The Insane Wealth of the Roman Empire
Vložit
- čas přidán 27. 05. 2024
- The Roman Empire's Economy was Massive and Elusive. Through trade, markets, warfare, and finance The Roman Economy provided a standard of living for some that would not be matched again until the emergence of modern national economies in the 17th century. In this video we cover and overview the early empires economy, its workings and structure, compare it to other ancient and modern economies and discuss its major limitations and inequalities.
-Contents of this video-------------------------------
00:00 - The Roman Empire's Economy
01:13 - Evidence of Economic Activity
04:49 - Structure of the Economy
06:20 - Roman Markets
07:23 - Roman Banking
08:01 - Roman Warfare
08:36 - The Size of the Roman Economy
09:50 - Income's by Class
10:22 - Inequality in the Roman Empire
11:56 - Standards of Living
15:07 - Technological Advancements/Productivity
16:01 - The Shortcomings of the Economy
19:37 - Summary and Final Thoughts
Support the Channel! / casualscholar
-Other Videos You May Enjoy!--------------------
-The Soviet Economy Explained: • Soviet Style Economics...
-Fastest Growing Economy Ever: • Why Botswana Is the Fa...
-Sources used--------------------------------------------
-Acemoglu, Daron, and James A Robinson. 2012. Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity and Poverty (1st). 1st ed. New York: Crown, 529.
-Temin, Peter, “The Economy of the Early Roman Empire.” The Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 20, no. 1, American Economic Association, 2006, pp. 133-51. www.jstor.org/stable/30033637.
-Scheidel, Walter, and Friesen, Steven J., “The Size of the Economy and the Distribution of Income in the Roman Empire.” The Journal of Roman Studies, vol. 99, [Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies, Cambridge University Press], 2009, pp. 61-91. www.jstor.org/stable/40599740.
-Harris, W. V., 2011. "Rome's Imperial Economy: Twelve Essays," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199595167.
-Milanovic, Branko, Lindert, Peter, and Williamson, Jeffrey. 2007. “MEASURING ANCIENT INEQUALITY” NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138
#RomanEmpire #RomanEmpireEconomy #RomanEconomy #RomanEconomics #Economics
Reply to this comment and I will respond! Did you enjoy the video, and do you have any information that you felt was left our or missing from the analysis?
YES! Just recently found this chanel but the quality is very good i hope those almost 10k subs soon become some 100k this chanel has a lot of potential
this particular video stand out for me in topic and structure and would be interesting to continue it with eastern roman and feudal europe, there are not enough information on historical economics out there!
i think that nothing is missing for the duration of the video, i tend to listen podcast of tens hours about history that may deep dive on some point on the economic of x civilization and some oddities but this video is very complete and well organized to give a representative look of clasical roman economy ( as far as i know of roman economy, im no historian just a historybuff ) it wouldnt be fair to compare the information able to fit in 20 mins with for example 'the fall of rome' of patrick wyman
the only criticism i can think of is that the roman economy becouse of spaning so much time and becouse of the changes it suffered over time specially the last centuries should have been exploried in more detail, and how the elites and other economic actors changed over time in its focus role and strategies. Again is not that is missing but it could help to organize the evolution of the roman economy better and reinforce what is said for people less familiarized with roman history
i very much enjoyed this video and would suggest a possible collab with Metatron .. cause .. he is cool that way ... and he may have informed things to say about the subject...
@Hans Layola Thank you!
@@jamesspinner7764 Really appreciate the kind words! Unfortunately probably cant get a Collab with only 10k subs but that would be amazing!
@@ferblancart8669 Wow, really appreciate such a nice comment, Glad you enjoyed and I think that's a fantastic idea! I also agree with your last point, I focused by attention on the early Roman economy as that's what I feel most comfortable talking about, I do think that part could have defiantly improved and therefore it would make sense for me to make a part two when I can do more research! I will defiantly look into the "fall of Rome", thanks for suggesting something I can look more into!
Reminds me of that meme
Modern historians: after reading multiple transcripts about the economics of the time and cross referencing them with other documents we still can't come to a conclusion on how things worked back in the day.
Ancient historian: my brothers' friends' cousin had a dream about how it happened.
all of bronze age's history is pretty much this lmao
Herodotus: Yes, I was there at the battle... some 50 km away, but a friend of a friend, who knows a duck that was there, vows that he, indeed, saw a dragon.
dont forget he was on shrooms before falling asleep
Modern historians are equally as unreliable. You have good and bad ones from every era. I mean they turned Cleopatra black and made her into an icon of feminism, backed by a ton of "historians".
While in history uni, I briefly studied the roman wheat economy during the 1st centuries BC and AD. And let me tell you, it was far more complex than what I could have expected. I might not remember everythingwell, but here you go :
You had several different models of centralized distribution depending on the province of origin. Sicily for instance was one of the biggest sources of grain, and a percentage of said grain was directly seized to be state property ; the rest was distributed to the rest of the market. The supplying wasn't directly made by the roman power though, but rather outsourced by third-party private companies, who had to bid for the lowest costs and profit rates ; the lowest and most credible bidder would gain the annual contract of exclusive rights to organize harvesting, transport and distribution. Problem is, these companies would often hold their cargo and let a few people starve in order to let the prices go up. This was also a big open window for corruption, and one of Cicero's first big cases as a lawyer was about that system. And that was just for Sicily! Imagine that intertwined in a complex, cross-continental economy, with million of lives at stake.
I can just only imagine the devastation a corrupt official in charge of the grain shipments from Egypt could cause given it was the biggest breadbasket and prize the Romans could ever ask for.
well nothing has changed haha
If I am not mistaken, the Romans had a similar system for their taxes
Cool
@@greeses5482 yes, they did
Though economic data is scarse for Ancient Rome to get a GDP, agriculture economies are basic enough that data from similar, more documented eras can help fill in the gaps.
