This monograph appears as an open criticism of F. Millar's The Roman Near East 31 bc–ad 337. From v.W.'s point of view one limitation of Millar's approach lies in the choice not to deal with the development of Roman administration in the East beginning from Pompey's eastern campaigns. For this reason v.W. aims not so much to present a new analysis of the interstate relations with the Near Eastern kingdoms from Pompey's campaigns onwards, but rather during the civil wars between Antony and Octavian (44–31 bc).

After having initially determined the geographical extent of the Near East, v.W. moves on to review the kingdoms taken into examination. The analysis is limited to administrative entities that were headed by a monarch – be it a king, a queen or a dynast with minor titles such as ethnarches and phylarchos. Free cities are omitted (Tyre and Sidon), as are kingdoms and principalities for which the sources on contacts with Rome are too scarce (Osrhoene and Adiabene). Also excluded are the Iberians, the Albans and the Rhambaeans; three peoples of whom the first two inhabited different regions of the Caucasus while the third occupied an unknown area west of the Euphrates. An appreciable point can be found at pp. 10–24, where v.W. justifies the choice of expressing himself on the relations between Rome and the Near Eastern kingdoms in terms of amicitia and not of clientship.

Part 1 constitutes the prelude to v.W.'s general discourse on the relations between Rome and the client kingdoms, and his narrative necessarily begins with the arrangement given by Pompey to the eastern territories. V.W. composes as detailed a picture as possible of Pompey's action in the East, without omitting those aspects that scholars usually prefer to deal with only in a summary way due to the scarcity of sources (the controversial Caucasian campaign, the contacts with Antiochus of Commagene, the clash with Darius of Media, the reorganisation of the principality of Chalcis).

In Part 2, after a brief description of the Roman–Parthian relations from Gabinius to the death of Caesar, v.W. moves on to describe the relations of Parthia with the murderers of Caesar. The dealings with and, consequently, the clashes between Rome and Parthia are presented as the outcome of the civil wars. V.W. provides a quick review of Roman–Egyptian relations and briefly discusses the support given by Cleopatra to Dolabella. Chapter 4 is devoted to the analysis of Roman–Jewish relations and begins with the description of the role played by Judea in countering the rebellion of Caecilius Bassus (pp. 82–7). It then moves on to describing the dynamics of the exaction of the tribute and the emergence of the figure of Herod (pp. 87–91). The chapter closes with the promotion of Herod by Cassius and Staius Murcus to a leading role in the administration of the province of Syria. The figure of Caecilius Bassus is examined again in the following chapter (5), where v.W. tackles the question of the support of the principality of Chalcis for this man, which is also the subject of a passage from Strabo (16.2.10). But there is no hiding the fact that the picture of the aid provided by these rulers to Bassus remains highly controversial. In this context v.W. might have said something more about Palmyra, where the Parthians exerted some form of political influence.

After Philippi a new phase of Roman policy in the East begins, and Part 2 presents a very precise event history that goes from the raids of Labienus and Pacorus to the victory achieved by Ventidius Bassus at Gindaros. There follows an interesting discussion of the information provided by Florus (2.20.1) about amicitia established between Antony and the king of the Parthians after the invasion of 38. V.W., on the basis of Cassius Dio 49.22.1, shows that Florus’ report is the result of a misunderstanding, as the treaty was actually signed by Antony and Antiochus of Commagene (pp. 116–18). As for the relations with Egypt, v.W. provides an assessment of the meeting between Antony and Cleopatra in Tarsus. According to v.W. the main reason why Antony summoned Cleopatra to Cilicia was to ask for clarification of the accusations made against her of having assisted Cassius in the war against Antony and Octavian. Then the analysis moves on to discuss Antony's grants of the principality of Chalcis and other territories to Cleopatra. In fact, most scholars are inclined to propose a date in the winter of 37/36 and 34, while v.W. proposes a date in late 37 or at some point in 36, with the exception of Cyprus and parts of Cilicia Tracheia, which were already in Cleopatra's control by late summer 38. The last chapters of Part 2 (8–13) deal with other Near Eastern principalities and kingdoms: Judea and the rule of Herod, the principality of Chalcis under Lysanias, the kingdoms of Nabataea, Armenia, Media Atropatene and Commagene. The analysis of Roman–Armenian relations after the death of Caesar deserves some attention as v.W. concludes that the policy of Artavasdes was not dictated by aprioristic anti-Roman feelings but was the consequence of the precarious geopolitical position occupied by Armenia between Parthia and Rome. The king was not a full ally of either of them in order to preserve space for independence. V.W.'s argument would have benefited from taking into account a contribution by G. Traina (‘Ambigua Gens? Methodological Problems in the Ancient Armenian History’, in H. Berberian and T. Daryaee [edd.], Reflections of Armenian Identity in History and Historiography [2018], pp. 71–80), where he invites us to consider that ancient ‘Armenia was not only between East and West, but also in East and West. Moreover, it was in the Caucasus’ (p. 79). It is in this framework that we should understand the words of Tacitus (Ann. 2.56.2) labelling the Armenians as ambigua gens, not an ‘untrustworthy people’, but rather an ‘undecided’ one because they could not decide between Rome and Parthia.

Finally, Part 3 offers an analysis of the conduct of Near Eastern rulers towards Rome (Chapter 14) and vice versa (15). V.W. succeeds in providing an informative picture of the behaviour of those rulers and the diversity of their conducts ranging from requests of Roman intervention into the internal affairs of their realms to the involvement of the same rulers in a civil war. The same diversity can be detected in the Roman attitudes towards the Near Eastern principalities. In this regard, v.W. adopts a suggestion (already mentioned at p. 139) made by R. Strootman, who holds that the grants of large parts of the Near East from Anthony to Cleopatra aimed to stabilise the whole region by putting it under the rule of the Ptolemies and indirectly under himself and Rome.

In his conclusions v.W. highlights the continuity with Antony's actions that characterised the organisation Octavian gave to the East. But there is not only continuity between Octavian and Antony: since the arrival of Pompey in the East, the recognition of a small kingdom by Rome was the only way for it to survive. In this sense v.W. is right in identifying a change of pace in Roman–Eastern relations with the emergence of Pompey, who acted as a potentate capable of establishing a dominion over the subject populations that nominally belonged to the Senate, but in point of fact was a prerogative of the general in charge. Overall, the historical reconstruction of the relations between Rome and the Near East is the highlight of this work, which represents a welcome addition to the studies on the Roman Republic and the late Hellenistic period.