Bonds would do quite a lot.
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 don't buy the premise that it was economic problems that doomed the Roman Empire, the barbarian invaders' advantage wasn't an economic one.
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.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.
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...
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.
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
But a surviving WRE would butterfly Islam, and an Arabia split between Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians is tougher to unite.
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?
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.
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.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.
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.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.