What do you think?
Rate this book
Power and Public Finance at Rome, 264-49 BCE
Rome's wars delivered great wealth to the conquerors, but how did this affect politics and society on the home front? In Power and Public Finance at Rome , James Tan offers the first examination of the Roman Republic from the perspective of fiscal sociology and makes the case that no understanding of Roman history is complete without an appreciation of the role of economics in defining political interactions. Examining how imperial profits were distributed, Tan explores how imperial riches turned Roman public life on its head. Rome's lofty aristocrats had traditionally been constrained by their dependence on taxpayer money. They relied on the state to fund wars, and the state in turn relied on citizens' taxes to fuel the war machine. This fiscal chain bound the elite to taxpayer consent, but as the spoils of Empire flooded into Rome, leaders found that they could fund any policy they chose without relying on the support of the citizens who funded them. The influx of wealth meant
that taxation at home was ended and citizens promptly lost what bargaining power they had enjoyed as a result of the state's reliance on their fiscal contributions. With their dependence on the taxpayers loosened, Rome's aristocratic leaders were free to craft a fiscal system which prioritized the enrichment of their own private estates and which devoted precious few resources to the provision of public goods. In six chapters on the nature of Rome's imperialist enrichment, on politics during the Punic Wars and on the all-important tribunates of the Gracchi, Tan offers new conceptions of Roman state creation, fiscal history, civic participation, aristocratic pre-eminence, and the eventual transition to autocracy.
that taxation at home was ended and citizens promptly lost what bargaining power they had enjoyed as a result of the state's reliance on their fiscal contributions. With their dependence on the taxpayers loosened, Rome's aristocratic leaders were free to craft a fiscal system which prioritized the enrichment of their own private estates and which devoted precious few resources to the provision of public goods. In six chapters on the nature of Rome's imperialist enrichment, on politics during the Punic Wars and on the all-important tribunates of the Gracchi, Tan offers new conceptions of Roman state creation, fiscal history, civic participation, aristocratic pre-eminence, and the eventual transition to autocracy.
- GenresNonfictionHistory
248 pages, Hardcover
Published March 8, 2017
20 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
December 31, 2018
A sound case for the role of popular power during the Mid Republic, with a focus on the economic relationships between people and elite and how they drove politics—and how this relationship changed after tax was abolished for Roman citizens.
The best bits were the 4th and 5th chapters on the First and Second Punic Wars, and how the people's contribution of tributum forced the elite to comply with their will.
Overall, Part 2 was stronger than Part 1. The narrative arc and delineation of change elucidated James's thesis best. The overall problem with the book, in my view, was the scope. Part 1 deals more with the Late Republic, whereas Part 2 focuses only on 264-133. There seems to be little interaction between Part 1 and 2; timeline-wise for one, but where chapter 1 set up the conditions of Rome's economy quite well, the second and third chapters on the provinces seemed to have only a cursory relationship with his argument. Why the focus on elite earnings in (particularly) the Late Republic, if the thesis hinges on change during the 2nd century? They do in part establish the foundation for his argument on the Gracchi and the general sort of notion that the elite tried to keep the state "thin" to maintain individual dominance, but could these factors not have been explained with the Gracchi bits? The thing with these earlier chapters is that they focus (in large part) on imperial profits after the major conquests of the Mid Republic, but are decontextualised from the broader framework of the argument which compares the influence of taxation in years before and after 167. (I don't know if this makes any sense but tl;dr the book could've just covered 264-133 and most of the Part 1 stuff is a bit... fishing for more evidence by dipping into a slightly irrelevant era. Don't punch me I will explain this with diagrams if need be.)
Another thing is minor in comparison: the Gracchi. Describing the impact of Gaius' legislation on elite relationships of domination provides a good motive for why he was murdered, but it doesn't quite solve the problem of Tiberius and why their legislation wasn't revoked. Would the senators have been able to foresee the eventuality of losing their positions of dominance when Tiberius first started pulling his bullshit in 133? If the senators objected to the implications of their legislation, why not revoke it after the brothers' deaths? This doesn't really affect the book's central argument, of course, and the economic implications are interesting, but they should perhaps have been framed more as implications than motivations.
The final thing is that the unnecessary gerunds really annoyed me.
Otherwise it's a good read and quite interesting, and as a, uh, student of James it's interesting to see where all his teaching material comes from. Part 2 is great, and hugely innovating material for our consideration of Republican politics. I reckon it's pretty legit all in all, and it's good that an oft-neglected aspect of Roman history is getting some attention.
The best bits were the 4th and 5th chapters on the First and Second Punic Wars, and how the people's contribution of tributum forced the elite to comply with their will.
Overall, Part 2 was stronger than Part 1. The narrative arc and delineation of change elucidated James's thesis best. The overall problem with the book, in my view, was the scope. Part 1 deals more with the Late Republic, whereas Part 2 focuses only on 264-133. There seems to be little interaction between Part 1 and 2; timeline-wise for one, but where chapter 1 set up the conditions of Rome's economy quite well, the second and third chapters on the provinces seemed to have only a cursory relationship with his argument. Why the focus on elite earnings in (particularly) the Late Republic, if the thesis hinges on change during the 2nd century? They do in part establish the foundation for his argument on the Gracchi and the general sort of notion that the elite tried to keep the state "thin" to maintain individual dominance, but could these factors not have been explained with the Gracchi bits? The thing with these earlier chapters is that they focus (in large part) on imperial profits after the major conquests of the Mid Republic, but are decontextualised from the broader framework of the argument which compares the influence of taxation in years before and after 167. (I don't know if this makes any sense but tl;dr the book could've just covered 264-133 and most of the Part 1 stuff is a bit... fishing for more evidence by dipping into a slightly irrelevant era. Don't punch me I will explain this with diagrams if need be.)
Another thing is minor in comparison: the Gracchi. Describing the impact of Gaius' legislation on elite relationships of domination provides a good motive for why he was murdered, but it doesn't quite solve the problem of Tiberius and why their legislation wasn't revoked. Would the senators have been able to foresee the eventuality of losing their positions of dominance when Tiberius first started pulling his bullshit in 133? If the senators objected to the implications of their legislation, why not revoke it after the brothers' deaths? This doesn't really affect the book's central argument, of course, and the economic implications are interesting, but they should perhaps have been framed more as implications than motivations.
The final thing is that the unnecessary gerunds really annoyed me.
Otherwise it's a good read and quite interesting, and as a, uh, student of James it's interesting to see where all his teaching material comes from. Part 2 is great, and hugely innovating material for our consideration of Republican politics. I reckon it's pretty legit all in all, and it's good that an oft-neglected aspect of Roman history is getting some attention.
January 29, 2022
No the easiest read. Very complex sentences mixed with informalities and repetitions sometimes made it hard to follow. Introduction and chapter on the Punic Wars and the Gracchi has great ideas just wish I did have to labor to find them as much as I did.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews