The Augustan Empire 43 BC

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.

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.