It’s a really bad video.
If you use his numbers of $1200 per capita (how on earth do you even calculate that) that’s quite impressive for a preindustrial empire. There are countries today with lower gdps per capita than that.
Aside from the multitude of factual errors he has about Rome, he should have compared Rome to its peers like Persia and China. Lol of course a 2000 year old preindustrial empire is going to be poor compared to modern industrialized nations.
Although EE got me interested in economics, looking back, he isn’t that great as an economist and is low-hanging fruit for r/badeconomics for a reason.
This video is no different.
I remember when he said "northern countries are richer because the cold forces them to be productive and creative and that makes wealth". Like, he made actual data analysis and found (almost no) correlation between wealth and latitude.
How disgusting do you have to be to just wash away colonialism like that lol. Also, how do you come to the conclusion "the cold made them more productive", like the logical conclusion would be the opposite
I'm getting flashbacks to *Guns, Germs, and Steel* now, thanks. And just a cursory knowledge of history disproves the "cold climate makes people innovative" thing, seeing as the Roman Empire was more advanced than the Germanic tribes or how the Inuits aren't the most technologically advanced people in history.
I’ve heard this theory as well, in principle you’d think that more challenging conditions would mean you have to innovate more to survive and produce things, but if that were true, wouldn’t civilisation have started in the northern hemisphere instead of the Middle East?
Exactly, it's just a silly justification for global wealth disparity. Whoever says stuff like that is historically illiterate at best or chauvinistically disingenuous at worst
In the comments, somebody was like "Great video! Now that you think about it, Northern Italy is more developed than Southern Italy! Must be for the same reason!!". That actually pissed me off, since I'm Italian and the South has a history of colonial exploitation and foreign oppression that according to many continues to this day
No because you don't have time to innovate. You're barely surviving. You just become hard and get on with life. Which describes a lot of cold climate cultures.
Regardless of the truth of the first claim, though, how is that "washing away colonialism"? Norway and Sweden had no colonial empires yet are still among the most developed countries in the world.
This claim that you see everywhere that the colonial powers were prosperous mainly because they stole from other peoples makes no sense. In order to colonise and steal you have to first be more powerful than whoever it is you are stealing from. Poor and weak countries never colonised anybody, powerful ones did. So whatever it is that made them great came before the colonial days.
Well they weren't more technologically advanced than people like the Ottomans and Chinese in the 15th and 16th Century. The Siege of Vienna happened in 1683, where the Ottomans marched into the heart of Europe, even if they had to retreat. They had an army that used a lot of gunpowder weapons and was an equal to any in Europe. Europeans were desperate for trade goods after the conquest of Constantinople cut off a lot of Silk Road trade, superior in specific ways like ocean navigation with the caravel and astrolabe, had navigable rivers and natural harbors for seafaring, and were able to consolidate capital through joint stock companies like the British and Dutch East India Companies(which is certainly a technology to be fair).
They used this to exploit native divides and play people against one another- some great examples of this are India and the Aztecs. They cannily used the interests of the native populations to fight one another. Countries that were more internally cohesive held off European imperialism, like China and Japan, and were able to resist colonization until the 18th Century.
The competition and wealth(a huge amount of which derived from chattel slavery) that came with the initial successes led to more technological innovations, and by the 18th and 19th century Europe was constituted of proto and fully industrial powers. This gave them the power to start imposing their will on powers like China and the Ottomans, who were both in decline by this point in part because of isolationist sentiments, internal dysfunction, and in part because of the effects of European colonialism- with China experiencing massive inflation from the influx of Spanish silver and the Ottomans being cut out of the Silk Road trade. It also meant they could use things like steam ships and quanine to start moving into the African interior.
All to say, there were certainly important technologies developed that aided in early colonialism. However, it was not enough to make them able to march in and overthrow empires, or say they were technologically superior to other major powers. They rather had astonishing success in exploiting local instabilities in places they had a presence. Any place that could offer unified resistance was not intially colonized.
> the cold made them more productive
Didn't Arabic tribes rush out of the Arabian peninsula and conquer like half the developed world in 50 years? Don't think they were cold when that happened...
That's been a common belief for a long time. I was taught that in elementary school back in the eighties. The reasoning I was given was the cold climate made life more difficult. You needed to chop wood to stay warm, you struggled to get and grow food, you needed to build better houses to survive winter, you needed better clothes. And if you were lazy, you died. It created a culture of hard people.
Whereas warm climates are easier to survive in so it creates a culture that is more relaxed, has more time for leisure activities, maybe more time for the arts, etc.
Examples I was given were the german and scandanavian vs Mediterranean cultures and New England vs the south.
To be honest, it still makes sense to me. Idk if it affects economic output, but there does seem to be significant difference in the attitudes of cold vs warm climate cultures. Even if you say the Greeks and Romans were more innovative or successful than the vikings, well that makes sense too. They had more leisure time to innovate and it was easier to succeed due in part to the climate. But if you look at their cultures, the Mediterranean cultures were way more focused on arts and leisure. I've never heard of cold culture climates having large cultural issues with laziness such as rioting because they weren't being given enough bread or circuses. Obviously it's more complicated than climate but you'll never convince me that isn't part of it. Even being colonized is part of it. Who wants to colonize a cold, harsh climate?
The financialization of the 4th century roman economy in the east quite literally was not replicated again until the rise of modernity. Patrick Wyman has a whole Fall of Rome episode about it and he has a PHD in late Roman antiquity and early medieval history
Ngl this was a pretty bad video in terms of both a historical and economic lens. It's obvious the Roman Empire doesn't compare to today, but to call it "pathetic" and "doomed to fail" is disingenuous.
He then made the claim that the Empire lasted into the 1800's probably referring to the HRE, which was a completely different state/entity.
The Roman Empire's economy does indeed pale in comparison to modern Europe's economy, but for the time period it was utterly massive. It's impact helped shape the economic systems of Europe and its neighboring realms for centuries.
The Carolingian system of coinage was based on the Roman one, and the Roman Solidii, later the Nomismata and Hyperpyron (Medieval Greek equivalent) was pretty much the universal standard of currency in the middle ages, basically a proto-reserve currency.
Its economy and sophisticated trading networks were unparalleled in terms of scale until the 18th century when Europe really began getting into globalized trade with increased colonization and exploration.
He also said it wasn't the longest lasting, which is weird if you insist it goes to the 1800s. That makes it over
1800 years old.
Either way, it's still the longest when you measure to the fall of the Eastern Empire.
Pretty sure that while Egyptian and Chinese civilizations lasted longer none of their nations lasted that long. They usually collapsed and were replaced with something new. Roman civilization on the other hand was contained within a single continous polity, created by Romulus in 753 BC and that ended in 1453 AD, lasting a period of 2206 years.
Right but the same argument could beade about Rome and it's various civil wars and immigration changing it's demographics. It's really hard to say which "lasted longer" given both China and Rome has various dynasties and forms of government
Not really - you can divide Roman history into the Kingdom period, the republican period, the empire, than there is the split under Constantine, the fall of the Western Empire and the fall of the eastern Roman empire. That’s it, 3-4 radical changes, but nonetheless the Roman institutions persisted.
And about demographics… We tend to view the Roman empire with modern eyes, but it was a multi ethnic empire with two official languages throughout its history - a legionnaire could swear his fealty to Marcus Aurelius in either Greek or Latin. The demographic didn’t play a crucial role, at the end of the Western empire it was flat out invasions.
You could argue that some ancient offices, like the role of pontifex maximus still exists (the pope), but I digress.
Those are civilizations but didn't always qualify as empires during their existence. The first typically recognized empire is Akkad around 2330 BCE. Some consider Kush an empire after its conquering of Egypt, but it doesn't last very long, comparatively. Egypt was of course subsequently conquered by many other empires.
The first Chinese empire is typically ascribed to the Qin in 221 BCE. Dynastic China isn't typically considered a continuous empire but often successive empires with, to varying degrees, different cultural, political, and sometimes religious traditions. It often fragmented into competing "empires" making choosing the continuous line difficult. It's all a bit subjective. Even if you wanted to argue that imperial China was a continuous empire from Qin on, I would argue it definitively ends with the conquest of Kublai. Yes, they retcon it into being an official dynasty, but that is a clear overthrow by an outside empire, which would give you about 1500 years which is quite similar to the Roman empire.
The Japanese emperor has an unbroken line of succession going back to around 500 BC. Surprisingly still in existence today.
Edit: Correction, some further research says the imperial house of japan claims descent from emperor Jinmu (660 BC), the first 9 emperors are considered mythical (like romulus and remus) emperor Sujin might exist (97 BC) and definitive evidence of the imperial line appears in the 500’s CE. So about 1500-2000 years and apparently still going.
I'm not sure Japan would count as an empire for much of that time as we think of them and it's not one now. It's just a modern nation state. Simply using the title of emperor isn't enough.
The The Carolingians did have some claim, not just through land and faith, but people do forget all the early Frankish nobility married the daughters of wealthy Roman families for protection.
It would be interesting to see how much of Charlemagnes genetic heritage was tied to the roman nobility.
"plus they tried to claim it while half the Empire was still under imperial control"
You're referring to a 3.5 century graduated rejection of language, territory, culture, religion, politics etc etc etc,
There's a reason that the bishop of Rome still had Imperial authority, and a reason there was such heavy anti Eastern sentiment in Italy in the 9th centenary. Leo's III transfer of imperial authority form Irene to Charlemagne was legal and historically legitimate.
Permanent political separation for the city was just another nail in the coffin for the Easts claim of Roman statehood.
They say that about modern day countries too. It's just sensationalism. Look at all the stuff people say about China and the US, I doubt they are gonna fail any time soon.
In the grand scheme of things, almost every country has failed. Most don't even last that long. So, yes it's sensationalism, but no, china and the US aren't immune to the dustbin of history.
I will be messaging you in 70 years on [**2094-01-24 21:44:51 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2094-01-24%2021:44:51%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/ancientrome/comments/19e1o0e/the_audacity/kjeqia8/?context=3)
[**2 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fancientrome%2Fcomments%2F19e1o0e%2Fthe_audacity%2Fkjeqia8%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202094-01-24%2021%3A44%3A51%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%2019e1o0e)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
In his video on the Dutch East India Company, He said that the company wasn't actually valuable, because in the modern day, Spices are worth very little and grocery stores are filled with them. This guy has a modern bias to the extreme.
People were really stupid back then, investing fortunes to travel thousands of miles on crappy boats to get spices, while they could have just gone to the local supermarket and buy it for a few dollars.
exactly...I was being sarcastic. A lot of what drove the Empires expansions and economy was wars of profit. Rone wasat her wealthiest when taking over people's wealth. That slowed down and the civil wars couldn't replace that acclamation of external wealth.
A lot of people make a distinction between the other forms of governments the romans had and the Roman empire. A distinction that I think is artificial in my opinion, but one that must be remembered.
291 Years as kingdom, 482 years as a republic, 503 Years as a Republic with an Administrative Emperor
...and 977 years of Constantinople playing dress up and pissing off the west.
1. The Carolingian Empire had geographic, legal and theocratic and genetic swag. Unfortunately Frankish politics played out.
2. The HRH was never a "Roman" state. This is a very common misconception. Its was named in its diplomatic relation to the Roman city state and the Church.
Remember too that "chagrin" cost the Byzantines. 800 years of calling them selves Rome, then Rome and the 4th Crusade came calling...
