Reunite Austria (and also Germany, China, France...)?

Hello,

We used to divide countries with many coins like Austria into multiple "issuers" in order to better differentiate the eras: Austria and Austria - Habsburg. The same applies to some more countries, including Germany, France and China.

At the time it was done, Numista didn't have any way to represent periods of time. This is not the case anymore since the introduction of ruling authorities, which can themselves be grouped into bigger eras, dynasties, etc. Here is an example for the coins of England, which has several rulers, divided into several houses.



What do you think about merging Numista "countries" like "Austria" and "Austria - Habsburg" into a single country "Austria"? In the list of ruling authorities, we would still clearly show 2 groups: Habsburg and Republic.

Should we also do the same for France (France - Modern, France - Royals), China (China - Empire, China - Republic, China, People's Republic of) and Germany (Germany - 1871-1948, Germany - Federal Republic)? Do you see other countries which should be reunited? Conversely, do you see exceptions which should better stay separated?

I agree that all that you mentioned should be reunited.

Will a ruling authority still be listed even if no coinage was issued under their rule?

Hi

Sounds like opening a pandora box . We need to decide the standpoint in time, it would be easiest to take today as a standpoint.

If Habsburg and Republic are joined, then we should also join Falkland islands, Gibraltar, Bermuda, Anguilla, British Virgin Islands, Caymans, Montserrat and others under British Overseas Territories or under UK itself.

LP

PS: Don't angry those who push towards 300 countries coin club, hehe....

Sorry for the provocative title. I don't mean to group all issuers, but rather using the dedicated feature to distinguish eras rather than mis-using the notion of country or territory.

Gibraltar and Bermuda never had a common piece of territory and there are different coins issued for each of these territories. I don't think it would make sense to unite them.

On the other hand, the French kingdom and modern France mostly share the same territory. The territory of Austria varied more, but you are still mostly talking about the same place when referring to Austria and Austria - Habsburg.

I agree, you named most striking examples, where we have more issuers while continuity is clear (France Royal and France Modern, Austria - rather in sense of merging Austria duhy and Austria Habsburg, I am not sure of Germany though, due to their East/West divisions.

I do not see how it may add value to the Numista...

Quote: "Xavier"​Sorry for the provocative title. I don't mean to group all issuers, but rather using the dedicated feature to distinguish eras rather than mis-using the notion of country or territory.
​
​Gibraltar and Bermuda never had a common piece of territory and there are different coins issued for each of these territories. I don't think it would make sense to unite them.
​
​On the other hand, the French kingdom and modern France mostly share the same territory. The territory of Austria varied more, but you are still mostly talking about the same place when referring to Austria and Austria - Habsburg.

​I would love to have this done...as someone with Austria and Habsburg as well as different German period coins. Great idea!

I have always found it strange that Austria - Habsburg is listed as its own country, so I would support merging that place.

I would not support merging Germany though. As Jarek mentioned, there was the East / West division, which seems to be a major change to me. Although, I must also say, I have never been a fan of the name Germany - 1871-1948. It just... does not seem like a proper name (I would prefer German Reich, but that disculdes Allied-occupied Germany, so I am not sure what a better change would be).

China... I do like how that place is currently divided, but if it were to get merged, I would suggest keeping the People's Republic of China as its own issuer for the sake of Taiwan.

France - Modern and France - Royals... I would support a mergery there, although I would like to see the Merovingians and Carolingian split before that happens (well, I would like to see both moved under the same issuer Kingdom of the Franks--on Numista, as far as I have found, they are the last confirmable Germanic tribe who issued coins, so I'd like to see them listed in the Ancient section with the rest of them).

Hello.
I know such a country, this is Russia. This is an artificial division of the empire and the Soviet Union. Krause, for example, does not divide Russia. Here, for example, this is not shared either:

https://en.ucoin.net

However, I do not even advise anything, perhaps the current situation is quite normal.

