Was China really that far ahead of everyone else in the past?

[Common Soldier]

Its not consistent however with bone data for stature or diet. The elite of Rome certainly lived well. But the average marcus publius lived less well than either his Hellenistic or Classical Greek compatriots, although notably better that most 17 to 19th century peasants in Europe.

There are problems with using the results of skeletons of modern populations and applying them to Roman populations. Here is a paper discussing that problem.

Stature normally cannot be measured from the skeleton in the grave. It must bereconstructed from the length of the long bones, but the methods with which that can bedone are specific for a certain time and place. The most popular stature reconstructionmethods are based on (early-)modern populations. This paper has shown that existingstature reconstruction methods do not fit one particular pre-modern population, that ofthe Roman Empire. We therefore recommend using long bone length rather thanreconstructed stature as (a base for) an indicator of living standards https://www.rug.nl/research/portal/f..._paper_def.pdf

The Roman Empire was more urbanized, and the relative ease of travel withing the the Roman empire spread disease more readily, which could effect health. Declining stature might not reflect declining income as the problems created by increased urbanization and disease.

A discussion of the apparent conflict between the archaeological evidence of diet and material culture, and the apparent decline in stature is discussed here. As I said, the apparent decline might not indicate decline in living standards, but other factors such as increased urbanization.

A recent snapshot of Roman diet is afforded by Erica Rowan's analysis of the content of the main sewer at Herculaneum in relation to the houses above (Rowan, 2017). The range and quality of fruit and vegetables are quite staggering, and so are meat and fish remains, and not just for the houses of the wealthy. This was notlimited to the Italian core of the Empire: archaeobotanical remains from mostly the northwestern provinces show a dramatic increase in the range of fruits and vegetables, precisely from the time of Roman conquest, and lasting little beyond the demise of the Roman Empire in the West (Bakels and Jacomet, 2003). The demand for high income elasticity food is similarly visible in the boom in the consumption of olive oil and even more so wine (Brun, 2003). Those were expensive calories, and particularly in the case of wine (Jongman, 2016). In short, there is overwhelming evidence for improvements in the diet precisely during the peak period of Roman power and population, both in Italy and in the provinces.

This prosperity was not limited to food consumption either.Roman housing stock was of far better quality than what had comebefore or would come after. One sign of this is the time series forbuilding wood recovered from rivers in Western Germany (Fig. 10,with data from Holstein, 1980).These houses were also increasingly equipped with metalfixtures such as door and window hinges or locks, and evenwindow glass. Inside such houses we find metal kitchen utensils,furniture, nice ceramic tableware, glass and items for personalcare. As every field archaeologist knows, the quantity and quality ofRoman material culture was far better than what came before orwould come after. This is also shown in the data from the Nettunosurvey that we mentioned earlier. .........

So what do we make of all this? How can it be that the trend inthe biological standard of living is negatively correlated to otheraspects of standard of living? One interpretation would be to arguethat suggestions of Roman economic growth are wrong. WalterScheidel, for example, has questioned both the pertinence of thearchaeological time series, and the reality of the importance of theAntonine Plague (Scheidel, 2002, 2009). We do believe that he iswrong, and we do believe the story of the archaeological timeseries is a convincing one, and all the more so because each andevery new series that we discover or create shows the samepattern.A second interpretation is that the skeletal data are quite simplynot good enough, and more specifically that the chronological biasrepresents a social bias. This is a much more plausible criticism,because funerary habits did indeed change over time. From thethird century B.C. to the early to mid-first century A.D. manyRomans were cremated rather than inhumated, and perhaps moreso the higher their social status. We admit that there may be someof this, but we doubt it could completely explain the trend.........

The third possible explanation is that body length may reflecthealth but not wealth, and for now this is the most plausiblehypothesis in our view. We know that nutritional status can beimpaired very seriously by infectious disease, as the body has towork so much harder to fight off the infection, or cannot absorb thenutrients.. ......

As we havealready seen, population densities in many parts of the RomanEmpire were significantly higher than before or after. But that wasnot all: Roman culture and society were decidedly urban, withmore and far larger cities than Europe would see until the modernage.

........Such high levelsof urbanization are likely to have had serious consequences formortality levels, as is amply documented for early modernEuropean cities (Wrigley, 1978; De Vries, 1984; Jongman, 2003).This was caused by the combination of low levels of sanitation andpeople living in close proximity, creating a perfect environment forinfectious diseases of all kinds (Scobie, 1986; Scheidel, 2003).To make matters worse, Roman cities were not isolated islandsin a rural sea, but were hubs in a network of travel and transport.Most of them were close to the Mediterranean, the big ones inparticular, or close to good river transport. ... ​Health and wealth in the Roman Empire Willem M. Jongman*, Jan P.A.M. Jacobs, Geertje M. Klein Goldewijk https://delong.typepad.com/rome.pdf

Nothing in the Scheidel's paper suggests such a mistake of drachmas for denarius.

Upon further research, I found that the wages for Roman Egypt were around only 1/4 quarter of those of Roman Italy, and so Scheidel's figures are correct.

Then wages in the city ofRome were three or more times as large as wages in rural Egypt. https://delong.typepad.com/files/tem...rcapitagdp.pdf

Note, all male citizens of Rome received a grain dole, which would boost their effective income, making them higher than the Egyptian ones.


However, the price of Egyptian wheat was equally lower as well. I have read a variety given in the price of ancient Roman wheat, and the fact is, just like today, prices 9fnwhew5 and other grains varied depending on whether their was good harvest or poor, and demand. One value recorded in Pompeii haverhr price of wheat as 8 sesterrii per modius (around 8.7 l or 6.7 kg), which works out to something like .79 grams silver per kg wheat, about 4 times the price given in Leeuwen's price of wheat for 100 CE Roman Egypt, and Scheidel calculate 0.27 grams.of silver per kg of wheat using Egyptian figures. Note, the .79 grams of silver pricenin Pompeii would be similar to that Leeuwen gave of 5 wuzhuqian per líter of grain in their article, and thr wage of 4 sesterii per day referred ton in Pompeii documents would also be similar to to the 62.5 grams of silver per month that Leeuwen used in their table for 100 BCE Han China, suggesting a similar basket of goods for both region, and a similar standard of living.

[Common Soldier]

The steppe people brought metallurgy to China, and by extension were responsible to a part for the development of cast iron as they kick started the metallurgy discovery process.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journ...64/core-reader

Initial iron working in China also came.from the "barbarians" to the north of China as well, although cast iron was a Chinese invention, per Donald Wagner.

http://donwagner.dk/EARFE/EARFE.html

[conon394]

There are problems with using the results of skeletons of modern populations and applying them to Roman populations. Here is a paper discussing that problem.

Indeed there are. My point was rather that once you do not use the very poor diet evidence of the 16-18^h century peasants in Europe its clear wealth was distributed better in the classical world. My second point was simply it was distributed much better in Classical Greece than Hellenistic Greece and better again than Imperial Rome. I think you are missing my point. Imperial Rome circa say 100 AD might have been profoundly more wealthy but it was also profoundly less equitable compared to say classical Greece. The average American was better off in 1950 even if the US is in aggregate more wealthy now than then.

Note, all male citizens of Rome received a grain dole, which would boost their effective income, making them higher than the Egyptian ones.

