Replies

Among various articles I encountered after Googling “Rigid class structure in Roman times”, I found the following article which somewhat condenses but pretty well summarizes what I was talking about. I learned of this situation while reading a historical novel of early Great Britain. I also include some quotes from the article:

http://www.saylor.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/HST301-7.3.2-Economy-FINAL.pdf

The Roman government itself did not collect the taxes; this would have been too complex and difficult an operation for the resources of the ancient government. Instead, the responsibility fell on the curial class. Curiales were members of local city councils, and in order to build prestige among their citizens and demonstrate their fitness to rule, they often paid out of pocket for the construction of temples, the sponsorship of games, and other things that benefited their citizens. The Roman government required them to pay the tax burden of their cities out of their own pockets in exchange for the right to pass on the taxes to their people. Essentially, the Roman government made the curiales their tax collectors. If they fell short of collecting what their city owed in taxes, they would have to make up the difference with their own money. Thus, membership in
the curial class could be financially ruinous, and many tried to escape by enrolling in positions that granted exemptions from curial responsibilities, such as the army, the imperial bureaucracy, or the Church. By the sixth century...As the curial class disappeared, the responsibility of governing cities, as well as raising funds to forward to the government, fell to the Church and local bishops.

In order to ensure that land was farmed and that taxes and a steady supply of grain was sustained, the Roman state bound tenant farmers to the soil for life. These farmers were known as coloni, and they were legally required to remain on the land as farmers. Their children were required to follow them in working this land. Though they were forced to work the land, usually on a larger estate belonging to a wealthy land owner, they were not slaves. Coloni were legally entitled to the land they worked, and thus coloni could not be moved or sold as slaves could. [Like serfs of Middle Ages and Russia]

He (Diocletian) also began a gradual process of tying workers to certain industries for life and required that their sons follow them in the trade, much like coloni. The basis of this reform was the collegia, or guilds, that had operated as social or fraternal organizations of workers. The Roman government made membership in these organizations obligatory and required that members remain in their industry and supply some portion of their production to the state, typically at a much lower price than normal. This was designed to ensure that goods and
commodities deemed essential—such as weapons, armor, bread, clothes, etc.—would be available. Though normally a worker was required to remain in the collegia for life and be succeeded by his son, it is clear that this was often not the case, and the government had a great deal of trouble enforcing this system.

Thanks g! The guilds of medieval Europe are rooted in Roman times. The coloni deal sounds like a pretty good one, and must have been good enough to attract colonists to the frontiers. As one ancient wag wrote, he had to leave Rome and travel in the provinces to hear Latin spoken. OTOH, it appears that it was not necessarily as advertised, and “they were not slaves” doesn’t ring true. During the imperial period there was massive upward mobility, which is another reason the landed, hereditary aristocracy were such strong supporters of the fake republic that the glimmerings of enfranchisement and political equality led them to commit murders on the Senate floor.