Your latest

There has been a lot of back and forth of the fall of the Roman Empire, which I do enjoy the history but I'm also about the coins. I would like to see everyone's latest Western & Eastern empire coins. If I am correct the last Western emporer is Romulus Augustus, and in the East it would be Zeno or do people consider Constantine XI to be the last?
I'll start with what I believe is Valentinian III, if anybody disagrees feel free to correct me. If incorrect I will fall back on my Johannes.
WEST

Valentinian III
Mint: Rome
425 to 455 AD
AE Nummus
Obvs: Valentinian right.
Revs: (VI)CTOR(IA AVGG), Victory advancing left holding wreath and palm branch. T(RM)
9x10mm, 1.5g
Ref: RIC X 1910
EAST

Zeno(second reign)
477 to 491 AD
Mint: ?
AE 3
Obvs: DN ZE[ ] PE Λ, Helmeted, draped and cuirassed right.
Revs: No inscription, Victory advancing left, holding wreath and dragging captive. Chi-Rho to l
13mm, 1.0g
Ref: variety RIC X 952a

I'll would be interested to hear which is considered the last Eastern emporer.

Here is a chronological list of 5th century to help out.

• Theodosius II (east, 408–450 ce)
• Constantius III (west, 421 ce, coemperor)
• Valentinian III (west, 425–455 ce)
• Marcian (east, 450–457 ce)
• Petronius Maximus (west, March 17–May 31, 455 ce)
• Avitus (west, 455–456 ce)
• Majorian (west, 457–461 ce)
• Libius Severus (west, 461–465 ce)
• Anthemius (west, 467–472 ce)
• Olybrius (west, April–November 472 ce)
• Glycerius (west, 473–474 ce)
• Julius Nepos (west, 474–475 ce)
• Romulus Augustulus (west, 475–476 ce)
• Leo I (east, 457–474 ce)
• Leo II (east, 474 ce)
• Zeno (east, 474–491 ce)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I don't have a lot of 4rth or 5th century coins in my collection.

Constantine II for a western Emperor...though to be totally accurate he was a Caesar of the West.



And Valens for an Eastern emperor



Valens is of course famous for having the Eastern army anialated at Adrianople, though interesting the West would eventually suffer more from the consequences of that defeat than the East.

 

JUSTINIAN I
AE Follis
OBVERSE: DN IVSTINIANVS PP AVG, pearl diademed, draped, cuirassed bust right
REVERSE: Large M, star to left, cross above, star right, officina letter below, mintmark CON
Struck at Constantinople, 527-65 AD
10g, 28mm
SB 160

 

Western:

Libius Severus, Western Roman Empire
AE nummus
Obv: D N LIBIVS SEVERVS P F AVG, pearl-diademed, draped bust right
Rev: Monogram of Ricimer within wreath
Mint: Rome
Date: 461-467 AD (Libius Severus reigned 461-465 AD)
Ref: RIC X 2715

 

That is a very nice Zeno in the OP!

My latest in the West is Val III (the typical grotty AE 4). I wish I had a grotty AE 4 of Libius Severus, like @ValiantKnight's.

No reason to stop in the East before Const. XI. The latest I have is one before that, John VIII (1423-1448), AR half hyperpyron.

 

Some of my later period coins

Constantine II (AD 337-340)


Valentinian I (AD 364-375)

Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantine)

Manuel I (AD 1143-1180)

 

Not sure. I think it's probably this one, which I'm guessing is Theodosius II. It came in a lot of uncleaneds. It's tiny. Probably 8-9 mm. maybe. I think I can make out DN THEO on the left. Cross in wreath reverse. Dating the coin might be a little tougher. T2 ruled as Eastern Roman emperor from 408 to 450, so that's a pretty big window. Maybe ca. 425? Would love to get some help from some T2 experts.

 

well, if we go with zeno as the cut off in the east, i do have one of him.



i do have a pic of the obverse but it is pretty much just smooth.


in the west i haven't got past valentinian ii...

 

The latest I have pics of.

 

Justin I 518-527
SB 62 Follis Obv: DNIVSTINVSPPA - Diademed, draped and cuirassed bust right.
Rev: Large M Exe: /CON - Cross above, on either side. (Constantinople).

Justinian I 527-565
AE Follis Obv: DNIVSTINIANVSPPAVG - Diademed, draped and cuirassed bust right. Rev: Large M Exe: CON - Cross above, to left, A under and cross to right. (Constantinople).

