Byzantine: What changes with Leo III?

Discussion in 'Ancient Coins' started by Gavin Richardson, Aug 26, 2020.

  1. Gavin Richardson

    Gavin Richardson Well-Known Member

    I hope the Byzantine specialists will pardon this naïve question, but I was reading a bit about Byzantine coinage and specifically the iconoclast Leo III (685 – 741), who is said to have removed most religious imagery from Byzantine coinage, with the exception of the cross.

    When I think of Byzantine religious coinage, I think of those anonymous folles featuring Christ. But these are much later than Leo III. Leo III’s bronze reverses seem to show denominational symbols, such as the large M for the 40-nummi follis. But this reverse type certainly predates Leo III.

    So in short, what changes with Leo III? What kinds of pre-Leo III imagery do we not see after him? Was the pre-Leo III religious imagery found more on gold coinage than the bronze? Because I don’t see much changing in the bronze coinage...
     
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. furryfrog02

    furryfrog02 Well-Known Member

    I am by no means and expert but I think the changes could have to do with his ban on the veneration of icons.
     
    Gavin Richardson likes this.
  4. Severus Alexander

    Severus Alexander find me at NumisForums

    I think the most emblematic coins of the new iconoclasm are the silver miliaresia, first introduced by Leo III. Here's a half-miliaresion which was probably a ceremonial issue:

    Screen Shot 2020-08-26 at 4.59.33 PM.jpg

    The full miliaresion is a bit tricky to tell apart from Leo IV. Leo III issues tend to have a narrower cross.
     
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2020
  5. Valentinian

    Valentinian Well-Known Member

    Leo III's reign started in 717. The first emperor to put Christ on a coin was Justinian II who had two reigns, 685-695 with a gold solidus with the bust of Christ facing (and a similar silver piece), and 705-711 with another solidus with the bust of Christ facing in a completely different portrait (They certainly don't look at all like the same person. I have none to show.) Prior to Justinian II there were (poor) imperial portraits and tons of crosses and religious symbols, but no images of Christ, Mary, or saints. Looking at Sear's book I don't see pictures of Christ, Mary, or saints before Leo III other than those of Justinian II.

    Of course, by definition, iconoclasts did not want images of Christ. So, they did not appear on coins of Leo III. (Maybe he felt people worshipped money enough even without having the image of Christ on it!)

    SB1514LeoIII2010.jpg

    Leo III, 717- 741, with Constantine V from 720.
    24 mm. 7.81 grams
    His bust facing holding globus cruciger (a religious symbol)
    Small bust of Constantine V over horizontal line with large M below,
    ANN down its left, XX down its right (much is very weak)
    dN CONSTANTINVS M
    Sear 1514
    DOC 3.1 Class 2, #29, "720-c.721"
    Grierson 672. Berk 838.

    AE coins of Leo III are almost always poorly struck and in poor shape. This one is pretty good "for type."
     
    Last edited: Aug 26, 2020
  6. Severus Alexander

    Severus Alexander find me at NumisForums

    In Istanbul, it's a shocking experience to go from the lush decorations in the Hagia Sophia into the Hagia Irene, which retains its stark iconoclastic decoration from its reconstruction in the 8th century under Leo III's son, Constantine V.

    When I saw the cross in the apse (at least I think it's called the apse!), it reminded me of the crosses on the miliaresia:
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    The fabric of the miliaresion was copied from the dirhams prevalent in the Muslim world that was so strongly impacting the Byzantines at the time. It seems the success of the (anti-graven-image) Muslim armies persuaded the Byzantine soldiers on the other side that iconoclasm was a good idea. It's well known that it originated with the army, and that's where Leo III got the idea. The citizens of Constantinople weren't so happy about it though.

    Dirham dated AH 99 i.e. 717-18, coinciding with the first year of Leo III's reign:
    Screen Shot 2020-08-26 at 5.25.16 PM.jpg

    I wonder what denomination was mostly used to pay the soldiers? Based on the imagery one would guess they were paid in silver...
     
  7. Gavin Richardson

    Gavin Richardson Well-Known Member

    Thanks for these posts, folks. @Valentinian's comments confirm my sense that there really wasn't a widespread tradition of religious portraiture on Byzantine coinage prior to Leo III, aside from a few gold issues. To claim that Leo III's iconoclasm significantly changed Byzantine coinage seems to be overstatement (the claim from an art historian that prompted my query). More plausible is a suggestion that once the pro-icon iconodules triumphed in the late 9th century, one sees an explosion of religious portraiture, including the anonymous folles bearing Christ's image.
     
    Severus Alexander likes this.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page