The Byzantine Emperors were Anti-Commercial?

Reading "Constantine Porphyrogenitus and his World" by Arnold Toynbee as a attempt to understand more about Byzantine society, how it changed, and how it could have been and I have come upon a interesting section. Here the author compare the Byzantine Emperors to those of China in their concern of "Conquest and Agriculture" and contrasts with Islamic Caliphs who praised the merchant class. Attached is a story of a Emperor burning a gilded merchant ship his wife owned after finding out about it.

The reasoning being that given the less then divine nature of the background of many Emperors they cultivated themselves a air of pomp and aloofness. Going on about how the merchant classes in Constantinople were restricted and looked down upon and characterizing the economic development of the Byzantines was sluggish and stagnant. The Emperor took steps to nationalize local industries and refused to sell them to domestic and foreign individuals.Thereupon the author makes the distinction that the information of this is from a ledger from The Capital. That Constantinople as a capital city was by nature parasitic and that economic activities elsewhere were less restrictive to an extent.

Especially in comparison to the activity and energy of Greek merchants of other periods. Imperial restrictions on (at least) Constantinoplian merchants caused them to lose out to Arab and Iranian merchants who were going everywhere and became bankers of the world.
 
Last edited:
Capital cities in general are parasitic or symbiotic if you're feeling more charitable, that's the nature of the beast.

And restricted and looked down on? Sounds like the attitude of most of Europe in this era.
 
Constantinople relied heavily on restricted transit and unique industries that only existed in the city. It's agricultural base was shot for a long long long time, to the point where the trade with the Black Sea states was a lifeline same as it was for ancient Athens and for Italian maritime republics, and over which those Italian maritime republics eventually came into conflict.

In such conditions, would you let anyone else other than the state manufacture silk or cloth of gold? No. It'd be very hard to justify.
 
So do we get some specific examples of how the empire was anti-commercial compare to other countries at the time, or just the establishment of some vague motives for the emperors to be so?

All honesty, everything I've ever read has suggested that both in terms of wealth and status the merchants of the middle class did well under the empire. The establshment of large mercantile sectors in Constantinople would also stand against this, as would the meritocratic nature of the military.

The government was definitely heavy handed with regards to early industry and natural resource exploitation, but really that was typical of medieval states with a decently strong central authority.
 
The government was definitely heavy handed with regards to early industry and natural resource exploitation, but really that was typical of medieval states with a decently strong central authority.

Yeah. And the Byzantine government (at least within Constantinople) preferred strong central authority to the alternatives.
 
Hmm, it would appear that the Byzantine-Sassanid Beatdown and the Arab Assault put a very drastic strain on the Byzantine economy. The Byzantines largely survived on their military merit. The Byzantine attitude of preferring for foreigners flattered their pride and aided them in maintaining short-lived monopolies (such as Silk and Purple which were outdone by Islamic introductions from the east such as Paper Making and Citrus) but was as quote "The policy was deliberate, was also short-sighted. It suited the Byzantine Greeks' UN-Greek commercial sluggishness, it flattered their pride and on short term, it gave them the advantage in making their bargains. It's nemesis was that eventually it enabled one set of commercially enterprising foreginers, The North Italians, to capture from The Greeks the domestic as well as the foreign trade of the East Roman Empire."

They were good at making use of their own resources but not very keen on taking on others after the Silk Worm Trick.

Ah, and it appears without the 'Saracen Raiders' to fend off te Byzantine Asia Minor's Free Peasent's other two enemies, The Imperial Tax Collectors and Establishment Big Land Owners, they are in a much quicker peril then OTL.
 
So do we get some specific examples of how the empire was anti-commercial compare to other countries at the time, or just the establishment of some vague motives for the emperors to be so?

All honesty, everything I've ever read has suggested that both in terms of wealth and status the merchants of the middle class did well under the empire. The establshment of large mercantile sectors in Constantinople would also stand against this, as would the meritocratic nature of the military.

The government was definitely heavy handed with regards to early industry and natural resource exploitation, but really that was typical of medieval states with a decently strong central authority.

They only did well in latter periods it seems, as mentioned a period nigh two or three centuries after the Crisis of the 7th Century and while profitable for them in Constantinople it appears to be limited to the extent of the Empire. As Islamic Merchants operating under free-er enterprise were outclassing them.

The issue here then is translating this into a AH setting. My concern is that while a Byzantine Empire that did not suffer an Arab invasion while it certainly would be more powerful then its OTL counter part would still be constrained by attitudes that similarly affect China in scenarios concerning expansion or Rome following Hadrian. Which in the long run as OTL would lead to external powers and forces outpacing the Byzantines.
 
They only did well in latter periods it seems, as mentioned a period nigh two or three centuries after the Crisis of the 7th Century and while profitable for them in Constantinople it appears to be limited to the extent of the Empire. As Islamic Merchants operating under free-er enterprise were outclassing them.

The issue here then is translating this into a AH setting. My concern is that while a Byzantine Empire that did not suffer an Arab invasion while it certainly would be more powerful then its OTL counter part would still be constrained by attitudes that similarly affect China in scenarios concerning expansion or Rome following Hadrian. Which in the long run as OTL would lead to external powers and forces outpacing the Byzantines.
Ahh I see, my knowledge of the empire is primarily from Basil II onwards.

I imagine that in a world without the Arab invasions Byzantium would lag behind until something forced them to advance. The thing that helped the empire to adapt its economy OTL in the face of the Arab invasions, namely the empire's resiliance, would likely see them through an economic crisis as well or better than it faired against the Arabs. As long as the empire was given time to adapt it did so, and I imagine that would hold true TTL.
 
How and why such a crisis would arise is my concern. Especially for my No Islam TL. What practices would be kept or changed in those years between Maurice and Heraclius. Information seems to me at least scant to find toward how society and the economy would rebuild given a scant few years after 628 the Arab Conquest slammed into the Empire.
 
Top