Rome's Popluation During The Late Republic.

[WotWotius]

'After the spectacles, a census of the people was taken, and instead of the 320 000 of the preceding lists there were enrolled only 150 000. So great was the calamity which the civil wars had wrought, and so large a portion of the people of Rome had they consumed away, to say nothing of the misfortunes that possessed the rest of Italy and the provinces.' -Plutarch's life of Caesar.

 

I am curious to know whether or not these figures are accurate. Could civil war have decimated Rome's populace so greatly? I find hard to believe that any civil war could half the population of one of the greatest cities of the age. Even if it did, surely the great loss of life would have documented in less of a 'matter of factly' way that Plutarch gives. Furthermore, later census' taken by Augustus give figures of around half a million:

 

'...the number of Roman citizens was 4,063,000. Again in the consulship of Gaius Censorinus and Gaius Asinus [8 B.C.] I [took the census, when] the number of Roman citizens was 4,230,000. A third time...in the consulship of Sextus Pompeius and Sextus Appuleius [14 A.D.], with Tiberius Caesar as colleague, I [took the census when] the number of Roman citizens was 4,937,000.' Res Gestae

 

Clearly Rome population quadrupling from the time of Caesar to Principate of Augustus, is a very unbelievable concept to grasp.

 

Or was it a mistake of Caesar's? Perhaps the previous figure given by Plutarch was the population of the Italian peninsula, and Caesar's later Census only counted the populace of Rome. Maybe Caesar's census did not include females.

 

What are your views?

 

Additionally, I was wondering if there are any other sources regarding Rome's population during the late Republic.

[Pertinax]

WW, Primus Pilus did this work previously:

 

http://www.unrv.com/empire/roman-population.php

 

Note his comments on expansion.

[WotWotius]

Well that cleared that up. I did not really research the matter, I just thought the quote from Plutarch was quite intriguing.

[Primus Pilus]

Well that cleared that up. I did not really research the matter, I just thought the quote from Plutarch was quite intriguing.

 

Yes unfortunately, and I hope my article is quite clear that everything is a fairly wild guesstimate, population figures are based loosely on the Res Gestae of Augustus (which Plutarch quoted) and scientific world population data.

 

It's very intriguing. Unfortunately, I doubt we'll ever be very clear unless some lost documentation is found that gives more detail.

[WotWotius]

Are there any figures regarding the population of the Roman Empire as a whole?

[M. Porcius Cato]

Three points are critical. First, any CENSUS is going to provide a low-ball estimate of population. Second, only a fraction of the deaths caused by war occur on the battlefied. Troops are vectors for disease. Often, diaherria kills more than the gladius. Third, after war, there is typically a demographic surge, as men return to their wives after their poor brains have soaked for too long in too much testosterone.

 

Given all three factors, the principate could have been LESS capable than the republic of supporting a large population at their previous levels of comfort, yet still have seen a larger-than-counted population boom simply by virtue of bringing an end to war.

 

See Rosenstein's Rome at War for extended discussion of these issues. It's much better than the now-antiquated Brunt.

Edited September 2, 2006 by M. Porcius Cato

[WotWotius]

Three points are critical. First, any CENSUS is going to provide a low-ball estimate of population. Second, only a fraction of the deaths caused by war occur on the battlefied. Troops are vectors for disease. Often, diaherria kills more than the gladius. Third, after war, there is typically a demographic surge, as men return to their wives after their poor brains have soaked for too long in too much testosterone.

 

Are you basically saying that the original figure given by Plutarch was so low because that Rome's male population, rather than being decimated by civil war, was in fact off fighting the civil war? So once Octavian restored peace to the Empire and disbanded her surplus legions, Rome experienced a great influx of men... that seems to make sense.

 

Given all three factors, the principate could have been LESS capable than the republic of supporting a large population at their previous levels of comfort, yet still have seen a larger-than-counted population boom simply by virtue of bringing an end to war.

 

In my view, it seems that the Principate was much better suited to supporting a large population than the Republican government ever did. Though the average Roman pleb was would have still been suffering various social injustices under the Principate--as stated in previous discussions--from what I have read into the matter, quality of life and maybe even life expectancy was better under the rule of emperors.

 

For instance, the centralised government provided by Augustus initiated various building programs designed to appease the urban poor; most notable of which were the three aqueducts built under the supervision of Marcus Agrippa, and after his death, under the eyes of three curators of the water supply (all of which were well established patricians at the height of their careers). Once built, the aqueducts were thoroughly maintained and monitored: according to Dio, Agrippa had a troop of 240 trained slaves to repair them and to cut off people who have tapped the water supply illegally. Because water was now so readily available, Augustus was in a position to order the construction of the Baths of Agrippa: Rome's first large-scale public baths.

 

Another service provided under the principate was the fight service. After the antics of Rufus Egnatius--a praetor who attempted to form a fire brigade--Augustus created his own fire brigade under the command of an adile; though this did not really amount to much. However, in 6 AD, he eventually brought the Cohortes Vigiles into existence--town watchmen who also acted as firefighters.

 

During the age of Augustus, wholesale slum clearance was beyond the technology and the think of the time. Suetonius tells us that Augustus did however re-house people living in the slums cleared to make way for the Forum Augustum. He additionally proposed legislation to limit the number of stories attached to the Roman apartment (insulae). But if we are to believe the satirist Juvenal, this law was often evaded.

 

Augustus' reign witnessed the beginning of a permanent free Annona ration:

'I made grain and cash contributions from my granary...sometimes for 100, 000 people or more.' -Res Gestae

During a particularly bad famine in 22 BC grain was supplied at a '...very cheap rate; sometimes he provided it for free...' -Suetonius, life of Augustus.

 

Finally there was also the additional perk of Augustus' freebies such as games and and largesse:

'None of Augustus' predecessors had provided such splendid shows.' -Suetonius, life of Augustus

'His awards of largesse to the people were frequent...' -Suetonius, life of Augustus

 

All of these services may well have arisen if the Republic prevailed. However, under the centralised rule of Augustus these services were provided more quickly and efficiently than they would have done under the bureaucratic Republic. My point being that because of all these services, quality of life would have been better under the principate, the city may have been able to support such great influx of people.

[M. Porcius Cato]

As a preliminary, I should say that I don't think that the writings of historians alone will provide high-quality estimates of population sizes and changes in those populations over time. Basically, a human population (like the population of any species) is the result of many interacting factors which were of no concern to ancient historians, including birth rate, infant mortality, the effective reproductive age of females, availability of males, disease, vitamins, and so forth.

 

A change in just one of these factors can have an enormous effect on population size. For example, if the average age at which women have their first child increases from 16 to 24, a population can go from growth to decline, a feature one can see all over Europe and the developing world. Moreover, this variable is strongly related--at least in the modern world--to maternal education, which can significantly cut into a woman's reproductive longevity.

 

Turning to the ancient world, we do have some rough estimates of population growth before, during, and after the establishment of the principate. The 'before' statistics, discussed at length in Rosenstein's "Rome at War", depict startling increases in population during the Republic--very near to exponential, which is the theoretic limit of population growth. Given a continuation of the same exponential trend, one would expect larger year-to-year changes in population size over time, thereby giving rise to larger gains in population during the principate than the republic REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT LIVING CONDITIONS IMPROVED.

 

Now, did the population continue to grow exponentially from the end of the Punic Wars through the end of Augustus' reign? Clearly not. Several civil wars devastated the population of Italy. Whether peace brought a resumption of exponential population growth or not is an empirical question, but I think there a few reasons to suspect that it didn't.

 

First, we have Augustus' own concerns on the matter. Recall how frightfully anxious he was that the equites and senators of the period reproduce? (Keith Hopkins' work on this topic, btw, was seminal and is worth looking at.) The Romans had several methods of reproductive control, and they used them liberally. My bet is that if you look at the names appearing on Roman coins in this era, the great and prolific gentes of the past (such as the Cornelia) will be represented much less than in the past.

 

Second, we can look at the growth of new Roman colonies. If the population of Roman citizens were growing exponentially, there should have been much greater colonization than previously. To my knowledge, however, this was not the case--indeed, the growth of the empire as a whole seems to have been nearly checked. In contrast, over a mere period of 50 years of the Republic, new roads of Rome branched out over an area that was never matched since all imperium was granted to one man.

[WotWotius]

Turning to the ancient world, we do have some rough estimates of population growth before, during, and after the establishment of the principate. The 'before' statistics, discussed at length in Rosenstein's "Rome at War", depict startling increases in population during the Republic--very near to exponential, which is the theoretic limit of population growth. Given a continuation of the same exponential trend, one would expect larger year-to-year changes in population size over time, thereby giving rise to larger gains in population during the principate than the republic REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT LIVING CONDITIONS IMPROVED.

 

Could it be that the initial rise in Rome's Republican population was due to the fact that, as a result of her numerous overseas wars, Rome was receiving a vaster number of slaves than she ever had (much more than in the time of Augustus). Butthen again, why would slaves appear on a Republican Census?

 

First, we have Augustus' own concerns on the matter. Recall how frightfully anxious he was that the equites and senators of the period reproduce? (Keith Hopkins' work on this topic, btw, was seminal and is worth looking at.) The Romans had several methods of reproductive control, and they used them liberally. My bet is that if you look at the names appearing on Roman coins in this era, the great and prolific gentes of the past (such as the Cornelia) will be represented much less than in the past.

 

Yes, but this decline in birth rate has only been document as taking place amongst the upper classes. I am quite inclined to believe that the urban poor did not have such a free roam with birth control. Maybe Pertinax will enlighten us about the matter.

 

Oh, and this Keith Hopkins character sounds interesting. Which ones of his books would you recommend?

 

Second, we can look at the growth of new Roman colonies. If the population of Roman citizens were growing exponentially, there should have been much greater colonization than previously. To my knowledge, however, this was not the case--indeed, the growth of the empire as a whole seems to have been nearly checked. In contrast, over a mere period of 50 years of the Republic, new roads of Rome branched out over an area that was never matched since all imperium was granted to one man.

 

As far as I know colonisation was still taking place: it was up to Augustus to fully Romanise Gaul and Hispana, and this was done by establishing colonia such as Colonia Agrippa. Besides, even if it was not, the colonies founded during the '50 years of the Republic' were only founded during that time; they may have only flourished during the time of the principate.

Edited September 9, 2006 by WotWotius

[sullafelix]

This is a very interesting thread.

 

However, I wouldn't say that the case for an exponential growth rate in population is anything like proven either.

 

Also I would exercise caution before taking on board what Rosenstein has to say about crops in his book. It is simply not true to say that a subsistence farmer would not put all his eggs in one basket and grow only one crop. In fact subsistence farmers are very likely to do this. On a small plot it is almost impossible to grow enough of anything to feed the family especially something that will store and provide a staple food. Look at the Irish Potato Famine. There were famines from time to time and they would have affected mortality.

 

He also uses the model life tables of Coale and Demeney which I think are very inaccurate for looking at ancient civilisations and certainly cannot be used to show things like age distribution in ancient societies despite a current fashion for using them. ( There is a reason for this but it is long and involved!)

 

One of the things I would say about this topic in general is that although it would be nice to know the Roman population we almost certainly never will. The data collected in ancient times was reasonably accurate but we do not really know who it covered and also we do not the levels of motivation for either dodging the census or in seeking to be censed when you had no right to be. Using model life tables as Rosentstein and many other modern historians do is just compounding inaccuracy and ignorance with error and calling it progress...

 

:mellow: