Go to top

Pompey Quake

~65 BCE

by Jefferson Williams









Introduction & Summary

Sometime around 65 BCE, while Roman General Pompey was in the process of successively conquering Anatolia, Syria, and Judea, an earthquake struck Syria likely including the city of Antioch. Four ancient historians (Justinus quoting Trogus, John Malalas, Dio Cassius, and Orosius) writing between the 1st and 6th centuries CE provide chronologically vague accounts of the earthquake which was described as powerful. Ambraseys (2009) dated the earthquake to 69-66 BCE while Guidoboni et. al. (1994) dated it to c. 65 BCE. Both noted difficulties in resolving chronology when examining the sources.

Textual Evidence

Text (with hotlink) Original Language Biographical Info Religion Date of Composition Location Composed Notes
Epitome of Trogus by Justinus Latin
Biography

Epitome by Justinus - between 144 and 230 CE
Philippic Histories by Trogus - early years of the Christian era, perhaps as late as A.D. 20.
Justinus wrote his epitome in Rome.
Trogus - ?
Reports an earthquake in Syria in which 170,000 people and many of its cities perished.
Chronographia by Johannes Malalas Greek
Biography

Christian (Orthodox Byzantium) 530s CE Antioch In discussing the conquests of Pompey, Malalas says that Pompey laid claim to the Antiochenes and, entering the city of Antioch, he made it subject to the Romans, giving generously to them and rebuilding the bouleuterion, for it had fallen down. The bouleuterion is presumed to have fallen down during the earthquake.
Roman History by Dio Cassius Greek
Biography

~207-229 CE Mostly in Capua (Italy). Possibly wrote some material in other locations. Reports that the greatest earthquake that had ever occurred destroyed many of [Syria's] cities.
History Against the Pagans by Orosius Latin
Biography

Christian completed in ~416-417 CE Unknown - possibly Palestine, North Africa, Gallaecia (northwest Hispania), and/or places between. In discussing the death of Mithridates, Orosius states that while Mithridates was celebrating the rites of Ceres on the Bosphorus, there suddenly occurred such a severe earthquake that it is related to have caused great damage to both cities and the countryside.
Text (with hotlink) Original Language Biographical Info Religion Date of Composition Location Composed Notes
Epitome of Trogus by Justinus

Background and Biography

Background and Biography

Excerpts
English from Yardley (1994)

BOOK 40

1 [1] The mutual hatred of the brothers, and then of sons who inherited their parents' antagonisms, left the kings and the kingdom of Syria exhausted by implacable conflict. The people accordingly sought assistance from abroad and began to look around for foreign kings to succeed to their throne.1 [2] Some were in favour of inviting Mithridates of Pontus, others Ptolemy from Egypt; but they were also aware that Mithridates was embroiled in a war with Rome, while Ptolemy had always been Syria's enemy. [3] Thus they unanimously settled on Tigranes, king of Armenia, who, apart from his own domestic strength, had the additional advantage of being an ally of the Parthians and a relative of Mithridates. [4] Tigranes was therefore summoned to take over the throne of Syria, which he occupied peacefully for eighteen years, during which time he was obliged neither to open hostilities against anyone nor defend himself against an aggressor.

2 [1] However, if Syria was secure against its enemies, it nonetheless fell prey to an earthquake in which 170,000 people and many of its cities perished. The soothsayers declared this to be an omen portending a change of regime. [2] And, in fact, Tigranes was defeated by Lucullus; and Antiochus, son of Cyzicenus, was summoned by the same Lucullus to the throne of Syria. [3] But what Lucullus had given, Pompey later took away. When Antiochus made a request for the throne, Pompey replied that he would not install him as king even if Syria wanted him, and he certainly would not if she were opposed to him, because, during the eighteen years that Tigranes was king of Syria, Antiochus had lurked in a corner of Cilicia. It was only now that Tigranes had been defeated by the Romans that Antiochus came seeking the rewards that the efforts of others had won. [4] He had not, said Pompey, taken away from Antiochus a throne that was his; nor would he give him a kingdom that he had ceded to Tigranes and which he could not defend, for fear that Antiochus would render it once more susceptible to the marauding of Jews and Arabs. [5] Accordingly, Pompey reduced Syria to a province and, little by little, the East, through the quarrels of its kings, who were all of the same blood, became the territory of Rome.
Footnotes

1. See Book 39 n. 1. The brothers are Grypos and Cyzicenus (39.iff.); no fewer than six claimants followed their deaths in 96 and 95 until Tigranes (Bickerman 160). Tigranes II was king of Armenia c.95-55, ruler of the Syrian kingdom 83-69; then Lucullus replaced him with Antiochus XIII Asiaticus (MRR 2.133). He experienced varying fortunes until Pompey removed him in 64 (MRR 2.163f.). For Mithridates see above Book 38. The Egyptian monarch was still (until 81) Ptolemy IX Soter II. See Appian Syr. 48f.

