26 ms·
> was merely the capital of an Italian Arguably (considering the causes and outcomes of the Social War) it didn't even function that well in that regard. It wa
by qwytw 4y ago
> was merely the capital of an Italian
Arguably (considering the causes and outcomes of the Social War) it didn't even function that well in that regard. It was a city state which suddenly (in a couple generations) became a global empire.
> an emperor
Did an emperor even need to loot that much? He did not have to spend enormous amounts of money for electoral campaigns or directly compete with his peers in other ways. Arguably the interests of the emperor were inherently aligned with that of the state unlike that of elected magistrates who were ussually much more concerned about their political success and accumulating wealth (which I guess is pretty much what you're saying..)
- peterfirefly 4y ago> Arguably the interests of the emperor were inherently aligned with that of the state unlike that of elected magistrates who were ussually much more concerned about their political success and accumulating wealth (which I guess is pretty much what you're saying..) Roving bandits vs. stationary bandits.
- twelve40 4y ago> Did an emperor even need to loot that much? dunno about looting specifically, but yes, the emperors always needed an insane amount of money to finance the wars.
- shjake 4y agoBut it’s the state that needed the money. I mean under the Republic the corrupt magistrates defrauded both the people they were ruling over and the state. In the empire due to various reforms the state managed to get a much bigger share of the pie than before while collecting less in taxes.