Money in Romania

[Daos]

The history of coins in the area that is now Romania spans over a 2500-year period; coins were first introduced in significant numbers to this area by the Greeks, through their colonies on the Black Sea shore.

The earliest documented currency in the Romanian territory was an 8-gram silver drachma, issued by the Greek polis (πολις, city) Histria (in the region that is now the Dobrogea) in the year 480 BC. It was followed by other coins issued by other Greek poleis in Dobrogea.


Histria minted coins

In the 4th century BC, the coins of Macedonian kings Philip II and Alexander the Great were used in Dacia, but also indigenous coins including the celebrated gold kosoni (named so after the Dacian King depicted on most of the coins, Koson or Coson).




The golden denarius minted by Coson

Due to the lack of written information regarding the Getae-Dacians' history, many important names related to their civilization remain either unknown or controversial. The controversy regarding the name of this king was prompted after the discovery of golden coins inscribed with the word KOSON in Greek characters. Such coins were discovered in great numbers in Transylvania and the discovery captured the attention of writers starting the 16th century. Thus, there are comments from Erasmus of Rotterdam in 1520 and Stephanus Zamosius (István Szamosközy) in 1593.

Coins inscribed KOSON were discovered in several large stashes in Transylvania. The first group was discovered in 1543, and contained several thousands coins and objects made of gold. It was rumored that this stash was revealed in a bolted chamber under the river Strei, identified as the river Sargetia, and also mentioned by Dio Cassius. Further research disproved this, and placed the treasure in one of the Dacian castles in the Orăştie mountains, probably in Sarmisegetusa.

In the 3rd century BC or 2nd century BC, Dacian minting increased in intensity. In parallel with the local coins in Dacia, coins from Macedonia Prima, Thasos, Apollonia and Dyrrachium also circulated. Similarly, Roman coins such as Republican and Imperial dinarii also circulated in the Dacian territory, even before the Roman occupation, much as they continued to circulate even after the Aurelian retreat, later replaced by Byzantine money.


Top row left to right: c. 157 BC Roman Republic, c. AD 73 Vespasian, c. 161 Marcus Aurelius, c. 194 Septimius Severus. Second row left to right: c. 199 Caracalla, c. 200 Julia Domna, c. 219 Elagabalus, c. 236 Maximinus Thrax

[Daos]

The Roman Propaganda machine was in high gear after both of the Dacian Wars conducted by Trajan. The personification of Dacia, a soldier, or just a representative Dacian appears in various poses of abject defeat or mourning on the coins of Trajan above and below. From being speared to being bound, to being stepped on (by Peace nonetheless), to kneeling before Rome, the Dacians are depicted as a thoroughly subjugated people. After all, it was almost a hundred years since the empire had ceased expansion, so maybe the Romans went a little overboard in their celebrations.





The first Roman incursion into Dacia occurred in AD 101. Trajan used Dacian raids into Roman territory as the pretext for invasion, but he had been planning the attacks since AD 99 (How many times has this tactic been repeated in history? Some things do not change.) This was a radical change from the Roman practice of appeasement which had been ongoing since the time of Augustus. Domitian actually set up payments to the Dacian ruler Decebalus to purchase his non-aggression. In spite of this agreement Decebalus sanctioned raids into Roman territory and in one raid the governor of Moesia was slain. Trajan struck hard and deep into the Dacian territory (modern day Romania and Hungary) in Blitzkreig fashion. Dacia was a mountainous region bordered by the Danube, and Trajan needed the best engineers to navigate this topography. One of the best, Apollodorus of Damascus constructed a road through the Iron Gates which included a long bridge across the Danube with 60 stone piers (traces of the bridge can still be seen). The Dacians also accomplished great feats of engineering. It is said that the great Dacian treasury was kept under a river. The water had been diverted for construction and then allowed to flow again.

The march of the Roman army would have awed an onlooker. Marching 6 abreast it would take 6 hours for the column to pass. And, while the army covered about 15 miles a day straight to its target, nothing was done impetuously or without planning. The Romans had learned from defeats at the hands of the Germans and Dacians that their foes were formidable and nothing could be left to chance.Of note in the second to last coin in the group above is the curved sword laying in the foreground. This is the infamous Dacian Falx which was respected and feared by the Roman Soldiery. In a strong hand it was quite capable of severing a limb with one blow. To counter this weapon, the Roman legionaries were issued special greaves and additional padding for their helmets.



Much can be learned about the Dacian Wars by studying the beautiful reliefs on Trajan's Column which was erected in 106 as a memorial and a history of the first Dacian war. Rome must have built a coalition prior to the invasion as Moors and even their traditional enemies, the Parthians, are depicted fighting with the Romans.

The Dacians were not the barbarians we typically think of. They had a settled and prosperous civilizations with many cities and fortresses built on a model copied from the Greeks. Their country was rich in minerals including iron, gold and silver (which might have contributed to the invasion and help explain the allies the Romans were able to recruit). Some believe the Dacians originated in north west Asia Minor and migrated north. to a broad and fertile plain with many natural defences including the Carpathian Mts. and the Danube. Others believe they were part of the Indo-European migration that occurred around 1,800 BC originating from the steppes north of the Black Sea. By the time of Herodotus around 500 BC, they were considered Thracian (Getae) and Herodotus lists them as the most populous people of the world next to the Indians.



