Peter Delev
The history of ancient Thrace in the Hellenistic age is particularly difficult to reconstruct, mainly because of the sad state of the extant sources. The few names and events that have left some trace in the historical tradition are hard to fit into a consistent and continuous narrative, and the reigning political fragmentation, economic deterioration and general instability only enhance this unhappy situation. Some sort of exception may be found in the case of the Thracians of Asia Minor: the history of the kingdom of Bithynia, if not attested in great detail and lucidity, at least seems to permit some sort of consecutive chronological account.
The period has been reviewed more extensively only by Christo Danov (1979, 23–145) and Margarita Tacheva (1997, 30–149). There are short overviews by Brunhilde Lenk (1936, 433–441), Joseph Wiesner (1963, 145–157), Alexander Fol (1979), and Velizar Velkov (1979a, b); a more recent one by the present author only reaches to the early second century BCE (Delev 2003; cf. Delev 2004, 263–297). The history of the kingdom of Bithynia has also been much neglected; besides the short article in the RE (Meyer 1897) there was until recently only one general study by Giovanni Vitucci (1953); now this is supplemented by the extensive treatise of Oleg Gabelko (2005).
The battle at Koroupedion in 281 BCE left the victor Seleucus at least nominally heir to all the possessions of the fallen Lysimachus. A few months later he crossed the Hellespont with his army to take possession of the European part of his new acquisitions, only to find his death in the Thracian Chersonese at the hands of Ptolemy Keraunos, the banished first-born son of Ptolemy Lagus who was then in his entourage. Keraunos was hailed, probably as an avenger for the death of Lysimachus, by the citizens of Lysimachia, which occupied a strategic position on the isthmus of the peninsula; he then won to his side the army of Seleucus and was proclaimed king (Memnon 8.1–3; cf. Heinen 1972, 61–63; Hammond and Walbank 1988, 243; Delev 2004, 267–268).
Keraunos proceeded to consolidate his gains, meeting resistance only at the hands of Antigonus Gonatas, the grandson of Monophthalmus and son of Demetrius; the naval superiority of Keraunos, who had taken over the fleet of Lysimachus and received valuable help from Heraclea Pontica, proved decisive in this short-lived conflict (Memnon 8.4–6; Justin. 17.2.10, 24.1.8; cf. Hammond and Walbank 1988, 245–246). Taking hold of Macedonia, Keraunos treated with Pyrrhus of Epirus and with Ptolemy Philadelphus and swindled his half-sister Arsinoe, the widow of Lysimachus, into a fake marriage which gave him entrance into the fortress of Cassandrea; Arsinoe was expelled, losing two of her sons in this unfortunate affair (Trog., Prol. 24; Justin. 17.2.6–12, 24.2–3; Memnon 8.7).
The rule of Keraunos in Macedonia proved short-lived; he was slain in the first major battle at the onset of the great Celtic invasion which overran much of the Balkan Peninsula and Asia Minor in the early 270 s. The problems pertaining to the Celts in Thrace will be dealt with elsewhere in the present volume (see Chapter 24). It is sufficient to note here that the Celtic hordes ravaged the whole of Thrace in several successive waves, causing havoc and destruction; Dromichaetes, the king of the Getae, might have died during this invasion if he is the king buried in the great tomb at Sveshtari, as has been suggested (Delev 2000, 400–401).
In the meantime another elusive war was fought in Asia Minor between Antigonus Gonatas and Antiochus I Soter (Trog., Prol. 24; Memnon 10.1; сf. Hammond and Walbank 1988, 249–251). It seems that Antigonus, having failed in his attempt to take hold of Macedonia, had now ventured on a desperate invasion of Asia, just like his father in his last campaign less than ten years before. Few details of this conflict have survived; Photius’ excerpts from Memnon mention that Antigonus had the Bithynian king Nicomedes as his ally, that the action lasted for a long time and that big armies were engaged on both sides. The two enemies then reached a settlement, the reasons and clauses of which remain unknown, except for the marriage arrangement between Antigonus and Phila, the daughter of his sister Stratonice and Seleucus (Justin. 25.1.1). It might be suggested that the death of Keraunos and the ensuing confusion in Macedonia could have incited Antigonus to change his plans once more, discarding his Asiatic adventure and throwing his forces into a renewed attempt to conquer the Macedonian homeland. Having crossed over to Europe, he eventually defeated a large Celtic army near Lysimachia on the Thracian Chersonese (Trog., Prol. 25; Justin. 25.1.1–3; Diog. Laert. 2.141). This battle, fought probably in 277 BC, paved his way to the Macedonian throne.
It remains unknown whether the peace between the two kings included any definite stipulations about the Thracian littoral; later Seleucid claims in Thrace authorize the suggestion that they could have split the European part of the heritage of Lysimachus between them, Antigonus receiving Macedonia and Antiochus Thrace (thus, e.g., Tarn 1913, 168; Beloch 1925, 566; contra Walbank 1984, 230), but the supposition remains purely conjectural. Even if such an agreement had ever existed, Antiochus Soter would not have had the occasion to realize his claim: there is no trace in the historical tradition of any Thraceward activity on his part; nor, for that matter, of any activity of Antigonus east of the Nestos.
The first definite information of events on the Thracian littoral after the victory of Gonatas at Lysimachia dates from the reign of the successor of Antiochus I, Antiochus II Theos (261–246 BCE), who seems to have led a major campaign in the area. This would have begun with the occupation of the Thracian Chersonese, where the mint of Lysimachia issued silver tetradrachms in his name (Newell 1977, 337). From the Chersonese he seems to have invaded the interior of the country; Polyaenus describes him laying siege to Cypsela on the lower Hebros, accompanied by Thracian allies (Polyaen., Strat. 4.16). A strategos of Antiochus was honored in a fragmentary decree in Doric dialect (possibly Mesambrian) from the middle of the third century found in Apollonia Pontica (IGBulg 12, no. 388). A war of Antiochus II with Byzantium is mentioned in Photius’ excerpt from the Heraclean chronicle of Memnon and should also be put in connection with his Thracian enterprise (Memnon 15). The most convincing evidence on the scale of Antiochus’ presence in Thrace is offered by the ample numismatic finds reaching to Seuthopolis and Cabyle in the deep interior (Youroukova 1982; 1992, 147–151; Draganov 1993, 56–68). In the absence of a coherent historical narrative, however, the events remain absolutely enigmatic, and their chronology is disputable within the limits of his rather short reign.
The Thracian campaign of Antiochus Theos seems to confirm that at this time Antigonus Gonatas was not the master of the Thracian coast, at least in its eastern part: Antiochus would not have gone conquering the possessions of his brother-in-law, who was also his main ally against Ptolemy Philadelphus in the Second Syrian War. It is better to assume that the Ptolemies had already established their rule over important parts of the Aegean littoral, probably during the Chremonidean War (267–261 BCE) in which Ptolemy the son of Lysimachus by Arsinoe might have tried to regain parts of his father’s heritage with the aid of his step-father Philadelphus (see Huss 1998, 238, 243). This view is corroborated by a passage of Polybius (5.34.7–8) mentioning that the “predecessors” of Ptolemy Philopator “ruled over the coastal cities and ports from Pamphylia to the Hellespont and the region of Lysimachia and controlled the events in Thrace and Macedonia for they had in their possession Aenos, Maroneia and the further cities”; the plural implies not only Ptolemy III Euergetes, but also Ptolemy II Philadelphus. On this reading, the Thracian campaign of Antiochus Theos should be placed in the context of his actions against the exterior domains of the Ptolemies during the Second Syrian War and therefore be dated before 253 BCE, when he made peace with Philadelphus and married his daughter Berenice. Other eventual enemies whom Antiochus might have fought in Thrace include the Celtic kingdom of Tylis, some of the Greek coastal cities (one certain is Byzantium), and some of the independent Thracian potentates in the interior.
The internal troubles of the Seleucid kingdom in the reign of Seleucus II Callinicus permitted the successor of Philadelphus, Ptolemy III Euergetes (246–221 BCE), to bring the sea empire of the Ptolemies to its greatest strength and prosperity. The whole Aegean littoral of Thrace from Abdera through Maroneia and Aenus to Lysimachia and the Thracian Chersonese was in this period under the control of the king of Egypt and his ubiquitous navy (cf. Polyb. 5.34.7–8). As the grandson of Lysimachus through his mother, Arsinoe I, Euergetes had quite legitimate claims for the Thracian heritage, if the question of legitimacy was at all an issue (except as sheer propaganda) in Early Hellenistic times. A decree of Samothrace from this period honors the Lacedaemonian Hippomedon, son of Agesilaus, who was a “strategos placed by king Ptolemy over the Hellespontus and the Thracian littoral” (IG XII, 8, 126; Bengtson 1952, 178). Another inscription mentions one Epinicus, placed by Ptolemy as governor of Maroneia (Bakalakis and Scranton 1938; Bengtson 1952, 179, 183).
The situation in the Thracian interior in the period between the establishment of the Celtic kingdom of Tylis and its collapse some 60 years later remains controversial. Despite the uncertainty over the location of Tylis, it seems evident that the Celtic kings could not have ruled over an extensive territory on both sides of the Haemus, from Byzantium to the Danube. The ample evidence for the existence of other political entities in the Thracian interior creates rather a general picture of political division and fragmentation. There was an unstable coexistence in the third century BCE of multiple distinct political units in a disunited Southern Thrace; the Celtic kingdom of Tylis was just one element in a complex and presumably constantly changing political mosaic.
The city of Cabyle, situated at the great bend of the Tonzos River (mod. Tundzha), offers a good example (on Cabyle see IGBulg 3.2, 164–165; Milchev 1971; Ivanov 1982; Velkov 1983; Dimitrov 1987; Velkov 1991; Draganov 1993; Getov 1995). If we trust the usual dating of the great Seuthopolis inscription, the activity of the local Thracian sovereign Spartocos started before the death of Lysimachus; his bronze coins with the legend βασιλέως ∑παρτóκου are, however, believed to have been minted in the city only after 281 BCE. Soon afterward, Cabyle began to autonomously mint coins, a unique development for the whole interior of Thrace in this age. The city continued to mint for a century, including, among numerous issues in bronze, silver Alexander-type tetradrachms in the later third century. The active and stable coinage warrants the suggestion of political independence of Cabyle in this period as a self-governing Hellenistic polis, while the distribution area of its autonomous and countermarked bronze coins delimits clearly the large city territory, reaching to the Balkan range in the north and to the modern cities of Nova Zagora in the west, Karnobat in the east, and Topolovgrad in the south (Draganov 1993, passim; Tacheva 2000, 19–24).
In addition to the usual city coins, the mint of Cabyle also struck occasional royal issues. Scostocos, in whose name the city minted bronze coins about the middle of the third century, remains an elusive figure; he might have been a Thracian or a Celtic ruler. Around 220 BCE, Cabyle minted Alexander-type silver tetradrachms in the name of Cavarus, the last Celtic king. The striking of these issues simultaneously with the continuing production of autonomous silver coins in the name of the city implies that the city enjoyed a degree of independence and would not have been directly integrated in the Celtic kingdom of Tylis.
The great Seuthopolis inscription (IGBulg 3.2, 1731; Velkov 1991, 7–11, no. 1; Elvers 1994) attests, in contrast to the evidently stable situation of Spartocos in Cabyle, a relative deterioration of the position of Seuthopolis, where Berenice seems to have taken the rule after the presumed demise of her husband Seuthes III; she is mentioned together with her four sons, Hebryzelmis, Teres, Satocos, and Sadalas, who were probably still underage. The end of Seuthopolis and its ruling dynasty is an object of controversy in recent publications; an eventual date of the destruction of the city in the middle 270 s (Dimitrov 1984, 27) would evidently place it in relation with the Celtic invasion, while the later date maintained by some authors (e.g., Tacheva 2000, 25–27) suggests that Seuthopolis continued to be the center of an independent inland Thracian kingdom all through the second quarter of the third century.
Another local principality is attested by coin issues bearing the name Adaeus and usually dated about the middle of the third century. The exact location of the realm of Adaeus remains uncertain but is usually placed in the area of the lower Hebros, while his name suggests he might have been of Macedonian descent.
A Thracian king of the name of Cotys is mentioned, together with his son Rhescuporis, in a fragmentary decree of Apollonia Pontica found in Burgas and dated in the middle of the third century (IGBulg 12, no. 389). This inscription is readily associated with a rare bronze coin bearing the names of Cotys and Rhescuporis both accompanied by the royal title (Youroukova 1992, 153–157). The king Cotys of the Apollonia decree and of these coins, however, cannot be identified with certainty with the “Cotys, the son of Rhaizdos, king of the Thracians” (Κότυς Ῥαίζδου Θραικῶν βασιλεύς) known from a Delphic proxeny decree that is dated to either the 270s or the 260s (SIG 13, 438), although such an identification does not seem as impossible as had been suggested by G. Mihailov (1961, 40–41).
