The Last Romans

Here's a Leo with full obverse legend, which these tiny coins usually lack. Also, an Anastasius nummus with a partial obverse legend, again, seldom seen on these tiny coins. And note in Anastasius' name, the use of a lunate sigma for a Roman S.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Each of us gains enjoyment from different things. Some are thrilled to be able to ID any scrap of bronze and convince themselves that they actually do have a great rarity even though many of us would be hard pressed to say which side is 'up'. I like these little bronzes when they show very little detail but, by some massive stroke of luck, that detail is exactly what is needed to make the ID. I tend to avoid coins that lack the mintmark and that is probably 3/4 of the late, late Roman AE4's. The Leo I below has no mintmark but is Constantiople because that mint is listed as the one that issued some coins with Greek lambda replacing the L in Leo. Were the coin off center in the opposite direction, I would have no desire to own it but it is, as it is, a favorite late, late Roman. I am rather sure that the dirt filled recesses under the chin and at reverse extreme right connect making a natural hole but you can bet I will not be cleaning it to find out for sure.

How would those who live to grade coins grade this one? That's right, they don't collect late, late AE4's for good reason.

 

Dear Dougsmit,
I also have a Leo with Greek lambda for Latin L, evidence of the decline of Latin in the eastern empire by the middle 5th c.. And as you say, the 5th c. minimi are hard to find with a mint mark. Here are 2 Leones with mint mark, one from Constantinople, and the other, from Nicomedia. I have a third with a very bold ANT mint mark, but alas, no handy photo.

 

Sorry for the mess.
Now I know how to insert a picture.
This coin is LIBIUS SEVERUS

 

I'm extremely keen to tick off the very last Roman emperors. I'm not there yet, but i can offer my Basiliscus:




Libius Severus III:




Constantine III:

Eugenius:




A question that has always fascinated me:

Did Syagrius issue coins - ruler of the rump state left behind in Gaul after 476AD?

If so, there's a case that he was the last of the Romans, and his coins were the last Roman coins.

 

My collection of coins Valentinian III

 

Vandal coins from my collection

 

Eugenius:


RI Eugenius 392-394 CE AE 12mm Victory

 

Basiliscus

 

I think you'd be safe cleaning it out, because when you flip the coin about the vertical and line up the two protrusions (obv 1 and 8; rev 10-11 and 6) and the notch at the edge (obv 10o'clock; rev almost 3) the soil mass below the chin is at about 9o'clock with respect to the reverse. It's on the other side of the coin from the mass at 3o'clock on the reverse.

 

Further to the thread of the Last Romans, I would opt for the fall of the empire in 1453, rather than the last quarter of the fifth century. After all, the coins of Constantine XI (1448-1453) name him, although in Greek, Κωνσταντίνος ο δεσπότης ο Παλαιολόγος θεοῦ χάριτι βασιλεύς των Ρωμαίων (Constantine Palaeologos, the despot, by grace of God emperor of the Romans). My diminutive eighth stavraton (the first coin image below) of Constantine XI lacks this long inscription, but you can see it in the second photo (albeit with the name of John) on one of my stavrata of John VIII (1423-1448): Ιωάννης ο δεσπότης ο Παλαιολόγος θεοῦ χάριτι βασιλεύς των Ρωμαίων. The epigraphic orthography has changed, and the legends are never complete, but it’s there.

The use of Latin in the eastern empire was disappearing by the 6th century, and Justinian was the last emperor whose native language was Latin. So the vast majority of what we would call “Byzantine” emperors and their subjects spoke Greek, but so did many educated Romans from the establishment of the Principate under Augustus through the fifth century, when political ties with the eastern empire caused the use of Greek in the West to die out, just as it did the use of Latin in the East. But in its near thousand year history, what we call the Byzantine Empire manifested unbroken continuity back to the time of Augustus.

Or, if one chose to consider the shadowy empire of Trebizond along the shores of the southern Black sea, one could push the date forward to 1461, when the Ottomans absorbed that final outpost of Hellenism.

Or even further: Years ago, I attended a lecture when the speaker, a Greek Byzantine historian, told about an event in his youth when his island was liberated from the Turks. As the Greek marines waded ashore at the harbor, he recalled crying out: “Οι Έλληνες, οι Έλληνες! – the Greeks, the Greeks!” A marine replied to him: “Δεν είμαστε Έλληνες, είμαστε Ρωμαίοι– we are not Greeks, we are Romans.”

 

I find relevant to post Empress Aelia Flaccilla as one of the last Romans, for her great role after the death of her husband Emperor Theodosius The Great. Mother of Honorius and Arcadius, she raised her sons on the love of God and Christianity. Till now, she's venerated as Saint in Greece.

 

Some of mine small late roman bronzes:
Theodosius II


Honorius


Anastasius

 

Here's a tiny Pentanummium of Justin I with a Roman christogram XP (chi-rho) on reverse.

 

! Wow! All I have is a stavraton of John VIII, like your similar example.

 

I hold your view on the last Romans, by the way. Wether Trezibond counts as the last Roman Empire is essentially related as wether you see any successor state other than Nicaea legitimate, or at least that’s how I see it.

 

Very nice coin of John!

Wouldn't it make sense that it does count? If the capital of a nation falls, it's seat and it's ruler would move to a different city to administer to the Empire. Similar to the Romans. Seems to make sense. Did the Emperors at Trebizond issue coinage?

My latest Roman Coin is that of Alexios III Angelos Komnenos:

 

The problem with the Byzantine Empire is that multiple states that claimed to be its successor showed up. The Empires of Thessalonika, Nicaea, and Trezibond all claimed to be the true successor to Byzantium. Nicaea actually reconquered Constantinople, and their rulers are regnally numbered according to the Byzantine Empire as a whole (John III, not John) and not just as their dynasty (like Thessalonika and Trezibond's rulers). In addition, Thessalonika came under Nicaean suzerainty, which only left Nicaea or Trezibond. Since Nicaea reconquered Constantinople, I regard Trezibond as a Byzantine outpost, but it was essentially removed from the main Byzantine Empire. It even gave up its claims to being the successor to Byzantium under John II.

 

That is very interesting. Thanks for sharing!

 

Welcome! It was written over breakfast.