Propaganda motives on coins

Dear community -

as Mrs. guter_riecher is a high school teacher, we have been looking for a more tangible alternative to analyzing election campaign posters in text books for her world history classes. I already have the 50 Kopecks and the "Worker & Farmer" Ruble from the twenties' Soviet Union, as well as some good examples of Prussian militarism, like the 3 Mark Prussia 1913. And of course the standard Nazi era coins in 2 and 5 Reichsmark.
Can you think of any other depictions expressing a country's Zeitgeist in a propagandistic sense? I think it would be important to have a coin of the actual period in history and not a modern commemorative. We want the students to be able to hold a true piece of history in their hands.

Thanks in advance.

How far back are you interested in having coins from?

The French Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars provide us with many examples of historically-linked coinage; you can trace the evolution of France and it's political history from an absolute monarchy under the Bourbons:



To a constitutional monarchy:


To a Republic:


To Napoleon's "Consulate" (reign as First Consul of the Republic):


To his First Empire:


and back to the Bourbons:


All in only 25 years, a quarter of a century!

But it seems like you want more from the 20th century, common coins from interesting time periods might include:
-Fascist-era Italy (1922-43/45)
-Republican and Civil War Spain (1931-36/39)
-Japanese puppet states (1931-45, banknotes from Japanese occupied territories are cheap)
-Vichy and Free France (1941-44)
-Russian Revolution and Civil War (1917-22, banknotes are more common)
-Weimar Germany (1918-33, hyperinflation notes are very cheap)

I wish your wife the best of luck in her class!

Thank you very much, CassTaylor. The 179* "Union Et Force" could be something to look into for me.
I don't have a specific time span that I am looking at, her classes start with the Greeks and Romans and end with German unification in 1989. She has been passing around some old roman denarius coins that I have and like I said, coins that depict Soviet workers and Hindenburg coins with swastikas. Also some of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (first society to include religious freedom in their constitution, so I learned).
Although I share your passion for beautiful coins, I'm afraid the kids aren't interested that much in typical "heads and tails" coins, so we are looking for something specifically memorable for a teenager.

Fascist-era Italy is a good hint!

Damned kids these days!

Well, in my experience most of my non-collector friends, whether my age or not, tend to only be interested in stuff that looks incredibly valuable (like gold coins), but you probably wouldn't be too comfortable letting your wife pass those around the classroom....

I suggest having low-value coins (bronze/copper/small silvers) directly related to a key topic to be passed around, e.g if you're doing a unit on the French Revolution a coin with the head of Louis XVI (even just a humble copper sous will do) will probably get some appreciation from people holding a real piece of that history in their hands. I did that exact same thing just a couple years ago in my own history class!

So some low-cost suggestions I have, from all across world history:
-East German pfennigs (aluminium, with the emblem)
-Prussian coins of any sort from between 1701 and 1871
-Spanish colonial reales/cobs
-Chinese cash coins
-WWII aluminium/zinc occupation coinage

USA $1 Eisenhover/Moon landing



USSR circulating commems



Communist era Romanian coins

Interesting coin from the Spanish civil war, republican coin, image speaks volumes with it's broken chains and book, a year after this coin was produced, Franco's nationalist party took control, this coin was resigned to history issued 1 year only

Citeer: "Iainmac"​
​Interesting coin from the Spanish civil war, 1938 republican coin, image speaks volumes with it's broken chains and book ( science i think?), a year after this coin was produced, Franco's nationalist party took control, this coin was resigned to history issued 1 year only

​

Citeer: "Iainmac"​
​Interesting coin from the Spanish civil war, republican coin, image speaks volumes with it's broken chains and book, a year after this coin was produced, Franco's nationalist party took control, this coin was resigned to history issued 1 year only

​Very true!

Fun fact, today the Spanish Republican movement still exists, and supporters of it fly the red-yellow-purple flag still in demonstrations (although most of it's support waned after 1975, when Juan Carlos I restored parliamentary democracy to Spain following Franco's death that year).

From a more numismatic angle, it is a coin type I am looking for still.

Apologies for posting twice, i was trying to edit and it appeared again damn!.

