049: Barbarians of the Black Sea – The Galatians and Odrysian Thrace

The term “barbarian” is often played fast and loose in the writings of the Greek and Roman authors,

whether to simply designate persons or peoples of non-Greco Roman origin, or with a decidedly

negative tilt, indicating inferiority in either a cultural or moral sense. One of the goals of the podcast is

to try and expand the horizon in terms of cultures and civilizations that we learn about, versus

exclusively focusing on the Greeks or Romans, not only because it gives us a better understanding of the

peoples who also lived and died during the Hellenistic period, but also because it allows us to learn more

about the Greeks and Romans themselves in the context of their environment, and their interactions

within said environment. Please excuse my self-aggrandizement, but I bring this topic up because it has

relevancy with today’s episode and our current theme of staying around Asia Minor and the Black Sea

Region. Though primarily dominated by Greek, Macedonian and, as we saw in the last episode, Iranian

rulers, Hellenistic Asia Minor was also home to two major groups that are almost exclusively labelled as

“barbarians” within our sources: the first are a relatively new peoples on the scene known as the

Galatians, but better understood as the descendants of Celtic warbands that invaded Asia Minor in the

early 3rd century and settled the region known as Galatia in today’s Central Turkey. The second are the

Thracians, a mountain people scattered across much of the northeastern Balkans, and of particular note

is the Odyrsian Kingdom, which was the most powerful indigenous state to emerge in Thrace during the

around the Hellenistic period. In this episode, we are going to split up our discussion in two parts, in

order to learn how each group managed to adapt themselves to the changing environment, along with

their reactions to Hellenization and the accusations of barbarism by their Greco-Macedonian neighbors.

Galatians:

As a heads up for those who haven’t already listened, back in January of 2019 I did two episodes on the

Celtic Migrations into Greece and Asia Minor: episode 20, which covered celtic civilization and its

history, and episode 21, which was a narrative of the invasions proper. By virtue of this, I am not going

to cover the events of 280-275 BC in much detail, and instead I want to go into depth about the

Galatians who had established themselves by the 260s, so check those out since this is essentially a

sequel to those episodes.

The chaos and instability brought about by the warfare between the Successors of Alexander, along with

vast amounts of circulated wealth from the Mediterranean and Asia, had proved irresistible to the Celtic

warbands that bordered the Hellenistic world. Like a tsunami, they descended upon both Greece and

Asia Minor, some as part of extended raiding parties, while others clearly bent upon migration and

settlement. Exaggeration, misinformation, and memories of the invasion of Xerxes in the 5th century

likely influenced the estimates of the manpower of these armies, but even when taking a conservative

approach it would number in the tens of thousands, as many of the warriors brought with them their

families, retainers, and slaves in search of a new land to call their own.1 There was not much in the way

of coordination between all of the Celtic tribes who made up this mass migration, as some would remain

in the Greek Peninsula and plunder the sacred temple of Delphi or ravage Thrace, before finally being

1 Diodorus, Library of History, 22.9.1; Pausanias, 10.19.6; Justin, Epitome, 25.1;

contained by the victories of Antigonus II Gonatas in 277.2 Thanks to the assistance of the Bithynian king

Nicomedes, who looked to finish a dynastic dispute with Celtic arms, arrangements were made for some

of the tribes to be brought into Asia Minor in 278, some 20,000 in total.3 The wealthy cities of the

Anatolian coastline proved irresistible, and aggressive raiding and plundering soon followed suit, with

some of the survivors committing suicide at the horrors inflicted upon them during their captivity.4 At

the Battle of the Elephants in roughly 275/2745, the Seleucid king Antiochus I inflicted a major defeat

against a Celtic army that effectively put an end to any large-scale raiding activities, though incidents of

attacks in Asia Minor continued for a number of years afterwards. Instead of massacring the survivors,

many of these Celts were settled by Hellenistic kings like Antiochus I and Mithridates I of Pontus. The

formation of Galatia did not happen overnight, even with Antiochus’ victory and settlement, which more

than likely just greatly limited their efforts rather than stopping them outright. For the next 50 years, the

settled Celts continued to be quite mobile and active in the poltical infighting that gripped Asia Minor,

until the late 230s, where King Attalus I of Pergamon managed to subdue them in battle and formally

restricted them to the region that would become Galatia.

Much like Caesar’s division of Gaul6, Galatia was politically divided into three broad parts: the

northeastern portion bordering Pontus and Cappadocia belonged to the Trocmi, reportedly the most

powerful of the three tribes; the interior was given to the Tectosages (Teck-toe-sahjees), formerly the

territory of the ancient Phrygian Kingdom, and includes the modern city of Ankara; lastly, the west was

home to the Tolistobogii, near the Ionian coast.7 It’s important to note that each of these regions were

politically independent from one another, and in a sense there was no such thing as “the kingdom/state

of Galatia”, at least during the earlier period. Treaties would be arranged with each tribe individually,

rather than as a collective: if one of the Hellenistic kingdoms was attacked by “the Galatians”, this could

mean one of the tribes, two tribes independently, two working together, and so on and so forth. Each

tribe is said to have spoken the same Celtic language however, or at the very least had mutually

intelligible dialects, though we do not have any surviving Celtic inscriptions from Asia Minor to challenge

this.8

Almost all of our information on Galatian government is provided by the geographer Strabo. Though he

wrote in the Augustan Age, he was a native of Pontus and a reasonably solid researcher, so it’s not

unlikely that he had good sources in neighboring Galatia regarding its political system prior to the

Roman conquest.9 It’s also likely that the form of government he describes did not properly emerge until

