0
I would assume you had a typo and misspelled talent, spelling it talen.The talent was a unit of weight invented by theGreekswhich was also adopted by the Romans. The Attic (Greek) talent was 27 kilograms (57 pounds). The Roman talent was 32.3 Kilograms (71 pounds). The talent itself had no value. What had value was the material which wasweighed. Originally, the talent was used to measure the amount of silver that defeated cities had to pay as war indemnity. Later, the talent was also used to weigh gold.Thevalueof a talentdependedonwhetherit was a talent of gold or a talent ofsilverand on the time in history. The Roman Empire lasted for many centuries and the value of gold and silvervariedgreatly over time.
One talent, depending on how much an ounce of gold is valued, is approximately (nowadays) $840,000 - $850,000.
Wiki User
∙ 11y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Why did the empire continue to fail despite diocletian's reforms and effective rule?
Diocletian's rule was not very effective. His reforms, such a price control did not work and his division of power only fostered jealousy and hatred and civil wars. The excessive demands of the military as far as pay and bonuses were concerned added to the decline as well as ambitious men trying to usurp power. The old Roman value had changed: during the time of the empire's rise, a Roman's duty was to the state first; during its decline, it was the individual first.Diocletian's rule was not very effective. His reforms, such a price control did not work and his division of power only fostered jealousy and hatred and civil wars. The excessive demands of the military as far as pay and bonuses were concerned added to the decline as well as ambitious men trying to usurp power. The old Roman value had changed: during the time of the empire's rise, a Roman's duty was to the state first; during its decline, it was the individual first.Diocletian's rule was not very effective. His reforms, such a price control did not work and his division of power only fostered jealousy and hatred and civil wars. The excessive demands of the military as far as pay and bonuses were concerned added to the decline as well as ambitious men trying to usurp power. The old Roman value had changed: during the time of the empire's rise, a Roman's duty was to the state first; during its decline, it was the individual first.Diocletian's rule was not very effective. His reforms, such a price control did not work and his division of power only fostered jealousy and hatred and civil wars. The excessive demands of the military as far as pay and bonuses were concerned added to the decline as well as ambitious men trying to usurp power. The old Roman value had changed: during the time of the empire's rise, a Roman's duty was to the state first; during its decline, it was the individual first.Diocletian's rule was not very effective. His reforms, such a price control did not work and his division of power only fostered jealousy and hatred and civil wars. The excessive demands of the military as far as pay and bonuses were concerned added to the decline as well as ambitious men trying to usurp power. The old Roman value had changed: during the time of the empire's rise, a Roman's duty was to the state first; during its decline, it was the individual first.Diocletian's rule was not very effective. His reforms, such a price control did not work and his division of power only fostered jealousy and hatred and civil wars. The excessive demands of the military as far as pay and bonuses were concerned added to the decline as well as ambitious men trying to usurp power. The old Roman value had changed: during the time of the empire's rise, a Roman's duty was to the state first; during its decline, it was the individual first.Diocletian's rule was not very effective. His reforms, such a price control did not work and his division of power only fostered jealousy and hatred and civil wars. The excessive demands of the military as far as pay and bonuses were concerned added to the decline as well as ambitious men trying to usurp power. The old Roman value had changed: during the time of the empire's rise, a Roman's duty was to the state first; during its decline, it was the individual first.Diocletian's rule was not very effective. His reforms, such a price control did not work and his division of power only fostered jealousy and hatred and civil wars. The excessive demands of the military as far as pay and bonuses were concerned added to the decline as well as ambitious men trying to usurp power. The old Roman value had changed: during the time of the empire's rise, a Roman's duty was to the state first; during its decline, it was the individual first.Diocletian's rule was not very effective. His reforms, such a price control did not work and his division of power only fostered jealousy and hatred and civil wars. The excessive demands of the military as far as pay and bonuses were concerned added to the decline as well as ambitious men trying to usurp power. The old Roman value had changed: during the time of the empire's rise, a Roman's duty was to the state first; during its decline, it was the individual first.
Why did the Roman coins decrease in value during the A.D 200s?
Because they put less gold in them
What is the value of a 1917 penny with a Roman Emperor on front worth?
The Roman Empire collapsed in the year 476 so you're only off by 1,440 years or so :-) What you have is a BRITISH penny with a picture of the goddess Britannia on the reverse. See the Related Question for more details.
How did the use of standard currency or coins help the economy of the Roman Empire?
