Imperial Finance & Coinage Part Four

On pages 240-242 in Fergus Millar's The Roman Empire and its neighbors we are going far beyond in time from Augustus-"The Empire and the Third Century Crisis" is the name of the chapter. I thought it would be good to end this short series with some more information that might be helpful later too:

"The direct effects of the invasions were naturally very different in different areas. In Gaul, and to some degree in Spain and in Raetia on the upper Danube, there is widespread evidence of the contraction and fortification of cities. How profound a change this brought in the patterns of social life can as yet be only guessed. It is certainly the case that the life of the cultured Gallo-Roman aristocracy of the late Empire was spent on their estates rather than in towns. But in Britain too, which suffered no invasions in our period, the fourth century seems to have seen stagnation, perhaps decline, in the towns, but a development of luxurious villas.

Repeated invasions also came to the Danubian area and central Europe, reaching down to Macedonia, Greece and Asia Minor. Sasanian invasions, and briefly the power of Palmyra, reached to central Asia Minor and the coast of Syria. These must have caused great destruction and loss of life; we also know of prisoners carried off to Mesopotamia by the Persians. We can date the beginning of fortified villas in the Danubian lands to this period, and have scattered evidence of destruction; but only at Athens is such evidence detailed and systemic. Once again we have little clear evidence of the direct effects of the invasions. They may not have been lasting; Antioch was taken by the Persians in 256 and 260, and burned-and in the fourth century, as we know from a wealth of evidence, was one of the greatest and most flourishing cities in the Greek world.

In Egypt and Africa there were border struggles, prolonged in Africa, but no actual invasions. The civil war of 238 in Africa and the suppression of a pretender in Alexandria about 272 may have had, at least temporarily, more serious effects.

Though the direct effects of the invasions and civil wars can only rarely be assessed satisfactorily in the present state of our evidence, we can take it that they accelerated, though may not have caused, some other changes in the workings of the State and its relations with the population. The first and most clearly traceable of these was the debasement of the coinage and inflation of prices. The two chief coins were the silver denarius and the gold aureus, w0rth twenty-five denarii. Debasement affected mainly the denarius, which was reduced to 75% silver undrer Marcus Aurelius (161-180) and 50% under Severus (193-211); after Caracalla (211-17) had issued a denarius of one and a half times the previous size, presumed to have been worth two earlier denarii, the silver content sank rapidly, reaching 5% in the middle of the third century. Aurelian (270-5) issued two series of silver-plated copper coins, whose value are still much disputed. Meanwhile, the bronze sestertius (four to a denarius) continued both to be issued and to be used as a common means of expressing prices and other sums until the 270s, and then disappeaed in the face of the inflation of prices. The inflation itself can be shown by the fact that the price of corn (expressed now in the debased denarii) was some 200 times higher in 301 than it had been in the first century.

It cannot, however, be pretended that we understand yet the details of the coinage system, especially in the period 270-300, or even essential elements of the background such as how the Imperial or city mints obtained their bullion. There are also indications that there was confusion and complexity at the same time; a Carian inscription of 209-11 lays down penalties for the illegal changing of money; a papyrus of 260 orders money-changers in Egypt to stop refusing Imperial coins; another of about 300, is a letter from an official in Egypt to a subordinate ordering him to spend all the official 'Italian money' at once, as the Emperors are about to halve its value.

We cannot yet state the causes of the progressive debasement and inflation. But it in its turn must have been a factor in converting the demands of the State on its subjects from cash to goods and services in kind. The basic pay in cash of the troops in fact, though raised successively, was not raised enough to keep pace with inflation, and in the late fourth century disappeared in favour of other forms of payment."

The next articles for awhile will be going back to Augustus and his era- this series went on a bit longer than I thought it would. I think if I do another short series before finishing up with Augustus it will be shorter. Peace and be well to anyone stopping by!

Imperial Finance & Coinage Part Three

On page 73 Millar goes on to say: "In other words the type of Imperial activity we know about is essentially that in response to the needs or conflicts of individuals of individuals communities. It cannot be denied, indeed, that such activity took up a large part of the Emperor's working life; this type of work will be discussed in the last part of this chapter...Tiberius, as a demonstration of his Republican attitude, allowed the Senate to debate about revenues, public works, the recruitment and dismissal of soldiers, military commands and letters to client kings. The implication must be that these things were normally decided by the Emperor, presumably with his friends. What evidence have we about decision-making on such matters?