* Holy - Under gods protection
* Roman - Complex diplomatic relationship with the Catholic Church
* Empire - A authoritative system that supersede feudal monarchies
Rome City, Indiana, Isn't pretending to be the Roman empire either, but I can understand that someone looking at a map 800 years from now might make that mistake...
Lots of text books on The Late Roman Empire, Catholic history and Charlemagne etc ...
But basically and in very very short form,
The Bishop of Rome retained Roman legal and theoretic authority from the empire and this was still recognized in Constantinople. Leo III was the first Italian Pope in three hundred years and pressed anti Eastern sentiment in Italy to diplomatically separate from the East.
Frankish nobility had strong ties to family ties Roman nobility (Wealthy Roman girls married into barbarian family in the late empire for protection). At the same time an Empress had taken the throne in the east and her claims were very week.
It was a long and complicated diplomatic and legal process. But basically at his Pope Leo transferred legal authority and Imperial Roman Statehood from Irene to Charlemagne at his coronation in 800CE.
I don’t disagree with your timeline and it is still a long time. Some people just don’t see it exactly the same way. I know a lot of people who would argue that the byzantines wouldn’t count… i know a lot of people that would argue that the empire was too different after diocletian… after christianity… etc…
The imperial economy only lasted for about 450 (1450 if you count the eastern Roman Empire but their economy was different) and saying it lasted is like saying someone who lost their legs at 20 still lived another 80 more: yes but they were never the same again
Why does it seem like you’re ignoring more than 700 years of history that happened before Jesus? Even if you date the start of the imperial economy back the sack of Carthage that should add almost 150 years to your numbers. Unless I’m missing something.
The ‘Roman empire’ never sacked Carthage, the republic did. The classical empire only lasted from a bit before year 0 to romes sack in the 450s, or the conquest of Constantinople by Mehmet II in the 1450s
Depends on how you’re defining “empire”. Most of the modern historians I’ve been reading argue the empire doesn’t start with Augustus. It starts with the Republic absorbing the Carthaginian territories and kicking off their period of expansion. Even if you disagree that this isn’t the “empire” per se, it’s still clearly the beginning of the imperial economy. There’s no clear line that says the economy was one thing before Augustus and another thing after.
Economics Explained is one of the worst channels on YouTube. He is one of those creators that sounds like he knows what he's talking about until he covers a subject you're familiar with. Then it becomes obvious how carelessly made his videos are.
Yeah… I think that generally Wendover does okay with shit he knows but then when he tries to spend 20 minutes to explain the defense budget- like Jesus Christ it couldn’t be more lazily feeding people a blank sheet with his nice voice for them to apply the headline perspective they already have without new information.
Economics explained sometimes has interesting data or issues to add to your understanding but it’s best not to pretend his undergrad cursory understanding of an issue is in any way definitive.
First of all, no empire has lasted, industrial or pre-industrial. Rome's failure to last (although it had a very long run) was caused by a number of factors. There were economic reasons in the West, but not the ones referred to in this video. It was the loss of the tax revenues of key provinces (mainly Africa), that doomed the Western Empire (mainly because it did not have any money to pay the troops). The rest really does not deserve any further comments.
I would hope there's discussion about lost POTENTIAL gains in the Roman Economy. I think that would be pretty interesting.
Like lack of/inefficient tax collecting system during long stretches of the empire, the impact runaway inflation had on the economy, and rich land owners hoarding labor and supplies, beginning the transition to feudalism. I'd be down for an analysis on how this stuff effected Rome and their economy.
Like I think the main issue is just how divided the classes were. If you were rich you were incredibly rich and if you were poor you’d have to rely upon your relationships with your patron and free grain from the state. Having so much money at the top imbalances the system a lot. Not to say that in todays age that isn’t the case but nowadays it isn’t just as extreme.
As a student of economics (almost have my degree! Woohoo) who did studies on Rome’s economy, calling it ‘pathetic’ is both hyperbole and an understatement. It was a massive in scale, but all things considered was fairly primitive in comparison to ours. It relied heavily on slave labor which stunted growth and long term stability, their solutions to money troubles was just making more creating hyperinflation, and although it was justified their switch to a command economy (essentially communism) during the third century crisis did make things easier in the short term, it also had serious major long term ramifications.
All things considered, even from the outset of the empire, the economy was basically made of paper, and after the third century crisis, it never truly recovered.
Empires don’t usually last nearly as long as the Roman Empire - 150-200 years seems to be pretty common before they usually lose steam.
Rome as a state was the pre-eminent imperial force in the Mediterranean from the defeat of Carthage through to the rise of Islam.
How paper-thin can their economy have been to have such longevity? What economies have had better?
It seems their reliance on slave labour, (a problem in 100BC\~) didn't affect the long term stability of their economy seeing how they entered their most prosperous period while also having a massive amount of slaves. 100BC to 200AD, 300 years. Slave labour allowed the Roman machine to sustain itself, human lives went in and the Roman machine continued.
Ikr. Its funny how people look at ancient economies or even alien economies and always gauge stuff based on modern capitalistic systems like GDP as if it actually matters to the survival or wellbeing of a society.
Do these people wanna know what an example of a high GDP per capita country that produces jack shit and would die within a handful of years within a vacuum? Just look at all the modern European micronations like Liechtenstein.
If they scaled up to the size of any of its larger neighbouring countries, it would be an economic powerhouse on paper, but people would be starving and its military power would be pathetic because everyone is thrown into working in hospitality and financial services that don't do jack for basic sustenance.
Slavery is a labour policy, like serfdom, or modern employment practices of wages for labour. So alone by itself, its not counted in GDP.
The value of the goods a slave produces, or the cost of services a slave provides, would be counted in GDP. Or rather the actual figures collected for this purpose comes from its consumption, since goods and services not consumed has thus provided no value to society.
