| The Roman habit of taking hostages from states on their periphery played an important role in the spread of Roman influence throughout the Mediterranean and Europe. The English word "hostage" is not an adequate translation of the ancient vocabulary---in Greek, `o&d12;mh rov ; in Latin, obses---which lacked the same coercive connotation. The physical well-being of `o&d12;mh rov /obsides, typically aristocratic male youths, was never in serious jeopardy and was not used as blackmail against non-compliance. Hostages instead were intended to serve as tokens of a clientela relationship between individual Romans and hostage donors. Non-Roman rulers who surrendered members of their family expected to benefit, in return, from external patronage in their domestic political disputes. The acceptance of hostages thus provided the Romans with a reciprocal means of infiltrating foreign decision-making processes.; With the assimilation of hostages to Roman culture, the Romans could derive added benefits beyond the clientelae of hostage donors. Former hostages frequently returned home with troops, money, and an innate proclivity for collaborating with Rome. While some succumbed to resistance, others survived to sponsor temples, theaters, and other cultural institutions in the Roman style and to write new histories that explained the attractions of the Roman presence to their countrymen. Roman influence could thus be strengthened without the expense of long-term military occupation.; The person of the hostage came to symbolize the essence of international relations, and their treatment embodied larger political and cultural sentiments. In Roman contexts, the depiction of hostages in art and literature was used both to define the Roman position of superiority over subsidiary states and to achieve political prestige in domestic settings. |
