Log in or Sign up
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Ancient Coins
>
What is the point with fourrée?
>
Reply to Thread
Message:
<p>[QUOTE="Gavin Richardson, post: 3155107, member: 83956"]In the article below, the author states that money-changers would sell gold coins to persons needing them to pay their taxes; perhaps such persons (not “soldiers, officials, landowners”) would not typically be accustomed to handling gold coins.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>“Before examining the debasement, it is useful to outline the basic Byzantine monetary system in the eleventh century, before the reforms of Alexius I in 1092. The state in this period operated a tri-metallic coinage system, but with distinct preference for gold, which was the required means of payment of taxes. As has been revealed by a twelfth-century treatise known as Palaia kai Nea Logarike, taxpayers before the reforms of 1106-1109 were required to pay their taxes in nomismata, and if there was a fractional liability of over two-thirds nomisma, the taxpayer was required to pay it in a whole nomisma, the tax-collector returning the difference in small change. The lower denominations of the nomisma (the semissis and tremissis) had disappeared by the eighth century, so the gold coin was not used in low-value private transactions, a role performed by the bronze and silver coinage. The state derived most of its income from land and personal taxes, with only a small proportion coming from trade. The main way of feeding gold coins into the economy was through government expenditure, which consisted largely of wages paid, most of them in gold, to the army and the civil service. It has been proposed but without any evidence that taxes represented 57 percent of all coins in circulation and that the monetization level in Byzantium was around 45 percent of GDP in the twelfth century.5 No records indicating the size of the imperial budget survive, but estimates range from four to six million nomismata for the beginning of the eleventh century. The state obligations were denominated mainly in gold, sometimes expressed by number of nomismata and sometimes by their weight. This money was then spent in the economy, with the largest proportion going to landowners and peasants in exchange for food, who then gave part of it back to the state in the form of taxes. Some of it clearly escaped this cycle and entered the area of commerce, both home and abroad, but the bulk did not. <b>Owners of gold coins (soldiers, officials, landowners) could go to money-changers to obtain small change for their expenses, and the latter could then sell those gold coins to individuals who wanted them to pay their taxes, or even back to the state</b>. Money changers belonged to a state-regulated guild whose rules survive in the tenth century Book of the Eparch. They played a role in the state's occasional efforts to control the composition of the circulating coinage: for example, early evidence shows that money changers were at times obliged to sell gold coins to the state as they received them from the public. With respect to mints, following the centralizing reforms of Heraclius (610-641) in about 629, there was one main mint, that of Constan- tinople, which was entirely owned and controlled by the state. Early legisla- tion prohibited the minting of private bullion by state mints though it seems that this law was relaxed (for precious metals) in the twelfth century.30 The importance of the military use of coinage is suggested by the fact that the was much smaller territorially and trade had picked up) the corresponding percentages were calculated to be 80 and 20. One would expect, therefore, that in the period we are interested in (eleventh century), the percentages would be somewhere in between. See Hendy, "From Public to Private," pp. 32-33. Laiou ("Byzantine Economy," p. 1155) estimates the proportion of revenue from agriculture in the twelfth century to have been just over 80 percent. master of the mint belonged to the department of the vestiarion which was also responsible for the manufacture and provision of military equipment.31 Unfortunately no Byzantine mint records survive.”</p><p><br /></p><p>The Debasement of the "Dollar of the Middle Ages"</p><p><br /></p><p>Author(s): Costas Kaplanis</p><p><br /></p><p>Source: <i>The Journal of Economic History,</i></p><p><br /></p><p>Vol. 63, No. 3 (Sep., 2003), pp. 768-801</p><p><br /></p><p>Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Economic History Association</p><p><br /></p><p>Stable URL: <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/3132307" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/3132307" rel="nofollow">https://www.jstor.org/stable/3132307</a>[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>
[QUOTE="Gavin Richardson, post: 3155107, member: 83956"]In the article below, the author states that money-changers would sell gold coins to persons needing them to pay their taxes; perhaps such persons (not “soldiers, officials, landowners”) would not typically be accustomed to handling gold coins. “Before examining the debasement, it is useful to outline the basic Byzantine monetary system in the eleventh century, before the reforms of Alexius I in 1092. The state in this period operated a tri-metallic coinage system, but with distinct preference for gold, which was the required means of payment of taxes. As has been revealed by a twelfth-century treatise known as Palaia kai Nea Logarike, taxpayers before the reforms of 1106-1109 were required to pay their taxes in nomismata, and if there was a fractional liability of over two-thirds nomisma, the taxpayer was required to pay it in a whole nomisma, the tax-collector returning the difference in small change. The lower denominations of the nomisma (the semissis and tremissis) had disappeared by the eighth century, so the gold coin was not used in low-value private transactions, a role performed by the bronze and silver coinage. The state derived most of its income from land and personal taxes, with only a small proportion coming from trade. The main way of feeding gold coins into the economy was through government expenditure, which consisted largely of wages paid, most of them in gold, to the army and the civil service. It has been proposed but without any evidence that taxes represented 57 percent of all coins in circulation and that the monetization level in Byzantium was around 45 percent of GDP in the twelfth century.5 No records indicating the size of the imperial budget survive, but estimates range from four to six million nomismata for the beginning of the eleventh century. The state obligations were denominated mainly in gold, sometimes expressed by number of nomismata and sometimes by their weight. This money was then spent in the economy, with the largest proportion going to landowners and peasants in exchange for food, who then gave part of it back to the state in the form of taxes. Some of it clearly escaped this cycle and entered the area of commerce, both home and abroad, but the bulk did not. [B]Owners of gold coins (soldiers, officials, landowners) could go to money-changers to obtain small change for their expenses, and the latter could then sell those gold coins to individuals who wanted them to pay their taxes, or even back to the state[/B]. Money changers belonged to a state-regulated guild whose rules survive in the tenth century Book of the Eparch. They played a role in the state's occasional efforts to control the composition of the circulating coinage: for example, early evidence shows that money changers were at times obliged to sell gold coins to the state as they received them from the public. With respect to mints, following the centralizing reforms of Heraclius (610-641) in about 629, there was one main mint, that of Constan- tinople, which was entirely owned and controlled by the state. Early legisla- tion prohibited the minting of private bullion by state mints though it seems that this law was relaxed (for precious metals) in the twelfth century.30 The importance of the military use of coinage is suggested by the fact that the was much smaller territorially and trade had picked up) the corresponding percentages were calculated to be 80 and 20. One would expect, therefore, that in the period we are interested in (eleventh century), the percentages would be somewhere in between. See Hendy, "From Public to Private," pp. 32-33. Laiou ("Byzantine Economy," p. 1155) estimates the proportion of revenue from agriculture in the twelfth century to have been just over 80 percent. master of the mint belonged to the department of the vestiarion which was also responsible for the manufacture and provision of military equipment.31 Unfortunately no Byzantine mint records survive.” The Debasement of the "Dollar of the Middle Ages" Author(s): Costas Kaplanis Source: [I]The Journal of Economic History,[/I] Vol. 63, No. 3 (Sep., 2003), pp. 768-801 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Economic History Association Stable URL: [url]https://www.jstor.org/stable/3132307[/url][/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
>
What is the point with fourrée?
>
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...