undefined | Better HN

0 pointsddebernardy6y ago0 comments

Still, there were families in those days with unfathomable wealth. If memory serves me well, one was so wealthy that when they sold their land after becoming Christians they caused a real estate crisis across the Roman Empire. (Source: The inheritance of Rome, Chris Wickham, one of the early chapters.) And just a few centuries earlier, Julius Caesar arguably was one of the richest to have ever lived on earth. It's sensible to expect that families with that kind of wealth to leave a trace in their ancestry. And yet with rare exceptions they did not.

0 comments

throwaway20486y ago

The concept of wealth fundamentally depends on the society its created in.

If I am the last person on earth, i effectively "own" the entire earth, but it means nothing.

Same for a man staving to death on top of a mountain of gold.

Which makes this billionaire New Zealand apocalypse compound trend all the more ridiculous, if society collapses, being a billionaire is going to mean absolutely nothing, you would think the money would be better spent ensuring that doesn't happen in the first place

Gibbon16y ago

More amusingly as the billionaires hide out in their bunkers someones going to be at a Goldman Sachs terminal zeroing out their wealth.

thaumasiotes6y ago

> It's sensible to expect that families with that kind of wealth to leave a trace in their ancestry.

The ancient patrician families had trouble with going extinct. Their decline started long before the imperial period.

Later European kings had the same problem, sometimes just failing to produce any heir. It only takes a single generation and the family is gone.

If anything, I'd attribute family extinctions like this to monogamy. The two standard defenses against a failure of this type are (1) letting a man marry into the family by wedding a family daughter (as opposed to having the daughter marry out into the man's family); and (2) taking more than one wife, which offers dramatically greater opportunity to reproduce.

coliveira6y ago

Well, wealth during that period was determined by military power, not by an International system as we now know. Without a good army there was no way to maintain land ownership, for example. Similarly, slaves could only be maintained by the threat of armies. Therefore, all the fabulous wealth of Roman families declined to practically nothing with the end of the Roman Empire.

gen2206y ago

Sort of off-topic; what was your overall impression of Wickham's book (or the greater series that his is a part of, if you've read them)? Do you think they're generally humble overviews of their respective periods?

ddebernardyOP6y ago

Wickham's book is extremely hard to read - and as a matter of fact, I've never pulled off reading it to the end, even on the 3rd try. The issue is he's extremely meticulous, and goes on ad nauseam on methodology, on what to make of the sources he's referencing, and so forth. This is all extremely interesting, mind you. But the amount of methodological asides is such that you rapidly lose track of where you were in the narrative, and it's easy to go through a chapter without remembering what the first few pages were about, or indeed anything at all.

For the others in the series I've no idea. They've been on my reading list forever.

syn0byte6y ago

Is it a sensible expectation though? I would fully expect the richest/powerful to bear the brunt of retaliation as a civilization crumbles. The sins of the father and all that.

Would you want to be related to Trump if the economy tanked and social services started breaking down?

rgblambda6y ago

The heirs to the German Kaisar seem to be doing well for themselves. Then again, Kaisar Wilhelm was only forced to abdicate and exiled.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse