Leo III the Isaurian with Constantine V, Sear 1530. Minted in Syracuse. It is very crude and it looks easier when holding it, but I have made some red marks to outline the portrait. Info on that coin: http://labarum.info/lbr/show.php?coin=15300 Coins from 600-800 or so tend to be very crude since the economic foundation was destroyed, and it was first until around 800 that Byzantine coins again became decent. What is the connection between Leo III the Isaurian and Syracuse? - Beneath I will summarize what happened. In the 400s the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire survived Attila the Hun and the barbarian attacks. In the 500s Justinian and Belisarius expanded westward, and eventually Maurice Tiberius expanded eastward. In the first half of 600s Heraclius won a war that exhausted both Byzantines and Persians, and for that reason the Muslims could easily expand. In 717 Leo III the Isaurian became the emperor, and the Umayyad Caliphate planned to give the deathblow to the Romans by capturing the rich city of Constantinople. The Umayyads made expensive investments and thought that as soon as Constantinople was captured, the investment would pay back many times as they would control a trade center alongside its spoils. They believed that Allah had helped/guided them, and that it was Allah’s wish that Islam should spread. Umayyad Caliphate stretched from Spain to Pakistan so it was naturally that they turned their attention to Constantinople. When Leo III became the emperor, the empire EDITED: LANGUAGE. And it even sunkLANGUAGEbecause at the same time an official, Basil Onomagoulos, in Syracuse/Sicily rebelled and declared himself (illegitimate) emperor. How did the Byzantines react to the threat from the Umayyads? Did they just sit down and squabbled about theological discussions and were inflicted with “intrigues” so they became ineffective? No way, that is myth and bad history without strong academic foundation. Rather they planned how to beat the crap out of the Caliphate. And did it. Constantinople was like a reverse triangle: in the upper part laid the Theodosian Wall, a double wall. Around the sea a smaller wall was sufficient since the water functioned as protection. Inside was aqueduct(s) which meant they had water supply. However, Leo III ordered to put a long chain in the river of Golde Horn meaning they had a harbor of 700 meters. Same decades earlier the Byzantines had invented the “Greek Fire” which was a fire that could burn on water. The recipe to Greek Fire was secret, and only few Byzantines knew how to produce it. The Umayyads’ plan to capture Constantinople was very reasonable: they planned to starve it to surrender. They planned to put many soldiers to block outside the Theodosian Wall, and many ships to block the harbors so food supply could not enter Constantinople. Green are the Umayyads, and black the Byzantines, that was the Umayyad Caliphate's plan: But the Umayyads’ sea blockade was prevented: although the Byzantine warships were numerically inferior to the Umayyads ships, the Byzantine had a super weapon: Greek Fire. It meant that the smaller Byzantine fleet could defeat Umayyad fleet in the long end: Now the original plan of the Umayyads was destroyed. It makes no sense just to block on land since supply could enter Constantinople’s harbor behind the chain. But the Umayyads decided to stay outside the Theodosian wall. And that was indeed stupid, because after 4 months of siege a brutal winter arrived and decimated the Umayyad army: In the spring 718 the Umayyad Caliphate decided still to maintain the siege, and sent fresh supply of ships and a new Arab army. The Arab army marched through Anatolia in order to reach to Constantinople to help to block the city. The Umayyad ships anchored in the mouth of Nicomedia in secret. But some Umayyad ships rebelled because some Copts(Egyptian Christians) were unsatisfied for whatever reason, so they sailed to Constantinople and revealed the positions of the Umayyad ships and army. The Byzantines did not hesitate: they sent a squadron of Byzantine ships with Greek Fire and burned the Umayyad fleet entirely outside Nicomedia. At the same time a guerilla-tactic was used to ambush the marching Muslim army in Anatolia, so the Umayyads supply was eradicated and never reached to the hungry Umayyad soldiers outside Constantinople: Now there were many hungry Umayyads outside the Theodosian Wall who have waited for many months without progress, and as you know hungry stomach tends to cause to be easily annoyed. The Byzantines had destroyed their fleet after all, and thus forced them to eat their horses, camels, then the bark and the leaves, and eventually they apparently resorted to cannibalism also, and even ate their own excrement. Very delicious. But Leo III the Isaurian is still not finish with them: he contacted the Bulgarian Khan, Tervel, and forged an alliance. Leo III convinced the Khan Tervel to do a specific thing: to attack the Umayyad army in the flank and rear, and hit the hungry crap out of them: View attachment 757639 After about one year of siege, the Umayyad Caliphate finally realized it was totally hopeless to continue the siege, so they decided to cut their major lost a bit, and shipped their army home. However, later a hurricane arrived and smashed their fleet when they were sailing home: Prior the Siege of Constantinople in 717 the Muslims believed that Allah had guided them, because how could they expand and expand? At the same time the Byzantine’s borders were shrinking, and Umayyads invested very expensive in the siege, and decided to keep it for a year, but the Byzantines inflicted a disastrous defeat upon them, and now the steam went out, and the Muslims became insecure. Eventually the Abbasids rebelled, and took the power and the Umayyads escaped to Spain. The Abbasids were coherent somehow only in the beginning, but after the death of Harun al-Rashid in 809 the Abbasid Caliphate gradually fragmented, and around 850 it was splitted in many pieces. Had the Byzantines lost in 717-718, a rich Arab-Muslim culture would had prospered around Constantinople, and eventually Pagan (East)Europe may had went to Islam. But that did not happen, and a rich Byzantine-Christian culture prospered instead. The Byzantine Empire expanded again, and eventually spread Christianity to East-Europe, and particularly to Russia. In 1204 during the Latin Sack of Constantinople, the Byzantines lost its strength and was eventually conquered by Ottomans in 1453. Oh, and of course: In Syracuse the Byzantine official, Basil Onomagoulos, who declared himself (illegitimate) emperor, was eventually overthrowm and killed. And that coin of mine was minted soon after. SOURCES: That youtube-video is not supposed to be academic, and obviously some minor things differ from my description, but perhaps it could be interested to check. I liked it very much. From 7:22: I normally don’t link to Wikipedia, but here is a readable text(it really does not contradict the other academic works I have consulted): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Constantinople_(717–718)
Awesome writeup!! I enjoyed it very much. Here's my Leo III, struck quite a while after the siege (c. 732-741). I'd love to get one of the earlier issues, like yours. Mine also shows both Leo and his son Constantine V. I think the earliest of all (717-720) show Leo alone, without Constantine... those are hard to come by.
