Roman Rule and Local Society in the Province of Macedonia: The Case of Thessaloniki

Thessaloniki in the cove of the Thermaic Gulf was founded in 316/5 BC by Cassander, who, according to Strabo, synoecized twenty-six polismata around the Thermaic Gulf and Krousis. [1] The abolition of kingship in 168 BC and the establishment of the province of Macedonia in 148 BC led to a new era in the history of the city. According to Livy, after the defeat of King Perseus, representatives from the cities of Macedonia gathered in Amphipolis where the decisions of Aemilius Paulus and the Senate for the administration of the region were announced. The most significant of these concerned the administrative organisation of Macedonia into four independent districts, of which the second would have Thessaloniki as its capital. [2] In this passage, Livy characterizes the city as celeberrima urbs, [3] while among the advantages of the second district he mentions the existence of ports, such as that of Aenea, one of the polismata that had been absorbed by Thessaloniki in 316/5 BC. In this paper, I aim to examine the imposition of Roman rule and its sociopolitical consequences on the capital of the first Roman province in the east Mediterranean, provincia Macedonia. Thessaloniki is an exemplary case for examining the influence of Roman presence and administration on the everyday life of the citizens, since it was the seat of Roman authorities, but it also hosted a large number of negotiatores who moved from Italy to the east. [4] In what follows, I will investigate the changes brought about by the Romans at the political level as well as their effect on the local society. Specifically, in the first part, emphasis will be given to the exercise of Roman rule and the institutional developments that took place in Thessaloniki after the Roman conquest, while the second part will focus on the local community, particularly the elite, and how it responded to the new regime and exploited its connection with the Roman authorities.

After the establishment of the province in 148 BC, Thessaloniki became the seat of the Roman governor. [5] Among the most characteristic testimonies are Cicero’s letters referring to his residence in the quaestorium in Thessaloniki as well as a letter by the proconsul Cn. Cornelius Dolabella stating that envoys were received by him in the same city. [6] The city’s status as caput provinciae is further supported by an epitaph, published after Haensch’s work, mentioning an arcarius vicessima hereditatium, an official responsible for tax collection in the province. [7] The establishment of the provincial administration in Thessaloniki apparently affected its population, since inscriptions testify to the presence of a whole set of higher or lower officials in the city. [8] Within this framework, it becomes evident that Thessalonians could have more direct access to the governor of the province, while it is not a coincidence that honorific monuments addressed to the governor and his family mainly come from Thessaloniki. [9]

The actions of the governor had both positive and negative consequences for the city, even though Thessaloniki as a civitas libera was typically beyond his jurisdiction. [10] The case of Calpurnius Piso, governor of Macedonia in 57-55 BC, whom Cicero harshly criticizes, is characteristic. [11] Although the rivalry between the two men requires a cautious reading of Cicero’s words, the reference to the danger the city faced due to Piso’s mismanagement cannot be ignored. According to the orator, Thessalonians were forced to withdraw to the acropolis so as to protect themselves from barbarian raids. [12] The consequences of Piso’s mismanagement cannot be assessed with certainty, but an honorific decree dated precisely to 57 BC may confirm the existence of financial problems. [13] Specifically, the mention of one tamias instead of two and the lack of a specific reference to the place where the statues would be erected (possibly because the honors would only be implemented at a later stage) may indicate financial constraints.

