How unequal were ancient societies? A new study offers a groundbreaking comparison of income inequality across the Roman Empire, the Chinese Han dynasty, and the Aztec Empire—placing their disparities alongside medieval and modern examples. It provides the most detailed reconstructions to date of wealth distribution in two of antiquity’s largest empires.
Using a combination of historical records, population estimates, and economic modeling, the researchers calculated the Gini index, a standard tool for measuring inequality. The Gini index ranges from 0 (perfect equality, where everyone has the same income) to 1 (perfect inequality, where one person has everything). Most modern countries today fall somewhere between 0.25 and 0.50.
The study, published in Nature Communications, focuses on two key moments: the Roman Empire around 165 CE and the Han Empire around 2 CE. Although both empires had similar administrative reach and population sizes, their patterns of inequality diverged significantly. According to the study, the Roman Empire had a Gini index of 0.46, while the Han Empire scored slightly higher at 0.48. Meanwhile, the Aztec Empire reached 0.50 on the eve of the Spanish conquest in 1492.
To put these numbers in perspective, the modern United States had a Gini index of 0.485 in 2023, while China stood at 0.467 in 2022. Canada’s most recent value was around 0.429, with European countries such as Germany (0.29) and France (0.30) ranking among the most equal. The worst inequality globally today is seen in South Africa, with a Gini index exceeding 0.63.
In addition to Gini scores, the researchers introduced another measurement: the Inequality Extraction Ratio. This reflects how much income elites capture relative to the theoretical maximum in a society where most people are kept at subsistence levels. The Han Empire scored 80%, compared to 69% for Rome, and a striking 89% for the Aztecs. These values suggest that Han China, in particular, had a more centralized and extractive system that funnelled wealth to its core.
“The Han Empire was, overall, more unequal and extractive than the Roman Empire,” the study concludes. While Rome relied on provincial elites and military redistribution to reduce regional inequality, Han policies weakened local elites by forcibly relocating them to the imperial capital and concentrating state expenditure there.
The authors argue that these disparities mattered not only economically but politically. “Higher inequality increased the potential for political instability and the collapse of empires,” they write. Indeed, the Han Empire soon experienced widespread rebellion and civil war, while Rome enjoyed relative stability under the Pax Romana—at least temporarily.
To ground these findings in a longer historical view, the researchers compare ancient empires to the medieval era. The Byzantine Empire had an estimated Gini index of 0.41–0.43 around the year 1000, making Byzantium one of the more equal premodern polities. Meanwhile, the Low Countries at the end of the Middle Ages had inequality that surpassed even that of the Roman and Han Empires. Studies had found estimated Gini scores of 0.50 and 0.52 for the northern and southern regions of this corner of northwest Europe, respectively.
One implication of the study is that modern democracies are not necessarily more equal than some ancient empires — especially if redistributive policies weaken. While wealthier nations today have more tools to manage inequality, many face challenges similar to those seen in the past. The study notes the example of Britain, where deepening regional inequality between London and the rest of the country helped fuel political unrest, including the Brexit vote. In both ancient and modern settings, stark income gaps between centre and periphery can trigger long-term instability.
This article, written by Guido Alfani, Michele Bolla and Walter Scheidel, builds on the broader work of Scheidel, author of The Great Leveler. He argues that inequality in history has only been reduced significantly by catastrophic shocks like war, revolution, or state collapse. In their latest contribution, Scheidel and colleagues suggest that inequality itself may raise the risk of those very disruptions.
The article, “A comparison of income inequality in the Roman and Chinese Han empires,” appears in Nature Communications. Click here to read it.
Top Image: 16th-century world map – Typus Orbis universalis
How unequal were ancient societies? A new study offers a groundbreaking comparison of income inequality across the Roman Empire, the Chinese Han dynasty, and the Aztec Empire—placing their disparities alongside medieval and modern examples. It provides the most detailed reconstructions to date of wealth distribution in two of antiquity’s largest empires.
Using a combination of historical records, population estimates, and economic modeling, the researchers calculated the Gini index, a standard tool for measuring inequality. The Gini index ranges from 0 (perfect equality, where everyone has the same income) to 1 (perfect inequality, where one person has everything). Most modern countries today fall somewhere between 0.25 and 0.50.
The study, published in Nature Communications, focuses on two key moments: the Roman Empire around 165 CE and the Han Empire around 2 CE. Although both empires had similar administrative reach and population sizes, their patterns of inequality diverged significantly. According to the study, the Roman Empire had a Gini index of 0.46, while the Han Empire scored slightly higher at 0.48. Meanwhile, the Aztec Empire reached 0.50 on the eve of the Spanish conquest in 1492.
To put these numbers in perspective, the modern United States had a Gini index of 0.485 in 2023, while China stood at 0.467 in 2022. Canada’s most recent value was around 0.429, with European countries such as Germany (0.29) and France (0.30) ranking among the most equal. The worst inequality globally today is seen in South Africa, with a Gini index exceeding 0.63.
In addition to Gini scores, the researchers introduced another measurement: the Inequality Extraction Ratio. This reflects how much income elites capture relative to the theoretical maximum in a society where most people are kept at subsistence levels. The Han Empire scored 80%, compared to 69% for Rome, and a striking 89% for the Aztecs. These values suggest that Han China, in particular, had a more centralized and extractive system that funnelled wealth to its core.
“The Han Empire was, overall, more unequal and extractive than the Roman Empire,” the study concludes. While Rome relied on provincial elites and military redistribution to reduce regional inequality, Han policies weakened local elites by forcibly relocating them to the imperial capital and concentrating state expenditure there.
The authors argue that these disparities mattered not only economically but politically. “Higher inequality increased the potential for political instability and the collapse of empires,” they write. Indeed, the Han Empire soon experienced widespread rebellion and civil war, while Rome enjoyed relative stability under the Pax Romana—at least temporarily.
To ground these findings in a longer historical view, the researchers compare ancient empires to the medieval era. The Byzantine Empire had an estimated Gini index of 0.41–0.43 around the year 1000, making Byzantium one of the more equal premodern polities. Meanwhile, the Low Countries at the end of the Middle Ages had inequality that surpassed even that of the Roman and Han Empires. Studies had found estimated Gini scores of 0.50 and 0.52 for the northern and southern regions of this corner of northwest Europe, respectively.
One implication of the study is that modern democracies are not necessarily more equal than some ancient empires — especially if redistributive policies weaken. While wealthier nations today have more tools to manage inequality, many face challenges similar to those seen in the past. The study notes the example of Britain, where deepening regional inequality between London and the rest of the country helped fuel political unrest, including the Brexit vote. In both ancient and modern settings, stark income gaps between centre and periphery can trigger long-term instability.
This article, written by Guido Alfani, Michele Bolla and Walter Scheidel, builds on the broader work of Scheidel, author of The Great Leveler. He argues that inequality in history has only been reduced significantly by catastrophic shocks like war, revolution, or state collapse. In their latest contribution, Scheidel and colleagues suggest that inequality itself may raise the risk of those very disruptions.
The article, “A comparison of income inequality in the Roman and Chinese Han empires,” appears in Nature Communications. Click here to read it.
Top Image: 16th-century world map – Typus Orbis universalis
Subscribe to Medievalverse
Related Posts