In the Caput Mundi, yes. But not generally. But feel free to show evidence that the dole stretched to Roman Corinth or to Vindolanda


Going to have to decamp shortly for a long road trip for family holiday 'fun' western US long hours on the road snow, mountains, and a distressing lack of road side barriers and or the use of rock salt near and dear to my Detroit upbringing....


But I would say Temin is being a bit of a prat. You can poke holes in every model even modern ones with data coming out your ears. He might as well say two gulf wars by a US President Bush vs Saddam is obviously a doublet just like the other ones in Plutarch.


Anyway I will reply for real in a week or so with links and sources etc.

[Common Soldier]

Indeed there are. My point was rather that once you do not use the very poor diet evidence of the 16-18^h century peasants in Europe its clear wealth was distributed better in the classical world. My second point was simply it was distributed much better in Classical Greece than Hellenistic Greece and better again than Imperial Rome. I think you are missing my point. Imperial Rome circa say 100 AD might have been profoundly more wealthy but it was also profoundly less equitable compared to say classical Greece. The average American was better off in 1950 even if the US is in aggregate more wealthy now than then.

You still haven't provided any support based on biological archeological data to support what you say. I would be interested to see the actual evidence. In general, from what I see, I body sample size is much smaller for Classical Greece than the Roman world, making it more susceptible to error due to the smaller sample size than the Roman ones. We don't have anything comparable to Pompeii and Herculaneum where we have a broad and unbiased sample of the population.

And you missed in the article what the evidence of the sewers of places like Herculaneum show - the broad variety of food in the diet indicates a higher living standard than in Classical Greece. This is isn't dependent on some estimate, but on what people were actually eating. Richer people can eat a broader range of food, and the sewers wouldn't be reflecting just the diet of the rich.

In the Caput Mundi, yes. But not generally. But feel free to show evidence that the dole stretched to Roman Corinth or to Vindolanda

My comment was referring to the citizens living in Rome, otherwise I would have said "Roman citizens" not citizens of Rome. One thing we don't know is what the prevailing grain and other prices were in the provinces outside of Italy and Egypt. Based on the New Testament, set in Palestine, and on Pompeii documents talking about 4 sestertii (1 denarius) as a day wage, and Cicero saying a slave could be rented out for 3 sestertii a day, we have evidence from across the empire, and a span of more than a hundredd years that the daily wage for a worker was around 1 denarius, not just in Rome and Italy, but the even in far off Galilee and Judea.

Going to have to decamp shortly for a long road trip for family holiday 'fun' western US long hours on the road snow, mountains, and a distressing lack of road side barriers and or the use of rock salt near and dear to my Detroit upbringing....


But I would say Temin is being a bit of a prat. You can poke holes in every model even modern ones with data coming out your ears. He might as well say two gulf wars by a US President Bush vs Saddam is obviously a doublet just like the other ones in Plutarch.

As for Temin being "a prat", there were other writers that say the also saying that the Egyptian pay was 1/3 or less than that in Rome for unskilled workers. I just used Temin because he was the easiest to copy and paste.

A variety or sources all indicate a typical daily pay for an unskilled laborer was a around 1 denarius a day - Cicero said that a slave could be rented out for 3 sestertii a day, in Pompeii Scheidel mentioned records giving a rate of 4 sestertii a day, the New Testament specially talks about 1 denarius (4 sestertii) as a daily wage. These are examples from across the empire in different times and widely different locations. 1 denarius is equal to 4 drachma, and using Scheidel's own formula of 4 drachma to the denarius and 250 days would imply a pay 4 times that Scheidel gives in Egypt.

Here is another link that supports the idea that Roman ordinary worker pay was around 3 to 4 times that of 250 drachma given by Scheidel:

Social group	Number of members	People	Percentage of population	Average family income (in HS)	Average per capita income (in HS)	Income in terms of per capita mean
Senators 1/	600	2470	0.004	150000	37975	100
Knights (equestrian order) 1/	40000	158000	0.285	30000	7595	20
Municipal senators (decurions) 1/	360000	1422000	2.562	8000	2025	5.3
Other rich people	200000	790000	1.423		4810	12.7
Legion commanders 2/	50	198	0.000	67670	17132	45.1
Centurions	2500	9875	0.018	16160	4091	10.8
Praetorians 3/	9000	35550	0.064	3000	759	2.0
Ordinary soldiers 4/	250000	987500	1.8	1010	256	0.7
Workers at average wage 5/	1066667	4213333	7.6	800	304	0.8
Tradesmen and service workers 6/	133333	526667	0.9		468	1.2
Farmers and farm workers (free or slave) 7/	12000000	47400000	85.4		234	0.6
Memo: Subsistence minimum 8/					180	0.47
Total		55,500,000	100.0		380	1.0

Note: The average household size of 3.95 (derived from Goldsmith, 1984) used throughout except for senators where the average household size (on account of many dependents) was increased to 4.1. HS = sestertius. Measuring Ancient Inequality Branko Milanovi?, Peter H. Lindert, Jeffrey G. Williamson pg 64 https://gpih.ucdavis.edu/files/BLW/Roman_Empire_14.doc

Note, the article above assumes only 225 working days for the average worker. Assuming 250 working days, as does Scheidel, would give a figure around 890 sestertii (or 890 drachma), which is around 3.5 times the 250 drachma that Scheidel gave. In the case of farmer workers, their pay might include food. Day workers daily rate probably did not include board, so they might have been paid slightly higher than that.

Tacitus mentioned in Book XV, Chapter 39) that the price of wheat dropped to 3 sestertii after the great fire in Rome, due to the impoverishment of the population, implying its value was higher normally. Kenneth Harl in Coinage in the Roman Economy, 300 B.C. to A.D. 700, Part 700 pg 276 reported that a modius of wheat (around 8.6 l or 6.7 kg) ranged from 8 assess (2 sestertii) in Egypt to 32 asses (8 sestertii) in Rome. Note, as discussed, the grain dole given to those citizens living in Rome would have compensated for the higher grain cost in Rome itself. Just like New York, Tokyo and other major cities today typically have higher cost, that was likely true for Rome as well.

Anyway I will reply for real in a week or so with links and sources etc.

i look forward to it.

[conon394]

@Common Soldier

A few quick thoughts after surveying the recent posts

You still haven't provided any support based on biological archeological data to support what you say. I would be interested to see the actual evidence.

Still working on getting all 3-4 sources I need. I dislike just quoting one source and its assertions/citations if its a main part of my argument.

In general, from what I see, I body sample size is much smaller for Classical Greece than the Roman world

Do you mean sample size?

True. Cant help that. But goes for most studies on bones and trying look at populations. Too bad as far as I can tell no data has been published on the large mass grave of Athenian plague victims discovers several years ago. 89 bodies and almost certainly a cross section of the populous.

Or body size?

Still, it seems wages were rather comparable between Han dynasty Chinese and Romans. One of the questions would be income distribution. It may be while the common worker seems to have had similar pay, the income inequality might have been greater for one region or the other. A Roman centurion was paid around 15,000 sestertii per year, about 15 times the pay of an ordinary legionnaire http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/rom...ld-today-46042. It would be interesting to see the pay of an equivalent Han dynasty officer.

Odd number since you already cited a better source. M. A. Speidel puts the pay of the miles legionis as this sestertii per year)[stipendium/annual pay total]:

Caesar/Augustus 300/900
Domitian (AD 86) 400/1200
Septimius Severus (AD 197) 800/2400
Caracalla 1200/3600

(Table 1 Roman Army Pay Scales https://www.academia.edu/1483788/Roman_Army_Pay_Scales)

under Augustus a regular centurion got 13,500 HS (I suppose if thay averaged the pay under Domitian they would be closer) (table 5)

Also your link got the aurius to danarius ratio wrong. So what the point of an inaccurate link?

which assuming an equivalent of a 250 day working year also works out to close to a denarius day.

You can't do that. A roman soldier was on the clock for the year. His stipend was for the year.

By that argument an Athenian sailor who went of to Syracuse in his first year was getting almost 1dr and 3 ob a day but I don't think thay some 114 armistice days off at the siege.


In any case it worth while to recall why I went of on this tangent. It was when Hackneed soldier's referenced the good welfare ratio scores in van Leeuwen et al for Han as being a indicator of superior agricultural technique. At that point there were several posts about number of wells, Chinese windlass, Roman pumps Pliny etc... But the argument was sort of Rome had this Han had that argument without really any way to quantify it. My intent with Athens was merely to counter the use of van Leeuwen et al in a technological deterministic argument. If I could show Athens had a better welfare ratio by far and a far more equitable distribution of wealth, with clearly relativly poor farmland and no wonder gadgets (and no Empire) I felt I could show social factors were likely to be more important. To wit there is no doubt that Italy under Roman management was profoundly more productive agriculturally than Italy in the 18th and 19th. But that was frankly not from any particular technological edge (or potential one used or not used), but rather because the Romans just made all their basic to complex choices about what to plant and how to plant or (or raise/graze/feed) and also manage land better. Although to be fair the disastrous grazing patterns implanted say starting in the 15th century had results that were not easily altered but nobody tried later. By contrast Roman mixed farming with lots of livestock (but not ranching for the most part) was simply a better way to farm, such that having broadcast or seed drilling were at best marginal impacts.

So lets be clear I was not trying to argue Athens was more wealthy than Rome or that say the top tiers of its society were. In terms of our discussion I will say I think you can show wealth was less equally distributed in Rome and the late Republican system and certainly into the Imperial Period. Such that at the lower end of the spectrum the hypothetical day labor being measure by his place around substance was I think better in Athens than Rome. That being said there is no doubt that more recent research of say the 30 years is welcome and has firmly tossed aside the ideal of comparing Rome and Classical Greece to the peasants of the 18/19th century European or even England.

[Common Soldier]

@Common Soldier

A few quick thoughts after surveying the recent posts



Do you mean sample size?

True. Cant help that. But goes for most studies on bones and trying look at populations. Too bad as far as I can tell no data has been published on the large mass grave of Athenian plague victims discovers several years ago. 89 bodies and almost certainly a cross section of the populous.

Or body size?

I was referring to sample size. Even 89 is not a particularly large sample size, compared to the number of bodies found in places like Herculaneum and Pompeii, and I recall only seeing a sample size of 9 bodies from 5th century BC Athens.

Note, during the first and second century, cremation was the standard Roman practice (https://moatmtv.weebly.com/herculaneum-skeletons.html), so high status (and therefore likely taller) individuals would have been cremated, so the bodies we do find from that period would likely be biased toward the lower end, except for finds like at Herculaneum and Pompeii. The situation would have been different for other societies, like the ancient Chinese, and ancient Greek, where we are more likely to find the bones of high status individuals who have been preserved in tombs.

So I don't think we can make any definitive conclusions based solely on bones of the living standard of the Roman versus Chinese or ancient Classical and Hellenistic Greek world, unless we can find a similar cross sectional snapshot of bones similar to those found at Pompeii and Herculaneum. In the case of Herculaneum, the stature was similar to Hellenistic Greeks, and taller than 1960's Neopolitan Italians (Wet Site Archaeology, ed Barbara A. Purdy, section 13 "The Skeletons of Herculaneum, Italy" Sarah Bisel https://books.google.com/books?hl=en...page&q&f=false).

Odd number since you already cited a better source. M. A. Speidel puts the pay of the miles legionis as this sestertii per year)[stipendium/annual pay total]:

Caesar/Augustus 300/900
Domitian (AD 86) 400/1200
Septimius Severus (AD 197) 800/2400
Caracalla 1200/3600

(Table 1 Roman Army Pay Scales https://www.academia.edu/1483788/Roman_Army_Pay_Scales)

under Augustus a regular centurion got 13,500 HS (I suppose if thay averaged the pay under Domitian they would be closer) (table 5)

I said the centurion pay was 15 times the base pay of an ordinary legionnaire, and 15 x 900 would be 13,500 HS, which is what you said the centurion pay was.

The point I was making, and you acknowledge is true, was that the rough pay ration of the ordinary legionnaire and the centurion.

Here is study that shows that the top pay for Roman officials was much more than for the comparable Chinese officials. Based on various sources that indicate a typical pay of 1 denarius a day for ordinary workers, it seems that for ordinary Roman workers, their pay was comparable to their Chinese counterparts, but for the higher officials, Roman pay was much more.

The Han equivalent of a Roman provincial governor was paid some 22tonnes, around one-fifth of the income of the most junior Roman procurators, and similarto the base pay of a mere Roman centurion: this is remarkable given that the average Hangovernor was in charge of half a million people while a centurion commanded only 80soldiers. Han officials in charge of civitas-sized districts received significantly less than aRoman centurion.Not only were real salaries much higher in Rome, but wage compression was much morepronounced in China: the income ratio between a Chinese district administrator and themost senior state official was only 1 to 6 or 8, compared to a ratio of 1 to 17 or 18between a junior procurator and a top senator or between a provincial militarycommander and a praetorian prefect "New ways of studying incomes in the Roman economy" Walter Scheidel https://www.princeton.edu/~pswpc/pdf...del/110604.pdf

You said I got the ratio of aurius to denarius wrong. So what should be the correct ratio?

Also your link got the aurius to danarius ratio wrong. So what the point of an inaccurate link?

I was using the ratio of the aurius to the denarius (when it was still a sliver coin) to determine what the Romans were using for a silver to gold ratio. Since "the silver" price is what was being used typically to compare wages and prices of different societies in the "basket of goods" calculation, I wanted to relate what the Diocletian prices and pay would be in silver. The value of gold aurius was relatively stable, so I could use the silver to gold ratio to estimate what the d.c. of Diocletian would be in silver. During Diocletian's time, the denarius communes was not a silver coin.

Historically, the ration of silver to gold has been around 10 to 11, and the ratio I got from using the silver denarius to the gold aurius was in that area. If you have a better ratio to use, please provide that and its justification.

Note, since Diocletian's Edict came out during a time of great inflation in the Roman Empire, the prices were probably greatly distorted from what they would be in more stable times, and likely introduced inaccuracies or at least differences in the ratio between pay and wheat.

You can't do that. A roman soldier was on the clock for the year. His stipend was for the year.

By that argument an Athenian sailor who went of to Syracuse in his first year was getting almost 1dr and 3 ob a day but I don't think thay some 114 armistice days off at the siege.

