The Last Years of the Reign of the Bosporan King Fofors in the Context of the Internal Political Struggle in the Roman Empire during the Tetrarchy

Yartsev Sergey Vladimirovich Doctor of History Associate Professor, Department of History and Archeology, Tula State Pedagogical University named after L.N.Tolstoy 300026, Russia, Tula region, Tula, Prospekt Lenina str., 125 s-yartsev.@yandex.ru Other publications by this author

The study of the Bosporan Kingdom during the reign of King Fofors is a serious problem of historical science. The main reason for the difficulties is the lack of sources for the specified period, known mainly from numismatic data. At the same time, Fofors' monetary affairs have been studied quite thoroughly, which is a positive point when referring to the time of his reign ^{[13, pp. 211-212; 2, pp. 126-128; 25, pp. 75-111; 27, pp. 323-365]}. However, even a detailed study of the coin business of the said tsar cannot make up for the almost complete absence of written sources on this most difficult period of the history of the Bosporan Kingdom. At the same time, the most difficult problem to solve is the last years of the reign of Fofors, when the Bosporan king lost or ceded power to another pretender to the throne – Radamsad. Unfortunately, the details of all these events have not reached us, which is why there is still no unified point of view on this final stage of Fofors' reign. Based on a scrupulous analysis of all available data, some scientists believe that at this time there was a destabilization of the internal situation, the activation of Roman policy in the region, the restriction of the power of the Bosporan king, which, in the end, he could not hold ^{[35, p. 101-103; 15, p. 223; 14, p. 156; 4, pp. 36-38; 5, p. 66]}.  Other researchers suggest paying attention to the fact that the sources that have come down to us do not directly speak about the struggle of Fofors with Rome and there is no reason to associate with this king the war of the "Bosporan Scythians" with the Romans, known from a number of sources ^{[25, pp. 92-93; 30, pp. 124-125]}. Nevertheless, none of the scientists has yet made a comparison of the Bosporan events of this time with the internal and external collisions of the Roman Empire during the tetrarchy period. It is possible that this approach will help to reveal unknown pages of the Bosporan history of the time of King Fofors.  

We have already said that the elevation of a man with the Iranian name Fofors to the Bosporan throne in 285 was most likely directly related to Diocletian, who supported his protege ^{[30, pp. 139-140]}. Nevertheless, the analysis of the Fofors coin business, even in such a favorable environment for the development of the state, testifies to internal cataclysms and the struggle of the Bosporan tsar with some unknown contenders for the throne. Moreover, in the course of this struggle, apparently, the Bosporan tsar repeatedly lost the capital, trying to establish the issue of his coins in peripheral centers ^{[27, pp. 333-348]}. At the present moment, the only explanation that reveals the secret of these mysterious enemies of the Bosporan king is the hypothesis of A.R. Strizhak, which is based on the mystery of the origin of the Fofors itself. The researcher proceeded from the fact that Fofors was a representative of the Alans from the region of the Central Caucasus ^{[31, p. 45]}. At the same time, the presence of a tamga in this king clearly testifies in favor of the aristocracy of his family ^{[27, p. 333]}, possibly dating back to the circle of representatives of the nobility of Sasanian Iran. However, in this case, in order to occupy the royal throne, it was necessary to fulfill a number of conditions: to belong to a certain family, to perform the rite of sacred marriage with the goddess of fire and hearth Tabiti and become the owner of the charisma of the kingdom – farn. Consequently, if at least one of these conditions was impossible for Fofors, then his legitimacy as a royal person could be challenged by various detractors, including even relatives ^{[24, pp. 32-33]}. In turn, the fact that the power of this king on the Bosporus continued to hold only due to the support of the emperor Diocletian explains such an insistent desire of the enemies of the Bosporan king to remove him from the throne.

