Newsgroup: it.cultura.storia.militare
Titolo: Due articoli sull'economia romana per Lorenzo

Caro Lorenzo,
come ti avevo promesso, ecco un indirizzo attinente ad una discussione sulla
globalizzazione dell'economia imperiale Romana
http://www.nuff.ox.ac.uk/Economics/History/Paper39/39temin.PDF
Non sono riuscito a recuperare l'indirizzo dell'articolo sulla crisi
dell'economia romana nel III secolo, e perciò lo riporto qui sotto per
intero.
Lo stesore dell'articolo, Julian Fenner, è dell'Università di Manchester.
Divertiti pure....
 To what extent were economic factors to blame for the deterioration of the
Roman Empire in the Third Century A.D?
by Julian Fenner
For centuries, historians have tried to understand the causes of the decline
of the Roman Empire, in particular the causes of the third century crisis.
The fact that opinions are so numerous reflects the complexity of the issue
and the opinions themselves often tend to reflect the time in which they
were written. For example, enlightenment intellectuals such as Voltaire and
Gibbon were obsessed with political reasons and the effect of the rise of
Christianity. Machiavelli spoke of the barbarian invasions as being central
and Paulo Paruta felt that the relations between the Senate and the people
were largely to blame. Other factors which have been put forward as crucial
include, climate change, the decline in military spirit, disease (plague,
malaria), depopulation, racial 'pollution' and immorality. In the face of
such an array of disparate theories one must strive to be discerning. In
other words one must try to find out which are unimportant or of little
importance, which ones are merely symptoms and which are the really
significant factors. The central argument of this essay is the idea that
perhaps one of the most important causes of Rome's decline was structural
economic weakness inherent within the empire long before the third century
AD. These weaknesses include things like the inherent problems of a
slave-economy, decentralisation of industry/agriculture, and the long-term
non-sustainability and 'top-heaviness' of the Empire. However, this is not
to suggest that there were not other important factors at play other than
economic ones. Things like the increasing 'barbarization' of the military
and the political classes, intellectual and 'spiritual' decline and the
increasing pressure on Rome's borders could also be cited as important. The
decline of Rome should be seen as part of a complex process without a
single, concise explanation. The decline of Rome was the result of a complex
process of interwoven weaknesses, defects and contingencies.
If we look at documents from the third century there is little mention of
the decline of Rome. However, part of the reason for it seeming this way is
that the idea of the 'decline of the Roman empire' is really a metaphor we
now use to convey a general impression and not a precise reality. The Roman
Empire was composed of a complex set of relationships, of governmental
administration, institutions and groups etc. Therefore it is perhaps easier
to talk of change or deterioration rather than a very definite thing like
'decline'. Many of the sources seem to convey a vague sense of deterioration
hanging over Rome as early as the first century AD. It was Seneca who
proclaimed at this time that the onset of Imperial Rome meant the death of
the empire. This negative attitude became more widespread in literature from
the time of Hadrian onward. Apart from Suetonius' Biographies of the
Emperors, the Metamorphoses of Apuleius and the Attic Nights of Aulus
Gellius, Latin Literature seemed to become overwhelmed by apathy. This may
seem strange to some people, especially those who believe in Gibbon's
'golden-age of the Antonines'. In his famous work 'The Decline and Fall of
the Roman Empire' he states that the period in the history of the world when
the human race was most happy and prosperous was the time between the death
of Domitian to the accession of Commodus (98-180 AD). Superficially this may
seem to be the case. A vast area around the Mediterranean was now linked
economically, politically and culturally. There was prosperity, peace and
security throughout the empire and things could seem to some be running
smoothly. The end of this apparently good period was marked by the onset of
civil wars lasting from 180 to 285 AD. Of twenty-seven emperors or would be
emperors, all but two met violent deaths. Meanwhile, the Persians raided
Antioch in the East and in Europe the barbarians broke through the
frontiers. Huge areas of countryside were devastated. The middle-classes
were increasingly squeezed out of existence and many farmers and labourers
were transformed into serfs. When in 285 AD Diocletian pulled the empire
together again, there was little left of the prosperity of the Pax Romana.
What seems clear is the causes of the decline must have been evolving during
Gibbon's period of happiness and prosperity. Many of the most serious
weaknesses developing during this time were of an economic nature and one
can trace back the roots of some of these fundamental structural economic
weaknesses to the Republic and before.
The early expansion of Rome in Italy was as much the product of hard work as
it was of aggression and domination. Roman advances were strengthened by the
settlement of farmers on confiscated territory and a prudent treatment of
conquered neighbours minimised the difficulties and dangers. Occasionally,
subject communities were admitted to Roman citizenship. The strength of this
agriculturally based system was tested severely in wars with the invading
Gauls, with Carthage and with Pyrrhus. The wealth of the Republic was built
up on the sweat of the provinces, the loot from wars and the suffering and
exploitation of slaves. Like Greece, Rome had inherited a low level of
technical skill and achievements were only possible because of the huge
amounts of labour and exploitation involved. The Romans seemed to lack any
modern notions of returns and productivity. They seemed to lack the ability
to improve methods of production, find superior sources of energy and
improve transport/communications. As we will see later on this low level of
technique would have bad consequences for industry and therefore the empire.
After the second Punic war many new economic transformations began. During
this time, many of the best agricultural lands in Italy were devastated.
Many wealthy opportunists had profited during the war and were no longer
inclined to finance small farmers. There were new possibilities for business
of a less insecure and therefore more tempting nature. Contact with Carthage
had opened the eyes of many greedy Romans to the profitability of
scientifically managed large-scale agriculture. This combined with a new
abundance of cheap land and slaves initiated two new economic developments.
Men with money started to buy these huge areas of land, formed large
estates, and set about working them for profit with the new cheap and
plentiful supply of slave labour. Connected to this was the increasing
tendency of small cultivating owners to choose not to resume their
interrupted occupation or to even be driven to abandon their holdings. The
only hope of halting this economic development lay in the political sphere
but power was steadily passing into the hands of the very men who profited
from this new system.
None of the changes in this period favoured the return of the small farmer
to the land. The battle of Pydna (168 BC) placed the Mediterranean world at
the feet of Rome and many new prospects opened up. As provinces were gained
and the empire continued to expand, its sphere of influence increased
dramatically along with the availability of opportunities. During the next
century there was a huge movement of Roman's abroad all eager to exploit
these opportunities. Some made money quickly by gleaning the profits to be
made by the squeezing of Rome's subjects. Others went for more long-term
options and settled in the provinces, making large amounts of money in
commercial and financial enterprises. With the power of Rome behind them,
many felt they could exploit these opportunities with little need for
moderation. Roman emigrants gradually obtained valuable lands in the
provinces and thus we see a further development of the large provincial
estates that became so important later on. This outflow of emigrant Romans
was greatly facilitated by the large amount of moneylenders present at the
time and this was made all the more easy by the favour of Roman officials
who would guarantee borrowers against bad debts.
The growing number of provincial taxes brought into being a large class of
investors whose speculations tended to generate substantial returns. This
ever-expanding and highly important class known as the Knights (equites) had
little care for the rapidly disappearing peasantry. Initially their main
activity was to squeeze concessions from the Senate thereby meaning that for
a time popular leaders were able to engage their support against the ruling
nobility. However, selfish interests gradually became the guiding force and
they joined with the senatorial nobles to form a party of property. In light
of this it is hardly surprising that efforts to restore free peasants to
Italian land were a failure. The main area of commerce in the latter days of
the Republic was the slave trade and therefore Roman financiers were deeply
interested in this. Any attempts to reform the system were normally met with
hostility.
One can now see how the system of slaves and great estates continued into
the days of the empire. It paid well in the Provinces where one could obtain
large areas of land relatively cheaply and where environmental circumstances
where often favourable. However, after the Roman peace significantly
diminished the supply of slaves, the system became a problem. During the
imperial period we see a significant development of the tenancy system. In
earlier times the landlord clearly had the upper hand and the tenant was
merely a humble dependant forever fearful that he would thrown off his
holding. However, evidence shows us that later on, the landlord was often
the anxious party and would often suffer substantial losses and in the
second century AD, the landlords were often as badly off as their tenants.
The growing problem in the new economic climate became how to balance the
interests of both parties and therefore keep the agricultural system
running. A strict system of rules came about in an attempt to regulate
conflicting interests. Enforcing them was problematic however, due to the
corruption of imperial agents. It was often very difficult to catch these
officials and when they were caught their successor often yielded to the
same temptations thus the problem did not rectify itself. Amidst the
problems and general chaos of the third century it is hardly surprising that
this system totally failed to meet its objectives. The system fell into such
disarray that that by 284 A.D, the condition of the small tenant farmer had
generally become one of semi-servile dependence. His legal freedom became
very limited and his economic position increasingly depended on the
preservation of a holding often blighted by encroachments. If he left his
land he would probably starve but if he stayed then he effectively be a
serf. Legal changes later on made it the case that to be a colonus was to be
attached to a specific plot of ground with which he himself was
transferable. This change, however rational it may have been under the
circumstances really only confirmed what a mess Rome had made of its economy
and all this did was to effectively consummate agricultural stagnation by
law.
The slave-based economy seemingly worked well but only as long as there was
a large supply of slaves. The slavery institution declined significantly as
a result of the "Augustan Peace". Although Gibbon sees the decline in war
and piracy in this so-called "golden-age" as an entirely positive thing for
the empire he does not see the other side of the story which is that these
two activities were the main source of slaves. The days of the great Delian
Slave market were over and there was now a severely diminished workforce.
Growing humanitarian sentiments within the empire also facilitated this
problem as many of the remaining slaves were freed. The fundamental basis of
ancient economic activity was significantly undermined but the system of
exploitation was too well established now for it to be abolished. Perhaps if
the institution of slavery had been challenged much earlier on then things
would have been different but unfortunately even the most enlightened
philosophers of the Republic seemed to support it. For example, Aristotle
stated that "from the hour of birth some are marked out for subjection,
others for rule". There remained no choice after the collapse of the slave
market other than to try to compensate for this loss. What we see here is
the increasing exploitation of free men by a highly exploitative ruling
class. This group was really an aristocratic clique whose wealth was derived
primarily from the land so it was very much in their interest to maintain
their own superiority at the expense of what was beneficial to the empire.
They were against any form of economic improvement which threatened their
power and so their actions tended to maintain senatorial authority but at
the huge price of economic retardation. In the absence of a slave class
which they could exploit, they increasingly tightened the screw on the lower
classes so that their legal, political and constitutional privileges could
be diminished. In this way they would have little power to defend themselves
against exploitation. This whittling away of the rights of the poor took
place mainly during the 'good' Antonine period and by the Severan period the
poor had virtually no rights whatsoever. Citizenship therefore came to mean
almost nothing for the vast majority and therefore the onset of universal
citizenship was really a fairly unremarkable development. The fact that it
came about only reflects the financial problems of the empire (discussed
later) and the need to increase tax revenue. Finley states that in this
period we see "a cumulative depression in the status of the lower classes
among the free citizens". What we essentially see here is a switch from
slave production to serf production. From this development, Rostovtzeff sees
a major cause for the upheavals and rebellions of the third century. He sees
the upheavals of the third century as "a deliberate and class conscious
attack by the exploited peasantry, using as its spearhead the large army
which was mainly recruited from its ranks". This argument is problematic
however, as there is much evidence to suggest that peasants were generally
scared of the soldiers and would therefore not see them as their
representatives. Even so, this argument does not ignore the fact that the
massive exploitation by the urban propertied class of the poorer members of
society (for example the rural population, retail traders, artisans) and
their indifference towards working for the public good had bad effects. The
problem of slavery and exploitation was really one of the root problems of
Roman society. The empire was built upon the labour of the exploited but
they were the very people who could not benefit from their work. This
division of society ensured that the masses of the empire never tasted the
fruits of their labour. The two major problems which this lead to were that
people lacked the incentive to master their work and they also had little
consuming power so there was a shallow internal market as a result.
The need to create new markets was one of the factors that lead to the
continued drive for expansion. The lack of good communications lead to
industry increasingly moving out to the peripheries to be closer to their
markets. The growing need to find fresh supplies of slaves was also a factor
that contributed to the shifting of industry to the peripheral areas such as
Gaul where was a better supply. Backward areas such as these therefore
gained what Rome had lost, a surrounding area inhabited by peasants. This
process of decentralisation was also linked to the lack of technology within
the Empire. In modern industry the effective use of technology reduces
overheads significantly but there was not really a tendency to do this in
the Roman Empire. Increasing slave concentrations did not reduce the
overheads and therefore there was no incentive to carry on developing old
centres as it was more profitable to move to new areas under this system.
The lack of effective transport also hindered these attempts to expand
markets. Even the best forms of transport were unsuitable for the high
circulation of consumer goods. This was another factor leading to the need
for industry to be close to its markets and therefore it further undermined
the core in favour of the periphery. The ineffectiveness of transport also
lead to an inefficient distribution of goods often creating gluts in one
area and shortages in another. The insecurity of the credit system also
impelled industry outwards towards its markets. It was very costly to raise
capital for a trading venture because of the potential risks involved. There
was no equivalent of the joint-stock company with limited liability to
ensure some degree of responsibility for financial ventures. Further
problems were created by the primitive nature of the ancient banking system
which saw little development of the system of a central bank with branch
establishments and in some cases a backwards movement towards a system of
independent local banks.
Under Trajan the empire reached it furthest extension but because of the
weaknesses within the empire, its resources were pushed to breaking point.
The empire found itself in a catch-22 situation in which there no solution
to the problem. On the one hand there was the ever growing need to expand
and on the other the ever diminishing capacity to carry it through. If the
empire continued to expand it would have been disastrous but if it stopped
then there would still be the problem of the lack of a deep internal market.
The expansion of the empire only brought greater extension, not greater
depth. This was not a progressive forward-looking policy, it was an
essentially blind process When Hadrian came to power he stopped this policy
of relentless expansionism but by this time it was too late. Although this
was the most sensible course of action, the economic situation was such that
the problem could not be solved. The best Hadrian could do was slow down the
inevitable economic decline. If Julius Caesar was able to carry out the
expansions which Trajan carried out one a half centuries before when the
resources of the empire may have been strong enough to support such a policy
then perhaps it would have been a different story. The relentless
expansionism also carried with it another danger. This centrifugal movement
of the Roman economy often overflowed into the Barbarian world thus exposing
them to the vices and virtues of civilisation. This would have made the
barbarians envious and desirous of the riches and luxuries which such
civilisation afforded and would therefore have help to foster the desire to
invade. (barbarian invasions discussed later on)
All the tendencies mentioned did not operate at once or to the same extent
but over a period of years they resulted in a clear movement of industry
outwards from the old centres of the empire. Over the whole empire there was
a slow reversion to small-scale, hand to mouth craftsmanship whose
production was focussed on the immediate vicinity. Progress in areas like
Roman Germany and Gaul was cancelled out by the decay of Italy. By the
second century A.D. there were clear signs that Italy was fast losing its
once predominant position. There were increasing signs of depopulation and
large shrinkages in the export of both agricultural and industrial products.
It seemed that industry was fast losing its confidence and therefore
increasingly sought the protection of forms of production nearer to the
basic needs of mankind. From the time of Augustus onwards this type of
"domain" economy was taking over from the old system based on slavery and
the 'free market'. We see here a dramatic drop in almost every branch of
agricultural technique yet despite this huge numbers were drawn towards the
countryside as conditions within the towns deteriorated. This movement of
industry from the towns reduced the effective areas open to trade thereby
contributing to a general economic breakdown. As the estates became more and
more self-sufficient, it increasingly detracted from the classical economic
system, as there were less and less customers for the goods that circulated
on the old markets. The large domain therefore contributed significantly to
the restriction of trade and the speeding up of the process of
decentralisation. By the late third century we can see that this rise of the
estate was a real sign of Rome's serious economic decline. In this period
the Talmud directs its readers to keep a third of their money invested in
the estate, a third in cash, and a third in commerce and industry. What this
advice shows us is the extent to which the economy had become dysfunctional.
Alongside this growth of the large estates was the shrinkage of the towns
and a decline in the quality and extent of ancient civilisation. The cities
began to wither away and urbanisation slowed down as the empire became more
and more based around a decentralised structure. Politically the
implications of decentralisation were very damaging as it lead to situation
of widespread political autarky among the peripheries and therefore,
political decomposition thus weakening the political centre. It meant that
Rome gradually ceased to be Rome. Being spread out to the borders of a vast
empire enfeebled it and Italy therefore surrendered its pride of place to
the provinces and the peripheries.
Hadrian may have temporarily halted the economic crisis that Trajan's policy
was rapidly creating but beneath the surface problems persisted. This
manifested itself within the currency in particular. With the strain of
foreign demand and the steady movement of currency eastward as a result of
the adverse trade balance evasive action was taken. Nero took the move to
contaminate the denairus and to reduce coins by clipping. The weight and
quality of the denairus fell constantly until the time of Commodus when
inflation was reaching cataclysmic proportions. In his reign the silver
denairus sank to one third of its former value, and wholly ceased to
circulate outside the Empire. The aureus became so unreliable that by 200
A.D. it had ceased to be accepted abroad without testing for weight and
quality. The story of the third century was one of worsening inflation and
the minting of bad money. The situation became so bad that many people fell
back on the natural economy of bartering thus further perpetuating the
economic problems.
Despite the considerable contraction of the population and resources this
was not accompanied by a corresponding reduction in the price of imperial
administration. The maintenance costs of the empire were huge and continued
to expand all the time. Taxes had to be collected, frontiers defended; the
empire had to be policed and the imperial post had to maintained. The
upholding of the Roman standard of culture meant huge amounts had to be
spent to provide an adequate supply of the amenities that were considered
essential to the full life or a Roman citizen. There was the cost of
building, repairing and maintaining the numerous temples, public baths,
municipal buildings, gymnasia, town halls, wrestling schools, market places,
triumphal columns and amphitheatres (the list goes on). Civic sacrifices,
religious processions, feasts and the games also drained huge amounts from
the financial reserves of the empire. The cost of the dole weakened the
empire's finances. Originally this was passed out once a month but under
Marcus Aurelius there was a daily distribution of pork, oil and bread to the
proletariat. The alimenta (farming subsidies), put in place by Nerva also
cost the empire dearly. The adverse balance of trade which grew at this time
proved to be very costly. In the time of Nero, Seneca estimated that it cost
Rome five million dollars a year to import its luxuries from the east.
Another area in which Rome spent huge amounts of money was the army. An
important implication of the Roman peace was that the army changed its
economic role. Whereas previously it had been an important source of plunder
it was now mainly used as a peaceful garrison force. The army became an
economic liability, as there were more than 400,000 mouths to feed and
nothing for them to do. Of course, even in peace the army was essential to
the security of the empire but the cost of it more than doubled between 96
and 180 AD. The empire was over-spending by epic proportions yet the
economic structure meant that nothing could be done to counter-act this.
Another very important cause of the financial problems came during the reign
of Marcus Aurelius when there was a sudden explosion of calamities
afflicting the empire. Since the beginning of the principate there had been
virtually no problems with the exception of the civil war (68-9 A.D.) and a
few other minor revolts. During the reign of Aurelius things suddenly went
badly wrong. The Parthian war erupted and proved to be extremely expensive
and to make matters worse the army also brought back the plague. There was a
rise of problems on several of the frontiers especially from the Germanic
tribes. From 160-71 A.D there were many frontier breaches along the Danube
as well as other invasions from different tribes (for example, the attack on
Buetica by Moorish rebels in 171 A.D.). There were a number of revolts in
this period including a very serious one in Egypt (early 170's). All of
these problems put enormous financial pressure on the empire. The evidence
supporting this is clearly shown by the fact that Aurelius and Commodus
reduced the surplus left by Antoninus Pius in 161 A.D. of HS 2,700,000,000
to HS 1,000,000 in 193. One of the consequences of the financial crisis was
to put a massive amount of pressure on the bourgeoisie. Evidence shows us
that during the 160s there was a huge rise in the financial pressure imposed
on the curial class. This was met with a growing reluctance to help ease the
growing economic burden. There are many examples of people in this period
being forced to carry out public works for example. Normally people would
often volunteer to donate to the public (euergetism) but the fact that
people were being increasingly forced to help shows the direness of the
situation. Under the Severan Dynasty, this "compulsion" was applied even
more stringently to the curial classes and we see another significant drop
in the practice of euergetism. By the third century the burden was so heavy
that it began to consume the capital resources of the empire. However, this
increase in taxation did not increase production, in fact increases in tax
seemed to coincide with a decrease in manpower and production.
From the second century onwards, the question of how to fund the empire
became absolutely fundamental due to widespread economic contraction. The
problem of indebtedness was so common that it was seriously hindering
economic enterprise. In 118 A.D. Hadrian agreed to wipe off a bad debt to
the treasury which amounted to the equivalent of £7 million and also reduced
many sums which were outstanding for rent. However, when the citizens of the
empire could not afford to pay at all then simply reducing debts was not a
long-term answer. It got to the stage when tax-payers simply had to pay what
was demanded of them meaning that the State would necessarily have to become
strengthened. Here we see the growth of bureaucracy and a parallel
development of what we today would call the "police-state". During the
republic, the money for Rome's expansion came largely from the plunder of
foreign war. However during the pax romana we see a very sad state of
affairs emerging whereby the only means of keeping the empire funded was
through legalised extortion. By the time of Antoninus Pius (AD 138-161), the
Roman bureaucracy was as all embracing as that of modern times. This
tendency sowed the seeds for the tyranny of the third century. The historian
'Trever' says of the situation. "the relentless system of taxation,
requisition, and compulsory labour was administered by an army of military
bureaucrats. Everywhere. were the ubiquitous personal agents of the emperors
to spy out the remotest case of attempted strikes evasion of taxes". Under
Hadrian we also see the development of a system of secret police and
informers. This system functioned in much the same way as the Gestapo and
kept going until its was changed by Diocletian. The fact that an emperor as
enlightened as Hadrian introduced this system speaks volumes about the state
of the empire at this stage and the inevitability of the system coming
about.
