| rdfs:comment
| - Technically, money was no longer a new concept, it had been around for several centuries by then. Its' key benefit is that it provides an easy way to convert the value of one product to that of another. Before the development of money, payment for labor tended to be payment-in-kind. If you grew grapes, you were probably paid in grapes or similar. And the economy was a barter economy as a result. Wealth was therefore measured in things; such as houses, lands, herds, etc.
|
| abstract
| - Technically, money was no longer a new concept, it had been around for several centuries by then. Its' key benefit is that it provides an easy way to convert the value of one product to that of another. Before the development of money, payment for labor tended to be payment-in-kind. If you grew grapes, you were probably paid in grapes or similar. And the economy was a barter economy as a result. Wealth was therefore measured in things; such as houses, lands, herds, etc. Money provided a new measure, that could be universal to all. And in Rome it did more. Prior to Rome, the cities that grew to great size and strength were cities with trade and/or manufacturing capability. To the extent that any city got around those two details, it was through political power over others. But thanks to the development of money, Rome was able to become something that hadn't been seen before. It became a financial center. And the ability to engage in finance was part of what had made the Punic Wars economically possible. With the end of the Punic Wars, Rome began moving into the world of finance in a big way, with almost everyone getting involved in one way or another. Even if the only way was through the use of debt. As with anything new, there was a lack of recognised safeguards, and the result was the development of a debtor class. And with it, the development of conditions suited for revolution.
|