In order to shore up the problem of outflow of gold and silver to pay for silk and spices from the east, would it be plausible for an emperor to move away from a gold/silver standard currency? Would the users accept it? How difficult would it be to persuade people to see past the intrinsic "worth" of gold and silver and consider currency as a fiat instead? Would it be too easy to counterfeit? Would it stop the inflation problem or just worsen it as later less disciplined emperors mint currency whenever they felt need?
Roman currency reforms - moving away from gold and silver?
- Thread starter oca2073
- Start date
And what would they use instead? Copper like in the good ol’ times? Paper currency? I don’t see how any of that could happen.
Fiat currency didn't work out that well in China, so I don't see why it would be any different in Rome.
With what occured inflation-wise historically in rome, it may actually be worse.
it might be possible for banks to emerge with the use of banknotes and could have those banknotes exchangeable for other goods that are equal in value to the specie those notes represent like salt or grain. I know a few others have played around with the idea of "banknotes" that were essentially deeds to plots of land.
Ok, I have a crazy idea that probably has some obvious flaw but seems interesting.
What if you start with mandatory state service. Say X number of days a year have to be given in labor to the state, a la Egypt's public works, road building, whatever. In exchange for each day's service you're given Y number of coins/paper (they can be intrinsically worthless, just something not easily copied). However, and here's where you build the value, Y number of these coins can also be payed back to the state to avoid a day's service. Then make the required payment to avoid each day's service rise with social class.
The result is that you've built a currency who's value is based on labor, it's in demand, and is an easy mode of exchange. Also, because it's not backed by precious metals it's significantly harder to dilute. Plus the value of the currency can be easily controlled by altering the number of coins paid for one day's labor. Too much money supply cut the amount, too little raise it.
What if you start with mandatory state service. Say X number of days a year have to be given in labor to the state, a la Egypt's public works, road building, whatever. In exchange for each day's service you're given Y number of coins/paper (they can be intrinsically worthless, just something not easily copied). However, and here's where you build the value, Y number of these coins can also be payed back to the state to avoid a day's service. Then make the required payment to avoid each day's service rise with social class.
The result is that you've built a currency who's value is based on labor, it's in demand, and is an easy mode of exchange. Also, because it's not backed by precious metals it's significantly harder to dilute. Plus the value of the currency can be easily controlled by altering the number of coins paid for one day's labor. Too much money supply cut the amount, too little raise it.
This right here. Banknotes and deposits are probably your best option. Goldsmiths often functioned as de factor bankers, since people would trust them with their gold, and the receipts the smiths would issue them were de factor currency. From there, some ventured into actual banking.
Given that temples often fulfilled a similar function, taking in deposits, I could see them capitalizing on that opportunity, especially with the religious authority they had.
Except most people already labored, and those who didn’t are never going to pay the State (the Emperor?) to not do a job they’re obliged to do. Can you actually see well-off people accepting to pay for such a mandatory service? There would be an uproar.
Presumably the jobs would be considerate of class. No Roman noble is going to be digging ditches. Overseeing construction of a harbor though or reviewing tax records? They'd probably be down for things like that. Plus the Romans already had a ethos around service to the state so making it mandatory likely wouldn't be a huge stretch. Also, there are plenty of examples from history of people paying to avoid service. But if a wealthier citizen does decide to do their service it's certainly a good way to start a political career.
Here's how I imagine it would work. First, the payment to avoid the labor is always more than what you actually receive in tokens. The poorer almost always do their mandatory labor and take their tokens because they can't afford to avoid it. However, now they have a unit of value worth something to the wealthier classes, who because of their station have to pay significantly more to avoid service (and lets add an "office tax" where you need X number of tokens to hold office just to keep the money flowing).
The result is that the poor labor for the state, earning currency which then enters circulation. It filters up to the wealthier classes who return it to the state through office taxes and paying to avoid labor. If too many tokens enter circulation it's partly self correcting as it will increase the number of poorer people able to avoid that year's service, dropping the number of tokens in circulation.
Last edited:
There’s a lot of examples of people paying to avoid service, yes... but not yearly, not as a tax, and mostly regarding military service. And since we’re talking about the Empire, the emperor already offered several jobs to equestrians who could be recommended or who came from a reliable family, that’s how the Vitellii and Flavii rose from the ranks, while others went on to advance their career in the army as centurions or prefects, if equestrians, or as tribunes and legates, if Senators. This is no longer the Republic, everything depended on the whim of the emperor, and all service to the State was service for him, to promote one’s own career. Work ethos is a thing of old Republican age. People are never going to pay to be exempted from a part time job they’re going to receive anyway in full time, especially the Senators. Again, there would be an uproar.
To be fair Sulla knew how to take care of uppity patricians. Other than assassination the Senatorial class can't do much to a popular Emperor who can always call upon the Legions.
IMO it's too hard to enforce in an already rather corrupt Empire. What happens when people start paying less to the officials immediately above them (who also owe labor) to "miswrite" their names in the wrong column than they owe to the State?
Besides, it creates its own problems if the Germanic invaders at least at first do not enforce such a corvee.
Yeah, tell that to Nero. A tax like yours could only work by Diocletian’s time, but it’s simply easier to just raise existent taxes rather than lead people to accepting new odd ones.