How Excessive Government Killed Ancient Rome - Page 2 - 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.
#14409244
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.


Cato is biased bullshit. We had this discussion so many times and i can already hear the steps of Potemkin coming to this topic. To sum it up there are several things that could have killed the empire but the above reason is not one of them. Its funny how they mention the 3rd century because because it was the time of crysis, civil war, tetriarchy etc. The reason the empire was split was because of the events of the previouse century. Basically the empire ascended to state of warlordism and no government so it had to be split to prevent 1 part of the empire or 1 of the many parts from sacking the other. Thats 1st of all. So social policy had nothing to do with this. Abscene of powerful centralist rule at this time destroyed the empire.

2ndly Rome achieved its greatness under impereal rule, the greatness that you remember atleast. Pax romana was created under impereal rule so both its greatness and its weakness was the resoult of this rule because some rulers were more competent than the others lets say.

3rdly If you want to point fingers than lets say Cesar and Augustus(Aka Gaius Octavius) were the foundations of this rule that came out after ceasars conquest and the subsequest civil war after his murder. As much as i would have to agree that Augustus stabilized the empire and gave it more life of sorts because the republican rule was failing. On the other hand he along with ceasar overexpanded the empire which was its downfall in the end(my opinion).

4thly After Markus Aurelius the emperors were no longer just from 'Rome' or 'Italy' so there were some emperors who engaged in some heavy antiroman policies like replacing jupiter as the main god for some syrian god etc. But the time after Markus Aurelius was really catastrophic and prone with murders and civil war.

So take your pick, but dont just agree with Cato bullshit.
#14422950
Decky wrote:I hear that expanding the empire into Africa was a mistake,


From whom, the three stooges? Africa (particularly Egypt, and the area around Carthage) was the granary of Rome. It was a vital source of food and revenue.


they met some people who went around committing unprovoked acts of violence


Generally there was little trouble from native "african hordes." Not many people could live in or traverse the sahara. Troops had to guard against raiding desert tribes but generally the African frontier was nowhere near as threatened as the European or Eastern one. Until Geiseric came....
#14422963
starman2003 wrote:Generally there was little trouble from native "african hordes." Not many people could live in or traverse the sahara. Troops had to guard against raiding desert tribes but generally the African frontier was nowhere near as threatened as the European or Eastern one. Until Geiseric came....

I believe Decky was refering to Punic wars, you know Hannibal of Carthage, elephants crossing the Alps?

Image
#14422967
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.

I believe Decky was indeed thinking of the Carthaginians. However, the Punic Wars did not erupt as a consequence of Rome's expansion into Africa, but as a consequence of Rome's expansion into the trade routes of the western Mediterranean. The Carthaginians treated the western Med as their own private pond, even to the extent of sinking any non-Punic merchant vessels which strayed into 'their' waters. When Rome became big enough to start poaching customers from the Carthaginians, then it was on.

Rome's expansion into Africa was therefore actually a consequence of the Punic Wars, and not a cause of them.
#14422969
Potemkin wrote:I believe Decky was indeed thinking of the Carthaginians. However, the Punic Wars did not erupt as a consequence of Rome's expansion into Africa, but as a consequence of Rome's expansion into the trade routes of the western Mediterranean. The Carthaginians treated the western Med as their own private pond, even to the extent of sinking any non-Punic merchant vessels which strayed into 'their' waters. When Rome became big enough to start poaching customers from the Carthaginians, then it was on.

Rome's expansion into Africa was therefore actually a consequence of the Punic Wars, and not a cause of them.

Lol so what Decky said ironically was actually literal. It was the Carthagians committing the "acts of unprovoked violence".
#14422970
Lol so what Decky said ironically was actually literal. It was the Carthagians committing the "acts of unprovoked violence".

In the ancient world, everyone was committing "acts of unprovoked violence". There was almost nothing resembling what we would now call 'international law' back then. Envoys were protected and states could sign peace treaties and even occasionally agree spheres of influence with each other, but that was about it. Once empires expanded enough to start overlapping each other, then war was the almost inevitable consequence. In the Mediterranean region, this started happening from about 500 BC onwards. Things only stabilised in the region once Rome had steamrollered everyone else.
#14422973
It was the Carthagians committing the "acts of unprovoked violence".


