I'm planning to submit the following as part of a larger post to a non-numismatic Ancient Roman site. Is what I wrote factually correct? http://www.britishmuseum.org/resear...lican_coinage/roman_republican_coinage_3.aspx guy
I don't buy it. Moneyer was a minor step in a sequence of positions that led to higher office including Consul. Removing names of these magistrates strikes me as inconsequential compared to the steps replacing the Republic with the Empire. This had been going on for quite some time before Augustus came along. I would hardly call his actions insidious but the natural development from Caesar, Pompey and Antony but not his evil invention. This is a question for a political historian. I'm just a coin collector.
Ancient Doug: I always appreciate your responses to my posts. That said, I think the moneyer had great control of the images (and messages) of coins. The adage appears true: He who controls the media, controls the message (and reality). Augustus and future emperors wanted total control of the Imperial message and propaganda. I think the quote from the above article supports this point: Augustus was an increasingly powerful ruler who wanted complete control of the official government message. One way he did this was by diminishing the role and status of the moneyer. Thank you, again, for commenting. guy
i'm not sure, and could very well be wrong on this, but i don't think the moneyer had that much control over the images used. if ancient moneyers were anything like medieval moneyers, they produced what they were told to produce by the government/king/augustus. putting the moneyers name on a coin, at least in medieval times, said that the money was legit and within legal limits (size, weight, purity of metal, etc.), and if it wasn't, the king knew who was cheating the system.
Republican moneyers did have control of coin types and did use it for self promotion. Where I disagree is with the idea that removing their names was an evil plot. The money to run the mint now came from Augustus and the people who made the coins were now career employees rather than short term politicians on their way up fulfilling public duty. I was always amazed at how little the early Emperors used coins for propaganda. The rarely changed types (Caius and Lucius, Tribute Penny) seemed like opportunities spent poorly.
thank you for the clarification doug. i assumed republican moneyers were under the same rules as later moneyers. and you know what happens when someone assumes... :foot-mouth:
