FORMATION OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE. DEVELOPMENT OF THE STATES OF EUROPE AND ASIA

CHAPTER 1=-

EARLY ROMAN EMPIRE

RULE OF AUGUST. PRINCIPATE

MUNICIPAL LIFE IN ITALY

PROVINCIAL LIFE

RESULTS OF THE REIGN OF EMPEROR AUGUST

THE PERSON OF OCTAVIAN AUGUST

CULTURE DURING THE CHANGE OF AGES

ROMAN EMPIRE IN I V. N. E.

UPRISING OF THE GERMAN AND PANNONIAN LEGIONS

POLITICS YULIEV KLAUDIEV

THE LIFE OF THE EMPIRE IN THE YEARS OF THE EMPERORS OF THE JULIAN-CLAUDIAN DYNASTY

EMPIRE CULTURE OF THE PRINCIPATE PERIOD

CHAPTER 2=-

THE ROMAN EMPIRE IN THE PERIOD OF THE HIGHEST POWER

STRENGTHENING OF IMPERIAL POWER

THE BOARD OF THE ANTONINS.

LIFE OF THE EMPIRE IN THE SECOND HALF OF THE I CENTURY - THE BEGINNING OF THE II CENTURY

WESTERN AND EASTERN PROVINCES IN THE SECOND HALF OF THE 1st C. AND IN THE 2nd C.E.

ECONOMIC LIFE OF THE EMPIRE IN THE SECOND HALF I B. - II V. AD

CULTURE

THE BIRTH OF CHRISTIANITY

CHAPTER 3=-

PARTHIA IN THE FIGHT WITH ROME

ARMENIA IN THE FIGHT AGAINST ROME

COLCHIS UNDER ROMAN EMPIRE

NORTHERN BLACK SEA REGION

RELATIONS OF THE GERMANS WITH THE ROMAN EMPIRE

KINGDOM OF DECEBALS

OLD SLAVIC TRIBES

LATE ROMAN EMPIRE

CHAPTER 1=-

ROMAN EMPIRE III CENTURY A.D.

CIVIL WAR 193 - 197 N.E.

THE INNER LIFE OF THE EMPIRE

SEPTIMIUS NORTH

SEVER DYNASTY

POLITICAL CRISIS OF THE EMPIRE OF THE III CENTURY AD

RESTORATION OF THE UNITY OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE

ESTABLISHING DOMINATE. EMPEROR DIOCLETIAN

CULTURE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE OF THE III CENTURY

CHAPTER 2=-

STATES OF ASIA AND EUROPE IN THE III CENTURY AD

MIDDLE ASIA

SASANID IRAN

KARTLI AND ALBANIA

NORTHERN BLACK SEA REGION

NOMADERS OF THE ASIAN STEPPES

TRIBES OF EUROPE

CHAPTER 3=-

DIVISION OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE EMPEROR CONSTANTINE

DECLINE OF CITIES. BARPARIZATION OF THE ARMY

CONSTANTIUS AND JULIAN

DIVISION OF THE EMPIRE INTO WESTERN AND EASTERN

FALL OF THE WESTERN ROMAN EMPIRE

WRITTEN SOURCES FOR THE STUDY OF THE HISTORY OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE

ANCIENT CHRISTIAN LITERATURE

*PART I*

FORMATION OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE. DEVELOPMENT OF THE STATES OF EUROPE AND ASIA

-=CHAPTER 1=-

EARLY ROMAN EMPIRE

The history of ancient Rome is usually divided into two stages. The first begins its countdown from the conquest of the Apennine Peninsula by Rome and the formation of the Roman-Italian alliance (VI - III centuries BC). It includes the creation of the Roman Mediterranean power (III - I centuries BC), which is usually called the Roman Republic.

The second stage in the history of ancient Rome begins with the fall of the republican system in the thirties of the 1st century. BC e. and the formation of the Roman Empire.

In this volume of the encyclopedia, we will consider the second stage in the history of Ancient Rome.

The Roman Empire did not arise in a vacuum. The ground for education was created by Gaius Julius Caesar (born in 100 BC), who managed to actually erect a military monarchy within the framework of the republican system.

During the period of incessant civil wars and internal strife, which literally tore the state apart, he managed, “by defeating his opponents, not only to keep the gigantic state from collapse, but also to strengthen its borders.

Here is a quote from the largest German historian, philologist and lawyer Theodor Mommsen (1817 - 1903), whose scientific work "History of Rome" has worldwide fame. In it, he gave a brilliant analysis of the events that took place in the most important period of European history and for the first time formulated fundamental conclusions. Even today they amaze with their depth, accuracy and versatility:

“Here is the briefest sketch of what Caesar did. A short time was given to him by fate, but this extraordinary man with brilliant talents combined unprecedented energy in work and worked uninterruptedly, tirelessly, as if he had no tomorrow. Two hundred years before his time, social and economic difficulties had reached their extreme limit in Rome and threatened to destroy the people. Then Rome was saved by the fact that it united all of Italy under its rule and smoothed out in a broader field, internal contradictions disappeared, from which the small community suffered unbearably. Now again in the Roman state the social question has matured to the point of crisis. The state was languishing in internal turmoil and it seemed that there was no way out of them. But the genius of Caesar found a way of salvation: merging into one huge whole all the countries around the Mediterranean Sea, Caesar directed them to internal unification and on this huge, once seemingly boundless field, that struggle between the rich and the poor, which did not find a solution within Italy alone. could resolve naturally and without difficulty.

The history of the Hellenes and Latins ended with the activities of Caesar. After the Greeks and Italics separated, one of these nationalities discovered marvelous talents in the field of individual creativity, in the field of culture. The other developed the largest and most powerful state body. In its area, each of these tribes had reached the highest possible limit for mankind and, due to the one-sidedness of its development, was already declining. At this time, Caesar appeared. He merged into one nationality, which created a state, but had no culture, with a nationality, which had a higher culture, but did not have a state. The two most gifted tribes of the ancient world have now come together again, in their union they have drawn new spiritual forces, have worthily filled the entire vast sphere of human activity, and by joint work have created the basis on which human genius can work, it seems, without limit. No other paths for human development have been found. There is an infinite amount of work in the new field, and all mankind is still working on it in the same spirit and direction as Caesar, who, in the minds of all peoples, remains the only emperor, the personification of power.

The beginning of the second period of the Roman Empire, namely the formation of the Roman Empire, is associated with the name of Gaius Octavius, who was declared in the will of Gaius Julius Caesar as the heir to his property and was his great-nephew. At the time of the assassination of Caesar, Gaius Octavius ​​was in Apollonia Illyria.

Having learned about the criminal conspiracy, as a result of which his great relative died, he immediately arrived in Rome and demanded from Mark Antony, who at that time led the Caesarians, to transfer to him, according to Caesar's will, large sums of money, which by this time Antony had managed to appropriate to himself .

Antony refused him and Gaius Octavius ​​began to seek support from Mark Tullius Cicero, who at that time was the leader of the Republicans in the Senate.

Cicero, considering this a great success for himself and trying to weaken the Caesarians, passed a resolution through the Senate, by which Gaius Octavius ​​was recognized as the adopted son and legitimate heir of Gaius Julius Caesar. From that moment on, Octavius ​​became known as Gaius Julius Caesar Octavian.

Having become the heir to huge wealth and fulfilling the will of Gaius Julius Caesar, Octavian distributed to the poorest citizens of Rome the amount of money that Caesar bequeathed to them, and this gained popularity among the plebs and veterans.

Seeing that his influence in the city was weakening every day, Mark Antony left for Cisalpine Gaul. After his departure, the senate declared Antony an enemy of the Republic. Cicero, who was known as an unsurpassed orator, began to make speeches against him, to which he himself gave the name "Philippi". But he perfectly understood that things could not go further than these speeches, since in fact the Senate could not fight against Mark Antony - he had no troops.

When the Roman civil community subjugated most of the known world, its state structure ceased to correspond to reality. It was possible to restore the balance in the administration of the provinces only under the conditions of the empire. The idea of ​​autocracy took shape in Julius Caesar and entrenched in the state under Octavian Augustus.

Rise of the Roman Empire

After the death of Julius Caesar, a civil war broke out in the republic between Octavian Augustus and Mark Antony. The first, in addition, killed the son and heir of Caesar - Caesarion, eliminating the opportunity to challenge his right to power.

Defeating Antony at the Battle of Actium, Octavian became the sole ruler of Rome, taking the title of emperor and turning the republic into an empire in 27 BC. Although the power structure was changed, the flag of the new country did not change - it remained an eagle depicted on a red background.

Rome's transition from republic to empire was not an overnight process. The history of the Roman Empire is usually divided into two periods - before and after Diocletian. During the first period, the emperor was elected for life and next to him was the Senate, while during the second period the emperor had absolute power.

Diocletian, on the other hand, changed the procedure for obtaining power, passing it on by inheritance and expanding the functions of the emperor, and Constantine gave it a divine character, religiously substantiating its legitimacy.

TOP 4 articleswho read along with this

Roman Empire at its height

During the years of the existence of the Roman Empire, many wars were fought and a huge number of territories were annexed. In domestic policy, the activities of the first emperors were aimed at the Romanization of the conquered lands, at appeasing the peoples. In foreign policy - to protect and expand borders.

Rice. 2. The Roman Empire under Trajan.

In order to protect against the raids of the barbarians, the Romans built fortified ramparts, called by the names of the emperors under whom they were built. Thus, the Lower and Upper Trajan's ramparts in Bessarabia and Romania are known, as well as the 117-kilometer Hadrian's Wall in Britain, which has survived to this day.

August made a special contribution to the development of the regions of the empire. He expanded the road network of the empire, established strict supervision of the governors, conquered the Danubian tribes and waged a successful struggle with the Germans, securing the northern borders.

Under the Flavian dynasty, Palestine was finally conquered, the uprisings of the Gauls and Germans were suppressed, and the Romanization of Britain was completed.

The empire reached its highest territorial scope under the emperor Trajan (98-117). The Danubian lands underwent Romanization, the Dacians were conquered, and a struggle was waged against the Parthians. Adrian, who replaced him, on the contrary, was engaged in purely internal affairs of the country. He constantly visited the provinces, improved the work of the bureaucracy, built new roads.

With the death of Emperor Commodus (192), the period of "soldier" emperors begins. The legionnaires of Rome, at their whim, overthrew and installed new rulers, which caused the growth of the influence of the provinces over the center. The “epoch of 30 tyrants” is coming, which resulted in a terrible turmoil. Only by 270 did Aurelius manage to establish the unity of the empire and repel the attacks of external enemies.

Emperor Diocletian (284-305) understood the need for urgent reforms. Thanks to him, a true monarchy was established, and a system of dividing the empire into four parts under the control of four rulers was also introduced.

This need was justified by the fact that, due to their huge size, communications in the empire were very stretched and news of barbarian invasions reached the capital with a strong delay, and in the eastern regions of the empire, the popular language was not Latin, but Greek and in money circulation instead of denarius drachma went.

With this reform, the integrity of the empire was strengthened. His successor, Constantine, officially entered into an alliance with the Christians, making them his support. Perhaps that is why the political center of the empire was moved to the east - to Constantinople.

Decline of an empire

In 364, the structure of the division of the Roman Empire into administrative parts was changed. Valentinian I and Valens divided the state into two parts - eastern and western. This division corresponded to the basic conditions of historical life. Romanism triumphed in the West, Hellenism triumphed in the East. The main task of the western part of the empire was to contain the advancing barbarian tribes, using not only weapons, but also diplomacy. Roman society became a camp where every stratum of society served this purpose. Mercenaries began to form the basis of the empire's army more and more. Barbarians in the service of Rome protected it from other barbarians. In the East, everything was more or less calm and Constantinople was engaged in domestic politics, strengthening its power and strength in the region. The empire united several more times under the rule of one emperor, but these were only temporary successes.

Rice. 3. Division of the Roman Empire in 395.

Theodosius I is the last emperor who united the two parts of the empire together. In 395, dying, he divided the country between his sons Honorius and Arcadius, giving the eastern lands to the latter. After that, no one will succeed in uniting the two parts of the vast empire again.

What have we learned?

How long did the Roman Empire last? Speaking briefly about the beginning and end of the Roman Empire, we can say that it was 422 years. It inspired fear in the barbarians from the moment of its formation and beckoned with its riches when it collapsed. The empire was so large and technologically advanced that we still use the fruits of Roman culture.

Topic quiz

Report Evaluation

Average rating: 4.5. Total ratings received: 182.

Octavian Augustus, as a person and as a statesman, caused conflicting opinions even in ancient times. During his lifetime and in the first years after his death, a pronounced apologetic trend arose in Roman historiography, and even more widely in Roman literature. It was presented by such historians as Nicholas of Damascus, Velleius Paterculus, in a more moderate form - by Titus Livius and Dio Cassius, the latter being usually considered the main source on the era of Augustus. There was, undoubtedly, another direction - a critical, oppositional one, whose representatives defended the views and slogans of the "last Republicans", but practically nothing has come down to us from their works. Later historians, starting with Tacitus, usually give an ambivalent assessment, but it turns out to be quite detailed and meaningful.

For example, Tacitus himself at the beginning of the Annals, shortly after he makes his famous statement about his lack of "anger and passion" (sine ira et studio), gives a very peculiar characterization of Octavian Augustus. It is based on the opinions and sayings of the Romans shortly after the death of the aged emperor, with positive statements grouped first and then negative ones. The first includes the listing of honorary positions and titles of Augustus, emphasizing his love for his father, i.e., Julius Caesar, and justifying this love of initiative in the civil war, then pointing to the new political system he created without royal power and without dictatorship, to expand the state and ensuring its security, the adornment of Rome and, finally, the fact that violence was used only in rare cases and in order to preserve peace and tranquility for the majority.

However, then opposite statements are given, according to which love for the father was only a pretext for the struggle for power, allusions are made to Octavian's involvement in the death of Hirtius and Pansa, it is said about the capture of the first consul by force and about the conversion of the troops received to fight Antony against himself. states. Of course, the actions of Octavian during the proscriptions and the division of the Italian lands are condemned. Then there are accusations of deceit and deceit, abuse of executions, insufficient reverence for the gods, and even gossip and gossip about family affairs and life, so typical of those times. The most remarkable thing in this dual characterization is the fact that Tacitus himself in no way betrays his own attitude towards the personality of Augustus.

With the most complete and detailed description, we, as expected, come across in the biography of Octavian Augustus, written by Suetonius. But it also bears the stamp of duality and contradictions.

While we are talking about Octavian-triumvir, i.e., about the period of his struggle for power, he is portrayed as an extremely cruel person (reprisal against prisoners after the capture of Perusia, behavior during proscriptions, etc.), but upon reaching power, he turns out to be merciful and a generous and even kind-hearted judge. If at the beginning of the biography Mark Antony's mockery of his cowardice is mentioned, then later examples are given that refute such suspicions. It is said with praise that he categorically forbade the erection of temples in his honor in Rome (only in the provinces, and even then with a double dedication: to him and Rome), that he did not pay serious attention to impudent attacks and anonymous letters, that he held the foundations of justice, and as many as four chapters of the biography - from 57 to 60 inclusive - are devoted to describing the voluntary manifestations of the "nationwide" love for Augustus.

With this, Suetonius completes that part of the biography that is devoted to the characterization of Octavian Augustus as a military and political figure, and proceeds to describe his personal qualities. He pays great attention to them, down to describing the appearance of Augustus or his unpretentiousness in food. He specifically dwells on his interest in the "noble sciences", in eloquence, as well as on a good knowledge of Greek and Latin authors. The biography ends with a description of the death of Augustus and his funeral, and - and this, of course, is a brilliant final touch on the general characterization - it is told how the dying emperor turned to his relatives with the following question: did they think he played the comedy of life well, and demanded , in case of an affirmative answer, applause.

