How many provinces in 50 AD?

[indianasmith]

All the maps I can find in a quick search show the provinces either in Augustus' time or Trajan's reign.  Unfortunately, my story is set near the end of Claudius' reign.  How many provinces were there around 48-50 AD?  It has some bearing on my story, so if someone knows the answer, or a link to a map from that timeframe, I would be most grateful.

[Onasander]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Daanschr/_Historical_maps/_Caligula

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Daanschr/_Historical_maps/_Tiberius

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Daanschr/_Historical_maps/_Augustus

 

You can reverse engineer it from this. Its not the easiest thing for me to outright say, as you have to give context.... Rome had Rome itseld, Italic lands, alliances that we would of called Vassal states in the middle ages, and nearly autonomous free cities sprinkled all over. I honestly don't know how the proconsuls handled highly privledged cities in the midst of otherwise exploitable provinces over say..... a subject kingdom one had to simultaneously threatened. Im speaking of course of real politics, a de facto sense of province. The De Jure sense will always differ.... a example, the US and Canada has overlapping claims, Argentina and the UK, China and.... everyone who borders China....

 

It's ultimately your call, and the number expounded by a particular character will indicate his personality and outlook in regards to ideology and the facts.

 

This is the reality immediately after Caligula's death:

 

http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20131006094941/althistory/images/c/c9/The_Anarchy_Factions_Map.png

 

Notice the concept of provincial boundries mean diddly squat in terms of actual loyalties and control? We make the mistake sometimes of seeing the clear stability of modern state and provincial lines as equating to Rome, because the Romans had similar divisions. They are political entities to the degree of the powers inherent in the people sent to govern, and this flipflopped alot given the nautre of justice of Rome.... outside of this, they are just places on a map, and every emperor fudged around with this. The creation and expansion of the city is where the real divisions of the ancient states of the world laid, especially for the Alexandrian States and Roman Empire.

[caldrail]

Onsanander is broadly right. The provinces were controlled by proxy, a provincial governor sent by Rome to represent their authority, and even then not directly because the Romans liked to exploit native politics to add to their own, putting pressure on their leaders to adopt latin lifestyles - which they generally did and got well rewarded for doing so. Governors didn't normally interfere in day to day affairs. remaining aloof as the last word of Roman policy.

[indianasmith]

Thank you so much, gentlemen!  That gives me some stuff to chew on.

[Pompieus]

The Cambridge Ancient History Vol X gives the following list of provinces "at the end of the Julio-Claudian period":

 

Sicily, Sardinia. Hispania Tarraconensis, Baetica, Lusitania, Narbonensis, Aquitania, Lugdunensis, Belgica

Germania Inferior, Germania Superior, Alpes Maritimae, Alpes Cottiae, Alpes Poeninae,

Britannia, Raetia, Noricum, Dalmatia, Moesia, Thrace, Achaea, Macedonia,

Asia, Bithynia-Pontus, Galatia, Cappodocia, Lycia-Pamphylia, Cyprus,

Syria, Judaea, Aegyptus, Crete-Cyrene

Africa, Numidia, Mauretania Caesarensis, Mauritania Tingitana.

 

It's not on the CAH list, but I thought Pannonia had been separated from Dalmatia in 10.  However, the name "Pannonia" is apparently Flavian  so there may have been an "Upper" and a "Lower" Dalmatia under Claudius.

 

The two Germanias were military commands rather than formal provinces.  Raetia was coupled with Alpes-Poeninae until 47, and Syria included part of Eastern Cilicia.

 

Claudius probably organized Moesia, Thrace, Noricum, Raetia, the two Mauritanias and Lycia-Pamphylia as provinces, re-absorbed Judea after 4 years of rule by Herod Agrippa (40-44) and conquered Britain to the Humber-Severn line (excluding Wales).

 

There were a number of client kingdoms, tetrarchies and dynasts more or less under Roman influence including Eastern Pontus plus parts of Western Cilicia, Commagene, Armenia Minor, the Nabateans in Petra, Palmyra, Emesa and Chalcis in Syria, Galilee and the Trans-Jordan under various  Herods, and the Bosporian Kingdom.  The Romans also had a say in the succession to the Armenian Kingdom.

Edited November 15, 2014 by Pompieus

[Onasander]

I guess I should also stress Caldrail is correct in saying broadly.... it's not easy to nail down in any era after the Republic Era ended via a universal rule that can be stated without contradiction....

 

Besides using and making cities, and amalgamating ever larger cities from smaller ones, they (governors) did do a lot to create a basis for a economy up until the end of the Severus Dynasty. This means roads, digging canals, and I logically presume customs offices....

 

Just.... the only skill set you needed to be a governor was to be Consul first, and from Augustus on, the office was a joke.... you needed to be able to have a lot of money to dump on circuses and games in the name of the emperor. Kinda the same skill set for American Ambassadors to Denmark.... no explanation related experience whatsoever in working in the state department, you just dump a whole lotta money on a candidate.

 

The end result it predictable enough.... in a few cases, you will be really surprised and impressed by a governor, but usually you'll get a self aggrandizing turd who read a treatise or two on Statecraft, exploits the living daylights out of that position financially, and governs just good enough not to be recalled.

 

 

Romans did evolve a pretty decent dispatch network to keep in contact with their provinces. Most major markets worth anything was near enough to the sea or a river to the sea.... it wasn't too challenging of a task in my opinion.... as long as the taxes kept coming, the local Romans kept happy, and courts functioning.... and people and army not revolting.

Edited November 15, 2014 by Onasander

[caldrail]

 

 

and from Augustus on, the office was a joke....

You mean Consul? No, it wasn't, but the significance was devalued by application to a post holder with a higher level of status, and bear in mind that consulships were in apirs, so Caesars offered the role as an honour by the Senate may well have a partner in their politics - though it is fair to mention that Caesars often suggested who that other Consul might be (Caligula gave the role to his relation, Claudius - one wonders why...), and that since the office of what was effectively an annual co-prime minister was now an homnour more than an post with clear cut responisbilities, its relevance to politics was lessened. As far as that goes I agree, but at the same time, the office was still a mark of status - it wasn't given to anyone and are suggesting that a Caesar was offered a joke role by the Senate as an honour?

 

You mean Governor? That was an important addition to your CV and a very good earner if you played your cards right. It may well also give opportunites to add military success to your record, though clearly that had less to do with security than exploiting a situation for personal gain, or as often happened, to avoid imperial censure for lack of moral fibre.

 

 

 

Romans did evolve a pretty decent dispatch network to keep in contact with their provinces.

It was as good as the technology and infrastructure of the day would allow. However, the speed of contact was still limited to a man on a horse at best, and given the size of the Empire, this delay in communication allowed the ambitious to easily forment conspiracies or rebellions. The Romans were very keen to post cautious commanders to legionary command - they needed loyal people running their wayward military even if they weren't especially good at their jobs, and tolerated the typical legionary commander who basically got the job to stay out of harms way. As good as communications were, internal politics was still devisive, factional, and strife always a possibility.

[Onasander]

yes, I am saying the Senate "awarded" the Caesars joke roles. The positions did give status, and therefore wouldn't recommend intentionally disrespecting a consul to his face.... there was after all a farce to play to.... but it was a joke none the less. It's like the Vatican's Bishoprics of dead dioceses in North Africa, people hold the position of those diocese, but the diocese itself is merely titular, not in existence. If they showed up to their diocese and started to hold mass, they would die. Similar farce, Japanese Emperors under a dynastic Shogun. Or the Han Emperor during the Three Kingdom Era. Russia NOT invading Ukraine and only caring for it's well being.

 

 

Farce, a Joke.... whatever, both represented in a good thesaurus.

 

The general consensus seems to be however.... once a Consul "Flatter in Chief".... one did gain access to the Proconsular Offices.... a governor. I haven't done a systematic check to see if this is correct, but it's as I have repeatedly read it to be.... and it seems to be so without controversy.

 

I probably will now. I hate agreeing to other people's theories without being able to source the origin of the theorem. I don't know if it qualitatively improves history in and of itself, but I do get a feeling of satisfaction in knowing who started what chain of assumption.

[indianasmith]

Fascinating stuff, and helpful.  My main character, Marcus Quintus Publius, has been sent on a tour of the provinces by Claudius Caesar to make sure things are being run smoothly and to report back on incompetent and abusive governors . . . needless to say, it's going to be a long and complicated errand.

[caldrail]

 

 

yes, I am saying the Senate "awarded" the Caesars joke roles.

Then why did Augustus boast of thirteen consulships in his reign? Why did certain Caesars insist the Senate give them the role? It was far from a joke, the Romans would have seen it as very meaningful. It is true that two annual headman posts were overshadowed by the new role of Caesar, but notice that both roles were not incompatible. To see the Casars as absolute rulers is incorrect - their job had no job description, no official demarcation of responsibility or power, and it was the Senate who underwrote how much status and influence a Caesar had - which was why the post of Consul was offered occaisionally. It was to honour the Caesar and allow him official ruling powers, if for a short while. That's right. Official ruling powers. No Caesar ever had the right to be an absolute ruler, however many of them assumed that part, and this is often forgotten because seeing a Caesar as king is easier than actually figuring out what the mess the Romans called politics was all about.

 

The problem is that most people are confusing this official ruling rights and power with influence, be it political or having lots of soldiers waiting outside. Augustus officially gave back power to the Senate and People of Rome. He retained his influence, which did not escape the Senate in the early days of his reign. Claudius was only accepted as Caesar because the Praetorians would not surrender their favoured role, forcing the Senate to acknowledge him as a senior political figure. The Senate hadn't gone anywhere - they were carrying on business as usual and with the assassination of Caligula, only too happy to do so. Nero thought the Senate was holding him back - and in a way, he was right. Whereas Caligula had poured scorn on the Senate, Nero used it as a cash cow, and was declared an enemy of the state for his trouble. As popular as Nero was with the masses, if the Senate said a man had to go, sooner or later he was dead. Remember that Antoninus Pius was so well liked because he let the Senate continue their business with minimum intrusion, and I notice as his first act 'in power' to persuade the Senate to honour Hadrian with divine status after his death. Then again, even Caligula asked permission of the Senate to hold games.

[Onasander]

Didn't Augustus, your main example, endlessly dick around with that very office? I think one of those times he held it for only one day before tiring of it, and abdicating. Other times he just didn't care.

 

Hence why it had no demarcation, was extensively devalued from his reign on.

 

How seriously do you think the English would take the office of prime minister is a general and his son unlawfully seized power after a civil war where half the parliment dissapeared, they redesigned the MPs for the rest at their whim, and the son declared himself prime minister at times.... as well as the Arch Bishop of Cantenbury, and the Prince of Wales.... and would at times choose spontaneously to NOT be Prime Minister, and at other times to be it.... all at his whimsy....

 

How seriously do you think the people would take the office after a while? It becomes largely meaningless, a vestigial remain of a earlier system that when compared to earlier office holders, like Churchill, or Thatcher, hold no seeming equivalent when Scary Spice is mockingly appointed to it.

 

That was Rome post Augustus. Hell, it started under Caesar.... the pompus jackass had the nerve to build himself a temple, with a gold statue of himself in it.... with slapstick comedy acts were people would try to crown him king and he would throw the crown on the ground, saying your crappy argument almost word for word.... then the crown would pop up on his golden statue in his temple....

 

Yeah, that sounds so very much like a republic.

 

That was a joke, cause it doesn't. It sounds like a theocratic dynastic monarchy, NOT A REPUBLIC!

 

In a Republic, people don't tolerate that crap.

 

Rome was not a republic under the emperors, by default. It's a ingerent contradiction, cause you can't be one and the other at the same time. It's a inherent contradiction. Your not going to be able to rewrite even how your own British Commonwealth views this country by country.

 

The emperors held power because they were militant tyrants. Not because the Senate. They held it inspite of it, and the senate endlessly flattered them in a effort to save their own asses.

 

It is why multiple conservative authors from this era lash out so viciously against flatters and sycophants. It's where the rot was.

