This is something I've long wondered:

During the height of the Empire, Rome had a population close to a million people, and most of those people lived in apartment blocks. They presumably didn't have any arable land as part of their personal property. So what did those people do all day? Did they work 9-5s like we do today? Did they leave the city to work in agriculture? Did they just not work in an organized fashion?

TL;DR What was the typical job of a city dweller like?

A few questions that've been bugging me lately.

1. To what degree was the high Roman Empire a "capitalist" economy? I understand there is a world of hurt involved in defining what capitalism is, or what constitutes a capitalist economy, as well as the fact that clearly the bulk of the economy of the whole empire did not operate primarily from a capitalist/wage-labor mode of production, but I am interested in your personal perspective on to what extent it existed and where.

2. What is the current thinking (and who are currently the major historians/archaeologists dealing in the subject matter) on what role the Roman city played on the economy? I believe you've mentioned to me that the idea of the Roman city as a parasitic entity (I think this is Moses Finley) is out of date. I'm wondering who replaced Finley, and who I should be reading as of now?

3. How different would you categorize the late Roman economy (i.e. that suggested by Wickham) from the high Roman economy? I know that the late Roman economy seemed marked by greater command after Diocletian, with much revolving around the twin grain doles of Carthage-Rome and Alexandria-Constantinople. Whereas it seems the high Roman economy was much more free floating, though much revolving around the central wheel spoke of the city of Rome itself.

4. Which would mean a corollary question (I have asked this previously, but I'm not sure if I got your thoughts on it), how necessary was Rome itself to the high Roman economy? Could provincial markets exist robustly on trade to other far flung provinces without Rome as the hub?

Thanks a bunch.

Lets say I want to buy a house. Was there anything similar to the concept of a mortgage that I could get to finance my purchase?

If so, how did mortgages and other securities function? I mean, at its core a mortgage is really just a loan using the property itself as collateral, so it doesn't seem like an alien concept, but was there any of the complexity that we have now present in that part of the financial system?

Also, how available would this be to someone?

Two questions:

1. are you familiar with how prostitution and the economy of it worked in Rome? What would be the cost if a prostitute? Were they individuals or were they housed in a brothel?

2. how would a poet go about seeing sponsors for his work? I'm thinking like Catullus or Virgil or the like. Would a rich patrician support them in exchange for laudatory words?

1. Was there a middle class?

2. When the Romans conquered a territory, how did they go about integrating it into the economy? How did they make sure currency was distributed for example?

3. What did the Romans export, and to whom?

So, I've been thinking of something to ask you about, and I have something!

When the Romans absorbed other polities, be that via the medium of conquest or peaceful annexation, by default that includes inheriting the pre-existing economic system within those polities. Are important socio-economic roles consistently usurped by Romans in their new acquisitions? Were those economies Romanised over time, to fit with the expectations of Roman economic oversight (and maybe ethics)? Or would places like Nabataea, or Utica, or Massalia have retained distinctly individual organisation?

David Graeber, in his book "Debt: the first 5000 years", characterizes the Roman state economy as a "military-mining-slavery complex". I'll summarize his argument below (I hope fairly) for any readers who are not familiar with it.

My question is, is this interpretation of events accurate? If so, how large was the "money" economy, ie based on coin, compared to the non-money economy? How did exchange work without money during the Roman Empire?

Graeber argues that Rome introduced coinage as a kind of "trick" to feed it's massive armies: By paying the army in coin and requiring the taxes to be paid in coin, the elite obliged all tax payers to find something to do that soldiers would pay them for, whether supplying goods or services. This obligation did away with the need of supporting a vast system of logistics to feed otherwise hungry soldiers, and allowed for the provision of far larger armies than would otherwise be possible. These armies were engaged in constant expansion and enslavement of subject peoples, who worked the mines, from which the metal for coinage came from in the first place.

