Imperial Finance & Coinage Part Three

On page 73 Millar goes on to say: "In other words the type of Imperial activity we know about is essentially that in response to the needs or conflicts of individuals of individuals communities. It cannot be denied, indeed, that such activity took up a large part of the Emperor's working life; this type of work will be discussed in the last part of this chapter...Tiberius, as a demonstration of his Republican attitude, allowed the Senate to debate about revenues, public works, the recruitment and dismissal of soldiers, military commands and letters to client kings. The implication must be that these things were normally decided by the Emperor, presumably with his friends. What evidence have we about decision-making on such matters?

The best evidence of a debate about finance is the occasion in 58 when the people complained of the exactions of the publicani; Nero, it is stated, thought of abolishing the indirect taxes altogether, but was dissuaded by his advisers, who said that the Empire would collapse if they were abolished-and the people would go on to ask for the abolition of tribute also. The Emperor's friends apart, however, there was the freedman's 'in charge of accounts' a rationibus supseded at the end of the first century by an eques (his subordinates however remained freedman.). Some of these subordinates had purely domestic functions; a rationalis mentioned by Galen had the job of supplying from the Imperial stores the herbs which Galen mixed daily for the antidote taken by Marcus Aurelius (161-180). As for the functions of the rationibus himself, Augustus left in 14 a general statement of the finances of the Empire, adding the names of slaves and freedmen from whom more details could be obtained. He, Tiberius (until he left Rome in 26) and Gaius also published public accounts, but later Emperors did not. The accounts themselves presumably continued to be kept; but our only evidence is the passage of Statius mentioned earlier in which he described in poetic terms the functions of the dead a rationibus, 'Now we entrusted to him alone the control of the Imperial wealth (a list of revenues follows)... quickly he calculates what the Roman arms beneath every sky demand, how much the tribes (the people of Rome) and the temples, how much the lofty aqueducts, the fortresses by the courts or the far-flung roads require...'

To be continued....

Imperial Finance & Coinage Part Two

Going back to Fergus Millar's The Roman Empire and its neighbors about the empire's treasury, minting and coinage: "The letters S.C. may indicate that the separate issues were decided on by the Senate and produced by the monetales; but there is no evidence for the activity of the monetales apart from the appearance of the title on inscriptions.

Nor is there any evidence from the first century for officials of the Imperial mint at Rome. Under Trajan (98-117), however, a Procurator of the Mint appears; and from 115 we have some dedications by the workers there-officinatores (?), signatores (die-cutters?), suppostores (setters?), malleatores (srikers?)-all of them Imperial freedmen, aided by Imperial slaves. Under Aurelian (270-5) the mint workers in Rome were numerous enough to stage a serious revolt whose suppression acquired thousands of soldiers. In the Greek provinces, apart from the local city mints striking bronze and copper coinage, there were provincial and some city mints striking silver coins on standards different than those of Rome coinage. These mints are more or less regarded as 'Imperial'; though nothing whatsoever is known about them except the coins themselves.

The question of who decided the frequency of issues, the standard of the coins (the silver coins especially show a steady debasement from Nero on, ending in complete collapse in the second half of the third century), or the type and legends to be put on them is totally obscure. The last point is particularly tantalizing, since the Imperial coinage carried propaganda for the Emperors in a vast variety of forms-representations of Imperial constructions (like the harbour at Ostia), largesses of victories-or slogans like AETERNITAS or PROVIDENTIA. Much of the history of the Empire can be seen reflected in the coins. Yet we are ignorant not only of who decided what should be portrayed, but to whom the new coins were issued and under what circumstances (in donations to the army and congiaria to the Roman people?). The point is important, for coins remained in circulation for a very long time after their issue: 64 percent of the coins buried in hoards during the Flavian period (66-96) had been minted before 27 B.C. Hoards show similarly that coins in circulation in the Antonine period (138-80) averaged about fifty years from the date of issue. Our only clue to the sources of decisions is two lines of a consolatory poem by Statius on the death in the 90s of a former Imperial freedman a rationibus (in charge of accounts); among his duties was to decide how much metal 'should be struck in the fire of the Italian (Roman) Mint.'

That apart, we have two references in the historian Cassius Dio to Imperial coinage; in one he says (as the coin hoards abundantly confirm) that Trajan called in old coins and issued new ones; in the other he says that his own contemporary Caracalla (211-17) gave debased coins to his subjects, but good ones to the barbarians across the frontier-whom by this time Rome was buying off. In neither case does he say anything of the processes of decision. More details about the Imperial coinage and its collapse in the third century will come in the final chapterl for the moment the coinage must serve as an example of how little we know of many aspects of the Imperial system.