We can't compare the GDP of agriculture economies to modern industrial economies, but it is amazing the production Rome was able to create.
This video was as entertaining as it was informative. Awesome.
Thank you Glad you enjoyed!!
Don't forget about the Abbasid Caliphate and Mughal empire
@@Uzair_Of_Babylon465 what?
Yes, but India and China had far larger economies and a higher GDP per capita
@@jasonhaven7170 source?
It should be illegal for someone that pumps out such high quality videos to have such few subs…. Great video once again good sir
Thank you! Really appreciate your support!
@@tim3837 lol the burden of proof is on you for such a serious claim
I agree so I subscribed
I have found the higher the data density, the less people seem interested. Instead they click on "What doctor's don't want you to know about bananas" link, which is generally information free. Saying that i want as much data as possible and this is a good analysis of the roman economic system, so i am happy.
jail him
"[Economic transactions of the era were recorded on a medium] which, while effective at the time, was extremely perishable," Economic historians of the 5000s trying to piece together what happened in the 2000s…
Bold of you to assume we as a species will make it to the year 5000. I give us another 1-2 hundred years at best. Tomorrow at worst if putin goes nuclear.
mm, to be fair, for millenia information was preserved via copying it over & over in writing, & digital fulfils that purpose more efficiently than ever making the preservation of information easy, it is though undoubtedly the case that in the last 2 decades a gargantuan amount of information has been outright lost instead of being preserved
@@Marcusjnmc none of these drives will be accessible in the far future though. I guess it’s like that with every form of record keeping though
@@constantinekorkousky3363 yes, continuos copying of information onto new means of holding information is required to preserve it.
I believe that as long as we just keep using our machines to copy everything on to the new mediums without human error, humanity will have access to their past (our present).
Don't forget that Trajan's conquest of Dacia was in large part incentivized by the lucrative gold mines in Dacia (modern day Romania). The Roman empire's economic philosophy probably had its medieval, renaissance, enlightenment, and modern era equivalent: the Spanish empire. The Spanish empire, out of all of the European colonial empire's, was the most similar to Rome. This economic outlook was characterized by prioritizing the maintenance and acquisition of precious metals which can be turned into coinage. This makes sense as the Iberian peninsula was made apart of the Roman Republic after the wars with Carthage (which had lands in Iberia for mining silver). Rome looked at those mines as something that would give Carthage the decisive advantage in the race for control over the Mediterranean, and thus sought to crush the young republic (which Carthage overall was and was oddly similar to Rome i.e. two suffetes/two consuls+senate like institution with Generals who have large amounts of gravitas in the political realm. (The barca family had a real shot at doing what the Julio Claudians did in Rome) it is difficult to look back at early and late antiquity with our modern outlook on economics getting in the way. It's almost like you have to take those lenses off but we have no way of methodologically discerning what is correct and what is not. It's like the modern worlds economics are so fundamentally different due to our conceptions of private property being somewhat anachronistic to apply to Roman society because all was the property of the State/Tribe/Monarch
It was true of the Spanish Empire until the 18th centhury when commodities export such as cacao and coffee became the norm, this allow the creation of a bourgoise that would contribute to the independence wars of the 19th C.
I ain't reading alla that.
I'm happy for you/Sorry
wasn't the same, whole Carthaginian army was outsourced
Rome wasn't so oligarchical, it had a middle class that felt being Romans despite not being or royal class blood
Carthage operated more like a Hansa cities unions with hired french style foreign legions...
@@triggerdon2148and that is why youre lesser.
The biggest thing I've learned from this video is that if you've made a breakthrough an and authority figure asks you if anybody else knows about it, the safe answer is always "yes"
That must be the INSANE part ???
Great video, but the comments you’re making about the transition from republic to empire seem misleading to me. You gave a quote about how Caesar sewed the seeds of Rome’s collapse, and later mentioned “if the republic was restored.” These statements imply that the empire was a misstep, and led to collapse. But the empire lasted about 500 (arguably ~1500) years. The republic was not working; they had experienced over a century of civil wars, all respect and gravitas for Roman laws and traditions were lost by that point, and the senate proved inadequate to face the challenges.
That’s a very good point. Perhaps it would have been better to say, restored to the republic when pluralistic institutions were not corrupted. No doubt the first emperors expanded the empire to its max extent but that power In the hands of a single man always leads to overextending, increased corruption, and questionable economic practices. In my studies the Roman Empire appeared to somehow managed to have more or less competent leaders for the first couple hundred years, then Trajan overextended the boarders and years of financial rot started to see Rome slowly decline over another 3 centuries.
@@CasualScholar thank you for considering my criticism, I loved the video!
@@CasualScholar As you mentioned the key issue was slavery. An economy that is based on slavery has no insentive to industrialies. The concept is simple: the leading elite is able to buy large areas of land and let their slaves work on them. This leads to more unproductiv practices since they have no incentive to become more productive. If you would have wanted to increase your profit all you had to do was buy more slaves and land not increase the outcome of the land you already own. This leads to things like stagnant foodsupply. At the same time is your "free" population not able to earn much since they aren´t able to get any jobs. So they get into larger cities in search of new jobs, become desperate and start revolting. That is basically what happend at the time of the gracchi brothers. Instead of actually solving the problem the romans started civilwars every ten or so years until the fall of the republic where Ceaser actually tried to prevent this problem by outlawing large landowners from having only slaves as the working force. But this didn´t really helped nor solved the crisis which lead to the concept of "bread and circuses" basically saying keep the lower classes fed and happy with games and they wont revolt. This actually worked for a while but at the same time just postponed the problem. At the same time the leading elites had to waste a ton of resources on the useless undertakings like gladiatorial games. When later after the "goldenage" of rome the expension of the empire halted and the influx of slaves was reduced as well they actually had to implement laws which made it easier to become a slave. For example the romans had a huge pirate issue but did´t really do much about it since they actually helped by enslaving their own population. So key problem that destroys societies is slavery. It is like a plague that lurks under the surface of a once great society.
@@CasualScholar Id argue it has less a risk of corruption then the oligarchy that was ancient democracies especially the Roman Republic.
Caesar didn’t sow the seeds the one who did was Sulla
Just a tip: Numbers for me are a LOT easier to consume visually that via audio. The discussion about Gini coefficients 10:50 was almost impossible to follow...
Seeing the numbers written on the screen would have helped a lot! 😊
agree
Turn on subtitles!
Agree. Even better than numbers: graphs !
Learn how to listen better
awesome...looking forward to more of these types of videos....this channel can stay a long time if you add modern economies with past economies and future economies....alot of channels fall short with no ideas for content while these types of videos have at the very least hundreds of economies to explore...looking forward to the next video.
Think CZcams has realised that these videos are the types of videos people want. Been popping up in my feed for a few days. Glad I finally clicked on one.
Top tier content, dude
Keep making videos! I love subscribing to channels when they are new and watching them grow!
I love how much in depth you go into this research, also explaining the flaws of 'evidence' we have. Most other people would just skip this whole part and go straight into conveying that evidence as truthful or high of quality while this is definitely not the case.
Also, how do you not have more subs??
Thank you so much for such a nice and detailed comment! I really appreciate it and glad you enjoyed!
Um, literally every scholar of classical civilisation discusses the lack of hard evidence of all kinds of things... The whole of academia is focused on trying to work out more accurate details about history based on reading between the lines of vague evidence and positing all sorts of hypotheses to explain many things. If you're only getting your history or any other studies from youtube/the internet then of course you'll come across a lot of amateurish and dodgy analyses by random dopes.
@@AD-kv9kj aight relax dude
Are you sure you don't also find it INSANE !!!!!!!
One of the main problems that we have in modern times is the inability to compare the past with the past; everything must be viewed from a modern point of view, and this causes a general disdain of all past societies.
Rome was staggeringly powerful and advanced for its time. The idea that almost all of its population would be above subsistence levels is crazy, especially at such a huge scale. And that one part of the empire would have access to goods, postal services, etc from the very opposite side of the empire, also an astonishing feat.
These people had no planes for travel, no machines for farming, no tech for instant long distance communication, and they were able to not only conquer, but improve nearly all of Europe, Turkey, half the middle east, and the entire northern coast of Africa.
Yeah, it’s not like no one else had achieved this *cough* china *cough* pre Alexander persia
@@andrewhughes7181 ...Ok, yes? This video is about Rome lol
LoL, that is not true though. There are PLENTY of modern regulation that is a direct cause from lessons learned from the Roman Empire. Example, why are generals moved around rather than keeping their command for as long as they want? Hmm, constant civil war in Roman Empire and soldiers becoming more loyal to the commander they know and pays them rather than the nation they are supposed to serve? That is just one example, but I have read several similar aspects within justice system (laws not being regressive for example, aka roman treason trials etc) that are a direct lesson from what the Roman empire did wrong. :)
@@Lobos222 That is not the sort of thing I am talking about. You are talking about traditions carried over from the Romans, and yes, there are a huge number of them. We get a shocking number of our laws, languages, and other things from Rome.
What I am referring to is the modern person's general inability to appreciate the past. If you talk to people today, many will consider the Romans barbaric, or evil, or cruel, etc.
Why? "Slavery is wrong", "They oppressed their neighbors", "They killed tons of people and waged tons of war". I'm willing to bet many people might even say that they think the world would be better off if Rome hadn't existed, without realizing the implications it would have on our modern lives. That is what I am talking about; All of the lessons you are talking about that we learned from our past are taken for granted and not attributed to the ones who learned them, instead modern people take the credit themselves and then condemn their ancestors for the mistakes that allowed them to learn those lessons.
@@evanhuizenga8626 There will always be idiot out there. :)
Awesome video, I’m really glad the algorithm showed me your channel!
you gained a subscriber, I really love the breakdown. really nice to watch/listen to while I work
Great video. Really impressive that you were able to not only demonstrate data but how the economic systems of Rome actually operated, the wealth distributions and create a solid group of conclusions regarding the political stimulations while maintaining a fidelity to the lack of information and trustful sources.
My congratulations.
Wow! thank you so much for such kind words. I really appreciate it and comments like these really keep the channel going!
Incomplete analysis
I find some of the stories of emperors Tiberius and Vespasian discouraging innovation a bit hard to believe. If someone discovered unbreakable glass, it would make sense that glassmakers would start producing it on their own, just like there were privately owned pottery manufacturers. Same goes for new innovative ways to transport heavy objects. I believe granite and marble were excavated in Egypt and transported to other parts of empire. It would make sense to offer those innovations directly to stone traders.
In fact, I'm more willing to believe that in the case of Tiberius, but Vespasian, his son Domitian and the good five emperors seemed as pretty sensible rulers for their time.
He made the mistake of taking or presenting apocryphal stories as stone, cold fact. For example, given that Vespasian spent most of the loot gained from sacking Judea on the Colosseum, he would have leapt at any truly labor saving innovation and simply done more building programs with the savings.
This "unbreakable glass" sounds rather fanciful, like if it dented instead of shatter was it supposed to be metallic then? What was it really and when did we rediscover it? If we don't know for a fact what it was I am inclined to dismiss the whole incident as fantasy. Doubly so with this magic transportation method, I rather doubt something like innovative suspension would really save all that many animals/men when pulling a cart though reduced wear and tear on product and equipment could be substantial on a larger scale it wouldn't be this ancient "robots took our jerbs" luddite kneejerk. And I am a total loss for what it could otherwise be.
In either case neither of these rigorously describes a bureaucratic system of approvals that would prevent someone from just you know starting to make their product.
If there's any truth to these tales its more likely the men were fraudsters out to try and weasel some imperial patronage for a BS invention.
