In ancient Rome one's official reputation was dictated by one's last success or failure. A success absolved all previous failures, and a failure absolved all previous successes., and one's overall behavior followed that pattern. If a person died in disrepute, why their whole life had shown such signs, while if they died respectable, their whole life had been respectable. Comments about people while they were living also show this pattern.
Mithradates was a major threat when he killed off all Latins in Anatolia in a single night, and even more so when Greece successfully rebelled against Rome with his assistance. Sulla managed to recapture Greece and struck a peace treaty with Mithradates, returning Anatolia to Roman approved leadership, he was worthy of praise and honor, Mithradates was just a minor problem that had been properly dealt with. But wait, Sulla did not disband his army but instead brought it back to Italy when some disparaged him, Sulla was bad. Sulla won the battles in Italy and became dictator, Sulla was brilliant, and as he died successful, he remained brilliant.
After Sull's death, Mithradates started a war again, this time with allies in Spain and Italy (Spartacus). Mithradates was a major problem. Spartacus defeated several Roman armies sent to stop him Spartacus was a major problem. Pompey meanwhile managed to put down the rebels in Spain, Pompey was brilliant. Crassus, who had fought alongside Sulla, and even saved him in one battle, defeated Spartacus, he was a brilliant leader, although since Pompey had returned to Italy before Spartacus was fully defeated Pompey shared in the glory. Pompey then went to Anatolia to fight against Mithradates and ended up annexing Syria and bringing Judah into the Roman sphere of influence, so he was even more brilliant. Mithradates reportedly died by treachery, not direct Roman action, so he ended up just being a minor footnote to history. Pompey, Crassus and Julius Caesar worked together to form the First Triumvirate, they were all brilliant and Rome need more leaders like them.
The Crassus decided that Pompey had too much glory and decided to enhance his own, so he invaded Parthia. With initial success, Crassus was a brilliant leader, but the next year when with roughly 45,000 Roman soldiers facing roughly 11,000 Parthians, the Romans lost badly, and Crassus died, he was a total incompetent who should never have led Roman soldiers. And since Parthia followed the fleeing Romans back into Syria, and the general Near East, Parthia was a major threat, although Roman art tried to downplay the threat. Augustus just added to his status gained by defeating all "rebels" after Julius Caesar's death when he recovered the lost Roman Eagles from Parthia.,
Now for Herod, he was a sound choice when the Roman Senate confirmed him, but maybe not as he soon was friendly with the Parthians, but then questionable when he sided with Marc Anthony, but clearly a good choice when he sided with Augustus. He and Obadas, another client king, were blameless when they guided a Roman force to attack Felix Arabia, leading them by an inland route, away from the Roman Navy in the Red Sea, which was destroyed during the six months it took to arrive at their destination, and blameless when the expedition failed, but very good in guiding the Roman survivors back to Roman territory in just 6 weeks by staying closer to the Red Sea shore. But Obadas was bad when he was found to be the aggressor in a spat with Herod a few years later. Then when Herod attacked a fellow client king around 5 BCE, Herod was bad, Obodas's successor, who reportedly took action in support of the attacked king was in a vague category. None of Herod's actions to appease Augustus were successful, so Herod died in disgrace, which was supported by all his despicable actions recorded after his death. Obodas's successor was recognized as a good king when he contributed troops to put down a rebellion by the Jews after Herod's death.
The general pattern continued with Herod Antipas, who minted coins suggestive of support for Jesus and Christianity and others, Joseph Caiaphas, the only possible high-ranking member of the Sanhedrin named "Joseph", Pontius Pilate, whom some traditions claim became Christian after an admittedly scandal filled pre-33 CE time in office and Herod Agrippa I, the successor to Antipas who got into trouble with the Roman authorities before his death.