The first invasion was a bloody affair but the Romans moved relentlessly towards the Thracian capital of Sarmizegetusa. A massive battle was fought at the close of the first year's campaign. It was a costly victory for the Romans. On the column, Trajan is depicted offering his clothes to be used as bandages. Over the winter, Trajan reinforced his legions. He also sent the future emperor, Hadrian, back to Rome carrying Trajan's chronicles of the campaign of which only one sentence remains. The second year seems to have been even bloodier than the first, but Rome's superior forces approached the capital. At this point Decebalus, the king of Dacia, accepted surrender terms offered by the Romans. The Dacians were required to disarm the Dacian fortresses along the Danube, give up certain territories, and Roman garrisons were stationed in Dacia. This was not a fortuitous assignment for a legionnaire. in 105 Trajan's declared that Decebalus was in violation of the disarmament clause of the treaty and an ultimatum was sent. In response the Roman garrisons were destroyed and thus, Trajan Began the second invasion of Dacia. In a response similar to Scipio's Invasion of Africa to take the war to Carthage during the time of Hannibal, Decebalus attempted an invasion of the Roman province of Moesia. This attack was repelled and the Dacians gradually retreated to Sarmizegetusa. Once again the capital was besieged. This time the Romans were able to locate and destroy the ceramic pipe system that fed water to the city. Decebalus and some of his troops attempted to break out and reach the mountains, but Roman cavalry caught up with them and slew most of the remaining forces with many committing suicide. Decabalus also probably committed suicide. However, the Romans did offer a different version of the death of Decebalus which may be depicted on the first coin on this page. According to CNG catalogers, the rider on the reverse may not be Trajan. Recent discoveries may indicate that the Roman Explorator or scout Ti. Claudius Maximus actually slew Decebelus and then brought his head and right hand back to Trajan - not nearly as "romantic" as the original version. The reverse scene on this coin may represent that event.

Dacia then became a Roman province. The Romanian language of today is the closest of all languages to the original Latin. Sarmizegetusa's name was changed to Ulpia Trajana and it served as the provincial capital until abandoned by the emperor Aurelian in AD 276.

Source

[Daos]

Republican Roman denarius found at Ernei


Dacicus

[SPOILER=Marcus Julius Philippus]

[/SPOILER]

[Daos]

Soon after their founding, the principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia each minted their own silver coins. Wallachia minted their first coins during the rule of Vlaicu Vodă (1364-1377) and Moldavia during the rule of Petru I (1375-1391).

In Moldavia, coins used the size and weight of the Grosh, while Wallachia minted both Grosh and Hungarian Denarii. In both countries, early coins had alternately Latin and Cyrillic inscriptions. Early Wallachian coins bear the coat of arms of the Basarab dynasty and have written with Latin script "Transalpina" (an alternative name of Wallachia).


Vlaicu Vodă Ducat with Latin inscriptions

The minting of silver coins being known as aspri, a name derived from Greek áspron, increased in the first half of the 15th century, but then ceased completely in Wallachia during the rule of Vladislav II (1447-1456) and in Moldavia during the rule of Ştefăniţă Vodă (1517-1527). Apparently, a major reason in this was the lack of a steady supply of silver (neither Wallachia nor Moldavia have their own silver resources), as well as increasing trade, which brought coins that replaced the local ones. The only city that continued to mint coins was Cetatea Albă, in Moldavia.

In contracts and other documents, the numbers written were not actual numbers of the coins, but their value in a standard system: for example, the standard often used the gold system, but the payments were done with the local silver coins.

The earliest standard in Wallachia was the perper, derived from the Byzantine gold coin hipérpyron, which was replaced in the 15th century Italian system of the ducat and the florin.

In Moldavia, the Lithuanian Grosh was replaced with the Zlot Tătăresc (Tatar Zlot), which, despite its name, was not minted by the Tatars, but it was a coin minted in the Genoese colony of Caffa.

Many different coins circulated in the Romanian lands over the course of centuries: Turkish thalers, Hungarian and Austrian guilders (known in Romania as galbeni), zloți, Russian carboave, Venerian zecchini, over 100 currencies in all.

Toward the end of the 16th century, a new coin began to be used in Wallachia and Moldavia, as well as in other parts of the Ottoman Empire: the Dutch Thaler. These coins bear a lion on them (hence Dutch leeuwendaalder, German löwenthaler) and the name of the coin became known as leu (plural lei), which is still the name of the Romanian and Moldovan currencies. The Ottomans minted coins imitating the Dutch silver Thalers and these coins were known as piaştri, Piastre.

[Daos]

[SPOILER=Vladislav I (1364-c.1377)]

The coins attributed to Vladislav I Vlaicu are struck in silver and are of the following types: I - coins with the diameter of 18 to 21 mm, average weight approx. 1.05 grams; II - coins with the diameter of 16 to 18 mm, average weight of approx. 0.70 grams; III - coins with diameter of 15 to 16 mm, average weight approx. 0.35 grams (bearing no inscriptions). The coins of the first type could be minted according to Venetian ducats standard (first struck in 1202), initially named ducats, next groats or matapans, and heavily copied in the Balkans. The name ducat is recorded later in the documents as the monetary unit of Wallachia, which was equivalent to the Serbian and Bulgarian groats minted according to the Venetian ducats standard. The coins of the second type, with an average weight of approx. 0.70 grams are equivalent to the Hungarian denar and are named dinar (with the plural dinari). The third type, coins bearing no inscriptions, with an average weight of 0.35 grams were named ban (with the plural bani) (that's the previous name of the silver denar minted by the Slavonian rulers). The ban was equivalent to one half of the dinar, which was the Hungarian obol.

The exchange rate was: 1 ducat = 1 1/2 dinar = 3 bani; 1 dinar = 2 bani.


Bulgarian Groschen




Muntenian Ducats


Dinar[/SPOILER]
[SPOILER=Radu I (c.1377-c.1383)]

Radu I minted the same nominals as Vladislav I, Wallachian ducats, deniers and bani.


Dinar


Ban[/SPOILER]
[SPOILER=Dan I (c.1383-1386)]The coins attributed to the reign of Dan I are ducats minted in the system of Denari and bani – a simplified system (he ceased to strike ducats in the groats system) –, having the legend written in Slavonic (the ducats).



