Was the crisis of the third century in Rome inevitable?

yes, I know often the soldiers did these elevations, and they had good reasons of their own, but if you look at how fast and proactive municipal elites acknowledged them, i can't rid myself of the Impression that they all wanted an emperor who bore their peripheral province close to his heart.)

To be fair, a lot of that was probably just that the usurper was on hand with an army, and the legitimate Emperor wasn't. When your choices are to affirm the usurper and to get killed, it's not surprising that you'd opt for the first.

Re Commodus, I think problems were structural rather than individual.

Yes, a healthy state ought to be able to deal with the occasional bad leader. Plus, the crisis didn't get going until four decades after Commodus' death, so attempting to pin the blame on him seems pretty tenuous IMHO.
 
To be fair, a lot of that was probably just that the usurper was on hand with an army, and the legitimate Emperor wasn't. When your choices are to affirm the usurper and to get killed, it's not surprising that you'd opt for the first.
Not so sure. Postumus for example quickly received recognition all across Gaul (and even down into Hispania) although he was sitting on the Rhine and Gallienus was not so far away.
 
Yes, a healthy state ought to be able to deal with the occasional bad leader. Plus, the crisis didn't get going until four decades after Commodus' death, so attempting to pin the blame on him seems pretty tenuous IMHO.
I would argue that many of its antecedents (assassination by own troops, regional usurpation, appointment of Caesarship as a political move, emperorship derived purely through military might) were to be found in the Year of the Five Emperors, with Macrinus slightly later on also being a very obvious prelude to 3rd-century norms.
 
I would argue that many of its antecedents (assassination by own troops, regional usurpation, appointment of Caesarship as a political move, emperorship derived purely through military might) were to be found in the Year of the Five Emperors, with Macrinus slightly later on also being a very obvious prelude to 3rd-century norms.

Even in the time of the Antonines there was a prelude--Avidius Cassius.
 
I think that's a bit fallacious, and not only because of plague and inflation. Even political stability, as in the time of Valerian, did not prevent massive incursions and setbacks.

Nor did the lack of it necessarily cause them.

The Marius-Sulla and Caesar-Pompey wars did not cause the Republic to lose territory. Indeed it kept expanding.
 
Nor did the lack of it necessarily cause them.

The Marius-Sulla and Caesar-Pompey wars did not cause the Republic to lose territory. Indeed it kept expanding.

Yes but the 3rd century Empire was at a bit of a disadvantage here. It was already at maximum extent so had to deal with threats over more far flung areas, in Europe and the Near East. In addition the threats it faced, particularly in Europe, were more frequent or continuous.
 
Let´s tackle some of the most important factors one by one:

Monetary crisis: Usually overrated; imperial administration and military worked well with transfers in kind, too, and wider Roman economic crisis had other more important reasons (see below). Nothing to be done here, though, the Romans couldn`t have developed the necessary economic theory to understand the problem they were in.

Not true. The Romans historically actually had a fairly advanced understanding of economics. The thing is that they didn't at the time of the Monetary Crisis of the Third century because the parts of Roman government that dealt with monetary administration had been eroded by years of monarchical rule. The Romans have been perfectly capable of handling a monetary crisis during the era of the republic.
 
Not true. The Romans historically actually had a fairly advanced understanding of economics. The thing is that they didn't at the time of the Monetary Crisis of the Third century because the parts of Roman government that dealt with monetary administration had been eroded by years of monarchical rule. The Romans have been perfectly capable of handling a monetary crisis during the era of the republic.
Really? First thing I hear. Can you point me at more information?
 
Really? First thing I hear. Can you point me at more information?

Essentially, the political instability of the Roman Empire causes the financial instability.


Check this out (Tiberias handling debt crisis of 33AD ) as for the early competence Points to relatively well developed understanding of banking and the economy:
https://www.globalfinancialdata.com/gfdblog/?p=1374

Peter Temin's Book: The Roman Market Economy is a good source
ttps://press.princeton.edu/titles/9896.html

Mark Koyama, covers the topic of the decline of Roman banking expertise well on this Macro Musings podcast. I included a quote from his review of the above book to showcase banking complexity:
Financial markets, in particular, reached a comparatively high level of development in the
Roman Empire. All sophisticated pre-industrial commercial economies ran on credit due to the
costs associated with transporting bullion. Rome was no exception. Most loans were no doubt
small-scale and informal, and most financial relationships personal. But Temin demonstrates
that there was a market for loanable funds in ancient Rome. There were limits on the legal
rates of interest, but market rates fluctuated below the legal maximum in response to the
scarcity or abundance of money. Long-term partnerships, or societates, were used to fund larger
ventures. Banks were prominent in financial intermediation, pooling capital and channelling
idle funds into productive investment"

This article talks about the Roman banking system some some:
https://www.ancient.eu/article/974/banking-in-the-roman-world/

Rome also has a relatively well developed insurance market at this time also, driven by the need to insure ships carrying grain and other goods.

Economic understanding, at least during the time of Tiberius, was relatively advanced but seems to have declined as military generals turned Emperors overcentralize power and debased currency.
There's an argument to be had here, because the centralization was nescesary, but the decline of civil banking institutions under Diocletian don't point towards his understanding of economics well.

While the long term issues leading to the collapse of Rome are essentially solidified with the lack of political and economic reform during the republic period, knowledge of how to deal with economic issues survived for a while, at least until the Year of 5 Emperors and the rapid expansion of military alongside a lack of ability to pay for its expansion.

Essentially, starting with Severan dynasty up until the time of Diocletian and his price edicts, we can already see a decline in knowledge of economic theory driven by the trend of debasing currency to raise funds to pay off the military to succeed as the next Emperor. While Diocletian politically reforms the state, he does so in a way that aids its economic destruction.