The Mesambrian decree for Sadalas stands out as one of the most interesting and often discussed monuments attesting the existence of independent Thracian principalities contemporary to the Celtic kingdom of Tylis (IGBulg 12, no. 307). The predecessors (προγόνοι) of the Thracian potentate – Mopsuestios, Tarutinos, Medistas, and Cotys – constitute a whole local dynasty; their domain however remains elusive territorially. The fact that the treaty between Sadalas and Mesambria discussed the return of wrecked shiploads, and the city decreed for him the right “to sail in and out,” implies that his domain should have been a coastal one, situated either to the south or to the north of Mesambria. The date of this inscription remains debatable between the time of the Celtic invasion (G. Mihailov) and the second half of the third century BCE (Danov 1968, 36, 434), as does the affiliation of the dynasty of Sadalas (Odrysian or Astaean?). The situation in the Thracian lands to the north of the Haemus remains no less enigmatic. The fortified city near Sveshtari, which must have been the center of the Getic political union under Dromichaetes in the time of Lysimachus, survived the Celtic invasion, but perished later about the middle of the third century (Delev 2000, 398–399). Probably in the second quarter of the century and most certainly in its second half, the lands of the Getae would have passed to their usual state of political disunity (Strabo 7.3.11). In a stratagem describing the siege of Cypsela by Antiochus II Theos, Polyaenus (4.16) mentions one Teres and one Dromichaetes as Thracian allies of the Seleucid king; the two names have respectively Odrysian and Getic associations, and the latter could have been a descendant of Dromichaetes the contemporary of Lysimachus, or even himself, if we discard the assumption that he died in the Celtic invasion and was buried in the great Sveshtari tomb.
In Asia Minor, the Thracian kingdom of Bithynia reached a state of considerable might and prosperity under the rule of Nicomedes I (278–255 BCE), who successfully preserved its autonomy from the aspirations of the Seleucids (Geyer 1936, 493–494, no. 3; Gabelko 2005, 167–197). At the start of his rule Nicomedes induced the crossing of the Celts into Asia Minor and used them to fight his separatist brother, Zipoetes. In 264 BCE Nicomedes founded his new capital at the head of the Astakos gulf, naming it in the Hellenistic fashion Nicomedia. Like so many other Hellenistic rulers, he posed as a protector of the arts; an anecdote describes his attempt to buy the Cnidian Aphrodite by Praxiteles from the islanders.
Nicomedes left the heritage of his kingdom to his children from his second wife, Etazeta. However, his disinherited first-born son Ziaelas fought for the throne with the help of Celtic mercenaries and successfully ousted his step-mother and her children, who fled to Macedonia. Ziaelas ruled from 254 to 228 BCE (Habicht 1972; Gabelko 2005, 198–226). Like his father he also founded a city with his name, Ziaela. Little is known of his rule; in the end, he perished at the hands of the same Celtic mercenaries who had brought him to power and was succeeded by his son, Prusias.
Although the main political events in this period are better attested in comparison with the preceding one, mainly thanks to the works of Polybios and Livy, Thrace remains in the shadows and it is practically impossible to develop a consistent and systematic narrative of its history. For this reason, even the chronological frame of the period has had to be marked with external events.
A new situation was gradually taking shape in the Aegean area during the reign of Ptolemy IV Philopator (221–204 BCE). His victory against Antiochus III at Raphia in 217 BCE was achieved at a high price, for the introduction of Egyptians in the army provoked the uprising of Harmachis in which the natives nearly toppled the ruling Macedonian dynasty, while the ensuing financial problems curtailed for a long time the resources of the Ptolemaic kingdom. The new king of Alexandria indulged in dissipation and fell under the total influence of his omnipotent ministers Sosybios and Agathocles; the active foreign policy of his predecessors was now abandoned (Polyb. 5.34.3–10). But the young kings in both Macedonia and Asia, Philip V and Antiochus III, were deeply engaged on other fronts: in 215 BCE Philip signed his unfortunate treaty with Hannibal and became entangled in a difficult war with Rome and her Greek allies, while Antiochus, after his victory against Achaeus in Asia Minor, set out on his long Eastern “Anabasis” (212–205 BCE), reestablishing successfully Seleucid rule over the Upper Satrapies. In these circumstances the South Thracian littoral seems to have remained under the nominal control of the Ptolemies. However, the weakening of Egypt’s maritime supremacy brought about the rise of new powers in the Aegean, where Pergamum and Rhodes became in the late third century important figures in regional politics.
During the initial years of the reign of Ptolemy IV, the Celtic kingdom in Thrace came to an end amidst circumstances of which we are ignorant. Under the last king Cavarus it had retained some political might and importance. Polybius mentions briefly that “the kingdom of the Celts and their whole tribe were eradicated by the Thracians” (Polyb. 4.46). The activation of the Thracians and the passive line of Alexandria seem to have forced the coastal Greek cities to look elsewhere for allies capable of improving their security; the alliance of Lysimachia with the Aetolians should date from this time (Polyb. 15.23.9; 18.3.11).
Probably in 211 BCE Philip V undertook a major campaign against his nearest Thracian neighbors, the Maedi in the middle Strymon valley. They often raided Macedonian territory for plunder and were particularly annoying during the war which the king was leading in Greece. The country of the Maedi was devastated and their capital city, Iamphorina, was taken after a siege (T. Liv. 26.25.6–8, 15). The Maedi, however, seem to have remained a constant threat at the northern border of Macedonia (Polyb. 10.41.4; T. Liv. 28.5.7).
Several years later Philip started building in the docks of Cassandrea in Chalcidice a large fleet, which was meant to become the principal tool of his new Aegean policy. Thus, even before the end of the First Macedonian War, he had started to shift his plans toward the East. After signing the peace with the Romans in Phoenice in 205 BCE he could devote his whole potential to the new eastern projects. The fragmentary evidence in Polybius and Livy unfortunately does not permit the detailed reconstruction of the ensuing events. The quotations from book 13 of Polybius in Stephanus Byzantinus, for example, show that it contained the description of some significant operations in Eastern Thrace in either 205 or 204 BCE; they seem to reflect a major campaign of Philip that affected Cabyle and the country of the Astii, Adrane, the tribe of the Digerri, and the obscure “plain of Ares” (Polyb. 13.10).
