New to ancient coins and looking for tips

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Can I name every emperor (even just those I consider to be legitimate) off the top of my head? Absolutely not.

I totally agree with your overall point, and I am sure my opinion varies greatly from many on who should make the list and who shouldn’t. In regards to the two figures you mentioned, I would absolutely not consider either of them to have been legitimate emperors.

Silbannacus, is such a mystery that we arent even sure what year he potentially made a claim. But making a claim, even if you manage to get a coin made of you, is not enough to be considered an emperor. If I run into your home when you are on vacation, and claim it as mine, and then you get home, beat me down and toss me to the curb. Did I ever own your house? Best case scenario for him, is he managed to take over for an extremely short period of time after a power vacuum, but never actually ruled. And that cant even be proven.

Domitian II might be an even murkier figure and the ancient sources never named him as an emperor. Even if he did make a claim, he was seemingly in the breakaway Gallic Empire, I don’t count any of those figures. My list goes “Valerian- Gallienus- Claudius Gothicus - Quintillus and then a personal favorite, Aurelian.”

I actually find the argument made by another member yesterday, that Justinian should be considered the last Roman emperor to be quite fascinating. Really, anything after Diocletian’s introduction of the tetrarchy, is a bit muddled because of all the moving pieces.

Then you have the difference of opinion on the Byzantine rulers, post 476 AD.

 

That is very good advice (I wish I had followed it from the start). Here is a great site for cataloging your collection as it grows in size. It is free and very comfortable to use:

https://www.colleconline.com/de/Home/Index

 

Agreed.

I always remind folks: HAVE FUN! And don't let the technocrats, purists, "experts", pontificators, etc. get you down. Everyone who cares truly mean well. However, the Hobby is here for YOU to enjoy.

I have areas that I focus in, but Ancients are very interesting for me. So, I do not get locked into a single mindset. I wander, explore, and learn / research new areas. I am History focused, so I like to associate an Ancient object to interesting periods of Human History.

I am having a BLAST, @NicholasMaximus ! And, I hope you will also!

MERCENARY / LIBYAN WAR


(This is a coin from the OTHER side)
Carthage - LIBYAN UPRISING Mercenary War 241-238 BCE
7.36g AR DiShekel
Herakles Head in Lion's Head-
Lion walking
R SNG Cop 240f

 

So true ... I think I have broken or disregarded every rule or good advice there is in my collecting carreer. I bought from dodgy sources, I overpaid numerous times, I bought coins that I knew absolutely nothing about, I raised bids in life auction way beyond my preset limit, my stock keeping had been abysmal for most of the time

…. but the important thing is to have fun with it and I never lost interest , because …

I also bought many great coins, learned a lot about history and I found (a few) spectacular bargains and even two or three coins of historical importance.

 

Tejas, do you know if this is a safe site that protects privacy?
I have become a little paranoid with the internet, and getten scared that information gets sold, etc. Facebook and Google do it all the time, as I understand.

 

Actually, I don't know and have never thought about it. I shall ask the owner if he is willing to say something about that here in the forum. I will be interested too.

 

Hello,

Thank you for reaching out.

I am one of the founders of CollecOnline, and I am also a long-time collector of antique coins. Data confidentiality is therefore one of my primary concerns.

We have never sold data from our users, and we don't intend to do so.

I would add that each user is free to exhibit his objects as he wishes (in public, in private, or with his relations).

If you need more information, don't hesitate to ask me.

If you are curious, here is a link to my collection on CollecOnline :
https://www.colleconline.com/fr/collections/1336/nemesis


Sincerely, Loïc (alias Nemesis)

 

LOL, yeah, those are all my "rules" also! Break 'em ALL!


Arguably the first coin featuring a Sub-Saharan African. That is very cool.

ETRURIA, Arretium (?).
The Chiana Valley.
Circa 208-207 BCE
Æ Quartunica .
AE 18mm, 4,76g, 5h.
Head of African right; monogram to left /
Indian elephant standing right, bell around neck; monogram below.
HN Italy 69; SNG ANS 41 (same obv. die); SNG Copenhagen 48 var. (no monogram on obv.).
Scarce

This enigmatic issue has been much discussed. It was Sestini in 1816 who first indicated their area of circulation in and around the Chiana (Clanis) valley and lake Trasimeno, dominated by the cities of Arezzo, Chiusi and Cortona. The traditional attribution of the issue to 217 BC, as representing the propaganda of Hannibal’s approach to Etruria, was modified by Robinson (op. cit.), who saw it as a provocative seditious type of Arretium, which was in a state of high tension with Rome in 209/8, in the hoped for arrival of Hasdrubal from Spain with reinforcements. However, the reverse depicts an Indian rather than African elephant with a bell around its neck reminiscent of the elephant/saw aes signatum issue (Crawford 9/1) of about 250-240 BC and associated with the battle of Maleventum (soon to be called Beneventum) in 275 BC when the captured elephants of Pyrrhus were brought to Rome in triumph. A similar Indian elephant is also depicted as a symbol on the Tarantine nomos issue (Vlasto 710-712), indicating the presence of Pyrrhus in the city in 282-276. The Barcid coinage of New Carthage (Villaronga CNH, pg. 65, 12-15) and that of Hannibal in Sicily (SNG Cop. 382) clearly depict African elephants belonging to the elephant corps from about 220 BC. As Maria Baglione points out in "Su alcune parallele di bronzo coniato," Atti Napoli 1975, pg.153-180, the African/elephant issue shares control marks with other cast and struck Etruscan coins of the region, she quotes Panvini Rosati in ‘ Annuario dell’accademia Etrusca di Cortona XII’, 1964, pg. 167ff., who suggests the type is to be seen as a moneyer’s badge or commemorative issue in the style of Caesar’s elephant/sacrificial implements issue of 49/48 BC (Crawford 443/1). The elephant, an attribute of Mercury/Turms, is an emblem of wisdom and is also a symbol of strength and of the overcoming of evil

 

Thank you, Loic!
It looks like a really useful site. It’s reassuring to hear from you.

Svein

 

If requiring the person to have ruled the entire empire is your requirement then there are only about half of the names left on the list after Diocletian. Most people collect the Gallic and British separatists as legitimate to a point because they were successful. That brings us to the question of Pescennius Niger. He was every bit as legitimate as Septimius Severus when he volunteered to replace Pertinax and unseat Didius Julianus. The difference was that Septimius won and eliminated the part of the Senate that supported the wrong volunteer. He lasted longer than Pertinax or Didius so maybe we can eliminate all of them and save a lot of money. However, if we eliminate all emperors who told the Senate they were in charge rather than being duly 'elected' we have rather few left. Come to think of it, Constantine the Great was something of a usurper in the minds of the previous Augusti but no one can deny that he, like Septimius Severus, won. There is no black and white here. We each can make our own decisions.

 

@dougsmit

I totally agree that there are no definitive answers, and I don't have a hard rule on why anyone should be considered emperor. I think each figure should be examined on their own, as a unique case.

So for me, the Gallic Separatists represent a break away empire (and a different entity altogether). They broke away from the original empire and there were legitimate rulers in Rome during the same time the Gallic separatists held power. I personally, believe that viewing them as Roman Emperors, would be like granting Jefferson Davis the title of "President of the United States". But the confederacy was a break away nation, and Abraham Lincoln was the legitimate ruler of the original nation. So Davis doesn't deserve such a title.

Perhaps I am too harsh in my evaluations, but I don't think I would consider Niger to be an emperor either. The way I see it, after Didius Julianus buys the title of emperor from the senate (following the murder of Pertinax) there is great unrest. This unrest leads to Didius being deposed and a power vacuum is created.

Niger is claimed emperor by his legions in the east and is certainly a legitimate figure/ candidate for the title of emperor. But there is no true emperor after Didius, until the power struggle is won by Severus.

But that is just my personal take. As you say, there are no black and white answers here. One of the reasons I love history so much.

 

except that Davis would have never called himself president of the United States; while each Roman usurper did call himself Emperor and, at least for a few days, had some military support.

edited to add that many (if not most or even all) usurpers wanted to be recognized by Rome.

 

It’s not easy to set up the right guidelines here, as we move into the later part of the 3rd century.
You could follow the list provided by Wikipedia, that’s a legitimate take.
You would miss a lot of interesting heroes and villains, however.
For me the question is:
1. Do I like the coin?
2. Is the history around this coin interesting?
3. Is it a good deal?
If yes, there’s a new old coin moving in my direction.

For some years now, I have thought «ok, time to get that Balbinus now»
A month ago I had coin money that would get me an EF Balbinus:




Oh, wait, that’s Canute the Great!
No Balbinus this time either, then. Good old Viking-Knud was just far more interesting.

 

I had a Balbinus but sold it in 1974. He has not worked his way back due to hard competition. I never owned a Gordian I or II either. We all should buy what we prefer and avoid buying what we do not.

 

@Victor_Clark

Very true, but imo that distinction is not significant enough to change my view. There were a lot of delusional people throughout history that called themselves things they weren’t.

Just because they felt they were legitimate emperors, doesn’t make it so. Postumus reigned over the Gallic Empire from 260-268. His territory was not under control of Gallienus, who still held Italy, Spain, North Africa and eastern territories.

I don’t think you can say that both Postumus and Gallienus were legitimate Roman Emperors. Gallienus still controlled the entire empire, minus breakaway Gaul. He is the sole legitimate emperor during the overlap.

Finally, Aurelian brings the Gallic “rebels” back into the empire. Just like the North recaptured the south.

 

@svessien

Agreed. I definitely won’t avoid a coin I like based on whether or not I view someone as a “legitimate emperor”.

I would still buy the coin, I just wouldn’t include it in my specific project to get a coin from each emperor.

So I would still buy the coin, but just put it in a different drawer lol.

 

LOL, there are many that would state it was the War of Northern Aggression. Due to the Yankees prevailing, history was written accordingly.

As to the Gallic Empire: LOL, LONG LIVE THE CELTS!

And, hey, here is a Gallic Noble, who became a Senator, but was upset the way the last Julio-Claudian screwed up the government.


Civil War Revolt of Gaius Julius Vindex
CE 68-69
AR Denarius
17mm 3.02g
ROMA RESTITVTA -
IVPITER LIBERATOR Jupiter seated r Tbolt Scepter
RIC I 62 RSC 374-RARE