Some napkin math: Diocles won 35,863,120 sesterces. During the time that he lived, one sesterce was worth 1/100th of an aureus, a gold coin. The closest value of an aureus that I can find is Nero's aureus, which was 1/45th of a Roman pound, so about 7.27g of gold. Assuming this is right, one sesterce was worth 0.0727g of gold. The current price of gold as of writing this is $61.79/gram. That means the wealth of Diocles in USD is 61.79*(0.0727*35,863,120) dollars, or $161,101,904.83496. Since he wins my heart by being such an amazing charioteer, I'll round that up to... $161,101,904.84
Wow, I tried the same logic with silver denarii (denarius) and arrived at $31.5M. I think gold is probably a better metric and anyway, I like your version of history better 😁 Still not 15B tho
@@ricois3 It is all relative. Spectrum points out that the Roman Empire, by our metrics, would have been considered a Third World country. Was Diocles relatively wealthy to his contemporaries? Of course. Being one of the top 20 richest Roman means that he was a Bezos or Gates of his time. The average Roman soldier at the time was paid, I think, 2.5 sesterces a day. A single soldier would have to fight for 14,345,248 days or 39,302 years in order to earn that much. Make no mistake, no matter how much the metal value of Diocles' winnings are, he was absolutely loaded for the time.
I want to imagine two roman sportfans complaining, how the new regulations cause extreme porpoising, and how the Transalpine-Gaul Grand Prix is still gonna be like a triumphal parade, because the floor is too tight for modern chariots.
Diocles won 35,863,120 sesterces, and there are 4 sesterius in a denarius so that's a pool of 8,965,780. The average Roman income for a common pleb worker was 1-2 denarii per day. Average modern lower-middle class income (the modern plebs) is around 35,000-40,000 per year. Given these parameters and rounding to the nearest whole number: 2*365=730/y 8,965,780/730=12,282 year's wages 12,282*40,000=$491,275,616 equivalent total earnings by average incomes.
I didnt find any information about the statue of "Lamego" being of Diocles. Do you have any source? I think that the statue represents a personification of the town and not any individual in particular. Adoro os teus vídeos, bom trabalho!!!
Sure, people in the past had a lot of money but the reality of industrial, manufacturing and economic progress has meant that most of us are able to get our hands on things easier, cheaper and faster than even the richest roman could dream of. He may have been rich but he wasn't "the largest armed forces on the planet rich" because the roman army never had to pay maintenance on fighter jets and tanks.
Probably the only way to get a good comparison how rich wealthy ancient people were would be to compare their wealth to that of the average person at the time. i.e. were they as rich compared to the average person of the day than modern day billionaires are compared to average person now. By that estimate the richest Romans would have been their own era's equivalent to modern billionaires, though the richest people today would actually be comparatively more wealthy than the richest Romans (not counting the emperors, because technically their wealth was equivalent to the state budget).
Correct me if I'm wrong, I just went on Wikipedia and did quick maths. I know it depends on the period, but from I can find, 4 sestertii = 1 denarius. 1 denarius = 3-4g of silver. Assuming 28$/oz (physical premium included) that's $28/31.1g*4g=$3.60 per denarius at today's silver price. $3.60/4=$0.90 per sesterce. 35 000 000*0.9= $31.5M. Obviously that doesn't really makes sense, it's probably that silver is very undervalued. Keep in mind, and average legionnaire earned a little bit more than a denarius per day, so ~$1-2? Like he said, kinda third world-ish.
@@nickmf22 I 100% agree! Still fun to do the math, even if it doesn't reflect the true buying power. Comparing to wages and costs of living is probably a better mesure.
@@ricois3 plus silver is heavily devalued today compared to the even a few hundred years ago. The Spanish during the colonization period were INSANELY wealthy because of silver mines but once silver became less valuable they became a lot less wealthy even though they still had a shit load of silver
Modern states use a faux currencies that have, almost globally, been hugely overprinted for the last 70 years. The way you'd do a silver calculation is to do it based on something like the Pound Sterling back when Britain used silver as its reserve and then extrapolate from that number.
@o m This is just wrong. You can quite easily extrapolate comparative wealth via a number of quite reliable indicators. We absolutely know what to compare. The only real issue with evaluating comparative wealth is that some aspects of wealth are subjective and not objective. Even then we can still calculate based on what the exchange rates of the time were since a significant amount of the writings we have from the past are essentially just book keeping.
Well technically speaking a third world nation is a country that was neutral in the Cold War meaning it wasn’t part of Western Bloc or the Eastern Block. Surprisingly nobody knows that.
