The Historians' History of the World 06

63 Revolt of the troops. It is put down, but Mithridates orders a Gallic mercenary to kill him. His son, Pharnaces II, who has been in revolt, succeeds him. He submits to Pompey, who grants him the kingdom of the Bosporus.

47 Death of Pharnaces in putting down the rebellion of Asander, governor of Bosporus.

36 Antony puts Polemon I, son-in-law of Pharnaces, over a part of Pontus known as Pontus Polemoniacus. He is succeeded about 2 B.C. by his son Polemon II, whose mother is nominal ruler until 39 A.D., when Caligula invests Polemon with the kingdom.

63 Polemon abdicates the throne and Pontus becomes a Roman province. THE KINGDOM OF CAPPADOCIA (c. 333 B.C.-17 A.D.)

The Cappadocian dynasty dates back to the time of Alexander the Great, when Ariarathes I maintains himself on the throne after the fall of the Persian monarchy.

322 Ariarathes captured by Perdiccas and crucified.

315 Ariarathes II, his nephew, recovers Cappadocia at death of Eumenes. He is succeeded by his son, Ariamnes II, and he in turn by Ariarathes III (date unknown).

220 Ariarathes IV succeeds his father. He joins Antiochus the Great against the Romans, and afterwards assists Rome against Perseus of Macedon.

163 Mithridates, afterwards called Ariarathes V

, succeeds his father.

158 Ariarathes deprived of his kingdom by Orophernes (Olophernes), a creature of Demetrius Soter, but is restored by the Romans.

154 Ariarathes assists Attalus II in his war against Prusias II.

130 Death of Ariarathes in war of the Romans against Aristonicus. His wife Laodice kills all her children except the youngest, in order that she may rule. The people put her to death and place her surviving child, Ariarathes VI, on the throne.

96 Ariarathes poisoned at instigation of Mithridates the Great of Pontus, whose daughter he has married. Nicomedes II of Bithynia seizes Cappadocia, but Mithridates soon expels him and places Ariarathes VII, son of Ariarathes VI, on the throne. This prince goes to war with and defeats Nicomedes.

93 He quarrels with Mithridates, who stabs him during an interview. The Cappadocians recall the late king’s brother, Ariarathes VIII, from exile and make him king. Mithridates compels him to abandon his kingdom. The Romans now intervene and appoint

Ariobarzanes I king. He is several times expelled by Mithridates and Tigranes of Armenia, but always recovers his throne.

63 Ariobarzanes resigns Cappadocia to his son Ariobarzanes II. He remains, like his father, the true ally of Rome and is 42 put to death for refusing to join Brutus and Cassius. (Some writers say this was an Ariobarzanes III, who succeeded Ariobarzanes II about 52.) Ariarathes IX, brother of Ariobarzanes II, succeeds.

36 Antony puts him to death, and appoints Archelaus king. Although an ally of Antony, Octavian leaves him in possession of the kingdom and even adds to it.

14 Tiberius summons Archelaus to Rome.

17 Death of Archelaus. Cappadocia becomes a Roman province.

APPENDIX B. THE ROMAN STATE AND THE EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH

Written Specially for the Present Work

By DR. ADOLPH HARNACK

Professor in the University of Berlin; Member of the Imperial Academy of Sciences.

During the period between the reign of Diocletian and the fall of the Western Roman Empire, were laid the foundations of the history of the Middle Ages; and of these the most important was the recognition of the Christian church by the state and the privileged position thus accorded to it. This union of state and church involved an amalgamation of their intellectual forces, their rights and powers, and also to a certain extent of their system of government. There arose a type of culture and literature which was profane and Christian at one and the same time, a Roman-Christian system of law, and an established church. An alliance was made which would have passed for impossible down to the middle of the third century. Had Tertullian been told that a time was coming when the emperors would be Christians he would have stigmatised the prophecy as impious; had any man proclaimed to Decius that in his persecuting edict he was fighting against the future pillars of the state, he would have flouted the suggestion as absurd. Even as late as the third century the state and church seemed to be irreconcilable antagonists.