Remember the Greeks invented mirror weapons to reflect sunlight on wooden ships to start fire… annnndddd never used them because they thought that new technology was “purest” in idea forms or within your imagination
@@SamSepiolTheHeretic Greeks invented many other things that they did not leave in just "idea form". I just don't think they were anti-innovation. But what came after the classical period certainly was.
@@SamSepiolTheHeretic Except that 1) the Greeks didn't invent it, it was just Archimedes who supposedly invented it. And since Archimedes died shortly after inventing it, nobody could have learned what it was or how to make it, and 2) there are very serious questions about whether or not such a thing even existed.
EXTRAORDINARILY insightful and 'information dense'... I shall be SURE to spread the word of thine fine work... A BIG thank you from New Zealand! 👍
So glad I found this channel on a Saturday, I've been binge watching you lol
This is a very underrated channel with so little subs. Excellent and very well researched video.
Greatly appreciated :) comments like these really increase my motivation to put more time and effort into the channel!
Agreed, I hope because it’s new and it grows in the future.
It is INSAME how underrated !
Thank you so much for uploading this video. It is helping me get through the pandemic!
I'm really happy you enjoyed! Thank you for such a nice comment.
Didn't realize you only had 13k subs until comments pointed it out. Liked and subscribed, you deserve a lot more
I'm glad to see that only 8 months ago you were at 10k and now 100k. You deserve it! I just watched three of your videos in a row. Good work!!
It is INSANE isn't it ? !
Why do you say that the rise of Caesar brought about the decline of Rome and its economics? The history proves to be rather different, and it seems you're biased by the virtues of democracy that modern global powers pray. In fact, Caesar and Augustus, were the result of the Republic and its elites, constantly fighting over power as the empire grew. Admittedly, Caesar or more specifically Augustus and his successors, demolished the supposed "virtuous" institutions that comprised the roman republic, yet it was a consecquence of how broken they already were by the time Caesar was even born. How many civil wars were fought in Rome before Pompey became popular? Would the Gracchi brothers have been sabotaged and murdered in the hypothetical case where these institutions were running properly? The roman republic was a failed democracy, a mere joke that favored the 1% of the population at the expense of the impoverished masses. Hence Caesar. Your point is totally invalid as you're taking data from the time when the empire took place. Which is worth to mention, was the most prosperous era throughout Rome's history. The pax romana. Go back in time when the Republic was at its peak and you would probably find more poverty than the roman gaul during the reign of Aurelius.
Thank you, I’ve noticed that as well. There is ALOT of discrepancies in this video.
Based as fuck
Yea, i was thinking something along these lines as well. Caesar, although he was a mass murderer, was a great boon for the masses when he took power. Until he became emperor the roman elite and politicians just hoarded land and kept a lot of it unworked, and forced the poor into the cities which became overcrowded. Caesar gave them land and made them get out of the cities and work their bit of land to sustain themselves. That's why he was very loved by the masses but hated by the elite.
This is what the documentaries i've watched have taught me.
Augustus tariffs and tax reforms is the reason why Rome became so rich
The video didn't say that Caesar brought about the decline of the Roman empire - just that he planted the seeds of its demise.
The rationale of emperors and the elite gradually becoming more economically rent seeking is explained in the video, and of course as the empire aged and became more politically unstable with internal military competition to put a favoured emperor in place this would intensify. The system, when power was more distributed was less susceptible to this. Granted there were several good emperors who could use the concentration of power to good effect, but it was always a matter of time before mad and bad ones would come which would progressively weaken the empire over time.
Damn you're really pumping out these new videos :), Good job and keep them coming 👍
Will do! appreciate your continued support !!
Just subbed, I hope the Quality Standards stays like this
Great presentation. Very informative.
Very detailed knowledge keep it brother
Great video and channel!
I Appreciate it and glad you enjoyed!
The Roman experience (of approx. a thousand years) never ceases to fascinate. Your documentary on the Roman economy is in-depth, and articulate. Great job. I hope our modern world, here in the 'west', is wise enough to wake up to current challenges, many of which are illustrated in Roman history. Many know that this is a contemporary 'parallel', and must be taken seriously, if we're to survive as a healthy and free 'western society'.
Thank you for the research and documentation
Great content, thanks!
Glad you liked it!
There is a lot of good and bad here. The bad weighs most heavily, though. There is a profound misunderstanding of just what kind of political entity the Roman Republic was; and a pronounced tendency to pin the failure to apply new technology to the fullest to political rather than social or economic forces.
It's especially disturbing because this implies that capitalism must then be the perfect system for inovations to spread, and that's why the economy keeps growing, Wich is a: just not a logical conclusion? And b: not necessarily a good thing
@@cin806 alright, first of all, capitalism does shit to inovation, it is literally the same example this video gave about an emperor dictating what can be made or not, but a thousand times over
every corporation decides what they do with their products based on how much they'll gain from it, this incentivizes them to do only what is the most profitable, not just a comfortable profit, the maximum one, this will come at our expense 100% of the time
Sadly, not every "inovation" is that profitable for capitalists, some things that might make their product better might also make it cheaper, harder to produce, or might be too experimental to be sure about, none of these necessarily drive a corporation into bankruptcy, but their money comes from 3rd parties that only want more money, and God save you from corporations that literally just agree to not compete with each other and this lose all incentive to better any service, companies that operate alone in an area (happens a lot with large scale ones) or industries completely dominated by mega corporations that can obliterate smaller competition (see, the original standard oil or Amazon nowadays)
And you might say that inovation has happened, so capitalism wins, but look at the fuck you're comparing capitalism to, communism in a specific, perpetually dictatorial state, constantly isolated from the outside since it's begging, preceded by an empire that never came close to the level of liberalism of the other European states at the time (Wich is saying something since it was the 1920's). Your only thing to compare capitalism to could be the source of half of all the world's distopias before communism even started! and it never got breathing space to get better at all
Also, fuck your vr argument, the soviets fell in 91, 2 thirds of the stuff you mentioned didn't exist anywhere at the time
@@Tsuruchi_420 Capitalism isnt a thing
@@Tsuruchi_420 corporatism is a form of anarchism
@@inigobantok1579 i don't think i said the word corporatism in my comments, but if i did, it was a mistake, it was very much about corporations in our current capitalist system
Your subs shall climb. Keep sharing history, it must never be forgotten. Lest we repeat ourselves.
Amazing quality. You just earned another sub ❤
This is an incredibly well made video, easy to follow and understand and well structured. I wish all my history lessons were like this in school
I know... like it is INSANE eh ? That captures the intended meaning.
What a lot of people miss about the rise of Caesar is, from where the populace was standing, there wasn’t much of another choice: if they sided with the principle of democracy, the senate would continue the upward wealth extraction and impoverishment, that defined and destabilized the late republic, and reverse existing reforms: if they sided with Caesar, there was a very real danger of losing their democracy entirely, but they would finally have a leader actually addressing the crisis rather than continuing to allow their small farms to be consumed by landed elite
you are not accurate. The Whole government system was not explotanary. People gathered they wealth acording they capapilitys. So poor people wasent exploited system was just that thouse who are wealthy had better oportunitys to rise their wealth. Roman Economy was based on low taxes so state benefited on economic activity not by exploiting people. So there was no impoverishment. But todays world its compleatly oposite. High taxes, enforced inflation will leaks away people money to upward. Some people get richer and others will get poorer. Base reason for this is enforced inflation. So people can only have bad option. If you keep your money and not spend it, it will lose value, if you dont want to lose purchase power you spend it now and have no money. And ofcouse there is third option you try to invest. But investing always means there are winners and there are losers so someone always loses so its gamble, if you have more luck and skill you win this gamble, but someone will also lose there. And money that poor people spend, becouse they dont wish to lose its value will be accumulated by AMazon and other corporation who dont care about inflation couse they increase their totaly value more than is inflation rates, so wealth moves upward.
In roman times rich people didnt get more rich that easily and it didnt come on expense on poor people, it wasent rare when some rich family overspended and bankrupt itself. And it wasent rare, when poor hardworking family made right choices and invested they money ofter on expense of food or entertainment and rised on wealth on few generation. ROman economy was not based on high taxes ak exploitation of people but rather trade tarrifs, so righ people didnt get that rich easily and every one had equal change. There wasent also that socialist ideology where richpeople were punished for they better staus with higher taxes.
@@asjaosaline5987 I think you’re wrong. Rome was the first war mashine when there was no US. It had all its power based on its Army. Hence the people who brought its Power Were the most powerful.
Yo, Bro. You're underrated, like seriously.
Awesome video, as usual!
What this video is phenomenal it's a crime this doesn't have more than 2k videos o.O
Would love to see a similar video on the economy of the Tang Dynasty who at the time also held 20% of the world’s population
It will likely be labelled " THE INSANE ECONOMY OF THE TANG DYNASTY "..
Not Tang Dynasty..... Song Dynasty.....
Incredibly well done! Liked the video and subscribed to the channel. Keep up the good work!
This is a very informative and educational video! I'm surprised how it only has 36k views
You do realize that this is an ancient economy not an modern industrial economy, correct? Frequent creative destruction of modern era has to do with the Scientific Revolution and the Industrial Revolution. Creative destruction of the Classical Era did wane during the Imperial times but it seems to me like it has more to do with path dependence rather than the change in political structure: Ancient Greeks surely explained many phenomena reasonably.
Moreover, if the expansion of political power led to the fall of the civil economic sphere, it has more to do with the Senate of the late Republic. The reason behind the advent of the Imperial form of Government was that the Senate oppressed Plebs economically. Senate’s oppression took in many forms such as taking down the Gracchus brothers; Senate’s intent was to retain its economic supremacy over the Plebs to ensure the checks-and-balances of the Republic. On the contrast, Emperors gave plebs to become leading members of the society based on their skills. Some members of lower class became Emperors even. Emperors could only remain in office when they had popular support, so such claim of republican institution does not work.
He clearly doesn't realize any of those things.
India and China had far larger economies and a higher GDP per capita so the Roman Empire could've been richer
@@jasonhaven7170 no they had large economies as well. But it wasn't larger than the Romans. More or less the same.
@@CR7GOATofFootball No it was larger than the Romans
@@jasonhaven7170 no
This awesome content. It's really, really tough to shorten up a synopsis of an empries economic success but you did a great job! Great video. So much information.
Thank you, I really appreciate the kind words! glad you enjoyed.
at what point did you find it INSANE !!!
Absolutely amazing and informative video - keep up the good work mate 👍
Thank you! Really Appreciate it :)
Subscribed before watching the video, that is how good the quality of your work is!
At last .. Something close to INSANE regarding his work.
You could say that the Roman government became very Byzantine over time.........
Byzantine is a negative word in that instance: Cut-throat politics and bureaucracy. But people forget that the late principate was the same if not more so, before Diocletian's reforms. Btw, the eastern empire was neglected in this analysis.
This is not accurate history. It is more like superimposing contemporary neo-classical economics theory backward in time. Rome was first and foremost, a householding economy. The majority of production was done at the household level, substituted by slaves among the wealthy. The etymology of the word economy is from the latin oeconomia, which literally means household management. Household surplus was brought to market, but the market was not the primary mode of production. There was also a significant public economy from foremost wages to legions, who in turn expanded the republic and then empire, adding new wealth through appropriation. Senatorial and Imperial public works were sources of employment, but also services such as baths, temples, amphitheatres and infrastructure such as aqueducts for sanitation, roads and ports. This transfer in kind were huge public benefits for the citizenry. And there were direct transfers such as grain allotments for citizens. And there were wealthy family estates that produced cash crops or resource extraction such as mining for trade. This was not a ‘private sector’, it was an aristocracy that had close ties to political interests and military protection. Economy was not a separate sphere of social life, that is a modern manifestation. It was bound within ceremonies and rituals, and governed by households within collegia and finally, empire.
