A History of the Pontic Empire

I'm curious as to why the plateau fell so easily. It would seem that more nobles would have resisted. Even if Arcathius can rule Persia, it'll be even more difficult to govern Persia and actually incorporate it into his empire. In other words, Pontus is in danger, as you implied, of simply being another phase of Persia rather than its own thing.

Great to see this timeline going again!

Cheers,
Ganesha
 
Huh. One of the things that drew me into following this timeline was the idea of an Empire that was not centered on Persia but somewhat shifted west. A fascinating prospect was that it might shift north, to develop the Black Sea region and be centered there the way the Roman Empire was essentially the Mediterranean shore with appendages.

Also I've always been full of doubts and alarm whenever the Pontic kings contemplated vast new conquests, fearing that they would overstretch and the basis of their rule would be broken.

So, here we have Arcathius proving to be capable of retaking most of the Achaemenid Empire's territory. I quite understand he is pleased because from his point of view, he is merely returning to his ancestral status as a great prince of that Empire, whose family had been exiled. Well and good for him, if he and his successors can keep it a while, as talk of a "later" phase of the realm, one more properly called "Persian," suggests they shall.

Nevertheless, even though this phase is still called "Pontic" and not "Persian" yet, it looks to me like another Persian Empire has been founded. Its role will be determined by geography and demographics; future Pontic/NeoPersian Padishahs will inherit the same perspectives and preoccupations the many Iranian-centered empires of OTL had.

To be sure there is some grounds to expect some innovative extensions--Pontus did already hold land north of the Black Sea, so perhaps an expansion into southeastern Europe; Mithridates did form an alliance with the Greeks so the new Empire picks up where Darius proposed to leave off as it were, with full possession of Greece and an implication of yet more westward expansion; at any rate consolidation of the eastern Med--but of course the Achaemenids already ruled most of that except the Greek lands, so what is new there is Greece itself plus the possibility of expanding up the Balkan peninsula.

But any such expansions would take place on an essentially Persian basis; in conquering the Iranian plateau Arcathius may have won glory and riches and a firm basis for his dynasty all well enough, but he's walked away without a glance back from the different prospects of an Anatolian-centered empire.:(
 
Huh. One of the things that drew me into following this timeline was the idea of an Empire that was not centered on Persia but somewhat shifted west. A fascinating prospect was that it might shift north, to develop the Black Sea region and be centered there the way the Roman Empire was essentially the Mediterranean shore with appendages.

Also I've always been full of doubts and alarm whenever the Pontic kings contemplated vast new conquests, fearing that they would overstretch and the basis of their rule would be broken.

So, here we have Arcathius proving to be capable of retaking most of the Achaemenid Empire's territory. I quite understand he is pleased because from his point of view, he is merely returning to his ancestral status as a great prince of that Empire, whose family had been exiled. Well and good for him, if he and his successors can keep it a while, as talk of a "later" phase of the realm, one more properly called "Persian," suggests they shall.

Nevertheless, even though this phase is still called "Pontic" and not "Persian" yet, it looks to me like another Persian Empire has been founded. Its role will be determined by geography and demographics; future Pontic/NeoPersian Padishahs will inherit the same perspectives and preoccupations the many Iranian-centered empires of OTL had.

To be sure there is some grounds to expect some innovative extensions--Pontus did already hold land north of the Black Sea, so perhaps an expansion into southeastern Europe; Mithridates did form an alliance with the Greeks so the new Empire picks up where Darius proposed to leave off as it were, with full possession of Greece and an implication of yet more westward expansion; at any rate consolidation of the eastern Med--but of course the Achaemenids already ruled most of that except the Greek lands, so what is new there is Greece itself plus the possibility of expanding up the Balkan peninsula.

But any such expansions would take place on an essentially Persian basis; in conquering the Iranian plateau Arcathius may have won glory and riches and a firm basis for his dynasty all well enough, but he's walked away without a glance back from the different prospects of an Anatolian-centered empire.:(

Agreed on all counts. But the lure of Persian culture is a strong one, especially with his personal connection to it. By reorienting his empire as a Persian dynasty, Arcathius can cash in on thousands of years of history, tradition, and governance - he doesn't have to create something unique. It's a lot easier.

He doesn't seem like the type to make the world anew - it's enough to make the world again.

Cheers,
Ganesha
 
Interesting, very interesting the parthians want to conquer Mesopotamia and they are lost their entire kingdom.

As a suggestion it is possible to have a sinopsis of what are the actual political situation in the kingdoms and republics of Mediterranean and bordering the Pontic KIngdom (Roman Republic, political entities of Greece, Egypt...)?

So we would have a general vision of what are the geopolitical situation now that the Pontic Kingdom with the conquest of Persia is possibily the mightest political entity of these times.

Ah! by last only say Pontus Forever!!:cool:
 
Can we have a map of the current extents of the Pontic Empire, and of its current geopolitical rivals?

I second the suggestion! :D

You most certainly can.

