Hey, ancients collectors, what's your opinion of this...

mojorizn

I was reading "The History of the Later Roman Empire" by J.B. Bury and came across this interesting piece of information about the coin denominations at the beginning of the Byzantine era when Anastasius (491-518 A.D.) reformed the coinage. Here is his break down:

1 solidus (gold) = 12 miliaresia (silver)
1 miliaresion = 2 siliquae (silver)
1 siliqua = 6 "M" folles (bronze)
1 M follis (40 nummi) = 2 "K" folles (bronze)
1 K follis (20 nummi) = 2 "I" folles (bronze)
1 I follis (10 nummi) = 2 "E" folles (bronze)

Pretty straightforward, right? But he then goes on to liken the denominations to current British denominations:

"Roughly speaking the miliaresion corresponds to our shilling, the siliqua to our sixpence, the follis to our penny."

Has anybody else seen similar comparisons to modern day denominations? Equating the follis to the penny seems a little out of line. As late as Constantine's reign when inflation was rampant through out the empire, the average wage of a fairly skilled craftsman was around 8 to 12 folles per day! In Anastasius' time, 150 years later, Constantinople and the larger cities of Italy were experiencing a booming economy relative to this. It seems the follis (or nummi) would hold a greater value. Any thoughts?

Mojo

WillieBoyd2

An interesting new book about that period is:
"The Ruin of the Roman Empire, A New History"
by James J. O'Donnell, published in 2008 by HarperCollins Publishers.

I have become interested in Byzantine / Late Roman coins and have several:

http://www.brianrxm.com/mardir/byza.htm

mojorizn

Nice site and coins. Good to see a new book. Mine are all read to rags.

Mojo

BigAlan

It would be difficult to compare wages without comparing 'What can I but for it?"

TitusFlavius

My knowledge is mostly of the 1st - 3rd centuries, but from what I understand there were several rapid and confusing reforms of the Roman AE coinage during the 4th Century. The Diocletianic Follis, used also by Constantine, was greatly reduced in size by the end of the latter's reign. Constantine's sons introduced heavier bronzes of uncertain name which also declined in size, and were subsequently replaced by Julian II. Julian's largest bronze coin was the closest equivalent to the old Follis of Diocletian, but its issue was brief. Only with the reform of Anistasius was a stable bronze follis reintroduced. Since Diocletian's follis and Anistasius' follis lie on opposite ends of this chaotic period, they probably didn't have the same value, although they share the same name.

It's hard to reconstruct the relative values of coins from this time. They clearly show a monetary system under continuous stress though, which makes them fascinating to study.

(Impatiently awaiting Sear's Roman Coins volume IV)