The Great Roman Empire which was replaced in its weaker days by Constantinople.
Emperors, Generals and soldiers were among the richest of the Romans. Their compensation system was based in 'tribute/tax' and the 'idea' of 'salary' to soldiers. Wages became a vital link to the life of any Roman. The military was its survival.
Rome was not a fortress city as Constantinople was and required a strong and well paid military in order for it to be protected from invasion or looting.
In the later days of Rome, the looters would ravage the city of assets and leave their Emperors and Senators in states of disarray to stop them. That is the time when Rome diminished in its splendor and Constantinople became the 'capital' of all that was possible.
The most remarkable aspect of Romans was their evolution to include those outside of 'the people of Rome' to those that 'earned the name of Roman.'
See, paying a miltiary was expensive and of course the best way to keep them loyal to the empire was to increase their pay. That took many forms other than money/currency. The currency became the ability to move from the ranks of the military into the leadership of Rome.
The 'concept' came into being when Augustus threw off the 'mantle' of Rome and became his own 'entity' if you will. He formed what came to be known as "The Principate."
...As Princeps, (click here) even under the new constitutional system, Augustus had no more right to establish a line of succession than was possible in the Republic. Being the first to hold such a position, however, allowed the new system to develop under a powerful and capable leader. As time passed, the concept of the Republic drifted farther and farther into oblivion. The long rule of Augustus, the elimination of opponents and the fear of a return to civil war and imperator generals seemingly destroyed any concept of a re-established Republic.
Augustus was alone made the head of the state, and there was no established order for succession. Naming a successor was akin to a provincial governor establishing his own hereditary rule. It simply didn't happen. By the time of Augustus death in 14 AD, however, it was absolutely inconceivable that there wouldn't be a replacement Princeps. Holding Tribunician power of the veto, administrative authority of the Consulship, religious domination as Pontifex Maximus and supreme command of the armies, the idea of Augustus really being just 'first among equals' was really a farce. While the Senate still officially had the right to name someone to that position, there were none who could possibly argue with the edicts of the divine Emperor himself....
While Augustus ruled for a long time and held power due to the 'potential corruption' of the emperor lineage, the 'idea' that others were 'equals' would not disappear and the future for Rome would include a 'tetra-authority.' (Four Romes under one mantle.)
It would be sometime later that Marcus Aurelius would find his best advantage by establishing power among those that 'achieved' as well as those that were 'entitled.'
Marcus was a conscientious and careful administrator who devoted much attention to judicial matters. His appointments to major administrative positions were for the most part admirable. Difficult tasks were put in the charge of the most capable men; he was not afraid of comparison with his subordinates. Social mobility continued as it had been under his predecessors, with men from the provinces advancing into the upper echelons of the Roman aristocracy. Those of humble birth could make a good career; such a one was Pertinax (126-193), a gifted general, who in early 193 became emperor for a space of less than three months.
The judicial administration of Italy was put in the hands of iuridici, who represented the emperor and thus spoke with his authority....
...Although Marcus was a devoted thinker and philosopher, he was deeply religious, at least outwardly. The state cult received full honor, and he recognized the validity of other people's beliefs, so that the variety of religions in the vast extent of the empire caused no difficulties for inhabitants or government, with one significant exception. The Christians were not hampered by any official policy; indeed the impact of the church spread enormously in the second century. Yet their availability as scapegoats for local crises made them subject to abuse or worse. There was violence against them in 167, and perhaps the worst stain on Marcus' principate stemmed from the pogrom of Christians in Lugdunum in southern France in 177. He did not cause it, nor, on the other hand, did he or his officials move to stop it. Indeed, Tertullian called him a friend of Christianity. Yet the events were a precursor of what would come in the century and a quarter which followed....
Indeed, the Christians were convenient 'scapegoats' for the Romans. After all, their savior was considered a blasphermer in some circles.
The one true aspect to the Chrisitans was the 'individual' and the power of that individual. Jesus was an individual with great insight to the human condition. While the Romans within their principate were willing to have 'others' rise to power in loyalty to the leadership, the Christians were a threat. They were a threat to that loyalty as the definition of 'individual' under Christianity took 'every man' as a leader.
