09-04-2007, 12:48 PM
Hello all,
The agentes in rebus are an organisation that has long fascinated me. Whilst I don't hold any romantic notions about the breadth of Roman intelligence activities ('Don't go looking for the James Bonds of the ancient world' to quote a good friend), the fact that Rome saw the need to set up such an organisation, and the inherent secrecy of its activities, makes it worthy of research.
There are a couple of questions I would like to ask on the matter, so if anyone here can help me, I would much appreciate it. This is what I know so far. If there are any inaccuracies, please correct me.
Origins
They appear to have come into being some time in the mid third century, more specifically during the reign of Diocletian. They replaced the unpopular frumentarii, who seem to have fallen out of public favour due to a reputation for informing and corruption.
Question: Is there any difference in the duties carried out between the Frumentarii and Agentes? Or was the dissolution of the Frumentarii simply a move my Diocletian to garner popular support?
Duties
The agentes were primarily geared to collecting and disseminating information. Their duties were thus tied not only to collecting but disseminating information throughout the Empire. To that end they carried orders from the Imperial court to the necessary recipient and waited around to see that they were implemented. This would suggest that the agentes were the emperors eyes and ears in the provinces, reporting back to the Imperial court on the success or failure of their deliveries.
In essence they acted as an internal security network for the Emperor. Their role with the cursus publicus (public post) gave them access to vast amounts of information. However they were not above more cloak and dagger techniques.
Ammianus recounted the involvement of an agentes in assassination:
Libanius also tells an interesting story of an agens called Clematius who, whilst delivering order to Antioch in 355, was used by the Praetorian Prefect of the East, Stragetius, to leave the empire and go into Persian territory to report on troop movements. (Austin and Rankov in Exploratio: Military and Political Intelligence in the Roman World from the Second Punic War to the Battle of Adrianople quote Libanius' letters here, 405; 407; 411; 430; 435; 491). It's interesting to note that the Clematius didn't report back to the magister officiorum, but to Strategius, suggesting that either the Prefect had some marginal authority over the Clematius, or Clematius agreed to perform the task of his own accord.
They also appear to have acted as informers. Ammianus tells of agentes being reporting on such things as dinner talk (Book 16 8.9) and reporting back to their superiors. Symmachus likewise recounts an agentes bringing accusations against a senator (Dispatches 49).
Organisation
Ultimately the agentes were under the control of the magister officiorum, or the Master of Offices. This office was entirely civilian, although it did have military functions. For example the magister controlled the palace guard and later was responsible for inspecting the border. The magister officiorum replaced the magistri epistularum (Imperial correspondence), memoriae (Imperial requests), and libellorum (Imperial replies). Essentially the magister officiorum sat at the center of the vast flow of information coming into and out of the Imperial court.
The exact size of the agentes differs from one period in history to another. Libanius claims Julian reduced their numbers in Rome to seventeen ( Orations II 58 ), but the Codex Theodosianus gives a very specific 1174 in 430 (VI 27.23).
At least one agentes was posted to the provincial staff of major Roman magistrates, according to the Notitia Dignitatum. Moreso they are listed as being in charge of the civilian staff of said magistrates, therefore giving them access to information on how the command is being run.
However from what I can tell there would have been a distinction between those agentes in the Imperial court receiving information and passing it on to the magister officiorum, and those in the field. Agentes based in provinces collect information through various means and funnel it back to to their superiors.
Question: It's this middling rank structure I wonder about. As I see it, an agentes in say the Egyptian Frontier, gathers his information and reports it to an agen on the staff of the diocese vicarius, who would then send it on the agente on the staff of the Praetorian Prefect, who would then send information to the magister officiorum. Is this probable or is there more indication that the magister officiorum dealt more directly with the agentes?
They also appear to have been orgainsed along quasi military grounds, officially classed in the Notitia Dignitatum as palace guards, or schola. More specifically they appear to have been organised as cavalry units, due to the long distance nature of their work.
Question: Is there any evidence to suggest the specific rank structure of the agentes? Did individuals hold military ranks, in this case cavalry ranks? Or was it more of an ad hoc organisational method?
Question: There is also the question on how someone became an agentes. Austin and Rankov claim they went on to higher civilian stations later on, but they were organised along military lines, so did they come from a military or civilian background? Is there any indication as to what sort of training, if any, they underwent? All I know for certain is that the magister officiorum was responsible for their recruitment.
Authority
Exactly how these duties were carried out seems hard to quantify. Austin and Rankov in site the Codex Theodosianus as stating the agentes had the authority to inspect the official post coming into a province. These agentes obviously acted on behalf of the Emperor, delivering his orders and carrying them out, but it's unclear if the position itself carried any inherent authority, or if it was simply a vessel through which the emperor acted.
---
Well there it is for the moment. A concise summary of the agentes in rebus. If there are any mistakes, please point them out, if there are any comments, feel free to make them. I hope this is useful.
Cheers,
Scott.
The agentes in rebus are an organisation that has long fascinated me. Whilst I don't hold any romantic notions about the breadth of Roman intelligence activities ('Don't go looking for the James Bonds of the ancient world' to quote a good friend), the fact that Rome saw the need to set up such an organisation, and the inherent secrecy of its activities, makes it worthy of research.
