Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Valentinian, post: 4516403, member: 44316&quot;]Victor, I am trying to understand this. I suppose the date 321 comes independent of the content (e.g. explicitly dated to year 13 of Licinius, as opposed to deduced from the coins.) It says some thing was &quot;reduced to half of a nummus.&quot;&nbsp; Was it newly issued coins with the reduced nominal value, or a revaluation of old coins? Which size coin is the nummus at the time? Was is some older, larger, coin type? [For those of you who don&#039;t know, folles c. 300 were c. 28 mm and by c. 312 they were only a bit more than half the original weight and c. 24 mm and by 317 most were c. 19 mm which stayed c. 19 mm until 328 or so.] If this was indicted by the radiate AE3 shown above, are we to think the non-radiate AE3s are worth 25--twice the radiates--and they are nummi?&nbsp; Why are there radiates from this time only at Cyzicus? Or, are we to think that all AE3s of the period are the affected coins?&nbsp; There is really only one size of AE coin at the time. </p><p>[ATTACH=full]1119026[/ATTACH] </p><p><br /></p><p>Above is a coin from about the same time. This one is of Licinius (who issued that Constantine radiate I posted above). This is about the same size. </p><p>19 mm. 4.14 grams. Struck &quot;late 317-early 318&quot;. The imperial mantle suggests it was struck in a year when he was consul, and he was consul each year 315 through 318. Was this the &quot;25&quot; coin and the new radiate reduced to half, therefore &quot;1 1/2.&quot;</p><p><br /></p><p>One problem with ancient sources is they have a context that we often don&#039;t know the way the ancients did. That means there is a lot we don&#039;t know, but that is okay. It gives us a lot to think about.[/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