Rame's Economy Part II

I think, in reading through Mattingly and Woolf, we see that they fit together rather well. Both put forward the idea of a Roman economy with multiple levels of sophistication and governmental involvement. Mattingly outlines a Roman economy in which he outlines a compromise between the primitive, minimalistic ideals of Moses Finley and the modernist views of Michael Rostovtzeff. His proposed economy had primitive components mixed with progressive elements to create something that was new and wholly Roman.[1] This idea of a central economic system evident by coinage and taxation supported by smaller, local economies where the economy was more barter and subsistence based is a, and I do not like to use the phrase, primitive model of our own current economy of city, county, and state supporting a wider federal economy.

This all fits well with Woolf’s idea of a political economy creating a link between local economies as a unifying force.[2] His ideas of a series of regional economies loosely tied to a central economy administrated by the imperial government mirrors Mattingly’s compromise government, a bit primitive on the imperial level and much more progressive on the regional level, where those controlling the economy knew best what was needed for their particular area within the empire.

The difficulty in all of this is the unknown nature of the real Roman economy, we know through tax records and coinage that there was something of a central economy, but because there are so few written records outlining the real nuts and bolts of what made up the Roman economy we are forced to work in theory. Mattingly and Woolf are simply presenting summarization of arguments put forth decades ago in regards to the nature of the economy of Rome. While they are hoping to being new life into the argument, neither one goes on to form any new ideas. They seem instead content to summarize and rehash what has already been said by those such as Finley, Rostovteff, Fentress, and countless others.

 

---

[1]  D.J. Mattingly. "Chapter Five: Ruling Regions, Exploiting Resources." In Imperialism, Power, and Identity Experiencing the Roman Empire, 125-138. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2011. 126.

[2]  Greg Woolf,. "Imperialism, Empire and the integration of the Roman economy." World Archaeology23, no. 3 (1992): 283-293.  283. https://edge.apus.edu/access/content/group/242772/Greg%20Woolf%20Imperialism%20Empire%20and%20the%20Integration%20of%20the%20Roman%20Economy.pdf

Roman Economy

One of the key factors in the Roman economy was the ability Rome had to assimilate new resources and the different economies they came in contact with as they expanded.  As Rome grew it was able to move from a subsistence/agricultural economy to one that, while still agrarian, was able to support the production of sufficient food to allow trade and a growth in the urban population.  The region that Rome occupied, the far western end of Europe, kept them protected from much of the instability caused by the various migrations that plagued Asia and the East.[1] The geography of this region, with its differing climates as well as the wealth of human and material assets, was the cornerstone to Rome’s economy. The well established agricultural economies, cities, trade, and communication systems that Rome conquered were needed to support the growing urban population as agriculture moved from many small independent farms to large estates. These large estates and the stability that came with them were principally possible because of Pax Romana. By not wasting resources at war Rome was able to build. This peace was a result of the professional nature of the military, which for the most part stayed out of the political arena of the early Empire.[2] By the third century, when the military began to be more active in politics, the Roman economy was well established and stable enough to handle the turmoil of the times.  This peace allowed the army to be used to strengthen infrastructure, creating roads, aqueducts, and even new towns all to the benefit of the Roman people and their economy.

 

---

[1] R. Bruce Hitchner, The Case for Economic Growth in the Roman Empire, from The Ancient Economy, Evidence and Models ed by J.G. Manning and Ian Morris, Stanford University Press, Stanford, 2005, 208.

[2] Ibdn., 209.

Rome's Divine Right

At the height of Roman power, during the time when Virgil (Publius Vergilius Maro, 70-19 BC) would have written the Aeneid, there was no questioning Rome’s right to rule. The Empire extended from Spain in the west eastward to the shores of the Black Sea, from the deserts of Africa north to Britain. Who could deny that the gods favored Rome above all others. Virgil addresses this divine right to rule felt by most Romans in Chapter VIII of the Aeneid.  Venus herself is depicted coming down from the heavens bearing gifts of armor for her son, Aeneas.[1] Among the armor he is given Aeneas finds a gleaming shield, the centerpiece of the amazing arms forged by Vulcan himself to aid Aeneas in battle. This shield depicts Roman history from the suckling of Romulus and Remus by the wolf to Caesar’s triumphal entry into Rome and being seated on a throne as the subjugated nations pay tribute. Aeneas knows nothing of the images engraved on the shield and takes it up, carrying the future of Rome and his descendants into battle. [2]

This divine right to rule as the gods have foretold is a central theme in Roman thought. The idea that the gods have selected Rome to lead the world strengthens their drive and ambition. Aeneas and his son Iulus also play a major role in the reign of Julius Caesar and his descendants as they claim to be descended from Iulus, and thus Aeneas and Venus.[3] Caesar enjoys his place on the throne because the gods willed it when Vulcan cast the future of Rome onto the shield of Aeneas. By being able to claim decent from the gods Caesar and those who followed him were able to exercise greater power and greater excess as well. The Roman people are more than happy to follow along with this line of thought because it helps cement their position as a world power by being a civilization founded by the gods themselves. Rome’s history as depicted on the shield is one of conquest and expansion. This entire story mirrors Greek mythology and the story of Theseus, the founding hero of Athens who is given spectacular armor forged by the gods, complete with a shield depicting the history of all of Greece. But where Greece fell, Rome continues on beyond the imagination of the gods, exceeding even their abilities to predict the future. From the ashes of a once great civilization, Rome grows to become even greater than the gods can know.

 

---

[1] Virgil. Aeneid. Theodore C. Williams. trans. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1910). accessed April 17^th, 2014, http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/ 8.603-607.

[2] Virgil. Aeneid. 8.627-729.

[3] Livy. History of Rome. English Translation by. Rev. Canon Roberts. New York, New York. E. P. Dutton and Co. 1912 accessed April 17^th, 2014, http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/ 1.3.2.

 

 

 

Respone to the Gauls

The Roman public was very politically aware on all levels of society. This awareness however did not translate into a share in the political franchise. The Plebeians saw a part of their problems with the Patricians being that they had no say in the governance of Rome, and things would never really change in their favor until there was a change in who was involved in the running of the government. While the virtual monoply on the consulship in Rome by the patricians did exist until the early 4^th cen tury BC, there were indeed occassions of plebeians being elected to the office. The instances were wide spread and had very little impact on Roman politics or society, so the plebeians continued in their efforts to create a more open and even form of governemnt.

In 376 BC tribunes Licinius and Setius brought three proposals before the plebes. The first two dealt with land use, limiting the amount of public lands any one family could use, and debt relief for the poor. The third of their rogations dealt directly to the issue of distribution of political power. This last proposal created a great conflict and stalemate in the government which according to Livy lasted for 10 years, during which Licinius and Sextius were repeatedly elected. Senators and the tribunes used their voting power and vetos to block legistation and the elction of magistrates, resulting in a period of chaos lasting between 4-5 years with no magistrates at all being elected. Finally in 367 BC the conflict ended with the passing of all three rogations. The consulship was restored and made open to the plebeians. The patricians did create new offices as a reaction, taking power from the consul, but even these opffices would be open to the plebes eventually.[i]

The Licinian and Sextian rogations made it a requirement that one of the two consulships be open to the plebeians, and even this was not strictly enforced until 342 BC with the passing of Lex Genucia. This creates a bit of a historical dilema in which there are two views as to what really happened depending on which accounting you read. In one version, the laws of 367BC made one of the consul positions plebeian and in 342 BC it was possible for plebes to hold both, while Lex Genucia said the 367 BC law made it possible for one consul position to be plebeian while the 342 BC law made it mandatory by gaurenteeing one spot to the plebes and nothing to the patricians.[ii]

Cornell contends that the plebeian leaders were most likely the clients of wealthy patrons and had very little in common with the actual plebes they are thought to repesent. LeGlay refers to these leaders as the new nobility. They were upper plebeians and lower patricians who took up the cause of the plebes to advance themselve politically and socially.[iii] Their victories were more for themselves than the plebes as a whole. The poorer plebes did gain temporary relief from debt and land use was better established, but they lost control of their political machine. Before long the new leaders were found to be guilty of the very things they had fought against, with Licinius himself being fined for over-use of agers publicus.[iv]

I personally feel that Cornell’s theories on the impact of the Licinian-Sextian Rogations is fairly accurate. There was a change for the better for the plebeian class, but thet change came at a cost, that being the loss of the very political power the people had won. What these laws in combination with Lex Genucia did was in truth create a new social and politcal class as LeGlay outlined. A class of wealthy, upwardly mobile plebeians and lower ranking patricians who did not have the power to grow within their own class. I disagree with the belief that Licinian-Sextian definitely created and afirmed the two class system of Roman society, instead it gave birth to an new and growing middle class, creating a society very much like we see around us today.

 

---

[i] Cornell,Tim. The Beginnings of Rome: Italy and Rome from the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars (c.1000–264 BC) (New York: Routledge, 1995), 334. 

[ii] Ibid 337-338.

[iii] Le Glay, Voisin, Bohec et al. A History of Rome. 4^th  Edition(Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), 55.

[iv] Cornell, 339.

Blame the Gauls

When Romulus founded Rome in the mid-700’s BC, he outlined not only the physical aspects of the city, but he also established the basics of government and society at the same time. The society he created was divided into two classes. The upper class, known as the patricians, and the lower class of plebians, known more commonly as the plebs.[1] Each of these distinct classes had their own individual duties within society. Patricians, by right of their more noble birth, served as priests, judges, and magistrates helping oversee local government. The plebs, having no mind for such noble pursuits, were farmers, herders, and tradesmen. Plebs were bound to the patricians under the system of patronage, where each pleb chose which patrician he would serve. The patricians were to protect and care for the plebs as they would their own sons while the plebs were bound to help support their patron.[2]

This system functioned quite well for close to 400 years. By the late 400’s tension between the classes were developing. The Sack of Rome by the Gauls in 390 BC served as a trigger; bring the plebs into open defiance of the system. The social gaps had widened and the poor were feeling the pressure to recover the losses suffered as a result of the Gallic invasion. The main issues were the distribution and use of land, the debt left on the plebs as a result of the wars, and a lack of political rights.

The issue of lands was not one of ownership so much as one of usage. The wealthy held large estates while the plebs owned small holdings. The lands that were at issue were the agers publicus (public lands). There were state owned lands open to all to use for free. The wealthy held a near monopoly on the use of these public lands. In many cases this inability to use the public lands resulted in the plebs being unable to raise enough to have food to eat and be able to pay their obligations to their patrons. To alleviate this problem the plebs wanted newly conquered lands to be distributed into private ownership so there would be no trouble over usage. They also wanted to limit the amount of public lands any one family could use, freeing up more land for the poor. [3]

The issues of debt were directly connected to land use. If the plebs weren’t able to raise enough to support themselves and pay tributes they were forced into a system of nexum (debt-bondage) where they were forced to work to pay off their debt, making it harder for them to earn enough to survive and pay their debts at the same time causing them to slip even further into debt. The Gallic Invasion had a direct affect on this not from a monetary standpoint, but from one of food. With a large army living off the land there is less food, resulting in a growing hunger and rising debt. Then once the invaders were gone there was this building of the Roman Wall, paid for with taxes and labor resulting in more time away from the fields. [4]

Similar situations can be seen in any agrarian society. There will always be bad harvests and hard winters that result in a spiral of servitude where the poor are simply working to make payments and never really get ahead. The American Dust Bowl is an excellent example of this. In Rome however the plebs took actions and united to take a stand and force reforms. While the issues of political rights wouldn’t be settled for another 200 years, the Struggle of the Orders did result in changes that did much to better the place of the plebs in society.

 

---

[1] Dionysius, The Roman Antiquities Book 2: translations of Xenophon are taken from the Loeb series, University of Chicago, http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Dionysius_of_Halicarnassus/2A*.html (accessed April 22, 2014), 2.8.1-3.

[2] Dionysius, 2.9.1-10.2.

[3] Cornell,Tim. The Beginnings of Rome: Italy and Rome from the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars (c.1000–264 BC) (New York: Routledge, 1995), 330. 

[4] Cornell, 331.