There are a couple of questions I would like to ask on the matter, so if anyone here can help me, I would much appreciate it. This is what I know so far. If there are any inaccuracies, please correct me.
Origins
They appear to have come into being some time in the mid third century, more specifically during the reign of Diocletian. They replaced the unpopular frumentarii, who seem to have fallen out of public favour due to a reputation for informing and corruption.
Question: Is there any difference in the duties carried out between the Frumentarii and Agentes? Or was the dissolution of the Frumentarii simply a move my Diocletian to garner popular support?
Duties
The agentes were primarily geared to collecting and disseminating information. Their duties were thus tied not only to collecting but disseminating information throughout the Empire. To that end they carried orders from the Imperial court to the necessary recipient and waited around to see that they were implemented. This would suggest that the agentes were the emperors eyes and ears in the provinces, reporting back to the Imperial court on the success or failure of their deliveries.
In essence they acted as an internal security network for the Emperor. Their role with the cursus publicus (public post) gave them access to vast amounts of information. However they were not above more cloak and dagger techniques.
Ammianus recounted the involvement of an agentes in assassination:
Quote:When this was reported to the emperor his anger and indignation became inexorable; he saw that his only means of ensuring his own safety lay in the destruction of Gallus. So he sent Serenian, who, as I have already said, had escaped a charge of treason by a sort of sleight of hand, together with Pentadius the notary, and Apodemius the security agent, with orders to carry out the execution...
Libanius also tells an interesting story of an agens called Clematius who, whilst delivering order to Antioch in 355, was used by the Praetorian Prefect of the East, Stragetius, to leave the empire and go into Persian territory to report on troop movements. (Austin and Rankov in Exploratio: Military and Political Intelligence in the Roman World from the Second Punic War to the Battle of Adrianople quote Libanius' letters here, 405; 407; 411; 430; 435; 491). It's interesting to note that the Clematius didn't report back to the magister officiorum, but to Strategius, suggesting that either the Prefect had some marginal authority over the Clematius, or Clematius agreed to perform the task of his own accord.
They also appear to have acted as informers. Ammianus tells of agentes being reporting on such things as dinner talk (Book 16 8.9) and reporting back to their superiors. Symmachus likewise recounts an agentes bringing accusations against a senator (Dispatches 49).
Organisation
Ultimately the agentes were under the control of the magister officiorum, or the Master of Offices. This office was entirely civilian, although it did have military functions. For example the magister controlled the palace guard and later was responsible for inspecting the border. The magister officiorum replaced the magistri epistularum (Imperial correspondence), memoriae (Imperial requests), and libellorum (Imperial replies). Essentially the magister officiorum sat at the center of the vast flow of information coming into and out of the Imperial court.
The exact size of the agentes differs from one period in history to another. Libanius claims Julian reduced their numbers in Rome to seventeen ( Orations II 58 ), but the Codex Theodosianus gives a very specific 1174 in 430 (VI 27.23).
At least one agentes was posted to the provincial staff of major Roman magistrates, according to the Notitia Dignitatum. Moreso they are listed as being in charge of the civilian staff of said magistrates, therefore giving them access to information on how the command is being run.
However from what I can tell there would have been a distinction between those agentes in the Imperial court receiving information and passing it on to the magister officiorum, and those in the field. Agentes based in provinces collect information through various means and funnel it back to to their superiors.
Question: It's this middling rank structure I wonder about. As I see it, an agentes in say the Egyptian Frontier, gathers his information and reports it to an agen on the staff of the diocese vicarius, who would then send it on the agente on the staff of the Praetorian Prefect, who would then send information to the magister officiorum. Is this probable or is there more indication that the magister officiorum dealt more directly with the agentes?
They also appear to have been orgainsed along quasi military grounds, officially classed in the Notitia Dignitatum as palace guards, or schola. More specifically they appear to have been organised as cavalry units, due to the long distance nature of their work.
Question: Is there any evidence to suggest the specific rank structure of the agentes? Did individuals hold military ranks, in this case cavalry ranks? Or was it more of an ad hoc organisational method?
Question: There is also the question on how someone became an agentes. Austin and Rankov claim they went on to higher civilian stations later on, but they were organised along military lines, so did they come from a military or civilian background? Is there any indication as to what sort of training, if any, they underwent? All I know for certain is that the magister officiorum was responsible for their recruitment.
Authority
Exactly how these duties were carried out seems hard to quantify. Austin and Rankov in site the Codex Theodosianus as stating the agentes had the authority to inspect the official post coming into a province. These agentes obviously acted on behalf of the Emperor, delivering his orders and carrying them out, but it's unclear if the position itself carried any inherent authority, or if it was simply a vessel through which the emperor acted.
---
Well there it is for the moment. A concise summary of the agentes in rebus. If there are any mistakes, please point them out, if there are any comments, feel free to make them. I hope this is useful.
Cheers,
Scott.
"What else then, is all of history, but the praise of Rome?" - Petrarch
~~~
A. Flavius (Scott)
~~~
A. Flavius (Scott)
