Classical Numismatics Discussion Members' Coin Collection Photo Gallery

Image search results - "possible"

This "Otho" with "VÍCTORIA PR" reverse is an ingenious fabrication created by the famous forger "Tardani". He had obviously realized that there were a few VICTORIA OTHONIS dies recut from Galba's VICTORIA PR dies and created this fictitious but possible coin with copies of real dies. I used to have this coin and another with the same dies is in the Berlin coin cabinet. Both are overweight, around 3.9 gr. It took some time to find a Galba minted with this particular reverse die but finally I succeeded. The final proof is seen in this coin, there are a few regions were the die has broken, ie before the die ever could have been used for an Otho coin. The coin is quite convincing because of the dies, but the surfaces were a bit strange and the legends unusual in profile.jmuona

JUSTINIAN I, AR Anonymous Third-Siliqua, struck after 530 at ConstantinopleObverse: No legend. Helmeted and draped bust of Roma, seen from front, facing right.
Reverse: Large P (Rho) within pelleted circle.
Diameter: 10mm | Weight: 0.63gms | Die Axis: 2
Cf. Bendall, Anonymous, 7,15.
Not in SBCV or DOC
Very Rare

Bendall observed that the issue which he designated as Type 7 could hardly be an issue of 330 as it is stylistically quite unlike his Type 2 issue, but it is far superior to Type 9 (and with a different reverse). Thus he thought it might possibly have been a rare commemorative issue which, along with Type 8a, was struck for the centennial of the foundation of Constantinople in c.430. However, the style and lower weight of this particular coin suggests it was probably struck at a later date than 430. This could be in accordance with the similar example of Bendall's type 8, which he breaks into two subtypes, 8a and 8b, struck circa 430 and 530, respectively. It is possible that this coin may represent a hitherto unrecorded reissue of Bendall's type 7, struck around the same time as the revival of his type 8, arguably to celebrate Justinian’s re-conquest of Rome from Ostrogothic occupation in December 536. The rarity of this enigmatic coin would seem to suggest that this issue was likely struck on only one occasion, possibly in late 536 to 537.
*Alex

1st Century BC - 1st Century CE, IRON AGE BRITAIN, Tribe: Trinovantes, AE Unit, Struck c.10 BC – 10 CE in Camulodunum(?) in Essex under DubnovellaunusObverse: Head facing right, hair(?) lines on head divided by clear centre parting.
Reverse: Horse prancing left; complex pellets and circles above and below.
Diameter: 13.5mm | Weight: 1.61gms | Axis: 3h
SPINK: -- | BMC -- | ABC 2413
VERY RARE

Very rare uninscribed bronze unit of Dubnovellaunus found in Essex. The type is designated as a “Dubnovellaunus Centre Parting” bronze unit in ABC (Ancient British Coins), and to date (January, 2023) it is unlisted in any other major reference works.

DUBNOVELLAUNUS
It is generally thought that Dubnovellaunus succeeded his father Addedomarus as king of the Trinovantes somewhere around 10-5 BC and ruled for several years before being supplanted by Cunobelinus of the Catuvellauni.
In the Res Gestae Divi Augusti, a British king called Dumnovellaunus appears, alongside Tincomarus of the Atrebates, as a supplicant to Augustus in around AD 7 and, given the chronology, it is indeed possible that Dubnovellaunus of the Trinovantes is the same person as the Dumnovellaunus who presented himself to Augustus. The spelling variation is due to a Celtic, rather than a Latin, interpretation of the ruler's name.
It is worth mentioning that the authors of ABC (Ancient British Coins) also think that Dubnovellaunus of the Trinovantes could possibly be the same individual as the Dumnovellaunus who ruled in Kent in the 30s - 20s BC, they suggest that he could have been a Cantian king who later gained control over the southern part of the Trinovantes and that therefore he might have ruled both territories north and south of the Thames estuary for a few years. It should be noted however, that Van Arsdell, an authority on the Celtic Coinage of Britain, emphatically disputes this.

TRINOVANTES
The Trinovantes were one of the Iron Age Celtic tribes of Pre-Roman Britain. Their territory was on the north side of the Thames estuary in the present day counties of Essex, Hertfordshire and Suffolk, and also included lands now located in Greater London. They were bordered to the north by the Iceni, and to the west by the Catuvellauni. Their capital was Camulodunum (modern Colchester).
Shortly before Julius Caesar's invasion of Britain in 55 and 54 BC, the Trinovantes were considered the most powerful tribe in Britain. At this time their capital was probably at Braughing (in modern-day Hertfordshire). In some copies of Caesar's Gallic War their king is referred to as Imanuentius, although no name is given in other copies which have come down to us. That said however, it seems that this king was overthrown by Cassivellaunus, king of the Catuvellauni, some time before Caesar's second expedition and that Imanuentius' son, Mandubracius, fled to the protection of Caesar in Gaul. During his second expedition Caesar defeated Cassivellaunus and restored Mandubracius to the kingship. Cassivellaunus agreed to pay tribute and also undertook not to attack him again.
The next identifiable king of the Trinovantes, known from numismatic evidence, was Addedomarus, who took power around 20 – 15 BCE, and moved the tribe's capital to Camulodunum. For a brief period, around 10 BCE, Tasciovanus of the Catuvellauni issued coins from Camulodunum, suggesting that he must have conquered the Trinovantes, but he was soon forced to withdraw, perhaps as a result of pressure from the Romans. Addedomarus was restored and Tasciovanus' later coins no longer bear the mark “REX”. Addedomarus was briefly succeeded by his son Dubnovellaunus, around 10 to 5 BCE, but a few years later the tribe was conquered by either Tasciovanus or his son Cunobelinus.
The Trinovantes do not appear in history again until their participation in Boudica's revolt against the Romans in 60 CE. After that though they seem to have embraced the Romanisation of Britain and their name was later given to one of the “civitates” of Roman Britain, whose chief town was Caesaromagus (modern Chelmsford in Essex).

CLICK ON MAP BELOW TO ENLARGE IT

1 comments*Alex

1st Century CE, IRON AGE BRITAIN, Tribes: Catuvellauni and Trinovantes, AE Unit, Struck c.10 - 40 at Verlamion under CunobelinusObverse: CVNO - BELIN. Bare head facing left.
Reverse: TASCIO. Metal worker, wielding hammer, seated facing right.
Diameter: 15mm | Weight: 2.24gms | Axis: 3h
Spink: 342 | ABC: 2969 | Van Arsdell 2097

CUNOBELINUS
Cunobelinus was a king in Iron Age Britain from about 9 CE until about 40 CE. He is mentioned by the Roman historians Suetonius and Dio Cassius, and many coins bearing his inscription have been found. Cunobelinus controlled a substantial portion of south-eastern Britain, including the territories of the Catuvellauni and the Trinovantes, and is called “Britannorum rex" (King of the Britons) by Suetonius. He appears to have been recognized by the Roman emperor Augustus as a client king, shown by the use of the Latin title Rex on some of his coins.
Numismatic evidence appears to indicate that Cunobelinus took power around AD 9 after the death of his father Tasciovanus, minting coins from both Camulodunum, capital of the Trinovantes and Verlamion (Roman Verulamium), capital of the Catuvellauni. Some of the Verulamium coins name him as the son of Tasciovanus, a previous king of the Catuvellauni. Cunobelinus' earliest issues are, however, from Camulodunum, indicating that he took power there first, and some have a palm or laurel wreath design, a motif borrowed from the Romans indicating a military victory. It is possible that he was emboldened to act against the Trinovantes, whose independence was protected by a treaty they made with Julius Caesar in 54 BC, because problems in Germania severely affected Augustus' ability to defend allies in Britain.
Cunobelinus, however, appears to have maintained quite good relations with the Roman Empire, he used classical motifs on his coins and his reign also saw an increase in trade with the continent. Archaeological evidence shows an increase in imported luxury goods, including wine and drinking vessels from Italy, olive oil and “garum” (fish sauce) from Spain, as well as glassware, jewellery, and tableware from the wider continent, all of which, from their distribution, appear to have entered Britain via the port of Camulodunum. Rome's lucrative trade with Britain was also reported by Strabo, according to him the island's exports included grain, gold, silver, iron, hides, slaves and hunting dogs. It seems likely that Cunobelinus was one of the British kings, mentioned by Strabo, who sent embassies to Augustus.
Cunobelinus died about 40, probably within a year of that date, as he was certainly dead by 43.
Traditionally it has been suggested that the “Lexden Tumulus” on the outskirts of Colchester was Cunobelinus' tomb, but without evidence confirming that, it is also possible that the tomb was built for the earlier Trinovantian king, Addedomarus. Interestingly there is a second tumulus, though this one is not so well known, 665m to the northwest of the Lexden burial mound, on a grassy area in the middle of a modern housing estate. This tumulus, known as ‘The Mount’, probably dates from around the same time as the well-known one at Fitzwalter Road, Lexden.

CLICK ON MAP BELOW TO ENLARGE IT

1 comments*Alex

1st Century CE, IRON AGE BRITAIN, Tribe: Atrebates, AR Unit, Struck c.25 -35 under EpaticcusObverse: EPATI. Head of Hercules, wearing lionskin headdress with paws tied before neck, facing right; pellet in ring behind.
Reverse: No legend. Eagle standing facing, head left, on serpent; dot in circle at upper right.
Diameter: 12mm | Weight: 1.1gms | Axis: 10 |
Spink: 356
Coin found in Hampshire, England. Old repair

EPATICCUS
Epaticcus was a son of Tasciovanus, and probably the younger brother of Cunobelin, he was also apparently a favoured uncle of Caratacus. It is from his coinage issues that we know his name and his family relationship.
The distribution of his coinage would indicate that Epaticcus expanded the territory of his tribe at the expense of the Atrebatean king Verica, and installed himself at the latter's capital, Calleva around 25 CE.
It is likely that Epaticcus was permitted to govern the area by his brother as part of the Catuvellaunian hegemony that was expanding across south eastern Britain at the time. Epaticcus continued to take Verica’s lands to west and south until his death, probably on campaign, around 35 CE. After this his expansionist policies were continued by his nephews, Caratacus and Togodumnus, into the late 30’s CE.

ATREBATES
The Atrebates were a Belgic Iron Age tribe originally dwelling in the Artois region of Northern France.
After the tribes of Gallia Belgic were defeated by Caesar in 57 BC, 4,000 Atrebates participated in the Battle of Alesia in 53, led by their chief Commius.
Before 54 BC, an offshoot of the Gallic tribe probably settled in Britain where it was successively ruled by kings Commius, Tincommius, Eppillus and Verica. Their territory comprised modern Hampshire, West Sussex and Berkshire, centred on the capital Calleva Atrebatum (modern Silchester). They were bordered to the north by the Dobunni and Catuvellauni; to the east by the Regni; and to the south by the Belgae.
The settlement of the Atrebates in Britain does not seem to have been a mass population movement and it is possible that the name "Atrebates", as with many "tribal" names in this period, referred only to the ruling house or dynasty and not to an ethnic group.
After the Roman conquest the Atrebates' lands were organized into the civitates of the Atrebates, Regni and possibly, the Belgae.

CLICK ON MAP BELOW TO ENLARGE IT

1 comments*Alex

138 - 161, ANTONINUS PIUS, AE As, Struck 154 - 155Obverse: ANTONINVS AVG PIVS P P TR P XVIII, laureate and draped bust of Antoninus Pius facing right.
Reverse: BRITANNIA COS IIII, Britannia seated facing left on rock, shield and vexillum in background; S C in exergue.
Diameter: 26mm | Weight: 9.4gms | Die Axis: 7h
RIC III: 934 | SRCV: 4296 | Cohen: 117
SCARCE

The bronze coins of Antoninus Pius bearing the "Britannia" reverse type have been found in considerable quantities in Britain, but are not generally recorded from Roman sites in France and Germany. The many "Britannia" issues of Antoninus Pius found in Coventina's Well, Carrawburgh, seem to have come from only a few dies, suggesting that the place of mintage for them was not far distant, though it is possible that the issue was both issued at Rome and produced locally in Britannia.
The reverse type of Britannia seated on a rock, eventually adorned Great Britain's coinage many centuries later when the design was reintroduced by Charles II in 1672.

COVENTINA'S WELL
Dedications to Coventina and votive deposits were found in a walled area, now called "Coventina's Well", which had been built to contain the outflow from a spring near the site of a Roman fort and settlement, on Hadrian's Wall. Now called Carrawburgh, the site is named as Procolita in the 5th century "Notitia Dignitatum". The remains of a Roman Mithraeum and Nymphaeum were also found near the site.
*Alex

138 - 161, ANTONINUS PIUS, AE As, Struck 154 - 155 alluding to BritanniaObverse: ANTONINVS AVG PIVS P P TR P XVIII. Laureate and draped bust of Antoninus Pius facing right.
Reverse: BRITANNIA COS IIII. Britannia seated facing left on rock, shield and vexillum in background; S C in exergue.
Diameter: 26mm | Weight: 12.7gms | Die Axis: 6h
RIC III: 934 | SRCV: 4296 | Cohen: 117 | BMC: 1971 | SPINK: 666
SCARCE

The bronze coins of Antoninus Pius bearing the "Britannia" reverse type have been found in considerable quantities in Britain, but are not generally recorded from Roman sites in France and Germany. The many "Britannia" issues of Antoninus Pius found in Coventina's Well, Carrawburgh, seem to have come from only a few dies, suggesting that the place of mintage for them was not far distant, though it is possible that the issue was both issued at Rome and produced locally in Britannia.
The reverse type of Britannia seated on a rock, eventually adorned Great Britain's coinage many centuries later when the design was reintroduced by Charles II in 1672.

COVENTINA'S WELL
Dedications to Coventina and votive deposits were found in a walled area, now called "Coventina's Well", which had been built to contain the outflow from a spring near the site of a Roman fort and settlement, on Hadrian's Wall. Now called Carrawburgh, the site is named as Procolita in the 5th century "Notitia Dignitatum". The remains of a Roman Mithraeum and Nymphaeum were also found near the site.

CLICK ON ENGRAVING OF COVANTINA'S WELL BELOW TO ENLARGE IT

1 comments*Alex

24 Septimius SeverusSEPTIMIUS SEVERUS
AR Denarius. Struck 198-202 AD. Laodicea mint.

L SEPT SEV AVG IMP XI PART MAX, laureate head right / MONETA AVGG, Moneta seated left, holding scales and cornucopiae

RIC 510a, RSC 345, BMC 669 aVF (possible fouree?)Sosius

268 - 270, Roman Imitative Antoninianus (Barbarous Radiate), produced in Britain and the continent. Struck in the name of CLAUDIUS IIObverse: Unclear partial inscription. Radiate head of Claudius II facing right.
Reverse: Unclear partial inscription. Crude depiction of Pax standing facing left, right arm outstretched in front of her holding branch. Struck off-centre.
Hoard find from Northern England.
Diameter: 15mm | Weight: 1.6gms | Die Axis: 4
SPINK: 749

The term 'barbarous radiates', dating from its use by antiquarians in the 19th century, is still often used to refer to the locally produced unofficial coins which imitated the official Roman antoninianii of the period. These coins were not struck by barbarians outwith the Empire as the name would suggest, nor were they intrinsically forgeries or fakes. Instead they were the result of a period of great instability within the Roman empire during which the western provinces especially often experienced a severe lack of coinage. To fill this void small denomination coinage was unofficially issued in very large numbers. Though some of these coins are fairly close copies of the official coins which they imitate, many others have been produced by die engravers who were patently illiterate and often of limited ability artistically as well. Around 274 Aurelian banned the use of these imitative bronzes when he reformed the currency but it is possible that some "barbarous radiates" were still being produced after that date. Whether individual coins are of British or Continental mintage can really only be ascertained by provenance.

