Why do we see more gold coins for the later Roman periods than earlier?

If I ever go to sell a gold coin from this period I will definitely use this as a marketing tactic, ha!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Well, another huge aspect regarding lack of silver coin production in the later empire and during the Byzantine era is the Silk Road. The Silk Road ran on silver coinage nearly exclusively. All tolls across it were payable in good silver, all import and export duties for China were payable the same. Basically China and to a lesser extent India demanded good silver in exchange for all of those luxury goods the Roman's couldn't live without.

Thus is seen in the coinage of others. Persia always made good quality silver coins. They never debased them since their main revenue was from tolls of the Silk Road, so why debase the coins when you would debase your own revenue. Persian silver was so predominant this is the reason most other civilizations never made their own silver coins, Persian ones were so common why make your own?

Roman silver coins were common on the Silk Road when they were of good quality, but when they debased them the Persian merchants demanded pure silver bars instead to strike their own good coinage. Thus was a constant drain of silver from the Roman's for centuries.

 

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/...ra-of-christianity/constantius-ii-337-361-ad/

Constantius II "reformed" the siliqua by reducing the weight in 356/7. It's unknown why but maybe it had to do with his costly war against Magnentius in 350.

Constantius II AR Pre Reform Siliqua struck 340-355 CE
3.18 grams
Constantinople mint


Post reform

Struck by Constantius II between 357 and 361 CE.
Constantius II AR Siliqua
2.23 grams
PCON (Arles) mint
17mm

 

Thanks for the link. Hard to decide. We are talking about early in the century of course, before the later reductions. There are a good few coins in your link at or close to the 3.4g mark. So how to test whether the others are clipped or struck low? I have ideas on this - but will wait to see what others say

Rob T

 

I enjoyed Kenneth Harl's book. Helped me get an overall understanding, and a foundation as to how the money changed.

Roughly, 500+ years of a reasonably stable Denarius, then when it went kaput, the Empire faltered. I felt it was for approx 200 CE onward that government policy got worse and worse... an accumulation of too much personal gain over many years...



And, I got this guy, cuz of the scarcity of Silver during the latter period of the Empire.

Funny how all the gold was available in the latter part of the Empire, but it seemed to all go to pay tribute to everyone else. Perhaps that is why gold was so plentiful...


BZ Romanoi
Andronicus II - Michael IX
CE 1295-1320
AR Basilikon
22mm 2.1g
Constantinople
Christ enthroned -
Andronicus l Michael r labarum
DOC V 1 Class VIII

 

The two siliqua I own, issued by Julian II and Valens, weigh 2.2 and 2.0 grams, respectively. Neither shows any signs of having been clipped.

 

I took a look at one of my Siliquae, Constantius II, 348 AD, London mint.
It’s 17 mm and 2.04g.
It has clearly been clipped, but how much? The whole legend is there, with margins. The coin can’t possibly have lost 1.35g.
It seems the clipping has been a very common occurance. If authorities have had little control of clipping by sanctioning it in some way, I guess the market has gotten used to a set standard not being followed. This may have tempted local authorities to reduce weight at the mints, because «the coins are never standard anyway.»
I don’t know either. But there is little to suggest that a 3.4g silver coin was the typical coin of the 4th century economy.

 

Where do I remember reading somewhere about "heavy" or 1.5 siliqua? Anyone else remember such a thing? I have too many books I cannot recall which one postulate two different siliqua denominations, mainly do to the existence of some heavy issues.

 

@medoraman
Yeah, so while Constantius II reduced the weight of the siliqua to 144 to a Roman pound, there were sporadic issues of coins that were heavier than the standard 2.25 grams that were not miliarenses( ceremonial issue coins). It’s really confusing as there were at least 3 different circulating silver coin types for the period.

I have a rare one from Valens that is technically listed as an argenteus.

Valens
AR Argenteus or heavy siliqua
2.7 grams
364-376 CE

 

As Ancient Coin Hunter mentioned many of the late Roman solidi were intended for barbarian tribute. This accounts for why so many, relatively speaking, have survived in excellent condition to modern times; they were immediately hoarded away by the recipients and never used as a circulating currency.

