Could Rome have forbidden trade with the east?

[Skallagrim]

Every so often, we see things like "what if Rome had imported paper-making tech from China" or "suppose Rome had gotten the heavy plough from China"-- things like that. It's very true that for all of antiquity (and I'd say right up to the early modern age) the East was the developed world, and more advanced than the West. But besides the potential for the importation of interesting technology, this also led to a major problem regarding trade: Rome (and other polities of the West) bought stuff from the East, but had little to nothing that they could offer the East in return. The result was the gold flowed always East, and never West.

Basically, Rome had a trade balance problem. Gold flowed to Persia, to India, to China... and never came back. Whatever we may say about a trade balance issue in the modern age of fiduciary currency, in the days that gold was money, it presented a real danger. There are many theories as to the "decline and fall" of the Roman Empire. I personally think that the outflow of gold was a major cause. The gold supply dwindled, currency got debased, prices inflated as a result, an inflationary cycle got started, etc. Eventually, this led to dire straits, economically speaking. Taxes got raised to such a level that many common people could not bear the burden (the problem being that taxes had to be payed to the government in actual gold, while the Emperors issued increasingly debased coin).

It's even been suggested that this burden got so high that many common families could not afford to feed (enough) children, leading birth rates to dwindle to around replacement rate. This in turn led to a situation where almost all children would either have to take their parents' jobs full-time (such as working the farm), meaning they could not serve in the military. There were simply not enough 'spare sons' who could be, well... spared... to go off and serve in the military. Hence, increased reliance on foreign tribes serving as foederati. We all knew how that ended.

I'm not entirely convinced that this line of reasoning tells the whole story, but it's compelling even if incomplete. It would mean that preventing the massive outflow of gold to the east would prevent a lot of later problems, or at least work to make them less acute. The interesting thing is that while the economic understanding of the Romans was somewhat limited (they didn't really seem to understand the implications of currency debasement), there were certainy Romans who agitated against the outflow of gold.

So my question is this: what if Rome had forbidden trade with the East, with the specific aim of preventing that outflow of gold? Could such an injunction have been implemented? Roman-era economic protectionism: it sure would be interesting. I'm absolutely certain that it would have its own drawbacks in the long term (economic protectionism always does), but given the circumstances, such a policy may well be the smart move for the West until it has something valuable it can offer the East, so as to restore traade balance.

So far from trying to help the Romans by giving them nifty tech from the East, a good way to help save Rome may instead be... to severely limit Roman trade with the East. Could this have been done? And if so, would it have stood a chance of preventing Rome's worst problems?

 

[Karolus Rex]

How would they inforce it? Selling weapons to the Germanic tribes was forbidden but it happened on a semi-regular basis so this trade ban wouldn't be very efficient.

 

[Anaxagoras]

Simply outlawing the wearing of silk would have caused a major uproar. I suppose a hefty tax could have been imposed on silk, though. I'm not sure if this was ever done or suggested.

 

[Skallagrim]

How would they inforce it? Selling weapons to the Germanic tribes was forbidden but it happened on a semi-regular basis so this trade ban wouldn't be very efficient.

Ah, but selling stuff to others is very hard to outlaw. The products from the East could not be made in Rome, so anyone selling such, ah, 'imports' would be easily identified. Even if sold in secret, anyone possessing such items could then be fined. Logistically, it can be done.

Of course...

Simply outlawing the wearing of silk would have caused a major uproar. I suppose a hefty tax could have been imposed on silk, though. I'm not sure if this was ever done or suggested.

...it's very true that social backlash is likely. Could it be somehow coated in patriotism? Could the use of Eastern products be not only criminalised, but stigmatised?

Failing that, high taxes levied on such imports could indeed do the trick, perhaps.

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

I don't think this would have had that much success. If your aim is to solve the Roman balance of trade, then honestly, you need an Indian Ocean strategy. The Roman Empire really never had one, and besides gold, no real impetus to develop one.

But lets say that they do - this basically requires them to take over the Red Sea/Arabia (or at least get to Yemen), and then forcibly take over the trade networks so that the money earned by their traders (i.e. the gold earned), came back. This isn't easy, and you're basically going to need to create a Roman East India Company. But what we do know is that China and India both imported raw materials from East Africa, and sold completed goods across the Indian Ocean.

The Romans would need to tap into that network, and then take over part of it. You'd have to check the exact routes - but a Roman presence on the tip of the Horn of Africa, both as a centre of trade (the Romans would want E.African goods if we're honest) and as a way to tap into the wealth from that trade, could start to lessen the impact of the gold-exodus.

But its such a huge undertaking that would require drastic ship redesigns, and the hostile takeover a huge number of trade routes. I toyed with this idea as a 'Exile of Belisarius' timeline (i.e. Justinian gives Belisarius the troops he needs to speed up a reconquest of Italy/Africa, but after defending against Persia he needs rid of him, and so sends him South) - and there is a good location for a 'Ceuta in East Africa' - but it is radically different to your question.

The main question, rather than the goal - I don't think that it is enforceable. It'll just show the silk trade underground, which may make the problem worse, as prices in that market go up, and the Roman Empire doesn't get any money from it.

 

[Skallagrim]

I don't think this would have had that much success. If your aim is to solve the Roman balance of trade, then honestly, you need an Indian Ocean strategy. The Roman Empire really never had one, and besides gold, no real impetus to develop one.

But lets say that they do - this basically requires them to take over the Red Sea/Arabia (or at least get to Yemen), and then forcibly take over the trade networks so that the money earned by their traders (i.e. the gold earned), came back. This isn't easy, and you're basically going to need to create a Roman East India Company. But what we do know is that China and India both imported raw materials from East Africa, and sold completed goods across the Indian Ocean.

The Romans would need to tap into that network, and then take over part of it. You'd have to check the exact routes - but a Roman presence on the tip of the Horn of Africa, both as a centre of trade (the Romans would want E.African goods if we're honest) and as a way to tap into the wealth from that trade, could start to lessen the impact of the gold-exodus.

But its such a huge undertaking that would require drastic ship redesigns, and the hostile takeover a huge number of trade routes. I toyed with this idea as a 'Exile of Belisarius' timeline (i.e. Justinian gives Belisarius the troops he needs to speed up a reconquest of Italy/Africa, but after defending against Persia he needs rid of him, and so sends him South) - and there is a good location for a 'Ceuta in East Africa' - but it is radically different to your question.

I actually agree that this is by far the better way. It's just that I don't see the Romans doing this. Not without a pretty drastic POD. This is more my intended route in that "Alexander lives"-TL I swear I'll write one day (what with him planning to take Arabia, he'd be a fair bit along the way already). For Rome, it seemed even more difficult to me to get this kind of strategy going than it would be to try and somehow amp up the existing-in-OTL notions of "let's stop our gold from flowing east!"

The main question, rather than the goal - I don't think that it is enforceable. It'll just show the silk trade underground, which may make the problem worse, as prices in that market go up, and the Roman Empire doesn't get any money from it.

Yes, it's a drastic idea and a total long shot. To be honest, I can hardly imagine how it would all work. Barring a miraculous Indian Ocean strategy (just as you said), it just seemed like the only real option to me. My thinking here is alng the line of actually trying to make the possession of Eastern imports both criminalised and culturally taboo. Which I admit would be pretty hard to do. On the other hand, the silk trade going underground seems a bit unlikely to me. I'd say the obvious move is to not only make the sale of imports forbidden, but also the possession of them. Unlike, say, drugs (which underwent the exact process you describe in OTL due to being prohibited), silk isn't a substance you consume in a (presumably) private situation. If silk is outlawed, how are those possessing it going to hide it in any sensible way? "Oh, no, this isn't silk, you see, it just totally looks like silk...!"

Of course, what @Anaxagoras wrote still holds true: such a policy would almost certainly cause a major backlash, since many Romans wanted that silk (and other imports). Which brings me back to the notion that you'd somehow have to convince people that owning Eastern imports is unpatriotic and detestable....

 

[Karolus Rex]

Ah, but selling stuff to others is very hard to outlaw. The products from the East could not be made in Rome, so anyone selling such, ah, 'imports' would be easily identified. Even if sold in secret, anyone possessing such items could then be fined. Logistically, it can be done.

So the frumentarii are going to have to control illegal eastern trade plus all the generals, governors and basically anyone with power...this will fail spectacularly.

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

I actually agree that this is by far the better way. It's just that I don't see the Romans doing this. Not without a pretty drastic POD. This is more my intended route in that "Alexander lives"-TL I swear I'll write one day (what with him planning to take Arabia, he'd be a fair bit along the way already). For Rome, it seemed even more difficult to me to get this kind of strategy going than it would be to try and somehow amp up the existing-in-OTL notions of "let's stop our gold from flowing east!"

I like being agreed with - I don't think it needs that drastic a PoD tbh. It just depends on the scale. A small number of patriots eager to make some money could set themselves up if they were aware of the problem. I think the most likely is a "its a problem, but not enough to solve, but if I could solve two birds with one stone...." which could be getting rid of a dangerous general, solving some issues with regional allies permanently, taking control of Cinnamon (my understanding is that the Romans thought it came from Somalia, go figure). Solving the gold problem is a secondary incidental goal - but likely to be the one with the most impact. But you could get something like this with an "Augustus Conquers Arabia" TL, simply because conquering Arabia Felix is part of the plan, and gives the Romans a base to work from.

Yes, it's a drastic idea and a total long shot. To be honest, I can hardly imagine how it would all work. Barring a miraculous Indian Ocean strategy (just as you said), it just seemed like the only real option to me. My thinking here is alng the line of actually trying to make the possession of Eastern imports both criminalised and culturally taboo. Which I admit would be pretty hard to do. On the other hand, the silk trade going underground seems a bit unlikely to me. I'd say the obvious move is to not only make the sale of imports forbidden, but also the possession of them. Unlike, say, drugs (which underwent the exact process you describe in OTL due to being prohibited), silk isn't a substance you consume in a (presumably) private situation. If silk is outlawed, how are those possessing it going to hide it in any sensible way? "Oh, no, this isn't silk, you see, it just totally looks like silk...!"

Of course, what @Anaxagoras wrote still holds true: such a policy would almost certainly cause a major backlash, since many Romans wanted that silk (and other imports). Which brings me back to the notion that you'd somehow have to convince people that owning Eastern imports is unpatriotic and detestable....

Yeah, without a major cultural change in advance, this is how you make Emperors out of Generals. I mean, christ - think how many people in ROME make money from silk, plus everyone who likes it, - throw even a fraction of them in jail and a General with Imperial ambitions merely needs to promise to open that trade back up and suddenly there are a lot of people (with a lot of money) backing him, even just to ensure their relatives don't get thrown into prison over silk!

 

[DominusNovus]

I would like to hear a concise explanation as to how the scarcity of gold is responsible for currency debasement, given that fiscally prudent administrations were still able to establish purer coins to replace the d debased standards.

 

[Indicus]

As another solution to the gold issue, make more goods from the Roman Empire get seen as valuable by the east. For instance, India saw red Mediterranean coral as immensely valuable. If there were more goods from Rome seen as valuable to Indians, gold could go both ways.

 

[B-29_Bomber]

Maybe try to send a mission to China in order to get silk worms?

 

[Skallagrim]

I would like to hear a concise explanation as to how the scarcity of gold is responsible for currency debasement, given that fiscally prudent administrations were still able to establish purer coins to replace the d debased standards.

If you're using specie as the fundamental basis of your money supply, the massive outflow of gold is going to cause an obvious problem which, without paper money, you can only address by 1) ending the outflow, 2) creating an inflow to match, or 3) debasing your coin.

Obviously, the way a government spends money still matters. If you are implementing sound economic policies, you'll find that the economy benefits, which tends to increase your tax revenue (= more gold for the treasury). At the same time, throughout history, sound economc policy has usually meant "stop being so damn wasteful", which means that even if your tax revenue stays the same, you get the same revenue in gold, but spend less. The combined effects leave you with more gold available, which you can then turn into good coin.

As I indicated above, however, those are actuaqlly stopgap measures. Given otherwise healthy economic conditions, they can last you a good long time... but the fundamental problem remains. In the long run, one will have to address it via option (1), option (2) or option (3).

Anyway, since option (3) was the basic pattern in OTL, and I consider option (2) difficult to implement even though it's obviously the best, I decided to make a thread about option (1).