These are the most typical estimates and characteristics of antiquity itself. As for the new time, we can say that against the background of the brilliant and always impressive personality of Caesar, the figure of Augustus seemed pale and even insignificant. In any case, he did not inspire sympathy with the new historians and did not enjoy their recognition.

Even the French enlighteners, for whom Augustus was a usurper and strangler of the republic, spoke sharply negatively about him. Thus, Voltaire spoke of a "monster", of "a man without shame, without faith and honor"; Montesquieu also considered him a bloodthirsty tyrant who established "long-term slavery" for his subjects. In the once famous work of Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Augustus is characterized by the following words: “A cold mind, an insensitive heart and a cowardly character made him, when he was nineteen years old, put on a mask of hypocrisy, which he subsequently never took off ". Hardthausen, in his three-volume work, compares Augustus to Napoleon III. Perhaps, of the new historians, Augustus Ferrero is most positively assessed, opposing him to the "brilliant loser" Caesar. But he also writes about him in such terms: “This smart egoist, who had neither vanity nor ambition, this hypochondriac, who was afraid of sudden unrest, this thirty-six-year-old man, prematurely aged, this cautious counter, cold and timid, did not make illusions for himself” .

The Soviet researcher of the principate of Augustus, N. A. Mashkin, also turns out to have a very low opinion of the personal qualities and talents of Caesar's successor. He says: “Although Augustus did much more to establish monarchical power than his adoptive father, yet we cannot compare him with Julius Caesar. In terms of ability, he was inferior not only to Caesar, but also to many of his associates. He advanced not because of his abilities, but because he took the name of Caesar and, together with his associates, correctly assessed the situation and outlined ways to overcome difficulties. August was able to see his shortcomings and knew how to choose and attract people.”

So, a hypocrite and a coward, an egoist and a hypochondriac, an insidious and cruel tyrant, besides a man of very average abilities - such or almost such an image is presented to us by new historiography. A rare, or rather exceptional, case of a huge discrepancy, a gap between the insignificance of the doer and the greatness of the deed! Is it really?

We are not at all going to create an apologetic image of Octavian Augustus. But we would like to emphasize one - and, from our point of view, the most characteristic - feature of his personality, in comparison with which all the rest can be considered, as it were, secondary and subordinate. Octavian Augustus was a born politician, a politician par excellence, a politician from head to toe, and as such he represents an exceptional, perhaps even the only phenomenon, at least in ancient history.

Deciding at the age of 19, and against the advice of his relatives and friends, to inherit from Caesar not only his name, but also his special position in the state, he has since known “the power of only one thought”, and this “thought” he consistently and without any hesitation, subordinates all his other intentions and actions. Before him all the time there is only one goal - to achieve a leading position in Rome, and to fulfill this vital task he directs all physical and spiritual forces. When we talk about Augustus and have in mind his political career, the idea of ​​a clearly defined and defined goal does not at all look like a teleological exaggeration. On the contrary, in all his actions - both large and small - the constantly tangible presence of far-sighted calculation is striking. Moreover, this is not only a dry and sober, so to speak, “mundane” calculation, no, it is often inspired by brilliant intuition - in essence, without intuition, and therefore, without risk, there is not and cannot be big politics, a policy of “far sight”.

The political genius of Augustus is almost terrifying. Tactical calculation and strategic foresight are combined in it so naturally and so perfectly that often a pre-calculated act looks like an intuitively made decision, and an obviously, at first glance, intuitive action suddenly turns into a sober calculation. As a result, not a single major mistake, not a single blunder throughout the entire political career. An example in history, in our opinion, is absolutely unprecedented! On the other hand, the bearer of these qualities was forced to pay with the loss of purely human qualities - the politician in him ousted, destroyed the person; it was no longer a man, but an almost irreproachable political mechanism, a robot.

We would now like to confirm with some specific examples the idea that the political genius of Augustus was able to somehow transform, use, in any case, put all the other properties and features of his personality at his service. Is it true that he did not have military talents, was weak, and besides, also an unsuccessful commander? Yes, he was, but this shortcoming of his, this weakness, he managed to turn into strength, fighting, as a rule, with proxy or when he conducted military operations personally, showing extreme caution, in accordance with his favorite sayings: “Hurry without haste” or "A cautious commander is better than a reckless one."

Is it true that he was a treacherous and cruel man, a deceiver, a traitor to his friends? Nobody knows this, because it is not known who he really was, what were his human qualities. But something else is well known: when need, he was cruel, and when need was different - kind and merciful. All human feelings in him were also subject to political calculation (or intuition). The pinnacle of such a calculation can be considered the fact, testified by his biographer, that with his own wife Livia, in some important cases, he spoke according to a pre-compiled summary, and the pinnacle of intuition is entering into an alliance with Antony after he was defeated in the Mutinskaya war.

After all, this step led to the creation of the second triumvirate, to joint actions under Philippi, and in general to everything that was the main content of Roman history until the triumvirate itself collapsed, and which, of course, in no way succumbed to any preliminary calculation.

All this taken together was the main reason for the contradictory characteristics of ancient - and, perhaps, modern - historians. In addition, we should not forget that Augustus ruled the state, according to the calculations of the ancients themselves, for more than half a century: 12 years together with Antony and Lepidus and 44 years as autocrat. Therefore, his image both as a person and as a political figure should not be presented statically, although at any given moment he is quite complex and contradictory, but in a certain development. The political aspect of the image of Octavian is extremely interesting because in his political activity, if it is considered in development and throughout, all the forms of government known at that time are embodied, as it were, both correct and “perverted”: dictatorship and tyranny, aristocracy, democracy and oligarchy and, finally, the republic and the monarchy. And a peculiar fusion of all these forms and elements gave rise to that completely new, perhaps the only political system in history, which received the name principate. As for the private, or "human" aspect of the image of Octavian, then, most likely, this is the image of an actor who continuously and tirelessly performs a certain role and "wins" in it so much that it has become life itself for him, as he directly and said in the above dying words.

Let us return to that period of Octavian's life and work, to that period of Roman history, which can be called preparations for the last stage of the civil war. After the end of hostilities against Sextus Pompey and after the unsuccessful (and fatal for him) attempt by Aemilius Lepidus to oppose Octavian, the triumvirate actually turns into a dual alliance. But the strength of this alliance was also rather illusory; perhaps from this moment Octavian begins preliminary and far-reaching preparations for the decisive battle with his colleague and rival. It carries out a number of activities that are now designed to meet the needs and interests of not only veterans, but also the general population of Italy. He wants to erase all the unfavorable memories for him associated with the initial stage of civil wars after the death of Caesar (about proscriptions, confiscations of land). If now the veterans were rewarded, as usual, with land and money, then this came at the expense of the huge Sicilian booty, and no expropriations were made. Moreover, it was announced that all documents related to the civil war and proscriptions were destroyed, arrears in taxes and farms were accumulated, it was reported that upon the return of Anthony from the Parthian campaign, the old republican system would be completely restored. All these measures were supported by the success of a new foreign policy action - a successful military expedition to Illyria, during which Octavian, together with his commander Agrippa, not only won a number of victories, but this time also showed personal courage.

Thus, if Octavian in the mid-30s managed to somehow strengthen his position and authority, at least among the population of Italy, then this cannot be said about Mark Antony. His Parthian campaign, which began very promisingly and successfully (the siege of the capital of Media), dragged on and, in the end, Antony had to withdraw troops from Media. The retreat took place in difficult conditions, with incessant attacks by the Parthians, and Antony's army suffered heavy losses. According to Plutarch, the campaign lasted 27 days, and the Romans won 18 victories in skirmishes with the Parthians, but these were not complete and decisive successes, because the Romans did not have enough strength to pursue the defeated enemy.

In an official report to the Senate, Antony portrayed the Parthian campaign as a major victory. However, it was not possible to completely hide the truth, and soon rumors spread in Rome, for Antony very little flattering and unfavorable. It did not help that in the next (i.e., in 35) year, Anthony undertook a new and more successful campaign - this time to Armenia. The fact is that after this campaign he made a major political mistake - he celebrated a triumph in Alexandria, which, according to Roman concepts, looked almost like sacrilege. The climax of every triumph was considered to be a sacrifice in the temple of Capitoline Jupiter, therefore, the triumph could only be celebrated in Rome itself.

Moreover, either during the triumph itself, or shortly after it, Antony held a magnificent political demonstration in Alexandria, about which Plutarch tells the following: and lower for sons, he first of all declared Cleopatra queen of Egypt, Cyprus, Africa and Coele-Syria, under the co-rule of Caesarion, who was considered the son of the elder Caesar, who was said to have left Cleopatra pregnant; then he proclaimed the sons whom Cleopatra bore from him kings of kings and appointed Alexander Armenia, Media and Parthia (as soon as this country was conquered), and Ptolemy - Phoenicia, Syria, Cilicia.

It goes without saying that such actions could in no way contribute to the growth of Anthony's authority and popularity in Rome. On the contrary, they were perceived as a challenge, as a hostile act in relation to "everything Roman", and caused a "wave of hatred" against Antony.

Octavian used this favorable moment in time and very subtly. We have already mentioned that the Brundisian agreement was reinforced by a dynastic marriage: Antony married Octavian's sister Octavia. At first, this marriage even looked happy - thanks to the beauty and excellent character of Octavia, but when Antony met Cleopatra again in Antioch in 37, everything was broken. Disregarding the customs and rules, Antony soon, without divorcing Octavia, entered into an official marriage with the Egyptian queen. It was another scandal.

The fate of Octavia, who kept herself impeccable and, remaining in Rome, led the house of Antony and raised his children, aroused general sympathy. When she announced her desire to go to her husband, Octavian did not prevent this, but, as ancient authors noted, not out of a desire to please her sister, but counting on an insulting reception from Antony, which could serve as one of the reasons for war. And so it happened. When Octavia, bringing with her 2 thousand selected soldiers, as well as collecting money and gifts for Antony's commanders and friends, arrived in Athens, she was handed a letter from him, in which, referring to another campaign and employment, he asked her to return back to Rome.

Since that time, open hostility between the former triumvirs begins. They exchange mutual reproaches, accusations, and in 1932, at a meeting of the Senate, a complete break occurs not only between the main actors themselves, but also between their supporters from among the senators. As a result, about 300 senators (including both consuls!) left Rome (with the permission of Octavian) and went to Anthony. By this, in essence, the question of a new war was settled, and both sides are beginning to actively prepare for it.

Antony sends an official divorce to Octavia; in response to this, Octavian, contrary to existing rules, publishes Anthony's testament, which was kept by the vestals. From this will it followed that Antony asked to be buried in Egypt together with Cleopatra, that he secured for her and for her children all those lands and kingdoms that were so solemnly transferred to them.

This testament turned out to be a drop that overflowed the cup. It aroused general indignation in Rome. Cleopatra was declared war. The fact that the war was declared specifically to Cleopatra can be recognized as a new successful action by Octavian, because in this way the upcoming war acquired the character of an external, and by no means civil, which impressed the Romans much more at that moment.

Nevertheless, the war required funds. Octavian had to resort to exceptional measures. All freeborn were to contribute one-fourth of their annual income, and freedmen one-eighth of all property. These measures led almost to uprisings. Plutarch considers Antony’s delay to be the greatest mistake, for he gave Octavian the opportunity to prepare and calm down the unrest, and very wisely remarks that “while the penalties were going on, people were indignant, but, having paid, they calmed down.” Moreover, Octavian managed to ensure that the inhabitants of Italy, Gaul, Spain, Africa, Sicily and Sardinia swore allegiance to him.

Antony, for his part, was no less actively preparing for the coming war. He gathered a considerable army; the fleet, located in Ephesus, consisted of up to 800 ships (including cargo ships), with 200 ships put up by Cleopatra. From her, Antony received 2 thousand talents and food for the entire army. There were two groups or "parties" in Antony's camp: the senators who went over to his side, who wanted either to reconcile him with Octavian, or at least remove Cleopatra for a while, and the "party" of Cleopatra herself, which provoked Antony to the most defiant actions. and a complete break with Rome. The last one won, of course.

While the fleet was being drawn up and the army was being completed, Antony and Cleopatra went to Samos, where they spent all their days in entertainment and pleasure. But let us give the floor again to Plutarch. He writes: “Almost the whole universe was buzzing with groans and sobs, and at this very time, a single island resounded with the sounds of flutes and citharas for many days in a row, the theaters were full of spectators, and the choirs zealously fought for the championship. Every city sent a bull to take part in solemn sacrifices, and the kings tried to surpass each other in the splendor of receptions and gifts, so that the people said with bewilderment: what kind of victorious festivities will they have if they celebrate the preparations for war with such magnificence? . Then Cleopatra and Antony moved to Athens, where endless feasts, celebrations, spectacles stretched again.

When, finally, the opponents moved against each other, under the command of Anthony there were at least 500 warships, 100 thousand infantry and 12 thousand cavalry. On his side were a number of dependent kings and rulers who sent their auxiliary detachments. Octavian had only 250 ships, infantry - 80 thousand, and cavalry also about 10-12 thousand. However, in one respect he had an indisputable advantage - his ships were well equipped and distinguished by greater lightness and maneuverability. Nevertheless, Octavian offered Antony to solve the matter by a land battle, promising to ensure that his army landed in Italy. Antony refused and instead offered Octavian to fight him in a duel.

The decisive battle took place on September 2, 31 at sea, near Cape Promotions in Epirus. The battle was quite stubborn, its outcome was still absolutely unclear, when suddenly, in full view, 60 ships of Cleopatra raised sails to sail and took to flight, making their way through the thick of the fighting. Antony, as soon as he noticed that Cleopatra's ship was leaving, forgot about everything in the world and, leaving to the mercy of fate the people who fought and died for him, switched from the flagship to the fast penther and rushed in pursuit of Cleopatra.

The naval battle, however, continued until late in the evening. Only very few saw the flight of Antony with their own eyes, and those who knew about it did not want to believe that the illustrious commander could so shamefully abandon his fleet, and besides 19 completely intact legions and 12 thousand cavalry. And although the fleet was nevertheless defeated, the ground army did not want to leave the camps for another whole week, rejecting all the profitable offers that Octavian made. And only when the military leaders themselves began to secretly flee from the camp at night, the soldiers had no choice but to go over to the side of the winner.

The Battle of Actia decided in principle the outcome of the civil war. But the war as such was by no means over yet. Before moving on to the final goal - the capture of Egypt, Octavian, as always extremely thorough and cautious, takes a number of measures that secure his position in the East. He goes first to Athens, where he takes initiation into the Eleusinian mysteries. Then he sails to Samos, and from there to the cities of Asia Minor. Here, in search of popularity, he pursues the traditional policy of adding up debts and abolishing taxes, and also bestows the rights of Roman citizenship to the natives of the eastern cities who served in his army. At the end of 31, Octavian was forced to return to Italy - he was informed of a major rebellion of veterans. The soldiers, as always, demanded money and land. Based on future Egyptian booty, Octavian satisfied all their demands, although for this he had to spend almost all of his own funds and even borrow significant amounts from friends. After that, he was able to resume his eastern campaign.

As for Antony, he used the respite given to him by Octavian in a rather strange way. After several months of depression, which he spent alone, he returned to Alexandria, to Cleopatra. And although the most disappointing information came to him, saying that the kings and dynasts subject to him, starting with the Jewish king Herod, one after another change and go over to the side of Octavian, so that nothing remains for him but Egypt, he, according to Plutarch, as if rejoicing, he renounced all hope and began to amuse the city with endless feasts, drinking parties and cash distributions. He wrote down Caesarion in ephebes, that is, he declared him an adult in the Greek way, and he dressed his son from Fulvia in a man's toga. On this occasion, a multi-day festival was arranged for all the inhabitants of Alexandria. Then Antony and Cleopatra founded the "Union of Suicide Bombers", where friends who decided to die with them, but so far took turns asking feasts, one more luxurious than the other, signed up.

