Austria [solved]

Hello,

I've noticed that Habsburg Austria was renamed to the Archduchy of Austria.

I believe this is inaccurate because the Archduchy ceased to exist in 1804, when Austria formally became an empire. This means that all the coins after 1804 don't belong to this issuer. I am happy to provide more references if needed, but I don't believe that there is any controversy about the proclamation of the Austrian Empire. 

If the confusion comes from the title of archduke that continued to exist after 1804, this was simply that: a title for the (many) senior members of the House of Habsburg. This is common practice, as we have today a Prince of Wales, but Wales hasn't been a principality since the 16th century. The Austrian emperor had the title of archduke, but many others had it too. For example, this John of Austria, who appears on the coins of Frankfurt. In fact, the title is still used today, for example by the King of Spain. This does not mean that the Archduchy of Austria still exists today.

I suggest that the three issuers for Austria are merged and ruling groups are defined for the distinct periods: Duchy, Archduchy, Empire, First Republic, etc. 

Thank you

Hello,

you are right, something is wrong. I just renamed it to Austrian Empire, with Archduchy being searchable, as it is common to show latest issuer title. There are many instances where title is hidden, for example Duchy of Bohemia etc..

Rulling authorities will reflect this as well.

Best regards,

Jarek

Why split them in the first place? True, Austria before 1918 covered a larger area and the precise definition gets a bit complicated but, numismatically, there's no real break. We used to split France at the revolution but that's gone. Why retain this split?

Jarcek

you are right, something is wrong. I just renamed it to Austrian Empire, with Archduchy being searchable, as it is common to show latest issuer title.

I am sorry, but I fail to see how my request to merge three issuers and add ruling groups was solved. The name was changed yet again, resulting in the coins pre-1804 being now incorrectly attributed to the Austrian Empire. At least the previous name, Habsburg Austria, was somewhat neutral. 

This was discussed three years ago here, and some consensus seems to exist:

https://en.numista.com/forum/topic87274.html#p780733

Jarcek

Rulling authorities will reflect this as well.

I also cannot see how the ruling authorities reflect this change in any way.

So is my request being rejected? It's not the first time I point out an error and I am told I am right but no fix is done. I fail to see any reason here. Isn't Numista still supposed to evolve and aren't contributors welcome to help with improvements? 

And may I at least get some feedback on why the Duchy is kept separate, but the Archduchy, Empire, and Austria-Hungary are together?

Hello again,

I clicked done button too soon. Rulling authority groups are indeed not yet set properly.

In the thread you mentioned, you wanted to split them even more…

I agree on merging duchy of austria into them, since it was left out as not being “Habsburg”. 

Split between Austria-Hungary and modern Austria was always retained due to massive area change - which is not the case with France.

Jarcek

 

Split between Austria-Hungary and modern Austria was always retained due to massive area change - which is not the case with France.

So why don't we split Hungary too?

We're happy to split one country into multiple sections when we feel like it but merge different names as if the old names never existed. This isn't the way to create a useful catalogue.

Jarcek

I agree on merging duchy of austria into them, since it was left out as not being “Habsburg”. 

Thank you

Jarcek

In the thread you mentioned, you wanted to split them even more…

I'm surprised that you bring this up. Indeed, that was my vote. But I was in a minority, so I was happy to submit to the majority and move on.

Still, either way works. But currently, it's a mix-up which is confusing.

 

Split between Austria-Hungary and modern Austria was always retained due to massive area change - which is not the case with France.

If this is the criterion, it's fine with me. But in this case, please split Hungary in 1918. It went down from 282K km² to 93K km² and had the same currency change as Austria. 

stratocaster

 

If this is the criterion, it's fine with me. But in this case, please split Hungary in 1918. It went down from 282K km² to 93K km² and had the same currency change as Austria. 

Please don't. One mistake is bad enough. Let's not compound the error. Neither country changed their currency until years later, so there's no numismatic grounds for either to be split.

ceh2019

Jarcek

 

Split between Austria-Hungary and modern Austria was always retained due to massive area change - which is not the case with France.

So why don't we split Hungary too?

 

We're happy to split one country into multiple sections when we feel like it but merge different names as if the old names never existed. This isn't the way to create a useful catalogue.

This is a good point. Hungary area was more coherent during the history, but I also see it as problematic issue, that something is split and something is not.

