What economic ideas would have saved the Roman Empire in the long run?

If the Roman Empire had a better understanding of economics, how much longer could they survive?

And, particularly, what concepts would they need to learn to keep their economy afloat? How well did they understand inflation?
 
If the Roman Empire had a better understanding of economics, how much longer could they survive?

And, particularly, what concepts would they need to learn to keep their economy afloat? How well did they understand inflation?

I've been listening to the History of Rome podcast recently, actually, and the maker touches on their economic shortcomings. None of the emperors at least seemed to really understand how inflation worked, and instead were more focused on the idea of the intrinsic value that gold and other metals have. When Diocletian was trying to fix the economy, he made sure that all gold coins met strict quality criteria and weren't diluted with many other metals, instead of bothering to try and limit the supply of coins altogether.

Another big problem for the finances of the empire, and the whole economy, was also the tax system. In earlier times, instead of having a central bureaucracy around collecting taxes instead they sold off the rights to the highest bidders, who would pay a fee to the state for the right to collect taxes, and would then have an incentive to try and draw more money than the amount they paid so that they could turn a profit. Later on, there was a massive amount of corruption surrounding tax collection. Many rich land owners simply refused to pay, and relied on bribes instead to have their tax debts forgiven every few years on special occasions. This left a lot of the tax burden on the lower classes instead.

Finally, some technological advances might also help with their economy. New plows and methods of farming could have created much greater bounties in an age when being a breadbasket brought in a lot of wealth. There could have been earlier use of watermills and later windmills to help free up labor and make industries more efficient. There could have been advances in ship building and sailing methods to make longer distance and higher traffic trade easier and more profitable
 
I don't buy the premise that it was economic problems that doomed the Roman Empire, the barbarian invaders' advantage wasn't an economic one. One answer might be to look at the East Roman empire- their territory was wealthier and perhaps more defensible, whereas the West was poorer and overstretched, I'm not sure if there were any major economic reforms by the East beyond the inherently more favourable revenue-expenditure equation.

If you're wanting the Roman empire to survive while staying united, maybe the best strategy would be to simply shed their exposed Western territories. Withdraw from Gaul, Iberia and Britannia, recenter the united empire on Constantinople whilst still holding firm control over Italy and Africa. As for the abandoned Western territories, the abandonment doesn't need to be official- they could leave them in the hands whomever and expect them to swear fealty to Rome and pay nominal tribute to Constantinople, but they're expected to provide for there own defence(maybe with some limited assistance from Constantinople, but no guarantees and they'd be expected to suck up and pay up for even that). The Iberians would be in a position to slack off until/unless Gaul collapsed, so maybe Constantinople holds onto Iberia until that happens.

Worst case scenario- the suzerain Western territories fall, and Constantinople has a manageable line of defence in Northern Italy with Italian and African revenues probably large enough that it ends up being a net gain for the East. And any time that the Romans feel particularly secure while Iberia and Gaul's new barbarian overlords look particularly weak and fragmented, they can launch a campaign to reimpose tribute-paying vassals in the area(maybe even into Germania as the area becomes more "settled". With vastly superior wealth, population, prestige and a Rome-based church the Empire would probably be able to maintain a general first-among-equals relationship with the Western states even if they became strong enough that imposing outright vassalage wasn't worth the cost to the East.

This could actually be a really interesting dynamic. OTL the Western states sought legitimacy from Papal sanction, and the church was the only institution with a supra-state bureacracy. If we presume in this ATL that Constantinople allows a similarly centralized church to emerge and that they work symbiotically to maintain influence in the West... they seek to keep the area fragmented, and the rulers receive formal legitimacy from both the church and empire(so no claiming royal titles, sought of like how post-Mughal Indian rulers refrained from claiming royal titles out of deference to what remained of the Mughal empire). I'd see them imposing peace among the petty rulers- so if any one seeks to bully or conquer another, Constantinople brings it's overwhelming forces to bear. Obviously pagan/non-Roman alligned forces in the East will still be a concern, so the Romans similarly intervene to force the states not bordering the frontline to pony up- they could frame this as religious obligation to crusade against the monstrous pagans of the East..

Not sure if it's politically plausible- cutting and running like that would make an emperor look weak(and the Romans and other Italians might initially balk at being ruled from so far in the East). But it would certainly be the "moneyball strategy" so to speak.
 
Last edited:
I don't buy the premise that it was economic problems that doomed the Roman Empire, the barbarian invaders' advantage wasn't an economic one. One answer might be to look at the East Roman empire- their territory was wealthier and perhaps more defensible, whereas the West was poorer and overstretched, I'm not sure if there were any major economic reforms by the East beyond the inherently more favourable revenue-expenditure equation.

If you're wanting the Roman empire to survive while staying united, maybe the best strategy would be to simply shed their exposed Western territories. Withdraw from Gaul, Iberia and Britannia, recenter the united empire on Constantinople whilst still holding firm control over Italy and Africa. As for the abandoned Western territories, the abandonment doesn't need to be official- they could leave them in the hands whomever and expect them to swear fealty to Rome and pay nominal tribute to Constantinople, but they're expected to provide for there own defence(maybe with some limited assistance from Constantinople, but no guarantees and they'd be expected to suck up and pay up for even that). The Iberians would be in a position to slack off until/unless Gaul collapsed, so maybe Constantinople holds onto Iberia until that happens.

