| Author |
 Replies: 12 / Views: 3,302 |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
842 Posts |
I was just watching TV with my dad when he showed me an episode of Pawn Stars that he thought I would find interesting. In the 11th episode of season 8 titled 'Cold Hard Cash', a man comes into the shop and produces a gold Byzantine solidus. He claims that he found the coin in the spine of a book on ancient coins. Now I don't know Byzantine coins very well so I was unable to I.D. the emperor, but I heard things during the transaction that made me feel  . Rick told the guy (and a full-screen graphic followed) that Constantine I was the first Byzantine emperor in the year 330.A.D. Yikes. Ummm....I guess the 68 other heads of state and 200 or so years after him don't count anymore? Well, the guy who brought the coin in wanted $1,900 at first (I know enough to realize that price is ludicrous. The reverse of the solidus wasn't in the greatest condition). Rick offered him $800 and the two finally settled on $1,100. Hate to say it Rick, but you overpaid. At least he will take a hit financially on it as punishment for spreading falsehoods of the greatest empire to ever exist! TL;DR: Fact-checking is your friend. |
|
|
|
Valued Member
Australia
192 Posts |
The prices on that show for niche collectables are usually made up. Like once an expert valued some late German Empire notes at around $100 each when they were actually worth only like $2 each.
|
|
Moderator
 United States
23731 Posts |
I saw that episode also, it was a nice coin but he did over pay.
|
|
Moderator
Australia
16827 Posts |
Quote:
Rick told the guy (and a full-screen graphic followed) that Constantine I was the first Byzantine emperor in the year 330.A.D. Yikes. Ummm....I guess the 68 other heads of state and 200 or so years after him don't count anymore? Well, to an extent it is true. Given that the Romans never actually woke up one day and said, "Let's rename ourselves the Byzantine Empire", the boundary between Roman and Byzantine is much less clear-cut than you seem to think. Constantine I did re-found they tiny fortress-city of Byzantium as Constantinople, the New Rome, in 330 AD and went a long way towards making Christianity the new official religion, so in that respect he has far more right to be considered the "founder of the Byzantine Empire" than any other Eastern emperor between 300 and 600 AD. Just because we coin collectors prefer to regard Anastasius I as the "first Byzantine emperor", thanks to his coinage reforms, does not mean everyone else does. The three-volume popular historical books titled "Byzantium", by John Julius Norwich, begin with the life of Constantine I. Likewise, Wikipedia gives 330 AD and the foundation of Constantinople as the beginning of the Byzantine Empire. As for the price: who cares what the "real" price is? It's a pawn shop. They paid $1100 for it? Fine, they'll simply put a price tag of $1600 on it and eventually sell it for $1400 or so. It's not like many actual ancients collectors go into their shop looking for ancient coins. Don't say "infinitely" when you mean "very"; otherwise, you'll have no word left when you want to talk about something really infinite. - C. S. Lewis
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Russian Federation
5173 Posts |
I thought the first Byzantine emperor was Arcadius  I guess it makes sense why Anastasius from a purely numismatic perspective, and I guess it kind of makes sense why Constantine based on the whole Constantinople thing. But in my personal opinion, having the division line at the place when the empire actually separated makes far more sense  |
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
842 Posts |
Good post, Sap. I agree with january1may on the beginning of the Byzantine empire thing though. Constantine I laid the foundations of what would become the Byzantine empire for sure, but I personally can't call him the first. That's like saying the Aztecs founded Mexico. Just because they built the city of Tenochtitlan on which Mexico City now sits doesn't make them the founders of it all. They just laid the foundations for the next civilization to make it's start. As long as the Roman empire was still united, it should be considered only the Roman empire. It can't be both at once. When the split occurred in the 5th century I can see differentiating the two. But before then the region was united under one 'nation', if you will. Calling Constantine I the first Byzantine emperor is the thing I disagree with most strongly when it comes to ancient history. But that's just one mans opinion |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4964 Posts |
interesting topic indeed....would have been much easier for us if they would have signed a "declaration of we're now the byzantine emplire" would it?
I kind of like the anastasius line myself, but I'm not set on it at all.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United Kingdom
946 Posts |
A lot of these shows are so rehearsed, they become boring.
Well, Constantine was "the 1st Byzantine empire" in the sense of "Byzantine history" beginning with him, as in John Julius Norwich's "Byzantium" trilogy begins with him.
