Why did the "Barbarian Kingdoms" issue gold coins in the name of the byzantine emperors?

Discussion in 'Ancient Coins' started by Herberto, Feb 15, 2021.

  1. Herberto

    Herberto Well-Known Member

    When the western part of Roman Empire fell some various Germanian "Barbarian Kingdoms" were created. Those kingdoms issued gold coins in the name of the byzantine emperor and so did some tribes in Balkan.

    For example, The Ostrogothic Italy minted gold coins in the name of Zeno, Anastasius or Justinian. So did also Vesigothic Spain. The Lombards also minted in the name of emperor Leon III in the beginning of eighth century. Some Gepidian tribes in Balkan also did that. In contrary the byzantines never ever minted gold coins in the name of a "Barbarian"/Germanian king if I am not mistaken.

    Can one explain me why the so-called "Barbarian Kingdoms" issued gold coins in the name of the byzantine emperor(s)? What was the point? Why not struck in the name of their own king?

    Thanks
     
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. The Trachy Enjoyer

    The Trachy Enjoyer Well-Known Member

    It was the right of the emperor to strike golden coins with his face on them. This tradition was up held for at least a decent while by most barbaric tribes. Gundobald and Theodoric minted gold coins with their monogram on the reverse and the first Barbaric king on the obverse was a Merovingian (I am forgetting his name). The first large scale production of minting with a barbarian king occurred under Leovigild. Technically Theodoric struck his face on gold coinage for his famous medallion in 503 AD but this was a one time ceremonial piece.

    I suspect deference to the East played a large role in why barbarians did not mint their own portrait on coins. The people in the 5th century had no real recollection of a time when gold coinage was struck with someone other than an imperial family member on the obverse. It would conversely be breaking this long followed tradition to put a "barbarian" on the obverse of a coin, rather than following some sort of idea where the ruler, who ever they were, should be on the obverse of coins.
     
  4. robinjojo

    robinjojo Well-Known Member

    My theory is that the so-called barbarian kingdoms imitated Byzantine coinage rather than manufacture coinage in their name is that Byzantine coinage was widely accepted. Literacy was not widespread, so the nature of a coin's fabric was important for acceptance.

    Now having said this, the Arab imitations of Byzantine coinage incorporated Byzantine designs, but with Arabic inscriptions. This was a practical approach: a coin with roughly the same design as, say, a Justin II and Sophia follis, but with Arabic inscriptions for those were literate.

    I guess the practice comes down to the old saying, "don't argue with success", or something along that line.
     
    Restitutor, PeteB and +VGO.DVCKS like this.
  5. +VGO.DVCKS

    +VGO.DVCKS Well-Known Member

    Along with @The Trachy Enjoyer's and @robinjojo's points, there's likely another, less practical/monetary, more amorphous dynamic. The Germanic tribes, especially at the royal level, were keen students of the broad Imperial legacy. They were highly motivated to identify themselves with Imperial precedent. ...By any means available to them. And at this interval, the Eastern Roman Empire (cf. @AussieCollector's and @Only a Poor Old Man's observations in other threads) was perceived as what it was: what was left of the Roman Empire. It was only natural for the Germanic kingdoms to perpetuate the existing precedent, where early 'Byzantine' issues were concerned.
    When Charlemagne, and then the Ottonians in Germany, styled themselves as 'Roman emperors,' they were following a tradition that was already most of half a millennium old.
     
    Only a Poor Old Man and DonnaML like this.
  6. dltsrq

    dltsrq Grumpy Old Man

    Following the deposition of Romulus Augustus, the Germanic kings were nominally vassals of Constantinople, ruling the western provinces in the emperor's name, though effectively autonomous. From a propagandistic point of view, the west had not been severed but reunited with the east under a single emperor.​
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2021
  7. The Trachy Enjoyer

    The Trachy Enjoyer Well-Known Member

    Indeed. The Ostrogoths especially were keen to follow the imperial precedents left behind. The vandals seemed more much willing to flout tradition or push boundaries of what was deemed acceptable for a "barbarian" people. Its a shame they didn't issue gold coinage, as I could easily imagine their later kings boldly putting vandalic regal portraiture on them.
     
    +VGO.DVCKS likes this.
  8. +VGO.DVCKS

    +VGO.DVCKS Well-Known Member

    Cool distinction, @The Trachy Enjoyer. ...I'm still needing me one, representative early Vandalic AE.
     
  9. The Trachy Enjoyer

    The Trachy Enjoyer Well-Known Member

    There are two series! The first is the regal coinage, issued under the authority of the Vandal King. These feature the AR 50 and 25 Siliqua pieces along with some AE4s. The second series is the municipal coinage of Carthage, a highly interesting (seemingly independent) issue of the city. If you are going for one Vandalic AE coin, I would recommend the municipal 21 nummis coins. They feature a (presumed) Vandal soldier on the obverse with the legend KART-HAGO and a horse on the reverse, the famous symbol of Carthage since many centuries before. https://www.coinarchives.com/a/lotv...Lot=2865&Val=39b09943d1abb4fe8663a986ef1fbafa Here is one example of the type
     
    +VGO.DVCKS and paschka like this.
  10. +VGO.DVCKS

    +VGO.DVCKS Well-Known Member

    @The Trachy Enjoyer, Many Thanks for the heads up! I was only familiar with the municipal issues; it's heartening to see that the royal ones are this accessible.
     
  11. ancient coin hunter

    ancient coin hunter 3rd Century Usurper

    Very good points made in the thread. My opinion based on my read of Late Antiquity (roughly fourth to seventh centuries as defined by the historian Peter Brown) is that symbolism was still very important. Furthermore, the Empire hadn't really fallen but only Rome had.

    The far more important city of Constantinople was still the bastion of the Romans who in fact held more than half of Italy into the 7th century and the solidus and its subdivisions had been circulating for over 300 years.

    Better to acknowledge the emperors' suzerainty and respect the monetary tradition than to strike something that might not be recognized in the economy as the solidus was, which always had featured a stylized portrait of the emperor. Even in the year 800, pope Leo III crowned Charles as Holy Roman Emperor only because it was felt that Irene (being a woman) should not be the head of the Empire and that therefore it was acceptable for Charles to claim the title.

    (Below, the Empire around 635 A.D., striped areas had been held briefly by the Sassanids)

    byzmap7thcentury.png
     
  12. ValiantKnight

    ValiantKnight Well-Known Member

    In the case of the Ostrogoths, another reason for this was that the Ostrogothic kings were officially ruling Italy and the surrounding areas as viceroys/governors of the Byzantine emperors, since they were given “permission” to first invade and later govern Italy. So this deferential status was reflected in minting coins depicting the Byzantine emperor. Of course, in practice, the kings ruled independently.

    Theodahad, Ostrogothic Kingdom
    AR half-siliqua
    Obv: D N IVSTI-NIAN AC, diademed, draped, cuirassed bust right
    Rev: Monogram THEODAHATVS within wreath
    Mint: Ravenna
    Date: 534-536 AD
    Ref: Metlich 61; MIB 55b; Ranieri 287

    [​IMG]

    But later on, during Justinian’s reign, push came to shove and the Byzantines took direct control of Italy:

    Justinian I, Byzantine Empire
    AE follis
    Obv: D N IVSTINI-ANVS P P AVG, pearl-diademed, draped, bust right
    Rev: Large M, cross above, cross to left, star to right, all within wreath
    Mint: Rome
    Mintmark: ROMA (in exergue)
    Date: 537-542 AD
    Ref: : SB 293

    [​IMG]
     
  13. +VGO.DVCKS

    +VGO.DVCKS Well-Known Member

  14. ancient coin hunter

    ancient coin hunter 3rd Century Usurper

    +VGO.DVCKS likes this.
  15. +VGO.DVCKS

    +VGO.DVCKS Well-Known Member

    @ancient coin hunter, Thanks for your resonantly valid point! In reference to current events, someone could always say, 'Well, it could be worse.' ...To which those of us who are historically literate could always respond, 'That's what I'm afraid of!' ...Sorry to end on that cheerful note.
     
