How Excessive Government Killed Ancient Rome - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Rome, Greece, Egypt & other ancient history (c 4000 BCE - 476 CE) and pre-history.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#13776218
Beginning with the third century B.C. Roman economic policy started to contrast more and more sharply with that in the Hellenistic world, especially Egypt. In Greece and Egypt economic policy had gradually become highly regimented, depriving individuals of the freedom to pursue personal profit in production or trade, crushing them under a heavy burden of oppressive taxation, and forcing workers into vast collectives where they were little better than bees in a great hive. The later Hellenistic period was also one of almost constant warfare, which, together with rampant piracy, closed the seas to trade. The result, predictably, was stagnation.

Stagnation bred weakness in the states of the Mediterranean, which partially explains the ease with which Rome was able to steadily expand its reach beginning in the 3rd century B.C. By the first century B.C., Rome was the undisputed master of the Mediterranean. However, peace did not follow Rome's victory, for civil wars sapped its strength.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cjv14n2-7.html
#13780276
Or conversely the decline of the central authority and the success of nobility in avoiding taxation led to greater tax burden by the middle and poor denying the society the strength to successfully defend itself. It wasnt that later roman society didnt have enough wealth, just the nobility and wealthy were able to change the distribution of wealth so the entire commmunity suffered.
#13781162
There are several factors that led to the destruction of Rome. There is the classic problem of imperial over-extension because the Empire's Danubian and German provinces were extremely long and veryb difficult to defend and supply from the center - even with Mediolanum as the de facto capital of the Empire. Then there was the problem of the Parthians/Sassanids in the East. In consequence, the Empire had to maintain increasingly larger armies which led to onerous taxes. The terrible tax burden on the middle and lower classes, especially farmers, more or less turned the Empire into a police state inhabited by a poverty-stricken population. These conditions bred corruption and cast a shadow on the once glorious Roman institutions. Italians and the conquered peoples increasingly lost faith in Rome and began to look at other sources of comfort i.e. religion. This problem was compounded by the advent of Christianity. Though it was not a particularly widespread religion at the time, the so-called Constantine the Great imposed this nonsense, upstart religion, on the Roman world. Far from encouraging loyalty, the clergy was often at odds with the state, oppressed all other faiths (especially Jews), and engendered disloylty among the populace.

In short: Imperial overextension, rapacious taxes, and disloyalty.
#13782579
I take a slightly different tack and see the instability of the ruling class and their constant civil warfare as the main driver in ending the Roman Empire. In the later stages the Romans also relied heavily on mercenaries compared to the traditional citizen soldiers, this meant that when the mercenaries changed alliegence (as people whos loyalty is bought with $ often do) the Romans lacked the base of trained military manpower they needed.

This coupled with what has been previously mentioned; institutional decay, over-extension, heavy taxation and loss of faith in the leadership led to gradual weakening of the Empire.
#13786438
I dont think military expenditure was a direct cause of the collapse. It didn't need or maintain a vast military structure. The cost of supporting the army in GDP was not some crippling cost on the economy. It was the command/control/governance. Why was the empire seemingly incapable of mustering the resources seemingly at it's disposal?

the Taxation system did become excessive on the poor, but form what I have read it was due to the ability of the wealthy to corrupt the government that left more and more burden on the poor that lead to a pretty brutal system that alienated many. (the republican imperial taxation methods of tax farmers was perhaps the most corrupt system of taxation in the history of the planet, people Idealize the Roman Republic but it's taxation of the province was a very very corrupt system, with a small Roman Elite becoming very very wealthy, and thus the downfall of the republic)

The Inability to find a smooth succession, leading to costly civil wars (not just in money but the fabric of society).
#13814221
There were many factors that lead to the fall of Rome. Continual civil wars fought over the Emperorship was a contributing factor, but there are others. One would be the fact that Rome had more mercenaries than it did legionaries. Ill-trained, poorly disciplined Celts, Goths, Huns, etc. constituted the majority of troops during the late Roman Empire. Legionaries themselves became increasingly ill-disciplined with mutinies becoming commonplace. It didn't help when Rome decided to execute entire garrisons and even legions (mutinous and political).

Rome had no significant cavalry itself, and always relied on its Barbarian mercenaries to provide their cavalry needs. This also lead to Rome training its own enemies. What was even more devastating was that Rome did not possess the stirrup, while the Barbarians did.

The final nail in the coffin was when Rome could no longer protect its trade routes, leaving merchant ships at the mercy of pirates. Excessive taxation followed when the empire realized it didn't have any more money.

The city of Rome was ruled by the mob and the administrative capital moved elsewhere. A great deal of money was spent appeasing the millions residing in the city.

Obviously the biggest factor was the invading hordes themselves.
Last edited by Captain Sam on 18 Oct 2011 19:13, edited 1 time in total.
#13814232
I love it when people try to gleam morals about a globalized fiat based capitalist economy from a regionalized slave-based economy that pre-dates feudalism.

The same works the other way - the collapse of the Han Dynasty was largely because rich people were able to skirt enough taxes that the central administration collapsed under the weight of fewer people getting so wealthy they could get their own armies and do what they want. As a last resort an attempt was made to fix things (the Xia Dynasty) before the rich put in a puppet Han Emperor that ruled in name only until everything was sold off to the three richest people that ran their own kingdoms until their greed brought about global dark ages via the barbarians in the north getting more active and moving west, pushing the White Huns, who pushed the Turks, who pushed the Slavs, who pushed the Goths, who came pushing into Rome.

