Denton Independent School District



ProsecutionAmicus BriefInability to Maintain Economy v. Empire too big to maintain economicallyReason why the Roman Empire fell - Failing EconomyThe Government was constantly threatened by bankruptcy. The cost of defending the Empire, the failing economics, heavy taxation and high inflation was another reason why the Roman Empire fell. The majority of the inhabitants of the Roman Empire failed to share in the incredible prosperity of Rome. The flow of gold to the orient to pay for luxury goods led to a shortage of gold to put in Roman coins. Roman currency was devalued to such an extent that a system of bartering returned to one of the greatest civilizations the world had ever known.InflationThe roman economy suffered from inflation (an increase in prices) beginning after the reign of Marcus Aurelius. Once the Romans stopped conquering new lands, the flow of gold into the Roman economy decreased. Yet much gold was being spent by the romans to pay for luxury items. This meant that there was less gold to use in coins. As the amount of gold used in coins decreased, the coins became less valuable. To make up for this loss in value, merchants raised the prices on the goods they sold. Many people stopped using coins and began to barter to get what they needed. Eventually, salaries had to be paid in food and clothing, and taxes were collected in fruits and vegetables.Inflation and Taxation As early as the rule of Nero (54-68 A.D.) there is evidence that the demand for revenue led to debasement of the coinage. Revenue was needed to pay the increasing costs of defense and a growing bureaucracy. However, rather than raise taxes, Nero and subsequent emperors preferred to debase the currency by reducing the precious metal content of coins. This was, of course, a form of taxation; in this case, a tax on cash balances (Bailey 1956). Throughout most of the Empire, the basic units of Roman coinage were the gold aureus, the silver denarius, and the copper or bronze sesterce. The aureus was minted at 40-42 to the pound, the denarius at 84 to the pound, and a sesterce was equivalent to one-quarter of a denarius. Twenty-five denarii equaled one aureus and the denarius was considered the basic coin and unit of account. The aureus did not circulate widely. Consequently, debasement was mainly limited to the denarius. Nero reduced the silver content of the denarius to 90 percent and slightly reduced the size of the aureus in order to maintain the 25 to 1 ratio. Trajan (98-117 A.D.) reduced the silver content to 85 percent, but was able to maintain the ratio because of a large influx of gold. In fact, some historians suggest that he deliberately devalued the denarius precisely in order to maintain the historic ratio. Debasement continued under the reign of Marcus Aurelius (161-180 A.D.), who reduced the silver content of the denarius to 75 percent, further reduced by Septimius Severus to 50 percent. By the middle of the third century A.D., the denarius had a silver content of just 5 percent. Interestingly, the continual debasements did not improve the Empire's fiscal position. This is because of Gresham's Law ("bad money drives out good"). People would hoard older, high silver content coins and pay their taxes in those with the least silver. Thus the government's "real" revenues may have actually fallen. As Aurelio Bernardi explains: “At the beginning the debasement proved undoubtedly profitable for the state. Nevertheless, in the course of years, this expedient was abused and the century of inflation which had been thus brought about was greatly to the disadvantage of the State's finances. Prices were rising too rapidly and it became impossible to count on an immediate proportional increase in the fiscal revenue, because of the rigidity of the apparatus of tax collection.” [9] At first, the government could raise additional revenue from the sale of state property. Later, more unscrupulous emperors like Domitian (81-96 A.D.) would use trumped-up charges to confiscate the assets of the wealthy. They would also invent excuses to demand tribute from the provinces and the wealthy. Such tribute, called the aurum corinarium, was nominally voluntary and paid in gold to commemorate special occasions, such as the accession of a new emperor or a great military victory. Caracalla (198-217 A.D.) often reported such dubious "victories" as a way of raising revenue. Rostovtzeff (1957: 417) calls these levies "pure robbery." Although taxes on ordinary Romans were not raised, citizenship was greatly expanded in order to bring more people into the tax net. Taxes on the wealthy, however, were sharply increased, especially those on inheritances and manumissions (freeing of slaves). Occasionally, the tax burden would be moderated by a cancellation of back taxes or other measures. One such occasion occurred under the brief reign of Pertinax (193 A.D.), who replaced the rapacious Commodus (A.D. 176-192). As Edward Gibbon (1932: 88) tells us: Though every measure of injustice and extortion had been adopted, which could collect the property of the subject into the coffers of the prince; the rapaciousness of Commodus had been so very inadequate to his extravagance, that, upon his death, no more than eight thousand pounds were found in the exhausted treasury, to defray the current expenses of government, and to discharge the pressing demand of a liberal donative, which the new emperor had been obliged to promise to the Praetorian guards. Yet under these distressed circumstances, Pertinax had the generous firmness to