Roman economic matters

[Thucydides]

This thread is for discussion on economic matters relating to Rome, and how they might influence gameplay in Caesar IV if implemented realistically. There is a separate thread on the economics of the Roman military, and this broader topic may overtake that discussion.

[Thucydides]

In this interesting paper Keith found,http://www.stanford.edu/group/sshi/Conferences/1999-2000/empires/hopkins.pdf, there is a discussion about Rome's revenues.

According to this paper from Cambridge University, Roman government revenues as a percentage of GDP were only about 10-15%, which is quite low by today's standards in the Developed world. The bulk of government revenues were spent on the military.

That said revenue collection was spread unevenly over the Roman republic/empire, with the rich agrarian areas of Sicily, Northern Africa, Spain, Egypt and the levant producing surpluses for Rome, and the poorer provences in Northern Europe draining resources due to their weaker economies and heavier burdens on defence.

This suggests that the maps with economic objectives in Caesar IV might be drawn primarily from the Southern portion of the Empire, those with military objectives in the North, and those with mixed objectives in the East.

It also suggests that for maps with an economic objective the player receives far less help from central revenue than those where the onus is on creating a settlement to support a military objective (such as the defence of the Rhine).

[angelisis]

hey Thucydides do you not read your private messages......I sent ya something saucy ;)

[Thucydides]

hey Thucydides do you not read your private messages......I sent ya something saucy ;)

:eek: laughing

[EmperorJay]

There's a simple explanation as for revenues as a percentage of the GPD were so low. There was no need for more tax because the Roman government did not have to pay for resources (only for the manpower required) and the Roman government would gain much money from looting and plundering.

Modern day (capitalist) governments will have to pay for any resources they need because many resources are gathred by private companies. Plus, war doesn't occur as often as during Roman times and if it does occur, the victorious countries do not (generally) take possesion of the land of who they defeated.

Basically, the player should be able to gain a significant income from victory.

[Geminus Portitor]

Or to take it further, why not incorporate as a gameplay option the Imperial notion of the fisc, the private lands of the state worked by it to provide income. Taxation as we understand it was, save in the cases of excises, a rare and unpopular item. The state relied heavily on the income it could generate from its own lands - the fisc. A notion that could blend well with the game.

[Thucydides]

Yes, I agree that plunder and tribe were an important source of income for Rome, particularly duing its early expansionist years. One of the reasons as to why Rome stopped expanding was that it had already plundered the most worthy places and the benefits to be had from plundering poorer areas was not worth the military outlay of conquest.

In some ways, Rome's fiscal situation (revenues and expenditure as a % of GDP) are more akin to a modern day developing economy.

[robo]

In some ways, Rome's fiscal situation (revenues and expenditure as a % of GDP) are more akin to a modern day developing economy.
Yes, and that offers more interesting options in comparison to CotN.
We have seen in Tropico1, that people have different attributes, which could make it possible to simulate a free market economy basing on the law of supply and demand. The player is only setting placeholders for buildings, which develop, if the requirements are fullfilled (for example demand, capital, working force)
The invention of coins make many interactions possible.You need enough gold for coins, so you can importe it or you capture goldmines.
The amount of coins need to rise with productivity. Instead of taxes, plunder or credits, you can stimulate/feed your economy with "fresh" gold with the risk of inflation.
Inflation have an important effect on the economy: prices are rising, demand is falling and business is becoming more difficult.
An economy suffering of inflation needs expansion. So you can expand by war and trade. Coins are hoarded in foreign cities or countries, so inflation can be moderated.
Economy can also run the risk of deflation or shortage of coins.

[Thucydides]

I like your thinking, about inflation. The Romans suffered terrible inflation, particularly after the 1st century ad. The value of coinage was always a difficult policy matter for Rome, and it would be interesting to see how this could be incorporated in a realistic but fun way into a game. I suspect it is a bridge too far though...

[Keith]

It might be a little too deep for the average citybuilder player.

Emperor had a very simplified version, wherein, you could place a mint and the mint would mine and turn out coinage. This would cause a increase in the income from trade, but it wasn't highly defined or controlled.

[wodinoneeye]

Events :


Counterfeitors rampant....

Politicians decide to debase the currency....


Silver Mines in Spain fail...

[robo]

Somebody like the idea of a free market economy? There could be the state and a private sector. The private sector can't be controlled directly by the player, who is only setting placeholders.
We learned indirectly from previous citybuilding games, which had a centrally planned economy, that a free market model can be stupid. It apparently offers choices for people to get for example artist, musicien etc., even if there isn't enough to eat or a ressource missing and the whole city degrades.
There are many possibilities to control the private sector indirectly. I don't like the idea, that roads cost nothing as seen in CotN. The state could pay jobless people to build roads.
Farming could be under control of the governement (rich senators), which invest in big farms, which are more productive than the self-supporting peasant population. Because these big farms are more productive, the peasant population is becoming proletarian.

[robo]

It might be a little too deep for the average citybuilder player.

I don't think, it's too deep. We have seen a similar principle in CotN (more food=expansion), with the difference that there was no necessity, but only the possibilty to expand, which is perhaps an error in reasoning. In theory there could be an inflation and devaluation of food.
There is another difference: coins can be hoarded, but food can perish.
This example shows, that it's necessary for a good citybuilding game to minimize abstraction and to create a "naturally" working system.

[robo]

I like your thinking, about inflation. The Romans suffered terrible inflation, particularly after the 1st century ad. The value of coinage was always a difficult policy matter for Rome, and it would be interesting to see how this could be incorporated in a realistic but fun way into a game. I suspect it is a bridge too far though...
I think it can be done. Here is an interesting website with many articles which describe, analyze, or explain econonomic phenomena: What Has Government Done to Our Money? (http://www.mises.org/money.asp) :D