Massive Income Inequality Responsible for the Collapse of Roman Republic

[nanook12]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/1...n_1158926.html And US levels of income inequality are currently higher than what Rome had.

[Stop Pretending]

How many times must this tennisance ban evading account post before getting banned?


[Infracted - Post constructively, folks]

[GennGreymane]

The average roman had a very low standard of living compared to the higher ups

in today's society, that is not the case.

[Kraenen]

Your article, if you read it, didn't really support the claim in the title. In fact this little bit serves against it:

The high levels of income inequality may help explain why both Rome and America wield so much power. Large wealth gaps actually helped early societies spread, according to an October study. That's because unequal societies crowded out more egalitarian populations, the study found.

Another point to add: america is at much higher levels of inequality yet hasn't collapsed as Rome did. This should imply there's much more going on responsible than the one factor.

[TirielWoW]

Another point to add: america is at much higher levels of inequality yet hasn't collapsed as Rome did. This should imply there's much more going on responsible than the one factor.

The author was actually saying that being compared to the Roman empire isn't necessarily a good thing.

---------------

The article doesn't appear to be drawing the conclusions that you have in your thread title, OP.

[nanook12]

How many times must this tennisance ban evading account post before getting banned?

I am not ban evading anything.

[Reeve]

Lots of things were responsible for the collapse of the Roman Republic. Income inequality was one thing among hundreds, and hardly the most important factor.

[Stop Pretending]

I am not ban evading anything.

Mods will decide.

[Kalis]

"Massive Income Inequality Responsible for the Collapse of Roman Republic"

Err...no.

The Roman Republic wasn't particularly suited to controlling an Empire, factions arose, those that were loyal to the old ways and those that sought to reform. They had a bit of a scrap amongst themsleves and the reformers won, then the principal reformer got killed. They had some more infighting and the reformer's heir won, he was Augustus and is commonly regarded as the first Emperor of the Romans.

[Reeve]

How many times must this tennisance ban evading account post before getting banned?

I wonder if Tennisace and Orlong are the same person.

[GodlyBob]

"Massive Income Inequality Responsible for the Collapse of Roman Republic"

Err...no.

The Roman Republic wasn't particularly suited to controlling an Empire, factions arose, those that were loyal to the old ways and those that sought to reform. They had a bit of a scrap amongst themsleves and the reformers won, then the principal reformer got killed. They had some more infighting and the reformer's heir won, he was Augustus and is commonly regarded as the first Emperor of the Romans.

Thank god our government is so very efficient, forward facing, and directly beholden to the common man.

That aside, income inequality in and of itself does not cause collapse, but can be a symptom of bad things to come. Look at Teotihuacan, Rome, the great depression, all places where inequality was present.

[Reeve]

"Massive Income Inequality Responsible for the Collapse of Roman Republic"

Err...no.

The Roman Republic wasn't particularly suited to controlling an Empire, factions arose, those that were loyal to the old ways and those that sought to reform. They had a bit of a scrap amongst themsleves and the reformers won, then the principal reformer got killed. They had some more infighting and the reformer's heir won, he was Augustus and is commonly regarded as the first Emperor of the Romans.

Calling Julius Caesar a reformer instead of a hyper-ambitious egomaniacal populist is kind of a stretch. Sulla attempted reform, though he did it by marching on Rome and assuming the dictatorship for a period of time while he made the constitutional reforms. Content that his reforms would fix the problem, and not wanting the end of the Republic, he stepped down. What he didn't realize was that he was setting a precedent for ignoring the constitution and for using soldier in Rome itself to enforce his will. So in that sense, reformers vs. reactionaries did lead to the eroding of the faith in the Republic that allowed for the rise of a populist dictator like Julius Caesar, but I think you're a generation too far.

[Kalis]

Calling Julius Caesar a reformer instead of a hyper-ambitious egomaniacal populist is kind of a stretch. Sulla attempted reform, though he did it by marching on Rome and assuming the dictatorship for a period of time while he made the constitutional reforms. Content that his reforms would fix the problem, and not wanting the end of the Republic, he stepped down. What he didn't realize was that he was setting a precedent for ignoring the constitution and for using soldier in Rome itself to enforce his will. So in that sense, reformers vs. reactionaries did lead to the eroding of the faith in the Republic that allowed for the rise of a populist dictator like Julius Caesar, but I think you're a generation too far.

