The cura annonae went way beyond the “bread and circuses” claim and was a pretty important thing in the lives of the plebs. It was also expected. Juvenal mocked it as “bread and circuses,” but there would have been both riots and probably mass starvation without it.
In 22 AD, Augustus’ successor Tiberius publicly acknowledged the Cura Annonae as a personal and imperial duty, which if neglected would cause “the utter ruin of the state”.
Now it is true that the cura annonae would be increased in order to gain favor or quell the populace for one reason or other, but that’s not the same thing.
As far as the “circuses,” free entertainment for the masses is not exactly capitalistic either. And it’s not like it was a one-time thing. That was true for centuries. And remember the free entertainment wasn’t just gladiatorial combat. It was also things like chariot racing and theater.
On top of that, there was massive investment in public artworks. Artworks that were designed specifically to glorify the empire and its leaders. That sounds positively Soviet to me.
As far as the “circuses,” free entertainment for the masses is not exactly capitalistic either. And it’s not like it was a one-time thing. That was true for centuries. And remember the free entertainment wasn’t just gladiatorial combat. It was also things like chariot racing and theater.
Only some seats were subsidized or free; many seat tickets would have been paid, as in the modern day. A lot of the time, free games and entertainment were done by private politicians as a form of political advertisement - “I, Gaius Julius Caesar, have spent my own money to provide entertainment to the good people of Rome! Please take note I’m running for office in a few months’ times!” Even after all meaningful political power had been centered in the position of the Emperor, such popular support remained important in political jockeying for the Emperor’s favor.
On top of that, there was massive investment in public artworks. Artworks that were designed specifically to glorify the empire and its leaders. That sounds positively Soviet to me.
Ah, that’s a curious thing there - there are certainly examples of imperial-funded art and architecture for the purpose of glorifying the state (and also for some Roman legal oddities), but much of it was in the tradition of Greek euergetism - ie the ultra-rich funded such things both to show the poor why they shouldn’t kill them, and to suck up to the powers-that-be. Much of the time, there are inscriptions or plaques on major works like that that will say things like “Tiberius Flavius Aurelius and his two daughters paid for and dedicate this statue of the Emperor to the Res Publica, the people of the town, and to our fair and noble Emperor himself!” And the money acquired in order to make such ‘magnanimous’ donations? Usually quite commercial in origin.
The cura annonae went way beyond the “bread and circuses” claim and was a pretty important thing in the lives of the plebs. It was also expected. Juvenal mocked it as “bread and circuses,” but there would have been both riots and probably mass starvation without it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cura_annonae
As it says in that link:
Now it is true that the cura annonae would be increased in order to gain favor or quell the populace for one reason or other, but that’s not the same thing.
As far as the “circuses,” free entertainment for the masses is not exactly capitalistic either. And it’s not like it was a one-time thing. That was true for centuries. And remember the free entertainment wasn’t just gladiatorial combat. It was also things like chariot racing and theater.
On top of that, there was massive investment in public artworks. Artworks that were designed specifically to glorify the empire and its leaders. That sounds positively Soviet to me.
Only some seats were subsidized or free; many seat tickets would have been paid, as in the modern day. A lot of the time, free games and entertainment were done by private politicians as a form of political advertisement - “I, Gaius Julius Caesar, have spent my own money to provide entertainment to the good people of Rome! Please take note I’m running for office in a few months’ times!” Even after all meaningful political power had been centered in the position of the Emperor, such popular support remained important in political jockeying for the Emperor’s favor.
Ah, that’s a curious thing there - there are certainly examples of imperial-funded art and architecture for the purpose of glorifying the state (and also for some Roman legal oddities), but much of it was in the tradition of Greek euergetism - ie the ultra-rich funded such things both to show the poor why they shouldn’t kill them, and to suck up to the powers-that-be. Much of the time, there are inscriptions or plaques on major works like that that will say things like “Tiberius Flavius Aurelius and his two daughters paid for and dedicate this statue of the Emperor to the Res Publica, the people of the town, and to our fair and noble Emperor himself!” And the money acquired in order to make such ‘magnanimous’ donations? Usually quite commercial in origin.