Worst case scenario- the suzerain Western territories fall, and Constantinople has a manageable line of defence in Northern Italy with Italian and African revenues probably large enough that it ends up being a net gain for the East. And any time that the Romans feel particularly secure while Iberia and Gaul's new barbarian overlords look particularly weak and fragmented, they can launch a campaign to reimpose tribute-paying vassals in the area(maybe even into Germania as the area becomes more "settled". With vastly superior wealth, population, prestige and a Rome-based church the Empire would probably be able to maintain a general first-among-equals relationship with the Western states even if they became strong enough that imposing outright vassalage wasn't worth the cost to the East.

This could actually be a really interesting dynamic. OTL the Western states sought legitimacy from Papal sanction, and the church was the only institution with a supra-state bureacracy. If we presume in this ATL that Constantinople allows a similarly centralized church to emerge and that they work symbiotically to maintain influence in the West... they seek to keep the area fragmented, and the rulers receive formal legitimacy from both the church and empire(so no claiming royal titles, sought of like how post-Mughal Indian rulers refrained from claiming royal titles out of deference to what remained of the Mughal empire). I'd see them imposing peace among the petty rulers- so if any one seeks to bully or conquer another, Constantinople brings it's overwhelming forces to bear. Obviously pagan/non-Roman alligned forces in the East will still be a concern, so the Romans similarly intervene to force the states not bordering the frontline to pony up- they could frame this as religious obligation to crusade against the monstrous pagans of the East..

Not sure if it's politically plausible- cutting and running like that would make an emperor look weak(and the Romans and other Italians might initially balk at being ruled from so far in the East). But it would certainly be the "moneyball strategy" so to speak.
What?How is Gaul an exposed territory?If anything,it's defensible with the Rhine as the frontier.The goal of the empire is always to make the Mediterranean the Inner Sea.Once you abandon Iberia and Gaul,things start to become problematic.I do agree however that the empire should have abandoned Britannia ages ago.Abandoning more territory would have been ASB and completely suicidal for any emperor who wants to keep his head.
 
What?How is Gaul an exposed territory?If anything,it's defensible with the Rhine as the frontier.The goal of the empire is always to make the Mediterranean the Inner Sea.Once you abandon Iberia and Gaul,things start to become problematic.I do agree however that the empire should have abandoned Britannia ages ago.Abandoning more territory would have been ASB and completely suicidal for any emperor who wants to keep his head.

Plus Gaul was one of the largest manpower bases of the middle Empire.
 
Probably the largest economic problem the Romans faced was paying for an army to fight the barbarians. In the West two thirds of the Empire were north of the Med and thus easily invade-able. In the East only third of the Empire was north of the Med. Safe lands mean resources of gold and men with which to defend the unsafe lands. N

This is not an issue as long as the barbarians can be kept out. However, given that the barbarians eventually got in, the Romans' ability to pay the army dropped as lands were lost. When the gold ran out so did the existence of Western Empire.

The Eastern Empire lasted longer because it had safe provinces such as Egypt and Syria from which it could draw resources to pay for defending its northern border. That worked until it was faced by the Arabs invading from the south. Given that the north was one third of the Empire economically speaking, the East became as doomed as the West was.

There are other factors in the fall of the East such as oppression of heretics who consequentially "sold out" to the Arabs. (Well you would too if you were given a choice of nice overlords and nasty overlords :D). However, economics factors were significant drivers in the survival and then fall of the East. Unfortunately because they are geographically dependent an Adamus Cicero Smitus is not going to be able to solve them.
 
If the Roman Empire had a better understanding of economics, how much longer could they survive?

And, particularly, what concepts would they need to learn to keep their economy afloat? How well did they understand inflation?

Actually the Roman Empire was the longest living polity in the history of the human kind. So it did not lack at least some understanding of economics.
(*In the form of the 'Eastern Roman Empire')


But I guess you meant the 'Western Roman Empire'?
Well having some guy like Anastasius on the throne of the WRE wouldn't hurt...
 
Actually the Roman Empire was the longest living polity in the history of the human kind. So it did not lack at least some understanding of economics.
(*In the form of the 'Eastern Roman Empire')


But I guess you meant the 'Western Roman Empire'?
Well having some guy like Anastasius on the throne of the WRE wouldn't hurt...

Well, it depends on how you define the lifespan of a polity, but its up there no matter what.

Double entry bookkeeping would help. Abolishing slavery would help, in the long run.
 
In the end nothing. All Empires fall sooner or later, if only by bad luck. The only question is when.

With better luck the WRE could have lasted to the 600s, but when the Aranbs start to move (whether as Moslems or something else) I don't see how it can hold together.
 
In the end nothing. All Empires fall sooner or later, if only by bad luck. The only question is when.

With better luck the WRE could have lasted to the 600s, but when the Aranbs start to move (whether as Moslems or something else) I don't see how it can hold together.

