In week 4 we're going to be considering some heavy hitting economic theories about how medieval Europe worked. In particular, we're going to be comparing the theories of these two historians:
 |
| R.H.C. Davis |
 |
| Henri Pirenne |
Remember, the first assessment task is also coming up next week. There will be an in-class test in the second lecture hour on Monday 19th March (unless you have already agreed an alternate arrangement with Clare and myself).
And just because I can't leave a whole blog post with no pretty pictures except photos of eminent old men, here's a completely gratuitous picture of Merton College, Oxford, where Davis worked for a time. It has, in my opinion, the most beautiful sounding bells in the world (or maybe they just make me nostalgic). You can hear them here.
 |
| Merton College, Oxford (Image by J. Gollner) |
15 comments:
I found it interesting that the Byzantine Empire was rich, as the government was stronger than any of the western governments. Their government organised their industries so they could control everything. They controlled the prices, profits, imports and exports.
The government was obviously clever as they made sure there were enough supplies but not too many so nothing was wasted and no profits were lost. This made the government responsible for everybodies wealth. If they suffered losses, the whole Empire would suffer, but if they gained, the whole Empire gained. They were completely in control.
In reading this week's material in the reading guide, I found it interesting to think about the different ways in which the land was tended; whether communally or individually it seems. In light of what we had been speaking about in the tutorials and lectures, I found it hard to concieve people working the land in such isolated situations as the "bosky" land, where only at Church was any sense of community or identity established. With the reduction of travel and mercantile activity in this era, the isolation would seem dangerous - although on the other hand, isolation can be protective for bandits are hardly likely to thieve from one small land holding.
I found this part of the reading interesting as well, especially when you consider that economists today want as much of the market to remain as 'free' as possible, with the least amount of government regulation or interference (‘free market’). It appears that here is an economy which had lots of government intervention yet prospered, although this is probably not entirely due to government organisation or intervention. Being on the Mediterranean and having trade routes to places like China no doubt helped. This reading also seems to back up what Clare has been lecturing on – just how unsafe and unsettled it was at this time in Western Europe. It’s kind of nice to know that some things haven’t changed – people still wanted their luxuries - silk, fine clothes, glass, ivories, enamel plates . . .
I think the concept of the manorial system was quite interesting, especially given its direct relation to feudalism. As there was essentially no need of coins during this period of economic decline in Western Europe, it’s seems the manorial system provided organisation and a necessary framework for society to continue functioning. It allowed people to live self-sufficiently while providing a sense of stability, irrespective of the considerable reduction in trade.
I agree with you both (Leah and Catherine). I found reading about the Byzantine Empire fascinting.
Especially concerning its economic wealth and how its governments intentions and actions were specifically focussed on the security of the empires lucrative trades and consequently their trade routes. It was also interesting to further learn the differences between the West and Eastern Europe.
Seeing the survey of landed property really put into perspective the abbey's wealth! The dues owed by the tenants of the tributary lands seem quite large. In the readings it said that there would have been "..a small marketable surplus of agricultural produce", it makes me wonder how much profit the abbey made!
What people consider "valuable" really tells you something about how the people live. Coins, for instance, were only considered of value when trade flourished and what I particularly found interesting was how people switched from gold coins to silver coins and the theory that this was because silver was more rare and valuable at the time. That is something else I found intriguing: when coins were in use they were made out of the metals precious to people at the time, whereas these days our money is made of plastic - hardly a rare and precious product.
Great point Melanie: so where does the 'value' lie in our money, if not in the raw materials?
Incidentally, our coins are not actually worthless: they're made of very specific combinations of copper and nikel (plus aluminium in the $1 and $2), and none of these commodities lacks value on the markets. See the mint website for more details.
I think manorial and feudal systems were around at the same time, but is Davis arguing that they were directly related? If so, what was the nature of that relationship? Perhaps we can discuss this on Monday!
I think the plastic money that you are referring to Melanie is known as 'fiat money'. Basically, it is money that has been declared legal tender by a government and has no intrinsic value - although the coins are made with metals that do have some value, the value of the metal is less than the value of the coin as currency (its face value).
