Byzantine Commerce and Coinage

Complex topic - Byzantine commerce and coinage, mainly at the very height of the empire. 10th - 12th century.

Byzantine commerce, which was essentially based on trading of different materials, was the main lifeline of the Byzantine economy. For hundreds of years, up until around the 14th century, the Byzantine Empire relied on this vital trade to boost the coffers, ensure a stable army and to ensure the vast development of the empire. Despite it being a rather agricultural economy, trade was crucial for the Byzantines as it would have been impossible without this valuable commerce to exist and flourish. Traded goods were usually silk, grains, wines, meat, fish and other items that were sent in all corners of the planet. (Silk worms were smuggled from the Far East, for example)

Over time, trade declined - but that's due to a number of different reasons.

How come the Italian Republics managed to outmaneouver the Byzantine merchants and secure the trading for themselves? After the reign of Basil the IInd, the empire's importance in global (at least European) trade declined, replaced by the Republics. Why? How come the Republics' merchants secured the trade for themselves?

And second - how come the Byzantine coinage, particularly the ones before the hyperpyra of Alexios I, become the main (at least the most important) coin of the Mediterranean world? Simply because of the Byzantine Empire's prestige?

Hi Edyz,

I will focus more on the late Comnenus period where the trade fortunes really slipped out of the Byzantines. The Byzantine Empire during the Comnenus dynasty was still rich and powerful. True, some Byzantines did start to lose the competition (partly because the Byzantine merchants were too much regulated by the government; trade was just means to an end for the Byzantines (for the Italians that was the end :) ) and perhaps because the Italian free cities only priority was trade while the Byzantine government had many other worries). Despite the fact that Italian merchants became influential, the Empire still kept some degree of control. How would you explain that the revenge of the Venetians came with 20 years delay. The Byzantine Empire under the Comnenus dynasty was strong. I think the decline began in the later years of the rule of Manuel I but it became obvious during the regency of Alexius II (1180-1183) when the unpopular regency prepared the tragedy that is going to happen. The Byzantine Empire is as strong as its Emperors. Without a strong leader, the Empire started to disintegrate (Antioch lost, the Armenians of Cilicia as well, Turkish raids, corruption). Then it comes the "messiah" Andronicus I who offered easy solutions and cleansing the Empire of all the foreigners and the corruption. Needless to say, slaughtering of the Italians in the capital and the harsh treatment of the aristocracy (i.e. the officers of the army) did not make the situation better. It was not long before the Andronicus was torn into pieces and the Angelus disaster came. Further fragmentation followed. Bulgaria and parts of Asia Minor were lost. Central control was so weak that towards the end of the Angelus dynasty the Emperor had to use non military ways to remove its enemies (bribes, assassination and intrigues). Soon after the Venetians and the crusaders sacked Constantinople.

Is it surprising that in times of disintegration, corruption and massacres the role of the Byzantine merchant lessened? Now here is the funny part. Perhaps the biggest contribution of the Angelus dynasty was that through marriage of the Emperor's daughters it paved the way for the Lascaris dynasty (1204-1261). While the Nicaean Empire lost a lot of the important trade posts in the Mediterranean (Constantinople included), its economy was surprisingly healthy. The local merchant and artisans were supported and agriculture flourished. Perhaps because the Turkish and Latin threat were neutralized in the very beginning of the Lascaris dynasty. It was one of those critical moments when desperate times required desperate measures and the aristocracy stood behind a capable leader (Theodore I and John Ducas Vatatzes).

And then again, another unpopular regency and Michael VIII (1259- 1282) came into power with a new dynasty. Constantinople was reconquered but the economy did not flourish. Why? If we look how much money the Empire spent for campaigns and bribes, if we look at the internal situation in the Empire (a new dynasty after the blinding of the legitimate emperor), we may understand why. Bribes and gifts to the Golden Horde in what is now Russia and Ukraine, to Hulagu in Iran, the expensive (and still very successful) sponsorship for the Sicilian Vesper rebellion, campaigns in Greece, campaigns against Bulgaria (some even reaching the Bulgarian capital). The internal situation: a new dynasty: the loyalty of the aristocracy and church needed to be bought. Privileges were given away, tax exemption and lavish infrastructure projects in Constantinople. Eventually in the reign of Andronicus II, the Empire had little resources to defend its heart: the Asian Minor provinces. Refugees, loss of territories and on the top of that, even higher taxes. The Byzantines were also forced to rely on the naval support of the Italians which worsened the situation even more (no/little taxes on Italian merchants). Is it surprising that the Byzantines lost their positions in the Mediterranean? What kind of economy would stay healthy when the provinces separate or are being conquered, every 10 years there is a massacre or a crusade (or both), corruption and increasing taxation?

Apologies for the late reply, Cobra, but mersi for the answer. :bow:

One aspect I want to highlight - a lot of privileges, bribes and exemptions were given out, but weren't the merchants still providing a considerable amount of money to the coffers? Was their efficiency cancelled out by these gifts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by edyzmedieval

And second - how come the Byzantine coinage, particularly the ones before the hyperpyra of Alexios I, become the main (at least the most important) coin of the Mediterranean world? Simply because of the Byzantine Empire's prestige?

---

AFAIK there are two factors here. First, a coin has to be widely available and recognizable for it to be the main coin. Byzantine trade made their coins both. Second, quality control. In those days a coin's value was determined the the amount (weight) of precious metal in it. Coins were often minted with less silver (or gold) in them than the coin's nominal value, with a cheaper metal added to make the weight come out correctly, simply because the minting authority (king or whoever) couldn't afford to do the job properly. Byzantium, however, could and did produce coins equal in metal value to their nominal value. That gave it the same sort of attraction that "hard" currency has today.

Fair points, Brandy Blue, thank you. :bow:

For the most part, Byzantine coinage has been relatively widespread until the advent of the florin introduced by the Florentine Republic (for those who do not know, the florin comes from Florence). When did the Byzantine coinage drop in value/importance? Was it after the introduced hyperpyra of Alexios I, or was it after Manuel Komnenos?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by edyzmedieval

Fair points, Brandy Blue, thank you. :bow:

For the most part, Byzantine coinage has been relatively widespread until the advent of the florin introduced by the Florentine Republic (for those who do not know, the florin comes from Florence). When did the Byzantine coinage drop in value/importance? Was it after the introduced hyperpyra of Alexios I, or was it after Manuel Komnenos?

---

Well, that's a good question and I admit I can't come up with an answer that satisfies me. AFAIK the florin didn't really come into its own until mid 13th century, well after the Byzantines began debasing their coinage. Maybe there was an interim during which Byzantine coinage had become less reliable, but no one was yet minting a suitable alternative?

The Venetians did supply the Mediterranean world with ducats in that period, with 99% gold, and that was quite something in the 13th century!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by edyzmedieval

The Venetians did supply the Mediterranean world with ducats in that period, with 99% gold, and that was quite something in the 13th century!

---

OK, I looked up ducats on wiki and this is what I got:

"The Venetian business model of the 13th century was importing goods from the East and selling them at a profit north of the Alps.[6] They paid for these goods with Byzantine gold coins but when the Byzantine emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos backed a rebellion called the Sicilian Vespers in 1282, he debased the hyperpyron.[emphais mine] [7] This was just one more in a series of debasements of the hyperpyron[8] and the Great Council of Venice responded with its own coin of pure gold in 1284.[6]"

Both Florence and Genoa had introduced gold coins in 1252 and the florin of Florence had become the standard European gold coin. Venice modeled the size and weight of their ducat on the florin, with a slight increase in weight due to differences in the two cities′ weight systems. The Venetian ducat contained 3.545 grams of 99.47% fine gold, the highest purity medieval metallurgy could produce.[9]

6 Coins In History, John Porteous, page 86.
7 Coins of Medieval Europe, Philip Grierson, page 110
8 Byzantine Coins, P. D. Whiting, page 232
9 The Oxford Encyclopedia of Economic History, page 112

This was the website if you want a peek: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ducat

So, in essence, that's it. The hyperpyra was debased, again, and in 1284 the Venetians made the ducat. End of the Byzantine coins.

Even so... it's quite impressive considering the Empire was a shadow to still have the "gold standard" in Europe by 1284!