The Romans actually weren't bathing that much towards the end
Their evangelicals convinced everyone that bathing was a sin because it was pagan.
this post was submitted on 06 May 2024
939 points (97.7% liked)
Political Memes
5234 readers
2164 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
What is the jab here, we have good roads?
You must not live in the South East. The roads here are fucking awful
They may have had better roads, but they couldn't hold a candle to the spectacle of our many circuses. Id bring up the bread too, but the price gettin a little nutty.
Whereas they gave everyone grain allotments.
Also, I'd say people getting torn up by lions is a much bigger spectacle than whatever Cirque du Soleil is doing lately.
Whereas they gave everyone grain allotments.
Common misconception. Only a specific list of people in the city of Rome received free grain, and it's generally considered that they were more "Skilled working class" than genuinely impoverished in most cases - the point was to maintain the political stability of the city. This isn't to say that there wasn't irregular charity of other forms that got through, or local initiatives, only that the regular grain dole often spoken of isn't it.
They did subsidize grain, regulate the price and weight of bread, and reward bakers who sold bread under a certain price though. But that's not so different from today.
Can't feed Christians to lions since Christians are the majority now.
More supply = more games!
I guess you could compare the fact that Rome used "barbarians" to fight their wars on the borders with the US love of proxy wars. But I doubt Israel or Ukraine or Yemen is going to invade the US.
There was a lot that contributed to the downfall of Rome, the constant invasions were a symptom of a bigger problem.
Rome built itself on the back of it's military with a strong economy, as the economy became stable, the military eventually began to dwindle with it until Rome could no longer defend itself.
The economy had been suffering for a while. Overspending on the military and foreign wars was part of it, but not all of it. Taxes were oppressive and got worse the less you made. The gap between the rich and the poor had broadened quite considerably and inflation was running rampant. The wealthy began to retreat to the far frontier and set up independent fiefdoms to avoid paying taxes.
The labor pool had also evaporated. As Rome stopped expanding the ability to replace slaves had vanished and fewer men were willing to fight. This is when they started losing territory, and it was a downward spiral from then on.
Notably, we're sitting right before that last stage in our little comparison.
Rome built itself on the back of it’s military with a strong economy, as the economy became stable, the military eventually began to dwindle with it until Rome could no longer defend itself.
Other way around. As long as the economy of Rome was stable, the Empire was prosperous. The Empire's prosperity nosedived because of the constant unrest of the Crisis of the Third Century. Turns out when you spend a great deal of time killing and plundering each other in civil wars, there are less men left over to kill invading barbarians. Who knew!?
The economy had been suffering for a while. Overspending on the military and foreign wars was part of it, but not all of it.
The military and foreign wars were probably the least objectionable thing the treasury went towards. Just about every half-decent Emperor that came in would inevitably look at the extravagant court costs of their not-even-half-decent predecessor and say "Fuck me, is THAT where our money is going?"
The wealthy began to retreat to the far frontier and set up independent fiefdoms to avoid paying taxes.
Not even to the far frontier, or by force, sadly. They just... stopped paying. The political power of the Emperor no longer depended on the loyalty of the class of nationally ambitious politicians, nor on the exceptional loyalty of the (then-conscripted and life-term) military, nor on the Roman people, but on local magnates who were more than happy to leverage both their small size (making the Imperial apparatus crushing them not worth the cost) and their outsized importance for all it was worth.
As Rome stopped expanding the ability to replace slaves had vanished and fewer men were willing to fight.
Gotta point out that those two things aren't related. The decline of slavery after the peak in the 1st century AD had few serious effects on the Empire. Fewer men were willing to fight because years of constant civil war, the complete breakdown of the society you were supposed to be defending, the propagation of regional loyalties, and then capped with a 'divine' autocrat prosecuting sectarian rivals who relies on conscription and lifelong sentences to a much-less professional and meritocratic military is... well, it's a bit of a downer.
Some of their roads are still in use
I was playing Victoria 3 the other day and I wonder what % of the world GDP the US had in its peak, compared to the British or Roman empires.
50% roughly for America, but that's distorted by being immediately after WWII. In the 60s, it was about 25%. Idk about Britain or Rome though
World GDP 2023 was around 105 Trillion US$, the US were around 27T, so about 25,7%
According to Angus Maddison, world GDP around 14AD was about 250B, the roman empire was about 60B (in 2023 US$) so 24% (Roman GDP rose to 100B$ in 150AD, for which i didn't find a reference point in world economy - but i'm pretty sure that by 150AD the roman economy was the largest contributor, which would make their share rise up to max. 40% if the world gdp didn't change much.)
- https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-gdp-over-the-long-run for the 1AD value
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_economy#Estimates_of_national_accounts_and_income_distribution for the roman empire data
- https://imgur.com/gallery/Pz61mnA for the World/US GDP in 2023
I really appreciate that you took time out of your day to answer my random musings. If someone asks if there's hope for humankind, I'll point here.
And now I'm wondering how awkward it would be if you're an AI.
Have an amazing day, friendly stranger.
Your musings made me interested in the answer 😁
No AI here, but it would have involved much less embarrassing use of a calculator if I were one lol
Same to you 🖖
Out of curiosity, there a reason you're comparing Rome to present day America specifically?
American government was partially based on the model of the Roman Republic, and there's actually some pretty interesting broad similarities. It's a pretty common comparison.
There are probably thousands of YouTube videos that will outline them if you're interested.
Everyone overlooks the more apt comparison to the British empire. Much of late 19th and early 20th century US politics was spent actively trying to build imperial power in the same way the Brits had.
If you want a comparison to Rome, we are England's Constantinople
*gesticulates wildly upwards* because of everything?
Aww. Almost a fitting username.
Me, a Roman Senator, explaining why we need to upgrade our twelve lane cobblestone to a fourteen lane cobblestone, as the Visgoths bang at my gates.
We can't be close to the fall of Rome, we don't have a literal horse that has a vote in the Senate... of course with the retirement of Senator Mitch McConnell, Kentucky would be the state most likely to elect a horse as his replacement. So who knows.
If you didn't know- The horse thing either didn't happen or was a prank to show the senate Caligula's contempt for them rather than a crazy man doing something crazy.
The main difference in my opinion is a hostile frontier. You can't really compare 5th century Germany to Canada or Mexico (even though the right wing would love that to be the case). No hordes either.
There are ways you could compare our problems with the southern border to rome though. The biggest funder of the cartels is us and our government has historically used them as right wing cudgels. And that same militarization of the drugs resulted in refugee crises we created with largely American weapons being used. The legitimacy of the kings of the frontier was totally a roman creation to help in their own backbiting politics.
view more: next ›