Economy of Byzantine Empire
The
Byzantine economy
was among the most robust economies in the Mediterranean for many centuries.
Constantinople
was a prime hub in a trading network that at various times extended across nearly all of
Eurasia
and North Africa. Some scholars argue that, up until the arrival of the Arabs in the 7th century, the
Eastern Roman Empire
had the most powerful economy in the world. The Arab conquests, however, would represent a substantial reversal of fortunes contributing to a period of decline and stagnation.
Constantine V
's reforms (c. 765) marked the beginning of a revival that continued until 1204. From the 10th century until the end of the 12th, the Byzantine Empire projected an image of luxury, and the travelers were impressed by the wealth accumulated in the capital. All this changed with the arrival of the
Fourth Crusade
, which was an economic catastrophe. The
Palaiologoi
tried to revive the economy, but the late Byzantine state would not gain full control of either the foreign or domestic economic forces.
One of the economic foundations of the empire was trade. The state strictly controlled both the internal and the international trade, and retained the monopoly of issuing
coinage
. Constantinople remained the single most important commercial centre of Europe for much of the
Medieval era
, which it held until the
Republic of Venice
slowly began to overtake Byzantine merchants in trade; first through tax exemption under the
Komnenoi
, then under the
Latin Empire
.
Agriculture
[
edit
]
From 4th to end of 6th century the eastern part of Roman Empire had demographic, economic and
agricultural expansion
. The climate was opportune for farming. Even in marginal regions rural settlements flourished.
[1]
Development in the
rural economy
, though certainly slow, was continuous from the 8th to the beginning of the 14th century.
[2]
Areas close to the sea featuring cereal crops, vines, and olive groves (the interior of the
Balkans
, and
Asia Minor
concentrated on stock raising) were relatively well-favored, and appear to have played an important role in the development of the Byzantine economy. The peasantry's tools changed little through the ages, and remained rudimentary, which resulted in a low ratio of productivity to labor. Nevertheless, according to certain scholars, the permanence of techniques, and tools are evidence of their successful adaptation to the environment.
[3]
From the 7th to the 12th century, the social organization of production was arranged round two poles: estate and village (a collection of free smallholders). The village social structure was the organizational form best adapted to insecure conditions, with the estate fulfilling this role once conditions were safe again. There was in principle a clear distinction between tenants who lived on the estates (and owed dues to the master of the place), and the village inhabitants, many of whom owned land, and consequently paid taxes to the state. Nevertheless, not all the cultivators on the estate lived there, and not all enjoyed a special status. Some of them were slaves and some were wage laborers; references to wage laborers occur continuously from the 7th century to the end of the Byzantine period.
[4]
In the same way, the inhabitants of a village would not all be landholders, and of these, not all would be farmers; some village proprietors held the lowest rank of aristocrat status, and were wealthier than tenant farmers.
[5]
The distinction between landholder and tenant farmer (
paroikos
) was weakened once tenures held by
paroikoi
were considered hereditary, and once some
paroikoi
achieved owner status.
[6]
From the 10th century on, large estates assumed the leading role that had been held until then by villages, albeit in an economy that was henceforth orientated toward demand, with monetary exchanges taking a larger share.
[7]
By the beginning of the 14th century, the Macedonian countryside was made up of an almost unbroken network of estates that had replaced the former network of communes. Villages that are known to have possessed commune status in the 10th century became estates of the
fisc
, after which they might be ceded to a monastery or lay person.
[8]
The population was dense in the 6th century, but it diminished in the 7th and 8th centuries. Epidemics (such as the
plague
of 541/542 and its recurrences until 747) seem to have had greater effects on population volume than wars. From the 9th century on, the population of the empire increased, but it was unevenly distributed.
[9]
A growing population would imply an increase in the area under cultivation. The automatic effect of a larger population was also amplified by the demand from a growing number of people who did not produce much or at all. Indeed, it is estimated that areas under cultivation must have almost doubled, and that the extension of crops might have affected a shift in the location of grazing lands, and pushed back the woodlands.
[10]
The 12th century saw the development of
tilling
and
milling
technologies in the West, but there is less evidence for similar Byzantine innovation. Western advances like the
windmill
were adopted by the Byzantines, but, unlike the West,
Arabic numerals
were not yet implemented for double-entry book-keeping. There are illustrations of agricultural implements from
illuminated
medieval manuscripts of
Hesiod
's
Works and Days
including the
wheel
,
mortar
,
pestle
,
mallet
and some parts for
carts
and
soleard plough
, but, even centuries later, neither the plough nor wheeled cart were widely in use, possibly because of the nature of the
Pontic
terrain.
[11]
The conquest of the empire by the Crusaders in 1204, and the subsequent division of the Byzantine territories affected the agrarian economy as it did other aspects of economic organization, and economic life. These territories split among small Greek and Latin states, lost much of the cohesion they may have had: the Byzantine state could not function as a unifying force, and, in the 13th century, there was very little to replace it.
[12]
The 13th century is the last period, during which one may speak of significant land clearance, that is, the act of bringing previously uncultivated land into cultivation. But the progressive impoverishment of the peasantry, entailed the decline of a certain
aggregate demand
, and resulted in a concentration of resources in the hands of large landowners, who must have had considerable surpluses.
