Home Region:  Anatolia-Caucasus (Southwest Asia)

Late Cappadocia

D G SC WF HS EQ 2020  tr_cappadocia_2 / TrCappL

Learn more about this dataset.

ℹ️

🗣️ Hit enter to set year.

🗣️ Hit enter to set play rate (inaccurate at high speeds).



Background map





Loading current borders...








Preceding:
[continuity; Seleucid Empire] [continuity]   Update here
Add one more here.

Succeeding:
No Polity found. Add one here.

The Cappaodican kingdom began and ended in the hands of other more powerful polities in Asia Minor. The kingdom grew out of suzerainty to the Achaemenid Empire when Alexander the Great toppled the Achaemenids and largely bypassed Cappadocia [1] , but the kingdom eventually returned to being a province under the next greatest power, Rome, in the early first century CE. Even during the peak reign of Cappadocian kings, the polity was fought over and used by the kings of its neighbouring polities to strengthen their positions of power or to buffer their state against the ambitions of another. This happened to such an extent that Mithridates VI Eupator, king of Pontus, placed both his nephew and son on the Cappadocian throne, only to kill the first to reinforce the claim of the latter, much to the antagonism of Nicomedes III, king of Bithynia at the time, who claimed his own right to a puppet on the Cappadocian throne. The incident resulted in the intervention of Rome who declared the ‘freedom’ of Cappadocia from monarchs (in theory) so that neither the kingdoms of Pontus or Bithynia could use Cappadocia for their own gains. The kingdom was then ruled by kings favoured by the Roman Senate until the death of Archelaus who was the last king of Cappadocia, places there by Antony.
As a result of Cappadocia’s relatively minor position during this time, very little textual (or other) direct evidence from the kingdom has survived. Numismatic evidence does give some detailed information about the chronology of kings, but even this is debated [2] [3] . Instead, much of what is known about the kingdom of Cappadocia comes from accounts of the foreign policy of its neighbours, particularly Rome at the time. The main historian who discussed Cappadocia was Strabo, and his accounts lack the detailed information on Cappadocia which other polities have [4] .

[1]: (Ansen 1988, 471) E M Ansen. 1988. Antigonus, the Satrap of Phrygia. Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Bd. 37, H. 4 (4th Qtr.), pp. 471-477.

[2]: (Simonetta 1977) B Simonetta. 1977. The Coins of the Cappadocian Kings. Fribourg: Office du Livre.

[3]: (Dimitriev 2006, 286) S Dmitriev. 2006. Cappadocian Dynastic Rearrangements on the Eve of the First Mithridatic War. Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Bd. 55, H. 3, pp. 285-297.

[4]: (Rostovtzeff 1941, 838) M Rostovtzeff. 1941. The Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World, Volume 2. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

General Variables
Identity and Location
Utm Zone:
36 S  
Original Name:
Late Cappadocia  
Capital:
Mazaca-Eusebeia  
Mazaca  
Alternative Name:
Cappadocia  
Cappadokia  
Kappadokia  
Temporal Bounds
Peak Years:
[302 BCE ➜ 95 BCE]  
Duration:
[322 BCE ➜ 93 BCE]  
Political and Cultural Relations
Suprapolity Relations:
nominal allegiance to [---]  
alliance with [---]  
personal union with [---]  
vassalage to [---]  
Succeeding Entity:
Late Roman Republic  
Relationship to Preceding Entity:
continuity  
Preceding Entity:
UNCLEAR:    [continuity]  
Degree of Centralization:
nominal  
unitary state  
loose  
Language
Linguistic Family:
Indo-European  
Language:
Greek  
Religion
Alternate Religion:
NO_VALUE_ON_WIKI  
Social Complexity Variables
Social Scale
Polity Territory:
130,000 km2  
Polity Population:
[300,000 to 400,000] people  
Hierarchical Complexity
Settlement Hierarchy:
3  
Religious Level:
4  
Military Level:
5  
Administrative Level:
4  
Professions
Professional Soldier:
present  
Professional Priesthood:
present  
Professional Military Officer:
present  
Bureaucracy Characteristics
Specialized Government Building:
present  
Full Time Bureaucrat:
present  
Law
Professional Lawyer:
inferred absent  
Judge:
unknown  
Formal Legal Code:
inferred absent  
Court:
inferred absent  
Specialized Buildings: polity owned
Market:
present  
Irrigation System:
inferred present  
Food Storage Site:
inferred present  
Transport Infrastructure
Road:
present  
Port:
absent  
Bridge:
present  
Special-purpose Sites
Mines or Quarry:
inferred present  
Information / Writing System
Written Record:
present  
Script:
present  
Phonetic Alphabetic Writing:
present  
Nonwritten Record:
inferred present  
Non Phonetic Writing:
absent  
Mnemonic Device:
unknown  
Information / Kinds of Written Documents
Sacred Text:
inferred present  
Religious Literature:
inferred present  
Practical Literature:
inferred present  
Lists Tables and Classification:
inferred present  
Fiction:
inferred present  
Calendar:
inferred present  
Information / Money
Precious Metal:
unknown  
Paper Currency:
inferred absent  
Indigenous Coin:
present  
Article:
present  
Information / Postal System
Postal Station:
unknown  
General Postal Service:
unknown  
Courier:
unknown  
Information / Measurement System
Warfare Variables (Military Technologies)
Fortifications
  Wooden Palisade:
unknown  
  Stone Walls Non Mortared:
unknown  
  Stone Walls Mortared:
inferred present  
  Settlements in a Defensive Position:
unknown  
  Modern Fortification:
absent  
  Moat:
unknown  
  Fortified Camp:
inferred present  
  Earth Rampart:
unknown  
  Ditch:
unknown  
  Complex Fortification:
unknown  
Military use of Metals
  Steel:
present  
Projectiles
  Tension Siege Engine:
unknown  
  Sling Siege Engine:
unknown  
  Sling:
present  
  Self Bow:
present  
  Handheld Firearm:
absent  
  Gunpowder Siege Artillery:
absent  
  Crossbow:
unknown  
  Composite Bow:
present  
  Atlatl:
absent  
Handheld weapons
  Sword:
present  
  Spear:
inferred present  
Animals used in warfare
  Horse:
present  
Armor
  Shield:
present  
  Plate Armor:
inferred present  
  Limb Protection:
inferred present  
  Leather Cloth:
present  
  Laminar Armor:
unknown  
  Helmet:
present  
  Chainmail:
unknown  
  Breastplate:
present  
Naval technology
  Specialized Military Vessel:
absent  
  Small Vessels Canoes Etc:
absent  
  Merchant Ships Pressed Into Service:
absent  
Religion Tolerance Nothing coded yet.
Human Sacrifice Nothing coded yet.
Crisis Consequences Nothing coded yet.
Power Transitions Nothing coded yet.

