Could Rome have forbidden trade with the east?

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.

The legions were constantly demanding more, but with bigger reserves the circle is slowed down, not broken, just slowed down. The Roman system was always going to get screwed by an economical crisis, you can argue that it was already begging by the Late Republic, but the deficits screwed the economy middle term, which coincided with the crisis of the third century. Again long term it would have no difference, but I'm talking on the short term diferences.
 

Deleted member 97083

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.
Well the Assyrian nobility would have been in favor of importing luxury goods, that's why they were importing textiles. The Assyrian king was constantly fighting rebellions, often more than one per year, of city governors, large landowners, provincial rulers, etc. The rebels were defeated and replaced with loyalists. While this may seem unsustainable, the Neo-Assyrian Empire lasted almost 300 years. The Assyrian land ownership system was somewhat of a combination of the Roman Empire and feudal Europe, with most Assyrians being tenant farmers, and the Assyrian king was seen as having a similar sort of divine mandate as the Roman Emperor in the Dominate period.

Any Roman Emperor seeking to limit exports of gold and silver or imports of luxury goods would probably see a usurper or even a civil war. But it's not impossible to see the emperor surviving said crisis.

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.
The Roman Empire's attempts at stability were one big source of its instability--see all the times that the empire was divided to make it more manageable. Such a large empire is inherently unstable, as was the ancient world in general.

Opposing the commercial interests of those with power will put the Emperor himself in danger, but not necessarily the Empire as a whole.

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.
That would be solved by keeping the gold and silver in the empire, at least temporarily, of course, there's no guarantee that it wouldn't be reversed later on by an emperor seeking easy popularity with the Senators and landowners.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Any Roman Emperor seeking to limit exports of gold and silver or imports of luxury goods would probably see a usurper or even a civil war. But it's not impossible to see the emperor surviving said crisis.

Not impossible but it would be a danger that, from the Roman POV, wound't be worth the risk.
Opposing the commercial interests of those with power will put the Emperor himself in danger, but not necessarily the Empire as a whole.

From the Emperor's POV he was the Empire, so opposing commercial interest would be a danger not worth the risk, specially considering the he was the biggest landowner/trader in the Empire.
That would be solved by keeping the gold and silver in the empire.

Actually no. During the Early Empire the bullion crisis wasn't relevant and inflation was common, long term the Empire was always going to have bullion crisis, because the gold would always find ways out of the Empire.
 

Deleted member 97083

Not impossible but it would be a danger that, from the Roman POV, wound't be worth the risk.

From the Emperor's POV he was the Empire, so opposing commercial interest would be a danger not worth the risk, specially considering the he was the biggest landowner/trader in the Empire.
That's likely, it would have to be someone like the Gracchi brothers except in the Roman Empire period.

Actually no. During the Early Empire the bullion crisis wasn't relevant and inflation was common, long term the Empire was always going to have bullion crisis, because the gold would always find ways out of the Empire.
I agree with that. If an emperor tried to keep the Roman Empire export-focused, that would probably only last 1 or 2 emperors at most before it is reversed, especially without any modern economic ideas.

The Roman Empire wasn't built to be a stable static empire making its wealth through peaceful trade, so it was going to see times of crisis, often preventable, no matter what.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That's likely, it would have to be someone like the Gracchi brothers except in the Roman Empire period.

Exactly. You would need to have someone like the Gracchi to oppose the interests of the nobility, but considering the way the Gracchi ended in the Republican period I fear that they would have an equal ending in the Empire period.

I agree with that. If an emperor tried to keep the Roman Empire export-focused, that would probably only last 1 or 2 emperors at most before it is reversed, especially without any modern economic ideas.

The Roman Empire wasn't built to be a stable static empire making its wealth through peaceful trade, so it was going to see times of crisis, often preventable, no matter what.

Agree.
 

Deleted member 97083

Exactly. You would need to have someone like the Gracchi to oppose the interests of the nobility, but considering the way the Gracchi ended in the Republican period I fear that they would have an equal ending in the Empire period.
If religion could be wedged into the conflict to add some elite support, then maybe it would be possible. Perhaps Constantine never takes power, the Christian population increases under a pagan empire, and a later usurper, who is both Christian and has the mindset of Gracchi brothers, rides on the momentum of both.
 
If religion could be wedged into the conflict to add some elite support, then maybe it would be possible. Perhaps Constantine never takes power, the Christian population increases under a pagan empire, and a later usurper, who is both Christian and has the mindset of Gracchi brothers, rides on the momentum of both.

Interesting idea...the problem was that by the time the Christian population was big enough to do such a revolt the crisis would be already almost irreversible.
 

Deleted member 97083

Interesting idea...the problem was that by the time the Christian population was big enough to do such a revolt the crisis would be already almost irreversible.
Well yeah, the crisis would have happened already by that point. It wouldn't be irreversible though, otherwise we'd still be suffering from the Great Bullion Famine.
 
Top