LYCURGUS OF SPARTA: BUYING FREEDOM WITH IRON

If you were as unfortunate as I was, and attended American public schools in the last thirty years, you were told more lies than you were facts about ancient Greece. The lies told today mostly involve the open practice of homosexuality, even though there are almost no references to it in classical literature. The lies told to me, going to elementary school in the early 1980’s, were concerning Greek democracy and its influence on American government. I was taught that Athens was a jewel of individual liberty, while Sparta was a military dictatorship that knew nothing but violence. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Machiavelli points out that the democracy of Athens (just like democracies in general) quickly turned to outright anarchy and mob rule, ending in a tyranny within less than one hundred years. Sparta, on the other hand, enjoyed a unique, albeit bizarre, form of republic so strong that it lasted more than eight hundred years under the same, original set of laws. This makes Sparta the single longest lasting state the world has ever known (that is, under the same constitution). It’s unique laws and culture were the invention of one man, Lycurgus. Though of royal blood himself, left his throne in the hands of another king as he traveled the world, borrowing the best traits from the governments of every land he visited, writing his laws upon returning. This tale, I will end here in the interests of saving space, since debate about the exact method of governing Sparta is an entirely separate, though fascinating argument in itself. I would advise those answering this post to consult Plutarch’s biography of Lycurgus before continuing, if you have not already. But please do not rely on modern scholars interpretation of Spartan life, especially since they never touch on the subject of Spartan economics. I also realize that Lycurgus’ idea of “freedom” is not the kind we think of today, since it meant mainly freedom from foreign intervention.

As a result of Sparta’s long war with Messenia, Sparta was almost surely bankrupt. They had, out of necessity, become an isolationist, national security state, ruling over Messenian Helot slaves that outnumbered Sparta’s nobles at least ten to one. As a measure to facilitate trade within his own borders, Lycurgus did something that had never been done before. He declared that all Spartan currency should be made of iron, effectively inventing fiat money, as well as legal tender laws. This further isolated Sparta, as was also his intent, since such coin was totally worthless outside Spartan teritory.

Fiat currency, though extremely dangerous, has had its success stories, and Sparta is surely one of them. For the eight hundred years of Sparta’s government, there was no reference to any kind of inflation. Had it occurred, it would surely have been noteworthy, since carrying a cartload of iron coins to buy a pair of shoes could not have escaped the attention of ancient scholars. This monetary system seems to have collapsed only when Sparta expanded its borders beyond Laconia, since foreigners would never have accepted fiat money. It is strangely joyful to think that the basic laws of economics helped lay waste to such an otherwise powerful state.

Another notable success of fiat money was Benjamin Franklin’s “Continental Scrip”. Having a severe shortage of gold and silver coin, the British colonies were forced to issue fiat money to make trade easier within America. This worked splendidly, even though it was no good for thepayment of taxes. Once Franklin foolishly told Bank of England officials how America suddenly became rich, Britain quickly made Scrip illegal, calling it counterfeiting. The Bank of England printed money out of nothing too, of course. The only difference was that Continental Scrip carried no debt!

Fiat money failed, however, when Continental Currency was used during the American Revolution. The reason for this is quite simple. The government issues fiat money to buy goods for the war, and anything used in war is a complete drain on the economy. The goods produced for war never add to the wealth of the population. They are useless for anything but destruction, and require expensive maintenance and replacement when they either break or are blown up. To replace wartime goods, more money is printed and used to buy them, and since the amount of money in circulation rapidly grows compared to the amount of goods and services available, inflation is inevitable.

During the American Civil War, Abraham Lincoln solved his problem of how to pay for a war by temporarily subverting the gold standard and printing his own fiat money. This he decided to do instead of increasing the national debt, with lenders charging interest rates of up to 20%. His “green backs” were backed by nothing but the good faith and credit of the United States. Curiously, this did not cause inflationary problems, even though war production exploded. The price of gold stayed secure at twenty dollars per ounce before, during, and after the Civil War. As soon as the war was over, the U.S. went right back on the gold standard, but Lincoln’s “green back” money was so popular that it was reissued until 1994!

