the site of Astacus was because of stagnant pools near the city
that often caused plagues (Polyaen. II, 30, 3; SÖLCH 1925, p. 146; ROBERT 1939, pp. 167-169; FERNOUX
2004, p. 36). On the basis of Stephanus of Byzantium (s.v. Νικομηδεία), some scholars assume that
Nicomedia was founded on ancient Olbia (MEYER 1897, col. 517; MACDONALD 1968; JONES 1971, pp.
150-151; HANNESTAD 1996, p. 89; FERNOUX 2004, p. 36; GABELKO 2005, p. 191; MICHELS 2013, pp. 9-10;
contra HANNELL 1934, pp. 120-121; VITUCCI 1953, p. 27; ASHERI 1978, pp. 94-95; COHEN 1995, pp. 441-
442; DEBORD 1998, p. 144; AVRAM 2004, p. 990; cf. MICHELS 2009, p. 267 n. 1357). Some Imperial coins
may refer to the legend telling that a serpent and an eagle indicated to Nicomedes where to found the
new city (Liban. Or. 61, 4; BMC Bithynia, pp. XX, 190 nr. 62, Pl. XXXIV, 16; LESCHHORN 1984, pp. 272-
273; WEISS 1984, pp. 183-184; COHEN 1995, p. 402; CORSTEN 1996, p. 21 nr. 55 with photo). On miracles
connected to foundations of Hellenistic kings, see BURASELIS 2010. A fragment of Arrian’s Bithyniaka
(Jacoby, FGrHist 156, F 19), handed down by Stephanus of Byzantium (s.v. Νικομηδείον), mentions the
otherwise unknown Bithynian emporion of Nicomedeion, that is speculatively considered a foundation
of Nicomedes I (TSCHERIKOWER 1927, p. 46; RUGE 1936a; COHEN 1995, p. 402: ‘reasonable suggestion’;
cf. MEYER 1897, col. 517).
80
VITUCCI 1953, p. 123; MICHELS 2009, p. 267. According to FERNOUX 2004, p. 66, Nicomedia also
preserved the civic tribes of Astacus. About the institutions of Nicomedia, see RUGE 1936, coll. 479-480
(with a list of inscriptions).
81
ROBERT 1939, pp. 167-169; LESCHHORN 1984, p. 270; MICHELS 2009, p. 267; MICHELS 2013, pp. 9-10.
82
App. Mithr. 7; cf. FERNOUX 2004, p. 37.
83
Ammian. Marc. XXII, 9, 4; Liban. Or. 61, 10, 17; Eust. Hist. eccl. VIII, 6, 6. Cf. RUGE 1936, col. 491;
84
App. Mithr.7; Plin. Ep.X, 49, 1; cf. HANNESTAD 1996, p. 89; FERNOUX 2004, p. 37; MICHELS 2009, p. 270.
85
Plin. Ep.X, 49, 1; cf. FERNOUX 2004, p. 37.
86
Plin. Ep. X, 41, 4: Ego per eadem loca invenio fossam a rege percussam, sed incertum utrum ad
colligendum umorem circumiacentium agrorum an ad committendum flumini lacum; est enim imperfecta.
Hoc quoque dubium, intercepto rege mortalitate an desperato operis effectu (‘In that place, I find a canal,
which a king made dig. It is not clear whether it aimed to collect water from the surrounding fields or to
connect the sea to the river. It was not completed. It is not clear whether because the king died or because
the project failed’); cf. BRINGMANN – VON STEUBEN 1995, p. 275, nr. 241a [L].
87
VITUCCI 1953, p. 28; ROSTOVTZEFF 1941, p. 568; MAGIE 1950, p. 305; MACDONALD 1968, p. 623;
62 ELOISA PAGANONI
of Astacus, was fertile and suitable for diversified cultivations88. For its
position, Nicomedia was a crucial crossroads for communication and trade
between Asia and Europe. The land route to Pontus and Armenia and the
one leading to the Cilician Gates via Nicaea passed through it89. The river
Sangarius that crossed the territory of the city was a water route from the
southwest90. Again, Nicomedia was an almost fixed stopping point on the
sea routes connecting the Aegean and the Black Sea91. The Bithynians had
been hitherto confined to the hinterland and had had to struggle with the
poleis for chōra. With the foundation of Nicomedia, they became involved
in wide-range trade networks so far dominated by the Propontic Greek
cities.
Nicomedia was an important artistic atelier in the Hellenistic and Ro-
man periods92. The Bithynian kings were notoriously interested in the
arts93. They were patrons of artists and intellectuals. Several figures who
were active at their court may include Menecrates, the author of the On
Nicaea, Demosthenes of Bithynia, who wrote the On Foundations and the
Bithyniaka, Nicander of Chalcedon, who composed the Misadventures of
Prusias, Asclepiades of Myrlea, the author of the Bithyniaka and other
works, and the anonymous poet commonly called Pseudo Scymnus, the
author of a Periegesis to Nicomedes II or Nicomedes III94. They all were
active in the 2nd-1st century BC, with the exception of Demosthenes, whose
activity is broadly dated to Hellenistic times. Pliny records the great inter-
est of a king Nicomedes in the Aphrodite by Praxiteles95. The most famous
LESCHHORN 1984, p. 271; HANNESTAD 1996, p. 75; GABELKO 2005, pp. 191-192; MICHELS 2009, p. 268;
MICHELS 2013, p. 10.
88
Some Imperial inscriptions (e.g. SEG 4 [1929] 195) call the territory of Nicomedia ‘Astacenean’;
cf. ROBERT 1939, pp. 167-168; LESCHHORN 1984, p. 270; COHEN 1995, p. 401 n. 2. About the resources of
Nicomedia’s chōra, see GÜNEY 2012, pp. 105-230.
89
MAGIE 1950, pp. 305, 1185-1187 nn. 11, 14; GÜNEY 2012, pp. 161-163; GÜNEY 2014, p. 606.
90
Strabo XII, 3, 7; ROBERT 1978, pp. 415-418; GÜNEY 2012, pp. 163-168; ROELENS-FLOUNEAU 2018,
pp. 297-301.
91
SÖLCH 1925, p. 170; MAGIE 1950, p. 305; ROBERT 1978, pp. 419-426; ROBERT 1980, p. 82; GÜNEY
2012, pp. 168-173.
92
CORSO 1990, passim; CREMER 1992, pp. 16, 20-21; TRAVERSARI 1993, pp. 22-25; FERNOUX 2004, pp.
93-111, esp. p. 104.
93
VITUCCI 1953, p. 128; LESCHHORN 1984, p. 271.
94
About Menecrates, Demosthenes of Bithynia, Nicander of Chalcedon and Asclepiades of Myrlea,
see the bibliographic references on pp. XIII-XIV nn. 17-20, 24. About Pseudo Scymnus, see BIANCHETTI
1990; MARCOTTE 2000, pp. 1-100; KORENJAK 2003; BOSHNAKOV 2004; BRAVO 2009. About the genre of
periegesis in Hellenistic age, see ANGELUCCI 2014. About patronage of artists and court production in Hel-
lenistic age, see STROOTMAN 2010; STROOTMAN 2017, pp. 33-37.
95
According to Pliny (NH VII, 127; XXXVI, 21) a king Nicomedes unsuccessfully tried to buy the
famous Aphrodite by Praxiteles from the Cnidians in exchange for the payment of their debts. Unable to
piece of art attributed to the school of Nicomedia is a bronze statuette of a

satyr dating back to the first half of the 2nd century BC96. According to Fes-
tus97, Pompeius brought to Rome a statue from the royal furnishings. The
sculptor Doidalses, known to us only from literary sources, was active in
Nicomedia. Arrian98 attributes to him the statue in the temple of Zeus Stra-
tios in Nicomedia. According to Pliny99, he was the creator of the Aphro-
dite displayed in the porticus Octavia in Rome100. But no evidence attests
when he lived101. According to Paolo Moreno102, a bronze statue from the
Villa of the Papyri in Herculaneum, now in the Archaeological Museum
of Naples, depicts Nicomedes I and it is a copy from an original from the
early Hellenistic period. This assumption is based on the comparison with
Nicomedes I’s coin portrait, and stylistic and iconographic arguments sup-
port it. If this statue (or rather, its model) dated to the reign of Nicomedes
I, it could be hypothesised that it was likely commissioned by Nicomedes
I. However, the evidence in this respect remains scarce.
Nicomedia became the institutional, economic and cultural centre of
the kingdom. It also continued to play a relevant role in the economic
and artistic landscape after the kingdom disappeared. But to what extent
did this correspond to Nicomedes I’s intentions? Certainly Nicomedes
conceived Nicomedia as the capital of the kingdom103. There is no reason
identify the king, scholars instead focus on the king’s interest in arts and the difficult situation that Cnidus
was living. CORSO 1988, pp. 78, 197 n. 296 proposes Nicomedes I ‘perché questi fu il re più importante
così appellato’ (cf. CORSO 1990, p. 135; see also BELOCH 1925, p. 534; GABELKO 2005, p. 193-194). Some
scholars prefer Nicomedes III, whose epithet notably was Euergetēs (WILHELM 1908, p. 77; GEYER 1936b,
col. 496; MARCOTTE 2000, p. 12 n. 23; BOSHNAKOV 2004, p. 73). MIGEOTTE 1984, pp. 325-326 suggests
Nicomedes IV because in the ‘80s Cnidus’ economy was in crisis for the payment of the indemnity for
Sulla’s campaign.
96
PHILIPP 1987; cf. FERNOUX 2004, p. 102; MICHELS 2009, p. 270.
97 Fest. p. 320, s.v. rurtum tenentis iuvenis; cf. MORGAN 2010, p. 130 n. 11.
98
Jacoby, FGrHist 156, F 77a.
99
Plin. NH XXXVI, 35.
100
The Aphrodite Pliny records is identified with the model of the Crouching Venus type (LAURENZI
1946-1948; cf. GHISELLINI 2009) According to CORSO 1990, pp. 139-144, the staute was originallly dis-
played in the temple of Zeus in Nicomedia.
101
NEUDECKER 1997; MICHELS 2009, p. 270; STEWART 2014, p. 183 fig. 106 (caption). Many scholars
speculatively date Doidalses’ activity to the mid-3rd century BC and infer that Nicomedes I was his patron
(MAGIE 1950, pp. 1185-1186 n. 12; CORSO 1990; ANDREAE 2001, pp. 81-82; FERNOUX 2004, pp. 104-105;
GABELKO 2005, p. 194; cf. REINACH 1902, pp. 189-191; LAURENZI 1946-1948, pp. 167, 177). According to
REINACH 1902, pp. 191-192, Doidalses’ floruit was shortly before the accession of Prusias I, admitting that
the tetradrachms of this king bear the Zeus Stratios of Nicomedia. PHILIPP 1987, esp. p. 143 assumes that
Doidalses was the sculptor of the aforementioned second-century-BC statuette of a satyr.
102
MORENO 1994, pp. 218-221 and figg. 280, 282; cf. GABELKO 2005, p. 194.
103
ROSTOVTZEFF 1941, p. 568; MAGIE 1950, p. 305; MACDONALD 1968, p. 623; JONES 1971, pp. 150-151;
LESCHHORN 1984, p. 271; COHEN 1995, p. 400; SARTRE 1995, p. 36; HANNESTAD 1996, pp. 75, 89; DEBORD
64 ELOISA PAGANONI
to doubt that it was Nicomedes, and not one of his successors, who set
there the royal palace. Furthermore, the choice of burying his first wife
in the new foundation is revealing of the role Nicomedes attributed to
the new city104. The creation of the capital marked the final establishment
of Bithynia as a kingdom. After Zipoites and Nicomedes had struggled
against repeated attacks, the foundation of a capital testified to the begin-
ning of a new period. It was probably associated with the establishment of
monarchic institutions105. The little evidence about them suggests that they
were similar to the other main Hellenistic kingdoms106. When Nicomedes
chose the location to found Nicomedia, he considered the economic im-
plications. The fertile territory and the position of land and sea crossroads
prefigured the rise of a flourishing city. He set the mint in the new city107.
This confirms that he intended to turn it into the capital and economic
centre of the kingdom. Nicomedia also had a role in Nicomedes I’s propa-
ganda. By founding a city – most of all, a capital – named after himself,
Nicomedes imitated the Diadochs and presented himself as a Hellenistic
king108. The Graeco-Macedonian model of kingship included patronage of
the arts among the acts worthy of a ‘good king’. Nicomedes I could have
supported artists and scholars but, as we have seen, the evidence is scanty.
1998, p. 144; STROBEL 2000a; FERNOUX 2004, p. 36; MICHELS 2009, pp. 266-267, 271; KLEU 2013a. GUINEA
DÍAZ 1997, pp. 30-32 assumes that Nicaea was a second residence of the kings of Bithynia (cf. MICHELS
2009, p. 264). Without convincing arguments, HOOVER 2012, p. 195 claims that the Bithynian capital was
Nicaea.
104
Jacoby, FGrHist 156, F 29 (cf. Tzetzes Chil. III, 115, ll. 950-987); cf. RUGE 1936, coll. 490-491;
HANNESTAD 1996, p. 89; MICHELS 2009, p. 270. On the death of Nicomedes’ first wife, see above p. 59 n.
69. Dio Chrysostom (XLVII, 17) mentions the tomb of a king Prusias in the agora of a city, which seems
to be Nicomedia from the context (JONES 1978, p. 112; FERNOUX 2004, p. 41 and n. 101; MICHELS 2009, p.
270; contra DESIDERI 1978, p. 390; cf. LESCHHORN 1984, p. 281 with further bibliography). The tumuli eight
kilometres north of Nicomedia, not yet excavated, are supposed to be royal tombs (MACDONALD1968, pp.
623-624; cf. HANNESTAD 1996, p. 89; MICHELS 2009, p. 267 n. 1356).
105
Cf. MORGAN 2017, p. 31.
106
On the institutions of the kingdom of Bithynia, see VITUCCI 1953, pp. 121-131; GUINEA DÍAZ 1997a,
pp. 255-259; GABELKO 2017, p. 329. The evidence presented in the Appendix (nrr. 2-3) records the existence
of philoi (TAM IV, 1, 2) and the office of epistatēs (IK Prusa ad Olympum 1). For the period after Prusias
I’s reign, inscriptions attest to a grammateus of the dioikētēs (IK Nikaia 1588) along with other philoi (IC
II, iii, 4 B; FD III, 4, 77). About the philoi of the Bithynian kings, see VITUCCI 1953, pp. 126-127; SAVALLI-
LESTRADE 1998, pp. 193-194; FERNOUX 2004, p. 64; GABELKO 2017, p. 329. In general about royal philoi, see
KONSTAN 1997, pp. 93-108; SAVALLI-LESTRADE 1998; PASCHIDIS 2013.
107
HANNESTAD 1996, p. 75; MØRKHOLM 1991, p. 130; SARTRE 2003, p. 69 n. 122; MICHELS 2009, p. 161;
HOOVER 2012, p. 198. According to MØRKHOLM 1991, p. 130, Nicomedia was the only mint of the kingdom
of Bithynia. SARTRE 2003, p. 69 n. 122 and HOOVER 2012, p. 195 think that there was a mint in Nicaea too.
It is possible that other mints were established as Bithynia expanded (BMC Bithynia, p. XXXIX; GLEW
1987, esp. p. 35).
108
HANNESTAD 1996, p. 75-76; MICHELS 2009, pp. 271-272; MICHELS 2013, pp. 8-11.
We are not allowed to assume a special intererest of Nicomedes in the arts.

Nor does anything prove that Nicomedia was concied as a cultural centre
in Nicomedes’ plans109.
Coinage sheds further light on the orientation of Nicomedes I’s politics
in matter of economy and propaganda. To our knowledge, the coinage
of the kingdom of Bithynia began under him110. From the series struck
throughout his reign, we have silver tetradrachms, silver and bronze
drachms, as well as two other bronze series, each of which known to us
from one specimen. These series, all of Attic weight standard, feature a
strong influence of the Greek model in style, finish, and iconography.
The portrait of Nicomedes bearing the diadem on the obverse of the tet-
radrachms and drachms is modelled on the coin portraits of the Diadochs.
It shows close similarities to the ones of Ptolemy I and Antiochus I, and
it is characterised by realistic features that exalt the military virtues111.
The legends on the reverse too – ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΝΙΚΟΜΗΔΟΥ on the tet-
radrachms and drachms, and ΒΑΣΙ·ΝΙΚΟ· or ΒΑΣΙΛΕ·· ΝΙΚΟMΗ··· on
the other bronze coins – are perfectly in line with the Greek standard. On
the reverse of silver tetradrachms and drachms, there is a female figure,
seated on a rock. She is commonly identified with the Thracian goddess
Bendis that corresponded to Greek Artemis or Athena112. Due to the simi-
larities with Athena Nikēphoros on the coins minted in Chalcedon under
Lysimachus113, this figure is considered an ‘interpretatio graeca’ of the
Thracian goddess114. The reference to the Thracian world persists in the
bronze series. On the reverse, the drachmas bear a figure interpreted as the
Thracian deity who corresponded to Ares115. The two other bronze series
109
Cf. MICHELS 2009, pp. 269-271.
110
On the coinage of Nicomedes I, see REINACH 1888, pp. 96-100; BMC Bithynia, pp. XXXVIII-XL;
HANNESTAD 1996, p. 75; MØRKHOLM 1991, p. 130; FERNOUX 2004, pp. 44-46; MICHELS 2009, pp. 158-162;
HOOVER 2012, pp. 206-208; GÜNEY 2015, p. 357. About the absence of coinage under Zipoites, see MICHELS
2009, p. 158; GÜNEY 2015, p. 357.
111
REINACH 1888, p. 98; HANNESTAD 1996, p. 75 (who remarks that the portraits ‘represent a type rather
than carry the actual likeness of Nikomedes’, as usual in Hellenistic coin portraits); SARTRE 2003, p. 69;
SCHOLTEN 2007, pp. 20-21 n. 21; MICHELS 2009, pp. 158-159 (with literature).
112
REINACH 1888, pp. 98-99; MEYER 1897, col. 523; NEWELL 1937, p. 37; DAVIS – KRAAY 1973, nrr.
186-187, 190; MØRKHOLM 1991, p. 130; MICHELS 2009, pp. 159-161; HOOVER 2012, pp. 206-208; GÜNEY
2017, pp. 494-495. This figure also was identified with a personification of Bithynia (REINACH 1888, pp.
98-99; BMC Bithynia, p. XXXIX; contra MICHELS 2009, p. 160 n. 790). On the cult of Bendis, see SIEGERT
1983, pp. 156-158.
113
FERNOUX 2004, pp. 44-46 (with photos), who notices that the similarity is strengthened by the
presence of a small Nike in both Lysimachus’ and Nicomedes I’s coins.
114
MICHELS 2009, p. 160.
115
REINACH 1888, pp. 97, 99; BMC Bithynia, p. XXXIX; HANNESTAD 1996, p. 75; MICHELS 2009, p. 159.
66 ELOISA PAGANONI
have the head of a god (maybe Apollo)116 on the obverse. On the reverse,
one bears a horse117, and the other a horseman. These two types recall the
heros equitans attested in the Balkans118.
Michels insightfully observes that coinage was a ‘Kommunikations-
medium, um seinen (i.e. Nicomedes’) Herrschaftsanspruch zu unterstrei-
chen’119. No doubt, minting coins was a claim of independence. Moreover,
Nicomedes broadcasted a representation of himself and his rule by it. The
bronze coins were destined to a local circulation. Their main addressees
were, thus, the Bithynians. Through iconography referring to the military
sphere (as common in the bronze series of other Hellenistic kings120), they
recalled the royal authority and military successes of Nicomedes I121. The
silver coins reached an ‘international audience’ in view of their wide-rang-
ing circulation122. The message they broadcased was sensibly different.
Their iconography referred to the contemporary Hellenistic model of coin
portraiture, and to one of the most representative goddesses of the Greek
pantheon, Athena. Nicomedes took Lysimachus’ coinage as a model, and
so he presented himself as one of the Diadochs. The adhesion to the Greek
pattern did not prevent the recurring reference to the Thracian tradition. In
its allusion to the ethnicity of the Bithynians, coinage reveals the marked
national tendency of Nicomedes I’s propaganda123.
Coinage was a necessary condition to involve Bithynia in international
trade. The choice of the Attic weight standard – the most wide spread in
the Greek world – is indicative in this sense124. It was part of Nicomedes I’s
economic policies including the foundation of Nicomedia. This has sug-
gested a possible connection between the foundation of the capital and
116
REINACH 1888, p. 100 nr. 4; HOOVER 2012, p. 208 nr. 611; cf. MICHELS 2009, p. 161.
117
MICHELS 2009, p. 161; HOOVER 2012, pp. 207-208 nrr. 608, 610.
118
REINACH 1888, p. 100 nr. 4; MICHELS 2009, p. 161; HOOVER 2012, p. 208 nr. 611.
119
MICHELS 2009, p. 161; HOOVER 2012, p. 207: ‘In order to fund his wars and advertise his status as
a legitimate Hellenistic king, Nikomedes I struck silver tetradrachms and drachms on the Attic standard’;
GÜNEY 2017, p. 494: ‘Nicomedes, having just conquered his brother in a struggle for the throne and seeking
to establish his authority as the second ruler of the kingdom, adopted her (i.e. Bendis/Artemis) as a coin
type to reflect the unification of and integration of its people’.
120
Cf. DE CALLATAŸ 2014, p. 74.
121
MICHELS 2009, p. 161: ‘Beide Motive (i.e. those on the bronze coins) können als Ausdruck
königlicher Herrschaft gedeutet werden’.
122
Cf. FERNOUX 2004, p. 44; DE CALLATAŸ 2014, p. 65.
123
About the references to the Thracian tradition in Nicomedes’ coinage, see GLEW 2005, p. 131;
MICHELS 2009, pp. 161-162.
124
VITUCCI 1953, p. 28 and n. 4; FERNOUX 2004, p. 44. Contra HANNESTAD 1996, p. 75, who says that
Nicomedes I’s coinage was modelled after the Attic standard ‘i.e. coins of prestige, not for playing a sig-
nificant role in the economic system’.
the beginning of the coinage125. Although the proposal found some con-
sent126, it is possible that coinage was linked with the necessity of paying
soldiers127. Accordingly its beginning could date back to the time of the
campaigns in the south-west.
As with the foundation of Nicomedia and coinage, donations to Greek
sanctuaries had multiple implications. According to Pausanias128, in the
sanctuary of Zeus in Olympia, there was an ivory statue of Nicomedes
I129. It is unknown who erected it, when and why130, but it is supposed to
date back to Nicomedes I’s reign131. If so, the statue reveals early contacts
between the kingdom of Bithynia and the Panhellenic sanctuary. The letter
of Ziaelas, successor of Nicomendes I, to Cos (242 BC) containis the first
explicit mention of relations between Cos and the Bihynian dynasty, and
it attests that these relations were already existing under Nicomedes I132.
They could have been enstablished by him, maybe by an act of euerge-
sia133. But it cannot be ruled out that contacts between Cos and Bithynia
existed already under Zipoites, as recently suggested134. A fragment of
inventory records that the Delians granted a priviledge, maybe a crown,
to Nicomedes I135. This one too could have been the response to an act
of euergesia. This evidence is fragmentary, but attests to contacts with
the sanctuaries of Olympia, Cos and Delos. Nicomedes showed his in-
125
VITUCCI 1953, p. 28 and n. 4.
126
MØRKHOLM 1991, p. 130; GÜNEY 2015, p. 357 n. 3; cf. MICHELS 2009, p. 161.
127
FERNOUX 2004, p. 44; HOOVER 2012, p. 206; cf. MICHELS 2009, p. 161.
128
Paus. V, 12, 7.
129
According to KOTSIDU 2000, p. 132, the statue was in the cella. HANNESTAD 1996, pp. 74-75 explains
that such an unusual setting was justified by the precious material (contra MICHELS 2009, p. 55 n. 257).
In view of the same reason, KRUMEICH 2007, p. 169 assumes that the statue was displayed in a ‘kind of
treasury’.
130
KOTSIDU 2000, p. 132 argues that the statue was erected by the Bithynians on the basis of Memnon
BNJ 434, F 1, 14, 2, where the Bithynian people apparently act as a political entity, but against this see
below p. 78 n. 202. According to MICHELS 2009, p. 56, the statue may have been sponsored by a Bithynian
city, by Nicomedes I himself, or by one of his successors; however, in his opinion, a royal commission is
preferable for the expensive material.
131
MEYER 1897, col. 517; ROSTOVTZEFF 1941, pp. 568-569; VITUCCI 1953, pp. 28-29; HANNESTAD 1996,
pp. 75-76; SCHOTTKY 2000; FERNOUX 2004, p. 61; GABELKO 2005, p. 194.
132
RC 25, ll. 9-11; Appendix nr. 8.
133
GABELKO 2005, p. 194; MICHELS 2009, p. 54. A fragment testifies to a cult for a king Nicomedes in
Cos (IG XII, 4, 1, 344), but no evidence allows us to establish whether this was Nicomedes I (HERZOG 1905,
p. 180; RC 25, p. 122; MAGIE 1950, pp. 312, 1195 n. 34; VITUCCI 1953, pp. 28-29), Nicomedes II (MEYER
1897; col. 520; WILHELM 1908, p. 76; HÖGHAMMAR 1993, pp. 94-95; MARCOTTE 2000, pp. 14-15; FERNOUX
2004, p. 62), or Nicomedes III (GEYER 1936, col. 496; SHERWIN-WHITE 1978, p. 137 n. 291). Cf. GLEW 2005,
p. 136 n. 33 and MICHELS 2009, p. 54 n. 254 in doubt between Nicomedes II and Nicomedes III.
134
135
ID 460, Fr. u, l. 2; Appendix nr. 7.
68 ELOISA PAGANONI
ternational ambitions through donations136. As Vitucci claimed, donations

also mirrored Nicomedes I’s international contact network that included
Egypt and Macedonia137. Meanwhile, they contributed to the presentation
of Nicomedes I as a Hellenistic king.
3. INTERNATIONAL RECOGNITION
Under Zipoites Bithynia had become an independent kingdom but had

not been recognised as such. Those who had ruled Asia Minor in the late
4th-early 3rd century BC – with the only exception of Antigonus Monoph-
thalmus – had tried to seize it repeatedly. At the same time, Zipoites had
been constantly at war with the Propontic cities. The first years of Nicome-
des I’s reign led to a change. When Heraclea and the Northern League al-
lied with him, they de facto recognised Bithynia as an independent power.
It was the end of centuries of conflicts between the Bithynians and the
Propontic poleis. It is more difficult to establish when Bithynia was recog-
nised by the Hellenistic kings. The end of Antiochus I’s operations against
Bithynia is sometimes considered proof of an implicit acceptance by the
Seleucids138. The absence of conflicts however does not necessarily entail
that Bithynia was recognised as independent. In the 270s BC, the attacks
of the Galatians over many cities of Asia Minor and the First Syrian War
diverted Antiochus I’s attention from the Propontis139.
136
MICHELS 2009, pp. 54-56. About the political-propagandistic value of donations, see MICHELS 2009,
pp. 42-50.
137
About Nicomedes I’s international contacts, see below in the text. VITUCCI 1953, p. 28 states: ‘Questi
buoni rapporti (i.e. the relationships with Olympia and Cos) rientrano nel quadro più ampio di una politica
di amicizia con l’Egitto e con la Macedonia’. We can add that the contacts with Delos too possibly echoed
Nicomedes’ political relations. Aside from this clarification, it is worth checking the validity of Vitucci’s
statement. As for Olympia, sources record relations with Macedonia in the Classic and very early Hel-
lenistic ages (MARI 2002, pp. 36, 40-44, 249), but not throughout the Hellenistic period (cf. the catalogue
of donations to Olympia by Hellenistic kings in BRINGMANN – VON STEUBEN 1995, pp. 101-106). On the
other hand, we are informed about contacts with the Ptolemaic Egypt in the 3rd century BC (BRINGMANN –
VON STEUBEN 1995, pp. 101-103 nrr. 57-59). As for Cos, it is known that the island was under Ptolemaic
influence for most of the Hellenistic age (SHERWIN-WHITE 1978, pp. 90-131; HABICHT 2007, pp. 131-152).
Epigraphic evidence shows constant relations between Delos and both Macedonia and Egypt (BRINGMANN
– VON STEUBEN 1995, pp. 187-221). In the light of these elements, Nicomedes I’s relations with Olympia,
Cos and Delos may be connected with the alliance with Egypt, while only the contacts with Delos might
aslo allude to the relation with Macedonia.
138
COȘKUN 2012, p. 58; KLEU 2013a: ‘It seems that there were no further armed conflicts with Antiochos
I, and it might be that the Seleucids even acknowledged Nikomedes’ kingdom’. Cf. COȘKUN 2011, p. 95.
139
Cf. MEHL 1986, p. 322; GRAINGER 2007, pp. 178 (‘Perforce he accepted the independence of Bithynia
and the Northern League’), 182, 190. On the Galatians’ attacks over poleis, see STROBEL 1996, pp. 257-264;
Traces of recognition of the Bithynian kingdom may be detected in

Nicomedes I’s international contacts140. According to Memnon141, Nico-
medes appointed Heraclea, Byzantium, Cius, Antigonus Gonatas and
Ptolemy II as guardians of his still infant heirs. The mention of Heraclea
and Byzantium is not surprising142. They were members of the Northern
League and Nicomedes’ allies. In light of Memnon’s words, scholars143
take note of the fact that Cius was included in Nicomedes’ network and
in the Northern League. And yet, there is no evidence of contacts between
Nicomedes I and the city. This keeps open the possibility that Memnon (or
Photius) makes a wrong quotation of Cierus, which was for certain a mem-
ber of the Northern League since the time of the war against Zipoites144.
The mention of Antigonus Gonatas and Ptolemy II show that Nicome-
des was in friendly relations with Macedonia and Egypt. He was presum-
ably allied with them, as he was with the Propontic cities. The first contacts
with Antigonus Gonatas date back to the eary 270s. Nicomedes had hired
him as a soldier of fortune in the war against Antiochus I145. As far as we
see from Nicomedes’ will, the friendly relations earlier established turned
into an alliance after Antigonus became king of Macedonia. The earliest
explicit quotation of the alliance between Egypt and Bithynia is in Ziaelas’
letter to Cos (242 BC)146 but it is inferred from Memnon that this alliance
already existed under Nicomedes I147. It is difficult to say when it was
signed. The terminus post quem is derived from the beginning of Ptole-
maic interest in the Black Sea area in the 270s BC148. Some scholars149
connect this alliance with the First Syrian War that Ptolemy II was fighting
COȘKUN 2011 p. 87; COȘKUN 2012, p. 58. About the First Syrian War, see HÖLB 2001, pp. 36-38; GRAINGER
2010, pp. 73-87.
140
DROYSEN 1952-1953, vol. III, p. 204; BRAUND 1984, p. 146; GABELKO 2005, p. 198.
141
Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 14, 1.
142
GABELKO 2005, p. 199 notes the absence of Chalcedon, and argues that it testifies to the weakening
of the city at the time of Nicomedes’ will.
143
NIESE 1899, p. 136; ROSTOVTZEFF 1941, p. 26; DROYSEN 1952-1953, vol. III, p. 203; VITUCCI 1953, p.
30; SCHNEIDER 1967-1969, vol. I, p. 787; HABICHT 1972c, col. 389; WILL 1979, p. 246; SAPRYKIN 1997, pp.
168-169; BITTNER 1998, p. 81; GABELKO 2005, pp. 198-199; CORSTEN 2013; DAVAZE 2013, p. 387.
144
Cf. MEYER 1897, col. 516; MCGING 1986, p. 21; contra SAPRYKIN 1997, pp. 168-169.
145
146
RC 25, ll. 22-24; see below Appendix nr. 8.
147
RC 25, p. 123; VÉLISSAROPOULOS 1980, p. 163; HANNESTAD 1996, p. 78.
148
RC 25, p. 123. On the Ptolemaic interest in the Black Sea area, see OTTO 1931, pp. 408-410; SHIPLEY
1987, p. 186; ARCHIBALD 2007; MARQUAILLE 2008, pp. 46-47; GALLOTTA 2010, pp. 97-99. About the so-
called ‘Isis-fresco’ attesting to a Ptolemaic fleet in the Pontic area, see also BASCH 1985; VINOGRADOV 1999.
149
OTTO 1931, pp. 400-410; WILL 1979, pp. 246-247; AVRAM 2003, pp. 1186-1187; ARCHIBALD 2007,
p. 258.
70 ELOISA PAGANONI
against Antiochus I in those years. Nicomedes I could have seemed a pos-

sible ally to Ptolemy II. Anyway, no source mentions the involvement of
him in that war. And there is also no evidence of clashes in the Propontic
area during that conflict. One can admit that the Ptolemaic-Bithynian al-
liance may have had an anti-Seleucid aim. But this was neither the only
nor the main one. The alliance is probably to be framed within Ptolemaic
policies to establish hegemony over the Aegean and trade routes to the
Black Sea, which also included the control of the League of Islanders and
the contacts with the cities of Asia Minor150.
Under Nicomedes I, Bithynia became the pivot point of a complex net-
work. Nicomedes I allied with Antigonus Gonatas, who was allied with
Antiochus I151. The latter frowned upon the rise of Bithynia but was in-
volved in other matters, including the war against Ptolemy II. This one
was an ally of Nicomedes I and an enemy of Antigonus Gonatas in the
Chremonidean War152. This delicate balance gives an indication of the dip-
lomatic skills of Nicomedes I, and most of all, of the increasing importance
the kingdom of Bithynia in the Hellenistic world.
4. THE TRADITIONAL PORTRAYAL OF NICOMEDES I, HELLENISATION AND PEER

POLITY INTERACTION
It is difficult to define Hellenisation without providing an interpretation

of this complex phenomenon at the same time. Rachel Mairs has recently
made a good attempt in this sense. She states that ‘Hellenization refers
to the spread of Greek culture and its adoption by non-Greek peoples’153.
Traces of this phenomenon survive in many aspects, from language to arts,
from religion to architecture154. For the nature of the evidence, the study
of this phenomenon is limited nearly exclusively to highbrow culture. Hel-
lenization is traditionally interpreted in terms of acculturation155. In the
150
Cf. ROSTOVZEFF 1941, p. 568; GABELKO 2005, p. 192, who insists on the impact of the alliance with
Ptolemy II on political and economic development of Bithynia. About Ptolemaic ambitions, see WILL 1979,
pp. 184-186 (with particular reference to the Ptolemaic-Rhodian relationships); BURASELIS 2013. About
their economic aim, CRISCUOLO 2013, pp. 161-163. On the League of Islanders, see BURASELIS 1982, pp. 60-
87; CONSTANTAKOPOULOU 2012; KOEHN 2013; MEADOWS 2013; MARCHESINI 2017. On the relations between
the Ptolemies and the poleis of Asia Minor, see GRABOWSKI 2013; TOMASZ 2014.
151
See above pp. 54-55 n. 47, 69-70.
152
On this war, see HEINEN 1972, pp. 95-213; HÖLB 2001, pp. 38-41; O’NEIL 2008.
153
MAIRS 2013.
154
BINDER 1998, coll. 301-314.
155
BINDER 1998, col. 301; cf. MAIRS 2013; MICHELS 2013a, pp. 283-284; FINN 2014.
Hellenistic period, this approach produces the image of a GraecoMacedo-

nian ruling class (mainly embodied by kings of the Macedonian dynasties)
intent on spreading Greek culture among non-Greek peoples through a
series of ‘Hellenising/philhellenic’ acts, such as foundations of cities, do-
nations to Greek sanctuaries, euergetic acts towards poleis, use of Greek
artistic and iconographic models. Through these practices, scholars try to
measure the ‘level of Hellenisation’, or in other words, how far Greek
culture spread.
As for Bithynia, the first chapter of the monograph by Fernoux is il-
lustrative of this approach. It is devoted to the Hellénisation de la Bithynie
and includes the sub-chapter Le philhellénisme et l’évergétisme de rois de
Bithynie, composed of three paragraphs: Fondations et rifondations des
cités, Les émissions royales en argent et bronze and Les relations avec
les autres monarchie hellénistiques et les cités de Grèce et de Ionie156. As
for Nicomedes I, this approach produces the portrait of the philhellenic
king par excellence. In her contribution with the meaningful subheading
The Bithynian Kings and the Greek Culture, Hannestad157 gives the para-
graph concerning Nicomedes I the title The First Philhellene. At the end
of her analysis, she concludes: ‘In all three aspects, (1) the relations to
Greek cities/sanctuaries, (2) the minting of coins, and (3) the foundation
of cities, Nikomedes set a new standard for a Bithynian king’158. Similar
assessments are sprinkled throughout the major essays on the kingdom of
Bithynia159. They entail what Martin Schottky claims explicitly: Nicome-
des I did so ‘um sein Land zu hellenisieren’160. Since Nicomedia became
156
FERNOUX 2004, pp. 34-64; cf. SCHOLTEN 2007, p. 21: ‘Traditionally these Boteirid activities (i.e. the
‘Hellenising’ activities of the kings of Bithynia) have been ascribed to a simple policy of philhellenism’.
157
HANNESTAD 1996, pp. 74-76.
158 HANNESTAD 1996, pp. 75-76.
159
MEYER 1897, col. 517: ‘Nikomedes wie ein griechischer Fürst’, and ‘rasch wurde die Stadt (i.e.
Nicomedia) eine der Hauptstädte des neuen Hellenismus’; NIESE 1899, p. 81: ‘(Nicomedes) gründete…
eine neue hellenistische Stadt, Nikomedeia; denn auch er hatte das lebhafte Bestreben, sich der hellen-
istischen Welt einzufügen’; ROSTOVTZEFF 1941, p. 568: ‘This (i.e. the foundation of Nicomedia) was a
decisive act, designed to present Nicomedes to the the Greek world as one of the group of rulers who
formed the Hellenistic balance of power, a Greek king, with a Greek name, and a Greek capital’; VITUCCI
1953, p. 28: ‘attraverso la nuova capitale si apriva una delle vie maestre per accogliere e diffondere nel
paese la cultura e la civiltà ellenica’; WILSON 1960, p. 461; SCHNEIDER 1967-1969, vol. I, p. 787: ‘Noch war
er vor allem an der zivilisatorischen Seite des griechischen Lebens interessieret’; KOBES 1996, p. 84: ‘Im
Gegensatz zu seinem Sohn und Nachfolger Nikomedes I., der durch seine philhellenische Ausrichtung
Bithynien für die griechische Welt öffnete, sind soche Aktivitäten für Zipoites fast nicht belegt’; SCHOTT-
KY 2000; SARTRE 2003, p. 69: ‘Zipoitès restait largement un dynaste barbare, malgré son titre grec, et ce
n’est qu’avec Nicomède Ier que la monarchie bithynienne s’affiche du côté des souverains grecs’; GABELKO
2005, p. 193; KLEU 2013a: ‘Nikomedes I is considered as the first philhellene on the Bithynian throne’.
160
SCHOTTKY 2000, col. 930.
72 ELOISA PAGANONI
the cultural centre of Bithynia, the communis opinio adds another feature
to the portrayal of Nicomedes I: an interest in the arts161. In this way, an
idealised image of him becomes established. Antonio Corso sums up it op-
timally: ‘Questi (i.e. Nicomedes I) fu il re più importante così appellato...
in quanto fu un grande ellenizzatore della Bitinia e un amante delle arti’162.
Aside from the doubts about a special interest of Nicomedes I in the
arts163, it is worth noting that, Nicomedes I is considered the most important
among the Bithynian kings in view of this fame as a philhelleneic sover-
eign164. In scholars’ eyes, Hellenising acts render Nicomedes I a ‘true’ king.
The assessments, thus, split from the cultural to political-military level.
Scholars propose evaluations about Nicomedes I’s policies and their impact
on the history of Bithynia in the light of this ideal portrayal. Warwick Wroth
defines him as ‘the true founder of the kingdom’165. William W. Tarn writes:
‘Bithynia was fighting for her separate existence as a nation; and while her
people were still uncivilised enough to cling passionately to their national in-
dependence, their king was sufficiently inclined to the ideas of Greece to add
to the national resistance such strength as the science of civilisation could
give’166. Nicomedes I would have wished to support poleis since the begin-
ning of his rule. The alliance with Heraclea would have been the first sign
of this new approach167. In this line, Nicomedes I would have returned the
thynis gē and Cierus to Heraclea168. He would have called the Galatians into
Asia to relieve Byzantium from continuous attacks169. Nicomedes’ name too
has called scholars’ attention for its ‘squisitamente greco’ nature170. Han-
nestad argues that it was part of Nicomedes’ philhellenic politics: ‘The name
may be one chose when ascending the throne – in fact this is most probable,
since Thracian names were still common in the family, also in the next gen-
eration. If so, it seems in itself to be a kind of manifesto’171.
161
E.g. BELOCH 1925, p. 534.
162
CORSO 1990, p. 78.
163
164
FELLMANN 1965, col. 478: ‘Bedeutendste Herrschergestalt ist Nikomedes’; CORSO 1990, p. 78;
SCHOLTEN 2007, p. 21 assumes that Nicomedes I became a model for his successors who just imitated him
in their philhellenic policy.
165
BMC Bithynia, p. XXXVIII.
166
TARN 1913, p. 162.
167
MAGIE 1950, p. 310; SCHOLTEN 2007, pp. 20-21.
168
GABELKO 2006, p. 222; SCHOLTEN 2007, pp. 22-24.
169
MITCHELL 1993, pp. 15-16; SCHOLTEN 2007, p. 21.
170
VITUCCI 1953, p. 26, cf. p. 130: ‘una svolta piena di significato rappresenta sul principio del III
secolo il comparire del nome di Nicomede’. Cf. ROSTOVTZEFF 1941, p. 568.
171
HANNESTAD 1996, p. 74; cf. SCHOLTEN 2007, pp. 21-22. Athenaeus deals with Traian’ cook, who
served oysters to the emperor in a location far from the sea. At the end of the account he (Athen. I, 7d, 13)
These assessments show the effects of the misleading interpretation

considering Hellenisation a phenomenon of acculturation. The enlighted
non-Greek king Nicomedes recognised the superiority of Greek civiliza-
tion over indigenous barbarism172. So, he did his best to present himself as
a Hellenistic sovereign and to spread Greek culture among his subjects.
These ones are depicted as passive part of this acculturation process. Such
an approach has produced an ideal image of Nicomedes I, and this image
has been used as ‘lens’ to interpret his deeds in a sort of ‘ring-interpreta-
tion’. All become an expression of Nicomedes’ admiration for the Greek
world.
This traditional assessment of Nicomedes I’s reign was already ques-
tioned several decades ago. It was highlighted that some acts, among which
the alliance with the Galatians, looked all but ‘philhellene’. According to
Vitucci, on that occasion, Nicomedes ‘era ben lontano dall’ispirare la sua
politica ai sentimenti filellenici’173. David Magie characterised Nicomedes
I as follows: ‘There was little of the Hellene in Nicomedes, apart from
his Grecian name. His portrait, as it appears on his coins, shows a coarse-
featured man of a barbarian type... At the outset of his reign, indeed, he
showed himself no friend of Hellenism; for by his invitation to the lawless
Galatians... he introduced into Asia Minor a foe who for years to come ter-
rorised the cities of the western seaboard. Nevertheless, Nicomedes played
the part of a Greek king; for his coins show the likenesses of Greek gods,
and his foundation of Nicomedia, although his primary purpose was doubt-
lessly to obtain a port on the Propontis, was... in conformity with the cur-
rent Hellenistic practice. He also succeeded in obtaining recognition in the
Greek world’174.
adds: οὐχ ὡς Νικομήδει τῷ Βιθυνῶν βασιλεῖ ἐπιθυμήσαντι ἀφύης ῾μακρὰν δὲ καὶ οὗτος ἦν τῆς θαλάσσης᾿
μάγειρός τις μιμησάμενος τὸ ἰχθύδιον παρέθηκεν [ὡς ἀφύας] (‘not like the sham anchovies which the cook
of Nicomedes, king of the Bithynians, made in imitation of the real fish, and set before the king, when he
expressed a wish for anchovies, and he too at the time was a long way from the sea’). The same anecdote is
told in the Suda s.v. Ἀφύα ἐς πῦρ, but the version of Athenaeus is more interesting to us because it records
the source, the third-century-BC Athenian comic poet Euphro (Athen. I, 7d, 13 = Euphro F 10 Kassel –
Austin, PCG). This proves that the protagonist of this curious episode could be no-one but Nicomedes I (cf.
MEINEKE 1839, p. 478; Kock, CAF, vol. III, p. 324; Kassel – Austin, PCG, vol. V, p. 291; CANFORA 2001,
p. 24 n. 2; GABELKO 2017, p. 327). The episode suggests that Nicomedes I appreciated the culinary arts,
and according to SCHNEIDER 1967-1969, vol. I, p. 787, it also mirrors the influence of the Greek culture on
Nicomedes I.
172
TARN 1913, p. 162; EDDY 1961, p. 169: ‘The kings of Kappadocia, Pontos and Bithynia were actual
Hellenizers partly, perhaps, because they deemed it expedient, but partly, too, because Hellenism was
fascinating’.
173
VITUCCI 1953, p. 26.
174
MAGIE 1950, pp. 311-312.
74 ELOISA PAGANONI
Recently scholars are distancing themselves from the concept of Hel-

lenization as acculturation175. Some have proposed to definitively abandon
the category of Hellenization176. The problem, however, is not the category
of Hellenization in itself. It is a matter of fact that at some point non-
Greek people acquired some uses typical of Greek culture. The point is
the interpretation of this phenomenon. A framework which is gathering
increasing attention from historians is the Peer Polity Interaction model. It
explains cultural change as a consequence of the interaction between peer,
i.e. independent and structurally analogous socio-political units, that coex-
ist in a region without prevailing one on another177. Among the interactions
significant to understand cultural changes, Peer Polity Interaction includes
competitive emulation and symbolic entertainment178. Socio-political units
of a region develop a shared ‘symbolic map’ made of values and symbols,
through which they recognise each other as peers.
This interpretative model has been adopted to read some aspects of
Hellenistic culture. John Ma first used it to explain syngeneia and asylia
politics among Greek cities179. Scholten has used it to interpret the rise of
the Bithynian kingdom as the result of competitive relations between the
Bithynians and bordering realms newly arisen180. Michels has proposed an
insightful analysis of cultural politics of the kings of Bithynia, Pontus and
Cappadocia according to this model181.
This new approach may be the path to a better understanding of the phe-
nomenon of Hellenization. It firstly highlights that it concerned ‘peers’. In re-
gard to the present work, this allows us to focus on kings and élites and to set
aside the thorny question of the effect of Hellenization over non-elite classes.
Secondly, this framework turns Hellenization from an aim into a means182.
Nicomedes I did not carry out a ‘mindless philhellenism’183. He was follow-
ing the example of the other Hellenistic monarchs184. He was not aiming to
‘hellenize’ the Bithynians. He was presenting himself as a (Hellenistic) king.
He was carrying out acts that were considered ‘worthy of a king’ to be recog-
175
On the use of the category of acculturation in the current debate, see GIANGIULIO 2010.
176
MAIRS 2013.
177
RENFREW 1986.
178
RENFREW 1986, pp. 8-9.
179
MA 2003.
180
SCHOLTEN 2007.
181
MICHELS 2009; MICHELS 2013a.
182
SHERWIN-WHITE – KUHRT 1993: ‘‘hellenisation’ is an adjunct, not an aim of imperialism’.
183
SCHOLTEN 2007, p. 23.
184
Cf. HANNESTAD 1996, p. 76: ‘(Nicomedes I) adopted the image of a Graeco-Macedonian ruler’.
nised as such. It entailed following the Graeco-Macedonian model of basileia,

which required philhellenic acts, as well as the patronage of arts, foundations
of cities, use of iconographic patterns etc. Hellenization was the tool to obtain
legitimatisation in front of the Greek world185. In this view – we can conclude
– Nicomedes I was a capable strategist, an expert diplomat and a great ideo-
logue186. He supported his military and political successes with a propaganda
machine depicting him as a Hellenistic king.
Scholars often contrast Nicomedes I with his father Zipoites187. The
former is presented as the ‘champion of Greekness’, the latter as the em-
blem of the Thracian (i.e. barbarian) tradition. These assessments over-
look the Thracian elements in Nicomedes I’s politics and the Greek ones
in Zipoites’. Nicomedes’ coinage contains clear references to the Thra-
cian tradition188. As for onomastics, Nicomedes’ daughter bore a Greek
name, Lysandra, but two of his sons had Thracian names189. With regard to
Zipoites, he first introduced a Greek name in the Bithynian dynasty, nam-
ing his first-born Nicomedes, founded a settlement with his own name,
and most of all, took the title of basileus190. These acts got a start to the
Hellenisation policies of the Bithynian kings. Michels thus rightly notes
that Nicomedes I ‘nicht nur in die Tradition der Diadochen sonder auch
die seines Vater stellte’191.
The reference to the Thracian elements in Nicomedes’ propaganda in-
vites us to make a final remark about his cultural policies. As already said,
they allude to the ethnicity of the Bithynians. They may be considered the
expression of a national tendency. In this view, we can say that the Hel-
lenistic model provided the ‘language of propaganda’ – or the ‘grammar’
– but those who broadcasted the message (kings and dynasts) decided the
tones and contours of the content. As far as we can see, Nicomedes proudly
185
HANNESTAD 1996, p. 67 claims that through Hellenising acts the Bithynian kings aimed ‘to become
member of the exclusive club of the Hellenistic rulers’; GABELKO 2005, p. 197; MICHELS 2009, esp. pp.
343-350; MICHELS 2013.
186
Cf. GABELKO 2017, p. 327 who defines Nicomedes I as an ‘energetic ruler, talented general and diplomat’.
187
E.g. KOBES 1996, p. 84; SARTRE 2003, p. 68.
188
189
According to Arrian (Jacoby, FGrHist 156, F 29), Nicomedes had three sons from his first wife:
Prusias, Ziaelas and Lysandra. Cf. GLEW 2005, pp. 134-135, who argues that Nicomedes called his daughter
Lysandra in honour of Ptolemy I’s daughter. HABICHT 1972c, coll. 388-389 assumes that Arrian’s passage
mixes up information about Nicomedes I’s, Ziaelas’ and Prusias I’s sons and daughters. In his opinion, Ly-
sandra was Prusias I’s daughter. According to BELOCH 1927, pp. 212-213 and MAGIE 1950, pp. 1195-1196
n. 36, Arrian means here Prusias Monodous (about him, see below p. 128 n. 194).
190
See above pp. 37-43
191
MICHELS 2009, p. 271.
76 ELOISA PAGANONI
claimed this national feature of his power also in front of the Greek world
and the other Hellenistic kings.
5. FROM NICOMEDES I TO ZIAELAS
After the death of his first wife, Nicomedes I married Etazeta, a woman
of unknown origin192. According to Memnon, she was at the origin of the
dynastic crisis that began at Nicomedes’ death:
After a very short lapse of time, since Zeilas, the son born to him from an
earlier marriage, had been victim of the plot of his stepmother Etazeta and had
gone into exile to the king of the Armenians, the king of the Bithynians Nico-
medes appointed as his heirs in his will the sons born to him from his second
wife. Shortly before dying, because the heirs born to him from Etazeta were
infants, he appointed as their guardians Ptolemy, Antigonus and the people of
Byzantium, Heraclea and Cius193.
As far as we read in Memnon, Etazeta pressured Nicomedes I to expel from

Bithynia Ziaelas194, the son born to him from his first wife, and to appoint her
sons as heirs. It was necessary to appoint some guardians because Etazeta’s
sons were still children. They were chosen among the allies of Nicomedes I:
Byzantium, Heraclea, Cius (or maybe Cierus)195, Ptolemy II and Antigonus
Gonatas. This impressive list of some of the most important powers in the
time displayed Nicomedes’ contact network. By his will – it has been argued
– Nicomedes I intended to renew the Northern League to strengthen the anti-
192
Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 14, 1. Etazeta is the name’s form in Memnon. About the possible correction
to Eptazeta, see CORSTEN 2006, p. 121; cf. LGPN V.A, p. 161. VITUCCI 1953, pp. 29-30 used the form Hep-
tazeta (cf. HABICHT 1972c, col. 389). About the death of Nicomedes’ first wife, see Jacoby, FGrHist 156, F
29; Plin. NH VIII, 144; above pp. 59-60 n. 69.
193
Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 14, 1: Οὐ πολλοῦ δὲ πάνυ ῥυέντος χρόνου, ὁ τῶν Βιθυνῶν βασιλεὺς
Νικομήδης, ἐπεὶ ὁ μὲν ἐκ προτέρων αὐτῶι γάμων γεγονὼς παῖς Ζηίλας φυγὰς ἦν πρὸς τὸν τῶν ᾽Αρμενίων
βασιλέα, ταῖς τῆς μητρυιᾶς ᾽Εταζέτας μηχαναῖς ἐλαθείς, οἱ δὲ ἐκ ταύτης αὐτῶι γεγονότες ἐνηπίαζον, πρὸς
τῶι τελευτᾶν γεγονώς, κληρονόμους μὲν τοὺς μὲν ἐκ τῆς δευτέρας γυναικὸς γράφει παῖδας, ἐπιτρόπους
δὲ Πτολεμαῖον καὶ ᾽Αντίγονον καὶ τὸν δῆμον τῶν Βυζαντίων καὶ δὴ καὶ τῶν ῾Ηρακλεωτῶν καὶ τὸν τῶν
Κιανῶν ἐφίστησιν.
194
The name’s form commonly used is attested in epigraphic and numismatic evidence (HABICHT
1972c, coll. 387-388; VITUCCI 1953, p. 29 n. 5; cf. LGPN V.A, p. 191; OnomThrac, pp. 393-394). Literary
sources hand down several alternative forms: Ziaela (Trog. Prol. XXVII), Ζιήλα (Jacoby, FGrHist 156,
FF 29, 89b; Steph. Byz s.v. Ζῆλα and Κρῆσσα; Radicke, FGrHistCont 1061, F 1), Ζιήλας (Tzetzes Chil.
III, 968), Ζηίλας (Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 14, 1-2; Steph. Byz s.v. Νικομήδεια and Προῦσα), Ζηλᾶς (Phy-
larchos BNJ 81, F 50).
195
See above p. 69.
Seleucidic front196. If so, the inclusion of Antigonus Gonatas is puzzling: he

was indeed Antiochus I’s brother-in-law197. Furthermore, appointing infant
heirs weakened Bithynia, as it exposed the kingdom to possible attacks from
the Seleucids, instead of preventing them198. Again, Memnon’s account re-
lates a ‘domestic’, ‘dynastic’ situation. It connectes in no way with Nico-
medes’ decision to the current situation in northern Anatolia. As far as we
can read, Nicomedes I’s only purpose was to guarantee the succession to the
sons of his second wife. It is possible that Etazeta had some role in the ap-
pointment of the guardians. She was probably aware of Ziaelas’ claim over
the throne; and she did her best to safeguard the rights of her children, who
were the legitimate heirs on paper.
Memnon records that Ziaelas went into exile in Armenia. The Orontids,
who ruled the region at that time, were trying to become independent from
the Seleucids199. They were eager to support anyone who could cause in-
stability on the borders of the Seleucid empire, and the help to Ziaelas was
in alignment with their policies200.
At the death of Nicomedes I, Ziaelas, as expected, marched on Bithynia.
He intened to seize the throne that he considered his own as firstborn of
the late king. The only information concerning the war of succession is in
Memnon:
Ziaelas, however, returned to the kingdom with a force, which the Tolis-
tobogi among the Galatians had filled with courageous men for him. But
the Bithynians, who were eager to preserve the power for the infants, gave
their mother in marriage to the brother of Nicomedes while they themselves,
receiving an army from the aforementioned guardians, awaited Ziaelas.
Both sides, having suffered many battles and vicissitudes, finally reached an
agreement. The Heracleans distinguished themselves in battle and achieved
benefit from the arrangement. Wherefore the Galatians wasted the lands of
196
HUSS 1976, p. 98; WILL 1979, p. 246; DAVAZE 2013, p. 387; GABELKO 2005, p. 199; cf. BITTNER 1998,
pp. 81-82.
197
DAVAZE 2013, p. 387. On Antigonus’ marriage with Antiochus’ sister, see above pp. 54-55 n. 47.
198
BITTNER 1998, p. 82; cf. VITUCCI 1953, p. 21.
199
On Armenia, see SCHOTTKY 1989; FACELLA 2006, pp. 84-86, 94-198, 217-220; KHATCHADOURIAN 2007;
COLORU 2013; TRAINA 2017. According to the communis opinio (e.g. HABICHT 1972c, col. 389; SEVRUGIAN
1973, p. 37), the Orontid dynast who hosted Ziaelas was Adroates; according to SCHOTTKY 1989, pp. 99-100
and SCHOTTKY 2001 (cf. SCHOTTKY 2002d), it was Samos, Adroates’ successor. Cf. REDGATE 1998, p. 62.
200
SCHOTTKY 1989, pp. 104-105. These policies included hospitality and support to Ariarathes II of
Cappadocia in the 280s BC (Diod. XXXI, 19, 4-5; for a status quaestionis on the date, see FACELLA 2006,
pp. 164-165) and the alliance with Antiochus Hierax during the War of the Brothers (Polyaen. IV, 17; see
below pp. 92-93).
78 ELOISA PAGANONI
Heraclea as far as the river Calles, as the city was an enemy, and, after taking
possession of much booty they returned home201.
The short narrative records the background of the war. It deals with the moves
of Ziaelas and of those who were loyal to Nicomedes I (and to Etazeta) – the
‘Bithynians’ in the text202. Then it goes on with the account of the war and the
situation of Heraclea at the end of the conflict. When the news of the death of
Nicomedes spread, Ziaelas hired a group of Galatians (as his father had done
against his brother Zipoites203) and marched to Bithynia. Meanwhile, those
loyal to the late king and to Etazeta tried to legitimate her position by marrying
her off to one of Nicomedes I’s brothers204. The account of the war is lacking
details, but the conflict was apparently long as Memnon records many victo-
ries and defeats on both sides205. Not one of these battles – it seems – marked
the end of the war, though. The conflict finished with an agreement that rec-
ognised Ziaelas as king. Diplomatic negotiations guaranteed benefits for all
those who had been involved judging from the benefits that Heraclea obtained,
despite its support to Etazeta and her sons206.
One of the guardians, Ptolemy II, may have been the instigator of the diplo-
matic solution of the war207. He and Antigonus Gonatas are supposed to have
201
Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 14, 2-3: ὁ μέντοι Ζηίλας μετὰ δυνάμεως, ἣν αὐτῶι τῶν Γαλατῶν οἱ
Τολοστοβόγιοι θάρσους ἐπλήρουν, ἐπὶ τὴν βασιλείαν κατήιει, Βιθυνοὶ δὲ τὴν ἀρχὴν σώιζειν τοῖς νηπίοις
σπουδάζοντες τὴν μὲν τούτων μητέρα ἀδελφῶι συνοκίζουσι τῶι Νικομήδους, αὐτοὶ δὲ στράτευμα παρὰ
τῶν εἰρημένων ἐπιτρόπων λαβόντες ὑπέμενον τὸν Ζηίλαν. συχναῖς δὲ μάχαις καὶ μεταβολαῖς ἑκάτεροι
ἀποχρησάμενοι, τὸ τελευταῖον κατέστησαν εἰς διαλύσεις, ῾Ηρακλεωτῶν ἐν ταῖς μάχαις ἀριστευόντων κἀν
ταῖς συμβάσεσι τὸ συμφέρον καταπραττόντων. διὸ Γαλάται ὡς ἐχθρὰν τὴν ῾Ηράκλειαν κατέδραμον ἕως
Κάλλητος ποταμοῦ, καὶ πολλῆς κύριοι γεγονότες λείας οἴκαδε ἀνεχώρησαν.
202
Cf. VITUCCI 1953, p. 30; HABICHT 1972c, col. 390; DAVAZE 2013, p. 388. The ‘Bithynians’ are prob-
ably a consequence of Photius’ shortening (HABICHT 1972c, col. 390; MICHELS 2009, p. 56, n. 261). There
is no reason to think that this expression points out the Bithynian people as a political player, as KOTSIDU
2000, p. 132 and AVRAM 2003, p. 1211 do.
203
See above pp.53-58; cf. HANNESTAD 1996, p. 77.
204
The previous information on Nicomedes’ brothers dates back to the beiginning of Nicomedes’ rule
(Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 12, 6). HABICHT 1972c, col. 390 assumes that the one who married Etazeta was
Zipoites, who had made war against Nicomedes in the 270s BC.
205
Cf. MCGING 1986, p. 21; SCHOTTKY 1989, p. 99; BITTNER 1998, p. 82. Contra GRAINGER 2010 p. 131:
‘Ziaelas’ coup was quickly successful’.
206
According to GABELKO 2005, pp. 206-207, Heraclea had some advantages from the agreement
because it had led the negotiations between Ziaelas and the party hostile to him.
207
The actual involvement of him and Antigonus Gonatas in the military operations is questioned (TARN
1913, pp. 326-327; RC, p. 123; MCGING 1986, p. 21; GABELKO 2005, p. 201; GRAINGER 2010, p. 131). But
there is no decisive argument to rule out that they contributed to the guardians’ coalition in some measure
(Cf. DROYSEN 1952-1953, vol. III, pp. 204-205; SAPRYKIN 1997, pp. 219-221; GRAINGER 2010, p. 131; DAVAZE
2013, p. 389). VITUCCI 1953, p. 30 argues that the negotiation was promoted by Heraclea, but he adds in n. 5:
‘A meno che la parte di primo piano da essi (i.e. the Heracleans) avuta in queste vicende non sia da ascrivere
in gran parte al particolare colorito della tradizione, rappresentata unicamente dall’eracleota Memnone’.
disagreed about the succession to the throne of Bithynia. This is inferred from
their differing attitudes toward Ziaelas after he became king208. When Ziaelas
became king, the ousted heirs (and probably their mother) sought asylum in
Macedonia; it is possible that they benefitted from Antigonus’ protection209.
Throughout Ziaelas’ reign, then, there is no evidence of contacts between
Bithynia and Macedonia. These circumstances are read as an echo of the hos-
tility of Antigonus Gonatas to Ziaelas. Antigonus seems to have never recog-
nised Ziaelas as the legitimate sovereign. On the other hand, the relationships
of Bithynia and Egypt not only continued but also strengthened under Ziae-
las210. Contrary to Antigonus, therefore, Ptolemy II accepted Ziaelas as king
at some point. His change of mind was probably linked to his interests in the
Hellespont. The war of succession had caused insecurity in the Propontic area
and it had weakened Bithynia211. This situation may have turned in favour of
Antiochus II, who again was showing some interest in the Propontis almost at
the same time212. Ptolemy II could have preferred to default on his duties as
guardian rather than to lose a strategic ally, such as Bithynia.
The Propontic cities had been worn down by the long war of succes-
sion at their borders. They likely welcomed the proposal of Ptolemy II to
solve the war with diplomatic negotiations. They accepted Ziaelas as king
without objections, also for the advantages that the treaty probably granted
them213. However, the agreement did not safeguard Heraclea against the
raids of the Galatians. The mercenaries of Ziaelas plundered the chōra of
the city as far as the river Cales, which Memnon called Calles214.
The chronology of the Bithynian war of succession is debated. Termi-
nus post quem is the latest episode of Nicomedes I’s reign dated with some
certainty, Nicomedia’s foundation, that is placed between 266/5 and 261/0
BC215. The war occurred when both Antigonus Gonatas and Ptolemy II
208
DROYSEN 1952-1953, vol. III, p. 204; SAPRYKIN 1997, pp. 219-221; GABELKO 2005, p. 201; GRAINGER
2010, p. 131; DAVAZE 2013, p. 389.
209
Polyb. IV, 50, 1 (see below p. 103); BERVE 1902, p. 173; DROYSEN 1952-1953, vol. III, p. 204;
WALBANK 1957-1979, vol. I, p. 504; HABICHT 1972c, col. 390; SAPRYKIN 1997, p. 219.
210
RC 25; see below p. 86 and Appendix nr. 8.
211
212
Cf. Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 15 records a siege to Byzantium by Antiochus II; see below pp. 80-81 n. 221.
213
DAVAZE 2013, p. 389: ‘Ces derniers (i.e. the Propontic cities) devaient juger préférable de mettre fin
à une guerre qui, à la longue, aurait pu affaiblir la région et causer des dégâts à ses territoires qui se trou-
vaient à la frontière du royaume en guerre. Peut-être en retirèrent-ils des avantages d’ordre économique’.
214
HABICHT 1972c, col. 391 thinks that the booty from plundering could be the reward for support to Ziae-
las. According to DAVAZE 2013, pp. 390-391, the raids of the Galatians occurred before the agreement, and so
they were part of Ziaelas’ operations against Heraclea. For the identification of the river Calles in Memnon with
the river Cales, cf. HABICHT 1972c, col. 391; Keaveney – Madden, Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 14, 3, Commentary.
215
VITUCCI 1953, p. 29; HABICHT 1972c, col. 389. On the foundation of Nicomedia, see above pp. 60-61.
80 ELOISA PAGANONI
were still alive. So Ptolemy’s death in 246 BC is the terminus ante quem216.
The war can be dated more closely on the basis of some clues. Nicomedes’
first wife was buried in Nicomedia217. Accordingly her death and Nicome-
des’ marriage with Etazeta took place after the foundation of the city. In
addition, Ziaelas was likely exiled shortly after the second marriage of his
father. Some scholars think that Zialeas left Bithynia in about 260 BC218.
In this case, these events (the foundation of the city, Nicomedes I’s second
marriage and Ziaelas’ exile) should be placed within a timespan of six
years at most. Although it is possible, this timespan was likely longer. Ac-
cordingly, the latest of these events (Ziaelas’ flight to Armenia) should be
set in the early 250s BC219. Nicomedes’ marriage with Etazeta should have
taken place shortly before or even almost at the same time. Nicomedes I’s
death should have occurred some years later, after he had more than one
child from Etazeta. Accordingly, he died as early as 255 BC, but more
probably some time later220. The Bithynian war of succession lasted a few
years and presumably ended by the 250s BC221.
216
HABICHT 1972c, coll. 389-390. For the date of Ptolemy II’s death, see e.g. NADIG 2013. Some
scholars propose as terminus ante quem the letter of Ziaelas to Cos (RC 25; HERZOG 1905, pp. 178-179;
VITUCCI 1953, p. 31; HABICHT 1972c, col. 389), but against this see below pp. 177-178
217
Jacoby, FGrHist 156, F 29.
218
HABICHT 1972c, col. 389; SEVRUGIAN 1973, p. 37; SCHOTTKY 1989, p. 100.
219
Cf. SCHOTTKY 1989, p. 255 and SCHOTTKY 2002d, dating the exile of Ziaelas to 255 BC.
220
MEYER 1897, col. 517 and GEYER 1936, col. 494 think that Nicomedes died in c. 260 BC. TARN 1913,
p. 327 n. 38 and HABICHT 1972c, col. 390 assume that Nicomedes I’s will dated back to a period when Anti-
gonus Gonatas and Ptolemy II were on friendly terms. Thus they date it to 255-253 BC. At that time – they
think – Antigonus Gonatas and Ptolemy II withdrew from the Second Syrian War and signed a separate
peace (Cf. I.Callatis, p. 244. On the Second Syrian War, see WILL 1979, pp. 234-239; GRAINGER 2010, pp.
117-136). Accordingly, they date Nicomedes’ death to about the same period (cf. SCHOTTKY 1989, p. 100;
MITCHELL 1993, p. 19; SCHOTTKY 2000; AVRAM 2003, p. 1184; GABELKO 2005, p. 198; HEINEMANN 2010, p.
230; COȘKUN 2011, p. 96; ROBU 2014b, p. 20). Against their argument, it is to be noted that Antigonus’ par-
ticipation in this war is conjectural (WILL 1979, pp. 238-239; cf. GRAINGER 2010, pp. 117-136). Secondly,
there is no proof that the alliance of Nicomedes I with Antigonus and Ptolemy was necessarily connected
to the good relations between the two kings. BERVE 1902, p. 173 dates the death of Nicomedes to about 250
BC and VITUCCI 1953, p. 31 to the early 240s BC.
221
HERZOG 1905, pp. 178-179; VITUCCI 1953, p. 31; JONES 1971, p. 150; HARRIS 1980, p. 281; SCHOTTKY
2002d; Keaveney – Madden, Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 14, Commentary. Memnon, our only source on the
mid-thrid-century-BC situation in the Propontis, deals with four other events close to the Bithynian war
of succession: 1) the war of Istros and Callatis against Byzantium over the emporion of Tomis (Memnon
BNJ 434, F 1, 13, 1-3; VULIĆ 1916, col. 2269; VULIĆ 1919, col. 1611; DANOFF 1962, col. 1417; BITTNER
1998, p. 68; I.Callatis, pp. 26-32, 241-244; VON BREDOW 2002c, col. 672; AVRAM 2003, pp. 1211-1212;
HEINEMANN 2010, pp. 228-229; DAVAZE 2013, pp. 379-384; TALMAŢCHI 2016, p. 444); 2) the siege of Byz-
antium by a king identified with Antiochus II (Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 15, 1; for the identification, e.g.
Keaveney – Madden, Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 15, Commentary; contra GRAINGER 1997, pp. 35-36 thinks
of Antiochus Hierax; about the siege, see WILL 1979, pp. 247-248; I.Callatis, pp. 26-32; AVRAM 2003, p.
1212; HEINEMANN 2010, p. 232; DAVAZE 2013, pp. 391-395); 3) the aid of Heraclea to Mithridates II against
the Galatians (Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 16, 1-3; WILL 1979, p. 292; MCGING 1986, p. 21; SAPRYKIN 1997,
6. ZIAELAS IN HIS FATHER’S FOOTSTEPS
The earliest attestation of Ziaelas as king is the letter to Cos that granted
the asylia to the sanctuary of Asclepius on the occasion of the Asklepieia
becoming a Panhellenic festival in 242 BC222. It is the only letter that can
be for certain ascribed to a Bithynian king223. But this is not the main rea-
son of its importance. This fifty-line document contains the key elements
that trace Ziaelas’ policies regarding international relations and propagan-
da. In this regard, it preserves the famous statement that is considered the
manifesto of the cultural policies of the whole Bithynian dynasty224:
We exercise care of all Greeks, who come to us, because we are convinced that
it contributes in no small way to one’s reputation225.
By these few words, Ziaelas revealed the reason behind philhellenic

acts. They served to increase his reputation (and so his political posi-
p. 232; BITTNER 1998, p. 86; HEINEMANN 2010, pp. 233-235; Keaveney – Madden, Memnon BNJ 434, F 1,
16, Commentary; DAVAZE 2013, p. 395-396.); 4) a donation to Heraclea by a king (Memnon BNJ 434, F
1, 17, 1), who could be either Ptolemy II (MAGIE 1950, p. 310; HABICHT 1970, pp. 116-121; MCGING 1986,
p. 19; I.Callatis, pp. 26-32; AVRAM 2003, p. 1212; DAVAZE 2013, pp. 398-402; cf. Keaveney – Madden,
Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 17, Commentary) or Ptolemy III (Jacoby, FGrHist 434, F 1, 17, 1, Commentary,
p. 278; HENRY 1965, p. 67 n. 3; HEINEMANN 2010, pp. 235-237; cf. Keaveney – Madden, Memnon BNJ
434, F 1, 17, Commentary). Memnon provides a relative chronology of these episodes that are to be set
between the mid-260s BC and 246 BC (if Memnon mentions Ptolemy II), or 222 BC (if Memnon mentions
Ptolemy III). It is nearly impossible to date them more closely. Scholars yet look for any connection with
the Bithynian war of succession that Memnon places shortly after the war over Tomis (Memnon BNJ 434,
F 1, 14, 1-3). Antiochus II is supposed to have supported Ziaelas (SAPRYKIN 1997, p. 231; D’AGOSTINI 2013,
p. 141 n. 406). In this way, scholars assume a situation similar to 279-277 BC, when Antiochus I aided
Zipoites against Nicomedes I (see above pp. 57-58). Avram (I.Callatis, pp. 26-32, 241-244; AVRAM 2003,
followed by DAVAZE 2013, pp. 379-402) goes further and depicts one coherent frame in which all the events
recorded in Memnon are interrelated. In particular, he assumes a connection between the war over Tomis,
Ptolemy II’s intervention in the Propontis and the Bithynian war of succession. Both these hypotheses are in
fact speculative (cf. WILL 1979, pp. 246-247). Furthermore, Avram’s hypothesis is based on his new edition
of I.Callatis 7, which is not convincing for many reasons. There is no room to fully discuss them here, but
for some critical remarks, see ROBU 2014b, pp. 22-25 who follows and adjusts the edition in MANOV 2001.
222
RC 25; see below Appendix nr. 8.
223
A letter to Aphrodisias/Plarasa (I.Aph2007 8.24) has been attributed to Nicomedes IV since the first
edition in Reynolds A&R, p. 21 nr. 4 (cf. McCabe, Aphrodisias 36; JONES 1985; SEG 35 [1985] 1083). This
proposal is generally accepted, even if with some reservations (e.g. BE 1983, 365, p. 151; MILLAR 2002,
p. 225 n. 41; CHANIOTIS 2004, p. 385). However, it is highly speculative: the only surviving letters of the
sender’s name are δη̣ (l. 1) and the text contains no reference to Bithynia. On alternative proposals about
the sender, see REYNOLDS 1973, pp. 115-113; JONES 1985, pp. 316-317.
224
RC 25, p. 122: ‘of the philhellenic policy of the Bithynian dynasty no better monument exists than
this letter’; VITUCCI 1953, p. 31; HANNESTAD 1996, pp. 77-78; MICHELS 2009, pp. 60-61.
225
RC 25, ll. 11-17: ἡμεῖς δὲ πάν|των μὲν τῶν ἀφικνουμένω[ν] | πρὸς ἡμᾶς Ἑλλήνων τυγχάνο|μεν τὴν
ἐπιμέλειαν ποιούμε|νοι, πεπεισμένοι πρὸς δόξαν οὐ | μικρὸν συμβάλλεσθαι τὸ μέρος | τοῦτο.
82 ELOISA PAGANONI
tion) in front of the Greek world. Scholars still refuse to acknowledge

the importance of this insightful, disenchanted statement. Hannestad
claims: ‘The passage in Ziaelas’ letter even more strongly and with
strange naivety expresses the foreign, barbarian king’s motive for com-
plying with the Coan request’226. Michels says: ‘Für die Deutung der
Beweggründe des Ziaëlas ist außerdem von Interesse, daß Burstein227
πεπεισμένοι als »being persuaded« übersetzt. Die Wendung wäre
so eher als Aufnahme der Argumentation der koishen Gesandten zu
deuten den als Zeugnis einer generellen Gesinnung des bithynischen
Königs’228. Ziaelas is portrayed as a little more than a barbarian ruler.
His claim reflects a naïve behaviour (Hannestad), or someone else’s
suggestion (Michels).
The shadow of Nicomedes I – traditionally the champion of Helleniza-
tion – lingers over Ziaelas. This tendency also dominates the evaluations
about other aspects of Ziaelas’ politics, starting from coinage. A few coins
minted during his reign are known, and all of them are specimens of the
same bronze series229. On the obverse they bear the king’s head with the
diadem. On the reverse, they have the legend ΒΑΣΙΛΕ[ΩΣ] [Ζ]ΙΑΗΛ[Α]
and a trophy with shield, helmet and lance. The absence of silver coin-
age is considered indicative of Ziaelas’ attitude towards Hellenization.
Maurice Sartre writes: ‘Ziaèlas revient à une politique moins philhellène,
se contentant de poursuivre sans innover la politique de son père... Il se
contente d’un monnayage de bronze’230. About Ziaelas’ cultural policies,
Hannestad concludes: ‘this philhellenic attitude does not seem to be very
active on the part of Ziaelas, but rather a passive continuation of a policy
of his predecessor. Such a not very active policy may also be reflected in
Ziaelas’ use of his Thracian name as king and by the fact that apparently
minted only bronze coins, and that in very limited quantity’231.
As with Zipoites, Ziaelas is considered a ‘barbarian’ (i.e. non-hel-
lenised) king. Scholars are reluctant to admit that Ziaelas continued the
politics of his father. Even with incontrovertible evidence in this sense,
they hasten to specify that Ziaelas was ‘less hellenised’ than his father.

226

227
228
MICHELS 2009, pp. 60-61.
229
For the list, see SEVRUGIAN 1973, pp. 33-34. On Ziaelas’ coinage, see REINACH 1888, pp. 101-102;
BMC Bithynia, p. xl; SEVRUGIAN 1973; MICHELS 2009, pp. 162-163; HOOVER 2012, p. 209.
230
SARTRE 2003, p. 69.
231
HANNESTAD 1996, p. 78; cf. MICHELS 2009, p. 162.
They look unsuccessfully for ‘barbarian’ traces. The absence of silver

coinage, indeed, might be due to lack of evidence. Ziaelas’s Thracian
name speaks more of Nicomedes’ politics than Ziaelas himself. It con-
tributes to revealing the Thracian/national component in propaganda of
Ziaelas’ predecessor.
Instead, many elements prove that Ziaelas not only pursued politics in
line with those of his father but was also ‘even more “Hellenistic”’ of
him232. In reference to the numismatic evidence, the coin portrait recalls
that of Nicomedes I233. Iconography presented Ziaelas to his people as a
victorious leader according to a tendency we also find in the coinage of
Nicomedes I and other Hellenistic kings234. Granting asylia was one of the
acts Hellenistic kings used to express their patronage over Greek sanctuar-
ies. Besides the political and diplomatic implications, it was a tool of pres-
tige. The choice to write a letter to communicate with the Coans is mean-
ingful. The letter was the most representative form of document used by
Hellenistic kings; and remarkably Ziaelas’ one proposes the key features
of the Hellenistic epistolography in form and style235. Ziaelas founded a
settlement and named it after himself236. In fact, Ziaelas imitated the Hel-
lenistic kings, like his grandfather and his father. Or better, like other Hel-
lenistic sovereigns, he drew on the shared canons of Graeco-Macedonian
basileia. Ziaelas went a step further. He disclosed the reason behind phil-
hellenic acts. It was a matter of δόξα, ‘reputation’, or ‘prestige’. He proved
(and even showed frankly) to be aware of the game of self-representation
he was called to play to be recognised as king.
After demonstrating that Ziaelas was a worthy successor of Zipoites
and Nicomedes I in cultural policies, it remains to be seen if he followed
his predecessors in other respects. The trophy on the reverse of his coins
refers to a military success that Reinach and others after him identify with
the victory of the war of succession237. The war, however, finished not
with a triumph for Ziaelas, but with an agreement238. This consideration
keeps open (and invites to prefer) another option. Coinage could allude to
another success, maybe related to the campaigns of conquest of Ziaelas239.
232
ROSTOVTZEFF 1941, p. 569; cf. HARRIS 1980, p. 861; SCHOTTKY 2002d.
233
REINACH 1888, p. 102; SEVRUGIAN 1973, p. 34; MICHELS 2009, p. 162.
234
See above p. 65.
235
236
Steph. Byz. s.v. Ζῆλα; see below, p. 84.
237
REINACH 1888, p. 102; SEVRUGIAN 1973, pp. 34-37; MICHELS 2009, pp. 162-163; HOOVER 2012, p. 209.
238
Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 14, 2.
239
HABICHT 1972c, col. 393; SCHOTTKY 2002d.
84 ELOISA PAGANONI
Hints at them come from Stephanus of Byzantium. In the entry Ζῆλα,

he lists several cities and about one of them he says:
There is also Zeila with three syllables, a city in Cappadocia, which Zeilas son
of Nicomedes founded. The ethnic is Zelites240.
According to this passage, Ziaelas founded a settlement with his own name
in Cappadocia241. No Bithynian presence is attested so far south-east, yet242.
So, the foundation is supposed to have been farther west, but its exact loca-
tion remains unknown243. Wherever it was, Zeila is supposed to be on the
border of the kingdom, in a recently-conquered area. In this view, it probably
was a military outpost, and not a polis as Stephanus says244. Another piece
of information about the conquests of Ziaelas is in the entry Κρῆσσα. Here
Stephanus quotes a passage from Demosthenes’ Bithyniaka:
A city in Paphlagonia founded by Meriones after the Trojan War. Ziaelas, the
son of Nicomedes, took it, as Demosthenes writes... The ethnic is Cressaius245.
The passage deals with the seizure of Cressa. This city is often identi-
fied with Crateia/Flaviopolis in Paphlagonia, corresponding to today’s
Gerede246. The evidence is weak though247. Moreover, Crateia seems to
lie too far east to be Stephanus’ Cressa248. Ziaelas should have seized the
240
Steph. Byz. s.v. Ζῆλα: ἔστι καὶ Ζήιλα τρισυλλάβως, πόλις Καππαδοκίας, ἣν ἔκτισεν ὁ Νικομήδους
υἱὸς Ζηίλας. ὁ πολίτης Ζηλίτης.
241
According to the right form of the king’s name, the settlements’ name should be corrected in Ziela
(COHEN 1995, p. 408; MICHELS 2009, p. 272).
242
BELOCH 1925, p. 672 n. 2; MEYER 1925, p. 112; RC 25, p. 122; MAGIE 1950, p. 1195 n. 35; VITUCCI
1953, pp. 32-33, who remarks that over Cappadocia ‘né ora né mai si estese il dominio bitinico, se si
prescinde dal breve e assai mal riuscito tentativo che Nicomede III fece più di un secolo più tardi’;
HABICHT 1972c, col. 393; SEVRUGIAN 1973, pp. 40-41; COHEN 1995, p. 408; MICHELS 2009, p. 272; Trachsel,
Demosthenes BNJ 699, F 15, Commentary; cf. FERNOUX 2004, p. 32 n. 48.
243
BELOCH 1925, p. 672 n. 2; MEYER 1925, p. 112; RC 25, p. 122; MAGIE 1950, p. 1195 n. 35; HABICHT
1972c, col. 393; COHEN 1995, p. 408; MICHELS 2009, p. 272.
244
HARRIS 1980, p. 867; MICHELS 2009, p. 272.
245
Steph. Byz. s.v. Κρῆσσα = Demosthenes BNJ 699, F 15: πόλις Παφλαγονίας, ἣν Μηριόνης μετὰ
Τροίαν ἔκτισε, Ζηίλας δὲ εἷλεν ὁ Νικομήδους υἱός. Δημοσθένης γράφει ** (?). τὸ ἐθνικὸν Κρησσαῖος.
Stephanus probably found this information in Herodian (De pros. cath., p. 267), who preserves the same
words but does not record the ethnic.
246
MEYER 1879, p. 50; MEYER 1897, col. 517; BELOCH 1925, p. 672 n. 2; MEYER 1925, pp. 111-112; JONES
1940, p. 17; JONES 1971, p. 151, 419 n. 9. For the location of Crateia, see ȘAHIN 1984; COHEN 1995, p. 386.
247
It is constituted by one inscription mentioning Thracian personal names (CIG 3808; JONES 1971, p.
419 n. 9; cf. COHEN 1995, p. 386; MICHELS 2009, p. 272).
248
RUGE 1922; MAGIE 1950, p. 1195 n. 35; VITUCCI 1953, pp. 33-34; Trachsel, Demosthenes BNJ 699,
F 15, Commentary.
areas of Cierus and Bithynium before taking Crateia, but this region was
annexed to Bithynia by the successor of Zialeas, Prusias I249. In view of
these remarks, some scholars250 assume that Cressa was in Paphlagonia, as
Stephanus says, but somewhere farther south. Despite these attempts, as
with Zeila, its location remains unknown.
There is no other significant evidence about the campaigns of Ziae-
las . It is impossible to determine when they occurred or how large Ziae-
251
las’ conquests were. At most, we can say that Ziaelas expanded Bithynia
south-eastwards252. He probably annexed some part of Paphlagonia and/or
Phrygia253.
However, Ziaelas had gained great successes in battle and his military
skills were celebrated in Bithynian propaganda254. In his commentary to
the Iliad, Eustathius attributes to Arrian an example of the widespread
theme of imitatio Heraclis:
and, I read, the brave man does not wear, as it is suitable, the leontis, like Hera-
cles in the ancient time, and Zielas afterwards, according to Arrian255.
For the occurrence of Ziaelas’ name, this passage is supposed to have

been part of the Bithyniaka; Ziaelas here mentioned is identified with the
Bithynian king256. Arrian seems to establish a parallel between him and
Heracles. In particular, he refers to the representation of Ziaelas as Hera-
cles. The ‘lokalpatriotische Tendenz’257 guarantees that this tradition was
used at the Bithynian court. But the evidence is insufficient to claim that
it dates back to Ziaelas’ reign. It is thus unwise to use it to enrich the
already detailed picture of Ziaelas’ cultural policies, and to conclude that
249
HABICHT 1972c, col. 394; see below pp. 139-140.
250
MAGIE 1950, p. 1195 n. 35; HABICHT 1972c, coll. 393-394; cf. COHEN 1995, p. 386. Pseudo Scylax
(67) mentions Cressa, a city of Chersonesus, but it is very unlikely that this is the city quoted by Stephanus
of Byzantium (Trachsel, Demosthenes BNJ 699, F 15, Commentary; cf. LOUKOPOULOU 2004, p. 907).
251
According to MEYER 1897, col. 517 and HABICHT 1972c, col. 394, Justin (XXVII, 3, 1-6) too would
refer to Ziaelas’ conquests; on this passage, see below pp. 89-90.
252
VITUCCI 1953, p. 34; WILL 1979, p. 291; SCHOTTKY 2002d; FERNOUX 2004, p. 32 n. 48; GABELKO
2005, p. 219.
253
MEYER 1925, p. 122; MAGIE 1950, p. 1195 n. 35; SEVRUGIAN 1973, pp. 40-41; WILL 1979, p. 291;
GABELKO 2005, pp. 219-221. Unconvincingly, GABELKO 2005, p. 246 (cf. GABELKO 2015, p. 87) argues that
Ziaelas campaigned against Cius.
254
HABICHT 1972c, col. 393; GABELKO 2005, p. 219.
255
Jacoby, FGrHist 156, F 89b: οὐ μὴν καὶ λεοντῆν προσφυῶς πάνυ λεχθείη ἐνάπτεσθαι ὁ ἀνδρεῖος
κατὰ τὸν πάλαι Ἡρακλῆν ἢ κατὰ τὸν ὕστερον Ζιήλαν τὸν παρὰ τῶι Ἀρριανῶι.
256
Cf. HABICHT 1972c, col. 393.
257
Jacoby, FGrHist 156, FF 89b, 106, Commentary, pp. 584-585.
86 ELOISA PAGANONI
this king was also patron of scholars and artists. Anyway, this fragment
proves that Bithynian propaganda drew from a shared cultural environ-
ment: the imitatio Heraclis was in vogue in Hellenistic courts since it
referred to the propaganda of Alexander the Great, the true paradeigma
of kingship258.
There are further similiraies between Nicomedes I’s and Ziaelas’ reigns.
Like his father, Ziaelas looked for the support of the Galatians to secure his
power and enlarged the kingdom. He also continued the friendly relations
his father had established with Egypt and Cos259. In the letter to the Coans,
Ziaelas addressed them as follows:
We go on taking care above all of the paternal friends and of you, because of
the consideration our father nourished towards you and because King Ptolemy,
who is our friend and ally, is well-disposed in matters concerning you260.
Ziaelas renewed the friendship with Cos in view of the good relations of
the island with his father and the king of Egypt. In 242 BC, at the time of
the letter, this was Ptolemy III who had ascended the throne in 246 BC.
He is said to be Ziaelas’ ally. This is the demonstration that the alliance
Nicomedes I had signed with Ptolemy II had overcome the hard proof
of the war of succession. Ziaelas’ words establish the triangle Bithynia –
Cos – Egypt261 that links Ziaelas’ friendly relationships with Cos to those
between Egypt and Cos, at that time in the sphere of influence of the Ptole-
mies262. This invites to read the Bithynian-Coan relations in light of the
alliance with Egypt: for Ziaelas, the grant of the asylia was the occasion to
reinforce the friendship with the Ptolemies.
The letter continues with some measures Ziaelas took on request of the
Coan emissaries:
We will take care of those of you, who, cutting through the sea, come to places
we rule, in order to assure their safety. In the same way, we will offer help to
258
On Heracles in propaganda of Alexander and Hellenistic kings, see e.g. STEWART 1993, pp. 57-58,
78-69, 158-161, 235-236; CHANIOTIS 2003, pp. 434-435; SCHEER 2003, pp. 218, 223; TROFIMOVA 2012, pp.
59-80; GRABOWSKI 2018, p. 20.
259
Cf. above pp. 67-70.
260
RC 25, ll. 17-26: πολὺ δὴ μάλιστα τῶν | πατρικῶν φίλων διατελοῦ|μεν πολυωροῦντες καὶ ὑμῶν |
διὰ τὴν πρὸς τὸμ πατέρα <ἡ>μῶν | ὑπάρχουσαν πρὸς τὸν ὑμέτε|ρον δῆμον γνῶσιν, καὶ διὰ τὸ | τὸμ βασιλέα
Πτολεμαῖον | οἰκείως διακεῖσθαι τὰ πρὸς ὑμᾶς, | ὄντα ἡμέτερον φίλον καὶ σύμ|μαχον.
261
ROSTOVTZEFF 1941, p. 569; WILL 1979, p. 184 n. 3.
262
SHERWIN-WHITE 1978, pp. 90-131; HABICHT 2007, pp. 131-152.
those who arrive to us due to an accident during the voyage, in order that no-
body behave unjustly towards them263.
The document does not record what the Coans asked. However, on the
basis of the answer, it probably concerned the safety of trade through to
the Black Sea264. Ziaelas guaranteed protection to Coan sailors who came
to settlements under his control265. Through the asylia, the Coans were
establishing an international network to benefit their trade266. Ziaelas’ safe-
guard would have been a good achievement: Bithynia had been increasing
its role in Aegean-Black Sea trade since the foundation of Nicomedia. By
protecting the Coan merchants, Ziaelas indirectly favoured the Ptolemies,
who controlled Cos and were eager to take control of Black Sea trade267.
Ziaelas too had concrete advantage. He presented himself as a trustwor-
thy trade partner. This reinforced the role of Bithynia in long-range trade
routes268. Zialeas also extended some protection to the castaways. This de-
cision likely responded not to the Coans’ request, but to Ziaelas himself’s
will. It could have a propoagandistic purpose. Ziaelas – argue some schol-
ars – aimed to delate the reputation of Bithynians as inhospitable people269.
It is difficult to demonstate, even if the theme may have had some appleal
for the Bithynian kings270. Regardless of this, Zialeas may have referred
to the ideal of the philhellene king. Safeguard of castaways fits with the
263
RC 25, ll. 33-44: καὶ τῶν | πλειόντων τὴν θάλασσαν | ὅσοι ἂν τυγχάνωσιν τῶν ὑμε|τέρων
προσβάλλοντες τοῖς | τόποις ὧν ἡμεῖς κρατοῦμεν, | φροντίζειν ὅπως ἡ ἀσφάλει[α] | αὐτοῖς ὑπάρχῃ∙ κατὰ
ταὐτὰ [δὲ] | καὶ οἷς ἂν συμβῇ πταίματός [τι]|νος γενομένου κατὰ πλοῦν | προσπεσεῖν πρὸς τὴν ἡμετέ[ραν],
| πᾶσαν σπουδὴν ποιεῖσθαι ἵν[α] | μηδ’ ὑφ’ ἑνὸς ἀδικῶνται.
264
RC 25, pp. 123-124; VÉLISSAROPOULOS 1980, pp. 164-165; RIGSBY 1996, p. 121; DE SOUZA 1999, pp.
55-56; MICHELS 2009, p. 61. ROSTOVTZEFF 1941, p. 569 thinks that Ziaelas’ dispositions benefitted all the
Greeks. According to MUIR 2009, p. 99, who agrees with RC 26, p. 123 and ROSTOVTZEFF 1941, p. 569, the
request of asylia was just ‘window-dressing; the delegation’s real purpose is revealed in the second half of
the king’s reply’. About Coan trade, see SHERWIN-WHITE 1978, pp. 224-255. About the protection of casta-
ways, see VÉLISSAROPOULOS 1980, pp. 163-165.
265
RIGSBY 1996, p. 121 notices that τόποι usually means ‘settled places’. Accordingy, it also can been
understood as villages and harbours (MICHELS 2009, p. 64).
266
BURASELIS 2004, pp. 16-18; MICHELS 2009, p. 62.
267
Cf. ROSTOVTZEFF 1941, p. 569; see above pp. 69-70.
268
FERNOUX 2004, pp. 63-64; MICHELS 2009, pp. 63-64.
269
Xen. An. VI, 4, 2; HERZOG 1905, pp. 181-182; RC 25, pp. 123-124; ROSTOVTZEFF 1941, pp. 569-570;
MUIR 2009, p. 99; INTERDONATO 2013, p. 176.
270
About the difficutly to prove any reference to the old fame, see SHERWIN-WHITE 1978, pp. 243-244;
HANNERSTAD 1996, p. 78; RIGSBY 1996, p. 121. On the other hand, one could quote Nicolaus of Damascus
(Jacoby, FGrHist 90, F 113), who stressed the friendly attitude of the Bithynians to strangers in contrast
with their reputation. If he echoes the Bithynian court literature, as ROSTOVTZEFF 1941, p. 569 thought, one
should conclude that the Bithynian kings were sensititve to this matter.
88 ELOISA PAGANONI
‘care of all Greeks’ that, in Ziaelas’ words, ‘cotribute[d] in no small way

to one’s reputation’271.
The letter to Cos reveals different interests. On the one hand, there
were the Coans who looked to safeguard their trade. On the other hand,
there was Ziaelas. While strengthening his image as a Hellenistic king, he
was reinforcing his alliance with the Ptolemies and presenting himsef as
a trustworthy trade partner. Then, there were the interests of Ptolemy III.
The control of Cos and the alliance with Bithynia relapsed, indeed, into
Ptolemaic politics to establish some influence over the Aegean Sea and
Propontis.
At the time of the asylia, Ptolemy III was fighting the Third Syrian War
against Seleucus II272. The conflict ended the year after with victory for
Ptolemy. He seized a part of the coast of Asia, Thrace and Hellespont273,
and thus went a step further in his hegemonic ambitions. Although the
northern Aegean was one of the zones of this war, no source records the
involvement of Ziaelas and no hint allows us to speculate on such a pos-
sibility274.
Ziaelas appears again in our sources in regard to another war, this
time internal to the Seleucid dynasty. During the Third Syrian War, Se-
leucus II had been forced to recognise his brother Antiochus Hierax as
co-regent and to assign to him Asia Minor. At the end of the war, this
situation caused a conflict between Seleucus and Antiochus. It was the
so-called the War of the Brothers, which broke out in 241 or 240 BC275.
It is not clear whether Antiochus claimed the whole kingdom or Seleucus
wanted to put an end to the coregency. Developments and chronology of
this war are highly conjectural as well. It is known with good certainty
that Antiochus hired the Galatians and defeated Seleucus at Ancyra prob-
ably in 238 BC276. The war finished at some point in the following years.
Since 236 BC and till his death in 226 or 225 BC, indeed, Antiochus
Hierax is attested as co-regent with Seleucus II277.
271
RC 25, ll. 13-16. See MICHELS 2009, p. 64.
272
On this war, see WILL 1979, pp. 248-261; GRAINGER 2010, pp. 153-170.
273
WILL 1979, pp. 259-261; HUSS 2011, 171.
274
HABICHT 1972c, col. 394; SCHOTTKY 2002d; cf. the dubious statement of CHRUBASIK 2016, p. 76: ‘the
Bithynian king had been allied with Ptolemaios III during the Third Syrian War. In the aftermath of that
war, however, we have no evidence regarding his involvement in the power plays of western Asia Minor’.
275
On the War of the Brothers and the usurpation of Antiochus Hierax, see WILL 1979, pp. 294-296;
MAREK 2010, pp. 275-276; HELLER 2013; CHRUBASIK 2016, pp. 72-81, 90-101.
276
The Battle of Ancyra is traditionally dated to 240 BC (e.g. WILL 1979, pp. 295-296; PETKOVIĆ 2009,
p. 383). About the change of date to 238 BC, see ALLEN 1983, p. 198; HELLER 2013.
277
Cf. HELLER 2013; CHRUBASIK 2016, p. 76.
This dynastic war weakened Seleucid power, in favour of Attalus I.

He had succeeded his father in 241 BC. During the War of the Brothers
he took the title of basileus after a victory over the Galatians who were
attacking the poleis of Asia Minor278. From that point on, he defended his
independence against Antiochus Hierax who repeatedly tried to recover
Pergamum with the support of the Galatians279.
Trogus/Justin’s Book XXVII is the key source for these events. The
account opens with the establishment of Antiochus Hierax’ power in Asia
Minor and the outbreak of his war with Seleucus II280. Then, Justin records
a battle; we infer that it was the one at Ancyra as noted in the Prologus of
Trogus’ Book XXVII281. The account continues as follows:
Meanwhile, when the brothers were consumed and exhausted by the war caused
by domestic contentions, Eumenes, the king of Bithynia, attacked the victorious
Antiochus and the Galatians, wishing to take the almost vacant possession of
Asia. With intact forces, he won without any difficulty those who were weak
from the earlier clash. All wars which were undertaken in that stormy time aimed
to destroy Asia: anyone who became more powerful (than others) took Asia as
booty. The brothers Seleucus and Antiochus were at war. Ptolemy, the king of
Egypt, yearned for Asia to avenge his sister. Thus, the Bithynian Eumenes and
the Galatians – who had ever been the mercenary aid of those who were despica-
ble – wasted Asia, when it was impossible to find anyone protecting Asia among
all those bandits. After defeating Antiochus, Eumenes took most of Asia. Even
in that moment, the brothers did not come to an agreement, although the prize for
which they had undertaken the war had been lost. Neglecting the foreign enemy,
they opened the hostilities again for the mutual destruction282.
278
ALLEN 1983, pp. 27-35; MITCHELL 1993, pp. 21-22; EVANS 2012, pp. 19-20; MAREK 2010, pp. 275-
278; CHRUBASIK 2016, pp. 32-33, 78-79.
279
On Attalus I’s victories over the Galatians and Antiochus Hierax, see MAGIE 1950, pp. 737-738 n.
24; HANSEN 1971, pp 28-38; WILL 1979, pp. 294-300; ALLEN 1983, pp. 27-35, 195-199; MITCHELL 1993, pp.
21-22; STROBEL 1994a, pp. 86-87; CHRUBASIK 2016, pp. 78-79.
280
Iust. XXVII, 2, 6-10.
281
Iust. XXVII, 2, 11-12; Trog. Prol. XXVII; cf. Jacoby, FGrHist 260, F 32, 8, Commentary, p. 870;
SANTI AMANTINI 1981, p. 424 n. 8.
282
Iust. XXVII, 3, 1-6: Interea rex Bithyniae Eumenes sparsis consumptisque fratribus bello intestinae
discordiae quasi vacantem Asiae possessionem invasurus victorem Antiochum Gallosque adgreditur. Nec
difficile saucios adhuc ex superiore congressione integer ipse viribus superat. Ea namque tempestate om-
nia bella in exitium Asiae gerebantur: uti quisque fortior fuisset Asiam velut praedam occupabat. Seleucus
et Antiochus fratres bellum propter Asiam gerebant, Ptolomeus, rex Aegypti, sub specie sororiae ultionis
Asiae inhiabat. Hinc Bithynus Eumenes, inde Galli, humiliorum semper mercennaria manus, Asiam de-
populabantur, cum interea nemo defensor Asiae inter tot praedones inveniebatur. Victo Antiocho cum
Eumenes maiorem partem Asiae occupasset, ne tunc quidem fratres perdito praemio propter quod bellum
gerebant concordare potuerunt, sed omisso externo hoste in mutuum exitium bellum reparant.
90 ELOISA PAGANONI
This new war between the brothers ended with the defeat Antiochus Hier-
ax. He fled earlier ‘to his father-in-law Ariamenes, king of Cappadocia’283,
and then to Ptolemy III, who, however, ‘behaved as friendly as towards an
enemy’284. The account of Justin comes to an end with the death of Antio-
chus, who after fleeing from Egypt ‘was killed by outlaws’285.
In the narrative about the War of the Brothers and the war between
the Seleucids and Pergamum, Justin mentions ‘Eumenes of Bithynia’. He
won over the Galatians and Antiochus Hierax, who was weakened by an
earlier clash probably to be identified with the Battle of Ancyra286. This
puzzling figure mixes up information about Eumenes I (who was already
dead in that time), Attalus I (who was ruling Pergamum), and the king
of Bithynia Ziaelas287. This suggests that Trogus dealt with some events
involving Ziaelas in Book XXVII. But as far as we read in Justin, it is im-
possible to say whether he described Ziaelas’ involvement in the wars be-
tween Pergamum, the Seleucids and the Galatians, or Ziaelas’ campaigns
of conquest288.
In any case, that Ziaelas was in contact with Antiochus Hierax is testi-
fied by Porphyry. His work is preserved in Eusebius’ Chronicon, which
survives in the Armenian translation only. The short passage on the War of
the Brothers finishes with the following words:
After taking a few of them (i.e. the Galatians) with himself, (Antiochus Hi-
erax) reached Magnesia, and the day after lined up (his soldiers); and includ-
ing a force from Ptolemy among the other soldiers, he won; and married the
daughter of Zielas289.
The Battle of Magnesia is the only clash Porphyry/Eusebius mentions in
283
Iust. XXVII, 3, 7: ad socerum suum Ariamenem, regem Cappadociae.
284
Iust. XXVII, 3, 10: non amicior dedito quam hosti.
285
Iust. XXVII, 3, 11: a latronibus interficitur. Antiochus Hierax is commonly supposed to have died in
Thrace (e.g. CHRUBASIK 2016, pp. 79-80); contra PRIMO 2009 argues that he died in the Ptolemaic territories
of Syria.
286
SANTI AMANTINI 1981, p. 425 n. 2.
287
MEYER 1897, col. 517; HABICHT 1972c, col. 394; WILL 1979, p. 291; SANTI AMANTINI 1981, p. 425 n.
1; cf. DEVELIN – YARDLEY 1994, p. 199 n. 8; EVANS 2012, p. 170 n. 52.
288
For a possible reference to Ziaelas’ expansion campaings, see MEYER 1897, col. 517; HABICHT
1972c, col. 394.
289
Jacoby, FGrHist 260, F 32, 8: von welchen enkommend mit nur wenigen er nach Magnesia gelangte.
Und am folgende Tage stellte er sich in Schlachtordung auf. Abermals bundesgenössische Hilfe von Ptole-
meos erlangt habend, siegte er; und heiratete die Tochter des Zielas; Eus. I, 251-253 Shoene: ex quibus cum
paucis se eripiens (s. servatus), Magnesia proficiscebatur, et sequenti die aciem instruebat, atque inter alios
milites etiam auxiliares a Ptolemaeo accipiens, vicit (vincebat): et filiam Zielis (sc. Zieli) uxorem ducebat.
relation to the War of the Brothers. It is doubtful if this is a mistaken refer-

ence to the Battle of Ancyra290 or another battle291. Anyway, it is clear that
Ptolemy III supported Antiochus Hierax. Interestingly, the passage also
records an alliance between Ziaelas and the Seleucid usurper who married
the daughter of the Bithynian king292.
This marriage was in line with the marital practices of the Seleucids.
They aimed to establish relations with the kings on the borders of their em-
pire. Two sisters of Antiochus Hierax and Seleucus II had married Ariar-
athes III, the son of Ariamenes of Cappadocia, and Mithridates II of Pontus
respectively293. These unions, and the marriage of Antiochus Hierax with
Ziaelas’ daughter as well, prove that after the mid-3rd century BC the Se-
leucids had definitively set aside any hope to establish (or to re-establish)
the direct control over Cappadocia, Pontus and Bithynia294. Since that time
on, these kingdoms were included in the Seleucid alliance network through
marriages. As far as we read in Eusebius295, the alliances with Cappadocia
and Pontus were signed before the War of the Brothers. These alliances
were fortunate for Antiochus Hierax throughout the conflict. When the war
broke out, he sought (and found) help in Mithridates II and possibly Ari-
amenes of Cappadocia296. He also received aid from Ptolemy III and Ar-
sames of Armenia297. These ones, like Mithridates and Ariamenes, would
have benefitted from a weakening of Seleucus II298.
With regard to Ziaelas, the point is to understand when the alliance was
signed. Porphyry/Eusebius sets the marriage between Ziaelas’ daughter and
Antiochus Hierax after the battle at Magnesia. It is at the end of the account
of the War of the Brothers but it is not explicitly related to it. After the alli-
290
GABELKO 2009, pp. 50-51.
291
NIESE 1899, p. 155; DROYSEN 1952-1953, vol. III, p. 303; GRABOWSKI 2018, p. 19.
292
The name of Ziaelas’ daughter is unknown (HABICHT 1972c, coll. 388-390). Wrongly GRAINGER
1997, p. 50; DODD 2009, p. 50 and n. 156; HELLER 2013 say that she was named Laodice.
293
About Ariamenes, Eus. I, 251 Schoene; Iust. XXXVIII, 5, 3. About Mithridates II, Eus. I, 251
Schoene; Diod. XXXI, 19, 6. On these marital alliances, see SEIBERT 1967, pp. 57-60; WILL 1979, pp. 258-
259; GRAINGER 2017a, pp. 44-45; cf. D’AGOSTINI 2013, p. 141.
294
GRABOWSKI 2018, p. 19.
295
Eus. I, 251 Schoene.
296
About Mithridates II, Eus. I, 251 Schoene; MAGIE 1950, p. 1088, n. 38; WILL 1979, pp. 294-295;
D’AGOSTINI 2013, p. 141; KUHN 2013 (contra PETKOVIĆ 2009 who assumes that Mithridates II joined with
Antiochus in the following war against Attalus I). Ariamenes is supposed to support Antiochus Hierax on
the basis of Antiochus’ later flight to Cappadocia (Iust. XXVII, 3, 7; WILL 1979, pp. 294-295).
297
About Ptolemy III, see the above-quoted passage from Eus. I, 251-253 Schoene. For the alliance
between Arsames and Antiochus Hierax, see Polyaen. IV, 17 (below in the text).
298
HABICHT 1972c, coll. 394-395; MAGIE 1950, pp. 736-737 n. 23; WILL 1979, p. 295; D’AGOSTINI 2013,
p. 141. On Antiochus Hierax’ plans, see HUSS 1976, p. 98; WILL 1979, pp. 294-295.
92 ELOISA PAGANONI
ance with Ziaelas the account moves on to Antiochus’ war against Attalus
I. Furthermore, there is no evidence of the involvement of Ziaelas either in
the war with Seleucus II or in the one with Attalus I. For these reasons, the
marital alliance between the king of Bithynia and Antiochus Hierax remains
difficult to date299. Although it is often connected with the war against Per-
gamum300, it more likely dates back – I think – to the years of the War of the
Brothers301. Ziaelas had good reasons to join Antiochus Hierax, like the other
kings and rulers who bordered on the Seleucid empire. Even if no attack is
attested after the 270s BC, the Seleucids still were the most powerful neigh-
bours of Bithynia. Secondly, it is worth noting that Ptolemy III, who was
ally of Ziaelas, certainly took part in the conflict at Antiochus Hierax’ side302.
He might have had some role in establishing contacts between Ziaelas and
Antiochus; or perhaps he and Ziaelas jointly agreed to support the Seleucid
usurper303. In this case, the Bithynian-Ptolemaic alliance went beyond the
economic sphere and revealed political implications304.
Antiochus Hierax was also in contact with Arsames of Armenia. In this
regard, Polyaenus says:
After rising up, Antiochus the brother of Seleucus fled to Mesopotamia; from
there Arsames, who was his friend, hosted him, who had crossed the moun-
tains of the Armenians305.
This passage contains the earliest attestation of friendly relationships be-

tween an Armenian ruler and a member of the Seleucid dynasty. According
to Polyaenus, Arsames was an ally of Antiochus Hierax and hosted him dur-
ing the War of the Brothers. These friendly relationships likely developed
during this conflict. Antiochus Hierax could be almost sure to find an ally in
Arsames. The Orontids indeed were eager to support any enemy of Seleucid
power306. Adimtting that the alliance between Antiochus and Ziaelas dated to
299
Cf. SEIBERT 1967, p. 59; GABELKO 2009, p. 50.
300
DROYSEN 1952-1953, vol. III, pp. 306-307; SCHOTTKY 1989, p. 101; BITTNER 1998, p. 68; GABELKO
2005, p. 222; PETKOVIĆ 2009, p. 380; GRAINGER 2010, p. 177; HELLER 2013. Against this possibility cf.
below pp. 93-94.
301
So FERNOUX 2004, p. 57; FERNOUX 2008, p. 224; GABELKO 2009, p. 50; D’AGOSTINI 2013, p. 141 n.
406; GRAINGER 2017a, p. 44. Cf. WILL 1979, p. 295.
302
Cf. BEYER-ROTTHOFF 1993, p. 75.
303
SCHOTTKY 2002d.
304
Cf. HUSS 1976, p. 98; WILL 1979, p. 291; HEINEN 1984, p. 425; GRABOWSKI 2011, p. 119.
305
Polyaen. IV, 17: Ἀντίοχος Σελεύκου τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ ἀποστὰς ἔφυγεν εἰς τὴν Μέσην τῶν ποταμῶν,
ὅθεν καὶ τοὺς μὲν Ἀρμενίων ὅρους διελθόντα φίλος ὢν Ἀρσάμης ὑπεδέξατο.
306
SCHOTTKY 1989, p. 104; cf. above p. 77.
these years, one could wonder if it was Arsames who promoted it; he prob-
ably kept alive the friendly relations his predecessor had established with
Ziaelas at the time of his exile307. On the other hand, it is also possible that it
was the Bithynian king who put Antiochus and Arsames in contact308. If, as
seems, Ziaelas was a ‘node’ of Antiochus Hierax’ alliance network during
the war against Seleucus II, he fostered the centrifugal forces which were
changing the boundaries of the Seleucid empire. In that situation, he made
the most of his international relations. The alliance with Ptolemy III and pos-
sibly the one with the Armenian ruler showed their effects.
After the War of the Brothers, the next information on Ziaelas concerns
the end of his reign. In the Prologus of Trogus’ Book XXVII we read:
The Galatians, who had been defeated by Attalus at Pergamum, killed the
Bithynian Zielan309.
According to this passage, Ziaelas died by the hand of the Galatians who had
been defeated by Attalus I. The battle in question would be the one mentioned in
an Attalid dedication that records a victory over Antiochus Hierax and the Gala-
tians at the Aphrodision of Pergamum in c. 230 BC310. On this basis, some schol-
ars311 assume a causal-temporal connection between this defeat of the Galatians
and the death of Ziaelas. They conclude that Ziaelas was involved in the war of
Antiochus Hierax against Attalus I on the side of Antiochus. Needless to say, the
nature of the Prologi itself renders this information a weak support to any hy-
pothesis. Moreover, the other version of Ziaelas’ death preserved by a fragment
of Phylarchus invites to look carefully to the information from the Prologus:
Phylarchus the Athenian (but maybe native of Naucratis), in the book in which
he deals with the king of the Bithynians Zela, who invited to supper the leaders
of the Galatians plotting against them, and was killed himself, says this, if I
remember rightly: ‘A drink was brought round before supper, according to the
ancient customs’312.
307
About the exile of Ziaelas in Armenia, see Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 14, 1; above pp. 76-77.
308
SCHOTTKY 1989, p. 102-104; SCHOTTKY 2002d.
309
Trog. Prol. XXVII: Galli Pergamo victi ab Attalo Zielan Bithunum occiderint.
310
IvP I, 23 = OGIS 275; MAGIE 1950, pp. 737-738 n. 24; HANSEN 1971, pp. 34-35; ALLEN 1983, pp.
197-198; STROBEL 1994a, pp. 86-88 nn. 111, 116. On the date see WILL 1979, p. 298.
311
MAGIE 1950, pp. 737-738 n. 24; VITUCCI 1953, p. 35; SEIBERT 1967, p. 59; HABICHT 1972c, coll.
395-396; SEVRUGIAN 1973, p. 41; SCHOTTKY 1989, pp. 101-102; STROBEL 1994a, pp. 87-88 n. 116; SCHOTTKY
2002d; GABELKO 2009, p. 51; PETKOVIĆ 2009, p. 380; GRAINGER 2010, p. 177; HELLER 2013.
312
Phylarchos BNJ 80, F 50: Φύλαρχος ὁ ᾽Αθηναῖος ἢ Ναυκρατίτης ἐν οἷς ὁ λόγος ἐστὶν αὐτῶι περὶ
Ζηλᾶ τοῦ Βιθυνῶν βασιλέως, ὃς ἐπὶ ξένια καλέσας τοὺς τῶν Γαλατῶν ἡγεμόνας ἐπιβουλεύσας αὐτοῖς καὶ
94 ELOISA PAGANONI
As with the Prologus, Phylarchus says that Ziaelas was killed by the Gala-
tians, but he does not link the death of Ziaelas to any other episode. In his
passage, the violent death of the Bithynian king seems the final outcome of
his relationships with the Galatians. Ziaelas had hired Galatian mercenaries
in the war of succession313. Then, he might have hired them at the time of the
War of the Brothers, admitting that Trogus/Justin’s passage about ‘Eumenes
of Bithynia’ has some value314. As far as we read in Phylarchus, the relation-
ships with the Galatians deteriorated at some point and the king of Bithynia
plotted against them. Ziaelas desperately attempted to free himself from his
tie with the Galatians315. We do not know the reason why Ziaelas felt threat-
ened316. Nothing however suggests that it was connected with the victory of
Attalus I over Antiochus Hierax317. Furthermore, the supposed collabora-
tion between Ziaelas and Antiochus Hierax in those years is unlikely. After
the end of the War of the Brothers, Seleucus II recognised Antiochus as
co-regent. In that situation, Antiochus Hierax was no more the emblem of
the struggle against Seleucid power. The re-established good relations with
Seleucus II broke Antiochus’ bonds with his former allies. Probably not by
chance, when Seleucus II tried to eliminate him definitively, he found no ref-
uge both with Araimenes and Ptolemy III, his (ex) allies318. There is no rea-
son to assume that in that context Ziaelas established (or kept alive) friendly
relationships with Antiochus Hierax. This one was now an enemy to Ziaelas.
Coming back to the accounts on Ziaelas’ death, the Prologus and Phy-
larchus are not contradictory. The Prologus provides us with a chronologi-
cal information. Phylarchus informs us about dynamics. Ziaelas was killed
after a battle identified with the one at the Aphrodision (230 BC). Prophy-
rius/Eusebius more closely dates Ziaelas’ death to 229-228 BC319. Ziaelas
conspired against the Galatians probably because the mercenaries who had
αὐτὸς διεφθάρη, φησὶν οὕτως, εἰ μνήμης εὐτυχῶ· ‛πρόπομά τι πρὸ τοῦ δείπνου περιεφέρετο, καθὼς εἰώθει
τὸ πρῶτον’.
313
Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 14, 2.
314
Iust. XXVII, 3, 1-6; see above pp. 89-90.
315
COȘKUN 2011, pp. 96-97; Landucci, Phylarchos BNJ 80, F 50, Commentary.
316
According to GABELKO 2005, p. 223, Ziaelas could not pay the Galatian mercenaries any more.
317
Cf. HEINEN 1984, p. 425.
318
Iust. XXVII, 3, 7-11. No evidence attests that Antiochus Hierax also sought a safe refuge in Bithynia,
as assumed by MAGIE 1950, pp. 737-738 n. 24 and HANSEN 1971, p. 35.
319
Eus. I, 253 Schoene; cf. MAGIE 1950, pp. 737-738 n. 24; ALLEN 1983, p. 35. In line with these pieces
of information, the death of Ziaelas is generally dated to 230-229 BC (BELOCH 1925, p. 213; MAGIE 1950,
pp. 737-738 n. 24; VITUCCI 1953, p. 35; HABICHT 1972c, coll. 387, 395-396; SEVRUGIAN 1973, p. 41; HEINEN
1984, p. 425; SCHOTTKY 1989, p. 102; STROBEL 1994a, p. 86 n. 111; Landucci, Phylarchos BNJ, 80 F 50,
Commentary).
contributed to his success had become a danger to him. The plot failed and
the Galatians killed Ziaelas.
7. AN APPRAISAL OF THE REIGNS OF NICOMEDES I AND ZIAELAS
The death of Ziaelas concluded the fifty years which led up to the estab-
lishment of Bithynia as the dominant kingdom of the Propontic area. This
process had begun under Nicomedes I. He first built up an international
contact network that mirrored the increasing importance of the kingdom in
the political and economic situation of Asia Minor. Scholars, however, tend
to diminish the relevance of this step in the history of Bithynia. Nicomedes
I’s reign is considered just another phase of the struggle for independence
against the only threat still existing to Bithynia, the Seleucids. Some of the
most relevant decisions of Nicomedes, such as the alliance with Heraclea,
the Northern League and Ptolemy II, the agreement with the Galatians and
the appointment of the guardians for his minors, are interpreted as part
of an anti-Seleucid policy. This is true only in part, though. Nicomedes
looked for Heraclea’s support against Antiochus I, but afterwards he al-
lowed the Galatians to cross into Asia to face his brother Zipoites. The
alliance with Ptolemy II firstly met economic interests. The decision of
leaving the kingdom to his still minor children imposed the appointment of
guardians. It was a short-sighted choice: it weakened Bithynia and it could
even be fatal to the kingdom.
The interpretation of Nicomedes I’s foreign policy suffers the wide-
spread approach that considers the Seleucids as the only power of Anato-
lia320. This produces a bi-dimensional historical frame in which each act of
the political players is branded as pro- or anti-Seleucid. On the contrary,
Anatolia did not coincide with the Seleucid empire. In the turn of the mid-
3rd century BC, some kingdoms, such as Bithynia and Pontus, were in-
creasing their power; and others, such as Pergamum and Armenia, were
rising. These ones were still fighting against the Seleucids for independ-
ence. So their policies can be overall defined as anti-Seleucid. The situa-
tion of Bithynia and Pontus was different. They had been independent for
decades and they were increasing their position within the current politi-
cal situation. It would be misleading to state that their policies were just
320
E.g. YAVUZ 2010: ‘The main policy of the Bithynian kings was to defend their kingdom against the
Seleucids who claimed all Asia Minor as theirs’.
96 ELOISA PAGANONI
‘against something’. They instead were acting ‘for something’, that is, for
strengthening their power.
This perspective changes the perception of Bithynian politics in the
270s-230s BC, which aimed to strengthen the kingdom institutionally,
politically and economically321. Nicomedes I’s provided the kingdom
with the capital Nicomedia. Location of the court – and thus the adminis-
trative heart of the kingdom – it was also the centre of economic develop-
ment. The newly acquired importance of Bithynia in Aegean-Black Sea
trade explains the establishment of the alliance with the Ptolemies. Nico-
medes’ network proves his great strategic ability and confirms the role of
Bithynia in the Propontic area. Ziaelas continued this policy, but under
him the Bithynian alliance network changed according to the circum-
stances. He broke the alliance with Macedonia, reinforced the one with
Egypt and established the one with Armenia. The effects of his interna-
tional contacts emerged in the War of the Brothers. In that context the
interests of Ziaelas and his allies met those of Antiochus Hierax, the Se-
leucid usurper who wished to establish a personal domain in Asia Minor.
Probably during this war, Antiochus Hierax married Ziaelas’ daughter
and included the Bithynian king in the block hostile to Seleucus II. This
was the first contact of Seleucids and Bithynia since the time of Antio-
chus I. It demonstrates once more the full establishment of the kingdom
of Bithynia. After suffering repeated attacks from the Seleucids Bithynia
now threatened the Seleucid empire.
321
Cf. GABELKO 2005, pp. 224-225.
CHAPTER FOUR
BITHYNIA AND THE RISE OF ROME IN THE EAST

(229-182 BC)
1. THE EARLY YEARS OF PRUSIAS I
The first mention of Prusias I is related to the situation of Rhodes after

the devasting earthquake in c. 227 BC1. Kings, rulers and cities aided the
island by donating money, grain, timber, stone and armaments. Polybius
lists the donations of Hieron and Gelon of Syracuse, Ptolemy III, Antigonus
Doson and his wife Chryseis, Seleucus II, and he adds:
Prusias and Mithridates (made) donations nearly equal to these, and also the
dynasts ruling in Asia at that time, Lysanias, Olympichus, and Lymnaeus. No
one can easily enumerate the cities that contributed according to their means2.
1
On the earthquake, see Polyb. V, 88, 5-90, 2 (on the setting of the account in Polybius’ narrative, see
HOLLEAUX 1923; WALBANK 1957-1979, vol. I, pp. 616-617); Diod. XXVI, 8, 1; Strabo XIV, 2, 5. Chronicon
Paschale, 432a and Hieronymus, following Eusebius (Eus. II, 123 Schoene), date the earthquake to Ol. 138.2
(= 227 BC; cf. WALBANK 1957-1979, vol. I, p. 616; KOBES 1993, p. 4). The Armenian version of Eusebius
(Eus. II, 122 Schoene) dates the catastrophe to Ol. 139.1 (= 224 BC; cf. MAGIE 1950, pp. 877-878 n. 70). The
list of the donors includes Seleucus II and so the earthquake is to be dated before his death in 226 BC (HOL-
LEAUX 1923, p. 489; MAGIE 1950, pp. 877-878 n. 70; HABICHT 1957, col. 1087; WALBANK 1957-1979, vol. I, p.
616; PUGLIESE CARRATELLI 1967-1968, p. 451; BERTHOLD 1984, p. 92 n. 34; KOBES 1993, pp. 3-4). A letter of
Laodice II to Iasos (PUGLIESE CARRATELLI 1967-1968, pp. 445-448 nr. 2 = IK Iasos 4) refers to a ἀπροσδόκητα
συμπτοώματα (ll. 7-8: ‘unexpected disaster’). According to the first editor, PUGLIESE CARRATELLI 1967-1968,
pp. 450-451, who dates the document to 228 BC, this disaster is to be identified with the earthquake devastat-
ing Rhodes in the early 220s BC (cf. BERTHOLD 1984, p. 92 n. 34). If so, it would be an earlier terminus ante
quem. But Blümel in IK Iasos 4, p. 23 proposes an alternative dating after 195 BC for the letter. In his opinion,
the calamity it mentions is the earthquake that devasted Rhodes in 198 BC (Iust. XXX, 4, 3).
2
Polyb. V, 90, 1-2: παραπλήσια δὲ τούτοις Προυσίας καὶ Μιθριδάτης, ἔτι δ᾽ οἱ κατὰ τὴν Ἀσίαν ὄντες
δυνάσται τότε, λέγω δὲ Λυσανίαν, Ὀλύμπιχον, Λιμναῖον. τάς γε μὴν πόλεις τὰς συνεπιλαμβανομένας
αὐτοῖς κατὰ δύναμιν οὐδ᾽ ἂν ἐξαριθμήσαιτο ῥᾳδίως οὐδείς. The list of donors probably depends on an ar-
chive document preserved in the Rhodian source Polybius follows (KOBES 1993, pp. 6-7; GABRIELSEN 1997,
p. 76; ZECCHINI 2003, p. 129). As for the Anatolian dynasts, Olympichus was the ruler of Alinda (KOBES
1996, pp. 257-259, 262; CAPDETREY 2007, pp. 117, 119-120, 124), whereas Lysanias and Lymnaeus are
otherwise unknown (cf. WALBANK 1957-1979, vol. I, pp. 621-622; KOBES 1996, pp. 260-262). The absence
of a donation from Attalus I is surprising. It could be a hint at the unfriendly relations between the king of
Pergamum and Rhodes that emerged in 220 BC (MCSHANE 1964, pp. 96-97; BERTHOLD 1984, pp. 92-93;
KOBES 1993, pp. 9-10; ECKSTEIN 2008, p. 195; on the 220 BC situation see below in the text).
98 ELOISA PAGANONI
Polybius groups Prusias I together with other Hellenistic kings and stresses
the size of his donation. Although we do not know what he gave3, he
clearly shared concerns and intentions of the other donors. They wished to
promote a quick return to normal so that Rhodes came back to play its role
of trade partner and guardian against pirates4.
A few years later, in 220 BC, the interests of Prusias I and Rhodes
crossed again. Byzantium had imposed a duty on ships sailing through the
Bosporus in order to pay the tribute to the Celts of the kingdom of Tylis,
who threatened raids against the city5. The cities involved in Black Sea
trades protested and required the intervention of Rhodes. After unsuccessful
negotiations, in summer 220 BC Rhodes declared war on Byzantium and
asked Prusias I for help6. With this decision, Rhodes began threatening the
3
According to HANNESTAD 1996, p. 79 and MICHELS 2009, p. 303, Prusias’ donation could include timber.
4
KOBES 1993, pp. 25-26; KOBES 1996, pp. 259-260; GABRIELSEN 1997, pp. 78-79; FERNOUX 2004, p.
64; MICHELS 2009, p. 65; GABRIELSEN 2013, p. 74. Although political and economic reasons prevailed,
the donations also benefitted the prestige of the donors (VITUCCI 1953, pp. 37-38; FERNOUX 2004, p. 61;
GABELKO 2005, p. 227; MICHELS 2009, p. 65).
5
Polyb. IV, 45, 9-46, 6: ἀλλ᾽ ὅμως τὸν μὲν ἀπὸ τῶν Θρᾳκῶν πόλεμον κατὰ τὴν συνήθειαν ἀναφέροντες
ἔμενον ἐπὶ τῶν ἐξ ἀρχῆς δικαίων πρὸς τοὺς Ἕλληνας· προσεπιγενομένων δὲ Γαλατῶν αὐτοῖς τῶν περὶ
Κομοντόριον εἰς πᾶν ἦλθον περιστάσεως. οὗτοι δ᾽ ἐκίνησαν μὲν ἅμα τοῖς περὶ Βρέννον ἐκ τῆς οἰκείας,
διαφυγόντες δὲ τὸν περὶ Δελφοὺς κίνδυνον, καὶ παραγενόμενοι πρὸς τὸν Ἑλλήσποντον, εἰς μὲν τὴν Ἀσίαν οὐκ
ἐπεραιώθησαν, αὐτοῦ δὲ κατέμειναν διὰ τὸ φιλοχωρῆσαι τοῖς περὶ τὸ Βυζάντιον τόποις. οἳ καὶ κρατήσαντες
τῶν Θρᾳκῶν, καὶ κατασκευασάμενοι βασίλειον τὴν Τύλιν, εἰς ὁλοσχερῆ κίνδυνον ἦγον τοὺς Βυζαντίους.
κατὰ μὲν οὖν τὰς ἀρχὰς ἐν ταῖς ἐφόδοις αὐτῶν ταῖς κατὰ Κομοντόριον τὸν πρῶτον βασιλεύσαντα δῶρα
διετέλουν οἱ Βυζάντιοι διδόντες ἀνὰ τρισχιλίους καὶ πεντακισχιλίους, ποτὲ δὲ καὶ μυρίους χρυσοῦς, ἐφ᾽ ᾧ
μὴ καταφθείρειν τὴν χώραν αὐτῶν. τέλος δ᾽ ἠναγκάσθησαν ὀγδοήκοντα τάλαντα συγχωρῆσαι φόρον τελεῖν
κατ᾽ ἐνιαυτὸν ἕως εἰς Καύαρον, ἐφ᾽ οὗ κατελύθη μὲν ἡ βασιλεία, τὸ δὲ γένος αὐτῶν ἐξεφθάρη πᾶν, ὑπὸ
Θρᾳκῶν ἐκ μεταβολῆς ἐπικρατηθέν. ἐν οἷς καιροῖς ὑπὸ τῶν φόρων πιεζούμενοι τὸ μὲν πρῶτον ἐπρέσβευον
πρὸς τοὺς Ἕλληνας, δεόμενοι σφίσι βοηθεῖν καὶ συγχορηγεῖν εἰς τοὺς περιεστῶτας καιρούς· τῶν δὲ πλείστων
παρολιγωρούντων, ἐνεχείρησαν ἀπαναγκασθέντες παραγωγιάζειν τοὺς εἰς τὸν Πόντον πλέοντας (‘However,
even bearing the war against the Thracian as usual, [the Byzantians] kept on respecting the original agree-
ments with the Greeks, but when the Galatians under Comontorius arrived as well, they started being in
danger. These Galatians moved from their homeland together with those under Brennus. After escaping the
disaster in Delphi and coming to the Hellespont, they did not cross to Asia, but remained there to seize some
lands near Byzantium. After subduing the Thracians and turning Tylis into the centre of their realm, they put
the Byzantians in serious danger. At the beginning, at each attack by Comontorius, the first king, the Byzan-
tians gave an offer paying three thousand, five thousand and sometimes ten thousand golden pieces to avoid
their lands being plundered by them. Finally, they were compelled to pay an annual tribute of eighty thousand
talents until Cavarus, under whom the kingdom ended and his people were conquered by the Thracians. In
those times, as they were pressed by the tribute, they sent embassies to the Greeks needing help for themselves
and contribution for the present situation. Since most of them neglected the request, [the Byzantians] were
compelled to levy toll on the ships trading with Pontus’). On the kingdom of Tylis, see OBERHUMMER 1948;
VAGALINSKY 2010. On Cavarus, see SCHOCH 1924 and below pp. 107-108. On the relations between Byzantium
and the Thracians in the first half of the 3rd century BC, see VAGALINSKI 2010; DUMITRU 2013.
6
Polyb. IV, 47, 1-7. For the date, see StV III, p. 228. MAGIE 1950, pp. 1195-1196 n. 36 and KOBES 1993,
p. 25 (who claims that Prusias I was obliged to support Rhodes ‘wenn er seine Position und seine Kontakte
zu Rhodos nicht belasten wollte’) assume any connection between the 227 BC donation and the alliance,
BITHYNIA AND THE RISE OF ROME IN THE EAST 99
thalassocracy of the Ptolemies with the intention of taking their place in the
Aegean Sea7. One could think that Prusias I understood the change in the
balance of power in the Aegean. In this sense, it is to be noticed that he not
only approached Rhodes, but also interrupted the so far intense contacts with
the Ptolemies judging from the silence of sources in this regard8. In spite of
these circumstances, yet, the account of Polybius makes clear that the choice
to support Rhodes in 220 BC was not due to the foresight of Prusias I. It was
mostly connected with Prusias’ tense relationships with Byzantium:
Prusias charged the Byzantians first that, after voting certain statues for him,
they did not erect them, but had neglected and forgotten this matter; he was
displeased with them for having done all they could to solve the rivalry between
Attalus and Achaeus, and to put an end to their war, considering a friendship
between them unfavourable to his own interests in many ways. He was roused
to anger for this too, that is, the Byzantians seemed to have sent to Attalus
delegates to carry out sacrifices for the festival of Athena, while they had sent
none to him for the Sotēria9.
The passage of Polybius alludes to former episodes, where the relationships

between Prusias I and Byzantium deteriorated. The first one concerned
some statues that the city had voted but never erected in honour of the
Bithynian king. Most details of this matter remain unknown. However,
the granting of some honours reveals that Byzantium had been in good
relations with Prusias I at one time10. The adverb πρότερον has a temporal
value here. It points out that the issue of the statue was the earliest reason
for Prusias’ hostility to Byzantium. It seems to have taken place some
but contra see the convincing arguments of VITUCCI 1953, pp. 37-38, HABICHT 1957, col. 1088, HANNESTAD
1996, p. 69, GABELKO 2005, p. 227 and MICHELS 2009, pp. 64-65.
7
MCSHANE 1964, p. 97. Already in c. 227 BC Ptolemaic thalassocracy was in crisis (CRISCUOLO 2013,
pp. 161-162; BADOUD 2014, p. 115). The growing interest of Rhodes in the Hellepontic area made this
crisis more and more evident in the following years. The establishing of Rhodian thalassocracy began with
the war against Byzantium and the aid to Sinope against Mithridates II in the same year (Polyb. IV, 56,
2). It continued with the reinforcement of the influence over the Cyclades (WILL 1979, p. 241; WILL 1982,
p. 80; GABRIELSEN 1997, pp. 64-66) and the refoundation of the League of the Islanders in 200 BC, which
remained under control of Rhodes until 168 BC (ÉTIENNE 1990, pp. 114-117; BADOUD 2014, pp. 120-124).
8
Cf. HUSS 1976, pp. 96-97; on the relations with the Ptolemies, see above pp. 69-70, 86.
9
Polyb. IV, 49, 1-3: ὁ δὲ Προυσίας ἐνεκάλει μὲν πρότερον τοῖς Βυζαντίοις ὅτι ψηφισαμένων τινὰς
εἰκόνας αὐτοῦ ταύτας οὐκ ἀνετίθεσαν, ἀλλ᾽ εἰς ἐπισυρμὸν καὶ λήθην ἄγοιεν, δυσηρέστει δ᾽ αὐτοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ
τῷ πᾶσαν προσενέγκασθαι φιλονεικίαν εἰς τὸ διαλῦσαι τὴν Ἀχαιοῦ πρὸς Ἄτταλον ἔχθραν καὶ τὸν πόλεμον,
νομίζων κατὰ πολλοὺς τρόπους ἀλυσιτελῆ τοῖς αὑτοῦ πράγμασιν ὑπάρχειν τὴν ἐκείνων φιλίαν. ἠρέθιζε
δ᾽ αὐτὸν καὶ τὸ δοκεῖν Βυζαντίους πρὸς μὲν Ἄτταλον εἰς τοὺς τῆς Ἀθηνᾶς ἀγῶνας τοὺς συνθύσοντας
ἐξαπεσταλκέναι, πρὸς αὐτὸν δ᾽ εἰς τὰ Σωτήρια μηδένα πεπομφέναι.
10
100 ELOISA PAGANONI
years before the outbreak of the war, maybe at the beginning of Prusias’
reign. The Byzantians indeed are said to have forgotten the matter.
The second episode causing Prusias’ hostility to Byzantium sheds light on
the current situation in Asia Minor. It concerned the intervention of Byzantium
in the negotiations for a truce between Attalus I and Achaeus, the Seleucid
usurper who was ruling an area between Pergamum and Bithynia11. The
earliest information about him dates to the reign of Seleucus II when he had
been involved in the war against Antiochus Hierax12. Later, he had taken part
in the campaign of Seleucus III against Pergamum13. After the death of this
one, probably in the early 222 BC14, Achaeus had favoured the accession of
Antiochus III to the throne. The new king had appointed him as governor of
Asia Minor15. In this position, Achaeus had engaged a new war with Attalus I.
Shortly before the outbreak of the war between Byzantium and Rhodes, Achaeus
took advantage of the absence of Antiochus III, who was putting down a revolt
in Atropatene, and proclaimed himself king16. Almost at the same time – we
are told by Polybius – Byzantium tried to arrange a truce between Achaeus and
Attalus. Scholars discuss if they reached an agreement to stop the war or not17.
Regardless from the outcome, it is understandable why Prusias I frowned on
Byzantium’s initiative. He was reasonably concerned about Achaeus, a usurper
on the borders of his kingdom. He had been rather safe until Achaeus had been
fighting against Attalus I. But if they reached an agreement, Achaeus could
become a concrete danger to Prusias I at any moment18.
Achaeus was not the only cause for concern. Prusias I also regarded
Attalus with suspicion. The earliest information about Prusias’ conflicts
with Pergamum date to some years later19. The third episode concerning the
origin of Prusias’ hostility to Byzantium, yet, shows that the relationships
with the Attalids were already tense in the late 220s BC. Prusias was
11
On Achaeus, see MELONI 1949; MELONI 1950; SCHMITT 1964, pp. 158-175; WILL 1982, pp. 15-17,
23-26; VIRGILIO 1993, pp. 32-33, 53; CAPDETREY 2007, pp. 294-297; GRABOWSKY 2011; GRAINGER 2015, pp.
41-51; CHRUBASIK 2016, pp. 81-89, 101-112.
12
Polyaen. IV, 17.
13
Polyb. IV, 48, 7-8. About this campaign, see WILL 1979, pp. 313-314; CHRUBASIK 2016, pp. 81-82.
14
CHRUBASIK 2012, p. 66 and n. 5 with sources and literature.
15
Polyb. IV, 48, 9; V, 40, 7. For Achaeus’ appointment under Antiochus III, cf. WILL 1982, p. 16;
CHRUBASIK 2016, p. 83.
16
Polyb. IV, 48 10; 51, 3; V, 57, 2.
17
A truce or a peace agreement is assumed by SCHMITT 1964, p. 262; HANSEN 1971, p. 40; ALLEN
1983, p. 37; HEINEN 1984, 431; GRAINGER 2010, pp. 183-184; GRAINGER 2015, p. 44. Against a break in the
hostilities between Attalus and Achaeus, MELONI 1949, p. 552 n. 3; MCSHANE 1964, p. 65 n. 23; AGER 2012;
GRABOWSKI 2018, p. 22.
18
Cf. AGER 2012, p. 427.
19
Liv. XXVIII, 7, 10; below pp. 111-112.
irritated because Byzantium had dispatched theoroi to the Nikēphoria that

Attalus I had announced in the late 220s BC20, but not to the Sotēria he had
proclaimed. Byzantium had overlooked the invitation of Prusias, but it had
accepted the one of Attalus. In this way, it had discredited the Bithynian
king. This blow for Prusias I discloses for the first time the Bithynian-
Attalid rivalry, which would become evident later21. This suggests that
Pergamum had already become a competitor of Bithynia a few years after
its rise; Prusias I was aware and concerned about this potential danger.
The passage of Polybius contains the only evidence of a Bithynian
Sotēria. This festival celebrated a military success judging from its name22.
It is argued that it memorialized a victory over the Galatians in comparison
with the Sotēria of the Aetolians in Delphi, but it is difficult to point out
what victory was23. The earliest evidence of a clash between Prusias I and
the Galatians dates back to 216 BC24; consequently, it is impossible that
the Sotēria referred to this episode25. According to some scholars26, the
Sotēria celebrated the victory over the Galatians who had murdered Ziaelas.
Reasonably Prusias could have avenged his father immediately after
ascending the throne. But the passage of Polybius suggests that the Sotēria
and the Attalid Nikēphoria were announced in a short time one from the other.
This places both these festivals shortly before the war with Byzantium27. It
follows that either the Sotēria referred to a victory that had occurred some
years before but was celebrated in the 220s BC, or Prusias I took another,
later victory over the Galatians. Despite these speculations, however, the
event the Sotēria celebrated remains ultimately unknown28.
20
On the Nikēphoria of Attalus I and their re-foundation by Eumenes II, see WALBANK 1957-1979, vol.
I, pp. 502-503; ALLEN 1983, pp. 121-129; MUSTI 1998; MUSTI 2000.
21
MCSHANE 1964, p. 90; FERNOUX 2004, p. 60; FERNOUX 2008, p. 226; MICHELS 2009, pp. 67-68; see
below pp. 111-112, 129-138.
22
HABICHT 1957 col. 1087; MICHELS 2009, p. 69.
23
WALBANK 1957-1979, vol. I, p. 503; HABICHT 1957, coll. 1087-1088; HANNESTAD 1996, p. 95 n.
65; FERNOUX 2004, p. 60; FERNOUX 2008, p. 226; MICHELS 2009, pp. 69-70. On the Aetolian Sotēria, see
NACHTERGAEL 1977; CHAMPION 1995. It is worth noting that the Sotēria festival did not necessarily allude
to a victory over the Galatians. For instance, the episode celebrated by the Sotēria and Paneia founded
by Antigonus Gonatas is still debated (CHAMPION 2004-2005), while the Sotēria of Priene (IK Priene 6)
celebrated the end of the tyranny of Hiero.
24
Polyb. V, 111, 6-7; below, pp. 109-110.
25
This is supposed by REINACH 1902, p. 191 and n. 5, but contra HOLLEAUX 1938, p. 62 n. 4; WALBANK
1957-1979, vol. I, p. 503; HABICHT 1957, coll. 1087-1088; HANNESTAD 1996, p. 95 n. 65; MICHELS 2009, p. 69.
26
HABICHT 1957, coll. 1087-1088; HANNESTAD 1996, p. 95 n. 65; FERNOUX 2004, p. 60; FERNOUX 2008,
p. 226; MICHELS 2009, pp. 69-70.
27
VITUCCI 1953, p. 38 n. 4; ALLEN 1983, pp. 122-123.
28
102 ELOISA PAGANONI
According to Polybius29, Prusias exploited the 220 BC war as a

πρόφασις to engage in conflict with Byzantium. Scholarship is affected by
this assessment. It judges the causes of Prusias I’s resentment little more
than pretexts30; it argues that Prusias was waiting for the occasion to seize
Byzantian lands on the Propontic shore31.
Polybius apparently presents the causes of Prusias I’s hostility to Byzantium
in chronological order. So he describes the degeneration of the relationships
between the Bithynian king and the city. Since the reign of Nicomedes I,
these relationships had been friendly. The city had been a member of the
Northern League, like Nicomedes, and it had been one of the guardians of his
sons32. There is no information for the years of Ziaelas, but we have no reason
to think that the situation had changed. Indeed, in the earliest years of Prusias
I Byzantium still was in good relationships with the Bithynian king in view of
the honours the city had voted for him. Throughout the 220s BC yet, the city
had interrupted these friendly contacts. It had not erected the already voted
statues in honour of Prusias. Then, it had approached Attalus I and Achaeus,
who were very dangerous threats to the Bithynian king.
In light of the 220 BC war, Byzantium’s operations acquire the
contours of a preparation for a military campaign. If the friendly relations
of Byzantium, Attalus I and Achaeus had turned into an alliance, Prusias
I would have been surrounded. Admitting that the declaration of war by
Rhodes in 220 BC was a pretext for anyone, this one was Byzantium. It
had been building up an anti-Bithynian coalition in the last years. Sources
do not explain the reason why Byzantium turned against its ex-ally Prusias
I. But it is possible that the city wanted to limit his growing power. If
so, the change of Byzantium’s attitude, along with the Sotēria, testifies
that Prusias was pursuing successful policies, which the surviving sources
completely omit. In this light, the war of 220 BC was firstly a war between
Byzantium and Prusias I, and then a war between Byzantium and Rhodes.
When Rhodes looked for support from Prusias I, Byzantium asked
Achaeus and Attalus I for help33. This move revealed the aim of Byzantium’s
29
Polyb. IV, 49, 4.
30
VITUCCI 1953, pp. 38 claims that Prusias I had ‘ragioni più o meno gravi’ to undertake the war. HAN-
NESTAD 1996, p. 79, FERNOUX 2008, p. 226 and MICHELS 2009, p. 67 distinguish ideological reasons (the
non erection of the statue to Prusias I and the absence at the Sotēria) and political ones (the peace between
Achaeus and Attalus I). In doing so, they (maybe unintentionally) diminish the value of the former ones.
31
MCSHANE 1964, pp. 98-99; WILL 1982, pp. 45-46; SAPRYKIN 1997, p. 223; BITTNER 1998, p. 83.
32
Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 7, 2; 14, 1.
33
Polyb. IV, 48, 1-4: τὸ δὲ παραπλήσιον ἐποίουν καὶ Βυζάντιοι· πρός τε γὰρ Ἄτταλον καὶ πρὸς Ἀχαιὸν
ἔπεμπον πρέσβεις, δεόμενοι σφίσι βοηθεῖν. ὁ μὲν οὖν Ἄτταλος ἦν πρόθυμος, εἶχε δὲ βραχεῖαν τότε ῥοπήν,
former diplomatic effort. The city also addressed another enemy of Prusias
I, Zipoites34. Polybius, who calls him Tiboites, leaves no doubt about his
identity:
it was considered that Tiboites had as good a claim to the throne of Bithynia as
Prusias since he was Prusias’ relative on his father’s side35.
Zipoites was one of the sons Nicomedes I had from his second wife. He
was the step-brother of Ziaelas and the uncle of Prusias I36. After Ziaelas
had taken the throne, he had fled to Macedonia, where he remained37.
The Byzantians were certain of his support, as they were of Achaeus’
and Attalus’38. At the outbreak of the war, however, Byzantium could rely
only on the promises of its allies. Rhodes and Prusias I, instead, went on
the offensive. Rhodes undertook the operations by sea and Prusias those by
land39. Some Rhodian ships blocked the Straits to convince Byzantium to
desist40. Meanwhile, Prusias achieved many successes in Asia:
(Prusias) seized the place on the strait called Hieron, which shortly before the
Byzantians had acquired by paying a great amount of money for the favourable
place, wishing to leave to no-one any basis to damage the trade with Pontus,
the slave trade or the fishing; (Prusias) also took those lands of Asia, that were
part of Mysia and that the Byzantians controlled for a long time41.
ὡς ἂν ὑπ᾽ Ἀχαιοῦ συνεληλαμένος εἰς τὴν πατρῴαν ἀρχήν· ὁ δ᾽ Ἀχαιός, κρατῶν μὲν τῆς ἐπὶ τάδε τοῦ
Ταύρου, βασιλέα δὲ προσφάτως αὑτὸν ἀναδεδειχώς, ἐπηγγέλλετο βοηθήσειν. ὑπάρχων δ᾽ ἐπὶ ταύτης τῆς
προαιρέσεως, τοῖς μὲν Βυζαντίοις μεγάλην ἐλπίδα παρεσκεύαζε, τοῖς δὲ Ῥοδίοις καὶ Προυσίᾳ τἀναντία
κατάπληξιν (‘The Byzantians too did the same: they sent ambassadors requiring help from them. Attalus
was ready; however, at that time his help was of little weight as it was confined in the original realm of
Achaeus. Achaeus, who was ruling now this side of the Taurus and had recently taken the royal title, an-
nounced his help. Making this decision, he arose great hope in the Byzantians and, on the contrary, concern
in the Rhodians and Prusias’).
34
Polyb. IV, 50, 1.
35
Polyb. IV, 50, 9-10: ἐδόκει γὰρ οὐχ ἧττον ἡ Βιθυνῶν ἀρχὴ Τιβοίτῃ καθήκειν ἢ Προυσίᾳ διὰ τὸ
πατρὸς ἀδελφὸν αὐτὸν ὑπάρχειν τῷ Προυσίᾳ.
36
On Zipoites, see VITUCCI 1953, p. 39; WALBANK 1957-1979, vol. I, p. 504; DE FOUCAULT 1972, p. 90
n. 1; HABICHT 1972d; SCHOTTKY 2002e.
37
Polyb. IV, 50, 1; 8.
38
Polyb. IV, 50, 1. Maybe the Byzantians were already in contact with Zipoites as with Achaeus and
Attalus I.
39
Polyb. IV, 49, 4. In Polybius’ account, Rhodes was apparently supported by Prusias I only. However,
the peace agreement quotes ‘the Rhodians and his allies’ (Polyb. IV, 52, 5: Ῥοδίους δὲ καὶ τοὺς συμμάχους),
alluding to the involvement of other states (probably those that had asked for the intervention of Rhodes).
40
Polyb. IV, 50, 5-7.
41
Polyb. IV, 50, 2-4: παρείλετο μὲν αὐτῶν τὸ καλούμενον ἐπὶ τοῦ στόματος Ἱερόν, ὃ Βυζάντιοι
μικροῖς ἀνώτερον χρόνοις μεγάλων ὠνησάμενοι χρημάτων ἐσφετερίσαντο διὰ τὴν εὐκαιρίαν τοῦ τόπου,
βουλόμενοι μηδεμίαν ἀφορμὴν μηδενὶ καταλιπεῖν μήτε κατὰ τῶν εἰς τὸν Πόντον πλεόντων ἐμπόρων μήτε
104 ELOISA PAGANONI
Prusias I seized the Hieron, the ‘Holy Place’ literally, a strategic site on
the Bosporus about twenty-five kilometres east of Chalcedon42. Originally
part of the city’s chōra43, sources call it τὸ ἱερὸν τὸ Χαλκηδονίων44 to
distinguish it from the homonymous ἱερὸν τὸ Βυζαντίων on the opposite
coast45. Since 600-550 BC, the Hieron was used for religious practices46.
Throughout the Archaic and Classical ages, the original worship of the
Twelve Gods was gradually replaced by that of Zeus Ourios47. Later,
maybe from the Hellenistic age, the strategic position of the Hieron was
exploited to control trade to the Black Sea. This raised a contention over
the site. In this regard the second-century-AD historian Dionysius of
Byzantium writes:
The control of the Holy Place was disputed, as many of those who were
controlling the sea claimed it, but above all the Chalcedonians attempted to
claim it as originally their own. Nevertheless, in ancient times, the Byzantians
had always had the possession through their supremacy and their innate
strength – they indeed controlled the sea with many ships – and furthermore
for having bought it from Callimedes, the general of Seleucus48.
It is unclear when Byzantium began attempting to seize the Hieron, but the
city controlled the site continuously after buying it49. Both Polybius and
Dionysius mention the purchase. The latter also records who sold the site, a
certain Callimedes otherwise unknown. The designation Seleuci exercitus
dux points out that he was a Seleucid military official50. He sold the Hieron
περὶ τοὺς δούλους καὶ τὰς ἐξ αὐτῆς τῆς θαλάττης ἐργασίας, παρείλετο δὲ καὶ τὴν ἐπὶ τῆς Ἀσίας χώραν, ἣν
κατεῖχον Βυζάντιοι τῆς Μυσίας πολλοὺς ἤδη χρόνους.
42
The most recent and complete contribution about this site is MORENO 2008, collecting and discussing
literary, epigraphic and archaeological evidence from the Archaic era to the Late Antiquity.
43
Dion. Byz. 92.
44
E.g. Strabo VII, 6, 1; XII, 4, 2.
45
E.g. Strabo VII, 6, 1.
46
MORENO 2008, p. 660.
47
MORENO 2008, esp. p. 699 and n. 57.
48
Dion. Byz. 92: possessio autem Fani controversa fuit, multis ipsam sibi vindicantibus ad tempus
mari imperantibus, sed maxime omnium Chalcedonii hunc locum sibi haereditarium asserere conabantur;
verumtamen possessio semper remansit Byzantiis olim quidem ob principatum et domesticum robur – mul-
tis enim navibus mare possidebant – , rursus vero cum emissent a Callimede, Seleuci exercitus duce.
49
GABRIELSEN 2011, p. 223 speaks of ‘monopoly’ of Byzantium over the Hieron.
50
BENGTSON 1944, p. 118 (‘Statthalter’); WALBANK 1957-1979, vol. I, p. 504 (‘strategos’); GRAINGER 1997,
p. 99; CAPDETREY 2007, p. 237 (‘strategos’); DUMITRU 2013, p. 90 (‘strategos’). According to BENGSTON 1944,
p. 118 (cf. WALBANK 1957-1979, vol. I, p. 504), Callimedes had the task of preventing enemies from taking
the Hieron.
to the Byzantians shortly before Prusias I took the site. It follows that he
should be a lieutenant of either Seleucus II or Seleucus III51. While they
Byzantians had recently bought the Hieron when Prusias I took it, they
were controlling the part of Mysia that Prusias seized toghether with the
‘Holy Place’ since the Archaic age 52. This was the eastern part of the
peraia of Byzantium that stretched from the Gulf of Nicomedia to Myrlea
and bordered on Prusias’ domain53.
Byzantium was concerned by the success of Prusias I in Asia and the
embargo of Rhodes. At that time, it had not yet received help from its allies.
The little force sent by Attalus had got lost in the territory of Achaeus54 and
no aid from Achaeus and Zipoites had come. The city, however, still hoped
for it. So, it asked again:
The Byzantians sent some men to Achaeus asking for aid and some others to
Tiboites to conduct him from Macedonia55.
The Rhodians realised that the resistance of the Byzantians rested on the
hope for aid from Achaeus56. They thus prevented him from intervening
with a clever diplomatic move. They convinced Ptolemy IV to hand over
to them Achaeus’ father Andromachus, who was a captive in Egypt57. They
also granted unspecified honours to Achaeus himself 58. Zipoites seemed not
particularly interested in taking part in the war. Nevertheless, in a desperate
attempt, the Byzantians sent a delegation to bring him to the war59. Prusias I
destroyed all strategic sites in the Byzantian peraia and the Hieron to prevent
his return60. It was, in fact, unneeded. Zipoites never crossed to Asia, as he
died during the march61. After this stroke of luck, Prusias I became even
51
WALBANK 1957-1979, vol. I, p. 504; cf. GRAINGER 1997, p. 99. Seleucus II: Müller, GGM, vol. II, p. 76;
BENGTSON 1944, p. 118; CAPDETREY 2007, p. 237; DUMITRU 2013, p. 90. Seleucus III: MORENO 2008, p. 669.
52
Polyb. IV, 50, 2-4. On the peraia of Byzantium, see above pp. 13-14.
53
MEYER 1925, p. 113; ROBERT 1949, p. 41 n. 2; cf. WALBANK 1957-1979, vol. I, pp. 504-505; JEFREMOW
2005, p. 84 n. 136.
54
Polyb. IV, 48, 2.
55
Polyb. IV, 50, 8: οἱ δὲ Βυζάντιοι πρός τε τὸν Ἀχαιὸν ἔπεμπον, ἀξιοῦντες βοηθεῖν, ἐπί τε τὸν Τιβοίτην
ἐξαπέστελλον τοὺς ἄξοντας αὐτὸν ἐκ τῆς Μακεδονίας.
56
Polyb. IV, 50, 10.
57
Polyb. IV, 51, 1-5.
58
Polyb. IV, 51, 6.
59
As far as we see, Zipoites was somehow subordinated to Byzantium. TREVES 1943, p.
111 n. 7 (cf. WALBANK 1957-1979, vol. I, p. 504) claims that Zipoites’ ‘attempt to return... was
evidently approved, or permitted, by Philip V’. However, sources are not explicit in this respect.
60
Polyb. IV, 52, 7-8.
61
Polyb. IV, 51, 7.
106 ELOISA PAGANONI
more aggressive. He not only continued the operations in Asia but also hired
some Thracians in Europe:
(Prusias I) indeed fought in person and with great energy on the Asiatic side,
hiring instead Thracians on the European side so that the Byzantians were
prevented from leaving their gates62.
Byzantium was now isolated by land and sea and had lost half of its peraia.
In this hopeless situation, the city was considering an agreement63. The
ruler of the kingdom of Tylis, Cavarus, to whom Byzantium paid a tribute,
offered to mediate between Prusias I and the city64. Prusias I accepted
to open the negotiations65. Rhodes did the same and sent an embassy to
Byzantium66.
Rhodes and Prusias I signed separate treaties in fall-winter 220 BC67 –
which confirms that this war was in fact a double conflict. Prusias I and
Rhodes had the same enemy, Byzantium, but they undertook the war for
different reasons: Prusias was moved by political reasons, Rhodes by
economic interest. They fought by different means: Prusias carried out
military operations, Rhodes acted diplomatically68. They also obtained
different results. The expectations of Rhodes were fulfilled: Byzantium
removed the toll69. On the contrary, Prusias was disappointed. The treaty
Polybius hands down says:
There shall be peace and friendship forever between Prusias and the
Byzantians; in no way the Byzantians shall attack Prusias, nor Prusias the
Byzantians. Prusias shall return lands, fortresses, people, and prisoners of
war without ransom to the Byzantians; and besides these things, the ships
taken in the early phase of the war, and the arms taken in the forts; and also
62
Polyb. IV, 51, 8: ἅμα μὲν αὐτὸς ἀπὸ τῶν κατ᾽ Ἀσίαν μερῶν ἐπολέμει καὶ προσέκειτο τοῖς πράγμασιν
ἐνεργῶς, ἅμα δὲ τοὺς Θρᾷκας μισθωσάμενος οὐκ εἴα τὰς πύλας ἐξιέναι τοὺς Βυζαντίους ἀπὸ τῶν κατὰ τὴν
Εὐρώπην μερῶν.
63
Polyb. IV, 51, 9.
64
Polyb. IV, 52, 1: Καυάρου δὲ τοῦ τῶν Γαλατῶν βασιλέως παραγενομένου πρὸς τὸ Βυζάντιον,
καὶ σπουδάζοντος διαλῦσαι τὸν πόλεμον καὶ διέχοντος τὰς χεῖρας φιλοτίμως, συνεχώρησαν τοῖς
παρακαλουμένοις ὅ τε Προυσίας οἵ τε Βυζάντιοι (‘When the king of the Galatians Cavarus came to Byzan-
tium and was eager to put an end to the war and offered his friendly help, both Prusias and the Byzantians
agreed with his proposals’). On Cavarus and the kingdom of Tylis, cf. above p. 98 n. 5.
65
Polyb. IV, 52, 1.
66
Polyb. IV, 52, 2.
67
For the date, HABICHT 1957, col. 1090; StV III, pp. 229-230; BERTHOLD 1984, p. 96.
68
Cf. GRAINGER 2015, p. 45: ‘The only real fighting was between Byzantium and Prusias’.
69
Polyb. IV, 52, 5.
timber, building stones and tiles from the Hieron – Prusias indeed, being
afraid of the return of Tiboites, had destroyed all places which seemed to
lie favourably for him – Prusias shall compel any Bithynians who are in
possession of anything taken from the Mysian lands subject to the Byzantians
to restore it to the farmers70.
The peace agreement imposed the return to the status quo ante. Prusias I
was required to return lands, building material, slaves (laoi) and prisoners
of war71. Moreover, he was prevented from asking for a ransom. For him,
the victory on the battlefield turned into defeat at the negotiating table.
Cavarus intervened to protect the interests of Byzantium72. The city
was going to be defeated and the peace conditions would have damaged its
finances. This would have had serious consequences on Cavarus himself
because the polis would have no longer been able to pay the tribute.
It was in Cavarus’ interest to defend Byzantium. It is instead difficult
to understand the reason why Prusias I accepted such unfavourable
conditions. In view of Cavarus’ role, the Galatians may have had some
role73. As we have seen, Prusias seems to have strengthened his position
70
Polyb. IV, 52, 6-9: εἶναι Προυσίᾳ καὶ Βυζαντίοις εἰρήνην καὶ φιλίαν εἰς τὸν ἅπαντα χρόνον, μὴ
στρατεύειν δὲ μήτε Βυζαντίους ἐπὶ Προυσίαν τρόπῳ μηδενὶ μήτε Προυσίαν ἐπὶ Βυζαντίους· ἀποδοῦναι
δὲ Προυσίαν Βυζαντίοις τάς τε χώρας καὶ τὰ φρούρια καὶ τοὺς λαοὺς καὶ τὰ πολεμικὰ σώματα χωρὶς
λύτρων, πρὸς δὲ τούτοις τὰ πλοῖα τὰ κατ᾽ ἀρχὰς ληφθέντα τοῦ πολέμου καὶ τὰ βέλη τὰ καταληφθέντ᾽ ἐν
τοῖς ἐρύμασιν, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὰ ξύλα καὶ τὴν λιθίαν καὶ τὸν κέραμον τὸν ἐκ τοῦ Ἱεροῦ χωρίου —ὁ γὰρ
Προυσίας, ἀγωνιῶν τὴν τοῦ Τιβοίτου κάθοδον, πάντα καθεῖλε τὰ δοκοῦντα τῶν φρουρίων εὐκαίρως πρός
τι κεῖσθαι —ἐπαναγκάσαι δὲ Προυσίαν καὶ ὅσα τινὲς τῶν Βιθυνῶν εἶχον ἐκ τῆς Μυσίας χώρας τῆς ὑπὸ
Βυζαντίους ταττομένης ἀποδοῦναι τοῖς γεωργοῖς. The passage probably depends on an official document
(PAPAZOGLOU 1997, p. 51). For other examples of peaces in perpetuum, see WALBANK 1957-1979, vol. I, pp.
506-507; GRUEN 1984, p. 33 n. 106.
71
The agreement distinguishes laoi and prisoners of war. In the Hellenistic age, laoi were indigenous
populations reduced to slavery or to a subdued condition (CORSARO 1983, pp. 525-536; PAPAZOGLOU 1997,
pp. 75-140; SCHULER 1998, pp. 180-190; CORSARO 2001, passim; BUSSI 2006, pp. 10-13; THOMPSON 2011,
pp. 196-200). In this case, probably they were the Bithynians who lived in the peraia of Byzantium
(CORSARO 1983, pp. 529-530), whose condition is compared with the helots’ in Phylarchos BNJ 81, F 8
(see above pp. 13-14). The phrase τὰ πολεμικὰ σώματα pinpoints the prisoners of war. Independently
from the possible emendation in τὰ πολιτικὰ σώματα (see the discussion in WALBANK 1957-1979, vol. I,
p. 507; cf. PAPAZOGLOU 1997, p. 51 n. 108), they are clearly in contrast with the laoi. They are probably
to be identified with the Byzantian colonists (ROBERT 1958, p. 107 n. 12; PAPAZOGLOU 1997, pp. 50-52).
The translation of the last clause in PATON 1922, p. 427 is imprecise: ‘Prusias is to compel any Bithynians
occupying lands in that part of Mysia subject to Byzantium to give these up to the farmers’. The passage
of Polybius means not the Bithynians inhabiting the peraia of Byzantium (i.e. the aforementioned laoi),
but those subject to Prusias I. They could have pillaged the Byzantian lands. The farmers may be either
the Byzantian colonists (HABICHT 1957 col. 1089; WALBANK 1957-1979, vol. I, p. 507) or, less likely, the
laoi (PAPAZOGLOU 1997, pp. 51-52).
72
On Cavarus’ intervention in support of Byzantium, cf. Polyb. VIII, 22, 2.
73
VITUCCI 1953, pp. 40-41; HABICHT 1957, coll. 1090-1091; WALBANK 1957-1979, vol. I, p. 506;
BERTHOLD 1984, p. 96 n. 45; JEFREMOW 2005, p. 92. WILL 1982, pp. 45-46 assumes that Cavarus threatened
108 ELOISA PAGANONI
in the early years of reign. He probably campaigned against the Galatians

who killed Zialeas, but the only traces of his successes are the hostility
of Byzantium and the Sotēria. A victory over Byzantium would have
reinforced Prusias I further. The Galatians were concerned about this
eventuality. It is possible that Cavarus, probably in contact with the Celts
of Asia, exploited this situation and organised a joint action. He asked
the Galatians to pressure Prusias under the threat of raids during the
negotiations of the peace conditions74. The effort of Byzantium, Cavarus
and possibly the Galatians in detriment of Prusias I indirectly confirms
once more that in those years Bithynia was strengthening its position as
the dominant power in the Propontic area.
After the end of the war with Byzantium, Prusias I reappears in our
sources in two episodes involving Achaeus, the Attalids and the Galatians
again. Admitting that Anchaeus and Attalus I reached a truce in 220 BC,
this was short-lived. In 218 BC, Attalus I profited from the absence of
Achaeus, who was suppressing some revolts in the eastern part of his
domain, to expand his realm. He hired the Aegosagi, a Celtic tribe from
Europe, and marched through Ionia, Aeolis, Mysia and Troad as far as the
river Mecestus75. The following year, Achaeus organised an expedition
against Attalus:
(Achaeus) fought against Attalus continually, threatened Prusias, and became

the terror for all the inhabitants on this side of the Taurus76.
We are not informed about the cause of Achaeus’ hostility against Prusias
I. It is possible that the Bithynian king, like Attalus, was going to attack
Achaeus77; or Achaeus may have decided to reaffirm his power against any
possible danger. In any case, the situation did not degenerate into open
war.
to invade Bithynia. MAGIE 1950, p. 313 thinks that Prusias I had to I had to accept the peace because
he was isolated after Rhodes signed the peace agreement; contra HABICHT 1957, coll. 1090-1091; WILL
1982, p. 46.
74
HABICHT 1957, coll. 1090-1091. GABELKO 2005, pp. 234-236 argues that it was Rhodes who asked
for harsh peace conditions for Prusias, because it was concerned about the reinforcement of Prusias after
the victory.
75
Polyb. V, 77, 2-78, 6; MELONI 1950, pp.166-176; WALBANK 1957-1979, vol. I, pp. 601-607; MCSHANE
1964, pp. 62-64; HANSEN 1971, pp. 41-42; WILL 1982, p. 47; DMITRIEV 1999, pp. 397-401. The Aegosagi
likely came from the collapsing kingdom of Tylis (WALBANK 1957-1979, vol. I, p. 603).
76
Polyb. V, 77, 1: ἐπολέμει μὲν Ἀττάλῳ συνεχῶς, ἀνετείνετο δὲ Προυσίᾳ, πᾶσι δ᾽ ἦν φοβερὸς καὶ
βαρὺς τοῖς ἐπὶ τάδε τοῦ Ταύρου κατοικοῦσι.
77
HABICHT 1957, col. 1092.
The 218 BC expedition of Attalus I was unsuccessful. The Aegosagi

he had hired rebelled, and he was compelled to settle them in Troad78.
They plundered the region until Alexandria Troad forced them to move
to the area near Abydos79. They went on raiding this region until Prusias I
intervened in 216 BC:
Prusias marched against them with an army and put the men to death on the
battlefield, slaughtered almost all their women and children in the camp,
and allowed his soldiers to plunder the baggage. By carrying out this deed,
(Prusias) freed the cities on the Hellespont from a great fear and danger, and
he left a good lesson to future generations so that barbarians would not make a
too easy passage from Europe to Asia80.
Prusias clashed with the Aegosagi probably near Abydos and achieved
an overwhelming victory81. It is an ‘isolated’ and rather unexplainable
episode. On this occasion, Prusias entered the lands Achaeus and Attalus I
were disputing but did not conquer them. There is no evidence that Prusias I
took control of Abydos or established any kind of relationship with the city
either at that time or afterwards82. This episode, therefore, was in no way
the prelude of the campaign to the south-west Prusias I undertook some
years later83. The explanation of the intervention of Prusias could stem
from the conclusive assessment of Polybius. It presents Prusias’ victory as
a triumph over the ‘barbarians’84. In those years, the Aegosagi – a Celtic
tribe who moved to Asia – embodied the prototype of the ‘barbarians’, the
enemies of the Greeks par excellence. The victory over them gave Prusias
access to the group of the ‘saviours of the Greeks’85, which included among
78
Polyb. V, 78, 1-6.
79
Polyb. V, 111, 2-5.
80
Polyb. V, 111, 6-7: ἐφ᾽ οὓς στρατεύσας μετὰ δυνάμεως Προυσίας καὶ παραταξάμενος τοὺς μὲν
ἄνδρας κατ᾽ αὐτὸν τὸν κίνδυνον ἐν χερῶν νόμῳ διέφθειρε, τὰ δὲ τέκνα σχεδὸν ἅπαντα καὶ τὰς γυναῖκας
αὐτῶν ἐν τῇ παρεμβολῇ κατέσφαξε, τὴν δ᾽ ἀποσκευὴν ἐφῆκε διαρπάσαι τοῖς ἠγωνισμένοις. πράξας δὲ
ταῦτα μεγάλου μὲν ἀπέλυσε φόβου καὶ κινδύνου τὰς ἐφ᾽ Ἑλλησπόντου πόλεις, καλὸν δὲ παράδειγμα
τοῖς ἐπιγινομένοις ἀπέλιπε τοῦ μὴ ῥᾳδίαν ποιεῖσθαι τοὺς ἐκ τῆς Εὐρώπης βαρβάρους τὴν εἰς τὴν Ἀσίαν
διάβασιν.
81
On the location of the clash, cf. MCSHANE 1964, pp. 63, 99; SCHMITT 1964, p. 263; STROBEL 1994, pp.
29-30. According to the editors, the reliefs on three tombstones from Northern Anatolia recently published
(PESCHLOW et al. 2002, pp. 436-437 nrr. 102-105) refer to Prusias I’s expedition. Cf. CHANIOTIS 2005, p.
200).
82
HABICHT 1957, col. 1092; FERNOUX 2008, p. 228.
83
See below pp. 117, 122-124, 130-131.
84
According to MCSHANE 1964, p. 63 n. 17, the favourable attitude to Prusias derives from Polybius’
Rhodian source hostile to Pergamum.
85
Cf. STROBEL 1994, pp. 30-31; STROBEL 1994a, p. 69.
110 ELOISA PAGANONI
its members Attalus I, who had grounded his power on his image as victor
over the Galatians86. In this light, Prusias’ 216 BC campaign ultimatley
appears to be a propagandistic act and a challenge to the Attalids87. And in
competition with the Attalids, no occasion could appeal to Prusias I more
than to ‘save’ Greek cities from the Galatians that Attalus himself had
settled.
2. GREAT EXPANSION IN A CHANGING WORLD. PRUSIAS I’S POLITICS IN THE

TURN OF THE 2ND CENTURY BC
The following reference to Prusias I dates to the years of the First

Macedonian War. During the negotiations at Phalara in 208 BC, Philip V was
informed that Attalus I had come to Greece to aid the Aetolians88. He stopped
any attempt to reach an agreement and collected naval forces for a new battle:
After receiving five ships (by the Achaeans), (Philip V) had resolved that, if he
could have added them to the fleet the Carthaginians had lately sent to him and
to the ships coming from Bithynia by King Prusias, he would have confronted
in a naval battle the Romans, who had already held control of the sea in that
region for a long time89.
86
On the propaganda of Attalus I, see e.g. SCHALLES 1985, pp. 51-53; HANNESTAD 1993, pp. 21-33; VIR-
GILIO 1993, pp. 30-39; MITCHELL 2003, pp. 283-287. The Attalid propaganda also echoes in some modern
assessments, such as GRANDJEAN et al. 2008, p. 203: ‘Rapellons surtout qu’à plusieurs reprises les Attalides,
et particulièremet Eumène II, défendirent l’Asie Mineure occidentale, et en premier lieu les cités, contre les
ambitions de rois de Bithynie Prusias I de Bithynie (en 186-183) et Prusias II (159-154) mais aussi contre
le danger galate’.
87
About the meaning of the 216 BC expedition in Bithynian propaganda, see VITUCCI 1953, pp. 43-
44:‘E Prusia dovè accogliere l’inivito perché gli porgeva occasione di atteggiarsi a «sotere», e forse anche
per rafforzare quel prestigio che poco innanzi avevano scosso le condizioni di pace accettate alla fine della
guerra con Bisanzio’; HABICHT 1957, col. 1092; MCSHANE 1964, pp. 98-99 (esp. p. 98: ‘Prusias further
competed with Attalus for the reputation as champion of the Greeks against barbarians’); WILL 1982, p.
48: ‘victoire qui fit plus pour la reputation philhellénique de la maison royale de Bithynie que toutes les
donations et évergésies antérieures’; FERNOUX 2004, p. 48; GABELKO 2005, pp. 238-239; FERNOUX 2008, pp.
227-228 (esp. p. 227: ‘una revanche politique et idéologique sur son ennemi attalide’); KLEU 2013b. About
the introduction of the theme of the struggle against the Galatians in Bithynian propaganda, cf. HANNESTAD
1993, pp. 21-33; STROOTMAN 2005, pp. 121-127; FERNOUX 2008, p. 228. There are no arguments in favour
of a collaboration between Prusias I and Attalus I against the Aegosagi, as NIESE 1899, p. 393 and MELONI
1950, p. 176 n. 2 argue (cf. SCHMITT 1964, p. 263 n. 3).
88
Liv. XXVII, 30, 4-15. About the alliance of Attalus with the Aetolians and his intervention in the
First Macedonian War, see MCSHANE 1964, pp. 100-102, 106-109; HANSEN 1971, pp. 47-49; WILL 1982, p.
87; EVANS 2012, p. 26. For a complete reassessment of the contacts between Attalus I and the Aetolians,
see CAVALLI 2015, pp. 87-140.
89
Liv. XXVII, 30, 16: quinque longis navibus acceptis, quas si adiecisset missae nuper ad se classi
The sending of some ships demonstrates that Prusias I supported Philip V

in the war against the Aetolians. It is difficult yet to establish whether it
was a collaboration or a formal alliance90 or whether Prusias I had played
some role in the war before 208 BC.
Likewise, it is difficult to prove that the aid to Philip and Prusias’ attack
to Pergamum, probably in the same year, were connected in any way. With
regard of this attack Livy says:
From there (i.e. Oreum), since (Attalus) heard that the king of Bithynia Prusias
had crossed over the boundaries of his kingdom, he neglected the Roman
affairs and the war of the Aetolians and came back to Asia91.
The attack of Prusias caused the retirement of Attalus from Europe92. It

put, in fact, an end to his participation in the First Macedonian War. It
has been argued that Prusias attacked Pergamum mainly to benefit Philip
V93. No element yet confirms this hypothesis that remains, in the words of
Frank W. Walbank, a ‘matter of speculation’94.
Independetly from the contacts with Philip V, Prusias I had is own reasons
to attack Pergamum. The Attalids had become more and more dangerous to
him. They had begun threatening the Bithynian kingdom with aggressive
actions since they had become independent from the Seleucids. To our
knowledge, the rivalry had manifested first in propaganda, in the barely
Carthaginiensium et ex Bithynia ab rege Prusia venientibus navibus, statuerat navali proelio lacessere
Romanos iam diu in regione ea potentes maris. HABICHT 1957, col. 1092 argues that Prusias I could have
no fleet in 208 BC, since a few years before, in the war against Byzantium, he had left the operations on
the sea to the Rhodians.
90
Cf. VITUCCI 1953, p. 45; HABICHT 1957, col. 1092; MCSHANE 1964, p. 99; GEHRKE 1990, p. 111; KLEU
2013b.
91
Liv. XXVIII, 7, 10: inde, cum fama accidisset Prusian Bithyniae regem in fines regni sui transgressum,
omissis Romanis rebus atque Aetolico bello in Asiam traiecit. Livy sets Prusias’ attack within the account of
207 BC, but it is accepted that most events in Book XXVIII, 5, 1-8, 14 occurred in 208 BC (JAL 1995, pp.
XXIX-XXXI). As for the episode in question, among those following Livy’s chronology, VITUCCI 1953, p.
45; GRUEN 1984, p. 532; CHRUBASIK 2013, p. 98; among those who prefer the earlier date, WALBANK 1940,
p. 93; HABICHT 1957, col. 1092; WILL 1982, p. 91; ALLEN 1983, pp. 49, 64; GABELKO 2005, p. 242; FERNOUX
2008, p. 229; WÖRRLE 2009, pp. 426-427 n. 74; MA 2013, p. 53.
92
Cf. Dio Cass. (XVII, 57, 58) who hints at another other reason behind the retirement of Attalus from
Greece: ὥστε τὸν Ἄτταλον διά τε τοῦτο καὶ διὰ Προυσίαν τὸν Βιθυνῶν βασιλέα, ἐσβαλόντα τε ἐς τὴν
χώραν αὐτοῦ καὶ πορθοῦντα αὐτήν, ἀποπλεῦσαι κατὰ τάχος οἴκαδε (‘so that Attalus for this [i.e. the threat
by Philip V] and for the king of the Bithynians Prusias, who had invaded his lands and was plundering
them, sailed off home quickly’).
93
VITUCCI 1953, p. 45; HABICHT 1957, coll. 1092-1093; HANSEN 1971, p. 49; cf. CHRUBASIK 2013, p. 98
n. 60.
94
WALBANK 1940, p. 95.
112 ELOISA PAGANONI
known matter of the Sotēria and Nikēphoria95. But it had nearly switched
to war shortly after during the conflict between Rhodes and Byzantium.
The land force of Attalus had never reached the army of Byzantium. But
if it had, it would have probably fought against Prusias who was carrying
out the operations in Asia96. In 216 BC Attalus I had joined Antiochus III
against Achaeus, who had been definitively defeated in 213 BC. In reward
for his support, Antiochus probably had given Attalus some lands that had
been Acheaus’97. The expansion of Pergamum and the disappearance of
Achaeus, who had avoided contacts between Pergamum and Bithynia, had
increased tensions. In 208 BC Prusias exploited the absence of Attalus I to
attack Pergamum98. He likely intended to strike a severe blow to an enemy
that had become a threat to him.
The attack of Prusias I is supposed to have opened a conflict. Nothing
is known with certainty about this99, but it is understood to have been
hard since Attalus was prevented from supporting the Aetolians further.
However to our knowledge, it brought lasting advantage neither to Prusias
nor to Attalus100. The conflict probably finished by 205 BC101. In that year,
Prusias and Attalus were mentioned as adscripti in the Peace of Phoenice
that concluded the First Macedonian War102.
Prusias I’s friendly relations with Philip V showed their effect again
95
96
See above p. 105.
97
HABICHT 1956, p. 93; HABICHT 1957, col. 1092; HANSEN 1971, p. 97; LAFFI 1971, pp. 19-20; WILL
1982, p. 180; BOFFO 1985, p. 106 n. 137; BRINGMANN – VON STEUBEN 1995, p. 291; FERNOUX 2008, p. 228;
WÖRRLE 2009, pp. 426-427 n. 74.
98
MAGIE 1950, p. 313.
99
HABICHT 1957, col. 1093. Stephanus of Byzantium s.v. Βοὸς Κεφαλαί says: τόπος καθ’ ὃν ἐπολέμησε
Προυσίας πρὸς Ἄτταλον, ὡς Ἐρατοσθένης ἐν ἑβδόμῃ Γαλατικῶν (‘place in which Prusias fought against
Attalus, as Eratosthenes says in Book VII of the Galatika’). This battle at the unknown place Βοὸς Κεφαλαί
is considered an episode of the Attalid-Bithynian war which opened in 208 BC by some scholars (e.g.
IvP I, 56 E, p. 45; STÄHELIN 1907, p. 38 n. 7; MAGIE 1950, p. 1196 n. 37; HANSEN 1971, pp. 49-50). Others
think that Attalus II and Prusias II are meant in Stephanus. Accordingly they set this episode during the
Bithynian-Attalid war in the 150s BC (VITUCCI 1953, p. 46 n. 1; HABICHT 1957, col. 1093; HOPP 1977, pp.
77-78 n. 103; cf. MAGIE 1950, pp. 1196-1198 nn. 37, 42). The first proposal, however, is more convincing
as the information was originally in Eratosthenes, who died in the early 2nd century BC.
100
Cf. MAGIE 1950, p. 313; VITUCCI 1953, pp. 45-46; HABICHT 1957, col. 1093; HANSEN 1971, pp. 49-50;
ALLEN 1983, p. 49; GABELKO 2005, p. 245.
101
HABICHT 1957, col. 1093; HANSEN 1971, p. 50; ALLEN 1983, p. 49 and n. 75; STROBEL 1994, p. 31;
GABELKO 2005, p. 244.
102
Liv. XXIX, 12, 14. HABICHT 1957, col. 1093 questions the inclusion of Prusias I, because he seems
not to be allied with Rome after 205 BC. But, as ERRINGTON 1989, p. 105 notes, the Peace of Phoenice did
not establish a formal alliance between Rome and the adscripti. On the juridical status of the adscripti, see
MAGIE 1950, pp. 744-746 n. 36; PIRAINO 1955; MCSHANE 1964, pp. 111-116; StV III, pp. 282-284; WILL
1982, pp. 95-98; ALLEN 1983, p. 49 n. 75.
in 202 BC. After the end of the conflict with the Aetolians, Philip V had
started threatening Rhodian supremacy over the Aegean. He had secretly
supported Dicearcus against Rhodes in the Cretan War103. In 202 BC
he undertook a campaign in the Hellespont. He entered in alliance with
Lysimachia and Chalcedon and seized Perinthus and Thasos104. During this
expedition, he also took Cius and handed it over to Prusias I105. According
to Polybius, our main source for this episode, Philip intervened to help his
σύμμαχος (‘ally’)106 and κηδεστής107 Prusias I, who was already besieging
the city108. The passages concerning the issue of Cius contain the first
explicit mention of the alliance of Philip V and Prusias. They also inform
us that this alliance was sanctioned by a marriage: κηδεστής indeed can be
translated as ‘brother-in-law’, ‘father-in-law’ or ‘son-in-law’109. The not
univocal meaning of this word, however, prevents us from disclosing the
exact kinship between Prusias I and Philip. Nor is it possible to determine
whether this marriage was celebrated at the time of their first collaboration
in 208 BC or afterwards.
Polybius clarly states that Prusias was already laying siege to Cius when
Philip approached. It is less clear under what circumstances the Bithynian
king attacked the city. Immediately before the account of Philip’s seizure,
Polybius110 deals with Molpagoras who was ruling Cius. He presents a
harsh portrayal and attributes to him all the features typical of a demagogue.
The blame for Molpagoras also emerges from the Suda, the other source
about him. It significantly sets the information concerning him in the entry
δημαγωγικός and records that he was murdered111. Focusing on the moral
condemnation, these sources preserve no hints at how Molpagoras took
power and what the situation of Cius was. On the basis of the reference
to a demagogic regime, it is assumed that in the late 3rd century BC Cius
103
WALBANK 1940, pp. 108-113; WILL 1982, pp. 104-105; BRULÉ 1978, pp. 44-46; GRAINGER 1999, pp.
348-349; WIEMER 2002, pp. 41-42, 122-123. On the Cretan War, see BRULÉ 1978, pp. 29-56; WIEMER 2002,
pp. 143-176; KLEU 2015, pp. 91-93.
104
See WALBANK 1940, pp. 114-137; WILL 1982, pp. 121-128; HAMMOND – WALBANK 1988, pp. 411-
416; ERRINGTON 1990, pp. 196-203; KLEU 2015, pp. 103-109.
105
Polyb. XV, 22, 1-5; 23, 9-10; XVIII, 3, 12; Strabo XII, 4, 3. Unconvincingly MEYER 1897, col. 518
and ROSTOVTZEFF 1941, p. 662 argue that Philip also handed over Chalcedon to Prusias I (WALBANK 1957-
1979, vol. II, p. 479).
106
Polyb. XVIII, 4, 7; cf. Liv. XXXII, 34, 5: socium et amicum.
107
Polyb. XV, 22, 1; 22, 3.
108
GABELKO 2015 argues that Prusias I was supported by Galatian mercenaries.
109
LSJ s.v. κηδεστής. About this marriage, see below pp. 124-125, 128.
110
Polyb. XV, 21, 1-8.
111
Suda s.v. δημαγωγικός.
114 ELOISA PAGANONI
went through internal strife, which caused the overturning of the existing
government and the emergence of Molpagoras112. In view of the setting
of the passage in Polybius, then, Molpagoras’ death is supposed to be
connected with the intervention of Prusias I113. In regard to the contacts
between the Bithynian king and Cius, Gabelko114 has drawn attention to
another piece of information. It is preserved in the entry Κιανοί of the Suda
and probably derives from Polybius:
the inhabitants of Cius. Prusias wished to break the treaty with them for some
reasons115.
Gabelko thinks that the passage refers to Prusias I and concerns the
situation before 202 BC. If he is right, it informs us that a treaty between
Prusias I and Cius existed. Accordingly, we are allowed to think about
peaceful relations. At some time, for unknown reasons, Prusias broke the
agreement and laid siege to the city. Whether and how Prusias profited
from the internal strife remains unknown. Likewise, it is impossible to
investigate his relations with Molpagoras. In any case, the situation of the
city may have had some role in his change of mind.
With the excuse of helping his ally and relative, Philip aimed to
damage the Aetolians116, who had built a wide alliance network in the
Hellespontic area, including Lysimachia, Chalcedon and Cius117. Before
112
On Molpagoras and the accounts about him, see GARSON 1975, p. 6; IK Kios, pp. 35-36; CHAMPION
2004, pp. 200, 204; GABELKO 2005, p. 246; THORNTON 2013, pp. 28-29, 34.
113
VITUCCI 1953, pp. 46-47; WALBANK 1957-1979, vol. II, p. 475, who doubts whether Prusias sup-
ported Molpagoras or the faction hostile to him; IK Kios, p. 37, assuming that Prusias and Philip supported
the faction hostile to Molpagoras; GABELKO 2005, p. 247; GABELKO 2015, pp. 88-89. Cf. PATON 1926, p.
513, who translates the phrase καταπεπληγμένος δὲ πάντας τοὺς ἀλλοτριάζοντας (Polyb. XV, 22, 1) as
‘defeating the revolutionary party’, instead of ‘defeating all those who were hostile to him (i.e. Philip V)’.
Contra HABICHT 1957, col. 1093.
114
GABELKO 2015, pp. 88-89.
115
Suda s.v. Κιανοί: οἱ τῆς Κίου· οὓς Προυσίας παρασπονδῆσαι ἠθέλησε διά τινας αἰτίας. A fragment of
Polybius too (Fr. 127: οὕτω γὰρ διέξειν τὰς χεῖρας καὶ φροντιεῖν τοῦ μηδὲν ἀδίκημα ποιήσειν τὸν Προυσίαν
εἰς αὐτούς [‘for in this way Prusias outspread his hand and intended to do no harm to them’]) might refer to
Prusias’ attack to Cius (GABELKO 2015, p. 89). Cf. [WALBANK – HABICHT –] OLSON 2012, p. 563 n. 52, who,
with reference to the phrase ‘outspread his hand’, explains: ‘sc. so as to hold two hostile parties aside’.
116
WALBANK 1940, pp. 114-118; VITUCCI 1953, pp. 46-47; HABICHT 1957, col. 1094; WILL 1982, p.
122; GRAINGER 1999, pp. 347-352. Philip’s operations also alarmed Rhodes (WILL 1982, p. 122, cf. p. 46;
ERRINGTON 1990, p. 196; GRAINGER 1999, p. 350) and Attalus I (WILL 1982, p. 122; ERRINGTON 1990, p. 196;
WIEMER 2002, p. 202).
117
It is debated whether the alliance between the Hellespontic cities and the Aetolians was established
before the end of the First Macedonian War (e.g. WALBANK 1940, p. 306; WALBANK 1957-1979, vol. II, p.
478) or after (NIESE 1899, p. 581; GRAINGER 1999, pp. 349-351; cf. IK Kios, p. 36 and n. 26). About the kind
of alliance, see WALBANK 1957-1979, vol. II, pp. 477-478. An Aetolian strategos is attested in Lysimachia
Philip intervened, the siege of Cius was a local event, which testifies to an
attempt by Prusias I to expand into the west. The engagement of Philip V
turned this siege into an international matter. Some states tried to negotiate
with the Macedonian king118. Anyway, they did not manage to prevent
him from taking the city, enslaving its inhabitants, and handing it over
to Prusias I119. Prusias I obtained the city, but his expectations were not
completely fulfilled:
Prusias was exceedingly glad because his purpose was accomplished, but he
was dissatisfied because another had taken the prize of the assault, while he
received a desert site of a city. But he could do nothing120.
Maybe Polybius exaggerates the destruction of the city121 but he leaves no

doubt that Philip and Prusias I had different purposes. One did the most
to deprive the Aetolians of a base on the Straits; the other aimed just to
include the city in his kingdom.
The destruction caused by Philip forced Prusias to re-found Cius. In
regard to this act, Strabo says:
Philip, the son of Demetrius, the father of Perseus, destroyed Cius and gave it to
Prusias, the son of Zela, who destroyed with him both this city and the neighbouring
Myrlea, that was near Prusa. When this one restored to them from the ruins he
named the city of Cius Prusias after himself and Myrlea Apamea after his wife122.
Strabo adds that Prusias I also conquered Myrlea123. The participle
and Cius (Polyb. XV, 23, 8-9; XVIII, 3, 11-12) and there could have been one in Chalcedon too (WAL-
BANK 1957-1979, vol. II, p. 479; GRAINGER 1999, p. 350, who about the function of the Aetolian strategos
clarifies: ‘Aitolians were posted as military commanders to these allies, presumably at the request of the
citizens, and with the intention, unrealised, of deterring an attack by Philip, or perhaps for the Asian cities,
by Antiochos’).
118
Polyb. XV, 22, 4. The full lists of these states is missing, but it included Rhodes (Polyb. XV,
23, 1-6), and possibly Athens and Chios, which had negotiated with Philip as neutral states in the First
Macedonian War (WALBANK 1957-1979, vol. II, p. 476).
119
Polyb. XV, 22, 1-5; 23, 9-10; XVIII, 3, 12; Strabo XII, 4, 3.
120
Polyb. XV, 23, 10: Προυσίας δέ, καθὸ μὲν ἡ πρόθεσις αὐτοῦ συντελείας ἔτυχε, περιχαρὴς ἦν, καθὸ
δὲ τὰ μὲν ἆθλα τῆς ἐπιβολῆς ἕτερος ἀπέφερεν, αὐτὸς δὲ πόλεως οἰκόπεδον ἔρημον ἐκληρονόμει, δυσχερῶς
διέκειτο, ποιεῖν δ᾽ οὐδὲν οἷός τ᾽ ἦν…
121
HABICHT 1957, col. 1094.
122
Strabo XII, 4, 3: κατέσκαψε δὲ τὴν Κίον Φίλιππος, ὁ Δημητρίου μὲν υἱὸς Περσέως δὲ πατήρ, ἔδωκε
δὲ Προυσίᾳ τῷ Ζήλα, συγκατασκάψαντι καὶ ταύτην καὶ Μύρλειαν ἀστυγείτονα πόλιν, πλησίον δὲ καὶ
Προύσης οὖσαν. ἀναλαβὼν δ᾽ ἐκεῖνος ἐκ τῶν ἐρειπίων αὐτὰς ἐπωνόμασεν ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ μὲν Προυσιάδα
πόλιν τὴν Κίον, τὴν δὲ Μύρλειαν Ἀπάμειαν ἀπὸ τῆς γυναικός.
123
According to GABELKO 2015, pp. 89-90, in this case too Prusias exploited the city’s troubled situa-
116 ELOISA PAGANONI
συγκατασκάψαντι, going with Prusias (in dative case), means ‘who

destroyed with him (i.e. Philip)’ [Cius and Myrlea]. This indicates that
Philip played some role in the seizure of Myrlea too. In a fragment
handed down by the Etymologicum genuinum, the 2nd-century-AD author
Hermippus of Berytus says:
Apamea: Bithynian city formerly called Myrlea, which (Prusias son of) Zielas
renamed Apamea after his wife Apama, having received it as a gift by Philip
son of Demetrius124.
In view of this passage and that of Strabo, scholars125 argue that Philip V
also captured Myrlea and handed it over to Prusias. They, thus, replciate for
Myrlea the situation of Cius. They mainly appeal to Hermippus and recall
the auctoritas of Strabo. And yet, the passage of Hermippus raises some
problems. Regarding the phrase ὁ Ζιήλας μετωνόμασεν κτλ. preserved
in the manuscript tradition, Jan Radicke notices that the definite article
‘looks rather odd since Ziaelas has not been introduced hitherto and the
lexicographer usually follows the general rule of not using the article in such
cases’126. Consequently, he accepts Karl Müller’s restoration Προυσίας ὁ
Ζηίλα127, which is based on Strabo. The corruption of Hermippus’ fragment
does not afftect its reliability, but it warns against taking this fragment at
its words. It invites us to rely on the information of Strabo mostly. This
one deals with the involvement of Philip in the destruction of Myrlea, but
suggests that the Antigonid had a minor role than in the case of Cius.
This can appear a little achievement, a detail in the reconstruction of
tion, which in his opinion, Dionysius of Byzantium (82) alludes to: Myrlaeum, domicilium eorum qui ob
seditionem a Myrlaea in exilium proiecti hunc solum verterunt (‘Myrlaeum, place of those who, expelled
in exilium from Myrlea for a danger, came there’). However, it is to be noted, as Gabelko himself does,
that there is no chronological reference in this passage. Moreover, according to GABELKO 2015, pp. 90-98,
IK Kios 58 and CORSTEN 1991, pp. 98-99 nr. 11 suggest that Prusias I hired Galatian mercenaries for the
operations against Cius and Myrlea.
124
Radicke, FGrHistCont 1061, F 1: Ἀπάμεια· πόλις Βιθυνίας, πρότερον Μυρλέα καλουμένη· ἣν
λαβὼν δῶρα παρὰ Φιλίππου τοῦ Δημητρίου ὁ Ζιήλας μετωνόμασεν Ἀπάμειαν ἀπὸ τῆς ἑαυτοῦ γυναικὸς
Ἀπάμας.
125 MAGIE 1950, p. 313; VITUCCI 1953, p. 48; JONES 1971, p. 151; BRISCOE 1973, p. 236; IK Apameia
und Pylai, p. 10; HAMMOND – WALBANK 1988, p. 413; COHEN 1995, pp. 392-393; STROBEL 1997c; DEBORD
1998, p. 146; WIEMER 2002, p. 200; SARTRE 2003, p. 69; KLEU 2013b; MICHELS 2013, p. 13; KLEU 2015,
pp. 105-106; GABELKO 2015, p. 88: ‘in contrast to the case of Cius, it was Philip who took the initiative’.
SAPRYKIN 1997, p. 233 wrongly states that Philip V was involved in the seizure of Tios and Cierus.
126
Radicke, FGrHistCont 1061, F 1, Commentary.
127
Cf. Radicke, FGrHistCont 1061, F 1 and apparatus: ‘ὁ Ζηίλας vel Ζιήλας codd.: Προυσίας ὁ Ζηίλα
Müller, FHG III, p. 51, sed incertum error librarii an auctoris sit’.
the events. More important is instead the different relevance the conquests
of Cius and Myrela had in the international scenario. The former was
considered an episode of Philip V’s expedition in the Hellespont and thus,
one of the causes of the Second Macedonian War. The Romans referred
more than once to this issue when asking Philip to justify his conduct128.
They, instead, never mentioned Myrlea, although Philip also took part in
its destruction. The different role Philip V played in the conquest of these
cities is not enough to justify this situation. The explanation, I think, rests
on the international contacts of Cius and Myrlea. The Romans considered
the case of Cius because the city was an ally of the Aetolians, who were
their friends. It did not happen for Myrlea, because it was in the network
neither of the Aetolians nor of Rome. The taking of Myrlea remained a
local episode from a Roman perspective, regardless of the involvement of
Philip V129.
Scholarship focuses on the intervention of Philip V and overlooks the
relevance of the seizures of Cius and Myrlea in understanding Prusias I’s
policies in the late 3rd century BC130. These episodes were the final steps of
a campaign that significantly expanded Bithynia to the west.
The traces of a military operation compelled Prusias I to refound both
Cius and Myrlea131. According to the above-quoted passage of Strabo132,
they were contextually re-named after Prusias himself and his wife Apama.
Stephanus of Byzantium repeats Strabo’s information about Cius133. With
128
Polyb. XVI, 34, 5; XVIII, 3, 12; 5, 4; cf. XVIII, 44, 5.
129
Cf. KLEU 2013b.
130
131
Strabo XII, 4, 3; cf. Radicke, FGrHistCont 1061, F 1.
132
Strabo XII, 4, 3; cf. Radicke, FGrHistCont 1061, F 1.
133
Steph. Byz. s.v. Προῦσα: τῆς Προυσιάδος διαφέρει. ἡ μὲν γὰρ Προυσιάς Βιθυνίας, ἀπὸ Προυσίου
τοῦ Ζηίλα τοῦ Βιθυνῶν βασιλέως, ἡ Κίος πρότερον ὀνομασθεῖσα (‘[Prusa] is different from Prusias. The
Bithynian Prusias, (named) after the king of the Bithynians Prusias son of Zeila, was called Cius formerly’).
Cf. Herod. De pros. cath., p. 59. According to MICHELS 2009, pp. 273-274, 276 (cf. MICHELS 2013, p. 13;
GABELKO 2015, p. 97 n. 45), Prusias I settled in Cius/Prusias ad Mare the citizens enslaved by Philip V. A
dedication to the founder of Cius was supposed to refer to a king Prusias for a long time. So it was consid-
ered another piece of evidence in support of literary sources (IK Kios 24; see below Appendix nr, 6; cf. WILL
1982, p. 124). But scholars now agree that it mentions the mythical founder Heracles Kallinikos. Coins
(BMC Bithynia, p. 132 nrr. 27-32; SCHÖNERT-GEISS 1978, p. 633; COHEN 1995, p. 405 n. 3, with further
bibliography) attest the new name of the city, Prusias, from the 1st century BC. This name is followed by
the specification ἡ ἐπιθαλάσσιος, ἀπὸ θαλάσσης or πρὸς θαλάσσῃ to distinguish Cius/Prusias from Cierus/
Prusias ad Hypium (MAGIE 1950, p. 1189 n. 20; VITUCCI 1953, p. 48; COHEN 1995, p. 405; MICHELS 2009, p.
273 n. 1391; on Cierus/Prusias and Hypium, see below, pp. 139-141). A decree from Magnesia ad Sipylum,
discovered in Cius/Prusias ad Mare and dating to about the mid-2nd century BC (KOERTE 1899, pp. 410-413
nr. 12 = IK Magnesia am Sipylos 7 = IK Kios 17; cf. SEG 4 [1929] 725, pointing to Prusias ad Hypium as
the findspot), honours some men from Cius/Prusias ad Mare who acted as judges in an arbitration involving
Magnesia ad Sipylum. It attests the diplomatic activity of the city in the years following the refoudation
118 ELOISA PAGANONI
regard to Myrlea, he claims that the city was re-founded by Nicomedes

II, son of Prusias II and grandson of Prusias I. He adds that Nicomedes
II re-named it after his mother Apama134. The information of Strabo had
been preferred to that of Stephanus135 until the discovery of a dedication
of Nicomedes II136. The inscription, found at the Piraeus, but probably
coming from Bithynia, attests that the mother of Nicomedes II was named
Apama. Combining the information from Strabo and from this inscription,
it follows that both the wives of Prusias I and Prusias II were named
Apama, which some consider unlikely137. On this basis, some scholars
reject Strabo’s information and prefer Stephanus’ because it finds some
confirmation in the epigraphic evidence. They argue that the change of
name138 and maybe even the re-foundation of the city139 occurred under
Nicomedes II, and not under Prusias I.
The debate on Myrlea intersects here with the one on the Bithynian
queens. In this regard, we should recognise that the pieces of information
from Strabo and the Piraeus inscription do not differ from each other, and
there is no grounded argument to consider any of them untrustworthy.
The presence of two queens with the same name in two generations is
not only possible, but also quite common. The use of ‘dynastic’ names
repeated every generation is, indeed, widely attested in the Hellenistic
(VITUCCI 1953, p. 125). But it does not prove the survival of the old city’s name, as MICHELS 2009, pp. 274-
275 argues. The place name at line 6 (ἄνδρα̣[ς ἐγ Κίου], ‘men of Cius’) is indeed completely restored. The
city re-established the former name under Claudius (RUGE 1921a, col. 487; LESCHHORN 1984, p. 276; COHEN
1995, p. 405 n. 3 with further bibliography; MICHELS 2009, p. 274) or Hadrian (SOMMER 1996). Memnon
BNJ 434, F 1, 28, 7 (Προυσιάδα τὴν ἐπιθαλάσσιον... Κίερος τὸ παλαιὸν [‘Prusias ad Mare... formerly
Cierus’]) confuses Cius/Prusias ad Mare and Prusias ad Hypium (cf. e.g. COHEN 1995, p. 405 n. 405 n. 2).
A few inscriptions from Cius/Prusias ad Mare are dated before the Imperial era. Among them, there are two
4th-century-BC decrees (IK Kios 1-2) and a decree of the Hellenistic age (IK Kios 8, see below Appendix
nr. 4), that alludes to a royal cult in the gymnasion. On the city-state institutions, see IK Kios, pp. 50-56.
134
Steph. Byz. s.v. Ἀπάμεια: ἔστι καὶ Βιθυνίας, κτίσμα Νικομήδους τοῦ Ἐπιφανοῦς, ἐκαλεῖτο δὲ
πρῶτον Μύρλεια (‘There is also [Apamea] of Bithynia, foundation of Nicomedes Epiphanēs, formerly
called Myrlea’); s.v. Μύρλεια: πόλις Βιθυνίας, ἡ νῦν λεγομένη Ἀπάμεια. ἀπὸ Μύρλου τοῦ Κολοφωνίων
ἡγεμόνος. Νικομήδης δὲ ὁ Ἐπιφανής, Προυσίου δὲ υἱός, ἀπὸ τῆς μητρὸς Ἀπάμας Ἀπάμειαν ὠνόμασεν
(‘city in Bithynia, now named Apamea. From Myrlus leader of the Colophonians. Nicomedes Epiphanēs,
son of Prusias, named it after his mother Apama’).
135
E.g. HIRSCHFELD 1894.
136
IG II-III2, 3, 1. 3172, see below Appendix nr. 12.
137
WILHELM 1908, pp. 78-80; MEYER 1925, p. 114; HABICHT 1957, coll. 1095-1096; JONES 1971, pp.
151, 419 n. 9; IK Apameia und Pylai, p. 10. Cf. OGDEN 1999, p. 179 who records one Apama (the mother of
Nicomedes II) in his catalogue of the female exponents of the Hellenistic dynasties.
138
RUGE 1933; HABICHT 1957, col. 1095; cf. LESCHHORN 1984, p. 278
139
STROBEL 1997c. According to HANNESTAD 1996, p. 98 n. 125 and FERNOUX 2004, p. 38, Myrlea was
founded by Prusias II. This is considered possible by MICHELS 2009, pp. 276-277 (cf. MICHELS 2013, pp.
13-14), who takes no position in the debate.
age140. We have to recognise that both Prusias I and Prusias II were married
to a woman named Apama. In regard to the refoundation of Myrlea, the
city had been damaged during the military operations. It is reasonable that
Prusias I re-built the city after he seized it. It is equally reasonable, at least
for sake of economy, that he contextually re-named it after his wife141. It
remains possible to assume a re-foundation under Prusias I and a name
change under Nicomedes II. But, in my opinion, this is a lectio difficilior
of the evidence at our disposal142.
Prusias I supported Philip V in the First Macedonian War and received
aid from him in 202 BC. It is difficult to find the ‘deep root’ of this
alliance, but Prusias I seems to have been unaware of its implications. He
was focused on reinforcing the kingdom and his political horizon still was
limited to the Propontic and Anatolic areas143. His enemies and friends
were ‘around’ him or involved in the situation of northern Asia Minor: on
the one hand, Pergamum, Byzantium and the Galatians, and on the other
hand, Rhodes and Philip V. Prusias I did not understand that to become
involved in Macedonian affairs entailed coming into contact with Rome,
which was taking its first steps towards the conquest of the East. Prusias
probably began to understand the implications of his alliance with Philip
V at the end of the Second Macedonian War. In 197 BC the agreement of
Tempe imposed on Philip V to free the territories he had seized144. These
included Cius, which was under the control of Prusias I at that time. The
Romans knew the situation and were not in a position to give orders to the
140
RUGE 1933, col. 1105; GABELKO 2005, p. 245.
141
VITUCCI 1953, pp. 48-49 and n. 4; WALBANK 1957-1979, vol. II, pp. 475-476; WILSON 1960, pp. 66-
67; LESCHHORN 1984, p. 278; MAREK 1993, p. 23. COHEN 1995, pp. 392-393. LESCHHORN 1984, p. 278 stresses
the relevance of Hermippus’ passage (Radicke, FGrHistCont 1061, F 1) as evidence for this, considering
him contemporaneous. He however confuses the author dealing with Myrlea (Hermippus of Berytus, active
in the 2nd century AD) with the Hellenistic Hermippus (COHEN 1995, p. 193 n. 1). Apamea’s name is attested
by coins from the 1st century BC and by inscriptions, sometimes along with the former name Myrlea, from
the 2nd century AD (e.g. IK Apameia und Pylai T 4; see COHEN 1995, p. 393 n. 2 for further references).
Pliny (NH V, 143) writes: Apamea quae nunc Myrlea Colophoniorum (‘Apamea now [called] Myrlea of the
Colophonians’). This passage raises the possibility that Myrlea, like Cius (see above pp. 117-118 n. 133),
reintroduced the former name at some time (COHEN 1995, p. 392). On the foundation of Myrlea by the the
Colophonians, see Steph. Byz. s.v. Μύρλεια; IK Apameia und Pylai, p. 7.
142
Cf. LESCHHORN 1984, p. 278.
143
With regard to the First Macedonian War, MAGIE 1950, p. 313 claims: ‘There were, however, in-
direct results of the war. It won Prusias the friendship of Philip and the enmity of the King of Pergamum
and, with this enmity, disapproval on the part of the Romans. For the moment, however, Prusias’ alliance
with Philip seemed to outweigh all considerations’. VITUCCI 1953, p. 50 says: ‘Nell’insieme mi sembra più
verisimile il ritenere che l’orizzonte politico del re bitino non si spingesse in questo momento molto oltre
i confini del suo dominio’.
144
Polyb. XVIII, 44, 1-7.
120 ELOISA PAGANONI
Bithynian king because he had not taken part in the war and had signed no
pact with Rome145. However, the Romans tried to re-establish the status
quo ante, and sent him an informal letter:
With regard to the freedom of the Cians, Titus (Q. Flamininus) wrote to Prusias
according to what the Senate had established146.
Surviving sources do not report Prusias’ reaction, but, to our knowledge,

the situation remained unchanged: Cius continued to be part of the kingdom
of Bithynia147.
After this first contact with Rome, nothing is known about Prusias I
until summer 190 BC, shortly before the beginning of Roman operations
in Asia Minor against Antiochus III. The Seleucid king was seriously
threatened by the Romans and their allies148. An Achaean contingent had
forced the Seleucid troops to withdraw from Pergamum149. Meanwhile,
the Rhodians had defeated the Seleucid fleet in the sea Battle of Side150. In
that situation, Antiochus III asked Prusias I for help to prevent the Romans
from crossing into Asia Minor:
When returning to Sardis from the expedition I recorded, King Antiochus sent
messengers to Prusias asking for his alliance. In former times, Prusias had
been not unfavourably disposed towards the affairs concerning Antiochus:
he indeed was very afraid that the Romans crossed to Asia for the removal
of all the kings151.
The passage refers to previous relationships between Prusias I and

Antiochus III. They possibly were in contact to discuss the emerging
145
VITUCCI 1953, pp. 49-50; HABICHT 1957, col. 1096; HOOVER 2012, p. 210; KLEU 2013b; contra
JONES 1971, p. 151 without arguments. Cf. ECKSTEIN 2008, p. 293: ‘The senatus consultum of spring 196
even included an order to Prusias I of Bithynia to set free the city of Cius… The Roman attitude is thus of
arrogance’.
146
Polyb. XVIII, 44, 5: περὶ δὲ τῆς τῶν Κιανῶν ἐλευθερώσεως Τίτον γράψαι πρὸς Προυσίαν κατὰ τὸ
δόγμα τῆς συγκλήτου; Liv. XXXIII, 30, 1. There is no serious reason to doubt that Flamininus sent the
missive (cf. GRAINGER 2002, p. 66).
147
Cf. GABELKO 2005, pp. 248-249.
148
WILL 1982, pp.177-179; GRAINGER 2002, pp. 288-306; GRAINGER 2015, pp. 169-177.
149
Liv. XXXVII, 20, 1-21, 9.
150
Liv. XXXVII, 22, 1-25, 3.
151
Polyb. XXI, 11, 1-2: ὅτι Ἀντίοχος ὁ βασιλεὺς παραγενόμενος εἰς τὰς Σάρδεις ἀπὸ τῆς προρρηθείσης
στρατείας διεπέμπετο συνεχῶς πρὸς Προυσίαν, παρακαλῶν αὐτὸν εἰς τὴν σφετέραν συμμαχίαν. ὁ δὲ
Προυσίας κατὰ μὲν τοὺς ἀνώτερον χρόνους οὐκ ἀλλότριος ἦν τοῦ κοινωνεῖν τοῖς περὶ τὸν Ἀντίοχον· πάνυ
γὰρ ἐδεδίει τοὺς Ῥωμαίους, μὴ ποιῶνται τὴν εἰς Ἀσίαν διάβασιν ἐπὶ καταλύσει πάντων τῶν δυναστῶν. Cf.
Liv. XXXVII, 25, 4-7.
threat of Rome. In 190 BC, Prusias was tempted to turn these relations
into an alliance and to support Antiochus. He changed his mind yet
when he received a missive from the consul Lucius Cornelius Scipio
and his brother Publius152. They stressed Rome’s benevolent attitude
towards the kings. None of them – they wrote – had lost his kingdom
even after being defeated by Rome. Shortly afterwards, G. Livius
Salinator, praetor and commander of the fleet, paid a visit to Prusias153.
He definitively convinced the Bithynian king to give up supporting
Antiochus III by presenting the victory of Rome as nearly certain.
Antiochus had warned Prusias about the danger Rome represented to
kings. The Roman emissaries insisted on the fact that Rome had never
deprived the kings of any territory. This argument was something more
than an effective propagandistic topic154. It could allude to Prusias’
situation, and especially to the unsolved issue of Cius. The Romans
could have promised that Prusias would have lost none of his territories
(not even Cius) if he abandoned the idea of allying with Antiochus
III155. According to Livy156, the Romans gained Prusias’ amicitia
(‘friendship’). In fact, it probably was an ‘informal connection’, and
not an alliance stricto sensu, since Prusias I remained neutral in the war
against Antiochus III, which broke out shortly after157.
The conduct of the Romans in that situation was impressive. Lucius
and Publius Cornelius Scipio wrote a joint letter and Salinator went to talk
to Prusias I in person, perhaps ready to put aside the issue of Cius. This
reveals that Prusias’ support would have significativly strengthened the
position of Antiochus. As John D. Grainger notes, Prusias’ ‘geographical
position was more important than any other possible military contribution
he might make. Bithynia controlled the eastern coast of the Propontis and
the Bosporos, from the mouth of the Rhyndakos to Pontos. This included
a whole string of useful ports… any or all of which could be used by the
152
Polyb. XXI, 11, 3-11; Liv. XXXVII, 25, 8-12; App. Syr. 23.
153
Polyb. XXI, 11, 12-13; Liv. XXXVII, 25, 13-14.
154
About the use of propagandistic themes by Antiochus III and the Romans in this situation, see
GRUEN 1984, pp. 151 n. 117, 638.
155
HABICHT 1956, pp. 94-96, 100-101; HABICHT 1957, col. 1097; WILL 1982, p. 228.
156
Liv. XXXVII, 25, 8.
157
HABICHT 1956, pp. 90-91; HABICHT 1957, col. 1097; HARRIS 1980, p. 862; MCSHANE 1964, p. 145;
GRUEN 1984, p. 550; SHERWIN-WHITE 1984, p. 44; HABICHT 1989, pp. 324-325; GRAINGER 2002, pp. 278-280,
290, 310; ERRINGTON 2008, p. 219. Contra HOPP 1977, p. 40 and WATERFIELD 2014, p. 137 argue for Prusias
I’s involvement in this war. On the implications of the amicitia with Rome before the Peace of Apamea,
see GRUEN 1984, pp. 76-86. The verb συμμαχεῖν (‘to ally’) in App. Syr. 23 with reference to Prusias I’s
situation is misleading.
122 ELOISA PAGANONI
Romans as disembarkation ports in Asia if necessary’158. The concern of

the Romans demonstrates that the formation of a Seleucid-Bithynian front
was all but unlikely159. After Polybius, friendly contacts between Prusias I
and Antiochus III before 190 BC were known. Nevertheless, scholarship
has hitherto avoided investigating them.
It is yet worth a try. A review of the historical information can point
out circumstances in which contacts between Prusias I and the Seleucids
developed. The earliest pieces of information dates back to the time of
the usurpation of Achaeus. He had promised aid to Byzantium in the
war against Rhodes and Prusias I and he had threatened the Bithynian
king a few years later160. Since Achaeus was a usurper, he was an enemy
of Antiochus III, as much as he was of Prusias. Anyway, no evidence
suggests that the Bithynian and the Seleucid kings joined forces against
him.
Traces of collaboration can be instead detected some years later, when
Prusias I may have seized Mysia Olympene, the region that surrounded
Mt. Olympus and stretched from the Rhyndacus to the Sangarius161. The
only certainty about this issue is that Prusias was controlling the region
in 188 BC when the Peace of Apamea imposed on him to return it to
Pergamum:
In Asia (the ten Roman commissioners) gave back to (Eumenes II) both
Phrygias – the Hellespontine one and the one which is called ‘the Greater’ –
and Mysia, which King Prusias had taken off (him)162.
158
GRAINGER 2002, pp. 278-279.
159
ERRINGTON 1989a, pp. 285-286.
160
Polyb. IV, 48, 1-4; V, 77, 1.
161
ALLEN 1983, pp. 63-65; SCHWERTHEIM 1988, pp. 65-67, 73-74. About the supposed identification of
Mysia Olympene with Phrygia Epiktētos, see below p. 130 n. 201.
162
Liv. XXXVIII, 39, 15-16: in Asia Phrygiam utramque — alteram ad Hellespontum, maiorem al-
teram vocant — et Mysiam, quam Prusia rex ademerat, ei restituerunt. The translation follows the common
interpretation of the passage (cf. e.g. HABICHT 1956, p. 91; WALBANK 1957-1979, vol. III, pp. 171-172; ADAM
1982, p. 171 n. 26; WÖRRLE 2009, pp. 426-427 n. 74). The noun Prusia is considered to be in the nominative
case, even if the normal form would be Prusias. It is thus placed in agreement with rex and is the subject of
ademerat, the verb of the relative clause introduced by quam. According to SCHWERTHEIM 1988, pp. 70-71,
followed by STROBEL 1994, pp. 29-30 and MA 1999, p. 60 and n. 30, Prusia is a dative and the rex here men-
tioned is Antiochus III. So, in his opinion, Eumenes II received from Antiochus III a part of Mysia, which
the Seleucid king had taken off from Prusias I formerly (against this interpretation, see WÖRRLE 2009, pp.
426-427 n. 74). The passage of Polybius (XXI, 46, 10) corresponding to Liv. XXXVIII, 39, 15-16 is cor-
rupted (HABICHT 1956, p. 91; HOPP 1977, p. 40 n. 30; ALLEN 1983, p. 63). Modern editions (e.g. WALBANK
– HABICHT 2012 ad loc.) usually present a text restored on basis of Livy: τῆς δ᾽ Ἀσίας Φρυγίαν τὴν ἐφ᾽
Ἑλλησπόντου, Φρυγίαν τὴν μεγάλην, Μυσούς, οὓς ˂Προυσίας˃ πρότερον αὐτοῦ παρεσπάσατο, Λυκαονίαν,
Μιλυάδα, Λυδίαν, Τράλλεις, Ἔφεσον, Τελμεσσόν. Only HABICHT 1956, p. 91 (cf. WALBANK 1957-1979, vol.
From this passage we infer that Mysia Olympene was in the hands of
the Attalids when Prusias I took it and they recovered it after 188 BC.
Although Prusias I had been neutral in the Roman-Syrian War, the Peace
of Apamea imposed on him to return some lands to Pergamum. In fact,
Prusias was treated as the vanquished enemy Antiochus III. This recalls the
situation after the defeat of Philip V in the Second Macedonian War. On
that occasion, Prusias I was asked to free Cius that Philip V had seized for
him, although he had been neutral in the conflict. This raises the hypothesis
that Antiochus was involved in Prusias I’s expansion southwards, as Philip
had been campaigning against Cius and Myrleia163. It means, in practice, to
assume an alliance – or at least an agreement – between them.
In the 190s BC Antiochus III campaigned against Pergamum (198 BC)
and consolidated his position in Asia Minor through military operations
(197 BC) and marital alliances164. The earliest for these moves were
preparatory to his military campaign in Thrace (196 BC): Antiochus
strengthened his power over Asia Minor before giving vent his ‘overseas
ambitions’165. An alliance with Prusias I would have fitted with Antiochus’
plans. He needed someone to keep an eye on Pergamum and facilitate
communication with Asia while he was in Thrace. Prusias I was the right
ally. He controlled the main routes from Asia to Europe, and his hostility to
Pergamum was well-known. In exchange of his friendship, Antiochus III
could have endorsed Prusias I’s campaign in Mysia. This campaign could
be placed in 197-196 BC: like Antiochus, Prusais I may have exploited
the weakness of Pergamon after the death of Attalus I166. Regardless of
III, p. 172) presents the manuscripts’ problematic reading (Μυσούς, οὓς πρότερον αὐτὸς παρεσκευάσατο),
according to which, ‘he himself’ (αὐτός, i.e. Eumenes II) was awarded a region he had previously seized
(cf. HABICHT 1956, p. 91). For other remarks about the settlement of Apamea in Livy, see DMITRIEV 2003.
163
NIESE 1903, p. 70 n. 3; WILL 1982, pp. 180-181; ERRINGTON 1989a, pp. 270-271; EVANS 2012, pp.
35, 179 n. 35; cf. VITUCCI 1953, pp. 53-54. SCHMITT 1964 p. 40 does not admit a collaboration between
Prusias I and Antiochus III explicitly, but says that they were ‘in den neuziger Jahren des II. Jh. in guten
Beziehunngen’.
164
On the 198-197 BC operations in Asia Minor, see WILL 1982, pp. 179-185. As for the marital
practices, Antiochus married his daughter Antiochis to Ariarathes IV of Cappadocia (Diod. XXXI, 19, 7;
App. Syr. 5; SEIBERT 1967, pp. 64-65; GRAINGER 2002, p. 109, 116-117 n. 62; OGDEN 1999, p. 140; STASSER
2015, p. 195). Antiochus also tried to marry another daughter, whose name is lost, off to Eumenes II, but
this one rejected the proposal (Polyb. XXI, 20, 8; App. Syr. 5; SCHMITT 1964, pp. 52-55; SEIBERT 1967, pp.
66-67; HANSEN 1971, pp. 76-77; WALBANK 1957-1979, vol. III, p. 113; GRAINGER 2002, p. 109, dating the
proposal to 195 BC; STASSER 2015, p. 195). For a full discussion about Antiochus III’s marital politics, see
OGDEN 1999, pp. 133-140.
165
On the campaing in Thrace, see Polyb. XVIII, 49, 2-51, 8; Diod. XXVIII, 12, 1; Liv. XXXIII, 38,
8-41, 5; App. Syr. 1; WILL 1982, pp. 186-189; GRAINGER 1996; GRAINGER 2002, pp. 68-73, 79-84; GRAINGER
2015, pp. 130-146.
166
About the context of the seizure of Mysia, cf. HABICHT 1956, pp. 94-95; HABICHT 1957, col. 1096;
124 ELOISA PAGANONI
further speculations, what matters is that in the early 190s BC there where
suitable circumstances for establishing friendly relations between Prusias
I and Antiochus III, which possibly resulted in an alliance167.
The stay of Hannibal in Bithynia might be another hint at contacts
between Prusias and Antiochus III. After the defeat of Magnesia, Hannibal
fled from the court of Antiochus III to the ruler of Armenia, then to Crete
and finally to Bithynia as early as 188 BC168. It is unknown why Hannibal
chose these places; however, it is possible that Antiochus helped him to find
refuge with some of his friends. Since the dynasts of Armenia still were
officially under the Seleucid rule, Antiochus could be able to guarantee
their protection to Hannibal. If he was in contact with Prusias, he also
could have asked Prusias I to host the Carthaginian general169.
We have ascertained that Prusias I was in friendly relationships with
the Seleucids and that this friendship turned into a collaboration on one
occasion at least. The reassessment of the Bithynian marital policies in the
late 3rd-early 2nd century BC is the next step of our investigation. As already
emerged, Prusias I had a wife named Apama170 and was κηδεστής of Philip
V (i.e. was related by marriage to him) at least since 202 BC171. Scholars172
SCHMITT 1964, p. 276; HANSEN 1971, p. 98 and n. 83; WILL 1982, p. 180; ALLEN 1983, pp. 64-65; GRUEN
1984, p. 550 n. 94; BOFFO 1985, p. 106 n. 137; ERRINGTON 1989a, pp. 270-271; MAMA IX, p. xx; BRINGMANN
– VON STEUBEN 1995, p. 291; MICHELS 2009, pp. 71-72; PETKOVIĆ 2012, p. 357; CHRUBASIK 2013, p. 103; cf.
WÖRRLE 2009, pp. 426-427 n. 74.
167
Antiochus may have helped Prusias to conquer the region or he may have seized and handed it over
to Prusias. In any way – if this reconstruction is grounded – he in fact acknowledged Prusias I as ruler of a
region, which was part of the Seleucid empire originally. Broadly speaking, it was a land ‘transfer’, a ‘tool’
Antiochus III often used to secure alliances. For example, he is supposed to have given some lands, prob-
ably including Mysia Olympene and Phrygia Epiktētos, to Attalus I for support against Achaeus (see below
p. 130). In 203/2 BC, he signed a secret agreement with Philip V to share Ptolemaic lands in Asia (Polyb.
XVI, 1, 8; Liv. XXXI, 14, 5; Trog. Prol. XXX; Iust. XXX, 2, 8; App. Maked. 4, 1; WALBANK 1940, p. 113;
DESIDERI 1970-1971, p. 492 and n. 15; WILL 1982, pp. 105-108; ALLEN 1983, p. 66 and n. 108; GRAINGER
2002, pp. 21-22 and n. 51; GRAINGER 2015, pp. 104-106; KLEU 2015, pp. 94-103. For the date, see SCHMITT
1964, pp. 226-236; StV III, p. 288; KLEU 2015, pp. 100-101; cf. MA 1999, pp. 74-76, who admits conces-
sions to Philip V in Caria, but does not refer to the agreement). The existence of this agreement was for
long questioned, but it is now confirmed by a fragmentary inscription first published by BLÜMEL 2000 and
re-interpreted by WIEMER 2001 (see also SEG 51 [2001] 1496 KLEU 2015, pp. 100-103).
168
Nep. Hannibal, 9; Iust. XXXII 4, 3-5; Malalas VIII, 28; SEIBERT 1993, pp. 522-524; SYME 1995, p.
349. Hannibal’s stay in Armenia is set after 190 BC (NIESE 1903, pp. 70-71 and DMITRIEV 2007, p. 136), but
it may have occurred when he was Antiochus III’s guest (HABICHT 1957, col. 1104). About the date of the
arrival of Hannibal in Bithynia, see FERNOUX 2004, p. 39.
169
In view of the good relations between Armenia and Bithynia (see above pp. 76-77, 92-93), it can-
not be excluded that the ruler of Armenia invited Hannibal to move to Bithynia. Another ‘bridge’ between
Hannibal and Prusias I could have been Philip V who was in contact with both of them.
170
Strabo XII, 4, 3; see above pp. 116-117.
171
Polyb. XV, 22, 1; 22, 3; see above p. 113.
172
NIEBUHR 1828, p. 257; BELOCH 1927, pp. 137, 213; ROSTOVTZEFF 1941, p. 662; MAGIE 1950, p. 1190
combine these pieces of information and argue that the wife of Prusias I
Apama was the sister of Philip V. We have seen that Prusias II also married
a woman named Apama, who was the mother of Nicomedes II173. We now
add that, according to Trogus/Justin174, Prusias II had a second wife. She
gave Prusias some sons and he wished to favour them in the succession
in detriment of his first-born Nicomedes II. Livy175 and Appian176 say that
Prusias II married the sister of Perseus, the daughter of Philip V, a few
years after Perseus ascended the throne, probably in 179-177 BC177. The
name of Perseus’ sister is unknown, and it is unclear whether she was the
first wife of Prusias II, Apama, or the second one, whose name is lost.
Scholars178 lean towards the first possibility. They thus argue that Apama,
the first wife of Prusias II, was the daughter of Philip V and that she was
married off the king of Bithynia in 179-177 BC. As a consequence, this
date is a terminus post quem for the second marriage, which has never
generated interest in scholars. So, it is unanimously accepted that Prusias
I and Prusias II were married to two Antigonid princesses, both named
Apama.
In a recent article, Thierry Stasser179 puts into question this communis
opinio; he argues that both the Bithynian queens named Apama belonged
to the Seleucid dynasty. His assumption is based on a prosopographical
observation: the Persian name Apama became a Seleucid dynastic name.
Apama was the woman Seleucus I married in the Susa Weddings180. Then,
the name was used in the next generations fairly regularly in memory of
n. 20; VITUCCI 1953, pp. 44, 48-49 n. 4; SCHMITT 1964, p. 40; SEIBERT 1967, pp. 42-43 n. 61; HARRIS 1980,
p. 861; GRAINGER 1997, Table 1; CARNEY 2000, p. 187; GABELKO 2005, p. 245; KUZMIN – GABELKO 2008, p.
157-161; MICHELS 2009, p. 33.
173
IG II-III2 3, 1, 3172; see above p. 118,
174
Iust. XXXIV, 4, 1: Eodem fere tempore Prusias, rex Bithyniae, consilium cepit interficiendi Nico-
medis filii, quem a se ablegatum, studens minoribus filiis, quos ex noverca eius susceperat, Romae habebat
(‘Almost at the same time the king of Bithynia Prusias decided to kill his son Nicomedes, who was in Rome
as his own emissary, to favour the minor sons he had had by his second wife’).
175
Liv. XLII, 12, 3: sororem dedisse Prusiae (‘[Perseus] gave his sister to Prusias’).
176
App. Mithr. 2: Προυσίας ἦν ὁ κυνηγὸς ἐπίκλησιν, ᾧ Περσεὺς ὁ Μακεδόνων βασιλεὺς τὴν ἀδελφὴν
ἠγγύησεν (‘Prusias, to whom Perseus, king of the Macedonians, married his sister, was surnamed ‘the
Hunter’’).
177
For the date, see HABICHT 1957, col. 1110; WILL 1982, p. 261; STASSER 2015, pp. 193-194. Cf. OGDEN
1999, p. 187, who dates the marriage between 179 and 172 BC.
178
WILHELM 1908, pp. 75-78; VITUCCI 1953, pp. 48-49 n. 4; HABICHT 1957, col. 1110; SEIBERT 1967, p.
43; WILL 1982, p. 261; OGDEN 1999, pp. 183, 187; CARNEY 2000, p. 197; GABELKO 2005, p. 245; MICHELS
2009, p. 33; MCAULEY 2016.
179
STASSER 2015.
180
WILCKEN 1894, col. 2662; GRAINGER 1997, p. 38 (Apama [3]); STASSER 2015, p. 188. The most recent
contributions about Apama wife of Seleucus I are ENGELS – ERICKSON 2016 and RAMSEY 2016.
126 ELOISA PAGANONI
the wife of the founder of the dynasty. One of Seleucus I’s daughters bore
this name181. Seleucus I’s successor, Antiochus I, had a daughter Apama,
namesake of her paternal grandmother182. A Babylonian document might
mention another Apama, who would be the daughter of Antiochus II, sister
of Seleucus II and Antiochus Hierax183. A wife (or concubine) of Demetrius
II of Syria too was named Apama184. On the other hand, Stasser notices185,
not one of the Antigonid princesses known by name was called Apama186.
However, evidence about the female exponents of the Antigonid dynasty is
too scanty to consider this sufficient. Stasser187 admits that dynastic names
could ‘pass’ from one royal family to another. In theory, a marriage of a
Seleucid woman with an Antigonid could have caused the introduction
Apama’s name in the Macedonian dynasty, whilst no trace of it is surviving.
And yet, the evidence of marital agreements between these royal families
testifies only to the ‘passage’ of Stratonice’s name to the Seleucid house188.
The absence of any trace of Apama in the Antigonid dynasty reveals
that the traditional identification of Apama, wife of Prusias I, and Apama,
wife of Prusias II, with members of this dynasty is highly speculative.
Nevertheless, against it there is just an argumentum e silentio. No decisive
evidence proves that these women belonged to the Seleucid dynasty.
As things currently stand, one can just conclude that they were the first
Bithynian queens clearly linked with one of the most relevant Hellenistic
families, either the Antigonids or the Seleucids.
This second eventuality, so far not considered, deserves some attention
181
OGDEN 1999, p. 120 (with bibliography at p. 159 n. 14); STASSER 2015, p. 186.
182
WILCKEN 1894, coll. 2662-2663; GRAINGER 1997, p. 38 (Apama [1]); CARNEY 2000, p. 171; STASSER
2015, pp. 188-189; MCAULEY 2016a.
183
GRAINGER 1997, p. 38 (Apama [2]) with reference to the source.
184
GRAINGER 1997, p. 39 (Apama [4]).
185
STASSER 2015, pp. 183-185.
186
The only Macedonian princesses known by name are Stratonice, daughter of Demetrius Poliorcetes
and wife of Seleucus I (GRAINGER 1997, pp. 67-68; CARNEY 2000, pp. 171-172; STASSER 2015, p. 183 with
bibliography), and Stratonice, tentatively identified with one of the daugthers of Demetrius II (STASSER
2015, pp. 183-185 for a status quaestionis). Philip V had four daughters, all anonymous, including the one
who became Prusias II’s wife (SEIBERT 1967, pp. 40-41, 44; OGDEN 1999, pp. 183-187; STASSER 2015, p.
185). Missing is also the name of Perseus’ daughter, who was brought to Rome after the defeat of her father
(OGDEN 1999, p. 188; CARNEY 2000, p. 196; STASSER 2015, p. 185).
187
STASSER 2015, pp. 185-187, 193.
188
The only marital relation between these two families that may have caused a ‘transfer’ of dynastic
names is the marriage of Demetrius Poliorcetes’ daughter Stratonice with Seleucus I. After it, Stratonice’s
name was introduced into the Seleucid dynasty (see above n. 186). The other information about a marital
connection between the Seleucids and the Antigonids dates to many years later, when Demetrius II, the
father of Philip V, married Stratonice, daughter of Antiochus II (GRAINGER 1997, p. 67; STASSER 2015, p.
193 n. 82).
in light of the possible contacts between Prusias I and Antiochus III. In

this regard, Strasser’s proposal is a good starting point again. He observes
that Apama’s name is attested every generation down to Antiochus II and
assumes that it also was used afterwards with some regularity. Especially,
he supposes that an Apama existed in the two following generations. In
his opinion, Apama could have been one of the daughters of Seleucus
II189; she could have married Prusias I when he still was crown prince.
By this marriage, Ziaelas, at that time on the throne of Bithynia, aimed
to reapproach the Seleucids after he had supported Antiochus Hierax.
Against this reconstruction it is worth noticing that Ziaelas seems have
never established friendly relations with Seleucus II. As far as we see
in sources, Ziaelas had ever perceived the Seleucids (or better, the
king embodying the central power) as a threat. He, indeed, allied with
Antiochus Hierax when he was attempting to build a personal power
independent from Seleucus II, but he cut off contacts when Antiochus
reconciled to his brother190.
Prusias I instead seems to have established friendly relationships with
the Seleucid king at least since the turn of the 2nd century BC. If a marriage
occurred, it is preferably to be dated to his reign, as he was on friendly terms
with Antiochus III. If Prusias I’s wife Apama was Seleucus II’s daughter
and she was of marriageable age in the turn of the 220s BC, as Stasser
assumes, the marriage is likely to be set in the early years of Prusias’ reign.
In those years, a Seleucid official sold the Hieron to Byzantium191. Since
the Hieron was very close to Bithynia, it is likely that Prusias I was in
contact with the Seleucid official charged with the control of the site. His
presence so close to Bithynia could cause tension. And yet, there is no clue
in this regard. In absence of offsetting indications, the relations between
the king of Bithynia and the Seleucids were supposedly peaceful. These
circumstances – the development of possible contacts and friendly relations
– render this context a suitable framework for the marriage of Prusias I
and Apama. Our sources attest that Prusias was in contact with Antiochus
III. But if this proposal has any merit, he approached the Seleucids when
they were controlling the Hieron. Neither the sale of this strategic place
to Byzantium contrasts with this reconstruction. At that time, indeed,
189
STASSER 2015, pp. 191-192, 195. This (supposed) Apama would have been sister or step-sister of the
only other daughter of Seleucus II known to us, Antiochis. Cf. OGDEN 1999, p. 132.
190
191
Dion. Byz. 92; see above pp. 103-105.
128 ELOISA PAGANONI
relations between Prusias I and the city were friendly, and the purchase of
the site does not appear among the reasons for their deterioration192.
A marriage between Prusias I and Apama in the 220s BC fits with
Stasser’s hypothesis to explain the bond of Prusias with the Antigonids.
The only son of Prusias I mentioned by sources is Prusias (who would
become Prusias II). According to Stasser193 yet, Prusias I could have had
a daughter too. Admittedly, she was marriageable at the end of the 3rd
century BC and she married Philip V to secure a Bithynian-Macedonian
alliance that manifested itself in 208 and 202 BC.
As said earlier, in 179-177 BC Perseus married off his sister to the
Bithynian crown prince Prusias (II). She cannot be identified with Apama,
Nicomedes II’s mother and Prusias II’s first wife because, according to the
hypothesis we are considering, Apama was a Seleucid princess. It follows
that Philip V’s daughter was Prusias II’s second wife and 179-177 BC
constitutes the terminus ante quem for Prusias II’s first marriage194. Prusias
I and Antiochus III were on friendly terms in the 190s BC when Antiochus
was strengthening his position in Asia Minor. He established a marital
alliance with the king of Cappadocia and helped Prusias I to seize Mysia
Olympene195. It is possible that these friendly relations were sanctioned by
the marriage of the Bithynian crown prince with a daughter of Antiochus III.
As a descendant of Seleucus I, she could have been named Apama. Every
attestation to her existence could have been lost or, as Stasser assumes196,
she could have been the unnamed daughter Antiochus had from Laodice
and that he tried to marry off to Eumenes II in the 190s BC197.
These hypotheses depict the same situation traditionally proposed in
relation to the Antigonids: Prusias I and Prusias II would have married two
relatives of the ruling king. They have two points of strength compared to
the traditional reconstruction. Firstly, the princesses belonged to a family in
which Apama was a dynastic name. Secondly, possible marital agreements
192
193
STASSER 2015, pp. 192-193.
194
STASSER 2015, pp. 193-194. The malformation of the odd personage Prusias Monodous, who is sup-
posed to be one of the sons Prusias II had from his second wife (Liv. Per. 50; Plin. NH VII, 69; Val. Max.
I, 8 ext. 12; Solin. 1, 70; Festus De verb. sign. p. 148, s.v. Monodus; HABICHT 1957b; STASSER 2015, pp.
194-195; cf. NIESE 1903, p. 330 n. 3; MAGIE 1950, pp. 1195-1196 n. 36), might testify to his kinship with
the Antigonids; and so it would support the identification of Prusias II’s second wife with an Antigonid
princess. Philip V’s mother Phthia, indeed, was the daughter of Pyrrhus of Epirus, who had the same mal-
formation (MUCCIOLI 2013, p. 130; STASSER 2015, pp. 194-195).
195
196
STASSER 2015, p. 195.
197
See above p. 123 n. 164.
fit with information about Bithynian-Seleucid relations at this time. Although

speculative, this proposal raises fewer difficulties than the traditional one
and also points out the context of both marriages of Prusias II.
Again, it casts a new light on Prusias I’s activities. Scholars have hitherto
insisted on the relationship with the Antigonids, and they have at most
assumed some contacts with the Seleucids. Instead, Prusias I appears to
have established and maintained friendly relations with the Seleucids since
the beginning of his reign. This change in Bithynian policies was probably
the response to the rise of the kingdom of the Attalids. Facing a new threat,
Prusias I looked for aid. He secured assistance from the Seleucids, who were
the other enemy of Pergamum. The emergence of Pergamum changed the
political axes of Asia Minor. It provocked the approach of Bithynia and
the Seleucids that constituted an anti-Attalid block. As with the alliance
with Philip V, Prusias I overlooked the consequences. Lining up against
Pergamum meant, in fact, lining up against Rome. He realised this too late
as the issue of Mysia Olympene proves.
3. PRUSIAS I’S LAST YEARS. DEESCALATION TO WEST AND ESCALATION TO EAST
After the seizure of Cius and Myrlea in 202 BC, Prusias I continued
to expand southwards. In the early 190s BC, he exploited the temporary
weakness of Pergamum to conquer Mysia Olympene probably with
Antiochus III’s help. The achievement was short lived. At the end of the
Roman-Syrian War the Peace of Apamea forced him to return the region to
Eumenes II198. Even more complex is to retrace the development of another
dispute between the Attalids and Prusias I that concerned a part of Phrygia.
In this regard the key information comes from Strabo:
Prusias... retired from Hellespontine Phrygia according to the agreement with

the Attalids. They renamed Epiktētos this region, which they formerly called
Lesser Phrygia199.
According to Strabo, Prusias I signed an agreement with Eumenes II, which

stipulated that Prusias returned a part of Phrygia. The Attalids celebrated
the success re-naming the region with the designation of Epiktētos, literally
198
Liv. XXXVIII, 39, 15-16; cf. Polyb. XXI, 46, 10; see above pp. 122-123.
199
Strabo XII, 4, 3: ὁ Προυσίας ὁ... τῆς ἐφ᾽ Ἑλλησπόντῳ Φρυγίας ἀναστὰς κατὰ συμβάσεις τοῖς
Ἀτταλικοῖς, ἣν οἱ μὲν πρότερον ἐκάλουν μικρὰν Φρυγίαν, ἐκεῖνοι δ᾽ ἐπίκτητον ὠνόμασαν.
130 ELOISA PAGANONI
‘acquired in addition’200. In another passage, Strabo delineates this region

by the list of its main settlements:
The cities of Aizanoi, Nacolia, Cotiaeium, Midaeium, Dorylaeium, Cadi are

part of Phrygia Epiktētos201.
It was an inland area between Pergamum and Bithynia, which bordered

on Mysia Olympene on the north. It was part of the Seleucid empire
originally. At some time, we infer from Strabo, it passed to the Attalids,
who were controlling the area when Prusias I seized it. Strabo then informs
us that the annexation of this part of Phrygia to Bithynia was temporary,
as with the one of Mysia Olympene, because Prusias I ought to return it to
Eumenes II.
Three Imperial era boundary stones from the sanctuary of Aizanoi,
the main religious centre of Phrygia Epiktētos, record that Attalus I and
Prusias I donated some lands to the sanctuary202. They confirm the passage
of the region earleir under Attalid control and later under Bithynian one.
They attest that it was Attalus I who annexed the region to Pergamum;
he probably obtained it from Antiochus III in return for support against
Achaeus in the 220s BC203. He marked the possession by donating some
200
Cf. LSJ s.v. ἐπικτάομαι.
201
Strabo XII, 8, 2: τῆς δ᾽ ἐπικτήτου Φρυγίας Ἀζανοί τέ εἰσι καὶ Νακολία καὶ Κοτιάειον καὶ Μιδάειον
καὶ Δορυλάειον πόλεις καὶ Κάδοι. Cf. Strabo XII, 8, 1: ἡ δὲ μικρὰ ἡ ἐφ᾽ Ἑλλησπόντῳ καὶ ἡ περὶ τὸν
Ὄλυμπον ἡ καὶ Ἐπίκτητος λεγομένη (‘the Lesser [Phrygia], on the Hellespont and round Olympus, the one
which is called Epiktētos’). Cf. VITUCCI 1953, pp. 53-54; HABICHT 1956, pp. 92-93; HABICHT 1957, col. 1102;
HANSEN 1971, pp. 97-98 (but contra p. 100; see below in this note); ALLEN 1983, p. 63; FERNOUX 2008, p.
228; WÖRRLE 2009, pp. 426-427 n. 74. Unconvincingly, some scholars (MEYER 1925, pp. 148-149; HANSEN
1971, p. 100; ŞAHIN 1986, pp. 129-142) argue that the region disputed between Pergamum and Bithynia cor-
responded to the area that would have become the province of Phrygia Epiktētos in the Imperial era, extend-
ing from Mt. Olympus to Crateia and maybe the Black Sea coast. Most scholars think that Phrygia Epiktētos
in Strabo (XII, 8, 2) and Mysia mentioned in the Peace of Apamea (Polyb. XXI, 46, 10; Liv. XXXVIII,
39, 15-16) were the same region (HABICHT 1956, pp. 91-93; HABICHT 1957, col. 1097; MCSHANE 1964, pp.
159-160; HANSEN 1971, pp. 97-98; HOPP 1977, p. 40; BURSTEIN 1980, p. 1; WILL 1982, pp. 180-181; ALLEN
1983, pp. 63-65; GRUEN 1984, p. 532; MA 1999, p. 60 n. 30; FERNOUX 2008, p. 231; WÖRRLE 2009, pp. 426-
427 n. 74; EVANS 2012, p. 35; PETKOVIĆ 2012, p. 357; PSOMA 2013, p. 281; contra SCHWERTHEIM 1988, pp.
68-69, followed by STROBEL 1994, pp. 31-35; GABELKO 2005, pp. 267-270; cf. the reconstruction in CANALI
DE ROSSI 2017, p. 133). The main argument in support of this is in Strabo (XII, 8, 2), who claims that the
boundaries between Mysia and Phrygia were already unclear in Antiquity, and proposes as evidence the
case of Cadi. He says that this city, which, in his opinion, lies in Phrygia, belongs to Mysia according to
other authors. As a consequence, the peace of Apamea is supposed to contain an imprecise reference to
Phrygia Epiktētos. This is unlikely, though: the information of Polybius was for certain accurate about the
disputed region, as it was based on official documents (cf. SCHWERTHEIM 1988, p. 69).
202
MAMA IX, 8-9 and P5; see below Appendix nr. 13.
203
HABICHT 1956, p. 93; HABICHT 1957, col. 1092; HANSEN 1971, p. 97; LAFFI 1971, pp. 19-20; WILL
lands to the sanctuary. Prusias I did the same when he took Phrygia
Epiktētos. By carrying on the same act he competed with Attalus and
provided his donation with a strong political and propagandistic meaning204.
Prusias I seized Phrygia Epiktētos after Attalus I, who supposedly took
the region in the 220s BC. In absence of further evidence yet, one can
just speculate about when this happened. Among the proposals, the most
convincing, I think, dates Prusias I’s conquest to the 190s BC205. In view
of the geographical location of Phrygia Epiktētos, Prusias I may have taken
the region in the same years he conquered Mysia Olympene. Accordingly,
the seizure of Phrygia Epiktētos also occurred in about 197-196 BC. It
was the final phase of Prusias I’s expansion to the south-west in the turn
of the 2nd century BC. It began with the annexation of the coasts of Mysia
between Askania Lake and Myrlea and continued to the south with the
seizure of Mysia Olympene and bordering Phrygia Epiktētos206.
The passage of Strabo about the return of this area to Eumenes
II is connected with the end of the barely known war between Prusias
I and Eumenes II in the late 180s BC207. The treaty Strabo mentions
is supposed to be the peace agreement208; consequently Phrygia
Epiktētos is considered the point of contention in this war. It is
argued that Prusias controlled the region when the war broke out and
that he returned it to Eumenes II in compliance with the treaty209.
1982, p. 180; BOFFO 1985, p. 106 n. 137; SCHWERTHEIM 1988, pp. 72-73; BRINGMANN – VON STEUBEN 1995,
p. 291; FERNOUX 2008, p. 228; WÖRRLE 2009, pp. 426-427 n. 74. According to BROUGHTON 1951, p. 248,
Attalus I seized Phrygia Epiktētos during the wars against Achaeus in the early 220s BC.
204
BOFFO 1985, p. 107: ‘Il significato dell’atto di concessione reale – e la successione degli interventi
da parte di due sovrani rivali ne sta a confermare il valore (se non altro politico) – va considerato alla luce
della posizione del luogo sacro e dell’insediamento ad esso associato in rapporto alle potenze monarchiche
di volta in volta interessate alla relazione con essi’; MICHELS 2009, p. 72 says that Prusias was moved by
‘machtpolitischen Motiven’. Contra DIGNAS 2002, p. 89 sees just a religious motivation behind the choice
of Attalus I and Prusias I.
205
VITUCCI 1953, pp. 53-54; HABICHT 1956, pp. 94-95; HABICHT 1957, col. 1096; SCHMITT 1964, p. 276;
HANSEN 1971, p. 98 n. 83; GRUEN 1984, p. 550 n. 94; BOFFO 1985, p. 106 n. 137; ERRINGTON 1989a, pp. 270-
271; MAMA IX, p. xx; BRINGMANN – VON STEUBEN 1995, p. 291; MICHELS 2009, pp. 71-72; EVANS 2012, p.
35; PETKOVIĆ 2012, p. 357; CHRUBASIK 2013, p. 103; cf. ALLEN 1983, pp. 64-65; WÖRRLE 2009, pp. 426-427
n. 74). Two alternative contexts are the 208 BC war against Pergamum (VITUCCI 1953, p. 46; GRUEN 1984,
p. 532; FERNOUX 2008, p. 227 and n. 28) and the years after the Peace of Apamea (SCHWERTHEIM 1988, pp.
72-73; STROBEL 1994, p. 35 and MA 1999, p. 60 and n. 30).
206
Prusias I might have tried to extend his influence farther to south, if he was the unmentioned enemy
Eumenes refers to in the dossier of Toriaion (IK Sultan Daği I, 393, ll. 22-24), as SAVALLI-LESTRADE 2018
argues.
207
See below in the text.
208
RUGE 1941, col. 801; HABICHT 1957, col. 1103; GABELKO 2005, p. 289; RADT 2008, p. 353; cf.
SCHWERTHEIM 1988, p. 72.
209
Those who assume that the Peace of Apamea refers to Phrygia Epiktētos (see above p. 130 n. 201)
132 ELOISA PAGANONI
This reconstruction does not take in due account the information about
the outbreak of the war. In dealing with a Roman embassy related to the
conflict, Livy hints that Prusias made war against Eumenes210. Justin is
more detailed in this regard:
Meanwhile, the war between King Prusias, to whom Hannibal had sought
refuge after the peace granted by Romans to Antiochus, and Eumenes broke
out. Prusias I first made war after breaking the agreement trusting Hannibal211.
According to Livy and Justin, it was Prusias I who declared war. This
sounds strange if he was controlling the disputed region, as is commonly
assumed. Moreover, like Strabo, Justin refers to an agreement between
Eumenes II and Prusias I. This detail, usually overlooked, raises a doubt
that Justin and Strabo mention the same treaty. In this case, both passages
would concern the background of the war.
This suggests that the issue of Phrygia Epiktētos could have developed
differently from what is generally supposed. The different reading of the
pieces of information may support the following recontruction. Prusias
I was controlling the region, probably from 197-196 BC, when he should
return it to Eumenes II per conditions of the agreement mentioned by Strabo
and Justin. In that moment, Eumenes re-named the region Epiktētos. This
designation, ‘acquired in addition’, seems to allude to another land recovery,
that should have been, to make sense, nearly contemporary. Considering
Bithynian-Attalid realtionships, one thinks of the dispute over Mysia
Olympene that Prusias returned to Eumenes after the Peace of Apamea. For
sake of argument, in the aftermath of Apamea settlement, counting on the
Roman favour, Eumenes might have imposed on Prusias I an agreement
to have back Phrygia Epiktētos together with Mysia Olympene. According
to Justin, Prusias broke the agreement and caused the war. He presumably
sought to recover the lands he had been compelled to retun to Pergamum.
argue that Prusias I did not execute the 188-BC dispositions, raising the reaction of Eumenes II (for this
reconstruction, see e.g. NIESE 1903, p. 70; WALBANK 1940, p. 215; RUGE 1941, col. 801; VITUCCI 1953, pp.
53-55; HABICHT 1956, pp. 90-96; HABICHT 1957, col. 1098; WALBANK 1957-1979, vol. III, pp. 171-172;
SANTI AMANTINI 1981, p. 468 n. 2; RADT 2008. p. 353; EVANS 2012, p. 35; SAVALLI-LESTRADE 2018, p. 168).
According to DMITRIEV 2007, the war was connected to Prusias’ campaign against Heraclea (Memnon BNJ
434, F 1, 19, 1-3; see below, pp. 139-140). MCSHANE 1964 p. 160 connects the war both with the attack on
Heraclea and with the issue of Phrygia Epiktētos.
210
Liv. XXXIX, 51, 1.
211
Iust. XXXII, 4, 2: Interim inter Prusiam regem, ad quem Hannibal post pacem Antiocho a Romanis
datam profugerat, et Eumenen bellum ortum est, quod Prusias Hannibalis fiducia rupto foedere prior
intulit.
As Justin states and other sources confirm212, Hannibal, who had

come to the Bithynian court in c. 188 BC213, played a decisive role in
escalating tensions that led to war. The earliest evidence of his activity
in the service of Prusias I concerns his involvement in the foundation of
Prusa ad Olympum that occurred in the short period between his arrival
in Bithynia and the outbreak of the war with Pergamum214. The new city
raised on the slopes of Mt. Olympus. It was in a strategic position: it was
the southernmost Bithynian stronghold watching over the region which
Bithynia and Pergamum were competing over215. In light of this evidence
and the time in which it occurred, the foundation of Prusa ad Olympum
ought to be considered a preamble for the forthcoming conflict216.
The outbreak of this one can be roughly inferred from the few chronological
pieces of data related to the war. The only episode dated with certainty is the
land victory of Eumenes II in summer-fall 184 BC, recorded in an honorary
decree from Telmessos for the Attalid king217. The fragmentary information
212
Iust. XXXII, 4, 2; Cic. De div. II, 52: Rex Prusias, cum Hannibali apud eum exsulanti depugnari
placeret, negabat se audere, quod exta prohiberent (‘When Hannibal invited King Prusias to go to war, [the
Bithynian king] did not dare because the entrails forbade it’); Val. Max. III, 2 ext. 2; HABICHT 1957, col. 1101.
213
See above p. 124.
214
Plin. NH V, 148: Prusa, ab Hannibale sub Olympo condita (‘Prusa founded by Hannibal on the
slopes of Olympus’); VITUCCI 1953, pp. 60-61 n. 3; HABICHT 1957, coll. 1103-1104; WILSON 1960, p. 75;
SCHNEIDER 1967-1969, vol. I, p. 791; JONES 1971, p. 151; LESCHHORN 1984, p. 280; COHEN 1995, p. 403;
HOYOS 2003, p. 203; FERNOUX 2004, p. 39; BEKKER-NIELSEN 2008, pp. 21-22; MICHELS 2009, pp. 277-278.
MAGIE 1950, p. 1187 n. 16 ruled out any involvement of Hannibal. But in this rgard, it may be worth noting
that other attstations of Hannibal as founder of cities survive. For instance, the foundation of Artaxata in
Armenia on behalf of King Artaxias is attributed to him (Strabo XI, 14, 6; COHEN 2013, p. 46 with bibliog-
raphy). With no argument, KOERTE 1899, p. 412 n. 4 thought that Hannibal founded not Prusa but Cius. Ar-
rian (Jacoby, FGrHist 156, F 29) preserves confused information about the founder of Prusa ad Olympum:
οὗτος ὁ τοῦ μονώδοντος τούτου πατὴρ Προυσίου, τοῦ κτήτορος τῆς πόλεως Προύσης τῆς παρ᾽ ᾽Ολύμπωι
(‘This one [i.e. Nicomedes I], the father of Prusias Monodous, who founded the city of Prusa ad Olym-
pum’). The text clearly points out the founder of the city as the son of Nicomedes I, and not as the grandson
of him, as MICHELS 2009, pp. 277-278 argues. Moreover, Prusias here mentioned is not Prusias I, but Pru-
sias Monodous (MAGIE 1950, pp. 1195-1196 n. 36; HABICHT 1957, col. 1127; about Prusias Monodous, see
above p. 128 n. 194). The inscription published by PAPADOUPULOS 1865, p. 374, nr. 11 and PREUNER 1921, p.
24 nr. 41, Προυσίαι τῶι σεβαστῶι | βασιλεῖ καὶ κτίστηι Προύσης | μνήμης χάριν ὁ δῆμος (‘the people [dedi-
cated this] in memory of the august Prusias, king and founder of Prusa’), has proved to be a fake (MEYER
1925, p. 114; ROBERT 1934, p. 524; ROBERT 1939, p. 137; VITUCCI 1953, pp. 60-61 n. 3; HABICHT 1957, col.
1104; LESCHHORN 1984, p. 64; COHEN 1995, pp. 403-404 n. 1). For the date of the foundation of Prusa ad
Olympum, see ROBERT 1937, p. 231 n. 3; HABICHT 1957, col. 1104; SCHNEIDER 1967-1969, vol. I, p. 791; IK
Prusa ad Olympum 1, p. 7; COHEN 1995, p. 403; MICHELS 2009, p. 278 n. 1419; OnomThrac, p. 278. MAGIE
1950, p. 1187 n. 16 dates the foundation of Prusa ad Olympum to 202 BC. On the institutions of the city,
see DÖRNER 1957, coll. 1081-1082; IK Prusa ad Olympum, vol. II, pp. 52-61.
215
VITUCCI 1953, p. 60.
216
FERNOUX 2004, p. 39; FERNOUX 2008, p. 234; MICHELS 2009, p. 279; SCHOLTEN 2013.
217
Clara Rhodos II, 172, 3; below Appendix nr. 9. For the date of the battle, see VITUCCI 1953, pp. 55-
56 (summer); HABICHT 1956, p. 99 n. 4 (October).
134 ELOISA PAGANONI
in Polybius’ Book XXIII dates to the following year (183 BC)218. Given the
lack of references prior to 184 BC, the war probably broke out not much
time before. Scholars generally place the beginning of the conflict at some
point in 186-184 BC219. Along with the victory mentioned in the decree of
Telmessos, the Attalids are supposed to have gained at least another one220.
It was recorded in a barely preserved dedication of Attalus (II), brother of
Eumenes II, to Zeus and Athena Nikēphoros:
Attalus son of King Attalus (dedicated the statue) to Zeus and Athena
Nikēphoros for the victory over the Bithynians and the Galatians in battle near
Lypedron221.
According to Polybius222, Apollonis paid a visit to Cyzicus together with

her sons Eumenes II and Attalus after the end of the war with Prusias I223.
In view of this information, Cyzicus was thought to have supported the
Attalids who would have thanked the city with a visit224. The fact that
218
Polyb. XXIII, 1, 4; XXIII, 3, 1-2; 5, 1. On the date see e.g. HABICHT 1956, p. 96.
219
NIESE 1903, p. 70; WALBANK 1940, p. 240 n. 40; VITUCCI 1953, p 52; HABICHT 1957, col. 1096;
MCSHANE 1964, p. 159; WILL 1982, p. 286; SHERWIN-WHITE 1984, p. 44; RADT 1999, p. 35; FERNOUX 2004,
p. 60; GABELKO 2005, p . 276; DMITRIEV 2007, pp. 135-136; PETKOVIĆ 2012, p. 358; PSOMA 2013, p. 281;
KLEU 2013b; SAVALLI-LESTRADE 2018, p. 168. Contra BURSTEIN 1980, p. 1 and SCHOTTKY 2001a, who date
the beginning of the war to 188 BC.
220
Justin (XXXII, 4, 6) mentions a land victory of Eumenes II, but it is unclear whether it refers to the
same victory as the Telmessian decree.
221
OGIS 298: [Ἄτ]ταλος βασι[λέως Ἀττάλου] | [Δ]ιὶ καὶ Ἀθηνᾶι Νικ[ηφόρωι] | [ἀπ]ὸ [τῆς πρ]ὸ[ς
Βιθ]υνοὺς κ[αὶ Γαλάτας] | [π]ερὶ τὸ Λύ[π]εδρον [μάχης]. See below Appendix nr. 10. As Attalus was the
dedicator, he is supposed to have led the Attalid troops in this battle (IvP I 65, p. 52; OGIS 298, p. 467 n.
1; MCSHANE 1964, p. 160 n. 38). The identification of Lypedron with Mt. Lyperos where Zipoites founded
Zipoition (Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 12, 5) is unfounded (see above pp. 41-42 n. 114). So there is no evidence
that the Attalid troops went right across the Propontic peninsula, as assumed by MAGIE 1950, pp. 1196-1197
n. 39; VITUCCI 1953, pp. 56-57; HABICHT 1957, col. 1100; FERNOUX 2004, p. 35; GABELKO 2005, p. 278.
222
Polyb. XXII, 20, 1-8.
223
The account of the visit is from the last fragment of Polybius’ Book XXII dealing with the events of
185/4 BC (cf. the edition of WALBANK – HABICHT 2012). As it refers to the peace between Eumenes II and
Prusias I, it apparently contrasts with Polybius’ account of the war in Book XXIII. To explain this situation,
HABICHT 1956, pp. 98-99 (cf. WALBANK 1957-1979, vol. III, p. 211) argues that the visit of Apollonis was a
digression in Polybius’ account, and accordingly the reference to the peace was a ‘Vorgriff auf Späteres’.
224
NIESE 1903, p. 72; MCSHANE 1964, pp. 160-161; HANSEN 1971, p. 98; HOPP 1977, p. 41 n. 33; WILL
1982, p. 286. As for Eumenes II’s allies, some scholars think that they included the Achaeans, as the friend-
ship between them and the Attalids had been renewed before the war (Polyb. XXII, 7, 3-4; HABICHT 1957,
col. 1100; HANSEN 1971, pp. 98-99; cf. WILL 1982, p. 287; contra NIESE 1093, p. 70 n. 2; VITUCCI 1953, pp.
56-57 n. 3). The involvement of Heraclea is assumed on the ground of Prusias I’s attack on the city (Mem-
non, BNJ 434, F 1, 19, 1-3; MCSHANE 1964, pp. 160-161; HANSEN 1971, p. 98; HOPP 1977, p. 41 n. 33; WILL
1982, p. 286; about the attack to Heraclea, see below pp. 139-140). However, there is no decisive evidence
for this (VITUCCI 1953, pp. 56-57 n. 3). In view of the mention of Pontici among the Attalid troops (Iust.
XXXII, 4, 7), BALLESTEROS PASTOR 2000-2001, pp. 61-62 argues that Pharnaces supported Eumenes II, but
contra GABELKO 2005, pp. 273-274.
Apollonis was born in Cyzicus weakens the probability of this proposal:

a visit to her hometown was not an extraordinary event. Moreover,
Cyzicus had long-lasting contacts with the Attalids225. As an alternative,
Peter Thonemann suggests that the war was fought near Cyzicus and that
Apollonis’ visit was part of a propagandistic campaign carried out by
Eumenes II after the end of the war226.
Like the dedication of Attalus, the decree of Telmessos for Eumenes II
records that the Galatians supported Prusias I:
(Eumenes) who struggled against Prusias, Ortiagon, the Galatians and their
allies227.
From the name of the Galatian chief Ortiagon, known to us by other sources,
we infer that Prusias hired (or allied with?) the Galatian Tolistobogi228. The
decree alludes to other allies; they might have been a force sent by Philip
V, who had aligned with Prusias I229. Like in the preamble of the war,
Hannibal played a decisive role during the conflict. He obtained a naval
victory, which is the only Bithynian success recorded by sources230.
225
VITUCCI 1953, pp. 56-57 n. 3; THONEMANN 2013, pp. 41-42; SÈVE 2014.
226
THONEMANN 2013, pp. 41-42: ‘We would, in this case, be dealing with a startlingly original way
of representing Hellenistic military victory: not as something which flowed from the godlike power and
charisma of the individual commander, but which derived from his status of a good family man’. About
Apollonis in Attalid propaganda, see VIRGILIO 1993, pp. 44-52.
227
Clara Rhodos II, 172, 3, ll. 12-14: διαγωνισάμενος πρός τε Προυσίαν̣ | [κα]ὶ̣ Ὀρτιάγοντα καὶ τοὺς
Γαλάτας καὶ τοὺς | [συ]μμάχους αὐτῶν.
228
On Ortiagon, see Polyb. XXII, 21, 1-4; Liv. XXXVIII, 24, 11; LENSCHAU 1942; MAGIE 1950, pp.
764-765 n. 59; SPICKERMANN 2000. MITCHELL 1993, pp. 24-25 and FERNOUX 2008, p. 222 stress that the epi-
graphic evidence presents both Prusias I and the Galatians on an equal footing, i.e. as allies. Nevertheless,
the Galatians were probably mercenaries. The choice of presenting them as Prusias I’s allies could have
served to increase the propagandistic value of Prusias’ defeat (ERRINGTON 2008, pp. 226-227).
229
Polyb. XXIII, 1, 4; 3, 1. On the basis of the Prologus of Trogus’ Book XXXII (In Asia bellum ab
rege Eumene gestum adversus Gallum Ortiagontem, Pharnacem Ponticum et Prusian, adiuvante Prusian
Hannibale Poeno [‘in Asia the war of King Eumenes against the Galatian Ortiagon, Pharnaces of Pon-
tus and Prusias, when the Carthaginian Hannibal helped Prusias’]), some scholars argue that Pharnaces I
supported Prusias I (LENSCHAU 1942, col. 155; HOPP 1977, p. 41 and n. 37; GABELKO 2005, pp. 272-274;
PETKOVIĆ 2012, pp. 359-360; FERRAIOLI 2019, p. 159). However, it is possible that the Prologus confuses
the Bithynian-Attalid war with the one between Eumenes II and Pharnaces I, which broke out immediately
after the war against Prusias (HABICHT 1957, col. 1099; cf. BALLESTEROS PASTOR 2000-2001, p. 62).
230
Iust. XXXII, 4, 6-7: Dein, cum Prusias terrestri bello ab Eumene victus esset et proelium in mare
transtulisset, Hannibal novo commento auctor victoriae fuit; quippe omne serpentium genus in fictiles
lagoenas coici iussit medioque proelio in naves hostium mittit. Id primum Ponticis ridiculum visum, fic-
tilibus dimicare, qui ferro nequeant. Sed ubi serpentibus coepere naves repleri, ancipiti periculo circum-
venti hosti victoriam cesserunt (‘Then, after Prusias had been defeted by Eumenes in a land battle and
he had moved the battle to the sea, Hannibal was author of a victory with a novel trick. He ordered to
put all kinds of snakes in earthenware jugs and, during the battle, he sent them onto the enemy ships.
136 ELOISA PAGANONI
Not one of these clashes was a decisive battle leading to peace231.

Instead, the end of the war might have been due to the intervention of
Rome. In spring 183 BC, Eumenes II sent an embassy led by his brother
Athenaeus to Rome:
After these, the envoys of Eumenes entered and denounced the help which Philip
had sent to Prusias and the situation of the positions in Thrace, saying that the
garrisons had not yet been withdrawn from the cities. Philocles wished to speak
in defence of these events, both because he had come to Prusias as an ambassador
and because he had been sent to the Senate by Philip for these matters. After a
short time, the Senate gave him this answer: if the ambassadors did not find the
whole situation of the places of Thrace arranged according to the dispositions
of the Senate and that all the cities were in the hands of Eumenes, disobedience
about these matters would have been neither tolerated nor accepted232.
According to this passage of Polybius, the ambassadors of Eumenes

complained about Philip V’s help to Prusias I and the situation of the
Thracian cities of Maronea and Aenus, on which Philip V had made
demands233. The core of their complaints concerned Philip V. They
appealed against Philip’s behaviour hoping to obtain a Roman intervention
in the war with Prusias I. Eumenes II was probably aware that his conflict
with the Bithynain king was of no interest to Rome, as the Roman reply
At first, it seemed ridiculous to the Pontics that those who were not able to fight with swords intend-
ed to do it with pots. But, when ships began being full of snakes, the enemies, as they were threatened
on both sides, yielded the victory to the enemies’). For this episode, that has some anecdotal features
(HABICHT 1957, col. 1101), cf. Nep. Hannibal 11, 1-7; Val. Max. III, 7 ext. 6; Front. Strat. IV, 7, 10-11.
231
Cf. HABICHT 1956, p. 99; VITUCCI 1953, pp. 57-58; ALLEN 1983, p. 79. SEGRE 1932, pp. 447-448 and
MAGIE 1950, p. 1196 n. 39 argue that battle recorded by the decree of Telmessos (Clara Rhodos II, 172, 3)
marked the end of the war.
232
Polyb. XXIII, 3, 1-3: μετὰ δὲ τούτους εἰσῆλθον οἱ παρ᾽ Εὐμένους πρέσβεις καὶ περί τε τῆς
βοηθείας τῆς ἀποσταλείσης ὑπὸ τοῦ Φιλίππου τῷ Προυσίᾳ κατηγόρησαν καὶ περὶ τῶν ἐπὶ Θρᾴκης τόπων,
φάσκοντες οὐδ᾽ ἔτι καὶ νῦν αὐτὸν ἐξαγηοχέναι τὰς φρουρὰς ἐκ τῶν πόλεων. τοῦ δὲ Φιλοκλέους ὑπὲρ
τούτων βουληθέντος ἀπολογεῖσθαι διὰ τὸ καὶ πρὸς τὸν Προυσίαν πεπρεσβευκέναι καὶ τότε περὶ τούτων
ἐξαπεστάλθαι πρὸς τὴν σύγκλητον ὑπὸ τοῦ Φιλίππου, βραχύν τινα χρόνον ἡ σύγκλητος ἐπιδεξαμένη
τοὺς λόγους ἔδωκεν ἀπόκρισιν διότι, τῶν ἐπὶ Θρᾴκης τόπων ἐὰν μὴ καταλάβωσιν οἱ πρεσβευταὶ πάντα
διῳκημένα κατὰ τὴν τῆς συγκλήτου γνώμην καὶ πάσας τὰς πόλεις εἰς τὴν Εὐμένους πίστιν ἐγκεχειρισμένας,
οὐκέτι δυνήσεται φέρειν οὐδὲ καρτερεῖν παρακουομένη περὶ τούτων. See also Polyb. XXIII, 1, 4; Liv.
XXXIX, 46, 7-9. For the date, cf. e.g. HABICHT 1956, p. 95; HABICHT 1957, col. 1101; CANALI DE ROSSI 1997,
pp. 464-469. On the basis of a dedication from Delos in honour of Philetaerus of Pergamum (Dürrbach,
Choix 31), HABICHT 1957, col. 1100 argues that Philetaerus, the other brother of Eumenes II, also was
involved in the war. But CHAMOUX 1988, pp. 498-499 (cf. SEG 38 [1988] 776) has demonstrated that
the inscription dates to the 3rd century BC and consequently refers Philetaerus the founder of the Attalid
dynasty. Cf. CAVALLI 2015, p. 92 n. 23.
233
About the matter of Maronea and Aenus, see WILL 1982, pp. 250-252; BURTON 2017, pp. 43-47.
confirmed: it indeed dealt with Maronea and Aenus but contained no

reference to the war with Bithynia.
Polybius does not hand down the defence of Philocles, who spoke on
behalf of Philip V and was updated on the Bithynian situation due to his
visit to Prusias I. The surviving fragments of his Histories do not hint at
the presence of an embassy from Prusias I. Yet, we know of this embassy
through Nepos. The Bithynian delegation presumably had the task of
justifying Prusias’ contacts with Philip. What is known about its mission
concerns a dinner that constituted a turning point for the fate of Hannibal
and possibly of the war:
As for the events of Asia, it happened by chance that the ambassadors of

Prusias in Rome had dinner in the house of the consul T. Quinctius Flamininus
and that there, when Hannibal was mentioned, one of them said that he was
in the kingdom of Prusias. The next day Flamininus reported the news to the
Senate. The senators, who did not think themselves free from danger as long as
Hannibal was alive, sent ambassadors, among whom Flamininus, to Bithynia
to ask the king to deliver their enemy to them if he was hosting him234.
As far as we read in this passage, that might be in part anecdotal, Flamininus

announced to the Senate that Hannibal was at the court of Prusias I; the
Senate sent a delegation including Flamininus to Bithynia. The Roman
initiative seems to be strictly related to the presence of Hannibal. According
to Appian235 and Plutarch236, instead, Flamininus came to Bithynia to discuss
some matters with Prusias I and there he tried to capture Hannibal without
the Senate’s assent. The passages do not hint at the nature of these matters,
but they may have been linked with the war with Eumenes II and the alliance
with Philip, in light of the following piece of information from Livy:
T. Quinctius Flamininus came as an ambassador to King Prusias, who was

suspect to the Romans both because he had hosted Hannibal after his flight
from Antiochus and because he had moved and was carrying on a war against
Eumenes237.
234
Nep. Hannibal 12, 1-2: Quae dum in Asia geruntur, accidit casu ut legati Prusiae Romae apud T.
Quinctium Flamininum consularem cenarent atque ibi de Hannibale mentione facta ex his unus diceret
eum in Prusiae regno esse. Id postero die Flamininus senatui detulit. Patres conscripti, qui Hannibale vivo
numquam se sine insidiis futuros existimarent, legatos in Bithyniam miserunt, in his Flamininum, qui ab
rege peterent, ne inimicissimum suum secum haberet sibique dederet.
235
App. Syr. 11.
236
Plut. Flamininus 20, 3.
237
Liv. XXXIX, 51, 1: ad Prusiam regem legatus T. Quinctius Flamininus venit, quem suspectum
138 ELOISA PAGANONI
Justin too mentions the Roman embassy. Although he does not quote
Flamininus, he says that the Roman mission had a twofold purpose:
Ambassadors were sent by the Senate both to make peace between the kings
and to demand Hannibal (in order to bring him to punishment)238.
These authors agree that Flamininus’ mission was somehow connected

with the presence of Hannibal. As is well kown, Flamininus failed to
capture the Carthaginian general, who committed suicide in Libyssa , a
small town on the coast to the north of Nicomedia239. As far as we see in
Livy and Justin, the embassy also dealt with the war between Prusias I and
Eumenes II. On the basis of their testimony, the intervention of Flamininus
is considered decisive for the end of the war240. He came to Bithynia in late
summer 183 BC and the peace was likely signed in fall 183 BC, shortly
before or after Hannibal’s death241.
If, as it seems, there was any link between Flamininus’ mission and the
conclusion of the war, Rome intervened in the Bithynian-Attalid matters
once again. It presumably lined up with Eumenes II, but it is unclear how
this affected the peace conditions. Admitting that the war broke out for the
control of Phrygia Epiktētos, it marked the end of Prusias I’s claim over
the region242. The Bithynian king revealed no further intention to expand
into the south-west.
Romanis et receptus post fugam Antiochi Hannibal et bellum adversus Eumenem motum faciebat. Cf. Liv.
Per. 39, 7; De viris illust. 42, 6; 51, 5.
238
Iust. XXXII, 4, 8: missi a senatu legati sunt, qui utrumque regem in pacem cogerent Hannibalemque
deposcerent; cf. De viris illust. 42, 6.
239
Liv. XXXIX, 51, 9-11; Liv. Per. 39, 7; Iust. XXXII, 4, 8; Plut. Flamininus, 20, 3-5, 10; App. Syr. 11;
Nep. Hannibal, 12; Jacoby, FGrHist 156, F 28; Val. Max. IX, 2 ext. 2; Cassiod. III, 47, 5; cf. the confused
information of Malalas VIII, 28, 13. On the traditions about Hannibal’s death, see BRISCOE 1972, pp. 23-24;
SEIBERT 1993, pp. 527-529; CAMPANILE 2000; RAGONE 2003, p. 113.
240
WALBANK 1940, p. 240 n. 2; VITUCCI 1953, pp. 57-58; HABICHT 1956, pp. 95, 100; HABICHT 1957,
coll. 1099, 1101; HANSEN 1971, p. 100; BRISCOE 1972, p. 23; WILL 1982, p. 286; RADT 1999, p. 35; GABELKO
2005, p. 281; EVANS 2012, p. 35; PETKOVIĆ 2012, p. 359; SAVALLI-LESTRADE 2018, p. 168. Contra MCSHANE
1964, p. 160 and GRUEN 1984, pp. 551-553, who reject any connection between the peace and the mission
of Flamininus. According to WILL 1982, p. 286 and EVANS 2012, p. 175 n. 26, the handing over of Han-
nibal was part of the peace agreement (contra MCSHANE 1964, p. 160; GRUEN 1984, p. 221). According to
ECKSTEIN 2008, p. 354: ‘the results of the attempted mediation (of Flamininus) are unclear. In any case the
outcome of the war itself was evidently determined by Pergamene military advantage’.
241
RUGE 1941, col. 801; HABICHT 1956, p. 95; HABICHT 1957, coll. 1096, 1101, 1103, 1105; MCSHANE
1964, p. 159; WILL 1982, p. 286; ALLEN 1983, p. 79; RADT 2008, p. 353; FERNOUX 2004, p. 60; EVANS 2012,
p. 35; PETKOVIĆ 2012, p. 359; PSOMA 2013, p. 281. ROSTOVTZEFF 1941, p. 59 sets the peace in 179 BC, but
cf. p. 636 where the traditional date of 183 BC is preferred.
242
It is argued that the peace agreement assigned to Eumenes II Bithynium (COHEN 1995, p. 395) and
Tios (MEYER 1925, p. 149; RUGE 1937, col. 860; HANSEN 1971, p. 100; JONES 1971, p. 151; FERNOUX 2008,
In the last years of his reign Prusias I pointed his ambitions for expansion
in another direction. Memnon relates a campaign against Heraclea that led
Bithynia to expand considerably to the east:
The king of the Bithynians Prusias, being a man of action and carrying out many
deeds, seized in war, after others, Cierus, a city that was of the Heracleans. He
called it Prusias instead of Cierus. He also conquered Tios that also was under
their control. So he surrounded Heraclea from sea to sea. As well as these
cities, he also besieged Heraclea and the city came close to be taken, if one of
the defenders did not cast a stone against Prusias who was going up to a ladder
and shattered his leg. The accident put an end to the siege. After the injured
man was brought back on a stretcher not without a struggle by the Bithynians,
he returned home. He lived there for not many years as a cripple in fact and in
name and then he died243.
This was the first conflict between Heraclea and a Bithynian king since
the time of Zipoites. Like this one, Prusias I tried to seized Heraclea244.
He came close to succeeding, but he was compelled to withdraw due to
personal injury. However, he managed to surround Heraclea by taking
Cierus and Tios245. Memnon sets this episode a few years before Prusias
I’s death, commonly placed in c. 182 BC246, and no other element allows us
to date it more precisely247. According to Bruce F. Harris248, the campaign
against Heraclea should be framed within Prusias I’s activities of 202 BC.
p. 233) along with the disputed region (whatever it was). But there is no evidence of this (MAGIE 1950, pp.
758-764 n. 65, esp. p. 760; VITUCCI 1953, p. 59; HABICHT 1957, col. 1102).
243
Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 19, 1-3: Προυσίας ὁ τῶν Βιθυνῶν βασιλεύς, δραστήριος ὢν καὶ πολλὰ
πράξας, μετὰ τῶν ἄλλων καὶ Κίερον πόλιν ῾Ηρακλεωτῶν οὖσαν ὑφ᾽ ἑαυτὸν ἔθετο τῶι πολέμωι, ἀντὶ
Κιέρου Προυσιάδα καλέσας· εἷλε δὲ καὶ τὴν Τῖον, καὶ αὐτὴν ὑπήκοον αὐτοῖς οὖσαν, ὥστε ἐκ θαλάσσης
εἰς θάλασσαν τὴν ῾Ηράκλειαν περιγράψαι. ἐφ᾽ αἷς κἀκείνην κραταιῶς ἐπολιόρκει, καὶ πολλοὺς μὲν τῶν
πολιορκουμένων ἀπέκτεινεν, ἐγγὺς δ᾽ ἂν καὶ ἡ πόλις τοῦ ἁλῶναι κατέστη, εἰ μὴ ἐπὶ τῆς κλίμακος ἀναβαίνων
Προυσίας, λίθωι βαλόντος ἐνὸς τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς ἐπάλξεως, συνετρίβη τὸ σκέλος, καὶ τὴν πολιορκίαν τὸ πάθος
διέλυσε. φοράδην γὰρ ὁ βληθείς, οὐκ ἄνευ ἀγῶνος, ὐπὸ τῶν Βιθυνῶν ἀνακομισθεὶς εἰς τὰ οἰκεῖα ἀνέστρεψε,
κἀκεῖ βιοὺς ἔτη οὐ πολλά, καὶ χωλὸς καὶ ὢν καὶ καλούμενος, τὸν βίου κατέστρεψεν.
244
On Zipoites’ expedition against Heraclea, see Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 6, 3; above pp. 36-37.
245
Cf. HARRIS 1980, p. 861; BITTNER 1998, p. 88; GABELKO 2005, p. 257; DAVAZE 2013, p. 444.
246
Cf. NIESE 1903, p. 74 n. 1; BELOCH 1927, p. 213; VITUCCI 1953, p. 64; HABICHT 1957, col. 1105; HOPP
1977, p. 42; SCHOTTKY 2001a; GABELKO 2005, p. 291; DMITRIEV 2007, p. 134; MICHELS 2009, p. 433; HOOVER
2012, p. 210; KLEU 2013b. The dating of Prusias I’s death to 190-185 BC (MEYER 1879, pp. 51, 75 n. 2;
MEISCHKE 1905, pp. 23, 27) is now rejected.
247
KLEU 2013b. Even the setting of the passage in Memnon’s account does not help as the narrative
seems not to follow a chronological order in this point. The passage on Prusias I’s attack is after the nar-
rative of the Roman-Syrian War and before the one of the Galatians’ attack to Heraclea, which is said to
have occurred before the arrival of the Romans in Asia (cf. JANKE 1963, pp. 32-34; DMITRIEV 2007, p. 134).
248
HARRIS 1980, pp. 861-862.
140 ELOISA PAGANONI
According to others249, it occurred between 202 BC and the end of the

Second Macedonian War in 197 BC. These dates seem too early to fit with
Memnon’s information250. Furthermore, in the turn of the 2nd century BC
Prusias was focusing on the west. After he had taken Cius and Myrlea, he
had seized a part of Mysia and Phrygia Epiktētos. Similarly, it is unlikely
that Prusias I was in the position to attack Heraclea while he was fighting
against Eumenes II251. The best solution remains to place the campaign
against Heraclea between the seizure of Mysia and Phrygia Epiktētos and
the outbreak of the war with Pergamum in 186-184 BC252. There is no
information about Prusias I’s activities in these years. We know only that
he was not involved in the Roman-Syrian War. As for Heraclea, before the
outbreak of this war, it unsuccessfully tried to lead the negotiation between
Rome and Antiochus III253. It did not take part in the conflict, but it signed
an alliance with Rome after the Battle of Magnesia254. The approach to
Rome could be read as another hint at the increasing tension with Prusias
I. However, if Heraclea hoped for Roman help against Prusias I, it was
disappointed255.
4. PRUSIAS I’S POLITICS BETWEEN ECONOMY AND PROPAGANDA, HELLENISING

AND NATIONAL CLAIMS
In his campaign to the east Prusias I did not take Heraclea. Nevertheless,
he seized two important trade centres, Cierus, on the route connecting
Nicomedia with Pontus, and Tios on the Black Sea256. The Bithynians
had hitherto controlled harbours on the west shore of the Bosporus
(Nicomedia, Cius/Prusias ad Mare, Myrlea/Apamea). With Tios, they
became involved in Black Sea trade routes so far controlled by Heraclea
249
MEYER 1925, p. 112; SAPRYKIN 1997, p. 233; BITTNER 1998, pp. 84, 93; DAVAZE 2013, pp. 443-444.
250
Cf. DMITRIEV 2007, pp. 134-135.
251
This is assumed by FERNOUX 2004, p. 38, HOOVER 2012, p. 210 and PETKOVIĆ 2012, p. 358.
252
VITUCCI 1953, pp. 51-53; MCSHANE 1964, pp. 159-160 (after 188 BC); WILL 1982, p. 214; GRAINGER
2002, p. 310 (before 188 BC); GABELKO 2005, p. 256; DMITRIEV 2007, pp. 134-135 (after 188 BC). In the
190s: MEYER 1879, p. 51; HABICHT 1957, col. 1096; GRUEN 1984, p. 736; COHEN 1995, p. 406.
253
Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 18, 6-8.
254
Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 18, 10.
255
WILL 1982, p. 214; GABELKO 2005, pp. 261-262.
256
Cf. HABICHT 1957, col. 1097. About Cierus, cf. FERNOUX 2004, p. 39: ‘poste de surveillance excel-
lent... permettait de dominer depuis le nord la plaine de l’Hypios, qui remonte vers l’est en direction de la
Paphlagonie et du Pont’. On the geography of the area, see DÖRNER 1957a, col. 1134; ROBERT 1980, pp.
62-65.
and Pontus257. In claiming possession of Cierus, Prusias I re-founded and

named the city after himself258. The new city acquired the designation
‘ad Hypium’ to differentiate it from the homonymous Prusias ad Mare259.
The city of Bithynium lay in the part of Heraclea’s chōra that Prusias
conquered. This city is attested from the 1st century BC and it is known to
have changed its name to Claudiopolis under Claudius260. For its former
name, Bithynium is supposed to have been founded by a Bithynian king.
The claimant is tentatively identified with Nicomedes I261, Ziaelas262,
Prusias I263 or Prusias II264. An Imperial dedication suggests the existence
of the worship for Prusias, who is likely to be identified as the founder265.
So the choice should fall either on Prusias I or Prusias II; and the former
is to be preferred, I think. Prusias I was the first to include permanently
the area of Bithynium in the kingdom of Bithynia266. Bithynium lay about
forty kilometres south-east of Cierus on the route to Pontus. It was in the
heart of the lands Prusias I had seized, literally ‘between’ Cierus and Tios.
In light of this, the foundation of Bithynium was probably part Prusias I’s
interventions to establish control over the recently annexed region. It is
unclear whether the area of Bithynium was already inhabited267, but the
257
258
Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 19, 1. There is no hint at the destruction of Cierus, and so it is possible that
Prusias I just changed the name of the city (DÖRNER 1957a, col. 1134; ROBERT 1980, p. 62; IK Prusias ad
Hypium, pp. 3-4; FERNOUX 2004, p. 39; MICHELS 2009, p. 275). The attestation of a tribe Prusias suggests the
existence of a cult for Prusias I (LESCHHORN 1984, p. 279 n. 7; COHEN 1995, p. 406; MICHELS 2009, p. 276).
On the institutions of the city, see IK Prusias ad Hypium, pp. 19-26.
259
Plin NH V, 148: Prusias... sub Hypio monte. The earliest numismatic evidence dating to the 1st cen-
tury AD bears the ethnic ΠΡΟΥΣΙΕΩΝ, while the later one the ethnic ΠΡΟΥΣΙΕΩΝ ΠΡΟΣ ΥΠΙΩΙ (COHEN
1995, p. 406). The designation ‘ad Hypium’ also appears, in more than one form, in Imperial inscriptions
(for a list, DÖRNER 1957a, coll. 1133-1134). The name Prusias without designation is however widely at-
tested in inscriptions and private documents (COHEN 1995, pp. 406 -407 and n. 1).
260
Strabo XII, 4, 7; Steph. Byz. s.v. Βιθύνιον; for the numismatic evidence, see OBERHUMMER 1897a;
COHEN 1995, p. 395. Whether Bithy(n)opolis (Steph. Byz. s.v. βιθύοπολις [sic!]) was identical to Bithynium
is debated (MEYER 1897, col. 517; Jacoby, FGrHist 156, F 17, Commentary, p. 565; VITUCCI 1953, p. 34 n.
2; WILSON 1960, p. 133; COHEN 1995, p. 396; MICHELS 2009, p. 282).
261
FOL 1970, p. 179; JONES 1971, p. 150; HARRIS 1980, p. 861; contra VITUCCI 1953, p. 34 n. 2.
262
MEYER 1897, col. 517; MEYER 1925, p. 112; contra MAGIE 1950, p. 1190 n. 21; HABICHT 1972c, col. 394.
263
MAGIE 1950, p. 1190 n. 21; ROBERT 1980, pp. 130-132; LESCHHORN 1984, pp. 284, 334, 340; IK
Klaudiu Polis, pp. 1-2, 57; DEBORD 1998, p. 146; FERNOUX 2004, p. 40; MICHELS 2009, p. 280; CHANKOWSKI
2010, p. 283; MUCCIOLI 2013, p. 130.
264
STROBEL 1994, pp. 43-44. Cf. MICHELS 2009, p. 280, who claims that Prusias II ‘möglich bleibt’;
265
IK Klaudiu Polis 50; see below Appendix nr. 5.
266
Cf. HABICHT 1972c, col. 394.
267
On the basis of Pausanias (VIII, 9, 7-8), some scholars assume that Bithynium was a settlement of
Mantinea originally and that Prusias I re-founded the village by turning it into a polis and changing its name
(IK Klaudiu Polis, p. 1; CREMER 1992, p. 103; about the tradition in Pausanias, see SCHEER 2010, pp. 282-
142 ELOISA PAGANONI
polis was established only after the intervention of the Bithynian king268.
As it was the easternmost foundation of the Bithynian kings, Bithynium is
considered a military outpost269. It was for certain a frontier city; however,
it was more than a stronghold. The Roman road network, which retraced
the Hellenistic one, shows that Bithynium became an important crossroad.
Not only was it on the route to Pontus, but it was a necessary stop-over for
the routes to Heraclea and Tios270.
With Cierus/Prusias ad Hypium, Tios and Bithynium, Prusias I gained
the monopoly over trade towards the East and the Black Sea that had been
so far held by Heraclea271. It was the last stage of a plan to develop the
economy of Bithynia, which had begun with the first foundations in the
turn of the 2nd century BC. Cius/Prusias ad Mare and Myrlea/Apamea were
important harbours that reinforced the control over trade from the Aegean
to the Black Seas272. Prusa ad Olympum became a crossroad for the land
routes leading from Cius and Myrlea to the south273. For the number of
foundations and the emergence of a consistent plan behind them, Prusias I
deserves the title of ‘great founder’ of the Bithynian dynasty274. He overcame
his predecessors, including Nicomedes I, and made the foundation of cities
as the key tool to control and develop the territory.
These foundations are considered a mark of Prusias I’s philhellenism
and a tool to ‘hellenise’ the kingdom275. This is in part true if we mean that
Prusias contributed to spreading the Greek city institutions in Bithynia276.
He re-founded already existing poleis and preserved their institutions,
as Nicomedes I had done; moreover, he founded two new cities, Prusa
ad Olympum and Bithynium. However, it does not entail that Prusias I
285; cf. SCHEER 2011). The favourable condition of the place suggests the existence of a former settlement
(DÖRNER 1952, p. 32; cf. VITUCCI 1953, p. 34 n. 2; MICHELS 2009, pp. 280-281 and n. 1434), but there is no
evidence (LESCHHORN 1984, p. 284; MICHELS 2009, pp. 280-281 n. 1434).
268
IK Klaudiu Polis, p. 1: ‘In den Rang einer Polis wurde der Ort von dem bithynischen König Prusias
I... erhoben’; CREMER 1992, p. 103. On the institutions of Bithynium, see IK Klaudiu Polis, pp. 19-20. On
the tribe system of Bithynium, see MAREK 2002a.
269
JONES 1971, p. 150; HARRIS 1980, p. 867; MAREK 1993, p. 23 n. 205; SARTRE 2003, p. 93; FERNOUX
2004, p. 40; cf. MICHELS 2009, p. 281.
270
IK Klaudiu Polis, pp. 12-18; TALBERT 2000, Map 86.
271
BITTNER 1998, pp. 84-85; cf. DAVAZE 2013, p. 443 n. 1231. According to SÖLCH 1925, pp. 158-159,
Prusias I refounded Atussa, a city mentioned by Pliny (NH V, 143); contra VITUCCI 1953, pp. 60-61 n. 3;
COHEN 1995, pp. 403-404 n. 1; SYME 1995, pp. 352-353; MICHELS 2009, p. 278 n. 1421.
272
273
TALBERT 2000, Map 52.
274
Cf. HARRIS 1980, p. 862; GABELKO 2005, p. 294.
275
HARRIS 1980, p. 861; FERNOUX 2008, p. 234.
276
Cf. the remarks of ROSTOVTZEFF 1941, p. 663.
pursued a ‘blind’ philhellenism or that he aimed to the Hellenization of the

Bithynian people277. City foundation was among the acts of the ‘good king’
according to the Graeco-Macedonian model of basileia. In founding and
re-founding cities, Prusias I probably considered the prestige deriving from
it278. Nevertheless, the settlements he founded and re-founded responded
firstly to political and economic interests.
That Hellenization was not the aim of Prusias I’s policies but a means
to be recognised as a king should also be taken into account about Prusias
I’s coinage. This kind of evidence confirms that the Greek model played
a relevant role in the cultural and self-representation politics of this king.
According to a trend attested in the main Hellenistic monarchies since
the second half of the 3rd century BC, Prusias I’s coin portrait shows a
‘humanisation des effiges royales’279. It finds close comparisons in the coin
portraits of Philip V and Seleucus II280. The bronze series of Prusias I bear,
277
As with Nicomedes I (see above pp. 70-76), the misleading interpretation of Hellenization affects
the assessment of Prusias I’s cultural policies. See the assessments by MAGIE 1950, p. 315: ‘But with all his
efforts to appear in the light of an Hellenic prince, he was no true friend of Hellenism, and in his readiness
to profit at the expense of the independent cities whose territories he desired, he presented a marked con-
trast to his neighbours, the monarchs of Pergamum’; FERNOUX 2008, p. 236: ‘Les efforts de Prusias Ier dans
le domaine de l’urbanisation et, plus généralement, de l’hellénisation recontrèrent un succès indéniable à
l’intérieur du royaume. Mais, pour l’usage politique et idéologique que le roi voulait en faire à l’extérieur,
les resultats s’avérèrent décevants… Le comportement du roi sur la scène extérieure ne fut pas exempt
d’incohérence. Son alliance avec les Galates en 186 allait à l’encontre de ses initiatives philhellènes anté-
rieures’. Like Ziaelas, Prusias I suffers the comparison with the ideal portrait of Nicomedes I. SCHNEIDER
1967-1969, vol. II, p. 723 claims: ‘Auch den kleinen hellenistischen Königen gelang es, gute Stempelsch-
neider an ihre Höfe zu ziehen. In Bithynien leiß Nikomedes I. seit der Mitte des dritten Jahrhunderts Por-
trätmünzen prägen, doch sind erst die des Prusias I. und II. von individueller Naturtreue und künstlerischer
Ausdruckskraft; die Vulgarität dieser Könige wird dabei jedoch nicht verschwiegen’.
278
Cf. MICHELS 2009, pp. 281-282; MICHELS 2013, pp. 12-17.
279
FERNOUX 2004, p. 47; cf. MICHELS 2009, p. 164.
280
FERNOUX 2004, p. 47; MICHELS 2009, pp. 164-165. Cf. SCHNEIDER 1967-1969, vol. II, p. 32. Contra
MØRKHOLM 1991, p. 130. As FERNOUX 2004, p. 47 notes, Prusias I’s coin portait contrasts with the ones of
the kings of Pontus and Cappadocia. At the end of the 3rd century BC these ones still were characterised
by indigenous and Iranian features, the most evident of which was the kyrbasia. About the differences
between Bithynia and the other indigenous Hellenistic kingdoms, see GABELKO 2005, pp. 195-196. Prusias
I’s tetradrachms bear the image of Zeus on the reverse. It is usually identified with Zeus Stratios and is
supposed to imitate the statue of Zeus Stratios in Nicomedia attributed to Doidalses (REINACH 1902, pp.
191-192; NEWELL 1937, pp. 37-38; BMC Bithynia, p. xl; MAGIE 1950, pp. 1185-1186 n. 12; SCHÖNERT-GEISS
1978, pp. 609-610, 643-647 nrr. 257, 265, 268, 292; LE RIDER 1984, pp. 169-170; HANNESTAD 1996, pp.
80-81; FERNOUX 2004, p. 47; HOOVER 2012, pp. 210-211; on Doidalses, see above p. 63). On the grounds
of the pose of Zeus and other details, scholars distinguish two (HOOVER 2012, pp. 210-211) or four series
(FERNOUX 2004, pp. 46-49; cf. LE RIDER 1984). In the first one, Zeus bears a sceptre, while, in the other
one(s), Zeus holds a crown above Prusias’ name. On looking for an explanation for this difference, LE
RIDER 1984, pp. 169-170 argues that either iconography does not refer to the statue of Zeus in Nicomedia,
or the statue was commissioned by Prusias I (cf. HANNESTAD 1996, pp. 80-81) and was not finished yet
when the first series was minted. According to FERNOUX 2004, pp. 47-48, the first series reproduces the
144 ELOISA PAGANONI
on the obverse, the head of a deity, such as Heracles, Apollo, Athena,

