Sparta II
by
Tim Case
by Tim Case
"In
any struggle, it is essential to know two things: what you are
fighting for and what you are fighting against. If knowledge of
the former is absent, the will to win will be lacking. If knowledge
of the latter is absent, confusion and uncertainty will result."
~
[Unknown]
| |
 |
| |
Stone
weights in the shape of ducks from ancient Iraq |
| |
|
Earliest man
didn’t have the convenience of money in the form we know it. The
earliest minted coinage, according to the Greek historian Herodotus,
came from ancient Lydia on the Aegean Sea in what is now northwest
Turkey, ca 700 BC.
However, even
at this early date coinage was not the standard means of trade throughout
the ancient world. Most trade was conducted by a means of weights
and measure. The problem arose because each territory had its own
unique trading currency. Egypt, for example, traded in gold while
the Greeks used silver and copper as their means of purchasing what
they needed. Others, such as the ancient Syrian city-state of Ebla
traded in textiles, olive oil, and raw goods.
Thus the ancient
world sought to standardize their means of trading. One such example
is the price of an ox by which all of the ancient currencies could
be evaluated. An ox traded for an ingot of 8.5 grams (0.30 ounces
avoirdupois) of gold or 25.5 grams (0.90 ounces
avoirdupois) of copper.
It is fascinating
that everywhere we look in the ancient world we find an amazing
standardization of the weights.
This standardization
is seen in the early use of the weight of a talent, which we find
to be most commonly equal to a cubic foot of water at 62o F
and equal to 28.25 kg (62.288 pounds avoirdupois). Of
course the weight of the early talent would depend greatly on whose
foot you used and there were some slight variations in the talent’s
weight.
When the talent
is referred to as money it always means a talent of gold. The talent
of gold has been reported as the same weight as a person, and so
meant about 50 kg (110 pounds avoirdupois). Some historians hold,
rightly or wrongly, that the gold talent commonly meant a weight
of about 33 kg (75 pounds avoirdupois) but a talent of gold could
and did vary anywhere from 20 to 40 kg (44 pounds to 88 pounds avoirdupois).
However, during
the Bronze and early Iron Age there doesn’t seem to have been too
much a problem since the ratios of exchange were generally easily
calculated.
Other than
in ancient Rome, the talent of 28.25 kg was commonly divided into
the mina (aka maneh) with 1 mina being equal to 1/60th
of a talent and approximately equal to 16.5 ounces avoirdupois (.47
kg).
The mina was
further divided into the shekel but here we find a marked lack of
standardization in weights.
The Egyptian
shekel (called the kdt) was ¾ the weight of the common
Egyptian dbn; the Egyptian shekel as well as the Ugarit,
Syrian and Palestinian shekels all were 1/50th of a mina
and weighed 9.4 grams (0.33 ounces avoirdupois). While the ancient
Babylonian shekel stood as 1/60th of a mina: 7.8 grams
(0.28 ounces avoirdupois), others had various weights assigned to
the shekel, the ancient Eblainites set the shekel at 1/66th
mina.
As late as
the 5th century BC the Athenian tetradrachm (meaning four
drachmae) was the most extensively circulated coin in the Greek
sphere of influence. It was solid silver, weighed approximately
18 grams (.58 ounces Troy) and featured the bust profile of a helmeted
Athena while on the back it contained an image of an owl; the symbol
of Athens. It is because of the owl on its reverse that the tetradrachm
is commonly known as the Athenian Owl.
| |
 |
| |
The
Tetradrachm (The Athenian Owl) |
| |
|
The tetradrachm
was based on the Athenian weight that 6 obols equaled 1 drachma:
a weight of 4.7 grams; 100 drachmae equaled 1 mina; and 6000 drachmae
would equal 1 talent of 28.2 kg.
With the conquests
of Alexander the Great and the rise of the Hellenistic period, the
Athenian tetradrachm was replaced with the Greek drachm (meaning
a handful), minted with about 4.7 grams of pure silver, as the official
coin of the empire.
It is the drachm
that was used in the early Roman Empire up to the late Roman Republic
period and which eventually became known as the Roman denarius
(plural; denarii). It is the history of the denarius that
will take the point in the destruction of the Roman Empire.
