Steppenfool

Great discussion on one of my favourite Emperors! One tiny nitpick is that Constantius II did murder the Nicene Bishop Paul of Constantinople! It appears that Paul sowing discord and creating unrest would have warranted him his execution initially. However, with Constans being alive and tension being present between the brothers he could only exile him. Once Constans was dead, Constantius II was able to administer the penalty that he would have saw fit back in 341. I suppose that the caveat is that the execution was not religiously motivated. Anyone who instigated such unrest would have been killed regardless of the context. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_I_of_Constantinople

Fantastic fun. Some brain pickers there. I hope my instinct prevailed on some of the 50/50s I had.

Haha. My opening salvo was just a counter to your Anti-Constantinian banter. I didn't really expect or mean for it to be taken personally. Of course statement 1. that you quoted was hyperbole, I never denied that. I said that statement 2 wasn't hyperbole and provided some historical context for that belief. What evidence is there that Constans was openly gay? It was rumoured that he engaged in homosexual activity and this contributed to the eventual usurpation of Magnentius. However, this is quite different from being openly gay or identifying as such. I don't see how this contributes to any narrative (?) I am trying to form either. Some of Rome's greatest and my favourite emperors were openly gay (such as Hadrian). I don't think this has any effect on their legacy or the way I interpret their politics. I am happy to leave the conversation now before it gets any more odious. I apologize if I have caused any upset.

Poor X is a turn of phrase, I don't actually believe he is a serious object of pity. I don't see how the statement referenced in 2 is a hyperbole. Applying the law equally regardless of personal ties surely is a noble thing, no? The consul of 165 BC Titus Manlius Torquatus was lauded for this very feat, killing his son for disobeying orders on the field. I am quite shocked at the vitriol you have included in your response, when my reply was one of a historical nature. You have managed to insult an entire religious movement because I included a point about how their consistent beliefs indicate that Constantine's burial place wasn't ridiculous. Not to mention that you didn't attempt at all to engage in a historical discussion, but only continued more misplaced moralising. I don't love these "atrocious" men, I am only trying to analyse their actions fairly and without an agenda. I don't have any photographs of their coins that I own on my machine. I was going to contribute later with some photos when I had the opportunity to take them. I don't care if Constans was gay, but if he was I doubt it was openly. I am not religious (Christian or otherwise), and this conversation doesn't involve the church or its scandals, and bringing them up only reveals some other agenda.

