The Rather Pathetic Economy of the Roman Empire
Vložit
- čas přidán 22. 01. 2024
- Try Opera browser free today at opr.as/Opera-browser-Economic... and browse faster, safer and smarter.
Apparently us guys think about the Roman Empire 5 times a day, but from an economic Perspective it's hard to see why. While they did build a lot of architectural monuments, their economy was actually rather pathetic by almost all metrics. Why was Rome, which had a large empire and notoriety throughout Europe for millennia after its demise, actually a very weak economy?
This video was made possible by our Patreon community! ❤️
See new videos early, participate in exclusive Q&As, and more!
➡️ / economicsexplained
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Check out our other channels ▶️
Epic Economics @EconomicsIsEpic
Context Matters @Context.Matters
And our Language Channels →
WirtschaftsWissen (GER) - / @wirtschafts-wissen
L'Économie Expliquée (FRE) - / @economie-expliquee
Economia Explicada (POR) - / @economia_explicada
Economía Explicada (SPA) - / @economia-explicada
اقتصاد العالم (AR) - / @aqtisadalealam
経済会話 (JP) - / @keizaikaiwa
✉️ Business Enquiries → hello@economicsexplained.com
🎧 Listen to EE on Spotify! 👉 open.spotify.com/show/5TFVUEJ...
Also on Apple Podcasts or anywhere else you listen!
#EconomicsExplained #romanempire
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
ECONOMICS EXPLAINED IS MADE POSSIBLE BY OUR PATREON COMMUNITY 👊🙏
Support EE by becoming a Patron today! 👉 / economicsexplained
👑 ROYALTY CLASS 👑
Juan Benet
UPPER CLASS
Valkmit, Randall, Jeromy Johnson.
ELITE CLASS
Charles Youngs.
UPPER MIDDLE CLASS
Michael Wakim, Pineapples&bricks, Adrian Bellomo, Peter Wesselius, Michael Ling, Stephanie Roth, Frank Soltero, David Poliakoff, Jay Eno, Grégoire Duchêne, Sophie G, Brett Jubinville, Anthony Roberts, jill hoffman, Nathan Ngumi, JKH, Post Apocalyptic In Missouri, Laor Glukhovsky, Kib Bibens-LeFebvre, Forodon, Paul Ashworth, Wendover Productions, Andrew Harrison, Igor Bazarny.
MIDDLE CLASS
Justin Thiele, William Sherlock, Gerhardus, Derrick Yowell, DionysusLin, BUBBA CONWAY, Chris, Brian, Vladimir Zotov, Seth, Dragan Alexandru, Tenebrion, Jason, Alex Wong, Robert Abraham, Jamie Costello, Rick Van Velden, Leah Klearman, Bacongravy, Klaus Clemens, Ps0Fa, Abel, Eric Slimko, Empyre18, Brian Jackson, Istvan P, Leonid Sorokoumov, Thomas Davenport, Nicholas Luchetta, Kim Brand, Ted Marcy, Joshua White, John Issitt, Joe Ryan, Patrick Staight, Wees Kendall, Shane Guthrie, Andrew Baartz, Jim Kirker, Karan Mehta, roGER, Marton Csikos, Randy Cleary, Arjan, Liubov Zvereva, Michael D. Hall, Long Phan, Craig Mews, Kent Klatchuk, Zac Woodrell, Roman~1, Chris Hawkins, Wesley Fite, Robert Nyborg, David McIlveen, Anthony, Arend Peter Castelein, Daniel Alberto Vázquez Rodríguez, Kamil Sicinski, Dodd Willingham, Leo Vassershteyn, "How long can a profile name be... this long... Wow, this is longer than I would have expected. Good lord, the letters! Secunda!", Michael Kürbis, Hugh Harris, David W., Dar H, Will, Kheng Lai Tan, David Taylor, Scott Greenwood, Jane Walerud, Zachary Demko, Michael Wolff, Siegfried Eggl, PM, Jack Annear, michael, Franklin, Trevor, Marcel Roquette, Daniel Hall, Connor Costello, John D Tyler, Petronio Coelho, Kevin MacIntyre, Travis Thompson, Matthew Eggleston, Kenneth Lum, Andrew Vinnichenko, Zachary Kasow, Johannes, Reuben Field, Nigel Pauli, Jacob, AB3, Sridev, Matt McKee, Victor T., John C, Rimvydas, John Downie, Donald Wedington, Demo sthenes, Ed, Hayden van Reyswoud.
The Economic Explained team uses Statista for conducting our research. Check out their CZcams channel: / @statistaofficial
Try Opera browser free today at opr.as/Opera-browser-Economics-Explained and browse faster, safer and smarter.
No
Doing a placement for opera is already a questionable move. But being ok with presenting them as 'safer' is even worse.
@EconomicsExplained, 1st of all, the comparison is entirely wrong because comparing it with modern economies makes no sense at all, and secondly, inflation was not taken into account throughout the video.
@@rounakmitra1179I'd like to see you make a better video 😂
Staying far away from opera.
The Roman Empire is comparable to some countries today? That's astonishing, not pathetic.
hes uneducated on history it seems
@@none2912 Yes, he really should stick to economics. If you're going to slam the Roman Empire as unsophisticated, you really should offer some reasoning.
@@none2912 He's uneducated in Economics too.
I was about to say this, this channel is for idiots that like fancy words. The content is nothing more than the synopsis of a wikipedia article@@Funkensturme
@@Funkensturme I'm not surprised. Still, please tell me more, I'm curious about what he gets wrong.
It would have been nice to compare Rome to other countries/empires of similar technology levels to show whether they were relatively poorer or richer than their peers.
He does point out rome was rich by contemporary standards as an intro to the general question of "why was the ancient world so poor?"
id say china was ahead of them
What is interesting is romes immediate predecessors like the visigoths Frank's eastern Roman empire German kingdom, magyar state in panonia. Where all probably even more poor then Rome as the records disappear for a good time. This time period being the dark ages
An Economics Explained Historical Leaderboard if you will
Yeah but that's a history lesson not an economic one. That wouldn't be an economic exercise at all since it would require to do research on historical data and getting opinions of experts in history. It has little to do with economics as we think about the topic these days. But yeah.
1200$ per capita is a lot more than i would have expected from a 2000 year old empire, in fact, i would say it's quite impressive
Yeah. This video says that’s horrible, but it’s ahead of states that exist 2000 years later and have access to advanced machinery and chips that can perform trillions of calculations a second.
@@Besthinktwice agreed painfully dumb video
@@Besthinktwice its cringe tbh, history and economic history is a completely different field that lay economists shouldnt be making some baseline commentary on, it requires lots of knowledge and source synthesis that these guys have no idea what theyre doing (referring to economics explained)
@@Mindforprogressso you know better than him😂
@@mrshrek362he probably does....
wow, I can't believe the empire before industrialization wasn't as wealthy as one after. Really insightful stuff here.
Actually, even allowing for inflation that is *higher* than the PRC's GDP per capita in the *mid* *1990s* ; )
Not really, conomics is a bullshit science. I genuinely watch this channel for comedy .
Rome changed to religion, I.e the church, they are still around today,
@@gumagee6898 Kaz, Economics has many schools, often in complete disagreement about almost everything and with different rigour about their assumptions, models and hypothesis. The guy from this channel happens to be a clueless economist that follows the worst economists and the worst theories economics has to offer.
@@Funkensturme Name a better channel.
Well yes, by modern standards of course an ancient, preindustrial civilisation will be extremely poor. A more useful comparison would be to try and assess Ancient Rome against its peers such as Ancient Egypt or China, or even medieval states.
This video struck me as clickbait to generate income as it is certainly a poor comparison between an industrialized society with a pre-industrialized society and seemingly undercounting the cultural significance of the Roman Empire.
@@DaggothJr It's like someone 500 years in the future comparing the economy of the galactic empire to that of the USA. I would guess the USA would look pathetic by comparison too.
One would have hoped the level of discourse concerning economics amongst EE viewers was more elevated than "rich vs poor". There's so much more to say than that.
The more interesting part is that Rome actually wouldn't be the poorest and beats other modern countries in both GDP and GDP per capita
This video is Presentism
This honestly feels more like an April Fool’s video than something I’d expect to see in January…
It was ridiculous
China and India were far ahead than Rome
So to sum it up. 2000 years ago world wasn't as rich and industrial as today.
Only really brave and innovative statements on this channel.
This.
I find the video's idea of measuring the Roman economy really cool, but to actually compare it against modern economies is a faulty idea. Why not compare it against its peers like the Persian Empire or the Han Dynasty? That would be way more interesting instead of just roasting the Roman Empire because they are not industrialized haha
Some people say they'd rather live in Rome than the US. It seems EE was addressing them.
@@kolbyking2315 People just wanna own slaves.
Yes, this is a silly video. You might as well criticize the ancient Egyptians for not understanding the theory of relativity.
Because EE is lazy.
@@kolbyking2315 lol dont take people like them serious, i love Rome and all but i would prefer to live in the poorest nation today than Rome without a thought.
This applies to literally every ancient civilization.
Yeah I get the sense that EE is just trying to clickbait here by putting the Roman Empire in the title
That's the point. People saying they'd rather live in ancient civilizations than a western country are stupid.
@@kolbyking2315 Does anyone actually say that? I have never heard anyone claim that they would rather live in the roman empire than a modern nation state.
“An empire is an extensive group of states or countries under a single supreme authority, formerly especially an emperor or empress. A civilization is the stage of human social development and organization that is considered most advanced”.
yeah this is a stupid video making stupid points
By modern standards, an empire of antiquity can only be at the bottom. If there was something below it, THAT would be the story.
Except this one isn't even close to the bottom.
#haiti
"If there was something below it" ....... Such as most/all of the populations that were not part of the empires of the time? Or do you mean current populations that operate outside modern nations?
What is the point of comparing a 2000 year old empire to today’s economies… what a wasted opportunity. This comparison should have been made to its peers at the time. Or are we going now to compare the USA with Suriname in year 4000? I bet the US will take a beating!🤪
Rome was possibly the most majestic civilization that the world has ever seen.
@@feliscatus2074 It made you click on it didn't it?
