Pensions Killed Off The Romans

[TruraBuoy]

You probably even think that to get a

government pension, you had to work for 20

years is a another modern socialistic benefit

based upon Marx. Actually, that would be

wrong. It was a Roman tradition that was used

to entice people to sign up for the military just

as today people work for government to

eliminate any real risk or responsibility. For

whatever reason, that ancient tradition of 20

years of service remained an expected benefit if

you were to work for government that has been

handed down through the centuries. However,

the socialists have simply ignored the lessons of

the past and adopted the VERY SAME pension

programs that truly contributed to the Decline

and Fall of Rome? Economically, it was

precisely what we see today in our own society.

Today, what has emerged as the government

employees v the people such as in Greece, the

same trend has infecting everywhere. Greece is

merely a test run for what we will soon face in

virtually all governments – UNFUNDED

ENTITLEMENTS.

http://www.martinarmstrong.org/files/What%20Destroyed%20Rome%2005-18-2011.pdf

[crash2006]

immigration destroy the roman empire.

[Realistbear]

I think we are due an apology from the Vatican (the inheritors of Pax Romana) for the treatment we received under their rule.

[cashinmattress]

I see that Martin's release from prison has yielded a more professional looking report.

No longer do they look like they were smuggled out in somebody's colon.

But as always, he a critical thinker with unique insights. Interesting.

[sharper]

You probably even think that to get a

government pension, you had to work for 20

years is a another modern socialistic benefit

based upon Marx. Actually, that would be

wrong. It was a Roman tradition that was used

to entice people to sign up for the military just

as today people work for government to

eliminate any real risk or responsibility. For

whatever reason, that ancient tradition of 20

years of service remained an expected benefit if

you were to work for government that has been

handed down through the centuries. However,

the socialists have simply ignored the lessons of

the past and adopted the VERY SAME pension

programs that truly contributed to the Decline

and Fall of Rome? Economically, it was

precisely what we see today in our own society.

Today, what has emerged as the government

employees v the people such as in Greece, the

same trend has infecting everywhere. Greece is

merely a test run for what we will soon face in

virtually all governments – UNFUNDED

ENTITLEMENTS.

http://www.martinarmstrong.org/files/What%20Destroyed%20Rome%2005-18-2011.pdf

pained garbage.

increasing disparity of wealth wiped out the romans. in the hey day there were citizen soldiers fighting for their country; farmers owned the land and believed in the country. by the end they were recruiting barbarians and using the latifunda system. look who fights for the US in Iraq now and look at agribusiness for the same comparison

[Milton]

Nothing new.

According to Tainter's Collapse of Complex Societies, societies become more complex as they try to solve problems.

When a society confronts a "problem," such as a shortage of energy, or difficulty in gaining access to it, it tends to create new layers of bureaucracy, infrastructure, or social class to address the challenge.

Tainter, who first identifies seventeen examples of rapid collapse of societies, applies his model to three case studies: The Western Roman Empire, the Maya civilization, and the Chaco culture.

As the Roman Empire grew, the cost of maintaining communications, garrisons, civil government, etc. grew with it.

Eventually, this cost grew so great that any new challenges such as invasions and crop failures could not be solved by the acquisition of more territory.

Intense, authoritarian efforts to maintain cohesion by Domitian and Constantine the Great only led to an ever greater strain on the population.

We often assume that the collapse of the western Roman Empire was a catastrophe for everyone involved.

Tainter points out that it can be seen as a very rational preference of ordinary individuals at the time, many of whom were actually better off.

Average individuals may have benefited because they no longer had to invest in the burdensome complexity of empire.]

In Tainter's view, while invasions, crop failures, disease or environmental degradation may be the apparent causes of societal collapse, the ultimate cause is an economic one, inherent in the structure of society rather than in external shocks which may batter them:

Finally, Tainter musters modern statistics to show that the globalised modern world is subject to many of the same stresses that brought older societies to ruin.

Ring any Bells?

History repeats itself, as Human Nature does not change.

[@contradevian]

I think we are due an apology from the Vatican (the inheritors of Pax Romana) for the treatment we received under their rule.

..and the Vikings and Normans.

[SNACR]

pained garbage.

increasing disparity of wealth wiped out the romans. in the hey day there were citizen soldiers fighting for their country; farmers owned the land and believed in the country. by the end they were recruiting barbarians and using the latifunda system. look who fights for the US in Iraq now and look at agribusiness for the same comparison

That you Doc Brown?

