Log in or Sign up
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Ancient Coins
>
Same or different - two ancient Roman coins
>
Reply to Thread
Message:
<p>[QUOTE="Bart9349, post: 993528, member: 5682"]Well, count me among the 99.9%.</p><p><br /></p><p>Some people only study Ancient Roman history to understand the coins. Some people only study the coins to understand history.</p><p><br /></p><p>I admire your work, Doug, because you've been able to combine both--a deep appreciation for the history combined with an intense scholarship for the coins.</p><p><br /></p><p>Me? I only study the coins to obtain a deeper understanding of the history.</p><p><br /></p><p>For example, the coin I find most interesting during Constantius II's reign is this one:</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH]95774.vB[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>As you know better than most of us, this is Magnentius, Constantius II's rival to the Empire. The Chi Rho symbol on the reverse is of great significance. Magnentius used this symbol to emphasize the difference between himself (an at least nominal orthodox Roman Catholic) and Constantius II, an aggressive non-Trinitarian Arian Christian. (Surprising to me, <i>Celator</i> magazine suggested years ago that the Chi Rho symbol was even of some sort of significance to pagan Romans. So Magnentius was using his coins as propaganda to gain support from both Catholic Christians and Pagans, against his Arian enemy Constantius II. I believe I read that Constantius used this reverse later, but only after Magnentius was either neutralized or defeated.)</p><p><br /></p><p>That is the part of Roman coinage I enjoy the best: the coin's enhancement of our understanding of history.</p><p><br /></p><p>That is also why I enjoy your writings: You combine both the numismatic and historical perspectives.</p><p><br /></p><p>But for me, the minutia is tedious and unappealing. To be a successful and complete coin collector, which I am <u>not</u>, one must both enjoy and delve into the numismatic details, while maintaining a broader historical perspective. I feel, however, that too many coin collectors (of all types) ignore the historical perspective and become focused on grading (even worse, slabbing <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie9" alt=":eek:" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" />), rarity, and value.</p><p><br /></p><p>Here is a Ancient collection I personally viewed at this year's ANA summer seminar. It combines beauty with historical significance. I am still in awe of what I personally witnessed. :bow:</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><a href="http://www.ancientmoney.org/" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://www.ancientmoney.org/" rel="nofollow">http://www.ancientmoney.org/</a></p><p><br /></p><p>guy[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>
[QUOTE="Bart9349, post: 993528, member: 5682"]Well, count me among the 99.9%. Some people only study Ancient Roman history to understand the coins. Some people only study the coins to understand history. I admire your work, Doug, because you've been able to combine both--a deep appreciation for the history combined with an intense scholarship for the coins. Me? I only study the coins to obtain a deeper understanding of the history. For example, the coin I find most interesting during Constantius II's reign is this one: [ATTACH]95774.vB[/ATTACH] As you know better than most of us, this is Magnentius, Constantius II's rival to the Empire. The Chi Rho symbol on the reverse is of great significance. Magnentius used this symbol to emphasize the difference between himself (an at least nominal orthodox Roman Catholic) and Constantius II, an aggressive non-Trinitarian Arian Christian. (Surprising to me, [I]Celator[/I] magazine suggested years ago that the Chi Rho symbol was even of some sort of significance to pagan Romans. So Magnentius was using his coins as propaganda to gain support from both Catholic Christians and Pagans, against his Arian enemy Constantius II. I believe I read that Constantius used this reverse later, but only after Magnentius was either neutralized or defeated.) That is the part of Roman coinage I enjoy the best: the coin's enhancement of our understanding of history. That is also why I enjoy your writings: You combine both the numismatic and historical perspectives. But for me, the minutia is tedious and unappealing. To be a successful and complete coin collector, which I am [U]not[/U], one must both enjoy and delve into the numismatic details, while maintaining a broader historical perspective. I feel, however, that too many coin collectors (of all types) ignore the historical perspective and become focused on grading (even worse, slabbing :eek:), rarity, and value. Here is a Ancient collection I personally viewed at this year's ANA summer seminar. It combines beauty with historical significance. I am still in awe of what I personally witnessed. :bow: [url]http://www.ancientmoney.org/[/url] guy[/QUOTE]
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
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Ancient Coins
>
Same or different - two ancient Roman coins
>
Home
Home
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Activity
Recent Posts
Forums
Forums
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Posts
Competitions
Competitions
Quick Links
Competition Index
Rules, Terms & Conditions
Gallery
Gallery
Quick Links
Search Media
New Media
Showcase
Showcase
Quick Links
Search Items
Most Active Members
New Items
Directory
Directory
Quick Links
Directory Home
New Listings
Members
Members
Quick Links
Notable Members
Current Visitors
Recent Activity
New Profile Posts
Sponsors
Menu
Search
Search titles only
Posted by Member:
Separate names with a comma.
Newer Than:
Search this thread only
Search this forum only
Display results as threads
Useful Searches
Recent Posts
More...