ABSTRACT
Reading the work of ancient historians on the Roman economy, we are presented with a paradoxical situation. All historians recognise that the Roman state was involved in the development of an extensive transport network of roads from the fourth century bc. The purpose of these roads is seen by many historians to have been political and militaristic, and even later as having no significant economic impact (Finley 1973, 126–7). The reason for this explanation is given in terms of the cost of transport by land in comparison to the far cheaper forms of transport by river or sea (Finley 1973, 126–7; Duncan-Jones 1974, 1; Garnsey and Sailer 1987, 44, 90). This paradoxical situation of high investment in the transport infrastructure and seemingly high cost of land transportation relative to sea and river transport costs has led many historians to view Roman Italy and the Roman Mediterranean generally as dependent on the sea as the primary form of transportation for most agricultural produce. This generally held view of Roman economic practice is repeated at conferences and seminars with an almost doctrinal regularity, in spite of criticism (notably by Hopkins 1978, 107; and Isager and Skydsgaard 1992, 106). However, no overall reassessment of the role of land transport in the economy has been made and it is with this end in mind that this chapter has been written.
