The utter ruin of the state: Rome and the Cura Annonae

This post is part of our series looking at lessons from history to the challenges facing us today.

Bread had always played an important role in the politics of the Roman Republic. The Populares had always championed some form of bread or grain provision by the state as a means of supporting the city’s population in the face of high and variable prices (and as a means of securing their own support.) The provision of grain and the means of acquiring it at the expense of the Senatorial classes had been one of the main causes of conflict between the Gracchi brothers and their Optimates opponents – a conflict which would eventually lead to their assassination.

Despite initially being controversial when first introduced, the rapidly growing population of Rome, the frequent price spikes and shortages brought about by threats to key sources of grain such as Sicily and the lure of political advantages from Securing Popular Support meant that before the end of the Republic bread and grain handouts had become a standard feature of Roman life and politics.

The poorest elements of Rome were in this way effectively brought wholesale into the patronage systems of the Roman ruling classes. In return for continued supplies of bread (and occasional circuses to be sure) they were expected to act publicly and vociferously as clients to their patrons in control of the state who could reasonably regard them as bought and paid for.

The bread dole, by now formally known as the Cura Annonae (named after a Roman goddess of grain), went on to become a permanent feature of the Roman Empire, one which went on to require a colossal logistical operation: growing or purchasing grain across the whole Mediterranean (but particularly in Egypt), transporting it by ship up to Rome, milling it, baking it and then distributing it to approximately 200,000 of Rome’s million citizens every day. All of this was overseen by a massive bureaucracy headed by a senior Roman official.

So whilst the handouts played an important role in supporting the Emperor’s popularity in the capital, and even became a core part of the Imperial cult, the sheer cost, scale and complexity of the Cura Annonae became a massive drain on the time and energy of the Government. Indeed, Tiberius Caesar went on to describe it as “the utter ruin of the state.”

Yet with such strong expectations having been developed around its continuing even the strongest willed Caesars decided against removing it.

There were many reasons why the bread dole ended up becoming such an overwhelming feature and burden of the Empire. Obviously political expediency and a desire to gain popularity played a big role – yet behind this it cannot be denied that there was a persistent demand amongst the plebeians for something like this long before it became established – clearly there were socio-economic factors at play too.

Most obviously was the fact that Rome had high and persistent levels of unemployment and under-employment. Despite efforts by both Julius and Augustus Caesar to discourage less well off members of society from moving to or staying in the capital this remained a feature as people travelled from all over the peninsula in search of better prospects.

Behind the lack of prospects was the rise throughout the late stages of the Republic and the early empire in the use of slave labour – not just for agricultural or construction work but increasingly over time for what in most societies are considered more professional and middle-class roles – such as administrators, clerks, ships captains and teachers.

As a result small-holders throughout the peninsula got squeezed out of land, and despite the incredible wealth of the aristocratic families it became hard for a professional or mercantile class to develop under them, to accumulate wealth and ultimately to drive both demand for more goods and services and to drive the innovation and enterprise needed to create the industries which could have supplied this. Industries which would in turn have soaked up large numbers of labourers and resulted in an upward drift in incomes, thus generating further industries.

That small number of Roman citizens who were able to accumulate capital did not take the lead in developing new industries and sources of wealth either. Most commonly these aristocratic families would use their wealth competing with one another under the patronage system in securing popular support – and increasingly the support of other key influential figures or institutions – such as the Praetorian Guard under the Empire.

When wealth was put to productive use it would be invested in purchasing overseas holding – or lands expropriated from political enemies – this, especially the former, had some positive net economic impact but in the long-term all it was dependent on the availability of new opportunities overseas. Even when these dried up there were very few examples of these families repatriating wealth to intensify domestic production.

In addition, many of the most productive resources and lands of the empire, which could reasonably have been expected to have provided outlets for Rome’s unsustainable population in the form of colonies and settlements, where in the dead hand of the Empire itself and its administration, which showed remarkable little appetite to explore and exploit these opportunities.

Throughout history this is the process which has kept large non-agrarian societies in balance. There must be scope for advancement, progress and innovation – with people able to aspire to move up in society, to accumulate wealth and to spend or invest it,  in turn creating more employment and investment opportunities for others, moving forward like a man on a bike, or else the whole vehicle comes to a halt and collapses.

Instead, with too few engaging in productive industry, too few creating opportunities for others and Rome continuing to show a remarkable capacity for finding new ways for self-enrichment and corruption the whole of the Empire was in a sense becoming an extension of the patronage system.

The result was frequent implosion, division, tumult and civil war – most famously in the later stages of the Republic but also, other than during the reigns of a handful of competent Caesars, during the Empire itself, especially during frequent times of succession.

The only particularly remarkable thing about all of this is that somehow, against the odds and with such massive structural flaws and no willingness to correct them, that Rome lasted as long as it did before eventual collapse.

It is worth reflecting from our own perspective on how our own structural flaws and weaknesses, as well as our own politicians’ willingness to engage in forms of patronage and populism has led to the rise of something similar to the Cura Annonae – with potentially equally ruinous consequences.

It is notable how in much of the West a cult of dependency and clientage has been developing throughout most of the post-War period with an ever widening list of handouts and universal benefits – all of which are much easier to agree to from a political perspective than taking on the tougher underlying structural challenges we face.

We have found our own sources of cheap labour in the form of mass migration, we have made it increasingly harder and more bureaucratic for people wishing to innovate or engage in start-ups and enterprise and we have become increasingly risk-averse, suffocating many new ideas and potential new industries.

Government patronage has of course reached new heights during the economic emergency created by the Government’s Covid response – handouts for individuals and whole sectors have proliferated and an almost entirely unchallenged media narrative has emerged – that as soon as a new problem or challenge emerges, that more Government handouts are needed.

Given the structural under-investment in energy (mostly resulting from the Government’s own policies and hostility to most forms of energy and energy innovation) we are now seeing an inevitable rise in energy prices – and as The Torch predicted, calls for Government handouts.

The question has to be, with our Cura Annonae now taking hold – how are we going to avoid the ruin of the state? And will we be as lucky as the Romans in avoiding ruin for as long as they did?