第1次ミトリダテス戦争期におけるギリシア都市の政治潮流について : 小アジアを中心として

In 89 B C, the First Mithridatic War began in Asia Minor between Rome and Pontus It was difficult for either nation to gain a victory without the broad support of the Greek city-states and the native Asians This paper will elucidate the political attitudes of the city-states in Asia Minor to the Roman and Pontic soldiers Attention will be focused on the attitudinal trends of the populations of the cities, and, in particular, the social and political situations deciding these attitudes will be explained With the advance of Pontic army, cities and individuals were pressed to decide whether to support or oppose the anti-Roman uprising led by Mithridates, king of Pontus The widely held belief is that upper class citizens were inclined to support the Romans in order to maintain their privileges while the dominated and exploited lower classes were pro-Mithridatic It would, however, be a mistake to suggest that the entire upper and lower classes determined their respective attitudes by some unanimous consent Indeed, it was difficult for upper class leaders to choose between two great countries such as Rome and Pontus, or to know which would eventually be more favorable for their future prosperity Thus, the only way was to act flexibly in a real political situation An incident at Ephesus was a typical example The Ephesians who had initially supported Mithridates later accused him of being an aggressor when the war began to develop favorably for Rome, and they rose in a revolt against Pontus which then spread to many other cities On the other hand, when the upper class citizens recognized the overwhelming victory of Mithndates, some responded to the situation by becoming anti-Roman Still others watched the changing situation in silence Only the lower class might have been cosistently anti-Roman Mithridates was essentially a despotic monarch and indifferent to the tradition of liberty and autonomy of the Greek city-states He himself embodied a contradiction Had he not been a tyrant, he would not have been able to take command of a great war against Rome Yet, as a tyrant, he could not deny his exploitation of the cities and the Asian people Only when he pursued the cities' interest and covered up his essential despotic nature did both the upper and lower class citizens support him and rush into the anti-Roman movement And yet, when the situation changed again and Mithridates' true nature showed itself, these same cities were compelled to leave him In this way, the attitudes of the cities, representing the collective will of the upper and the lower classes, responded to his contradictory nature