Introduction
1. Barry Cunliffe, The Ancient Celts, 2nd ed., Oxford 2018, ch 5; also M. Diepeveen–Jansen, People, Ideas, and Goods: New Perspectives on ‘Celtic Barbarians’ in Western and Central Europe (500–250 BC) , Amsterdam 2001.
2. Any book on the Roman Republic must discuss the Gallic invasions, but all too many confine it to a few pages, since it interrupts the flow of constitutional discussion. Cunliffe, Ancient Celts, 131–142 is also fairly brief; similarly, Henri Hubert, The History of the Celtic People, 2 vols, London 1934, ch. 1; Kathryn Lomas, The Rise of Rome, London 2017 167 – 169 and other references.
3. Livy 5.34; Pliny, NH, 12.5.5; H.D. Rankin, The Celts and the Classical World, London 1987.
4. E.T. Salmon, Samnium and the Samnites, Cambridge 1967, 35.
5. E.T. Salmon, Roman Colonisation under the Republic, London 1969; Lomas, Rise of Rome, chapter 13.
6. Cunliffe, Ancient Celts, 76–82.
7. A coincidence rarely noted – the invasion of Italy began about 400 BC, the sack of Rome was in 390 or 387.
8. Cunliffe, Ancient Celts, 198–202.
9.The Hylli: Etymological Magnum, 776, 39; Skylax 33; Strabo 7.1.1.
10. Apparently taking the name – or being given their name – from Mons Scordus, south of their new homeland: Hubert, History of the Celtic People, 2.123.
Chapter 1
1. N.G.L. Hammond and G.T. Griffith, A History of Macedonia, vol 2, Oxford 1979, ch. XVII.
2. Zofia Archibald, The Odrysian Kingdom of Thrace, Oxford 1998, 235–236.
3. Nicholas Hammond, Philip of Macedon, London 1994, 135–139.
4. Justin 9.3.1–2; Demosthenes 13.3–7; Frontinus, Stratagems 2.8.14.
5. Arrian, Anabasis 1.1–6.
6. Strabo 7.3.8; Arrian, Anabasis 1.7.8; both of these are quoting from Ptolemy’s lost account.
7. Arrian, Anabasis 1.7.8; Strabo 7.3.8.
8. Diodoros 17.113.3; Arrian, Anabasis 7.15.4; this is only a vague, geographically indistinct notice; which Gauls were meant is not specified, though the Scordisci are one of the most likely groups.
9. Peter Beresford Ellis, Celt and Greek, London 1997, 63–64.
10. Diodoros 17.1 15.1–5; Plutarch, Alexander, 72.5; Arrian, Anabasis 7.14.8; Justin 32.12.12; these included extensive, but vague, intentions of conquest in the West; there is considerable scholarly scepticism here, but the extravagances of the plans fall in well with Alexander’s mood in his last days.
11. Cunliffe, Ancient Celts, 140–142.
12. Strabo 4.1.13.
13. Strabo 5.1.6; though Strabo claims the Balkan Boii were refugees from the defeated Boii in Italy.
14. Polybios 2.22.1; they were prominent in the Battle of Telamon against Rome in 225 BC (2.30.4– 5).
15. Cunliffe, Ancient Celts, map 6.2.
16. Andras Mocsy, Pannonia and Upper Moesia, London 1974, 2–7.
17. Cunliffe, Ancient Celts, map 21, page 452, showing the distribution of ‘La Tène finds’; there are strong indications along the river, one in the region around Budapest, the other in the region of the Banat, about Belgrade – the territory of the Scordisci.
18. Appian, Illyrian Wars 5.
19. Onomaris is probably no more than a legend, based on some action which took the local imagination. She is said to have led the Galatians across the Danube, but in what direction is not known: Ellis, Celt and Greek, 64, expands this to leading them in the campaign of conquest.
20. Etymologicum Magnum, 776, 39; Hubert, History of the Keltic People, vol 2, 42.
21. Hubert, History of the Keltic People, 60–62 is an example, but more recent discussions, as by Cunliffe, Ancient Celts, 192, are much more restrained, indeed minimal.
22. Cunliffe, Ancient Kelts, map 21, page 452.
23. Ibid, map 22, page 453; M.J. Treister, ‘The Kelts in the North Pontic area: a Reassessment’, Antiquity 67, 1993, 789–804 and M. Shchukin, ‘The Kelts in Eastern Europe’, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 14, 1995, 201–227.
24. Arrian, Anabasis 7.15.4.
25. Diodoros 20.19 (the date is 310 BC).
26. Polyainos, Stratagems 7.42; Athenaios, 10.443H (from Hermippos).
27. This is Pompeius Trogus’ explanation for Gallic expansion; as a Vocontian Gaul himself his testimony is valuable: Justin 34.4.1–7, and 44.5.11.
28. Ellis, Celt and Greek, 64–65; Cunliffe, Ancient Celts, map 21, page 452, for the distribution of these finds.
29. Ibid 66; Daphne Nash, Coinage in the Keltic World, London, 1987.
30. 3000 in the original invasion force in 334, brigaded with a smaller set of Triballi and Illyrians (Arrian, Anabasis 1.28), 3500 joined at Susa (Quintus Curtius 5.1.41), 5000 joined at the Hydaspes in India in 326 (Quintus Curtius 9.3.21); the return from India was disastrous, and the army suffered many casualties; see also Donald W. Engels, Alexander the Great and the Logistics of the Macedonian Army, Berkeley and Los Angeles 1976, tables 4–6.