Administrative documents regulating public affairs are relatively few and most of them quite fragmentary, thus they do not shed light on the history of the city and its diplomatic contacts with the emperor and the proconsul. For example, from a letter by Antoninus Pius to the archons, the boule and the demos only the imperial titulature has survived as well as the phrase ἐν αὐτῆι, which offers no clue for the content of the letter. [14] A small fragment of a letter, most probably by an emperor, seems to have referred to economic issues (δαπάνας), but again it is not clear if it concerned financial constraints or an unfair financial burden. [15] Two more fragmentary letters probably originate from Thessaloniki: the first refers to an embassy (πρεσβευ[- – -]) and may concern issues related to the koinon ([- – -]ῷ Μακεδόνων, Μακεδό[νες]), while the content of the second cannot be restored. [16] One more letter by an unknown emperor was engraved on a now lost monument. [17] It refers to a privilege bestowed solely on Thessaloniki ([Θεσσαλ]ο̣νίκῃ μόνῃ συν<ήπτ>ετο ἡ τι̣[μὴ]), probably conferred by the emperor’s father and renewed by him (LL. 22-27). [18] The issue the letter tries to resolve was relevant to a sum of money the city should pay to some envoys. [19] As G. Souris notes, the second letter is addressed to another body, probably the Macedonian koinon (Μακεδόνων τὸ̣ κ̣[οινὸν]), since Thessaloniki and its residents are mentioned in the third person. [20] Within this framework, it could be assumed that Thessaloniki refused to contribute to the expenses of an embassy sent by the koinon on the basis of a privilege it possessed. [21]

A fragmentary bilingual edict (or letter) also refers to Thessaloniki, but its state of preservation does not allow for any secure speculations. [22] It may refer to economic issues and some kind of shortage ([ne]cessitas), but neither the exact problem nor the identity of the senders can be determined. The last administrative document relevant to Thessaloniki is an unpublished edict probably originating from the city. [23] The edict’s aim is to regulate a series of issues related to the trade of salt in the province, thus it does not focus exclusively on Thessaloniki. The city is also mentioned in a letter by emperor Hadrian to the Dionysiac artists found in Alexandreia Troas. [24] Thessalonian envoys have met the emperor in Neapolis along with delegates from many other cities aiming at a revision of the festivals programme throughout the empire. The emperor’s response to the Thessalonians was that they could organize their games whenever they wanted, provided that no other contests approved by the Senate were taking place at the same time.

The bestowal of honorific titles and privileges by the Romans was important for the city’s development. In 42 BC Thessaloniki was proclaimed civitas libera as a reward for the support it provided to Octavian and Mark Antony in the war against the assassins of Caesar. [25] In this framework, Thessaloniki established a new dating system after Mark Antony, which, however was abolished and erased from the inscriptions when Octavian prevailed in the Battle of Actium. [26] In the third century AD, the city’s status was further enhanced when the titles μητρόπολις, νεωκόρος and κολωνία were awarded due to its importance and its alignments during conflicts between emperors. Specifically, under Gordian III Thessaloniki became neokoros for the first time, while under Decius it appears as four times neokoros (δ΄ νεωκόρος). [27] This title distinguished Thessaloniki among the Macedonian cities, while the title colonia was borne only by the capital of the province. [28] The importance of these honorific titles is evident in the competition among Greek cities, in the case of Macedonia between Thessaloniki and Beroia, for the acquisition and preservation of these privileges. [29] Their symbolic value is also depicted in their use in inscriptions and coins, even though not always in a consistent way. [30]

Apart from the changes relevant to the status of the city, which entailed practical but primarily symbolical consequences, no severe changes can be observed at the political and institutional level. Civic bodies (assembly and council), magistrates (e.g. politarchs) and other institutions continued to function more or less like in earlier periods. [31] It is noteworthy, however, that a new tribe was established in honor of a Roman magistrate, probably Cn. Egnatius, an action that promoted the incorporation of Roman rule into the traditional institutional framework and the everyday life of Thessalonians. [32] As far as public offices are concerned, the major change concerns the creation of priesthoods for new deities or deities to whom a new meaning was attributed. Typical example of the former category is the cult of Rome or the emperors, while for the latter the cult of Zeus Eleutherios, linked with the liberation of Macedonia by the kings after the Roman conquest. [33] However, it must be stressed that these changes did not take place only in Thessaloniki nor were they implemented by Roman authorities. On the contrary, they can be seen as ways of adapting to the new political context after the abolition of kingship. [34]