No, it is no different that for a modern soldier, where we compare yearly earnings. A modern soldier is on the clock for the year too, but the important comparison is what the soldier could make in a year as a soldier, versus what he could make in a year versus some other career.

To attract soldiers, the Roman state would have to pay at least comparable wages to what an man could expect to earn as an ordinary worker. Too low a pay, you will have trouble attracting recruits. Too high a pay, you will pay more than you need to and create unnecessary expenses for the government. The Roman soldier, unlike the day worker, was guaranteed a full year's worth of employment. Plus, he was guaranteed a long term substantial bonus. Still, the rise in legionnaires pay might reflect the need to increase compensation to compete with civilian pay. The pay of 900 HS under Caesar/Augustus reflected pay of the mid 1st century BC to early 1st century AD, and by the time we see typical daily pay of around 1 denarius (4 HS), that was from the late 1st century AD (Pompeii, Gospels), where inflation might have cause ordinary worker's pay to have risen slightly.

So, I think it is fair to compare the early pay of a Roman soldier with what you could expect of the yearly earnings of an ordinary day worker. The day worker, since they didn't work all the time, might have earned slightly more on the average per day than a worker who had more steady employment. A denarius for a day wouldn't necessarily be the lowest pay, it would be the typical play for an ordinary worker, but others could earn less. Older persons, women, children would typically earn lower wages than that.

In any case it worth while to recall why I went of on this tangent. It was when Hackneyed soldier's referenced the good welfare ratio scores in van Leeuwen et al for Han as being a indicator of superior agricultural technique. At that point there were several posts about number of wells, Chinese windlass, Roman pumps Pliny etc... But the argument was sort of Rome had this Han had that argument without really any way to quantify it. My intent with Athens was merely to counter the use of van Leeuwen et al in a technological deterministic argument. If I could show Athens had a better welfare ratio by far and a far more equitable distribution of wealth, with clearly relatively poor farmland and no wonder gadgets (and no Empire) I felt I could show social factors were likely to be more important.

I agree with that kind of logic. My point, is that when it come to Basket of Goods arguments, we have to make so many guesses that they really aren't that reliable. Even such as simple thing as what the daily pay was, there is no agreement. And unless you know the cost of goods, which can very from region to region, the basket of good's calculations become meaningless.

In the case of wheat, Peter Temin and David Kessler argue that the prices of wheat in the Roman empire was determined by the price in Rome, with the price in the provinces discounted for the travel cost to Rome. They argue that if the price of wheat was low compared to the discounted travel cost to Rome, merchants would buy up the wheat, and if prices were high compared to the discounted travel cost of wheat in Rome, demand would fall. It raises questions about the uniformity of wages and prices in other societies. (MONEY AND PRICES IN THE EARLY ROMAN EMPIRE, Kessler, Temin
https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/han...pdf?sequence=1)

At best, we can say what the basket of goods was for a particular time and place, and it becomes questionable to apply it to other places, which is why I am skeptical of "basket of goods" estimates. Variety of diet, and other indicators also need to be taken into account, and I question the accuracy of basket of goods estimates that claim ancient Babylon had a higher living standard than during the height of the Roman Empire (1st and 2nd century AD).

To wit there is no doubt that Italy under Roman management was profoundly more productive agriculturally than Italy in the 18th and 19th. But that was frankly not from any particular technological edge (or potential one used or not used), but rather because the Romans just made all their basic to complex choices about what to plant and how to plant or (or raise/graze/feed) and also manage land better. Although to be fair the disastrous grazing patterns implanted say starting in the 15th century had results that were not easily altered but nobody tried later. By contrast Roman mixed farming with lots of livestock (but not ranching for the most part) was simply a better way to farm, such that having broadcast or seed drilling were at best marginal impacts.

Roman Italy farms by the 1st century were largely under the control of rich owners, who could afford investments that poorer farmers of Italy of the 18th and 19th century might not have been able to. Also, the population of Roman Italy might have been only around5 to 8 million by some counts while 18th century Italy had signficantly higher populations (something like 11 to 16 million https://www.tacitus.nu/historical-at...tion/italy.htm). Unless there was a substantially advance in agriculture methods, some degradation in agriculture could be expected.

(For the difficulty in determining the population of Roman Italy, see https://www.princeton.edu/~pswpc/pdf...del/070706.pdf. The high count estimates of some, up to 20 million, are generally discounted. )

So lets be clear I was not trying to argue Athens was more wealthy than Rome or that say the top tiers of its society were. In terms of our discussion I will say I think you can show wealth was less equally distributed in Rome and the late Republican system and certainly into the Imperial Period. Such that at the lower end of the spectrum the hypothetical day labor being measure by his place around substance was I think better in Athens than Rome. That being said there is no doubt that more recent research of say the 30 years is welcome and has firmly tossed aside the ideal of comparing Rome and Classical Greece to the peasants of the 18/19th century European or even England.

Pay inequality is not necessarily a sign of lower standard of living. Today's modern US society has probably as great pr greater income disparity as ancient Rome https://www.huffpost.com/entry/us-in...vels_n_1158926, which is not surprising when you compare the income levels of the richest citizens like Bill Gates, to the poorest person, but over all standards of living are much higher today than any ancient society. Primitive nomadic societies have much less income inequality than modern societies, yet they do not have a higher standard of living.

In fact, I would say a greater income inequality could be an indication of a wealthier society and higher standard of life in some cases.

[conon394]

Quickly for now:

You said I got the ratio of aurius to denarius wrong. So what should be the correct ratio?

No I said you posted a link that was factually incorrect
.

Still, it seems wages were rather comparable between Han dynasty Chinese and Romans. One of the questions would be income distribution. It may be while the common worker seems to have had similar pay, the income inequality might have been greater for one region or the other. A Roman centurion was paid around 15,000 sestertii per year, about 15 times the pay of an ordinary legionnaire http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/rom...ld-today-46042. It would be interesting to see the pay of an equivalent Han dynasty officer.

That One.

It gets centurion pay wrong. But more importantly it gets sestertii to aureus wrong. Under Augustus 25 silver denarii were to one gold aureus (That is a 25:1 silver to gold ratio). So 100 HS to an aureus. They are undervaluing the Roman pay. Our centurion was getting some 1080 grams of gold for pay.

The Athenian rower of his day was being paid almost 80-89 ounces of gold (in a year).

In reality it is the modern captain who is underpaid in comparison

Historically, the ration of silver to gold has been around 10 to 11, and the ratio I got from using the silver denarius to the gold aurius was in that area. If you have a better ratio to use, please provide that and its justification.

Nope. Silver value of gold -

1:13 according to Herodotus. 1:14 at Athens in the late 5^th century (as an average). But see “The Power of Money” Figueira (Table 19.1). Over about 30 years the ratio was as high as 16.7 and as low as 11(*), shifting fairly constantly. Obviously with the scale of Roman production out of Spain silver was rather more cheap at the dawn of the Empire under Octavian to his 1:25. The market rate may have moved around Octavian's Tariff, but in his day 1:25 is the conversion for the coins.

*That would be the very brief period when Laurium was shall we say off line circa the very beginning of the 4th century BC. In general 13-14 was a low point with 15 or 16:1 more common.

