Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Herberto, post: 8231486, member: 74222&quot;]As most of you know after the Roman Empire was divided in two administrations the western part dwinled imediately while the eastern part (Byzantine Empire) continued for 1000 years or so.</p><p><br /></p><p>Among coin collectors it is appearently accepted that during the reign of Anastasius (491-518) it was the beginning of a distinct &quot;byzantine coinge&quot;.</p><p><br /></p><p>But that makes not much sense if you ask me. Because I do not see anything specific during the reign of Anastasius. Yes, he did introduce a new monetary system, but many others emperors before and after Anastasius also had monetary reform.</p><p><br /></p><p>Take a look her where I will describe the evolution of the coinage of the eastern part of Roman Empire:</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Here we have a coin of Arcadius (383- alone:395-408), and as you see it is not much different from the coins during the reign of Diolectian (286-305). They are the same: Bust looking to right, and with the usual &quot;Dominos Noster...&quot;, and that was all started by Diolectian.</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1447141[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Then during the reign of Anastasius (491-518), he introduced a new system, the big &quot;M&quot; implying a denomination. We have M (40), K (20), I(10) and E(5). Nothing different from Arcadius. The only difference is the reverse with M.</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1447139[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>That &quot;M&quot; continued until Theophilus (829-842) decided to remove the &quot;M&quot; and instead prised himself:</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1447135[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Later during the reign of John I Tzimisces (969-976) he decided to remove the portrait of emperor on the obverse and instead let the image of Christ appear. That coin here was during the reign of Basil II (976-1025):</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1447136[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Somehow 100 years later or so, one emperor decided to remove the text on reverse and instead putted an image of emperors/empress:</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1447137[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Later during the reign of Alexios I Komnenos (1081-1118) he introduced a completly new monetary reform, and among other he also made the coins concave:</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1447138[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>And that concave coins with a portrait of Christ on obverse and emperor on reverse continued until the demise of the Byzantine Empire.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Now I want to ask: How can Anastasius&#039; monetary reform be &quot;the beginning&quot; of a specific &quot;byzantine coinage&quot;?&nbsp; I would say that the reign of Diolectian (286-305) could be just as a good bet as Anastasius. Even the reign of Arcadius (383- alone:395-408) would be also a good starting point for the coinage of Byzantine.</p><p><br /></p><p>By the way the monetary reform of Anastasius was no more &quot;revolutonary&quot; than the reform of Diolectian. It was neither more &quot;revolutionary&quot; than when Leo III&#039;s (717-741) monetary reform when he introduced milearesion. Or Alexios I Komnenos (1081-1118) when he introduced a completly new denomination system.</p><p><br /></p><p>Why are Anastasius&#039; coins considered to be the beginning of a specific &quot;byzantine coinage&quot;?&nbsp; Why not Diolectian, Leo III or Alexios I Komnenos?[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

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