I fully agree with both of you on many, if not all of your points and thanks to both of you for your input. Yes, it is known that Pompey controlled the waters from the very get-go, making supply lines more difficult for Caesar's troops to conduct a war. The real point I was attempting to make isn't starvation of troops, logistical difficulties, or even mutinous troops. I just threw in those historical accounts to emphasize my original point that it is improbable for the coins in question to have been minted any earlier than 46BC. If I
had found any evidence to the contrary while reading the various
Roman authors' historical accounts of the civil war, I would have
corrected myself and made it known. To my surprise, all evidence instead suggests that I am right on the
money (pun intended).
Yes, I agree with Steve that the treasury contained
Gaul booty. According to Appian,
Caesar cut the bolts of the treasury...
his troops were paid with these coins at the beginning.
Two questions:
1) Do we agree or disagree that
Caesar looted the treasury in 49BC, paying each foot soldier their initial 2,000 Sest?
2) Do we agree or disagree that
Caesar did not pay
his troops again until years later during or following the triumphs in 46 or 45BC as Seutonius has written in detail? (Read Seutonius' words, linked in my earlier post)
For lack of finding any evidence to the contrary, I am forced to accept Seutonius' written word at
face value. If there are any conflicting accounts made by any
Roman author, I would love to read them because I could find none.
According to Seutonius, the second payment made to Caesar's troops was quite large. 20,000 Sest
per foot soldier plus land! This would explain the great
abundance of this coin when introduced, even the citizens of
Rome apparently received 400 Sest at this time (precursor stimulus payment). Perhaps the great
abundance of this coin was mistaken as de facto evidence of an earlier
mint year. I would almost bet my first born that this 20,000 Sest payment included these
elephant coins.
If anyone has any evidence to prove me wrong about my theory regarding the first strike year for this coin, please provide a link to it. Personally, I didn't think my theory would be quite so controversial. The more I read, the more evidence supports my theory.
I have found absolutely no historical evidence to support a 49, 48 or 47BC first strike for this coin.