Dionysius and Hermes, and on the reverse, a full-length figure of a deity
or a mythic creature281.
Besides the Greek influence, Prusias I’s cultural politics reveal a
Bithynian mark. Bithynium’s name refers to the eponymous hero Bithys/
Bithynus, who was the son of Zeus and the nymph Thracia according to the
literary tradition282. For this reason, it is unanimously considered a claim of
national identity283. A careful look at literary evidence might suggest that
there also was a reference to the national identity in Prusa ad Olympum’s
name. Like Bithynium, Prusa ad Olympum is generally considered a new
foundation. This conclusion yet has been put in to question on the basis of
a corrupted passage of Strabo:
statue in Nicomedia, while the others propose a different image for propagandistic purposes. In fact,
these are just guesses: we do not know how the statue in Nicomedia looked like. Zeus holding a crown
above a king’s name is a peculiar iconographic model, which finds a few comparisons outside Bithynia
(MICHELS 2009, p. 166). The closest ones are the series Attalus I and Eumenes II minted in c. 240s-early
190s BC. They bear on the reverse Athena holding a crown over Philetaerus’ name (WESTERMARK 1961,
p. 23 and Tables 4-16; MARCELLESI 2012, pp. 181, 190, 261 figg. 29-31). This could be another piece of
evidence of the propagandistic rivalry of Pergamum and Bithynia in the years of Prusias I. The crown
is interpreted as a symbol of victory; in Prusias I’s coins it is supposed to refer to the 216 BC campaign
against the Aegosagi (REINACH 1888, p. 105; REINACH 1902, p. 191 n. 5; HANNESTAD 1996, pp. 80-83, who
argues that Zeus was not Stratios, but Nikēphoros; cf. MICHELS 2009, p. 168). As Zeus was the father of
Bithys/Bithynus, the eponymous hero (see below p. 144 n. 282), Le Rider (in footnote 11 of the second
version of his paper [LE RIDER 1984] published in the collection of essays, G. Le Rider, Études d’histoire
monétaire et financière du monde grec écrits 1958-1998, vol. II, Athèns 1999, pp. 691-696, followed
by MICHELS 2009, p. 168) assumes that the iconography of Prusias’ tetradrachms alludes to the divine
descent of the Bithynians.
281
It is difficult to distinguish the bronze coinage of Prusias I and Prusias II, that are often considered
together. On these series, see REINACH 1888, pp. 109-117; BMC Bithynia, pp. xli-xlii; MØRKHOLM 1991,
p. 130; FERNOUX 2004, pp. 50-59; HOOVER 2012, pp. 211-213; MICHELS 2014, pp. 232-240; GÜNEY 2015;
GÜNEY 2017. According to FERNOUX 2004, pp. 50-59, Prusias I’s bronze coinage refers to the foundation
myths of the Bithynian Greek cities. It would have had a double aim, to present Prusias I as a Hellenised
king and to spread the Greek worships among the indigenous population. Against this conclusion, MICHELS
2009, p. 176 (cf. MICHELS 2014, pp. 232-240) observes that none of the deities on the coins is the protagonist
of foundation myths related to any Bithynian city. He then concludes: ‘Sie (i.e. bronze coins) illustrieren
zwar die Bedeutung der von griechischer Kultur geprägten Städte des bithynischen Königreichs, sage aber
nur wenig über die Hellenisierung der ländlichen Bevölkerung aus’.
282
App. Mithr. 1; Steph. Byz. s.v. Βιθυνία. On the traditions concerning the eponymous hero of the
Bithynians, see PAGANONI forth. According to MICHELS 2013, p. 21, the allusion to Bithynus/Bithys may be
another expression of the propagandistic competition with the Attalids. They indeed celebrated their bond
with Telephus, son of Heracles, founder of Pergamum. About the tradition on Telephus and its role in At-
talid propaganda, see SCHEER 1993, pp. 71-152; ZAGDOUN 2008; GRABOWSKI 2018, p. 20.
283
ROBERT 1980, p. 131: ‘une manifestation de nationalisme bithynien’; IK Klaudiu Polis, p. 1 and
n. 5: ‘Der Name der Stadt ist programmatisch: Es ist eine bithynische Stadt im Königreich Bithynien’;
STROBEL 1994, p. 44: ‘programmatische Gründung’; FERNOUX 2004, p. 40; MICHELS 2009, p. 282: ‘Sie
sollte jedoch angesichts dessen, daß Bithynos die bithynische Identität betont, nicht als Hinweis auf eine
Hellenisierungspolitik überstrapaziert werden’; MICHELS 2013, p. 21; MUCCIOLI 2013, p. 130.
Prusa ad Olympum... a foundation of Prusias... who fought against Croesus284.
Similar information is in Stephanus of Byzantium, who mentions Cyrus

instead of Croesus285. In view of the reference to Croesus/Cyrus, Strabo
and Stephanus seem to suggest that the city was founded in the 6th century
BC. No person named Prusias is attested at that time yet. This has raised
scepticism about the reliability of this information. Some scholars emend
the passage of Strabo286; their proposals tend to identify the founder here
mentioned with Prusias I287. Others288 argue that Prusias I refounded a
pre-existing settlement dating back to the 6th century BC. Some of them
go further in investigating the earliest foundation and draw attention to
the city name289. On comparison with cities named after Prusias I, Prusias
ad Mare and Prusias ad Hypium, Prusa ad Olympum’s name proves a
different root, that lacks -i- in the second syllable. It is thus argued that
the first founder was not a certain Prusias, a namesake of the king of
Bithynia, but an unidentified *Prus-290. Prusias I would have refounded the
settlement without changing its name because it was similar to his own291.
This proposal combines literary sources with linguistic datum. Against it,
however, there is a lack of archaeological evidence before the Hellenistic
age292.
284
Strabo XII, 4, 3: Προῦσα δὲ ἐπὶ τῷ Ὀλύμπῳ... κτίσμα Προυσίου τοῦ πρὸς Κροῖσον πολεμήσαντος
(edition by MEINEKE 1877). Cf. the edition of LASSERRE 1981 ad loc.: κτίσμα Προυσίου ˂...˃ τοῦ πρὸς
Κροῖσον πολεμήσαντος.
285
Steph. Byz. s.v. Προῦσα: ἡ δὲ Προῦσα καὶ αὐτὴ μὲν πόλις μικρὰ Βιθυνίας, κτίσμα Προυσίου τοῦ
πρὸς Κῦρον πολεμήσαντος (‘Prusa is also a small city of Bithynia, a foundation of Prusias who fought
against Cyrus’).
286
Palmer, quoted by DÖRNER 1957, col. 1077, proposed the emendation κτίσμα Προυσίου τοῦ πρὸς
Κ˂ίερ˃ον πολεμήσαντος (‘foundation of Prusias who fought against Cierus’). Grosskurd suggested the
reading, quoted and accepted by RADET 1893, pp. 221-222 n. 4, κτίσμα Προυσίου ἢ ὡς ἔνοί φασι τοῦ
Κροίσου τοῦ πρὸς Κῦρον πολεμήσαντος (‘foundation of Prusias or, as some say, of Croesus who fought
against Cyrus’). SYME 1995, p. 349, proposeed another possible emendation: κτίσμα Προυσίου ˂πρότερον
δὲ τοῦ Κύρου˃ τοῦ πρὸς Κροῖσον πολεμήσαντος (‘foundation of Prusias, formerly of Cyrus who fought
against Croesus’); but he added that ‘this is the easiest remedy... not necessarily the best’.
287
cf. LASSERRE 1981, p. 169 n. 6.
288
RADET 1893, pp. 221-222 n. 4; KOERTE 1899, p. 412 n. 1; CORSTEN 1989.
289
KOERTE 1899, p. 412 n. 1; CORSTEN 1989; MICHELS 2009, p. 278 n. 1421.
290
KOERTE 1899, p. 412 n. 1; CORSTEN 1989.
291
CORSTEN 1989; cf. KOERTE 1899, p. 412 n. 1; contra MENDEL 1900, pp. 363-364 n. 2; HOLLEAUX 1938,
p. 114 n. 2; ROBERT 1937, p. 232 n. 2; VITUCCI 1953, pp. 60-61 n. 3; HABICHT 1957, col. 1104; COHEN 1995,
pp. 403-404 n. 1.
292
AVRAM 2004, p. 975. The funerary inscriptions from Prusa ad Olympum, dating to the 3rd century
BC (PFUHL – MÖBIUS 1977-1979 nrr. 947, 1278), prove the use of the area before Prusias I’s intervention
(CORSTEN 1989, p. 34), but not the existence of any urban centre (MICHELS 2009, p. 279 and n. 1426). Cf.
TSCHERIKOWER 1927, pp. 47-49; FERNOUX 2004, p. 39: ‘Antérieurement (i.e. before Prusias I’s foundation),
146 ELOISA PAGANONI
The issue is complex, but to point out the unquestionable pieces of

evidence could contribute to its solution. Literary sources record two
foundations of Prusa ad Olympum, one by a certain Prusias, hypothetically
in the 6th century BC (Strabo and Stephanus), the other by Prusias I with
Hannibal’s help in the early 180s BC (Pliny)293. Regardless the city’s
name, the sources refers to two founders both named Prusias. The fact that
they were namesake is for certain generally explained by assuming that the
6th-century-BC Prusias was no other than a mythic projection of Prusias I,
who carried out the actual foundation294. If so, Strabo and Stephanus hand
down a pseudo-historical tradition.
In support of this, the setting of the information within Strabo’s
account could be relevant. It is placed at the end of a long digression on
the cities of Bithynia295. It opens with the re-foundation of Nicomedia
by Nicomedes I and continues with those of Cius and Myrlea by a
king Prusias. This one is for certain Prusias I, as he is said to be the
son of Ziaelas, the ally of Philip V and the host of Hannibal. Then,
the digression focuses on Cius. The city is said to have been founded
by the eponymous hero Cius and to be independent in Roman times.
Finally, Strabo presents the debated passage on the foundation of Prusa
ad Olympum. No element points out that Strabo has come back to
deal with the historical time; and no information identifies the founder
Prusias either with Prusias I or with his namesake successor. Strabo
refers to the above-quoted exponents of the Bithynian dynaty as kings
and he clarifies their identity mentioning the most representative of
their deeds. Here instead neither the founder Prusias is said to be a king
nor any deed is attached to him. Strabo appears to continue referring to
the mythical time, that is the chronological frame established with the
account on Cius. The Prusias he mentions, thus, can be hardly identified
with Prusias I, but he could be a mythic figure.
Some Imperial coins of Prusa ad Olympum bear the legend ΠΡΟΥΣΑΕΙΣ
ΤΟΝ ΚΤΙΣΤΕΝ ΠΡΟΥΣΙΑΝ and a standing male figure in arms on the
reverse296. They confirm that the founder of the city was named Prusias.
la zone et ses alentours n’avaient accueilli que des villages et des bourgs indigènes’. The earliest epigraphic
evidence from Prusa ad Olympum is a fragmentary decree dated to the 180s-170s BC, i.e. immediately after
Prusias I’s intervention (IK Prusa ad Olympum 1, see below Appendix nr. 2).
293
Plin. NH V, 148; see above p. 133.
294
MAGIE 1950, p. 1187 n. 16; HABICHT 1957, col. 1104; WILSON 1960, pp. 75-76; COHEN 1995, pp.
403-404 n. 1; SYME 1995, p. 355; BEKKER-NIELSEN 2008, p. 22; MICHELS 2009, pp. 278-279 and n. 1421.
295
Strabo XII, 4, 2-3.
296
IMHOOF-BLUMER 1911, pp. 9-10 nr. 6; WADDINGTON et al.1912, p. 582 nr. 48.
Iconography suggests that the one portrayed was not a Hellenistic king,
but a hero297. These conis thus are another evidence of the mythical or
pseudo-historical tradition we find in literary sources. It was likely created
at the Bithynian court under Prusias I or one of his successors to legitimise
the Bithynian claim over the area around Prusa ad Olympum. It presented
this city as an ancestral foundation of the Bithynians, and thus part of their
lands ab origine298.
By pointing out a mythical founder namesake of the historical one,
this proposal keeps open the issue of the city name. In this regard we can
just propose speculations. For instance, it might derive from a Bithynian
hero299. Prusias I might have chosen to refer to a mythic figure connected
with the identity of the Bithynians as he did for Bithynium. If so, Prusa ad
Olympum would recall and celebrate the Bithynian tradition by its own
name.
The parallel with Bithynium is striking, but we would go too far
by assuming that Prusias I consistently referred to the Bithynian
tradition in new foundations. It is enough here to note once again that
scholars underestimate the references to ethnicity in Bithynian royal
propaganda300. The kings of Bithynia were Thracian by ethnicity. The
epigraphic evidence reveals the existence of a Thraco-Bithynian élite
involved in the administration and defence of the kingdom301. We can
say that this Bithynian component also found expression at official level.
The Bithynian kings stressed the ethnicity of themselves and their people
both in propaganda and in official documents. In this latter respect, it is
meaningful that Zialeas presented himself as the ‘king of the Bithynians’
in his letter to the Coans302. As discussed elsewhere303, this title finds
comparison with the royal title in use among the Macedonian kings. It
suggests that, like Macedonia, Bithynia was a national monarchy based
upon the union of king and people.
297
IMHOOF-BLUMER 1911, pp. 9-10 nr. 6; LESCHHORN 1984, p. 282.
298
COHEN 1995, pp. 403-404 n. 1. A similar assumption is proposed for Astacus, see above pp. 32-33.
299
It is worth highlighting that in Bithynia the Thracian personal name Pruse is attested (LGPN V.A, p.
383; OnomTharc, p. 277), which has the same root of Prusa’s name.
300
See above p. 75.
301
CORSTEN 2007.
302
RC 25; below Appendix nr. 8.
303
148 ELOISA PAGANONI
5. A FINAL ASSESSMENT OF PRUSIAS I
Nicomedes I and Ziaelas had made Bithynia the dominant power in the
Propontic area. They had built up a wide contact network with kingdoms
and poleis; they also had developed institutions and economy. The only
rivals that remained were the Seleucids, who, however, had not been a
concrete threat in the central decades of the 3rd century BC. The political
situation of Asia Minor changed with the rise of Pergamum in the 230s BC.
The new-born kingdom immediately engaged in competition with Bithynia
for hegemony in northern Anatolia. Pergamum was a dangerous enemy,
closer and more aggressive than the Seleucids. The rivalry first emerged
in propaganda with the introduction of the topic of the struggle against
the Galatians in Bithynian ideology. But it quickly passed to the military
level. The rise of this new neighbour caused a shift in Bithynian foreign
policies. To address the new enemy, Prusias I approached the Seleucids
in the early years of his reign and continued to cooperate with them for
decades. Sources preserve just hints at this unprecedented friendship. But
it could have been sanctioned by the marriages of Prusias I himself and his
son with two Seleucid princesses.
Throughout Prusias I’s reign another change in the situation of Asia
Minor occurred, Rome entered the East. It found loyal allies in the Attalids,
who exploited its favour to strengthen their position in detriment of the
Seleucids and Bithynia. Prusias I instead remained neutral to Rome. His
contribution to the First Macedonian War seems to be related more to
his hostility to Pergamum than to the outcome of the conflict between
Macedonia and the Aetolians. Then, Prusias I remained neutral both in
the Second Macedonian War and in the Roman-Syrian War. Prusias I
was absent from the main steps of the rise of Rome in the East. For this
reason, he remains a background actor in the surviving accounts of those
years (Polybius and the authors deriving from him especially) that focus
on the coming of Rome in the East.
Such a situation has contributed to the image of Prusias I as an
opportunist king304. On the contrary, one could say that Prusias I was
even too cautious. But probably, neither of these assessments illustrate
Prusias I’s attitude effectively. Prusias’ political horizon was limited to
304
VITUCCI 1953, p. 64: ‘le direttive della sua (i.e. of Prusias I) politica furono in generale il risultato di
un calcolo opportunistico non disgunto da un grande coraggio nell’impegnare nella lotta le sorti sue e del
suo regno’; HARRIS 1980, p. 861: ‘(Prusias I)... displayed that intelligent opportunism which had come to be
associated with these semi-hellenized monarchs’.
the Greek world. Rome was not included. He did not understand the
implications of his alliance with Philip V and Antiochus III, and he paid
for this with the defeat in the political competition with Pergamum305.
However, to evaluate Prusias I’s politics only according to his
relationships with the Attalids and Rome does not do justice to his conduct.
He had always acted to strengthen and expand the kingdom. Only the
echo of his earliest successes survives, but since the late 3rd century BC
sources hint at an ambitious campaign that led Prusias I to expand to the
south-west. After seizing Cius ad Myrlea, Prusias gained two successes
in the struggle against Pergamum: he took Mysia Olympene and Phrygia
Epiktētos. At some time, Prusias I turned to the east and moved against
Heraclea. Although he did not seize the city, he took possession of most
of its chōra. Under Prusias I Bithynia enlarged as never before or after
him.
It was not only a matter of expansion. Prusias I supported the conquests
with a coherent plan of foundations and re-foundations of cities. These
cities reinforced the control of the newly annexed territories; at the same
time they boosted the economy of the kingdom. They became strategic
intersections of the north Anatolian road network. Bithynia became the
master of land and sea trade between Asia and Europe, and the Aegean
and Black Seas. Urbanisation activities and coinage as well were part of
a consistent plan aiming to promote the economy and the international
prestige of Bithynia. Prusias I perfectly integrated his kingdom into
the Hellenistic milieu presenting Bithynia on a par with the Graeco-
Macedonian monarchies. Meanwhile, he exalted Thraco-Bithynian
elements and manifested in propaganda the national character of the
Bithynian monarchy.
Ultimately, Prusias I was the most charismatic of the Bithynian
kings. After his death, the Bithynian kingdom knew a drastic decline306:
it definitively lost the competition with Pergamum, its power quickly
decreased, and its postion towards Rome further weakened althought it
entered in alliance with it. In the late 2nd century BC Bithynia fell in the
sphere of interest of Pontus, and then, Mithridates VI tried to conquer it.
In 74 BC Nicomedes IV bequeathed to Rome a kingdom in ruins. These
305
This affects the negative assessments about Prusias I’s reign, e.g. SCHNEIDER 1967-1969, vol. I, p.
787: ‘Mit seinem (i.e. Ziaelas’) Sohn Prusias I. (229-182) began die allmähliche Degeneration der bithy-
nischen Herrscherfamilie’.
306
See GEYER 1936a; GEYER 1936b; GEYER 1936c; VITUCCI 1953, pp. 67-119; HABICHT 1957a; HARRIS
1980, pp. 862-866; GABELKO 2005, pp. 297-414.
150 ELOISA PAGANONI
short notes highlight that the reign of Prusias I constituted the akmē of
the Golden Age of Bithynia307. It marked the successful fulfilment of the
emergence of Bithynia in the landscape of Hellenistic Asia Minor.
307
BMC Bithynia, p. xl: ‘the greatest of the Bithynian kings’; ROSTOVTZEFF 1941, p. 663: ‘He left to his
successor a kingdom strong and outwardly hellenized’; HARRIS 1980, p. 858: ‘The peak had undoubtedly
been reached with the rule of Prusias I’; SHERWIN-WHITE 1984, p. 43: ‘The energic Prusias I... had built up
what was the smallest, but the most compact of the Anatolian kingdoms’; GABELKO 2005, pp. 295-296.
CONCLUSION
The Bithynians made their appearance in Asia at the beginning of the

1 millennium BC. They and the Thynians were the last Thracian tribes
st
that left Europe to settle in the Propontic and Yalova peninsulas. The ar-
rival of the Greeks on the Propontic shores from the late 8th century BC
onwards contributed to define the ethno-political landscape of the region.
This landscape was completed when earlier the Lydians and then the Per-
sians included the area in their empires. The earliest information about
the Bithynians after their migration dates to the late 5th century BC. At
that time, they were officially under the rule of the satrap of Dascylium
but they often rebelled against him and made war against the Greek cit-
ies. Their condition in itself was not exceptional. The existence of local
autonomies was intrinsic to make up of the Persian empire and fights
between indigenous people and Greeks are widely attested elsewhere.
Unique was instead the historical juncture. The Bithynians exploited the
lack of a firm power due to their distance from the centre of the satrapy
and the instability caused by the Great Satraps’ Revolt to reinforce their
power.
When Alexander defeated the Great King and the Achaemenid empire
fell, the Bithynians became in fact independent. The Bithynian ruler Bas de-
fended this independence against Alexander’s general who was charged with
taking control of the Propontis. In the years after Alexander’s death, his son
and successor Zipoites entered the alliance network that granted Antigonus
Monophthalmus a firm influence over the Propontis but preserved Bithynian
independence. With the death of Antigonus, the delicate network he had built
fell apart. Those who took Antigonus’ place in Asia Minor tried to include the
Bithynians in their realms. They failed, though. Zipoites repulsed the attacks
of Lysimachus, Seleucus and Antiochus I. Meanwhile he began a new series
of campaigns against the Propontic cities. He expanded his estate and consoli-
dated his power. The Bithynian royal era sets the beginning of the kingdom
in 297 BC. Zipoites is supposed to have taken the royal title after an event in
that year. If so, he turned the Bithynian chiefdom into a kingdom while the
Diadochs were dividing Alexander’s empire.
152 ELOISA PAGANONI
The earliest traces of a Bithynian contact network date back to the

years of Zipoites. This one was in fact recognised as a political counter-
part by Antigonus Monophthalmus. Moreover, Zipoites is supposed to be
in contact with the island of Cos through Nicomedes son of Aristander.
The definitive recognition of the self-proclaimed kingdom, however,
came under Zipoites’ successor Nicomedes I. The diplomatic relations
he established with cities and kings from the early 270s BC onwards
demonstrate that his realm was accepted as an independent kingdom. In
the first years of his reign, Nicomedes was involved in a war against An-
tiochus I, which triggered a domestic conflict with his brother Zipoites. In
that context, he allied with Heraclea and the so-called Northern League.
When the situation worsened, he called the Galatians who were threaten-
ing Byzantium into Asia.
This move was crucial to Nicomedes’ victory but fatal to Asia Minor.
It was the beginning of a troubled relationship between the regional kings
and Galatians. It was a constant shifting between collaboration and con-
flict: the Galatians could be allies then enemies and vice versa, as some
episodes of the history of the kingdom of Bithynia prove. Nicomedes
looked for their support to defeat his brother, and his son and successor
Ziaelas did the same. At the death of his father, he marched from his exile
at the head of a Galatian mercenary force to conquest the kingdom his fa-
ther had bequeathed to his second-born sons. After he took the Bithynian
throne, Ziaelas probably continued to look for support from the Galatians.
At some point yet, Ziaelas tried to free himself from this dangerous bond,
but he was killed by the Galatians. We can only speculate about the ear-
liest contacts between Prusias I and the Galatians. Prusias I could have
avenged the murder of his father when ascending the throne, but he could
not have endured the pressure of the Galatians during the negotiations after
the war with Byzantium in 220 BC. A few years after, in 216 BC, Prusias I
campaigned against the Aegosagi. For this ‘propagandistic expedition’ he
gained access to the group of the saviours of the Greeks from ‘barbarian’
enemies. However, he had no qualms about hiring a force of Galatians
against Eumenes II in the late 180s BC.
The contact network Nicomedes I established included the Antigonids
and the Ptolemies as well as the Propontic cities. Its changes over the years
mirror the reaction of the Bithynian kings to shifts in the historical land-
scape. Friendly relations with the Ptolemies were established in the 270s
BC and they lasted as long as Ziaelas ruled, that is, while Bithynia was a
trade partner for them and an ally against the Seleucids. Ziaelas broke off
CONCLUSION 153
the relations with the Antigonids who seem to have never recognised his
claim to the Bithynian crown. Prusias I managed to make amends with the
Antigonids; the restored alliance was confirmed by a marriage, supposedly
between a daughter of Prusias I and Philip V. Prusias I was also the insti-
gator of the most significant change in the foreign policies since the king-
dom of Bithynia had been founded. The Seleucids had ever been the bitter
enemy of his predecessors, but he approached them in response to the rise
of the kingdom of Pergamum. This new kingdom had started threatening
Bithynia since the very beginning of its existence, eager to take the place
of Bithynia in the balance of power of Asia Minor. Traces of collaboration
between Prusias I and Antiochus III may be found in the issue of Mysia
Olympene and in the accounts of the background of the Roman-Syrian
War. This could not have been a collaboration but an official alliance if, as
it has been argued, Prusias I and his son Prusias married the sister and the
daughter of Antiochus III.
These international relations were the product of the political and eco-
nomic position which the Bithynian kings had earned throughout the dec-
ades. It was the outcome of successful policies that best exploited the posi-
tion of Bithynia. As a crossroads between Asia and Europe, the Aegean and
Black Sea, Bithynia was essential to communication and trade. Whereas at
the beginning Bithynian economy relied on the exploitation of the rich soil
of the Propontic peninsula, the kingdom became involved in wide-ranging
trading since the foundation of Nicomedia in the 260s BC. Evidence of
the importance of Bithynia shortly after the mid-3rd century BC is the let-
ter of Ziaelas to Cos (c. 242 BC). It attests to the relevance of Bithynia in
the contact network the Ptolemies and Cos, who were important players
in Aegean-Black Sea trade. Prusias I further boosted Bithynian economy.
The kingdom reached its greatest expansion under him. He consolidated
his conquests by founding and re-founding several cities. He re-founded
Cius in Prusias ad Mare, Myrlea in Apamea, Cierus in Prusias ad Hypium,
and founded Prusa ad Olympum and Bithynium. These (re-)foundations
were part of a consistent plan that guaranteed to Bithynia the monopoly of
land and sea trade in northern Asia Minor.
The rise of Bithynia as an independent state entailed the creation of mo-
narchic institutions. The decisive step in this regard was the foundation of
Nicomedia. The new city became the seat of the royal court, and so the po-
litical, administrative and cultural centre of the kingdom. Meanwhile, the
system to administer the kingdom and to allow communication between
154 ELOISA PAGANONI
the capital, minor centres and periphery was established. The evidence
pertinent to the years considered proves the existence of royal philoi who
acted as emissaries of the king and the office of epistatēs. The scope of this
study allows us to conclude that Bithynia had an organization similar to
other Hellenistic kingdoms, that adopted Macedonian institutions.
The cultural practices tell us much about propaganda of the first

Bithynian kings. Since Zipoites, they preferred the Greco-Macedonian
model of kingship. The kings of Bithynia were the first among the indig-
enous dynasties of Asia Minor to embrace this model that would have
become the dominant one in the Hellenistic world. These propagandistic
activities contributed to the emergence of the Bithynian sovereigns on the
international stage. They promoted the inclusion of the kings of Bithynia
among the Hellenistic monarchs. On the other hand, a constant reference
to the Thracian/Bithynian traditions has emerged. Nicomedes I’s coinage
bears Thracian gods, such as Bendis, ‘in Greek dress’ and refers to topoi
of the Thracian tradition, such as the heros equitans. Prusias I may have
referred to Bithynian heroes in naming Prusa ad Olympum and Bithynium.
This latter name derives from the eponymous hero Bithynus, who was a
son of Zeus and Thracia according to a tradition probably elaborated at the
Bithynian court. These elements suggest that ethnicity had a key role in
the definition of the Bithynian monarchy. This may find confirmation in
the opening of Ziaelas’ letter to Cos, where he calls himself ‘king of the
Bithynians’. This ethinc component contributes to configuring Bithynia as
a national monarchy. The Bithynian kings eagerly claimed their ethnicity.
They stressed the close bond between themselves and those whom they
ruled.
Historians, scholars, poet and artists active at the Bithynian court con-
tributed to spreading the political message of the Bithynian kings. They
recounted the history of those centuries from kings’ point of view. The loss
of their works limits severely our overall view of the self-presentation of
the Bithynian kings. This investigation has found however an echo of this
literature in the extant evidence. As said above, the tradition about Bithy-
nius’ divine descent was part of court production. The traditions referring
to a Bithynian foundation of Astacus and Prusa ad Olympum in the Ar-
chaic age also seem to have been elaborated at court. They presented those
areas, external to the original Bithynian chiefdom, as part of the Bithynian
lands since the beginning of time. In this way, they served to legitimatize
control of the Bithynians over them. The same legitimising aim should
CONCLUSION 155
be at the core of a pseudo-historical tradition recording a long series of

Bithynian kings. It sets the origins of the Bithynian dynasty in a remote
time, ideally at the time when the Bithynians settled in Asia Minor.
Outlining the rise and consolidation of the kingdom of Bithynia has cast
new light on the situation of northern Asia Minor between the late 4th and
the early 2nd centuries BC. So far overlooked by scholars, the kingdom of
Bithynia has turned out to be an essential player of the Hellenistic balance.
The Bithynian kings promoted forward-looking politics, which quickly in-
creased their role in the political and economic situation. The Bithynian
kings emerged among the states of the Propontic area and tipped the scale
in the region. This rise reached its akmē under Prusias I. Throughout his
reign, the kingdom of Bithynia prospered as never before or after, and also
in light of the following developments, it can be said that the reign of Pru-
sias I marked the Golden Age of the kingdom of Bithynia.
APPENDIX
EPIGRAPHIC EVIDENCE
The appendix is primarily conceived as a support to the reader. It col-

lects the inscriptions concerning the history of the kingdom of Bithynia
from Zipoites to Prusias I, divided into inscriptions from Bithynia and in-
scriptions from abroad. It presents the documents mentioning one of the
kings who ruled Bithynia until 182 BC. Beside them, it collects the inscrip-
tions which have been hypothetically associated to one of these kings1 and
those ones which have impacted on the studies in the kingdom of Bithynia,
such as the famous epigram for Menas son of Bioeris and the dedication
from Cius that turned out to be to Heracles. The appendix also includes a
dedication of Nicomedes II for its relevance in relation to the Bithynian
marital politics in the early 2nd century BC.
NOTE
The edition proposed here is marked with an asterisk. The apparatus is included only
if required.
INSCRIPTIONS FROM BITHYNIA
1. Tombstone of Menas son of Bioeris
White marble stele, broken on the upper edge; found in Cihanköi; now in the
Archaeological Museum of Istanbul (inv. 1176). Dim.: 60 x 50 x 7 cm. On the
upper part of the stone, there is a scene of a battle, just partially preserved. Not
ordered script. Two different hands. Height of letters: 1,1-1,5 cm.
1
I.Didyma 473 is not included because the king mentioned in this inscription is usually identified with
Prusias II (I.Didyma, p. 277; McCabe, Didyma 75), although it cannot be definitively ruled out that he was
Prusias I.
158 ELOISA PAGANONI
MENDEL 1900, nr. 27, pp. 380-381; KEIL 1902, pp. 257-258; HILLER VON GAERTRINGEN 1926,
nr. 91; PEEK 1955, nr. 1965; PEEK 1960, nr. 457; BAR-KOCHVA 1974, p. 15; PFUHL – MÖBIUS
1977-1979, vol. II, p. 307 nr. 1269; IK Nikaia 751; IK Kios 98*; MERKELBACH – STAUBER
2001, pp. 170-171 nr. 09/05/16
3rd-2nd century BC
1 εἰ καὶ μεῦ δολιχὸς περιαίνυται ὄστεα τύμβος,

ξεῖνε, τὸ δυσμενέων γ’οὐχ ὑπέτρεσσα βάρος·
πεζομάχος δ’ ἱππεῖας ἐνὶ προμάχοισιν ἔμεινα
ὁππότε περ Κούρου μαρνάμεθ’ἐμ πεδίωι·
5 [Θ]ρήϊκα δὲ προπάροιθε βαλὼν ἐνὶ τεύχεσιν ἄνδρα
[κ]αὶ Μυσόν, μεγάλας κάτθανον ἀμφ’ ἀρετᾶς·
τ̣ῶι <τ>ις ἐπαινήσειε θοὸν Βιοήριος υἷα
Βιθυνὸν Μηνᾶν, ἔξοχον ἡγέμονα.
8a ἄλλο·
[δ]άκρυα μὲν δειλοῖς τις ἰὼν ἐπιτύμβια χ<ε>ύοι
10 [ν]ώνυμον ἐγ νούσων δεξαμένοις θάνατον·
αὐτὰρ ἐμὲ Φρυγίοιο πάρα ῥοόν, ἀμφί τε πάτρης,
ἀμφί τε κυδαλίμων μαρνάμενον τοκέων
εὐκλέα δέξατο γαῖα μετὰ προμάχοισι δαμέντα,
δυσμενέων πολλοὺς πρόσθε δαϊξάμενον·
15 Βιθυνὸν τῶι τις Βιοήριος υἱέα Μηνᾶν
αἰνήσαι με, ἀρετᾶς φέγγος ἀμειψάμενον.
Even if a long tomb encases my bones, foreigner, I did not dread its hostile
weight. I was one of the soldiers who fought in front of the cavalry when we
fought in the plain of Cyrus. After I had hit a Thracian soldier and a Mysian,
I died carrying out glorious deeds. Someone shall praise the quick son of Bio-
eris, the Bithynian Menas, excellent chief.
Another (epigram)
Someone, going to the grave, shall shed tears for cowardly men, who show an
inglorious death for illnesses. Instead, because I fought near the stream of the
Phrygius for the native land and for the illustrious parents, I showed a glorious
death together with those who fought, after I had killed many enemies. Let the
man who praises me, the Bithynian Menas, son of Bioeris, gain in return the
light of glory.
The tombstone of the Bithynian Menas was found in the modern vil-
lage of Cihanköi, in an area between the chōrai of Cius and Nicaea in
Antiquity. It is decorated with a scene of battle, of which only the inferior
EPIGRAPHIC EVIDENCE 159
part survives2. The relief probably refers to the deeds of the deceased that
are recounted in the epigrams below. On the left side, there are two lying
soldiers bearing a round crossed shield3, who were probably the enemies
Menas killed in battle. To the right, there is another round shield and the
inferior part of a standing figure turning leftwards, who is commonly iden-
tified with the deceased. Under the relief, there are two epigrams. The first
one exalts the valiant behaviour of the deceased, who is pointed out with
his ethnic, name and patronymic, the Bithynian Menas son of Bioeris4.
The text specifies that he was chief of infantry. The composition mentions
that the battle took place in the plain of Cyrus, and Menas’ enemies were
a Mysian soldier and a Thracian one. The word ἄλλο (l. 8a) introduces the
second composition, which is engraved by a different hand5. As with the
former, it celebrates Menas’ deeds, but sets the battlefield near the river
Phrygius and refers to Menas’ parents and his native land.
No internal element allows us to date the inscription. The relief sug-
gests a dating to the late Hellenistic age6. Palaeography points to c. 200
BC7, although ‘die flüchtige, ungleiche Schrift kann jünger erscheinen als
sie mit höchster Wahrscheinlichkeit ist’8. But stylistic and palaeographical
arguments have to be considered very carefully in the case of inscriptions
from Bithynia. They are based on comparison with inscriptions from other
areas of the Hellenistic world, such as Pergamum and Egypt, for which
2
For a commentary, see PFUHL 1933; PFUHL – MÖBIUS 1977-1979, vol. II, p. 307; IK Kios 98, p. 149;
MERKELBACH – STAUBER 2001, p. 170.
3
Someone argues that one of these is a Galatian shield, because it seems to have an oblong shape (BAR-
KOCHVA 1974, pp. 18-20; cf. tentatively, PIRSON 2014, nr. H 15). Against this assumption it is worth noting
that the epigrams contain no mention of Galatians. Moreover, the Galatian shields were generally crossed
by a single vertical line (cf. e.g. PIRSON 2014, nr. H 17), while the one in question is characterized by two
perpendicular lines. On representation of Galatians , see now BARAY 2017.
4
Menas’ Greek name is common in epigraphic evidence (cf. LGPN V.A, p. 301), whereas this is
the only occurrence of Bioeris’s name (cf. MENDEL 1900, p. 381; LGPN V.A, p. 101), which is Thracian
(ÖZLEM-AYTAÇLAR 2010, p. 521; OnomThrac, p. 36; cf. WILHELM 1909, p. 219, who supposes that it has an
Egyptian origin). Menas’ name is considered a mark of the early Hellenisation of Bithynia by scholars who
accept the traditional date to the 3rd century BC (BELOCH 1925, p. 270 n. 1; SCHOLTEN 2007, p. 24; ÖZLEM-
AYTAÇLAR 2010, p. 511 n. 23; for the date of the inscription see below in the text). However, it is worth not-
ing that Thracian names continued to be used throughout the Hellenistic age and afterwards in Bithynia (cf.
FERNOUX 2004, pp. 73-93; CORSTEN 2006; CORSTEN 2007, pp. 123-133; ÖZLEM-AYTAÇLAR 2010; OnomThrac,
pp. LXXIX-LXXXII). In this light, at most the tombstone proves that Menas’ family was undertaking a
process of Hellenisation.
5
PFUHL – MÖBIUS 1977-1979, vol. II, p. 308; IK Nikaia 751, p. 109 b.
6
PFUHL 1932; cf. BAR-KOCHVA 1974, pp. 18-20.
7
BELOCH 1927, p. 459; PEEK 1938, p. 35 n. 1; BAR-KOCHVA 1974, pp. 20-21; PFUHL – MÖBIUS 1977-
1979, p. 308; IK Kios 98, p. 153.
8
PFUHL – MÖBIUS 1977-1979, p. 308.
160 ELOISA PAGANONI
plenty of evidence allows scholars to outline the development of sculpture

and script. This is unfortunately impossible in the case of Bithynia for the
limited number of Hellenistic inscriptions so far discovered. In fact, stylis-
tic features of the relief and palaeography are not decisive.
Since scholars cannot rely on these criteria, they look for other clues
to date the inscription, starting from the identification of the battlefield
where Menas died. Combining the information in the epigrams, we infer
that the battle took place in the ‘plain of Cyrus’ (l. 4: Κούρου... ἐμ πεδίωι)
‘near the stream of the Phrygius’ (l. 11: Φρυγίοιο πάρα ῥοόν). This plain
is identified with the Hyrcanian plain near Sipylus on the basis of Strabo,
who places it near Sardis9. The river is identified with the current Cum-Çay
flowing near Magnesia10.
The plain of Cyrus was the battlefield of the pitched clash of Lysima-
chus and Seleucus in 281 BC, which is known as the battle of Curupedium.
According to Eusebius11, it occurred ἐν τῇ περὶ Κόρου πεδίον, and Poly-
aenus12 seems to suggest that the battlefield was close to Sardis. Literary
sources concerning the 281 BC battle and Menas’ tombstone, thus, seem
to refer to the same place. On these grounds, it is generally assumed that
Menas died in the battle between Lysimachus and Seleucus13. In view of
the reference to the parents and homeland in the second epigram, he is
considered not a mercenary14, but a soldier of the force sent by Zipoites
to help Seleucus against Lysimachus. In support of this, it is highlighted
that the Bithynians were ever in conflict with Lysimachus15 and that the
9
Strabo XIII, 4, 13: εἶτα τὸ Ὑρκάνιον πεδίον, Περσῶν ἐπονομασάντων καὶ ἐποίκους ἀγαγόντων ἐκεῖθεν
(ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὸ Κύρου πεδίον Πέρσαι κατωνόμασαν) (‘Then there is the Hyrcanian plain, to which the
Persians gave name and settled colonists there [likewise the Persian also gave name to the Plain of Cyrus]’);
Strabo XIII, 4, 5: ὑπόκειται δὲ τῇ πόλει τό τε Σαρδιανὸν πεδίον καὶ τὸ τοῦ Κύρου καὶ τὸ τοῦ Ἕρμου καὶ τὸ
Καϋστριανόν, συνεχῆ τε ὄντα καὶ πάντων ἄριστα πεδίων (‘Below the city [i.e. Sardis] there are the plain of
Sardis and that of Cyrus and that of the Hermus and that of the Caÿster, which are contiguous to one another
and are the best plains of all’). Cf. HEINEN 1972, p. 28; BAR-KOCHVA 1974, p. 16; IK Kios 98, pp. 151-152;
GRAINGER 1990, pp. 182-183; LANDUCCI 1992, pp. 216-217; TALBERT 2000, Map 56, F4.
10
KROMAYER 1907, pp. 168-169; BAR-KOCHVA 1974, p. 16; IK Nikaia 751, p. 109 a-b.
11
Eus. I, 234 Schoene.
12
Polyaen. IV, 9, 4. Appian (Syr. 62) wrongly places the battlefield in Hellespontine Phrygia (BEVAN
1902, vol. I, p.71 n. 5, p. 323; IK Kios 98, p. 151; LANDUCCI 1992, pp. 216-217).
13
MENDEL 1900, p. 381; KEIL 1902; HILLER VON GAERTRINGEN 1926, p. 38; PFUHL 1932, col. 2; GLOTZ
et. al. 1945, p. 372 n. 4; VITUCCI 1953, pp. 17-18; PEEK 1955, p. 613; PEEK 1960, p. 323; VERMULE 1970, p.
170; HABICHT 1972, coll. 452-453; HEINEN 1972, pp. 28, 38; PFUHL – MÖBIUS 1977-1979, vol. II, pp. 307-
308; IK Nikaia 751 p. 109 b; LAUNEY 1987, vol. I, pp. 434-435; BILLOWS 1990, p. 441; LANDUCCI 1992, p.
217; LUND 1992, p. 206; STROBEL 1996, p. 201; MERKELBACH – STAUBER 2001, p. 170; SCHOTTKY 2002b, col.
817; cf. IK Kios 98, p. 151.
14
Against this possibility, see BAR-KOCHVA 1974, p. 18; LAUNEY 1987, p. 434 n. 4.
15
Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 12, 5 says that Zipoites defeated two generals of Lysimachus and Lysi-
Mysians and Thracians (i.e. the enemies Menas killed) probably fought on
Lysimachus’ side16.
Since stylistic features and palaeography apparently suggest a later
date, some scholars try to identify the battle in which Menas died with
other clashes. Concerning the Battle of Magnesia between Antiochus III
and Rome, Livy says:
the consul... came... into the Hyrcanian plains. Then, having heard that the oth-
er had departed, having followed his track, he pitched his camp on the hither
side of the river Phrygius, four miles far from the enemy (i.e. Antiochus III)17.
A dedication of Attalus II to Athena for the victory over Antiochus III in

190 BC also places the battlefield ‘near the river Phrygius’18. On these
grounds, it is commonly accepted that the battlefield where Antiochus was
defeated in 190 BC was the same where Lysimachus died in 281 BC19.
This has raised the hypothesis that Menas died in 190 BC20.
For the peculiar topographical situation, the plain of Cyrus might have been
the battlefield of other clashes21. Edwyn R. Bevan22 suggests that Menas fell
during one of the wars between Pergamum and Bithynia in the 180s and 150s
BC respectively23. Reconsidering this proposal, Bezalel Bar-Kochva24 argues
that the Bithynian soldier died in the later Attalid-Bithynian war. Gabelko25
assumes that Menas could have died in the 208 BC war of Prusias I against
Pergamum26.
machus himself. This latter victory is identified with the battle of Curupedium, as the Bithynian army is
supposed to not be able to win against Lysimachus without external help (HABICHT 1972, coll. 452-453;
HEINEN 1972, p. 36; cf. VITUCCI 1953, p. 18: ‘Nell’insieme pare assai poco probabile che Lisimaco, condotta
personalmente una spedizione contro la Bitinia, toccasse una sconfitta’).
16
Cf. IK Kios 98, pp. 151-153.
17
Liv. XXXVII, 38, 1-2: consul... ad Hyrcanum campum descendit. Inde cum profectum audisset,
secutus vestigia citra Phrygium amnem, quattuor milia ab hoste posuit castra.
18
IvP I, 74, l. 8: παρὰ τὸν Φρύγιον ποταμóν.
19
KROMAYER 1907, pp. 169-174; HANSEN 1971, pp. 86-87; IK Kios 98, p. 151; DROGO MONTAGU 2006, p. 115.
20
MICHELS 2014a, p. 140, Abb. 2. This proposal is not ruled out by IK Kios 98, p. 153 and MERKELBACH
– STAUBER 2001, p. 170.
21
BAR-KOCHVA 1974, p. 16.
22
BEVAN 1902, vol. I, p. 323; cf. IK Kios 98, p. 153.
23
About the first war, see above pp. 129-140. About the second one, see VITUCCI 1953, pp. 75-84;
HABICHT 1956; HABICHT 1957a, coll. 1115-1119; GABELKO 2005, pp. 319-324.
24
BAR-KOCHVA 1974, pp. 21-23, who rules out that epigrams refer to a battle of the war between Prusias
I and Eumenes II, since, in his opinion, the pitched battle of that conflict took place in Bithynia on the basis
of OGIS 298 (contra see above p. 134 n. 221).
25
GABELKO 2005, pp. 145-161; cf. GABELKO 2001 (non vidi).
26
Liv. XXVIII, 7, 10; above pp. 111-112.
162 ELOISA PAGANONI
Scholarship connects IK Kios 98 with a clash mentioned by other

sources and occurring Κούρου ἐμ πεδίωι, or makes it the only evidence
of an otherwise unknown clash. For the latter proposal, there is no point
in speculating further. As for the identification with battles known to us,
the possibility that Menas died in the Battle of Magnesia is to be ruled
out with confidence, if he was a soldier of a Bithynian force, as gener-
ally supposed. Prusias I, indeed, remained neutral in the Roman-Syrian
War27. Admitting that Menas was a soldier under the orders of Zipoites,
who sent a force to Seleucus, would reshape the relations between the
Bithynian king and the Diadoch. It would be necessary to assume that
they reached an agreement in detriment of Lysimachus. However, the
only evidence of contacts between Zipoites and Seleucus probably dates
after Curupedium and attests that they were not different from those be-
tween Zipoites and Lysimachus28.
Ultimately, it is impossible to pinpoint with certainty in which battle
Menas died and consequently to date the inscription. In this light, it not
surprising that more and more scholars give up contextualising this docu-
ment29.
2. Decree of Prusa ad Olympum in honour of Meniskos son of Ze(.)obrodis
Marble block broken at the bottom; found in Bursa; now in the local mu-
seum (inv. 3324). Dim.: 36 x 23 x 46,7 cm. Text A is engraved on the front
side, text B on the left side. Height of letters: 1,1 cm.
ROBERT 1937, p. 229; IK Prusa ad Olympum 1*
Early 2nd century BC
A1 [ἔτους — — — κ]αὶ δεκάτου Ε . [

[—]αι ἑβδόμηι ἐπ’ εἰκάδ[ι].
vacat
[— ἔδοξεν Π]ρουσα̣[έ]ων τῆι βουλῆι καὶ τ[ῶι δήμωι]
5 [ἐπειδὴ Μενί?]σκος Ζη[ . ]οβ̣ρωδιος ὁ ἐπιστά[της ἔν τε]
27
28
Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 6, 3.
29
HEINEN 1972, p. 36; MEHL 1986, pp. 295-296; KOBES 1996, pp. 84 and n. 43, 116 n. 20; DAVAZE 2013,
pp. 373-374; above p. 40.
[τοῖς πρότερ]ον χρόνοις τεταγμένος ἐπ[ὶ τῆς πόλε]-

[ως ἡμῶν ? οὐ] μέρος μέν τι ὑπελίπετο τοῦ̣ [—]
[— — — — ] εἰς τὰ ἐπιτασσόμενα αὐτῶ[ι ὑπὸ τοῦ βα]-
[σιλέως ? ἐπι]στατείας ἕνεκα, τὸ δὲ πλεῖστ[ον
10 [— — — — ]ΣΤΕ δανειζομένου αὐτῶι πε̣[—]
[— — — — ]ν̣ τόκων δωρεὰν τοὺς τῶν π[ολιτῶν ?]
[— — — — ]ου τακτοῦ τινος εἰς μισθοὺς Μ[—]
[— — — — ]οις, καὶ τούτου τε ἕνεκα καὶ ἁ[πάντων τῶν]
[— — — γιγνομ]ένων αὐτοῖς δι’ αὐτὸν εὐχ̣ρ̣ή̣[στων
15 [— — — — —] καλ[αῖς] κ̣αὶ ἐνδόξοις [τι]μ[αῖς]
B1 [— — — — —]ΙΡΑ[—]
[— ἀνὴρ ἀγ]αθὸς ὑ[πάρχων
[— — πλεί]ονα λυσι[τελῆ
[— — — ] τοῖς πολίτα[ις
5 [— — —]ν̣αι ἑκάστωι Ι̣[—]
[— — γ]νησίως καὶ ἐν[δόξως ?
[— — ]ΕΙ ἐπορίσατο Τ[—]
[— τ]ῆς κηρυκείας ΕΠ[—]
[ἐξ οὗ ? σ]υμβαίνει ΚΑ[—]
10 [— — — —]εσθαι δραχμὰ[ς]
[— — — — ]του ἐκκειμ[ένου]
[— — — — —]συγκεχω[ρη]
[— — — — —]τῆς ἡμε[τέρας ?]
A 1 [ἔτους ἑκατοστοῦ κ]αὶ δεκάτου Robert : [ἔτους ἑπτακ]αιδεκάτου

ἑ[κατοστοῦ Vitucci
In the year... and 10... on the 27th day of the month... It was resolved by the
boulē and the people of Prusa. Because the epistatēs Meniskos son of Ze(.)
obrodis, who commanded our city in the past... did not neglect even a part
of... in the orders by the king to him for the supervision, most part borrowing
money for him... of the interests as a free gift those among the citizens... of
some interest in rewards... and because of this and of all... of what happened to
them thanks to this of the profit... with beautiful and glorious honours...
... because he was a noble man... many advantages to the citizens... to each... honestly
and gloriously... he has got... of the office of herald... from which (?) it happens...
drachmas... of what is set up in public... allow... of our...
The marble block, discovered in Bursa, the ancient Prusa ad Olympum,

and preserved in the local museum, is the earliest inscription from this site.
164 ELOISA PAGANONI
The lines engraved on two faces of this block seem to be what survives of
two honorary decrees30. Text A is the beginning of a document. The first
words are part of a dating formula, including year, month and day (ll. 1-2).
After an uninscribed space, there is the enactment formula (l. 3), followed by
the motivation clause. Editors tentatively restore the name of the honorand in
line 4 with Μενί]σκος. His patronymic Ζη(.)οβ̣ρωδιος is incomplete, but it
was certainly a Thracian name31. According to what we read, ‘in the past’ (ll.
5-6: ἔν τε τοῖς πρότερ]ον χρόνοις) he had been an epistatēs, a royal official
who had carried out the king’s dispositions32. Consequently, he was involved
in the affairs of the city at least twice, when he acted as epistatēs and when
he received the honours recorded in this inscription. According to the text, on
this latter occasion, he dealt with some financial matters. The lines engraved
on the left-hand face of the block (Text B) are part of a decree for an unidenti-
fied honorand. The few surviving words concern the advantages he took for
the city. The term κηρυκείας (l. 8) may refer to the payment for the office of
herald, but it could also concern ‘un droit sur les ventes à l’encan’33.
These documents are dated to the early 2nd century BC on the basis of let-
tering, that is, at a time close to the foundation of the city by Prusias I, in
c. 188-184 BC34. Scholars propose more circumscribed hypotheses based on
what survives of the dating formula in Text A. The issue is to establish which
era it refers to. The little space before the first surviving words κ]αὶ δεκάτου (l.
1) does not allow us to restore the name of a Bithynian king with the royal title
and so a dating according to the years of reign of a Bithynian king is to be ruled
out. Two possibilities remain: either a dating according to the Bithynian royal
era beginning in 297/6 BC, or a dating according to the local era beginning in
the late 280s BC, that is attested in many Propontic cities35.
Luis Robert36 supplies Line 1 with [ἔτους ἑκαστοῦ κ]αὶ δεκάτου (‘in the
110th year’), corresponding to 188/7 BC according to the royal era. This dat-
ing places the decree in the first possible year for the founding of the city. As
30
The possibility that the first document could be a letter from a Bithynian king is ruled out by ROBERT
1937, p. 229 n. 2.
31
ROBERT 1937, p. 233; IK Prusa ad Olympum 1, p. 9.
32
ROBERT 1937, pp. 233-234; MICHELS 2013, p. 18.
33
ROBERT 1937, p. 235 n. 1; cf. IK Prusa ad Olympum 1, p. 10.
34
See above p. 133.
35
On these eras, see above pp. 38-41. MICHELS 2013, p. 19 argues that the decree also might be dated
according to the Seleucid era beginning in 312 BC. But accepting any of the restorations hitherto proposed
(see the commentary), a calculation according to this era would give as a result a date previous to the
foundation of Prusa ad Olympum. On the Seleucid era, see LESCHHORN 1993, pp. 22-44; KOSMIN 2014, pp.
100-103; KOSMIN 2018, pp. 19-77.
36
ROBERT 1937, pp. 229-230.
Robert admits, although theoretically possible, this raises the matter of when
the honorand would have carried out the earliest office. Instead, a calculation
according to the local era, in his opinion beginning in 281/0 BC, dates the
inscription to 172/1 BC37. This sets the two offices of the honorand in a suit-
able time span between the foundation of the city and the honours.
Vitucci38 highlights that the earliest attestation of the local era dates
back to the 1st century BC and no evidence confirms that it was already in
use when the decree was engraved. At that time, he thinks, the official era
in Bithynia was the royal one beginning in 298/7 BC. Vitucci39 also re-
jects Robert’s restoration and supplies Line 1 with [ἔτους ἑπτακ]αιδεκάτου
ἑ[κατοστοῦ). Accordingly, the decree would have passed in the 117th year
of the Bithynian era, i.e. in 181/0 BC.
Leschhorn40 rules out Vitucci’s proposal noting that the Bithynian royal
era was introduced by Nicomedes II in the second half of the 2nd century
BC41, and so it was not in use when the decree was supposedly voted. Le-
schhorn prefers Robert’s second hypothesis but argues that the local era
began in 282/1 BC and consequently dates the inscription to 173/2 BC.
There is no decisive proof42, but the arguments proposed by Robert and
Leschhorn render their proposals more likely.
3. Decree (?) from Nicomedia
Fragment found in Nicomedia, now lost. Height of letters: 1 cm.
PERROT – GUILLAUME 1872, p. 8 nr. 4; ROBERT 1937, pp. 235-236; TAM IV, 1, 2*
229-149 BC
———
1 ΕΗΙΔΟΚΚΕ[— — — — — — — — — — ἀπ]-
έσταλκεν [— — — nomen — — —]-
ον, τῶμ φ[ίλ]ων, κ[αὶ {τὸν δεῖνα} — — —]
37
ROBERT 1937, pp. 231-232, followed by MAREK 1993, pp. 22-23; tentatively DEBORD 1998, p. 145;
cf. VITUCCI 1953, pp. 61-62; SEG 16 (1959) 744; IK Prusa ad Olympum 1, p. 8; LESCHHORN 1993, p. 189.
38
VITUCCI 1953, pp. 62-63.
39
VITUCCI 1953, pp. 62-63; cf. BE 1955, 25; IK Prusa ad Olympum 1, p. 9; LESCHHORN 1993, p. 189.
40
LESCHHORN 1993, pp. 189-191, cf. p. 486, followed by MICHELS 2013, p. 19.
41
See above p. 38.
42
Cf. FERNOUX 2004, p. 70; MICHELS 2013, p. 19.
166 ELOISA PAGANONI
καὶ Ἀρίστωνα Εὐσ[— — — προνοήσοντας]

5 [τ]ῆς [ἀν]ακομιδῆς [τῶν πρεσβευτῶν, ἵνα γένη]-
ται ἀσφαλής· ἐπ[ελθόντες δὲ καὶ αὐτοὶ πρὸς]
τὴν βουλὴν καὶ τ[ὸν δῆμον διεσάφησαν]
[π]ερὶ ἑκάστων τὰ [κατὰ μέρος, σπουδῆς καὶ φι]-
[λο]τιμίας οὐθὲν ἐ[λλείποντες, ἐποιήσαντο δὲ]
10 [τὴ]ν ἀναστροφὴν ἀ[ξίαν τοῦ τε βασιλέως]
[Π]ρουσίου καὶ τῆς ἡ[μετέρας πόλεως· ἐπὶ οὖν]
[τ]ούτοις· τύχηι τῆι [ἀγαθῆι· δεδόχθαι — — —]
———
... (he) had sent... of the friends ... and Ariston son of Eus(...) (those) who ar-
ranged for the return of the ambassadors, so that it was safe; when they came,
they informed the boulē and the people about each matter in detail, since they
were zealous and well-disposed, they behaved in a way worthy of King Prusias
and of our city. For these reasons, with good fortune, it shall be resolved...
Only the first editors Georges Perrot and Edmond Guillaume saw this
fragment, which is until now one of the few Hellenistic public inscriptions
from Nicomedia. The text concerns the return of an embassy. The man
quoted in Line 4, Ariston son of Eus(...), was either one of those who took
care of the ambassadors’ return or (less probably) one of the ambassadors.
Lines 6-11 record that when the envoys came back from their mission
they informed the boulē and the people, probably about the answer of the
addressee of the embassy. The last words were part of the goodwill and
enactment formulas, assuring that the document is a decree.
The mention of King Prusias (ll. 10-11) dates the inscription to 229-
149 BC, that is, to Prusias I’s and Prusias II’s reigns. The addressee, the
sender, and the ambassadors are unknown, but these two latter presumably
were Bithynian. The remark that they behaved in a way ‘worthy of King
Prusias and of our city’ suggests that they acted on behalf of the king and
were citizens of the city voting the decree43. The city could be Nicomedia,
where the fragment was found, but the loss of the prescript prevents us
from drawing a conclusion in this respect44.
43
Cf. ROBERT 1937, p. 236. PERROT – GUILLAUME 1872, pp. 8-9 suggest that the honours were for Roman
ambassadors who paid a visit to Prusias II. Contra ROBERT 1937, p. 236: ‘je ne reproduirai pas le commen-
taire Perrot, qui n’a qu’un intérêt: celui de montrer à quel point était tombée l’épigraphie grecque en France
après la mort de Letronne et avant l’influence de Foucart’.
44
ROBERT 1937, pp. 237-238; cf. VITUCCI 1953, p. 123 n. 5; FERNOUX 2004, p. 21; MICHELS 2009, pp.
267-269 and n. 1359. SAVALLI-LESTRADE 1998, p. 193 speaks of ‘ville inconnue’.
4. Decree of Cius/Prusias ad Mare in honour of a citizen
Fragment of stone broken on all edges; found in Cius/Prusias ad Mare
LEGRAND 1893, pp. 541-542 nr. 21; IK Kios 8*
Hellenistic age
1 [— — —]νει αὐτὴν ἀπο[— — —]

[— — —]ΑΠΟΛΙΤΟΤΕΣ[ . . ]Ω[— — —]
[— — —] ἐνιαυτὸν τοῖς τιμηθ[εῖσι — — —]
[— — — δρ]αχμὰς χειλίας οὐκ ἐσ[— — —]
5 [— — —]νις τοῦ βασιλέως [— — — —]
[— — — ἐ]πάλιμμα ὥστε ι[—]λα[— — —]
[— — —]ωι σὺν τῶι ἐπαχθέντι [— — —]
[— — — — —]ολιον ὅσας καὶ π[ρὸς(?) — — —]
[— — — τὴν τοῦ βα]σιλέως παρουσίαν [— — —]
10 [— — — — —]εταις τῶν βασιλέ[ων — — —]
[— — — —] ὡσαυτῶς ἀργυ[ρίου — — —]
[— — — —] διαδόσεις ποιούμ[ενος — — —]
[— — — ἐν(?) τῇ π]όλι αὐτοῦ τὴν [— — —]
[— — — —]νον· πρὸς δὲ το[ῦτο(?) — — —]
15 [— — — —]η[ . ]ας μετέδωκεν τε[— — —]
[— — — — — — —]με[— — — — — — — —]
[— — —]ενους δὲ ταῖς ὅτι κα[— — —]
[— — —] αὐτοῖς ἐπ[ . . ]λατουστανο[— — —]
[— — —] τὸν πρὸς τὸν βασιλέα ε[— — —]
20 [— — — —]ου μηνός, ἐν ἧι ἡμέραι μ[— — —]
[— — — θυ]σ[ία]ς παρέστησεν κ[— — —]
[— — —]ΟΣ . ΛΕ[— — — — — — — — — — —]
[— — —]ΥΣ . Π[— — — — — — — — — — — —]
[— — — —]η τῆς ἑαυτοῦ μεγ[αλοψυχίας — — —]
25 [— — — —] τῆι πόλι [—]ς δέκα πο[— — —]
[— — — — —]ΣΙΝ[ . . ]ΙΑΚΛΥΗΥΤΟΥ[— — —]
... it... year to (those) who are esteemed... one thousand drachmas not... of King...
oil so that with what happened... those that also... the presence of King... of
Kings...in the same way of money... (he) who made distributions... in the city of
it (him?)...towards this... he had made distributions to... to them... that toward the
King... in the month of... on the day... to arrange for sacrifices... of his greatness
of soul... to the city... ten...
The fragment preserves the central section of a decree probably voted

168 ELOISA PAGANONI
for a citizen of Cius/Prusias ad Mare. According to the few readable words,

the honorand offered oil to the gymnasion (l. 6: ἐ]πάλιμμα) and carried
out distributions and sacrifices. There are several mentions of a king, who
seems to have paid a visit to the city (l. 9: τὴν τοῦ βα]σιλέως παρουσίαν)
and who is usually identified with a king of Bithynia45. Accordingly, it is
supposed that the honorand was an official (perhaps a gymnasiarchos) and
that the city established a cult for the Bithynian sovereign46.
The document contains no element to date it. Due to the loss of the pre-
script mentioning the city, it is impossible to establish whether the decree
passed before or after Prusias I re-founded Cius as Prusias ad Mare47. Some
scholars48 assume a connection between the cult and the re-foundation, but
Michels49 notes that the cult could date back to the king’s visit.
5. Dedication of four individuals to Prusias (?)
Reddish limestone base; found in the village of Kandamɪş, east of Bolu, the
ancient Bithynium/Claudiopolis; in situ (?). Below the text, four crowns
are sculptured and above each of them there are four flowers. Dim.: 100 x
72 x 64 cm. Height of letters: 2,5-3,5 cm.
DÖRNER 1952, pp. 40-41 nr. 81; ROBERT 1980, p. 130 (SEG 30 [1980] 1420); IK
Klaudiu Polis 50*
Imperial age
1 Δημήτρι[ος] Δημύλου
κὲ Ἀσκληπιά[δης] Ἀρχεστράτου̣
κὲ Λεύκιος Σε[ραπί]ωνος [κὲ] Σεκοῦν-
δος Ἀραμίω[νος] ἱερατεύσαν-
5 τες καλῶς Π̣[ρο]υσίαι.
5 γ[ερο]υσίαι Dörner
45
Cf. the bibliographical references in the following note but LEGRAND 1893, p. 542 claims: ‘Mention
répétée du βασιλεύς et βασιλεῖς, qui semblent être les souverains de Pergame’. ROBERT 1937, p. 239 n. 4
reported that according to some scholars the βασιλεύς here mentioned was a religious officer.
46
ROBERT 1937, p. 239; VITUCCI 1953, pp. 127-128; IK Kios 8, p. 84; FERNOUX 2004, p. 69; MICHELS
2009, p. 85. On the ruler cult in the gymnasion, see ANEZIRI – DAMASKOS 2004, pp. 262-268. On gymasiar-
chia in Hellenistic age, see CURTY 2015.
47
Cf. MICHELS 2009, p. 273 n. 1391. On the re-foundation, see above p. 117.
48
LESCHHORN 1984, p. 277 and n. 9; IK Prusias ad Hypium, p. 4 n. 22.
49
MICHELS 2009, p. 273 n. 1391.
Demetrius son of Demylus, Asclepiades son of Archestratus, Leukius son of

Serapion and Sekoundus son of Aramion (dedicated the statue) to Prusias, after
they had been priests in a good manner.
In 1948, Friedrich K. Dörner found this rectangular base in the village

of Kandamɪş, east of Bolu, in the territory of the ancient Bithynium/Clau-
diopolis. The stone was in front of the mosque and it was used in funerary
ritual50. The base preserves a dedication dating back to the Imperial era, as
the use of κέ instead of καί suggests51. It was made by four men, pointed
out by their name and patronymic, at the end of their priesthood. Four
crowns are engraved below the dedication and above each of them there
are four flowers, that maybe allude to the religious office of the dedica-
tors52.
Since the front side of the stone is cut by a deep vertical groove, the
text needs some restorations, mostly affecting the final part of the dedica-
tors’ names, with the exception of the name of the third priest (l. 3) and
the one of the dedicatee (l. 5), of which the central part is lacking. The
former has been restored in Serapion due to the good distribution of this
personal name in Asia Minor53. As for the latter, Dörner54 restored γ[ερο]-
υσίαι, assuming that the dedicators were priests of this institution. Robert55
observed that normally personifications of civic institutions were preceded
by the definite article (e.g. τῶι Δήμωι, ‘to the People’). He suggested to
restore the name of the dedicatee with Π̣[ρο]υσίαι, and to identify him
with one of the Bithynian kings bearing this name. In his opinion, this king
‘était adoré comme le fondateur de la ville, son ktistès’56. This proposal
has been considered a relevant argument in the debate on the foundation
of Bithynium/Claudiopolis; if it is correct, this city was founded by either
Prusias I or Prusias II57.
50
DÖRNER 1952, p. 41; ROBERT 1980, p. 129 n. 2.
51
IK Klaudiu Polis 50, p. 57.
52
ROBERT 1980, p. 130.
53
LGPN V.A, p. 402.
54
DÖRNER 1952, pp. 40-41.
55
ROBERT 1980, p. 130.
56
ROBERT 1980, p. 130 followed by CHANKOWSKI 2010, p. 283-285; cf. MUCCIOLI 2013, p. 130 n. 503.
57
On the foundation of Bithynium, see above pp. 141-142. COHEN 1995, pp. 395-396 n. 2 alluded to a
possible identification of Prusias, the dedicatee of this inscription, with Prusias son of Archedemus, men-
tioned in a list of gymnasiarchoi and agonothetai (IK Klaudiu Polis 61, l. 9). If so, the document in question
would be a dedication to or on behalf of a private citizen. Anyway, in both cases, one would expect that the
individual is mentioned with the patronymic too.
170 ELOISA PAGANONI
6. Dedication to Heracles Kallinikos
Stone found in the wall of a private house in Cius/Prusias ad Mare
LECHAT – RADET 1888, p. 204; LEGRAND 1893, p. 542 nr. 22; DOMASZEWSKI 1912, p.
320; OGIS 340; ROBERT 1978, p. 39 n. 105 (SEG 28 [1978] 1023); IK Kios 24*
Imperial age
1 Ἡρακλ<ῆ>ς καλ-
λίνεικος κτίσ-
της τῆς πόλε-
ως.
(0) [Προυσίας Dittenberger || 1 Ἡράκλιος Lechat – Radet : βασι]λ[εύ]ς

Legrand, Dittenberger : Ἡρακλῆς Robert
Heracles Kallinikos founder of the city
This Imperial inscription that was discovered in the wall of a house

in Cius/Prusias ad Mare could be from a statue-base. The text refers to
the founder of the city, whose identity has been debated for a long time.
The first editors Henri Lechat and Georges A. Radet58 read Ἡράκλιος in
Line 1. According to Alfred Domaszewski59, this adjective was a reference
to Emperor Hadrian, who presented himself as a descendant of Heracles.
Philippe-Ernest Legrand60 read just –]λ[–]ς and restored βασι]λ[εύ]ς. Wil-
helm Dittenberger61 accepted this proposal and suggested to add a further
line before the first one (Line 0 in apparatus), restoring [Προυσίας]. They
thus argued for a reference to a Hellenistic king, and Dittenberger identi-
fied him with Prusias I who re-founded Cius in Prusias ad Mare in the turn
of the 2nd century BC62. The identifications both with Hadrian and with
Prusias I had some success among scholars, but they were put aside when
Robert63 proposed to restore Line 1 with Ἡρακλῆς. He saw the addressee
of the dedication in Heracles Kallinikos (in the variant Kαλλίνεικος in the
58
LECHAT – RADET 1888, p. 204.
59
DOMASZEWSKI 1912, p. 320.
60
LEGRAND 1893, p. 542 nr. 22.
61
OGIS 340.
62
Strabo XII, 4, 3; above p. 117. Cf. OGIS 340, pp. 544-545.
63
ROBERT 1978, p. 39 n. 105; cf. VITUCCI 1953, pp. 48-49 n. 4; SEG 27 (1978) 1023; LESCHHORN 1984,
pp. 276-277; COHEN 1995, p. 405; MICHELS 2009, p. 273 n. 1391.
inscription). Robert’s proposal is supported by the many pieces of evi-

dence, all numismatic, that attest to the worship of Heracles as the founder
of Cius64.
INSCRIPTIONS FROM ABROAD
7. Crown (?) by the Delians to Nicomedes I
White marble fragment found inside a wall in Delos in 1912; now in the
local museum (inv. Γ 470). Height of letters: 0,4 cm.
ID 460, Fr u*
171 BC
1 [— — — —]σολ [—]
[— — — — —β]ασιλεῖ Νι̣[κομήδει —]
[—] ἐπὶ ὑποθήκει] τεῖ οἰκίαι τ[εῖ —]
... to King Nicomedes... upon the guarantee of the house...
This fragment, conventionally identified as u, is pertinent to an inven-

tory of the sanctuary of Delos, that survives in 83 fragments and dates back
to 171 BC65. After the restoration of the editor Félix Dürrbach66, it refers
to king Nicomedes, who can be no one else other than Nicomedes I on the
basis of the dating of the inscription. Since the document contains a list of
goods donated to the sanctuary in its surviving part, Dürrbach67 assumed
that Nicomedes was one of the donors. If so, his name should be in the
genitive, as usual in this kind of documents. Instead, Nicomedes’ name
is in the dative, that is, the case which commonly indicates a receiver. By
means of an example, we can consider another Delian inventory, which
records a crown the Delians granted to Prusias II68. In this case, the king’s
64
About the worship of this hero in Cius, see IK Kios 24, pp. 106-107; LESCHHORN 1984, p. 368.
65
For the year, which is based on name of the archon, see ID 460, p. 257. On the inventories of Delos,
see HAMILTON 2000.
66
ID 460 Fr. u, l. 2.
67
Cf. ID IV, p. 258.
68
ID 449, Face A, ll. 23-24; 455, Face Aa, ll. 40-41; 460, d, ll. 15-16.
172 ELOISA PAGANONI
name is in the dative. On comparison of this, it is more likely, I think, that

the 171 BC inventory mentioned a grant of the Delians to Nicomedes I. For
sake of argument, this grant might have been a crown as with Prusias II.
8. Letter of Ziaelas to Cos
Triangular prism of blue-white marble broken on the upper and lower

edges; found in the stoa of the lowest terrace of the Asklepieion on Cos in
1903; in situ (inv. AS 3). Dim.: 115 x 31 cm. Regular script; letters evenly
arranged with small serif. Height of letters: 0,8 cm. Letters are slightly
larger from l. 10.
HERZOG 1905, pp. 174-175; Syll.3 456; SCHROETER 1931, pp. 70-71 nr. 20; RC 25*;
TAM IV, 1, 1; RIGSBY 1996, pp. 119-120 nr. 11; MICHELS 2009, pp. 57-58; IG XII, 4,
1, 209
c. 242 BC
1 βασιλεὺς Βιθυνῶν Ζιαήλας

Κώιων τῆι βουλῆι καὶ τῶι δήμ-
{μ}ωι χαίρειν· v Διόγειτος Ἀριστό-
λοχος Θεύδοτος οἱ παρ’ ὑμῶν
5 παραγενόμενοι ἠξίουν τὸ ἱερὸν
τοῦ Ἀσκληπιοῦ τὸ ἱδρυμένον πα-
ρ’ ὑμῖν ἀποδέξασθαι ἄσυλον καὶ
τὰ λοιπὰ φιλανθρωπεῖν τῆι πό-
λει, καθόπερ καὶ Νικομήδης ὁ
10 πατὴρ ἡμῶν εὐνόως διέκει-
το τῶι δήμωι. v ἡμεῖς δὲ πάν-
των μὲν τῶν ἀφικνουμένω[ν]
πρὸς ἡμᾶς Ἑλλήνων τυγχάνο-
μεν τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν ποιούμε-
15 νοι, πεπεισμένοι πρὸς δόξαν οὐ
μικρὸν συμβάλλεσθαι τὸ μέρος
τοῦτο· v πολὺ δὴ μάλιστα τῶν
πατρικῶν φίλων διατελοῦ-
μεν πολυωροῦντες καὶ ὑμῶν
20 διὰ τὴν πρὸς τὸμ πατέρα <ἡ>μῶν
ὑπάρχουσαν πρὸς τὸν ὑμέτε-
ρον δῆμον γνῶσιν, καὶ διὰ τὸ
τὸμ βασιλέα Πτολεμαῖον
οἰκείως διακεῖσθαι τὰ πρὸς ὑμᾶς,

25 ὄντα ἡμέτερον φίλον καὶ σύμ-
μαχον· v ἔτι δὲ καὶ τοὺς παρ’ ὑμῶν
ἀπεσταλμένους φιλοτιμότε-
ρον ἀπολογίσασθαι τὴν εὔνοιαν
ἣν ἔχετε εἰς ἡμᾶς, ἔν τε τοῖς λοι-
30 ποῖς καθ’ ὃ ἂν ἡμᾶς ἀξιῶτε, πειρασό-
μεθα καὶ ἰδίαι ἑκάστωι καὶ κοι-
νῆι πᾶσι φιλανθρωπεῖν καθ’ ὅσον
ἡμεῖς δυνατοί ἐσμεν, v καὶ τῶν
πλειόντων τὴν θάλασσαν
35 ὅσοι ἂν τυγχάνωσιν τῶν ὑμε-
τέρων προσβάλλοντες τοῖς
τόποις ὧν ἡμεῖς κρατοῦμεν,
φροντίζειν ὅπως ἡ ἀσφάλει[α]
αὐτοῖς ὑπάρχῃ∙ κατὰ ταὐτα [δὲ]
40 καὶ οἷς ἂν συμβῇ πταίματός [τι]-
νος γενομένου κατὰ πλοῦν
προσπεσεῖν πρὸς τὴν ἡμετέ[ραν],
πᾶσαν σπουδὴν ποιεῖσθαι ἵν[α]
μηδ’ ὑφ’ ἑνὸς ἀδικῶνται. ἀποδ[εχό]-
45 μεθα δὲ καὶ τὸ ἱερὸν ἄσυλον κ[αθό]-
περ ὤιεσθε δεῖν, καὶ Διογείτωι [καὶ]
Ἀριστολόχωι καὶ Θευδότωι πε[ρὶ]
τῶν τούτων καὶ τῶν ἄλλω[ν ὧν]
ἠβουλόμεθα ἐντέταλμαι ἀν̣[αγ]-
50 γεῖλαι ὑμεῖν. ἔρρωσθε.
Ziaelas king of the Bithynians to the boulē and the people of Cos, greetings.
Diogeitus, Aristolochus and Theudotus, whom you have sent, asked us to declare
inviolable the temple of Asclepius, which you have dedicated, and (they asked
us) to be friends of the city for the other things in so far as also our father Nico-
medes was well-disposed towards the people. We exercise care of all Greeks
who come to us because we are convinced that it contributes in no small way
to one’s reputation. We continue to take care above all of the paternal friends
and of you, for the consideration our father nourished towards you and because
King Ptolemy, who is our friend and ally, is well-disposed in matters concerning
you. Those who were sent by you to us reported on the zealous favour you have
for us. About the other matters you asked us for, we will prove to be friends to
everyone privately and publicly, as much as possible for us. We will take care
of those of you, who, cutting through the sea, come to places we rule, in order
to assure their safety. In the same way, we will offer help to those who arrive at
our country as a result of an accident during the voyage, so that none behaves
174 ELOISA PAGANONI
towards them unjustly. We declare your temple inviolable, as you consider suit-
able, and I ordered Diogeitus, Aristolochus and Theudotus to report to you about
these matters and others we want. Farewell.
The letter of Ziaelas is a document from an epigraphic archive of the

sanctuary of Asclepius on Cos. It collected the asylia granted by kings and
poleis when the Askelpieia became a Panhellenic festival69. The text is en-
graved on a triangular prism (kyrbis) discovered by Rudolf Herzog in 1903.
It preserves three other documents concerning the asylia. Above the letter
of Ziaelas, there is the final part of another letter of which the sender’s name
is lost, but it is to be from Ptolemy III or more likely Antigonus Gonatas70.
The other side bears a letter commonly attributed to Seleucus II71. The text
on the third side is illegible due to the bad preservation of the stone, which
was reused as a threshold in the stoa of the lower terrace of the Asklepieion72.
Some scholars have been ungenerous in evaluating the style of this
document. In the commentary on the editio princeps Herzog pointed out
many solecisms and two mistakes, δήμ{μ}ωι (ll. 2-3) and <ἡ>μῶν instead
of ὑμῶν (l. 20)73. Kent J. Rigsby judged the letter ‘unusually discursive and
shapeless’74. Anyway, the mistakes are to be attributed to the stone cut-
ters who copied Ziaelas letter in Cos. As for solecisms, Bredford Welles
claimed that those Herzog pointed out were in ‘current usage of the day’,
except for τῶν τούτων (l. 48), that he also considered a solecism75. He
stressed that several features were in line with Hellenistic epistolography,
and concluded that the ‘infelicities of expression’ should be considered
‘not as «barbarian» Greek from the pen of a half-educated Bithynian, but
as colloquialisms from a Greek secretary not well-read in the classical lan-
guage’76. Then he concluded that the letter was ‘written in the best style
69
For a collection of these documents, see HERZOG – KLAFFENBACH 1952; RIGSBY 1996, pp. 106-153
nrr. 8-52; IG XII, 4, 1, 207-245. About the asylia to Cos, see now KNÄPPER 2018, pp. 87-104. On the cult of
Asclepius and his sanctuary in Cos, see PAUL 2013, pp. 167-187; INTERDONATO 2013. On asylia, see RIGSBY
1996, pp. 1-40; BURASELIS 2003; KNÄPPER 2018.
70
For Ptolemy III, RC 27; contra RIGSBY 1996, pp. 117-118. SHERWIN-WHITE 1978, pp. 112 n. 153 is
sceptical. Hallof in IG XII, 4, 1, 208 tentatively attributes the letter to Antigonus Gonatas; cf. KNÄPPER
2018, pp. 100, 277.
71
RC 26; IG XII, 4, 1, 210; sceptical SHERWIN-WHITE 1978, pp. 112 n. 153.
72
IG XII, 4, 1, 211. KNÄPPER 2018, pp. 100-102, 277-278 suggests to identify the sender with Alexander
II of Epirus.
73
HERZOG 1905, pp. 176-178 with the list of solecisms.
74
RIGSBY 1996, p. 120.
75
RC 25, p. 124.
76
RC 25, p. 124; cf. GABELKO 2005, p. 212.
the royal secretary could muster’77. In preferring the moderate assessment

of Welles, one could wonder whether the common prejudice on Ziaelas,
depicted as a barbarian king, weighed to some extent on the other strict
evaluations78. Undeniably, the letter of Ziaelas presents formulas and a
structure typical of Hellenistic epistolography, as Biagio Virgilio remarked
noting that: ‘il formulario e lo stile dell’epistola non si discostano in modo
evidente da quelli in uso nelle altre cancellerie reali ellenistiche’79.
The only uncommon element deserving due consideration is in the pre-
script (ll. 1-3), where Ziaelas is described as βασιλεὺς Βιθυνῶν. The speci-
fication of the ethnic after the royal title has been considered as a solecism80
or an addition by the Coans to make clear the identity of the sender81. But
this expression can be much more meaningful. It recalls the title ‘king
of the Macedonians’, attested in some inscriptions related to Macedonian
kings found outside Macedonia82. Although its value is not completely
clear, it is supposed to be a claim of national identity. By this title, the
Macedonian kings emphasised the ‘ethnic character’ and the geographic
limits of their rule at the same time. In other words, they claimed to be
kings of the lands of the Macedonians83. The title ‘king of the Bithynians’
can have a similar value, marking the ‘ethnic character’ of the Bithynian
kingdom84. By it, Ziaelas claimed to be king of the Bithynians and of the
lands they inhabited.
The phrase opening the letter of Ziaelas finds two other comparisons in
inscriptions from the borders of the Hellenistic world85. One is a Greek in-
scription from Armavir in Armenia dating back to the Hellenistic age and
mentioning the otherwise unknown βασιλεὺς Ἀρμαδοερίων Μίθρα (‘Mith-
ra king of the Armadoerioi’)86. The second one is a letter of Theodorus
and Amynander, who ruled over the Athamanians, a people of eastern
77
RC 25, p. 122.
78
Cf. above, pp. 81-83.
79
VIRGILIO 2003, p. 134.
80
AYMARD 1948, p. 242; VITUCCI 1953, pp. 125-126 n. 3; WALBANK 1984, p. 65 n. 10.
81
BICKERMAN 1955, pp. 23-24 n. 1; BICKERMAN 1976-1985, vol. II, pp. 34-35; MUCCIOLI 2004, p. 106;
cf. RIGSBY 1996, p. 120; IG XII, 4, 1, p. 173.
82
E.g. Syll.3 332; 574.
83
AYMARD 1948; ERRINGTON 1974; MOOREN 1983, pp. 213-217; LANDUCCI 2003, pp. 206-224.
84
DOW – EDSON 1937, p. 139; TREVES 1940, pp. 150-151 and n. 2; HABICHT 1972c, coll. 391-392;
SEVRUGIAN 1973, p. 40; SARTRE 1995, p. 36; SARTRE 2003, p. 69; VIRGILIO 2003, pp. 134-135; MICHELS 2009,
pp. 58-59 n. 271. Contra AYMARD 1948, pp. 241-242.
85
VIRGILIO 2003, p. 134 n. 372.
86
BE 1950, 218, p. 211; BE 1952, 176, p. 183; SHERWIN-WHITE – KUHRT 1993, pp. 195-197; MAHE
1994, p. 582.
176 ELOISA PAGANONI
Epirus. This document, granting the asylia to Teos in 205-201 BC, opens
as follows: Aθαμ[άν]ω[ν]· [Β]ασιλεὺ[ς Θ]εόδωρος [κα]ὶ ’Aμύνανδ[ρο]ς
(‘Theodorus and Amynander kings of the Athamanians’)87. Although few
in number, these documents suggest that the use of the ethnic after the
royal title might have been more widespread than so far assumed. One
could wonder whether these are to be considered exceptions or if they
testify to a multifaceted conception of Hellenistic basileia. On the one
hand, we see the idea of a universal basileia. This was the power that, for
instance, the Ptolemies (cf. Ziaelas’ letter, l. 23), the Seleucids and the At-
talids claimed by the use of the royal title basileus without any territorial
demarcation. Their kingdoms ideally had no boundaries and potentially
extended to the entire oikoumenē. On the other hand, there could have been
an ethnic or national basileia. This kingship remarked and insisted on the
tight connection between the king and his people, and thus their land. It
was a kind of basileia suitable for national monarchies, such as Macedonia
and Bithynia88.
Lines 3-11 preserve the request of the Coans. The theoroi89 asked Ziaelas
to acknowledge the sanctuary as inviolable and to preserve friendship with
the Coans, recalling the friendly relations with Ziaelas’ father Nicomedes I
(ll. 3-11). Ziaelas granted their requests and stated to continue to be friend
of the Coans also because they were friends of the king of Egypt (ll. 12-26),
87
RC 35, l. 1. The title [Β]ασιλεύ[ς is supposed to refer to both the senders (cf. VIRGILIO 2003, p. 134 n.
372). On this inscription see also PIEJKO 1988; PIEJKO 1988a, p. 63; SEG 38 (1988) 1227; BRAUND 1982, pp.
350-351; CURTY 1995, p. 89. MUCCIOLI 2004, p. 106 n. 4 suggests two other comparisons. One is a dedica-
tion to [βασιλέα Καπ]παδοκί[ας καὶ τῆς | τραχεία]ς Κιλικίας Ἀ[ρχέλαον] (IG II-III2, 3, 1, 3430, ll. 2-3 =
OGIS 357, ll. 2-3). The other is an inscription of Πάκορος βασι|λεὺς Μεγάλης Ἀρ|μενίας (OGIS 382, ll.
3-5 = IK estremo oriente 22, ll. 3-5) for the death of his brother. These documents are later than those we
have presented above, as they date to the 1st century BC-1st century AD and the 2nd century AD respectively.
More importantly, here the royal title precedes a geographical designation and not an ethnic.
88
On the national feature of the Bithynian kingdom, cf. above, pp. 66, 76-77, 144-147.
89
The theoroi named here are Diogeitus, Aristolochus and Theudotus. The first one also appears in the
letter of the Seleucid king that is engraved on the other side of the prism (RC 26, ll. 16-17). It is unknown
whether the two other theoroi coming to Ziaelas reached Syria with him, but it is worth highlighting that
none of these three theoroi are mentioned in the decree of Cius granting the asylia to the sanctuary of Ascle-
pius (IK Kios 18). RIGSBY 1996, p. 120 concludes that Ziaelas did not receive the Coan theoroi in Nicome-
dia, because in this case the dispatch of two delegations, one to the Bithynian capital and the other to Cius,
would have been unnecessary for the proximity of these cities. Again, according to him, the theoroi visiting
Ziaelas also came to the Spartocid king, who is supposed to be the sender of another letter recognising the
asylia (RIGSBY 1996, nr. 12 = IG XII, 4, 1, 213; see below pp. 177-178 n. 97). It is unclear whether the
Aristolochus sent to Ziaelas was Aristolochus son of Smenodron, who announced the Asklepieia in Mac-
edonia, northern Greece and Peloponnese (IG XII, 4, 1, pp. 169-170; KNÄPPER 2018, pp. 89-90). About the
Coan theoroi, see HERZOG – KLAFFENBACH 1952, pp. 28-30; RIGSBY 2004; IG XII, 4, 1, pp. 169-170; KNÄPPER
2018, 90-94. On the institution of theoroi, see PERLMAN 2000, esp. pp. 17-62; DIMITROVA 2008, pp. 9-16.
who was Ptolemy III at the time of the letter90. Ziaelas, thus, showed to fol-
low his father in his policies towards both the sanctuary and Egypt91.
Lines 11-17 contain the famous expression summing up Ziaelas’ at-
titude towards Greeks: ‘We exercise care of all Greeks, who come to us
because we are convinced that it contributes in no small way to one’s repu-
tation’. This sentence is unique in Hellenistic epistolography in terms both
of form and of content. According to Hannestad92, the only comparable
statement is in the aforementioned letter of Theodorus and Amynander. At
Lines 9-11 they claimed the reason why they granted asylia to Teos:
This we do because of our being in fact related to all Greeks since we are re-
lated to the originator himself of the common name of the Greeks93.
This statement and the one by Ziaelas mirror in a different way the desire
for legitimacy in front of the Greeks. Theodorus and Amynander recalled
the descent from the eponymous progenitor of all Greeks. Ziaelas high-
lighted the meaning of philhellenic acts and made clear their political im-
plications94.
The phrase ‘about the other matters you asked us for’ (ll. 29-30) intro-
duces Ziaelas’ dispositions on a second question posed by the theoroi95. It
probably concerned the safety of Coan trade in the Pontic area judging from
Ziaelas’ reply. Ziaelas undertook to guarantee the safety of Coan traders,
who landed on the Bithynian coast. He also claimed to safeguard those who
arrived on territories under his control after a shipwreck (ll. 38-44)96.
The letter ends with a further reference to the asylia, the order to the
theoroi to relate on the dispositions – in which Ziaelas used the first sin-
gular person instead of the plural (l. 48: ἐντέταλμαι) – and the common
greetings formula.
It is now agreed that this inscription dates back to c. 242 BC when the
Asklepieia were turned into a Panhellenic festival97. It is the earliest evi-
90
Cf. TAM IV, 1, p. 6; IG XII, 4, 1, 209, p. 173.
91
HANNESTAD 1996, p. 78. On the alliance between Bithynia and Egypt, see above pp. 69-70, 86.
92
HANNESTAD 1996, pp. 77-78; cf. MICHELS 2009, p. 60.
93
RC 35, ll. 9-11: καὶ τοῦτο πράσσομεν καὶ διὰ τὸ πρὸς ἅπαντας μὲν τοὺς Ἕλληνας οἰκείως ἔχοντες
τυγχάνειν, ὑπαρχούσας ἡμῖν συγγενείας πρὸς αὐτὸν τὸν ἀρχηγὸν τῆς κοινῆς προσηγορίας τῶν Ἑλλήνων.
94
MICHELS 2009, p. 60. See also above, pp. 81-83.
95
It is common that the theoroi brought a second message concerning special matters, different from
the main aim of their mission (RC 25, p. 123).
96
See above pp. 86-88. On the sentence ἵν[α] μηδ’ ὑφ’ ἑνὸς ἀδικῶνται (RC 25, ll. 43-44), see LAQUEUR
1936, pp. 470-471.
97
BENGTSON 1955; SHERWIN-WHITE 1978, pp. 96, 111-113 and notes; RIGSBY 1996, pp. 106-109, 120;
178 ELOISA PAGANONI
dence mentioning Ziaelas as the king of Bithynia. The explicit reference to