2 Justin, 25.1-2 3 Livy, 38.16; half of them are said to be noncombatants 4 Palatine Anthology, 7.492; Notes suggest that this might be an inscription based upon a romance, but other authors take it at face value. 5 Appian, Syrian Wars, 65; Lucian, Zeuxis or Antiochus, 8-12; The precise date of this battle is unknown, but is to have taken place between 278 and 268 B.C., I follow Grainger, J.D. “The Galatians: Celtic Invaders of Greece and Asia Minor” Pgs 101-102 6 Caesar, Gallic War, 1.1-4 7 Strabo, Geography, 12.5.2; Livy 38.16 8 Strabo, Geography, 12.5.1; Maier, B. “The Celts: A History from Earliest Times to the Present”, Pg. 93. Celtic names and Locations are preserved via the Greco-Roman authors, see Mitchell, S. “Anatolia: Land, Men and Gods in Asia Minor (Volume 1: The Celts and the Impact of Roman Rule)” Pg. 50 9 Roller, D.W. “Strabo” in “Oxford Bibliographies” DOI: 10.1093/OBO/9780195389661-0230; Mitchell, S. “

the turn of the 3rd century BC, perhaps due the influence of neighboring Pergamon.10 In each tribe, there

were four further divisions known as the “tetrarchies”, headed by an official appropriately known as the

“tetrarch”. We aren’t sure as to how the position of Tetrarch is received, perhaps by merit, birth,

wealth, or some combination of the three, but descendants would proudly trace their lineage to their

ancestors who held the title.11 The tetrarch had four officials that would answer to them: a judge to

handle criminal cases, a supreme military commander, and two subordinate commanders. The tetrarchs

from all twelve tetrarchies (try saying that three times fast), along with a body of officials numbering 300

in total, would meet at a designated location called Drunemeton (drew-nem-may-tawn) once a year.12

Here they would collectively discuss issues between the tribes and oversee murder cases, and it is very

likely that there was some sort of religious element to the meeting: nemeton means “sacred place” in

the Celtic tongue, presumably some sort of grove.13 Whether it involved the druids, the religious figures

of Celtic society in Central Europe and Britain, is unclear, though certainly not out of the realm of

possibility. After all, the organization of the tribes and the yearly council meeting are almost identical to

practices in contemporary Gaul, and the involvement of a druid class in legal and diplomatic matters is

not a stretch of the imagination, though no direct evidence exists.14 To add to the largely decentralized

nature of the Galatian government, there are also a significant number of chiefs underneath the

tetrarchs, the numbers approaching nearly 200 in some instances15. An early attempt to abolish the

Tetrarchies was by a chieftan named Ortiagon, who tried to unite Galatia under a kingship, though this

proved to be a fruitless effort.16

In his description of Galatia, Strabo avoids the use of the term “town” when speaking of the Galatians,

instead preferring to say “fortress” or “garrison”.17 It appears that the Galatians preferred to occupy a

series of hill-forts known in Latin as oppida, a shared trait with that of their European cousins, generally

avoiding the Classical-styled cities that were abound in Asia Minor.18 Archaeological evidence from the

city of Gordion (or Gordium) demonstrates that the Celts were also capable of appropriating existing

settlements, as there is a clear discontinuity between the Hellenistic and Pre-Hellenistic foundations

that were refashioned into the Celtic-styled hillfort.19 Though Galatian is generally understood to mean a

person of Celtic origin or descent, a point must be brought up about the ethnic composition of Galatia:

you have Anatolian peoples living among the Celts, namely the Phrygians, for the region was their

10 Mitchell, S. “Anatolia: Land, Men and Gods in Asia Minor (Volume 1: The Celts and the Impact of Roman Rule)” 11Mitchell, S. “Anatolia: Land, Men and Gods in Asia Minor (Volume 1: The Celts and the Impact of Roman Rule” Pg. 155 12 Strabo, Geography, 12.5.1 13 Strabo, Geography, 12.5.1; Cunliffe, B. “The Ancient Celts, 2nd Edition” Pg. 203 14 Comparisons are made to the Consilium Galliarum in Roman Gaul, required to meet on August 1st of each year; Opinions regarding the involvement (or existence) of druids in Galatia remain divided: Rankin, D. “Celts in the Classical World” on Pg. 191 says yes, Cunliffe, B. “The Ancient Celts, 2nd Edition” on Pg. 204 is ambivalent, Grainger J.D. “The Galatians: Celtic Invaders of Greece and Asia Minor” on Pg. 131 makes no comment on the druids specifically, but denies any religious authority to the council meeting. 15 Grainger J.D. “The Galatians: Celtic Invaders of Greece and Asia Minor”, Pg. 132 16 Polybius, Histories, 22.21 17 Strabo, Geography, 12.5.2 18 Livy 38.18-19; Cunliffe, B. “The Ancient Celts, 2nd Edition” on Pgs. 205-207; Rankin, D. “Celts in the Classical World” on Pg.192; Grainger J.D. “The Galatians: Celtic Invaders of Greece and Asia Minor” on Pg. 132; Mitchell, S. “Anatolia: Land, Men and Gods in Asia Minor (Volume 1: The Celts and the Impact of Roman Rule)” does not agree with this assessment on Pg. 58. 19 Voight, M. “Celts at Gordion: The Late Hellenistic Settlement”, Expedition Magazine 45.1 (2003)

homeland. Along with the Phrygians, there were also Greeks who were recent immigrants or the

descendants of Ionian colonists, and also a number of Thracians, who had followed or migrated along

with the initial wave of Celtic invaders. It is assumed then that the Celts were some sort of political elite

within Galatia, perhaps acting as lords in the countryside to take advantage of the Anatolian Plateau’s

prime real estate for animal husbandry and pastoral farming, with the native Anatolians and Greeks

acting as either peasants or merchants, as they had always done.20 Surviving graffiti from Gordion lists

about 30 names, with two-thirds of them being Greek and only two being distinctively Celtic, but there

are multiple instances of ethnic Celts receiving or adopting Greek names, such as Amyntas, son of

Gaesatodiastes (Gae-sato-diastes).21 However, this just further suggests the general avoidance of the

cities as a whole by the Celts.

