Client Kingdoms of the Roman Empire

[SKILORD]

I'm working on a study to compare the client kingdoms in Ancient Rome to the modern state system of the American Federal Republic. Comparisons between America and Rome come easy, but I've never seen this one before and it fascinates me.

What I do know is this:

The Roman Republic started out as what historians call a 'Hegemonic Empire'. What that means, in basic terms, is that the Romans directly controlled a small area of land with their legions. Legions, as you know, can be thought of as heavy infantry armed with throwing spears, short swords and large shields. Surrounding this region, or linked to it by roads or sea-lanes, are small client states. These were smaller kingdoms that relied on Rome for protection and in return not only paid tribute, but also supplied the legions with food and auxilia (auxiliary troops). Auxiliary troops were cavalry, men armed with bows and slings, so on.
Outside the states are the tribes, some are clients to Rome and some are not. They were harder to control because of the distance from Rome and their own lack of organization, but some tribes are useful allies against other tribes.
The whole set up was pretty nice. Minor threats, like raiders, could be handled by the client states and the Rome never had to deal with it. Major threats, like invasion from Parthian Empire, could be handled by just bringing in some of the legions, which when added to the local auxiliary units, made a well-balanced defensive. In fact, legions plus auxiliary could be used for invading and annexing new holdings.
Why would client states allow this or even be happy with this relationship? Freedom from direct control was one. Yes, Rome had the power to replace kings, but by subjecting themselves to Roman diplomatic control smart kings got protection from other powerful nations and OTHER client states. For without the permission of Rome, no client state could declare war against another. Also, a King who proved himself valuable to Rome could call on legions to help put down revolts and civil unrest.

What did Rome get? Rome got trade, power beyond the direct reach of their legions and an empire at a tiny cost. Few legions were needed and most could be keep in reserve (what Edward N. Luttwak called disposable and concentrated imperial forces). The very fact these forces were available would make major powers think twice about invading any part of Rome's holdings. Thus, an elastic defense, flexible and cheap, also allowed troops for swift expansion. A young republic, full of men who needed military experience and money to hold office would do well in such a setting and so would Rome. Yet, when Rome became an Empire, or what is also called the Principate, the First Emperors (who were not called emperors just yet) wanted to consolidate Roman holdings. They turned to absorbing client states into provinces, campaigning against the Persians and even planned on taking all of Europe. Yet few pushed the borders farther than the Republic's lands before the Empire. They and the legions turned to defending the border, to keep what they had. They became, in other words, a 'Territorial Empire'.
A territorial empire is one that controls all territory directly, after either annexing or abandoning their allies. All forces are put on the frontier, to protect the border.
The problem with border defense (sometimes called forward defense) is the lack of flexibility."

to be found at http://www.roman-empire.net/articles/article-003.html

However I want more about the administrative qualities, this only provides me with tactical and millitary information. If I can display theeffeciency of central control of the client states effectively and couple it with a treatise on the ineffeciency of Federal Control in the American system then I'll be working with something, right now all I have is a strong hunch.

Can anyone here offer any information, any links, any books on the subject?

 

[Boleslav]

Hey there!

Off the top of my head, how about looking at some tribes in particular (the Pechenegs, the Huns, the Visigoths, even the Sarmatians since King Arthur is in the cinemas right now) I think the basic pattern was that Rome allowed these people to settle and co-opted them into the Roman army, but eventually the balance of power shifted and sensing weakness, these tribes turned against their imperial master.

Another possible route might be to look at some structuralist theories of International Relations. When you have a great power, it's natural for the smaller countries on it's borders to stay really friendly with the great power and do what it wants. It's called 'bandwaggoning' and you can find loads of good examples both in the Roman world and in Modern History. For example, Finland sided with the USSR during WWII.

I think a good place to start might well be the history of interaction between the Pechenegs and the Byzantine Empire. The book to start with is called the Alexiad by Anna Comnius (I think that's her name anyway)

Good luck!

 

[Adso de Fimnu]

I think a good place to start might well be the history of interaction between the Pechenegs and the Byzantine Empire. The book to start with is called the Alexiad by Anna Comnius (I think that's her name anyway)

It's an interesting read, but the power system of the Byzantines certainly wasn't much like Rome. (Her name is Anna Comnenus, by the way.)
A site I'd recommend is Matthew White's Wars of the 21st Century.
Indeed, the system of dependent "allies" is awfully like the US relationship with Latin America. (If only it were that way with Canada... )

 

[Red Threat]

This happened only in the Italian peninsula, till the Bellum Civile. The provinces were directly ruled.

 

[Boleslav]

What were the client kingdoms of the Roman Empire? Egypt? Persia? Greece? What could be the equivalents of these for the modern American Empire?

 

[LouLong]

Client states would be more IMHO countries such as Armenia, Palmyr or Judea when Jesus was born.

 

[Red Threat]

No. These were the provinces.

