This passage comes early on and is attributed to his second winter in the province, for the summers were filled by military operations, but it is fair to see it as characteristic of his entire term as legate, and also reflective of the actions of other legates. Tacitus, ever the cynic and inclined to take a gloomy view of Roman society in contrast with the simpler and superior morality of tribal nations, explained this policy as thoroughly manipulative: ‘And little by little the Britons went astray into alluring vices: to the promenade, the bath, the well-appointed dinner table. The simple natives gave the name of “culture” to this factor of their enslavement.’14
The aristocrats gained most from urbanisation, but others also benefited if they lived in or near these new communities and so had access to their comforts. Many accepted this as a reasonable price for the loss of independence and subjection to Roman taxation. Yet it did not always work. The attempts to develop towns and cities in Germany east of the Rhine were swept away by Arminius’ victory in AD 9. Nor were thriving cities in themselves essential to imposing peace on a region. In Gaul the aristocracy of many areas engaged in urban life, but still spent a good deal of their time in the countryside, and did not cut themselves off from rural life. Few cities in Britain could ever match those of Gaul, let alone other provinces, and many remained small and never acquired the grander monuments so admired elsewhere. Perhaps even more than in Gaul, the focus of society in much of Britain remained essentially rural. This did not mean that these areas were any less peaceful or integrated into the empire than the regions where cities were more numerous and grander.15
From a Roman point of view, cities were also administratively convenient centres, capable of controlling and policing the lands around them, assessing and collecting tax and dealing with many legal disputes. Governors and their tiny staffs were simply incapable of undertaking all this work. Other administrative structures, villages, collections of villages, or tribal groups, were also employed, but on the whole cities were preferred, since they were easily reached by road, river or sea, contained archives and were governed by familiar institutions. From the towns and cities of a province, places could be selected for the governor to hold assizes at set times each year, and those who lived elsewhere knew where to travel in order to bring a case before him. During these sessions cities would be crowded with plaintiffs, others seeking favours or audience, and plenty more people wanting to watch, as well as merchants and traders of all kinds, entertainers, pimps, prostitutes and pickpockets all eager to relieve people of their money. These were big events in the year and they were held in an environment where symbols of Rome and its emperors were concentrated – as well as having a Roman official at the centre of everything.16
From the very beginning, Rome exploited her provinces for resources and money. Revenue from the empire made it possible to maintain an expensive professional army. It also permitted the grandiose rebuilding of Rome, and many of the monuments, roads and amenities granted as largesse to Italy and the provinces. Tacitus claims that Agricola considered the practicalities of sending an expedition to Ireland, but concluded that the revenue raised by its conquest would not cover the cost of the legion and auxiliary units that would be required as a garrison. Strabo and Appian both claim that the poverty of peoples beyond the frontiers deterred emperors from expanding the empire, even when rulers came to Rome begging to become allies.17
Rome gained openly and unashamedly from her empire, and even if the Romans were also keen to talk about the advantages their rule brought, they never pretended that the desire to bring order to a chaotic world was their primary motive. Sadly, there is a good deal about the taxation system and even more about the economy of the Roman Empire which we simply do not understand, and this makes it very hard to judge its impact on the lives of people living in the provinces. It has been argued that the need to pay imperial taxes stimulated agriculture in many areas, creating a surplus which was either given in produce to the authorities or sold to provide the cash to pay them. As an idea, this makes a good deal of sense, but caution is needed for we do not always understand the agricultural system of a region well enough to trace the changes following annexation by Rome. Environmental archaeology has shown that there was widespread deforestation to permit farming in Iron Age Britain before the Roman conquest. We can only guess whether rising population, the markets opened by the presence of the empire on the other side of the Channel, political changes among the tribes or some other factor lay behind this. In other parts of the empire, communities were accustomed to paying tax or tribute to other powers, and in Egypt the Romans inherited the mechanisms used by the Ptolemies to exploit their territory.18
If the burdens imposed by direct and indirect taxation under the empire were heavy, they were not so heavy that the provinces were ruined. An angry Tiberius once told his governors that he wanted them ‘to shear his sheep, not skin them’. The aim was a steady flow of revenue year after year, not to drain a region of everything of value in the shortest time possible. Sometimes governors, procurators or other officials went too far, usually to line their own pockets rather than increase revenue to the state, and provoked rebellion. Yet even a scholar who has consciously tried to emphasise the cost of Roman rule on conquered peoples expressed surprise at how rare such revolts were. Like so many other things, levels of tax depended on the circumstances in which a community had come under Roman rule. The burden was not even or equal, but varied considerably, not just between but within provinces. In some areas formal tax was an innovation, although the majority may well have been obliged in the past to give some of their produce to overlords. Under the Romans the system was often different, but it may not always have been heavier and, even when it was, within a generation or two it became the normal state of affairs.19
There were other changes to economic life apart from taxation, as so much of the world came under the authority of the emperor. This meant that wealthy men were far more confident that the right of property would be respected than they had been when the world consisted of so many distinct and often hostile states. Many bought estates in the provinces, for land was an honourable investment, but also considered a secure one, since it could not sink like a trading vessel and should yield a long-term profit. The environment of the empire favoured not simply Roman citizens, and especially the rich senators and equestrians, but provincials as well. Men acquired property far from their home, and many may never have seen the land, while happily drawing income from it. The greatest landowner of all was the emperor, for the imperial estates were immense, with property all over the empire, acquired during initial conquest or through confiscation from disgraced senators and other wealthy men.
Patterns of ownership varied, with estates sometimes concentrated or consisting of numerous smaller farms scattered across a region. A heavy reliance on slave labour for the bulk of work was rare outside Italy – and even there it was far from universal. In most cases plots of land were leased to free tenants, sometimes called coloni. Landlords were usually absentee, and the estates were run by their staffs, many of whom were freedmen or slaves. Often a bleak picture is painted of the lives of tenant farmers, based to a large degree on laws from the province of Africa banning them from leaving. Other evidence suggests that they were better off. In Asia it is clear that tenants passed their leases on to their sons, and some were able to build up considerable wealth, so that they were able to club together to pay for festivals. The impression is not of downtrodden serfs but of lively village life, with annual religious festivals celebrated with sacrifices and feasting. Small farmers owning their own land also existed, and were more or less common depending on the region, although inevitably they leave less trace in our sources than the big estates with their large central buildings, minor industrial activities and greater likelihood of setting up inscriptions.20
One of the greatest changes came from the creation of new markets for new goods. Many estates specialised in producing specific cash crops, often ones r
arely grown in the region in earlier periods, and then only on a small scale for local use. Viticulture spread widely, and over time wines from Gaul and other regions became well established for export as well as local use. The demand for olive oil was also huge, for it was used not simply for cooking but also to anoint bathers and as fuel for the lamps found in such vast quantities all over the empire. The capacity to exploit such markets relied on ready access to transportation, ideally by water, for moving heavy goods over long distances. Long-distance trade by land and sea flourished under the Roman Empire, peaking in the first and second centuries AD, but still substantial afterwards. Areas became famous for particular things, such as the fine wool from the highlands of Asia Minor or fermented fish sauce from Spain, the famous – and pungent – garum. At the same time mineral resources were taken from the ground and used on a far larger scale than in the past. Examination of samples from the polar ice caps showed that pollution caused by industry was high in the Roman period, and especially in the first and second centuries AD, on a scale unmatched until the Industrial Revolution. Much of this came from state-owned mines, whether worked directly or through contractors. Whatever difficulties we face in understanding economic activity in the Roman period, we cannot doubt its sheer and unprecedented scale.21
Alongside commerce came the demands of the empire, with grain and other foodstuffs being transported to army garrisons on the frontiers and to supply Rome’s population. Providing for soldiers and the inhabitants of Rome were priorities for the emperor, and so the sea routes to Italy from Sicily, then Egypt and also Africa and Spain were fostered, while in the provinces roads were built, canals dug and river navigation improved to reach the army on the frontiers. Most, although probably not all, of the goods involved came from taxes or imperial estates, but plenty of people profited as carriers. Other trade also piggybacked on these great shipments by land and sea. Long-distance transport of luxury goods, from spices to fine tableware and metalwork, is undisputed. There was also likely to have been far more bulk transport of staples than some scholars believe. It is quite clear that the roads through the mountains of Anatolia were intended for use by wheeled transport and not simply pedestrians and pack mules. Provincials were part of a much larger world, and goods from far away and of designs first created elsewhere were widely available to those able to afford them. Inevitably the better off were best placed to enjoy such things. Many agricultural workers produced crops on behalf of a landlord they never met for consumption by people in distant lands. Yet even the poorest sites usually show new styles of mundane objects, from tools to jewellery, so that even on a day-to-day basis the existence of the empire affected lives.22
SHEEP AND SHEPHERDS, ROMANS AND NATIVES
Tiberius did not want the provincials ‘skinned’, but his comments show his awareness that some of his representatives failed to follow his wishes, and echo the comment of the Pannonian rebel leader who said that the Romans sent ‘wolves’ to watch their flocks instead of ‘dogs or shepherds’. The Principate made it a little easier for provincials to complain about the behaviour of a governor, since now they knew that they needed to reach the emperor instead of trying to find and persuade senators with sufficient influence to bring charges on their behalf. This still meant sending an embassy to Rome – or wherever else the emperor was at the time – and waiting in the hope of receiving an audience and gaining a favourable response. When Philo led a deputation of Alexandria’s Jews to Rome and was ushered into the presence of Caligula, the emperor suddenly sprang up and left the room, forcing the delegates to chase after him before they were allowed to speak. Emperors of a more serious disposition did not behave in this way, but it could still take a long time for a plea to be heard. Anyone thought able to influence the emperor would be courted. Augustus’ wife Livia spoke to him on behalf of provincial communities, while Josephus tells us that he and the other ambassadors from Judaea were aided by Nero’s wife Poppaea.23
