Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
This is a quick overview of the Ancient Roman Currency and Economy from the early days
of the city-state in the 7-6 th century BC through to the decline and fall of the western part of
the Empire in the 5th century. Ie over 1000 years of Roman currency and economy.
A states economy is a direct reflection of many factors, such as its social conditions,
particularly those of the plebeians, population trends (including immigration and
emigration), technology and innovation, military activity (including the "pax romana" for
example), productivity (Roman job specialization for example) and access to resources both
financial and material (including energy). Even the geography of ancient Rome played its
part. Perhaps the aspect which most greatly attracts attention when looking at Roman
civilisation is the economics of war and conquest, but it doesn't take long to understand that
this is merely one element: just think about theaspects of Rome's decline and fall and you'll
see there's much more to it.
Tracking all of these aspects of the Roman economy and their interdependence throughout
the 1000 year period of ancient Rome is no easy thing. To this we should add that the
information is extremely patchy and contains a good dose of one-sided selectivity: Historical
accounts and literature were written by members of the richerequestrian and senatorial
classes who were often at odds with Emperors and legislators who might have a desire to
redress the social balance of the Romans in any way towards the plebeian masses. The
subject of "correct" wealth redistribution within society continues to be an unresolved theme
even today, the only clear indications being that the extremes are extremely negative: be it
through forceful flattening of society killing all individual enterprise or permitting excessive
wealth concentration in the hands of an excessively small elite. It can therefore be deduced
how understanding the ancient Roman economy is not only about understanding the
economics of war and conquest but also about understanding the shifting definition of
"Roman society".
Some highlights and examples of ancient Romes economy are given below. Some further
detail and view points are reserved for a separate page dedicated to observingvarious
aspects of the Roman economy.
The barter of goods was followed by barter of metal by weight in the form of lumps of
misshapen bronze known as "aes rude" which had the inconvenience of having to be
weighed in order to be exchanged, these were followed by small regularly shaped ingots
called "aes signatum", which still lacked standard weight. "Real" regularly shaped and
weighed Roman coins werent in use until well into the Republican period around 335BC, at
the time when the Romans began to be involved with trade over sea which they had to a
degree learned from their neighbouring Etruscans who had already evolved a florid
mercantile economy which traded with Gaul, Greece and North Africa.
The first Roman silver coins were coined around 312BC as the Romans came into contact
with the Greek colonies in southern Italy where the existing bronze coinage was of
insufficient value to trade with the silver coinage of the Greeks. In 268BC the silver denarius
was coined which acted as a reference right through to the 3 rd century AD in spite of the
quantity of silver in the coins being progressively reduced in line with the heavy inflation
which characterized much of the Republican and Imperial age.
That this was so can be perceived from the case o "Verres", governor of Sicily which at the
time was the major supplier of wheat into Rome. Verres was was at first in General Marius'
camp with the "populares" party and then moved over to that o Sulla with the Optimates.
He made ample use of his position as Praetor in favour of his party for which he was repaid
with a position as governor. True to character Verres misused his powerful position to his
own personal advantage, inflicting grave injustice. On his return to Rome in 70BC the
sicilians sued for justice and Cicerowon the case for them in spite of ample support for
Verres amongst the Patricians. However this is but one case, there were plenty more which
pointed in the opposite direction of abject despotism and illegality.
Throughout the period of growth of the empire the conquest of territories provided the
Romans with riches which in turn allowed the removal of direct taxation and to finance their
own civil wars. Thus while the dominions grew Rome could finance itself, the growth of
learning and of organisation and thus lead to further success. All was thus well, or so it
seemed. Continued success has its price, as was soon to become evident during the social
wars (around 200BC until the murder of Caesar a century and a half later).
Expansion of Roman dominions throughout Italy, across the entire Mediterranean and to the
East had put Rome in direct contact with the great centres of thought and art such as
Greece. As well as attracting the artists and intellectuals to Rome itself it also meant a
concentration of treasures, slave labour and wealth into the city. This lead to the Roman
high culture of the Augustan age (just after Caesar, around the year 0). By this period the
once austere Romans of Romulus and Remus had become well-to-do citizens: Well off, used
to comforts, luxuries and foreign schooling.
Contact with the orient during the Roman Republican period was accompanied with
the arrival of soft grain wheat which replaced the hard wheat such as spelt which had been
traditional in Rome. The significance of this was great because it required far less
processing, allowed greater production volumes, the formation of larger production centres
which could transport the excess product and hence allowed the bread and cake industry to
evolve. This evolved Roman diet and drink in general such as Roman wine market which
also developed in parallel.