Augustus created a new standard currency. There was already a standard currency previously, during the Republic. A standard currency was needed to have a uniform monetary system for payments and for the exchange of goods throughout the empire. Augustus followed an innovation introduced by Julius Caesar. Caesar was the first ruler who introduced coins baring his own portrait. Augustus introduced coins with his own portrait, establishing the tradition of linking the emperor's sovereignty with the issuing of coinage. Subsequent emperors also issued coins with their image. Augustus also reformed the coinage system to rationalise it and make it more fitting with the new economic conditions of the empire.
How did inflation lead to the Roman Empire's decline?
This is an assumption, not a fact. Contrarily, high inflation towards the end of the empire is arguably the sign, and not the cause, of the weakening empire. See the reasons for the inflation, at the link below.
How did inflation affected the Roman Empire?
inflation happens when money loses its value and it affected the Roman Empire.
What core democratic value does the fall of the roman empire connect with?
The fall of the western part of the Roman Empire has nothing to do with democratic values. It fell under the strain of the invasions by germanic peoples who took over the empire and formed a number of separate kingdoms. The eastern part of the Roman Empire was not affected by these invasions and continued to exist for another 1,000 years. Historians call the eastern part of the Roman Empire after the fall of the western part Byzantine Empire.
How did Roman society change during the Late Republic?
First of all, remember that the Roman empire did not start with Augustus. Rome had an empire for hundreds of years before the "empire" that is mistakenly thought to have been founded by Augustus. During the early empire the form of government of the Romans was the republic, while in the later empire the form of government was the principate. During the early empire citizens were more concerned with government and the good of the state as they had voting rights. During the later part of the empire citizens seemed to be more concerned with personal gain as opposed to the well-being of the state.First of all, remember that the Roman empire did not start with Augustus. Rome had an empire for hundreds of years before the "empire" that is mistakenly thought to have been founded by Augustus. During the early empire the form of government of the Romans was the republic, while in the later empire the form of government was the principate. During the early empire citizens were more concerned with government and the good of the state as they had voting rights. During the later part of the empire citizens seemed to be more concerned with personal gain as opposed to the well-being of the state.First of all, remember that the Roman empire did not start with Augustus. Rome had an empire for hundreds of years before the "empire" that is mistakenly thought to have been founded by Augustus. During the early empire the form of government of the Romans was the republic, while in the later empire the form of government was the principate. During the early empire citizens were more concerned with government and the good of the state as they had voting rights. During the later part of the empire citizens seemed to be more concerned with personal gain as opposed to the well-being of the state.First of all, remember that the Roman empire did not start with Augustus. Rome had an empire for hundreds of years before the "empire" that is mistakenly thought to have been founded by Augustus. During the early empire the form of government of the Romans was the republic, while in the later empire the form of government was the principate. During the early empire citizens were more concerned with government and the good of the state as they had voting rights. During the later part of the empire citizens seemed to be more concerned with personal gain as opposed to the well-being of the state.First of all, remember that the Roman empire did not start with Augustus. Rome had an empire for hundreds of years before the "empire" that is mistakenly thought to have been founded by Augustus. During the early empire the form of government of the Romans was the republic, while in the later empire the form of government was the principate. During the early empire citizens were more concerned with government and the good of the state as they had voting rights. During the later part of the empire citizens seemed to be more concerned with personal gain as opposed to the well-being of the state.First of all, remember that the Roman empire did not start with Augustus. Rome had an empire for hundreds of years before the "empire" that is mistakenly thought to have been founded by Augustus. During the early empire the form of government of the Romans was the republic, while in the later empire the form of government was the principate. During the early empire citizens were more concerned with government and the good of the state as they had voting rights. During the later part of the empire citizens seemed to be more concerned with personal gain as opposed to the well-being of the state.First of all, remember that the Roman empire did not start with Augustus. Rome had an empire for hundreds of years before the "empire" that is mistakenly thought to have been founded by Augustus. During the early empire the form of government of the Romans was the republic, while in the later empire the form of government was the principate. During the early empire citizens were more concerned with government and the good of the state as they had voting rights. During the later part of the empire citizens seemed to be more concerned with personal gain as opposed to the well-being of the state.First of all, remember that the Roman empire did not start with Augustus. Rome had an empire for hundreds of years before the "empire" that is mistakenly thought to have been founded by Augustus. During the early empire the form of government of the Romans was the republic, while in the later empire the form of government was the principate. During the early empire citizens were more concerned with government and the good of the state as they had voting rights. During the later part of the empire citizens seemed to be more concerned with personal gain as opposed to the well-being of the state.First of all, remember that the Roman empire did not start with Augustus. Rome had an empire for hundreds of years before the "empire" that is mistakenly thought to have been founded by Augustus. During the early empire the form of government of the Romans was the republic, while in the later empire the form of government was the principate. During the early empire citizens were more concerned with government and the good of the state as they had voting rights. During the later part of the empire citizens seemed to be more concerned with personal gain as opposed to the well-being of the state.