The Rome was founded on brutality and betrayal. Its majesty came at the expense of the people it subjugated and stole from.
I’m so confused by this video. Like ofcourse Rome was poor in modern standards? Was there anyone who actually thought it wasn’t? I mean sure there are, but not EconomicsExplained viewers, for a channel that often explains complicated topics I assume the viewers know this stuff. Rome was very advanced for its time, but who in the world would think they’d been richer compared to a modern day nation with the internet, robots, airplanes massive electricity production etc. . I love this channel but ngl, this video was weird ahah:)
They just hate Rome lol.
There are a lot of reactionary elements out there that use the memory of rome as tool against modern progress. The reality of the matter needs to be shown this way. Plenty of little garbage mites out there that want to be rome without knowing what it was actually like.
EE is grasping at straws in terms of content topics
You do realize that there could be viewer of this video that never watched a previous EE video before right?
When you come across a video that seems interesting from a creator you don't follow do you go watch all of their videos in order from the very first one, before watching the one that showed up on your feed?
We'll have to assume the conclusion wasnt supposed to be surprising
No way! An agricultural society from two thousand years ago was poorer than todays economies, who would have guessed??
Yeah, this video is truly groundbreaking. Btw tens uma grande foto
@@joaocustodio7705 Grande, bom olho. Viva a Pátria 🔥
A separate leaderboard for pre-industrial states would be interesting.
Well there have been attempts to calculate gdp at least from the year 1000 onward. Unitil the 13th century china had the highest gdp per capita, around 1000/1200$, then the Mongols arrived and North and Central Italy became the richest area on earth until the 17th century when it was surpassed by Holland (not the entire united provinces). I don’t remember the exact data but I think even Holland didn’t go over 1600/1700$
Yeah! Only problem is EE would have few good sources of data. The IMF or Fed isn’t covering this
@@nicknickbon22 if i remember correctly at that point china jadn't been united for a long time until the mongol, prior to that they had to contend with various separate nation states warring for hegemony, like as not under non-han leadership.
@@theforsakeen-9014while the entire region was not united, the prominent Han state before the Yuan was the Song dynasty, which was one of the wealthiest pre industrial states in history
@@nicknickbon22 I'd take all those figures with a huge grain of salt. Historical demographics are extremely unreliable--especially for ancient societies. Depending on which methodology you use (e.g., caloric intake, tax records, etc.) you're going to end up with very different numbers.
The average person before 1700 AD was desperately poor, no matter what society they lived in. They were mostly peasants after all. When you're a subsistence farmer, engaged in manual labor, with pre-industrial technology, you're going to be poor.
Things were a bit different for urban people, and for the elites. For example, Roman senators in the late Republic were much wealthier than, say, the elites of classical-era Athens. But elites and city-dwellers were always a minority. The *average* person was poor everywhere.
It's silly to single out the "pathetic" economy of the Roman Empire. By modern standards, every country before 1500 AD (or even 1800 AD) was desperately poor.
Before the last half, even the last quarter of the 19th century...
It was *that* late even in industrialized countries when the average citizen finally managed to have a chance of escaping hand-to-mouth living, and still the majority didn't.
Fact: When Roman citizens above a certain net worth left property to anyone other than their immediate family, they were subject to a 5% inheritance tax. The veterans' pension fund was funded by estate tax revenues as well as a one percent sales tax on auctions.
Well I say we should tax if people above certain networth leave property to anyone other than their SON or PARENTS (if alive).
Also funded by borrowing. And... empty promises which lead to the timely death of the emperor.
Another Roman tax fact: taxation was privatized. Collectors would bid on the rights to tax a region, and hoped that they could collect more than what was paid to the state.
@@Scottagram only problem is,. that lead to a lot of corruption in tax collection. So, probably somethinjg we shouldn't try to emulate.
@@Scottagramthat is only true for the late republic due to their rapid expansion and the founding of provinces severely outgrowing their administration. Augustus reformed the taxation system among many other reforms to centralize the state into what we call the Roman Empire
The logic for giveng them a 0 on growth was kinda dumb “From its peak, it only ever lost nominal output”. Yes, that is what “peak” means. It’s output had grown before then when one of its main industries was raiding and subsequent taxation of colonies, which themselves grew more productive per capita after annexation into the empire.
Exactly my thoughts ! I love his videos but this is a misser.
This video was just really dumb at every stage and very poorly researched.
For a start, he says that the Roman Empire wasn't the longest, yet arguably it was. Clearly doesn't understand the link between Byzantine and Eastern Roman Empire.
Talks about buildings from Rome 3,000 years ago, but then proceeds to show one from less than 2,000 years ago.
Then goes to compare GDP per capita of Romans at supposedly £1000 or so (where he got this number, who knows), and a total GDP of 50-60 billion, again, where he got this number is unknown as the population of the Roman Empire was expected to be 59-76 million, but ranging up to 120 million. So even if we're being conservative, that's more like 65-75 billion right off the bat. Not a huge dufference, but still a solid 20% more than stated.
Completely glosses over relative purchasing power.