@@anonymousigggsoo3664 I feel like Rome would pick the west or democratic side, being a republic and all that, but even if you take the Roman empire, hardly they would ally with the bigger empire that called itself the third Rome.
@@paprizio1073 That’s a huge assumption. If Rome existed modern times then like then there would be a ton of variable as to which side they would be on. Also one thing I think people don’t understand is that Rome, even during republican times, wasn’t particularly democratic by our standards.
If wealth was viewed as a comparative measure of your status, then I’d assume that we’d have to place Diocles as the 20th richest person in the Western World today to get a grip of how rich he was. Today this would be Michael Dell, who has over 50 billion bucks. Im not saying that the dude had this much money and that his buying power was even a percent of that but to a Roman his wealth would seem this enormous .
I think slave prices would be a more accurate comparison to cars. At least, using auction advertisements for slaves from the 1860s, we can see that an average (male, women were worth more because you can force them to have kids) enslaved person would have cost ~$800. That $800 today, adjusted for inflation, would be worth ~$25000, enougj for a new Toyota Corolla. I’m not sure how similar Roman slave prices were to American ones, but I feel like it’s a much fairer comparison than horses.
They use swords, shields, ancient armor. And ancient medical care, and constant plagues nd shit. I mean, the empire existed în the ancient period, no matter how much "The roman empire was actually very advanced for its time" is pulled, they still have the tech of The ancient period.
By the time of the byzantines the red and the white demes fell out of favour and the blues and the greens were the only ones with any real fanbase left
I disagree that Diocles should be called the King of Charioteers. He won about 1400 races in a 24 year career. Flavio Scorpus won over 2400 chariot races in a 10 year career. Scorpus must surely be the King of charioteers. Yes, they got paid enormous money for winning a single race.
Singers and stuff were since a lot of people in those kinds of performances were expected to do sexual shit on the side to make extra money, and gladiators if they were captured slave fodder were the lowest of the low but the real popular gladiators were like rock stars, they almost never died because they had the best shit and were put in mostly showy performances since they were major money makers. If battle were between 2 popular gladiators they were usually spared(the popular thumbs up/down). When a death match between 2 of the rock star gladiators did happen it was a huge event that made a fuckload of people a fuckload of money. And chariot racing was always just a mega popular thing in that entire empire, even the Byzantines loved their chariots, hence it was indeed much like the Roman version of Soccer, it was popular all over the damn place.
Gladiators were mostly slaves, some weren't and others won (payed) for their freedom, but they were owned by some of the richest families in Rome (at larger venues ie, The Coliseum). Performers, actors, street performers, musicians, artists, etc, are kind of like their equivalent today, 99% are poor and go nowhere. Charioteers, on the other hand, were mostly highly trained specialists who went into their trade as free athletes, however anyone with a name in charioteering had patron(s) kind of like modern brand sponsorships, but that means charioteers still got a large cut of their winnings and bets. Therefore, the premier charioteers made tons of money but still died quickly.
Some napkin math:
Diocles won 35,863,120 sesterces.
During the time that he lived, one sesterce was worth 1/100th of an aureus, a gold coin. The closest value of an aureus that I can find is Nero's aureus, which was 1/45th of a Roman pound, so about 7.27g of gold. Assuming this is right, one sesterce was worth 0.0727g of gold.
The current price of gold as of writing this is $61.79/gram.
That means the wealth of Diocles in USD is 61.79*(0.0727*35,863,120) dollars, or $161,101,904.83496. Since he wins my heart by being such an amazing charioteer, I'll round that up to...
$161,101,904.84
Wow, I tried the same logic with silver denarii (denarius) and arrived at $31.5M. I think gold is probably a better metric and anyway, I like your version of history better 😁
Still not 15B tho
@@ricois3 It is all relative. Spectrum points out that the Roman Empire, by our metrics, would have been considered a Third World country. Was Diocles relatively wealthy to his contemporaries? Of course. Being one of the top 20 richest Roman means that he was a Bezos or Gates of his time.
The average Roman soldier at the time was paid, I think, 2.5 sesterces a day. A single soldier would have to fight for 14,345,248 days or 39,302 years in order to earn that much.
Make no mistake, no matter how much the metal value of Diocles' winnings are, he was absolutely loaded for the time.
@@VerilyViscous Absolutely.
Also, as someone pointed out on my separate comment, the point of currency is to be worth more than the metal.
haha 7.27 grams wysi when you see it
Wow technically he is and was the richest Portuguese man of all time PORTUGAL CARALHO 🇵🇹
Being a portuguese and watching a portuguese youtube talking about a portuguese ancient atleat is such and amazing thing to experience.
Chariot racing should become an Olympic sport again
Of course it would be a Portuguese
I want to imagine two roman sportfans complaining, how the new regulations cause extreme porpoising, and how the Transalpine-Gaul Grand Prix is still gonna be like a triumphal parade, because the floor is too tight for modern chariots.
😂😂😂😂😂
Interesting video can you make a video on how chariot races impacted Roman Politics
I’ve always wondered about this because didn’t Justinian want to flee after there was a riot after a chariot race riot or something like that
Yes he did but his wife Theodora convinced him and his court to stay and a same kind of riot nearly deposed emperor Anastasius
Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika Nika
Nike
That’s it I’m calling Belasarius and Mundas before this gets to far
@@CirBam24 Βελασιαριυς GET THE SWORDS READY!
Always love your critical thought that goes into your videos! Everything you do is fantastic!
Amazing video. You are truly an inspiration.
Diocles won 35,863,120 sesterces, and there are 4 sesterius in a denarius so that's a pool of 8,965,780. The average Roman income for a common pleb worker was 1-2 denarii per day. Average modern lower-middle class income (the modern plebs) is around 35,000-40,000 per year. Given these parameters and rounding to the nearest whole number:
2*365=730/y
8,965,780/730=12,282 year's wages
12,282*40,000=$491,275,616 equivalent total earnings by average incomes.
But did any ancient Roman athletes have the cherry red Jordan 12s? thought so Jordans still the goat
Can't believe Chariot racing was RGB already.
Formula SPQR
Ohhh a great video in such sort time thank you
I didnt find any information about the statue of "Lamego" being of Diocles. Do you have any source? I think that the statue represents a personification of the town and not any individual in particular.
Adoro os teus vídeos, bom trabalho!!!
Sure, people in the past had a lot of money but the reality of industrial, manufacturing and economic progress has meant that most of us are able to get our hands on things easier, cheaper and faster than even the richest roman could dream of. He may have been rich but he wasn't "the largest armed forces on the planet rich" because the roman army never had to pay maintenance on fighter jets and tanks.
Using your logic what would people 1000 years in the future say about us
@@baha3alshamari152 Probably exactly what I just said, but again
When you gonna release video on top eastern Roman generals?
Brutal! Eu costumo saber destes tesourinhos históricos, mas este era-me completamente desconhecido.
What people don't understand that Romans were such sports fans that a riot over chariot race nearly overthrew an emperor!!
Chariots.
You can tell this guy is a lusitani because the way he says "KISTIANU GIONALDU".
Hola :D
Don't mangle it like that.
Ranking Austrian Kings and Emporers please
O atleta mais rico de sempre é tuga ??? Ainda por cima cá do Norte ? Espetacular
When it comes to wealth rankings, he probably was the equivalent of Michael Bloomberg in the USA.
Probably the only way to get a good comparison how rich wealthy ancient people were would be to compare their wealth to that of the average person at the time. i.e. were they as rich compared to the average person of the day than modern day billionaires are compared to average person now.
By that estimate the richest Romans would have been their own era's equivalent to modern billionaires, though the richest people today would actually be comparatively more wealthy than the richest Romans (not counting the emperors, because technically their wealth was equivalent to the state budget).
I love the Circus Maximus name.
An equivalent to calling someplace Stadium 9000.
Crishtiano Honaldu
If you really want to measure how rich someone actually is, start by counting how many good loyal friends they have.
- Abraham Lincoln, probably
Correct me if I'm wrong, I just went on Wikipedia and did quick maths.
I know it depends on the period, but from I can find, 4 sestertii = 1 denarius. 1 denarius = 3-4g of silver. Assuming 28$/oz (physical premium included) that's $28/31.1g*4g=$3.60 per denarius at today's silver price. $3.60/4=$0.90 per sesterce. 35 000 000*0.9= $31.5M. Obviously that doesn't really makes sense, it's probably that silver is very undervalued.
Keep in mind, and average legionnaire earned a little bit more than a denarius per day, so ~$1-2? Like he said, kinda third world-ish.
You're forgetting the point of currency, it's value isn't solely dependent on the value of the metal it was made of
@@nickmf22 I 100% agree! Still fun to do the math, even if it doesn't reflect the true buying power. Comparing to wages and costs of living is probably a better mesure.
@@ricois3 plus silver is heavily devalued today compared to the even a few hundred years ago. The Spanish during the colonization period were INSANELY wealthy because of silver mines but once silver became less valuable they became a lot less wealthy even though they still had a shit load of silver
Modern states use a faux currencies that have, almost globally, been hugely overprinted for the last 70 years. The way you'd do a silver calculation is to do it based on something like the Pound Sterling back when Britain used silver as its reserve and then extrapolate from that number.
