In any case, until the middle of the 3rd century. Emperors received their title as an honorary military title several times. But even after this they continued to receive the power of tribune and consul several times.

Gradually, the power of the emperors increased. The need for its disguise by republican institutions and the influence of republican traditions, manifested in periodic conflicts between the emperor and the Senate, are becoming a thing of the past. By the end of the 2nd century. The Senate is finally removed from government. It passes to the bureaucratic and military apparatus, headed by the emperor. At the end of the 3rd century. monarchy is established in its pure form.

The period of the empire is usually divided into two stages: 1) principate (1st century BC - 3rd century AD), from “princeps-senatus” - the first senator. This title was first received from the Senate by the founder of the empire, Octavian Augustus, who was placed first on the list of senators and received the right to be the first to speak in the Senate, which made it possible to predetermine the decisions of the latter; 2) dominant (III-V centuries), from “dominus” - lord, ruler, which indicated the final recognition of the absolute power of the emperor.

Principate. The transfer of state control to the princeps occurred due to the vesting of the supreme power of the imperium, his election to the most important positions, the creation by him of an bureaucratic apparatus separate from the magistracies, ensured by the formation of the princeps’ own treasury, and the command of all armies. Octavian already received imperium, which included, in addition to the traditional command of the army (he took command of all armies), the right to declare war, conclude peace and international treaties, maintain his own guard (Praetorian cohorts), the right of the highest criminal and civil court, and the right to interpret laws. The decisions of the princeps begin to be considered as having the force of law, and by the end of the principate the proposition will become generally accepted: “what the princeps decides has the force of law.”

The princeps, in violation of republican traditions, are elected simultaneously as consuls, censors and tribunes of the people (Octavian was elected consul 13 times, censor 3 times and tribune of the people 37 times). As a consul, he could, using the right of intercession, cancel the decision of any magistrate; as a censor, he could form a senate from his supporters; as a tribune, he could veto a resolution of the senate or a decision of a magistrate. In addition, Octavian received the title of pontiff - the high priest in charge of religious worship.

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 indicate his successor (usually a son or adopted son), whom the Senate elected as princeps. At the same time, there were increasingly cases of princeps being overthrown and new ones being appointed as a result of palace coups carried out with the help of the army. Octavian's successors began to exercise the same powers, gradually strengthening the power of the princeps, although at first they sometimes had to overcome the opposition of the Senate.

The competence of the Senate changes significantly. Since only tribunal assemblies have survived from the people's assemblies, which were also convened less and less, from the 1st century. resolutions of the Senate - senatus consultations receive the force of law. But the right of the princeps to appoint senators and the “cleansing” of the Senate periodically carried out by the princeps led to the fact that from the 2nd century. the Senate practically only approved the proposals of the princeps. Almost the same thing happened with the right to elect and control magistrates transferred from the popular assembly to the senate - some of them could be elected only from candidates proposed by the princeps. The rights of the Senate to manage public finances and govern provinces are limited. Its competence in the military and foreign policy fields is completely lost.

In parallel with the republican magistrates, an imperial bureaucracy was created, at the top of which stood the council and the office of the princeps, which included several departments with a staff of officials. The council included prefects, “friends” of the emperor, and heads of departments of the chancellery. The chancellery included the departments of finance, petitions, official correspondence, personal property of the emperor, the imperial court, etc. Members of the council, which performed advisory functions, and the heads of departments of the chancellery were appointed by the princeps himself from his entourage. Freedmen of the emperor and even his slaves began to receive official positions. The highest officials appointed from senators and equestrians included the praetorian prefect, who commanded the imperial guard, the prefect of the city of Rome, who controlled the police cohorts, the prefect of Egypt, the prefect in charge of food supplies, etc.

There was a reorganization of the administration of the provinces, which became integral parts of the Roman state. They were divided into imperial and senate. The former were governed by legates appointed by the princeps, who exercised military and civil power with the help of their own council and chancellery, the latter by proconsuls and propraetors appointed by the Senate, elected from among the senators by lot and subject to dual subordination - the Senate and the princeps.

The created bureaucratic apparatus did not represent a coherent system and was, especially in the first centuries of the empire, relatively small in number. But compared to the republican system, it ensured more efficient management of the expanded state due to the emerging centralization and hierarchy of bureaucrats.

The division of the provinces into imperial and senate had another important consequence. Income from the Senate provinces went to the state treasury, which was controlled by the Senate, while income from the imperial provinces went to the treasury of the princeps - fix. Since the former included a few provinces (11 out of 45), long conquered and, therefore, plundered by Rome, the Senate treasury was permanently meager and sometimes empty. The imperial provinces were conquered relatively recently, and their plunder was just beginning, which gave the princeps enormous income, increased by receipts from the imperial estates and widely practiced proscriptions. The Senate was sometimes forced to borrow money from the princeps.

Gradually, the power of the princeps extended to the Senate provinces, and by the 3rd century. they all became imperial.

Army. The right to command the army and the ability to support it at the expense of not only the state, but also their own treasury allowed the princeps to turn it into a powerful support of personal and state power. Moreover, the army turned into an influential political force, on which the fate of the princeps himself sometimes depended.

Dominant. The final transition to dominance dates back to the year 284 and the rise to power of Diocletian, who ordered to call himself Dominus.

The emperor's titles - Augustus and Dominus - emphasized the unlimited nature of his power. As a rule, emperors were deified, and some of them were declared gods with their own religious cults after death. The population of the empire turned from citizens into subjects of the emperor, who began to be considered even as his slaves - serfs.

The princeps' council that existed under the principate turns into a state council - a consistorium. A developed apparatus of officials is emerging, divided into ranks, with a defined hierarchy and rules for promotion. With the separation of civil power from military power, civil and military officials emerge. The third group of officials stands apart - the courtiers, headed by the manager of the emperor's palace, who plays a large role.

Unlike the Principate, the old republican institutions lost all national significance. Rome began to be governed by a prefect appointed by the emperor and subordinate to him. The Senate became the council of the city of Rome, and the magistrates became municipal officials.

The military organization also changed. Due to mass uprisings of slaves and conquered peoples, as well as the increased need to protect the borders of the state from the invasion of Germanic, Slavic and Asia Minor tribes, the army is divided into mobile (to suppress uprisings) and border troops. “Barbarians” receive wide access to the army, and sometimes the armed forces of their tribes are used.

The Praetorian Guard, which played an important role in the era of the “soldier emperors,” is transformed into the palace guard, which, however, sometimes also determined the fate of the emperors. The general imperial police was headed by the head of the imperial chancellery (in Rome - by the city prefect), the developed secret police - by the praetorian prefect.

The reforms of Diocletian, enshrined and developed in the legislation of Constantine, were of great importance for the further destinies of the empire.

Diocletian carried out economic, military and administrative reforms. In the economic field, Diocletian tried to stop the depreciation of money by issuing coins with a low precious metal content. He issued high-grade gold and silver coins, but they soon disappeared from circulation, and he had to return to issuing low-grade coins.

Tax reform turned out to be more effective. Most taxes began to be collected not in kind, but in money. In order to ensure the receipt of taxes, a periodically repeated population census was introduced. Taxation in rural areas was based on the size of land holdings and the number of people cultivating the land. Poll taxation was introduced in cities. Since landowners and city officials were responsible for paying taxes, the reform contributed to the attachment of the bulk of the rural and urban population (colons and artisans) to their place of residence and profession.

The military reform, which consolidated the formation of border and mobile troops, introduced, in addition to the existing recruitment of volunteers into the army, conscription. Landowners, depending on the size of the landholding, were obliged to supply a certain number of recruits from the colons and agricultural workers.

Diocletian's administrative reform had the most far-reaching consequences. The difficult internal political situation, the difficult foreign policy situation of the empire, the far-reaching processes of economic isolation of the provinces, and the endless coups d’etat of the times of the “soldier emperors” that preceded Diocletian’s coming to power, forced him to appoint a co-ruler for himself in 285 - Caesar. A year later, Caesar was declared Augustus, with the same power as Diocletian to govern part of the empire. The empire was divided into two parts - western and eastern. True, the legislation still remained unified, since laws were issued on behalf of both emperors. Each of them appointed a co-ruler - Caesar. The result was a tetrarchy consisting of four parts, including 100 provinces. Rome was allocated to a special 100th province, but the city of Rome ceased to be the capital of the empire. The capital of the Western Empire was moved to Mediolan (Milan) and then to Ravenna. The capital of the Eastern Empire was Nicomedia, located on the eastern shore of the Sea of ​​Marmara.

After the twenty-year reign of Diocletian and the subsequent struggle for power between his successors, the period of thirty-year reign of Constantine (306-337) began, again restoring the unity of power. Constantine continued Diocletian's economic reforms. The new monetary reform turned out to be more successful and led to the stabilization of monetary circulation. The streamlining of taxation further strengthened the attachment of colones and artisans to land and profession. By the edicts of Constantine, the craft colleges were turned into hereditary ones, and by the decree (constitution) “On the Fugitive Colonies” of 332, the fugitive colonies returned to their plots and had to work chained as slaves. Persons who sheltered fugitive colones had to pay taxes on them as punishment. In the military field, the warrior profession became hereditary. Barbarians began to be widely recruited into the army, receiving Roman citizenship and the opportunity to advance through the ranks all the way to senior positions. The administrative reform of Diocletian was also completed. Although the tetrarchy was abolished, two prefectures were created in each of the two parts of the empire, governed by prefects who had civil power. Military power in the prefectures belonged to military masters - two chiefs of infantry and two chiefs of cavalry. Prefectures were divided into dioceses (6 in the western part of the empire and 7 in the eastern), headed by vicars, dioceses - into provinces, which were ruled by rectors, provinces - into districts with district administration. If these activities of Constantine were a continuation of the work begun by Diocletian, then in matters of religious policy the first moved to positions opposite to Diocletian. Diocletian saw the Christian church as an organization autonomous from the state and, therefore, preventing the establishment of autocracy, and therefore he prohibited the practice of Christian religious rites, the destruction of churches, and the persecution of Christians. Constantine understood that Christianity, from the religion of the poor and oppressed, as it was during the period of its inception, turned into a religion that could strengthen the political system through ideological means. He saw in the Christian Church a strong support for the absolute power of the emperor, which led to a sharp turn in religious policy. In 313, by an imperial edict, Christianity was recognized as equal in rights with other religions that existed in the empire, and then, after the baptism of Constantine in 337, as the state religion. The army, the bureaucracy and the Christian church become the three main pillars of the dominance - military, political and ideological. In 476, the commander of the imperial guard, the German Odoacer, dethroned the last Roman emperor and sent signs of imperial dignity to Constantinople. The Western Roman Empire ceased to exist.
Question No. 29: Codification of Roman law. Arch of Emperor Justinian

Since by the imperial period of the Roman Empire the amount of normative material was large, the need arose to systematize legislation, i.e., its codification. In the IV–V centuries. There were two sources of law: the old law (transferred by the ancestors) and the young law created by imperial legislation. Gradually, a large number of imperial constitutions were accumulated, which was the reason for codification. The codes of Theodosius, Gregorian, and Hermogenian appear. The first official codification was carried out in the first half of the 5th century. It was carried out by Emperor Theodosius II, who issued the Theodosian Code. The Codex Theodosius collected imperial constitutions from the time of Constantine.