[Morifea]

The Athenian rower of his day was being paid almost 80-89 ounces of gold (in a year).

In reality it is the modern captain who is underpaid in comparison

Where can I apply? The moment when you realize that a rower got a better payment as oneself .... I´m sure those rowers even got better healthcare than a common USA citizen.

Do we have the numbers for a trierarch?

[conon394]

Do we have the numbers for a trierarch?

There is not one. Their liturgy (tax) was to be both (nominal) captain of the ship and pay the crew. While the canonical reckoning that most literary sources gives is 200 men x 1 drachma a day for ships expense. There are occasional references that the Thranites (the men with the most difficult oars to row) got bonus money. The working captain/ship master was also notably paid more although it seems to have been a market bid price and could be high. The lesser professional sailing officers also would appear to have earned more as well but an unknown amount. Unfortunately Xenophon never took a great interest in the navy so we don't have a "On being a Trierarch" by him...

[Ludicus]

The Portuguese and others..So while the Chinese was the equal of any pre-modern civilization, it was not the superior to all others as is so often claimed

Premodern age, +- 1400-1800? Let's look at the whole picture.
For more than a thousand years, from about 550 through 1775 CE, Eastern regions scored higher. It was only around 1800 CE that western scores began surging upward at astonishing rates.
Marco Polo, "I can tell you in all truthfulness that the business is on such a stupendous scale..."I quote Ian Morris's book "Why the West Rules-For Now", "Chapter "Going Global", pages 427/434- selected excerpts,

..."Eastern social development was much higher than Western, and thanks to men like Marco Polo Westerns knew it"
1521. Tomé Pires wrote,
..."And the principal people who have often been here there affirm that with ten ships the Governor of India who took Malacca could take the whole of China along the sea coast".
...Why not take over the east now they got there? so in 1527 the Portuguese king decided to test Pires's theory, sending him to Guangzhou to propose peace and trade with the celestial Kingdom....what happened to Pires remains unclear...whatever his fate, Pires learned the hard way that despite their guns, here at the real center of the world Europeans still counted little.
They had destroyed the Aztecs and shot their way into the markets of the Indian Ocean, but it took more than that to impress the gatekeepers of All Under Heaven.

Eastern social development remained far ahead of the West, and despite Europe's renaissance, sailors, and guns, in 1521 there was still little to suggest that the West would narrow the gap significantly. Three more centuries would pass before it became clear just what the difference it made that Cortés, not Zheng, had burned Tenochtitlán.

...in 1773 ( or allowing a reasonable margin of error, somewhere between 1750 and 1800) Western development overtook the East's, ending the twelve-hundred year eastern age.

Edit,
I'm proud of Portugal role in the Age of Discoveries,

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Conquerors: How Portugal Forged the First Global Empire

But let's keep things in perspective. As Armesto put it, " The precocity of Western European explorers and conquistadors has been seen as a response to relative poverty, like the desperate efforts of "emerging nations" today to drill offshore oil"

[Roma_Victrix]

I think it's fair to say that in terms of science and technology the Chinese were generally ahead of most contemporary civilizations during their Qin, Han, Tang, and Song dynasties, but they were not ahead of the ancient Classical and Hellenistic Greeks, were arguably on equal footing with the Romans throughout various stages, and were largely neck and neck with both Byzantium (before the 4th Crusade and Latin Empire) and the Islamic world under the Rashidun, Umayyad, and Abbasid caliphates. Even science and technology in India, especially with the astronomical and mathematical traditions of scholars like the 6th century scientist Aryabhata of the Gupta period, was comparable to that of China but they lacked other disciplines like a strong tradition of historiography that China had.

Also, the economy of Ming dynasty China was greater than any single kingdom, principality, or republic in contemporary Europe, but European science and technology during the Renaissance simply surpassed that of Ming China. I would say Ming China was equally or more advanced than much of Europe at the beginning of their rule in 1368 but by the time of their collapse in 1644 Europeans were finally clearly ahead of the Chinese in nautical technology, optics, astronomy, mathematics, gunpowder weaponry, etc. It probably helped that the Spanish and Portuguese had colonized much of the Americas that generally enriched the whole of Europe through a new international trade network bypassing the stumbling block of the Arab Islamic world. The Qing Empire was huge and powerful, but it was even less innovative than the previous Ming in a time when the Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution arose in Europe.

[conon394]

For more than a thousand years, from about 550 through 1775 CE, Eastern regions scored higher. It was only around 1800 CE that western scores began surging upward at astonishing rates.

Scored higher how exactly?

"three more centuries would pass before it became clear just what the difference it made that Cortés, not Zheng, had burned Tenochtitlán."

Kind of a silly quote by an otherwise good historian if true. Zheng had not chance of getting to the new world to burn boats. I'd rather be free farmer in Holland in 1600 on my farm (well aside from those Spanish issues) and not a peasant in China no matter what nifty gadgets the emperor had.

[Common Soldier]

Quickly for now:



No I said you posted a link that was factually incorrect

That link you cited was not what I was using for the ratio of silver to gold.

It may be wrong for what the pay of a Centurion is, but that is not where i got the ratio for silver to gold I was using 25 silver denarii to gold aureus, same as you, not sure why you thought I has using that link. Here is what you said, and what you quoted of mine does not say anything about what the ratio of silver to gold that I can see. Where does it talk about the silver to gold ratio? (Note, the aureus did not weigh the same as a denarius. During Augustus, the Aureus was around 8 grams of gold, but only 6.55 grams of gold by the early 3rd century, and the denarius went from 3.9 grams of 98% silver to around 3 grams of silver. I used the values of the early 3rd century ratio, since that was closer in time to Diocletian than Augustus.

Also your link got the aurius to danarius ratio wrong. So what the point of an inaccurate link?

I wasn't using the link for the silver to gold ratio, so whether it was wrong about it or not is irrelevant.
.

That One.


It gets centurion pay wrong. But more importantly it gets sestertii to aureus wrong. Under Augustus 25 silver denarii were to one gold aureus (That is a 25:1 silver to gold ratio). So 100 HS to an aureus. They are undervaluing the Roman pay. Our centurion was getting some 1080 grams of gold for pay.

What you quoted from me says nothing about the silver to gold ratio. If the link gives a wrong silver to gold ratio, I did not derive the ratio from the link, nor did I say anything about silver to gold ratio in what you quoted. As I said, my silver to gold ratio came from the same 25 denarii to aurius figure that you used, you just didn't read what I wrote carefully.

I agree, the centurion pay seems a little off in the link, but my originally source on Roman legionnaires pay only talked about the base legionnaire, if it talked about centurion, I did not see it. As I said, the entire point of what you quoted from me was to show the pay ratio between a legionnaire to a centurion, and whether it was 13,500 HS to 900 HS or 15,000 HS to 900 HS does not make a big difference.

And unlike for later Diocletian times, we don't need to know the silver to gold ratio for the earlier Caesar/Augustus to early 3rd century, since the coin the legionnaires were paid in was a silver coin, 90% silver. So to figure out how much the legionnaires were paid in silver, we just needed to know how many coins they were paid and the silver weight of the coin, which for the denarius was around 3 grams. In Diocletian times, the silver content became so low the Empire switched from a silver to a de facto gold standard, so knowing the silver ration is important for then.

