Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;sand, post: 7830305, member: 118540&quot;]This is one of my favorite areas of coin collecting, the late Roman Empire. I&#039;m no expert in this area, but it seems like, the Roman Empire often declined, whenever the Emperor was succeeded by one of his biological sons. In this case, it was double trouble, it seems to me. It certainly seems to have been the case, when Theodosius I was succeeded in the Western Roman Empire, by his son Honorius. And the other son, Arcadius, didn&#039;t seem to do very well in the Eastern Roman Empire either, if I remember correctly. It seems like, lightning usually doesn&#039;t strike twice, in the same place, at least for a biological (not adopted) son succeeding his father as Emperor. And often, the son was too young, with not much real world experience, when the son succeeded the father. Often, things seemed to go much better for the Roman Empire, and also for the Byzantine Empire, when an Emperor who had no biological sons, was forced to choose a successor, who was outside of his family, by adoption. A merit based succession, to a certain extent. For example, during the time of the 5 Good Emperors, the Good Emperors were all adopted from outside of the Emperor&#039;s family, if I remember correctly. Anastasius I was chosen, from outside of the Emperor&#039;s family, and he was good. Commodus, Marcus Aurelius&#039;s biological son, was young and bad. Caligula, Tiberius&#039;s great nephew, was young and bad. Tiberius II was adopted from outside of the Emperor&#039;s family, and he was good. However, there were exceptions, to this idea. For the Greeks, there was Philip II&#039;s biological son, Alexander III The Great. Augustus was Julius Caesar&#039;s great nephew, and he was good. Justinian I The Great was the nephew of Justin I, and he was good. But it seems like a plausible general rule or trend, that I have noticed. Especially for the biological (not adopted) sons of Emperors. I imagine, that this idea, has been studied, by persons who are more expert in this area, than I am.</p><p>-------------------------------------------------------</p><p>[USER=110350]@DonnaML[/USER] Those are beautiful gold coins. The Sear COA is a nice bonus, and very interesting. It&#039;s nice, that one coin is front facing, and the other coin is side facing.</p><p>[USER=83175]@akeady[/USER] That&#039;s a nice silver Honorius, with a beautiful black tone. I&#039;m not an expert, but I&#039;m guessing, that silver coins, from this era, are scarce or rare. This is the first silver coin, that I recall seeing, from this era.</p><p>[USER=97383]@Al Kowsky[/USER] That&#039;s a nice gold Honorius.</p><p>[USER=75937]@Roman Collector[/USER] That&#039;s a nice bronze Honorius.</p><p>[USER=51347]@Alegandron[/USER]&nbsp; That&#039;s a nice bronze Honorius. The desert patina is interesting.</p><p>-------------------------------------------------------</p><p>Here are group photos, of my Honorius and Arcadius, in bronze, sitting next to each other.</p><p>-------------------------------------------------------</p><p>Coin 1 On Left : Honorius AE3, Western Roman Empire, Minted From 401 AD To 403 AD, Antioch Mint, RIC X 99, Weight = 2.45 grams, Diameter = 15 mm, Obverse Has Honorius Facing Front Holding Spear And Shield With Cross, Reverse Has Constantinopolis Seated On Throne Holding Sceptre And Globe With Victory</p><p>-------------------------------------------------------</p><p>Coin 2 On Right : Arcadius AE3, Eastern Roman Empire, Minted From 401 AD To 403 AD, Antioch Mint, RIC 97, Weight = 2.1 grams, Diameter = 16 mm, Obverse Has Arcadius Facing Front Holding Spear And Shield With Cross, Reverse Has Constantinopolis Seated On Throne Holding Sceptre And Globe With Victory</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1345397[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]1345398[/ATTACH][/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