NGA Settlements:

Year Range Late Cappadocia (tr_cappadocia_2) was in:
 (129 BCE 95 BCE)   Konya Plain
Home NGA: Konya Plain

General Variables
Identity and Location

Original Name:
Late Cappadocia

Capital:
Mazaca-Eusebeia

{Mazaca; Ariaratheia; Mazaca-Eusebeia} Mazaca, or Mazaca-Eusebeia, was the main capital of Cappadocia(Sherwin-White, 1984, p40), although Araiathes II attempted to build another capital named after himself (Ariaratheia) which “sank into oblivion” (Rostovteff, p839)

Capital:
Mazaca

{Mazaca; Ariaratheia; Mazaca-Eusebeia} Mazaca, or Mazaca-Eusebeia, was the main capital of Cappadocia(Sherwin-White, 1984, p40), although Araiathes II attempted to build another capital named after himself (Ariaratheia) which “sank into oblivion” (Rostovteff, p839)



Temporal Bounds
Peak Years:
[302 BCE ➜ 95 BCE]

These dates correspond to the main ruling of the Ariarathid dynasty, before being taken over by rival polities (Pontus and Bithynia) and then becoming more closely affiliated with Rome. The earlier date is from when Ariarathes II regained the throne from the Roman Eumenes [1] ; and the later date corresponds to the rule of Ariarathes IX.

[1]: Simonetta, B. (1977) The Coins of the Cappadocian Kings. Fribourg: Office du Livre, p15-16


Duration:
[322 BCE ➜ 93 BCE]

{380 BCE; 322 BCE}-{95 BCE; 93 BCE; 17 CE} ... written as code, these are the alternative dates. However we cannot code uncertainty for the duration variable. 380 BCE - 17 CE would be the code for the broadest definition.
Although the territory of Cappadocia had a ruler before 322 BCE, it was only after Alexander’s conquests in Asia Minor and the collapse of the Achaemenid Empire that Cappadocia became an independent kingdom. [1] The polity gradually fell into other hands, and was fought over by the more prominent powers in Asia Minor, Pontus and Bithynia, as well as the Roman Empire to the west [2] [3] . Cappadocia was in a good strategic position for all of these polities to either extend their own states or to buffer the territory they already had. The end of the rule of the Ariarathid dynasty came in the 90s BCE, although the exact dates are unknown. At this time, the kingdoms of Pontus and Bithynia were fighting over Cappadocia (and murdering or marrying those in the Cappadocian ruling family to gain a footing), until Rome declared the ‘freedom’ of Cappadocia. From then on, Cappadocia was ruled by Ariobarzanes, by the grace of Rome, and was eventually to be annexed by Rome [4] [5] . The end dates correspond to the end of the Ariarathid dynasty (c. 95 BCE) and then to the end of the rule of Archelaus (17 CE) [6] .
The rulers of Cappadocia: [7] [8] [9]
Datames (c. 380-362 BCE)
Ariamnes I (362-350 BCE)
Mithrobuzanes (died 334 BCE)
Ariarathes I (350-331 BCE)
Ariarathes I (331-322 BCE)
Ariarathes II (301-280 BCE)
Ariaramnes (c. 275-225 BCE)
Ariarathes III (c. 225-220 BCE)
Ariarathes IV Eusebes (220-163 BCE)
Ariarathes V Eusebes Philopator (163-130 BCE)
Orophernes (157 BCE)
Ariarathes VI Epiphanes Philopator (130-116 BCE)
Ariarathes VII Philometor (116-101 BCE)
Ariarathes VIII (101-96 BCE)
Ariarathes IX (c.95 BCE)
Ariobarzanes I Philoromaios (95-63 BCE)
Ariobarzanes II Philopator (c. 63-51 BCE)
Ariobarzanes III Eusebes Philoromaios (52-42 BCE)
Ariarathes X Eusebes Philadelphos (42-36 BCE)
Archelaus (36 BCE - 17 CE)

[1]: Simonetta, B. (1977) The Coins of the Cappadocian Kings. Fribourg: Office du Livre, p15-16

[2]: Sherwin-White, A. N. (1977) Roman Involvement in Anatolia, 167-88 B. C. The Journal of Roman Studies. 67, pp. 62-75.

[3]: Sherwin-White, A. N. (1984) Roman Foreign Policy in the Near East, 168 BC to AD 1. London: Duckworth.

[4]: Ansen, E. M. (1988) Antigonus, the Satrap of Phrygia. Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Bd. 37, H. 4 (4th Qtr.), pp. 471-477, p472

[5]: Eilers, C. (2003) A Roman East: Pompey’s Settlement to the Death of Augustus. In, Erskine, A. (ed.) A Companion to the Hellenistic World. Blackwell: Malden, Oxford, pp90-102, p90

[6]: Simonetta, B. (1977) The Coins of the Cappadocian Kings. Fribourg: Office du Livre, p45-46

[7]: Iossif, P. P and Lorber, C. C. (2010) Hypaithros: A Numismatic Contribution to the Military History of Cappadocia. Historia, Band 59/4, Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart. p432

[8]: Dmitriev, S. (2006) Cappadocian Dynastic Rearrangements on the Eve of the First Mithridatic War. Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Bd. 55, H. 3, pp. 285-297.