The significant presence of Romans in Thessaloniki, either magistrates and lower officials or negotiatores, did not affect certain aspects of local culture and identity, such as the language, as is the rule in Greek cities in the eastern part of the empire. [35] However, Roman rule left its mark on the everyday life. Specifically, the presence of Roman authorities in the city was not “overlooked”, as is indicated in a funerary inscription with provisions against potential violators of the monument. Although it is usually stipulated that the fine shall be paid to the city or the fiscus, this is the sole known case throughout the empire according to which the violator should be accountable to the proconsul himself. [36] It is more than natural that such a penalty could be imposed in Thessaloniki, where the proconsul stayed for most part of the year and thus could easily handle the case.

The spread of the civitas Romana is another primary effect of Roman rule in the provinces. It was associated with various privileges and therefore its acquisition was a primary endeavor of the locals, especially the members of the upper class. The majority of those who held political offices in imperial times were Roman citizens, while higher offices, especially at provincial level, were occupied almost exclusively by holders of the civitas Romana. In the Republican period, this could be achieved mainly through the provincial governor, while in Imperial times the emperor emerged as the main sponsor of Roman civic rights. An honorific inscription set up for an imperial freedman who exercised the duties of a procurator may shed light on this procedure. [37] The fragmentary preservation of the inscription does not allow for secure conclusions. It is possible, as has already been suggested by P. M. Nigdelis, that the individuals involved were people who acquired Roman citizenship through the mediation of the imperial freedman. [38] The presence, however, of a certain Claudia among those honoring him may prompt us to consider other factors as well, all the more so since she is mentioned first.

In the case of Thessaloniki, the persons bearing a Roman nomen gentile amount to approximately 1,250. [39] If we exclude the nomen gentis Aurelius, which was also borne by those who acquired Roman citizenship in 212 AD with the Constitutio Antoniniana, the most common nomen gentis in Thessaloniki is Iulius, followed by Aelius, Claudius and Flavius. The popularity of imperial nomina is not surprising. Augustus, despite the testimonies of historians and biographers, seems to have proceeded with extensive naturalization of foreigners, which could partly explain the large number of Iulii, [40] while Claudius is satirized by Seneca for his desire to see all the peoples of the empire wearing the toga. [41] The nomen Aelius is particularly popular as well, what is also to be expected given Hadrian’s philhellenism and Antoninus Pius’ probable close connection with the city. [42]

As far as the granting of the civitas through the mediation of provincial governors is concerned, the data is not always clear. The following examples are indicative. C. Scribonius Curio, proconsul of Macedonia, is probably behind the naturalization of the ancestors of Caius Scribonius Rufus, politarch of Thessaloniki in the second century AD. [43] Similarly, Marcus Lollius Atticus and Marcus Lollius Sabinus, attested in a list of members of a private association, [44] must have acquired the civitas through M. Lollius, probably proconsul of Macedonia in the late first century BC. On the contrary, it is not necessary to connect Titus Memmius Zosimos, treasurer of the neoi in early first century AD, with the proconsul P. Memmius Regulus, given their different praenomina. [45]

The gradual granting of political rights and the prestige they conferred on their holders becomes evident from a comparison of two dedications followed by a list of politarchs for dating purposes. [46] The first is dated to the beginning of the first century AD, [47] while the second to the middle of the second century AD. In the first one, only two of the officials mentioned are holders of the Roman citizenship, one is a child of a mixed marriage, while two simply bear a Roman name. In the following century the situation is completely different, as only two of the officials were not Roman citizens. It is worth noting that in the case of the first politarch of IG X 2.1, 126, it is not only his metronymic that is mentioned, as would be expected, but also his father’s full Roman name. [48] This choice may be an attempt to project the official’s identity as a descendant of a prominent Roman citizen. [49]

