Possibility of a third division of the Roman Empire?

I'm still not following how that's germane to what I'm saying. The Roman Empire was focused on Mediterranean sealanes. Trade with the east, while important economically, isn't really relevant to the question of how large the Roman Empire could become.

Remember that Rome lost, every year, circa 100,000,000 sesterces* in the trade with China, India and Arabia in the 1st century AD, also due to the number of middlemen and empires like the Kushan or Persian tariffing the oriental goods - we can even assume that this amount grew as the trade intensified.** Each year, the east deprived Rome of a comparatively insignificant***, but long-run burdening sum of coins made of gold and other precious metals. The lost coins in turn had to be replaced by new ones, made of the vanishing gold deposits of the Empire, worsening the inflation and the problems of Economy. The outflow of gold seems to be an important element in Rome's economic problems.

So, if the Romans conquered Persia or even only Mesopotamia, they would have been able to bypass intermediaries, to reduce the economic impact of outflow of metals and capital and to equate their foreign trade balance.

*Numbers reported by Pline the Elder. Strabo, quoted by wiki, wrote that during the reign of Augustus, up to 120 ships left Myos Hormos in Egypt for India every year
**Which is quite sure, since the Romans knew more and more of eastern geography, because more and more trade ships sailed deeper into Asia.
***By way of comparison: in the 1st century, the state budget had an income of 750,000,000 sesterces (estimated by modern historians (Chantraine)), and GDP amounted to around 10 billions.
 
So, if the Romans conquered Persia or even only Mesopotamia, they would have been able to bypass intermediaries, to reduce the economic impact of outflow of metals and capital and to equate their foreign trade balance.
It is not going to make much impact; the Romans had already outflanked Persia by sailing from Egypt to India. Increasing voyages to the Indus river region would serve equally as well and be more cost effective.

On equalising trade balance, occupation of the Middle East is not the way forward. Sailing to India, the Spice Islands and China are the only realistic options. The Romans had ports in the Red Sea, which are nearer to the spice and silk sources than the early Modern Europeans. What would be required is capital investment. If a senator can make a bigger fortune in the spice trade than tax farming, others will follow suit. The thing is that none of them did so. They left trade in the hands of natives.
 
What would be required is capital investment. If a senator can make a bigger fortune in the spice trade than tax farming, others will follow suit. The thing is that none of them did so. They left trade in the hands of natives.

1) Entering Egypt as a senator was forbidden, so investing there was difficult for the highest order.

2) I would like to see your sources - Romans (at least Greeks living in the Roman Empire) surely sailed from India to Egypt, as often as required by supply and demand.

It is not going to make much impact; the Romans had already outflanked Persia by sailing from Egypt to India. Increasing voyages to the Indus river region would serve equally as well and be more cost effective.

However, it is shorter to sail from Mesopotamia (Charax) to India than to have to circumnavigate all of Arabia when starting in Egypt. Also, the Parthians/Persians controlled the land route that never disappeared completly.

On equalising trade balance, occupation of the Middle East is not the way forward. Sailing to India, the Spice Islands and China are the only realistic options. The Romans had ports in the Red Sea, which are nearer to the spice and silk sources than the early Modern Europeans.

But why didn't they sailed more often than they did OTL? I doubt the Parthians had an effective fleet to fight against the pirates endangering the eastern see routes, so the Romans need to deploy one in the Indian ocean (and not only in the Red Sea as OTL). Such a fleet would need bases in Arabia and maybe also on the Persian coast, so we return to the point of departure.
 
1) Entering Egypt as a senator was forbidden, so investing there was difficult for the highest order.
Who said that a senator has to enter Egypt? He can send agents/clients

However, it is shorter to sail from Mesopotamia (Charax) to India than to have to circumnavigate all of Arabia when starting in Egypt. Also, the Parthians/Persians controlled the land route that never disappeared completly.
But why didn't they sailed more often than they did OTL? I doubt the Parthians had an effective fleet to fight against the pirates endangering the eastern see routes, so the Romans need to deploy one in the Indian ocean (and not only in the Red Sea as OTL). Such a fleet would need bases in Arabia and maybe also on the Persian coast, so we return to the point of departure.
No evidence of a pirate threat, at least one that the early modern Europeans faced. If one develops then military action can then be taken.

As for why they did not sail is because they did not have companies as the early modern Europeans did. If you are the owner of a ship and it sinks you go out of business. If you have shares in eight ships and one sinks then you are still in business if the loss of one is more than covered from the profits from the other seven.

In terms of economics, a mercantile fleet sails between Egypt and India requires less capital and maintenance than land caravans crossing the Middle East plus the legions required control the roads.
Early modern European merchants made fortunes even though they sailed from Western Europe. There is no reason why the Romans could not do the same from Egypt.
 
No evidence of a pirate threat, at least one that the early modern Europeans faced.

May I quote Pliny the Elder?

At the present day voyages are made to India every year: and companies of archers are carried on board the vessels, as those seas are greatly infested with pirates.

If one develops then military action can then be taken.

Well, couldn't some sort of Roman East India Company maintain real armed forces (and not only some mercenaries hired by merchants) to fight against the existing pirate threat? So the Roman state hasn't to care about it, and the money invested in such a fleet will return as the profit generated on a well defended sea route.

As for why they did not sail is because they did not have companies as the early modern Europeans did. If you are the owner of a ship and it sinks you go out of business. If you have shares in eight ships and one sinks then you are still in business if the loss of one is more than covered from the profits from the other seven.

IIRC, Roman merchants knew the concept of joining their capital to fund mercantile expeditions, but these associations dissolved after the voyage and didn't evolve into joint-stock companes. How can we make them form real, permanent companies?

In terms of economics, a mercantile fleet sails between Egypt and India requires less capital and maintenance than land caravans crossing the Middle East plus the legions required control the roads.

Correct, the seaway was much cheaper than the land route with its logistical problems and tariffs. That's why the Roman concentrated on the sea route, which however never fully replaced the land route.
 
IIRC, Roman merchants knew the concept of joining their capital to fund mercantile expeditions, but these associations dissolved after the voyage and didn't evolve into joint-stock companes. How can we make them form real, permanent companies?
No reason why they can not. After all in the medieval era associations were formed and dissolved. It just takes one group to make the leap forward and not dissolve at the end of a voyage. In fact the Romans may have already done so albeit at an informal level. Not necessarily something that a historian would think of recording.
 
No reason why they can not. After all in the medieval era associations were formed and dissolved. It just takes one group to make the leap forward and not dissolve at the end of a voyage. In fact the Romans may have already done so albeit at an informal level. Not necessarily something that a historian would think of recording.

Is some kind of Roman East India Company possible in your opinion?
 
Top