Roman currency for most of Roman history consisted of gold, silver, bronze, orichalcum and coppercoinage.[1] From its introduction during the Republic, in the third century BC, through Imperial times, Roman currency saw many changes in form, denomination, and composition. A feature was the inflationary debasement and replacement of coins over the centuries. Notable examples of this followed the reforms of Diocletian. This trend continued with Byzantine currency.
Due to the economic power and longevity of the Roman state, Roman currency was widely used throughout western Eurasia and northern Africa from classical times
into the Middle Ages. It served as a model for the currencies of the Muslim caliphates and the European states during the Middle Ages and the Modern Era. Roman currency names survive today in many countries via the Carolingian monetary system, such as the dinar (from the denarius coin), the British pound (a translation of the Roman libra, a unit of weight), the peso (also a translation of libra), and the words for the general concept of money in the Iberian Romance languages (e.g. Spanishdinero and Portuguesedinheiro).
The manufacture of coins in the Roman culture, dating from about the 4th century BC, significantly influenced later development of coin minting in Europe. The origin of the word "mint" is ascribed to the manufacture of silver coin at Rome in 269 BC near the temple of Juno Moneta. This goddess became the personification of money, and her name was applied both to money and to its place of manufacture. Roman mints were spread widely across the Empire, and were sometimes used for propaganda purposes. The populace often learned of a new Roman Emperor when coins appeared with the new emperor's portrait. Some of the emperors and usurpers who ruled only for a short time made sure that a coin bore their image[citation needed]; the usurper Quietus, for example, ruled only part of the Roman Empire from 260 to 261 AD, and yet he issued thirteen coins bearing his image from three mints.[2] The Romans cast their larger copper coins in clay moulds carrying distinctive markings, not because they did not know about striking, but because it was not suitable for such large masses of metal.
Roman adoption of metallic commodity money was a late development in monetary history. Bullion bars and ingots were used as money in Mesopotamia since the 7th millennium BC; and Greeks in Asia Minor had pioneered the use of coinage (which they employed in addition to other more primitive, monetary mediums of exchange) as early as the 7th century BC.[3]
Bronze aes signatum produced by the Roman Republic after 450 BC
Coinage proper was only introduced by the republican government c.300 BC. The greatest city of the Magna Graecia region in southern Italy, and several other Italian cities, already had a long tradition of using coinage by this time and produced them in large quantities during the 4th century BC to pay for their wars against the inland Italian groups encroaching on their territory. For these reasons, the Romans would have certainly known about coinage systems long before their government actually introduced them. Eventually, the economic conditions of the Second Punic War forced the Romans to fully adopt a coinage system.[4]
The type of money introduced by Rome was unlike that found elsewhere in the ancient Mediterranean. It combined a number of uncommon elements. One example is the large bronze bullion, the aes signatum (Latin for signed bronze). It measured about 16 by 9 centimetres (6.3 by 3.5in) and weighed around 1.5 to 1.6 kilograms (3.3 to 3.5lb), being made out of a highly leaded tin bronze. Although similar metal currency bars had been produced in Italy and northern Etruscan areas, these had been made of aes grave, an unrefined metal with a high iron content.[5]
Along with the aes signatum, the Roman state also issued a series of bronze and silver coins that emulated the styles of those produced in Greek cities.[6] Produced using the manner of manufacture then utilised in Greek Naples, the designs of these early coins were also heavily influenced by Greek designs.[7]
The designs on the coinage of the Republican period displayed a "solid conservatism", usually illustrating mythical scenes or personifications of various gods and goddesses.[8]
Imperial period: 27 BC – AD 476
Iconography
The most common denominations used during Early Roman times, their relative sizes, and relative values
A significant advancement in coin imagery occurred when Julius Caesar issued coins bearing his own portrait. While previous moneyers had issued coins featuring portraits of their ancestors, Caesar's coinage marked the third instance in Roman history where a living individual was depicted. This innovative approach to coin design further amplified the use of propaganda and personal representation in currency during that time.[9] Although living Romans had appeared on coinage before,[10] in the words of Clare Rowan (2019) "The appearance of Caesar's portrait on Roman denarii in 44 BC is often seen as a revolutionary moment in Roman history..."[11] The appearance of Julius Caesar implemented a new standard, and the tradition continued following Caesar's assassination, although the Roman emperors from time to time also produced coins featuring the traditional deities and personifications found on earlier coins. The image of the emperor took on a special importance in the centuries that followed, because during the Empire the emperor embodied the state and its policies. The names of moneyers continued to appear on the coins until the middle of Augustus' reign. Although the duty of moneyers during the Empire is not known, since the position was not abolished, it is believed that they still had some influence over the imagery of the coins.