[13]
The demographic expansion came to an end in the course of the 14th century, during which a deterioration of the status of
paroikoi
, an erosion of the economic function of village by the role of the large estates, and a precipitous demographic decline in
Macedonia
is established by modern research.
[14]
The upper levels of the aristocracy lost their fortunes, and eventually there was a concentration of property on the hands of the larger, and more privileged monasteries, at least in Macedonia. The monasteries did not show great versatility or innovative spirit, and the rural economy had to wait, for its recovery, until the effects of epidemics had been reversed, security had been established, and communications restored: that is, until the firm establishment of the
Ottomans
in the Balkans.
[13]
Economic and fiscal history
[
edit
]
The Eastern Roman economy suffered less from the Barbarian raids that plagued the
Western Roman Empire
. Under
Diocletian
's reign, the
Eastern Roman Empire
's annual revenue was at 9,400,000
solidi
, out of a total of 18,000,000
solidi
for the entire Roman Empire.
[15]
These estimates can be compared to the AD 150 annual revenue of 14,500,000
solidi
and the AD 215 of 22,000,000
solidi
. By the end of
Marcian
's reign, the annual revenue for the Eastern empire was 7,800,000
solidi
, thus allowing him to amass about 100,000
pounds
/45
tonnes
of gold or 7,200,000
solidi
for the imperial treasury.
[15]
Warren Treadgold estimates that during the period from Diocletian to Marcian, the Eastern Empire's population and agriculture declined a bit, but not much. Actually, the few preserved figures show that the largest eastern cities grew somewhat between the 3rd and 5th centuries.
[16]
By Marcian's reign the Eastern Empire's difficulties seem to have been easing, and the population had probably begun growing for the first time in centuries.
[17]
The wealth of Constantinople can be seen by how
Justin I
used 3,700 pounds/1.66 tonnes of gold just for celebrating his own consulship. By the end of his reign,
Anastasius I
had managed to collect for the treasury an amount of 23,000,000
solidi
or 320,000 pounds/144 tonnes of gold. At the start of
Justinian I
's reign, the Emperor had inherited a surplus 28,800,000 from Anastasius I and Justin I.
[18]
Before Justinian I's reconquests the state had an annual revenue of 5,000,000
solidi
, which further increased after his reconquests in 550.
[18]
Nevertheless, Justinian I had little money left towards the end of his reign partly because of the
Justinian Plague
, and the
Roman–Persian Wars
(Justinian spent large amounts of money in annual subsidies to the
Sassanian Empire
[19]
), as well as his wars of reconquest in Italy and North Africa, all of which greatly strained the royal treasury. In addition to these expenses, the rebuilding of
Hagia Sophia
cost 20,000 pounds/9 tonnes of gold.
[20]
Subsidies to enemy states were also paid by Justinian's successors:
Justin II
was forced to pay 80,000 silver coins to the
Avars
for peace; his wife Sophia paid 45,000
solidi
to
Khosrau I
in return for a year's truce,
[21]
and then
Tiberius II Constantine
gave away 7,200 pounds of gold each year for four years. The East Roman Empire's aristocratic language of
Latin
began to erode and give way to the native language of
Greek
starting during the
Roman-Persian Great War of 602-628
, the
solidus
(plural:
solidi
) would begin to also be known by its Greek name, the
nomisma
(plural:
nomismata
).
[22]
The
Byzantine-Arab Wars
reduced the territory of the Empire to a third in the 7th century and the economy slumped; in 780 the Byzantine Empire's revenues were reduced to only 1,800,000
nomismata
. From the 8th century onward the Empire's economy improved dramatically. This was a blessing for Byzantium in more than one way; the economy, the administration of gold coinage and the farming of the
Anatolian
peninsula served to meet the military's constant demands. Since Byzantium was in a constant state of warfare with her neighbours (even if only by raiding) the military required weapons to be manufactured by the bigger cities (such as
Thessaloniki
) whilst the smaller towns were subject to grain, wine and even biscuit requisitions by Imperial officers. Even though the soldiers' pay was minimal, large armies were a considerable strain on Byzantium. As gold coins were spent on soldiers to serve in the army, these would in time spend their money acquiring their own goods and much revenue would return to the state in the form of taxation. As a result, the Byzantine economy was self-sufficient, allowing it to thrive in the
Dark Ages
. The success of the Byzantine army was in no small part due to the success of her economy.
Around 775, the
land
and
head taxes
yielded an estimated 1,600,000
nomismata
/7.2 tonnes of gold annually for the empire. Commerce during this period slumped, therefore only contributing 200,000
nomismata
annually. The expenditures of the period were quite large when compared to the annual revenues. Approximately 600,000
nomismata
went to the payroll of the army annually while other military costs took another 600,000
nomismata
annually. Supporting the
Byzantine bureaucracy
needed 400,000
nomismata
. Also, imperial largess cost the treasury 100,000
nomismata
every year. All of these expenses meant that the Byzantine government had only about 100,000
nomismata
in surplus revenue each year for treaties, bribes, or gifts.
[23]
Expenses again soared, when a massive
Muslim
army invaded the empire in 806, forcing
Nikephoros I
to pay a ransom of 50,000 gold coins and a yearly tribute of 30,000 gold coins.
[24]
In order to impress the
Caliph of Baghdad
,
Theophilos
distributed 36,000 gold coins to the citizens of Baghdad, and in 838, he was forced to pay 100,000 gold
dinars
to the Caliph. The Byzantine economic recovery in the early 9th century can be seen by the fact that Emperor Theophilos was able to leave 7,000,000
nomismata
/31.5 tonnes of gold in the imperial treasury for his successor in 842.
[25]
After Theophilos' death his wife
Theodora II
continued his successful policies and even increased the imperial reserves to 7,848,000
nomismata.
Around 850, the land and head taxes yielded an estimated 2,900,000
nomismata
annually for the empire. Commerce during this period increased dramatically, therefore contributing 400,000
nomismata
annually. The expenditures of the period were large, but manageable by the treasury. Approximately 1,400,000
nomismata
went to the payroll of the army annually while other military costs took another 800,000
nomismata
annually. Supporting the Byzantine bureaucracy needed 500,000
nomismata
. Also, imperial largess cost the treasury 100,000
nomismata
every year. All of these expenses meant that the Byzantine government had about 500,000
nomismata
in surplus revenue each year, much more than in the 8th century.
[23]
Unfortunately under their son
Michael III
the reserves dwindled to about 100,000
nomismata
.
[26]
However, under Basil I's prudent economic policies, the state quickly raised 4,300,000
nomismata
, far more even than the empire's annual revenue of 3,300,000
nomismata
.
[18]
From the 10th century, however, until the end of the twelfth, the
Byzantine Empire
projected an image of wealth and luxury.
Constantine V
's reforms (c. 765) marked the beginning of a revival that continued until 1204.
[27]
The travelers who visited its capital were impressed by the wealth accumulated in
Constantinople
; riches that also served the state's diplomatic purposes as a means of propaganda, and a way to impress foreigners as well its own citizens. When
Liutprand of Cremona
was sent as an ambassador to the Byzantine capital in the 940s, he was overwhelmed by the imperial residence, the luxurious meals, and acrobatic entertainment.
[28]
Sviatoslav I
was paid 15,000 pounds of gold by
Nikephoros II
to invade
Bulgaria
in 968. By the time of
Basil II
's death in 1025, the annual income had increased to 5,900,000
nomismata
, which allowed him to amass a large surplus of 14,400,000
nomismata
(200,000 pounds/90 tonnes of gold) in the treasury for his successor.
[29]
Nevertheless, the Byzantine economy went into a long decline until the
Comnenian Dynasty
was able to revive the economy. In the aftermath of the
Battle of Manzikert
, Alp Arslan at first suggested to Emperor
Romanos IV
a ransom of 10,000,000 gold coins, but later reduced it to 1,500,000 gold coins with a further 360,000 gold coins annually.
[30]
In exchange for an alliance,
Alexios I
sent 360,000 gold coins to Emperor
Henry IV
.
[31]
The wealth of the empire under the Comnenians can be seen by how Emperor
Manuel I
was able to ransom some Latin prisoners from the Muslims for 100,000 dinars, then 150,000 dinars for
Bohemond III
in 1165, 120,000 dinars for
Raynald of Chatillon
, and 150,000 dinars for
Baldwin of Ibelin
in 1180.
[32]
When Manuel became emperor he ordered 2 gold coins to be given to every householder in Constantinople and 200 pounds of gold (including 200 silver coins annually) to be given to the
Eastern Orthodox Church
.
[33]
When his niece
Theodora
married King
Baldwin III
of
Jerusalem
in 1157, Manuel gave her a dowry of 100,000 gold coins, 10,000 gold coins for marriage expenses, and presents (jewels and silk garments) which were worth 14,000 gold coins total.
[34]
The expense of Manuel's involvement in Italy must have cost the treasury a great deal (probably more than 2,160,000
hyperpyra
or 30,000 pounds of gold).
[35]
Then he also promised to pay 5,000 pounds of gold to the
Pope
and the
Curia
. During his reign, Manuel bought a very rich jewel (for 62,000 silver
marks
) which was used during the coronation of the Latin Emperor
Baldwin I
.
[36]
The main source of the state's wealth in the 12th century was the
kommerkion
, a customs duty levied at Constantinople on all imports and exports, which was stated to have collected 20,000
hyperpyra
each day.
[37]
This, combined with other sources of income, meant the empire's annual revenue was at 5,600,000
hyperpyra
in 1150.
[38]
Under the Komnenian emperors, many exemptions of trade duties were given to the Italian traders, which meant the loss of about 50,000
hyperpyra
annually.
[38]
A Venetian embassy visited Constantinople in 1184 and an agreement was reached that compensation of 1,500 pounds of gold (or 108,000
hyperpyra
) would be paid for the losses incurred in 1171.
[39]
By the end of Manuel I's reign the amount of money used to maintain the Komnenian imperial family is said to be able to maintain an army of 100,000 men.