Nicomedes I’s politics reveals the desire FOR legitimacy for Ziaelas. Ac-
cording to some scholars, this would invite us to set the letter in his early
years of reign98. In this view, they argue that this letter could contribute to
determining when Ziaelas took the power99. Against this, Rigsby correctly
remarked that Ziaelas, in fact, usurped the Bithynian throne. He, therefore,
‘had an interest in stressing the legitimacy of his position and might have
done so for many years. The government of Cos is not likely to have had
frequent occasion to address the Bithynian monarchy. Thus the letter need
not be near the start of his sole rule, whenever it was’100.
9. Decree of Telmessos in honour of Eumenes II of Pergamum
Grey marble stele broken on the left side and on the lower edge; found in
Rhodes. Dim.: 40 x 32 x 9 cm. Accurate script with serif.
Clara Rhodos II, 172, 3*; SEGRE 1932, pp. 446-447; ALLEN 1983, pp. 211-212; KOT-
SIDU 2000 nr. 292 [E]
December 184 BC
1 [βασιλεύοντος] Εὐμένου Σωτῆρος (ἔτους) ιδ̣ʹ

[ἐφ’ ἱερέως — — —]ώρου μηνὸς Αὐδναίου βʹ, ἐ[κ]-
[κλησίας κυρ]ί̣ας γενομένης, ἔδοξεν Τελ̣-
[μεσσέων] τῆι πόλει καὶ τοῖς ἄρχουσι
5 [— — — — —]ωρωι, Δαπάραι, Ἑρμοφάντωι· ἐπει-
[δὴ βασι]λεὺς Εὐμένης ὁ σωτὴρ καὶ εὐεργέ-
[της ἡμ]ῶ̣ν ἀναδεξάμενος τὸν πόλεμον οὐ μ̣[ό]-
[νον ὑπ]ὲ̣ρ τῶν ὑφ’ αὑτὸν τασσομένων ἀλλὰ καὶ
[τῶν ἄ]λλων τῶν κατοικούντων τὴν Ἀσίαν ὑ-
FERNOUX, pp. 63-64; MICHELS 2009, pp. 56-57; IG XII, 4, 1, p. 173; KNÄPPER 2018, pp. 87-90. The first
editor Herzog dated Ziaelas’ letter to 250-246 BC (HERZOG 1905, pp. 178-179, followed by Syll.3 456,
p. 696; SCHNEIDER 1967-1969, vol. II, p. 159; DEROW – FOREST 1982, p. 86; cf. RC, pp. 120-121). After-
wards, he changed the date to 246-242 BC (HERZOG 1930, pp 465-468, followed by RC 25, pp. 120-121;
HERZOG – KLEFFENBACH 1952, pp. 27-28; VITUCCI 1953, pp. 30-31; HABICHT 1972c, col. 391). GABELKO
2005, pp. 212-218 dated Ziaelas’ letter to 246 BC and argued that the Bithynian king was also the sender
of IG XII, 4, 1, 213 (= RIGSBY 1996, nr. 12), although his name is lost. Gabelko’s hypothesis is followed
by BALAKHVANTSEV 2011, but rejected by KNÄPPER 2018, p. 103 n. 192 through convincing arguments.
98
BELOCH 1927, p. 213; VITUCCI 1953, pp. 30-31; HABICHT 1972c, coll. 391-392.
99
100
RIGSBY 1996, p. 120.
10 [πέστ]η τὸν κίνδυνον καὶ παρακαλέσας τοὺς

[θεο]ὺς καὶ διαγωνισάμενος πρός τε Προυσίαν̣
[κα]ὶ̣ Ὀρτιάγοντα καὶ τοὺς Γαλάτας καὶ τοὺς
[συ]μμάχους αὐτῶν ἐνίκησεν ἐνδόξως καὶ
[κ]αλῶς καὶ ὡς ἡμεῖς εὐχόμεθα τοῖς θεοῖς, ἀγα-
15 θῆι τύχῆι, δεδόχθαι τῆι πόλει καὶ τοῖς ἄρχου-
σιν ἐπὶ τοῖς γεγενημένοις ἀγαθοῖς εὔχεσ-
θαι μὲν τοὺς ἱερεῖς καὶ τὰς ἱερείας ἀν̣εωι̣γ̣-
μένων τῶν ἱερῶν πάντων καὶ ε̣ἰς τὸ̣ λοιπὸ̣ν̣ δ̣[ι]-
δόναι βασιλεῖ Εὐμένει νίκην καὶ κράτος καὶ
20 κατὰ γῆν καὶ κατὰ θάλασσαν καὶ τῆι μητρὶ
βασιλίσσηι Ἀπολλωνίδι καὶ τοῖς ἀδ̣ε̣λφ̣ο̣ῖς
αὐτοῦ, στεφανηφορῆσαι δὲ τοὺς πο̣λ̣ί̣τας
καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους ἅπαντας καὶ θύσαντας
χαριστήρια τοῖς θεοῖς εὐωχεῖσθαι ἐν τῆι
25 [ἐκκλησί]α̣ι̣(?), εἰς τὸ λοιπὸν δὲ καθ’ ἕκαστον μῆ̣-
[να θυόντω] οἱ ἄρχοντες τῆι προτέραι, ἐν ἧι νε-
[νίκηκεν ὁ βασιλ]ε̣ὺς, Διὶ Γενεθλίωι καὶ Ἀθηνᾶι Ν̣[ι]-
[κηφόρωι, ἧι καὶ ἀνιέρ]ωσαν ἄλσο̣ς̣ κ̣α̣ὶ̣ [τέμενος]
[ὅ τε βασιλεὺς Εὐμένης καὶ ὁ δῆμος τῶν Περγα]-
30 [μηνῶν — — —]
In the 14th year of the reign of Eumenes Sotēr, when... was priest... on the
second day of Audnaios, in the regular assembly. It was resolved by the po-
lis of the Telmessians and the archons... Dapara, Ermophantus. Since King
Eumenes, our saviour and euergetēs, who warred not only for those he rules,
but also for the other inhabitants of Asia, faced up the danger and (since) he,
who prayed to the gods and struggled against Prusias, Ortiagon, the Galatians
and their allies, won illustriously and gloriously, as we too prayed to the gods.
To good fortune. It shall be resolved by the polis and the archons. After all
temples have been opened, the priests and the priestesses shall pray for the pos-
itive events that occurred and for the future, that victory and power by land and
sea shall be given to King Eumenes, to his mother Queen Apollonis and to his
brothers. The citizens and all the others shall carry a crown and make sacrifices
to thank the gods and celebrate in the assembly. In the future, every month on
the day preceding that, in which the king won, the archons shall offer sacrifices
to Zeus Genethlios and to Athena Nikēphoros, to whom King Eumenes and the
people of the Pergamenes also dedicated a grove and a temenos...
The stone was found in Rhodes, where it was brought as ballast for ships
probably101. It preserves the decree voted by Telmessos, in Caria, for Eumenes
101
Clara Rhodos II, 172, 3, p. 172 n. 1.
180 ELOISA PAGANONI
II. The text, lacking the final part, opens with the indication of the 14th year
of Eumenes II’s reign, corresponding to 184 BC102. The dating formula could
have continued with the name of a priest in comparison with another decree
of Telmessos, voted in 240 BC103. Due to the scant number of Hellenistic
inscriptions from this city, it is uncertain whether this was a priest of a lo-
cal cult or of the Ptolemaic dynasty104. In light of Ptolemaic influence on the
city at various times in the Hellenistic era105, the first editor of the 240 BC
decree, Victor Bérard106, preferred the latter possibility. In support of this, it
is worth noting that the decree for Eumenes II was voted immediately after
the passage of Telemessos from the Ptolemies to the Attalids following the
settlement of Apamea107, that is, in a time in which Ptolemaic influence still
was strong. Another evidence of such an influence is in Line 3. Audonios was
the third month of the Macedonian calendar (the equivalent of December-
January), which also was the official calendar in Ptolemaic Egypt108.
The formula ἐ[κκλησίας κυρ]ί̣ας γενομένης (ll. 2-3: ‘in the regular as-
sembly’), following the dating formula, is attested in several cities, nearly
all from Asia Minor, in the 4th-3rd century BC, and supposedly indicated the
regular assembly109. Mario Segre110 noted that also the 240 BC decree was
passed on the second day of the month and argued that this was the fixed day
for the regular assembly. The enactment formula at the end of the prescript
(ll. 4-5) is similar to that of a decree from Araxa111, which mentions the peo-
ple and the archons (three in number)112.
Lines 5-14 recall that the honours were voted for Eumenes II’s victory
over Prusias I and the Galatians of Ortiagon. As the decree passed on De-
cember-January 184 BC, this victory occurred in the previous war season,
102
Cf. Clara Rhodos II, 172, 3, p. 173; SEGRE 1932, p. 447; VITUCCI 1953, p. 57; HABICHT 1956, p. 99;
ALLEN 1983, p. 79; RHODES – LEWIS 1997, p. 440; KOTSIDU 2000, p. 411; ARSLAN 2004, p. 99; THONEMANN
2013, p. 35. MUCCIOLI 2013, p. 107 dates it to 183 BC.
103
BÉRARD 1890, pp. 163-167 = OGIS 55.
104
Clara Rhodos II, 172, 3, p. 174.
105
On Telmessos in the Hellenistic age and Ptolemaic influence over the city, see WÖRRLE 1980; KLOSE
1999, pp. 621-623; MEADOWS 2006.
106
BÉRARD 1890, p. 165.
107
Polyb. XXI, 45, 10.
108
BÉRARD 1890, p. 165; Clara Rhodos II, 172, 3, p. 174; SEGRE 1932, p. 449.
109
According to ERRINGTON 1995, this kind of assembly required a quorum. Contra the remarks in BE
1996, 121. Cf. SEG 45 (1995) 2297.
110
SEGRE 1932, p. 449.
111
MAIURI 1925-1926, pp. 313-315 nr. 2 = Pouilloux, Choix 4.
112
While the decree from Araxa records the archons by name and patronymic, the drecee from Telmes-
sos records them by name only. Jacopi in Clara Rhodos II, 172, 3, p. 174 suggested to change the name of
the second archon Δαπάραι (l. 5) to Λαπάραι. Contra SEGRE 1932, p. 449.
in summer-autumn of the same year113. The war between Pergamum and

Bithynia that had broken out in 186-184 was occurring at that time114. The
conflict here mentioned is the only episode of this conflict to be dated ad an-
num. Eumenes II led his troops in battle115 and for this victory he took the ep-
ithet Sotēr, which is attested in this inscription for the first time (l. 1)116. The
motion formula (ll. 14-16) introduces the dispositions in honour of Eumenes
II, his mother Apollonis and his brothers117. Two of these latter played a role
in the war against Prusias I. Attalus defeated the Bithynian king in the battle
mentioned in a dedication to Zeus and Athena Nikēphoros118 and Athenaeus
was an ambassador in Rome119. The Telmessians instituted monthly celebra-
tions on the day before the victory of Eumenes II (ll. 22-31)120. The sacrifices
were for Athena, here with her traditional epithet Nikēphoros, and Zeus with
the epithet Genethlios that appears in this document for the first time and
refers to the divine descent of the Attalids121.
10. Dedication of Attalus (II) for the victory over the Bithynians and the
Galatians
White marble slab of a statue-base broken in several parts; found in the

gymnasion of Pergamum (inv. P 8). Dim.: 50,7 x 17 cm. Height of letters:
1,4 cm.
IvP I, 65; OGIS 298*
Late 180s BC?
1 [Ἄτ]ταλος βασι[λέως Ἀττάλου]

[Δ]ιὶ καὶ Ἀθηνᾶι Νικ[ηφόρωι]
113
See above p. 133.
114
On this war, see above pp. 129-138.
115
HABICHT 1957, coll. 1099-1100; HANSEN 1971, p. 99; VIRGILIO 1993, p. 53.
116
ROBERT 1934a, pp. 283-284 and p. 284 n. 1; ROBERT 1937, p. 73 n. 1; MAGIE 1950, pp. 764-765 n. 59;
HANSEN 1971, p. 99; ALLEN 1983, pp. 79, 101; ARSLAN 2004, p. 99; GABELKO 2005, p. 278; MUCCIOLI 2013,
pp. 107-108; contra DMITRIEV 1999, p. 406.
117
It is one of the latest pieces of evidence about Apollonis, who is supposed to die a few years later
(ALLEN 1983, pp. 150-151).
118
OGIS 298; see below Appendix nr. 10.
119
Polyb. XXIII, 3, 1-3.
120
In this sense, HABICHT 1956, p. 99; THONEMANN 2013, p. 36. Jacopi in Clara Rhodos II, 172, 3, p. 174
wrongly translates ‘il primo giorno di ogni mese, in cui il re aveva riportato la vittoria’.
121
SEGRE 1932, pp. 451-452; CHANIOTIS 2003, p. 436.
182 ELOISA PAGANONI
[ἀπ]ὸ [τῆς πρ]ὸ[ς Βιθ]υνοὺς κ[αὶ Γαλάτας]

[π]ερὶ τὸ Λύ[π]εδρον [μάχης].
Attalus son of King Attalus (dedicated the statue) to Zeus and Athena
Nikēphoros for the victory over the Bithynians and the Galatians in battle near
Lypedron.
The fragments composing this inscription were found in the gymna-

sion of Pergamum and were part of a statue base122. In spite of the bad
preservation, the readable letters suggest that this document is a dedication
of Attalus to Zeus and Athena Nikēphoros for a victory. Editors supply
the names of the enemies of Pergamum on the basis of the decree of Tel-
messos for Eumenes II mentioning an Attalid victory over Prusias I and
Ortiagon123. Accordingly, the dedication is connected with the 180s BC
Bithynian-Attalid war124 and the dedicator is identified with Eumenes II’s
brother Attalus, the future Attalus II. As being the dedicator, Attalus is
supposed to have led the Attalid army in battle125.
As restored, this document is peculiar. Differently from the decree
of Telmessos, it does not mention Prusias I, but only the Bithynians,
who are coupled with the Galatians. Michels notes that ‘hier wäre die
Bithynier wiederum als spezifische Gruppe beurteilt’ and he interprets
this as a possible hint at the ethnic/national character of the Bithynian
monarchy126. As with the royal title in Ziaelas’ letter127, the first com-
parison is in the epigraphic evidence related to Macedonia, the Hel-
lenistic national monarchy par excellance. In a few cases, it attests the
Macedonians along with king128, a choice that makes explicit that ‘the
Macedonian state was made up of king and people’129. But the situation
in the Attalid dedication is not perfectly overlapping. The omission of
Prusias’ name suggests that this document mirrors not the national char-
122
On dedications in the gymnasion in Hellenistic age, see AMELING 2004.
123
Clara Rhodos II, 172, 3; see above Appendix nr. 9; cf. MAGIE 1950, pp. 764-765 n. 59. Some
scholars (IvP I 65, p. 52; VITUCCI 1953, pp. 56-57; MAGIE 1950, pp. 314, 1196-1197 n. 39; DMITRIEV 2007,
p. 137) argue that the dedication and the Telmessian decree mention the same battle, but contra see the
convincing remarks in HABICHT 1957, coll. 1099-1100; HANSEN 1971, p. 99; VIRGILIO 1993, p. 53.
124
See above pp. 129-138. Contra FERNOUX 2004, p. 35 claims that the victory recorded in the dedication
was taken in the war between Attalus II and Prusias II.
125
IvP I 65, p. 52; OGIS 298, p. 467 n. 1; MCSHANE 1964, p. 160. About the supposed identification of
Lypedron with the Mt. Lyperos in Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 12, 5, see above pp. 41-42 n. 114.
126
MICHELS 2009, p. 59 n. 271.
127
See above, pp. 175-176.
128
E.g. Syll.3 518; cf. MOOREN 1983, pp. 217-218.
129
MOOREN 1983, p. 219.
acter of the Bithynian kingdom, but Attalid propaganda. The Bithynians

are matched with the Galatians here. In this way, their defeat is treated
with the same propagandistic value as the victories over the Galatians in
Attalid propaganda130.
Despite these suggestive remarks, the bad preservation of the inscrip-
tion, most of all in Lines 3-4, invites caution. Βιθ]υνοὺς is partly restored
and Γαλάτας is totally supplied. One cannot definitively rule out a different
restoration. Anyway, before attempting a new reading of the document,
an examination of the fragments is needed. It would allow to point out
neglected traces of letters and to determine the right distance of surviving
letters.
11. Fragment from Pergamum
Marble fragment found in the theatre of Pergamum (inv. III 109). Not
well-finished script. Height of letters: 3 cm.
IvP I, 56 E*
Hellenistic age
1 [βασιλεὺς — — — — — — — — —]
[ἀπὸ τῆς π]ρὸς Πρ[ουσίαν — —]
King... from the... against Prusias...
Under number 56, Max Fränkel, the editor of Die Inschriften von Per-
gamum, published ten fragments found in the area of the theatre between
1883 and 1884 and supposedly belonging to dedications. Fragment E pre-
serves only five letters that the editor restored with π]ρὸς Πρ[ουσίαν. He
supposed that this fragment was pertinent to a dedication of an Attalid king
for a victory over either Prusias I or Prusias II; accordingly the dedication
should be connected with one of the Attalid-Bithynian wars131.
130
Cf. above p. 135 n. 228.
131
IvP I, 56 E, p. 45. On the 180s BC war, see above pp. 129-138; on the 150s BC one, see the references
on p. 161 n. 23.
184 ELOISA PAGANONI
12. Dedication of Nicomedes II to Apama
White marble stele with a tympanum in the upper edge; found in the Pi-
raeus; now in the Museum of the Piraeus. Dim.: 72 x 34,3 x 9 cm.
WILHELM 1908, p. 75; IG II-III2, 3, 1, 3172*; IK Apameia und Pylai T 12, p. 89 (SEG
37 [1987] 136); RIGSBY 1996 nr. 230
149- BC
1 βασιλεὺς Ἐπιφανὴς Νικο-

μήδης βασιλέως Πρου-
σίου θεᾶι βασιλίσσηι
Ἀπάμηι τῆι ἑαυτοῦ μη-
5 τρὶ τὸ ἱερὸν ἄσυλον.
King Nicomedes Epiphanēs son of King Prusias (dedicates) the inviolable

sanctuary to the divine queen Apama, his mother.
The stele was found in the Piraeus and is now in the local museum. It
preserves Nicomedes II’s dedication of a sanctuary to his mother Apama.
The mention of this king dates the document within the limits of his reign
(149-127 BC), but no evidence allows us to establish a closer date132. The
inscription is one of the two attestations of a holy place, which was de-
clared asylon when it was created, along with a dedication of Cleopatra
VII and Caesarion133.
The dedication was probably set in Bithynia originally. The first editor Wil-
helm noted that places of worship dedicated to female exponents of Hellenistic
dynasties were usually dear to the dedicatees and concluded: ‘die Möglicheit,
dass der Stein von einem Orte der Küste Bithyniens oder benachberten Gestaden
nach dem Piräus verschleppt wurde, ist umsoweniger zu bestreiten’134.
132
WILHELM 1908, pp. 75-78; IG II-III2, 3, 1, 3172, p. 73; IK Apameia und Pylai T 12, p. 89; HANNESTAD
1996, p. 84. WILHELM 1908, pp. 75-78 and Kirchner in IG II-III2, 3, 1, 3172, p. 73 supposed that Nicomedes
II ruled until 120 BC.
133
OGIS 129 = RIGSBY 1996, pp. 572-573 nr. 228. Cf. RIGSBY 1996, p. 588.
134
WILHELM 1908, pp. 81-82, followed by IG II-III2, 3, 1, 3172, p. 73; HANNESTAD 1996, p. 84; RIGSBY
1996, p. 588; MUCCIOLI 2013, p. 130 n. 505.
13. Boundary stones from Aizanoi
Marble boundary stone found near the temple of Zeus in Aizanoi (today
Çavdarhisar). Now lost?
JACOPI 1938, p. 44; AnnÉp (1940) nr. 44; BROUGHTON 1951, p. 238 (ll. 1-6); LAFFI
1971, pp. 10-11, E nrr. 1-2; BRINGMANN – VON STEUBEN 1995, nr. 253 [E]; DIGNAS
2002, p. 85 (ll. 1-6); MAMA IX, pp. 5-6, P5*; KEARSLEY 2001, nr. 166 b
129 AD
1 Imp(erator) Caesar Traianus Hadrianus

Aug(ustus) p(ater)
̣ p(atriae)
̣ co(n)s(ul) III trib(unicia) pot(estate) XIII
[fines Iovi c[on]-
[di]tori et civitati Aezanitorum datos
[a]b Attalo et Prusia regibus restitu-
5 [it mensuris actis a] Septimio Sat-
urnino primipilare, sicut Prusi-
as rex egerat.
Αὐτοκρ[άτωρ Καῖσαρ] Τραιανὸς Ἁδρ

[ια]νὸς Σεβαστός [πάτηρ πατρ]ίδος
10 [ὕ]πατος [τὸ γ̅, δημαρχι]κῆς ἐξ]ουσ-
[ίας τ]ὸ ιγ̅ [χώρας Διὶ κτίστῃ καὶ] πό-
[λει] Αἰζ[ανιτῶν δοθεί]σ̣ας ὑπὸ Ἀτ-
[τάλου καὶ Προυσίου] βασιλέων ἀ-
[ποκατέστησεν μετροῦ]ντος [Σεπτι]-
15 [μίου Σατουρνείνου] πρειμιπι-
λαρίου καθὼς Πρου]σίς
βασιλεὺς [ἤρξ]α̣το.
2-3 c[re|a?]tori Jacopi: (G)[e|ni]tori Laffi || 4-5 restitu|[e]bam cura agente Ja-
copi; Laffi || 11 […] πό- Jacopi : [χώρας Διὶ Γενέτορι καὶ] Broughton, Laffi ||
13-14 ἀ|[ποκατέστησεν ἐπιμεληθή]ντος Jacopi : ἀ|[ποκατέστησα ἐπιμεληθέ]
ντος Laffi || 17 βασιλεὺς [...]ιτο Jacopi: βασιλεὺς [κατεστήσ](α)το Laffi
Emperor Caesar Trajan Hadrian Augustus, father of the fatherland, in the third
consulship, in the 13th tribunicia potestas, restored the boundaries (of the land)
that was given by Kings Attalus and Prusias to Zeus Conditor and to the city
of the Aizanites. Septimius Saturninus, primipilaris, carried out the measure-
ment, as King Prusias had established.
***
186 ELOISA PAGANONI
Greyish marble boundary stone broken on the left side; found in a private
house in the village of Sopu Köy; in situ. Dim.: 129 x 47 x 28,5 cm. Height
of letters: 2,75 cm.
MAMA IX, 8*; AnnÉp (1989) 202; BOWERSOCK 1991, p. 224 (ll. 4-5); BRINGMANN –
VON STEUBEN 1995, nr. 253 [E]; KEARSLEY 2001, nr. 166 a
129 AD
1 [Imp(erator) Caesar Traianus Hadrianus] Aug(ustus) p (ater ̣

[p(atriae),
̣
[co(n)s(ul) III, trib(unicia) pot(estate) XIII fines Iovi co]ndito[ri]
[et civitati Aezanitorum dato]s aḅ Ạ[ttalo]
[et Prusia regibus restituit] mens[uris]
5 [actis a Septimio Saturni]no primipila-
[ri, sicut Prusias rex egerat].
7 [Αὐτοκράτωρ Καῖσαρ Τρ]α̣ι̣ανὸς Ἁδρια-

[νὸς Σεβαστός, πάτηρ] πατρίδος, ὕπα-
[τος τὸ γ̅, δημαρχικῆς ἐξ]ουσίας τὸ ιγ̅,
10 [χώρας Διὶ κτίστῃ καὶ π]όλει Αἰζανι-
[τῶν δοθείσας ὑπὸ Ἀτ]τάλου καὶ Πρου-
[σίου βασιλέων ἀποκ]ατ̣έ̣σ̣τ̣ησεν με-
[τροῦντος Σεπτι]μίου Σατουρνεί-
[νου πρειμιπιλαρίου κ]α̣θ̣ὼ̣ς Πρ̣ο̣υ̣σ̣ί̣α̣ς̣
[βασιλεὺς ἤρξατο].
4-5 mens[uris | agente] Bowersock, Kearsley
Emperor Caesar Trajan Hadrian Augustus, father of the fatherland, in the third
consulship, in the 13th tribunicia potestas, restored the boundaries (of the land)
that was given by Kings Attalus and Prusias to Zeus Conditor and to the city
of the Aizanites. Septimius Saturninus, primipilaris, carried out the measure-
ment, as King Prusias had established.
***
Bluish marble boundary stone broken on the upper edge; found in the wall
of a cemetery near the village of Hacɪ Kebir; in situ. Evenly cut letters.
Height of letters: 3,5 cm.
MAMA IX, 9*; BRINGMANN – VON STEUBEN 1995, nr. 253 [E]
129 AD
1 [— — —]
[ὑπὸ Ἀττάλου καὶ Προ]υ̣σίου
[β]ασιλέων [ἀποκατέστησε] μ̣ε-
τ̣ροῦντος Σ[επτιμί]ου Σατουρ-
5 νείνου πρειμ̣[ι]πιλ̣α̣ρ̣[ί]ου καθὼ[ς]
καὶ Προυσίας βασιλεὺς ἤρξατο.
...restored... by Kings Attalus and Prusias... Septimius Saturninus, primipila-

ris, carried out the measurement, as King Prusias had established.
These three boundary stones (cippi) were found in the area of Aiza-
noi (modern day Çavdarhisar) in Phrygia Epiktētos at different times. The
best-preserved ones hand down a text in Latin and Greek, which dates to
129 AD according to the references to Hadrian’s offices. The third cippus
likely reported the same text, but only the last lines of the Greek text still
are readable. The first boundary stone (MAMA IX, P5) was discovered by
Giulio Jacopi near the temple of Zeus in Aizanoi. It was re-edited by Um-
berto Laffi, who did not find the stone during his survey in the archeologi-
cal area135. The two other boundary stones were found re-used as building
material in villages near the ancient Aizanoi. They were first published in
the Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiqua IX in 1988. The editors restored
them on comparison of the stone published by Jacopi, and re-edited this
one in light of the new documents.
The boundary stones preserve Hadrian’s disposition in a controversy
about the lands of the sanctuary of Zeus in Aizanoi (MAMA IX, 8, l. 2:
fines, l. 10: χώρας) donated by Attalus and Prusias. The emperor restored
the boundaries according to the decisions of the latter and the primipilaris
Septimius Saturninus executed his orders. The dispute is known from an
epigraphic dossier of four inscriptions, engraved on an anta of the temple
of Zeus136. It began in 125 AD (the date of the earliest document in the wall
archive) and concluded in 129 AD (date of the cippi, which prove the end of
the controversy). The dispute was caused by a new tax (MAMA IX, p. xxxvii,
B, l. 7: vectigal) on the land donated a regibus (MAMA IX, p. xxxvii, B, l.
4) to the sanctuary, because it was impossible to determine the extension of
135
LAFFI 1971, p. 8.
136
These inscriptions are collected in LAFFI 1971, pp. 9-11 A-D; MAMA IX, pp. xxxvi-xxxvii, A-D.
About this controversy, as well as the commentary by the editors of the dossier, see JACOPI 1938, pp. 44-48;
BROUGHTON 1951, pp. 239-247; BOFFO 1985, p. 105; DIGNAS 2002, pp. 84-85.
188 ELOISA PAGANONI
each plot of land (MAMA IX, p. xxxvii, A, l. 14: κλήρου, MAMA IX, p. xxx-
vii, B, l. 3: particulas), according to which the tax would have been fixed.
The discovery of the boundary stones allowed to identify the reges who
donated the land with a king of Pergamum and a king of Bithynia137. Since
they could donate land to the temple, it follows that the land was under
their control138. Phrygia Epiktētos, the region where the sanctuary lay,
was in Bithynian hands only during the reign of Prusias I. Thus, he is the
Bithynian king mentioned in the best-preserved cippi139. As for the king of
Pergamum, he is supposed to have lived before Prusias I because in territo-
rial disputes it was common usage to restore the later intervention. Attalus
in these inscriptions was, therefore, Attalus I140.
Aside from the contribution of these inscriptions to the understanding
of the Bithynian-Attalid dispute over Phrygia Epiktētos141, other questions
about the donations by Attalus I and Prusias I are worthy of consideration,
such as the juridical status of lands and the character of the kings’ interven-
tion in favour of the temple of Zeus. The investigation about them, however,
needs to be careful. It is, in fact, to research about the Hellenistic situation on
the ground of evidence from the Imperial age. Many scholars142 think that the
kings not only gave the lands but also appointed them to military colonists
(klērouchoi) since the documents speak of klēroi. The word klēros was rare
in the Imperial age but common in the Hellenistic one. It pointed out a plot
of land assigned to a colonist originally. In the inscriptions concerning the
controversy yet, it corresponds to the Latin word particulas. It was used as a
‘unit of measure’ to point out the single plot143. This suggests that in Imperial
age klēros had acquired a more general meaning.
Regardless of this, one could wonder whether the settlement of a mili-
tary klērouchia would have been possible in theory. The answer could be
137
JACOPI 1938, p. 48. But WEBER 1969, p. 186 still considered unknown the kings mentioned in the wall
archive. For the contribution of these cippi to our understanding of the relationships between Hellenistic
kings and sanctuaries, see BROUGHTON 1951, pp. 236-237; LAFFI 1971, pp. 20-21; BOFFO 1985, p. 105.
138
LAFFI 1971, p. 21; MAMA IX, p. xl; cf. MAGIE 1950, p. 1018 n. 64.
139
JACOPI 1938, p. 48; BROUGHTON 1951, p. 248; HABICHT 1956, p. 93 n. 2; LAFFI 1971, p. 19; MAMA
IX, p. xli.
140
JACOPI 1938, p. 48; BROUGHTON 1951, pp. 240, 247-248; MAMA IX, p. xli. On the identity of the
donors, cf. HABICHT 1956, pp. 92-93; BOFFO 1985, pp. 106-111 passim; DIGNAS 2002, p. 85.
141
See above, pp.
142
BROUGHTON 1951, esp. p. 241; LAFFI 1971, pp. 25, 27, 29; BOFFO 1985, pp. 106-107; MAMA IX, pp.
xl-xli; BRINGMAN – VON STEUBEN 1995, p. 290.
143
BROUGHTON 1951, pp. 241-242; LAFFI 1971, pp. 37-40; LIEBESCHUETZ 1972, p. 149; DIGNAS 2002,
p. 90 n. 211. DIGNAS 2002, pp. 91-92 notes that the settlements of military colonists by rival kings in the
timespan of a few years would have caused trouble.
positive if the information on the cippi could be more certain, i.e., Attalus
I and Prusias I donated the land to the temple and to the ‘city of Aizanoi’
(MAMA IX, 8, ll. 3, 10)144. Yet, no ‘city of Aizanites’ seems have existed
at the time of the donations. From the 3rd millennium, the site was used
for the worship of the indigenous goddess Meter Steunene. Afterwards,
at an indeterminable moment, the cult of Zeus developed beside the local
one145. In the second half of the 1st century BC, Aizanoi started minting its
own coinage146. Under Domitian147 or Hadrian148, the temple of Zeus was
(re)built in the form known to us from archaeological excavations149 and
polis and temple constituted a single entity. It is impossible to determine
when the city of Aizanoi was established, but no evidence suggests that a
complete city was already existing at the time of Attalus I and Prusias I150.
Again, it is unlikely that the sanctuary would have accepted the settlement
of a military klērouchia on land de facto holy (as belonging to the god),
even by the kings who donated it. On these grounds, we may affirm that
Attalus I and Prusias I gave some land to the sanctuary of Zeus (the only
existing institution at their time), but we can draw no conclusion on the
partition and assignment of them or the status of the appointees151.
144
In this sense LAFFI 1971, p. 22 and BOFFO 1985, p. 110, who claims that ‘il riferimento nel cippo
adrianeo… poteva definire in termini più pertinenti alla sitauzione dell’età romana una sitauzione ellenisti-
ca che vedeva associati, nella conduzione della vita locale, il centro di culto e l’insediamento, non ancora
«città» collocto nei pressi’.
145
BOFFO 1985, pp. 107-109; MAMA IX, pp. xxxiii-xxxv.
146
BMC Phrygia, p. 23. Previously Aizanoi might have minted the coins with the legend EPIKTHTEΙΣ,
that probably began being produced after the end of the kingdom of Pergamum (BMC Phrygia, p. 200; cf.
MAMA IX, p. xxiii; DIGNAS 2002, p. 86).
147
POSAMENTIR – WÖRRLE 2006; cf. VON HESBERG 2009, p. 23.
148
NAUMANN 1979, p. 10; MAMA IX, p. xxiv; cf. BOFFO 1985, p. 109.
149
See WEBER 1969, pp. 193-202; NAUMANN 1979; KLOSE 1999, pp. 447-452; POSAMENTIR – WÖRRLE
2006; NIEWÖHNER 2007.
150
MAMA IX, p. xxiii, recogning that ‘the word polis may be anachronistic’; DIGNAS 2002, pp. 87-89.
151
Cf. DIGNAS 2002, pp. 90-91 and LEVICK 2007, p. 109.
ABBREVIATIONS
Abbreviations of journals titles are those used in L’Année philologique
AnnÉp Année épigraphique.

ANRW Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt, Berlin – New York
1972-1996.
ATL B. D. Meritt – H. T. Wade-Gery – M. F. McGregor (eds.), The
Athenian Tribute Lists, 4 vols., Cambridge (Mass.) 1939-1953.
BE Bulletin épigraphique.
Bekker Anecdota I. Bekker (ed.), Anecdota graeca, 3 vols., Graz 1814-1821.
BMC Bithynia W. Wroth (ed.), A Catalogue of the Greek Coins in the British
Museum. Pontus, Paphlagonia Bithynia, and the Kingdom of
Bosporus, London 1889.
BMC Prhygia B. V. Head (ed.), A Catalogue of the Greek Coins in the British
Museum. Phrygia, London 1906.
BNJ I. Worthington (ed.), Brill’s New Jacoby.
CAH Cambridge Ancient History.
CIG A. Boeck et al. (edd.) Corpus inscriptionum graecarum, 4 vols.,
Berolini 1877-1878.
Clara Rhodos II A. Maiuri – G. Jacopi (a cura di), Clara Rhodos. Studi e materiali
pubblicati a cura dell’Istituto storico-archeologico di Rodi, vol.
II, Rodi 1932.
DKP Der kleine Pauly, Stuttgart – München 1964-1975.
DNP Der neue Pauly, Stuttgart – Weimar 1996-2002.
Dürrbach, Choix F. Dürrbach, Choix d’inscriptions de Délos avec traduction et
commentaire, Paris 1921.
EAH R. S. Bagnall et al. (eds.), The Encyclopedia of Ancient History,
Malden 2013.
FD III 4 G. Colin (éd.), Fouilles de Delphes. Tome III. Épigraphie.
Fascicule IV. Inscriptions de la terrasse du temple et de la région
nord du sanctuaire. Nos 1 à 86. Monuments des Messéniens, de
Paul-Émile et de Prusias, Paris 1930.
FGrHist F. Jacoby (Hrsg.), Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker,
Leiden 1923-1972.
FGrHistCont G. Schepens – J. Bollansée – J. Radicke (eds.), Die Fragmente
192 ELOISA PAGANONI
der Griechischen Historiker Continued, Leiden – Boston – Köln

1998-to the present day.
Hellenica L. Robert, Hellenica. Recueil d’épigraphie, de numismatique et
d’antiquités classique, 13 vols., Limoges – Paris 1940-1965.
I.Aph2007 J. Reynolds – C. Roueché – G. Bodard (eds.), Inscriptions of
Aphrodisias, <http://insaph.kcl.ac.uk/iaph2007/>.
I.Callatis A. Avram (éd.), Inscriptions greques et latines de Scythie Mineure.
Deuxème série. Volume III. Callatis et son Territoire, Bucarest –
Paris 1999.
IC II M. Guarducci (ed.), Inscriptiones Creticae opera et consilio Friderici
Halbherr collectae. II. Tituli Cretae occidentalis, Roma 1939.
I.Didyma A. Rehm – R. Harder (Hrsgg.), Didyma. Zweiter Teil. Die
Inschriften, Berlin 1958.
ID P. Roussel et al. (édd.), Inscriptions de Délos, Paris 1926-1937.
IG II-III2, 3 J. Kirchner (ed.), Inscriptiones Graecae II et III. Inscriptiones
Atticae Euclidis anno posteriores. Pars III. Dedicationes. Tituli
honorarii. Tituli sacri. Tituli sepulcrales, Berlin 1934-1940.
IG XII, 4 D. Bosnakis – K. Hallof – K. Rigsby (edd.), Inscriptiones Graecae,
XII. Inscriptiones insularum maris Aegaei praeter Delum, Pars
IV. Inscriptiones Coi, Calymnae, Insularum Milesiarum, Berlin –
New York 2010-2012.
IK Apameia T. Corsten (Hrsg.), Die Inschriften von Apameia (Bithynien) und
und Pylai Pylai (Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 32), Bonn
1987.
IK estremo oriente F. Canali de Rossi (ed.), Iscrizioni dello estremo oriente greco.
Un repertorio (Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 65),
Bonn 2004.
IK Iasos W. Blümel (Hrsg.), Die Inschriften von Iasos (Inschriften
griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 28), Bonn 1985.
IK Ilion P. Frisch (Hrsg.), Die Inschriften von Ilion (Inschriften griechischer
Städte aus Kleinasien 3), Bonn 1975
IK Kalchedon R. Merkelbach – F. K. Dörner – S. Şahin (Hrsgg.), Die Inschriften
von Kalchedon (Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien
20), Bonn 1980.
IK Kios T. Corsten (Hrsg.), Die Inschriften von Kios (Inschriften griechischer
Städte aus Kleinasien 29), Bonn 1985.
IK Klaudiu Polis F. Becker-Bertau (Hrsg.), Inschriften von Klaudiu Polis (Inschriften
IK Magnesia T. Ihnken (Hrsg.), Die Inschriften von Magniesia am Sipylos
am Sipylos (Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 8), Bonn 1978.
IK Nikaia S. Şahin (Hrsg.), Katalog der antiken Inschriften des Museums
ABBREVIATIONS 193
von Iznik (Nikaia) (Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien

9-10), 2 vols., Bonn 1979-1987.
IK Priene W. Blümel – R. Merkelbach (Hrsgg.) Die Inschriften von Priene
(Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 69), 2 vols., Bonn
2014.
IK Prusa T. Corsten (Hrsg.), Die Inschriften von Prusa ad Olympum,
ad Olympum (Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 39-40), 2 vols.,
Bonn 1991.
IK Prusias W. Ameling (Hrsg.), Die Inschriften von Prusias ad Hypium
ad Hypium (Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 27), Bonn 1985.
IK Sultan Daği I L. Jonnes (Hrsg.), The Inscriptions of the Sultan Daği I (Inschriften
IvP I M. Fränkel (Hrsg.), Die Inschriften von Pergamon. I. Bis zum
Ende der Königszeit (Altertümer von Pergamon VIII, 1), Berlin
1890.
Kassel – Austin, C. Austin – R. Kassel (edd.), Poetae Comici Graeci, 8 vols., Berlin
PCG – Boston 1983-1998.
Kock, CAF T. Kock (ed.), Comicorum Atticorum Fragmenta, Leipzig 1880-
1889.
LGPN V.A T. Corsten (ed.), A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names. Volume V
A. Costal Asia Minor: Pontus to Ionia, Oxford 2010.
LSJ H. G. Liddlel – R. Scott – H. S. Jones (eds.), A Greek English
Lexicon, Oxford 19969.
MAMA IX B. Levick – S. Mitchell – J. Potter – M. Waelkens (eds.),
Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiqua. Vol. IX. Monuments from the
Aezanitis, London 1988.
McCabe, Didyma D. F. McCabe (ed.), Didyma Inscriptions. Texts and List, Princeton
1985 <https://epigraphy.packhum.org/book/489?location=14>.
McCabe, D. F. McCabe (ed.), Aphrodisias Inscriptions. Texts and List,
Aphrodisias Princeton 1996 <https://epigraphy.packhum.org/book/484?location
=14>.
Müller FGH K. Müller (ed.), Fragmenta historicorum graecorum, 4 vols., Paris
1841-1879.
Müller, GGM K. Müller (ed.), Geographi graeci minores, 3 vols., Hildescheim
1965.
OGIS W. Dittenberger (ed.), Orientis graeci inscriptiones selectae, 2
vols., Lipsiae 1903-1905.
OnomThrac D. Dana, Onomasticon Thracicum. Répertoire des noms indigènes
de Thrace, Macédoine orientale, Mésies. Dacie et Bithynie
(Meletemata 70), Athènes 2014.
Pouilloux, Choix J. Pouilloux (éd.), Choix d’inscriptions grecques. Textes,
traductions et notes, Paris 1960.
194 ELOISA PAGANONI
RC C. B. Welles, Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic Period. A

Study in Greek Epigraphy, New Haven 1934.
RE Suppl. Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft.
Supplement, Stuttgart 1903-1962.
RE Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft,
Stuttgart – Weimar 1893-1972.
Reynolds, A&R J. Reynolds, Aphrodisias and Rome, London 1982.
SEG Supplementum Epigraficum Graecum.
StV III H. Schmitt (Hrsg.), Die Staatsverträge des Altertums. Teil III. Die
Verträge der griechisch-römischen Welt von 338 bis 200 v. Chr.,
München 1969.
Syll.3 W. Dittenberger (ed.), Sylloge inscriptionum graecarum, 4 vols.,
Lipsiae 1915-19243.
TAM IV, 1 F. K. Dörner (ed.), Tituli Asiae Minoris. Volumen IV. Tituli
Bithyniae linguis graeca et latina conscripti. Fasciculus I.
Paeninsula bithynica praeter Calchedonem. Nicomedia et ager
nicomediensis cum septemtrionali meridianoque litore sinus
astaceni et cum lacu sumonensi, Vindobonae 1978.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ADAM 1982 R. Adam (éd.), Tite-Live. Histoire Romaine. Tome XXVIII. Livre
XXXVIII, Paris 1982.
AGER 2012 S. L. Ager, The Alleged Rapprochement between Achaios and
Attalos I in 220 BC, «Historia» 61 (2012), pp. 421-429.
ALLEN 1983 R. E. Allen, The Attalid Kingdom. A Constitutional History,
Oxford 1983.
AMELING 2004 W. Ameling, Wohltäter im hellenistischen Gymnasion, in D.
Kah – P. Scholz (Hrsgg.), Das hellenistische Gymnasion, Berlin
2004, pp. 129-161.
ANDREAE 2001 B. Andreae, Skulptur des Hellenismus, München 2001.
ANEZIRI – DAMASKOS S. Aneziri – D. Damaskos, Städtische Kulte im hellenistischen
2004 Gymnasion, in D. Kah – P. Scholz (Hrsgg.), Das hellenistische
Gymnasion, Berlin 2004, pp. 247-271.
ANGELUCCI 2014 M. Angelucci, Reiseliteratur im Altertum: die Periegesis in
hellenistischer Zeit, in E. Olshausen – V. Sauer (Hrsgg.),
Mobilität in den Kulturen der antiken Mittelmeerwelt. Stuttgarter
Kolloquium zur Historischen Geographie des Altertums 11,
2011 (Geographica historica 31), Stuttgart 2014, pp. 11-23.
ARCHIBALD 1998 Z. H. Archibald, The Odrysian Kingdom of Thrace. Orpheus
Unmasked, Oxford 1998.
ARCHIBALD 2007 Z. H. Archibald, Contacts between the Ptolemaic Kingdom and
the Black Sea in the Early Hellenistic Age, in V. Gabrielsen
– J. Lund (eds.), The Black Sea in Antiquity. Regional and
Interregional Economic Exchanges (Black Sea Studies 6),
Aarhus 2007, pp. 253-272.
ARCHIBALD 2015 Z. Archibald, Social Life of the Thracians, in J. Valeva – E.
Nankov – D. Graninger (eds.), A Companion to Ancient Thrace,
Malden – Oxford 2015, pp. 385-398.
ARSLAN 2004 M. Arslan, Galater. Die vergessen Kelten, Scheidegg 2004.
ARSLAN 2011 M. Arslan, Küçük Asya Yerel Historiograflarına bir Örnek:
Herakleia Pontike’li Memnon ve Eseri, «OLBA» 19 (2011), pp.
383-405.
ARSLAN 2011a M. Arslan, Alkibiades’in Khalkedon ve Byzantion Kuşatması:
Nedenleri ve Sonuçları, in H. Şahin – E. Konyar – G. Ergin
(eds.), Özsait Armağanı. Mehmet ve Nesrin onuruna sunulan
makaleler, Antalya 2011, pp. 9-22.
196 ELOISA PAGANONI
ASHERI 1978 D. Asheri, On the “Holy Family” of Astakos, in S. Șahin – E.

Schwertheim – J. Wagner (Hrsgg.), Studien zur Religion und
Kultur Kleinasiens. Festschrift für Friedrich Karl Dörner zum 65.
Geburtstag, am 28 Februar 1976, vol. I, Leiden 1978, pp. 93-98.
ASHERI 1983 D. Asheri, Fra ellenismo e Iranismo. Studi sulla società e la
cultura di Xanthos nella età achemenide, Bologna 1983.
ASHERI 2005 D. Asheri (a cura di), Erodoto. Le Storie. Volume III. Libro III.
La Persia, Milano 20054.
ASHLEY 1998 J. R. Ashley, The Macedonian Empire. The Era of Warfare
under Philip II and Alexander the Great 359-323 B.C., Jefferson
– London 1998.
ATASOY 2012 S. Atasoy, New Exploration of the Southern Black Sea Coast:
Filyos – Tios, in G. R. Tsetskhladze (ed.), The Black Sea,
Paphlagonia, Pontus and Phrygia in Antiquity. Aspects of
Archaeology and Ancient History (BAR International Series
2432), Oxford 2012, pp. 29-33.
ATASOY 2013 S. Atasoy, New Exploration of the Turkish Black Sea Coast:
Filyos/Tios, in G. R. Tsetskhladze – S. Atasoy – A. Avram – Ș.
Dönmez – J. Hargrave (eds.), The Bosporus: Gateway between
the Ancient West and East (1st Millennium BC-5th Century AD)
(BAR International Series 2517), Oxford 2013, pp. 373-378.
ATASOY – YILDIRM S. Atasoy – Ș. Yildirm (eds.), Zonguldak’ta Bir Antik Kent: Tios.
2015 2006–2012 Arkeolojik Çalışmaları ve Genel Değerlendirme,
Ankara 2015.
AVRAM 2003 A. Avram, Antiochos II Théos, Ptolémée II Philadelphe et la
mer Noire, CRAI 147 (2003), pp. 1181-1213.
AVRAM 2004 A. Avram, The Propontic Coast of Asia Minor, in M. H. Hansen
– T. H. Nielsen (eds.), An Inventory of Archaic and Classical
Poleis, Oxford – New York 2004, pp. 974-999.
AVRAM 2013 A. Avram, Les Bithyniens en Thrace, en Mésie inférieure et
dans le Pont Nord à l’Epoque impériale, in H. Bru – G. Labarre
(édd.), L’Anatolie des peuples, des cités et des cultures (IIe
millénaire av. J.-C.-Ve siècle ap. J.-C.), vol. I, Besançon 2013,
pp. 111-132.
AVRAM – HIND – A. Avram – J. Hind – G. Tsetskhladze, The Black Sea Area, in
TSETSKHLADZE 2004 M. H. Hansen – T. H. Nielsen (eds.), An Inventory of Archaic
and Classical Poleis, Oxford – New York 2004, pp. 924-973.
AYDINGÜN 2015 S. Aydingün, Archaeological Findings of Thracian/Phrygian
Tribes Crossing of Bosporus. ITA Istanbul Prehistoric Research
Project, in S. Fazullin - M. M. Antika (eds.), Proceedings of the
17th Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology (SOMA 2013),
Oxford 2015, pp. 24-33.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 197
AYMARD 1948 A. Aymard, Le protocole royal grec et son évolution, REA 50

(1948), pp. 232-263.
BADIAN 1961 E. Badian, Harpalus, JHS 81 (1961), pp. 16-43.
BADOUD 2014 N. Badoud, Rhodes et les Cyclades à l’époque hellénistique, in
G. Bonnin – E. Le Quéré (édd.), Pouvoirs, îles et mer. Formes et
modalités de l’hégémonie dans les Cyclades antiques (VIIe s. a.C.-
IIIe s. p.C.) (Scripta Antiqua 64), Bordeaux 2014, pp. 115-129.
BALAKHVANTSEV A. S. Balakhvantsev, Новый‘ рескрипт Зиела Вифинского,
2011 VDI 276 (2011), pp.74-92.
BALLESTEROS PASTOR L. Ballesteros Pastor, Mitrídates Eupátor, rey del Ponto,
1996 Granada 1996.
BALLESTEROS PASTOR L. Ballesteros Pastor, Pharnaces of Pontus and the Kingdom of
2000-2001 Pergamum, «Talanta» 22-23 (2000-2001), pp. 61-66.
BARAT 2012 C. Barat, Relations et solidarités entre les cités grecques de
la côte sud de la mer Noire (VIIe-IIIe siècles av. J.-C.), in L.
Martinez-Sève (éd.), Les diasporas grecques du VIIIe à la fin du
IIIe siècle av. J-C., «Pallas» 89 (2012), pp. 217-244.
BARAT 2013 C. Barat, La Paphlagonie: histoire et peuplement, in H. Bru – G.
Labarre (éds), L’Anatolie des peuples, des cités et des cultures
(IIe millénaire av. J.-C.-Ve siècle ap. J.-C.), vol. I, Besançon
2013, pp. 151-166.
BARAY 2017 L. Baray, Celtes, Galates et Gaulois, mercenaires de l’Antiquité.
Représentation, recrutement, organisation, Paris 2017.
BAR-KOCHVA 1974 B. Bar-Kochva, Menas’ Inscription and Curupedion, «Scripta
Classica Israelica» 1 (1974), pp. 14-23.
BASCH 1985 L. Basch, The Isis of Ptolemy II Philadelphos, «The Mariner’s
Mirror» 71.2 (1985), pp. 129-151.
BATTISTINI 2004 O. Battistini, Calas, in O. Battistini – P Charvet (édd.), Alexandre
le Grand. histoire et dictionnaire, Paris 2004, p. 608.
BATTISTINI 2004a O. Battistini, Demarchos, in O. Battistini – P. Charvet (édd.),
Alexandre le Grand. histoire et dictionnaire, Paris 2004, p. 668.
BEKKER-NIELSEN T. Bekker-Nielsen, Urban Life and Local Politics in Roman
2008 Bithynia. The Small World of Dion Chrysostomos (Black Sea
Studies 7), Aarhus 2008.
BEKKER-NIELSEN T. Bekker-Nielsen, To Be or not to Be Paphlagonian? A Question
2014 of Identity, in T. Bekker – Nielsen (ed.), Space, Place and
Identity in Northern Anatolia (Geographica Historica 29),
Stuttgart 2014, pp. 63-74.
BELFIORE 2009 S. Belfiore, Il Periplo del Ponto Eusino di Arriano e altri testi
sul Mar Nero e il Bosforo. Spazio geografico, mito e dominio ai
confini dell’Impero Romano, Venezia 2009.
BELLONI 2000 L. Belloni (a cura di), Erodoto. Il regno di Creso, Venezia 2000.
198 ELOISA PAGANONI
BELOCH 1922 J. Beloch, Griechische Geschichte. Dritter Band. Bis auf

Aristoteles und die Eroberung Asiens. Erste Abteilung, Berlin –
Leipzig 19222.
BELOCH 1925 K. J. Beloch, Griechische Geschichte. Vierter Band. Die griechi-
sche Weltherrschaft. Erste Abteilung, Berlin – Leipzig 19252.
BELOCH 1927 J. Beloch, Griechische Geschichte. Vierter Band. Die griechische
Weltherrschaft. Zweite Abteilung, Berlin – Leipzig 19272.
BELTRAME 2015 F. Beltrame, La satrapia di Daskyleion: i Persiani e gli altri,
«Simblos» 6 (2015), pp. 63-83.
BENGTSON 1944 H. Bengtson, Die Strategie in der hellenistischen Zeit. Ein
Beitrag zum antiken Staatsrecht. Zweiter Band (Münicher
Beiträge zur Papyrusforschung und antiken Rechtgeschichte
32), Münich 1944.
BENGTSON 1955 H. Bengtson, Randbemerkungen zu den koischen Asylieurkunden,
«Historia» 3 (1955), pp. 456-463.
BENGTSON 1987 H. Bengtson, Die Diadochen. Die Nachfolger Alexander des
Grossen (323-281 v. Chr.), München 1987.
BENNET 1961 W. H. Bennett, The Death of Sertorius and the Coin, «Historia»
10 (1961), pp. 459-472.
BÉRARD 1890 V. Bérard, Inscriptions de Telmessos, BCH 14 (1890), pp. 162-
176.
BERTHOLD 1984 R. M. Berthold, Rhodes in the Hellenistic Age, Ithaca – London
1984.
BERVE 1924 H. Berve, Kalas, RE Suppl. 4 (1924), col. 854.
BERVE 1926 H. Berve, Das Alexanderreich auf prosopographischer
Grundlage. Zweiter Band. Prosopographie, München 1926.
BEVAN 1902 E. R. Bevan, The House of Seleucus, 2 vols., London 1902.
BEVEGNI 1996 C. Bevegni, La Biblioteca di Fozio e la sua orgine, «Humanitas»
51 (1996), pp. 326-347.
BEYER-ROTTHOFF B. Beyer-Rotthoff, Untersuchungen zur Aussenpolitik Ptole-
1993 maios’ III (Habelts Dissertationsdrucke. Reihe Alte Geschichte
37), Bonn 1993.
BIANCHETTI 1990 S. Bianchetti, Πλωτὰ καὶ πορευτά. Sulle tracce di una periegesi
anonima, Firenze 1990.
BICKERMAN 1955 E. J. Bickerman, Une question d’authenticité: les privileges juif,
in Mélanges Isidore Lévy, Bruxelles 1955, pp. 11-34.
BICKERMAN E. J. Bickerman, Studies in Jewish and Christian History,
1976-1985 3 vols. Leiden 1976-1985.
BILLOWS 1990 R. Billows, Antigonos the One-Eyed and the Creation of the
Hellenistic State, Berkeley – Los Angeles – London 1990.
BINDER 1998 V. Binder, Hellenisierung, DNP 5 (1998), coll. 301-312.
BITTNER 1998 A. Bittner, Gesellschaft und Wirtschaft in Herakleia Pontike.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 199
Eine Polis zwischen Tyrannis und Selbstverwaltung (Asia Minor

Studien 30), Bonn 1998.
BLEGEN 1975 W. Blegen, Troy VII, CAH3 II.2 (1975), pp. 161-164.
BLÜMEL 2000 W. Blümel, Rodisches Dekret in Bargylia, EA 32 (2000), pp. 94-
96.
BOADRAM 1980 J. Boadram, The Greek Overseas. The Early Colonies and
Trade, London 1980.
BOFFO 1985 L. Boffo, I re ellenistici e centri religiosi dell’Asia Minore,
Firenze 1985.
BOIY 2007 T. Boiy, Between High and Low. A Chronology of the Early
Hellenistic Period (Oikumene 5), Frankfurt am Main 2007.
BORA 2017 A. Bora, Maedi/Maidoi – Bithynioi: Makedonia, Roma, Thrak
ve Pontos mücadelelerinde bithynlerin Thrakia ve anadolu’daki
izleri, «Çeşm-i chian» 4.1, pp. 16-51.
BOSHNAKOV 2003 K. Boshnakov, Die Thraker südlich vom Balkan in den Geogra-
phika Strabos. Quellenkritische Untersuchungen (Palingenesia
81), Stuttgart 2003.
BOSHNAKOV 2004 K. Boshnakov, Pseudo-Skymnos (Semos von Delos?). Τὰ
ἀριστερὰ τοῦ Πόντου. Zeugnisse griechischer Schriftsteller über
den westlichen Pontosraum (Palingenesia 82), Stuttgart 2004.
BOSWORTH 1980 A. B. Bosworth, A Historical Commentary on Arrian’s History
of Alexander. Volume I. Commentary on Books I-III, Oxford –
New York 1980.
BOSWORTH 1992 A. B. Bosworth, Philip III Arrhidaeus and the Chronology of the
Successors, «Chiron» 22 (1992), pp. 55-81.
BOSWORTH – A. B. Bosworth – P. V. Wheatley, The Origins of the Pontic
WHEATLEY 1998 House, JHS 118 (1998), pp. 155-164.
BOULOGNE 2002 J. Boulogne (éd.), Plutarque. Oeuvres Morales. Tome IV.
Conduites méritoires de femmes. Étiologies romaines. Étiologies
greques. Parallèles mineures, Paris 2002.
BOWERSOCK 1991 G. M. Bowersock, Review of: C. W. M. Cox, A. Cameron and J.
Cullen, Monuments from the Aezanitis. Ed. B. Levick, S. Mitch-
ell, Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiqua IX (Journal of Roman
Studies Monograph IV), London: Society for the promotion of
Roman Studies, 1988, JRS 81 (1991), pp. 223-225.
BRAUND 1982 D.C. Braund, Three Hellenistic Personages: Amynander,
Prusias II, Daphidas, CQ 32 (1982), pp. 350-357.
BRAUND 1984 D. C. Braund, Rome and the Friendly King. The Character of
Client Kingship, London – New York 1984.
BRAVO 2009 B. Bravo, La chronique d’Apollodore et le Pseudo-Skymmnos.
Érudition antiquaire et littérature géographique dans second
moité du IIe siècle av. J.-C. (Studia Hellenistica 46), Peeters
2009.
200 ELOISA PAGANONI
BRIANT 2015 P. Briant, À propos de l’»empreinte achéménides« (Achaemenid

Impact) en Anatolie, in E. Winter – K. Zimmermann (Hrsgg.),
Zwischen Satrapen und Dynasten. Kleinasien im 4. Jahrhundert
v. Chr. (Asia Minor Studien 76), Bonn 2015, pp. 175-193.
BRINGMANN – K. Bringmann – H. von Steuben, Schenkungen hellenistischer
VON STEUBEN 1995 Herrscher an griechische Städte und Heiligtümer. Teil I. Zeug-
nisse und Kommentare, Berlin 1995.
BRISCOE 1972 J. Briscoe, Flamininus and the Roman Politics, «Latomus» 31
(1972), pp. 22-53.
BROUGHTON 1951 T. R. S. Broughton, New Evidence on Temple-Estates in Asia
Minor, in P. R. Coleman-Norton (ed.), Studies in Roman Eco-
nomic and Social History in Honor of Allan Chester Johnson,
Princeton 1951, pp. 236-250.
BROWNSON 1922 C. L. Brownson (ed.), Xenophon. Anabasis, Books IV-VII.
Symposium and Apology, Cambridge (Mass.) – London 1922.
BROWNSON –DILLERY C. L. Brownson – J. Dillery (eds.), Xenophon. Anabasis, London
1998 1998.
BRULÉ 1978 P. Brulé, La Piraterie crétoise hellénistique, Paris 1978.
BRYCE 2006 T. Bryce, The Trojans and Their Neighbours, London 2006.
BURASELIS 1982 K. Buraselis, Das hellenistische Makedonien und die Ägäis.
Forschungen zur Politik der Kassandros, und der drei ersten
Antigoniden im Ägäischen Meer und Westkleinasien (Münicher
Beiträge zur Papyrusforschung und antiken Rechtgeschichte
73), München 1982.
BURASELIS 2003 K. Buraselis, Zur Asylia als außenpolitischem Instrument in
der hellenistischen Welt, in M. Dreher (Hrsg.), Das antike Asyl.
Kultische Grundlagen, rechtliche Ausgestaltung und politische
Funktion, Köln – Weimar – Wien 2003, pp. 143-159.
BURASELIS 2004 K. Buraselis, Some Remarks on the Koan Asylia (242 B.C.)
against Its International Background, in K. Höghammar (ed.),
The Hellenistic Polis of Kos. State, Economy and Culture (Bo-
reas 28), Uppsala 2004, pp. 15-20.
BURASELIS 2010 K. Buraselis, Gods and Kings as Synoikists: Divine Disposition
and Monarchic Wishes Combined in the Taditions of City Foun-
dations for Alexander’s and Hellenistic Times, in L. Foxhall –
H.-J. Gehrke – N. Luraghi (eds.), Intentional History: Spinning
Time in Ancient Greece, Stuttgart 2010, pp. 265-274.
BURASELIS 2013 K. Buraslis, Ptolemaic Grain, Seaways and Power, in K. Burase-
lis – M. Stefanou – D. J. Thompson (eds.), The Ptolemies, the
Sea and the Nile. Studies in Waterborne Power, Cambridge –
New York 2013, pp. 97-107.
BURFORD 1993 A. Burford, Land and Labour in the Greek World, Baltimore –
London 1993.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 201
BURSTEIN 1976 S. M. Burstein, Outpost of Hellenism. The Emergence of Her-

aclea on the Black Sea, Berkeley – Los Angeles – London
1976.
BURSTEIN 1980 S. M. Burstein, The Aftermath of the Peace of Apamea, AJAH 5
(1980), pp. 1-12.
BURSTEIN 2003 S. M. Burstein, The Legacy of Alexander: New Ways of Being
Greeks in the Hellenistic Period, in W. Heckel – L. A. Tritle
(eds.), Crossroads of History. The Age of Alexander, Claremont
2003, pp. 217-242.
BURSTEIN 2006 S. M. Burstein, The Greek Cities of the Black Sea, in K. H. Kinzl
(ed.), A Companion to the Classical Greek World, Malden – Ox-
ford 2006, pp. 137-152.
BURTON 2017 P. J. Burton, Rome and the Third Macedonian War, Cambridge
– New York, 2017.
BUSSI 2006 S. Bussi, Economia e demografia della schiavitù in Asia Minore
ellenistico-romana, Milano 2001.
CAMERON 1977 G. C. Cameron, The Persian Satrapies and Related Matters,
«Journal of Near Eastern Studies» 32 (1973), pp. 47-56.
CAMPANILE 2000 M. D. Campanile, Del bere sangue di toro e della morte di An-
nibale, «Chiron» 30 (2000), pp. 117-129.
CANALI DE ROSSI F. Canali de Rossi, Le ambascerie dal mondo greco a Roma in
1997 età repubblicana, Roma 1997.
CANALI DE ROSSI F. Canali de Rossi, Le relazioni diplomatiche di Roma. Volume
2017 VI. Dalla spedizione degli Scipioni in Asia alla pace di Apamea
(190-188 a.C.), Roma 2017.
CANFORA 2001 L. Canfora, Ateneo. I Deipnosofisti: i dotti a banchetto, 4 vols.,
Roma 2001.
CAPDETREY 2007 L. Capdetrey, Le pouvoir séleucide. Territoire, administra-
tion, finances d’un royaume hellénistique, 312-129 avant J.-C.,
Rennes 2007.
CARNEY 2000 E. D. Carney, Women and Monarchy in Macedonia, Norman
2000.
CARRINGTON 1977 P. Carrington, The Heroic Age of Phrygia in Ancient Literature
and Art, «Anatolian Studies» 27 (1977), pp. 117-126.
CAVALLI 2015 E. Cavalli, Salpati dall’Ortigia titanide. L’espansionismo etoli-
co di III sec. a.C.: mito politico e leggenda poetica al servizio
del koinon, PhD Dissertation, Università Ca’ Foscari Venezia –
Université Paris-Sorbonne 2015.
CHAMOUX 1988 F. Chamoux, Pergame et les Galates, REG 101 (1988), pp. 490-
500.
CHAMPION 1995 C. B. Champion, The Soteria at Delphi: Aetolian Propaganda in
the Epigraphical Record, AJPh 116 (1995), pp. 213-220.
CHAMPION 2004 C. B. Champion, Polybian Demagogues in Political Context,
HSPh 102 (2004), pp. 199-212.
202 ELOISA PAGANONI
CHAMPION C. B. Champion, In Defence of Hellas. The Antigonid Soteria