31. Engels, Alexander/Logistics, passim; J.D. Grainger, Antipater’s Dynasty, Barnsley 2017.
32. At Kypsela, in south-west Thrace, and at Kabyle: Archibald, Odrysian Kingdom 307.
33. Ibid, 309–315.
34. Strabo 7.5.12.
35. Diodoros 19.7 3.7–9; Pausanias 1.10.4; Helen S. Lund, Lysimachos, Oxford 1992, 40–43.
36. Archibald, Odrysian Kingdom, 308–309.
37. Pausanias 10.19.4.
38. Plutarch, Demetrios 30.1; Appian, Syrian Wars 55; Polybios 5.67.4–10.
39. Archibald, Odrysian Kingdom 316.
40. Diodoros 21.2.1–3.
Chapter 2
1. Pausanias 10.1.4.
2. Helen S. Lund, Lysimachos, a Study in Hellenistic Kingship, London 1992.
3. Polybios 2.19.7–8.
4. Suetonius, Tiberius 8.
5. Rankin, Celts, 87.
6. John D. Grainger, Seleukos Nikator, Building a Hellenistic Kingdom, London 1990, ch. 10; Lund, Lysimachos.
7. Appian, Syrian Wars 56 and 63; Memnon FGrH 434 F 11.
8. Memnon 13; Justin 24.1.8.
9. Trogus, Prologue 24; Justin 17.2.13–14; 24.2–3.
10. Trogus, Prologue 17; Justin 17.2.13–15.
11. Trogus, Prologue 24; Justin 24.2–7.
12. The main modern discussions of the invasions of Macedon and Greece is by G Nachtergael, Les Galates en Grece et les Soteria a Delphes, Brussels 1977; see also Karl Strobel, Die Galater, Geschichte und Eigenart des Keltisches Staatenbildung auf den Boden deseHellenistischen Kleinasian, Berlin 1996, 186–226.
13. Pausanias 10.1.4.
14. The force commanded by Brennos in the next year (279) is stated by Pausanias to have had 152,000 infantry and 20,400 cavalry, but the cavalry was really 61,200, since each cavalryman was accompanied by two grooms who could take his place if he fell (Pausanias 10.1.6). This was in fact the full force in 279, and so each of the three forces in 280 was apparently a third of the whole, though the number was clearly exaggerated.
15. Pausanias 10.1.4.
16. Pausanias 10.14.4.
17. Archibald, Odrysai.
18. Justin 24.4.9.
19. Appian, Illyrian Wars 5.
20. Justin 24.5.1–4.
21. It is worth recalling that he had recently handed over a considerable force to Pyrrhos, who had taken it to Italy. Presumably these were mercenaries or volunteers, but it was still a considerable reduction in his available force.
22. Justin 24.5.5–7; Pausanias 10.1.4; Diodoros 22.3.2; N.G.L. Hammond, The Macedonian State, the Origin, Institutions, and History, Oxford 1989, 299.
23. Justin 24.5.8–11.
24. Pausanias 10.1.4.
25. Plutarch, Pyrrhos 22; Eusebios, Chronographia I, 233; A.J. Sachs and H. Hunger, Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia, Vol. I, Vienna 1988, 281.
26. Plutarch, Pyrrhos 22.1; for a discussion see F.W. Walbank, A Commentary on Polybius, vol. I, Oxford 1957, 49–51.
27. For the succession of these brief kings see N.G.L. Hammond and F.W. Walbank, A History of Macedonia, vol III, Oxford 1988, appendix 2; the sources are there detailed and discussed.
28. Diodoros 21.7.
29. See John D. Grainger, Antipater’s Dynasty, Barnsley 2019, 208–214.
30. Plutarch, Moralia 851e; see also Pascalis Paschidis, ‘Between City and King: Prosopographical Studies on the Intermediaries between the Cities of the Greek Mainland and the Aegean and the Royal Courts in the Hellenistic Period (322–190 BC)’, Meletemata 59, Athens 2008, 153– 159.
31. Justin 24.5.12–14.
32. Eusebius, Chronographia 1.235.
33. This is the suggestion of W.W. Tarn, Antigonos Gonatas, Oxford 1911, 167.
34. Pausanias 10.19.5–6; for a comment on the numbers see note 14 in this chapter.
35. Pausanias 10.20.1 lists Paionia alongside Macedon and Thrace as specific victims of the previous attacks.
36. This is the route claimed by Hammond, Macedonian State, 200.
37. Justin 24.6.1–3.
Chapter 3
1. Pausanias 10.20.1.
2. Justin 24.7.2.
3. Sources for these events: Pausanias 10.19.5–23.9; Justin 24.6 – 8; Diodoros 22.9; of modern accounts, Tarn, Antigonos Gonatas 148–157; Nachtergael, Galates, 140–164; Strobel, Galater; R. Flaceliere, Les Aitoliens a Delphes, Paris 1937, 93–104.
4. Pausanias 10.20.3.
5. Pausanias 10.21.1.
6. Pausanias 10.20.4–21.2; Justin omits the Thermopylai fight; Nachtergael, Galates 140–150.
7. Pausanias 10.22.1, though this part of the text has gaps.
8. Pausanias 10.22.4 puts their number at 40,000, which is not believable; still less is Justin’s figure of 65,000 (24.7.9).
9. Pausanias 10.22.1–4.
10. The Aitolians put up statues of Apollo, Artemis, and Leto at Delphi later; these were possibly the divinities who ‘appeared’.
11. Pausanias 10.23.11; their availability suggest that these contingents had not retreated very far from Thermopylai after the joint army broke up; with the pass open their own danger was increased, of course.
12. Pausanias 1.4.4 and 10.23.1–6; Pausanias claims 16,000 killed in the fight – again not a believable figure; Justin 24.7.1–15 gives all the credit to the Delphians, and does not once mention the Aitolians; certainly Pausanias implies that the fighting was done by Delphi and the Phokians.
13. The evidence is a decree of Kos of the next year (276) – Austin 66 – which celebrates Apollo’s inviolate status, but Livy, Appian, and Diodoros all say the sanctuary was looted. These are, of course, all much later sources.
14. Pausanias 10.23.7–8.
15. Pausanias 10.23.8.
16. Pausanias 10.23.8; Justin 4.8.16; Diodoros 22.9.3.
17. Scordisci: Justin 32.3.6–8; Nachtergael, Galates 164–172.; see chapter 4.
18. Complaints about this by Lykiskos the Akarnanian, Polybios 9.35.1; the absence of any mention of the Aitolians in Justin’s account is perhaps a sign of the antagonism they had provoked by their harping on the matter; cf C. Champion, ‘Polybius, Aetolia, and the Gallic attack on Delphi (279 BC)’, Historia 45, 1996, 315–328 for a study of the ‘legend’ of the Aitolian defence which developed afterwards.
19. Austin 66, for the inscription from Kos; for the Soteria, Nachtergael, Galates, 295–382 and Burstein 62.
20. Pausanias 10.23.8.
21. Pausanias 10.15.2 and 18.7.
22. A.J. Reinach, ‘Un Monument Delphien: l’Aitolie sur les Trophees Gaulois de Kallion’, Journal International d’Archeologie Numismatique 1911, 177–240, lists these coins on 187–203.
23. Pausanias 10.16.2.
24. Pausanias 1.3.5.
25. Syll (3) 398.
26. Strabo 4.1.3; Justin 33.3; Cassius Dio 37, fr. 90; Orosius 5.15.25: see also A.L.F. Rivet, Gallia Narbonensis, Southern Gaul in Roman Times, London 1988, 45; C. Champion, ‘Polybius, Aetolia, and the Gallic attack on Delphi (279 BC)’, Historia 45, 1996, 315–328.
27. Justin 3.3.6–8.
28. Livy 38.16; Memnon FGrH 434 F 19.
29. Memnon FGrH 434 F 18; Polyainos 6.7.2.
30. Justin 25.1–2; Trogus, Prologue 25; Diogenes Laetius 2.141.
31. Tarn, Antigonos Gonatas, ch 7.
32. Burstein 100 = OGIS 55 = Austin 270.
33. P. Cairo Zen 1.59019, line 6; Porphyry, FGrH 260 F 3.10
34. Plutarch, Pyrrhos 26.
35. Ibid 34; Pausanias 1.13.8 and 2.2250 1.4.
Chapter 4
1. Livy 38.16.1; Diodoros 22.9.3; one of those occasions when the Galatians were said to be annihilated.
2. Livy 38.16.3.
3. Justin 32.3.8.
4. Apart from Justin’s comment, the name is used by Livy referring to 197 BC, by which time they were a fully-organized and mature state; Livy was writing, like Trogus, two or more centuries later than his reference.
5. Archibald, Odrysian Kingdom, 302–309.
6. Ibid; one of these men claimed the title of basileus.
7. Arrian, Anabasis 1.
8. Appian, Illyrian Wars 3; Appian says the tribe was extinct in his day.
9. This, of course, was the position of the Galatians in the Sordiscian kingdom, as lords controlling their non-Galatian subjects, the descendants of the previous inhabitants; it may not be the position of the rulers of the Tylis kingdom.
10. Summary accounts are in Hammond, Macedonian State, part XII, and R. Malcolm Errington, A History of Macedonia, Berkley and Los Angeles 1990, 162–190; see also Tarn, Antigonos Gonatas.
11. Justin 32.3.9–12; Strabo 4.1.13.
12. Athenaios 6.234b–c.
13. Ibid.
14. Hubert, History of the Celtic People, vol. 2, 60–61; there are archaeological indications of Celtic settlements such as burials and metalwork. Dacia was not, it seems, an organized state until the mid-second century BC.
15. Athenaios 6.234b–c.
16. Strabo 7.5.12.
17. Mocsy, Pannonia and Upper Moesia, 60–66.
18. D. O hOgain, The Celts, a History, Woodbridge 2002, 60.
19. Cunliffe, Ancient Celts, 319–321; G. Alfoldy, Noricum, London 1974.
20. Mocsy, Pannonia, 66.
21. Justin 32.3.5; Livy 33.1 9.1–5.
22. Alfoldy, Noricum; Cunliffe, Ancient Celts, 319–320.
23. Mocsy, Pannonia 10.
24. Cunliffe, Ancient Celts, maps 20 and 21.
25. Polybios 4.46; Trogus, Prologue 25.
26. Polybios 4.46; Justin 32.3.6.
27. Justin 25.2.
28. The main studies of the Tylis state are by G. Mihailov, Trakite, Sofia 1972 (in Bulgarian), and the several essays in L.F. Vagalinski (ed.), In Search of Celtic Tylis in Thrace (III C. BC) , Sofia 2010.
29. Pausanias 10.2 3.4.
30. Justin 25.2.
31. Memnon FGrH 434 F 11.20; Livy 38.16.2–3.
32. Hubert, History of the Celtic People, 43.
33. Archibald, Odrysai, 313–314.
34. L. Lazarov, ‘The Celtic Tylate Style in the Time of Cavaros’ in Vagalinski, Search, 97–117.
35. Suggested by more than one contributor in Vagalinski, Search.
36. K D ‘Celts, Greeks and Thracians in Thrace during the third century BC’, in Vagalinski, Search, 57–66.
37. Polybios 4.46.3–4.
38. F.W. Walbank, A Commentary on Polybius, vol. 1, Oxford 1957, 499 – 500.
39. Polybios 4.38.1–10, and 46.3–4; Thomas Russell, Byzantium and the Bosporus, Oxford 2017, 94–98.
40. Polybius 4.32; Walbank, Commentary 1.506–507; Sheila L. Ager, Interstate Arbitrations in the Greek World, 337–90 BC, Berkeley and Los Angeles 1996, no. 51.
41. Polybios 4.46.4–5; 8.22.1.
42. Antiochos III took over the ruined city in 196 and restored it; its destruction is attributed to the Thracians, but how long before is not clear: Polybios 18.51.7.
43. Polybios 8.22.1.
44. A summary account is in Cunliffe, Ancient Celts, 151–152, 198–202; Hubert, History of the Celtic People 2.44–45; Ellis, Celt and Greek, 59–60.
45. This distribution is based in part on map 22 in Cunliffe, Ancient Celts (page 453), and on a similar map in ‘Galatians’, Wikipedia, oddly entitled, ‘Lugii–Trokmi’).
46. This is the sort of construction which would have been built in Asia Minor as bases for the three raiding tribes, but which have not been located; the tribes certainly built them in Galatia once they had settled there.
