Abstract
If the Greeks invented the polis, the Romans invented the state. Unlike the Greek polises, which never produced a great, unified state because they lacked the institutional capacity to organize and control an extensive territory, Rome developed a method of expansion which allowed it to govern and administrate territories very different from the metropolis, essentially because Romans were able to incorporate them pragmatically into a stable and structured constitutional framework centered around the Roman civitas. This process of integration was gradual and not devoid of difficulties. Rome was originally a prototypical Indo-European city-state with a gentilicium-based society scheme featuring a pyramidal structure. As a Republic Rome was an aristocratic polis with a system of government designed to prevent dictatorship. However, when Rome began to conquer new territories its republican institutions were not adapted to govern an expanded territory, leading to crises in the form of civil wars. Nevertheless, Rome not only survived but became a stronger power because from conflict emerged a very clever Augustus (Octavian), who formally restored the Republic while in fact establishing a new and powerful empire under his control. He called himself the first citizen (princeps), whose mission it was to protect the Republic. In reality the princeps retained imperium permanently and became an emperor with all power concentrated in his hands, especially in late Roman history, when emperors became the domini of an absolute monarchy. For its successful concentration and widespread exercise of power the Roman Empire came to serve as a model state in Western constitutional history.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Reflections on the causes of the grandeur and declension of the Romans (1734) (Montesquieu 2005, 27).
- 2.
As Edwards (1999, 9) points out, it is interesting that the American revolutionaries rebelling against British rule, also envisioned themselves as Romans, founders of new republican institutions. George Washington lacked a classical education (unlike many of the leaders of the American Revolution) but claimed his favorite play was Addison’s Cato (1713)—a story celebrating the self-sacrifice of a Roman republican hero. America’s first president, recalled from his rustic retreat, was himself hailed as a new Cincinnatus. The rule of a foreign monarch overturned, the political classes of the 13 states declared they would follow the examples of Brutus, founder of the Roman republic, and Publius Valerius Publicola, another semi-mythical figure crediting with initiating key elements in Rome’s constitution. Their new balanced constitution, they claimed, was based on that of ancient Rome as described by Cicero and Polybius. Rome could offer Americans dissatisfied with British rule an alternative model of government sanctioned by centuries of tradition—and associated with the classical education which remained a prime marker of elite status in the American states.
- 3.
Napoleon built columns commemorating his victories, such as those currently found in the center of the Place Vendôme en París, which is an imitation of Trajan’s Column in Rome, built triumphal arches (the Arc de Triomphe du Carrousel and that at the Place de l’Étoile) like the victorious Roman generals did, used Roman judicial terms (e.g. senate, consulate, first consul) reminiscent of the princeps, the first citizen of Rome during the times of the Empire under Augustus (Huet 1999). He himself appeared dressed as a Roman emperor, with a laurel leaf, and his troops carried imperial eagles—although these were, along with bees, symbols of the Merovingian monarchy. The roman fashion even extended to women’s hairstyles and clothing, with the “Imperial” style evoking Roman ways. Napoleon was born in Corsica in 1769, the year in which Louis XV annexed the island into France, and his rise to fame was a result of his brilliant Italian Campaign (1796–1797). As a good Italian, Napoleon was fascinated by Rome and its history.
- 4.
Colonization, by now a traditional way out, continued intermittently in the fifth century and after, while the argument that overseas expansion at the expense of Persia was a morally acceptable and socially preferable alternative to revolution was repeatedly formulated by Isokrates in the fourth century.
- 5.
As Malkin (1987, 1) points out, during the Archaic and Classical periods (eighth to fourth centuries bc) Greek colonization meant the establishment of independent city-states in relatively distant territories. It is precisely the creation of a new polis which distinguishes this colonization from earlier forms of migration (e.g. the “Ionian migration”) on the one hand, and from later colonization during the Hellenistic period, in which the polis lost its political independence and colonization was conducted inside areas already controlled by Hellenistic rulers, on the other.
- 6.
Before Rome, international politics in the Mediterranean was a “multipolar anarchy” (Eckstein 2006, 1). That is, a world containing a plurality of powerful states, contending with each other for hegemony, within a situation where international law was minimal and, in any case, unenforceable. None of these powerful states ever achieved lasting hegemony around the shores of the great sea: not Persia, not Athens, not Sparta, not Tarentum, not Syracuse, not Carthage. Alexander III the Great, the fearsome king of Macedon, might have established a permanent political entity encompassing the entire Mediterranean, but the conqueror of Asia died prematurely, and the empire he had created almost immediately fell apart. During the chaos that followed Alexander’s death, several of his generals founded great territorial states themselves, Macedonian dynasties with worldwide ambitions, each in bitter competition for power with the others: the Ptolemaic regime based in Egypt; the Seleucids based in Syria and Mesopotamia; the Antigonids based in Macedonia. However, despite the brilliance, vigor, and ruthlessness of the founders—and that of some of their successors—none of these monarchies was ever able to establish universal domination. Eventually, however, one state would come to enjoy predominance throughout the Mediterranean world: the Republic of Rome.