[9]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rulers_of_Cappadocia


Political and Cultural Relations
Suprapolity Relations:
nominal allegiance to [---]

{380-331 BCE: nominal allegiance}; 331-95 BCE: alliance, personal union; {95 BCE - 17 CE}: vassalage
The kings of Cappadocia maintained their position in through alliances with the neighbouring powers, including Rome, Bithynia, Pergamon, Pontus and the Seleucid Empire [1] [2] . Marriage arrangements were made between the royal dynasties of some of these polities (most importantly the Seleucid empire and the Pontic kingdom) [3] [4] . The alliances were however, often short-lived and either followed or were followed by aggressive relations between the two polities. Before 322 BCE, Ariarathes I (the ruler of Cappadocia) may have nominally been under the authority of the Achaemenid Persian Empire; and after the brief rule of Ariarathes IX Cappadocia effectively became a Roman province and was ruled by Ariobarzanes (I, II and III) in ‘friendly’ relations with Rome. [5] [6]
It should also be noted that even when the kingdom of Cappadocia was ruled by independent kings as a unitary state, Rome still exerted influence on Cappadocian politics. Twice, when there was internal feuding between claimants to the Cappadocian throne, Rome intervened and either declared the kingdom split between the monarchs or freed from the monarchy altogether. This happened after the dispute between the brothers Ariarathes V and Orophernes in 159/8 BCE [7] [8] ; and between Ariarathes IX (Mithridates VI Eupator of Pontus’ son) and the claimant put forward by Nicomedes, king of Bithynia around 97 BCE [9] .

[1]: Sherwin-White, A. N. (1984) Roman Foreign Policy in the Near East, 168 BC to AD 1. London: Duckworth, p41

[2]: Bowder, D. (ed.) (1982) Who was Who in the Greek World, 776 BC - 30 BC. Phaidon: Oxford, p54

[3]: McGing, B. (2003) Subjection and Resistance: to the death of Mithradates. In, Erskine, A. (ed.) A companion to the Hellenistic World. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp71-89, p85

[4]: Kosmetatou, E. (2003) The Attalids of Pergamon. In, Erskine, A. (ed.) A Companion to the Hellenistic World. Blackwell: Malden, Oxford, pp159-174, p164

[5]: Ansen, E. M. (1988) Antigonus, the Satrap of Phrygia. Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Bd. 37, H. 4 (4th Qtr.), pp. 471-477, p472

[6]: Eilers, C. (2003) A Roman East: Pompey’s Settlement to the Death of Augustus. In, Erskine, A. (ed.) A Companion to the Hellenistic World. Blackwell: Malden, Oxford, pp90-102, p90

[7]: McGing, B. (2003) Subjection and Resistance: to the death of Mithradates. In, Erskine, A. (ed.) A companion to the Hellenistic World. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp71-89, p77

[8]: Sherwin-White, A. N. (1977) Roman Involvement in Anatolia, 167-88 B. C. The Journal of Roman Studies. 67, pp. 62-75, p63

[9]: Sherwin-White, A. N. (1977) Roman Involvement in Anatolia, 167-88 B. C. The Journal of Roman Studies. 67, pp. 62-75, p71-2

Suprapolity Relations:
alliance with [---]

{380-331 BCE: nominal allegiance}; 331-95 BCE: alliance, personal union; {95 BCE - 17 CE}: vassalage
The kings of Cappadocia maintained their position in through alliances with the neighbouring powers, including Rome, Bithynia, Pergamon, Pontus and the Seleucid Empire [1] [2] . Marriage arrangements were made between the royal dynasties of some of these polities (most importantly the Seleucid empire and the Pontic kingdom) [3] [4] . The alliances were however, often short-lived and either followed or were followed by aggressive relations between the two polities. Before 322 BCE, Ariarathes I (the ruler of Cappadocia) may have nominally been under the authority of the Achaemenid Persian Empire; and after the brief rule of Ariarathes IX Cappadocia effectively became a Roman province and was ruled by Ariobarzanes (I, II and III) in ‘friendly’ relations with Rome. [5] [6]
It should also be noted that even when the kingdom of Cappadocia was ruled by independent kings as a unitary state, Rome still exerted influence on Cappadocian politics. Twice, when there was internal feuding between claimants to the Cappadocian throne, Rome intervened and either declared the kingdom split between the monarchs or freed from the monarchy altogether. This happened after the dispute between the brothers Ariarathes V and Orophernes in 159/8 BCE [7] [8] ; and between Ariarathes IX (Mithridates VI Eupator of Pontus’ son) and the claimant put forward by Nicomedes, king of Bithynia around 97 BCE [9] .

[1]: Sherwin-White, A. N. (1984) Roman Foreign Policy in the Near East, 168 BC to AD 1. London: Duckworth, p41

[2]: Bowder, D. (ed.) (1982) Who was Who in the Greek World, 776 BC - 30 BC. Phaidon: Oxford, p54

[3]: McGing, B. (2003) Subjection and Resistance: to the death of Mithradates. In, Erskine, A. (ed.) A companion to the Hellenistic World. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp71-89, p85

[4]: Kosmetatou, E. (2003) The Attalids of Pergamon. In, Erskine, A. (ed.) A Companion to the Hellenistic World. Blackwell: Malden, Oxford, pp159-174, p164

[5]: Ansen, E. M. (1988) Antigonus, the Satrap of Phrygia. Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Bd. 37, H. 4 (4th Qtr.), pp. 471-477, p472

[6]: Eilers, C. (2003) A Roman East: Pompey’s Settlement to the Death of Augustus. In, Erskine, A. (ed.) A Companion to the Hellenistic World. Blackwell: Malden, Oxford, pp90-102, p90

[7]: McGing, B. (2003) Subjection and Resistance: to the death of Mithradates. In, Erskine, A. (ed.) A companion to the Hellenistic World. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp71-89, p77

[8]: Sherwin-White, A. N. (1977) Roman Involvement in Anatolia, 167-88 B. C. The Journal of Roman Studies. 67, pp. 62-75, p63

[9]: Sherwin-White, A. N. (1977) Roman Involvement in Anatolia, 167-88 B. C. The Journal of Roman Studies. 67, pp. 62-75, p71-2

Suprapolity Relations:
personal union with [---]

{380-331 BCE: nominal allegiance}; 331-95 BCE: alliance, personal union; {95 BCE - 17 CE}: vassalage
The kings of Cappadocia maintained their position in through alliances with the neighbouring powers, including Rome, Bithynia, Pergamon, Pontus and the Seleucid Empire [1] [2] . Marriage arrangements were made between the royal dynasties of some of these polities (most importantly the Seleucid empire and the Pontic kingdom) [3] [4] . The alliances were however, often short-lived and either followed or were followed by aggressive relations between the two polities. Before 322 BCE, Ariarathes I (the ruler of Cappadocia) may have nominally been under the authority of the Achaemenid Persian Empire; and after the brief rule of Ariarathes IX Cappadocia effectively became a Roman province and was ruled by Ariobarzanes (I, II and III) in ‘friendly’ relations with Rome. [5] [6]
It should also be noted that even when the kingdom of Cappadocia was ruled by independent kings as a unitary state, Rome still exerted influence on Cappadocian politics. Twice, when there was internal feuding between claimants to the Cappadocian throne, Rome intervened and either declared the kingdom split between the monarchs or freed from the monarchy altogether. This happened after the dispute between the brothers Ariarathes V and Orophernes in 159/8 BCE [7] [8] ; and between Ariarathes IX (Mithridates VI Eupator of Pontus’ son) and the claimant put forward by Nicomedes, king of Bithynia around 97 BCE [9] .

