Farms

[Julius Ratus]

A few questions.

 

First, how big was the average farm for a well to do person? In my Roman Republic class, the professor said that under the Gracchan land reform bill, the poor were supposed to be alotted 30 iugera of land, appox. 20 acres.

 

Also, how many slaves did it take, generally, to work a farm? How many slaves in general, would most Romans have?

 

Thanks.

[Publius Nonius Severus]

Here is what the sources say on plots of farm land:

 

Marcus Cato, on Agriculture, Chap 1:

If you ask me what is the best kind of farm, I should say: a hundred iugera of land, comprising all sorts of soils, and in a good situation...

 

Columella, De Re Rustica, Book II, Chap 12:

From this summing up of the days of labour required it is concluded that two hundred iugera of land can be worked with two yoke of oxen, the same number of ploughmen, and six common labourers, provided it be free of trees; but the same amount, when it is planted with trees, Saserna says can be satisfactorily cultivated with three additional men

.

 

Cato also describes vineyards and other types of farms in the 200 iugera range as well. You can check it out here: De Agricultura by Cato the Elder at Lacus Curtius (you can find De Re Rustica there too!)

 

Of course these amounts: 100, 200, etc. would only apply to one farm. I am sure the wealthy owned multiple farms of their properties. Columella gives us an idea of how many slaves were necessary based on land size. There are accounts of the some welathy romans havin 100+ slaves (I will look for references - can't find them right now).

 

I'll try to see if I can figure how big some of the large holdings were...I'll be back soon

[Publius Nonius Severus]

Here is some additional info. According to this paper (which I have not yet had a chance to check the sources):Poverty, wealth and politics in second-century BC Rome by DW Rathbone, one iugerum was worth about 1000 sestertii in 140 BC (shortly before the Grachii). You needed to be worth 100,000 sestertii to be in the first class, which means 100 iugera. So, both Cato the Elder and Columella's references above probably apply to the estates of the majority of wealthy landowners. Later on in the paper the author estimates that there were approximately 2,000 landownders of estates ranging from 100-500 iugera.

 

By the way, it looks like 30 iugera of land would have been quite big. It appears that colonists, depending on their status and other factors, received land grants ranging from 7-15 iugera when they settled into the colonies. Also note that during the principate, a legionary who completed his enlistment received a land grant of 200 iugera (or cash equivalent).

Edited March 23, 2007 by Publius Nonius Severus

[Nephele]

Just as I was starting to wonder how big a iugerium was, I noticed that UNRV provides a handy chart of area measurements. 200 iugera = 124 acres of farmland. 500 iugera = 310 acres.

 

-- Nephele

Edited March 23, 2007 by Nephele Carnalis

[Gaius Octavius]

'Average' is a tough concept. If one averages the incomes of the Bill Gates types with those of the Joe Schmoe types, you would conclude that the Joes of the world have no reason to default on their mortgages. 'Politicians are liars; statisticians are damned liars.'

 

'Modal' (where the most people fall in a dispersion), might be a better concept to use. Then you might find that the 'modal' farmer had enough land to keep the wolf from the door. I believe that two iugera formed a common unit.

 

As an aside, aerial photographs of Italy show the outlines of the ancient Roman iugera. They are bounded by trees.

[Furt]

This site is so helpful! There is a wealth of knowledge here.

[DecimusCaesar]

Did the farm land size decrease in Imperial times, or did they stay constant- considering that the Empire expanded? We often hear of Legionaires being alloted lands in provinces outside of Italy as a privilege of military service, as well as a way of encouraging the settlement of conquered territories with Roman Citizens.

 

Another thing to take to consideration is that farm land in Italy was destroyed during the Punic Wars, usually by the Roman legions themselves. Although rather vague, Livy mentions the case of a soldier called Spurius Ligustinus:

 

"I Spurius Lingustinus of the Tribe of Crustumina, am of Sabine family. My father left me a tiny patch of land and a little hut..."

 

The problem with Spurius words is that he lived in the Middle Republican era (not the Principate), he was a poor man (not well to do) and that he wasn't making much money out of his land; rather he was making it through plunder during his military campaigns.

 

Would these middle Republican circumstances be true of the early Imperial era too?

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

If anyone is interested, here is an extremely long article on Roman Agriculture.

 

Link to article

 

By the way, to the person above, I think that during the Empire, the average pleibean farmer was still dirt poor and had an extremly small farm that was only enough to produce necessary food and a little surplus for the market. Otherwise, the latifundiae basically was the backbone of farming of the Empire.

[Zeke]

Roman Agriculture went through several phases.

 

The first phase was from the founding of the Republic till the Punic Wars. The Roman state had its foundations in agriculture and as such its culture revolved around the thrifty, farmer, solider who fought for a certain amount of time and then returned to his farm to tend his crops and animals. I do not believe that the Roman Senate had a permant standing army until after the Punic Wars and this primitive form of conscrition served the Republican City State well.

 

The destruction of the Italian farm land by the mercenaries of Hannibal forced the Romans to find another method in which to supply their capital and tribute states with grain. Thus the scholar will find the Latifunda developing, a system of agriculture in which aristocratic Patrichans bought out most of the avaliable farm land in North Africa and Spain and turned into their own corporate caboodles. With the influx of cheep grain from the African and Spanish provinces and the warrior farmers of the Republic found themsleves out of a job and with little skills other then solidery, turned into a mob of poverty stricken individuals living off grain distrabutions supplied by the state. It is because of the Latifunda the Republican system of governance began to fail and poverty began to grip the plebians.

Seeing the plight of the small farmers...the Gracchi Brothers tried to implament reforms upon the Roman Senate. There pleas for social reform caused their deaths. The Patrichans saw it in their best intrest to keep the system of governance conservative and tradditional and the Gracchi Brothers challenged the system that was in place.

Civil strife fallowed the Punic Wars as military dicators came to power and promised rewards to their soliders in the form of provicial lands that had not been bought up the Latifundas.

 

The Third Phase of Roman Agriculture began with reign of Octavian, who sought to be a enlightened despot and please everyone. Thus he allowed for a healthy balance of Senatorial Latifundas and yeoman farmers who were equally scatttered throughout the lands of the Empire. Centeralized government control of Egypt; "The bread basket of the Empire," allowed for a steady shipment of grain into the city of Rome to ensure thats it people didn't go hungry. Yeoman farmers had control of much of the agriculture of the provinces of Gaul, Spain, and Britian and the Eastern provinces of Greece probably had a similiar agrement. It is because of these yeoman farmers that the Empire flourished....they encouraged competition and a diversity of products were produced on plots some times no more then 50 acers. This phase exsisted up until the regien of Marcus Aurelius.

 

The Fourth and declining phase of Roman Agriculture really starts in the age of the "Barrack's Emperors" as crop prices went down and inflation sky rocketed. With the advent of Christianity and the waves of Barbarian peoples ramming into the Empire's borders more and more people found it benificial to move back to the Latifundas for protection.

 

In the end the Latifundas did prevail and slowly changed into the Feudal Estates of the Middle Ages.

 

Roman Agriculture was very productive and its productivity levels were not matched until the advent of the Industrial Revolution. Roman Society was essentially agrain, 80% of the Roman population inhabbited the country side and rural lifestyle was highly coveted by the wealthy. Since manual labor was seen as slave work, none of these "wealthy" people accually did any of the work....but the idea is still romantic. And by the way the Latin poets fawned their lyrics over the glories of farming it can be assumed that Roman farmers were generally happy with their simple existances.

 

-Zeke

Edited March 29, 2007 by Zeke

[caldrail]

by the way the Latin poets fawned their lyrics over the glories of farming it can be assumed that Roman farmers were generally happy with their simple existances.

 

Especially since most of them sat in shadey spots watching other people sweat. Funny thing is, it has overtones of communist propaganda doesn't it? Glorifying the farmer who toils for the nation.

 

Some roman farmers may well have been happy with their lot. For most, it would have been hard graft and hard knocks.

[CiceroD]

How many Iugera did a property have to be in order to be classified a Latifundium?

 

Also Ive heard that the Romans had a primitive Crop rotation but what was it?

[Publius Nonius Severus]

How many Iugera did a property have to be in order to be classified a Latifundium?

 

In Roman Italy, 338 BC-AD 200: a sourcebook By Kathryn Lomas, using Pliny as a source (and his harsh critique of latifundia), the author surmises that Pliny considered a property as a latifundia if it consisted of above 500 iugera. Since this was the "limit" imposed by the Licinian legislation as the maxium holding of ager publicus it would seem to make sense. I don't think there was ever a fixed amount...it was probably more subjective...a farm would be distinct from a latifundius just then just as a farm and a plantation would be differnt today I think.

[CiceroD]

Im going to have to find the source but one of my books maintains that an "Average family unit" would have their hands full with about 15 acres. Im guessing without slaves or farmhands.

 

When I get home I can cite this