Citeer: "CassTaylor"​

Citeer: "Iainmac"​
​​Interesting coin from the Spanish civil war, republican coin, image speaks volumes with it's broken chains and book, a year after this coin was produced, Franco's nationalist party took control, this coin was resigned to history issued 1 year only

​​Very true!
​
​Fun fact, today the Spanish Republican movement still exists, and supporters of it fly the red-yellow-purple flag still in demonstrations (although most of it's support waned after 1975, when Juan Carlos I restored parliamentary democracy to Spain following Franco's death that year).
​
​From a more numismatic angle, it is a coin type I am looking for still.

​Thanks Cass, something i didn't know, love the image on this coin

Speaking of propaganda from another aspect. As the British suddenly started to réalisé they were quickly gaining control of a vast expanse in the sub continent from the early 1800s, they started showing that in the coinage that was issued. What better way than to style themselves after the prestige of the Moghuls

this first 1Mohur is a sly attempt to insert the crown into what otherwise looks like a typical coin
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces25883.html

After the rebellion of 1857 upon which control was transferred to Westminster from the east India company, Queen Victoria was declared “Empress of India”. This was a deliberate to claim the title of emperor of India as they were afraid that there could always be a Mughal claimant who could become a rallying point in the subcontinent once again to push the British out of India following the proclamation of the last Mughal king - Bahadur Shah Zafar, as emperor of India by the rebels. The Title was also important to demonstrate to the other 500+ local rulers of the pre eminence if the British , as was the case when the Mughals were at their peak. With the independence of India in 1947, the title was revoked and soon enough, the British empire crumbled. Today, Britain is mostly a shell of its former glory and as brexit demonstrates, is still trying to find its place in the world

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces25932.html

*Historian mode switched on*

At the risk of being an "Ackchually" post, India came under rule from the British Crown in London in 1858, yes, but Queen Victoria didn't receive the title until 1876 (hence the change in legend from VICTORIA QUEEN to VICTORIA EMPRESS). From what I've read it was also partly a political ploy by Disraeli (British PM) to curry favour with the Queen; mid-Victorian politics was essentially the Tory Disraeli going up against the Liberal Gladstone, whose party opposed the title on grounds of anti-absolutism (guess Napoleon still haunted British nightmares!).

*Historian mode switched off*

That bit about the mohur was fascinating though, I never even knew about these types. You do learn something new every day.

Citeer: "CassTaylor"​*Historian mode switched on*
​
​At the risk of being an "Ackchually" post, India came under rule from the British Crown in London in 1858, yes, but Queen Victoria didn't receive the title until 1876 (hence the change in legend from VICTORIA QUEEN to VICTORIA EMPRESS). From what I've read it was also partly a political ploy by Disraeli (British PM) to curry favour with the Queen; mid-Victorian politics was essentially the Tory Disraeli going up against the Liberal Gladstone, whose party opposed the title on grounds of anti-absolutism (guess Napoleon still haunted British nightmares!).
​
​*Historian mode switched off*
​
​That bit about the mohur was fascinating though, I never even knew about these types. You do learn something new every day.

​without doubt you are right, But at the risk of only understanding it from one side of history which of course you would have learnt. But as everything else related to the subcontinent, it’s only in the last three or four decades of scholarly research that more accounts of events of 1857 are coming out that tell it from the Indian side.
I purposely did not mention dates as it’s too clunky going back and sourcing it over the phone ;)

on another note of propaganda which fed into the colonial mindset of the British and I’m order to make the Indians feel even more subjugated, take a gander at the apparent scandal of Edward VII’s portrait. The poor man’s bald head was engraved in millions of coins for all the “subcontinent’s natives” to see and be completely distressed that their apparent emperor has no crown (maybe even no clothes?). So they had to quickly introduce a crowned effigy on the 1 Anna (and other denominations perhaps?). The British of course learnt their lesson; the natives cannot be burdened with the same portrait as the motherland. They had to be treated differently henceforth - uncrowned for British Citizens, crowned effigy for the colonies. Of course, to add to this, this was further cemented with the distinction of first among colonies viz those that were mostly white which could handle the privilege of an uncrowned effigy. One might think this would rather be so trivial, but hey, we’re talking about propaganda through coins after all ;)

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces1620.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces4853.html

Here's a low cost example from Chile:

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces3761.html

It was a coin from the Pinochet era commemorating the liberation from Allende's marxist regime in 1973. That's at least how the right-wing movement of the time saw it.