*Alex

271 - 274, Roman Imitative Antoninianus (Barbarous Radiate), produced in Britain and the continent. Struck in the name of TETRICUS IObverse: (TETR)ICVS P F AVG. Radiate head of Tetricus I facing right.
Reverse: (PA)X AVGG Crude depiction of Pax standing facing left, right arm outstretched in front of her and holding vertical spear in her left.
From a hoard found in Northern England.
Diameter: 14mm | Weight: 1.6gms | Die Axis: 6
SPINK: 749

The term 'barbarous radiates', dating from its use by antiquarians in the 19th century, is still often used to refer to the locally produced unofficial coins which imitated the official Roman antoninianii of the period. These coins were not struck by barbarians outwith the Empire as the name would suggest, nor were they intrinsically forgeries or fakes. Instead they were the result of a period of great instability within the Roman empire during which the western provinces especially often experienced a severe lack of coinage. To fill this void small denomination coinage was unofficially issued in very large numbers. Though some of these coins are fairly close copies of the official coins which they imitate, many others have been produced by die engravers who were patently illiterate and often of limited ability artistically as well. Around 274 Aurelian banned the use of these imitative bronzes when he reformed the currency but it is possible that some "barbarous radiates" were still being produced after that date. Whether individual coins are of British or Continental mintage can really only be ascertained by provenance.

*Alex

271 - 274, Roman Imitative Antoninianus (Barbarous Radiate), produced in Britain and the continent. Struck in the name of TETRICUS II as CAESARObverse: Blundered legend - - IVES - -. Radiate bust of Tetricus II facing right.
Reverse: Likely (PIETA)S AVG. Sacrificial Implements.
From an uncertain British location.
Diameter: 14.5mm | Weight: 2.29gms | Die Axis: 2
SPINK: 749

The term 'barbarous radiates', dating from its use by antiquarians in the 19th century, is still often used to refer to the locally produced unofficial coins which imitated the official Roman antoninianii of the period. These coins were not struck by barbarians outwith the Empire as the name would suggest, nor were they intrinsically forgeries or fakes. Instead they were the result of a period of great instability within the Roman empire during which the western provinces especially often experienced a severe lack of coinage. To fill this void small denomination coinage was unofficially issued in very large numbers. Though some of these coins are fairly close copies of the official coins which they imitate, many others have been produced by die engravers who were patently illiterate and often of limited ability artistically as well. Around 274 Aurelian banned the use of these imitative bronzes when he reformed the currency but it is possible that some "barbarous radiates" were still being produced after that date. Whether individual coins are of British or Continental mintage can really only be ascertained by provenance.

*Alex

274, Roman Imitative Antoninianus (Barbarous Radiate), produced in Britain and the continent. Struck in the name of TETRICUS II as AUGUSTUSObverse: (IMP C TET)RICVS AG. Radiate bust of Tetricus II facing right, seen from behind.
Reverse: Struck from extremely worn reverse die which possibly depicts Salus feeding serpent arising from altar.
Diameter: 14mm | Weight: 1.7gms | Die Axis: 6
SPINK: 749
RARE

This is an irregular issue (barbarous radiate) giving Tetricus II the title of Augustus rather than Caesar.
Interestingly the Historia Augusta makes this statement with regard to Aurelian's triumph in A.D.274. "In the procession was Tetricus also, arrayed in a scarlet cloak, a yellow tunic, and Gallic trousers, and with him his son, whom he had proclaimed in Gaul as Imperator." (Historia Augusta, xxxiv, iii). Imperator was a title that invariably, when referring to an Imperial figure, implied the rank of Augustus, but no regular official coinage issues of Tetricus II citing him as such are known.

The term 'barbarous radiates', dating from its use by antiquarians in the 19th century, is still often used to refer to the locally produced unofficial coins which imitated the official Roman antoninianii of the period. These coins were not struck by barbarians outwith the Empire as the name would suggest, nor were they intrinsically forgeries or fakes. Instead they were the result of a period of great instability within the Roman empire during which the western provinces especially often experienced a severe lack of coinage. To fill this void small denomination coinage was unofficially issued in very large numbers. Though some of these coins are fairly close copies of the official coins which they imitate, many others have been produced by die engravers who were patently illiterate and often of limited ability artistically as well. Around 274 Aurelian banned the use of these imitative bronzes when he reformed the currency but it is possible that some "barbarous radiates" were still being produced after that date. Whether individual coins are of British or Continental mintage can really only be ascertained by provenance.

*Alex

560cfCarausius 287-93AD
AE laureate
Obv "IMP CARAVSIVS PF AVG"
Laureate, draped & cuirassed bust right
Rev "FELICITAS AVG"?
Galley left
London mint?
-/-/RSR
RIC - (cf 560)
A possible trial strike on a thick, heavy flan (approx. 7 grammes). The small obverse die probably from a "denarius", the larger reverse from an antoninianusmauseus

Alexander Jannaeus Prutah PendantOBV:BAΣIΛEΩΣ AΛEΞANΔΡOΥ (of King Alexander),
around anchor
REV:star made of eight pellets surrounded by diadem
and possible inscription
Hendin 470, Meshorer TJC J11, Jerusalem mint
103 - 76 B.C.
Set in Silver Pendant Danny S. Jones

UNITED STATES, Hard Times. Political issues.
CU Token (28.5mm, 8.53 g, 12h). Belleville (New Jersey) mint. Dated 1838.
AM I NOT A WOMAN & A SISTER, hained female slave kneeling right, raising arms in supplication; * 1838 * below UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, LIBERTY/ 1838 within wreath
Rulau HT 81; Low 54

Ex Album 33 (17 January 2019), lot 2542

June 1900 saw a brief flurry of journalistic interest in the "Am I Not A Woman & A Sister" tokens. A specimen had been found in a garden in Indiana, apparently in one of the many towns that claim a connection to the Underground Railroad, and received a glowing and fanciful write up in the local newspaper. The paper claimed that it was a "Talisman of Slavery," and used as a token to ensure safe passage along the escaped slave's route, and that it was a very rare piece. The following week a newspaper in Maine recorded that a local collector had another example, again drawing a purported connection to the Underground Railroad. Astutely, the July 1900 edition of the American Journal of Numismatics pointed out that, while an isolated use like this was possible, it was not what the tokens were originally intended for.Ardatirion

EGYPT, Aphroditopolis
PB Tessera (13mm, 1.78 g)
Eros standing left, stooping over bird to left
Head of hippocamp right (or swan right?)
Milne 5325-9; Dattari (Savio) 11856-7; Köln -; Rostowzew & Prou 714 (dolphin)

The reverse type here more closely resembles a swan than it does a hippocamp. While the swan is a symbol of Aphrodite, Dattari (Savio) 11857 clearly shows the head a hippocamp. It is possible that these are two distinct types.Ardatirion

"Obol" As of Marcus AureliusThis as of Marcus Aurleius with reverse of Providentia holding wand over globe has a layer of thick blue crystals on both sides. Many believe that this kind of patina comes from contact with the dead and such coins are therefore know as "obol" coins from the practice of placing payment for the afterlife in the deceased's mouth. It is not certain if there is any truth to these rumours. When coins, like this one, come from ploughed field contexts it is impossible to determine what their original deposition context was. 2 commentsSC

(502a) Roman Republic, L. Calpurnius Piso Frugi, 90 B.C.Silver denarius, S 235, Calpurnia 11, Crawford 340/1, Syd 663a, VF, rainbow toning, Rome mint, 3.772g, 18.5mm, 180o, 90 B.C. obverse: laureate head of Apollo right, scorpion behind; Reverse naked horseman galloping right holding palm, L PISO FRVGI and control number CXI below; ex-CNA XV 6/5/91, #443. Ex FORVM.

A portion of the following text is a passage taken from the excellent article “The Calpurnii and Roman Family History: An Analysis of the Piso Frugi Coin in the Joel Handshu Collection at the College of Charleston,” by Chance W. Cook:

In the Roman world, particularly prior to the inception of the principate, moneyers were allotted a high degree of latitude to mint their coins as they saw fit. The tres viri monetales, the three men in charge of minting coins, who served one-year terms, often emblazoned their coins with an incredible variety of images and inscriptions reflecting the grandeur, history, and religion of Rome. Yet also prominent are references to personal or familial accomplishments; in this manner coins were also a means by which the tres viri monetales could honor their forbearers. Most obvious from an analysis of the Piso Frugi denarius is the respect and admiration that Lucius Calpurnius Piso Frugi, who minted the coin, had for his ancestors. For the images he selected for his dies relate directly to the lofty deeds performed by his Calpurnii forbearers in the century prior to his term as moneyer. The Calpurnii were present at many of the watershed events in the late Republic and had long distinguished themselves in serving the state, becoming an influential and well-respected family whose defense of traditional Roman values cannot be doubted.

Lucius Calpurnius Piso Frugi, who was moneyer in 90 B.C., depicted Apollo on the obverse and the galloping horseman on the reverse, as does his son Gaius. However, all of L. Piso Frugi’s coins have lettering similar to “L-PISO-FRVGI” on the reverse, quite disparate from his son Gaius’ derivations of “C-PISO-L-F-FRV.”

Moreover, C. Piso Frugi coins are noted as possessing “superior workmanship” to those produced by L. Piso Frugi.

The Frugi cognomen, which became hereditary, was first given to L. Calpurnius Piso, consul in 133 B.C., for his integrity and overall moral virtue. Cicero is noted as saying that frugal men possessed the three cardinal Stoic virtues of bravery, justice, and wisdom; indeed in the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae, a synonym of frugalitas is bonus, generically meaning “good” but also implying virtuous behavior. Gary Forsythe notes that Cicero would sometimes invoke L. Calpurnius Piso’s name at the beginning of speeches as “a paragon of moral rectitude” for his audience.

L. Calpurnius Piso Frugi’s inclusion of the laureled head of Apollo, essentially the same obverse die used by his son Gaius (c. 67 B.C.), was due to his family’s important role in the establishment of the Ludi Apollinares, the Games of Apollo, which were first instituted in 212 B.C. at the height of Hannibal’s invasion of Italy during the Second Punic War. By that time, Hannibal had crushed Roman armies at Cannae, seized Tarentum and was invading Campania.

Games had been used throughout Roman history as a means of allaying the fears
of the populace and distracting them from issues at hand; the Ludi Apollinares were no different. Forsythe follows the traditional interpretation that in 211 B.C., when C. Calpurnius Piso was praetor, he became the chief magistrate in Rome while both consuls were absent and the three other praetors were sent on military expeditions against Hannibal.

At this juncture, he put forth a motion in the Senate to make the Ludi Apollinares a yearly event, which was passed; the Ludi Apollinares did indeed become an important festival, eventually spanning eight days in the later Republic. However, this interpretation is debatable; H.H. Scullard suggests that the games were not made permanent until 208 B.C. after a severe plague prompted the Senate to make them a fixture on the calendar. The Senators believed Apollo would serve as a “healing god” for the people of Rome.

Nonetheless, the Calpurnii obviously believed their ancestor had played an integral role in the establishment of the Ludi Apollinares and thus prominently displayed
the head or bust of Apollo on the obverse of the coins they minted.

The meaning of the galloping horseman found on the reverse of the L. Calpurnius Piso Frugi coin is more complicated. It is possible that this is yet another reference to the Ludi Apollinares. Chariot races in the Circus Maximus were a major component of the games, along with animal hunts and theatrical performances.

A more intriguing possibility is that the horseman is a reference to C. Calpurnius Piso, son of the Calpurnius Piso who is said to have founded the Ludi Apollinares. This C. Calpurnius Piso was given a military command in 186 B.C. to quell a revolt in Spain. He was victorious, restoring order to the province and also gaining significant wealth in the process.

Upon his return to Rome in 184, he was granted a triumph by the Senate and eventually erected an arch on the Capitoline Hill celebrating his victory. Of course
the arch prominently displayed the Calpurnius name. Piso, however, was not an infantry commander; he led the cavalry.

The difficulty in accepting C. Calpurnius Piso’s victory in Spain as the impetus for the galloping horseman image is that not all of C. Piso Frugi’s coins depict the horseman or cavalryman carrying the palm, which is a symbol of victory. One is inclined to believe that the victory palm would be prominent in all of the coins minted by C. Piso Frugi (the son of L. Calpurnius Piso Frugi) if it indeed signified the great triumph of C. Calpurnius Piso in 186 B.C. Yet the palm’s appearance is clearly not a direct reference to military feats of C. Piso Frugi’s day. As noted, it is accepted that his coins were minted in 67 B.C.; in that year, the major victory by Roman forces was Pompey’s swift defeat of the pirates throughout the Mediterranean.

Chrestomathy: Annual Review of Undergraduate Research at the College of Charleston. Volume 1, 2002: pp. 1-10© 2002 by the College of Charleston, Charleston SC 29424, USA.All rights to be retained by the author.
http://www.cofc.edu/chrestomathy/vol1/cook.pdf

There are six (debatably seven) prominent Romans who have been known to posterity as Lucius Calpurnius Piso:

Lucius Calpurnius Piso Frugi: (d. 261 A.D.) a Roman usurper, whose existence is
questionable, based on the unreliable Historia Augusta.

Lucius Calpurnius Piso Licinianus: deputy Roman Emperor, 10 January 69 to15 January
69, appointed by Galba.

Lucius Calpurnius Piso: Consul in 27 A.D.

Lucius Calpurnius Piso: Consul in 1 B.C., augur

Lucius Calpurnius Piso: Consul in 15 B.C., pontifex

Lucius Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus: Consul in 58 B.C. (the uncle of Julius Caesar)

Lucius Calpurnius Piso Frugi: Moneyer in 90 B.C. (our man)

All but one (or two--if you believe in the existence of "Frugi the usurper" ca. 261 A.D.) of these gentlemen lack the Frugi cognomen, indicating they are not from the same direct lineage as our moneyer, though all are Calpurnii.

Calpurnius Piso Frugi's massive issue was intended to support the war against the Marsic Confederation. The type has numerous variations and control marks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius_Calpurnius_Piso
http://www.forumancientcoins.com/catalog/indexfrm.asp?vpar=55&pos=0

Edited by J. P. Fitzgerald, Jr.

2 commentsCleisthenes

(504c) Roman Republic, L. Cassius Longinus, 63 B.C.Silver denarius, Crawford 413/1, RSC I Cassia 10, SRCV I 364, aVF, struck with worn dies, Rome mint, weight 3.867g, maximum diameter 20.3mm, die axis 0o, c. 63 B.C. Obverse: veiled bust of Vesta left, kylix behind, L before; Reverse: LONGIN III V, voter standing left, dropping tablet inscribed V into a cista.

The reverse of this Longinus denarius captures a fascinating moment when a Roman citizen casts his ballot. "The abbreviation III V [ir] indentifies Longinus as one of the three annually appointed mintmasters (officially called tres viri aere argento auro flando feriundo). A citizen is seen casting his vote into the urn. On the ballot is the letter 'U', short for uti rogas, a conventional formula indicating assent to a motion. The picture alludes to the law, requested by an ancestor of the mintmaster, which introduced the secret ballot in most proceedings of the popular court" (Meier, Christian. Caesar, a Biography. Berlin: Severin and Siedler, 1982. Plate 6).

The date that this denarius was struck possesses unique significance for another reason. Marcus Tullius Cicero (politician, philosopher, orator, humanist) was elected consul for the year 63 BC -- the first man elected consul who had no consular ancestors in more than 30 years. A "new man," Cicero was not the descendant of a "patrician" family, nor was his family wealthy (although Cicero married "well"). Cicero literally made himself the man he was by the power of the words he spoke and the way in which he spoke them. A witness to and major player during the decline of the Roman Republic, Cicero was murdered in 43 BC by thugs working for Marc Antony. But Cicero proved impossible to efface.

