I am very honored to have received a reply from Roger Bland, one of the authors of The Frome Hoard, concerning questions over this statement: . Here is part of Mr. Bland's reply: Here is the associated quote from his upcoming book (which seems very well written and well researched!): Any opinions? Once again, I am very thankful for Mr. Bland's quick and thorough response. :thumb: guy
I think its wonderful that Mr. Bland commented back to you so quickly. I find his attribution to an upcoming book admirable inasmuch he did not invent the figure. I find it hard to drop that kind of number based upon a book not even released, though, so therefor not yet subject to other professionals opinions on the matter. If the quote would have been from an existing book, then comments on it from others pro or con could be collected. To me this is the danger of quoting an unpublished book, especially not noting the source of the number in Mr. Bland's book. Like I said, I see where the logic is, but I simply see a few rather large assumptions being made to get there. First, assuming that a usurper would have the same materials for dies and production capacity. That is what is being assumed by implying the ratio of dies to coins has to be the same. Is it reasonable to believe that a very short lived usurper in the sticks would have the same means of production and materials as the gallic emperor? Second, I have seen the 30,000 number being tossed out as an estimate before, and supporters and opponents quickly line up sides. I am sure it would be possible to achieve such numbers personally, in perfect conditions, but I think that number is high in less than perfect conditions that we are describing. Third, while an assumption that a hoard is representative of the general coin population is on the surface very plausible, there is no way of knowing this. I think back to many hoards containing great many rarities. Those have been proven to be abnormally distributed. Also timing and geography would also have a great deal to do with that assumption. I am no expert by any means, but given the vast numbers quoted versus relative abundance of these emperors versus other Roman emperors, I simply cannot reconcile today's relative rarity unless it is assumed that the Roman empire in its height was producing well into the billions every year. I am sure I am wrong in my logic there somewhere, and I am equally sure others here can answer more authoritatively, but that would be my take. Chris
In fairness to Mr. Bland, I removed the footnotes and references to make quoting the paragraph easier. BTW, the book looks like it will be an excellent piece of numismatic research. I have only seen one chapter, but it is richly footnoted and researched. The writing appears crisp and accessible. The graphs are in color and helpful. It looks like it will be a great book. guy
The next number I want to see is how many people were involved in the production of so many coins. If Victorinus had 15k obverse dies in 18 months that would be 200-300 a week to produce those million coins so lets say 50 a day or a die every 20 minutes (all very rough numbers just to get an order of magnitude). Counting reverse dies we get a die every ten minutes. Obviously there was more than one cutter. Perhaps 50? Traditional models suggests striking was done by a team of three but that would require a team for each die plus a group to melt and prepare blanks and a management team complete with security force. Certainly there may have been several mints in different locations so we did not need a superdome to hold all these workers but I'm still having trouble envisioning all this leaving no trace in the historical record. How many inscriptions, tombstones or whatever survived to show all this ever happened? I don't know the numbers or even what I believe is possible but a million a day is a lot of coins to make without machines. Come to think of it, it is a lot of coins to make with machinery. I'll be interested to see all this spelled out when the book is published.
The only mint of old that I am aware of where records still exist that could possibly support production numbers is the Venetian Mint. Yes there are others, but the Venetian Mint records are the most complete. But even those do not speak specifically to production numbers. But there is enough information to make reasonable conclusions regarding production numbers. That said, a single city state, Venice, with only 1 mint was able to produce 16 million + coins of a single denomination per year. However, that number is somewhat misleading because the mint did not work on one denomination for an entire year. Rather they only worked on that 1 denomination for a few months and then they went on to work on another denomination depending on what was needed most at the time. Anyway, the point I'm getting at here is that the Venetian was capable of producing upwards of 30 million coins per year. That number comes pretty close to approaching the numbers being discussed, especially when considering that only 1 mint was involved. Now somebody is going to say that it is not the same, that technology had changed from the period in question - 400-500 AD vs 1300-1400 AD - but it didn't really. The technology of the Romans was every bit equal to that of the Venetians, possibly even surpassing it for we have to remember what happened after the Roman Empire collapsed - technology disappeared for centuries. Everything had to be re-learned, rediscovered. So minting technology was virtually the same for both periods. So the numbers that Bland is discussing may not be so far off the mark after all.