  16. medoraman

    medoraman Supporter! Supporter

    I agree with much written here. In fact my avatar is part of this discussion. The Byzantine emperor was always acknowledged in the west, with western rulers always only being a king, and "the emperor" being in Constantinople. Only under the reign of Irene, being a woman, did the Pope declare there is no emperor anymore in the East, thereby giving himself the power to crown a western emperor, Charlemagne. That is the definitive moment westerners stopped acknowledging the emperorship of the Byzantines.
     
  17. +VGO.DVCKS

    +VGO.DVCKS Well-Known Member

    @medoraman, many thanks for pointing this out. A key moment in the history of the period, of which I was completely innocent. Notwithstanding my ignorance, that is), that sort of legal pretext makes immediate, intuitive sense, as a primary step in the ongoing process of what would eventuate in the Great Schism of the mid-11th century, replete with the political consequences in both subcontexts. Some sad history.
     
    Only a Poor Old Man likes this.
  18. BenSi

    BenSi Well-Known Member

    I cant add to the discussion on why, but I have nice one.
    tribal.jpg
    Kingdom of the Gepids, Thrasaric, c. 491 - 504 A.D., In the Name of Anastasius and Theodoric the Great
    97408. Silver quarter siliqua, Demo 77 var. (legend variations), VF+, centered, toned, edge bend, edge chips, 0.820g, 16.2mm, 180o, Sirmium (Sremska Mitrovica, Serbia) mint, c. 491 - 504 A.D.; obverse D N ANASTASIVS P AV (N's inverted, A's appearing as L), diademed and cuirassed bust of Anastasius right; reverse * V INVICTA + A ROMANI (first N inverted, A's appearing as L), [​IMG] monogram of Theodoric, cross above, star below; ex Roma Numismatics
     
  19. hotwheelsearl

    hotwheelsearl Well-Known Member

    Seems to me, if you take over/inherit a dying, but formerly powerful realm, it would make sense to continue that ideal.

    when America inevitably falls, I can almost guarantee that coinage and notes (if they still exist) will either be the same, or pay homage to the glory days of the American greenback.
     
    +VGO.DVCKS likes this.
  20. Tejas

    Tejas Well-Known Member

    All the Germanic kings needed legitimacy to rule over parts of the former Roan empire. They derived this legitimacy directly or indirectly from the official emperor in Constantinople.

    In turn, the emperor in Constantinople was keen to uphold the emperor's prerogative to mint gold coins in his name, to nominally maintain their claims to former Roman territory.

    When Odovacer send the last western Roman emperor in retirement, he ruled Italy on behalf of Zeno. After that, Theoderic ruled nominally on behalf of Zeno and then Anastastius. Theoderic encroached on the emperor's prerogative to strike gold in his name, by putting his monogram on solidi before AD 500. After he received imperial recognition, he agreed to remove his monogram from gold coins.

    The Vandals never minted gold coins, but only silver coins with the name of the Vandalic king from about AD 480.

    The first Germanic king to break the imperial prerogative to strike gold in their own name was the Frankish king Theodebert. After conquering the kingdoms of the Burgundians and Thurinigians, he regarded himself as equal to the Roman emperor and told him so in a letter. To emphasise his status he struck both solidi and tremisses in his own name.
     
  21. medoraman

    medoraman Supporter! Supporter

    I agree, but you left out others like Burgundians, etc. What I said was generally true, most simply issued imitations of Byzantine coins to avoid a fight, but over time it was drifting away. Across the Pyrenees the Visigoths started with imitations then struck in their own name and style eventually. However, crowning Charlemagne was the hard break, never again did anyone feel the need to cowtow to Constantinople ever again.
     
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2021
    ominus1, +VGO.DVCKS and DonnaML like this.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page