The client states (foederati) where Italic cities & states like Tarentum, Brundisium, Croton, Volterra, Tarquinia, etc.

 

[SKILORD]

Judea was at one point a client state, there were British client kings. Those are just the ones I know for sure, but the first Herod was certainly a client king.

 

[Dragonlord]

For example, Finland sided with the USSR during WWII.

WHAT?? They certainly did not! They sided with Germany AGAINST Russia!

Though you could still call it bandwagoning - they just jumped on the GERMAN bandwagon!

 

[privatehudson]

Actually, for the briefest of periods Finland did "fight" against the Germans, that is if you can call what happened after Finland left the axis side late in the war "fighting".

 

[joycem10]

What were the client kingdoms of the Roman Empire? Egypt? Persia? Greece? What could be the equivalents of these for the modern American Empire?

I think Skilord was trying to draw a parallel between the Roman system of client kingdoms and the American Federal system in which the United States is divided into the several states and commonwealths of the union.

The modern equivalents would then be Pennsylvania, California, Texas, Idaho, etc...

For an idea on how the founding fathers viewed the way the system should work, take a look at the Federalist papers and the anti-federalist papers. The inefficiency of the national goverment was considered one of its values by the founders.

 

[Zakal]

I think that the client states would be kingdoms that were "indepedent", but pretty much controlled by Rome. For example, in 14 AD, when Augustus died, Cappadocia, Thrace, Maureania, Arabia, and Petraea were all considered indepedent kingdoms, but they all payed tribute to Rome, were protected, and got more trade, like the article says. These territories wre all annexed into the Empire. Cappadocia in 17 AD, Maureania in 42 AD, Thrace in 44 AD, and by 106 AD, Petraea was part of the Roman province of Arabia. (I think that Parthia had similar client states on the Arabian peninsula, but I'm not sure.) When the borders were expanded though, they had to be protected. Protecting the borders made the Roman army develop the strategy of defending certian spots and having a mobile, powerful force in reserve. They also set up new client states to protect the ones they had made (England did this in colonial India), like the Kingdom of Bosphorus, and whatever the place where the Visigoths setteled around Austria was called, and protecting them made them need a larger army, and more client states, and it cost money. In the long term, that ****s them up.

My opnion is that since tribute and occupying lesser countries is a lot more frowned upon by the public nowadays that it was like 2000 years ago, hte client states of the US would be countries that (generaly) accept our foreign policy, vote with us in the UN, trade freely with us, let us base troops in their land, and we would protect them if they were invaded.

So to boil this long thing down, I think that the client states of the US would include Mexico, Israel, Britain, maybe Canada, and post-occuaption Iraq and Afghanistan, not the states in the Union.


I don't know of any books that deal with this exact topic, but in civ 3 terms ...

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=78077&page=1&pp=20

Daftpanzer is trying to keep all civs alive because it's cool. Rome and the US did/do it because it stops chaos, and chaos is bad for the big fish. I think that the Inca, Maya, and Vikings after Daftpanzer beat them down could qualify as client states. There's trade, and if they attack the Celts or each other, they'll hammered. It's intresting to see that since the object is to keep world peace, Daftpanzer was pretty much forced, towards the middle, to have strongly defended bases the known world over, from which powerful, fast-striking moble forces can punish aggressors ... just like Rome and America.

 

[SKILORD]

However the Client Kingdoms were permitted to rule their subjects as they saw fit, which is basically the link I need. Certainly Rome controlled their foreign policy and it certainly taxed them, but the original Federal Gov't only taxed the states.

 

[Zakal]

Yeah, I guess. The big difference though, is that the Romans exerted influence through the threat of force. Look at Palmyra. Tiberus assimilated it, Hadrian let it have some independence, but when Zenobia started acting up, Aurelian reconquered it. In the beginning of the US, the states had decided to band together for mutual benefit, not because someone was forcing them to. Early in the 1770s, if three or four of the state millitias had allied, they probably could have defeated the federal army. If New York and Pennsylvania hadn't ratified the constitution, the rest of the states probably couldn't have stood by themselves. By 1861 the Federal goverment was strong enough to keep the states in line, but the states had all decided to create the unifying force, while the Roman client states had it imposed on them, even if it was usually beneficial for the client state.

Both America in the earlier 1800s and Imperial Rome used federal money for infastructure (roads, canals/aquaducts, arches), but usually issued the money as a one-time thing for each project. Both expanded the citizenship as they expanded, but never to the point of giving newly conquered territory cizitenship immediatly. Both issued edicts from the head of state that had huge impacts - The Monroe Doctrine and Roosevelt Corollary made all of Latin America a 'client state'. "Support us, because we're powerful and right next to you. If you screw up badly, we'll invade, and we'll wipe the floor with you if that happens." Any time there was a leftist revolt, or American business intrests were threatened, or we wanted part of Colombia to build a canal, someone got invaded.