- 7.
Unlike the Greek model of colonization, Rome is often seen to have had a uniform view of her relationship to her colonies. As Bispham (2006, 74) has been pointed out, modern interpretations of literary evidence for colonization, both Greek and Roman, have tended to underscore their “statist” activity designed to meet public aims. Roman colonies are seen as having strong ties to the mother city, unlike what happened with Greek colonization. For the differences between coloniae and municipia see Abott and Johnson (2012, 3–9). For an overview of the history of cities and urban life in the Western provinces of the Roman Empire between 30 bc and 250 ad, see Edmonson (2010, 250–280).
- 8.
On the debate over whether territorial gain and annexation and consequent provincial stabilization was determined by an empire-wide perspective, or if Roman expansion and the consolidation of political control were related to regional circumstances and opportunities, and, therefore, the result of ad-hoc decision making, see Fulford (1992, 294–305).
- 9.
For an overview of Indo-European aspects of Roman culture, Cornell (1995, 77–79).
- 10.
[…] the Fabian family addressed the senate; the consul, in the name of the whole, speaking in this manner:—“Conscript fathers, ye know that the Veientian War requires rather an established, than a strong force, on the frontiers: let your care be directed to other wars: commit to the Fabii that against the Veientians. We pledge ourselves, that the majesty of the Roman name shall be safe on that side: that war, as the particular province of our family, we propose to wage at our own private expense. The state shall not be troubled either for men or money to support it”.
- 11.
According to the tradition the legendary founder of the Roman Republic, Servius Tulius (578–535 bc), organized the Roman people into 30 curiae, 10 for each one of the tribes. Each curia was, in turn, made up of 10 gentilitates. In this legend the only element that is certainly true is that of the curiae, associations with certain religious functions which also functioned as electoral units when it came time to elect members of the first Roman legislative assemblies. On the reforms of Servius Tullius see Cornell (1995, 173–197).
- 12.
The comitia curiata were the oldest assemblies, made up of the curiae to which originally only the patricians belonged, though the plebeians gained access to them at a relatively early stage. The comitia curiata probably existed in the royal period, though it is impossible to determine what their role was at that time. The essential function of the comitia curiata was to authorize—or perhaps only to bear witness to—the acts of individual citizens. However, they were also the organizational channel through which the Roman people could choose and accept the decisions of the magistrates, elected or designated by the kings, or by the citizens. Because they could refuse to accept said proclamations, some historians have argued that, in a way, they represented a form of popular participation in the government. Under the Republic they lost their political importance, eclipsed by the succeeding assemblies: the comitia centuriata, the comitia tributa and the concilia plebis (Millar 1989). The progressive fading of the role played by the comitia curiata is evident when it is observed that the 30 traditional curiae in the period of the late Republic appeared represented not by said assembly, but by 30 lictors. Nevertheless, during the first phase of the Empire these curiae assemblies were charged with the bestowal of imperium upon the elected magistrates—though this function would end up being reduced to a mere formality and probably never constituted anything more than a symbolic act of homage and submission to the new military leader.
- 13.
The organization of the Roman people into centurias (centuries) is another of the reform measures attributed to Servio Tulio, though it is most likely that they did not appear until well into the Republican era. The centuria was also the basic unit of the Roman army, which was made up of a variable number of legions (from two to six). Each legion was divided into cohorts, maniples and centuries. Each cohort was made up of three maniples and each maniple of two centuries. After the reform carried out by Gaius Marius (157–186 bc), each legion featured ten cohorts and six centuries. The century was composed of 100 men, of which 80 were soldiers and 20 auxiliary personnel. They were led by a foot soldier promoted to centurion. The century was divided, in turn, into contubernii (singular, contubernius), groups of eight men who shared a tent. However, the century was the fundamental unit, camping, marching and fighting as an autonomous unit in terms of arms and supplies, which afforded the legion greater agility on the move. The rise of the comitia centuriata came in response to the idea that the populus romanus and its army were one and the same, hence its markedly military nature. Because military service was obligatory in the Roman republic for all citizens fit for active service, without social distinction, with patricians and plebeians sharing the same status in the military sphere, the comitia centuriata admitted the plebeians as member of the political community from the outset—which certainly explains why they would end up being the most important plebeian assemblies of the Republican era. The organization of the comitia centuriata followed, in general terms, the military organization of the Roman people, though it did not mirror exactly the army itself. The comitia centuriata could only be convened by consuls, and their function was to elect the high-ranking magistrates (consuls, praetors and censors) and vote on the laws which the consuls brought before them. The comitia centuriata were, therefore, without any doubt the most important plebeian assemblies of the Republican era.