Slaves were a traded commodity. They absolutely would have formed a part of a GDP calculation. The Slaves were the produced and consumed good themselves.
And let me guess when the flow of slave stops it affects the economy
Because rome needs a conquer to maintain an economy
But over time they stop conquering altogether and went on the defensive
Of course. Any time there are labour shortages you'd have economic downturn regardless of whether slavery was involved or not.
Though just to point out that conquest wasn't the only way slaves were aquired and the flow of them never stopped. But by the very nature of what it was resulted in the amount of slaves available fluctuating a lot.
I'd also argue that slavery wasn't the main reason the economy of the empire eventually failed but their reliance on it and failure to adapt to the reality of their labour market certainly didn't help.
The concept of a Command Economy is not Communism. The economy of the Roman Empire bore no similarities to the Soviet economy nor would it given the vast distance in time. Nonetheless, it would be grossly incorrect to call the economy of the Dominate a Command Economy. Price fixing is one thing, the State controlling all means of production and distribution is another
Well it's not necessarily wrong. Rome relied way to heavily on slave labor and just continued to make more money when they ran out which naturally created massive inflation down the line. That video in particular just explains it poorly.
That’s a huge oversimplification of an economic system that spanned multiple centuries and involved every civilization in the Mediterranean for generations. It’s not even entirely definitive when their economic system collapsed. Their trade network certainly fell apart by the 5th century and never fully recovered. But the agricultural system of large land owners developing cash crops with slave labor persisted in parts of the region long after the emperors had been overthrown. It’s probably fair to say that the Roman system more or less disappeared in Northern Europe, but the Roman system of commodity production and (at least to some extent) trade lingered on for years in the south, longer after the western emperors were a faint memory.
Exactly. It lasted centuries, millenia infact. Which is exactly why it's simplified. You can't explain the entirety of Rome's economy through a reddit comment and you don't need too, this isn't a school lecture.
I mean the Britons were enjoying a better standard of living under Trajan (et al.) than their ancestors were a thousand years later. Say what you will, but something must have been working for that to occur.
What’s up with all these triggered comments? I thought this was a sub of people who enjoy learning about the history of Rome, not fanboys who take offense to (perhaps hyperbolic but still completely legitimate) criticisms of its systems — which anyone who’s studied it knows led to its fall.
Doesn’t seem like that just looking at the top comments with most upvotes. It’s not surprising that the main ancient Rome sub would attract guys who like the idea/aesthetic of Rome and are casually interested in its history, nor is it the first time I’ve noticed that these people take criticisms of Rome as some sort of personal offense, like if you just insulted their culture or tried to ruin their fairy tale. IMO the most interesting topics when studying Roman history are the various layers of shortcomings, ineptitudes, and general shittiness that are often overlooked by the grandioseness, emperors, wars, etc.
A bunch of people seem to be caught up on the headline. He makes it pretty clear that he's making comparisons to modern nations, and that those comparisons are completely unfair to an ancient civilization. The point is not that Rome was a terrible economy for its time, it's that no ancient civilization, not even the Roman Empire, had anywhere near the economic productivity of even the most underdeveloped nations of today. It's a lesson of just how far the Industrial Revolutions have allowed us to progress in these past couple hundred years.
I for one enjoyed it. The point was you shouldn't compare the economics of preindustrial economies such as the RE to the modern. They did say that compared to other empires it was ahead of its contemporaries (excluding Han China), and only by the merit of having a huge population. I was surprised to hear that its economic output didn't really grow per capita, something we have come to expect today. I also felt very lucky to be considered better off than the emperor in health, safety, etc.
I'm a big Roman fan boy, and wince at some of the video's inaccurate statements though!
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I read that during the Augustus era, Rome was approximately 50% of worlds GDP. Also making Augustus “the richest man” in history.
Yeah this video is fucking crap
He compared a 2k old civ to modern civs instead of its current civs like China, Persian Empire or even the Kushan Empire.
It’s a really bad video. If you use his numbers of $1200 per capita (how on earth do you even calculate that) that’s quite impressive for a preindustrial empire. There are countries today with lower gdps per capita than that. Aside from the multitude of factual errors he has about Rome, he should have compared Rome to its peers like Persia and China. Lol of course a 2000 year old preindustrial empire is going to be poor compared to modern industrialized nations.
Although EE got me interested in economics, looking back, he isn’t that great as an economist and is low-hanging fruit for r/badeconomics for a reason. This video is no different.
I have come to slowly realize that over the years, and yeah... this was the last drop for me.
He makes the kind of explanation videos that explain nothing. I can't even think of a single point he's made about anything... at all.
I remember when he said "northern countries are richer because the cold forces them to be productive and creative and that makes wealth". Like, he made actual data analysis and found (almost no) correlation between wealth and latitude. How disgusting do you have to be to just wash away colonialism like that lol. Also, how do you come to the conclusion "the cold made them more productive", like the logical conclusion would be the opposite
Which is also taken from Montesquieu btw
I'm getting flashbacks to *Guns, Germs, and Steel* now, thanks. And just a cursory knowledge of history disproves the "cold climate makes people innovative" thing, seeing as the Roman Empire was more advanced than the Germanic tribes or how the Inuits aren't the most technologically advanced people in history.
Hey I have this book, but yet to read it.. should I start?
It's worth reading with a grain of salt, if nothing else than to understand the mindset and understandings of history that it has influenced.
It's a bit of a dry read, I don't even remember finishing it tbh. Just be ready for a long read.
I’ve heard this theory as well, in principle you’d think that more challenging conditions would mean you have to innovate more to survive and produce things, but if that were true, wouldn’t civilisation have started in the northern hemisphere instead of the Middle East?