Why did the empire continue to fail despite diocletian's reforms and effective rule?
Diocletian's rule was not very effective. His reforms, such a price control did not work and his division of power only fostered jealousy and hatred and civil wars. The excessive demands of the military as far as pay and bonuses were concerned added to the decline as well as ambitious men trying to usurp power. The old Roman value had changed: during the time of the empire's rise, a Roman's duty was to the state first; during its decline, it was the individual first.Diocletian's rule was not very effective. His reforms, such a price control did not work and his division of power only fostered jealousy and hatred and civil wars. The excessive demands of the military as far as pay and bonuses were concerned added to the decline as well as ambitious men trying to usurp power. The old Roman value had changed: during the time of the empire's rise, a Roman's duty was to the state first; during its decline, it was the individual first.Diocletian's rule was not very effective. His reforms, such a price control did not work and his division of power only fostered jealousy and hatred and civil wars. The excessive demands of the military as far as pay and bonuses were concerned added to the decline as well as ambitious men trying to usurp power. The old Roman value had changed: during the time of the empire's rise, a Roman's duty was to the state first; during its decline, it was the individual first.Diocletian's rule was not very effective. His reforms, such a price control did not work and his division of power only fostered jealousy and hatred and civil wars. The excessive demands of the military as far as pay and bonuses were concerned added to the decline as well as ambitious men trying to usurp power. The old Roman value had changed: during the time of the empire's rise, a Roman's duty was to the state first; during its decline, it was the individual first.Diocletian's rule was not very effective. His reforms, such a price control did not work and his division of power only fostered jealousy and hatred and civil wars. The excessive demands of the military as far as pay and bonuses were concerned added to the decline as well as ambitious men trying to usurp power. The old Roman value had changed: during the time of the empire's rise, a Roman's duty was to the state first; during its decline, it was the individual first.Diocletian's rule was not very effective. His reforms, such a price control did not work and his division of power only fostered jealousy and hatred and civil wars. The excessive demands of the military as far as pay and bonuses were concerned added to the decline as well as ambitious men trying to usurp power. The old Roman value had changed: during the time of the empire's rise, a Roman's duty was to the state first; during its decline, it was the individual first.Diocletian's rule was not very effective. His reforms, such a price control did not work and his division of power only fostered jealousy and hatred and civil wars. The excessive demands of the military as far as pay and bonuses were concerned added to the decline as well as ambitious men trying to usurp power. The old Roman value had changed: during the time of the empire's rise, a Roman's duty was to the state first; during its decline, it was the individual first.Diocletian's rule was not very effective. His reforms, such a price control did not work and his division of power only fostered jealousy and hatred and civil wars. The excessive demands of the military as far as pay and bonuses were concerned added to the decline as well as ambitious men trying to usurp power. The old Roman value had changed: during the time of the empire's rise, a Roman's duty was to the state first; during its decline, it was the individual first.Diocletian's rule was not very effective. His reforms, such a price control did not work and his division of power only fostered jealousy and hatred and civil wars. The excessive demands of the military as far as pay and bonuses were concerned added to the decline as well as ambitious men trying to usurp power. The old Roman value had changed: during the time of the empire's rise, a Roman's duty was to the state first; during its decline, it was the individual first.
Was Gold was used in roman coins?
Yes, gold was used in Roman coins. Romans minted various denominations with gold content, showcasing the empire's wealth and power. Gold coins, like the aureus, held significant value.
Why did roman coins decrease in value during the A.D. 200s?
Because they put less gold in them
Why did Roman coins decrease in value during the A.D.200s?
Because they put less gold in them
Why did Roman coins decrease in value during the A.D. 200?
Because they put less gold in them
Why did roman coins decreased in value during the A.D 200s?
Because they put less gold in them
Why did Roman coins decrease value during the A.D. 200s?
Because they put less gold in them
Why did the Roman coins decrease in value during the A.D 200s?
Because they put less gold in them
Why did roman coins decrease in value during the 200?
Purchasing power fell because of inflation.