The death of Ptolemy Philopator and the accession of the young Ptolemy V Epiphanes (204–180 BCE) to the throne in Alexandria gave Philip V and Antiochus III the chance to coordinate their efforts and undertake simultaneous attacks on the enfeebled external possessions of the Ptolemies (Polyb. 3.2.8; 15.20.1–8; 16.1.9; T. Liv. 31.14.5; App., Mac. 4; Justin. 30.2.8). The agreement gave Antiochus a free hand for actions in Coelesyria, Cyprus, Cilicia, and Lycia, while Philip could operate in Thrace, western Asia Minor, and the Aegean islands. The large-scale aggressive operations of Philip in the last years of the third century changed completely the situation in Southern Thrace and the whole Aegean area. In 202 Philip engaged his new fleet in a large campaign in the Propontis. He took Lysimachia and sent away the Aetolian strategos and garrison. Perinthus and Chalcedon fell into his hands. The Anatolian cities of Cius and Myrlea, which offered resistance, were sacked and destroyed; their citizens were sold into slavery, and their lands were ceded to Philip’s ally, the Bithynian king Prusias (Polyb. 15.21.3–23.10; 18.2.4, 3.11; Strabo 12.6.3). On the way back from the Propontis, Philip’s fleet gained possession of Thasos by deceit; a Macedonian garrison was established there (Polyb. 15.24.1–3; 18.44.4, 48.2; T. Liv. 33.30.3).
After a long campaign in Asia, directed against Pergamum, the Rhodian peraea and the remaining Ptolemaic possessions there, still including Miletus, Samos, and parts of Caria (Errington 1990, 197), in 200 BCE Philip V again invaded Southern Thrace with considerable land and sea forces. According to Livy, he successfully attacked Maronea with his ships, only 2000 light infantry, and 200 cavalry. Aenus was taken after a long and violent siege because of the defection of the Ptolemaic governor Callimedes. Then, one after the other, Philip took the fortresses of Cypsela, Doriscos, and Serreion. In the Chersonese, the cities Elaeus, Alopekonnesos, Callipolis, and Maditos together with several smaller fortresses surrendered without opposition (T. Liv. 31.16.3–6). Among the cities seized either on this occasion or in the earlier campaign in the Propontis were also Sestos in the Thracian Chersonese and Hephaestia on the isle of Lemnos (T. Liv. 32.33.6; Polyb. 18.48.2). Crossing the Hellespont, the Macedonian king also besieged and took Abydos on the Asiatic coast; the citizens, abandoned by their allies, King Attalus of Pergamum and Rhodes, preferred death to slavery and killed themselves to the last man (Polyb. 16.29–34; 18.44.4; T. Liv. 31.16.6–18.9; 33.30.3).
During the Second Macedonian War that started soon afterward, Philip must have had to pull some of his garrisons out of the occupied cities in Thrace in order to gather his best forces against the Romans. During the talks on the coast of the Malian gulf in the winter of 197 BCE, he justified his occupation of the cities in Thrace with the danger from the Thracians and gave as an example the seizure and sacking of Lysimachia by unnamed Thracians after the withdrawal of the Macedonian garrison from the city (Polyb. 18.4.5–6; T. Liv. 32.34.6; 33.38.11). The Romans were at that time demanding that Philip return to Ptolemy V all cities that he occupied after the death of Philopator, evidently including those in Thrace (Polyb. 18.1.14; T. Liv. 32.33.4). After the battle at Cynoscephalae, however, the Roman delegation sent by the Senate to determine the conditions imposed on Philip decided that the Greek cities in Europe and Asia, which Philip was to evacuate immediately, had to be handed over temporarily to the Romans (T. Liv. 33.30.2). At the Isthmian games of 196 BCE, Titus Quinctius Flamininus proclaimed publicly the return of their freedom and independence (T. Liv. 33.32.5–6).
The occasion was seized by Philip’s former ally Antiochus the Great. In the same year of 196 BCE he invaded and occupied most of the southern and western coasts of Asia Minor and then crossed into Europe, took the cities of the Chersonese that had been evacuated by the Macedonian garrisons, and started to rebuild Lysimachia, which was in ruins after the recent Thracian raid. In order to consolidate his position in the newly taken coastal area, he also invaded the lands of the neighboring Thracian tribes in the interior and ravaged them (T. Liv. 33.38.8–14; Diod. 28.12, 15; 29.5; App. Syr. 3–4; Dio Cass., Boissevain 3.284 = Zonaras, Epit. 9.18.11). Antiochus declared to the Roman delegation, which had arrived in Lysimachia, that, as a descendant of Seleucus Nicator, he considered himself the rightful heir of the European realm of Lysimachus, which, after his defeat and death at Koroupedion, had passed into the ownership of the victor (Polyb. 18.51.3–8; T. Liv. 33.40.1–6; 34.58.4–6; App., Syr. 10–13). In 195 BCE Antiochus continued his campaigns in Thrace, taking with his army new territories and “liberating” the Greek cities from the Thracians. The extent of his advance to the west along the northern Aegean coast remains indefinite, although his garrisons were established then in Aenus and Maronea (T. Liv. 37.60.7); in the east his sphere of influence reached Byzantium, where, according to Appian, Antiochus gained the gratitude of the citizens with his great favors (App., Syr. 21–22).
The authority of Antiochus III in Southern Thrace was of short duration, for after suffering defeats at the hands of the Romans on land (at Thermopylae in April 191 BCE) and at sea (near Coricos in September 191 and at Mionesos during the next year), he hastened to retreat with all his forces to Asia, frightened that the Roman fleet could block his retreat through the Straits, and leaving in Lysimachia great quantities of supplies and ammunition prepared for the war. The Roman army led by the consul Lucius Cornelius Scipio and his elder brother, the famous Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus, and escorted by the Macedonian king Philip who remained faithful to the Romans in this conflict, crossed unimpeded through Southern Thrace and passed into Asia, where late in 190 the forces of Antiochus were defeated in a decisive battle near Magnesia (Polyb. 20–21; T. Liv. 36–37; App., Syr. 1–44).
