This essay will discuss the question of whether equestrians were more important than senators in the running of the empire. Here, I have interpreted importance to mean the degree to which they were integral to Roman imperial administration. That being said, I shall evaluate the role of both the Senate and individual equestrians under the Julio-Claudian emperors. I will investigate Augustus’ granting of rights to equestrians that permitted them to enter Egypt and Arminius being an equestrian in his youth, Tiberius’ attitude and role in treason trails and the role of Sejanus, Gaius’ relationship with the Senate, Claudius’ actions towards the Senate and his promotion of equestrians, and finally Nero’s relationship with the Senate and the role
…show more content…
Dio informs us that Augustus appointed senators to govern the provinces whilst equestrian prefects governed Egypt. In addition to this, Tacitus in his Histories states that the equestrian order governed Egypt with what was effectively “sovereign power over the country and the forces” whilst stating that this practice had continued up until his day in the late 1st century AD. The reason for this was that Augustus needed to monopolise Egypt for himself, I believe in no small part, because it represented his victory over Antony and Cleopatra at Actium. Less ideologically, but still crucial to Rome’s survival, was the fact that Egypt provided a source of grain. Tacitus argues due to Egypt’s position on the sea that even a small force could take the province and starve Rome to surrender. This is further evidenced by the Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus who writes that Egypt regularly sent four months’ worth of corn to Rome. Clearly, an ambitious or seditious senator interrupting this supply would wreak havoc on Rome. Thus, if Augustus did not trust senators it made logical sense to employ equestrians in such a position, effectively making their order more powerful and more important to administration by making them capable of starving Rome to …show more content…
Previous emperors had experienced problems with the loyalty of the provinces, such as the German Revolts after Augustus’ death in AD14. Furthermore, Tacitus states that it was due to the rapacious nature of the procurator, Catus Decianus that the Boudican Revolt broke out in AD 60/61. The procurator was in charge of collecting tribute and fines from the province and since Italia herself was exempt from taxation, the provinces needed to supply the tribute. However, it is clear that the revolt was due to more than this, namely their dealings with P. Ostorius Scapula fourteen years previously. Dio Cassius posits that the revolt was due to Seneca recalling a loan in excess of 40, 000, 000 sesterces from the Iceni. This event lies within the first five years of Nero’s reign which are oft regarded as the best. If this is true, it seems that Seneca possessed and wielded considerable power during this period, enough that he could recall such a sum of money. At this time, Seneca appears to be in charge of the governance of the empire. This event shows us that the actions of a statesman (an advisor to the emperor no less) and an equestrian procurator had major repercussions for the province. Moreover, Dio also states that Claudius had given money to the Iceni and this was confiscated by the procurator. This tells us that Claudius gave gifts to the provinces and that part of Seneca’s role
Dio informs us that Augustus appointed senators to govern the provinces whilst equestrian prefects governed Egypt. In addition to this, Tacitus in his Histories states that the equestrian order governed Egypt with what was effectively “sovereign power over the country and the forces” whilst stating that this practice had continued up until his day in the late 1st century AD. The reason for this was that Augustus needed to monopolise Egypt for himself, I believe in no small part, because it represented his victory over Antony and Cleopatra at Actium. Less ideologically, but still crucial to Rome’s survival, was the fact that Egypt provided a source of grain. Tacitus argues due to Egypt’s position on the sea that even a small force could take the province and starve Rome to surrender. This is further evidenced by the Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus who writes that Egypt regularly sent four months’ worth of corn to Rome. Clearly, an ambitious or seditious senator interrupting this supply would wreak havoc on Rome. Thus, if Augustus did not trust senators it made logical sense to employ equestrians in such a position, effectively making their order more powerful and more important to administration by making them capable of starving Rome to …show more content…
Previous emperors had experienced problems with the loyalty of the provinces, such as the German Revolts after Augustus’ death in AD14. Furthermore, Tacitus states that it was due to the rapacious nature of the procurator, Catus Decianus that the Boudican Revolt broke out in AD 60/61. The procurator was in charge of collecting tribute and fines from the province and since Italia herself was exempt from taxation, the provinces needed to supply the tribute. However, it is clear that the revolt was due to more than this, namely their dealings with P. Ostorius Scapula fourteen years previously. Dio Cassius posits that the revolt was due to Seneca recalling a loan in excess of 40, 000, 000 sesterces from the Iceni. This event lies within the first five years of Nero’s reign which are oft regarded as the best. If this is true, it seems that Seneca possessed and wielded considerable power during this period, enough that he could recall such a sum of money. At this time, Seneca appears to be in charge of the governance of the empire. This event shows us that the actions of a statesman (an advisor to the emperor no less) and an equestrian procurator had major repercussions for the province. Moreover, Dio also states that Claudius had given money to the Iceni and this was confiscated by the procurator. This tells us that Claudius gave gifts to the provinces and that part of Seneca’s role