[40]
After the demise of the Komnenoi, the Byzantine economy declined under the impact of several factors: the dismemberment of the Empire after 1204, the successive territorial losses to the Turks (although the strong economic interaction of Byzantine territories with those lost by the Empire continued), and the Italian expansion in the Mediterranean and the
Black Sea
.
[41]
When
Isaac II Angelos
became Emperor in 1185, a mob broke into the palace and carried off 1,200 pounds of gold, 3,000 pounds of silver, and 20,000 pounds of bronze coins.
[42]
In 1195, Holy Roman Emperor
Henry VI
forced Byzantine Emperor
Alexios III Angelos
to pay him a tribute of 1,000 pounds of gold (originally 5,000 pounds of gold) and in 1204 Alexios III took 1,000 pounds of gold (or 72,000
hyperpyra
) when he fled Constantinople.
[43]
The presence of the crusading army not only culminated in a violent sack that dispersed and destroyed the accumulated wealth, and culture of centuries, but was accompanied by a series of fires that ravaged the northern and central sections of the city resulting in a steady exodus of the city's residents to the Greek centers of government in exile. The sack of Constantinople by Latin crusaders in 1204 was an economic catastrophe. Due to the financial crisis, the state could only pay 100,000 silver marks (65,000 pounds of pure silver) out of 200,000 silver marks (equivalent to 800,000
hyperpyra
) to the Crusaders in 1204.
[44]
The official tally of plunder from Constantinople was about 900,000 silver marks, the equivalent of about 3,600,000
hyperpyra
or 50,000 pounds/22.5 tonnes of gold.
[44]
[45]
The impoverished
Latin emperors
melted down statues for coin, while the
Venetians
exported their declining profits, along with choice relics and architecture spolia for their churches. In 1237, Latin Emperor
Baldwin II
pawned the
Crown of Thorns
to a Venetian merchant for 13,134 gold coins.
[46]
By the time the Palaiologoi took power, Italian merchants had come to dominate the trade by sea whilst Turkic incursions prevented any success from trade across roads.
Michael VIII Palaiologos
strove to restore the capital's greatness, but the resources of the empire were inadequate. In 1282, Michael VIII was forced to drain the treasury to pay the enormous bribe of 60,000
hyperpyra
to King
Peter III of Aragon
to invade the
Kingdom of Sicily
.
[47]
Constantinople became once more, as in the seventh and eighth centuries, a ruralized network of scattered nuclei; in the final decades before the fall, the population numbered 70,000 people.
[48]
Gradually, the state also lost its influence on the modalities of trade and the price mechanisms, and its control over the outflow of precious metals and, according to some scholars, even over the minting of coins.
[49]
By 1303, the empire's annual revenue dropped to less than 1,800,000
hyperpyra
, under
Andronikos II Palaiologos
. In 1321, only with extreme effort was Andonikos II able to raise revenues to 1,000,000
hyperpyra
.
[50]
The Byzantine economy had declined so much that by 1343, Empress
Anna of Savoy
had to pawn the Byzantine
crown jewels
for 30,000 Venetian ducats, which was the equivalent of 60,000
hyperpyra
.
[51]
In 1348, Constantinople had an annual revenue of 30,000
hyperpyra
while across the Golden Horn in the Genoese colony of
Galata
, the annual revenue was 200,000
hyperpyra
. When Emperor
John VI Kantakouzenos
attempted to rebuild the Byzantine navy, he was only able to raise an inadequate 50,000
hyperpyra
. The only success during this period was when the
Republic of Genoa
agreed to pay a war indemnity of 100,000
hyperpyra
in 1349. When Emperor
John V Palaiologos
was captured by
Ivan Alexander
in 1366, he was forced to pay a ransom of 180,000
florins
. In 1370, the empire owed
Venice
, 25,663
hyperpyra
(of which only 4,500
hyperpyra
had so far been paid) for damage done to Venetian property.
[52]
In February 1424,
Manuel II Palaiologos
signed an unfavorable peace treaty with the Ottoman Turks, whereby the Byzantine Empire was forced to pay 300,000 silver coins to the Sultan on annual basis. In 1453, the economy of the Genoan quarter in Constantinople had a revenue 7 times greater than that of the whole Empire ? not even a shadow of its former self.
[
citation needed
]
Emperor
Constantine XI
owed Venice 17,163
hyperpyra
when he died in 1453.
[53]
The exact amount of annual income the Byzantine government received, is a matter of considerable debate, due to the scantness and ambiguous nature of the primary sources. The following table contains approximate estimates.
