Jump to content
CoinPeople.com

A Trip to Georgia


alexbq2

Recommended Posts

Just came back from a fun and fast pace trip to the Republic of Georgia. While there, I dropped by The Money Museum, and took a few pictures with my cell phone. A very nice little museum it was. Small, but very pleasant, and free:)

 

Here are a couple of my photos:

p26011002coins1810b.th.jpg

p26011003coinserakliism.th.jpg

 

 

nice photos, thank you for showing, did you have a chance to visit a numismatic club in Tbilisi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. These are from the time of Georgia as a Russian protectorate, and from the period of annexation by Russia (late 18th early 19th century).

 

Thanks! Didn't know that. Were there other Russian-annexed Central Asian states that had their own coinages in the 1800s?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately no. I did not have much time, and was mostly visiting friends and friends of friends - very hospitable people!

I can imagine how much georgian wine did you drink for these days :ninja:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks! Didn't know that. Were there other Russian-annexed Central Asian states that had their own coinages in the 1800s?

 

Yes. There was the Khanate of Khiva, Khanate of Khoqand, and the Emirate of Bukhara. They all had their own coins even though they were subjects of the Russian Empire. Khiva issued coins during Russian rule from 1875 until just before the revolution, then during their brief period of independence from 1917-1920, and even after they became Soviet controled. Khiva's name was changed to the 'Khwarezm Soviet Peoples Republic', and issued coin from 1920-1922. Bukhara also issued coins under Russian rule and during their self rule between 1917 and 1920, however under the Soviet order, they issued notes but not coins (none to my knowledge at any rate). Khokand issued coins for only two years under Russian rule in 1875 and 1876. One last note. Georgia is actually Transcaucasia, not Central Asia. Just a correction that's all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. These are from the time of Georgia as a Russian protectorate, and from the period of annexation by Russia (late 18th early 19th century).

 

:ninja:;)

 

It has no attitude to a theme, but I shall notice that "annexation" not absolutely correct word for expression of events. When the country before crash ;) also finds the potential savior it cannot refer to as "annexation". ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:ninja:;)

 

It has no attitude to a theme, but I shall notice that "annexation" not absolutely correct word for expression of events. When the country before crash ;) also finds the potential savior it cannot refer to as "annexation". ;)

 

As far as I understand the events, emperor Paul, after the death of Georgian king Eraklii II, reinterpreted the treaty that his mother (Catherine II) signed with the late king, and unilaterally annexed Georgia. It was, as I understand, a more or less peaceful annexation, and Georgia was in a state of civil "unrest" as various factions tried to claim the throne.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I understand the events, emperor Paul, after the death of Georgian king Eraklii II, reinterpreted the treaty that his mother (Catherine II) signed with the late king, and unilaterally annexed Georgia. It was, as I understand, a more or less peaceful annexation, and Georgia was in a state of civil "unrest" as various factions tried to claim the throne.

 

A Georgian king? There was no unified kingdom of Georgia already at that time, it fell apart before that. He was a king of only a certain part of Georgia. And it was probably Alexander I (the september 1801 manifesto) who "reinterpreted" that treaty, although Paul might have started the process, I do not know. The other parts were "annexed" separately. Anyway, these are murky waters and the whole thing was rather convoluted and its interpretation remains controversial, especially lately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Georgian king? There was no unified kingdom of Georgia already at that time, it fell apart before that. He was a king of only a certain part of Georgia. And it was probably Alexander I (the september 1801 manifesto) who "reinterpreted" that treaty, although Paul might have started the process, I do not know. The other parts were "annexed" separately. Anyway, these are murky waters and the whole thing was rather convoluted and its interpretation remains controversial, especially lately.

 

If there were no king Eraklii II of Georgia, who did Catherine the Great sign a treaty with? I do not know the details, and most certainly Georgian kingdom did not exactly match the shape of the modern day Republic of Georgia, but a kingdom and an independent state it was. And it was Emperor Paul who annexed it. His son Alexander confirmed the annexation.

 

At any rate, I’m not sure what this debate is instigated by (I certainly hope it is not influenced opinions issued by the Putin controlled media). You can easily look up the history of Georgia on the web. Here’s a Wiki link for instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_%28co..._Russian_Empire

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sorry to see what could have been a potentially interesting historical discussion quickly getting reduced to the media/wiki level. The real history of these events is interesting and has nothing to do with its modern interpretations no matter which side they come from. Ok, enough of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As you say, the real history of events was very complex and interesting. I’m sure that, as always many factions perusing many diverging interests played all sorts of roles, and nothing is black and white in history.

 

However, I am still puzzled why in this post which shows coins issues in Tbilisi by king Eraklii II after the time of his signing the treaty with Russia (coins bearing the imperial eagle), and coins that were issue at the modernized Tbilisi mint after the independence of the state was abolished, two notions were challenged:

1) Annexation of Georgia by Russia. (Note, I did not say occupation or conquest).

2) The existence or perhaps the legitimacy of a Georgian king?

 

BTW, my words were not “King of All Georgia” but “king Eraklii II of Georgia”. Vasili Shuiskiy did not have control of all Russian territories, but his coins do state “Great Prince and King of All Russia”, and we recognize him as such. Why not admit that king Eraklii was at least Georgian.

 

I do not see how or why either statement should have been disputed. Perhaps I am wrong, and I apologies in that event, but it seems to me that the current strained politics between Georgia and Russia have managed to seep into this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:ninja:;)

 

It has no attitude to a theme, but I shall notice that "annexation" not absolutely correct word for expression of events. When the country before crash :yes: also finds the potential savior it cannot refer to as "annexation". ;)

 

the material in this post referenced to russian/soviet propaganda literature using that language of a time the data/literature was issued;

the modern expression can differ from old propaganda data;

from above, russian speaking readers stay with annexation;

thank you again for showing the pictures ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there were no king Eraklii II of Georgia, who did Catherine the Great sign a treaty with? I do not know the details, and most certainly Georgian kingdom did not exactly match the shape of the modern day Republic of Georgia, but a kingdom and an independent state it was. And it was Emperor Paul who annexed it. His son Alexander confirmed the annexation.

 

At any rate, I’m not sure what this debate is instigated by (I certainly hope it is not influenced opinions issued by the Putin controlled media). You can easily look up the history of Georgia on the web. Here’s a Wiki link for instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_%28co..._Russian_Empire

 

 

:yes:

"wiki level" sounds fun altyn ;)

All history it did not refer to as annexation but as soon as the stomach became eampty we shall start up a word "rescue" ;) has turned to a word "annexation" :ninja: ..... This all clearly and explainably. What do you think today, there is an annexation at Georgia? (guess your answer is "NO", you would tell "NO" probably 300 years ago also) ......But in years 200 our grandsons will discuss annexation by US... and than again by other country..... etc....

....... so there is no annexion untill your stomach is full.... guess you got my point .... ;)

 

BTW, coins are good and rare, and these coins quite expencive in high grade. Always hot on big action houses :rofl:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

very nice person over here placed his post just to share his experience being recently in Georgia by the chance,

thank you so much again, keep it like it is,

the only one person besides myself seems to be appreciated this kind of share - as a proof - no one besides that person and myself said even thank you Alex, instead - buging concerning Georgia annexation and others, wikipedia is 3 steps behind of the nature of Georgia history, but Pakhomov and Kapanadze would be the best references !! :ninja:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very interesting topic. I do not know why there is such a fuss about rescue/annexation. Far as I remember, King Eraklii II was a king of two major parts(provinces) I can look up their names. He signed a treaty with EII wherefore he admitted being a vassal of Russia, and as a part of that treaty he was allowed to mint coins with his portrait and with Russian imperial attributes. As a result we have pretty rare issue with Georgian (i assume) inscription on one side and a crude Russian eagle on the other side of the coin. I think some of those are dated. I love the gold one in the photo provided. As I remember from reading it, in 1801 Paul I, not Alexander I, "rewrote" that treaty to allow Russia to send troops to Georgia, among other things.

 

Now, we can interpret theses events anyway we like. Same as Soviets taking control of Western Ukraine could be called rescue... Must remember that it is the victor that does the interpretation and destroys all documents to the contrary. To me, when a king calls himself a vassal of another king or emperor, annexation sounds about right. A bit to harsh for a rescue.

 

 

Alex, thank you for telling the story and showing the pictures (but you should work on your photo skills :-))

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can tell you it is very heady thing to Ukraine too. Always have to be careful who, what talk about since everybody have different opinion of Russia and USSR. I have friends that liked USSR days, others hated it, it is all in how it affected you that makes your position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alex, thank you for telling the story and showing the pictures (but you should work on your photo skills :-))

 

Yes, I was quite disappointed when I saw how the pictures came out. I did take them with only a cell phone camera, and the lighting was not always in my favor, and the museum employs wanted me out. Apparently, I showed up 20 minutes before their lunch break began.

 

I have a few more photographs, I will try to see if I can salvage anything. I need that CSI software that can enhance a single pixel into a full legible page of text. :ninja:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can tell you it is very heady thing to Ukraine too. Always have to be careful who, what talk about since everybody have different opinion of Russia and USSR. I have friends that liked USSR days, others hated it, it is all in how it affected you that makes your position.

 

I'm sorry, but this new avatar... Is it some sort of a Scottish marsupial?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...