One of the principal careers available to a young Galatian man eager to prove his martial prowess was to

serve abroad as a mercenary in the armies of the Hellenistic kingdoms, who were always ready and

willing to pay for the additional manpower. Having seen the capabilities of Celtic warriors firsthand,

virtually all of the kings contemporary to the invasion immediately hired them as mercenaries:

Antigonus Gonatas, Antiochus, Pyrrhus of Epirus, and even distant Ptolemy in Egypt. They proved to be

fierce and loyal fighters in the hands of Antigonus22, but their almost stereotypically fickle allegiance led

them to staging an insurrection under Ptolemy, who accordingly left them to die on a remote island in

the middle of the Nile as punishment.23 This incident did not dissuade the Ptolemies from recruiting

more warriors, and they actually incorporated the Galatians into their system of land-granting in return

for military service, as the Fayum Oasis in Egypt would see a Celtic community for some time.24

Their fighting style seems to have changed little over the centuries: they are recorded as still wielding

the weaponry of their mainland cousins with few if any modifications, and some even continued the

practice of going into battle naked, though the armies of later Galatia would adopt the equipment and

organization of the Roman legions.25 Mercenary work also provided a supply for one of the other great

exports of Galatia, slaves, as the region was thought to have been an active slave market at least to the

time of the 4th century AD.26

Galatian religion is relatively obscure, but we can safely assume that there was a blend of Celtic, Greek

and indigenous traditions. Like I mentioned earlier, there is no direct evidence for the existence of a

dedicated druidic class in Galatia, but one macabre religious tradition retained by the Galatians was

human sacrifice, attested to by both the ancient authors, most notably by Diodorus who recalls the

wholesale sacrifice of Pergamese prisoners of war, and by archaeological evidence recovered from the

20 Grainger J.D. “The Galatians: Celtic Invaders of Greece and Asia Minor” Pg. 133 21 Roller, L.E., “Hellenistic Epigraphic Texts from Gordion”, Anatolian Studies 37, 1987, 103–133; Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae 757. 22 Plutarch, Life of Pyrrhus, 26 23 Pausanias, 1.7.2; The incident is suggested by Grainger to be a result of either Antiochus or Magas of Cyrene inciting the mercenaries to revolt through bribes, rather than the mercurial disposition attributed to the Celtic peoples in general. 24 Cunliffe, B. “The Ancient Celts, 2nd Edition” Pg. 207-209 25 Livy, 38.21; 26 Mention of the slave trade in 4th century Galatia is recorded by Ammianus Marcellinus, 22.7.8; Rankin, D. “Celts in the Classical World”, Pg. 191

city of Gordion dating to the period.27 A number of named Celts were priests and priestesses of the

Anatolian mother goddess Cybele, or perhaps her Hellenized incarnation as Artemis.28

A turning point for Galatia came in 88 BC when, during his wars with the Romans, the Pontic king

Mithridates VI had several of the tetrarchs and chiefs allied with him executed on the grounds of

treason, with only one out of a group of 60 managing to escape.29 This devastated the existing political

structure of the tribes, and it inspired such fury in the Galatians that they collectively allied with the

Romans instead, driving Mithridates out of the region under the leadership of a man named Deiotaurus

of the Tolistobolgii.30 Deiotaurus, with the blessings of Rome and Pompey the Great, would go on to be

declared king in Galatia in 64 BC, and remain a staunch ally and one of the earliest proponents of

“Romanization”, reforming the army in a similar manner to the legions.31 Following his death in 40 BC,

the kingdom would pass to his nephew Amyntas, since Deiotaurus was apparently prone to filicide, but

in time, it would be abolished by the Emperor Augustus, and formally incorporated into the Roman

Empire as the province of Galatia in the year 25 BC.32

From the perspective of the Hellenistic kings and Greek city-states, the Galatians were the epitome of

“barbarian”: untrustworthy, warlike, and often times terrifying. In fairness, it is not hard to see why.

Many of the surrounding states were required to pay a “Galatian tax”, used to either bribe the Galatians

to not attack them or to pay for the ransom of captured prisoners (those that weren’t ritually sacrificed,

mind you), and the reports of captives committing suicide following their release are grim33. Their

reputation for breaking treaties is not entirely warranted, since they seemed to adhere to the same

principles as the Hellenistic monarchs: follow the rules of the treaty until it expires following the death

of its signing parties, and reopen hostilities. One only needs to look at the behaviors of the Seleucid and

Ptolemaic kings during the Syrian wars to see a similar pattern.34 Galatia under Deiotaurus was a

steadfast ally of Rome, and Cicero openly called him a paragon of loyalty and a friend of the Senate in a

speech on his behalf.35 This leads to the complex relationship between the Hellenistic kingdoms and the

Galatians, since the former was more than willing to incorporate Celtic troops in their armies or use

them as pawns for their own political ends: Attalus of Pergamon imported the Aigosages tribe from

Europe in 218 to help recover his territories from the Seleucid Empire, and when they started to cause

some trouble near the Bosphorus, Prusias I of Bithynia had every last man, woman, and child massacred

following his victory in battle with the tribe.36 Victory over the Galatians was seen as the representation

of civilization triumphing over barbarity, and the kings were quick to exploit it. Antiochus I received the

title Soter, “savior”, for his defeat of the Tolistobogii tribe in the Battle of the Elephants, while Antigonus