The largest and most significant codification of Roman law was that of Emperor Justinian. Having issued a special decree on February 13, 528, Justinian appointed a commission of 10 members, headed by the minister Tribonianus. On April 7, 529, a collection of constitutions called the Justinian Code was published. But the work on codifying the legal system of Roman law did not end there, and on December 15, 530, a commission of 17 members was created to codify legal literature. On December 16, 533, a new codification was carried out, published under the name “Digests” (from the Latin digesta - “putting in order”), or “Pandects” (from the Greek pandektes - “complete collection”). Digests or Pandects contain statements (opinions) of leading Roman jurists of the classical, late classical and post-classical eras around 96-533 AD on a variety of issues of private, criminal and international law. The commission not only extracted quotes, but also edited the text. Many provisions of classical law were outdated, and codifiers got rid of them. The digests were divided into seven parts: “General questions of law”; "Justice", "Bilateral Obligations", "Mid Pandect", "Wills", "Part Six" and "Part Seven". All of these books are divided into titles.

Digests served as a source of law that was in force in some European countries until the 20th century. Tribonianus, Theophilus and Dorothe, during the period of compiling the Digests, compiled new institutions to replace the outdated "Institutes" of Gaius, which were published on November 21, 533. It was a textbook of Roman law for study in law schools.

Due to the fact that new Digests were created, there was a need to clarify the previously published Code. The newly published code included imperial constitutions from Hadrian to Justinian. Justinian's codification consisted of four parts: Institutes - 4 books; Digests – 50 books, 432 titles, 9123 fragments; Codex – 12 books; Novels. In the 12th century. Justinian's codification was called the Code of Civil Law.

Question #30: Colonate in Rome

The colony began to emerge during the times of the republic, continued to develop during the period of the principate and received final legal recognition under the conditions of an absolute monarchy. Initially, the colones were small tenants of land. By that time, successful wars of conquest had ended, and the influx of countless slaves had accordingly stopped. In addition, severe exploitation, exhausting labor, inhuman living conditions, and mass executions led to a significant mortality rate of slaves and their low birth rate. At the same time, the increase in land plots, the emergence of new industries, the expansion of the already vast territory, and the increase in servants serving the masters required workers.
Landowners who did not have enough slaves to work the land began to rent out their plots in small plots to free people in need of food. These small tenants became known as colones.
The lease turned out to be beneficial for both parties. The colons, trying to provide food for their families and pay rent, cultivated the land well and achieved high yields. Their labor was significantly more productive than forced labor. Landowners received large incomes from renting out land. Colonate develops quickly. Rent is set both in cash and in kind.
Colonate is not a purely Roman product of social development. In Egypt and Asia, similar relations arose a long time ago and were borrowed by Rome. However, in Rome, the source of the colonat was also the slave peculium, according to which slaves who worked well on the land transferred to them in the peculium received freedom, but were forever attached to the same land.
Under the same conditions, the colon tenant legally remained independent and could terminate the contract at any time and go elsewhere. But the tenants, as a rule, were the poor, who did not have sufficient funds to successfully cultivate the land. Landowners provided them with loans, but on such terms that the colones would not be able to repay them on time. The situation was aggravated by frequent crop failures. Thus, arrears in payments arose. Gradually the colones become economically dependent on their landlords. Colon cannot leave the rented plot without paying off his debts, but he also cannot pay off. Gradually, actual economic dependence turns into legal dependence. It is strengthened by the new tax reform, under which land taxes are calculated taking into account the colones. The colony's departure from the land reduces the income of the landowner, who now strives in every possible way to secure the colony, even luring it away from others. To prevent defections, a law was passed in 322 that prohibited the colony from leaving the rented plot without permission. In 357, a new law prohibited the landowner from alienating land plots without colones assigned to them. Thus, the legal formalization of securing the columns was completed. As a result, a new group of dependent people has emerged, not deprived of a certain legal capacity, but very limited in its implementation. If a colonist left the land without permission, the landowner could claim it back through a vindication claim, i.e. the legal status of a colon was not much different from that of a slave. However, the colones were not slaves. Formally, legally, they remained free, but attached to the land. Colons are the predecessors of serfs, and the colonat is the embryo of feudalism.
Not only the colon himself, but also his children were considered assigned to this site. Colonate became hereditary. The personal dependence of the colones on the landowners, who carried out trials and reprisals against them without control, also increased. The birth of a new economic formation - feudalism - was approaching.

FEDERAL EDUCATION AGENCY
MOSCOW STATE UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS, STATISTICS AND INFORMATION SCIENCE (MESI)
INSTITUTE OF LAW AND HUMANITIES EDUCATION
COURSE WORK
By discipline			History of state and law of foreign countries
			The Roman state during the era of the principate and
			dominatrix
Student groups					Tebenkova S.G.
					Full Name		signature
Scientific adviser					Vernik A.A.
	job title				Full Name		signature
MOSCOW 2009

Introduction
Chapter 1. The Roman state in the era of the Principate
		Principate historical background
		Legal powers of the principle
		Features of the principate as a political system
		The socio-economic situation of the Roman Empire in the 1st – 3rd centuries AD.
Chapter 2. The crisis of the Roman Republic and the transition to monarchy
		Causes and results of political anarchy of the 3rd century.
		Overcoming the political crisis
Chapter 3 The Roman state in the era of the Dominant
	Diocletian's transformations
	Ideological foundations of the state during the formation of the monarchy
	Decline of the Roman Empire
Conclusion
Bibliography

Introduction

The relevance of this topic is determined by the fact that Rome was a state that had a huge influence on the development of world culture. The Roman state during the imperial period is a state formation in which the formation of institutions of state power takes place against the backdrop of the breakdown of old patriarchal institutions. The current political situation forces us to look back and see what the established form of government in our country is like. The ancient past provides us with a suitable example for comparison.

The form of the state is determined quite simply in legal science. Typically, the form of a state is understood as the organization of state power or the organization of the state as a whole. At the same time, the form of the state is quite complex and therefore the concept of the form of the state is revealed through the characteristics of the structural elements of the form of the state. The question of the structural elements of the form of the state is debatable. Some researchers reduce the form of the state to one element, namely the political regime. This point of view has not found wide support in legal science. According to the second point of view, it is the forms of government and the forms of government that constitute the form of the state. This point of view is widespread in Western science and is partially supported in domestic science. According to the third point of view, the form of the state consists of 3 elements, namely, the form of government, the form of government and the political (state) regime - the most widespread in domestic science. There is another point of view, according to which, the form of the state consists of: a form of government, a form of government, a political regime, and political dynamics - it has not become widespread in domestic science. The form of a state depends on the specific historical conditions of its emergence and development; the essence and historical type of the state has a decisive influence on it. Thus, the feudal type of state, as a rule, corresponded to a monarchical form of government, and the bourgeois type to a republican one. The form of a state largely depends on the balance of political forces in the country, especially during the period of its emergence. The subject of our work is the history of state and law of the Roman Empire. The object is the direct topic of our work: the Roman state in the era of the Principate and Dominat. The purpose of our work is to examine the government structure and forms of government of Rome during the imperial period.
To achieve this, we have set ourselves the following tasks:
-consider the forms of government in the Roman Empire; -characterize the political system of Rome during the period of the Principate and Dominat; -consider the state apparatus during the period of the Roman Empire, in the era of the Principate and Dominat.

The formation and development of government bodies and the political system in the Roman Empire are of significant interest for understanding the development of the state as a whole. The main provisions and conclusions can be used in the course on “General History of State and Law”, as well as for scientific work and research.

Chapter 1. The Roman state in the era of the Principate

. Principate historical background

The foundations of the principate were laid by the reforms of the first Roman emperor Augustus Octavian (27 BC - 14 AD), the great-nephew of Gaius Julius Caesar, caused by the deep socio-political crisis of the Roman Republic in the 1st century BC. e.

Time of Troubles at the end of the first and second half of the 1st century. AD revealed the need to revise old republican views on the problems of the state and government in Rome. Many politicians tried to find a way out of this situation. Caesar and Pompey, following their intuition rather than any specific plans for the restructuring of the state, tried in practice to implement transformations that would save the state. People like Cicero theoretically developed projects for changes, thanks to which Rome could continue to exist without the upheavals that were disastrous for it. Each had their own methods for solving the problem of restructuring the state.

Octavian Augustus, drawing on the experience of his predecessors, implemented a new system of state power, called the principate.

The goal of his reforms was to restore political and social stability with the help of a strong central government, without breaking with the still strong republican (polis) traditions.

Augustus and his successors concentrated the highest military, civil and priestly power in their hands. However, legally it was formalized as a set of a number of traditional republican magistrates and powers that were “endowed” to the emperor by the Senate and the People's Assembly, and was not considered hereditary.

The political system was officially called the “republic”, and the supreme ruler was the “principal”, that is, the “first citizen” or “first senator” (hence the concept “principate”). Republican authorities (people's assembly, senate, magistracy) were preserved, having lost a significant part of their former powers. If earlier they were actually controlled by the Roman ruling oligarchy (nobility), now they are controlled by the principles and his closest associates.

The long coexistence of monarchical and republican institutions does not allow us to unambiguously define the political system of the Early Empire as either a monarchy or a republic. The Principate is often called a “republican monarchy.”

1.2 Legal powers of the principal

From a legal point of view, the principate is a diarchy (dual power), in which the bearers of power are, on the one hand, the people and the Senate, and on the other, the emperor. Principes, in theory, is not an autocratic monarch, but simply a magistrate, a servant of the only sovereign - the people. The competence and power of the principal is limited strictly by constitutional frameworks; he is only the first (princeps) in a series of citizens and senators, bound, like other citizens, by laws. If in fact, through capture, the emperors gradually placed themselves outside the law and made their position privileged in many respects, then theoretically the principate in the first half of the above period was responsible to the laws, like an ordinary magistracy. Only in the second half of the period did the position of the principle become more and more exclusive, approaching absolutism.

Princips was in charge of appointing members of the board. Not a single decision of the board was made without the knowledge of the principal.

The People's Assembly dealt only with the affairs of Rome. The Senate was turned into an advisory body under the emperor. Higher institutions are concentrated at the court. Among them, the largest is the imperial chancellery. The financial department has undergone extraordinary development. It was engaged in collecting old and finding new taxes. The main bases of the power of the principle were the supreme military power. Octavian received the title Imperium in 27, at the same time as the title Augustus. He looked at this title, which replaced his personal name (praenomen), as hereditary; with him he received forever command of all the military forces of the state, the right to give laws, create courts and govern the provinces. In 23, he was proclaimed proconsul, and the titles of proconsul and emperor merged into one. The second pillar of his power was (from 30) lifelong tribunician power, which, making his person inviolable, gave him the right of intercession against the decisions of all other magistrates, the Senate and the people, the right to help the oppressed, etc. Power rested on these republican foundations principle, embodied for the first time in the person of Augustus, who, seeking power, managed to clothe a new form of government (despotism) in old legal forms. The new power was legitimized with the help of the principles of the old law by gradually implementing them, with the slowness that characterized the mode of action of Augustus. Augustus was even afraid to introduce legal concepts that would contradict the idea of ​​republican forms: he refused the title of dictator, forbade calling himself master (dominus), did not accept the title of king (rex), and did not allow him to be openly given divine honors. He retained the title of emperor following the example of his adoptive father, considering this title his inheritance and relying on the attitude of the people to the memory of the divine Caesar. In principle, the competence of the principle was separated from the competence of other government bodies; Representatives of the empire in the 1st century expanded the scope of their prerogatives with great caution, pretending as if it were the people and the senate who were seeking this, and not themselves. Thus, legal provisions and concepts gradually came into force that were initially unthinkable when the principate arose, and the ground was prepared for an absolute monarchy. Lawyers of the early empire proclaimed the following position, considered at that time an axiom of public law: “If the emperor can do everything, it is because the people have transferred all their power to him.” Thus, the true bearer of power in the state remained the people, who only delegated their powers to the emperor, thus placing him above the law.

1.3 Features of the principate as a political system

The peculiarity of the principate as a political system was, if not the complete absence, then, in any case, the minimum number of officials and the minimum state apparatus throughout the entire period of the Early Empire. As a legacy from the Republic, the Empire received a system, unique for antiquity, of using petty officials, secretaries, messengers and slaves who belonged to one or another master holding a public post as a bureaucracy. Moreover, the higher this post was, the richer, as a rule, the person who held it was and, therefore, the more slaves he could use to fulfill his state duties. During the era of the Principate, slaves and freedmen of emperors often rose to the very heights of the state hierarchy. At the local level, the Roman Empire retained a system of self-government left over from polis times, in the form of a council of decurions, who performed their duties as an honorable duty and did not receive money from the state treasury for their service. As a result, state expenditures on the administrative apparatus remained minimal for a long time in comparison with the scale of the empire.

The state apparatus of the Principate era was better organized and more efficient than under the Republic, but modern researchers characterize it as “rudimentary” or “underdeveloped”, because it was too small for an empire with a population of 50 million people; There were no government bodies at the level of urban and rural districts.

The powers of senior administrators were short-term, and they themselves did not have special training, and often no experience in leadership work in their field of management. As a rule, on their own initiative they did not interfere in the activities of local city government, limiting themselves to general control. Most of the day-to-day affairs were decided by local city magistrates and senates (curia). The ancient city (Greek polis, Italian municipality) with its own authorities, laws and orders was the basis of the early empire, a stronghold of polis (republican) traditions. Most of the equestrians, senators and even emperors came from the local urban nobility of Italy and the provinces. The Principate regime made it possible to consolidate the power elites in the center and locally, achieve a balance of their interests and thereby expand the social base of state power.

However, the polis and the empire were mutually exclusive systems, and the general trend of historical development was the inevitable obsolescence of polis structures with their self-government and the formation of a centralized state apparatus - a necessary attribute of any authoritarian power. This was started by Augustus, who created a number of new positions (prefects: praetorium, Egypt, city, annona, vigils, waters, as well as governors of the imperial provinces - procurators), which went beyond the framework of the republican state structure, the restoration of which was the official slogan of his reign.

The princeps had his own treasury - the fisk, from which he financed the army and public buildings, and filled it with taxes from the imperial provinces. Thus, the army of Rome continued to remain, as during the civil wars, private. Only now it is owned by the head of state. The army was financed by the Princip and it was the Princip who took the oath.

The army was the backbone of the entire imperial order. The last large-scale conquests occurred during the reign of Trajan (96-117), after which the Roman Empire finally switched to the strategic defense of its borders. Already by the end of the 2nd century. The Roman army gradually began to lose its fighting spirit, and the minimization of aggressive campaigns, which previously brought enormous military booty, a mass of slaves and enormous material resources, led to a significant increase in internal government spending on military needs. Due to the fact that external problems for the army and for the Empire faded into the background for a certain time, the army by the end of the 2nd century. began to increasingly turn to internal problems, and this led to an increase in its political role and at the same time made it a dangerous force in periods of impotence of the central government and political anarchy. However, the army proved unable to adequately defend the borders of the Roman Empire when the barbarian world began to move and external invasions threatened the very existence of the state. Although the size of the army increased significantly from 25 legions (300 thousand people) during the time of Augustus to 33 legions by the middle of the 2nd century, and during the time of Caracala the number of the Roman army reached 400 thousand people.

1.4 Socio-economic situation of the Roman Empire aI – IIIBC AD

The economy of Rome in the 1st-2nd centuries AD was quite integrated into the trade system of the Mediterranean (for example, bread came from Egypt and the Black Sea basin, wine from Asia Minor, Greece and Iberia - modern Spain, etc.) and, therefore, could take advantage of the comparative advantages of regional countries.

The grain market was mainly private, where traders actively used loans, agent services, etc. Special documents for sea transportation (sea transportation was much cheaper than land transportation until the invention of the railway) indicated the identity of the cargo, information about its recipient and specific characteristics grains Merchants often sent sealed pots or bags containing a sample of grain so that the buyer could compare the sample with the grain that arrived. This was required to identify damage, substitution or fraud on the part of carriers.

In addition to the labor market, there was also a capital market in the Roman Empire. The Romans borrowed and borrowed from each other quite often. Both production and consumer loans were issued. Loans were also issued to finance trade operations. Roman merchants and transporters could buy insurance. A detailed analysis of these loans and credits, Temin writes, shows that they were provided to business partners, and not just to their family and friends, although lenders and lenders were naturally familiar with the reputation of potential borrowers. Thus, in Ancient Rome there was a developed financial market. There was a huge number of all kinds of loans, the interest rate for which was close to 1% per month, or 12% per annum, which was the maximum allowable interest rate. The presence of a fixed interest rate on all kinds of loans naturally indicates that the ancient Roman financial market was far from complete freedom. In ancient Rome, banks were common, accepting deposits and issuing loans to the population. Some deposits were deposited - the bank was obliged to ensure their physical safety without paying interest to the depositor. Other deposits generated income and were used by banks to make investments.

In the area of ​​fiscal policy in Rome, there are significant differences with the system that developed in England and the Netherlands in the 17th and 18th centuries. In European countries, government fiscal policy was based on a public loan system. The Roman Empire did not borrow, but operated on a cash basis. Thus, Rome had to ensure sufficient tax revenues into its treasury to cover its future expenses

In the early era of the Roman Empire, the population of Rome numbered about 1 million people. According to Temin's calculations, in order to feed such a number of people, Rome needed to import 150-300 thousand tons of grain per year, not counting other staples of the diet - olive oil and wine.

In the middle of the 2nd century. the population of the Roman Empire was 65 million - after a period of two centuries of prosperity (160 AD)

In 180 AD. the population dropped to 40 million people after the plague and numerous wars towards the end of the reign of Emperor Marcus Avelius.

By the end of the reign of Emperor Constantine (337 AD), the population had recovered to 55 million.

The general population can be divided into the following groups (the population of each group includes both its representatives themselves and members of their families):

1) 2.5 million people. had good living conditions:

2 thousand people – senatorial class - 100 thousand people. – equestrian class - 200 thousand people. – municipal aristocracy - 700 thousand people. – officials, veterans - 1,000 thousand people. - traders, artisans, etc. - 500 thousand people. - soldiers (legions, auxiliaries, guards, navy, city guard)

2) 12.5 million people. had tolerable living conditions:

4 million people – slaves living in cities (of which up to 500 thousand were in Rome alone) - 8.5 million people. - urban proletariat

3) 50 million people. had minimal living conditions:

3 million people – free farmers - 40 million people. – tenants living and working on land owned by others - 7 million people. – slaves employed in agriculture and mining

The foundation and building of the political system of the principate were built by Octavian Augustus and his followers in the 1st-2nd centuries. They only completed and improved what was done by the founder. The system was, of course, monarchical in its essence, although it retained certain elements of the republican structure necessary during the transition period. This dualism was due in part to the persistence of republican traditions (especially among the ruling classes), but mainly to the preservation of polis structures within the territorial empire. However, during the I-II centuries. the polis, as a form of social life and as a socio-economic organism, was increasingly becoming obsolete; Republican traditions gradually became a thing of the past and became the sphere of creativity of Roman historians, writers and poets and an object of nostalgia among representatives of ancient Roman families. At the same time, there was a strengthening of the monarchical tendency and absolutism of imperial power. Over the course of more than a century from 69 to 180, the Roman state became more paternalistic and bureaucratic and at the same time more cosmopolitan and less "Roman".

The Antonine dynasty, in general, still managed to preserve the political system of the principate in the form in which it was conceived by Augustus, and Trajan even considered it possible to briefly revive the almost forgotten comitia. However, it is quite obvious for the 2nd century. there was a strengthening of imperial power as opposed to the Senate and a centralization of government, as well as a gradual increase in the bureaucracy.

