the overwhelming majority of which were in the gift of the emperor. Only the so-called senatorial provinces had governors allocated by the Senate. At the time of Augustus’s death, in 14 CE, there were only ten of these.
Augustus and the equites : Augustus tried to bolster the equites (“equestrians”, literally “knights”), the second rank in the state, as a counterweight to senators, relying on them as military commanders, tax collectors, and in many other capacities. He broadened the scope of the equestrian class, encouraging the Italian towns to nominate suitable entrants into this order. (Suetonius, Augustus, 46.)
Augustus and the army: Important though the army was to Augustus, I agree with Brunt and Moore that it would be “…a mistake to represent his power as depending mainly on the support of the army.” (Brunt&/Moore (eds.), 1967: 15,) Augustus went out of his way to reward his troops and veterans and to settle them in coloniae (“settlements”) all around Italy and the provinces. Augustus made sure that the army was largely under his control, and by the end of his reign, Africa was the only senatorial province with any troops at all (see above). And from the reign of the Emperor Gaius (Caligula) (37–41), the whole army was commanded by the emperor. The praetorian guard under a Praetorian Prefect came to play an increasingly important role in the Roman Empire, especially after the time of Augustus. And the setting up of the cohortes urbanae, (urban cohorts), a sort of police force for Rome, which, together with the vigiles, or (firemen), were seen as important factors contributing to Rome’s generally peaceful existence for the better part of four centuries.
Consilium Principis : Augustus established the Consilium Principis or emperor’s advisory council, a semi-informal body drawn from his much larger body of amici (friends), which he consulted from time to time. This arrangement continued right throughout the Principate and ultimately became more formalised as the consistorium, a department of state) under Diocletian. John Crook’s learned study of the Consilium does, however, appear to overestimate the influence of the Consilium on imperial decision making. In the words of A.N. Sherwin-White, “It is by no means proved that the emperors regularly took the advice of a substantial body of amici, in any particular form, on most matters of high or low policy.” (Sherwin-White 1957, p. 253.)
Augustus: “Optimi Status Auctor”?
Suetonius quotes an edict in which Augustus expresses the hope that he will be remembered by posterity as optimi status auctor (architect of the best state of affairs). (Suetonius, Augustus, 28.) In the Aeneid, similarly, Vergil predicts that Augustus will usher in aurea saecula (golden centuries) (Vergil, Aeneid VI. 791–807), a prediction that would prove prophetic.
But what was the nature of the regime that Augustus established? My own view is that Augustus was decidedly the sole ruler of the Roman world. To sum up my findings, Augustus’s position depended on the following factors:
Duly authorized maius imperium, initially as a consul and then later as a proconsul, enabling Augustus to override any other magistrate, including a consul;
Duly authorized tribunician power, with the wide powers described above;
The support of the urban plebs as their effective patron;
The support of the equites;
Auctoritas (influence) stemming from his connections and achievements;
The support of the army, which, however, was not the mainstay of his power;
Amicitia, a wide-ranging network of people linked to Augustus as their individual patronus or simply as amici, some of whom he would consult either formally, in the form of a consilium (council), or informally, inter amicos (among friends) but who had no decision-making powers. Contrary to Ronald Syme, this group did not constitute a party or an oligarchy of any kind (see below); and
Money: Augustus inherited Julius Caesar’s fortune to which he added the treasure of Egypt and other conquests. From this great fortune, which he had amassed, he was able to make lavish gifts to the people of Rome and others as is documented in the Res Gestae Divi Augusti. (See above.)
From Tiberius to Diocletian
For three centuries after the death of Augustus, the trend was toward greater autocracy on the part of the emperor together with a decline of the old aristocracy and recruitment to the Senate from an ever-widening circle both geographical and social. The ancient sources attribute the changes in the Senate to the deliberate policy of “bad” emperors like Tiberius, Domitian, Commodus and Septimius Severus. Modern writers tend to stress demographic factors. Thus, Mason Hammond: “The chief and continuing factor which necessitated the introduction of fresh blood into the Senate must have been a failure on the part of the old senatorial families adequately to perpetuate themselves.” (Hammond 1957, p. 75.)
The low level of reproduction of the old senatorial families has probably been exaggerated because we know that it was imperial policy from the start to broaden the scope of recruitment. The Emperor Claudius (r. 41–54), for example, forced the resignation of a number of senators who no longer met the property qualification, and at the same time, he promoted the admission of senators from Gaul. In proposing the admission of Gallic senators in a famous speech to the Senate (preserved in the bronze Lyon Tablet), a different version of which was reported by Tacitus, Claudius made a point of mentioning that both Augustus and Tiberius had encouraged recruitment to the Senate of men of wealth and breeding from the provinces. Interestingly enough, Claudius’s speech was interrupted with cries to the effect that “Italy is not so weak as to be unable to provide its own capital city with a senate.” Yet the Senate nevertheless passed a decree approving the emperor’s policy. (Tacitus, Annals, 11.23; Sourcebooks.fordham.edu/ancient/48claudius.asp.) A number of detailed prosopographical researches were neatly summarised by Mason Hammond, showing that, of those senators whose origin is known, the proportion of provincials (i.e. non-Italians) increased steadily (with a couple of minor blips) as follows:
Vespasian (r. 69–79)—16.8%
Domitian (r. 81–96)—23.4%
Trajan (r. 98–117)—34.2%
Hadrian (r. 117–138)—43.6%
Antoninus Pius (r. 138–161)—42.5%
Marcus Aurelius (r. 161–180)—45.6%
Commodus (r. 180–192)—44.7%
Septimius Severus (r. 193–211) and Caracalla (r. 198–217)—57.4%
Elagabalus (r. 218–222) and Severus Alexander (r. 222–235)—52.5%
Third Century—56%
(Hammond 1957, Ibid.)
Under Vespasian, therefore, provincials made up only one-sixth of senators of known origin. There is a major jump under Trajan, and from the end of the second century provincials made up more than half the senators of known origin.
According to Pierre Lambrechts, (as modified by Syme), in the period between 117 and 192, no fewer than 48 percent of consulares (ex-consuls) and presumably an even higher proportion of senators of lower grades were of non-senatorial and indeed provincial origin. (Pierrre Lambrechts 1936, l; Review by Syme 1937, p. 271 f.) It is important to note that Trajan was himself a provincial, from Spain, and practically all subsequent emperors were also provincials.
The ever-widening circle of senators, from whom most provincial governors were drawn, was an important reason for the stability and general tranquillity of the Roman Empire over a long period. In keeping with this trend, in the year 212, the Emperor Caracalla extended Roman citizenship to all inhabitants of the Roman world by means of the so-called Constitutio Antoniniana.
Augustus himself was already clearly the sole ruler of the Roman Empire, as we have seen, although