The Athenian rower of his day was being paid almost 80-89 ounces of gold (in a year).

Why are you using gold? The basket of goods calculations were all done in grams of silver, and weren't the Athenian rowers paid in silver coins, and Athens essentially on a silver standard, as was early Imperial Rome? It was only late Imperial Rome, under Diocletian and later emperors like Constantine that the empire essentially switched to a gold standard. Since silver what was being used for the basket of goods, and for early part of the empire a silver coin like the denarius was the standard coin, it just confuses things to switch to a gold standard.

Nope. Silver value of gold -

1:13 according to Herodotus. 1:14 at Athens in the late 5^th century (as an average). But see “The Power of Money” Figueira (Table 19.1). Over about 30 years the ratio was as high as 16.7 and as low as 11(*), shifting fairly constantly. Obviously with the scale of Roman production out of Spain silver was rather more cheap at the dawn of the Empire under Octavian to his 1:25. The market rate may have moved around Octavian's Tariff, but in his day 1:25 is the conversion for the coins.

*That would be the very brief period when Laurium was shall we say off line circa the very beginning of the 4th century BC. In general 13-14 was a low point with 15 or 16:1 more common.

Silver was often a 10:1 ratio. During Herodutus times, the Athenian silver mines would have lowered the value of silver to gold, due to silver being more plentiful, but at other times the ratio of silver to gold was lower. Silver is often mined as byproduct of mining other metals, such as lead in Roman times, and improved processing of ores made silver more readily available, lower the ratio of silver to gold.

At a 25 denarii to 1 gold aureus, the gold aureus was around 8 grams of gold during Augustus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aureus, while the denarius was 3.9 grams of 98% silver https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denarius, so that gives a ration of 11.9 (12):1 silver to gold. During the time of Caracalla, the aureus was around 6.5 grams of gold and the denarius was around 3 grams of silver, with a ratio of about 11.5. You clearly made the mistake of assuming the aureus was the same weight as a denarius when you talke abpout a 1:25 ration, which was a wrong assumption. The denarius did not weigh the same as an aureus.

TIME FRAME / ERA	Sell 1 oz Gold Bullion	To buy X oz of Silver
Menes, Egypt 3200 BC	1	2.5
Egypt, 2700 BC	1	9
Hammurabi, Mesopotamia 2700 BC	1	6
Egypt 1000 BC	1	10.0
Croesus, Lydia 550 BC	1	13.33
Persia under Darius, son of Hystaspes (father of Xerxes)	1	13.0
Plato, ca. 445 BC	1	12.0
Xenophon (in Persia)	1	11.66
Menander, ca. 341 BC	1	10.0
Greece, ca. 300 BC	1	10.0
Rome, 207 BC	1	14.5
Rome, 189 BC	1	10.0
Rome, 40 BC, Julius Caesar	1	7.5
Rome, Claudius	1	12.5
Constantine the Great	1	10.5
Theodosian Code	1	14.4
Medieval England	1	11.1
Medieval Italy	1	12.6

https://sdbullion.com/blog/historica...g-term-and-now

As you can see, the ratio changes, but my estimate of 10 to 11:1 is a lot closer to the historic average than the current average that typically hovers around 50:1 or higher in the last hundred years. Currently the ratio seems to be 87:1 at today's prices, but that can change. Here is the silver to gold ration in the last 100 years. https://www.macrotrends.net/1441/gold-to-silver-ratio.

Also, the U.S. Geological Survey estimates that there’s 17.5 times more silver in the Earth’s crust than gold, which could provide another explanation for the pre-1900 gold-to-silver ratio average. https://www.providentmetals.com/know...explained.html

[conon394]

That link you cited was not what I was using for the ratio of silver to gold.

Fine my point remains why did you even put in you post. I was confused given you had a sold link and source above it. That was the point of my post at the start.

I wasn't using the link for the silver to gold ratio, so whether it was wrong about it or not is irrelevant.

If you read carefully I was pointing out the link was inaccurate not anything you typed, which again caused me to ask why use it?

I agree, the centurion pay seems a little off in the link, but my originally source on Roman legionnaires pay only talked about the base legionnaire, if it talked about centurion, I did not see it. As I said, the entire point of what you quoted from me was to show the pay ratio between a legionnaire to a centurion, and whether it was 13,500 HS to 900 HS or 15,000 HS to 900 HS does not make a big difference.

Its a significant error and added to the surreal miscalculation of HS to aureus suggest a link not worth posting. The real issue I had was you cited in the same post 'Roman Army Pay Scales' which is freely available at the academia.edu link for that paper (re post #104 above).

Why are you using gold? The basket of goods calculations were all done in grams of silver, and weren't the Athenian rowers paid in silver coins, and Athens essentially on a silver standard, as was early Imperial Rome? It was only late Imperial Rome, under Diocletian and later emperors like Constantine that the empire essentially switched to a gold standard. Since silver what was being used for the basket of goods, and for early part of the empire a silver coin like the denarius was the standard coin, it just confuses things to switch to a gold standard.

Again you posted the link to odd comparisons based on gold not I.

As you can see, the ratio changes, but my estimate of 10 to 11:1 is a lot closer to the historic average

No. No in fact I can not see that at all based on a list without any actual references.

You do realize that if the actual ratio was 1:7.5 in 40 BC than Octavian's currency was a fantasy at its ratio. For somebody who criticized small sample size on Athenian skeletons you seem fond on a small set now...

Again

https://books.google.com/books?id=Zk...20gold&f=false

opt for page 513 if the link works right (if you just get the google book preview search silver and gold). So over ~30 years do see some stable price or a market price?

You clearly made the mistake of assuming the aureus was the same weight as a denarius when you talke abpout a 1:25 ration

I may have mis typed (I'll check), but my original point was on HS to aureus. I meant that 25 denarius of Octavian's era -> 1 aureus. A Centurion's pay in HS was 13500 HS. That is 3375 silver danarius and that is 135 aureus, and that is 1080 ounces of gold. Thus my way over discussed point was your link seriously underestimated the pay of a centurion. Which is unfortunate because the pay of the Roman military is in fact one of the better ways ways of dispelling the old myth that 18th century Europe is a good model for the classical world. Because the poor sods serving for the king's shilling on the thin read line were were horribly miss used in comparison to a man taking Octavian's silver.

[Common Soldier]

Fine my point remains why did you even put in you post. I was confused given you had a sold link and source above it. That was the point of my post at the start.



If you read carefully I was pointing out the link was inaccurate not anything you typed, which again caused me to ask why use it?

Ok, I see you point, the link was wrong in a number of points. It got both the value of sesterrii to aureus and the amount of silver a centurion earned off byy a factor of 10.


But as I explained before, I only used the link because I needed what the pay of a Roman centurion was, and I simply didn't see the Roman centurion pay was on my first link. If I had seen it there, I could of used the first link, yes, but I just missed seeing the centurion pay listed on that article. Had I didn't notice the obvious error in the other values in thatlink because I wasn't using them and didn't pay any attention to them


The difference between 13,500 and 15000 didn't make any difference to the point I was trying to make. If the base pay of ordinary workers and soldiers were similar between Han China and Rome, but the pay for higher officials much higher in the Roman world, it might imply that over all Roman society was richer. If you recall, later I found a scharly article that did say Roman officials were paid much more.than their Chinese counterparts. I didn't use the links value of aureus to sesterrii ratio, so it was just confusing things to even bring it up. We already established it was a bad link.