It is not normal, just numista did not have good division system before.

Hello,

It is probably fine to merge the 2 components of Austria, using the new features to make the list clear.
We could also merge in the same Austria the 3 "states" duchies of Austria, Styria and Carinthia which were quite early joined to Austria. Then we get something starting in thoery in 976 with the Babenberg.
Tyrol is probably different since it was a specific branch of the Habsburg family.

Though it does not solve at all the spatial aspect of the country names. Current Austria has little to do with what was the Habsburg area, and coins under Austria with mint marks A B C etc include mintage from Bohemia, Hungary etc, whereas older coinage is in the corresponding territory.

Worth a try

There is a lot of countries in Numista that are actually periods. Now we can move them to the ruler/period system.

Dahomey is a former name of Benin.
Congo Free State, Belgian Congo and Zaire are periods of Democratic Republic of Congo.
French Somaliland, French Afars and Issas are periods of Djibouti.
Italian Eritrea is a period of Eritrea.
Gold Coast is a former name of Ghana.
Ruanda-Urundi is a former name of Rwanda-Burundi.
South Africa - Pre-Union is a period of South Africa.
Southern Rhodesia and Rhodesia are former names of Zimbabwe.

British Honduras is a period of Belize.
United States - Pre-Federal is a period of United States.

Russian Caucasia is a period of Armenia.
China Empire, China - Republic and People's Republic of China are periods of China.
Netherlands East Indies is a period of Indonesia.
British Palestine is a period of Israel.
Malaya, Malay peninsula and Straits Settlements are periods of Malaya.
Muscat and Oman is a former name of Oman.
Ceylon is a former name and medieval Lanka a period of Sri Lanka.
Portuguese Timor is a period of Timor-Leste.
Empire of Vietnam is a period of Vietnam.
Mutawakkilite Kingdom is a period of Arab Republic of Yemen.

Austria - Habsburg is a period of Austria.
Austrian Netherlands is a period of Belgium.
Bohemia and Moravia and Czech Republic are periods of the same country.
Kingdom of Bosnia is a period of Bosnia Herzegovina.
Second Bulgarian Empire is a period of Bulgaria.
France - Modern and France - Royals periods of France.
Kingdom of Georgia a period of Georgia.
Germany - 1871-1948 and Germany - Federal Republic are periods of Germany.
Burgundian Netherlands, Spanish Netherlands, Batavian Republic, Dutch Republic, Kingdom of Holland are periods of Netherlands.
Kingdom of Poland is a period of Poland.
Russia - Empire and USSR are periods of Russia.
Kingdom of Serbia and Empire of Serbia are periods of Serbia.

Australia - Colonial is a period of Australia.
French Oceania is a former name of French Polynesia.
New Hebrides is a former name of Vanuatu.

I can agree on most, especially when there is a clear continuity - British Honduras and Belize is quite an example of that.

As borders change, there are former countries which included more than one present-day country in their territory, so it makes more sense to make historical periods shared between multiple countries (as it is done in uCoin). For example, Yugoslavia can be considered as a period of Serbia, Croatia, and others; USSR as a period of Armenia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Ukraine etc.

Hello,

Xavier, is there a chance that this happens in a not too far future for Austria ?
Just because there is some work needed on rulers that would better wait for such a change.

Best regards.

You will have a problem in your search by catalog numbers. The duplication of catalog numbers when you have joined so many national entities into one will make numista less convenient and maybe less relevant. That is my concern.

Quote: "Oklahoman"​You will have a problem in your search by catalog numbers. The duplication of catalog numbers when you have joined so many national entities into one will make numista less convenient and maybe less relevant. That is my concern.

​Can you give an example? I usually search by catalog numbers, and already get "duplication" frequently, but the search results always provide enough contextual detail for me to find what I'm looking for.

eg, I now search for "KM# 11" under country "Austria" and I see 4 coins found (sample below). How many more do you fear we might see? Am I properly understanding your concern?

