Printer's Devil on 21/6/2006 at 00:02
Quote Posted by doctorfrog
Other feelings include skepticism for the idea that doomsday will occur before 2010 because of the inability to transport stuff due to lack of oil, and that major civilizations before us fell due to lack of energy sources (care to elaborate on that a bit more, Newman?).
Ever tried Fed Exing something recently? Take a closer look at your invoice; underneath the actual service fees there's a special "Fuel Surcharge". They added it just after Dubya invaded Iraq--and it's been climbing ever since (IIRC it presently stands at 33% for express shipments). We'll run out of money before we run out of oil. And Doomsday? Who can afford that?
SD on 21/6/2006 at 00:09
Quote Posted by Ducz
It is an overstatement that it fell because it incorporated Christianity.
It's also a joke dude.
(tonight seems to be the night for taking jokes the wrong way actually)
Renegen on 21/6/2006 at 05:48
Ducz, wasn't money at the time worth its weight in gold? Didn't they use weights to convert one currency into another? For an empire that can't just print money however I understand how a bad trade balance can create a shortage of money. But why didn't they sell finished goods to neighbooring countries while importing raw materials?
Also how were the heavy taxes put into effect in the first place, and how did the empire survive for 300 years with a suppositely weak public funding system. Were the taxes higher because of higher expenses, such as civil wars, and if so, what caused these additional expenses?
Ducz on 21/6/2006 at 11:16
[LEFT]Yes, money was essentially worth the silver or gold it was made of, although copper coins of lesser value were also known. Remember that ancient economy was not near our modern capitalism: the Roman government had no interest in exporting cheap Roman goods (like vine, pottery or olive oil) yet they would import on a great scale luxuries from Persia. The ancient governments were not prepared to control and stimulate the growth of an empire: the thinking was still on the level of city states. The Roman Empire was not, at least by the time of the dominat system, a unified state: it consisted out of small city-states, which were linked with Roman via law agreements, alliances or direct colonization. Every municipality had autonomy in the sphere of economy and thus it was dependable on the prosperity of its own governments, the decurions. The decurions, being after the senatus and equites the third Roman ordus, were obliged to invest in the city they belonged to, yet mostly they were concerned more with gaining power and influence, building in result temples, circuses and granaries: buildings which appealed to the people and showed the “prestige” yet did not boost the economy itself.
This system worked pretty much while there was peace in the provinces and the Roman Emperor was trying to at least stop some expenses (like the overblown funding of free grain and games for the citizens of Rome and financing their own luxuries life ) and loosen taxes. Yet after the death of Commodus, the proto-dynastic structure of the Empire collapsed, and armies began to elect their own emperors. This created pure anarchy: provinces were invaded by Roman armies, the Senat was helpless and could only support one or other “emperor”. It was a personal goal for most usurpers to claim Rome and gain popularity among the people by funding games and free grain, draining the public treasury more and more. This lead to higher taxes, which ruined the economy of the municipalities and the fall of cities. The only benefactors of this chaos were rich landowners: while showing some support to one or other faction, they would thrive by accumulating land from the depopulated cities, thus creating their own semi-states. You could imagine a country were the rich had their own, self-sufficient “countries” and even armies, paying little respect to the capital in Rome. These men, senators and rich equities, would drain the local economy, acquiring as much wealth, land and man power as it was possible without investing in the local market. The circle would end: the cities had no funds, there was no need for their goods and they would collapse and be incorporated into the agricultural-based “countries” of rich landlords or petty barbarian tribes. The Roman Empire was indeed such a conglomerate that it took 200 years to take down the Western part: after all, it was still too large to be annihilated by one large invasion. Yet while Emperors of the Constantine and latter dynasties looked to settle and prosper in the better developed East, the West would crumble into rival city - states. The result is well known.
We can admire the Romans for their law or the architecture, but in the sphere of economy they were still as primitive as their ancestors. Indeed, their ignorance proved to be their downfall: while their organization at the level of a city-state was brilliant, their empire was rather inefficient in long term to deal with problems. Maybe if they invented a new form of government the Empire would last longer.
I hope that answers your questiones. I've been into ancient history for 4 years and I sometimes get carried away:)
[/LEFT]
Shoshin on 21/6/2006 at 15:21
One could read Gibbon's "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire". Admittedly it's a bit lengthy, but probably is also a bit more informative.
Renegen on 21/6/2006 at 15:33
So the empire was just too large for its own good. In today's world that sometimes applies to companies, where growth is totally different from maintaining your place at the top and how some companies fail at the larger level.
Rogue Keeper on 21/6/2006 at 15:35
"When we looked at the relics of the Precursors, we saw the height civilization can attain. When we looked at their ruins, we marked the danger of that height."
Ducz on 21/6/2006 at 16:03
That's a good way to sum up. Rome started as a small farming community, conquered the known world and then collapsed because of its inablillity to both refrom and develop that empire. Sustaining a world wide hegomony requires much more than its actual conquest.
Gorgon on 27/6/2006 at 22:22
Quote Posted by Ducz
[LEFT].
We can admire the Romans for their law or the architecture, but in the sphere of economy they were still as primitive as their ancestors. [/LEFT]
Thats actually wrong. Look at how much time did the Roman empire survived and how much time did any of our "modern" empires survived. They actually managed pretty damn well, taking into account the science, technonoly, etc, of the time. So well in fact that such an empire was not repeated anywhere in history for such a long time.