Poor Constantine and Constantius II. Never have any Father and Son been on the receiving end of such anachronistic moralising as these. The seething rhetoric, based largely on misconceptions, reverberates into the modern era. First off, we have to question the expediency of analysing the morals of Roman Emperors in the first place. They lived in a completely different world to us, with completely different values, and were trusted with a very tough and dangerous job. No emperor was morally pure, and all Augusti of note have massacres, enslavements, murder, purges, persecutions to their name. It appears pointless to waste energy peering into their soul through a few primary sources separated decades from the actual events, and millennia from ourselves. Regardless, let me forget all that and peer into the actions of the two men anyway. We'll start with Constantine, the main gripe obviously being the killing of his wife and son. The biggest problem with moralising in this instance is that the details are extremely scant, even by historical standards. All we have is rumour and speculation, the most bizarre and anachronistic of which is repeated by the pagan sympathiser Zosimus centuries later. What we do know is this: That Crispus was being groomed for the throne and was greatly admired, an incident happened, he was tried in a court of law and found guilty, was probably ordered (or chose) to commit suicide and suffered damnatio. Some time after, Fausta is dead and also suffers a damnatio. It is not even certain if the two events are related at all, and if they are, how they are related. There is not nearly enough information to make a moral judgement here. It could be, that Constantine proved morally just in not sparing his family members who had committed a capital crime, but letting due process commence. Nevertheless, we do know the following. That the stability of the empire was maintained, that there was no notable resistance to this execution, that the remainder of Constantine's family were loyal to him, that Fausta's three sons made absolutely no attempt to rehabilitate their mother and that nobody with knowledge of the event felt the need to record/spread a defence of Crispus or Fausta. The only way we can judge Constantine morally for these actions, is if we declare that there is no possible moral justification for an Roman emperor to kill their wife/son, which seems a bit silly. The execution of Licinius II is barely worth addressing morally because keeping him alive after defeating and executing Licinius I would be a ridiculous political error. Now lets move on to Constantius II's famous massacre. Constantine has just died, and the succession is a bit uncertain (this will cause other issues). In 337 we have two very clear familial camps. The Constantinian dynasty of Faustan stock, and that of Theodoran sock (Constantine's half siblings and their descendants). The three Faustan brothers are very, very young, vulnerable and probably rightly suspicious of the elder Theodoran stock. Whether a power grab/civil war from the Theodoran side was on the horizon or not, is impossible to say. However, it is hardly politically ridiculous that Constantius II either ordered or (more likely) went along with the murderous scheme of the power bloc in the East. To say the situation was politically unstable would be an understatement (and this would be proven again by later events), and the legacy of the dissolving of Diocletian's tetrarchy would no doubt impress on the young men. This was a morally neutral and highly contextual massacre which probably constituted pre-emptive self-defence. Furthermore, Constantius II and his cronies spared the young Gallus and Julian, he wasn't out for needless blood. Lastly, if we really want to peer into Constantius II's soul here, we have written testimony that the massacre played on conscience for decades after, to the point he believed his Persian stalemate was a form of divine justice. Moving on to 340, the murder of Constantine II by Constans. The numismatic and inscriptional evidence shows that Constantine II was being groomed for some sort of Senior position, perhaps with Constantius II as a Junior Augustus alongside him and Constans and Dalmatius as Caesars. Unfortunately, this wasn't communicated effectively, and even close sources like Eusebius seem to entertian the notion that Constantine divided the empire among his sons in his will. What is true however, was that power blocs (like in the case of Constantius II) were forming around each Augusti. We even have an inscription after the death of Constantine where someone is blatantly unsure what to call Dalmatius, writing the following: M p CXXXI d n Fl Delmatio betissimo Aug nobilissimo Caes Fl Octavian p p Sard devotus numique eius It seems that poor Flavius Octavianus, governor of Sardinia had a difficult time working out if Dalmatius was a Caesar or an Augustus and therefore covered himself by issuing an inscription with both titles. Could this be because the Theodoran side were also planning to lay claim to a Senior position? Back to the civil war of 340. On close analysis, it appears that Constantine II and Constans had disagreements about the role of Senior Augustus. It was acknowledged by Constans in some coin issues, yet he routinely violated this principle, making war and issuing laws in his own name. Constantine II probably aimed to check this attack on his seniority, by patrolling militarily with a small detachment in Constans lands, was was his right as Senior Augustus. Constans (or his court, the Augustus was not present) seized on the opportunity to increase their power and influence, and murdered Constantine II. The account of the ambush lends one to believe Constantine II and his troops did not expect it at all. Despite all this, a better use of our time would be to evaluate their competency as Emperor, a criteria that is timeless and shouldn't change with the vagaries of culture and time. Constantine's sole reign reflects the first unbroken decade of tumult in Rome since the beginning of the Crisis of the Third Century. Quite a remarkable achievement to any unbiased observer, considering the Roman Empire contained a myriad of complex problems. He knew which of Diocletian's innovations should be left alone, and which were massive failures and required a different approach. For Constantine's error in leaving the succession ambiguous, he still forged a strong enough dynasty that withstood civil war, general chaos, and an active Eastern front. Constantius II would continue this stability, ruling 24 years without ceding any terrain, defeating an usurper, and keeping a steady ship in an extremely volatile time which had the added twist of inter-Christian conflict. In one final act of amazing wisdom and stability he left a united and strong empire to the cousin who had declared war on him that same year. The real decline would begin under the much admired Julian, whose life and a large portion of his army would be lost in his bungled Persian War. The Romans would lose what Ammianus called "the Strongest Bulwark of the Orient" in Nisibis, and several other key eastern cities. After being kept safe by Constantius II for 24 years, they would never return to Roman control. It is also worth noting, that Constantine is still considered a Saint and an Equal to the Apostles by the Orthodox Church, and these Christians today would by in large agree that his burial place was suitable. Constantius II was more moderate in his theology and this angered the eventual victors, so they do not view him so kindly.

I bought a few of these from eBAY to display a handful of coins I also place a small piece of card with attribution etc. inside. One caveat though is that I put the coins in a plastic Lighthouse coin capsule before sealing them. The reason being is that I have no idea if the thin membrane is coin safe. My basic rule is that if the plastic is flexible it is too risky to come in contact with my coin. I don't know if my concern is valid or I am being overly fearful. Another thing about these holders is that the membrane will absolutely pick up any grime/sweat from your fingertips, you need very clean hands to handle them.

Got this RESTITUTORI GALLIAE for £40 the other day from vcoins. An affordable way to tick this item on the coin bucket list!

I collect Roman Imperial because the historical source material for that period is abundant and of high quality. It is easy to make links between the coinage and actual events taking place on the ground. The artistry/style was not fixed so there is a lot of variation on offer to clearly depict various messages/events. Furthermore, artistic flair and other differences show up between mints which makes for a great deal of mystery and exploration. There is also a multitude of fascinating phenomena such as transitional portraits, varying legends etc. I was going to add that I collect Roman Imperial coinage because it is my favourite period of history, but I think that is a corollary from my first sentence. I stop collecting at 363 AD because that is when the reverse imagery becomes quite boring to me. This trend towards boring imagery is only exacerbated in the "Byzantine" period. I may move into Roman Republican denarii for similar historical connections, but I find they are harder to come by. Often the only historical connection is that the moneyer was significant. Of course there are exceptions, such as Brutus' Libertas denarii, where the imagery is also historically significant.

I've always felt an affinity with the complex character of Constantius II I feel that I have come to be an adult in quite a tumultuous time. The economy is wavering, major conflicts appear on the horizon, the socioreligious order of things has recently changed, and the hegemony of my geopolitical sphere appears precarious but is currently holding on. Any lustre remaining from the previous golden age has all but gone, and the situation although not disastrous yet, appears bleak. Like Constantius' eastern front, I sometimes feel that life is on a treadmill and a lot of effort is being expended to remain in the same place. I have often been accused of being aloof and hard to reach by anyone I am not very close with, much like Constantius' political court. Furthermore, I tend to be quite a practical individual and work actively to solve issues. Like Constantius in 337 to a (much ) lesser degree, I tend to prefer heavy handed approaches that don't leave room for uncertainty. However, as indicated by Julian's testimony, like Constantius, I can be quite sensitive to the fallout and can fall into rumination. I enjoy theological/philosophical discussion and trying to manipulate ideas to find suitable compromises, like Constantius' official position regarding the Arian controversy. I am principled, like Constantius was in defence of the dynasty against Magnentius, even though he'd had his run ins with Constans. However, common sense approach that causes the least hassle will always prevail in my mind, such as when Constantius made Julian his heir, despite his declaration of war. Lastly, Ammianus declared that Constantius never ate fruit. As much as I love my greens and veg, I cant' stomach fruit either.