Thanks,
Dan

Austria › Austrian states › Burgau, Margraviate of • Austro-Hungarian Gulden (1754 - 1857)
10 Kreuzer - Maria Theresia
1764-1765
Silver (.500) • 3.9 g • ⌀ 24 mm
KM# 11, Her# 1179-1180

Austria › Austrian states › Salzburg, Bishopric of • Thaler
1 Pfennig - Markus Sittikus von Hohenems
1612-1619
Silver • 0.36 g • ⌀ 13 mm
KM# 11, Zöttl# 1219-1227

Austria › Austrian states › Trautson, Counts of • Thaler
2 Thaler - Paul Sixtus I
1618
Silver • 57.5 g
KM# 11.2, Dav EC IV# 3421

Austria › Austrian states › Windisch-Gratz, Counts of • Thaler
½ Thaler - Joseph Nicolas
1777
Silver • 13.5 g • ⌀ 35 mm
KM# 11

Quote: "Oklahoman"​You will have a problem in your search by catalog numbers. The duplication of catalog numbers when you have joined so many national entities into one will make numista less convenient and maybe less relevant. That is my concern.

​Hello,

I don't think it will be that bad for Austria.
There are not that many entities pooled in that case. Indeed with low KM numbers, you will get a some of the States that minted few coins. Try KM#1
But it is much worse for the German States that are already united.

I think it may improve quite a bit the early parts of the catalogue (for which there is no risk of confusion because there is no KM#, prior the 16xx ) .

For the case of Germany - 1871-1948, my opinion is that it would make more sense to either:

1) Divide it into several issuers and then assign rulers to each one of them, something like this:

German Empire
Rulers: Wilhelm I (1871–1888), Friedrich III (1988)**, and Wilhelm II (1888–1918)

Republic*
Rulers: Republic (1918-1933)

Nazi Germany
Rulers: Third Reich (1933-1945), Allied Occupation (1945-1948)

or...
2) Keep the big issuer 'Germany - 1871-1948' but rename it to 'German Empire'* and add rulers to it:
Wilhelm I (1871–1888)
Friedrich III (1988)**
Wilhelm II (1888–1918)
Weimar Republic* or Republic (1918-1933)
Third Reich (1933-1945)
Allied Occupation (1945-1948)

Notes:

* The Weimar Republic designation was not official, the name kept being 'Deutsches Reich'
** There were no coins issued for F. III, so I guess we can remove it from the list

Here's a visual I made using the standard circulation coins (to make sense of that period of time):

If we separate into time periods using the name of the ruling party, will we use their English and French spellings on the different Numista pages? Will we cross reference it to the way they used the name in the governed country?

Will we have "countries" and "periods", like the current division into "countries" and "issuers"?

Will we have different map views for different centuries since different time periods had different borders?

Thanks!

Quote: "Abasurto"​For the case of Germany - 1871-1948, my opinion is that it would make more sense to either:
​
​1) Divide it into several issuers and then assign rulers to each one of them, something like this:
​
​ German Empire
​ Rulers: Wilhelm I (1871–1888), Friedrich III (1988)**, and Wilhelm II (1888–1918)
​
​ Republic*
​ Rulers: Republic (1918-1933)
​
​ Nazi Germany
​ Rulers: Third Reich (1933-1945), Allied Occupation (1945-1948)
​
​or...
​2) Keep the big issuer 'Germany - 1871-1948' but rename it to 'German Empire'* and add rulers to it:
​ Wilhelm I (1871–1888)
​ Friedrich III (1988)**
​ Wilhelm II (1888–1918)
​ Weimar Republic* or Republic (1918-1933)
​ Third Reich (1933-1945)
​ Allied Occupation (1945-1948)
​
​Notes:
​
​* The Weimar Republic designation was not official, the name kept being 'Deutsches Reich'
​** There were no coins issued for F. III, so I guess we can remove it from the list
​
​Here's a visual I made using the standard circulation coins (to make sense of that period of time):
​

​https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces21786.html ?

