AHC: Roman Co-Operatives

Since @RogueTraderEnthusiast brought up an old utopian favourite of mine in the thread on Roman industrialization, I thought I'd make a challenge out of this:

Have co-operatives become the dominant form of rural land-ownership and economic organization in a majority of Roman provinces, with a PoD after Augustus (because I don't want the diversified, cash-produce oriented latifundia of that time butterflied, so no tribal subsistence solutions please)! By co-operatives I mean the overwhelming majority of those working in the agricultural complexes also owning them and somehow controlling or participating in their management and getting a share in the profits.

Keeping marginal slavery around is OK, although abolition gets bonus points. Seasonal wage labour is tolerated, too, if it's not a majority of total annual labour. Military solutions are as good as civilian ones; nominal property by the emperor or othe abstract entities are OK, too, if the members have safe and reliable usufructuary rights.
 
I personally like the idea that an Emperor, aware of the difficulties of defending farmland, and eager to undermine the Senators for his own power, changes how he pays land to troops that capture it - joint ownership of land by the soldiers it is given to.

Now you ask - "Why don't the soldiers just dole out the land between themselves?", possibly because they don't want to be the guy who gets the bad fields. So instead of a small landholding and a farm, they basically build a small village of soldiers and their families in the new territory.

But that doesn't mean that the soldiers don't informally dole out the land - each working their bit and taking the product for themselves, so you have the Emperor, when giving out the land, gives information to those bureaucrats or army officers administering the process (i.e. those who wouldn't be senators), to explain how the Emperor recommends they operate the farm - explaining how the senators make a fortune through large lands and selling cash-crops, alongside food crops - how that money ensures they can educate their children, etc. Give these ex-soldiers the information, and then the rest can organise themselves. You might see an informal sergeant-trooper style relationship in these retiree communes, I think this gives them the tools to start with.

An additional tool, could be the requirement that taxes can only be paid in kind up to a point, insist that X% of taxes must be paid in cash, and suddenly these co-operatives are growing cash crops alongside their food.
 
I personally like the idea that an Emperor, aware of the difficulties of defending farmland, and eager to undermine the Senators for his own power, changes how he pays land to troops that capture it - joint ownership of land by the soldiers it is given to.

Now you ask - "Why don't the soldiers just dole out the land between themselves?", possibly because they don't want to be the guy who gets the bad fields. So instead of a small landholding and a farm, they basically build a small village of soldiers and their families in the new territory.

But that doesn't mean that the soldiers don't informally dole out the land - each working their bit and taking the product for themselves, so you have the Emperor, when giving out the land, gives information to those bureaucrats or army officers administering the process (i.e. those who wouldn't be senators), to explain how the Emperor recommends they operate the farm - explaining how the senators make a fortune through large lands and selling cash-crops, alongside food crops - how that money ensures they can educate their children, etc. Give these ex-soldiers the information, and then the rest can organise themselves. You might see an informal sergeant-trooper style relationship in these retiree communes, I think this gives them the tools to start with.

An additional tool, could be the requirement that taxes can only be paid in kind up to a point, insist that X% of taxes must be paid in cash, and suddenly these co-operatives are growing cash crops alongside their food.
I like the idea of monetary taxation, which was not that unusual anyway.
We`re positing quite an educated emperor here, and one who has land to distribute. When, where and who might that be?
 
I like the idea of monetary taxation, which was not that unusual anyway.
We`re positing quite an educated emperor here, and one who has land to distribute. When, where and who might that be?

An option (even if it is bloody late) is Majorian. My Early Emperors is my biggest weakness - Cue Nightmarish Mastermind Soundtrack.

But Majorian certainly seemed big on undermining Senators, and will want some mechanism to establish support in reconquered territories. Setting up regions of resettled soldiers would help create local bases of support. This might lead to more of a 'Co-operative Farming Compound' than co-operative ownership of land, but at least the Emperor Majorian would have territory to give his armies.

Ideally I'd love to see these communities also commit to providing recruits, but I can see a tradition of the second/third children of these communities signing up for the army so that they can have their own land.

- Basically, incidentally it is a co-operative, the Emperors concern is economic rejuvination, undermining senators, and creating bases of support in an unstable empire.

Now, this doesn't change things in the East at all, so I'm only giving you half the Empire at best, but if the system works to bring stability (and fortifications - these effectively act like fortified compounds), it could be repeated on the borders in the east - in Armenia, and in those areas that are vulnerable to raids, plus, it is a great way to prevent land taken from rebellious dynatoi and keep it away from other rivals.

I wonder if these communities would develop division of labour? Building a mill and all that is a good idea, but having 2-3 people working the mill full-time, and a great part working the fields, whilst another bloke does the books, would be a good way to split the work, in theory.
 
That IS late.
Love the idea of fortified compounds, though.
Division of labour would occur to the extent that specialised Training is needed for a certain job, i'd think.
Second and third sons could be recruits, or they could be predestined to undergo apprenticeships etc. in order to be able to stay within the co-op even though they can't have a share of their own. (Romans were patrilocal even then, weren't they? Otherwise, they'd seek such employment and membership at the co-op of the girl they marry. But that does sound wrong here.)
 
That IS late.
Love the idea of fortified compounds, though.
Division of labour would occur to the extent that specialised Training is needed for a certain job, i'd think.
Second and third sons could be recruits, or they could be predestined to undergo apprenticeships etc. in order to be able to stay within the co-op even though they can't have a share of their own. (Romans were patrilocal even then, weren't they? Otherwise, they'd seek such employment and membership at the co-op of the girl they marry. But that does sound wrong here.)

Go Late or Go Home :p

I'd agree largely with that as a form of structure, either that or they'd have to become a paid employee at another co-op. Which makes it interesting, as we've sort of made a middle-class of a sort. Upper class are the Senatorial Class, Middle are those with a share in a co-op, and the Lower are those who don't. Cue either paid work at a co-op that needs the hands (seasonal help possibly), or going and forming slums in cities, and becoming a ripe recruiting ground.

But does Majorian have the population surplus to drop hundreds of thousands of veterans across the West?

Not across the West - I am under no illusion that Majorian has limitations - but he can certainly start the process. Full "Co-operative"-isation would take a while, as it would involve uprooting the foederati, and Romans with their own arrangements. But perversely, since there are already Latifunda in Italia, and potential slaves to take whilst recovering territory, we could see the issues the Gracchi dealt with re-emerge, but with the army as the best route out of Italy.

Plus, I fully expect, that if Majorian has set up a strong base of support for himself and later Emperors, as the foederati either provoke conflict, or fragment internally, it opens up windows for the Romans to step in and recover more lands - plus, what is to stop the Emperor bringing foederati on campaign as expected, weakening them in the process of capturing new lands to settle.

The issue is preventing people from somehow owning shares in more than one co-operative, or more than one in the same (or becoming the sole owner), as the system could fall apart then. Owning a share in 3 co-operatives seems dodgey (but if you serve 3 terms? Is it valid?), your dad and uncle die and leave both of their shares to you? Everyone else dies in a fire? Or is it more "You're a member, until you ain't". The latter holds together better IMO, but the former allows reward for multiple terms of service (if desired).
 
And he would have the most powerful Roman Empire of all times at his disposal, plus lots of things still in a rather fluid state both in peripheral territories and in Rome itself. Only thing he lacks is the need for reform. Where could he get such a crazy idea as co-operative structures from?
 
I personally like the idea that an Emperor, aware of the difficulties of defending farmland, and eager to undermine the Senators for his own power, changes how he pays land to troops that capture it - joint ownership of land by the soldiers it is given to.

Now you ask - "Why don't the soldiers just dole out the land between themselves?", possibly because they don't want to be the guy who gets the bad fields. So instead of a small landholding and a farm, they basically build a small village of soldiers and their families in the new territory.

But that doesn't mean that the soldiers don't informally dole out the land - each working their bit and taking the product for themselves, so you have the Emperor, when giving out the land, gives information to those bureaucrats or army officers administering the process (i.e. those who wouldn't be senators), to explain how the Emperor recommends they operate the farm - explaining how the senators make a fortune through large lands and selling cash-crops, alongside food crops - how that money ensures they can educate their children, etc. Give these ex-soldiers the information, and then the rest can organise themselves. You might see an informal sergeant-trooper style relationship in these retiree communes, I think this gives them the tools to start with.
Sort of like militarised Kibbutzim or the soldier-colonies that Pancho Villa advocated.
 
This is a very interesting idea, to which I really wish I had more concrete to contribute than I do. I actually have years of experience with agricultural co-ops... too bad I was generally under 12 years old for most of those years! My father was the president of our state’s wool co-op when I was a kid, and managed another co-op. Anyway...

If the goal is for these co-ops to supplant the latifundia on an economic basis, particularly with cash crops, I think thats quite a challenge, because of the degree of expertise needed. If we’re talking focusing on your normal crops and livestock, it should be easier. Not subsistence, mind you, but it took professionals to run the latifundia (not that they’re the senators themselves, but sometimes, they were), and plenty of resources. Senators could afford to adapt to economic changes, and were in a better position to do so. They have better networking (Senator Quintus tells me he’s had success growing olive trees in this fashion), better access to market info (We’re going to war with Persia next year, lets plan accordingly), and were, all around, better equipped to succeed at managing latifundia.

That isn’t to say that these co-ops couldn’t succeed, they certainly could. The Roman legal system could very easily adapt to co-ops, they had collegia, also known as corporatio, which were organizations with the sort of legal rights we associate with corporations today. They could hold property, and their membership could change, which are the two main things we’d want here. The main restriction (besides needing to be approved, legally) was that each had to have at least 3 members, which is no problem in this case (in fact, you’d probably want it higher for these). So, just to give it a suitably latin name, we call this type of co-op a ‘collegium agriculturae’ (if my rusty dog latin and checking with google translate at half past midnight are correct). So, there’s a huge plus: this would make sense to the Romans.

Even if these collegia are not as rich as Senators, they can still probably afford the basics. They could support their own mills, presses, and other such infrastructure needed. They might not be as well educated as the Senators, but, with a large enough pooling of years and generations of knowledge, it won’t really matter if they haven’t read Pliny’s latest works on Natural History (though, to be fair to the Romans, they did tend to have high literacy for the times), each collegium will have enough collective knowledge to be pretty well equipped to have a diversified agricultural set up going. They could probably also afford slaves (owned by the collegium), and overseers, particularly if this is in a period where slave prices are low. So, will they be as super productive as the latifundia? Probably not. Will they be economically viable? My gut says yes, without considering the possibility that the government might subsidize them to some degree. A likely eventuality, as the senators try to figure out how to tap into these collegia, is that they could contract work out to them, not unlike how much big agro-biz can work today. Senator Quintus promises a price of x denarius per amphora of wine, regardless of economic conditions. The collegium gets the security of a set price based on their output, the senators get to leverage their economic clout.

I would imagine that there would be some pretty strict rules about establishing these and about maintaining them, particularly if their purpose is to help weaken the senators and ensure that the small farmers aren’t run off their land, and that veterans don’t come home to find they’ve been evicted. First of all, you’re going to want to make sure that each collegium is large enough to absorb losing men to war, without the whole thing going under. That also means that, when first set up, you’re going to want to have a diversity of ages, and as many family men as possible. This last part is doubly important, since you’ll need kids working the farms while their dads are away, and you’ll need wives to keep the men that say behind from making sure the wives of those at war don’t feel too lonely. Old men can farm, but they don’t often go to war. Further, having a variety of ages allows you to have a variety of skillsets.

You’ll also want to make sure that everything in their establishing charter is very explicit and thorough (good thing we’re supposing this is a Roman endeavor!). You don’t want anyone coasting off the efforts of others (a very common problem with collective ownership), so you’ll want something to be owned privately, in conjunction with property owned by the collegium. I would suggest that any given man’s land should be technically held by the collegium, but whatever he produces from the land is his (minus his dues to the collegium, for the common expenses). Perhaps you could have something a bit more sophisticated, where each plot of land is owned by an individual, in cooperation with the collegium (in other words, owned by a collegium composed of the farmer, a relative, and the main collegium itself), but that might be a bit too complicated or sophisticated for the era. Basically, you want to ensure each partner has the maximum freedom over ‘his’ plot of land and what to do with it, while also making sure that the collegium can’t be broken up and sold off, bit by bit. You’ll also need specific means to handle what to do with the farmer is off fighting in the legions. Who farms ‘his’ land, and what obligation does the collegium owe to his family? Also, inheritance is important. Does a son automatically inherit his father’s ‘lot’? How about multiple sons? Can lots be combined? All of this needs to be properly spelled out ahead of time, you want these to endure. You also want it to be pretty straight forward, so you don’t need jurists from the capital swinging by constantly to make sure that everyone understands how this works. Speaking of the legal structure of the collegium, you’ll want its charter to be explicitly dependent on the Emperor’s good graces. This is Imperial Rome, after all, the civilization which, under one of its greatest Emperors, Trajan, thought that private fire brigades were too great a risk to the government.

I’m sure there’s more details to consider, and this really is a cool idea, but one last addition: I know the OP requested something after Augustus, but isn’t this perfectly suited to the Gracchi?
 
The earliest Emperor I think could do this would be a Nero educated about agriculture and economics instead of the classics, but still very opposed to the senate.

Honestly, I find this a tremendously interesting idea. All power to the soviets collegiae!
 
A more sane Caligula would be the best option.
Can you elaborate why?
This is a very interesting idea, to which I really wish I had more concrete to contribute than I do. I actually have years of experience with agricultural co-ops... too bad I was generally under 12 years old for most of those years! My father was the president of our state’s wool co-op when I was a kid, and managed another co-op. Anyway...

If the goal is for these co-ops to supplant the latifundia on an economic basis, particularly with cash crops, I think thats quite a challenge, because of the degree of expertise needed. If we’re talking focusing on your normal crops and livestock, it should be easier. Not subsistence, mind you, but it took professionals to run the latifundia (not that they’re the senators themselves, but sometimes, they were), and plenty of resources. Senators could afford to adapt to economic changes, and were in a better position to do so. They have better networking (Senator Quintus tells me he’s had success growing olive trees in this fashion), better access to market info (We’re going to war with Persia next year, lets plan accordingly), and were, all around, better equipped to succeed at managing latifundia.

That isn’t to say that these co-ops couldn’t succeed, they certainly could. The Roman legal system could very easily adapt to co-ops, they had collegia, also known as corporatio, which were organizations with the sort of legal rights we associate with corporations today. They could hold property, and their membership could change, which are the two main things we’d want here. The main restriction (besides needing to be approved, legally) was that each had to have at least 3 members, which is no problem in this case (in fact, you’d probably want it higher for these). So, just to give it a suitably latin name, we call this type of co-op a ‘collegium agriculturae’ (if my rusty dog latin and checking with google translate at half past midnight are correct). So, there’s a huge plus: this would make sense to the Romans.

Even if these collegia are not as rich as Senators, they can still probably afford the basics. They could support their own mills, presses, and other such infrastructure needed. They might not be as well educated as the Senators, but, with a large enough pooling of years and generations of knowledge, it won’t really matter if they haven’t read Pliny’s latest works on Natural History (though, to be fair to the Romans, they did tend to have high literacy for the times), each collegium will have enough collective knowledge to be pretty well equipped to have a diversified agricultural set up going. They could probably also afford slaves (owned by the collegium), and overseers, particularly if this is in a period where slave prices are low. So, will they be as super productive as the latifundia? Probably not. Will they be economically viable? My gut says yes, without considering the possibility that the government might subsidize them to some degree. A likely eventuality, as the senators try to figure out how to tap into these collegia, is that they could contract work out to them, not unlike how much big agro-biz can work today. Senator Quintus promises a price of x denarius per amphora of wine, regardless of economic conditions. The collegium gets the security of a set price based on their output, the senators get to leverage their economic clout.

I would imagine that there would be some pretty strict rules about establishing these and about maintaining them, particularly if their purpose is to help weaken the senators and ensure that the small farmers aren’t run off their land, and that veterans don’t come home to find they’ve been evicted. First of all, you’re going to want to make sure that each collegium is large enough to absorb losing men to war, without the whole thing going under. That also means that, when first set up, you’re going to want to have a diversity of ages, and as many family men as possible. This last part is doubly important, since you’ll need kids working the farms while their dads are away, and you’ll need wives to keep the men that say behind from making sure the wives of those at war don’t feel too lonely. Old men can farm, but they don’t often go to war. Further, having a variety of ages allows you to have a variety of skillsets.

You’ll also want to make sure that everything in their establishing charter is very explicit and thorough (good thing we’re supposing this is a Roman endeavor!). You don’t want anyone coasting off the efforts of others (a very common problem with collective ownership), so you’ll want something to be owned privately, in conjunction with property owned by the collegium. I would suggest that any given man’s land should be technically held by the collegium, but whatever he produces from the land is his (minus his dues to the collegium, for the common expenses). Perhaps you could have something a bit more sophisticated, where each plot of land is owned by an individual, in cooperation with the collegium (in other words, owned by a collegium composed of the farmer, a relative, and the main collegium itself), but that might be a bit too complicated or sophisticated for the era. Basically, you want to ensure each partner has the maximum freedom over ‘his’ plot of land and what to do with it, while also making sure that the collegium can’t be broken up and sold off, bit by bit. You’ll also need specific means to handle what to do with the farmer is off fighting in the legions. Who farms ‘his’ land, and what obligation does the collegium owe to his family? Also, inheritance is important. Does a son automatically inherit his father’s ‘lot’? How about multiple sons? Can lots be combined? All of this needs to be properly spelled out ahead of time, you want these to endure. You also want it to be pretty straight forward, so you don’t need jurists from the capital swinging by constantly to make sure that everyone understands how this works. Speaking of the legal structure of the collegium, you’ll want its charter to be explicitly dependent on the Emperor’s good graces. This is Imperial Rome, after all, the civilization which, under one of its greatest Emperors, Trajan, thought that private fire brigades were too great a risk to the government.

I’m sure there’s more details to consider, and this really is a cool idea, but one last addition: I know the OP requested something after Augustus, but isn’t this perfectly suited to the Gracchi?
That was a formidable contribution!
I doubt the Gracchi could push that through against the still increasing power of large landholders.
Full agreement on issues of codification and contractualisation. I'll try to post a few ideas for the question of inheritance and the like tomorrow.

The earliest Emperor I think could do this would be a Nero educated about agriculture and economics instead of the classics, but still very opposed to the senate.

Honestly, I find this a tremendously interesting idea. All power to the soviets collegiae!
Thanks, both of you! I thought so, too. Who knows what such a change in socio-economic structure might have brought as consequences (politically, militarily, economically, culturally...)!
 
Can you elaborate why?
People were throwing out Tiberius but he's far too much of a conservative to contemplate something like that. He did however leave the empire in fantastic fiscal shape, and you also have a period of relative calm. Caligula would have the resources at his disposal to be able to make it happen, has the motive (a dislike for the senatorial elite and search for an alternative power base), was well liked by the troops, and also had enough Goodwill, at least at the start of his reign, to have the political capital to get it done.

Edit: on the other hand I'm not sure you have the professional bureaucracy or the political climate to make this work effectively until the 3rd century. After all in the first and most of the second centuries the senators still were, for the most part, essentially what made up the ad hoc provincial government and thus have significant power to block something like this. With that said, Aurelian is another good candidate.
 
Last edited:
What about the pre imperial era? Could the Republic come up with such a solution to the massive armies of settlers in need of land? Or could it perhaps evolve organically?

You're almost never going to have the same level of soldiers under the Empire, after all.
 
What about the pre imperial era? Could the Republic come up with such a solution to the massive armies of settlers in need of land? Or could it perhaps evolve organically?

You're almost never going to have the same level of soldiers under the Empire, after all.
What organically evolved in the Republic was the vast spiderweb of patron-client relations, which is quite the opposite of the OP challenge. There were sodalitates and collegia, but they were on no Level competing with the powerful. The latifundia were indeed built on, even by contemporary Roman legal standards, illegal enclosures of ager publicus. Stopping this would need to be at the heart of an organic development of Roman rural co-ops. But I don't see that, with or without Gracchi. It's not that Republican mentality was too conservative, it's that its oligarchy had secured its powers too well. And it was based on these lands. Only the convulsions and breakdown of traditions that occurred in the late Republic and tranisition to the Principate might make the kind of innovative reform happen.
The Roman path out of tribal structures was one of freely chosen, yet strong asymmetric Personal loyalties. Changing that towards a co-operative post-tribal outlook is doable, but then we don't have Romans as we know them anymore.

@DominusNovus,
A few ideas:
You don't need mixed land-ownership, the Romans were great at creating different categories of land and how they could be owned and used and by whom. Define a new category, e.g. "ager collegiorum". This way, individuals could only sell their land to others who want to acquire membership. Lots must not be divided for they are the Basis of membership, and membership is equal and indivisible (meaning one member - one vote, and equal Division of profits).

Inheritance would follow normal Roman patterns. Sons remain in their Pater familias' household until daddy dies. Second sons either take up wage labour for the co-op (in mills or smithies o as scribes or whatever) or join the Army, or remain subordinate in their elder brothers' households or leave for another place.

As for men serving in the legions, I imagine the collegium also goes with its own (voluntary?) sodalitas, into which everyone pays something and Families whose Boys are off to war are supported from that common cashbox.

Early in the Empire, a religious framework would be nice to accompany and legitimise this outlook, e.g. the dedication of a collegium and its land to a deity, and initiation rites that go with it. Emperor worship would have to play a massive role of course.
 
Top