The impact of the Galatians in Asia Minor

By Javier Girona Martinez

In order to understand Asia Minor and the consequences of the Galatian settlement in this

area we need to look at various aspects and regions within what is now modern Turkey. We

also need to look at the Galatians as a group and their arrival to Greece and Asia Minor.

According to Murat Arslan, the Celts originated in the area of South Germany at around the

second millennium BC and started expanding southwards, into countries such as Austria and

France. Murat tells us that these Celts appear as mercenaries in the Greek world from around

the 4th century BC onwards.1

Rolf Strootman said that the Celts invaded Greece in 280 - 279 BC, arriving until Delphi, and

attacking the shrine. These “barbarians” were seeing as a threat to the Greek world, the

civilised world. This attack generated a general view that the Hellenic civilisation was threat-

ened by the arrival of these barbarians, “who came from the dark edge of the earth to strike

without warning at the centre of civilisation”2 . The battle between the Celts and the Greeks

was won by the latter. This victory was seeing as a victory of the civilised world against

chaos. An attack to such an important shrine was seen as an attack to the Panhellenic world.

Strootman explains that “cities throughout the Greek World made thank-offerings to Apollo

1 Arslan M. “The impact of the Galatians in Asia Minor.” Page 41.

2Strootman R. “Kings against Celts: deliverance from barbarians as a theme in Hellenistic royal propaganda.”
Page 1.

"1
and Zeus and sent sacred ambassadors to Delphi”3. The date of victory was turned into a fes-

tivity. The festival of Soteria was inaugurated.

According to Murat Arslan, the arrival of these groups of Celts to Anatolia goes back to 278

- 277 BC and it “was undertaken by several tribes, the ToIistobogii, Tectosages and Trocmi,

that had at first entered Macedonia” 4. Jacopo Santoro wrote that the invasion of Asia Minor

by the Galatians happened on 278 BC. These Celts had been at Thrace and the Hellespont

first but apparently these areas did not suffice them. Altay Coskum wrote that 20,000 war-

riors “defected from the much larger following of the Celtic king Brennus, who was just

about to invade central Greece,” 5 and in one year arrived to the walls of Byzantium. They

tried to take the city and failed, so they plundered the area of Thrace and crossed the Helle-

spont with stolen boats. Michel M. Austin wrote that the Galatians fought against Byzantium

but the latter managed to hold their attacks6.

They then took advantage of the unstable relations happening among the various Anatolian

kingdoms. Altay Coskum tells us that the Galatians arrived in Anatolia just “three years after

Seleucus I had extended his rule over most of Asia Minor in the battle of Corupedium (281

BC)”7. At the time of their arrival, Antiochus I was trying to establish order in the area, so the

Galatians arrival happened when Asia Minor was still recovering from internal instability and

3Stootman R. “Kings against Celts: deliverance from barbarians as a theme in Hellenistic royal propaganda.”
Page 10.
4 Arslan M. “The impact of Galatians in Asia Minor.” Page 42.
5 Coskum A. “Galatians and Seleucids: a Century of Conflict and Cooperation.” Page 87.
6 Austin M. M. “The Hellenistic world from Alexander to the Roman conquest : a selection of ancient sources in
translation.” Page 291.
7 Coskum A. “Galatians and Seleucids: a Century of Conflict and Cooperation.” Page 85.

"2
when the regions were in a process of reorganisation. Michel Austin wrote that Asia Minor

had been under the control by Antigonos and then Lysimachos, and was therefore a recent

acquisition from the Seleukids. However, the area remained a constant source of difficulties

despite intensive efforts by various rulers to take control.8

King Nicomedes I of Bithynia recruited some “Celtic leaders as allies in his war against his

brother Zipoetes, who in turn was allied with the Seleukid king Antiochos I”9. At the same

time, the Celts also reinforced “Mithridates’ dominance in Paphlagonia by defeating the

Ptolemaic army”10. Altay Coskum said that after the Celts were defeated at Delphi in 279

BC, “two remnant groups went to Asia in 278 b.c. and became allies of Nicomedes I of

Bithynia, while at least one other seems to have been hired by Mithridates I of Pontus soon

thereafter”11.

Thanks to the support offered to these two Anatolian leaders, the newly named Galatians,

“Celtic speaking dwellers of central Anatolia”12, were allowed to settle in Phrygia, a central

territory of Anatolia. Murat Arslan listed several important Anatolian cities such as “Pessinus

Gordium Ancyra (Ankara) and Tavium (modern Büyük Nefes Köyü)”13, which were occu-

pied by the Galatians. Altay Coskum explains that among the Galatians were the Tolisto-

8 Austin M. “The Seleukids and Asia.” Page 122.

9Strootman R. “Kings against Celts: deliverance from barbarians as a theme in Hellenistic royal propaganda.”
Page 15.
10 Arslan M. “The impact of the Galatians in Asia Minor.” Page 43.

11 Coskum A. “Deconstructing a myth of Seleucid history: The so-called “Elephant victory” revisited.” Page 57.
12 Coskum A. “Galatians and Seleucids: a Century of Conflict and Cooperation.” Page 86.
13 Arslan M. “The impact of the Galatians in Asia Minor.” Page 43.

"3
bogii, who took possession of the region of Gordium, the Tectosages, who controlled Ancyra

and the Trocmi, who controlled Tavium.

Stephen Mitchell wrote that Nikomedes struck a treaty with the Galatians, in which they be-

came allies. Nikomedes had then a fighting force capable of protecting the Northern Greek

cities and his territory from Seleukid threat.14 Karl Strobel wrote that the Galatians were im-

posed in Anatolia to the local kingdoms of Phrygia and Cappadocia. Anatolian kingdoms

“fierce rivalries required a continuous supply of soldiers, but also caused the death or disloca-

tion of countless peasants” 15. In my opinion, the Northern League, Bithynia and Pontus main-

ly, initially needed some manpower for dealing with their internal conflicts and external

threats, and the Celts were an opportunity to have extra men for war, especially when so

many casualties had reduced the peasant population. This context gave the opportunity for the

Galatians to settle in Asia Minor.

The setting of the Galatians in the area opened up a new era. According to this author, the

new settlers“looted every region they passed, constructing an image of a population to whom

money was of the greatest value and who lived from plundering and levying blackmail from

local rulers in order not to plunder the surrounding cities”16. The state of Galatia had been

created by arrangement between the local Anatolian kingdoms, who were apprehensive of

these new comers whom could menace their safety. John Ma wrote that the Attalid kingdom

14 Mitchell S. “The Galatians: representation and reality.” Page 288.

15 Coskum A. “Galatians and Seleucids: a Century of Conflict and Cooperation.” Page 103.
16 Arslan M. “The impact of the Galatians in Asia Minor.” Page 44.

"4
“interacted with the Galatians, through warfare and through tribute”17. Ma stated that Galatia

was a constant threat to the Attalid kingdom, just as the Seleukid kingdom. Philetairos, dynast

of Pergamon, “is said by an epigram of unclear date to have driven the Galatians beyond his

borders”18. I will come back to the relationship between the Attalid kingdom and the Gala-

tians, for now just to say that they were a constant threat to local Anatolian kingdoms.

Stephen Mitchell explains that the terror the Galatians inflicted on the regions of Asia Minor

is documented in a series of inscriptions from the 270s, before the Galatians settled in the re-

gion.19

If we now look at the Galatians’ means of production, Gareth Darbyshire et al wrote that ce-

real production and stock-raising were important activities developed by the Galatians, just as

other communities from the region had developed. Plunder and booty were therefore not the

only activities used by these settlers. Other resources in the region that were probably utilised

included “timber, salt, metals and slaves”20. These same authors stated that the Galatians had

to adapt to the resources and characteristics of the area and therefore, they made “few (if any)

radical and deep-seated alterations to the basic character of the pre-existing, and presumably

well-adapted, economies of the region.”21 A ruling elite might have obtained certain control

of the economy, trade and craft production in the area.

17 Ma J. “The Attalids: a military history.” Page 16.

18 Ma J. “The Attalids: a military history.” Page 3.
19 Mitchell S. “The Galatians: representation and reality.” Page 283.
20 Darbyshire G. et all. “The Galatian Settlement in Asia Minor.” Page 93.
21 Darbyshire G. et all. “The Galatian Settlement in Asia Minor.” Page 93.

"5
The characteristics listed above prove that the Galatians were not unsophisticated people that

lived mainly off plundering and booty and that they created social and economical forms of

living similar to the rest of kingdoms living in the area. Strabo described the Galatians as be-

ing three tribes, the Tolistobogii, the Trocmi and the Tectosages, which were divided into four

tetrarchies each, making a total of twelve tetrarchies22. Stephen Mitchell explains that the

Galatians were disciplined warriors with responsible and effective leaders.23 Their culture

originated as La Tene cultures from Europe, which expanded and as they moved on the

search for new lands, they created small specialised bands of warriors.

Gareth Darbyshire et al stated that Galatian ruling elite did use fortified residences and even

though they were capable of large-scale, well-organised co-operation and co-ordination

against a common enemy, there was aristocratic rivalry and divided loyalties were a notable

and typical feature of Galatian social organisation” 24. Altay Coskum wrote similarly to

Gareth Darbyshire et al, when he said that “a single group called “the Galatians” did not form

a political unity either in the 270s BC or at any time before their violent unification under

King Deiotarus in the mid-first century BC.”25

A process of Hellenisation also developed within Galatia with assimilation of Hellenic cul-

ture, and then with Roman culture. The fact that they managed to incorporate themselves in

22 Potchery S. “The Expression "Our Times" in Strabo's Geography.” Page 238.

23 Mitchell S. “The Galatians: representation and reality.” Page 288.
24 Darbyshire G. et all. “The Galatian Settlement in Asia Minor.” Page 93.
25 Coskum A. “Deconstructing a myth of Seleucid history: the so-called “elephant victory” revisited.” Page 59.

"6
the Roman empire proves a development of “social structures bound together by shared value

systems.”26

Coming back to the Galatian settlement in Asia Minor, it seems that the Galatians attacked

various places once they settled in Asia Minor. Altay Coskum writes that “Thyateira (before

the summer of 275 b.c.), Erythrae (in the 270s b.c.), Ephesus (undated and uncertain), Priene

(undated), Miletus (undated), and Didyma (277/76 b.c.), all suffered from barbarian, or more

specifically Galatian incursions”27. B. Bar-Kochva wrote that the infiltrations of the Gala-

tians in various regions of Asia Minor had “devastated effects on the western coast which

lasted for generations” 28.

Altay Coskum wrote that Antiochus “deflected the Galatian oppressions from the Greek

cities”29. Whether Antiochus defeated the Galatians on the “Elephant battle” or whether he

reached an agreement with some of the Galatian factions after the encounter is opened to dis-

cussion, as the article by Altay Coskum claims. However, there seemed to have been an en-

counter between some factions of the Galatians and Antiochus I troops and a settlement was

reached, in which the Galatians withdrew from the Ionian cities in the West coast of Anatolia.

In this battle Antiochus I might have been supported by the Attalid kingdom.

26 Darbyshire G. et all. “The Galatian Settlement in Asia Minor.” Page 95.

27 Coskum A.“Deconstructing a myth of Seleucid history: The so-called “Elephant victory” revisited.” Page 58.
28 Bar-Kochva B. “Devastated effects on western coast by the Galatians which lasted for generations.” Page 5.
29 Coskum A.“Deconstructing a myth of Seleucid history: The so-called “Elephant victory” revisited.” Page 95.

"7
Rolf Strootman wrote that Antiochus I used the elephant battle “to legitimise his kingship,

and took the title of Soter, apparently in a ritual on the battlefield in which he was crowned

victor by his troops”30. The king used the “Elephant battle” as royal propaganda against the

“barbarians” that threatened the Hellenistic world, just as at Delphi this propaganda had been

used by the Greeks. Gareth Darbyshire et all wrote that the Galatians “were viewed as a

threat to Hellenistic civic culture precisely as the Persian ‘barbarian' had been stylised into

the enemy par excellence of Classical Greece”31.