But a surviving WRE would butterfly Islam, and an Arabia split between Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians is tougher to unite.
 
I've been listening to the History of Rome podcast recently, actually, and the maker touches on their economic shortcomings. None of the emperors at least seemed to really understand how inflation worked, and instead were more focused on the idea of the intrinsic value that gold and other metals have. When Diocletian was trying to fix the economy, he made sure that all gold coins met strict quality criteria and weren't diluted with many other metals, instead of bothering to try and limit the supply of coins altogether.

Another big problem for the finances of the empire, and the whole economy, was also the tax system. In earlier times, instead of having a central bureaucracy around collecting taxes instead they sold off the rights to the highest bidders, who would pay a fee to the state for the right to collect taxes, and would then have an incentive to try and draw more money than the amount they paid so that they could turn a profit. Later on, there was a massive amount of corruption surrounding tax collection. Many rich land owners simply refused to pay, and relied on bribes instead to have their tax debts forgiven every few years on special occasions. This left a lot of the tax burden on the lower classes instead.

Finally, some technological advances might also help with their economy. New plows and methods of farming could have created much greater bounties in an age when being a breadbasket brought in a lot of wealth. There could have been earlier use of watermills and later windmills to help free up labor and make industries more efficient. There could have been advances in ship building and sailing methods to make longer distance and higher traffic trade easier and more profitable

I like all your ideas. With extra revenues, Roman would be able to form more legions in 3rd, 4th and 5th centuries. Roman Empire would be able to stand against a series of the Barbarian onslaughts.

Perhaps, Constantine might not have to create and promote the Church of Christianity to unify the empire.
 
But a surviving WRE would butterfly Islam, and an Arabia split between Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians is tougher to unite.

Not necessarily. The Vikings didn't need any religious Prophet to get them on the warpath.

And Islam, or something like it, is pretty much the sort of religion that I'd expect a harsh country like Arabia to generate. If Mohammad hadn't appeared when he did, quite likely someone else would - though he might adopt one of the 57 varieties of Christianity rather than founding a new faith.

Wild thought. What if it's a Jewish Prophet who unites Arabia -Judaism has thrown up enough of them - and the Arab invasions are in the name of the Jewish faith? Could be interesting.
 
If the Roman Empire had a better understanding of economics, how much longer could they survive?

And, particularly, what concepts would they need to learn to keep their economy afloat? How well did they understand inflation?

Inflation has little to do with the roman empire's downfall.

The caused are multiple.

Demographic : the population had dramatically decreased severall times (the Antonine plague, then the plague of the years 251-266, that may both have been comparable to the great medieval black plague).

Military 1 : this demographic depression, far more than the edict of Caracalla, drove the emperors to hire a much higher proportion of barbaries auxiliaries in the roman army. This massive outsourcing of the military duties was one of the reason for the roman elite losing control of parts of of its armies and territories in the 5th century.

Military 2 : the nature of the military threat changed. It became a multiple, Low intensity and mobile threat, which called for a decentralisation of power, political as well as military and economic power.

Political : the roman empire was so complex and wide that having a series of incompetent rulers would put It at a deadly risk.

I am doubtful concerning economic causes, because demographics was the most decisive economic factor before the industrial age, much more than since the beginning of the industrial age. Sure, the roman economy mainly was archaïc, and its shining and performing minority parts were artificially sustained by predation, but this was the case in other areas and did not caused the downfall of these other areas.
 
Military 1 : this demographic depression, far more than the edict of Caracalla, drove the emperors to hire a much higher proportion of barbaries auxiliaries in the roman army. This massive outsourcing of the military duties was one of the reason for the roman elite losing control of parts of of its armies and territories in the 5th century.

How many barbarian auxiliaries actually defected, as opposed to barbarians who were able to force their way into the Empire and become "auxiliaries?"
 
How many barbarian auxiliaries actually defected, as opposed to barbarians who were able to force their way into the Empire and become "auxiliaries?"
Rome didn't really lose it's ability to control it's mercenaries until after the Battle of Adrianople.It's only after the battle that the mercs became little more than warbands under their own chieftains with their own political goals.
 
Rome didn't really lose it's ability to control it's mercenaries until after the Battle of Adrianople.It's only after the battle that the mercs became little more than warbands under their own chieftains with their own political goals.

Again, this isn't an issue of mercenaries is it? It's an issue of invading barbarians who the Romans call auxiliaries, but who retain substantial autonomy under their leaders. An effect, not a cause, of the collapse.
 
Again, this isn't an issue of mercenaries is it? It's an issue of invading barbarians who the Romans call auxiliaries, but who retain substantial autonomy under their leaders. An effect, not a cause, of the collapse.
Exactly.There's really not much issue with having a lot of barbarians in the army as long as they were under control.Though I think it's more proper to call them foederati rather than just auxiliaries.Auxiliaries were simply just non-citizens who could be those who live in the empire and obey Roman laws.Foederati on the other hand definitely serve the interests of their own rulers over Rome,and only serve Rome due to some agreement between their rulers and Rome,so I think the term's much more appropriate and more strict in defining this group.
 
Last edited:
Top