Read this if you're having problems with squlaor

[Red Harvest]

Grifman,

I can't justify public sewers and aqueducts as leading to squalor, it just doesn't fit. They allow for greater population by reducing squalor (ability to provide potable water and remove waste.) Having to pay to enlarge them as the city grows would be quite reasonable, but it is not an option. Filth is in the definition of squalor. Taken to the extreme, the given interpretation suggests large cities of today should be mostly squalor since they have public sewers, water, and massive populations.

While I see your point and others I don't agree with the farm efficiency argument because I reject some of the current notions of increased efficiency. (There was a good article I read recently illustrating that much of the recent "boom" in efficiency is actually the shift to off the books/contract labor. They had revised figures that paint a much more normal picture of productivity growth.) Productive farms don't cause squalor, but non-productive ones do. Famines and food shortages produce squalor. Strong farming just adds another industry and uses more of your available resources. Good harvests require labor, storage, transport and trade (more employment throughout the chain.) Bad harvests do not need any of it. Smaller farms of the period on average would have higher squalor. Quite a number of the freemen on small farms would not be better off from a *squalor* standpoint than the slaves of a successful big farm. (Note, I'm not talking at all about non-squalor horrors of being a slave.) Remember, at this time good farming meant producing more not just from a given plot of land, but also making more land arable.

Anyway, it is an interesting topic to think about. A lot of it is "chicken-or-the-egg?" Is the improved farm and farm efficiency producing squalor or reducing it? We can make valid arguments both ways. Perhaps CA will tell us the philosophy.

[Meneldil]

Sorry for my first post, I was kinda annoyed for personnal reasons, but annyway, what about whinning for a patch to change squalor effects ? I don't want to remove it at all, but right now, it doesn't look historicaly accurate.

[Grifman]

[QUOTE=Red Harvest]Grifman,

I can't justify public sewers and aqueducts as leading to squalor, it just doesn't fit. They allow for greater population by reducing squalor (ability to provide potable water and remove waste.) Having to pay to enlarge them as the city grows would be quite reasonable, but it is not an option. Filth is in the definition of squalor.

You can't extrapolate from today's situation back to Roman times. Modern cities in the First World can and do support massive populations without what the game calls squalor. That was beyond the ability of Roman cities. Every household in a modern city has running water and toilets. That was not true of the vast majority in Roman cities. It was only the rich that had running water, not the mass of poor. Your comparison of Roman cities to cities today is inaccurate.

Taken to the extreme, the given interpretation suggests large cities of today should be mostly squalor since they have public sewers, water, and massive populations.

Ever been to a Third World city - we see just that. We see the same thing though happening in the Third World cities today. People leaving farming (see below) and moving to the city, a city which is unable to support its population with all the necessary public services. What is happening in many Third World cities today is what happened to Rome. More "squalor".

While I see your point and others I don't agree with the farm efficiency argument because I reject some of the current notions of increased efficiency. (There was a good article I read recently illustrating that much of the recent "boom" in efficiency is actually the shift to off the books/contract labor. They had revised figures that paint a much more normal picture of productivity growth.)

That's irrelevant. We aren't talking current notions of productivity, but what happened 2,000 years ago. It's not a definitional issue but a factual issue.

Productive farms don't cause squalor, but non-productive ones do.

It all depends on how that productivity is achieved. You're ignoring what happens, and what actually happened in Roman society when small peasant farmer can no longer compete with larger estates farmed by slaves. Smaller farms run by peasants were not able to compete with larger farms/estates using slave labor. This caused a large influx of landless peasants into the cities, which produced the problems known in the game as squalor.

Famines and food shortages produce squalor.

Yes, but so do cities crowded with more people than they can comfortably support due to technology limitations.

Strong farming just adds another industry and uses more of your available resources.

Not if it drives peasant farmers off their farms because of the use of cheap slave labor - which is what happened in much of the Empire.

Good harvests require labor, storage, transport and trade (more employment throughout the chain.) Bad harvests do not need any of it. Smaller farms of the period on average would have higher squalor. Quite a number of the freemen on small farms would not be better off from a *squalor* standpoint than the slaves of a successful big farm. (Note, I'm not talking at all about non-squalor horrors of being a slave.) Remember, at this time good farming meant producing more not just from a given plot of land, but also making more land arable.

You don't seem to be getting it. The issue isn't squalor on type of farm vs. another, but what happens to the one type of farmer (the "free" peasant") when his farm can no longer compete with another type of farmer (the rich landed estate farmed by slaves). The peasant has to sell out, and he moves to the city looking for work - which produces squalor in the city because they didn't have the technology to support such large populations without creating "squalor".

Anyway, it is an interesting topic to think about. A lot of it is "chicken-or-the-egg?" Is the improved farm and farm efficiency producing squalor or reducing it? We can make valid arguments both ways. Perhaps CA will tell us the philosophy.