Cicero's words became part of the bed rock of later Roman education. As Peter Heather notes, every educated young man in the late Roman Empire studied "a small number of literary texts under the guidance of an expert in language and literary interpretation, the grammarian. This occupied the individual for seven or more years from about the age of eight, and concentrated on just four authors: Vergil, Cicero, Sallust and Terence" (Heather, Peter. The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. 17).

Plutarch: Cicero's Death

But in the meantime the assassins were come with a band of soldiers, Herennius, a centurion, and Popillius, a tribune, whom Cicero had formerly defended when prosecuted for the murder of his father. Finding the doors shut, they broke them open, and Cicero not appearing, and those within saying they knew not where he was, it is stated that a youth, who had been educated by Cicero in the liberal arts and sciences, an emancipated slave of his brother Quintus, Philologus by name, informed the tribune that the litter was on its way to the sea through the close and shady walks. The tribune, taking a few with him, ran to the place where he was to come out. And Cicero, perceiving Herennius running in the walks, commanded his servants to set down the litter; and stroking his chin, as he used to do, with his left hand, he looked steadfastly upon his murderers, his person covered with dust, his beard and hair untrimmed, and his face worn with his troubles. So that the greatest part of those that stood by covered their faces whilst Herennius slew him. And thus was he murdered, stretching forth his neck out of the litter, being now in his sixty-fourth year. Herennius cut off his head, and, by Antony's command, his hands also, by which his Philippics were written; for so Cicero styled those orations he wrote against Antony, and so they are called to this day.

When these members of Cicero were brought to Rome, Antony was holding an assembly for the choice of public officers; and when he heard it, and saw them, he cried out, "Now let there be an end of our proscriptions." He commanded his head and hands to be fastened up over the rostra, where the orators spoke; a sight which the Roman people shuddered to behold, and they believed they saw there, not the face of Cicero, but the image of Antony's own soul. And yet amidst these actions he did justice in one thing, by delivering up Philologus to Pomponia, the wife of Quintus; who, having got his body into her power, besides other grievous punishments, made him cut off his own flesh by pieces, and roast and eat it; for so some writers have related. But Tiro, Cicero's emancipated slave, has not so much as mentioned the treachery of Philologus.

Translation by John Dryden: http://intranet.grundel.nl/thinkquest/moord_cicero_plu.html

Edited by J. P. Fitzgerald, Jr.Cleisthenes

0002 Sextus Pompey -- Neptune and Naval TrophySextus Pompey, Imperator and Prefect of the Fleet
[Youngest Son of Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus (Pompey the Great)]
Obv: [MAG or MA (ligatured) G]⦁PIVS⦁IMP⦁ITER; Portrait of Neptune facing r., diademed and bearded, trident over l. shoulder. Border of dots.
Rev: [PRAE (AE ligatured) F⦁CLAS⦁ET⦁ORAE (AE ligatured)]⦁MAR (ligatured) IT⦁EX⦁S⦁C⦁; Naval trophy with trident on top and anchor on bottom, prow stem on l. and aplustre on r., at base two representations of Charybdis and two dog heads of Scylla. Border of dots.
Denomination: silver denarius; Mint: Sicily, uncertain location1; Date: summer 42 - summer 39 BC2; Weight: 3.89g; Diameter: 17mm; Die axis: 30º; References, for example: Sear CRI 333; BMCRR v. II Sicily 15, 16, and 17 variant3; Sydenham 1347 variant3; Crawford RRC 511/2a or 2b4.

Notes:

Obverse legend: MAG[NUS]⦁PIVS⦁IMP[ERATOR]⦁ITER[UM]
Reverse legend: PRAEF[ECTUS]⦁CLAS[SIS]⦁ET⦁ORAE⦁MARIT[IMAE]⦁EX⦁S[ENATUS]⦁C[ONSULTO]

1Sear CRI, Crawford RRC, Sydenham, and DeRose Evans (1987) all place the minting of this coin type in Sicily, but they do not reference a possible location. Grueber BMCRR v. II Sicily suggests Messana.
2This is the date range argued for in Estiot 2006 (p. 145). Estiot recommends returning to Crawford's proposal of 42 - 40 BC. Crawford RRC, p. 521 suggests the period in 42 BC after Sextus Pompey defeated Q. Salvidienus Rufus. Grueber BMCRR v. II Sicily, p.562 proposes 38 - 36 BC and Sydenham, p. 210 adopts the same datation. DeRose Evans (1987), p. 129 offers a time between late summer 36 and September 36 BC.
3Grueber BMCRR v. II Sicily 15, 16, and 17 and Sydenham 1347 only list a reverse legend containing MAR (ligatured) I but the coin here is MAR (ligatured) IT.
4It is impossible to see the full obverse legend, so it cannot be determined if MA is ligatured or not. The reverse legend is clearly the first variety of 2a or 2b, a variety not found on 2c.

Provenance: Ex Shanna Schmidt Numismatics April 11, 2019; from the collection of W. F. Stoecklin, Amriswil, Switzerland; acquired from Hess AG in Luzern, from the Ernst Haeberlin collection, Cahn & Hess, Frankfurt, July 17, 1933 Lot 2889.

Photo credits: Shanna Schmidt Numismatics

CLICK FOR SOURCES10 commentsTracy Aiello

0004 Sextus Pompey -- Pharos and ScyllaSextus Pompey, Imperator and Prefect of the Fleet
[Youngest Son of Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus (Pompey the Great)]
Obv: MAG⦁PIVS⦁IMP⦁ITER; Pharos of Messana, Neptune on top standing r. with r. hand on a trident and l. hand on a rudder, resting l. foot on prow. Galley sailing l., aquila atop a tripod placed in prow and a scepter tied with a fillet in stern. Border of dots.
Rev: PRAEF⦁ORAE⦁MARIT⦁ET⦁CLAS⦁S⦁C [AEs and MAR ligatured]; Scylla attacking l. wielding a rudder in both hands, the torso of a nude woman with two fishtails and the foreparts of three dogs as the lower body. Border of dots.
Denomination: silver denarius; Mint: Sicily, uncertain location1; Date: summer 42 - summer 39 BC2; Weight: 3.566g; Diameter: 19.8mm; Die axis: 225º; References, for example: BMCRR v. II Sicily 20 variant3, Sydenham 1349 variant3; Crawford RRC 511/4d; Sear CRI 335b.

Notes:

Obverse legend: MAG[NUS]⦁PIVS⦁IMP[ERATOR]⦁ITER[UM]
Reverse legend: PRAEF[ECTUS]⦁ORAE⦁MARIT[IMAE]⦁ET⦁CLAS[SIS]⦁S[ENATUS]⦁C[ONSULTO]

1Grueber BMCRR v. II Sicily, p.557 and Sear CRI, p. 203 suggest Messana as a possible mint location. DeRose Evans (1987), p. 124 hesitatingly suggests Mitylene (on the island of Lesbos).

2This is the date range suggested by Estiot 2006, p. 145, as she recommends going back to Crawford's proposal of 42 - 40 BC. Crawford RRC, p. 521 suggests the period in 42 BC after Sextus Pompey defeated Q. Salvidienus Rufus. Grueber BMCRR v. II Sicily, p.556 proposes 38 - 36 BC. Sydenham, p.211 follows Grueber. DeRose Evans (1987), p. 129 submits 35 BC.

3Grueber BMCRR v. II Sicily 20 and Sydenham 1349 list MAR (ligatured) I but the coin here is clearly MAR (ligatured) IT. Neither Grueber nor Sydenham record MAR (ligatured) IT as part of this reverse legend for this coin type. Crawford and Sear do.

Provenance: Ex Forum Ancient Coins 15 January 2019; Nomos Obolos 10, 30 June 2018 Lot 349.

Photo credits: Forum Ancient Coins

CLICK FOR SOURCES8 commentsTracy Aiello

0006 Sextus Pompey -- Pompey the Great and Neptune with Catanaean BrothersSextus Pompey, Imperator and Prefect of the Fleet
[Youngest Son of Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus (Pompey the Great)]

Obv: [MAG⦁PIVS⦁IMP⦁ITER]; portrait of Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus r.; behind jug; before lituus. Border of dots.
Rev: above, [PRAE (AE ligatured) F]; in exergue, CLAS⦁ET⦁[ORAE (AE ligatured)⦁MAR (ligatured) IT⦁EX⦁S⦁C]; Neptune standing l., wearing diadem, aplustre in r. hand, cloak over l. arm, r. foot on prow,; on either side a Catanaean brother bearing one of his parents on his shoulders1. Border of dots.
Denomination: silver denarius; Mint: Sicily, uncertain location2; Date: summer 42 - summer 39 BC3; Weight: 3.68g; Diameter: 17mm; Die axis: 30º; References, for example: Sear CRI 334; BMCRR v. II Sicily 7, 8, 9, and 10; Sydenham 1344; Crawford RRC 511/3a.

Notes:

Obverse legend: MAG[NUS]⦁PIVS⦁IMP[ERATOR]⦁ITER[UM]
Reverse legend: PRAEF[ECTUS]⦁CLAS[SIS]⦁ET⦁ORAE⦁MARIT[IMAE]⦁EX⦁S[ENATUS]⦁C[ONSULTO]

1Grueber BMCRR v. II Sicily appears a bit hesitant in his pronouncement that the representation of the Catanaean brothers in fact refers to Sextus' title Pius (p. 561), but Sear CRI appears to have no such hesitation when he states "...the type illustrates the theme of 'Pietas' in connection with the assumption of the name Pius." (p.203). DeRose Evans (1987) goes further (pp. 115 - 116), arguing that Sextus chose the Catanaean brothers ("...he consciously identifies himself with the south Italian heroes") as a way to deliberately contrast his Pietas with that of Octavian's.
2Grueber BMCRR v. II Sicily tentatively suggests Catana as a possible location and Sear CRI follows suit.
3This is the date range argued for in Estiot 2006 (p. 145). Estiot recommends returning to Crawford's proposal of 42 - 40 BC. Crawford RRC, p. 521 suggests the period in 42 BC after Sextus Pompey defeated Q. Salvidienus Rufus. Grueber BMCRR v. II Sicily, p.560 proposes 42 - 38 BC and Sydenham, p. 210 follows suit. DeRose Evans (1987), p. 129 offers a time between late summer 36 and September 36 BC.

Provenance: Ex Shanna Schmidt Numismatics 11 June 2019; from the collection of W. F. Stoecklin, Amriswil, Switzerland, acquired from Hess AG in Luzern prior to 1975. Ex Dr. Jacob Hirsch 33, 17 November 1913 Lot 1058.

Photo credits: Shanna Schmidt Numismatics

CLICK FOR SOURCES4 commentsTracy Aiello

002g. Agrippa PostumusSon of Agrippa and Julia. Possible heir to Augustus; opposed by Livia (in favor of Tiberius). Exiled in 7 AD, and murdered in 14 AD. Provincial coin only.lawrence c

003c. Gemellus & Germanicus GemellusTiberius Julius Caesar Nero was known as "Gemellus" (the twin). Born 19 AD. He was the son of Drusus and Livilia, the grandson of Tiberius, and the cousin of Caligula. Caligula had him put to death or forced him to commit suicide in 37 or 38 AD, viewing him as a possible claimant to the throne. His twin brother Germanicus died in infancy and was on coins only with Tiberius Gemellus.lawrence c

004.Titus 79-81 ADAR Denarius
Mint: Rome, Date: 80 AD
Obv: IMP TITVS CAES VESPASIAN AVG PM,Laureate head of Titus right.
Rev: TRP IX IMP XV COS VIII PP, Two captives seated left and right, back to back, between them, trophy composed of cuirass, helmet, and oblong shields,the captive on left is a woman, draped, hooded, and rests head on right hand; the captive on right is a man, naked,and has his hands bound behind his back.
Ref: RIC II-102
Possible Judea Capta type,Hendin-778;Meshorer TJC,Supplement 5,Type I
2 commentsBrian L

005d. Agrippina IILYDIA, Hypaepa. Agrippina Jr., mother of Nero. Augusta, 50-59 AD. Æ 14mm (2.33 gm). Draped bust of Agrippina right / Cult statue of Artemis. RPC I 2541; SNG Copenhagen -.

Julia Vipsania Agrippina Minor or Agrippina Minor (Latin for "the younger") (November 7, AD 15 – March 59), often called "Agrippinilla" to distinguish her from her mother, was the daughter of Germanicus and Agrippina Major. She was sister of Caligula, granddaughter and great-niece to Tiberius, niece and wife of Claudius, and the mother of Nero. She was born at Oppidum Ubiorum on the Rhine, afterwards named in her honour Colonia Agrippinae (modern Cologne, Germany).

Agrippina was first married to (1st century AD) Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus. From this marriage she gave birth to Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus, who would become Roman Emperor Nero. Her husband died in January, 40. While still married, Agrippina participated openly in her brother Caligula's decadent court, where, according to some sources, at his instigation she prostituted herself in a palace. While it was generally agreed that Agrippinilla, as well as her sisters, had ongoing sexual relationships with their brother Caligula, incest was an oft-used criminal accusation against the aristocracy, because it was impossible to refute successfully. As Agrippina and her sister became more problematic for their brother, Caligula sent them into exile for a time, where it is said she was forced to dive for sponges to make a living. In January, 41, Agrippina had a second marriage to the affluent Gaius Sallustius Crispus Passienus. He died between 44 and 47, leaving his estate to Agrippina.

As a widow, Agrippina was courted by the freedman Pallas as a possible marriage match to her own uncle, Emperor Claudius, and became his favourite councillor, even granted the honor of being called Augusta (a title which no other queen had ever received). They were married on New Year's Day of 49, after the death of Claudius's first wife Messalina. Agrippina then proceeded to persuade Claudius to adopt her son, thereby placing Nero in the line of succession to the Imperial throne over Claudius's own son, Brittanicus. A true Imperial politician, Agrippina did not reject murder as a way to win her battles. Many ancient sources credited her with poisoning Claudius in 54 with a plate of poisened mushrooms, hence enabling Nero to quickly take the throne as emperor.

For some time, Agrippina influenced Nero as he was relatively ill-equipped to rule on his own. But Nero eventually felt that she was taking on too much power relative to her position as a woman of Rome. He deprived her of her honours and exiled her from the palace, but that was not enough. Three times Nero tried to poison Agrippina, but she had been raised in the Imperial family and was accustomed to taking antidotes. Nero had a machine built and attached to the roof of her bedroom. The machine was designed to make the ceiling collapse — the plot failed with the machine. According to the historians Tacitus and Suetonius, Nero then plotted her death by sending for her in a boat constructed to collapse, intending to drown Agrippina. However, only some of the crew were in on the plot; their efforts were hampered by the rest of the crew trying to save the ship. As the ship sank, one of her handmaidens thought to save herself by crying that she was Agrippina, thinking they would take special care of her. Instead the maid was instantly beaten to death with oars and chains. The real Agrippina realised what was happening and in the confusion managed to swim away where a passing fisherman picked her up. Terrified that his cover had been blown, Nero instantly sent men to charge her with treason and summarily execute her. Legend states that when the Emperor's soldiers came to kill her, Agrippina pulled back her clothes and ordered them to stab her in the belly that had housed such a monstrous son.

ecoli

005e. GermanicusGermanicus, brother of Claudius, was a very popular and able general who died in 19 AD under suspicious circumstances involving a possible poisoning that may have been ordered by Tiberius. Caligula, Germanicus's son, also struck posthumous coins.lawrence c

005g01. Britannicus Aeolis, Aegae. AE16. 16.8mm, 2.63 g. Chaleos, magistrate. Obv: BΡITANNIKOC KAICAΡ, bare head right. Rev: AIΓAEΩN EΠI XAΛE-OY, Zeus standing left holding eagle and sceptre. RPC 2431. A FORUM coin.

