Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T17:34:59.976Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Claudius, Gaius and the Client Kings

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Anthony A. Barrett
Anthony A. Barrett
Affiliation:
University of British Columbia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

When Claudius came to power in January 41 he did not hesitate to distance himself from his predecessor's behaviour and policies, and among other measures, Suetonius reports, he abolished all Gaius' acta. The precise implications of this move are not made clear. Certainly, the extremely unpopular taxes introduced in Rome near the end of Gaius' reign were annulled, several people convicted of maiestas were set free, and the monies previously confiscated from negligent, and possibly corrupt, road commissioners were returned. But if the abolition of the acta was as sweeping as Suetonius seems to imply, a number of popular and useful measures must inevitably have been abrogated at the same time, and as a matter of routine they would need to be reintroduced by Claudius. The arrangements with the client kings may well have belonged to this general category, and if we assume that this was indeed the case we shall have an explanation for a number of apparent inconsistencies in the literary sources. It should be observed that in the early part of his principate Gaius went out of his way to be a ‘constitutional’ ruler. The appointment of the client kings would have been handled so as not to seem like the arbitrary exercise of power. Certainly, when the three sons of the murdered king of Thrace, Polemo, Cotys and Rhoemetalces received new kingdoms in 38, Dio stresses that the act was legitimised by a formal senatorial decree. If client kings had generally been established by a formal and legal process their appointments could quite well have come to an end with the abolition of the acta in January 41.

Type
Shorter Notes
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 40 , Issue 1 , May 1990 , pp. 284 - 286
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Suet. Claud. 11.3; 60.4.1, 60.4.6, 17.2.

2 Dio 59.12.2.

3 Jos. AJ 18.237, cf. Dio 59.8.2. On Lysanias: Luke 3.1; IGR 3.1085.

4 Jos. AJ 19.274.

5 Jos. AJ 18.237. 19.275, BJ2.215 (where it is described as the kingdom of Lysanias), cf. AJ20. 138; see Smallwood, E. M., The Jews Under Roman Rule2 (Leiden, 1981), p. 190.Google Scholar

6 Tac. Hist, 2.81; Suet. Cal. 16.3; Dio 59.8.2. On his territory in Cilicia, see Magie, D., Roman Rule in Asia Minor (Princeton, 1950), pp. 1338 n. 24, 1368 n 49.Google Scholar

7 Jos. AJ 19.355; Dio 59.24.1.

8 Jos. AJ 19.276; Dio 60.8.1.

9 BMC Pontus etc., 50Google Scholar; Minns, E. H., Scythians and Greeks (Cambridge, 1913), p. 611.Google Scholar

10 Minns, 597, Plate VII. 10; BMC Pontus etc., 51.5.

11 Dio 59.8.2; see Barrett, A., ‘Gaius' Policy in the Bosporus’, TAPA 107 (1977), 1–9.Google Scholar

12 Plut. Galba 13.15.

13 On this general question, see Millar, Fergus, ‘Emperors, Frontiers and Foreign Relations, 31 b.c. to a.d. 378’, Britannia 13 (1982), 4–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Braund, D., Rome and the Friendly King (London, 1984), p. 26.Google Scholar