Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;+VGO.DVCKS, post: 7951992, member: 110504&quot;]Many thanks, [USER=75143]@hotwheelsearl[/USER], for starting this thread.&nbsp; I have to be reminded (too dimly to be of use) of a thread over the last month, anyway, getting into c. mid-later 3rd c. denarii.&nbsp; The persistence of the denarius as a denomination this improbably late into the 3rd century, in any capacity, has its own fascination, even on a speculative level.&nbsp; --As you sometimes need, even regarding later Roman.&nbsp; (Regarding published, accessible documentation, medieval has been in a long drought.&nbsp; &nbsp; </p><p>Where your example of Galerian is concerned, I&#039;m clearly out of my league.&nbsp; But this is the interval where you have to ask yourself, Well, Wait a minute: what do you do with all the subsequent AE issues of Constantine I and his heirs, on comparable modules, with the same, laureate motif?&nbsp; Never mind the post-reform issues of Diocletian and Contantine, where the AR denomination was revived, respectively as the argenteus and the solidus.&nbsp; ...The latter continued, thank you (&lt;--shorthand for, You Knew This), over several ensuing centuries of Byzantine issues.</p><p>...Right, so, just regarding contemporaneous understanding and implementation of the various denominations, What Were They, Really?&nbsp; Whether or not in terms that we would be readily able to apprehend, from our own, highly circumscribed communal frame of reference.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in