Heavy Plough In First Century AD Roman World

Let's that somehow, but by the start of the second decade in the century the Romans have either invented or have been introduced though Asia trade the heavy plough. How would this tool that allows much better fields affect the development of the Roman world.
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned
Well, Germany just became a lovely place to farm.

Britannia just became vastly more valuable for food production - as have parts of (if not all of Gaul).

Lets assume even a 10% increase in food production, that would in the short term reduce food prices by a similar amount (in a simple model), reduce the needs for food imports in regions that the plough can be introduced.

More food means that cities can get larger, which means more easily taxed cities, and more profitably taxed farmland. More food also means more people, making the cities larger again.

Overall, this would increase the food, tax and manpower base of the Empire, especially the Western Empire. The introduction of the plough to the Germanic Peoples would lead to greater trade either side of the Rhine for grain - and may help the Germanic Peoples can urbanise/settle more easily - and with them doing the hard work, Germania becomes a whole lot more tempting to conquer.

If it stays in the Empire, the Empire as a whole does a lot better. If it spreads to the Germanic Peoples then the Empire has more of a tempting conquest, but also larger threat (though not larger proportionally in the short term). The big advantage is that if the Germanics get stronger - the Steppe peoples are going to be weaker in comparison, which could seriously change the migration period - as tribes are more capable of standing up to the Huns.

Plus, urbanisation of well fed germans would likely lead to better infrastructure (marginally) which means that the Romans are better placed to respond to requests for assistance - which could lead to the Huns largely being fought beyond the frontiers.

Honestly, this is DEEPLY speculative, and requires the right things to happen at the right time - and is ignoring the possibility of the excess population being used for colonia in unexploited territories (this is different than just better using current territories as it exploits new resources, and may uncover previously overlooked resources, and leaves the excess capacity at home to be replenished.

TL;DR - Food controls population growth. More food, faster growth, larger population = stronger Empire. Stronger Empire better placed to resist foes.
 
I don't know that it would make much difference in the core Roman areas. It might make for a more prosperous Britain and northern Gaul. But it could also make for a much more prosperous and dense Germania, which could be a mixed blessing. It may make it worth conquering but could also make the area a more formidable adversary.
 

Sior

Banned
Add in the Galic reaper and grain production is less labour intensive.

http://www.gnrtr.com/Generator.html?pi=208&cp=3

Page500_291_16.jpg
 
Also, more food means more innovation. The industrial revolution was made possible by increased crop production in England, which allowed people to focus on other careers.

So, chances are good that even more scientific and technological advances would be brought about.
 
Heavy plough already existed Late Antiquity Germania, IOTL. Arguing that it would change the face of Germania, when it not much did historically (arguably in later period) seems awfully speculative and optimist.
As for urbanisation exemple, it seems really wild tought : its absence never prevented southern Germany to be as structured as Gaul around urban/tribal entities, and its existence didn't made western Middle-Ages any more urbanized.

As for Roman use : many mediterranean soils aren't really adapted to it in first place : even with the heavy plough being widespread, it wasn't that much used there. It's basically why it didn't get more used in Europe while we know, as a quasi-certainty, that Germans knew about it.
And knowing that latifundiae agriculture was essentially based on Roman/Mediterranean features (remember that climatic context meant a greater geographical expension of the latter) didn't went well with a more "North European" take : during the High Empire, the great domains were the norm, having an extensive production that didn't required much mechanisation.
 
Add in the Galic reaper and grain production is less labour intensive.
It have really few chances to be ever widespread in Romania : its use was mainly based on the lack of manpower in Northern Gaul and to compensate it (while ruining part of the harvest, specifically hay)
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned
Heavy plough already existed Late Antiquity Germania, IOTL. Arguing that it would change the face of Germania, when it not much did historically (arguably in later period) seems awfully speculative and optimist.
As for urbanisation exemple, it seems really wild tought : its absence never prevented southern Germany to be as structured as Gaul around urban/tribal entities, and its existence didn't made western Middle-Ages any more urbanized.

