What did Romans do in the City?

[Arduumresgestasscriber]

Supposedly with cheaper Sicilian grain overflowing the Roman capital, and the Roman farmer turned into landless proles with the majority of the land concentrated inthe hands of the few...

What happened to the Romans that went into the city? What did they do there except pander for largesses of grain?

[M. Porcius Cato]

Supposedly with cheaper Sicilian grain overflowing the Roman capital, and the Roman farmer turned into landless proles with the majority of the land concentrated inthe hands of the few...

 

This sounds like Mommsen again. Since Mommsen's time, new archaeological evidence has shown evidence of widespread smallholdings (aka, peasant farming) before, during, and after (1) the import agreement with Sicily and (2) the Punic Wars. For a systematic look at this issue, see Nate Rosenstein's Rome at War. The idea that the Roman farmer was turning into landless proletarii is the biggest myth of the history of the middle republic (except maybe the one about Rome salting the earth at Carthage).

[Gaius Octavius]

Supposedly with cheaper Sicilian grain overflowing the Roman capital, and the Roman farmer turned into landless proles with the majority of the land concentrated inthe hands of the few...

 

This sounds like Mommsen again. Since Mommsen's time, new archaeological evidence has shown evidence of widespread smallholdings (aka, peasant farming) before, during, and after (1) the import agreement with Sicily and (2) the Punic Wars. For a systematic look at this issue, see Nate Rosenstein's Rome at War. The idea that the Roman farmer was turning into landless proletarii is the biggest myth of the history of the middle republic (except maybe the one about Rome salting the earth at Carthage).

 

Without defining 'small holding', i.e., keeping body and soul in touch, how can anyone get anywhere here? 23 jugera? One jugera? Tenant farmer? How does one know that this 'new' information, (that is not from primary sources), is nothing more than propaganda? I hope that none will ever have the temerity to use Mommsen as a source, on any matter, again!

[Kosmo]

Usually large agricultural holdings go hand in hand with small ones that provide labour at certain times of year (this before improved methods made use of the labour more even thruout the year but this is a modern evolution).

A field has periods of intensive labour and periods when little or no labour are recquired. For example an olive grove needs labour only at picking but then it uses loads of workforce. To keep a constant workforce all year to the highest level, a level needed for just a brief period, it's very expansive so we can presume that romans, like many other societies, used labour form outside the holding for certain tasks. This labour can be seen as peasants hired for brief periods or as tenants that receive the right to use some land in exchange of labour. The second type is the colonate that was fairly common during the Late Empire and beyond.

If the land it's used for raising cattle the labour it's on the same level all year so a large estate specialized on cattle can do witout external labour.

Also most italian regions have little arable land so when the prices for grains dropped because of state intervention they lost their market and were forced to produce for subsistence and to change their land usage.

The old theory still makes sense to me but I agree that generalisations are harmful and local conditions could have varried wildly. We know that latifundia existed and some people had enormous properties and legions of slaves but also smaller or even tiny properties were around.

[Arduumresgestasscriber]

Supposedly with cheaper Sicilian grain overflowing the Roman capital, and the Roman farmer turned into landless proles with the majority of the land concentrated inthe hands of the few...

 

This sounds like Mommsen again. Since Mommsen's time, new archaeological evidence has shown evidence of widespread smallholdings (aka, peasant farming) before, during, and after (1) the import agreement with Sicily and (2) the Punic Wars. For a systematic look at this issue, see Nate Rosenstein's Rome at War. The idea that the Roman farmer was turning into landless proletarii is the biggest myth of the history of the middle republic (except maybe the one about Rome salting the earth at Carthage).

 

Without defining 'small holding', i.e., keeping body and soul in touch, how can anyone get anywhere here? 23 jugera? One jugera? Tenant farmer? How does one know that this 'new' information, (that is not from primary sources), is nothing more than propaganda? I hope that none will ever have the temerity to use Mommsen as a source, on any matter, again!

 

How am I supposed to know if Mommsen is wrong, oops he was the first one I had the misfortune to pick up on Roman history.

So what better ones are there? And where is he mostly wrong?

[Maladict]

How does one know that this 'new' information, (that is not from primary sources), is nothing more than propaganda? I hope that none will ever have the temerity to use Mommsen as a source, on any matter, again!

 

Archaeology is a primary source, too. It yields information that must be interpreted, just like the historical sources.

In good scientific tradition, these interpretations change over time as new data is gathered and new theoretical frameworks are constructed. Mommsen simply did not have access to the past century of research. But with those limitations in mind, his work can still be useful.

[Arduumresgestasscriber]

Supposedly with cheaper Sicilian grain overflowing the Roman capital, and the Roman farmer turned into landless proles with the majority of the land concentrated inthe hands of the few...

 

This sounds like Mommsen again. Since Mommsen's time, new archaeological evidence has shown evidence of widespread smallholdings (aka, peasant farming) before, during, and after (1) the import agreement with Sicily and (2) the Punic Wars. For a systematic look at this issue, see Nate Rosenstein's Rome at War. The idea that the Roman farmer was turning into landless proletarii is the biggest myth of the history of the middle republic (except maybe the one about Rome salting the earth at Carthage).

 

So why were subsidized grains such a big matter in politics in Rome? What were all those people doing in the city if they had small farms?