Collectors of
Constantine I, or students of this period of
history, may have heard of the usurper Domitus
Alexander (
aka Alexander of
Carthage) who controlled
Carthage c.308-310 AD, but it seems that little has been written, in English at least, about the relationship between the two of them.
Alexander mainly goes down in
history as a thorn in the
side of
Maxentius, the usurper against who he usurped ! Sometime in 308-309 AD, likely after the falling out with
his father
Maximianus,
Maxentius had contacted
Alexander, then Vicarius of the diocese of Africae, ordering him to send
his son to
Rome as a hostage to ensure
Alexander's loyalty.
Maxentius may have been leary of the loyalties in
Africa due to
his father having been popular there, and been particularly concerned about the grain supply from
Carthage which was vital to
Rome.
The exact timing of
Maxentius's demand to
Alexander seems unclear, but
his response is not.
Alexander refused to send
his son, and, apparently confirming
Maxentius's fears of loyalty, was acclaimed
augustus by the army.
Alexander's boldness might suggest a date in late 308 or early 309, after the conference at
Carnuntum in 11-308, when
Maxentius had been declared enemy of the state.
Alexander may have calculated that
Galerius would be unlikely to move against him, and may even support him, if he was in opposition to
Maxentius.
Alexander was able to remain in control and survive for a surprisingly long time, until late 310 AD when
Maxentius eventually sent
his praetorian prefect to get rid of him.
Alexander was first besieged in Cirta, then strangled to death. Exactly why
Maxentius waited so long to get rid of
Alexander is unclear. Maybe with
scarce resources he was more inclined to protect
Rome and watch
his back against
Galerius (and
Constantine), and was content to leave
Alexander alone until the situation apparently came to a
head...
Little seems to be known about the actual reign of
Alexander, but what there is suggests an interesting connection to
Constantine I, one that may have even helped
Constantine defeat
Maxentius, as well as justify having done so.
The connection between
Constantine and
Alexander is hinted at by an
inscription (
CIL 8, 22183;
ILS 89360), close to Cirta, recognizing them (alone) as joint
augusti:
L (ucio) Domi tio Alexa ndro et Fl (avio) Const antino Augg (ustis)
In addition to this we have the coinage of
Alexander, the corpus of which was recently expanded by the inclusion of a unique
VBIQVE VICTOR specimen in the huge Misurata
hoard discovered in
Libya in 1981, but
still being conserved and recorded today. The Misurata research project is headed by Salvatore Garraffo who wrote the following paper considering the numismatic evidence and significance apropos
Alexander's relationship with
Constantine.
"
IMP ALEXANDER PF AVG /
VBIQVE VICTOR e il problema dei rapporti con Constantino il Grande" (2016)
https://www.academia.edu/38652196/IMP_ALEXANDER_P_F_AVG_VBIQVE_VICTOR_e_il_problema_dei_rapporti_con_Costantino_il_GrandeThe paper is in
Italian, but you can easily translate it into your preferred language by downloading the PDF, then using
Google Translate (translate.google.com) - just select "Documents" vs "Text" and upload the PDF you saved.
Garraffo isn't the first to note the numismatic connection (e.g. the
WikiPedia page for
Alexander refers to a 1973 paper by P.
Salama), but I've never seen any real discussion of it in English, and have to admit that my own understanding until seeing the VBIQVE
type had been of
Constantine copying
Alexander, not
vice versa, given a faulty premise of some of
Constantine's
types (e.g.
SPQR Optimo Principi) being post-Milvian
victory types.
The numismatic evidenceThe bronze coinage of
Alexander can be split into two groups, with one group copied from Trier solidi issued by
Constantine !
SPQR Optimo PrincipiVbiqve VictorGloria Exercitvs Kart (Trier:
Gloria Exercitvs Gall)
Victoria Alexandri Avg N (Trier:
Victoria Constantini Avg)
The other group containing non-Trier
types, some "local" ones, and some touting traditional
roman themes:
Africa Avg NInvicta
Roma Felix KarthagoRomae AeternaeIovi ConservatoriThe coins are split into two issues, mintmarked PK and P*K, with some
types such as SPQR spanning both issues.
The SQPR
type nominally copies
Trajan, but inclusion of the other Constantinian Trier
types make the proximate source obvious. Of immediate significance is the date.
