The Revolt of PoemeniusIn
RIC vol.
VIII, p. 164/5 under the headline 'Revolt of Poemenius' we find some remarkable coins of
Constantius II,
RIC 328-337, all
rare. I could recently acquire one of them and want to share it with the related background information. I know we have
had a short discussion about this subject some time before.
Constantius II, AD 337-361
AE - double
centenionalis, 4.73g, 22.71mm
Trier, 1.
officina (time of the revolt of Poemenius)
obv. DN CONSTAN - TI[VS PF AVG]
Bust, draped and
cuirassed, pearl-diademed, r.
rev. SALVS A[VG NOSTRI]
Big
Chi-Rho, flanked by Alpha and Omega
in ex. TRP
starref.
RIC VIII, Trier 332;
LRBC 67
Scarce, about VF,
flan break at 2 o'clock
This
type is remarkable because it shows the
portrait of
Constantius II on the
obv. together with the big
Chi-Rho of
Magnentius on the
rev. How could this be explained? Why should Constantius issue coins with the
rev. of
his enemy?
Poemenius is mentioned in
history only at one place, by Ammanius Marcellinus book 15,
cap.6 (
his first 13 books are lost!)
"4. After
Proculus, Poemenius was condemned and put to death; he who, as we have mentioned before, when the
Treveri had shut their gates against
Caesar Decentius, was chosen to defend that people. After him, Asclepiodotus, and Luto, and Maudio, all Counts, were put to death, and many others also, the obdurate cruelty of the times seeking for these and similar punishments with avidity."
This happened in AD 355 and
Kent deduced from it a revolt of Poemenius against
Magnentius resp.
Decentius.
What was the historical situation at this time?
Magnentius was born about AD 303, possibly in Amiens, and was as Laetus of barbarian origin. He was said to be the son of a Britannic father and a Franconian mother. On Jan.18. AD 350 in Autun he took the purpur and made himself
Augustus. He was accepted in the western provinces and
Africa. Quickly he brought Trier in
his power, the most important city in the nordwest. In summer 350 (or end of 350/begin of 351) he made
his brother (or cousin)
Decentius Caesar, to secure
Gaul by a strong hand.
His attempts to bring
Constantius II to an official recognition of
his reign, even by a mutual double marriage, were without
success.
Military Magnentius was inferior to Constantius. In the desastrous battle of Mursa on 28. Sept. 351 he was defeated by the troups of Constantius, which came from the East; this was one of the most devastating battles of
the late Empire which has weakened decisively the resisting power of the Empire against its charching enemies.
Magnentius was forced to retreat and a year later he lost
Italy. Probably Constantius has instigated the Alemanni to invade
Gaul to weaken
his enemy. Anyhow they devastated the country and in August 352
Decentius was defeated by the Alemannic prince Chnodomar and fled to Trier where he found the gates closed. In July 353 Constantius came to
Gaul and defeated
Magnentius at
Lyon.
Magnentius committed suicide (10. Aug. 353, after having killed
his family). Some days later
Decentius followed him in Sens. Constantius was sole Emperor again of the
Roman Empire(1) Kent:Kent proceeds numismatically and explores the order of the legends in relation to the historical events.
Only a note by chance of the ancient historian Ammianus Marcellinus contains the report of an important event in the reign of
Magnentius, the revolt of Trier. In
his account of the destruction of the rebels of the unsuccessful and ephemeral usurper
Silvanus AD 355 he especially refers to the execution of Poemenius. He was choosen by the
Treveri to defend them after they have closed the gates against
Decentius. Because Trier was an important
mint we should expect that these events are reflected too in its
mint issues. And that is actually the case.
Kent argues that two of Constantius' issues are connected to this event. The solidi with
VICTORIA AVG NOSTRI and the billons with
SALVS AVG NOSTRI. Both have no parallels in the issues of Constantius but by using AVG NOSTRI and the big
Chi-Rho they point directly to
Magnentius. This interpretation today is generally accepted and can be seen as certain, he writes in
RIC.
I can't go in more details because that would blast this article. Former historians
had suggested that
Magnentius has lost Trier already very early in
his reign, but that is unlikely and the coinage shows that it can't be so.
Kent differentiates four different issue periods of
Magnentius, each of them caused by an historic event. After the decisive battle of Mursa
Magnentius retreated to
Italy. In September 352 Constantius and Gallus occupied
Italy and
Magnentius was confined to
Gaul. Here four mints issued the last
type of
his reign,
dd nn avg et caes' target='_blank'>SALVS
DD NN AVG ET CAES, which didn't occur in
Rome nor Aquileia. Because Trier participated in this emission, the revolt of Poemenius could have happened only in the short time before Constantius' campaign in
Gaul in summer 353. Without doubt this revolt was instigated by Constantius, as was the invasion of the Alemanni over the Rhine. The exceptional issues with the
portrait of Constantius and the
rev. of
Magnentius cannot be struck before AD 350 because of the hint to a sole emperor. So we have the numismatical evidence that the revolt of Trier must have happened in the most last months of the reign of
Magnentius. These coins were struck during the revolt of Trier for Constantius.
Bastien, whose
work was not on hand, points to the
weight of the
billon coins, which fits only badly between Magnentius' last and Constantius' earliest coinage in
Gaul.
Kent ascribes this irregular
weight to the exceptional circumstances, but concedes in connection to Ammian's note that we could assume too that
Decentius has taken Trier, and that then these pieces were struck between the 2nd and 3rd phase of Magnentius' coinage. After the death of
Magnentius his chief engraver has continued to
work for Constantius.
