History of the Roman Empire 27 BC to 180 AD

J. B. Bury

• Publisher: Ozymandias Press
• Year: 2018
• eBook ISBN: 9781531281748
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: Roman Ancient History
• Index: History

JULIUS CESAR, the triumvir and the founder of the Roman Empire, was the grandnephew of C. Julius Caesar, the dictator, his adoptive father. Originally named, like his true father, C. Octavius, he entered the Julian family after the dictator's death, and, according to the usual practice of adopted sons, called himself C. Julius Caesar Octavianus. But the name Octavianus soon fell into disuse, and by his contemporaries he was commonly spoken of as Caesar, just as Scipio Emilianus was commonly called Scipio.

PROVINCIAL ADMINISTRATION UNDER AUGUSTUS. THE WESTERN PROVINCES.

~

Sect. I.

GENERAL ORGANIZATION OF THE PROVINCES

When Augustus founded the Empire, the dominion of Rome stretched from the Atlantic to the Euphrates, from the German Ocean to the borders of Ethiopia. The lands which made up this empire had by no means the same political status. Rome, the mother and mistress of the Empire, stood by herself. She was the centre, to which all the rest looked up. Next her, sharing in many respects her privileged position, was Italy. Outside this inner circle came the directly subject lands and communities, which were strictly under the sway (in dicione) of the Roman people. Outside these again came the lands and communities which, while really under the sovranty of Rome, preserved their independence and were not called subjects, but federate states and allies. And in each of these circles there were various kinds and subdivisions, according to the mode of their administration or the limits imposed on their self-government. Thus the subjects of the Roman Empire were almost as heterogeneous in their political relations to their mistress as in race and language. It is to be observed that by ‘Roman Empire’, we mean more than the Romans in strict speech meant by imperium Romanum. We mean not only the provinces, but the independent allied states and client kingdoms, in which the people were not the subjects of the Roman people and the land was not the property of the Roman state. These federate and associated states were regarded legally as outside the Roman fines, although the foedus or alliance really meant that they were under the sovranty of Rome and the continuation of their autonomy depended solely on her will. There was no proper word in Latin to express the geographical circle which included both the direct and the indirect subjects. Perhaps the nearest expression wasorbis terrarum, “the world”, which often seems equivalent to “the Empire”. For Roman law regarded all territory, which was not either Roman or belonging to someone whose ownership Rome recognized, as the property of no man,—outside the world.

The chief mark of distinction between the autonomous, and not autonomous communities was that the former taxed themselves, whereas the latter were taxed by Rome. In both cases there were exceptions, but this was the general rule. And the land of the provincial communities which were not autonomous belonged to Rome, whereas the land of the autonomous states was not Roman. Originally, after the conquest of her earliest provinces, Rome had not appropriated the land; but this was a theoretic mistake which she afterwards corrected when C. Gracchus organized Asia. Henceforward all provincial territory was regarded as in the ownership of the Roman people. The Roman people might let the land anew to the former possessors at a fixed rent, and in most cases this was done. Thus the principle was that the provincial subjects occupied as tenants the lands which they or their ancestors once owned. This rent wag called tributum, or stipendium.

(a). The greater number of provincial communities in the time of Augustus were civitate stipendiariae. The legal condition of these subjects was that of peregrini dediticii, but they were not called by this name. They were under the control of the governor of the province to which they belonged.

(b). Throughout the provinces there was a multitude of cities which possessed full Roman citizenship, and their number was continually increasing. But although, as far as personal rights were concerned, these cities were on a level with the cities of Italy, they were worse off in two particulars. They were obliged to pay tribute. The reason of this anomaly was the theoretic principle that provincial territory could not be alienated by its owner, the Roman people. The ager publicus populi Romani beyond the sea could not become ager privatus ex iure Quiritium. In other words, a provincial of Narbo, although a Roman citizen, could not be a quiritary possessor of land in the Narbonese territory. He could only hold land of the Roman people, and must therefore pay rent for it. In the case, however, of some favored communities, this principle was departed from as early as the time of Augustus. The privilege took one of two forms, either a grant of immunity from tribute or the bestowal of ius Italicum. The latter form, which was the more common, placed the territory of the community which received it in the same position as the territory of Italy, and made it capable of quiritary ownership. The provincial cities which possessed ius Italicum marked their position by the external sign of a statue of a naked Silenus with a wine-skin on his shoulder, which was called Marsyas. This custom was imitated from the Marsyas which stood in the Roman Forum, as a symbol of the capital city. Besides being tributary, the provincial communities of Roman citizens were, like the peregrine communities, subject to the interference of the Roman governor.