Granted the
preceding is an abbreviated history of exchange and the means used
to purchase and sell one’s goods. However, it points up the fact
that for thousands of years people had a means of verifying what
it cost them to buy or sell the goods they desired.
This is not
to say there weren’t those who didn’t abuse the system by using
unequal weights and cheating those they traded with. Certainly more
than one ancient religious text warns one of carrying "differing
weights." The Holy Scriptures ask a very simple question: "Shall
I count pure those with the wicked scales and with the bag of deceitful
weights?" (Micah 6:11)
There were
those, but it does point out that a conscientious trader had a means
to check the transaction and protect himself from the corrupt and
dishonest predators that prey on the just efforts of others. Even
the state was subject to being checked since it would be a simple
matter to weigh the minted coins which were in circulation.
It is said
that the Roman Empire is the foundation of Western civilization.
If so, then we are bound to remember Rome’s greatest faults.
The principle
large coin within the realm of the Roman Empire was the denarius.
This originally pure silver coin was the set wage for an unskilled
laborer for one days work in the late Roman Republic and into the
period of the Roman Empire, according to classical writers and historians.
Do you find
this hard to believe?
We know that
Rome’s wealth depended almost solely on her military conquests.
So great was the influx of goods into Rome, from those conquered
lands, that it has been reported that the harbors were full of ships
delivering goods from throughout the empire but that most of these
same ships left their ports empty, having nothing for the return
trip. This influx of wealth was due exclusively to the discipline,
might and prowess of the Roman soldiers who were paid a meager 900
sesterces yearly.
Now, in the
Roman currency there were four sesterces to the denarius which means
that in the course of a year the average Roman soldier made 225
denarii or less than 2/3rds the yearly wages of an unskilled
field hand. Given the propensity of any state and especially the
Roman Empire to indulge itself in the rewards of subjugation with
little or no regard for the lives and well being of those who do
the fighting and dying, this is certainly possible.
Indeed, we
need not look any further than the American war machine to see the
dearth of compensation that defines the fortunes of those who are
sent to die as opposed to the abundance and affluence of those who
issue the orders and reap the benefits of conquest. It was the same
in ancient Rome.
However, the
strength of Rome was also the means of it own destruction. Like
so many empires Rome doesn’t collapse in an epoch struggle with
the evil invaders. Rome died slowly being eaten by the cancer that
lived in its dark soul.
The disease
should have been evident but like so many events that lead to destruction,
Rome’s decline began unnoticed, not being diagnosed until there
was nothing left but a wretched corpse which had once been the grandeur
of Rome.
Certainly,
one can point to the excesses of Caligula, or Nero and his Golden
House as the start of Rome’s decay. At the death of Nero, during
the year of five emperors (69 AD), the gluttonous third emperor,
Vitellius, spent 2,250,000 denarii (enough to pay his Roman legions
for 1,000 years) just on lavish banquets.
Yes, Rome was
on the verge of bankruptcy but through it all the denarius remained
strong. So strong that when Vespasian took the throne in late 69
AD he was able to right Rome’s financial ills and commission the
building of the Colosseum over the artificial lake that sat in the
forefront of Nero’s Golden House.
All the grand
design and what it meant to be Roman was on the line by the time
Trajan became emperor in 98 AD. The whole economy was sliding into
the abyss since there was nothing left to conquer. Rome was struggling
with both its economy and the loss of it population who were beginning
to flee the city. This prompted Trajan to institute a program called
alimenta.
Alimenta was
the use of public funds to subsidize education along with food for
Rome’s needy. It was funded by wealthy land owners who pledged portions
of their estates as collateral for government loans. The interest
these landowners paid to Rome on their loans funded the alimenta.
When Hadrian
took the throne (117 AD) at Trajan’s death, Hadrian continued the
policies of his predecessor but increased the dependence of Rome’s
population on the state by offering more circuses and aid to the
poor. Of course these policies swelled the need for civil servants
and bloated the civil service bureaucracy.
The results
should have been predictable but they were ignored. Rome, like all
states in decline, began a process of devaluating the denarius.
In a short period of time the once pure silver coin became a mixture
of silver and copper. With this came the rising prices due to inflation
while wages started to stagnate and the privileges of freedom and
what it meant to be a citizen of Rome began to evaporate.
