What happened to foreign royals captured by Romans?

What happened to the royal children captured by Rome, especially in the 1st centuries BC and AD?

A few interesting examples.

- When Rome conquered Macedon, the four children of King Perseus were brought to Rome for the triumph. His wife was allowed to go home to Syria. The eldest son Alexander became a skillful Toreutics, learned Latin and became a public notary. His un-named sister and younger brothers Philip and Andriscus disappear from record. Would this Alexander have obtained citizenship, in order to become a notary? Would he likely marry in the knightly or senatorial classes?

- Cleopatra's deposed sister Arsinoe IV was placed by Caesar in the temple of Artemis in Ephesus, where she lived a comfortable existence until her execution.

- The Briton king Androgeus (Mandubracius) and his sons apparently fled to Rome, never to return.

- Cleopatra's children Alexander Helios, Cleopatra Selene and Ptolemy Philadelphus were all taken to Rome following their mother's defeat. The boys disappear from record and Cleopatra was given away as a wife to a loyal client king.

- The berber prince Juba was taken to Rome by Caesar. From wiki: "In Rome, he learned Latin and Greek, became romanized and was granted Roman citizenship. Through dedication to his studies, he is said to have become one of Rome's best educated citizens, and by age 20 he wrote one of his first works entitled Roman Archaeology. He was raised by Julius Caesar and later by his great-nephew Octavian (future Emperor Caesar Augustus). Juba II while growing up, accompanied Octavian on military campaigns, gaining valuable experience as a leader." He was subsequently restored to his father's kingdom and married to Cleopatra Selene.

- Augustus sent an otherwise unknown woman named Thea Musa to the Parthian King. This woman became his chief queen and convinced him to send his other sons, daughters-in-law and a few grandsons to Rome. Some of these were later sent back to rule Parthia, others died in Rome.

I'd like to know:
1. How hard was it for these princes to obtain citizenship?
2. Would they rank alongside the knights or senatorial ?
3. Who would be considered suitable brides for them?
4. Was there any standard for the Romanization of their names?
5. Is Juba an exceptional case or was military & public service perfectly acceptable path for former royals to undertake?

Any help appreciated
 
Through dedication to his studies, he is said to have become one of Rome's best educated citizens, and by age 20 he wrote one of his first works entitled Roman Archaeology.

Huh... so the Romans were excavating and studying their own archaeological ruins before everyone else. :D
 
A king from what's now Scotland (he of the alleged "make a desert and call it peace" quote) was defeated and brought to Rome to be paraded around and then executed.

He made a defiant speech that so impressed the reigning Emperor (can't remember who it was) that he was allowed to live out his life in Rome itself.
 
It was Emperor Claudius.

The Romans in general were very good at allowing defeated royalty to live and be 'Romanized.' So long as you weren't part of a victorious general's triumph you were normally spared and allowed to grow up in Senator's or noble's home.
 
It was Emperor Claudius.

The Romans in general were very good at allowing defeated royalty to live and be 'Romanized.' So long as you weren't part of a victorious general's triumph you were normally spared and allowed to grow up in Senator's or noble's home.

Would that mean adoption, or just a foster-type relation?

How were their descendants viewed/received in society?
 
There were two different incidents -- Caractacus, a king from Southern Britain, was the king who impressed Claudius by telling him that if Claudius had Caractacus executed he would be forgotten, but if he let him live he would be remembered forever. He was spared.

Calgacus was the ruler from Scotland credited by Tacitus with the 'they make a desert and call it peace' speech [it's a great speech, but Tacitus probably made it up himself]. He fought against Agricola in the early 80s, a few decades after Claudius. His fate after the Caledonians lost the battle of Mons Glaucius is unknown.
 
Calgacus was the ruler from Scotland credited by Tacitus with the 'they make a desert and call it peace' speech [it's a great speech, but Tacitus probably made it up himself].

That always fascinated me. Not only did Tacitus include a anti-Roman speech in his histories, he actually wrote it himself. Points a whole different spin on 'history is written by the victors.' We not only imagine ourselves more virtuous in our own records, we do the same for our enemies as well.

That tells us something profoundly odd about human nature.
 
There were two different incidents -- Caractacus, a king from Southern Britain, was the king who impressed Claudius by telling him that if Claudius had Caractacus executed he would be forgotten, but if he let him live he would be remembered forever. He was spared.

Calgacus was the ruler from Scotland credited by Tacitus with the 'they make a desert and call it peace' speech [it's a great speech, but Tacitus probably made it up himself]. He fought against Agricola in the early 80s, a few decades after Claudius. His fate after the Caledonians lost the battle of Mons Glaucius is unknown.

Oops. You're right.
 
That always fascinated me. Not only did Tacitus include a anti-Roman speech in his histories, he actually wrote it himself. Points a whole different spin on 'history is written by the victors.' We not only imagine ourselves more virtuous in our own records, we do the same for our enemies as well.

That tells us something profoundly odd about human nature.

I think it depends.

If you view warfare as being an integral part of society that always happens, and so is more honourable if both sides are virtuous, strong and proud, so that when you defeat them you are showing your strength against one who is otherwise your equal, it's going to be different to 'war is bad, but they're savages who would have killed us otherwise' in a more anti-war society.
 
It depended on Rome' feelings at the time, and who the monarch was. There were loads of barbarian kings and queens who were executed outright, with little regret and a lot of pomp. Some monarchs were spared if the Romans thought that they were sufficantly brave or honorable. Case in point, Calgacus and Zenobia were both spared by the Romans, but Vercingetorix was paraded around Rome and executed. So, it all just depended on the context.
 
1. How hard was it for these princes to obtain citizenship?

Technically, quite hard, but de facto - they would hang with the crowd that made things possible. Prior to the accumulation of power by augustus, a grant of citizenship technically required a law (unless it were conferred by adoption, adrogation or manumission). Very powerful magistrates (this was a matter of personal standing, not rank) did occasionally grant citizenship and nobody said anything. Royalty, of course, would have that kind of connections, so the option would have been open. The legal alternative would have been to go before the senate for a senatusconsultum (legally dodgy, but has precedent) or before the comitia for a lex (the clean way, but hard).

Roughly from Augstus onwards, we have records of magistrates increasingly granting citizenship. It's still no trivial matter, but any governor could do it and have the grant stick.

Then, of course, there is the possibility of a block grant to a group of people, especially in the first century AD. I don't think these were often made to Greek-speaking populations, though, so you'd have to be one of the nonexistent Italic kings to get one early, or a Gallic one to have them later.

2. Would they rank alongside the knights or senatorial ?

Technically, that would be up to the censor responsible. If they met the census qualifications, the decision would be made during the next enrolment. After Augustus, that would be up to the princeps, of course. Newly minted citizens could be enrolled as senators - Casear was criticised for doing so - but it was not automatic for royalty or anything.

Socially, royalty ranks with the cream of Roman society, though they would always be felt to be somewhat outlandish and not quite proper. They would certainly not be snubbed by anyone.

3. Who would be considered suitable brides for them?

That is a tricky question and would depend greatly on the situation of the moment. Marriage alliances between Roman aristocrats and foreign potentates were very, very fraught. A Hellenistic king would most likely not be permitted to marry into a powerful senatorial family because it's not done. A Gallic regulus, though, would be a different matter and might simply decide to become a Roman presence in his little pond, complete with Roman wife. As an aside, in the first century AD it was usual to ex-post-facto legitimise pre-citizenship-grant marriages and children. A similar deal might be made here.

4. Was there any standard for the Romanization of their names?

No. Transcriptions varied enormously. The standard methopd of integrating it into the Roman naming pattern was to adopt the personal and gentile name ofd the citizenship grantor (assuming such a person existed), or of the patron in the case of a viritane grant through comitia (lex) or senate (senatusconsultum). So a person known as e.g. Harjowald would be transcribed, rather hit-or-miss, Chariovalda. On becoming a Roman citizen through the offices of, say, Lucius Cornelius Sulla (Lucius of the gens Cornelia and the branch Sulla), he would become Lucius Cornelius Chariovalda (Lucius of the gens Cornelia, of the branch Chariovalda, consisting of him at this point).

5. Is Juba an exceptional case or was military & public service perfectly acceptable path for former royals to undertake?

Given the political considerations, every royal would be an individual case. Juba is a good example of someone who wanted to fit in, and that would work especially for rulers whose power base was so inconsequential they had more to gain from acting Roman. You would not see a Ptolemy or Antigonid allowed into the Senate, though. It wouldn't be safe.
 
Would that mean adoption, or just a foster-type relation?

How were their descendants viewed/received in society?
If Britannia is any indication, their descendants simply changed their job titles to something more Roman-sounding and kept having hereditary local offices until the Romans left, after which they resurrected the old system. Of course, Britain was never fully romanized like Gaul and Hispania were, so it could be a special case.
 
If Britannia is any indication, their descendants simply changed their job titles to something more Roman-sounding and kept having hereditary local offices until the Romans left, after which they resurrected the old system. Of course, Britain was never fully romanized like Gaul and Hispania were, so it could be a special case.

Generally speaking, wherever tribal aristocracies ruled the roost, the Romans could coopt them into their own version, the decurional order. They would have a hereditary position of power in society and continue to dominate their neighbours as they had, though now it would be by loan sharking, legislation and patronage rather than cattle gifts and raiding.

It did not work well for Hellenistic-style kings.
 
Top