The over-consumption and pampering of the Roman citizens during the imperial
period also created other problems. It has often been suggested that the
increasingly materialistic and greedy lifestyles that many Romans lead began
to affect them 'spiritually' and intellectually. A sense of futility seemed
to be permeating society. The Roman 'spirit' which had conquered the world
was becoming increasingly lethargic. During the "pax romana" it seemed that
peace, comfort and security took priority above political freedom and trying
to solve the problems which were blighting their civilisation. Many
historians mention the change in racial stock as a reason for this. Others
say that plague and malaria were also possible causes. One suspects that the
real reason was the 'disease of materialism' or the 'affluent society'. We
need not look solely to Rome for this tendency, it is happening in the west
today. The price that western society seems to be paying for the
considerable wealth and comfort of most of its inhabitants is a
corresponding rise in apathy, complacency and unreflective
consumerism/indulgence. The modern industrialised west seems to share
several of the characteristics which predominated during the "golden era" of
the Roman Empire. The growing sense of negativity exists now and then, as
does the obsession with violence (blood-sports in Rome, Hollywood films and
video games now), sex, and indulgences. Another interesting parallel is the
growth of oriental religions which appeared in Rome in an attempt to fill
the spiritual vacuum and the growth of new-ageism now. The increasing
popularity of mystical religions is also a sign of the influence which the
lower classes were increasingly having on the upper classes and therefore
represented a sort of "barbarisation" of culture. This represents a
prominent feature in the Roman world which was the gradual absorption of the
higher classes by the lower classes and a subsequent levelling down of
standards.
The Roman Empire was riddled with economic problems whose causes are to be
found long before the third century. However, there were other serious
problems developing during the empire which were independent of economic
factors. Problems with the army and the rise in military and political
anarchy which ensued were very serious. These problems stemmed largely from
Hadrian who was guilty of decentralising, immobilizing and 'foreignizing'
the army. Hadrian also began the policy of filling up the army with
provincials from the area to be defended and allowing the Germans to settle
in the Danubian provinces as long as they served in the auxiliary troops
when called upon. The fact that Hadrian was driven to such measures is a
sign of the serious manpower shortage that was developing in this period.
This manpower shortage can be linked in turn to the retreat of many people
to rural areas and therefore at least in part to economic factors. By the
time of Marcus Aurelius the army was composed either of ignorant countrymen
from the most backwards parts of the empire or foreigners. This divorce
between the 'barbasized' army and 'soft' civilians had very grave
consequences. In spirit and in culture, many of these new soldiers were
uncivilised peasants with little, if any, respect for the people they were
supposed to protect. The apathetic Romans had sown the seeds for political
and military disaster and they eventually reaped the results. In 191 AD
Commodus was assassinated and a man named Pertinax was made leader. He
promised large gifts to the legions and praetorians (they dominated Rome
from a camp near the city) but when he tried to enforce discipline he in
turn was murdered. The throne was sold to Julius Julianus for the equivalent
of $1,200 per soldier. However, the legions responded by putting forward
three other candidates. This lead to three years of civil war culminating in
the brutal Septimius Severus coming to power. He was a draconian but
proficient leader and ruled for twenty years having the good luck to die in
bed. However, by this time the army knew its own power and it became
common-place for the army to dictate who would be on the throne. During the
twenty-four years after the death of Severus, four caesars ruled and each
was assassinated. In 235 AD the rot was well and truly setting when the
legions raised the first barbarian to the purple, Maximinus. Maximinus was a
Thracian peasant of mixed Gothic and Alan descent whose career began as a
common soldier. Maximinus never even visited Rome and his three years of
rule were a reign of terror. The fifty years after his death saw twenty six
caesars with only one dying peacefully in bed. Almost all of them were
originally the nominees and then the victims of the soldiers.
By the time the Persians and Barbarians invaded, the Roman world was in a
state of disarray and all that was required from them was a gentle push.
During the seemingly happy world of Gibbon's day, Rome was sleepwalking into
a catastrophe. The invasions of the third century were not so much a cause
of Rome's decline as a result of its significant economic and political
weakness by this stage. The Germans burst across the barrier of the Rhine
and the Danube. In 257 A.D. the Goths overran Dacia, crossed the Danube, and
penetrated into Greece. In 269 the Heruli and the Goths, in their biggest
invasion, crossed the Danube with their families, 320,000 strong, and sailed
with 2,000 ships into the Mediterranean. The Marcomanni had already
penetrated Italy as far as Ravenna. A couple of years later the Alamanni got
as far as Milan. In 256 and 258, the franks and the allied tribes swept
across the Rhine and wreaked havoc on the whole country as far as Tarragonna
in Spain. Meanwhile further west, the Saxons were sailing against Britain.
As if all this wasn't enough to be concerned with, the Romans suffered a
second devastating plague in 252 A.D, which proceeded to devastate the Roman
world for fifteen years. Alexandria lost two-thirds of its population and at
its peak Rome lost five thousand each day. During the invasions there is
evidence to suggest that due to the exploitation and mal-treatment of many
of the Roman citizens, the invasions and disintegration of the empire was
often met with indifference. The attitude of the lower classes towards the
Barbarians was by no means always one of fear and hostility. They were often
met with feelings of relief and the desire to co-operate especially amongst
the poorer men who were unendurably burdened by taxation. Evidence shows us
examples of people deserting to the barbarians or of appealing for help from
them. Even at the beginning of second century we hear of deserters to
Decabolus the Dacian chief and Dio speaks on several occasions of deserters
to the Quadi and Marcomanni during the second and third centuries A.D. Some
of the numbers mentioned are so strikingly huge that there must have been
civilian defectors as well as military defectors. The fact that so many
people wished to rebel against their own empire speaks volumes about the
state of the empire even before the third century.
Economic weaknesses and their social repercussions were largely to blame for
the decline which Rome went through during the third century. Due to the
nature of economic development during the Republic and the ramifications
thereof, Rome developed an economy riddled with weaknesses and problems.
These inherent economic weaknesses began to manifest themselves during
Gibbon's golden-age. The system of small estates developed during the
Republic gave way to the system of the great imperial private estates. The
growth of the large estate was a catalyst to the general decline of Rome as
a symptom. By the third century the great era of the industrial city-state
was over. During the second century we see the reversion from an industrial
life based on the wide use of coinage to more primitive conditions of
payments. As the empire grew it needed a state system of credits able to
support the intricate and highly organised commercial life of the empire we
see a retrogression of this sort of system if anything. The decline of the
slave-market lead to a system whereby the free peasantry increasingly became
the work-tool of the state and the landowners also became a work-tool bound
to the place where they were needed. The social structure resulting from
this sort of economic system also had the bad effect of creating a very
restricted internal market. The empire seemed prosperous and successful but
it was essentially thriving on borrowed time. The artificial supports
provided by expansionism helped to conceal these problems but at the price
of eating up huge amounts of money and further reinforcing the problems of
limited demand, technical inadequacy and decentralisation. The costs of
running the empire continued to increase exponentially along with a
corresponding decrease in productivity and the ability of many to pay. From
this we see the rise bureaucracy and therefore further pressure on the Roman
citizens (the middle classes in particular). The increasing materialism of
the Romans also seemed to contribute to a general weakening of the Roman
'spirit'. The empire had dug itself into a hole from which it could not
escape and went into terminal decline. The barbarisation of the military
beginning under Hadrian and the disastrous political effects of this were
also very important. It was the legions that had repressed the Republic and
it was the legions once again who violated the "majesty of the purple". The
civil wars which were the result of this along with its political, economic
and social problems affected the empire to such an extent that it could no
longer defend itself effectively against its enemies. By the fourth century
such damage had been inflicted that the Roman world was never the same again
and eventually went into terminal decline.
Bibliography
1. "The Roman Economy" A.H.M Jones
2. "The Later Roman Empire 284-602" A.H.M Jones
3. "Pax Romana" Petit
4. "Decline of the Roman Empire in the West" F W Walbank
5. "The Roman Empire" Colin Wells
6. "Frontiers of the Roman Empire" C.R. Whittaker
7. "History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" E. Gibbon
8. "Finance, Coinage and Money from the Severans to Constantine" M Crawford
9. "The Ancient Economy" Finley
10. "The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World" G.E.M de Ste Croix
11. "Money and Government in the Roman Empire" R.P Duncan-Jones
12. "Taxes and Trade in the Roman Empire" K Hopkins
13. "The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire" Rostovtzeff
14. "The third century crisis in the Roman Empire" A.R Birley
Julian Fenner. University of Manchester (UK)
jo...@intergalactic.co.uk

Interessante l'articolo di Julian Fenner sull'economia romana. Tempo fa
avevo già lasciato un mio messaggio, ve lo rinnovo ancora anche se la
mia tesi sull'interazione della strategia militare su quella aziendale
sta per giungere al termine......tuttavia se avete dei testi o meglio
ancora degli articoli sull'argomento Vi invito a segnalarmeli. Grazie
ancora per l'attenzione. saluti  

 Interessante l'articolo di Julian Fenner sull'economia romana
Mi son fatto un'idea tutta mia (sbagliando?)su cosa c'era e cosa non c'era
nell'Impero romano, per dar vita ad un moderno capitalismo.Provo a
riassumere:
Mulino,vomere,staffa,telaio,altiforni,vapore..(ritrovati tecnici)
Imperatori insulsi ( adozione o parentado ?)
Tutele giuridiche precise ( per manifatture e società commerciali)
Vela triangolare
Carta moneta
Mentalità dell'avvocaticchio ( Oratore,sogno di ogni giovane.Artigiano,
occupazione da pezzenti?)
Università
Fissa con premonizioni e fatalismo
Arco lungo (polvere da sparo?)
Costituzione (illlegalità come norma nella patria del diritto?)
Fiere ( chi l'ha viste?)
Banca centrale
Cultura del protezionismio,della rendita,e dell'assistenzialismo
Ma soprattutto "Leva di Massa"...
...Che però,come dice Mariangela,nel basso impero,(proprio quando servirebbe
maggiormente), era diventata improponibile.Perchè?Perche bisognava dar la
cittadinanza oramai a milioni di schiavi (e liberti).C'erano le fabbriche ma
non c'erano i salariati,C'era la tecnologia per i beni di consumo(e c'era
potenzialmente il danaro per pagare gli operai),ma l'idea di poter avere uno
schiavo, allettava di più evidentemente che diventare ricchi! Un'assurdo,un
paradosso devastante.E l'origine,come ricorda giustamente Fenner,proviene
dritta dritta dalla Roma repubblicana.E' li che la classe media,vero nerbo
di ogni esercito,era stata ridotta al mutismo,  (guerre civili dei Gracchi e
Catilina).E con lei ogni  possibilità di evitare la catastrofe.
Antonio Lucio

 wrote in message a5atss$t4i$1...@gossip.excite.it...

La storia spezzata - Aldo Schiavone ed. Laterza
Un libro affascinante, anche se forse troppo pessimista sulle capacità della
civiltà classica.
Ciao
Gianfranco

 Catilina).E con lei ogni  possibilità di evitare la catastrofe.
Certe volte mi pare di intravedere come un Impero come quello Romano fosse
troppo ... tutto per i suoi tempi; per sopravvivere avrebbe avuto bisogno di
una tecnologia al livello di quella dell'inizio del XIX secolo.
Ciao
Gianfranco

 Un libro affascinante,
A proposito di libri...ho appena finito di leggere le Storie di Ammiano
Marcellino,nell'edizione Mondadori curata da Giovanni Viansino.Libro
stupendo,terrificante,bellissimo.Solo su una cosa non mi ha ben disposto.E'
talmente pieno di riferimenti ad altri libri,lettere e documenti, più o meno
coevi,che uno prende,cerca in libreria e rimane perfettaente deluso.Non c'è
una traduzione di Eunapio,Claudiano,Erodiano,Zonara,Eutropio.Le storie di
Zozimo le ho trovate in una vecchia un'edizione Rusconi,Per miracolo ho
potuto leggere le Guerre di Procopio in un volume esaurito dal '77 per i
tipi dell'Einaudi.La Bur stampa Dione Cassio e si ferma a metà strada! E'
fuori dal mondo.Si trovano maree di Senechi, Ciceroni,e Quintilliani ma se
non la ristampava la Tea (!) un povero Cristo come faceva a conoscerebbe la
Storia Augusta?E poi fanno un gran parlare che bisogna conoscere la
storia.Cominciate con lo stampare meno poesie e più cronache.E forse
scoprirete che piacciono anche di più della solita sbobba scolastica.Sbaglio
Gianfranco?..Ah,... se hai qualche indicazione riguardo agli autori
sopracitati ,son tutto orecchi.
Grazie
Antonio

 ancora per l'attenzione. saluti
Saluti
Lorenzo