Just a bit of fun

[Prieure de Sion]

24 minutes ago, Tejas said:

The break comes with Justinian's invasion of Italy. This invasion turned the Goths against Roman interest and it let to the real end of the Western Empire. It weakened Rome to an extend that the Langobards could just move in in 567 and establish their overlordship with hardly any resistance. Hence, it really was Justinian, i.e. a Roman Emperor who brought about the downfall of the Western Empire, not Odovacar in 476 and certainly not the Goths.

So you could say that Theodoric's takeover was just another takeover of the Western Roman government - as "hundreds" of soldier emperors had done before him. After all, previous military emperors before him no longer necessarily came from the Italian heartland, but from the provinces.

The actual downfall of the Western Roman region was brought about by the intervention of Justinian with his magisters Belisarius and Narses and the fatal war on Italian soil. As far as I know, the war up until around 550 AD caused fatal damage - to land, structures, supplies and, above all, to people. The strong Gothic "protecting power" was almost destroyed and in the end barbarian tribes like the Lombards were able to invade the country unhindered.

And as far as I know, these new peoples who now streamed into the country no longer saw themselves as "Romans" - so that the downfall of the Western Rome would actually have to be interpreted around 100 years later? Or?

[Rand]

3 hours ago, Tejas said:

While the Theodahat follis is rare and very seldom offered in auction, there are much rarer Gothic coins. For example, this early Half-Siliqua of Theoderic, minted to the eastern weight standard, is excessively rare. I know of two pieces in museums, but to my knowledge this may be the only piece in private hands.

This half-siliqua was likely part of the celebratory issue by Theoderic that included other denominations. Below are three very rare tremisses likely from the same series - probably the only ones in private hands. 

The first two were bought from the NAC Auction 93 above. The third coin was bought recently and is still in post. Except for these three, museums have three tremisses with Victoria looking left and four tremisses with Victoria looking right.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 12, 2023 by Rand

[Rand]

1 hour ago, Tejas said:

While the Theodahat follis is rare and very seldom offered in auction, there are much rarer Gothic coins. For example, this early Half-Siliqua of Theoderic, minted to the eastern weight standard, is excessively rare. I know of two pieces in museums, but to my knowledge this may be the only piece in private hands.

A stunning coin @Tejas! Wow.

The reverse is very close to the elusive tremissis below, which I only know from the Metchlich's book. It is cited as a Berlin piece, but it is not in the online part of the National Museum collection in Berlin. You are well familiar with the coins of the period, and you have come across this type. I would be grateful for any info. 

 

Metlich MA. The coinage of Ostrogothic Italy. Spink, London, 2004

 

[Al Kowsky]

3 hours ago, Rand said:

2016 NAC Auction 93 was probably the latest major sale of the coins of the migration period with many amazing pieces, including two Theodohad's follises (lots 1184, 1185). 

https://www.arsclassicacoins.com/wp-content-nasecure/uploads/2020/06/2016-NAC-93.pdf

Sadly, my budget for that auction was depleted even before I reached Theodohad's lots. 

I would love to know who the collector was. The auction is one of the few provenances I value. Below is a coin I missed during the sale but was lucky to get later from another sale.

 

 

Theoderic in the name of Anastasius. Solidus, Ravenna with Theoderic's monogram.

 

Rand, Thanks for posting the NAC Auction 93 link, it looks like a valuable resource & was downloaded in my files 🤩.

[Tejas]

4 hours ago, Prieure de Sion said:

So you could say that Theodoric's takeover was just another takeover of the Western Roman government - as "hundreds" of soldier emperors had done before him. After all, previous military emperors before him no longer necessarily came from the Italian heartland, but from the provinces.

The actual downfall of the Western Roman region was brought about by the intervention of Justinian with his magisters Belisarius and Narses and the fatal war on Italian soil. As far as I know, the war up until around 550 AD caused fatal damage - to land, structures, supplies and, above all, to people. The strong Gothic "protecting power" was almost destroyed and in the end barbarian tribes like the Lombards were able to invade the country unhindered.

And as far as I know, these new peoples who now streamed into the country no longer saw themselves as "Romans" - so that the downfall of the Western Rome would actually have to be interpreted around 100 years later? Or?

Theodahat's bid for power resulted from the fact that Theoderic had no son and that his chosen successor Eutharic died before him. I think these events have nothing directly to do with the downfall of the Western Roman Empire. Apart from that, I agree, Odovacar's dismissal of the last emperor of the west was in my view not really the end of the the western empire and in particular not the end of late antiquity. Germanic generals had run Rome for most of the 5th century, Odovacar was only the first one who did so without a Roman puppet in place. 

Odovacar, who was half Scirian and half Thurinigan, was  a very cabable and effective ruler during his 10 years in office. The Eastern Roman emperor would have have been well adviced to acknowledging his rule, by appointing him officially as king over Italy and the adjacent territory. Instead, he sent Theoderic and his Goths to get rid of Odovacar and return the Western Empire to Roman rule. Theoderic was again, highly cabable but also independent minded. He got rid of Odovacar, but he also established independent rule under nominal East Roman suzerainty. 

Things developed remarkable well during Theoderic's rule. Italy was safe under his protection and the economy and art flourished. Once again the Roman emperor would have been well adviced to acknowledge his rule over Italy. Instead, as we all know the ill fated and utterly incompetent (if we believe Procopius) Justinian launched an all out invasion which led to decades of war, the complete destruction of administrative strucutres and the economy and quite literally ushered in the end of antiquity. 

The Langobards, who moved in from about 567 met with hardly any resistance and they certainly had no intentions to reinvigorate the idea of Rome. Rome had become an after thought. Thus in my view the end of the Western Roman empire came in between AD 552 or 554, when the last Gothic resistance collapsed, and the arrival of the Langobards in AD 557. So, as you said, almost 100 years after the events of 476. Btw, I read that the last time the sources mentioned the Senate of Rome was in 611. After that time the oldest of the Roman institutions seems to have vanished as well.

 

 

Edited November 12, 2023 by Tejas

[Tejas]

4 hours ago, Rand said:

The third coin was bought recently and is still in post. Except for these three, museums have three tremisses with Victoria looking left and four tremisses with Victoria looking right.

Wonderful coins. I'm afraid I bid against you on the last one.

[Rand]

Just now, Tejas said:

Wonderful coins. I'm afraid I bid against you on the last one.

Sorry. It was still a bargain - much cheaper than the first two.

Last Roma's auction pained me more, but I was lucky with a few similar (but not same) in the previous Roma auctions and decided it was time to share and did not push bidding.

[Rand]

I am glad the period is increasingly seen as more colourful than the 'Dark Ages'. The political links within the previous Empire had not completely disintegrated until the Justinian invasion. 

 I see this period as the Roman Commonwealth and the gold monetary system as a franchise
I can not call Theodoric or Gundobad barbarians; they were well educated, better than, say Zeno or Justin I (as far as we know)

Edited November 12, 2023 by Rand

[O-Towner]

Great thread for us Ostrogothic collectors and love all the coins (and very jealous at this point). I'll just throw in a AR Siliqua type of the Ostrogothic Queen Matasuntha in the name of Justinian with her monogram on the reverse. Stuck off center a bit but it's not like there's a whole lot of them out there.

 

[Tejas]

19 minutes ago, O-Towner said:

Great thread for us Ostrogothic collectors and love all the coins (and very jealous at this point). I'll just throw in a AR Siliqua type of the Ostrogothic Queen Matasuntha in the name of Justinian with her monogram on the reverse. Stuck off center a bit but it's not like there's a whole lot of them out there.

 

 

Very interesting coin. Below is an example from my collection. However, this coin is not Ostrogothic let alone from Matasuntha. The whole episode about the succession after Theoderic's death in 527 revolved around the fact that women could not (officially) rule in Gothic society. The logic was simple, in the view of the Goths a king (reiks in Gothic) was a person who had proven himself in battle. Since women did not fight in battles, they could never be the reiks. Amalasuintha, who ruled  inofficially for a while in the name of her son Athalaric tried to change this by elevating the Amal dynasty so that legitimacy could be derived from descent, but this did not work at the end. She still needed a male king, which was Theodahat after Athalaric had died young. 

