[OriPekelman]

For those interested, the practice of debasement actually predates the middle ages by, a lot. By 301 inflation was so bad Diocletian had to put out a price fixing edict. It didn't work. It took Constantine's Solidus (basically solid gold coin - that will stay stable for almost a thousand years) to stabilize the currency. By the early fourth century the denarius that used to have 50% silver contained almost no silver at all (something like 1 to 5%).

[thaumasiotes]

Between the years 150 and 100 BC, the Seleucid tetradrachm went from 95% silver to 65%. As the name suggests, it continued to weigh four drachms.

Debasement occurs any time the government runs out of money and can force people to take the debased money. The previous ~150 years of the same government minted tetradrachms that were all silver, probably because their main use of the silver was paying foreign mercenaries.

> By the early fourth century the denarius that used to have 50% silver

This is already a heavily debased coin. Nobody starts by adulterating their coins down to 50% monetary content.

> It took Constantine's Solidus (basically solid gold coin - that will stay stable for almost a thousand years) to stabilize the currency.

This isn't plausible; gold coins barely transact (gold is too rare). Minting coins that nobody uses won't affect the currency that people do use.

Wikipedia notes that, on issuance, Constantine's solidus was worth 275,000 denarii. The denarius was debased, but it was also a coin that people carried around and used to buy things. Think about the number of transactions that might plausibly have involved one or more solidi. If we underestimate the 4th-century denarius as being roughly as valuable as a US penny... how much use would you have for a $2,750 coin?

[qwytw]

> This isn't plausible

Why? Of course it wasn't accessible or particularly useful for the majority of people but it was central to the Byzantine economy/financial-system functioned. Soldiers were paid in gold (every 6 or 12 months so that simplified things) and taxes were also collected in gold whenever feasible.

Relying on gold as your primary currnecy of course wasn't ideal since the outcome was a partially demonetisation of the wider economy.

However while it was was basically entirely unavailable in Western Europe and there were almost no gold coins in circulation until the 13th or so it was much more widespread in the Eastern Mediterranean.

[thaumasiotes]

> and taxes were also collected in gold whenever feasible

Well, for one thing, most people wouldn't be able to afford a single gold coin. You might collect taxes from a province in gold; you're not going to collect taxes from a person that way.

> the outcome was a partially demonetisation of the wider economy

This is also an odd claim; the number of denarii kept going up.

> it was central to [the way] the Byzantine economy/financial-system functioned.

Any time you have a system that doesn't involve something, that thing that isn't involved also isn't central to the functioning of the system. There is no way for such a rare coin to be central to the functioning of the system - if it disappeared entirely, the system would continue exactly as before, since almost nothing would have changed.

[qwytw]

> the number of denarii kept going up.

It wasn't even minted by the 300s. There were multiple attempts to replace it with a new stable silver coin but none were very successful.

> Well, for one thing, most people wouldn't be able to afford a single gold coin. You might collect taxes from a province in gold; you're not going to collect taxes from a person that way.

Well yes, that was a significant problem. Often there was no other choice than to collect taxes in-kind and then the tax collectors either had to find local uses for all that stuff or sell it for gold that could be sent to the central treasury in Constantinople.

By the 500s the Empire was mainly only minting gold and bronze coinage which of course was very problematic (as you said gold is much too expensive for most transactions while bronze has the opposite problem). There were no stable, widespread silvers coins that were continuously minted until the 800s or so (Miliaresion) and then its value collapsed again after a few centuries when they went back to debasing during a period of economic crisis.

> There is no way for such a rare coin to be central to the functioning of the system

Well.. I accept that this is your opinion. Regardless, that's simply not how the Roman/Byzantine Empire worked. Gold coinage (or using gold solidus as the primary unit of accounting) was absolutely integral to its functioning. (moreover it was also central to international trade)

[Beijinger]

It was part of the downfall of the Roman Empire

1. Not enough mines to mine silver, exhausted based on their technology

2. China sold silk and other stuff and accumulating silver

https://cassandralegacy.blogspot.com/2014/03/peak-civilizati...

[thaumasiotes]

What's the downfall part of that?

[Beijinger]

If your money becomes worthless?

[thaumasiotes]

What does that have to do with downfall? The value of your money is whatever it is, determined by the productivity of your state and the amount of money it recognizes.

Given your username of "Beijinger", you should be familiar with the traditional Chinese currency: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_of_cash_coins_(currency...

> the weight of the Chinese money necessary for a journey of over three thousand miles was, as the Russian consul thought, one of the greatest of our almost insurmountable obstacles.

The extreme worthlessness of Chinese currency didn't play into any Chinese downfalls.

(Though it's not obvious to me why Sachtleben wanted to transport currency rather than bullion.)

[Beijinger]

The Roman Empire could not pay her troops anymore. Neither could they pay the Chinese for their products.

BTW, when China accumulated a majority of the world silver again and did not buy anything from the world, the British said, we have something you need! The reason for the opium wars....