27 Diodorus, Library of History, 31.13; Dondey, J.R. et al, “Celtic Sacrifice in Gordion”, Archaeology 55, 2002 28 Plutarch, On the Virtue of Women, 20; Rankin, D. “Celts in the Classical World”, Pgs. 199-200 29 Appian, Mithridatic Wars, 46 30 Livy, Periochae, 94; Appian, Mithridatic Wars, 75; 31 Strabo, Geography, 12.3.13; Cicero, On the Haruspices, 29; Cicero, For King Deiotaurus 32 Dio Cassius, Roman History, 48.33.5; 33 Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae 223, 757 34 Grainger J.D. “The Galatians: Celtic Invaders of Greece and Asia Minor”, Pg. 135 35 Cicero, On the Haruspices, 29; Cicero, For King Deiotaurus 36 Polybius, Histories, 5.111

Gonatas was able to take the throne of Macedon for the same reason.37 Perhaps the most extravagant

propagandist would be Attalus I, a theoretical subordinate to the Seleucid Empire who managed to

bolster his claims of independent kingship by defeating the armies of Galatian mercenaries on two

occasions.38 Indeed, Attalus and his descendants made sure to cultivate this image: the author Pausanias

recalls an oracle allegedly predicting the rise of a bull-horned champion who would defeat the Galatians,

explicitly naming Attalus in the process.39 The physical manifestation of Attalus’ glory would be the

“Great Altar of Pergamon”, an enormous monument placed in the sanctuary of Athena at Pergamon, of

which only the base survives in its original form.40 However, I can almost guarantee that you might have

seen the marble copies of the original sculptures that adorned the altar as individual pieces: “The Dying

Gaul” is a Galatian warrior, nude but for only his weaponry and signature gold torque necklace, stoically

succumbing to his wounds; the other is “The Ludovisci Gaul”, a Galatian man in the act of committing

suicide after killing his wife, presumably to prevent themselves from suffering a terrible fate at the

hands of the Pergamese. I’ve included the images of each one in the episode notes on my website, and

they are absolutely incredible works. It also leads us to question the intent of the sculptor and the

commissioner: did they purposefully give a sympathetic portrayal of the Galatians out of some sort of

respect (perhaps the term “noble savage” might be appropriate), or is it a sobering reminder at how

alien and brutal the values and ethics of the ancient world were that they would celebrate the

lamentation of the defeated? I’d love to hear your thoughts on this.

Yet, despite its dissolution and absorption, Celtic culture persisted in Galatia for centuries afterwards.

The region remained an enclave for the Celtic language, based upon an observation by St. Jerome in the

late 4th century AD.41 A more famous example is to be found in the New Testament, where a letter to

the peoples of 1st century Galatia written by St. Paul the Apostle outlines his efforts to convert them to

Christianity, relying on accusations of licentiousness and drunkenness that were commonly used to

stereotype the Celts, along with sprinklings of calling them fools.42 Yet, Paul also appeals to the Celts’

love of freedom and independence as his argument as to why they should follow suit.43 The story of the

Galatians is one of cultural resilience, a diaspora of Celtic peoples far away from their homelands that

managed to largely retain their identity despite being a minority population, in the face of both

Hellenization and Romanization.

A recent and accessible work on the Celtic invasions and the Galatians as a whole is “The Galatians:

Celtic Invaders of Greece and Asia Minor”, written by John Grainger and published by Pen & Sword

Books, who gave me early access to a copy to help with my research for this episode, so special thanks

to them, and the book should be released by the end of August of 2020. With the first half done, let’s

37 Appian, Syrian Wars, 65; Justin, 25.1-2 38 Pausanias, 1.8.1 39 Pausanias, 10.15.3 40 A reconstruction can be seen in Schoper, A. “Die Kunst von Pergamon” 41 Jerome, Commentaries on the Galatians, 2.3; Rankin, D. “Celts in the Classical World, Pg. 192, Maier, B. “The Celts: A History from Earliest Times to the Present”, Pg. 94 42 Galatians 3.1, 5.19-21 43 Galatians 5.1

turn to the other group, as we’ll be heading across the Bosphorus back into Europe, and visit the lands

of Thrace.

------------------------------------------------------

Odrysian Thrace

Dotting the landscape of the Kazanlak valley in central Bulgaria are hundreds of earthen mounds, an

area affectionately referred to by Bulgarian archaeologists as the “Valley of the Lords”, the Balkan

answer to Egypt’s own “Valley of the Kings”. Each of these earthen mounds, known as tumuli, are

actually artificial constructs built over two millennia ago by the peoples of antiquity known as the

Thracians, to act as tombs for the nobility and political elite of the various tribes that dwelt in the region

historically known as Thrace. One particular tomb, unearthed in 2004, was loaded with many artifacts

like weaponry, coins, and even the skeleton of a horse, reminiscent of the kurgans of the Scythians, and

a magnificent bronze bust of a heavily bearded man with a striking gaze, still retaining his original

artificial eyes and eyelashes. The person after whom the bust was modelled can almost certainly be

identified as the same individual whose name repeatedly was inscribed on the coinage and treasures

inside: Seuthes, more specifically Seuthes III, who ruled from approximately 330 to 300/295 B.C. , one of

the last major kings of the Odrysian Kingdom residing in eastern Thrace. 44

Thrace in antiquity was a broad, densely populated region that encompassed the eastern Balkans to the

European Bosporus, approximately modern Bulgaria, along with parts of Greece, Romania, and Turkey.45

The concept of a uniform Thracian peoples or Thracian ethnicity, a label crafted largely by the Greeks

themselves, has been under scrutiny thanks to the complex environment of the Balkans in antiquity,

with peoples like the Illyrians, Paeonians, and Macedonians occupying a region of fluid borders and

cultures.46 Herodotus describes the Thracians as the second most populous peoples in the world, but

extremely fractious and politically divided into dozens of tribes.47 The most powerful of these tribes

would be: the mountainous Triballi, just north of Macedon; the Getae, bordering the Eurasian steppe

and Western Black Sea Coast; and the most relevant to our discussion, the Odrysae, who dwelled in the

plains between the Haemus and Rhodope mountains on the Bosporus.48 Virtually all of our written

information on the Thracians comes from outside observers, for although the Thracians later adopted

the Greek script for their own language, which is attested to by surviving inscriptions, they never wrote

anything about themselves in neither Greek nor their native tongue.49

Some of our earliest mentions of Thrace come from the time of Homer, who lists them among the allies