However, they nevertheless sent ambassadors to Octavian. Cleopatra asked to transfer power over Egypt to her children, and Antony - to allow him to spend the rest of his days as a private person either in Egypt or in Athens. Octavian categorically rejected Antony's request, but Cleopatra replied that she would be granted full indulgence if she extradited or killed Antony. Octavian at that time tried in every possible way to emphasize his gracious attitude towards Cleopatra also because she transferred innumerable riches from the royal treasury to her mausoleum and threatened to burn it all and commit suicide.

When Octavian's troops approached Alexandria, in one of the first skirmishes, Antony put the enemy cavalry to flight. Excited by the battle, he returned to the palace and, without taking off his armor, kissed Cleopatra and introduced her to one of the most distinguished warriors. The queen rewarded him with a golden shell and a helmet. Having received this award, the distinguished soldier defected to Octavian the same night.

Soon the same betrayal was repeated, but on a much larger scale.

Antony again sent Octavian a challenge to a duel. He answered that to him, Anthony, many roads to death were open. Then Antony decided to give battle at the same time on land and at sea. However, it was in this battle that his fleet went over to the side of Octavian, the cavalry did the same, and the infantry was defeated.

It was the end. Antony, falling into despair, began to accuse Cleopatra of betrayal. In fear of his anger, she took refuge in the tomb, and she ordered him to report her death. Antony believed this and stabbed himself with a sword. Then he was taken to the tomb of the queen, and he died in the arms of Cleopatra, who had been forgiven by him. Thus ended the fate of this brilliant adventurer. When Octavian received news of his death, he "went into the depths of the tent and wept, grieving for the man who was his relative, co-ruler and comrade in many deeds and battles."

The fate of Cleopatra was ultimately no less tragic. When she became Octavian's prisoner and convinced that at best he would spare her life, but intended to lead her in triumph, she committed suicide. According to legend, she died from a snakebite delivered to her - despite protection - in a basket of berries.

Octavian executed Caesarion and Antony's eldest son, Antillus. The rest of Cleopatra's children by Antony were led in triumph and then brought up by Octavia along with her children by Antony. Egypt was converted into a Roman province, and it became the first province that was no longer ruled by the senate, but by the emperor himself through his representatives. Octavian, upon returning to Italy, celebrated a magnificent triumph that lasted three days: the first day - for Illyria, the second - for the victory over Cleopatra at Action, the third - for the capture of Alexandria. Thus, it was again emphasized that victories were won against external enemies, and by no means over Roman citizens.

Nevertheless, these were, of course, civil wars. Octavian emerged victorious from them. He managed, as Tacitus says, to win over the army with gifts, the people with the distribution of bread, and everyone in general with the sweetness of the world. This world was a desirable dream for almost all segments of the population of a huge power. The one who could now ensure a lasting, lasting peace with a firm and skillful leadership, was expected by general worship and almost divine honors. And so it happened. Therefore, when at the meeting of the Senate on January 13, 27 BC. e. Octavian announced the resignation of emergency powers, the senators unanimously and unanimously - although, as Dio Cassius says, some sincerely, while others only out of fear - convinced him to once again assume supreme power. And three days later, the grateful Senate presented him with the honorary title of Augustus. From that time on, Octavian began to be officially called "emperor Caesar Augustus, son of the divine." In addition, from that time on, he was always listed first in the lists of senators, that is, he became the princeps of the senate, or, as Augustus himself later emphasized, "first among equals." Usually 27 BC e. is considered the date that opens a new era - the era of the principate, or, as they say much more often, the era of the Roman Empire.

The nature of the political system that has been established in Rome since the reign of Augustus has caused and still causes no less controversial judgments than the personality of the "first Roman emperor" himself. These disagreements began in ancient historiography.

First of all, a document compiled by Augustus himself and published by his successor Tiberius, which is called the "Acts of the divine Augustus." In this document, Octavian Augustus, with all the persuasiveness available to him, tries to prove that he "returned freedom to the state" (republic), that he "transferred the state (republic) from his power to the disposal of the senate and the people."

So, the "restored republic" (res publica restituta) - this was the official slogan that Augustus himself spoke, therefore, it was supposed to consider all his activities in this way, allegedly such was its main and ultimate goal. Indeed, this is how the representatives of the apologetic trend in Roman historiography portrayed it. For example, Velleius Paterculus, closest in time to the era of Augustus, wrote: “... the original and ancient form of the state was returned”, that is, in other words, the republic was restored.

Tacitus, who, as already mentioned, in characterizing Augustus, did not express his own point of view, but cited the existing opinions about him equally both for and against, in this case, i.e., evaluating the political system established by Augustus, also did not avoids obviously contradictory judgments. In one place - this has already been said - he believes that Augustus gave the state a structure without dictatorship and without royal power, but in another place he emphasizes that the peace established by Augustus went to the Romans at the cost of losing freedom, or claims that the tribunician power (tribunicia potestas) Augustus accepted not only not to take the name of the king, but at the same time to surpass everyone with his power. Generally speaking, Tacitus believes that Augustus seized power in the state, usurped it, and the political system he established later degenerated into open and obvious tyranny.

Dio Cassius, who treats Augustus very positively, nevertheless has no doubt that Augustus established autocracy. However, this monocracy is not absolute and intolerable - the Senate and its members enjoy great influence and honor. The supreme power itself, which Augustus possesses, is by no means the result of usurpation, but was handed over to him only for a certain period and precisely by the senate.

Thus, in ancient historiography, there were, as it were, two options for defining the political system established by Augustus. The official variant qualified this system as a "restored republic" (or "state"), the unofficial variant (presented, as a rule, by later authors) defined the system as an autocracy.

It should be noted that the new historiography did not bring much diversity to this issue. Perhaps the most original characterization of the principate (and the power of Augustus) was expressed in his time by Mommsen. He was not interested in the question of the genesis of the principate, which was determined by his fundamental principles. In those works in which Mommsen defines the principate, he deals not with history, but with the system of Roman law. Therefore, it departs from legal precedents.

Approaching the definition of imperial power from these positions, Mommsen speaks of the proconsular empire (imperium proconsulare) and tribunic power (tribunicia potestas) as the two fundamental foundations of this power. The same political system that has been established in Rome since 27, i.e., the formal division of power between the emperor and the senate, which continued de iure to remain further, is defined by Mommsen not as a republic and not as a monarchy, but as a kind of peculiar form of dual power. what he calls diarchy.

Another scholar of the principate, Hardthausen, took a different view. He substantiated one of the variants of the ancient tradition, believing that the "restoration of the republic" by Augustus is an obvious fiction and the power of Augustus was purely monarchical in nature. A specific feature of this power was the unusual combination in the hands of one person of the usual Roman magistracies. This was precisely the magisterial basis of the Augustan monarchy.

A special, as already mentioned, point of view on the principate and on the power of Augustus was developed by Ed. Meyer. In his opinion, the principate as a special political form was formed under Pompey. Caesar's adopted son was by no means the heir and continuer of his father's political doctrine, for Julius Caesar sought to establish a Hellenistic type of monarchy. In terms of state creativity, Augustus should be considered the successor of the work of Pompey. A principate is such a political system when all power belongs to the senate, the “guardian” of which is the princeps. Thus, it is by no means a monarchy or "diarchy", but a truly restored republic.

All these points of view, especially the last two, have varied in modern historiography an infinite number of times. We cannot dwell on these "variants", because for this we would have to touch on many works. It is only worth noting, perhaps, that M. I. Rostovtsev in his fundamental work “The Socio-Economic History of the Roman Empire” essentially renounces the definition of the principate; R. Syme, as a matter of fact, does the same (in the repeatedly mentioned work "The Roman Revolution"). By the way, Syme absolutely rightly objects to the attempts to legally substantiate the power of Augustus.

Finally, the Soviet researcher of the principate, N. A. Mashkin, believes that even if the republic was officially “restored,” there is still a lot to confirm the monarchical essence of Augustus’ power. This, in his opinion, is evidenced by the concept of auctoritas, as well as the titles of princeps and emperor. Thus, in contrast to Mommsen, one can speak of non-magisterial, but purely Roman sources of sole power. As for the magistrate's powers, although they are of great importance, this is by no means a substance, but only a formalization of power. In this sense, the power of Augustus consisted of ordinary Roman powers, with the only exception that he combined in his hands magistracies and functions that were incompatible during the years of the classical republic (ordinary and extraordinary magistracies, priestly functions, etc.).

In conclusion, a few words about our understanding of the nature of the political system established by Augustus. In this case, we do not pretend to study the problem of the principate, or even to a precise definition of its essence, but, mindful of the well-known rule that all phenomena and events are better known in comparison, we will only try to compare, give a comparative description of the "regimes" of Caesar and Augustus . Moreover, we are not going to make this comparison in terms of: monarchy - diarchy - republic or Hellenistic monarchy - principate, or, finally, in terms of clarifying the state-legal foundations of the principate, since all these aspects of the problem should be considered basically the creation and construction of new historiography. Disregarding these, strictly speaking, modernizing constructions, we will only try to compare some characteristic features of the "regimes" of Caesar and Augustus. Moreover, we use this term conditionally, with the proviso that we consider these “regimes” not so much the product of the activity or creation of named historical figures, but rather the product of a certain situation and conditions of the socio-political struggle.

Given this reservation, we consider it quite possible to assert - in contrast to the above point of view, Ed. Meyer - the fact that Augustus, in principle, was a consistent student and successor of Caesar. However, apart from the difference in temperaments, it is necessary first of all to emphasize the difference in methods, about which, not without wit, it was noted that Augustus, as it were, slowed down the pace taken by Caesar in his time, and to such an extent that it seemed that he not so much continues the political line of his adoptive father, but opposes himself to it, although in reality this is not at all the case.

Arguing in this regard about Augustus, obviously, one should keep in mind at least two circumstances: a) Augustus by no means indiscriminately continued everything that was done or only outlined by Caesar, but, so to speak, “creatively” selected or discarded individual elements this inheritance; b) something that Augustus had already taken away and that in Caesar, as a rule, was brought to life by “current needs”, and therefore looked like only a hint or an isolated action, Augustus developed into a “system”. At the basis of these methods and features lay a deeper difference - the difference between the actions of the leader of "democracy" and the statesman. That is why the "regime" of Caesar was nothing more than the sum of individual events - albeit sometimes very talented, timely, and even of great national importance - but by no means a system and not even a regime, while the "regime" of Augustus is already clearly a government system.

Obviously, one should get acquainted with this "system", at least in its most general, but at the same time, its most characteristic features. First of all, the "regime" of Augustus differed from Caesar's if only in that - and this point should by no means be considered secondary, lightweight, not deserving serious attention - that the form of government established under Augustus received an officially recognized name. It was, as has already been pointed out, a "restored republic" (res publica restituta), and such an assertion was supported by all the power of government propaganda. By the way, it was under Augustus that political propaganda began to be given extremely importance and for the first time it acquired the features of a state enterprise.

Consequently, any open disagreement with the official name of the existing regime could be regarded as harmful dissent, as a kind of opposition, and therefore, depending on the will of the princeps, could be more or less resolutely suppressed. In any case, a standard certified by the state was given. The fatal mistake of Caesar as a political figure was the unfortunate circumstance that his "regime" had no officially expressed name and, consequently, the possibility of its definition was provided, as it were, to the citizens themselves. The latter, for some reason, quite unanimously defined it only as regnum, tyranny, etc.

Did the official name given by Augustus to his regime correspond to its internal content? Of course not! This was perfectly understood by Augustus himself, it was understood or, in any case, could be understood by his contemporaries and subjects, but this was no longer of decisive importance. It hardly really matters how seriously Augustus' contemporaries believed that he was a god; the only important thing is that officially it was considered as such, and quite real altars and temples were erected in his honor. The same is the case with the slogan res publica restituta, which was no longer only a slogan, but also an officially recognized definition of a real state system.

But from what has been said, it follows that the "principle of Augustus" is perhaps the first example in history of a regime based on political hypocrisy, and even elevated to a principle. This is a state system (with the passage of time quite clearly formed and expressed), which, quite consciously and cynically, was presented by official propaganda not at all for what it really was. However, with such an understanding of the "regime" of Augustus, i.e., the essence of the "principate", the secondary, auxiliary significance of those of his attributes, which were often taken at face value by many researchers, becomes more than obvious. Such attributes certainly include the notorious auctoritas of Augustus, which (since the discovery of the inscription, usually called the Monumentum Antiochenum) has become the focus of attention of all researchers of the principate and which is either recognized or, on the contrary, is not recognized as the state legal basis of this political regime. The same can be said about all other attempts to understand the essence of the principate, proceeding from the formal legal criteria and concepts.

What, from our point of view, are not the formal-legal, not the state-legal, but the socio-political foundations of the “principle” of Augustus? There are several of these foundations, and in the first place among them we consider it necessary to put nothing but a new bureaucratic apparatus of the empire. We put him in first place, although we are fully aware of the fact that he could not become the main support of the imperial regime already under Augustus. However, if we consider the role of the government apparatus in the future, then there is no doubt that in the future it turns into a similar support for the new regime, and so much so that it even becomes possible to speak of the “dictatorship of the apparatus” (in relation to the late empire).

The enormous increase in the role of the apparatus is due to the fact that it was called upon to supplant the elected (and most democratic!) bodies of the polis-republican structure of Rome. We can trace this process of repression from the time of Caesar. For example, as mentioned above, Caesar, leaving for the last time for the war in Spain, appointed praefecti urbis to govern Rome during his absence, replacing them with elected magistrates. The appointment of city prefects was repeatedly practiced by Augustus (and his successors). In addition, procurators appointed by Augustus, legates, prefects of the praetorium and imperial provinces, as well as friends (amici) and companions (comites) of the emperor, become the links of the government apparatus.

From what social environment was the bureaucratic apparatus recruited under Augustus? In accordance with the traditions that existed back in republican times, dating back to the creation of an apparatus under the governors of the provinces, Augustus replenished the government apparatus to a large extent with people who were personally dependent on him in one form or another: clients, freedmen, slaves.

The second, and no less important basis of the new regime, we consider, of course, the army. The Roman army in the period of civil wars after the death of Caesar was no less politically important and used as a political organization no less than under Caesar. But when a lasting peace is established and the position of Augustus as an autocrat is established, the tasks that confronted him in relation to the army, of course, change significantly. The "dictatorship of the legions" is now out of the question. The army, as a political force and political pillar of the new regime, undoubtedly remains, but it must be introduced within certain limits, it must be "curbed", that is, it must cease to exist as an independent political factor. Augustus fulfilled this task by carrying out, as some researchers believe, the following reform: replacing the "extraordinary" armies of the republican era with a standing army in peacetime, but on a wartime scale. In addition, Augustus made an important change in the position of the officer corps, linking officer and civilian careers. In this way, he managed to avoid two dangers: an army saturated with professional officers, and, conversely, an army in which only soldiers, but not their command staff, are professionals. The compromise found by Augustus turned out to be extremely successful, it became the cornerstone of his entire military reform. According to other researchers, Augustus managed to “split the united front of centurions and soldiers” by the fact that he did not hesitate, contrary to custom, to promise, when it was beneficial to him, Senate posts to centurions. He did this occasionally, but he began to systematically allow persons belonging to the equestrian class to occupy senior officer positions without prior service in the army. Thus, the "centurion corps" began to gradually differentiate.

We consider the new strata of the ruling class, more precisely, the ruling class in its transformed form, to be the next most important pillar of the Augustan regime. What is to be understood by this transformation has already been explained above. Like Caesar - perhaps even more consistently - Augustus sought to send representatives of this class into the "channel" of the senate. The Senate, as is known, played a prominent role in the reign of Augustus, but the relationship between the senate and the princeps was rather complicated. Augustus, of course, extremely reckoned with the Senate, but at the same time sought to keep its activities under constant control, not to mention the fact that he took a direct part in shaping the composition of the Senate.