Subsequently, since the empire was in the hands of the principes, they celebrated all military triumphs themselves for their commanders, who were now called legates (envoys), even those principes who had never fought, like Nero, received the honorary title of emperor dozens of times. This title was usually placed in inscriptions ahead of the name, which is why it became common to call the principes emperor. Although before that in the empire they were constantly called Caesars (Caesars), which already under Tiberius turned into a title, especially in the east of the empire.

From ancient times it was recognized in Rome that every person who, in any way, encroached on the greatness of the people of Rome, thereby found himself guilty of impiety in relation to the Res publicum. Which was punishable by death and confiscation of property. The people passed on their greatness to the princeps. And they did not fail to take full advantage of this, even those who went down in history as meek and kind. Even the most ardent detractors of Nero and Domitian recognized, nevertheless, the indisputable decree of public law that any attempt on the supreme power is a criminal offense.

With Vespasian, a new tradition began of proclaiming the emperor not by the praetorines in Rome, but by the army. The Senate had no choice but to classify Vespasian, the son of a simple peasant, as a patrician. From that moment on, any full-fledged citizen could become a principle. This was recognized by everyone as fair, because it was in this way - adoption - that the best person could be chosen as a successor. And they tried not to even discuss the choice of the army, but to take it as a given.

Vespasian began the tradition of transferring the title of prince from father to son.

All this lasted until 384, when Emperor Diocletian proclaimed himself “God and Master” of Rome. In Latin: Deus et Dominus. And from this moment the era of the Roman Empire, which we call the principate, ends, and what historians call the dominant begins.

The Principate provided the Roman Empire in the 1st and 2nd centuries AD. e. “Augustov”, or “Roman world” - two centuries of political and social stability unprecedented in the ancient world.

Chapter 2.Crisis of the Roman Republic and transition to monarchy

2.1 Causes and results of political anarchy of the 3rd century.

The 3rd century became a clear watershed between two contrasting political systems - the principate and the dominant. Septimius Severus (193-211) already did what was long overdue, but what his predecessors did not dare to do - he developed and began to implement the principle of full monarchy: the emperor is the only source of power, and his will is the highest law for all inhabitants of the Empire. The Senate is deprived of the right to make laws and choose magistrates, and this right becomes the exclusive privilege of the principes. A public administration reform is being carried out, which puts everything in its place: the distinctions, which by this time had become very ephemeral, between traditional magistrates and bureaucratic positions are erased, a system of subordination of various positions and ranks is established, and even some militarization of the imperial bureaucracy occurs. Finally, the organization of the provincial imperial administration is completed, which becomes the main local authority, while the decurions are responsible only for collecting taxes and continue to perform public duties, which in the new conditions turn into duties. Bureaucracy and the bureaucratic style of management begin to permeate all levels of the state apparatus and the army.

These reforms, although they met the requirements of the time and the general trend of historical development, were one of the causes of the political crisis, because caused a new round of confrontation between the Senate and the imperial power, which resulted in a struggle between the “Senate” and “soldier” emperors. On the other hand, the reforms led to a sharp increase in government spending on the maintenance of the bureaucratic apparatus, and this resulted in an increase in taxes. True, in the 3rd century. Emperors did not so much raise taxes as follow the path of minting inferior coins. However, this was not a solution to the problem, but, on the contrary, caused severe inflation, which largely provoked the economic crisis. And the strengthening of the bureaucracy in the absence of clearly developed principles of inheritance of power and its continuity, which was, perhaps, one of the weakest points of the principate system since the time of Augustus, became one of the main reasons for the political anarchy of the 3rd century.

Political crisis of the 3rd century. had as one of its sides a general decline in legislative activity. Roman jurisprudence reached the pinnacle of its development in the works of Paul, Ulpian, Modestine and Papinian, after which in the 3rd century. There was a stagnation in legal thought, followed by a period of codification. The listed jurists brought order to the vast legislation that preceded them, and also established new legal principles, and much of the legal theory of this time was borrowed from the Hellenistic East. Lawyers developed in detail all the duties associated with honorary positions and duties, and some of their provisions and interpretations accelerated the decline of the municipal nobility. In addition, lawyers were responsible for introducing into legal theory and practice the principles that justified authoritarian power. Their followers, in general, only had to systematize the existing material.

In the 3rd century. the entire Roman army becomes an independent political force, capable of not only overthrowing emperors, but also elevating them to the throne. Moreover, unlike the Early Empire, where it was mainly the Praetorians who ruled the political ball, now emperors are becoming “soldiers” in the true sense. However, having turned into a political force, the army in the 3rd century. found itself outside of political control, and largely lost the discipline and harmony of its structure. Soldiers often turned into ordinary bandits, robbing civilians and bringing even greater anarchy to the crisis-torn empire.

Political crisis of the 3rd century. took especially severe and painful forms in connection with powerful separatist movements in the provinces, which were a response to the difficulties that arose and represented desperate attempts to get out of the crisis on their own, when the central government was unable to solve the problems of the entire state as a whole. Separatism was generated by both political and economic reasons, and the development of these movements led to the fact that the Roman Empire in the 3rd century. more than once actually ceased to exist as a single whole.

Political instability and economic problems caused a sharp aggravation of the social situation in the empire and led to the emergence of a number of social movements. As a rule, these movements united the most diverse social forces, did not have clearly defined goals and programs, and were only one of the ways to survive in times of crisis.

The most striking manifestation of the political crisis of the Roman Empire was a real leapfrog on the imperial throne, which, it seemed, had ceased to play the role of the highest post and was passed from hand to hand like a relay baton. Over the course of half a century from 235 to 284, 29 “legitimate” emperors managed to sit on the throne, and in different parts of the empire at the same time dozens of “illegal” usurpers came to power. In conditions of such anarchy, the very concept of the legitimacy of imperial power lost all meaning.

2.1 Overcoming the political crisis.

Overcoming the crisis of the 3rd century, which threatened the very existence of the Roman Empire, is associated in history with the name of Diocletian. And although the restoration of the empire began under his predecessors, it was Diocletian who began to implement reforms that contributed not only to overcoming the crisis, but also to the transition of the Empire to a new stage of development, despite the fact that the created order bore the stamp of conservatism.

The period opened by the reign of Diocletian is called the era of the Dominat or the era of the late Roman Empire. This stage differed significantly from classical antiquity in almost all the criteria characterizing civilization. And one of the main differences was that the Late Roman Empire was a Christianizing and then a Christian empire. The reign of Diocletian turned out to be the time when the preconditions for the union of Christianity and the Roman state were finally formed, when the empire was ripe for conversion to Christianity, and Christianity turned out to be ready for “conversion” to the empire.

Regarding the origin of Diocletian, there is information in the sources that he was the son of a freedman from Illyria or Dalmatia; there is also an opinion that his parents were slaves. Despite his low origins, he managed to achieve administrative promotion in Gaul under Aurelian, then was governor of Moesia under Cara and consul, and at the time of his proclamation as emperor he commanded the imperial guard.

Flavius ​​Vopiscus characterizes the new emperor as follows: “He was a wonderful man, intelligent, loved the state, loved his subordinates, and knew how to do everything that the circumstances of that time required. He was always filled with lofty plans; sometimes, however, his face took on a somewhat harsh expression, but with prudence and exceptional firmness he suppressed the movements of his restless heart.”

Possessing a set of qualities of a wise, firm and fair ruler, so necessary for any statesman, Diocletian accepted the challenge of the time and set about restoring the splendor and greatness of the Roman Empire. The beginning of his reign was marked by almost continuous wars with both internal enemies (Bagaudas and separatist movements) and external ones (Persians, Arabs, barbarians). Establishing elementary order within the Empire and strengthening its borders, almost destroyed in previous times, was the most urgent task of the imperial power, and Diocletian solved it very successfully: by the beginning of the 4th century. both internal and external peace were largely restored.

The second urgent task was to strengthen the imperial power itself. During the political conflicts of the 3rd century. the system of the principate underwent such significant changes that almost nothing remained of it, and the so-called “late principate” of the 3rd century. had, apart from the name, as little in common with the principate of the 1st-2nd centuries as the “republic” “restored” by Augustus had with the Roman Republic of the 3rd-2nd centuries. BC.

The greatest political evil of the era preceding the reign of Diocletian was the usurpation of power, which became quite common in the 3rd century. The source of this evil should probably be considered that the Principate system did not develop a clear system of inheritance of power, and this was one of its weakest points. In order to put an end to this unseemly legacy, Diocletian introduced the system of tetrarchy. The implementation of this reform began already in the second year of his reign, when Maximian was appointed Caesar in 285, and then Augustus (in 286). However, there was no official division of the empire, although each August had its own army, its own praetorian prefect and its own residence. From that time on, Rome lost its importance as the official capital of the empire: Diocletian's residence was Nicomedia in the east, and Maximian's residence was Milan in the west. Edicts and rescripts were issued jointly by the Augustans, but Diocletian remained the initiator of all legislation.

The next step in creating a new political system was the appointment in 293 of two Caesars - assistants and deputies of each of the Augusti - Gaius Galerius and Constantius Chlorus. The new system provided for the transfer of full power to the Caesars in the event of the sudden death or abdication of the Augusti. It was assumed that after 20 years, both Augustus would abdicate the throne and elevate their Caesars to this rank, who, in turn, would proclaim their two generals Caesars. It should be noted that the tetrarchy was much less a system than it seems in the works of later authors: it was a response to the problems of the time and worked not so much because of its inherent logic, but because it was made to work by the administrative talents of Diocletian . The foundation of this system was very fragile - in principle, it rested only on the mutual consent of the four rulers.

However, it was not only the political evil of usurpations of power that forced Diocletian to turn to the system of tetrarchy. To manage such a huge state, which was experiencing such an acute and protracted crisis, seemed an unbearable burden for one person, especially since another legacy of the Principate was, as already noted, the almost complete absence of bureaucracy. In conditions of general well-being and prosperity, the system of self-government of cities and territories, encouraged by the imperial power, worked very well, but this system turned out to be unable to withstand the crisis and the increasing pressure on it from the center, especially the tax center.

To replace the decaying structures of self-government, the remnants of democracy and republicanism of bygone times in the 3rd century. bureaucracy arrived, and Diocletian tried to give it a harmonious and complete character, supplementing the system of tetrarchy with a system of dominance.

