Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="dougsmit, post: 952723, member: 19463"]Each numismatist has to decide if Leo is an emperor of late Rome or of early Byzantine era.  Almost all call him Roman because his coins are pre-reform even though he ruled out east when there was no collegue in the west.  Again almost all put the Anastasius pre reform nummi in their Byzantine collections.  The great 19th century numismatist saw it differently and did not include Eastern emperors in his Roman Coins book - not even the ones before 476 - making the case that Theodosius I was the last emperor of all Rome.  That means he has a chapter for Honorius but not for Arcadius.   What I'm saying is numismatics does not have to put dates on periods; collectors choose to.  Hundreds of people collect ancient coins but not medieval which means they will have a Byzantine coin of the Roman John VIII from c. 1450 but not one of the French Charlemagne c. 800 because he is medieval.  We each have to draw our lines; I certainly do but I suggest not taking those lines too seriously.   I note that Raisel Suarez is coming out with a new edition of his book Encyclopedia of Roman Imperial Coins but has expanded to include Byzantine.  I don't disagree with his decision but I find it interesting.  I hope the third edition in a few years will add Republicans (after all the new one is only 1400 pages so we need some more).[/QUOTE]