47. M.J. Treister, ‘The Celts in the North Pontic Area, a Reassessment’, Antiquity 67, 1997, 789– 801.
48. Austin 115.
Chapter 5
1. The only source for the events at the Straits is Livy 38.16.1–9.
2. Appian, Syrian Wars 63; for Philetairos’ relationship with Seleukos I and Antiochos I see R.E. Allen, The Attalid Kingdom, a Constitutional History, Oxford 1983, 11–14, and Roger B. McShane, The Foreign Policy of the Attalids of Pergamon, Urbana IL 1964, 32–35.
3. Antigonos and Antiochos fought a small naval war: Memnon FGrH 434, F 10.
4. The Northern War: Memnon FGrH 434 F 9.
5. Crossing the Bosporos: Memnon FGrH 434 F 11.10–11; Livy 38.16.7–9.
6. Memnon FGrH 434 F 11.11; clearly a paraphrase, since the term ‘barbarians’ would hardly have been included in the original.
7. I have discussed this matter in John D. Grainger, Great Power Diplomacy in the Hellenistic World, London 2017, especially chapter 1.
8. Memnon FGrH 434 F 11.11; H.H. Schmitt, Die Staatsvertrage des Altertums, vol. III, Munich 1969, 469; Austin 159; Burstein 16.
9. Livy 38.16.9: Henri-Louis Fernaux, Notables et elites des cites de Bithynie aux epoques hellenistique et romaine, Dijon 2004, 59–60; G. Vitucci, Il regno di Bitinia, Rome 1953, 35; Stephen Mitchell, Anatolia, Land Men and Gods in Asia Minor, 2 vols, Oxford 1993, 1.15–16.
10. Livy 38.27.7.
11. Livy 38.16.11–14.
12. Memnon, FGrH 434 F 11.11.
13. Christian Marek, In the Land of a Thousand Gods, a History of Asia Minor in the Ancient World, trans. Steven Rendall, Princeton NJ, 2016, suggests 30,000–35,000 men overall (p. 204), though I feel this is too high, and it omits dependants.
14. Livy 38.16.10 – 12.
15. OGIS 748; M. Launey, ‘Un episode oublie de l’invasion galate en Asie Mineure’, Revue des etudes anciennes 66, 1944, 217–236; the celebratory relief is reproduced in a rather dim photograph in F. W. Hasluck, Cyzicus, Cambridge 1910, and in Bulletin de Correspondemce Hellenique 56, 1932, plate xxv; K.M.T. Atkinson, ‘The Seleukids and the Greek Cities of Western Asia Minor’, Antichthon 2, 1968, 32–57.
16. Strabo 13.1.27 (from Hegesianax); J.M. Cook, The Troad, Oxford 1973, 100 and 364.
17. Xenophon, Hellenica 7.20 – 22; Ellis, Celt and Greek, 52–54.
18. For an idiosyncratic account of the relationship of Massalia with the neighbouring Kelts, see Arnaldo Momigliano, Alien Wisdom, the Limits of Hellenization, Cambridge 1975, 50–73.
19. Parthenios 8; I. Lampsakos 4; Austin 197.
20. Strabo 4.1.13 (from Timagenes); Justin 3.3.36.
21. Diodoros 22.9.1.
22. I. Didyma 426.
23. C.B. Welles, Royal Correspondence of the Hellenistic Period, London 1934 (reprinted Chicago 1974) no. 5; for Seleukos’ patronage of Didyma see Susan Sherwin-White and Amelie Kuhrt, From Samarkhand to Sardis, A New Approach to the Seleucid Empire, London 1993, 24–26.
24. I. Didyma 479, 480; G.E. Bean, Aegean Turkey, London 1966, 195.
25. Bean, Aegean Turkey, 195.
26. See note 13, and Palatine Anthology 7.492.
27. Burstein 17.
28. Plutarch, Parallela minora 15.
29. I. Erythrai 24 and 28.
30. IG XI.4.1105; Austin 228.
31. TAM V.2.881.
32. Welles, Royal Correspondence 10–13 = Austin 21; Cook, Troad 365–366.
33. See, for the history of Karia, Richard A. Billows, Kings and Colonists, aspects of Macedonian Imperialism, Leiden 1995, 81–84 and 90–96; for Pleistarchos see John D. Grainger, Antipater’s Dynasty, Barnsley 2019, 207–208.
34. Appian, Syrian Wars 65.
35. Livy, 38.16.10.
36. Austin 168; Burstein 19; see also M. Worrle, ‘Antiochos I, Achaios der Altere, und des Galater’, Chiron 5, 1975, 59–87.
37. See John D. Grainger, The Syrian Wars, Leiden 2010, 83 – 84.
38. Pausanias 10.3 2.4; Mitchell, Anatolia 1.17.
39. Pausanias 10.30.9.
40. Stephanus of Byzantion sv. Agriai.
41. Journal of Hellenic Studies, Archaeological Reports 1989/1990, 118; rejected by Karl Strobel, ‘State Formation by the Galatians of Asia Minor’, Anatolica 28, 2002, 1–46.
42. Grainger, Syrian Wars.
43. Getzel M. Cohen, The Hellenistic Settlements in Europe, the Islands, and Asia Minor, Berkeley and Los Angeles 1995.
Chapter 6
1. Diodoros 15.70.
2. Plato, Laws, 637de.
3. Memnon FGrH 434 F 11, 5.11; Austin 159; Burstein 16; Schmitt, Staatsvertrage, 469.
4. Polyainos 4.6.17; Tarn, Antigonos Gonatas, 169.
5. M. Launey, Recherches sur les armees hellenistiques, 2nd ed., Paris 1987, discusses Galatians as soldiers pp. 490–534, but only incidentally as mercenaries; Angelos Chaniotis, War in the Hellenistic World, Oxford 2005; and G.T. Griffith, The Mercenaries of the Hellenistic World, Cambridge 1935.
6. Plutarch, Pyrrhos 26; Diodoros 22.12.
7. Plutarch, Pyrrhos 26.2.
8. Pausanias 1.7.2.
9. Polyainos 4.6.17; Antigonos paid at the rate of one stater per man.
10. Polyainos 2.29.2.
11. Tarn, Antigonos, commented that they ‘stood by their salt’, a very British imperial sentiment (written just pre-Great War).
12. See note 5.
13. Gunther Holbl, A History of the Ptolemaic Empire, translated by Tina Saavedra, London 2001, 38–40; Grainger, Syrian Wars, 83–84.