[1]: Sherwin-White, A. N. (1984) Roman Foreign Policy in the Near East, 168 BC to AD 1. London: Duckworth, p41

[2]: Bowder, D. (ed.) (1982) Who was Who in the Greek World, 776 BC - 30 BC. Phaidon: Oxford, p54

[3]: McGing, B. (2003) Subjection and Resistance: to the death of Mithradates. In, Erskine, A. (ed.) A companion to the Hellenistic World. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp71-89, p85

[4]: Kosmetatou, E. (2003) The Attalids of Pergamon. In, Erskine, A. (ed.) A Companion to the Hellenistic World. Blackwell: Malden, Oxford, pp159-174, p164

[5]: Ansen, E. M. (1988) Antigonus, the Satrap of Phrygia. Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Bd. 37, H. 4 (4th Qtr.), pp. 471-477, p472

[6]: Eilers, C. (2003) A Roman East: Pompey’s Settlement to the Death of Augustus. In, Erskine, A. (ed.) A Companion to the Hellenistic World. Blackwell: Malden, Oxford, pp90-102, p90

[7]: McGing, B. (2003) Subjection and Resistance: to the death of Mithradates. In, Erskine, A. (ed.) A companion to the Hellenistic World. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp71-89, p77

[8]: Sherwin-White, A. N. (1977) Roman Involvement in Anatolia, 167-88 B. C. The Journal of Roman Studies. 67, pp. 62-75, p63

[9]: Sherwin-White, A. N. (1977) Roman Involvement in Anatolia, 167-88 B. C. The Journal of Roman Studies. 67, pp. 62-75, p71-2

Suprapolity Relations:
vassalage to [---]

{380-331 BCE: nominal allegiance}; 331-95 BCE: alliance, personal union; {95 BCE - 17 CE}: vassalage
The kings of Cappadocia maintained their position in through alliances with the neighbouring powers, including Rome, Bithynia, Pergamon, Pontus and the Seleucid Empire [1] [2] . Marriage arrangements were made between the royal dynasties of some of these polities (most importantly the Seleucid empire and the Pontic kingdom) [3] [4] . The alliances were however, often short-lived and either followed or were followed by aggressive relations between the two polities. Before 322 BCE, Ariarathes I (the ruler of Cappadocia) may have nominally been under the authority of the Achaemenid Persian Empire; and after the brief rule of Ariarathes IX Cappadocia effectively became a Roman province and was ruled by Ariobarzanes (I, II and III) in ‘friendly’ relations with Rome. [5] [6]
It should also be noted that even when the kingdom of Cappadocia was ruled by independent kings as a unitary state, Rome still exerted influence on Cappadocian politics. Twice, when there was internal feuding between claimants to the Cappadocian throne, Rome intervened and either declared the kingdom split between the monarchs or freed from the monarchy altogether. This happened after the dispute between the brothers Ariarathes V and Orophernes in 159/8 BCE [7] [8] ; and between Ariarathes IX (Mithridates VI Eupator of Pontus’ son) and the claimant put forward by Nicomedes, king of Bithynia around 97 BCE [9] .

[1]: Sherwin-White, A. N. (1984) Roman Foreign Policy in the Near East, 168 BC to AD 1. London: Duckworth, p41

[2]: Bowder, D. (ed.) (1982) Who was Who in the Greek World, 776 BC - 30 BC. Phaidon: Oxford, p54

[3]: McGing, B. (2003) Subjection and Resistance: to the death of Mithradates. In, Erskine, A. (ed.) A companion to the Hellenistic World. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp71-89, p85

[4]: Kosmetatou, E. (2003) The Attalids of Pergamon. In, Erskine, A. (ed.) A Companion to the Hellenistic World. Blackwell: Malden, Oxford, pp159-174, p164

[5]: Ansen, E. M. (1988) Antigonus, the Satrap of Phrygia. Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Bd. 37, H. 4 (4th Qtr.), pp. 471-477, p472

[6]: Eilers, C. (2003) A Roman East: Pompey’s Settlement to the Death of Augustus. In, Erskine, A. (ed.) A Companion to the Hellenistic World. Blackwell: Malden, Oxford, pp90-102, p90

[7]: McGing, B. (2003) Subjection and Resistance: to the death of Mithradates. In, Erskine, A. (ed.) A companion to the Hellenistic World. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp71-89, p77

[8]: Sherwin-White, A. N. (1977) Roman Involvement in Anatolia, 167-88 B. C. The Journal of Roman Studies. 67, pp. 62-75, p63

[9]: Sherwin-White, A. N. (1977) Roman Involvement in Anatolia, 167-88 B. C. The Journal of Roman Studies. 67, pp. 62-75, p71-2


Succeeding Entity:
Late Roman Republic

Relationship to Preceding Entity:
continuity

Preceding Entity:
Seleucid Empire

Degree of Centralization:
nominal

380-331 BCE: nominal; {331 BCE; 301 BCE}-96 BCE: unitary state; 99 BCE - 17 CE: loose dates are not machine readable yet - ET
The Cappadocian rulers paid nominal allegiance to the Achaemenid Empire before it collapsed in 331 BCE [1] . After Alexander’s conquest of Asia Minor, Ariarathes I established himself as the first king of Cappadocia (a region largely left alone by Alexander) and ruled from 331 - 322 BCE. There was, however, some disagreement with Rome after Ariarathes I and the dynasty only continued when his son, Ariarathes II, regained the throne from the Roman Eumenes in 301 BCE. The Ariarathid dynasty then ruled until the 90s BCE, and ruled as the head of all state and religious affairs.
The last Ariarathes (IX Eusebes) was the son of the Pontic king Mithridates VI Eupator, who was ousted by the Roman Senate and eventually replaced by the elected Ariobarzanes I [2] [3] . Ariobarzanes I, II, III and Ariarathes X then ruled Cappadocia from 95 - 36 BCE and maintained friendship with Rome during that time, leading up to Cappadocia becoming a province of the Roman Empire in AD 17.