When the currency was made out of precious metals, the value of coins did fluctuate according to the availability of the raw materials, as Melanie has said. What a government can do is ‘debase’ the currency: altering the size or metal content of a coin. Nero did this during his reign when he had problems paying his bills. Debasing a currency can allow a government to pay off their debts, but at the expense of their citizens’ purchasing power due to inflation – a modern example of this is the hyperinflation in the Weimar Republic, where a loaf of bread went from 1 mark in 1919 to 100,000 million marks in 1923. Currency can also be valuable if you are trying to purchase another country’s currency or goods -you only have to look how at how the Australian dollar has risen in value against the American dollar in the last few years.
I found it really interesting how the lords and Church came to own so much of its land, that is because of how difficult for the peasants to own land independently, thus virtually forcing them to surrender that freedom by giving their land over to the lords and the Church. I guess that is reflective of society at the time when the lords and the Church were beginning to understand how to develop one’s own wealth and power, by consolidating the property of many into their own estate; which is, again, quite alike to the Roman Empire where wealthy families developed estates by amassing many smaller family farms during the Golden Age of the first and second centuries.
Catherine, you're quite right about the difference between face and intrinsic value; and about debasement too.
My question is really to do with how we account for the discrepancy between face:intrinsic value in our society (and therefore what kinds of things we might want to ask about medieval money). I think you're heading towards my thinking when you say that our money "has been declared legal tender by a government"... So even though the physical item is worth about the same as a Monopoly dollar, we treat it as if it's worth something more because we trust in that declaration. (Although maybe not if you're in Greece!) We trust it so implicitly we don't even think about it, we just do: it's subconscious or internalised into how we function in daily life. Our attitude to such a presumably worthless plastic object tells us a lot about Australians' assumptions about government.
How does this relate to medieval money? Well, I think we should stop and wonder whether money then carried the same kind of message about government/rule being powerful and trustworthy. How much did people trust the 'idea' of government/rule that money might convey? Were they suspicious of money's value? Did this affect how they thought of the rulers whose pictures were on the coins? How much were rulers trying to use money to look powerful and trustworthy? Did it work in general? Did it work when the currency was debased?
These are just some of the ways I think that wondering about a tiny physical object like a coin can lead us into medieval societies and how they worked! I'm not offering answers, just some provokative questions!
The debate over whether the breakdown of trade and commerce between the 6th and 9th century was due to a single cataclysmic event or a slow process of erosion was something I found interesting. Whether, Pirenne suggests, a degeneration of safety in the Mediterranean following the Islamic invasion of Tunisia caused the inhabitants of towns such as Marseilles in the Latin West to abandon their seafaring ways, or whether it was due to a slow disintegration of the economy as people began to travel less, cultivate land out of necessity for their own survival rather than for trading purposes and cease to have the ability to purchase the exotic exports of the Islamic and Byzantine Empires. The latter, as argued by Davis seems to be a more likely scenario as there are still records of Asian silk and Egyptian papyrus being used in Western Europe during the time of the Carolingian Empire and efforts were still being made to maintain a form of economy as Charlemagne standardised currency throughout his Empire. However, it seems that the lack of safety in the region dispelled the desire of people travel and trade as the Jewish men mentioned by Davis did, and consequentially they lived a life of survival rather than indulgence and did not seek the expensive and exotic luxuries available from the Mediterranean region.
It's interesting how the decrease of commerce in the Latin West during the 9th and 10th century can be seen to be a result of both old and new problems. Old being the fact that ever since the split of Rome into Eastern and Western Empires, the West had little to offer in terms of trade other than slaves, animals and furs. Along with this there were new issues, such as; pirates (Vikings, Hungarians & Muslims) ceasing communications & trade in the Mediterranean, the West's decline in slavery due to the prohibition of slavery (less slaves to sell), and a drop in travel security resulting in mostly local trade. With this it is understandable why the West faced its worst commercial breakdown, similar to the economic conditions during the fall of the Western Empire of Rome.
It's amazing how the rise and fall of trade and the economy affected numerous aspects of empires; and could 'make or break' a country. If the trade or economy fell - negative consonances were the immediate result from populations falling and commerce declining. As the reading stated; land was the only real source of wealth that couldn't be spent. I found it interesting how the Jewish merchants spoke numerous languages; which were definitely needed in their vast trade routes from India to Constantinople!
Post a Comment