Leaderboard

Romans had less moral objections about using money to further their interests. It is interesting that Roman culture had the limitation on commercial dealing s for the wealthier end of society but they simply used associates with less social restriction to do that for them. Money was after all the traditional marker for the social status you could claim. It wasn't about bloodline as one fella on another site tried to convince me of. There was more social mobility than that. And then there's the anecdote of a patrician who gave sumptuous dinners to please and impress his peers, so much s that he bankrupted himself and committed suicide. There's abundant evidence of booty as a military goal, mentioned a lot and with matter-of-fact attitude, such things were just normal practice since soldiers expected to loot and pillage as a reward for risking their lives, and that never changed. An obvious case of bribery is when an important Roman stages games. A hugely expensive investment but a way of gaining public support for your next career move. It could go disastrously wrong though. Not just deciding the fate of a gladiator to avoid compensation payments against the wishes of a crowd, but as at Fedinae in 27, when some guy had a temporary amphitheatre set up (not an uncommon practice), made of wood, which collapsed killing 20,000 spectators and injuring more. That's one career that went the same way. Provincial jobs, especially senatorial governors like propraetors and proconsuls, were a lucrative source of income. They weren't there to rule as some assume, but to represent Rome, and as Romans they found ways of extracting wealth. Some were worse than others. Quintilius Publius Varus is especially mentioned for leaving Syria very much the poorer. But then Augustus taxed the Germans without official annexation or provincialisation. Having used the royal coffers of Egypt to pay his way, he was short of cash to fund his heavy expenditure on things like supporting the military, government, and civic beautification with his own funds. It's harder to focus on what we would call everyday corruption because it was usually too low scale to get mentioned by the Roman sources, too ordinary an everyday deal. But Tacitus does give away in connection of the Pannonian Mutiny that bribery of military centurions was so commonplace that lists of official bribe levels were issued in camp. Then we have tax farmers of the republican era who paid taxes for an area themselves then had the people compensate him for the deal, at a respectful markup of course. OR the recruiters of the late empire, bribed by settlements to go away, when they would hire cheaper foreigners instead and keep the change. Everybody was at it.