Caesar was a reformer, he took power away from the Senate and gave it to himself. I didn't say the reforms were positive.

[Deleted]

The Fall of Rome wasn't as clear cut as most people here pointed out.

In fact there were loads of them (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_o...n_Roman_Empire), but here are the main ones that stand out to me.

Decline of the Roman legions: In their heyday, the Roman legion was unstoppable. However,by the 4th century and beyond the army found it more and more difficult to recruit citizens(partly because they had no more easy funds to obtain through conquering territory and recruiting auxiliaries from conquered territories). They resorted to hiring mercenaries, including the Germanic tribes

Didn't work out too well in the long term
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Rome_(410)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Rome_(455)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Rome_(546)

Empire split in two: when the empire was split between east and west, the administration of the empire proved to be easier in the short term. However they drifted apart over the years and made it actually more difficult to organise defence of the empire and both halves squabbled over resources.

As for the economy? going down the shitter at the time, as the coffers were running dry due to constant infighting among generals and overspending. Rome was still relying on slave labour, and not developing tools or machinery to enhance the economy as a whole. There was increased taxation that widened the wealth gap, but was a small part of the economic clusterfuck rome was in. They also lost total control of the Mediterranean due to piracy by the vandals when they seized North Africa.

And last but not least, ATILLA!!!


While all of the above problems were going on, this happy chappy decided to go on his tour of europe. He made quite a mess before he went home.

So, like the others mentioned, not just down to inequality.

[Reeve]

The Fall of Rome wasn't as clear cut as most people here pointed out.

Infact there were loads of them, but here are the main ones

Decline of the roman legions: In their heyday, the roman legion was unstoppable. However,by the 4th century and beyond the army found it more and more difficult to recruit citizens(partly because they had no more easy funds to obtain through conquering territory). They resorted to hiring mercenaries, including the germanic tribes

Didn't work out too well in the long term
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Rome_(410)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Rome_(455)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Rome_(546)

Empire split in two: when the empire was split between east and west, the administration of the empire proved to be easier in the short term. However they drifted apart over the years and made it actually more difficult to organise defence of the empire and both halves squabbled over resources.

As for the economy? going down the shitter, as the coffers were running dry due to constant fighting among generals and rome was still relying on slave labour, and not developing tools or machinery to enhance the economy as a whole.

And last but not least, ATILLA!!!


While all of the above problems were going on, this happy chappy decided to go on his tour of europe. He made quite a mess before he went home.

So, like the others mentioned, not just down to inequality.

You're talking about the Roman Empire. The OP is about the Roman Republic. And even then you're way oversimplifying and ignoring a ton of factors.

Honestly if it weren't for Yersinia Pestis, Justinian might have been able to reconquer and hold onto the Western Empire.

[Kalis]

The Fall of Rome wasn't as clear cut as most people here pointed out.

This is about the fall of the Roman Republic, not the Roman Empire.

The Roman Empire held on until 1453, but by then it wasn't in Rome and wasn't much of an Empire.

[GennGreymane]

This is about the fall of the Roman Republic, not the Roman Empire.

The Roman Empire held on until 1453, but by then it wasn't in Rome and wasn't much of an Empire.

It wasnt even centered in Rome by that point and had not been for some time.

[Kalis]

It wasnt even centered in Rome by that point and had not been for some time.

I said it wasn't in Rome by then

[Deleted]

You're talking about the Roman Empire. The OP is about the Roman Republic. And even then you're way oversimplifying and ignoring a ton of factors.

This is about the fall of the Roman Republic, not the Roman Empire

"looks at thread title"

WHOOOPS...my bad.

[Reeve]

It wasnt even centered in Rome by that point and had not been for some time.

Even the Western Roman Empire wasn't centered in Rome for centuries before the Vandal sack. First it was moved to Milan, which was administratively and militarily closer to all of the provinces, and then to Ravenna, which was far more defensible.