44 Tzochev, C. “Accounts from the Treasury of Seuthes III: Inscribed Silver Plate Found in the Tomb of the Golyama Kosmatka Mound” in Hesperia: The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. 85(4) pp.779-794 45 Herodotus, Histories, 5.31; Bouzek, J. and Grainger, D. “Geography” in “A Companion to Ancient Thrace”, Pgs. 12-15 46 Vranić, I. “‘Hellenisation’ and Ethnicity in the Continental Balkan Iron Age”, in “Fingerprinting the Iron Age: Approaches to Identity in the European Iron Age : Integrating South-Eastern Europe Into the Debate” Pgs. 163-164; Grainger, D. “Ethnicity and Ethne” in “A Companion to Ancient Thrace” 47 Herodotus, Histories, 5.31; Strabo, Geography, 7. Fragment 47; 48 Bouzek, J. and Grainger, D. “Geography” in “A Companion to Ancient Thrace”, Pgs. 12-15; Thucydides, Histories, 2.96 49 The Thracian language is Indo-European in origin, and is likely related to Macedonian and Dorian/Attic Greek. Theodossiev, N. “Ancient Thrace Between East and the West” in “Fingerprinting the Iron Age: Approaches to Identity in the European Iron Age : Integrating South-Eastern Europe Into the Debate” Pg. 158; Dana, D. “Inscriptions” in “A Companion to Ancient Thrace” Pgs. 244-245

of the Trojans as mighty warriors and masterful metalworkers, which might be a perfect generalization

for the Greek perception of the Thracian peoples as a whole.50 Herodotus visited the Black Sea while

writing his Histories the 5th century, and more than likely observed the Thracians first-hand: he describes

them as heavily tattooed, idealizing a life of warfare tempered by feasting and drinking, and actually

makes reference to the great tumuli that were built to house the dead.51 The martial prowess of the

Thracians made them attractive mercenaries to the Greeks and Romans, usually employing them as light

infantry in the form of peltasts, men armed with javelins and a crescent-shaped shield to screen their

own line and harass the enemy, but the nobility were also able to provide cavalry. Their usefulness is

most obviously demonstrated during the campaigns of Alexander the Great, as they took part in virtually

every battle, and perhaps formed up to 1/5th of all of his non-Asian troops.52 A common article of

clothing associated with the Thracians was the distinctive headwear known as the “Phrygian hat”, which

can either be in the form of a felt cap or metal helmet; a crude comparison would be to the hats worn

by the Smurfs from the cartoon of the same name, but also a feature shared with the peoples of the

steppe.

Indeed, much of the Thracian image bears influences from a wide array of cultures: wealthy Thracian

noblemen have been found buried with Greek-styled armor and indigenous weaponry.53 Thracian

metalwork, especially in silver, was of phenomenal quality, and their drinking goblets were highly prized

items, as suggested by both Homer and the treasure hoards found in the tumuli.54 Images often depict

hunting scenes and animals, reminiscent of the so-called “animal style” popular among the Scythians

and other Steppe nomads.55 From the Near East came silver and gold rhyton, drinking vessels in the

shape of animal heads or eastern motifs that were a legacy of Thrace’s contact with the Persian

Empire.56

The image of the Thracians was not always particularly positive one: Diodorus refers to the Getae as

living a bestial and barbarous existence, and Herodotus makes note of their licentiousness and petty

squabbling.57 Political disunity was a common feature of Thracian society, and Herodotus even makes a

comment saying that it would be the most powerful nation in the world if they ever got their act

together.58 While the perception of your average Thracian by the Greeks was about as crude and warlike

as you could be, the relationship between the Greeks and the upper nobility of Thrace was considerably

different. The political elite had adopted Greek as their diplomatic language, and were quite involved in

the affairs of the Greek colonies of the Black Sea by virtue of close contact.59 Athens was very interested

50 Homer, Iliad, 4.517-38; 24.232-37; 51 Herodotus, Histories, 5.3-5.10 52 Webber, C. “The Thracians: 700 BC – AD 46” Pg. 11 53 McDonnell-Staff, P. “A prince and his panoply: Untouched grave of a Thracian” in Ancient Warfare, Volume XII-2 (2018) 54 Valeva, J. “Gold, Silver, and Bronze Vessels” in “A Companion to Ancient Thrace” Pgs. 197-207; Homer, Illiad, 24.232-37; Diodorus Siculus, Library of History, 22.12.5 55 Cunliffe, B. “The Scythians: Nomad Warriors of the Steppe” Pgs. 282-289 56 Vassileva, M. “Persia” in “A Companion to Ancient Thrace” Pgs. 320-333 57 Diodorus, Library of History, 22.12.6; Herodotus, Histories, 5.6 58 Herodotus, Histories, 5.3 59 Theodossiev, N. “Ancient Thrace Between East and the West” in “Fingerprinting the Iron Age: Approaches to Identity in the European Iron Age : Integrating South-Eastern Europe Into the Debate” Pg. 158

in maintaining good relations with the Thracian elite, as they established several colonies in the

Chersonese and sought to keep the steady supply of grain and timber for ship construction flowing into

the mother city.60 One famous Greek of at least partially Thracian descent was none other than the

historian Thucydides, whose father Olorus was descended from Thracian royalty, partially the reason

why Thucydides was able to own gold mines in the region and resided there following his exile in the

Peloponnesian War.61 With his connections in Thrace, he is able to provide us a reasonable account of

the political developments among the tribes at the time.

