A question about Pontus

I have a question about the kingdom of Pontus:

how did its military system worked at the beginning of the reign of Mithradates VI??
what where its strengths, and weaknesses??

and how did its campaing in the Bosporon kingdom started??

(seriously working on something...but I need to know this before I can continue:()
 
I have a question about the kingdom of Pontus:

how did its military system worked at the beginning of the reign of Mithradates VI??
what where its strengths, and weaknesses??

and how did its campaing in the Bosporon kingdom started??

(seriously working on something...but I need to know this before I can continue:()

This might be of some use. It's made by wargamers, but they try to be as accurate as possible.

And another discussion which may be of use.
 
I have a question about the kingdom of Pontus:

how did its military system worked at the beginning of the reign of Mithradates VI??
what where its strengths, and weaknesses??

and how did its campaing in the Bosporon kingdom started??

(seriously working on something...but I need to know this before I can continue:()
I think that the core of the army was made up of pikemen who fought in the Macedonian style. Despite their abysmal preformance against the Romans in the first Mithridatic war, they actually preformed extremerly well in any other campaign their fought in. But Mithridates decided (Rightly so in my opinion) that the phalanx formation was fundamentally flawed when it came to fighting Romans. Cavalry was also a very important part of the army, and Mithridates had access to the brilliant cavalry from Sarmatia. In one skirmish with Bythinian cavalry, they beat a force many times their number, which is a testament to thier effectiveness.

And if I can remember rightly, he came to the Crimea in response to requests by the Greek cities in the area for help against Sarmatian nomads who were threatening them.
 
I think that the core of the army was made up of pikemen who fought in the Macedonian style. Despite their abysmal preformance against the Romans in the first Mithridatic war, they actually preformed extremerly well in any other campaign their fought in. But Mithridates decided (Rightly so in my opinion) that the phalanx formation was fundamentally flawed when it came to fighting Romans. Cavalry was also a very important part of the army, and Mithridates had access to the brilliant cavalry from Sarmatia. In one skirmish with Bythinian cavalry, they beat a force many times their number, which is a testament to thier effectiveness.

And if I can remember rightly, he came to the Crimea in response to requests by the Greek cities in the area for help against Sarmatian nomads who were threatening them.

alright..I'll read up on the information given, thanks;)

also...could it be possible for the Sarmatians (as I recall Roxolani and a Scythian king) to defeat them. maybe through guerillia? raids?? massive invasion??
 
alright..I'll read up on the information given, thanks;)

also...could it be possible for the Sarmatians (as I recall Roxolani and a Scythian king) to defeat them. maybe through guerillia? raids?? massive invasion??
I doubt that the Sarmatians could ever successfully invade Pontus proper (too mountainous for their cavalry based army) but I guess it isn't too implausable to suppose the Sarmatians may have been able to push them out of the Crimea.
 
I doubt that the Sarmatians could ever successfully invade Pontus proper (too mountainous for their cavalry based army) but I guess it isn't too implausable to suppose the Sarmatians may have been able to push them out of the Crimea.

Alright;)

luckaly my idea wassnt imposible:p
 
I have a question about the kingdom of Pontus:

how did its military system worked at the beginning of the reign of Mithradates VI??
what where its strengths, and weaknesses??

and how did its campaing in the Bosporon kingdom started??

(seriously working on something...but I need to know this before I can continue:()

in a word: badly.
it was still fashoned diadochi-style, with the additional malus of not having a real tradition of foot warfare (thus the phalanx was really not so solid).
The worse weakness was probably the complete lack of intermediate ranks distributed along the army (and the romans profited shamelessly of that)
 
in a word: badly.
it was still fashoned diadochi-style, with the additional malus of not having a real tradition of foot warfare (thus the phalanx was really not so solid).
The worse weakness was probably the complete lack of intermediate ranks distributed along the army (and the romans profited shamelessly of that)
I wouldn't say they were that bad. As I pointed out before, the Pontic army preformed very well against every army exept Sullas. They defeated the Sarmatians, the Bythinians, occupied Cappadocia almost effortlessly (though that was more due to the Cappadocian nobles preference of Mithridates rule to their own inept king) as well as defeating the Roman armies and Garrisons in Asia Minor itself.

Their main problem was the unsuitability of the Phalanx to fight the Romans when commanded capably. Both of the main battles against Sulla proved to Mithridates that the Phalanx was flawed, as long as it came to fighting Romans, and he actually took steps to sort this out.
 
Would'nt the Sarmatians have a mobility advantage???
surely horsemen could surround a phalanx?


(also, and intiraly different question)

I am lookinf for details about the Scythian/Sarmatian religion, and so far I found little usefull things.

is there annything known about it???
 
Would'nt the Sarmatians have a mobility advantage???
surely horsemen could surround a phalanx?


(also, and intiraly different question)

I am lookinf for details about the Scythian/Sarmatian religion, and so far I found little usefull things.

is there annything known about it???

