Provincial Administration

[M. Porcius Cato]

As much as I admire the republican constitution for its administration of Italy, it's always seemed to me that Augustus' reforms of provincial administration (e.g., direct taxation vs. tax farming) represented progress.

 

In what other ways (for better or worse) did the Roman administration of the provinces change with the rise and fall of the principate? Did the inhabitants of the provinces enjoy greater security from rapacious officials? Did tax revenues rise as a result of the new system? Is there archaeological evidence of generally increasing material prosperity as a result of the changes?

[Bryaxis Hecatee]

The change between republican and imperial periods toward the provinces was indeed mighty and proceeded from a general change of attitude. The consequences were many and involved lot's of daily changes for the provincials.

 

First there was the taxes system reform : it allowed for a fairer collection of taxes using more gentle and more controlled methods, lowering the need for provincials to get into debts in order to pay their taxes. Of course it was not perfect but still it was better than the Publicani of the republic.

 

The imperial period also provided security of the roads and thus led to a better and more important trade, increasing the revenues of the inhabitants and thus the taxes' incomes.

 

Infrastructure was also improved with the newly raised money. While in the east a lot did already exist the policy had huge effects in Africa and the west.

 

But from the 3rd century onward the system became too heavy and began to crumble under it's own weight : corruption, always a problem, became a major drain on the economy, and the bureaucracy began to make decisions which would in time lead the the attachment of every roman to a land and put the bases for the medieval serf ( this is a very short version of the story but i currently don't have the time to expand on that ).

 

Thus I'd say that for at least the 1st and 2nd centuries the new system was a big improvement but that later it became the plague common to all bureaucratic empires.

[caldrail]

I can't help thinking that one of the underlying reasons for the roman decline is provincial administration. Why did one emperor happily control an empire in the principate but found it impossible two centuries later? One answer among many is that provincial governemnt was becoming lazy, negligent, and in many cases passed decisions up the pyramid. Or was provincial government too risky?

[Ursus]

Did the inhabitants of the provinces enjoy greater security from rapacious officials?

 

For the most part, yes. The Princeps had direct oversight of the governors in the imperial provinces, and could still legally intervene in the Senatorial provincials. Thus they served at his pleasure and could be easily removed for corruption or incompetence.

 

But we must remember that communication being what it was, it took a long time for orders to travel back and forth between Rome and the provinces. Thus the personality of the governor was still a key factor in the lives of the provincials. But legally speaking there was now a direct oversight of the provincial governors in the personage of the Princeps, and aside from some of the more worthless Princeps like Tiberius, the Princeps kept what eyes they could on the governors as governors were potential rivals.

 

 

The cornerstone of the Principate is that rather than exploitation, provincial government was a partnership between Roman authorities and the local elite to maintain stability and prosperity.

 

 

"... whether or not one was happy in the Antonine Age would seem to depend largely on one's position in society. On the whole, the upper classes, the men of property, were united in support of the system, and one need not be a Marxist to recognize that lawyers and, one might add, administrators thought 'in terms of the interests and of the class to which they themselves and their clients belonged.' This is shocking only to those who think that most people ever behave differently. Horizontal stratification of society was more important than regional divisons. Of nationalism in the modern sense there is little trace. Rome was the common fatherland (communis patria) of the propertied classes, and of all those engaged in imperial service, while even those who felt no great sentiment of loyalty to Rome might look on the emperor or on the local governor as their protector against local and immediate oppression." -- Colin Wells, _The Roman Empire_

 

 

I believe that is the larger cultural trend that contains the issues of direct taxation and such you mentioned.

[Kosmo]

The governor had enormous powers, both civil and military. I think that everything depended on them and the rest of the administration and this was a problem.

Romans had no efficient and formalized education system. The only way to see the capabilities of the high officials was a very good one, practice, but also that meant imprecision because of the difficulties of establishment of performance.

In the same time, the personal way in which the administration was carried meant that roman had no established civil service and probably had continuity problems.

So, at a high level the quality depended on how good the emperor was at picking and supervising the right officials while the rest of the bureaucracy had no performance standards or formalised structure. This way slaves and freedman got a lot of power and could become a nuissance for provincials.