I7dfzeX.png

I'm curious as to why the plateau fell so easily. It would seem that more nobles would have resisted. Even if Arcathius can rule Persia, it'll be even more difficult to govern Persia and actually incorporate it into his empire. In other words, Pontus is in danger, as you implied, of simply being another phase of Persia rather than its own thing.

Great to see this timeline going again!

Cheers,
Ganesha
Well, it still took years of hard campaigning. The reason why Arcathius was able to avoid any battles he was in danger of losing was because Ariobarzanes had already evacuated the Iranian plateau, and few of the regional lords left were willing to work together to resist Pontus.

Arcathius certainly wants to bring back the Achaemenid Empire in all its glory, but it is often very hard to bring back the past as it was, and the Pontic Empire is likely to be its own beast.
Huh. One of the things that drew me into following this timeline was the idea of an Empire that was not centered on Persia but somewhat shifted west. A fascinating prospect was that it might shift north, to develop the Black Sea region and be centered there the way the Roman Empire was essentially the Mediterranean shore with appendages.

Also I've always been full of doubts and alarm whenever the Pontic kings contemplated vast new conquests, fearing that they would overstretch and the basis of their rule would be broken.

So, here we have Arcathius proving to be capable of retaking most of the Achaemenid Empire's territory. I quite understand he is pleased because from his point of view, he is merely returning to his ancestral status as a great prince of that Empire, whose family had been exiled. Well and good for him, if he and his successors can keep it a while, as talk of a "later" phase of the realm, one more properly called "Persian," suggests they shall.

Nevertheless, even though this phase is still called "Pontic" and not "Persian" yet, it looks to me like another Persian Empire has been founded. Its role will be determined by geography and demographics; future Pontic/NeoPersian Padishahs will inherit the same perspectives and preoccupations the many Iranian-centered empires of OTL had.

To be sure there is some grounds to expect some innovative extensions--Pontus did already hold land north of the Black Sea, so perhaps an expansion into southeastern Europe; Mithridates did form an alliance with the Greeks so the new Empire picks up where Darius proposed to leave off as it were, with full possession of Greece and an implication of yet more westward expansion; at any rate consolidation of the eastern Med--but of course the Achaemenids already ruled most of that except the Greek lands, so what is new there is Greece itself plus the possibility of expanding up the Balkan peninsula.

But any such expansions would take place on an essentially Persian basis; in conquering the Iranian plateau Arcathius may have won glory and riches and a firm basis for his dynasty all well enough, but he's walked away without a glance back from the different prospects of an Anatolian-centered empire.:(
Pontus has more or less reached the limits of its expansion. In two reigns, it has gone from being a regional power to the superpower of the Middle East. It is a pretty vast, sprawling Empire and its control is likely to be stronger in some areas than others. And of course, this Empire will look very different from the Persian Empire that preceded it. More Greek influence, and the Anatolians who staffed the armies will remain as a kind of warrior caste for years to come.

Although richer lands than Pontus have been conquered, these are still not totally loyal to the dynasty. The dynasty has roots in Pontus, and this will ensure that it is a fairly prioritized area of the Empire, possibly for the rest of its lifetime.
Agreed on all counts. But the lure of Persian culture is a strong one, especially with his personal connection to it. By reorienting his empire as a Persian dynasty, Arcathius can cash in on thousands of years of history, tradition, and governance - he doesn't have to create something unique. It's a lot easier.

He doesn't seem like the type to make the world anew - it's enough to make the world again.

Cheers,
Ganesha
He may lack the imagination to forge something new, but he will hardly be the last ruler of the Empire. Eventually, one of the kings will realise that one simply cannot turn the clock back all the way.
Interesting, very interesting the parthians want to conquer Mesopotamia and they are lost their entire kingdom.

As a suggestion it is possible to have a sinopsis of what are the actual political situation in the kingdoms and republics of Mediterranean and bordering the Pontic KIngdom (Roman Republic, political entities of Greece, Egypt...)?

So we would have a general vision of what are the geopolitical situation now that the Pontic Kingdom with the conquest of Persia is possibily the mightest political entity of these times.

Ah! by last only say Pontus Forever!!:cool:
Well, not exactly their entire kingdom, and the Arsacids will be a factor to be considered for some time yet. Indeed, their presence to the East of the Caspian sea will have some pretty long-reaching results there.

I think an update for non-Pontic entities is long overdue, so expect one on Rome or one of the other kingdoms/states for next time.
 
The Parthians were, if not allies, than at least friendly with the Indo-Greeks and later the Kushans. This secured their eastern flank and allowed them to focus on Rome and their western concerns.

However, the Pontic kingdom will not have the same sort of relationship with the subcontinent. I'd expect that as the Parthians collapsed, an ambitious ruler in NW India might try to move into Afghanistan and seize Kandahar or Kabul in order to control trade between China and Persia, which was lucrative to say the least.

Any thoughts?

Cheers,
Ganesha
 
The Parthians were, if not allies, than at least friendly with the Indo-Greeks and later the Kushans. This secured their eastern flank and allowed them to focus on Rome and their western concerns.

However, the Pontic kingdom will not have the same sort of relationship with the subcontinent. I'd expect that as the Parthians collapsed, an ambitious ruler in NW India might try to move into Afghanistan and seize Kandahar or Kabul in order to control trade between China and Persia, which was lucrative to say the least.

Any thoughts?

Cheers,
Ganesha
Well, the Pontic forces would have not been the only power in the area to have benefited from the collapse of Parthian power in the Iranian plateau. Since there was no agreement between the Pontic Empire and the various Indo-Greeks and Indo-Scythians, there will be some attempts to carve out new kingdoms and additions to existing ones, much in the fashion that the original Mithridates founded Pontus.
 
Rome Turns West

The death of King Mithridates at the battle of Thebes was eventually decided to have been revenge enough for the Romans and a face-saving opportunity for them. A permanent peace treaty was hammered out with Pontic representatives, and by 78 BC, Rome and Pontus were now at peace on borders recognized by both sides. However, despite the brave face that the senate put on, nothing could decide the fact that provinces that had been held by the Romans for many decades were for the meantime, lost with no realistic way of retrieving them. Whilst some politicians made the best of the opportunity by attacking the politicians who had accepted peace with the Pontic Empire, others, such as Pompey and Caesar, decided that opportunities for expansion lied outside of the East.

The partisans of Marius certainly attempted to capitalize on the situation as best they could, though many in Rome remembered the dictatorship of Cinna, and the supporters of the Marian cause under the leadership of Quintus Sertorius were stamped out of Italy rather quickly, gaining little support from the important sections of society. Despite the quick defeat of the Marians within Italy, die-hards loyal to the cause held out in Spain and Africa for quite some time more, often taking advantage of local issues to keep the manpower reserves of their armies sufficient to hold off the main Roman armies. Nevertheless, within 5 years of the battle of Thebes, the authority of the Senate of Rome had been more or less accepted by all but the most isolated of provinces. The task that lay before the Roman state now was one of where to expand next.

Gaul had traditionally been one of Rome’s main adversaries, and arguably one of the most dangerous in its history. A Gallic leader, Brennus had been the only foreign leader ever to successfully sack Rome. Despite the fearsome reputation and their successes in the past, the Cisalpine Gauls had long been subjugated, and their brothers in Transalpine Gaul too far to present a credible threat to Rome, a number of Roman politicians nevertheless began playing up the threat that the Gauls posed to Rome. Some did it in an appeal to old-fashioned hatred of the Celts, while others saw an opportunity to cement the still shaky political system and distract the mind of the public from the terrible defeats inflicted on Rome by Mithridates and his Pontic Empire. And of course, politicians ambitious to gain military glory in campaigns against Rome’s enemies all supported hawkish members of the senate in advocating a Gaul-centred expansion strategy.

A number of young and ambitious governers took the call. The aforementioned Pompey and Caesar were the most famous of these, both relatively young and both unusually ambitious. Pompey had been a “Boy Wonder” fighting a number of successful battles against the dictatorship of Cinna, and Caesar was rumoured to be well travelled as well as militarily talented (a popular legend even states that he had visited the summer court of the Pontic king Arcathius in Amasya). The two men were eventually set to dominate Rome in the future. However, there were other important figures in the long-running Roman conquest of Gaul, such as Marcus Crassus, who was extraordinarily famous for his wealth, but his military ability was supposed to have been lacking when compared to Pompey and Caesar. At home, Roman politics continued more or less as it had always been, dominated by social elites, terrorised by street gangs and vulnerable to a charismatic leader who may very well upturn the entire system if he found the support.

However, this all relied on the Gauls being easy to defeat. Although Rome’s military organization was second to none, and her young generals and politicians competent and ambitious, Rome’s victory in Gaul was far from certain. The Gauls were themselves still fearsome, and a number of Gallic tribes were increasingly sophisticated both in areas such as trade and metalwork, as well as in their military capabilities. Although Gaul was disunited, they would be hardly easy prey if they saw their way of life under threat from Roman expansionism. It was perhaps, for these reasons that the Gallic Wars lasted as long as they did.
 
Last edited:
Great update! With the Romans not having the wealth of Greece and the East to finance their adventures in Gaul, it'll be a longer, tougher campaign - but perhaps that's better for them.

Cheers,
Ganesha
 

katchen

Banned
Pontus may not have reached the limits of its expansion. Certainly not the limits of its trading network. Dacia, with it's silver and control of the Danube River is an obvious expansion point. As are trading networks up the Brysthynes (Dnieper) River, ultimately to the German kingdoms via the Baltic and even up the Caspian to the Volta and over to the Baltic that way.
 

katchen

Banned
And if the Mithraditean Dynasty falls upon hard times, I can easily see the Sarmatian catharoprachti taking over the Pontic Empire lock stock and barrel the same way the Parthian Arcsids did the Selucids. And in doing so, keeping their own steppe lands and extending the Empire's reach to the northern Venedae forests and east to the Goturk, Massagatae and Yuezhi
 
Top