I'd also like to add to your first point that the landowners also were buying the slaves that were brought to Rome via the wars. This made it much more difficult for the soldiers who returned home to compete with these estates that used slsve labor, effectively pricing them out of the market and into debt.
@@Lobsterwithinternet I prefer to see it as a form of automation where you bring in those people who had been degraded into meat robots as they have no rights, have no need for payment and are doomed to be the propriety of their master for their entire life. I used to think that one of the solutions to the unemployment made by automation would be to employ all jobless ones into the military, as that would never have a labor limit. And the romans seem to have done that through their legions, as they renounced the levy system in favour of a professional army where they could turn that unemployment rate into soldiers which allowed to wage continuous wars of conquest and the slaves that came from those conquests also created more unemployment which then fueled the legions even more.
@@cookiekaramello7498 Not quite As immigrants have everyday and luxury needs which drive demand up and as a result create more jobs. While most slaves are only allowed enough food in order to keep functioning.
Except those 3 Stooges had society shifting personal interests at stake on nailing the gag/joke. Not every joke lands, even for the 3 Stooges. Interesting stuff.
The social war between the Romans and their Italic allies could be seen as the first sign/attempt, through citizenship since this was what truly mattered at the time, to an Italian nationality revolving around the geographic shape of the Italian peninsula, way before than the modern concept of a nation would be.
Same thing happened in Greece, Egypt, India and China over time but you're right that the Social War was significant because unlike those other places, we can pinpoint the very year that Italy became a geopolitical entity under one authority, and that is 87 BCE. That war was so unnecessary though. The Senate gave the Italian/Latin allies everything they wanted after slaughtering them for not wanting to be a step above slaves. They had fought and died over nearly two centuries for that very Senate, who only gave in after they realized the alternative could be a sustained and gridlocked conflict over decades. It must have been weird being a new Roman citizen in 90 BCE (part of the tribes who didn't rebel), watching Rome wage three separate internal conflicts between 91 and 82 BCE, and then getting even weirder less then two generations later from 49 to 31 BCE. Imagine being born during the rise of Marius and then somehow living to see Augustus reign supreme.
@@geordiejones5618 could you please tell in which occasion this happened in Greece? (And the other places you mentioned if you like) I would like to look into it.
Its unfortunate that justified rebellion seems to always be met by a brutal and decisive response from the ruling elite, unless of course its one of the elite revolting and trying to take power for themselves.
@@ThomasPaineintheArse Is this what you American's have come to? Why does it matter what kind of politics a person has in order to narrate historical things??
@@heichiro091 It’s because Trump supporters are pretty much a cult at this point. Populism is a cancer to democratic government and that is as true as it was during the 1st Century BCE as it is today. Hopefully we fare better than the Romans.
The office of DIctatorship was hugely denigrated. When the Senate decided to constrain the powers of the dictator, Fabius, by appointing a second dictator the office lost its entire purpose. What's the point of a dictatorship if their are checks and balances on it? The lack of a legal dictatorship eventually lead to the illegal dictatorship of Sulla.
The United States will likely not fall for hundreds more years. There are zero meaningful military threats besides the remaining Jihadi Terrorists and China after decades of further expansion. I think it's more likely we will experience Rome's shift from a Republic to a Tyrant Dictator similar to what Caesar was and later Octavian.
those poor gracchi brothers :( their story is the real story of what trying to help the poor gets you. same thing happened when MLK Jr was going to march into Washington on a donkey as a part of the poor people's march. "I have seen the promised land. I may not get there with you."
Marius held 6 consulships in a row, not 5. Also, it is more accurate to describe the northern invaders as Germans, not Gauls. (Teutons and Cimbri), (IMO)
people like to look at 476 and say LOOK! ITS THE WORLD TODAY! BARBARIANS ARE UPON US and those same people fail to realize that the times that are actually discussed in this video are inifinitely more relevant to today's events.
@@speggeri90There different in what the problems are. But not different in the process. The Roman republic was unable to address problems in the system, primarily due to short term selfish thinking of the elites. The US has the same system dysfuction today. The US cannot solve problems anymore. For forty years, the only consistency has been tax cuts for the wealthy and raise military spending.
Great lecture, however one statement at the beginning proves that even 2000 years later we still haven't learned the most important leason. "The heart of Rome's issues is individual corrupt senators", as if, it's fault of individuals that the system failed. No, they were just a product of a bad system. When you mix money and politics, politics end up being used to make money. Yet, thousands of years of documented history later, we still keep telling ourselves it is all fault of individuals, if only they weren't "bad people", everything would work. But they weren't bad people. There aren't good people and bad people, there are just humans, oppurtunistic and selfish just like everybody else. Until we accept that the average human being has those qualities, and set up our governments to curb them, system after system will fail. We saw it thousands of years ago, and we see it happening today. Yet we keep lying to ourselves that it's just "bad people" that are the root cause of all our issues. Now obviously you shouldn't have included any of that in your lecture, but don't claim that Rome's system of goverment only ended up with failing due to some individuals being "bad"
In historical studies it often appears that history tends to repeat itself unless the lesson is learned. The 'narrative' you speak of is a tendency of human nature towards civilization that breeds use of government to consolidate power of the wealthy. This happened in every greater civilization in history. Why we are debating this in 2021 is beyond ignorance and a smear against our mental evolution.
'Cometh the man, cometh the hour.' Hail Caesar! When he comes, you will know it. if you're Occident and you haven't lost your nerve, you will obey! and follow him to the bitter end.
i'm always suprised how poor the roman empire was given its size and dominance even by classical standards. you dont get to see the same sorts of industries we saw in classical greece or carthage, such as shipbuilding, metalworking, navigation, the arts and science etc.
Rome did have a big economy in trading, ship building due to the massive trade on the Mediterranean ( as found by many shipwreck and pottery of Roman Era and markings) and later when Egypt became a province it was a trade gateway to India, Arabia and lower Africa. Rome also had a huge construction industry and large metalworking one as well to create all the tools, weapons and metals used in the Army, farming, construction and daily life. Roman's wealth was more focused into the pockets of either the State, Elite or the cities. If you where a trader or merchant in the early Empire you could live good enough in comfort, When Diocletian came in though with his huge feudalism like reforms then the middle class and making money from a trade died off for good. Add in the chaos of the third century crisis of course. Rome was very wealthy Empire if you where born in the right place, time and of the right family. Like most of History to be honest.
Interested to know people's views. But regarding professional soldiers in the ancient period and that 'nationalism' didn't exist (or at least as we would regard it), would there always be effectively mercenaries and have no direct loyalty to the state? Seems to me that as military and political power was so intertwined, that the more professional ancient warriors became, it would be inevitable that they would be more self-interested.
I really think an initial part of this lecture is being intentionally obtuse as to why the Roman citizens were antagonistic towards the slave class. Their wages and job prospects were destroyed by this influx of cheap labor. They then had to live near or amongst people with different languages, culture, societies. This creates an antagonistic relationship. It's only common sense and it has happened with every group of people, in every culture, since the beginning of time. The elites benefitted from the influx of cheap labor (so they had to keep their rights restricted) but the price of that cheap labor was "paid" by the working class.
Slave economies are very lopsided. The slaves price out the working and middle class out of labor once there's enough of them. Look at how many skilled jobs were reserved for slaves during the roman empire. That also creates the idea that such labor is beneath the dignity of a free citizen, which causes even more problems.
@Valer everything is roman in some form they made such an effective bureaucracy that not taking things from them would be an idiot move on the part of the empowered
@Valer - Most people would argue Britain would be like Athens and Europe like ancient Greece, the USA being Rome-like (and that's something even Hollywood agrees to).
Agreed, a paralyzed political system dominated by the wealthy. A senate so committed to “civility politics” that even the politicians who’s policies would help the working class, refuse to call out the corruption of their colleagues (i.e. the root cause of our problems), or at most are only able to give a tepid denouncement of their policies (or lack thereof). A senate/house that know what the problems are and how to fix them, but choose to pass on the responsibility of fixing them to the next generation (always arguing “now is just not the time”) so that they aren’t inconvenienced by some of the temporary downsides that necessary reform can bring. And the wealthy elites who basically control our government like how things are as is, so they perpetuate the gridlock to see how long they can block necessary reform and continue to profit before the pitchforks come out. But if you look at history, by the time the pitchforks come out it’s already too late to stop the downward spiral of any given society.
I argue its literally the coastal elites. You see it that after 2011 and occupy wallstreet that a huge flood of corruption took hold. It still dosent stop the main question. What about the rural people and the avaliable manpower pool? Why were farms taken from roman soldier so blatently
He did draw upon traditional practices, but there is a chance that he took some liberties when he set the ages. Patricians were allowed to run for office a year earlier than plebeians, for instance, and that strikes me as in line with Sulla's general favoritism towards members of his own order.
Good lecture but I think there’s more editorialization than normal and I find that a negative. Still extremely informative and well made overall though.
Have you been listening. It was because thw senate refused reform that made veterans landholders. The senate practically ate up all the land and all the veterans would go to the cities. Contributing to the manpower crisis.
why do you say pointless?? until that show of force citizenry was denied, romans only reacted to force, there was no amount of diplomacy or politics that could resolve the issue, they only understand that it was critical and serious claim after engaging in mutual bleeding.
Echoes of what happened in the mid and late Roman Republic are being replayed today in the US. Senators/rich who work for themselves and use market forces for their enrichment rather than dealing with social economic problems of the poor. Along with generals/statesmen who were trying to advance their own supremacy. Finally soldiers that become loyal to their generals rather than the state was a big factor in the many civil wars that would end the republic.
@@lorefox201 Sulla crossed the Pomerium with an army and overthrew the Republic by murdering Senators. Marius, what, got elected a lot of times in a row? Killed a guy from his own faction for rioting? Always did what the Senate told him to? Marius was a better optimate than Sulla, change my mind.