NOTE: For another possible coin of Britannicus, see 006a10.lawrence c

027 BC-14 AD - AVGVSTVS AE as - struck by Ascinius Gallus moneyer (16 BC)obv: CAESAR AVGVSTVS TRIBVNIC POTEST (bare head right)
rev: C ASINIVS C F GALLVS III VIR AAAFF around large SC
ref: RIC I 373, Cohen 369 (2frcs)
mint: Rome
9.60gms, 25mm

Ascinius Gallus, the former moneyer was an important senator, who married Vipsania, the daughter of Agrippa. On the death of Augustus, briefly, he was offered as a possible alternate to the throne, instead of Tiberius. After the death of Vipsania, he was also an ally of Agrippina Senior, and the "leak green party," a possible plot against the throne identified by Sejanus. He was executed for treason by Tiberius during the Praetorian Prefect's nominal rule of the capital.berserker

03. Alexander the Great.Tetradrachm, ca 325 - 323 BC, "Babylon" mint.
Obverse: Head of Alexander as Herakles, wearing lion's skin headdress.
Reverse: ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΥ / Zeus sitting, holding his attendant eagle and sceptre. M and a bee at left, monogram under throne.
17.12 gm., 26 mm.
P. #3619; M. #696.

Martin J. Price assigns this coin to the mint at "Babylon," but he says (p. 456 -57) it is possible that coins of "group two" may have been minted at Susa or Ecbatana.3 commentsCallimachus

036 Sverre SigurdssonBracteate quarter-penny of Sverre, king of Norway 1184-1202
Mint: Oslo?
Schive VII:21
NM 9
Skaare 129

Sverre, called Sigurdsson, might have been the son of Sigurd Munn, one of the many kings of Norway during the chaotic 12th century. Sverre became leader of the Birkebeiners, a rebel group in Norway that ultimately gained power in the 1170s. However, king Sverre had the opposition of the church, and a group of disaffected nobles called the Baglers, who supported the prior regime and doubted Sverre's paternity. The conflict would continue after Sverre's death.

Sverre is an interesting character from a numismatic perspective, because of the large amount of coins of his that survived. In 1840, a large group of coins was found in Dæli, Norway. A few pennies in Sverre's name were found, but the majority of coins were bracteates. These extremely thin small coins were the main currency of the Birkenbeiner party during these troubled years. Because of the presence of the pennies with Sverre's name, it is possible to attribute these otherwise minimally marked coins.

The bracteates are found with letters, and many letters are represented. These are thought to represent mints, but it is not certain whether that is truly the case. This coin, with the 'A', may be for Asloia (Oslo)

Ex- M.Ringsrud, FinnCoin2 commentsSt. George's Collection

064 - Septimius Severus AS - RIC unlistedObv:- L SEPT SEV PERT AVG IMP II, Laureate head right
Rev:- SAL AV[G TR P II] COS II S--C, Salus sanding left, holding sceptre and patera over alter
Minted in Rome. Early A.D. 194
Reference(s) - Cohen -. RIC - (see below)

The following information provided courtesy of Mr. Curtis Clay.
A specimen of this coin is apparently misreported in RIC, p. 182, note *. It's a rare coin, only two such included in Curtis' unpublished 1972 die study of early Severan bronze coins.
Curtis knows the same rev. type muled with both dupondius and As obv. dies of 193 (IMP CAE L SEP SEV PERT AVG). It's not impossible that a sestertius with the same type might turn up someday!
Cohen 640 exactly describes this type, though omitting the IMP II in obverse legend, and calling the coin a sestertius.maridvnvm

067a. Proculus (?)Possible Usurper ca. 280 - 281

A possible usurper in Gaul. Although a figure by that name is mentioned in passing by a couple ancient historians, the principal source is the Historia Augusta, which is notoriously unreliable. There are two coins attributed to him, with a possible third recently noted. The British Museum has not accepted any of these coins as being authentic, so the question remains unresolved. For a thorough discussion of Proculus, see the Forum discussion board. This also contains links to two excellent articles by Mark Fox on the coins.lawrence c

068a. Bonosus (?)Possible Usurper ca. 280 -281

As with Proculus, the primary source for this possible usurper is the Historia Augusta. Some coins attributed to him, but the current consensus (although not universally shared) is that these were barbarous radiates.lawrence c

0962 Hadrian Denarius Roma 128-29 AD Liberalitas Reference.
RIC II, 364; RIC 962; Strack 201

Bust A1

Obv. HADRIANVS AVGVSTVS P P
Laureate head

Rev. LIBERALITAS AVG in ex COS III
Liberalitas, standing left, emptying cornucopia held in both hands.

3.16 gr
18 mm
6h

Note from Curtis Clay.
This denarius is rare with Liberalitas standing left rather than right as usual.

Cohen 916 cites this variant from a private collection, Elberling, that was published in 1864. That identical Elberling coin, as one can tell from the accurate line drawing, then came to the BM, BMC 524, pl. 57.8, as part of the Blacas collection in 1867. Your specimen is from the same pair of dies as this BM specimen ex Blacas and Elberling. Strack 201 knew only two specimens of this coin, the BM one and another in Vienna. This variant was missing from the Reka Devnia hoard, compared to seven specimens with Liberalitas standing right. I have a specimen with Liberalitas left myself, from different dies than yours and the BM's.

The old RIC of 1926, pp. 316-7, champions a quite impossible date for Hadrian's HADRIANVS AVGVSTVS P P issue: Mattingly didn't think it fit in 128-9 AD, so proposed that it was a posthumous issue of 138-9, struck by Antoninus Pius as propaganda while he was quarreling with the Senate over Hadrian's deification! Strack objected strongly and correctly in his Hadrian monograph of 1933, and in BMC III of 1936 Mattingly had no choice but to relent and abandon his "posthumous" attribution. This issue is beyond question simply Hadrian's earliest issue with the title Pater Patriae, struck between Hadrian's acceptance of that title in 128 and c. 129 AD.
okidoki

106a. CrispinaCrispina married the sixteen year-old, Commodus in the summer of 178 and brought him, as a dowry, a large number of estates. These, when added to the Imperial holdings, gave him control of a substantial part of Lucanian territory. The actual ceremony was modest but was commemorated on coinage and largesse was distributed to the people. An epithalamium for the occasion was composed by the sophist Julius Pollux.

Upon her marriage, Crispina received the title of Augusta, and thus, became Empress of the Roman Empire as her husband was co-emperor with her father-in-law at the time. The previous empress and her mother-in-law, Faustina the Younger, having died three years prior to her arrival.

Like most marriages of young members of the nobiles, it was arranged by paters: in Crispina's case by her father and her father-in-law, Emperor Marcus Aurelius. Crispina probably meant little to her egocentric husband though she was a beautiful woman. The other possible reason being that Commodus was known to prefer the company of men. Crispina is described as being a graceful person with a susceptible heart, but there is no medal extant of her.

As Augusta, Crispina was extensively honoured with public images, during the last two years of her father-in-law's reign and the initial years of her husband's reign. She did not seem to have any significant political influence over her husband during his bizarre reign. However, she was not exempted from court politics either as her sister-in-law, Lucilla, was an ambitious woman and was reportedly jealous of Crispina, the reigning empress, due to her position and power.

Crispina's marriage failed to produce an heir due to her husband's inability, which led to a dynastic succession crisis. In fact, both Anistius Burrus (with whom Commodus had share his first consulate as sole ruler) and Gaius Arrius Antoninus, who were probably related to the imperial family, were allegedly put to death 'on the suspicion of pretending to the throne'.

After ten years of marriage, Crispina was falsely charged with adultery by her husband and was banished to the island of Capri in 188, where she was later executed. After her banishment, Commodus did not marry again but took on a mistress, a woman named Marcia, who was later said to have conspired in his murder.

Crispina, wife of Commodus, 177-192, AE Dupondius or As (24x25mm), aVF. Sear RCV 6018. Obv. CRISPINA AVGVSTA, draped bust right. Rev. IVNO LVCINA S C, Juno standing left holding patera and scepter. The coin is brown and green, on a squarish flan.ecoli

12. Constantius I.Follis, ca 298-300 AD, London mint (group II).
Obverse: FL VAL CONSTANTINVS NOB C / Laureate and curiassed bust of Constantius I.
Reverse: GENIO POPVLI ROMANI / Genius standing, holding patera and cornucopiae.
Mint mark: (none)
9.71gm., 27 mm.
RIC # 14a; Sear #14034 (this coin !).

Although RIC lists these last four coins (Diocletian, Maximian, Galerius, and Constantius I) with other coins minted in London, a careful reading of the introduction to the mint of London (vol. VI, p. 113-122) shows the editors of RIC had serious reservations about this attribution.

The unmarked folles -- ie without a mint mark in the exergue -- can be divided into three groups. After many years of careful study, group I has been attributed to Lugdunum (Lyon, France), and groups II and III to Britain.

Of group II, RIC says (p. 115), " It is possible that the unmarked II coins were produced in Britain either from a travelling mint, or even from the "C" (Camulodunum?) mint of Carausius and Allectus, with which there are perhaps some stylistic affinities: the period of issue would fall from c. 298 onwards, perhaps until c. 300 or later."

Of group III, RIC says (p. 115), " The unmarked III coins are in everyway more sophisticated in style, and it may well be that they were produced at London, though lack of signature would be difficult to account for: probably it is best to class them as a British series which, for reasons unknown to us, was struck elsewhere. Their date is between 300 and 305." Callimachus

125 Theodora. AE follisobv: FL MAX THEO_DORIA AVG laur. and mantled bust r.
rev: Pietas std. facing, head r. holding infant to her breast
ex: possible CONST
"2nd wife of Constantius I"1 commentshill132

1302a, Maximian, 285 - 305, 306 - 308, and 310 A.D.Maximianus AE Antoninianus. RIC V Part II 506 Bust Type C. Cohen 355; VF; Minted in Rome A.D. 285-286. Obverse: IMP MAXIMIANVS P F AVG, radiate, draped & cuirassed bust right; Rverse: IOVI CONSERVAT AVGG, Jupiter standing left holding thunderbolt & scepter, XXIZ in exergue. Ex maridvnvm.

De Imperatoribus Romanis: An Online Encyclopedia of Roman Rulers and their Families

Maximian, 285-305, 306-308, and 310 A.D.

Michael DiMaio, Jr.
Salve Regina University

Perhaps born ca. 249/250 A.D. in Sirmium in the area of the Balkans, Marcus Aurelius Valerius Maximianus, more commonly known as Maximianus Herculius (Maximian), had been a soldier before he put on the purple. A fellow soldier with the Emperor Diocletian, he had served in the military during the reigns of Aurelian and Probus.

When the Emperor Diocletian determined that the empire was too large for one man to govern on his own, he made Maximian his Caesar in 285/6 and elevated him to the rank of Augustus in perhaps the spring of 286. While Diocletian ruled in the East, Maximian ruled in the West. In 293, in order to maintain and to strengthen the stability of the empire, Diocletian appointed Constantius I Chlorus to serve Maximian as a Caesar in the West, while Galerius did the same job in the East. This arrangement, called the "Tetrarchy", was meant not only to provide a stronger foundation for the two emperors' rule, but also to end any possible fighting over the succession to the throne once the two senior Augusti had left the throne--a problem which had bedeviled the principate since the time of the Emperor Augustus. To cement the relationship between Maximian and his Caesar, Constantius married Maximian's elder daughter Theodora. A decade later, Constantius' son Constantine would marry Maximia's younger daughter Fausta.

On 1 May 305 Diocletian, at Nicomedeia, and Maximian, at Mediolanum, divested themselves of the purple. Their resignations seem largely due to the almost fatal illness that Diocletian contracted toward the end of 304. Diocletian seems to have forced his colleague to abdicate. In any case, Herculius had sworn an oath at the temple of Capitoline Jupiter to carry out the terms of the abdication. Constantius and Galerius were appointed as Augusti, with Maximinus Daia and Severus as the new Caesars. The retired emperors then returned to private life. Diocletian's retirement was at Salonae in Dalmatia, while Herculius' retreat was either in Lucania or Campania.

Maximian's retirement, however, was of short duration because, a little more than a year later on 28 October 306, his son Maxentius was proclaimed emperor at Rome. To give his regime an aura of legitimacy, Maximian was forced to affirm his son's acclamation. When Galerius learned of Maxentius' rebellion, he sent Severus against him with an army that had formerly been under his father's command. Maxentius invested his father with the purple again to win over his enemy's troops, a ruse which succeeded. Perhaps to strengthen his own position, in 307 Maximian went to Gaul and married his daughter Fausta to Constantine. When Constantine refused to become embroiled in the civil war between Galerius and Maxentius, Maximian returned to Rome in 308 and attempted to depose his son; however, he did not succeed. When Maximian was unable to convince Diocletian to take up the purple again at a meeting in Carnuntum in late 308, he returned to his son-in-law's side in Gaul.

Although Maximian was treated with all of the respect due a former emperor, he still desired to be more than a figurehead. He decided to seize the purple from Constantine when his son-in-law least expected it. His opportunity came in the summer of 310 when the Franks revolted. When Constantine had taken a small part of his army into enemy territory, Maximian proclaimed himself again emperor and paid the soldiers under his command a donative to secure their loyalty. As soon as Constantine received news about Maximian's revolt in July 310, he went south and reached Arelate before his father-in-law could mount a defense of the city. Although Maximian fled to Massilia, his son-in-law seized the city and took Maximian prisoner. Although he was deprived of the purple, he was granted pardon for his crimes. Unable to endure the humiliation of his defeat, he attempted to have Constantine murdered in his bed. The plot failed because he tried to get his daughter Fausta's help in the matter; she chose to reveal the matter to her husband. Because of this attempt on his son-in-law's life Maximian was dead by the end of July either by his own hand or on the orders of his intended victim.

Eutropia was of Syrian extraction and her marriage to Maximian seems to have been her second. She bore him two children: Maxentius and Fausta. An older daughter, Theodora, may have been a product of her first marriage. Fausta became the wife of Constantine I , while her sister Theodora was the second spouse of his father Constantius I Chlorus . Eutropia apparently survived all her children, with the possible exception of her daughter Fausta who seems to have died in 326. Eutropia is also said to have become a Christian.

By Michael DiMaio, Jr., Salve Regina University
Published: De Imperatoribus Romanis: An Online Encyclopedia of Roman Rulers and their Families http://www.roman-emperors.org/startup.htm. Used by permission.

Edited by J. P. Fitzgerald, Jr. Cleisthenes

1302b, Maximian, 285-305, 306-308, and 310 A.D., commemorative issued by Constantine the Great (Siscia)Maximian, 285-305, 306-308, and 310 A.D., commemorative issued by Constantine the Great. Bronze AE3, RIC 41, VF, Siscia, 1.30g, 16.1mm, 0o, 317-318 A.D. Obverse: DIVO MAXIMIANO SEN FORT IMP, laureate and veiled head right; Reverse: REQVIES OPTIMO-RVM MERITORVM, Emperor seated left on curule chair, raising hand and holding scepter, SIS in exergue; scarce (R3).

De Imperatoribus Romanis: An Online Encyclopedia of Roman Rulers and their Families

Maximian, 285-305, 306-308, and 310 A.D.

Michael DiMaio, Jr.
Salve Regina University

Perhaps born ca. 249/250 A.D. in Sirmium in the area of the Balkans, Marcus Aurelius Valerius Maximianus, more commonly known as Maximianus Herculius (Maximian), had been a soldier before he put on the purple. A fellow soldier with the Emperor Diocletian, he had served in the military during the reigns of Aurelian and Probus.

When the Emperor Diocletian determined that the empire was too large for one man to govern on his own, he made Maximian his Caesar in 285/6 and elevated him to the rank of Augustus in perhaps the spring of 286. While Diocletian ruled in the East, Maximian ruled in the West. In 293, in order to maintain and to strengthen the stability of the empire, Diocletian appointed Constantius I Chlorus to serve Maximian as a Caesar in the West, while Galerius did the same job in the East. This arrangement, called the "Tetrarchy", was meant not only to provide a stronger foundation for the two emperors' rule, but also to end any possible fighting over the succession to the throne once the two senior Augusti had left the throne--a problem which had bedeviled the principate since the time of the Emperor Augustus. To cement the relationship between Maximian and his Caesar, Constantius married Maximian's elder daughter Theodora. A decade later, Constantius' son Constantine would marry Maximia's younger daughter Fausta.

On 1 May 305 Diocletian, at Nicomedeia, and Maximian, at Mediolanum, divested themselves of the purple. Their resignations seem largely due to the almost fatal illness that Diocletian contracted toward the end of 304. Diocletian seems to have forced his colleague to abdicate. In any case, Herculius had sworn an oath at the temple of Capitoline Jupiter to carry out the terms of the abdication. Constantius and Galerius were appointed as Augusti, with Maximinus Daia and Severus as the new Caesars. The retired emperors then returned to private life. Diocletian's retirement was at Salonae in Dalmatia, while Herculius' retreat was either in Lucania or Campania.

Maximian's retirement, however, was of short duration because, a little more than a year later on 28 October 306, his son Maxentius was proclaimed emperor at Rome. To give his regime an aura of legitimacy, Maximian was forced to affirm his son's acclamation. When Galerius learned of Maxentius' rebellion, he sent Severus against him with an army that had formerly been under his father's command. Maxentius invested his father with the purple again to win over his enemy's troops, a ruse which succeeded. Perhaps to strengthen his own position, in 307 Maximian went to Gaul and married his daughter Fausta to Constantine. When Constantine refused to become embroiled in the civil war between Galerius and Maxentius, Maximian returned to Rome in 308 and attempted to depose his son; however, he did not succeed. When Maximian was unable to convince Diocletian to take up the purple again at a meeting in Carnuntum in late 308, he returned to his son-in-law's side in Gaul.

Although Maximian was treated with all of the respect due a former emperor, he still desired to be more than a figurehead. He decided to seize the purple from Constantine when his son-in-law least expected it. His opportunity came in the summer of 310 when the Franks revolted. When Constantine had taken a small part of his army into enemy territory, Maximian proclaimed himself again emperor and paid the soldiers under his command a donative to secure their loyalty. As soon as Constantine received news about Maximian's revolt in July 310, he went south and reached Arelate before his father-in-law could mount a defense of the city. Although Maximian fled to Massilia, his son-in-law seized the city and took Maximian prisoner. Although he was deprived of the purple, he was granted pardon for his crimes. Unable to endure the humiliation of his defeat, he attempted to have Constantine murdered in his bed. The plot failed because he tried to get his daughter Fausta's help in the matter; she chose to reveal the matter to her husband. Because of this attempt on his son-in-law's life Maximian was dead by the end of July either by his own hand or on the orders of his intended victim.

Eutropia was of Syrian extraction and her marriage to Maximian seems to have been her second. She bore him two children: Maxentius and Fausta. An older daughter, Theodora, may have been a product of her first marriage. Fausta became the wife of Constantine I , while her sister Theodora was the second spouse of his father Constantius I Chlorus . Eutropia apparently survived all her children, with the possible exception of her daughter Fausta who seems to have died in 326. Eutropia is also said to have become a Christian.

By Michael DiMaio, Jr., Salve Regina University
Published: De Imperatoribus Romanis: An Online Encyclopedia of Roman Rulers and their Families http://www.roman-emperors.org/startup.htm. Used by permission.

Edited by J. P. Fitzgerald, Jr.Cleisthenes

1329 - 1371, David II, AR Groat struck 1367 - 1371 at Edinburgh, ScotlandObverse: + DAVID ‡ DEI ‡ GRA ‡ REX ‡ SCOTORVM. Crowned bust of David II facing left, sceptre topped with a lis and with a star at its base before, within double tressure of six arches broken at the king's neck, small trefoils in spandrels, surrounded by beaded inner circle. Mintmark, cross pattée in legend and two small crosses in spaces between words. The whole within beaded outer circle.
Reverse: + DnS PTECTOR MS LIBATOR MS (God is my protector and redeemer) / VILLA EDINBURGh. Long cross pattée dividing two concentric legends separated by two beaded circles into quarters, pierced mullet in each quarter of inner circle. Mintmark, cross pattée in outer legend. The whole within beaded outer circle.
Diameter: 28mm | Weight: 3.55gms | Die Axis: 6h | Class D, third (light) coinage
SPINK: 5125

David Bruce, Robert the Bruce's only surviving son, was King of Scotland for nearly 42 years, from 1329 until his death in 1371. David was born in 1324 when Bruce was aged 50 and at the age of four he was married to Joan, the seven year old sister of Edward III of England at a time when Robert the Bruce was trying to forge better relations with England. However David was only five years old when, in 1329, his father died, he was crowned as King David II at Scone on 24 November 1331, holding a small sceptre that had been specially made for him.
Edward Balliol, son of John Balliol, supported by a number of nobles who had been disinherited by Robert the Bruce, soon started a rebellion. In August 1332 at the Battle of Dupplin Moor, near Perth, Balliol defeated David's Regent, the Earl of Mar, and in September Balliol was crowned at Scone. He was soon deposed by the supporters of David II but, in 1333, after the Scottish army led by Archibald, Lord of Douglas, attacked Balliol and lost at the Battle of Halidon Hill, Balliol was restored to power. But this Scottish game of thrones continued for several more years, Balliol was deposed again in 1334 only to be restored in 1335. The young King David was driven into exile in France, but returned from there in 1341, and finally deposed Edward Balliol for the last time.
In 1346, responding to an appeal for help from France, David II invaded England. But, at the Battle of Neville's Cross, he was captured and remained a prisoner at the English court until 1357 when he was returned to Scotland on the promise of payment of a large ransom.
David II ruled with authority and trade increased during his rule. He continued to pursue the goal of a final peace with England and, at the time of his death, the Scottish monarchy was stronger, and the kingdom and the royal finances more prosperous than might have seemed possible.
David II died unexpectedly, in Edinburgh Castle, on 22 February 1371. He was buried in Holyrood Abbey, pictured above. David II left no children and he was succeeded by his nephew, Robert II, the son of David's half-sister, Marjorie Bruce.
1 comments*Alex

1404a, Crispus, Caesar 317 - 326 A.D. Bronze AE 3, RIC 17, aEF, Cyzicus mint, 3.196g, 19.9mm, 315o, 321 - 324 A.D.; Obverse: D N FL IVL CRISPVS NOB CAES, laureate, draped and cuirassed bust right; Reverse: IOVI CONSERVATORI, Jupiter standing left holding Victory on globe in right and scepter in left, eagle with wreath in beak to left, X / IIG and captive right, SMKD in exergue; scarce (RIC R3). Ex FORVM.

De Imperatoribus Romanis;
An Online Encyclopedia of Roman Emperors and their Families

Crispus Caesar (317-326 A.D.)

Hans Pohlsander
SUNY Albany

Crispus was the oldest son of the emperor Constantine I and played a fairly important role in the political and military events of the early fourth century. The regular form of his full name is Flavius Iulius Crispus, although the forms Flavius Claudius Crispus and Flavius Valerius Crispus also occur. His mother was a woman named Minervina, with whom Constantine had a relationship, probably illegitimate, before he married Fausta in 307. When Minervina died or when Constantine put her aside we do not know. Nor do we know when she gave birth to Crispus; we may assume, of course, that it was before 307. Some modern authorities, on good grounds, think that it was in 305. Crispus' place of birth must have been somewhere in the East, and it is not known when he was brought to Gaul and when, where, or under what circumstances he was separated from his mother.

Constantine entrusted the education of his son to the distinguished Christian scholar Lactantius, thereby giving a clear sign of his commitment to Christianity. We are not told when Lactantius assumed his duties, but a date before 317 seems likely. Nor do we know how successful he was in instilling Christian beliefs and values in his imperial pupil. No later than January of 322 Crispus must have married a woman named Helena -- not to be confused with Constantine's mother or daughter by the same name- and this woman bore him a child in October of 322. Constantine, we learn, was pleased.

Crispus' official career began at an early age and is well documented. On March 1 of 317, at Serdica (modern Sofia), his father appointed him Caesar. The consulship was his three times, in 318, 321, and 324. While nominally in charge of Gaul, with a prefect at his side, he successfully undertook military operations against the Franks and Alamanni in 320 and 323.

In 324, during the second war between Constantine and Licinius, he excelled as commander of Constantine's fleet in the waters of the Hellespont, the Propontis, and the Bosporus, thus making a significant contribution to the outcome of that war. The high points of his career are amply reflected in the imperial coinage. In addition to coins, we have his portrait, with varying degrees of certainty, in a number of sculptures, mosaics, cameos, etc. Contemporary authors heap praises upon him. Thus the panegyrist Nazarius speaks of Crispus' "magnificent deeds," and Eusebius calls him "an emperor most dear to God and in all regards comparable to his father."

Crispus' end was as tragic as his career had been brilliant. His own father ordered him to be put to death. We know the year of this sad event, 326, from the Consularia Constantinopolitana, and the place, Pola in Istria, from Ammianus Marcellinus. The circumstances, however, are less clear. Zosimus (6th c.) and Zonaras (12th c.) both report that Crispus and his stepmother Fausta were involved in an illicit relationship. There may be as much gossip as fact in their reports, but it is certain that at some time during the same year the emperor ordered the death of his own wife as well, and the two cases must be considered together. That Crispus and Fausta plotted treason is reported by Gregory of Tours, but not very believable. We must resolutely reject the claim of Zosimus that it was Constantine's sense of guilt over these deeds which caused him to accept Christianity, as it alone promised him forgiveness for his sins. A similar claim had already been made by Julian the Apostate. We must also, I think, reject the suggestion of Guthrie that the emperor acted in the interest of "dynastic legitimacy," that is, that he removed his illegitimate first-born son in order to secure the succession for his three legitimate younger sons. But Crispus must have committed, or at least must have been suspected of having committed, some especially shocking offense to earn him a sentence of death from his own father. He also suffered damnatio memoriae, his honor was never restored, and history has not recorded the fate of his wife and his child (or children).

Copyright (C) 1997, Hans A. Pohlsander. Published on De Imperatoribus Romanis;An Online Encyclopedia of Roman Emperors and their Families:
http://www.roman-emperors.org/crispus.htm

What If?

St. Nectarios, in his book, The Ecumenical Synods, writes "Hellenism spread by Alexander paved the way for Christianity by Emperor Constantine the Great."

Constantine's upward gaze on his "Eyes to Heaven" coins recall the coin portraits of Alexander the Great (namely coins struck by the Diodochi), which served as prototypes for the divine ruler portraiture of much of the Hellenistic age. The diadem, of which this is the most elaborate type, was adopted by Constantine and the members of his house as a new symbol of sovereignty.

In the Greek Orthodox Church, Constantine the Great is revered as a Saint.

Is it just possible? Constantine, knowing what happened (or thinking that he does) to Phillip II of Macedon—assassinated on the eve of his greatness, in a plot that most likely involved his wife—and possibly his son. . . isn’t it just possible that Constantine is growing obsessively jealous of his ever more successful and adulated son? Imagine the Constantine who has proven time and again (think: Licinius) that he is a completely self-serving liar and a murderer, decides to murder again? Why "must we resolutely reject the claim of Zosimus that it was Constantine's sense of guilt over these deeds which caused him to accept Christianity, as it alone promised him forgiveness for his sins [?] (see: above). A similar claim had already been made by Julian the [Philosopher]."

Perhaps it is time to cease being apologists for the sometime megalomaniacal Constantine. As Michael Grant notes, "It is a mocking travesty of justice to call such a murderer Constantine the Great . . ." (Grant, Michael. The Emperor Constantine. London: Phoenix Press, 1998. 226).

Edited by J. P. Fitzgerald, Jr.

Cleisthenes

1404b, Crispus, Caesar 317 - 326 A.D. (Thessalonica)Bronze AE 3, RIC 118, VF, Thessalonica mint, 2.740g, 18.0mm, 180o, 320 - 321 A.D. Obverse: FL IVL CRISPVS NOB CAES, laureate, draped and cuirassed bust left; Reverse: CAESARVM NOSTRORVM, VOT V in wreath, TSDVI in exergue.

Flavius Julius Crispus was the son of Constantine I by his first wife. A brilliant soldier, Crispus was well loved by all until 326 A.D., when Constantine had him executed. It is said that Fausta, Crispus stepmother, anxious to secure the succession for her own sons falsely accused Crispus of raping her. Constantine, learning of Fausta`s treachery, had her executed too.

De Imperatoribus Romanis;
An Online Encyclopedia of Roman Emperors and their Families

Crispus Caesar (317-326 A.D.)

Hans Pohlsander
SUNY Albany

Crispus was the oldest son of the emperor Constantine I and played a fairly important role in the political and military events of the early fourth century. The regular form of his full name is Flavius Iulius Crispus, although the forms Flavius Claudius Crispus and Flavius Valerius Crispus also occur. His mother was a woman named Minervina, with whom Constantine had a relationship, probably illegitimate, before he married Fausta in 307. When Minervina died or when Constantine put her aside we do not know. Nor do we know when she gave birth to Crispus; we may assume, of course, that it was before 307. Some modern authorities, on good grounds, think that it was in 305. Crispus' place of birth must have been somewhere in the East, and it is not known when he was brought to Gaul and when, where, or under what circumstances he was separated from his mother.

Constantine entrusted the education of his son to the distinguished Christian scholar Lactantius, thereby giving a clear sign of his commitment to Christianity. We are not told when Lactantius assumed his duties, but a date before 317 seems likely. Nor do we know how successful he was in instilling Christian beliefs and values in his imperial pupil. No later than January of 322 Crispus must have married a woman named Helena -- not to be confused with Constantine's mother or daughter by the same name- and this woman bore him a child in October of 322. Constantine, we learn, was pleased.

Crispus' official career began at an early age and is well documented. On March 1 of 317, at Serdica (modern Sofia), his father appointed him Caesar. The consulship was his three times, in 318, 321, and 324. While nominally in charge of Gaul, with a prefect at his side, he successfully undertook military operations against the Franks and Alamanni in 320 and 323.

In 324, during the second war between Constantine and Licinius, he excelled as commander of Constantine's fleet in the waters of the Hellespont, the Propontis, and the Bosporus, thus making a significant contribution to the outcome of that war. The high points of his career are amply reflected in the imperial coinage. In addition to coins, we have his portrait, with varying degrees of certainty, in a number of sculptures, mosaics, cameos, etc. Contemporary authors heap praises upon him. Thus the panegyrist Nazarius speaks of Crispus' "magnificent deeds," and Eusebius calls him "an emperor most dear to God and in all regards comparable to his father."

Crispus' end was as tragic as his career had been brilliant. His own father ordered him to be put to death. We know the year of this sad event, 326, from the Consularia Constantinopolitana, and the place, Pola in Istria, from Ammianus Marcellinus. The circumstances, however, are less clear. Zosimus (6th c.) and Zonaras (12th c.) both report that Crispus and his stepmother Fausta were involved in an illicit relationship. There may be as much gossip as fact in their reports, but it is certain that at some time during the same year the emperor ordered the death of his own wife as well, and the two cases must be considered together. That Crispus and Fausta plotted treason is reported by Gregory of Tours, but not very believable. We must resolutely reject the claim of Zosimus that it was Constantine's sense of guilt over these deeds which caused him to accept Christianity, as it alone promised him forgiveness for his sins. A similar claim had already been made by Julian the Apostate. We must also, I think, reject the suggestion of Guthrie that the emperor acted in the interest of "dynastic legitimacy," that is, that he removed his illegitimate first-born son in order to secure the succession for his three legitimate younger sons. But Crispus must have committed, or at least must have been suspected of having committed, some especially shocking offense to earn him a sentence of death from his own father. He also suffered damnatio memoriae, his honor was never restored, and history has not recorded the fate of his wife and his child (or children).

Copyright (C) 1997, Hans A. Pohlsander. Published on De Imperatoribus Romanis;An Online Encyclopedia of Roman Emperors and their Families:
http://www.roman-emperors.org/crispus.htm

What If?

St. Nectarios, in his book, The Ecumenical Synods, writes "Hellenism spread by Alexander paved the way for Christianity by Emperor Constantine the Great."

Constantine's upward gaze on his "Eyes to Heaven" coins recall the coin portraits of Alexander the Great (namely coins struck by the Diodochi), which served as prototypes for the divine ruler portraiture of much of the Hellenistic age. The diadem, of which this is the most elaborate type, was adopted by Constantine and the members of his house as a new symbol of sovereignty.

In the Greek Orthodox Church, Constantine the Great is revered as a Saint.

Is it just possible? Constantine, knowing what happened (or thinking that he does) to Phillip II of Macedon—assassinated on the eve of his greatness, in a plot that most likely involved his wife—and possibly his son. . . isn’t it just possible that Constantine is growing obsessively jealous of his ever more successful and adulated son? Imagine the Constantine who has proven time and again (think: Licinius) that he is a completely self-serving liar and a murderer, decides to murder again? Why "must we resolutely reject the claim of Zosimus that it was Constantine's sense of guilt over these deeds which caused him to accept Christianity, as it alone promised him forgiveness for his sins [?] (see: above). A similar claim had already been made by Julian the [Philosopher]."

Perhaps it is time to cease being apologists for the sometime megalomaniacal Constantine. As Michael Grant notes, "It is a mocking travesty of justice to call such a murderer Constantine the Great . . ." (Grant, Michael. The Emperor Constantine. London: Phoenix Press, 1998. 226).

Edited by J. P. Fitzgerald, Jr.Cleisthenes

1409a, Julian II "the Philosopher," February 360 - 26 June 363 A.D.Julian II, A.D. 360-363; RIC 167; VF; 2.7g, 20mm; Constantinople mint; Obverse: DN FL CL IVLIANVS P F AVG, helmeted & cuirassed bust right, holding spear & shield; Reverse: VOT X MVLT XX in four lines within wreath; CONSPB in exergue; Attractive green patina. Ex Nemesis.

De Imperatoribus Romanis,
An Online Encyclopedia of Roman Emperors

Julian the Apostate (360-363 A.D.)

Walter E. Roberts, Emory University
Michael DiMaio, Jr., Salve Regina University

Introduction

The emperor Flavius Claudius Julianus reigned from 360 to 26 June 363, when he was killed fighting against the Persians. Despite his short rule, his emperorship was pivotal in the development of the history of the later Roman empire. This essay is not meant to be a comprehensive look at the various issues central to the reign of Julian and the history of the later empire. Rather, this short work is meant to be a brief history and introduction for the general reader. Julian was the last direct descendent of the Constantinian line to ascend to the purple, and it is one of history's great ironies that he was the last non-Christian emperor. As such, he has been vilified by most Christian sources, beginning with John Chrysostom and Gregory Nazianzus in the later fourth century. This tradition was picked up by the fifth century Eusebian continuators Sozomen, Socrates Scholasticus, and Theodoret and passed on to scholars down through the 20th century. Most contemporary sources, however, paint a much more balanced picture of Julian and his reign. The adoption of Christianity by emperors and society, while still a vital concern, was but one of several issues that concerned Julian.

It is fortunate that extensive writings from Julian himself exist, which help interpret his reign in the light of contemporary evidence. Still extant are some letters, several panegyrics, and a few satires. Other contemporary sources include the soldier Ammianus Marcellinus' history, correspondence between Julian and Libanius of Antioch, several panegyrics, laws from the Theodosian Code, inscriptions, and coinage. These sources show Julian's emphasis on restoration. He saw himself as the restorer of the traditional values of Roman society. Of course much of this was rhetoric, meant to defend Julian against charges that he was a usurper. At the same time this theme of restoration was central to all emperors of the fourth century. Julian thought that he was the one emperor who could regain what was viewed as the lost glory of the Roman empire. To achieve this goal he courted select groups of social elites to get across his message of restoration. This was the way that emperors functioned in the fourth century. By choosing whom to include in the sharing of power, they sought to shape society.

Early Life

Julian was born at Constantinople in 331. His father was Julius Constantius, half-brother of the emperor Constantine through Constantius Chlorus, and his mother was Basilina, Julius' second wife. Julian had two half-brothers via Julius' first marriage. One of these was Gallus, who played a major role in Julian's life. Julian appeared destined for a bright future via his father's connection to the Constantinian house. After many years of tense relations with his three half-brothers, Constantine seemed to have welcomed them into the fold of the imperial family. From 333 to 335, Constantine conferred a series of honors upon his three half-siblings, including appointing Julius Constantius as one of the consuls for 335. Julian's mother was equally distinguished. Ammianus related that she was from a noble family. This is supported by Libanius, who claimed that she was the daughter of Julius Julianus, a Praetorian Prefect under Licinius, who was such a model of administrative virtue that he was pardoned and honored by Constantine.

Despite the fact that his mother died shortly after giving birth to him, Julian experienced an idyllic early childhood. This ended when Constantius II conducted a purge of many of his relatives shortly after Constantine's death in 337, particularly targeting the families of Constantine's half-brothers. ulian and Gallus were spared, probably due to their young age. Julian was put under the care of Mardonius, a Scythian eunuch who had tutored his mother, in 339, and was raised in the Greek philosophical tradition, and probably lived in Nicomedia. Ammianus also supplied the fact that while in Nicomedia, Julian was cared for by the local bishop Eusebius, of whom the future emperor was a distant relation. Julian was educated by some of the most famous names in grammar and rhetoric in the Greek world at that time, including Nicocles and Hecebolius. In 344 Constantius II sent Julian and Gallus to Macellum in Cappadocia, where they remained for six years. In 351, Gallus was made Caesar by Constantius II and Julian was allowed to return to Nicomedia, where he studied under Aedesius, Eusebius, and Chrysanthius, all famed philosophers, and was exposed to the Neo-Platonism that would become such a prominent part of his life. But Julian was most proud of the time he spent studying under Maximus of Ephesus, a noted Neo-Platonic philospher and theurgist. It was Maximus who completed Julian's full-scale conversion to Neo-Platonism. Later, when he was Caesar, Julian told of how he put letters from this philosopher under his pillows so that he would continue to absorb wisdom while he slept, and while campaigning on the Rhine, he sent his speeches to Maximus for approval before letting others hear them. When Gallus was executed in 354 for treason by Constantius II, Julian was summoned to Italy and essentially kept under house arrest at Comum, near Milan, for seven months before Constantius' wife Eusebia convinced the emperor that Julian posed no threat. This allowed Julian to return to Greece and continue his life as a scholar where he studied under the Neo-Platonist Priscus. Julian's life of scholarly pursuit, however, ended abruptly when he was summoned to the imperial court and made Caesar by Constantius II on 6 November 355.

Julian as Caesar

Constantius II realized an essential truth of the empire that had been evident since the time of the Tetrarchy--the empire was too big to be ruled effectively by one man. Julian was pressed into service as Caesar, or subordinate emperor, because an imperial presence was needed in the west, in particular in the Gallic provinces. Julian, due to the emperor's earlier purges, was the only viable candidate of the imperial family left who could act as Caesar. Constantius enjoined Julian with the task of restoring order along the Rhine frontier. A few days after he was made Caesar, Julian was married to Constantius' sister Helena in order to cement the alliance between the two men. On 1 December 355, Julian journeyed north, and in Augusta Taurinorum he learned that Alamannic raiders had destroyed Colonia Agrippina. He then proceeded to Vienne where he spent the winter. At Vienne, he learned that Augustudunum was also under siege, but was being held by a veteran garrison. He made this his first priority, and arrived there on 24 June 356. When he had assured himself that the city was in no immediate danger, he journeyed to Augusta Treverorum via Autessioduram, and from there to Durocortorum where he rendezvoused with his army. Julian had the army stage a series of punitive strikes around the Dieuse region, and then he moved them towards the Argentoratum/Mongontiacum region when word of barbarian incursions reached him.

From there, Julian moved on to Colonia Agrippina, and negotiated a peace with the local barbarian leaders who had assaulted the city. He then wintered at Senonae. He spent the early part of the campaigning season of 357 fighting off besiegers at Senonae, and then conducting operations around Lugdunum and Tres Tabernae. Later that summer, he encountered his watershed moment as a military general. Ammianus went into great detail about Julian's victory over seven rogue Alamannic chieftains near Argentoratum, and Julian himself bragged about it in his later writing. After this battle, the soldiers acclaimed Julian Augustus, but he rejected this title. After mounting a series of follow-up raids into Alamannic territory, he retired to winter quarters at Lutetia, and on the way defeated some Frankish raiders in the Mosa region. Julian considered this campaign one of the major events of his time as Caesar.

Julian began his 358 military campaigns early, hoping to catch the barbarians by surprise. His first target was the Franks in the northern Rhine region. He then proceeded to restore some forts in the Mosa region, but his soldiers threatened to mutiny because they were on short rations and had not been paid their donative since Julian had become Caesar. After he soothed his soldiers, Julian spent the rest of the summer negotiating a peace with various Alamannic leaders in the mid and lower Rhine areas, and retired to winter quarters at Lutetia. In 359, he prepared once again to carry out a series of punitive expeditions against the Alamanni in the Rhine region who were still hostile to the Roman presence. In preparation, the Caesar repopulated seven previously destroyed cities and set them up as supply bases and staging areas. This was done with the help of the people with whom Julian had negotiated a peace the year before. Julian then had a detachment of lightly armed soldiers cross the Rhine near Mogontiacum and conduct a guerilla strike against several chieftains. As a result of these campaigns, Julian was able to negotiate a peace with all but a handful of the Alamannic leaders, and he retired to winter quarters at Lutetia.

Of course, Julian did more than act as a general during his time as Caesar. According to Ammianus, Julian was an able administrator who took steps to correct the injustices of Constantius' appointees. Ammianus related the story of how Julian prevented Florentius, the Praetorian Prefect of Gaul, from raising taxes, and also how Julian actually took over as governor for the province of Belgica Secunda. Hilary, bishop of Poitiers, supported Ammianus' basic assessment of Julian in this regard when he reported that Julian was an able representative of the emperor to the Gallic provincials. There is also epigraphic evidence to support Julian's popularity amongst the provincial elites. An inscription found near Beneventum in Apulia reads:
"To Flavius Claudius Julianus, most noble and sanctified Caesar, from the caring Tocius Maximus, vir clarissimus, for the care of the res publica from Beneventum".

Tocius Maximus, as a vir clarissimus, was at the highest point in the social spectrum and was a leader in his local community. This inscription shows that Julian was successful in establishing a positive image amongst provincial elites while he was Caesar.

Julian Augustus

In early 360, Constantius, driven by jealousy of Julian's success, stripped Julian of many troops and officers, ostensibly because the emperor needed them for his upcoming campaign against the Persians. One of the legions ordered east, the Petulantes, did not want to leave Gaul because the majority of the soldiers in the unit were from this region. As a result they mutinied and hailed Julian as Augustus at Lutetia. Julian refused this acclamation as he had done at Argentoratum earlier, but the soldiers would have none of his denial. They raised him on a shield and adorned him with a neck chain, which had formerly been the possession of the standard-bearer of the Petulantes and symbolized a royal diadem. Julian appeared reluctantly to acquiesce to their wishes, and promised a generous donative. The exact date of his acclamation is unknown, but most scholars put it in February or March. Julian himself supported Ammianus' picture of a jealous Constantius. In his Letter to the Athenians, a document constructed to answer charges that he was a usurper, Julian stated that from the start he, as Caesar, had been meant as a figurehead to the soldiers and provincials. The real power he claimed lay with the generals and officials already present in Gaul. In fact, according to Julian, the generals were charged with watching him as much as the enemy. His account of the actual acclamation closely followed what Ammianus told us, but he stressed even more his reluctance to take power. Julian claimed that he did so only after praying to Zeus for guidance.

Fearing the reaction of Constantius, Julian sent a letter to his fellow emperor justifying the events at Lutetia and trying to arrange a peaceful solution. This letter berated Constantius for forcing the troops in Gaul into an untenable situation. Ammianus stated that Julian's letter blamed Constantius' decision to transfer Gallic legions east as the reason for the soldiers' rebellion. Julian once again asserted that he was an unwilling participant who was only following the desire of the soldiers. In both of these basic accounts Ammianus and Julian are playing upon the theme of restoration. Implicit in their version of Julian's acclamation is the argument that Constantius was unfit to rule. The soldiers were the vehicle of the gods' will. The Letter to the Athenians is full of references to the fact that Julian was assuming the mantle of Augustus at the instigation of the gods. Ammianus summed up this position nicely when he related the story of how, when Julian was agonizing over whether to accept the soldiers' acclamation, he had a dream in which he was visited by the Genius (guardian spirit) of the Roman state. The Genius told Julian that it had often tried to bestow high honors upon Julian but had been rebuffed. Now, the Genius went on to say, was Julian's final chance to take the power that was rightfully his. If the Caesar refused this chance, the Genius would depart forever, and both Julian and the state would rue Julian's rejection. Julian himself wrote a letter to his friend Maximus of Ephesus in November of 361 detailing his thoughts on his proclamation. In this letter, Julian stated that the soldiers proclaimed him Augustus against his will. Julian, however, defended his accession, saying that the gods willed it and that he had treated his enemies with clemency and justice. He went on to say that he led the troops in propitiating the traditional deities, because the gods commanded him to return to the traditional rites, and would reward him if he fulfilled this duty.

During 360 an uneasy peace simmered between the two emperors. Julian spent the 360 campaigning season continuing his efforts to restore order along the Rhine, while Constantius continued operations against the Persians. Julian wintered in Vienne, and celebrated his Quinquennalia. It was at this time that his wife Helena died, and he sent her remains to Rome for a proper burial at his family villa on the Via Nomentana where the body of her sister was entombed. The uneasy peace held through the summer of 361, but Julian concentrated his military operations around harassing the Alamannic chieftain Vadomarius and his allies, who had concluded a peace treaty with Constantius some years earlier. By the end of the summer, Julian decided to put an end to the waiting and gathered his army to march east against Constantius. The empire teetered on the brink of another civil war. Constantius had spent the summer negotiating with the Persians and making preparations for possible military action against his cousin. When he was assured that the Persians would not attack, he summoned his army and sallied forth to meet Julian. As the armies drew inexorably closer to one another, the empire was saved from another bloody civil war when Constantius died unexpectedly of natural causes on 3 November near the town of Mopsucrenae in Cilicia, naming Julian -- the sources say-- as his legitimate successor.