Year
|
Annual Revenue
|
305
|
9,400,000
solidi
/42.3
tonnes
of gold
[15]
|
457
|
7,800,000
solidi
[15]
|
518
|
8,500,000
solidi
[54]
|
533
|
5,000,000
solidi
[18]
|
540
|
11,300,000
solidi/50.85 tonnes of gold
[55]
|
555
|
6,000,000
solidi
[18]
|
565
|
8,500,000
solidi
[56]
|
641
|
3,700,000
nomismata
[57]
|
668
|
2,000,000
nomismata
[58]
|
775
|
1,800,000
nomismata
[23]
|
775
|
2,000,000
nomismata
[58]
|
842
|
3,100,000
nomismata
[59]
|
850
|
3,300,000
nomismata
[23]
|
959
|
4,000,000
nomismata
[59]
|
1025
|
5,900,000
nomismata
[59]
|
1150
|
5,600,000
hyperpyra
[38]
|
1303
|
1,800,000
hyperpyra
|
1321
|
1,000,000
hyperpyra
[60]
|
State's role
[
edit
]
The state retained the monopoly of issuing
coinage
, and had the power to intervene in other important sectors of the economy. It exercised formal control over interest rates, and set the parameters for the activity of the guilds and corporations in Constantinople, in which the state has a special interest (e.g. the sale of
silk
) or whose members exercised a profession that was of importance for trade. The emperor and his officials intervened at times of crisis to ensure the provisioning of the capital and to keep down the price of
cereals
. For this reason, the empire strictly controlled both the internal circulation of commodities, and the international trade (certainly in intent; to a considerable degree also in practice).
[61]
Additionally, the state often collected part of the surplus in the form of tax, and put it back into circulation, through redistribution in the form of salaries to state officials of the
army
, or in the form of investment in public works, buildings, or works of art.
[62]
Coinage
[
edit
]
Coinage was the basic form of money in Byzantium, although credit existed: archival documents indicate that both banking and bankers were not as primitive as has sometimes been implied.
[64]
The Byzantine Empire was capable of making a durable monetary system function for more than a thousand years, from
Constantine I
to 1453, because of its relative flexibility. Money was both product and instrument of a complex and developed financial and fiscal organization that contributed to the economic integration of its territory.
[65]
The first features of the administrative organization of monetary production were first established by
Diocletian
and Constantine, and were still in existence at the beginning of the 7th century.
[66]
During Byzantine history, supervision of the mints
[67]
belonged to the Emperor; thus the government controlled, to a certain degree, the money supply. Nevertheless, the Emperor and his government were not always capable of conducting a monetary policy in the modern meaning of the term.
[68]
Ever since the creation of the Byzantine monetary system by Constantine in 312, its pivot had been golden
solidus
, a coinage whose nominal value was equal to its intrinsic value, as is proven by the
Theodosian Code
.
[69]
Solidus
became a highly priced and stable means of storing and transferring values
[70]
Novel 16 of
Valentinian III
punished with death anyone who dared "refuse or reduce a gold
solidus
of good weight."
[71]
Weight and fineness of the coinage were joined by another element: the authenticity of the stamp, which served to guarantee the other two.
[72]
Alongside this "real"-value gold coinage, and a slightly overvalued silver coinage, there was also a bronze coinage of a fiduciary nature that made up the second specific feature of the monetary system.
[72]
At the end of the 10th and in the 11th centuries, money underwent a profound transformation, followed by a crisis; the denomination affected all metals at different dates, and according to different modalities.
[73]
The reform of
Alexios I Komnenos
put an end to this crisis by restoring a gold coinage of high fineness, the
hyperpyron
, and by creating a new system destined to endure for about two centuries.
[74]
In 1304 the introduction of the
basilikon
, a pure silver coinage modeled on the
Venetian ducat
marked the abandonment of
Komnenian
structures under the influence of western models. The system that began in 1367 was constructed around the
stavraton
, a heavy silver, equivalent to twice the weight of fine metal of the last
hyperpyra
.
[76]
By the end of the 12th century, especially from 1204 on, the political fragmentation of the empire resulted in the creation of coinages that were either "national" (e.g. in
Trebizond
in 1222, in
Bulgaria
in 1218, and in
Serbia
in 1228), colonial or feudal.
Venetian coins
soon penetrated the monetary circulation in Byzantium.
[77]
This situation stands in contrast with the monopoly that Byzantine currency had enjoyed until the 12th century, within its own frontiers, and through its diffusion in the lands beyond ? a measure of its political and economic influence.
[78]
Trade
[
edit
]
One of the economic foundations of the empire was trade. Constantinople was located on important east-west and north-south trade routes.
Trebizond
was an important port in the eastern trade. The exact routes varied over the years with wars and the political situation. Imports and exports were uniformly taxed at ten percent.
Grain
and
silk
were two of the most important commodities for the empire. The Arab invasion of
Egypt
and
Syria
harmed the Byzantium's trade, and affected the provisioning of the capital with grain. As the population increased in the 9th and 10th centuries, the demand for grain also increased. There was a functioning market for grain in Constantinople, but it was not entirely self-regulating: the state could play a role in the availability of grain, and the formation of prices.
[79]
Silk was used by the state both as a means of payment, and of diplomacy. Raw silk was bought from China and made up into fine brocades and cloth-of-gold that commanded high prices through the world. Later, silk worms were smuggled into the empire and the overland silk trade became less important. After
Justinian I
the manufacturing and sale of silk had become an imperial monopoly, only processed in imperial factories, and sold to authorized buyers.
[80]
The raw silk merchants could buy the raw silk from outside Constantinople but did not themselves have the authority to travel outside the city to get it ? possibly in order not to jeopardize the activities of the provincial merchants selling the silk.