Although the epigraphic material of Thessaloniki is twice as much as that of Beroia and the comparison of the evidence from the two cities is not always secure, some observations can be made. Studying the ephebic lists from Macedonian cities, E. Sverkos observes that in second-century AD lists, the proportion of cives reaches 80% in Beroia and 88.52% in Thessaloniki. [50] He also notes that in the Beroian lists there is a balance between imperial gentilicia and gentilicia associated with negotiatores, whereas in Thessaloniki the latter predominate. [51] Indeed, the number of gentes attested in Beroian inscriptions that can be linked to Roman businessmen amounts to roughly half of those attested in Thessaloniki. What is more difficult to trace with certainty is the grant of the civitas by provincial officials. However, it can be argued that more nomina linked with Roman magistrates can be found in the capital of the province than in the seat of the koinon. [52] Even if the available data does not allow to estimate the effect of the proconsul’s presence in Thessaloniki in the spread of the civitas, it is secure to assume that the establishment of negotiatores had an influence on the demography of the city.

The existence or quick formation of a pro-Roman faction in Thessaloniki and other Macedonian cities is directly attested or implied in the sources. [53] Shortly after the founding of the province, Q. Caecilius Metellus was honored as the savior and benefactor of the city. [54] It has been reasonably assumed that Metellus may have been the initiator of the proposal to designate Thessaloniki as the capital of the province. [55] However, it is interesting that the Roman general was also honored privately by a Thessalonian, Damon son of Nikanor, in Olympia. [56] It is worth focusing on two points. First, on the place where the honorary monument was erected, that is, in a pan-Hellenic sanctuary, through which the maximum visibility of the honoree would be achieved. Second, the justification for the honors. Although brief and stereotypical, it is interesting that Metellus is primarily presented as benefactor of Damon, secondarily of Thessaloniki and finally of the Macedonians and the rest of the Greeks as a whole. Unfortunately, the relation between the two men is not known, but the connection between them through patronage is clear.

Ties of patronage are also developed during the first century BC and first century AD between prominent Romans and Thessalonian poets, whose epigrams are preserved in the Anthologia Palatina. The cases of Antipater and Philip are characteristic. The former praises the proconsul L. Calpurnius Piso Frugi as “the despoiler of Thrace” and wishes that Augustus would be favorably disposed towards his patron and his own hymns; [57] the latter dedicated his Garland to a certain Camillus, while in his epigrams one can find a rather elaborate encomium to Augustus. [58] Both poets settled in Rome during their lifetime, where they fostered links with political figures of the time. [59] Even if their provenance from Thessaloniki is not considered crucial to the formation of these relations, it is evident that the city created the appropriate framework for artistic development, since it was gradually evolving into a cultural centre, as literary, epigraphical and archaeological sources show. [60]

The way Thessalonians, especially members of the elite, project themselves in public or private monuments is also indicative of the significance of Roman rule for the local community. In two honorific inscriptions from Thessaloniki, two locals praise a governor and a quaestor of the province. [61] In both cases, the honoree is called φίλος, a term denoting the close relation between honorer and honoree and thus highlighting the personal dimension rather than the public aspect of the monument. This combination is particularly clear in the honorific inscription for the governor M. Aurelius Attina. The governor is praised for his effective and uncorrupted administration of the province, but he is also presented as benefactor and true friend of Aurelius Pontius Nikias (τὸν ἴδιον εὐεργέτην καὶ ἀληθῆ φίλον). As in most similar cases, the precise nature of the benefaction towards Aurelius Pontius Nikias remains unclear, but it is legitimate to assume from his two nomina gentis that, among others, he was awarded the civitas by Aurelius Attina honoris causa, since he was already a Roman citizen. Overall, these two monuments not only honored two Roman magistrates, but also enhanced the social status of the honorers, who projected their ties with the provincial authorities.