And while we are at Hungary - by guidelines “Only when the territory of an issuer suffers a sudden, significant, and long-term change, resulting in a discontinuity of its currency, then the change result in a different issuer. ” it should really be split at 1918. Currency was changed at 1918 for both countries, even though the naming was the same:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_korona https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_krone 

Jarcek

Currency was changed at 1918 for both countries, even though the naming was the same:

No it wasn't, there were changes due to new issuers but the currencies remained the same. We seem to be looking for excuses to continue with a bad idea here.

The currency was changed, at least in the sense that the name was changed for obvious reasons.

Österreichisch-ungarische Krone (1892 - 1918)
Österreichische Krone (1918 - 1924)

Please see article n. 206 - http://www.forost.ungarisches-institut.de/pdf/19190910-1.pdf It was decided in Treaty of Saint-Germain.

Sorry, my browser won't let me download that pdf. What was it that was decided?

ceh2019

Sorry, my browser won't let me download that pdf. What was it that was decided?

My browser won't let me copy it :D

I will search it again.

1. Within two months of the coming into force of the present Treaty, each one of the States to which territory of the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy is transferred, and each one of the States arising from the dismemberment of that Monarchy, including Austria and the present Hungary, shall, if it has not already done so, stamp with the stamp of its own Government the currency notes of the Austro-Hungarian Bank existing in its territory.

2. Within twelve months of the coming into force of the present Treaty, each one of the States to which territory of the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy is transferred, and each one of the States arising from the dismemberment of that Monarchy, including Austria and the present Hungary, shall replace, as it may think fit, the stamped notes referred to above by its own or a new currency.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/1920/3.html 

…shall replace, as it may think fit, the stamped notes referred to above by its own or a new currency.

Both issued their own notes, not a new currency.

Yes replaced Austro-Hungarian Krones by (first by stamping and then by issuing new notes) Austrian and Hungarian Krone respectively. So entirely new currencies. Even Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia both had Krone currency, but it was their own, new currency.

They were all independent continuations of the earlier Austro-Hungarian currency. Remember that Austria and Hungary continued to issue the same types of notes of the Austro-Hungarian Bank after the end of the Hapsburg Empire. There's nothing for either country to necessitate treating them as different states before and after 1918. Plenty of other countries have undergone radical changes in size without any change in governance (e.g., the Louisiana purchase), so a change in size is not a criteria for creating a new “country”.

They had to overstamp Austria-Hungary notes of Austria-Hungary Krone and those became either Austrian Krone or Hungarian Krone. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austro-Hungarian_krone#Over-stamped_Austro-Hungarian_krone Yes, Austria hoped to keep the Austria-Hungarian krone, but was forced to introduce its own in 1919.

Even if we accept that interpretation (which ignores a lot of what went on in the early days), that “change” happened in 1919, whereas the political change happened in 1918. We can't split based on two separate events.

Are there any problematic issues?

I really don't like all those splits or no splits, I'm collecting coins and want to be able to find a coin according to the country and year shown on the coin and not the rulers or whatever numista is calling it now. Maybe I'm just too simple minded?

Sjoelund

I really don't like all those splits or no splits, I'm collecting coins and want to be able to find a coin according to the country and year shown on the coin and not the rulers or whatever numista is calling it now. Maybe I'm just too simple minded?

Probably not, but maybe you are focused on coins where this seems obvious to you.

Personnally, doing massive edition work for frankish kingdom, carolingiam empire, french feudal etc I can say that I never have as simple as “country and date shown on the coin”.

Imo, Numista is amazing teamwork, gathering so much thinking into defining what is a monetary issue per se, on a span of thousands of years.

Compendium

Sjoelund

I really don't like all those splits or no splits, I'm collecting coins and want to be able to find a coin according to the country and year shown on the coin and not the rulers or whatever numista is calling it now. Maybe I'm just too simple minded?

Probably not, but maybe you are focused on coins where this seems obvious to you.

Personnally, doing massive edition work for frankish kingdom, carolingiam empire, french feudal etc I can say that I never have as simple as “country and date shown on the coin”.

Imo, Numista is amazing teamwork, gathering so much thinking into defining what is a monetary issue per se, on a span of thousands of years.

I admit that I do not go that far back in time with my collection, but please be careful that people like me can still find our modern coins mainly from the last 300 years in numista.

sure ! :)

Sjoelund

I really don't like all those splits or no splits, I'm collecting coins and want to be able to find a coin according to the country and year shown on the coin and not the rulers or whatever numista is calling it now. Maybe I'm just too simple minded?

No you're not simple minded at all. You express the fundamental purpose of a catalogue, something that has been forgotten too many times here. Numista is very good. If it wasn't, I wouldn't have started trying to make it even better.