Nevertheless, Diocletian's help did not become lifelong for Fofors.  By establishing a tetrarchy, dividing the state into four parts and appointing Gaius Galerius and Constantius Chlorus as Caesars in 293, the emperor indicated his imminent renunciation of power by 305 ^{[33, p. 264-265; 18, p. 38-45]}. In other words, the order of rule established in the empire by four rulers at once: two Augustans (Diocletian and Maximian) and two Caesars (Constantius I Chlorus and Gaius Galerius), did not bode well for Fofors. After 20 years, that is, by 305, the Augustans had to abdicate and transfer power to their Caesars, who took their place. The new Augustans then began to look for the next Caesars, focusing on the merits and professionalism of people from their environment ^{[9, pp. 231-232]}. Consequently, if Fofors really was a protege of Diocletian, then it was in 305 that his support by the emperor had to stop. However, the latter, most likely, was curtailed even earlier, due to the fact that Diocletian retired from public affairs, even before his abdication, because he was "struck by a difficult illness that drove him to insanity, so that he, along with the second place after him, descended into the life of a citizen and a private person" (Eus. Hist. Eccl., VIII, 13). Thus, even the shattered health of Diocletian could serve as a signal for the ill-wishers of the Bosporan king to begin military operations against the latter. It is curious, but since 303/304, judging by the analysis of numismatic material, for some reason, the possibility of minting their coins has been sharply narrowed for Fofors. At this time, only one remains to work, and the non-capital emission center ^{[27, p. 353]}. Moreover, it was from this time until 308/309, the end of his reign, that a steady reduction in the specified emission of this tsar began to be recorded ^{[35, p. 101-103; 1, p. 58]}. Perhaps this was due precisely to the loss of Fofors control over the capital of the state in 304. This could well happen after receiving verified information about the incapacity of Diocletian, who ruled out prompt assistance to his protege on the Bosporan throne. At the same time, the situation worsened the following year with the final abdication of the emperor from power. However, the opponents of the tsar, as follows from the coin issues of Fofors, failed to completely deprive the latter of power and establish the monetary issue of their coins already.

Usually, to clarify the situation in the state of the last years of the reign of Tsar Fofors, data from two inscriptions KBN No. 64 and 1051 are attracted. We will try to do it too. In the first inscription – dedication to "God the Most High", the governor of Theodosius Aurelius Valerius, the venerable "Diocletian and Maximian", "who was absent for a long time and remained in a foreign land for 16 years and experienced many troubles, built a prayer house from the foundation in 603" (KBN 64). Considering that the inscription was found in Kerch, it is obvious that the Bosporan, who passed a long Roman service, after returning to his homeland, was honored for his merits with the high position of governor of Feodosia, after which in 306 he built a chapel in Panticapea for his money ^{[20, pp. 48-49]}. The fact of construction work on the construction of the chapel, clearly indicates that at this time on the European Bosporus, no fighting was conducted, and Fofors, accordingly, was able to regain control of the capital of the state. Nevertheless, the absence of the tsar's name in the inscription of 306 definitely indicates the strengthening of Bosporus' dependence on Rome during the period when Diocletian and Maximian had already renounced power ^{[20, p. 48; 5, p. 66]}. Consequently, the necessary assistance to the Bosporan king Fofors, who was in a difficult situation, was provided by the new Augustus of the East – Galerius. It is obvious that the latter claimed the role of the elder Augustus, because it was he who insisted that the sick Diocletian resign and independently choose a new Caesar ^{[8, pp. 278-280]}.

Nevertheless, it is unlikely that Galerius' assistance to the Bosporan king implied the annexation by Rome of part of the Bosporan territory, for example, the same region of Feodosia. Although such thoughts suggest themselves based on the analysis of the above text of KBN 64 ^{[16, p. 15]}. However, the fact that the governor of a remote region, not only had no obstacles to erecting a religious building in the capital of his state, but also sought to do so himself, does not allow us to agree with the rejection of Feodosia from the Bosporus at this time. The absence of the name of the Bosporan king in the dedicatory inscription is probably better explained by the reasons that researchers have long drawn attention to. Probably, the position of Fofors was so unstable and so heavily dependent on Roman aid that it was advantageous for major officials and authorities to demonstrate their connection with the empire rather than with a weak king ^{[20, p. 49]}. It is obvious that Fofors under Galerius was even more dependent on the Roman Empire than it was under Diocletian. However, in this case, any internal or foreign policy conflict in the state, distracting the emperor Galerius from affairs on the northern periphery of the Roman world, could push the opponents of the Bosporan king to another attempt to deprive the Roman protege of power. There is every reason to think that this is exactly what happened.