 

I have coins of Justinian and Anastasius as well. But I consider those early Byzantine and not late Roman. But I suppose that touches upon the OP query about periodicity. I traditionally go with 476 A.D. as the fall of Rome in the west. In my mind, then, perhaps the eastern emperor ruling at this time would be the latest Roman since it's the last time there's any semblance of unified or cooperating rule between East and West. After this point, the eastern, or byzantine, empire is the only game in town. So by that reckoning, Zeno might be my nominee, though historians quite naturally date the beginning of the Byzantine Empire with Constantine. But Victor has already pointed out how problematic the language of "fall" is, with many historians stressing the transition of late empire into the structures of feudalism and church administration in West. So I fully recognize that these periodicity divisions are largely arbitrary constructs we tend to apply in retrospect to make messy events neater in our understanding of history. But the OP asked a direct question, so after all this hem-hawing, I would nominate Zeno. Unfortunately I don't have a coin of him. And to bring all this back around to coinage, I find really interesting the dramatic gulf between the quite lovely gold coins struck in these late emperors' names versus the pitiful little bronze coins struck contemporaneously. I suppose the latter are a testimony to the collapsing internal economy of the empire? Were the fancy gold coins struck to keep the barbarians at bay? There's just a huge gulf between quality that I find interesting and wonder about its significance.

 

Was it just that gold was used for international trade? Can't gain by debasing when trading abroad so need to maintain standards.

 

I see some great examples. I read where some say Zeno is last and others say Constantine XI is and Constantine I is the first Eastern emporer as @Gavin Richardson pointed out. The last Western everyone seems to agree on.
Libius Severus is not an easy one to get @ValiantKnight would like to get one some day myself. Hats off to your AV Zeno @lordmarcovan.

Thanks, I was fortunate to get a pair of them. I like your John VIII.

 

I'm considering Maurice Tiberius as the last "roman" emperor of the east. Partially because the Strategikon of Maurice, the military treatise was written during his reign. After this, the eastern part of the empire exhibited an increasingly Greek character. Keep in mind however, that the Strategikon was written in Greek, rather than Latin, so the transition was already occurring.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategikon_of_Maurice

Here's my Maurice Tiberius follis

 

Traditionally, coin people would place the first Byzantine ruler as Anastasius because of his currency reform that gave us the large M follis in place of a pile of 40 tiny coins. His gold solidi were not all that different from those of the Eastern rulers immediately before or after so I really doubt anyone would start an era with him were it not for his copper coins. This ignores the fact that he issued gold fractions of the solidus as part of his reform so maybe he really is the best place to switch eras from a coinage point of view.

The reform took place in 498 AD. Coins of Anastasius before that date strike me as Roman rather than Byzantine. That makes him, again IMO, both the last Roman and first Byzantine from a coinage sense. We had the same sort of thing at the beginning of the "late Roman" period where Diocletian and his associates issued coins in the same style as his predecessors for several years before giving us the coinage reform. Below is what I consider to be a very late Roman nummus of Anastasius issued in the style of the earlier 5th century Romans with monogram reverse.

Were these coins also made after the reform along with the M, K, I and E denominations? I have not seen a one nummus denomination with the expected A reverse. Does it exist? I can not prove that my coin is pre-reform but that is my opinion. (I might add that there are a few of these that have a letter or two of obverse legend but my example is pretty much what you see on a regular basis.) It is what I consider my latest Roman coin.

There are studies of the coinage reform that address the weight standards but I have not read them. Does anyone know how to tell a 491-497 solidus from a 498-518 one?

 

And here is one of those gold fractions Doug references in his post above.


Anastasius I (491-518), Semissis, Constantinople, c. 507-518, 2.00g, 17.90 mm.

Obv: Diademed, draped and cuirassed bust right

Anastasius PP AVG

Rev: Victory seated right, inscribing shield set on knee; star to left, staurogram to lower right;

Victoria AVGG. CONOB in Exergue

CONOB. MIBE 10; DOC 9; S. 7. Very fine.

London Coin Galleries, Auction 4 - Part 1Lot 1144 June 1, 2017

 

I've also seen where others put Anastasius as the last Eastern emporer, I almost put mine up on the 1st thread (heck here is mine).

Sear lists Anastasius as the first Byzantine ruler I assume for the same reasons you listed, dealing with currency reform. To me that makes sense as well. Constantine XI strikes me as being too late and more Byzantine than Roman.
I think most just lump all Solidi into the 491 to 518 bucket. I would rely on my references to split out the years more accurately, how they know the difference I have no idea.

 

Hmmm, I never thought about which is my 'latest' coin. Well, this is as close as I can come to the 'Fall' (aside from a Mason jar full of unattributed 3rd century bronze).


Domitian
AR Denarius, 2.99g
Rome mint, 96 AD
RIC 820 (R2), BMC - , RSC -
Obv: IMP CAES DOMIT AVG GERM P M TR P XVI; Head of Domitian, laureate, bearded, r.
Rev: IMP XXII COS XVII CENS P P P; Minerva stg. l., with spear (M4)
Acquired from Savoca Numismatik, eBay, 10 April 2015.

It is not often one can date a coin to within four or five days. This very rare denarius, part of Domitian's last issue, was struck in the span of just a few days between 14 September 96, when he assumed TR P XVI, and 18 September 96, the date of his assassination.

 

I saw the Anastasius monograms in this post and just happened to have come across this Thessalonika variant not too long ago. It's not in the greatest condition but interesting with the cross in the left field.

I'll also throw in this interesting Zeno type:



Reverse is SE-CN; Victory walking left dragging captive, cross in left field, wreath around