It is baffling that he thinks there is more information and data on the activity of ancient minting and redistribution than in the
medieval period. On the contrary, the records for the activity of the
medieval English
mint survive to this day. This is the case for many
other European nations. This information has actually been used by scholars keen on predicting the accuracy of die estimation in lieu of actual evidence, data or figures from
Roman or Greek mints. Quite simply all of our
work in gauging the extent of
mint activity in ancient times is guesswork informed by partial evidence and later examples. Mr. Armstrong clearly hasn't done
his research properly, as he simply assumes that
his hope that the litigious
Romans will have left some accurate trace in
writing of their
mint production will prove to be true...
Problems of research plague the
work. Most of all he seems to believe that sources such as Dio can be read with minimal critical analysis. On top of that,
his understanding of archaeology is at times woeful. He is correct in saying that incidences of hoarding increase during times of known unrest, but he is naive in assuming that
hoards were
only buried in these circumstances. In the case of the
hoard he discusses, popular opinion holds quite correctly that it was more of a community savings
pot, for people to dip in and out of when it pleased them, than a
hoard buried in a panic. Additionally, that Armstrong believes that
hoard data provides accurate information about circulation is also wrong! The extraordinary nature of
hoards belies the fact that we cannot be sure of the typicality of the range of coins they contain. Much like we cannot be sure of the degree to which Pompeii, the best preserved
Roman city, was typical of
all Roman cities.
Coming back to die-estimation as a way of calculating the number of coins in circulation, modern experiments have revealed that dies can strike as little as 2,000 or as many as 75,000 coins before failing. Kenneth Harl notably used this modern evidence in conjunction with records from
medieval mints to prove that any attempt to accurately use die estimation is deceptive. Thus, how can we justify Armstrong's strongly modern economic approach to a coinage, the extent and size of which we cannot even be sure? This fact makes
his attempts at 'accuracy' - i.e., graphs, charts, etc - look more hollow, more designed to give an air of authority to Armstrong, than anything else. The 'viable economic models' he talks about on p.4 are more likely to deceive us of the nature of Rome's coinage than actually reveal helpful information about it - such is the nature of the imposition of models on
history.
In light of this,
his assumption that the ancient and the modern are favourably comparable is annoying, misleading and belies a lack of fundamental understanding. How can it be accurate,
fair and productive to assess
antiquity on issues it never even knew, or conceptualised?
Money in the
Roman world was too deeply embedded in certain social institutions, too closely linked to idealism, minted and its conceived use so different to our own that any comparison is anachronistic. Armstrong ridiculously spouting off that we should judge
Rome for failing to implement a uniform pension plan is a perfect example of this; looking at the manner of all ancient governments (not just the
Roman) reveals that their perceived set of 'responsibilities' towards their subjects - soldier or civilian - did not extent to social
security or pensions. The donatives and payments paid to the army should not be seen in the light of any sort of pension plan, and the fallacy of using modern economic terminology in analysing what were basically bribes should already be apparent. To attempt, then, to make the connection between extraordinarily complex modern economic devices - pension plans, social
security, government spending, etc - and imperial bribes to soldiers is indicative of Armstrong's
poor level of research.
On a final note, the last few pages of the document prove nothing; they are just a long (and rather boring) narrative, which is annoying, simply listing debasements and payments and drawing on no evidence to prove anything. Returning to
his use of the sources once more, we need to point out that these are payments we can't really talk about for sure because they are talked about by often dubious sources.
I'm sorry for my short essay there, but when I'm
writing a dissertation on the stuff and an article appears like that I just have to vent my rage...