[1]: Ansen, E. M. (1988) Antigonus, the Satrap of Phrygia. Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Bd. 37, H. 4 (4th Qtr.), pp. 471-477, p472

[2]: Sherwin-White, A. N. (1984) Roman Foreign Policy in the Near East, 168 BC to AD 1. London: Duckworth, p71-71; 106-107

[3]: Rubinsohn, W. Z. (1993) Mithradates VI Eupator Dionysos and Rome’s conquest of the Hellenistic East. Mediterranean Historical Review, 8(1), pp. 5-54. p18-19

Degree of Centralization:
unitary state

380-331 BCE: nominal; {331 BCE; 301 BCE}-96 BCE: unitary state; 99 BCE - 17 CE: loose dates are not machine readable yet - ET
The Cappadocian rulers paid nominal allegiance to the Achaemenid Empire before it collapsed in 331 BCE [1] . After Alexander’s conquest of Asia Minor, Ariarathes I established himself as the first king of Cappadocia (a region largely left alone by Alexander) and ruled from 331 - 322 BCE. There was, however, some disagreement with Rome after Ariarathes I and the dynasty only continued when his son, Ariarathes II, regained the throne from the Roman Eumenes in 301 BCE. The Ariarathid dynasty then ruled until the 90s BCE, and ruled as the head of all state and religious affairs.
The last Ariarathes (IX Eusebes) was the son of the Pontic king Mithridates VI Eupator, who was ousted by the Roman Senate and eventually replaced by the elected Ariobarzanes I [2] [3] . Ariobarzanes I, II, III and Ariarathes X then ruled Cappadocia from 95 - 36 BCE and maintained friendship with Rome during that time, leading up to Cappadocia becoming a province of the Roman Empire in AD 17.

[1]: Ansen, E. M. (1988) Antigonus, the Satrap of Phrygia. Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Bd. 37, H. 4 (4th Qtr.), pp. 471-477, p472

[2]: Sherwin-White, A. N. (1984) Roman Foreign Policy in the Near East, 168 BC to AD 1. London: Duckworth, p71-71; 106-107

[3]: Rubinsohn, W. Z. (1993) Mithradates VI Eupator Dionysos and Rome’s conquest of the Hellenistic East. Mediterranean Historical Review, 8(1), pp. 5-54. p18-19

Degree of Centralization:
loose

380-331 BCE: nominal; {331 BCE; 301 BCE}-96 BCE: unitary state; 99 BCE - 17 CE: loose dates are not machine readable yet - ET
The Cappadocian rulers paid nominal allegiance to the Achaemenid Empire before it collapsed in 331 BCE [1] . After Alexander’s conquest of Asia Minor, Ariarathes I established himself as the first king of Cappadocia (a region largely left alone by Alexander) and ruled from 331 - 322 BCE. There was, however, some disagreement with Rome after Ariarathes I and the dynasty only continued when his son, Ariarathes II, regained the throne from the Roman Eumenes in 301 BCE. The Ariarathid dynasty then ruled until the 90s BCE, and ruled as the head of all state and religious affairs.
The last Ariarathes (IX Eusebes) was the son of the Pontic king Mithridates VI Eupator, who was ousted by the Roman Senate and eventually replaced by the elected Ariobarzanes I [2] [3] . Ariobarzanes I, II, III and Ariarathes X then ruled Cappadocia from 95 - 36 BCE and maintained friendship with Rome during that time, leading up to Cappadocia becoming a province of the Roman Empire in AD 17.

[1]: Ansen, E. M. (1988) Antigonus, the Satrap of Phrygia. Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Bd. 37, H. 4 (4th Qtr.), pp. 471-477, p472

[2]: Sherwin-White, A. N. (1984) Roman Foreign Policy in the Near East, 168 BC to AD 1. London: Duckworth, p71-71; 106-107

[3]: Rubinsohn, W. Z. (1993) Mithradates VI Eupator Dionysos and Rome’s conquest of the Hellenistic East. Mediterranean Historical Review, 8(1), pp. 5-54. p18-19


Language
Linguistic Family:
Indo-European

Language:
Greek

"Cappadocia is another example of a kingdom which adopted Greek as the language of administration, and whose kings energetically sponsored cultural Hellenism (high literary culture, gymnasion culture; euergetism abroad), to gain acceptance in the international scene." [1]

[1]: (Ma, 2003, p188)


Religion
Alternate Religion:
NO_VALUE_ON_WIKI


Social Complexity Variables
Social Scale
Polity Territory:
130,000 km2

squared kilometers. 130,000: 129 BCE


Polity Population:
[300,000 to 400,000] people

Turkey-in-Asia had 5,500,000 in 100 BCE. [1] Cappadocia had only about one sixth of the land area of this region (756,816/130,000). If we divided the estimate of 5.5 million by six get about 900,000. The state was landlocked and had no port. One might expect the most populous cities in Anatolia to be outside Cappadocia on the coast. A figure of 900,000 would certainly be an upper limit. Three hundred years later, under Emperor Valerian, the province of Cappadocia was reported to have had 400,000. [2] This seems a more reasonable figure given Cappadocia’s location. Anatolia at the time of Valerian had about 6.5 million more people [1] - 1 million more than in 100 BCE - which means Cappadocia may have had only a sixteenth of the Turkey-in-Asia population. If we apply the same ratio to 100 BCE we get 350,000.

[1]: (McEvedy and Jones 1978, 134) McEvedy, Colin. Jones, Richard. 1978. Atlas of World Population History. Penguin Books Ltd. London.

[2]: (Smith ed. 1869, 469) Smith, William. ed. 1869. Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography, Volume 1. James Walton.