Constantine introduced the
solidus standard c.309-310, and Bruun die links these
types to Constantine's Trier quinquenallian VOTIS-MVLTIS
type dated (at earliest) to July 310. Regardless of the quinquenallian die link (which doesn't imply issue at same date), we have an earliest date for these
Carthage copies of c.310, shortly before Alexander's demise at the
hands of
Maxentius.
Also of interest is that many of Alexander's bronze coins appear to have been struck at the 1/72 lb (4.5g)
standard introduced by
Constantine c.310, rather that the preceding ~10g
Carthage standard, or Maxentius's prevailing ~6.5g
standard. Some specimens are heavier around 5.5g, plus a few outliers over 6g. There's a recent book by
Guillaume Malingue on the coinage of
Alexander that lists all known specimens (~170) and may have more
complete weight data.
As a
side note, the
Gloria Exercitvs Kart type of
Alexander is interesting in the way it slightly differs from Constantine's Trier version. Trier has
Constantine on horseback with raised hand, and while
Carthage copies this, the horseback figure is also
radiate and looking upwards in rather maniacal fashion ! Oddly, the
style of this horseback figure appears to have been copied from a
provincial type of
Septimus Severus (from
Cilicia,
Turkey).
The historical significanceAlexander was in a geographical and political position to be of great importance to
Constantine. Not only was he aligned against
Maxentius, but he also now controlled the African grain supply that would have gone both to
Rome as well as
Gaul. It's recorded that in addition to the diocese of Africae he also maintained control of Sardinia, a critical stop along this supply line. Not only would
Constantine have wanted to maintain the
supplies needed for
his own territory, but it can't have been lost on him the impact on denying
supplies to
Rome - rather like modern day use of trade sanctions to weaken an opponent. I'm not aware of any concrete evidence that
Alexander had reduced or denied
supplies to
Rome, but certainly
Rome suffered food shortages at this time that would have weakened Maxentius's political standing, as well as Rome's ability to withstand a seige. There does seem to be some consensus that Rome's famines were related to Alexanders's control of
Africa.
We don't know when this relationship between
Constantine and
Alexander had started (maybe very soon after
his usurpation, given the strategic importance to
Constantine), but this "escalation" (or initiation?) of the relationship in 310 AD by openly copying Constantinian coin
types (presumbly by joint agreement, not one sided) may have been what finally got Maxentius's attention and moved him to eliminate
Alexander. One wonders why
Alexander would have chosen to advertise
his alliance with
Constantine by copying
his coins
types.. did he not expect a reaction from
Maxentius (perhaps not, given that he'd been left alone up until that point), or was he over-eager to indulge
Constantine due to a deteriorating position ?
The unfortunate city of Cirta seems to have been at the center of this whole drama. The "
Alexander &
Constantine"
inscription was nearby, that was where
Alexander was beseiged and killed by
Maxentius, and the city was then razed by
Maxentius as punishment afterwards. Interestingly when
Constantine subsequently defeated
Maxentius, and sent
his severed
head to
Africa (presumably knowing it would be well-received), he also rebuilt the city of Cirta, and renamed it "
Constantina". Perhaps some degree of revenge for the death of
Alexander? Constantine's post-war reuse of the SPQR
type (now in bronze, same as
Alexander had loyally copied), also seems a little poignant.
Alexander's
alliance with
Constantine seems at least partly, maybe wholly, responsible for
reduced grain
supplies to
Rome and the ensuing famine that weakened
Maxentius. It may have been the lack of food
supplies that caused Maxentius's distasterous decision to meet
Constantine out in the open, with
his own back to the river, rather than attempting to withstand a seige. The ill-will that
Maxentius would have gained both as a result of the famine, as well as
his harsh punishment of
Africa, would only have helped
Constantine position himself as fighting a just war against a tyrant. The fact that
Constantine saw fit to send Maxentius's
head to
Africa in 313 AD, a couple of years after he
had razed Cirta, seems to speak to the sentiment that he knew existed there.
The numismatic significanceThe Trier solidi copied by
Alexander are only loosely dated by
RIC to 310-313 AD, and some such as "
SPQR Optimo Principi" and "
Virtvs Exercit Gall" might otherwise have been assumed to be post-Milvian
victory types (especially the SPQR, given the use of the
type at the
Italian mints). However, given Alexander's copying of these
types in 310 AD, the solidi must pre-date that, so evidentially were minted either at the intiation of the
solidus standard c.309-310 AD or for Constantine's quinquenallia in 7-310. Bruun has argued both for these solidi as
part of
VOTIS MVLTIS quinquenallia group, and for a later quinquenallia date, but it seems both cannot be true.
Ben
