Originally posted by Traianvs
Eh I don't understand that part. You mean the son of the last sovereign of the defeated land returns some years later exacting a revenge on the great empire... and that son is the rebellious ruler you mean?
If that's what you mean, that's not really what the Romans did when they took control of Asia Minor for example. They did relatively little 'true conquering' there. It's more the case that lots of kings there favoured the Romans by putting into their will that the kingdom will go to Rome if they die. It was a perfect protection against assassination attempts.
The various kings and rulers were in effect client-kings though, but they seldomly installed them in Asia Minor through warmongering, because that was not necessary anyway
Eh I don't understand that part. You mean the son of the last sovereign of the defeated land returns some years later exacting a revenge on the great empire... and that son is the rebellious ruler you mean?
If that's what you mean, that's not really what the Romans did when they took control of Asia Minor for example. They did relatively little 'true conquering' there. It's more the case that lots of kings there favoured the Romans by putting into their will that the kingdom will go to Rome if they die. It was a perfect protection against assassination attempts.
The various kings and rulers were in effect client-kings though, but they seldomly installed them in Asia Minor through warmongering, because that was not necessary anyway
I guess he means Arminius the Cherusc (Herman the German).
But beside that I guess the "Roman ideology" thing is pretty constructed.
Comment