[81]
The other commodities that were traded, in Constantinople and elsewhere, were numerous: oil, wine, salt, fish, meat, vegetables, other alimentary products, timber and wax. Ceramics, linen, and woven cloth were also items of trade. Luxury items, such as silks, perfumes and spices were also important. Trade in slaves is attested, both on behalf of the state, and, possibly, by private individuals. International trade was practiced not only in Constantinople, which was until the late 12th century an important center of the eastern luxury trade, but also in other cities that functioned as centers of inter-regional and international trade, such as
Thessaloniki
and
Trebizond
.
[82]
Textiles must have been by far the most important item of export; silks were certainly imported into Egypt, and they also appear in Bulgaria and the West.
[83]
The empire had also trading activity through Venice (as long as the latter was part of the empire): salt, wood, iron, and slaves, as well luxury products from the East, were the products exchanged.
[80]
In 992, Basil II concluded a treaty with
Pietro Orseolo II
by the terms that
Venice
's custom duties in Constantinople would be reduced from 30
nomismata
to 17
nomismata
in return for the Venetians agreeing to transport Byzantine troops to
Southern Italy
in times of war.
[84]
During the 11th and 12th centuries Italian trade in the empire took place under privileged conditions, incorporated in treaties and privileges that were granted to
Amalfi
, Venice,
Genoa
, and
Pisa
.
[85]
The Fourth Crusade and the Venetian domination of trade in the area created new conditions. In 1261, the Genoese were given generous customs privileges, and six years later the Venetians regained their original quarter in Constantinople.
[86]
The two northern Italian trading powers created the conditions that allowed them to reach any point in Byzantium, and to put the entire economic region in the service of their commercial interests.
[87]
The
Palaiologoi
tried to revive the economy, and re-establish traditional forms of political supervision, and guidance of the economy. It was, however, apparent that the late Byzantine state was unable to gain full control of either the foreign or domestic economic forces. Gradually, the state lost its influence on the modalities of trade and the price mechanisms, and its control over the outflow of precious metals and, according to some scholars, even over the minting of coins. Late Byzantine officials supposed to implement a regulatory policy used the state prerogatives placed into their hands to pursue their private businesses. Private commercial activity was also affected by the crises in foreign policy, and the internal erosion of Byzantium.
[49]
The Byzantine
GDP per capita
has been estimated by the
World Bank
economist
Branko Milanovic
to range from $680 to $770 in
1990 International Dollars
at its peak around 1000 (reign of
Basil II
).
[88]
This corresponds to a range of $1586 to $1796 in today's dollars. The Byzantine population size at the time is estimated to have been between 12 and 18 million.
[89]
This would yield a total
GDP
somewhere between $19 and $32 billion in today's terms.
See also
[
edit
]
Citations and notes
[
edit
]
- ^
Roberts, Neil; Labuhn, Inga; Guzowski, Piotr; Izdebski, Adam; Chase, Arlen F.; Newfield, Timothy P.; Mordechai, Lee; Haldon, John (2018-03-27).
"History meets palaeoscience: Consilience and collaboration in studying past societal responses to environmental change"
.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
.
115
(13): 3210?3218.
Bibcode
:
2018PNAS..115.3210H
.
doi
:
10.1073/pnas.1716912115
.
ISSN
0027-8424
.
PMC
5879668
.
PMID
29531084
.
- ^
Lefort,
The Rural Economy
, 232
- ^
Lefort,
The Rural Economy
, 234-235
- ^
Lefort,
The Rural Economy
, 242
- ^
Lefort,
The Rural Economy
, 236-237
- ^
Lefort,
The Rural Economy
, 238
- ^
Lefort,
The Rural Economy
, 284
- ^
Lefort,
The Rural Economy
, 289
- ^
Lefort,
The Rural Economy
, 267-268
- ^
Lefort,
The Rural Economy
, 270
- ^
Bryer, Anthony (1986). "Byzantine Agricultural Implements: The Evidence of Medieval Illustrations of Hesiod's Work and Days".
The Annual of the British School at Athens
.
81
: 45?80.
doi
:
10.1017/S0068245400020086
.
S2CID
161988014
.
- ^
Laiou,
The Agrarian Economy
, 311
- ^
a
b
Laiou,
The Agrarian Economy
, 369
- ^
Laiou,
The Agrarian Economy
, 314-315, 317
- ^
a
b
c
d
W. Treadgold,
A History of the Byzantine State and Society
, 144
- ^
W. Treadgold,
A History of the Byzantine State and Society
, 139
- ^
W. Treadgold,
A History of the Byzantine State and Society
, 146
- ^
a
b
c
d
e
Harl,
Finances under Justinian
Archived
2008-03-09 at the
Wayback Machine
.
- ^
Norwich,
Byzantium: The Early Centuries
, 195, 229,260
- ^
Heather,
The Fall of the Roman Empire
, 283
- ^
Norwich,
Byzantium: The Early Centuries
, 269
- ^
"K. Harl"
. Archived from
the original
on 2008-02-22
. Retrieved
2007-12-24
.
- ^
a
b
c
d
"Harl"
. Archived from
the original
on 2008-04-16
. Retrieved
2008-04-03
.
- ^
Norwich,
Byzantium: The Early Centuries
, 6
- ^
W. Treadgold,
A History of the Byzantine State and Society
, 445
- ^
W. Treadgold,
A History of the Byzantine State and Society
, 450
- ^
Magdalino,
Medieval Constantinople
, 3
- ^
Laiou,
Writing the Economic History of Byzantium
, 3
* Neumann,
Sublime Diplomacy
, 870-871
- ^
W. Treadgold,
A History of the Byzantine State and Society
, 577
- ^
Norwich,
A Short History of Byzantium
, 241
- ^
Norwich,
Byzantium: The Decline and Fall
, 21
- ^
Harris,
Byzantium and The Crusades
, 43
- ^
Norwich,
Byzantium: The Decline and Fall
, 88
- ^
Harris,
Byzantium and The Crusades
, 108
- ^
W. Treadgold,
A History of the Byzantine State and Society
, 643
- ^
T. Madden,
Crusades: The Illustrated History
, 114
- ^
Harris,
Byzantium and The Crusades
, 25-26
- ^
a
b
c
W. Treadgold,
A History of the Byzantine State and Society
, 705
- ^
J. Phillips,
The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople
, 133
- ^
George Finlay,
A History of Greece: The Byzantine and Greek empires, pt. 2, A.D. 1057-1453
, 150
- ^
Jakoby,
The Economy of Late Byzantium
, 81
- ^
Norwich,
Byzantium: The Decline and Fall
, 153
- ^
Harris,
Byzantium and The Crusades
, 148-149; Norwich,
Byzantium: The Decline and Fall
, 163
- ^
a
b
W. Treadgold,
A History of Byzantine State and Society
, 663
- ^
Konstam,
Historical Atlas of The Crusades
, 162
- ^
Harris,
Byzantium and The Crusades
, 170
- ^
Harris,
Byzantium and The Crusades
, 180
- ^
Magdalino,
Medieval Constantinople
, 535-536
- ^
a
b
Matschke,
Commerce, Trade, Markets, and Money
, 805-806
- ^
W. Treadgold,
A History of the Byzantine State and Society
, 750
- ^
W. Treadgold,
A History of the Byzantine State and Society
, 768
- ^
Norwich,
Byzantium: The Decline and Fall
, 334
- ^
Nicolle,
Constantinople 1453: The End of Byzantium
, 84
- ^
W. Treadgold,
A History of the Byzantine State and Society
, 276
- ^
W. Treadgold,
A History of the Byzantine State and Society
, 277
- ^
W. Treadgold,
A History of the Byzantine State and Society
, 278
- ^
W. Treadgold,
A History of the Byzantine State and Society
, 411
- ^
a
b
W. Treadgold,
A History of the Byzantine State and Society
, 413
- ^
a
b
c
W. Treadgold,
A History of the Byzantine State and Society
, 575
- ^
W. Treadgold,
A History of the Byzantine State and Society
, 841
- ^
Laiou,
Writing the Economic History of Byzantium, 3; Zakythinos,
The Character of the Economy
, 255-256
- ^
Laiou,
Writing the Economic History of Byzantium
, 255-256
- ^
Grierson,
Byzantine Coinage
, 8
- ^
Morrisson, C.
Byzantine Money
, 909
- ^
Morrisson,
Byzantine Money
, 910
- ^
Morrisson,
Byzantine Money
, 911
- ^
Under
Anastasius I
there were only four mints in the empire, but Justinian's reconquests resulted in a significant increase in their number. As a result of an administrative reorganization and of the loss of much of the empire's territories, their number was again greatly reduced during the 7th century. See
List of Byzantine mints
(Grierson,
Byzantine Coinage
, 5)
- ^
Morrisson,
Byzantine Money
, 917
- ^
Morrisson,
Byzantine Money
, 918
- ^
Esler,
The Early Christian World
, 1081
- ^
Morrisson,
Byzantine Money
, 918-919
- ^
a
b
Morrisson,
Byzantine Money
, 919
- ^
Morrisson,
Byzantine Money
, 930
- ^
Morrisson,
Byzantine Money
, 932
- ^
Grierson,
Byzantine Coinage
, 17
- ^
Morrisson,
Byzantine Money
, 933-934
- ^
Morrisson,
Byzantine Money
, 961
- ^
Morrisson,
Byzantine Money
, 962
- ^
Laiou,
Exchange and Trade
, 720
- ^
a
b
Laiou,
Exchange and Trade
, 703
- ^
Laiou,
Exchange and Trade
, 718
- ^
Laiou,
Exchange and Trade
, 723
- ^
Laiou,
Exchange and Trade
, 725
- ^
Laiou,
Exchange and Trade
, 726; Norwich,
A History of Venice
, 158
- ^
Laiou,
Exchange and Trade
, 746
- ^
Matschke,
Commerce, Trade, Markets, and Money
, 771
- ^
Matschke,
Commerce, Trade, Markets, and Money
, 772
- ^
Milanovic,
Income and Inequality in Byzantium
, 468
- ^
Milanovic,
Income and Inequality in Byzantium
, 461
References
[
edit
]
- Esler, Philip Francis (2000). "Constantine and the Empire".
The Early Christian World
. Routledge.
ISBN
0-415-33312-1
.
- Grierson, Philip (1999).
Byzantine Coinage
(PDF)
. Dumbarton Oaks.