The fact is that literally the next year after Fofors supposedly regained control of the capital, the situation in the empire for Galerius became dramatically more complicated. As we have already said, after the rejection of the power of Diocletian and Maximian, Constantius I Chlorus and Galerius became Augustans, and Severus II and Maximin II Daza (Galerius' nephew) were appointed Caesars. However, with such a distribution of power in the state, Maximian was bypassed, whose son Maxentius never received Caesar. In addition, this situation was complicated by a number of other circumstances. Firstly, Constantius died at that time and Galerius appointed Severus as the new Augustus, and Constantius' son, Constantine, became Caesar ^{[8, p. 281]}. Secondly, Maxentius, finally deprived, decided to start his game by proclaiming himself Augustus in Rome in October 306. He skillfully used people's discontent with Diocletian's tax reform and Severus' decision to disband the Praetorian Guard ^{[8, p. 281]}. At the same time, he managed to repel the invasion first of the North, then of Galerius himself ^{[9, p. 251]}. However, in order to entice to his side the soldiers of the North who had approached Rome, who had previously fought under Maximian, he had to send his father the insignia of imperial greatness. As a result, in February 307, Maximian really returned to power and again assumed the title of Augustus. However, he failed to win over his son's soldiers to his side and, eventually, he was sent to Gaul to Constantine ^{[9, p. 242]}. The army that invaded Italy turned out to be very demoralized, which is why the North had to flee. Nevertheless, he was still captured by Maxentius, in which he soon died ^{[8, p. 282]}. Due to mass desertion, Galerius, who approached Italy in 307, was forced to retreat. The situation was not corrected by the peace negotiations initiated by August, which were supposed to save Galerius' face and ensure his dignified return home ^{[7, pp. 594-596]}. Thus, after the death of the North, it actually lost its last support in the west (Zosim., II, 9; Lactant. De mort. Persecute., XXIII–XXVII; Aurel. Victor. De Caes., XL–XLI; Eutrop. Brev., X) ^{[9, p. 251; 8, p. 282; 37, p. 346-348; 36, p. 86-88; 34, p. 63-64]}.

All this new round of turbulent events that took place on the territory of the Western part of the Roman Empire, of course, distracted Galerius' attention from the Northern Black Sea region and the Bosporan Kingdom in particular. Consequently, Fofors' enemies simply could not not use this circumstance to seize power on Bosporus. In this regard, of particular interest is the fact that it was in 307 that a sharp aggravation of the situation was again recorded on the Bosporus, possibly connected with both an external threat and internal troubles. So, on one of the tombstone steles made of white marble found near Taman, the following text has been preserved: "To Marcus Aurelius Andronicus, the son of Papp, the former governor of the royal residence ... and his son Alexarfus, lohagus, the archons of Agrippia and Caesarea (set) this stele for the sake of honor. 603, 25 Artemisia. Goodbye passersby" (KBN 1051). Translated by V.P.Yaylenko, this text reads as follows: "M (arch) Aurelius Andronicus, the son of Papp, the former governor of the royal lands, the commander of the horsemen and centurion (?), as well as his son Alexart, the lochagus of the Agrippeans, the archons of Caesarea placed this stele for the sake of honor in the year 603, the month of Artemisia on the 25th day" ^{[28, pp. 292-293]}. The pro-Roman character of the inscription is beyond doubt. Judging by the name of Aleksart's father, Marcus Aurelius Andronicus, he was a man who not only belonged to the highest Bosporan aristocracy, but also had Roman citizenship, which he apparently received under Marcus Aurelius, or Commodus ^{[12, p. 251]}. Moreover, the "Romanophile" names of Panticapaeum and Phanagoria in the inscription of 307 are difficult to explain in any other way, except as an open demonstration of the full loyalty of the Bosporan ruling circles to Rome ^{[6, p. 459; 3, p. 248; 4, p. 38]}. Even if the Roman names of the main Bosporan cities have already to some extent taken root in the living language practice of local residents ^{[21, pp. 160-162; 11, pp. 165, approx. 69]}, curtsies towards Rome in combination with the factor of "forgetfulness" of the name of the Bosporan king ^{[20, p. 49]}, clearly indicate the pro-Roman orientation of these people. It is obvious that these representatives of the Bosporan elite, for some reason, opposed the current tsar, whose activities, at least, were dissatisfied with ^{[27, p. 333]}. This should not be surprising, because it is obvious that the father and son died simultaneously during the military operations of 307 ^{[28, p. 292]}, which, one way or another, affected the Bosporan king Fofors. Given that Caesarea was most likely called Panticapaeum, both officers, father and son, died on the European side of the Bosporus in the fighting near the capital. Therefore, it is logical to assume that they suffered defending the city from the attack of the surrounding barbarians ^{[1, p. 62]}. However, this does not explain the absence of the name of the Bosporan king against the background of curtsies towards Rome in the indicated inscription. Moreover, there is another feature associated with this inscription, which further confuses its interpretation. The fact is that on the marble slab immediately below the last letters of the text there is a tamga, but not a Fofors scheme, but a completely different type. At the same time, there is no doubt about the fair conclusion of E.I. Solomonik that this sign is directly related to the specified inscription and therefore was applied simultaneously with it ^{[23, pp. 74-75, No. 30]}. It is curious, but a similar type of tamg is recorded in the area of Tanais ^{[31, p. 156, fig. 6, No. 37; p. 169, fig. 19, No. 17]} and therefore correlates well with the old allies of the Romans – the late Sarmatians, some of whose representatives, at one time, were organized in Tanais in equal with the Hellenic community ^{[29, pp. 174-189]}. Most likely, it was with these representatives of the late Sarmatians that the Bosporan kings Savromat II, Reskuporid II, and Kotis III were related. In any case, the upper parts of their royal signs ^{[31, pp. 50-54]}, connected with the so-called Sarmatian tridens ^{[29, p. 175]}, belong exactly to the same type as the sign from the inscription of 307. However, here we must also take into account the fact that in the second half of the III century A.D. in the lower reaches of the Tanais there appeared some immigrants from the Pre-Caucasus, who successfully integrated into the local Sarmatian environment and later became known as the Alans-Tanais ^{[26, p. 149]}.