The main focus of the imagery during the Empire was on the portrait of the emperor. Coins were an important means of disseminating this image throughout the Empire.[12] Coins often attempted to make the emperor appear god-like through associating the emperor with attributes normally seen in divinities, or emphasizing the special relationship between the emperor and a particular deity by producing a preponderance of coins depicting that deity. During his campaign against Pompey, Caesar issued a variety of types that featured images of either Venus or Aeneas, attempting to associate himself with his divine ancestors. An example of an emperor who went to an extreme in proclaiming divine status was Commodus. In AD 192, he issued a series of coins depicting his bust clad in a lion-skin (the usual depiction of Hercules) on the obverse, and an inscription proclaiming that he was the Roman incarnation of Hercules on the reverse. Although Commodus was excessive in his depiction of his image, this extreme case is indicative of the objective of many emperors in the exploitation of their portraits. While the emperor is by far the most frequent portrait on the obverse of coins, heirs apparent, predecessors, and other family members, such as empresses, were also featured. To aid in succession, the legitimacy of an heir was affirmed by producing coins for that successor. This was done from the time of Augustus till the end of the Empire.
Coins of the Roman Republic and Empire from Cassell's History of England, Vol. I
Featuring the portrait of an individual on a coin, which became legal in 44 BC, caused the coin to be viewed as embodying the attributes of the individual portrayed. Cassius Dio wrote that following the death of Caligula the Senate demonetized his coinage and ordered that they be melted. Regardless of whether or not this actually occurred, it demonstrates the importance and meaning that was attached to the imagery on a coin. The philosopher Epictetus jokingly wrote: "Whose image does this sestertius carry? Trajan's? Give it to me. Nero's? Throw it away, it is unacceptable, it is rotten." Although the writer did not seriously expect people to get rid of their coins, this quotation demonstrates that the Romans attached a moral value to the images on their coins. Unlike the obverse, which during the Imperial period almost always featured a portrait, the reverse was far more varied in its depiction. During the late Republic there were often political messages to the imagery, especially during the periods of civil war. However, by the middle of the Empire, although there were types that made important statements, and some that were overtly political or propagandistic in nature, the majority of the types were stock images of personifications or deities. While some images can be related to the policy or actions of a particular emperor, many of the choices seem arbitrary and the personifications and deities were so prosaic that their names were often omitted, as they were readily recognizable by their appearance and attributes alone.
It can be argued that within this backdrop of mostly indistinguishable types, exceptions would be far more pronounced. Atypical reverses are usually seen during and after periods of war, at which time emperors make various claims of liberation, subjugation, and pacification. Some of these reverse images can clearly be classified as propaganda. An example struck by emperor Philip the Arab in 244 features a legend proclaiming the establishment of peace with Persia; in truth, Rome had been forced to pay large sums in tribute to the Persians.
Although it is difficult to make accurate generalizations about reverse imagery, as this was something that varied by emperor, some trends do exist. An example is reverse types of the military emperors during the second half of the third century, where virtually all of the types were the common and standard personifications and deities. A possible explanation for the lack of originality is that these emperors were attempting to present conservative images to establish their legitimacy, something that many of these emperors lacked. Although these emperors relied on traditional reverse types, their portraits often emphasized their authority through stern gazes,[13][citation needed] and even featured the bust of the emperor clad in armor.[14]
Unlike most modern coins, Roman coins had (at least in the early centuries) significant intrinsic value. However, while the gold and silver issues contained precious metals, the value of a coin could be slightly higher than its precious metal content, so they were not, strictly speaking, equivalent to bullion. Also, over the course of time the purity and weight of the silver coins were reduced.[15] Estimates of the value of the denarius range from 1.6 to 2.85 times its metal content,[citation needed] thought to equal the purchasing power of 10 modern British pound sterling at the beginning of the Roman Empire to around 18 pound sterling by its end (comparing bread, wine, and meat prices) and, over the same period, around one to three days' pay for a legionary.[16]
The coinage system that existed in Egypt until the time of Diocletian's monetary reform was a closed system based upon the heavily debased tetradrachm. Although the value of these tetradrachms can be reckoned as being equivalent to that of the denarius, their precious metal content was always much lower. Elsewhere also, not all coins that circulated contained precious metals, as the value of these coins was too great to be convenient for everyday purchases. A dichotomy existed between the coins with an intrinsic value and those with only a token value. This is reflected in the infrequent and inadequate production of bronze coinage during the Republic, where from the time of Sulla till the time of Augustus no bronze coins were minted at all; even during the periods when bronze coins were produced, their workmanship was sometimes very crude and of low quality.
