Inflation and the Fall of the Roman Empire by Joseph R. Peden Part 1

[69Bluntsmoka420]

Some historians say the Empire ended in 476 when Odoacer deposed the last Emperor of the western Roman Empire, Romulus Agustus. Other say it ended in 1453 when the Turks captured Constantinople. They're both wrong--the Roman Empire actually ended in 1918 when the last ROMANov Emperor was killed by the Bolsheviks.

[qwexas]

Don't let this happen to America. We need to elect Ron Paul as our next president.

[BVargaMCooper]

Hold the remnants of this society, collect Roman coins....

VCOINS . COM

[MrYouKnowWho1975]

i would rather have a physical metal coin inflate than fiat paper...... right or wrong? at least the coin will back itself to some respect.

[solidarity2205]

The European Union is the new roman empire.

[Unrealll6666]

The roman empire still lives today.

[historyscientist]

Interesting way of looking at it. I was quite amazed to learn that British museums have a total of several tonnes of coins from the Roman Empire. The place must have been awash with cash.

[PeterFileMoeLester]

So what do you think GuardofLiberty ? You think it will pay off on an above average level to save money right now & over the next 10 years or so, since a whole LOT of people think the worlds going to end in 2012, or the economy is "guaranteed" to collapse since propaganda Youtube videos made by people in Russia say "abandon your country, it's collapsing", or, a LOT of people, think were guaranteed to enter WW3 & nuclear war, OR finally, various religious bibles "predict" Earth's final times.

[GuardofLiberty]

@PeterFileMoeLester I don't think we're in for hyperinflation period. However, long-term I do see inflation on the way (unless this stagnation continues of course). Possibly there could be some bad stagflation on the way, if banks stop hoarding but no jobs get created of course.

I put an interesting article on my Tumblr considering dollar denominated assets, perhaps you should take a look at it.

Don't get me started on those 2012 idiots...and nuclear war is just as distant a possibility.

[PeterFileMoeLester]

LOL, sounds almost like he's saying "booyon". Which unfortunately reminds me of the great counter indicator Jim Cramer & his angry money....

[PeterFileMoeLester]

EVERYONE thinks currently were doomed to hyperinflate. It's not the case I think. Don't get me wrong, it's more possible than it was half a century ago, but everyone seems to have economic tunnel vision in these rough times. i personally think a dollar saved today will be worth much more in 10 years. Very possibly it might even turn out to be the best 10 year period to save money since before WW2. I think a dollar save today will have the value of 2 of todays dollars in 10 years due to sentiment

[welhungjohnson]

Watch the video The Money Masters

[Renegen1]

Monetary Policy in the roman empire? Huh? All they had was coins, no banks. They could debase coins, sure but that's about it.

[nlpayne4]

@Renegen1 of course they had banks u noob, bench is the latin word for bank.

[Renegen1]

@nlpayne4 That comes from the italian renaissance...

[Pattytul]

hey thank you for this it helped me with my paper lol

[GuardofLiberty]

I know all about this. The difference between the market model of the PDA and what you are talking about is that Rome's military was accountable only to the people that were paying it: the commander of the particular legion, not an actual voluntary base of customers.

They got to externalize their costs on everyone else, whereas a model PDA would be based solely on the well-being of its customers.

[discothief]

Egypt, Asyria, Babylon, Medes and Persians, Greeks, Romans and the the current worl power (US/UK and Illuminati).

All of this has been foretold way before any of these well know powers fell. They say that the seventh world power (Ours today) will also fall and that will be the last ever man government to rule the Earth.

The ruins of the once great empires are the proof that they were but are not.

We are next and it will be soon.

[Kataphraktoi17]

Peden also obstinate on the multiple bureaucracies created by Diocletian as wasteful, but the division of the Roman Empire, between East and West, codified by Constantine, paid dividend with the successful defense of the Eastern Roman Empire till the mid 15th century.

[GuardofLiberty]

Because the East always had more money and a more stable economy, and this is why it was able to survive. Was it confusing? Yes. But it was in a place that could handle it, unlike the weaker Western Empire.

[Efteling4Ever]

The East survived, as it had less enemies. The East had to concentrate on the Sassanids only during the 5th and part of the 6th century. Hun raids were nothing compared to those into the West. The West had more enemies than you could list here, all attacking simutaneously, in larger numbers. At the end of the 4th cent. the West had a larger, stronger army than the East. Had East been the West you can imagine how soon they would have been finished off.

[Kataphraktoi17]

Constantinople was also more defensible then Rome, having the sea on three sides (being able to be resupplied as well) and substantial defensive wall only be needed on one side of the city.

[Efteling4Ever]

The Theodosian wall was a single wall up to 447. One could just as well turn the argument around and look at Ravenna which was considered impregnable at the time, surrounded by excellent defensive walls, with access to the sea, surrounded by marshes. No army even attempted a siege there at the time. You don't seriously believe a defensible capital has anything to do with the East's survival or the fall of the West, do you?

[GuardofLiberty]

I never said this. Constantinople's excellent defenses no doubt played a role in the east's survival over the west. The east having more wealth (and a much higher population to produce it), is just one reason.

Ravenna wasn't nearly as defensible as Constantinople. Odoacer captured it and so did the Byzantines a century later. But it was sure better than Rome.

[Efteling4Ever]

Is you message really for me? I received a reaction from kataphraktoi: "Constantinople was ... side of the city " I thought I had replied to him. Basically I wasn't impressed with the idea that a defensible capital would have made much of a difference. Perhaps I accidentally replied to you.

[GuardofLiberty]

Oops. It's my video, so all replies get listed as comments to me.

You're right. I wouldn't say the defensibility of Constantinople didn't make any difference, but it certainly wasn't the biggest reason the East survived.

[Efteling4Ever]

Ravenna was very defendable (it was even chosen for it). However one needs to know that the West was viable upto appr. 455. Afterwards what was left of it turned its back to Ravenna, disintegrated incredibly fast and one can hardly speak about a Western Roman army afterwards. That it was captured by Odoacer later is no surprise. By that time there was hardly anyone left "standing on the walls" Up to 455 this was unthinkable

[Kataphraktoi17]

Why did the Romans debase their currency? Well, to pay for their army that doubled between Augustus and Diocletian. Well, why did the Romans double their army? He doesn't really say, but i bet it's a good reason other then Diocletian and Constantine being evil statist.

[GuardofLiberty]

They had to double their army because they conquered more than they could afford, thus sowing the seeds of their own destruction. It is a predictable cycle. The Roman state consumed itself to death.

[Kataphraktoi17]

There was no significant change in the size of the Roman Empire from Augustus to Constantine.

[GuardofLiberty]

Not entirely true, Britain came in under Claudius, but it did stay more or less the same especially after Hadrian, changing toward a defensive policy and thus had no new plunder coming in from conquests. It became increasingly expensive to maintain. Eventually revenues from taxation could not cover expenses needed to govern such a vast empire so they needed to debase the currency.

It was always too big to maintain, consider the income from conquest just an artificial high.

[Kataphraktoi17]

Trajan conquered Dacia and Mesopotamia as well. Peden's begins his narrative with Caracalla, a hundred years after Trajan's expansion. My main point of contention, is what changed from the early Principate to the Crisis of the Third Century to successfully deteriorate the Empire and lead to her eventually collapse?

Foreign raids and deteriorating conditions (plagues) depressed the population and economy, lessening the tax base, causing the Romans to debase their currency to pay for defense.

[GuardofLiberty]

At any rate, the empire was too expensive to maintain and the currency was being devalued even before the plague began. Defense was always inadequate, Rome really needed at least a million troops to keep their huge borders secure (and this was simply not affordable even under the best of circumstances). It was only a matter of time. The plague made a bad situation even worse, but Rome was bound to fail at some point.

[Efteling4Ever]

The third century inflation did not result in the final collapse. The Roman Empire was definitely the strongest power in the 4th century. With non-debased coins, and roughly the same territory and taxes. Roman military defeats were exceptions not the rule.

[Efteling4Ever]

4th century currency was not devaluated. Fact is after 400 the Romans simply had too many enemies attacking simulaneously. All Germanic farmers were warriors. The Romans only had small armies of paid professionals. With every loss/devastation of territory the tax base was reduced, army numbers dwindled. They had perefct money, but not enough. Only a draft army would have saved them.

[Efteling4Ever]

NO. They had to loose in the end, due to their military system. Not due to consuming. Every Germanic farmer was also a warrior. Every Roman citizen was .... a citizen. They had a small army of paid professionals and around 400 hardly anyone desired to enlist anymore. These small armies could only be present at one place a time. This doesn't work anymore when you are attacked evewhere constantly.

[GuardofLiberty]

I'm sorry, but the fact that you are outright denying the massive inflation and destruction of wealth that occurred (and thus to a large extent crippling Rome's tax base and ability to defend itself) means that I cannot talk to you or someone like you.

Rome killed itself for a long time. The migration period was the final demonstration of that.

[Efteling4Ever]

I don't deny the 3rd century inflation at all. You should read posts. Just saying that that did not do the Roman Empire in for. 4th century wealth was sufficient to keep the empire afloat whereas it nearly collapsed in the 3rd. Basically the 4th century = buying Germanic soldiers with non-inflated money.

[Efteling4Ever]

All this changed drastically as of appr. 400when taxes were seriously reduced due to territory loss/devastation + lower population numbers. Not inflation but simply continuously dwindling tax incomes (of by itself ok non-inflated money). Even up to 454 the Roman army won most battles when it managed to appear in serious numbers. Exactly the migrations are what finished the empire: ever larger invading man power vs continuously dwindling man power.

[Efteling4Ever]

Further, should I care for the fact that you apparently cannot speak to "someone like me" (someone with a background in Roman history)? Guess that rather says something about "someone like you".

[GuardofLiberty]

Because you're only looking at this from a military perspective when this article was about the destruction of wealth that the government's policies created (and from which the Roman economy never recovered to what it was previously). And I was in no mood to argue that point.

They bought the Germans with non-inflated gold coins, (which Constantine somewhat managed to get under control) but these coins were largely only in the hands of the political class, not the people at large.

[GuardofLiberty]

I thought you meant the monetary base at large was not inflated. This simply wasn't true, (and why I said I can't talk to that) silver and bronze coinage was nearly worthless and the emperors never managed to get those currencies under control. Whereas Constantine, as Peden mentioned, managed to somewhat stabilize the gold Aureus.

By the time of the migrations, the Roman economy was pretty much already feudal, far from the near industrial place it had been in before.

[GuardofLiberty]

So basically it was asking to be conquered. There was no real production for the empire to utilize in order to mount a proper defense against such a massive influx of tribes. Wheras it would have been interesting to see the migration happen during the Pax Romana period when the economy was sound.

All of these factors caused the empire to collapse. Military, economic, demographic, etc.

Sorry if we had a misunderstanding.

[Efteling4Ever]

I am not looking at a military perspective only. My point is that the 4th cent. was a rather prosperous time, but with a smaller population due to previous wars and plagues. Many regions were actually flourishing in that cent. and it wasn't a typically feudal world. Money was circulating plenty in the 4th cent. The migrations pushed in too many people. It's about numbers + mistakes. Let me outline what was probably the most important one:

[Efteling4Ever]

at the end of the 4th cent. there was 1) a small army (a fraction of a small population), 2) more invaders then ever before in Roman history. Many more than in the 3rd. In 412 emperor Honorius (with weak mental faculties) abolished nearly all important taxes in favour of the very rich and the church. For about 15 years severe territory loss was not compensated with an increase of taxes from available territories. On the contrary, taxes providing for sufficient mercenaries were hardly there.

[Efteling4Ever]

After Honorius death, the error had become apparent. But neither the super rich nor the Church were not inclined to pay up. In the 440ties Emperor Valentinian III came with drastic tax laws: all the rich and the church were taxed again (a huge attack on their priviliges), a kind of VAT tax was imposed on all merchants (the siliquaticum) and the rich were forced to stick their duty to send recruits. But Spain and Africa, the most important tax base, had already been lost, Gaul was devastated.

[Efteling4Ever]

Further, 4th century and 5th cent. money were stable. These coins usually have good metal contents. Even a 5th cent. coin is a solid gold coin. Basically, the Roman State Apparatus as of 400 governed a shrinking world with perfect money, but was desparately short of it.

[GuardofLiberty]

Right, you're talking about gold coins, which Peden points out, Constantine stabilized.

The silver and bronze coinage was not, and the population was either feudal or bartered. The Crisis of the 3rd Century did not do in the empire per se, but it certainly weakened it to a point that it never recovered to what it had been previously (setting up the fall).

Perhaps the article should have been titled "Inflation and the Decline of the Roman Empire." But the word "fall" garners more attention.

[residentzombie]

The Pagan Roman empire double it's army so it could take control of most civilizations of the world. They wanted a new world order in which the Roman Emperor was King of the World. It's all about power and control, man's greatest fault is to become God himself. Funny since that was Lucifer's same exact problem while he was in Heaven.

[asperin]

Some people think that physical Gold and Silver would cause too much of a burden to carry them around to purchase goods.

Here some approximated calculations to give you an idea.(as of 9-09-09)

Penny-size coin / Silver=1.35 , Gold=80 , Platinum=102(dollars)

Quarter-size coin / Silver=3 , Gold=180 , Platinum=232(dollars)

Copper and other metals can also be used for smaller value coinage.

[GuardofLiberty]

Or you can simply carry around banknotes redeemable in the same, although this is how fractional reserve banking began, so its a bit problematic.

[nonantianarchist]

If banks that carried fractional reserves and suffered runs had to go bankrupt just like any other business that managed itself in the same manner, I think FRB would disappear pretty quickly.

[asperin]

It is problematic...

A banking system with NO ability to scam people is impossible, it will depend on individuals doing the best they can.

I guess, the more decentralized the better...

Banking kinda pushes me towards the "anti-civilization" side because of its nature of money-printing and money-moving like FRB. I need to study more for now.

[LysSpooner]

Nice summary. Yes, very familiar. Thank you.

[overmind25]

Great job.

[GuardofLiberty]

Thanks, I hope you watched the other two parts as well.

[ZullGostnu2]

sounds familiar. thanks for the video, I'll watch them all. Good work.

[spinnernet1]

Guard of Liberty, thanks for taking time out of your busy college schedule to make these 3 informative videos.

I myself, LOVE history. It was always my favorite subject in school, so these videos are automatically awesome, lol.

[GuardofLiberty]

Three day weekend and didn't have much work, thought I'd share it all with you and show how history is repeating itself.

I wonder if Obama will try and institute price controls LOL.

[nonantianarchist]

If we see the type of inflation I'm expecting, price controls are almost a certainty. There's no way Obama and his cronies are going to admit to screwing up, nor will the blame be traced to the fed. I just have to wonder who the goat will be? Speculators? Oil companies?OPEC?George Bush?ManBearPig?

[tumbleweedjoe]

Awesome, I taught this last year to 9th graders.

[anglaismoyen]

You're hardcore- have a sub!

[Ademention]

What kinda mic do you use, how much did it cost.... And did you have to research this before posting it?

[nonantianarchist]

Freudian slip at 3:57?

[GuardofLiberty]

No, actually, that was what the article said. It surprised me.

[DissentingDogLevi]

Oh fuck yeah! Thank you for posting this!

[GuardofLiberty]

You're welcome.

[McDicker96]

2:51 some things never change

[GuardofLiberty]

The superstructure of the state has remained the same.