Questions regarding the Roman Republic

[Patriarch]

I have been researching the Roman civilization as a mad man due to a few boardgame designs on the subject... in other words I am far from being an expert which is what brings me here

I have a few people already to consult, but expanding the wealth on knowledgde can only be a good thing

So I have a few questions which I have not yet found answers to, and perhaps some of you Rome buffs know the answers:

1. Often the Consuls and Preators were apointed some Legions as part of their office. However many times they would be at Rome rather than leading their men in batte. So my question is: When the consuls are in Rome are these spcific legions dispanded until needed, would they they still be campaigning without the Consul, or something else entirely?

2. After serving as Consuls and Preators these individuals would be appointed a province to Govern. Would all Governors be ex-magistrates or could others have such a task?

3. Economy. The economy of Rome has been described as a plunder economy - i.e. got lots of their wealth from defating and conquering enemies. But what about taxes? I know that in the mid-late republic tax farming was introduced but what about prior to that? Was it something like this: Governors were expected to pay money to Rome. The Governors would then collect this from the people? What about the plundered money - would that be transfered directly to Rome or would it rather go to the Governor who would then send some back to Rome as agreed upon?

4. Buildings: Who would decide what would be built and who would talke the credit? For instance if a building pleases the people, who would they be grateful to?

5. Who proposed new Laws? Was this the consuls, or was it influential senators? In other words did senators only propose laws by convincing the consul to put them forward or could they do this directly?

6. During the republic... Were there armies under the Command of someone else than Consuls or Preators?

More questions will arise as I'll get further into development but these will be good for now.

Thanks.

[Timotheus]

Answer some of these the best I can and as others comment I can learn a bit more.

2. As far as I know all governors were former consuls though Egypt for one was specifically governed by a Equestrian appointed by the Emperor.

The rule about consuls was important enough that at some points there would be 4 or more Consuls in a year as two would be appointed and then step down so that others could be appointed. This was done to increase the pool the Emperor could chose from.

3. Taxes were supposed to be collected by companies owned by Equestrians who bid for the contract to collect taxes from a region. Whoever bid the highest won the contract. Anything collected over the contract amount was all profit. The problem lies when a region was more economically depressed than expected. One example would be some of the eastern provinces which really hurt the tax farmers who then ran to Pompeii pleading for help.

4. Many were built by private money from Senators or other movers and shakers looking to buy good will with the people.

5. Depends on what you mean by armies. A Proconsuls force would often contain many legions that he would place under the command of lesser members of the aristrocracy on the rise.

[Carlton Bach]

1. Often the Consuls and Preators were apointed some Legions as part of their office. However many times they would be at Rome rather than leading their men in batte. So my question is: When the consuls are in Rome are these spcific legions dispanded until needed, would they they still be campaigning without the Consul, or something else entirely?

AFAIK generally, a consul or praetor who was appointed to go to war would go to war ASAP. Not every consul got a military command, though - by the late Republic, most of them would go to promagistrates. The military command function of the consuils goes back to the days when Rome fought - maybe - a short war in summer and the citizens mustered for it. Later, when distant multi-year wars became the rule, the consuls only rarely went to war themselves.

2. After serving as Consuls and Preators these individuals would be appointed a province to Govern. Would all Governors be ex-magistrates or could others have such a task?

All promagistrates (and only promagistrates) received a 'peovincia', but that did not automatically mean a territory to govern. Memorably, Caesar's enemies tried to saddle him with something like 'the paths and forests of Italy'. It wasn't until the Empire that the system of provinces was entirely formalised. However, even during the late Republic the number of praetors was increased to create enough propraetors IIRC, so there was an established pattern.

Note that during the late Republic, while only former consuls and praetors could hold 'provinciae', men of lesser ranks acted as their delegates holding vast powers over huge areas, far in excess of what a Principate era proconsul would have had.

3. Economy. The economy of Rome has been described as a plunder economy - i.e. got lots of their wealth from defating and conquering enemies. But what about taxes? I know that in the mid-late republic tax farming was introduced but what about prior to that? Was it something like this: Governors were expected to pay money to Rome. The Governors would then collect this from the people? What about the plundered money - would that be transfered directly to Rome or would it rather go to the Governor who would then send some back to Rome as agreed upon?

All subject states were liable to taxation in various degrees and styles, depending on the terms of their subjection. Governors had to collect this tribute and send it to Rome. Sometimes, this was handled through tax farming, sometimes directly. Beyond this, individual governors were able, thorough fees, gifts, confiscations and insider trading, to enrich themselves. Loot taken in military campaigns or surrender negotiations would be distributeds between the army, its commanders, and the state.

4. Buildings: Who would decide what would be built and who would talke the credit? For instance if a building pleases the people, who would they be grateful to?

buildings could be decided upon by the ruling magistrates, in which case they could be named after them, but funded by the state. They could also be donated by wealthy individuals, often successful commanders with loot to burn. That is where, especially late in the Repuiblic, you get things like the theatre of Pompey or the Basilica Iulia. You can bet any sum you care that their names *would* be written on said buildings.

5. Who proposed new Laws? Was this the consuls, or was it influential senators? In other words did senators only propose laws by convincing the consul to put them forward or could they do this directly?

AFAIR any senator could introduce items to vote into the senate and every magistrate (including tribunes of the plebs) could put them before the comitia or plebeian assembly. The problem is our understanding of what constitutes 'law', there were various decisions that could have force of law at various times, namely leges (decided by IIRC the tribal, not centuriate comitia, but don't nail me down on that), senatusconsulta (decided by the senate), plebiscita (by the plebeian assembly) and provincial leges (dictated by magistrates of the Roman people, and only effective in subject territories). Don't for a moment assume the Romans were any less complicated and convoluted than us moderns.

6. During the republic... Were there armies under the Command of someone else than Consuls or Preators?

Regularly. Usually, especially in the late Republic, they would be commanded by promagistrates, and they could in turn delegate command of units to their own subordinates. Also, but more importantly in the early Republic, there was the office of dictator which incluided military command.