During the events of the late 5th century, the campaigns of the Persian King Darius I along the Black Sea

led to the conquest of European Thrace.62 This occupation persisted for about 40 years before being

driven out by both Greeks and Thracians sometime during the 470s or 460s, but the legacy of Persian

rule could be felt in two ways: the first being in the development of administration, as the Thracians

would soon adopt what are called paradynastes, which are thought to be near-identical to the satrapal

system implemented by the Achaemenids.63 The second was the power vacuum that was left behind

following the collapse of Persian power in the region. The tribe that took the most advantage of this

situation would the Odrysae, led by a man known as Teres who would go on to unite much of Thrace

under a kingship that hitherto had not been seen before during the middle of the 5th century.64 We have

very little information about Teres’ activities, besides his name appearing in the earliest coinage of the

Odrysian Kingdom, but we know a lot more about his son, Sitalkes, who ruled from about 431 to 424.65

Sitalkes expanded the borders of his father’s kingdom to the Danube, and instituted a series of internal

reforms, including road building which facilitated the extensive trade between the Black Sea and the

Greek Peninsula, giving access to tax levies that greatly enriched his treasury and made the Odrysian

realm an extremely powerful state, larger than any of the Greek city-states of the south.66 Through

tribute and income, the Odrysians were able to amass about 400 to 800 talents a year, an impressive

amount compared to the annual revenues of contemporary Athens, which were between 600 and 1000

talents.67 During the Peloponnesian War, Athens acquired an alliance with Sitalkes in order to counter

the hostility of the Macedonian Kingdom under Perdiccas II, attempting to appeal to him with public

gestures of friendship like making Sitalkes’ son an Athenian citizen.68 An abortive Thracian expedition

would be launched against Macedon without any real results, and Sitalkes would later be killed in action

in 424 while campaigning against the Triballi, the throne passing to his nephew Seuthes I.69

60 Of course, the Athenians were not above building large fortifications to block any potential attacks by the Thracians, see Plutarch, Life of Pericles, 11; 19 61 Thucydides, 4.104.4; Plutarch, Life of Cimon, 4 62 Herodotus, Histories, 4.89-4.97; 5.2 63 “Vassileva, M. “Persia” in “A Companion to Ancient Thrace” Pgs. 326-327 64 Thucydides, 2.29.2-3 65 “Early History of Thrace to the Murder of Kotys I (360 BCE)” in “A Companion to Ancient Thrace” Pg 40 66 Archibald, Z. “The Odrysian Kingdom of Thrace: Orpheus Unmasked” Pg.111-112; Minto, J. “Thucydides on Sitalkes, King of the Odrysians” retrieved from (https://musingsofclio.wordpress.com/2020/03/27/thucydides-on-sitalkes-king-of-the-odrysians/); Thucydides, 2.97.1-6 lists 400 talents, but it should be doubled with tribute. 67 Thucydides, 2.97.3.; Sobotkova, A. and Ross, S. “The Tundzha Regional Archaeology Project: Social Complexity and the Rise of the State in Early Thrace” in “Ancient History: Resources for Teachers” Volume 45 (2015), Pg. 5 68 Thucydides, 2.29.1; 2.29.7 69 Thucydides, 2.98.1-4; 4.101.5

The Odrysian realm never achieved quite the same level of prosperity as it had under Sitalkes, and

following the assassination of King Cotys in 360/359 BC, the kingdom had become effectively divided

into three parts to be ruled over by competing family members.70 This was probably one of the worst

times to plunge the kingdom into anarchy, because a new ruler had taken the throne in neighboring

Macedon, namely Philip II. We covered Philip II and the rise of Macedon in a bonus episode in December

of 2019, but sufficed to say that Philip was able to use diplomacy and warfare to restore the divided and

weakened Macedonian kingdom into a superpower of the Balkans. Philip took advantage of the

Odrysian division and proceeded to beat back each territory, one by one, until about 341/340 when

Philip overthrew the last Odrysian ruler Cersobleptes, turning much of the former Odrysian Kingdom

into an administrative zone and home to several Macedonian settlements, such as Philipopolis 71

Despite the bleak outcome, this did not spell the end for the Odrysian Kingdom. Thrace in general

continued to be a headache for both Philip and his son Alexander, and following the death of the former

in 336, the latter had to launch a campaign into the Balkans to pacify the Getae and the Triballi tribes

that were in revolt.72 Alexander would eventually make his journey into the heart of the Persian Empire,

but in the meantime one Thracian nobleman had been slowly building up a network to restore the

Odrysian Kingdom to its former glory, despite Macedonian domination. His name was Seuthes III, a son

of Cersobleptes, and although we do not have the exact date of his reign, we can reasonably say that it

began before the year 330, probably acting as a dependent king or some sort of vassal to Philip and

Alexander.73 Athenian inscriptions from 331/330 indicate that there was some sort of politicizing

between the Odrysians and Athens, perhaps Seuthes was trying to rekindle memories of the alliance

with Sitalkes during the Peloponnesian War.74 The Athenians were always eager to undermine

Macedonian power, and Thrace had already lost two Macedonian commanders in the region, one

known as Memnon who unsuccessfully led a revolt (likely with Seuthes’ assistance) in 331, and the other

was Zopyrion, who had died along with a large force while campaigning along the Black Sea.75 The revolt

of Memnon inspired Seuthes to openly declare his own rebellion in 330, making his first confirmable

appearance in the written record.76

We have almost no idea as to what happened in Thrace between 330 and Alexander’s death in 323, but

we can assume that Seuthes was acting independently, and is specifically referred to in the sources as

the “Thracian King”.77 His first real test would come in 322 in the form of Lysimachus, Alexander’s