 

There was a variety of different silver types early in the reign of the Constantines. There was a silver multiple of 4 siliquae, silver multiple of 2 argentei (Sear questions himself with the argentei denomination), silver miliarensis of 1 1/2 siliquae, and a heavy miliarensis of 5.4g.
There is variation in the bronze coinage too; heavy majorina, light majorina, and I don't know if we're sure what to call the lesser denominations.
Here are two other siliquae. They are both closer to legitimate.

 

The gold coinage is really plentiful for the 5th and 6th century, mostly because there were multiple reasons for hoards being hidden and lost during the migration period and continuous periods of conflict. The siliquae are not continuously rare -- The siliquae of the 350s, 360-370s are usually what you expect to find when browsing dealer inventories. This corresponds with Constantius II's campaign against Magnentius, the Gallic wars and Julian's offensive against the Persians and the relationship with the Thervingi in the 370s. I think that a large input of precious metal -- gold and silver -- issues for the late empire should be related to imperial needs, mostly military campaigns and payments towards foederati and/or the warring tribes on the limes, while the common economic needs were addressed by an almost unlimited output of base metal coinage. That's why you don't see much of Magnentian gold and silver (nor Vetranian) but lots of Constantius II dating from that particular civil war era, coupled with a cornucopia of AEs of all shapes and sizes.

 

Is it just me or does anyone find it odd how many of these listings are without the name of an issuing authority? Were the quoted sales under a header that was not repeated for each coin?
Mine is quite like a Berk listing on that page that says the coin is African copying Honorius but many listings lack that much.


It is recorded that Theodosius II paid a huge tribute to the Huns in gold. The most common solidus of the period dates to the time of that payment but I have never heard if the payment was in the form of coined money or bars. It would be cool to have a coin that once belonged to Attila but I have no idea how much of the total gold minted that year would be required to add up to that payment. Another thing is that I see more gold coins of the late period that have been removed from use in jewelry (ancient or modern). I suspect many of those coins were spared melting because they were mounted. How long has it been since the coin market would pay only melt for solidi of no particular merit?

Theodosius II solidus 443 AD, 4.2g (about $215 melt today?) ex. jewelry

 

That’s solid provenance.

 

700 pounds of gold annually to Attila and Bleda from the coffers of Theodosius II. Since the solidus was struck at 72 to the pound this represents 50,400 solidi per annum. For comparison's sake, the Magister Militum per Orientis was paid 1,200 solidi per annum. Given the economic struggles of the period for the layperson Attila's haul amounts to an almost unimaginable fortune. It is also known that the parsimonious Anastasius, an accountant by nature, left the treasury 23 million solidi upon his death.

 

ex-CNG, ex-Attila collection!

 

As for the later Palaeologan gold coinage, it seems that it was so plenty at the time and long afterwards, that it was deemed unfit for coin collectors to the 20th century and large numbers of hyperpyra were melted by finders and merchants even after the fall of the Ottoman Empire well into the 1920s. I think that Lord Grantley mentions this somewhere.

 

Thanks. Elementary mathematics suggests this might rather be an attempt to re-set silver at 12:1 rather than 18:1 against gold. As I understand it that move became standard under Julian. Perhaps the matter might be best understood by seeing it in concert with Julian’s other reforms?

Its not helpful to criticise a point nobody is making. It just confuses people. There is a lot to suggest that c. 3.4g was at least the theoretical standard set during early major reforms, and maintained thence for several decades, as both Harl and Mattingly seem to agree.

Rob T

 

I am afraid any quick search ought to find this:

https://www.academia.edu/19512723/ROMAN_COINS_DISCOVERED_IN_CHINA_AND_THEIR_RESEARCH

Thus it appears only 100 Roman coins are reported as found in China - of them - at least 94 were gold solidi (or solidi imitations).

Perhaps you were thinking of what Marco Polo wrote about silver - but that was near 1000 years later

Rob T

 

One theory I have seen put forth is that in the later Roman empire there developed a dual economy. This always existed at a certain level but was more pronounced with the absence of the large amount of silver coinage like the denarius. There were the small, almost worthless bronze coins for the masses and the gold was reserved for the wealthy and the state to pay off enemies.