Seminar 5: Rome and “Friendly Kings”

Rome’s interest in the frontier did not simply stop at her borders. Roman diplomacy was a
key part of frontier management. This seminar aims to look at Rome’s relationship with her
immediate neighbours and how these were managed. Thinking about the relationship of third
world countries with the superpowers of the modern world is a useful way into these debates.
These local rulers are often called “client kings” echoing the client-patron relationship which
under pinned much of Roman life. This term was never used in Rome’s relationship with
other rulers – so it’s worth asking why the term has evolved and why it was avoided at the
time. The seminar is focussed on the West, but remember most of our info is from the East.
The most famous of all client rulers was King Herod.
Key Texts
[31] Embassies were often sent to me from the kings of India, a thing never done before for any
leader of the Romans. Our friendship [amicitia] was sought, through ambassadors, by the
Bastarnae,
the Scythians, the kings of the Sarmatians who live on either side of the river Tanais, by the king
of
the Albani, the king of the Hiberi, and the king of the Medes.
[32] Kings of the Parthians, Tiridates, and later Phraates, the son of King Phraates, took refuge
with
me as suppliants [supplices... confugerunt] ; as did the king of the Medes, Artavasdes; the king of
the
Adiabeni, Artaxares; the kings of the Britons, Dumnobellaunus and Tim[...]; the king of the
Sugambri,
Maelo; the king of the Marcomanni and Suebi, [...]rus. Phraates, son of Orodes, king of the
Parthians,
sent all his sons and grandsons to me in Italy, not because he had been conquered in war, but
rather
seeking our friendship [amicitia] by using his own children as pledges. Very many other nations
too,
who never before had had any interchange of embassies or of friendship with the Roman people,
experienced the good faith [fides – a very important Roman concept ATF] of the Roman people
during my principate
[33] From me the peoples of the Parthians and of the Medes received the kings for whom they
asked
through ambassadors, who were chief men of those peoples: the Parthians received Vonones, son
of
King Phraates, grandson of King Orodes; and the Medes, Ariobarzanes, the son of King
Atavazdes,
grandson of King Ariobarzanes.
Augustus, Res Gestae 31-33
The tribes of the Suevi, some of whom dwell inside the forest, for example, the Coldui, in whose
territory is Boihaemum [ie Bohemia], the domain of Marabodus [=Maroboduus], the place
whither
he caused to migrate, not only several other peoples, but in particular the Marcomanni, his
fellow-
tribesmen. For after his return from Rome, this man, who before had been only a private citizen,
was
placed in charge of the affairs of state, because, as a youth he had been at Rome and had enjoyed
the favour of Augustus. On his return therefore he became the ruler and acquired, in addition to
the
peoples aforementioned, the Lugii (a large tribe), the Zumi, the Butones, the Mugilones, the
Sibini,
and also the Semnones, a large tribe of the Suevi themselves.
Strabo 7.1.3
[16] It was in this same year [AD 47] that the Cherusci asked Rome for a king. They had lost all
their
nobles in their civil wars, and there was only one member of their royal house, called Italicus,
left. He
lived in Rome. On his father's side, he was descended from Flavus, the brother of Arminius; his
mother was a daughter of Catumerus, chief of the Chatti. The youth himself was of distinguished
beauty, a skilful horseman and swordsman both after our fashion and that of his country. So the
emperor made him a present of money, furnished him with an escort, and bade him undertake
this
honour from his people with a good heart. "Never before," he said, "had a man born at Rome, no
hostage but a citizen, gone to mount a foreign throne." At first, his arrival was welcome to the
Germans and they crowded to pay him court, for he was untouched by factionalism and showed
the
same hearty goodwill to all, practising sometimes the courtesy and temperance which can never
offend, but more often those excesses of wine and lust in which barbarians delight. He was
winning
fame among his neighbours and even far beyond them, when some who had prospered in party
feuds and were jealous of his power, fled to the tribes on the border, protesting that Germany was
being robbed of her ancient freedom and that the might of Rome was on the rise. "Is there
really,"
they said, "no native of this country to fill the place of king without raising the son of that spy
Flavus
above all his fellows? It is futile to put forward the name of Arminius. For even had a son of
Arminius
come to the throne after growing to manhood on hostile soil, he might well someone to fear,
corrupted as he would be by the bread of dependence, by slavery, luxury, and all foreign habits.