Thank you! That was my main issue with the rhetoric of this vid! Also the beginning part about Rome being the best/most important civilization just is not right and just sounds like straight up imperialist dogwhistles.
@@lucabohn Rome was an incredibly important civilization in world history and that’s impossible to deny
@@lucabohn The importance of Rome can’t be understated, its ubiquitous in language, law, government, engineering, military, and on and on. They even invented hamburgers. Of course, Rome was also the culmination of the many foundations it was built on, but it put it al together in a very vibrant and successful society that was literally emulated by the founding fathers. For better or worse.
@@lucabohn tell us which african civilizations you have in mind my lgbt friend
the video is bullshit
Thanks for your effort to make the analysis.
Great video brother keep it up 💪🔥
Fuck yeah new history channel, love it brooo keep it up
Hey, congratulations on getting 10K views On your channel. See you at 100k ;)
Really Appreciated it! new video coming next week and I think its the best one yet!
What an amazing video. Full of incite.
This is the best stock footage I’ve ever seen only a minute into this video. Kudos
That was a really interesting video. I quite enjoyed it. I do think that laying the stagnation of the economy and innovation at the feet of Caesar is a bit lopsided. It seems to fail to acknowledge the serious problems that the republic was undergoing at the time of the Civil War. For example, the high levels of corruption and the fact that, in many ways, Caesar had the support of the people. Personally, I doubt that the, at that time, corrupt Senate would have made different decisions than Tiberius or Vespasian. The beginnings of the empire were heavily focused on preserving the state itself as opposed to growth.
I can only agree with your analysis. The roman republic was a very disfunctional system - it somewhat worked as long as people had a common enemy. But when Carthage fell and Rome became the hegomone of mediterianiean sea, there biggest competition was within. Cesear was just the guy to finially put it into the graveyard.
Sidenote: in the "early" part of the republic, plebeians often used war as a bargain chip in order to mass rights. So the whole Roman republic was just a compromise over a very, very long time - corrupt and actually flawed in many basic principles (e.g. only rich people could work in politics, as politicans had to live from their own income)
In addition his point isnt very thought through. If an auotocratic ruler is supported by "numbing the masses by work", oligarchies would work the same way.
What I expected: Rome is rich!
What I got: Rome stagnated itself to control political power, not unlike many nations of today.
Rome didn't end in 476.
India and China had far larger economies and a higher GDP per capita so the Roman Empire could've been rich
@@Michael_the_Drunkard Rome ended in 1453
@@jasonhaven7170 Agreed
@@jasonhaven7170 No
Gold, pure gold. I'm subbed now in hopes you have more economic history on the way
Ok wow this is an amazing video. So professional.
Good video, respectfully disagree with the all-but-spoken assertion that the Roman collapse was inevitable due to a centralized economy 20:30.
Glad you enjoyed and respect your disagreement.
Hi, I have almost no knowledge about the roman empire and would like to learn.
Why did you disagree?
@@blackb1rd my disagreement is more so an economic one than a historical one. I felt as though the creator made a very good and well-thought-out piece, but inserted his own economic values into an otherwise unbiased work. Centralized economies, especially ones valuing laborers, have worked quite well in the past, and in America our unmitigated economy is wracked with monopolies. Rome’s collapse was facilitated by mass migration, plagues, incompetent leadership and overextension, the fact that the economy valued labor over innovation was not one of them.
Interesting. I did quite a lot of looking into the economics of ancient rome looking for broad economic data but found very limited documentation. This explained much of why it is so difficult to do economic comparisons between times.
Outstanding video! Very solid analysis of very limited information.
Glad you enjoyed it! Thank you!
Subscribed. Great content
Economic history is so cool!
Could not agree more!
Lest goo another video
Just subbed, such awesome content!
Thanks learned a lot !
Great video that goes into amazing detail about all the nuances surrounding the Roman Economy, and even playing around with certain decisions and concepts that may have contributed to the overall fall of Rome.
One single complaint; I'd recommend turning down the flowery sentence structure and vocabulary. The last 2 minutes of the video or so are hard to follow because it sounds kind of just like Word-Salad. Other than that, fantastic work, keep it coming :)
"No one institution can overrule and ruin progress"
The Supreme Court: Hold my prune juice.
Looks like somebody is unhappy about Roe vs Wade
Wow, your content is very understandable- I applaud you, for being able to make history nerd speak sound natural.
Great video!
Interesting analysis indeed. I think that the republic was indeed a period of innovation, but innovation is disruptive as stated, and given the many civil wars of the republic, the people came to prefer stability over innovation.
This question of progress vs stability and order is still one that we wrestle with today. Not to get overly controversial, but I once watched am interview between Ben Shapiro and Tucker Carlson. The former believed in innovation and free markets. He was horrified to learn that Carlson would ban self driving cars in an instant if it meant more jobs for lower class men.
Also, in the the video game Fallout New Vegas there is actually a faction based on the Roman empire called "Caeser's Legion." The Legion despise a lot of technology and forbid many of their soldiers from using anything more advanced than swords and spears, due to believing that the rash use and advancement of technology came to destroy the fallout universe. The brotherhood of steel faction of the same franchise had a similar philosophy.
Finally, many sci fi worlds, like Dune and Warhammer 40k, depict societies that have rejected certain types of technology that they consider dehumanizing, like AI. Even in Star Trek the use of gene manipulation is banned due to the war with Kahn.
Tucker Carlson has painted himself into a dark corner by being (or at least pretending to be) a Trump-supporting populist. That means a combination of restrictions on social liberties with restrictions on economic liberties. He ironically combines the backwards economic populism of self proclaimed socialists like Bernie Sanders with backwards social populism of religious ultra conservatives.
@@Intranetusa Spoken like a true libertarian, but it all depends on what you value. If social freedoms and GDP are what you value most, then Carlson is terrible. If social stability and traditional morality are what you value, then he is an ally.
One key element of the Roman economy which you didn't mention is the trade with India and other eastern regions. Raoul McLaughlin has estimated that perhaps one-third of the empire's total annual revenue was derived from tariffs levied on this trade passing through Egypt. Good video nonetheless.
The author of this video seems to believe the Romans were self-sufficient in every aspect.
Oh really? I never heard that the Indian trade was this large.
Does that mean archaeologists also found lots of Indian made objects in the remains of the Roman Empire? Never seen that either.
@@bingobongo1615 There have been some incredible finds of Indian origin in the Roman Empire. You can look up the Pompeii Lakshmi, which is probably the most famous. There are also many amazing objects coming from the excavations at Berenike, Egypt (sacks of Indian pepper, Buddha statues, even a Sanskrit dedication on the Temple of Isis). It is a very exciting field!
Great content 👍
Great video liked and subscribed
Really appreciate it! Glad you enjoyed and hope you like future content!
As a Historian and History Teacher I find it hilariously misguided whenever certain CZcams "historians" talk about sources! They always use a term like "these sources can't be used because they're biased" or something to that effect.
It makes me cringe! Every source is biased! You are biased when analysing sources! It's the point of history to try and recognise, understand the bias and then assess the sources overall usefulness and reliability.
Those to features are the most important not biased. Is the source biased? Yes. But is it still reliable? Yep. Then we can use it.
Is the source reliable? Yep. But is it useful? Nope. Then we can use it but shouldn't as it is not related!
This is the system historians use... now it seems like you throw out the literary tradition not because it isn't useful but because it is unreliable... sure but you would know that many of this stuff is actually quite reliable... especially the actual annals and edicts of Roman treasury, much of which we have. I think the more important reason is that you have simply too many sources to choose from... you didn't even account for which actual period you were studying? Early Republic? Late? Early Empire? Late Empire? There were vast differences in a particular period of Rome... let alone the different periods themselves 800 years the difference.... for example in the middle to late Republic, land ownership and slave overpopulation was a chief economic factor.
This was a bit of an oversight and kind of diminishes your credentials.
Also "we don't know the true, hard facts". This is the worst Von Rankean statement. History is not about truth or facts... especially ancient history. You will never know the truth. We have moved past Von Ranke's idea of history... history is about making meaning from sources and estimations! Not fact. This isn't a crime scene or bloody da Vinci code hahahaa.
I agree wholeheartedly. People throw around the word "bias" to seem credible but they themselves often have biases already.
Based
great video
I can’t believe this is free content on the internet
Can you please do this video but on the Mongolian empire? I’d like to see how/ what the economy was like for the largest land empire ever considering that and it’s hight( sometime during the reign of Kublia Khan after he took over Southern China and before a huge civil war with his cousin.) its ruler the great khan was probably the richest most powerful human ever to walk on earth.
By the time Kublai Khan finished taking over Southern China/Southern Song Dynasty, the Mongol Empire had already fractured into 4 separate nations. The fracture of the Mongol Empire began around 1259 after the 4th Great Khan, Mongke Khan, died during the war against the Song Dynasty. The Mongol conquest of the Song Dynasty wasn't completed until around 1279.
00:14 India had a bigger nominal G·D·P than China till circa 1000 C·E.
circa ≡ roughly
Indian economy was clearly ahead of the Chinese economy till the year 1000 A∙D∙.
India's *share* of the world's G∙D∙P∙ fell behind that of China only after the start of the new millennium.
I just ran into this channel... Take my subscription!
Interesting video.
Hold on. The Romans understood comparative advantage but not inflation?
Dude, I swear, every time I see this vid in the feed, the thumbnail is a bit different
1 minute in and i already know this is going to be a banger
Subbed. Great video
"Hyperinflation? Is that some new peasant god I'm too noble to understand? Haha money printer go brrrrr"
- Rome, 222 AD
"Hyperinflation? Is that some new peasant god I'm too noble to understand? Haha money printer go brrrrr."
- Romerica 2022 AD
Is there any place to be able to do studies like this on early African empires? I've seen that there are vast archives of early literature and records in libraries in Timbuktu. I would like to know more about early African empires besides Egypt.
There are very few african empires and what there was were fleeting and difficult to study. They did not have written language, forums or any sort of social cohesion so it means there is little evidence to examine.
It is a similar case with celts and greater Asia. The Roman culture was unique in that it has left us lots of evidence due to their writings, military tactics, infrastructure, economic structure and so on.
Loved the video very well produced and researched! I'd suggest making your audio less "wet". There're a lot of smacks in the audio that can distract from your content 💓
It should be an easy fix like making sure you're hydrated when recording or some plugin
I've just found a new favorite yt channel
I can understand Tiberius and Vespasian's objections because debasing the currency and putting people out of work due to technology would are terrible for everyday people economically speaking. Technological innovation is good, but if it is done too rapidly it will be too disruptive of people's livelihood. It needs some boundaries to contain it, like fire in a fireplace. Free enterprise is good, but not if it lacks responsibility.
Also the argument about Rome falling because it went from a republic to an empire centuries prior is rather weak, especially since...it lasted and thrived for centuries. As an empire. The Roman republic was notoriously corrupt, so much so that they changed the calendar to shorten the terms of enemies and lengthen those of their allies. Not to mention representative government wouldn't be able to be maintained well over as large of an area as the empire ruled over in those days. Especially not with that kind of mess. Its change to an empire was inevitable. So to say Rome was stunted and fell because it wasn't democratic and freely innovative enough isn't really a solid premise.
