Cliodynamics - 'Imperial Roman Economy' - Roman State Revenue

[raymondrogers]

The modeling and numbers given here are worth a discussion, but it is an imperial reach to put into print.

[Ensign_Nemo]

Caesar physically wrecked what became the Roman province of Gaul and killed about a million Gauls, so it couldn't pay much in taxes after that. It would be similar to Europe after WW2, except that instead of the Marshall Plan sending some help, they had Caesar trying to loot them to finance the civil wars in the decade of the 40s B.C. That initial estimate of 40 million sesterces seems dubious for a long-term rate of tax collection.

There are so many variables that are unknown that I don't think that computer models would be very helpful in determining the size of the Roman economy. Let's say that a mathematical model has ten variables of equal importance for the economy, and each is known to plus 10% or minus 10%. The low estimate is thus (0.9)^10 = 0.3487 units. The middle estimate is (1)^10 = 1 unit. The high estimate is (1.1)^10 = 2.5937 units. The uncertainties make this type of modelling almost useless. The actual uncertainties will be worse than a +/- 10% error.

This is the sort of crap logic that made computer scientists coin the phrase "Garbage in, garbage out" or GIGO. It also explains why a certain recent epidemic was modeled incorrectly and led to terrible decision making among people who claimed that they were doing 'science', when they had really just created a computer model and fed insufficient data into it.

So, what would help? More and better data. The traces of pollution from smelting ores found in ice cores gives hard data on metals production. Dates inferred from hoards of coins found in distant lands indicates when trade was occurring, and when it may have stopped. Archaeological digs can determine when land was cultivated to allow estimates of food production, in an era when transportation of food in bulk was practical only by shipping it on rivers or seas.

[tommy-erhh]

It would be nice to have the figure adjusted for the devaluation/debasing of money at the time, that would give a standard to see if the taxes were going down over time. in the graph at the end, if it took into account the debasement, the graph would look a lot flatter.

[nriab]

What i understood from reading your own books is that Rome coming to its end was hemorrhaging gold and silver in order to sustain foreign trade. Which with gold and silver being a non replaceable resource was a terrible thing. Rome started enjoying the finer things too much and couldnt pay for it.

[christopherellis]

Most empires' finances are a function of how much infrastructure by way of roads, water supply, and protection of trade routes, alongside governance. Sarajevo began as an Ottoman saray, a trading centre, purposefully built. Without such investment, there's no point in being there. Check the Roman fort at Lake Windermere, near Ambleside

[robertmiller]

Nice to see the Trinity Library illustrating TCD rather than Front Square

[Reziac]

Huh. That's a lot of money per capita, and probably a fair indication of how much wealth there really was, significant for the era. I'm thinkin' the Judea tribute might have included trade revenues from points east.

I don't know how convincing his numbers are but just taking the period sources at their word suffices for me. They'd have been at least in the right ballpark.

I will refer to this video the folks i encounter who still think Rome's only revenue source was conquest. The chart speaks for itself.

[HistoryandEngineering]

The "Formula 8.1" is problematic because not all provinces have the same population and economic productivity/ output. Were Egypt and Mauretania Caesariensis had the same level of economic productivity? I don't think so considering the fact that Egypt as explained by Dr. McLaughlin in his various video lectures contributed more or less 300 million sesterces of income to the roman state excluding the revenue from the Erythraean sea trade. The formula is very simplistic and in my opinion does not provide an accurate estimate of the roman finances/ economy.

[HistoryandEngineering]

Also, it does not highlight the importance of international trade for the roman economy. Does the "indirect taxes" include the income gained from taxing the merchants in various parts of the empire especially the east? If not then it clearly misses an important income generating factor for the roman economy as the silk/ eastern trade, as has been explained well by this channel, was a crucial part of the roman economy.

[totocaca]

The questions are, how much coin circulated, how much was needed, how much was the cost of living, how much capable was the state of raising taxes, how high were they?

[joebombero]

One thing to consider is the likely population explosion which occurs in times of peace versus war. Rome did bring peace and instead of small villages and individual city-states pursuing their own economic activity, economic activity was unified in the empire. Greater technology, grain strains, aqueducts, farming and shipping techniques ever growing more efficient, it is likely the empire thrived in the initial century of expansion and consolidation. Meterological data needs to be thrown in as well. The Romans at this time enjoyed fantastic weather until the plague of Justinian, which justifies his ambition to unify the empire, no doubt from expanding population and revenue from profitable agriculture production.

The Roman model is one of efficiency, both in production and distribution which, once started, should have fed the Imperial economy very robustly, provided the weather held, which it seems to have done. Increasing warfare in the third century would have sapped manpower, lowered populations able to work the fields and ship the goods, as well as reducing the ability to maintain infrastructure, ports, aqueducts, roads etc. This may have reversed in the 4th century, but not long enough to both ward off continuing warfare on the borders and rebuild lost infrastructure.

[SEPoffical]

'Average province' is problematic. There were just figures for each province, even if estimates, then added up.

[robertmiller]

I’m deeply suspicious of all aggregate figures particularly those in times of inflation - and that was true of the aromas empire. And were the tribute figures gross or net - ie before or after occupation costs?