09-15-2006, 03:45 PM
I hope someone can help me with an economic puzzle. I find it hard to conceptualize the problem.
Until 217, a Roman as coin weighed 326 gr, or one Roman pound. After the battle at the Trasimene Lake, coins were minted of 178 gr, and after Cannae, it was 54 gr, one sixth of the original value. Between 214-211, the Roman monetary system was renewed, and based on a 4.3 gr denarius, which was divided into 10 asses, soon sixteen.
(1)
Is this called devaluation or debasement?
(2)
If I understand it correctly, this means that, prizes remaining the same, the Roman government could mint extra coins and was able to spend six times as much money.
(3)
It also means that if you were lending money, you would receive back one sixth of the bronze you had lent; on the other hand, if you had borrowed money, you were lucky.
(4)
It also means that if a Roman wanted to purchase something abroad, it was six times as expensive; a foreigner, on the other hand, would find Roman products very cheap.
(5)
There appears to be evidence for a similar development in Egypt, Syracuse, and Etruria. Assuming that the development was universal, this means that all governments were suddenly capable of raising additional money for their wars. Am I right to conclude that the states that were at war by that time (Second Punic War, First Macedonian War, Fourth/Fifth Syrian War) could fight as long as they did because they toyed with the money?
(6)
If so, who suffered most?
Until 217, a Roman as coin weighed 326 gr, or one Roman pound. After the battle at the Trasimene Lake, coins were minted of 178 gr, and after Cannae, it was 54 gr, one sixth of the original value. Between 214-211, the Roman monetary system was renewed, and based on a 4.3 gr denarius, which was divided into 10 asses, soon sixteen.
(1)
Is this called devaluation or debasement?
(2)
If I understand it correctly, this means that, prizes remaining the same, the Roman government could mint extra coins and was able to spend six times as much money.
(3)
It also means that if you were lending money, you would receive back one sixth of the bronze you had lent; on the other hand, if you had borrowed money, you were lucky.
(4)
It also means that if a Roman wanted to purchase something abroad, it was six times as expensive; a foreigner, on the other hand, would find Roman products very cheap.
(5)
There appears to be evidence for a similar development in Egypt, Syracuse, and Etruria. Assuming that the development was universal, this means that all governments were suddenly capable of raising additional money for their wars. Am I right to conclude that the states that were at war by that time (Second Punic War, First Macedonian War, Fourth/Fifth Syrian War) could fight as long as they did because they toyed with the money?
(6)
If so, who suffered most?