Corrupt Officials

[bovismaximus]

how would you guys describe the fall of rome on terms of corrupt officials?

 

meaning, who was the first really corrupt one that started to degrade the empire, and which ones helped to cause the fall along the way?

[DanM]

how would you guys describe the fall of rome on terms of corrupt officials?

 

meaning, who was the first really corrupt one that started to degrade the empire, and which ones helped to cause the fall along the way?

 

I don't think I would look at it in those terms. It wasn't some linear movement measured by the incremental number of newly corrupt people in a previously pristine cultural landscape. The Romans were corrupt in the days of the Republic. Cato made a nice little fortune off the peoples of Cyprus who paid him a king's ransom to ensure that Roman soldiers did not use their homes as barracks. And thats just one example.

 

To me, this is a matter of looking at how centralization of the Imperial administration increased the amounts that could be stolen and the audacity that could be shown while stealing it. Think about all of the men who became wealthy because one of the later Roman Emperors granted Imperial lands to him. All it took was access to the Emperor and some reason that would motivate him to give it to you instead of someone else. Through this rather odd practice, the Empire lost a huge source of revenue forever.

 

Also, its not just a matter of people taking bribes. If you were a high ranking member of the Comitatus, then you were in a position to make appointments or influence the Emperor's choice for appointments. In this role, you could secure massive bribes and also use your influence to extort massive amounts of money for not using your power to harm those with money. Look at what they could facilitate in exchange for the bribes. One of the side effects of the growth and centralization of the Imperial administration was the destruction of the decurion classes. Men fled service in their local city governments like it was the plague, because the burden placed upon them while performing this service became ruinous. Although men were normally compelled to serve if they were born into the class or had sufficient wealth to qualify, they also had two means of escape. First, the wealthier members could often be promoted to the Senatorial class and thereby by exempted from curial duties. Second, they could get a bogus appointment for a day like being named govenor of some minor province for the day of August 6 of that year and thereafter be exempted from decurial service. When people had sufficient wealth for admission to the Senate, then of course they took this option. When the Senate was not available, they paid enormous bribes to the government officials who could secure a bogus appointment to a position where they would never actually serve. The end result was that some drinking buddy of the Emperor got rich at the expense of one of the local city governments who just lost a potential source of leadership and wealth. When that happens over centuries, it adds up to a significant drain.

[DanM]

What about the corrupt army officers. One of the biggest reasons the limitanii were of limited military value was the corruption of its officers. They would routinely pocket funds dedicated to buting food, equipment and supplies for their men. They would extort their soldiers into kicking back a portion of their pay and they would keep dead or deserted soldiers on the rolls so they could keep their pay. As a result, the soldiers of these units were poorly trained, poorly disciplined, poorly fed, poorly motivated and the units were seriously under strength.

 

And lets not forget the "elite" units who were by Justinian's time nothing more than highly paid fops who purchased positions within these units precisely because they knew it was the surest way to avoid seeing combat.

[Favonius Cornelius]

There is always corruption everywhere. Was it any more so in the Empire? Perhaps during the later years, but I see it more as an effect of harder times than a cause in itself.

[DanM]

When it can be attributed to the decline of the army, the decline of the cities, the reduction in the Empire's overall population and even be given as the provocation that unleashed a group as destructive as the Goths, its hard for me to look at it in such a neutral light.

 

... and corruption was most definitely worse in the later empire. If you want, I can give you a long list of respected historians who have published works that very clearly state the level of corruption was far worse.

[Favonius Cornelius]

Why did it happen? Was there a moral decline? Did the times get harder and harder and force officials to become more corrupt to maintain their own standards? Did the sanctity of the empire become blemished from constant civil war such that no one believed in it anymore?

[DanM]

Why did it happen? Was there a moral decline? Did the times get harder and harder and force officials to become more corrupt to maintain their own standards? Did the sanctity of the empire become blemished from constant civil war such that no one believed in it anymore?

 

There were a variety of reasons, but I think the one at the root of the problem was the fact that the Empire never did a good job of effeciently centralizing its adminstration.

 

In the early years of the principate, most of the administrative work was done at the city level. Virtually all of the Empire was broken out into city territories. The city might administer a few square miles or a few hundred square miles of surrounding countryside. Alexandria was a rare exception in the fact that it did not administer any land outside of the city itself. Anyway, each of these city governments were run by a city council comprised of the local landowners of any observable wealth. While practices varied somewhat from one part of the empire to another, there would often be between 100 and several hundred members. Even though there were many members, there was usually an inner council that held the real power and this would usually include around 10 of the wealthiest and most powerful men. They would elect 2 chief magistrates and a variety of other leaders to head up things like the baths, fire brigades, nightwatchmen, roads, markets, etc.

 

Also, the city governments were the ones that collected the taxes, conscripted levies as needed, etc. When they were compromised as an institution, the ability of the Empire to marshall its material resources was seriously impaired.

 

These local city governments had 3 sources of income. They could levy some taxes. The curia, as a body, owned some land. And the members of the curia would also contribute their personal wealth to make up shortfalls. For example, some rich guy might donate the money for a new public bath or aqueduct so everyone could praise him and tell him how wonderful he was. Its hard to appreciate how much this sort of public praise was valued by the upper class romans of the early empire. Wealthy members could also give money to games for the benefit of the city, give away food in times of famine or do other public works. The building boom that went on in many imperial cities up to the time of the great currency crisis can probably be attributed to the sort of chest thumping ego displays that we are talking about here.

