Relative transport costs in Roman and Medieval Times

A large number of references I've read over the years have described one of the critical problems for the roman empire historically as the high cost of transporting goods, particularly food, by road. Hence it cost as much to move grain 75 miles as it did to move it across the whole Mediterranean, and this make trade hard to develop, limited the inland economies and made towns heavily dependent on a small radius around them for food unless they were by the coast.

However, I've never quite understood 2 things:

1) Why was the cost so high for land based transport? One slave, one cart, one oxen to pull it, a few tonnes of grain in the cart; surely that wouldn't be that expensive?

And 2) How this relates to the Medieval periods, i.e. post-Rome. Were costs lower in later years, and if so why? The romans had good roads, so I can only assume that it was some other factor that was dictating the issue. Alternatively did Medieval Europe have the same problem?

Anyone who can help answer these or has anything additional to say, thanks in advance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 71-hour Ahmed

A large number of references I've read over the years have described one of the critical problems for the roman empire historically as the high cost of transporting goods, particularly food, by road. Hence it cost as much to move grain 75 miles as it did to move it across the whole Mediterranean, and this make trade hard to develop, limited the inland economies and made towns heavily dependent on a small radius around them for food unless they were by the coast.

However, I've never quite understood 2 things:

1) Why was the cost so high for land based transport? One slave, one cart, one oxen to pull it, a few tonnes of grain in the cart; surely that wouldn't be that expensive?

And 2) How this relates to the Medieval periods, i.e. post-Rome. Were costs lower in later years, and if so why? The romans had good roads, so I can only assume that it was some other factor that was dictating the issue. Alternatively did Medieval Europe have the same problem?

Anyone who can help answer these or has anything additional to say, thanks in advance.

---

The amount which could be moved with single vehicle was far smaller and distance which it could be moved was far shorter via road, rather then sea. Also the transport animals needed large amount of food to consume. When you were moving food via sea, a single ship could carry large amount of grain for example, with lot more cost effective way, the main factor being the speed which it could travel, compared to energy needed to move the ship. This is why large grain shipments were moved via sea, while local grown food stuff was moved via roads.

You can easily imagine that if you sent a ship from Alexandria, full of grain to Rome and it arrived in couple weeks, the crew would have consumed relatively small amount of the grain themselves.While had you sent a oxen cart from Alexandria full of Grain, you can think how far it would have reached before the cart would have been empty.

Even today ships are cheaper as less manpower and fuel is needed.

A simple example would be one horse pulling say a ton of cargo (a bit high perhaps) You need one driver and the fodder for one horse for something that can move one ton perhaps 20-40 Km a day.

Then compare with ships where there is less than one crewmember per ton of cargo and no fodder to worry about. Depending on wind a ship could be several times faster than the wagon.

In medieval times several things happened. The introduction of the horse collar that meant a horse could pull more without strangling itself. And ship types like the cog that gradually increased in size over the centuries, enabling more cargo per crewmember.


CBR

I believe under the Emperor Theodosius, carts carrying more than a certain weight were prohibited, which probably made land transport more costly. In the Middle Ages, this prohibition didn't exist.

Look The Fourth Crusade. There was a precise sum that was mentioned for trnsporting a whole army. It was expensive since Venice was in a very good position to negotiate and because it had to build more ships that increased the cost.

Another factor to consider was the numerous tolls and taxes applied to land trade, wherever a local strong man could pull it off. You often needed to pay to cross a bridge, pass a village, use a road and the like.

But volume was also very important, and meant that rivers and canals were used inland was much as possible, as it was both faster and bigger than land transport. If you look at the map, big cities and population centers almost always sprung up at a river or a good port.

/KotR

Woooh, many good responses. I guess my judgement was just a bit faulty then.

I understand that shipping costs will be less, its the relative disparity and the sheer cost of the land transport that's always been the issue for me. One of my references ("collapse of complex societies" - a very good book btw) mentions somewhere that the cost of food doubled for ~100 miles of land transport.

I'd realised that shipping costs probably dropped in medieval times, but I hadn't realised that horse technology had also advanced.

Here's another question; was the development of large scale canal/river based transport a significant factor in Roman times, or is this something that only arose later with the Medieval period? I'm particularly thinking outwith the Mediterreanean coastal region, i.e. away from the Roman centre of strength and more in the less-developed provinces, where they didn't have the coastal trade routes.

I agree with everything that has been said so far. Let me add that there are important reasons for limiting the weight of wagons on dirt roads. Narrow wheels with lots of weight on them dig serious ruts and grooves in dirt roads. When the roads are wet they become almost impassable, and if they are used the rate of damage increases drastically. Usually roads were maintained by the local population, tolls were common, and the road network was not well organized or mapped. There were likely to be poorly maintained segments on any long route. A traveler might have to clear fallen trees, etc himself. Crime was a serious problem.

In addition to the improvement in horse collar technology, I think there was improvement in wheel technology. Medieval wheelwrights could make lightweight spoked wheels with a metal tension band for a tire. In the ancient world, solid wooden wheels were the norm. The main problem is weight and rolling resistance.

Another thing is improvements in horse genetics through selective breeding. When humans first domesticated horses they were small ponies. That's one reason why chariots were common in ancient times, and riding less so. Certainly by Roman times there were "normal" sized horses. But northern Europe in the middle ages developed very large draft horses more suitable for pulling heavy loads.

Even with all of that boats were still far superior to wagons. For example, think of the canals in Amsterdam. They put a lot of work into adding more rings of canals, they must have believed all that effort was worth it.

Horseshoes also appear in the 5-6th century just to mention another technology. But some type of shoe might have seen limited use by first century AD.

The actual cost difference between Ancient land and sea transport seems to be somewhat disputed. Some estimates are 40-50 times more expensive but it might have been less and long distance landbased trade certainly played a role in Roman times.

Mules can carry about 90-100 Kg and do maybe 50 Km/day.

There are various estimates of wagon capacity with the Theodosius Code as one of them: so from 350 to 550 Kg. It seems two draft animals were the standard per wagon.

The Romans did dig several canals and generally used river transport wherever they could. Most trade in Roman Gaul seems to have used rivers.

Although some canals were made during the Middleages I do think the big canal boom really started later on from the 17th century.


CBR

Pizza:

Part of the disconnect is the almost reflexive "technology stopped" stereotype we are all given to making in describing the Dark Ages and Medieval Europe. Most of us, when we pause to think about it, are well aware that no such stoppage occurred even though the pace of change wasn't nearly as rapid as we've enjoyed over the last 150 years. I still catch myself making such assessments of the "dark ages" etc.

Maybe I should read those little history bits that pop up in M2TW more...:laugh4: