Provincializing Rome: The Indian Ocean Trade Network and Roman Imperialism

Abstract

In conquering Egypt, the Roman Empire secured direct access to the centuries-old Indian Ocean trade network that in Roman times brought together China, India, Southeast Asia, Parthia, Arabia, and Africa as well as the Roman Mediterranean. Far from being a product of Schumpeterian objectless expansion, Rome's conquest of Egypt fit into a broader strategic logic that sought to extend Roman control over eastern entrepôts. Despite its centrality to the Mediterranean wing of the world economy and its ability to extract surplus from its own provinces, the hub of this global economy remained India, whose linchpin emporia were able to extract surplus from the Roman Empire.

Sendera-clandi (Xenostegia tridentata, Convolvulaceae): A medicinal creeper

“…The Incense and Silk Routes are unquestionably the best known, but there were other roads carrying traders within and between continents (MetMuseum 2013). These included the Grand Trunk Road, connecting Calcutta in India to Peshawar in Pakistan (Kipling 1901, Sarkar 1926, the Trans-Saharan trade routes in northern Africa (Baiera 1977, Law 1967, Lydon 2009, and the Roman-India routes (Fitzpatrick 2011, Parker 2008, Pollard 2013). These networks were often interconnected and moved items great distances.…”

Balancing the Trade: Roman Cargo Shipments toIndia

“…Recently, these figures have tended to be regarded as fitting into a broader moralizing topos , common in ancient sources, about the negative effects of spending wealth on luxuria (Raschke , 605, 634–5; Sidebotham , 46; , 246; Young , 205; Fitzpatrick , 32). This seems correct, given frequent complaints (exaggerated or not) about the dissipation of the elites' patrimonia , especially on women's finery, which Tiberius purportedly complained was the cause of the outflow of wealth to foreigners and enemies (Tacitus, Ann.…”

“…2.5.12) about 120 vessels sailing annually to India that Pliny's figures look plausible (Parker , 186). In addition to this, Fitzpatrick (, 31) suggests that 100 million sesterces would only represent 1 per cent of Roman GDP (of an estimated 10 billion sesterces).…”

“…It has frequently been argued that the Roman Empire relied heavily upon the export of gold and silver (as coins/bullion), principally to southern India, in the belief that many Indian cultures were less willing to accept Roman wares (see, for example, Warmington , 271–318; Miller , 216–22; Raschke , 672–3; Casson , 30–1; P. Gupta , 125). More recently, some scholars, though accepting that a certain outflow took place, downplay its significance by suggesting that the Roman Empire had sufficient supplies of bullion/coins and lost more to other regions like central and eastern Europe (Tchernia , 1003; Young , 203–4, 270–2; McLaughlin , 168–9; Fitzpatrick , 34, 49). Another assumption connected to this is that in either volume or value, the Roman Empire imported more than it exported, consequently suffering a trade imbalance with India, and other eastern societies.…”

“…Another assumption connected to this is that in either volume or value, the Roman Empire imported more than it exported, consequently suffering a trade imbalance with India, and other eastern societies. This notion has persisted both in older and in more recent scholarship (see, for example, West , 47–8; P. Thomas , 8; Warmington , 293, 313–18; Rostovtzeff (revised by Fraser) , 67, 97; Miller , 20, 222; Raschke , 632–65, 650, 669; Singh , 2, 98; Casson , 17–18; Thapar , 243; Strauss , 251, 264; Parker , 183–6; Smith , 97–8; Seland , 53; Fitzpatrick , 31–2, 48, 53–4); although some have shown scepticism about whether such a position can be taken without detailed statistics, or any sense that the Romans conceived of the idea of a balance of trade (Sidebotham , 245–9).…”