14. Pausanias 1.7.2.
15. Ibid.
16. Pausanias 1.7.2; Kallimachos, Hymn to Delos, 4.185–187; H.P. Laubscher, ‘Ein Ptolemaischer Gallierdenkmal’, Antike Kunst 30, 1987, 131–154.
17. Justin 26.2.1–6, an imaginative account which actually says little about either Antigonos or the mutineers. Tarn, Antigonos Gonatas, 300, claims that they were ‘a new tribe’ recruited as a whole, but this is not evident in Justin’s account.
18. Justin 27.1.1–2; Porphyry FGrH 260 F 43; Polyainos 8.50; Grainger, Syrian Wars, 155–160.
19. Austin 267.
20. Appian, Syrian Wars 66; Polybios 4.48.8; Trogus, Prologue 27.
21. Polybios 5.40–60; E. Will, Histoire Politique du Monde Hellenistique, vol. 2, Nancy 1982, 17–18; Grainger, Syrian Wars, 183–198.
22. Polybios 5.59.3.
23. Polybios 5.59.8.
24. Livy 37.40; Appian, Syrian Wars 32; B. Bar-Kochva, The Seleukid Army, Organisation and Tactics in the Great Campaigns, Cambridge 1976, 163–173.
25. Griffith, Mercenaries, notes these Gauls at various points, but does not consider them as a distinctive set of mercenaries.
26. Polybios 5.82.5.
27. Polybios 2.65.2; Griffith, Mercenaries, 69–70.
28. Polybios 5.3.2 (‘some Gallic horse’).
29. Not noted in Schmitt, Staatsvertrage.
30. Justin 32.3.5; Livy 40.57.5.
31. Livy 42.51.
32. Livy 44.26.2–27.7.
33. Polybios 30.25.
34. Cunliffe, Ancient Celts, 208–209.
35. Polybios 5.77.2–4; 78; 111.2–4; Griffith, Mercenaries, 173–174.
Chapter 7
1. Appian, Syrian Wars 62.
2. A treaty between Mithradates and the Tektosages must be assumed. The fragment of the Karike of Apollonios of Aphrodisias which notes that Ankyra was assigned to the Galatians before 266 implies such a formal agreement (Stephanos of Byzantion, sv Ankyra, FGrH 740 F 14).
3. Strobel, ‘State Formation’; Jeremiah R. Dondey et al, ‘Celtic Sacrifice in Gordion’, Archaeology 55, 2002.
4. The territories of the three tribes vary with authorities; for a reasonable map see Stephen Mitchell, Anatolia, Land, Men, and Gods in Asia Minor, vol. I, Oxford 1993, maps 4(a) and (b), pages 52–53; the land of the Trokmoi is described by Christopher Garber, ‘New Insight into the Settlement History of the Tavium Region’, in K. Strobel (ed.), New Perspectives on the Historical Geography and Topography of Anatolia in the II and I millennium BC, Florence 2008.
5. The raids into Lykia can be easily argued to be undated, or misinterpreted (see chapter 5).
6. Strabo 12.5.1.
7. Strabo 12.5.1–3; his placement of the tribes is not generally accepted, but his indication of the evolution of the Galatian government system is convincing.
8. Anne Ross, ‘Ritual and the Druids’ in Miranda J. Green (ed.), The Celtic World, London 1995, 423–444, at 437 in a very speculative paragraph; Strabo discussed Pessinos in the next chapter of his work, so why he should fail to identify it as Drunemeton is surprising; I conclude they were not the same place.
9. For more details see Mitchell, Anatolia, 1.51–58; K. Bittel, ‘Die Galater in Kleinasien, archaeologisch geschen’, in D. Pippida (ed.), Assimilation et Resistance à la culture GrecoRomaine dans le Monde Ancien, Bucharest and Paris 1976, 241–249. There is little on this in Green, Celtic World, or in Rankin, Celts and the Classical World.
10. Mitchell, Anatolia, 50–51.
11. Lynn E. Roller, ‘Hellenistic Epigraphic Texts from Gordion’, Anatolian Studies 37, 1987, 103–133; OGIS 757.
12. Justin 25.7.8–9; Livy 38.16.13.
13. Mitchell, Anatolia, 20; this is the underlying sentiment in other descriptions of Galatian conduct, also often simply an assumption.
14. Memnon, FGrH 434 F 14.
15. Ibid; Justin 27.3.
16. BC McGing, The Foreign Policy of Mithridates Eupator, King of Pontus, Leiden 1986, 20–21, states that ‘when Ariobarzanes died he was at variance with the Galatians’, but no authority is given for this statement, nor is there any evidence for it; it is in fact only an assumption from the fact that war followed his death.
17. Austin 168, in which the villages are said to be part of the estates of Akhaios.
18. Memnon, FGrH 434, F 15; Polyainos 4.16.
19. Grainger, Syrian Wars 153–170.
20. Details can be found in R.S. Bagnall, The Administration of the Ptolemaic Possessions outside Egypt, Leiden 1976.
21. R.A. Billows, Kings and Colonists, Aspects of Macedonian Imperialism, Leiden 1995, 94–96.
22. Allen, Attalid Kingdom; McShane, Foreign Policy.
23. Justin 27.2.10–11; Polyainos 4.9.6; Athenaios 13.593e (from Phylarchos); Plutarch, Moralia 489a–b. The status of the Galatians in this war is widely assumed to be as mercenary hirelings, but since Antiochos was allied with Mithradates and the battle took place deep in Galatian territory it is more reasonable to count them as independent allies. It would be highly unusual to make war on the state simply because some of its people were serving as mercenaries on the other side; I conclude the ‘Galatians’ were the Tektosages; they may also, of course, have had assistance from the other states.
24. Justin 27.2.11.
25. McGing, Foreign Policy, 22.
26. Justin 27.2.
27. This was the policy which was the foundation of McShane’s theory of Pergamon as the centre of a symmachy: McShane, Foreign Policy.
28. This truce is not recorded, but the fact that Seleukos marched off to Iran after the defeat rather suggests that one existed.