Ducat[/SPOILER]
[SPOILER=Mircea cel Bătrân (1386-1418)]

The coins bearing the name of MIRCEA are minted in the system of ducati and bani, a simplified system installed during the reign of Dan I (1383-1386), who ceased minting coins in the groschen system.


Ban


Ducat[/SPOILER]
[SPOILER=Mihail I (1418-1420)]

The coins attributed to the reign of Mihail I are ducats minted in the system of deniers and are similar to the coins with the ruler's portrait on obverse minted by his father, Mircea the Elder. The coins have the legend in Slavonian.


Ducat[/SPOILER]
[SPOILER=Vlad II Dracul (c.1390-1447)]

The coins attributed to Vlad II are small (10-11 mm) anepigraphic coins in silvered billon or copper, having on obv. the Wallachian eagle left with spread wings, head turned right to a big Latin cross protruding from between its wings, on rev. a dragon left with raised wings, left foot with four claws visible and curly snake tail.


Ban[/SPOILER]
[SPOILER=Vladislav II (1447-1456)]

The coins attributed to the reign of Vladislav I are ducats of the so-called common Wallachian type and anepygraphic bani.



Ducats[/SPOILER]
[SPOILER=Vlad III Țepeș (1431–1476)]

The reputed Romanian numismatist Octavian Iliescu has attributed two coins (one ducat and one ban) to Vlad III. This attribution is contested by other Romanian specialists.


Ban[/SPOILER]
[SPOILER=Radu III cel Frumos (1462-1475)]The coins attributed to Radu III are ducats bearing the same heraldic signs as the coins struck by Vladislav II. They are excessively rare.


Ducat[/SPOILER]
[SPOILER=Basarab III Laiotă cel Bătrân (1473-1477)]

The coins attributed to Basarab III are ducats bearing the same heraldic signs as the coins struck by Radu III. They are excessively rare.


Ducat[/SPOILER]
[SPOILER=Mihai Viteazul (1593-1601)]

Michael the Brave issued a gold coin with face value of 10 ducats at Sibiu in 1600 (January-March).

[/SPOILER]
[SPOILER=Mihail Radu (Mihnea III) (1658-1659)]

The coins bearing the name of Mihail Radu are struck according to the contemporary schilling type, in copper or silver, having the year 1658 on obverse. It is highly probable that the coins were struck in a Transylvanian mint.

[/SPOILER]
[SPOILER=Constantin Brâncoveanu (1688-1714)]

According to some contemporary accounts from the first half of the XVIIIth century (Samuel Köleseri de Keres-éer, Auraria Romano-Dacica, Hermannstadt, 1717 and Antonmaria del Chiaro - the private secretary of the voivode -, Istoria delle moderne rivoluzioni della Valachia, 1718), Constantin Brâncoveanu has issued in 1713, on the 25th jubilee of his reign, some gold medals, weighing from 2 to 10 ducats. The current opinion concerning the mint and the mint-master name is that they were struck in Alba-Iulia (Weissenburg, Gyulaféhervar) by the master engraver Karl Josef Hoffmann, who worked there between 1713 and 1738 (this is the Huszár hypothesis). In the second half of the 18th century appeared some accounts of silver and billon issues of two types - the first similar to the gold medals with a portrait in profile, bearing the initials of the mint-master (C.H. or C.I.H): thaler and half-thaler - the second with a frontal bust and no mint-master initials (considered as patterns by Constantin Moisil). These silver issues were minted with different dies (contemporary accounts tell about Dutch and Transylvania dies), crafted by different masters, after the death of the voivode, during the 18th century.

[/SPOILER]

[Daos]

[SPOILER=Petru I Mușat (c.1375-c.1391)]

The coins attributed to Petru I, known so far, are: groats and far more rare half groats made from silver. The design of the coins of Petru I became the standard design of the coins struck by Moldavian rulers.



[/SPOILER]
[SPOILER=Ștefan I (1394 - 1399)]

The coins attributed to Stefan I Mușat are groats with a design similar to those minted by his predecessor, Petru I Mușat, but with a poor technical execution.

[/SPOILER]
[SPOILER=Alexandru I cel Bun (1400-1432)]

The coins attributed to Alexandru cel Bun are: "double groats", "groats" and "half groats" struck in silver or billon.


Groat


Half groat[/SPOILER]
[SPOILER=Iliaș I (1432-1443)]The coins attributed to Iliaș are of many and varied types. The classification proposed by MBR follows the one of Octavian Iliescu (5 types of groats, double groats and half groats) adding one more type, after a coin published by Rudolf Gassauer.


Double groat


Groat[/SPOILER]
[SPOILER=Ștefan II (1434-1447)]The coins attributed to Ștefan II are: double groats, groats and half groats struck according to the traditional standard, imposed by his father, Alexandru cel Bun.


Half groat[/SPOILER]
[SPOILER=Petru II (1444-1449)]The attribution of the coins with the name PETRU in the obverse legend is very difficult, due to the lack of documentary evidences. The coins attributed to Petru II are the coins of the 15th century with name PETRU which were not attributed to Petru III Aron.

[/SPOILER]
[SPOILER=Alexandru II (Alexăndrel) (1449-455)]The coins attributed to Alexandru II are categorised in two types, each apart from the traditional style used by his predecessors.

[/SPOILER]
[SPOILER=Bogdan II (1449-1451)]

The coins attributed to Bogdan II follow the standard imposed during the reign of his father, Alexandru I, but having specific arms on reverse.

[/SPOILER]
[SPOILER=Petru III Aron (1451-1457)]

The coins attributed to Petru III are struck according to two different standards. His coins are either struck in billon or copper according to the traditional groats standard, either of smaller size, but usually struck in better silver. So, it is assumed that during his reign a monetary reform was carried.