At the time of the “Elephant victory,” Antiochus I was involved in other conflicts with the

Ptolemies and over the control of the eastern borders. The arrival of the Galatians certainly

made the control of the Seleukid territory even harder. Hence why regions such as the Attalid

region played an essential role for the Seleukids and Asia Minor. Boris Chrubasic explains

that the treasure of Pergamon enabled Philetairos “to act as a local benefactor and provide

security in the wake of the arrival of the Galatians in Asia Minor.”32 The constant Galatian

threat could not be handled only by the Seleukids, and the support of a partner such as the

Attalids suited Antiochus I.

There seems to have been numerous encounters between the Galatians and the Asia Minor

regional kingdoms. The Galatians appeared in a great number of occasions as part of the Se-

leukid or other Anatolian kingdoms’ armies. B. Bar-Kochva wrote that on a battle between

30Strootman R. “Kings against Celts: deliverance from barbarians as a theme in Hellenistic royal propaganda.”
Page 2.
31 Derbyshire G. et all. “The Galatian settlement in Asia Minor.” Page 75.
32 Chrubasic B. “The Attalids and the Seleukids: 281 to 175 BC.” Page 5.

"8
Antiochus Hierax and Seleukis II, Hierax army was supported by the Galatians and the latter

managed to defeat in battle “the Macedonians of Seleukus II”33. Altay Coskum wrote that

“Hierax revolted against his elder brother Seleucus II Callinicus”34. Hierax forces are attested

to have consisted of Galatians among other groups. A battle near Ancyra, which was within

Galatian territory, is dated to 239 - 237 BC. Altay Coskum stated that Mithridates II of Pon-

tus, with the support of the Galatian Tectosages, launched a surprise attack to Seleukus II and

the latter managed to escape to Kilikia 35.

The final war between the two brothers was won by Seleukos II, who was supported by the

Attalid kingdom. The Attalids erected a monument after their victory against Hierax and the

Galatian Tolistobogii. John Ma wrote that “Eumenes’ successor, Attalos, fought against the

Galatians and Antiochos Hierax.”36 Attalos victories in the 230 - 220s were celebrated with

dedications on the Akropolis at Pergamon. It is not accidental that the Attalids fought Hierax

as the latter had declared himself King of Asia Minor and Attalid I, after defeating Hierax and

the Galatians, declared himself King. This was a war for power and control within Anatolia.

The Attalid king “claimed his diadem at a battle in the Kaikos valley and later, Attalid victory

monuments on the Pergamene acropolis depicted the battle with Hierax and his Galatian

troops.”37

33 Bar-Kochva B. “Devastated effects on western coast by the Galatians which lasted for generations.” Page 6.
34 Coskum A. “Galatians and Seleucids: a Century of Conflict and Cooperation.” Page 97.
35
Coskum A. “Ptolemaioi as Commanders in 3rd-Century Asia Minor and Some Glimpses on Ephesos and
Mylasa during the Second and Third Syrian Wars.” Page 246.
36 Ma J. “The Attalids: a military history.” Page 3.
37 Chrubasic B. “The Attalids and the Seleukid Kings, 281–175 bc.” Page 8.

"9
Another important actor within the region was Rhodes, whom skills as international mediator

and arbitrator influenced the politics of the region. As economical and commercial power,

Rhodes aimed at the “maintenance of independent neutrality for herself and of a peaceful

balance of power for the Hellenistic world generally”38. Sheila L. Ager wrote that in 220 BC

Byzantium, under pressure by Thrace Gallic tribes, who were demanding tributes, decided to

impose tolls on ships passing through the Black sea straits. This was going against Rhodes

trade interests but Rhodes probably did not want to contribute to Byzantium costs for the

tribute that the Gauls were demanding. A war started between Byzantium, with the moral

support of Attalos I and Achaios, and Rhodes and Prousias I of Bithynia. The war finally

was “brought to an end through the mediation of Kavaros the Gaul, a fact which illustrates

Rhodes’ willingness to accept this brand of diplomacy herself, as long as certain of her basic

requirements were met.”39 Rhodes would become important in arbitration and mediation in

wars like the Macedonian wars and the war between Rome and Antiochus III on the second

century BC.

Murat Arslan wrote that during the second century, Bithynia and Pontus were under constant

threat by the Seleukids so the setting of the fierce Galatians on a politically weak area such as

Phrygia “created a buffer zone against the Seleucids and also kept the Galatians at a safe dis-

tance from Bithynia and Pontus.”40

38 Ager S. L. Rhodes: The Rise and Fall of a Neutral Diplomat.” Page 10.
39 Ager S. L. “Rhodes: The Rise and Fall of a Neutral diplomat.” Page 13.
40 Arslan M. “The impact of the Galatians in Asia Minor.” Page 44.

"10
The same author stated that the chief motive behind Galatians deeds from early times on-

wards appears to have been the ambition to conquer, sack and humiliate”41. Whether this was

their main resource to sustain their communities is open to scrutiny as I have mentioned

above but this was definitely one of the main sources of wealth. They were known as fierce

fighters and regional kings employed them continuously to support their conquests and wars.

They were feared but needed at the same time, as the area was in constant conflict.

Stephen Mitchell wrote though that the defeats inflicted over the Galatians by the Seleukids,

the Attalids, the Ptolemies and the Antigonids, demonstrate that the formers could be defeated

by large well-organised armies and provably it could have been possible to drive them out of

the region by any of those strong kingdoms.42 They were too useful as troops for the regional

kingdoms inhabiting Asia Minor. This might have been the reason why Galatians were al-

lowed to inhabit Asia Minor.

Elizabeth Kosmetatou and John Ma wrote about the Attalid-Trojan alliance and how in their

conflict against Achaios they were supported by groups of Galatian Aigosagoi. Attalos had

“to deal with indiscipline, resulting in part from superstition, among his Galatian Aigosagoi

mercenary troops”43. John Ma wrote that Attalos I undertook a campaign in Aiolis, Mysia and

the Troad “with Galatian auxiliaries brought over from Europe, the Aigosages”44.

41 Arslan M. “The impact of the Galatians in Asia Minor.” Page 44.

42 Mitchell S. “The Galatians: representation and reality.” Page 289.
43 Kosmetatou E. “Ilion, the Troad and the Attalids.” Page 119.
44 Ma J. “The Attalids: a military history.” Page 3.

"11
The same author wrote about Prusias of Bithynia, who defeated the Galatians, or Attalos’ vic-

tory over the Galatians, and its relationship with the foundations of Mysian Gergitha in 240

BC. Attalos attacked Gergitha and the reason why Attalos attacked this Trojan City might

have been “an earlier alliance of the Gergithans with the Aigosagoi Galatians, the Seleucids,

or even Achaios, for which he later wished to punish the local population when they were

duly defeated”45. The Attalids seemed to have supported financially and militarily the Ilians

and the entire Koinon of Athena against the Galatians’ and the Seleucids’ threats.

Other regions that suffered the Galatians’ incursions might have been the Pisidians. The Pi-

sidians were a region that resisted Seleukid domination, but also served as troops for the m.46

Elizabeth Kosmetatou, in another article of hers, wrote that the Pisidians were not bothered to

have Seleukid military posts within their region. This might have been because in the past

they had suffered Galatian incursions. According to her, “Galatians were found in Isparta,

near Sagalassos, and most probably, the Pisidians fought with the Seleukids against the Gala-

tians.”47 48

An inscription from Laodiceia attests another Galatian War under Antiochus I and an attack

of the Galatai to Souther Phrygia and Lycia49 . The Galatians were involved in the Bithynian

45 Kosmetatou E. “Ilion, the Troad and the Attalids.” Page 122.

46 Kosmetatou E. “Macedonians in Pisidia.” Page 219 - 220.
47 Kosmetatou E. “Pisidia and the Hellenistic Kings from 323 to 123 BC.” Page 22.
48 Kosmetatou E. “Pisidia and the Hellenistic Kings from 323 to 123 BC.” Page 36.
49 Coskum A. “Galatians and Seleucids: a Century of Conflict and Cooperation.” Page 96.

"12
War of Succession in 255 - 253 BC, and the Tolistobogii were involved also when Mithri-

dates II of Pontus succeeded his father Ariobarzanes in 250 BC.

There was also an upheaval of Eumenes I against Antiochus I in 262 BC, in which probably

the Galatians were involved. Altay Coskum stated that even though there is no mention of the

Galatians, “it is difficult to see how the Pergamene dynast could have resisted the Seleucids,

if most of the Aeolian and Ionian cities as well as all of the Galatians had remained loyal to

Antiochus.”50

Kings used their victories against the Galatians as propaganda to gain sovereignty over other

regions or poleis. I have mentioned already about the “Elephant Battle” and the Attalids.

Stephen Mitchell wrote that within a decade, the dynasties of the Antigonids, the Seleukids

and the Ptolemies had claimed to have saved the Greeks from the barbarian enemies. 51 The

first known royal propaganda which was associated to the Celts after Delphi was done by

Ptolemy II Philadelphos and the Kallimachos’ Hymn to Delos in 271 - 265 BC. “In this poem

the victory of Apollo at Delphi is equated with the Ptolemaic king’s suppression of a mutiny

of his own Celtic mercenaries in Egypt between 274 and 271.”52

Royal propaganda was also used by the Attalids of Pergamon, and again the Galatians were

pictured as the “barbarians” threatening the civilised world. “The civilised world of the poleis

50 Coskum A. “Galatians and Seleukids: a century of conflict and cooperation.” Page 97.
51 Mitchell S. “The Galatians: representation and reality.” Page 283.
52Strootman R. “Kings against Celts: deliverance from barbarians as a theme in Hellenistic royal propaganda.”
Page 21.

"13
being threatened by barbarians and then saved: first by gods with human aid, later by kings

with divine aid.”53 Attalos is known to have added on his name the title of Saviour after his

support to Seleukos II and created an image of himself as protector of the cities of western

Asia Minor.

The Attalids supported the Romans in battle against the Seleukids and Antiochus III, who was

having among his legions the Galatians. 2500 Galatians cavalry and 3000 heavy infantry men

supported Antiochus on this battle against a coalition of Romans, Attalids, Rhodes and others.

Michael J. Taylor wrote that “the Galatian cavalry in the surviving battle narrative is negligi-

ble, but their presence was convenient for the purposes of propaganda”54. A bronze plaque

was erected in Pergamon to commemorate these events and represented a “fascinating depic-

tion of a major Roman military victory from the point of view of a Hellenic collaborator.”55

Attalos gave to Athens some reliefs which were placed on the Akropolis. The reliefs repre-

sented the “destruction of the Gauls in Mysia, the battle of Marathon, and the fight between

the Athenians and the Amazons.”56 Christian Habicht wrote that in Athens, as elsewhere, “the

Pergamene rulers depicted themselves as the champions of the Hellenes against the barbar-

ians, understood as the Gauls in Asia Minor, and as the patrons of Greek culture in art, litera-

53Strootman R. “Kings against Celts: deliverance from barbarians as a theme in Hellenistic royal propaganda.”
Page 18.
54 Taylor M. J. “The Attalid Victory at Magnesia on a Lost Plaque from Pergamon.” Page 12.
55 Taylor M. J. “The Attalid Victory at Magnesia on a Lost Plaque from Pergamon.” Page 16.
56Perkins C. C. “The Pergamon Marbles. II. The Gigantomachia and Other Sculptures Found at Pergamon.”
Page 1.

"14
ture and philosophy.”57 Titans and Giants, used by the Attalids, were an allegory of chaos and

represented the Attalid struggle against the European Celts and the Galatians.

The Seleukids and their control over Asia Minor might have been under a kind of feudal sys-

tem, where there was regional autonomy. Rolf Strootman wrote that the Seleukid State was

“basically a tribute-taking military organisation, offering protection and benefactions to city

states and local princes.”58 The tribute process was subject to bargaining and obviously there

were conflicts. David Engels wrote that Antiochus III already had restructured the Seleucid

empire into a feudal state where “India, Bactria, Parthia, Persia, Atropatene, Armenia, Cap-

padocia, Galatia and numerous other regions enjoyed autonomy and only nominally accepted

Seleucid sovereignty.”59. Some of these regions might had highly expansionist ambitions and

might have entered in conflict often,60 which helps also to understand the internal conflicts in

Asia Minor and the importance of the Galatian warriors for the region.

Liby’s allegation that the Seleukids paid an stipendium to the Galatians raises doubts of

whether the Seleukids had sovereignty over the Galatians. Altay Coskum wrote that Anti-

ochus I might have lacked control of the Northern league and Galatia. This is further illustrat-

ed by a “map of Seleucid colony foundations in Asia Minor, which not only avoided the

Galatian core region completely, but even kept a safe distance from it.”61 Karl Strobel, in the

57 Habicht C. “Athens and the Attalids in the Second Century B. C..” Page 576.
58
Strootman R. “Hellenistic Court Society: The Seleukid Imperial Court under Antiochos the Great, 223–187
BCE..” Page 68.
59 Engels D. “Middle Eastern ‘Feudalism’ and Seleucid Dissolution.” Page 30.
60 Coskum A. “Galatians and Seleukids: a century of conflict and cooperation.” Page 87.
61 Coskum A. “Galatians and Seleukids: a century of conflict and cooperation.” Page 96.

"15
other hand, stated that the Galatians were the closest Seleukid allies. Even though they fought

with Antiochus III in Magnesia, the Seleukids never had the grip on the Galatians: not Anti-

ochus I, or Hierax or Antiochus III seemed to have gained control over them.

There are claims that state the Galatians might have been “essential to the disintegration of

Seleucid Asia Minor”62. Altay Coskum, on another article he wrote, said that “though the sur-

rounding kingdoms may well have checked the power of the Galatians, they never managed

63.
to subjugate them as a whole” Victories over them might have been used as propaganda

but this did not mean the propagandists controlled Galatia. The Galatians’ political goals

might have been different to the Attalids or the Seleukids. Their goals might have been more

orientated towards accumulating wealth than towards establishing territory. This would ex-

plain why they continuously allied with other kingdoms for wars. They might have been after

booties and tributes, not territory.

With the arrival of the Romans to the region, the balance of power definitely changed in Asia

Minor. Kingdoms such as the Attalids or Rhodes would become stronger. The Seleukids lost

control of the area, while Rome became a strong actor in Anatolia. Antiochus III fought the

Romans with the support of the Galatians and lost at the battle of Magnesia. Altay Coskum

wrote that “all but one of the Galatian tribes were reported to have fought the Romans at

Magnesia, side by side with Antiochus III (190 BC).”64 Galatian contingents seem to have

62 Coskum A. “Galatians and Seleucids: a Century of Conflict and Cooperation.” Page 30.
63Coskum A. “Recent Research on Ancient Galatia (Central Turkey) in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods.”
Page 1.
64 Coskum A. “Galatians and Seleucids: a Century of Conflict and Cooperation.” Page 85.

"16
been very strong, with infantry from Tectosages, Trocmi and Tolistobogii and Galatian Kat-

aphracts on both wings. Boris Chrubasic wrote that the Galatians were well known for re-

belling from their paymasters at times, but “there is no question that the Seleukid kings were

a valuable source of employment for the Galatian tribes in central Anatolia in this period”65,

which might prove the support Antiochus received from them at Magnesia. It might have

been though that the relationship with the Seleukids was not dependent on Seleukid control

of Asia Minor, but it was primarily an economical relationship, as I have just mentioned.

The Galatians continued to resist the Romans after Magnesia. Antiochus was already abiding

by the conditions of the truce imposed by the Romans, but the Galatians were still resisting

the invading army of Manlius Vulso (Darbyshire Gel all, Coskum A.), who fought against the

Galatians with the support of the Attalids66. The battle was won by the Roman-Attalid coali-

tion and Attalos seemed to have tried to gain control over Galatia after their defeat. Right af-

ter the victory, Michael J Taylor says that Roman ambassadors “waited for the arrival of

Eumenes before he would grant peace terms, a deliberate nod to a loyal collaborator,” 67 to-

wards the Attalids.

Sherwin-White wrote that rivalry among the Attalids and Prusias of Bithynia over the control

of Galatia might have occurred. According to Philip Kay, envoys of Galatians went to Rome

and the “senate granted them autonomy”68. Galatians autonomy was granted even though

65 Chrubasic B. “The Attalids and the Seleukid Kings, 281–175 bc.” Page 15.
66 Ma J. “The Attalids: A Military History..” Page 4.
67 Taylor M. J. “The Attalid Victory at Magnesia on a Lost Plaque from Pergamon.” Page 11.
68 Kay P. “What Did the Attalids Ever Do for Us? The View from the Aerarium.” Page 16.

"17
they fought against Manlius Vulso. Their independence was granted on the condition that

they kept within their borders. Prusias of Bithynia apparently “tried to exploit the situation by

a series of missions to Rome that alleged aggressive intentions of Eumenes in Galatia.” 69

John D. Grainger wrote that the campaign by Cn. Manlius Vulso was not so much orientated

to fight the Galatians but to undermine the Seleukids. John suggested “that it was the mean-

dering route, not the ostensible target, which was in fact the real purpose of Manlius' expedi-

tion”70. The Romans continued undermining Antiochus III after they signed the truce, which

hints that probably Antiochus III continued trying to gain control over Asia Minor after Mag-

nesia. Therefore, the route taken by the Romans might have been politically and strategically

focussed on undermining Seleukid power, not reaching Galatia.

What I have just mentioned might meant that the Seleukids, even though they were defeated

at Magnesia, they continued operations in the region. An article by Arturo Sanchez Sanz

states that after Magnesia, the Galatians paraded in Seleukid festivities, in a time when the

Galatians had been defeated by the Attalids in 168.71 This might mean that the Seleukid army

continued active in Asia Minor, even after their defeat at Magnesia.

