Diocletian and Constantine attempted to solve, not only the political and social problems of Rome, but also fundamental economic problems as well. Bruce Bartlett argues that the two did exactly the wrong thing. Please read Bartlett's article How Excessive Government Killed Rome. Do you think Bartlett's criticisms accurate? Why, or why not?
Thursday, November 2, 2023
Constantine and his economic policies (extra credit)
Diocletian and Constantine attempted to solve, not only the political and social problems of Rome, but also fundamental economic problems as well. Bruce Bartlett argues that the two did exactly the wrong thing. Please read Bartlett's article How Excessive Government Killed Rome. Do you think Bartlett's criticisms accurate? Why, or why not?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Honestly, I do agree with a lot of the arguments Bartlett makes in this article, and in my opinion, over governing can lead to the destruction of a city or in this case, an empire. The fact that the Roman emperor's didn't even let the people have a say in what happened in the government (yes I know they were made aware of it, but rarely did that matter since the emperor made the final decisions about things anyways) and the empire would have been upsetting since you could do nothing to change what was happening. Government having an overpowering say in what did or didn't happen wouldn't have been good at all, an most likely would have caused uprisings and rebellions to happen within the empire. This would have lead to the deaths of the citizens and even the emperor themselves if they weren't careful. So yes, I do think to much government did kill the Roman empire.
ReplyDeleteI think one of the biggest problems with Rome, particularly under Diocletian, was the economic status of Rome. Through Augustus, and even Tiberius, as well as other Roman Emperors, money, and the Roman economy were at the forefront of importance for a lot of Romans, and the Roman government. I do agree with Bartlett when he talks about the criticisms that these leaders faced, although I do believe that the blame cannot be put onto Diocletian entirely because he was handed a really difficult situation. He took the role of emperor, and was immediately tasked with fixing the economic issue, otherwise Rome could seriously be going down a wrong path, potentially leading to the point of collapse or extinction of the Empire as a whole. Diocletian did have some positives, in regards to money, and that involved spending those taxation dollars on goods and services that actually provided the Romans with benefit, compared to the government trying to hoard the money for themselves or use it for their own personal gain or benefit. Constantine was similar in the fact that he wanted to keep doing with Diocletian had served beforehand, and continue doing what he thought was best for the Roman people, when it ended up being the opposite. Roman trade was becoming abandoned and profits for Roman individuals were becoming distant, and that was the opposite of the intentions they had. These continued strategies from Constantine were not helping Rome’s cause or chances for survival, and that’s why they had such a difficult time regaining their foot and heading back to where they were in all aspects, particularly under rulers like Augustus. So in short, yes, I do believe that the criticisms that Barlett laid out were valid, because these Roman emperors, although tried to be better for Rome, ended up hurting Rome more than they helped.
ReplyDelete- Nile Hesson