- 14.
Also in the era of Servius Tullius, Roman territory was ostensibly divided into local districts called tribus (tribes). Initially there would be only four, and it is not clear whether they encompassed the city or also its outlying areas. It is most likely that they were confined to the urban perimeter, if we consider that a few years later, after the establishment of the Republic, 17 new tribes were added, this time proceeding exclusively from rural districts. More tribes were gradually added to Rome’s territorial organization until, circa 241 bc, there were 31 rural tribes and 4 urban ones, a figure which would end up being final. To be the member of a tribe, it was originally necessary to own property in the tribe’s area. Each citizen could only belong to one tribe, even if he owned land in various tribal districts. Over time the strictly territorial criteria dissolved and membership in a given tribe became hereditary. In 312 bc the tribes began to admit citizens without the need for them to satisfy the landowning requirement. However, these new members who did not own land were limited to the four urban tribes, as were free men and those who had been newly granted Roman citizenship, evidencing the fact that this organizational scheme was driven by a political intention to favor the preeminence of the landowners. The plebeian assembly or comitia tributa elected the lower-ranking magistrates. It also boasted legislative functions, though these overlapped with those of the comitia centuriata. The comitia tributa were, above all, the institution before which the magistrates serving beneath the consuls could present laws to garner popular support for them. In any case, the comitia tributa were not of great importance. The “tribal” organization itself, however, was key, as within it the members of the plebeian assemblies were elected, and the concilia plebis did play an essential legislative role during the Republican era, especially in the area of private law.
- 15.
As Williamson (2005, 4) points out, for centuries, Romans reached decisions about law relating to the most critical aspects of their society in a public process concluded in the voting assemblies of Rome. The first reported lawmaking occasion came in the first year of the Republic, 509, when First Consul M. Iunius Brutus, in accordance with a Senate decree, carried a measure to exile all members of the Tarquin clan. The last reported occasion of certain date occurred during the reign of emperor Nerva 96–98, when the emperor himself presented a bill assigning land to poor Romans; in between lay roughly 600 years and 750 unevenly reported public laws, proposals or ultimately enacted laws.
- 16.
On the departure of the Etruscans and the origins of Roman republic (Cornell 1995, 223–225).
- 17.
Hölkeskamp (1993, 18–19), believes that the element of popular participation should be viewed in the context of a new understanding of aristocratic structures, resulting from the so-called Struggle of the Orders. This emergence of a new “political class” was shaped by three factors: (1) Rome’s conquest of Italy, her territorial expansion, and political and military ascendancy (2) the importance of imperium and the magistracies with imperium and, correspondingly, the importance of the rules according to which magistrates and commanders were selected, and the standards they had to meet (3) the functional role of the Senate as the institutional centre of the system.
- 18.
The equestrian class was so named because originally, it was made up of those citizens wealthy enough to fight on horseback who initially did not mix with the old patrician nobility. The Law of the Twelve Tables (450 bc), specifically Table XI, expressly prohibited marriages between patricians and plebeians. Cicero (106–43 bc), who did not belong to the patrician class, considered this law wicked and inhuman, but during his time the law was not applied. As Treggiari (2007, 6), points out, in first century bc society, despite some political and economic conflicts of interest, patricians and equites were actually closely intertwined. Not only did their families intermarry but some equites were as rich as or richer than members of the senatorial class. There were, however, some differences. For instance, a man whose brother had advanced from the equestrian order to the Senate would still count as a new man if he too attempted to enter the Senate. So would one whose mother was descended from a long line of consuls, but whose father was an eques and descended from equites.
- 19.
In Republican Rome, citizens were divided into classes based on their levels of income, in such a way that the wealthy were assured preeminence (Lintott 2002, 49–60). The connection with military organization rested essentially, on the fact that each citizen was required to equip himself with certain military gear which varied in complexity, depending upon what he could afford. The comitia centuriata were made up of five classes. The first, that of the wealthiest citizens, was made up of 80 centuries. The second, third and fourth featured 20 centuries each, and the fifth, 30 centuries. There were, in addition, 18 centuries of members of the equestrian class: those well-off enough to be able to fight on horseback, who in the comitia, occupied a place above that of the first class; four centuries of artisans and musicians; and a mixed century, featuring all those who did not satisfy the requisites to form part of any of the preceding ones. In total, the comitia centuriata were initially composed of 193 centuries. The supremacy of the privileged classes was somewhat undermined when, from 214 to 218 bc, each of the “tribes” was granted a century of “seniors” and “juniors”. This raised the number of centuries to 350, and left each one of the classes with the same number of centuries. Despite this the rich continued to be favored, as they retained 18 equestrian centuries. In addition, the traditional landowning class continued to enjoy privileges, as under the new arrangement only 40 of the recently-created centuries corresponded to the city of Rome and, among them, only eight to the first class, with all the rest being assigned to the patrician aristocracy (Wolff 1995, 40–41).