Among the other clauses of the post-war arrangement in 188 BCE, the Roman commission sent by the Senate to Asia decreed that the Thracian Chersonese with Lysimachia and all fortifications, villages, and districts in Thrace, which were under the rule of Antiochus, should be ceded to King Eumenes II of Pergamum (Polyb. 21.46.9; T. Liv. 38.39.14). As the places were not named one by one in the decision, Philip V tried to profit from the uncertainty and hastened to reoccupy with garrisons the coastal cities as far as the Hebros, including Maronea and Aenus (T. Liv. 39.23.13, 24.6–9, 27.1–10, 28.11–12). A part of their population was banished and Thracians and other barbarians were settled in their place (Polyb. 22.9.1–2; 23.10.4–5; T. Liv. 39.24.6; 40.3.3–4). In 185 BCE the Romans ordered Philip to evacuate his garrisons and the offended king instigated a Thracian raid on Maronea, during which many citizens were killed (Polyb. 22.17.1–18.6; T. Liv. 39.29.2, 33.4, 34.1–2). He also gave vent to his anger in a series of campaigns into the Thracian interior; during one of these, undertaken under the pretext of defending Byzantium, the otherwise unknown Thracian king Amadocos was taken prisoner in the Propontis area (Polyb. 22.18.12; T. Liv. 39.35.4). Another incursion was directed against the Odrysae, Dentheletae, and Bessi in 184 or 183 BCE (Polyb. 23.8.1–7; T. Liv. 39.53.12–14; for the date see Walbank 1967, 334; Hammond and Walbank 1988, 468). The Macedonian king captured Philippopolis on the upper Hebros and established a garrison in the city, but after the retreat of his army this was soon driven away by the Odrysae. A few years later in 181 BCE, Philip undertook another expedition in the Thracian interior. One of his aims was to climb the highest peak of Mount Haemus (in this case probably the Rila, not the Stara Planina) in order to get an aerial view of the land routes from Macedonia to Italy; the ascent was achieved despite the great difficulties, but brought no results because of the bad weather. Having descended from the mountain, Philip raided the lands of his allies the Dentheletae to raise supplies for the army and then attacked once again his permanent foes the Maedi, besieging and taking their fortified town Petra (T. Liv. 40.21–22).
During the second century, a number of autonomous Thracian tribes seem to have played an increasingly important role in the political developments in the Northern Aegean coastal region and on the Macedonian frontier. Already in 188 BCE the difficult return of the Roman army through Southern Thrace gave a clear demonstration of the Thracian upsurge: the combined forces of four Thracian tribes, the Astae, Caeni, Maduateni, and Coreli (Corpili?), set up an ambush and attacked the Romans near Cypsela, successfully carrying off most of the baggage train with the spoils from the war in Asia (T. Liv. 38.40–41; App., Syr. 224–228). The names of these tribes are different from those previously known to Xenophon in the same area in the early fourth century, a phenomenon that might reflect changes connected in one way or another with the Celtic invasion in the third century. The Sapaei and Trausi in the Southern Rhodopes and the Maedi, Dentheleti, and Bessi in the west also receive casual notice in this age and seem to have been politically active and independent. All this leaves for the Odrysian kingdom a restricted territory in parts of the upper Hebros plain and the upper Tonzos valley, which certainly incorporated the area of Philippopolis. To the west, the Odrysian kingdom bordered on the lands of the Bessi situated roughly between modern Dupnitsa and Pazardjik. The situation in the east remains unclear; the lands between the river Tonzos and the Bay of Burgas may have been in Odrysian hands or under the rising power of the Astae whose main area was in the Strandja Mountain to the south. Nevertheless, the Odrysian kingdom seems to have remained the foremost political and military power of ancient Thrace. In the time of Philip V, it must have had as a king Seuthes (IV), the father of Cotys the contemporary of Perseus (T. Liv. 45.51.10; cf. Strazzulla 1901, 373–374), but the historical tradition has not preserved any pertinent details about his reign.
Philip V had concluded an alliance with the Bastarnae, a Celtic or Germanic warrior tribe established on the Lower Danube; he planned to settle them in Dardania and later use them for an invasion of Italy. It was only after his death in 179 BCE that they moved with a great army through the main part of Thrace. They entered into a conflict with the Thracians, some of whom took refuge on a mountain called Donuca (Rila?); the Bastarnae tried to attack them, but were defeated after an unexpected thunderstorm and then split in two: a part returned by way of Apollonia and Mesambria, while 30,000 men led by the chief Clondicus went on to plunder the lands of the Dardanians (T. Liv. 40.57–58).
After the death of Philip in 179 BCE, Abrupolis, a king of the Sapaei and friend of the Romans, invaded the Pangaeum area, but was defeated by Philip’s heir Perseus who successfully drove him out of his kingdom. A dedicatory inscription from Amphipolis mentions, with a suggestive plural, military campaigns of Perseus in Thrace (τῶν εἰς Θράικην στρατειῶν, see Voutiras 1986). The Romans initially left the Abrupolis incident without consequences, but later demanded his restoration (T. Liv. 42.13.6; Paus. 7.10.6; App., Mac. 11.2; Diod. 29.33; cf. Wilcken 1893); this was to become the casus belli for the Third Macedonian War (171–168 BCE). In 172 BCE, just before the eruption of the war, a Thracian delegation representing the tribes of the Maedi, Astae, and “Cepnati” (the last possibly corrupted from the name of either the Corpili or the Caeni) came to Rome to seek alliance and friendship with the Romans (T. Liv. 42.19.6–8). The Odrysian king Cotys, the son of Seuthes, on the other hand chose the side of Perseus, becoming his most valued ally in this war. Polybius has left a eulogy about the high qualities and virtues of Cotys (Polyb. 27.12; Diod. 30.3; cf. Strazzulla 1901, 374–380, Kahrstedt 1922, 1552, no. 2). In the very first major engagement with the Romans, at Callinicus in 171 BCE, the Odrysians fought valiantly and contributed to the Macedonian victory (T. Liv. 42.57.6, 58.6, 59.2–3). Not long after that, however, another Thracian king, Autlesbis, invaded the domain of Cotys with the help of an Attalid commander, and Cotys and his Thracians were dismissed honorably by the Macedonian king (T. Liv. 42.67.4–5; cf. Meloni 1953, 248–249).
It was sometime before Pydna that Perseus called as allies the Bastarnae of Clondicus. An army of 20,000 Bastarnae reached Desudaba in the lands of the Maedi, but after Perseus hesitated to pay them the promised sum of 500 talents, they withdrew without further negotiation (T. Liv. 44.26–27). In a rare notice about one of the Thracian tribes integrated from long ago in the Macedonian kingdom, Livy mentions that after the disaster at Pydna, Perseus had placed his last hopes on help from the Bisaltae (44.45.8).