In general I am in favour of having smaller entities and a more flexible system of linking them.

For name changes (e.g. Benin / Dahomey):
I would keep separate. If Dahomey is a "period" of Benin, I won't be able to find it when I type "Dahomey" in the search box. And search is a key functionality for me.

For major political / territorial / organisational changes, also keep separate:
(Kingdom of Bulgaria / Bulgaria; USSR / Russia; Austria, Germany, France etc)
Even if there is historic continuity, I don't think that today's Austria and the Archduchy of Austria of the 1500s are the same "country" (a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory).

For minor political changes with no territorial changes, I think rulers work okay.
(eg. Socialist Republic / Popular Republic / Republic).

best
strato

Hello Strato,

I don't agree with your first point, especially when the change of name is not related to any major change of the country (e.g. Swaziland / Eswatini). They are still the same country.
For your concern about the search:

• Period names are searchable with the simple search (this has just been added, fully effective starting tomorrow)
  
• The simple search understands that "Swaziland" and "Eswatini" mean the sale thing (same applies for "Great Britain" / "United Kingdom", "Ceylon" / "Sri Lanka", "Falkland" / "Malvinas", "Burma" / "Myanmar", and I'm happy to add more if needed).
  

I also know some people would like to have both names in the country (and more alternative names) in the country list and in the country dropdown list", but that's not related to search (https://en.numista.com/forum/topic88593.html)

Your second point looks valid, it's just a different point of view. How "big" the political change should be to justify a new country?

Quote: "druzhynets"​

Quote: "Abasurto"​For the case of Germany - 1871-1948, my opinion is that it would make more sense to either:
​​
​​1) Divide it into several issuers and then assign rulers to each one of them, something like this:
​​
​​ German Empire
​​ Rulers: Wilhelm I (1871–1888), Friedrich III (1988)**, and Wilhelm II (1888–1918)
​​
​​ Republic*
​​ Rulers: Republic (1918-1933)
​​
​​ Nazi Germany
​​ Rulers: Third Reich (1933-1945), Allied Occupation (1945-1948)
​​
​​or...
​​2) Keep the big issuer 'Germany - 1871-1948' but rename it to 'German Empire'* and add rulers to it:
​​ Wilhelm I (1871–1888)
​​ Friedrich III (1988)**
​​ Wilhelm II (1888–1918)
​​ Weimar Republic* or Republic (1918-1933)
​​ Third Reich (1933-1945)
​​ Allied Occupation (1945-1948)
​​
​​Notes:
​​
​​* The Weimar Republic designation was not official, the name kept being 'Deutsches Reich'
​​** There were no coins issued for F. III, so I guess we can remove it from the list
​​
​​Here's a visual I made using the standard circulation coins (to make sense of that period of time):
​​

​​https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces21786.html ?

​You are right, F III. has coins issued. Either way, I don't think that doesn't matter much for the point made.

Quote: "Xavier"​this has just been added, fully effective starting tomorrow

Ah this is great then! in this case, I agree it's not necessary to split. And I'll give the new feature a spin.

Quote: "Xavier"​​​Your second point looks valid, it's just a different point of view. How "big" the political change should be to justify a new country?

​Yes, totally! just my opinion and I understand I'm a minority. I suppose how "big" is a subjective question depending on how deep we want to look into history.

We probably all agree that Ancient Rome should be separate from Italy. I would also like to see the Roman Republic separate from the Empire. In my view, in general, multinational states (i.e. empires, but not only) should be separate, as they are quite fundamentally different to single-nation states.

Personally, I would even go further and divide Archduchy of Austria / Austrian Empire / Austria-Hungary. I really like being accurate and all the technicalities of history.

In the end, if there is an easy way to find the coins, it doesn't matter so much for me if it is a Period or an Issuer.