The most commonly used coin denominations and their relative sizes during Roman times.
The imagery on coins took an important step when Julius Caesar
issued coins bearing his own portrait. While moneyers had earlier
issued coins with portraits of ancestors, Caesar’s was the first Roman
coinage to feature the portrait of a living individual. The tradition
continued following Caesar's assassination, although the imperators
from time to time also produced coins featuring the traditional deities
and personifications found on earlier coins. The image of the Roman
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 upon 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. 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 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.
Featuring the portrait of an individual on a coin, which became legal
in 44 BC, caused the coin to embody the attributes of the individual
portrayed. 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 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
, and even featured the bust of the emperor clad in armor.
-Debasement of denarius
Although the denarius remained the backbone of the Roman economy from
its introduction in 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 was such a common occurrence for the Romans, it's
believed that it was caused by several factors, including a lack of
precious metals, inadequacies in state finances, and inflation. When
introduced, the denarius contained nearly pure silver at a theoretical
weight of approximately 4.5 grams.
The rapid decline in silver purity of the antoninianus.
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 (it is interesting to note that 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 4 grams of silver, until the
debasement of Nero in 64, when the silver content was reduced to
3.8 grams, 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 in 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 an appearance of being
silver. During this time the aureus remained slightly more stable,
before it too became smaller and more base 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. The standard for silver in the antonianus was set at twenty
parts copper to one part silver, and the coins were noticeably marked as
containing that amount (XXI in Latin or KA in Greek). 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 12.5 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 constant 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
2000 sestertii a year under Septimius Severus and the price of grain
more than tripled indicating that fall in real wages and a moderate
inflation occurred during this time.
Another reason for debasement was lack of raw metal with which to
produce coins. Italy itself contains no large or reliable mines for
precious metals, therefore the precious metals for coinage had to be
obtained elsewhere. The majority of the precious metals that Rome
obtained during its period of expansion arrived in the form of war booty
from defeated territories, and subsequent tribute and taxes by
new-conquered lands. When Rome ceased to expand, the precious metals for
coinage then came from newly mined silver, such as from Greece and Spain, and from melting older coins.
Without a constant influx of precious metals from an outside source,
and with the expense of continual wars, it would seem reasonable that
coins might be debased to increase the amount that the government could
spend. A simpler possible explanation for the debasement of coinage is
that it allowed the state to spend more than it had. By decreasing the
amount of silver in its coins, Rome could produce more coins and
"stretch" its budget. As time progressed the trade deficit of the west
because of its buying of grain and other commodities led to a currency
drainage in Rome.
| Values from the time of Augustus |
|---|
|
Aureus |
Quinarius Aureus |
Denarius |
Quinarius |
Sestertius |
Dupondius |
As |
Semis |
Quadrans |
|---|
| Aureus |
1 |
2 |
25 |
50 |
100 |
200 |
400 |
800 |
1600 |
| Quinarius Aureus |
1/2 |
1 |
12 1/2 |
25 |
50 |
100 |
200 |
400 |
800 |
| Denarius |
1/25 |
2/25 |
1 |
2 |
4 |
8 |
16 |
32 |
64 |
| Quinarius Argenteus |
1/50 |
1/25 |
1/2 |
1 |
2 |
4 |
8 |
16 |
32 |
| Sestertius |
1/100 |
1/50 |
1/4 |
1/2 |
1 |
2 |
4 |
8 |
16 |
| Dupondius |
1/200 |
1/100 |
1/8 |
1/4 |
1/2 |
1 |
2 |
4 |
8 |
| As |
1/400 |
1/200 |
1/16 |
1/8 |
1/4 |
1/2 |
1 |
2 |
4 |
| Semis |
1/800 |
1/400 |
1/32 |
1/16 |
1/8 |
1/4 |
1/2 |
1 |
2 |
| Quadrans |
1/1600 |
1/800 |
1/64 |
1/32 |
1/16 |
1/8 |
1/4 |
1/2 |
1 |
Diocletian Values
(301 – 305 A.D.)
|
Solidus |
Argenteus |
Nummus |
Radiate |
Laureate |
Denarius |
| Solidus |
1 |
10 |
40 |
200 |
500 |
1000 |
| Argenteus |
1/10 |
1 |
4 |
20 |
50 |
100 |
| Nummus |
1/40 |
1/4 |
1 |
5 |
12 1/2 |
25 |
| Radiate |
1/200 |
1/20 |
1/5 |
1 |
2 1/2 |
5 |
| Laureate |
1/500 |
1/50 |
2/25 |
2/5 |
1 |
2 |
| Denarius |
1/1000 |
1/100 |
1/25 |
1/5 |
1/2 |
1 |
Late Empire Coin Values
(337 – 476 A.D.)
|
Solidus |
Miliarense |
Siliqua |
Follis |
Nummus |
| Solidus |
1 |
12 |
24 |
180 |
7200 |
| Miliarense |
1/12 |
1 |
2 |
15 |
600 |
| Siliqua |
1/24 |
1/2 |
1 |
7 1/2 |
300 |
| Follis |
1/180 |
1/15 |
2/15 |
1 |
40 |
| Nummus |
1/7200 |
1/600 |
1/300 |
1/40 |
1 |
