To what extent did commerce flourish in this period?

University Degree Historical and Philosophical studies

Before considering how far commerce thrived in this period it is necessary to examine what is meant by this term. The dictionary defines commerce, as “The large scale buying and selling of goods and services”. This, however, is a modern interpretation of the word. To truly understand the relevance of this word in the period being studied it is important to think about this term in the correct context. In the modern sense commerce and trade is carried out with the ultimate aim of generating a profit. Usually through acquiring a large number of a particular object cheaply at wholesale price and subsequently selling the objects on individually for a vastly increased price. However in the early middle ages this was not the purpose of trade. Instead it was much more a case of exchanging something that was readily available or not needed for something which was harder to acquire. The fact that these other objects were harder to acquire, or at least not as readily available, meant that they were considered valuable by people at the time. In the societies of medieval Europe objects of value were considered to give rank or status within society. Kings or tribal leaders would publicly display objects of value as a symbol of their leadership. Due to the fact that these objects were hard to come by their origins were usually outside the particular tribe or ethnic group that the leader was head of. Trade existed at this time as a way for such leaders to get hold of these valuable objects required to demonstrate their wealth. The leader of one group would exchange certain articles in their possession, normally gained through taxation or gifts, with another leader for items he had obtained through similar means “Long distance trade appears to be forged by Kings or their emissaries”. This would either be a direct swap or in the form of gifts, presented to neighbouring clans to ensure peaceful relations or alliances. Valuable goods could also be exchanged in return for slaves. Therefore a better description of the term commerce in this context is the exchange of commodities between different peoples.

There is much to suggest that commerce did not flourish at all in the period following the fall of the Roman Empire. Due to the large area over which the Roman Empire had spanned exchange and transport of objects from all corners of the empire had been relatively easy. With nearly all of Western Europe under the control of one government it had also been safe to travel long distances with valuable items. This was because of the Pax Romana: a decree that protected both trade and manufacture. With the loss of this safeguard it became dangerous to travel any distance with valuable articles. The once peaceful Roman Empire had become a melee of warring Germanic tribes who each sought supremacy over the others “The dendritic trade route northwards from the Rhine, the old Roman limes, seems to have come to a desultory end by the fifth century”. An obvious indicator of the decline of trade is the miniscule number of shipwrecks dating from this period compared to preceding centuries. One argument against this piece of evidence is that the traders had simply become better sailors or had started using superior vessels less likely to sink. There is no evidence to suggest that Europe underwent some kind of naval revolution at this time therefore this particular argument can be safely rejected.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Around 500 there is evidence of reforestation occurring. This is indicative of a decline in land used for agriculture. There is also environmental evidence that the climate underwent a period of change at this time. This suggests that a period of cooling took place that led to poor agricultural yields. Indeed levels of agricultural production fell to subsistence levels. When considered alone this is not particularly useful in revealing the prominence of trade. However when the relationship between agriculture and trade is more closely examined, in the right context, this evidence becomes an important indicator of trade. Whilst the merchants travelling had a number of valuable goods in their possession one important thing they were lacking in was food. At this time it was difficult to transport large volumes of food without it going off. In addition to this the logistical problem of actually transporting a sufficient amount of food was not easy to solve. If a long journey was being undertaken the merchants would need to rely on sources of food along their route. They would exchange small, less valuable goods in their possession for the food they required. If, as was the case, there was no produce left over to exchange the merchants would be less likely to travel as they would have been uncertain of gaining sufficient food to meet their needs. Furthermore food was something that was easily exchanged for goods. For example, someone with a lot of land could grow a lot of food. Therefore bread or grain was something of little value to him because he had lots of it and it was readily accessible. Whereas to a potter or other craftsman food was more valuable as it was harder for them to get hold of. So it is easy to see how a pot might be exchanged for a supply of grain. The man with the grain needed the pot to keep his grain in and the potter needed the grain to feed himself and his family. However with the decline in agricultural produce this type of trade would cease to exist.

The fact that the roman fleets no longer dominated the Mediterranean also gives a clue to the level of trade at this time. Instead of the Romans it was now the Arab fleet that dominated the Mediterranean Sea. To the Romans the Mediterranean was seen as both safe and familiar. It was the quickest way to transport goods to France and the rest of Europe. However, once the Arabs had control it was no longer viewed in the same light. Even the ports on the coast were soon considered unsafe places by contemporaries given the number of Arab raids on them. Consequently trade in these ports dried up. As well as this the trade routes to the ports were also abandoned, as they no longer served a purpose. The routes to the coast from central Europe and central Italy were important economic and social linkages. With the break down of this infrastructure, however basic it may have been, communities and societies began to look inwards and become more self-sufficient. By 700 the nature of the economy had changed. Previously it had been one of exchange it was now one of consumption.

Whilst the evidence suggests trade diminished there is no evidence it ever ceased completely. It is therefore unsurprising that a period of revival can be seen following the eighth century where volumes of trade reached their lowest since the bronze age. One piece of evidence that supports this is the increase in the number of silver coins found by archaeologists. Whilst this debasement of currency from the gold of the Merovingians to silver as used by the Carolingians could be argued to show a weak economy and a lack of confidence in the monetary system. This is in fact not the case. To make such an assumption is approaching the early medieval world with modern values and preconceptions. The fact that silver is used instead shows an increase in long distance trade. This is because the origin of the silver was what is now known as Iraq. This would have to be transported or traded with merchants travelling from the Middle East. The fact that silver coinage has been found in western Europe surely shows an increase of trade at this time. Pounds has suggested that there was indeed “an intensification of commerce in the area of the Low Countries, the Austrasian homeland of the Carolingians”. This is partly down to their custom of travelling from one imperial villa to another. The movement and presence of the emperor is bound to have increased trade of valuable objects for reasons already cited.

The increase in the archaeological findings of such objects of value in these areas dating from post 700 is archaeological evidence that also appears to supports the opinion that trade underwent growth at this time. However on more thoughtful consideration of this evidence a different conclusion is drawn. An increase in trade is not necessarily the reason for an increase in the number of such objects found there. On his visits the emperor would have brought a number of valuable objects with him to publicly show off his wealth and thus confirm his status within society. He would have left something of this nature with his host for two reasons: Firstly as a sign of gratitude for the hospitality and secondly to confirm the host as being of sufficient standing in the community to have the emperor as his guest. Furthermore there is also the possibility that such objects could be lost or stolen during the journey. Both of these reasons also explain the increase in archaeological evidence but are in no way related to the growth of trade.

A development of trade across the North Sea can also be seen after 700. This is a strong show of increasing trade. The North Sea had always been considered more dangerous and less familiar than the Mediterranean. One reason for this is the fact that the North Sea is tidal whereas the Mediterranean has no tide to speak of. The evidence that trade was taking place across the North Sea shows in increased confidence from the people of this time and a desire to go further a field. In this trade the Frisians played an important role. They inhabited the Coast of Flanders and the Netherlands. As well as trading across the North Sea there is evidence of them having used the Rhine to transport goods south to Germany and even as far as the Alps. The Frisians were mostly involved in the trading of cloth. It was supplied to the monks of Saint Gall and can even be seen as having gone as far as Baghdad. This is clear evidence of growth of trade.

Perhaps the most notable example of increasing trade in this period is Charlemagne’s cathedral at Aachen. To complete this construction he had marble transported from Rome. This along with the large number of valuable objects to be found inside the Cathedral would also seem to point towards an increase in trade at this time. However, the fact that he himself had to have the marble transported actually shows that trade was still in a weakened state compared with Roman times. If trade was flourishing in this period then the marble would already be present somewhere closer than Rome.

Trade can indeed be seen to have grown during and following the eighth century but this is only relative to the period before. There are two further arguments against a view that trade flourished in this period. Firstly compared to the Roman Empire, where trade was abundant, the volume of trade is still relatively small. Secondly, throughout much of the period under consideration trade was practically non-existent following the fall of the Romans. In conclusion trade did not flourish in this period. It is fair to say that there was a period of growth after 700 but this was preceded by a period of considerable decline; therefore the growth that was taking place started from practically zero and was not sufficient to return commerce to the levels enjoyed by the Romans. However this growth is important as it paved the way for the rapid expansion and flourishing trade which can be seen at the turn of the millennium and thereafter.

2068 words

Bibliography

Blackburn, Mark ‘Money and coinage’ in Rosamond McKitterick (ed.) New Cambridge Medieval History Vol II (Cambridge 1995)

Collins, Roger, Early medieval Europe 300 – 1000 (London 1991)

Hodges, Richard, Dark age economics: Origins of towns and trade AD 600 – 1000 (London 1982)

Hodges, Richard and Whitehouse, David, Mohammed, Charlemagne and the Origins of Europe (London 1983)

Latouche, Robert, The birth of western economy: Economic aspects of the Dark Ages (London 1967)

Lopez, Robert and Raymond, Irving, Medieval trade in the Mediterranean world (London 1955)

Hodges & Whitehouse, Mohammed, Charlemagne and the origins of Europe (London, 1983), p 92

Richard Hodges, Dark Age Economics: The origins of towns and trade (Bristol 1989), p 39

Ibid., p29

N.J.G. Pounds An economic history of medieval Europe (London 1974), p72

Ibid., p73

To what extent did commerce flourish in this period?

This is a preview of the whole essay

Document Details

Related Essays

To what extent did a new concept of

To what extent did the Black Death contribute to the decline of Serfdom?

To what extent did witchcraft accusations reflect socio-economic tensions i...

To what extent did the castle change the nature of warfare in the eleventh...