Flashback : Syria Becomes Armenian

83 B.C.E. Politics in the Near East resembles nothing so much as a game of chess between insane opponents. Two Syrian Greeks, Philip I and his cousin Antiochus X, are scrounging around for powerful friends to support them in their respective claims to the Seleucid throne. Predictably, neither is succeeding. The realm, though still standing, shrinks daily. Predators abound. To the east, Orodes I the King of Parthia is trying to recover lost territory bordering on Seleucid land but is held in check by Tigranes II as well as by palace revolutions at home. In the south, the Ptolemaic dynasty fares no better than the Seleucid one, addicted as it is to bloodbaths and family intrigues. Between Parthia and Egypt, the Nabataeans and other desert chieftains are eating away at Syria’s domains. To the northwest, Mithridates VI Eupator, King of Pontus, quietly readies for a second war against Rome, while Cilicia thrives on the lucrative business of banditry and piracy, and its domain is said to extend over the whole Mediterranean right up to the Pillars of Hercules.

Tigranes’ empire : click for complete map

The strongest powers in this playing field are Mithridates VI and Tigranes II, in that order. They are allies ; Tigranes’ wife Cleopatra is a daughter of Mithridates. Tigranes can therefore feel relatively secure on his throne. [1] As the monarchs of the time were wont, he felt the urge to expand. He moved into the Seleucid kingdom -- Syria and parts of Cilicia -- where he met with little if any resistance. [2] One of his lieutenants, Magadates, took up residence in Antioch where he acted as viceroy, handling matters in the king’s name.

A False Return of the Monarchy

It seems to me that since Lucullus’ and Pompey’s presence in the Near East stemmed primarily from the war against Mithridates, the political stance taken with regard to Syria also stemmed from that conflict. The slogan that Rome had used before and was using still to justify the wars fought on Greek soil was the defense of Greek freedom. However, what the Romans meant by libertas was slightly different from what the Greeks meant by the Greek word eleutheria. For many Greek cities in the first century, eleutheria in the original sense of independence and of not being subject to another city or people, belonged to the past. In the new world order, the question was not whether a city-state would regain independence but whether it could be free to govern itself by its own laws while at the same time acknowledging the hegemonía of another city-state, in this instance Rome. That outlook happened to fit the Roman definition of libertas in which the rule of law prevailed over the more or less arbitrary rule of a monarch or tyrant. Since the Hellenistic world was entirely in the hands of monarchs, the Romans at that time, governed by a Senate under a Republic, came to consider themselves as the only free people in the civilised world. As a corollary, any other people who accepted Rome’s imperium as opposed to obedience to a Hellenistic monarch / tyrant enjoyed libertas by extension. [5] The Greeks well understood that complete autonomy was no longer an option, which is why many cities hesitated to side with Rome against Mithridates in 74. It was a case of Greeks banding together in the name of a common Greek heritage of freedom. But when it came down to a choice between survival and destruction, the Greeks chose survival under Roman control. Such last-ditch changes of allegiance had occurred before ; the city of Ephesus, for example, when it belatedly declared itself against Mithridates in the First Mithridatic War, stated that it would fight with Rome “for the sake of the supremacy (hegemonía) of the Romans and the freedom of all,” meaning the liberty of the Greek cities in Asia. [6]

So when Lucullus began to settle Syria’s affairs after defeating Tigranes in 69, I believe that his concern was not at all with the right of the Seleucid Empire to exist as an independent state, or with the legitimacy of one prince over another but only with Rome’s imperium in that area. He might have chosen Antiochus XIII as king because the rival Philip II’s father had been an accomplice of Rome’s enemy. Whatever his reasons for putting Antiochus XIII on the throne, by imposing Rome’s method of settlement, Lucullus was fulfilling his mission to restore peace and stability to the Near East. To accomplish that mission, there was yet no need to create a new province. [7] The notions of imperium and libertas seemed compatible with having a client (or puppet) king in Syria ; by no stretch of the imagination did Antiochus XIII appear to have been capable of assuming the role of monarch, much less tyrant. [8]

Consequently, when Pompey was sent to replace Lucullus and abolished the monarchy, I believe that that decision did not signify a change in Roman policy. That policy remained intact : the establishment of Rome’s imperium in the Near East. In the eyes of the Roman Senate, the issue had never been the survival of the Seleucid Empire. What had changed since 69 was that the king’s incompetence had proved to invite chaos which obstructed Rome’s command. By deposing the king and installing a Roman magistrate -- Aulus Gabinius was the first proconsul of Syria -- Pompey was implementing the same policy as his predecessor when he had restored the Seleucid dynasty.

Rome’s hegemonía in the former Seleucid Empire turned out to be a blessing. If all freedom had been lost, so had anarchy. Stability and prosperity followed immediately on the heels of the Roman take-over. Even before Syria was made into a province, Romans adopted the role of benevolent evergetes. In the year 67, while Philip II momentarily occupied the throne, the proconsul of Roman Cilicia, Q. Marcius Rex, made arrangements to build a palace and a circus at Antioch. In exchange, the king was to make a contribution to the cost of Rome’s operations being carried out against the pirates in the area. Later, in 64, Pompey solemnly granted libertas to Antioch, Seleucia Pieria and other cities in Syria. In addition, he paid for the restoration of Antioch’s bouleuterion and increased the land around the sacred grove and temple of Apollo in Daphne. [9] These gifts, though not excessively generous, show how much times were changing ; where important building projects were undertaken, people felt secure that conflict no longer threatened to pull down in a day what would take months or years to put up.

The paradox is that as Rome’s hegemonía expanded and as Rome itself grew wealthier and more powerful, it began to lose its own sense of libertas. Lucius Cornelius Sulla had reigned for a long time as dictator in Rome, during which time free Romans felt the cruel yoke of servitium, that very curse for which its imperium was said to be the remedy. As the Hellenistic monarchies crumbled one after the other before Rome’s best generals, the Roman Senate and Republican government slowly disintegrated. Only twenty years after the deposition of the last king of Syria, Julius Caesar would be assassinated for entertaining the dream of being king of Rome, a dream that would yet come true for his heir Octavian.

Mauricius Fabius