No Leo III but here's my Byzantine closest in time to the siege, a Justinian II, happens to also be from Syracuse. Justinian II, Byzantine Empire AE follis Obv: No legend, crowned bust facing wearing chlamys, holding akakia in left hand and cross on globe in right hand Rev: Large M, TNA-like monogram above (Sear type 38) Mint: Syracuse Date: 685-695 AD Ref: SB 1296 And the emperor who gave his name to the Theodosian Walls. Theodosius II, Eastern Roman Empire AV solidus Obv: D N THEODOSIVS P F AVG, diademed, helmeted, cuirassed bust facing, holding spear and shield Rev: IMP XXXX II COS XVII P P, Constantinopolis seated left, with foot on prow, holding cross on globe and sceptre, star in left field Mint: Constantinople Mintmark: COMOB Date: 442 AD Ref: RIC X 286
Watch the language and memes are your responsibility to make sure they do not violate the rules either. Thanks Jim
@ Severus Alexander: I am sorry to disappoint you, but a lot of people and sellers have done the same mistake. That coin you have is actually Leo V(5) and sear 1630: http://labarum.info/lbr/show.php?coin=16300 They don’t hold the akakia in their right hand. Also the coins from the 800s tend to be more decent and in a better shape just like yours. Leo III’s coin looks like that one: holding akakia in right hand, and witout letters, and being much cruder: http://labarum.info/lbr/show.php?coin=15160 @ desertgem I am sorry. Giving that numismatic collectors are a bit older people I should not had speak in that way as I do among my friends. I would like to edit it, but the “edit”-button is gone.
Thanks so much @Herberto! Given the quality and fabric of the coin, you're absolutely right that an 8th century attribution doesn't make a lot of sense for my coin. It's never disappointing to make a mistake. I relish my mistakes as I usually learn a lot from them... as in this case! It seems I'm in good company, as even CNG regularly makes the same mistake, as in this listing. In fact, virtually all of the hits on acsearch using "leo iii 1516" are in fact Leo V 1630 like mine. I had better make use of labarum.info more often when I'm unsure. Is that site quite reliable? It seems I am missing a lifetime issue of Leo III in my collection! Very good to know. Is now high on the list. Thank goodness for CoinTalk!!
That's animated History. It makes learning easier and more interesting. Also it sheds light on some coins to eye. Congrats..
Outstanding write up with an equally outstanding coin! There seems to be a lot of auctions that are posting that Leo V follis as Leo III . The Leo V follis is a bit scarce and comes up only once in a while. Labarum is pretty reliable and if there are mistakes, its rectified quickly. Unfortunately, there are still some gaps that needs to be filled and it gets annoying at times, especially when images are around. Here are my Leo III coins: Byzantine Empire: Leo III the Isaurian (717-741) Æ Follis, Constantinople (Sear 1516; DOC 39) Obv: LЄ-ON S CON; Two busts facing, Leo on left, bearded, and Constantine, usually slightly smaller, on right. Each wears chlamys with conspicuous tablion and crown with cross, and holds akaka in right Rev: Large M; X/X/X - N/N/N across field, cross above, B below Dim: 25 mm, 3.37 g Byzantine Empire: Leo III the Isaurian (717-741) Æ Follis, Syracuse (Sear 1531; DOC 55; Anastasi 414) Obv: Λ/Є/O/N to left, Δ/Є/C/Π to right; Leo standing facing, wearing crown and chlamys, and holding akakia Rev: K/Ш/N/C to left, Δ/Є/C/Π to right; Constantine standing facing, wearing crown and chlamys, and holding akakia
