Byzantine coin hoard found in Israel

[guy]

The Islamic Prophet Muhammad died in AD 632. Soon afterwards, there was a rapid Muslim Conquest of the then-Christian Levant. The Byzantine Emperor Heraclius sent a large army to the Levant in AD 636 to check the Arab advance. He was decisively defeated, however, and the Byzantines were forced to leave the region. Within a few years, the Muslim conquest even defeated and ended the Sassanian Empire.

A recently-discovered Byzantine coin hoard was discovered in Israel. It was probably hidden for safekeeping from the approaching threat.

 

Quote

 

Dr. Gabriela Bijovsky, Israel Antiquities Authority numismatic expert, examined the coin hoard, composed entirely of gold solidus coins, and identified some coins of Emperor Phocas (602–610 CE), and many coins minted by Emperor Heraclius (610–641 CE). The latest coins of Heraclius date the coin hoard to the time of the Muslim Conquest of Byzantine Palestine in 635 CE.

According to Dr. Yoav Lerer, Director of the excavation on behalf of the the Israel Antiquities Authority, “The coin hoard, weighing about 170 g, was concealed within the base of an ashlar stone wall at the time of the Muslim conquest. The discovery reflects a specific moment in time, when we can imagine the owner concealing his fortune in the threat of war, hoping to return one day to retrieve his property. In retrospect, we know that he was less fortunate.” Lerer adds, “The discovery of the coin hoard may also shed light on the economy of the city of Banias during the last 40 years of Byzantine rule.”

 

 

 

 

https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/360698
 

 

Edited October 5, 2022 by guy

[Novosedoff]

2 hours ago, guy said:

Within a few years, the Muslim conquest even defeated and ended the Sassanian Empire.

A few years? Both the battle of the Yarmuk and the battle of al-Qadisiyyah took place in the same year. Both the Byzantine army and the Sassanian empire were defeated by the Arab army within the period of a few months.

[guy]

On 10/3/2022 at 2:15 PM, Novosedoff said:

A few years? Both the battle of the Yarmuk and the battle of al-Qadisiyyah took place in the same year. Both the Byzantine army and the Sassanian empire were defeated by the Arab army within the period of a few months.

Thank you for reading my post.

It is amazing that the two dominant empires in the region suffered convincing defeats by an emergent power in such a short time. The bloody conflicts between Rome and the Sassanian Empire weakened both to allow a relatively new power to defeat each one separately in such a decisive fashion in AD 636. By AD 637 the Sassanian capital of Ctesiphon fell and the Sassanian Imperial army totally collapsed soon afterwards in AD 642.

Here are more pictures of the stunning gold coins discovered:

 

 

 

https://www.heritagedaily.com/2022/10/treasure-hoard-uncovered-at-ancient-paneas/144898?amp

[Novosedoff]

11 hours ago, guy said:

Thank you for reading my post.

It is amazing that the two dominant empires in the region suffered convincing defeats by an emergent power in such a short time. The bloody conflicts between Rome and the Sassanian Empire weakened both to allow a relatively new power to defeat each one separately in such a decisive fashion in AD 636

Thanks, guy. So what do you think were the main factors for such a sudden rise of the Arabs from nowhere and such a quick defeat of 2 powerful world empires by them back then?

[guy]

On 10/5/2022 at 6:39 PM, Novosedoff said:

Thanks, guy. So what do you think were the main factors for such a sudden rise of the Arabs from nowhere and such a quick defeat of 2 powerful world empires by them back then?

That’s an interesting question. Looking at the conquest by the Spanish conquistadors in the 16th century AD of the Western Hemisphere might shed some insights.

The Spanish had a much smaller force that was equipped with modern weaponry. They faced vastly numerically superior forces that used premodern weaponry made of wood, stone, copper, and bronze. The indigenous tribes were stunned by the presence of horses, steel armor, swords, cannons, guns, and crossbows. The Arabs didn’t have these technological military advantages over their foes. The Arabs frequently didn’t suffer from such numerical disadvantages, either.

The Spanish brought new diseases (especially smallpox) that worse-than-decimated the indigenous peoples they conquered. This made the vulnerable and weakened indigenous people more easily subjected. Disease may have played a role in the Arab conquest. The sources are unclear but the Arabs may have benefitted from the Plague of Justinian.

The Spanish were able to recruit local tribes to fight with them. This was especially important for the Spanish conquest of the Aztecs who were loathed and feared by the surrounding tribes. This factor was, in fact, important in the Arab conquest of their enemies, including the Sassanians, Byzantines, as well as the Visigoths. The Arabs, for example, were able to elicit support from aggrieved Christian minorities against the Byzantines.

The Arabs also had the advantage of facing Byzantine and Sassanian Empires that had weakened each other after decades of bloody fighting, leaving these Empires both economically and militarily exhausted.

Like the Spanish, the Arabs were an impassioned and organized military force energized by an ideology. Most importantly, however, they both were able to exploit vulnerabilities in their enemies.

Early Muslim conquests - Wikipedia

 

This looks like a good book on the topic:

Edited October 9, 2022 by guy

[Novosedoff]

2 hours ago, guy said:

 

 

This looks like a good book on the topic:

Thanks for the link. I do love books. Do you know why Arabs managed to take over the Sassanian state (and moved even further northwards to Central Asia), but failed to do the same with the Byzantine? What made the Byzantine so impenetrable compared to the Sassanian state? 

[guy]

46 minutes ago, Novosedoff said:

Thanks for the link. I do love books. Do you know why Arabs managed to take over the Sassanian state (and moved even further northwards to Central Asia), but failed to do the same with the Byzantine? What made the Byzantine so impenetrable compared to the Sassanian state? 

I imagine that the capture of the Sassanian capital of Ctesiphon was the death knell of the Empire. Without the benefit of the economic and political center of Ctesiphon, the rest of the Empire withered and soon collapsed.

The Byzantine Empire probably survived because Constantinople remained intact, allowing the Byzantine Empire time to coordinate the rearming and rebuilding the Empire. Once the Byzantine capital of Constantinople fell in 1453, however, there was little hope of a Byzantine resurgence.

 

[Novosedoff]

7 hours ago, guy said:

I imagine that the capture of the Sassanian capital of Ctesiphon was the death knell of the Empire. Without the benefit of the economic and political center of Ctesiphon, the rest of the Empire withered and soon collapsed.

The Byzantine Empire probably survived because Constantinople remained intact, allowing the Byzantine Empire time to coordinate the rearming and rebuilding the Empire. Once the Byzantine capital of Constantinople fell in 1453, however, there was little hope of a Byzantine resurgence.

 

Well, Romans captured Ctesiphon many times too (5 times?), but we never regard this as the proper take-over and subjugation of the whole Sassanian empire. So why do we say then that the Arabs succeeded in where the Romans failed?

Edited October 8, 2022 by Novosedoff

[guy]

13 hours ago, Novosedoff said:

Well, Romans captured Ctesiphon many times too (5 times?), but we never regard this as the proper take-over and subjugation of the whole Sassanian empire. So why do we say then that the Arabs succeeded in where the Romans failed?

I believe you are correct that the Romans captured Ctesiphon five times. Three of the times was during the Parthian Empire: Trajan (AD 116), Avidius Cassius (164), and Septimius Severus (197). Twice during the Sassanian Empire: Carus (283) and Galerius (299).

The Parthian Empire was a decentralized feudal state, so the capture and destruction of Ctesiphon was less meaningful for the Parthians. The Sassanians, on the other hand, were more centralized, so the capture of Ctesiphon had a much greater impact on the Sassanian Empire. These defeats by the Romans were not total and complete, however. They were also early in the Sassanian Empire's history. They quickly retook Ctesiphon and rebuilt the city.

By AD 637, the Sassanian Empire had been gravely weakened after decades of relentless wars with the Byzantines. The capture of Ctesiphon by the emergent Arab forces was a devastating fatal blow to an already-weakened Sassanian Empire. Because of the lack of a centralized authority and strong leadership, the Sassanians were unable to mount a capable resistance and quickly fell.

Edited October 8, 2022 by guy

[Novosedoff]

1 hour ago, guy said:

By AD 637, the Sassanian Empire had been gravely weakened after decades of relentless wars with the Byzantines. The capture of Ctesiphon by the emergent Arab forces was a devastating fatal blow to an already-weakened Sassanian Empire. Because of the lack of a centralized authority and strong leadership, the Sassanians were unable to mount a capable resistance and quickly fell.

So can we assume that the reason why Arabs didn't succeed in subjugating the Byzantine was probably the same as why Persians failed to capture both Constantinople and Rome?