I like to think of the study of the ancient economy as the study of what the Romans were doing when they weren't giving speeches, fighting wars or writing poetry. Broadly speaking, it is concerned with the same issues of distribution, exchange and consumption as studies of the modern economy are, but given the scattered nature of the evidence one must be rather expansive with what it means to study the economy, and so one is just as likely to deal with military logistics or mining technologies as with port tariff policies. I will attempt to answer any question regarding the broad topic of economic activity within the Roman Empire.

A few fairly non-controversial notes on the Roman economy while you are thinking of questions:

1. The Roman economy was an agricultural economy: This does not mean that cities were unimportant, that there was no development or change, or that all non-subsistence activity was nothing but a thin veneer over the mass rural reality. But rather the simple fact that the large majority of the population lived in a rural environment and labored in agricultural employment.

2. Rome was an imperial economy: The Roman economy functioned very differently than the modern national economy. This is primarily visible in the core-periphery dynamics and the blurring of private and public the farther up the social ladder one goes, but also in matters of the administrative interaction with economic activity, which was far looser than in a modern state.

3. Rome was a complex and multifaceted economy: Related to the above, but the Roman empire as a whole was composed of many different economies, which did or did not interact with one another to varying extents. The "friction of distance" in an ancient imperial setting was very high.

EDIT: OK, that is pretty much all I can do for now, but this thread isn't going anywhere so I will be dropping in to answer the questions I haven't gotten to when I can. Don't be shy to add more, technically the thread isn't archived for six months.

Its really popular below the Barrassi Line, but its as popular above. Please tell me why

Ambitions for the Philippines is often argued also. Why were they so reliant? What was their goals for expansion?

It seems to me that a mobile platform for multiple archers or spear men would be deadly for many centuries but I stop hearing about chariots after the rise of Rome.

I understand he changed some things to make a better story, but what exactly differed?

The link is to an article from the history channel (so probably not the most reliable thing in the world) and the title is 'contrary to popular belief the pyramids were built by paid workers and not slave labour'. The comments in the TIL sub thread are obviously all over the place ranging from denying it to saying they were paid in alcohol and not money. I was curious if anyone has some real information on the construction process? Who were the workers? What were conditions like? Etc.

I feel I always hear of the negative consquences of the plantations, but what did they provide for the Crown? What were the arguments at the time?

What sources/texts provide a rich understanding of comparative military strategies of the North and South?

e.g. Backtracking on Mcmahon-Hussein Correspondance and the white paper etc

I'm writing a dissertation on whether or not the first world war was inevitable or not and would love to hear some people's opinions on whether WW1 was going to happen, or if it could have been avoided. I apologize if this breaks any rules, I don't post often here so I'm not quite familiar with the etiquette of this subreddit.

Edit* Just to clarify I'm looking for Historian's opinions on the subject. I would appreciate any recommendations for sources I could use for my dissertation. Thanks!

It's one of those things that always comes up when people talk about George Washington: everyone in Europe was "shocked" when he didn't seize power when he easily could have.

Is this just a myth (in hindsight it seems like the obvious outcome given the principals the Revolution was fought on), or was this something truly surprising to contemporary elites in Europe?

Why didn't the Persians take advantage of the Peloponnesian war in order to invade Greece?

I know that they financially supported Sparta. They favored the land-oriented Sparta, instead of a navy power like Athens, which could be a constant threat for Asia Minor.

But why didn't they invade directly Greece , AFTER the Peloponnesian war had ended where the Greek States were in a weak state?