The rapid decline in silver purity of the antoninianus
The type of coins issued changed under the coinage reform of Diocletian, the heavily debased antoninianus (double denarius) was replaced with a variety of new denominations,[17] and a new range of imagery was introduced that attempted to convey different ideas. The new government set up by Diocletian was a Tetrarchy, or rule by four, with each emperor receiving a separate territory to rule.
The new imagery includes a large, stern portrait that is representative of the emperor. This image was not meant to show the actual portrait of a particular emperor, but was instead a character that embodied the power that the emperor possessed. The reverse type was equally universal, featuring the spirit (or genius) of the Romans. The introduction of a new type of government and a new system of coinage represents an attempt by Diocletian to return peace and security to Rome, after the previous century of constant warfare and uncertainty. Diocletian characterizes the emperor as an interchangeable authority figure by depicting him with a generalized image. He tries to emphasize unity amongst the Romans by featuring the spirit of Romans (Sutherland 254). The reverse types of coins of the late Empire emphasized general themes, and discontinued the more specific personifications depicted previously. The reverse types featured legends that proclaimed the glory of Rome, the glory of the Roman army, victory against the "barbarians", the restoration of happy times, and the greatness of the emperor.
These general types persisted even after the adoption of Christianity as the state religion of the Roman Empire. Muted Christian imagery, such as standards that featured Christograms (the Chi Rho monogram for Jesus Christ's name in Greek) were introduced, but with a few rare exceptions, there were no explicitly Christian themes. From the time of Constantine the Great until the "end" of the Roman Empire, coins featured almost indistinguishable idealized portraits and general proclamations of greatness.
Although the denarius remained the backbone of the Roman economy from its introduction a few years before 211 BC until it ceased to be normally minted in the middle of the third century, the purity and weight of the coin slowly, but inexorably, decreased. The problem of debasement in the Roman economy appears to be pervasive, although the severity of the debasement often paralleled the strength or weakness of the Empire. While it is not clear why debasement became such a common occurrence for the Romans, it's believed that it was caused by several factors, including a lack of precious metals and inadequacies in state finances. When introduced, the denarius contained nearly pure silver at a theoretical weight of approximately 4.5 grams, but from the time of Nero onwards the tendency was nearly always for its purity to be decreased.
The theoretical standard, although not usually met in practice, remained fairly stable throughout the Republic, with the notable exception of times of war. The large number of coins required to raise an army and pay for supplies often necessitated the debasement of the coinage. An example of this is the denarii that were struck by Mark Antony to pay his army during his battles against Octavian. These coins, slightly smaller in diameter than a normal denarius, were made of noticeably debased silver. The obverse features a galley and the name Antony, while the reverse features the name of the particular legion that each issue was intended for (hoard evidence shows that these coins remained in circulation over 200 years after they were minted, due to their lower silver content). The coinage of the Julio-Claudians remained stable at 4grams of silver, until the debasement of Nero in 64, when the silver content was reduced to 3.8grams, perhaps due to the cost of rebuilding the city after fire consumed a considerable portion of Rome.
The denarius continued to decline slowly in purity, with a notable reduction instituted by Septimius Severus. This was followed by the introduction of a double denarius piece, differentiated from the denarius by the radiate crown worn by the emperor. The coin is commonly called the antoninianus by numismatists after the emperor Caracalla, who introduced the coin in early 215. Although nominally valued at two denarii, the antoninianus never contained more than 1.6 times the amount of silver of the denarius. The profit of minting a coin valued at two denarii, but weighing only about one and a half times as much is obvious; the reaction to these coins by the public is unknown. As the number of antoniniani minted increased, the number of denarii minted decreased, until the denarius ceased to be minted in significant quantities by the middle of the third century. Again, coinage saw its greatest debasement during times of war and uncertainty. The second half of the third century was rife with this war and uncertainty, and the silver content of the antonianus fell to only 2%, losing almost any appearance of being silver. During this time the aureus remained slightly more stable, before it too became smaller and more base (lower gold content and higher base metal content) before Diocletian's reform.
The decline in the silver content to the point where coins contained virtually no silver at all was countered by the monetary reform of Aurelian in 274. Some researchers think that the number 21 on the coins from those years (XXI in Latin or KA in Greek) means a standard for the antonianus set at twenty parts copper to one part silver.[18] Despite the reform of Aurelian, silver content continued to decline, until the monetary reform of Diocletian. In addition to establishing the Tetrarchy, Diocletian devised the following system of denominations: an aureus struck at the standard of 60 to the pound, a new silver coin struck at the old Neronian standard known as the argenteus, and a new large bronze coin that contained two percent silver.
