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.