• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    32 months ago

    The home provinces of most auxiliaries would not have had the institutional capacity to get money from Point A to Point B on the other side of the Empire - provinces had surprisingly ad hoc organization, in contrast to local cities and the Empire itself.

    Hmm, I wonder if that was deliberate. Give the illusion of self-governance and keep local elites happy, while minimising revolt risk and red tape.

    • @[email protected]OPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      3
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      At least partially, definitely. Divide et Impera, ‘Divide and rule’. But part of it is the fact that Rome itself had grown in a kind of ad hoc way, and part of it was the wide latitude afforded to provincial governors and their personal staffs. “I’m going to make you governor, be sure to listen to all the different local secretaries, regulations, and councils” doesn’t sound nearly as appealing to be handed as a reward compared to “I’m going to make you governor; try not to look like you’re breaking the law”

      A lot of nepotism and corruption in Roman government. Even so, locals, even the lower classes, often preferred to take their disagreements to provincial Roman officials, for the simple reason that it was still less corrupt than local government, lmao. C’est la vie!