1. I've heard it said that one of the important differences between economies of the ERE an its western counterpart was the relative proximity of the former to other wealthy empires (Persia, India, China etc). How true is this? It seems to me, at least, that long distance trade could only be in very luxury items and thus would only affect the super-rich, if anyone at all. Bulk items (grain, livestock, wine etc) which were the bread and butter of the Roman economy couldn't really be transported except via the Mediterranean and its river systems given the technology limitations of its day. So basically I just want to know how important was external trade for the Roman economy.

2. How efficient was the Roman economy and did it degrade substantially as a result of the transformation from the predominantly middle-income, family farm model, to a more plantation-oriented one with the super-rich landowners and poor tenant farmers, with seemingly almost nothing in between them.

3. How developed was banking in the roman world? Of course there were private lendors. But say I am a mercant/businessman/landowner operating in Italy and North Africa, possibly Hispania. What options do I have? Can I write a check to someone without needing to physically transfer gold coins from one place to another? How did Roman banking compare to medieval Italian ones? How were ledgers maintained?

How flexible was the labour force? Were most people highly trained from childhood/adolescence and at risk of unemployment? Or would the average worker change their job based on economic changes?

In the first century BC, after the end of the Cimbrian War and up to the Principate:

• How widespread was currency and currency use in rural areas, especially between farmers independent of the larger latifundia?
• I remember hearing that an urban prole might subsist almost entirely on donations from various patrons, even spending their mornings going practically door-to-door. What forms did patronage take between rural patrons and clients (for example, between Pompey Strabo and his Picentine clients)?
• How much of the Italian agricultural sector was dedicated to the growing of grains, versus "non-staples" like olives, wines and livestock?

As for Rome herself:

• Were there licenses required to run businesses within Rome, or any other limitations that we know of? What about craftsmen in general?
• Were there any economic limitations to the Pomerium? I.e. were there any trades or crafts that were illegal to ply inside/outside of its boundary?
• Was the Tiber ever used to transport goods to and/or from Rome?

What do you think of the level of monetization? I've met several numismatists who argue 1) ancient governments including Rome were not interested in coins as primarily an economic tool, and 2) most people would not have dealt very often with coins. I have a hard time buying either of these claims.

How liquid was capital in the Roman economy? How would one go about cashing in one's property, or say borrowing against anticipated revenue, if most wealth was tied up in land and its products?

How much did Romans understand about the law of supply and demand? Were there large price spikes or drops in markets, and were those taken advantage of by speculators?

Thank you for the AMA.

What sorts of data are available on wages, prices, incomes, and land rents during Roman times? (To fix a time scale, say 100 BCE through 500 CE, but most interestingly for me roughly 80 CE to 180 CE.)

To what extent was the Roman military an important element in building infrastructure, both in the core and on the periphery?

Is there anywhere I can go to get a monetary history of ancient Rome? Basically a discussion of the stock of money and the level of prices from (say) 100 BCE to 500 CE?

I had heard that the amount of early Roman coins had a lot of gold in them and that over time, less and less gold went into the coins with hardly any gold in them at the collapse of the western empire. Is that true?

how much of a thing was free enterprise in ancient rome? Would we recognize the economy if were dropped from 2014 America into 100 AD Rome?

How would someone receive the grain dole? Was there a kind of application process for it? Were there any concerns in the Roman world about "welfare fraud"?

Interesting idea for an AMA. Thanks for doing this. I have two questions, both about physical currency:

1. Who controlled the money supply? Was there an official "mint" that produced all of the coins in the empire, or did different areas mint their own local currency? Was there an idea (like today) of limiting the amount of coins in circulation?

2. To what degree was counterfeit currency a problem? I mean, we have examples of counterfeiting from ancient China to the Aztecs, so I assume there had to be some. Do we know what methods were used? Did they have controls or safeguards in place to prevent or detect counterfeit coins? Were there specific laws in place to punish people for doing this?

Forgive me if these questions reflect a gross misunderstanding of Roman economics, since my knowledge on the topic is close to zero.

Ooooh, I've got a question I've been wondering about for ages! I'm curious what the economic fallout of the Punic Wars was like. My understanding is that Carthage was the biggest trading hub in the western Mediterranean, and I'm wondering what happened to all that port traffic after it fell. Was there a net decrease in trade across the Mediterranean? Did the merchants just all start operating out of a different home port? And if trade did decrease, did it ever pick back up to its pre-war levels? Actually, do we even have any data to answer these questions?

1. How much does the Roman roads benefits the economic of the Empire?
2. How does the people in Rome get rich? Does being a general in post-Marius Reformation helps?

Your comment about public amenities being funded by tolls makes me wonder-did the Roman world have a comparable institution to the waqf(that is, a legal mechanism for endowing a public amenity or charitable service in an inalienable manner with a specific source of revenue)?

if I understand the Roman's view on economics, they had no concept of debt? Or was it interest? How did that function when the government was low on funds? No money, just debase the coinage until you get what you need? What about a private person, how would they come up with funds to purchase something?

Thank you for doing this AMA; this is such a fascinating topic!

1. What was the nature of economic interaction between urban and rural zones?

2. What was settlement like outside of Roman cities? Would most rural inhabitants have been tenant farmers, or small freeholders? What were the mechanics of this type tenancy?

3. To what degree did “regional specialization” exist within the differing regions of the Empire?

4. What resources would you recommend as an introduction to the Roman economy?

I was just thinking about these questions in the context of Caesar's (and others') land laws: in brief:

1. Caesar's law redistributed "public" land. Does this mean the land in question had no private owner prior to redistribution? How did this land come to be public in the first place? What was it used for if it had no private owner?

2. If I recall, other laws redistributed land in latifundia -- that is, large privately owned parcels of land. Is my understanding of the term and the laws correct? How was that accomplished? Was there a concept in Rome analogous to eminent domain?

Thank you in advance!

Interesting AMA!

Can you explain briefly how their currency was developed and what they defined as wealth?

Thanks for hosting this! I have a bit of knowledge in feudalism, but translating that into an understanding of the Romans can get a bit fuzzy.

How much control did peasants/farmers have in in their labor? Were their crops or construction projects dictated by government officials / nearby patricians, or were they largely just restricted by tradition and necessity?

I've heard alot of theories regarding the Roman taxsystem and how it played a role in the downfall of the empire, that the size of the empire made it impossible to collect taxes due to rampant corruption and rebellions over taxation.

How was taxes collected in the Roman empire and how effective was the collection?

Do you have any examples of what type of taxes that was collected (salestax, tariffs, incometax etc) and high/low it was?

How did the structure of collection system look like? Did they use local rulers to collect in client states and conquered areas who then later paid a % of it to Rome or did the Roman senate/the Emperor appoint someone from Rome?

Was there an organized black market of any kind? What objects would it sell? How did the empire deal with it?

Was there anything resembling medieval guilds or later trade associations in Roman times?

Thanks for doing this AMA!

Who was the richest Roman ever. I was thinking crassus but I heard that emperors controlled insane amounts of the GDP at times.

Also when was Roma at her most economically stable/rich. Was it during the reign of the Antonines?

What is your favourite aspect of the Roman economy?

Thanks!

How did the Roman economy help unite the empire as a whole, did domestic trade help bring the empire together?

Did other places 'Romanize' to take part in the Roman economy, or did many pre-empire market customs persist in trade?

How much Roman trade took place with foreign markets was it a significant part of economies, did it only really affect frontier provinces or the empire as a whole?

The Roman Empire is often touted as being a progressive high-point on the historical arc of the ancient world. Are there any instances of progressive populist tendencies in Roman economic policy? How would leadership respond to a large disturbance in agricultural production caused by disease or conflict?

1. What were the major advancements in agricultural technology during the course of Rome?
2. Did the extensive use of slaves damage the economy with less jobs open to plebs? I believe that Caeser tried to introduce reforms to make it so every farm had a certain percentage of free men working.
3. How did the Romans manage to work out taxes for such a vast empire? Did they delegate it to governors and if so then what was the extent of the corruption?
4. Finally I was told by my teacher that Southern italy's economy was permamently damaged due to Hannibal's scorched earth tactics is this true?

Thanks for all the time you are giving :)

Were there jewelers? If so, what kinds of people would be able to afford even the most basic jewelry, and where did it come from?

Hi, thanks for making this AMA!

Introduction

Currently I write a paper about the inclosure of the commons in England in the Late Medieval an stumbled upon the social stratification of England. So I'm also interested in the poulation of the roman empire. There is at least one point in english medival history where we have very good numbers for the number of people who where slaves, cottagers, tenants-in-chief, freeholder and all the other kinds of dependent people. (Domesday Books of 1086).

Question

Do we have some kind of social statistics of a certain point of time of the whole Roman Empire? How many people belonged to the nobilty (of Rome), were slaves, were of Latin/Itallic origin, were foreigners, were soldiers, were freeholders of land ect.

Additional Question: Is there a book you can recommend about this topic?

To what degree was there a concentration of wealth to fewer and fewer individuals and if so what part did this play in the fall of the Roman empire?

Hope I'm not too late to this thread! I have two questions, each with multiple parts. I hope they're not too tedious!

I remember having read that Rome, as a city, had an big issue with chronic unemployment. How large was the segment of the population that was directly dependent on the panem part of panem et circenses? And was this unemployment issue also a problem in other large cities of the Empire? And when the empire began to decline and the capital was moved, was this problem still present? I know it was an issue in Constantinople, but was there a similar problem in Mediolanum and, later, Ravenna?

You point out that the Roman Empire had an economy mostly based on agriculture. I remember reading that many wealthy Romans had large agricultural estates, which were often located in many different places, as wealthy Romans liked to diversify their portfolios. However, how did they stop things such as embezzlement or theft when they were absent from such disparate estates? Even if they had overseers and administrators, I imagine it must be difficult to make sure they're not taking advantage of you. So my question is: What was the state of financial/fiscal law enforcement and how did it work?

What regions were the most important for the economy of the Roman empire (agriculture, mining, slavery, tools ...)? Who did own the ships for the commerce in the Empire (individuals, family, association...)?

Could you recommend a good book(s) on this subject? Seems quite fascinating.

How did the trades work? Were there just small shops with one or two craftsmen, or big factories with more? How were people trained? Were the craftsmen self-employed or might they just work in a shop owned by a senator?

Also how were grand public building projects like aquaducts or temples organized? Were there contractors who submitted bids like today? Would the work be done by free men or slaves?

Was mass slavery beneficial to the economy at large at any point or did it cause more unemployment problems than it solved? I feel I should know this so I can prepare for the day when robots are doing all the future jobs.

Aside from wheat, grapes, and olives, what sort of crops were the major Roman crops, especially for cash crops?

1. Do you have any idea about the general ratio between tenant farmers & slaves in the average latifunda?

2. Did tenant farmers themselves own slaves?

3. Were there cases of entire estates being staffed by slaves or tenant farmers?

4. IIRC, some Emperors actually had to constrict the amount of slaves being freed for fear of it's effect on the Roman economy. So would that possibly indicate that it was cheaper to have tenant farmers, that there was simply a excess of slaves that weren't needed, or that (an this I find hard to believe personally) that there was a change-of-morality in play across the Empire?

5. Why would a latifunda owner chose to employ a tenant farmer instead of buying a slave if they had the available funds to do so (this ties in & might be answered by my 4th question, but just in case)?

EDIT: Expanded my fourth question & added a fifth question; hope you don't mind and sorry lol. :)

I remember reading that there was a wheat ration to all Roman Citizens.

• how far did this extend across society? Male homeowners? All citizens? Just residents of Rome?
• how long in Roman history did it exist for? There must have been times where it couldnt be honoured?

What would grain-producing provinces like Egypt, Africa, and Sicily receive in exchange for exporting massive quantities of wheat etc to Rome? Were they compensated or was this more a form of taxation? If they were paid remotely fairly, is there evidence of significant wealth accumulation in these provinces?

Hello and thanks for the ama

Was getting rich a wish for itself? Like multi-millionaire rich, not just living a comfortable life. Or was money seen in a way that it's just an enabler for getting into office, accumulating power and/ or building and enhancing the family name/ dynasty?