
Greatest of All Time: Lifestyles of the rich and famous Roman athletes (2010) - acheron
http://www.laphamsquarterly.org/roundtable/greatest-all-time
======
iambateman
In 2000 years, someone will write this exact same essay about American
football.

~~~
mobilefriendly
The sport is enormously popular but professional football players are poorly
paid compared to baseball and basketball, especially when considering their
much shorter average career and the physical damage caused by the sport.
Further, football players are forced to spend years earning billions for the
NCAA and its TV partners in exchange for college tuition, whereas the best
baseball players and basketball players can earn a market salary by turning
pro after high school.

~~~
arcticfox
> best ... basketball players can earn a market salary by turning pro after
> high school

Not actually true, at least directly. They're currently required to play at
least one year in NCAA, and the NBA commissioner is advocating for two years.

~~~
ben_jones
You're right for the most part, but there are a few exceptions for basketball
which are becoming more popular.

International players can play professionally as early as 16 and then
immigrate over. A few top US prospects have also gone overseas @ 18 for
6mo/1yr to bypass the NCAA restriction and start playing as early as 19.

------
NicoJuicy
He compares Rome's military wages to the US. How many militairs where there in
Rome?

Probably not that much as the author compares it to

~~~
GunboatDiplomat
The Roman army reached perhaps 640,000 under Constantine I. Compare, the
current active duty US Army is about 475,000.

~~~
Retric
US has ~1,301,300 million active duty military. The army makes up ~1/3 of
that.

~~~
GunboatDiplomat
Sure. But the population of the US is 320+ million. The peak population of the
Roman Empire was probably in the region of 70 million. And that peak was in
the 2nd Century CE, whereas the 640k figure is from the 4th Century CE.

------
drumttocs8
"...assuming the apt comparison is what it takes to pay the wages of the
American armed forces for the same period..."

Wait, what?

------
vinceguidry
I know why they do it, but it's really annoying when authors compare sums of
money in ancient societies to today's monetary system. It's probably the
laziest way I can think of to describe differences between societies. Do some
real effing research, fer chrissakes.

So 35 million sesterces can be roughly equated to $15 billion in todays
monetary system. So what? You might as well be comparing apples to space
aliens.

~~~
67726e
Care to explain why the comparison is so troublesome, for the ignorant?

~~~
MichaelBurge
The bigger problem to me is the number was derived by assuming the modern
American military could be equated to the ancient Roman military's expenses:
If the charioteer could pay for 1/5 of Rome's annual military expenses, then
his modern equivalent could pay for 1/5 of the US' annual military expenses.

It wouldn't surprise me if you could build ancient Athens from scratch for the
cost of a single modern aircraft carrier. A quick google search shows 140,000
people in ancient Athens and 6000 staff on the biggest aircraft carriers, and
it wouldn't surprise me if ancient housing were 23 times cheaper than
military-grade ocean housing.

Not to mention we have vibrant financial markets and a strong economy. Ancient
Rome had unusually strong rent control and price control laws:

"The Edict of Maximum Prices was an attempt to control runaway inflation and
poverty in the Empire. The penalty for exceeding the prices of the Edict was
severe: death. Not satisfied to execute just the seller, Diocletian decreed
that the buyer was to be executed as well. As a final measure, if a seller
refused to sell his goods at the stated price, the penalty was death."

If ancient Rome didn't have corporations, investment banks, revenue bonds,
government-backed loans, etc. and had other terrible economic policies like
above, then being rich(in terms of buying power for specific goods) wouldn't
go as far as in our modern economy.

~~~
landryraccoon
That doesn't seem so bad. It would be valid to say that the top charioteer's
share of the total wealth of the world is comparable to someone with $15
billion today. As long as you think of it as wealth relative to peers, the
comparison stands. By your logic, inflation adjusted numbers for say, box
office hits like Star Wars and Gone with the Wind are meaningless because
people couldn't use the money to buy cell phones or laptop computers.

~~~
MichaelBurge
I hadn't considered that, but it's probably true. A Disney movie turning
revenue of $10 million with a sequel is probably more valuable than a no-name
company turing revenue of $10 million with a surprise hit. So $10 million
isn't even the same amount as $10 million, because the banks or potential
investors won't necessarily assume that you could repeat it. Or if you found
$100 million in a briefcase and asked Donald Trump to build you a skyscraper,
it would go further than if you tried to do it yourself, because he could
stick his name on it and get more funding.

This doesn't really apply to small amounts of money(less than $1k), because
all you can buy there are consumer goods(i.e. commodities). So to a consumer,
$50 is as good as any other $50. And cost-of-living estimates for ancient Rome
are probably reasonably accurate when translated.

I guess what I'm saying is that wealth is dependent on what you can actually
do with it. So descriptions like, "The charioteer had enough money to buy a
quarter of all the farmland in Rome" is a better description of his wealth
than "The charioteer had the equivalent of $x billion in USD", which doesn't
convey how he could spend it.