In this regard, taking into account all the circumstances associated with this monument, it would be more correct to assume that the commander of the horsemen and centurion Marcus Aurelius Andronicus and his son, Lohag Agrippeytsev, Alexart were high-ranking representatives of the opposition to the Bosporan tsar ^{[24, p. 32]}, possibly being descendants of the very Tanaites who, led by the archons, lived earlier in Tanais. It is possible that these officers were related to the representatives of the Sarmatian-Iranian royal dynasty who were removed from power, behind whom at the moment stood all the strength and power of the Sarmatian-Alan grouping of the Lower Don. Consequently, Marcus Aurelius Andronicus and his son Alexartes were directly related to the struggle against Fofors, and not to the defense of the Bosporan king. If this is the case, then the inscription of 307 most likely records the new order established on the Bosporus by the Emperor Galerius. It was required on the basis of the ongoing struggle of two political groups on the Bosporus ^{[19, p. 19]}, which was most likely based on the categorical non-recognition by part of the representatives of the Sarmatian world of the legitimacy of the tsarist power of Fofors ^{[24, p. 32]}. Fofors himself, being a native of the Alan environment of the Pre-Caucasus, apparently relied exclusively on the North Caucasian clans related to him. The tsar's attempt to enlist the support of Galerius, as before Diocletian, was unsuccessful due to the powerful opposition of the part of the Bosporan nobility hostile to him. The emperor's organization of autonomous civil communities on the Bosporus ^{[22, p. 579]}, based on the opponents of the tsar focused on Rome, in our opinion, was the best way out of the situation. In fact, by granting significant privileges and freedoms to the civil communities (Hellenic and Barbarian) of the capital cities, a certain compromise was reached between the two opposing forces in the state. Consequently, the power of Fofors, under the pressure of the Romans, was indeed seriously limited and thereby put under control ^{[16, p. 15]}.

Nevertheless, the main line of confrontation in society between representatives of the late Sarmatian nobility (who have now become Alans-Tanaites) and those who appeared not so long ago on the Bosporus from the Alan environment of the North Caucasus, has not been eliminated. Perhaps this is the reason for the mention in the inscription of the governor of the royal residence of Marcus Aurelius Andronicus as a former manager, who may have suffered during the political intrigues of his enemies. However, at the time of the weakening of Roman control over the region, this hidden internal confrontation quickly acquired the character of an open armed struggle, in which, apparently, high-ranking officers from the inscription of 307 died. Their burial at the expense of the Roman-oriented civil community, as well as the mention in this honorary inscription of the archons of Caesarea, against the background of the fundamental disregard in the text of Fofors, seem to indicate that at a time when Galerius was busy with affairs in the west, the Bosporan king again lost the capital city. This is consistent with the conclusion of M.M.Choref, who, based on the analysis of numismatic material, suggested that the Bosporan king at this period apparently did not control the capital, being somewhere in the North Caucasian steppes, but, nevertheless, continued to issue coins from some non-metropolitan center ^{[27, pp. 353-357]}.

