ABSTRACT
If there was one difference more than any other between Rome's European and Near Eastern empires, it was that Rome came to the Near East as a brash newcomer entering civilisations far older than its own. Some of the nations it annexed had histories of nationhood far older than Rome's, and as nations continued far longer (Armenia, for example). Many of these remained as distinct units ruled by their own kings as clients of Rome - the so-called 'Friendly Kings'! -long after Rome had extended its empire there. Roman rule was exercised only indirectly through its client king, often with just a small Roman garrison to protect Roman interests. By and large these client kingdoms were left to their own affairs so long as they behaved themselves. In this way the system resembled the system of Princely States through which Britain ruled its Indian Empire. If they did not behave themselves, they would be annexed and ruled directly, although very occasionally client status could be restored (as in the case ofJudaea). Not all were 'kingdoms' in the traditional sense: Herod was only created a 'king' by the Roman Senate, Palmyra never had any kings until its client status became open to question, and the Tanukhid and Ghassanid 'kingdoms' were really tribal confederations ruled by their shaikhs who were appointed as 'phylarchs' by the Romans.
