Seeing that all of our panelists are concerned with pre-modern topics, I’ll ask a couple of related questions: how does a contemporary economic historian who studies a pre-market-capitalist society avoid interpreting the motivations behind economic behaviour in their period with those of their own time and place?

To what extent is economic behaviour ‘ahistorical’? That is to say, do you believe that certain forms of production, consumption and exchange are constant throughout history and exist independently of culture, society and political structures?

When sifting through the personal accounts of many Scottish families, particularly families in the Highlands, it's not uncommon to find sums recorded using not only Scottish and English (later, British) denominations but also French and Spanish denominations as well. Was currency at all standardized during the medieval and early modern periods? That is, was the gold and silver content of coins across Europe consistent enough that currencies could be used throughout the continent without issue? Was there ever any attempt by governments to call in non-domestic currency, melt it down, and then remint it?

This is perhaps a highly technical question but it's something I often wonder! Thanks in advance!

Why did the Low Countries rise to become such a wealthy region in the 14th-15th century? Were they mostly trading, or manufacturing? Who were their trading partners and what did they trade?

Thanks!

We know that the European age of exploration was motivated by greed. Those peppers, cloves, nutmegs, were literally worth a fortune! But the journey to the east Indies was arduous and risky and took a long time; so much so that trading companies were set up such that risk (and profit) could be distributed.

Surely in such journeys some of the cargo were, um ... damaged. Wooden barrels became wet, some spoiled, etc.

Was there a secondary market for these damaged goods? How big was this market? Was this market much different than one from the Silk Road era, if there was such a thing?

Thanks!

I have sort of a niche question: Karl Polanyi, in The Great Transformation, asserts that the idea of a self-regulating market was a new creation around the 17^th and 18^th centuries (apologies for fudging dates; it's been a while since I've read it). He argues that markets were traditionally regulated by cultural, political, and normative social structures. I've seen some debate on this topic, but wanted to know if your research supports his assertion or if you see a more self-regulating market pattern.

Also, related to the current top comment by /u/depanneur, how difficult is it to separate our modern understanding of economics from older practices? For instance, do you treat Homo Economicus as an assumption on human nature, or as a phenomenon from a particular historical context?

• For the Medievalists, how did pricing work with guilds? How did they determine what goods should cost, and how much did they allow differing quality into different prices (eg, would someone in the cobbler's guild who was very good at making shoes get to charge more)?

• /u/viae: Basically this question I asked several months ago. Ho everyday were trade relations between colonists and natives? Would it be common to see natives in colonial towns?

• To everyone: where do you fall on substantivism and formalism?

For /u/Tiako: how does a historian researching ancient economies get their quantitative data? I'd imagine there aren't many surviving trade ledgers outside of arid places like Egypt. If you were researching international Roman trade, what kinds of sources would you look at? Would those sources change if you were looking at trade with India and, say, trade with Germanic peoples?

When Europeans first came to the east indies, they had to rely on the existing trade system to supply them with the goods they wanted. We know that over time they disrupted the political system significantly. But how much economic disruption was there in the first 100 years? If I have to specify, I am interested in the earliest period of Portuguese exploration and trade in the Indian Ocean, in the period 1487-1542.

Thanks!

Hello fellow economic historians,

since the latest financial crisis criticising capitalism and rebranding marxist ideas has become a popular theme in publications about economic history. Sven Beckerts King Cotton and Dimothy Mitchells Carbon Democracy have both embraced marxist critisism of capitalism and political systems in their books, even using Polanyis ideas that capitalism is not born in free and open markets that enable competition, but in economic areas that enable actors to avoid competition. Now it is often unclear if they have read Marx and Polanyis works, which are more political in its nature, and are referencing those, or if they came to the same conclusion during their work, but never the less it is very interesting that these kinds of ideologies and ideas are returning into mainstream literature. My question is, if and how the latest financial crisis, as well as the discussion about the EU-crisis and the general criticism towards capitalismus has influenced your work? Did you experience a change in the way you approach economic history, or did it not change your view on economic systems at all?