Diocletian issued an Edict on Maximum Prices in 301, which attempted to establish the legal maximum prices that could be charged for goods and services. The attempt to establish maximum prices was an exercise in futility as maximum prices were impossible to enforce. The Edict was reckoned in terms of denarii, although no such coin had been struck for over 50 years (it is believed that the bronze follis was valued at 12+1⁄2 denarii). Like earlier reforms, this too eroded and was replaced by an uncertain coinage consisting mostly of gold and bronze. The exact relationship and denomination of the bronze issues of a variety of sizes is not known, and is believed to have fluctuated heavily on the market.
The exact reason that Roman coinage sustained continuous debasement is not known, but the most common theories involve inflation, trade with India (which drained silver from the Mediterranean world) and inadequacies in state finances. It is clear from papyri that the pay of the Roman soldier increased from 900 sestertii a year under Augustus to 2,000 sestertii a year under Septimius Severus, while the price of grain more than tripled, indicating a fall in real wages and moderate inflation during this time.[19]
Equivalences
The first rows show the values of each boldface coin in the first column in relation to the coins in the following columns:
A coin is a small object, usually round and flat, used primarily as a medium of exchange or legal tender. They are standardized in weight, and produced in large quantities at a mint in order to facilitate trade. They are most often issued by a government. Coins often have images, numerals, or text on them. The faces of coins or medals are sometimes called the obverse and the reverse, referring to the front and back sides, respectively. The obverse of a coin is commonly called heads, because it often depicts the head of a prominent person, and the reverse is known as tails.
The denarius was the standard Roman silver coin from its introduction in the Second Punic War c. 211 BC to the reign of Gordian III, when it was gradually replaced by the antoninianus. It continued to be minted in very small quantities, likely for ceremonial purposes, until and through the Tetrarchy (293–313).
The as, occasionally assarius, was a bronze, and later copper, coin used during the Roman Republic and Roman Empire.
The sestertius or sesterce was an ancient Roman coin. During the Roman Republic it was a small, silver coin issued only on rare occasions. During the Roman Empire it was a large brass coin.
The dupondius was a brass coin used during the Roman Republic and Roman Empire valued at 2 asses.
The antoninianus or pre-reform radiate was a coin used during the Roman Empire thought to have been valued at 2 denarii. It was initially silver, but was slowly debased to bronze with a minimal silver content. The coin was introduced by Caracalla in early 215 AD. It was silver, similar to the denarius, except that it was slightly larger and featured the emperor wearing a radiate crown, indicating it was a double denomination. Antoniniani depicting women featured the bust resting upon a crescent moon.
Byzantine currency, money used in the Eastern Roman Empire after the fall of the West, consisted of mainly two types of coins: gold solidi and hyperpyra and a variety of clearly valued bronze coins. By the 15th century, the currency was issued only in debased silver stavrata and minor copper coins with no gold issue. The Byzantine Empire established and operated several mints throughout its history. Aside from the main metropolitan mint in the capital, Constantinople, a varying number of provincial mints were also established in other urban centres, especially during the 6th century.
The solidus or nomisma was a highly pure gold coin issued in the Later Roman Empire and Byzantine Empire. The early 4th century saw the solidus introduced in mintage as a successor to the aureus, which was permanently replaced thereafter by the new coin, whose weight of about 4.5 grams remained relatively constant for seven centuries.
The aureus was a gold coin of ancient Rome originally valued at 25 pure silver denarii. The aureus was regularly issued from the 1st century BC to the beginning of the 4th century AD, when it was replaced by the solidus. The aureus was about the same size as the denarius, but heavier.
The quadrigatus was a medium-sized silver coin produced by the Roman Republic during the 3rd century BC. The obverse featured a young janiform bust and the reverse featured Victory driving a quadriga, giving the coin its Roman name, with the inscription "ROMA" below.
The Edict on Maximum Prices was issued in 301 AD by Diocletian. The document denounces greed and sets maximum prices and wages for all important articles and services.
Roman Republican currency is the coinage struck by the various magistrates of the Roman Republic, to be used as legal tender. In modern times, the abbreviation RRC, "Roman Republican Coinage" originally the name of a reference work on the topic by Michael H. Crawford, has come to be used as an identifying tag for coins assigned a number in that work, such as RRC 367.
Silver coins are one of the oldest mass-produced form of coinage. Silver has been used as a coinage metal since the times of the Greeks; their silver drachmas were popular trade coins. The ancient Persians used silver coins between 612–330 BC. Before 1797, British pennies were made of silver.
