[Michaeluj]

The Roman Emperors owned the conquered land. They could sell it to citizens who could pay the highest prices. That means that the wealthist traders and moneylenders became the major landowners. What are the costs and benifits of such a system? Did it mean that labor could be placed more efficiantly as different types of workers can be moved to places where they would work more efficiantly instead of being forced to live only in vacent plots at the benifit of lots of small landowners who seriously prefer to keep their homes? Was such a system of government landowning even necessary in an economic and not imperial point of view? By not imperial, I don't want to discuss the fact that land was used as a tool to get soldiers and conquered leaders to trade service for wealth.

[Varilion]

I am not sure to have understand correctly what you asked...

From an economic point of view, objective should be maximize production, overall because we are talking about agricular economy, so food production.
Really I think that the best is a mix of little property and big latifunds (not too big, in order to avoid waste of land).

But you should consider that not all roman empire was managed at same way, or not all at same time, there were big difference from rich ad high populated areas like Latium or conquested lands like britain..

From what i remeber work-force were moved into Italy (the "core" of the empire) to work in latifunds, while middle-high class "business man" moved to provinces to get lands and improves his economic condition.

[Kiroff]

Emperors didn't really care about costs and benefits of their system in terms of productivity per square mile, they only cared that the highest possible amount of money comes in so that they are able to build themselves more shit and throw a bone to the plebs. And the way to get the most money was by auctioning their conquered lands off to the highest bidder, so that there is a rigid class system in place in conquered lands to avoid rebellions by enterprising rulers. There wasn't actual nationalism back then, just a figurative push for feudalism and every subject ruler wanted to be his own king. Also, the people who worked the land weren't workers, they were actual slaves, who were property of their owners.

As for the land-owning system, it was the most reliable as the emperor had direct control over it, unlike vassal states. By the time the empire declined, the plantations became manors though as the landowners and governors no longer had the imperial authority to deal with, and became masters of their own domain, especially as links with Rome became severed.

And yeah, economically, it was pretty necessary, as their choice was

a) not conquer the land
b) make the land a vassal state
c) conquer the land and get a healthy, continuous return on that investment

The Roman Empire's principle was conquering the lands, spending the money earned from it, conquering more lands. That's why Pax Romana was the beginning of the end - the Empire continued to increase demand for stuff, social unrest increased the role of food handouts, games, etc., while progress stalled both technologically, as the empire lacked the necessary social organization, making technological innovation difficult, due to lack of necessity, and expansion-wise, as Rome stopped growing and maintenance costs increased.

[Dave]

Just a quite note, Kiroff, agricultural productivity in Roman times was very high. Due to the Latifundia system one agricultural worker produced enough food to technically feed 30 people, a ratio which would not be reached again until the 19th century. Later on soil erosion caused by excessive deforestation caused agricultural productivity to decline.

[Kiroff]

Ah, interesting, didn't know that tid-bit. I guess then it's both that there was no need to improve agriculture and that they had no idea(or didn't think it was of importance) of the consequences of having unsustainable agricultural habits.

Though there is still the factor of the barbarian invasions and imperial collapse that made latifundia unsustainable, due to the falling demand from Rome, no? I mean feeding a city of 700 000 and a city of 30 000 isn't the same, even after the grain-rich Egypt was lost to Constantinople, as population continued to decrease.

[filerba]

Where are you getting that number, Dave? I could believe that a model plantation did that well, if it were on the best land and worked the slaves to death a rapid rate. Hard to compare productivity of free/serf workers with slaves that must be constantly replaced. Though I guess killing all the people is efficient because it keeps you from needing to expand onto worse land.

Medieval technology wasn't flashy like the Romans'. But they had better plows, better animal harnesses, etc.

Edit:
This is only secondary research, but this page says 80 to 90% of the empire's population was in agriculture.
http://www.cambridge.org/asia/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780511133510&ss=exc

[Thunderhawk]

Are you using modern or historical definitions for the agriculture industry?

Many industries were directly reliant on agriculture for their raw material. Now we consider them a seperate industry (trade, manufacturing) but did the Roman consider tanners, butcher, bakers and candle stick makers a seperate group from agriculture?