Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;dougsmit, post: 1834476, member: 19463&quot;]In addition to the changes in denomination standards, the time of the coinage reform saw the begin of a major trend in portraiture away from the athletic Imperator toward the most powerful lord and master shown in blocky style.&nbsp; This would slow up a bit while the Augusti worked out exactly who was in charge but would take the next step when rulers stopped being IMP and started using DN.&nbsp; These changes show in all four of our Tetrarchs making me believe that a general collection should include coins from both Western soldier and Eastern potentate groups.&nbsp; Compare my new Galerius to the post reform style below.&nbsp; &nbsp; Of course part of this is mint location but it is a sign of the process where the Emperor of Rome became both less Emperor and less Roman. </p><p>[ATTACH=full]303676[/ATTACH] </p><p><br /></p><p>A challenge:&nbsp; I propose that the title Dominus Noster (Our Lord) originally carried less esteem than IMP and that is supported by looking at the earliest coins bearing DN.&nbsp; Do you agree or disagree?&nbsp; Post early DN coins that support your position. Do the coins you post support the idea of the emperor as commander-in-chief of the armies or not?[/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