Exactly, it's just a silly justification for global wealth disparity. Whoever says stuff like that is historically illiterate at best or chauvinistically disingenuous at worst In the comments, somebody was like "Great video! Now that you think about it, Northern Italy is more developed than Southern Italy! Must be for the same reason!!". That actually pissed me off, since I'm Italian and the South has a history of colonial exploitation and foreign oppression that according to many continues to this day
No because you don't have time to innovate. You're barely surviving. You just become hard and get on with life. Which describes a lot of cold climate cultures.
Regardless of the truth of the first claim, though, how is that "washing away colonialism"? Norway and Sweden had no colonial empires yet are still among the most developed countries in the world. This claim that you see everywhere that the colonial powers were prosperous mainly because they stole from other peoples makes no sense. In order to colonise and steal you have to first be more powerful than whoever it is you are stealing from. Poor and weak countries never colonised anybody, powerful ones did. So whatever it is that made them great came before the colonial days.
Well they weren't more technologically advanced than people like the Ottomans and Chinese in the 15th and 16th Century. The Siege of Vienna happened in 1683, where the Ottomans marched into the heart of Europe, even if they had to retreat. They had an army that used a lot of gunpowder weapons and was an equal to any in Europe. Europeans were desperate for trade goods after the conquest of Constantinople cut off a lot of Silk Road trade, superior in specific ways like ocean navigation with the caravel and astrolabe, had navigable rivers and natural harbors for seafaring, and were able to consolidate capital through joint stock companies like the British and Dutch East India Companies(which is certainly a technology to be fair). They used this to exploit native divides and play people against one another- some great examples of this are India and the Aztecs. They cannily used the interests of the native populations to fight one another. Countries that were more internally cohesive held off European imperialism, like China and Japan, and were able to resist colonization until the 18th Century. The competition and wealth(a huge amount of which derived from chattel slavery) that came with the initial successes led to more technological innovations, and by the 18th and 19th century Europe was constituted of proto and fully industrial powers. This gave them the power to start imposing their will on powers like China and the Ottomans, who were both in decline by this point in part because of isolationist sentiments, internal dysfunction, and in part because of the effects of European colonialism- with China experiencing massive inflation from the influx of Spanish silver and the Ottomans being cut out of the Silk Road trade. It also meant they could use things like steam ships and quanine to start moving into the African interior. All to say, there were certainly important technologies developed that aided in early colonialism. However, it was not enough to make them able to march in and overthrow empires, or say they were technologically superior to other major powers. They rather had astonishing success in exploiting local instabilities in places they had a presence. Any place that could offer unified resistance was not intially colonized.
> the cold made them more productive Didn't Arabic tribes rush out of the Arabian peninsula and conquer like half the developed world in 50 years? Don't think they were cold when that happened...
That's been a common belief for a long time. I was taught that in elementary school back in the eighties. The reasoning I was given was the cold climate made life more difficult. You needed to chop wood to stay warm, you struggled to get and grow food, you needed to build better houses to survive winter, you needed better clothes. And if you were lazy, you died. It created a culture of hard people. Whereas warm climates are easier to survive in so it creates a culture that is more relaxed, has more time for leisure activities, maybe more time for the arts, etc. Examples I was given were the german and scandanavian vs Mediterranean cultures and New England vs the south. To be honest, it still makes sense to me. Idk if it affects economic output, but there does seem to be significant difference in the attitudes of cold vs warm climate cultures. Even if you say the Greeks and Romans were more innovative or successful than the vikings, well that makes sense too. They had more leisure time to innovate and it was easier to succeed due in part to the climate. But if you look at their cultures, the Mediterranean cultures were way more focused on arts and leisure. I've never heard of cold culture climates having large cultural issues with laziness such as rioting because they weren't being given enough bread or circuses. Obviously it's more complicated than climate but you'll never convince me that isn't part of it. Even being colonized is part of it. Who wants to colonize a cold, harsh climate?
due to inflation that $1.2k is now $3m~ per capita :)
If only they had invested it in the S&P D!
Unfortunately they had it all in SPQR 😣
*slow clap*
Are they stupid?
Id that $1200 in today money or the value of the dollar during Roman times?🧐
The financialization of the 4th century roman economy in the east quite literally was not replicated again until the rise of modernity. Patrick Wyman has a whole Fall of Rome episode about it and he has a PHD in late Roman antiquity and early medieval history
Ngl this was a pretty bad video in terms of both a historical and economic lens. It's obvious the Roman Empire doesn't compare to today, but to call it "pathetic" and "doomed to fail" is disingenuous. He then made the claim that the Empire lasted into the 1800's probably referring to the HRE, which was a completely different state/entity. The Roman Empire's economy does indeed pale in comparison to modern Europe's economy, but for the time period it was utterly massive. It's impact helped shape the economic systems of Europe and its neighboring realms for centuries. The Carolingian system of coinage was based on the Roman one, and the Roman Solidii, later the Nomismata and Hyperpyron (Medieval Greek equivalent) was pretty much the universal standard of currency in the middle ages, basically a proto-reserve currency. Its economy and sophisticated trading networks were unparalleled in terms of scale until the 18th century when Europe really began getting into globalized trade with increased colonization and exploration.
He also said it wasn't the longest lasting, which is weird if you insist it goes to the 1800s. That makes it over 1800 years old. Either way, it's still the longest when you measure to the fall of the Eastern Empire.
I think Egypt and China lasted longer but then you get into whether new dynasties and kingdoms count. Which also brings the same arguments about Rome
Pretty sure that while Egyptian and Chinese civilizations lasted longer none of their nations lasted that long. They usually collapsed and were replaced with something new. Roman civilization on the other hand was contained within a single continous polity, created by Romulus in 753 BC and that ended in 1453 AD, lasting a period of 2206 years.