[/SPOILER]
[SPOILER=Asprokastron]These coins are local coinage of Cetatea Albă (Asprokastron, Moncastro), struck during the reign of Alexandru II (1449, 1452-1454, 1455) or during the reign of Petru III Aron (1451-1452, 1454-1455 and 1455-1457).


[/SPOILER]
[SPOILER=Ștefan III cel Mare (1457-1504)]

The coins attributed to Stefan III are groats and half groats struck according to a standard evolved from the one imposed during the last reign of his predecessor Petru Aron (1455-1457). The coins can be categorised in two types and are struck in good silver.



Groats



Half groats[/SPOILER]
[SPOILER=Bogdan III cel Orb (1504-1517)]

Bogdan III changed the monetary system in use during the reign of his father (based on the Turkish aspers) to the traditional one, former standard until the first part of the reign of Petru III Aron (1454-1455).

[/SPOILER]
[SPOILER=Ștefan IV cel Tânăr (Ștefăniță Vodă) (1517-1527)]

Stefan IV continued to strike coins following the traditional standard restored by Bogdan III. He minted groats and half groats, but with a new representation of the arms of Moldavia (the auroch head is placed in an asymmetric shield).

[/SPOILER]
[SPOILER=Alexandru Lăpușneanu (1552-1568)]

After several years in which no coin was minted, the Moldavian coin emerges again in 1558, but struck according to a new system, the Hungarian denier one. This fact denotes stronger commercial relations with Transylvania and the intent to make the Moldavian coin accepted in the trade between countries.

[/SPOILER]
[SPOILER=Ioan Iacob Heraclid (Despot Vodă) (1561-1563)]

Ioan Iacob Heraclid was, at origin, a Greek from Samos, knight and palatin count of the Sacred Roman Empire. He got the Moldavian throne in 1561, supported by the protestant noblemen from Poland and by the Habsburgs. Later he obtained the Ottoman recognition. He tried to impose a new monetary system, according to Western standards (ducat, taler, florin, denier, obol). The coins were struck in the Suceava mint, by the mint-master Wolffgang (known as Lupul Sasul from Moldavian chronicles).


Denier[/SPOILER]
[SPOILER=Ștefan VII Tomșa (1563-1564)]The coins struck during his short reign follow the system in use during the first reign of Alexandru Lăpușneanu (1552-1561): deniers with type and representations similar to contemporary Hungarian deniers.

[/SPOILER]
[SPOILER=Ioan III (Ioan Vodă cel Cumplit/Ioan Vodă Armeanul) (1572-1574)]

He struck a single type of coin, in copper, named akce, after the name of the Ottoman asper. This is the first coin with the legend in Romanian and without the name of the ruler. The ruler's portrait is accompanied by the title of PATER PATRIE in Romanian. Instead of the usual rosette and crescent, aside the auroch head is the mint year.

[/SPOILER]
[SPOILER=Ștefan VIII Răzvan (1595)]

Ștefan Răzvan issued only two types of coins, both struck according to the Polish groats system, pieces of 3 groats, similar to the Polish coins of that era.

[/SPOILER]
[SPOILER=Ieremia Movilă (1595-1606)]

In the treaty signed with Poland, Ieremia Movilă obtained the right to issue coins according to the Polish standard (the same weight, purity and value) - probably to make the coins accepted as a mean of payment in Polish lands. The coins attributed to Ieremia Movilă mimic the Polish 3 groats coins, but bearing on the reverse an auroch head in an oval shape. On the obverse these coins have the name and portrait of various Polish kings from that era. These coins are named "Moldavian-Polish coins" and were issued in the 1597-1600 interval (according to the latest opinions), regardless of the year on the coin. In the Polish numismatic literature these coins are considered as forgeries from that era, or Moldavian imitations (see Hütten Czapski).

[/SPOILER]
[SPOILER=Eustatie Dabija (1661-1665)]The coins attributed to Eustratie Dabija are small bronze and copper coins, similar to the solidus of that era. He issued two types of coins, the first bearing his name and the second being counterfeits of the Polish, Swedish, Lithuanian and Brandenburgian coins.


[/SPOILER]
[SPOILER=17th century counterfeits]The counterfeits were made in Suceava, probably by Titus Livius Boratini (between 1661-1663, when he was missing from Poland), during the reign of Istratie Dabija (1661-1665) and probably this activity was continued by the following rulers of Moldavia – Gheorghe Duca (1665-1666, 1668-1672 and 1678-1683) and Iliaș Alexandru (1666-1668). The schillings minted in Suceava are struck in copper alloy, some of them having traces of silvering, with a poor technical execution, with wrong legends etc.


Loewenthaler


Swedish schilling - Christina (1622 - 1654)


Polish schilling


Prussian schilling


Polish groat


Poltoraki[/SPOILER]
[SPOILER=Sadagura]During the Russian-Turkish war (1768-1774), ended with the Kuciuk-Kainargi peace treaty, P. A. Rumeantzev, the commander in chief of the Russian army in Moldavian and Wallachia took measures to enhance the economic and monetary system in the principalities. So, a mint was established in Sadagura, near Cernăuți by the adventurer baron Nicolaus Gartenberg. In the mint were struck coins for both Principalities which had the nominal value both in Turkish and Russian currency. Initially, in 1771 were struck some patterns with the monogram of Catherine II of Russia, and later the official model was approved, which had only the arms of the two Principalities.


5 kopeks



1 para (3 dengas)


2 para (3 kopeks)[/SPOILER]

[Daos]

You can find some very nice high-quality pictures on this site, but, unfortunately, they cannot be saved...

[Daos]

[SPOILER=Ioannes I Zápolya (1538-1540)]

The Mohács battle was followed by anarchy in Transylvania, which ended only in 1541, after a decade and a half on internal fights. At November 10, 1526, Ioannes Zápolya was crowned king of Hungary at Alba Regala, but a month later, the party of magnates elects Ferdinand of Habsburg as king.
The two kings start a long fight which will bring only grief to Transylvania, who's natural riches brought the attention of Ferdinand I in a moment when the finances of Vienna was in a poor shape. Ferdinand understood that he cannot bring Hungary under his rule until he brakes Zápolya's centre of resistance, which was Transylvania.

By conquering Transylvania, he would have won an excellent base to carry the war against the turks. For this, and for economical and political reasons, from 1527 Transylvania became the object of the Habsburg expansionist politics.

In these conditions, a long war started in 1528 between Ferdinand and those loyal to Zápolya. As the strength of both parties was insufficient to gain the decisive victory on the battle fields, and both Ferdinand and Zápolya was also engaged in other war theatres (Upper Hungary, Slovenia and Croatia), they sought help from the ruler of Moldavia, Petru Rareș.

From this moment he will have an important role in the events taking place in Transylvania. As he saw this as a good opportunity to enlarge his Transylvanian possessions, he decided to support Zápolya. The Moldavian armies recorded important victories over the forces loyal to Ferdinand, and Zápolya's army occupied Cluj-Napoca (Kolozsvár), Turda, (Torda), Alba Iulia (Gyulafehérvár), Sebeș (Szászsebes), Brașov (Brassó), Sighișoara (Segesvár) and Mediaș (Medgyes).

In the meantime Ferdinand was holding talks with Zápolya, and in 4 April 1535 he signs a treaty even with Petru Rareș, who after 1534 begins to support the Habsburg emperor. In the end, Ferdinand didn't need Rareș's help, as the Habsburg signed the peace with Zápolya at Oradea (Nagyvárad) in 1538. According to the treaty signed at Oardea, Zápolya was to rule Transylvania as long as he'll live.


Ducat (1539)[/SPOILER]
[SPOILER=Ferdinand I (1551-1556)]

Starting from 1551 the Holy Roman Emperor, Ferdinand I, started to mint coins at the Hermannstadt mint, and these coins can be considered as Transylvanian. On the rev. of these coins we can still see St. Ladislaus, but on the obv. now appears the habsburgic two-headed eagle.


Ducat (1555)[/SPOILER]
[SPOILER=Ioannes II Sigismund (1556-1571)]

Ioannes II Sigismund – son of Ioannes I and Isabella, was the ruler of Transylvania together with his mother until she died in 1559, and then alone until 1571. Although his title of Hungarian king was never recognized by the emperors Ferdinand I and Maximilian II, this appears on all his coins minted starting from 1556. He dyed in 1571, but postum coins were minted for him until 1572.


Ducat (1558)


Taler (1565)


Ducat (1568)


Ducat (1571)[/SPOILER]
[SPOILER=Stephen Báthory (1571-1586)]

Stephen Báthory became prince of Transylvania with the help of the Ottoman Empire after the death of Ioannes II. He ruled between 1571-1575, until he was elected king of Poland. In his place he named Báthory Christoph as prince of Transylvania.


Ducat (1575)[/SPOILER]
[SPOILER=Christopher Báthory (1576-1585)]

Christopher Báthory became prince of Transylvania after his brother Stephan became the king of Poland, but the power structure did not change. As noted, the Transylvanian chancellery in Krakow, headed by Márton Berzeviczy, exercised greater authority than the one in the principality under Farkas Kovacsóczy.

Between 1581 and 1586, the government of Transylvania was firmly in the hands of Stephan Báthory, King of Poland, and after the death of Christoph, the Krakow chancellery became the sole locus of decision-making.


Ducat (1577)


Uniface taler klippe (1580)[/SPOILER]
[SPOILER=Elisabeth Bocskay]Elisabeth Bocskay was the wife of Christopher Báthory. She minted only a few very rare coins in 1577.


10 ducat[/SPOILER]
[SPOILER=Sigismund Báthory (1581-1602)]

Sigismund Báthory, was elected prince of Transylvania in 1581 at the age of 9, so the government was entrusted to a regency until 1588. His decision to join the league of Christian princes against the Ottomans is very criticized by his opponents who threatened him with deposition. After letting his cousin Boldizsár Báthory to rule for a short while, he returns and executes most of his opponents. In April 1598 Sigismund resigned again as prince of Transylvania in favour of Emperor Rudolf II, reversed his decision in October 1598, and then resigned again in favour of Cardinal Andrew Báthory, his cousin. In February 1601 the diet of Cluj (Kolozsvár) reinstated him, but again he was driven out by Michael the Brave and general Giorgio Basta, never to return. He died at Prague in 1613.


Ducat (1583)


Taler (1589)


3 groschen (1597)[/SPOILER]
[SPOILER=Rudolf II (1598-1605)]

Rudolf II – emperor of the Holy Roman Empire had Transylvania is his possession for 3 months in 1598. Then, after defeating the revolution lead by Moses Székely, the Habsburg troops occupied Transylvania from 1603-1605.


Ducat (1604)[/SPOILER]
[SPOILER=Brașov]Sigismund Báthory granted to the town of Brașov (Brassó) the right to mint coins in 1602. But the town mint was already issuing coins one year earlier with the towns coat of arms on the rev. of the coins. After a 10 years break, during the fight between Sigismund Báthory and Radu Șerban, the town mint started to issue coins again, until 1615.


Taler klippe (1601)


Groschen (1613)[/SPOILER]
[SPOILER=Moses Székely (1603)]

Moses Székely was the ruler of Transylvania for about three months in 1603, until his defeat by general Basta and Radu Șerban, ruler of Wallachia.


10 ducat


Taler[/SPOILER]
[SPOILER=Stephen Bocskay (1604-1606)]

Stephen Bocskay (1 January 1557–29 December 1606) was the leader of the anti-Habsburg uprising, and after defeating the Imperials at Álmosd in October 4, 1604, he became prince of Transylvania. On 29 December 1606, he was poisoned by his chancellor, Mihaly Katay.