29. Justin 41.4.8–9; Strabo 11.8.
30. OGIS 273–279; E.J. Bikerman, ‘Notes on Seleucid and Parthian Chronology’, Berytos 8, 1943–1944, 73–83 at 76–78; Austin 231; Burstein 85; discussed with a variety of conclusions by David Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor, Princeton NJ 1950, 2.737–739; E.V. Hansen, The Attalids of Pergamon, Ithaca NY, 1971, 34–38; Allen, Attalid Kingdom, 28–38 and 195–199: McShane, Foreign Policy, 59–61; Will, Histoire Politique 1.296–301.
31. Justin 27.4.9–10; Aelian, In Animaliam 6.44; Pliny NH 7.158.
32. Trogus, Prologue 27.
Chapter 8
1. OGIS 277 (= Austin 231).
2. R.A. Billows, Kings and Colonists, Aspects of Macedonian Imperialism, Leiden 1995, 90–91, 99–100, 110.
3. John Ma, Antiochos III and the Cities of Western Asia Minor, Oxford 1999, 54–63.
4. Polybios 4.48.5–12.
5. Polybios 5.57.4–6; this may be one of the reasons Antiochos Hierax had failed in his attempt to overthrow his brother; both he and Akhaios were using an army recruited mainly in Asia Minor.
6. Polybios 7.15.1–18.10, 78, 8.15.1–21.10.
7. OGIS 275 and 276 (= Austin 231).
8. Justin 27.2.11.
9. Polybios 5.107.4.
10. This is the interpretation of the sculptures of handsome Galatians fighting and dying on the altar of the sanctuary of Athena at Pergamon, generally dated to the late third century.
11. Polybios 5.77–78.
12. Mitchell, Anatolia 1.22.
13. Polybios 5.111.1–7.
14. Livy 38.7.10.
15. Livy 29.10.4–8 and 11.3–8.
16. John D. Grainger, ‘Antiochos III in Thrace’, Historia 45, 1996, 329–343.
17. Austin 197.
18. Appian, Syrian Wars 6.
19. In John D. Grainger, The Roman War of Antiochos the Great, Leiden 2002, 80–82, I favoured local recruitment within Thrace; John Ma, Antiochus III and the Cities of Western Asia Minor, Oxford 1999, 92, claims them for the Asian state.
20. Livy 37.40–41.
21. Livy 38.18.1–3 and 7.
22. Livy 38.12.2–4; a later speech, chiefly composed by Livy rather than Vulso, goes into more local detail.
23. Livy 38.12.5–17.11; John D. Grainger, ‘The Campaign of Cn. Manlius Vulso in Asia Minor’, Anatolian Studies 54, 1995, 23–42, for a discussion of the intricacy of the route, and its purpose.
24. Livy 38.18.1.
25. Livy 38.19.1–2.
26. Livy 38.19.6–20.1.
27. Livy 38.20.1–23.11; Polybios 21.37.3.1–39.14; there are considerable difficulties with the route of the army, discussed by Mitchell, Anatolia 1.23–24 and Magie, Roman Rule 1.1307.
28. Livy 38.25.1–3.
29. Livy 38.26.3.
30. Livy 38.2 6.1–27.
31. Livy 32.27.7; this is not proof that the Galatians indulged in raids for ‘many years’.
32. Livy 38.27.1 – 9; Vulso carried the loot away on his journey towards Rome, but lost a lot of it in an ambush by Thracians. He was lamentably liable to fall into ambushes.
33. Livy 38.40.1–2.
Chapter 9
1. Livy 38.38.2–17.
2. Livy 38.40.1–2; Polybios 21.40.6.
3. Livy 38.18.11 and 13.
4. This is not really all that different from the Roman social-political system of patrons and clients.
5. Livy 38.19.2 (at Mount Olympos); Polybios 22.21 (a brief portrait).
6. Memnon 28.1; Polybios 23.1.4 and 3.1; Livy 46.9; Justin 32.4.2–3 and Prologue 32; Cornelius Nepos, Hannibal 10–11; McShane, Foreign Policy, 159–160; Mitchell, Anatolia 1.24.
7. OGIS 298; M. Segre, ‘Due nuovi testi storica’, Rivista de filologia, 60, 1932, 446–452; Magie, Roman Rule 2.1194, 1196.
8. Polybios 23.9.2; Strabo 12.3.11; Livy 40.2.6; McGing, Foreign Policy 25.
9. Polybios 24.14.6; McShane, Foreign Policy, 161, expands this to ‘a number of Gallic tribes’, which is not justified.
10. Strabo 12.3.41.
11. Polybios 24.14–15 and 25.2; Mitchell, Anatolia 1.25; McShane, Foreign Policy 161 – 163; McGing, Foreign Policy 26–29.
12. Livy 42.57.7.
13. Livy 44.28.12–12.
14. Polybios 29.22.4; and 20.1.2–3; Livy 45.19.3 and 12.
15. Polyainos 4.8.1.
16. Polybios 30.3.7–8; Livy 45.3 4.12–14; some believe that Licinius was sent to encourage the Galatians, but Polybios was reporting on the result of the embassy and then reading back to assume that that result explained what happened in the meeting. This is not evidence.
17. This aid from Kappadokia and Syria is only vaguely apparent in the sources (Polybios 30.3 4.4 and 31.8.2), but it fits with the wider diplomatic situation.
18. Livy 45.34.11–14 and 44.21.
19. Polybios 30.28 and 30.6.
20. Polybios 31.2: Welles, Royal Correspondence 54 (Amblada), 52 (Ionian League); Milet 1.9.307 (Miletos).
21. It is all too easy to take the celebrations as evidence of the places being under direct threat, but the written evidence does not extend Galatian military activity beyond Synnada.
22. Diodoros 31.13.
23. Mitchell, Anatolia 1.26; Will, Histoire Politique 2.246; Walbank, Commentary 3.454.
24. Polybios 30.18.
25. Polybios 37.2.13.
26. Polybios 30.30.6.
27. Austin 244; Welles, Royal Correspondence 61.
28. Welles, Royal Correspondence 61.
29. Sir William Ramsay, A Historical Commentary on St Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, London 1900, 62.