Seismic Effects Locations Online Versions and Further Reading
References

Chronographia by Johannes Malalas

Background and Biography

Background and Biography

Excerpts
English from Jeffreys et al (1986)

30. In the 15th year of the Antiochos the Leper, son of Dionikes, mentioned above, emperor of Syria, a man called Tigranes, emperor of the Armenians, came and fought a great battle with Antiochos. After defeating Antiochos, Tigranes, emperor of the Armenians, captured Antioch the Great and his empire, taking away from him all that he possessed. The emperor Antiochos fled from Tigranes to Persian territory. Pompeius Magnus came out from Rome because of Caesar and attacked the Cilicians, who had rebelled against him; and when he had defeated them, he made war also on Tigranes, emperor of the Armenians. After defeating him, he captured Armenia, Cilicia and Syria, putting an end to these toparchies too. He laid claim to the Antiochenes and, entering the city of Antioch, he made it subject to the Romans, giving generously to them and rebuilding the bouleuterion, for it had fallen down. He honoured the Antiochenes since they were Athenians by descent.

Translators comments

30. Bo 211.4-19; Slav: 1st 9.14-27, Soph 83, fallen down (211.18): Slav adds 'They asked this of him, and'.

Greek with a Latin translation- embedded

  • See page 211


English from Jeffreys et al (1986) - embedded



Seismic Effects Locations Sources
Sources according to Jeffreys et al (1986)

Online Versions and Further Reading
References

Roman History by Dio Cassius

Background and Biography

Background and Biography

Excerpts
English from Foster (1905)

[11] Mithridates himself did not give way under his disasters, but trusting more in his will than in his power, especially while Pompey was lingering in Syria, planned to reach the Ister through Scythia, and from that point to invade Italy. As he was by nature given to great projects and had experienced many failures and many successes, he regarded nothing as beyond his ability to venture or to hope. If he missed he preferred to perish conjointly with his kingdom, with pride unblemished, rather than to live deprived of it in inglorious humility. On this idea he grew strong. For in proportion as he wasted away through weakness of body, the more steadfast did he grow in strength of mind, so that he even revived the infirmity of the former by the reasonings of the latter.

The rest who were his associates, as the position of the Romans kept getting always more secure and that of Mithridates weaker, — among other things the greatest earthquake that had ever occurred destroyed many of their cities — became estranged; the military also mutinied and unknown persons kidnapped some of his children, whom they conveyed to Pompey.

Seismic Effects Locations Online Versions and Further Reading
References

History Against the Pagans by Orosius

Background and Biography

Background and Biography

Excerpts
English from Fear (2010)

570

1. While Mithridates was celebrating the rites of Ceres on the Bosphorus,71 there suddenly occurred such a severe earthquake that it is related to have caused great damage to both cities and the countryside. 2. At this time too Mithridates’ prefect, Castor, who was in command at Phanagorium,72 killed the king’s supporters, occupied the town’s citadel, and sent four of Mithridates’ sons to the Roman garrison.73 3. Mithridates was burning with anger and this soon blazed forth into crime. For it was then that he killed many of his friends and his own son, Exipodra – he had already committed parricide by butchering another of his sons, Machares. 4. His other son, Pharnaces, was terrified by what had happened to his brothers, won over the army that had been sent against him, and soon led it against his father. 5. For a long time Mithridates pleaded in vain with his son from the top of the highest wall, but when he saw that Pharnaces was implacable, he is said to have cried out on the point of death, ‘Since Pharnaces commands my death, I beg you, gods of my fathers, if you exist, that someday he too might hear this command from his own children’.74 He then at once went down to his wives, concubines, and daughters and gave them all poison. 6. He was the last to drink it, but, because of the antidotes that he had often used to fortify his vitals against noxious potions, the poison could not kill him. He wandered back and forth, hoping in vain that the fatal draught would at last spread through his veins if he exercised his body. Then he summoned a Gallic soldier who was fleeing from the breached wall and held out his throat to be cut. 7. This was how Mithridates ended his life. He is said to have been the most superstitious of men and has left us a clear statement of his opinions. He was 72 at his death and had always surrounded himself with philosophers and the most skilled practitioners of all the arts
Footnotes

