Where did the professional politician first appear on the historical stage? Was it at some point during the Roman Republic?
edit: changed “Roman Empire” to “Roman Republic”
It depends what you mean. Hoppe’s idea of Natural Elites might be enlightening: http://mises.org/etexts/intellectuals.pdf
Thanks. Nah, not natural elites.
I mean someone who, in a representative government, is in a position to abuse his legislative/executive/judicial power for the benefit of his favored supporters, and of course himself, at the expense of the majority.
I should specify: I mean during the Roman Republic, not the Roman Empire.
The Cathaginian Republic /Oligarchic system ran at least somewhat parallel to the Roman Republic, Athenian democracy came before the Roman Republic, oligarchies and the Persian Satrap system came even before that, and government beureaucies even before that.
Thanks. I’m looking for a parallel between monetary inflation and political careerism. Do you have any knowledge of this with regard to these historical governments?
It’s a very difficult subject to introduce. I will post here in a month or two, when I advance more the research I’m into.
But for now I would warn you to be careful about Roman sources. or try to do your work about another more recent time, maybe the formation of modern states where it is more documented and you will be able to do a more profound solid work, which will be welcome : - )
This is the classic example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_of_the_3rd_century
EDIT: Of course, this isn’t under the Republic. As far as I can tell, the only major instances of debasement under the Republic were during the Second Punic War (late 3rd century BCE) and during the Social War (early 1st century BCE). It might seem strange to us, but the dictator Sulla actually restored the value of coins to their previous weight (this brings to mind Hoppe’s Democracy: the God that failed). The first major debasement after this was under Nero (reduced to 90% metal value).
It really useful for me. Thanks you for the reply.
It always astounds me how much people know about history that far back. William, did you have any “best” way of studying history?
Thanks. Sounds interesting, but I’m not doing a research project per se. Just curious. Look forward to your post.
Thanks. I’m looking for a parallel between monetary inflation and political careerism. Do you have any knowledge of this with regard to these historical governments?
Unfortunatley nothing too concrete. There is very little evidence that I know of to support any claim in either direction. However, Persia seemed to have been a fairly stable empire. In fact up to that time probably the most stable and proseperous. The only thing that seemed to cause their demise was military innovation.
There is nothing to indicate that either Phoenicia or Carthage were fiscally irresponsible. In fact, the opposite would appear to be the case. In their losses to Rome, Carthage seemed to be able to pay off their indemnities and manage to have a growinghealthy economy (the reason for the 3rd Punic war).
As for Greece:
http://mises.org/daily/3346#part6
And as a possible refutation for the correlation you are trying to use, look at the inflationary period of Diocletion/Constantine in imperial Rome, or even some of the later “Byzantine” emperors (such as Justinian) or Sassanid emperors. This was probably of the nastiest inflationary period on record in the ancient world.
Thank you. Yea, wartime inflations are kind of what I expected to see, ya know? Not that this negates or even discounts the operation of political careerism in these particular Republican cases, come to think about it.
It always astounds me how much people know about history that far back. William, did you have any “best” way of studying history?
If you like something read about it, know the archeology, the art, etc, and never start with a history book that is revisionist/ has an obvious agenda, and don’t start with biographies or military history.
For ancient history in particular, 101 college introductory texts are usually an awsome place to start. They usually list many sources and discuss the general archeological finds that have been going on before they even start with narratives. They will also usually use chunks of direct quotes from literature and sources at the time (ex; if you are reading about ancient Rome they may have passages and poems from Roman poets and historians) These books can be found for quiet cheap on amazon.
If you have any specific interests or want any specific recomendations let me know.
Awesome, thanks.
I think the reason we don’t see the Republican opportunist generals (Marius, Sulla, Pompey, Caesar etc.) creating inflation is that if they were to do this through debasement, the recipients of this coinage (i.e. their soldiers) would actually be getting paid less per coin due to the lower metal content. This differs with the modern system in that the newly printed banknotes are actually - at the time of their printing - worth the same as those in circulation, and the worth of all notes later drops in relation to the increased supply. I.e. if Caesar were to debase his coins and therefore pay his soldiers less per coin, his soldiers would be able to figure this out and desert/revolt. If he were able to simply print money, the soldiers’ pay would still be worth the same amount to them initially and so he would not be paying them less per note. Since it was in the general’s interest to appear the most attractive leader for prospective soldiers, he needed to be able to supply a reliable coin, among other things (booty, land grants etc.). This of course assumes that people were vigilant about the metal content of their coins. That Diocletian’s full weight coins - pegged at the same value as heavily debased coins - instantly disappeared from circulation suggests that the ancients were greatly interested in the metal content of coins.
Interesting note, Sulla would rather face all the problems he did with his soldiers and his inadequecy to pay them, than actually cause inflation. After his death Sulla left his soldiers as one of the most notoriously rebellious and disenfranchised groups, vast chunks of land poverty stricken and desolate, and a bigger beureaucratic headache with the magistacies with his reforms; but to his credit, he did not inflate, for whatever reason, it was not an option to him to solve hiss problems.
Very interesting, William. It seems the act of debasement was easily seen through and therefore next to useless. When it was employed it was received with much resentment, while today devaluation of currency is applauded by most!
Thanks, William. Do you have any recommendations for the best sources on the history of Iran? I’m studying the country a lot centralized around the time of the Iranian Revolution.
Persia debased it’s coinage in order to fight the wars against Alexander the Great. And they lost. Come to think of it, how much of Alexander’s victory could be attributed to Persian debasement of their coinage?
Not sure the Satrap system fits in with your modern professional politician angle.
The one clear link to inflationary activity has to be war. One of the primary reasons nations or states debased their coinage was to pay off military debts.
I think Sulla played a large role in the way Caesar went about his business. First, because Caesar had been stripped of his wealth. Second, because of the aftermath he witnessed after Sulla’s death.
Caesar used the power of spending to build up his reputation and political power. He wasn’t really liked by other politicians. He made a point to pay his armies, and exploited Spain and Gaul to cover his debts and even make a tremendous profit. He actually left his praetorship to go to Spain before his term expired for fear of being prosecuted for his debts. His association with Marcus Crassus was purely for financial reasons. Pompey also had wealth, but it was Pompey’s military reputation he valued the most.
If not for the riches of Gaul, extracted along with a huge portion of the population as slaves, it’s hard to say what Caesar would have done. I don’t think he would have had the popularity to rise to the rank of Dictator had he not had the wealth he took from the provinces. It would appear that the politicians of Rome of the old Republic just didn’t have the power to debase the coinage without consequence. That would come under the Emperors, where the Senate lacked the power for any politician to gain more influence than the Emperor. Or more importantly, few had the power to prevent the Emperor from doing something really stupid like debasing the coinage.
The Dictators of the old Republic were always limited to the threat at hand, most typically a military threat. Once the threat subsided or after six months, the office was no longer in place or the dictator was replaced by another. Sulla and Caesar are the two exceptions. Technically, Sulla did not have the same arrangement as the previous dictators, and the new office was unlimited in duration although he only served one year, abdicating the post to retire to private life. Caesar revived the same office Sulla had, limited it to one year terms, but was appointed to nine consecutive terms. Augustus was offered the same office, but refused.
One of the major limits of the Roman Dictator’s power was that he had no power over the public treasury, and could only make use of the money granted to him by the Senate. That means none of the dictators, included Sulla or Caesar, had the imperium to debase the coinage. And given the structure of Roman society, to suggest such a thing would be akin to claiming the title of kingship.