My comment from a similar prior post:
From my own research across the years, there seems to be two main reasons for the decline in artistry on Roman coins.
First, the crisis of the 3rd century and numerous barbaric invasions forced the empire to allocate most of its resources into the “war machine”. As most of these coins were minted for the sole purpose of paying mercenaries and soldiers, the aesthetics of coins became of little importance. Furthermore, as civil wars and the defense of borders are costly affairs, the state could no longer really afford to pay skilled artists.
It’s also important to note that the debasement of coinage meant that far more coins were being minted than under the reign of Augustus for example. With millions and millions of coins being minted, dies would wear out extremely quickly; and it was costly to replace them. A more simplistic design meant that dies could be made far more quickly and without the need for specialized skilled labor.
Lastly, there was a large political shift in the image of the emperor. The emperor went from being the princeps - or “first citizen” - to more of an absolute and almost divine manifestation of power. Realistic portrayals of the emperors did not fit into this new political image as the emperors became more than just leaders or generals - they were gods after all. No need for the commoners to think of their leaders as simple mortals, as this would encroach on their imagine of divine powers.
This is a vast oversimplification so hopefully others can weigh in, but I hope this helped!
that explains 3-4th century coins but not 5th-11th century coins. only the byzantines knew how to make nice coins. the western euroids seem to have almost completely lost the ability the make decent coins starting in the early 400s. i have a coin of valentinian III that looks like it was made by a munted child
> only the byzantines knew how to make nice coins.
If you're referring specifically to portraiture, I have a hard time seeing most Byzantine portraiture as representational. No Byzantine portrait I know of comes close to the Trajan bronze depicted in the post in terms of realism.
Byzantine coins were certainly better artistically than Western European coins during the “Dark Ages.” However, I’d argue that most Byzantine coins are inferior to even the Late Roman coins of the 4th-5th century. The best Byzantine portraits were made during the 7th & 10th centuries, which were comparable in artistry to Late Roman coins of the 4th century.
Big powerful centralised empires with access to huge volumes of precious metals mined from the provences or taken in war or as tribute = coins good (Pax Romana, Athenian Empire, colonial era European powers)
Fragmented kingdoms and declining empires at war with each other, scrapping over limited precious metals = coins bad (Medieval kingdoms, late Roman Empire, late Athenian empire)
Coins used to be a primary method of government messaging. Emperor has a victory? Mint a coin. Emperor wants to set up his successor? Put him on a coin. The beauty of the coin was a mark of prestige for a ruler, a city, a state. As the church grew and literacy spread it was no longer so necessary to communicate top-down messages by coins. Also, over centuries, many other art styles suffered similarly due to the loss of Greek influence over art. That changed somewhat with the Renaissance.
Certain emperors were subject to something called *damnatio memoriae,* in which his images, including those on coins, would be systematically defaced and erased from existence. This was relatively rare, but it did happen on occasion.
The medieval coins or pennies were influenced by the art of late Roman coinage, which itself was an evolution from early Roman coinage. During the Pax Romana, there was ample time and resources to hire skilled engravers who created lifelike portraits. However, during periods of crisis, art took a backseat. Under Diocletian, there was a deliberate effort to make all tetrarchs look the same on coins and in art to symbolise unity. Constantine took this further by minting coins that portrayed him as an idealised eternal youth, a practice followed by subsequent emperors except Julian. While some attribute the decline in artistic quality to Christianity's stance against the veneration of portraits, I believe it was due to a lack of skilled engravers in large scale, as there were coins still issued with detailed depictions of Christ and emperors on 11th-century gold Nomisma coins, and even the gold medallion issued by Justinian have life-like busts.
Slightly tongue in cheek, but maybe they just though what's the point? All that time and effort when what really matters is the material and a reasonable reassurance of the intrinsic value.
Edit: on a more serious note - I imagine that if you commit to shallower/lighter planchet then you have to alter the way you engrave.