10 ducat (1605)


Taler (1606)


3 groschen (1606)


3 groschen (1609)[/SPOILER]
[SPOILER=Sigismund Rákóczi (1607-1608)]

Sigismund Rákóczi became prince of Transylvania in 1607, after the death of Stephan Bocskay. He ruled only for a very short while, and gave up the throne in March 5, 1608, because of the rebellion of the haiduci.


10 ducat (1607)[/SPOILER]
[SPOILER=Gabriel Báthory (1608-1613)]

Gabriel Báthory (1589–1613), son of Stephan Báthory, and nephew of Erzsebet Báthory, was the Prince of Transylvania from 1608 to 1613.

He had fled the country in 1594, observed the developments in Transylvania from his gloomy castle at Ecsed, in Szatmár County. When Bocskay died, Gabriel Báthory wrote on 2 January 1607, to Pasha Murad, the new Grand Vizier, asking him to persuade the sultan to entrust him with the ‘voivodeship’ of Transylvania.

He did not received any reply from the grand vizier, or at least there is no record of any, whereas all Hungary was aware of the sultan's message to the other candidate for the throne of Transylvania, Bálint Homonnai: “‘I consider you worthy to fill King Stephen's place, from the day of his death, as King of Transylvania and Hungary.”

As the nobility considered the free election of a prince to be one of their basic rights, the candidacy of Homonnai prompted widespread outrage. The opposition was organized by Sigismund Rákóczi, whose appointment as governor dated back to the election of Stephen Bocskay, and he became also a candidate for the succession. Rákóczi quickly became the preferred candidate of Transylvania's nobility, and when the diet met at Cluj Napoca (Kolozsvár) in January 1607, it merely confirmed Rákóczi in his post as governor and declared that a new ruler would be elected after the late prince's burial. In the end the diet did not waited for the funeral, and elected Rákóczi prince on 9 February, 1607.

Although the election prompted great uproar outside Transylvania, it did not lead to tangible reprisals. Rákóczi was prepared to make major concessions to forestall any reprisals, and in the letter informing Pasha Muradon his election, he offered to reverse the greatest loss suffered by the Turks in the Fifteen Years' War: if the Porte suspended its support for Bálint Homonnai, he would return Lippa and Jenő.

Pasha Murad rejected the offer of Lippa and Jenő, saying that “all we expect of you is to be loyal to the mighty emperor”. In April 1607, Gábor Báthory proposed his own candidacy to Archduke Matthias, and he undertook to preserve Roman Catholicism in Transylvania, and even held out the promise of his own conversion.

In the spring of 1607, the haiduci were still restless, for no measures had been taken to secure their liberties and settlement, and their movement began to unfold in April 1607. In February 5, 1608, Gabriel Báthory signed a letter of alliance with them, where the haiduc captains Andras Nagy and János Elek committed themselves to support Gábor Báthory’s effort to seize control of the principality.

Their conditions were that Báthory to support Calvinism and to look after the settlement of the haiduci in the district around Oradea (Várad), Ecsed, and Kallo, thus mainly beyond the confines of Transylvania. Also Báthory would have to make Andras Nagy general of all the haiduci as well as his own second-in-command, and to appoint the preacher Mate Foktui councillor and to grant him a livelihood. Only a month later, on March 7 Andras was elected ruling prince of Transylvania.


Taler (1608)


3 groschen (1608)



Taler (1609)



3 groschen (1609)


Ducat (1610)


Groschen (1610)



Ducat (1611)


Taler (1611)


3 groschen (1611)


Groschen (1611)


Groschen (1612)



Ducat (1613)


Nottaler (1613)


3 groschen (1613)[/SPOILER]
[SPOILER=Gabriel Bethlen (1613-1629)]

During his reign was minted the highest amount of coins in Transylvania.

On 23 October, 1613, Gabriel Bethlen became Prince of Transylvania. Four days after Bethlen's election, Gabriel Báthory was murdered, reportedly by haiduci in the pay of Andras Ghiczy. They disposed of the corpse in the Pece brook.

The style of governance in Transylvania underwent radical change, as Bethlen introduced orderly and sensible administration. Despite his rational and sustained pro-Turkish stance, the newly elected Prince failed to develop harmonious relations with Constantinople. He obtained an athname from the sultan endorsing Transylvania's right to freely elect its prince, but this offered no guarantees and came with a price: in exchange for confirming Gabriel Bethlen as prince, the Porte demanded the transfer of Lippa and Jenő.

The claim put Bethlen in a quandary. Pasha Skender's forces were already encamped on the border, and the newly elected Prince could not risk an attack. He initiated negotiations in Constantinople, and the surrender the fortresses was postponed, but only until the spring of 1616, when he had to gave up Lippa to the pasha of Timișoara (Temesvár). The surrender of the fortress represented a low point in the history of Transylvania.

Bethlen reorganized the domestic economy and monetary system, all without the involvement of the diet. The estates occasionally debated the monetary reforms, but only after these had come into effect, and usually in order to request that the new currency be accepted for taxes. Otherwise, the Prince bypassed the estates in conducting the affairs of state, and in generating the resources necessary for the functioning of a modern principality.

The state forged by Gabriel Bethlen has earned divergent assessments. It has been characterized as absolutist, or a peculiar variant of feudal centralism. However, the prince clearly did not adopt the orthodox, western European model of absolutism. The most striking difference was in the Transylvanian model of taxation: the imposition of taxes without reference to the taxpayers' material circumstances sharply differentiates the Transylvanian political system from the typical forms of absolutism.


Ducat (1614)


10 ducat (1616)


10 ducat (1619)



Ducat (1620)


Taler (1621)


Ducat (1622)


3 kreuzer (1922)


Groschen (1625)


Breitgroschen (1626)


Ducat (1628)[/SPOILER]
[SPOILER=Catherine of Brandenburg (1629-1630)]

Catherine of Brandenburg was the wife of Gabor Bethlen. She was the ruler of Transylvania for a short while together with Stephan Bethlen, after the death of Gabor.


Ducat (1630)[/SPOILER]
[SPOILER=Stephen Bethlen (1629-1630)]

Stephen Bethlen, brother of Gabriel Bathlen, was the ruler of Transylvania together with Catherine of Brandenburg, until he became prince in 1630. He ruled only for a short while, from September 28, 1630 until December 1, 1630.


Ducat (1630)[/SPOILER]
[SPOILER=George I Rákóczi (1630-1648)]

George I Rákóczi was elected prince of Transylvania in 26 November, 1630. Rákóczi allied himself with Sweden and France against the Habsburgs and won religious freedom for protestants in Hungary. After the peace from Linz in 1645, he received Partium.


Ducat (1645)


1/2 gulden (1/4 taler) (1645)


Ducat (1646)[/SPOILER]
[SPOILER=George II Rákóczi (1648-1660)]

George II Rákóczi (January 30, 1621–June 7, 1660), was elected prince of Transylvania during his father's (George I Rákóczi) lifetime (19 February 1642). On ascending the throne (October 1648), he allied himself, in the beginning of 1649, with the Cossack hetman, Bohdan Khmelnytsky, Vasile Lupu of Moldavia and Matei Basarab of Wallachia to realize his father's Polish ambitions. He took Krakow and entered Warsaw as the ally of Charles X Gustav in 1657. But after his allies withdrew, his forces were defeated in July 1657 by the Polish army. The Transylvanian diet, at the command of the Porte, deposed him two times, but reinstated him each time. The Turks invaded Transylvania, and Rákóczi died at Oradea (Nagyvárad) of the wounds received at the battle of Gilău (Gyalu), in May 1660.



Taler (1650)


Ducat (1657)


Taler (1660)[/SPOILER]
[SPOILER=Achatius Barcsai (1658-1660)]Achatius Barcsai was elected as prince of Transylvania in October 7, 1658, imposed by the Ottoman Porte. He ruled only for a very short while. He minted only coins with high nominal value, all very rare.

Barcsai was one of Transylvania's governors when Rákóczi was away in Poland. In exchange for the princely crown, he agreed with the turkish Grand Vizier Ahmer Köprülü to pay an annual tribute of 40,000 gold pieces as well as war reparations in the amount 500,000 silver thalers. Other conditions was to cede Lugoj (Lugos) and Caransebeș (Karánsebes) to the turks, and to have Rákóczi seized.

He was accused of being self-seeking and power-hungry, but since no one could come up with a better solution, the Diet endorsed his appointment as prince on 7 October 1658.



Taler (1660)[/SPOILER]
[SPOILER=John Kemény (1660-1662)]

John Kemény was elected prince of Transylvania at January 1, 1661. He ruled only for a short while, The Ottoman Porte sent an army to impose Michael Apafi as prince, and Kemény died in the battle of Seleușu Mare (Nagyszőlős), in January 22, 1662.


10 ducat (1660)[/SPOILER]

[Daos]

[SPOILER=Michael I Apafi (1661-1690)]

Michael I Apafi (1661-1690) was imposed as prince of Transylvania by the Ottoman Porte. He was a weak ruler and his wife Anna Bornemissza was the one to take care of most of the country's business, together with chancellor Mihály Teleki. By nature, Apafi was more disposed to contemplate than to rule, and his true pleasures lay in reading and the study of clocks.

His realm consisted of small enclaves scattered among the strongholds of Turkish and imperial troops who numbered in the thousands. Apafi's attempts to consolidate a power base were hindered by the Turkish and Habsburg emperors as well as by competitors for the princely throne. He was fully aware that his rule extended over only part of Transylvania, but he intended to exploit the country's peculiar situation between two powerful nations to serve its best interests.

In the Battle of Seleușu Mare (Nagyszőllős), January 23, 1662 (now Vynohradiv, Ucraine) János Kemény was defeated and killed by the Ottoman army allied with Prince Apafi. Several of Kemény's supporters rallied to Apafi's side after the battle, and were rewarded with a high office: János Bethlen became chancellor, and Gábor Haller first councillor.

At the end of 1661 the grand vizier, Mehmed Köprülü died, and a struggle for the succession started. Emperor Leopold believed he could exploit the turmoil in the Ottoman leadership to re-annex Transylvania to the Hungarian Kingdom, and thus to his Empire.

On February 13, 1662, the Emperor issued a proclamation, according to which the situation in Transylvania is very "dangerous", and insisted that a large armed force to be stationed in Upper Hungary. Six thousand troops were dispatched to reinforce the Transylvanian garrisons, with orders to hold out to the last man.

In the end, the Hungarian diet was convoked so that it could turn imperial policy into law. Leopold's covert objective was to have the diet confirm by law what János Kemény had committed himself to, placing Transylvania under the suzerainty of the king of Hungary, i.e. the Habsburg Emperor. Concurrently, Vienna's resident envoy at Constantinople was instructed to negotiate an understanding with the new grand vizier, Ahmed Köprülü.

Paradoxically, the Leopold's Transylvanian policy turned out to be of use to Apafi. Ahmed Köprülü concluded that Apafi needed stronger support, and confirmed the prince's authority both in a letter from the grand vizier and in a firman, dated 2 March 1662, from the sultan.

