Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Bart9349, post: 5046405, member: 5682&quot;]Some great coins and fantastic insights. Thank you for sharing.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Great point. Thank you.</p><p><br /></p><p>Michael Grant was one of those rare historians who bridged the gap between history and numismatics.</p><p><br /></p><p>Here&#039;s more of Kenneth Harl on the subject:</p><p><br /></p><p>&quot;Debasement netted Nero revenues, but it courted risks. Price increases sparked by the debasement in 64 apparently had little long-term impact, but imperiling confidence in the currency was the first step toward financial disaster. The international reputation of Roman coins was tarnished. Merchants ceased to export aurei and denarii to South India soon after 64, and Tacitus acidly notes how untutored Germans outwitted Romans by insisting upon Republican denarii instead of debased imperial ones. Coins, however, were a minor part of overseas trade, for once they crossed the imperial frontiers, they passed in local marts by intrinsic worth rather than tariffing. It was public trust within rather than outside the empire that was critical to the success of imperial coinage.&quot;</p><p><br /></p><p>So, it seems that Rome was well on its way to a fiat currency, that is, money that gets its value from government order (fiat). By definition (and similar to modern coinage), its intrinsic value is lower than its face value.</p><p><br /></p><p>Roman Egypt had long used a fiat currency:</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1202113[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]1202114[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1202116[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]1202117[/ATTACH]</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>(My visitors, but not my pictures)[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in