Money → , obsidional. [1] This name designates money → usually of base alloy, or any metal or other substance, that is created and struck during an unfortunate siege in order to supplement the money → that is in short supply, and to be received during the siege by the troops and inhabitants as signifying a specified intrinsic value. [2]

The large number of cities besieged during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries that struck these sorts of coins has supplied certain details to the research on their origin, purpose, and utility. It is certain that the practice of striking specialized monies in besieged cities to circulate during the siege must be a very ancient practice, because necessity inspired it. Indeed, since during such times these coins are received in trade at a price infinitely higher than their intrinsic value, they are a very great resource for commanders, for magistrates, and even for the inhabitants of the besieged city.

These sorts of monies give evidence of the calamities that produced them. They are of bad metal and crude workmanship. If a few are to be found with good silver and fairly well formed, ostentation played more of a role than necessity.

Their shape is not consistent. Some are round, some oval, and some square, others a lozenge, others an octagon, others triangles, etc.

The types of inscriptions have no fixed rules either. Some are marked on both sides, but that is rare. The others have only one mark. They often show the arms of the besieged city, sometimes those of the sovereign, and sometimes those of the governor, but it is more common to find the name of the city, either written in full or abbreviated, and other characters that indicate the value of the coin.

Since the curious have neglected to collect these monies , it would be difficult to write a thorough history of them. Nevertheless, the diversity of the obsidional coins that we have seen, the peculiarity of a few of them, and the facts that they relate to, could form the subject of an agreeable, novel, and interesting study.

The oldest obsidional monies we are aware of were struck at the beginning of the sixteenth century when François I went to war in Italy, during the sieges of Pavia and Cremona in 1524 and 1526. Three years later very similar ones were made in Vienna, Austria, when the city was besieged by Suleiman II [ sic , for Suleiman I]. Lukius describes a very unusual one struck by the Venetians at Nicosia, capital of the island of Cyprus, during the siege of that island by Selim II in 1570. [3]

Next, the first wars of the Dutch Republic provide a large number of these sorts of monies . We have some that were struck in Middelburg in Zeeland, in Harlem, and in Alkmaar in 1573. The city of Leiden alone made them with three different reverse sides during the glorious siege that it sustained in 1474 [ sic , for 1574]. [4] We have some from Schoonhoven the following year. But one of the most worthy of attention is that which the inhabitants of Kampen struck during the siege of 1578. It is marked on both sides. One sees on both sides the arms of the city, the name below, the year, and the indication of its value. Above, one reads these two words: extremum subsidium , last resource. This inscription comes fairly close to the name that these sorts of monies are given in Germany, where they are called coins of necessity . Those that were struck in Maastricht in 1579 are no less curious. But those that have been struck since then in similar circumstances evince nothing more unusual or more interesting.

It has been asked whether these sorts of monies , to have a legitimate circulation, need to be marked with the head or the arms of the prince on whom the city depends, and whether one or the other of these marks may be replaced with just the arms of the city, or those of the governor who defends it, and finally whether it is permitted for this governor or commander to have himself pictured on these sorts of monies . [5] I resolve all these questions by pointing out that obsidional coins are incorrectly called monies . Admittedly they take their place for a time, but in reality they should be viewed as mere tokens, and as public pledges of faith in the obligations contracted by the governor or by the magistrates in such cruel times as those of a siege. It therefore appears to make little difference in what manner they are marked, as long as they procure the advantages hoped for. It is a matter of adopting the best means to produce this result: salus urbis, suprema lex esto . [6]

Moreover, one must not confuse obsidional monies with medals struck on the occasion of a siege or its various events, or the capture of a city. They are entirely different things.

1. In English as in French, “obsidional” means of or relating to a siege, but the word is rare in both languages. Obsidional money → is more commonly called siege money → , or ← money → of necessity.

2. With the exception of the first paragraph, this article is an abridgement of the anonymous article “Des monnoyes obsidionales,” Histoire de l'Académie royale des inscriptions et belles-lettres, depuis son establissement jusqu’à présent, avec les Mémoires de littérature tirez des registres de cette académie 1 (1717): 282–285. The same volume was reprinted in 1736. The article summarizes research that the numismatist Claude Gros de Boze presented to the Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres in 1710.

3. Jean-Jacques Luck (Johann Jacob Luck), Sylloge numismatum elegantiorum, quae diversi impp., reges, principes, comites, respublicae, diversas ob causas, ab anno 1500 ad annum usque 1600 cudi fecerunt (Strasbourg: Reppianis, 1620), 234.

4. Jaucourt mistakenly transcribes “1574” as “1474.”

5. The question was especially sensitive because the images on coins typically represented the sovereign authority of the state. A city that minted ← money → with its own municipal symbols might therefore be accused of secessionism.

6. The Latin phrase reads: “The salvation of the city should be the supreme law.”