Chapter 3.The Roman state during the Dominant era

3.1 Diocletian's reforms

In the third century AD, an unlimited monarchy was established in Rome - the period of dominance began. The old republican institutions are disappearing even from their names. The administration of the empire is concentrated in the hands of several departments, whose officials are appointed by the emperor. The 2 most important are the State Council under the Emperor (prepares future bills, gives advice to the Emperor), and the financial department.

The word “dominant” usually refers to the period in the history of Ancient Rome from the century AD. e. In another way, this period can be called “late antiquity.” It is believed that the term “dominant” comes from the usual address for the emperor at that time - “lord and god” (dominus et deus). The word dominus can also be translated as "sovereign".

Dominat became the next stage in the gradual transformation of the Roman Republic into a monarchy with unlimited power of the emperor. During the period of the Principate, the old republican institutions were preserved and formally continued to operate, and the head of state, the princeps (“first”) was considered only the first citizen of the republic.

During the period of dominance, the Senate turns into an estate with decorative functions. The main title of the head of state, instead of "princeps" (first citizen) and "imperator" (originally an honorary title for military leaders), becomes "augustus" ("sacred") and "dominus" ("lord", which implied that everyone else was his slaves) .

Emperor Diocletian is usually considered the founder of the dominant system. He established customs at his court borrowed from the East. The main center of power became the bureaucratic apparatus, focused on the personality of the dominant. The committee in charge of collecting taxes was called the committee of “sacred (that is, imperial) bounties” (sacrarum largitionum).

The emperor accepted the laws of the empire, appointed officials at all levels and many army officers, and until the adoption of Christianity by the empire bore the title of head of the college of pontiffs.

The dominant has preserved many of the traditions of old Rome, but the dominant is already a full-fledged monarchy with the dynastic principle of inheritance. And with a completely different technology of power, especially after the adoption of Christianity. Dominat is already closer to Byzantium than to classical Rome. Moreover, since Diocletian, Rome was no longer the capital of the “circle of lands”.

Dominance was a consequence of the crisis and was generated by the need to strengthen central power. Even Octavian Augustus, despite all the republican screens and ideological exhortations, was by no means alien to absolutism, and this trend in the political life of the Roman Empire persisted and intensified throughout the three centuries preceding the domination. However, it was only during the time of Diocletian that this tendency became a political practice and received full form.

The political system of the dominant was a simplified formula, according to which the emperor was the dominant master, and all other citizens of the empire were his subjects. Dominat presupposed the introduction of an appropriate palace ceremony, similar to that which existed in the states of eastern despotism. The emperors were distinguished by a diadem and purple clothes embroidered with gold; they rarely showed themselves to the people, and those who were admitted to them were obliged to prostrate themselves, observing the ritual accepted at the court of the Persian kings. The emperor's title now necessarily included the terms "sacred" and "divine". In addition, the dominant system introduced a strict hierarchy of official positions and formalized the bureaucratic structures of the empire. Below the divine emperor was a large, decentralized bureaucracy, divided into civil and military sections, although even civilian officials usually wore military clothing, a legacy of the militarization of the bureaucracy in the 3rd century.

The system of dominance conceived and created by Diocletian, of course, also had weaknesses: dominance and tetrarchy from the very beginning seemed contradictory to each other. The tetrarchy created the appearance of a division of central power, which did not correspond to the basic principle of the dominant and limited the absolutism of the dominant.

The main support of the dominant, like any other political system based on the principle of absolute power, was the army. Coming from an army background, Diocletian understood perfectly well how important the loyalty and devotion of the troops was for the authorities, and how necessary the unconditional subordination of the army to the imperial power was. Despite all the vicissitudes of the 3rd century. The Roman army retained both its structure and its fighting spirit. Under the leadership of Emperor Claudius of Goths, the Roman army managed to inflict a crushing defeat on the Goths, and Diocletian, as already noted, managed to achieve internal and external peace for the empire with the help of the army. However, the army, although it apparently suffered less from the crisis than other structures of the empire, remained a constant source of danger for the central government and also needed reform. Diocletian's military reform was not very large-scale, but it met the requirements of the time. In connection with the increasing barbarization of the empire, which could no longer be stopped, Diocletian decided to entrust the protection of the borders from barbarians to the barbarians themselves. The border troops he created consisted mainly of barbarian colonists, and the warriors led a sedentary lifestyle, had families and households. And although such border guards could not be considered reliable in all respects, the costs for them were minimal, and at first they fully justified themselves and ensured border protection. Another part of the army - the mobile troops (comitatensis), which began to form under Gallienus, were recruited partly on the principle of voluntariness and partly through conscription, carried out in accordance with the number of slaves and colons located on the landowner's estate. In addition, the mobile troops included detachments of barbarians who voluntarily came under the rule of the Roman Empire. Diocletian increased the size of the army, especially mobile troops, and gave greater harmony to its structure.

Both the palace staff, the bureaucracy, and the army required very significant funds for their maintenance, so another important area of ​​Diocletian’s reforms was the improvement of finances and the creation of a clear taxation system. Diocletian's monetary reform aimed to introduce firm standards for the content of precious metals in coins and, although the deterioration of coins continued, contributed to the financial recovery of the empire. This reform was supplemented by the Edict on Prices (301), which represented the first attempt in history by the state to regulate circulation by setting maximum prices and the first attempt in the history of the Roman state to intervene in the economy. Like all subsequent attempts at administrative price regulation that took place in history, this reform of Diocletian failed, and the edict on prices was soon either canceled or simply ceased to be observed. Along with these measures, a tax reform was carried out, the purpose of which was to unify taxation: now taxes were levied on souls and land, and on the occupations of the population (craft, trade). However, the effectiveness of this reform could only be high if the entire population of the Roman Empire had a permanent place of residence and work.

A logical addition to the listed reforms was administrative reform, without which the dominant system would lose the necessary harmony and clarity. The entire Roman Empire is divided into 4 prefectures (and the prefects played a more civil than military role and were the main assistants to the tetrarchs in governing the empire) and 12 dioceses, uniting several provinces, the total number of which was brought to one hundred. The purpose of increasing the number of provinces was to provide more effective control over smaller territories, as well as to reduce the power and importance of the governors and prevent the possibility of separatist uprisings. Italy lost its former privileged status and was treated like ordinary provinces. Dioceses were ruled by vicars, provinces by rectors. The rectors reported to the vicars, but the governors of particularly important provinces reported directly to the emperors.

Administrative reform was carried out by Diocletian and completed by Constantine, along with management reform, the essence of which was a clearer division of functions between the various parts of the central government. At the head of the bureaucratic hierarchy were regional praetorian prefects, who were second only to the emperors in charge of military, financial, legislative and administrative matters. The entire civil administration, down to governors and city councils, was subordinate to them. Under Constantine, the prefects were deprived of military functions, but became the supreme civil magistrates. Each prefect acted as a supreme judge and issued minor edicts. It had its own finances and its own bureaucracy.

All legal issues - the preparation of laws and rescripts, legal consultations, the passage of petitions to the emperor and his decisions on them - were concentrated in the hands of the supreme "Minister of Justice" - the quaestor of the Holy Chamber (quaestor sacri palatii). The head of the chancellery (magister officiorum), in addition to documentation (scrinia), was in charge of external relations, arsenals, police and security (domestici). Appointments to palace positions and palace staff, as well as lower levels of the imperial bureaucracy, together with the postal communications system and the network of government agents (agentes in rebus), were controlled by him. At the same time, he was in charge of audiences with the emperor and palace ceremonies. As before, two "ministers of finance" (palatini) were responsible respectively for public finances and for the private estates of the emperor. The highest military leadership after the emperor was carried out by two masters - infantry and cavalry. Each of the top officials had his own staff of the bureaucracy subordinate to him, often numbering up to several hundred officials. The lowest level of the bureaucracy were curators, who were elected locally and who supervised the work of city curiae.

The old republican institutions were deprived of all political significance: the Senate turned, in fact, into the municipal council of the city of Rome, although it tried to claim more, and the former magistrates remained only honorary titles. The highest imperial officials were now appointed by the dominus himself, and after resignation they were ranked among the senatorial class.

An important feature of the dominant system was that the bureaucratic apparatus began to turn into an independent force opposing almost all social strata. Courtiers and officials consumed a significant part of the surplus product produced in the state and constantly applied for additional funds and services. Inside this layer, intrigue, denunciations, protectionism, and corruption flourished.

3.2 Ideological foundations of the state during the formation of the monarchy

Like any other political system, dominance needed appropriate ideological design. In antiquity, the most acceptable and convenient form of ideology was religion, and Diocletian understood that his reforms and the system he created needed religious support. Diocletian sought to reflect the essence of the new monarchy in religion.

Judging by historical data, Diocletian was not a deeply religious man: he adhered to polytheistic views and was prone to superstition, but the dominant element in his personal religion was the genius of the Roman people. Therefore, we can assume that his religious policy was determined not so much by his inner convictions as by political considerations. Both the nature of the historical development of the Roman Empire and the dominant political system created by Diocletian required the unification of religion and its subordination to the needs of political practice. The tendency towards unification, as noted above, was also experienced by the pagan religions themselves, so Diocletian might have thought that his religious reform would be relatively painless. As a matter of fact, his religious policy can hardly be called a reform at all - rather, it was an attempt to restore the former significance of Roman paganism and, in a certain sense, modernization, or rather, resuscitation of the cult of the emperor, which had lost all meaning during the period of political anarchy. Perhaps, it was the cult of the emperor that bore the main burden in the religious and ideological design of the new political system. At the same time, Diocletian sought to return the Roman religion to its social character.

At the beginning of his reign, in the summer of 285, after the appointment of Maximian as Caesar, Diocletian appropriates the title of Jupiter to himself and gives his Caesar the title of Hercules. This action, on the one hand, was supposed to clearly show the subordinate position of Caesar to Augustus, and on the other hand, it emphasized the divine origin of imperial power and its superior position in relation to all earthly institutions. In addition, by connecting the cult of Jupiter with the cult of the emperor, Diocletian aimed to restore the prestige and significance of Roman paganism. The connection of power with the deity was supposed to show its legitimacy, for neither Diocletian nor Maximian became emperors by the will of the Senate, as provided for by the traditional system of the principate, but were brought to power by the army, and this divine legitimacy was supposed to become, according to Diocletian, a guarantee of stability and order. Finally, Diocletian's goal was the unity of the state, expressed by the triad: emperor - law - state religion.