 

So what were the benefits of holding positions on the city councils other than ego? The lands owned by the city governments were periodically leased out to different curia members and this could be a nice source of wealth if you got the concession. Ditto for tax farming and the like.

 

What were the downsides? Well, starting with Diocletian, if your city council could not collect the fixed rates of taxes assessed to the property within your district, then the city council as a whole was liable for the shortfall. That meant that in times of invasion or plague or drought the Emperor could insist that you pay the full amount of fixed taxes due on the land in your district even though the occupants had nothing to give. This sort of thing could ruin the fortunes of the local notable families and it happened often enough. Also, the contests to see who could be more extravagent than the last guy eventually led to a standard of public giving that few could afford without bankrupting their families. Finally, the Emperors sucn as Constantine, Constantinius, Diocletian and Valens appropriated the income sources of the city governments. They took away their tax base. They took away the lands owned by the city. In the end, the only thing that was left was the contributions of the curial members. Its one thing to spend your money on something flashy that will impress people. Its quite another thing to spend it on something less sexy like road repair or sanitation.

 

Eventually, this became a bad deal for the curial members and they started leaving in mass. The ranks of the Senate swelled to thousands. Many left for the clergy or joined the army. And many others paid massive bribes to get bogus Imperial appointments that would exempt them from curial duty. The state tried to combat these avenues of escape through legislation restricting or regulating entry into things such as the army or the church or the senate with limited success. In the end, it did not work because the Emperors broke the system through short sighted administrative policy.

 

To add insult to injury, once the city governments died out, the imperial administration became even more corrupt. I will go on if you want, but I just noticed how long winded I have been in this post and I will cut it short for now.

 

Like I said, if you want more on this subject all you have to do is tell me.

[Viggen]

A famous corrupt person was Caius Verres, it took a genius like Cicero to get him prosecuted...

 

more info at http://www.unrv.com/bio/caiusverres.php

 

regards

viggen

[Favonius Cornelius]

Thanks DanM!

 

A famous corrupt person was Caius Verres, it took a genius like Cicero to get him prosecuted...

 

more info at http://www.unrv.com/bio/caiusverres.php

 

regards

viggen

 

You bring up a good point Viggen. I know of few periods of history quite as corrupt as that of the middle to late Roman Republic. Once Augustus reformed Rome, I bet that corruption petered off quite a bit, only to seep back through the Julio-Claudians, then drop again with the Flavians through Pax Romana. I guess corruption comes with bad leadership in part at least, and the late empire is pretty heavy with that!

[Primus Pilus]

An interesting thought regarding corruption. While the Flavians, and 'the 5 good emperors' put in many measures to combat corruption, it certainly still existed. Corruption became a problem when the state lacked the resources to support it. I know that may sound strange, but 'corruption' whether political, economic or social was a part of Rome from its very foundation, the key was managing it properly and offsetting it with enormous economic growth.

 

While there are many considerations for the crisis of the 3rd century, consider the border pressure and lack of conquest as a major factor contributing to economic problems. Corruption became unmanageable because the economy couldn't cope.

 

Just a semi-whimsical observation than a serious treaty, but something I'm going to look into more as an afterthought.

[M. Porcius Cato]

The Romans were corrupt in the days of the Republic. Cato made a nice little fortune off the peoples of Cyprus who paid him a king's ransom to ensure that Roman soldiers did not use their homes as barracks. And thats just one example.

 

I can find no historical source for this claim. Were you thinking of Brutus' father-in-law Appius Claudius in Ciliicia perhaps?

[P.Clodius]

I can find no historical source for this claim. Were you thinking of Brutus' father-in-law Appius Claudius in Ciliicia perhaps?

You'll find it in that Cicero book when you get it.

[Pantagathus]

Humans are inherently corrupt, it doesn't just appear on stage a time X under certain circumstances.

 

I can well imagine a certain amount of corruption when Rome was still a small village on the Tiber even if it was someone keeping just a little bit of grain or fish to himself.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Humans are inherently corrupt, it doesn't just appear on stage a time X under certain circumstances.

 

I don't think all humans are inherently corrupt enough to render a state inoperative, but I do agree that there are enough humans are in all societies that there have to be safeguards to prevent the most potentially corrupt people from ruining their government. At least I think this is the lesson from reform efforts in modern "banana republics"--perhaps Virgil might be able to comment on this with more authority.

[Virgil61]

Humans are inherently corrupt, it doesn't just appear on stage a time X under certain circumstances.

 

I don't think all humans are inherently corrupt enough to render a state inoperative, but I do agree that there are enough humans are in all societies that there have to be safeguards to prevent the most potentially corrupt people from ruining their government. At least I think this is the lesson from reform efforts in modern "banana republics"--perhaps Virgil might be able to comment on this with more authority.

 

I'll share my take on corruption in Russia. A lot of individuals I met who we suspected of being involved in some shady operations were personally honest. They'd never steal anything from you or I and they surprisingly understood the effects of corruption on their society. The bottom line was they know that if they don't play hard and fast with the rules then someone else will and will receive the benefits of doing so. The lack of strong institutions and codes; courts, laws, enforcement authorities, corporate governance, transparency, etc. and the erosion of civic mores played a big role in the looting of '90s Russia. There's probably a lesson there applicable to any civilization from the Republic on.