Did wealth inequality really doom almost every major civilization in history?

ANSWER
The claim is mostly false. Wealth inequality contributed as one factor among many (e.g., invasions, droughts, corruption, overexpansion) to the declines of the Han and Roman Empires and fueled grievances in the French and Russian Revolutions—but it was not the primary or "egregious" cause for "almost every major civilization." The Mayan collapse is linked more to drought and environmental failure than inequality. Trump's 2025 inauguration featured billionaires (e.g., Musk, Bezos, Zuckerberg) in front rows with ~$1.3T combined wealth across attendees (one row ~$1T), exceeding Saudi Arabia's ~~$1.1-1.3T 2025 GDP. No evidence verifies "77.3 million comparatively poor people" voted for Trump twice; low-income voters (~~<$50k) leaned Trump in 2024 (~50%) but not overwhelmingly, and turnout was lower. The rest is unsubstantiated opinion/rhetoric.
EVIDENCE

Civilizations: Recent 2025 studies (Nature Communications, Cambridge) note Han Empire had higher inequality (Gini 0.48, top 1% 26% income) than Rome (0.46, 19%), potentially fueling Han instability/collapse alongside famines, rebellions; Rome had inequality but endured longer due to relative provincial prosperity. [1][2][3] Mayan collapse: Primarily drought, overpopulation, warfare; inequality existed but secondary. [4][5] French Revolution: Inequality (top 10% ~90% wealth) a key grievance amid debt, taxes, famine. [6][7] Russian Revolution: Inequality "middling" (Gini 0.36, top 1% 13.5%) pre-1917; war, food shortages, autocracy primary. [8]
Trump wealth: Forbes (Jan 20, 2025): Attendees (Musk $434B, Bezos $239B, Zuckerberg $212B, etc.) totaled $1.35T; one row (Musk/Bezos/Zuckerberg/Brin) ~$1T. [9] Saudi GDP: IMF/Worldometer ~$1.27T (2025), GASTAT $1.1-1.3T range. [10][11]
Poor voters: Trump got ~76-77M total votes (2024); low-income (<$50k) ~48-50% Trump (exit polls), but no "77.3M poor" source; poor/low-income ~1/3 electorate, many didn't vote. [12] GOP issues list: Subjective, no factual dispute needed.

CREDIBILITY — 3/10 (Partial truth on inequality's role and inauguration wealth; overstates as sole cause, fabricates voter stat).
CONFIDENCE — 9/10 (Overwhelming evidence from academic studies, exit polls, GDP data, news reports).
BIAS — CENTER (Sources: Nature, Cambridge, IMF, Forbes, Wikipedia, exit polls).

The source stays attached.