Although Diocletian and his colleagues in the tetrarchy provided patronage to paganism, supporting it financially, restoring old and erecting new pagan temples, Christianity was not persecuted at first, and the church enjoyed relative peace. Having recovered from the blows inflicted during previous persecutions, and having overcome the internal divisions that arose because of them, the church gradually strengthened its position in society and increased the number of adherents of the Christian religion.

It is known that Christians during the reign of Diocletian were governors of the provinces, occupied high positions at the imperial court and in the imperial administration, and even the wife and daughter of the dominus himself were either Christians or, in any case, were catechumens and were preparing to be baptized. At this time, Christians even built their churches and freely held their meetings in cities. Eusebius sums up the position of the church with the following words: "... every day our prosperity grew and multiplied...".

However, the development of Christianity within the framework of the system created by Diocletian increasingly came into conflict with his plans. Christians did not recognize either Jupiter, Hercules, or other pagan gods; on the contrary, they considered them evil demons. But by refusing to honor Jupiter, they thereby became in open opposition to the dominus, who based their power precisely on the sanction of this deity. In addition, the Christian Church, having gone through an almost three-century period of formation, was already a fairly ramified and structured organization, possessing, in addition to great authority, certain material resources. There is hardly any reason to believe that by the beginning of the 4th century. The Christian church became a state within a state, but, in any case, the general trend of its development led precisely to this, which made the church a very dangerous institution for the state in conditions of its semi-legal or illegal status. Perhaps Diocletian saw in the church an organization parallel to the state, and therefore interfering with the final strengthening of the unity of the state. Finally, the growing authority of the bishop, the central figure of the church organization, made him a real rival of the representatives of the imperial administration in the provinces, and this again ran counter to the development of a strict bureaucratic hierarchy - one of the integral parts of the dominant system. To this it should be added that the increasing number of Christians among the soldiers of the Roman army, which was the main support of imperial power, caused great concern to the imperial power.

All these factors could not but worry Diocletian, the tetrarchs and the highest echelon of the imperial bureaucracy. Moreover, it must be assumed that the awareness of the “Christian danger” did not come immediately, but gradually, as the reforms were implemented. Both Diocletian and his supporters understood that a new persecution of Christians could lead to serious complications within the state, which was already beginning to reap the benefits of peace, unity, internal harmony, stability and order. This is precisely what can explain the fact that Diocletian undertook the persecution of Christians only at the very end of his reign, when the system of dominance and the position of Christianity in the state came into such obvious contradiction that it was no longer possible to leave this problem unresolved. And although many historians, starting from ancient times, not without reason, consider Galerius to be the initiator of the ensuing persecution, the problem of the continued existence of Christianity in the state had to be resolved regardless of the will or mood of an individual. Moreover, this decision could be twofold: either try to suppress Christianity by force and physically destroy the opposition, or try to conclude an alliance with Christianity and include it in the dominant system, as another element of the entire structure along with the bureaucracy and the army. Diocletian followed the first path, Constantine followed the second, but both of them solved the same problem in different ways: Christianity in the state is religion and dominance - the support of the new regime of power.

The persecution of Diocletian not only demonstrated the strength of the church and the steadfastness of Christians, on the one hand, but also revealed the inconsistency and sometimes helplessness of the imperial government in resolving religious issues. It showed with sufficient clarity that at the beginning of the 4th century. Objective prerequisites have arisen not for hostility, but for the union of Christianity and the state.

The Roman Empire itself created favorable conditions for the spread of Christianity: a single state uniting different peoples and cultures; a single language that almost all its inhabitants understood; the most developed communication system in ancient times. Historical development of the Roman Empire in the I-III centuries. objectively prepared minds for the perception of Christian ideas and for the adaptation of church structures into the structures of the empire.

In connection with the tendency towards absolutization and theocratization of imperial power, the Roman Empire required a religion that sanctified both the socio-political system and the ethics corresponding to it, that is, a dogmatic religion that punished deviations from dogma. Traditional Roman religion at the beginning of the 4th century. was clearly not suitable for such a task, for it did not have a generally binding dogma, did not develop the concept of heresy, and did not go beyond the requirement of observing prescribed rituals in the official imperial cult. A dogmatic system could not arise on the basis of a religion that did not have a clear structure and a harmonious system of ideas that united all its elements into a doctrine of cosmic and earthly order.

Christianity arose from the ruins of the classical ancient world, and the Empire, which became a new form of preserving ancient traditions in new historical conditions, became at the same time a condition for the development and spread of a new religion, which objectively went beyond the framework of classical antiquity, although it was based on its achievements. Both organisms - Christianity and the Roman Empire - were a consequence of the decomposition and transformation of polis structures, the product of the same historical conditions, and due to this alone they should have had a tendency to unite. And although during the I-III centuries. The lines of development of Christianity and the Roman Empire more often diverged than converged at the beginning of the 4th century. The most favorable conditions have developed not only for rapprochement, but also for union.

Dominance as a political system existed with minor changes only until the end of the 4th century, when, in 395, the Roman Empire was finally divided into Eastern and Western, each of which followed its own special path, although it retained significant continuity with the previous system of power. As for the tetrarchy system, it turned out to be artificial and did not survive its creator. In the civil war that broke out at the moment of transfer of power, Constantine won, who towards the end of his life realized the need to transfer power by inheritance, which was required by the principle of a full monarchy and to which the logic of the dominant system led.

Constantine completed the administrative transformations of his predecessor in that special political style, which later became 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 Council of Nicaea convened by Constantine. The meaning that the pagan emperor borrowed from the title of “chief pontifex” had a local Roman national character and was insignificant in comparison with the position that Constantine occupied after the adoption of Christianity.

3.3 Decline of the Roman Empire.

The new empire also needed a new capital; it became the city of Constantine. Thus, what was dreamed of by the contemporaries of Caesar and Augustus, which Horace spoke with alarm in his odes, came true: the emergence of a new Rome in the Far East, the successor to the ancient city of Romulus. Constantine's position was so strengthened that he became the founder of the dynasty.

In 395, power passed to Arcadius in the east and Honorius in the west. These two halves of the empire, Greek and Roman, were no longer destined to unite. In the Roman half, the descendants of Theodosius reigned for 60 years, but not in Rome, but in Ravenna. After Honorius, the throne was taken by Valentinian III (423-455), but the history of Rome in the 5th century. is no longer measured by the years of rulers, but by the years of disasters from the invasion of the North. barbarians. Under the onslaught of the Huns, the Germanic tribes advanced along the entire line: in 410, 800 years after the capture by the Gauls, Rome again became prey to the North. barbarians; it was taken and plundered by the Visigoths. Subsequently, southern Gaul, Spain and Africa were occupied by Germanic tribes and torn away from Rome; in 452 Rome narrowly escaped destruction by Asiatic predators, and three years later it was taken, sacked and destroyed by vandals from Africa. The power of the Germans is being established in Rome itself: the unpreventable, so to speak spontaneous infiltration of Germanic elements into the Roman Empire is growing. Rome is able to fight the Germans only with the help of the Germans in its service. Pagan Rome was defeated by two forces hostile to it: the Germans and Christianity. The removal of the altar and statue of Victoria from the Senate in 357, by order of the Christian emperor, was a symbol of the defeat of pagan Rome. Christianity came to Rome from the east, as an alien property of two races, which it defeated in a difficult centuries-old struggle: Semites and Hellenes. But Rome took possession of the Christianity brought to it from the provinces, turned it into an instrument of the new power, and with it defeated the German world; penetrating into it further and deeper than the legions had ever penetrated.

The transition to dominance marked the beginning of the last period in the history of the Western Roman Empire - a social system based on slavery. The highest stage in the development of the ancient military dictatorship was supposed to prevent further decline of the state. Indeed, domination led to a temporary limited restoration and conservation of the disintegrating system of domination. The Empire split into Western Roman and Eastern Roman, the latter of which soon became an independent state - Byzantium. The fall of the Western Roman Empire on September 4, 476 can be considered the end of the Roman Empire proper.

Conclusion.

There were two main political periods in the history of the Roman Empire: the Principate and the Dominat. The Principate was a monarchy disguised as a republic, the Dominat was an absolute monarchy, already without the republican elements of early Roman history. Beginning with the reign of Emperor Augustus, the Principate was formally divided into legislative and executive powers. The first belonged to the Senate, the second was in the hands of the princip. The separation of powers, however, was not complete. Principes, the emperor and “father of the people,” had the right of legislative initiative, and the senate ruled some provinces. Laws came into force after their approval by the principes, although they were adopted by the Senate. The emperor's decrees could have the force of law without the approval of the Senate, as is the case in Russia, without any regard to republican norms. However, not all of the listed deviations from ideal democracy made the Roman Republic an empire. In political theory, the line separating a presidential republic from a monarchy is clearly established. Its essence: elections. If the head of the country is actually elected by the people, it is a very limited republic. If the election is only the confirmation of a successor determined by the former head of state or his entourage, this is a monarchy. The term of office does not decide anything; it can be shifted in any direction, canceled or respected. The Roman Principate was such a monarchy. The head of the Roman state of the 1st-3rd centuries, as a rule, was not the blood heir of the previous ruler. He was a successor, he was adopted, appointed to important positions. The successor of the Principles performed “great feats”: he crushed enemies, eradicated Mediterranean piracy, improved cities and restored long-awaited order somewhere. When the time approached and the former emperor went to keep company with his predecessors and other Olympian gods, the new head of state was approved by the Senate. It was a democratic ritual, the “republic” “chose” its head. In Russia, this ritual looks almost the same, with the difference that the president is “elected by the whole people” for a certain period, actually determined by the president himself. However, behind the apparent democratic advantage of Russia over the tyranny of ancient Rome lies the lack of rights of domestic parliamentarism. The (oligarchic) ​​Senate of the Principate era had much more powers than the Russian parliament - the State Duma - which generally played the role of a chamber for support. The Senate of Rome, of course, did not elect the principle; the people and the “parliamentarians” of Rome themselves approved the new head of the “republic” not without fear for their own lives. But in Russia, elections are also very conditional. The Roman Empire was not a federation. Neither is Russia. The abolition of elections by territories for governors, that is, heads of self-governing regions, and the threat of dissolving local parliaments if they are unwilling to approve the presidential candidate completely negates any federalism. Economically, the regions are no longer independent. In essence, the state has a unitary nature, which does not add real stability to it. Having deprived the people of the right to choose the heads of their territories, the president outwardly strengthened his power, but from now on he became the culprit of everything. Hundreds of thousands of police officers are only a temporary reprieve, but not protection at all. The policies pursued by the authorities in Russia worsen the situation of the population both economically and socially. But the presidential principle and the elimination of federalism are needed precisely in order to carry out this policy further: these are the interests of the economically dominant class, whose executive body is the state. Having returned the monarchy from the crypt of history, the Russian government hopes to use it as the most powerful mechanism in the fight against the people.
Bibliography.