30. Livy 38.8.9.
31. A century later King Amyntas is said to have owned 300 flocks of sheep.
32. Strabo 12.5.41; Mitchell, Anatolia 1.23.
33. Polybios 31.8.1–2
34. Polybios 30.30.2–3.
35. Ramsay, Historical Commentary, 45–46.
36. Welles, Royal Correspondence 54.
37. Strabo 12.8.14.
38. Ibid.
39. Justin 37.1.2; the settlement as a whole is discussed by Robert Kallet-Marx, Hegemony to Empire, the Development of the Roman Imperium in the East from 148 to 62 BC, Berkeley and Los Angeles 1995, 109–122.
40. Mitchell, Anatolia, 1.29, note 23.
Chapter 10
1. Zonaras 9.28.3–7; Livy, Per. 50; Diodoros 31.9a; Polybios 36.17.15; Strabo 13.4.2; for modern accounts, Kallet-Marx, Hegemony to Empire, 31 – 37; Erich Gruen, The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome, Berkeley and Los Angeles 1984, 431–433; John D. Grainger, Rome, Parthia, India, Barnsley 2000, 30 – 38 for a more extensive account of Andriskos’ adventure.
2. Livy, Per. 53.
3. Kallet-Marx, Hegemony to Empire, 40–41; Gruen, Hellenistic World, 435: ‘the Republic accepted responsibility for the defence of Macedonia’.
4. Julius Obsequens 16.
5. Livy (Oxy) 54.
6. Livy, Per. 56.
7. Kallet-Marx, Hegemony to Empire, 347–349; F.W. Walbank, ‘The Original Extent of the via Egnatia,’ Liverpool Classical Monthly 2, 1977, 73–74; W.L. Adams, ‘Polybius, Pliny, and the via Egnatia’, in W.L. Adams and E.N. Borza (eds), Philip II, Alexander the Great and the Macedonian Heritage, Washington DC 1982, 269–302.
8. Mocsy, Pannonia and Upper Moesia, 12.
9. Appian, Illyrian Wars, 22.
10. Sherk, 48.
11. Mocsy, Pannonia and Upper Moesia, 10–13.
12. Strabo 7.2.3.
13. Livy, Per. 63; Eutropius 4.24; Appian, Illyrian Wars 6; Florus 1.3 9.3–4.
14. Livy, Per. 63; Strabo 5.1.8; Appian, Gallic Wars 1.13; Plutarch, Marius 16.
15. Livy, Per. 63; Florus 1.39.5.
16. Sherk 52; Frontinus, Stratagems 2.4.3; Kallet-Marx, Hegemony to Empire 223–225.
17. Sherk, 52.
18. Cicero, in Pisonem 61; Ammianus Marcellinus 27.4.10.
19. Lex de Cilicia Macedoniaque provinciis; see M. Hassall, M. Crawford, and J. Reynolds, ‘Rome and the Eastern Provinces at the end of the Second Century BC’, Journal of Roman Studies 64, 1974, 195–220.
20. Julius Obsequens 44.
21. Livy, Per. 70; Cicero, in Pisonem 84, and in Verrem 3.217.
22. Appian, Illyrian Wars 5.
23. Thracians: Livy, Per. 83; Maedi: Plutarch, Sulla 23.
24. Appian, Mithradatic Wars, 55; it is possible that this is the same as the war on the Thracians or the Maedi (previous note), but the names of the victims are clear, distinct, and different, and it would seem therefore that this was a different war, though perhaps aimed at the same purpose.
25. Frontinus, Stratagems 4.1.43; Sallust, Histories 2.80 and 4.18; Rufus Festus, Breviarum 7; Eutropius 6.7.
26. Appian, Illyrian Wars 5.
27. Frontinus, Stratagems 4.1.43; Sallust, Histories 2.80; Livy, Per. 2, 95; Kallet-Marx, Hegemony to Empire 297.
28. Mocsy, Pannonia and Upper Moesia, 18; the dating is highly speculative.
29. Strabo 7.5.2; Pliny NH 3.147.
30. Strabo 7.5.2.
31. Hubert, History of the Celtic People 2.59–60.
32. Strabo 7.3.5; Livy, Per. 117; Suetonius, Caesar 44, and Augustus 8.
33. Sherk, 71.
34. Appian, Illyrian Wars 23; Cassius Dio 49.3 6.1–38.1.
35. Cassius Dio 51.23; Livy, Per. 134 and 135; Horace, Carmina, 3.8.18.
36. In fact, the Moesi had fought harder against being conquered than almost any other of Crassus’ victims: Livy, Per. 134; Cassius Dio 51.23.5–24.1; Strabo 7.3.4.
37. Mocsy, Pannonia and Upper Moesia, 32–33.
38. Cassius Dio 49.3 7.6.
39. Cassius Dio 54.20.3.
40. Cassius Dio 51.2 3.4 and 25.3.
41. Cassius Dio 54.20.2.
42. Cassius Dio 54.2.1.
43. Cassius Dio 54.20.2. This separated the two northern allies, and provided the Roman military with access to the Danube lands, and a second way to the Pannonian country.
44. Cassius Dio 54.3 1.3; attributed to 15 BC by Mocsy, Pannonia and Upper Moesia 23.
45. Mocsy, Pannonia and Upper Moesia 34; ‘their services were for sale’, he says, clearly disapproving, but it is only his interpretation.
Chapter 11
1. Justin 37.4.3–6; McGing, Foreign Policy, 68–70.
2. Justin 38.1.1; the date of the marriage is not known, though it was probably before Mithradates became king.
3. How this army travelled from Bithynia to Kappadokia is not known, but it seems probable that, geographically, the troops must have marched through Galatia.
4. For a clear account of these events, see McGing, Foreign Policy 75–77. 5. Justin 38.2.8; Strabo 12.2.11.
5. Plutarch, Sulla 5.3; Magie, Roman Rule 1.206 and 2.1163; E. Badian, ‘Sulla’s Cilician Command’,
6. Studies in Greek and Roman History, Oxford 1964, 157–178 (from Athenaeum 1959).
7. McGing, Foreign Policy, 71; Mitchell, Anatolia 1.30.
8. Appian, Mithradatic Wars, 41; this is a reference to the army in Greece in 86; but it may be assumed that Mithradates recruited Galatians at any time during his reign, at least after 108.
