Finley: the ancient economy

[orangie]

M. I. Finley's "The Ancient Economy", which i just finished reading, was an eye opener. Evidently all "trade routes" and enterprises, in the ancient world, have to be thought of as passive receptions, the door is open, operations. Something of an idea of what he's presenting is represented by the thought that, though Gibbons has us spellbound with the thought that the entire army of Rome, at the hight of Rome's power and its widest extent, was not larger than Louis XIV's army Finley suggests that the Romans would never have been able to make that gesture, that might of conquest, which was so much a necessity in the reality of France in the 17th Century. Could not, because the idea of state wasn't as strong as the theology of superstition. People, ordinary parvenues, gave, donated, to the public coffers and graneries because they wanted to, they Had to as a part of their duty to the natural world.

Finley was a history professor at Cambridge, England. the book is the record of a public lecture series he gave in Berkeley, is user friendly.

here's a link to a better description of the book:

http://www.powells.com/biblio/0520219465

orren. g.

[conon394]

I like Finley (particularly on politics in the classical world). But you might want to look at something like “Athenian Economy & Society” by E. Cohn for the opposite ‘modernist’ view of classical economies (in contrast to Finey’s ‘embedded’ view)

[orangie]

I like Finley (particularly on politics in the classical world). But you might want to look at something like “Athenian Economy & Society” by E. Cohn for the opposite ‘modernist’ view of classical economies (in contrast to Finey’s ‘embedded’ view)

This looks very good. I'll find a copy and read it. I'd just been reading Alfred Chandler, and I felt that, with Finley, I'd come to a new method for my understanding of what was what. Not having yet read Cohn, I can only think that the notion which Finley shares with us, that producers don't express surplus into the neighborhood until there is a real surplus, is primary... The idea of having grown maize allowing 16th Century farmers to let most of their wheat into the market seems a general model of market real activities in all periods ( I'm thinking of Braudel's comments, but adding that we have to consider that the market exists When there is a condition for a market, a condition for an exchange... you remember how Finley comments on the fact that there are no price models in the ancient texts? ). I'm not an economist, just an arty artist, but these writings on history and economics are fascinating, just as the tech tree models in my favorite games are annoying. Certainly, Finley's suggestion that there was more self-sufficency in terms of sword makings and all brings into question the need for a "swordsmith" in KoH, for instance. Why not just buy the technology by buying or enslaving the swordmakers from other cultures? Why should the world of HOI2 be more sophisticated at barter than the barter worlds of EU2 or the total war series? ( in many respects, Shogun is still my favorite total war game... chess like, but which the addition that you have to convince the pawn he ought to move ).

Thank you for the recommendation!

mike