No, the argument doesn't cut both ways. I'm telling you what actually happened in the empire. My position isn't based upon theory but history.

Grifman

[ToranagaSama]

Grifman,

I can't justify public sewers and aqueducts as leading to squalor, it just doesn't fit. They allow for greater population by reducing squalor (ability to provide potable water and remove waste.) Having to pay to enlarge them as the city grows would be quite reasonable, but it is not an option. Filth is in the definition of squalor. Taken to the extreme, the given interpretation suggests large cities of today should be mostly squalor since they have public sewers, water, and massive populations.

While I see your point and others I don't agree with the farm efficiency argument because I reject some of the current notions of increased efficiency. (There was a good article I read recently illustrating that much of the recent "boom" in efficiency is actually the shift to off the books/contract labor. They had revised figures that paint a much more normal picture of productivity growth.) Productive farms don't cause squalor, but non-productive ones do. Famines and food shortages produce squalor. Strong farming just adds another industry and uses more of your available resources. Good harvests require labor, storage, transport and trade (more employment throughout the chain.) Bad harvests do not need any of it. Smaller farms of the period on average would have higher squalor. Quite a number of the freemen on small farms would not be better off from a *squalor* standpoint than the slaves of a successful big farm. (Note, I'm not talking at all about non-squalor horrors of being a slave.) Remember, at this time good farming meant producing more not just from a given plot of land, but also making more land arable.

Anyway, it is an interesting topic to think about. A lot of it is "chicken-or-the-egg?" Is the improved farm and farm efficiency producing squalor or reducing it? We can make valid arguments both ways. Perhaps CA will tell us the philosophy.

I think one thing that's being discounted is the effect of slavery and certain developments within Roman society as it became more and more successful in taking lands and people.

I haven't studied the Romans to any real degree, but I have pondered information regarding Roman society and structure as it has come to me. I'm not sure of dates and developments as they relate to the game, but am aware of certain relations and the effect they must have caused within Roman society.

For example, for a period of time during the early period (define as you will), the armies were comprised of native Roman citizens. With success, the need for ever greater numbers of native citizens to fill the ranks of the army, as well as the material draw of reward from soldering (booty), had the effect of thinning the ranks of *farmers*. There came a point where many farms were left to fallow, simply because so many were serving in the army.

What occurred as Rome continued its military success and enslaved ever greater populations, was that powerful Roman individuals and families began a practice of siezing fallow farms and utilizing slaves to labor these farms. Eventually, these farms grew into huge estates fueled by slave labor.

The above is pretty much what I've very recently learned to be factual.

The question then, is what effect did this development have upon Roman society?

The following is my extrapolation:

1) As the former (family/individual) farms were taken over, displacement must have occurred, as the former farmers, their familes, and those they may have employed were out of a source of income, save whatever pension or wealth derived income from the male family members conquering exploits.

It is this displacement as a result of farm seizures and slave labor, which lead to a population shift to the cities; with no work or manner of derived income to be found in the countryside, the city was the only alternative.

2) The productive effiencies of *consolidation*, in addition, to the cost efficiencies of slavery must have lead to greater food production, as well as greater profit, a natural motivator for ever growing estates.

Increasing Production leads to greater Supply, great Supply leads to lower prices. The main market being the cities, naturally, the lowest *market* prices would be found within the cities. This is more motivation for populations to flock to the city.

3) Slave labor not only in the countryside, but in the cities was a cause for *labor* displacement. Not only did farms employ slave labor, but also businesses. Most *businesses* of the day would naturally reside where the largest markest exist, and that would be the cities. Yet, with the availabliity of slave labor, the *paid* labor market must have been greatly displaced.

As a result of the above conditions, there is a population shit from the countryside to the cities, and simultaneously a substantial rise in Unemployment for the (key point) free Roman CITENZRY.

High Production, High Supply, Low Prices, High Demand, but a cash strapped Market. This is *Squalor* and I think describes the Roman economy (oxymoronic and downward spiraling).

This also descibes the creation of the Roman "Mob". Roman leadership had to contend with a majority population of *free* Roman citizens with Rights, but without a means to support and sustain themselves (other than Army employment). Squalor.

This comes to my Fourth and last know fact:

4) That is the developed need for the Roman leadership to provide an ancient form of Welfare to its displaced and dis-enfranchised free citizenzry. The game mentions this and I forget its proper name, but there existed a policy of providing FREE food to the citizenry.

In addition, "The Games" were utilized in a similar fashion as Televisions is utilized today, as a pacifier for the Masses/Mob.

------

I'm having a problem with Squalor right now, and the Plague is visiting one of my cities, Pativium. I'm going to try tearing down the Ceres temples and employ the law and order temples (??). I've had a policy of Enslavement for the cities I conquer, I'm going to switch to Occupation; and I'm going to take the advice and figure out which buildings are most appropriate to counter Squalor.

-----

I think the general *Lack of Documentation* is a bug!
Hopefully, it'll be fixed with the Patch.