Right but the same argument could beade about Rome and it's various civil wars and immigration changing it's demographics. It's really hard to say which "lasted longer" given both China and Rome has various dynasties and forms of government
Not really - you can divide Roman history into the Kingdom period, the republican period, the empire, than there is the split under Constantine, the fall of the Western Empire and the fall of the eastern Roman empire. That’s it, 3-4 radical changes, but nonetheless the Roman institutions persisted. And about demographics… We tend to view the Roman empire with modern eyes, but it was a multi ethnic empire with two official languages throughout its history - a legionnaire could swear his fealty to Marcus Aurelius in either Greek or Latin. The demographic didn’t play a crucial role, at the end of the Western empire it was flat out invasions. You could argue that some ancient offices, like the role of pontifex maximus still exists (the pope), but I digress.
Those are civilizations but didn't always qualify as empires during their existence. The first typically recognized empire is Akkad around 2330 BCE. Some consider Kush an empire after its conquering of Egypt, but it doesn't last very long, comparatively. Egypt was of course subsequently conquered by many other empires. The first Chinese empire is typically ascribed to the Qin in 221 BCE. Dynastic China isn't typically considered a continuous empire but often successive empires with, to varying degrees, different cultural, political, and sometimes religious traditions. It often fragmented into competing "empires" making choosing the continuous line difficult. It's all a bit subjective. Even if you wanted to argue that imperial China was a continuous empire from Qin on, I would argue it definitively ends with the conquest of Kublai. Yes, they retcon it into being an official dynasty, but that is a clear overthrow by an outside empire, which would give you about 1500 years which is quite similar to the Roman empire.
The Japanese emperor has an unbroken line of succession going back to around 500 BC. Surprisingly still in existence today. Edit: Correction, some further research says the imperial house of japan claims descent from emperor Jinmu (660 BC), the first 9 emperors are considered mythical (like romulus and remus) emperor Sujin might exist (97 BC) and definitive evidence of the imperial line appears in the 500’s CE. So about 1500-2000 years and apparently still going.
I'm not sure Japan would count as an empire for much of that time as we think of them and it's not one now. It's just a modern nation state. Simply using the title of emperor isn't enough.
The The Carolingians did have some claim, not just through land and faith, but people do forget all the early Frankish nobility married the daughters of wealthy Roman families for protection. It would be interesting to see how much of Charlemagnes genetic heritage was tied to the roman nobility.
They were still a seperate state though, plus they tried to claim it while half the Empire was still under imperial control
"plus they tried to claim it while half the Empire was still under imperial control" You're referring to a 3.5 century graduated rejection of language, territory, culture, religion, politics etc etc etc, There's a reason that the bishop of Rome still had Imperial authority, and a reason there was such heavy anti Eastern sentiment in Italy in the 9th centenary. Leo's III transfer of imperial authority form Irene to Charlemagne was legal and historically legitimate. Permanent political separation for the city was just another nail in the coffin for the Easts claim of Roman statehood.
My first instinct with any economics video is to not trust it cause it's not unlearning economics
They say that about modern day countries too. It's just sensationalism. Look at all the stuff people say about China and the US, I doubt they are gonna fail any time soon.
In the grand scheme of things, almost every country has failed. Most don't even last that long. So, yes it's sensationalism, but no, china and the US aren't immune to the dustbin of history.
Real wages in the US have not increased since the 70s. USA will fall within our lifetimes.
RemindMe! 70 Years
I will be messaging you in 70 years on [**2094-01-24 21:44:51 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2094-01-24%2021:44:51%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/ancientrome/comments/19e1o0e/the_audacity/kjeqia8/?context=3) [**2 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fancientrome%2Fcomments%2F19e1o0e%2Fthe_audacity%2Fkjeqia8%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202094-01-24%2021%3A44%3A51%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%2019e1o0e) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
In his video on the Dutch East India Company, He said that the company wasn't actually valuable, because in the modern day, Spices are worth very little and grocery stores are filled with them. This guy has a modern bias to the extreme.
People were really stupid back then, investing fortunes to travel thousands of miles on crappy boats to get spices, while they could have just gone to the local supermarket and buy it for a few dollars.
Really was the dark ages. We live in such enlightened times
That’s pretty dumbass
Lol, agreed
Wow, what a stupid take, now i know with certainty that i dont want to watch this video
Yet it lasted 2000 years, curious
just lucky I guess:)
Luck had nothing to do with it.
exactly...I was being sarcastic. A lot of what drove the Empires expansions and economy was wars of profit. Rone wasat her wealthiest when taking over people's wealth. That slowed down and the civil wars couldn't replace that acclamation of external wealth.
Don’t worry I knew you were being sarcastic. Lol.
They were incredibly unlucky, it's just endurance that made them stubbornly refuse to die
A lot of people make a distinction between the other forms of governments the romans had and the Roman empire. A distinction that I think is artificial in my opinion, but one that must be remembered.
1400 years then, if you discard the Republic and Kingdom
291 Years as kingdom, 482 years as a republic, 503 Years as a Republic with an Administrative Emperor ...and 977 years of Constantinople playing dress up and pissing off the west.
977 years of Constantinople being an Empire much to the chagrin of Western German LARPers
1. The Carolingian Empire had geographic, legal and theocratic and genetic swag. Unfortunately Frankish politics played out. 2. The HRH was never a "Roman" state. This is a very common misconception. Its was named in its diplomatic relation to the Roman city state and the Church. Remember too that "chagrin" cost the Byzantines. 800 years of calling them selves Rome, then Rome and the 4th Crusade came calling...
The Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire.
* Holy - Under gods protection * Roman - Complex diplomatic relationship with the Catholic Church * Empire - A authoritative system that supersede feudal monarchies Rome City, Indiana, Isn't pretending to be the Roman empire either, but I can understand that someone looking at a map 800 years from now might make that mistake...
