Historical Roman Income - farming v trade (NOT about EB game)

[Intranetusa]

I'm not asking the EB team to change anything because I know the limits of the RTW engine (too much farming = out of controlled growth, etc).


However, I'd like to know the "income ratio" of the Roman Empire/civilizations of the ancient world. Since the Romans, like almost everyone else, were primarily an agrarian civilization, and 90% of the populace were slaves/peasants/farmers, this would mean that the majority of their governmental income would come from farming and not from trade, right?

[AngryAngelDD]

the answer is not so easy, but in theory you are right.

the most important business sector was agriculture. and it might be correct that 90% of the populace worked there.

but i´m not sure that income from agriculture made up the largest portion of the empire´s governmental income.

i would say that most poor people didn´t even pay taxes, but even if they do, the amount would be quite small.

trade also was never a big source of income. one can´t think of the roman empire as a large trading state. compared to current times, trade was not so well developed as one might think. some products were traded from all parts of the roman world, but the most products never leave the region they were made in.

i would say the most important income factor were taxes from the richer strata of the citizens (most of their income was indeed created by agriculture!).
after that agriculture, then trade tariffs.

(i don´t count pillaging enemy lands etc.)




this is my perception
please correct me....it´s probable that i´m wrong

[CirdanDharix]

Trade was quite important. By the time of the First Punic War, Campania was becoming a major ceramic producing region, and ceramic was a widely-traded product (although by this time the famous Attic ceramic was on the way out, replaced by Punic ceramic which was aesthetically similar but lighter and harder). Similarly, wine (noteably from the ager falernum) was produced in Italy and traded throughout the Mediterranean. After the Second Punic War, Rome gained control of the "Tin Road", bringing tin from Britain into the Mediterranean world. Moreover, besides classic trade goods like the ones I've mentioned, even the most basic productions were traded on a large scale at least punctually. War caused significant (and in the long term, unpredictable) fluctuations of wealth and population, and the devastation caused by war could lead to counter-intuitive trade flows. Another factor was climatic disturbances and other natural disasters, which also lead to unpredictable imbalances. Even traditional exporters of a good could find themselves importing it after war or nature had (temporarily) destroyed their ability to produce this good. A classic example would be Egypt importing wheat under Ptolemaios III Euergetes I.

Trade was very much alive in the ancient Mediterrenaen bassin, and the proliferation of pirates who lived by parasiting off this trade is proof enough of its economic importance.


However, "trade vs. agriculture" would be a false question. Much of the goods being traded were in fact agricultural goods (wine, grain, olive oil, wood, horses). As to AngryAngelDD's suggestion that the poor would not be paying taxes, things would be more complicated than that. Most common taxes would be levied when a good reached the market (like modern VAT), so that a smallholder might not be paying them directly, but his production and his purchases would still be taxed. Interestingly enough, the Hellenistic kingdoms were able to hide a discriminatory taxation behind a seemingly neutral system taxing agricultural produce according to its nature-- for instance in Egypt, the tax rate on grain being twice that on grapes and wine, the Egyptian peasants found themselves forking out more than the Greeks (since the Egyptians mainly produced grain, whereas vineyardists (is that the term?) were almost exclusively Greek).

In the case of the Roman state, though, much income was dependant (directly or indirectly) on pillage. By the EB period, the Romans were more Spartan than the contemporary Spartans. They were wholly reliant on slave labour, and that meant they needed pillage to renew the slave pool (whereas manumitions increased the urban proletariat, which in Rome rapidly became parasitical); moreover pillage yielded the means to pay the army, and the funds for many urban development projects. The famous Roman highways, aqueducts, etc, were built with the sweat and the gold of conquered people. One of the explanations for the rise of Rome is more methodical, ruthless, and efficient pillaging than their competitors.

[The General]

A classic example would be Egypt importing wheat under Ptolemaios III Euergetes I.

*Jaw drops, eyes stare at the line in disbelief*

[cmacq]

CirdanDharix'

very good post, concerning the tip of the iceberg.

[Michiel de Ruyter]

Well,

the question about taxation becomes even more complex, due to the way the Romans levied taxes: tax farmers.

Simply put, the Romans handed out contracts for taxes to private individuals, who guaranteed the amount of money to be handed over to the Roman authorities, and then were allowed to keep a 'part' of the taxes collected. Needless to say that there was a lot of abuse of the sytem, both by tax farmers and governors...

to the point where it became a standard accusation in law suits (both genuine and as a retaliation against political opponents). IIRC, Cicero made name with the lawsuit against Gaius Verres, Verres being accused of mismanagement and embezzlement when governor of Sicily. Rampant tax farming was one of the factors that nearly destroyed the economy of the Hellenistic cities in Asia Minor in the first century BC, and was often one of the most important contributing factors in sparking revolts against the Romans.

In the later Roman Empire, systems got even more complicated, as a mixed taxation came into being. Also, the army was allowed to buy produce at fixed prices against coupons form fairly early on in the Principate. At a later date, some taxes had to be paid in kind, some in money (at least in theory). Also, at least in Egypt, the tax farmer was replaced by a local official, who became personally liable for the amount of taxes owed!!!

Papyri evidence from Egypt is suggesting however that some of the taxes in kind were actually paid in money. Also, that there was a lot of borrowing and converting involved. Often the official took out a loan for the money owed, paid that to the government, and then went about collecting (seemingly from more localized officials, who often borrowed themselves and so on and so on and so on) the money. Of course each would be able to keep some part of the pie for himself. At the local village level, it looks like the farmers paid in small coin (like bronze, or maybe in kind) to a "richer" guy in the village who then paid in bigger coin (in silver ie) to the tax collector, who then paid that to some other tax collector, who turned the different deposits of silver coin into gold (often bought on the open market!!!!) etc. etc. etc.

If you want a verdict, I think it is without question that land (agriculture) taxes were by far the biggest source of income, simnply because of their sheer volume compared to luxury goods. Which, IMHO, is confirmed by the huge problems caused when more and more land became untaxable in the fourth century. Either through land grants to the Church or because the imperial and provincial aristocracy was able to get exemptions passed or simply powerful enough to refuse to pay taxation, even if obliged to do so by law.

[AngryAngelDD]

excellent posts....
sorry for providing false information.

i thought i read somewhere (in a book about the western frontier i.e. germania) that trade was important, but not to a degree which we can see nowadays.

the regions along the border traded beyond the rhine with germans, and provided goods to the soldiers (which was their main income)
but these were small amounts.

the coloniae/munincipiae and canabae/vici produced things for local trade only.
the most people there didn´t even know how to sell goods to traders from other regions nor do they have the capital to transfer goods by their own to major city centres. the produced amounts was not even high enough to attract traders from other regions.

the most "trade" in this regions was done by the army itself. the army bought wine in italy, grain in africa, garum in spain etc. and shipped these goods to the legionary forts.


(IIRC the whole roman world consisted of only some hundred colonia/munincipiae in all provinces....few have more than thousand inhabitants.
can this be correct?)

[The General]

i thought i read somewhere (in a book about the western frontier i.e. germania) that trade was important, but not to a degree which we can see nowadays.

It was important, but indeed it didn't occur at the level we see today.

I think the two most important reasons for this are the inferior methods of travelling and the higher degree of self-sustainability.

Logically, one of the most important things to consider when embarking on a long trip, and especially with mercantile intent (and thus with valuable property with you) is the quality of roads etc, the safety of shipping/airplane routes and the time to be spent getting the goods from the starting location to the destination.

In the past, it took a heck lot more time to get tin from Londinium to Alexandria than it nowadays would take to have it flown there. Also, it was less safe, with pirates, thieves and whatnot.

Also, with by far the majority of people living off the land as farmers, there was no need to import food, apart from large urban dwellings, exempli gratia, Rome. Also many other goods needed in the daily life were acquired/provided on the local level, and thus there was no need to import those either. The valuable merchandises could only be purchased by those with the wealth to be able to afford them, and this immediately discounts a lot of the rural folk.

Thus, not only was it more difficult, less safe, more time-consuming back then, but there was also less need for trade. That is not to say that trade was only minimal, no, as it did occur and has always occurred, but just on a lesser level than today, in the welfaring industrialized countries, with even the common folk buying plasma-TVs et cetera.

[Geoffrey S]

Trade was particularly important in that it tended to accumulate in particular areas in markets and hence could be taxed by authorities, which they did gladly; from a local level of basic products to long-distance transport of luxury items or bulk cheapish products. Agriculture was for the largest part for self-sufficiency in most cases and trade largely concerned with local markets, with the remainder being transported to cities almost as tax in natura. But by and large, governments aimed to control said food imports, and gain the (financial) means to do so through taxation of trade.

[Michiel de Ruyter]

Mind you as well, that a very important factor in trade was the iportance of waterways. Land transport was slow and very expensive (and in some regions outright dangerous).

Transport over water was quick and cheap, and in general much safer (especially outside storm season). You could also transport in bulk. Hence grain for Rome and Constantinople coming from Sicily, Egypt and North Africa (Carthage), and why the capture of Carthage by the Vandals is seen as possibly the killing blow for the Western Roman Empire.

And local markets was indeed where taxation of other goods came in. But much of it was locally of regionally produced... (although it must be said that eastern spices did turn up in Londinium and were bought there for Vindolanda!). The goods that really traveled long distance (all the way across the Empire) were rare, as few could afford them.