Just a really bad clickbait video. Probably needed to feed the algorithm.
the whole video was kinda dumb
@@user-ds8rj2vc4v Don't mind anyone feeding the algorithm, but yeah I wish it would have lived up to its potential. It was an awesome idea for a video. Like you said, not using PPP is a huge oversight.
Since when has raiding been an industry?
Rome is so interesting because of how it held vastly different cultures and religions together. Also they had major drip.
every state does that.
@RandomGuy-lu1en by modern standard maybe but back then? Yea no
No, that was the norm for empires back then. Modern mostly ethnically homogenous nations are a rarity. Even today.
@@koenigvonbayern even in the states with the "homogenity" today it's mostly just propaganda. Cultures slowly grow together in a state. Not the other way round.
@@Sam-bp2st The literal definition of empire is a state with many different lands and cultures. Every single empire before and after the Roman did that.
Calling the Roman Empire’s economy “pathetic” compared to modern ones is like calling a kid pathetic because they can’t play professional sports.
I am actually very impressed that an empire 1824 years ago has the same economic value as modern day Sudan or Rwanda. That actually shows how good the Roman economy was.
And more brains higherIQ
Even mouryan empire would have better GDP then some countries today.
The Roman Emperor comparison made very little sense to me. The Roman elite did not lack television and internet because they couldn't afford it, but because it wasn't invented yet. While it is very likely that the average person today has more purchasing power than the average roman; an emperor with castles, staff and even armies was obviously richer than today's average person. The argument being made sounds more philosphical than economic in nature.
Yeah that was one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. Like I’m sorry but you’re not going to get me to believe that the guys going around building temples and coliseums out of pocket are poorer than me.
A person's wealth is limited by their purchasing options. The Roman elite was wealthy, but it was a very limited version of wealth compared to a modern wealthy person.
For real. The emperor commanded over millions of people and directly how dozen of slaves. If he wanted to walk only on baby heads he could have. But that would be power and not wealth.
Made absolutely no sense. Forget emperors, even relatively wealthy Romans would have had estates (LAND) with workers (LABOUR) making that land economically productive.
How rich would I be today if I had that?
"Sorry you have an iPhone though"
@@stiffmeistercharlie1758 Problem being each worker makes very little outside what they need to eat to survive. Even if you have a lot of land, 100 slaves who will farm for free (obviously they still need to eat), you still only get a very limited amount of good (in grains which is almost free in this day and age).
50-60 Billion GDP in the 2nd Century AD is absolutely impressive for its time.
Unfortunately Rome didn't understand along with every ancient empire how inflation worked. So, currency de-valuation happened often.
However,
You can't compare the past with the present for a variety of reasons. Including the fact that Rome didn't have electricity, cargo freight ships, airplanes, modern medicine (although what they had for medicine was absolutely insane) and the Internet.
Comparing old empires and economies with the modern world is similar of comparing old video games to today's PS5.. Both aren't comparable but are gold edition in their times.. 9/10 in 1990 will still be 9/10 in 2024..
It's still an interesting economic exercise, which is really the whole point of this video.
Summary: Rome wasn't rich because it didn't invented iPhones 🤣
If only Steve Jobs would have been born into Roman Empire, he would have surely invented the iPhone, and Apple, and made Roman Empire prosperous for eternity...
@@xyplethWe need a time machine to send several Steves back in time 😂
It doesn't make sense to compare ancient times to modern times in economics.
Right
Exactly. The economy worked completely differently, and it makes absolutely zero sense trying to evaluate it with today's metrics like the GDP. It's nonsensical to say the average person is wealthier now than even the elite in the Roman empire. Where is my palace? Villa? Where are my tens of slaves?
It is astonishing that a country from 2000 years ago before most of sciences, industries, technologicals, transportations and communications is still richer than many countries now. It seems miraculous.
*Higher* than the PRC's GDP per capita in the *mid* *1990s* (even allowing for inflation since then)
Pretty close to Pakistan now which is at around $1,500 per capita, and they’re a nuclear power
Now we know that author of Economics Explained also think about Rome from time to time
Every man thinks about that damned Roman Empire daily, including me! 🤣🤣🤣
I bring up the average by a lot.
Like how can You not think of the Roman Empire at least once a day?
Ave True to Caesar
@@antoniobautista6718 ahem it ain't JUST the men who think about it either lol!
@@becsterbrisbane6275 Great to see that the ladies share in the obsession 🤣
I don't give out a thumbs down often on a video, but when I do...
Correction: inculding the Eastern Roman Empire, rome is still the longest lastimg empire in human history, lasting for 1400 years and two entire ERAs of history.
The medieval age started with the fall of rome, and ended with the fall of Constantinople.
Egypt
Japan was the longest lasting empire in the world.
@@ZombiePepperoni Japan may have had an emperor but the Japanese Empire only existed from 1849. You need to be careful about title translation. The word is taken from the Chinese word for emperor but we have a tighter definition on what an empire is and it requires a single sovereign over a group of states. You may argue that the daymios were head of states but they were far closer to western feudal lords (and had similar levels of autonomy) than sovereign states.
One could argue that with the fall of East Roman empire it lead to the age of exploration and the eventual settling of the new world.