Edit : I would also argue that the Roman system that are not broke would not give Italian and Latin Citizenship of Roman. Why would they? If the Roman don't have problem among their own ranks why they decrease their own power by giving it away to foriegner nevermind that they had been an integral parts of Roman for centuries? 32:32 Nobody would care on minor issue on 2 years old video but i find dismissing Cimbri, the Germanic tribe that really wreak havoc across both Gallic and Roman as "some gallic tribes" to be mildly insulting. It didn't really matter if Roman had problem or not, the Cimbri were just as existensial threat to the Roman as Hannibal did
right similar situations aren't occurring today as we speak cx we live in Rome 2 and all history nerds will be the first to see it happen before their very eyes violently aware of it
It depends on what systems we're talking about exactly. Just because something is old doesn't mean it isn't still useful, or isn't the best option and the fact it still exists could be a testament to it's reliability. Change can be fraught with danger as well. You could have an aging system wrought with problems and in need of deep seeded reform, but the reforms chosen could be disastrous. Tsarist Russia was a mess and needed major reforms, but even then Russia's overall trajectory was pretty good. Had it stayed it's current course it would be considered a great power on par with the US instead of a poor second rate power. When the Bolsheviks took over they basically ruined Russia in every way imaginable from economically, politically, culturally, demographically. Today Russia is still dealing with the ramifications of the Soviet era. Even some of the reforms meant to save the Roman Republics are often credited with the fall of the Republic such as the Marian Reforms of the military. The overall Roman Government wasn't dysfunctional on it's own. It worked for centuries for a reason. The main problem was corruption took root and became all encompassing and they weren't capable, or willing to deal with it. Rome needed men of virtue and they were of short supply as is the norm. This is the heart of the problem, the political culture and broader culture no longer upheld the values and virtues that allowed for their government to properly function and be held accountable. Rome needed legal reforms, but not necessarily Constitutional. This is the biggest problem in the US right now. I've read the US Constitution many times and I don't see any major problems with it as written. The issue arises more from laws written well after it's adoption, disregard for many existing laws and the Constitutional order and the necessity for new laws to curb corruption. The current political class is very corrupt and self interested. It's very easy for a Congressman to become very wealthy through there office. What we need to do is curb the corruption likely by making public service a sacrifice again. Have all elected officials report and make public all their banking and financial information. Ban politicians from owning stock. Right now politicians can sell stock if they know a law they are about to pass will hurt it. That's basically insider trading, but it's legal for them to do. Right now the government can give exemptions to organizations and individuals from certain laws. This was rampant during the pandemic. Large well connected business were not under the same rules everyone else, especially their small business competitors were. The Governor of California gave his own business an exemption from the lockdown rules. This brings me back to the need to a culture that holds it's politicians accountable because in California they didn't. The people weren't willing to hold their politicians accountable for their wrong doing. We even see in this video Rome did have some rules and laws to deal with it's problems, but those laws weren't followed and worse exploited. The people didn't hold the Senator's to account and didn't demand the laws be enforced as intended. In the end it's ultimately up to the people to hold the system to account and if they aren't willing fight for it then they deserve to lose it. Rome's Government didn't need to be completely reformed it needed to be reaffirmed and the US needs to accomplish this if it wishes to avoid Rome's fate.
@@ShamanMcLamie you know nothing about ussr. saying that tzarists russia was on "a pretty good trajectory" is just pathetic and your bias towards soviets shows. bolsheviks industrialized a semi-feudal country. it was an autoritarian country which was bad in MANY aspects, believe me, im from former soviet bloc, but your revisionists history is just disgusting. get out from this channel with this nonsense. we really like to discuss real history here. this needed men of virtue rant is just pure conjecture and you could have the guts to admit it
@@suckston Tsarist Russia was already industrializing. The Russian Civil War actually stopped that process and then when they industrialized under Stalin they did it in the dumbest way imaginable. They built factories, often modeled after Western factories, but because they had no proper markets, or pricing mechanisms they were extremely inefficient. If they didn't meet their quotas they would simply throw more resources at the factory to meet the quotas instead actually trying to create more efficient production methods. They effectively drained the rest of the economy to support a handful of core sectors and because of the command economy corruption was rampant. There was a saying in the Soviet Union, "if you didn't steal from the state you stole from your family," and the culture of corruption plagues many of the former Soviet States including Russia. The Soviet economy was also chronically rigid and unable to change to meet changing economic conditions. This is a big part of why it lagged so much behind the US and ultimately collapsed. Then we have to get onto the matter of demographics. Russia had one of the highest birth rates in Europe in the lead up to World War I. That is generally a sign things are going well for people. Had Russians birth rates remained consistent with the rest of Europe they'd have a population about the same size as the US instead of less than half and then considering many of Russia territorial would be much larger. When the Communist took over Russia's birth rates cratered. This is something that plagued most Communist countries. It happened all throughout Eastern Europe and China. You have country with birth rates of a developed country and an aging population, but not the same wealth as a developed country to support that population. Russia's overall trajectory prior to World War I was quite good and Russia by virtue of it's size was going to be the great Eurasian power. This is something both Britain and Germany recognized and feared. The biggest issue with Tsarist Russia is politically it was rigid, inept and incapable of dealing with crisis and needed major reforms, or to be replaced. Had the Kerensky government not been toppled they may have lead Russia into being a powerful Western style Republic. Unfortunately it was the Bolsheviks who took charge and ruined Russia in the long run. In many respects Russia becoming Communist benefitted America since it kneecapped one of it's biggest rivals on the world stage. That is the point I was getting at. Change isn't automatically good. It can often be far worse than the status quo. Be careful at what you discard and what you replace it with.
I LOVE this video! However, it's important to note that in your account on Laelius Sapiens attempt at reform, you took many liberties and said stuff that are not and cannot be backed by evidence. Of course, feel free to prove me wrong, as I might be wrong after all: -The only source for this attempt at reform by Sapiens is Plutarch's account of Tiberius Gracchus. And he doesn't mention that the senate "threatened" Laelius with murder or otherwise, as you claim, but only that it clamorously opposed the proposed bill. -It doesn't mention either that Sapiens gave some kind of speech that "impressed the senators" and that because of this "wise" speech it decided to bestow him with the cognomen "sapiens". -Plutarch DOES mention that the senate gave him that cognomen upon him withdrawing his proposal, and he may be right. But there's no evidence of this "wise speech" you mention (and which's words you apparently cite in the video). -And the historical consensus nowadays is that Sapiens DIDN'T derive his cognomen because of this event but because he was a learned scholar.
Latins were Italians, but most Italians were not Latins. Latins were the close relatives of the Romans in western central Italy who shared the Latin language and were almost identical to the Romans in terms of religion and culture. The Italians were the other inhabitants of Italy who were non-Latin and also non-Greek. The Romans created a three-tiered system of rights: Roman, Latin, and Italian based on these differences.
I wonder if emigrating from the lands to the cities was appealing in the 2nd century bc. Why else would this have been allowed to happen? Why didn't the soldiers rise up and demand their land back, especially when the state has become rich from conquest. I mean I get that rich people can be mean or whatever, but drafting men into the army just to take their land while they are away seems like a great way to get killed when the soldiers come back and are pissed. There must be something more tot he situation.
Ah yes. The Gracchi. The original inspiration for both socialists and communists. Not sure why you chose to include the segment about soldiers losing farms, because that is only loosely connected to your main point, and everyone was a farmer if you go back that far.
If anyone is interested in hearing another take on how Rome worked, Hellenistic Age Podcast has an episode on TH-cam with Dr. Brett Devereaux that has a very different interpretation than Dr. Thersites
I'd also like to add to your first point that the landowners also were buying the slaves that were brought to Rome via the wars.
This made it much more difficult for the soldiers who returned home to compete with these estates that used slsve labor, effectively pricing them out of the market and into debt.
While also creating as a result a MASSIVE level of unemployment, which would have created a perfect enviroment for the Marius reforms.
@@thebandofbastards4934 Quite.
Sounds like outsourcing to me.
@@Lobsterwithinternet I prefer to see it as a form of automation where you bring in those people who had been degraded into meat robots as they have no rights, have no need for payment and are doomed to be the propriety of their master for their entire life.
I used to think that one of the solutions to the unemployment made by automation would be to employ all jobless ones into the military, as that would never have a labor limit.
And the romans seem to have done that through their legions, as they renounced the levy system in favour of a professional army where they could turn that unemployment rate into soldiers which allowed to wage continuous wars of conquest and the slaves that came from those conquests also created more unemployment which then fueled the legions even more.
@@thebandofbastards4934 It's an almost identical parallel to immigration in the US.
@@cookiekaramello7498 Not quite
As immigrants have everyday and luxury needs which drive demand up and as a result create more jobs.
While most slaves are only allowed enough food in order to keep functioning.
These flaws would seem so funny if they weren’t tragic, literally the three stooges acting as senators
Except those 3 Stooges had society shifting personal interests at stake on nailing the gag/joke. Not every joke lands, even for the 3 Stooges. Interesting stuff.
And let’s face it - America is arguably even worse
The social war between the Romans and their Italic allies could be seen as the first sign/attempt, through citizenship since this was what truly mattered at the time, to an Italian nationality revolving around the geographic shape of the Italian peninsula, way before than the modern concept of a nation would be.
Same thing happened in Greece, Egypt, India and China over time but you're right that the Social War was significant because unlike those other places, we can pinpoint the very year that Italy became a geopolitical entity under one authority, and that is 87 BCE. That war was so unnecessary though. The Senate gave the Italian/Latin allies everything they wanted after slaughtering them for not wanting to be a step above slaves. They had fought and died over nearly two centuries for that very Senate, who only gave in after they realized the alternative could be a sustained and gridlocked conflict over decades. It must have been weird being a new Roman citizen in 90 BCE (part of the tribes who didn't rebel), watching Rome wage three separate internal conflicts between 91 and 82 BCE, and then getting even weirder less then two generations later from 49 to 31 BCE. Imagine being born during the rise of Marius and then somehow living to see Augustus reign supreme.
@@geordiejones5618 could you please tell in which occasion this happened in Greece? (And the other places you mentioned if you like)
I would like to look into it.
It's almost like people revolt when those entrusted with serving the people only serve themselves....
Its unfortunate that justified rebellion seems to always be met by a brutal and decisive response from the ruling elite, unless of course its one of the elite revolting and trying to take power for themselves.
They also revolt when generous government subsidies are taken away.
A+ presentation. When the next constitutional convention occurs.. you're invited.
