Herod discharged or anticipated obligations. He supplied soldiers for Aelius Gallus' campaign in Arabia c. 26 B.C., refounded and renamed cides in Augustus' honour, dispatched two of his sons to Rome for their education in 23 B.C., and had his subjects swear an oath of allegiance to
35 Crushing of the Ituraeans: ILS168 j; Dexandros and in general, Rey-Coquais 1978 (e 1054)47- 9. 34 Dio 1.111.3г.1; Joseph. AJ xvi.3.3.
37 Oros. vii.3.4. For the evidence on Roman governors of Syria under Augustus, see Schŭrer 1973 (e 1207) 253-60.
M Augustus appears to have deposed and later restored the dynasty of Emesa; Sullivan 1977 (e 1065)210-14. 39 Joseph. AJ xv.183-201, 218; BJ 1.386-97.
the emperor.40 And the king profited. Augustus enlarged his territorial holdings twice more in the decade after Actium: in 23 в.с. Herod's friendship with the princeps' son-in-law and chief helpmate M. Agrippa only enhanced his status further. The king orchestrated an elaborate tour and a lavish reception for Agrippa during his stay in the area in 15 B.C. and performed numerous services for him on a mission to Asia Minor.41 The tighter the bonds, however, the greater the dependency. The kingdom of Herod was evidently not liable for tribute to Rome.42 The obligations were subtler and more ambiguous, and thereby, in some ways, more demanding. Augustus gave to Herod some responsibility for supervision in Syria, thus, no doubt, to co-ordinate efforts with the princeps legate in that province.43 He also awarded to Herod the privilege of appointing his own successor.44 The princeps presumably intended that gesture as a sign of esteem and an encouragement to independent behaviour. But the very fact that such a privilege had to be explicitly articulated is the most telling indicator of the true relationship. And the outcome only intensified subordination. Herod more than once thrust upon Augustus the burden of adjudicating disputes within the royal family. The sordid tale of intrigues in the court, domestic discord, and Herod's morbid suspicions which led to the execution of three sons need not be recounted here. The pertinent fact is that Herod declined to settle matters even in his own household without seeking the emperor's directions. His reign was long and memorable - but always precarious. Conflict between Herod and the Nabataeans led to recriminations in Rome, as the king alternately fell out of and was restored into the favour of Augustus.45
Herod's will, twice rewritten during his lifetime, drew Augustus still further into the affairs of the realm after the Idumaean's death in 4 B.C. The document parcelled Herod's holdings among three sons. But it also provided for vast sums of money for Augustus, Livia, the imperial children, amici and freedmen, and it further specified that none of the provisions could take effect without ratification by the princeps.*6
Troops for Aelius Gallus: Joseph. AJxv.} 17; the naming of Sebaste and Caesarea: Joseph. AJ xv.296, xv.339; the sending of sons to Rome: Joseph. A] xv.342; oath of allegiance: Joseph. A J xvii.42.
Territorial acquisitions: Joseph. AJxv.343-8, 360; BJ 1.398-400; Dio Liv.9.3; cf. Bietenhard 1977 (e 988) 238-40. Herod and Agrippa: Joseph. AJxv.350, xv.361, xvi.i 2-16, xvi.86; BJ, 1.400. Cf. Schalit 1969 (e 1206) 424-6; Smallwood 1976 (e 212) 86—90; Braund 1985 (c 254) 79—80, 85; Roddaz 1984 (c 200) 450-5.
As argued by Schiirer 1973 (e 1207) 1.399-427; contra, Applebaum 1977 (e 1074) 373. But note the cash gift on a trip to Rome in 12 b.c.; Joseph. A J xvi. 128.
Joseph. AJ xv.360; BJ 1.399. 44 Joseph. A] xv.343, xvi.i29.
