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?
Monday, October 6, 2025
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)
The thing about this article being written so recently to the modern day is that it has the blessing of hindsight.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, he covers many things, so he has a higher chance at being right about things.
We find it very easy to say nowadays that Romans should have done X, Y, and Z if they so badly wanted to continue the success of Rome, but we say this because we know what happened not just to Rome, but to the countries surrounding it.
That is another advantage we have - technology.
Romans had more time-consuming methods of sending a message and receiving news, while we have instantaneous means of communication. We know *now* that this or that delayed the troops that would have saved a given battle, but *they* did not.
The short of it is that he will, of course, have many credible arguments because he can look back at the options they did not take. He has more context and information available to him.
However, I also have to admit that the discussion of economics is confusing to me, so I did not read the entire thing. But I felt that my point, even without completely reading it, was sufficient as an argument.
Yes i do think Bartletts criticisms are accurate and very good. He talks about how Rome is in a decline with economic and productivity of the Roman Economy as well. Economics isn't my favorite thing to learn but this reading was a little easy for me to grasp and reading it i think that the way that Bartlett went with it is that the Roman economy is very dysfunctional and is heading in the right place. I think that these arguments are very one sided and don't look into other perspectives as well because the decline of Rome wasn't just the economy but also the political instability and the structure and changes happening all the time.
ReplyDeleteI think Bruce Bartlett’s criticisms Killed Rome are largely accurate. Though they may oversimplify some parts of Roman history. He makes a strong case that heavy taxation, inflation, wage and price controls, and binding laborers to land undermined the economy and contributed to the empire getting weaker. I think that the economic mismanagement played a role alongside political and military. He tends to portray all government intervention as harmful and downplays the pressures Rome faced, such as military threats. Overall, Bartlett is good for seeing factors that are sometimes overlooked, but his idea works best when considered alongside other causes of Rome’s decline.
ReplyDelete