It is significant though that the Galatians obtained autonomy, even after they were defeated.

The posterior alignment with the Romans might help to understand this Roman grant. Altay

Coskum goes as far as to claim that the Galatians were mainly responsible for the loss of

69 Sherwin-White A. N. “Roman Involvement in Anatolia, 167-88 B.C.” Page 62.

70 Grainger J. D. “The Campaign of Cn. Manlius Vulso in Asia Minor.” Page 24.
71 Sanchez Sanz A. “El desfile de Dafne, ritual y exaltacion en el imperio Seleucida.” Page 7.

"18
power of the Seleukids in Asia Minor. He stated that Pergamon could not had had the military

and political strength to provoke the war and then use the outcome of it “that had been un-

foreseeable even to the Romans themselves in 191 BC, without repeatedly drawing on Celtic

and Galatian manpower.”72

Going now back to the point after the Magnesia battle, the Attalids “acquired almost all parts

of Asia Minor that had formerly been under Seleukid control.”73 They became a main actor in

Asia Minor. Elizabeth Kosmetatou said that conflicts among the Hellenistic kings, the seces-

sion of local rulers from the kingdom of Syria and “the ever-present threat of the infamous

Galatians, allowed Eumenes to take advantage of the ensuing power gap.”74 With the years,

they got closer to the Romans and built an image of continuity with Greek culture, which

helped them to establish themselves as main actors in Asia Minor. The Attalids though yield-

ed before concentrated threats such as the Seleukid army in 190, Prousias II in 156, Achaios’

offensive, and even failed to resist the Galatian attacks in 168, which is “more striking for

having taken place twenty years after the acquisition of the former Seleukid holdings in Asia

Minor”75. Peter Thoneman wrote of Attalid troops that on the course of the war against the

Galatians, marched to the Attalid administrative centre of “Apameia-Kelainai in southern

Phrygia, apparently just in time to protect the city from an anticipated Galatian attack.”76

72 Coskum A. “Galatians and Seleucids: a Century of Conflict and Cooperation.” Page 104.
73Strootman R. “Kings against the Celts: deliverance as barbarians as a theme in Hellenistic royal propaganda.”
Page 28.
74 Kosmetatou E. “The Attalids of Pergamon.” Page 161.
75 Ma J. “The Attalids: A Military History.” Page 12.
76 Thoneman P. “The Attalid State, 188–133 bc.” Page 10.

"19
The Galatians entered in war against Eumenes, the Attalid king at the time, in various occa-

sions. Eumenes first “defeated the Galatian king Ortiagion between 185 and 183 as part of a

war against Prousias I of Bithynia, with whom the Galatians were allied”77. Boris Chrubasic

wrote that Prusias of Bithynia, Ortiagion and even Pharnakes I of Pontos might have allied to

fight against Eumenes II in 184 - 182 BC78 . Continuously we find the Galatians joining vari-

ous Anatolian kingdoms in internal Anatolian conflicts, as if they were benefiting from it.

The Attalids, Pontus, the Seleukids, Bithynia, are among their allies during these conflicting

times in Anatolia.

As I mentioned above, the Galatian war, which confronted Eumenes II against the Galatians

(168–166/5 BC) was won by the former. Philip Kay claimed that this victory “brought

Eumenes nothing but glory” 79. He claimed to have protected the Ionian cities of western

Anatolia, just as Antiochus I had done on the third century. Selene Psoma wrote that Eumenes

II presented himself to the “koinon of the Ionians as the ‘common benefactor of the Greeks,

(who) faced many great battles against the barbarians, displaying all zeal and care to make

sure that the inhabitants of the Greek cities should always live in peace and enjoy the best

state of affairs”80. Peter Thoneman wrote that the reason why there was so much interest in

77Strootman R. “Kings against the Celts: deliverance as barbarians as a theme in Hellenistic royal propaganda.”
Page 28.
78 Chrubasic B. “The Attalids and the Seleukid Kings, 281–175 bc.” Page 14.
79Psoma S. “War or Trade? Attic-Weight Tetradrachms from Second-Century bc Attalid Asia Minor in Seleukid
Syria after the Peace of Apameia and their Historical Context”. Page 8.
80Psoma S. “War or Trade? Attic-Weight Tetradrachms from Second-Century bc Attalid Asia Minor in Seleukid
Syria after the Peace of Apameia and their Historical Context.” Page 11.

"20
controlling the Greek poleis of West Asia Minor was that these poleis were really well organ-

ised, easy to tax and bully,81 a source of wealth for those that controlled or plunder them.

After defeating the Galatians, the Attalids organised the region with a massive settlement of

Mysians in the frontier zone between Mysia, Lydia and Phrygia, putting the Mysians “in or-

ganised military communities placed in strategic sites and along major routes, living off pro-

ducers in the countryside”82. It seems as the Galatian threat wasn’t over and the Attalids were

protecting their borders for potential incursions against their territory.

After 160 BC, Pisidia might have tried to obtain some autonomy. A few years before the

Rome senate had granted to Galatia some independence. Pisidians might have thought that

could also obtain some autonomy. The Pisidian region had been a difficult region to control.

Alexander the Great first, then Antigonos, and after the Ptolemies and the Seleukids have

tried controlling them. This was because of their importance as strategic location and the ac-

cess through this region to trade routes and the sea. According to R. A. Kearsley, the control

that the Attalid kingdom failed to obtain over Galatia might have encouraged the Pisidian war

for independence and against Attalid control83.

Cristian E. Ghiţă tells us that the Galatians, after 166 BC, fought against the Romans and

supporting the Attalids on various occasions. John Ma tells of many occasions when Galatian

81 Thoneman P. “The Attalid state: 188 to 133 BC.” Page 11.

82 Ma J. “The Attalids: A Military History..” Page 12.
83Kearsley R. A. “The Milyas and the Attalids: A Decree of the City of Olbasa and a New Royal Letter of the
Second Century B.C.” Page 52.

"21
or Celts from Thrace were used by the Attalids as allies on their regional wars84. The Gala-

tians, like in their relationship with the Seleukids, are seeing as allies and enemies of the At-

talids.

In the first century BC, the Galatians became Roman allies. According to Darbyshire et al,

the Galatians became “the most important allies of Rome as far as the Roman Asia Minor

policy was concerned.”85. The Galatians assimilated culture traits from the Romans, such as

administration, especially after the Mithridates wars. With the Romans, the number of rulers

in Galatia was reduced from 12 to 3 as stated by Sarah Pothecary. 86 A reorganisation of Gala-

tia might have been accomplished by Pompey or might have started before, when Mithridates

murdered most of the Tetrarchs. The Tolistobogii and Deiotarus met with Caesar in 47, before

the battle of Zela and fought with the Romans against Mithridates of Pontus as attested by F.

E. Adcock87. Deiotarus would become main ruler in Galatia.

The Galatians supported the Romans even in a civil war, when Galatian troops were among

Pompey legions. However, they betrayed the Romans on various occasions, “Brutus and Cas-

sius for Marcus Antonius and Octavianus”88, before the battle of Philippi in 42 BC, is an ex-

ample. As I mentioned before, this demonstrates how unreliably were the Galatians as allies.

84 Ma J. “The Attalids: a military history”. Page 10.

85 Arslan M. “The Impact of the Galatians in Asia Minor”. Page 46.
86 Pothecary S. “The Expression "Our Times" in Strabo's Geography” Page 235.
87 Adcock F. E. “Lesser Armenia and Galatia after Pompey's Settlement of the East”. Page 13.
88 Arslan M.“The impact of the Galatians in Asia Minor”. Page 46.

"22
Altay Coskum wrote that the continuous warfare against the Attalids after 189 BC, the con-

tinuos Anatolian internal conflicts they became involved, as well as the later rise of King

Deiotarus, who became the dominating ruler of Roman Asia Minor, “clearly attest to the mili-

tary, demographic, and political potential”89 of the Galatians in Asia Minor.

In my opinion, the Galatian arrival and settlement in Asia Minor affected enormously the re-

gion. From how Anatolian rulers used them as royal propaganda to legitimise their leader-

ship, to the impact inflicted on regional leaders with their plunder, booty and tribute de-

mands, to their availability as great fighter troops on internal and external conflicts, the Gala-

tians completely changed the context of Asia Minor and became main actors within the re-

gion.

Initially, the Seleukids might have seen them as a threat, but as the Galatians were organised

and disciplined fighters, the former understood how beneficial Galatians could be in military

campaigns against local insurrections or in territorial expansions. The Galatians seemed to

have been more preoccupied with obtaining booties and plundering the neighbouring regions

and not so interested in expanding territory so the regional context might have suited them.

The instability of the region became a source of wealth to the local tetrarchs inhabiting the

area. Throughout this period, the Galatians learnt how to survive in this new environment.

They adapted to local sources of wealth. They learnt how to work the land. Most importantly,

even though they maintained their language and some of their own tradition, they absorbed

89 Coskum A. “Galatians and Seleucids: a Century of Conflict and Cooperation.”. Page 30.

"23
Hellenistic customs and traditions first, and then Roman culture, which helped them to sur-

vive as a community in those turbulent times.

"24
Bibliography

Adcock F. E. (1937). Lesser Armenia and Galatia after Pompey's Settlement of the East.

Source: The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 27, Part 1: Papers Presented to Sir Henry Stuart

Jones, pp. 12-17.

Ager S. L. (1991). Rhodes: The Rise and Fall of a Neutral Diplomat. Source: Historia:

Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Bd. 40, H. 1. Published by: Franz Steiner Verlag. Pp. 10-41.

Arslan M. (2002). The impact of the Galatians in Asia Minor. In Olva IV. Mersin. Pp. 41-55.

Austin, M. M. (2006). The Hellenistic world from Alexander to the Roman conquest: A selec-

tion of ancient sources in translation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Second Edi-

tion.

Austin M. (2003). The Seleukids and Asia. in A Companion to the Hellenistic World (ed A.

Erskine), Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Malden, MA, USA. Pp. 121-133.

Bar-Khocva B. (1973). On the sources and chronology of Antiochos I’s battle against the

Galatians. In Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society by Chadwick J. University

of Tel-Aviv. No 19. Pp 1-8.

Baronowski D. W. (1991). The Status of the Greek Cities of Asia Minor after 190 B.C.

Source: Hermes, 119. Bd., H. 4. Published by: Franz Steiner Verlag. Pp. 450-463.

Bosworth A. B. and Wheatley P. V. (1998). The Origins of the Pontic House. Source: The

Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. 118. Published by: Society for the Promotion of Hellenic

Studies. Pp. 155-164.

"25
Chrubasik B. (2013). The Attalids and the Seleukid Kings, 281–175 bc. In Attalid Asia Minor:

Money, International Relations, and the State by Peter Thonemann. Published to Oxford

Scholarship Online. Pp. 1-30.

Coşkun, A. (2011). Galatians and Seleucids: A Century of Conflict and Cooperation. In Se-

leucid Dissolution: The Sinking of the Anchor, edited by Kyle Erickson and Gillian Ramsey,

50:85–106. Philippika: Marburger Altertumskundliche Abhandlungen. Wiesbaden: Harras-

sowitz Verlag. Pp. 85-108.

Coşkun, A. (2015). Ptolemaioi as Commanders in 3rd-Century Asia Minor and Some

Glimpses on Ephesos and Mylasa during the Second and Third Syrian Wars. Forthcoming in:

Vir doctus anatolicus. Studies in Memory of Sencer Şahin, Burak Takmer, Ebru AkdoğuArca,

Nuray Gökalp (eds.). Istanbul: Kabalcı Yayınevi. Pp. 257-279.

Coşkun, A. (2012). Deconstructing a Myth of Seleucid History: the So-Called ‘Elephant Vic-

tory’ over the Galatians Revisited, Phoenix 66.

Coskun A. (2014). Review of , Recent Research on Ancient Galatia (Central Turkey) in the

Hellenistic and Roman Periods. H-Soz-u-Kult, H-Net Reviews. URL: http://www.h-net.org/

reviews/showrev.php?id=42112.