But
if Italicus had his own father's spirit, no man, let it be remembered, had ever waged war against
his
country and his home more savagely than that father." [Flavus had remained loyal to Rome in
Arminius’s uprising – remember Annals 2.9-10]
[17] By these and similar appeals, they gathered together a large force. But Italicus’s supporters
were
no fewer in number. "He had not imposed himself," they said, "on an unwilling people, but been
summoned by them. Superior as he was to all others in noble birth, should they not put his valour
to
the test and see if he would show himself worthy of his uncle Arminius and his grandfather
Catumerus? He need not blush because his father had never relinquished the loyalty which, with
the
consent of the Germans, he had promised to Rome. The call of freedom was just a lying pretext
in
the mouths of men who, degenerates in their private, and harmful in their public, life, could
profit
from nothing except civil war." The people enthusiastically supported Flavus and after a fierce
battle
among the barbarians, the king emerged victorious. Subsequently, in his good fortune, he became
arrogant, was restored through the support of the Langobardi, and, in prosperity or adversity,
harmed interests of the Cherusci.
Tacitus, Annals 11.16-17.
Meanwhile…
[18] It was during this same period [AD 47] that the Chauci, free, as it happened, from
dissension at
home and emboldened by the death of Sanquinius, made, while Corbulo was on his way, an
attack
on Lower Germany under the leadership of Gannascus. This man was one of the Canninefates
who
had long served long as an auxiliary. He had then deserted, and, getting some light vessels, had
made
piratical raids especially on the coast of Gaul which were inhabited, as he knew, by a wealthy
and
unwarlike population. Corbulo meanwhile entered the province with careful preparation, and
soon
winning a renown of which this campaign was but the beginning [this is a reference to Corbulo’s
later
successes in the East – ATF] , he brought his triremes up the channel of the Rhine and the rest of
his
vessels up the estuaries and canals to which they were adapted [think about Germanicus’s earlier
combined arms campaigns – ATF]. Having sunk the enemy's flotilla, driven out Gannascus, and
brought everything into good order, he restored the discipline of former days among legions
which
had forgotten the labours and toils of the soldier and delighted only in plunder…
[19] The fear thus inspired variously affected his own troops and the enemy. Our men gained
fresh
courage, while the barbarians felt their pride broken. The Frisii, who had been hostile or disloyal
since the revolt that had begun by the defeat of Lucius Apronius [AD 28], gave hostages and
settled
down on territories marked out by Corbulo, who, at the same time, gave them a senate,
magistrates,
and laws. In order to stop them disobeying his commands, he built a fort among them and sent
envoys to invite the Greater Chauci to submit and to destroy Gannascus by treachery. This plot
against a deserter who had broken faith was neither unsuccessful nor ignoble. Yet the Chauci
were
violently roused up by the man's murder, and Corbulo was now sowing the seeds of another
revolt,
thus getting a reputation which many liked, but of which some disapproved. "Why," men asked,
"was
he stirring up the foe? His failures will fall on the State, while if he succeeds, so famous a hero
will be
a danger to peace and a formidable subject for an idle emperor." Claudius forbade fresh attacks
on
Germany going so far as commanding garrisons to be withdrawn to this side of the Rhine.
Tacitus, Annals 11.18-19
Think also about these passages from Britain…
[36] Caratacus himself — for adversity seldom finds a refuge — after seeking the protection of
the
Brigantian queen Cartimandua, was arrested and handed to the victors [ie the Romans – ATF], in
the
ninth year from the opening of the war in Britain. [ie AD 52]
[40] Since the capture of Caratacus, however, the Briton with the best knowledge of the art of
war
was Venutius, whose Brigantian origins have been mentioned earlier. He had long been loyal,
and
had received the protection of the Roman arms during his married life with Queen Cartimandua:
but
then had come a divorce, followed by immediate war, and he had extended his hostility to
ourselves.
[ie the Romans – ATF] At first, however, the struggle was confined to the pair and Cartimandua
adroitly trapped the brother and relatives of Venutius. Incensed at her actions, and smarting at the
ignominious prospect of submitting to the sway of a woman, the enemy — a powerful body of
young
and picked warriors — invaded her kingdom. This event had been foreseen by us, and the
cohorts [ie
auxilia units – ATF] sent to her rescue fought a sharp engagement, with dubious results at first
but a
more cheerful conclusion. The conflict had a similar outcome in the case of the legion which was
commanded by Caesius Nasica; since Didius, [governor of Britain, AD 52-57 – ATF] burdened
by his
years and full of honours, was content to act through his subordinates and to hold the enemy at
distance. — These operations, though conducted by two governors over a period of years, I have
related consecutively, lest, if treated separately, they should leave an inadequate impression on
the
memory. I return to the chronological order.
Tacitus, Annals 12.36, 40
Some states/tribes [civitates, nb the plural] were given to king Cogidubnus, who has remained
most
loyal down to our own times. This is a tried and tested practice of the Roman people which uses
even
kings as an instrument of control.
Tacitus, Agricola 14