Still got the delorean?

[silver surfer]

Apparently there have been over 400 separate theories advanced to explain Rome's collapse. This is just one more.

I'd argue that it's missing the point trying to explain why Rome collapsed. The real mystery is how it existed in the first place.

It's like saying the world record for plate spinning was 10 plates, then along came the Romans and overnight took the record to 100 plates, and then historians from Gibbon onward agonise over why the Roman plates eventually stopped spinning and all fell down. Duuh.

[Fishfinger]

Apparently there have been over 400 separate theories advanced to explain Rome's collapse. This is just one more.

I'd argue that it's missing the point trying to explain why Rome collapsed. The real mystery is how it existed in the first place.

It's like saying the world record for plate spinning was 10 plates, then along came the Romans and overnight took the record to 100 plates, and then historians from Gibbon onward agonise over why the Roman plates eventually stopped spinning and all fell down. Duuh.

And yours is no. 401? The spinning plate theory?.

[stormymonday_2011]

Apparently there have been over 400 separate theories advanced to explain Rome's collapse. This is just one more.

I'd argue that it's missing the point trying to explain why Rome collapsed. The real mystery is how it existed in the first place.

It's like saying the world record for plate spinning was 10 plates, then along came the Romans and overnight took the record to 100 plates, and then historians from Gibbon onward agonise over why the Roman plates eventually stopped spinning and all fell down. Duuh.

A very cogent point and one that most studies of the collapse of the Roman World simply ignore

As for Martin's barking ideas it should suffice to say that half the Roman army was made up of auxiliaries not legionaries. Moreover, given the relatively short life expectancy of that era the number who would live to collect any sort of gratuity in cash or land at the end of 20 years service would be pretty small. Tainters theory is better but of course like all students of the era he is largely 'making it up' (as Professor M.I. Finley so famously admitted to Gore Vidal about much writing on Ancient History) since the amount of surviving evidence is insufficient to allow proper statistical analysis. It is also worth remembering that it was only the Western half of the Empire that collapsed in the 5th Century and that its Eastern counterpart continued to exist for centuries more in one form or another. To be honest most modern studies of the problem have not got any further in unravelling the causes of Rome's decline than Gibbon did in his works written in the 18th Century

[Bloo Loo]

A very cogent point and one that most studies of the collapse of the Roman World simply ignore

As for Martin's barking ideas it should suffice to say that half the Roman army was made up of auxiliaries not legionaries. Moreover, given the relatively short life expectancy of that era the number who would live to collect any sort of gratuity in cash or land at the end of 20 years service would be pretty small. Tainters theory is better but of course like all students of the era he is largely 'making it up' (as Professor M.I. Finley so famously admitted to Gore Vidal about much writing on Ancient History) since the amount of surviving evidence is insufficient to allow proper statistical analysis. It is also worth remembering that it was only the Western half of the Empire that collapsed in the 5th Century and that its Eastern counterpart continued to exist for centuries more in one form or another.

clearly the Romans had mobile phones, as there is no evidence of telegraph poles.

They all died of Brain cancer.

[ccc]

The Roman Empire collapsed because they are people. And people are dicks. And people are self destructive. Whatever happens people will always succeed in one - and only one - thing. ******ing things up. It is what we do. And always will. And we are pretty excellent at it.

[Bruce Banner]

AIDS wiped out the Greek empire, said a GP friend of mine with some authority.

[Krackersdave]

The cause of the collapse of the western Roman empire in one word....

GERMANS....

[interestrateripoff]

Rome will have collapsed for many different reasons, the primary one will have been this time it's different. Greed and power are very destructive.

[newbie]

Samuel Johnson defined a 'pension' in his Dictionary as "pay given to a state hireling for treason to his country".

Then he went on to duly accept a pension when one was offered to him. Personal interest wins out in the end yet again.

[the_duke_of_hazzard]

Martin Armstrong is a very intelligent and interesting mentalist who claims that he programmed a talking, thinking computer that befriended his 7-year old daughter and predicted financial market movements, was seized by the CIA, and destroyed in the Twin Towers in the bin Laden attack.

I pointed this out on GEI and after their initial shock was hounded out for my impudence.

The guy is interesting but delusional at best. At worst he's a shyster who probably cribs other historians' and economists' work and sensationalises for his own edification.

As for the theory itself, I think it's not the first even he's had on the Roman Empire's decline.