Hierarchical Complexity
Settlement Hierarchy:
3

levels. The Cappadocian kingdom had some cities, including the capital Mazaca as well as Tyana, Kybistra and Hanisa [1] , but there is a lack of detailed evidence for the size of these cities and their importance in relation to other Cappadocian settlements [2] . Without details of settlement size or population, a rough three-level settlement hierarchy can be given to Cappadocia:
1. City - Mazaca, Tyana, Kybistra, Hanisa and possibly Ariaratheia
2. Town - Priene3. Village

[1]: Iossif, P. P and Lorber, C. C. (2010) Hypaithros: A Numismatic Contribution to the Military History of Cappadocia. Historia, Band 59/4, Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart. p432

[2]: Rostovtzeff, M. (1941) The Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World, Volume 2. Oxford: Clarendon Press. p838


Religious Level:
4

levels. These levels apply to the temple state in Cappadocia, as described by Strabo: “It is a considerable city; its inhabitants, however, consist mostly of ‘divinely inspired’ people and the sacred slaved who live in it. Its inhabitants are Kataonians, who, though in a general way classified as subjects of the king, are in most respects subject to the priest. The priest is master of the temple, and also of the sacred slaved, who, on my sojourn there, were more than six thousand in number, both men and women together. Also, considerable territory belongs to the temple, and the revenue is enjoyed by the priest. He is second in rank in Cappadocia after the king. (12.2.3)” [1]
1. King
2. Priests, of the temple state, who ruled over the temple servants and were second only to the king [2] 3. Temple servants4. Sacred slaves (hierodouloi) - the slaves belonged to the temple state (not even the priests could sell them) [3]

[1]: Potter, D. (2003) Hellenistic Religion. In, Erskine, A. (ed.) A Companion to the Hellenistic World. Blackwell: Malden, Oxford, pp 407-430. p424-425

[2]: Sökmen, E. (2009) Characteristics of the Temple States in Pontos. In, Højte, J. M. (ed.) Mithridates VI and the Pontic Kingdom. Aarhus University Press. p279-280

[3]: Sökmen, E. (2009) Characteristics of the Temple States in Pontos. In, Højte, J. M. (ed.) Mithridates VI and the Pontic Kingdom. Aarhus University Press. p280


Military Level:
5

levels. The military levels have been inferred, based on the military organisation of the Pontic kingdom. [1]
1. King
2. Supreme military commander (epi tōn dunameōn)/ chief bodyguard (?epi tou egcheiridiou)3. General4. Cavalry5. Infantry

[1]: McGing, B. C. (1986) The foreign policy of Mithridates VI Eupator, King of Pontus. Leiden: Brill. p91-3


Administrative Level:
4

levels.
In the Cappadocian kingdom, the king was the head of all administrative affairs and he used provincial governors, or strategos, to maintain the kingdom as divided into strategeiae [1] [2] . It is likely that there were administrative levels beneath the strategos, but there is little evidence for them at present.
1. King
_Central government_
2. ?3. ?4. ?
_Provincial government_
2. Strategos3. ?4. ?

[1]: Højte, J. M. (2009) The Administrative Organisation of the Pontic Kingdom. In, Højte, J. M (ed.)Mithridates VI and the Pontic Kingdom. Aarhus University Press. p105

[2]: Ma, J. (2003). Kings. In, Erskine, A. (ed.) A companion to the Hellenistic World. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp177-195. p183-184


Professions
Professional Soldier:
present

[1]

[1]: Iossif, P. P and Lorber, C. C. (2010) Hypaithros: A Numismatic Contribution to the Military History of Cappadocia. Historia, Band 59/4, Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart. p446-7


Professional Priesthood:
present

Based on the temple state in Cappadocia, as described by Strabo: “It is a considerable city; its inhabitants, however, consist mostly of ‘divinely inspired’ people and the sacred slaved who live in it. Its inhabitants are Kataonians, who, though in a general way classified as subjects of the king, are in most respects subject to the priest. The priest is master of the temple, and also of the sacred slaved, who, on my sojourn there, were more than six thousand in number, both men and women together. Also, considerable territory belongs to the temple, and the revenue is enjoyed by the priest. He is second in rank in Cappadocia after the king. (12.2.3)” [1]

[1]: Potter, D. (2003) Hellenistic Religion. In, Erskine, A. (ed.) A Companion to the Hellenistic World. Blackwell: Malden, Oxford, pp 407-430. p424-425


Professional Military Officer:
present

[1]

[1]: McGing, B. C. (1986) The foreign policy of Mithridates VI Eupator, King of Pontus. Leiden: Brill. p91-3


Bureaucracy Characteristics
Specialized Government Building:
present

The Cappadocian kings minted their own coins, but there is some disagreement as to how many mints there were and which settlements they were located in. [1]

[1]: Iossif, P. P and Lorber, C. C. (2010) Hypaithros: A Numismatic Contribution to the Military History of Cappadocia. Historia, Band 59/4, Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart. p440


Full Time Bureaucrat:
present

The Cappadocian kings minted their own coins. [1] "Cappadocia is another example of a kingdom which adopted Greek as the language of administration, and whose kings energetically sponsored cultural Hellenism (high literary culture, gymnasion culture; euergetism abroad), to gain acceptance in the international scene." [2]

[1]: Iossif, P. P and Lorber, C. C. (2010) Hypaithros: A Numismatic Contribution to the Military History of Cappadocia. Historia, Band 59/4, Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart. p440

[2]: (Ma, 2003, p188)


Law
Professional Lawyer:
absent

Inferred, based on absence in contemporary Pontic kingdom. [1]

[1]: Højte, J. M. (2009) The Administrative Organisation of the Pontic Kingdom. In, Højte, J. M (ed.)Mithridates VI and the Pontic Kingdom. Aarhus University Press. p98


Judges were present in the contemporary Pontic kingdom [1] , but it is not known whether they were also present in Cappadocia, and if they were specialist judges

[1]: McGing, B. C. (1986) The foreign policy of Mithridates VI Eupator, King of Pontus. Leiden: Brill. p93


Formal Legal Code:
absent

Inferred, based on absence in contemporary Pontic kingdom. [1]

[1]: Højte, J. M. (2009) The Administrative Organisation of the Pontic Kingdom. In, Højte, J. M (ed.)Mithridates VI and the Pontic Kingdom. Aarhus University Press. p98


Inferred, based on absence in contemporary Pontic kingdom. [1]

[1]: Højte, J. M. (2009) The Administrative Organisation of the Pontic Kingdom. In, Højte, J. M (ed.)Mithridates VI and the Pontic Kingdom. Aarhus University Press. p98


Specialized Buildings: polity owned
Market:
present

There was a market in the captured town of Priene [1]

[1]: Rostovtzeff, M. (1941) The Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World, Volume 2. Oxford: Clarendon Press. p820


Irrigation System:
present

Food Storage Site:
present

Transport Infrastructure

“Through Lycaonia [an area granted to Cappadocia after Attalus left his kingdom to Rome], an immense region of infertile steppes and salt desert, there passed the highway that led from the Aegean coast of Asia through the Cilician Gates to Syria and the Euphrates.” [1]

[1]: Sherwin-White, A. N. (1977) Roman Involvement in Anatolia, 167-88 B. C. The Journal of Roman Studies. 67, pp. 62-75. p68


Assumed as Cappadocia was landlocked.


Bridge:
present

Pompeius organisation: “The ineffectual Ariobarzanes was restored yet again to the throne of Cappadocia. He retained the Tomisa bridgehead between Melitene and Sophene on the far bank of the Euphrates, given to him by Lucullus, which controlled the route across the Taurus to southern Armenia…” [1]

[1]: Sherwin-White, A. N. (1984) Roman Foreign Policy in the Near East, 168 BC to AD 1. London: Duckworth. p226


Special-purpose Sites

Information / Writing System
Written Record:
present

Historical records have survived from the time of the Cappadocian kingdom. Polybius and Strabo were the main historians of the time, and although they did not often discuss Cappadocia directly, they to refer to the region in relation to the expansion of the Roman Empire and the politics of the neighbouring polities. [1]

[1]: Bowder, D. (ed.) (1982) Who was Who in the Greek World, 776 BC - 30 BC. Phaidon: Oxford. p171-172


Script:
present

The only surviving written records about Cappadocia are from the historians writing from outside Cappadocia either at the time of the kingdom or later. [1] Detailed information about the written records of Cappadocia cannot, therefore, be given.

[1]: Bowder, D. (ed.) (1982) Who was Who in the Greek World, 776 BC - 30 BC. Phaidon: Oxford. p171-172, 196


Phonetic Alphabetic Writing:
present

Greek


Nonwritten Record:
present

The only surviving written records about Cappadocia are from the historians writing from outside Cappadocia either at the time of the kingdom or later. [1] Detailed information about the written records of Cappadocia cannot, therefore, be given.

[1]: Bowder, D. (ed.) (1982) Who was Who in the Greek World, 776 BC - 30 BC. Phaidon: Oxford. p171-172, 196


Non Phonetic Writing:
absent

Greek


Mnemonic Device:
unknown

The only surviving written records about Cappadocia are from the historians writing from outside Cappadocia either at the time of the kingdom or later. [1] Detailed information about the written records of Cappadocia cannot, therefore, be given.

[1]: Bowder, D. (ed.) (1982) Who was Who in the Greek World, 776 BC - 30 BC. Phaidon: Oxford. p171-172, 196


Information / Kinds of Written Documents

Religious Literature:
present

Temples present.


Practical Literature:
present

Lists Tables and Classification:
present

By government, traders etc.




Information / Money


Indigenous Coin:
present

Bronze coins were cast from the time of the early Cappadocian dynasts. [1] [2]

[1]: Iossif, P. P and Lorber, C. C. (2010) Hypaithros: A Numismatic Contribution to the Military History of Cappadocia. Historia, Band 59/4, Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart.

[2]: Simonetta, B. (1977) The Coins of the Cappadocian Kings. Fribourg: Office du Livre.



Information / Postal System

General Postal Service:
unknown


Information / Measurement System

Warfare Variables (Military Technologies)
Fortifications

Stone Walls Non Mortared:
unknown

Stone Walls Mortared:
present

When Byzantine generals later campaigned against the Turks they used the earthquake-ruined wall of Cappadocia (Caesarea) as a fortified camp. [1]

[1]: (Van Dam 2003, 189) Raymond Van Dam. 2003, Becoming Christian: The Conversion of Roman Cappadocia. University of Pennsylvania Press. Philadelphia.


Settlements in a Defensive Position:
unknown

Modern Fortification:
absent

gunpowder not used



Fortified Camp:
present

“Assuming that hypaithrou and Tyana also designate intended users, the coins attest to a disposition of troops both in Tyana’s famous fortress and outside the city in a strategic encampment.” [1]

[1]: Iossif, P. P and Lorber, C. C. (2010) Hypaithros: A Numismatic Contribution to the Military History of Cappadocia. Historia, Band 59/4, Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart. p445





Military use of Metals

Inferred, based on presence in the contemporary Pontic kingdom. [1] [2]

[1]: McGing, B. C. (1986) The foreign policy of Mithridates VI Eupator, King of Pontus. Leiden: Brill.

[2]: Erciyas, D. B. (2006) Wealth, Aristocracy and Royal Propaganda under the Hellenistic Kingdom of the Mithradatids. Colloquia Pontica: Brill, Leiden, Boston.


Projectiles


Many ancient armies used slingers. Vulnerable to counter-attacks, slinger units were usually small and used at the start of the battle. Because of the training required to produce and effective slinger they were often hired mercenaries. [1] “Inscribed sling bullets provide a better parallel to the coinage we are studying. Sling bullets are often inscribed with a personal name, either in the nominative or in the genitive.” [2]

[1]: (Gabriel 2002, 31) Richard A Gabriel. 2002. The Great Armies of Antiquity. Praeger. Westport.

[2]: Iossif, P. P and Lorber, C. C. (2010) Hypaithros: A Numismatic Contribution to the Military History of Cappadocia. Historia, Band 59/4, Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart. p444


Inferred, based on the presence of the bow in the contemporary Pontic kingdom. [1] "Composite bows are known from both Mesopotamia and the Great Steppe from the III millennium BCE. The Scythian bow was different from the Mesopotamian one primarily in its overall dimensions - it was smaller so that it could be used from the horseback. At the same time, self bows were also in use, but because of their large size they were not suitable for use by horse riders." [2] Bows were used by the Greeks and Romans but they didn’t place much emphasis on the bow as a weapon preferring instead infantry combat. [3]

[1]: McGing, B. C. (1986) The foreign policy of Mithridates VI Eupator, King of Pontus. Leiden: Brill. p95

[2]: Sergey A Nefedov, RAN Institute of History and Archaeology, Yekaterinburg, Russia. Personal Communication to Peter Turchin. January 2018.