From the book From Pharaoh Cheops to Emperor Nero. The ancient world in questions and answers author Vyazemsky Yuri Pavlovich

Octavian Augustus (63 BC - 14 AD) Question 6.54 According to legend, Octavian Augustus' mother, Atia, never went to public baths. Why, may I ask? at the age of three, Octavian (then his name was Octavius) repeated the Italian feat

From the book From Pharaoh Cheops to Emperor Nero. The ancient world in questions and answers author Vyazemsky Yuri Pavlovich

Octavian Augustus (63 BC - 14 AD) Answer 6.54 According to legend, Atia gave birth to her great son not from her husband, Gaius Octavius, but from the god Apollo, who appeared to her in the form of a serpent. After such a visit, a stain in the form of a snake formed on the woman’s body, from which she did not

From the book Extracts on the life and customs of the Roman emperors author Aurelius Victor Sextus

Chapter I Octavian Augustus In the year 722 from the founding of the city and the 480th year from the expulsion of the kings, the custom was again established in Rome in the future to obey one, but not the king, but the emperor, or called by a more sacred name, Augustus. (2) So

From the Acts of the Divine Augustus author August Octavian

The acts of the divine Augustus Gaius Julius Caesar Octavian Augustus The acts of the divine Augustus, with which he conquered the earthly circle of power of the Roman people, and the donations that he made to the state and the Roman people, carved on two bronze pillars, which

From the book On the Caesars author Aurelius Victor Sextus

Chapter I Octavian Augustus About the year 722 from the founding of the city, also in Rome, the custom was established in the future to obey one [ruler] (2). Indeed, the son of Octavius ​​Octavian, adopted by the great Caesar, his great-nephew soon after received from

From the book Ancient Rome author Mironov Vladimir Borisovich

From the book of 100 great monarchs author Ryzhov Konstantin Vladislavovich

OCTAVIAN AUGUST Octavian, or, as he was called in childhood and youth, Octavius ​​was the great-nephew of the famous Roman commander Gaius Julius Caesar (his maternal grandmother, Julia, was the emperor's sister). Caesar, who had no male offspring, declared

From the book History of Ancient Rome in biographies author Stol Heinrich Wilhelm

35. Gaius Julius Caesar Octavian Augustus Octavian, born September 23, 63 BC, was originally called, like his father, Gaius Octavius, but then, becoming the adopted son of the dictator Caesar, took the name of G. Julius Caesar Octavian. His mother, Attia, was the daughter of a younger sister.

From the book World History in Gossip author Baganova Maria

Heir - Octavian August Gaius Octavius ​​was Caesar's great-nephew. The boy was raised by his mother - loving, but extremely domineering. Historian Nikolai Damascus: “Although by law he was already ranked among adult men, his mother still did not allow

From the book World Military History in instructive and entertaining examples author Kovalevsky Nikolay Fedorovich

August Octavian. Antony and Cleopatra Octavian quarrels with Mark Antony The wise Caesar, unexpectedly for many, bequeathed his inheritance to his great-nephew Octavian, a very worthy young man. The latter established an alliance with Caesar's associate Mark Antony and

From the book Imperial Rome in Persons author Fedorova Elena V

From the book World History in Persons author Fortunatov Vladimir Valentinovich

3.1.2. The first Roman Emperor Octavian Augustus Octavian Augustus was the grandson of Julius Caesar's sister. Shortly before his death, Caesar adopted him. After the adoption, Octavian's full name was Gaius Julius Caesar Octavian. After the death of Caesar, Octavian made the second

author Muravyov Maxim

Octavian August is Rurik Rostislavich Octavian August (63 BC - 14), Rurik Rostislavich (died in 1211, 1212 or 1215), i.e. the year of death is about the same, plus 1200 years. And the year of birth of Rurik is unknown, but for the first time it is mentioned in 1157, he fights at Turov, that is, you can

From the book Crazy Chronology author Muravyov Maxim

Agrippa is Octavian August If Mstislav is combined with both Agrippa and Vsevolod=August, then Agrippa simply must be Augustus. What do we see? In Russia, one prince is described several times under different names. Why couldn’t the “Italian” history

From the book General History [Civilization. Modern concepts. Facts, events] author Dmitrieva Olga Vladimirovna

Octavian Augustus and the Establishment of the Principate The hero of the Battle of Actium understood perfectly well that the transition to an open form of a monarchical regime would be dangerous for the time being. The tragic example of the conspiracy against Caesar was very revealing. In wide sections of Roman society

From the book World History in Sayings and Quotes author Dushenko Konstantin Vasilievich

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

Introduction

1. The main reasons for the transition from a republican form of state to an empire. Rise of an empire

2. Roman Empire: main periods of development

2.1 Principate and its essence

2.2 Roman Dominate

3. The collapse of the Western Roman Empire

Conclusion

Bibliography

empire roman council of state

Introduction

The Roman state occupies a special place in the history of the legal development of mankind and modern jurisprudence, as well as, in fact, Roman law, since it was this system, which once became uniform for the ancient world, that formed the basis of the law of many modern states.

The history of the Roman Empire is usually divided into three periods. The period of formation, heyday and fall. Most historians consider the 3rd century A.D. to be a turning point. e. , which occupied a special place in this history, separating the period of the Early Empire (Principate) from the period of the Late Empire (Dominat). It is usually noted that the Roman state in this century was in a state of crisis, and the period itself is called the period of crisis of the III century. Although there is a very extensive historiography for this period of Roman history, a number of aspects of the problem of the crisis cannot be considered definitively resolved and continue to be the subject of controversy. Therefore, the relevance of the study of the formation, development and fall of the Great Roman Empire is not lost over time, but rather acquires a unique scientific interest.

The purpose of this work is to study the formation, development and fall of the Roman Empire (I century BC - V AD).

To achieve the goal, the following tasks were set:

Determine the reasons for the transition from a republican form of state to an empire;

To characterize the most important periods in the development of the Roman Empire: principate and dominate;

Analyze the causes of the fall of the Roman Empire.

The course work consists of an introduction, three chapters, a conclusion and a list of references.

1. Mainthe reasonstransitionfromRepublicanformsstatestoempire.Formationempire

In the II-I centuries. BC. the development of a slave-owning society in Rome leads to an aggravation of all its class and social contradictions. Shifts in the economy, the expansion and change in the forms of exploitation of slave labor, its intensification were accompanied by intensification of conflicts between groups of the ruling upper classes of slave owners, as well as between them and the majority of the free, the poor and the poor. The successful policy of conquest, which turned the Mediterranean into an inland sea of ​​the Roman state, subjugated to it almost all of Western Europe up to the Rhine, confronted Rome with new complex military and political problems of suppressing the conquered peoples and ensuring their control.

Under these conditions, it becomes more and more obvious that the old political system is already powerless to cope with the contradictions that have arisen and aggravated. Rome enters a period of crisis, which affected, first of all, the existing political institutions, the outdated polis form of government, the aristocratic political regime of the nobility, disguised by the republican form of government, which created the appearance of the power of the Roman people. There was an objective need for their restructuring, adaptation to new historical conditions.

During the conquest of Italy in the V-IV centuries. BC. Rome sought, above all, to confiscate land, as population growth required the expansion of land holdings. This trend was not stopped by the intensive urbanization that developed by the 2nd century BC. BC. Wars II - I centuries. BC. somewhat shifted the emphasis - they were accompanied by the massive enslavement of the conquered population, which led to a sharp increase in the number of slaves in Rome. Slavery acquires a "classical", antique character. A significant mass of slaves are exploited in state and large private landowning latifundia with extremely difficult working and subsistence conditions and a brutal terrorist regime. The natural protest of the slaves results in a series of ever wider and more powerful uprisings. Slave uprisings in Sicily in the 2nd century BC had a particularly large scale. BC. and an uprising led by Spartacus 74-70. BC, which threatened the very existence of the Roman state.

In parallel with the slave uprisings and after them, civil and allied wars flare up, caused by the struggle for power between the factions of the ruling class, the contradictions between it and the small producers and the increased (up to 300,000) mass of lumpen proletarians who received insignificant material assistance from the state. The growth in the number of lumpen becomes convincing evidence of the general degradation of the free.

The economic and political dominance of the nobles caused in the II century. BC. a broad protest movement of the poor, led by the brothers Tiberius and Gaius Gracchi. The Gracchi sought to limit the large land ownership of the nobility and thereby create a land fund for allocating land to small landowners, as well as weaken the power of the stronghold of the nobility - the Senate and restore the lost power of the people's assembly and the people's tribune.

Having received the position of tribune, Tiberius Gracchus, relying on the popular movement, managed, despite the resistance of the senate, to hold in 133 BC. through the People's Assembly Agrarian Law. The law limited the maximum amount of land received from the state. Due to the withdrawn surplus, a land fund was created, distributed among landless or land-poor citizens. The plots they received became inalienable, which was supposed to prevent the dispossession of the peasantry. Despite the fact that Tiberius Gracchus was killed in the same year, his land reform began to be carried out, and several tens of thousands of citizens received land.

The reforming activity of Tiberius was continued by his brother Gaius Gracchus, who was elected tribune. He passed laws that weakened the political influence of the nobility - the introduction of secret ballot in the national assembly, the right of the people's tribune to be elected for the next term. Carrying out the agrarian reform of his brother, Guy, however, in 123-122. BC. passed laws on the creation of colonies of Roman citizens in the provinces with allotment of land to them and on the sale of grain from state warehouses to citizens at very low prices. The last law limited the important right of the Senate - to dispose of public expenditures, since the financing of the sale of grain passed to the people's assembly, the role of which increased significantly.

Guy also carried out military reform. The number of military campaigns obligatory for Roman citizens was limited, military duty was canceled for citizens who had reached the age of 46, soldiers began to receive salaries and weapons from the state and could appeal against the death penalty to the people's assembly.

Along with these activities, in the interests of the lower strata of Roman citizens, Gaius Gracchus also carried out activities in the interests of the horsemen. In their favor, the order of paying off taxes from the provinces was changed.

Finally, since Gaius Gracchus was a tribune, the role of this magistracy increased, pushing even the consuls into the background. However, having satisfied the interests of the majority of Roman citizens, Gaius lost their support in an attempt to extend the rights of Roman citizenship to the free inhabitants of Italy. The Senate aristocracy managed to fail this bill, unpopular among the Roman citizens, Guy's popularity fell, he was forced to resign as a tribune and in 122 BC. was killed.

The extreme aggravation of the political situation in Rome, caused by slave uprisings, the dissatisfaction of small landowners whose farms fell into decay, could not compete with large latifundia as a result of the participation of the owners in endless military campaigns, allied and civil wars, demanded the strengthening of central state power. The inability of the old political institutions to cope with the complicated situation is becoming more and more obvious. Attempts are being made to adapt them to new historical conditions. The most important of these was undertaken during the dictatorship of Sulla (82-79 BC). Relying on the legions loyal to him, Sulla forced the senate to appoint him dictator for an indefinite period. He ordered the compilation of proscriptions - lists of his opponents who were subject to death, and their property - to confiscation. By increasing the number of senators and abolishing the position of censor, he filled the Senate with his supporters and expanded its competence. The power of the tribune was limited - his proposals must first be discussed by the senate - as well as the competence of the people's assembly - judicial powers and control over finances, returned to the senate, were removed from it.

The establishment of a lifelong dictatorship revealed the desire of the nobles and the top horsemen to get out of the crisis situation by establishing a strong one-man power. It also showed that attempts to adapt the old state form to new historical conditions are doomed to failure (Sulla's reforms were canceled by Pompey and Crassus). After the Allied War 91-88. BC. The inhabitants of Italy received the rights of Roman citizens. If before it about 400,000 people enjoyed these rights, now their number has increased to two million. The inclusion of allies in the Roman tribunes led to the fact that the comitia ceased to be organs of the Roman people. Their legislative activity is suspended, the right to elect officials is lost. Successful wars of conquest turned Rome from a small state-city into the capital of a huge state, for the management of which the old state form of the policy was completely unsuitable.

The establishment of a lifelong dictatorship and civil wars have shown that a professional mercenary army is turning into an important political factor. Interested in the successes of the commander, she becomes in his hands an instrument for achieving ambitious political goals, and contributes to the establishment of a dictatorship.

The need to get out of an acute political crisis, the inability of the old state form to new historical conditions and the transition to a mercenary army were the main reasons for the fall of the polis-republican system in Rome and the establishment of a military dictatorial regime.

A short time after Sulla's dictatorship, the first triumvirate (Pompeii, Krase, Caesar) seizes power. After him, the dictatorship of Caesar is established, who received in 45 BC. the title of emperor (previously given sometimes as a reward to the commander). Then a second triumvirate is formed (Anthony, Lepidus, Octavian) with unlimited powers "for the establishment of the state." After the collapse of the triumvirate and the victory over Antony, Octavian received the title of emperor and life-long rights of the people's tribune, and in 27 BC. -- the authority to govern the state and the honorary title of Augustus, previously used as an appeal to the gods. This date is considered the beginning of a new period in the history of the Roman state - the period of the empire.

Thus, from the 30s BC. a new historical era begins in the history of the Roman state and the ancient world in general - the era of the Roman Empire, which replaced the Roman Republic. The fall of the republican form of government and the birth of the monarchical system in Rome was not a minor episode in the socio-political struggle.

The fall of the Roman Republic and the establishment of the Roman Empire was an event of great historical significance, a radical socio-political upheaval, a revolution caused by the restructuring of traditional socio-economic and political institutions. The basis of perestroika was the transformation of the polis-communal organization as a comprehensive system into a structure of a different type.

The history of imperial Rome is usually divided into two periods: the first period of the principate, the second - the period of dominance. The border between them is the III century. AD

The period of the empire is usually divided into two stages:

1. principle (1-3 centuries BC);

2.dominate (3rd-5th century BC).

2. Romanempire:mainperiodsdevelopment

2.1 Principateandhisessence

The social structure of Rome during the principate. After the victory of the great-nephew and successor of Julius Caesar - Octavian - over his political opponents (during Action 31 BC), the Senate handed Octavian supreme power over Rome and the provinces (and presented him with the honorary title of Augustus). At the same time, a state system was established in Rome and the provinces - principate. For Augustus, "princeps" meant "the first citizen of the Roman state", and in accordance with the unwritten Roman Constitution, the office of emperor. In the person of the princeps, power was concentrated, which was usually divided into the following elements.

1. As a military commander, the emperor has the right to complete and uncontrolled control of those provinces in which troops are usually stationed.

2.imperium proconsulare, that is, the right of a general proconsul to govern senatorial provinces.

3. tribunicia potestas, which gives the emperor the quality of sacronsanctus and the right of intercessio in relation to all republican magistrates.

The princeps were elected, in violation of republican tradition, by consuls, censors, and tribunes of the people at the same time. As a consul, he could, using the right of intercession, cancel the decision of any magistrate, as a censor - to form a senate from his supporters, as a tribune - to veto a decision of the senate or a decision of a magistrate.

Initially, the power of the princeps was not hereditary. Legally, he received power by decision of the senate and the Roman people, but he could designate his successor (usually a son or adopted), whom the senate elected princeps. At the same time, there were more and more cases of the overthrow of princeps and the appointment of new ones as a result of palace coups carried out with the help of the army.

Let us consider in more detail the essence and development of the era of the principate, referring to the reforms and changes taking place in the system of government during this period.

The first thing to say about citizenship. Already under Julius Caesar, the granting of the rights of a Roman citizen in the provinces became a widespread political measure. This practice was continued under his successors. Finally, in 212 AD. e. Emperor Caracalla granted the rights of a Roman citizen to the entire free population of the empire. It was a momentous step with far-reaching consequences. The privileged position of Rome itself was undermined. Moreover, already by this time the differences in the position of free people in Rome and the empire were significantly different from those that were under the republic.

The upper strata of the slave-owning class comprised two estates. The noble class was considered the first and most honorable. It is still in the IV - III centuries. BC e. formed from the patrician-plebeian local nobility. Under the empire, nobles become the dominant class, dominating both in society and in the state. economic The nobility was based on vast land holdings, cultivated by a mass of slaves and dependent peasant speculators. political The senate became the stronghold of the nobility. The high priests and high magistrates were members of the nobility, and this continued for centuries. The consulate was especially the prerogative of the nobility. The rulers of the conquered territories - proconsuls, propraetors, legates, etc. - belonged to the nobility. They ruled the provinces to the extent that they imposed constitutions on them. They also robbed them. There were 18 provinces in total.

Under Emperor Augustus, the nobility turned into a senatorial class , replenished from dignitaries who advanced in the public service. From the class of horsemen, the financial nobility of the empire with a qualification of 400,000 sesterces were responsible officials and officers. The government of the cities was in the hands of the decurions. , composed mostly of former magistrates. These were, as a rule, middle landowners.

At the lowest point of the social position were still slaves. Under Augustus, the interests of the slave owners were protected with the help of special measures, characterized by extreme cruelty. The possibilities of letting slaves go free were sharply reduced, the law was restored, according to which all those slaves who were in the house at the time of the murder of their master (at a shouting distance) and did not come to his aid were subject to execution. In one of the cases of this kind known to us, in spite of the widespread discontent of the people, the senate and the emperor put to death 400 slaves. Roman lawyers found a good justification for this cruelty: not a single house can be secure (from slaves) in any other way than by fear of the death penalty ....

Meanwhile, economic development increasingly pointed to the inefficiency of slave labor. No taskmaster and no punishment could replace the economic stimulus. The slave did what was absolutely necessary - no more than that and so as not to cause punishment. None of the improvements worked.

No wonder the progress of technology seemed to have stopped in Rome: neither the scythe, nor even the primitive flail, with which grain is knocked out of the ears, were known either in Rome or in its provinces. The Roman author Columela (1st century BC) wrote not without bitterness that “slaves bring the greatest harm to the fields. They graze cattle ... badly. They plow the land badly, they show a much greater consumption of seeds when sowing compared to the present, they do not care that the seed thrown into the ground sprouts well, ”etc.

Understanding all this, slave owners-masters began to provide slaves with peculia more and more widely, that is, plots of land for which the owner had to pay with a predetermined share of the product (usually half of the crop). Everything else was left to the worker, so he tried.

But in order for speculative relations to gain the proper scope, firstly, they should be reliably protected from abuse and, secondly, they should be given more or less extensive legal protection. The old Roman law forbade the slave all kinds of trade and loan transactions if they were carried out on his behalf (not the owner) and for his own benefit. The old law forbade the slave to "seek" and answer in court. And since all these prohibitions were an obstacle to the development of peculia as a specific form of rental relations, they should have been canceled, softened, modified. And so it was done, albeit with understandable gradualism.

At the same time, another important process was taking place within the Roman Empire: the transformation of a free peasant into a sharecropper, called a colon. The development of the colony was a direct result of the endless violent robbery of peasant land, directly related to the growth of senatorial and equestrian latifundia. Another reason for this was a decrease in the influx of slaves from abroad, which was, on the one hand, a direct consequence of the decrease in the military power of the empire, and on the other hand, the strengthening of the resistance to it.

Colon obligations were both monetary and in-kind. Kolonat began with a short-term lease, but it was unprofitable for the landlord. Only a long lease could

to provide him with a labor force and at the same time give rise to the desire of the colony to improve the land, increase its productivity, etc.

Satisfying the demands of landowners, the law of 332 marked the beginning of attaching tenants to the land. Those who voluntarily left the estates returned by force. At the same time, the law forbade the rounding up of columns when selling land. In the same way, the unauthorized increase of the burdens and duties lying on the column was also prohibited. Attaching columns to the ground was lifelong and hereditary.

Thus, in still slave-owning Rome, feudalism was born. order, feudal production relations. In this complex process, the slave rises in his social status, the free peasant, on the contrary, descends. By the end of the empire, the unauthorized murder of a slave, the separation of his family are prohibited, and a simplified procedure for setting free slaves is introduced. Craftsmen organized in colleges, that is, communities, had to “remain forever in their state,” which meant for them nothing more than forced hereditary attachment to their professions. And here one can see the prototype of the medieval guild of artisans.

Thus, by the end of many years of reign, Augustus managed to create the foundations of the future monarchical system, which entered world history under the name of the Roman Empire. This form of monarchy grew up on the basis of the Roman state structures proper, the dominant ideas, which gave the imperial regime, so to speak, a national character, although one cannot deny the influence on its formation of some tyrannical regimes of ancient Greece.

Since the monarchical system was formed on the basis of traditional polis-communal institutions, the emerging imperial structures turned out to be associated with the previous order, and the new monarchy was permeated with some republican legal ideas.

2.2 Romandominant

Already in the period of the principate, the slave system in Rome began to decline, and in the II-III centuries. its crisis is brewing.

The social and class stratification of the free is deepening, the influence of large landowners is increasing, the importance of colonial labor is growing and the role of slave labor is decreasing, the municipal system is falling into decay, the polis ideology is disappearing, Christianity is replacing the cult of traditional Roman gods. The economic system based on slave-owning and semi-slave-owning forms of exploitation and dependence (colonates) not only ceases to develop, but also begins to degrade. By the 3rd century slave uprisings, almost unknown to the initial period of the principate, become more and more frequent and widespread. Columns and the free poor join the rebellious slaves. The situation is complicated by the liberation movement of the peoples conquered by Rome. From wars of conquest, Rome begins to move to defensive ones. The struggle for power between the warring factions of the ruling class sharply escalates.

The principate suppressed the spirit of citizenship among the Romans, republican traditions are now a distant past, the last stronghold of republican institutions - the senate finally submitted to the princeps.

So In the III century. n. e. (since 284) in Rome, a regime of an unlimited monarchy is established - dominat (from the Greek "dominus" - lord). The old republican institutions are disappearing. The management of the empire is concentrated in the hands of several main departments, led by dignitaries who are subordinate to the head of the empire - the emperor with unlimited power.

Among these departments, the following two stood out in particular: the state council under the emperor (discussion of major policy issues, preparation of bills) and the financial department. The military department is commanded by generals appointed by the emperor and only by him.

Officials receive a special organization: they are given uniforms, they are endowed with privileges, at the end of their service they are assigned pensions, etc.

Diarchy could not be a stable form of government, and by the end of the previous period, imperial power acquires a noticeable monarchical connotation. The prolonged turmoil that followed the Severs revealed the need for a complete reorganization of the state, and this reorganization was carried out by Diocletian, and then completed in the same spirit by Constantine.

Two principles underlie this Diocletian-Constantine reform. The first is the final recognition of the emperor as an absolute monarch. He is no longer a princeps or a republican magistrate who recognizes himself, at least in principle, as the supremacy of the people; he is no longer "first" (between equals), but a lord, dominus, standing above the law. Under the influence of oriental patterns, power acquires even outwardly oriental flavor: inaccessibility, complex court ceremonial, etc. However, even now the monarchy has not acquired a dynastic character; The issue of succession remains unresolved.

The second beginning is the division of the empire into two halves: Eastern and Western, Oriens and Occidens. But this division, in principle, does not mean the division of the empire into two completely separate and independent states: Oriens and Occidens remain only two halves of the same state whole.

Let us consider in more detail the reforms carried out by Diocletian and Constantine, which can characterize this period.

Reforms of Diocletian. Diocletian carried out a number of reforms that were supposed to strengthen the economic, political and military power of the Roman Empire.

New administrative division of the empire. The leveling trend is typical for all periods of the Roman Empire, but during the principate, the provinces coincided, as a rule, with the independent or semi-independent regions that were before the Roman conquest.

Diocletian made a new administrative division. The whole empire was divided into 12 dioceses, the borders of which did not always coincide with the borders of the former provinces. Dioceses, in turn, were divided into provinces. Italy now also officially lost its privileged position: it was divided into two dioceses, which included not only Italian, but also other regions.

The dominator system was the final step towards the final establishment of the military dictatorship. The suppression of the resistance of the exploited classes and the repulse of the advancing "barbarians" required not only the political reorganization of the Roman state, but also its economic and military strengthening.

military reform. Diocletian's attention was directed, first of all, to raising the military power of the empire. In addition to the division of power between the Augustus and the Caesars, it was necessary to create a strong army that would be able to protect the borders of the empire from the "barbarians" and at the same time would be the real support of imperial power.

Along with the new principles of division of troops under Diocletian, the composition of the army was significantly increased. The latter circumstance was bound to raise the question of troop recruitment. Before Diocletian, military units, as a rule, were replenished with volunteers. This principle remained in the days of the late Empire, but at the same time, rules were introduced for the mandatory replenishment of the army. Diocletian ordered the large landowners to deliver to the state a certain number of recruits in accordance with the number of slaves and columns on their estates. They were obliged to serve in the army and years - captured "barbarians" settled in Roman territory. Finally, detachments of "barbarians" were accepted into military service for a special reward, passing under the authority of the Roman Empire.

Tax reform. Army reform was costly; the maintenance of the overgrown bureaucracy also required large funds. Meanwhile, the economy of the empire, despite individual measures, continued to be upset. Diocletian carried out a series of reforms in order to improve the state of the imperial finances.

A new system of taxation of the population was introduced. The era of the early empire was characterized by a variety of taxes, and a significant role in finance was played by indirect taxes, which lost their significance with the decline of economic life and the fall in the value of money. In Diocletian's system, direct taxes and, above all, land taxes became of great importance.

And in the previous period, the population of certain regions undertook to supply the state with certain products for the maintenance of the city of Rome, the army and officials. A similar analogue was called annona and was collected irregularly, often acquiring the character of a requisition. Since the time of Diocletian annon - a tax mainly in kind, regularly levied on the population. The unit of taxation was determined by the known amount of arable land that one person could cultivate in order to have a livelihood. When compiling the inventories, the size and quality of the cultivated plot of land, the number of workers and the number of livestock were taken into account. The senators were not exempt from the tax either, and they also paid a special tax in addition to the land tax. Urban residents who did not have land holdings were subject to a poll tax.

Diocletian's tax reform guaranteed the state a certain amount of products needed to maintain the army, court, capital and residence of the emperor. The state economy was thus built on a subsistence basis, independent of fluctuations in the value of money, market prices, or the delivery of products.

This undoubtedly indicates that subsistence - economic trends were becoming increasingly important in the economy of the late Empire.

financial reform. The money economy, of course, also played a significant role, but it needed to be improved. For these purposes, Diocletian carried out a monetary reform, which established a full-fledged gold coin, which officially weighed 1/60 of a Roman pound; in addition, a silver and bronze coin was issued. This reform was not particularly successful, since the real value of the coin was not in proper proportion with its nominal value, the ratio between the value and the value of the metal was determined arbitrarily, the system of circulation of the coin was not taken into account. As a result, a full-fledged coin disappeared from circulation and turned into ingots, the prices of goods not only did not fall, but continued to grow.

Price edict. In order to combat the rising cost of living, an edict was issued in 301 setting maximum prices for various goods, as well as maximum rates for wages. In the history of law, various assessments were given to this edict. Most often it was considered administrative madness. However, price regulation had certain grounds. At the disposal of the government there were huge stocks of products; large workshops that turned out many different kinds of products, and thus the government could throw a certain amount of goods on the market and thereby regulate prices. However, the regulation of prices throughout the Roman Empire was doomed to failure. According to the edict, the prices were set arbitrarily by the legislator: they were the same for the entire empire, they did not take into account the peculiarities of the regions, the convenience of means of communication and other local conditions. As a result of all this, the edict had little practical effect, and soon after its publication, it seems, ceased to be observed.

Judicial reform. The judicial reform of Diocletian made fundamental changes in the judiciary. The analysis of criminal cases from the standing commissions passed first to the Senate, and then to the emperor and his officials.

In the suburbs of Rome, criminal jurisdiction was administered by the perfect of the city, in Italy - by the perfect of the praetorium, and in the provinces - by the governors for the administration of the provinces. After the reforms of Diocletian in the provinces, rectors conducted criminal proceedings. In addition, there were judges for night fires and food supply cases. The latter were given the right to pass death sentences in some cases.

The analysis of civil cases in connection with the spread of the extraordinary process passed to the imperial officials. Diocletian's reform completed the process of superseding the formulary process by the extraordinary one. Since the distinction between imperial and senatorial provinces disappeared, the entire territory of the Roman state was under the control of emperors and their officials. In Rome, judicial power passed from the praetors to the city perfect. In 294, Diocletian issued a decree in which the rulers of the provinces were instructed to decide matters themselves and only in extreme cases to transfer to the decision of private judges.

New magistrates also appeared to deal with civil cases in cases of guardianship, alimony, fideocommissaries, etc.

State system in the period of dominance.

The reforms carried out by Diocletian and Constantine led to a change in the political system.

The establishment of an absolute monarchy entailed, first of all, the fall of the Senate. This was not a little facilitated by the transfer of the capital to Constantinople and the establishment of a second, Constantinople, Senate, as a result of which both Senates sank to the level of simple city councils. From the former national significance, the Senate has only one empty form: a) new laws are communicated to the Senate for information; b) the Senate is sometimes entrusted with the investigation of criminal cases; c) de jure the election of a new emperor belongs to the senate. Although, this right comes down to sanctioning someone who has already been either destined to be Caesar or proclaimed an army.

Simultaneously with the fall of the Senate, there is a further fall of the old republican magistracies. They still exist as honorary relics of the past, but they no longer take any part in state administration: consuls preside over the senate, praetors are in charge of some special affairs (for example, guardianship) on behalf of the emperor, the rest exist only as honorary titles.

All active state administration is in the hands of imperial officials, whose system grows into a complex bureaucratic mechanism and is subject to more precise regulation. The division of posts into court, civil and military is sharply carried out; in each branch a certain hierarchical ladder is formed. Moreover, each step of this ladder corresponds to a special title; each official is assigned a certain salary - according to the title and rank.

At the person of the emperor there is a council of state, which is now called the consistorium principis. At the suggestion of the emperor, he discusses all sorts of questions of legislation and administration; it also deals with all court cases that ascend in the order of instance to the emperor. Then comes a series of officials to govern the capitals and provinces, at the head of each capital stands the praefectus urbi, in whose hands is concentrated all the administrative and judicial power in the capital. His closest general assistant is vicarius, and then special - praefectus vigilum, praefectus annonae and a host of lower ranks.

As regards local government, the whole territory undergoes a new administrative division during this period. Each half of the empire is divided into two prefectures: the Eastern half - into the prefectures of the East (Thrace, Asia Minor and Egypt) and Illyrian (Balkan Peninsula), the Western half - into the prefectures of Italic (Italy and Africa) and Gallic (Gaul and Spain). At the head of each prefecture, in the form of its general chief, stands the praefectus praetorio. Each prefecture is divided into dioceses, headed by vicarii, and finally the dioceses are divided into provinces, ruled by rectores. The provinces are the basic cells of this administrative division, and the rulers of the provinces therefore become the first administrative and judicial authority. In this division, the provinces have already lost their former historical and national significance: they are only artificial territorial units. Near each official, the staff of his lower employees and his office are grouped.

Provinces, in turn, consist of smaller units - communities, or civitates. These communities enjoy a certain degree of independence in their internal affairs, although under strong government control. The bodies of local, communal self-government are now the local senate and elected municipal magistrates. The duties of these local bodies, mainly decurions, include, first of all, taking care of the fulfillment by the community of nationwide duties - delivering an adequate number of recruits, collecting state taxes, etc.

With the increasing tax burden and the general economic decline of the country, this responsibility becomes very heavy, and the local aristocracy begins to shirk the duty of decurions. In order to attract them, the government is forced to give the decurions various class and honorary advantages. But even this does not help, and then the government comes to the forced organization of the decurion estate, and any attempts to leave it or evade the performance of the state duty assigned to it are punished by various penalties.

Governmental control of local self-government is exercised first through a special defensor civitatis. In the person of this official, the emperors wanted to give the poorest population a special protector of their interests in the struggle against the richer and more powerful, but in practice this idealistic function was not realized, and the defensor civitatis turned into a judge in petty cases.

Provincial congresses (concilia provinciarum) continue to exist. With the establishment of Christianity, the religious pagan goals of these congresses disappear, but their business functions become all the more solid. The right to petition is recognized for them already de jure, and the emperors strongly forbid the rulers of the provinces to put any obstacles in this regard.

The reforms begun by Diocletian were continued by Emperor Constantine (306--337), best known for his church policy, favorable to Christians, until then persecuted by the state. By the Edict of Milan in 313, Constantine allowed Christians to freely practice their religion (shortly before his death, the emperor himself was baptized).

Under Constantine, the process of enslavement of the peasant colonies was completed. According to the Imperial Constitution of 332, the colon was deprived of the right to move from one estate to another. A column that did not obey this law was shackled like a slave, and in this form was returned to the owner. The person who received the runaway column paid his master the full amount of payments due from the runaway column.

The same line was drawn in relation to artisans. For example, the imperial edict of 317 ordered the miners, shipbuilders and many other workers to "remain forever in their state." The direct appropriation of the surplus product became the main form of exploitation of peasants and artisans.

Also, it was under Constantine that the capital of the Roman Empire was transferred to the old Byzantium, then called (May 11, 330) Constantinople. The highest government institutions were transferred here from Rome, the Senate was recreated here.

The final division of the empire into two parts - the Western with the capital in Rome and the Eastern with the capital in Constantinople, occurred in 395.

3. collapseWesternRomanempire

With the transfer of the capital to Constantinople, the history of Byzantium begins. The western and eastern parts of the empire were still united under the rule of a successful emperor, but not for long. In the IV century. Rome and Byzantium separate completely.

The Roman Empire existed (or rather, eked out existence) until 476, when the head of the German mercenaries, Odoacer, overthrew the Roman emperor of the infant Romulus-Augustus (Romulus-Augustishka) and took his place. Let's consider this event in more detail.

The main danger to the western empire was the Visigoths, headed by Alaric. First, he attacked the Balkan regions, and then, in 401, he attacked Italy. The emperor of the Western Empire (Stilicho) made peace with him, and Alaric was supposed to assist Rome in the fight against Constantinople. In 406 the "barbarian" tribes crossed the Rhine and thereafter devastated Gaul; usurpers appeared in different places. In 408, Alaric occupied Pannonia and Noric, then moved to Italy and demanded money for his army. His demand was satisfied, since Stilicho intended to negotiate with Alaric and use him in the fight against the usurpers, as well as with Constantinople, but the party opposed to Stilicho won at court, he was deprived of power and executed (408).

The contract with Alaric was also terminated. Then Alaric led the attack on Italy. He was supported by slaves, among whom were many of his fellow tribesmen. The Goths attacked Rome twice. The first time Alaric approached Rome in 408, but left, satisfied with receiving a huge ransom and freeing 40 thousand slaves, and the second time, on August 24, 410, Rome was taken and plundered by the troops of Alaric. For three days the city was devastated.

Alaric left Rome. After his death, the Goths withdrew to Gaul. However, the weakened empire could no longer withstand the onslaught of the "barbarians".

As early as 409, the Vandals, Suebi and Alans invaded Spain and settled in some of its regions; in 420, the Vandals and Alans established themselves in the south of the Iberian Peninsula, and in 429 they crossed to the African coast and captured most of Africa. In some cases, the Roman generals managed to win victories over the "barbarians", but these victories could not change the external position of the empire.

In the western part of the empire, the struggle for the imperial throne did not stop, although not the emperors, but the “barbarian” leaders who were in the Roman service, were of greater importance. In 445. Rome was sacked by the Vandals, who carried away much booty and took away many prisoners. In 475, the Roman patrician Orestes elevated his son Romulus Augustulus to the throne and ruled the state on his behalf. But the "barbarian" mercenaries rebelled against him, led by the skyr Odoacer. In 476, Orestes was killed, Romulus Augustulus was deprived of power, and Odoacer sent the signs of imperial dignity to Constantinople. This event is considered to be the end of the Western Roman Empire.

This event was preceded by the actual collapse of the entire western part of the empire. And Gaul, and Spain, and Britain were in the power of the Germans. Africa also fell away. As for the Eastern Roman Empire, it lasted for another thousand years.

Conclusion

Based on the study of the topic of the course work, the following conclusions can be drawn:

The reasons for the fall of the Roman Republic can be considered a sharp stratification of society into rich and poor, large and small landowners. The great differences in fortunes, the multiplication of the class of proletarians, who live on handouts from the state and are ready to follow that military leader or political figure who promises the greatest material success, could not but nullify the old republican equality and democracy. Also, Roman republican institutions developed as institutions of city government. , not an empire. Therefore, the change of the republican form of government to the monarchical one was inevitable, especially since the monarchical element can also be traced in the old republican Constitution of Rome.

Under the new conditions, it proved impossible to further eliminate the slave-owning classes in the provinces conquered by Rome from political power. By sacrificing the exclusive position of the "Roman people", the empire contributed to the consolidation of slave owners throughout its territory, consolidation into a ruling class bound by the unity of fundamental interests. Thus, a fairly solid social base was created for that political regime, which, with all the changes, lasted as long as the republic - about 500 years.

The initial period of the monarchy was called the principate, the subsequent period - the dominate.

The principate retained the semblance of a republican form of government and almost all the main institutions of the republic. During this period, people's assemblies and the senate meet. The emperor - princeps - combines in his hands the powers of a dictator, consul, censor, tribune, high priest. People's assemblies decline, they lose their judicial powers, they lose their right to elect magistrates.

The court of the princeps became the core of all higher authorities. The army was hired and permanent. In the era of the principate, the process of transforming the state from an organ of the Roman aristocracy into an organ of the entire class of slave owners was completed.

The top of the slave-owning class was made up of two estates:

1) the class of nobles, which was formed from the patrician-plebeian local nobility. This class occupied a dominant position both in society and in the state on the basis of their land allotments, slaves and dependent peasants;

2) the estate of horsemen, formed from the trade and financial nobility and middle landowners.

At the same time, there is a transformation of a free peasant into a tenant - a sharecropper - a column. The development of the colonate was the result of the plundering of peasant land and the consequent growth of latifundia. Another reason was the decrease in the influx of slaves from abroad.

Dominat is characterized by signs of an unlimited monarchy. The old republican bodies of state power are disappearing. The management of the empire is concentrated in the hands of several main departments, which were led by dignitaries. The most significant of them :

1) State Council under the emperor;

2) financial department;

3) the military department.

The Roman Empire was divided into 4 parts (prefectures), consisting of 12 dioceses. The civil power of the governors was separated from the military. Taxation was based on natural land taxes and duties.

During the imperial period, the police were reorganized. The princeps established the position of prefect of the city, endowed with broad powers for the protection of public order. He was subject to police cohorts, obliged to supervise the slaves. A special prefect led the fire brigade. The legate was at the head of the provincial police.

With the transfer of the capital to Constantinople, the history of Byzantium begins. In the IV century. Rome and Byzantium separate completely.

The Roman Empire existed until 476, when the head of the German mercenaries, Odoacer, overthrew the Roman emperor of the infant Romulus-Augustus (Romulus-Augustishka) and took his place. This event was preceded by the actual collapse of the entire western part of the empire. And Gaul, and Spain, and Britain were in the power of the Germans. Africa also fell away. As for the Eastern Roman Empire, it lasted for another thousand years.

Listliterature

1. Alferova, M.V. History of Ancient Rome.-M.: Litera, 2009.-552p.

2. Batyr, K.I. History of state and law of foreign countries: textbook / Batyr K.I., Isaev I.A., Knopov G.S.-M.: Prospectus, 2010.-576p.

3. Getman-Pavlova, I.V. Roman private law: study guide.-M.: Yurayt, 2010.-343p.

4. Kudinov, O.A. Roman law. Brief terminological dictionary-reference book.-M.: Exam, 2008.-224p.

5. Novitsky, I.B. Roman law: textbook.-M.:Knorus, 2011.-304p.

6. Pokrovsky I. A. History of Roman law.- M.: Direkmedia Publishing, 2008.-1135p.

7. Polonsky, A. Formation and flourishing of the Roman Empire // History of State and Law. -2010. - No. 11. - P. 36-42.

8. Puhan, Ivo Roman law: textbook.-M.:Zertsalo, 2008.-448s.

Hosted on Allbest.ru

Similar Documents

The main features of the social and state system of the Roman slave republic. Background of the transition from the Roman Republic to the Empire. The periods of principate and dominance. The fall of the Roman Empire: a general description of internal and external causes.

term paper, added 12/20/2012


A period of severe political crisis in the Roman Empire in the 4th century. Barbarization and the process of the collapse of the empire. Battle of the Catalaunian Fields. Rome under Ricimer: the agony of the Western Roman Empire. The deposition of Romulus Augustulus and the end of the Western Roman Empire.

term paper, added 09/24/2011


Fall of the Roman Empire in August 476. The destruction of the international system, the acquisition of independence by tribes and peoples. The need for self-organization. Decomposition of the slave system of the empire. Confrontation of new kingdoms to nomadic tribes.

abstract, added 01/12/2012


Formation of the Roman Empire. The state system of ancient Rome during the periods of the republic and the empire. Laws of the XII tables, their essence. War with the Celts (Gauls), its consequences. The most important events that occurred during the period of the existence of Roman civilization.

practical work, added 09/12/2014


Division of the Roman Empire into Eastern and Western. The reign of Emperor Justinian. History of the development of the economy, culture, art of the Byzantine Empire. Fall of Constantinople. Characteristic features of Byzantine architecture, enamel work.

presentation, added 03/30/2015


The weakening of the Roman Empire made it possible for barbarian tribes to cross borders and seize territory with impunity. Significant changes that occurred among the Germanic tribes. Formation of "barbarian" kingdoms on the territory of the Roman Empire.

abstract, added 11/09/2008


Transition from a hunting-gathering community to a settled agriculture. The emergence of the state as a fundamental achievement of the ancient world. Roman state and government. Causes of the decline and collapse of the Roman Empire. Military reforms of the 4th century.

abstract, added 01/19/2010


Analysis of the facts of trade and economic relations between the Moscow State and the Holy Roman Empire. Evidence of diplomatic relations between the two states, the conclusion of a military-political treaty by Ivan III with the Roman Empire.

term paper, added 08/31/2013


Military clashes between the Roman Empire and the barbarians, the resettlement policy of the emperors towards them. The influence of Christianization on the relationship between the Roman Empire and the barbarians at the end of the 4th century AD The collapse of the great empire, its historical consequences.

term paper, added 04/15/2014


Historical prerequisites for the emergence of the crisis of the Roman Republic and the conditions under which it fell. Stages of change in the state structure in different periods of the existence of the Roman Empire. The concept and essence of principate and dominance.

Empire
List of emperors
Principate
Julio-Claudian dynasty
Flavian dynasty
Antonine dynasty
Sever dynasty
Crisis of the 3rd century
Dominat
Western Roman Empire

Map of the Roman Empire from the Encyclopedia of Brockhaus and Efron

Periodization of the history of the Roman Empire

The periodization of the history of the Roman Empire differs depending on the approach. So, when considering the state-legal structure, two main stages are usually distinguished:

Having thus determined his attitude towards the Senate, Octavian resigned from himself and the title of commander-in-chief for life and only at the insistence of the Senate again assumed this power for a period of 10 years, after which it was continued for the same period. With the proconsular power, he gradually combined the power of other republican magistracies - the power of the tribunes (since AD), the power of the censor (praefectura morum) and the chief pontiff. His power thus had a dual character: it consisted of a republican magistracy in relation to the Romans and a military empire in relation to the provinces. Octavian was in one person, so to speak, the president of the senate and the emperor. Both of these elements merged in the honorary title of Augustus - "honored", - which was awarded to him by the Senate in the city. This title also contains a religious connotation.

However, in this respect, Augustus showed great moderation. He allowed the sixth month to be named after him, but did not want to allow his deification in Rome, being content only with the designation divi filius ("son of the divine Julius"). Only outside of Rome did he allow temples to be built in honor of him, and then only in conjunction with Rome (Roma et Augustus), and to establish a special priestly college - the Augustals. The power of Augustus is still so significantly different from the power of subsequent emperors, which is indicated in history by a special term - principate. The nature of the principate, as a dualistic power, appears especially clearly when considering the relationship of Augustus to the senate. Gaius Julius Caesar showed a patronizing arrogance and some disdain towards the senate. Augustus not only restored the senate and helped many individual senators to lead a life appropriate to their high position - he directly shared power with the senate. All provinces were divided into senatorial and imperial. All the finally peaceful regions fell into the first category - their rulers, in the rank of proconsuls, were still appointed by lot in the Senate and remained under its control, but they had only civil power and did not have troops at their disposal. The provinces in which troops were stationed and where war could be waged were left under the direct authority of Augustus and the legates appointed by him, in the rank of propraetors.

In accordance with this, the financial administration of the empire was also divided: the aerarium (treasury) remained under the control of the senate, but along with it the imperial treasury (fiscus) arose, where the income from the imperial provinces went. The attitude of Augustus towards the people's assembly was simpler. The comitia formally exist under Augustus, but their electoral power passes to the emperor, legally - by half, in fact - entirely. The judicial power of the comitia goes to the judicial institutions or to the emperor, as a representative of the tribunate, and their legislative activity - to the senate. To what extent the comitia lose their significance under Augustus is evident from the fact that they imperceptibly disappeared under his successor, leaving a trace only in the theory of popular rule, as the basis of imperial power - a theory that survived the Roman and Byzantine empires and passed, along with Roman law, to the Middle Ages.

The domestic policy of Augustus was of a conservative national character. Caesar gave the provincials wide access to Rome. Augustus took care to admit to citizenship and to the senate only completely benign elements. For Caesar, and especially for Mark Antony, the grant of citizenship was a source of income. But Augustus, in his own words, was more ready to allow "the treasury to suffer damage than to lower the honor of Roman citizenship" - according to this, he even took away from many the right of Roman citizenship previously granted to them. This policy brought about new legislative measures for the release of slaves, which had previously been left entirely to the discretion of the master. "Complete liberty" (magna et justa libertas), with which the right of citizenship was still associated, could, according to the law of Augustus, be granted only under certain conditions and under the control of a special commission of senators and equestrians. If these conditions were not met, liberation gave only the Latin right of citizenship, and slaves who were subjected to shameful punishments fell only into the category of provincial subjects.

Augustus made sure that the number of citizens was known, and he renewed the now almost disused census. In the city, there were 4,063,000 citizens capable of bearing arms, and 19 years later - 4,163,000. Augustus retained the ingrained custom of supporting impoverished citizens at public expense and deporting citizens to colonies. But the subject of his special concerns was Rome itself - its beautification and decoration. He also wanted to revive the spiritual strength of the people, a strong family life and simplicity of morals. He restored dilapidated temples and legislated to put a stop to immorality, to encourage marriage and the rearing of children (Leges Juliae and Papia Poppeae, 9 AD). Special tax privileges were given to those who had three sons (jus trium liberorum).

