Talk:Roman commerce

Untitled

Potentially an enormous subject, and one often neglected. The article needs plenty of work. There's been little attention paid to internal markets, and the role of the military has been sidelined, apparently in favour of the exotic and exceptional. Citations are few (and not to standard format), and none are inline. So, is anyone interested (as I am) in improving it? Haploidavey (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Correction - one ref is inline, but "aristocratic trade" was not prohibited in theory. It was menial and unworthy of an aristocrat, which is rather different. The aristocracy were deeply but indirectly involved. Haploidavey (talk) 17:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Quick edit to add in a section on the elite and their involvement with trade which is complex and still not fully understood. As with most classical studies it is subjective, so I have added in appropriate sources. Hopefully they will allow readers to draw their own conclusions after reading the resources. Please bare with me, that was my first edit on Wikipedia [[1]] 13.02 13.03.13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarenale (talk • contribs) 00:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Roman commerce. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060728215936/http://ourworld-top.cs.com/latintexts/m305.htm to http://ourworld-top.cs.com/latintexts/m305.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:08, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Commercial Classes

The claims made in this section (Commercial Classes) can not be objectively proven. It's just an opinion. A very absurd opinion, considering the high technological status of Rome. I suggest deleting the section. NomenNominandum (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Tajotep, why was my edit deleted? It is rude to act this way without leaving any comment. I consider the information in this section flawed and propose deletion. NomenNominandum (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

The source is good, but is misrepresented in the section text. And "commercial classes" is something of a misnomer; most Romans engaged in trade and commerce might equally be from the plebeian, freedman and equestrian social classes. Open involvement/engagement in trade was rather sneered at by the highest social echelons whose wealth ultimately depended on trade, mostly agricultural (but see Patronage in ancient Rome). Haploidavey (talk) 15:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

By the way, it's fine to represent opinion and interpretation, as long as they accurately represent the cited, scholarly sources used in the article. I agree that the section should go; it's made redundant by the very first section of the article. Haploidavey (talk) 16:00, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

In general, the article's not at all in good shape. Haploidavey (talk) 16:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

@NomenNominandum: Yes, I left a comment: No one has discussed it. In this case, you did it well because there was a discussion here and here. I don't know if the section is redundant, but the reason you gave wasn't accurate. Tajotep (talk) 22:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I did not see the comment. Maybe it was added later (if that's possible), maybe I missed it. There were no objections to my suggestion to delete the section, I saw that as a consent.

Rome was the most technologically developed country in the world. Many sources can prove this. The theory that Rome is not investing in more technology because of cheap labor is wrong. Empirical research disproved this theory. All statements by Mr. Haywood are therefore proven to be wrong. In addition, this passage is written in a way that suggests this opinion (by Haywood) is an irrefutable fact. The section should at least be written as follows: "According to Mr. Haywood, one of the factors behind the surprising lack of technological innovation in the empire was probably ....". NomenNominandum (talk) 06:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

References