 

Without grasping the above, your hopelessly lost in understanding Tiberius' first meeting with the Senate after Augustus death. He was a third generation tyrant... clearly a monarch at this point, dicking around with the coy reservations of his predecessors. Things clearly were more out in the open at this point, and Tiberius largely dismissed them and proceeded to Capri. That was the end result... a emperor found he could largely do without the senate, but the senate couldn't do without a emperor.... the armies loyalty went to strongmen alone..... atleast until the Byzantine era, when Dynastic Succession mattered more than a despot.

[caldrail]

How can you describe me as hopelessly lost when your own information is based on interpreting the Roman world with modern sensibilities? There's a lot of history written on that basis

 

 

 

Didn't Augustus, your main example, endlessly dick around with that very office? I think one of those times he held it for only one day before tiring of it, and abdicating. Other times he just didn't care.

Yes. Augustus changed a few things. So did lots of other Roman personalities with sufficient authority before and afterward.

 

 

 

How seriously do you think the English would take the office of prime minister is a general and his son unlawfully seized power after a civil war where half the parliment dissapeared, they redesigned the MPs for the rest at their whim, and the son declared himself prime minister at times.... as well as the Arch Bishop of Cantenbury, and the Prince of Wales.... and would at times choose spontaneously to NOT be Prime Minister, and at other times to be it.... all at his whimsy....

I have no idea. But I'm not concerned in the slightest. The Romans saw things differently from you, and that is perhaps something you desperatel;y need to address before you claim any academic authority on a subject involving them.

 

 

 

That was Rome post Augustus. Hell, it started under Caesar.... the pompus jackass had the nerve to build himself a temple, with a gold statue of himself in it.... with slapstick comedy acts were people would try to crown him king and he would throw the crown on the ground, saying your crappy argument almost word for word.... then the crown would pop up on his golden statue in his temple....

Julius was a very vain character, I don't know of anyone who would dispute that. It's also true he wanted sole control of the Roman world - no question. He always had such ambition lurking within him. He invested heavily in it - firstly by borrowing an obscene amount of money to fund his career, then looting Gaul to pay them off with interest and a personal fortune. However, the nature of Caesars political reign is a little different.

 

Caesar wanted control. The Senate gave him a dictatorship for three years to sort out Romes problems after the turmoil his rise to power had aggravated (he wasn't the sole cause of it). That was increased to ten years, then to a lifetime appointment. That means XCaesar was given full execustive power over the Roman world until he was dead. That was unprecedented in Roman thinking, and effectively against the prime tenets of the Republic, in that power should be shared, power should be temporary,, and power should be by consent. He had become a king in all but name, and although he kept the Senate sweet by conferring with them and making a big show of refusing the crown publicly, Caesar had become an absiolute ruler - and died for it shortly after. There was no political change that took away the Republic. The Senate were still the official government, voting was unchanged for the public, and life went on. In other words, Caesar did not institute constituional change that removed the Republic.

 

Augustus officially handed power back to the Senate and People of Rome. Had he not done so, his life would shortly end too. So he sought an alternative to maintaining control being the bossy boots that he was (his wife confirmed he was a control freak). It came quite naturally to him - rule by influence. Whilst Augustus was not technically Rome's overlord in the way that Caesar had grabbed with both hands, he maintained influence with the authorities of Rome - quiye aggressively as it happens - and made special efforts to 'own' the legions, to engage their loyalties in a personality cult, to pay off generals with ovations and triumphs, to please the public with games (he boasted of this), and impress his political peers with civic works, famously claiming he'd found Rome in brick and left it in marble.

 

No Caesar thast followed after had any job descritption to conform to. It was a matter of influence, however powerful, keeping the public, legions, and Senate sweet. Failure to do so was often a terminal mistake, and as easy as a Caesar might come by the role, it was way easier to oust him once he started to lose influence, because there was never any constitutional place for Emperors of Rome. Sometimes the Senate awarded honours, such things as Consulshiops or the military role of  Imperator, parcels of official power that underlined their influential status.

 

Without grasping the above, you're in no position to lecture me.