Diocletian's mass minting of coins of low metallic value continued to increase inflation, and the maximum prices in the Edict were apparently too low. Merchants either stopped producing goods, sold their goods illegally, or used barter. The Edict tended to disrupt trade and commerce, especially among merchants. It is safe to assume that a gray market economy evolved out of the edict at least between merchants.Sometimes entire towns could no longer afford to produce trade goods. Because the Edict also set limits on wages, those who had fixed salaries (especially soldiers) found that their money was increasingly worthless as the artificial prices did not reflect actual costs.
and:
Banks were the canaries in the Roman market economy, and they disappeared
in the course of the third century. Argentarii had little reason to puzzle out the
difference between real and nominal interest rates before 200; they apparently were
unable to do so fast enough to survive. Diocletian’s Price Edict (Lewis and Reinhold,
1990, volume 2, pp. 422–426), one of several attempts to stem the inflation, reveals
that many markets still were operating around 300 CE, but taxes in kind multiplied,
and command economies grew. By the time of the Dark Ages in about the fifth
century CE, there were still markets, but no longer a market economy. Roman
agricultural technology and city planning were abandoned, education decreased,
and long-distance trade in bulk commodities vanished. The Pax Romana ended, and
Roman law was forgotten in Europe for close to a millennium.

The top is just from wikipedia, and the bottom is from Temin's book.
Of course, the mass outbreaks of disease don't particularly help the situation, and could have alone crippled the empire.

You really need to fix the politics to fix the empire.
 
Last edited:
Essentially, starting with Severan dynasty up until the time of Diocletian and his price edicts, we can already see a decline in knowledge of economic theory driven by the trend of debasing currency to raise funds to pay off the military to succeed as the next Emperor.

"Succeeding as the next emperor" was the main motivation for that? After all the foreign invasions, plundering and mayhem in the third century, increasing the size of the army, even at a severe economic cost, seemed quite defensible. Unless the empire was protected from envious neighbors, there wouldn't be any economic life for anyone to worry about.

While Diocletian politically reforms the state, he does so in a way that aids its economic destruction.
......You really need to fix the politics to fix the empire.

What about Constantine and the solidus? The dominate remained but the debasement issue was addressed. Basically all they needed was more bullion and some mechanism to prevent it from being siphoned away e.g. some big tax on luxury imports like silk.
 

trajen777

Banned
The Roman economy was one of the most sophisticated systems to date. However their understanding of the cause and effect of many things. However look at 1929 or 2008 we still dont understand it . Anyway the example above of of the solidus is an excellent example. Debasement was a massive problem over and over whether in the Roman or Byz empires, or in Germany in 1920's. Anyway when the new emperor issued new un-debased currency and increased other currencies (bronze coin) then things were somewhat stabilized. I think the great economic issues that were faced were regional issues (farmers in Italy not able to compete with imports, or the large slave run plantations), raids which disrupted trade, (farm tax, towns etc), and the movement of jobs from the harder working jobs to cities. If you look at the non disrupted areas, for example North Africa made up the vast majority of the revenue of the western Roman empire, and eliminate the disruption of this revenue stream then you would have had a much longer surviving WRE.

Lets take the loss of Africa to the Vabndals :
1. Vandals defeated in Spain but not completely since the Roman political situation stopped the complete defeat of the Vandals
2. Vandals invade or re invited to North Africa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandals
According to Procopius, the Vandals came to Africa at the request of Bonifacius, the military ruler of the region.[47] Seeking to establish himself as an independent ruler in Africa or even become Roman Emperor, Bonifacius had defeated several Roman attempts to subdue him, until he was mastered by the newly appointed Gothic count of Africa, Sigisvult, who captured both Hippo Regius and Carthage.[39] It is possible that Bonifacius had sought Genseric as an ally against Sigisvult, promising him a part of Africa in return.[39]
3. Bonifacius fought 2 civil wars vs Atius and Felix in Italy while the Gov of Africa and weakened N Africa becasue of this
4. The Vandals take Africa
5. The ERE and WRE created a massive invasion to recapture N Africa, (per Threadgood) it was realized that with out this province back the WRE was doomed from a financial situation. The attack was defeated and the Vandals kept control of the province leaving the WRE to collapse.
 
If you look at the non disrupted areas, for example North Africa made up the vast majority of the revenue of the western Roman empire, and eliminate the disruption of this revenue stream then you would have had a much longer surviving WRE.

It would've helped but wouldn't have addressed the fundamental problem: chronic military weakness, especially after 408. The WRE had already lost considerable territory, and the barbarians had gotten pretty far, prior to 429.

According to Procopius, the Vandals came to Africa at the request of Bonifacius, the military ruler of the region.[47] Seeking to establish himself as an independent ruler in Africa or even become Roman Emperor, Bonifacius had defeated several Roman attempts to subdue him, until he was mastered by the newly appointed Gothic count of Africa, Sigisvult, who captured both Hippo Regius and Carthage.[39] It is possible that Bonifacius had sought Genseric as an ally against Sigisvult, promising him a part of Africa in return.[39]

Sources I've seen argue against that. They say the rift between Bonifacius and Ravenna had been patched up by the time of the Vandal invasion. Also, the goths fought for Bonifacius against the Vandals.

3. Bonifacius fought 2 civil wars vs Atius and Felix in Italy while the Gov of Africa and weakened N Africa becasue of this

Rimini occurred in 432; by then ERE troops under Aspar may have assumed responsibility for defense of Carthago, which wasn't taken for several more years--439 CE..
 
Top