Roman Republic/empire, Exploitative Or Protective?

[Guest Roman77]

As I study Roman history (which, by the way, I haven't much) and compare it to contemporary affairs, this question arose.

 

Was Rome very exploitative of its provinces?

 

It seems like with Augustus's reforms and guidelines, the taxation was fair. Was the bad reputation Rome earned the results of greedy individual tax collectors? Did Roman taxation/treatment of its provinces change as it went from a republic to an empire?

 

Thanks for any info!

[pompeius magnus]

This is a very difficult question to answer because the Romans were different as far as crossing the line towards conquering. In its early days I think Rome could be looked at as consolodating its hold on central Italy, which can be viewed as trying to protect itself. It established Latin Allies who eventually revolted, several times, causeing Rome to act and eventually become their masters. With the Second Punic War, they were attacked by Carthage and fought back and defeated them, so gained territory in Spain and Africa, same goes for the 4 or so wars with Macedon, in which they were attacked, or suspected of attack, so gained territory there. In the last 100 years of the republic, it began to change a little, especially with the greed of Crassus and the questioned motives of Caesar in Gaul. There were still wars to protect themselves, such as the war with Pontus fought by Sulla, and the affairs of Caesar in Egypt and later Augustus, Caesar felt angry about Pompey the great being killed by Egyptian leader. In the empire the motives were more for conquering than for protection. Some one who has some expertise on the empire can help you out here as my expertise really ends in 44 BCE.

[Ursus]

The Republic used to contract private companies into collecting taxes (tax farmers) and they had a habit for fleecing the citizens.

 

During the empire this practice was phased out. But Rome still "exploited" the provinces for their monetary and natural resources.

 

It's important to note the Empire didn't really have much in the way of a centralized monetary policy. They relied on local methods of collecting taxes that had existed long before the Romans came, and the Romans merely employed the local elites as middle men.

[Marcus Regulus]

I think what the Romans learned over time was to develop a province so that its income was regular and increased. In the early going they plundered a lot, but later they learned that while this was short ranged benefit you couldn't generate long term with this. The republic had a habit of being shortsighted abotu this and the plundered more than the Empire which understood the benefits of development.

[Zeke]

Provinces that rebeled alot more likely were taxed heiver. While places like Spain which were never attack may have been lighter in acual money, yet rich in natural recources which they gave to Rome,

Sorry for the short post tired tonight,

Zeke

[Germanicus]

I think the exploitation / protection varied a lot depending on the particular Emperors administration. Reading Pliny, one can see that he was only in Bythnia and Pontus at Trajans orders because the last two Governors had been charged with extortion and other offences while in the post. Trajan realised something was wrong in the provence - and dispatched good old Pliny to sort it out. Most of Trajans replies to Pliny seem very concerned for the happiness of the province and it's people. I dare say that may not have been Domitians or Commodus greatest concern.