Ok, assume the technology is the same. I would dispute that with metallurgical advances, but still. You are still saying the gallic empire had the equivalent of 9 Venetian mints. I just don't see that from where they were economically and continuity of mint workers thinking they had that many high quality production facilities. They may have had 9 mints, but I do not believe all of them rise to the level of a Venice. A number of a million a day I believe would be conservative for certain Roman periods, like Constantius II who had the whole empire striking coins for him and they were also low value coins like the Gallic ones. However, he also had an entire empire that USED those coins. That is the other side of this equation. I simply do not think the gallic empire had NEED of that many coins, and why strike them if there is no need? Remember these were not PM coins, their only value was within their own empire by emperor decree. Chris
It is a fair question how many mints were used under, for example Victorianus. Since dies were individually cut rather than mechanically reproduced (which is what allows us to start this calculation). We can look at those 81,000 coins and select styles that might possibly be different mints (it would be possible that the styles could exist together in the same city if there were or that neighboring cities might share enough of an artistic style that we could not separate them). RIC lists Cologne and 'Southern', Elmer (Die Münzprägung der gallischen Kaiser in Köln, Trier und Mailand - 1974 - which I don't have) adds Trier if we are to accept Milan as 'Southern'. RIC discusses a few non-standard coins as possibly fro barbarous mints but the relatively small number of things that don't fit into three principle groups suggests that most of the 81,000 coins should be from two or three sources rather than anything approaching nine. Perhaps someone owning Elmer could read his arguments for his mint separations? Too bad these coin came from a period where mint marks were not openly coded. Addressing this question alone will make the new Oxford Handbook something we may need to buy. RIC is too old and the other choices are not in English so I'd think such a book might be most interesting. Does anyone have other references?
I appreciate everyone's input on this issue. The book suggests that the 52,500 coins of the hoard weighed about 350 lbs. Although the coins were waterlogged, let's be conservative and assume that 50,000 of these mostly bronze coins (with a mere patina of silver) weighed 300 lbs. If the coins were produced at a rate of 5 million a week, that is conservatively 30,000 lbs of coinage each week. Keep in mind that this is a rogue breakaway empire (the Romano-Gallic Empire) which was faced with all the problems of the Roman Empire of the third century: rebellion, inflation, barbarian incursions, plague, etc. Let us assume that the Romano-Gallic empire had the production facilities, trained craftsmen, and raw materials to produce this prodigious number of coins. One can only image an intact distribution network to disperse this huge number of coins throughout a breakaway empire during this time of social and political turmoil. Very thought provoking. guy
This is a really interesting thread. Were the coins of this usurper being generated from scratch or were they struck over other coins? As for why so many coins would need to be struck, I imagine the payment of the standing army would consume a great deal of it. Bulk incentives to allies and not-so allies would also require large quantities of coin, which would be shipped out in large batches. With a much smaller portion, perhaps miniscule, circulating in actual commerce.
I don't know that we have figures on coin use but cash paid to soldiers tends to get spent and bulk incentives tend to get paid in gold rather than billon. I'd guess that the coins were not very high value and required a number to buy things but that many more than a minuscule portion supported commerce. The fact that coins of really short term rulers like Marius and Laelianus survive at all suggests there was a constant demand for cash in the economy. Even a 'ruler' like Aureolus with no desire to contest for the position felt the need to issue coins (in the name of Postumus) rather than just rely on previous supplies. I can't recall ever seeing an overstruck Gallic Empire coin. Anyone? Double struck is common as would be the case when working very fast but overstriking on a previous coin reduces the number of coins in circulation and this period seems to have been interested in making more.
Plus, I would not ignore seignorage. This is the profit made by striking base metal coins, and was a large part of imperial revenue many times. You force acceptance at the point of a sword a lower value coin, and put the profit into paying off your soldiers to stay in power. This will work to an extent that the economy can absorb new coinage, but there is a physical limit as to how much coinage an economy can absorb. Overstriking someone else's coin doesn't make you any profit if you had to pay full value for that coin. Only from raw materials do you make this profit.