remit all the oppressive taxes invented by Commodus, and to cancel all the unjust claims of the treasury; declaring in a decree to the senate, "that he was better satisfied to administer a poor republic with innocence, than to acquire riches by the ways of tyranny and dishonor." State Socialism Unfortunately, Pertinax was an exception. Most emperors continued the policies of debasement and increasingly heavy taxes, levied mainly on the wealthy. The war against wealth was not simply due to purely fiscal requirements, but was also part of a conscious policy of exterminating the Senatorial class, which had ruled Rome since ancient times, in order to eliminate any potential rivals to the emperor. Increasingly, emperors came to believe that the army was the sole source of power and they concentrated their efforts on sustaining the army at all cost. As the private wealth of the Empire was gradually confiscated or taxed away, driven away or hidden, economic growth slowed to a virtual standstill. Moreover, once the wealthy were no longer able to pay the state's bills, the burden inexorably fell onto the lower classes, so that average people suffered as well from the deteriorating economic conditions. In Rostovtzeff's words, "The heavier the pressure of the state on the upper classes, the more intolerable became the condition of the lower" (Rostovtzeff 1957: 430). At this point, in the third century A.D., the money economy completely broke down. Yet the military demands of the state remained high. Rome's borders were under continual pressure from Germanic tribes in the North and from the Persians in the East. Moreover, it was now explicitly understood by everyone that the emperor's power and position depended entirely on the support of the army. Thus, the army's needs required satisfaction above all else, regardless of the consequences to the private economy. With the collapse of the money economy, the normal system of taxation also broke down. This forced the state to directly appropriate whatever resources it needed wherever they could be found. Food and cattle, for example, were requisitioned directly from farmers. Other producers were similarly liable for whatever the army might need. The result, of course, was chaos, dubbed "permanent terrorism" by Rostovtzeff (1957: 449). Eventually, the state was forced to compel individuals to continue working and producing. The result was a system in which individuals were forced to work at their given place of employment and remain in the same occupation, with little freedom to move or change jobs. Farmers were tied to the land, as were their children, and similar demands were made on all other workers, producers, and artisans as well. Even soldiers were required to remain soldiers for life, and their sons compelled to follow them. The remaining members of the upper classes were pressed into providing municipal services, such as tax collection, without pay. And should tax collections fall short of the state's demands, they were required to make up the difference themselves. This led to further efforts to hide whatever wealth remained in the Empire, especially among those who still found ways of becoming rich. Ordinarily, they would have celebrated their new-found wealth; now they made every effort to appear as poor as everyone else, lest they become responsible for providing municipal services out of their own pocket. The steady encroachment of the state into the intimate workings of the economy also eroded growth. The result was increasing feudalization of the economy and a total breakdown of the division of labor. People fled to the countryside and took up subsistence farming or attached themselves to the estates of the wealthy, which operated as much as possible as closed systems, providing for all their own needs and not engaging in trade at all. Meanwhile, much land was abandoned and remained fallow or fell into the hands of the state, whose mismanagement generally led to a decline in production.TaxesRoman males aged 14 to 60 paid a poll tax. There were also property taxes, tariffs, special pig taxes and taxes for everything that was registered. There were crop registries, animal registries, craftsmen and tradesman registries. Even prostitutes had to register (a surviving one-day permit for a prostitute named Aphrodite allowed her "to go to bed with whoever you wish on this date") Children were registered and "house-by-house registration," a sort of financial census, was established to keep tabs on everybody and make sure they paid their taxes. Births were registered and landlords were required to provide detailed information on the occupants of their dwelling that included parentage, age, profession, tax status and information on the property they owned. A typical house registration read: "Heracleia, wife of Pasigenes, daughter of Cronion and ex-slave Didymus...age 40. Thais, daughter....age 5. Sabinus, son of Heracleia and Sabinus [Heracleia's first husband]...subject to poll tax, wool carder, age 18. The rich and well-connected paid proportionally less taxes than the poor and middle class. Most of the tax collecting was done by local authorities who were told if they came up short they would make up the difference out of their own pockets. The Romans were fierce tax collectors. People who failed to register could be fined 25 percent of their personal property. And authorities weren't shy about resorting to violence. A former tax collector in Fayoum, Egypt wrote in A.D. 193: "I and my brother delivered...nine of the ten artabs [measures of grain] specially levied