- 20.
On Polybius’s view of the Roman constitution, see Lintott (2002, 16–26).
- 21.
The magistrates in the Roman Republic were elected officials. To prevent dictatorship by one single man, there were different magistracies dealing with the most important public functions of the state: consuls were the highest magistracy because they exerted executive power, praetors dealt with judicial matters, plebeian tribunes represented the interest of the plebeians, aediles were responsible for maintaining public buildings and overseeing public festivities, and quaestors dealt with public finances. They were dual, with two magistrates for every magistracy, with the two able to counteract each other by veto, and the term in office was only one year, with no opportunity for reelection, at least in Rome. They could be nominated in provinces as pro-consuls, pro-praetors, etc., which was the only way of extending the magistrates’ time in office (Wolff 1995, 27–38). Former magistrates went on to form part of the Senate, the Roman Republic’s most influential collegial body.
- 22.
Talbert (1984, 522), provides a simplified summary of the cursus honorum of the senatorial magistracies, which started with the granting of latus clavus from the emperor (for those not already members of the senatorial class), followed successively by Vigintivirate (as tribunes militum), quaestorship, tribunate, praetorship and, finally, consulship.
- 23.
As North (1990, 18) states, politics in Rome was, consequently, a function of the degree and type of competition in progress between oligarchic families, groups and individuals. It is simply a fact that the ruling class accepted the arbitration of popular voting, in certain extremely important circumstances, just as they accepted that the power and success of families and individuals should be limited by the rotation of office, regular succession to commands, and so on.
- 24.
On the nature of Roman control in Italy and the dynamics of its rising imperialism see Cornell (1995, 364–368).
- 25.
The Romans, rapidly organized conquered territories into provinces (from “pro-vincere”, literally “to defeat”) to consolidate the control of the new territory by the metropolis, the Roman civitas. As Burton (2002, 423) observes, although the number of provinces increased during the Principate, especially in the first century, through imperial expansion and, occasionally, through the division of a single geographically large area in two, provinces remained the basic unit for all administration. The Romans arrived in Spain (Hispania), for instance, in 218 bc, to fight the Carthaginians in the Second Punic War. The conflict ended in 201, and by 197 Rome had already created two provinces in the new territory separated by the Ebro river, with Hispania Citerior on the west side and Hispania Ulterior on the east. On the organization of the first provinces, see Boatwright et al. (2004, 120–122).
- 26.
As Burton (2002, 426) indicates, at the height of Roman empire in the mid-second century there were about 150 elite administrators, belonging to the senatorial class to govern an estimated population of 50–60 million; that is, one for every 350,000–400,000 inhabitants, which is very few compared to China in the twelfth century, for example, where there was an elite administrator for every 15,000 people.
- 27.
As Bispham (2007, 5) points out, the “Romanization” of Italy was something which came as a reflex to the process of conquest and domination, and the need of local elites and masses to adjust, even without direct prompting, to the new circumstances of Rome’s hegemony.
- 28.
For an overview of this process in a comparative perspective, see Raaflaub (2011, 39–66).
- 29.
During this period (200–133 bc), competition centered on the consuls’ access to overseas commands, as Roman power expanded in to the East and West. Following this for some decades, it shifted to rival legislative schemes for reform proposed by tribunes and opposed by the majority in the Senate. During Cicero’s most active years, the real conflict was between rival leaders (Sulla, Caesar, Antony, Octavian), too rich and powerful to be contained within the system, and exploiting their popularity with voters to build unrivalled power for themselves. After Cicero’s lifetime, the final transformation consisted of the ending of all competition and domination by a single family (North 1990, 19).
- 30.
For an overview of the impact of expansion on the Roman state and society after the end of the Second Punic War, during the crucial period of 201–167 bc, when the first provinces were incorporated into the metropolis, see Feig Vishnia (1996, 161–175).
- 31.
On the aftermath of the Civil War and its institutional consequences, see Gruen (1995, 449–497).
- 32.
On January 13th in the year 27 the Senate assembled to hear a proclamation: Caesar’s heir resigned all his powers, transferring sovereignty where it belonged, to the Senate and People of Rome. The senators urged him not to abandon the res publica, which he had saved and preserved, and the Imperator was persuaded to accept a special position, involving command over Rome’s principal military territories lying to both the West and East, to be held for a period of 10 years. Three days later, on the motion of a senior consul, the high chamber voted various honors to be conferred upon the new “Augustus” (Syme 1989, 2).
- 33.
“After so much civil war, there were hopes for a return from army service to ‘life on the land.’ After all the devastation, there was a pride in the special qualities of Italy, potentially such a blessed country […]. In 30/29 BC these themes came together in Virgil’s marvelous poem, The Georgics. The ‘best poem by the best poet’ combined praise of Italy and country living with tributes (often playful) to the new ‘Caesar.’ A virtuoso ending blended Greek myths into a new, entrancing whole. As the poem shows, there was hope and also confidence after so much terror. It was up to the new ‘Caesar’ to harness them, for they underlie what he was to make into a classicizing age”. (Lane Fox 2006, 420).
- 34.
As Fishwick (2004, 2) notes, it was Virgil (70–19 bc), the author of The Aeneid, at the behest of Augustus himself, the national epic of ancient Rome meant to embellish the dark origins of Rome; in the prologue of Georgics III, the author describes a sacred place where processions converged, a site for horse races, plays and pugilistic contests: the palaestra. This site is reminiscent of the palaces of Hellenistic kings, and foreshadows the monumental complex of Augustus which was under construction at the time, in the southwest sector of the Palatine Hill. (The word “Palace” proceeds precisely from “Palatine”.). On the deification of Augustus, see Taylor (2002, 224–238).
- 35.
In fact, Augustus believed that he was restoring the Republic (Boatwright et al. 2004, 291).
- 36.
For an overview of Augustus’s reforms of the Roman constitution, see Campbell (2011, 93–119).
- 37.
In Roman society imperium referred to a formal concept of legal authority. A man with imperium (“imperator”) had, in principle, absolute authority to apply the law within the scope of his magistracy, or pro-magistracy, but could be overruled by a magistrate or pro-magistrate having imperium maius (a higher degree of imperium). It is worth noting that terms like empire and imperative, are derived from the term.
- 38.
It is interesting that, as Talbert (1984, 174) points out, before Augustus, emperors, prior to their accession, had been senators themselves, or members of the senatorial class, and thus appreciated the traditional feeling that it was a vital part of any senator’s role to attend the meetings of this body.
- 39.
“A Decree of the Senate is what the Senate orders and establishes, and, therefore, it obtains the force of law, although this formerly was disputed”. -Senatus consultum est, quod senatus iubet atque constituit; idque legis vicem optinet, quamvis [de ea re] fuerit quaesitum (Gaius 1904, 1.2.4).
- 40.
It is very significant that in the Institutiones of Justinian, published in 533, four centuries after those of Gaius, a resolution of the Senate became a law decided and enacted by the upper assembly (a command and ordinance of the Senate) because: “When the Roman people became too large to be easily called together in a body for legislative purposes, it seemed reasonable to turn to the Senate instead” (senatus consultum est, quod senatus iubet atque constituit nam cum auctus est populus Romanus in eum modum, ut difficile sit in unum eum convocare legis sanciendae causa, aequum visum est senatum vice) (Justinian 1993, 1.2.5).
- 41.
In principle, adoption had to be confirmed by the Senate. As Peachin (2010, 144) points out, though the Senate had little say over the naming of the emperors, it was essential for the emperor, once he had been officially proclaimed, that the Senate ratify his position. The only available method of giving a new ruler the sheen of legitimacy was through a law, passed by one of the popular assemblies, like the one given to Vespasianus (Brunt 1977). The problem was that the last of these assemblies was held in 97 CE.
- 42.
“A resolution of the Senate is a law decided and enacted by the Senate. When the Roman people became too large to be easily called together in a body for legislative purposes, it seemed reasonable to turn to the Senate instead” (senatus consultum est, quod senatus iubet atque constituit nam cum auctus est populus Romanus in eum modum, ut difficile sit in unum eum convocare legis sanciendae causa, aequum visum est senatum vice) (Justinian 1993, 1.2.5).
- 43.
Nevertheless, as Talbert (1984, 458–459) indicates, the scarcity of the senatus consulta preserved make it impossible to know why it was that one emperor decided to settle a matter by constitution, and another through the Senate, especially because legislative policy varied among individual rulers; for instance, while the Julio-Claudians, Hadrian and Marcus Aurelius usually turned to the Senate, other emperors did not.
- 44.
“A pronouncement of the emperor also has legislative force because, via the Regal Act relating to his sovereign power, the people conferred on him their whole sovereignty and authority” (“Sed et quod principi placuit, legis habet vigorem, cum lege regia, quae de imperio eius lata est, populus ei et in eum omne suum imperium et potestatem concessit”) (Justinian 1993, 1.2.6).
- 45.
Some were citizens from Hispania (Trajan and Hadrian), while some descended from Roman citizens settled in Gaul (Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius).
- 46.
On the increasing responsibilities of high-ranking equestrians in the Imperial administration, see Mennen (2011, 137–155).
- 47.
On why the Roman Empire’s borders stopped where they did, see Whittaker (1994, 60–97).
- 48.
On the factors which influenced the transformation of the Emperorship between 193 and 284, see Mennen (2011, 22–39).
- 49.
For the background to the Third-Century crisis, Ziolkowski (2011, 113–133).
- 50.
From Augustus and until the end of the third century bc, there was a princeps in Rome, wielding political power, but with the Julio-Claudian Dynasty and, above all, beginning with Diocletian, the first emperor ruling during the early Dominate, there would be a dominus (“dominus et deus”), meaning lord or master, which lent this period its name. The terminology allows one to appreciate the change in the conception of the leader vis-à-vis the citizens, who come to be viewed as his subjects. He was no longer a “first among equals”, as were the senators, but rather an absolute monarch, elevated to a higher level. As of 282 ad, the emperors no longer requested Senatorial ratification, though they retained their quasi-Republican status. They continued to serve as consuls, if only formally, and still claimed potestas tribunicia, at least nominally. In reality, however, they remained in power through the support of the army, and their election was normally arranged by their predecessor. This new phase of the Empire was particularly visible in court ceremonies. Diocletian and, above all, Constantine (Elton 2010), introduced a series of rules and practices, modeled on the Persian Court, in order not only to impress their subjects with their imperial majesty and power (which clearly took on divine undertones), but also for their safety.
- 51.
The court (comitatus) consisted of the officials and attendants of the emperor’s household (sacrum cubiculum), his advisers (consistorium), the confidential shorthand writers (notarii), who took down the discussions and decisions of the consistorium, and could be sent out to see to their enforcement in the provinces; and, finally, the principal officers of state with their office staff. As for much of the fourth century emperors travelled constantly from crisis area to crisis area, and spent longer periods of time in large cities with easy access to borderland areas, the system proved so intolerably inconvenient that by the end of the century, there was a return to permanent capitals as Constantinople in the East and Ravenna or Milan in the West.
- 52.
As Harries (1999, 36) points out, during the Dominate imperial law was, in fact, more often negotiated than imposed. Its content was determined by precedent, current policy, the state of information available, and pressures from interests groups with access to the consistory. Although laws were announced and were intended to endure “in perpetuity”, in practice, they could be, and were, modified in the light and further representations from those who operated the law or were affected by it.
- 53.
During the era of the Principate, the “praetorial prefect” (praefectus praetorio) had been the chief of the praetoriani, the members of the imperial guard, headquartered in Rome itself. Although it had always had considerable political power, it was during the time of Septimius Severus (193–211), when this military official became the head of the ordinary and judicial administration of the city of Rome (Mennen 2011, 159–187). The importance of the charge prompted Diocletian (284–313 ad) to grant the title of praefectus praetorio to the heads of the four main administrative districts into which the Empire was divided. In the East, two prefectures were created (which included Egypt, the Asian provinces and Thrace) and that of Illiricum (made up of Macedonia, including Greece, and the lands of the Danube), and in the West, there was the prefecture of Italy (comprised of the Italian peninsula and Africa) and the prefecture of Gaul (with the diocese of Brittany, Hispania and Gaul). As Liebeschuetz (2002, 457) points out, though they had lost their military command, praetorial prefects remained responsible for the feeding and supplying of the army and were the superiors of all provincial governors, with great influence over appointments.
- 54.
Lintott (2002, 3) mentions that the authority behind a law was that of the populus Romanus or plebs Romana voting in an assembly: “Titus Quinctius Crispinus the consul lawfully asked the people, and the people lawfully resolved”. Polybius reports that the people had the right to make or rescind any law (“It has also the absolute power of passing or repealing laws; and, most important of all, it is the people who deliberate on the question of peace or war”.) (Polybius 2012, 6.14.10) and, he implies, no other body. The authority behind a senatus consultum under the Republic, was different and less absolute.
- 55.
As Wirszubski (2004, 122–123) points out, it appears that there were valid reasons to consider Rome under the Augustan Principate a res publica in which libertas existed. The real change was in the fundamental principle of government, rather than in its form or purpose; whereas the salient feature of Republican government was the distribution of power and a resultant system of checks and balances, the new regime rested on a concentration of power in the hands of the princeps.
- 56.
As Treggiari (2007, 4) indicates, citizens had the right to marry other citizens (conubium), the right to enter into contracts according to Roman law (commercium), the right to appeal against actions by elected officials (provocation), and, if male and adult, the vote, the right (in theory) to stand for public office and follow a cursus honorum. All the citizens constituted the Roman People (Populus Romanus) which, through their different assemblies, were sovereign to pass laws, decide on war or peace, and elect magistrates to annual office. To be recognized as a Roman citizen, it was necessary to be registered in the official census. Dupont (2000, 6) mentions how every 5 years each male Roman citizen had to register for the census, declaring his family, wife, children, slaves and riches. If he failed to do so, his possessions would be confiscated and he himself would be sold into slavery. Throughout the entire Republican era, census registration was the only way that a Roman could ensure that his identity and status as a citizen were recognized. Fathers registered their sons, employers their freedmen. An employer wishing to free one of his slaves needed only to enter him in the census register.
- 57.
Concerning the question of Roman citizenship, after 212 it effectively spread throughout the whole Roman Empire. As Sherwin-White (1996, 402) points out, the final solution to the “world state problem” depended on the influence which the imperial name came to exercise over the peoples of the Empire—one ultimately based on the beneficia which the establishment of the imperial power conferred upon the world. These beneficia essentially consisted of the “twofold blessing of the Pax Augusta and the imperial administration. In fact if in the western and northern provinces the provincials literally became part of the Roman state, in the Asiatic provinces the situation was different, as the place largely filled in the West by zealous pursuit of the constitutional privileges and titles of the Roman state was taken in the East by an ever-expanding development of the imperial cult, a process that was only slowly followed by the spread of citizenship, as the former municipal categories of the Greeks persisted unchanged for a long time”.
References
Abott, F. F., & Johnson, A. C. (2012). Municipal administration in the Roman Empire. New Orleans: Quid Pro (Reprint of the 1926 edition. Princeton: Princeton University Press).
Ando, C. (2010). The administration of the provinces in Potter. In S. David (Ed.), A companion to the Roman Empire (pp. 177–192). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Arnason, J. P. (2011). The Roman phenomenon: State, empire, and civilization. In J. P. Arnason & K. A. Raaflaub (Eds.), The Roman Empire in context: Historical and comparative perspectives (pp. 353–386). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Bispham, E. (2006). Coloniam deducere: How Roman was Roman colonization during the middle republic? In G. Bradley & J.-P. Wilson (Eds.), Greek and Roman colonization: Origins, ideologies and interactions (pp. 73–160). Swansea, UK: The Classical Press of Wales.
Bispham, E. (2007). From Asculum to Actium: The municipalization of Italy from the social war to Augustus. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Boatwright, M. T., Gargola, D. J., & Talbert, R. J. A. (2004). The Romans: From village to empire. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Briscoe, J. (1986). Greek Polis and Roman Rule. The Classical Review (New Series), 36(2), 267–270.
Brunt, P. A. (1977). Lex de Imperio Vespasiani. The Journal of Roman Studies, 67, 95–116.
Burton, G. (2002). Government and the provinces. In J. Wacher (Ed.), The Roman world (Vol. I, pp. 423–439). London: Routledge.
Caballos Rufino, A. (2001). Latinidad y Municipalización de Hispania bajo los Flavios. Estatuto y normativa. Mainake, (23), 101–120.
Campbell, J. B. (2011). The Romans and their world. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Cornell, T. J. (1995). The beginnings of Rome: Italy and Rome from the Bronze age to the Punic wars (c. 1000–264 BC). London: Routledge.
Davies, J. K. (1993). Democracy and classical Greece. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Drinkwater, J. F. (2002). Urbanization in Italy and the Western Empire. In J. Wacher (Ed.), The Roman world (Vol. I, pp. 345–386). London: Routledge.
Dumézil, G. (1996). The Indo-European heritage at Rome. In Archaic Roman Religion (Vol. 1, pp. 79–82). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Dupont, F. (2000). Daily life in Ancient Rome (6th Reprint). Oxford: Blackwell.
Eckstein, A. M. (2006). Mediterranean anarchy, interstate war and the rise of Rome. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Edmonson, J. (2010). Cities and urban life in the western provinces of the Roman Empire 30 BCE–250 CE. In D. S. Potter (Ed.), A companion to the Roman Empire (pp. 250–280). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Edwards, C. (1999). Introduction: Shadows and fragments. In C. Edwards (Ed.), Roman presences: Receptions of Rome in European culture, 1789–1945 (pp. 1–18). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Elton, H. (2010). The transformation of government under Diocletian and Constantine. In D. S. Potter (Ed.), A companion to the Roman Empire (pp. 193–205). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Feig Vishnia, R. (1996). State, society and popular leaders in mid-republican Rome 241–167 BC. London: Routledge.
Ferrary, J. L. (2009). The powers of Augustus. In J. Edmonson (Ed.), Augustus (pp. 90–136). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Fishwick, D. (2004). The imperial cult in the Latin West. Studies in the ruler cult of the western provinces of the Roman Empire. Part 3 (Vol. 3). Leiden: Brill.
Flaig, E. (2011). The transition from republic to principate: Loss of legitimacy, revolution, and acceptance. In J. P. Arnason & K. A. Raaflaub (Eds.), The Roman Empire in context: Historical and comparative perspectives. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Fulford, M. (1992). Territorial expansion and the Roman Empire. World Archeology, 23(3), 294–305 (Archeology of Empires).
Gaius. (1904). Gai Institutiones or Institutes of Roman Law by Gaius (160 AD) (4th ed.). Oxford: Clarendon.
Genet, J. P. (1990). L’Empire romain est-il un État moderne? In N. Coulet & J. P. Genet (Eds.), L’État moderne: le droit, l’espace et les formes de l’État (pp. 111–128). Paris: CNRS.
Gruen, E. S. (1995). The last generation of the Roman Republic (Reprinted with a new introduction). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Harries, J. (1999). Law and empire in late antiquity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Hölkeskamp, K. J. (1993). Competition and consensus: Roman expansion in Italy and the rise of the “Nobilitas”. Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, 42(1), 12–39.
Huet, V. (1999). Napoleon I: A new Augustus? In C. Edwards (Ed.), Roman presences: Receptions of Rome in European culture, 1789–1945 (pp. 53–69). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Johnston, D. (1997). The general influence of Roman institutions of state and public law. In D. L. Carey Mille & R. Zimmermann (Eds.), The Civilian Tradition and Scots Law: Aberdeen Quincentenary essays (pp. 87–101). Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.
Jones, A. H. M. (1950). The Aerarium and the Fiscus. Journal of Roman Studies, 40(1–2), 22–29.
Jones, A. H. M. (1990). The later Roman Empire, 284–602: A social, economic and administrative survey (2nd ed., 2 Vols). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Justinian. (1993). Justinian’s institutes. With the Latin text of Paul Krueger. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Lane Fox, R. (2006). The classical world: An epic history from Homer to Hadrian. New York: Basic Books.
Liebeschuetz, J. H. W. G. (2002). Government and administration in the late empire. In J. Wacher (Ed.), The Roman world (Vol. I, pp. 455–469). London: Routledge.
Lintott, A. W. (2002). The constitution of the Roman Republic. Oxford: Clarendon (Reprint).
Livius, T. (2002). Ab urbe condita: The early history of Rome: Books I–V of the history of Rome from its foundations. New York: Penguin (Printed English version).
Malkin, I. (1987). Religion and colonization in Ancient Greece. Leiden: Brill.
Mennen, I. (2011). Power and status in the Roman Empire: AD 193–284. Leiden: Brill.
Millar, F. (1989). Political power in mid-Republican Rome: Curia or Comitium? The Journal of Roman Studies, 79, 138–150.
Montesquieu, Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de la Brède et de. (2005). Considérations sur les causes de la grandeur des romains et de leur décadence. Amsterdam: J. Desbordes, 1734. English version: Farmington Hills, Mich: Thomson Gale, 2005 [Electronic resource], p. 27. Printed version Cambridge: Hackett, 1999.
Nicholas, B. (1992). An introduction to Roman Law. Oxford: Clarendon.
North, J. A. (1990). Democratic politics in republican Rome. Past and Present, (126), 3–21.
Peachin, M. (2010). Rome the superpower: 96–235 CE. In D. S. Potter (Ed.), A companion to the Roman Empire (pp. 126–152). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Polybius. (2012). The histories. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Raaflaub, K. A. (2011). From city-state to empire: Rome in comparative perspective. In J. P. Arnason & K. A. Raaflaub (Eds.), The Roman Empire in context: Historical and comparative perspectives (pp. 39–66). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Rees, R. (2004). Diocletian and the tetrarchy. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Rostovtzeff, M. I. (1998). The social and economic history of the Roman Empire (2nd ed., rev). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sherwin-White, A. N. (1996). Roman citizenship (2nd ed., rev). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Syme, R. (1989). The Augustan Aristocracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Talbert, R. J. A. (1984). The senate of imperial Rome. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Taylor, L. R. (1960). The voting districts of the Roman Republic: The thirty-five urban and rural tribes. Rome: American Academy in Rome.
Taylor, L. R. (1990). Roman voting assemblies: From the Hannibalic War to the dictatorship of Caesar (2nd ed.). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Taylor, L. R. (2002). The divinity of the Roman Emperor. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press (Reprint of the 1931 ed.).
Treggiari, S. (2007). Terentia, Tullia and Publilia: The women of Cicero’s family. New York: Routledge.
Wagner, P. (2011). Roman-European continuities: Conceptual and historical questions. In J. P. Arnason (Coed.), The Roman Empire in context: Historical and comparative perspectives (pp. 387–406). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Whittaker, C. R. (1994). Frontiers of the Roman Empire: A social and economic study. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Williamson, C. (2005). The laws of the Roman People: Public law in the expansion and decline of the Roman Republic. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Wirszubski, C. (2004). Libertas as a political idea at Rome during the late republic and early principate. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press (Reprint of 1950 ed.).
Wolff, H. J. (1995). The historical and constitutional background of Roman Law. In Roman law. An historical introduction (pp. 7–48). London: University of Oklahoma Press.
Ziolkowski, A. (2011). The background to the third-century crisis of the Roman Empire. In J. P. Arnason (Coed.), The Roman Empire in context: Historical and comparative perspectives. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Aguilera-Barchet, B. (2015). The Roman Political Model: From Res Publica to Imperium . In: A History of Western Public Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11803-1_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11803-1_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-11802-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-11803-1
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)