Seaver Klug, 995407323

HIS 111C, 5/24/2013

Environmental Consequences of Roman Agricultural and Economic Practices

The Roman Empire was one of the greatest empires in human history. At its
peak in 110CE, it unified 25% of the worlds population within its 5,000,000-km2
territory. However, 300 years later, the Western Roman successor state fell for the
final time after Rome was sacked for the 3
rd
time in a century. Scholars have debated
the causes for this collapse since that time, with many focusing on barbarian
invasions and internal divisions. However, one less-noticed aspect that may have
had an even greater role in the decline and fall of the Roman Empire is in its effects
on the land and resources it utilized. When one looks at the historical record and
ecological data, it becomes clear that Imperial Roman practices concerning
agriculture and resource extraction led to widespread deforestation and general
environmental degradation. These policies were pursued in ways that eventually led
to deforestation and general environmental degradation, policies that greatly
reduced the productivity of Roman land and the wealth able to be extracted from
the imperial territory, factors that may have hastened the collapse of the Western
Roman empire in 440CE.

Agriculture is the backbone of any civilization, and Rome in particular had as
one of its earliest advantages thru having an environment that was conducive to
agriculture. The Mediterranean region has generally enjoyed consistent and
relatively mild seasonal weather, having a dry and hot summer from April to
October, and a mild winter with some rainy and windy weather the rest of the year.
Seaver Klug, 995407323
HIS 111C, 5/24/2013
In areas where water is available and significant erosion has not occurred,
Mediterranean soil is fairly suitable to agriculture. (Hughes 16) These conditions
also allowed for a vibrant and thriving ecosystem that supported a wide range of
flora of fauna. The bounty that this ecosystem provided created a decent amount of
exploitable land for Roman agriculture.
This was suitable, since agriculture was by far the largest sector of the
economy. It was a way of life for a majority of the population. This was also
necessary because the soils of Rome and Greece were not optimal for agriculture,
though it was practiced extensively. Rains are not common for much of the year,
thus causing a requirement for agriculture. The most common staple crops for
Greco-Roman agriculture were grain, grapes, and olives, which compose the
Mediterranean triad of agriculture. (Hughes, 132) Grain was the main staple due
to its use to make bread, which composed a large amount of the nutrients in the
Roman diet; this usually took the form of barley and wheat crops. Other common
crops were legumes such as kidney beans, peas, lentils, and chickpeas, which helped
feed both livestock as well as their human owners. Another key aspect of Roman
agriculture was through vineyards, used for the production of wine, which was
most-consumed drink of Greece and Rome. Olive trees were the most prevalent tree
that was cultivated in Rome. The fruit was sometimes treated and eaten, but the
most common use was to be pressed for use as olive oil, which was a staple in
cooking, the most important source of fat in the Greco-Roman diet, and as an export
was an economic mainstay. The cultivation of grain, grapevines, and olive trees
Seaver Klug, 995407323
HIS 111C, 5/24/2013
would often occur in the same fields, in the form of vines climbing up olive trees,
with grain sown between the rows. (Hughes, 133)

Roman agriculture was privy to problems with salinization due to poor
drainage in areas being irrigated. If soil is continually used for monoculture crops,
then it will deplete the soils stores of phosphorous and nitrogen, and contribute to
soil exhaustion. Soil could be and was sustainably farmed for long periods when
being managed by either periodically being left fallow (unplanted) or by crop
rotation, where nitrogen-fixing legumes are planted every few years. However, as
latifundias began to take over, it became more common to simply plant monocrops
instead of practicing rotation. (Hughes 44) A danger that comes with soil depletion,
besides the obvious inability to plant crops on afflicted land, is that of erosion. If the
soil is depleted enough that even weeds cannot grow on it when left fallow, then
there is a strong chance of the soil being washed away, potentially causing the field
to be permanently barren.
However, there were several extenuating policies that could cause these practices to
fall out of use. One of the most common was warfare or other military action, which
through the killing of farmers and their families, plus the reappropriation or
destruction of crops by invading armies, could cause abandonment or desolation of
fields. (Hughes 143) Another economic factor was a constant push to put more land
under cultivation, caused by imperial taxation policies which did not vary with the
harvested amount but only amount of land, and thus pushed farmers to extract the
Seaver Klug, 995407323
HIS 111C, 5/24/2013
maximum possible rate of profit out of the soil until it became unproductive, at
which point they often abandoned it. Imperial policies also encouraged farmers to
put land under cultivation, with laws that gave them ownership of up to 20 new
acres if they put them under cultivation. (Williams 62) This had the effect of
stimulating destruction of non-agricultural ecosystems such as forests and
marshlands. These lands, though possessing rich topsoil optimal for crops, would
only remain productive for a few years at which point the land would become non-
productive. These 2 policies of the Roman state caused a process of more and more
land being acquired and then abandoned, causing a problem of erosion that made a
great amount of land non-arable.
Generally, farmers who worked the land would have family roots in place that
extend back centuries, and practiced land policies that prevented soil depletion and
erosion. Farmers would have small estates in the beginning of several jugardo,
equivalent to a few acres. Agriculture was very intensive due to generally rough soil
conditions, which require a large amount of time in order to invest. However, over
time, there was a process of consolidation as large landowners were granted more
and more land to consolidate into their holdings, and productivity dropped.
(Simkhovitch 216) This was due to farmers having no investment or ownership in
the land they were tilling, and it being more convenient to attempt to cultivate new
land instead. Another process that led to abandonment and degradation of land was
the conversion of large amounts of land from growing crops to grazing of livestock.
This was related to the rise of the latifundia, and included the larger farmers simply
forcing smaller farmers off of their land. Livestock raising could be run by much
Seaver Klug, 995407323
HIS 111C, 5/24/2013
fewer trained slaves than raising crops, which allowed greater profits. (Hughes 146)
Livestock raising also caused the removal of native grasses and low-lying plants,
which further drove erosion. (Hughes 77)

The extraction of resources from the land, whether of wood from logging, or
minerals / metals from quarrying and mining, was as essential to the functioning of
Roman civilization as agriculture, and the ways it was commonly practiced caused
just as much destruction to the land. Wood and wood charcoal were the main source
of heating and lighting for both households and public venues. (Hughes 74) 90% of
wood consumed was used for fuel, in order to produce heat and light for both the
obvious use for habitation and for refineries, pottery kilns, and other industrial
processes. (Williams 92) Wood was used as a building material and was one of the
most common articles of trade throughout the Mediterranean. It was used in
construction of buildings, tools, and other implements, but the most notable use was
in that of shipbuilding. Ship-building, being such an important factor in the
Mediterranean for any state wishing to gain a military or trading advantage, was
also heavily subsidized by the Roman state through tax incentives. (Williams, 86)
Logging was generally pursued through clear-cutting. This led to massive
deforestation around settlements with refineries and kilns; as described by Plato in
the 5
th
century, "the loss of timber had denuded the hills and plains surrounding
Athens and caused massive soil erosion." (Williams 63)

Seaver Klug, 995407323
HIS 111C, 5/24/2013
Deforestation caused by the clear-cutting of forests created large amounts of
soil runoff that would destroy the ability of the land to sustain crops, and clogged up
marshes, rivers, and irrigation channels. This lack of impedance to runoff also
created a larger chance of flash floods. (Hughes 83) Eventually, the ability to build
ships or any other type of construction would suffer, leading to a loss in military
power and wealth as even previous Timber-rich regions had to scramble to find
outside sources. (Hughes 76)

The overall trend in the Italian heartland was one of decline from the turn of the
century, as greater environmental degradation led to a great reliance upon imported
grain from the rest of the empire; the most important of these sources was Egypt,
which due to the rich productivity imparted to the soil by the Nile rivers floods, was
not at much risk of soil depletion or erosion. (Hughes 73) Widespread exploitation
caused increasing difficulties in ability to acquire wood for construction of buildings
and ships. This put a great deal of stress on the Roman economy, as greater amounts
of effort had to be expended in order to continue to maintain the functions of the
imperial center. This was a driving force of Roman imperial expansion, as described
by Simkhovitch:
In proportion as the Roman fields were becoming exhausted, Rome had to
rely upon grain from other lands. The conquest of grain-producing countries
opened new rich fields of exploitation to the Roman money-men and to its
statesmen with an eye on plunder as foreign provinces and not Italian lands
Seaver Klug, 995407323
HIS 111C, 5/24/2013
became the source of Roman wealth, as the population of Rome became too
large, too motley, too complex an element to handle, then indeed even the
optimates became strong advocates of colonial assignments.
This quote indicates that the empire had to continue to expand or risk having its
economy collapse. This was a vicious cycle because the process of exhaustion would
proceed even more rapidly in the next province taken. (Simkhovitch 223) This
system locked the empire into having either further expansion or failure as its
options. Once constrained by physical barriers (such as the Sahara desert to the
south) or military resistance (such as the Parthian empire), it must either change
from this system or face collapse.

The question of why the Roman Empire collapsed can be answered by a
variety of explanations involving its internal class or political divisions, barbarian
invasions from outside, or per Gibbon, some generalized weakening of Roman civic
virtue due to religious conversion or other factors. One factor that should not be
overlooked in the collapse of the empire is that outstripping its resource base,
though it may not have been the most critical issue that led to collapse, it certainly
had a significant exacerbating effect on the other issues afflicting the Roman Empire,
and should not be overlooked.


Seaver Klug, 995407323
HIS 111C, 5/24/2013
Bibliography
Hughes, J. Donald. Pan's Travail: Environmental Problems of the Ancient Greeks and
Romans. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1994. Print.
Simkhovitch, Vladimir G. "Rome's Fall Reconsidered." Political Science Quarterly 31.2
(1916): 201-43. JSTOR. Web. 21 May 2013.
Williams, Michael. Deforesting the Earth: From Prehistory to Global Crisis. Chicago:
University of Chicago, 2003. Print.