By 235 AD Rome
was a mere shell of an empire. Plagues were sweeping through the
empire, famine was becoming a common occurrence, earthquakes were
leveling whole regions and the Roman military entered into the 50-year
period known as the "Barrack emperors." It was a time
when legions were declaring their commanders emperor then assassinating
them. Not surprisingly, during the period of 244 to 260 AD, Rome
had 16 emperors and few were lucky enough to die of natural causes.
In the west
the Franks, Jutes, and Germanic Alemanni crossed the Rhine River,
while the Vandals and Goths threatened Rome by crossing the Danube.
Rome was powerless to stop the invasions and was loosing its empire
on all sides. On July 1, 251 AD Rome was humiliated at the Battle
of Abrittus when the Goths, under the command of King Cniva, slaughtered
the Roman legions, including the Roman Emperor Decius and his son.
The Roman Empire
was now in a complete free fall and so was the denarius; so much
so that by the time Diocletian became emperor in 284 AD the denarius
was solid copper, the gladiatorial games were being offered for
more than 150 days out of the year, and food had become a "right,"
supplied by the state, for the Roman citizenry.
| |
 |
| |
Diocletian |
| |
|
The once proud
denarius which had stood against the gold aureus at a ratio of 25
to 1 was now reduced, through inflation, to a worthless 833 denarii
to one gold aureus.
Diocletian’s
plan for recovery was simple. Stimulate the Roman economy with public
works; the building of roads, bridges, along with palaces throughout
the empire. The problem was that public works took large sums of
money and it wasn’t long before Diocletian was faced with a financial
crisis as large as the Roman Empire.
Diocletian
soon learned that Rome no longer had the manpower to accomplish
such grand schemes. The lack of manpower coupled with hyperinflation,
currency troubles, completely inefficient bureaucracies, and a useless
tax system left Diocletian standing on the edge of the abyss staring
at the beast called chaos.
Diocletian
saw only one way to solve Rome’s problems; his answer was to reform
Rome’s currency and of course transform the tax system into another
complicated tax mess. Then he issued his infamous "Edict
of Maximum Prices and Wages;" a list of some 1000 items,
which set the upper limit the items could be sold for and for which
wages could be paid.
These reforms
he hoped would make future planning feasible and the imperial income
drearily commonplace and utterly predictable.
What he received
instead was the contents of Pandora’s Box.
Diocletian’s
Edict was his war on terror. It effectively halved the value of
the Roman copper and bronze coins. It also established the death
penalty for those profiteers or speculators who were blamed for
the empires hyperinflation and who were compared to the "barbarians"
who were now pressing in on Rome.
Rome’s problems
had started with a whimper; now Diocletian had turned a whimper
into a death rattle. His mass minting of coins sent the Roman coinage
into another hyperinflationary spiral taking the denarii to a ratio
of 1666 against one gold aureus. Merchants were forbidden to move
to another market to sell their goods or to add transportation costs
to the goods if it would make the price greater than Diocletian
had set.
According to
the tariff the cheapest meat in the empire were sparrows and 10
sparrows were to be sold for no more than 16 denarii, which at today’s
market prices would be close to $5.30.
The effect
was immediate; merchants closed their shops and either sold their
goods illegally or bartered with customers on a huge, growing black
market. Some towns could no longer afford to produce goods and so
manufacturing began to collapse as the cost of transportation and
raw materials increased. Those on fixed salaries, including the
military, found that the lack of goods drove prices up. This coupled
with inflation left them struggling to make ends meet and some even
from feeding their families.
Roman’s were
no longer free. They had been reduced to serfs and Rome had passed
from an empire into a totalitarian state albeit a broke and dying
state.
I opened this
article with this statement: "In any struggle, it is essential
to know two things: what you are fighting for and what you are fighting
against."
The
parallels between the Roman experience and the coming American tragedy
should be obvious. Does anyone know a good recipe for sparrow?
March
17, 2006
Tim
Case [send him mail]
is a 30-year student of the ancient histories who agrees with the
first-century stoic Epictetus on this one point: “Only the educated
are free.”
Copyright
© 2006 LewRockwell.com
Tim
Case Archives
|