It is often said that in the late medieval and early modern era, Spain's mediterranean coast was barren and underdeveloped. However, just across the sea we have the west coast of Italy including Genoa and Florence, who were considered extremely wealthy. What caused this huge disparity?

Thanks!

It seems to me like most sources that might be used for economic history would have been produced by the wealthy, the nobility, and/or the church/religious institutions (since the more "common" folk [e.g. the peasantry] wouldn't necessarily be literate).

Does this pose a problem for economic historians? Is it difficult to gain insight into the economic lives of common folk? What about the economic lives of the poor? How do you reconcile this to produce a more holistic understanding of a given time period?

For any of the medievalists/early modern history: My question deals with economic regulation (of finance/banking or of trade or "industry"). Was this something that only really began to take off with the rise of the modern state, or was it present beforehand? And if it was present beforehand, what form did it take/how was it enforced? And what was considered the goal of the regulation if any existed?

Also, I would be interested in hearing how these issues apply to the ancient world if /u/tiako can shed any light on that.

Oh, and as a follow up question: I see that /u/idjet and /u/Enrico_Dandolo both mention the "commercial revolution" of Western Europe. What do you guys think were the factors that pushed this revolution forward? And also, how did contemporaries react to this revolution? Was it something remarked upon in the time period? Was this a period of upward mobility for many, or did the gains of this revolution largely go those that were already upper class?

Thanks!

How do you balance your use of quantitative data with textual analysis? Do you think an economic historian should be both an economist and a historian, or just a historian with a specialty in past economic systems?

Is mercantilism a sound economic policy? Why did people think it was? What effects does mercantilism have on an economy?

As economic historians, how do you interpret and incorporate the relevant archaeology? How much interpretation comes from the archaeologist vs the historian?

It's late and I don't know if you're still checking this, and this is slightly later than most of your specialities, but what do economic historians think these days about the origins of capitalism? What do economic historians even think of as defining capitalism as different from previous trade and production regimes? Is any credence still given to Weber's theory of Calvinist inner worldly ascetism?

The classic example is in pre-capitalist society, a producer or middle man might try to encourage more production by increasing wages but that may end up decreasing production because workers take the same amount of money and just work fewer hours. What's the basic economic historian response to this, is it true, is it a myth, is the situation complex? (I'm guessing "Well, the evidence is complicated and the interpretation of the evidence is more complicated. These things varied hugely across time and space...")

Here's a question about the late-antique/early-medieval economy for /u/Enrico_Dandolo: aside from Wickham and McCormick's massive tomes on the economy, what other modern works do I have to read to be on the 'cutting-edge' of this field currently? I imagine a lot of the very latest stuff would be monographs on the archaeological evidence, but are there anything post-Wickham/McCormick that deals with the big picture stuff like cross-cultural contact and wider economic trends during this period?

This may be a big one. A key strand of 20th C economic thought, particularly my area of interest, is around development theory; how to catch-up with the West.

With that in mind, how early can we date the stirrings of capitalism in Europe? Is this something that we can neatly box as 'taking-off' in the 18th/19th C or do you see the roots of future economies in medieval societies?

• The Roman elite used to own a large set of household slaves (familia urbana) where each slave had a narrow task; My question is, did this practice appear as a a result of the Punic wars or did it come earlier ? (along with the practice of owning large farms worked by large groups of slaves )

• Another question: I have read 'Slavery and Society in Rome' by Keith Bradley; are there any other good sources that do study the institution of slavery in Rome ?

• yet another question: What was the predominant form of agriculture in Egypt/Asia minor during the late Empire - was the soil worked by slaves, Coloni/serfs or by free farmers ?

