Did you read/own the book mentionned ?
The book excerpt from 1870 you referenced also says : "The usual amount of the tax was one for every thousand of a man's fortune" and "When this tax was to be paid, what sum was to be raised, and what portion of every thousand asses of the census, were matters upon which the senate alone had to decide".
In short, it is a direct taxation based on the fortune of the citizens according to the census.[/QUOTE]
I referenced the text because it demonstrates your post content to be in error, and this was know hundreds of years ago by people intrested in it.
You are referring here to the tributum(s) after the Augustus reforms, not the tributum under the Republic..
To counter your post claim there was only tributum.
To sum up, you are saying that
Nathan Rosenstein, that I am quoting is wrong ?
he is mostly correct.* You are mostly incorrect. Your selective chery picking of quotes is instructive.
Your basic premise, from a polityical viepoint that is not universal, is that the roman economy was not a slave based economy, this contradicts how its taught in most of the world.
https://www.princeton.edu/~pswpc/pdfs/scheidel/110504.pdf http://spartacus-educational.com/ROMslaves.htm
https://www.cambridge.org/core/book...nomy/slavery/1F6C1039F0EEA8A82EF8BEA8C413D4A1
Walter Scheidel
Slaves, numbering in the millions and widely dispersed, accounted for a non-trivial share of its total population. In key areas, slaves were not merely present but supported what has been termed a ‘slave mode of production,’ a mode that rested both on an integrated system of enslavement, slave trade, and slave employment in production, and on “the systematic subjection of slaves to the control of their masters in the process of production and reproduction.” Most importantly, Rome counts as a slave society in terms of the structural location of slavery: dominant groups, once again above all at the core, relied to a significant degree on slave labor to generate surplus and maintain their position of dominance. Since the role of slavery in central productive processes turned Rome into a ‘slave economy,’ just as the widespread domination of slaves as a primary social relationship made it a ‘slave society,’ these two terms may be used interchangeably, especially in those strata where slaves and ex-slaves continuously enveloped owners and patrons and mediated their interaction with the freeborn population. In short, Rome was a ‘slave society’ to the extent that without slavery it would have looked profoundly different.
No, Roman citizens no longer paid direct taxes after 167 BC, not Italians. This is an important distinction as the Socii/allied cities were still subjected to a stipendium.
https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/29509/MA THESIS final v Lina Girdvainyte 1254707.pdf?sequence=1 Page 24
Italians were Roman citizens, and exempt.
Endless misquotes because you barley know the subject matter is not going to work here either.
So you tried this on
https://www.reddit.com/r/paradoxplaza/comments/8wi19m/rome_was_not_a_slaveeconomy/ and by and large got told your wrong historicly and inpretation of game design, so you came here to post the same thing. How sad.
*Wealth is not a good predictor of the extent of slave-ownership
Possibly, but it is a better predictor than poverty. The poor lacking the wealth to aquire human property as o[posed to those with that wealth able to do so. We know the wealthy owned slaves and were taxed for the sacred treasury at 5% for manumission of slaves, and this vast wealth was used from time to time, from it we can adduce the rate of manumsion, so from a tax on manumision of an asset freed from bondage, and thus the loss of the economic output to the owner,we can see the game models social mobility, we know the poor could not afford to loose such and economic asset, because if they had it they would not be poor in the first place.
Also we have a primary sourc e, Athenaeus telling us that slave ownership was to demonstrate your wealth.Slavery was the most common formal, legally enforceable long-term labor contract in the early Roman Empire. A person with a long-term relation to a principal would be his or her most responsible agent, and slaves were at least as valuable as free men for commercial agents, shown by the frequent references to slave agents in the surviving sources (A. Watson, 1987, p. 7; Lintott, 2002).
So from that you think the subdivision into 4 pop groups means all economies operate as a slave economy, instead of it being divided into workers/warriors+workers/warriors/thinker=commerce with state income being generated in 3 of those sub sets of population.
What i think is that there is a mechanic for all economies, in which currently all population is divided into 4 classes, with a mechnism for upward and downward social mobility in that economic system, and natural increase to one pop class to grow at a time and a further mechanism where conquered peoples, captives through warfare, come in at the bottom level of classes, going to the to Capital and provincial capitals. In addition, cities that are taking into your control, the top two classes drop down a level. Further its entirly moddable to have more pop classes. We are told you can have upward social mobility from one class to another, by state action to achieve a change in outputs of pop classes, and downward mobility of other cultures that are incorporated into your culture.
Each class of pop provides different outputs, commerce,research/manpower/manpower,tax/tax.
Lowest class is the slave class, but is that all it represents?, is it not also the lowest level of society in any of the cultures being represented?, if it is only slaves their economic output is for the benifit of the owner, and represeted at state level as income for the state, the relative rate of state income is not provided by the 3 pop base units that generate income, so your entire rant has no merit.
