Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Herberto, post: 3182592, member: 74222&quot;]That is very ”normal” mistake taking into consideration the circumstances I would say.</p><p><br /></p><p>Often a scholar expert on one field, for example Roman history here, is not necessarily an expert on numismatic coins. So that does not surprise me that David Potter or other roman historians can make such mistakes.</p><p><br /></p><p>You can pretty much trust David Potter’s historical works, but don’t take his &quot;coin&quot;-part serious.</p><p><br /></p><p>It is the same with David Sear’s “Byzantine Coins and their values”: I use it to detect and understand byzantine coins, but I don’t (necessarily) trust his descriptions of each emperors’ achievements and life as I would rather rely on other academic sources.</p><p><br /></p><p>So if that book of “<i>Emperors of Rome</i>” was intended as numismatic handbook, then that would be completely terrible. Why would a Roman scholar write on a topic which is not his scholarly field? – However, if that book was supposed to be a historical handbook, then it would be fine. But perhaps he should consult a numismatic expert next time for his and the readers&#039;s own best. Or don&#039;t even mention any coins if he doesn&#039;t know how to read them.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>And I am just curious since I don&#039;t colllect Roman coins: why is that first coin not Antonius Pius? I can read “Antoninus Pius”?[/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