Romanus I Lecapenus Æ Follis...

[ewomack]

Pulling off a reign-within-a-reign maneuver, Romanus I Lecapenus ruled from 920 to 944, entirely within the reign of Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, which spanned from 913 to 959. As Bulgaria threatened the Byzantine empire, a palace revolt led to Constantine VII's mother, Zoe, gaining power. Afterwards, Symeon, the Bulgarian ruler, dealt Byzantium a handful of humiliating defeats, which led to the ascension of Romanus I, a capable military leader. Romanus I kept Symeon, who sought the Byzantine throne for himself, at bay until the Bulgarian ruler's death in 927. Meanwhile, Romanus I had made his sons co-emperors, and Constantine VII was treated well, but kept entirely out of governing. Called "a good ruler" by Sear, after almost 25 years on the throne, two of Romanus I's sons suddenly deposed him. Constantine VII, considered the legitimate ruler as son of Leo VI, saw his chance, deposed the deposers, and regained the throne for himself. Constantine VII's own son, also named Romanus, became Romanus II after his father's death in 959. Romanus I's ambitions didn't come to fruition and he thus remains somewhat of a blip within another's reign. No one would probably ever describe the lineage of Byzantine rulers as "uncomplicated."

One could arguably describe the depiction of Romanus I on this follis as "badass." He not only looks ready to found a death metal band, but also like someone to definitely not mess with. His proven military record, and subsequent defense of the empire itself, likely justified this imposing, ominous, and unforgettable portrait. Greek letters had gradually begun to supplant Latin on coinage by this era, so the "ω" depicts the lowercase "Ω" or Omega. But some Latin letters still intermingle, making for a sometimes confusing language salad. "RωMAh" then becomes roughly equivalent to "ROMAN," and "RωMAIωh" to "ROMAION." Coins of Leo VI displayed "ROMAION" as "ROmEOh," which signified the Byzantine empire's claim as the direct heir of the Roman empire of Augustus, Claudius, Marcus Aurelius, and Constantine.

Sear adds an additional note for this type: "These appear to have been issued in great quantities, and are often overstruck on folles of Leo VI, usually of the type of 1729." Sear 1729 represents probably the most common type in all of Byzantine coinage. Almost any search for Byzantine coins in collections or on vendor and auction sites will reveal numerous examples of Sear 1729. Yet, in my experience, this follis of Romanus I doesn't seem to appear anywhere nearly as often, especially in higher grades. It even feels uncommon by comparison. This particular example doesn't appear overstruck, but one wonders how Constantine VII viewed the striking over of his own father's coins by the intervening emperor who kept him out of government affairs. One probably doesn't have to wonder too long.

Romanus I Lacapenus (920 - 944); Constantinople Æ Follis; Obv: +RωMAN bAS-ILEVS Rωm’ Facing bust of Romanus I, bearded, wearing crown and jeweled chlamys, and holding labarum and globus cruciger; Rev: +RωMA/N’ENΘEωbA/SILEVSRω/MAIωN; 27mm, 8.09g, 6h; R.1886-8, Sear 1760

 

This small cut handwritten note card accompanied the coin. Presumably a record of a previous owner or an old dealer tag, it doesn't contain any identifying information. An interesting and welcome addition by the dealer, nonetheless.

 

Please share your coins of Romanus I Lecapenus!

 

Edited November 24, 2023 by ewomack

[sand]

@ewomack That's a nice looking and interesting coin, and interesting historical information about Romanus I. I agree, that the portrait on the coin, looks like a courageous leader.

