An early date (Autumn 283 AD) for the rebellion of
Julian of Pannonia, at
Siscia, is imposed by factual numismatic evidences and supported by ancient sources.The following chronology presents a coherent sequence of events, based on this date. The rebellion context is
still much more a matter of opinion. The weak legitimacy of the
Carus dynasty was caused by the way
Carus came to power (after the assassination of a ‘
good’ and regretted emperor),
his gallic origin and an useless campaign in the East. This overweighted the capabilities and successes of
Carus and the positive fact that he
had two adult sons to assist him. The dynasty evolved rapidly (a change each quarter from October/November 282 AD up to April/May 283 AD) in an attempt to strenghthen its legitimacy and compensate for
Carus’ illness and/or age.Time lacked to consolidate the dynastic institutional system and whatever the real ruling talents of
Carinus, after
Carus’ death both
Carinus and
Numerian legitimacy was challenged. One of the main figures in the ruling circles in the
West,
Carinus’ praetorian prefect
Marcus Aurelius Julianus seized the first opportunity the death of the founder of the dynasty opened, to try to overthrow it. Julian’s rebellion was the result of a fragile dynastic legitimacy coupled with a
still unseasonned institutional and ruling system and with an opportunity, in political and
military terms, for a praetorian prefect to seize the power. Its failure was caused by
Carinus’quick and surprising reaction and by Julian’s hasty movement due to a very limited local support granted to a
man seen as aged, non illyrian and ancient comrade of
Carus.
1.Context.
Carus dynasty faced a question of legitimacy within a system that makes the power unstable and its transfer always difficult. Three
Augusti of different ages and
talent died within three years and not in a context of failure but of real successes. Ancient historians scrutinized each element of the legitimacy of
Carus’ dynasty (access to power, gallic origin, circumstances of
his death).Evaluation of
Carus’role goes only from ‘
fair’ to ‘
good’ (strong criticism on
Carinus is a result of
Diocletian’s propaganda). Transfer of power to
Carus’s sons assisting him with rapidly increased responsabilities/rank occurred before they established their own authority/legitimacy.
1.1.Carus dynasty weakness came from the assassination of the “
good”
Probus by rebellious soldiers.Carus’ accession was considered as linked to the sudden disparition of a regretted emperor and stained by an, at least, indirect responsibility in this. Not to mention the historical tradition noting that
Carus did not ask for a recognition by the Senate
nor went to
Rome; true or not, a real flaw in
his formal legitimacy.
1.2.The gallic origin of
Carus, -his predecessors and a significant
part of the imperial central ruling group were illyrians-, was a challenge as illyrian emperors were greatly regarded since M. A.
Claudius.
His gallic origin weakened
Carus’ position. Evenmore if this was coupled with a policy in nominations, for the highest ruling circles, of staff coming from various other provinces -italian, gallic or greek- (Sabinus Julianus,
Aper, Geminius Festus, Aristobulus). Despites of
Carus’ great personnal
talent and
his two adult sons’support
his dynasty was isolated amidst the illyrian ruling group.
1.3.Carus’ eastern campaign is a pledge by the new ruler to ‘continue’ the brilliant
Probus’ policy made at the expense of the
security along the Upper Danube
limes.and not an indispensable one.
Carus’ main action is criticized via a discussion about the real reason of
his death: ‘divine’, natural or by assassination, turning
his successful eastern campaign into unappropriate action.The debate on the necessity of the crossing of the main rivers in
Mesopotamia and the mention of evil reasons behind a campaign reflects clear criticism.Moreover the campaign allowed the praetorian prefect
Aper to start plotting against
Carus and
Numerian.
1.4.Numerian is only mentioned as a gifted orator and poet or as a ill person, a way to say that he
had no real ruling
talent or was not able to rule.He was under the influence of
his step-father the praetorian prefect
Aper.The position or ambition of the praetorian prefect in the East may have triggered off the ambition of the praetorian prefect in the
West. The situation created a flaw in the new system based on two
Augusti with more or less the same rank and powers and expected to rule in
harmony.
1.5.1.Carinus is characterized as young (Zosimus). In fact he was not. So why ? Born in 249/250 AD he was well in
his thirties.His age was a problem because,
Carus being born about 223/230 AD and
part of
his comrades and
senior advisers alike, those were appreciably older than
Carinus himself. So the loyalty of
Carus’ comrades left to assist
Carinus, was not automatically transferred from
Carus to
his son.
Carinus faced a ‘generation gap’ worsened by the lack of time to establish
his personnal authority on an efficient but ageing ruling group (compare Julian and
Carinus Siscian coin
portraits).Carinus’successors were at least 5 years older (and decentralized centers of power).
1.5.2.Carinus is labelled as thoughless or unconcerned (Zosimus).