70 The historical material in this chapter is drawn from Livy, 102

71 At his capital Panticapeum, the modern Vospro in the Crimea

72 The modern Taman in Russia

73 Implicit in the text is that pagan worship far from bringing aid to its practitioners, brings positive harm to them

74 This curse is only found in Orosius

Seismic Effects Locations Sources
Sources

Online Versions and Further Reading
References

Notes
Calendars used by Orosius

Archaeoseismic Evidence

Location (with hotlink) Status Intensity Notes
Tel Sukas Ali Abou Assaf in Meyers et al (1997) reports that Riis et al (1970-1986) attribute destruction at the end of Period E1 (Late Hellenistic II) to an earthquake in 68 CE. Ambraseys (2009) notes, however, that the date of 68 BC, which [was] assigned to the event, was taken from historical information rather than from archaeological evidence.
Tel Ateret aka Vadun Jacob indeterminate Ellenblum et. al. (2015) estimate ~1.5 meters of fault slip occurred on the site between its abandonment probably in the middle of the first century BC and when a Crusader fortress was built at the end of the 12th century CE. Due to the sites abandonment and lack of identified new constructions during this time, it is difficult to resolve the ~1.5 meters of slip into individual earthquake events. However, abandonment of the site may have been precipitated by an earthquake. The latest Hellenistic coin excavated from the site dates to 65/64 BCE indicating desertion of the site occurred afterwards.
Location (with hotlink) Status Intensity Notes
Tel Sukas



Tel Ateret aka Vadun Jacob



Paleoseismic Evidence

Location (with hotlink) Status Intensity Notes
Hacipasa Trenches possible ≥ 7 The oldest event identified in the Ziyaret Trench dated to before 983 CE. A lower bound on age was not available due to insufficient radiocarbon dates.
Jarmaq Trench possible to unlikely ≥ 7 Nemer and Meghraoui (2006) date Event Y to between 2920-2879 BCE and 84-239 CE. They did not suggest a causitive earthquake.
Qiryat-Shemona Rockfalls possible Kanari, M. (2008) examined rockfalls in Qiryat-Shemona which were attributed to earthquakes. Optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dating was performed on soil samples beneath the fallen rocks. Kanari et al (2019) assigned Sample ID QS-6 to an earthquake in 199 BCE but the wide spread in ages indicate that the Pompey Quake is also a possible candidate.
Tekieh Trenches possible ≥ 7 Gomez et. al. (2003:15) may have seen evidence for an earthquake in the 1st or 2nd century BCE in Event B. Event B is estimated to have created ~ 2 meters of left lateral strike slip displacement which translates to an estimated Magnitude between 7.0 and 7.3 (7.0 and 7.2 according to Gomez et al, 2003:16-17). In terms of dating, an upper bound for Event B is 170 BCE - 20 CE while a lower bound for Events B and and the older Event C is from 1690 - 1400 BCE.
Bet Zayda possible to unlikely ≥ 7 Event CH4-E6 (modeled age 392 BCE – 91 CE) from Wechsler at al. (2014) could have been caused by the Pompey Quake.
Location (with hotlink) Status Intensity Notes
Hacipasa Trenches

The oldest event identified in the Ziyaret Trench dated to before 983 CE. A lower bound on age was not available due to insufficient radiocarbon dates.



Jarmaq Trench

Nemer and Meghraoui (2006) date Event Y to between 2920-2879 BCE and 84-239 CE. They did not suggest a causitive earthquake.



Qiryat-Shemona Rockfalls

Kanari, M. (2008) examined rockfalls in Qiryat-Shemona which were attributed to earthquakes. Optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dating was performed on soil samples beneath the fallen rocks. Kanari et al (2019) assigned Sample ID QS-6 to an earthquake in 199 BCE but the wide spread in ages indicate that the Pompey Quake is also a possible candidate.



