International Marriage Alliances

[WotWotius]

We can all agree that internal marriage alliances within the Roman aristocracy was a regular occurrence. What seems to be far more of a rarity is a marriage alliance between the Roman elite and foreign monarchs.

 

The reasons for this is quite simple, really: firstly it was probably considered beneath a Roman aristocrat's honour to have a foreigner affiliated with his noble gens; and secondly, unlike the marriage alliances of the Diodachi, an international alliance cemented in this fashion would have not been as beneficial to the multiple families of the aristocracy and Roman state as a whole.

 

I do, however, know of two tenuous references to external Roman marriage alliance:

 

1) The famous proposal of Ptolemy (VI or VIII) to Cornelia, daughter of P. Cornelius Scipio Africanus, widow of Ti. Sempronius Gracchus, who rejected him (Plu. Tib. Grac. 1.4.).

 

2) Octavian's proposal that his daughter, Julia, should marry the Getaic King Cotiso in order to strengthen their alliance against Antony (Sue. Aug. LXIII). Although Suetonius' source for this is in fact one of Antony's letters referring to Octavian backing out of the original betrothal of Julia to Antony's son in favour of a foreign candidate. This is most probably slander - the fact that the marriage in question never amounted to anything further proves this.

 

Does anybody know of any other references of this nature?

[M. Porcius Cato]

Great set of questions. Perhaps marriages between Roman and provincial families were more common?

[Ingsoc]

I think that the great motives to form marriage alliance were political support inside the institutes of the republic, this foreign rulers couldn't provide.

 

It's was also consider a disgrace and un-Roman to merry foreigners, just look at the great political damage and slander that Marcus Antonius suffered because he had merried Cleopatra VII.

[G-Manicus]

The children of these unions would not be considered Roman citizens, correct?

[Primus Pilus]

The children of these unions would not be considered Roman citizens, correct?

 

Depends on the who, what, where, when. Post AD 212 all were citizens. In the Republican period, likely not... as Ingsoc mentions, even the arrangement between Antonius and Cleopatra was an issue in the waning days of the Republic. In the Principate and beyond, (though I cite no example) special dispensation clearly could've been awarded for allies of the Princeps who were willing to arrange such marriages for the good of the empire.

[M. Porcius Cato]

The children of these unions would not be considered Roman citizens, correct?

Depends on the who, what, where, when. Post AD 212 all were citizens. In the Republican period, likely not... as Ingsoc mentions, even the arrangement between Antonius and Cleopatra was an issue in the waning days of the Republic.

 

What about children of Roman males and non-Roman females from the provinces and allies of Rome? Do you think that the child of a Roman citizen and a Sabine woman would not be a Roman citizen?

[P.Clodius]

Interesting point MPC..Were the Cicero's considered none Romans at some point? If so when did they cease to be none citizens and under what circumstances? Were they descendants of settled soldiers or merchants or were they true bred?

[Ingsoc]

From the Oxford Dictionary of the Classical World:

 

"Marriage in the ancient world was a matter of personal law, and therefore a full Roman marriage could exist only if both parties were Roman citizens or had conubium (right to contract marriage), either by grant to a group (e.g. Latins) or individually. Only such a marriage could place the children in the father's power and create rights of succession. Further, parties might have this general conubium but still lack conubium with each other Impediments varied: (1) Age. Although consent, not consummation, made a marriage, the partners had to be physically capable. The minimum age became fixed at 12 for women and (apparently) 14, puberty, or both for men. (2) Relationship, by blood, adoption, or marriage, within certain degrees. (3) Disparate rank. The Augustan marriage laws of 18 BC and AD 9 prohibited marriage between senators (and their immediate descendants) and freed slaves. (4) Considerations of morals or public policy. Augustus similarly prohibited marriage between free‐born citizens and members of disreputable professions (see infamia), or with a convicted adulteress. Serving soldiers (below a certain rank) were forbidden to marry until Septimius Severus); later, to avoid undue influence, provincial officials were forbidden to marry women of the province during their term, and guardians (see guardianship, Rome ) to marry their wards."

[Melvadius]

The status of Roman citizens (and indeed anyone serving in the military) in the provinces was covered by several laws which were compiled in the later legal texts, including those compiled in the sixth century AD in the Digest of Justinian (Digest). These include:

 

D.23.2.63 (Papian) which declared invalid the marriage of senior officers with women from provinces in which they were serving, comparing it to someone marrying his female ward.

D.23.2.38 (Paulus) placed a similar restriction on administrators although they could marry a woman from the province 'providing' they were betrothed to her prior to being sent to the province.

D.23.2.63 (Papian) declared that if a woman had been married in defiance of these restrictions she or her heirs, were entitled to the return of their dowry.

 

In fact, as has already been indicated in earlier postings, several of the laws collated in the Digest regarding the rights of citizens to marry and produce

[caldrail]

In a related answer, there is the case of Zenobia. In order to prevent her her assuming the role of usurper again and also to prevent martydom, she was married off to some relatively unimportant roman in a quiet area and continued to live as a wealthy solicialite thereafter

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

The children of these unions would not be considered Roman citizens, correct?

 

This goes some way to answering your question......

 

Johnstons Private life of the Romans....

 

http://' target="_blank">68. Iūstae Nūptiae.

There were certain conditions that had to be satisfied before a legal marriage could be contracted even by citizens. The requirements were as follows:

 

(1) The consent of both parties should be given, or that of the pater familiās if one or both were in patriā potestāte. Under Augustus it was provided that the pater familiās should not withhold his consent unless he could show valid reasons for doing so.

 

(2) Both of the parties should be pūberēs; there could be no marriage between children. Although no precise age was fixed by law, it is probable that fourteen and twelve were the lowest limit for the man and the woman respectively.

 

(3) Both man and woman should be unmarried. Polygamy was never sanctioned at Rome.

 

(4) The parties should not be nearly related. The restrictions in this direction were fixed by public opinion rather than by law and varied greatly at different times, becoming gradually less severe. In general it may be said that marriage was absolutely

forbidden between ascendants and descendants, between other cognates within the sixth (later the fourth) degree, and between the nearer adfīnēs .

 

 

If the parties could satisfy these conditions, they might be legally married, but distinctions were still made that affected the

civil status of the children, although no doubt was cast upon their legitimacy or upon the moral character of their parents.

 

 

69. If the conditions named in were fulfilled and the husband and wife were both Roman citizens, their marriage was called iūstae nūptiae, which we may translate by "regular marriage." The children of such a marriage were iūstī līberī and were by birth cīvēs optimō iūre, "possessed of all civil rights."

 

If one of the parties was a Roman citizen and the other a member of a community having the iūs cōnūbiī but not full Roman cīvitās, the marriage was still called iūstae nūptiae, but the children took the civil standing of the father. This means that, if the father was a citizen and the mother a foreigner, the children were citizens, but, if the father was a foreigner and the mother a citizen, the children were foreigners (peregrīnī), as was their father.

 

But if either of the parties was without the iūs cōnūbiī, the marriage, though still legal, was called iniūstae nūptiae or iniūstum mātrimōnium, "an irregular marriage," and the children, though legitimate, took the civil position of the parent of lower degree. We seem to have something analogous to this today in the loss of social standing which usually follows the marriage of one person with another of distinctly inferior position.

[Ingsoc]

We may assume (base on Cassius Dio, Book LXXIX, 1) that by the time on the Severan dynasty the reservations about marriage alliance with foreign rulers has dissapear.