The Odrysian king Cotys seems to have participated in the battle of Pydna, for Livy mentions his name and Odrysian cavalry in his account (44.42.2). Hiding in Samothrace after his defeat, Perseus tried unsuccessfully to escape to the kingdom of his ally (T. Liv. 45.6.2). Cotys had left a son, Bithys, as hostage at the Macedonian court; this son was captured by the Romans and sent to Italy together with Perseus and his family. Cotys sent a delegation to Rome and received his son and Roman pardon; the Odrysians were to become henceforth staunch Roman allies and supporters (Polyb. 30.17; T. Liv. 45.42.6–12). It would be in this new role of Roman ally that Cotys was allowed to acquire new territories, presumably from the Sapaei: according to a decree of Abdera dated to about 166 BCE, he was encroaching on the territory of the city, either along the Aegean coast or through the Rhodope Mountains (SIG 23, no. 656; cf. Danov 1979, 76–77; Loukopoulou 1987, 65–66; Loukopoulou et al. 2005, E5). In the post-war arrangements of 167 BCE, the Romans, however, specifically included the Thracian littoral between the Nestos and the Hebros in the first Macedonian meris, while Abdera, Maroneia, and Aenos were proclaimed free allied cities (T. Liv. 45.29.5–7; Diod. 31.8.8).
In 150 or 149 BCE the pretender for the Macedonian throne Andriscus (pseudo-Philip) passed through Thrace on his way from Asia to Macedonia and gained the support of some local rulers, among whom Diodorus (32 fr. 15) mentions one Teres, who was married to a daughter of Philip V, and another one called Barsabas. After his defeat at the hands of the praetor Q. Caecilius Metellus in 148 BCE, Andriscus escaped to one of these Thracian kings, who however handed him over to the Romans. It can only be hypothesized whether this Teres was the contemporary Odrysian king, as the parallels of his name seem to suggest (in such a case he would have been a successor of Cotys), or where the kingdom of the mysterious Barsabas was situated.
In Asia Minor the son of Ziaelas, Prusias I Cholos reigned from 228 to 182 BCE, a period of prosperity for Bithynia (Habicht 1957, 1086–1107, no. 1; Gabelko 2005, 226–296). He married a daughter of Demetrius II, Apama, and in a succession of wars with his neighbors Byzantium, Pergamum, Heracleia, and the Galatians, enlarged the territory of his kingdom. In 202 as an ally of Philip V he received from the latter the cities of Cius and Myrlea, resettled them and gave then the names of Prusias and Apamea. Prusias gave sanctuary to Hannibal, but remained neutral in the First Syrian War.
His son, Prusias II Cynegos, reigned from 182 to 149 BCE (Habicht 1957, 1107–1127; Gabelko 2005, 297–343). He inherited the name of his father, but not his good qualities. He fought unsuccessfully against Pergamum and in the end was ousted by his own son Nicomedes.
The period comprising the second half of the second and the first quarter of the first century BCE is again poorly represented in the preserved historical tradition. The loss of the main contemporary historians (Posidonius, Sisenna) and of the relevant portions of later rather detailed histories like those of Diodorus, Livy, and Cassius Dio has left us, aside from casual fragments, with late and often unreliable abridgements in the works of authors like Valerius Maximus, Annaeus Florus, Granius Licinianus, Julius Obsequens, Eutropius, Rufus Festus, among others.
With the establishment of the Roman province of Macedonia in 148 BCE, the southern Thracian littoral, which had been included in the first meris as far as the Hebros River in the east, remained under the jurisdiction of the provincial governors. The area to the east of Aenos with the Thracian Chersonese, which the Romans had handed over to their ally Pergamum, became now the scene of violent action with the attempt of Attalus II (159–139 BCE) to spread his influence beyond the peninsula. The fearful stories about his foes, the kings of the Caeni, Diegylis and Zibelmios, are among the few relevant pieces of information about Thrace in the third quarter of the second century BCE. These were father and son, both stigmatized as extremely vicious and bloodthirsty. Diegylis, who could have been the successor of Autlesbis, had captured and razed Lysimachia in an assault on the Pergamene possessions, but in the end, probably about 145 BCE, he was defeated by the army of Attalus (Strabo 13.4.2; Trog., Prol. 36; cf. Willrich 1905; Loukopoulou 1987, 69–71). He seems to have perished in a coup, and his son Zibelmios vented his revenge on his own subjects, until in the end these revolted and killed him (Diod. 33 fr. 14–15; 34 fr. 12; cf. Ziegler 1972). The Thracian Chersonese and the conquered lands of the Caeni were administered in this period as a separate strategy (an administrative division in the care of a strategos) of the Pergamene kingdom, known from inscriptions as “the strategy of the Chersonese and the Thraceward places” (στρατηγíα τῆς Χερσονήσου καὶ τῶν κατὰ τὴν Θρᾴκην τóπων, cf. Bengtson 1944, 209–211).
Bithynia was ruled in the third quarter of the second century by Nicomedes II Epiphanes (149–127 BCE). Having spent his youth in Rome, he ousted his father Prusias with the help of Attalus II and remained a staunch Roman ally for the length of his successful reign (Geyer 1936, 494–496, no. 4; Gabelko 2005, 335–343).
The death of Attalus III in 133 BCE and the appropriation of the Pergamene kingdom by the Romans changed radically the situation on the southern Thracian littoral. This became now the vital link between Macedonia and the new province of Asia established in 129 BCE. The Roman road built along the coast of Thrace (the Aegean part of the Via Militaris or Via Egnatia) became a major factor for the new political stability established now in this troubled area. However for some time to come the Roman possessions along the southern Thracian littoral seem not to have gone beyond the Hebros in the east. It was somewhere in this area that a local king, Mostis, known mainly from his coinage, had his possessions in the last quarter of the second century BCE (Youroukova 1976, 34–38; 1992, 165–172; Loukopoulou 1987, 80–81).
