Numism > Reading For the Advanced Ancient Coin Collector
Revolt of Nepotian: 351 instead of 350 AD?
curtislclay:
Silbannacus is entirely unknown to the written and inscriptional sources, so our knowledge of him, who he was, when and where he revolted, is wholly dependent on his surviving coinage.
Quite different from Nepotian, for whom we have not only his coinage, but literary sources telling us quite a bit about his descent from the house of Constantine and his rebellion at Rome against Magnentius.
Sylviane Estiot has written a very important article about Silbannacus, my offprint of which I have misplaced so have to report from memory. She publishes the second known coin of this usurper, from the same obv. die as the first coin in BM, but with a different rev. type.
The first coin was said to have been found in France, so the usual assumption was that Silbannacus revolted in Gaul and set up his mint there, probably late in the reign of Philip I to judge from the silver composition and the style. See RIC, pp. 66-7 and 105.
Estiot raises her own flag of revolt, though numismatic and bloodless: no, the style of Silbannacus's two coins is that of the mint of Rome, not a provincial mint, and the second coin uses a reverse type that was then taken over by Aemilian. So I presume Estiot proposed (I can't really remember) that Silbannacus raised a brief revolt against Aemilian at Rome after Gallus and Volusian, marching to oppose Aemilian's invasion of Italy, were murdered by their own soldiers at Interamna.
Potator II:
S. Estiot scenario is that after Gallus and Volusian have been murdered by their own soldiers, Aemilian went back to Rome where the Senate recognized him as emperor (june or july AD 253). Meanwhile Valerian is acclaimed as emperor by his troops and then crosses the Alps to fight Aemilian, who left Rome to meet him in Spolete. For that Aemilian left in Rome part of his troops, one of his lieutenants being Silbannacus. At the same time Gallienus, who has been raised to the rank of Caesar by the Senate arrives to Rome behind Aemilan, who is, as Gallus and Volusian before him, murdered by his own soldiers (september AD 253).
In Rome, the soldiers remained loyal to Aemilan, raised Silbannacus to the rank of Augustus for one or two weeks before Valerian and Silbannacus finally join later in september.
NB : this is a quick "summarized" translation of S. Estiot cited by Curtis Clay. Sorry if it's not as clear as the original
Hope that helps
Potator
curtislclay:
In a paper read at a conference in 2006, which has just recently been published (2011), Michel Festy presents an excellent analysis of the literary evidence for the date of Nepotian's rebellion, and correctly favors 351 over 350.
The dating to 350 in the Consularia Constantinopolitana, Festy says, has been accepted without question since c. 1700 when it was advocated by the historian Tillemont. The different account of the Latin epitimators, assigning the revolt to 351, has always been rejected without serious consideration.
Festy has some hesitation about accepting the new date, however, because the numismatists, Bastien, Kent, and Gricourt, all accept 350 without question. Festy supposes that was because of numismatic evidence, when in fact the numismatists have merely been following Tillemont and the Consularia Constantinopolitana, just like everybody else!
Festy will probably be happy to learn that the actual numismatic evidence, namely the medallions of Magnentius and the large volume of ordinary coinage produced by the mint of Rome before the rebellion of Nepotian, strongly favors placing the revolt in 351 rather than 350.
I suggested that Celius Probatus, attested as being Urban Prefect from 12 May to 7 June 351, was Nepotian's appointee, allowing us to calculate the exact dates of Nepotian's usurpation. Festy attempts to preserve the 3 June date given by the Consularia Constantinopolitana for the beginning of the rebellion, by proposing that Probatus was instead Magnentius' prefect at the time of Nepotian's rebellion, whom Nepotian is said to have killed. So Nepotian rebelled outside of Rome on 3 June 351, then captured Rome and killed Probatus on 7 June.
Now the next recorded prefect, Clodius Adelfius, served from 7 June to 18 December 351, so cannot have been Nepotian's appointee, since his rebellion only lasted 28 days. Festy suggests that Adelfius was Magnentius' appointee, either declared prefect on 7 June even though the city was then in Nepotian's power, or appointed after Nepotian's suppression but whose term of office was then backdated to 7 June, expunging from the record the city prefect that Nepotian had doubtless appointed.
Festy's reconstruction seems possible, and of course it would be nice to preserve the attested 3 June date for the beginning of Nepotian's revolt. I think I would still prefer to reject that date, and view Probatus as being Nepotian's appointee. It seems unlikely to be mere coincidence that Nepotian's revolt lasted 28 days, while Probatus was prefect for 26 days, at just around the time when we know the rebellion took place!
SEstiot:
Although it seems to me that Silbannacus is very far from Nepotian and the very interesting discussion of his pronunciamiento by Curtis, as Silbannacus has popped up in this thread ... here is the link to Revue Numismatique 151, 1996, where my article has been published - in French alas (p. 105-117 ; the related plates XV-XVI are to be found at the end of the RN 2006 volume):
http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/issue/numi_0484-8942_1996_num_6_151
S. Estiot
Blindado:
I had never looked at this sub forum before because I never considered myself an advanced collector. My loss. Anyway, I have updated the information for my Nepotian to 351. Thank you, Curtis Clay, if many years too late.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version