Surveillance in the Roman Empire

“Our society is not one of spectacle, but one of surveillance.”- Michel Foucault

The NSA’s intrusiveness and surveillance over our emails, the possible misuse of the information gathered through the Aadhar scheme, Internet cookies and the sale of private contact information, all threaten our privacy and induce paranoia and self-regulation. Fictional books, like 1984 now appear very pertinent and Foucault’s Discipline and Punishment (1975) also sheds light on surveillance. However, many believe that surveillance is a necessity and a creation of modern civilization and came to be substantially exercised in modern history. Although current modes and technologies of surveillance seem to support this notion, there are countless examples of surveillance activities occurring throughout history. Keith Laidler, in the most anarcho-primitivist sense, proposes in his book Surveillance Unlimited (2008) that spying and surveillance are at least as old as civilization itself. The rise of city-states and empires meant that each needed to know not only the disposition and morale of their enemy, but also the loyalty and general sentiment of their own population. From Ashokan Dhamma-mahamattas to the skeptical surveillance by the Roman Catholic Church on the intellectuals of the Dark Ages, the Roman Empire even in the BC era exemplifies surveillance due to its opportunistic usage of resources to obtain information and the usage of the information itself.

In Ancient Rome, major political players had their own surveillance networks, which provided them with information about the schemes of those in power (Zurcher, 2013). This resulted in frequent coups, betrayals and widespread political instability by virtue of the power of the information gained. As Sun Tzu aptly wrote in The Art of War: "Enlightened rulers and good generals who are able to obtain intelligent agents as spies are certain for great achievements." Politician and orator Cicero frequently insinuated in his letters that they were being intercepted. Caesar, part of the controversial Triumvirate of Rome, had an elaborate network of spies throughout the Roman Empire; from Gaul to Lusitania, spying over both civilians and officials in order to have prior knowledge of any coup to be generated against him (Zurcher, 2013). Spies of the Empire engaged in both foreign and domestic political operations, gauging the political climate of the Empire and surrounding lands by eavesdropping in the Forum or in public market spaces. Several ancient accounts, especially those of the A.D. first century, even mention the presence of a secret police force to serve such purposes.

With respect to war with other Empires, the Roman legions could outstrip almost any opponent in maneuverability, weaponry and discipline. So why is it that such an Empire felt the necessity to exercise surveillance?

The sheer size of the Roman Empire, its numerous enemies and the frequent skirmishes at its borders necessitated what was probably history’s first government undertaking such measures. Rome certainly did not lack enemies to target. Neighboring clans like the Etruscans, Samnites, and Gauls, kept the Romans constantly at war during the early and middle republics. Collecting intelligence about these surrounding tribes and discerning whether they would be friendly or hostile in a given situation was a crucial step in appointing spies for such regions (Bachelor 2006). Surveillance within the borders of its own empire came with the defeat of the Romans at the hands of Hannibal and the loss of around 30,000 soldiers due to traps set by him at strategic locations, all courtesy of the spies having infiltrated and discovered later, within the Empire.

In the days preceding modern technology, whereby sound recording devices, hidden cameras, and satellites gather data, people were the only means of collecting vital information in order to survive and thrive. Those who could be manipulated into undertaking such risky professions were those who were most in need of governmental favours. Criminals and slaves were trained as spies and the sentences for criminals or hard-labour for slaves was reduced in return for vital and valuable information. The legitimacy of the information was ensured by the torture of the informants who provided false information (Kelly 2011). This also served as a measure to prosecute those guilty in case of a loss to the Empire which could have only been caused by the leaking of sensitive information only in the possession of the informants.

The discovery of Hannibal’s spies in the later years of the Empire induced paranoia among the masses. Records of Cicero indicate that a wave of suspicion, skepticism and extreme self-regulation and the regulation of one’s behaviour swept over the Empire. In the true Foucauldian sense of the concept of the Panopticon, surveillance reached its zenith when the citizens themselves exercised it over themselves, just as prisoners do, afraid of and constantly under the assumption of being under the watchful gaze of the officials of the empire, now mingled in their midst (Mason 2017).

As Foucault aptly states in Discipline and Punishment – “The Roman Empire’s rise and fall as caused by surveillance itself.”

Written by - 

Anant Venkatesh

References:

Zurcher, Anthony. 2013. “Roman Empire to the NSA: A world history of government spying.” BBC News. Retrieved November 5, 2017

Anon. n.d. “Slaves as criminal informers in ancient Rome.” Taylor & Francis. Retrieved November 5, 2017

Anon. n.d. “The Archaeology of Roman Surveillance in the Central Alentejo, Portugal.” Google Books. Retrieved November 5, 2017

Mason, Moya K. n.d. “Foucault and His Panopticon.” Foucault and His Panopticon - power, knowledge, Jeremy Bentham, surveillance, smart mobs, protests, cooperation, philosopher. Retrieved November 5, 2017