[3]: (Gabriel 2002, 29) Richard A Gabriel. 2002. The Great Armies of Antiquity. Praeger. Westport.


Handheld Firearm:
absent

not invented yet


Gunpowder Siege Artillery:
absent

not invented yet


Likely in some form?: "the hand-held crossbow was invented by the Chinese, in the fifth century BC, and probably came into the Roman world in the first century AD, where it was used for hunting." [1] The crossbow also developed after the Syracuse Greek Dionysios I invented a form of crossbow called the gastraphetes in 399 BCE. [2]

[1]: (Nicholson 2004, 99) Helen Nicholson. 2004. Medieval Warfare: Theory and Practice of War in Europe, 300-1500. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke.

[2]: (Keyser and Irby-Massie 2006, 260) Paul T Keyser. Georgia Irby-Massie. Science, Medicine, And Technology. Glenn R Bugh. ed. 2006. The Cambridge Companion to the Hellenistic World. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.


Composite Bow:
present

"Composite bows are known from both Mesopotamia and the Great Steppe from the III millennium BCE. The Scythian bow was different from the Mesopotamian one primarily in its overall dimensions - it was smaller so that it could be used from the horseback. At the same time, self bows were also in use, but because of their large size they were not suitable for use by horse riders." [1] Bows were used by the Greeks and Romans but they didn’t place much emphasis on the bow as a weapon preferring instead infantry combat. [2]

[1]: Sergey A Nefedov, RAN Institute of History and Archaeology, Yekaterinburg, Russia. Personal Communication to Peter Turchin. January 2018.

[2]: (Gabriel 2002, 29) Richard A Gabriel. 2002. The Great Armies of Antiquity. Praeger. Westport.


New World weapon


Handheld weapons

Inferred, based on the presence of swords in the contemporary Pontic kingdom [1] , and the battles which Cappadocia fought in. "All armies after the seventeenth century B.C.E. carried the sword, but in none was it a major weapon of close combat; rather, it was used when the soldier’s primary weapons, the spear and axe, were lost or broken." [2]

[1]: McGing, B. C. (1986) The foreign policy of Mithridates VI Eupator, King of Pontus. Leiden: Brill.

[2]: (Gabriel 2002, 26-27) Richard A Gabriel. 2002. The Great Armies of Antiquity. Praeger. Westport.


Spear-using phalanx first used in Sumer 2500 BCE. The phalanx was in use until the 1st century BCE. [1]

[1]: (Gabriel 2002, 25) Richard A Gabriel. 2002. The Great Armies of Antiquity. Praeger. Westport.


Animals used in warfare

Horsemen are depicted on coins from the early Cappadocian dynasts [1]

[1]: Iossif, P. P and Lorber, C. C. (2010) Hypaithros: A Numismatic Contribution to the Military History of Cappadocia. Historia, Band 59/4, Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart. p432


Armor

Inferred, based on presence in the contemporary Pontic kingdom. [1] [2]

[1]: McGing, B. C. (1986) The foreign policy of Mithridates VI Eupator, King of Pontus. Leiden: Brill.

[2]: Erciyas, D. B. (2006) Wealth, Aristocracy and Royal Propaganda under the Hellenistic Kingdom of the Mithradatids. Colloquia Pontica: Brill, Leiden, Boston.


Plate Armor:
present

By 600 BCE early Greeks and Romans had introduced the bronze cast bell muscle cuirass. [1]

[1]: (Gabriel 2002, 21) Richard A Gabriel. 2002. The Great Armies of Antiquity. Praeger. Westport.


Limb Protection:
present

By the time of ’Etruscan Rome’ (400 BCE?) - here I believe the author is referring to ancient armies in general - "bronze greaves to protect the shins and forearms of the soldier were standard items of military equipment." [1]

[1]: (Gabriel and Metz 1991, 51) Richard A Gabriel. Karen S Metz. 1991. The Military Capabilities of Ancient Armies. Greenwood Press. Westport.


Leather Cloth:
present

Inferred, based on presence in the contemporary Pontic kingdom. [1] [2]

[1]: McGing, B. C. (1986) The foreign policy of Mithridates VI Eupator, King of Pontus. Leiden: Brill.

[2]: Erciyas, D. B. (2006) Wealth, Aristocracy and Royal Propaganda under the Hellenistic Kingdom of the Mithradatids. Colloquia Pontica: Brill, Leiden, Boston.


Laminar Armor:
unknown

Possible. Already introduced by the Assyrians.


Inferred, based on presence in the contemporary Pontic kingdom. [1] [2]

[1]: McGing, B. C. (1986) The foreign policy of Mithridates VI Eupator, King of Pontus. Leiden: Brill.

[2]: Erciyas, D. B. (2006) Wealth, Aristocracy and Royal Propaganda under the Hellenistic Kingdom of the Mithradatids. Colloquia Pontica: Brill, Leiden, Boston.


Chainmail:
unknown

Iron chain mail not introduced until the third century BCE, probably by Celtic peoples. [1] May have reached Cappadocia by this time.

[1]: (Gabriel 2002, 21) Richard A Gabriel. 2002. The Great Armies of Antiquity. Praeger. Westport.


Breastplate:
present

Inferred, based on presence in the contemporary Pontic kingdom. [1] [2]

[1]: McGing, B. C. (1986) The foreign policy of Mithridates VI Eupator, King of Pontus. Leiden: Brill.

[2]: Erciyas, D. B. (2006) Wealth, Aristocracy and Royal Propaganda under the Hellenistic Kingdom of the Mithradatids. Colloquia Pontica: Brill, Leiden, Boston.


Naval technology
Specialized Military Vessel:
absent

Inferred, as Cappadocia is landlocked.


Small Vessels Canoes Etc:
absent

Inferred, as Cappadocia is landlocked.


Merchant Ships Pressed Into Service:
absent

Inferred, as Cappadocia is landlocked.



Human Sacrifice Data
Human Sacrifice is the deliberate and ritualized killing of a person to please or placate supernatural entities (including gods, spirits, and ancestors) or gain other supernatural benefits.
- Nothing coded yet.
- Nothing coded yet.
Power Transitions
- Nothing coded yet.