As for Roman use : many mediterranean soils aren't really adapted to it in first place : even with the heavy plough being widespread, it wasn't that much used there. It's basically why it didn't get more used in Europe while we know, as a quasi-certainty, that Germans knew about it.
And knowing that latifundiae agriculture was essentially based on Roman/Mediterranean features (remember that climatic context meant a greater geographical expension of the latter) didn't went well with a more "North European" take : during the High Empire, the great domains were the norm, having an extensive production that didn't required much mechanisation.

Everything I've ever read suggests that the Heavy Plow was only widespread by 900 AD - a long time after the suggested point of introduction, and according to this paper my (guess) at 10% seems to hold up. They also have some interesting number on urbanisation I think you'd like.

I've seen mentions that a few farmers using it in Britannia, but nothing widespread - I think it would be fair to say that we're talking about a widespread introduction here, rather than a few guys knowing about it.

(Admittedly, the most likely PoD for this would be a drastic increase in iron production, in the north of the Empire).

Though the points I made on urbanisation were based on removing some conditions from OTL. At this point in history, urbanisation was the trend - populations tended to urbanise, rather than after the Empire where Castles and Manors were more common - there are multiple factors that change how a more agriculturally powerful Germania could evolve. I'd put our timeline down to the collapse of the WRE. If that is still strong, I'd expect urbanisation to be more common. (though seeing an Urban Roman Empire next to a 'Feudal' or Castle-based Germania is a fun idea.) Or alternatively, a Germania that reaches 900AD levels of food production per capita whilst the Roman Empire was still strong.
 
That would be really cool .Especially since the later Roman empire had no civilizations of similar levels of population or technology near them to spur development of weapons .If Germania had the ability to develope an urban population it could become competition for the Romans in northern Europe .:eek:
 
Everything I've ever read suggests that the Heavy Plow was only widespread by 900 AD
Medieval Religion and Technology, as others books, point that heavy plough was known and used (if not widely) in parts of north-western Romania (as Rhineland or Britain).

Heavy plow seems to have been reinforced more or less slowly in Britain or Northern Gaul (and of course absent of soils that weren't convenient for its use) but as long it didn't fit with an agricultural model, on an intensive use of the soil rather than extensive, it simply wouldn't get widespread.

My point was that you could have knowledge of heavy plough, without it being largely used. It wasn't some kind of hugely powerful technological feature, but get fit with production models that appeared later, as cerealisation of agricultural production between the VIIth and the IXth century.

Eventually, giving the important cultural/demographic exchanges with Germania since the Ist century (laeti, that were partially settled for agricultural reasons), you can't really expect a "hidden belief".
Not fitting an economical model, being restricted to borders and more "northern" grounds (as it was eventually later, heavy plough isn't fit for all soils) doesn't hint at "they didn't knew about it, even when it was right in front of their eyes" but rather "they didn't tought it was that useful".

I've seen mentions that a few farmers using it in Britannia, but nothing widespread - I think it would be fair to say that we're talking about a widespread introduction here, rather than a few guys knowing about it.
You had much more than "a few guys knowing about it". It's just that it didn't fit the roman agricultural model, but was certainly used in non-Mediterranean features.

At this point in history, urbanisation was the trend - populations tended to urbanise
Not really. In the Ist century, you had a tendency to get more tied with cities, which served as important political, administrative and cultural centers. It doesn't change, however, the huge rural population of, say, Gaul, Britain, Germania, Ratia, etc. where guesstimate around 75/90% points no "trend" in urbanisation.
 
Last edited:

GdwnsnHo

Banned
Medieval Religion and Technology, as others books, point that heavy plough was known and used (if not widely) in parts of north-western Romania (as Rhineland or Britain).

If think this is key, I may have made the assumption of the near-ubiquitous use of the heavy plow. Fair play, not actually the OP.

