Elon Musk is currently worth somewhere around $900 billion. Forbes valued his fortune at $908 billion for its September 2026 Forbes 400, although a number that large can move by tens of billions of dollars with the markets. Most of it is not sitting in a bank account. It consists of ownership interests in companies whose value is continuously recalculated by investors.
Two thousand years ago there were no stock exchanges, corporate valuations or billionaire rankings. There were, however, extremely rich people.
One of them was Marcus Licinius Crassus: politician, financier, property speculator, mine owner and eventual partner of Julius Caesar and Pompey in the political alliance we call the First Triumvirate. Crassus became so famous for his wealth—and his appetite for more of it—that his name survived for two millennia as shorthand for extreme riches and greed.
Plutarch says Crassus began with less than 300 talents and, before departing on his fatal campaign against Parthia, personally valued his property at 7,100 talents. Other ancient estimates place his fortune in the neighbourhood of 200 million sesterces. The exact figure is less important than its scale.
So was Crassus richer than Elon Musk?
There is an immediate problem.
Nobody knows exactly what a sestertius is worth in dollars.
And anyone who gives you a precise exchange rate is solving a problem that cannot really be solved.
How much is 200 million sesterces?
A sestertius was Roman money, but treating it like an ancient dollar and running it through an inflation calculator makes little sense. Rome had a radically different economy. Labour was priced differently. Land was priced differently. Manufactured goods were expensive relative to labour and food. Much of the population lived close to subsistence. Human beings themselves could legally be bought and sold.
There was no modern capital market against which we can neatly value a Roman estate.
There are, however, several ways of making the comparison—and they produce dramatically different answers.
Take a Roman legionary. Under Augustus, basic annual military pay was around 900 sesterces, before deductions for food, clothing and equipment. A fortune of 200 million sesterces therefore represented more than 222,000 years of a legionary's basic pay.
If we translated that purely into modern labour income and gave our imaginary worker a salary of $50,000, Crassus would come out at approximately $11.1 billion.
Very rich.
Nowhere near Elon Musk.
But change the measuring stick and something strange happens.
Economic historians Walter Scheidel and Steven Friesen have estimated the annual output of the Roman Empire in the second century AD at close to 20 billion sesterces. Crassus lived considerably earlier, so we cannot simply divide one number by the other and announce his "percentage of Roman GDP." But as an order-of-magnitude comparison, his supposed 200-million-sestertius fortune would equal roughly 1% of that reconstruction of the entire Empire's annual output.
Suddenly he looks rather different.
One percent of the annual output of a vast imperial economy represents an extraordinary concentration of private resources. Apply 1% to a modern multi-trillion-dollar economy and the comparison quickly moves into hundreds of billions.
Neither method tells us what Crassus was "really worth."
Both tell us something.
That is the first problem with comparing billionaires separated by two thousand years: there is no exchange rate between power and power.
Rome's property tycoon had a fire problem
Crassus did not simply inherit his fortune. He built much of it through methods that would make a modern compliance department extremely nervous.
Ancient Rome burned frequently. Buildings stood close together, construction was often poor and organised firefighting was rudimentary. Crassus saw an opportunity.
Plutarch says he acquired more than 500 enslaved architects and builders. When buildings caught fire, or neighbouring properties appeared likely to burn, Crassus bought them from frightened owners at heavily depressed prices. His workforce could then rebuild them. Plutarch claimed that through this process a large part of Rome eventually came into his possession.
There is a popular modern version of the story in which Crassus arrives with his private fire brigade and refuses to extinguish a burning house until its desperate owner agrees to sell.
It is a wonderful story.
Unfortunately, that isn't what Plutarch actually says.
The ancient account describes something less cinematic but economically more interesting: distressed-property investing around fires, backed by an enormous captive construction workforce.
Crassus had effectively created an ancient vertically integrated real-estate business. He had capital, builders, architects and a regular supply of distressed sellers.
Fire wasn't his only source of distressed assets.
During Sulla's dictatorship, political enemies were proscribed, killed and stripped of their property. Confiscated estates were then sold. Plutarch explicitly says Crassus profited from these sales and describes him as making public disasters a source of private revenue.
Crassus also owned valuable land and silver mines. Plutarch considered the value of his enslaved workforce particularly remarkable: readers, secretaries, silversmiths, stewards and other highly skilled people were all part of his property.
This is where comparisons with modern billionaires become morally as well as economically difficult.
Elon Musk owns shares in companies that employ people.
Crassus lived in a society in which a wealthy man could own the people themselves.