@@Dan847 Usually the fall of Constantinople is taught to be what forced Europeans to look for alternative routes, leading to the Americas.
I mean, you could easily make the same video about the Roman army, for example: "we remember the Roman army as a mighty force that controlled all of mediterranean, but did you know they would actually lose to even the most decrepit modern armies?"
One of the biggest things about the roman empire is how physically large they were. I expected this video to go towards how they funded wars, why they did, what they gained each time they added an area to their empire, etc. It seems like the "old way" to grow wasn't to come up with new technology but to absorb other nations. I would love to see a video on the economics of war, especially at that time but modern would be cool too!
This.
The Roman Empire is even large by today's transportation standards. But take the same distance plus the need to traverse through it on horseback, and it becomes 50-100x "larger". No wonder they thought that they had basically conquered the world except some rim zones.
Not sure they thought they conquered the world. They were aware of Persia and vaguely aware of a peer power to the East@@KommentarSpaltenKrieger
@@davidk.d.7591 Sure, you're right, my comment doesn't apply to the east.
han empire was also large which was around the same time as rome. The maurya empire was also large which came before the above two and the first big empire achaemanid was also large. i am not taking macedonia as it was not a stable empire at all.
I'm not sure what benefits there are to comparing the productivity of an ancient agrarian society to modern industrialized nations.
CZcams views count would be my guess :)
I think its wild that a Empire from 2,000 years ago is beating out a lot of countries today in the modern era. It's kinda sad to see lol
Considering that The Roman Empire is just behind modern Iran in the leaderboard, I’d be keen to see this analysis for the Persian Empire (either the pre-Roman Achaemenid, or concurrent Arscacid, or Sassanian dynasties)
Italians: "If my grandmother had wheels, she would have been a bike!"
In a way, this makes Rome even more impressive, in that they were able to control such a large empire for so long with such a primitive economy by modern day standards. It is even more impressive still, when you factor still, when you factor in all the civil wars it tended to suffer from.
Its also factor are more impressive then China and India.. Yes China and India is probably far richer and wealthier then Roman because their land is extremely fertile in India and in China is Fertile and Strategic by Yangtze river lead to enable to massive population boom and economic agriculture productivity rapidly..
On the other hand.. Roman territory spanned multi continental with extreme geography difference and different Fertile land condition for 200 years that unite by Roman Road & Aqueduct and also most importantly, Roman Culture such as Gladiator & Chariot..
So in the way sense.. You need to study know how Roman works not only by Economy but Culturally.. Because Roman Empire territory is large and extremely insane geographic like imagine from Britania Island down to egypt covered entire Mediterania Ocean with different Mountain,Hill,River,Forest,Dessert and Weather Condition
And here I was trying to go a whole day without thinking about the Roman Empire.
This is like a new version of losing the game 🙃
This video is a great illustration of why applying modern economic metrics to the distant past doesn't work very well.
"The Roman Empire was basically Africa" - Economics Explained
Economics Explained and Buster Bluth are the only two entities who think the blue is obviously the land on a map
An interesting video and possibly a small series could be done on this. However I personally wouldn't compare ancient rome to modern day. It's like comparing the greatest stone age tribe to ancient rome, obviously the stone age tribe will not be very good in comparison. Maybe going ahead move ancient rome onto a separate leader board of empires.
Another thing to consider as well is a loaf of bread now is no where near as valued as back then.
You're right that's a stupid angle. In Rome bread and water was distributed for free to everyone. The US don't have that. So if we compare Rome to the US, Rome was richer.
@@ljklj719No. It was distributed to the urban poor, and not across the empire. It was a system that waxed and waned over the years. Most people in ancient Rome spent most of their income on food and water.
If, as you point out at the beginning, a hammer is capital, then certainly an aqueduct is a form of capital; as were the roads and modes of production for military equipment, paving stones, pottery etc. Indeed, if a hammer is capital, then so is a flint knife…so humans have always possessed forms of capital that have them the means to produce…no?
Yeah, but the point is that today we have FAAAAR more capital than any other time in history.
@@nicknickbon22 that is very true. But at one point in the video EE says that the Roman elite didn’t have access to capital because most people worked the land...or something to that effect..
Yep they had hammers. We have excavators, banking institutions, and combustion engines. There is exponential difference in capital.
Exponential difference in the type or forms of capital. And the Romans certainly had a form of banking and finance, creating debt and investment. Any investment in production is an investment in capital.
"Absolute" vs."Relative" is the key here- in everything you cover! For instance, any state with an economic stratification equivalent to Rome *obviously* has a fully functioning system of 'capital' no matter how you choose to consider it. The sort of transfers required (and the justification for them) would not be possible otherwise- even theft outright declares 'valuation'!🤪
EE seems to be incapable to grasp that. Like in the video of the Dutch East India Company, EE did a comparison in absolute terms to modern companies instead of looking at market shares... very weak for an "economic" channel...
it was arguably one of the longest lasting spanning from either around 750 bc or 27 bc to 1453 ad. in terms of empires that is far longer than most.
Republic before empire, but yes... : )
@@dw620 The Roman Republic *had* an empire even before it *became* an empire. To some extent, the term "empire" is confusing here, because it refers both to colonial possessions, and to a system of governance.
this is misleading they were ruled by different familes unlike in China and India when a person from different family comes to power the name of the empire also changes.