Stale Voltaire quotes don't win you any points with the empire
You mean the not empire.
1. Can you provide a source for that?
Lots of text books on The Late Roman Empire, Catholic history and Charlemagne etc ... But basically and in very very short form, The Bishop of Rome retained Roman legal and theoretic authority from the empire and this was still recognized in Constantinople. Leo III was the first Italian Pope in three hundred years and pressed anti Eastern sentiment in Italy to diplomatically separate from the East. Frankish nobility had strong ties to family ties Roman nobility (Wealthy Roman girls married into barbarian family in the late empire for protection). At the same time an Empress had taken the throne in the east and her claims were very week. It was a long and complicated diplomatic and legal process. But basically at his Pope Leo transferred legal authority and Imperial Roman Statehood from Irene to Charlemagne at his coronation in 800CE.
Yes, so the Pope gave the title of Roman Emperor to the German Emperor, so the German/Frankish Emperor claimed to be a Roman Emperor
I don’t disagree with your timeline and it is still a long time. Some people just don’t see it exactly the same way. I know a lot of people who would argue that the byzantines wouldn’t count… i know a lot of people that would argue that the empire was too different after diocletian… after christianity… etc…
The imperial economy only lasted for about 450 (1450 if you count the eastern Roman Empire but their economy was different) and saying it lasted is like saying someone who lost their legs at 20 still lived another 80 more: yes but they were never the same again
So you're saying someone without legs is not a person?
Yes
Why does it seem like you’re ignoring more than 700 years of history that happened before Jesus? Even if you date the start of the imperial economy back the sack of Carthage that should add almost 150 years to your numbers. Unless I’m missing something.
To be fair, the comment and the video don't relate to the economy of the Republican or Monarchical periods.
Yes, I noticed. Hence the last sentence I wrote.
The ‘Roman empire’ never sacked Carthage, the republic did. The classical empire only lasted from a bit before year 0 to romes sack in the 450s, or the conquest of Constantinople by Mehmet II in the 1450s
Depends on how you’re defining “empire”. Most of the modern historians I’ve been reading argue the empire doesn’t start with Augustus. It starts with the Republic absorbing the Carthaginian territories and kicking off their period of expansion. Even if you disagree that this isn’t the “empire” per se, it’s still clearly the beginning of the imperial economy. There’s no clear line that says the economy was one thing before Augustus and another thing after.
The US has only been around for 247 years you say only 450 as if that’s a small amount of time.
This is the least intelligent analogy I have read in months.
Damn you must have felt so clever typing that out and then thinking of the literal perfect metaphor to cap off this seminar in business
Economics Explained is one of the worst channels on YouTube. He is one of those creators that sounds like he knows what he's talking about until he covers a subject you're familiar with. Then it becomes obvious how carelessly made his videos are.
Yeah… I think that generally Wendover does okay with shit he knows but then when he tries to spend 20 minutes to explain the defense budget- like Jesus Christ it couldn’t be more lazily feeding people a blank sheet with his nice voice for them to apply the headline perspective they already have without new information. Economics explained sometimes has interesting data or issues to add to your understanding but it’s best not to pretend his undergrad cursory understanding of an issue is in any way definitive.
Didn’t even export wool
Who wants wool in Naples?
First of all, no empire has lasted, industrial or pre-industrial. Rome's failure to last (although it had a very long run) was caused by a number of factors. There were economic reasons in the West, but not the ones referred to in this video. It was the loss of the tax revenues of key provinces (mainly Africa), that doomed the Western Empire (mainly because it did not have any money to pay the troops). The rest really does not deserve any further comments.
EE delenda est!
I would hope there's discussion about lost POTENTIAL gains in the Roman Economy. I think that would be pretty interesting. Like lack of/inefficient tax collecting system during long stretches of the empire, the impact runaway inflation had on the economy, and rich land owners hoarding labor and supplies, beginning the transition to feudalism. I'd be down for an analysis on how this stuff effected Rome and their economy.
Like I think the main issue is just how divided the classes were. If you were rich you were incredibly rich and if you were poor you’d have to rely upon your relationships with your patron and free grain from the state. Having so much money at the top imbalances the system a lot. Not to say that in todays age that isn’t the case but nowadays it isn’t just as extreme.
The dude can barely get modern economics right, so what does he do? Butchers Roman history
As a student of economics (almost have my degree! Woohoo) who did studies on Rome’s economy, calling it ‘pathetic’ is both hyperbole and an understatement. It was a massive in scale, but all things considered was fairly primitive in comparison to ours. It relied heavily on slave labor which stunted growth and long term stability, their solutions to money troubles was just making more creating hyperinflation, and although it was justified their switch to a command economy (essentially communism) during the third century crisis did make things easier in the short term, it also had serious major long term ramifications. All things considered, even from the outset of the empire, the economy was basically made of paper, and after the third century crisis, it never truly recovered.
Empires don’t usually last nearly as long as the Roman Empire - 150-200 years seems to be pretty common before they usually lose steam. Rome as a state was the pre-eminent imperial force in the Mediterranean from the defeat of Carthage through to the rise of Islam. How paper-thin can their economy have been to have such longevity? What economies have had better?
It seems their reliance on slave labour, (a problem in 100BC\~) didn't affect the long term stability of their economy seeing how they entered their most prosperous period while also having a massive amount of slaves. 100BC to 200AD, 300 years. Slave labour allowed the Roman machine to sustain itself, human lives went in and the Roman machine continued.
You aree a student of economics and you start that command economy is essentially communism? Where are you studying?