[Celator]

Romanus I
931 to 945 AD
Mint: Constantinople
AR Miliaresion
Obvs: IhSЧS XRIStЧS nICA, Cross potent on three steps with cross beneath. At center oval medallion of Romanus, RW left and MA right.
Revs: +ROMANO CONSTANt StЄFAnOS CЄCONSTA ЄnWbR in five lines.
23mm, 2.85g
Ref: Sear 1755

[ewomack]

Romanus I seems like an increasingly nebulous figure the more that I learn, especially in relation to coinage. The relative lack of posted examples of his coins here probably derives from the few coins his reign seems to have produced. Only a small number of types seem to exist, many of which depict him side-by-side with Constantine VII. Sear lists the following five solidi, 1741, 1742, 1743, 1745, 1746, none of which show Romanus I as sole emperor, with the exception of 1745, which shows Romanus I with his son Christopher. Five miliaresions, 1753, 1754, 1755, 1756, 1757, also largely include references to Constantine VII. 1755, shown above by @Celator, lists the names of Romanus I, Constantine VII, and Romanus I's sons Stephen and Constantine. As for Æ folles from Constantinople, Sear only lists the single 1760 that I posted above for Romanus I. Two Æ follis types exist from Cherson, 1766 and 1769, but that appears to exhaust the coins of Romanus I - thirteen coins (barring my missing any and any that may have come forward since the Sear book's last edition). Given that, I shouldn't have expected a deluge when asking others to share their Romanus I coins.

Constantine VII didn't think too much of Romanus, as this quote from The Cambridge History of the Byzantine Empire suggests: "the lord Romanus the Emperor was an idiot and an illiterate man, neither bred in the high imperial manner, nor following Roman custom from the beginning, nor of imperial or noble descent, and therefore the more rude and authoritarian in doing most things ... for his beliefs were uncouth, obstinate, ignorant of what is good, and unwilling to adhere to what is right and proper." Constantine VII may have exacted some revenge from the overstriking of his father's coins by Romanus I. A note for Sear 1761, which features Constantine VII alone, says "these are frequently overstruck on folles of Romanus I of the type of 1760." Poetic justice, perhaps. Romanus I also persecuted the Jewish people of the Byzantine empire, inciting the wrath of the Khazar ruler, Joseph, who then began persecuting Christians in his own empire. This seriously strained relations between the once allied empires. On the slightly brighter side of the historical testimony, since Romanus I left Constantine VII unharmed, Romanus I became known as "the gentle usurper." Though seemingly a backhanded compliment, people have been known as much worse things. Stephen Runciman, author of History of the Crusades, wrote a book dedicated to Romanus I's reign in 1929 and reissued in 1963.

It now makes some sense why Sear incorporated Romanus I into the section on Constantine VII, rather than giving Romanus I his own individual section.

If anyone else has any Romanus I coins to share, please post them! Thank you again, @Celator, for posting your example!

[Nerosmyfavorite68]

It's a nice piece.  I only have a couple, here's the 'best' one:

Constantine VII & Romanus I AE24 Follis

 

Obv: RωmAn' bASILεωS Rωm, facing bust of Romanus, holding transverse labarum and globus cruciger

 

Rev: RWMA / n' εn Θεω bA / SILεVS Rω / MAIωn in four lines.

 

SB1760.  Constantinople.  AD 920-944.  AD 913-959.  5.70g.

[ewomack]

7 hours ago, Nerosmyfavorite68 said:

It's a nice piece.  I only have a couple, here's the 'best' one:

Constantine VII & Romanus I AE24 Follis

 

Obv: RωmAn' bASILεωS Rωm, facing bust of Romanus, holding transverse labarum and globus cruciger

 

Rev: RWMA / n' εn Θεω bA / SILεVS Rω / MAIωn in four lines.

 

SB1760.  Constantinople.  AD 920-944.  AD 913-959.  5.70g.

Thanks for sharing! That coin has a nice green patina! Also, the reverse looks overstruck, but I can't quite make out on what from the picture. It could be on a 1729, because what looks like an "EO" and the beginning of an "h" towards bottom center would correspond to the last line on the 1729's reverse. It could also be a 1728, since that type has very similar text. Here's my example of 1729's reverse:

The obverse doesn't look overstuck at all, at least not from the picture.