Posted on 08/31/2020 10:14:57 PM PDT by SunkenCiv
Modern banking has its auspicious beginnings in the early to mid Middle Ages. Primitive banking transactions existed before, but until the economic revival of the thirteenth century they were limited in scope and occurrence. By the dawn of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, bankers were grouped into three distinct categories: the pawnbrokers, the moneychangers, and the merchant bankers. But with these economic specializations came religious denunciation and backlash. However, these bankers persevered and a new industry was born.
After the collapse of the Roman Empire in the late fifth century, there followed centuries of deep economic depression, sharp deflation of prices and sluggish monetary circulation. By the end of the thirteenth century, with its economic resurgence, three classes of credit agents became distinguishable: the pawnbroker, the moneychangers and deposit bankers, and the merchant bankers. The latter were the new elite of the profession, unprecedented in antiquity and in the early Middle Ages. Wealthy commercial entrepreneurs, uncrowned governors of city-states, lenders to monarchs, relatives of popes, they were in no way embarrassed by canonical strictures. At the opposite level of the profession, the pawnbrokers were degraded successors of the early medieval usurers. They were deliberate public sinners, likened to prostitutes, and hence tolerated on earth but earmarked for hell unless they repented and made full restitution of their 'accursed' gains...
Records have survived about a merchant Genoese company involved in banking from 1244 to 1259: the Leccacorvo company. From its records, a picture of a typical merchant-banking organization can be studied... The Leccacorvo bank did most of its business with established merchants, bankers, and government officials, including the communes of Genoa and Piacenza, the king of France and the Pope.
(Excerpt) Read more at ehistory.osu.edu ...
From wiki:
"In the most basic variant of the hawala system, money is transferred via a network of hawala brokers, or hawaladars. It is the transfer of money without actually moving it. In fact, a successful definition of the hawala system that is used is "money transfer without money movement". According to author Sam Vaknin, while there are large hawaladar operators with networks of middlemen in cities across many countries, most hawaladars are small businesses who work at hawala as a sideline or moonlighting operation.[3]
G Hawala example transaction; see text for an explanation
The figure shows how hawala works: (1) a customer (A, left-hand side) approaches a hawala broker (X) in one city and gives a sum of money (red arrow) that is to be transferred to a recipient (B, right-hand side) in another, usually foreign, city. Along with the money, he usually specifies something like a password that will lead to the money being paid out (blue arrows). (2b) The hawa calls another hawala broker M in the recipient's city, and informs M about the agreed password, or gives other disposition of the funds. Then, the intended recipient (B), who also has been informed by A about the password (2a), now approaches M and tells him the agreed password (3a). If the password is correct, then M releases the transferred sum to B (3b), usually minus a small commission. X now basically owes M the money that M had paid out to B; thus M has to trust X's promise to settle the debt at a later date.
The unique feature of the system is that no promissory instruments are exchanged between the hawala brokers; the transaction takes place entirely on the honour system. As the system does not depend on the legal enforceability of claims, it can operate even in the absence of a legal and juridical environment. Trust and extensive use of connections are the components that distinguish it from other remittance systems. Hawaladar networks are often based on membership in the same family, village, clan, or ethnic group, and cheating is punished by effective ex-communication and "loss of honour"leading to severe economic hardship.[3]
We at FreeRepublic, after September 11, 2001, learned that this Islamic global system is still in place and a constant problem in tracking terrorist fundmovement.Given the documented interaction of the Knights Templat and their immense wealth it's reasonable that they used the proven, workable, and secure system already in place. A Christian religious order with a secure network just as their Islamic adversaries
I think what hard money adherents miss is that interest involves a flow of money. Collecting interest is possible even in a fixed-quantity money regime.
The initial loan + interest isn’t handed over in one lump sum, it’s done in increments. There isn’t a need for the quantity of money to expand in order for interest to be paid, which I suppose Plato didn’t get.
All the same, “credit money” as opposed to hard money, is as old as those 13th century banks and trade houses. They began balancing accounts by exchanging and circulating each other’s bills. If you were a trusted house/bank no one bothered to demand gold itself.
/bingo
Lending at interest is much older than that in the Med basin, having been practiced by Roman Empire era lenders. One reason Roman emperors gave up on adding territories to the Empire was that their financial underwriter(s) had a say on how much could be spent, and that would be influenced by the best-case after success.
LOL
My guess is that the Templar letter of credit and money transfer system was based on passwords, which is how the Muslim hawala system of alternative banking works. Hawala developed in India in the Fifth Century. It became part of Muslim trade relations with medieval Italy, was widely adopted into European banking, and even prompted European development of the law of agency to recognize how hawala worked. Perhaps the Templars had a different system, but the lack of evidence for that suggests otherwise.
I have read variously that the Templars were the first international bankers. If not, they were among the earliest. Whatever their methods and codes, they appear to have worked. Their mistake was loaning to royalty, a mistake that perhaps Nicholas Flammel had some experience with.
The ancient Greeks and Romans also had a sophisticated banking system, and with a legal framework that was so well-conceived and durable that it became the foundation for Europe’s commercial and banking law. The Templars made the fundamental mistake of forgetting in their pride that, even if utterly in the right, you risk your very existence if you tell a monarch no. It is far better to say, yes, of course, Sire — and then raise all sorts of delays, conditions, and practical objections.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.