Getting back to Sparta, I must point out this enigma I am unable to solve. Sparta, for nearly eight hundred years, used nothing but fiat money. They managed to live securely and without inflation, even though they were in a constant state of war. Though prolonged wars were rare, nearly all production related to war in one way or another, in order to maintain the Spartan machine. If anyone has insight into this phenomenon, please post an answer. In conjunction with getting rid of money with built-in debt, figuring this out may be the answer to controlling inflation forever.

A quick correction: The above should read “Colonial Scrip”.

A guess: In a place where they fight for 800 years in a row, iron is a valuable commodity. Like gold to us.

Nah. Plutarch states that they were cured in vinegar, making them brittle and useless as anything but metal slugs. Besides, iron was one thing Laconia had in abundance; it’s why Sparta conquered Messenia in the first place.

Sparta was a shithole. They had a “Spartan lifestyle”. There was almost no wealth creation, nor any desire to create wealth. What they did have access to was enough non communal farmland land that could sustain the population

Only Spartan nobility led a Spartan lifestyle. Messenian Helots were owned by the state. The “middle class”, called the Perioikoi (dwellers around), were allowed economic independence to trade amongst themselves. They provided the nobility who did the fighting with arms and equipment, paid for in fiat coin. Plutarch points out that their craftsmanship was in making things that were useful and practical. Spartan furniture was prized throughout Greece, because it would last nearly forever. He also mentions the “Spartan cup”, which he describes to be something like a canteen, used by Greek soldiers. Though not as wealthy as other Greeks, they hardly starved.

Only the nobles had their outward showings of wealth limited in scale, just like being in the military today. The lands of noble families were permanently fixed in their size, like military housing today. Free residents of Laconia, farmers and merchants, had economic independence, though were limited in trade, since nobody else would accept their money.

None of this, however, answers the question as to why there was no inflation!

Another thought: Fiat moiney alone does not produce inflation. It is the govt making more and more of it that produces inflation. So maybe those crazy Spartans didn’t do that?

To be clear: What I call “Spartans” were those recognized as Spartan citizens; not the Messenians. The periokoi conducted business as normal, the Spartans used Iron until the end of the 5th Century. The Spartans it is estimated only made up 1/20 th of the “Spartan Population”. So while 1/20th used a retarded currency and land system, those subject to them did not. The Spartans were able to leach of their production. Sparta didn’t really colonize, and their entire economic system and way of life was 100% revolved around them leaching off the helots.

Furthermore, while the world of the Hellenics was still agrarian, Sparta alone among the major city-states remained the sole basis of economy. What was their to inflate?

@ the OP

Here’s my guess.

In the ancient world, people lived under Malthusian conditions. In modern times, we see a rise in price levels as a result of inflation. Under Malthusian conditions, where the great mass of men live at subsistence levels, a rise in prices leads to starvation. Inflation then, simply reduces the population level from the height it would have abtained, absent any inflation. If prices rise, more starvation occurs, which brings the price back down into equilibrium.

Keep in mind, I don’t know much about ancient Sparta, and I am taking everything you are saying for granted.

The only problem is that even in the ancient world, “Malthusian conditions” are nonsense. Sparta was poor, but never at purely subsistence levels. Sparta also never experienced mass famine and starvation. They simply didn’t grow because they didn’t trade with anyone. The economies of ancient Greece, Rome, Egypt, and Carthage thrived, often leading to trade wars and clashes of superpowers, but never to famine.

If you were as unfortunate as I was, and attended American public schools in the last thirty years, you were told more lies than you were facts about ancient Greece. The lies told today mostly involve the open practice of homosexuality, even though there are almost no references to it in classical literature.

Pederasty is directly referred to throughout the works of Plato. Also Alcibiades tries to seduce Socrates in The Symposium.

The lies told to me, going to elementary school in the early 1980’s, were concerning Greek democracy and its influence on American government. I was taught that Athens was a jewel of individual liberty, while Sparta was a military dictatorship that knew nothing but violence. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Machiavelli points out that the democracy of Athens (just like democracies in general) quickly turned to outright anarchy and mob rule, ending in a tyranny within less than one hundred years.

If you are referring to the Thirty Tyrants, that oligarchical regime was propped up by Sparta herself. Throughout her history, Sparta created oligarchies in the cities she conquered.

Sparta, on the other hand, enjoyed a unique, albeit bizarre, form of republic so strong that it lasted more than eight hundred years under the same, original set of laws.