It is not known how long such a confrontation on the Bosporus would have lasted. But it seems that the final point in this dispute between the two groups of contenders for supreme power in the state was put by another crisis in Rome. In terms of its importance and the coverage of the territories affected by it, the new internal conflict simply could not ignore the Bosporus. The fact is that the son of Galerius' sister, Maximin II Daza, who received the title of Caesar and betrothed his youngest daughter to Galerius' son, was not too happy with his fate as ruler of the eastern provinces and Egypt. Apparently, he was counting on the title of Augustus, which his uncle was to grant him in the near future. However, at a meeting in Carnuntum in 308, where all the recognized rulers of the Roman Empire gathered, Galerian appointed his comrade–in-arms, Licinius, as Augustus. Galerius tried to extinguish the discontent of Daz and Constantine with the newly invented title of "sons of Augustus", but nothing came of it (Lactant. De mort. Persecute., XXIX; Zosim., II, 10; Aurel. Victor. De Caes., 39–40; Eutrop. Brev., X, 4) ^{[9, p. 271; 36, p. 80-86, 90-92; 37, p. 347-351; 32, p. 91-92]}.  Maximin II Daza immediately began to plot against his uncle, which he carried out in 310, relying partly on the recruited troops. During the campaign against the Sassanids, he openly proclaimed himself Augustus. At the same time, he had enough military forces, after the death of his uncle in 311, to quickly occupy the whole of Asia Minor and prevent Licinius from crossing the Strait to the east  The Bosphorus ^{[9, p. 271]}. Considering that Galerius had been seriously ill with prostate cancer in recent years and was increasingly moving away from state affairs ^{[8, pp. 283-284]}, including from organizing assistance to the king of Bosporus, it is possible that already during this period Maximin himself tried to enlist the support of some regional rulers. In our opinion, on Bosporus it could only be those forces that controlled the capital and opposed Fofors, that is, representatives of the old Sarmatian-Iranian dynastic line. Earlier we have already suggested that the new Bosporan king Radamsad was most likely a protege of Maximin II Daza ^{[30, pp. 159-160]}. Perhaps, indeed, it was this pretender to the supreme power in the Bosporan state, who was the main representative of this dynasty and the main opponent of Fofors. In any case, epigraphic sources indicate that the people who bore the Iranian-language names with the root p came from the Tanais or the surrounding Sarmatian-Alanian tribes ^{[17, p. 71]}. Moreover, the huge treasure buried on the necropolis of Phanagoria in the period from autumn 307 to autumn 308 ^{[1, p. 63]} was most likely connected with these events.  Probably at this time, Fofors, relying on the Alans loyal to him, attacking the Bosporus territory from the east, tried to regain the capital. Although the fugitive Bosporan tsar continued to issue his staters in the following year 308/309 (605 BC – the last issue of the monetary issue of this ruler), but this happened again in the non-capital center. Unfortunately, the details of this final power struggle remain unknown to us. Since 309/310 (606 BC), the new king Radamsad (309-322) begins minting his coins ^{[25, pp. 112-113]}. It is significant that his political guidelines differed sharply from the previous tsar. With the accession of Radamsad to Bosporan coins, instead of the Alan tamga and sometimes a trident (most likely reflecting the cult of Tagimasad within the framework of the royal ideology of the Iranian tribes ^{[10, pp. 494-495]}), a stable image of the mace of Hercules returned, associated as with the cult of this hero, whose descendants the Bosporan kings Reskuporid II, Savromat I, Kotis II, Reskuporid III ^{[25, pp. 157-158]}, and with the cult of imperial might and valor ^{[17, pp. 65, 72-73]}. All this indirectly testifies to the return of the old Sarmatian-Iranian dynasty to power on the Bosporus and, accordingly, the change of orientation of the highest elite of the state to other political forces in Rome.  

Thus, the last years of the Bosporan king Fofors clearly demonstrate to us the strengthening of the influence of the Roman Empire on the northern periphery of the ancient world. Now virtually any conflict in the internal life of the empire of the tetrarchy period, to one degree or another, exerted its influence on the course of the history of the Bosporan state. At the same time, the most active events that took place on the territory of Rome affected the political struggle of two opposing factions for supreme power in the Bosporan kingdom. In this confrontation, the Bosporan king of Alan origin, Fofors, successfully resisted his opponents for quite a long time. However, after Diocletian, he could not achieve the same powerful support from Galerius. This determined the imminent fall of his royal power on the Bosporus.  

You can simply select and copy link from below text field.