Policing Ancient Rome

[Runyan99]

I've been studying Rome for a couple of years now, but there is one thing I still don't understand.

How did Rome deal with criminal issues and keep the peace in Rome itself, when there was no organized state police force, and soldiers were not allowed in the city itself, at least under the Republic? How did they deal with murder and robbery and such?

Clearly the lack of governmental policing power seems to have been an acute problem during the Roman Revolution, when Tribunes began using armed thugs to intimitade and kill office holders, and riots and violence in the Forum became common.

[Keba]

From what I know, all issues with the law were raised by individuals citizens, with the state interfering only when it was harmed by such actions.

Naturally, action against wrongdoers could be risen by anyone, as they were actio publicus.

As for how they actually apprehended such people, I'm not sure. I know that in the era of the early Republic (up to 201 BC) it was individuals that had to do everything that the law dictated. I don't know about the later times.

Sorry if this reads weird, I still lack the english terminology, as I have only begun my studies in this field.

EDIT: Did some checking, and for the most part, the stated above is true. While I am by no means certain, it seems that vigintivirs, some of the lower magistrates, were responsible for, among other things, executions. That would indicate that it is possible that they had a force for apprehending (and detaining) the culprits that they are supposed to execute.

[Templar Knight]

Didn't Rome have a City Guard?

[VandalCarthage]

There were groups like the tresviri capitales, the urban cohorts, and even the vigiles, at varying periods. For the greater part of time, in most places, crimes weren't a state concern unless committed against someone important - so you can imagine how little a perceived need there was for a lower order police force.

[Magnificant me]

I saw a peace on this very subject a while back on the history chanel. I can't remember when they were talking about but there was a sort of police force that romed the streets and punished people they found stealing and the like, a sound beation for the most part, a good number were taken to a lower cort where on man tried and sentaced them. If things got realy out of hand, like if there was a riot, the urban cohort was disbached, they were basicaly frontline soldires, only they were not on the front lines, they had all the equipment though. They would put down the riot with force. When it came to the uper class they had a uper cort where an actual trial took place the acuesd could hire a lawyer if they could aford it or wanted to. The disition was up to a jury of their pires, or maybe a grope of senitors I can't recall, they were senitors on the show but the acused may have been the son of a senitor. In the uper class the punishments were rather diferant then the lower class ones, no batings and the like. For the most part thoug the safty of the citisen was up to them self, the uper calss would often hire ex-galdiators as body garuds, mostly beacous they were big and new their way around a fight.

[Mithradates]

didnt the vigiles primarily combat fires and were often corrupt even asking for ransomes in order to put fires out etc

[Runyan99]

didnt the vigiles primarily combat fires and were often corrupt even asking for ransomes in order to put fires out etc

The triumvir Crassus started a firefighting force as a moneymaking venture. If a house or apartment building was on fire, they would show up and demand an exhorbitant fee to put out the fire. If they were not paid, they simply stood by and watched the building burn down.

They weren't corrupt. They simply refused service to those unable or unwilling to pay. And it's important to note that this was a private, and not a state run service.

[Mad Guitar Murphy]

Although not really an answer to your question, I can say roman law was very complex and IMO citizens could go to praetors to solve issues.

Roman law was very complicated and quite many works of ancient roman lawyers have survived (for example Gaius, Massurius Sabinus and Proculiani). In 'civil law systems' as opposed to 'common law systems' quite many roman elements, such as the 'actio pauliana', are still used (although most are from Justinian 6th century law). If you want to know more about roman law I can advise a book called 'Canabula Iuris' by J.E. Spruit although I am not certain it is translated into english.

In the archaic period romans used the 'law of 12 tables'. Later they used, inter alia, ius civile honorarium and ius civile gentium and ius publicum. The Praetors issued edicta and created new rules this way.

[Keba]

In the archaic period romans used the 'law of 12 tables'. Later they used, inter alia, ius civile honorarium and ius civile gentium and ius publicum. The Praetors issued edicta and created new rules this way.

Just to point out, dual institutions existed up to the 6th century AD. Civil law was used in coordination with honorary (or gentile) law. Over time institutions from civil law were abandoned, but the civil law itself (and the leges duodecim tabularum) was never abandoned. Justinian was the one who changed all that and unified Roman law into Corpus Iuris Civilis, which influenced the development of law up to today. Recommendations for reading include books for the subject of Roman Law in and continental European law school.

Also, I was under the impression that any semblance of police forces developed only during the principacy.

[Mad Guitar Murphy]

You are right of course, but the lex duodecim tabularum did not contain a lot af law and was most was at some time replaced by 'younger' law. No miracle of course, according to Livius it contained all civil and public law (fons omnis publici privatique iuris).