This makes Sparta the single longest lasting state the world has ever known (that is, under the same constitution). It’s unique laws and culture were the invention of one man, Lycurgus. Though of royal blood himself, left his throne in the hands of another king as he traveled the world, borrowing the best traits from the governments of every land he visited, writing his laws upon returning.

Lycurgas is, at best, a semi-historical/semi-legendary figure. Ancient peoples often attribute laws to a heroic “lawgiver”, when they were more likely the product of an evolutionary process.

This tale, I will end here in the interests of saving space, since debate about the exact method of governing Sparta is an entirely separate, though fascinating argument in itself. I would advise those answering this post to consult Plutarch’s biography of Lycurgus before continuing, if you have not already.

Are you going to accept Plutarch’s life of Romulus as well? You need to be more discerning with your ancient sources.

But please do not rely on modern scholars interpretation of Spartan life, especially since they never touch on the subject of Spartan economics. I also realize that Lycurgus’ idea of “freedom” is not the kind we think of today, since it meant mainly freedom from foreign intervention.

As a result of Sparta’s long war with Messenia, Sparta was almost surely bankrupt. They had, out of necessity, become an isolationist, national security state, ruling over Messenian Helot slaves that outnumbered Sparta’s nobles at least ten to one.

Right, they created a society based entirely on foreign slaughter and domestic parasitism “out of necessity”…

As a measure to facilitate trade within his own borders, Lycurgus did something that had never been done before. He declared that all Spartan currency should be made of iron, effectively inventing fiat money, as well as legal tender laws. This further isolated Sparta, as was also his intent, since such coin was totally worthless outside Spartan teritory.

Iron money is a commodity money, not a fiat money. Iron emerged as a currency on the market (it was used in Homeric times), and has use-value. Fiat money, by definition, has no use value.

Fiat currency, though extremely dangerous, has had its success stories, and Sparta is surely one of them. For the eight hundred years of Sparta’s government, there was no reference to any kind of inflation. Had it occurred, it would surely have been noteworthy, since carrying a cartload of iron coins to buy a pair of shoes could not have escaped the attention of ancient scholars.

So perhaps the Spartans simply did not debase their currency. That doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with their enforced monometallism. Furthermore, inflation is only one economic ill. A far worse one is autarky.

This monetary system seems to have collapsed only when Sparta expanded its borders beyond Laconia, since foreigners would never have accepted fiat money. It is strangely joyful to think that the basic laws of economics helped lay waste to such an otherwise powerful state.

Another notable success of fiat money was Benjamin Franklin’s “Continental Scrip”. Having a severe shortage of gold and silver coin,

There is no such thing as a “shortage” of any kind of currency.

the British colonies were forced to issue fiat money to make trade easier within America. This worked splendidly, even though it was no good for thepayment of taxes. Once Franklin foolishly told Bank of England officials how America suddenly became rich,

Britain quickly made Scrip illegal, calling it counterfeiting. The Bank of England printed money out of nothing too, of course. The only difference was that Continental Scrip carried no debt!

This is money crankery. A society cannot become rich by printing money.

Fiat money failed, however, when Continental Currency was used during the American Revolution. The reason for this is quite simple. The government issues fiat money to buy goods for the war, and anything used in war is a complete drain on the economy. The goods produced for war never add to the wealth of the population. They are useless for anything but destruction, and require expensive maintenance and replacement when they either break or are blown up. To replace wartime goods, more money is printed and used to buy them, and since the amount of money in circulation rapidly grows compared to the amount of goods and services available, inflation is inevitable.

During the American Civil War, Abraham Lincoln solved his problem of how to pay for a war by temporarily subverting the gold standard and printing his own fiat money. This he decided to do instead of increasing the national debt, with lenders charging interest rates of up to 20%. His “green backs” were backed by nothing but the good faith and credit of the United States. Curiously, this did not cause inflationary problems, even though war production exploded. The price of gold stayed secure at twenty dollars per ounce before, during, and after the Civil War.

T. DiLorenzo: “the Legal Tender Act empowered the Secretary of the Treasury to issue paper money (“greenbacks”) that were not immediately redeemable in gold or silver. The National Currency Acts of 1863 and 1864 created a system of nationally chartered banks that could issue bank notes supplied to them by the new Comptroller of the Currency, and a 10 percent tax was placed on state bank notes to drive them out of business and establish a federal monetary monopoly. The government’s paper money flooded the banks so that by July 1864 greenback dollars were worth a mere 35 cents in gold.