The best evidence of a debate about finance is the occasion in 58 when the people complained of the exactions of the publicani; Nero, it is stated, thought of abolishing the indirect taxes altogether, but was dissuaded by his advisers, who said that the Empire would collapse if they were abolished-and the people would go on to ask for the abolition of tribute also. The Emperor's friends apart, however, there was the freedman's 'in charge of accounts' a rationibus supseded at the end of the first century by an eques (his subordinates however remained freedman.). Some of these subordinates had purely domestic functions; a rationalis mentioned by Galen had the job of supplying from the Imperial stores the herbs which Galen mixed daily for the antidote taken by Marcus Aurelius (161-180). As for the functions of the rationibus himself, Augustus left in 14 a general statement of the finances of the Empire, adding the names of slaves and freedmen from whom more details could be obtained. He, Tiberius (until he left Rome in 26) and Gaius also published public accounts, but later Emperors did not. The accounts themselves presumably continued to be kept; but our only evidence is the passage of Statius mentioned earlier in which he described in poetic terms the functions of the dead a rationibus, 'Now we entrusted to him alone the control of the Imperial wealth (a list of revenues follows)... quickly he calculates what the Roman arms beneath every sky demand, how much the tribes (the people of Rome) and the temples, how much the lofty aqueducts, the fortresses by the courts or the far-flung roads require...'

To be continued....

Imperial Finance & Coinage Part Two

Going back to Fergus Millar's The Roman Empire and its neighbors about the empire's treasury, minting and coinage: "The letters S.C. may indicate that the separate issues were decided on by the Senate and produced by the monetales; but there is no evidence for the activity of the monetales apart from the appearance of the title on inscriptions.

Nor is there any evidence from the first century for officials of the Imperial mint at Rome. Under Trajan (98-117), however, a Procurator of the Mint appears; and from 115 we have some dedications by the workers there-officinatores (?), signatores (die-cutters?), suppostores (setters?), malleatores (srikers?)-all of them Imperial freedmen, aided by Imperial slaves. Under Aurelian (270-5) the mint workers in Rome were numerous enough to stage a serious revolt whose suppression acquired thousands of soldiers. In the Greek provinces, apart from the local city mints striking bronze and copper coinage, there were provincial and some city mints striking silver coins on standards different than those of Rome coinage. These mints are more or less regarded as 'Imperial'; though nothing whatsoever is known about them except the coins themselves.

The question of who decided the frequency of issues, the standard of the coins (the silver coins especially show a steady debasement from Nero on, ending in complete collapse in the second half of the third century), or the type and legends to be put on them is totally obscure. The last point is particularly tantalizing, since the Imperial coinage carried propaganda for the Emperors in a vast variety of forms-representations of Imperial constructions (like the harbour at Ostia), largesses of victories-or slogans like AETERNITAS or PROVIDENTIA. Much of the history of the Empire can be seen reflected in the coins. Yet we are ignorant not only of who decided what should be portrayed, but to whom the new coins were issued and under what circumstances (in donations to the army and congiaria to the Roman people?). The point is important, for coins remained in circulation for a very long time after their issue: 64 percent of the coins buried in hoards during the Flavian period (66-96) had been minted before 27 B.C. Hoards show similarly that coins in circulation in the Antonine period (138-80) averaged about fifty years from the date of issue. Our only clue to the sources of decisions is two lines of a consolatory poem by Statius on the death in the 90s of a former Imperial freedman a rationibus (in charge of accounts); among his duties was to decide how much metal 'should be struck in the fire of the Italian (Roman) Mint.'

That apart, we have two references in the historian Cassius Dio to Imperial coinage; in one he says (as the coin hoards abundantly confirm) that Trajan called in old coins and issued new ones; in the other he says that his own contemporary Caracalla (211-17) gave debased coins to his subjects, but good ones to the barbarians across the frontier-whom by this time Rome was buying off. In neither case does he say anything of the processes of decision. More details about the Imperial coinage and its collapse in the third century will come in the final chapterl for the moment the coinage must serve as an example of how little we know of many aspects of the Imperial system.

When we come to the actual activities of the Emperor, his advisers and assistants, the same warning must apply. In a famous passage Cassius Dio explains that, while in the history of the Republic-the truth could be arrived at because affairs were subjected to public debate, different accounts of historians could be compared and public records checked, in Imperial history it was not so: 'After this time most things began to be done secretly and by hidden meansl and if anything is made public it is disbelieved, since it cannot be checked. For it is suspected that everything is said and done by the wish of the Emperors and those who have influence with them. As a result many rumours spread about things which never happened, many things which happened are unknown, and nearly all public versions of the events are different from reality.'

To be continued......

Imperial Finance & Coinage Part One

I should have been doing this all along by now-but better late than never! I would like to do articles (hopefully I can keep them between 1-3 posts long) about different areas of every aspect of Roman life. This article or set of articles is about the already mentioned treasury or Aerarium, coinage and minting in Imperial Rome. I got lucky when I found Fergus Millar's 1967 book The Roman Empire and its neighbors, for one dollar on sale at the library. The following information comes from pages 69-73 and 241-2 in this book:

"The very faint traces of evidence available can best be considered along with two branches of the 'central administration' (the term an exaggeration), the treasury (Aerarium) in Rome, and the mints in Rome, and the provinces. The study of the Aerarium suffers from the disadvantage already mentioned, the total lack of evidence about the transport of funds to and from it. The Aerarium itself, however, is fairly well known. It was the temple of Saturn on the side of the Capitol hill, which had served since the early Republic as the depository for the treasure, including coin, and documents of the State. Among the documents were financial ones, State contracts and the accounts deposited by provincial governors on leaving their province; provincial governors also 'reported' their apparitores, comites and others to the Aerarium, thus putting them on the list for pay, and (it seems) continued to do so even in the third century. But the officials of the Aerarium-quaestors in the Republic and then, after various changes, Prefects of ex-praetorian rank, chosen by the Emperor-never used these documents to make up general accounts or a budget for the State. Their functions were limited to keeping the cash and documents to making payments on the authority of the Senate or the Emperor, and the same judicial activities, which they were acquired to do in the Empire, over the recovery of debts. They did not administer or plan the finance of the Empire. The Aerarium is a prime example of the survival in the Empire-to the mid-fourth century, in fact-of the primitive and now inadequate insititutions of the city-state. To meet the deficiencies five separate commissions of senators were set up in the course of the first century, with the task of calling in revenue or limiting expenditure; none of them is recorded as having done anything. The management of State finance was left-in so far as it was managed at all-to the Emperor and his assistants.

In spite of the immense volume of evidence provided by the many thousands of coins surviving from the Empire, very little is known about the mints themselves and even less of the processes of decision which governed their output. Here too there was a surviving Republican element, the tresviri monetales (moneyers)-three of the posts in the most junior senatorial, or rather pre-senatorial rank, the Vigintivirate. These posts are attested until the mid-third century. Among the bronze and copper coins produced in Rome and circulating mainly in Italy and the West (bronze and copper coins produced locally in the Western provinces disappear by the middle of the first century) the majority are marked S.C. senatus consulte- 'by decision of the Senate'). The types on the coins, however, are very similar to those of Imperial coins-which include all silver-produced in Lyon until Caligula (37-41) and thereafter at Rome."

To be continued.....

Augustus Ascendant Part 14

The Temple of Saturn housed Rome's public treasury, the Aerarium, which two praetors were in charge of. History doesn't leave us any detailed information in the form of exchequer receipts from customs, duties, taxes and tribute payments from client rulers. Most historians think it is unlikely that enormous amounts of money circulated to and from Rome. This is because each province had its own treasury out of which would be paid local military and administrative fees, out of which would be paid local military and administrative fees, which would have left many of them without a large surplus to send to Rome.

The major drain on the empire's resources was the army, of course, without which, there would have been no empire! Rome had 28 legions and an equal number of auxiliary units to keep the empire together. For so extensive an empire this was barely enough. The fiscal burden of keeping this force functioning was enormous. A sodier's basic wage was 900 sesterces a year- this meant a total expenditure of 140 million sesterces per annum for these men. However, this didn't come close to the total cost of keeping the military machine going. There were large differences in the pay a soldier received for example: cavalrymen made more than ordinary infantrymen; and officers from centurions-on up to the legionary commanders (legates) who earned a very high wage. Then came the expenses for military equipment, the empire's fleets and the elite Praetorian Guard in Rome.

From Augustus on pages 233-234: "Augustus was enormously rich. His wealth came from his inheritance from Julius Caesar, from legacies (it was the done thing to remember the princeps with a generous bequest), the profits of the proscriptions and the civil war, and large estates in various parts of the empire. In his official memoir, he notes with satisfaction that he spent 600 million sesterces on land bought in Italy for his veterans and 260 million sesterces elsewhere. In lieu of farms, some demobilized soldiers received money grants, totalling 400 million sesterces."

"In addition to these phenomenally large sums of money, the princeps often topped up the Aerarium from his own pocket when it ran low of funds. In practice, it was difficult to distinguish between the treasury and the privy purse."

The different ways that Augustus maintained power and reformed the way the government operated were not very controversial during his time, nor were they seen as revolutionary by most, when viewed separately. A completely different picture develops when seen completely after the course of 2,000 + years. Four major developments that showed how far Augustus had revolutionized Roman government and the way Roman power was excercised were: 1) By quickening communications across the empire, boosting his judicial authority and streamlining the legislative and decision-making process, Augustus was drawing ever more power unto himself. 2) The Senate joined with Augustus in the decline of its actual power because Augustus increased the Senate's duties and prestige. By creating his design for imperial administration, Augustus didn't just create high-status and well-paying jobs, he also improved the quality of governance. The Senate was more than happy also to have the importance of the common citizens decline. 3) The citizens of Rome themselves happily acquiesced (most of them it would seem anyway) in their own dimuition in the eyes of the state. Once they had experienced life in Augustus' efficient, new and improved autocracy they didn't have any desire whatsoever to go back to the less wealthy and inefficient Republic. 4) Augustus Caesar planted the seeds of a growing public bureaucracy and increasingly used nonpolitician freedmen and slaves to carry out the mundane business of running a huge empire.

From Augustus on page 234: "Romans distinguished between imperium, power, and auctoritas, authority. It was evidence of the remarkable success of the Augustan system that the princeps was able to command obedience simply through his authority, and was very seldom obliged to draw on the brute power at his disposal."