Golubovich V.I. Economic history of foreign countries. - M., 2001.

Egorov, A. B. Rome on the brink of eras: problems of the birth and formation of the principate. L., 1985.

Elnitsky, L. A. The emergence and development of slavery in Rome in the 8th-3rd centuries BC. M., 1964.

Kovalev, S.I. History of Rome: textbook. L., 1986.

Mashkin, N. A. Principate of Augustus. M., 1949.

History of state and law of foreign countries: Textbook/Ed. P.N.Galanza, B.S.Gromakova. M., 2000.

History of state and law of foreign countries: Textbook/Ed. O.A. Zhidkova, N.A. Krasheninnikova. M., 2002 Part 1

History of ancient Rome: Textbook./ Ed. IN AND. Kuzishchina. - M. 2008.

History of political and legal doctrines. Textbook /Ed. V.S. Nersesyantsa - M., 2001.

History of political and legal doctrines. Textbook/ Ed. O.E. Leista - N.: Publishing house "Zerkalo" - 1999.

History of political doctrines. Textbook /Ed. O.V. Martyshina - M., 2000.

History of the ancient world: in 3 volumes / Ed. I. M. Dyakonova and others - M., 1988.

History of Europe. T.1. Ancient Europe. M., - 1988.

A brief dictionary of legal terms of Roman law. Sverdlovsk, 1999.

Motylev. Economic history of capitalist countries. - M., 2000

Nasibullin R.A. Essays on the history of foreign law. Part 2. Ekaterinburg, 2001.

Novitsky I.B. Fundamentals of Roman civil law. Textbook. M, 2002.

Novitsky I.B. Roman Law M., 2001.

Savelyev V.A. History of Roman private law. M., 2003.

Collection of documents on the general history of state and law / Compiled by. K.E. Livantsev. L., 2000.

Skripilev E.A. Fundamentals of Roman law. M., 2003.

Utchenko, S. L. Julius Caesar. M., 1976.

Reader on the general history of state and law / Ed. Z.M. Chernilovsky. M., 1999.

Reader on the history of ancient Rome / Ed. S.L.Utchenko. M., 2002.

Roman law. IN era Principate, the meaning of custom as... was inclusion in the composition Roman states territories conquered by Rome, population...

1. Roman law law of ancient Rome, Rimsky states slave-owning formation

   Cheat sheet >> State and law

   ... Roman lawyers flourished during the period Principate– classical period. To the classic era... rendered Roman to the state in protecting the safety of roads, supplies Roman to the state and... office department), and during the period dominatrix(from 284 AD) all...

2. Roman private law (6)

   Presentation >> State and law

   1.2 History Roman rights Roman law developed in close connection with history Rimsky states. This state passed in... everyone who wanted it. WITH era Principate escheat property was transferred to the state, and in era dominatrix right to this inheritance...

3. Fiscal policy states (9)

   Abstract >> Economics

   Tiberius, Roman Emperor in 14 - 37 from R.H. 1. Essence and history State possible and necessary... in era Principate: fines, pledges of the losing party in court, escheated inheritance (starting with Emperor Caracalla). IN era dominatrix ...

The republican institutions of Rome developed as governing bodies of a small polis. They could not perform the same functions in relation to the entire huge power that Rome had become as a result of an active military policy. This task was historically destined to be fulfilled by the Roman Empire. The period of the monarchy was divided into two parts: a) the principate (until the 3rd century) and b) the dominant (IV-V centuries).

1. Principate. The period of the principate received its name from the title of the person at the head of the Roman state, the princeps. From the point of view of the organization of the state mechanism, the period of the principate has the appearance of a transitional stage from a republic to a monarchy. Individual and unlimited power is gradually concentrated in the hands of the princeps, but with the preservation, to a greater or lesser extent, of some republican institutions, which, however, are dependent on the princeps. Back in 36 BC. Octavian was elected tribune for life. In 31 he was elected consul, in 29 he was given the power of censor. Octavian received the title "first senator". This title existed before: this was the name of the senator who was first on the list of speakers, but he did not enjoy any special rights. On the contrary, Octavian, as princeps, became

be treated as a senior official. In 27, Octavian was invested with supreme power and soon after took the name Augustus (that is, “exalted” by the gods). The power of the princeps included command of troops, conducting foreign relations and concluding international treaties, directing the publication of laws, and governing Rome and the provinces.

The power of the princeps was not originally hereditary. The election of the new prince was carried out by the Senate. As internal contradictions and external complications grow, power is increasingly consolidated in the hands of the princeps. At the beginning of the 3rd century. the famous Roman lawyer Ulpian said with good reason: “what the princeps decides has the force of law.” Republican institutions fade into the background and even lose their significance altogether.

The needs of managing a huge empire necessitated a developed administrative and military apparatus for the princeps. This apparatus consists not of elected officials, but of the servants of the princeps, whom he appoints and removes at his discretion, and who are obedient instruments in his hands. There is a meeting with the prince to discuss the most important matters.

The backbone of the princeps' power was the army. Under Augustus, the organization of a standing army (consisting of 500,000 people), stationed mainly in the border provinces, was consolidated. As a general rule, the army was recruited by hiring for a service period of 20 years. But in some cases, forced recruitment was carried out not only of full-fledged Roman citizens, but also of freedmen. The senior command staff was appointed by the princeps from the senatorial and equestrian classes. The army, constrained by strict discipline and its own professional interests, was a formidable force. A special position was occupied by the imperial guard (praetorians), who formed the garrison of Rome and the personal guard of the emperor.

There is a special treasury of the emperor (fisk). It receives income from the personal property of the emperor, from state property in the provinces, tribute and taxes from conquered peoples, etc. Huge funds are concentrated in this treasury, giving the princeps the opportunity to carry out his policies - and accordingly, the importance of the national treasury, located in administered by the Senate.

People's assemblies are losing all meaning. Only in some cases, and only at the beginning of the period of the Principate, are draft laws approved by the Senate submitted to a vote of the centuriate and tributory assemblies, but this voting is a purely formality.

At the beginning of the Principate, the Senate still retains some, albeit very limited, influence on state affairs. The breakdown of previous institutions occurs gradually, and in some cases there is a struggle between the Senate and the princeps, but this struggle invariably ends in the victory of the princeps. The Senate is staffed entirely by the princeps, and under such conditions it becomes clear that in some respects the competence of the Senate is formally expanded: the usual republican forms are used in the interests of the monarchy. Thus, the Senate is given legislative power, but it only mechanically approves the proposals of the princeps.

The magistrates are already deprived of real power: they are the executors of the orders of the princeps and their main functions are transferred to imperial officials. The only magistrate who retained its importance until the 2nd century was the praetor. However, even if he retained a significant part of his functions, the nature of his activities changed: the development of private law through the praetor's edict is weakened and the orders of the emperor become the main source of law.

The difference between Italy and the provinces is gradually smoothed out: the entire territory of the Roman Empire receives a uniform structure. Italy is gradually losing its privileged position. Some communities retain a certain independence in internal affairs and local law applies in the relations of their citizens. There are also some provincial institutions, but their competence is greatly reduced. Permanent Roman garrisons are maintained in the provinces and Roman police are introduced. Roman officials also carried out judicial functions, which contributed to the displacement of local law by Roman law. The exploitation of the provinces for the benefit of the princeps treasury becomes systematic, deep and calculated over a long period.

2. Dominant. (III – IV centuries). In the face of slave uprisings and military defeats from the “barbarians,” the exploiters make a last attempt to delay the hour of their death and seek salvation in the further strengthening of military terror. The Roman state machine of the last period is the military despotism of the emperor, expressing the centralized military dictatorship of the top of the slave-owning class. In this regard, at the end of the 3rd century. and the beginning of the 4th century. military reform was carried out. The army was greatly enlarged and divided into mobile troops, intended to fight uprisings and campaigns, and

border troops. At the beginning of the 4th century. a special position of commander-in-chief was introduced. The procedure for recruiting the army also changed.

Landowners, depending on the number of their slaves, had to field a certain number of recruits. The border troops were recruited mainly from barbarians. The Christian Church became a powerful organization that the state had to take into account. Christian communities received the right to free activity and the right to own property. In the 4th century. Christianity became the state religion. The Christian Church supported the ruling classes with all its authority and “justified” the imperial power.

During the period of dominance, terror intensifies, taxation is brought to a redistribution, and petty regulation is introduced. But the Roman Empire is collapsing, and all attempts to save the situation are in vain - Rome is quickly heading towards its destruction.

The need to strengthen state power to protect the slave system from slaves, the pressure of “barbarians” and the decentralist aspirations of the provinces exploited by Rome caused serious changes in the state system. Even under Diocletian (end of the 3rd century), the division of the empires into two halves - eastern and western - was planned. This division finally occurred under Theodosius 1 (395). This process marked a weakening of economic ties between different parts of the empire.

At the head of each half of the empire was a special Augustus, who had a co-ruler who bore the title of Caesar. Initially, both halves were considered as parts of a single state, but later these parts gradually became isolated, and by the end of the dominance we can already talk about two separate states (Western and Eastern Empires).

At the head of the empire (and subsequently - each half of the empire) is an emperor, bearing the title of Augustus and lord. His power is recognized as unlimited. The emperor chooses his closest assistant, Caesar; Usually Caesar is the son of the emperor and succeeds him. The actual administration of the empire was in the hands of a large bureaucracy.

The Senate and some magistrates, although retained, lose all influence on state affairs. The central body considering the most important issues was the council under the emperor (consistory). The main official is the yard manager. In addition to him, the emperor has a number of departments based on the principle of centralization and hierarchical subordination.

The main principles of the organization of local government are: strict centralization, a large number of specialized officials, separation of military power from civil power. All threads of local government converged in Rome, and the tasks of local institutions were to squeeze out various burdensome taxes and natural supplies from their subjects, and to mercilessly combat all kinds of unrest and manifestations of discontent.

Each half of the empire was divided into two prefectures, the prefectures were divided into dioceses (in the west there were 6 dioceses, in the east - 7 dioceses), the diocese was divided into provinces (in the Western Empire alone there were 34 provinces), and finally, the provinces were divided into districts. In these districts there were bodies from the local population (the Senate and municipal magistrates), but they were subordinate to imperial officials. At the head of Rome was the prefect of the city, directly subordinate to the emperor. The Senate remained, but was in charge of purely local affairs of the city of Rome.

The Western Roman Empire fell to the barbarians in 476. The Eastern Roman Empire - Byzantium - existed for almost another thousand years, entering the world of feudalism.

History of state and law of foreign countries: Cheat sheet Author unknown

15. PRINCIPLE AND DOMINANCE

15. PRINCIPLE AND DOMINANCE

After the fall of the republic, a new official actually stood at the head of all magistrates - princeps. He was endowed with special power, supervised the administration of the provinces, had immunity, and had the right to veto the orders of all magistrates. Under the emperor, his personal council (consilium), which, since the reign of Emperor Hadrian (beginning of the 2nd century), became an official institution. Senior officials began to be considered the head of the imperial guard, the chief of police, etc.

By the 2nd century The Roman wave of conquest faded away, the main source of slaves dried up, latifundia began to disappear; began to abandon forced slave labor, appears colonate(attachment of formally free peasants to the land and their exploitation). Barbarian (Germanic, Slavic, etc.) pressure on the borders of the Roman Empire is increasing.

Under Emperor Karkalla all free people living in the provinces of the Roman Empire received the rights of Roman citizenship, and accordingly Roman law began to apply to them. Non-Latin barbarians rushed into the army, which led to the whole era of “soldier emperors” (3rd century). Emperor Diocletian (1st century) tries to centralize state, to stabilize the political system of the Roman Empire, which was in crisis. He initiated the assignment of townspeople to their place of residence and profession (prerequisites for feudalism)

Dominant(as opposed to the principate) is a real monarchy. Emperor Diocletian divided the Roman Empire into eastern and western parts and moved the administrative center of the empire to the east. A little later he installed tetrarchy: the country was divided into two parts: western and eastern, each of which was headed by Augusts. Each of the halves was divided again in two, one fourth of the empire was led by the Augustus of the corresponding half, the other by Caesar appointed by him. Thus it appeared 4 Emperors: August 2 (eastern and western) and 2 Caesars. After Diocletian, Emperor Constantine abolished the tetrarchy.

In 313, Emperor Constantine issued an edict in Milan (Milan): it was recognized religious tolerance in the empire. In 325, the First Ecumenical Council of the Christian Church met in Nicaea under the leadership of Constantine I the Great. At this council, the first part of the Christian Creed was developed. The formation of the symbol of faith was completed by the Second Ecumenical Council of the Christian Church (held in Constantinople (Constantinople)). Feodosia the Great proclaimed Christianity is the state religion Roman Empire. After his death, the independent Western Roman Empire (with its center in Rome) and the Eastern Roman Empire (with its center in Constantinople) were formed.

Vandals and barbarians began to destroy the Western Roman Empire. The capital of the Western Roman Empire was moved from Rome to Ravenna. The last minor Western Roman emperor, Romulus Augustulus, was overthrown in 476 by the chief of the guard, Odoacer, who sent the signs of imperial dignity to Constantinople. Odoacer proclaimed himself ruler of Italy, but was soon overthrown. Antiquity ended, the Middle Ages began.

From the book The Roman Empire. The Greatness and Fall of the Eternal City by Isaac Asimov

Principate When peace reigned in the country, Octavian decided to reorganize the government. At that time, Rome was ruled by the Senate, that is, a group of people chosen from the richest and most noble Roman families. This form of government worked well as long as Rome controlled a small area,

From the book France. Great historical guide author Delnov Alexey Alexandrovich

DOMINANCE - SOLID POWER IN THE ASHES The Empire nevertheless survived - it was given another two centuries. And not all of them were agony; no people could withstand such prolonged torment. Around 270, signs of some stabilization appeared. The victorious commander Aurelian (ruled in

From the book History of the Ancient World. Volume 3. The Decline of Ancient Societies author Sventsitskaya Irina Sergeevna

The Principate and the Community The Roman reality of the era of the Principate was full of remnants of the communal way of life. Sometimes these were not even relics, but organic elements of life, views, habits, and traditions dissolved in it. They found expression in relationships

From the book Greece and Rome [The evolution of the art of war over 12 centuries] author Connolly Peter

Early Principate The most striking examples of siege technology from the early Principate era are the sieges of Vespasian and Titus during the Jewish revolt (66 - c. 73 AD). Three of them, the sieges of Jotapata, Jerusalem and Masada, are described in some detail by Josephus.

author Kovalev Sergey Ivanovich

From the book History of Rome (with illustrations) author Kovalev Sergey Ivanovich

From the book Greece and Rome, encyclopedia of military history author Connolly Peter

Early Principate The most striking examples of siege technology from the early Principate era are the sieges of Vespasian and Titus during the Jewish revolt (66 - c. 73 AD). Three of them, the sieges of Jotapata, Jerusalem and Masada, are described in some detail by Josephus.

From the book History of Rome author Kovalev Sergey Ivanovich

Principate of Augustus We have already talked about how the transition from a long era of civil wars to a stable civil peace gave rise to a creative upsurge in the circles of the Roman intelligentsia, although the latter was of a rather limited and specific nature. To what has been said

From the book History of Rome author Kovalev Sergey Ivanovich

CHAPTER XIII THE MONARCHY OF DIOCLETIAN AND CONSTANTINE (DOMINATE) The coming to power of Diocletian in 284 marked not only the end of the crisis and stabilization in the empire, but also the birth of a new system of power - the dominant. Dominat is an absolute monarchy in which the official title

From the book History of Rome author Kovalev Sergey Ivanovich

The Dominant and its social support Diocletian finally suppressed the socio-political unrest of the 3rd century. In this respect, he completed the work begun by Aurelian. But overcoming the political crisis meant some change in the form of the state, which was also

From the book History of the Times of the Roman Emperors from Augustus to Constantine. Volume 1. by Krist Carl

Principate of Augustus Preliminary remarksGreek historian Cassius Dio, who at the beginning of the 3rd century AD. wrote “Roman History”, placed it in the description of the events of 29 BC. two big speeches. Following the traditional historiographical pattern, they should

author

The Flavian Principate (69–96) The Senate and people recognized Vespasian (69–79) as emperor. In 70 he arrived in Rome and accepted a difficult inheritance. The empire was in a deplorable state: the treasury was depleted, the economy had fallen into disrepair, the troops were demoralized, and the provinces were restless.

From the book History of the Ancient World [East, Greece, Rome] author Nemirovsky Alexander Arkadevich

Section V The Age of the Late Empire (dominant)

From the book Novgorod Principate author Kesler Yaroslav Arkadievich

Novgorod Principate 1. Introduction The history of Novgorod is one of the cores of traditional historiography in Russia. The entire Varangian concept of the formation of the Russian state is “tied” to it. In Russian chronicles, Novgorod on Volkhov is considered known since 859, i.e. at least

author Egorov Alexey Borisovich

3. “Principate” Maria (111–100 BC) It is unknown whether Gaius Gracchus foresaw what would happen 10 years after his death, but the Gracchi’s concern for the fighting ability of the Roman army turned out to be prophetic. The degree of collapse became visible already during the so-called Jugurthine War

From the book Julius Caesar. Political biography author Egorov Alexey Borisovich

4. “Principate” Pompey (69–63) 60s. marked by a decrease in tension. Of the major wars, only the campaign of Lucullus in the east remained, which was continued by Pompey. In 70–69 only 15 legions were active (half as many as in the 70s), and in 68–59. the army size ranged from 10

The history of Ancient Rome cannot be imagined without the great Roman Empire, which was characterized by the political system of the principate and the dominant. The latter was marked by the establishment of an absolute monarchy, in which all the decisions of the emperor were not subject to criticism and were recognized as strict laws.

Dominance in Ancient Rome

Dominat is a form of government that replaced the principate. Its main feature is the establishment of an absolute monarchy in the period from the 3rd to the 5th centuries AD. e.

The dominance was established with the coming to power of Emperor Diocletian, who ruled the Roman Empire from 284 to 305.

In world history, the period of dominance is often called the “late empire” or “late antiquity.” The term “dominant” itself became widespread thanks to the usual for that era address to the emperor - “dominus et deus”, which translates as “lord and god”.

Having ascended the throne, Emperor Diocletian made every effort to ensure that an unlimited monarchy reigned in Rome. Through his efforts, old-style institutions quickly disappeared in the state, and the administration of the empire was carried out by several influential authorities.

Rice. 1. Emperor Diocletian.

During the reign of Diocletian, they played an important role the following organizations:

TOP 4 articleswho are reading along with this

• State Council. At its meetings, major political issues were discussed and bills were prepared.
• Financial department.
• Military Department.

At the head of these institutions were generals appointed personally by the emperor and who were completely subordinate to him.

Under Diocletian, officials were assigned a special class. They stood out favorably against the background of the rest of the population: they had their own uniform, various privileges, and a lifetime pension upon completion of service.

Diocletian's reforms

As the son of a freedman, Diocletian was able to achieve unlimited power in the Roman Empire, and have a significant influence on its political and economic life.

The most important reforms of Diocletian include:

• The division of control and power between four rulers, as well as the conditional division of the state into two parts - western and eastern. Each part was ruled by the emperor's viceroy, Augustus. The Augusti, in turn, had the right to choose their assistants-co-rulers, who were given the title of Caesar.

Translated, “tetrarchy” means “rule of four.” All co-rulers were considered members of a single imperial family, but all power belonged only to the emperor.

• Increasing the army by one third and dividing it into two parts: one part was located on the borders of the Roman state, while the other, the mobile part, oversaw the entire state and ensured its security.

Rice. 2. Army of the Roman Empire.

• The introduction of a single direct tax, which was paid in kind.
• Establishing maximum payment amounts for various specialties and maximum prices for the best-selling goods: rye, wheat, poppy seeds, etc.
• The introduction of a full-fledged gold coin as a way to eliminate damaged money from everyday use.

. Total ratings received: 238.