His military activities are continuous and focused in accordance with the task entrusted to him by
Carus (to protect
Gaul): Upper Danube and Upper Rhine
limes,
Britannia, where difficulties appeared in the next years. Lack of decisive
success is due to limited time and means resulting from Julian’s usurpation in 283 AD and conflict with
Diocletian in 284/5 AD.
So it’s
his six months of internal policy that are under criticism (marriage and renewal of staff).
His marriage -a political one- occurred only 4 months after
Carinus became
Augustus while
Carus and
Numerian were in Ctesiphon. Their absence, a possible previous divorce, a dignified
Urbica coming possibly from a senatorian family, point to an autonomous and very personnal decision. Overlooked obvious political and institutional consequences made
Carus’ comrades quite uneasy. Accelerated renewal of ruling staff through nominations following
Carus’ policy but with an added age criteria - not to mention others (H.A.)- raised discontent in the
equester ordo; discontent shared by senators if Aristobulus’ exceptional career (praetorian prefect and
consul at the same time in the last
part of the reign) was preceded by cases where usual cursus honorum rules were overlooked.
Carinus brought in, roughly-lack of temperance-, changes not accepted by
members of the existing ruling groups.
2.Julian’s rebellion.
2.1.These elements give
weight to the fact that the death of
Carus (July/August 283 A.D), the founder of the dynasty, triggered off a deep crisis in the Western
part of the Empire as soon as Autumn 283 AD (Cari morte cognita). In a context of discontent amongst ruling groups,
Marcus Aurelius Julianus,
Carinus’ praetorian prefect, with some hesitation, tried to take advantage of the new situation. In the East
Numerian’s praetorian prefect,
Aper, controlled, at least for sometimes, the situation. As a retreat was decided, if the brothers were to rule in
harmony, at least
part of the western troops (in particular the Danubian
limes ones), of the staff and some V.I.Ps were to go back rapidly to the
West.Their arrival -a few weeks after the cursus publici- triggered off Julian’s rebellion. The praetorian prefect, temporarily monitoring Illyricum-Pannoniae, was the first high representative of the imperial central power to meet them, thus receiving more informations/rumors from the East (circumstances of
Carus’ death, situation and possible evolution, atmosphere in the ruling circles surrounding
Numerian). Julian estimated that he could take advantage of several months before the return to the
West of the
bulk of
Numerian’s army.
2.2.The
military situation was favourable to such an attempt. Distance and confusion on
Numerian’s
side; involvement in the final phase of the 283 AD
military campaign beyond the Alps on the Upper Rhine or Upper Danube
limes on
Carinus’
side. The absence of
part of the ruling elite
still in the East made also the political situation favourable: hesitation amongst
Carus’ ancient comrades and
Carinus advisers, discontent amongst the ordo senatorius and the
equester ordo as a result of
Carus’ policy and of the rough personal policy of
Carinus. Both elements made the occupation of
Rome an objective being at hand in
military terms and obviously a political advantage in further competition.
2.3.It can be considered that Julian took the lead of the rebellion, after some hesitation, by end September-beginning October 283 AD, about one month after
Carus’ death was known. A quick move could cut
Carinus from
Italy where Julian expected to received support (troops covering northern
Italy) and recognition (Senate, prefects and notables in
Rome) before the future conflict. Julian left
Siscia (under the protection of Pannonian troops) by beginning of November 283 AD, with a small army - unwilling or unable (not recognized in surrounding provinces as a too close comrade of
Carus) to gather more troops from a region already depleted and under threat. He moved quickly to northern
Italy to reach
Ticinum and
Rome.
2.3.A quick move by
Carinus prevented this attempt to succeed. By end October
Carinus moved from Lyons or the Upper Rhine
limes towards
Siscia following the Alpine ark. Informed of Julian’s move towards northern
Italy Carinus, unexpectedly in the season (begining November 283 AD), crossed the alpine passes and fall on the flank of Julian’s army moving along the river Po. Near
Verona, by mid/end November 283 AD,
Carinus beats Julian, killed in battle, executed or committing suicide after the defeat.
Carinus then moved quickly to
Siscia, the city being recovered at the latest by mid December 283 AD, in time to organize efficiently, even if in urgency, the celebration of
his joint consulate at the begining of January 284 AD including the gold and bullion (SMSXXIA-I¨) issue.
2.4.The failure of Julian’s rebellion came from the reactive
Carinus executing a
swift and audacious mouvement (strength of mind, H.A.). It also arose from Julian’s profile, one of the first of the viri lectissimi,
Carus’comrades left to assist
Carinus, implying that he was aged and probably non illyrian, a limitation to the support he could gather at first.His attempt seemed rather a personnal ambition than a real opportunity for a change or a return to status quo ante.
His choiced/compelled hasty move to gain recognition and support in
Italy before
his regional support was enlarged made the collapse of the rebellion a very quick one.
3.Chronology.
Based on the ancient sources and coinage (Lyons and
Siscia), a chronology is proposed, dating the rebellion of
Julian of Pannonia, at
Siscia, from mid/end September 283 AD up to the end November/begining December 283 AD.
283 AD.
III: Start of
Carus’ eastern campaign with
Numerian Caesar.
Carinus Augustus on Upper Danube and Upper Rhine
limes.
IV-V:
Numerian Augustus after first successes (at the latest in Ctesiphon).
V-VI: Lyons: issue for three
Augusti (6th issue,1st phase-Numerian with
bust A2). Ticinium: issue for three
Augusti.
VI: Three
Augusti Persici Maximi.
Carinus married
Urbica in northern
Italy. Ticinium: special issue (gold, bullion) for three
Augusti and
Augusta.
VII: Ticinium closed.
Carinus back on Upper Rhine
limes.Lyons: 6th issue,2d phase, aureliani for
Carus and
Numerian with exceptionnal
military busts, donativum (
aurei,unmarked aureliani) for
Numerian’s promotion/victory in the East and new
Augusta Urbica. Praetorian prefect Julian temporarily posted in
Siscia.
VII-VIII:
Carinus and
Numerian consules designati. Issue for the 2d
part of 283 AD prepared to celebrate the dynasty, its successes and the joint consulate for 284 AD.
Siscia: 2d phase of the
VIRTVS AVGG XXIA-I¨ issue.
VIII:
Carus’death known in the
West. Lyons: planned issue for the 2d
part of the year cancelled.‘Patchwork coinage’ (6th issue, 3d phase).
VIII-IX:Lyons: issue (
aurei and aureliani) marked (I-IIII) and donativum, for
Carus’s deification.
Siscia: last phase of the XXI/A-I¨ issue starts (
Carinus: short
obverse legend,
Divo Caro
Parthico) under the authority of Julian,
still faithful to
Carinus.
15-30.IX: In
Siscia Julian,
Carinus’ praetorian prefect takes the lead of a rebellion (Zosimus); last phase of the XXIA-I¨ issue cut short; issue for Julian (
aurei, aureliani, medaillon), with realistic
portraits full of likeness begins.
X: Lyons: issue (9th issue) -Carinus PF-Victoria-A,
Divo Caro Consecratio-II,
IMP NVMERIANVS AVG-Pietas-C, Urbica-Venus-D-: dynastic support and pay for the war against Julian.
15.X/15.XI:
Carinus moves towards Illyricum (A.Victor) along the alpine ark to reach
Siscia. Julian moved from
Siscia to northern
Italy (A.Victor).Informed of Julian’s move towards northern
Italy Carinus makes a detour to
Italy (A.Victor), crossing the alpine passes and falling on Julian’s moving troops.
15-30.XI: battle in northern
Italy (
Verona) between
Carinus’ and Julian’s troops. Julian’s army defeated. Julian killed.Quick move by
Carinus to
Siscia.
1-15.XII:
Siscia recovered by
Carinus. Then preparation for the celebration of the joint consulate, issue in two phases (
aurei, aureliani, quinarii), including a donativum, for the dynasty.Aureliani marked SMSXXI A-I¨,
aurei and quinarii immediately follow the last strikes for Julian (some coins of
Carinus,
Numerian and
Urbica with
obverse portraits looking like those of Julianus: in urgency
obverse dies of Julian were used after some modifications).
284 AD
I: Celebration of the joint consulate (including the
Vota Publica),
Urbica present. Nomination of the new praetorian prefect, Aristobulus, made public.
I-II: After the 2d phase of the SMSXXIA-I¨ issue,
Siscia mint closed.
II:
Carinus and
Urbica at
Rome.Games (H.A.?).Gold coinage:
VENERI VICTRICI serie
Carinus,
Numerian (
Victory) and
Urbica (
Apple) and SALVS/VIRTVS
AVGG.
II-III:
Carinus in Lyons (7th//8th issues) to start survey/campaign up to
Britannia The A-D/LVG issue to thank for Lyons’ support in 283 AD; cancelled celebration at Lyons of the joint consulate results in the use of outdated exceptionnal
obverse busts amidst a ‘back to normal’ coinage.Lyons
mint closed.
The early date for Julian’s rebellion and the end of the ‘
Winter 284-Spring 285 AD hypothesis’ makes the consequently late date for the battle on the Margus not the most probable one.
Carinus seems to have taken the initiative.An early date in
Spring 285 AD (March/April) is much more probable.This saves a few months in Spring/ Summer 285 AD, very usefull to establish the chronology of the early period of Diocletianus’ reign.
