PEAK GOLD: How The Romans Lost Their Empire

[Bit_Happy]

In this post, I argue that precious metal currency was a fundamental factor that kept together the Roman empire and gave to the Romans their military power. But the Roman mines producing gold and silver peaked in the first century CE and the Romans gradually lost the capability of controlling their resources. In a way, they were doomed by “peak gold.”

When I heard for the first time that the Roman Empire fell because of the depletion of its silver and gold mines, I was skeptical...
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/03/ugo-bardi/peak-gold/

In general, complex systems tend to fall in a complex manner and the Roman Empire did not simply fall because of the lack of its primary energy source which, at that time, was agriculture. Energy (and power) is useless without control and for the Romans controlling the energy generated by agriculture requires capital investments for troops and bureaucracy. Both were affected by the decline of the production of precious metals. In time, the reduced military effectiveness of the empire disrupted the ability of controlling the agricultural system. That condemned the Empire to collapse.


I thought the Romans over-expanded and collapsed like all empires do?
Does anyone else find this topic interesting?

[binderclip]

Funny you should post this. I'm near the end of a book called "the Collapse of Complex Societies" which attempts to describe a common framework of societal collapse. It addresses various civilizations such as the Roman Empire, the lowland Mayans, and others. The major common condition is decreasing marginal return on investment in complexity. When a society experiences this condition it is vulnerable to collapse from various shocks like drought or invasion.
Here's what the author says about the Roman Empire in particular (paraphrasing):
The Roman Empire grew through conquest. Subsequent conquests were financed by the spoils of the previous conquests and the increased taxes from expansion. The conquests also financed the increasing size of bureaucracy required to maintain an expanding empire. Once the cost of maintaining the empire exceeded the returns from expansion, the empire stopped growing. For example, administering the farthest regions of the empire became more costly than the income from those regions, and some of them were abandoned. Conquering England brought less spoils than the cost of that conquest. At this point the empire began debasing the currency to compensate for the decrease in spoils and new populations to tax. The empire also increased taxes and became more repressive. Peasants were so overburdened that some abandoned their fields and went to Rome for the dole, some sold children into slavery, etc. The peasants were increasingly complacent to barbarian invasions and some welcomed barbarians as liberators. The currency was so debased as to be practically worthless, but the empire still paid its military and bureaucracy with it. Eventually the empire grew so weak it was unable to resist barbarian invasions and Rome fell.

[Bit_Happy]

Funny you should post this. I'm near the end of a book called "the Collapse of Complex Societies" which attempts to describe a common framework of societal collapse. It addresses various civilizations such as the Roman Empire, the lowland Mayans, and others. The major common condition is decreasing marginal return on investment in complexity. When a society experiences this condition it is vulnerable to collapse from various shocks like drought or invasion.
Here's what the author says about the Roman Empire in particular (paraphrasing):
The Roman Empire grew through conquest. Subsequent conquests were financed by the spoils of the previous conquests and the increased taxes from expansion. The conquests also financed the increasing size of bureaucracy required to maintain an expanding empire. Once the cost of maintaining the empire exceeded the returns from expansion, the empire stopped growing. For example, administering the farthest regions of the empire became more costly than the income from those regions, and some of them were abandoned. Conquering England brought less spoils than the cost of that conquest. At this point the empire began debasing the currency to compensate for the decrease in spoils and new populations to tax. The empire also increased taxes and became more repressive. Peasants were so overburdened that some abandoned their fields and went to Rome for the dole, some sold children into slavery, etc. The peasants were increasingly complacent to barbarian invasions and some welcomed barbarians as liberators. The currency was so debased as to be practically worthless, but the empire still paid its military and bureaucracy with it. Eventually the empire grew so weak it was unable to resist barbarian invasions and Rome fell.

Once the cost of maintaining the empire exceeded the returns from expansion, the empire stopped growing...
Agreed, that is just like I originally would have expected.
Sounds like a good book, thanks.

[bananaControl]

So, have you guys drawn any parallels to our modern western societies?

[Bit_Happy]

So, have you guys drawn any parallels to our modern western societies?

All empires eventually fall.
Do you consider the USA an Empire?

[knight22]

So, have you guys drawn any parallels to our modern western societies?

All empires eventually fall.
Do you consider the USA an Empire?

Yes, an empire about to fall
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fbvquHSPJU

[Subud!]

Beware it would not fall without a fight. My prediction there would be a world war within 15 - 30 years.

[semaforo]

  The Roman empire never really fell. It became the Holy Roman Empire, and established a decentralized feudalism in the place of the centralized empire in the west, and remained a centralized empire in the east for another 1000 years until it was finally subsumed by the Ottomans.

   If you look at the architecture, structure of government and justice system, the American empire is simply another incarnation of the Roman empire. It too will fall prey to the dialectic.

[trashymonkey]

In this post, I argue that precious metal currency was a fundamental factor that kept together the Roman empire and gave to the Romans their military power. But the Roman mines producing gold and silver peaked in the first century CE and the Romans gradually lost the capability of controlling their resources. In a way, they were doomed by “peak gold.”

When I heard for the first time that the Roman Empire fell because of the depletion of its silver and gold mines, I was skeptical...
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/03/ugo-bardi/peak-gold/

In general, complex systems tend to fall in a complex manner and the Roman Empire did not simply fall because of the lack of its primary energy source which, at that time, was agriculture. Energy (and power) is useless without control and for the Romans controlling the energy generated by agriculture requires capital investments for troops and bureaucracy. Both were affected by the decline of the production of precious metals. In time, the reduced military effectiveness of the empire disrupted the ability of controlling the agricultural system. That condemned the Empire to collapse.


I thought the Romans over-expanded and collapsed like all empires do?
Does anyone else find this topic interesting?

There was a lot more to the the end of the Roman Empire than just one thing. And (correct me if Im wrong) I dont think the Empire fell or collapsed, so much as it gradually declined over years/decades/centuries. Invasions from barbarians, overexpansion, rise of eastern empires, the rise of christianity, and economic problems were all big parts of why Rome is no longer what it once was.

[Lethn]

Just about every Empire always over-extends itself and collapses, because they try to control absolutely everything, so realistically you can't really pinpoint an exact cause of the collapse so I'd say all of them are responsible, gold is certainly a factor, but there's also military and politics that can often affect an empire. If you have a faction that wants to seize power but only manages to take over a portion of the empire then that's not necessarily anything to do with gold.

[BBmodBB]

let the truth be told here is a *hint* >>

http://taylormadesecrets.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-truth-monoatomic-gold-return-of.html

[ryanmnercer]

I thought the Romans over-expanded and collapsed like all empires do?

Yes and no. If you really want to see a good commentary why Rome fell, find Gibbon's The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_History_of_the_Decline_and_Fall_of_the_Roman_Empire

Basically:

• Divorce
• Increasing taxes
• Pleasure chasing/decadence
• Over-inflation of military
• Religious decay

[johnytelevision]

Well Rom collapsed but Romans were doing fine.

I think there is difference between society and state.

[ryanmnercer]

Well Rom collapsed but Romans were doing fine.

I think there is difference between society and state.

Apparently you've never heard of the Dark Ages.

[keelba]

Let's not forget peak slavery. This cheap and abundant energy source became not so cheap and abundant. Once the local supply was exhausted, the Empire was forced to expand and conquer to acquire more of this cheap energy.

Now trade slavery for oil...

[semaforo]

Well Rom collapsed but Romans were doing fine.

I think there is difference between society and state.

Apparently you've never heard of the Dark Ages.

We might be living in the dark ages now.