Within this framework, it is worth examining two inscriptions relevant to the family of Claudii Rufrii. The family’s political success can be attributed, among others, to the marriage of Claudius Menon with the daughter of Q. Valerius Rufrius Iustus, the proconsul. The latter is honored by Claudius Menon as euergetes, while in another altar he is honored by Claudius Menon the younger who uses the term συνγενῆ instead of εὐεργέτην. [62] The two monuments must be roughly contemporary, since they both praise the honoree for his excellent tenure as governor. Within this context, it is noteworthy that Claudius Menon II, probably a young man at the beginning of his career, chooses to stress his relationship to the governor, even with this broad term. [63] The cursus honorum of another prominent citizen of the city also testifies to the importance of such ties. T. Aelius Geminius Makedon held a series of offices in Thessaloniki but also out of his homeland and even beyond the boundaries of the province. In an honorific inscription set up by his daughter, it is stated that he was archon of the Panhellenes and logistes in Apollonia of Illyria. [64] These two offices could be considered the most important stages of his career; the former distinguishes him from his fellow-citizens, since he was the first Thessalonian to hold this office, while the latter testifies to his connection with the emperor (λ̣ο̣γ̣ισ̣τ̣εύ̣σ̣αντα ἐκ θείας πρ̣οστάξεως̣).

One last question that needs to be addressed is how the Roman present was combined with the local past and Macedonian identity, or even how it reaffirmed them. An honorific decree from Thessaloniki dated to the third century AD constitutes excellent case study. [65] Despite its fragmentary state of preservation, it allows some observations on the complex formation of identities in Roman Macedonia. The honoree, whose name has not been preserved, was the daughter of an eminent Thessalonian, who had entered the ordo equester and probably completed the tres militiae. Despite the family’s prestige achieved through rise to the second class of Roman society, in the decree their -alleged- descent from the Temenids is also projected ([- – -]ων Ἡρακλειδῶν ἀπὸ Τημένου). The appropriation and reworking of the local past is probably not irrelevant to the imitatio Alexandri by Roman emperors, especially the Severi. [66] The interest in the Argeads is depicted in the establishment of a cult of Alexander III in Thessaloniki, where a group of statues of his family was erected. [67]

Thessaloniki, an important city already under the Kings, assumed a major role in the Roman period as capital of the province. The establishment of the provincial administration in the city facilitated the citizens’ contact with the Roman authorities, as is depicted in 1. the epitaph stipulating that the proconsul shall impose a fine on the violator, 2. the number of cives with a nomen gentis borne by a Roman magistrate and 3. the erection of honorific monuments not only by the city but also by Thessalonians who call the officials “patrons” or “friends”. At the administrative level, imperial letters and edicts regulate economic issues, disputes and requests relevant to the city’s status, but their state of preservation does not allow for secure conclusions. Evidence from Thessaloniki as well as other cities of the province and the empire shows, however, that in most cases it was not the Romans intervening in local affairs, but local authorities who asked for the help of the governor or the emperor. Likewise, some religious innovations or institutional evolutions taking place in this period should not be seen as imposed by the Romans but as an act of adaptation on behalf of the local community. Most notable changes are evident in the population and society. A new elite is gradually being formed by locals, descendants of Romans established in the city and offsprings of mixed marriages. Members of the civic elite foster relations with the provincial authorities and obtain the civitas Romana, an essential prerequisite for social advancement and political career particularly at provincial or imperial level. Specifically, the close contacts between locals and governors or members of the familia Caesaris, as in the case of Damon and Q. Caecilius Metellus or the honorers of T. Flavius [- – -]skos, could facilitate a person’s political career. The role of Thessaloniki as caput provinciae and its status following the bestowal of honors and privileges transformed the city into an important center. In this framework, it is not a coincidence that two of the most prominent families of the province came from Thessaloniki, while Macedonians from other cities settled or set up honorific monuments there to enhance the visibility of their actions.

For epigraphic publications I use the abbreviations suggested by the Association Internationale d’Épigraphie Grecque et Latine (https://aiegl.org/grepiabbr.html).