Quote (bogie160 @ Oct 18 2020 02:21pm)
The Mongols spent a great deal of time and effort redirecting trade through protected, controlled routes and it was under their rule that some modern financial advancements (e.g. widespread proliferation of paper money) were made. At the end of the day, the Mongol population was simply not large enough to rule over so vast an empire. That they managed for as long as they did is a miracle.
The difference between modern and classical roman economics is that the modern model is built on production, not extraction, and is therefore sustainable. A better example would have been Spain during the early colonial era.
It's important to read history first and make opinions second. There are a lot of terrible takes that result from the latter.
Yes and no. Obviously the Byzantines continued on for almost a millennia, but the peak (~circa Justinian) was less than a shadow of Rome's former glory.
After Constantine, it simply wasn't tenable for one Emperor to control East and West. The East was always the more prosperous half. The shift to Byzantium/Constantinople was simply a recognition of the reality of the times.
Our current system is built on both production and extraction, in that our production directly necessitates cheap extraction of raw resources. That's the entire point of China's belt and road initiative, build infrastructure in the third world with cheap loans so they can more easily extract resources.