AHC: Fix Roman provincial governor system

The Roman Republic system of appointing governors was incredibly broken. The Romans knew it. The provincials new it. Historians have known it. So, lets fix it.

Just to throw a couple ideas out:

- Have the governors elected by one of the Roman assemblies. Granted, this won't fix anything, but hey, it'll give the plebs something to do.

- Give the provinces (or, more accurately, the citizens in said provinces) the right to veto the appointment of governors they don't like. Say, the first two candidates appointed by the Senate.
 
The Roman Republic system of appointing governors was incredibly broken. The Romans knew it. The provincials new it. Historians have known it. So, lets fix it.

Just to throw a couple ideas out:

- Have the governors elected by one of the Roman assemblies. Granted, this won't fix anything, but hey, it'll give the plebs something to do.

- Give the provinces (or, more accurately, the citizens in said provinces) the right to veto the appointment of governors they don't like. Say, the first two candidates appointed by the Senate.

The problem is that the way that provisional governorships were granted was done in such a way as to allow the appointed governor a chance to grow in experience and build prestige within the Republic (also, for that matter,granting a former Consul a military governorship was a way to reward them for their service and give them a prestigious and lucrative power base outside of Rome where they could, hopefully, not continue to exert power over the current government). Any solution to the governor system is going to have to take these factors into consideration because, if it doesn't, there are going to be many angry, angry public officials.
 
Extend the principle of plural magistracies to the provinces. The Roman Republic had multiple of each type of magistrate (two consuls, two censors, etc) with mutual veto power, specifically as a check against a single magistrate becoming too powerful with nobody to overrule him. Provincial governors did not have a functional check on their authority (in theory, a Consul could show up and start vetoing their decisions (or a Praetor or Quaestor for a lower-ranking governorship), but time, distance, and the importance of staying in Rome to keep an eye on the Senate, the other Consul, etc meant that this rarely (never?) happened). And without this check, promagistrates did indeed develop into virtual monarchs of their provinces with little or no effective check on their authority. Just appointing two coequal promagistrates per province rather than a single governor would go a long way towards balancing this out. A promagistrate could still use his governor to accumulate wealth and prestige (and the Senate would still get him out of Rome for a while), but he'd need to share with his co-governor, and his co-magistrate could put the brakes on him if he tried to pull a stunt like Caesar's invasion of Gaul.

Another possibility would be to create additional magistrates with the duty of "riding circuit" between the provinces, auditing the governors' decisions, vetoing inappropriate ones and recalling governors who were abusing their authority beyond the normal nest-feathering expected of Roman politicians. The risks here are that the kinds of politicians who got appointed as proconsuls would bristle under this kind of micromanagement, and that the circuit-riding magistrate could become a sort of "super-governor", abusing his own authority to handicap (or even prosecute) his enemies among the governors and allowing the excesses of his allies/clients.
 
Polybios praised the roman constitution, because it was a "mixed constitution" with monarchic, aristocratic and democratic elements:

- monarchic: the undivided power of the roman magistrates (undivided in a modern sense: legislative, executive, iurisdiction)

- aristocratic: the senate as Advisory Councils of the Elders representing the aristocratic families

- democratic: the comitia as legislative

Even if this is partially true for the almost uncodified de iure constitution, it is fully wrong for the even more uncodified de facto constitution of the roman republic. In best case during the times when the roman constitution worked perfectly, the roman senate was the one and only prime executive, legislative and iurisdiction with fully undivided power. The magistrates (even the consuls) were just servants of the senate acting closely micromanaged on behalf of the senate, and the comita decided, what the senate told them to decide. When this succes model stopped working, the republic failed.


However, the monarchic element was absurdly strong with the promagistrates, because

- they had no colleague able to veto

- they had no tribunes able to veto

- the quaestor, even if officially an independent magistrate with an independent mandate of the senate was usually just a clerk of the proconsul, because there was no senate nearby. So he could not resist against the higher auctoritas and dignitas of the proconsul.

- the proconsul was consul (military), praetor (iurisdiction and legislative to a certain extent) and aedil (infrastructure) in one person. Plus he usually controlled the quaestor (finances).

- beside the non-exisiting collegiality, also the annuity was often violated by extraordinary commands (2-10 years).

This have been perfect conditions for corruption, exploits, embezzlements and in worst case usurpation.


The major tasks of a proconsul have been:

- external security (border provinces only)
- internal security
- iurisdiction
- supervising the self-administration of the cities
- collecting /supervising (not gathering) the taxes
- infrastructure projects

Of course you could split that like in Rome amongst multiple magistrates: proconsul (military), propraetor (iurisdiction and supervising), proaedil (infrastructure) and proquaestor (finances). For non-border provinces, with just a small army (usually just a few cohorts) you even do not need a proconsul, because inner security was more the responsibilty of a praetor anyways.