If accusations of misbehaviour by a governor were upheld, then Julius Caesar’s repetundae law remained in force, especially in cases of extortion or corruption. Alternatively the charge could be one of maiestas – damaging the ‘majesty’ of the Republic or the emperor. Trials were no longer conducted in the public courts, where the composition of juries had proved so politically controversial. Instead they were dealt with by the Senate, or by the emperor in person, although only ‘bad’ emperors held such hearings and passed judgement privately. This did mean that senators were tried by their peers, who were just as inclined to be sympathetic as they had been under the Republic. Pliny was persuaded to undertake a prosecution even though this brought him back to Rome when he had obtained leave of absence from his treasury post. He was flattered because the Senate supported the request from the representatives of Baetica in Spain to choose him to act on their behalf as he had done in the past. The task was easier because the accused governor had died, ‘which removed the most painful feature in this type of case – the downfall of a senator. I saw then that I should win the same gratitude for taking the case as if he were alive, but without incurring ill will.’ Pliny’s reluctance to have a hand in ending someone’s career is all the more striking because he had no doubts about the man’s guilt or the seriousness and cruelty of his crimes.24
There are thirty-five cases with known outcomes involving prosecutions for misbehaviour by governors or their staffs recorded from the period from Augustus to Trajan. Twenty-eight ended in the conviction of some or all of the accused, and only seven in acquittal. As in the past, convictions – and the most scandalous cases – were more likely to appear in our sources than charges that were dismissed. Five other cases are recorded, but we do not know their outcome. Charges tended to focus on the same sort of abuses familiar from Cicero’s speeches. Tacitus claims that Agricola reformed the collection of grain and other tribute in kind by clamping down on the abuses of the officials involved. One trick was to make the Britons purchase the necessary grain from officials at an inflated price. Another was to demand that the food they owed be delivered to some distant garrison rather than ones close by, imposing heavy transport costs – unless they came to a private arrangement with an official. We have already encountered the imperial freedman who claimed to Augustus that he was extorting money from the Gauls for fictional extra months so that they would be too poor to rebel.25
Apart from the system of tax and levies, the favour of the governor was highly valued, and plenty of people were willing to pay to secure it, giving ‘gifts’ to him or those around him. Under the Principate it became routine for members of his staff and family to be prosecuted alongside a governor. Thus although the proconsul of Baetica was dead, there were people to prosecute, including friends who had accompanied him from Rome, associates from the province, and his wife – whom Pliny was sure was guilty even though he doubted that he could prove it. The prosecution began by making clear the crimes of the dead man, a task made simple because he had kept detailed accounts in his own hand of all the deals he had made for everything, including arranging the outcome of court cases. There was even a note to his mistress back in Rome – ‘Hurray, hurray, I’m coming back to you a free man – now that I have sold most of the Baetici for 4,000,000 sesterces!’ Some of the staff claimed that they had no choice but to follow the governor’s orders – something Pliny did his best to prove was no defence against the law.26
Under the Republic, Verres could go into exile before the verdict was delivered, taking with him a good deal of his plunder. Under the Principate the range of punishments was wider, and some trials involved lesser charges solely concerned with regaining money extorted in the province. In this case, Pliny tells us that the property of the dead proconsul was assessed, and all that he had possessed before he went to Baetica kept separate and passed on to his daughter, who although named in the prosecution had been found wholly innocent. The rest was to be returned to the communities and individuals according to their claims for losses. Two of the governor’s
associates from the province were exiled for five years, and the commander of an auxiliary cohort was exiled from Italy for two years. The dead man’s son-in-law was acquitted, as were several others – Pliny does not tell us what happened to the governor’s wife so she was probably also acquitted – while a few more people of lesser importance were exiled. Apart from these punishments a man could suffer public disgrace (infamia) or be barred from holding higher office. Condemnation could end a man’s career, but was not necessarily permanent, although some anticipated the penalty by suicide. Men exiled for a fixed period could resume their careers on their return, while others exiled permanently might be recalled when a new emperor took power.
Our sources contain more criticism of equestrian governors or procurators than senators, no doubt because it was easier to highlight the failings of men of lesser social status and poorer connections. There were also significantly more trials of former proconsuls than imperial legates. In part the greater wealth and more settled conditions of senatorial provinces made them easier to plunder. The presence in an imperial province of a procurator reporting directly to the princeps, and often of large garrisons with a senator in charge of each legion and another serving as tribune, made it harder for crimes to escape notice, unless all of these could be made complicit. Tacitus implies that abuses had occurred in Britain before Agricola took over, but places the blame at a lower level than the governors. He also held a procurator responsible for provoking Boudicca’s rebellion, and does not tell us whether or not the man was punished. There are fewer details of the process in trials of equestrian governors and other officials.27
Pax Romana Page 31