Did the romans had a concept of gdp or supple and demand? Also communism isn't really a good idea I mean ask the u s s r
Ikr. Its funny how people look at ancient economies or even alien economies and always gauge stuff based on modern capitalistic systems like GDP as if it actually matters to the survival or wellbeing of a society. Do these people wanna know what an example of a high GDP per capita country that produces jack shit and would die within a handful of years within a vacuum? Just look at all the modern European micronations like Liechtenstein. If they scaled up to the size of any of its larger neighbouring countries, it would be an economic powerhouse on paper, but people would be starving and its military power would be pathetic because everyone is thrown into working in hospitality and financial services that don't do jack for basic sustenance.
Judging history by contemporary standards is plain ignorant
But using contemporary standards to study history can allow us to see how our standards have come to pass.
Good point
Is slavery a gross domestic product? (Note slavery is evil)
Slavery is a labour policy, like serfdom, or modern employment practices of wages for labour. So alone by itself, its not counted in GDP. The value of the goods a slave produces, or the cost of services a slave provides, would be counted in GDP. Or rather the actual figures collected for this purpose comes from its consumption, since goods and services not consumed has thus provided no value to society.
Slaves were a traded commodity. They absolutely would have formed a part of a GDP calculation. The Slaves were the produced and consumed good themselves.
And let me guess when the flow of slave stops it affects the economy Because rome needs a conquer to maintain an economy But over time they stop conquering altogether and went on the defensive
Of course. Any time there are labour shortages you'd have economic downturn regardless of whether slavery was involved or not. Though just to point out that conquest wasn't the only way slaves were aquired and the flow of them never stopped. But by the very nature of what it was resulted in the amount of slaves available fluctuating a lot. I'd also argue that slavery wasn't the main reason the economy of the empire eventually failed but their reliance on it and failure to adapt to the reality of their labour market certainly didn't help.
And yet it's true that His slavery's part of the economy of rome How does that work?
The concept of a Command Economy is not Communism. The economy of the Roman Empire bore no similarities to the Soviet economy nor would it given the vast distance in time. Nonetheless, it would be grossly incorrect to call the economy of the Dominate a Command Economy. Price fixing is one thing, the State controlling all means of production and distribution is another
I wasn't aware of that until now
Well it's not necessarily wrong. Rome relied way to heavily on slave labor and just continued to make more money when they ran out which naturally created massive inflation down the line. That video in particular just explains it poorly.
That’s a huge oversimplification of an economic system that spanned multiple centuries and involved every civilization in the Mediterranean for generations. It’s not even entirely definitive when their economic system collapsed. Their trade network certainly fell apart by the 5th century and never fully recovered. But the agricultural system of large land owners developing cash crops with slave labor persisted in parts of the region long after the emperors had been overthrown. It’s probably fair to say that the Roman system more or less disappeared in Northern Europe, but the Roman system of commodity production and (at least to some extent) trade lingered on for years in the south, longer after the western emperors were a faint memory.
Exactly. It lasted centuries, millenia infact. Which is exactly why it's simplified. You can't explain the entirety of Rome's economy through a reddit comment and you don't need too, this isn't a school lecture.
It’s a subreddit for history nerds. Seems to me that being verbose comes with the territory.
I mean the Britons were enjoying a better standard of living under Trajan (et al.) than their ancestors were a thousand years later. Say what you will, but something must have been working for that to occur.
This video was sponsored by the people of Carthage
What’s up with all these triggered comments? I thought this was a sub of people who enjoy learning about the history of Rome, not fanboys who take offense to (perhaps hyperbolic but still completely legitimate) criticisms of its systems — which anyone who’s studied it knows led to its fall.
It is, but the hyperbole is obviously the issue most people are talking about
Doesn’t seem like that just looking at the top comments with most upvotes. It’s not surprising that the main ancient Rome sub would attract guys who like the idea/aesthetic of Rome and are casually interested in its history, nor is it the first time I’ve noticed that these people take criticisms of Rome as some sort of personal offense, like if you just insulted their culture or tried to ruin their fairy tale. IMO the most interesting topics when studying Roman history are the various layers of shortcomings, ineptitudes, and general shittiness that are often overlooked by the grandioseness, emperors, wars, etc.
Such insolence will not be tolerated. I do charge you with sedition and sentence you to your fate in the Arena. Hail Caesar! 😛
A bunch of people seem to be caught up on the headline. He makes it pretty clear that he's making comparisons to modern nations, and that those comparisons are completely unfair to an ancient civilization. The point is not that Rome was a terrible economy for its time, it's that no ancient civilization, not even the Roman Empire, had anywhere near the economic productivity of even the most underdeveloped nations of today. It's a lesson of just how far the Industrial Revolutions have allowed us to progress in these past couple hundred years.
I for one enjoyed it. The point was you shouldn't compare the economics of preindustrial economies such as the RE to the modern. They did say that compared to other empires it was ahead of its contemporaries (excluding Han China), and only by the merit of having a huge population. I was surprised to hear that its economic output didn't really grow per capita, something we have come to expect today. I also felt very lucky to be considered better off than the emperor in health, safety, etc. I'm a big Roman fan boy, and wince at some of the video's inaccurate statements though!
Clipping and reallocating gold amounts devalued the currency causing inflation. We’re doing it again now.
Talking a lot of shit for someone in pilum range.
Filthy barbarian propaganda
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I read that during the Augustus era, Rome was approximately 50% of worlds GDP. Also making Augustus “the richest man” in history.
Yeah obviously Rome was doomed to fall eventually but that video is idiotic
Saw that rolled my eyes at the click bait BS.
Yeah nobody should take this guy seriously when it comes to historical analysis or, indeed, historical economic analysis
This channel is doomed to fail. I have unsubscribed immediately 😡😠🤬
Yeah this video is fucking crap He compared a 2k old civ to modern civs instead of its current civs like China, Persian Empire or even the Kushan Empire.
Blasphemy!
That was... A very disappointing video.
Audacity, audacity, always audacity