xiv Introduction
counterpointto‘‘thevaluesofstatusandambition’’onwhichtheimperial
courtandimperialsocietyasawholewerebased,wasnotinfactintegrated
intoThe Emperor in the Roman World.
ThegruesomesubjectofpenalpunishmentintheRomanEmpireisfully
exploredbyMillarforthefirsttimeinchapter7:‘‘CondemnationtoHard
Labour in the Roman Empire, from the Julio-Claudians to Constantine’’
(1984).Thedual-penaltysystemintroducedintotheRomanlegalsystemin
thesecondcenturya.d.meantthatthevariousformsofphysicalpunishment,
incarceration and hard labour, meticulouslydescribed here,were reserved
for‘‘lower-class’’persons—andalsoforChristians.
Anotherclassicpieceis‘‘TheEquestrianCareerundertheEmpire’’(chap-
ter 8),which contains the first part of Millar’s review from 1963 of H.-G.
Pflaum,Les carrières procuratoriennes équestres sous le Haut-Empire romainI–III
(Paris,1960–61),andalsotakesonboardPflaum’sProcurateurs équestres sous le
Haut-Empire romain(Paris, 1950). For Millar Pflaum’s reconstruction of the
equestriancareernotonlyantedatestheevolutionofafullyfledgedeques-
trian civil servicewith a highly regulated career,with rules of promotion
andfixedgradesofpay.Likeotherinterpretationsthatrestlargelyonproso-
pographical data, it does not payenough attention to the broader picture,
to the sociopolitical and cultural framework which clearly resisted such a
development.
Triggeredoff byE.N.Luttwak’sThe Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire
from the First Centurya.d.to the Third(BaltimoreandLondon,1976),chap-
ter9,‘‘Emperors,Frontiers,andForeignRelations,31b.c.–a.d.378’’(1982),
analyzes‘‘theconditionsunderwhichtheexternalpolicyoftheEmpirewas
formulatedandputintoeffect.’’^7 Itexplorestheinterplaybetweentheem-
perorasthecommanderinchiefandtherestrainingfactorsoftime,distance,
andavailabilityof informationinshapingforeignpolicyandexpansion.In
modernperceptiondiplomaticactivityischaracteristicofrelationswithfor-
eignpowersbeyondthebordersofthestate.Thisviewprovesitselfinade-
quateinthecaseoftheRomanEmpire,wheretheveryconceptofborders
didnotexist.Here‘‘mostoftheevidenceforexchangeswhichhavetheform
ofdiplomaticdealingsinfactcomesfrom...dealingswithcitiesandcom-
munitiesunambiguouslysubjecttotheRomanEmpire,whichpaidtribute
toit,andwhichwereineverysensewithinitsborders,’’asdemonstratedin
chapter10:‘‘GovernmentandDiplomacyintheRomanEmpireduringthe
FirstThreeCenturies’’(1988).Thesameistrueofrelationswiththeso-called
clientkingswhoseambiguousstatuswithintheRomanworldisrevealedin
- Textfollowingn.12.