Discuss the lot of the peasant in the Roman World. What could he do about it? Peasants are notoriously difficult to study in history. The trouble stems from lack of evidence. Despite the fact that the poor and those of low income make up the bulk of all societies throughout history, a disproportionately high amount of evidence is about those of the higher classes and incomes. This is for a variety of reasons. The rich were much more likely to be educated and so be able to read and write. This meant that they would record happenings and write theories and histories. The poor were uneducated and incapable of doing this. As such, written records on the hands of these people are minimal. The rich also had more influence, as is always the case with wealth. This meant that their actions had a disproportionate effect on history. This meant that neutral historians and biographers were much more likely to write about these people. An example would be in the case of warfare. The historian would write about the rich general/ local leader who led the army and funded the campaign much more than about a commoner who was an infantryman. This was for entirely plausible reasons that the leader was the most visible and important part of the battle and was perhaps the most intriguing to write about. The rich would also have more dealings with other regions due to trade and other things. This would also mean that their actions would have more effect and thus be highlighted in histories and other evidence. The poor would be much more restricted to their locale, and as such would not have been so noteworthy. It is against this background that all studies of the poor and peasants must be made. The evidence tends to be written for and by the rich. This means that inferences often have to be made and care must be taken to realise that the evidence is often through the eyes of the wealthier. This can create a discoloured view of the poor. Evidence often tends to focus on events. Hopwood describes it thus: �One of the major problems facing the ancient historian is the lack of evidence at his disposal for many of the basic questions of the day-to-day organisation of life in the ancient world.� This is because these are of the most interest to the contemporary writers. This means that the ordinary lives are neglected, which also lends difficulty to this topic. The system of patronage bound together Roman society throughout its history. This was the system whereby the patrons would protect and employ their clients in return for work and loyalties from their (normally) poorer clients. This wasn�t limited to one patron with his clients, because the patron could then be the client to another person higher up in the hierarchy. An example of this could be a city leader being a client to a number of peasant clients, yet being a client to the provincial governor. This was a system that had worked very well and was the foundation of society in the Roman Empire. Being a client to a patron engendered ties on that person. The person had obligations to perform such as working the land of the patron and providing defence to your patron. These obligations restricted movements of the peasants who were clients of local landowners. This was a limit on fluidity. Initially, these obligations and duties were fairly loosely regulated. Local discretion was much employed. The tendency of the Empire was for increased regulation. This applied to this area of life as much as any other. The structures and workings of the patronage system became much more rigid in the later Roman Empire. This meant that the escape from the system, whilst still possible, was made much more difficult. Patronage served a variety of purposes. It created a work force that could guarantee the work could be done. It provided income for the local tax collectors and consequentially the central government. It also provided a means of defence, both for the peasantry and for the richer sections of society. As Hopwood says, it also provided a means of control: �Patronage was a means by which the centre controlled the periphery.� This is because the Roman Empire operated via a network of cities. A much larger rural area surrounded each city. It was naturally difficult for the cities to control the rural areas. The patronage system provided an effective way of doing this. Heavily linked to the patronage system was the Roman taxation system. The operation of this was organised such that the central government required each city council of decurions to pay a certain amount of tax. There was considerable freedom as to how this tax was raised. The normal method employed was for the landowners to require their coloni (tenants) to pay them money so as to raise the tax required. This could be in the form of hard currency or of goods such as grain. This was acceptable to the coloni as long as they were able to afford it. It was when the burden on them grew too much that problems arose. Hopwood sees the burden as falling primarily on the peasants: �Sufferings must have fallen harshly on the peasantry.� Classic examples of this would be in the aftermath of a barbarian invasion or of a natural disaster. The bureaucrats in the Roman government may not be so understanding as to the problems accumulated by the coloni. The intense pressure that they were under could lead to poverty and starvation. When the situation got unbearable, the coloni and peasants attempted to break free of their chains. An example of this is the situation in fifth century Gaul as described by Drinkwater. The Barbarian invasions had taken a massive toll on Roman Gaul and Drinkwater identifies a �disintegration of local systems of order�. Problems weren�t necessarily due to mismanagement by the Government. Cameron recognises the limitations of the options available to the governing authorities: �Opportunities open to the state either for enforcing the law or for efficient government in general were extremely limited.� This is an important point to remember. Ancient societies were very different to today and were very limited by technology and other factors. This is something that must always be bore in mind when considering such things as the position of peasants in Roman society. Cameron also identifies the fact that there was one law for the rich and powerful, and another for the poor and lowly . One of the prime sources of evidence for everyday life in this period that survives is the law codes that were instigated to respond to problems and situations that arose. The laws appear very harsh on the peasantry. There were a large number of laws restricting movements. The largest proportion of these is directed to the class known as coloni. This was an attempt by the authorities to control the migration that was leading to population and labour shortages in areas of inclement events such as barbarian incursions. The laws are quite firm and have many demands. One is that bakers are not allowed to leave their position and must ensure that further bakers are supplied after their death. Others require the people to continue in the trade of their ancestors. There is little room for variation and freedom of careers in these laws. Cameron says that these shouldn�t be taken as too accurate a portrait of local life: �Ample non-legal sources do not suggest that the laws made much difference in practice.� When there is considerable threat from invasion and poverty there is little motivation amongst the peasantry to obey anachronistic and impractical laws decreed by a government that was far away and increasingly irrelevant to the practicalities of life. This caused much disobedience of the laws and desertion. This created population and labour shortages, which the laws had been introduced to stop. These population shortages were especially acute in areas of barbarian invasions. The example focused upon by Drinkwater is Gaul. It was also the home to a specific form of peasantry with their own peculiar local name. These were the Bacaudae. They are perhaps a little difficult to define historically as, as with much to do with the poor in this period, the evidence for them is vague and obscure. Drinkwater says that they emerged during the third century crisis due to the collapse of the Gallic aristocracy. The second wave of bacaudic activity in Gaul occurred in the first half of the fifth century and was caused by a similar disintegration of social order. He makes it clear that this wasn�t a continuous movement, the name was just used to describe both groups. One of the chief sources for this group of people was Salvian, a far from perfect source. This is a great problem for determining the details of their existence. The sources show a very grim situation for the Gallic population, which should have led to a decline in numbers, exacerbating the manpower shortage. This should have led to more freedom for those remaining and greater demands for their services and so they should have been able to experience a rising standard of living under normal circumstances. The Western Empire was burdened by heavy expenditure on warfare and the taxes had to be exacted on a shrinking taxation base so those remaining had to pay more tax per capita. This led to the landlords insisting on their rights over the tied tenants on their land, making it much more difficult for them to seek better conditions elsewhere. They also worked a protection racket by using their control over the taxation system to terrorise free peasants. Drinkwater sees problems with this when it is set against the evidence provided by Salvian. The acquaintances of his that joined the Bacaudae were not the tied peasantry but rather �the better born and well-educated�. This leads to another hypothesis for the rise of the Bacaudae. That of long-distance migration of people from parts of Gaul damaged or threatened by barbarian invasion or civil war. These were varied people; some poor while others would have survived with a significant proportion of their wealth. This latter group would have attempted to purchase land in southern Gaul. This created a rising demand for land together with the afore-mentioned competition for labour. This option would not have been open for freely to simple peasants. Who would have been bound both psychologically and economically to their land. This model is also fraught with difficulty as it fails to explain who the Bacaudae actually were and how they may be conceived as providing a haven for refugee gentry. The model proposed by Drinkwater is that they moved to �non-Roman� regions. These could have been outside the new boundaries of the reduced Empire or nominally so but without real Roman control and with the look of a barbarian region to those still in areas under Roman control. The leaders of these Bacaudae were the crucial people, but they would have had their dependants, both free (coloni) and slave. These people formed the majority of the community, but followed those that they had for generations for whatever reason. Samson cites Alfody (1985: 191) in saying that the difference between slavery and free coloni now had only a theoretical importance. Samson asserts that the definition of slavery must be complex, involving much more than legal and social disabilities. Samson would argue that in Gaul the majority of agricultural labourers were slaves. This is in disagreement with other commentators who claim that they were coloni. Despite this, Samson says that their number was declining in the fifth century. New slaves came from either warfare or from the free either �voluntarily� or illegally. The poor submitted themselves to the patronage of the rich but by pledging them their land; those that had lost all fled only to become slaves on new estates. Cameron sees this as important as well: �Coloni� could be treated as if they were slaves.� The distinction appeared to be shrinking. He also stresses how coloni fled in order to escape the poll tax. It is also important to remember that there are important regional differences throughout the still very large Roman Empire. The phenomenon of bandits was not limited to the Bacaudae. It was a widespread phenomenon throughout the Roman Empire. This was a common method for discontented peoples to free themselves from the harsh environments that they had lived in. It normally, though not exclusively, meant living outside the established society. They would live in the regions outside the densely populated areas, such as the mountainous regions in Cilicia described by Hopwood. These people could often represent local values, though this wasn�t always the case. The idea that they were completely free from the local aristocracy is erroneous. Hopwood cites Block and Lewin as showing that successful bandits were dependent on the help of landlords and local administrative officials. They provided the service of being the strong-arm protection for the landlords. The landlords would then recompense them in feeding and paying them for this role. In conclusion, though the lot of the peasants was a difficult one, there was some freedom and opportunity to attempt to improve their lot. These options were either within or without the law. The law was becoming increasingly irrelevant in certain areas with the retreat of the Roman Empire�s jurisdiction. These options were always fraught with risk, and the psychological nature of peasants was to remain in their ancestral regions. This was bound together with the need to avoid separation of families, which could happen with recourse to banditry or entering slavery. Migration was very difficult with the rigidity of the hierarchical system. There is much more to be written on this topic, but space is limited. Bibliography A. Cameron, the Later Roman Empire. B. K. Hopwood, �Bandits, elites and rural order�, in A. Wallace-Hadrill (ed.) Patronage in Ancient Society. C. J. Drinkwater, �Patronage in Roman Gaul and the problem of the Bagaudae�, Wallace-Hadrill, Patronage. D. Drinkwater and R. Samson, Fifth Century Gaul � A Crisis of Identity?