After Pinochet withdrew from power the original Chilean motive with a condor returned.

Citeer: "ashlobo"​on another note of propaganda which fed into the colonial mindset of the British and I’m order to make the Indians feel even more subjugated, take a gander at the apparent scandal of Edward VII’s portrait. The poor man’s bald head was engraved in millions of coins for all the “subcontinent’s natives” to see and be completely distressed that their apparent emperor has no crown (maybe even no clothes?). So they had to quickly introduce a crowned effigy on the 1 Anna (and other denominations perhaps?). The British of course learnt their lesson; the natives cannot be burdened with the same portrait as the motherland. They had to be treated differently henceforth - uncrowned for British Citizens, crowned effigy for the colonies. Of course, to add to this, this was further cemented with the distinction of first among colonies viz those that were mostly white which could handle the privilege of an uncrowned effigy. One might think this would rather be so trivial, but hey, we’re talking about propaganda through coins after all ;)
​

Hmm, that's interesting. I never actually thought about why colonial coins tend to be the ones with a crowned bust. It's a trend that continued until midway through QEII's reign (the 1970s-ish), when the Machin bust started being used on the coins of what few colonies there were left by then. You may be onto something there, subtle but something nonetheless.

I'm not sure if this is reading into it too deep, but consider some colonies didn't even have an effigy of the monarch; think British West Africa, New Guinea, and the lower denomination British East Africa, Fiji and Southern Rhodesia coins.​ It's literally just the crown, and a monogram/the monarch's regnal name and titles. Maybe it's just because of the holed nature of those coins, but I'll leave it up to any readers to choose how interpret that design choice personally.

Citeer: "CassTaylor"​

Citeer: "ashlobo"​​on another note of propaganda which fed into the colonial mindset of the British and I’m order to make the Indians feel even more subjugated, take a gander at the apparent scandal of Edward VII’s portrait. The poor man’s bald head was engraved in millions of coins for all the “subcontinent’s natives” to see and be completely distressed that their apparent emperor has no crown (maybe even no clothes?). So they had to quickly introduce a crowned effigy on the 1 Anna (and other denominations perhaps?). The British of course learnt their lesson; the natives cannot be burdened with the same portrait as the motherland. They had to be treated differently henceforth - uncrowned for British Citizens, crowned effigy for the colonies. Of course, to add to this, this was further cemented with the distinction of first among colonies viz those that were mostly white which could handle the privilege of an uncrowned effigy. One might think this would rather be so trivial, but hey, we’re talking about propaganda through coins after all ;)
​​

​Hmm, that's interesting. I never actually thought about why colonial coins tend to be the ones with a crowned bust. It's a trend that continued until midway through QEII's reign (the 1970s-ish), when the Machin bust started being used on the coins of what few colonies there were left by then. You may be onto something there, subtle but something nonetheless.
​
​I'm not sure if this is reading into it too deep, but consider some colonies didn't even have an effigy of the monarch; think British West Africa, New Guinea, and the lower denomination British East Africa, Fiji and Southern Rhodesia coins.​ It's literally just the crown, and a monogram/the monarch's regnal name and titles. Maybe it's just because of the holed nature of those coins, but I'll leave it up to any readers to choose how interpret that design choice personally.

​even the 1 pice George VI is just the crown. I think in those cases, it was just a pragmatic solution. I believe it was George V who was very keen on this crown vs uncrowned effigy distinction. If I’m not mistaken, Edward VIII not only wanted to go against the grain on facing the “right” way, he also wanted to leave it to the “people” in the uk and the colonies as to which bust they would like. Alas, it was only QEII that belatedly made that happen

Citeer: "Iainmac"​Apologies for posting twice, i was trying to edit and it appeared again damn!.

​You probably clicked on the "quote" button in stead of the "edit" button and then a new post appears.