Or the Byzantine Empire - where the wealthy were left to gobble up more land, depriving it from the poorer farmers, who had traditionally been the backbone of the military but became lost to history, and left an untaxed military facade with no numbers to face the Muslims.

Of course - it would be idiotic to base a critique of modern capitalism on throwing anecdotal stories and parables about slave societies thousands of years ago out there as there are about a million and a half things that are deliberately being ignored in such tellings.
#13814245
I love it when people don't understand irony in a post - especially when said ironic post lays out the irony as an introduction and a conclusion.

TIG, all the way last post, wrote:Of course - it would be idiotic to base a critique of modern capitalism on throwing anecdotal stories and parables about slave societies thousands of years ago out there as there are about a million and a half things that are deliberately being ignored in such tellings.
#13814364
As opposed to people imposing their capitalist ideology on ancient events.

The Late Roman Army had plenty of well disciplined cavalry. And Neither they nor their enemies had the Stirrup. Pirates were not a real problem in the Late Imperial period, there were a problem in the Late Republic.
#13814392
pugsville wrote:The Late Roman Army had plenty of well disciplined cavalry. And Neither they nor their enemies had the Stirrup. Pirates were not a real problem in the Late Imperial period, there were a problem in the Late Republic.

You're talking right out of your ass. Roman Cavalry was composed of non-citizens (auxilia) and mercenaries. The Romans put very little importance in cavalry.
The Goths, the Huns, the Franks, etc. they had the stirrup. The Romans did not. Must the Battle of Adrianople be mentioned?
Pirates plagued the entire Western Empire.
#13814439
The Later Roman empire moved to cavalry being the elite arm not the infantry. Many were foreigners, but there were many regular elite roman units as well.

Losing 1 battle does not mean you are in decline as a army. The Roman republic lost plenty.

The Franks were not a cavalry army but heavy foot.

I think the Stirrup while known and used earlier (including the Romans) was not use widespread till the Avars (5th century) out of period.
#14194198
Doomhammer wrote: There is the classic problem of imperial over-extension because the Empire's Danubian and German provinces were extremely long and veryb difficult to defend and supply from the center - even with Mediolanum as the de facto capital of the Empire. Then there was the problem of the Parthians/Sassanids in the East.


Naturally it was tougher to defend the distant frontiers after the mid second century, when the external threats began to get worse. But that wasn't really the problem. Look at the terrible incursions of mid third century. They were devastating. But the old resiliency was still there; by century's end the romans were again in a dominant position. Amazingly, after all the setbacks in the East around midcentury, Rome was actually in a much better position there by 300 CE than it had been in 200.


In consequence, the Empire had to maintain increasingly larger armies which led to onerous taxes.


By about 400 CE, the problem wasn't huge costly armies but lack of enough citizen recruits or even barbarian ones.

The terrible tax burden on the middle and lower classes, especially farmers, more or less turned the Empire into a police state inhabited by a poverty-stricken population. These conditions bred corruption and cast a shadow on the once glorious Roman institutions. Italians and the conquered peoples increasingly lost faith in Rome and began to look at other sources of comfort i.e. religion. This problem was compounded by the advent of Christianity. Though it was not a particularly widespread religion at the time, the so-called Constantine the Great imposed this nonsense, upstart religion, on the Roman world. Far from encouraging loyalty, the clergy was often at odds with the state, oppressed all other faiths (especially Jews), and engendered disloylty among the populace.


I'd put it this way: the fundamental problem was loss of allegiance to the empire. As long as it substantial numbers of citizens willing to fight hard for it, it could survive, and even restore distant frontiers. For reasons that aren't entirely clear, the Empire lost the support of most citizens by about 400 CE. Afterwards it rapidly went down the drain. The only people willing to fight were barbarians and the only way to control them was to pay them. Yet since they had all the fighting power they eventually stole the west's land and revenue sources for themselves. By 469 the West was doomed since the East's attempt to regain its revenue sources had failed. The East was lucky in that the barbarians tended to settle in the west so only the latter sufferred permanent losses of territory in the 5th century at least.
#14194885
pugsville wrote: Pirates were not a real problem in the Late Imperial period,


Unless of course you want to call the Vandals pirates.

there were a problem in the Late Republic.


Sure until Pompey dealt with them. But the problem recurred occasionally; Marcus Aurelius had to deal with them.
#14409196
One thing I recall (correctly?) that helped bring down the Roman empire, was repressive social engineering. Does anyone know if that is true?
#14409197
I hear that expanding the empire into Africa was a mistake, they met some people who went around committing unprovoked acts of violence, I am supprised that you don't know about it redcarpet.
#14409201
Decky wrote:I hear that expanding the empire into Africa was a mistake, they met some people who went around committing unprovoked acts of violence, I am supprised that you don't know about it redcarpet.


The only thing keeping back the native African hordes were the Carthaginians, themselves originally Phoenicians from the Levant region. I don't remember what color they were, however.
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Are people on this thread actually trying to argu[…]

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]