Is this Tetricus I?

[Foro Di Mario]

I think this is Tetricus I but not sure. Can anyone verify?
16mm
1.5g

[Jochen]

Beardless? I think that is his son.

Jochen

[Foro Di Mario]

So  Tetricus II?

[Robert_Brenchley]

Yes, but it's a PAX AVG reverse. Mules are fairly common; when they first started striking for Tet II, mint organisation doesn't seem to have been up to the job of keeping the dies segregated.

[Foro Di Mario]

So if it's Tetricus II, the end of the inscription on the obverse should be CAES. But that's not what I see. On Wildwinds all Tetricus II end in CAES from what I see. It it were a Tetricus I it would end in AVG. And that's not what I see either. Can anyone help explain?

Thanks

[Robert_Brenchley]

The script's a bit sloppy as well, so it's a good-style imitation, with a blundered inscription.

[Foro Di Mario]

So your saying that it's not authentic?

[Robert_Brenchley]

It's a perfectly authentic unofficial coin, struck in the late 3rd Century AD.

[commodus]

Ancient and authentic, as Robert says, but probably not actually struck by either Tetricus. Rather, an unofficial coin imitating elements of coins of both Tetricus I and II.

Of course, the argument could be made that nothing struck by either Tetricus was "official," either, in that they were attempted usurpers.

[Robert_Brenchley]

They were backed by a Senate, so they were as legitimate as anyone in what was essentially a military dictatorship, as we'd call it today.

[Pscipio]

The existence of a "Gallic Empire" senate is a so far unproven theory and much debated among scholars. But of course Robert is correct in saying that the "Gallic Empire" coins were official currency in its own territory, just like the coins of Gallienus were official currency in the "Central Empire".

Lars

[commodus]

I merely stated that "the argument could be made" -- and this argument has been by many scholars. The definition of what is "official" can vary rather broadly depending upon differing interpretations of the historical facts.

[Pscipio]

I am curious: what scholars have argued that the "Gallic Empire" coins are unofficial in total? Because to me, the definition of "official coins" is rather easy: coins are official in the territory of the issuing authority, unless somehow restricted by that authority.

The term "usurper", on the other hand, is tricky. Gallienus was the son and co-ruler of Valerian, who was an usurper. Tetricus was the successor of Victorinus, who, in turn, was the successor of Marius and Postumus, also an usurper. So who is usurper, who is not? That's the wrong question, originating from a modern point of view. In the 3rd Century AD, being a legitimate emperor is mainly based upon your own success and auctoritas and much less so on your birth alone, legalistic claims or the senate (just take Aurelian as example!). Valerian had success and gained auctoritas, which made him the "legitimate" Augustus for seven years. But then he was defeated and captured by Shapur, and his son Gallienus was questioned by many "usurpers" not in the least because he was, in the eyes of many, apparently lacking success and auctoritas.

Lars

[commodus]

I am curious: what scholars have argued that the "Gallic Empire" coins are unofficial in total?

None to my knowledge. They've argued whether the "Gallic Empire" itself was legitimate, or rather merely a part of a widespread trend of secessionist movements, which together formed a major crisis for the central government at Rome (which certainly didn't consider these movements to be legitimate). If the movements themselves were not recognized, except as threats to the Central Empire's power and authority, then how could their coinage have been recognized as official? Modern parallels exist with such secesionist movements as Transnistria or Nagrorno-Karabakh, the coinage of which is viewed as unofficial by everyone outside these regions (and most within), even though "officially" issued by the de facto governments there. Likewise, the regions claimed by the so-called "Gallic Empire" and other would-be usurpers, were also de facto governments ruling portions of the Roman Empire then still claimed, and ultimately reclaimed, by the Central Empire itself.

Don't make too much of it. The point is that argument can be made that coinage of the secessionist would-be usurpers was unofficial except in the view of the usurpers and their followers themselves, since the usurpers' claims of authority were unrecognized except in their own minds and the minds of their followers. That doesn't make the coinage or the historical epoch it represents any less interesting or historically significant. Perhaps it makes it even more so!

[Pscipio]

But that is a different question and not related to the coinage, it is about the character of the "Gallic Empire". And it is not about "legitimacy", which is a tricky word. If we use it at all, we should at least not approach it from a modern point of view. Legitimacy in the 3rd Century AD is not simply gained by birth and kept for life. Take Aurelian, or take the argument of Macrianus about Valerian's (and subsequently Gallienus') legitimacy following the latter's capture by Shapur. "Legitimacy" in that time can be gained, but it can also be lost.

But it is late here, and I will now get some sleep 

Lars

[commodus]

Interesting discussion.
Yes, this is true. We must not look at the past through the lens of our own time. It is difficult, however, not to do so, at least to some degree.
 

[Robert_Brenchley]

None to my knowledge. They've argued whether the "Gallic Empire" itself was legitimate, or rather merely a part of a widespread trend of secessionist movements, which together formed a major crisis for the central government at Rome (which certainly didn't consider these movements to be legitimate). If the movements themselves were not recognized, except as threats to the Central Empire's power and authority, then how could their coinage have been recognized as official? Modern parallels exist with such secesionist movements as Transnistria or Nagrorno-Karabakh, the coinage of which is viewed as unofficial by everyone outside these regions (and most within), even though "officially" issued by the de facto governments there. Likewise, the regions claimed by the so-called "Gallic Empire" and other would-be usurpers, were also de facto governments ruling portions of the Roman Empire then still claimed, and ultimately reclaimed, by the Central Empire itself.

I'm not sure how long these two lasted, but the Gallic Empire survived for fifteen years, during which time it was as stable (or otherwise) as the central Empire. It had an established government and coinage, and was eventually reabsorbed without too much bloodshed. Tetricus and his son moved to Italy; the father became governor of part of the region, while the son held senatorial office. I don't think the coinage should be put in the same category with the likes of Saturninus!