Archaeologica.org

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 161122.htm

ScienceDaily (Oct. 6, 2009) — Using a mathematical model to predict population trends based on ancient coin hoards, a UConn biologist and a Stanford University historian have concluded that the population of ancient Rome was smaller than sometimes suggested.

Say what?

Nah,

They were just poor.

They were just poor.

I was gonna make the same observation. How the hell some people get paid for these ideas I'll never know.

Roy.

kbs2244 wrote:Nah,

They were just poor.

That's pretty much it, kb. Beginning in the mid second century BC Rome due to amazing expansion was full of slaves. The upper classes bought up small farms and created huge estates which were worked by the slaves. The displaced population moved to the city where they became the urban mob which was a political factor for the rest of the Republican period. Quickly pissing away whatever money they had gotten for their land they lived on the public dole.

The first century BC had a number of serious military problem in Italy, not the least of which were the Social Wars, Spartacus' revolt, and 3 civil wars. The poor did not have to worry about burying their hoards but the upper classes did.

How anyone can make a connection between population size and what has been found is simply beyond me. What about the ones that haven't been found? What about ones that were found in antiquity?

And presumably some would have been recovered by the owners of course.
It's ridiculous!

Roy.

Most I should think. The Romans were not a Columbian drug cartel. Even if a man was executed (or given the choice of suicide) his family was usually left alone.