What Have the Romans Ever Done For Us?

What Have the Romans Ever Done For Us? Kabira Namit

1

What Have the Romans Ever Done For Us?

A Brief Examination of the Roman Welfare

State

Kabira Namit

Pont du Gard, Roman Aqueduct constructed in Southern France to carry water to

the city of Nîmes over the Gard River in 19 B.C. E.


2

Reg: All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine,

public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-‐water system, and public health, what

have the Romans ever done for us?

People’s Front of Judea Member: Brought peace?

Reg: Oh, peace? SHUT UP!

-‐ Monty Python’s Life of Brian


3

INDEX

1. INTRODUCTION

2. PRIMARY PROVISIONS -‐

A. FOOD ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

B. SUBSIDIZED/ FREE WATER

C. HEALTHCARE

D. PENSIONS

3. REFUTING THE ‘LIBERTARIAN CONSENSUS’

4. CONCLUSION

5. REFERENCES


4

1. INTRODUCTION

In 1787, Edward Gibbon completed ‘The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire’

wherein among several other reasons, he attributed “higher taxation and

spending of public monies for free bread and circuses for the populace” as one of

the reasons for the decline of the Roman Empire. Since then, the ‘Libertarian

Consensus’ seems to be that the expansion of the Roman welfare provisions was

the primary cause of the downfall of the Empire.

In order to assess the merit of the Libertarian argument, this paper explores the

generosity of the Roman Empire towards its citizenry through the provision of

welfare. Primarily, it explores the core components of welfare through the

provision of food assistance; subsidized/ free water, healthcare and the Roman

Empire’s pension plan for veterans.

Subsequently, the paper negates the standard libertarian argument that Rome’s

welfare largesse was responsible for its downfall.


5

2. PRIMARY PROVISIONS

A) FOOD ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus, were the first to implement a food assistance

program during the days of the Roman Republic when they served as tribunes in

the second century B.C. E.

The consolidation of Roman agricultural land into the hands of a few elite had

pushed a number of landless Romans into the city (Garnsey, 1988). These

individuals found it difficult to find gainful employment and were living in

poverty. Under Gaius’ grain law of 123 B.C.E., a portion of the grain that had been

collected by the state as revenue was sold at a subsidized rate to everyone who

was willing to stand in line for an allotment once a month at one of the public

granaries (Hazlitt, 1971). Historians estimate that the grain was sold at half the

market price. Apart from feeding the poor, the program was meant to reduce the

fluctuation in grain prices that occurred due to transport difficulties (ibid).

It should be noted that the costs of this welfare program were divided between

Rome’s richer citizens who were taxed at a higher rate and the provinces that

were forced to sell part of their produce to the state at a price that was lower

than the prevailing market rate (ibid).

Haskell (1947) points out that during the early days of the subsidy, there was no

means test. Anyone who was willing and able to stand in the queue could benefit


6

from the program. The program was popular enough that no attempts were

made to withdraw it till Sulla’s conservative government attempted to do so

around 80 B.C.E. However, following a period of unrest, the subsidy was

restored.

In 58 B.C.E., Clodius turned the subsidy into a free grain program. Free

distribution of grain considerably eased the burden on the poor, as they already

had to meet milling and baking charges before they could eat the grain

(Robinson, 1994). Within a decade, by the time Caesar came to power, 320,000

people were benefitting from the free grain. As the expense was considerable,

Julius Caesar held a special census in 46 B.C.E. and began employing a means test

for the free distribution of grain. Only 150,000 of the poorest citizens of Rome

were to benefit from the distribution of grain. A special aediles cereales position

was created and the political appointee was responsible for overseeing the

distribution (ibid). Augustus expanded the program to 200,000 beneficiaries in

the early days of the Empire.

For the next three hundred years, the number of beneficiaries was kept stable at

200,000 and emperors continued to provide free or greatly subsidized grain to

keep the poorest populace of Rome from starving. In 270 C.E., Emperor Aurelian

reorganized the relief program. The distribution of grain was halted and instead,

two pounds of bread were issued to the poorest citizenry. Moreover, pork, olive

oil and salt was distributed free of cost at regular intervals. The program

continued in a similar form till the fall of the Roman Empire and cumulatively

lasted nearly six hundred years.


