independence of Roman Provinces

[Lothia]

Ave civitas,

I am reading "INVISIBLE ROMANS, prostitutes, outlaws, slaves, gladiators, ordinary men and women that history forgot" by Robert Knapp.
Excellent and entertaining read.
However, I ran across something that made me wonder just how independent the provinces of Rome were.
- - -
Rowlandson, no. 138, gives a case of a father claiming under Egyptian law the right to take back his daughter, now married, against her will. The Roman authorities reject this as too harsh, however - and note that as they are under Egyptian (i.e. Greek) law, not Roman, patria potestas (the absolute power of a father under Roman law) is not recog­nized. In the petition, the wife claims to have presented documents 'all proving that women who have attained maturity are mistresses of their own persons, and can remain with their husbands or not as they choose;
- - -
This makes me think that the provinces were, at least, semi-autonomous. Am I making the right deductions?

Again, thanks in advance.

Tom

[Valerian Pertinax]

When was the approximate date of the claim in question?

[Valerian Pertinax]

Also, "Ancient Civ" might be a more appropriate place for the thread.

[Epictetus]

Oh yes, it depends upon the time and place, but many provinces and cities were autonomous, and I think Rome preferred it this way.

Some cities, like Athens, were declared “free” and basically let to run almost independently. Only if they ran into problems (normally financial) would a Corrector be appointed to help them get back into shape. I just read a fascinating article that describes this.

We have multiple letters of Trajan to Pliny when the Emperor tells him to follow local custom and law, not Roman. I believe we have some inscriptions from the Antonines saying the same thing in different places.

As a general rule of thumb, Rome preferred these conquered territories to govern themselves, as long as they did as Rome wanted. This makes sense, of course, because telling someone how to govern is a lot easier than governing yourself. At times they took this to extremes: in Anatolia they even disbanded a province and allowed it to be an independent client state for a while, but the rulers couldn’t keep control so Rome had to turn it back into a province again.

So Rome preferred for them to be autonomous, but didn’t hesitate in interfering if they felt it was necessary.

[M. Demetrius]

From what little I've read on the topic, it seems they weren't as concerned with the internals as with the tax flow. They did look down on insurrectionists, though, regardless of taxes.

[Lothia]

Ave civitas,

Thanks for the replies. The book "Invisible Romans" spans the reigns from Augustus to Constantine.
But your answers create more questions.
If many provinces were allowed to rule semi-autonomous, why does the ND have Praefects (whom I thought were governors) in all the provinces (except some in the East, who had consuls).
Were these praefects then there as advisers to the local leadership?
How could governors (like Varus) plunder his province so completely? Would not the local leaders protest to Rome?"
I have so much yet to learn. Sometimes I feel overwhelmed.
Thanks again.
Tom

[Marja]

I think each province included several self-governing units, such as self-governing civitates. So that province-level administration, the army and military lands, and the province-level tax collectors would usually be under Roman control, while the rest remained under local control. But I'm not an expert on the subject, and I understand that this system collapsed in the third century with the central government confiscating cities' treasuries and the like.

[Epictetus]

Yes, the Roman Governor had a rather diverse range of jobs. While many cities and municipalities were self-governing, that doesn’t mean everything was handled locally.

As far as I know, there was no hard-and-fast rule for what the Governor handled and what he didn’t. But it seems his remit was in anything that could impact a wider area than a municipal unit, was very expensive, dealt specifically with Roman citizens, or could impact peace and security in some fashion.

For specifically Roman issues, the Governor had to travel around to his assize districts to hear court cases that either involved Roman citizens, Roman law, or sometimes local issues that impacted Rome in some way. He supervised tax collection, as well as goods-in-kind taxes like food for the army. He helped coordinate big infrastructure projects which were larger than a self-governing city could handle on its own, like Pliny’s aqueducts and canals he writes to Trajan about. The Governor also had to act as go-between for the local city and Rome, so when the city wanted to build a new temple for the imperial cult, for example, the Governor recommended or not to the Emperor whether it should be allowed. If a city wanted to have a new trade guild, the Governor got involved, because sometimes these associations were used for anti-Roman activity.

What I’ve described is more-or-less how it was done in the Principate, I believe. Early in Rome’s overseas expansion, there doesn’t seem to have been any precedent or rule on how a province was handled. Also, the only check and balance was the unreliable court system. So we had things like Verres plundering Sicily, and the Sicilians only chance of redress was Cicero in the courts. Much later, control was centralised, as Marja Erwin said, so the days of semi-autonomy were over.

[Lothia]

Ave Civitas,

Thank you guys very much. This has made it clearer for me.
Tom

[Timianus]

I think a good example would be to look at Jerusalem @ time of J.C. The attitude of Pilate towards the high priests was basically: Pay your taxes and control your people or we will intervene. Also note how Pilate wanted nothing to do with the internal Jewish matter and only did so when it had implications for Roman supremacy/ideology.

This policy makes sense not only from a economy of force standpoint, but also from a public relations point of view: As long as you recognize the authority of Rome, life can go on like before.

[Timianus]

A follow-up question though:

I am assuming (but do not know) that the system of separate legal systems/governance ended after the Constitutio Antoniniana. Does anyone know the answer to this?