Darbyshire G., Mitchell S. and Vardar L. (2000). The Galatian Settlement in Asia Minor.

Source: Anatolian Studies, Vol. 50. Pp. 75-97.

"26
Dmitriev S. (2010). Attalus’ Request for the Cities of Aenus and Maronea in 167 B.C. Source:

Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Bd. 59, H. 1 Published by: Franz Steiner Verlag. Pp.

106-114.

Engels D. (2011). Middle Eastern ‘Feudalism’ and Seleucid Dissolution. In Seleucid Dissolu-

tion: The Sinking of the Anchor, edited by Kyle Erickson and Gillian Ramsey, 50. Philippika:

Marburger Altertumskundliche Abhandlungen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. Pp. 19-33.

Erskine A. (2003). Approaching the Hellenistic world. in A Companion to the Hellenistic

World (ed A. Erskine), Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Malden, MA, USA. Pp. 1-16.

Habicht C. (1990). Athens and the Attalids in the Second Century B. C.

Source: Hesperia: The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Vol. 59,

No. 3. Published by: American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Pp. 561-577.

Grainger J. D. (1995). The Campaign of Cn. Manlius Vulso in Asia Minor. Source: Anatolian

Studies, Vol. 45. Published by: British Institute at Ankara. Pp. 23-42.

Kay P. (2013). What Did the Attalids Ever Do for Us? The View from the Aerarium. In Attalid

Asia Minor: Money, International Relations, and the State by Peter Thonemann. Published to

Oxford Scholarship Online.

Kearsley R. A. (1994). The Milyas and the Attalids: A Decree of the City of Olbasa and a

New Royal Letter of the Second Century B.C. Source: Anatolian Studies, Vol. 44. Published

by: British Institute at Ankara. Pp. 47-57.

Kosmetatou E. (2005). Macedonians in Pisidia. Source: Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte

Geschichte, Bd. 54, H. 2. Published by: Franz Steiner Verlag. Pp. 216-221.

"27
Kosmetatou E. (1997). Pisidia and the Hellenistic kings from 323 to 133 BC. Source: Ancient

Society Number. Number 28, Leuven. Pp. 5-37.

Kosmetatou E. Ilion, the Troud and the Attalids. Ancient Society. V 31. Found in academia.e-

du. Pp 107-131.

Kosmetatou E. (2003). The Attalids of Pergamon. in A Companion to the Hellenistic World

(ed A. Erskine), Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Malden, MA, USA. Pp. 159-174.

Kosmetatou E. and Brill E. J.(2003) The Attalids in the Troad. An addendum: an episode of

the perils of the Aristotelian corpus. Ancient Society. Number 33. Leuden, Pp. 53-60.

Ma J. (2013). The Attalids: A Military History. In Attalid Asia Minor: Money, International

Relations, and the State by Peter Thonemann. Published to Oxford Scholarship Online.

Mitchell S. (2003). The Galatians: representation and reality. in A Companion to the Hel-

lenistic World (ed A. Erskine), Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Malden, MA, USA. Pp 280-293.

Mitchell S. (1974). Blucium and Peium: The Galatian Forts of King Deiotarus. Source: Ana-

tolian Studies, Vol. 24. Published by: British Institute at Ankara. Pp. 61-75

Perkins C. C. (1881). The Pergamon Marbles. II. The Gigantomachia and Other Sculptures

Found at Pergamon. Source: The American Art Review, Vol. 2, No. 5. Published by: Brook-

lyn Museum. Pp. 185-192.

Potchecary S. (1997). The Expression "Our Times" in Strabo's Geography

Source: Classical Philology, Vol. 92, No. 3. University of Chicago Press. Pp. 235-246.

"28
Psoma S. (2013). War or Trade? Attic-Weight Tetradrachms from Second-Century bc Attalid

Asia Minor in Seleukid Syria after the Peace of Apameia and their Historical Context. In At-

talid Asia Minor: Money, International Relations, and the State by Peter Thonemann. Pub-

lished to Oxford Scholarship Online.

Rostovtsef M. (1916/1917 - 1917/1918). Pontus, Bithynia and the Bosporus. Source: The

Annual of the British School at Athens, Vol. 22, British School of Athens. Pp. 1-22

Sanchez Sanz A. (2014). El desfile de Dafne. Ritual y Exaltacion en el imperio Seleucida.

Mundo Iranio. Numero 5. Found in academia.edu. Pp. 1-11.

Santoro J. (2013). Antioco I, Achaios e i Galati un decreto. Alma Mater Studiorum. Universi-

ty of Bologna. Epigrafia e Instituzioni Greche. Pp. 1-19.

Sherwin-White A. N. (1977). Roman Involvement in Anatolia, 167-88 B.C. Source: The Jour-

nal of Roman Studies, Vol. 67. Published by: Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies,

pp. 62-75

Strobel, Karl (2002). State Formation by the Galatians of Asia Minor. Politico-Historical and

Cultural Processes in Hellenistic Central Anatolia, Anatolica 28. pp. 1–44.

Strootman R. (2005). Kings against Celts. Deliverance from Barbarians as a Theme in Hel-

lenistic Royal Propaganda, in: Karl A.E. Enenkel/Ilja Leonard Pfeijffer (eds.): The Manipula-

tive Mode. Political Propaganda in Antiquity. A Collection of Case Studies, Leiden 2005,

101–41.

"29
Strootman R. (2011). Hellenistic Court Society: The Seleukid Imperial Court under Antiochos

the Great, 223–187 BCE. In Royal Courts in Dynastic States and Empires: a global perspec-

tive. Duindam J. et all. Brill. Leiden, pp. 63-90.

Taylor M. J. (2016). The Attalid Victory at Magnesia on a Lost Plaque from Pergamon. Uni-

versity of Texas at Austin. Anatolian studies. V 66. Found in academia.edu.

Thonemann P. (2013). The Attalid State, 188–133 bc. In Attalid Asia Minor: Money, In-

ternational Relations, and the State by Peter Thonemann. Published to Oxford Scholarship

Online.

"30