Deleted

[Arckeya]

Deleted

Edited July 3, 2017 by Arckeya

[Kosmo]

Welcome.

I can not help you much now but I can tell you that there are many studies on the subject in a debate that has started on this topic some 3 centuries ago.

[Ingsoc]

My topic is "the impact of slavery on the wealth of the patrician class and poverty of plebeians (including the free farmers)".

 

Sorry to say but your topic is not good, first of all the division between Patricians and Plebs only relevant to the early republic period (about 509 BC - 287 BC) after this period the Plebs had full equally and in a short time there were created a Patrician-Plebian nobility, the Nobilitas. second in the early republic the Plebs elite just as much was rich as the Patricians the "class" war was between two elitists groups.

 

I'm assuming that you mean to the situation of the end of the late middle republic in which the there were a proletariation of the Roman peasantry, if so it's has nothing to do with the Patrician-Plebs status. I suggest you start by reading about Tiberius Gracchus who attempted to restore the peasantry to it's former glory.

[caldrail]

My topic is "the impact of slavery on the wealth of the patrician class and poverty of plebeians (including the free farmers)".

1) Have I specified my subject too narrowly? (This is supposed to be a 6-10 page research paper)

1a) If so, would cutting out the slavery portion and expanding it to simply, "rise of wealth for the patrician class and the growth of poverty for the plebeians?"

Your choice of topic revolves around how much detail you put into it. The more specific the title, the deeper you'll need to go.

 

2) Where in Roman history would one begin picking up the trail?

Strictly speaking, at the beginning. We like to classify and put labels on things, so we define periods and trends and so forth, but the reality is a changing society that went a collection of hill farms to a successful conquest state and eventually to fragment and wither. Slavery is part of the story, though in my view you should place it in perspective. Slavery was a fact of life for human beings everywhere in the ancient world.

 

When did the patricians began to rapidly grow in wealth and power while the plebeians suffered as a result?

Patricians evolved from those connected with the priesthoods of earliest times, and as inter-settlement raids were linked to these martial cults, the rise of militaristic families shouldn't be too suprising. It must be stated though that the difference in wealth between the patrician and plebian classes wasn't always so marked. Many plebs became financially successful one way or another. Despite the status that wealth bought in Roman society even from the beginning, their lower social status remained in place.

 

The increase in wealth went hand in hand with increasing military success but then many Romans were becoming extremely wealthy on the back of property deals made possible by larger populations.

 

When did slaves begin taking on such a huge portion of the workforce?

After major conquests. The prisoners of war became commodities and were sold off wholesale. During the republic, the slave markets of Delos were said to taken in and sold ten thousand slaves in one day. Delos went out od business before the Principate, so evidently they were benefitting from military success and couldn't sustain their hold of the market when demand for slaves plummetted afterward.

 

3) Do you know of any website, here or otherwise, even an old post on the forums that would have detailed information in regards to the subject in question?

Try a search. I 'm sure you'll find some useful stuff.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Rome

 

4) Are there any journal articles that you might know of touching upon the subject in question?

 

http://www.moyak.com/researcher/resume/pap...an_slavery.html

[Nephele]

Hi, Arckeya. Ingsoc is right about how plebeians were often just as rich as patricians -- and there were also impoverished patrician families.

 

We've had a few discussions on the subject of wealth and class in ancient Rome, and I think this topic might be helpful to you: Plebeians and Patricians, Who were they?

 

Most UNRV participants are aware that the common use of "plebeian" to refer to the poor and "patrician" to refer to the rich is a modern invention that does not conform to the ancient Roman concepts. For the Romans, the patrician/plebeian distinction was a hereditary marker, not an economic marker.

 

Do you have access to JSTOR? If not, PM me your e-mail address, and I'll see what I can dig up for you.

 

-- Nephele

[Arckeya]

Deleted

Edited July 3, 2017 by Arckeya

[caldrail]

Caldrail: -smiles- I didn't expect someone to systematically break down my post and address the points one by one. .

Yes, thats a bad habit of mine. Not to worry, at least it helped!

[ancientstudent]

Hi guys,

 

Im a year 12 ancient history student from australia, and i am studying ancient rome.

specifically the roman republic and the punic wars. For this topic i have to set up an assignment and i am having difficulty finding information which backs up my hypothesis. it is " That the roman republic enabled Roman armies to activley expand and made the required changes when necassary." I'm just interested to know if you no any good books or have any information which may assist me. If you do that would be fantastic. Thanks guys!

[caldrail]

Hi guys,

 

Im a year 12 ancient history student from australia, and i am studying ancient rome.

specifically the roman republic and the punic wars. For this topic i have to set up an assignment and i am having difficulty finding information which backs up my hypothesis. it is " That the roman republic enabled Roman armies to activley expand and made the required changes when necassary." I'm just interested to know if you no any good books or have any information which may assist me. If you do that would be fantastic. Thanks guys!

 

You make it sound like the Roman Republic prepared invasion plans and performed to schedule. That isn't so. They responded according to the situations of the time. Politics then wasn't much different from today, apart from the fact communications are much faster now.

 

To begin with, the legions were intended as a protective force, a pair of annually elected militia armies to see off threats to the Roman interior. Later, the demands of the political situation meant that legions were required to stay in the field longer, and more troops were required. There was a sort of primitive arms race taking place, and once the Romans had reached a certain threshold, their legions were often superior in performance and number to any potential enemy on their border.

 

The changes in the Roman legions were as much to do with military fashion and technique as any forward planning. In particular, the Marian Reforms did away with the militia and turned the legions into persistent armies (and the legions were small independent armies, not regiments) that didn't come home every winter. This was done to meet the demands of warfare at the time, not to faciltate expansion. It wasn't until the very late Republic, when ambitious and wealthy generals were seeking political careers from success in conquest, that expansion really mushroomed, and even then it was down to individual initiative, not a republican invasion plan.

 

I would therefore suggest that the expansion of the Roman Republic was more circumstantial.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Try picking up a copy of Nathan Rosenstein's Rome at War: Farms, Families, and Death in the Middle Republic. It addresses all your major questions, and it provides an overview of how these questions have been addressed by previous generations of scholars.