A History of the Roman World

by Scullard, H. H.

  At the same time military needs resulted in Rome’s intrusion both north and south into areas where Greek influence predominated. In Campania pottery was manufactured on Attic models, and the paintings of the fourth-century tombs at Paestum and Capua show the influence of Greek art. At Capua also Etruscan gold workers continued their trade. A successful pottery industry flourished at the Latin colony of Cales. At Praeneste a vigorous bronze industry is attested by the beautiful mirrors and boxes (cistae) engraved with scenes from Greek mythology and decorated with ornamental handles; perhaps the old Etruscan industry was in part carried on by Campanian-Greek workmen. In Etruria itself, where activity slackened on the downfall of their empire, artistic effort and Greek influence were renewed in the fourth century. The wall paintings might be more sombre, but many bronze statues (e.g. the Mars of Todi) and sarcophagi of real artistic merit were produced. After the fall of Veii, pottery was manufactured at and exported from Falerii, where two old temples were redecorated in Hellenistic style; two new temples adorned Volsinii. A pair of Panathenaic amphoras, dated 336, attest the spread of Attic influence at Caere.

  Indirect contact with Greek art through direct relations with Etruria and Campania may have stimulated emulation by the Romans, but the evidence suggests that it was not extensive. A number of temples were built, especially after the great Samnite War. They were probably adorned with terracotta revetments and pediments like the contemporary Ecruscan temples, and some were decorated with paintings, but the artists may have been imported. Thus a military scene from a third (?)-century tomb on the Esquiline depicts negotiations between Q. Fabius and an enemy general, M. Fannius: perhaps an episode in the Samnite Wars. The buildings of Rome can scarcely have been less imposing than those of many of the towns that she conquered. One of the most beautiful boxes of the Praenestine type (the Ficorini cista) was made at Rome and bears a Latin inscription: ‘Novios Plautios med Romai fecid’ (‘Novius Plautius made me at Rome’). But this is not sufficient evidence to suggest widespread industry. The local pottery was not notable enough to export: transport was too dear. Cheap black Campanian ware is found in the Esquiline graves. The legislation of Appius Claudius implies the existence of a fairly large free industrial class at Rome, but this may have merely supplied weapons for the army, agricultural implements for the farmers and domestic furniture for the householder. If warfare stimulated industry, colonization checked it by draining the population. And still the Romans remained uninterested in commerce. When their treaty with Carthage was renewed in 348 they allowed the Carthaginians to extend the area of the mare clausum and left their own port open to foreign traders. About the same time a small fortress was established at the Tiber’s mouth at Ostia. The colony may have been designed to protect and facilitate commerce, but it equally well may have been a military post against sea raiders from Antium.6 The general inexperience of the Romans at sea before the First Punic War confirms the supposition that their main activities were directed landwards.

  The Roman conquest of Italy secured for the citizens benefits which included commercium, but the conquest of the Mediterranean opened up vaster fields. The Romans, however, were content to step aside and leave commercial enterprise to the Greeks of southern Italy. The governing class did not seek fresh markets for the products of Italian industry. Provincial administration proved more profitable. Unfortunately we have little evidence of the progress of Roman industry in the third century. The wars with Carthage must have stimulated the production of arms and military equipment which were presumably supplied in the main by Rome and the municipal towns of central Italy. In Campania the production of pottery declined, but metal industries continued to prosper. In southern Italy Rome’s conquest weakened local industry and Hannibal’s invasion wrought untold damage: Tarentum never recovered its pristine prosperity. The towns of Etruria were more prosperous, though artistic inspiration declined. Mirrors, similar to those from Praeneste, were manufactured, and the increasing popularity of incineration encouraged the production of urns of alabaster, marble and travertine. In 205 Scipio received supplies of grain and timber from Caere, Volaterrae, Perusia and Clusium, cloth from Tarquinii, iron from Populonia and manufactured weapons from Arretium.

  In the second century similar conditions prevailed. Romans of good family still left industry to the lower classes, but slave labour slowly tended to supplant free. Plautus refers to a large number of skilled workers: workers in gold, iron, wood and leather; makers of boxes, leather bottles, shoes, ropes and shields; dealers in wool and linen; carpenters, potters, dyers, fullers, millers, bakers, weavers. Cato’s list of agricultural implements required for his olive orchard and vineyard is both long and instructive. He also suggests the best shopping centres (de agr., 10f; 135): Rome for clothing, jars and bowls, heavy ploughs, yokes, locks, keys and baskets; Cales and Minturnae for iron agricultural implements; Venafrum for spades, ropes and tiles; Suessa for wagons and threshing sledges; Capua for light ploughs, bronze utensils, ropes and baskets; Pompeii and Nola for mills and olive crushers; Nola for bronze utensils. Pottery was still exported from Cales to central Italy, but the industry declined. The so-called Megarian ware made in southern Umbria was sold chiefly locally and in southern Etruria. The great slag heaps at Populonia near Elba indicate that an average of a hundred thousand tons of iron ore were treated each year during the last centuries of the Republic. Some of the pig-iron was forged on the spot and at Arretium; some was sent to Puteoli as the local timber supply decreased. Copper, tin, and lead also were mined in Etruria, but after Cato had organized the Spanish mines, Etruscan mining and metal working declined, though farming flourished and the slave-worked plantation system spread in Etruria.7 In general, the small shop system, which is revealed at Pompeii, prevailed. The shopkeeper generally made and sold his goods in the same small room.8 Cattle, fish and vegetables were sold in separate fora in Rome, while special market days were held every eighth day. A trader might hawk his wares around neighbouring towns, but the slowness and cost of transport precluded a far-flung trade in cheap goods. An ox team covered little more than ten miles a day and it has been reckoned that to haul an olive mill for twenty-five miles would add a sixth to the original cost of the mill. River transport would be used where possible, and the Roman roads which spread over Italy for military purposes served also commercial ends. Nevertheless trade in Italy, for the most part, remained local.

  Overseas trade, especially with the east, increased in the second century, but it had little interest for Roman nobles or influence on Roman policy (p. 295). For instance, the Romans allowed Gades to grow fat on the Atlantic trade of the Carthaginians instead of claiming the legacy for themselves; similarly, no commercial treaty was struck with Masinissa. Ostia’s heyday was after Gracchan times, though a Roman tariff station was set up at Puteoli in 199. The Roman naval transport service was responsible for the transhipment of large quantities of grain, and the cost of freightage precluded a vigorous trade in ordinary commodities as grain, oil and wine. But the increasing demand for luxuries in Rome would promote trade, and the equites gradually became a Third Estate. Yet the aristocracy retained its vested interests in land, and ‘labour’ had no adequate political means of expressing its will.

  4. CURRENCY AND FINANCE

  The Greek cities of southern Italy coined silver: Tarentum from the mid-sixth century, Cumae from c. 500 BC, Naples and the Etruscans from c. 450 BC; but the Romans were slow to develop a monetary system of their own. The view that Roman coinage began about 340, when Capua issued the so-called Romano-Campanian series for Rome, has now been generally abandoned and the development of Rome’s early coinage is set later.9

  In early times values were estimated in terms of oxen and sheep; hence the word pecunia (money), derived from pecus. The Romans were content to barter or to use copper weighed in the balance (aes rude); about 430 BC a law was passed by which for the collection of fines 100 pounds of bronze was equated with ten sheep or one ox. It was not until 289 that the offi
ce of triumvirs of the mint was established, probably for the purpose of casting the so-called aes signatum, bronze in bars weighing some six pounds each and bearing types on each side (such as a shield and sword, trident, anchor, elephant, sow, ox); only one of those that survive bears a legend, ROMANO (RUM). Since these bars lacked a mark of value and had to be weighed, they were money rather than coins, but probably at the same time real coins were issued: circular bronze asses, marked 1 (one as) and weighing a pound. The first of these libral asses was probably the series that had the heads of Janus and Mercury on its two sides. It was followed by other series, which include that with a wheel as a constant reverse type on all denominations (a reminder of Rome’s interest in road construction and starting perhaps in 269) and the more famous Janus/prow series (probably c. 225) which remained the normal type of Roman bronze coinage throughout Republican times. It was the war with Pyrrhus and closer contacts with southern Italy and its silver coinage that led Rome to produce in a southern mint two issues of silver coins, marked ROMANO (RUM), for war purposes: the types were Mars/horse’s head, and Apollo/horse. Then in 269 the mint officials produced a silver coinage in Rome with the same legend and showing Hercules/wolf and twins; this was soon followed during the First Punic War by another series showing Rome/Victory (both with corresponding bronze). Meantime the old aes signatum was falling into disuse and struck bronze began to replace the cast aes grave. Then after the war followed four silver issues marked ROMA, of which the fourth (c. 230: 235, 225?) depicted a young Janus and Victory in a chariot (quadriga) and became known as a quadrigatus. At much the same time came the libral bronze prow series. Thus although Rome had been slow to adopt a coinage, under the stimulus of the Pyrrhic and First Punic Wars she not only accepted this civilized medium of exchange but took to it with open arms. Traders and Roman soldiers serving in southern Italy and Sicily would benefit, and Rome’s international status was enhanced.

  The Hannibalic War had sharp effects on the coinage. The weight of the as declined steeply: to a semi-libral standard near the beginning and then rapidly to a triental and (214?) quadrantal. Soon after 215 the quadrigatus was replaced by a smaller victoriatus (with reverse type of Victory). A year or so earlier an emergency gold issue was made (Janus/oath-scene) when Naples, Paestum and Syracuse sent gifts of gold to Rome, and then c. 211–209 a second gold issue (Mars/eagle): after the defection of the Latin colonies 4,000 lb of gold were taken out of the reserve. In or about 211 a radical change was made with the introduction of a new silver denarius (= 10 asses, and showing Roma/Dioscuri on horseback), linked to a sextantial bronze system. This new bimetallic system remained the basis of Rome’s coinage throughout the rest of the Republic.

  Thus Roman coinage was issued to meet the requirements of war rather than of trade. Practical needs were met by practical solutions, not by constructing economic theories. Hence wartime difficulties forced the Senate partially to repudiate its debts by reforming the coinage instead of by establishing a permanent war debt to be funded and repaid over a long period. The financial policy of the state followed the lines of its political development. In Italy Roman colonies would naturally use Roman coins, while many independent Greek states and some Latin colonies issued coins in early times. But Roman coinage gradually predominated and after the Hannibalic War the Romans claimed a monopoly. In the provinces no uniform policy was enforced. In the west convenience generally led to the establishment of a Roman monopoly. A policy of enlightened self-interest was shown in Spain where beside Roman coinage native silver (argentum Oscense) was allowed to circulate in the second century, partly as a medium for the payment of tribute and partly to facilitate commerce within Spain. Carthage also continued to issue money. In the East where the Romans found a variety of issues existing they did not interfere with local coinage. Their wars there rather served to bring the money of the East to Rome. So great was the flow that many Eastern nations were forced to go off the silver standard, although Roman exactions may have been a contributory rather than the chief cause of this.

  The late invention of Roman coinage attests the simplicity of the financial problems of early Rome. But her intrusion into the Mediterranean world and the strain of the Punic Wars forced the Roman treasury to shoulder heavier responsibilities. Towards the end of the First Punic War when the treasury was exhausted and taxes could not be increased, the government followed the example of a Greek ‘liturgy’ or a modern war loan: a fleet was raised by public subscription, but with the understanding that the state would refund the money in event of victory. The main source of income was taxation. The usual tributum simplex was a one-mill tax (one-tenth of 1 per cent of property values); this might be increased in wartime. Other sources were rent from public land, an indemnity of 100 talents from Hiero, and profits from the sale of prisoners and booty. The cost of the war to the Roman treasury has been estimated at some 100 million denarii. The Hannibalic War strained the treasury still further. In 216 an acute shortage of money led to the appointment of triumviri mensarri and a slight inflation by reducing the weight of the as. In 215 double tributum was levied; later this may have been still further increased. When cash was exhausted, credit alone remained; in the following winter the praetor called on warprofiteers to offer supplies for Spain by contract on indefinite credit, and three companies of nineteen men responded. In 214 crews were supplied by ‘liturgy’, state building contracts were undertaken on undated promises to pay, slaves were bought on credit for military service, trust funds of widows and orphans were taken over by the state, many knights and centurions refused their pay. To meet a fresh crisis in 210 the state borrowed the savings of the citizens: much jewellery, plate and precious metals were voluntarily contributed. In 209 the reserve sacred treasury was used, and when twelve of the Latin colonies refused to supply further troops or pay, the other eighteen offered more. After Metaurus had relieved the strain, the twelve defaulters were punished in 205–204 by the imposition of direct taxation, based on a census, in addition to their other obligations. From this taxation two-thirds of the voluntary contribution of 210 was repaid in 204 and 202; the third instalment was paid in land in 200 when the Macedonian War claimed financial support. Scipio’s African expedition was largely financed by voluntary help. The treasury receipts during the war have been reckoned at 286 million denarii (citizen tribute, 65 million; tithes of Sicily and Sardinia, 24; port dues, etc., 10; booty, 65; sacred treasury, 5; loans, contributions, super-taxes, etc., 117). The corresponding expenses of 286 million are estimated at: army stipends, 180 million; food for allied troops, 36; land transport, 15; arms, 20; navy and transport, 35. The average annual expense of the war was about 3½ times greater per annum than during the First Punic War.10

  During the first half of the second century national wealth rapidly increased. Roman property, which may have been worth some one thousand million denarii in 200 BC, was doubled or trebled in value by 150 BC, while the population had increased about 50 per cent.11 War indemnities, booty, and the Spanish mines formed new items of income. In 187 Manlius Vulso persuaded the Senate to repay all the outstanding tributum still owing from the Hannibalic War; this perhaps only included the super-tax over and above the tributum simplex. By repaying 25½ tributa the government finally liquidated its war debt. In 167 citizen taxes were discontinued and ten years later the treasury had a balance of 25½ million denarii in its vaults. Professor Tenney Frank has worked out the budget of the period as follows. Income, 610,600,000 denarii (war indemnities 152,100,000; booty and Spanish mines, 159,500,000; citizen tax, 60 million; rents from public land, 63; provincial tithes, 130; other vectigalia, 46). Expenses are reckoned at 555 million denarii (army stipend, 300 million; food for allies, 64; transport, 50; navy, 58½; public buildings, 20; super-tax repaid, 22½; other expenses, 40). These figures may well be 50 per cent too high or low, but at any rate they give a valuable idea of the scale of Roman finance for a period when 77 per cent of the national income was devoted to military costs.

  T
he evidence for the purchasing power of money is still more slender. It has been reckoned that in the second century a bushel of wheat cost 3 denarii; olive oil, 10 denarii an amphora (26 litres); ordinary wine, half the price of oil; beef, perhaps 2 or 3 asses: a complete suit, 100 denarii; a lady’s wardrobe 1000 denarii; farm slaves, about 500 denarii; a plough ox, 60–80 denarii. Wages were low. A slave could be hired out at ½ denarius a day; free labour may have earned a little under a denarius. Thus a labourer who earned 300 denarii a year might be able to feed and clothe himself and his wife on two-thirds of his income, leaving the meagre balance for house rent and extras. At the other end of the social scale the estate of Scipio Africanus may have been worth a million denarii.12

  5. SLAVERY

  The Etruscan chieftains who settled in Italy reduced many of the natives to serfdom and doubtless acquired alien slaves by trade and piracy. There is no definite evidence that serfdom survived in Etruria in Roman times, but it still existed before the First Punic War when some serfs at Volsinii, who had been freed by their masters for military service, seized the government, and thus brought Roman punishment on their own heads, and were perhaps reduced to slavery. Whether in early days the Etruscans had introduced serfdom into Latium is uncertain. But in the difficult years that followed the fall of Etruscan power the plight of the small Roman farmer was wretched and some citizen debtors must have lost their freedom in the economic struggle. In law, of course, a slave was not a person but res mancipi, the property of his owner who could inflict any punishment, including death, unfettered by any legal limits. The extension of Roman power throughout Italy had two results: the condition of the Roman peasants improved, and the number of slaves, created by conquest, increased. But the slave was not yet regarded as a profit-making machine, though occasionally skilled workers might be used for profit. As he and his master generally belonged to the same or similar races, he was treated as a servant of the family and worked by his master’s side in the fields. He shared in certain festivals and was allowed to keep his savings (peculium) with some hope of eventually buying his freedom. Emancipation was frequent and in 357 a law was passed imposing a 5 per cent tax on manumission. Since 4,000 lb of gold had accumulated in the treasury from this source by 209, an average of some 1,350 slaves may have been freed each year. The political generosity of the Roman government towards this freedman class which in general took the place of clients attached to the great houses is discussed elsewhere (p. 289); at the end of the third century Philip of Macedon, writing to the inhabitants of Larissa, called attention to the liberal policy of the Romans in granting full citizenship, including the right to hold office, to liberated slaves (Dittenberger, Sylloge II, 143).