3 ms·

Indeed you are right, the land is there, and palaces might be nothing more than a pile of rocks now, however: having wealth meant both getting enemies, but also

Indeed you are right, the land is there, and palaces might be nothing more than a pile of rocks now, however: having wealth meant both getting enemies, but also having resources to get protection and arrange things; with enough money/wealth, one could, for example, get out of the hotbed of assassinations and political intrigue (=Rome) to a more secluded place, build a stronghold of some sorts, become a mini-monarch / local player, and over time grow the wealth and build a dynasty. I'm thinking about long-lived dynasties, like the House of Yamato (1000+ years; Imperial House of Japan), or Bagrationi in Georgia, and so on. Yet, from ancient Rome, not one of the powerful ancient families seems to have survived, and the same disappearing act happened with the rather massive wealth that was sloshing around back then. I mean that was a bit surprising to me. I would have expected some wealthy modern "noble family" to be able to trace its roots to Rome and the wealth obtained when, say, some of their ancestors were Roman Senators, who decided to sail to a secluded location, assume control of lucrative trade routes, and so on.

mr_toad 5y ago
> I would have expected some wealthy modern "noble family" to be able to trace its roots to Rome Rome was never a monarchy, and even the imperial period was never as autocratic as it is sometimes painted. The Romans didn’t delineate between the republic and empire the way we do. It was still nominally the Res Publica, and still effectively in some ways a Republic. Hence, the emperor ruled with the tacit consent of, and relied on support of various factions - the army, the senate, and the plebs. Bad emperors would get overthrown and people would think nothing of it. Because the situation at the top was so fragile there weren’t really imperial dynasties that lasted more than a few generations. Secondly, there was the ‘apocalypse’. Plague and warfare severely reduced the population of the Italian peninsula and the city of Rome (by about 95%). The countryside was overrun by various Germanic tribes who probably confiscated much of the wealth. People with money probably went elsewhere - Milan, Venice, and Constantinople for instance.
- unmole 5y ago
  > the emperor ruled with the tacit consent of, and relied on support of various factions - the army, the senate, and the plebs. Bad emperors would get overthrown and people would think nothing of it. That doesn't sound too different from how monarchs would rule.

mr_toad 5y ago

> I would have expected some wealthy modern "noble family" to be able to trace its roots to Rome Rome was never a monarchy, and even the imperial period was never as autocratic as it is sometimes painted. The Romans didn’t delineate between the republic and empire the way we do. It was still nominally the Res Publica, and still effectively in some ways a Republic. Hence, the emperor ruled with the tacit consent of, and relied on support of various factions - the army, the senate, and the plebs. Bad emperors would get overthrown and people would think nothing of it. Because the situation at the top was so fragile there weren’t really imperial dynasties that lasted more than a few generations. Secondly, there was the ‘apocalypse’. Plague and warfare severely reduced the population of the Italian peninsula and the city of Rome (by about 95%). The countryside was overrun by various Germanic tribes who probably confiscated much of the wealth. People with money probably went elsewhere - Milan, Venice, and Constantinople for instance.

unmole 5y ago
> the emperor ruled with the tacit consent of, and relied on support of various factions - the army, the senate, and the plebs. Bad emperors would get overthrown and people would think nothing of it. That doesn't sound too different from how monarchs would rule.