Theodahat, however, would not keep his part of the bargain and accept the royal title while the real power would remain with Amalasuntha. So he had her killed to rule in his own right. When he proved ineffective in war, the Goths removed him from power by killing him and elevating a proven Gothic general Witiges to the position of reiks. However, since the Amal dynasty and especially proximity to Theoderic guaranteed prestige, Witiges married Matasuntha, who was a granddaughter of Theoderic. However, Matasuntha never ruled as Queen and no coins were ever issued in her name. 

Your coin was minted in Africa after the fall of the Vandalic kingdom and the monogram is that of Justinian, i.e. DN IVSTINIANVS. In addition, the style and frabric does not at all match the silver coins issued under the Goths in Italy.

Edited November 12, 2023 by Tejas

[Al Kowsky]

There are interesting similarities in the lives of Theodoric the Great & Constantine the Great. Constantine was held captive at the court of Diocletian, & Theodoric was held captive at the court of Leo I. Instead of acting like disgruntled prisoners, both of these men became literate & learned as much as possible about the Roman military & customs. When released both were chosen as emperors by their own troops & made a serious impact on Roman history. The coin pictured below, in the collection of Francesco Gnecchi, a gold medallion equal to 3 solidi, is the only portrait coin of Theodoric the Great.

                                        

[O-Towner]

Thanks Tejas! I have had this coin for many years and when it was sold via auction I believe BMC identified it as that of Matasuntha. I actually am happy that it is a monogram of Justinian as that Emperor is the focus of my collection at this point.

[Rand]

5 minutes ago, Al Kowsky said:

The coin pictured below, in the collection of Francesco Gnecchi,

I think the original of the Senigallia Medallion is now in the Palazzo Massimo alle Terme, Rome.

https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/C_B-11479 BM has an Electrotype facsimile of the medallion, made when it was in Gnecchi's posession. 

[Rand]

The similarity of Victoria with the palm and wreath on the Senigallia Medallion and the tremisses shown above makes me think that they (and other denominations) were produced at the same time. Their scarcity may indicate their donative nature.

The nature of the occasion is a matter of speculation but could be the celebration of the victory over Odovacer and becoming the ruler of the new Ostrogothic Kingdom.

[Al Kowsky]

6 hours ago, Rand said:

The similarity of Victoria with the palm and wreath on the Senigallia Medallion and the tremisses shown above makes me think that they (and other denominations) were produced at the same time. Their scarcity may indicate their donative nature.

The nature of the occasion is a matter of speculation but could be the celebration of the victory over Odovacer and becoming the ruler of the new Ostrogothic Kingdom.

That seems like a strong possibility 🤔. Pictured below is the BM electotype. I remember reading that the original medallion was made into a brooch or pin, & had solder marks on the reverse.

[Tejas]

19 hours ago, Rand said:

A stunning coin @Tejas! Wow.

The reverse is very close to the elusive tremissis below, which I only know from the Metchlich's book. It is cited as a Berlin piece, but it is not in the online part of the National Museum collection in Berlin. You are well familiar with the coins of the period, and you have come across this type. I would be grateful for any info. 

 

Metlich MA. The coinage of Ostrogothic Italy. Spink, London, 2004

 

I agree, this is an elusive coin. There is non in Metlich in the name of Anastasius. I suppose this was a brief issue in 491/492.

[Tejas]

12 hours ago, Al Kowsky said:

There are interesting similarities in the lives of Theodoric the Great & Constantine the Great. Constantine was held captive at the court of Diocletian, & Theodoric was held captive at the court of Leo I. Instead of acting like disgruntled prisoners, both of these men became literate & learned as much as possible about the Roman military & customs. When released both were chosen as emperors by their own troops & made a serious impact on Roman history. The coin pictured below, in the collection of Francesco Gnecchi, a gold medallion equal to 3 solidi, is the only portrait coin of Theodoric the Great.

                                        

I think the term „captive“ doesn‘t really capture the situation that Theoderic was in when he was at the court of Leo I. The english word „hostage“ is also not quite suitable. The proper term in German is „Geisel“. It used to describe a kind of captivity, which was very honorific with the „Geisel“ coming from an elite group and given preferred if not luxurious treatment and education. The fact that the term Geisel had a positive meaning back then can be seen from the fact that it has become part of personal names like „Giselher“ or „Godegisel“ and so on. 

[Tejas]

14 hours ago, Rand said:

The similarity of Victoria with the palm and wreath on the Senigallia Medallion and the tremisses shown above makes me think that they (and other denominations) were produced at the same time. Their scarcity may indicate their donative nature.

The nature of the occasion is a matter of speculation but could be the celebration of the victory over Odovacer and becoming the ruler of the new Ostrogothic Kingdom.

The dating of the Senigallia medallion is subject to some controversy. Personally, I don‘t think that it dates to the very beginning of Theoderic‘s reign. I think it dates to either AD 500, when Theoderic made a triumphal entry into Rome, or to AD 509 to celebrate the victory over Burgundians and Franks, ie. with a direct reference to the reverse legend.

[Al Kowsky]

4 hours ago, Tejas said:

I think the term „captive“ doesn‘t really capture the situation that Theoderic was in when he was at the court of Leo I. The english word „hostage“ is also not quite suitable. The proper term in German is „Geisel“. It used to describe a kind of captivity, which was very honorific with the „Geisel“ coming from an elite group and given preferred if not luxurious treatment and education. The fact that the term Geisel had a positive meaning back then can be seen from the fact that it has become part of personal names like „Giselher“ or „Godegisel“ and so on. 

You raise a good point 😉, the German word is more accurate. The 8 year old boy, Theodoric, was treated like the offspring of a nobleman, not a war captive. He was actually used as a "control factor" after his father signed a treaty with Leo I, that promised an annual payment of 300 pounds of gold to the imperial court. Some might call this a ransom 😏....

[Tejas]

7 minutes ago, Al Kowsky said:

You raise a good point 😉, the German word is more accurate. The 8 year old boy, Theodoric, was treated like the offspring of a nobleman, not a war captive. He was actually used as a "control factor" after his father signed a treaty with Leo I, that promised an annual payment of 300 pounds of gold to the imperial court. Some might call this a ransom 😏....

Just to clarify, the imperial court agreed to pay 300 pounds of gold to the Goths, not the other way round. In 459 the East Romans failed to pay the annual tribute to the Goths, causing Valamir to turn the Gothic army against the Romans. In response, Leo I agreed to resume the payments. 

Edited November 13, 2023 by Tejas

[Rand]

@Tejas, I agree. Indeed, we have:

• AD 493, proposed by Arslan and favoured as 'most likely' by Metlich in his 2004 book.
• AD 500, favoured by most, which Metlich admitted.
• AD 509, celebrating the victory over the Burgundians and Franks - has a strong argument.

Each date can be supported now by more arguments than those listed by Metlich in 2004. 

 

Let me argue for 511 - not that I claim it is necessarily correct.

• In 511, Theodoric took control of the Visigothic Kingdom after deposing Gesalec and nominally installed his grandson Amalaric, a minor. This year, the two Gothic nations were united under a single rule. This would be the most appropriate occasion for the VICTOR GENTIVM legend. 
• Even though also uncertain, 511 could be the year when the siege of Arles was over ending the war (rather than 509), and even may be the year when Clovis died.

511 was a glorious year for Theodoric.

 

Let us assume the VPW tremissis above were produced for the same occasion as the Senigallia Medallion:

• They were the only Ostrogothic coins with the VPW effigy. 
• VPW was a standard Visigothic tremissis type, and taking over the Visigothic kingdom was an excellent reason to produce some VPW tremisses.
• The Senigallia Medallion has both Victoria looking left (on obverse) and right (on reverse) - fitting the two types of the Ostrogothic VPW tremisses.
• Metlich's view that these VPW tremisses were the first tremisses of Theodoric does not fit the existence of Burgundian ANASTASIVS PERP VPW tremisses. It does not explain why Theodoric would stopp producing them changing to VGC, and the Gaul would follow the short emission for decades.

Now we have this possibly unique tremissis, which has both the Visighotic style of Victoria and close stylistic similarities to the Ostrogothic tremissis pictured underneath. The Theta points to Theodoric. This implies the tremissis was minted in the Visigothic domain under Theodoric's authority, which is unlikely to be before 511, and so was the Senigallia Medallion. I bought it from a Spanish auction, which indirectly supports Gallic or Spanish rather than Itallian minting. 

 

Edited November 13, 2023 by Rand

[Rand]

@Hrefn Apologies, if my line of thinking is confusing or if I made a mistake. I cannot spot the problem to fix it, sorry.

[Al Kowsky]

7 hours ago, Tejas said:

Just to clarify, the imperial court agreed to pay 300 pounds of gold to the Goths, not the other way round. In 459 the East Romans failed to pay the annual tribute to the Goths, causing Valamir to turn the Gothic army against the Romans. In response, Leo I agreed to resume the payments. 

Tejas, I did a double check on Wikipedia & that source states: "In 461, when Theodoric was 7 or 8 years of age, he was taken hostage in Constantinople to secure the Ostrogoths' compliance with a treaty Theodemir concluded with augustus Leo I (ruled 457- 474). The treaty secured a payment to Constantinople of some 300 pounds' worth of gold each year."

[Hrefn]

4 hours ago, Rand said:

@Hrefn Apologies, if my line of thinking is confusing or if I made a mistake. I cannot spot the problem to fix it, sorry.

My dear @Rand, no apologies to me are called for, nor is your reasoning at all unclear.  My choice of emoji was poor.  I meant to convey a sense of astonishment, the sense of being momentarily “stopped in one’s tracks” as one assimilates a new insight, what we sometimes call a blinding insight.  In my own clumsy way I was attempting to be complimentary.   Please accept my apologies for the confusion.  

[Tejas]

11 hours ago, Al Kowsky said:

Tejas, I did a double check on Wikipedia & that source states: "In 461, when Theodoric was 7 or 8 years of age, he was taken hostage in Constantinople to secure the Ostrogoths' compliance with a treaty Theodemir concluded with augustus Leo I (ruled 457- 474). The treaty secured a payment to Constantinople of some 300 pounds' worth of gold each year."

I‘m afraid Wikipedia got it wrong. The source is Priscus, who wrote:

„When the Scythian (the Romans often referred to the Goths as Scythians) Valamir (Theoderic‘s uncle) broke the treaty and devastated many Roman towns and regions, the Romans sent an embassy to him, which scorned him for these deeds and offered to pay him an annual tribute (or subsidy) of 300 pounds (of gold), so that he would no longer threaten Roman lands, because he had explained that his people had attacked and plundered Roman territory for the lack of food“

This is just my translation, but it is clear that the Romans paid the Goths. Indeed, 300 pounds was only a small tribute compared to what the Romans had paid the Huns. After Theoderic had united the Gothic armies, the Romans had to raise the tribute to 1000 pounds of gold per year. Buying off barbarians had been the usual practice in the 5th century, when Roman military power was weak. However, ever so often these payments would fail to arrive, which caused the barbarians to launch a new threat to enforce or even increase the tribute.

Priscus added the explanation that the Romans paid the Goths, because they were starving, to make this more palatable to his Roman audience. The tribute now looked like a subsidy (we would say humanitarian aid). It is probably true that the Goths needed the plunder, but the Romans paid out of fear that the Gothic army of Valamir would devastate Roman lands, thus destroying their tax base or even threatening Constantinople itself.

 

 

Edited November 14, 2023 by Tejas