Citizenship Options

[Northern Neil]

When did the concept of Roman Citizenship finally expire? Did it sort of wither away once Caracalla had it made universal to free inhabitants of the Empire, or did it continue as an institution prior to the Lombard invasion, when there were still 'real' Romans in Italy? or did it cease to become an institution during the third century crisis, as the definition between freemen, serfs and slaves became a bit grey? All ideas welcome!!

[Primus Pilus]

When did the concept of Roman Citizenship finally expire? Did it sort of wither away once Caracalla had it made universal to free inhabitants of the Empire, or did it continue as an institution prior to the Lombard invasion, when there were still 'real' Romans in Italy? or did it cease to become an institution during the third century crisis, as the definition between freemen, serfs and slaves became a bit grey? All ideas welcome!!

An interesting question. There is evidence that aristocratic families of the 'post Roman west' were still touting membership in the Roman Senate (long after its function as a governing body). However I quite frankly don't recall any detailed information regarding citizenship after the key reduction in its prestige (ie. Caracalla's Constitutio Antoniniana as you mention). While I'm sure there was still a distinction (at least in theory) between actual Romans and provincials, my guess is that over the century and a half between Caracalla and Theodosius, membership in a Church 'congregation' may have started to become more important than actual citizenship (since it was non exclusive anymore anyway).

On a side note, I think its quite an important yet often ignored key event in the eventual 'fall of the west'. The lack of 'civic pride' once afforded by citizenship had virtually disappeared and the meaning of what it was to be 'Roman' seems to have slipped right along with the desire to serve both the state and the army.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Why would extending citizenship to Roman provincials be a bad thing? Do you think extending citizenship to Italian allies also led to a drop in 'civic pride'? I'd think that having a right to trial would make you more loyal to your government.

[Primus Pilus]

Why would extending citizenship to Roman provincials be a bad thing? Do you think extending citizenship to Italian allies also led to a drop in 'civic pride'? I'd think that having a right to trial would make you more loyal to your government.

Agreed, for the 'provincials' recently enfranchised, but to those who previously held citizenship it would be considered unpopular. Much like the Senate resisted any inclusion of outsiders into its ranks, the citizenry also liked its own exclusivity. It did allow Caracalla to increase the treasury, and provided new recruits for the legions, but I suspect that over time, it had the effect of 'breaking up the club', so to speak. It seems to me that Roman society may have became a 'what have you done for me lately crowd' rather than a 'what can we do for Rome'.

Just a talking point really...

[Pantagathus]

Why would extending citizenship to Roman provincials be a bad thing? Do you think extending citizenship to Italian allies also led to a drop in 'civic pride'?

I think P-P may be inadvertantly putting Christianity in the cross hairs of guilt. A few of as have discussed this on the side and the Church helped degrade civic pride more than anything.

[Primus Pilus]

I think P-P may be inadvertantly putting Christianity in the cross hairs of guilt. A few of as have discussed this on the side and the Church helped degrade civic pride more than anything.

Yes, a conglomeration of thoughts rolled into one messy ball I suppose. Essentially, an evolution from 'state' citizenship to parish or diocese membership that precluded most of what defined the citizenship. Of course this happened over a long period of time, so Caracalla's initial constitutional reform is not a single event that completely altered the Roman state of mind.

Anyway, forgive my off-topicness...

[Pertinax]

Why would extending citizenship to Roman provincials be a bad thing? Do you think extending citizenship to Italian allies also led to a drop in 'civic pride'?

I think P-P may be inadvertantly putting Christianity in the cross hairs of guilt. A few of as have discussed this on the side and the Church helped degrade civic pride more than anything.

I have to second this statement, I have expressed my views on Julian (the Apostate ) elsewhere , but I take no issue with Christians/Christiannity pre se : my point is that as a tactical separation of the Cult of the Emperor from the actuality of everyday Roman business/economic brand loyalty to the "conscience of the individual" as a (potentially) atomised individual unit of Empire ,we hit the greatest mental cleavage since the death of the Republic.Indeed this is the key fracture line in the end of the western Empire. The diminution of the old order and its supplanting with the new religion did not bring any greater moral strength -certainly inits early days we see rapacious opportunism as the new state "cult" is empowered. I repeat this is not an anti Christian statement but a comment on the mundane practical appreciation of "Romaness" in relation to a centrally identifiable brand cult.

[caldrail]

Citizenship never went away, it just became less important because later periods gave it to everyone. Foreigners therefore had an added incentive to cross the Danube even if the romans didn't bother themselves much.

This post has been edited by caldrail: Feb 14 2006, 04:26 PM

[M. Porcius Cato]

If extending citizenship cheapened it and led to low participation, then why was Italian participation quite high even after they gained citizens' rights? I'd suggest that extending the citizenship per se was a smart move, as long as citizens had the potential to climb higher for serving Rome more. That was very much the case during the republic, when Rome extended citizenship without a loss of provincial participation.

[Ludovicus]

How did a Roman prove he or she was a citizen of the Empire? I doubt there was a certificate on paper in someone's safe deposit box at the bank. Were Roman citizens recorded in a birth index at the local tabularium? I'm sure disputes arose over who was and wasn't a citizen. How were these disputes resolved?

[M. Porcius Cato]

How did a Roman prove he or she was a citizen of the Empire? I doubt there was a certificate on paper in someone's safe deposit box at the bank. Were Roman citizens recorded in a birth index at the local tabularium? I'm sure disputes arose over who was and wasn't a citizen. How were these disputes resolved?

Almost unbelievably, there were no birth certificates or public records of who was and was not a citizen. When a dispute arose over whether a person was or was not a citizen, it was the first matter to be decided, and it was decided like many such issues--through testimonia.

In some ways this seems strange, but I distinctly recall the effort it took to assemble all the necessary documents required to get an American passport and thinking, "Oh for heaven's sake! Just ask anybody--I'm obviously an American citizen!" My bet is that this is the sort of reasoning that most people would have used to justify their testimony-based citizenship claims.

[Favonius Corneli...]

If extending citizenship cheapened it and led to low participation, then why was Italian participation quite high even after they gained citizens' rights?

I guess it's the difference between gaining citizenship in a Republic and gaining citizenship in an Empire as you say. Still you would think even in these later times the benifit of citizenship would be worthwhile. I mean what still was the difference between the two time periods? Even an Italian living in Brutia had to march to Rome to vote, so an elected system does not seem to be a driving force...

This post has been edited by Favonius Cornelius: Feb 22 2006, 04:58 PM