Tekieh Trenches

Gomez et. al. (2003:15) may have seen evidence for an earthquake in the 1st or 2nd century BCE in Event B. Event B is estimated to have created ~ 2 meters of left lateral strike slip displacement which translates to an estimated Magnitude between 7.0 and 7.3 (7.0 and 7.2 according to Gomez et al, 2003:16-17). In terms of dating, an upper bound for Event B is 170 BCE - 20 CE while a lower bound for Events B and and the older Event C is from 1690 - 1400 BCE.



Bet Zayda (aka Beteiha)

Event CH4-E6 (modeled age 392 BCE – 91 CE) from Wechsler at al. (2014) could have been caused by the Pompey Quake.



Notes

Ambraseys (2009)

69–66 BC Syria

The earliest source for this earthquake in Syria is Justin, a third-century-AD chronicler. He says that as a result of the earthquake several Syrian cities, which are not named, were destroyed and 170 000 people killed. He adds that this disaster was taken to be a portent of coming changes, implying that the event took place soon after the evacuation of Syria by Tigranes in 69 BC (Just. xl. 2, 271).

According to Justin the earthquake happened during Tigranes’ occupation of Syria (83–69 BC), probably near its end, since Pompey, after the Romans had taken Antioch in 66 BC, rebuilt the senate house, which had fallen down (Malalas, 211; Downey 1938, 107, 145). It is probable that this is the same earthquake as that recorded by Dio Cassius (AD 164–235) during the war between the Romans and Mithridates, in alliance with Tigranes. Later authors refer to this when they say that it was because of the greatest earthquake, which destroyed many cities, that Mithridates was abandoned by his allies and his army broke up. The cities destroyed by the earthquake most probably belonged to his eastern allies in Syria and historical Armenia, who, on hearing the news of the disaster, hurried home to guard their property and restore the damage (D.C. 37. 11). Orosius, a later source (AD 385–420), adds that, when Mithridates was celebrating the feast of Ceres in the Cimerian Bosphorus (Crimea), there was an earthquake, which, it is said, was equally disastrous in urban and rural areas. This passage does not imply that this event necessarily happened in the Cimerian Bosphorus. The inclusion of ‘it is said’ can equally well be interpreted to mean that it was the news of the earthquake in Syria that reached Mithridates in the Cimerian Bosphorus (Orosius, 1001).

Another earthquake is mentioned in a curious legend in the Babylonian Talmud, during the siege of Jerusalem, in the last days of the Hasmonean rule in 64– 63 BC. It is thought to be coeval with the earthquake in Syria. Baba Kama relates that when a pig was brought into Jerusalem an ‘earthquake struck Israel and the land trembled a hundred miles in all directions . . .’ and from that time the raising of pigs was forbidden. This story is mentioned by Arvanitakis (1903b) and followed by other seismologists, who amplified the legend by adding that the earthquake was strong enough to damage the temple in Jerusalem (Amiran et al. 1994), or that the shock was from the same earthquake as that which destroyed Antioch and was felt in Cyprus, assigning to it a magnitude ML 7.7 and an epicentre on Antioch (Ben-Menahem 1979). Other seismologists locate this earthquake in the Crimea (Kondorskaya and Shebalin 1982; Guidoboni 1989). In fact the earthquake in Salamis in Cyprus occurred much later in 15 BC, after which Augustus came to the rescue of the city with gifts of money and renamed it Augusta. For epigraphic material and dating see Hill (1948, 232, 245).

Archaeological evidence does not help to identify the location of this earthquake or the area over which it caused damage or was felt. There is some evidence that Tell Sukas, a site about 90 km south of Antioch, was abandoned probably after an earthquake in the first century BC. However, the date 68 BC, which is assigned to the event, was taken from historical information rather than from archaeological evidence and hence is of little use. At any rate, no archaeological finds from the Early Imperial period have been found at Tell Sukas to testify to the existence of any township, since civic life on the Tell came to an end sometime during the first century BC. There is also the possibility that the desertion of Tell Sukas was no isolated phenomenon, but part of a general trend in which some settlements in the area were given up in favour of the town centres founded during the Hellenistic period (Riis 1970; Lund 1986; Assaf 1997).

There are no details in the sources from which one could assess the location and the extent of the area seriously affected by this earthquake.

Guidoboni et al (1994)

The historical evidence for this earthquake consists of four accounts by ancient historians from the 1st to the 6th century A.D. However, only two of them — Trogus and Malalas — provide information of any value. The other two — Dio Cassius and Orosius — offer very scanty data, which prove to be less than clear. In fact, the obscurity of the passages in Dio and Orosius — they do not even provide an indication of the geographical area where the earthquake occurred — has given rise to a remarkable misunderstanding, for what they wrote has been related to an earthquake at Kerch in the Crimea in 63 B.C. (see entry 062). We have tried to clarify the circumstances of this event by analysing the historical context.

