A smaller Byzantine coin - a few questions

[aragon6]

Not the best looking scan but the coin isnt either.  But enough detail to perhaps point me in the right direction as I have no experience with Byantine? 
Obverse - facing front
Reverse - AVG can be seen down the right side of the coin and it looks like emperor dragging a captive?
The flan is more oval and is 15mm at its width and 12mm at its height.  No idea on weight but seems to be the same for most AE's that size.

[GaiusCaesar]

It appears to be a type by Honorius.  Perhaps S4253 which can be seen on Wildwinds.

http://wildwinds.com/coins/sear/s4253.html#s4244v

[aragon6]

Thank you very much!   

[aragon6]

Well I did find it in Honorius with help from GaiusCeasar.  It is:


HONORIUS . RIC.89\(R2 - Copper NUMMUS (PB. Æ 3) (397-402).  I tried to look up the RIC number to get a better desription but could not find it.  But if someone knows please let me know.

I am just going to keep this one as it is kind of neat and in not bad condition for a coin from that era.

Carl

[aragon6]

12 - Theodosius II, 402-450 A.D.
Æ 3, 402-3 A.D.
Mint of Constantinople
16mm, 2.16gm, axis: 12:00
Obv: DN THEODOSIVS PF AVG. Helmeted cuirassed bust facing; spear over shoulder.
Rx: CONCORDIA AVGGG. Constantinople seated, head right, holding scepter & Victory, foot on prow in ex: CONSA.
RIC X 89, LRBC 2212, SR 4296, VM 29.

Ok, I am getting confused.  Is it Honorius? or Theodosius II?.  The years seem to match up and while there is very little inscriptions, except for AVGG on the reverse, left they seem the same.  The scan is as good as I could get it but it is better in hand.   I am not even sure if this is the right place for id for this coin.  Any help would be appreciated.  Thank you.

[Warren]

This type was issued in the names of Arcadius, Honorius, and Theodosius II. There is almost nothing to tell them apart, certainly not the "portrait", but for the obverse legend. You can find it on my late Roman site:
http://esty.ancients.info/ricix/
under type 47. Most authors would call it "late Roman" because it was struck long before the copper reform (498 AD) of Anastasius which is usually taken as the beginning of Byzantine coinage.
   --  Warren 

[aragon6]

Thanks a lot Warren!  I will check out the site