Log in or Sign up
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Ancient Coins
>
The Coinage Reform of Anastasius
>
Reply to Thread
Message:
<p>[QUOTE="EWC3, post: 4149639, member: 93416"]I just noticed that a fair amount of text is available on line on google books from Hendy’s<i> “Studies in the Byzantine Monetary Economy c. 300-1450”</i></p><p><br /></p><p>I recall borrowed a copy back when it first came out in 1985, and became thoroughly irritated by it after a few pages. But its so long since I can hardly remember why. So I thought, now I have rather more grey hairs – to give it another go.</p><p><br /></p><p>From the online text I make two negative point and a positive one:</p><p><br /></p><p>Hendy discusses the Fisher equation (page 3) , which was a hot topic back then, but goes on to imply that the Byzantines would not even have a grasp of the basic elements of the quantity theory of money. That still seems bunk to me today. Surely Julius Caesar etc introduced laws against hoarding specifically to boost the velocity of circulation? An entire ancient Chinese Confucian theory of taxation was built around the quantity theory of money (Guanzi/Kuan Tzu). Such arguments - that the ancients were so incredibly stupid seem aimed at boosting the egos of college kids today, rather than rationally dealing with the past.</p><p><br /></p><p>Hendy rejects the dating of the start Byzantine period to Anastasius, prefering Diocletian (p. 16). Seems weird to me – Diocletian famously had a failed economic policy, Anastasius a very successful one. Hendy thinks the dating to Anastasius is “arbitrary” since Anastasius made few structural changes to the monetary system. That seems controversial, in itself, but also it seems to me misses the main point. Anastasius was responsible for restarting the cash/market economy. Adam Smith got called “the Father of Economics” for merely explaining the basis of that idea. Anastasius not only had the idea – he also put it into practice…..</p><p><br /></p><p>Now to a positive point</p><p><br /></p><p>Hendy (in 1985) stated that numismatics should be a means to an end – the end of understanding past civilizations (p. 10). He states that divisions between numismatists and historian had been “little short of disastrous” for our understanding of Byzantine Economics, and that the position of numismatists in this regard was “inexcusable”.</p><p><br /></p><p>Ha! And Hendy thought things were bad in 1985……..</p><p><br /></p><p>Rob T[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>
[QUOTE="EWC3, post: 4149639, member: 93416"]I just noticed that a fair amount of text is available on line on google books from Hendy’s[I] “Studies in the Byzantine Monetary Economy c. 300-1450”[/I] I recall borrowed a copy back when it first came out in 1985, and became thoroughly irritated by it after a few pages. But its so long since I can hardly remember why. So I thought, now I have rather more grey hairs – to give it another go. From the online text I make two negative point and a positive one: Hendy discusses the Fisher equation (page 3) , which was a hot topic back then, but goes on to imply that the Byzantines would not even have a grasp of the basic elements of the quantity theory of money. That still seems bunk to me today. Surely Julius Caesar etc introduced laws against hoarding specifically to boost the velocity of circulation? An entire ancient Chinese Confucian theory of taxation was built around the quantity theory of money (Guanzi/Kuan Tzu). Such arguments - that the ancients were so incredibly stupid seem aimed at boosting the egos of college kids today, rather than rationally dealing with the past. Hendy rejects the dating of the start Byzantine period to Anastasius, prefering Diocletian (p. 16). Seems weird to me – Diocletian famously had a failed economic policy, Anastasius a very successful one. Hendy thinks the dating to Anastasius is “arbitrary” since Anastasius made few structural changes to the monetary system. That seems controversial, in itself, but also it seems to me misses the main point. Anastasius was responsible for restarting the cash/market economy. Adam Smith got called “the Father of Economics” for merely explaining the basis of that idea. Anastasius not only had the idea – he also put it into practice….. Now to a positive point Hendy (in 1985) stated that numismatics should be a means to an end – the end of understanding past civilizations (p. 10). He states that divisions between numismatists and historian had been “little short of disastrous” for our understanding of Byzantine Economics, and that the position of numismatists in this regard was “inexcusable”. Ha! And Hendy thought things were bad in 1985…….. Rob T[/QUOTE]
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
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Ancient Coins
>
The Coinage Reform of Anastasius
>
Home
Home
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Activity
Recent Posts
Forums
Forums
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Posts
Competitions
Competitions
Quick Links
Competition Index
Rules, Terms & Conditions
Gallery
Gallery
Quick Links
Search Media
New Media
Showcase
Showcase
Quick Links
Search Items
Most Active Members
New Items
Directory
Directory
Quick Links
Directory Home
New Listings
Members
Members
Quick Links
Notable Members
Current Visitors
Recent Activity
New Profile Posts
Sponsors
Menu
Search
Search titles only
Posted by Member:
Separate names with a comma.
Newer Than:
Search this thread only
Search this forum only
Display results as threads
Useful Searches
Recent Posts
More...