How rich did Crassus think rich was?
Crassus apparently had his own test.
Plutarch reports that he considered nobody truly wealthy unless he could support an army from his own resources.
That rather changes the billionaire checklist.
Forget the yacht, private jet and collection of houses. The Crassus test was whether your cash flow could maintain troops.
His remark reveals something important about Roman wealth. At the highest levels of Roman society, private fortune and public power were deeply entangled. Money paid for political careers, public entertainments, patronage networks, distributions to citizens and loans to strategically useful people.
One of those heavily indebted politicians was Julius Caesar.
Caesar gives us a remarkably modern financial paradox. A man could command extraordinary resources, maintain immense political influence and live among Rome's elite while simultaneously owing enormous sums of money.
Crassus helped him financially.
An investment banker would recognise the lesson immediately: wealth, liquidity and solvency are not the same thing.
Then Caesar conquered Gaul—and gold got cheaper
This is where our story becomes a gold story.
Caesar's conquest of Gaul produced enormous quantities of booty. Suetonius later wrote that Caesar accumulated so much gold that he offered it for sale throughout Italy and the provinces at 3,000 sesterces per Roman pound.
The exact scale of the price effect is difficult to reconstruct from an ancient literary source, so we should resist pretending that we have a Bloomberg chart from 50 BC. But the underlying phenomenon is fascinating.
Conquest could move precious metal on a scale large enough to affect markets.
A Roman general invaded foreign territory, seized accumulated wealth and brought part of that treasure back into the Roman economic system. Suddenly more gold was available for sale.
There were no central-bank announcements, futures markets or XAU/USD screens.
But supply was still supply. And gold was still gold.
Crassus wasn't even necessarily Rome's richest man
There is an irony in using Crassus as our Roman Elon Musk.
Rome's most famous rich man may not have been its richest private individual.
Ancient sources attribute even larger fortunes to several people of the early Empire. These figures need to be handled carefully. Ancient historians were not auditors, their subjects had enemies, and enormous round numbers made good literature.
Nevertheless, the scale is astonishing.
Consider Marcus Antonius Pallas.
Pallas had once been enslaved. After gaining his freedom, he rose to enormous influence under Emperor Claudius. Tacitus records a wonderfully Roman episode in which the Senate praised Pallas for his supposed old-fashioned modesty and frugality.
There was just one awkward detail.
Tacitus describes this supposedly modest former slave as the owner of 300 million sesterces.
At the Augustan legionary pay rate, that represents more than 333,000 years of basic military salary.
And Pallas was a freedman.
In a society obsessed with ancestry, citizenship, rank and social status, members of Rome's oldest aristocratic families could therefore find themselves dealing with a man they considered socially inferior who possessed vastly more money than they did.
Rome could produce a peculiar inversion: the man who had once legally been somebody else's property could eventually become richer than almost everyone around him.
The billionaire philosopher
Then there was Seneca.
Seneca the Younger is remembered as one of history's great Stoic philosophers. He wrote about virtue, mortality, self-control and the danger of becoming dependent on things outside ourselves.
He was also extremely wealthy.
Tacitus preserves an accusation by Seneca's enemy Suillius that the philosopher had accumulated 300 million sesterces in four years of imperial favour. That is an allegation made by a hostile political opponent, not Seneca's audited financial statement, and Tacitus presents it as such. But Seneca's substantial wealth itself is not seriously in doubt.
The apparent contradiction is irresistible.
How does one of Western civilisation's great philosophers of detachment become fabulously rich?
The answer is more interesting than simply declaring Seneca a hypocrite. Stoicism did not necessarily demand poverty. Wealth belonged among the external things a person could reasonably prefer, provided that virtue and happiness did not depend upon possessing it.
The real Stoic question, therefore, was not necessarily whether Seneca owned a fortune.
It was whether the fortune owned Seneca.
Modern billionaires might recognise the problem.
4,116 people, 7,200 oxen and a very expensive funeral
Another Roman fortune is fascinating precisely because it shows us what "net worth" actually looked like before securities accounts.
Pliny the Elder records the will of Gaius Caecilius Isidorus, a very wealthy Roman landowner of the Augustan period. His estate reportedly included 4,116 enslaved people, 3,600 yoke of oxen—7,200 animals—257,000 other livestock and 60 million sesterces in cash. He also set aside a spectacular sum for his funeral.
Ancient figures of this scale always deserve caution, but their purpose here is not to produce a Forbes valuation. It is to show us the composition of Roman wealth.