But all of that would have already been there, in place, from the period before the empire broke away. So all the new ruler does is pick it up and use it. And don't forget, the minting of coinage, his name and/or image on the coins, adds legitimacy to the reign of the ruler. That would also be reason for the institution of new mints and the production of even more coinage than there was before.
In the best of times, this may have been the case; e.g, a stable Venetian Republic or the early Roman Empire. If the coin production by the Romano-Gallic empire is anywhere near estimates, this was no small feat. The Romano-Gallic empire was created during the height of third century crisis of Roman history, however. This was a rogue breakaway state and there was no seamless transition. Think "Mad Max" meets "The Day After." Consider the recent disruption of services due to the mere threat of a hurricane on the East Coast. It temporarily paralyzed a whole region. Now imagine plague, nonstop barbarian incursions, hyperinflation, incessant local rebellions with lawlessness, multiple usurpers, a Roman Empire trying to reconquer the area, etc. This sort of disruption would make the usual production and distribution of vast amounts of coinage nearly an impossible task. The fact that the Romano-Gallic empire was able to produce any large amount of coinage under such difficult conditions would be a tribute to the remaining bureaucratic efficiency of the Roman Empire. guy
Not to disagree with you needlessly Doug, but Guy is making my point as well. I think of it comparing the Philly or Denver mint to mints in former Soviet Republics in 1992. Sure, the equipment is still there, but maybe a lot of the staff fled or went back to the original country, the upper bureaucracy probably is gone, its hard to be able to obtain replacement parts, etc. This has to be a strain on the system and trying to get production out. Couple that with Doug's estimate of only about 4 mints, and those 4 mints would have to be producing twice each what Venice could do with a stable workforce, stable government, etc. That is why I thought it a large stretch. Back to Guy's original review, I simply think the author took a bunch of facts and assumptions, (or got them from another book), and when totalled came up with the correct mathematical answer. The problem is that answer seems very implausible given the situation and similar comparisons, which simply leads me to challenge the assumptions. I do not think the author did it intentionally, but this happens a lot in finance too. Its easy to get carried away in your own little world of numbers and assumptions, and to forget to touch base with reality and some known touchstones, (like Doug's mintage figures for Venices and Doug S. estimate of mint numbers). In my MBA days I read a stock report for Ebay that, if one did the math, estimated the percentage WORLDWIDE of the population using Ebay by 2010 to be 115%. Reality checks are always needed when constructing scenarios. Chris Edit: I think its a great discussion, and I would never be so bold as to say I know I am right. Maybe these numbers are correct, if so I just have a hard time reconciling that with other facts I thought I knew. I do know the 30,000 per die number just itself is extremely controversial amongst people with greater knowledge than I.
Is the 30,000 per die number supposed to be an average or a target realizing that dome dies break or get retired for some reason (all the ones in use when a ruler dies)? I know from my studies of Septimius Severus that there are some dies that you see very frequently and others that you see one coin and that is all. You never know why but you can bet that every die did not get used to failure. Another thing to consider is whether we see evidence of dies being used to capacity. This would mean that coins are seen with worn dies, progressive cracks or other signs that they were not freshly made dies. For example, Septimius Severus changed the obverse legends at the 'Emesa' mint in 194 so the 193 dies were retired. Of the coins I have seen from the 193 dies, at least half used one obverse die which is seen both fresh and worn. I have no idea why the other 193 dies were used less but not all got the same use (30,000 or 300 - either is possible depending on whether we have 1% or 100% of the coin made. After reviewing the photo resources available to me, I am amazed at how similar the coins of the Gallic Empire are to each other. I am not to a point of being able to pick out any coin and say 'mint 1' or 'mint 2' without thought and comparison while the four mints of Septimius strike me as 99% obvious. I wonder if Gallic experts find the opposite of this to be the case. I have never known, in person, a student of the Gallic coins. Does anyone on this list have 100 (1000?) Gallic coins? It would not be an easy set to complete even to a 90% level. I repeat that I will be anxious to see the Oxford book.
I, too, am excited about the new book. Scanning over the chapter by Roger Bland [From Gordian III to the Gallic Empire (238-74)], I can see that Mr. Bland has tried to analyze diverse data from this poorly documented period and shed light on the coinage of this period. Looks like good stuff. Many numismatic books are poorly written and too abstruse for me, I think this book has something for everyone. guy