Its a significant error and added to the surreal miscalculation of HS to aureus suggest a link not worth posting. The real issue I had was you cited in the same post 'Roman Army Pay Scales' which is freely available at the academia.edu link for that paper (re post #104 above).

I explained why used that second link above and in the previous post. I just didn't see the pay for the centurion listed in the first link, just missed seeing 8t was there. And 13,500 and 15,000 is not a huge error, I don't consider a difference or a mere 11% huge when it comes to pay for people.living 2000 years ago. In any case, a8 was correct on the ratio between the centurion to legionnaires pay.

The error in the aureus to HS ratio was huge, but since I didn't use that ratio it is not relevsnt to the discussion. It played no role in anything I said other than the the pay ratio of a centurion to legionnaire, which was correct.

Again you posted the link to odd comparisons based on gold not I.

I explained this all, but your ignored everything I said and just repeated all your erroneous claims.

1. The link I used for the 1500O HS centurion pay had nothing to do with my silver to gold ratio. It was solely used to give an idea of the pay ratio seen between Roman officials/officers and ordinary workers/soldier. You are under thr mistaken impression that the 15000 HS had some relationship to how I calculated silver/gold ratio or determined ordinary pay, but it did not

2. The difference between 15000 and 13500 is not a huge error as you assert, and it is questionable if it was even really an error. While centurion pay was 13,500 during Augustus, it was raised during the course of the 1st century, and so might represent a later time than Augustus. Any case, I specifically said the centurion was paid 15 times more than a centurion, is correct. 15 x 900 is 13,500. Having the right ratio is not a huge error.


I suggest you read a little closer to what I actually wrote, which you don't seem to have done.


PS - In my first link, I went back and saw toward the end of the article it did give the centurion pay. However, the centurion pay of 13,500 HS is an estimate only, we don't have direct evidence for the amoount. The estimates assume a steady 15:1 pay ratio between a centurion and a legionnaire, but it is possibpe thr ratio wasn't constant, or that more experienced centurions were paid more. Given that 13,500 HS is an estimate only, a figure of 15,000 is not completely out of line as you keep asserting.

No. No in fact I can not see that at all based on a list without any actual references.

The link did give a source for the gold to silver values it gave. It was a book called "Silver Bonaza" by James Blanchard III. Again you wrong. The value of the ratio it gives from Plato is the same as your own source gave on page 513.

<
You do realize that if the actual ratio was 1:7.5 in 40 BC than Octavian's currency was a fantasy at its ratio. For somebody who criticized small sample size on Athenian skeletons you seem fond on a small set now...

I don't know how the 7.5:1 ratio was derived. But the chart said Julius Caesar had a 7.5:1 ratio, not Augustus. The ratio could have changed from the beginning of his reign toward the end. I do know the chart value of 12.5:1 given for Claudius reign is similar to what I calculated Augustus reign based on the silver content of his denarius and the weight of the sites, which was 11.9:1, not your fantasy of 25:1. 12:1 is a lot closer to 7.5:2 than 25:1 is.

Further, the reference of the silver ratio you gave for a very restricted time period and location, and the silver to gold ratio is not very representative of the rest of ancient times The rich silver mined of Athens would have dressed the value of silver, giving a higher ratio.

I may have mis typed (I'll check), but my original point was on HS to aureus. I meant that 25 denarius of Octavian's era -> 1 aureus. A Centurion's pay in HS was 13500 HS. That is 3375 silver danarius and that is 135 aureus, and that is 1080 ounces of gold. Thus my way over discussed point was your link seriously underestimated the pay of a centurion. Which is unfortunate because the pay of the Roman military is in fact one of the better ways ways of dispelling the old myth that 18th century Europe is a good model for the classical world. Because the poor sods serving for the king's shilling on the thin read line were were horribly miss used in comparison to a man taking Octavian's silver.

You did more than mistyped. You clearly thought the sliver to gold ratio was 25:1, 2hich is why you accuse me of getting the ratio wrong. The 25:1 ratio you mentioned came in the discussion of silver to gold ratio, and it makes no sense to talk about 25 denarius to 1 aurues in that discussion, since without knowing the silver content of the denarius, and the gold content of the aureus, the ratio was completely meaningless in the discussion, and you did not give the silver or gold content of those coins. The ratio of denarius to aureus had nothing to due with the value of 15,000 HS for slcenru4ion pay, and your point was completely wrong. If anything, by using 15,000 I was possibly overstating thr centurion pay, but being mere 11% highnis not horribly off. You saying that just proves mistakenly thought the silver to gold ratio was 25:1, and treated the denarius as if it had the same weight in silver as the aureus had in gold. If the denarius weigh5d the same.as the aureus and the silver/gold ratio was 25:1, yes I would be horribly off. But the denarius did not weigh the same as an aur3leus, the silver/gold ratio is not 25:1 as you are implying, and I am not horribly off. You are horribly off.


Unlike you, I did give the silver and gold content of the coins, and showed how I derived the silver to gold ratio using them. While the 25 denarius to 1 aurues ratio remained the same, the silver content of the denarius and weight of the aureus changed overtime, which effectively changed the silver to gold ratio. Still, I calculated a silver to gold ratio of 11.9 for Augustus reign, and 11.5:1 for the early 3rd century, so the ratio seems to have been fairly stable.

And while I see now my figure of 10 to 11 was a little low for the historic ratio of silver to gold, p1p3 to 14 ratio derived for ancient Greece is somewhat high for ancient times, the rich silver mined depressing the vsle of silver to gold a little, leading to a higher ratio.

[Common Soldier]

Its not consistent however with bone data for stature or diet. The elite of Rome certainly lived well. But the average marcus publius lived less well than either his Hellenistic or Classical Greek compatriots, although notably better that most 17 to 19th century peasants in Europe.

Youns5ill haven't provided any data to support your claims that the average Hellenistic person had better stature or diet than the average Roman. You made a claim, now please support it with some facts.

[Roma_Victrix]

Scored higher how exactly?

"three more centuries would pass before it became clear just what the difference it made that Cortés, not Zheng, had burned Tenochtitlán."

Kind of a silly quote by an otherwise good historian if true. Zheng had not chance of getting to the new world to burn boats. I'd rather be free farmer in Holland in 1600 on my farm (well aside from those SPannis issues) and not a peasant in China no matter what nifty gadgets the emperor had.

What are the "SPannis issues" exactly? I think you meant to say "Spanish" here, given the Thirty Years' War and the eventual recognition of the independence of the Dutch Republic by the Spanish Empire.

[conon394]

Your claim that ratio of silver to gold I used were completely off is not supported by the fact. Rather it is your 25:1 ratio which is completely wrong, and it comes from your not taking into account the denarius and aurues coins had different weights.

Look I said as I much was not paying attention I meant to be talking about the number of HS to aureus. I mis typed/screwed up because I got 25 danarius to an aurues stuck in my head. Always a problem when you are just posting on a board or late or tired.

However you cant just wave away 13500 vs 15000 that not a small error. Nor can you suggest "it was raised during the course of the 1st century", and so might represent a later time than Augustus"
Pay was raised once in the first century very near the end. But the link clearly cited itself in the time of Octavian not 80 years after.

In any case

The link did give a source for the gold to silver values it gave. It was a book called "Silver Bonaza" by James Blanchard III. Again you wront.

I figured you got it from somewhere but it remains problematical. It's an investment guide for silver bugs... The time series presented is easily deceptive as I tried to show. The 3 selected points for Greece 12:1, 11.66:1, 10:1 are deceptive. First thay are notably all literary and ignore the wealth of actual records of exchange rates. They include a reference to a comedy not something usually done with out comment. Over that time the actual ration fluctuated widely at Athens 16.7:1 to a low 11:1 (1,2) [5th to early 4th century]. By proxy to the Cyzicene Stater around 12:1 in the mid 4th century. The early 4th century the Chalcidian league was minting at 13.5:1, but that region slipped to 12:1 by the 340s. (3). Alexander's nominal ratio was 10:1. But the market price would seem to have dropped below that to ~9.5:1 in Athens circa the end of the 4th century (4). The West would seem to have followed a similar pattern 15:1 in the 5th century and normalizing at the 10:1 set by Alexander the open of the 3rd century (5). That was not however stable with Hellenistic prices fluctuating some time well outside the norm to 20:1 but more likely 12:1(6). Notably Ptolemy set his coinage at 12:1. Your source puts the ratio at 12:1 under Claudius and that is consistent with 12:1 ~AD 112 (7).

Also note Xenophon: If anything can be made out of the literary evidence about the King's mission to fund the Corinthian war Xenophon seems to be suggesting a 14-15:1 ratio for the dole out of Persian gold (8). Although If I had to guess, literary rounding is obscuring the reality that the kings gold probably was spent at something like 13.5:1 which is closer to market prices. To go lower requires rejecting the sources out of hand.

edit: Note after Alexander the ratio in Egypt was as high as 1:12.8 reflecting a market rate of perhaps 1:13 (9) Also a closer look at Rome (10). 1:10 seem asperational by coin weight. 1:11 to 1:14 seems the norm.


Overall something closer to 12:1 seems a much better 'normal' price and 10:1 the short lived result of Alexander's actions. Interesting really you would cite a investment guide with a tiny set of data points after questioning the data for classical Athenian skeletal data as small.

is a lot closer to the historic average than the current average that typically hovers around 50:1 or higher in the last hundred years. Currently the ratio seems to be 87:1 at today's prices, but that can change. Here is the silver to gold ration in the last 100 years. https://www.macrotrends.net/1441/gold-to-silver-ratio.

Given the vast differences in production technology (and sources of demand) I fail to see the relevance

Silver is often mined as byproduct of mining other metals, such as lead in Roman times

You got that backward or at least sideways the ores were what they were both lead and silver were products and inputs (well lead). Before, during and after Rome.

Youns5ill haven't provided any data to support your claims that the average Hellenistic person had better stature or diet than the average Roman. You made a claim, now please support it with some facts

When I get paid to do this I will post promptly. But you know since I'm not I will post as I can. I am also not lucky enough to be near a major public land grant university so that my ability to track down sources is constrained when I think I have all the data I think I need and can read it or reread again I will post. Or to go bit further I do have you know a real life, kids, their activates , a wife , cooking dinner , doing my job, cleaning a house, scrabbling around on a frozen roof to put of lights, hobbies of which posting here is but one small bit of. In fact at the moment I rather more interested in seeing if I can mod Imperator Rome 1.4 to have a what if Aigina and Athens won (ish) the Lamian war start and see how that plays out than worry about if I am making you wait too long to get around to posting here. Or rather more important to me badger the one structural engineer in the region who answers his phone to come out and look my broken roof so I can proceed with insurance claims against the roofers who broke my roof and recover damages and get it fixed. Or also just sit with my cat and read a 'Plague of War' by the fire place (or even more perversely try to finish a the Circle of Light books which I have started and never finished since 6th grade but always give a go at near the end of the year).


1. Figueira cited above 512ff
2. Also Thompson, Wesley E. "GOLD AND SILVER RATIOS AT ATHENS DURING THE FIFTH CENTURY." The Numismatic Chronicle and Journal of the Royal Numismatic Society 4 (1964): 103-23. www.jstor.org/stable/42662586.
3. ZERVOS, ORESTES H., and M. JESSOP PRICE. "The Earliest Coins of Alexander the Great." The Numismatic Chronicle (1966-) 142 (1982): 166-90. www.jstor.org/stable/42665140. (page 181)
4 Lambert, S. D. ""IG" II² 1471A and the Value of Gold at Athens in the 320s B.C." Zeitschrift Für Papyrologie Und Epigraphik 110 (1996): 84-86. www.jstor.org/stable/20189668.
5 Handbook of Greek and Roman Coins
https://books.google.com/books?id=uz...0ratio&f=false
6 https://books.google.com/books?id=zJ...0ratio&f=false
7 Foraboschi, Daniele. "Il Rapporto Oro/argento Nel 113 D.C." Zeitschrift Für Papyrologie Und Epigraphik 57 (1984): 79-80. www.jstor.org/stable/20184116.
8 GARTLAND, S.D. "The Electrum Coinage of Thebes." The Numismatic Chronicle (1966-) 173 (2013): 23-32. www.jstor.org/stable/43859723.
9 https://books.google.com/books?hl=en...q=gold&f=false
10 http://numismatics.org/digitallibrar...3695/nnan92614

Happy now with sources?

[conon394]

Indeed. As always give me a bit of time I do go back a check posts eventually...

[Ludicus]

Scored higher how exactly?

Its a "Social development score", made by Ian Morris.According to Morris, "contrary to what many historians once believed, there were roughly 1,200 years-from about 550 to 1750 CE--when an East Asian region was more advanced. Only in the late eighteenth century CE, when northwest Europeans tapped into the energy trapped in fossil fuels, did the West leap ahead" (sic)

Kind of a silly quote by an otherwise good historian if true. Zheng had not chance of getting to the new world to burn boats

I guess you missed the entire context - underlined

Eastern social development remained far ahead of the West, and despite Europe's renaissance, sailors, and guns, in 1521 there was still little to suggest that the West would narrow the gap significantly. Three more centuries would pass before it became clear just what the difference it made that Cortés, not Zheng, had burned Tenochtitlán.

I have the book, please ask me anything or a full quote.It's an amazing book.Anyway, I found this -Why The West Rules - For Now: The Patterns of History and ...
For a better understanding, go to "going global" and also the chapter "The West Catches Up", the Rising Tide. See the figure 9.1
---
I have also found this. It's worth reading.Morris - 233 pages. PDF social development
Since the pre-history, Rome, and so on.It's not the book, but it's about the same subject.

The question is really one about social development, by which I meana group’s ability to master its physical and intellectual environment to get things done. Long-term lock-in theorists tend to argue that Western social development has been higher than that in other parts of the world for many hundreds or even thousands of years; short-term accident theorists tend to argue that Western development only pulled ahead in the last half-dozen generations. If we really want to explain why the West rules, we need to measure social development and compare it across time and space. Only when we have established the basic pattern can we start asking why it takes the form it does