2 ms·

I think the technical point here is that buying slaves, etc. isn't plunder. Plunder is getting rich specifically from looting, like when a city-state's soldiers

I think the technical point here is that buying slaves, etc. isn't plunder. Plunder is getting rich specifically from looting, like when a city-state's soldiers conquer other cities and loot them, which was common in ancient times and where the Roman Empire got its riches. (Along with tribute from the people they conquered.) And I don't think the US did that? Of course Native Americans were attacked and often treated terribly, but unlike with the Spanish, they didn't have any loot, I don't think? That was about land. Piracy ended in 1730, but maybe privateering during the American Revolution and 1812 counts. It doesn't mean that a lot of terrible things didn't happen, just not that specific terrible thing.

ffgjgf1 3y ago
The Roman empire certainly primarily didn’t get rich by looting material goods. Land and slaves were much more important. > Along with tribute from the people they conquered.) Or rather taxes based on land (which was the primary “resource” in premodern societies) and its productivity. Of course the main difference is that in the US most of the land they took wasn’t even remotely as densely settled or cultivated as it later became (because of the epidemics decimating local populations which weren’t probably that high to begin with). Whereas Roman conquests usually resulted in a significant initial drop in population (because of their extremely violent nature and a significant proportion of people being enslaved and shipped back to Italy).
- skybrian 3y ago
  You are right. By riches I meant specifically portable wealth, things like gold (and slaves) and Roman armies did bring back a lot. From what I’ve read (mostly acoup.blog), during the Roman Republic, soldiers largely provided their own weapons and armor and were motivated by a chance to get loot. (Paying soldiers and/or giving them land came later.) But Rome (and later Constantinople) depended on grain shipments, and armies depend on grain and conscription, and the basis of that is agriculture.

ffgjgf1 3y ago

The Roman empire certainly primarily didn’t get rich by looting material goods. Land and slaves were much more important. > Along with tribute from the people they conquered.) Or rather taxes based on land (which was the primary “resource” in premodern societies) and its productivity. Of course the main difference is that in the US most of the land they took wasn’t even remotely as densely settled or cultivated as it later became (because of the epidemics decimating local populations which weren’t probably that high to begin with). Whereas Roman conquests usually resulted in a significant initial drop in population (because of their extremely violent nature and a significant proportion of people being enslaved and shipped back to Italy).

skybrian 3y ago
You are right. By riches I meant specifically portable wealth, things like gold (and slaves) and Roman armies did bring back a lot. From what I’ve read (mostly acoup.blog), during the Roman Republic, soldiers largely provided their own weapons and armor and were motivated by a chance to get loot. (Paying soldiers and/or giving them land came later.) But Rome (and later Constantinople) depended on grain shipments, and armies depend on grain and conscription, and the basis of that is agriculture.