The movies about Rome don't cover the bloody parts like them expanding on their Peninsula. THey have been commiting acts of unprovoked violence also, there is no 'noble' rome. Ithruscians were one of the first ones to understand this but sadly they got moved over. And soon after most of the peninsula.
#14422978
Romans were violent, genocidal thugs.


Kind of like anybody else before the end of the Napoleonic wars. (Mainly for Europe) and 1945 for the rest of the world.
#14422981
They were exceptional at warfare. I Never understood the noble myth of romans being 'traders'. They only traded within their empire or taxed the outsides until they could which usually still lead to warfare and occupation in the medium to long term. Rome didn't become a superstate by trading, it became a superstate by destroying anybody in their near prixomity. Carthagians were far superior traders. But hey, as I said, any empire with a good warmachine was brutal, it only dependant how good their warmachine was.
#14422988
They were exceptional at warfare. I Never understood the noble myth of romans being 'traders'.

What idiot told you the Romans were "noble traders"? The Romans, especially in the early Republic, despised trade and commerce.

They only traded within their empire or taxed the outsides until they could which usually still lead to warfare and occupation in the medium to long term. Rome didn't become a superstate by trading, it became a superstate by destroying anybody in their near prixomity. Carthagians were far superior traders.

Precisely, and this is one of the reasons why the Romans deeply mistrusted the Carthaginians - the Carthaginian empire was a maritime empire based primarily on trade and commerce, which was anathema to the ancient Romans. In fact, Roman senators were forbidden by law to engage in trade or commerce or to enrich themselves in any way other than by farming. Qatz would probably have felt very much at home in the early Roman Republic.

But hey, as I said, any empire with a good warmachine was brutal, it only dependant how good their warmachine was.

Indeed. And are things any different now?
#14423017
What idiot told you the Romans were "noble traders"? The Romans, especially in the early Republic, despised trade and commerce


Just about anybody posting on this forum becides several individuals like you and me.

Indeed. And are things any different now?


Well yeah, America doesn't exactly execute the prisoners of war and Bomb the living shit out of all civilians, unlike lets say Assad or the Jihadists. Nor do they use decimation, which is said, its actually a good tool to keep moral and discipline up.
#14423023
What idiot told you the Romans were "noble traders"? The Romans, especially in the early Republic, despised trade and commerce.


Does shipping in vast quantitys of grain, grown off the backs of egyptian workers, to feed a city full of benefit bumbs, count as trade ?

They moved a lot of shit around anyway

Rome could never get into trading proper because that requires to have neighbours that you dont want wipe out as soon as it is convenient.
#14423024
JohnRawls wrote:Just about anybody posting on this forum becides several individuals like you and me.

We are truly the intellectual elite of PoFo....

JohnRawls wrote:Well yeah, America doesn't exactly execute the prisoners of war and Bomb the living shit out of all civilians, unlike lets say Assad or the Jihadists. Nor do they use decimation, which is said, its actually a good tool to keep moral and discipline up.

You clearly haven't been paying much attention to international affairs over the past century or so, have you...?

layman wrote:Does shipping in vast quantitys of grain, grown off the backs of egyptian workers, to feed a city full of benefit bumbs, count as trade ?

They moved a lot of shit around anyway

Imperial tribute =/= trade.

layman wrote:Rome could never get into trading proper because that requires to have neighbours that you dont want wipe out as soon as it is convenient.

I think you're being unfair to the Romans here. Many of their neighbours were even more ferocious and militaristic than the Romans themselves were - for example, the Samnites. Compared to the Samnites, the Romans were a bunch of long-haired hippie peaceniks.
Last edited by Potemkin on 17 Jun 2014 15:20, edited 4 times in total.
#14423026
I wouldn't put it this way, shipping that grain is a major feat of either Warfare(Logistics) or Civilian infrastructure(Civil works) or probably both. It wasn't also their fault in all honesty, back in the day more than a Million citizens lived in Rome alone, a feat never achived before and that wouldn't be achieved untill the 18th or the 19th century I think.
#14423029
LOL at america not bombing civilians.


There is a difference between fighting wars and attacking military targets and hitting civlians and actually genociding civilians by sword and fire on sight you know, just saying. War is always brutal, but brutality definitely went down from pillage, rape and genocide to something a lot more civilized.

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

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

The "Russian empire" story line is inve[…]

I (still) have a dream

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

Based on what? On simple economics. and in t[…]