Talk:Roman economy

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Classical Greece and Rome High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Economics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jon Pacilio.

Above undated message substituted from

I found it really interesting to see that the importance of "mare nostrum" to Rome and their ability to dominate economically in Europe during this time period. However, I would like to see some more value being placed on this area of the Roman Economy. It reminds me of the European powers first battling for land in the New World, and in order to so needed to dominate the Atlantic Ocean. Rome's ability to dominate the water allowed for their port cities to control trade routs, and I am sure their economy greatly benefitted from this face. Fontenez (talk) 03:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To flesh out this article & give it further depth, I suggest these topics be addressed:

• The effect of slavery in the Roman Empire. Slavery was widespread & a large slice of the population were in one way or another indentured; this had a ubiquitous & pervasive effect on both society & the economy. (For example, because they owned neither their bodies or their labor, they had no disposable income -- it went to their owners for their enjoyment & benefit -- & their living standards were at the whims of someone else.) Yet there is hardly a mention of this important detail.
• Gross inequality of income. Wealth was highly concentrated in the upper classes; I believe it is the younger Pliny who wrote that in his day half of Africa (modern Tunisia) was owned by just three people. This led to a situation where the very rich -- usually, but not always, the members of the Roman Senate -- lived very well, while the majority of the free population were only one harvest from starving to death.
• Lack of sources of income. In modern terms, the Roman Empire would be considered a Third World Country, with its lack of infrastructure (yes they had paved roads & aqueducts, but no public education, communication systems, no systemic police or welfare systems) & widespread poverty. (See my point above about inequality of income.) There was no banking system (as we know it today), no stock exchange, & only a primitive insurance system. If one had money to invest, one could either risk it on long-distance trade (bad judgment, theft, or simple bad luck could wipe a person out) or buy agricultural property. Which means the rich were constantly encroaching on the more humble landowners. Lack of free farm owners -- who were the backbone of the Empire's army & local organizations -- became a chronic problem for the Empire by the mid-2nd century.
• Taxation. The Emperor & his servants -- including the half million legionnaires & auxiliaries -- had to eat, & the money had to come from somewhere. This tax was in the form of an estate tax, & another tax (I forget its actual form). This was also the primary means of circulating money in those days. (Long-range trade was in luxuries, & represented a tiny volume of cash transactions; immediate trade for food & other necessities was as often in barter as with money.)
• Military spending. Studies of pre-industrial states has shown consistently that at least 70% of the government revenues went to the military. And often the military's pay was in arrears. Despite the latter, one could say that the Roman Army was their equivalent of the modern middle class: a body of relatively well-educated people with disposable income who represented a mass market.

These are off-the-cuff thoughts, & further research would modify, deepen, or add to these ideas. -- llywrch (talk) 16:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An edit to this article that can be found in the log at 17:22, 30 August 2014‎ by @Historian7 worked with material that is substantially similar to material found in the World Heritage Encyclopedia:

http://www.worldheritage.org/article/WHEBN0000025507/Roman%20Empire

I suggest that @Historian7 inspect this issue and remove material in this Wikipedia article that is substantially similar to material found elsewhere.

Looking after things, Grandma (talk) 22:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC) [reply]

See discussion at User talk:I'm your Grandma. Grandma (talk) 00:08, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At User talk:I'm your Grandma. I am informed that World Heritage Encyclopedia actually copies articles from Wikipedia. I have apologized to Historian7. Grandma (talk) 01:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found this Wikipedia page to be very credible in terms of the information presented, but also the sources used to back up said information.

• For instance, when talking about the transformation to FIAT money leading to the debasement of Roman coinage, not only was the information provided very interesting, but it was accurately cited with a credible source: Money and Government in the Roman Empire" printed by the Cambridge University Press which helped me know that what I was reading was not only informative, but credible.
• Even when mentioning the early use of money as a way to express prices and debts, the article still uses a scholarly and credible citation to support it,^[1] whereas other wikipedia articles would've just made that statement without providing a source that verifies and backs it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon Pacilio (talk • contribs) 23:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• This article does a great job of providing an accurate overview of the Roman Economy, how it began, and how it evolved over time through trade and commodities, all while using credible sources which further solidify this article's accuracy. In my opinion, this was well written and provides a great example for what a proper Wikipedia page should look like and be written.

Jon Pacilio (talk) 23:10, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the publicani were an important piece of the maintenance of Rome's budget as the Empire expanded. These tax farmers were one of the first known instances of independent contractors and were an important feature of the Roman economy. While Roman territory expanded rapidly, so did the importance of the publicani. For this reason, I believe that it is worthy to include them in any discussion of Rome's economy. -Trinity2017 (talk) 19:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For my Roman History course, I will be looking for reputable sources and contributing in other ways in order to improve this article and make it all the more credible, accurate, and up-to standard with Wikipedia's six-criteria. Here are some sources that I found through JSTOR and my College libraries online database. I feel that they can help improve the introduction of the article in terms of proper sourcing some of the sentences made, but also sources that can be used to draw information to improve the Trade and Commodities section as I felt that to be the weakest in terms of the criteria Wikipedia uses. Any thoughts or critique on my bibliography would be appreciated and helpful.

Bibliography

1^[1] 2^[2] 3^[3] 4^[4]

• This source has the potential to provide great insight into the trading and commodities that were being traded in the Roman Economy.

If they are referring to nominal, then the GDP per capita is accurate. For PPP though, I'd reccomend using the little information we have on salaries, convert the denarii or sesterces to USD to find the PPP per capita. My estimates ranged from $5000 to $29,000 (depending on the year and the method)

Read about it here: https://www.ivoryresearch.com/samples/economic-growth-in-the-roman-empire/

--Durnheim (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone thinking to shorten it? Or do you think its necessary for too broad a subject? Neophytes might want a quick introduction summarizing the main points — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danial Bass (talk • contribs) 03:25, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My concern on websites perspectives on the ancient Roman economy is that they do not give you enough information.My concern is a good one since me myself being a student and my fellow students have had a lot of false information and mainly not enough information on the economy of Rome.I hope one day someone can establish a trustworthy website that includes everything about the topic and not just what people want to hear. 47.157.104.225 (talk) 00:55, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]