9. Mitchell, Anatolia, 30.
10. Mitchell, Anatolia, 1.47, citing in particular manumissions at Delphi; Ramsay, Historical Commentary, 81–85, based on much the same evidence.
11. Appian, Mithradatic Wars 17; Memnon, FGrH 434 F 31 and 37.
12. These figures seem enormous, but some historians more or less accept them: Griffith, Mercenaries, 190–193; McGing, Foreign Policy, 85, accepts them by implication; A.N. Sherwin-White, Roman Foreign Policy in the East, 1983, considers them ‘not [a] gross exaggeration’. Sheer numbers, of course, do not equate to high quality.
13. Appian, Mithradatic Wars 15.
14. Ibid, 10.
15. Ibid, 11.
16. So much for Nikomedes complaint that his kingdom was depopulated by the actions of Roman slavers.
17. Appian, Mithradatic Wars 11.
18. Ibid 17.
19. Ibid 17; Magie, Roman Rule 2.1101.
20. Appian, Mithradatic Wars 27-19; McGing, Foreign Policy 109–112.
21. Justin 38.3.9; Appian, Mithradatic Wars 22-23; McGing, Foreign Policy 113–118.
22. Appian, Mithradatic Wars 46.
23. Appian, Mithradatic Wars, 46.
24. Appian, Mithradatic Wars, 64; he attacked Komana.
25. Appian, Mithradatic Wars, 65–66.
26. Ibid, 66.
27. For Servilius’ campaign see Sherwin-White, Roman Foreign Policy, 152–158.
28. Plutarch, Lucullus, 5.1–6.5, and Pompeius, 20.1–2.
29. Plutarch, Lucullus, 7.5.
30. Memnon 27.5–6.
31. Plutarch, Lucullus 14.1.1.
32. Appian, Mithradatic Wars, 109.
33. Ibid, 111.
34. Memnon, FGrH 434 F 27.2.
35. Appian, Mithradatic Wars, 75.
36. Memnon, 44; Plutarch, Lucullus, 28.2.
37. ‘Posdala’ in Mitchell, Anatolia 31; the Loeb Strabo (15.2.1) has ‘Damala’; Plutarch, Pompeius, 31 is content with ‘Galatia’; whatever the precise name of the place, it was clearly in Galatia.
38. Sherwin-White, Roman Foreign Policy, 226–234; Kallet-Marx, Hegemony to Empire, 325–331.
39. Strabo 12.5.2.
40. Stephen Mitchell, ‘Blucium and Peion; the Galatian Forts of King Deiotaros’, Anatolian Studies 24, 1974, 61–75.
41. Mitchell, Anatolia, 84–86; Strobel, ‘State Formation’, is particularly definitive in his choices of the sites, without direct evidence.
42. Mitchell, Anatolia, 1.34, and references there.
43. Cicero, ad Atticum 6.1.14.
44. [Caesar], Bellum Alexandrinum 34.
45. Pharsalos: Caesar, Civil War 3.4.5; Philippi: Appian, Civil War 4.88; Actium: Plutarch, Antonius 63, Vellius Paterculus 2.84.1; Cassius Dio 50.13.8.
Chapter 12
1. Strabo 12.6.3 and 5; the date of his death is not wholly certain; see Barbara Levick, ‘The Beginning of Tiberius’ Career’, Classical Quarterly, 1971.
2. Cassius Dio 53.21.2.
3. Strabo 12.6.3; Tacitus, Annals 3.48.2; Ronald Syme, Anatolica, Studies in Strabo, Oxford 1995, ch. 23, ‘The Homonadensian War’.
4. Barbara Levick, Roman Colonies in Southern Asia Minor, Oxford 1967.
5. For Pessinos, M. Waelkens, ‘The Imperial Sanctuary at Pessinos’, Epigraphica Anatolica 7, 1986, 37-74, and Angelo Verlinde, The Roman Sanctuary Site at Pessinos, Leuven 2015; for Ankyra, Stephen Mitchell and David French, The Greek and Latin Inscriptions of Ankara, Vol. I, Munich 2012; for Tavium, Christophe Gerber, ‘New Insight into the Settlement History of the Tavium Region’, in Karl Strobel (ed.), New Perspectives on the Historical Geography and Topography of Anatolia in the II and I Millennium BC, Florence 2008.
6. Syme, Anatolia, ch. 12, ‘The Status of Armenia Minor’.
7. The campaign of C. Domitius Corbulo during Nero’s reign is the classic case.
8. The provincial shuffle is summarized by Christian Marek, In the Land of a Thousand Gods, Princeton NJ, 2016, 338–343; see also R.K. Sherk, ‘Roman Galatia: the Governors from 25 BC to AD 114’, Aufsteig und Niedergang des Romische Welt, II.7.2, Berlin, 1980, 954–1052. For the best discussion of the Roman period in Galatia, see Mitchell, Anatolia; Syme, Anatolica, has many essays in individual issues and subjects.
9. Mitchell and French, Inscriptions of Ankara, no. 10, e.g.
10. Mitchell, Anatolia 1.108.
11. John D. Grainger, Nerva and the Imperial Succession Crisis of AD 96–99, London 2003 ch.≈7, map p. xxiv and tables on p xxvii, for the situation in the 90s.
Appendix
1. Britain: A. Birley, The Fasti of Roman Britain, Oxford 1981, 181–186.
2. Herodian 7.5.2; Historia Augusta, ‘The Three Gordians’.
3. Historia Augusta, ‘The Three Gordians’; Philostatos, Lives of the Sophists.
4. E. Bosch, Quellen zur Geschichte des Stadt Ankara, Munich 1967, n. 203.
5. Mitchell, Anatolia, 2.85.
6. Birley, Fasti, 181–186.
7. Herodian 7.5.8.
8. For the Eastern reluctance to be involved in the Roman governing system, see John D. Grainger, Syrian Influences in the Roman Empire to AD 300, London 2018, ch. 1.