Reliable evidence of an earthquake in Syria and at Antioch.

In his Epitome of Trogus, Justinus refers to what Pompeus Trogus had to say about a destructive earthquake in Syria which caused thousands of deaths:

English

Although Syria was safe from enemy attack, it was devastated by an earthquake, which killed one hundred and seventy thousand people and destroyed many cities. The haruspices declared that this prodigy foretold a change in things.

Latin

Sed sicut ab hostibus tuta Syria fuit, ita terrae motu vastata est, quo centum septuagenta milia hominum et multae urbes perierunt. Quod prodigium mutationem rerum portendere aruspices responderunt.
This very concise passage refers to the last period of the rule of Tigranes of Armenia, an ally of Mithridates, in Syria. This important king of Armenia (95-c.55 B.c.) is generally known as Tigranes the Great or Tigranes II (though it is not certain that a Tigranes I of Armenia ever existed). Tigranes was defeated by Lucullus in 69 B.c., and had to give up all regions previously under his control, except Armenia. This passage, however, suggests a dating of the earthquake to about 65 B.c., because Trogus twice specifies that Tigranes' rule lasted for eighteen years, whereas the Appian tradition (Syr. 69) suggests fourteen years, hence making the end of Tigranes' rule over Syria coincide with his defeat at the hands of Lucullus (see Rizzo 1963, pp.62ff.). The earthquake is definitely to be related to Malalas' remark that Pompey was generous to Antioch, "and rebuilt the bouleuterion, for it had fallen down".

Although Malalas lived about seven centuries after the event, his evidence is nevertheless important, for we know that he used valuable local sources. The context justifies dating this rebuilding work to immediately after Pompey's conquest of 65/4 B.C. Pompeus Trogus' account must be taken seriously. In fact, he pays special attention to the importance of earthquakes in history, and tends to associate natural phenomena with historical events (Rizzo 1963, p.58; Alonso-Nuiiez 1992, p.88ff., 101ff.).

Moreover, he had available first-hand information about Pompey's war in Anatolia: an uncle of his commanded a troop of cavalry in support of Pompey (see Rizzo, 1963, p.61; Alonso-Ndriez 1992, p.16).

Rizzo (1963, p.77) thought that knowledge of the earthquake had passed through the filter of Strabo's historical work (now lost). There is no way of knowing whether that it so, however, and in any case one may share Rizzo's own view that mentioning the earthquake is a kind of two-edged historiographical weapon, intended to underline the advantages to Syria of Tigranes' rule, which Trogus clearly regarded with favour (see Rizzo 1963, p.63). The effect of the earthquake was thus to change the political picture. Downey (1938 a, p.107ff., with bibliography; 1961, p.14Off.) has attempted to date the earthquake more accurately. On the basis of Malalas (225), he has pointed out that the Romans carried out public works at Antioch, under the supervision of Q. Marcius Rex; and since Marcius was proconsul in Cilicia in 67 ac., he suggests dating the earthquake to c.67-66 B.C. This friendly act by the Romans was undoubtedly a diplomatic move in preparation for the subsequent conquest, and Downey thinks that it was a question of rebuilding after the Trogus earthquake, which he dates to 69 ac., following the chronology in Appian, as historians usually do. This is reasonable, but it clashes with Trogus' chronology, which Downey does not take into consideration. The fact is — as Downey himself admits (1938 b, p.145) — that Malalas' account makes the earthquake datable to between 69 and 64, and Q.Marcius Rex (who reappeared in Italy in 63 B.C. to ask for a triumph) may have stayed in the East until at least 65 (evidence in Miinzer 1930, cols.1584-5). So Marcius' mission may have taken place only shortly before Pompey's campaign (Pompey was his direct superior), and hence the date of the earthquake does not necessarily have to be moved much earlier than 65 B.C. Whatever the case may be, it is interesting to note that the Romans hastened to rebuild the most important building for public spectacles, and only later went on to rebuild that for political assemblies.

