Wealth Of The Romans

[Tobias]

G'day again everyone.

I've finished my philosophical studies and now i want to move on to something new: the wealthy of Rome. I've read that Julius Caesar and Marcus Crassus were both rich, especially Marcus Crassus (whose known wealth was estimated around 12 talents i believe). I was wandering if you people can help me find out about Roman currency, and who the richest people were in the times of the Roman Empire until the fall of the West. I'd especially like to know what a talent is (my ignorance in this area is showing through rather strongly, but i'm only a young chap, so while we live we learn eh?)

[Germanicus]

Hey Tobias.

Marcus Crassus wealth would have been well over a mere 12 Talents. Mind you, 12 talents would have been a mind blowing amount for your average, non senatorial or equestrian Roman - a talent was around 20-25KG roughly what a man could carry.

[Tobias]

Thanks germanicus, that's part of my question answered.

I did say Known wealth for Crassus, as my book said, god only knows how much Crassus had hidden away:)

[Favonius Cornelius]

Hey Tobias.

Marcus Crassus wealth would have been well over a mere 12 Talents. Mind you, 12 talents would have been a mind blowing amount for your average, non senatorial or equestrian Roman - a talent was around 20-25KG roughly what a man could carry.

14711[/snapback]

 

20-25 kg of gold right? I've always wondered about just what value the mysterious and oft mentioned talent really is. Any idea in denarii or sestertius?

[Germanicus]

Favonius

 

No, no idea in Denarii etc. My understanding is that Talent is basically a weight measurement - so a talent of gold has a higher value than a talent of silver.

[DanM]

Favonius

 

No, no idea in Denarii etc. My understanding is that Talent is basically a weight measurement - so a talent of gold has a higher value than a talent of silver.

14753[/snapback]

 

The Romans used 3 types of metal when coining currency. They used gold, silver and copper. The denarius was a copper coin as were the nummi and later the follis. The talent, like the carat and pound are weights of measure and its certain their monetary value changed over time with inflation and with revisions in the currency standards. For example, a gold coin may be issued at 60 or 70 to the pound at different points in time.

 

An important thing to remember when looking at Roman currency policy was that it was highly erratic. The Empire when through a highly inflationary period whereby much of the economy when back to "in kind" transactions. According to what I read in AHM Jones' "The Later Roman Empire", I beleive much of this came about accidentially, but still as a matter of failed policy. To make a long story short, they flooded the market with copper coins and imposed an artificial exchange rate. Initially, this let them create wealth out of thin air, but it eventually led to a massive devaluation.

 

As a result, many emperors tinkered with currency policy. The number of coins to the pound would go back and forth. Government imposed exchange rates between gold and copper would go back and forth. Etc.

 

As for the most wealthy Romans, I think the best place to look is the senatorial class. All of my information sources show that this class continued to grow in wealth until the very end of the Empire. These guys had massive land holdings. Especially in the west. They were also exempt from many forms of taxation and public service since they were exempted from service in the decurions and many people might say that was the most desirable aspect of being a senator in the Roman Empire. Usually anyone who obtained significant wealth outside of the senatorial class was admitted on the merit of his obtained wealth.

[Auusiegustus]

G'day again everyone.

I've finished my philosophical studies and now i want to move on to something new: the wealthy of Rome. I've read that Julius Caesar and Marcus Crassus were both rich, especially Marcus Crassus (whose known wealth was estimated around 12 talents i believe). I was wandering if you people can help me find out about Roman currency, and who the richest people were in the times of the Roman Empire until the fall of the West. I'd especially like to know what a talent is (my ignorance in this area is showing through rather strongly, but i'm only a young chap, so while we live we learn eh?)

14703[/snapback]

 

 

Gidday Tobias. I am also very interested in Roman wealth and indeed the sociology of trade, markets, and the economy in general. What is it about us Aussies and money?

 

Peter Brown, the tsar of Late Antiquity and a Professor at Princeton, has been working on a book exploring the social and economic history of wealth in the late Roman Empire. I would love to know if anybody here is aware of any journal articles or book chapters of Brown's that might give us a taste of his book. Alternatively, the names of any other economic histories of Rome would be great.

 

Cheers.

[DanM]

G'day again everyone.

Alternatively, the names of any other economic histories of Rome would be great.

14916[/snapback]

 

AHM Jones' "The Later Roman Empire" is a highly detailed account of administrative, tax and monetary policy. His writing style isn't too different than a VCR manual, but there is some great information inside this 2 volume account if you are willing to dig for it.

[DanM]

As for Peter Brown, I have only read his book titled "Poverty and Leadership in the Later Roman Empire". While the subject matter was obviously different, I can say that his style of writing is easy and enjoyable.

[Tobias]

LOL

Well, my dad was loading drums of oil, sheep, pallets and crates onto trucks by the time he was 10 years old, he was shearing sheep and working various hard jobs to get through his schooling, he still shears sheep and works managing a fuel depot and delivering petrol to places about 200kms away from our hometown.

I've been orange picking, rouse-a-bouting, watermelon packing and various other jobs as well almost every school holiday since i was 11. My dad told me to always value money, even worship it, because you have to work damn hard to get it

As well, it's important to realise how important Rome's currency was to it. As soon as the silver content was lowered, Rome destabilised, and as soon as the gold content of the Later Roman Hyperperon lowered, Constantinople destabilised. The Roman Empire's money was important to it

[DanM]

While the changing of weights of the gold denominated currency played some role, I believe that it was the over supply of copper coins and the botched attempts to address the resulting inflation that did more to damage the economy than any sort of debasement of the silver currency.

 

Heck, I don't know if silver currency was even in widespread circulation during the crisis period where the Empire started taking its taxed in kind instead of in currency.

[Quintus Artemis Sertorius]

I'm not sure about the imperial times, but during the mid to late republican times, most currency was of silver. there was the occasional minting of a gold coin, but this was rare. a silver talent was around 6,250 denarii. the denarii had about 3.5 grams of pure silver, and was about the size of a dime. next smallest is the sesterces. this was worth a fourth of a denarius, and was the most common denomination in buisness. the smallest coin was the as, which was usually made of bronze. ten of these made up a denarius. rich roman,s did alot of moving money in the form of talents. when ceasar captured one of the pirate strongholds near rhodes, he found nearly 2000 talents of silver and gold. the romans made extensive use of banks throughout the med. region. large amounts of money were often moved with the use of a bank draft.

[Tobias]

Hmm, to tell you the truth, i'm not sure if it was in circulation either. It must have been to an extent to destabilise the empire so, if only in it's expenditure by the Government.

The Gold Standard of Christendom, the Hyperperon, was a Byzantine coin, an originally pure gold coin that was widely accepted. After Manzikert and the other subsequent disasters and the debasement of this coin, Venice minted it's own pure gold coin and the trade of the Mediterranean was moved to Venice. This loss of trade resulted in further decline and Constantinople's reliance on Genoa and Venice for survival, often ending up the first casualty in their frequent wars.

Skipping back to Republic and Early Empire, is it true that the Denarius was more of an official roman currency, but the sestertius was more common?

[DanM]

Hmm, to tell you the truth, i'm not sure if it was in circulation either. It must have been to an extent to destabilise the empire so, if only in it's expenditure by the Government.

The Gold Standard of Christendom, the Hyperperon, was a Byzantine coin, an originally pure gold coin that was widely accepted. After Manzikert and the other subsequent disasters and the debasement of this coin, Venice minted it's own pure gold coin and the trade of the Mediterranean was moved to Venice. This loss of trade resulted in further decline and Constantinople's reliance on Genoa and Venice for survival, often ending up the first casualty in their frequent wars.

Skipping back to Republic and Early Empire, is it true that the Denarius was more of an official roman currency, but the sestertius was more common?

14998[/snapback]

 

In both the Republic and Empire, however, more people handled and spent copper coins than anything else.

 

As for the later Empire, I believe it was a combination of gold and copper coins for the most part.

[suetonius]

Is money really the best criteria for judging ones wealth in Rome?

 

How about land ownership?

 

I think that land ownership would have been more important than cash?