When we come to the actual activities of the Emperor, his advisers and assistants, the same warning must apply. In a famous passage Cassius Dio explains that, while in the history of the Republic-the truth could be arrived at because affairs were subjected to public debate, different accounts of historians could be compared and public records checked, in Imperial history it was not so: 'After this time most things began to be done secretly and by hidden meansl and if anything is made public it is disbelieved, since it cannot be checked. For it is suspected that everything is said and done by the wish of the Emperors and those who have influence with them. As a result many rumours spread about things which never happened, many things which happened are unknown, and nearly all public versions of the events are different from reality.'

To be continued......

Imperial Finance & Coinage Part One

I should have been doing this all along by now-but better late than never! I would like to do articles (hopefully I can keep them between 1-3 posts long) about different areas of every aspect of Roman life. This article or set of articles is about the already mentioned treasury or Aerarium, coinage and minting in Imperial Rome. I got lucky when I found Fergus Millar's 1967 book The Roman Empire and its neighbors, for one dollar on sale at the library. The following information comes from pages 69-73 and 241-2 in this book:

"The very faint traces of evidence available can best be considered along with two branches of the 'central administration' (the term an exaggeration), the treasury (Aerarium) in Rome, and the mints in Rome, and the provinces. The study of the Aerarium suffers from the disadvantage already mentioned, the total lack of evidence about the transport of funds to and from it. The Aerarium itself, however, is fairly well known. It was the temple of Saturn on the side of the Capitol hill, which had served since the early Republic as the depository for the treasure, including coin, and documents of the State. Among the documents were financial ones, State contracts and the accounts deposited by provincial governors on leaving their province; provincial governors also 'reported' their apparitores, comites and others to the Aerarium, thus putting them on the list for pay, and (it seems) continued to do so even in the third century. But the officials of the Aerarium-quaestors in the Republic and then, after various changes, Prefects of ex-praetorian rank, chosen by the Emperor-never used these documents to make up general accounts or a budget for the State. Their functions were limited to keeping the cash and documents to making payments on the authority of the Senate or the Emperor, and the same judicial activities, which they were acquired to do in the Empire, over the recovery of debts. They did not administer or plan the finance of the Empire. The Aerarium is a prime example of the survival in the Empire-to the mid-fourth century, in fact-of the primitive and now inadequate insititutions of the city-state. To meet the deficiencies five separate commissions of senators were set up in the course of the first century, with the task of calling in revenue or limiting expenditure; none of them is recorded as having done anything. The management of State finance was left-in so far as it was managed at all-to the Emperor and his assistants.

In spite of the immense volume of evidence provided by the many thousands of coins surviving from the Empire, very little is known about the mints themselves and even less of the processes of decision which governed their output. Here too there was a surviving Republican element, the tresviri monetales (moneyers)-three of the posts in the most junior senatorial, or rather pre-senatorial rank, the Vigintivirate. These posts are attested until the mid-third century. Among the bronze and copper coins produced in Rome and circulating mainly in Italy and the West (bronze and copper coins produced locally in the Western provinces disappear by the middle of the first century) the majority are marked S.C. senatus consulte- 'by decision of the Senate'). The types on the coins, however, are very similar to those of Imperial coins-which include all silver-produced in Lyon until Caligula (37-41) and thereafter at Rome."

To be continued.....

Augustus Ascendant Part 14

The Temple of Saturn housed Rome's public treasury, the Aerarium, which two praetors were in charge of. History doesn't leave us any detailed information in the form of exchequer receipts from customs, duties, taxes and tribute payments from client rulers. Most historians think it is unlikely that enormous amounts of money circulated to and from Rome. This is because each province had its own treasury out of which would be paid local military and administrative fees, out of which would be paid local military and administrative fees, which would have left many of them without a large surplus to send to Rome.

The major drain on the empire's resources was the army, of course, without which, there would have been no empire! Rome had 28 legions and an equal number of auxiliary units to keep the empire together. For so extensive an empire this was barely enough. The fiscal burden of keeping this force functioning was enormous. A sodier's basic wage was 900 sesterces a year- this meant a total expenditure of 140 million sesterces per annum for these men. However, this didn't come close to the total cost of keeping the military machine going. There were large differences in the pay a soldier received for example: cavalrymen made more than ordinary infantrymen; and officers from centurions-on up to the legionary commanders (legates) who earned a very high wage. Then came the expenses for military equipment, the empire's fleets and the elite Praetorian Guard in Rome.