The coinage of the Seleucid Empire is based on the coins of Alexander the Great, which in turn were based on Athenian coinage of the Attic weight. Many mints and different issues are defined, with mainly base and silver coinage being in abundance. A large concentration of mints existed in the Seleucid Syria, as the Mediterranean parts of the empire were more reliant on coinage in economic function.
The triumvir monetalis was a moneyer during the Roman Republic and the Empire, who oversaw the minting of coins. In that role, he would be responsible for the "ordinary coinage" during the republican period. Roman moneyers almost always acted together as a board of three, hence their title triumvir.
Judaea Capta coins were a series of commemorative coins originally issued by the Roman Emperor Vespasian to celebrate the capture of Judaea and the destruction of the Second Jewish Temple by his son Titus in AD 70 during the First Jewish Revolt. There are several variants of the coinage. The reverse of the coins may show a female seated right in an attitude of mourning at the base of a palm tree, with either a captive bearded male standing left, with his hands bound behind his back, or the standing figure of the victorious emperor, or the goddess Victoria, with a trophy of weapons, shields, and helmets to the left.
In the currency of ancient Rome, the bigatus is a type of denarius stamped on the reverse with a biga, a two-horse chariot. It began to appear in the first decade of the 2nd century BC as an alternative to the victoriatus, and most numismatists believe that it was not used before 190 BC. A denarius with a four-horse chariot (quadriga) had already been in use for some time; see quadrigatus, likewise named for its chariot icon and depicting in addition the Dioscuri.
The coinage reform of Augustus refers to the reform of Roman currency undertaken by Augustus in 23 BC.
Legionary denarii is the modern name for a series of Roman silver denarius coins issued by Mark Antony in the eastern Mediterranean during the last war of the Roman Republic from 32 to 31 BC, in the lead up to the Battle of Actium. The coinage is also referred to by numismatists as RRC 544/1-39, after its designation in M. H. Crawford, Roman Republican Coinage (1975).
The Carolingian monetary system, also called the Carolingian coinage system or just the Carolingian system, was a currency structure introduced by Charlemagne in the late 8th century as part of a major reform, the effects of which subsequently dominated much of Europe, including Britain, for centuries. It is characterised by having three denominations with values in the ratio 1:20:240, the units of which went under different names in the different languages, but which corresponded to the Latin terms libra (pound), solidus (shilling) and denarius (penny), respectively.
↑ Rowan, Clare (2019). From Caesar to Augustus (c. 49 BC-AD 14): using coins as sources. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. ISBN9781107037489.
↑ Sutherland, C. H. V. (November 1955). "Diocletian's Reform of the Coinage: a Chronological Note". Journal of Roman Studies. 45 (1–2): 116–118. doi:10.2307/298751. JSTOR298751.
↑ On the different theories regarding the XXI see Schwenter, Johannes (2023). "Aurelians Münzreform - das Kürzel XXI" [Aurelian's coin reform - the abbreviation XXI]. Jahrbuch für Numismatik und Geldgeschichte73, pp. 195-204.
Jones, A. H. M. The Roman Economy: Studies in Ancient Economic and Administrative History. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1974.
Melville Jones, John R., 'A Dictionary of Ancient Roman Coins', London, Spink 2003.
Metcalf, William E. (2012). The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Coinage. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN9780195305746.
Modena Altieri, Ascanio. Vis et Mos. A compendium of symbologies and allegorical personifications in the imperial coinage from Augustus to Diocletian. Florence, Porto Seguro Editore, 2022. ISBN9788855469968
Reece, Richard (1970). Roman Coins. London: Ernest Benn Limited. ISBN978-0-510-06151-7.
Salmon, E. Togo. Roman Coins and Public Life under the Empire. Ann Arbor, Michigan: The University of Michigan Press, 1999.
Suarez, Rasiel. The Encyclopedia of Roman Imperial Coins. Dirty Old Books, 2005.
Sutherland, C. H. V. Roman Coins. New York: G. P. (Also published by Barrie and Jenkins in London in 1974 with ISBN0-214-66808-8)
Van Meter, David. The Handbook of Roman Imperial Coins. Laurion Press, 1990.
Vecchi, Italo. Italian Cast Coinage. A descriptive catalogue of the cast coinage of Rome and Italy. London Ancient Coins, London 2013. ISBN978-0-9575784-0-1
Weiser, Wolfram (2023). Die Geldwährung des Römischen Reiches. Untersuchungen zu den Münzsystemen der mittleren und späten Kaiserzeit [The monetary currency of the Roman Empire. Studies on the coinage systems of the middle and late imperial period]. Antiquitas, series 1, volume 79. Bonn: Habelt, ISBN978-3-7749-4391-9.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
