Steppenfool

I have had a miserable experience selling on UK eBay. If I put it coins up for "Buy it Now" for a cheap price that is still reasonable, nobody touches it. If I put coins to auction, they go for a significant amount lower than what I'd consider the rightful value. I only put coins on eBay which mean nothing to me and treat it as giving the coins away to someone who'd appreciate them more. I understand UK eBay is one of the worst for ancient coins though.

I am going to preface this reply with a disclaimer, written after my reply was. It seems that yourself and I have a totally different method of interpreting the Gospel texts. Neither method is more correct or more noble than the other. It appears to me we disagree on fundamental issues surrounding the text (its purpose, reliability, integrity) that is inevitably going to lead us to contrasting views. I would wager that these fundamental issues are the source of all of our disagreements, so ironing out finer points would probably be to the benefit of no-one. I am not sure if you are a Christian. I am not, therefore I treat these documents like any other historical one, and that ultimately means I find reasons for being doubtful of what the Gospel authors say, as I would Suetonius or anyone else. I don't mean any disrespect with my critical interpretation of these texts. With that said, here's my reply: It would be unreasonable to say it is impossible that it happened. I was deliberately careful with my words to try and convey that I can't rule anything out completely. I am not saying Jesus' words were a defence of militaristic paganism, but a defence of a state that is militaristic and pagan. The difference is subtle, but important. I think it's necessary to remember the context of pre-revolt Judaea, which Josephus tells us was brimming with anti-Roman and Messianic sentiment. This includes an episode were crowd gathers outside of Pilate's house for 5 days when he brought Imperial standards which had Tiberius' image on them, into Judaea. The crowd apparently were so enraged about this issue that they serious ignored threats of death. Of course, the Jewish people were not monolithic, but the endorsing of paying Roman taxes (and apparently being unperturbed by the image of Tiberius, who is delcared Son of God on the coinage) was a legitimisation of this state and it's control over Israel. The gospels are littered with references to how hated and sinful taxes collectors are, probably for this very reason. If the conflict was between Jesus and the Jewish leaders exclusively, why did the Roman's even bother getting involved? The gospel of John (18:14) contains a reference to what I believe to be the truth of the matter, hence why I stated above that I think it's possible Jesus accidentally waded into trouble with the Roman authorities. However, this is inevitable when the Messiah's role in Judaism was to liberate and rule over Israel and then the world. John (18:14) Caiaphas was the one who had advised the Jewish leaders that it would be good if one man died for the people. The Jewish High Priest appears to understand the turbulent situation in Judaea, and how Jesus' pronouncements were agitating the Romans, therefore he thinks it best to put Jesus out of the way rather than risking a violent clampdown. I struggle to reconcile Jesus' Messianic mission, as being conducive with Roman authority, hence they mocked him as "King of the Jews" on the cross. In my view, (Jesus, like the rest of us) doesn't exist outside of his context, which was an agitated province reluctantly under Roman control, which was prone to periods of acute instability with the raising of Messianic figures in opposition to the Roman state. Ultimately, I don't believe the story of Pilate being unsure about executing Jesus. I don't see why he would care, especially if both the mob and the chief priests were urging his crucifixion. Jesus wasn't a Roman citizen, or of any station that had special privileges, and had just charged into Jersusalem and caused a ruckus at the head of a sizeable contingent of people. In my view, Pilate's only concern would be the execution causing even more trouble. Of course, our earliest Gospel Mark, has Pilate vacillating the least about executing Jesus, only asking what he has done. Again, I think this is Mark domesticate Jesus for a Roman audience, and to promote the separation of Judaism and Christianity and make them adversarial to each other. (often conflated by Romans). As I stated above, an especially important task in the lead up to the Jewish War and its aftermath. We can see how much Judaism and Christianity were still intertwined intertwined after the death of Jesus with Paul's conflict with Peter, which makes this stark demarcation by the author of Mark even more suspicious. P.S - Your Tribute Penny example is very pleasing to the eye.

I absolutely agree. My opinion on the matter is that the event didn't happen. I believe that the historical Jesus was an eschatological Messianic figure whose teachings and actions would render him in opposition to the authority of the Roman state, hence his crucifixion. Whether he was directly anti-Roman, or ambivalent about them but waded into conflict with them due to Messianic activities, I am unsure. Regardless, I consider it extremely unlikely that he opined a defence of militaristic pagan state that ruled Israel. Since I think the event is fictitious, the task is instead to find what coin Mark envisaged, rather than the coin Jesus handled during his speech. Mark conceptually envisages a silver denarius that had the image of the ruling Caesar on it, which at the time of Jesus would be Tiberius. So I do consider the Tiberius denarius to be the "real" tribute coin, but that's from transposing Mark's conceptual schema onto Jesus' own time, rather than considering which coin Jesus was most likely to have handled.

I'll try my best to give this one a bash. The Tribute Penny story originates in Mark, written a bit earlier (around 70 A.D). Caesar, was a family name yes, but a family name that belonged to all of the Julio Claudian dynasty, and people adopted by them and designated their Imperial successors. At the discontinuation of this dynasty. Galba adopted Caesar as a title, as did the Flavians who succeeded him. These facts essentially made "Caesar" synonymous with Emperor of Rome. Imperator was much more of a title, as people could receive more than one Imperial Acclamation, and this had its origin before the establishment of the Roman Empire, and non-emperors could also be hailed as Imperator. Another alternative, Augustus, is an adjective meaning venerable, hence in Greek was translated as Σεβαστός, their word for "venerable", meaning that this didn't have an exclusive connection with Imperial Power either. It makes sense that they wouldn't name Tiberius directly in the gospel. As @DLTcoins pointed out, one of Mark's (we think) aims with this gospel is to domesticate Christianity to make it acceptable to Roman audiences, including Roman authority. Hence this anecdote about Jesus aims show that Jesus was amenable to the Roman Imperial state, rather than one particular Emperor. This was also to separate the Christian attitude from the attitude of certain influential Jewish groups. The latter's anti-Roman sentiment having caused the Jewish War and had brought about some persecution of Jews around the time Mark was writing his gospel. All this considered, I think the use of the word Caesar, without specificity, seems appropriate.

I'm not that far yet, Titus has only just died! I bought Southern's book over Jones' book because it was apparently more readable. Do you think the Jones book is worthwhile in addition to this one?

Great coin and write up, thanks for sharing. I am reading Pat Southern's "Domitian: Tragic Tyrant" right now, and they also conclude that there was probably no serious animosity between Titus and Domitian.

Any ideas? Nothing in description.

Philip II, £42 from eBay auction. GOAT reverse. Some of the grain is from my terrible camera!

I think there's too many reasonable alternatives to this: If it's gold your after, you can get almost flawless Constantius II/Valentinian/Valens for close to that price. If it's Nero your after, you can get a beautiful Nero Denarius for a fraction of that price. If it's a gold Nero you're after, an increase in budget by X percent will get you an example that is more than X percent nicer. E.g. doubling your budget will get you an example that's more than twice as attractive.

Good point, but to be fair, Quintillus was a notable figure. He only looked like Claudius because he was his brother!

That's true. My last upload was a bit more clickbait-y in the title and included a more formulaic thumbnail. It did hurt a little. However, it was my best performing video by some distance. I can see how people get addicted to the numbers, but I aim to maintain my integrity and do it for the love of history and education. 😃

Thank you very much, positive comments from people who have a strong interest in history/numismatics are very dear to me. The video is not a big hit on Youtube 😂 Maybe a bit too niche. There is a sequel about Constantius' relationship to the Christian Persecution, if you're interested.

Thank you for your detailed reply! I think the RIC Pontifex Maximus distinction seals the deal, and moves me from almost certain to (as near as can be) absolutely certain. There's a few instances during my historical research where I've found that things fall into the category of "convention" rather than being decisively proved, so I'm always careful to make sure I understand Why certain things are. You've fulfilled that need as regards this question, and you have my gratitude! I did consider the three weeks being too short for a corrected portrait. But I figured with the urgency of the situation from the Senate's POV, that things might have moved very, very quickly. It wasn't so much that Gordian II's age ruled out his baldness (all the males in my family start balding much earlier than 50, including myself!), it was moreso that baldness is generally hereditary. I suppose Gordian II can blame his mother (or some other genetic tomfoolery, I understand it's complicated). I didn't consider the possibility of there being two engravers, I figured they would have had the same reference (whether it be a bust or portrait, or agreed an template failing these), and like you say, differences between engravers wasn't something that occurred at the Rome mint in this time period. One thing I am wondering regards your reply, did Consuls get busts/statues commissioned as a matter of course?

The only thing i can find about the appearance of the men is as follows from the Historia Augusta: 5 But truly I have decided that I must not omit this, which I read in Vulcatius Terentianus,79 who wrote a history of his time, because it seems a marvellous thing. So I write it down. The elder Gordian resembled the face of Augustus perfectly; he seemed, indeed, to have his very voice and mannerisms and stature; [Gordian II]his son, in turn, seemed like to Pompey, although it is true that Pompey was not obese of person; his grandson [Gordian III], finally, whose portraits we can see today, bore the appearance of Scipio Asiaticus. This, because of its very strangeness, I have decided should not be passed over in silence. I suppose the coins attributed to Gordian II have a bit of a fatter looking neck on some portraits, perhaps the obesity the HA refers to? Pompey was not bald however. (Both coins from British Museum) Comapre to his father:

I understand that these differences in appearance exist. However, many Emperor's appearance changes in the time between their first imperial pronouncement, and them /sending a portrait to the capital. Wouldn't it be possible to reconstruct events as follows: The principal choice for Emperor (Gordian I) is the only Emperor depicted on the coins, and that the ad hoc Gordian II elected due to Gordian's age at his request doesn't actually appear on them? Once Gordian I has sent letters about his acclamation and the mint workers begin producing his coins, he then commissions a portrait of himself to be sent to Rome, after the arrival of this portrait, the depiction of Gordian changes on the coins? Or to propose another hypothetical, how do we know for sure that the Elder Gordian didn't have strangely fantastic skin and a bald head, and the younger had strangely bad skin but a full head of hair? Basically what I am after is some corroborating evidence of the current consensus, which I of course accept is very probably true on balance. The below busts are often attributed as Gordian I. But, I have experienced the shifting sands of bust attribution many times. Unless there is some hugely compelling reason for these busts to be Gordian I, I'm not sure we can count it as absolutely confirmatory evidence.

Everywhere I look, it seems people differentiate these coins based on the appearance of the two men, with Gordian II being more bald and having softer/younger features. However, I can't find any more information on how this technique was verified as reliable. As a counter hypothetical, what's stopping someone interpreting the situation as these coins only ever depicting Gordian I, but his portrait being "updated" at some point by the engravers. I'm assuming there's someone out there who has proven through close scrutiny of dies/hoards/legends or whatever that the coins depict two distinct people, and that they can be demarcated on the above characteristics of their appearance. Can anyone point me to a resource? Of course, we know from Herodian that both men were Augustus, so perhaps its simply a case of fitting two pieces of information together? Two Augusti according to the best primary source, and two portrait types, therefore each type depicts a different person? However, I'm hoping for something more bullet proof. It doesn't help they have exactly the same name and rank.

I think that's a worry of mine too! When you are so desperate for a coin and it has eluded you for many months/years, that's when you start making silly decisions, my budget for the type I'm after has almost doubled since after almost a year of hunting. 😂

Anyone else in the same boat as me? Been waiting for an opportunity to buy a certain coin for about 9 months now, it just won't turn up anywhere! This seems to happen to me a lot.

Lodge is now back on vcoins.

That Constantius is very interesting. I wonder if the gouges (if intentional) were done at the same time as the holing. Somebody perhaps wanted to wear a disfigured Constantius? He did make a lot of enemies both inside and outside the Empire.

ALLEGEDLY 😂

Cool coin! So this wasn't related to any particular illness that we know of, but a general well wish? I didn't know Salus was used to possibly commemorate safe returns either! I always associated with illness. Patina is very attractive in hand compared to the photo!

Constantius wasn't an Arian, , he championed various theological alternatives that were less rigorous than the homoousian creed in an attempt to unite the Christian Church. These theologies weren't Arian (although they were closer to Arianism than the Nicene theology), but the charge of Arianism was used by his theological opponents as slander. Maybe that's what you mean by qualifying it with "sympathised" I suppose, but I think it's important to clarify as to not fall into a common error about Constantius. I think his attempt was a positive initiative even if it wasn't successful in the end. This rivalry within the Christian church nearly brought him to war with his brother Constans, it's no wonder he tried to find a middle ground between the East/West theological divide. In my opinion, the only way it can be construed as a negative is if the view is taken that the Nicene view is correct and that Constantius was theologically incorrect, but I don't think that's a good way to make historical judgements. Personally, I rate Constantius II very highly. I think he barely made an error despite his complicated reign.

That was one of Magnentius' reverses, I believe he inverted the Fallen Horseman intentionally. I imagine these were produced after the Battle of Mursa when Italy changed sides to Constantius, but before the mint prepared new reverses. Also possibly made during the revolt of Nepotianus? Very cool coin either way!

Nice coin, I'm surprised it took them so long to depict a temple! As for the reddish encrustation, I quite like it, adds an air of authenticity. However, depending on how it looks in hand, I may be tempted to prod it with a wooden toothpick and see what happens. If it seems very attached I would leave it, if it comes of with a little bit of force or seems crumbly I'd probably attempt to remove it.