Log in or Sign up
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Ancient Coins
>
Why do we see more gold coins for the later Roman periods than earlier?
>
Reply to Thread
Message:
<p>[QUOTE="seth77, post: 4518308, member: 56653"]The gold coinage is really plentiful for the 5th and 6th century, mostly because there were multiple reasons for hoards being hidden and lost during the migration period and continuous periods of conflict. The <i>siliquae </i>are not continuously rare -- The siliquae of the 350s, 360-370s are usually what you expect to find when browsing dealer inventories. This corresponds with Constantius II's campaign against Magnentius, the Gallic wars and Julian's offensive against the Persians and the relationship with the Thervingi in the 370s. I think that a large input of precious metal -- gold and silver -- issues for the late empire should be related to imperial needs, mostly military campaigns and payments towards <i>foederati </i>and/or the warring tribes on the <i>limes</i>, while the common economic needs were addressed by an almost unlimited output of base metal coinage. That's why you don't see much of Magnentian gold and silver (nor Vetranian) but lots of Constantius II dating from that particular civil war era, coupled with a cornucopia of AEs of all shapes and sizes.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>
[QUOTE="seth77, post: 4518308, member: 56653"]The gold coinage is really plentiful for the 5th and 6th century, mostly because there were multiple reasons for hoards being hidden and lost during the migration period and continuous periods of conflict. The [I]siliquae [/I]are not continuously rare -- The siliquae of the 350s, 360-370s are usually what you expect to find when browsing dealer inventories. This corresponds with Constantius II's campaign against Magnentius, the Gallic wars and Julian's offensive against the Persians and the relationship with the Thervingi in the 370s. I think that a large input of precious metal -- gold and silver -- issues for the late empire should be related to imperial needs, mostly military campaigns and payments towards [I]foederati [/I]and/or the warring tribes on the [I]limes[/I], while the common economic needs were addressed by an almost unlimited output of base metal coinage. That's why you don't see much of Magnentian gold and silver (nor Vetranian) but lots of Constantius II dating from that particular civil war era, coupled with a cornucopia of AEs of all shapes and sizes.[/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
>
Why do we see more gold coins for the later Roman periods than earlier?
>
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...