Contractors in Ancient Rome

[Nephele]

No. It opens the possibility of freedom for those who succeed in business.

 

A free market provides the opportunities -- it is up to the individual to succeed in his business ventures.

 

For instance, a merchant who gets above himself in the eyes of the upper classes isn't going to get certain lucrative contracts. Those will go to merchants who know their place. Advancement in roman society is very much a case of influence with influential people, and this impinges on the roman business world.

 

The words of Plutarch (as quoted by Professor Rabun Taylor and which I provided above) contradict this, suggesting that public contracts in Rome were generally awarded on the basis of competitive bidding and the reputation of the contractor for efficiency and speed. I have no doubt that the Romans were savvy businessmen in this respect.

 

But if you could provide some sources to show that business in Rome was entirely dependent on a contractor's social influence with influential people, I would be very interested in reading this. It may be that a combination of the two -- influence and competence -- was required. But I'm inclined to believe that competence more often than not would have held sway. And, of course, for a contractor, merchant, or anyone else in the trades, what could have greater influence on a potential customer than one's reputation for competence?

 

-- Nephele

[Faustus]

The aforementioned texts have no clear relationship with Economy, nor with your quoted commentaries.

 

Maybe you can check if your sources have an alternative capitulation of the Naturalis Historia.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Salve ASCLEPIADES,

 

I