Rome under Emperor Caracalla, 210 AD
All empires it can be agreed upon have a similar structure through the ruling method of a metropolis and periphery. In this formula the metropolis has a vast majority of the wealth and power of the empire. On the other hand, the periphery are the states that are controlled by the metropolis and are considerably weaker. This difference in power is what keep the periphery states under the control of the metropolis.
Now when the conversation of empires comes up, one of the first one that comes to mind is the Roman empire. Yet, it could be argued that in the later stages of the empire it actually was not an empire at all, but instead just a massive Roman State. In the third century AD, the emperor Caracalla made all subjects of the Roman empire Roman citizens. While this move may have been for political reasons, it could have eliminated the notion of metropolis and periphery. Now rather than an Egyptian saying they were an Egyptian under Roman rule. They could say they were equal Roman citizens with the Romans who lived in the metropolis of Rome. Does this in fact change Rome from being an empire? By making it so that there was no separation between citizen and subject does that make Rome a notion-state, a state, or still an empire? An argument could be made for each of these. It is an empire because the people are all of separate nationalities and the power would still have largely revolved around the city of Rome, as well as the massive size of the state. It could be argued that it is a state because of the fact that all the people are citizens of Rome and so no person is seen as being a lesser subject of the empire than anyone else. It could also be argued that the state was a nation-state because now all the people could claim the nationality of being a Roman citizen, though this would seem to be the most far fetched answer.
It cannot be argued that Rome started out as a republic, and eventually moved to an empire through conquest and political change. Though the question has to be raised, was the Roman empire still an empire towards the end after Caracalla’s political move to give citizenship to all subjects?
This question of the Roman status towards the end of its existence is an extremely difficult one to answer. Each possibility is feasible and can easily persuade one to believe it. However, Rome being a state or an empire is much more appropriate as opposed to a nation-state. I unfortunately cannot yet answer the question but I am interested in discovering the answer.
ReplyDeleteI think an important consideration in regards to this question is whether or not citizenship did anything to improve the situation of the people to whom it was granted. Neither Parsons nor Cooper/Burbank seem to think that it did much in that way. Parsons points out that people remained marginal because they were "common," while Cooper & Burbank point out that its primary purpose may have been to achieve a necessary enlargement of the military. So, in both of those senses, the move towards citizenship seemed to do little by way of promoting equality or even enlarging the rights of the people who received it.
ReplyDelete