The world's leading conquerors : $b Alexander the Great, Cæsar, Charles the Great, the Ottoman sultans, the Spanish conquistadors, NapoleonBevan, Wilson Lloyd
History
The world's leading conquerors : $b Alexander the Great, Cæsar, Charles the Great, the Ottoman sultans, the Spanish conquistadors, Napoleon
Bevan, Wilson Lloyd
History; Kings and rulers
Equally farsighted was Alexander’s foundation of a unified monetary
system for the empire. Under Persian rule the custom had been for the
satraps to coin silver money, while the coinage of gold was reserved
to the Great King. The result was that each province followed its own
customs and financial chaos prevailed. Alexander reserved the minting
privilege to the general government; even where provincial coining was
permitted, the coins were of the same general type and bore the name of
the king. The only exception to this rule is found in the case of the
autonomous Greek cities on the western coast of Asia. This new monetary
system was based on that of the Athenians; the bimetallic basis, as
it had existed in the Persian Empire, was abandoned and the silver
standard, as used at Athens and Corinth, took its place. The reformed
monetary system of Alexander continued down to Roman times.
The large hoards of precious metals, which fell into Alexander’s hands
during the course of his conquests, not only gave occupation to his
mints, but also freed him from financial anxiety. He had begun the
expedition in a state of insolvency, for he had a debt of 1300 talents
with only seventy in his war chest to cover it. The maintenance of the
army required a monthly expenditure of 200 talents, and to this 100
talents had to be added for the fleet. The provinces in western Asia,
the first fruits of his victories, could not supply a sum so large, and
it was lack of money which caused Alexander to give up his fleet in
the autumn of 334. After the battle of Issus and the conquest of the
rich province of Egypt, there was soon a surplus where there had been a
deficit, and Alexander was able to send considerable sums of money to
Antipater to help him out in his campaign in Greece.
Rich as were the Persian treasures, they were heavily and constantly
drawn upon by the ever-developing military needs of the conqueror.
The whole force under arms, including the very numerous garrisons,
must have equaled 100,000 men. This meant at least an expense of
7000 talents; to this large sum must be added the drains caused
by Alexander’s generosity, by official peculation such as that of
Harpalus, and by the gifts to old soldiers, who were richly rewarded.
The royal household, which was organized on the Persian model, was most
expensive; the royal table alone costing 600 talents. Of course, the
receipts were large, probably from fifteen to twenty thousand talents
annually, but Alexandria’s budget was far from balancing; and at the
time of his death, there were contained in all the treasuries of the
empire only 50,000 talents, about $70,000,000, a small sum when the
size of the empire is taken into account.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account