Frames for the five good and bad roman emperors.

Hi all,

I have made two frames for collecting roman denarii of the “five good emperors” and of five notoriously bad emperors.

For the good caesars, I also listed five roman virtues that are best associated with them:

For the five bad emperors, I listed five deadly sins best associated with them:


As you can see, the “bad” emperors were censored, according to the roman tradition of damnatio memoriae.
Caracalla was not subject to damnatio by the senate, but he sure should have been.

You are supposed to cut out the white circles (and a bit more, they are intentionally smaller than denarii) and mount the denarii in the holes.

Hope the resolution on numista will be ok, otherwise just send me a PM for the full res versions.

Cheers.

Beautiful! Although, I wouldn't have censored the “bad” emperors.

I saw something similar in wood for Mark Anthony Legionary Denarii and plan to put my Siscia collection in such a frame once it's complete.

Interesting. In my Latin class we were talking about Caligula and Nero and Claudius and Agrippina.

cro321

Beautiful! Although, I wouldn't have censored the “bad” emperors.

 

I saw something similar in wood for Mark Anthony Legionary Denarii and plan to put my Siscia collection in such a frame once it's complete.

Looking forward to seeing your complete frame.
Do you have a pic of the M.A. legionary collection?

SPQR

 

Looking forward to seeing your complete frame.
Do you have a pic of the M.A. legionary collection?

I saw it a while ago on Forvm Ancient Coins. Unfortunately I can't seem to find it again. 

As for my collection I don't expect it to be complete any time soon, this is more of a lifetime achievement. 😂

Here is another frame I made to collect asses.

I like this one much more than the first two. The first two had too much going on for my taste. This one is straight forward and simple, no extra stuff to distract from the coins. I'm hoping my own collection will be in something like this one day.

cro321

I saw something similar in wood for Mark Anthony Legionary Denarii

How many legions were there? Wasn't it like 20? I have Legion II and IV.

ngdawa

 

How many legions were there? Wasn't it like 20? I have Legion II and IV.

According to Wikipedia 23 plus the cohort of scouts which is, as far as I can tell, called the praetorian cohort in this coin series. I saw your coins, they're beautiful. 

Back when I was just getting into Roman coins in around 2018. these were widely available where I live and a decent (although not as good as yours) example could be acquired for 30 to 50 euro. Now I see them rarely for sale and even when they do pop up they go for at least double that.

I would love to start a collection of these one day but given how rare they appear for sale and my current priority being my Siscia collection I doubt I'll have the means for it any time soon.

cro321

ngdawa

 

How many legions were there? Wasn't it like 20? I have Legion II and IV.

According to Wikipedia 23 plus the cohort of scouts which is, as far as I can tell, called the praetorian cohort in this coin series. I saw your coins, they're beautiful. 

 

Back when I was just getting into Roman coins in around 2018. these were widely available where I live and a decent (although not as good as yours) example could be acquired for 30 to 50 euro. Now I see them rarely for sale and even when they do pop up they go for at least double that.

 

I would love to start a collection of these one day but given how rare they appear for sale and my current priority being my Siscia collection I doubt I'll have the means for it any time soon.

Wow, 23. When I got those two I thought I would try to get all of them, but then I realised there were so many of them. 😅

I am very new in the ancient numismatics. I'm planning to focus more on ancient and medieval coinage, but first I have to “clean up” my collection to make room. This is what my downsizing is all about.

Wow, 30-50 euros. I think I paid 700-800 euros each for my two. I do am buying locally though, since you'll never know what customs might come up with if I start buying 2000+ year old coins from abroad, so I guess I'm paying a little more than if I'd buy from eBay and such.

ngdawa

 

Wow, 30-50 euros. I think I paid 700-800 euros each for my two. 

As I said, those weren't as nice as yours two but still good enough to start a collection with at least 80% of the lettering visible and the number of the legion readable. Yours would have probably sold starting around 200 euro. 

Take into consideration I live in a place where ancient coins are widely available and regularly found. I buy from metal detectors, senior members of coin clubs that have been collecting for a while and have many ancient coins available and first hand auction websites that buy from the same sources. If you add on acquiring cost in the rest of the world, authentication costs and auction house costs price goes up fast.

If you acquire any more coin from this series please post photos, I love seeing them. Good luck! 😀

SPQR

Here is another frame I made to collect asses.🤣

The most unfortunately named coin of all time. I instantly think of booty.

The jury is out on some of those bad emperors, Elagabulus and Commodus totally, by Nero was misunderstood, he was a freak and an egotist, but there is more proof he was handing out bread and pork in the fire of Rome, rather than fiddling (The fiddle was invented over 1500 years later), he built the domus aureum - yet abandoned it later in the reign and no one throws shade at Hadrian for the villa Tivoli, otherwise known as a gay brothel. Caracalla was a skilled warrior, built awesome baths and mainly reigned under the shadow of his father and brother. He was mainly labelled as bad, because he killed his brother and went mad. Caligula was bad, but he only ruled 3 and a half years. There are many other bad emperors (Nearly anyone from the 3rd century and most of the Christian ones).

All because Suetonius and then later Edward Gibbon, called certain emperors good and bad, we still accept these facts blindly.

Hadrian was not such a good emperor, he had able administrators and his predecessor had made the empire nearly invincible, Hadrian a gay aesthete spent more time drooling over Antoninus and writing poetry as his classical style of the “Babylon” bath house. He loved the rubber lipped, hugely endowed Greco Egyptian boy (Murdered by his jealous wife) so much that the next emperor was named after him, (Poor AP knowing he was named after a catamite). I mean if Trajan had preceded you, even Commodus could be a good emperor!

Moneytane

SPQR

Here is another frame I made to collect asses.🤣

[…] The jury is out on some of those bad emperors, […]

Well, that's likely because it's five of the worst ones according to me.

I do not accept any facts blindly, I chose these emperors for the following reasons:
 

• Caligula: I was a bit skeptical to include him at first. Personally I can relate to him quite well. But we don't judge his actions as a man, we judge his actions as an emperor. He chose to take revenge on the senatorial and overall aristocratic class for the sins of his predecessor. He mocked the roman institutions and prioritized his feelings over the common good. Once he became emperor he could have turned the situation around and restore the integrity of the princeps built by Octavian. But he could not. Instead, he set the precedent that emperors can be killed. That makes him a bad emperor.
• Nero: I would not say he was misunderstood, and I did not add him because of the defamatory lies spread around by those insidious jewish sectarians who claim that their rabbi rose from the dead. I added him because he was a gluttonous, effeminate, hellenophile. He lacked any and all virtues, quite fitting as all his power was given to him by a woman. Claudius might have been weaker than any woman in the palatine, but Nero was a woman of the palatine. Even in death he needed another man to do the deed.
• Commodus: just an egomaniac fils à papa. His life was perfect, he had success served to him on a silver plate. Too bad his ego was larger than the roman empire itself. I will sooner be a slave than a “commodian”.
• Caracalla: Traitor to ROMA. Only a fool was surprised when this provincial dog granted the honor of citizenship to any barbarian lucky enough to be a subject. His lineage is that of a foreigner, his clothing is that of a foreigner, his ambitions are those of a foreigner. Driven solely by greed, he even overthrew a centuries old monetary system instituted by Augustus. 
• Elagabalus:  as for Commodus, a spoiled brat who had no business bearing any responsibility on any level but became emperor because his granny was thirsty for power. As for Caracalla, a provincial beast who wiped his bottom with the mos maiorum, desecrated Vesta, and gained the ire of the gods by worshipping his Syrian divinity.

Why the emperors from Nerva to Aurelius are good is not because of the opinions of mere men, it is because they (as Augustus) were the chosen emperors. They obtained their power not by right of blood, nor by taking it. They were proclaimed first citizens, in honor of their virtues.

As for Hadrian, I ask you Moneytane, did his adoration of Antoninus corrupt in any way his love for ROMA? Did he not dedicate his life to securing the eternity of that which his ancestors had built? The optimo princeps deemed him worthy, why don't you?

At the risk of spoiling the authenticity of my previous post: it's meant as a period-authentic argumentation of why the emperors were bad according to a ‘true roman’. Please don't make it political or attack it from a modern point of view.

Thanks for your explanation, it is very helpful. Helpful in showing your own prejudices.

Moneytane

Thanks for your explanation, it is very helpful. Helpful in showing your own prejudices.

Which prejudices, Moneytane?

My hellenophobia? 
My hatred for those sectarian jews (Christians)?
My disposition against worshippers of Elagabal?
My prejudices against people who wear pants?
My aversity to provincial barbarians?
My loathing towards those who break the mos maiorum?

If anything, your reply is very helpful in showing that you are too sensitive to have a historical debate.
I even deliberately made a separate post to specify that those were not my actually opinions but meant to reflect those of an authentic roman. 
Very upsetting that you still decided to take it the wrong way.

P.S. you completely broke down one of the universally regarded best roman emperors just because he was gay. Even Machiavelli and medieval Christian scholars were less bigoted than you in that regard.

Nice job.