[DeepLurker]

Apparently there have been over 400 separate theories advanced to explain Rome's collapse. This is just one more.

I'd argue that it's missing the point trying to explain why Rome collapsed. The real mystery is how it existed in the first place.

It's like saying the world record for plate spinning was 10 plates, then along came the Romans and overnight took the record to 100 plates, and then historians from Gibbon onward agonise over why the Roman plates eventually stopped spinning and all fell down. Duuh.

Thinking about it, isn't that kind of going in the same direction as Tainter's theory?

Loads of separate problems hitting the empire at the same time, trying to solve one of them just made the others worse. Your spinning plates analogy might be very, very apt.

[Tired of Waiting]

I think we are due an apology from the Vatican (the inheritors of Pax Romana) for the treatment we received under their rule.

Monty Python,

"What Have The Romans Ever Done For Us",

(Works for Britannia as well... )

[nmarks]

Thinking about it, isn't that kind of going in the same direction as Tainter's theory?

Loads of separate problems hitting the empire at the same time, trying to solve one of them just made the others worse. Your spinning plates analogy might be very, very apt.

The slowing down of the plate, and its increasing probability of falling and smashing, reflect the transient nature of human memory and the passing of generations.

People forget why certain ideas were set in motion and when they do forget we get collapse.

As Marcus Aureilus pointed out in the movie Gladiator wisdom, temperance, justice, fortitude, the four virtues, were the basis for his successful leadership. These virtues were arrived at through deep reflection, untainted by self interest.

Immoral men like Commodus, driven by ego, hold such philosopical endeavour in contempt. Selfless philosophy has brought the miracles we see today, such as the internet, and it is the oil that keeps civilisation's mechanisms from ceasing up,

Contemporary immoral men (and women) whose misfeasance in office has brought our civilisation to the brink are not merely our political leaders but PR men, bankers, estate agents, BTLers, property pornographers and the like.

There is more in Heaven and Earth than in their reckoning, and that's why our civilisation is so very far from the paradise it could so easily be.

[davidg]

We often assume that the collapse of the western Roman Empire was a catastrophe for everyone involved.

Tainter points out that it can be seen as a very rational preference of ordinary individuals at the time, many of whom were actually better off.

In the hundred years following the collapse it has been estimated Europe's population dropped by 50%, Rome's population dropped from a million to maybe 20 thousand as the Empire's economy and communication systems disintegrated. During the Roman Empire even a farmer in the wilds of Northern England would have gone from eating off porcelain plates made in southern France and spicing his dandelion salad with olive oil imported from the Mediterranean to eating tree bark. Not exactly better off. Even saxon kings lived worse than Roman peasantry.

The barbarians hordes who were a factor in the empire's collapse were desperate to get in on the act. The pension theory is rubbish but certainly things like the bread dole, keeping a large, economically inactive population, was not sustainable once colonies such as North Africa and Egypt were lost or no longer capable of supplying grain due to transport disruption. The Empire also showed limited economic and industrial development during its lifespan. Economic growth was very limited and the Empire remained essentially agrarian which left it more vulnerable to disruption due to crop failures etc.

[the_duke_of_hazzard]

People forget why certain ideas were set in motion and when they do forget we get collapse.

As Marcus Aureilus pointed out in the movie Gladiator

LOL!

[nmarks]

LOL!

QED.

[Big Orange]

One key problem with the Roman Principate was the later it seized territory, the harder it got holding it - the conquest of the British Isle alone (commenced properly in 43 AD) was still essentially ongoing and sucking in a lot of men and material as late as 208 AD when Septimus Severus tried to conquer Scotland after the Picts were rolling back the border garrisons since 161 AD, Armenia and Mespopotamia had to be given back to the Parthian sphere quite quickly and the impressive conquest of Dacia was undone within two centuries. Also according to a recent episode of Time Team the type of urbanization the Romans imposed did not quite fully catch on amongst many of the conquered Brits who carried on with their rural village living amongst the Roman structures that went relatively neglected. And after the input from a strong central Roman government broke down in Britain around 410 to 446 AD, the Roman structures there broke down with it. The Roman Principate was getting into trouble by the 3rd century AD with chronic infighting amongst its top brass - entire legions smashed against each other to instal the next imperator, instead of fighting external foes. And in the 3rd century AD there was also the brief, but puzzling Gallic Empire and the Parthians getting supplanted by the mighty Sassanid Persian Empire who almost relentlessly kept pounding the Romans until the dawn of Islam.