There is no adequate information about the other contemporary Thracian principalities – the kingdoms of the Odrysae, the Astae, the Sapaei, possibly others. Mostis could have been the king of any of these, enlarging temporarily his domain at the expense of the former Attalid possessions, very probably as a Roman ally. Vincenzo Strazzulla had once suggested (1902, 22) that the kings of the Caeni, Diegylis and Zibelmios, had seized power over the Odrysian kingdom, and that later Rhescuporis the father of Cotys restored its independence, but this remains purely conjectural, including the tribal attribution of Rhescuporis and Cotys (not Odrysians, but Sapaeans according to some modern scholars). A Mesambrian proxeny decree from the middle (?) of the second century mentions an Astaean notable, Dem…tes, the son of Dezos, bearing witness to the viable relations between the Greek polis and the elite of the tribal kingdom of the Astae (IGBulg 12, no. 312; cf. Danov 1979, 106).
The Roman province of Macedonia inherited from its predecessor, the Antigonid kingdom, its troubled relations with the Thracian and non-Thracian tribes and kingdoms of the interior. These were keen on plunder and, attracted by the wealth of the province, often raided its territory. The Roman authorities retaliated with numerous punitive expeditions, but these proved unable to put a permanent end to the incursions (for a general survey of the events see Walbank 1981; Tacheva 1997, 61–83). A major conflict is evidenced by an inscription from Lete which can be dated reliably to 119 BCE (SIG 23, no. 700; cf. Cuntz 1918; Papazoglu 1978, 291 n. 62; Kallet-Marx 1995, 38; Brennan 2000, 521–522). This was started by the Celtic Scordisci who invaded Macedonia, killed the praetor Sextus Pompeius in battle, and were repulsed only with great difficulty by his quaestor Marcus Annius; a second devastating inroad followed, in which the Scordisci were joined by the Thracian Maedi under their king Tipas.
The tension created by new tribal incursions in the following years led to a period in which Macedonia was entrusted to governors of consular rank. The first of these, C. Porcius Cato, lost his whole army in battle with the barbarians in 114 BCE (T. Liv per. 63; Flor. 1.39.4; Ruf. Fest., Brev. 9.1; cf. Brennan 2000, 522), while both his successors, the consuls for 113 and 112 C. Caecilius Metellus Caprarius and M. Livius Drusus, won triumphs for presumably important victories over them (Degrassi 1947, 84–85, 561; cf. Vell. Pat. 2.8.2; Eutrop. 4.25.1). Marcus Minucius Rufus, the fourth consul in a row to govern Macedonia, remained in the province for five years between 110 and 106 BCE (Münzer 1962; Broughton 1951, 543–544; Sarikakis 1971, 60–62). A couple of honorific decrees from Delphi and Europos mention two victorious wars of Minucius, one against the Scordisci and the other against the Bessi and other Thracians (Vatin 1967; Bousquet 1991, 177–179). These wars, which won Minucius a triumph in Rome after his return, are casually noticed in the literary sources, which allude consistently to a large winter battle, presumably against the Bessi, at the frozen river Hebros (T. Liv. per. 65; Flor. 1.39.5; Ruf. Fest., Brev. 9.2; Amm. Marc. 27.4.10; Eutrop. 4.27.5; Jord., Rom. 219).
The king Mostis mentioned above could have been among the enemies whom the Roman praetor T. Didius fought in Thrace in 101 or 100 BCE, and would have lost territory when the latter incorporated the Thracian Chersonese and the lands of the Caeni as far as Byzantium into the Roman province of Macedonia (Loukopoulou 1987, 73–81). However, the long series of the coins of Mostis suggests that he survived these events and continued to rule an indefinite territory in the southeast of Thrace, perhaps further inland, early in the first century BCE.
A casual mention in Florus (1.39) suggests that a (Manlius?) Vulso, presumably another provincial governor of Macedonia, “penetrated the Rhodope and the Haemus”; the passage of Florus is a list of undated Roman campaigns in Thrace, in which Vulso is placed after Minucius (Rufus) and before (C. Scribonius) Curio, Appius (Claudius Pulcher), and (M. Terentius Varro) Lucullus, thus somewhere between 106 and 78 BCE, which is not enough to connect him with the equally uninformative passage of Julius Obsequens (108) mentioning a Roman victory over the Maedi and Dardanians in 97 BCE, although such an identification has been suggested (Gerov 1961, 171; Yordanov 1978, 23; Tacheva 1997, 66).
In Bithynia, the long rule of Nicomedes III Euergetes (127–94 BCE) was a period of comparative prosperity and stability. He was for some time the ally of Mithridates Eupator, as they tried to annex Paphlagonia and Cappadocia together, then quarreled with each other and finally were forced by the Romans to evacuate all their recent territorial acquisitions (Geyer 1936, 496–497, no. 5; Gabelko 2005, 344–372).
The Roman victories in Thrace between 114 and 97 BCE evidently did not have any long-lasting effect; the very fact of the continuing efforts to restrain the barbarians is in itself a proof of their partial and inconclusive character. During the long stay of the propraetor C. Sentius Saturninus in Macedonia between 93 and 87 BCE (Brennan 2000, 525), the northern frontier of the province remained extremely unstable. New Thracian incursions in Macedonia are mentioned by Julius Obsequens (113) in 92 BCE and twice in the periochae of Livy (74, 76) for the years of the Social War, 90–88 BCE.
A new factor was added to the already critical situation in the region with the anti-Roman propaganda of Mithridates Eupator; he won to his cause many of the Thracians, and most or all of the Greek cities on the Pontic coast (see Gaggero 1978). A fragment of Cassius Dio (fr. 101.2) mentions, out of context, that the Thracians, instigated by Mithridates, had made an incursion reaching as far as Epirus and the sanctuary at Dodona, where they sacked the temple of Zeus. Paulus Orosius (5.18.30) adds more details about presumably this same invasion; in his version a Thracian king, Sothimus, invaded Macedonia in 88 BCE with a large army and reached Greece, until in the end he was repelled by the praetor C. Sentius (Saturninus) and returned to his own kingdom. It has been suggested that Sothimus was the king of the Maedi (Detschew 1957, 465; Gerov 1961, 172; Yordanov 1978, 24; Walbank 1981, 16; Tacheva 1997, 67), but this remains purely conjectural. It is probably to these same events that Cicero refers in his invective against Lucius Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus: he mentions “a general revolt of the barbarians” during the office of the praetor C. Sentius, when the province was saved by the Dentheletae who remained loyal to Rome (Cic., in Pis. 84). It remains unclear in what way the Dentheletae contributed to the success of the Roman praetor, maybe with a treacherous attack on the territory of their neighbors while these were away on their plundering raid? The Dentheletae were not the only Thracians who remained true to their Roman allegiance. Diodorus (37.5a) tells the story of an abortive attempt at a Macedonian uprising, probably also inspired by Mithridatic propaganda, which was suppressed with the timely interference of a Thracian king, Cotys, who might have been an Odrysian or, as has recently been suggested, a Sapaean ruler. In the battles of Chaeronaea and Orchomenos in 86 BCE Odrysian cavalry fought on the side of Sulla; it had been sent by king Sadalas, and was commanded by an Odrysian aristocrat, Amadokos the son of Teres (Holleaux 1919). There were, however, numerous Thracian allies also in the land armies of Mithridates acting in Europe, and a commander, Dromichaetes, seems by his name to have commanded a Getic contingent (App., Mithr. 32, 41).