Heavy plow seems to have been reinforced more or less slowly in Britain or Northern Gaul (and of course absent of soils that weren't convenient for its use) but as long it didn't fit with an agricultural model, on an intensive use of the soil rather than extensive, it simply wouldn't get widespread.

Perhaps we need someone to push for an agricultural reform? A major landowner or a small cabal? Perhaps someone invested in both Iron, Smithing and Agriculture? I find it hard to believe (perhaps it is the culture I was raised) that they wouldn't seek to get the most out of their land - have someone experiment, become wealthy, and then have people adopt a more intensive use of the land they already have. As I said before, a fortunate discovery of Iron, maybe exposing a large amount of Bog-Iron (when draining marshland? I'm not familiar with how common that was at this point, if at all). Someone proving it was useful, impressively so, can cause major change.

Not really. In the Ist century, you had a tendency to get more tied with cities, which served as important political, administrative and cultural centers. It doesn't change, however, the huge rural population of, say, Gaul, Britain, Germania, Ratia, etc. where guesstimate around 75/90% points no "trend" in urbanisation.

I may be splitting hairs here, but going from a widely disconnected rural environment to increased urban populations and links to them does count in a way to urbanisation - if only slight.

Perhaps I'm being a pedant :p But I more was suggesting that there would be at least LARGER populations, which if they keep going to the point of using all the land, will lead to urbanisation once the excess gets big enough. If not urbanisation, something akin to to castles and castle-towns.

Plus, if I even have the faintest trends of my history right, a huge amount of the food produced in those regions, and Africa were either sent to the frontlines, or to Italia - Which I'd argue destroys the local excess, which I'll admit my thoughts were based upon.
 
Also, more food means more innovation. The industrial revolution was made possible by increased crop production in England, which allowed people to focus on other careers.

So, chances are good that even more scientific and technological advances would be brought about.

Increased productivity, not increased production. The heavy plough enables an expansion of population but IMHO doesn't change the overall ratio of agricultural laborers to non-agricultural laborers.
 
Perhaps we need someone to push for an agricultural reform?
I find it hard to believe (perhaps it is the culture I was raised) that they wouldn't seek to get the most out of their land - have someone experiment, become wealthy, and then have people adopt a more intensive use of the land they already have.

Then again, heavy plough wasn't exactly fit Mediterranean soils. It's a geographic/geological feature, not something one could have changed by getting angry enough at. Giving this was the base of Roman economy, and was eventually getting a larger area than in Middle Ages due to climatic concerns (again, a horde of old men yelling at coulds isn't going to change much), any change would probably concern a really limited part of the Empire.

Giving that we're talking economical models (if you will as someone raised in its current culture, do you really think the current economical model is the best fit for everyone and everywhere on the planet, even for elites? It's about social/economical/cultural predominance there, and at this point, the source of it was in the Mediterranean basin), the motivation would probably mainly stuck with Northern Romania regions where heavy plough was already a thing.

With enough interest on it (and disregarding social conservatism, that was really something and especially about technology), and if the important investment is worth it compared to servile and semi-free pesantry production (less production cost for similar production, against higher production cost for higher production)...Then maybe a more important use in Northern Gaul and Raetia.

I'll add that manorialism have not much to do with heavy plough, but to the lack of manpower and desintegration of latifundiae into semi-free explotation under villae dominations; and its subsequent political translation. It's why it happened as well in regions where heavy plough was absent, even during Middle-Ages.
(It's worth mentioning that allods, outside strict manorialism, were particularly present in Northern Europe as well)

I may be splitting hairs here, but going from a widely disconnected rural environment to increased urban populations and links to them does count in a way to urbanisation - if only slight.
Very slight then : many civitate didn't went more than 2000, with existing but few metropols.

As for "widely disconnected rural environment", it's simply going against basically everything we know about Gallic territory distribution and urbanism.

Saying that Romans just went into independent Gaul's shoes may be a good description of the situation, for rural (under many Gallo-Roman villa, there's a Gallic farm) as well than urban (when not a direct continuation of a Gallic oppida or town, roman towns creations were usually made as "successors" as Augustodonum, Aquae or Narbo), and whatever connection between then (most Romans roads basically covered old Gallic paths. It's telling that Caesar never had any transportation problem in this supposedly "widely disconnected rural environment").

