10-08-2006, 07:27 AM
Basically, you have it right. Unfortunately, that does not say very much given how much variety there was in detail.
Rome and Alexxandria were exceptional cities. Their populations were far larger than those of most others, and the emperors had a vital interest in them being quiet and cooperative. Few other cities had any appointed government official running them until the later second and third century, and even then the post of IIRC 'curator', 'rector' or 'corrector' was technically a temporary office, a civil servant set over a city unable to fulfill its obligations until that situation was rectified. It did not become officially permanent until the fourth century, and then not everywhere.
In the Roman Empire of the Principate, most cities were self-governing entities subject to Roman rule as states, not individual citizens. Thus they often kept their own institutions and names for officials. Technically, there was a distinction between subject cities (civitates stipendiariae, literally 'tax-paying cities') completely subject to the authority of Rome, allied cities (civitates foederatae) which were subject to rome by the terms of a historical alliancec they once made, and free cities (civitates liberae) which in theory interacted with Rome as independent states, though of course from a much inferior position, and were not subject to the jurisdiction of the Roman government. Subject cities often had to mould their systems of government according to the guidelines laid down at the establishment of a province - the lex provinciae. However, leges provinciarum were not standardised. Allied and free cities were free to regulate themselves.
Municipiae and Coloniae (cities whose entire citizen body held Roman citizenship) had a defined structure and specific titles, For these, the quaestores managed finances, the aediles managed public order and administreation, and the government was headed by the duumviri who were also the chief judges (sometimes Aerdiles could have jurisdiction in specific fields). All offices were annual. Every five years, duumviri quinquennales were elected who oversaw the census. This was the highest local office.
Many cities in the Latin West modelled their government on this structure even though they were not Roman citizen settlements. It was a familiar pattern from Roman Italy, and was also sometimes copied in the greek East, where traditional Greek titles replaced the Latin ones (Duumviri - strategoi, archontes or grammateis, Quaestor - tamias, Aedile - agoranomos). However, in the Greek cities, traditional patterns also often persisted. There is much more varioety in the urbanised East than in the West, where cities were largely a Roman innovation.
Traditionally, the quaestorship is the most junior magistracy, with the aedileship and duumvirship following, and the duumir quinquennalis being the highest.
If a city had a curator for a specific task such as aqueducts, baths, or other public projects (Rome had curators for water supply and the frain dole), these were appointed by the duumiviri. I don't think this was common in the average-sized cities, though. Despite often having the same title, the imperially appointed temporaray (later permanent) city curatores must not be confiused with these. Where they existed, they were the mnost senior official in the city, superior to the duumviri.
Another important aspect that must not be forgotten is the curia, the city council. Former magistrates became members of this upon payment of a set sum (which could vary depending on the size of the city). In order to quaslify, they had to meet a minimum wealth requirement. The city council was the place where big decisions were made, consensus on policies hashed out, and candidacies decided. Often, only members could run for higher magistracies and while technically, laws were passed in the general assembly of citizens, the curia decided on the agenda and formulated the bills to be submitted.
Note that all magistracies as well as membership in the curia were unpaid positions. Holders were expected, sometimes even legally required, to make private payments for games, festivals, and other expenses to benefit the community. The curia was also collectively liable for the city's finances and tax revenues, and could be required to make up any shortfall of collections when the money was sent to Rome. That was an important aspect in the decline of the system in financially harder tiomes, when falling revenues met rising taxes and a shrinking tax base in the third century.
There is a truly esxcellent introductory book on the subject by Frank Ausbüttel: Die Verwaltung des römischen Kaiserreiches. But I don't think it is out in English, unfortunately. Another one we need to get translated...
Rome and Alexxandria were exceptional cities. Their populations were far larger than those of most others, and the emperors had a vital interest in them being quiet and cooperative. Few other cities had any appointed government official running them until the later second and third century, and even then the post of IIRC 'curator', 'rector' or 'corrector' was technically a temporary office, a civil servant set over a city unable to fulfill its obligations until that situation was rectified. It did not become officially permanent until the fourth century, and then not everywhere.
In the Roman Empire of the Principate, most cities were self-governing entities subject to Roman rule as states, not individual citizens. Thus they often kept their own institutions and names for officials. Technically, there was a distinction between subject cities (civitates stipendiariae, literally 'tax-paying cities') completely subject to the authority of Rome, allied cities (civitates foederatae) which were subject to rome by the terms of a historical alliancec they once made, and free cities (civitates liberae) which in theory interacted with Rome as independent states, though of course from a much inferior position, and were not subject to the jurisdiction of the Roman government. Subject cities often had to mould their systems of government according to the guidelines laid down at the establishment of a province - the lex provinciae. However, leges provinciarum were not standardised. Allied and free cities were free to regulate themselves.
Municipiae and Coloniae (cities whose entire citizen body held Roman citizenship) had a defined structure and specific titles, For these, the quaestores managed finances, the aediles managed public order and administreation, and the government was headed by the duumviri who were also the chief judges (sometimes Aerdiles could have jurisdiction in specific fields). All offices were annual. Every five years, duumviri quinquennales were elected who oversaw the census. This was the highest local office.
Many cities in the Latin West modelled their government on this structure even though they were not Roman citizen settlements. It was a familiar pattern from Roman Italy, and was also sometimes copied in the greek East, where traditional Greek titles replaced the Latin ones (Duumviri - strategoi, archontes or grammateis, Quaestor - tamias, Aedile - agoranomos). However, in the Greek cities, traditional patterns also often persisted. There is much more varioety in the urbanised East than in the West, where cities were largely a Roman innovation.
Traditionally, the quaestorship is the most junior magistracy, with the aedileship and duumvirship following, and the duumir quinquennalis being the highest.
If a city had a curator for a specific task such as aqueducts, baths, or other public projects (Rome had curators for water supply and the frain dole), these were appointed by the duumiviri. I don't think this was common in the average-sized cities, though. Despite often having the same title, the imperially appointed temporaray (later permanent) city curatores must not be confiused with these. Where they existed, they were the mnost senior official in the city, superior to the duumviri.
Another important aspect that must not be forgotten is the curia, the city council. Former magistrates became members of this upon payment of a set sum (which could vary depending on the size of the city). In order to quaslify, they had to meet a minimum wealth requirement. The city council was the place where big decisions were made, consensus on policies hashed out, and candidacies decided. Often, only members could run for higher magistracies and while technically, laws were passed in the general assembly of citizens, the curia decided on the agenda and formulated the bills to be submitted.
Note that all magistracies as well as membership in the curia were unpaid positions. Holders were expected, sometimes even legally required, to make private payments for games, festivals, and other expenses to benefit the community. The curia was also collectively liable for the city's finances and tax revenues, and could be required to make up any shortfall of collections when the money was sent to Rome. That was an important aspect in the decline of the system in financially harder tiomes, when falling revenues met rising taxes and a shrinking tax base in the third century.
There is a truly esxcellent introductory book on the subject by Frank Ausbüttel: Die Verwaltung des römischen Kaiserreiches. But I don't think it is out in English, unfortunately. Another one we need to get translated...
Der Kessel ist voll Bärks!
Volker Bach
Volker Bach