on us...Now, on account of the one remaining artab, the grain-tax collectors...and their clerk...as well as their assistant broke into my house while I was out in the field...and tore off my mother's cloak and threw her to the ground. As a result she was bedridden."DefenseAmicus BriefInability to Maintain Economy v. Empire too big to maintain economicallySize of the EmpireYet this was by no means a uniform empire. It was so big that it could only work by permitting the provinces to retain their local customs and religious practices. At one level it was a federation of cities, at another a federation of peoples. Everywhere, Rome ruled with the collaboration, sometimes enforced, of established elites.Military SpendingMaintaining an army to defend the border of the Empire from barbarian attacks was a constant drain on the government. Military spending left few resources for other vital activities, such as providing public housing and maintaining quality roads and aqueducts. Frustrated Romans lost their desire to defend the Empire. The empire had to begin hiring soldiers recruited from the unemployed city mobs or worse from foreign counties. Such an army was not only unreliable, but very expensive. The emperors were forced to raise taxes frequently which in turn led again to increased inflation. Reason why the Roman Empire fell - The 'Mob' and the cost of the 'Games'If the thousands of unemployed Romans became bored this led to civil unrest and rioting in the streets. The 'Mob' needed to be amused - the gladiatorial games had to be provided. The cost of the gladiatorial games was born by the Emperors, and therefore the state, and corrupt politicians who sponsored the games to curry favor and support with the 'Mob'. The cost of the gladiatorial games eventually came to one third of the total income of the Empire.Social Welfare- Providing CornFrom the earliest times the supply of corn at Rome was considered one of the duties of the government. Not only was it expected that the government should take care that the corn-market was properly supplied, but likewise that in all seasons of scarcity, they should purchase corn in the surrounding countries, and sell it to the people at a moderate price. This price could not rise much without exciting formidable discontent. Every time it did the administration was considered to have neglected one of its most important duties. With the decay of agriculture in Italy, which followed the importation of corn from the provinces, and the decrease of the free population, the government had to pay still further attention to the supply of corn for the city. In addition to this, the poor population gradually increased at Rome, which could not even purchase corn at the moderate price at which it was usually sold, and who demanded to be fed at the expense of the state. Even in early times it had been usual for the state on certain occasions, and for wealthy individuals who wished to obtain popularity and influence, to make occasional donations of corn to the people. In ?B.C.?123 the first legal provision was made for supplying the poor at Rome with corn at a price much below its market value, by C.?Sempronius Gracchus. The example that had been set by Gracchus was too tempting not to be followed, although the consequences of such a measure were equally harmful to the public finances and the public morality. It emptied the treasury, and at the same time taught the poor to become state-paupers instead of depending upon their own exertions for obtaining a living.Control of Egypt important because Egypt produced lots of grain. Price ControlsThe Edict on Maximum Prices was issued by Diocletian in the names of all four co-emperors in November-December 301. It was posted publicly across the Empire. Exceptionally, however, the text is known because governors of four Eastern provinces had it posted not just in some perishable medium but permanently, inscribed on public buildings. Fragments of the inscriptions have been found in almost 40 locations. When prices rose Diocletian attributed the inflation to the greed of merchants. In 301 AD Diocletian issued an edict declaring fixed prices; i.e., price controls. His edict provided for the death penalty for anyone selling above the control prices. There was also penalties (less severe) for anyone paying more than the control price. Irate consumers sometimes destroyed the businesses of those who sold higher than the control prices. This shows that at least one roman emperor was trying to control the rampant inflation.Slavery leads to Unemployment of lower class (plebians)How did slavery weaken government?Many factors such as military, social, economic, political and Roman dependency on slavery combined, resulted in the fall of the Roman civilization. It was estimated that an average wealthy Roman such as Nero owned 400 slaves in his town house alone, and according to one writer, some wealthy people owned from 10,000-20,000 slaves. Grant stated that the Romans were so dependent on the slave labor that even the simplest task such as getting dressed, holding a towel while going to the bath, and cooking were all done by slaves. Because wealthy owners had slaves working on everything, the lower class could not compete with the freed laborers and were forced out of jobs. So they became dependent on the government to take care of them. The wealthy were forced to pay high taxes on slaves and were expected to help the community at the same time, so they started freeing their slaves.GREATEST EXTENT OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download