Posts: 485
Threads: 12
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation:
0
"The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft interred with their bones"
Antony
Posts: 34
Threads: 7
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
2
Jay's sources indicate the Miliarense and the Siliqua as still in use, which leaves only the Follis out of circulation because it was based upon creation on the Denarius, which obviously wasn't around by the time.
Thanks for the links, Jay. Helped a lot.
Posts: 450
Threads: 11
Joined: Nov 2014
Reputation:
0
The other forms of currency were not used for every one of those years in the links. Anyway, most of the mintage was done by the Byzantines, not the Western Romans. Also, the Follis was not out of use because it was based on the denarius; it was still in use ( eastern empire ) and was based on the nummus, of which 40 nummi equaled one follis. Just trying to help.
Regards, Jason
Posts: 34
Threads: 7
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
2
It seems kinda weird that one coin wouldn't be accepted in the West but only in the East.
I'm also slightly confused about all Emperors minting their own coins. Would a Solidus/Siliqua/Follis minted when Honorius was Emperor worth less if Valentine III was the Emperor by then? So let's say a traveller comes from the East with a bag full of Follis; wouldn't Western Empire merchants accept them?
Posts: 450
Threads: 11
Joined: Nov 2014
Reputation:
0
No, it would not be worth less, unless it contained less precious metals. The more gold or silver a coin contained, the more it was worth, so the more valuable coins would be hoarded.
Regards, Jason
Posts: 485
Threads: 12
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation:
0
It would be accepted in the west as long as it met the weight standard. One of the links posted above shows the decree to accept the usurpers coinage as long as it was up to the standard. As I said GOLD was held to a very fine purity.
"The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft interred with their bones"
Antony
Posts: 34
Threads: 7
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
2
Then why are we discrediting Wikipedia? It is 100% correct if even the Follis could be used in both Empires.
Posts: 485
Threads: 12
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation:
0
I didn't. However be aware that there are different follii. The Roman and the Byzantine. The Byzantine is a much larger heavier coin. If you see them in person you will immediately see the difference. It is only the same in name.
"The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft interred with their bones"
Antony
Posts: 485
Threads: 12
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation:
0
I'm not as familiar with this late time period as I am with the republic/1st century.. The guys on forum ancient coins will be able to help you if you post over there or search the threads.
"The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft interred with their bones"
Antony
Posts: 4,861
Threads: 129
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation:
33
If the byzantine follis came into use in the 5th century it would have to have been after the last major monetary reforms by Valentinian III in the 440's.
Posts: 15,118
Threads: 417
Joined: Mar 2002
Reputation:
78
I think it's difficult to be precise about the value of coins during this period. We know from edicts and other fficial publications what the oficial rates of coins were, but I think that could differ when you were paying in the actual market.
Also, most mints had closed down in the West during the late 4th and early 5th century. Payment in coin dropped dramatically after that. I know from an early 5th century find from Richborough that it seems that bronze coins were thrown away because of their low value.