With the taking of Egypt and North Africa Rome had also taken the main grain stores
of the then known world.
Cheap grain and cereal imports from Africa and Sicily provided an incentive for a shift of
home agriculture to sheep and cattle rearing. This meant a reduction in the number of paid
plebeian jobs available to run the large farm estates.
Military conquest meant that the economy of Rome depended less and less on internal
production and industry but rather on politics and trade. Clearly this revolution could not
occur without a significant hit to social stability in the short term. For example the sudden
influx into the city of transportable wealth such as gold and slaves would have been
reflected on the Roman economy with strong inflation at the same time as job losses
amongst
the
poorer
classes.
There are plenty of
accounts
of
the
astronomical prices which
houses and land were
reaching in the city at the
time.
Roman
Economical
Social Divide
& the Grain
Supply
Wars were financed by the wealthy patrician nobility who would then receive dividends and
shares of booty, rather like purchasing stakes in a business venture. Ancient laws as well as
custom meant that the senators and nobility invested their profits into land and agriculture
rather than in industry and commerce. This made the ruling classes into extensive
landowners.
Success in war also meant that the Roman slave trade was huge, for example it wouldn't be
unusual for the main slave trade centres to trade ten thousand slaves at a time. The cost of
slaves came down heavily to the point where it was cheaper to purchase slaves than to pay
free workers a salary. Slaves filled all forms of job in the city, from teaching through to
tending shops and small industry.
Large numbers of Roman plebeian citizens were put out of a job and income, hence leaving
them with few options but to:
Sign up into the professional army so they too cold get a share of the booty and a
piece of land on retirement.
Live on the "social security" ration of foodstuffs known as the "annona" the regular
grain supply. Huge shiploads of grain regularly came from ports such as Alexandria to be
unloaded in the grain stores along the River Tiber and managed by the state bureaucracy at
locations in the Roman Forum such as Trajans market.
o
An interesting anecdote of how these grain imports plaid a large part in
Roman history is that historians relate that the great fire which ravaged much of Rome in
64AD under Emperor Neros reign started from the grain stores (it is unclear whether by
arson).
The grain supply thus became a central feature of the ancient Roman economy and of
the balance and evolution of Roman society:
Coupled with the games at the circus and gladiatorial shows it formed the famous
drug of the masses which Martial termed "panem et circenses"
As of the 1st century AD this grain was handed out for free to the poor. It was a huge
expense for the state coffers. Imperial rulers had to draw a fine line between hurting the
state finances and populist handouts of free food to win popular support.
The grain was at times used as part currency to pay the legionaries.
It was at once a symbol and visible evidence of the power of the Roman state: its
cessation in the 4th century was great evidence of the gradual fall of Rome.
This dependence on the grain supply made the water mills used for milling and the
trade routes along which it sailed of great strategic importance for the control of the city.
Military success
Inflow of extra wealth (for the rich classes who sponsored the military campaigns)
Civil strife and civil war (implies reduced business confidence and tendency to invest
wealth into fixed assets like the farms and land rather than commerce)
All these factors meant that the end of the republican period was characterised by social
and civil war: the rich were increasingly rich whilst the poor had few very badly paid jobs to
aspire to. The only real alternative for the poor was to join the army and hence be paid a
wage.
Greater access than ever to wealth from the provinces and oriental luxuries:
take Egypt and ancient Alexandria for instance which since the time of Emperor
Augustus was considered a sort of personal province of the emperor.
Neros desire and policies to orientalise Roman culture towards the arts and a new
social structure with an unchallenged deity-despot ruling over it rather like a Pharoah. This
implied huge public spending for a diverse assortment of initiatives such as
o
Building the first "real" imperial baths and palaestra (athletics grounds) actually Agrippa had built the first baths next to the Pantheon at the time of Augustus but
they were more like a sauna rather than the imperial template with a symmetrical axis that
Nero constructed and that we would recognize today as the archetypal "Roman Baths".
o
The cost of Circus games and public entertainment (including completion of
the circus on the Vatican hill where St. Peter would be crucified and buried)
o
o
Rebuilding Rome after the great fire of 64AD (rebuilding was continued by
Vespasian after Neros death)
o
Diverse "eccentricities", for example, his personal retinue of "Augustinians" or
demanding that Senators anoint themselves (the oil being at state expenses)
All of these aspects, whether willed by Nero or driven by circumstances
coupled with the great spend incurred concurred to bring about a state of
economic depression and revolt which eventually brought Neros suicide.
The provinces which had traditionally supported Nero could no longer stand
the extreme taxation imposed on them, nor were the Senatorial class
prepared to accept taxation of their own wealth.
The gold Aureus was reduced in weight by 0.5 grams to 7.3gr in total whilst
o
the silver Denarius was both reduced in weight (down 0,5grams to 3.4 grams)
and in silver purity (5-10% copper alloy)
This tactical move would clearly have been accompanied by inflation and
general impoverishment, particularly of the poorer classes: a general trend
which continued through to the fall of the Roman empire.
aware that things were not going in the right direction, yet in spite of that not
even a centralized despotic form of rule was able to halt the trend.
put on the market to reclaim the debt hence putting further downward pressure on
prices.
A veritable financial crisis and economic downturn with a huge destruction of wealth.
The effect made itself felt in all banks throughout the empire in an incredibly short time.
This was a veritable market crash as those who had access to cash postponed investments
in view of better prospects with the falling market (ie a deflationary market)
Having seen the horrifying effects of recession and deflation Tiberius opted for a return to
inflation. He distributed liquidity back to the banks (100 million sesterces) with 3 year
interest free loans to bring back business confidence. Capitalism is not so modern huh?
Dominion of the seas also meant that the longer routes such as between Egypt and India
which might once have taken up to six months to navigate could now be navigated in about
a single month. As a consequence of this, travel itself became very popular and even the
less rich could afford to travel across the seas to places such as Alexandria or Athens very
much as tourists did in the 19 thCentury "Grand Tour". I suppose that nowadays one might
compare this to the Inter-Rail tours of Europe which many students undertake after their
university studies.
Emperor Vespasian is remembered as being particularly pragmatic and careful with money:
the coffers of the Roman state were not exactly overflowing but a steady income was
provided by taxes. Amongst his important initiatives we particularly remember construction
of the Colosseum and the introduction of public lavatories which required a basic fee for
use. He is remembered for his quote "pecunia non olet" (money doesnt smell!). It is
curious to notice how the word for money is "pecunia" derived from the word "pecus"
meaning sheep. Perhaps the last vestige of the Romans early form of income why by the
time of Vespasian was nigh to being forgotten.
Later emperors managed to increase state funds but the end was by now on the horizon.
Bar a few exceptions the Roman emperors and relative military juntas from the years 200300 AD witnessed a period of progressive decadence (and blaming it on Jews and
Christians).
and the famous Attila further and further westward into the lands inhabited by the then
"barbarians", leading the latter to seek haven within the Roman controlled lands. The lack of
new conquests meant that economic well-fare would depend on internal production which
by this time had returned to primarily sheep and cattle farming and wool production.
Furthermore the Roman citizens of the empire had developed a love for the finer things in
life such as spices and exotic produce, most if not all of which came from the East. The
writer Ammianus Marcelinus gives a great account of how in the 4 th century Rome was still
stunning. However, this meant a continuous outflow of wealth towards the East in order to
pay for such imports. Unfortunately the produce of the West was of little interest to the East
and so led to a growing trade imbalance and gradual impoverishment. This effect did not go
unnoticed at the time. As a small example we note that emperor Vespasian, as far back as
70AD, imported and paid state wages to the best tutors which he imported from cities such
as Athens, Rhodes and Alexandria in an attempt to stem the outflow of Roman students and
their money.
Another factor was that of labour: the Empire had always depended on slave labour as a
cheap source of labour to produce wealth. As already mentioned, the final years of the
Empire were characterised by a sharp reduction in population, including slaves and this
meant that the work force was physically insufficient to run and maintain the social fabric
and structure of the state and Rome itself. The cost of labour increased whilst social fabric
degraded. It is estimated that whilst at its greatest the population of Rome was in the
region of 1.5million by the time of the early middle ages, around 400-600AD the population
had reduced to less than a few hundred thousand: still huge by western standards but lest
than a quarter of what it had been in its heyday.
Perhaps the greatest economic impact was to be had from the long drawn out Gothic war:
Rome was sieged and taken on ore than one occasions, often by the very same men who
were supposed to be allies. The impact of these disasters wasnt so much the destruction
which some days or weeks of looting could bring but rather the combined effect of business
risk and the removal of silver and gold which to that time had been the standard on which
coinage and lending was based. Severe deflation followed.
Written testimony dating back to around the first century tells us of the price of various
everyday consumables. When compared to similar documents written some 150 years later
we can see that the increase (inflation) in the cost of common goods such as grain over that
period accumulated to somewhere in the region of 500%, or 3% per annum. Not bad all
told but one should consider the fact that that the period considered covers a period of
growth as well as of decline. There were certainly periods of boom and bust even during the
"best" years of the empire as for example in the reign of Tiberius described above.