Did normal middle class people have gold coins in Ancient times?

I can't imagine it was that uncommon for a byzantine commoner to have a tremisses

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Yup! I got it a couple of weeks ago.

It’s in my safe but next time I take my coins out I’ll take a picture and share it with you .

 

Haha I bought 5 Bitcoin a long time ago when they were $400 each. xD

 

Not true. A widespread middle class appeared more recently with the Industrial Revolution.

But every society has always had some sort of middle class.

It wasn’t just the dirt poor without a single coin in savings and the filthy rich with toilets made of gold.

There were people who made good money but weren’t rich by any means.

Like salt, sugar and tin traders who made over 100% profit on each sale.

Or a better example is a Roman Centurion. They made much more money than ordinary Legionaries but they still weren’t filthy rich. They were what we’d call middle class today.

 

Most Emperors paid a donativum to the Praetorian Guard.

That’s why it seems feasible to me that Praetorian Guard members could save up a few gold coins even if they weren’t filthy rich.

 

The middle class, as we know it, did not come about until the Industrial Revolution, and even then it was by fits and starts. The modern middle class in the US did not really take off until after World War II. So, thinking about the ancient "middle class" is something of a misnomer, I think.

Back in the times of ancient Greece and Rome there were merchants whose prosperity rose and fell with the fortunes and misfortunes of their times. There were also skilled tradesmen, but more often than not they were slaves.

As far as gold is concerned I would assume that the well-to-do merchants did keep some, probably as stores of wealth and to have available for large transactions.

Also, there are references in "I Claudius" of gold pieces being given to members of the legions, but I believe that the possession of gold was mostly the domain of the ruling classes, including members of the Roman Senate, who mostly came from wealthy families or families connected to the emperor in one way or another. At least, that is my impression.

 

There has always been a middle class of some sort. It just was a much smaller one in the past.

Think about it like this:

What class would you consider the average Roman soldier to be part of?

The poor class?

Ok well then what about a Centurion who was paid much more than a normal legionary soldier?

They weren’t rich but they were definitely not dirt poor since they got a huge income increase after being promoted from Legionary to Centurion.

There are several examples of occupations like that where people made enough money to not be dirt poor but not so much as to be part of the exorbitantly rich either.

Thus they were the middle class even if it wasn’t recognized as such at the time.

 

I would rather take the 60K and buy a FDC Postumus Aureus

 

True, there were members of the legions and others, such as small land owner and merchants who were, in terms of class, somewhere in the middle of the Roman social and economic hierarchy, and I guess they could be called "middle class" within that context, but not in the modern (post World War II) context that defines middle class.

 

The term dates to the 18th century, and even earlier if you see the bourgeoisie as a rough equivalent -- just look at Dutch domestic paintings from the Northern Renaissance! Or, even before that, the merchants and tradesmen (not all of whom were wealthy) in the middle ages. I agree that some people focus on post-World War II events like the GI Bill as helping create the "modern" middle class in the USA. But certainly, in both the US and Britain, the middle class was very commonly discussed as something in between the working class and the moneyed/leisure class, back to the 19th century. Definitely by the 1910s and 1920s, before the Great Depression had its impact on so many.

 

Those are the kind of people I was asking about.

Im wondering if maybe those kind of people who weren’t dirt poor or filthy rich had like a few gold coins as a life savings.

 

Back in the 19th century the middle class was called the bourgeoisie.

The uprising of 1848 in Europe was largely fueled by the bourgeoisie, who resented the oppressive, corrupt, heavy-handed rule of Louis Philippe I. Unfortunately, that lead to the rise of Napoleon III and ultimately the disastrous Franco Prussian War of 1870, culminating in the Commune of Paris and its subsequent, bloody suppression.

 

Yup and the Bolsheviks & Communists hated the bourgeois. They favored the proletariat (the poor).

They labeled the bourgeois “kulaks” and oppressed them even if they only had a few more cows than their neighbors or if they owned machinery or any kind.

 

I never thought of the "kulaks" as bourgeoisie, a term that (to me) suggests urban people. The kulaks were supposedly the wealthy peasant class, targeted in Stalin's Holodomor. At least, from what little I remember of my reading on the subject!

 

The irony, in a way, is that the founders of Communist theory were solidly middle class, including Marx and Engels.

However, as Marx and Engels envisioned economic evolution, change would come in stages, starting with the rise of the bourgeoisie, followed by a bourgeoisie revolution (the Revolution of 1848). That would be followed by the rise of the industrial workers fueled by the Industrial Revolution. In the overall scheme of things that would be followed by a workers' revolution.

But, things don't always go according to the script. There was the 1917 Revolution, which was set against the brutality of Word War I. Russian workers, intellectuals, soldiers retreating from the brutal conditions of the front and peasants tied to the land for generations rose up to overthrow the autocratic Czar. The brief provisional government of Alexander Kerensky lasted only a couple of months. That government was overthrown in November, 1917, led, again by a very middle class individual, Lenin. After his death, Stalin followed and the repression really began in earnest.

 

Asked and answered by you once again. My point is this: Most societies share the same relative economic level of class differential to some degree, however, the percentages may vary by civilization. The farmer/middle class example is a generality without merit, but I do see your point, however, a "farmer" in days gone by would be a person, the same as or slightly above the common worker who lives from paycheck to paycheck. Replacing a broken tool would be a necessity to continue his work and borrowing the funds to purchase a new tool or repair the old one would be no different than the farmers of today, many of whom live crop to crop if they are lucky, but I digress. Using percentages, because I hate labels, 65% of people live paycheck to paycheck with some able to save a small amount, 25% live comfortably and have reasonable savings, 7% live high on the hog and have significant reserves and finally, the 3% who can do what they want.
What I am attempting to say is that class distinction and wealth distribution continues to this day.

 

Yes I understand all of that.

But you’re talking about the 65% who lived paycheck to paycheck.

I’m asking about the 25% who lived comfortably back then but weren’t exactly rich.

The 25% would have needed money to live comfortably.

I’m asking if it’s more likely that they kept that money in silver denarii or gold aureii.

Let’s say one of those families had a total life savings of 100 denarii.

Im wondering if it’s likely they would’ve kept it as 4 gold Aureii worth 25 denarii each or as 100 denarii.

I’m not answering my own question because I’m stating a hypothesis and asking if it’s correct.

 

That’s true but according to the definition of “wealthy” someone could be labeled a “Kulak” just for owning a couple more acres than their neighbors or a couple more animals than their neighbors.

It wasn’t “wealthy” at all by the standards of developed countries.

 

I'm going to wager that there were a least a few ancient peoples that dwelled among the middle-economic regions that may have had a few gold coins stashed about.

The cool thing about currency in circulation is that it moves around. Is it possible that we as collectors may possess coins that also passed through the hands of notably famous peoples in ancient times?

Sure.. It's possible.

Shoots.. I once found a 1953 U.S. quarter on the top of Mt. Solaro on Capri; when I went down a path to go relieve myself behind a tree.

Is it possible that same quarter could have been handled by the likes of Audrey Hepburn, or Rita Hayworth, or Grace Kelly?

Sure.. It's possible.

They all liked to frequent the island back then.

 

It seems like it would make logical sense to keep one’s wealth in gold aureii if possible.

It’s much more portable and thus easier to carry around a few gold coins than it is to carry around a bag full of silver denarii.

That’s why I’m wondering if maybe “middle class” households that had a bit of extra money would’ve kept it in gold rather than silver.