"Its hard to see why people think about Rome"
I feel actually sorry and pity for those of the human race that can't begin to comprehend the grandeur and glory that Rome has given us as a species.
ROMA INVICTA 🦅🦅
I think people like the Roman Empire because of the cultural legacy it left on Western Europe. Half the counties there are direct descendants of Rome after all more or less like Spain, France, Italy, and many others like Germany and Britain were significantly influenced by Roman and later Latin culture 😔💪🏻
Edit: nvm he said this like RIGHT after saying Rome wasn’t very unique historically
Ceasar->Czar -> Kaisar.
@@AlbertMark-nb9zo Kaiser too, comes from the Latin pronunciation of caesar. The word for emperor in my language is also derived from Latin. The Swedish kejsare is like kaiser
I feel like this was a video built for clip bait. It is meaningless to stack rank Rome this way, it would be like comparing the United States to countries two thousand years in the future and then saying that the United States had a "rather pathetic economy" (assuming we don't wipe ourselves out by then). A relative approach would have made more sense, using factors that were more prominent in antiquity such as influence, power, technology, etc.
Rome is the reason I clicked on this video, be grateful to Rome EE
In term of economics in ancient civilisations, ancient China was a juggernaut. Mainly due to their colossal food output with enormously large fertile lands. They also maintained peace and order for very long stretch of times. They got wars too but few and often in far off areas so majority of their territories would go generations without experiencing war in their proximity. When they do have wars though, especially civil wars, they were massive with size orders of magnitude larger than Roman wars.
Their ability to export silk and steel all the way to Rome helped, no doubt.
On a per-capita basis, it was still no richer than Rome. These empires were rich in aggregate, but desperately poor on a per-capita basis.
@@Unknown-jt1jo😂 Rome was behind both India and China on per capital basis
@Unknown-jt and @tony-lam:
You two need to start citing sources since you're in disagreement about the basic facts; maybe the OP does as well.
EDIT: The OP did not make any unsubstantiated claims - please ignore the last phrase of my comment.
@@jeffbenton6183 lol the burden of proof is on op. I will gladly follow up when/if he provides it
Normally I support EE but this is kinda silly, we're talking about an Ancient Economy, not a Modern one.
Agriculture was everything...
The intro is complete bushtit.
The Roman empire was the longest. 27bc to 1453, fourteen fifty three. as a nation-state it existed for 2,500 years from 800bc, the empire survived longer than the city of Rome did.
It was the largest, empire by population until that point.
isn't 700 (or 710) considered the start?
I agree though, this is neither an accurate or entertaining video.
The way we see Rome today is a human creation. Rome had changed dramatically multiple times, the cultures, people, religion, languages, system of rule, even the name. Rome is hard for modern people to understand as we see the world in the boundary of nation sates on the world map, but that was not the case during Rome, countries did not exist only a forms of authority by power of military and alliances and ever changing cities. Rome itself as a city was no longer the capital of the Roman world by around 200-300AD. If you visit China in the year 1400 is it the same China as today? No. So why do we think Rome was one entity over 2000 years? That is silly.
Now that we have opened the pandoras box, is it possible to get an economics explained Dutch East indies episode? As this is before industrilisation, but also very rich
The comparison reminds me of the manga/anime called Gate, about modern day Japan being invaded by a fantasy Roman like empire through portal/gates that magically appear, the Japanese defense force counter-invading, and wiping the floor with the archaic armies.
I get to pull a “well, actually!” Makes me feel smart. Look at me, everybody! Deep breath, here we go.
0:54 Well, actually, it’s more like 2,000 to 2,500 years ago.
I’m a little confused why we’re comparing Rome to industrialized economies? Of course they were poor by modern standards. Everyone was poor by modern standards.
We have 193 countries (more or less, depending on how you count). Being Rank #100 without access to about 2000 years of technological development is amazing
Romans under Pax Romana in 100 AD had living conditions only surpassed by the industrial revolution as noted by Tom Holland (not him), in his book, Pax.
Seeing the borders change in the beginning is so fascinating.
It is just like seeing how the borders change with the US in its history or some of those European countries. Very fascinating as well.
This one was a miss 😕like asking who would win a race between Rome's horse-drawn carriage and today's supersonic jet? Obviously an ancient civilization is not comparable to a highly technologically advanced modern society like today. It would have been a more interesting video comparing it to similar technology and time frame.
"to have a bit more fun in the new year" more like "to have more potential subjects"
Guess they're not entirely mutually exclusive but at least be forthcoming
Economists when a pre-industrial revolution empire that reached it's peak 1800 years ago wasn't able to keep pace with modern day economies. Like what were you expecting them to do? They don't have the machinery we do or just technology in general.
Could you make the Economics Explained leaderboard publically accessible in full, for instance as a google spreadsheet? It would be neat if one could go through all of it in written format.
Why would anyone want to do that? It's purely subjective incoherent and contradictory rubbish.
You should make a video comparing rome to others at the same time. I think people think its great for its time and not for what it is compared to today.
Someone definitely missed defense economics (or should I name it offence economics) part of Rome story.
During substantial part of it history Rome was maintaining centralized war inventory production (from ships and siege engines to armor for individual soldiers). On top of that it also had a professional army core. Those achievements are extremely impressive for a time (although would-be-china also had at least some of those) and a sign of extremely developed society for a time.
As soon as he started saying the "you're wealthier than a roman emperor because you have a fridge" stuff I was done
So true. When we start having enough money to host gladiatorial games with dozens of imported wild animals, have hundreds of concubines, have armies of thousands at our command and live in enormous mansions, I'll believe him.
EE in 4023AD: Sure, the United States of America of the early 2000s was doing pretty well for its day, but even then, it only controlled a fraction of a single planet, let alone have access to continuum of all realities. Without the ability to create matter at will and observe the vast expanse of the cosmos through the central consciousness nexus, the people of the time can hardly be said to live luxurious lives. Lives which were all too finite at a paltry 78 years. Overall, it's hard to understand why people ever made such a big deal about the country, and we're giving it a 1.067*10^-42 out of 10 on our Economics Explained Omni-leaderboard.
"While they did build a lot of architectural monuments, their economy was actually rather pathetic by almost all metrics."
I'm wondering if the people behind this channel actually know much of anything about what they're talking about. This is among the most vacuous takes I've ever seen about the Roman Empire and its relevance to the modern world. It's like saying: "While it was impressive that Sixteenth Century sailing ships could circumnavigate the world, they've got nothing on modern mega cargo ships."
Also, I can answer this question for you: "Why was Rome, which had a large empire and notoriety throughout Europe for millennia after its demise, actually a very weak economy?" Because it was the ancient world. Roman economic and political innovations represented a massive leap forward in their day and time, sort of like how the Apple II revolutionized personal computing. Nowadays, the Apple II belongs in a museum display case, but that doesn't negate that it was a huge step forward for its time.
I think growth should have been non-zero as their infrastructure projects did help grow the economy. For example roads, bridges, aqueducts, cisterns, dams, canals, etc. all helped improve the productive capacity of the land.
Also I think the stability score is fair but most countries/entities on the EE leaderboard are not being judged on 1000 years of history.
This analysis of ancient/pre-modern economies is incredibly interesting. Please make more of this.
No way, a pre industrial power doesn’t compare to modern economies 😱 😱😱
Who would have guessed 🤦♂️ 😑
Disappointed you didn’t take the opportunity to discuss the economy of Rome and compare it to other pre-industrial empires.
The premise of this video is stupid, obviously an ancient empire reliant on an agrarian economy is poorer than a modern economy. I didn’t need to watch this to know that.
It would be so much more interesting to hear about how Rome was relative to other agrarian economies of ages past.
Love the ancient civilization topic, hope you try again.
"Most Romans lived hand to mouth." Oh, you mean kinda like most modern Americans who live paycheck to paycheck?
It would be interesting to have a 'Historical' Economic Leaderboard to compare economies at a given point in history.
Like a classical era where you compare civilizations like Ptolemaic Egypt, Rome, Carthage, and Early Imperial China.
I'm surprised there wasn't mention of patents and capital markets. Incentives created by these institutions are what kicked-off the global industrial revolution which started in Great Britian in the 1800's (not just the invention of steam engine). If these incentives were stumbled upon thousands of years earlier, we could now be living with science fiction technology, or if they had yet to be implemented, we would still be living in renaissance times.
Those incentives were based on slave labour and colonial loot, how else do you think the industrial revolution got funded?
Why would you compare the economy of the Roman Empire to the countries of todays world? And comparing it to Uganda, etc? Rome was a military empire, and its military was the best of its time, of all times upontil that time, and for many centuries to come. Its economy was nothing to brag about and was, in fact, the very thing that brought about its demise.
This video is just dumb... disapointing from a channel like this
Because this channel is called “economics explained”
Not military explained. Its going to talk about economics.
And why wouldn’t he compare it to modern economies? After all, the past is the past, we should focus on the present
Why wouldn't you compare the economy of the Roman Empire to economies of today? What else would you compare it to?
@@jakel8627 Probably the other empires at the time, like the Persian Empire and the Han Dynasty.
It grants you perspective. The Roman Empire has been romanticized in all forms of media, but reality is wildly different from how it's portrayed.
Did not expect this half assed video from an otherwise such a great channel. Just the opening three sentences was quite scary to hear.
Well, the Roman Empire was clearly "pathetic" by modern standards, and I think all Rome nerds can agree with me on this. A constantly inflating economy that used much of its GDP just for maintaining the military has nothing on our modern, advanced and diversified economies. But huge part of what made Rome great, was the constant amount of redenomination, and economic reform that great Roman leaders did temporarily prevent failure, for a good thousand+ years. Goes to show how truly Roman the Roman economy was; it was always battered and beaten out of shape, but also always found ways to recover and bounce back strong on a consistent basis.
That makes it sound like the USA!
Which empire lasted longer than Rome?
Depending on definition, Egypt and China are easy winners.
When people say long lasting, they usually mean a continuous line of existence. The Egyptian empire was conquered several times and annexed into several empires. Same with China. Rome has the longest, continuous existence in history. @@MisterCynic18
@@braun5739 "depending on definition"
@@MisterCynic18Forgot about China. Does Egypt count as an empire?
We celebrate Rome not because we are comparing it to modern times, but because it was the height of civilization at the time.
It's not embarassing for Ancient Rome to be as rich as modern day Uganda.
It's embarassing for Uganda to be as rich as a state from 2000 years ago.
fun fact, the roman empire was on the fringe of industrial revolution. As it was noted by you, that it has steam engine, and near bigger population centers, there were industrial scale production, but those were food production mostly of course. But the leap for the romans needed to be an industrial force, it was the steel. or at least the lack of it. So if by some chance, they would invent the steel production, they would be industrial empire in that time. But it was not happen, so I am stopping on theorizing what would be :D
That's speculation.
@@timothymatthews6458 look. I know you just read what I wrote. If you think my first point that the romans had proto-industrial world, just search for it. And I also urge everyone to search for it because it is interesting topic. Also for an industrial revolution you need some key components and the romans lacked the steel. these are facts and not speculation :)
what IS speculation, that what would they do with it. But ofcourse I am really open for a debate or a discussion elswhere gladly :)
As Historia Civilis points out multiple times, Rome hadn't figured out economics yet.
@EconomicsExplained, 1st of all, the comparison is entirely wrong because comparing it with modern economies makes no sense at all, and secondly, inflation was not taken into account throughout the video.
“The economy of Rome was kind of pathetic, at least by today’s standards” is like saying the Empire State Building is kind of pathetic compared to a modern planet.
As a historian specializing in the Roman empire I was about to refute the sh*t out of this video, but after reading the comments I can see there's no need for it. I'm glad to see there are still well informed people who use common sense and don't let social media influence their opinions.
After all, an empire doesn't last 1500 yrs (byzantine empire was also the Roman empire) by having a pathetic economy.
Oh boy, alot of angry accounts with Granite sculptures will get mad.
*Marble* sculptures, painted ones if they are true History-enjoyers not just *fake Romaboos.*
Well the thing is, that an ancient economy being measured by modern standards, isn't really applicable, since the economics landscape that we exist within today, is entirely of a different nature. Nevertheless, this is still an interesting thought experiment.
@@mikkelbjerring2914 exactly
You should have made the video about if the territory of the Roman Empire was still united but current economic output, using modern GDP figures etc from current countries under previous roman rule
That would be utterly useless. The problem is there's no way of knowing if all those countries would have become more prosperous or less if the Empire stayed united. A hunger amount of innovations required for our modern world were developed during the middle ages. It'd be like judging the wealth of the Mongolian Empire on looking at nearly all Eurasia even though it lasted less than 200 years and the existence of that Empire is only part of why some of those areas are so prosperous today (with those countries throwing off that Empire being another part)
There’s a real life lore video about it.😊
Great work accounting for things like infant mortality. Going in I had assumed the Roman Empire was sustained by relatively self sustaining areas submitting tributes/taxes, their primary export being safety and government
Would have been cool to see comparisons with empires and nations from the Middle Ages. GDP data starting 1000 AC is fairly readily available, and since population data is available too, making some comparisons would not take longer than a couple of hours of work.
Thank you for talking about this
The reason rome is remembered so well is because its aesthetically better than most other empires.
That's a silly thing to say. Rome is the foundation of Europe. It's only natural that their creations are appealing to us.
@@greyfells2829 I think there is an argument to say thats why they're aesthetically appealing lol
This video seems to ignore the concept of relative purchasing power. The average first world citizen had nowhere near the wealth of a Roman Emperor. To say otherwise is absurd.
Well it is certainly no Carthage
Also Rome did invent the steam engine but completely failed to grasp its value
I think it would be interesting if you kept a separate leaderboard for pre-industrial societies. No amount of good governance and economic planning could ever make up for the technology gap created since the industrial revolution, so it would be more fun to compare the nations and empires with more even playing fields
steam engine without cheap steel is worthless...
It's not that they didn't grasp its value. It's that the quality of metal 2000 years ago wasn't able to properly support a boiler. We only achieved steam engines after steel became relatively mass-produced and cheap in large quantities. Before then, the idea of a steam engine is just not practical or economically sound.
This is Rome of 180. Carthage was literally a pile of rubble at that time.
This is the most ridiculous video on CZcams I've seen in a long time and I watch a lot of CZcams.
It would be really cool to explore some of the other older empires and states such as Early Qing/Tang China, Venice, Persian Empire, Mongol etc. Don't think a lot of channels explored these.
Great episode!
Imagine that "oh hey Brutus, you're 20 years old - guess we should have a birthday party AND plan for your funeral soon, probably next week i guess?"
Men will think about the Roman Empire all the time 24/7
and I'm one of them
This video makes no sense honestly... what a waste of time
Now you need to do the British Empire, French Empire, USSR, Mongol Empire, Spanish Empire, Dutch Empire, Portugese Empire, Japanese Empire etc and put them on the leaderboard
Giving the Roman Empire a 5 for stability is pure comedy. The empire has lasted longer than most of today's states on this planet.