From Augustus on pages 233-234: "Augustus was enormously rich. His wealth came from his inheritance from Julius Caesar, from legacies (it was the done thing to remember the princeps with a generous bequest), the profits of the proscriptions and the civil war, and large estates in various parts of the empire. In his official memoir, he notes with satisfaction that he spent 600 million sesterces on land bought in Italy for his veterans and 260 million sesterces elsewhere. In lieu of farms, some demobilized soldiers received money grants, totalling 400 million sesterces."

"In addition to these phenomenally large sums of money, the princeps often topped up the Aerarium from his own pocket when it ran low of funds. In practice, it was difficult to distinguish between the treasury and the privy purse."

The different ways that Augustus maintained power and reformed the way the government operated were not very controversial during his time, nor were they seen as revolutionary by most, when viewed separately. A completely different picture develops when seen completely after the course of 2,000 + years. Four major developments that showed how far Augustus had revolutionized Roman government and the way Roman power was excercised were: 1) By quickening communications across the empire, boosting his judicial authority and streamlining the legislative and decision-making process, Augustus was drawing ever more power unto himself. 2) The Senate joined with Augustus in the decline of its actual power because Augustus increased the Senate's duties and prestige. By creating his design for imperial administration, Augustus didn't just create high-status and well-paying jobs, he also improved the quality of governance. The Senate was more than happy also to have the importance of the common citizens decline. 3) The citizens of Rome themselves happily acquiesced (most of them it would seem anyway) in their own dimuition in the eyes of the state. Once they had experienced life in Augustus' efficient, new and improved autocracy they didn't have any desire whatsoever to go back to the less wealthy and inefficient Republic. 4) Augustus Caesar planted the seeds of a growing public bureaucracy and increasingly used nonpolitician freedmen and slaves to carry out the mundane business of running a huge empire.

From Augustus on page 234: "Romans distinguished between imperium, power, and auctoritas, authority. It was evidence of the remarkable success of the Augustan system that the princeps was able to command obedience simply through his authority, and was very seldom obliged to draw on the brute power at his disposal."

Augustus Ascendant Part 13

In the Republic, any citizen found guilty of a crime had the right to appeal directly to the people. Now in Augstus' "restored Republic" only he could overturn a sentence of death. Provacatio ad populum became appellatio ad Caesarem-an appeal to Caesar. Augustus-who was nothing if not efficient-although perhaps his honesty in many areas left something to be desired- tried many things to improve the efficiency and honesty of imperial administration. With the ever indispensable Agrippa's help, Augustus ushered in an era of uniform and tranquil governance throughout the empire.

In Africa, the Gallic and Spanish provinces some of the luxuries of Roman civilization were introduced (aqueducts, theaters and the like). Regular censuses were performed to ensure a fair assessment or provincial taxation, and tax collection as a whole was made more equitable. Augustus "borrowed" Egnatius Rufus' concept of maintaining a troop of 600 slave firefighters in Rome itself, and in 6 AD, this was expanded into seven cohorts of firemen, with each cohort protecting two of the fourteen districts that Augustus had divided the city into. Three cohortes urbanae or urban cohorts were formed to police Rome also.

In Augustus on page 231, Anthony Everitt goes into other ways Augustus sought to improve imperial administration: "Augustus did not interfere in the local government of Italy. He left its four hundred or so towns and cities to manage their own affairs as they had always done, except in two respects. He divided the peninsula into eleven departments for the purpose of the census of citizens and the registration of public land. And, more important, he recognized the need for speedy communications. He tried to persuade senators to invest some of the spoils of successful military campaigns in improving and extending the Italian road network. When that failed, he himself took over the cura viarum, the responsibility for roads, and made large ddonations from his own pocket for road construction."

Regular relay stations were set up across Italy. Chariots and horses were made available by local officials and people using the service paid a fixed fee for it. As this network became more sophisticated, an experienced military man called the praefectus vehicularum, was put in charge of it. Over time the relay stations provided an extensive network that improved communications in all of Italy and the provinces to the north. Augustus and Agrippa had followed the example of distinguished men from the era of the Republic, who were expected to spend large amounts of money on public works. Both men invested a great deal of their personal wealth in new public buildings and upgrades in the city. Eventually new senatorial commissions were set up in such a way that they oversaw the upkeep of roads- the curatores viarum and public buildings and temples- the curatores locorum publicum.

From Augustus on page 232: "Augustus introduced greater order into the day-to-day management of the empire than had existed in the past. In the abscence of a professional civil service, officeholders with imperium in the Republic, such as consuls and praetors, used to govern from their town houses in Rome and used slaves and servants, family and friends to expedite business. Augustus governed in the same way, but on a much larger scale. He employed a growing army of slaves and freedmen to undertake the routine tasks of administration."

Augustus, however, didn't believe that it was politically acceptable fro people like slaves and freedmen to be the official standard-bearers of the new order. He laid down a roadmap for a governmental service for men of Rome's upper classes. In this way, young men of the senatorial class who showed talent could spend their whole careers as public administrators who were reimbursed quite well for their services. After these men had completed military service, and still in their late teens, they could secure minor posts as vigintiviri, which literally means "twenty men." A typical career path for these men would be working for a year in the mint; supervising the cleaning and upkeep of Roman streets, managing prisons and executions, and judging cases that involved slavery or freedom. From these lower positions they would go on to serve as tribunes of the people-except of course if they were members of the patrician class- or aediles. After this, they could run for one of the twelve praetorships. After serving as praetor they could go on to govern a minor province or command a legion. The always coveted office of the consulship awaited the most ambitious and successful, after which one could go on to govern one of the major provinces or one of the curatorships in Rome.

Augustus on pages 232-233: "The Senate only produced senior administrators, and the princeps also looked for assistance in less important jobs from the equites. Whether they were senators or equites able men became professional servants of the state, receiving a salary and living out long and interesting careers. The fact that Augustus twice enacted bribery laws, in 18 B.C. and 8 B.C., not only illustrates his commitment to clean government, but also suggests that his efforts may have met some resistance. Inch by inch, though, prototypes of the institutions that we take for granted in a modern state were beginning to emerge. The amateurish and corrupt mechanisms of the Republic were gradually replaced by something resembling an honest state bureaucracy."

I still have a lot of information to post and hope to be online here and there to do it. I haven't been so caught up in awhile. If I were a better typist I could keep going-but my hands and fingers are saying forget it! All the best to anyone stopping by!

Augustus Ascendant Part 12

From Anthony Everitt's Augustus on page 229: "Augustus was a reformer who liked to move at a snail's pace. In many aspects of his administration, change and innovation proceeded step by step over many years.

Time and again, he did his best to improve the functioning of the Senate, which, together with the people, remained the legal source of authority in the state. Rather than appoint more censors, the princeps decided in 18 B.C. to use his new consular authority to act as censor himself (as he and Agrippa had done in 28 B.C.) and review the membership of the Senate. He raised the minimum wealth of a senator from 400,000 sesterces to 1 million sesterces, a substantial sum of money. This set a significant distance between the senatorial and the equestrian orders, and helped to create a distinct senatorial class. Birth as well as property became a qualification. In the days of the Republic only senators could lay claim to senatorial status, but from now on sons of senators acquired the status as of right, while others were obliged to apply for it.

As the princeps had discovered ten years previously, cleansing the Senate of its reprobates wasa tricky and unpopular excercise. His dream was to reduce it to three hundred members, which would make it a much more effective legislative body. He devised an ingenious scheme, which was intended to achieve his objective with the least possible blame attaching to him.

He selected thirty senators, each of whom was there to choose a further five. Each group of five would be choose one of its number by lot, who would become a senator. This man would repeat the process, which was to continue until three hundred senators had been found. The scheme being too clever by half, various malpractices developed, the proceedings ground to a confused halt, and Augustus was obliged to take over the selection himself. He ended up by creating a Senate of six hundred members and seriously annoying a large number of people. In compensation, he gave various privileges to those who had been expelled. They were allowed to stand for election to the various offices of state; in due course. Most of them returned to the Senate."

Augustus had thought out his "revisions" to the Senate in the most miniscule detail- and after all of this it was almost a completely wasted effort. Augustus did continue to accord the Senate with great repsect and dignity, and also sought out its advice. Augustus even encouraged senators to speak their minds- and some took him up on it. Most senators, however, didn't live up to Augustus' expectations of them, and in 17 BC fines for nonattendance were increased and quorums were established for particular varieties of interests. Augustus also took steps to expedite decision-making sometime between 27 and 18 BC.

Going back to Augustus on page 230: "...He set up a senatorial standing committee, which consisted of himself; one or both consuls, one each from the quaestors, aediles, and praetors, and fifteen other senators chosen by lot. Some members changed every six months and the whole committee once a year, except for the princeps. Its task was to prepare business for full sessions of the Senate."

It should be noted that the standing committee idea also didn't work well. This may have been exactly what Augustus had planned. Between the high number (for an executive decision making body) of 21 and the quick turnover in members it is no wonder the group floundered. This left Augustus and a small informal group of advisers-called the amici Caesaris, "Caesar's friends," to "guide" debate in the Senate. We can only imagine that will of this scheming and maneuvering by Augustus, that the senators-and indeed any officeholders, must have been quite confused at times as just to what their job really was and how to do it!

I will again lean on Anthony Everitt and Augustus to explain more fully on page 230: "The Senate's powers remained advisory in principle, and bills were still laid before popular assemblies for approval. However, its decrees or senatus consulta were increasingly regarded as binding, especially when specifically supported or initiated by the princeps.

Both the Senate and the princeps acquired new legal powers. The old republican courts of law, the iudicia publica, remained in being, presided over by praetors. But cases of treason or otherwise high high political importance could be brought to one of two new courts, the princeps in council or the consuls in the Senate, against which there was no appeal. The ever growing number of citizens made it impractical to remit all criminal prosecutions to Rome, so proconsuls were given the authority to carry out judicial functions."

I hope to post again here soon - as I have a lot of information ready. Thanks for anyone commenting or following this blog. All the best to anyone stopping by!

Augustus Ascendant Part 11

It was obvious that Augustus needed to adjust the constitutional settlement to make the public attitude more tranquil. Prior to 19 BC, he had paid a lot of attention to Rome's provinces. Now that he was back he turned to domestic issues. At this time the public mood was still quite hostile to the Senate. There were also other issues with his rule that had to be looked at. Augustus' titles of tribunicia potestas and imperium consulae didn't give him any imperium specific to Italy. Because of this, he didn't have the authority to command troops on Italian soil. This situation was awkward because of the formation of the cohortes praetoriae the Praetorian Guards. After Julius Caesar was dispatched by the Senate both Mark Antony and Octavian decided to protect themselves with large bodyguards. Once Octavian had his final victory over Antony at Actium he kept the cohorts intact in order to act as a peacetime security force. There were nine of them in all (for a total of about 5,400 men at the most) stationed in and around Rome. Augustus wanted to have formal recognition of these men and also have them put under a loyal commander.

The next issue was that Augustus didn't have the official first place to preside over senatorial business. It was the consul who had the privilege to either speak or propose legislation. This could cause a problem because of Augustus' determination to make it seem that the Republic was still functioning. This was not only cumbersome but could also cause difficulty if the senators didn't know what Augustus' desires were at the beginning of a debate.

In Augustus on page 228: "So in 19 B.C. some form of consular imperium was conferred on the princeps although he did not actually have to hold consular office (following the same principle as with tribunicia potestas). The ancient sources disagree on, and are unclear about, the precise nature of this authority or the term for which it was awarded. It may be that Augustus' proconsular imperium, granted for ten-year periods and renewed, was simply extended to include Rome and Italy. A certain vagueness at the time may have suited all sides. Whatever form it was couched in, though, this new power completed Augustus' political mastery of the state."

Augustus made another intelligent decision by restoring the office of consul to its former glory. This office had become "cheapened" during the triumvirate. The triumvirs (of which Augustus was one at the time) developed a new policy where a consul would serve only a part of their term and would many times be replaced by "suffect" consuls. This was a great way to reward a man's loyalty to the triumvirate but needless to say-demeaned the office and angered many nobiles. The civil wars and proscription had already devastated the nobility and the ones who were left were very happy to have the consulship (which they considered a birthright) restored to them. They were also very thankful to Augustus for undertaking efforts to restore their ancient dignitas.

However, it can't be stated enough how "cosmetic" in nature all of Augustus' efforts were. The Roman citizens still elected officeholders-BUT these officeholders were nominated or preapproved by Augustus. Indeed, from here on out, the role that Roman citizens had in politics lessened each year. However, I think we should ask ourselves here- and I think this question is particularly relevant to any Americans reading this who are deeply saddened by the various assaults on our Constitution over the last 30 to 4o years -whose fault was it really that led to the loss of political freedoms in ancient Rome?

Was this the fault of the scheming, manipulative Augustus? (Of course the Republic fell before him -but could have been restored up to a certain point if enough people cared I think). Or was it the fault of the mass of Roman citizenry, who it seems, after the carnage of the civil wars were more than happy with "security" rather than "liberty"-especially as Augustus was such a great make-up artist and didn't waste any chance to try to cover up what he was doing at every turn? Thanks again to Jon, Autumnforest, human being and anyone who has commented here before! All the best to anyone stopping by!