How present is the business cycle in any form before the modern era? It's taken to be one of the fundamental features of macro today, but how does it manifest in different historical economic structures? Are booms and busts a part of ancient or medieval economies?

how has/has taxation spurred economic growth? i remember a lecture about this in relation to rome but i want to cast a wider net (sorry if too vague).

I was wondering if you could talk about Cliometrics. What are your thoughts on it? Why did it die (if it did)? Does other historian's accept these methods?

For /u/Tiako: How did banking work during the Principate? What was the role of Roman banks, and how did that role compare to later medieval banks? Are there noticeable differences in banking practices in different regions? Would wealthy Romans have felt confident storing liquid wealth in banks, or would it be stored elsewhere?

I've seen it reported that when Mansa Musa I of Mali went on pilgrimage to Mecca in 1324, he brought with him so much gold that he left years of economic devastation in his wake due to gold losing all value/scarcity. This concept, of causing a massive physical oversupply in a material generally valued the world over regardless of quantity, is fascinating to me, and I have several questions related to it.

• Are there any other documented occurrences in pre-modern times of economies crashing and local money losing value due to an oversupply of gold, as opposed to short supply or debasement?

• If simple presence of large quantities of metal could cause such trouble, How did nations keep this from happening every time they marched through an area with an army paid in precious metal coinage?

• It seems that the florin was a generic European-wide gold coinage during this time period, with a fairly consistent weight and purity regardless of where it was made. Did it have a consistent purchasing power from one nation to another? Is there any sign of this being affected by the massive influx of gold just across the sea?

• Are there records of individuals or nations that experienced this golden passage stocking up on cheap gold and making massive profit either by trading it piecemeal in foreign ports, or sitting on it speculatively until the economy eventually recovered?

• Similarly, is there evidence that any of the European powers on the Mediterranean (or elsewhere) learned about this curious occurrence, and deliberately sent traders to turn massive profit by bringing home vastly more gold than they normally would for any given load of trade goods?

• Did the Empire of Mali use gold for money, or did they have so much of it they used something else instead? If they did use gold, did they value it less (from a purchasing power perspective) than other contemporary nations did? I fancy myself a numismatist, but don't know medieval African topics at all.

Sorry for the pile of questions, but this whole occurrence is quite a remarkable one in my mind, and depending how things shook out, I could imagine it shaking up western economies for generations, with permanent effects and political changes able to be, at least partially, attributed to it. That is, of course, if it's all true, which is a big part of what I'm interested to know!

In economic history, is there an orthodox explanation for the origin of precious metal currency? I've heard lots of different answers, with some arguing its a natural evolution of barter (I make paintings, which not everyone wants, but everyone wants silver, so i trade paintings for silver and silver for bacon), while others say it's a result of large, state based armies needing payment, and large classes of war prisoner slaves to do the mining, among other answers.

I wonder if the panel could perhaps comment on ELI5 terms on the historical differences between the old Gold Standard, Bretton Woods, and the modern international banking system. Bonus points for insight into what a "new bretton woods might conceptually look like, inasmuch as the sub rules allow).

How did the Italian city-states become such economic powerhouses? It seems like for a long time Venice in particular had a huge influence on European economy. How did this come about?

So I have a few questions,

1. how did chinese economic freedom compare to European economic freedom during say 600-1500? I've read that chinese peasants were much free-er and society much more commercialized during the middle age than Europes. Is this true on a village level?
2. Also were there more or less government monopolies in China than in Europe during this period? How did this affect their economic system?

This is primarily directed towards /u/Tiako but any of the other speakers can pipe in.

How has Moses Finley's Ancient Economy, and the subsequent following built up in the wake of his passing, affected how you analyze pre-modern markets?

Who comes up with the names of the of the economic eras we had, like feudalism, mercantilism, capitalism, etc? And when did people noticed it "changed"?

If there's one thing people seem to have historically loved, it's a good economic mania. From the Dutch and their tulip boom to the U.S. dot com boom of the late 1990s, across cultures people seem to be willing to get swept up in economic activity that, in retrospect, seems stupid at best and basically insane at worst. Do the various historic economic manias share any general characteristics in common, whether those characteristics be societal (i.e., they are more likely to occur in certain sorts of societies) or economic (i.e., the manias share certain economic similarities)?

What recent works in economic history do you think are particularly exciting, especially those dealing with government finances and political history? In my subfield at least, a lot of recent work has really played up links with cultural history.

I've heard some people ask why didn't the Industrial Revolution start with the Roman Empire? My main response to that has always been that Rome didn't really have the socio-economic set up to trigger an industrial revolution. However, I'm not 100% sure on this. So, that's my question, why didn't Rome have an industrial revolution?

From my understanding Europe developed the socio-economic capacity in the late middle ages through increased mercantilism and agrarian improvements that increased work-to-yield ratios . Do you think that's all Rome was missing, and that if they had accomplished those two things we would have had an industrial revolution in classical times? How far was Rome from having those two things? Alternatively, China?

Hope I'm not too late with this...

It seems throughout history, whenever employers have little controls or regulations over them, they will end up treating people terribly, for minimal wages, obviously to their own financial benefit.

I'm thinking Industrial Revolution, Serfdom, any kind of black market, to current developing nations, as an example.

It seems that the American business is heading in the same direction, with similar motives and similar results.

Is our current situation of oligarchy and automation/outsourcing as parallel to time like the Industrial Revolution and it's famously terrible employment standards, or does it just appear that way.

And if so, why do we continue to head that way, even though we have a clear example showing how things will end up?

How true is it that the Knights Templar innovated and disseminated some of the principles of modern banking?

What is the book would you recommend to understand the Spanish economy during the reign of Philip II?

I'm a huge fan of Manuel Moreno Fraginal's book, El Ingenio (The Sugarmill). It was heavily influenced by William's Capitalism and Slavery.

While Moreno is hugely influential among many Latin American historians, I'm not sure how far his influence spreads. Outside of Latin America, how well known and/or influential is Moreno Fraginals?

From the original post:

The methodology of an economic historian is somewhat different ... also because they use pertinent economic theories

What sort of pertinent economic theories are you talking about?

I've always been skeptical of most economic schools of thought, such as New Keynesian, Neo-Keynesian (two different schools - really), New Classical, etc. It seems they're often politically motivated, rely on questionable assumptions, and there is little concern with empirical verification (you know, actual science). I'm always annoyed when a (usually amateur) commentator says "it follows from economic theory" when talking about economic history (e.g. the Great Depression), as though there was only one variety of economic theory. What they usually mean is the "mainstream" economics they learned in Econ 101 as though it were gospel.

P.S. A great book on where the bodies are buried in mainstream economic theory is Steve Keen's Debunking Economics. It points out theory that is self contradictory, or based on key assumptions that have been empirically disproven. By no means does Keen (an Australian economist) pretend to have all the answers, but it's important to know when other people don't have the answer.

How widely accepted was gold and silver as a form of currency in the middle ages/ancient world? Would I be able to go up to a random farmer and give him a piece of silver in exchange for a bag of carrots, or would he refuse since the metal had no practical value or he had no way to properly assess its value?

What are some examples of economic tenets which were once widely accepted but now looked upon with scorn? An example from the natural sciences is "Rain follows the plow".

How successful were economic authorities, ie finance ministers and their equivalents in economies before we had proper understandings of things like the influence of seigniorage, market interventions, recessions etc? I'm particularly interested in the period from the rise of capitalism to Adam Smith, and the successes or failures governments had in fostering periods of healthy national economies. How did these people achieve "success" with limited tools or knowledge and how did they compare to bad officials?

From a recent front-page post, how did the Dutch East India Company acquire such vast fortunes?

How did markets functions in (medieval) wartimes? Did businessman/traders/banker profit from markets in wartimes? and if so who had to pay for these profits?