Quote:Was the level of imperium governance assigned to a province generally constant? Meaning, was Transalpine Gaul always a Consular province?
Does anyone know what were the Consular(Proconsular) provinces during this time (late 2nd cent BC)?
'Imperium' and 'provincia' are two of the more difficult concepts in the Roman Republican constitution, and it's been a while since I did any of this, so corrections are welcome.
What we normally think of as a Republican province didn't have a status such as 'praetorian' in and of itself, this is just a shorthand we use.
A somewhat simplified explanation: in the Republic, the senate would meet each year and decide on the roles or responsibilities which needed to be attended to abroad (the definition of which changed over time!). The people could override them, but generally did not.
A magistrate or former magistrate was then assigned one of these responsibilities. This was a role, not a geographical region. That role or responsibility was that man's 'provincia', his province, and within its scope he would hold almost regal authority, 'imperium', on behalf of the Roman people.
The scope of this provincia might include geographical boundaries, but this was not necessary. Once assigned his province, a man would then be invested with the imperium appropriate to his senatorial rank and, sometimes, to the scale of his task, and was assigned legates, authorised to raise troops etc. He would then leave Rome to take up his province.
If the man assigned a province was a praetor then that province was what we normally call a praetorian province for the duration of his command. Likewise, the consular provinces for a given year were whatever role that year's consuls were given. Over time, it became normal for the consuls and praetors to stay in Rome for the year of their magistracy and leave Rome the following year, technically as proconsul or propraetor. However, despite them being promagistrates, we still refer to their provinces as 'consular' or 'praetorian', because these are the provinces that the consuls or praetors would have taken up had they not stayed in Rome.
Of course, the senate generally sent men of similar status - and therefore, theoretically, capability - to do the same tasks. Similarly, over time, the geographical limits of provincia became conventions and, eventually, almost equivalent to borders. As a region became stable and the role of a governor/commander became less about military power than about civilian government, these geographical limits came to define what we now think of as 'provinces'.
The more formal idea of, say, a 'consular' province comes more from the Principate and distinguishes both the fact that the man who held it was of consular rank, and that he held the post by appointment of the senate in the old way and by virtue of his consulship, and thus held his own imperium. Most provinces were held by legates appointed by the Emperor, and it was the Emperor who held the imperium. The senate had no practical say as to who was appointed to the Emperor's provinces, or what their boundaries were. However, the senate (?almost) always sent men of consular rank to the two most important provinces it could assign (Asia and Africa). A similar process applied to the 'praetorian' provinces.
As to who held what in the Republic, and when, Broughton (as above) lists the magistrates and promagistrates for each year, and what they did.
The standard work on imperium and provinces used to be Lintott, A. (1993) Imperium Romanum - has it been superseded?