He's a Leftist
>your
@@ThomasPaineintheArse You say that like it's a bad thing
@@ThomasPaineintheArse Is this what you American's have come to? Why does it matter what kind of politics a person has in order to narrate historical things??
@@heichiro091 It’s because Trump supporters are pretty much a cult at this point. Populism is a cancer to democratic government and that is as true as it was during the 1st Century BCE as it is today. Hopefully we fare better than the Romans.
This is one I got to watch over n over a few times.
So they "made him an offer he can't refuse" and dubbed him "the wise". Lolll
The office of DIctatorship was hugely denigrated. When the Senate decided to constrain the powers of the dictator, Fabius, by appointing a second dictator the office lost its entire purpose. What's the point of a dictatorship if their are checks and balances on it? The lack of a legal dictatorship eventually lead to the illegal dictatorship of Sulla.
I definitely agree the degradation of the office was a big shift in the view of the tittle. As thats what it became just another tittle
I think all institutions degrade over time, just like physical things deteriorate.
Been waiting for your take on Rome’s political stagnation.
Chilling how history is repeating itself in the United States
Drivel
Definitely true
😆
The United States will likely not fall for hundreds more years. There are zero meaningful military threats besides the remaining Jihadi Terrorists and China after decades of further expansion. I think it's more likely we will experience Rome's shift from a Republic to a Tyrant Dictator similar to what Caesar was and later Octavian.
Not exactly
I had a Spanish ulcer once, but we broke up after a few months.
those poor gracchi brothers :( their story is the real story of what trying to help the poor gets you. same thing happened when MLK Jr was going to march into Washington on a donkey as a part of the poor people's march. "I have seen the promised land. I may not get there with you."
Bernie is still fighting!
Marius held 6 consulships in a row, not 5. Also, it is more accurate to describe the northern invaders as Germans, not Gauls. (Teutons and Cimbri), (IMO)
were they? them all were just barbarians to rome
It would not just be more acurrate. To describe them as gauls is simoly false
@@DazedSpy2 they are Germans
Five in a row and one before that with a gap.....and a seventh before he died.😊
Sulla was the worst! Even Caligula and Theodosius compare favorably.
he wasn't the man who rome wanted, but the one they deserved
Sulla was the worst indeed.
people like to look at 476 and say LOOK! ITS THE WORLD TODAY! BARBARIANS ARE UPON US and those same people fail to realize that the times that are actually discussed in this video are inifinitely more relevant to today's events.
Relevant in what way? Political disunity, but aren't the reasons are entirely different.
@@speggeri90There different in what the problems are. But not different in the process. The Roman republic was unable to address problems in the system, primarily due to short term selfish thinking of the elites. The US has the same system dysfuction today. The US cannot solve problems anymore. For forty years, the only consistency has been tax cuts for the wealthy and raise military spending.
Some elite senators are pushing policies that are inimical to the interests of ordinary Americans.
Great work, as usual.
Great lecture, however one statement at the beginning proves that even 2000 years later we still haven't learned the most important leason. "The heart of Rome's issues is individual corrupt senators", as if, it's fault of individuals that the system failed. No, they were just a product of a bad system. When you mix money and politics, politics end up being used to make money. Yet, thousands of years of documented history later, we still keep telling ourselves it is all fault of individuals, if only they weren't "bad people", everything would work. But they weren't bad people. There aren't good people and bad people, there are just humans, oppurtunistic and selfish just like everybody else. Until we accept that the average human being has those qualities, and set up our governments to curb them, system after system will fail. We saw it thousands of years ago, and we see it happening today. Yet we keep lying to ourselves that it's just "bad people" that are the root cause of all our issues.
Now obviously you shouldn't have included any of that in your lecture, but don't claim that Rome's system of goverment only ended up with failing due to some individuals being "bad"
There are a disturbing amount of parallels to the modern world at work here.
I believe the narrative is crafted toward that effect. That's easy to do when the effect accurately reflects the likely truth.
In historical studies it often appears that history tends to repeat itself unless the lesson is learned.
The 'narrative' you speak of is a tendency of human nature towards civilization that breeds use of government to consolidate power of the wealthy.
This happened in every greater civilization in history.
Why we are debating this in 2021 is beyond ignorance and a smear against our mental evolution.
'Cometh the man, cometh the hour.' Hail Caesar! When he comes, you will know it. if you're Occident and you haven't lost your nerve, you will obey! and follow him to the bitter end.
Like the idea of trowing my pot to a senator
That’s a whole different meaning for a senator getting shit on.
i'm always suprised how poor the roman empire was given its size and dominance even by classical standards. you dont get to see the same sorts of industries we saw in classical greece or carthage, such as shipbuilding, metalworking, navigation, the arts and science etc.
poor were the plebs and latins, true romans were rich
@@ernstschmidt4725 there was hardly a middle class in Rome. You were either stupendously wealthy or in absolute poverty
It's called being a wide state, where the main modus operandi is to get your income through continuous expansion.
Rome did have a big economy in trading, ship building due to the massive trade on the Mediterranean ( as found by many shipwreck and pottery of Roman Era and markings) and later when Egypt became a province it was a trade gateway to India, Arabia and lower Africa. Rome also had a huge construction industry and large metalworking one as well to create all the tools, weapons and metals used in the Army, farming, construction and daily life.
Roman's wealth was more focused into the pockets of either the State, Elite or the cities. If you where a trader or merchant in the early Empire you could live good enough in comfort, When Diocletian came in though with his huge feudalism like reforms then the middle class and making money from a trade died off for good. Add in the chaos of the third century crisis of course.
Rome was very wealthy Empire if you where born in the right place, time and of the right family. Like most of History to be honest.
@@TheMrgoodmanners I would dispute that traders and craftsman and skilled labour made a decent enough living in the early Empire.
Sounds too much similar to a contemporary empire situation 🤔
Interested to know people's views. But regarding professional soldiers in the ancient period and that 'nationalism' didn't exist (or at least as we would regard it), would there always be effectively mercenaries and have no direct loyalty to the state?
Seems to me that as military and political power was so intertwined, that the more professional ancient warriors became, it would be inevitable that they would be more self-interested.
I really think an initial part of this lecture is being intentionally obtuse as to why the Roman citizens were antagonistic towards the slave class. Their wages and job prospects were destroyed by this influx of cheap labor. They then had to live near or amongst people with different languages, culture, societies. This creates an antagonistic relationship. It's only common sense and it has happened with every group of people, in every culture, since the beginning of time. The elites benefitted from the influx of cheap labor (so they had to keep their rights restricted) but the price of that cheap labor was "paid" by the working class.
Yeah but slaves in Rome were not cheap though, he has covered this in other lectures.
Slave economies are very lopsided. The slaves price out the working and middle class out of labor once there's enough of them. Look at how many skilled jobs were reserved for slaves during the roman empire. That also creates the idea that such labor is beneath the dignity of a free citizen, which causes even more problems.
tells us everything we need to know about today's pax america and where it's headed
@Valer everything is roman in some form they made such an effective bureaucracy that not taking things from them would be an idiot move on the part of the empowered
@Valer perhaps america has more in common with ancient athens then
@Dani al we're in for quite a ride
@Valer - Most people would argue Britain would be like Athens and Europe like ancient Greece, the USA being Rome-like (and that's something even Hollywood agrees to).
*pax americana if you want to use correct Latin
Kudos for the time stamps.
not that i really use them but it's good to know they're there :)
This is so like the USA today
The saps rule!
Agreed, a paralyzed political system dominated by the wealthy. A senate so committed to “civility politics” that even the politicians who’s policies would help the working class, refuse to call out the corruption of their colleagues (i.e. the root cause of our problems), or at most are only able to give a tepid denouncement of their policies (or lack thereof). A senate/house that know what the problems are and how to fix them, but choose to pass on the responsibility of fixing them to the next generation (always arguing “now is just not the time”) so that they aren’t inconvenienced by some of the temporary downsides that necessary reform can bring. And the wealthy elites who basically control our government like how things are as is, so they perpetuate the gridlock to see how long they can block necessary reform and continue to profit before the pitchforks come out. But if you look at history, by the time the pitchforks come out it’s already too late to stop the downward spiral of any given society.
I argue its literally the coastal elites. You see it that after 2011 and occupy wallstreet that a huge flood of corruption took hold.
It still dosent stop the main question. What about the rural people and the avaliable manpower pool? Why were farms taken from roman soldier so blatently
thanks for making these videos. I passionately study and focus on the information you present and i think about it for a long time
Great video! Thanks!
Maybe they shouldn't have killed those Mario brothers...
I get a very clear picture of that time sadly as I m living this all over today or we are living this all over against
Jeez, sounds like a certain country in North America.....
Let's go Sula!
I learned that Sulla didn't create the Cursus Honorum, he merely made it a legal requirement, where it had been an informal custom in centuries prior.
He did draw upon traditional practices, but there is a chance that he took some liberties when he set the ages. Patricians were allowed to run for office a year earlier than plebeians, for instance, and that strikes me as in line with Sulla's general favoritism towards members of his own order.
Good lecture but I think there’s more editorialization than normal and I find that a negative. Still extremely informative and well made overall though.
Wealth concentration on a select few will never end well for the stability of the nation.
Taking civility politics to seriously is definitely something that echos into the modern day
Have you been listening. It was because thw senate refused reform that made veterans landholders. The senate practically ate up all the land and all the veterans would go to the cities. Contributing to the manpower crisis.
@@bellphorusnknight yes, and civility politics isnpart of why they couldn't implement reforms
Found on reddit! Nice job
why do you say pointless?? until that show of force citizenry was denied, romans only reacted to force, there was no amount of diplomacy or politics that could resolve the issue, they only understand that it was critical and serious claim after engaging in mutual bleeding.
the definition of pointlessness
in a fetid pool of milk, the cream rises to the TOP, but above that, is the greasy whey, the foam of decay
Great video - thank you.
The parallells with later - and current - empires are uncanny, to say the least.
People are greedy and want more. Elites, normal people. Very few are ever satisfied with what they have. And they will fight and clash for it.
God i love your videos
Pretty much modern day America.
Echoes of what happened in the mid and late Roman Republic are being replayed today in the US.