The evidence of Dio Cassius and Orosius: the alleged earthquake at Kerch. An earthquake relating to this same period is recorded by Dio Cassius, but without any specific indication as to where it occurred:
Since the Roman forces were steadily increasing their hold and those of Mithridates were becoming steadily weaker, and also partly because one of the greatest earthquakes ever recorded came and destroyed many of their cities, [Mithridates'] allies departed and the army broke up, and there were those who kidnapped some of his sons, and took them to Pompey.
The same earthquake seems to be mentioned in a passage in Paulus Orosius, where he records an earthquake in the cities controlled by Mithridates shortly before his death (63 ac.):
English

When Mithridates was in. the Bosphorus to celebrate the feast of Ceres, there came a sudden earthquake so violent that it is said to have had disastrous effects in town and country alike.

Latin

In Bosphoro Mithridate Cerealia sacra celebrante terrae motus adeo gravis repente exortus est, ut magna clades ex eo urbium atque agrorum secuta narretur.
As we have pointed out in entry (062), a great deal of the literature locates this event in the Crimea. In fact, however, there is insufficient evidence to establish that the earthquake occurred there. Paulus Orosius seems to have been relying on Livy (whose coverage of this period is unfortunately missing), and must have been summarising a much more substantial narrative, for he simply reports, in succinct terms, that the earthquake occurred "while Mithridates was celebrating the feast of Ceres in the Bosphorus". But this is not reliable evidence in itself: for there is no inevitable logical link between the seismic event and the location in the Cimmerian Bosphorus. In other words, the fact that Orosius juxtaposes the one and the other does not imply that he wishes to establish some relationship between them. Nor is there any other evidence to account for such a relationship.

There remain some historical details to be added. On the basis of slender historiographical evidence, historians have claimed that the closing years of the reign of Mithridates were completely confined to the Bosphorus, where he had been obliged to take refuge because of Pompey's military campaigns between 67/66 and 65/64 B.C. Hence the view that the references by Dio Cassius and Paulus Orosius to an earthquake which had struck "the cities of Mithridates" could no longer be taken as referring to Pontus.

There are, however, two objections to this view: one of a pragmatic kind, and the second based on historiographical analysis.

  1. Most important of all, in recording a revolt organised by Mithridates' own son Pharnaces, Appian (Mithr. 108) describes the cities of the Bosphorus and the Crimea which had abandoned Mithridates as being in an excellent state of preparation for war. These could not, then, have been the cities struck by the earthquake. Mithridates himself easily resisted the revolt at Panticapaeum, and the city was only taken as a result of a conspiracy and trickery (Appian, Mithr. 110). Furthermore, Appian makes no mention of any earthquake in the Crimea.

  2. Both Dio Cassius and Paulus Orosius depend, at least in part, on a tradition hostile to Pompey, which may have come, through Livy, from an author such as Timagenes of Alexandria. While Livy (Orosius' source) was pro-Pompey, he was also a serious historian who knew his sources, and as such he could not ignore an event of importance like this earthquake. But he placed his reconstruction of events within a context of his own design, where Mithridates appears as a man whose course is run, who is being hunted down by the Romans and his other enemies, and who is finally forced to take refuge in the stronghold of Panticapaeum, since Pontus was in the hands of the Romans. This was a schematic but effective historical interpretation, which at least in its general lines agreed with the account of Appian, but (in accordance with Livy's interest in prodigies) it included the detail of the earthquake. As Appian suggests, however, Mithridates had in fact good reasons for hoping that he might make a comeback up to the last moment. There is no doubt that he was obliged to retreat into the Crimea for strategic reasons, and he must have done so in about 66 BC. He must have felt safe in the territory of his former kingdom, especially at a time when circumstances had obliged Pompey to move part of his army, in 66 B.C., for the conquest of Syria and the neutralisation of king Tigranes II of Armenia. This is the point at which the earthquake is likely to have occurred: with Mithridates in the Cimmerian Bosphorus, it will have eliminated any possibility of his going back, deprived him of any chance of breaking the Roman naval blockade, and fomented rebellion even in the Greek cities of the Bosphorus and the Crimea which, as we have seen, were not affected by the earthquake.
There was thus no deliberate falsification, but there is very little that we can add to the available information. However, the comparison with Appian, together with archaeological evidence, confirms that there is no reason to believe that the earthquake occurred in the Cimmerian Bosphorus. We therefore reject the Crimea, and return to our previous hypothesis (Guidoboni 1989, p.655) that the earthquake occurred in an unidentified part of Pontus Euxinus.

On the basis of what we have set out above, therefore, it seems likely that the earthquake occurred in Pontus after 66 and before 64 ac., that is to say after Mithridates' flight from Pontus and before the conference of Amisus, when Pompey finally settled the pacification of Asia Minor. Mithridates could at least hope that the Greek cities of Pontus — which effectively enjoyed as much autonomy under Mithridates as under the Romans — would continue to be his principal economic asset, and he was confident of returning to Pontus, where he had left many of his supporters, at a more suitable moment.

It is certainly no coincidence that the Paulus Orosius tradition associated the earthquake with the time when Mithridates was celebrating the rites of "Ceres", the Roman equivalent of Demeter, the goddess of fertility and crops — a sign that the gods were depriving Mithridates of their support by removing his sources of supply. The Livy tradition had no interest at all in drawing attention to this fact, for it did not wish to diminish the extent of Pompey's achievement, and what happened was certainly to his advantage. Paulus Orosius describes himself as an anti-pagan (and therefore anti Roman) writer, but his narrative owes much to Livy, whom he used for his references to earthquakes and other disasters, interpreting them as a divine punishment on the pagans. In this particular instance, he may have taken the earthquake as a punishment inflicted on the pagan Mithridates at the moment when he was celebrating the rites of "Ceres".

This tradition in fact confines itself to interpreting the earthquake as one of the causes of Mithridates' downfall. It is very likely that Livy himself (and he was Paulus Orosius' source, in our opinion) also made use of contemporary writers who were partisans of Mithridates, such as Timagenes of Alexandria, taking due note of the information they provided, and selecting as he thought fit.

However, the theory that the earthquake took place in Pontus has the serious drawback that it is not supported by any sources at all. Indeed, there seems to be no reason why one should not put forward a quite different hypothesis: that the earthquake recorded by Dio Cassius and Paulus Orosius is the one referred to by Trogus/Justinus in Syria. Let us return to what Dio Cassius wrote: "partly because [...] earthquakes [...] destroyed many of their cities, [Mithridates'] allies departed and the army broke up". The "allies" referred to may have been supporters of his such as Tigranes II of Armenia, who governed Syria before his defeat at the hands of Lucullus. The earthquake would therefore have helped to intensify the crisis amongst the enemies of Rome, and finally destroy the alliance between Mithridates and Tigranes. It is also reasonable to suggest that the earthquake in Syria not only created foreign policy problems for Mithridates, but also discouraged the cities from further resisting Rome. Final observations based on a comparison of the sources. Now let us take up once more what Trogus/Justinus have to say about Syria. The time factor seems to be different in their account from those in Dio Cassius and Paulus Orosius, for, unlike Trogus/Justinus, they mention the earthquake in Syria as occurring after Pompey's arrival there. What Pompeus Trogus has to say is of importance, anyway, because, as we have mentioned above, he had oral sources available for Pompey's campaign in Syria. On the other hand, it seems that Appian prefers to deny that Tigranes interfered in the affairs of Syria at all. As Rizzo has pointed out (1963, pp.64ff.), Appian is nearer the mark in dating the end of Tigranes' dominion over Syria to 69 B.C.; but that does not necessarily mean that the date 65 which we can deduce from Trogus/Justinus is the result of a mistake on their part, because the situation in Syria continued to be very complicated until Pompey arrived. He may in fact have taken advantage of the earthquake — which would explain the passage in Appian (Syr. 60) where we are told that Pompey took control of Syria "without fighting".

Trogus' stance is quite different from that of the Livy tradition (Rizzo 1963, p.70), which almost certainly underlies the work of Dio Cassius and Paulus Orosius. Livy probably got his information about the earthquake from official Roman sources (see Rizzo 1963, p.74); these documents included prodigy lists, and Livy must have thought it quite natural to place the earthquake close to the time of Mithridates' death. Trogus, on the other hand, whether he was using Strabo or oral sources, had more reliable information; and it is not unlikely that Livy (or Dio Cassius and Paulus Orosius after him) somehow inserted the report of the earthquake (for which, moreover, he gives no date or accurate location) into his account of the downfall of Mithridates. Without more accurate information, we think it inappropriate to integrate the two traditions, especially since they not only differ about the earthquake, but also disagree on nearly all the historical background (see Rizzo 1963 for a general consideration of this), thereby revealing the attempts by the various historiographical trends to make the available data fit their own ideological requirements.

Paleoclimate - Droughts

References