Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;medoraman, post: 979491, member: 26302&quot;]Yeah, but Byzantines are usually covered as a series, lasting 491-1453. So that makes it hard to arbitrarily split it into two eras. It is already arbitrary starting at 491, this is only done since by then the west had fallen and Anastasius reformed the copper coinage. The only reform I believe that would be significant numismatically would be the Histemenon coinage change in the early 11th century I believe.</p><p><br /></p><p>I always wondered why Byzantines were consider ancient. I would think with a starting date of 491 they should be listed as the first medieval coinage, but historically ancient collectors collected them, but not other medieval. Moving Byzantines to medieval solves all of the problems really, and the fall of Western Rome is effectively the end of antiquity. Earliest medieval, (or Dark Age as us politically incorrect dolts put it), would be Byzantine, Ostrogoths, Vandals, etc.</p><p><br /></p><p>I have never heard of people lumping the years 500-799 with antiquity in the West. Hmm, I would say it has more to do with Dark Ages or &quot;early medieval&quot; than antiquity, but thats just me.</p><p><br /></p><p>We should start a petition Doug. Cointalk henceforth decrees Byzantine coinage is medieval![/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