2004-2005 and Paneia at Delos and the Aetolian Soteria at Delphi, AJAH
3-4 (2004-2005) [2007], pp. 72-88.
CHANIOTIS 2003 A. Chaniotis, The Divinity of the Hellenistic Rulers, in ERSKINE
2003, pp. 431-445.
CHANIOTIS 2004 A. Chaniotis, New Inscriptions from Aphrodisias (1995-2001),
AJA 108 (2004), pp. 377-416.
CHANIOTIS 2005 A. Chaniotis, War in the Hellenistic World, Malden – Oxford
2005.
CHANKOWSKI 2010 A. S. Chankowski, Les cultes des souverains hellénistiques
après la disparition des dynasties: formes de survie et d’extinc-
tion d’une institution dans un contexte civique, in I. Savalli-
Lestrade – I. Cogitore (édd.), Des Rois au Prince. Pratiques du
pouvoir monarchique dans l’Orient hellénistique et romain (IVe
av. J-.C. — IIe ap. J.-C), Grenoble 2010, pp. 271-290.
CHIAI 2017 G. F. Chiai, Troia, la Troade e il nord Egeo nelle tradizioni miti-
che greche. Contributo alla ricostruzione della geografia mitica
di una regione nella memoria culturale greca (Mittelmeerstu-
dien 16), Paderborn 2017.
CHRUBASIK 2012 B. Chrubasik, Tyrants or Kings: The Communication between
Usurpers and Cities in the Seleukid Empire, in C. Feyel – J.
Fournier – L. Graslin-Thomé – F. Kirbihler (édd.), Communau-
tés locales et pouvoir central dans l’Orient hellénistique et ro-
main, Paris 2012, pp. 65–83.
CHRUBASIK 2013 B. Chrubasik, The Attalids and the Seleukid Kings (281-175
BC), in P. Thonemann (ed.), Attalid Asia Minor. Money, Inter-
national Relations, and the State, Oxford 2013, pp. 83-119.
CHRUBASIK 2016 B. Chrubasik, Kings and Usurpers in the Seleukid Empire. The
Men Who Would Be King, Oxford 2016.
COHEN 1995 G. M. Cohen, The Hellenistic Settlements in Europe, the Islands
and Asia Minor, Berkeley – Los Angeles – Oxford 1995.
COHEN 2013 G. M. Cohen, The Hellenistic Settlements in the East from Ar-
menia and Mesopotamia to Bactria and India, Berkeley – Los
Angeles – London 2013.
COLOROU 2009 O. Coloru, Da Alessandro a Menandro: il regno greco di Bat-
triana (Studi Ellenistici 21), Pisa 2009.
COLOROU 2013 O. Coloru, Armenia, EAH (2013), pp. 722-725.
CONSTANTAKOPOULOU C. Constantakopoulou, Identity and Resistance: the Islanders
2012 League, the Aegean Islands and the Hellenistic Kings, «Medi-
terranean Historical Review» 27 (2012), pp. 51-72.
CORRADI 1929 G. Corradi, Studi ellenistici, Torino 1929.
CORSARO 1983 M. Corsaro, Forme di dipendenza nella chora del re e in quella
cittadina dell’Asia Minore ellenistica, in Modes de contacts et
BIBLIOGRAPHY 203
processus de transformation dans les sociétés antiques (Collec-

tion de l’École française de Rome 67), Pise – Rome 1983, pp.
523-548.
CORSARO 2001 M. Corsaro, Sovrani, cittadini, servi: aspetti sociali dell’Asia
Minore ellenistica, MediterrAnt 4 (2001), pp. 17-40.
CORSO 1988 A. Corso, Prassitele: fonti epigrafiche e letterarie. Vita e opere
(Xenia. Quaderni 10), vol. I, Roma 1988.
CORSO 1990 A. Corso, Nicomede I, Dedalsa e le Afroditi nude al bagno,
«Numismatica e Antichità Classiche» 19 (1990), pp. 135-160.
CORSTEN 1988 T. Corsten, Daskyleion am Meer, EA 12 (1988), pp. 53-71.
CORSTEN 1989 T. Corsten, Zur Gründung von Prusa ad Olympum, «Tyche» 4
(1989), pp. 33-34.
CORSTEN 1991 T. Corsten, Neue Denkmäler aus Bithynien, EA 17 (1991), pp.
79-100.
CORSTEN 1996 T. Corsten (Hrsg.), Katalog der Bithynischen Münzen der
Sammlung des Instituts für Altertumskunde der Universität zu
Köln. Band 2. Könige, Commune Bithyniae, Städte (außer Nikaia)
(Papyrologica Coloniensia XI.2), Opladen 1996.
CORSTEN 2006 T. Corsten, Prosopographische und onomastische Notizen
II. Die Frauen des bithynischen Königs Nikomedes I, EA 39
(2006), pp. 121-132.
CORSTEN 2007 T. Corsten, Thracian Personal Names and Military Settlements in
Hellenistic Bithynia, in E. Matthews (ed.), Old and New Worlds
in Greek Onomastic (Proceedings of the British Academy 148),
Oxford 2007, pp. 121-133.
CORSTEN 2013 T. Corsten, Kios/Prusias ad Mare, EAH (2013), pp. 3772-3773.
COŞKUN 2011 A. Coșkun, Galatians and Seleucids: a Century of Conflict
and Cooperation, in K. Erickson – G. Ramsey (eds.), Seleucid
Dissolution. The Sinking of Anchor ( Philippika 50), Wiesbaden
2011, pp. 85-106.
COŞKUN 2012 A. Coșkun, Deconstructing a Myth of Seleucid History: the So-
Called “Elephant Victory” Revisited, «Phoenix» 66 (2012), pp.
57-73.
COŞKUN 2013 A. Cuşkun, The Galatians in the Graeco-Roman World, in
S. Ager – R. A. Faber (eds.), Belonging and Isolation in the
Hellenistic World, Toronto – Buffalo – London 2013, pp. 73-95.
CREMER 1992 M.-L. Cremer, Hellenistisch-römische Grabstelen in nord-
westlichen Kleinasien. 2. Bithynien (Asia Minor Studien 4, 2),
Bonn 1992.
CRISCUOLO 2013 L. Criscuolo, Ptolemies and Piracy, in K. Buraselis – M.
Stefanou – D. J. Thompson (eds.), The Ptolemies, the Sea and
the Nile. Studies in Waterborne Power, Cambridge – New York
2013, pp. 160-171.
204 ELOISA PAGANONI
CURTY 1995 O. Curty, Les parentés légendaires entre cités grecques, Genève
1995.
CURTY 2015 O. Curty, Gymnasiarchika. Recueil et analyse des inscriptions
de l’époque hellénistique en l’honneur des gymnasiarques, Paris
2015.
CUYLER YOUNG 1988 T. Cuyler Young Jr., The Consolidation of the Empire and Its
Limits of Growth under Darius and Xerxes, CAH2 IV (1988), pp.
53-138.
D’AGOSTINI 2013 M. D’Agostini, Da Laodice I a Laodice III: l’orizzonte politico
delle regine seleucidi, PhD Dissertation, Università di Bologna
2013.
DAN 2012-2013 A. Dan, From Imagined Ethnographies to Invented Ethnicities:
The Homeric Halizones, OTerr 11 (2012-2013), pp. 33-72.
DANA 2016 M. Dana, Histoire et historiens de Propontide et de Bithynie:
mythes, récits et identités, in M. Dana – F. Prêteux (édd.),
Identité régionale, identités civiques autour des Détroits des
Dardanelles et du Bosphore (Ve siècle av. J.-C. – IIe siècle apr.
J.-C.) (Dialogues d’Histoire Ancienne Supplément 15), Paris
2016, 171-240.
DANA – DANA 2014 D. Dana – M. Dana, Arrien avant Arrien: une jeunesse entre
Bithynie, Grèce et Rome, «Ktema» 39 (2014), pp. 19-35.
DANA – M. Dana – I. Savalli-Lestrade, Introduction, in M. Dana – I. Sa-
SAVALLI-LESTRADE valli-Lestrade (édd.), La cité interconnectée dans le monde gré-
2019 co-romain (IVe siècle a.C. - IVe siècle p.C.). Transferts et ré-
seaux institutionnels, religieux et culturels aux époques hellé-
nistique et impériale (Scripta Antiqua 118), Bordeaux 2019, pp.
9-21.
DANOFF 1962 C. M. Danoff, Tomi, RE Suppl. 9 (1962), coll. 1397-1428.
DANOV 1972 C. Danov, Altthrakien als politischer Faktor auf Balkanhalbinsel
und im östlichen Mittelmeerraum während des I. Jahrtausends
v. u. Z., «Thracia» 1 (1972), pp. 179-195.
DARBYSHIRE G. Darbyshire – S. Mitchell – L. Vardar, The Galatian Settlement
et al. 2000 in Asia Minor, «Anatolian Studies» 50 (2000), pp. 75-97.
DAVAZE 2013 V. Davaze, Memnon, historien d’Héraclée du Pont. Commentaire
historique, PhD Dissertation, Université du Maine 2013.
DAVIS – KRAAY 1973 N. Davis – C. M. Kraay, The Hellenistic Kingdoms. Portrait
Coins and History, London 1973.
DE BOER 2007 J. de Boer, The Earliest Possible Date of the Greek Colonization
along the Western Pontic Coast, «Acta Musei Varnaensis» 5
(2007), pp. 123-142.
DE CALLATAŸ 1986 F. de Callataÿ, Les derniers rois de Bithynie. Problèmes de
chronologie, RBN 132 (1986), pp. 5-30.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 205
DE CALLATAŸ 2014 F. de Callataÿ, For Whom Were Royal Hellenistic Coins Struck?,
in A. Lichtenberger – K. Martin – H. H. Nieswandt – D. Salzmann
(Hrsgg.), Bildwert. Nominalspezifische Kommunikationsstrategien
in der Münzprägung hellenistischer Herrscher (Euros 2), Bonn
2014, pp. 59-77.
DE FOUCAULT 1972 J. de Foucault (éd.), Polybe. Histoires. Livre IV, Paris 1972.
DE SOUZA 1999 P. de Souza, Piracy in the Graeco-Roman World, Cambridge
1999.
DEBORD 1998 P. Debord, Comment devenir le siège d’une capitale impériale.
Le “parcours” de la Bithynie, REA 100 (1998), pp. 139-165.
DEBORD 1999 P. Debord, L’Asie Mineure au IVe siècle (412-323 a.C.).
Pouvoirs et jeux politiques, Bordeaux 1999.
DEBORD 2001 P. Debord, Le Mysiens: du mythe a l’histoire, in V. Fromentin –
S. Gotteland (édd.), Origines gentium, Bordeaux 2001, pp. 135-
146.
DELORME 1960 J. Delorme, Gymnasion. Étude sur les monuments consacrés
à l’éducation en Grèce des origines à l’empire romain
(Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 196),
Paris 1960.
DEROW – FOREST P. S. Derow – W. G. Forest, An Inscription from Chios, ABSA 77
1982 (1982), pp. 79-92 = in P. Derow – A. Erskine – J. C. Quinn
(eds.), Rome, Polybius and the East, Oxford 2015, pp. 243-264.
DESIDERI 1967 P. Desideri, Studi di storiografia eracleota. I. Promathidas e
Nymphis, SCO 16 (1967), pp. 366-416.
DESIDERI 1970-1971 P. Desideri, Studi di storiografia eracleota. II. La guerra con
Antioco il grande, SCO 19-20 (1970-1971), pp. 487-537.
DESIDERI 1978 P. Desideri, Dione di Prusa. Un intellettuale Greco nell’impero
romano, Firenze 1978.
DEVELIN – YARDLEY R. Develin – J. C. Yardley (eds.), Justin. Epitome of the Philippic
1994 History of Pompeius Trogus, Atlanta 1994.
DIGNAS 2002 B. Dignas, Economy of the Sacred in Hellenistic and Roman
Asia Minor, Oxford 2002.
DIMITROVA 2008 N. M. Dimitrova, Theoroi and Initiates in Samothrace. The
Epigraphical Evidence (Hesperia Supplement 37), Princeton
2008.
DINSMOOR 1931 W. B. Dinsmoor, The Archons of Athens in the Hellenistic Age,
Cambridge (Mass.) 1931.
DMITRIEV 1999 S. Dmitriev, Three Notes on Attalid History, «Klio» 81 (1999),
pp. 397-411.
DMITRIEV 2003 S. Dmitriev, Livy’s Evidence for the Apamean Settlement, AJAH
2 (2003), pp. 39-62.
DMITRIEV 2007 S. Dmitriev, Memnon on the Siege of Heraclea Pontica by
206 ELOISA PAGANONI
Prusias I and the War between the Kingdoms of Bithynia and

Pergamum, JHS 127 (2007), pp. 133-138.
DODD 2009 R. Dodd, Coinage and Conflict. The Manipulation of Seleucid
Political Imagery, PhD Dissertation, University of Glasgow 2009.
DOMASZEWSKI 1912 A. v. Domaszewski, Inschriften aus Kleinasien, «Archaeologisch-
epigraphische Mitteilungen aus Österreich» 7 (1883), pp. 168-
188.
DÖRNER 1941 F. K. Dörner, Inschriften und Denkmäler aus Bithynien, Berlin
1941.
DÖRNER 1952 F. K. Dörner, Bericht über eine Reise in Bithynien, Wien 1952.
DÖRNER 1957 F. K. Dörner, Prusa ad Olympum, RE 23 (1957), coll. 1071-
1086.
DÖRNER 1957a F. K. Dörner, Prusias ad Hypium, RE 23 (1957), coll. 1128-
1148.
DÖRNER 1964 F. K. Dörner, Bithynia, DKP 1 (1964), coll. 908-911.
DÖRNER – HOEPFNER F. K. Dörner – W. Hoepfner, Das Eiland Thynias-Apollonia,
1989 MDAI(I) 39 (1989), pp. 103-106.
DOW – EDSON 1937 S. Dow – C. F. Edson, Chryseis: a Study of the Evidence in
regard to the Mother of Philip V, HSPh 48 (1937), pp. 127-180.
DREWS 1993 R. Drews, Myths of Midas and the Phrygian Migration from
Europe, «Klio» 75 (1993), pp. 9-26.
DROGO MONTAGU J. Drogo Montagu, Greek and Roman Warfare. Battles, Tactics
2006 and Trickery, London 2006.
DROYSEN 1952-1953 J.-G. Droysen, Geschichte des Hellenismus, 3 vols., Basel 1952-
19532.
DUECK 2006 D. Dueck, Memnon of Herakleia on Rome and the Romans,
in T. Bekker-Nielsen (ed.), Rome and the Black Sea Region:
Domination, Romanisation, Resistance (Black Sea Studies 5),
Aarhus 2006, pp. 43-61.
DUMITRU 2013 A. G. Dumitru, Byzance, son territoire et les Barbares au début
du IIIe siècle av. J.-C.: quelques notes sur un passage de Polybe,
in H. Bru – G. Labarre (édd.), L’Anatolie des peuples, des cités
et des cultures (IIe millénaire av. J.-C.-Ve siècle ap. J.-C.), vol.
II, Besançon 2013, pp 81-96.
DURIDANOV 1980 I. Duridanov, Die thrakischen Ortsnamen Bithyniens, «Pulpude-
va» 3 (1980), pp. 220-223.
DUSINBERRE 2013 E. R. M. Dusinberre, Empire, Authority, and Autonomy in
Achaemenid Anatolia, Cambridge – New York 2013.
ECKSTEIN 2008 A. M. Eckstein, Rome Enters the Greek East. From Anarchy
to Hierarchy in the Hellenistic Mediterranean, 230-170 BC,
Malden – Oxford 2008.
ECKSTEIN 2009 A. M. Eckstein, Hellenistic Monarchy in Theory and Practice,
BIBLIOGRAPHY 207
in R. K. Balot (ed.), A Companion to Greek and Roman Political

Thought, Malden – Oxford 2009, pp.247-265.
EDDY 1961 S. K. Eddy, The King is Dead. Studies in the Near Eastern
Resistance to Hellenism (334-31 B.C.), Lincoln 1961.
EMILOV 2010 J. Emilov, Ancient Texts on the Galatian Royal Residence of
Tylis and the Context of La Tène Finds in Southern Thrace: a
Reappraisal, in VAGALINSKI 2010, pp. 67-87.
ENGELS – ERICKSON D. Engels – K. Erickson, Apama and Stratonike: Marriage and
2016 Legitimacy, in A. Coșkun – A. McAuley (eds.), Seleukid Royal
Women. Creation, Representation and Distortion of Hellenistic
Queenship in the Seleukid Empire (Historia Einzelschriften
240), Stuttgart 2016, pp. 39-65.
ERRINGTON 1974 R. M. Errington, Macedonian ‘Royal Style’ and Its Historical
Significance, JHS 94 (1974), pp. 20-37.
ERRINGTON 1989 R. M. Errington, Rome and the Greece to 205 B.C., in CAH2
VIII (1989), pp. 81-106.
ERRINGTON 1989a R. M. Errington, Rome against Philip and Antiochus, in CAH2
VIII (1989), pp. 244-289.
ERRINGTON 1990 R. M. Errington, A History of Macedonia, Berkeley – Los
Angeles – Oxford 1990.
ERRINGTON 1995 R. M. Errington, Ἐκκλησίας κυρίας γενομένης, «Chiron» 25
(1995), pp. 19-42.
ERRINGTON 2008 R. M. Errington, A History of the Hellenistic World (323-30
BC), Malden – Oxford 2008.
ERSKINE 2003 A. Erskine (ed.), A Companion to the Hellenistic World, Malden
– Oxford 2003.
ÉTIENNE 1990 R. Étienne, Ténos II. Ténos et les Cyclades du milieu du IVe
siècle av J.-C. au milieu du IIIe siècle ap. J.-C. (Bibliothèque
des Écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 263 bis), Athènes –
Paris 1990.
EVANS 2012 R. Evans, A History of Pergamum. Beyond the Hellenistic
Kingship, London – New York 2012.
FACELLA 2006 M. Facella, La dinastia degli Orontidi nella Commagene elleni-
stico-romana (Studi Ellenistici 17), Pisa 2006.
FELLMANN 1965 R. Fellmann, Bithynien, in C. Andersen – H. Erbse – O. Gigon
– K. Schefold – K. F. Stroheker – E. Zinn (Hrsgg.), Lexikon der
Alten Welt, Zürich – Stuttgart 1965, col. 478.
FERNOUX 1999 H.-L. Fernoux, Guerre, cités et monde indigènes du Pont-Euxin
et de la Propontide aux Ve et IVe siècles av. J.-C., «Pallas» 51
(1999), pp. 173-204.
FERNOUX 2004 H.-L. Fernoux, Notables et élites des cités de Bithynie aux
208 ELOISA PAGANONI
époques hellénistique et romaine (IIIe siècle av. J.C. – IIIe ap.

J.-C.). Essai d’histoire sociale, Lyon 2004.
FERNOUX 2008 H.-L. Fernoux, Rivalité politique et culturelle entre les royaumes
de Pergame et de Bithynie, in M. Kohl (éd.), Pergame. Histoire
et archéologie d’un centre urbain depuis ses origines jusqu’à la
fin de l’antiquité, Paris 2008, pp. 223-244.
FERRAIOLI 2019 F. Ferraioli, Trattato tra Farnace I del Ponto e i Greci di Cher-
soneso, «Axon» 3.1 (2019), pp. 155-166.
FERRARI 2011 A. Ferrari, Il dizionario dei luoghi del mito, Milano 2011.
FINN 2014 J. Finn, Review of: Eftychia Stavrianopoulou (ed.), Shifting So-
cial Imaginaries in the Hellenistic Period: Narrations, Practic-
es, and Images (Mnemosyne Supplements 363), Leiden – Bos-
ton, Brill, 2013, pp. xxii, 436, BMCR 2014.03.63.
FOL – MARAZOV A. Fol – I. Marazov, Thrace and the Thracians, New York
1977 1977.
FORLANINI 2013 M. Forlanini, Les routes du Palâ, in M. Mazoyer – S. Hervé
Aufrère (édd.), De Hattu à Memphis. Jacques Freu in honorem,
Paris 2013, pp. 43-58.
FORTINA 1965 M. Fortina, Cassandro, re di Macedonia, Torino – Genova –
Milano 1965.
FRANCO 1993 C. Franco, Il regno di Lisimaco. Strutture amministrative e rap-
porti con le città (Studi Ellenistici 6), Pisa 1993.
FRUIN 1934 R. Fruin, Zwei chronographische Probleme, «Acta Orientalia»
12 (1934), pp. 25-36.
GABELKO 1996 O. Gabelko, Zur Lokalisierung und Chronologie der asiatischen
Besitzungen von Byzanz, OTerr 2 (1996), pp. 121-128.
GABELKO 2001 O. Gabelko, Датировка и историческая интерпретация
надгробного памятника вифинца Менаса, S.H. 1 (2001), pp.
45-61.
GABELKO 2005 O. Gabelko, Исґорпя Впфпнскоґо царсґва, Sankt-Peterburg
2005.
GABELKO 2006 O. Gabelko, “Phaennis’ Oracle” (Zosim. II. 36-37) and the Ga-
latians’ Passage to Asia Minor, in E. Olshausen – H. Sonnabend
(Hrsgg.), “Troianer sind wir gewesen” – Migration in der an-
tiken Welt (Geographica Historica 21), Stuttgart 2006, pp. 211-
228.
GABELKO 2009 O. Gabelko, The Dynastic History of the Hellenistic Monarchies
of Asia Minor According to the Chronography of George Syn-
kellos, in J. M. Højte (ed.), Mithridates and the Pontic Kingdom
(Black Sea Studies 9), Aarhus 2009, pp. 47-60.
GABELKO 2015 O. Gabelko, ‘A Tale of Two Cities’: Some Particulars of the
Conquest of Cius and Myrlea by the Kingdom of Bithynia, in
BIBLIOGRAPHY 209
V. Goušchin – P. J. Rhodes (eds.), Deformations and Crises of

Ancient Civil Communities, Stuttgart 2015, pp. 87-100.
GABELKO 2017 O. Gabelko, Bithynia and Cappadocia. Royal Courts and Ruling
Society in the Minor Hellenistic Monarchies, in A. Erskine – L.
Llewellyn-Jones – S. Wallace (eds.), The Hellenistic Court: Mo-
narchic Power and Elite Society from Alexander to Cleopatra,
London 2017, pp. 319-342.
GABRIELSEN 1997 V. Gabrielsen, The Naval Aristocracy of Hellenistic Rhodes
(Studies in Hellenistic Civilization 6), Aarhus 1997.
GABRIELSEN 2011 V. Gabrielsen, Profitable Partnerships: Monopolies, Traders,
Kings, and Cities, in Z. H. Archibald – J. Davies – V. Gabri-
elsen (eds.), The Economies of Hellenistic Societies, Thrid to
First Centuries BC, Oxford – New York 2011, pp. 216-250.
GABRIELSEN 2013 V. Gabrielsen, Rhodes and the Ptolemaic Kingdom: the Com-
mercial Infrastructure, in K. Buraselis – M. Stefanou – D. J.
Thompson (eds), The Ptolemies, the Sea and the Nile. Studies in
Waterborne Power, Cambridge – New York 2013, pp. 66-81.
GALLOTTA 2010 S. Gallotta, Appunti per una storia della Lega del Nord, in F.
Gazzano – L. Santi Amantini (a cura di), Incontri e conflitti ri-
pensando la colonizzazione greca, Roma 2010, pp. 91-98.
GALLOTTA 2014 S. Gallotta, Appunti su Memnone di Eraclea, «Erga - Logoi» 2
(2014), pp. 65-77.
GARCÍA-RAMÓN J. L. García-Ramón, Geographische Namen, DNP 4 (1998),
1998 coll. 930-934.
GARSON 1975 R. W. Garson, The Minor Characters of Polybius, «Prudentia» 7
(1975), pp. 3-10.
GEHRKE 1990 H.-J. Gehrke, Geschichte des Hellenismus, München 1990.
GEYER 1936 F. Geyer, Nikomedes (3), RE 17 (1936), coll. 493-494.
GEYER 1936a F. Geyer, Nikomedes (4), RE 17 (1936), coll. 494-496.
GEYER 1936b F. Geyer, Nikomedes (5), RE 17 (1936), coll. 496-497.
GEYER 1936c F. Geyer, Nikomedes (6), RE 17 (1936), coll. 497-499.
GIANGIULIO 2010 M. Giangiulio, Al di là dell’acculturazione: nuove prospettive
metodologiche. Alcune considerazioni, in E. Migliario – L. Tro-
iani – G. Zecchini (a cura di), Società indigene e cultura greco-
romana. Atti del convegno internazionale. Trento 7-8 giugno
2007, Roma 2010, pp. 261-269.
GHISELLINI 2009 E. Ghisellini, L’Afrodite accovacciata tipo Doidalses da San
Casciano dei Bagni, in C. Braidotti – E. Dettori – E. Lanzillotta
(a cura di), Ou pan ephémeron. Scritti in memoria di Roberto
Pretagostini offerti da colleghi, dottori e dottorandi di ricerca
della Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia, vol. I, Roma 2009, pp. 663-
685
210 ELOISA PAGANONI
GLEW 1987 D. G. Glew, The Cappadocian Expedition of Nicomedes III Eu-

ergetes, King of Bithynia, ANSMusN 32 (1987), pp. 23-55.
GLEW 2005 D. G. Glew, Nicomedes’ Name, EA 38 (2005), pp. 131-139.
GLOTZ G. Glotz – P. Roussel – R. Cohen, Histoire ancienne. Deuxième
et al. 1945 partie. Histoire grecque. Tome IV. Alexandre et l’hellénisation
du monde antique. Première partie. Alexandre et le démembre-
ment de son empire, Paris 19452.
GOUKOWSKY 2001 P. Goukowsky (éd.), Appien. Histoire romaine. Tome VII. Livre
XII. La guerre de Mithridate, Paris 2001.
GRABOWSKI 2011 T. Grabowski, Achaeus, the Ptolemies and the Fourth Syrian
War, «Electrum» 18 (2011), pp. 115-124.
GRABOWSKI 2013 T. Grabowski, Ptolemaic Foundations in Asia Minor and the
Aegean as the Lagids’ Political Tool, «Electrum» 20 (2013), pp.
57-76.
GRABOWSKI 2018 T. Grabowski, Diplomacy of Attalus I in Asia Minor, 241–216
BC, «Electrum» 25 (2018), pp. 13-26.
GRAINGER 1990 J. D. Grainger, Seleukos Nikator. Constructing a Hellenistic
Kingdom, London – New York 1990.
GRAINGER 1997 J. D. Grainger, A Seleukid Prosopography and Gazetteer (Mne-
mosyne Supplements 172), Leiden – New York – Köln 1997.
GRAINGER 1999 J. D. Grainger, The League of Aitolians (Mnemosyne Supple-
ments 200), Leiden – Boston – Köln 1999.
GRAINGER 2002 J. D. Grainger, The Roman War of Antiochos the Great (Mne-
mosyne Supplements 239), Leiden – Boston 2002.
GRAINGER 2007 J. D. Grainger, Alexander the Great Failure. The Collapse of the
Macedonian Empire, Auckland 2007.
GRAINGER 2010 J. D. Grainger, The Syrian Wars (Mnemosyne Supplements
320), Leiden – Boston 2010.
GRAINGER 2014 J. D. Grainger, The Rise of the Seleukid Empire, 323-223 BC,
Barnsley 2014.
GRAINGER 2015 J. D. Grainger, The Seleukid Empire of Antiochus III (223-187
BC), Barnsley 2015.
GRAINGER 2017 J. D. Grainger, Kings and Kingship in the Hellenistic World 350
- 30 BC, Havertown 2017.
GRAINGER 2017a J. D. Grainger, Great Power Diplomacy in the Hellenistic World,
London – New York 2017.
GRANDJEAN – C. Grandjean – G. Hoffmann – L. Capdetrey – J.-Y. Carrez-
et al. 2008 Maratray, Le monde hellénistique, Paris 2008 (2nd ed. 2017).
GRUEN 1984 E. S. Gruen, The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome, 2
vols., Berkeley – Los Angeles – London 1984.
GRZYBEK 1992 E. Grzybek, Zu einer babylonischen Königsliste aus der helleni-
stischen Zeit (Keilschrifttafel BM 35603), «Historia» 41 (1992),
pp. 190-204.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 211
GUINEA DÍAZ 1989 P. Guinea Díaz, Las leyendas fundacionales de Nicea. Análisis
functional, «Habis» 20 (1989), pp. 163-174.
GUINEA DÍAZ 1992 P. Guinea Díaz, La mitalogía al servicio de la ciudad. La Ninfa
Nicea, in J. Alvar – C. Blánquez Pérez – C. G. Wagner (eds.),
Heroes, semidioses y daimones, Madrid 1992, pp. 223-230.
GUINEA DÍAZ 1997 P. Guinea Díaz, Nicea. Ciudad y territorio en la Bitinia romana,
Huelva 1997.
GUINEA DÍAZ 1997a P. Guinea Díaz, Oriente y Occidente en la Bitinia helenística, in
J. Alvar – D. P. Suárez – J. M. Casillas – C. F. Vaquero (ed.),
Imágenes de la polis, Madrid 1997, pp. 249-260.
GÜNEY 2012 H. Güney, The Resources and Economy of Roman Nicomedia,
PhD Dissertation, University of Exeter 2012.
GÜNEY 2014 H. GÜNEY, Hellenistik Dönem Öncesi Bithynia’da Hellen
Kolonileri ve Bithynialılar Arasındaki İlişkiler, «Belleten» 78
(2014), pp. 407-435.
GÜNEY 2015 H. Güney, Unpublished Coins of the Bithynian Kingdom, «Nu-
mismatic Chronicle» 175 (2015), pp. 357-363.
GÜNEY 2017 H. Güney, Unpublished Coins of the Bithynian Kingdom at Bur-
sa Mueseum, «Numismatic Chronicle» 177 (2017), pp. 494-500.
HABICHT 1956 C. Habicht, Über die Kriege zwischen Pergamon und Bithynien,
«Hermes» 84 (1956), pp. 90-110 (tranlsation: On the Wars bet-
ween Pergamon and Bithynia, in C. Habicht, Hellenistic Monar-
chies. Selected Papers, Ann Arbor 2006, pp. 1-21).
HABICHT 1957 C. Habicht, Prusias (1), RE 23 (1957), coll. 1086-1107.
HABICHT 1957a C. Habicht, Prusias (2), RE 23 (1957), coll. 1107-1127.
HABICHT 1957b C. Habicht, Prusias (3), RE 23 (1957), coll. 1127-1128.
HABICHT 1970 C. Habicht, Gottmenschentum und Griechische Städt (Zetemata
14), München 19702 (translation: Divine Honors for Mortal Men
in Greek Cities. The Early Cases, Ann Arbor 2017).
HABICHT 1972 C. Habicht, Zipoites (1) RE 10 A (1972), coll. 448-455.
HABICHT 1972a C. Habicht, Zipoition, RE 10 A (1972), col. 460.
HABICHT 1972b C. Habicht, Zipoites (2) RE 10 A (1972), coll. 455-559.
HABICHT 1972c C. Habicht, Ziaelas, RE 10 A (1972), coll. 387-397.
HABICHT 1972d C. Habicht, Zipoites (3) RE 10 A (1972), coll. 459-460.
HABICHT 1989 C. Habicht, The Seleucid and Their Rivals, in CAH2 VIII (1989),
pp. 324-387.
HABICHT 2007 C. Habicht, Neues zur hellenistischen Geschichte von Kos,
«Chiron» 37 (2007), pp. 123-152.
HÄGG 1973 T. Hägg, Photius at Work. Evidence from the Text of Biblio-
theca, GRBS 14 (1973), pp. 213-222 = in L. B. Mortensen – T.
Eide (eds.), Parthenope: Selected Studies in Ancient Greek Fic-
tion [1969-2004], Copenhagen 2004, pp. 417-426.
212 ELOISA PAGANONI
HÄGG 1975 T. Hägg, Photios als Vermittler antiker Literatur. Untersuchun-

gen zur Technik des Referierens und Exzerpierens in der Biblio-
theke, Uppsala 1975.
HAMILTON 2000 R. Hamilton, Treasure Map. A Guide to the Delian Inventories,
Ann Arbor 2000.
HAMMOND – N. G. L. Hammond – F. W. Walbank, A History of Macedonia.
WALBANK 1988 Volume III. 336-167 B.C., Oxford 1988.
HANNELL 1934 K. Hannell, Megarische Studien, Lund 1934.
HANNESTAD 1993 L. Hannestad, Greeks and Celts: the Creation of a Myth, in P.
Bilde – T. Engberg-Pedersen – L. Hannestad – J. Zahle – K.
Randsborg (eds.), Centre and Periphery in the Hellenistic World
(Studies in Hellenistic Civilization 4), Aarhus 1993, pp.15-38.
HANNESTAD 1996 L. Hannestad, “This Contributes in no Small Way to One’s
Reputation”. The Bithynian Kings and the Greek Culture, in P.
Bilde – T. Engberg-Pedersen – L. Hannestad – J. Zahle (eds.),
Aspects of Hellenistic Kingship (Studies in Hellenistic Civiliza-
tion 7), Aarhus 1996, pp. 67-98.
HANNESTAD 2013 L. Hannestad, Kingship, Hellenistic, EAH (2013), pp. 3761-
3764.
HANSEN 1971 E. V. Hansen, The Attalids of Pergamon, Ithaca – London 19712.
HARRIS 1980 B. F. Harris, Bithynia: Roman Sovereignty and the Survival of
Hellenism, ANRW II 7.2 (1980), pp. 857-901.
HECKEL 1994 W. Heckel, Kalas Son of Harpalos and “Memnon’s Country”,
«Mnemosyne» 47 (1994), pp. 93-95.
HECKEL 2006 W. Heckel, Who’s Who in the Age of Alexander the Great. Pros-
opography of Alexander’s Empire, Malden – Oxford 2006.
HECKEL 2016 W. Heckel, Alexander’s Marshals. A Study of the Makedonian
Aristocracy and the Politics of Military Leadership, London –
New York 20162.
HEINEMANN 2010 U. Heinemann, Stadtgeschichte im Hellenismus. Die lokalhi-
storiographischen Vorgänger und Vorlagen Memnons von He-
rakleia, München 2010.
HEINEN 1972 H. Heinen, Untersuchungen zur hellenistischen Geschichte des
3. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. Zur Geschichte der Zeit des Ptolemaios
Keraunos und zum Chremonideischen Krieg (Historia Einzel-
schriften 20), Wiesbaden 1972.
HEINEN 1984 H. Heinen, The Syrian Egyptian Wars and the New Kingdoms of
Asia Minor, CAH2 VII (1984), pp. 412-445.
HELLER 2013 A. Heller, Antiochos Hierax, EAH (2013), pp. 482-483.
HENRY 1965 R. Henry (ed.), Photius. Bibliothèque. Tome IV («codices» 223-
229), Paris 1965.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 213
HERZOG 1905 R. Herzog, Ein Brief des Königs Ziaelas von Bithynien an die
Koer, MDAI(A) 30 (1905), pp. 173-182.
HERZOG 1930 R. Herzog, Griechische Königsbriefe, «Hermes» 65 (1930), pp.
455-471.
HERZOG – R. Herzog – G. Klaffenbach, Asylieurkunden aus Kos, Berlin
KLAFFENBACH 1952 1952.
HILLER VON F. F. Hiller von Gaertingen, Historische griechische Epigram-
GAERTINGER 1926 me, Bonn 1926.
HIRSCHFELD 1894 G. Hirschfeld, Apamaia (5), RE 1 (1894), col. 2664.
HODDINOTT 1981 R. F. Hoddinott, The Thracians, London 1981.
HÖGHAMMAR 1993 K. Höghammar, Sculpture and Society. A Study of the Connec-
tion between the Free-Standing Sculpture and Society on Kos
in the Hellenistic and Augustan Periods (Boreas 23), Uppsala
1993.
HØJTE 2008 J. M. Højte, The Cities that Never Were. Failed Attempts at Col-
onization in the Black Sea, in P. G. Bilde – J. H. Petersen (eds.),
Meetings of Cultures between Conflicts and Coexistence (Black
Sea Studies 8), Aarhus 2008, pp. 149-162.
HÖLB 2001 G. Hölb, Geschichte des Ptolemäerreiches. Politik, Ideologie
und religiöse Kultur von Alexander dem Großen bis zur römi-
schen Eroberung, Dramstadt 2001.
HOLLEAUX 1923 M. Holleaux, Polybe et le tremblement de terre de Rhodes, REG
36 (1923), pp. 480-498.
HOLLEAUX 1938 M. Holleaux, Études d’epigraphie et d’histoire grecques. Tome
II, Paris 1938.
HOOVER 2012 O. D. Hoover, Handbook of Coins of Northern and Central Ana-
tolia. Pontos, Paphlagonia, Bithynia, Phrygia, Galatia, Lykao-
nia, and Kappadokia (with Kolchis and the Kimmerian Bospor-
os), Lancaster – London 2012.
HOPP 1977 J. Hopp, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der letzten Attaliden
(Vestigia 25), München 1977.
HORNBLOWER 1994 S. Hornblower, Persia, CAH2 VI (1994), pp. 45-96.
HOYOS 2003 D. Hoyos, Hannibal’s Dynasty. Power and Politics in the West-
ern Mediterranean, 247-183 BC, London 2003.
HUSS 1976 W. Huss, Untersuchungen zur Außenpolitik Ptolemaios’ IV
(Münchener Beiträge zur Papyrosforschung und antiken Rechts-
geschichte 69), München 1976.
HUSS 2011 W. Huss, Die Verwaltung des ptolemaiischen Reichs (Münche-
ner Beiträge zur Papyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschich-
te 104), München 2011.
IMHOOF-BLUMER F. Imhoof-Blumer, Beiträge zur Erklärung griechischer Münz-
1911 typen, in H. von Fritze – H. Gaebler (Hrsgg.), Nomisma. Unter-
214 ELOISA PAGANONI
suchungen auf dem Gebiete der antiken Münzkunde. VI, Berlin

1911, pp. 1-23.
INTERDONATO 2013 E. Interdonato, L’Asklepieion di Kos: archeologia del culto,
Roma 2013.
ISAAC 1986 B. Isaac, The Greek Settlements in Thrace until the Macedonian
Conquest (Studies of the Dutch Archaeological and Historical
Society 10), Leiden 1986.
IVANČIK 1997 A. Ivančik, Les Thraces et les Mariandynes dans la tradition
local d’Héraclée du Pont, in The Thracian World at the Cross-
roads of Civilisations. Proceedings of the Seventh International
Congress of Thracology, Constanţa, Mangalia, Tulcea, 20-26
May 1996, vol. I, Bucharest 1997, pp. 329-335.
IVANOVA 2013 M. Ivanova, The Black Sea and the Early Civilizations of Eu-
rope, the Near East and Asia, Cambridge 2013.
JACOBS 1994 B. Jacobs, Die Satrapienverwaltung im Perserreich zur Zeit Da-
rius’ III, Wiesbaden 1994.
JACOPI 1938 G. Jacopi, Note anatoliche, «Bullettino del Museo dell’Impero
Romano» 9 (1938), pp. 39-53.
JAKOBBSON 2009 J. Jakobbson, Who Founded the Indo-Greek Era of 186/5
B.C.E.?, CQ 59 (2008), pp. 505-510.
JAL 1995 P. Jal (ed.), Tite-Live. Historire Romaine. Tome XVIII. Livre
XXVIII, Paris 1995.
JANKE 1963 M. Janke, Historische Untersuchungen zu Memnon von He-
rakleia. Kap. 18-40, FgrHist Nr. 434, Würzburg 1963.
JEFREMOW 2005 N. Jefremow, Der rhodisch-byzantinische Krieg von 220 v. Chr.
Ein Handelskrieg im Hellenismus?, «Münstersche Beiträge zur
antiken Handelsgeschichte» 24 (2005), pp. 51-98.
JOHNSON 2010 P. Johnson, Landscapes of Achaemenid Paphlagonia, PhD Dis-
sertation, University of Pennsylvania 2010.
JONES 1940 A. H. M. Jones, The Greek City from Alexander to Justinian,
Oxford 1940.
JONES 1971 A. H. M. Jones, The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces,
Oxford 19712.
JONES 1978 C. P. Jones, The Roman World of Dio Chrysostom, Cambridge
(Mass.) – London 1978.
JONES 1985 C. P. Jones, A Letter to Aphrodisias in Caria, EMC 29 (1985),
pp. 309-317.
JOUGUET 1932 P. Jouguet, Macedonian Imperialism and the Hellenisation of
the East, New York 1932.
KEARSLEY 2001 R. A. Kearsley (ed.), Greeks and Romans in Imperial Asia Mi-
nor. Mixed Language Inscriptions and Linguistic Evidence for
Cultural Interaction until the End of AD III (Inschriften grie-
chischer Städte aus Kleinasien 59), Bonn 2001.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 215
KEIL 1902 B. Keil, Kurou pedion, RPh 26 (1902), pp. 257-262.

KHATCHADOURIAN L. Khatchadourian, Unforgettable Landscapes. Attachments to
2007 the Past in Hellenistic Armenia, in N. Yoffee (ed.), Negotiating
the Past in the Past. Identity, Memory, and Landscape in
Archaeological Research, Tucson 2007, pp. 43-75.
KIRCHNER 1897 J. Kirchner, Boteiras, RE 3 (1897), col. 792.
KLEINER 1974 F. S. Kleiner, The Giresun Hoard, ANSMusN 19 (1974), pp.
3-25.
KLEU 2013 M. Kleu, Bithynia, EAH (2013), pp. 1137-1140.
KLEU 2013a M. Kleu, Nikomedes I-IV, EAH (2013), pp. 4788-4790.
KLEU 2013b M. Kleu, Prusias I of Bithynia, EAH (2013), pp. 5660-5661.
KLEU 2015 M. Kleu, Die Seepolitik Philipps V. von Makedonien, Bochum
2015.
KLOSE 1999 D. O. A. Klose, Türkei, in K. Brodersen (Hrsgg.), Antike Stätten
am Mittelmeer. Metzler Lexikon, Stuttgart – Weimar 1999, pp.
438-644.
KNÄPPER 2018 K. Knäpper, Hieros kai asylos. Territoriale Asylie im
Hellenismus in ihrem historischen Kontext (Historia
Einzelschriften 250), Stuttgart 2018.
KOBES 1993 J. Kobes, Rhodos und das Erdbeben von 227 v. Chr.,
«Münstersche Beiträge zur antiken Handelsgeschichte» 12.1
(1993), pp. 1-26.
KOBES 1996 J. Kobes, Kleine Könige. Untersuchungen zu den Lokaldynasten
im hellenistischen Kleinasien (323-188 v.Chr.) (Pharos 8), St.
Katharinen 1996.
KOEHN 2013 C. Koehn, League of Islanders (Nesiotic League), EAH (2013),
pp. 3983-3984.
KOERTE 1899 A. Koerte, Kleinasiatische Studien. V., MDAI(A) 24 (1899), pp.
398-450.
KONSTAN 1997 D. Konstan, Friendship in the Classical World, Cambridge
1997.
KORENJAK 2003 M. Korenjak, Die Welt-Rundreise eines anonymen griechischen
Autors (“Pseudo-Skymnos”), Hildescheim – Zürich – New York
2003.
KOSMIN 2014 P. J. Kosmin, The Land of the Elephant Kings. Space, Territory,
and Ideology in the Seleucid Empire, Cambridge (Mass.) –
London 2014.
KOSMIN 2018 P. J. Kosmin, Time and Its Adversaries in the Seleucid Empire,
Cambridge (Mass.) – London 2018.
KOTSIDU 2000 H. Kotsidu, ΤΙΜΉ ΚΑΙ ΔΟΞΑ. Ehrungen für hellenistische
Herrscher im griechischen Mutterland und in Kleinasien unter
216 ELOISA PAGANONI
besonderer Berücksichtigung der archäologischen Denkmäler,

Berlin 2000.
KROMAYER 1907 J. Kromayer, Antike Schlachtfelder in Griechenland. Bausteine zu
einer antiken Kriegsgeschichte. Zweiter Band. Die hellenistisch-
römische Periode: von Kynoskephalae bis Pharsalos, Berlin 1907.
KRUMEICH 2007 R. Krumeich, Human Achievement and Divine Favor. The
Religious Context of Early Hellenistic Portraiture, in P. Schultz
– R. von den Hoff (eds.), Early Hellenistic Portraiture. Image,
Style, Context, Cambridge – New York 2007, pp. 161-180.
KUHN 2013 C. Kuhn, Seleukos II Kallinikos, EAH (2013), p. 6129.
KUZMIN – Y. Kuzmin – O. Gabelko, Матримониальная политика
GABELKO 2008 Деметрия II Македонского: новые решения старых проблем,
VDI 264 (2008), pp. 141-164.
LAFFI 1971 U. Laffi, I terreni del tempio di Zeus ad Aizanoi. Le iscrizioni
sulla parete interna dell’anta destra del pronaos, «Athenaeum»
49 (1971), pp. 3-53.
LANDUCCI 1992 F. Landucci, Lisimaco di Tracia. Un sovrano nella prospettiva
del primo ellenismo, Milano 1992.
LANDUCCI 2003 F. Landucci, Monarchia nazionale e monarchia militare: il caso
della Macedonia, in C. Bearzot – F. Landucci – G. Zecchini (a
cura di), Gli stati territoriali nel mondo antico (CSA 1), Milano
2003, pp. 199-224.
LANDUCCI 2011 F. Landucci, Diodoro e la cronologia dei Diadochi: una storia
infinita, in M. Lombardo – M. Mari – C. Marangio (a cura di)
Scritti di storia antica in onore Salvatore Alessandrì, Galatina
2011, pp. 167-178.
LAQUEUR 1936 R. Laqueur, ΣΥΜΒΟΛΑ ΠΕΡΙ TOY MH ΑΔΙΚΕΙΝ, «Hermes»
71 (1936), pp. 469-472.
LASSERRE 1981 F. Lasserre (éd.), Strabon. Géographie. Tome IX. Livre XII, Paris
1981.
LAUNEY 1944 M. Launey, Études d’histoire hellénistique. Un épisode oublié
de l’invasion galate en Asie Mineure (278/7 av. J.-C.), REA
(1944), pp. 217-236.
LAUNEY 1987 M. Launey, Recherches sur les armées hellenistique, 2 vols.,
Paris 19872.
LAURENZI L. Laurenzi, La personalità di Doidalses di Bitinia, ASAA 24-
1946-1948 26 (1946-1948), pp. 167-179.
LE RIDER 1984 G. Le Rider, Un tétradrachme de Prusias I de Bithynie, in
R. Donceel – R. Lebrum (éds.), Archéologie et religions de
l’Anatolie ancienne. Mélanges en l’honneur du professeur Paul
Naster (Homo religiosus 10), Louvain-la-Neuve 1984, pp. 167-
171 = in G. Le Rider, Études d’histoire monétaire et financière du
monde grec écrits 1958-1998, vol. II, Athèns 1999, pp. 691-696.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 217
LECHAT – RADET H. Lechat – G. A. Radet, Inscriptions d’Asie Mineure, BCH 12

1888 (1888), pp. 187-204.
LEGRAND 1893 P. E. Legrand, Inscriptions de Mysie et de Bithynie, BCH 17
(1893), pp. 534-556.
LEHMANN 2015 G. A. Lehmann, Alexander der Große und die “Freiheit
der Hellenen”. Studien zu der antike historiographischen
Überlieferung und den Inschriften der Alexander-Ära, Berlin –
München – Boston 2015.
LENDLE 1995 O. Lendle, Kommentar zu Xenophons Anabasis (Bücher 1-7),
Darmstadt 1995.
LENK 1928 B. Lenk, Maidoi, RE 16 (1928), col. 451.
LENK 1936 B. Lenk, Thynoi, RE 6 A (1936), coll. 734-735.
LENSCHAU 1942 T. Lenschau, Ortiagon, RE 18 (1942), coll. 1505-1506.
LERNER 1999 J. D. Lerner, The Impact of Seleucid Decline on the Eastern
Iranian Plateau: the Fundations of Arsacid Parthia and Graeco-
Bactria (Historia Einzelschriften 123), Stuttgart 1999.
LESCHHORN 1984 W. Leschhorn, “Gründer der Stadt”. Studien zu einem politisch-
religiösen Phänomen der griechischen Geschichte (Palingenesia
20), Stuttgart 1984.
LESCHHORN 1993 W. Leschhorn, Antike Ären. Zeitrechnung, Politik und
Geschichte im Schwarzmeerraum und in Kleinasien nördlich
des Tauros (Historia Einzelschriften 81), Stuttgart 1993.
LEVICK 2007 B. Levick, Girdled by Hills: Culture and Religion in Phrygia
outside the Polis, in H. Elton – G. Reger (eds.), Regionalism in
Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor, Bordeaux 2007, pp. 107-
116.
LIEBESCHUETZ 1972 H. Lieberschuetz, City and Imperial Administration in the Later
Roman Empire, Oxford 1972.
LLOYD 1956 S. Lloyd, Early Anatolia. The Archaeology of Asia Minor before
the Greeks, London 1956.
LOTZE 1959 D. Lotze, ΜΕΤΑΞΥ ΕΛΕΥΘΕΡΩΝ ΚΑΙ ΔΟΥΛΩΝ. Studien
zur Rechtsstellung unfreier Landbevölkerungen in Griechenland
bis zum 4. Jahrhundert v. Chr., Berlin 1959.
LOUKOPOULOU 1989 L. D. Loukopoulou, Contribution à l’histoire de la Thrace
propontique (Meletemata 9), Athenes 1989.
LOUKOPOULOU 2004 L. D. Loukopoulou, Thracian Chersonesos, in M. H. Hansen
– T. H. Nielsen (eds.), An Inventory of Archaic and Classical
Poleis, Oxford – New York 2004, pp. 900-911.
LOUKOPOULOU – L. D. Loukopoulou – A. Łaitar, Propontic Thrace, in M. H.
ŁAITAR 2004 Hansen – T. H. Nielsen (eds.), An Inventory of Archaic and
Classical Poleis, Oxford – New York 2004, pp. 912-923.
LUND 1992 H. S. Lund, Lysimachus. A Study in Early Hellenistic Kingship,
London – New York 1992.
218 ELOISA PAGANONI
MA 1999 J. Ma, Antiochos III and the Cities of Western Asia Minor,
Oxford 1999.
MA 2003 J. Ma, Peer Polity Interaction in the Hellenistic Age, P&P 180
(2003), pp. 9-39.
MA 2013 J. Ma, The Attalids: a Military History, in P. Thonemann (ed.),
Attalid Asia Minor. Money, International Relations, and the
State, Oxford 2013, pp. 49-82.
MACDONALD 1968 W. L. MacDonald, Nicomedia, in R. Stillwell (ed.), The
Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites, Princeton 1968, pp.
623-624.
MACAN 1908 R. W. Macan (ed.), Herodotus. The Seventh, Eighth and Ninth
Book, vol. I 1, London 1908.
MAFFRE 2007 F. Maffre, Indigenous Aristocracies in Hellespontine Phrygia,
in C. Tuplin (ed.), Persian Responses. Political and Cultural
Interaction with(in) the Achaemenid Empire, Swansea 2007, pp.
117-141.
MAGIE 1950 D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor to the End of the Third
Century after Christ, Princeton 1950.
MAHE 1994 J.-P. Mahe, Moïse de Khorène et les inscriptions grecques
d’Armawir, «Topoi» 4 (1994), pp 567-586
MAIRS 2013 R. Mairs, Hellenization, EAH (2013), pp. 3122-3125.
MAIURI 1925-1926 A. Maiuri, Nuovi supplementi al corpus delle iscrizioni di Rodi,
ASAA 8-9 (1925-1926), pp. 313-322.
MANFREDI 1986 V. Manfredi, La strada dei Diecimila. Topografia e geografia
dell’Oriente di Senofonte, Milano 1986.
MANSEL 1970 A. M. Mansel, in M. J. Mellink, Archaeology in Asia Minor,
AJA 74 (1970), pp. 157-178, pp. 175-176.
MANSEL 1974 A. M. Mansel, Das Kuppelgrab von Kutluca (West-Bithynien),
«Thracia» 3 (1974), pp. 207-220.
MANOV 2001 M. Manov, Декреґ на Калаґпс (IG Bulg. II, 780, ter),
«Archeologija» 42.3-4 (2001), pp. 63-68.
MARCELLESI 2012 M.-C. Marcellesi, Pergame de la fin du Ve au début du Ier siécle
avant J.C. Pratiques monétaires et histoire (Studi Ellenistici
26), Pisa – Roma 2012.
MARCHESINI 2017 M. Marchesini, Il Koinon dei Nesioti, PhD Disseration,
Università di Trento 2017.
MARCOTTE 2000 D. Marcotte (ed.), Les géographes grecs. Tome I. Introduction
générale. Ps.-Scymnos: Circuit de la Terre, Paris 2000.
MAREK 1993 C. Marek, Stadt, Ära und Territorium in Pontus-Bithynia und
Nord-Galatia, Tübingen 1993 (Istanbuler Forschungen 39)
MAREK 1996 C. Marek, Amastris (4), DNP 1 (1996), col. 574.
MAREK 2002 C. Marek, Tios, DNP 12.2 (2002), coll. 609-610.
MAREK 2002a C. Marek, Die Phylen von Klaudiupolis, die Geschichte der
BIBLIOGRAPHY 219
Stadt und die Topographie Ostbithyniens, MH 59 (2002), pp.

31-50.
MAREK 2009 C. Marek, Hellenisation and Romanisation in Pontos-Bithynia.
An Overview, in J. M. Højte (ed.), Mithridates VI and the Pontic
Kingdom (Black Sea Studies 9), Aarhus 2009, pp. 35-46.
MAREK 2010 C. Marek, Geschichte Kleinasiens in der Antike, München 2010.
MAREK – ADAK 2016 C. Marek – M. Adak, Epigraphische Forschungen in Bithynien,
Paphlagonien, Galatien und Pontos (Philia Supplements 2),
Isanbul 2016.
MARI 2002 M. Mari, Al di là dell’Olimpo. Macedoni e grandi santuari della
Grecia dall’età arcaica al primo ellenismo (Meletemata 34),
Atene 2002.
MARI 2019 M. Mari, Quando il mondo parlava greco, in M. Mari (a cura
di), L’età ellenistica: società, politica, cultura, Roma 2019, pp.
15-45.
MARQUAILLE 2008 C. Marquaille, The Foreign Policy of Ptolemy II, in P. McKechnie
– P. Guillaume (eds.), Ptolemy II Philadelphus and his World
(Mnemosyne Supplements 300), Leiden – Boston 2008, pp. 39-
64.
MASQUERAY 2009 P. Masqueray (éd.), Xénophon. Anabase. Livres IV-VII, Paris
2009.
MATHISEN 1978 R. W. Mathisen, The Activities of Antigonos Gonatas 280-277
B.C. and Memnon of Herakleia, Concerning Herakleia, «The
Ancient World» 1 (1978), pp. 71-74.
MCAULEY 2016 A. McAuley, Genealogical Tables. Stemma 4. The Antigonids,
in A. Coșkun – A. McAuley (eds.), Seleukid Royal Women.
Creation, Representation and Distortion of Hellenistic
Queenship in the Seleukid Empire (Historia Einzelschriften
240), Stuttgart 2016, p. 322.
MCAULEY 2016a A. McAuley, Princess & Tigress: Apama of Kyrene, in A.
Coșkun – A. McAuley (eds.), Seleukid Royal Women. Creation,
Representation and Distortion of Hellenistic Queenship in the
Seleukid Empire (Historia Einzelschriften 240), Stuttgart 2016,
pp. 175-190.
MCGING 1984 B. C. McGing, The Date of the Outbreak of the Third Mithridatic
War, «Phoenix» 38 (1984), pp. 12-18.
MCGING 1986 B. C. McGing, The Foreign Policy of Mithridates VI Eupator
King of Pontus (Mnemosyne Supplements 89), Leiden 1986.
MCSHANE 1964 R. B. McShane, The Foreign Policy of the Attalids of Pergamum,
Urbana 1964.
MEADOWS 2006 A. Meadows, Ptolemaic Annexation of Lycia: SEG 27.929, in
K. Dörtlük – B. Varkıvanç – T. Kahya – J. des Courtils – M.
220 ELOISA PAGANONI
Doğan-Alpaslan – R. Boyraz (eds.), III. Uluslararası Likya

Sempozyumu: Sempozyum Bildirileri, vol. 2, Suna 2006, pp.
459-470.
MEADOWS 2013 A. Meadows, Polybius, Aratus, and the History of the 140th
Olympiad, in B. Gibson – T. Harrison (eds.), Polybius and His
World. Essays in Memory of F. W. Walbank, Oxford 2013, pp.
91-116.
MEEUS 2012 A. Meeus, Diodorus and the Chronology of the Third Diadoch
War, «Phoenix» 66 (2012), pp. 74-96.
MEHL 1986 A. Mehl, Seleukos Nikator und sein Reich. Seleukos’ Leben und
die Entwicklung seiner Machtposition (Studia Hellenistica 28),
Lovanii 1986.
MEHL 1998 A. Mehl, Hermogenes aus Aspendos, DNP 5 (1998), col. 442.
MEINEKE 1839 A. Meineke, Fragmenta comicorum graecorum. Vol. I. Historia
critica comicorum graecorum, Berolini 1839.
MEINEKE 1877 A. Meineke (ed.), Strabonis geographica, 3 vols., Leipzig 1877.
MEISCHKE 1905 K. Meischke, Zur Geschichte des Königs Eumenes II. von
Pergamon, Pirna 1905.
MELONI 1949 P. Meloni, L’usurpazione di Acheo sotto Antioco III di Siria,
«Rendiconti dell’Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei – Classe di
Scienze morali, storiche e filologiche», ser. VIII.4 (1949), pp.
535-553.
MELONI 1950 P. Meloni, L’usurpazione di Acheo sotto Antioco III di Siria,
«Rendiconti dell’Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei – Classe di
Scienze morali, storiche e filologiche», ser. VIII.5 (1950), pp.
161-183.
MENDEL 1900 G. Mendel, Inscriptions de Bithynie, BCH 24 (1900), pp. 361-
426.
MERKELBACH 1985 R. Merkelbach, Nikaia die Rankenreiche (ΕΛΙΚΩΡΗ). Ein
übersehenes Fragment aus Arrians Bithyniaka, EA 5 (1985),
pp. 1-3.
MERKELBACH 1987 R. Merkelbach, Nikaia in der römischen Kaiserzeit (Rheinish-
Westfälische Akademie der Wissenschaften Vorträge G 289),
Opladen 1987.
MERKELBACH 1990 R. Merkelbach, Hat der bithynische Erbfolgekrieg im Jahr 74
oder 73 begonnen?, ZPE 81 (1990), pp. 197-100.
MERKELBACH – R. Merkelbach – J. Stauber (Hrsgg.), Steinepigramme aus dem
STAUBER 2001 griechischen Osten. Band 2. Die Nordküste Kleinasiens
(Marmarameer und Pontos), München – Leipzig 2001.
MEYER 1879 E. Meyer, Geschichte des Königreiches Pontos, Leipzig 1879.
MEYER 1897 E. Meyer, Bithynia, RE 3 (1897) coll. 508-524.
MEYER 1897a E. Meyer, Bas, RE 3 (1897), col. 36.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 221
MEYER 1905 E. Meyer, Doidalses, RE 5 (1905), col. 1266.

MEYER 1925 E. Meyer, Die Grenzen der hellenistischen Staaten in Kleinasien,
Zürich – Leipzig 1925.
MICHELS 2009 C. Michels, Kulturtransfer und monarchischer “Philhellenis-
mus”. Bithynien, Pontos und Kappadokien in hellenistischer
Zeit (Schriften zur politischen Kommunikation 4), Göttingen
2009.
MICHELS 2013 C. Michels, Expansion und Transformation? Zur Einordnung
der Städtgründungen der Könige Bithyniens, in E. Winter –
K. Zimmermann (Hrsgg.), Neue Funde und Forschungen in
Bithynien (Asia Minor Studien 69), Bonn 2013, pp. 5-31.
MICHELS 2013a C. Michels, The Spread of Polis Institutions in Hellenistic Cap-
padocia and the Peer Polity Interaction Model, in E. Stavri-
anopoulou (ed.), Shifting Social Imaginaries in the Hellenistic
Period: Narrations, Practices, and Images (Mnemosyne Sup-
plements 363), Leiden – Boston 2013, pp. 283-307.
MICHELS 2014 C. Michels, Überlegungen zur Ikonographie der Bronzemünzen
Prusias’ I. und II. von Bithynien, in A. Lichtenberger – K. Mar-
tin – H.-H. Nieswandt – D. Salzmann (Hrsgg.), BildWert. Nomi-
nalspezifische Kommunikationsstrategien in der Münzprägung
hellenistischer Herrscher, Bonn 2014 (Euros 2), pp. 225-246.
MICHELS 2014a C. Michels, Die Kleinkönigreiche Bithynien, Pontos und
Kappadokien, in K. Ehling – G. Weber (Hrsgg.), Hellenistische
Königreiche, Darmstadt 2014, pp. 135-140.
MIGEOTTE 1984 L. Migeotte, L’emprunt dans les cites greques. Recuil del docu-
ments et analyse critique, Québec – Paris 1984.
MIHAILOV 1991 G. Mihailov, The Thrace before the Persian Entry into Europe,
CAH2 III.2 (1991), pp. 591-618.
MILLAR 2002 F. Millar, Rome, the Greek World and the East. Volume I. The
Roman Republic and the Augustan Revolution, Chapel Hill –
London 2002.
MITCHELL 1993 S. Mitchell, Anatolia. Land Men, and Gods in Asia Minor. Vol-
ume I. The Celts in Anatolia and the Impact of the Roman Rule,
Oxford 1993.
MITCHELL 2003 S. Mitchell, The Galatians: Representation and Reality, in ER-
SKINE 2003, pp. 280-293.
MOOREN 1983 L. Mooren, The Nature of the Hellenistic Monarchy, in E. van’t
Dack – P. van Dessel – W. van Gucht (eds.), Egypt and the Hel-
lenistic World. Procidings of the International Colloquium, Lu-
ven 24-26 May 1982, Lovanii 1983, pp. 205-240.
MORENO 1994 P. Moreno, Scultura ellenistica I, Roma 1994.
222 ELOISA PAGANONI
MORENO 2008 A. Moreno, Hieron: the Ancient Sanctuary at the Mouth of the
Black Sea, «Hesperia» 77 (2008), pp. 655-709.
MORGAN 2010 L. Morgan, Bithynia: Poets, Provinces and Clients, in T. Kaizer
– M. Facella (eds.), Kingdoms and Principalities in the Roman
Near East (Oriens et Occidens 19), Stuttgart 2010, pp. 125-135.
MORGAN 2017 J. Morgan, At Home with Royalty: Re-Viewing the Hellenistic
‘Palace’, in A. Erskine – L. Llewellyn-Jones Lloyd – S. Wal-
lace (eds.), The Hellenistic Court: Monarchic Power and Elite
Society from Alexander to Cleopatra, London 2017, pp. 31-67.
MØRKHOLM 1991 O. Mørkholm, Early Hellenistic Coinage. From the Accession
of Alexander to the Peace of Apamea, 316-188 BC, Cambridge
1991.
MUCCIOLI 2004 F. Muccioli, ‘Il re dell’Asia’: ideologia e propaganda da Ales-
sandro Magno a Mitridate VI, «Simblos» 4 (2004), pp. 105-158.
MUCCIOLI 2013 F. Muccioli, Gli epiteti ufficiali in età ellenistica (Historia Ein-
zelschriften 224), Stuttgart 2013.
MUIR 2009 J. Muir, Life and Letters in the Ancient Greek World, London –
New York 2009.
MÜLLER 1997 D. Müller, Topographischer Bildkommentar zu den Historien
Herodots. Kleinasien, Tübingen 1997.
MUSTI 1998 D. Musti, I Nikephoria e il ruolo panellenico di Pergamo, RIFC
126 (1998), pp. 5-40 in D. Musti, Nike. Ideologia, iconogra-
fia e feste della vittoria in età antica, Roma 2005, pp. 45-91.
MUSTI 2000 D. Musti, Un bilancio sulla questione dei Nikephoria di Perga-
mo, RFIC 128 (2000), pp. 257-298.
NACHTERGAEL 1977 G. Nachtergael, Les Galates en Grèce et les Sôtéria de Delphes.
Recherches d’histoire et d’épigraphie hellenistique, Bruxelles
1977.
NADIG 2013 P. Nadig, Ptolemy II Philadelphos, EAH (2013), pp. 5631-5634.
NAUMANN 1979 R. Naumann, Der Zeustempel zu Aizanoi, Berlin 1979.
NAWOTKA 1997 K. Nawotka, The Western Pontic Cities, Amstedam 1997.
NEUDECKER 1997 R. Neudecker, Doidalses, DNP 3 (1997), col. 729.
NEWELL 1937 E. T. Newell, Royal Greek Portrait Coins, New York 1937.
NEWSKAJA 1955 W. P. Newskaja, Byzanz in der klassischen und hellenistischen
Epoche, Leipzig 1955.
NIEBUHR 1828 B. G. Niebuhr, Historischer Gewinn aus der armenischen Über-
setzung der Chronik des Eusebius, in Kleine historische und phi-
lologische Schriften. Band 1, Bonn 1828, pp. 179-304.
NIESE 1899 B. Niese, Geschichte der griechischen und makedonischen Staa-
ten seit der Schlacht bei Chaeronea. 2. Teil. Vom Jahre 281 v.
Chr. Bis zur Begründung der römischen Hegemonie im griechi-
schen Osten 188 v. Chr., Gotha 1899.
NIESE 1903 B. Niese, Geschichte der griechischen und makedonischen Staa-
BIBLIOGRAPHY 223
ten seit der Schlacht bei Chaeronea. 3. Teil. Von 188 bis 120 v.
Chr., Gotha 1903.
NIEWÖHNER 2007 P. Niewöhner, Aizanoi, Dokimion und Anatolien (Archäologi-
sche Forschungen 23), Wiesbaden 2007.
NOLTE 1861 K. A. E. Nolte, De rebus gestis regum Bithynorum usque ad
Prusiae I mortem, Dissertation, Halis Saxonum 1861.
O’NEIL 2008 J. L. O’Neil, A Re-Examination of the Chremonidean War, in P.
McKechnie – P. Guillaume (eds.), Ptolemy II Philadelphus and
His World (Mnemosyne Supplements 300), Leiden – Boston
2008 , pp. 65-89.
OBERHUMMER 1897 E. Oberhummer, Bithyas¸ RE 3 (1897), col. 507.
OBERHUMMER 1897a E. Oberhummer, Bithynion, RE 3 (1897), col. 452.
OBERHUMMER 1936 E. Oberhummer, Thynias (1), RE 6 (1936), coll. 717-718.
OBERHUMMER 1948 E. Oberhummer, Tyle, RE 7 A (1948), col. 1712.
OGDEN 1999 D. Ogden, Polygamy, Prostitutes and Death. The Hellenistic
Dynasties, London 1999.
OLSHAUSEN 1978 E. Olshausen, Pontos, RE Suppl. 15, 1978, coll. 396-442.
OLSHAUSEN 2000 E. Olshausen, Phryges, Phrygia, DNP 9 (2000), coll. 965-967.
ORTH 1993 W. Orth, Die Diadochenzeit im Spiegel der historischen Geo-
graphie. Kommentar zu TAVO-Karte B V 2 “Diadochenreiche
(um 303 v. Chr.)”, Wiesbaden 1993.
OTTO 1912 W. Otto, Hermogenes aus Aspendos, RE 8 (1912), coll 862-863.
OTTO 1931 W. Otto, Zu den Syrischen Kriegen der Ptolemäer, «Philologus»
86 (1931), pp. 400-418.
ÖZDOĞAN 2011 M. Özdoğan, Eastern Thrace: the Contact Zone between Ana-
tolia and the Balkans, in S. R. Steadman – G. McMahon (eds.),
The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia 10.000-323 B.C.E.,
Oxford – New York 2011, pp. 657-682.
ÖZLEM-AYTAÇLAR P. Özlem-Aytaçlar, An Onomastic Survey of the Indigenous
2010 Population of North-Western Asia Minor, in R. W. V. Catling
– F. Marchand (eds), Onomatologos. Studies in Greek Personal
Names presented to Elaine Matthews, Oxford 2010, pp. 506-
529.
ÖZTÜRK 2013 B. Öztürk, The History of Tieion/Tios (Eastern Bithynia) in the
Light of Inscriptions, in M. Manoledakis (ed.), Exploring the
Hospitable Sea (BAR International Series 2498), Oxford 2013,
pp. 147-164.
PAGANONI 2015 E. Paganoni, Bithynia in Memnon’s Perì Herakleias. A Case
Study for the Reappraisal of Old and New Proposals, AHB 29
(2015) [2016], pp. 57-79.
PAGANONI 2016 E. Paganoni, Bithyniaka. Lost Memories, «Politica Antica» 6
(2016), pp. 83-98.
224 ELOISA PAGANONI
PAGANONI 2019 E. Paganoni, Bitinia e Paflagonia tra Alessandro e i Diadochi

(334-301), in L. Prandi (a cura di), EstOvest. Confini e conflit-
ti fra Vicino Oriente e mondo Greco-romano (Monografie del
Centro Ricerche di Documentazione sull’Antichità Classica 47),
Roma 2019, pp. 137-167.
PAGANONI forth. E. Paganoni, Finding a Place in the World. The Thracian Pres-
ence in the Propontic Peninsula through the Lens of the Myth,
«Politica Antica» 9 (2019), forthcoming.
PANICHI 2018 S. Panichi, La Cappadocia ellenistica sotto gli Ariaratidi ca.
250-100 a.C. (Biblioteca di Geographia Antiqua 5), Firenze
2018.
PAPADOUPULOS 1865 C. Papadoupulos, Αρχαιολογικα, «Pandora» 16 (1865), pp. 372-
375.
PAPAZOGLOU 1997 F. Papazoglou, Laoi et paroikoi. Recherches sur la structure de
la société hellénistique, Beograd 1997.
PARADISO 2007 A. Paradiso, Sur la servitude volontaire des Mariandyniens
d’Héraclée du Pont, in A. Serdghidou (ed.), Fear of Slaves –
Fear of Enslavement in the Ancient Mediterranean. Peur de
l’esclave – peur de l’esclavage en Méditerranée ancienne. Dis-
cours, représentations, pratiques, Besançon 2007, pp. 23-33.
PARKE 1982 H. W. Parke, The Attribution of the Oracle in Zosimus, New
History 2.37, CQ 32 (1982), pp. 441-444.
PASCHIDIS P. Paschidis, Φίλοι and φιλία between Poleis and Kings in the
Hellenistic Period, in M. Mari – J. Thornton (a cura di), Parole
in movimento. Linguaggio politico e lessico storiografico nel
mondo ellenistico (Studi Ellenistici 27), Pisa – Roma 2013, pp.
283-298.
PASCHOUD 2000 F. Paschoud (éd.), Zosime. Histoire Nouvelle. Tome I. Livres I-
II. Nouvelle édition, Paris 2000.
PATON 1922 W. R. Paton (ed.), Polybius. The Histories. Vol. II, Cambridge
PATON 1926 W. R. Paton (ed.), Polybius. The Histories. Vol. V, Cambridge
PAUL 2013 S. Paul, Cultes and sanctuaries de l’île de Cos (Kernos Supplé-
ment 28), Liège 2013.
PEEK 1938 W. Peek, Metrische Inschriften, in J. F. Crome (Hrsg.), Mnemo-
synon Theodor Wiegand, Münich 1938, pp. 14-42.
PEEK 1955 W. Peek, Griechische Vers-Inschriften. Band I. Grab-Epigram-
me, Berlin 1955.
PEEK 1960 W. Peek, Griechische Grabgedichte, Berlin 1960.
PERL 1968 G. Perl, Zur Chronologie der Königreiche Bithynia, Pontos und
BIBLIOGRAPHY 225
Bosporos, in H. Harmatta (Hrsg.), Studien zur Geschichte und

Philosophie des Altertums, Amsterdam 1968, pp. 299-331
PERLMAN 2000 P. Perlman, City and Sanctuary in Ancient Greece. The Theoro-
dokia in the Peloponnese (Hypomnemata 121), Göttingen 2000.
PERÒ 2013 A. Però, Nikaia di Bitinia: tradizioni di fondazione nella docu-
mentazione letteraria, epigrafica e monetale, in L. Travaini – G.
Arrigoni (a cura di), Polis, urbs, civitas. Moneta e identità. Atti
del convegno di studio del Lexicon iconographicum numismati-
cae (Milano 25 ottobre 2012), Roma 2013, pp. 139-150.
PERROT – G. Perrot – E. Guillaume, Exploration archéologique de la Ga-
GUILLAUME 1872 latie et de la Bithynie, d’une partie de la Mysie, de la Phrygie,
de la Cappadoce et du Pont. Tome premier, Paris 1872.
PESCHLOW – U. Peschlow – A. Peschlow-Bindokat – M. Wörrle, Die Samm-
et al. 2002 lung Turan Beler in Kumbaba bei Şile (II). Antike und Byzan-
tinische Denkmäler von der bithynischen Schwartzmeerküste,
MDAI(I) 52 (2002), pp. 429-522.
PETKOVIĆ 2009 Ž. Petković, Mithridates II and Antiochos Hierax, «Klio» 91
(2009), pp. 378-383.
PETKOVIĆ 2012 Ž. Petković, The Aftermath of the Apamean Settlement. Early
Challenges to the New Order in Asia Minor, «Klio» 94 (2012),
pp. 357-365.
PFUHL 1932 E. Pfuhl, Zwei Kriegergrabmäler (zu Xenophons Hippischen
Schriften), AA (1932), coll. 1-7.
PFUHL 1933 E. Pfuhl, Zur Grabstein des Bithynien Menas, AA (1933), coll.
751-754.
PFUHL – MÖBIUS E. Pfuhl – H. Möbius, Die Ostgriechischen Grabreliefs, Mainz
1977-1979 am Rhein 1977-1979.
PHILIPP 1987 H. Philipp, Eine hellenistische Satyrstatuette aus Izmit (Nikome-
dia), AA (1987), pp. 131-143.
PIEJKO 1988 F. Piejko, The Athamanian Recognition of the Asylia of Teos,
«Epigraphica» 50 (1988), pp. 41-46.
PIEJKO 1988a F. Piejko, Letter of Eumenes II to Tralles concerning Inviolabil-
ity and Tax Exemption for the Temple. After 188 B.C., «Chiron»
18 (1988), pp. 55-69.
PIRAINO 1955 M.T. Piraino, La pace di Fenice, RFIC 32 (1955), pp. 57-73.
PIRSON 2014 F. Pirson, Ansichten des Krieges. Kampfreliefs klassischer und
hellenistischer Zeit im Kulturvergleich, Wiesbaden 2014.
POLLAK 1970 P. Pollak, A Bithynian Hoard of the First Century B.C., ANS-
MusN 16 (1970), pp. 45-56.
POSAMENTIR – R. Posamentir – Wörrle, Der Zeustempel von Aizanoi. Ein Groß-
WÖRRLE 2006 bau flavischer Zeit, MDAI(I) 56 (2006), pp. 227-246.
POTTER 2007 D. Potter, The Identities of Lykia, in H. Elton – G. Reger (eds),
226 ELOISA PAGANONI
Regionalism in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor, Bordeaux

2007, pp. 81-88.
POUILLOUX – J. Pouilloux – A. Jacquemin (édd.), Pausanias. Description de la
JACQUEMIN 1999 Grèce. Tome V. Livre V. L’Élide, Paris 1999.
POVALAHEV 2011 N. Povalahev, Eine Bauinschrift aus Phanagoreia von 220/1 n.
Chr. und ihr historischer Hintergrund: Text und Kommentar,
ZPE 177 (2011), pp. 141-156.
PRÊTEUX 2005 F. Prêteux, Priapos Bébrykès dans la Propontide et les Détroits:
succès d’un mythe local, REG 118 (2005), pp. 246-265.
PREUNER 1921 E. Preuner, Aus alten Papieren, MDAI(A) 46 (1921), pp. 1-26.
PRIMO 2002 A. Primo, La satrapia di Dascilio tra Farnabazo e Ariobarzane,
SCO 48 (2002), pp. 424-430.
PRIMO 2004 A. Primo, La dinastia dei Mitridatidi del Ponto dalle origini a
Mitridate Eupatore, PhD Dissertation, Università di Pisa 2004.
PRIMO 2009 A. Primo, Antioco Ierace «ucciso dai Galli»? Nota su Trog.
Prol. XXVII, RCCM 51 (2009), pp. 541-546.
PSOMA 2013 S. Psoma, War or Trade? Attic-Weight Tetradrachms from Sec-
ond-Century BC Attalid Asia Minor in Seleucid Syria after the
Peace of Apamea and Their Historical Context, in P. Thone-
mann (ed.), Attalid Asia Minor. Money, International Relations,
and the State, Oxford 2013, pp. 255-300.
PUGLIESE CARRATELLI G. Pugliese Carratelli, Supplemento epigrafico di Iaso, ASAA
1967-1968 45-46 (1967-1968), pp. 437-486.
RADET 1893 G. A. Radet, La Lydie et le monde grec au temps des Mermnades
(687-546), Paris 1893.
RADT 1999 W. Radt, Pergamon. Geschichte und Bauten einer antiken Me-
tropole, Darmstadt 1999.
RADT 2008 S. Radt, Strabon Geographika. Band 7. Buch IX-XIII: Kommen-
tar, Göttingen 2008.
RAGONE 2003 G. Ragone, Aristonico tra Kyme e Cuma (Ps.-Symn. vv. 236-
253; Aug. De civ. Dei III 11), «Studi Ellenistici» 15 (2003), pp.
25-113.
RAMSEY 2016 G. Ramsey, The Diplomacy of Seleukid Women: Apama and
Stratonike, in A. Coșkun – A. McAuley (eds.), Seleukid Royal
Women. Creation, Representation and Distortion of Hellenis-
tic Queenship in the Seleukid Empire (Historia Einzelschriften
240), Stuttgart 2016, pp. 87-104.
REDGATE 1998 A. E. Redgate, The Armenians, Oxford 1998.
REGER 2007 G. Reger, Karia. A Case Study, in H. Elton – G. Reger (eds.),
Regionalism in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor, Bordeaux
2007, pp. 89-96.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 227
REINACH 1888 T. Reinach, Trois royaumes de l’Asie Mineure. Cappadoce, Bi-

thynie, Pont, Paris 1888.
REINACH 1902 T. Reinach, L’histoire par les monnaies. Essais de numisma-
tique ancienne, Paris 1902.
RENFREW 1986 C. Renfrew, Introduction: Peer Polity Interaction and Socio-
Political Change, in C. Renfrew – J. F. Cherry (eds.), Peer Pol-
ity Interaction and Socio-Political Change, Cambridge 1986,
pp. 1-18.
REYNOLDS 1973 J. Reynolds, Aphrodisias: A Free and Federate City, in Akten
des VI Internationalen Kongresses für Griechische und Lateini-
sche Epigraphik (Vestigia 17), München 1973, pp. 115-122.
RHODES – LEWIS P. J. Rhodes – M. Lewis, The Decrees of the Greek States, Ox-
1997 ford 1997.
RIGSBY 1996 K. J. Rigsby, Asylia. Territorial Inviolability in the Hellenistic
World, Berkeley – Los Angeles – London 1996.
RIGSBY 2004 K. J. Rigsby, Theoroi for the Koan Asklepeia, in K. Höghammar
(ed.), The Hellenistic Polis of Kos. State, Economy and Culture
(Boreas 28), Uppsala 2004, pp. 9-14.
ROBERT 1934 L. Robert, Hellenistica, REA 36 (1934), pp. 521-526.
ROBERT 1934a L. Robert, Études d’épigraphie grecque, RPh 60 (1934), pp.
267-292.
ROBERT 1937 L. Robert, Études anatoliennes. Recherches sur les inscriptions
grecques de l’Asie Mineure, Amsterdam 1937.
ROBERT 1939 L. Robert, Hellenica, RPh 65 (1939), pp. 97-217.
ROBERT 1949 L. Robert, Inscriptions de la region de Yalova en Bithynie, in
Hellenica VII (1949), pp. 30-44.
ROBERT 1958 L. Robert, Reliefs votifs et cultes d’Anatolie, «Anatolia» 3
(1958), pp. 103-136 = in Robert, Opera Minora Selecta I, Am-
serdam 1969, pp. 402-435.
ROBERT 1978 L. Robert, Documents d’Asie Mineure, BCH 102 (1978), pp.
395-543.
ROBERT 1980 L. Robert, A travers l’Asie Mineure. Poètes et prosateures,
monnaies grecques, voyageurs et géographie (Bibliothèque des
Écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 239), Paris 1980.
ROBU 2012 A. Robu, Les établissements mégariens de la Propontide et du
Pont-Euxin: réseaux, solidarités et liens institutionnels, «Pal-
las» 89 (2012), pp. 181-195.
ROBU 2014 A. Robu, Mégare et les établissement mégariens de Sicile, de la
Propontide et du Pont Euxin. Histore et istitutions, Berne 2014.
ROBU 2014a A. Robu, Byzance et Chalcédoine à l’époque hellénistique:
entre alliance et rivalités, in V. Cojocaru – A. Coşcun – M.
Dana (eds.), Interconnectivity in the Mediterranean and Pontic
228 ELOISA PAGANONI
World during the Hellenistic and Roman Periods, Cluj-Napoca

2014, pp. 187-206.
ROBU 2014b A. Robu, Les relations de Byzance avec les cités du Pont Gauche
à l’époque hellénistique. La guerre pour l’emporion de Tomis,
in V. Cojocaru – C. Schuler (Hrsgg.), Die Außenbeziehungen
pontischer und kleinasiatischer Städte in hellenistischer und rö-
mischer Zeit, Stuttgart 2014, pp. 19-36.
ROELENS-FLOUNEAU H. Roelens-Flouneau, Remarques sur la navigabilité des fleuves
2018 d’Asie Mineure dans l’Antiquité, in A. Dan – S. Lebreton (édd.),
Études des fleuves d’Asie Mineure dans l’antiquité. Tome I, Ar-
ras 2018, pp. 251-317.
ROLLER 2011 L. E. Roller, Phrygian and the Phrygians, in S. R. Steadman –
G. McMahon (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia,
Oxford – New York 2011, pp. 560-578.
ROSTOVTZEFF 1941 M. Rostovtzeff, The Social and Economic History of the Hel-
lenistic World, 3 vols., Oxford 1941.
RUGE 1897 W. Ruge, Bebrykes, RE 3 (1897), coll. 180-181.
RUGE 1910 W. Ruge, Gallos (3), RE 7 (1910), col. 674.
RUGE 1919 W. Ruge, Kalchedon, RE 10 (1919), coll. 1555-1559.
RUGE 1921 W. Ruge, Kieros, RE 11 (1921), col. 380.
RUGE 1921a W. Ruge, Kios, RE 11 (1921), coll. 486-488.
RUGE 1922 W. Ruge, Krateia (2), RE 11 (1922), col. 1609.
RUGE 1927 W. Ruge, Lypedros, RE 13 (1927), col. 2479.
RUGE 1933 W. Ruge, Myrleia, RE 16 (1933), coll. 1104-1105.
RUGE 1936 W. Ruge, Nikomedeia, RE 17 (1936), coll. 468-492.
RUGE 1936a W. Ruge, Nikomedeion, RE 17 (1936), col. 492.
RUGE 1936b W. Ruge, Nikaia (7), RE 17 (1936), coll. 226-243.
RUGE 1937 W. Ruge, Tieion, RE 6 A (1937), coll. 856-862.
RUGE 1941 W. Ruge, Phrygia, RE 20 (1941), coll. 781-868.
RUSSELL 2017 T. Russell, Byzantium and the Bosporus. A Historical Study
from the Seventh Century BC until the Foundation of Constan-
tinople, Oxford 2017.
ȘAHIN 1984 S. Șahin, Zwei Meilensteine aus der Gegend von Claudiopolis –
Krateia, EA 3 (1984), pp. 101-104.
ŞAHIN 1986 S. Şahin, Strabon XII 3,7 p. 543. Der Fluss Gallos, die Stadt
Mor<en>e in Phrygia und die Schiffbarkeit des Sangarios, EA
7 (1986), pp. 125-152.
SAMS 2011 G. K. Sams, Anatolia: the First Millennium B.C.E. in Historical
Context, in S. R. Steadman – G. McMahon (eds.), The Oxford
Handbook of Ancient Anatolia, Oxford – New York 2011, pp.
604-622.
SANTI AMANTINI L. Santi Amantini (a cura di), Giustino. Storie filippiche. Epito-
1981 me da Pompeo Trogo, Milano 1981.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 229
SAPRYKIN 1997 S. J. Saprykin, Herakleia Pontica and Tauric Chersonesus be-

fore Roman Domination. VI-I centuries B.C., Amsterdam 1997.
SARTRE 1995 M. Sartre, L’Asie Mineure et l’Anatolie d’Alexandre à Dioclé-
tien (IVe s. av. J.-C. / IIIe s. ap. J.-C.), Paris 1995.
SARTRE 2003 M. Sartre, L’Anatolie hellénistique de l’Égée au Caucase, Paris
2003.
SAVALLI-LESTRADE I. Savalli-Lestrade, Les philoi royaux dans l’Asie Mineure, Ge-
1998 nève 1998.
SAVALLI-LESTRADE I. Savalli-Lestrade, Nouvelles considérations sur le dossier épi-
2018 graphique de Toriaion (SEG 47.1745; I. Sultan Dağı I, 393),
ZPE 205 (2018), pp. 165-177.
SCHALLES 1985 H.-J. Schalles, Untersuchungen zur Kulturpolitik der pergame-
nischen Herrscher im dritten Jahrhundert vor Christus, Tübin-
gen 1985.
SCHAMP 1987 J. Schamp, Photios historien des lettres. La Bibliothèque et ses
notices biographiques, Paris 1987.
SCHEER 1993 T. S. Scheer, Mythische Vorväter. Zur Bedeutung griechischer
Heroenmythen im Selbstverständnis kleinasiatischer Städte
(Münchener Arbeiten zur alten Geschichte 7), München 1993.
SCHEER 2003 T. S. Scheer, The Past in a Hellenistic Present: Myth and Local
Tradition, in ERSKINE 2003, pp. 216-231.
SCHEER 2010 T. S. Scheer, “They that Held Arkadia”. Arcadian Foundation
Myths as Intentional History in Roman Imperial Times, in L.
Foxhall – H.-J. Gehrke – N. Luraghi (eds.), Intentional History:
Spinning Time in Ancient Greece, Stuttgart 2010, pp. 275-298.
SCHEER 2011 T. S. Scheer, Ways of Becoming Arcadian. Arcadian Founda-
tion Myths in the Mediterranean, in E. S. Gruen (ed.), Cultural
Identity in the Ancient Mediterranean, Los Angeles 2011, pp.
11-25.
SCHMITT 1964 O. Schmitt, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Antiochos’ des
Grossen und seiner Zeit (Historia Einzelschriften 6), Wiesbaden
1964.
SCHNEIDER C. Schneider, Kulturgeschichte des Hellenismus, 2 vols., Mün-
1967-1969 chen 1967-1969.
SCHOCH 1924 P. Schoch, Cauaros, RE Suppl. 4 (1924), coll. 881-882.
SCHOLTEN 2007 J. B. Scholten, Building Hellenistic Bithynia, in H. Elton – G.
Reger (eds.), Regionalism in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor,
Bordeaux 2007, pp. 17-24.
SCHOLTEN 2013 J. Scholten, Prusa, EAH (2013), pp. 5609-5610.
SCHOLZ 2015 P. Scholz, Der Hellenismus. Der Hof und die Welt, München
2015.
SCHÖNERT-GEISS E. Schönert-Geiss, Bithynien, «Chiron» 8 (1978), pp. 607-654.
1978
230 ELOISA PAGANONI
SCHOTTKY 1989 M. Schottky, Media Atropatene und Gross-Armenien in helleni-

stischer Zeit, Bonn 1989.
SCHOTTKY 2000 M. Schottky, Nikomedes (2), DNP 8 (2000), col. 930.
SCHOTTKY 2001 M. Schottky, Samos, DNP 11 (2001), coll. 16-17.
SCHOTTKY 2001a M. Schottky, Prusias (1), DNP 10 (2001), col. 491
SCHOTTKY 2002 M. Schottky, Doidalses, DNP 12.2 (2002), col. 944.
SCHOTTKY 2002a M. Schottky, Bas, DNP 12.2 (2002), coll. 912-913.
SCHOTTKY 2002b M. Schottky, Zipoites (1), DNP 12.2 (2002), col. 817.
SCHOTTKY 2002c M. Schottky, Zipoites (2), DNP 12.2 (2002), col. 817.
SCHOTTKY 2002d M. Schottky, Ziaelas, DNP 12.2 (2002), col. 795.
SCHOTTKY 2002e M. Schottky, Zipoites (3), DNP 12.2 (2002), coll. 817-818.
SCHROETER 1931 F. Schroeter (ed.), De regum hellenisticorum epistulis in lapidi-
bus servatis quaestiones stilisticae, Lipsiae 1931.
SCHULER 1998 C. Schuler, Ländliche Siedlungen und Gemeinden im hellenisti-
schen und römischen Kleinasien (Vestigia 50), München 1998.
SCHWERTHEIM 1988 E. Schwertheim, Studien zur historischen Geographie Mysiens,
EA 11 (1988), pp. 65-78.
SCHWERTEIM 2000 E. Schwertheim, Mysia, DNP 8 (2000), coll. 608-610.
SEGRE 1932 M. Segre, Due nuovi testi storici, RFIC 60 (1932), pp. 446-461.
SEIBERT 1967 J. Seibert, Historische Beiträge zu dynastischen Verbindungen
in hellenistischer Zeit (Historia Einzelschriften 10), Wiesbaden
1967.
SEIBERT 1993 J. Seibert, Hannibal, Darmstadt 1993.
SEKUNDA 1988 N. V. Sekunda, Persian Settlement in Hellespontine Phrygia, in
A. Kuhrt – H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg (eds.), Achaemenid History
III. Method and Theory, Leiden 1988, pp. 175-196.
SÈVE 2014 M. Sève, Cyzique et les Attalides, in M. Sève – P. Schlosser
(édd.), Cyzique, cité majeure et méconnue de la Propontide an-
tique, Metz 2014, pp. 151-165.
SEVRUGIAN 1973 E. Sevrugian, ΒΑΣΥΛΕΥΣ ΒΙΘΥΝΩΝ ΖΙΑΗΛΑΣ. König der Bi-
thynien Ziaelas, GNS 90 (1973), pp. 33-41.
SHERWIN-WHITE 1 S. Sherwin-White, Ancient Cos. An Historical Study from Do-
978 rian Settlement to the Imperial Period (Hypomnemata 51), Göt-
tingen 1978.
SHERWIN-WHITE A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Foreign Policy in the East, 168
1984 B.C. to A.D. 1, London 1984.
SHERWIN-WHITE – S. Sherwin-White – A. Kuhrt, From Samarkhand to Sardis. A
KUHRT 1993 New Approach to the Seleucid Empire, London 1993.
SHIPLEY 1987 G. Shipley, A History of Samos (800-188 BC), Oxford 1987.
SHIPLEY 2011 G. Shipley, Pseudo-Skylax’s Periplous: the Circumnavigation of
the Inhabited World. Text, Translation and Commentary, Exeter
2011.
SIEGERT 1983 H. Siegert, I Traci, Milano 1983.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 231
SÖLCH 1925 J. Sölch, Bithynische Städte im Altertum, «Klio» 19 (1925), pp.