As soon as the war was over, the U.S. went right back on the gold standard, but Lincoln’s “green back” money was so popular that it was reissued until 1994!

Getting back to Sparta, I must point out this enigma I am unable to solve. Sparta, for nearly eight hundred years, used nothing but fiat money. They managed to live securely and without inflation, even though they were in a constant state of war. Though prolonged wars were rare, nearly all production related to war in one way or another, in order to maintain the Spartan machine. If anyone has insight into this phenomenon, please post an answer. In conjunction with getting rid of money with built-in debt, figuring this out may be the answer to controlling inflation forever.

They did not live securely. They lived with the ever-present danger of a revolt of its helots or its subject states.

They did not have to inflate to surreptitiously milk their productive host to support their war spending. They just milked their productive class overtly, because they didn’t have to worry about their popularity with their helots.

That is not true.

Haha, I especially liked the bit about there not being widespread famines and no homosexuality.

What about the soaking of those coins in vinegar till they were brittle and useless, mentioned in the posts above?

“Having a severe shortage of gold and silver coin, the British colonies were forced to issue fiat money to make trade easier within America.”

As far as a shortage of gold and silver go, I believe this was an application of Gresham’s Law. Rothbard talks about a period in Colonial history where a State government issued unbacked paper currency to pay off debts for an unprofitable venture into Canada, promising to retire the notes gradually when they were recollected as taxes. Of course the temptation to inflate is always present and the State issued even more unbacked currency. Naturally these notes depreciated on the market against gold and silver, but the government declared that the notes must be accepted at par. This led to the undervalued gold and silver coins being driven out of circulation by the overvalued unbacked paper currency. I don’t remember when exactly this happened (either the 17th or 18th century in colonial history), but I would imagine that if there is a “shortage” of gold and silver coin (at any period in history), it is almost certainly due to government action.

“His “green backs” were backed by nothing but the good faith and credit of the United States. Curiously, this did not cause inflationary problems, even though war production exploded. The price of gold stayed secure at twenty dollars per ounce before, during, and after the Civil War.”

As I recall, price indices for this period for the North roughly doubled during the 4 year war period. The greenback depreciated heavily against gold backed notes precisely because it wasn’t backed by gold. I wish I could remember the source (I’m on vacation, but I’ll try to look it up when I get back home), but I want to say it depreciated to less than 50% against gold and gold backed notes (reflecting the fact that so many had been printed for the war effort).

“Fiat money, by definition, has no use value.”

I was under the impression that fiat money is just anything decreed to be legal tender by the government. Obviously paper money comes to mind, but wouldn’t the gold standard (not gold per se, just the gold standard as imposed by the state) also fit this definition? Or is fiat money simply something relatively useless imposed as money by the state?

Gary North summarizes Mises’ definition of fiat money as follows, “certificates designated by the State as money, but not backed by anything”.

Oops, I didn’t catch that. It’s no wonder that such a currency would not be inflated. It’s hard to imagine how vinegar-soaked iron can be debased. Yet its supply cant be increase ad libitum, because of the good iron that must be destroyed to produce it. Yet, according to Plutarch, “merchants laughed at this money”, so its no wonder the Spartans were mired in primitive autarky.

OK, once again, the main question is how a fiat currency could exist for 800 years without any noticeable inflation. Comments about the morality of Sparta’s government and how many academic elites in Athens buggered each other are exactly what I was trying to avoid.

The above, however, does present some interesting points. The Bank of England was in the process of manipulating the Pound before the American Revolution, and its incestuous relationships with Parliament and the British East India Company would be too numerous to count. I’ll have to set aside an entirely new thread for that subject.

During the Civil War, legal tender laws, though tyrannical in nature, were a preferable alternative to incurring vast amounts of government debt. Once green-back currency was incorporated into the general money pool after the war, prices once again stabilized. Shortages as a result of war also contributed to rising prices for both types of currency. The general price of gold, though, was around $20.65 and stayed that way until 1930.

I’m surprised no one has asked the question that’s (seemingly) begging to be asked. Let me ask it, then.

How do you know whether Sparta lacked any noticeable inflation?

There is, of course, a third option.