70 Demosthenes, 23.8-9; 23.119 71 Diodorus, 16.71.1-2; 17.62.5; 72 Arrian, Anabasis, 1.1.4-1.4.8 73 Xydopoulos, I.K. “The Odrysian Kingdom after Philip II: Greek- and Self-perception” Eirene XLVI, 2010, Pg. 217 74 IG II2 349 (Attic Inscriptions) suggests the granting of citizenship to a relative of Seuthes III in 331/330, perhaps as part of a diplomatic mission, but it is heavily debated. See Delev, P. “Thrace from the Assassination of Kotys I to Koroupedion (360-281 BCE)” in “A Companion to Ancient Thrace” Pg. 53 75 Diodorus, 17.62.4-5; Quintus Curtius, 10.1.44; The activities of the Thracian governors are tricky to reconcile, and sometimes openly contradictory, see Delev, P. as above Pg. 53 76 Quintus Curtius, 10.1.45 77 Diodorus, 19.73.8

former bodyguard and the newly appointed satrap and soon-to-be king in Thrace.78 It wasn’t that great

of an assignment, since it meant that Lysimachus had to effectively reconquer the Odrysians and deal

with the embryonic kingdom of the Getae to the north. Shortly after his arrival, Seuthes and Lysimachus

had engaged in a battle which caused massive casualties to both sides, but no real victor could be

declared with merely a mutual ceasefire put into place, but Seuthes had prolonged his independence

while Lysimachus retained control over the Sea of Marmara to the south.79 The Thracian king would

make a further attempt to destabilize Lysimachus’ authority by aiding a revolt of Pontic cities in 313,

perhaps at the behest of Lysimachus’ chief rival Antigonus Monopthalmus, and nearly stranded the

Macedonian warlord in the territory of the hostile Getae and Scythians before being beaten back.80

The rebellion is the last event Seuthes is known to have been involved in during the Wars of the

Diadochi, and from this point on we lose his presence in the historical narrative. However, we have

uncovered a fair amount of information about the changes that the kingdom was undergoing during the

remainder of Seuthes’ reign, primarily the archaeological record. The Odrysian king has been marked by

many scholars to have been a man eagerly Hellenizing and emulating his contemporary Macedonian

kings, both in presentation and in diplomatic affairs. This is a pattern that had already been emerging to

some degree within the Odrysian royal family since at least its very inception; see my earlier comments

about the adoption of Greek as an administrative language. Seuthes clearly wanted to be seen as a

political equal to the Hellenistic kings that emerged following Alexander’s death: his coinage was nearly

identical in style to those minted by Philip and Alexander81; he took a Greek wife with a Macedonian

royal name, Berenice, who was probably a daughter or female relative of either Antigonus

Monopthalmus or Lysimachus, perhaps as part of the peace settlement with the latter in 312 BC.82

But perhaps the most commonly attested to evidence from his reign is Seuthes’ building program.

The most studied of the cities of Odrysian Thrace would be its capital, Seuthopolis, founded anytime

between the 320s to the 300s BC, and is unfortunately located at the bottom of the Koprinka Resevoir

near modern Kazanlak. From first glance, it bears all the features of a Hellenistic city, nearly identical to

the great city-founding that was widespread at this time: it was built upon a Hippodameian grid with

defense systems popularized after Alexander, and bore the name of its founder, much like neighboring

Lysimacheia to the east. 83 Seuthopolis, despite being heralded as the poster child of Seuthes’ ambitious

Hellenizing program, was not quite the “Alexandria of Thrace” that people have hoped for. The

settlement is believed to have been able to house around 500 to 1000 people at a time, as it only

measures about 5 hectares in diameter and possess no accommodations for the lower classes or room

for workshops and crafting. What it did possess was strongly fortified walls and housing for the elite,

78 Diodorus, 18.3.2 79 Diodorus, 18.14.2-4; Arrian, Events after Alexander, 1.10 80 Diodorus, 19.73.1-10 81 Dimitrov, D.P. and Dimitriov, K. “Le monnayage de Seuthes III selon les donnéés de Seuthopolis’, in R.Vulpe (ed.) Actes du IIe Congrès International de Thracologie, vol. II, Bucharest, Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste Romania, 1980. Pgs. 165-168; “Peter, U. Die Münzen der thrakischen Dynasten (5..–3. Jahrhundert v. Chr.)” 181ff. 82 Lund, H.S. “Lysimachus: A Study in Early Hellenistic Kingship” Pg. 30; The great Seuthopolis Inscription bears her name in SEG 42.661 83 Popov, H. “Settlements” in “A Companion to Ancient Thrace” Pg. 117.

both royal and non-royal, along with their retainers, and perhaps it should be seen more as a blend of

traditional Thracian political life with elements of Greek expression rather than the wholescale

transplant of a Hellenistic settlement.84 No other urban areas are comparable to Seuthopolis, and as

such it should be seen as an exception, rather than a rule. Thracian and traditional Macedonian kingship

bore very similar hallmarks, with the emphasis on hunting, feasting, and personal connections that

bound the king to his subjects and lesser nobility. It’s possible that Seuthes saw more of the similarities

than differences, but needed to further remove himself from the decidedly Thracian elements in order

to be taken more seriously by his competitors.85

Despite his success at maintaining his independence, Seuthes’ aim for a restored Odrysian Kingdom was

likely but a fleeting moment. We have garbled evidence for his death, though it transpired sometime

after 300, as a lengthy inscription recovered from Seuthopolis indicates that Berenice and her four sons

had assumed control of the Odrysian government upon his death.86 Based upon numismatic evidence, it

appears that control had rapidly decentralized, with several cities under independent dynasts minting

their own currency by 280.87 Without patronage and the backing of Odrysian wealth, which had never

been as great as it was under Sitalkes, Seuthopolis would quickly fade into irrelevancy following its

founder’s demise, inhabited for perhaps a century at best, and Thrace would largely return to its

traditional way of living and settlement.88 The question of whether there was even an Odrysian kingdom

following Seuthes’ death has been raised, though the name “Odrysian” appears a few times here and

there within the sources, but it may just be as much a synonym for “Thracian”.89 In the 280s, Celtic

invaders would swarm into Thrace, and cause significant havoc before occupying much of Odrysian

territory, founding the Kingdom of Tylis in its stead.90 Whatever was left of the Odrysian royal family

would become steadfast supporters and allies of the Romans, ruling as but a small client-kingdom

among other Thracian families well into the 1st century before finally being absorbed as a Roman

province under the reign of Emperor Claudius in 46 AD.