That is true, but we must still be careful. The Gospel of Mark was written a few decades after Jesus ministry, and he certainly wasn't an eyewitness. It is entirely possible that Mark being a Greek speaking resident of the Roman empire, and writing for the communities within it, used a well known term like "denarius" in place of something more vague like "silver coin". All this assumes the event is historical in the first instance too. There's reasonable arguments to be made that one of Mark's aims is to domesticate the account of Jesus to make it more palatable to a Roman audience. After all, Jesus was executed for sedition and this facthad to be ameliorated. This anecdote is one of the most notable instances of this and the use of the word "denarius" aids in the task.

one i made today

That's a great example. I think the demand and price increase is warranted for the reasons I have given above. I think the Tiberius Tribute Penny is a different phenomena as it's mere speculation that the Biblical event actually happened, that it was that particular coin, or even that it was a denarius. At least the IVDAEA coin is operating under no false pretences!

The portrait outline is unmistakable, great catch. I still would've been nervous about the long distance the coin had to travel. I've only been brave enough for domestic orders on eBay so far.

I have actually tried to buy a IVDAEA from Aegean on two separate occasions only to be reminded they don't ship to the UK. The obverse wasn't much of a concern for me as it is the reverse I am purchasing it for. Better examples are available certainly, but its my experience that the price seems to rise very quickly for improvements in condition. If you can find a comparable one for around 175 USD then let me know, I may have to sell my kidney and get that one too.

I have desired to own a Vespasian IVDAEA piece for a long time. I try to collect coins that are historically important, or communicate interesting messages. There's scarcely a more historically significant event represented on coinage than the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple during the Flavian dynasty's Jewish War This event was important for Rome itself, the looted treasures funded Flavian prosperity and were responsible for the funding of the Colosseum. A monument to this event in Titus' arch still stands. It doesn't need describing how huge this event was for the Jewish people and their religion/theology. The event is mourned as tragedy to this day, as it is believed that God dwelt within the Holy of Holies and that this sacred space was violated. In addition, there was a horrific loss of human life and suffering. Many sects view the rebuilding of the temple as work that will be completed in the future by the Messiah. The event was important for the budding Christian community, who utilised it in two key ways. Firstly, they interpreted it as a sign that their religion was correct and that the event was a punishment on the Jewish people for turning away from the true Messiah/Son of Man and his teachings. Secondly, they claimed that their Messiah Jesus Christ had predicted the destruction of the temple which showed his knowledge of divine providence. So, with my motivation for owning this coin out of the way. I was faced with the difficulty of acquiring one. Before setting my sites on higher value targets, my price limit on coin purchases was always £100. Clearly some flexibility would be needed to buy a coin like this, which marked the first rule break. My first stop was vcoins and mashops. I saw prices higher than I had imagined, even for the crustiest and most worn examples. Clearly retail was out of the question. Next, I tried a few auctions and often (I speculate) met someone as much enthusiasm as me for an affordable IVDAEA piece, but with slightly more cash to spare. I broke another one of my coin buying rules and headed to eBay. I regularly use eBay for cheaper purchases, but this was going to be my most expensive purchase to date on any platform. After some browsing I found a seller who stocked a worn IVDAEA for £155 which is the cheapest I've seen. I perused his other coins and they appeared authentic and sensibly priced. I even found a forum post from someone who had bought a Galba denarius from this seller and was very happy with the coin. After double checking forgerynetwork and FORVM, I was happy to buy, and offered slightly under the asking price. This offer was accepted and quickly shipped and I am now the proud owner of a worn Vespasian IVDAEA coin! After my purchase the seller sent me a lot of links r.e fake identification and warned me about purchasing on eBay. The sellers username is "" and his stock is certainly worth a look, but I imagine most UK users will have come across it before. Overall it was a great experience and actually better than standard retail in a lot of ways. Sellers pic below. The seller was very honest with his photography and it looks a lot better in hand! Post coins and stories of when you violated your own Numismatic rules/principles!

I had my eye on a few: The cheaper Vespasian IVDAEA. I was the second highest bidder on that one, my limit was £200 (160 not including buyers fee) and someone beat me to this value and it hammered for the same. The Gaius and Lucius Augustus Denarius, my limit again was £200 all in. It went for £250 including the buyers fee. The Brutus Libertas, I was playing this one by ear, but the hammer of £200 all in was too much for me considering how busted up it was. Overall an unfortunate experience, my targets were out of my reach, much like the last few Roma e-sales.

Now this auction is over, it is no longer uncouth to discuss it. Did you participate? Any wins?

When I say "thread slots" I mean those present on the front page. A good thread can die because it's pushed off the front page before it gains much traction! Furthermore, I always prefer forums where the majority of threads are of high quality or engaging, and you don't have to sift through low effort threads or quick question and answer types.

I'm putting my idea suggestion here. If there's a better place feel free to move this post. I believe it would be good to have a "Posts that don't deserve their own thread" thread where I can discuss coins casually, ask for coin ID, ask for help deciding between two coins to buy, or freely muse without clogging up the forum. It came to mind when today I felt the desire to complain about how I feel I am being priced out on almost every coin platform nowadays, but I did not want to take up a thread slot with my petty whingeing. 🤣

I was bored during lockdown and dramatically escalated my study of Ancient Rome. I wanted a physical artefact of sorts and subsequently discovered how remarkably cheap ancient Roman coins were. I still can't believe the price I pay for each coin sometimes. They will be eternally undervalued by the market to me due to how much I assumed they'd cost before I checked. I was willing to pay a lot more than £30 for a Constantine. After I bought one of my then favourite emperor, I wanted one of my then second favourite emperor Constantius II. After this, a set seemed appropriate, so I acquired all of Constantine's immediate family. Next I wanted to get my third favourite emperor, Diocletian, and it wasn't long before I had a tetrarch set in mind. Then I headed to the five good emperors and worked on them. After this I spotted a cheap Domitian, one of my other favourite emperors. And so it goes to this day, I become fascinated by different periods of Roman History and buy coins of it. I'm finally enjoying the Republican period in the same way I used to enjoy the Crisis of the Third Century and the Christian Roman Empire, so I may move to there next. I try to buy coins with messaging or relevance to the events/ideologies of the period I am studying. I don't imagine it will ever stop, I'm slowly covering more and more Roman History ground and slowly desiring more and more coins.

Welcome! I stopped posting much and was waiting for a new forum like this ever since @Leo was banned from CT. It left all of the users unsure what had happened, but he was almost certainly caught in the website's harsh anti-spam filter which automatically banned you if you didn't respond to the verification link that often didn't arrive in people's mailboxes. The admins absolutely refused to address this issue and often blamed the user for not following instructions, or using out of date email providers. A few people on reddit/r/ancientcoins had mentioned they were also indiscriminately banned, and it took myself 3 attempts to make a CT account using 3 different e-mail providers ( my regular googlemail didn't work, only yahoo finally did) before I didn't get banned for not clicking a verification e-mail that never arrived. This problem, now coupled with the very draconian moderation, has led to CT not benefitting from the population increase warranted for a burgeoning hobby. Hopefully the word about this site can spread, and we can get the Ancient Coin forum that the community deserves.

“The painter Kramskoy has a remarkable painting entitled The Contemplator: it depicts a forest in winter, and in the forest, standing all by himself on the road, in deepest solitude, a stray little peasant in a ragged caftan and bast shoes; he stands as if he were lost in thought, but he is not thinking, he is "contemplating" something. If you nudged him, he would give a start and look at you as if he had just woken up, but without understanding anything. It's true that he would come to himself at once, and yet, if he were asked what he had been thinking about while standing there, he would most likely not remember, but would most likely keep hidden away in himself the impression he had been under while contemplating. These impressions are dear to him, and he is most likely storing them up imperceptibly and even without realizing it--why and what for, he does not know either; perhaps suddenly, having stored up his impressions over many years, he will drop everything and wander off to Jerusalem to save his soul, or perhaps he will suddenly burn down his native village, or perhaps he will do both." The above quote is from Dostoevsky's work The Brothers Karamazov. It resonated with me greatly at the time of reading so I looked up the image, and have used it for my online presence ever since.