Sallent's Top 20 of 2017 (With plenty of drama and suspense, and some clickbait)

SALLENT'S CLICKBAIT CORNER

Featuring....Sallent's Big Fat Secret Santa Reveal.



@Smojo really delivered a homerun with this puppy. I needed another Philip I for my collection and now I have this beauty.



He also gifted me a Postumus ant, but I havent gotten around to photographing that one yet.

The funny thing is that this was my fantastic Secret Santa gift from last year courtesy of @Cucumbor. This Antioch tet of Philip was one sweet and generous gift.



And the coin that started me down the path to my 3rd century Roman coinage addiction...my Mr. Spock as Philip I.



Sallent's Top 20-ish countdown will resume tomorrow and conclude on Christmas day.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Hate it when they eat and run! Probably didn't say Grace either.

 

?? I didn't realize such a thing existed!

 

Maybe Santa felt you need more and more Philips over the years
One can't have too many of them











Q

 

Great collection Cucomber , only have 2 of him,
the spock variety and a normal one.

 

Postumus antoninianus. I wish it was a tet. LOL

 

Funny thing, I still don't have a Philip in my collection, I have his wife though.
Other than the emperesses I've temporarily strayed from 2nd & 3rd century and have been consentrating on 1st century and BC Roman and Greek coins.
Glad you like them @Sallent, I really struggled hoping I sent something that was enough to atleast fit your collection. I've already told you the story about the Postumus though.

 

I love reading this thread every day so much eye candy.


Thanks,
Jacob

 

Yes, this thread is the coin equivalent of Willy Wonka's chocolate room.

 

LOL, nice Saturnalia Gift @Sallent !

I have only one Philip I's:


RI Philip I 244-249 CE AR Ant radiate zoo Antelope 1000 yr anniv Rome

 

#6 Dracula!



After the Christian writer Eusebius got done tarnishing Licinius' reputation on behalf of his evil and vain master, Constantine the Not so Great, the likely Christian emperor Licinius was unfairly portrayed to history as a blood sucking anti-Christ. Never mind that he co-authored the Edict of Milan, adopted Christian symbols for his armies, reafirmed the rights of Christians, and was married to a well known devout Christian. And people still drink the Constantine Kool-Aid in this forum.


Licinius I
London Mint.

 

Not me! You have me thoroughly convinced. Although I hadn't heard about Licinius adopting Christian symbols for his armies, do tell!

 

The source is a book titled: Defending Constantine: The Twilight of an Empire and the Dawn of Christianity, on page 101 of the book.

You should also read "The Persecution of Licinius", a very nice thesis on the subject.

https://dspace.ucalgary.ca/bitstrea...d=9EAC9390EF3C066CE03563460C159763?sequence=1

 

A Licinius as "according" to RIC as R2

 

Thanks for that first source, I will check it out. And I was actually just looking at that thesis before I posted! According to it there's also some evidence that even Maxentius may have been Christian, and was certainly tolerant (which is the only important thing, after all). "Constantine the Malignant."

 

Beautyfull sharp Licinius , congrats Sallent.

Here's my budget Licinius coin:

 

When looking at Roman emperors, the stories we have are full of bias and offer us at best a small glimpse into what they were like, but we will always get a distorted picture full of half truths and half lies.

As a rule of thumb, those emperors who survived to a natural death and/or had successors from their same dynasty have come down in the history books as good emperors...because their successors were not about to let writers undermine their own legitimacy by tarnishing the reputation of their predecessor. Likewise, emperors who died violent deaths are always treated as villains by historians, especially if their successor was a member of a new dynasty. It is obvious that the founding emperor of a new dynasty would want to shore up their legitimacy by having historians destroy the reputation of the person they just usurped.

There are a few notable exceptions to this rule though.

1. Tiberius: Both Caligula and Claudius belonged to political factions that were enemies of Tiberius' inner circle, so both were happy to have historians savage Tiberius.

2. Caligula: yes, he died violently, but he had a successor of the same dynasty, so one would expect his reputation to be decent. However, some ancient historians implicate Claudius as a ringleader in the plot to kill Caligula, and the story of him hiding behind a curtain and being all innocent sounds more like a play than reality. Not saying Caligula was an angel, but if Claudius did usurp him then it suited Claudius to exagerate just how bad Caligula was in comparison to himself.

3: Aurelian and Probus: Both could have been absolute monsters for all we know, and their reputations would probably be terrible today but for one small fact. Diocletian was from the same area of the empire as them, so in order to shore up his legitimacy and overcome the handicap of being a provincial, it was convenient for him to make sure historians praised and built up the reputation of two previous emperors who came from the same area as him. It was a way to say...."I know I'm an outsider, but Aurelian and Probus were neighbors of mine and they were larger than life...so emperors from our area of the empire (namely me) will definitely be larger than life."

 

Did somebody say Licinius I?

 

LOL, Great Dracula @Sallent ... I always thought the old silent film Depiction of Dracula was the best one! Gorgeous coin BTW... nice strike and SILVER!

My Licinius:

Roman Republic

RR L Licinius Crassus Cn Domitius Ahenobarbus 118 BCE NARBO Serrated Attic Helmet Gallic Biga Sear 158 Craw 282-3

Oh, wait, that is right... most folks here waste their collecting time in the Roman EMPIRE. Ok, I acquiesce:


RI Licinius I 308-324 CE AE3 Jupiter w Eagle