Hi All, I'm doing some research on Byzantine coins and would like to know if anyone can clear up a few questions for me. In a book I am reading of a list of every byzantine gold issue minted in order of date the author begins with the byzantine gold coin of the emperor Arcadius (383-408) Constantinople mint I am a little confused on this; weren't their previously minted gold coins prior to this by the Romans. Specifically perhaps Constantine the great gold coins? Similarly the last gold coin Berk lists is an Andronicus 11 and Andronicus 111 (1283-1328) solidus The empire fell to the turks in 1452. Were there no gold coins produced from 1328-1452? If anybody can help clear this up for me it would be more than appreciated.
I know for the start, Constantine the Great isn't considered Byzantine. He was a Roman Emperor. That's why it starts where it did... otherwise it would start at Augustus, if not at the start of Roman Gold coins. I have no idea about the second question.
The later emperors only issued silver, no copper or gold. As to beginning of "Byzantine", most of us date it to the bronze coinage reform of Anastastius in the late 5th century, but Arcadius could be argued, since after him the empire was forever split east and west. Of course gold was issued by the Romans, and to be honest late roman gold looks exactly like early byzantine gold. But, as collectors we have to make some break. Always remember this break is our own invention, the Eastern Romans considered themselves Roman, and never heard of the name Byzantine.
Only occasionally does history cooperate with the neat little package theory that makes it easy to write high school textbooks. The Roman Empire did not fall in 476 AD any more than it began with a ceremony in 27 BC when Octavian became Augustus. Constantine can be considered the start of the Byzantine Empire because he moved the capital to Byzantium (old name) which he renamed Constantinople. Moving the capital does not make a new country. Theodosius I was the last Emperor to rule both East and West so some people make his son Arcadius the first Byzantine because he got the Eastern part (brother Honorius got the West so people think he was more Roman). Rome today is the capital of a country called Italy but in the time of Constantine and Theodosius there were several other places that were equally important and 'Rome' was the whole thing not just one town where it all began over a thousand years before. Numismatists often call Anastasius the first Byzantine because he instituted a major currency reform issuing big copper 40 nummi coins (the ones with an M on the reverse) that look nothing like anything the earlier Romans ever considered. As a coin collector I like that choice but you can pick your candidate or just be realistic and realize that the world is an analog place and rarely fits into neat little labeled boxes. Many people collect 'ancient' Byzantine coins and 'medieval' European ones that are several hundred years older than the later Byzantines. Some of these people also collect 14th century Russian wire money of Ivan the Terrible but call them 'Modern' because they come from a country that still exists. Confused? You probably should be.
Yup, kinda plays into the other thread why ancients and world are lumped togeether. We just need to convince Bing to broaden his horizons a little.
Thankyou for the insight. My question to medoraman was actually going to be why he considered Anastasius the beginning of Byzantium. With regards to your post; yes I'm more confused as ever. I have to do some more research and figure out what my exact definition of byzantium will be. It appears every publication has its own opinion as well
Thank you; your absolutely right. The actual name of the book I am looking at is called Roman Gold Coins of the Medeival World 383-1453 so I was wondering why they callled it Roman If you dont mind do you have any insight on my second question. Was the last Roman gold coin issued more than a hundred years before the fall of Constantinople to the Turks?
Yes,except for a few rare pieces. Luckily, they made a lot right before they stopped, so 14th century byzantine gold is not horribly expensive. Regarding the break, most of us accept Anastasius as it. Theoretically its debatable, but most everyone uses Sear's book.
Books cause a lot of problems. Why do so many people collect Domitian but not Nerva? Why do so many coin books break a volume between those two rulers? Why do some have a Caesar but no Antony (or Clodius Macer either)? All these are because Suetonius wrote a book called 12 Caesars.
Yes the Byzantine Empire is separate from the Roman Empire which continued in Rome during the Byzantine period. Even though separate they still were close allies. Constantine in my opinon could be considered both Roman and Byzantine but I would consider him more Byzantine. "Constantine can be considered the start of the Byzantine Empire because he moved the capital to Byzantium (old name) Read more: http://www.cointalk.com/t221980/#ixzz2Jo3kRz8G