ISBN
0-88402-274-9
. Archived from
the original
(PDF)
on 2007-09-27
. Retrieved
2008-07-18
.
- Harl, Kenneth W.
"Currency in the Isaurian, Amorian and Macedonian Ages (717-1092)"
.
Early Medieval and Byzantine Civilization: Constantine to Crusades
. Tulane University. Archived from
the original
on 2008-02-22
. Retrieved
2008-03-19
.
- Harl, Kenneth W.
"Finances under Justinian"
.
Early Medieval and Byzantine Civilization: Constantine to Crusades
. Tulane University. Archived from
the original
on 2008-03-09
. Retrieved
2008-03-19
.
- Harris, Jonathan (2003).
Byzantium and the Crusades
. Hambledon and London.
ISBN
1-85285-298-4
.
- Heather, Peter (2007).
The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians
. Oxford University Press.
ISBN
978-0-19-532541-6
.
- Jakoby, David (2006). "The Economy of Late Byzantium - Some Considerations". In Elizabeth Jeffreys and F. K. Haarer (ed.).
Proceedings of the 21st International Congress of Byzantine Studies
. Ashgate Publishing Ltd.
ISBN
0-7546-5740-X
.
- Laiou, Angeliki E.
(2007).
"Exchange and Trade, Seventh-Twelfth Centuries"
. In Angeliki E. Laiou (ed.).
The Economic History of Byzantium (Volume 2)
. Dumbarton Oaks. Archived from
the original
on 2012-11-08
. Retrieved
2012-12-11
.
- Laiou, Angeliki E. (2007).
"The Agrarian Economy, Thirteenth-Fifteenth Centuries"
. In Angeliki E. Laiou (ed.).
The Economic History of Byzantium (Volume 1)
. Dumbarton Oaks. Archived from
the original
on 2012-11-08
. Retrieved
2012-12-11
.
- Laiou, Angeliki E. (2007).
"Writing the Economic History of Byzantium"
. In Angeliki E. Laiou (ed.).
The Economic History of Byzantium (Volume 1)
. Dumbarton Oaks. Archived from
the original
(PDF)
on 2012-11-08
. Retrieved
2012-12-11
.
- Lefort, Jacques (2007).
"The Rural Economy, Seventh-Twelfth Centuries"
. In Angeliki E. Laiou (ed.).
The Economic History of Byzantium (Volume 1)
. Dumbarton Oaks. Archived from
the original
(PDF)
on 2012-11-08
. Retrieved
2012-12-11
.
- Magdalino, Paul
(2007).
"Medieval Constantinople: Built Environment and Urban Development"
. In Angeliki E. Laiou (ed.).
The Economic History of Byzantium (Volume 2)
. Dumbarton Oaks. Archived from
the original
on 2012-11-08
. Retrieved
2012-12-11
.
- Matschke, Klaus-Peter (2007).
"Commerce, Trade, Markets, and Money: Thirteenth-Fifteenth Centuries"
. In Angeliki E. Laiou (ed.).
The Economic History of Byzantium (Volume 2)
. Dumbarton Oaks. Archived from
the original
on 2012-11-08
. Retrieved
2012-12-11
.
- Milanovic, Branko
(2006): "An Estimate of Average Income and Inequality in Byzantium around Year 1000",
Review of Income and Wealth
, Vol. 52, No. 3, pp. 449?470
- Morrisson, Cecile (2007).
"Byzantine Money: Its Production and Circulation"
. In Angeliki E. Laiou (ed.).
The Economic History of Byzantium (Volume 3)
. Dumbarton Oaks. Archived from
the original
on 2012-11-08
. Retrieved
2012-12-11
.
- Neumann, Iver. B. (August 2006).
"Sublime Diplomacy: Byzantine, Early Modern, Contemporary"
(PDF)
.
Millennium: Journal of International Studies
.
34
(3): 865?888.
doi
:
10.1177/03058298060340030201
.
ISSN
1569-2981
.
S2CID
144773343
. Archived from
the original
(PDF)
on 2007-06-14
. Retrieved
2007-05-21
.
- Nicolle, David (2000).
Constantinople 1453: The End of Byzantium
. Osprey Publishing.
ISBN
1-84176-091-9
.
- Norwich, John Julius (1989).
A History of Venice
. Vintage.
ISBN
0-679-72197-5
.
- Norwich, John Julius (1998).
A Short History of Byzantium
. Penguin.
ISBN
0-14-025960-0
.
- Norwich, John Julius (1995).
Byzantium: The Decline and Fall
. Knopf.
ISBN
0-679-41650-1
.
- Zakythinos, Dionysios (1945?1955). "The Character of the Economy". In Passas Ioannis (ed.).
Encyclopedia "The Helios"
. Vol. VII. Athens.
{{
cite encyclopedia
}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link
)
|
---|
|
---|
Preceding
| |
---|
Early
(330–717)
| |
---|
Middle
(717–1204)
| |
---|
Late
(1204–1453)
| |
---|
By modern region
or territory
| |
---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
---|
Africa
| |
---|
Americas
| |
---|
Asia
| |
---|
Europe
| |
---|
Oceania
| |
---|
Former industrialized
economies
| |
---|
Historical economies
| |
---|