Senators/rich who work for themselves and use market forces for their enrichment rather than dealing with social economic problems of the poor. Along with generals/statesmen who were trying to advance their own supremacy. Finally soldiers that become loyal to their generals rather than the state was a big factor in the many civil wars that would end the republic.
You said keester...
Kinda seems like Marius did nothing wrong
seems like sulla did nothing wrong, except resign, and the fact that he didn't kill enought populares.
@@lorefox201 Sulla crossed the Pomerium with an army and overthrew the Republic by murdering Senators.
Marius, what, got elected a lot of times in a row? Killed a guy from his own faction for rioting? Always did what the Senate told him to? Marius was a better optimate than Sulla, change my mind.
@@boldandbrash8431 Sounds like Sulla was a chad to me.
It’s hard to tell the difference between this and modern America and Washington.
Edit : I would also argue that the Roman system that are not broke would not give Italian and Latin Citizenship of Roman. Why would they? If the Roman don't have problem among their own ranks why they decrease their own power by giving it away to foriegner nevermind that they had been an integral parts of Roman for centuries?
32:32 Nobody would care on minor issue on 2 years old video but i find dismissing Cimbri, the Germanic tribe that really wreak havoc across both Gallic and Roman as "some gallic tribes" to be mildly insulting.
It didn't really matter if Roman had problem or not, the Cimbri were just as existensial threat to the Roman as Hannibal did
Sounds familiar.
utterly loved it......nothing ever changes in italy....hilarious
Nah man let's just run the power of a superpower based on a political system from the 1780s I foresee no problems
Seriously, what could go wrong?
right similar situations aren't occurring today as we speak cx we live in Rome 2 and all history nerds will be the first to see it happen before their very eyes violently aware of it
It depends on what systems we're talking about exactly. Just because something is old doesn't mean it isn't still useful, or isn't the best option and the fact it still exists could be a testament to it's reliability. Change can be fraught with danger as well. You could have an aging system wrought with problems and in need of deep seeded reform, but the reforms chosen could be disastrous. Tsarist Russia was a mess and needed major reforms, but even then Russia's overall trajectory was pretty good. Had it stayed it's current course it would be considered a great power on par with the US instead of a poor second rate power. When the Bolsheviks took over they basically ruined Russia in every way imaginable from economically, politically, culturally, demographically. Today Russia is still dealing with the ramifications of the Soviet era.
Even some of the reforms meant to save the Roman Republics are often credited with the fall of the Republic such as the Marian Reforms of the military. The overall Roman Government wasn't dysfunctional on it's own. It worked for centuries for a reason. The main problem was corruption took root and became all encompassing and they weren't capable, or willing to deal with it. Rome needed men of virtue and they were of short supply as is the norm. This is the heart of the problem, the political culture and broader culture no longer upheld the values and virtues that allowed for their government to properly function and be held accountable. Rome needed legal reforms, but not necessarily Constitutional. This is the biggest problem in the US right now.
I've read the US Constitution many times and I don't see any major problems with it as written. The issue arises more from laws written well after it's adoption, disregard for many existing laws and the Constitutional order and the necessity for new laws to curb corruption.
The current political class is very corrupt and self interested. It's very easy for a Congressman to become very wealthy through there office. What we need to do is curb the corruption likely by making public service a sacrifice again. Have all elected officials report and make public all their banking and financial information. Ban politicians from owning stock. Right now politicians can sell stock if they know a law they are about to pass will hurt it. That's basically insider trading, but it's legal for them to do. Right now the government can give exemptions to organizations and individuals from certain laws. This was rampant during the pandemic. Large well connected business were not under the same rules everyone else, especially their small business competitors were. The Governor of California gave his own business an exemption from the lockdown rules. This brings me back to the need to a culture that holds it's politicians accountable because in California they didn't. The people weren't willing to hold their politicians accountable for their wrong doing.
We even see in this video Rome did have some rules and laws to deal with it's problems, but those laws weren't followed and worse exploited. The people didn't hold the Senator's to account and didn't demand the laws be enforced as intended. In the end it's ultimately up to the people to hold the system to account and if they aren't willing fight for it then they deserve to lose it. Rome's Government didn't need to be completely reformed it needed to be reaffirmed and the US needs to accomplish this if it wishes to avoid Rome's fate.
@@ShamanMcLamie you know nothing about ussr. saying that tzarists russia was on "a pretty good trajectory" is just pathetic and your bias towards soviets shows. bolsheviks industrialized a semi-feudal country. it was an autoritarian country which was bad in MANY aspects, believe me, im from former soviet bloc, but your revisionists history is just disgusting. get out from this channel with this nonsense. we really like to discuss real history here. this needed men of virtue rant is just pure conjecture and you could have the guts to admit it
@@suckston Tsarist Russia was already industrializing. The Russian Civil War actually stopped that process and then when they industrialized under Stalin they did it in the dumbest way imaginable. They built factories, often modeled after Western factories, but because they had no proper markets, or pricing mechanisms they were extremely inefficient. If they didn't meet their quotas they would simply throw more resources at the factory to meet the quotas instead actually trying to create more efficient production methods. They effectively drained the rest of the economy to support a handful of core sectors and because of the command economy corruption was rampant. There was a saying in the Soviet Union, "if you didn't steal from the state you stole from your family," and the culture of corruption plagues many of the former Soviet States including Russia. The Soviet economy was also chronically rigid and unable to change to meet changing economic conditions. This is a big part of why it lagged so much behind the US and ultimately collapsed.