84 Sobotkova, A. “Resisting Rule in Ancient Thrace” Exploring the Hospitable Sea: Proceedings of the International Workshop on the Black Sea in Antiquity held in Thessaloniki, 21–23 September 2012, pp. 137-138; Archibald, Z.H. “Thracian Cult – From Practice to Belief” in “Ancient Greeks West and East” pp. 440 85 Xydopoulos, I.K. “The Odrysian Kingdom after Philip II: Greek- and Self-perception” Eirene XLVI, 2010, Pg.220 86 Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum 42.661 87 Delev, P. “From Koroupedion to the Beginning of the Third Mithridatic War (281–73 bce)” in “A Companion to Ancient Thrace” Pg. 62 88 Popov, H. “Settlements” in “A Companion to Ancient Thrace” Pg. 117. 89 Delev, P. ““Did a ‘Late’ Odrysian Kingdom Ever Exist?” Studia Archaeologica Universitatis Serdicensis, Supplementum VI (2018) Pg. 193 90 See Grainger J.D. “The Galatians: Celtic Invaders of Greece and Asia Minor” Pgs. 55-79

Bibliography

Primary

The Syrian Wars – Appian

The Mithridatic Wars – Appian

Anabasis – Arrian

Events After Alexander - Arrian

On the Haruspices – Cicero

For King Deiotaurus - Cicero

The Gallic Wars – Julius Caesar

Orations - Demosthenes

Library of History – Diodorus Siculus

Roman History – Dio Cassius

Iliad - Homer

Commentaries on the Galatians - Jerome

Epitome - Justin

History of Rome – Livy

Periochae - Livy

Zeuxis or Antiochus – Lucian

Description of Greece – Pausanias

Life of Cimon – Plutarch

Life of Pericles – Plutarch

Life of Pyrrhus – Plutarch

On the Virtue of Women - Plutarch

The Histories – Polybius

History of Alexander – Quintus Curtius Rufus

Geography – Strabo

The Peloponnesian War - Thucydides

Palatine Anthology

St. Paul Letter to the Galatians

Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum

Attic Inscriptions

Secondary

“The Galatians: Celtic Invaders of Greece and Asia Minor” – J.D. Grainger

“The Ancient Celts: 2nd Edition” – B. Cunliffe

“The Celts: A History from Earliest Times to the Present” – B. Maier

“Anatolia: Land, Men and Gods in Asia Minor (Volume 1: The Celts and the Impact of Roman Rule)” – S.

Mitchell

“Celts in the Classical World” – D. Rankin

“Die Kunst von Pergamon” – A. Schoper

Voight, M. “Celts at Gordion: The Late Hellenistic Settlement”, Expedition Magazine 45.1 (2003)

Roller, L.E., “Hellenistic Epigraphic Texts from Gordion”, Anatolian Studies 37, 1987, 103–133

Dondey, J.R. et al, “Celtic Sacrifice in Gordion”, Archaeology 55, 2002

“A Companion to Ancient Thrace” – Edited by J. Valeva, E. Nankov, and D. Grainger

“The Odrysian Kingdom of Thrace: Orpheus Unmaksed” – Archibald, Z.

“Fingerprinting the Iron Age: Approaches to Identity in the European Iron Age : Integrating South-

Eastern Europe Into the Debate” – Edited by C.N. Popa, S. Stoddart

“The Thracians: 700 BC – AD 46” – C. Webber

“The Scythians: Nomad Warriors of the Steppe” – B. Cunliffe

“Ancient Greeks West and East” – Edited by G.R. Tsetskhladze

“Lysimachus: A Study in Early Hellenistic Kingship” – H.S. Lund

Delev, P. “Did a ‘Late’ Odrysian Kingdom Ever Exist?” Studia Archaeologica Universitatis Serdicensis,

Supplementum VI (2018) pp. 191-195

Dimitrov, D.P. and Dimitriov, K. “Le monnayage de Seuthes III selon les donnéés de Seuthopolis’, in

R.Vulpe (ed.) Actes du IIe Congrès International de Thracologie, vol. II, Bucharest, Editura

Academiei Republicii Socialiste Romania, 1980. Pgs. 165-168

McDonnell-Staff, P. “A prince and his panoply: Untouched grave of a Thracian” in Ancient Warfare,

Volume XII-2 (2018)

Minto, J. “Thucydides on Sitalkes, King of the Odrysians”, Musings of Clio| Musings on History, Art, and

Ancient Society,

(https://musingsofclio.wordpress.com/2020/03/27/thucydides-on-sitalkes-king-of-the-odrysians/)

Sobotkova, A. and Ross, S. “The Tundzha Regional Archaeology Project: Social Complexity and the Rise of

the State in Early Thrace” in “Ancient History: Resources for Teachers” Volume 45 (2015)

Sobotkova, A. “Resisting Rule in Ancient Thrace” Exploring the Hospitable Sea: Proceedings of the

International Workshop on the Black Sea in Antiquity held in Thessaloniki, 21–23 September

2012, pp 133-146

Xydopoulos, I.K. “The Odrysian Kingdom after Philip II: Greek- and Self-perception” Eirene XLVI, 2010,

pp. 213-222