His favor in the eyes of the Romans was based upon his scarcely
disguised Hellenic sympathies and his proven loyalty to his masters. The
Parthian invasion of 40 B.C.E. and the existence of Parthian
sympathizers made the maintenance of order in Palestine a matter of the
highest importance. The significance of these Eastern marches for the
stability and safety of Rome was even greater than those of the North
along the Rhine, where also constant turbulence was to be feared, and
eternal vigilance was demanded. In the East, however, there was not
merely a horde of plundering savages to be repelled, but the aggression
of an ancient and civilized power, bearing a title to prestige compared
with which that of Macedonian and Roman was of recent growth. And
Parthian successes here immediately jeopardized Egypt, already rapidly
becoming the granary of the Empire.
Quite in accordance with Roman policy, indeed with ancient policy in
general, Augustus vastly preferred to have the peace of this region
assured by means of a reliable native government than directly by Roman
administration. The Romans did not covet responsibility. If a native
prince was trustworthy, it was a matter of common sense to permit him to
undertake the arduous duty of policing the country rather than assume it
themselves. The difficulty was to discover such a man or government.
Experience and the suspiciousness that was almost a national trait
convinced the Romans that only very few were to be trusted, and these
not for long. In Herod, however, they seemed to have discovered a
trustworthy instrument, and while it is not strictly true that the
powers conferred upon him were of unexampled extent, they were
undoubtedly unusual and amply justified the regal splendor Herod
assumed. The readiness with which Herod’s loyalty to Antony was pardoned
demonstrated the clear perception on the part of Augustus of how
admirably Herod could serve Roman purposes here.
One of the motives that generally impelled Romans to permit native
autonomy was no doubt to gain credit for generosity with their subjects.
They might be forgiven for supposing that Roman rule would be more
acceptable if it came indirectly through the medium of a king that was
himself of Jewish stock. The distinction between Idumean and Jew proper
would hardly be recognized by a Roman, although the distinction between
the geographical entities of Idumaea and Judea was familiar enough.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account