140-188.
SOMMER 1996 K. I. L. Sommer, Cius or Prusias?, «Numismatic Chronicle»
156 (1996), pp. 147-155.
SPICKERMANN 2000 W. Spickermann, Ortiagon, DNP 9 (2000), col. 79.
STADTER 1980 P. A. Stadter, Arrian of Nicomedia, Chapel Hill 1980.
STÄHELIN 1907 F. Stähelin, Geschichte der kleinasiatischen Galater, Leipzig
1907.
STASSER 2015 T. Stasser, Apama III et IV reines de Bithynie et princesses de
Syrie? Note de prosopographie séleucide, «Res Antiquae» 12
(2015), pp. 179-196.
STEWART 1993 A. Stewart, Faces of Power. Alexander’s Image and Hellenistic
Politics, Berkeley – Los Angeles – Oxford 1993.
STEWART 2014 A. Stewart, Art in the Hellenistic World. An Introduction, New
York 2014.
STOYANOVA 2015 D. Stoyanova, Tomb Architecture, in J. Valeva – E. Nankov –
D. Graninger (eds.), A Companion to Ancient Thrace, Malden
– Oxford 2015, pp. 158-179.
STROBEL 1991 K. Strobel, Die Galater im hellenistischen Kleinasien. Histo-
rische Aspekte einer keltischen Staatenbildung, in J. Seibert
(Hrsg.), Hellenistische Studien. Gedenkschrift für Hermann
Bengtson, München 1991, pp. 101-134.
STROBEL 1994 K. Strobel, Galatien und seine Grenzregionen. Zu Fragen der
historische Geographie Galatiens, in E. Schwertheim (Hrsg.),
Forschungen in Galatien (Asia Minor Studien 12), Bonn 1994,
pp. 29-65.
STROBEL 1994a K. Strobel, Keltensieg und Galatersieger. Die Funktionalisie-
rung eines historischen Phänomens als politischer Mythos der
hellenistischen Welt, in E. Schwertheim (Hrsg.), Forschungen in
Galatien (Asia Minor Studien 12), Bonn 1994, pp. 67-96.
STROBEL 1996 K. Strobel, Die Galater. Geschichte und Eigenart der keltischen
Staatenbildung auf dem Boden des hellenistischen Kleinasien.
Band 1. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Historischen Geo-
graphie des hellenistischen und römischen Kleinasien I, Berlin
1996.
STROBEL 1997 K. Strobel, Bithynia, DNP 2 (1997), coll. 698-700.
STROBEL 1997a K. Strobel, Astakos (1), DNP 2 (1997), col. 116.
STROBEL 1997b K. Strobel, Galatica I. Beiträge zur historischen Geographie
und Geschichte Ostgalatiens, OTerr 3 (1997), pp. 131-153.
STROBEL 1997c K. Strobel, Apameia (1), DNP 1 (1997), col. 824.
STROBEL 1998 K. Strobel, Gallos (1), DNP 4 (1998), col. 773.
STROBEL 2000 K. Strobel, Nikaia (5), DNP 8 (2000), coll. 895-896.
STROBEL 2000a K. Strobel, Nikomedeia, DNP 8 (2000), coll. 927-928.
232 ELOISA PAGANONI
STROBEL 2001 K. Strobel, Prusias am Hypios, DNP 10 (2001), coll. 492-493.

STROBEL 2002 K. Strobel, State Formation by the Galatians of Asia Minor. Po-
litico-Historical and Cultural Processes in Hellenistic Central
Anatolia, «Anatolica» 28 (2002), pp. 1-46.
STROBEL 2006 K. Strobel, Galatien, die Galater und die Poleis der Galater:
historische Identität und ethnische Tradition, «Eirene» 42
(2006), pp. 89-123 = in H. Birkhan (Hrsg.), Kelten-Einfälle an
der Donau. Akten des Vierten Symposiums deutschsprachiger
Keltologinnen und Keltologen. Philologische – Historische –
Archäologische Evidenzen. Konrad Spindler (1939-2005) zum
Gedenken. (Linz/Donau, 17.-21. Juli 2005), Wien 2007, pp.
529-548..
STROBEL 2007 K. Strobel, Die Galater und die Galatien: historische Identi-
tät und ethnische Tradition im Imperium Romanum, «Klio» 89
(2007), pp. 356-402.
STROBEL 2009 K. Strobel, The Galatians in the Roman Empire: Historical Tra-
dition and Ethnic Identity in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor,
in T. Derks – N. Roymans (eds.), Ethnic Constructs in Antiquity.
The Role of Power and Tradition (Archaeological Studies 13),
Amsterdam 2009, pp. 117-144.
STROBEL – K Strobel – E. Wirbelauer, Kalchedon, DNP 6 (1999), coll. 153-
WIRBELAUER 1999 155.
STRONK 1991 J. P. Stronk, Conditions for Colonization: Calpe Limen and
Salmydessos Recosidered, «Thracia Pontica» 4 (1991), pp. 97-
108.
STRONK 1995 J. P. Stronk, The Ten Thousand in Thrace. An Archaeological
and Historical Commentary on Xenophon’s Anabasis, Books
VI.iii-iv – VII, Amsterdam 1995.
STROOTMAN 2005 R. Strootman, Kings against Celts. Deliverance from Barbar-
ians as Theme in Hellenistic Propaganda, in K. A. E. Enenkel
– I. L. Pfeijffer (eds.), The Manipulative Mode. Political Propa-
ganda in Antiquity. A Collection of Case Studies (Mnemosyne
Supplements 261), Leiden – Boston 2005, pp. 101-141.
STROOTMAN 2010 R. Strootman, Literature and the Kings, in J. J. Clauss – M.
Cuypers (eds.), A Companion to Hellenistic Literature, Malden
(Mass.) 2010, pp. 30-45.
STROOTMAN 2013 R. Strootman, Antiochos I Soter, EAH (2013), pp. 473-475.
STROOTMAN 2017 R. Strootman, The Birdcage of the Muses. Patronage of the Arts
and Sciences at the Ptolemaic Imeprial Court, 305-222 BCE
(Interdisciplinary Studies in Ancient Culture and Religion 17),
Peeters 2017.
STYLIANOU 1994 P. J. Stylianou, The Pax Macedonica and the Freedom of the
Greeks of Asia (with an Appendix on the Chronology of the
BIBLIOGRAPHY 233
Years 323-301), «Epetris tou Kentrou Epistemonikon Ereunon»

20 (1994), pp. 1-84.
SULLIVAN 1990 R. D. Sullivan, Near Eastern Royalty and Rome. 100-30 B.C.,
Toronto 1990.
SYME 1995 R. Syme, Anatolica. Studies in Strabo, Oxford 1995.
TALBERT 2000 R. J. A. Talbert, Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman
World, Princeton 2000.
TALMAŢCHI 2016 G. Talmaţchi, The Coinage of Callatis in the Hellenistic Period
Revisited, in A. Robu – I. Bîrzescu (édd.), Mégarika. Nouvelles
recherches sur Mégare et les cités de la Propontide et du Pont-
Euxin. Archéologie, épigraphie, histoire. Actes du colloque de
Mangalia (8-12 juillet 2012), Paris 2016, pp. 439-449.
TARN 1913 W. W. Tarn, Antigonos Gonatas, Oxford 1913.
TARN 1953 W. W. Tarn, The Heritage of Alexander, CAH1 VI (1953), pp.
461-504.
THOMPSON 2011 D. J. Thompson, Slavery in the Hellenistic World, in K. Bradley
– P. Cartledge (eds.), The Cambridge World History of Slav-
ery. Volume 1. The Ancient Mediterranean World, Cambridge
– New York 2011, pp. 194-213.
THONEMANN 2013 P. Thonemann, The Attalid State, 188-133 BC, in P. Thonemann
(ed.), Attalid Asia Minor. Money, International Relations and
State, Oxford 2013, pp. 1-47.
THORNTON 2013 J. Thornton, Oratory in Polybius’ Histories, in C. Kremmydas –
K. Tempest (eds), Hellenistic Oratory. Continuity and Change,
Oxford 2013, pp. 21-42.
TOBER 2013 D. J. Tober, The Autobiographical Community: Local Histori-
ography in Classical and Hellenistic Greece, PhD Dissertation,
Princeton University 2013.
TOEPFFER 1896 J. Toepffer, Astakos, «Hermes» 31 (1896), pp. 124-136.
TOMASCHITZ 2007 K. Tomaschitz, Die Literarische Evidenz zu den Kelteneinfällen
in frühhellenistischer Zeit, in H. Birkhan (Hrsg.), Kelten-Einfäl-
le an der Donau. Akten des Vierten Symposiums deutschsprachi-
ger Keltologinnen und Keltologen. Philologische – Historische
– Archäologische Evidenzen. Konrad Spindler (1939-2005) zum
Gedenken. (Linz/Donau, 17.-21. Juli 2005), Wien, pp. 559-571.
TOMASZ 2014 G. Tomasz, The Cult of the Ptolemies in the Aegean in the 3rd
Century BC, «Electrum» 21 (2014), pp. 21-41.
TRAINA 2017 G. Traina, Rois ou dynastes? Les territoires arméniens à
l’époque d’Antiochos III, in C. Feyel – L. Graslin-Thomé (édd.),
Antiochos III et l’Orient, Nancy 2017, pp. 373-384.
TRAVERSARI 1993 G. Traversari, La Tyche di Prusias ad Hypium e la “scuola”
microasiatica di Nicomedia, Roma 1993.
234 ELOISA PAGANONI
TREVES 1940 P. Treves, Les documents apocryphes du Pro corona, LEC 9

(1940), pp. 138-174.
TREVES 1943 P. Treves, Walbanks’ Philip V of Macedon, JHS 63 (1943), pp.
117-120.
TROFIMOVA 2012 A. Trofimova, Imitatio Alexandri in the Hellenistic Art. Por-
traits of Alexander the Great and Mithyological Images (Studia
Archeologica 187), Roma 2012.
TSCHERIKOWER 1927 V. Tscherikower, Die hellenistischen Städtegründungen von
Alexander dem Großen bis auf die Römerzeit (Philologus Sup-
plementband 1), Leipzig 1927.
TSETSKHLADZE 1996 G. R. Tsetskhladze, La colonizzazione greca nell’area del Pon-
to Eusino, in S. Settis (a cura di), I Greci. Storia, cultura, arte,
società. 2. Una storia greca. I. Formazione, Torino 1996, pp.
945-973.
TSETSKHLADZE 1998 Tsetskhladze (ed.), The Greek Colonisation of the Black Sea
Area. Historical Interpretation of Archaeology (Historia Ein-
zelschriften 121), Stuttgart 1998.
TSETSKHLADZE G. R. Tsetskhladze, Greek Colonisation of the Black Sea Area:
1998a Stages, Models and Native Populations, in TSETSKHLADZE 1998,
pp. 9-68.
TSETSKHLADZE 2017 G. R. Tsetskhladze, Bridging East and West: Locals, Greeks
and Achaemenids around the Black Sea, in L. Gallo – B. Genito
(a cura di), «Grecità di frontiera». Frontiere geografiche e cul-
turali nell’evidenza storica e archeologica (Studi di storia greca
e romana 14), Alessandria 2017, pp. 27-44.
TSIAFAKI 2018 D. Tsiafaki, Thracians and Greeks in North Aegean, in S. Gimat-
zidis Stefanos – M. Pieniazek Magda – S. Mangaloglu-Votruba
Sila (eds.), Archaeology across Frontiers and Borderlands.
Fragmentation and Connectivity in the North Aegean and the
Central Balkans from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age (Oriental
and European Archaeology 9), Wien 2018, pp. 219-241.
TUNA et al. N. Tuna – Z. Aktüre – M. Lynch (eds.), Thracians and Phry-
1998 gians. Problems of Parallelism. Proceedings of an International
Symposium on the Archaeology, History and Ancient Languages
of Thrace and Phrygia, Ankara 1998.
ÜNVER 2016 G. Ünver, New Inscriptions from Ergili and Its Environs, «Ce-
drus» 4 (2016), pp. 299-302.
VAGALINSKI 2010 L. Vagalinski (ed.), In Search of Celtic Tylis in Thrace (III C.
BC), Sofia 2010.
VÉLISSAROPOULOS J. Vélissaropoulos, Les nauclères grecs. Recherches sur les ins-
1980 titutions maritimes en Grèce et dans l’Orient hellenisé, Genève
– Paris 1980.
VERMULE 1970 C. C. Vermule, Dated Monuments of Hellenistic and Graeco-
BIBLIOGRAPHY 235
Roman Popular Art in Asia Minor: Pontus through Mysia, in G.

G. Mitten – J. G. Pedley – J. A. Scott (eds.), Studies presented
to George M. A. Hanfmann, Cambridge (Mass.) 1971, pp. 169-
176.
VIERECK – ROOS P. Viereck – A. G. Roos (eds.), Appiani historia romana. Vol.
1962 I. Prooemium, Iberica, Annibaica, Lybica, Illyrica, Syriaca,
Mithridatica, Fragmenta. Editio Stereotypa correctior addenda
et corrigenda E. Gabba, Lipsiae 1962.
VINOGRADOV 1999 J. Vinogradov, Der Staatsbesuch der ‘Isis’ im Bosporos, «An-
cient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia» 5 (1999), pp. 271-
302.
VIRGILIO 1993 B. Virgilio, Gli Attalidi di Pergamo. Fama, Eredità, Memoria
(Studi Ellenistici 5), Pisa 1993.
VIRGILIO 2003 B. Virgilio, Lancia, Diadema e Porpora. Il re e la regalità
ellenistica (Studi Ellenistici 14), Pisa 20032.
VITUCCI 1953 G. Vitucci, Il regno di Bitinia, Roma 1953.
VOLKMANN 1979 H. Volkmann, Zipoites, DKP 5 (1979), coll. 1538-1539.
VON BREDOW 1999 I. von Bredow, Maidoi, DNP 7, 709-710.
VON BREDOW 2002 I. von Bredow, Thynoi, DNP 12.1 (2002), coll. 524-525.
VON BREDOW 2002a I. von Bredow, Thynia, DNP 12.1 (2002), col. 524.
VON BREDOW 2002b I. von Bredow, Thynias, DNP 12.1 (2002), col. 524.
VON BREDOW 2002c I. von Bredow, Tomi, DNP 12.1 (2002), coll. 672-673.
VON HESBERG 2009 H. von Hesberg, Archäologische Charakteristika der
Inschriftenträger staatlicher Urkunden. Einige Beispiele, in R.
Haensch (Hrsg.), Selbstdarstellung und Kommunikation. Die
Veröffentlichung staatlicher Urkunden auf Stein und Bronze in
der römischen Welt (Vestigia 61), München 2009, pp. 19-56.
VULIĆ 1916 N. Vulić, Istros, RE 9 (1916), coll. 2268-2269.
VULIĆ 1919 N. Vulić, Kallatis, RE 10 (1919), coll. 1610-1612.
WADDINGTON W. H. Waddington – E. Babelon – T. Reinach, Recueil général
et al. 1908 des monnaies grecques d’Asie Mineure. Tome premier.
Deuxième fascicule. Bithynie (jusqu’à Juliopolis), Paris 1908.
WADDINGTON W. H. Waddington – E. Babelon – T. Reinach, Recueil général
et al. 1912 des monnaies grecques d’Asie Mineure. Tome premier.
Quatrième fascicule. Nicée et Nicomédie, Paris 1910.
WALBANK 1940 F. W. Walbank, Philip V of Macedon, Cambridge 1940.
WALBANK F. W. Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius, 3 vols.,
1957-1979 Oxford 1957-1979.
WALBANK 1984 F. W. Walbank, Sources for the Period, CAH2 VII.1 (1984), pp.
1-22.
WALBANK – F. W. Walbank – C. Habicht (eds.), Polybius. The Histories.
HABICHT 2012 Books 16-27, Cambridge (Mass.) – London 2012.
WALBANK – F. W. Walbank – C. Habicht – S. D. Olson (eds.), Polybius. The
236 ELOISA PAGANONI
HABICHT – Histories. Books 28-39. Unattributed Fragments, Cambridge

OLSON 2012 (Mass.) – London 2012.
WATERFIELD 2011 R. Waterfield, Dividing the Spoils. The War for Alexander the
Great’s Empire, Oxford – New York 2011.
WATERFIELD 2014 R. Waterfield, Taken at the Flood. The Roman Conquest of the
Greece, Oxford – New York 2014.
WEBBER 2011 C. Webber, The Gods of Battle. The Thracians at War. 1500 BC-
AD 150, Barnsley 2011.
WEBER 1969 H. Weber, Der Zeus-Tempel von Aezani, ein Panhellenisches
Heiligtum der Kaiserzeit, MDAI(A) 84 (1969), pp. 182-201.
WEHRLY 1968 C. Wehrli, Antigone et Démétrios, Genève 1968.
WEISKOPF 1989 M. Weiskopf, The So-called “Great Satraps’ Revolt”, 366-360
B.C. Concerning Local Instability in the Achaemenid Far West
(Historia Einzelschriften 63), Stuttgart 1989.
WEISS 1984 P. Weiss, Lebendiger Mythos. Gründerheroen und städtische
Gründungstraditionen im griechisch-römischen Osten, WJA 10
(1984), pp. 179-195.
WELLES 1970 C. B. Welles, Gallic Mercenaries in the Chremonidean War,
«Klio» 52 (1970), pp. 477-490.
WEST 2013 W. C. West, Mysia, EAH (2013), pp. 4664-4665.
WESTERMARK 1961 U. Westermark, Das Bildnis des Philetairos von Pergamon.
Corpus der Münzprägung, Stockholm – Göteborg – Uppsala
1961.
WIEMER 2001 H.-U. Wiemer, Karien am vorabend des 2. machedonischen
Krieges. Bemerkungen zu einer neuen Inschrift aus Bargylia,
EA 33 (2001), pp. 1-14.
WIEMER 2002 H.-U. Wiemer, Krieg, Handel und Piraterie. Untersuchungen
zur Geschichte des hellenistischen Rhodos (Klio Beihefte 6),
Berlin 2002.
WILCKEN 1894 U. Wilcken, Apama, RE 1 (1894), coll. 2662-2663.
WILHELM 1908 A. Wilhelm, Eine Inschrift des Königs Epiphanes Nikomedes,
JÖAI 11 (1908), pp. 75-82.
WILHELM 1909 A. Wilhelm, Beiträge zur griechischen Inschriftenkunde, Wien
1909.
WILL 1979 E. Will, Histoire politique du monde Hellénistique (323-30
av. J.-C.). Tome I. De la mort d’Alexandre aux avènements
d’Antiochos III et de Philippe V, Nancy 19792.
WILL 1982 E. Will, Histoire politique du monde Hellénistique (323-30 av.
J.-C.). Tome II. Des avènements d’Antiochos III et Philippe V a
la fin des Lagides, Nancy 19822.
WILL 1984 E. Will, The Formation of the Hellenistic Kingdoms, CAH2
VII.1, pp. 101-117.
WILSON 1960 D. R. Wilson, The Historical Geography of Bithynia, Paphlagonia
BIBLIOGRAPHY 237
and Pontus. A New Survey with Particular Reference to Surface

Remains still Visible, PhD Dissertation, University of Oxford
1960.
WILSON 1992 N. G. Wilson (a cura di), Fozio. Biblioteca, Milano 1992.
WÖRRLE 1980 M. Wörrle, Telmessos in Hellenistischer Zeit, in Actes du
colloque sur la Lycie antique, Paris 1980, pp. 63-72.
WÖRRLE 2009 M. Wörrle, Neue Inschriftenfunde aus Aizanoi V: Aizanoi und
Rom I, «Chiron» 39 (2009), pp. 409-444.
YARROW 2006 L. M. Yarrow, Historiography at the End of the Republic.
Provincial Perspectives on Roman Rule, Oxford 2006.
YAVUZ 2010 M. F. Yavuz, Bithynia, Kingdom of, in M. Gagarin (ed.), The
Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece and Rome, vol. 2,
Oxford 2010, pp. 9-11.
ZAGDOUN 2008 A.-M. Zagdoun, La version pergameniénne de la legend de
Télèphe, in M. Kohl (éd.), Pergame. Histoire et archéologie d’un
centre urbain depuis ses origines jusqu’à la fin de l’antiquité.
Paris 2008, pp. 189-203.
ZAHARIADE 2013 M. Zahariade, Thracia, EAH (2013), pp. 6729-6730.
ZECCHINI 2003 G. Zecchini, Polibio e la tradizione orale, in A. Casanova – P.
Desideri (a cura di), Evento, racconto, scrittura nell’antichità
classica, Firenze 2003, pp. 123-141 = in G. Zecchini, Polibio.
La solitudine dello storico, Roma 2018, pp. 13-29.
ZIEGLER 1936 K. Ziegler, Thynias (2), RE 6 A (1936), coll. 718-720.
KINGS OF BITHYNIA
Zipoites (227-279 BC)

Nicomedes I (279-c. 250 BC)
Ziaelas (c. 250-229 BC)
Prusias I (229-182 BC)
Prusias II (182-149 BC)
Nicomedes II (149-127 BC)
Nicomedes III (127-94 BC)
Nicomedes IV (94-74 BC)
TABLES
Table 1. Genealogy of the Bithynian dynasty down to Prusias I.
Table 2. The Propontic area in 500 BC.
Table 3. The expansion of Bithynia under Zipoites.
Table 4. The kingdom of Bithynia in 279-229 BC.
Table 5. The kingdom of Bithynia in 229-186 BC.
Table 6. The kingdom of Bithynia in 182 BC.
INDEX
PERSON NAMES
Achaeus: 99-100, 102-103, 105, 108- Apama, wife of Seleucus I: 125

109, 112, 122, 124, 130-131 Aphrodite: 62-63
Adroates: 77 Apollo: 66, 144
Alcibiades: 15 Apollonis: 134-135, 179, 181
Alexander II of Epirus: 174 Appian: X, 1, 5-7, 20, 125, 137, 160
Alexander Polyhistor: XIII Ariamenes: 90-91
Alexander the Great: X, 4, 8, 23-25, 37, Ariarathes II: 77
43-44, 86, 151 Ariarathes III: 91
Alyattes: 6, 10 Ariarathes IV: 123
Amastris: 31, 49, Ariobarzanes: 53, 56
Amynander: 175-177 Aristolochus son of Smenodron: 176
Andormachus: 105 Aristolochus: 173-174, 176
Antigonus I Monophthalmus: 25, 27-30, Ariston son of Eus(…): 166
32, 34, 42-43, 68, 151-152 Arrian of Nicomedia: XIII, 3-6, 59, 75,
Antigonus II Gonatas: 46-48, 54-55, 69- 85, 133
70, 76-80, 101, 174 Arsames: 91-93
Antigonus III Doson: 97 Artemis: 65-66
Antiochis, daughter of Antiochus III: 123 Asclepiades of Myrlea: XIII, 62
Antiochis, daughter of Seleucus II: 127 Asclepiades son of Archestratus: 169
Antiochus Hierax: 77, 80, 88-94, 96, Asclepius: 81, 173-174, 176
100, 126-127 Athena: 65-66, 99, 143-144, 161
Antiochus I: 35-36, 41, 43-49, 51, 53- – Nikēphoros: 65, 134, 179, 181-182
55, 57-60, 65, 68-70, 77, 95-96, 126, Athenaeus of Naucratis: 72-73
151-152 Athenaeus, brother of Eumenes II: 136,
Antiochus II: 79-81, 126-127 181
Antiochus III: IX, 100, 112, 120-124, Attalus I: 89-94, 97, 99-105, 108-112,
126?; 127-130, 132, 137, 140, 149, 114, 123-124, 130-131, 144, 185-189
153, 163 Attalus II: 112, 134-135, 161, 181-182
Antipater: 55
Apama, daughter of Antiochus I: 126 Bas: 15, 19-20, 23-25, 30, 38, 43 151
Apama, daughter of Antiochus II: 126 Bendis: 65-66, 154
Apama, wife of Demetrius II: 126 Bithynia, personification of: 65
Apama, wife of Prusias I: 116-119, 125- Bithynus/Bithys: 5-6, 144, 154
128 Boteiras: 15, 19-20, 23
Apama, wife of Prusias II: 118-119, 125- Caesarion: 184
126, 128, 183-184 Calas: 23-25, 37
252 ELOISA PAGANONI
Callimedes: 104 Euphro: 73

Cassander: 27 Eusebius: 6, 60, 90-91, 94, 97, 132, 160
Cavarus: 98, 106-108 Eustathius: 85
Chryseis: 97
Claudius: 118 Festus: 63
Clearchus: 12, 50 Flamininus, Titus Quinctius: 120, 137-138
Cleopatra VII: X, 118
Comontorius: 98 Gelon of Syracuse: 97
Consingi: 59
Croesus: 2, 10, 145 Hadrian: 118, 170, 185-187, 189
Cybele: 61 Hannibal: 124, 132-133, 135, 137-138,
Cyrus: 10, 145, 158-161 146
Harpalus: 24
Dapara: 179 Heracles Kallinikos: 117, 170
Darius I: 10 Heracles: 85-86, 144, 157, 171
Demarchus: 24-25 Hermes: 144
Demetrius II of Macedonia: 115, 126 Hermippus of Berytus: 116
Demetrius II of Syria: 126 Hermogenes of Aspendus: 35-37, 42, 45,
Demetrius Poliorcetes: 29, 46, 126 47
Demetrius son of Demylus: 169 Herodotus: 1-2, 5-7, 10-11
Democles: 54 Hieron of Syracuse: 97
Demosthenes of Bithynia: XIII, 62, 84 Hieronymus: 60, 97
Dercylidas: 16 Homer: 5
Dicearchus: 113
Dio Chrysostom: 64 Justin: X-XI, 34, 59, 85, 89-90, 84, 125
Diodorus of Sicily: X, 10, 12-13, 25-27, 132-133, 138
29-30, 37
Diogeitus: 173-174, 176 Korylas: 18
Diomedes: 5
Dionysius of Byzantium: 104, 116 Lamachus: 7
Dionysius Periegetes: 19-20 Laodice II: 97
Dionysius: 144 Laodice III: 128
Ditizele: 59 Leukius son of Serapion: 169
Doidalses, sculptur: 63, 143 Livy: X, 52, 54-56, 111, 122-123, 132,
Doidalses: 11-12, 15, 19-20, 39 137-138, 161
Domitian: 189 Lonorius: 55
Lotarius: 55
Eratosthenes: 5-6, 112 Lymnaeus: 97
Ermophantus: 179 Lysandra: 75
Etazeta: 76-78, 80 Lysanias: 97
Eumenes I: 90 Lysimachus: 29, 30-37, 39-43, 49, 60,
Eumenes II: 101, 122-123, 128-138, 140, 65-66, 151, 160-162
144, 152, 161, 178-182
Eumenes, governor of Heralcea: 49 Memnon of Heraclea: XIII, 11-15, 19,
INDEX PERSON NAMES 253
23-24, 31-37, 41, 45, 47, 49-53, 55- Philetaerus, founder of the Attalids: 49,
57, 60, 69, 76-79, 139-140 136, 144
Memnon of Rhodes: 23-24 Philip V: IX, 105, 110-117, 119, 123-
Menas son of Bioeris: 40, 157-162 126, 128-129, 135-137, 143, 146,
Menecrates of Tralles: XIII 149, 153,
Menecrates, author of the On Nicaea: Philocles: 136-137
XIII, 62 Photius: XIII, 15, 23, 36, 45-49, 51-53,
Meniskos son of Ze(.)obrodis: 162-164 56-57, 69, 78
Meriones: 84 Phthia: 128
Meter Steunene: 189 Phylarchus: 13-14, 93-94
Mithra: 175 Pliny: 2, 4-5, 59, 61-63, 119, 142, 146
Mithridates I: 48-49, 56 Plutarch: 15, 29-31, 37, 137
Mithridates II: 80, 91, 97, 99 Polemaeus: 25, 27, 29, 32, 37
Mithridates VI: IX, 39, 149 Polyaenus: 12, 92, 160
Molpagoras: 113-114 Polybius: X, 97-104, 106-107, 109, 113-
Moucaporis: 20 115, 122, 130, 134, 136-137, 148
Myrlus: 118 Pompeius: 63
Porphyry: 90-91
Nepos: 137 Praxiteles: 62
Nicander of Chalcedon: XIII, 62 Prusias I: XII, 33, 63-64, 75, 85, 97-150,
Nicomedes I: XII, 32-33, 36, 40, 42-43, 157, 161-162, 164, 166, 169, 179-
45-84, 86, 95-96, 102-103, 133, 141- 183, 185-189
143, 146, 148, 152, 154, 171-173, Prusias II: XIII, 20, 110, 112, 118-119,
176, 178 125-126, 128 -129, 141, 143-144,
Nicomedes II: 38, 41, 67, 118-119, 125, 157, 166, 169, 171-172, 182-183-
128, 157, 165, 184 184
Nicomedes III: 38, 67, Prusias Monodous: 75, 128, 133
Nicomedes IV: 38, 81, 149 Prusias, son of Nicomedes I (?): 75
Nicomedes son of Aristander: 27-28, Prusias son of Archedemus: 169
152 Pseudo Scylax: 8, 85
Nike: 65 Pseudo Scymnus: 62
Ninus: 10 Ptolemy I: 65, 75
Ptolemy II: 69-70, 76, 78-81, 86, 95
Olympichus, ruler of Alinda: 97 Ptolemy III: 81, 86, 88-94, 97, 173-174,
Ortiagon: 135, 179-180 177
Otys: 18 Ptolemy IV: 105
Pyrrhus of Epirus: 128
Patrocles: 35
Pausanias Periegetes: 32-33, 42, 54, 141- Rhesus: 5-6
142
Perseus: IX, 115, 125-126, 128 Samos: 77
Pharnabazus: 15-17 Scipio, Lucius Cornelius: 121
Phila: 55 Scipio, Publius Cornelius: 121
Philetaerus, brother of Eumenes II: 136 Sekoundus son Aramion: 169
254 ELOISA PAGANONI
Seleucus I: 31, 34-37, 39-41, 43, 46, 60, Thucydides: 7-8

125-126, 128, 151, 160, 162 Traian: 72
Seleucus II: 88-89, 91-94, 96-97, 105, Trogus: X-XI, 46, 57, 89-90, 93-94, 125,
126-127, 143, 174 135
Seleucus III: 100, 105
Septimius Saturninus: 185-187 Xenophon: 4, 8, 15-17
Seuthes: 42 Xerxes: 11
Socrates: 38
Stephanus of Byzantium: 10, 28, 61, 84- Zeus: 5, 32, 58, 61, 67, 134, 143-144,
85, 112, 117-118, 145-146 154, 182, 185-189
Strabo: 2, 8-9, 12-13, 115-118, 129-132, – Conditor: 185-186
144-146, 160 – Genethlios: 179, 181
Stratonice daughter of Antiochus II: – Nikēphoros: 144
126 – Ourios: 104
Stratonice, daughter of Demetrius Polio- – Stratios: 63, 143
rcetes: 126 Ziaelas: XII, 67, 69, 75-96, 101-103,
Stratonice, daughter of Demetrius II (?): 116, 127, 148-149, 152-154, 172-
126 178, 182
Sulla: 63 Zipoites (I): XII, 19, 24-45, 51-53, 60,
64-65, 67-68, 71, 75, 82-83, 134,
Telephus: 144 139, 151-152, 154, 157, 160, 162
Theodorus: 175-177 Zipoites (II), son of Zipoites (I): 48, 50,
Theopompus: 14 52-53, 57-60, 78, 81, 95
Theudotus: 173-174, 176 Zipoites (III), son of Nicomedes I: 103,
Thracia, personification of: 5, 144, 154 105
GEOGRAPHICAL NAMES
Bithynia and Bithynians are not included
Abydos: 109 123, 128-129, 148, 150, 151-155,

Aegean Sea: 2, 27, 62, 70, 87-88, 96, 99, 169, 180
113, 142, 149, 153 Asia: IX, 1-6, 10-11, 13, 31, 36, 41, 46-
Aegosagi: 108-110, 144, 152 47, 50, 54-55, 57-58, 60, 62-63, 72,
Aenus: 136-137 88-89, 95, 97-98, 103, 105-106, 108,
Aeolis, Aeolians: 10, 108 109, 111-112, 122-124, 135, 137,
Aetolians: 101, 110-117, 148 139, 149, 151-153, 179
Aigospotamoi: 12 Askania Lake: 3, 9, 28, 60, 131
Aizanoi, modern Çavdarhisar, Aizanites: Aspendus: 35
130, 185-187, 189 Astacus, Astacenians: 7, 9, 11-12, 13, 15,
Alaplı Çayı: 3, see also Cales 26-28, 30-33, 37, 39, 42-43, 60-61,
Alexandira Troad: 109 147, 154
Alinda: 97 Athamanians: 175-176
Alyatta: 10 Athens, Athenians: 8, 11-12, 15, 112
Amastris: 49, 51 Atropatene: 100
Amphipolis: 2 Atussa: 142
Anatolia: 3, 9, 11, 17, 18, 43, 77, 95, 109,
148 Bactria: XI
Ancyra: 88-91 Balkans: 66
Angkore: 28, see also Helikore, Antigo- Bebrycia, Bebrycians: 4-7
nea (Bithynia), Nicaea Beykoz limanı: 20, see also Moucaporis,
Antigonea near Dascylium: 28 Gulf of
Antiogonea: 28, 34, 42 Bithy(n)opolis: 141
Apamea (Bithynia): XIV, 39, 115-116, Bithya: 5, 7
118-119, 140, 142, 153 see also Myr- Bithynium: XIV, 39, 85, 138, 141-144,
lea 147, 153-154, 168-169, see also
Apamea (Phrygia): 121-123, 129-132, Bolu, Claudiopolis,
180 Black Sea: 2, 4, 7, 12, 28, 49, 69-70, 87,
Araxa: 180 96, 98, 104, 130, 140, 142 153, see
Armadoerioi: 175 also Euxine, Pontus, Pontic Sea
Armavir: 175 Bolu: 168-169, see also Bithynium,
Armenia, Armenians: XI, 62, 76-77, 80, Claudiopolis
91-93, 95-96, 124, 133, 175 Bosporus: 3, 5, 7, 13-14, 20, 98, 104, 140
Asia Minor: XII, 5-7, 11, 14, 24-25, 27, Bursa: 163, see also Prusa ad Olympum
29-30, 34-35, 39, 41, 43, 47, 57, 68, Byzantium, Byzantians: 1, 5,7-8, 10-15,
70, 73, 88-89, 95-96, 100, 119-120, 29-31, 48, 54-56, 61, 69, 72, 76, 79-
256 ELOISA PAGANONI
80, 84-85, 98-108, 111-112, 116-117, Curupedium: 34-35, 39-41, 60, 160-162,
119, 122, 127, 152 see also Cyrus, Plain of
Cyrus, Plain of: 158-161, see also Curu-
Cadi: 130 pedium
Cales, modern Alaplı Çayı: 3, 7-9, 50, Cyzicus: 13-14, 134-135
78-79
Callatis: 80 Dascylitis Lake: 13, see also Manyas
Calpe Harbour, modern Kirpe: 8, 16 Lake
Cappadocia: XI, 25, 44, 74, 77, 84, 90- Dascylium: 11, 15, 18, 25, 28, 43, 151
91, 123, 128, 143 Delos, Delians: 67-68, 136, 171-172
Caria, Carians: 10, 17, 124, 179 Delphi: 98, 101
Carthageneans: 110 Dorylaeium: 130
Çavdarhisar: 184, see also Aizanoi
Caÿster: 160 Egypt: IX-X, 68-69, 79, 86, 89-90, 96,
Celts: 98, 108 105, 159, 176-177, 180
Chalcedon, Chalcedonians: XIII, 7-8, Epirus: 128, 174, 176
11-13, 15, 19, 26-31, 48, 54, 56, 62, Europe: 1-3, 5, 7, 10, 13, 27, 47, 62, 106,
65, 69, 104, 113-115 108-109, 123, 149, 151, 153
Euxine: 8, see also Black Sea, Pontus,
Chalybes: 10
Pontic Sea
Chersonesus: 55, 85
Chios: 115
Flaviopolis: 84, see also Crateia
Cierus: XIV, 37, 49-53, 56, 69, 72, 76,
85, 116-118, 139-142, 145, 153, see
Galatia, Galatians: 53-60, 68, 72-73, 77-
also Prusias ad Hypium
80, 86, 88-90, 93-95, 98, 101, 106-
Cihanköi: 157-158
108, 110, 113, 116, 119, 134-135,
Cilician Gates: 62 139, 148, 152, 159, 179-183, see also
Cilicians: 10 Tolistobogi
Cimmerians: 6 Gallograecia: 59
Cius, Cians: XIV,4, 7, 9, 69, 76, 85, 113- Gallos, modern Mudurnu Suyu: 9
121, 123, 129, 133, 140, 142, 146, Gauls: 55, see also Celts, Galatians
149, 153, 157, 158, 167-168, 170- Gerede: 84, see also Crateia, Flaviopolis
171, 176, see also Prusias ad Mare Gökçe Suyu: 3, see also Rhebas
Claudiopolis: 141, 168-169, see also Gökçesu: 9
Bithynium, Bolu Granicus: 23
Cnidus, Cnidians: 62-63 Greece, Greeks: X, 5, 7-9, 11, 13-14, 16,
Colophonians: 118-119 18-19, 26-27, 50, 81, 87-88, 72, 98,
Commagene: XI 109-111, 151-152, 173, 176-177
Cos, Coans: 27-28, 67-69, 72, 80-81, 83,
86-88, 147, 152-154, 172-176, 178 Hacɪ Kebir: 186
Cotiaeium: 130 Halizones: 5
Crateia: 84, 85, 130, see also Flaviopolis Halys: 9-10
Cressa: 84-85 Helicore: 28, see also Angkore, Antigo-
Cronia: 2 nea in Bithynia, Nicaea
INDEX GEOGRAPHICAL NAMES 257
Hellespont: 55, 58, 79, 98, 109, 113, 117, Mariandynians: 8-9, 10, 14
130 Maronea: 136-137
Heraclea Pontica, Heracleans: XIII, 3, Mecestus: 108
7-9, 12, 14, 31-32, 34-37, 43, 45-54, Mediterranean Sea: IX-X
56-58, 68-69, 72, 76, 78-81, 95, 132, Megarians: 7-11, 33
134, 139-141, 149, 152 Mesopotamia: 92
Herculaneum: 63 Midaeium: 130
Hermus: 160 Moucaporis, Gulf of, modern Beykoz
Hieron: 103-105, 107, 127 limanı: 20
Hittites: 10 Mudurnu Suyu: 9, see also Gallos
Hypios: 49 Myrlaeum: 116
Myrlea: XII-XIV, 13, 62, 105, 115-119,
Iasos: 97 129, 131, 140, 142, 146, 149, 153
Ilion: 5, see also Troy Mysia Olympene: 122-124, 129, 149,
Ionia, Ionians: 10, 26, 108 153
Ipsus: 32 Mysia, Mysians: 2, 4-8, 10, 17-18, 103,
Issus: 24 107, 130-132, 140, 158, 161
Istanbul: 157
Istros: 80 Nacolia: 130
Naples: 63
Kandamɪş: 168
Naucratis: 93
Kaskas: 10
Nicaea: XIII-XIV, 34, 39-40, 42, 60, 62,
Kirpe: 8, see also Calpe Harbour
64, 158
Ku(r)tluca: 6
Nicomedeion: 61
Nicomedia: XIII-XIV, 6, 26, 32-33, 39,
Libyssa: 138
Lycia: 10, 17 42, 60-67, 71, 73, 79-80, 87, 96, 105,
Lydia, Lydians: 10, 25-26, 151 138, 140, 143-144, 146, 153, 165-
Lypedron, Λύ[π]εδρον: 41, 134, 182 166, 176
Lyperos Mount: 41, 134, 182
Lysimachia: 47, 55, 113-114 Odrysians: 13
Olbia: 7, 61
Macedonia, Macedonians: X-XI, 23-24, Olympia: 32, 67-68
27, 36, 41, 47, 55, 68-69, 71, 79, 96, Olympus, Mount: 9, 122, 130, 133
103, 105, 125, 147-148, 175-176, Oreum: 111
180, 182
Magnesia ad Sipylum: 90-91, 117, 124, Paeonians: 6
160-162 Pamphylians: 10
Maidoi: 3 Paphlagonia, Paphlagonians: 8-10, 17-
Maidoibithynoi: 3 18, 24-25, 44, 56, 59, 84-85
Malianda: 2 Parthia: XI
Mantinea: 141 Peloponnese: 176
Manyas Lake: 14 see also Dascylitis Pergamum: X, 89-90, 92-93, 95, 97, 101,
Lake 109, 111-112, 119-120, 122-123,
258 ELOISA PAGANONI
129-133, 136, 140, 143-144, 148-

149, 153, 159, 161, 178, 181-183 Salmydessus: 2
Perinthus: 113 Sangarius: 3, 4, 8-10, 50, 59, 62, 122
Persians: 16,-17, 19, 24 151, 160 Sardis: 160
Phalara: 110 Sipylus: 160
Phalion: 29-30 Sopu Köy: 185
Phoenice: 112 Spartans: 15
Phrygia, Phrygians: 6, 10, 17-18, 35, 59, Stryma: 2, see also Strymon
60, 85, 122 Strymon, modern Stryma: 1-2
– Epiktētos, Epicteti: 8-9, 122, 124, Strymonis: 2
129-132, 138, 140, 149, 187 Susa: 125
– Hellspontine: 8-9, 11, 18, 23-25, Syria, Syrians: X-XI, 10, 90, 126, 176
28, 122, 124, 160
Phrygius: 158-161 Taurus: 10, 108
Piraeus: 118, 184 Telmessos, Telmessians: 133-136, 178-
Pontus, Pontic Sea: 3, 5, 8, see also Eux- 182
ine, Black Sea Teucrians:
Pontus: XI, 7-8, 23, 39, 44, 48-49, 56, 62, Thasos: 113
74, 91, 95, 98, 103, 135, 140-143, 149 Thessalis: 2
Propontis, Propontic peninsula: XIII- Thrace, Thracians: 1-3, 5-6, 8, 10-14, 29-
XIV, 1, 3-7, 18-12, 15, 16, 18, 20-21, 31, 34, 58, 88, 90, 98, 106, 123, 136,
24, 26-28, 34-35, 37, 39, 41, 43, 50, 161
52, 55, 57-58, 68, 70, 73,79-81, 95, Thynian Thrace, Thynians: 2-10, 48, 50,
96, 102, 108, 119, 121, 134, 151, 153, 52, 151
155 Thynias region (in Europe): 2
Prusa ad Olympum: XIV, 33, 39, 115, Thynias, island of: 4, 8, 50
117, 133, 142-143-147, 153-154, thynis gē: 37, 49-50-53, 72
162-164, see also Bursa Tios: 39, 49-52, 56, 116, 138-143
Prusias ad Hypium: XIV, 117-118, 142, Tolostobogi: 77, 135, see also Gala-
145, 153, see also Cierus tians
Prusias ad Mare: XIV, 117-118, 140-142, Tomis: 80-81
145, 153, 167-168, 170, see also Cius Toriaion: 227
Pylai: XIV Tralles: XIII
Troad: 6, 24, 108-109
Rhebas, modern Gökçe Suyu: 3 Troy: 6, see also Ilion
Rhebas, modern Riva Deresi: 3 Tylis: 98, 106, 108
Rhodes, Rhodians: 24, 97-100, 102-103, Tyrus: 25
105-106, 108, 111-115, 119, 120-122,
178-179 Vitosha Mountains: 2
Rhyndacus: 120, 122, 160
Riva Deresi: 3, see also Rhebas Yalova: 4, 14, 151
Rome, Romans: IX-XI, 63, 110, 112,
117, 119-122, 125-126, 129, 136-140, Zeila, Zelites: 84
148-149, 161, 181 Zipoition: 41-42, 134
INDEX LOCORUM
LITERARY SOURCES
Aelianus, V.H. F 28: 138
I, 27: 18 F 29: 59, 64, 75-76, 80, 133
FF 57-109:
Alexander Polyhistor, BNJ 273 F 60: 6
FF 12-13: XIII F 63: 61
F 125: XIII F 77a: 2-3, 8, 63
F 89b: 76, 85
Ammianus Marcellinus F 97: 5
XXII, 9, 4: 61 F 106: 85
Appianus Athenaeus
Maked. I, 7d, 13: 72-73
4, 1: 124 IV, 144d, 25: 18
Mithr. X, 415d, 8: 18
1: 1, 4-5, 144
2: 2, 125 Bekker Anecdota
7: 61 1181: 23
Syr.
1: 123 Cassiodorus
5: 123 III, 47, 5: 138
11: 137-138
23: 121
Cicero De div.
62: 160
II, 52: 133
Arrianus
Chronicon Paschale
An.
p. 328: 60-61
I, 29, 5: 1, 4, 8
p. 432a: 97
I, 17, 1: 23
I, 17, 8: 24
Jacoby, FGrHist 156 Demosthenes BNJ 699
F 1, 6: 24 F 15, see Steph. Byz. s.v. Κρῆσσα
FF 14-29: XIII
F 17: 141 De viris illustr.
F 19: 61 42, 6: 138
260 ELOISA PAGANONI
51, 5: 138 II, 122: 97

II, 123: 9
Dionysius Periegetes
96: 20 Eustathius
De capta Thess.
Dionysius Byzantius p. 39 l. 26: 2
92: 104, 127 Hist. eccl.
VIII, 6, 6: 61
Dio Cassius Il.
XVII, 57, 58: 111 II, 863: 34
Dio Chrysostomus Festus

XLVII, 17: 64 p. 148, s.v.: Monodus: 128
p. 320, s.v. rurtum tenentis iuvenis: 63
Diodorus
II, 2, 3: 10 Frontinus Strat.
XI, 2, 1: 11 IV, 7, 10-11: 136
XII, 82, 2: 13, 30
XIV, 38, 3: 1 Hermippus FGrHistCont 1061
XVII, 17, 4: 23 F 1: 76, 116-117, 119
XVIII, 50, 5-52, 2: 28
XIX, 60, 3: 26, 29, 37
Herodianus
XX, 109, 6-7: 31-32
De pros. cath.,
XXVI, 8, 1: 97
p. 59: 117
XXVIII, 12, 1: 123
p. 267: 84
XXXI, 19, 4-5: 77
XXXI, 19, 6: 91
XXXI, 19, 7: 123 Herodotus
I, 28: 2, 10
Eratosthenes III, 89-96: 11
Jacoby, FGrHist 241 III, 90: 10
F 1d: 6 V, 12: 6
VII, 73: 6
Euphro (Kassel – Austin) VII, 75: 1, 5, 7, 11
F 10: see Athaen. I, 7d, 13
Hesychius Milesius, BNJ 390
Eusebius (Schoene) F 7, 20-23: 13
I, 234: 160
I, 251: 91 Homerus Il.
I, 251-253: 90 II, 856: 5
I, 253: 94 II, 858: 6
II, 66-67: 2, 4, 6 V, 39: 5
II, 120: 20 X, 430: 6
II, 120-121: 61 XIV, 512: 6
II, 121: 60 XXIV, 278: 6
INDEX LOCORUM 261
XXXVIII, 16, 3-9: 55

Iustinus XXXVIII, 16, 7-8: 57
XVI, 3, 3: 34 XXXVIII, 16, 8: 52
XXV, 1, 1: 54 XXXVIII, 24, 11: 135
XXV, 2, 11: 55, 59 XXXVIII, 39, 15-16: 122, 129-130
XXVII, 2, 6-10: 89 XXXIX, 46, 7-9: 136
XXVII, 2, 11-12: 89 XXXIX, 51, 1: 132, 137
XXVII, 3, 1-6: 85, 89, 94 XXXIX, 51, 9-11: 138
XXVII, 3, 7: 90 XLII, 12, 3: 125
XXVII, 3, 7-11: 94 Per.
XXVII, 3, 10: 90 39, 7: 138
XXVII, 3, 11: 90 50: 128
XXX, 2, 8: 124
XXX, 4, 3: 97 Malalas
XXXII, 4, 2: 132, 133 VIII, 28: 124
XXXII, 4, 3-5: 124 VIII, 28, 13: 138
XXXII, 4, 6: 134
XXXII, 4, 6-7: 135 Mela
XXXII, 4, 7: 134 I, 14: 1
XXXII, 4, 8: 138 II, 98: 4
XXXIV, 4, 1: 125
XXXVIII, 5, 3: 91 Memnon BNJ 434
F 1, 1, 2: 12
Libanius Or. F 1, 4, 6: 28
61, 4: 61 F 1, 4, 9: 31, 49
61, 10: 62 F 1, 5, 1: 36
F 1, 5, 4: 49
Livius F 1, 6, 3: 25, 31, 34, 36, 38, 51, 60, 139,
XXVII, 30,4-15: 110 162
XXVII, 30, 16: 110 F 1, 7, 1-4: 35
XXVIII, 5, 1-8, 14: 111 F 1, 7, 2: 48, 102
XXVIII, 7, 10: 100, 111, 161 F 1, 9, 1-2: 35, 47
XXIX, 12, 4: 112 F 1, 9, 2: 35
XXXI, 14, 5: 124 F 1, 9, 3: 36, 38, 45
XXXII, 34, 5: 113 F 1, 9, 4: 49
XXXIII, 30, 1: 120 F 1, 9, 4-5: 46, 48
XXXIII, 38, 8-41, 5: 123 F 1, 9, 5: 4, 50, 52
XXXVII, 20, 1-21, 9: 120 F 1, 10, 1: 38
XXXVII, 22, 1-25, 3: 120 F 1, 10, 1-2: 46
XXXVII, 25, 4, 7: 120 F 1, 10, 2: 48, 57
XXXVII, 25, 8: 121 F 1, 11, 1-2: 54
XXXVII, 25, 8-12: 121 F 1, 11, 5: 56
XXXVII, 25, 13-14: 121 F 1, 12, 1: 61
XXXVII, 38, 1-2: 161 F 1, 12, 3: 11
262 ELOISA PAGANONI
F 1, 12, 3-5: 19 Phylarchus BNJ 81

F 1, 12, 4: 15, 23, 38 F 8: 14, 107
F 1, 12, 5: 25, 30, 34, 36, 39-41, 45, F 50: 76
134, 160, 182
F 1, 12, 5-6: 45 Plinius NH
F 1, 12, 6: 57, 61, 78 V, 127: 5
F 1, 13, 1: 80 V, 142-143: 2
F 1, 14, 1: 38, 69, 76, 93, 102 V, 143: 5, 119, 142
F 1, 14, 1-2: 76 V, 145: 2
F 1, 14, 1-3: 81 V, 148: 133, 141, 146
F 1, 14, 2: 57, 67, 83, 94 V, 150: 4
F 1, 14, 2-3: 78 V, 151: 4
F 1, 14, 3: 79 VII, 69: 128
F 1, 15, 1: 79, 80 VII, 127: 62
F 1, 16, 1-3: 80 VIII, 144: 59, 76
F 1, 17, 1: 81 XXXVI, 21: 62
F 1, 18, 6-8: 140 XXXVI, 35: 63
F 1, 18, 10: 140
F 1, 19, 1: 38, 141 Plinius Ep.
F 1, 19, 1-3: 132, 134, 139 X, 41, 4: 61
F 1, 22, 5: 38 X, 49, 1: 61
F 1, 28, 7: 118
Plutarchus
Nepos Alcibiades
Datames 29: 14
2: 4 29, 3: 14, 26
Hannibal Flamininus
9: 124 20, 3: 137
11, 1-7: 136 20, 3-5: 138
12: 138 20, 10: 138
12, 1-2: 137 Mor.
302 e-f: 13, 29
Nicolaus Damascenus 302 e: 37
Jacoby, FGrHist 90 302 f: 31
F 71: 6
F 113: 87 Pollux
III, 83: 14
Notitiae Episcopatuum
3 143: 28 Polyaenus
II, 30, 3: 61
Pausanias IV, 17: 77, 91-92, 100
V, 12, 7: 32, 42, 61, 67 IV, 9, 4: 160
VIII, 9, 7-8: 141
X, 23, 14: 54 Polybius
INDEX LOCORUM 263
IV, 45, 9- 46, 6: 98 XV, 23, 8-9: 115

IV, 47, 1-7: 98 XV, 23, 9-10: 113, 115
IV, 48, 1-4: 102, 122 XV, 23, 10: 115
IV, 48, 2: 104 XVI, 1, 8: 124
IV, 48, 7-8: 100 XVI, 34, 5: 117
IV, 48, 9: 100 XVIII, 3, 11-12: 113, 115
IV, 48, 10: 100 XVIII, 3, 12: 115, 117
IV, 49, 1-3: 99 XVIII, 4, 7: 113
IV, 49, 4: 101, 103 XVIII, 5, 4: 117
IV, 50, 1: 79, 103 XVIII, 44, 1-7: 119
IV, 50, 2-4: 4, 13, 103, 105 XVIII, 44, 5: 117, 120
IV, 50, 5-7: 103 XVIII, 49, 2-51, 8: 123
IV, 50, 8: 105 XXI, 11, 1-2: 120
IV, 50, 9-10: 103 XXI, 11, 3-11: 121
IV, 50, 10: 105 XXI, 11, 12-13: 121
IV, 51, 1-5: 105 XXI, 20, 8: 123
IV, 51, 3: 100 XXI, 45, 10: 180
IV, 51, 6: 105 XXI, 46, 10: 122, 129-130
IV, 51, 7: 106
XXII, 7, 3-4: 134
IV, 51, 8: 106
XXII, 20, 8: 134
IV, 51, 9: 106
XXII, 21, 1-4: 135
IV, 52, 1: 106
XXIII, 1, 4: 134-136
IV, 52, 2: 106
XXIII, 3, 1: 135
IV, 52, 5: 103, 106
XXIII, 3, 1-2: 134
IV, 52, 6-9: 4, 107
XXIII, 3, 1-3: 136, 181
IV, 52, 7-8: 105
IV, 52, 6-9: 107 XXIII, 5, 1: 134
IV, 56, 2: 99 Fr. 127: 114
V, 40, 7: 100
V, 57, 2: 100 Porphyrius
V, 77, 1: 108, 122 Quaest. homericarum ad Il.
V, 77, 2-78, 6: 108 XIII, 3, 5: 2
V, 78, 1-6: 109 Jacoby, FGrHist 260
V, 88, 5-90, 2: 97 F 32, 8: 89
V, 90, 1-2: 97
V, 111, 2-5: 109 Pseudo Scylax
V, 111, 6-7: 101, 109 67: 85
VIII, 22, 2: 107 92: 1, 8
XV, 21, 1-8: 113
XV, 22, 1: 113-114 Pseudo Scymnus
XV, 22, 1-5: 113, 114 F 34: 50
XV, 22, 3: 113
XV, 22, 4: 115 Sallustius, Hist.
XV, 23, 1-6: III, 50: 1, 4, 6
264 ELOISA PAGANONI
Solinus XIV, 2, 5: 97
1, 70: 128 XIV, 5, 23: 9
Stephanus Byzantinus Suda

s.v. Ἀλύαττα: 10 s.v. Ἀφύα ἐς πῦρ: 73
s.v. Ἀντιγόνεια: 28 s.v. δημαγωγικός: 113
s.v. Ἀπάμεια: 118 s.v. Κιανοί: 114
s.v. Ἀστακός: 14
Syncellus
s.v. Βιθυνία: 144
523: 61
s.v. Βιθύνιον: 141
525: 39
s.v. βιθύοπολις: 141
593: 39
s.v. Βοὸς Κεφαλαί: 112
s.v. Ζῆλα: 76, 83-84 Thucydides
s.v. Ζιποίτιον: 10 IV, 75, 2: 1, 7
s.v. Κρῆσσα: 84
s.v. Μύρλεια: 119 Trogus Prol.
s.v. Νίκαια: 28, 34 XXIV: 46
s.v. Νικομηδεία: 61, 76 XXV: 57
s.v. Νικομηδείον: 61 XXVII: 76, 89, 93
s.v. Προῦσα: 33, 76, 117, 145 XXX: 124
s.v. Ψίλιον: 4 XXXII: 135
Strabo Tzetzes Chil.

VII, 3, 2: 2, 4, 9 III, 115, ll. 950-987, see Arr., Jacoby
VII, 6, 1: 104 FGrHist 156, F 29
XI, 14, 6: 133
XII, 3, 3: 2-3, 5 Valerius Maximus
XII, 3, 4: 9 III, 2 ext. 2: 133
XII, 3, 7: 4, 9, 62 III, 7 ext. 6: 136
IX, 2 ext. 2: 138
XII, 3, 10: 49
XII, 4, 1: 8
Vita Arati
XII, 4, 2: 12, 26, 32, 61, 104
I, p. 7: 55
XII, 4, 2-3: 146 IV, p. 20: 55
XII, 4, 3: 33, 113, 115, 117, 124, 129,
145, 170 Xanthus
XII, 4, 7: 28, 34, 141 Jacoby, FGrHist 765
XII, 4-8: 5 FF 14-15: 6
XII, 8, 1: 130
XII, 8, 2: 130 Xenophon
XII, 8, 11: 13 An.
XIII: 1, 8: VI, 2, 17: 2, 16
XIII, 4, 5: 160 VI, 3, 2-26: 16
XIII, 4, 13: 160 VI, 4, 1: 1
INDEX LOCORUM 265
VI, 4, 1-2: 4, 8 VI, 6, 1: 16

VI, 4, 2: 1, 87 VII, 8, 25: 17-18
VI, 4, 23-27: 16 Hell.
VI, 4, 24: 17 I, 3, 2-4: 15
VI, 5, 7-31: 16 III, 2, 1: 1
VI, 5, 31: 16 III, 2, 2: 16
EPIGRAPHIC SOURCES
BE 460, Fr. d: 171

1950, 218, p. 211: 175 460, Fr. u: 67, Appendix nr. 7
I.Didyma
BLÜMEL 2000, see SEG 51 (2001) 1496 473: 157
CIG IG II-III2, 3, 1
3808: 84 3172: 118, 125, Appendix nr. 12
3430: 176
Clara Rhodos II
172, 3: 133, 135-136, Appendix nr. IG XII, 4, 1
9, 182 344: 67
207-245: 174
CORSTEN 1991 208: see RC 27
nr. 1, pp. 81-87: 14 209: see RC 25
nr. 11, pp. 98-99: 116 210: see RC 26
213: 176, 178
Dürrbach, Choix
31: 136 IK Apameia un Pylai
114: 14
FD III, 4 117: 14
77: 64 121: 14
123: 14
I.Aph2007 125: 14
8.24: 81 T 4: 119
T 12: see IG II-III2, 3, 1, 3172
IC II
iii, 4 B: 64 IK estremo oriente
22: see OGIS 382
I.Callatis
7: 81 IK Iasos
4: 97
ID
449: 171 IK Ilion
455: 171 32: 55
266 ELOISA PAGANONI
9: 130, Appendix 13
IK Kios P5: 130, Appendix 13
1-2: 118 OGIS
8: 118, Appendix nr. 4 55: 180
17: 117 129: 184
18: 176 275: see IvP I, 23
24: 117, Appendix nr. 6 298: 41, 134, 161, Appendix nr. 10
58: 116 340: see IK Kios 24
98: 40, Appendix nr. 1 357: 176
382: 176
IK Klaudiu Polis
50: 141, Appendix nr. 5 PAPADOUPULOS 1865
61: 169 nr. 11 pp. 374: 133
IK Magnesia am Sipylos PESCHLOW et al. 2002

7: see IK Kios 17 nrr. 102-105, pp. 436-437: 109
IK Nikaia Pouilloux, Choix

551: see IK Kios 98 4: 180
1588: 64
PUGLIESE CARRATELLI 1967-1968
nr. 2, pp. 445-448, see IK Iasos 4
IK Priene
6: 101
RC
25: 67, 69, 79, 81, 86-88, 147, Ap-
IK Prusa ad Olympum
pendix nr. 8
1: 64, 146, Appendix nr. 2
27: 174
26: 174
IK Sultan Daği I 35: 176-177
393: 131
SEG
IvP I 4 (1929) 195: 62
23: 93 51 (2001) 1496: 126
56 E: Appendix nr. 11
65: see OGIS 298 Syll.3
74: 161 456: see RC 25
332: 175
MAIURI 1925-1926 518: 182
nr. 2 p. 313-315: see Pouilloux, 574: 175
Choix 4
TAM IV, 1
MAMA IX 1: see RC 25
8: 130, Appendix 13 2: 64, Appendix nr. 3

Forging The Crown - A History of The Kingdom of Bithynia From Its Origin To Prusias I

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Forging The Crown - A History of The Kingdom of Bithynia From Its Origin To Prusias I

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Centro Ricerche e Documentazione sull’Antichità Classica

A HISTORY OF THE KINGDOM OF BITHYNIA FROM ITS ORIGIN TO PRUSIAS I

FROM ITS ORIGIN TO PRUSIAS I

FORGING THE CROWN

On the Front cover:

Paganoni cope Moncerdac 47.indd 1 15/01/20 11:04

Forging the Crown

A History of the Kingdom of Bithynia

© Copyright 2019 «L’ERMA» di BRETSCHNEIDER

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored, or transmitted

Il volume è stato sottoposto a procedura di Peer-Review

Sistemi di garanzia della qualità

Sistemi di gestione ambientale

ISBN (BROSSURA) 978-88-913-1895-4

CHAPTER ONE. BITHYNIA BEFORE THE KINGDOM OF BITHYNIA................. 1

CHAPTER TWO. THE BIRTH OF A NEW KINGDOM. BITHYNIA IN THE AGE

CHAPTER THREE. BUILDING THE HEGEMONY. THE KINGDOM OF BITHYNIA

CHAPTER FOUR. BITHYNIA AND THE RISE OF ROME IN THE EAST

Conclusion ......................................................................................... 151

Appendix. Epigraphic Evidence ........................................................ 157

Abbreviations ..................................................................................... 191

Bibliography ...................................................................................... 195

Kings of Bithynia ............................................................................... 239

Tables ................................................................................................. 241

Index .................................................................................................. 251

This work originates from my PhD dissertation Bithynia. Politics of

This contributes to the bi-dimensional, simplified, and incomplete view

Giovanni Vitucci wrote the first monograph on the Bithynian kingdom

Despite recent progress, an easily accessible and updated study on the

state of sources about the kingdom of Bithynia is appreciably different from

Translations from Greek and Latin are my own.

BITHYNIA BEFORE THE KINGDOM OF BITHYNIA

1. THE ORIGIN OF THE BITHYNIANS

Ancient sources often call the Bithynians Θρήικες οἱ ἐν τῇ Ἀσίῃ1,

Herodotus focuses on the name change of the Thracians who moved to

It is commonly accepted that the Bithynians, who formerly were Mysians,

the Black Sea: about thirty-five kilometres north-west of the Sangarius’

2. BITHYNIA AND THE BITHYNIANS IN THE ARCHAIC AND CLASSICAL AGES

The earliest information about the history of the Propontic peninsula

When Cyrus defeated Croesus, traditionally in 546 BC, the lands of

The territorial district described by Herodotus was in northern Anatolia. It

We read that in the 5th century BC Astacus suffered continuous attacks of

Diodorus does not describe the background of this expedition. As far as

Phylarchus compares the condition of the Bithynians to that of the helots,

without any complaint by Pharnabazus, as the Bithynians often made war on

sian generals110. This proves Pharnabazus’ authority over the Bithynians,

of the Bithynian-Greek relations it has at least some initial validity’124.

Gulf of Moucaporis, probably to be identified with today’s Beykoz limanı

The passage alludes to the organization of the Bithynians under a single

Persian power to independent kingdom in nuce. Nevertheless, such a pro-

THE BIRTH OF A NEW KINGDOM.

1. THE TURNING-POINT. BAS AND ZIPOITES IN THE LATE 4TH CENTURY BC

Rhodes in Troad5. In 332 or 331 BC he led a campaign in Paphlagonia

ning of Bithynian independence. For centuries Bithynia had been part of

As far as we read, in 315 BC Zipoites (here mentioned as Zibytes16) was

According to a Macedonian perspective, Diodorus’ narrative focuses on

son after him. Glew’s proposal offers an explanation of the introduc-

2. TROUBLED YEARS 301-280 BC. ZIPOITES’ POLITICS BETWEEN EXPANSION

In 301 BC the death of Antigonus Monophthalmus opened a new sea-

‘Zipoites granted a compromise to please the Byzantians’45. These latter

According to this passage, the origin of Zipoites animosity to Heraclea was

It is well-known that Astacus was founded by the Megarians59. Only Pau-