7

As only the poorest 200,000 (as decided by a periodic census and the political

appointee) could receive benefits, the cost of the program never became

prohibitive. However, the percentage of the poorest population of Rome

benefitting from the program declined with an increase in population. Moreover,

no subsidized or free grain was available for the citizens living in the provinces

of the Roman Empire. In fact, they had to bear part of the burden of the subsidy.


8

B) SUBSIDIZED/ FREE WATER

"With such an array of indispensable structures carrying so many waters,

compare if you will, the idle Pyramids or the useless, though famous works of the

Greek."

-‐ Frontinus (Water Commissioner and author of De aquaeductu, an official

report on the state of the aqueducts in Rome written at the end of the first

century C.E.)

The Tiber River and the local springs around Rome had been the natural choice

for water in the early days of the Republic. But as the population grew and the

water became more and more polluted, it became necessary to construct

aqueducts to bring water into Rome from distant water sources. The first

aqueduct was constructed approximately around 312 B.C.E.

By the time of Frontinus (40 C.E. – 103 C.E.) nine aqueducts brought water from

distant springs and streams to Rome.

According to the ‘De aquaductu,’ the aqueducts had 591 major delivery points in

the city. On average, each point delivered 60 cubic meters of water per day.

Bruun (1991) estimates that 900 individuals were served by each delivery point

and on average, consumed 67 liters per capita per day.


9

The poor could collect water for free from any of the 591 major delivery points.

Aicher (2000) points out that in Pompeii (probably the best-‐preserved

distribution system) the street basins (delivery points) are regularly spaced.

Thus, throughout the Empire, the majority of the poor didn’t have to walk more

than a mere 150 feet to get access to fresh supply of water without paying any

user fees.


10

C) HEALTHCARE

Though the Romans may not have had Medicaid, they made provisions for the

poor to get access to medical treatment for a subsidized fee or at no cost.

Unlike the Greek society where health was considered to be a personal matter,

the Roman government actively encouraged and made provisions for public

health. Perhaps such provisions were made because the medical community in

Rome was aware that infections could spread quickly through a population

(from the poor to the rich). Moreover, the health of the Roman economy

depended on the health and wellbeing of the poor, the slaves and the foot

soldiers of the army.

The first public hospital (Aesculapium) in Ancient Rome was constructed on

Tiber Island as early as 293 B.C.E. following a plague that had devastated the city.

Senate funds were used for the construction (Cornish et al, 2009). The location

may have been chosen because the island was separate from the rest of the city

and served as a de facto quarantined zone.

The Aesculapium covered the entire island and included a long-‐term recovery

center. Subsequently, other public hospitals were constructed across the Empire

usually funded by the magistrates responsible for the region (ibid).

There is no record of any fees being charged for a stay at an Aesculapium. The

Senate bore the expenses of the initial construction of the facility (with the funds


11

coming from the State treasury or from taxes). Subsequently, funding for

recurrent expenditure was largely supplemented through pledges and donations

from wealthy patrons (ibid). Individuals could pledge to contribute a certain

amount if they were healed. Such a system took people’s ability to pay into

account as a contributor could only pledge to contribute an amount that he could

actually provide.

For diseases that weren’t necessarily life threatening or required long-‐term

hospitalization, patients within Rome could secure the services of a medicus

(doctor). Each medicus had his clinicus (practice) set up in the city. Patients could

visit the clinicus or the medicus could come and visit the patient at her home.

The medical practitioners charged fees on a sliding scale according to the assets

of the individual (Carcopino, 1943). Only nominal charges were made for

diagnosing and providing a prescription to the poor. Platus (254 B.C.E. to 184

B.C.E.), quoted in Carcopino, points out that the charge was usually a symbolic

sestertius. Physicians received supplemental income from the State Treasury

during the age of Emperors. For example, Antonius Musa, a prominent physician

of his time, received a salary of 300,000 sesterces from Augustus (ibid).

Also, bathhouses were considered to be an essential part of the recovery process

and were available in almost all Roman settlements at a subsidized rate (ibid).

The entrance fee for the public baths was a quadrans (literally meaning a

‘quarter,’ it was a low-‐value Roman bronze coin worth one quarter of an as). The

low price ensured that everyone was able to avail of the facilities.


12

D) PENSIONS

Augustus instituted a military pensions system (praemia) for veterans of the

Imperial Roman Army in 6 C.E. The Imperial biographer and historian

Suetonious suggests that Augustus created the system, as he was concerned that

retired military men in financial constraints may be inclined to support a coup or

foment unrest (quoted in Phang, 2012).

In the late Republic, the solution had been to settle veterans in colonies in

conquered territories or on public land in Italy that was being used by the

aristocracy as private agricultural or pastoral land. Under the rule of Augustus,

monetary grants replaced any land redistribution and were better received by

the upper classes (ibid).

A soldier earned a one – time pension or discharge benefit upon completing his

service (service length varied between sixteen years for the Praetorian Guard

and twenty years for regular duty in the army). At the end of Augustus’s reign, a

Praetorian guard received a one – time pension of 20,000 sesterces while the

corresponding pension for a regular legionary was 12,000 sesterces. As sesterces

are difficult to convert into current dollar terms, a legionary’s retirement benefit

can best be understood as equivalent to income earned from twelve years of

military service.


13

This pension amount remained stable till the time of Caracalla, (Roman Emperor

from 198 C.E. to 217 C.E.), when he increased the pension for a legionary by 67%

to 20,000 sesterces (ibid).

On occasions when the treasury experienced a shortfall and could not afford the

pension, Emperors increased the retirement age by extending the length of

military service as a policy of forced retention (ibid).

Funding for the pensions came through a dedicated pension fund (Aerarium

militare) that was set up by Emperor Augustus in 6 C.E. Initially, he capitalized

the pension fund with 170 million sesterces of his own funds along with

voluntary contribution that client kings and cities. This amount was insufficient

and was likely to run out in a short period of time. Augustus solicited proposals

for revenue enhancement from his senators. After rejecting all of the

recommendations, he finally decided to enforce an inheritance tax of 5 percent

(Swan, 2004). The regular army stipendium did not come through this fund.

Inheritance that was left to the immediate family was exempt from the tax as

were all estates that were below a minimum threshold. An additional source of

income for the military was a sales tax of 1 percent for goods sold at auction but

there is debate about whether the funds collected were earmarked only for the

pensions system (ibid).

The pension scheme was initially met with hostility as it led to an increase in

taxes on the wealthy (ibid). However, this permanent revenue source


14

regularized the ad hoc provision for veterans that had taken place under the

Republic and had often led to socially disruptive disputes over land rights.

Moreover, such a state supported benefit helped redirect the loyalty of veterans

from their immediate commanding office to the Roman state (Scullard, 2007).


15

3. REFUTING THE ‘LIBERTARIAN CONSENSUS’

The Libertarian authors like to draw grim parallels between the United States of

America and the Ancient Roman Empire. In Conservative blog entries like ‘The

United States of America and Ancient Rome: The Sobering Parallels of Big

Government Failure,’ or ‘Will US repeat the welfare death of the Roman Empire?’

they present a standard narrative –

The welfare program grew with the expansion of the Roman Empire. The

government bankrupted the treasury to provide wheat, bread and pork to its poor

citizens. As the poor had no incentive to work, they became lazy recipients of

welfare. With a bankrupt treasury, the Roman Emperors increased taxation and

began debasing and inflating the currency, which in turn devastated the Roman

economy and led to the eventual downfall of the Empire.

Given our examination of the Roman welfare state with its mostly minimal and

somewhat flexible provisions of welfare, the Libertarian argument seems to be

without much merit. Then why do the Libertarians seem to be so convinced by

their narrative?

As historian Glen Bowersock cautions "From the eighteenth century onward we

have been obsessed with the fall (of the Roman Empire): it has been valued as an

archetype for every perceived decline, and, hence, as a symbol for our own fears."


16

The notable lack of substantial historical evidence from the fourth and the fifth

century has also lead to increased speculation among historians. There seems to

be an unfortunate tendency to envision the fall through an ideological lens.

Examining the true cause of the decline of the Roman Empire is beyond the

scope of this paper. Alexander Demandt, the German historian and authority on

the History of Ancient Rome, has enumerated 210 different theories as to why

Rome fell and new theories are still emerging.

However, the Libertarians would do well to remember that the fall of the Empire

took place on September 4, 476 C.E. with the dissolution of the Western Roman

Empire nearly 599 years after Gracchus introduced the grain law. A facile

comparison would mean that we could expect the United States of America to be

in decline by 2609 C.E., exactly 599 years after the signing of their feared

Affordable Care Act.


17

4. CONCLUSION

Apart from being one of the earliest known Empires to have experimented with

social welfare, the Roman Empire was remarkably progressive. The Roman

Empire provided subsidized/ free grain to the poorest citizens in the city, access

to clean drinking water without charging any user fees, affordable and free

health care and had a well -‐ funded pension scheme for its veterans for hundreds

of years.

However, none of these core components of the program were prohibitively

expensive or unduly onerous for the economy. As shown earlier, welfare

programs like the army pension plan were funded through earmarked taxes and

the provision of free heath care in public hospitals was provided through

donations collected from wealthy patrons or pledges made by individuals who

had been healed.

By the time the Roman Empire fell in 476 C.E., the Roman provision of welfare

had been in place for nearly six hundred years. To asset that it was the primary

cause of the Empire’s downfall is naive at best and intentionally duplicitous at

worst.


18

5. REFERENCES

1. Aicher, Peter (2000), ‘Watering Ancient Rome,’ NOVA

Accessed on April 19, 2015:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/roman-‐aqueducts.html

2. Bartlett, Bruce (1994) ‘How Excessive Government Killed Ancient Rome,’

Cato Journal, Vol. 14, No. 2, 1994

3. Bowersock, Glen (1996) ‘The Vanishing Paradigm of the Fall of

Rome,’ Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Vol. 49, No.

8, 1996

4. Bruun, Christer (1991) ‘The Water Supply of Ancient Rome: A Study of

Roman Imperial Administration,’ The Finnish Society of Sciences and

Letters, Helinki

5. Carcopino, Jerome (1943) ‘Daily Life in Ancient Rome: The People and the

City at the Height of the Empire,’ Routledge, 1943

6. Cornish et al (2009) ‘The Essential 20: Twenty Components of an

Excellent Health Care Team,’ Dorrance Publishing

7. Demandt, Alexander (1984) 210 Reasons for the decline of the Roman

Empire, Der Fall Roms


19

Accessed on April 19, 2015

http://www.utexas.edu/courses/rome/210reasons.html

8. Finley, M.I. (1973) ‘The Ancient Economy,’ University of California Press

9. Garnsey, P. (1988), ‘Famine and Food-‐Supply in the Greco-‐Roman World,’

Cambridge University Press

10. Hansen, Roger (2000) ‘Water and Wastewater Systems in Imperial Rome,’

Waterhistory


http://www.waterhistory.org/histories/rome/

11. Haskell, H.J. (1947) ‘The New Deal in Old Rome: How Government in the

Ancient World Tried To Deal With Modern Problems,’ Alfred A. Knopf

Incorporated Publications

12. Hazlitt, Henry (1971) ‘Poor Relief in Ancient Rome,’ April 01, 1971


http://fee.org/freeman/detail/poor-‐relief-‐in-‐ancient-‐rome

13. Hedenberg, Ben (2010) ‘Will US repeat the welfare death of the Roman

Empire?’ Big Ben Venture


http://www.bigbenventure.com/welfare_death100508.html


20

14. Morley, Neville (2002) ‘Metropolis and hinterland: The city of Rome and

the Italian Economy, 200 B.C. – A.D. 200,’ Cambridge University Press

15. Robinson, O.F. (1994) ‘Ancient Rome: City Planning and Administration,’

Routledge, London

16. Rostovtzeff, Michael (1926) ‘The Social & Economic History of the Roman

Empire,’ Biblo & Tannen Publishers, 1926

17. Rowland, Robert (1976) ‘The ‘Very Poor’ and the Grain Dole at Rome and

Oxyrhynchus,’ Zeitschrift fur Papyrologie und Epigraphik, Bd. 21 (1976),

pp 69 – 73

18. Scullard, H. (2007) ‘From the Gracchi to Nero: A History of Rome from

133 BC to AD 68,’ Routledge, 2007, 5th edition

19. Snell, Colin (2012) ‘The United States of America and Ancient Rome: The

Sobering Parallels of Big Government Failure,’ The College Conservative


http://thecollegeconservative.com/2012/04/16/the-‐united-‐

states-‐of-‐america-‐and-‐ancient-‐rome-‐the-‐sobering-‐parallels-‐of-‐big-‐

government-‐failure/


21

20. Swan, Peter (2004) ‘The Augustan Succession: A Historical Commentary

on Cassius Dio's Roman History Books 55-‐56 (9 B.C.-‐A.D. 14),’ American

Philological Association, American Classical Studies Series

21. Temin, Peter (2013) ‘The Roman Market Economy,’ Princeton University

Press

Documents

What Have the Romans Ever Done For Us?