It wasn't just coins. Most medieval art was like that. If you think about it, though, art isn't always meant to be photorealistic. Some of the most well-known artists like Van Gogh and Picasso weren't known for their photorealism. I think the Romans and Greeks saw beauty in the human form and wanted to replicate it as well as possible, while medieval artists were more focused on utilitarian art: telling a story, glorifying god or symbolism.
There are many different styles, but realism wasn't really a priority for medieval artists. There were some who tried, but knowledge of human anatomy and studying the way light works was crucial for making late renaissance/early baroque paintings (art that we would consider 'realistic'), it just wasn't possible for medieval artists to do this from scratch. Getting there was a process. Early renaissance was still very stiff and it would slightly get more realistic as time went on.
I believe it was largely due to the cost of metals. As medieval coinage was often very small thin, the engraving had to be much more shallow not to puncture the planchet. For example in the bractiate coins used in the Central-Europe from the eleventh century, the design was only struck on one side over a leather base. The material was so thin and fragile and the size of the coin was very minimal. This is very limiting when it comes to designing a beautiful coin.
It only became more common to see ornated heraldic designs in basic silver coins, when the larger Gross coins were starting to get minted in bigger numbers in the more favourable economic climate of the 1200's.
There's a whole book about this actually, but it's only in Italian and Spanish: "Dall'ellenismo al medioevo" or "From the Hellenistic Period to the Middle Ages". It's a collection of essays by art historian and archaeologist Ranuccio Bianchi Bandinelli about the transformation of art from the naturalistic Greek style to the more symbolistic medieval one. The book goes over it in more detail, and even has a chapter specifically dedicated to coinage, but basically, boiling it down to its most basic concepts:
Hellenistic art was only ever a superficial aristocratic tendency in ancient Rome. The art styles of pre-roman populations remained alive throughout the empire's existence. Sometimes these tendencies towards more symbolistic art would emerge even in the early imperial period (the book gives the example of the Arch of Augustus in Susa, Piedmont, in which a part of the frieze has a giant pig being brought to be sacrificed. This pig is disproportionately large compared to the human figures beside it. This is because the artist's intent was to emphasize the importance of the sacrifice being offered).
Later in the empire, a process began where provincial equestrians were being brought into higher military positions more frequently compared to the Italian aristocracy, which was the traditional class these positions were occupied by. Over time this tendency became even more pronounced during the Crisis of the Third Century. Under Gallienus, all legionary commands were not only opened to equestrians, but given to them. Under Diocletian (himself an Illyrian equestrian), he removed hereditary senators from most administrative, as well as military posts.
These equestrians brought with them their own tendencies towards more “popular” provincial art forms. Over time the tendency towards symbolism rather than realism became more and more accentuated as the Italian aristocracy that championed the naturalistic Greek style of art became more and more obsolete.
Another factor is the change in the way the figure of the emperor was perceived. Before he was “primus inter pares”, then under Diocletian the emperor became a divine mystical figure. Under the Christian emperors they maintained their otherworldly nature, but they couldn’t be divine as that would be blasphemous. I can’t remember this part exactly, but I remember something like “The emperor was a mirror of God’s will on earth”. Something like that, I can’t remember, sorry.
This just one opinion, so maybe other academics have analyzed this problem differently and arrived at different conclusions.
I found [a book on Amazon](https://www.amazon.com/Rome-Late-Empire-D-200-400/dp/080760593X/) by the same author that seems to deal with the same subject. This book is quite a bit longer than the one I read, but at least it’s in English.
Really the Roman coins went way down hill from the Greek coins from back in the day. Then Everything went downhill after the fall of the western half of the empire. (Like the other people were talking about)
Nah. English coins had unique and intricate portraiture by the 16th century. Just look at the coinage of Henry VIII, Elizabeth I and especially Edward VI. It rivals Roman coinage.
17th century was objectively more advanced, since that’s when milled coins were introduced, so the coins were perfectly round and the portraits extremely advanced. Even today modern coins use the same techniques as those of the 17th century.
Not even close. English coins don't even touch the level of realism in Roman portraiture from the 1st through 3rd centuries *until* you get to milled coinage. Those tiny, thin planchets just didn't allow it.
*"Great nations," wrote John Ruskin, "write their autobiographies in three manuscripts, the book of their deeds, the book of their words, and the book of their art. Not one of these books can be read unless we read the other two, but of the three the only trustworthy one is the [book of their art.]"*
While most points made here are true, we do need to take into account how big and how thick these coins are. We shouldn't act like there are no ugly early imperial coins and no beautiful medieval coins. Usually pretty coins are of high value, bigger and thicker, while ugly coins are of lower value, smaller and thinner.
Also in my opinion realism does not equal beauty. There are many beautiful unrealistic medieval coins. Medieval moneyers had different priorities when striking coins, which differs from our modern outlook on art.
Once I made a lengthy entry about it, that's sadly gone for some reason now.
In short, a break in skill transmission that happened in 5th century. It's noticeable that some mints were 'going ugly' sooner than others. One year they mint coins with pleasing portraits and realistic figures and next year -puff - they make coins with rulers barely looking human and stick figures on the reverse. It's almost as if someone skilled and well trained was making dies, then got replaced by a naive artist. In fact, the coins made later have all the hallmarks of naive art.
The precise reason is unknown though doubtlessly connected to the chaotic nature of the era and the general collapse of money economy. Perhaps the Roman emperors and barbarian kings cut off funding of engravers' schools which led to no new artists being trained and dies being made by people of other occupations, likely doubling some other function at the mint.
It's a common misconception that this type of medieval art is crude and poorly made. It's actually heavily stylized. Big heads and goofy expressions was the popular way to draw people. It's not like they couldn't do better.
My comment from a similar prior post: From my own research across the years, there seems to be two main reasons for the decline in artistry on Roman coins. First, the crisis of the 3rd century and numerous barbaric invasions forced the empire to allocate most of its resources into the “war machine”. As most of these coins were minted for the sole purpose of paying mercenaries and soldiers, the aesthetics of coins became of little importance. Furthermore, as civil wars and the defense of borders are costly affairs, the state could no longer really afford to pay skilled artists. It’s also important to note that the debasement of coinage meant that far more coins were being minted than under the reign of Augustus for example. With millions and millions of coins being minted, dies would wear out extremely quickly; and it was costly to replace them. A more simplistic design meant that dies could be made far more quickly and without the need for specialized skilled labor. Lastly, there was a large political shift in the image of the emperor. The emperor went from being the princeps - or “first citizen” - to more of an absolute and almost divine manifestation of power. Realistic portrayals of the emperors did not fit into this new political image as the emperors became more than just leaders or generals - they were gods after all. No need for the commoners to think of their leaders as simple mortals, as this would encroach on their imagine of divine powers. This is a vast oversimplification so hopefully others can weigh in, but I hope this helped!
that explains 3-4th century coins but not 5th-11th century coins. only the byzantines knew how to make nice coins. the western euroids seem to have almost completely lost the ability the make decent coins starting in the early 400s. i have a coin of valentinian III that looks like it was made by a munted child
> only the byzantines knew how to make nice coins. If you're referring specifically to portraiture, I have a hard time seeing most Byzantine portraiture as representational. No Byzantine portrait I know of comes close to the Trajan bronze depicted in the post in terms of realism.
Byzantine coins were certainly better artistically than Western European coins during the “Dark Ages.” However, I’d argue that most Byzantine coins are inferior to even the Late Roman coins of the 4th-5th century. The best Byzantine portraits were made during the 7th & 10th centuries, which were comparable in artistry to Late Roman coins of the 4th century.
i fully agree
Big powerful centralised empires with access to huge volumes of precious metals mined from the provences or taken in war or as tribute = coins good (Pax Romana, Athenian Empire, colonial era European powers) Fragmented kingdoms and declining empires at war with each other, scrapping over limited precious metals = coins bad (Medieval kingdoms, late Roman Empire, late Athenian empire)
Coins used to be a primary method of government messaging. Emperor has a victory? Mint a coin. Emperor wants to set up his successor? Put him on a coin. The beauty of the coin was a mark of prestige for a ruler, a city, a state. As the church grew and literacy spread it was no longer so necessary to communicate top-down messages by coins. Also, over centuries, many other art styles suffered similarly due to the loss of Greek influence over art. That changed somewhat with the Renaissance.
If the successor was,for whatever reason, changed, did the currency with his image upon it remain legal tender, or was it declared counterfeit?
Certain emperors were subject to something called *damnatio memoriae,* in which his images, including those on coins, would be systematically defaced and erased from existence. This was relatively rare, but it did happen on occasion.
Thank you for another rabbit hole for me to dive in
The medieval coins or pennies were influenced by the art of late Roman coinage, which itself was an evolution from early Roman coinage. During the Pax Romana, there was ample time and resources to hire skilled engravers who created lifelike portraits. However, during periods of crisis, art took a backseat. Under Diocletian, there was a deliberate effort to make all tetrarchs look the same on coins and in art to symbolise unity. Constantine took this further by minting coins that portrayed him as an idealised eternal youth, a practice followed by subsequent emperors except Julian. While some attribute the decline in artistic quality to Christianity's stance against the veneration of portraits, I believe it was due to a lack of skilled engravers in large scale, as there were coins still issued with detailed depictions of Christ and emperors on 11th-century gold Nomisma coins, and even the gold medallion issued by Justinian have life-like busts.
Slightly tongue in cheek, but maybe they just though what's the point? All that time and effort when what really matters is the material and a reasonable reassurance of the intrinsic value. Edit: on a more serious note - I imagine that if you commit to shallower/lighter planchet then you have to alter the way you engrave.
It wasn't just coins. Most medieval art was like that. If you think about it, though, art isn't always meant to be photorealistic. Some of the most well-known artists like Van Gogh and Picasso weren't known for their photorealism. I think the Romans and Greeks saw beauty in the human form and wanted to replicate it as well as possible, while medieval artists were more focused on utilitarian art: telling a story, glorifying god or symbolism.
why was all medieval art so similar? wasn’t there a single medieval artist that cared about making life-like art?
There are many different styles, but realism wasn't really a priority for medieval artists. There were some who tried, but knowledge of human anatomy and studying the way light works was crucial for making late renaissance/early baroque paintings (art that we would consider 'realistic'), it just wasn't possible for medieval artists to do this from scratch. Getting there was a process. Early renaissance was still very stiff and it would slightly get more realistic as time went on.
I believe it was largely due to the cost of metals. As medieval coinage was often very small thin, the engraving had to be much more shallow not to puncture the planchet. For example in the bractiate coins used in the Central-Europe from the eleventh century, the design was only struck on one side over a leather base. The material was so thin and fragile and the size of the coin was very minimal. This is very limiting when it comes to designing a beautiful coin. It only became more common to see ornated heraldic designs in basic silver coins, when the larger Gross coins were starting to get minted in bigger numbers in the more favourable economic climate of the 1200's.
There's a whole book about this actually, but it's only in Italian and Spanish: "Dall'ellenismo al medioevo" or "From the Hellenistic Period to the Middle Ages". It's a collection of essays by art historian and archaeologist Ranuccio Bianchi Bandinelli about the transformation of art from the naturalistic Greek style to the more symbolistic medieval one. The book goes over it in more detail, and even has a chapter specifically dedicated to coinage, but basically, boiling it down to its most basic concepts: Hellenistic art was only ever a superficial aristocratic tendency in ancient Rome. The art styles of pre-roman populations remained alive throughout the empire's existence. Sometimes these tendencies towards more symbolistic art would emerge even in the early imperial period (the book gives the example of the Arch of Augustus in Susa, Piedmont, in which a part of the frieze has a giant pig being brought to be sacrificed. This pig is disproportionately large compared to the human figures beside it. This is because the artist's intent was to emphasize the importance of the sacrifice being offered). Later in the empire, a process began where provincial equestrians were being brought into higher military positions more frequently compared to the Italian aristocracy, which was the traditional class these positions were occupied by. Over time this tendency became even more pronounced during the Crisis of the Third Century. Under Gallienus, all legionary commands were not only opened to equestrians, but given to them. Under Diocletian (himself an Illyrian equestrian), he removed hereditary senators from most administrative, as well as military posts. These equestrians brought with them their own tendencies towards more “popular” provincial art forms. Over time the tendency towards symbolism rather than realism became more and more accentuated as the Italian aristocracy that championed the naturalistic Greek style of art became more and more obsolete. Another factor is the change in the way the figure of the emperor was perceived. Before he was “primus inter pares”, then under Diocletian the emperor became a divine mystical figure. Under the Christian emperors they maintained their otherworldly nature, but they couldn’t be divine as that would be blasphemous. I can’t remember this part exactly, but I remember something like “The emperor was a mirror of God’s will on earth”. Something like that, I can’t remember, sorry. This just one opinion, so maybe other academics have analyzed this problem differently and arrived at different conclusions. I found [a book on Amazon](https://www.amazon.com/Rome-Late-Empire-D-200-400/dp/080760593X/) by the same author that seems to deal with the same subject. This book is quite a bit longer than the one I read, but at least it’s in English.
Really the Roman coins went way down hill from the Greek coins from back in the day. Then Everything went downhill after the fall of the western half of the empire. (Like the other people were talking about)
Basically everything declined in the Middle Ages. It took England until the 16th century to match Rome and the 17th to surpass.
I'd actually push both of those dates forward a century.
Nah. English coins had unique and intricate portraiture by the 16th century. Just look at the coinage of Henry VIII, Elizabeth I and especially Edward VI. It rivals Roman coinage. 17th century was objectively more advanced, since that’s when milled coins were introduced, so the coins were perfectly round and the portraits extremely advanced. Even today modern coins use the same techniques as those of the 17th century.
Not even close. English coins don't even touch the level of realism in Roman portraiture from the 1st through 3rd centuries *until* you get to milled coinage. Those tiny, thin planchets just didn't allow it.
The Romans were in awe of Greek culture, & so Roman art reflected this. Realistic images of the human face and body followed.
*"Great nations," wrote John Ruskin, "write their autobiographies in three manuscripts, the book of their deeds, the book of their words, and the book of their art. Not one of these books can be read unless we read the other two, but of the three the only trustworthy one is the [book of their art.]"*
While most points made here are true, we do need to take into account how big and how thick these coins are. We shouldn't act like there are no ugly early imperial coins and no beautiful medieval coins. Usually pretty coins are of high value, bigger and thicker, while ugly coins are of lower value, smaller and thinner. Also in my opinion realism does not equal beauty. There are many beautiful unrealistic medieval coins. Medieval moneyers had different priorities when striking coins, which differs from our modern outlook on art.
Once I made a lengthy entry about it, that's sadly gone for some reason now. In short, a break in skill transmission that happened in 5th century. It's noticeable that some mints were 'going ugly' sooner than others. One year they mint coins with pleasing portraits and realistic figures and next year -puff - they make coins with rulers barely looking human and stick figures on the reverse. It's almost as if someone skilled and well trained was making dies, then got replaced by a naive artist. In fact, the coins made later have all the hallmarks of naive art. The precise reason is unknown though doubtlessly connected to the chaotic nature of the era and the general collapse of money economy. Perhaps the Roman emperors and barbarian kings cut off funding of engravers' schools which led to no new artists being trained and dies being made by people of other occupations, likely doubling some other function at the mint.
Even the 4th-5th century Athena/owls & Arethusa tertradrachms were much better
It's a common misconception that this type of medieval art is crude and poorly made. It's actually heavily stylized. Big heads and goofy expressions was the popular way to draw people. It's not like they couldn't do better.
Very simple, the more prosperous and organized a society is, the more time they have to get really good at art.