Roman Emperor Caracalla Analysis

1025 Words5 Pages

The Roman Emperor Caracalla, opines the Roman senator – and writer – Cassius Dio, in one of eighty tomes on the minutiae and particulars of Roman history, issued the Antonine Constitution of 212 AD – a decree that tendered the privilege of formal Roman citizenship to the peregrini – not as a measure of any goodwill felt towards these, but as an effort “to increase his [own] income,” for peregrini, as Dio points out, “did not [have to] pay most” of the taxes Roman citizens had to pay (Levick 78). One might argue that Dio’s position is incontrovertible, given that Dio’s testimony appears to also highlight both Caracalla’s apathy towards his subjects and his excessive greed, in addition to his willingness to employ both vices in endeavors seeking to propitiate his own interests and vanity.
The notion that Caracalla cared little for the preponderance of his subjects is highlighted by Dio’s depiction of the contrast between the manner in which Caracalla treated his soldiers and the manner in which he treated the rest of his subjects. Caracalla, Dio writes, was exceedingly “fond of spending …show more content…

And, more significantly, he convincingly contends that Caracalla issued the edict in question not out of any measure of kindness felt towards the peregrini, but out of a selfish desire to see his own affluence amplified. Dio accomplishes this, in turn, by establishing the fact of Caracalla’s having shown great indifference towards his subjects, in addition to the fact of his having had exhibited great greed in terms of both taxes and tokens, and by then successfully combining the two to highlight Caracalla’s penchant for narcissism and profligacy in his pursuit of