Talk:Latifundium

Latifundia in modern Italy?

Where? 87.221.112.118 (talk) 21:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, how to illustrate this:

1. Came to page with a small definition of the Latin term, and a horribly written attack on large American farms.
2. Tried fixing spelling and adding NPOV, then pondered deleting it altogether. Decided to check edit history, whee, there used to be a LOT more here; the anti-corporate guy just wanted to push his POV at the expense of actual information.
3. Reverted to before he nuked the rest of the data and fixed the spelling.
4. Still, the final paragraph might reek a bit of POV, so I wanted others to examine it first.

--Golbez 22:28, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Landholding reassignments doubtful

"The Reconquista of Muslim territories in the Iberian Peninsula provided the Christian kingdoms with sudden extensions of land that they ceded to nobility and military orders to exploit as latifundia." Is is not simply the holder of the Roman latifundia that changes? Is there a redistribution of latifundia to peasant small holders at any point in the sequence Baetica=> Visigoths=>al-Andalus=>Christian Andalusia? When lands are "given", it is with the people that "belong" to it. --Wetman 04:29, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Contemporary Economic Parallel

The parallel between the development of the latifundia, and the subsequent economic system engendered in the Empire, and the processes currently changing and defining the global (especially and most radically the American) economic structure bears mention. I am not saying it should be the major poin tof the article, far from it. However the connection is relevant, and should be tied in; perhaps as a transition to a link to plantation capitalism? -6/11/07 Bordergroves

plural?

Why is this article written in plural? We don't make an article called "forests", we make one called "forest". We don't make an article called "beaches", we make one called "beach". This article *should* be called "latifundium" and be written in singular. Anyone who disagrees? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.196.111.13 (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Moved to Latifundium December 07 2009 0630 Meversbergii (talk) 11:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Restored "Ancient Greece" section which had been deleted with no reason being given.

I've put this section back. Some of its statements could be better supported, and it may be that its text would be better incorporated into the preceding "Ancient Rome" section, but I'll leave those matters to editors more knowledgeable about the subject. The simple deletion of the entire section by an anonymous IP with no reason given looked to me more like vandalism than a well-intentioned edit. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 06:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

economic efficiency ?

The article implies that slave labor, on Latifundia, was more productive (tons of crops per laborer), than free labor, on (typically) smaller farms. Inexpertly, Latifundia slave labor was exploited; their effective "wages" were below free-market levels; leaving Latifundia higher profits, compared to free labor. Perhaps an expert could clarify, whether Latifundia labor productivity was actually higher... or merely profitability (due to the exploitation, of slave labor)? 24.56.197.47 (talk) 08:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)