In the fate of the provinces, a sharp turn takes place under him: from the estates of Rome, they become parts of the state body (membra partesque imperii). Proconsuls, who were previously sent to the province for feeding (i.e., administration), are now assigned a fixed salary and the period of their stay in the province is lengthened. Previously, the provinces were only the subject of exactions in favor of Rome. Now, on the contrary, they are given subsidies from Rome. Augustus rebuilds provincial cities, pays off their debts, comes to their aid during disasters. The state administration is still in its infancy - the emperor has little means to collect information about the situation in the provinces and therefore considers it necessary to personally get acquainted with the state of affairs. Augustus visited all the provinces except Africa and Sardinia, and spent many years in their detour. He arranged a postal message for the needs of the administration - in the center of the empire (at the Forum) a column was placed, from which the distances were calculated along the numerous roads that went from Rome to the outskirts.

The republic did not know a standing army - the soldiers swore allegiance to the commander, who called them under the banner for a year, and later - "until the end of the campaign." From August, the power of the commander-in-chief becomes for life, the army - permanent. Service in the army is determined at 20 years, after which the "veteran" is entitled to an honorary leave and to be provided with money or land. The army, not needed within the state, is located along the borders. In Rome there is a select detachment of 6000 people, recruited from Roman citizens (praetorians), 3000 praetorians are located in Italy. The rest of the troops are placed along the borders. Of the huge number of legions formed during the civil wars, Augustus retained 25 (3 died during the defeat of Varus). Of these, 8 legions were in upper and lower Germany (regions on the left bank of the Rhine), 6 in the Danube regions, 4 in Syria, 2 in Egypt and Africa, and 3 in Spain. Each legion had 5,000 soldiers. The military dictatorship, no longer within the framework of republican institutions and not limited to the provinces, is settling in Rome - before it, the senate loses its governmental significance and the popular assembly completely disappears. The legions take the place of the comitia - they serve as an instrument of power, but they are also always ready to be a source of power for those who are favored.

Augustus closed the third concentric circle of Roman rule in the south as well. Egypt , pressed by Syria , held on to Rome and thereby avoided annexation by Syria , and then retained its independence thanks to its queen Cleopatra , who managed to charm Caesar and Mark Antony . The aged queen failed to achieve the same in relation to the cold-blooded Augustus, and Egypt became a Roman province. Similarly, in the western part of North Africa, Roman dominion was finally established under Augustus, who conquered Mauritania (Morocco) and gave it to the Numidian king Yuba, while annexing Numidia to the province of Africa. Roman pickets protected from the desert nomads the cultural areas along the entire line from Morocco to Cyrenaica on the borders of Egypt. Julio-Claudian dynasty: heirs of Augustus (14-69) The shortcomings of the state system created by Augustus were revealed immediately after his death. He left unresolved the clash of interests and rights between his adopted son Tiberius and his own grandson, a worthless youth imprisoned by him on the island. Tiberius (14-37), by his merits, intelligence and experience, had the right to the first place in the state. He did not want to be a despot: rejecting the title of master (dominus), with which flatterers addressed him, he said that he was a master only for slaves, for provincials - an emperor, for citizens - a citizen. The provinces found in him, by the admission of his haters themselves, a caring and efficient ruler - it was not without reason that he told his proconsuls that a good shepherd sheared sheep, but did not skin them. But in Rome he had a senate before him, full of republican legends and memories of past greatness, and relations between the emperor and the senate were soon spoiled by flatterers and scammers. Accidents and tragic entanglements in the family of Tiberius embittered the emperor, and then the bloody drama of political processes began, "an impious war (impia bella) in the Senate", so passionately and artistically depicted in the immortal creation of Tacitus, who branded the monstrous old man on the island of Capri with shame. In place of Tiberius, whose last minutes we do not know exactly, the son of his nephew, the popular and mourned by all Germanicus, was proclaimed - Caligula (37-41), a rather handsome young man, but soon distraught from power and reached megalomania and frenzied cruelty. The sword of the praetorian tribune cut short the life of this madman, who intended to put his statue in the Jerusalem temple, to worship along with Jehovah. The Senate sighed freely and dreamed of a republic, but the Praetorians gave him a new emperor in the person of Claudius (41-54) - the brother of Germanicus. Claudius was practically a toy in the hands of his two wives - Messalina and Agrippina - who shamed the Roman woman of that time. However, his image is distorted by political satire - and under Claudius (not without his participation), both the external and internal development of the empire continued. Claudius was born in Lyon and therefore especially took to heart the interests of Gaul and the Gauls: in the Senate, he personally defended the petition of the inhabitants of northern Gaul, who asked that honorary positions in Rome be made available to them. In 46, Claudius turned the kingdom of Kotys into the province of Thrace, and made a Roman province out of Mauretania. Under him, the military occupation of Britain, finally conquered by Agricola, took place. Intrigue, and perhaps a crime, Agrippina opened the way to power for her son, Nero (54 - 68). And in this case, as almost always in the first two centuries of the empire, the principle of heredity did her harm. There was a complete discrepancy between the personal character and tastes of the young Nero and his position in the state. As a result of Nero's life, a military mutiny broke out; the emperor committed suicide, and in the following year of the civil war, three emperors were replaced and died - Galba, Otho, Vitellius. Flavian dynasty (69-96) Finally, power went to the commander-in-chief in the war against the rebellious Jews, Vespasian. In the person of Vespasian (70 - 79), the empire received the organizer it needed after internal unrest and uprisings. He suppressed the Batavian uprising, settled relations with the Senate and put the state economy in order, being himself a model of ancient Roman simplicity of morals. In the person of his son, Titus (79 - 81), the destroyer of Jerusalem, the imperial power surrounded itself with an aura of philanthropy, and the youngest son of Vespasian, Domitian (81 - 96), again served as confirmation that the principle of heredity did not bring happiness to Rome. Domitian imitated Tiberius, fought on the Rhine and the Danube, although not always successfully, was at enmity with the Senate and died as a result of a conspiracy. Five Good Emperors - Antonines (96-180) Roman Empire under Trajan The consequence of this conspiracy was the calling to power not of a general, but of a man from among the senate, Nerva (96 - 98), who, having adopted Ulpius Trajan (98 - 117), gave Rome one of its best emperors. Trajan was from Spain; his rise is a significant sign of the social process that took place in the empire. After the rule of two patrician families, Julius and Claudius, the plebeian Galba appears on the Roman throne, then the emperors from the municipalities of Italy and, finally, the provincial from Spain. Trajan reveals a series of emperors who made the second century the best era of the empire: all of them - Adrian (117-138), Antoninus Pius (138-161), Marcus Aurelius (161-180) - were of provincial origin (Spanish, except for Antoninus, who was from southern Gaul); they all owe their rise to the adoption of a predecessor. Trajan became famous as a commander, the empire reached its greatest volume under him. Trajan pushed the limits of the empire to the north, where Dacia was conquered and colonized, from the Carpathians to the Dniester, and to the east, where four provinces were formed: Armenia (small - the upper reaches of the Euphrates). Mesopotamia (lower reaches of the Euphrates), Assyria (Tigris region) and Arabia (southeast of Palestine). This was done not so much for conquering purposes, but in order to move away from the empire the barbarian tribes and desert nomads that threatened it with constant invasion. This can be seen from the careful care with which Trajan and his successor Adrian, to strengthen the borders, poured huge ramparts, with stone bastions and towers, the remains of which have survived to this day - in sowing. England, in Moldavia (Trajan's Wall), limes (Pfahlgraben) from the Rhine (in northern Nassau) through the Main and southern Germany to the Danube. The peace-loving Adrian took up reforms in the administration and in the field of law. Like Augustus, Hadrian spent many years visiting the provinces; he did not disdain to take on the post of archon in Athens and personally drew up for them a project of city government. Going with the age, he was more enlightened than Augustus, and stood at the level of his contemporary education, which then reached its zenith. Just as Hadrian earned the title of "enricher of the world" by his financial reforms, so did his successor Antoninus be called "the father of the human race" for his care of the provinces that were in calamity. The highest place among the Caesars is occupied by Marcus Aurelius, nicknamed the philosopher, we can judge him not only by epithets - we know his thoughts and plans in his own presentation. How great was the progress of political thought, which took place in the best people of R. since the fall of the republic, this is most clearly evidenced by his significant words, “I carried in my soul the image of a free state in which everything is governed on the basis of the same laws for all and equal for all rights." But even this philosopher on the throne had to experience for himself that the power of the Roman emperor is a personal military dictatorship; he had to spend many years in a defensive war on the Danube, where he died. After four emperors who reigned in adulthood, the throne again went, by right of inheritance, to a young man, and again unworthy. Having left the administration of the state to his favorites, Commodus (180-193), like Nero, craved laurels not on the battlefield, but in the circus and amphitheater: but his tastes were not artistic, like Nero's, but gladiatorial. He died at the hands of the conspirators. Sever dynasty (193-235) Neither the protege of the conspirators, the prefect Pertinax, nor the senator Didius Julian, who bought purple from the Praetorians for huge money, did not stay in power; the Illyrian legions became jealous of their comrades and proclaimed emperor of their commander, Septimius Severus. Septimius was from Leptis in Africa; in his pronunciation there was an African, as in the speech of Adrian - a Spaniard. His rise marks the advance of Roman culture in Africa. The traditions of the Punians were still alive here, strangely merging with the Roman ones. If the subtly educated Adrian restored the tomb of Epaminondas, then Septimius, as the legend says, built the mausoleum of Hannibal. But the Punian now fought for Rome. The neighbors of Rome again felt the heavy hand of the victorious emperor; Roman eagles flew over the borders from Babylon on the Euphrates and Ctesiphon on the Tigris to York in the far north, where Septimius died in 211 Septimius Severus, protege of the legions, was the first soldier on the throne of the Caesars. The raw energy that he brought with him from his African homeland degenerated into savagery in his son Caracalla, who seized autocracy by killing his brother. Caracalla showed his African sympathies even more clearly, placing statues of Hannibal everywhere. Rome owes him, however, magnificent baths (The Baths of Caracalla). Like his father, he tirelessly defended the Roman lands on two fronts - on the Rhine and on the Euphrates. His wildness caused a conspiracy among the military around him, of which he fell victim. Questions of law were of such importance in Rome of those times that it was to the soldier Caracalla that Rome owes one of the greatest civil feats - granting all provincials the right of Roman citizenship. That this was not just a fiscal measure is evident from the benefits granted to the Egyptians. Since the conquest of the kingdom of Cleopatra by Augustus, this country has been in a special position without rights. Septimius Severus returned self-government to Alexandria, and Caracalla not only granted the Alexandrians the right to hold public office in Rome, but also introduced an Egyptian to the Senate for the first time. The exaltation of the Punians to the throne of the Caesars entailed the calling to power of their fellow tribesmen from Syria. The sister of the widow of Caracalla, Meze, managed to remove the murderer of Caracalla from the throne and replace him with her grandson, known in history by the Semitic name Elagabal Heliogabal: this was the name of the Syrian sun deity. His accession represents a strange episode in the history of the Roman emperors: it was the establishment in Rome of the eastern theocracy. But a priest was unimaginable at the head of the Roman legions, and Heliogabalus was soon replaced by his cousin, Alexander Severus. The accession of the Sassanids in the place of the Parthian kings and the resulting religious and national renewal of the Persian East forced the young emperor to spend many years on campaigns; but what significance the religious element had for him, this is evidenced by his deity (Lararium), in which were collected images of all the gods who used the cult within the empire, including Christ. Alexander Sever died near Mainz as a victim of a soldier's willfulness. Crisis of the Roman Empire in the 3rd century (235-284) Then an event occurred that showed how quickly the process of assimilation of Roman and provincial elements was taking place in the troops, the most vital element of Rome at that time, and how close was the hour of barbarian domination over Rome. The legions proclaimed emperor Maximinus, the son of a Goth and an Alan, who was a shepherd and owed his quick military career to his heroic physique and courage. This premature triumph of northern barbarism provoked a reaction in Africa, where the proconsul Gordian was proclaimed emperor. After bloody clashes, power remained in the hands of a young man, the grandson of Gordian. While he was successfully repulsing the Persians in the east, he was overthrown by another barbarian in the Roman military service - Philip the Arab, the son of a robber sheikh in the Syro-Arabian desert. This Semite was destined to splendidly celebrate the millennium of Rome in 248, but he did not reign long: his legate, Decius, was forced by soldiers to take power from him. Decius was of Roman origin, but his family had long since been exiled to Pannonia, where he was born. Under Decius, two new enemies found their strength, undermining the Roman Empire - the Goths, who invaded Thrace from the Danube, and Christianity. Decius directed his energy against them, but his death in battle with the Goths the very next year (251) saved the Christians from his cruel edicts. The power was seized by his comrade, Valerian, who accepted his son Gallienus as co-rulers: Valerian died in captivity among the Persians, and Gallienus held out until 268. The Roman Empire was already so shaken that entire regions were separated from it under the autonomous control of local commanders-in-chief (for example, Gallia and the kingdom of Palmyra in the East). The main stronghold of Rome at that time were the generals of Illyrian origin: where the danger from the Goths forced the defenders of Rome to rally, the most capable generals and administrators were elected one by one, at the meeting of the commanders: Claudius II, Aurelian, Probus and Car. Aurelian conquered Gaul and the kingdom of Zenobia and restored the former limits of the empire; he also surrounded Rome with a new wall, which had long grown out of the walls of Servius Tullius and became an open, defenseless city. All these henchmen of the legions soon died at the hands of indignant soldiers: Probus, for example, because, taking care of the well-being of his native province, he forced the soldiers to plant vineyards on the Rhine and Danube. Tetrarchy and Dominate (285-324) Finally, by decision of the officers in Chalcedon, in 285, Diocletian was enthroned, worthily completing a series of pagan emperors of Rome. The transformations of Diocletian completely change the character and forms of the Roman Empire: they sum up the previous historical process and lay the foundation for a new political order. Diocletian surrenders the principate of Augustus to the archive of history and creates the Roman-Byzantine autocracy. This Dalmatian, wearing the crown of Eastern kings, finally debunked royal Rome. Within the chronological framework of the history of emperors outlined above, the greatest historical upheaval of a cultural nature was gradually taking place: the provinces conquer Rome. In the realm of the state, this is expressed by the disappearance of dualism in the person of the sovereign, who, in the organization of Augustus, was a princeps for the Romans, and for the provincials - an emperor. This dualism is gradually being lost, and the military power of the emperor absorbs into itself the civil republican magistracy of the principate. As long as the tradition of Rome was still alive, the idea of ​​the principate also held; but when, at the end of the third century, the imperial power fell to an African, the military element in the power of the emperor completely supplanted the Roman heritage. At the same time, the frequent intrusion into public life by the Roman legions, which invested their commanders with imperial power, humiliated this power, made it accessible to every ambitious person and deprived it of strength and duration. The vastness of the empire and simultaneous wars along its entire border did not allow the emperor to concentrate all military forces under his direct command; legions at the other end of the empire were free to proclaim their favorite emperor in order to receive from him the usual "grant" in money. This prompted Diocletian to reorganize the imperial power on the basis of collegiality and hierarchy. Diocletian's reforms Tetrarchy The emperor, with the rank of Augustus, received a comrade in another Augustus, who ruled the other half of the empire; under each of these Augusti, there was a Caesar, who was co-ruler and viceroy of his Augustus. Such a decentralization of imperial power made it possible for it to manifest itself directly in the four points of the empire, and the hierarchical system in relations between the Caesars and the Augusts united their interests and gave a legal outlet to the ambitions of the commanders in chief. Diocletian, as the elder Augustus, chose Nicomedia in Asia Minor as his seat, the second Augustus (Maximian Marcus Aurelius Valery) - Milan. Rome not only ceased to be the center of imperial power, but this center moved away from it, was moved to the east; Rome did not even hold the second place in the empire and had to give way to its city of the Insubres that it once defeated - Milan. The new power moved away from Rome not only topographically: it became even more alien to it in spirit. The title of master (dominus), which was previously used by slaves in relation to their masters, became the official title of the emperor; the words sacer and saciatissimus - the most sacred - became the official epithets of his power; kneeling replaced the salute of military honor: the gold, studded with precious stones, robe and white, covered with pearls, diadem of the emperor indicated that the influence of neighboring Persia was more strongly reflected in the nature of the new power than the tradition of the Roman principate. Senate The disappearance of the state dualism associated with the concept of the principate was also accompanied by a change in the position and character of the senate. The principate, like the lifelong presidency of the senate, although it represented a certain contrast to the senate, was at the same time maintained by the senate. Meanwhile, the Roman Senate gradually ceased to be what it used to be. He was once a corporation of the service aristocracy of the city of Rome, and always resented the influx of alien elements; once the senator Appius Claudius swore to kill the first Latin who dared to enter the senate; under Caesar, Cicero and his friends made fun of the senators from Gaul, and when the Egyptian Ceraunos entered the Roman Senate at the beginning of the 3rd century (history has preserved his name), there was no one in Rome to be indignant. It couldn't be otherwise. The richest of the provincials had long since begun to move to Rome, buying up the palaces, gardens, and estates of the impoverished Roman aristocracy. Already under Augustus, the price of real estate in Italy, as a result, has risen significantly. This new aristocracy began to fill the senate. The time has come when the Senate began to be called "the beauty of all provinces", "the color of the whole world", "the color of the human race." From an institution that, under Tiberius, constituted a counterbalance to imperial power, the senate became imperial. This aristocratic institution finally underwent a bureaucratic transformation - it broke up into classes and ranks marked by ranks (illiustres, spectabiles, clarissimi, etc.). Finally, it split into two - into the Roman and Constantinople Senate: but this division no longer had significant significance for the empire, since the state significance of the senate passed to another institution - to the council of the sovereign or the consistory. Administration Even more than the history of the Senate, the process that took place in the field of administration is characteristic of the Roman Empire. Under the influence of the imperial power, a new type of state is being created here, to replace the city power - the city government, which was the republican Rome. This goal is achieved by the bureaucratization of administration, the replacement of the magistrate by an official. The magistrate was a citizen, vested with power for a certain period of time and carrying out his duty as an honorary position (honor). Under him was a well-known staff of bailiffs, scribes (apparitores) and servants. These were people invited by him, or even just his slaves and freedmen. Such magistrates are gradually being replaced in the empire by people who are in the constant service of the emperor, receiving from him a certain content and passing a certain career, in a hierarchical order. The beginning of the coup dates back to the time of Augustus, who appointed the salaries of proconsuls and propraetors. In particular, Adrian did a lot for the development and improvement of the administration in the empire; under him there was a bureaucratization of the court of the emperor, who previously ruled his provinces through freedmen; Hadrian elevated his courtiers to the rank of state dignitaries. The number of servants of the sovereign is gradually growing: in accordance with this, the number of their ranks is increasing and a hierarchical management system is developing, finally reaching the fullness and complexity that it represents in the "State Calendar of Ranks and Ranks of the Empire" - Notitia dignitatum. As the bureaucratic apparatus develops, the whole face of the country changes: it becomes more monotonous, smoother. At the beginning of the empire, all the provinces, in relation to government, differ sharply from Italy and present a great variety among themselves; the same variety is seen within each province; it includes autonomous, privileged and subject cities, sometimes vassal kingdoms or semi-savage tribes that have retained their primitive system. Little by little, these differences are obscured, and under Diocletian, a radical revolution is partly revealed, partly a radical revolution is carried out, similar to that which was carried out by the French Revolution of 1789, which replaced the provinces, with their historical, national and topographical individuality, monotonous administrative units - departments. Transforming the management of the Roman Empire, Diocletian divides it into 12 dioceses under the control of separate vicars, that is, the governors of the emperor; each diocese is subdivided into smaller provinces than before (from 4 to 12 in total, 101 in total), under the control of officials of various names - correctores, consulares, praesides, etc. e. As a result of this bureaucratization, the former dualism between Italy and the provinces disappears; Italy itself is divided into administrative units, and from the Roman land (ager romanus) becomes a simple province. Rome alone still remains outside this administrative network, which is very significant for its future fate. Closely connected with the bureaucratization of power is its centralization. This centralization is especially interesting to trace in the field of legal proceedings. In the republican administration, the praetor independently creates a court; he is not subject to appeal and, using the right to issue an edict, he himself establishes the rules that he intends to uphold in court. At the end of the historical process we are considering, an appeal is established to the praetor's court to the emperor, who distributes complaints, according to the nature of the cases, among his prefects. Thus the imperial power actually takes over the judiciary; but it also appropriates to itself the very creation of the law that judgment applies to life. After the abolition of the comitia, legislative power passed to the senate, but next to it the emperor issued his orders; in the course of time, he appropriated to himself the power to legislate; only the form of publishing them by means of the emperor's rescript to the senate has been preserved from antiquity. In this establishment of monarchical absolutism, in this strengthening of centralization and bureaucracy, one cannot fail to see the triumph of the provinces over Rome and, at the same time, the creative power of the Roman spirit in the field of state administration. Right The same triumph of the conquered and the same creativity of the R. spirit must be noted in the field of law. In ancient Rome, law had a strictly national character: it was the exclusive property of some "Quirites", that is, Roman citizens, and therefore was called Quirite. Non-residents were judged in Rome by a praetor "for foreigners" (peregrinus); the same system was then applied to the provincials, whose supreme judge was the Roman praetor. Praetors thus became the creators of a new law - the law not of the Roman people, but of peoples in general (jus gentium). In creating this law, the Roman jurists discovered the general principles of law, which are the same for all peoples, and began to study them and be guided by them. At the same time, they, under the influence of Greek philosophical schools, especially the Stoic one, rose to the consciousness of natural law (jus naturale), arising from reason, from that “higher law”, which, in the words of Cicero, arose “before the beginning of the ages, before the existence of any or the written law or the constitution of any state.” Praetor law became the bearer of the principles of reason and justice (aequitas), as opposed to the literal interpretation and routine of the law of the quirites. The city praetor (urbanus) could not remain outside the influence of praetor law, which became synonymous with natural law and natural reason. Obliged to "come to the aid of civil law, supplement it and correct it for the public good," he began to be imbued with the principles of the law of peoples, and, finally, the law of provincial praetors - jus honorarium - became "the living voice of Roman law." It was the time of its heyday, the era of the great lawyers of the II and III centuries Gaius, Papinian, Paul, Ulpian and Modestin, which continued until Alexander Severus and gave Roman law that strength, depth and subtlety of thought that prompted peoples to see in it a "written mind" , and the great mathematician and lawyer Leibniz - to compare it with mathematics. Roman ideals Just as the “strict” law (jus strictum) of the Romans, under the influence of the law of peoples, is imbued with the idea of ​​universal human reason and justice, the meaning of Rome and the idea of ​​Roman domination are spiritualized in the Roman Empire. Obeying the wild instinct of the people, greedy for land and booty, the Romans of the times of the republic did not need to justify their conquests. Livy also finds it quite natural that the people, descended from Mars, conquer other peoples, and invites the latter to submissively demolish the Roman power. But already under Augustus, Virgil, reminding his fellow citizens that their purpose is to rule over peoples (tu regere imperio populos, Romane, memento), gives this dominion a moral purpose - to establish peace and spare the conquered (parcere subjectis). The idea of ​​a Roman peace (pax romana) has since become the motto of Roman rule. She is exalted by Pliny, she is glorified by Plutarch, calling Rome "an anchor that forever sheltered in the harbor the world, long overwhelmed and wandering without a helmsman." Comparing the power of Rome with cement, the Greek moralist sees the significance of Rome in the fact that it organized an all-human society in the midst of a fierce struggle of people and peoples. The emperor Trajan gave official expression to the same idea of ​​the Roman peace in the inscription on the temple he erected on the Euphrates, when the border of the empire was again pushed back to this river. But the importance of Rome soon rose even higher. Bringing peace among the peoples, Rome called them to civil order and the blessings of civilization, giving them wide scope and not violating their individuality. He ruled, according to the poet, "not only by weapons, but by laws." Not only that: he gradually called on all peoples to participate in power. The highest praise of the Romans and a worthy assessment of their best emperor lies in the wonderful words with which the Greek speaker, Aristides, addressed Marcus Aurelius and his comrade Verus: “With you, everything is open to everyone. Anyone who is worthy of a magistracy or public trust ceases to be considered a foreigner. The name of a Roman ceased to belong to one city, but became the property of the human race. You have established the government of the world like a single family." It is not surprising, therefore, that in the Roman Empire the idea of ​​Rome as a common fatherland appears early. It is remarkable that this idea is brought to Rome by people from Spain, who gave Rome the best emperors. Already Seneca, the tutor of Nero and during his childhood the ruler of the empire, exclaims: "Rome is, as it were, our common fatherland." This expression is adopted later, in a more positive sense, by the Roman jurists. “Rome is our common fatherland”: on this, by the way, is based the assertion that an exile from one city cannot live in Rome, since “R. - the fatherland of all. It is understandable why R.'s fear of dominion began to give way among the provincials to love for Rome and some kind of worship before it. It is impossible without emotion to read the poem of the Greek woman poet, Erinna (the only one that has come down to us from her), in which she greets "Roma, the daughter of Ares", and promises her eternity - or farewell to Rome by the Galla Rutilius, kissing on his knees, with tears in front of our eyes, the “sacred stones” of R., for the fact that he “created a single fatherland for many peoples”, for the fact that “Roman power became a blessing for the conquered against their will”, for the fact that “Rome turned the world into a harmonious community (urbem fecisti quod prius orbis erat) and not only ruled, but, more importantly, was worthy of dominion. Much more significant than this gratitude of the provincials, who bless Rome because, in the words of the poet Prudentius, she "threw the vanquished into fraternal fetters," another feeling aroused by the consciousness that Rome had become a common fatherland. Ever since, as Am. Thierry, “a small community on the banks of the Tiber has grown into a universal community,” since the idea of ​​Rome expands and spiritualizes and Roman patriotism takes on a moral and cultural character, love for Rome becomes love for the human race and its ideal. Already the poet Lucan, Seneca's nephew, gives this feeling a strong expression, speaking of "sacred love for the world" (sacer orbis amor) and glorifying "the citizen who is convinced that he was born into the world not for himself, but for the whole world" . This common consciousness of a cultural bond between all Roman citizens gave rise in the 3rd century to the concept of romanitas, as opposed to barbarism. The task of the associates of Romulus, who robbed their neighbors, the Sabines, of their wives and fields, thus turns into a peaceful universal task. In the field of ideals and principles proclaimed by poets, philosophers and lawyers, Rome reaches its highest development and becomes a model for subsequent generations and peoples. He owed this to the interaction between Rome and the provinces; but it was precisely in this process of interaction that the seeds of the fall lay. It was prepared from two sides: incarnating in the provinces, Rome lost its creative, creative power, ceased to be a spiritual cement that connected dissimilar parts; the provinces were too culturally distinct; the process of assimilation and equalization of rights raised to the surface and often placed in the foreground national or social elements that were not yet cultural or were much lower than the general level. cultural transformation Two institutions in particular acted harmfully in this direction: slavery and the army. Slavery brought freedmen into the people, the most corrupted part of ancient society, combining the vices of the "slave" and "master", and devoid of any principles and traditions; and since these were people capable and necessary for the former master, they played a fatal role everywhere, especially at the court of emperors. The army took in representatives of physical strength and brute energy and brought them out quickly - especially during unrest and soldier uprisings to the pinnacle of power, accustoming society to violence and worship of power, and the rulers to disregard the law. Another danger threatened from the political side: the evolution of the Roman Empire consisted in the creation of a single harmonious state out of heterogeneous regions, united by Rome with weapons. This goal was achieved by the development of a special body of state administration - the first bureaucracy in the world, which kept multiplying and specializing. But, with the ever-increasing military nature of power, with the increasing predominance of non-cultural elements, with the developing desire for unification and equalization, the initiative of the ancient centers and centers of culture began to weaken. In this historical process, a time emerges when the dominion of Rome had already lost the character of the rough exploitation of the republican era, but had not yet assumed the deathly forms of the later empire. The second century is generally recognized as the best epoch of the Roman Empire, and this is usually attributed to the personal merits of the emperors then reigning; but not only this accident should explain the significance of the era of Trajan and Marcus Aurelius, but the then established balance between opposite elements and aspirations - between Rome and the provinces, between the republican tradition of freedom and the monarchical order. It was a time that can be characterized by the beautiful words of Tacitus, praising Nerva for the fact that he "managed to connect things before ( olim) incompatible ( dissociabiles) - principate and freedom". In the III century. it has become impossible. Among the anarchy caused by the willfulness of the legions, a bureaucratic administration developed, the crown of which was the system of Diocletian, with its desire to regulate everything, determine the duties of each and chain him to his place: the farmer - to his "lump", the curial - to his curia, the artisan - to his guild, just as Diocletian's edict set a price for every commodity. It was then that the colony arose, this transition from ancient slavery to medieval serfdom; the former division of people into political ranks - Roman citizens, allies and provincials - was replaced by a division into social classes. At the same time, the end of the ancient world came, which was held together by two concepts - an independent community ( polis) and a citizen. The polis is replaced by the municipality; honorary post ( honos) becomes a duty ( munus); the senator of the local curia or the curial becomes the serf of the city, who is obliged to answer with his property for the lack of taxes until ruin; along with the concept of polis the citizen, who previously could be a magistrate, and a warrior, and a priest, also disappears, but now becomes either an official, or a soldier, or a clergyman ( clericus). Meanwhile, the most important coup in its consequences took place in the Roman Empire - unification on religious grounds (see The Birth of Christianity in the Roman Empire). This revolution was already being prepared on the basis of paganism by combining the gods into a common pantheon, or even by monotheistic ideas; but finally this unification took place on the soil of Christianity. The unification in Christianity went far beyond the limits of the political unification familiar to the ancient world: on the one hand, Christianity united the Roman citizen with the slave, on the other hand, the Roman with the barbarian. In view of this, the question naturally arose whether Christianity was not the cause of the fall of the Roman Empire. The rationalist Gibbon in the century before last resolved this question in an unconditionally affirmative sense. True, the Christians, persecuted by the pagan emperors, were unwilling to the empire; it is also true that after its triumph, persecuting the pagans for its part and breaking up into hostile sects, Christianity divided the population of the empire and, calling people from the worldly kingdom to God, distracted them from civil and political interests. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that, having become the religion of the Roman state, Christianity brought new vitality into it and was a guarantee of spiritual unity, which decaying paganism could not give. This is proved by the very history of Emperor Constantine, who adorned the shields of his soldiers with the monogram of Christ and thus made a great historical revolution, which Christian tradition so beautifully symbolized in the vision of the cross with the words: "By this you conquer." Constantine I Diocletian's artificial tetrarchy did not last long; the Caesars did not have the patience to wait peacefully for their elevation in the Augusts. Even during the life of Diocletian, who retired in 305, a war broke out between rivals. Proclaimed Caesar by the British legions in 312, Constantine defeated his rival, the last protege of the Roman Praetorians, Caesar Maxentius, under the walls of Rome. This defeat of Rome opened the way to the triumph of Christianity, with which the further success of the conqueror was connected. Constantine not only gave Christians freedom of worship in the Roman Empire, but also the recognition of their church by the state authorities. When the victory at Adrianople in 323 over Augustus of the East, Licinius, delivered Constantine from the last rival, the Christian church became a new support for his autocracy. Replacing Diocletian's tetrarchy with the organization of four prefectures, Constantine completed the administrative reforms of his predecessor in that special political style that came to be known as Byzantine, with numerous court positions and new titles. How much and in what sense the imperial power itself has changed since Diocletian is best evidenced by the convened by Constantine