As mentioned before, "Byzantium" may have been a word used for the capital of the empire by the Classicist Michael Psellus in the 11th century, but Constantine I & Constantine XI called themselves and their Empire, Roman.
|
|
Moderator
Australia
16827 Posts |
Quote:
As long as the Roman empire was still united, it should be considered only the Roman empire. It can't be both at once. If the division of the Empire into Eastern and Western halves is to be considered the primary criterion for the Roman/Byzantine boundary, then perhaps Diocletian ought to be considered the founding Byzantine emperor. Prior to that time, all divisions within the Empire were secessionists and usurpers in rebellion against the central government; they either failed and were crushed by the central government or succeeded, overthrowing and becoming the central government. Diocletian was the first to deliberately and premeditatedly draw lines on the map and carve up the Empire between multiple emperors and caesars, with the Emperor of the East recognized as the premier rank. After Diocletian, Imperial unity under a sole emperor was the rare exception, not the rule. While Diocletian's Tetrarchy model called for amicable relations between the Imperial dominii and the propaganda on the coinage reflected this ideal, the truth on the ground was usually far different; for most of the period from 286 to 476, the Eastern and Western halves of the Empire operated as two separate countries and were as likely to go to war against each other as against the barbarians. Diocletian also radically reformed the political system, eliminating the last vestiges of traditional Republican pretense and adopting the titles and regalia of an Eastern-style hereditary monarch. I would not have a problem with anybody who considered all the Western emperors, from Maximian forwards, as "Roman" and all the Eastern emperors, from Diocletian forwards, as "Byzantine". Of course, as coin collectors this would be extremely problematic for us, since in most cases the pretense of "unity of the emperors" meant that "Roman" emperors were often honoured on the coinage of "Byzantine" mints and vice-versa, and apart from minor stylistic differences the only difference between "Roman" and "Byzantine" coins would be the mintmarks. But it would be a logically defensible definition. As for "It can't be both at once", well, since the difference between "Late Roman" and "Early Byzantine" is entirely arbitrary and semantic, apparently it can. As I linked earlier, Wikipedia lists all the Eastern (but not the Western) emperors from Constantine onwards as "Byzantine". But Wikipedia also lists all emperors, of East and West, as "Roman Emperors", all the way up until the end of the reign of Maurice in AD 602. That's 300 years of Eastern emperors being both "Roman" and "Byzantine". Personally, I'll stick to Anastasius as my "first Byzantine". Since I (also somewhat arbitrarily) put the ancient/mediaeval line at AD 500, this conveniently allows me to put all my "Roman" coins in my Ancients album and all my "Byzantine" coins in my Mediaevals album. Don't say "infinitely" when you mean "very"; otherwise, you'll have no word left when you want to talk about something really infinite. - C. S. Lewis
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4964 Posts |
 going over my own meager collection, my last eastern guy inn my "roman" box is theodosius ii. I have a zeno, but it's in an album of mixed coins from all over the place. if I had an anastasius it would go in my "byzantine" box. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4778 Posts |
Quote:
Rick offered him $800 and the two finally settled on $1,100. Hate to say it Rick, but you overpaid. Really? I'd have imagined it'd go more like this:  Edited by VisigothKing
12/16/2013 12:11 am
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
Australia
21786 Posts |
To quote David Sear: Roman Coins and Their Values:
"The reform AD 498 (in the reign of Anastasius 1), is, therefore a convenient point at which to terminate the Roman coinage and to begin the Byzantine, at least as far as the bronze is concerned.
In the case of gold and silver however, it is more difficult to differentiate between pre and post-498 issues."
The date of 498 is NOT a change point in culture; the coinage reform of that date is just but a small blip in the overall scheme in the development of Byzantine culture at Constantinople. David Sear HAD to end numismatic narrative at SOME point in time, and that is the date he chose.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3439 Posts |
Byzantine is just a state of mind.
I have often puzzled over the stylistic changes easily apparent on some of the folli of the tetrachy under Diocletian
..... what on earth were they thinking ?
The age of Constantine is a bit easier to fathom. The artist was showing how 'pius' and saintly the emperor was (mandate of heaven and all that)
..... even if he really was a merciless bloody tyrant.
The same runs true for the later bronze issues of Anastasius, Justin, Justinian etc.
The artists were conveying a message. While today it does look somewhat primitive.
At that time it was stylistically 'modern'.
The artists were not inept boobs but were looking at the world in very a different way.
If not for the rapid stylistic changes we would accept the legend "Emperor of the Romans" at face value.
|
| |
Replies: 12 / Views: 3,302 |
|
Posted 12/14/2013 9:01 pm
