sure it did conquest was a major part of the roman economy and the military campaigns were planned out in advance and wars organised in the senate and many aspects of the colonial economies were organised by governors as well as this the Roman state took a major hand in the distrubution of grain.
As the Roman economy was built around slavery, grain, and tribute and the state was heavily involved in the conquest that brought slaves, the distribution of grain and the collection of tribute it could be considered to have in many ways been a planned economy
maybe but Rome was not a market economy in many key ways either
Also Roman military planning is not comparable to US military planning as it was important to the Romans that they won wars while the US doesn't care either way. The Romans fought wars in order to enslave and loot the populace while the Americans largely fight wars as a means to give major weapons companies handouts
Yeah, it had elements of subsistence farming and kind of proto-feudal economy with colonatus and similar shit, but proto-capitalist elements were very limited (and ironically they were mostly around slavery and military).
Americans also use their wars as means to keep in line states who might think to resist American dominance. The very destruction American army inflicts is the point - to be wielded as a threat.
The Roman Empire has never been a planned economy. You are confusing them with the Inca Empire.
sure it did conquest was a major part of the roman economy and the military campaigns were planned out in advance and wars organised in the senate and many aspects of the colonial economies were organised by governors as well as this the Roman state took a major hand in the distrubution of grain.
As the Roman economy was built around slavery, grain, and tribute and the state was heavily involved in the conquest that brought slaves, the distribution of grain and the collection of tribute it could be considered to have in many ways been a planned economy
You can use the same logic to argue that USA is a planned economy. Military planning and taxes != planned economy.
maybe but Rome was not a market economy in many key ways either
Also Roman military planning is not comparable to US military planning as it was important to the Romans that they won wars while the US doesn't care either way. The Romans fought wars in order to enslave and loot the populace while the Americans largely fight wars as a means to give major weapons companies handouts
Yeah, it had elements of subsistence farming and kind of proto-feudal economy with colonatus and similar shit, but proto-capitalist elements were very limited (and ironically they were mostly around slavery and military).
Americans also use their wars as means to keep in line states who might think to resist American dominance. The very destruction American army inflicts is the point - to be wielded as a threat.