It is to be observed that these communities were either coloniaeor municipia. In the course of Italian history the word municipiumhad completely changed its meaning. Originally it was applied to a community possessing ius Latinum, and also to the civitas sine suffragio, and thus it was a term of contrast to those communities which possessed full Roman citizenship. But when in the course of time the civitates sine suffragio received political rights and the Roman states received full Roman citizenship, and thus the municipium proper disappeared from Italy, the word was still applied to those communities of Roman citizens which had originally been either Latin municipia or independent federate states. And it also, of course, continued to be applied to cities outside Italy which possessed ius Latinum. It is clear that originally municipium andcolonia were not incompatible ideas. For a colony founded with ius Latinum was both a municipium and a colonia. But a certain opposition arose between them, and became stronger whenmunicipium came to be used in a new sense. Municipium is only used of communities which existed as independent states before they received Roman citizenship, whether by the deduction of a colony or not. Colonia is generally confined to those communities which were settled for the first time as Roman cities, and were never states before. Thus municipium involves a reference to previous autonomy.

(c). Besides Roman cities, there were also Latin cities in the provinces. Originally there were two kinds of ius Latinum, one better and the other inferior. The old Latin colonies possessed the better kind. The inferior kind was known as the ius of Ariminum, and it alone was extended to provincial communities. When Italy received Roman citizenship after the Social war, the better kind of ius Latinum vanished for ever, and the lesser kind only existed outside Italy. The most important privilege which distinguished the Latin from peregrine communities was that the member of a Latin city had a prospect of obtaining full Roman citizenship by holding magistracies in his own community. The Latin communities are of course autonomous and are not controlled by the provincial governor; but like Roman communities they have to pay tribute for their land, which is the property of the Roman people, unless they possess immunity or ius Italicum as well as ius Latinum.

(d). Outside Roman territory and, formally, independent allies of Rome, though really her subjects, are the free states, civitates liberae, whether single republics, like Athens, or a league of cities, like Lycia. Constitutionally they fall into two classes, (1) civitates liberae et foederatae, or simply foederatae, (2) civitates (sine foedere) liberae (et immunes). States of the first class were connected with Rome by a foedus, which guaranteed them perpetual autonomy. In the case of the second class no such foedus existed, and their autonomy, which was granted by a lex or senatus consultum, could at any moment be recalled. Otherwise the position of the two classes did not differ. The sovran rights of these free states were limited in the following ways by their relation to Rome. They were not permitted to have subject allies standing to themselves in the same relation in which they stood to Rome. They could not declare war on their own account; whereas every declaration of war and every treaty of peace made by Rome was valid for them also, without even a formal expression of consent on their part. Some of the free states, such as Athens, Sparta, Massilia—seem to have been exempted by the treaty from the burden of furnishing military contingents, both under the Republic and under the Empire. Others, on the other hand, were bound by treaty to perform service of this kind; thus Rhodes contributed a number of ships every year to the Roman fleet. It is probable that the communities which were established as federate or Latin states under the Principate, were subject to conscription. Theoretically, all the autonomous states should have been exempt from tribute, as their land was not Roman; but there were exceptions to this rule, and some free cities—for example, Byzantium,— paid under the Principate a yearly tributum.

(e). The position of the client kingdoms was in some respects like that of the free autonomous states, but in other respects different. Both were allied with Rome, but independent of Roman governors. Both the free peoples who managed their own affairs, and the kings who ruled their kingdoms, were socii of the Roman people; and the land of both was outside the boundaries of Roman territory. But whereas, in the case of the civitates foederatae, the Roman people entered into a permanent relation with a permanent community, in the case of kingdoms the relation was only a personal treaty with the king, and came to an end at his death. Thus, when a client king died, Rome might either renew the same relation with his successor, or else, without any formal violation of a treaty, convert the kingdom into a province. This last policy was constantly adopted under the Principate, so that by degrees all the chief client principalities disappeared, and the provincial territory increased in corresponding measure. Even under the Republic the dependent princes paid fixed annual tributes to Rome.