Sixty million sesterces was only the money.
There were enormous agricultural estates, animals, buildings, equipment and productive capacity. And there were more than four thousand human beings whom Roman law classified as property.
A modern billionaire's wealth statement might contain equities, bonds, real estate and private companies.
Isidorus's Roman balance sheet would contain a line reading:
Enslaved people: 4,116.
No dollar conversion adequately captures what that means.
Rome had inequality before inequality statistics
Extreme fortunes did not exist in isolation.
Scheidel and Friesen estimate that only about 1.5% of the imperial population belonged to the economic elite, yet this group controlled approximately one-fifth of total income. Another middling group of perhaps 10% consumed roughly another fifth, leaving the large majority much closer to subsistence.
Comparing this directly with modern inequality is difficult.
Rome was not the United States with togas.
The ancient economy was dramatically less productive. A much larger proportion of output was required simply to provide food, clothing and shelter. Agricultural yields were low by modern standards. Transport could be extraordinarily expensive. Harvest failures mattered enormously. There was far less economic surplus to distribute.
That means Roman inequality was different not merely in degree, but in character.
At the same time, enormous private fortunes translated unusually directly into political influence. Elections were expensive. Public generosity created popularity. Patronage was fundamental to social and political life. Successful warfare brought booty and prestige. Provincial commands created opportunities for further enrichment.
The boundary between businessman, financier, politician, military commander and oligarch was remarkably porous.
Crassus managed to be all five.
Then Augustus arrives—and the calculator breaks
Eventually our Roman billionaire ranking encounters a man for whom the exercise almost stops making sense.
Augustus.
In his own account of his achievements, the Res Gestae, Augustus says that he used his personal money to rescue the public treasury on four occasions, contributing 150 million sesterces in total. He then says that in AD 6 he contributed another 170 million sesterces from his own patrimony to the newly established military treasury, which funded rewards for long-serving soldiers.
That's 320 million sesterces in those two categories alone.
More than the conventional estimate of Crassus's entire fortune.
Yet asking for Augustus's "net worth" creates a conceptual problem.
Where did Augustus's personal fortune end and the resources of the imperial system begin?
He possessed estates and private wealth, but he also controlled armies, provinces, taxation and an expanding imperial administration. Public money, imperial resources and the emperor's patrimony were not simply one giant personal bank account, yet neither can Augustus's economic power be understood like the portfolio of a private citizen.
Elon Musk can own part of SpaceX.
Augustus did not own 51% of the Roman Empire.
He couldn't sell Egypt, issue shares in Gaul or list the Rhine frontier on an exchange.
But he exercised forms of economic control that no modern net-worth calculation can meaningfully reproduce.
Asking whether Augustus was a trillionaire is therefore rather like asking for the market capitalisation of France.
The category is wrong.
The GOLDEXO Billionaire Test
So let's return to Crassus and try the experiment properly.
Take the conventional figure of roughly 200 million sesterces.
Measure it by legionary salaries, and it equals more than 222,000 years of basic pay. Give a modern worker $50,000 a year and our imaginary conversion produces around $11 billion.
Musk wins easily.
Measure Crassus through precious metal, and another number appears. Roman monetary denominations were connected to gold and silver coins, but coin standards, monetary relationships and purchasing power changed over time. Converting the metal into today's bullion price tells us what that quantity of gold or silver would sell for today—not what Crassus's fortune meant in Roman society.
Musk probably still wins.
Measure the fortune against the size of the economy around it, however, and Crassus begins to look much larger. Compared with Scheidel and Friesen's later estimate of roughly 20 billion sesterces of annual imperial output, 200 million is on the order of 1%. The chronology prevents us from calling that Crassus's literal share of Roman GDP, but it gives us an extraordinary sense of scale.
Measure political purchasing power, and the comparison becomes stranger still. Crassus could finance political allies, lend strategically and regarded the ability to support an army as a reasonable definition of being wealthy.
Measure direct ownership of labour, and comparison becomes morally impossible because Roman slavery gave private fortune an ownership dimension that modern law rightly forbids.
Then try to measure Augustus.
At that point, put the calculator away.
There isn't one correct answer because wealth itself has changed.
Surely gold can settle the argument?
Gold appears to offer an escape from this problem.
Unlike a sestertius, gold still exists.
So why not calculate how much gold Crassus could have bought, convert it into ounces and multiply by today's gold price?
Because that gives us the modern bullion value of an ancient quantity of metal, not the modern economic value of an ancient fortune.
Caesar's Gallic gold shows exactly why. A sufficiently large influx of captured gold could itself alter the conditions under which gold traded.
Gold had purchasing power relative to Roman land, labour, grain, silver, livestock and political influence that was very different from its purchasing power today.
Yet gold does give us something dollars cannot.
A Roman aureus is not an economic reconstruction.
It is an object.
You can hold an aureus minted under Augustus beside a modern bullion coin and know that the yellow material in both is the same chemical element. Empires disappeared. Currencies were replaced. Coin standards changed. States collapsed. The meaning of wealth transformed almost beyond recognition.
The gold remained gold.
That makes precious metal an imperfect economic bridge across history—but a remarkable physical one.
Crassus discovers the limit of money
For a man remembered for his wealth, Crassus had an appropriately theatrical ending.
By the late 50s BC, money was no longer enough. Caesar possessed military glory. Pompey possessed military glory. Crassus, their enormously wealthy political partner, wanted a great conquest of his own.
He chose Parthia.
It ended catastrophically.
In 53 BC, the Romans suffered a devastating defeat at the Battle of Carrhae. Crassus was killed after negotiations with the Parthians broke down.
Then history becomes legend.
Cassius Dio, writing centuries later, says that "as some say" the Parthians poured molten gold into Crassus's mouth after his death, mocking his legendary appetite for wealth. That qualification matters. Dio was reporting a tradition, not providing an eyewitness account.
Another ancient tradition has Crassus's severed head taken to the court of the Parthian king Orodes II, where it became a grotesque prop during a performance of Euripides' Bacchae.
Whether molten gold ever entered Crassus's mouth is doubtful.
That people wanted the story to be true is perhaps more interesting.
Even antiquity found something irresistible about killing Rome's most famously avaricious rich man with the very substance he was accused of loving too much.
So: richer than Elon Musk?
If the question simply means whether Marcus Licinius Crassus could command more economic resources than a man worth roughly $900 billion can command today, the most defensible answer is probably no. Modern corporations operate at a scale, technological complexity and productive capacity that Roman private enterprise could not approach, and Musk's wealth represents ownership claims over a vast part of that modern productive machinery. Forbes valued his fortune at $908 billion in its September 2026 Forbes 400 calculation.
But that is almost the least interesting way to answer the question.
Crassus possessed wealth corresponding to hundreds of thousands of years of a soldier's basic pay. He owned mines, estates, highly skilled enslaved workers and substantial amounts of Roman real estate. He could finance politicians and distribute resources to citizens. His conception of a genuinely rich man was someone capable of supporting an army.
And Rome produced people who were reputedly richer still.
Pallas, once enslaved, was described by Tacitus as possessing 300 million sesterces. Seneca's enemies accused the philosopher of amassing the same amount. Augustus claimed personal contributions of 320 million sesterces to public and military treasuries—and remained the ruler of the Roman world afterwards.
This is why translating Roman fortunes into modern dollars ultimately tells us less than we hope.
Roman wealth bought different things. It bought estates and mines, political careers and public popularity. It could finance military ambition and profit from the aftermath of war. Most disturbingly, it could legally purchase human beings. And warfare could transfer enough precious metal from one part of the ancient world to another to affect the availability and price of gold itself.
Two thousand years later, the instruments of wealth have changed almost beyond recognition. Today's greatest fortunes consist largely of shares, options and ownership interests in corporations rather than villas, mines, cattle, enslaved labour and chests of coin. Their values are recalculated continuously by markets rather than periodically inventoried by stewards.
The human fascination with extreme wealth, however, is strikingly familiar. We still compile lists. We still compare fortunes. We still marvel when somebody gains or loses billions. We still ask how much political power great wealth can buy. And we still use the richest person alive as a unit of measurement for everyone who came before.
Was Crassus richer than Elon Musk?
In modern financial terms, almost certainly not. Relative to the world around him, the question becomes considerably harder—and considerably more interesting.
Rome had no dollars, stock exchanges, Forbes rankings or trillionaires. It had estates, mines, debts, armies, political clients, enslaved labour—and gold.
The numbers changed enormously.
Being extraordinarily rich did not.
GOLDEXO™ Journal
𝗢𝘄𝗻. 𝗦𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗲. 𝗜𝗻𝘃𝗲𝘀𝘁.
GOLDEXO is currently in development. Products and services described on this website may not yet be available.
© 2026 GOLDEXO™
Your Privacy Choices | Terms & Agreements | Privacy Policy | Anti-Money Laundering Policy
GOLDEXO™
Own. Store. Invest.