The thing about the Phalanx that Alexander and Phillip Mastered but the Diodachi Rulers soon forgot was the Phalanx was at its best when it used the tactics of Combined Arms, namely a Elite Calvalry Unit in support of the Phallanx to counter Calvalry and Crush Infantry.

The Phalanx was formidible but was less Flexible then the Roman Legion, because of this general breakdown of unit cohesion and tactics of combined arms. Taking alook at the Battle of Magnesia, the Calvalry defeated the Roman Infantry on the flanks and instead of protecting the Phalanx they attacked the Roman Camp leaving the Phalanx to quickly be surrounded and unable to participate in battle.
 
Last edited:
The thing about the Phalanx that Alexander and Phillip Mastered but the Diodachi Rulers soon forgot was the Phalanx was at its best when it used the tactics of Combined Arms, namely a Elite Calvalry Unit in support of the Phallanx to counter Calvalry and Crush Infantry.

The Phalanx was formidible but was less Flexible then the Roman Legion, because of this general breakdown of unit cohesion and tactics of combined arms. Taking alook at the Battle of Magnesia, the Calvalry defeated the Roman Infantry on the flanks and instead of protecting the Phalanx they attacked the Roman Camp leaving the Phalanx to quickly be surrounded and unable to participate in battle.

So the lack of cooperation is one of its problems?

how would it do vs a Sarmatian horse army, with mounted archers and lancers?
 
Basicly a lack of Discipline.


The Calvalry and Skirmishers would do their best to force the more mobile army into the spears of the Phalanx which could be done if they make use of geography. Though still it would be hard for them, as it was for Rome and other infantry based forces. The Phalanx does have the perk that if the Lancers or Horse Archers tried to melee with them they would be slaughtered and if the formation has sufficent sheild and armor cover it could go Spikey Tortoise and defend against arrows, but largely it will be down to the calvalry and skirmishers.
 
Sulla was the military genius of his era, thus no shame on Mithridates for losing against him.
But Pontus armies took their beating also against Flavius Fimbria.
The point is, Mithridates was a master diplomat, really understood about propaganda and power perception, and managed to project this image as a new Alexander to the Asian (and greek) cities dissatisfied by roman taxes.
The idea to confront with a new alexander stroke fear in the heart of his enemies (even barbarian ones) and rallied support to his figure, both inside and outside his kingdom.
It was a masterwork of diplomatic skill, but was based on a bluff regarding his real military possibilities.
When the bluff was called, all was lost.
Again, Mithridates was a master diplomat, and nothwistanding losing the war, he managed to more or less win the peace, keeping his kingdom.
But it is indicative of his real militar (and logistic) possibilities the fact that, nothwistanding having witnessed the bad performance of his army, no real reform was introduced into it, so that Pompey had to deal more or less with the same stuff Sulla had.
 
The Phalanx was a great tool when fighting the Persian onslaught. The Romans evolved on it with the Square. The Phalanx could not stand up to the Square.
Eventually Mithradates VI saw this and switched to the square to become the biggest thorn in Rome's side ever.
 
I had toyed about in the past on doing a timeline about a more successful Pontus, perhaps adopting thorakitai as the backbone of their army before the 1st Mithridatic war. Its the best opportunity he had to defeat the Romans in a major war (he actually won the second Mithridatic war, which was much smaller then the 1st and 3rd ones).
 
Sulla was the military genius of his era, thus no shame on Mithridates for losing against him.
But Pontus armies took their beating also against Flavius Fimbria.
The point is, Mithridates was a master diplomat, really understood about propaganda and power perception, and managed to project this image as a new Alexander to the Asian (and greek) cities dissatisfied by roman taxes.
The idea to confront with a new alexander stroke fear in the heart of his enemies (even barbarian ones) and rallied support to his figure, both inside and outside his kingdom.
It was a masterwork of diplomatic skill, but was based on a bluff regarding his real military possibilities.
When the bluff was called, all was lost.
Again, Mithridates was a master diplomat, and nothwistanding losing the war, he managed to more or less win the peace, keeping his kingdom.
But it is indicative of his real militar (and logistic) possibilities the fact that, nothwistanding having witnessed the bad performance of his army, no real reform was introduced into it, so that Pompey had to deal more or less with the same stuff Sulla had.

Alright, then I have to take that into consideration once I'll make the Sarmatians go to war
 
But it is indicative of his real militar (and logistic) possibilities the fact that, nothwistanding having witnessed the bad performance of his army, no real reform was introduced into it, so that Pompey had to deal more or less with the same stuff Sulla had.
Actually, Mithridates did implement huge reforms in the army after the 1st Mithridatic war, reducing the importance of Phalanxes in favour of light infantry, cavalry, and Thorakitai (Known as imitation legions by the Romans). Also, Pompey didn't have much of a Pontic army to deal with, as Lucullus had already broken the back of Pontus.
 
Alright, So infact the army itselve wassnt that impressive, but it wat the mastermind Mithradates himself who had a way with words?:D
 
Top