A comparison between antiquity and the modern western world, on the grounds of politics, the economy, anthropology, technique, preferred types of freedom etc.

Is western humanism the true heir of the ancient world, or perhaps things are more complicated?

One of the most interesting research papers I have read recently is The Eastern Commercial Revenue Model: The Economic Significance of Ancient Eastern Trade, published within The Indian Ocean in Antiquity: Political, Cultural and Economic Impacts (Routledge, 2018). The paper argues that:

"This Eastern Commercial Revenue Model evidences that trade conducted through the Indian Ocean generated approximately a third of Roman Revenues during the early imperial period."

Drawing upon evidence such as the Muziris Papyrus, Strabo, the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, archaeological finds and Roman customs records, the model estimates that Indian Ocean commerce may have generated around 270 million sesterces annually in customs revenue alone.

What is particularly interesting is that later scholarship did not simply dismiss these conclusions. In The Cambridge Companion to the Roman Economy, Andrew Wilson suggested that customs revenues from Red Sea trade may have amounted to between one-quarter and one-third of the Empire's military budget. Later, in Trade, Commerce, and the State in the Roman World (Oxford University Press, 2017), Andrew Wilson and Alan Bowman considered it"very possible" that something like one-third of the Roman state's military budget could have been met from customs revenues on the Red Sea trade alone.

If broadly correct, this suggests that commerce linking Rome, Egypt, the Red Sea, Arabia and India was not merely a peripheral activity but one of the major economic engines of the ancient world.

An interesting parallel comes from a recently announced possible Bronze Age shipwreck discovery off the Turkish coast. If confirmed by further research, it would add to growing evidence that the world was already becoming interconnected over 5,000 years ago through maritime trade. The three largest and most economically significant civilisational centres of the 3rd millennium BCE, the Indus Valley Civilisation, Mesopotamia and Egypt, were separated by vast distances yet increasingly linked by demand for raw materials, prestige goods, metals and agricultural products. Maritime connectivity was therefore not merely plausible but increasingly necessary for sustaining complex societies.

The deeper we dig into the archaeological record, the more it appears that long-distance maritime exchange was not an exception but a defining feature of early civilisation. From Bronze Age maritime networks, through Indo-Mesopotamian exchange, to Roman trade with India, the evidence increasingly points towards a long-duration commercial system that connected the Mediterranean, Red Sea and Indian Ocean worlds.

For me, the bigger takeaway is that Rome did not create eastern commerce. Rather, it inherited and integrated itself into maritime networks that had likely been evolving across the Mediterranean, Mesopotamia, Egypt, Arabia and the Indian Ocean for millennia. The Roman evidence simply shows how economically significant those networks eventually became.

One of the most interesting research papers I have read recently is The Eastern Commercial Revenue Model: The Economic Significance of Ancient Eastern Trade, published within The Indian Ocean in Antiquity: Political, Cultural and Economic Impacts (Routledge, 2018). The paper argues that:

"This Eastern Commercial Revenue Model evidences that trade conducted through the Indian Ocean generated approximately a third of Roman Revenues during the early imperial period."

Drawing upon evidence such as the Muziris Papyrus, Strabo, the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, archaeological finds and Roman customs records, the model estimates that Indian Ocean commerce may have generated around 270 million sesterces annually in customs revenue alone.

What is particularly interesting is that later scholarship did not simply dismiss these conclusions. In The Cambridge Companion to the Roman Economy, Andrew Wilson suggested that customs revenues from Red Sea trade may have amounted to between one-quarter and one-third of the Empire's military budget. Later, in Trade, Commerce, and the State in the Roman World (Oxford University Press, 2017), Andrew Wilson and Alan Bowman considered it"very possible" that something like one-third of the Roman state's military budget could have been met from customs revenues on the Red Sea trade alone.

If broadly correct, this suggests that commerce linking Rome, Egypt, the Red Sea, Arabia and India was not merely a peripheral activity but one of the major economic engines of the ancient world.

An interesting parallel comes from the recently announced possible Bronze Age shipwreck discovery off the Turkish coast. If confirmed by further research, it would add to growing evidence that the world was already becoming interconnected over 5,000 years ago through maritime trade. The three largest and most economically significant civilisational centres of the 3rd millennium BCE, the Indus Valley Civilisation, Mesopotamia and Egypt, were separated by vast distances yet increasingly linked by demand for raw materials, prestige goods, metals and agricultural products. Maritime connectivity was therefore not merely plausible but increasingly necessary for sustaining complex societies.

The deeper we dig into the archaeological record, the more it appears that complex trade networks were already connecting major population centres thousands of years before the Age of Exploration. Columbus and da Gama did not invent oceanic commerce; they entered a world where maritime networks had already been evolving, expanding and linking civilisations for several millennia. From Bronze Age maritime networks, through Indo-Mesopotamian exchange, to Roman trade with India, the evidence increasingly points towards a long-duration commercial system that connected the Mediterranean, Red Sea and Indian Ocean worlds.

For me, the bigger takeaway is that Rome did not create eastern commerce. Rather, it inherited and integrated itself into maritime networks that had likely been evolving across the Mediterranean, Mesopotamia, Egypt, Arabia and the Indian Ocean for millennia. The Roman evidence simply shows how economically significant those networks eventually became.

Paper (direct access): https://www.academia.edu/35400808/Article_Excerpt_The_Indian_Ocean_in_Antiquity_Political_Cultural_and_Economic_Impacts_Routledge_2018_Cobb_McLaughlin_et_al

Book details: https://www.routledge.com/The-Indian-Ocean-Trade-in-Antiquity-Political-Cultural-and-Economic-Impacts/Cobb/p/book/9780367665708

Related review by William Dalrymple: https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2023/04/20/garum-masala-indian-ocean-trade-in-antiquity-cobb/

Ancient Turkish shipwreck announcement (4,400 and 4,700 years old): https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c6gr80rk1yyko

Related post: Previous post related to Indo-Roman commerce and evidence linking Roman demand for eastern goods with trade across South Asia:
https://www.reddit.com/r/romanempire/comments/1ugzi54/roman_luxury_markets_and_trade_with_the_dravidian/

Modern retellings (and some recent political speeches) often present Xerxes’ invasion of Greece as unprovoked aggression. But the chain of events starts earlier: in 498 BC, Athens sent ships to support the Ionian Revolt and participated in the burning of Sardis, the capital of the Lydian satrapy, including a major temple. I put together a short video looking at this sequence and how it changes the framing of the later invasion. Link: https://youtu.be/LUV-7U7ueac Would be interested in thoughts from people who know the primary sources well.

A fascinating reminder that the world was already becoming interconnected over 5,000 years ago. New evidence for maritime trade in the 3rd millennium BCE suggests that seafarers were moving goods, materials and ideas across surprisingly large distances long before the classical civilisations of Greece and Rome emerged. What makes this especially interesting is that the three largest and most economically significant centres of the period, the Indus Valley Civilisation, Mesopotamia and Egypt, were separated by vast distances yet linked by growing demand for raw materials, prestige goods, metals and agricultural products, making maritime connectivity not merely plausible but increasingly necessary for sustaining complex societies. This aligns closely with the Dravidian Arc research framework, which argues that long-distance maritime exchange was not an exception but an increasingly important feature of early civilisation. The deeper we dig into the archaeological record, the more it appears that complex trade networks were already connecting major population centres thousands of years before the Age of Exploration. Columbus and da Gama did not invent oceanic commerce; they entered a world where maritime networks had already been evolving, expanding and linking civilisations for millennia.

In antiquity, the serpent was one of the figures frequently used by the Greeks, the Romans, and the local cultures situated between them. It is particularly noteworthy because it frequently appears in mythological narratives. A serpent motif can be seen on each of the coins below. The vast majority of them are associated with the cult of Heracles.

I can easily picture the ongoing industrial-scientific revolution stretching forward, an arc of progress refining itself over centuries, into the far future ... but I can’t picture a new change as BIG as the industrial-scientific revolution that isn't just a continuation of said revolution.

Ancient minds dreamt of miraculous objects (Sampo, the cornucopia, the philosopher’s stone, flying carpets) artifacts that could grant sudden, godlike wealth or transformation. But as far as I can tell, no one in all of ancient human history before the modern era ever conceived the far stranger, more powerful idea: What if nearly every aspect of human life improved, just a little, every single year, indefinitely?

Because for roughly 250 years, innovation has compounded, each advancement layering atop the last, making life 2-3% better per year on average, an exponential tide lifting civilization. And no one in all of human history predicted or even DREAMT of that before it actually happened.

So if there is ever going to be some future change to human life as big as the Industrial-Scientific revolution, it makes total sense that I could never conceive of it.

Or at least that's what I _think_. So am I wrong? Like the title says: Did anyone in the ancient world ever imagine sustained economic growth?

As a graphic designer + history enthusiast who falls sleep to Roman conquest videos, I’ve spent the last few years translating ancient Roman history into a custom playing card deck.

Instead of generic symbols, I researched and mapped the four suits to major powers of the era: Rome, Ptolemaic Egypt, Carthage, and the Gauls, focusing heavily on historical accuracy for weapons, armor, and attire.

Preparing to launch it on Kickstarter soon, the pre-launch page is live if you'd like to check out the details:

👉 https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/slavamedvedenko/roman-empire-playing-cards

Would love to hear what history enthusiasts think of the faction choices!

i feel a bit dumb, but id like to know if there are any old books talking about cyprus

Datca Turkey. somebody know anythyng about ruined fortifications at Ovabuku promontory?

I heard once that there were no remains of carts drawn by donkeys horses or cattle found in the streets under the debris of pompeii.

If so it would seem to be at odds with common sense: The poor desperate people could be expected to use such transport to get away from the city with their families and chatyls

Is there an explanation?

It has been shown that bulgars (my ancestors) are most likely closely related to the huns. Roman emperors used huns and bulgars sometimes interchangeably. Yet history has been written to view the huns as a disaster while multiple tribes of Germanic people had similar strategies for fighting and even practiced skull elongation. I know that history is written by the winners but isn't it high time we revisit the huns in our history books and not view them as a scourge? Germanic tribes sacked Rome and butchered many, they were no less brutal than the huns.

I don't know if this is the right sub, anyway i find it really odd that the swastika is found everywhere around the world. And no, I do not believe the explanation 'it's an archetype shape representing the sun' cause it's just unbelievable that people that had no contact with each other and live on the other side of the world came up with the exact same shape to represent the sun. It's just unbelievable to me and it's just as odd that no researcher has ever studied this, cause online i find close to no article about it.

I hope some of you share my doubts and convince i am not crazy haha