(2) Gilles:Gilles too is convinced, like
Kent, that the above described coins
dd nn avg et caes' target='_blank'>SALVS
DD NN AVG ET CAES and
SALVS AVG NOSTRI, because they are not known from any other
mint, must be strongly related to the rebellion of Trier against
Magnentius resp.
Decentius. Because we don't know anything about the outcome of the besiege of Trier by
Decentius we are dependent on numismatical and archaeological sources. Because Poemenius according to Ammian must have survived the revolt against
Magnentius and
Decentius it was suggested that Trier was not captured by
Decentius. This is strengthened by the order of the coin emissions of Trier.
However actually it remains unclear in which order the emissions of Trier should be arranged. Are the great bronzes struck in the name of Constantius to be put before or post the last two emissions of
Magnentius and
Decentius, or should they put eventually between these two last emissions of the usurpers, i.e. between the 1st and the 2nd reduction. But the answer is crucial for the dating of the revolt of Trier and wether Trier after the revolt of Poemenius was captured again by
Magnentius resp.
Decentius.
Gilles analyzes the coin series of the bronze emissions of Trier ending around AD 353 with metrological methods. He arranged lists of
hoards and coin series of the 50th of the 4th century AD. He found that especially the treasure troves from villas of the ambit of Trier are ending with the coinage of Poemenius. The last emissions of
Magnentius and
Decentius from Trier are missed totally. They occur only in
hoards together with earlier emissions of Constantius. This would be evidence that the last two emissions were struck after the so-called Poemenius coins.
In summary we must realize that from the numismatical view more is pointing to an abolition of the revolt of Trier against
Decentius.
Coin hoards and destruction
strata show that the ambit of the city was strongly affected by the rebellion, probably by the troups of
Decentius when surmounting the city walls. It is conceivable that Poemenius himself could escape the following massacre. Wether he and the people of Trier has undertaken the revolt by their own impulse or by order of Constantius remains open. Surely the opportunity was favourable, because
Decentius after
his defeat against Chnodomar was weakened. After the supposed recapture of Tier by
Decentius the
mint seems to have worked again at least for some weeks with now again
reduced maiorinas until August 353 when
Magnentius and
Decentius cornered by Constantius committed suicide.
(3) Holt:Walter
Holt features a comprehensive overview over the historic and political relations of the
Roman Empire of the 4th century. He depicts the time from
Magnentius elavation to
Augustus in Autun and the death of
Constans, the
fate of
Nepotianus in
Rome, the unsuccessful attempts of
Magnentius to come to an arrangement with Constantius, the desastrous battle of Mursa until
his suicide in
Lyon. BTW the only surviving member of
his family was
his wife Justina who in AD 368 married
Valentinian I.
Holt writes: because we have no other written sources and especially no archaeological findings only
numismatics remains as source. Thereby in
his interpretation of the events in Trier he follows the version of
Kent. When
Decentius after
his defeat against Chnodomar sought refuge in Trier he found the gates of the city closed under the leadership of Poemenius who has stood up against him.
Decentius must retreat to Amiens and
Paris. Immediately after that Trier began to issue coins under the name of Constantius and - even more important - terminated the coinage for
Magnentius and
Decentius.
Sadly our sole ancient source for these dramatic events is only a single line at Ammianus Marcellinus. Poemenius held Trier successfully against
Decentius until the end of the revolt which is proved by the fact that he two years later was
still alive. He was executed not until AD 355 because he probably was involved in the revolt of
Silvanus. If
Decentius has actually recaptured Trier he surely has put down the revolt and executed Poemenius. But then he didn't have
had to retreat to Amiens and
Paris.
Especially the issue with the big
Chi-Rho cannot be struck until
Decentius was made
Caesar AD 351. The fact that this issues don't occur in
Aquileia nor Rome is indication that it was struck after Magnentius' retreat from
Italy.
Bastien thinks that it was struck not before
spring 353, only 8 months before the end of
his reign and coinage.
The 'Poemenius coins' are exceptional because they show on the
obv. the
portrait of Constantius and on the
rev. motifs of
Magnentius. The AVG on the
rev. of
SALVS AVG NOSTRI points to a single ruler, but can't mean
Magnentius, because
Magnentius died first and there is no hint that Dcentius took the title
Augustus. So only Constantius remains too for the
rev. If Constantius
had struck the 'Poemenius coins' after the fall of
Magnentius, why he should have chosen the
Chi-Rho, which doesn't occur in
his coinage
nor at Gallus. And because this issue only appears in Trier we were drawn consistently to the revolt of Poemenius.
Even
hoards give evidence for it. There are
hoards with Magnentius'
Chi-Rho types and only few Constantius
types. On the other
side there were no
hoards with Constantius'
Chi-Rho and only few
Magnentius types. That proves that the Constantius
types have followed the Magnetius
types. The dating can be done so: Both usurpers were dead on 18.August 353. Because these coins are very
rare their coinage must have been only short but long enough for the need of different dies. Presumably longer then only few days but shorter than some months. If we take the time which
Decentius needed to reach Amiens and then Sens - which could have lastened between 2 and 6 weeks - we get a time for the revolt from the beginning of July until late August.
"The revolt of Poemenius was a short-living and ultimately successful event in the turbulent
history of the fragmented
Roman Empire of the mid-fourth century. It has given us a fascinating issue of coins and a wonderful story. Few individual pieces speak to us and bear witness in such a way as to directly relate to a precise event and time as do these. It is unfortune that we kow nothing more about the character himself. All that remains of him and
his impact on
history is a single sentence in a very old and mostly lost document -and
his legacy of a small number of extraordinary coins" (Walter
Holt)
(will be continued)