Scanned text contains errors.
subsequent attack, and from this time suffered them to proceed unmolested. (Xen. Anab. ii. 5. § 35, iii. 3. §§ 1—10, 4. §§ 1—5).
3. Satrap of Ly.caohia and Cappadocia at the time of the expedition of the younger Cyrus (Xen. Anab. vii. 8. § 25). This may perhaps be the same person with the preceding, whom Eckhel also conceives to be the same as is commonly termed Mithridates I., king of Pontus.
4. A son of Antiochus the Great, who is mentioned by Livy as one of the commanders of his father's land forces during the war with Ptolemy, b.c. 197. (Liv. xxxiii. 19.)
6. A nephew of Antiochus the Great, being a eon of one of his sisters. (Polyb. viii. 25.)
MITHRIDATES, king of armenia. [AR-sacidab, Vol. I. p. 362, b.]
COIN OP MITHRIDATES, KING OP ARMENIA.
MITHRIDATES, king of the bosporus, which sovereignty he obtained by the favour of the em peror Claudius, who appointed him to replace Polemon II., a. d. 41. (Dion Cass. Ix. 8.) He was a descendant of the great Mithridates, but we have no account of his more immediate parentage. Nor do we know any thing of the circumstances which led to his subsequent expulsion by the Ro mans, who placed his younger brother Cotys on the throne in his stead ; for these events were re lated by Tacitus in one of the books of the Annals now lost. But Mithridates, though a fugitive from his kingdom, did not abandon all hope : he collected a body of irregular troops, with which he expelled the king of the Dandarians ; and, as soon as the main body of the Roman troops were with drawn from the Bosporus, he prepared to invade that kingdom. He was however defeated by the Ro man lieutenant Julius Aquila, supported by Euno- nes, king of the Scythian tribe of the Adorsi, and ultimately compelled to surrender to Eunones, by whom he was given up to the Romans, but with a promise that his life should be spared. (Tac. Ann. xii. 15—21 ; Plin. vl 5.) [E. H. B.]
MITHRIDATES, kings of commagene. There were two kings of Commagene of this name, of whom very little is known. The first (Mithridates I.) must have succeeded Antioehus I. on the throne of that petty kingdom at some time previous to b. a 31* as he is mentioned by Plutarch in that yeai? among the allies of Antony. (Pint. Ant. 61.)
Mithridates II. Was made king of Commagene by Augustus, b. c. 20* when a mere boy. Dion Cassius tells us that his father had been put to death by the previous king: hence it seems probable that he was a son of the preceding. (Dion Cass,
liv. 9. See, however, Clinton, F. H. vol. iii. p» 343, not. h, who has brought together the few facts that are known concerning these kings of Comma- gene.) [E. H. B.]
MITHRIDATES, king of media (by which we are probably to understand Media Atropatene), was the son-in-law of Tigranes I., king of Arme nia, whom he supported in his war against the Romans. His name indeed is only once men tioned in the last campaign against Lucullus, b. c. 67 (Dion Cass. xxxv. 14), but there can be little doubt that he is the third monarch alluded to by Plutarch, as present together with Mithridates the Great and Tigranes, when they were defeated by Lucullus at the river Arsanias in the preceding year. (Plut. Lucull. 31.) [E.H. B.]
MITHRIDATES (MiOptiarris) of pergamus, was the son of Menodotus, a citizen of that place, by a daughter of Adobogion, a descendant of the tetrarchs of Galatia, but his mother having had an amour with Mithridates the Great, he was generally looked upon as in reality the son of that monarch. To this supposition the king himself lent some countenance by the care he bestowed on his education, having taken him into his own court and camp, where the young man was trained in all kinds of military exercises and studies. (Strab. xiii. p. 625 ; Hirt. de B. Alex. 78.) His natural abilities, united to his illustrious birth, raised him to a high place in the estimation of his countrymen, and he appears as early as b. c. 64 to have exercised the chief control over the affairs of his native city. (Cic. pro Place. 7 ; Schol. Bob. ad loc.) At a subsequent period he was fortunate enough to pbtain the favour and even personal friendship of Caesar, who, at the commencement of the Alexandrian war (b. c. 48), sent him into Syria and Cilicia to raise auxiliary forces. This service he performed with zeal and alacrity, and having assembled a large body of troops advanced by land upon Egypt, and by a sudden attack made himself master of Pelusium, though that important fortress had been strongly garrisoned by Achillas. But he was opposed at the passage of the Nile by the Egyptian army commanded by Ptolemy in person, and compelled to apply to Caesar for assistance. The dictator hastened to his support by sea, and, landing at the mouth of the Nile, united his forces with those of Mithridates, and immediately afterwards totally defeated the Egyptian king in a decisive action which put an end to the war. (Hirt. de B. Akx. 26—32 ; Dion Cass. xlii. 41—43 ; Joseph. Ant. xiv. 8. § 1—3, B. J. i. 9. § 3—5.) It is probable that he afterwards accompanied Caesar on his campaign against Pharnaces, as immediately after the defeat of that monarch, Caesar bestowed his kingdom of the Bosporus upon Mithridates, on whom he conferred at the same time the tetrarchy of the Galatians that had been previously held by Dei'otarus, to which he had an hereditary claim. (Hirt. de B. Alex. 78 ; Strab. xiii. p. 625 ; Dion Cass. xlii. 48 ; Appian, Mithr. 121 ; Cic. Phil. ii. 37, de Dwin. ii. 37.) But the kingdom of the Bosporus still remained to be won, the title being all that it was really in the power of Caesar to bestow, for Asander, who had revolted against Pharnaces and put him to death on his return to his own dominions,, was in fact master of the whole country, and Mithridates .having soon