I realize there is a potential for debate here, but I really, really am not trying to start an argument. I’m just looking for educated guesses by informed historians, which I have been unable to find thus far.
Are the contemprorary rich more or less wealthy than their historical counterparts? Say, for instance, is the richest human being in 2001 CE, richer than the richest human being of 21 CE?
Is the gross wealth of the world greater now than in previous eras?
Is the percentage of poor to middle-class to upper-class the same as it has always been?
Does wealth equal power? Would having a million soldiers at your command be considered wealthy?
Does wealth equal land? Would being able to consider half of Europe, and parts of Asia, and Africa your kingdom be considered wealthy?
Does wealth equal stock options? Would being on the board on 12 different corporations count for anything?
Does wealth equal influence? Would single handidly changing church docturine to suit your needs be considered wealthy?
Or is it all a matter of gold, gold, and more gold?
I can tell you for certain there are more people (number AND percentage-wise) that are more wealthy today than their counterparts 2000 years ago. Or even 200 years ago. But when we’re dealing with the cream of the crop, it’s going to come down to what you consider wealthy to mean.
My apologies for the vagueness, but I don’t have a very good definition. What I’m talking about is fiscal wealth (does that make any sense?). Not wealth in terms of power, but money. Thinking this out has made me see just how ridiculous a question it really is, but I can’t imagine it escaping some serious scholarship.
You’ve answered my question in your last sentence, and I agree wholeheartedly. However, I’d like to see that proved, by as clear a mechanism as possible, or at least stated by a reasonable authority.
Apples and oranges for the most part. It is extremely difficult, probably impossible, to make those kind of comparisons across millenia and myriad cultures. The immensely wealthy of 21 c.e. were a lot more likely to be that way because of social position - i.e. they were great nobles or kings. For that reason, if you were holding a gun to my head, I’d answer your question with “less”. Simply because the rich back then had considerably more power ( at times absolute power ) than the rich of today. Power and wealth merge seemlessly and indeed power creates wealth. Even if you’re talking just fiscal wealth, the fabulously wealthy of that day basically had access to EVERYTHING, unlike the wealthy of today that have at least some constraints.
Again, that’s virtually impossible to quantify, even assuming we could agree on a broad enough definition of wealth to try to make the comparison. And again, if we’re talking the “gun to the head” scenario, I’d answer with “yes”, because there are far more goods and services available to the average wealthy person today.
Absolutely not. The large middle-class is very much a “modern” phenomena ( i.e. the last couple of centuries ). There has been a lot of fluctuation depending on period and culture, but even in classical Greece, Rome, China, or the golden age of the Pax Islamica, the usual distribution ( there are certainly exceptions ) was:
a.) A relatively small upper-class
b.) A relatively small middle-class ( shopkeepers, craftsmen, merchants )
c.) An immense agrarian “working class”
d.) A variable, often substantial, but not usually huge except in times of cultural crisis, number of disenfranchised - slaves, beggars, etc.
Status and function depended on the society you’re talking about. So in the Roman Republic or the early Byzantine thema system, small-plot independent farmers provided the bulk of the military assets and had prportionately greater importance ( but the still weren’t what I would consider “middle-class” ). Whereas in feudal France, the elites ( rich ) provided the bulk of the military assets ( together with semi-professional mercenary bands ), while the peasant serfs occupied a position only half-a-notch above slaves. And I could go on, ad infinitum.
I would say that the difference between rich and poor is much greater today than it was in, say, the middle ages. Consider an emperor like Charlemagne and a peasant under his rule. The peasant generally had clothes on his back, a roof over his head, and enough to eat. Charlemagne had a clothes on his back, a roof over his head, and enough to eat. True, Charlemagne had a better roof and an option to sleep anywhere he wanted, his clothes were much more comfortable, stylish, cleaner and he had more of them, and he had more than enough to eat of a tastier and more varied diet. But neither the peasant nor Charlemagne had a big screen TV, effective medical care, central heating, advanced education, a way to get rid of body lice, a chance to summer in the Seychelles and ski at Aspen, or the ability to hold conversations with people in Australia.
So I would suggest that the differences between them in what we call wealth today were not so great, simply because neither had access to as many material goods as are available to wealthy people today. It is true that Charlemagne and not he peasant had the ability to throw some fabulous parties and give some impressive gifts, but gift giving and hospitality were probably as much his obligation, given his status, as they were a benefit of being rich.