45 Smallwood I976(e 1212)96-104; Schiirer 1973 (e 1207) 320-6; Schalit 1969^ 1206) 563-644; Bammel 1968 (e 1083) 73-9; Piatelli (e i 189) 323-40; Bowersock 1983 (£990)49-53; Baumann 1983 (e 1091) 221-37; and see below ch. i5</.
Joseph. AJ xvii.146, xvii.188-90, 195; BJ 1.646,1.664-5,1.669.
Herod's privilege of appointing a successor had thus been transformed into a recommendation rather than a directive; Augustus would have the final say. That clause invited discord. The sons of Herod brought conflicting claims to Rome, complicated by a separate Jewish delegation which requested abolition of the monarchy. Augustus decided matters with even-handedness: he endorsed Herod's territorial dispositions, in effect dividing his realm into three parts, but withheld the royal title from all three sons. Archelaus would rule Judaea, Samaria and Idumaea as ethnarch, Antipas and Philip obtained the designation of tetrarch, the one over Galilee and Peraea, the other over Batanaea, Trachonitis and Auranitis. The will and its sequel allowed Augustus both to exercise beneficence and to re-assert his ultimate authority.47 Further, the princeps' chief appointee in the East, P. Quinctilius Varus, the governor of Syria, intervened with force to quell a Jewish rebellion which had arisen in the wake of Herod's death. The limits of autonomy gained clear expression.48
What Augustus gave he could also take away. The precedent of asking the emperor to redress grievances created in Palestine had been firmly set in the reign of Herod. A logical step followed in a.d. 6. Complaints registered in Rome against the misrule of Archelaus led Augustus to depose the Herodian dynast, banish him to Gaul, and convert his domain into a Roman province. The smaller principalities under Antipas and Philip remained 'autonomous', but the key districts of Judaea, Samaria and Idumaea would now come under direct Roman rule, governed by an equestrian prefect and under the general surveillance of the imperial legate in Syria. A census directed by the Syrian legate P. Sulpicius Quirinius marked the new order in a.d. 6. It signalled the imposition of Roman taxes and the official subordination of Judaea.49
Consolidation rather than expansion characterized Augustan policy in Syria and Palestine. Syria contained the major Roman garrison in the East and provided the pivot for the defence of Rome's position and enforcement of her authority. The history of Judaea under Augustus exposed the fragility of 'independence' for client states which served as buffers for Roman interests. Herod earned imperial favour by tying his realm more closely to the emperor, thus bolstering power but increasing dependence. The transition from client kingdom to province represented a logical stage in the development. Taxation and direct rule only formalized a continuing process of implementing Roman authority in the East.
47 Joseph. A]xv11.219-49, xvii.ĵ00-23; Д/ ".14-38,11.80-100; Braund 1984 (c 234) 139-42.
** Joseph. Д/xvn.250-99; BJ 11.39-79.
49 Joseph. Л/xvii.342-4,xvii.354-5; В_/и.111-13,11.i i7;DioLV.27.6;Pani 1972(0 295) 133-7. The census of Quirinius is wrongly dated to the reign of Herod by Luke 2:1-5. Oo the new province, see Smallwood 1976 (E 1212) 144-56; Ghiretti 1985 (e 1119)751-66.
iv. armenia and parthia
M. Antonius had invested heavily in warfare against Parthia. Contests with the great eastern power entailed substantial costs in men and prestige. Parthia had inflicted defeat upon Roman armies, and Rome's influence in Armenia had proved ephemeral. The humiliation left deep scars. Standards of the Republic's army captured at Carrhae and hostages taken in Antony's abortive campaign remained in Parthian hands.50 After Antony's demise, the burden of restoring Rome's honour rested with the victor of Actium. But Octavian resisted the temptation to retaliate. More urgent tasks of consolidation took priority after Actium. And the restraint set a pattern: the princeps recognized that prudent diplomacy and discreet display of force were preferable to expensive and hazardous ventures across the distant Euphrates. Indirect suzerainty in Armenia and a modus vivendi with Parthia represented the means to preserve prestige and protect security.