@o m This is just wrong. You can quite easily extrapolate comparative wealth via a number of quite reliable indicators. We absolutely know what to compare. The only real issue with evaluating comparative wealth is that some aspects of wealth are subjective and not objective. Even then we can still calculate based on what the exchange rates of the time were since a significant amount of the writings we have from the past are essentially just book keeping.
Bruv, just tell me this, are you portuguese? That Cristiano Ronaldo pronunciation doesn't lie to my ears
he is
Well technically speaking a third world nation is a country that was neutral in the Cold War meaning it wasn’t part of Western Bloc or the Eastern Block. Surprisingly nobody knows that.
@o m Did the Roman Empire exist during the Cold War or was part of a nation that was?
@@anonymousigggsoo3664 I feel like Rome would pick the west or democratic side, being a republic and all that, but even if you take the Roman empire, hardly they would ally with the bigger empire that called itself the third Rome.
@@paprizio1073 That’s a huge assumption. If Rome existed modern times then like then there would be a ton of variable as to which side they would be on.
Also one thing I think people don’t understand is that Rome, even during republican times, wasn’t particularly democratic by our standards.
Whether in person or online, theres always gotta be that one person who makes this same annoying comment.
@@topsnek4603 Which is you
he make lebron james look like a homelesss man
i thought you were trolling me in the beginning
But what about Commodus?
Kkk, the CR7 of chariot racing
When you challenge black iron that is totally improved,..
He made it out the hood
Love it
Lets gooo money video
If wealth was viewed as a comparative measure of your status, then I’d assume that we’d have to place Diocles as the 20th richest person in the Western World today to get a grip of how rich he was. Today this would be Michael Dell, who has over 50 billion bucks. Im not saying that the dude had this much money and that his buying power was even a percent of that but to a Roman his wealth would seem this enormous .
Make more unorthodox videos.
Michael Jordan who?
Lamego Rulez :-)
I think slave prices would be a more accurate comparison to cars. At least, using auction advertisements for slaves from the 1860s, we can see that an average (male, women were worth more because you can force them to have kids) enslaved person would have cost ~$800. That $800 today, adjusted for inflation, would be worth ~$25000, enougj for a new Toyota Corolla. I’m not sure how similar Roman slave prices were to American ones, but I feel like it’s a much fairer comparison than horses.
LONG LIVE WEED
It would be interesting to watch a video on why the Roman empire can be considered a third world country by modern standards.
They use swords, shields, ancient armor.
And ancient medical care, and constant plagues nd shit.
I mean, the empire existed în the ancient period, no matter how much "The roman empire was actually very advanced for its time" is pulled, they still have the tech of The ancient period.
By the time of the byzantines the red and the white demes fell out of favour and the blues and the greens were the only ones with any real fanbase left
Comment for the algorithm
I disagree that Diocles should be called the King of Charioteers. He won about 1400 races in a 24 year career. Flavio Scorpus won over 2400 chariot races in a 10 year career. Scorpus must surely be the King of charioteers. Yes, they got paid enormous money for winning a single race.
🤠👍🏿
I am the richest
damn how depressed are you
100th
first
fucker didnt even watch the video before commentting
please shut up
I thought gladiators, performers etc were the lowest of the low in roman society
Singers and stuff were since a lot of people in those kinds of performances were expected to do sexual shit on the side to make extra money, and gladiators if they were captured slave fodder were the lowest of the low but the real popular gladiators were like rock stars, they almost never died because they had the best shit and were put in mostly showy performances since they were major money makers. If battle were between 2 popular gladiators they were usually spared(the popular thumbs up/down). When a death match between 2 of the rock star gladiators did happen it was a huge event that made a fuckload of people a fuckload of money. And chariot racing was always just a mega popular thing in that entire empire, even the Byzantines loved their chariots, hence it was indeed much like the Roman version of Soccer, it was popular all over the damn place.
Gladiators were mostly slaves, some weren't and others won (payed) for their freedom, but they were owned by some of the richest families in Rome (at larger venues ie, The Coliseum). Performers, actors, street performers, musicians, artists, etc, are kind of like their equivalent today, 99% are poor and go nowhere. Charioteers, on the other hand, were mostly highly trained specialists who went into their trade as free athletes, however anyone with a name in charioteering had patron(s) kind of like modern brand sponsorships, but that means charioteers still got a large cut of their winnings and bets. Therefore, the premier charioteers made tons of money but still died quickly.
@@C0wsmacker gladiators didn't fight to the death