But there are some issues coming along with such an approach:

1. Splitting the military command in a province between 2 proconsuls might be detrimental. The romans made bad experiences with 2 consuls leading one army (e.g. Cannae).

Multiple praetors (even more than 2) makes a lot of sense. Provinces had up to 7 conventi (places or cities of trial). More praetors would reduce travelling significantly for all. Multiple aediles make perhaps not that much sense, because infrastructure outside of the cities responsibilities was not that of a big deal. Actually the romans never implemented a proaedil in the provinces. But multiple questors might make sense for better control.

2. The introduction of all 4 magistrates does not solve the issue, that the proconsul or propraetor with the highest auctoritas and dignitas is able to dominate the others, without a senate nearby supporting lower magistrates and controlling the highest.

3. the romans had not enough aristocratic personel. That was one reason, why they invented the promagistrate (just a pro-longed magsistrate). Roman magistrates were officially honorary offices. Even 2 consuls in Rome in peace times shared the job on a monthly basis in order to get enough time for their private business. So roman aristocrats were not willing to dedicate their life to the state like a prussian clerk.

This means, such a model is just possible, if you use equites at least for the lower magistrates, too. But this would be a big change for the roman aristocracy. Because this would have strong effects on the roman society, the senate and the aristocracy and their clients in total. Some roman arsitocrats saw the need for more lower magistrates, e.g. Cicero in his rather naive recommendations for a reformed republic.

The principes actually did it. They decoupled the finances from the governors by implementing independent equestrian financial procurators. In the senatorial procinces these procurators have been just responsible for the patrimonium caesaris. However these procurators often peached the governor and were an instrument of control. But corruption still happened. Especially if governor and procurator worked together in criminal harmony.

So the idea is good. But the implementation needs a bit more thinking. And more consideration of the roman mindset. Why the hell, the roman aristocrats should get this idea or accept and follow this idea? This is always the mother of all questions with every good idea on this forum. Nevertheless, I am convinced that more division of power or balance of power in the provinces - even if never in a modern sense - is badly needed for a more stable rebublic. Even for a more stable principate.
 
Last edited:
During the republic the concept of citizenship was cital. Only full roman citizens could be considered in elections. That made that only Romans could become the only candidates to become governors, a non-roman could be admired but he would never become a governor. The idea of the natives having veto power is impossible. The Romans only accepted the tribunes veto after the plebes having threaten to leave the city, and it took them many generations to make it obligatory for one of the consuls to be a plebe, so giving veto to natives would be against their ideology.

With the roman ideology that no man could hold too much power, they wouldn't extend the time of the magistratures even if the men in charge is an excellent administrator. Plus a magistrate has immunity (Caesar was afraid of being prosecuted by Cicero and Cato the moment he had to go back to Rome), but most was sent to court by their political opponents the moment they came back. The roman system was broken and the only way to improve it was with Augustus changes with the governor having a men above him that would control his excesses if the governor would go too corrupt ( Tiberius said to a governor that sent more money than the usual "I want the sheep shorn not flayed") or over zealous. Now during the republic the natives wouldn't be allowed to prosecute the governor, they had immunity and the senate would protect them, but during the reign of the emperor's the natives could, and most would, petition the emperor to remove the corrupted governor, and they had a fair chance to win the cases. So I sugest that the senate, or a tribune, must pass an edict that removed immunity to the governors, without immunity their political opponents would be like hawks trying to find every peace of bad administration, so they would be forced to rule better or they would lose their province.
 
... , but during the reign of the emperor's the natives could, and most would, petition the emperor to remove the corrupted governor, and they had a fair chance to win the cases.

Even during the principate, not that many public cases were won by the provincials. Nevertheless, even if not prosecuted sucessfully at the court, the career of many governors ended abruptly, just beacause the emperor had to raise an eyebrow over a petition of the provincials. Worst case governors were simply falsely accused by the emperor, dispossessed and exiled or executed.

Sometimes autocracy has its moments. Unfortunately autocracy fires back, if this autocrat is an idiot or worse.
 
So I sugest that the senate, or a tribune, must pass an edict that removed immunity to the governors, without immunity their political opponents would be like hawks trying to find every peace of bad administration, so they would be forced to rule better or they would lose their province.

Sounds nice. But immunity had a meaning. Without immunity the magistrates would be bombarded with trials from their first day in the office. And in the provinces this makes not that much sense, because the governor was the highest judge in the province.

I agree, that without the risk of prosecution Caesar would have most probably not crossed the Rubicon. But the problem was not that much immunity, but the fact, that his violations of law, already during his consulship in Rome, were never prevented. Another issue was, that roman iurisdiction was far from independent like (sometimes) nowadays. More control would had helped. But in the case of Caesar in Rome and Gaul any control failed dramatically.

Actually Pompeius introduced a bill, that a magistrate should not become a promagistrate for the next 5 (?) years. Enough time for trials. Now this was a step into the right direction. IIRC Pompeius was the first, who violated this law.
 
Last edited:

TinyTartar

Banned
One of the biggest issues was corruption, which was accepted as normal for a governor to technically illegally enrich himself during his tenure, and it was accepted as the Senate got enough money from the governor to keep them happy about the province.

It was essentially a big racket.

Cato's governorship of Cyprus was considered so unusual because he didn't take a denarii that wasn't his, and sent the Senate exorbitant amounts of money that they had no expectation of getting.

The provincial governorship's legal and political issues have been well expounded on by others, as it was inefficient and led to guys like Caesar coming knocking for more power and protection.

But as for actual governance of the province, having corruption be less accepted and more seriously punished might go a long way to helping. Of course, making it more meritocratic would help on this front, but those Romans are nothing if not class snobs.
 
One of the biggest issues was corruption, which was accepted as normal for a governor to technically illegally enrich himself during his tenure, and it was accepted as the Senate got enough money from the governor to keep them happy about the province.

Actually the roman republic was close to ruin itself with its province administration. Without the civil wars, which ruined the finances of the provinces even more, but led to the principate, I doubt the republic could have survived without a massive change in province administration anyways.

But such a change needs a change of the mindset of the roman aristocracy. Some historians claim, that this aristocracy was not able to change, at least not fast enough, and therefore it failed. Only Erich S. Gruen in "The Last Generation of the Republic" disagrees, iirc (highly recommended read!). We will never know, because finally this aristocracy, not willing to change their mindset, which is more than just another law, was replaced and controlled by a super-aristocrat, called princeps, who enforced the change.

Class snobs fits. Well, perhaps its too polite.
 
Last edited:
Sounds nice. But immunity had a meaning. Without immunity the magistrates would be bombarded with trials from their first day in the office. And in the provinces this makes not that much sense, because the governor was the highest judge in the province.

Given the republican xenophobia I would make that only fellow roman citizens could persecute a magistrate, and that the men in question should be judge by a selected group of senator plus one of the tribunes (I know I know the governor would use his political friends to chose a group of idiotic senators or members of his party, but for the Romans this would be revolutionary)


I agree, that without the risk of prosecution Caesar would have most probably not crossed the Rubicon. But the problem was not that much immunity, but the fact, that his violations of law, already during his consulship in Rome, were never prevented. Another issue was, that roman iurisdiction was far from independent like (sometimes) nowadays. More control would had helped. But in the case of Caesar in Rome and Gaul any control failed dramatically.

Caesar had an army with him, and in the late republic if you had an loyal army with you the chances of persecution werem near 0, the problem was when the army was disbanded and you lost your immunity. And Caesar had that huge leverage thanks to Pompey and Crassus, without those two protecting Caesar in the senate Cato or Cicero would manage to remove Caesar from the command of the army or they wouldn't allow Caesars magistrature to last that long and have so many provinces under his rule.

Actually Pompeius introduced a bill, that a magistrate should not become a promagistrate for the next 5 (?) years. Enough time for trials. Now this was a step into the right direction. IIRC Pompeius was the first, who violated this law.

I don't think that would help much, the senate did had many cases were they would suspended some laws, most common was the minimal age for consul, so that some could be rewarded, and a triumvirate would manage to do such and the bill would be suspended.

Sulla passed a law the Lex Cornelia de maiestate, that stated among other things that a governor could not leave his province during his time in office, with or without his army. The Law was designed to prevent both corruption and rebellion of governors, but that didn't last long.

Another law the Lex Iulia de restricted the number of 'gifts' that a Governor could receive during his term in a province.

The Romans were very aware of the problems of their system but I, and this is a opinion only, thinks that they endure it because not doing so would be an admission that they made an mistake and the idea that old was good new was bad. So the problem was that they were using institutions design to other circumstances and they refused to admit it and I bet that they said this " it worked of our fathers it will work for ous."
 
Given the republican xenophobia I would make that only fellow roman citizens could persecute a magistrate, ...

I fully agree, that it is fully unthinkable, that provincials prosecute a roman governor. Heck they could even not prosecute an ordinary roman proletarian, because this was one of the main duties of a roman governor. Every single roman citizen had the right to be accused at a roman court (not vice versa).

And if you look at the way the roman emperors implemented the consilii provinciae my hope for a better local parliamentary control (even if timocratic) in the provinces are rather limited. Even if in some provinces there have been lots of romans; also higher class romans. So at least for e.g. Narbonensis or Baetica I could imagine different political structures theoretically. It never happened, because the roman approach to integrate local roman nobles into politics was fully different, but it would have been a start.


Caesar had an army with him, and in the late republic if you had an loyal army with you the chances of persecution werem near 0, ....

That was my point! If a criminal like Caesar once had a 10 legion army, there was no chance to accuse him, without risking his legions are marching. So you have to stop him much earlier. You have to avoid, that he can become a criminal at the very beginning and end in a deadlock like Caesar. At least if he has a chance to command legions. But how?


I don't think that would help much, the senate did had many cases were they would suspended some laws, most common was the minimal age for consul, so that some could be rewarded, and a triumvirate would manage to do such and the bill would be suspended.

Interestingly the romans were world-champions in changing their constitution. They had no constitution. It was just another law and a bunch of traditions (mos maiorum). If needed, the senate decided. Simple like that. On the other hand. If it comes to the real needed changes, which would have endangered the role and position of the roman aristocracy, the roman constitution was rock solid and almost unchangeable.

I repeat myself. The issue was not the roman constitution. Because technically something like a roman constitution did not exist. The few "constitutional laws" were easily changeable. Way too easy! The issue was the roman mindset.
 
Last edited:
That was my point! If a criminal like Caesar once had a 10 legion army, there was no chance to accuse him, without risking his legions are marching. So you have to stop him much earlier. You have to avoid, that he can become a criminal at the very beginning and end in a deadlock like Caesar. At least if he has a chance to command legions. But how?

Caesar had the power to appoint the legion commanders, so make the senate appoint them, the legions will keep on being loyal to Caesar but he will lose some of his best commanders, I'm thinking on labienus on this point. Or make the soldiers more state bound. If the plans to make the senate giving land to veterans succeeds, then they would be more loyal, but unfortunately in the late republic the soldiers were more dependent of their general to acquire wealth. Scipio Africanus and his brother Asiaticus were persecuted by their peers but they never thought of gathering their soldiers to attack the senate, so something had to happen. The Romans were hardcore nationalists, they thought themselfs a master race, victory was never in question, but in the middle republic they stoke together. So the lack of a big enemy, in the LR, that could face them on even terms, and one that was near Rome, made them lose that ability to put the state first (but corruption was still king, from what I read during the second Punic war a shipping company sent old ships to Spain so that they would sink during the voyage to force the senate to pay for new ones) and their differences latter. So a army more dependent of their general than the state, a lack of a great enemy to force the Romans to close ranks and a willingness to decide political differences with blood, are our problems. How to work them out? Well without going ASB, that would go against roman republican ideology an earlier participate. Best POD to save them is make the seleucids to keep on being major players in Mediterranean politics.

Interestingly the romans were world-champions in changing their constitution. They had no constitution. It was just another law and a bunch of traditions. If needed, the senate decided. Simple like that. On the other hand. If it comes to the real needed changes, which would have endangered the role and position of the roman aristocracy, the roman constitution was rock solid and almost unchangeable.

I repeat myself. The issue was not the roman constitution. Because technically something like a roman constitution did not exist. The few "constitutional laws" were easily changeable. Way too easy! The issue was the roman mindset.

Completely agree! The source of the roman republican problems was the patricians that refused to adapt to the ages. They blocked bills that would give benefits to the soldier's on several occasions, and that made the army to lose faith in the republic. Many die-hard republicans accepted the principate because it offered stability and prosperity, and it even allowed to lower corruption. The roman "constitution", at the lack of a better term, was week when the patricians needed to get to high power, but if men like Gracus tried to change things then the senate would find laws from the time of Romulus to make the change illegal.
 

PhilippeO

Banned
If it comes to the real needed changes, which would have endangered the role and position of the roman aristocracy

The issue was the roman mindset.
Eh, this is not roman only problem. Byzantine, Chinese, Ancient Regime France, current American government ALL have problem with their aristocracy.

The Rich and Privileged almost always prefers to keep their wealth and status even when it endangering regime/state that brought them to their position. 1930s America under FDR is one of exception that i know, the other is willingness of British gentry to make electoral reform.
 
Eh, this is not roman only problem. Byzantine, Chinese, Ancient Regime France, current American government ALL have problem with their aristocracy.

The Rich and Privileged almost always prefers to keep their wealth and status even when it endangering regime/state that brought them to their position. 1930s America under FDR is one of exception that i know, the other is willingness of British gentry to make electoral reform.

Disagreed.
 
Top