They gave Apafi a free hand in domestic affairs, and the tribute was reduced. Meanwhile, Ali, the pasha of Timișoara (Temesvár), and the new pasha of Oradea (Várad), Mehmed Küchük, were instructed to seize the Habsburg-held fortresses in Transylvania, and the imperial garrisons surrendered Gurghiu (Görgény), then Făgăraș (Fogaras). The support of the turks came at a price: in late April Apafi and his troops had to join Mehmed Küchük for the siege of Cluj-Napoca (Kolozsvár).

Members of the Transylvanian estates, encamped near Cluj-Napoca (Kolozsvár), wrote to Palatine Wesselényi, asking him to persuade the emperor to withdraw the garrisons from Transylvania: “If the Turks siege the fortresses, the Christians will never get these back and our country will perish, and so will Hungary too.”

The Kemény party delegated Mihály Teleki to convey an alternative proposal to Leopold, asking the Emperor to either provide the military assistance necessary to drive the turks from Transylvania, or, if he preferred to make peace with the Porte, to obtain that the Kemény party return to power.

The Palatine and other Hungarian nobles also urged Vienna to make a choice: negotiate a peace and obtain the return of Oradea (Várad) in exchange for the withdrawal of garrisons, or to commit all necessary resources for a successful war against the turks.

With Count Ferenc Wesselényi's mediation Apafi reached an understanding with the Kemény party, and on September 5, 1663, Dénes Bánffy wrote to Teleki that Apafi is the best guarantee that "Transylvania would stand by Christendom".

In the meantime, the Porte government redoubled its efforts to obtain from the grand vizier a confirmation of peaceful relations, who set tough preconditions to negotiation: the emperor must definitively give up Oradea (Várad) and promise not to support a claim to the Transylvanian throne by any descendant of Rákóczi or Kemény.

Ahmed Köprülü and his troops set off from Hadrianopolis planning to convoke a diet at Pozsony and put Apafi on the Hungarian throne. The grand vizier dispatched a new proposal to Leopold, with obviously unacceptable terms, and without waiting for an answer, he marched on Buda. Although Apafi received specific instructions from the grand vizier to go to Hungary, he put off for months complying with the order, until Ahmed Köprülü sent a pasha to fetch the prince.

Apafi left to Köprülü's camp on 20 September, and left a triumvirate, consisting of István Petki, Pál Béldi and András Fleischer in charge of the country. After two days of meetings, Apafi, at the grand vizier's orders, sent off a manifesto to the towns and counties, promising personal freedom and security of property to all Hungarians who submitted to the turkish sultan. In the end, Köprülü's scheme did not worked.

In autumn 1663, the Confederation of the Rhine held a conference at Regensburg, and in drawing up their plans, the participants were counting not only on Venice, Poland, France, the Papal state and Russia, but on Transylvania and the Romanian principalities as well. And since Apafi had confirmed Transylvania's alliance with the Romanian principalities, it is almost certain that he was instrumental in associating Voivode Ghica with the anti-turk coalition.

Apafi played an exhausting double game. Ostensibly, he was preparing to oppose the coalition and support the grand vizir, who counted on Apafi's army as well as on those of the Romanian voivodes. In fact, he was coordinating his preparations with Hungary's politicians. In late May 1664, after lengthy preparations, the imperial and Hungarian armies launched their joint attack along a broad front near Oradea (Várad). After some successes on the battlefield, on October 2 Apafi received the surprising news: “The two emperors had made peace”.

The Turkish-Habsburg treaty represented a severe setback for Apafi's government. Hoping that the terms for Transylvania could be eased before the treaties were ratified, Apafi's government made approaches to both Emperor Leopold and the Ottoman Porte. After seven long years of warfare, a semblance of calm returned to Transylvania at the end of 1664.

After almost 20 years Apafi is again on the turks' side, at the siege of Vienna in 1683.

In the last eighteen months of his long reign, the Prince fought a deepening depression by escaping to his library and his collection of elaborate clocks. He died in April 15, 1690, at Făgăraș (Fogaras).


10 ducat (1662)


5 ducat (1662)


Hexagonal taler klippe (1663)


1/2 taler (1663)


1/2 taler (1666)


10 ducat (1670)


Taler (1672)



XII kreuzer (1672)


XII denars (1673)


Taler (1681)


Ducat (1688)[/SPOILER]
[SPOILER=Emerich Thököly (1682-1690)]

Born in September 1657, Emerich Thököly was the leader of the anti-Habsburg uprising from 1677. In 1682, he took the title of Prince of Transylvania, after the Ottoman Porte gave its approval. He was in war most of the time, and after Apafi died, the Ottoman Porte imposed Thököly as Prince. The Diet wanted Apafi's minor son to be the Prince, and Thököly with the help of the turks and Constantin Brâncoveanu came to Transylvania and defeated the Imperial army at Zărnești (Zernest). But after a short while, in October 1690 Ludovic of Baden forced him to leave.


Ducat (1690)[/SPOILER]
[SPOILER=Bergwerkspfennig]A special category of coins minted in medieval times in Transylvania are the mining pfennigs, usually mentioned in the literature as Bergwerkspfennig. These small, crude-looking coppers are all very rare.


Băiuț (Lápos-Bánya)


Dognecea (Dognaska Bánya)


Zlatna (Zalatna)[/SPOILER]

[Daos]

Through the Organic Regulations adopted in 1831 in Wallachia and in 1832 in Moldova stabilized the coinage used in the Romanian Lands: the Austrian guilder and a silver coin known to numismatists as the Zwainziger from Zwanziger, "twentieth", the Tyrolian kreuzer, worth 20 Veronese dinarii (in German Berner, in Latin denarii cruciati, cruciati meaning "crossed", from the cross on the coin).

As a recognition of unification, prince Alexandru Ioan Cuza wanted to mint a coin, to be called români or romanat following Ion Heliade Rădulescu. This proved impossible, given the amount of metal in the possession of his state and the power of the Ottomans, who did not accept that their vassal state should have its own currency.