As another solution to the gold issue, make more goods from the Roman Empire get seen as valuable by the east. For instance, India saw red Mediterranean coral as immensely valuable. If there were more goods from Rome seen as valuable to Indians, gold could go both ways.

Maybe try to send a mission to China in order to get silk worms?

Both of these would obviously be part of option (2), which is the superior alternative. The thing with the silk worms proved feasible, but tricky, in OTL. And would it be enough? It certainly decreases the problem, of course. But the East has been producing silk for ages; they're hsrdly likely to buy your johnny-come-lately knock-offs. So still no gold returning: you've only decreased the outflow, not created an inflow. Is such a decrease enough? I truly don't know. The thing is that there will still be money spent on other Eastern goods, while the East still buys nothing from you. Is this solution merely a stay of execution? Again, I'm not sure.

Of course, the idea about making Western goods attractive to the East would solve that. But what goods? Is coral enough to do the trick? Are there other options? And why didn't they solve the problem in OTL, then? I suspect that option (2), while clearly the best option, would demand the kind of scenario envisioned by @RogueTraderEnthusiast. And let me be clear: I'd love to see that timeline! But it certainly involves more factors than merely some effects on trade balance. That kind of scenario would change the whole history of Rome in even more drastic and fundamental ways.

 

[DominusNovus]

I can't help but think that, if your losing gold, and debasing your currency at a comparable rate, then you're really not actually debasing the value of the coin, just the amount of gold in it. If gold becomes twice as scarce and you cut the amount of gold in your coin by half, it should, in theory, be worth the same amount. Meanwhile, that old coin becomes worth twice as much.

When you consider that Constantine's solidus was used mostly by the upper classes, since it was too valuable to be used in everyday life, that seems to fit.

Of course, you have the problem that the public faith (or lack thereof) in the coins messes with the arithmetic, which renders much of this moot.

 

[Achaemenid Rome]

A fully effective trade barrier is impossible, but is not necessary. Just some limitations on trade with the East could be enough.

This was feasible in times even more ancient than the Romans. According to historian Tamás Dezső, in the 9th to 7th centuries BC, the Neo-Assyrian Empire established specific ports of trade (kuru) at junctions of strategic routes, the only places that foreigners were allowed to trade, and attempted to confine trade to these centers. (Dezső 359) Sort of like Japanese Dejima in the Dutch Colonial period. In addition, the Assyrians banned the export of horses, cedar beams, and iron, as well as precious metals or semi-precious stones, all due to their strategic importance. (Dezső 356)

According to Carlo Zaccagnini, there is evidence of protectionist policies in the Assyrian Empire in attempt to maintain a trade balance. A tablet representing a verdict of the City of Assur is preserved: "Here (in Assur) it has come to a lawsuit (awātum ibbišiā) concerning saptinnu- and pirikannu- textiles, woollen products, and many people have been fined. You too have been obliged to pay 10 pounds of silver; you must pay one pound each year ... Please do not get involved in (the trade in) saptinu- and pirikannu-textiles, don't buy them ... The ruling (awātum) of the City is severe!" (Zaccagnini 90) During periods of shortage of tin, it was assumed that traders had bought too many imported textiles, therefore the trade of textiles was outlawed until the city was able to purchase tin. In particular, this was to take advantage of the fact that the exchange rate of silver in Assur was about double that in Anatolia. (Zaccagnini 90) The sale of Assyrian domestic textiles to outsiders (Kanish traders) was pivotal to the Assyrian economy, so an export-focused policy was maintained in that industry. (Zaccagnini 93)

In strategic industries like the tin trade, Babylonian competitors outside of the empire were extradited to Assyria to be executed. (Zaccagnini 87) The Assyrians also declared the sale of gold to non-Assyrians an act punishable by death. (Zaccagnini 95) "The Assyrian 'law' on gold was essentially one of trade policy: a deliberate attempt to restrict access to gold." (Zaccagnini 96).

I'm not sure if restricting the access to gold alone would have been enough but, clearly such policies were something that could have been thought of in ancient times and could be effective if they were punished with draconian measures fully conceivable to the Romans--who invented decimation and other brutal practices.

Sources:
Dezső, Tamás. Assyrians and Greeks: the Nature of Contacts in the 9th-7th Centuries BC. Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae. 2013.
Zaccagnini, Carlo. Mercanti e Politica nel Mondo Antico. L'Erma di Bretschneider. 2003.

 

[DominusNovus]

Such a policy would inevitably weaken the Roman Empire, particularly the East. Not to mention that it would be harder with a state as big as Rome.

 

[Karolus Rex]

~snip~

Interesting post Acharmenid but I don't think that you can compare Rome to the Assyrians in this, specially during the Empire. Pierre Grimal stated that the Roman trade deficit with the East existed since the late Republic but you don't see any moves to stop them or to impose limitations. The main reason was that it was in the interest of the Senators and the Equites was to keep that trade alive.

Now if any Emperor tried to stop it he would place himself in the right spot to ensure that there would be usurpers, so they couldn't do protectionist measures. The only ones that could had imposed that trade were the early Antonine Emperors, but Trajan's expansion towards the Persian Golf was, according to Grimal, an indication that Rome wanted cheaper and faster trade with the East, not limitations, and he points out that the Dacian gold was what stopped the Gold hemorrhage for some time.

Afterwards it was just something very low on the list of priorities and when stability was what the Emperors wanted and trying to oppose the comercial interests of those with power would be very counterproductive.

I can't help but think that, if your losing gold, and debasing your currency at a comparable rate, then you're really not actually debasing the value of the coin, just the amount of gold in it. If gold becomes twice as scarce and you cut the amount of gold in your coin by half, it should, in theory, be worth the same amount. Meanwhile, that old coin becomes worth twice as much.

When you consider that Constantine's solidus was used mostly by the upper classes, since it was too valuable to be used in everyday life, that seems to fit.

Of course, you have the problem that the public faith (or lack thereof) in the coins messes with the arithmetic, which renders much of this moot.

Less gold in the coins, combined with the fact that the Legions were constantly demanding more bonus/raises meant that you had to use a constantly smaller gold reserve to mint more and more coins, which caused hyperinflation. Also there were Emperors that just coined as much coin as they could, so eventually one silver coin probably had almost no silver on it.

 

[DominusNovus]

Which is a separate issue from the declining amount of specie. Those same issues would have happened if they weren't exporting gold, just at different rates.

 

[Karolus Rex]

Which is a separate issue from the declining amount of specie. Those same issues would have happened if they weren't exporting gold, just at different rates.

The deficit with the East caused the eventual gold bullion crisis to happen faster, but the earlier crisis caused a circle. You have less bullion so you debase the currency, but you have to give the legions the bonus to make sure that they stay happy, so you have to coin more so the coins are constantly having less and less individual value, also you have to bribe the border tribes to stop raiding, all of this while at the same time you are loosing the reserves to outside markets, so you have to constantly debase the currency. A new emperors comes sees the mess, creates a new coin and in two decades the circle caused this new currency to be as useful as the previous. Sure the deficit didn't caused this but it made it faster, so long term not much changes but short term it would help the Emperors.

 

[DominusNovus]

The deficit with the East caused the eventual gold bullion crisis to happen faster, but the earlier crisis caused a circle. You have less bullion so you debase the currency, but you have to give the legions the bonus to make sure that they stay happy, so you have to coin more so the coins are constantly having less and less individual value, also you have to bribe the border tribes to stop raiding, all of this while at the same time you are loosing the reserves to outside markets, so you have to constantly debase the currency. A new emperors comes sees the mess, creates a new coin and in two decades the circle caused this new currency to be as useful as the previous. Sure the deficit didn't caused this but it made it faster, so long term not much changes but short term it would help the Emperors.

Conversely, if the Roman reserves of gold are higher, than the soldiers might expect even larger bonuses.

I really think that this is conflating two barely related economic issues. Though they had no real way of understanding it, precious metals are just another commodity, one about as useful as the silk they were trading it for. An apt comparison, when one considers that the Chinese often used silk for money.

 

[RousseauX]

Simply outlawing the wearing of silk would have caused a major uproar. I suppose a hefty tax could have been imposed on silk, though. I'm not sure if this was ever done or suggested.

Also how good would Rome central government be at enforcing this? I'm sure they can do it in Rome itself, but are they really gonna be able to make sure nobody in Egypt or Syria or Spain wears silk?