I think Justinian even devided the Codex Justinianus in twelve books in honor of the lex duodecim tabularum.

[Keba]

You are right of course, but the lex duodecim tabularum did not contain a lot af law and was most was at some time replaced by 'younger' law. No miracle of course, according to Livius it contained all civil and public law (fons omnis publici privatique iuris).

I think Justinian even devided the Codex Justinianus in twelve books in honor of the lex duodecim tabularum.

There is some debate about that, since a great deal of institutions that we today know are important, like patria potestas, have no existance in the leges duodecim tabularum, although they are, in fact, known to be older. Some speculate that the 12 tables contain only those rules that were not truly widely known, or perhaps those that were not certain.

If you are refering to the Codex Iustinianus repetitae praelectionis, then yes, it is in twelve books. The earlier version, which was not preserved, is believed to have been shorter. It is possible that he did indeed do that in honor of civil law, but from what I gather he had a great deal more respect for the classical lawyers (as evidenced in Digestae seu pandectae and his Institutiones).

[Runyan99]

Also, I was under the impression that any semblance of police forces developed only during the principacy.

So, I'm guessing that a pleb who was the victim of a street crime, say a robbery, would have to turn to the system of clientship, and ask his patron to find the criminal and physically bring him to trial, if the pleb didn't have the ability to do it himself?

Overall, I find it a miracle that street crime was held in check at all. I'm tempted to speculate that the institution of slavery, which kept the lowest third of society under thumb at all times, must have gone a long way towards reducing what we think of as modern street crimes.

On the other hand, there surely were a great number of unemployed persons in Rome, particularly in the late Republic, and some of them must have resorted to theft or burglary in order to survive.

I would suppose that most shopkeepers and merchants and such took it upon themselves to hire private security which would protect themselves and their assets.

[Keba]

I would suppose that most shopkeepers and merchants and such took it upon themselves to hire private security which would protect themselves and their assets.

From what I know, the late Empire saw individual land-owners (a semi-feudal form of land-owning, the colonate) with private armies.

Prior to that, private security was probably very common. An additional reason for danger in streets was the complete lack of street lights. According to Rise and fall of ancient Rome, the only city in the Empire with street-lights was Antioch.

That probably meant that very few people took a midnight stroll in the city.

[Mad Guitar Murphy]

Hmm, I'm not sure an institution like patria potestas is still very relevant in western law:)
I must admit I don't remember a lot of the content of the 12 tables. Didn't they contain the traditio symbolica and basic stuff like that? I'd say it is pretty crucial for a society to function.

Are you refering to imperial edicts from 117 AD onwards? Because I think the compilatores, the legislators responsible for the Institutiones, used imperial edicts from 117 AD (Hadrian) onwards for the codification. I agree it is beyond doubt at least Tribonianus, who was in charge of the lawmaking operation, was very fond of classical lawyers from Hadrian onwards.

[Keba]

Hmm, I'm not sure an institution like patria potestas is still very relevant in western law:)
I must admit I don't remember a lot of the content of the 12 tables. Didn't they contain the traditio symbolica and basic stuff like that? I'd say it is pretty crucial for a society to function.

Are you refering to imperial edicts from 117 AD onwards? Because I think the compilatores, the legislators responsible for the Institutiones, used imperial edicts from 117 AD (Hadrian) onwards for the codification. I agree it is beyond doubt at least Tribonianus, who was in charge of the lawmaking operation, was very fond of classical lawyers from Hadrian onwards.

I'm merely using patria potestas to point out that not everything in law was in the twelve tablets. The tablets themselves contained, three tablets about court procedure, one tablet each for family, inheritance and tutorship, and propriety and neigbourly relations, two for crimes, one for sacral law, and two tablets of corrections and expansions.

Otherwise, from the 39 authors quoted in the Digestae, only 4 or 5 are not from the classical period (that is, the principate, legal science considers that the classical preiod of Roman law). Institutiones were mostly merely reworked Institutiones written by Gaius around 160 AD. The Codex Iustinianus (and the later Novellae) contains imperial edicts that were still, at that time, active, legally (possibly taken from the Codex Theodosianus, which contained constitutions from Hadrian onward). The Institutiones were merely a work whose purpose was to serve in the education of new lawyers (at that time, there were law schools in Constantinople and Beryt, as well as Alexandria and a couple of other places).

As far as things go, it was Justinian himself who ordered Tribonian and the other members of the groups (different groups worked on different works, but Tribonian was in all, except for the Novellae, as he died before their creation) to use classical authors, mainly because at that time the Roman Empire reached the height of legal development, as well as economic and cultural.

[Mad Guitar Murphy]

yes you are right of course.
I must say this conversation has stirred up my intention to learn more about classical law. It has been a while ago and does not deserve to be neglected.