Then we have to get onto the matter of demographics. Russia had one of the highest birth rates in Europe in the lead up to World War I. That is generally a sign things are going well for people. Had Russians birth rates remained consistent with the rest of Europe they'd have a population about the same size as the US instead of less than half and then considering many of Russia territorial would be much larger. When the Communist took over Russia's birth rates cratered. This is something that plagued most Communist countries. It happened all throughout Eastern Europe and China. You have country with birth rates of a developed country and an aging population, but not the same wealth as a developed country to support that population.
Russia's overall trajectory prior to World War I was quite good and Russia by virtue of it's size was going to be the great Eurasian power. This is something both Britain and Germany recognized and feared. The biggest issue with Tsarist Russia is politically it was rigid, inept and incapable of dealing with crisis and needed major reforms, or to be replaced. Had the Kerensky government not been toppled they may have lead Russia into being a powerful Western style Republic. Unfortunately it was the Bolsheviks who took charge and ruined Russia in the long run. In many respects Russia becoming Communist benefitted America since it kneecapped one of it's biggest rivals on the world stage. That is the point I was getting at. Change isn't automatically good. It can often be far worse than the status quo. Be careful at what you discard and what you replace it with.
I LOVE this video! However, it's important to note that in your account on Laelius Sapiens attempt at reform, you took many liberties and said stuff that are not and cannot be backed by evidence. Of course, feel free to prove me wrong, as I might be wrong after all:
-The only source for this attempt at reform by Sapiens is Plutarch's account of Tiberius Gracchus. And he doesn't mention that the senate "threatened" Laelius with murder or otherwise, as you claim, but only that it clamorously opposed the proposed bill.
-It doesn't mention either that Sapiens gave some kind of speech that "impressed the senators" and that because of this "wise" speech it decided to bestow him with the cognomen "sapiens".
-Plutarch DOES mention that the senate gave him that cognomen upon him withdrawing his proposal, and he may be right. But there's no evidence of this "wise speech" you mention (and which's words you apparently cite in the video).
-And the historical consensus nowadays is that Sapiens DIDN'T derive his cognomen because of this event but because he was a learned scholar.
Can you elaborate on what you mean by "Latins and Italians"... I had no idea those were different groups. What distinguishes one group from another
Latins were Italians, but most Italians were not Latins. Latins were the close relatives of the Romans in western central Italy who shared the Latin language and were almost identical to the Romans in terms of religion and culture. The Italians were the other inhabitants of Italy who were non-Latin and also non-Greek. The Romans created a three-tiered system of rights: Roman, Latin, and Italian based on these differences.
Thks but is this rome or really the US ;)
Was it true, that Carthage had its own plumbing system figured out? If so, Rome probably could have learned a thing or two in that case…
I wonder if emigrating from the lands to the cities was appealing in the 2nd century bc. Why else would this have been allowed to happen? Why didn't the soldiers rise up and demand their land back, especially when the state has become rich from conquest. I mean I get that rich people can be mean or whatever, but drafting men into the army just to take their land while they are away seems like a great way to get killed when the soldiers come back and are pissed. There must be something more tot he situation.
“…quixotic quest to ignore social problems…” ?
Occupy forum street
While i think your facts are studded with a few more conclusions than most historians, i find myself agreeing with them though 😊
Wish the early-Roman Kingdom Industrialized
Did men like Sulla literally pay for his troops?
I just subscribed, I please post again soon
The 'Elephant' in the room.
I just can't help it. Equestrian middle class sell outs; transience riding the wave of speculation - the true riff-raff of the West!
Pronounced "Sulla," not "Solar;" c 1960's Spartacus
Ah yes. The Gracchi. The original inspiration for both socialists and communists. Not sure why you chose to include the segment about soldiers losing farms, because that is only loosely connected to your main point, and everyone was a farmer if you go back that far.
If anyone is interested in hearing another take on how Rome worked, Hellenistic Age Podcast has an episode on TH-cam with Dr. Brett Devereaux that has a very different interpretation than Dr. Thersites
Familiar
Ceterum autem censeo Senatum esse delendam.
There was no Spain in the 200s bc. What you mean with Spain and Spanish, in this context, would actually be Hispania and Hispanic.
ain't such things as england, just the brittonic isles.
Lots of editorialising + using BCE = giant turnoff
What’s your problem with BCE lmfao
IT IS "BC" NOT "BCE".....This a modification of jewish American academics who object to the mention of Christ....this is related to the Talmud.....
Stop shilling for the plebeians
no the Gracchi didn't come with proposals they came with various riot attempts.
Y o u i g n o r a n t l i t t l e a s s c l o w n
@@VERCINGET0RIX cope and seethe
@@lorefox201 why would I do that? Lol. idgaf about you or anything you say. Get over yourself.
@@VERCINGET0RIX yeah of course you goof, you answered me out of nothing to insult me because you don't give a crap about anything I say lol
@@lorefox201 I'm a simple man. When someone says something retarded, I reply.