Further Thracian incursions in Macedonia are mentioned in the periochae of Livy describing the events of 87 and 86 BCE (T. Liv. per. 81, 82). It remains impossible to coordinate these pieces of information with the fast unrolling string of events in southern Thrace and Macedonia. Probably in 87 BCE, while the Mithridatic forces of Archelaus and Metrophanes were having their first encounters with the advancing army of Sulla in Greece, an enormous land army led by the king’s son Ariarathes (Arcathias) and the general Taxiles crossed the Straits into Thrace and advanced into Macedonia, easily overcoming the feeble forces (only two legions) of the praetor Sentius (App., Mithr. 35, 41; Plut., Sulla 11; Memnon 32). Appian mentions that Ariarathes took the time to appoint satraps over the conquered territories; he seems to have spent the winter of 87 BCE in Macedonia. It has been suggested that Ariarathes must have taken the view that the purpose of his mission was to create a kingdom for himself in Thrace and Macedonia (Reinach 1890, 160–161, 166–167; Rostovtzeff and Ormerod 1932, 248).
Early in 86 BCE, the great army of Ariarathes moved south, too late to help besieged Athens and Piraeus, which both fell to Sulla. In the summer of that year, with his two decisive victories at Chaeronaea and Orchomenos, Sulla turned the tide of the First Mithridatic War. Some interesting events occurred in the meantime elsewhere. In the north, evacuated by the bulk of the Mithridatic forces, there now appeared a new Roman army sent by the Marian regime and led by the suffect consul L. Valerius Flaccus. The army of Flaccus passed through Macedonia and Thrace and crossed into Asia; the soldiers eventually mutinied against their commander, who was replaced by the legate Fimbria. The situation that remained behind in Macedonia and Thrace is not attested in the preserved historical narratives.
It would have been in the same year, 86 BCE, that a major invasion by three northern tribes, the Scordisci, the Maedi, and the Dardanians, reached the sanctuary of Delphi in Greece, which was plundered and burnt (Plut., Numa 9.6; App., Illyr. 1.5; Euseb., Chron. 2.133). Against the background of the dramatic events of that year, the raid could be seen as an anti-Roman diverting operation in the rear of Sulla, probably instigated by Mithridatic agents. The date (controversial in modern literature, see Papazoglu 1978, 315–323) is inferred from the figure of the Roman general who went on to punish the perpetrators; Appian gives his name as Lucius Scipio and he is easily identifiable with the Marian consul of 83 BCE, Lucius Cornelius Scipio Asiaticus (Broughton 1952, 54, 58, 61; Brennan 2000, 527–528). According to Appian, Scipio defeated thoroughly the Scordisci, but was bribed with temple gold by the Maedi and Dardanians and left them unpunished; he would have been a governor of Macedonia installed by the Marian government in Rome after the resumption of Roman control over the province.
Early in 85 BCE, Sulla moved to the north with his army; this would have been the real reason for the unfinished operation of L. Scipio that had left the Maedi and Dardanians unpunished: the Marian governor would have had to retreat at the advance of Sulla, probably returning to Italy for good. While awaiting in Macedonia the result of the preliminary talks with Mithridates, which were entrusted to Archelaus, Sulla himself went on a punitive expedition against some variously attested Thracian tribes, among whom the Maedi seem the most certain (T. Liv. per. 83; App., Mithr. 55; Eutrop., Brev. 5.7.1; Plut., Sulla 23). And again, while Sulla was signing the treaty with Mithridates in Dardanos later in the same year, his legate Hortensius made another raid on the Maedi and Dardanians (Gran. Licinian. 35.78–81). These operations were presumably meant to finish the job started by Scipio of punishing the pro-Mithridatic tribes for their part in the war.
The events in Thrace in the period between the treaty of Dardanos and the start of the Third Mithridatic War (85–73 BCE) are very vaguely known. The Odrysian king Sadalas remained a Roman ally (cf. Cic., Ver. 2.1.63). His contested identification with the Sadalas mentioned in a dedicatory royal inscription from Byzie (IGR 1.775) raises the question of Odrysian-Astaean relations, which remain enigmatic.
Roman military expeditions penetrated deeper and deeper into the Thracian interior. About 76 BCE, Appius Claudius Pulcher fought in the Rhodope Mountains and later died in his province (T. Liv. per. 91; Sall., Hist. 2.36–37; Flor. 1.38.6; Eutrop. 6.2.1; Ruf. Fest. 9.2; Oros. 5.23.19). The next governor of Macedonia, Gaius Scribonius Curio, reached the Thracian sector of the river Danube between 75 and 73 BCE (T. Liv. per. 92, 95; Sall., Hist. 2.80, 3.49–50; Frontin., Strat. 4.1.43; Ruf. Fest. 7.5; Flor. 1.39.6; Eutrop. 6.2.2; Oros. 5.23.20; Amm. Marc. 29.5.22; Jord., Rom. 216; Jul. Obseq. 59).
In Asia, Nicomedes IV Philopator (94–74 BCE) was the last king of the Bithynian royal dynasty (Geyer 1936, 497–499, no. 6; Gabelko 2005, 372–414). He was defeated and ousted from his kingdom by Mithridates Eupator at the start of the First Mithridatic War (88 BCE), then reinstalled by the Romans with the peace of Dardanos (85 BCE). Bithynia practically became a Roman protectorate, and at his death in 74 BCE the childless Nicomedes bequeathed his domain to the Romans. Bithynia thenceforth became a Roman province.
The References mention most of the relevant existing publications bearing directly on Thracian history in the period discussed. Further reading could be suggested on the broader aspects of the history of the Hellenistic world, of which Thrace formed an integral part. Modern scholarship on the Hellenistic age is vast; most of the important publications, however, can easily be found in the extensive and well-organized bibliographies of the following general works: