ValiantKnight

10 minutes ago, Severus Alexander said:

Fabulous writeup for a fabulous set of coins!  I like the neat factoid that Charles may well have had luxurious locks. 🙂 

Here's a heavily toned XPISTIANA RELIGIO denier of Louis the Pious:

It may be possible to determine the mint, but I haven't attempted this.

I know in one of the papers I found, Coupland IIRC made an argument for identifying possible Paris-mint XPISTIANA coins on a number of specific details. At least regarding what he said about the temple, my PARISII CIVITAS seemed to match up so he might be onto something. I’ll have to find the paper again and see if he discusses about identifying other mints.

Thanks all for the comments and nice coins! With Carolingians, right now I’m going to continue going for whatever interests me, even common ones. It’s too bad rulers like Louis the German, Lothair, Pippin, etc. are pricey; I’d be willing to buy problem ones if need be, but even those seem to almost always cost a pretty penny. Another on the want list is a Merovingian, but I struggle with the idea of paying $300-500 for a common (as far as Merovingians go), tiny AE4-sized piece of silver.

After several years of having my collecting focused in other areas (late Roman, Ptolemaic, etc.), I returned to Carolingian times with the purchase of this Charles the Bald denier. My interest in Carolingian coinage was renewed by re-watching the Vikings series, by exploring the Frankish era virtually in a video game, and just plain old looking at coins online. I also purchased a Charles the Fat denier, and soon I will have two more Carolingian coins added to my collection. 

This particular type was struck between 840 and 864 AD, while Charles was West Frankish king. In 864, he enacted reforms that introduced a new denier type, the Gratia Di Rex.

Charles II (the Bald), West Francia, Carolingian Empire
AR denier
Obv: CARLVS REX FR, cross above, cross within dotted circle in center
Rev: PARISII CIVITAS, temple facade, cross within
Mint: Paris
Date: 840-864 AD
Ref: Coupland, Early 19; Depeyrot 762; M&G 827; MEC 1, 843

History 

Charles (Carolus) II was born in Franconovurd (modern Frankfurt) in the year 823 AD, the youngest son of Carolingian emperor Louis the Pious and Judith of Bavaria, and thus the grandson of the famed Charlemagne (who had died only several years before in 814). By the time of his birth, Emperor Louis had already divided his empire among his three other sons, who were already adults by then. Despite this, Louis made attempts to try to secure an inheritance for Charles by convincing his other sons (Lothair, Pepin of Aquitaine, and Louis the German) to provide parts of their lands to their young brother. Only Louis’s eldest son Lothair (co-emperor to Louis) responded to this, by giving Alemannia, Raetia, and portions of Burgundy to Charles. The overall relationship between Louis and his three eldest sons was troubled, and tensions erupted into open rebellion in 830. They were successful in deposing their father from the imperial throne, but a year later, Louis managed to be reinstated, and stripped the title of emperor from Lothair. The latter also lost Italy; Louis having transferred it to Charles. However, over the next few years in the 830s, Lothair was able to return into Louis’s good graces and recover his lost titles and possessions. Pepin, Louis’s second son, died in 838, and as a result, Aquitaine was given to Charles (the year before, Charles had also been granted Chartres, the rest of Burgundy, lands west of the Meuse, and Paris, and in 839 a portion of Neustria).

(Contemporary depiction of Louis the Pious)

(my coin of Louis the Pious - Melle mint)

In 840, Emperor Louis died, and the Frankish Empire fell into civil war between his sons. Lothair, having become sole emperor, attempted to forcibly reunite all of the subkingdoms and territories in the empire under his own rule. Charles, then 17 years old, allied with his brother Louis the German, the King of Bavaria, and the two succeeded in striking a major blow against Lothair at the Battle of Fontenoy in 841. Charles and Louis reaffirmed their alliance in the next year, which became known as the Oaths of Strasbourg. These Oaths are linguistically significant in that it is the earliest existing document written in what is retrospectively known as Old French, the Romance language that developed from the Vulgar (common) Latin of the Gallo-Roman population. During the event, due to the linguistic differences between the eastern and western portions of the empire, Louis the German recited his oath in Old French to Charles’s Franco-Gallic troops; with Charles himself swearing his oath in Old German to Louis’s Germanic forces from the east. The war ended in 843 with the signing of the Treaty of Verdun, which once again divided the Frankish Empire into three parts: Lothair (who was allowed to remain emperor of the whole empire but in name only) was given charge of Middle Francia; Louis the German became king of East Francia; and Charles received West Francia. This tripartite division would have significant consequences to come for the subsequent history of Europe. While the Carolingian Empire remained nominally united, over the decades to come the rulers of the Frankish kingdoms asserted more their autonomy and independence. At the same time, the cultural differences grew between the different regions. Eventually, the divisions made at Verdun set the stage for the development of several European countries, notably West Francia and East Francia becoming the nuclei of France and Germany respectively.

(Contemporary depictions of Lothair I [L] and Louis the German [R])

(Treaty of Verdun divisions, 843)

For Charles and his two brothers, there was a fragile peace between them that was marked with tension, distrust, and shifting alliances, helped driven by Lothair’s attempts to establish preeminence over his two other brothers. After Verdun, Charles went about establishing himself in his western kingdom. Unlike his brothers, however, Charles was a new ruler in the lands he acquired and so had no real prior connection to them or its inhabitants (especially the nobility and the clergy). In some instances, his consolidation of his power went well, but in other instances this process did not go as smoothly. Notably, he was forced to compromise with his nephew Pepin II of Aquitaine, allowing him to become an autonomous ruler in his territories with the right to issue his own charters. This deal did not last long, when failure to respond adequately to Viking attacks led to the deposition of Pepin by Aquitainian officials and their subsequent declaring of Charles as their king in 848. He also attempted to buy off loyalty through the giving of lands, titles, and offices, which reduced his prestige and led to resentment among the aristocracy who were reluctant to answer to royal authority. Charles also eventually reconciled with Lothair, in 849. This however, caused his relationship with Louis, the brother with whom he established the alliance that was crucial in the war against Lothair, to diminish. A few years after a failed attempt by Louis to install his son on the throne of Aquitaine (still a nominal part of Charles’s kingdom), Louis invaded West Francia. He struck while Charles and his forces were campaigning against the Vikings in the Seine. Louis tried to convince the Frankish clergy to crown him as West Frankish king, but to no avail. Charles gathered his forces, and soon Louis was compelled to withdraw back to East Francia, and later, oaths were taken to establish peace. The two brothers turned their attention to winning over influence in Middle Francia, which had been divided between Lothair’s sons (including the successor to the Carolingian imperial throne, Louis II) after his death in 855. From these efforts, Charles acquired the title of King of Lotharingia.

(Types of soldiers in Charlemagne's army)

During this time and for the rest of his reign, Charles had to also contend with the incursions of the Vikings, who first raided Francia in the 820s. Numerous times, Charles was forced to pay off the Vikings to get them to cease their attacks, as well as promulgate laws against selling arms and horses to them. These attacks escalated in 845, when the Vikings gathered a large army and besieged Paris, Charles’s capital. The Viking leading this action was one Reginherus, who was possibly the legendary Viking hero Ragnar Lothbrok. While the Viking assault against Paris was successful, the conflict against them led Charles to make adjustments to the structure of the Frankish army, notably by building up the cavalry to help make the army more mobile. This in turn would influence the rise of knights and chivalry later in the Middle Ages.

(Artist's impression of the Sack of Paris)

Charles was also active in cultivating diplomatic relations with the Umayyads based in al-Andalus (Islamic Spain and Portugal). Relations between him and the Emir Abd al-Raḥmān II were poor, with each supporting the other’s enemies and rebels, and even escalating into direct military conflict when al-Raḥmān invaded West Francia in 852. The ascension of al-Raḥmān’s son Muhammad I as Emir of Cordoba provided the opportunity for the two sides to turn over a new leaf. Charles was invested in improving relations as part of his overall effort to stabilize his kingdom and defeat his enemies, without the added threat of an attack from al-Andalus. For Muhammad, it was a similar motivation; he was busy dealing with the Asturians on his northwestern border and did not want Frankish interference in support of their coreligionists. Envoys were sent between 863 and 865, with Charles receiving a pack of camels from Emir Muhammad, echoing when his grandfather Charlemagne was gifted an elephant from the Abbasid caliph Harun-al-Rashid in 802.

(My coin of Al-Hakam, father of Abd al-Raḥmān II and grandfather of Muhammad I)

In 875, a succession crisis occurred when Carolingian emperor Louis II died without any male heirs to either the imperial throne or the kingship of Italy (he was also King of Italy along with his imperial title over the whole Carolingian Empire). Originally, Louis II was supposed to be succeeded by Carloman of Bavaria, per an arrangement made between Louis II and Louis the German (his uncle), the father of Carloman. However, the politics of Rome interceded in the matter. Pope Hadrian II and later, Pope John VIII, supported Charles’s claim to emperor. Charles was able to convince Carloman to abandon his own claim, and on Christmas day of 875, was crowned emperor in Rome, as his predecessors had done since Charlemagne. He marked the occasion with a new imperial motto: renovatio imperii Romani et Francorum (“renewal of the empire of the Romans and Franks”). This was followed by Charles receiving the kingship over Italy.

(Carolingian territories partitioned among Emperor Charles, Louis the Younger, Charles the Fat, and Carloman of Bavaria, 876)

Almost immediately, Louis the German attacked West Francia once again, in retaliation for Charles assuming the emperorship. But this invasion was cut short with Louis’s death less than a year later, in 876. Charles himself attacked East Francia in revenge, but he and his forces were routed at the Battle of Andernach. The emperor was forced to end his campaign early by needing to travel to Italy to protect Pope John VIII and his domains against Saracen attacks. The prospect of a new expedition was not received well by the nobles, and Charles was not able to raise an army. Meanwhile, Carloman was stirring tensions by traveling to Italy. Stressed from all of these events, Charles, by then very ill, crossed the Alps in 877 to return to Francia, but died en route. He was succeeded as West Frankish king by his son, Louis the Stammerer, who ultimately was never crowned Carolingian emperor. The next holder of the imperial title would be Charles the Fat, a son of Louis the German, in 881.

It is currently not known if Charles II was referred to as “the Bald” during his lifetime. The earliest existing reference naming him along with this epithet is in a 10th century copy of an earlier work serving as a genealogy record of all the Carolingian rulers, for the purpose of linking them to the preceding Merovingians and thus adding further legitimacy to the dynasty. It is the only epithet in the manuscript, so it is not known for certainty why Charles was the only one differentiated in this manner. After this first appearance, use of the epithet spreads into other, later works. It has been suggested that the moniker was used in an ironic way, and that Charles actually had a lot of hair. This is in line with the Germanic preference for long hair, which was seen as a symbol of status and wealth, in contrast to the Romans before them. It has also been theorized that “bald” referred to Charles’s initial lack of land or a kingdom. In contemporary depictions such as his royal seals, he is portrayed with a full head of hair.

References:

Anderson, Margaret Audrey (2020) Charles the Bald: the Story of an Epithet. Senior thesis (Major), California Institute of Technology. doi:10.7907/jsfq-q743. https://resolver.caltech.edu/CaltechTHESIS:06032020-102905204

Charles the Bald. (2022, August 17). In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_the_Bald

McKitterick, R. (2018). The Frankish kingdoms under the Carolingians 751-987. Routledge.

Ottewill-Soulsby, Sam (2019) The Camels of Charles the Bald. Medieval Encounters. https://doi.org/10.1163/15700674-12340046

Oaths of Strasbourg. (2022, May 6). In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oaths_of_Strasbourg

Treaty of Verdun. (2022, August 20). In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Verdun

Picture/photo sources:

Self (coins)

WIkipedia

WeaponsandWarfare.com

Web Gallery of Art

Please share your Frankish/Carolingian coins, or of any of their contemporaries!

Charles the Fat, Carolingian Empire
AR denier
Obv: CARLVS IMP AVG, cross above, cross within dotted circle in center
Rev: BITVRICES CIVI, cross to left, KRLS (Karolus) monogram within dotted circle in center
Mint: Bourges
Date: 881-887 AD
Ref: Depeyrot 198

I echo @AncientJoe’s suggestion. It’s how I freed my London-mint campgate.

 

 

 

Crispus, Roman Empire
AE follis
Obv: FL IVL CRISPVS NOB CAES, laureate, draped, cuirassed bust right
Rev: PROVIDEN-TIAE CAESS, campgate, 6 layers, 2 turrets, star above, no doors
Mint: London; Mintmark PLON (in ex.)
Ref: RIC VII 295

Rome under Theodoric, Ostrogothic Kingdom
AE follis
Obv: IMVIC-TA ROMA, Roma helmeted, facing right
Rev: She-wolf standing left, suckling Romulus and Remus, XL (40) above, dot V dot in ex
Mint: Rome (struck 498-526 AD)
Ref: BMC 24

Athalaric, Ostrogothic Kingdom
AE decanummium
Obv: INVICT-A ROMA, Roma helmeted, facing right
Rev: D N / ATHAL / ARICVS / REX, legend within wreath, X (10) below
Mint: Rome
Date: 526-534 AD
Ref: COI 86; MIB 78; MEC 1, 133-4


 

Athalaric, Ostrogothic Kingdom
AE decanummium
Obv: INVICT-A ROMA, Roma helmeted, facing right
Rev: D N ATHAL-ARICVS, Athalaric, in military outfit, standing, holding spear and shield, S-C across fields, X in left field
Mint: Rome 
Date: 526-534 AD
Ref: BMC 69, COI 85b


 

Justinian I, Byzantine Empire
AE follis
Obv: D N IVSTINI-ANVS P P AVG, pearl-diademed, draped, bust right
Rev: Large M, cross above, cross to left, star to right, all within wreath
Mint: Rome
Mintmark: ROMA (in exergue)
Date: 537-542 AD
Ref: SB 293

Justinian I, Byzantine Empire
AE follis
Obv: D N IVSTINIANVS P P AVG, diademed, helmeted, cuirassed bust facing, holding globus cruciger and shield, cross to right
Rev. Large M, cross above, officina letter B below, ANNO to left, XЧ to right, CON in ex.
Mint: Constantinople
Date: 541/2 (year 15)
Ref: SB 163.
Size: 23.30g, 39mm


 

Justinian I, Byzantine Empire
AE follis
Obv: D N IVSTINI-ANVS P P AVG, diademed, helmeted, cuirassed bust facing, holding globus cruciger and shield, cross to right
Rev. Large M, cross above, officina letter Δ below, ANNO to left, XX to right, mintmark QHЧΠ in ex
Mint: Theopolis (Antioch)
Date: 546/7 (year 20)
Ref: SB 220
Size: 19.9 gr., 39 mm

Anyone else more annoyed by the flood of overpriced slugs, near-slugs, and problem ancient coins on eBay than fakes? At least the fakes can be nice to look at!

Just posting funny memes I came across about the fall of Constantinople, because why not?

(credit goes to the original creators)

Charles the Fat, Carolingian Empire
AR denier
Obv: CARLVS IMP AVG, cross above, cross within dotted circle in center
Rev: BITVRICES CIVI, cross to left, KRLS (Karolus) monogram within dotted circle in center
Mint: Bourges
Date: 881-887 AD
Ref: Depeyrot 198

41 minutes ago, JeandAcre said:

@ValiantKnight, I'm smack in the middle of trying to post a response that's already been on the front burner for too long, but from here --my two cents, for what they're worth-- you Did Good.

 

Thanks! It’s also the fastest coin delivery I’ve ever had. Just took one day to travel from France to here in Florida!

Thanks guys for the replies!

On 8/1/2022 at 12:22 AM, Severus Alexander said:

I'm interested in these questions too! (@JeandAcre, any thoughts?)  

MEC Vol. 1 (highly recommended, for some of your other interests too!) has something to say about the Charles The Fat vs. Charles the Bald question, as well as the question of whether any East Frankish coinage can be attributed to a particular ruler.  The answer seems to be yes, at least sort of, and maybe there are some affordable ones as some are described as "relatively common." Here are a few relevant passages, omitting anything about super rare coins.

Louis the German (pp. 226-7): "Lotharingian coins combining a Hludoviccus inscription with a a Karolus monogram and struck at the palace mint and at Huy, Maastricht, and Visé certainly belong to Louis the German."

Louis the Young (p. 227): "Coins of Metz and neighbouring Marsal could be of either Louis the Young or his father, but the spelling LVDOCCICVS" (without initial H) favours the former."

Charles the Fat (p. 227): "Charles minted as emperor in several Lotharingian mints as well as at Milan (listed as MEC 1.1012) and Pavia.... It is probable that the only [French coins] of Charles the Fat are those from the Lotharingian and Provençal mints, all of which use his title alone, without his name, in their inscriptions." [more on p. 233] "Scholars have generally thought it to be impossible to distinguish coins of Charles the Bald as emperor from those of Charles the Fat (885-7) save in the case of such mints as Metz which never formed part of Charles the Bald's kingdom."  It goes on to say Charles the Fat only minted in Maastricht, Metz, Verdun, and perhaps Saint-Géry, but it's not clear to me if those are all unique to him, like Metz.  In the catalogue, though, there's a coin uniquely attributed to him from Cambrai, Saint-Géry, #969, legend around Carolus monogram with retrograde S.

Louis the Child (p. 228): "His coins are distinguished from those of earlier rulers of the same name partly by hoard evidence but mainly through their resemblances to coins of his predecessor Arnulf or of Charles the Simple, who succeeded him in Lotharingia. His coins of Cologne, Mainz, and Strasbourg are relatively common."

Online, a place to start might be Simon Coupland's Academia page.  I found this paper very helpful when trying to get a Charlemagne denier on the cheap.  Based on what Coupland found, the early Melle deniers attributable to Charlemagne tended to have certain characteristics, including the coin is neatly produced; it has barred A’s on the reverse; it features a chevron in the central lozenge of the monogram; and finally a cross occurring at 1 o’clock with respect to a vertical monogram.  Each of these indicators by itself makes it probable, but far from certain, that a coin is Charlemagne’s.  In addition, MEC asserts that long thin cross crossbars is another indicator (again based on hoard evidence, those dating from 800-825).  A coin like the one I eventually found (below), which has all of these indicators (especially the barred A’s and chevron, which are not very common), was almost certainly produced under Charlemagne:

But it's quite challenging to find one that has them all.

Unfortunately this book, like Duplessy, starts with Hughes Capet, so it won't work. 😞 

Really helpful information here @Severus Alexander, thank you! I'll definitely refer back to this when I decide to actively search for an East Frankish ruler for my collection. And thats a great denier you posted. I believe you as well with this being a Charlemagne issue and based on those indicators I'd accept a similar one as Charlemagne in my own collection. For sure one I'll be on the lookout for as well.

On 8/1/2022 at 12:33 AM, JeandAcre said:

@ValiantKnight, I truly feel your pain.  Here's a post from the old forum that was about Charles the Simple.

https://www.cointalk.com/threads/finally-a-carolingian-coin-unambiguously-attributable-to-charles-the-simple-i-hope.392553/

...And, Dang, the two references I have in print for Carolingians are so Francocentric that neither of them even lists Charles the Fat.  If it was me, I'd look on Acsearch.  Some of the listings there are good for citations of references.  ...Just, best of luck.

(Edit:) @Severus Alexander, many thanks ...but you beat me to it, with what looks like a lot more help than I was good for.  ...Now it's time to actually read your post!

Thanks @JeandAcre! I remember finding that thread when looking up information on Carolingian coins. Eventually I will want to add a Charles the Simple to my collection as well. The weight will help me out, and it seems like there is also noticeable difference in style between the "official issues" and the later 10-11th century immobilizations.

On 8/1/2022 at 12:49 AM, JeandAcre said:

Honest, though, @ValiantKnight, I'd start with ACSearch.  Best you're likely to get from here.

I ended up doing just this, and the type that came up the most was the "CARLVS IMP AVG" from Bourges (Depeyrot 198). While most listings had it down as "Charles the Bald or Charles the Fat", Heritage thinks this type either attributable to Mr. Fat or Mr. Simple, going by this logic: "An immobilized type, although these Bourges pieces have classically been ascribed to the period between the reigns of Charles the Bald and Charles the Fat (the former being the first Charles of the dynasty after his grandfather to assume the title of emperor), it is much more likely that they were struck under either Charles the Fat or Charles the Simple. The primary evidence for this theory comes from the fact that Charles the Bald was emperor for only 2 years (assuming the imperial dignity in 875) before his death, while the immense numbers of these Bourges deniers suggest a much longer period of issue. As noted by Simon Coupland, this type was clearly in circulation for a long while after their initial issue, as 18 ended up in the Cuerdale hoard of c. 905 and 17 in the Rennes hoard of c. 920". 

I've been reading a bit Morrison's 1967 work on Carolingian coins (probably shouldn't be since its over 50 years old, but it was the only immediate reference I found), and if I'm reading the relevant passage correctly, it informs that there was a general weight reduction in deniers struck by an "Emperor Charles". The Gratia Di Rex types from the later reign of Charles the Bald had a standard of around 1.71 grams, of which we do not see again until restored during Odo's reign. Morrison indicates that it is reasonable that this reduction can be attributed to Charles the Fat, due to his reign and control over his lands being less stable (although I don't know if he's still referring to just the Gratia type with this or the deniers in general). He also recognizes Charles the Fat's longer reign as emperor and presence "in the lands represented by the 'coins in the name of an Emperor Charles', but, reasonably, does not see this as undisputable evidence supporting attributing "the Fat" to imperial issues.

Nonetheless, going by the fact that most listings of this type identified this as possibly of Mr. Fat, and that he had a longer reign, I decided to buy a Depeyrot 198 this week. I agree that there's no way for sure to tell that this is indeed from Charles the Fat's reign, but I'm fine with checking him off my "to get" list with this coin. Its weight works in my favor with regards to Morrison's comments about the weight reduction; 1.51 grams. What do you guys think about my coin?

Odoacer, Kingdom of Italy
AE nummus
Obv: OD[O-VAC], bare-headed, draped, cuirassed bust right
Rev: Odoacer's monogram (letters ODOVA) within wreath
Mint: Ravenna
Date: 476-493 AD
Ref: RIC X 3502


 

Thrasamund, Vandal Kingdom
AE nummus
Obv: D N RG TRSA, pearl-diademed, draped bust right
Rev: Victory advancing right, holding wreath, cross to right(?)
Mint: (North Africa, probably Carthage)
Date: 496-523 AD
Ref: MIB Vandals 16

Hilderic, Vandal Kingdom
AE nummus
Obv: HILD [REX], pearl-diademed, draped, cuirassed bust right
Rev: Cross potent within wreath, ring above
Mint: Carthage

Date: 523-530 AD)
Ref: BMC Vandals 9



Gelimer, Vandal Kingdom
AE Nummus
Obv: GEIL-AMIR, pearl-diademed, draped bust right
Rev: Monogram of Gelimer within wreath
Mint: Carthage

Date: 530-533 AD
Ref: MEC 1, 28-30; BMC Vandals 4-6

Majorian, Western Roman Empire
AE nummus
Obv: D N IVL MAIOR[IANVS P F AVG], pearl-diademed, draped bust right
Rev: [VICTORI-A AVGGG], Victory advancing right, holding palm branch and trophy
Mint: Milan
Mintmark: [MD]
Date: 457-461 AD
Ref: RIC X 2642

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

Are there any coin types that are 100% attributed to Charles the Fat? Or at least have a good chance of being from him? I’ve been looking to find and purchase a coin of him, but my internet research has not found any information regarding coin types definitely attributed to him. I was only able to find a digitized old paper on Carolingian coins that said that imperial issues of Charles the Bald and Charles the Fat are indistinguishable from each other. I found one imperial type: the Carlvs Imp Avg denier with the monogram on the reverse (from Nevers, Toulouse, and Bourges; I don’t know if there are other mints). To add to my confusion I’ve seen it described in online listings as an “immobilized type”. I know some Carolingian types were continued for a century or so afterwards, and I want to avoid getting what seems like  a Charles the Fat coin but was actually minted long after his reign. And what about the Gratia Di Rex deniers started under Charles the Bald? Were they continued under Charles the Fat?

And while we are here. Are there any East Frankish coin types/rulers that can be reasonably affordable (like sub $500)? And are there any publicly available/free informational resources on Carolingian coinage? 

I am very much a newbie when it comes to Carolingian coinage, as you might tell. So thank you for any help with this! 

1 hour ago, Curtis JJ said:

Congratulations! Most of my Alexandrian are RPC (or Late Roman Bronze for which the mint is of less interest), but I love seeing how the Alexandrian mint's output changed from the Ptolemaic period to the Islamic. I'm sure a lot of people have built fascinating Alexandria collections spanning that whole period.

For me, it’s great to have a coin from this lesser-known part of Alexandria’s history. And it’s an interesting feeling to put it next to a Ptolemaic coin and know they come from the same place but have a thousand years of history separating them.

I love Byzantines, although I do admit my interest wanes considerably when the anonymous types and the trachies start.

I am basically like @Severus Alexander. Historical interest is the main driving force of my collecting. If I am not really into the history behind the coin, then I don't want it. This is what helps me be into less visually appealing stuff like Islamic and Byzantine. Of course, there's the other factors such as design, eye appeal, condition, etc. I don't mind collecting "uglier" coins as long as the history is cool. For example, Indian coins are the perfect example for me of an area that is both not historically or visually appealing to me. I'd sooner collect Chinese because at least the history there is somewhat more interesting to me.

I like Roman history as a whole, but I find Rome's rise a lot less interesting than its decline and fall, so Republican coins have a low appeal to me in general. Since everyone and their mother seem to like Republican coins, I feel like the only one not into them. I've had a few over the years, but ended up selling practically all of them. Although, I do currently have one nice denarius that I'm not going to part with anytime soon.

Persian coins such as Parthian and Sassanian is another area I have not been able to get into. Same story here; lack of historical interest.

Roman provincial I've learned to appreciate more over the years due to the larger size of some of them, some interesting designs, and when well-preserved look very nice. But there are a lot of ugly/boring ones though, IMO.

High medieval stuff such as feudal French and English I can't get into either. Unimpressive/unappealing both visually and historically for me. Although I do like coins from the Crusader states.

And as I mentioned, Chinese is higher on my collecting hierarchy than Indian, but its still practically at the bottom overall. For the obvious reasons.

26 minutes ago, Spaniard said:

@ValiantKnight...Neat coin!

Thoroughly enjoyed the write up, Thanks.

Thanks, glad you like it!

As a collector interested in coins from Egypt, in addition to the usual like Greek and Roman, I also was looking to add Islamic Egyptian coins to my collection. Mainly I was searching for something from the first couple of centuries of Islamic rule (i.e. the early caliphates). Looked around a couple of times but didn't really find anything of interest and the goal was kind of left on the backburner. Earlier this year I found out about a rare, bilingual type struck by the Umayyads in Alexandria with both Greek and Arabic letters, that fascinated me. Of course, given its rarity, I did not find any offered for sale. Until last month when I found my example. Normally, I make it a point to avoid buying coins from what I call the "Sandmen" (the dealers who controversially slather their coins with sand patina), but I could not pass this coin up and so I made an exception to my rule. This one will definitely be in my top 10 for this year.

This particular type was struck in the last year of Umayyad rule (749-750 AD), right before the Umayyad royal family were deposed by the Abbasids and forced to flee to al-Andalus (Islamic Hispania). It mentions the name of the then-finance director (and later, governor) of Egypt, Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan, in the obverse margins, and the reigning Umayyad caliph, Marwan II, in the reverse margins. In the center obverse within the circle is the Arabic name for Egypt, Misr, and the Greek letters Aλ for Al[exandria]. The reverse center has a shortened version of Alexandria's Arabic name, al-Iskandariya.

Marwan II and Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan, Umayyad Caliphate
AE fals
Obv: مِصر ("Misr")  over Aλ (AL) in center, finance director's name in margin
Rev: Abbreviated Arabic name of al-Iskandariya "al-Is/rîya" in circle. caliph's name in margin
Mint: al-Iskandariya (Alexandria)
Date: 749 AD
Ref: A-151, W-Kh.9

After the Arabs conquered Alexandria from the Byzantines in the 7th century AD and ended nearly a thousand years of Greco-Roman dominance, Greeks continued to live in the city for some time afterwards. This coin, I think, is a symbol of this continuation of Greek life and culture in Alexandria, or as the Arabs call it, al-Iskandariya. Egypt itself would continue to be majority Christian until around the 10-12th centuries, and Arabic would become the sole main language of Alexandria in the 11th century. The loss of Alexandria and the rest of Egypt was a huge blow to the Byzantines as the region was the main source of grain for the rest of the empire. Due to the risk of invasion from the sea, the Arabs moved the capital from Alexandria (a position it had held since the Ptolemies) to a new city farther into the interior called Fustat. The Greeks/Romans/Christians of Egypt were reported to be more welcoming to the Muslim Arabs over the previous Byzantine rulers, who had ruled heavy handed and tried to impose their religious views (Chalcedonian Christianity on a land that was mostly non-Chalcedonian). As in other conquered territories, the Muslims applied the jizya tax onto the dhimmi (non-muslims) of Egypt that did not convert to Islam. In exchange, the dhimmi were promised religious freedom, exemption from military service, and granted protection by Muslim rulers. After the initial conquest, Egypt would be ruled by a succession of Muslim rulers and dynasties.

Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan was descended from a famed general who had helped conquer North Africa and Hispania, Musa ibn Nusayr. He started as finance director of Egypt before being chosen by Marwan II as governor in 750 after the death of his predecessor. During his governorship, Abd al-Malik needed to handle both the Abbasid Revolution that had spread to Egypt as well as a Coptic rebellion against the government. The caliph Marwan II escaped to Egypt after his defeat by the Abbasids in Syria, but was later killed by them. Abd al-Malik himself, despite being an Umayyad-appointed official, received a pardon by the new authorities due to tolerance shown towards the Abbasids during his term as Egyptian governor.

Feel free to share any Islamic coins, coins from Alexandria/Egypt, or anything else related! And any additional information related to this coin type and/or Islamic Egyptian coins in general is much appreciated.

In the name of Honorius, Visigoths in Gaul
AR siliqua
Obv: D N HONORI-VS P F AVG, pearl-diademed, draped bust right
Rev: VICTOR-IA ACGG, Roma seated left on cuirass, holding Victory on globe and spear
Mint: Narbonne (or another mint in Gaul)   
Mintmark: PSRV
Date: 415/418 to 423 AD
Ref: RIC X 3703 var.

1.1 grams, 11 mm wide

51 minutes ago, Roman Collector said:

That's very unusual. 

In that case, I guess I’ll contact the dealer first, see what they might say. And I know it’s in the hands of customs, but any idea if calling USPS could possibly be of any help? 

Just now, Roman Collector said:

What country's customs?

USA. The package came from Canada.

A coin I'm waiting on has been in customs for 9 days so far. How much longer should I wait before I can become worried and start to make phone calls?

36 minutes ago, Prieure de Sion said:

There are two types of (streaming) series - I find. Those that try to stay close to the story despite the need for action. And then there are series / films that focus solely on the action.

ROME also takes some artistic liberties - but for a series it is very well researched. The swear words, the filth, the reference to the gods, the vulgarity, the class differences - and Rome is a shithole. Really well done.

And then there are films / series, like Gladiator - or even Spartacus - which are really nice to look at (!) - but you really mustn't have any historical pretensions. Gladiator is really a great action film - but as soon as I start thinking about the historical background - I get goose bumps. There's nothing right about it. And Spartacus is similar - well done, great scenes, lots of action - but apart from a few names, it has nothing to do with the "real" Spartacus.

No worries. I am aware enough to be able to make the distinction whether something is made with historical accuracy in mind vs if it leans more towards dramatizing the events and taking certain liberties. The good thing about the Spartacus series IMO is that it keeps to the general history of the revolt for the most part: several of the important figures present, the Capuan gladiator revolt, the Vesuvius battle, the final battle against Crassus, the Appian Way crucifixions, etc. It’s a historical drama made for enjoyment, not made to be a substitute for actual learning resources or scholarly material. And this mindset is the kind one should have going into this series and Gladiator, and even the Rome series (which I've watched also). And I also believe these types of series can be good as a gateway for viewers to become interested in the events/people and afterwards do research on the real histories and facts.

41 minutes ago, Prieure de Sion said:

a) Coins from this period are often difficult to identify. There are a lot of republicans from the period where we don't know for sure whether the mintage was around 80 or 70 BC. There are also many mintmasters from this period with the "same" name and we don't know whether it was the predecessor or the successor. That makes it a bit difficult to always be sure.

I see year ranges for many Republican denarii types listed, but I don't know how accurate these are in general. I'm guessing they are pretty accurate based on the specific moneyer(s) named on the coin. I used to have an L. Rubrius Dossenus denarius and the particular type that it was is generally accepted as from the 70s BC (can't remember the exact years).

1 hour ago, Prieure de Sion said:

b) The slave revolt was not something that one would have wanted to have immortalised on coins. It was an eyesore. Why would you mention something like that on a coin? You won't find a coin with a direct reference to the Spartacus revolt.

2 hours ago, Prieure de Sion said:

d) denarii about the Roman civil war - but nothing about Spartacus.

Oh I'm aware. I'm just looking for denarii types common to that time period or just before.
 

I find the Spartacus rebellion/Third Seville War very interesting, and I love the Starz series on it (yes, I actually watched it for the plot!). For a while I’ve been wanting to get at least a couple of denarii that would likely have been in circulation at the time of the rebellion. Problem is, I’m not really a Roman Republic collector (I just have one Republican coin, a denarius), so I don’t have a good idea on what to look for in terms of specific types. I’m thinking perhaps focusing just on denarii types struck in the 80s and 70s BC. Thank you for any information/help on this!

FedEx already lost one of my coins before, so I’d go with DHL over them any day.