Deiotarus Philadelphus ruled Paphlagonia with Antony's approval, switched sides at Actium, and earned the gratitude of the conqueror. Octavian confirmed him in power.[300] The kingdom may have been enlarged later with parts of Phazemonitis. Deiotarus enjoyed an untroubled dominion until his death in 6 B.C.24
Amyntas of Galatia too changed allegiance hastily before Actium, and profited. He remained sovereign in his realm and received further territorial grants in Pisidia, Lycaonia, Isauria and Cilicia Tracheia.25 The new dominions brought added responsibilities. Amyntas undertook to subjugate the fiercely independent and troublesome mountain tribes sheltered in the Taurus range and menacing the southern fringes of Galatia. The king made admirable headway, up to a point, capturing a number of mountain fastnesses. But terrain favoured the guerrillas. Amyntas fell victim to the formidable tribe of the Homonadenses and was executed in 25 B.C.[301] Augustus moved swiftly and decisively. He would leave no vacuum in central Anatolia that might tempt marauders or rebels. Galatia was annexed as a Roman province. The region encompassed Isauria, Pisidia, Lycaonia and part of Pamphylia, in addition to Galatia proper. It would henceforth come under the supervision of a Roman governor.[302] Reasons for Augustus' sudden shift of policy are not easy to discern. Amyntas had sons but Augustus ignored their claims. It would be hazardous to infer that theprinceps had a long-standing and deliberate design to convert client states into provinces, once their rulers had prepared them for incorporation. Nor would provincialization of the land provide the glory of imperial expansion that came with conquest. An ad hoc decision seems more likely. Death of the king at the hands of rebellious tribes threatened the region and challenged the efficacy of Roman overlordship. Augustus would now make a display of direct Roman rule. The new province included a number of military colonies dispatched by Augustus to Pisidia. The annexation of Galatia served to solidify the area, overawe recalcitrant mountaineers, and provide a buttress for client princes in Pontus, Paphlagonia and Cappadocia, as well as for the provinces of Bithynia and Asia.
Augustus had no commitment to provincialization as a matter of policy. In fact, he detached the area of Cilicia Tracheia from Galatia and bestowed it upon Archelaus, the loyal ruler of Cappadocia.[303] When circumstances called for it, he would alter arrangements and reorganize territory accordingly. The death of Deiotarus Philadelphus in 6/5 B.C. gave occasion for incorporating his realm into the province of Galatia. Three years later came a further addition to the province, the region of Pontus Galaticus.[304] A preserved oath of allegiance from Gangra underscores the new order: the inhabitants swore fealty to Augustus and included his name among the gods and goddesses by whom the oath was sanctioned.30 Improvisation rather than elaborate design appears to characterize Roman decisions in Asia Minor. The Homonadenses had brought about the demise of Amyntas and provided the impetus for provincialization. Yet Roman governors of Galatia, whose appointments began in 25 B.C., conducted no campaign against that people for two decades. The tribe had presumably been quiescent in the mean time. It can be inferred that Augustus ordered an offensive only when the Homonadenses stirred trouble again. The legate P. Sulpicius Quirinius headed forces that engaged the mountaineers, perhaps c. 5-3 B.C., gradually reducing their strongholds and starving out the defenders, a lengthy and arduous process.[305] One other uprising demanded Rome's attention a few years later: the turbulent Isaurians challenged her authority and had to be quelled in a.d. 6. The province had now been effectively pacified.[306]
Elsewhere in Asia Minor petty dynasts ruled in cities or lesser principalities. Some had served the cause of Antony and were removed, others kept in place. And even where Augustus deposed, a dynast he might subsequently restore the dynasty. He left tyrannies in power in Mysia, at Caranitis and Amasia, and in the Bosporan kingdom. He removed rulers from Hierapolis Castabala in Cilicia Pedias and from Olba in Cilicia Tracheia, only to reinstate the ruling houses later. At Pontic Comana he overthrew one Antonian supporter and replaced him with another. Tarsus, where Octavian replaced a client of Antony with one of his own partisans, was exceptional rather than representative. And in Commagene, Augustus expelled more than one dynast before turning the principality back to a previous ruling line.[307] The ad hoc character of these dispositions stands out clearly. Some changes took place after Actium, and some dynasties suffered interruption. In general, however, Augustus preferred continuity or reverted to earlier dynastic houses which could bring experience and promote stability.
iii. judaea and syria
Syria held Rome's principal military installation in the East. Three, later four, legions were stationed there, a show of strength to Parthia, and a garrison to intervene at need in Asia Minor or Palestine. Expansionism was not the aim here, rather the maintenance of order and the entrenchment of control. Internal security took precedence.
Syria had become a Roman province after Pompey's campaigns in the 60s and remained a centre for implementation of eastern policy. Antony of course controlled it in the 30s, and Octavian made certain to establish his dominion there shortly after the fall of his rival. The governor of Syria, Q. Didius, was among those who made timely transfer to Octavian after Actium; and Octavian himself spent some time in Syria in late 30 в.с. His presence alone underscored the importance of the area.[308]In the settlement of 27 в.с. Augustus acquired formal responsibility for the province of Syria and thereby for Rome's defence system in the East. The princeps kept close surveillance on the region through his appointees. Roman troops quelled an uprising of the Ituraeans in Lebanon. And the loyalty of minor dynasts like Dexandros at Apamea helped keep the region under control.35 Augustus gave his chief deputy M. Agrippa general supervision of the East based on Syria in 23 B.C., an office he discharged for ten years, though usually in absentia, with trusted legates in place.36 A similar duty seems to have been exercised by Augustus' grandson Gaius, in association with his eastern expedition c. 1 B.C., thus reaffirming the central significance of Syria for Rome's position in the East.37
On the Syrian flanks Augustus relied on client princes to serve as buffers and to cushion the province. The petty kingdoms of Emesa and Ituraea provided protection against Bedouin tribes from the desert.38 And supervision over much of Palestine was entrusted to a remarkable man, Herod the Great.
The extensive testimony of Josephus affords a more intimate glimpse into the affairs of Herod than we possess for any other dependent ruler. Herod has thus become the client prince par excellence, a prime exhibit for the relationship between Rome and vassal kings.
This half-Jewish Idumaean had been a chief beneficiary of Antony, confirmed and supported in his authority by the triumvir. And he sided loyally with Antony right down to Actium itself. Herod was not at Acdum, engaged instead in fighdng with the Nabataeans. But for Herod, as for so many others, the battle represented a decisive turning point. No pretence of hidden sympathies for Octavian was possible. Herod sought out Octavian in Rhodes in 30 B.C. and took a straightforward line: the same sort of unswerving fidelity he had shown to Antony he could now offer to Antony's conqueror; he could be trusted to serve Octavian's interests — as he served his own. Octavian recognized the mutual benefits inherent in this relationship, reaffirmed Herod's royal status and expanded his holdings along the coast, in Samaria, in the Decapolis and around Jericho. Herod put his loyalty on display by visiting Octavian in Egypt and accompanying the Roman on his return trip as far as Antioch.39 The events of 30 B.C. set a pattern for the relationship between princeps and client king.