(f). The treatment of Egypt by Augustus formed a new departure in the organization of the subject lands of Rome. It was, as we have seen, united with the Roman Empire by a sort of “personal union”, like that by which Luxemburg was till recently united with Holland. The sovran of the Roman state was also sovran of Egypt. He did not, indeed, designate himself as king of Egypt, any more than as king of Rome; but practically he was the successor of the Ptolemies. This principle was applied to dependent kingdoms which were afterwards annexed to the Empire, such as Noricum and Judea. Such provinces were governed by knights (instead of senators, as in the provinces proper), and these knights, who were entitled prefects or procurators, represented the Emperor personally. It is clear that this form of government was not possible until the republic had become a monarchy, and there was one man to represent the state.

(g). To make the picture of the manifold modes in which Rome governed her subjects complete, there must still be mentioned the unimportant class of attributed places. This was the technical name for small peoples or places, which counted as neither states nor districts (pagi), and were placed under or attributed to a neighboring community. Only foederate towns, or towns possessing cither Roman citizenship or ius Latinum, had attributed places. This attribution was especially employed in the Alpine districts; small mountain tribes being placed under the control of cities like Tergeste or Brixia. The inhabitants of the attributed places often possessed ius Latinum, and as they had no magistrates of their own, they were permitted to be candidates for magistracies in the states to which they were attributed. They could thus become Roman citizens.

It is to be carefully observed, that while the subjects of Rome fell into the two general classes of autonomous and not autonomous, the not autonomous communities possessed municipal self-government. The provinces, like Italy, were organized on the principle of local self-government. In those lands where the town system was already developed, the Roman conqueror gladly left to the cities their constitutions, and allowed them to manage their local affairs just as of old, only taking care that they should govern themselves on aristocratic principles. Rome even went further, and based her administration everywhere on the system of self-governing communities, introducing it in those provinces where it did not already exist, and founding towns on the Italian model. The local authorities in each provincial community had to levy the taxes and deliver them to the proper Roman officers. Representatives of each community met yearly in a provincial concilium. For judicial purposes, districts of communities existed in which the governor of the province dealt out justice. These districts were called conventus.

It thus appears that the stipendiary communities also enjoyed autonomy—a “tolerated autonomy”, of a more limited kind than that of the free and the federate communities. The Roman governors did not interfere in the affairs of any community in their provinces, where merely municipal matters, not affecting imperial interests, were concerned. It also appears that those not autonomous communities which had obtained exemption from tribute practically approximated to the autonomous, whereas those nominally independent states, in which tribute was nevertheless levied, approximated to the dependent.

Here we touch upon one of the great tendencies which marked the policy of Augustus and his successors in the administration of the Empire. This was the gradual abolition of that variety which at the end of the Republic existed in the relations between Rome and her subjects. There was (1) the great distinction between Italy and the provinces; and there were (2) the various distinctions between the provincial communities themselves. From the time of the first Princeps onward, we can trace the gradual wiping out of these distinctions, until the whole Empire becomes uniform. (1) The provinces receive favors which raise them towards the level of Italy, while Italy’s privileges are diminished and she is depressed towards the level of the provinces. But this change takes place more gradually than (2) the working out of uniformity among the other parts of the Empire, which can be traced even under Augustus, who promoted this end by (a) limiting the autonomy of free and federate states, (b) increasing the autonomy of the directly subject states, (c) extending Roman citizenship, (d) converting client principalities into provincial territory. But perhaps the act of Augustus which most effectually promoted this tendency was his reorganization of the army, which has been described in the foregoing chapter. While hitherto the legions were recruited from Roman citizens only, and the provinces were exempt from ordinary military service, although they were liable to be called upon in cases of necessity, Augustus made all the subjects of the Empire, whether Roman citizens or not, whether Italians or provincials, liable to regular military service. The legions were recruited not from Italy only, but from all the cities of the Empire, whether Roman, Latin, or peregrinae; and the recruit, as soon as he entered the legion, became a Roman citizen. Theauxilia were recruited from those subject communities which were not formed as cities, and no Roman citizens belonged to these corps. Such communities now occupied somewhat the same position as the Italic peoples had formerly occupied in relation to Roman citizens. It will be readily seen that the new organization of the legions, by largely increasing the number of Roman citizens, and by raising the importance of the provinces, tended in the direction of uniformity

IMPERIAL AND SENATORIAL PROVINCES.

