Author Topic: BAHMANI SULTANS-Shams al-Din Muhammad Shah III, AR Tanka  (Read 1288 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline drnsreedhar

  • Meritorious Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 571
BAHMANI SULTANS-Shams al-Din Muhammad Shah III, AR Tanka
« on: November 01, 2016, 08:13:08 PM »
A Tanka of Muhammad shah-III Bahmani
« Last Edit: November 04, 2016, 08:11:22 PM by drnsreedhar »
Dr.Sreedhar

Offline capnbirdseye

  • Vic
  • Moderator
  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6 320
Re: BAHMANI SULTANS-Shams al-Din Muhammad Shah III, AR Tanka
« Reply #1 on: November 03, 2016, 03:39:26 PM »
Nice coin, date 877, I have only one silver Bahmani coin but lots of coppers
Vic

Offline EWC

  • Meritorious Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 807
Re: BAHMANI SULTANS-Shams al-Din Muhammad Shah III, AR Tanka
« Reply #2 on: November 04, 2016, 08:38:00 AM »
Nice coin, date 877, I have only one silver Bahmani coin but lots of coppers

And I would make a small wager that your silver coin is of Feroz........

My impression has long been that, whilst Gujarat and Malwa succeeded in maintaining a silver copper bimetalism, the Bahmanis essentially failed.  That impression was much strengthened recently reading stuff from Phillip Wagoner.  Apparently even Feroz failed to get his coining silver from normal monetary or fiscal channels – it was taken by force, confiscated – from the reserves of money changers.  Meanwhile the money changers themselves were holding their reserve cash in foreign gold coin, the Vijayanagar hons.

Fascinating stuff it seems to me; the Bahamani failures apparently prefigure, to some extent, the subsequent failure of the bimetallic silver/copper component of the Suri/Moghul currency early in the 17th century.

Perhaps we could add other similar monetary episodes - the failure of silver/copper bimetalism in England in the later 18th century, and even the collapse of a copper based fiscal system in China in the 15th century too?

Rob

Offline capnbirdseye

  • Vic
  • Moderator
  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6 320
Re: BAHMANI SULTANS-Shams al-Din Muhammad Shah III, AR Tanka
« Reply #3 on: November 04, 2016, 10:41:20 AM »
The date on this coin confuses me,    drnsreedhar has put the date as 888 but the last two digits appear clearly to me as sevens,  ???  if they are eights then they are rather disjointed
Vic

Offline drnsreedhar

  • Meritorious Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 571
Re: BAHMANI SULTANS-Shams al-Din Muhammad Shah III, AR Tanka
« Reply #4 on: November 04, 2016, 08:00:00 PM »
@ capnbirdseye, you are absolutely right. Sorry that I gave the date on the photo wrong. It is 877. This error crept into the photograph edited some time back and unfortunately it went without my notice.  Thanks for bringing it out and sorry for the inconvenience. ;D. In fact reign of  Muhammad shah III ended in 887. ( :'()
(I too am confused about the first "8" of the date. But there is no other way but assume it is "8".)

And I have modified the photographs. Thanks again.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2016, 08:13:17 PM by drnsreedhar »
Dr.Sreedhar

Online Figleaf

  • Administrator
  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32 701
Re: BAHMANI SULTANS-Shams al-Din Muhammad Shah III, AR Tanka
« Reply #5 on: November 13, 2016, 12:40:43 PM »
And I would make a small wager that your silver coin is of Feroz........

My impression has long been that, whilst Gujarat and Malwa succeeded in maintaining a silver copper bimetalism, the Bahmanis essentially failed.

Interesting observation. Here is some theoretical background.
If we start out by defining money as silver (or copper, that makes no difference), the amount of silver available for coins is determined by these factors:
  • Available stocks of silver (including worn coins)
  • Government budget income (includes taxes, plunder and confiscation)
  • Public mining
  • Trade balance
If available stocks and mines are not lost in war, worn coins and mining are constant. Plunder and confiscation also depend on war and emergencies. This reduces a ruler's options to increase the money supply (size of the economy) to war and trade. If the size of the population increases, failure to increase the money supply leads to social unrest, which leads to political instability. Someone should create an electronic game on this basis...

Now introduce the second metal. This instantly increases the potential money supply. The huge pitfall is the relative price of the two metals. If it is set by the market, it will oscillate. If the relation between coins of the two metals is set by the government, the situation will be unstable, one or the other metal being mis-priced. Some examples:

China: "copper" coins only. Silver bars go by weight and priced by the government. Gold is a commodity. Government sets the price of copper and major commodities ==> success, until foreigners arbitrage silver or gold out of the country.
The Republic: copper is fiduciary money, silver the standard, gold fluctuates against silver ==> success.
Britain 1: copper is fiduciary money, silver the standard, sovereigns fluctuate against silver ==> success.
Britain 2: copper is fiduciary money, silver the standard, gold pounds fixed against silver ==> gold coins are driven out of circulation and become a commodity.
Britain around 1700: increase in trade and population cause demand for silver to outstrip silver inflow (silver famine)
Napoleonic era Britain: copper coin is underpriced, silver the standard ==> official coppers are replaced by tokens.

Don't know enough about the situation in India, but I would expect they fit into the above.

Peter
An unidentified coin is a piece of metal. An identified coin is a piece of history.