I mean factories did the same to the labors of before yet it benefitted humanity as a whole so I’m not to sure there. Robots replacing more jobs in the future might do the same
@@sushidope1701 Why would robots replacing human workers be a net positive unless if there were other jobs created that those people could have? If an economy is to live up to its name (law of the household), then its first priority needs to be greater power and wellbeing to each home and family. Maximizing employment is essential for that. Innovation and growth aren't all there is to good economics. It's also important to ensure stability and sustainability for households and social institutions to thrive. Otherwise creative destruction will bring more destruction than creativity.
You're only talking about the Western Empire.
@@Michael_the_Drunkard Your point?
Nice video, but one part I dislike and think is misleading is your constant mentioning of how the Roman empire was bad and the republic was good. Obviously in modern times democracy works relatively well, but the Roman Republic was massively dependent on slavery as its main economic engine, and was horribly corrupt and oligarchic. The roman empire lasted for an extremely long time, and if anything helped rome survive for longer, and it was most prosperous during the early empire.
Dude, the west is oligarchic. Just look at the Covid restrictions, press freedom (which is limited), a corrupt banking and lobbying system. The West in its current form is corrupt and decadent. The Roman Republic would in fact be much better.
@@Michael_the_Drunkard I actually wrote a sentence in that comment about how people misinterpret and misconstrue the Roman Republic and empire in order to have it fit into a modern perspective, and derive incorrect conclusions from it so that they will fit into and further their ideologies, but I decided to delete it because it felt out of place. I think that's quite relevant to you.
Great work
Thank you so much!
Great vid thank you
Happy you enjoyed! Thank you for the nice comment.
Actually western civilization would probably be more advanced if Carthage wound up winning the Punic wars. If Carthage won, then perhaps the Gauls, the Iberians would be able to come together to form their own states without ever having come under Roman domination. Rome would still exist as a political entity but perhaps just control all or part of the Italian peninsula. Thus with Carthage, Rome, Gaul and the Iberians being seperate and rivial entities, it would have created incentives for each group to best the other thus leading to something we know if as near-modern European history but starting as way back as the 100's B.C
It was utterly impossible for Carthage to win anything more than a status quo, in any of the Punic Wars, Also those tribes would never unite unless one of the tribes came around conquering the others, thus bringing the ire of Carthage, or Rome, and bringing about the destruction even harsher than in our timeline. It would have made a small boost, but in the end Rome still would come out on top, and would conquer the others, though the integration would ironically be easier as their would be less cultures to decimate. Ironically this would cause Rome to live on longer, or at least the western half living longer than in our timeline, living past 1453 would be pretty difficult for many changes.
As if Rome didn't have the Germans and Persians to fight with
I highly doubt that, civilizations especially in the ancient times put very little emphasis on technology, the Roman's were such pioneers because they had no real threats
@@thegodfather_8455 That's not strictly true, though. Romans were just obsessed with practicality and the physical world. There's a reason the amount of great written texts by Romans number at like 1 or 2 despite dominating the known world for centuries. Greeks engaged in philosophy and the abstract, Rome can't build a functioning public works system out of books or philosophy. It's why actors and musicians were even lower than slaves as a demographic, they produced nothing of value. Romans loved entertainment, sure, but entertainers were the lowest of the low because they give nothing tangible to the state. Slaves produce food and valuable goods at the very least. Roman engineering and innovation especially in architecture are a result of their cultural views. These practices started long before they had no threats and it's the reason they took useful ideas from the cultures around them.
Press x to doubt.
I think calling China an 'exception' is quite an understatement. They were larger and more advanced in this period.
That's a debate scholars have had for decades. Not really something you can just put out there as a blanket statement. For example China has always had a severe defecit in good quality horses. This wasn't as much an issue for the Romans, especially at the time of Pax Romana. I'd say they had different strengths and were roughly evenly balanced. Chinese bureaucracy was probably more efficient, but Roman armies were far more professional and logistically advanced than the mass conscripts of China. Development is based on many variables.
@@GoDLiKeKakashi i dont think the horse part is particularly true. china "lacked" quality horse only in comparison to northern nomads. and it was only really true in like one case, as ever since the Han dynasty under emperor Wu, china has access to good horses so long as it controlled the hexi corridor( for example he fielded 100,000 cavalrymen against the xiongnu, and each cavalrymen was a match for the nomads). The only notable dynasty to lack quality horses was the Song dynasty, who never controlled the Hexi corridor(every other unified dynasty since the Han controlled this area) but it was a generally militarily weak dynasty. Rome, did not face mongol-like nomad powers and was also helped by having an internal water way for fast travel.
Roman armies were more"professional" but was not "far more" so. China has had standing professional armies since the beginning of its imperial age, with the Qin dynasty. The perception that chinese armies was just a mass conscript army was due to the fact that china also did have mass conscripts and usually fielded a bonkers amount of men in war. but the core was very much professional, the Han for instance had a long standing professional army as large as rome did, but also bolstered by twice the number of conscripts in times of war.
Rome was also not "logistically" advanced in anyway to china. they had an advantage in having an internal waterway and that was it. in fact it could be argued that china was more logistically advanced, having invented the wheel barrel allowing them to carry large amount of supplies over mountains and bad terrain.
China was not an empire like Rome. It was a collection of individual kingdoms that paid fealty to the emperor.
It was very similar to Holy Roman Europe and was not an empire like the classical Roman Empire.
Looking at it on a map and thinking it was larger means nothing and they were not more advanced in science and technology.
@@bighands69they were in many fields centuries ahead of everyone else during that time do you even know the history of china to say that lol
@@bighands69and china is nothing like the HRE lol it is very centralized for all it's time when united you have absolutely 0 knowledge about the history of china
Fascinating -- here so many people want to create Empires, and yet throughout history, democracy is better for advancements in technology.
Azome video, my new favorite history chanel, greetings from Colombia.