Log in or Sign up
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Ancient Coins
>
Unknown Barbarian Tremissis of Leo
>
Reply to Thread
Message:
<p>[QUOTE="Hrefn, post: 7826607, member: 115171"]Two hundred years after Leo I, during the perilous time of Constantine IV, there was a clear decline in literacy and orthography at the Constantinople mint. Of course, the Muslims were knocking on the gates at this time. </p><p> I am not even sure what the celator was trying to say on this solidus.[ATTACH=full]1344797[/ATTACH]</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1344798[/ATTACH]</p><p>Constantine IV solidus, Constantinople mint, 668-681 AD</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>So it is demonstrable that the Constantinople mint two centuries after Leo was capable of putting out a crude, misspelled, illiterate product during a time of existential crisis for the Empire. I mean, look at the feet of the imperial brothers Heraclius and Tiberius on this coin. They are just dots. </p><p><br /></p><p>But that raises the question, what crisis in Leo I’s reign would prompt an emergency issue of gold? And if you need an emergency supply of coined gold, why strike tremisses? Constantine IV had to surrender 300,000 solidi to the Arabs when he struck a truce with them. Crudely struck coins would serve, since the money was leaving the Empire anyway. Any sum in tremisses would take three times as long to strike as opposed to solidi, so emergency tremisses make no sense in a circumstance like that. </p><p><br /></p><p>On the other hand, we know that various barbarians preferentially coined tremisses, sometimes to the near exclusion of solidi. The Visigoths, Merovingians, Saxons seem to have struck more tremisses than solidi, and the Ostrogoths and Lombards certainly did not neglect the denomination either. </p><p><br /></p><p>All of which proves nothing one way or the other, but suggests to me the so-called imitative tremisses of Leo I are of barbarian origin. Proponents of an official origin should be prepared to explain why quality control declined for tremisses, but not solidi. Because the solidi continued to be superb.[ATTACH=full]1344837[/ATTACH]</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1344838[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>My thanks to everyone who has contributed to this discussion. It has been most thought-provoking.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>
[QUOTE="Hrefn, post: 7826607, member: 115171"]Two hundred years after Leo I, during the perilous time of Constantine IV, there was a clear decline in literacy and orthography at the Constantinople mint. Of course, the Muslims were knocking on the gates at this time. I am not even sure what the celator was trying to say on this solidus.[ATTACH=full]1344797[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]1344798[/ATTACH] Constantine IV solidus, Constantinople mint, 668-681 AD So it is demonstrable that the Constantinople mint two centuries after Leo was capable of putting out a crude, misspelled, illiterate product during a time of existential crisis for the Empire. I mean, look at the feet of the imperial brothers Heraclius and Tiberius on this coin. They are just dots. But that raises the question, what crisis in Leo I’s reign would prompt an emergency issue of gold? And if you need an emergency supply of coined gold, why strike tremisses? Constantine IV had to surrender 300,000 solidi to the Arabs when he struck a truce with them. Crudely struck coins would serve, since the money was leaving the Empire anyway. Any sum in tremisses would take three times as long to strike as opposed to solidi, so emergency tremisses make no sense in a circumstance like that. On the other hand, we know that various barbarians preferentially coined tremisses, sometimes to the near exclusion of solidi. The Visigoths, Merovingians, Saxons seem to have struck more tremisses than solidi, and the Ostrogoths and Lombards certainly did not neglect the denomination either. All of which proves nothing one way or the other, but suggests to me the so-called imitative tremisses of Leo I are of barbarian origin. Proponents of an official origin should be prepared to explain why quality control declined for tremisses, but not solidi. Because the solidi continued to be superb.[ATTACH=full]1344837[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]1344838[/ATTACH] My thanks to everyone who has contributed to this discussion. It has been most thought-provoking.[/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
>
Unknown Barbarian Tremissis of Leo
>
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...