It has been already stated that in the provincial administration, as in other matters, a division was made by Augustus between the Emperor and the senate. Henceforward there are senatorial provinces and imperial provinces. The provinces which fell to the share of the senate were chiefly those which were peaceable and settled, and were not likely to require the constant presence of military forces. The Emperor took charge of those which were likely to be troublesome, and might often demand the intervention of the Imperator and his soldiers. Thus (27 BC) Augustus received as his proconsular “province” Syria, Gaul, and Hither Spain. With Syria was connected the defence of the eastern frontier; Gaul, which as yet was a single province, he had to protect against the Germans beyond the Rhine; and Hispania Citerior (or Tarraconensis) laid on him the conduct of the Cantabrian war. To the senate were left Sicily, Africa, Crete and Cyrene, Asia, Bithynia, Illyricum, Macedonia, Achaia, Sardinia, and Further Spain (Baetica). In this division there was an attempt to establish a balance between the dominion of the Emperor, (who had also Egypt, though not as a province,) and the senate. But the balance soon wavered in favor of the Emperor, and the imperial provinces soon outweighed the senatorial in number as well as importance. When new provinces were added to the Empire, they were made imperial.

After the division of 27 BC, several changes took place during the reign of Augustus; but before we consider the provinces separately, it is necessary to speak of the general differences between the senatorial and the imperial government.

The Roman provinces were at first governed by praetors, but Sulla made a new arrangement, by which the governors should be no longer praetors in office, but men who had been praetors, under the title of propraetors. This change introduced a new principle into the provincial government. Henceforward the governors...

Table of contents

• FROMTHE BATTLE OF ACTIUMTO THE FOUNDATION OF THE PRINCIPATE.
• THE PRINCIPATE.
• THE JOINT GOVERNMENT OF THE PRINCEPS AND SENATE.
• THE FAMILY OF AUGUSTUS AND HIS PLANS TO FOUND A DYNASTY.
• ADMINISTRATION OF AUGUSTUS IN ROME AND ITALY. ORGANISATIONOF THE ARMY.
• PROVINCIAL ADMINISTRATION UNDER AUGUSTUS. THE WESTERN PROVINCES.
• PROVINCIAL ADMINISTRATION UNDER AUGUSTUS. THE EASTERN PROVINCES AND EGYPT.
• ROME AND PARTHIA. EXPEDITIONS TO ARABIA AND ETHIOPIA.
• THE WINNING AND LOSING OF GERMANY. DEATH OF AUGUSTUS.
• ROME UNDER AUGUSTUS. HIS BUILDINGS.
• LITERATURE OF THE AUGUSTAN AGE.
• THE PRINCIPATE OF TIBERIUS (14-37 AD)
• THE PRINCIPATE OF TIBERIUS (continued).
• THE PRINCIPATE OF GAIUS (CALIGULA) (37-41AD)
• THE PRINCIPATE OF CLAUDIUS (41-54 AD)
• THE CONQUEST OF BRITAIN.
• THE PRINCIPATE OF NERO (54-68 AD)
• THE WARS FOR ARMENIA, UNDER CLAUDIUS AND NERO.
• THE PRINCIPATE OF GALBA, AND THE YEAR OF THE FOUR EMPERORS (68-69 AD)
• REBELLIONS IN GERMANY AND JUDEA.
• THE FLAVIAN EMPERORS. VESPASIAN, TITUS, AND DOMITIAN (69-96 AD).
• BRITAIN AND GERMANY UNDER THE FLAVIANS.
• NERVA AND TRAJAN. THE CONQUEST OF DACIA.
• TRAJAN’S PRINCIPATE (continued). ADMINISTRATION AND EASTERN CONQUESTS.
• LITERATURE FROM THE DEATH OF TIBERIUS TO TRAJAN.
• THE PRINCIPATE OF HADRIAN (117-138 AD).
• THE PRINCIPATE OF ANTONINUS PIUS (138-161 AD)
• THE PRINCIPATE OF MARCUS AURELIUS (161-180 AD)
• LITERATURE UNDER HADRIAN AND THE ANTONINES
• THE ROMAN WORLD UNDER THE EMPIRE. POLITICS, PHILOSOPHY, RELIGION, AND ART.
• ROMAN LIFE AND MANNERS.