But I more was suggesting that there would be at least LARGER populations
It would rather go as a more important production in Northern parts of the Empire, which would (as it was used IOTL) either go for exportation (inner or extern) or feeding armies.
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned
LSCatilina, why is it always when I end up talking with you I end up feeling like a dunce? (Oh wait, because you know so freaking much o_O )

Then again, heavy plough wasn't exactly fit Mediterranean soils. It's a geographic/geological feature, not something one could have changed by getting angry enough at. Giving this was the base of Roman economy, and was eventually getting a larger area than in Middle Ages due to climatic concerns (again, a horde of old men yelling at coulds isn't going to change much), any change would probably concern a really limited part of the Empire.

Well, localised changes in agricultural and economic methods do happen - after all, British farmland wasn't suddenly converted into plantations because that was what was used elsewhere. Even within the UK, those areas less suited to arable crops are used for livestock - I think it is perfectly reasonable (and apologies, I didn't think to be explicit) to say that the heavy plow would only be used in the northern areas - and any Emperor that is half competent would probably be very interested in knowing about agricultural successes in areas that were previously less productive (especially something as transformative as upto 10% increase in local yields).

Giving that we're talking economical models (if you will as someone raised in its current culture, do you really think the current economical model is the best fit for everyone and everywhere on the planet, even for elites? It's about social/economical/cultural predominance there, and at this point, the source of it was in the Mediterranean basin), the motivation would probably mainly stuck with Northern Romania regions where heavy plough was already a thing.

It ENTIRELY depends on where you live, I'll happily discuss modern politics, but lets keep that to PM rather than get tangential (though I'll say probably not, I'm from N.England). I do get the point however.

I'll add that manorialism have not much to do with heavy plough, but to the lack of manpower and desintegration of latifundiae into semi-free explotation under villae dominations; and its subsequent political translation. It's why it happened as well in regions where heavy plough was absent, even during Middle-Ages.
(It's worth mentioning that allods, outside strict manorialism, were particularly present in Northern Europe as well)

Oh, that wasn't what I was trying to infer at all - I meant that the end result that was manorialism in the post-roman W.Europe isn't inevitable, and that those factors you list being removed from the situation in an alt Roman W.Europe, the increased food production may maintain the (less urbanised than I thought) civic structure of the times.

As for "widely disconnected rural environment", it's simply going against basically everything we know about Gallic territory distribution and urbanism.

Saying that Romans just went into independent Gaul's shoes may be a good description of the situation, for rural (under many Gallo-Roman villa, there's a Gallic farm) as well than urban (when not a direct continuation of a Gallic oppida or town, roman towns creations were usually made as "successors" as Augustodonum, Aquae or Narbo), and whatever connection between then (most Romans roads basically covered old Gallic paths. It's telling that Caesar never had any transportation problem in this supposedly "widely disconnected rural environment").

And that is what I get for hyperbole.

It would rather go as a more important production in Northern parts of the Empire, which would (as it was used IOTL) either go for exportation (inner or extern) or feeding armies.

Well, then my point of larger populations isn't entirely false - just WHERE those populations would be. Where would you expect the excess to go? (I'll note that I can't see 100% of new production going abroad, in northern regions I'd put all my money on new farmlands turning up if there is any space - even if only taking advantage of 10% of the new production).
 
(Oh wait, because you know so freaking much o_O )
I really don't : it's just that these kind of stuff (heavy plough, horse collar and the infamous "stirrup controversy") keeps popping up, and that in order to answer something that would be pointed out as flatly wrong, I had to get interested or perish (metaphorically speaking).
My goal isn't to make yourself feel as an idiot : if it's what you felt I was doing, apologizes : put the blame on my deep lack of tact.

Well, localised changes in agricultural and economic methods do happen - after all, British farmland wasn't suddenly converted into plantations because that was what was used elsewhere.
Indeed, but it was more about Britain being not really fit either the latifundiae model, and with the absence of a Gallic-like develloped agricultural model, that could be directly integrated by Romans.

I think it is perfectly reasonable (and apologies, I didn't think to be explicit) to say that the heavy plow would only be used in the northern areas
It's possible indeed, and at least partially was the case. You could see it being more widespread with an important crisis making the latifundar model less sustainable, but it wouldn't be that world shattering, more or an expedient until a more globalized crisis.

and any Emperor that is half competent would probably be very interested
The direct imperial intervention into economics was less about micro-management than being sure that stuff gets gathered as they wanted so. "It doesn't matter whether a cat is white or black, as long as it catches mice".

Not that Romans weren't interested on agro-economical development, at the contrary : but because the core of their territories, and the core of their productive and fiscal possibilities were tied to a Mediterranean-like production, you didn't have that of a focus for other models.

(If something, and not unlike people arguing that "OUR ways are better, and people that doesn't use them should do so, to be better themselves", if Roman elites were to intervene on productivity matters as competent they could be, they would have a bias there)

Well, then my point of larger populations isn't entirely false - just WHERE those populations would be.
Or just, better fed population or armies. I think you're doing a bit too much reverse malthusianism, and maybe should point as because a population is better fed, it doesn't mean it explodes demographically.
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned
I really don't : it's just that these kind of stuff (heavy plough, horse collar and the infamous "stirrup controversy") keeps popping up, and that in order to answer something that would be pointed out as flatly wrong, I had to get interested or perish (metaphorically speaking).
My goal isn't to make yourself feel as an idiot : if it's what you felt I was doing, apologizes : put the blame on my deep lack of tact.

Oh no need to apologise, there should have been a :D or :p there. No offence or injury has been taken.

Indeed, but it was more about Britain being not really fit either the latifundiae model, and with the absence of a Gallic-like develloped agricultural model, that could be directly integrated by Romans.

I was more referencing the British Empire rather than the Roman in my example, but I'm not curious as to why it didn't really fit the latifundiae model.

It's possible indeed, and at least partially was the case. You could see it being more widespread with an important crisis making the latifundar model less sustainable, but it wouldn't be that world shattering, more or an expedient until a more globalized crisis.

Hrmm, I took a look at this and had three successive thoughts.

1) Wait, but Britain (wait a second, you've acknowledged different treatment in different areas

2) But couldn't the Romans just use the most expedient technique in Germania? (Wait, why would they apply the niche technique in their assumptions about the value of a conquest?)

3) They'd need to see a proof of concept/proof of value in the area, rather than gamble on an unusual, expedient niche technique. Poop.

The direct imperial intervention into economics was less about micro-management than being sure that stuff gets gathered as they wanted so. "It doesn't matter whether a cat is white or black, as long as it catches mice".

It isn't unheard of either, didn't Diocletian both institute serfdom to ensure he could keep track of people, but also had a Imperial Price List? (It is usually mentioned when calculating the cost of the Roman Suez Canal :p )

Not that Romans weren't interested on agro-economical development, at the contrary : but because the core of their territories, and the core of their productive and fiscal possibilities were tied to a Mediterranean-like production, you didn't have that of a focus for other models.

As I said realised above, yeah, the centre makes assumptions about the value of something based on the context of the centre. A centralised view always wants to use the square brick, even if the hole works much better with the triangle block. Probably a simplistic view of why decentralisation can be very effective.

Or just, better fed population or armies. I think you're doing a bit too much reverse malthusianism, and maybe should point as because a population is better fed, it doesn't mean it explodes demographically.

I'm not sure I'd call it reverse Malthusianism, but I get where you're coming from. Even so, a 10% increase in food production is significant, and I find it hard to believe that when historically more efficient farming has increased the population/rate of population growth - Egypt, Britain, stand as good examples here, that it can be completely discounted. (I'll happily accept that I may be overenthusiastic, or overly optimistic however, and that it could only have an impact of increasing population growth by 0.5% points within Rome, but much higher outside of Rome.)
 
I was more referencing the British Empire rather than the Roman in my example, but I'm not curious as to why it didn't really fit the latifundiae model.
Climatic difference and lesser structural development, mostly.

1) Wait, but Britain (wait a second, you've acknowledged different treatment in different areas
I think something is missing, there.

2) But couldn't the Romans just use the most expedient technique in Germania? (Wait, why would they apply the niche technique in their assumptions about the value of a conquest?)
I'd think it would be less "using" the most expedient technique than letting populations continuing their job as they did so far. Romans were more or less conservative when it came to technological management (as in, using on a large scale technologies they knew, but not that thrilled about technological advance : even in military matters, as sieges they prefected, you didn't had much changes in spite of its direct use).

It isn't unheard of either, didn't Diocletian both institute serfdom to ensure he could keep track of people, but also had a Imperial Price List? (It is usually mentioned when calculating the cost of the Roman Suez Canal :p )
Pulling a Imperial Price List at the scale of an Empire isn't exactly what I'd call micro-management myself. The Price List was more of an attempt that largely failed, because of mercantile autonomy : basically, it was based on a larger small coinage production and salary staticity and as inflation followed quickly (merchants/producers not being too much fooled) and quick loss of pucrchase parity for people whom salary depended of the state...

Let's say it doesn't exactly scream bureaucratic economical control. And we're talking of Diocletian, at a period where imperial bureaucracy was really a thing (while Imperial China had still 4x more public employees).
For the Ist century more or less chaotic and decentralized roman bureaucracy to pull much more...

As for serfdom...Are you sure you don't confuse with coloni?
Its appearance is less tied to production matter with fiscal/social matters : it was about preventing peasants to just flee the taxation away.

Not that coloni or other forms of rural clientelisation wasn't a way to compensate for productive decline (due to climatic and demographical changes), and tied to the growing ruralisation of western Roman elites (villae, strictkly speaking, became much important in Late Antiquity than Classical Antiquity). But it wasn't what really driven the imperial decisions.

The Late Antiquity colonus is still too close to vilicus and other clientelised but free peasantry to be called a serve : calling it a tenant (with growing social/legal restrictions) may be more fitting.
Serfdom is the far descendent of coloni, but not its direct descendent : it's more issued from the social (and then legal) vague mix between early medieval slaves, coloni, tenants, clients, freemen.

You had coloni (under this name, or not) in the same time you had serves : it would be a mistake to totally confuse them or, arguably, to separate them socially or even (for the later period) legally.

Again, less micro-management than an imperial (universalist?) answer to imperial issues.

Probably a simplistic view of why decentralisation can be very effective.
But the Roman Empire was decentralized : it's even a wonder it managed to to hold in one piece with a bureaucracy as limited as it was IOTL. The problem isn't cultural, but political : centers were in towns during Classical Roman Era, not in countryside; and they simply didn't have much ressources or political possibility to undergo provincial or regional changes.

that it can be completely discounted.
Discounted? No. But you were talking there about really important countrysides with a huge population, and at least in the case of Britain, a huge rural specialized population.

It's quite the contrary with Northern Gaul and critically with Roman Britain (that had to deal with poorly integrated structures, and poor demographics even at its best). I wouldn't call it a band-aid on a wooden leg, would it be because it would have been an exageration; but even if these changes happen everywhere where they could technically do so (and that's not a given, far from it), it simply doesn't mean they would have the structural possibility to be that noticable.

Remember that Roman Britain may have used, at least partially, heavy plough IOTL, without much demographical rise (even if the province exportated grain). Again, we're more talking of an export to be used for armies or great centers of transformations (mills) and consumation : Roman metropolis did existed and consumed an insane amount of food.

Would a slightly more important Rome, Antioch, Lyon, Ephesus, Alexandria, etc. would be that of an important change? I'm, for one, not really convinced.
 
Top