Julian was in Dacia when he learned of his cousin's death. He made his way through Thrace and came to Constantinople on 11 December 361 where Julian honored the emperor with the funeral rites appropriate for a man of his station. Julian immediately set about putting his supporters in positions of power and trimming the imperial bureaucracy, which had become extremely overstaffed during Constantius' reign. Cooks and barbers had increased during the late emperor's reign and Julian expelled them from his court. Ammianus gave a mixed assessment of how the new emperor handled the followers of Constantius. Traditionally, emperors were supposed to show clemency to the supporters of a defeated enemy. Julian, however, gave some men over to death to appease the army. Ammianus used the case of Ursulus, Constantius' comes sacrum largitionum, to illustrate his point. Ursulus had actually tried to acquire money for the Gallic troops when Julian had first been appointed Caesar, but he had also made a disparaging remark about the ineffectiveness of the army after the battle of Amida. The soldiers remembered this, and when Julian became sole Augustus, they demanded Ursulus' head. Julian obliged, much to the disapproval of Ammianus. This seems to be a case of Julian courting the favor of the military leadership, and is indicative of a pattern in which Julian courted the goodwill of various societal elites to legitimize his position as emperor.

Another case in point is the officials who made up the imperial bureaucracy. Many of them were subjected to trial and punishment. To achieve this goal, during the last weeks of December 361 Julian assembled a military tribunal at Chalcedon, empanelling six judges to try the cases. The president of the tribunal was Salutius, just promoted to the rank of Praetorian Prefect; the five other members were Mamertinus, the orator, and four general officers: Jovinus, Agilo, Nevitta, and Arbetio. Relative to the proceedings of the tribunal, Ammianus noted that the judges, " . . . oversaw the cases more vehemently than was right or fair, with the exception of a few . . .." Ammianus' account of Julian's attempt at reform of the imperial bureaucracy is supported by legal evidence from the Theodosian Code. A series of laws sent to Mamertinus, Julian's appointee as Praetorian Prefect in Italy, Illyricum, and Africa, illustrate this point nicely. On 6 June 362, Mamertinus received a law that prohibited provincial governors from bypassing the Vicars when giving their reports to the Prefect. Traditionally, Vicars were given civil authority over a group of provinces, and were in theory meant to serve as a middle step between governors and Prefects. This law suggests that the Vicars were being left out, at least in Illyricum. Julian issued another edict to Mamertinus on 22 February 362 to stop abuse of the public post by governors. According to this law, only Mamertinus could issue post warrants, but the Vicars were given twelve blank warrants to be used as they saw fit, and each governor was given two. Continuing the trend of bureaucratic reform, Julian also imposed penalties on governors who purposefully delayed appeals in court cases they had heard. The emperor also established a new official to weigh solidi used in official government transactions to combat coin clipping.

For Julian, reigning in the abuses of imperial bureaucrats was one step in restoring the prestige of the office of emperor. Because he could not affect all elements of society personally, Julian, like other Neo-Flavian emperors, decided to concentrate on select groups of societal elites as intercessors between himself and the general populace. One of these groups was the imperial bureaucracy. Julian made it very clear that imperial officials were intercessors in a very real sense in a letter to Alypius, Vicar of Britain. In this letter, sent from Gaul sometime before 361, the emperor praises Alypius for his use of "mildness and moderation with courage and force" in his rule of the provincials. Such virtues were characteristic of the emperors, and it was good that Alypius is representing Julian in this way. Julian courted the army because it put him in power. Another group he sought to include in his rule was the traditional Senatorial aristocracy. One of his first appointments as consul was Claudius Mamertinus, a Gallic Senator and rhetorician. Mamertinus' speech in praise of Julian delivered at Constantinople in January of 362 is preserved. In this speech, Claudius presented his consular selection as inaugurating a new golden age and Julian as the restorer of the empire founded by Augustus. The image Mamertinus gave of his own consulate inaugurating a new golden age is not merely formulaic. The comparison of Julian to Augustus has very real, if implicit, relevance to Claudius' situation. Claudius emphasized the imperial period as the true age of renewal. Augustus ushered in a new era with his formation of a partnership between the emperor and the Senate based upon a series of honors and offices bestowed upon the Senate in return for their role as intercessor between emperor and populace. It was this system that Julian was restoring, and the consulate was one concrete example of this bond. To be chosen as a consul by the emperor, who himself had been divinely mandated, was a divine honor. In addition to being named consul, Mamertinus went on to hold several offices under Julian, including the Prefecture of Italy, Illyricum, and Africa. Similarly, inscriptional evidence illustrates a link between municipal elites and Julian during his time as Caesar, something which continued after he became emperor. One concrete example comes from the municipal senate of Aceruntia in Apulia, which established a monument on which Julian is styled as "Repairer of the World."

Julian seems to have given up actual Christian belief before his acclamation as emperor and was a practitioner of more traditional Greco-Roman religious beliefs, in particular, a follower of certain late antique Platonist philosophers who were especially adept at theurgy as was noted earlier. In fact Julian himself spoke of his conversion to Neo-Platonism in a letter to the Alexandrians written in 363. He stated that he had abandoned Christianity when he was twenty years old and been an adherent of the traditional Greco-Roman deities for the twelve years prior to writing this letter.

(For the complete text of this article see: http://www.roman-emperors.org/julian.htm)

Julian’s Persian Campaign

The exact goals Julian had for his ill-fated Persian campaign were never clear. The Sassanid Persians, and before them the Parthians, had been a traditional enemy from the time of the Late Republic, and indeed Constantius had been conducting a war against them before Julian's accession forced the former to forge an uneasy peace. Julian, however, had no concrete reason to reopen hostilities in the east. Socrates Scholasticus attributed Julian's motives to imitation of Alexander the Great, but perhaps the real reason lay in his need to gather the support of the army. Despite his acclamation by the Gallic legions, relations between Julian and the top military officers was uneasy at best. A war against the Persians would have brought prestige and power both to Julian and the army.

Julian set out on his fateful campaign on 5 March 363. Using his trademark strategy of striking quickly and where least expected, he moved his army through Heirapolis and from there speedily across the Euphrates and into the province of Mesopotamia, where he stopped at the town of Batnae. His plan was to eventually return through Armenia and winter in Tarsus. Once in Mesopotamia, Julian was faced with the decision of whether to travel south through the province of Babylonia or cross the Tigris into Assyria, and he eventually decided to move south through Babylonia and turn west into Assyria at a later date. By 27 March, he had the bulk of his army across the Euphrates, and had also arranged a flotilla to guard his supply line along the mighty river. He then left his generals Procopius and Sebastianus to help Arsacius, the king of Armenia and a Roman client, to guard the northern Tigris line. It was also during this time that he received the surrender of many prominent local leaders who had nominally supported the Persians. These men supplied Julian with money and troops for further military action against their former masters. Julian decided to turn south into Babylonia and proceeded along the Euphrates, coming to the fortress of Cercusium at the junction of the Abora and Euphrates Rivers around the first of April, and from there he took his army west to a region called Zaitha near the abandoned town of Dura where they visited the tomb of the emperor Gordian which was in the area. On April 7 he set out from there into the heart of Babylonia and towards Assyria.

Ammianus then stated that Julian and his army crossed into Assyria, which on the face of things appears very confusing. Julian still seems to be operating within the province of Babylonia between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. The confusion is alleviated when one realizes that,for Ammianus, the region of Assyria encompassed the provinces of Babylonia and Assyria. On their march, Julian's forces took the fortress of Anatha, received the surrender and support of several more local princes, and ravaged the countryside of Assyria between the rivers. As the army continued south, they came across the fortresses Thilutha and Achaiachala, but these places were too well defended and Julian decided to leave them alone. Further south were the cities Diacira and Ozogardana, which the Roman forces sacked and burned. Soon, Julian came to Pirisabora and a brief siege ensued, but the city fell and was also looted and destroyed. It was also at this time that the Roman army met its first systematic resistance from the Persians. As the Romans penetrated further south and west, the local inhabitants began to flood their route. Nevertheless, the Roman forces pressed on and came to Maiozamalcha, a sizable city not far from Ctesiphon. After a short siege, this city too fell to Julian. Inexorably, Julian's forces zeroed in on Ctesiphon, but as they drew closer, the Persian resistance grew fiercer, with guerilla raids whittling at Julian's men and supplies. A sizable force of the army was lost and the emperor himself was almost killed taking a fort a few miles from the target city.
Finally, the army approached Ctesiphon following a canal that linked the Tigris and Euphrates. It soon became apparent after a few preliminary skirmishes that a protracted siege would be necessary to take this important city. Many of his generals, however, thought that pursuing this course of action would be foolish. Julian reluctantly agreed, but became enraged by this failure and ordered his fleet to be burned as he decided to march through the province of Assyria. Julian had planned for his army to live off the land, but the Persians employed a scorched-earth policy. When it became apparent that his army would perish (because his supplies were beginning to dwindle) from starvation and the heat if he continued his campaign, and also in the face of superior numbers of the enemy, Julian ordered a retreat on 16 June. As the Roman army retreated, they were constantly harassed by guerilla strikes. It was during one of these raids that Julian got caught up in the fighting and took a spear to his abdomen. Mortally wounded he was carried to his tent, where, after conferring with some of his officers, he died. The date was 26 June 363.

Conclusion

Thus an ignominious end for a man came about who had hoped to restore the glory of the Roman empire during his reign as emperor. Due to his intense hatred of Christianity, the opinion of posterity has not been kind to Julian. The contemporary opinion, however, was overall positive. The evidence shows that Julian was a complex ruler with a definite agenda to use traditional social institutions in order to revive what he saw as a collapsing empire. In the final assessment, he was not so different from any of the other emperors of the fourth century. He was a man grasping desperately to hang on to a Greco-Roman conception of leadership that was undergoing a subtle yet profound change.
Copyright (C) 2002, Walter E. Roberts and Michael DiMaio, Jr. Used by permission.

In reality, Julian worked to promote culture and philosophy in any manifestation. He tried to reduce taxes and the public debts of municipalities; he augmented administrative decentralisation; he promoted a campaign of austerity to reduce public expenditure (setting himself as the example). He reformed the postal service and eliminated the powerful secret police.
by Federico Morando; JULIAN II, The Apostate, See the Julian II Page on NumisWiki

Flavius Claudius Iulianus was born in 331 or maybe 332 A.D. in Constantinople. He ruled the Western Empire as Caesar from 355 to 360 and was hailed Augustus by his legions in Lutetia (Paris) in 360. Julian was a gifted administrator and military strategist. Famed as the last pagan emperor, his reinstatement of the pagan religion earned him the moniker "the Apostate." As evidenced by his brilliant writing, some of which has survived to the present day, the title "the Philosopher" may have been more appropriate. He died from wounds suffered during the Persian campaign of 363 A.D. Joseph Sermarini, FORVM.

Edited by J. P. Fitzgerald, Jr.

2 commentsCleisthenes

1795 AE Halfpenny, Glamorgan, South Wales.Obverse: JESTYN • AP • GWRGAN • TYWYSOG • MORGANWG • 1091•. Crowned and robed bust of Jestyn ap Gwrgan facing left, wearing a small shield bearing the St George's cross suspended on a chain round his neck.
Reverse: Y • BRENHIN • AR • GYFRAITH •. Britannia facing left, seated on a globe, her right hand pointing to a ship, her left supporting a shield and a spear; behind her a cippus with a crown on top and a laurel branch leaning against it; in exergue, 1795.
Edge: "GLAMORGAN HALFPENNY" in raised letters, followed by three leaves.
Diameter: 29mm
Dalton & Hamer: 3b (Glamorganshire)

This token is thought to have been engraved and manufactured by John Stubbs Jordan, a Birmingham ironfounder for his father, William Jordan, who had returned to South Wales, possibly to Merthyr Tydfil. The Jordans were of Welsh descent and had come to Staffordshire earlier in the century. The father, William Jordan, a victualler from Weaman Street, Birmingham, retired and moved back to South Wales in the early 1780s and in 1794 his son, John Stubbs Jordan, who had remained back in Birmingham, made this Welsh token for his father as a private piece.
This is the only eighteenth century token with Welsh legends.

Jestyn ap Gwrgan, or Gwrgant, was the last Prince and Lord of Glamorgan of British blood. He was of the royal house of Morganwg, which had a lineage stretching back over five centuries to Tewdrig (c.550-584 C.E.). The members of this royal house had links to the other royal houses of Wales through marriage, and were descendants of the celebrated Rhodri Mawr. Jestyn ap Gwrgan's base is believed to have been at Dinas Powis, south of Cardiff. He probably ruled Glamorgan for a little less than a decade around 1081-1090 C.E.
The popular version of historical events is that Jestyn, following a dispute with his rival Einion ap Collwyn, invited the Norman ruler Robert Fitzhamon, lord of Gloucester, and his twelve knights into the region to settle the matter. Once invited in, the Normans refused to leave, Jestyn was deposed and Fitzhamon, having established a lordship based in Cardiff, subsequently conquered the lowlands of Glamorgan, which was parcelled out to his followers. The undesirable mountainous parts of Glamorgan Fitzhamon left in Welsh control. However this story, dating from at least the 15th century, where it touches known historical facts, is demonstrably wrong.
Nowadays there are many people living in South Wales with the surname of Williams who claim to be descended from Jestyn ap Gwrgan. This is not impossible because Jestyn ap Gwrgan had a large family. Notable people who may have been descended from Jestyn ap Gwrgan are the Tudor Monarchs of England, Oliver Cromwell (whose real surname was Williams) and also, being of Welsh descent, Winston Churchill, Princess Diana and several Presidents of The United States of America.1 comments*Alex

1797 Undated AE Halfpenny Token. London, MiddlesexObverse: Mail Coach, with GR cypher on it's door, drawn by four horses galloping right; above, HALFPENNY PAYA-BLE IN LONDON; below, TO TRADE EXPEDIN & TO PROPERTY PROTECTION.
Reverse: THIS IS INSCRIBED âœ¤ TO J. PALMER ESQ. around AFH cypher within palm branches.
Edge: Plain.
Diameter 28mm | Die Axis 12
Dalton & Hamer: 366

There were several issues of Mail Coach halfpennies, the last dated issue being in 1797. This, the final token in the series is undated, its Mail Coach obverse is similar, but the inscription is different and the reverse has the cypher AFH which has been linked to Anthony Francis Holdinhand, a merchant of 51 St. Mary-Axe in London. St. Mary-Axe is now the site of the well-known "Gherkin" skyscraper which was opened there in 2004.

Though these “Mail Coach” tokens are associated with John Palmer, he did not issue them. Famous in his day the story goes that, on 2nd. August 1784 at 4.00 pm, Palmer began an experimental journey from the "Rummer" Tavern in Bristol. The coach reached the "Three Tuns" in Bath at 5.20 pm and, travelling overnight, arrived at "The Swan with Two Necks" Inn in London at 8.00 am. Palmer, who knew how to operate a fast system of chaises between Bath and Bristol in order to get a quick exchange of actors and properties, had predicted the sixteen hour journey which the Post Office surveyors had said was impossible. The Post Office's mounted 'Post Boys' were taking nearly two days to carry the mail from Bath to London at the time. Palmer's successful experiment led to his appointment as Comptroller-General of the Post Office and, helped by road improvements, a network of routes served by dedicated Mail Coaches spread rapidly.
1 comments*Alex

1804 GEORGE III AR BANK OF ENGLAND DOLLAR Obverse: GEORGIUS III DEI GRATIA REX. Laureate and draped bust of George III facing right.
Reverse: BANK OF ENGLAND 1804. Britannia, seated left, holding a branch and spear, her left arm resting on a shield which in turn rests on a cornucopia, a beehive is in the background to the left; all within a garter inscribed FIVE SHILLINGS DOLLAR. The garter is surmounted by a castellated "crown" of five circular stone turrets.
Spink 3768; Obverse die A, Reverse die 2
Diameter: 41mm | Weight: 26.7gms | Die Axis: 11
SPINK: 3768

This portrait of George III was designed by Conrad Heinrich Kuchler (c.1740 - 1810), this is marked by C. H. K. in raised letters on the truncation at the king's shoulder. The reverse, which was also designed by Kuchler has the raised initial K in the triangular space between the shield, cornucopia, and Britannia's dress. Kuchler moved to Birmingham in 1795 and designed many of the coins and medals which were struck at Matthew Boulton's SOHO mint.
On this coin there are enough traces of the host coin discernible on the reverse, near the edge between 'BANK' and 'OF', and on the obverse below the bust to make an accurate identification of the undertype possible. It was overstruck on a Spanish Colonial 8 Reales minted at Potosi in Bolivia which bore the date 1806.

Note on George III Bank of England Silver Dollars
Although George III reigned for sixty years from 1760 to 1820, the only crowns issued were in the last three years of his reign, apart from these Bank of England dollars issued as an emergency measure.
There had been a persistent shortage of silver coins throughout most of George's reign, and the Bank of England attempted to alleviate this by counter-marking Spanish colonial 8-Reale pieces (the "pieces of eight" of pirate legend) with a punch bearing the head of George III. When this counter-mark was enthusiastically counterfeited, the bank resorted to counter-stamping the entire coin. Most survivors were struck on Mexican or Peruvian 8-Reale pieces, though a few have been found to be struck on issues from Spain proper. Although these Bank of England dollars are all dated 1804, they were issued every year until 1811, and occasionally the dates of Spanish 8 Reales minted after 1804 can be discerned on them. In 1811, to take account of the increase in the value of silver, the Bank of England dollar coins were revalued at 5s6d and they stayed at this value until they were withdrawn from circulation in 1817, by which time a massive silver re-coinage was being undertaken.2 comments*Alex

1922C ALEXIUS METROPOLITAN TETARTERON S-1922 DOC 35 CLBC 2.4.3 OBV Christ Bearded and nimbate wearing tunic and kolobion, seated on a throne without back; holds gospel in l. hand. ( This is what it should be , coin is a brokerage of sorts.)

REV: Bust of emperor wearing stemma, divitision, and chlamys; holds in r. hand scepter cruciger and in l. hand Globus crucifer.

Size 15/16mm

Weight 4.00gm

Metropolitan Issues were minted in Constantinople, each of these coins had an added silver content of 3% and were also issued with a very light silver wash (Silver traces are common on Metropolitan issues but intact fully silvered coins are very rare.) These more than likely were tariffed at a higher rate than the Thessalonica issues that have been shown to have no silver content. Metropolitan issues are in general far scarcer than the Thessalonica issues.

This coin was attributed by rev alone, it is the only possible match for Alexius and it is clearly by inscription, his rule.

DOC catalog lists 9 examples with weights ranging from 2.95gm to 3.72 and size from 16mm to 20mm Simon

1ab Conquest of JudeaA. Plautius, moneyer
c. 54 BC

Denarius

Turreted head of Cybele, A PLAVTIVS before, AED CVR SC behind
Bacchius kneels right with camel at his side, extending olive branch, BACCHIVS in ex., IVDAEVS in right

Seaby, Plautia 13

The reverse appears to Pompey's conquest of Judaea in 63 BC.

Josephus recorded of Pompey's conquest of Jerusalem: And when he was come to the city, he looked about where he might make his attack; for he saw the walls were so firm, that it would be hard to overcome them; and that the valley before the walls was terrible; and that the temple, which was within that valley, was itself encompassed with a very strong wall, insomuch that if the city were taken, that temple would be a second place of refuge for the enemy to retire to. . . . Aristobulus's party was worsted, and retired into the temple, and cut off the communication between the temple and the city, by breaking down the bridge that joined them together, and prepared to make an opposition to the utmost; but as the others had received the Romans into the city, and had delivered up the palace to him, Pompey sent Piso, one of his great officers, into that palace with an army, who distributed a garrison about the city, because he could not persuade any one of those that had fled to the temple to come to terms of accommodation; he then disposed all things that were round about them so as might favor their attacks, as having Hyrcanus's party very ready to afford them both counsel and assistance. . . . But Pompey himself filled up the ditch that was oil the north side of the temple, and the entire valley also, the army itself being obliged to carry the materials for that purpose. And indeed it was a hard thing to fill up that valley, by reason of its immense depth, especially as the Jews used all the means possible to repel them from their superior situation; nor had the Romans succeeded in their endeavors, had not Pompey taken notice of the seventh days, on which the Jews abstain from all sorts of work on a religious account, and raised his bank, but restrained his soldiers from fighting on those days; for the Jews only acted defensively on sabbath days. Blindado

1bg AeliusCaesar, 136-138

As

Bare head, right, AELIVS CAESAR
Pannonia standing and holding a standard, PANNONIA SC

RIC 1071

According to the Historia Augusta (note: scholars view this biography in the text as among those particularly suspect regarding veracity): Aelius Verus was adopted by Hadrian at the time when, as we have previously said, the Emperor's health was beginning to fail and he was forced to take thought for the succession. He was at once made praetor and appointed military and civil governor of the provinces of Pannonia ; afterwards he was created [in AD 136] consul, and then, because he had been chosen to succeed to the imperial power, he was named for a second consulship. . . . [I]n the province to which he had been appointed he was by no means a failure ; for he carried on a campaign with
success, or rather, with good fortune, and achieved the reputation, if not of a pre-eminent, at least of an
average, commander.

Verus had, however, such wretched health that Hadrian immediately regretted the adoption, and since he often considered others as possible successors, he might have removed him altogether from the imperial family had Verus chanced to live longer. . . .

Verus was a man of joyous life and well versed in letters, and he was endeared to Hadrian, as the malicious say, rather by his beauty than by his character. In the palace his stay was but a short one; in his private life, though there was little to be commended, yet there was little to be blamed. Furthermore, he was considerate of his family, well-dressed, elegant in appearance, a man of regal beauty, with a countenance that commanded respect, a speaker of unusual eloquence, deft at writing verse, and, moreover, not altogether a failure in public life.

This sad little flan looks a bit tubercular, like the subject of the portrait.Blindado

1cn Philippus244-249

Antoninianus

Radiate draped bust, right, IMP M IVL PHILIPPVS AVG
Liberalitas standing left with abacus & cornucopiae, LIBERALITAS AVGG II

RIC 38b

The Historia Augusta records: Philippus Arabs was made prefect of the guard [in 243]. This Philip was low-born but arrogant, and now could not contain himself in his sudden rise to office and immoderate good fortune, but immediately, through the soldiers, began to plot against Gordian, who had begun to treat him as a father. . . . Timesitheus [Gordian's father-in-law] had stored up such a quantity of supplies everywhere, that the Roman administration could not break down. But now Philip intrigued first to have the grain-ships turned away, and then to have the troops moved to stations where they could not get provisions. In this way he speedily got them exasperated against Gordian, for they did not know that the youth had been betrayed through Philip's intriguing. In addition to this, Philip spread talk among the soldiers to the effect that Gordian was young and could not manage the Empire, and that it were better for someone to rule who could command the army and understood public affairs. Besides this, he won over the leaders, and finally brought it about that they openly called him to the throne. Gordian's friends at first opposed him vigorously, but when the soldiers were at last overcome with hunger Philip was entrusted with the sovereignty, and the soldiers commanded that he and Gordian should rule together with equal rank while Philip acted as a sort of guardian.

Now that he had gained the imperial power Philip began to bear himself very arrogantly towards Gordian ; and he, knowing himself to be an emperor, an emperor's son, and a scion of a most noble family, could not endure this low-born fellow's insolence. And so, mounting the platform, with his kinsman Maecius Gordianus standing by him as his prefect, he complained bitterly to the officers and soldiers in the hope that Philip's office could be taken from him. But by this complaint in which he accused Philip of being unmindful of past favours and too little grateful he accomplished nothing. Next he asked the soldiers to make their choice, after openly canvassing the officers, but as a result of Philip's intriguing he came off second in the general vote. And finally, when he saw that everyone considered him worsted, he asked that their power might at least be equal, but he did not secure this either. After this he asked to be given the position of Caesar, but he did not gain this. He asked also to be Philip's prefect, and this, too, was denied him. His last prayer was that Philip should make him a general and let him live. And to this Philip almost consented not speaking himself, but acting through his friends, as he had done throughout, with nods and advice. But when he reflected that through the love that the Roman people and senate, the whole of Africa and Syria, and indeed the whole Roman world, felt for Gordian, because he was nobly born and the son and grandson of emperors and had delivered the whole state from grievous wars, it was possible, if the soldiers ever changed their minds, that the throne might be given back to Gordian if he asked for it again, and when he reflected also that the violence of the soldiers' anger against Gordian was due to hunger, he had him carried, shouting protests, out of their sight and then despoiled and slain.

Eutropius wrote, "When Gordian was killed, the two PHILIPS, father and son, seized on the government, and, having brought off the army safe, set out from Syria for Italy. In their reign the thousandth year of the city of Rome was celebrated with games and spectacles of vast magnificence. Soon after, both of them were put to death by the soldiery; the elder Philip at Verona, the younger at Rome. They reigned but five years. They were however ranked among the gods."Blindado

1cu Trebonianus Gallus251-253

AE Viminacium

Laureate, draped bust, right, IMP C GALLVS P FELIX AVG
Moesia standing facing, head left, hands outstretched over a bull and a lion at her sides, PMS COL VIM

Moushmov 56

For Gallus' perfidy against Decius, see the Decius entry. Zosimus reports regarding Gallus' reign: Gallus, who declared his son Volusianus his associate in the empire, published an open declaration, that Decius and his army had perished by his contrivance. The Barbarians now became more prosperous than before. For Callus not only permitted them to return home with the plunder, but promised to pay them annually a sum of money, and allowed them to carry off all the noblest captives; most of whom had been taken at Philippopolis in Thrace.

Gallus, having made these regulations, came to Rome, priding himself on the peace he had made with the Barbarians. And though he at first spoke with approbation of Decius's mode of government, and adopted one of his sons, yet, after some time was elapsed, fearing that some of them who were fond of new projects might recur to a recapitulation of the princely virtues of Decius, and therefore might at some opportunity give the empire to his son, he concerted the young man's destruction, without regard either to his own adoption of him, or to common honour and justice.

Gallus was so supine in the administration of the empire, that the Scythians in the first place terrified all the neighbouring nations, and then laid waste all the countries as far by degrees as the sea coast; not leaving one nation subject to the Romans unpillaged, and taking almost all the unfortified towns, and many that were fortified. Besides the war on every side, which was insupportably burdensome to them, the cities and villages were infested with a pestilence, which swept away the remainder of mankind in those regions; nor was so great a mortality ever known in any former period.

At this crisis, observing that the emperors were unable to defend the state, but neglected all without the walls of Rome, the Goths, the Borani, the Urugundi, and the Carpi once more plundered the cities of Europe of all that had been left in them; while in another quarter, the Persians invaded Asia, in which they acquired possession of Mesopotamia, and proceeded even as far as Antioch in Syria, took that city, which is the metropolis of all the east, destroyed many of the inhabitants, and carried the remainder into captivity, returning home with immense plunder, after they had destroyed all the buildings in the city, both public and private, without meeting with the least resistance. And indeed the Persians had a fair opportunity to have made themselves masters of all Asia, had they not been so overjoyed at their excessive spoils, as to be contented with keeping and carrying home what they had acquired.

Meantime the Scythians of Europe were in perfect security and went over into Asia, spoiling all the country as far as Cappodocia, Pesinus, and Ephesus, until Aemilianus, commander of the Pannonian legions, endeavouring as much as possible to encourage his troops, whom the prosperity of the Barbarians had so disheartened that they durst not face them, and reminding them of the renown of Roman courage, surprised the Barbarians that were in that neighbourhood. Having destroyed great numbers of them, and led his forces into their country, removing every obstruction to his progress, and at length freeing the subjects of the Roman empire from their ferocity, he was appointed emperor by his army. On this he collected all the forces of that country, who were become more bold since his successes against the Barbarians, and directed his march towards Italy, with the design of fighting Gallus, who was as yet. unprepared to contend with him. For Gallus had never heard of what had occurred in the east, and therefore made only what accidental preparations were in his reach, while Valerianus went to bring the Celtic and German legions. But Aemilianus advanced with great speed into Italy, and the armies were very near to each other, when the soldiers of Gallus, reflecting that his force was much inferior to the enemy both in number and strength, and likewise that he was a negligent indolent man, put him and his son to death, and going over to the party of Aemilianus, appeared to establish his authority.Blindado

1dy Maximinus II309-313

Quarter Follis

Laureate head, right, MAXIMINVS NOB C
Genius standing left, naked except for modius on head & chlamys over shoulder, holding patera & cornucopiae, SIS in ex, GENIO POPVLI ROMANI.

RIC 170b

According to Eutropius: Galerius, a man of excellent moral character, and skilful in military affairs, finding that Italy, by Constantius's permission, was put under his government, created two Caesars, MAXIMIN, whom he appointed over the east, and SEVERUS, to whom he committed Italy. He himself resided in Illyricum. . . . LICINIUS, a native of Dacia, was made emperor by Galerius, to whom he was known by old companionship, and recommended by his vigorous efforts and services in the war which he had conducted against Narseus. The death of Galerius followed immediately afterwards. The empire was then held by the four new emperors, Constantine and Maxentius, sons of emperors, Licinius and Maximian, sons of undistinguished men. Constantine, however, in the fifth year of his reign, commenced a civil war with Maxentius, routed his forces in several battles, and at last overthrew Maxentius himself (when he was spreading death among the nobility by every possible kind of cruelty,4) at the Milvian bridge, and made himself master of Italy. Not long after, too, Maximin, after commencing hostilities against Licinius in the east, anticipated the destruction that was falling upon him by an accidental death at Tarsus. Blindado

1dz Maxentius306-312

Follis

Laureate head, right, MAXENTIVS P F AVG
Roma in temple, CONSERVATORES VRB SVAE

RIC 194a

Eutropius reports: But after the death of Constantius, CONSTANTINE, his son by a wife of obscure birth, was made emperor in Britain, and succeeded his father as a most desirable ruler. In the meantime the praetorian guards at Rome, having risen in insurrection, declared MAXENTIUS, the son of Maximian Herculius, who lived in the Villa Publica not far from the city, emperor. At the news of this proceeding, Maximian, filled with hopes of regaining the imperial dignity, which he had not willingly resigned, hurried to Rome from Lucania. . . , and stimulated Diocletian by letters to resume the authority that he had laid down, letters which Diocletian utterly disregarded. Severus Caesar, being despatched to Rome by Galerius to suppress the rising of the guards and Maxentius, arrived there with his army, but, as he was laying siege to the city, was deserted through the treachery of his soldiers.

The power of Maxentius was thus increased, and his government established. Severus, taking to flight, was killed at Ravenna. Maximian Herculius, attempting afterwards, in an assembly of the army, to divest his son Maxentius of his power, met with nothing but mutiny and reproaches from the soldiery. . . .

At this time LICINIUS, a native of Dacia, was made emperor by Galerius, to whom he was known by old companionship, and recommended by his vigorous efforts and services in the war which he had conducted against Narseus. The death of Galerius followed immediately afterwards. The empire was then held by the four new emperors, Constantine and Maxentius, sons of emperors, Licinius and Maximian, sons of undistinguished men. Constantine, however, in the fifth year of his reign, commenced a civil war with Maxentius, routed his forces in several battles, and at last overthrew Maxentius himself (when he was spreading death among the nobility by every possible kind of cruelty,) at the Milvian bridge, and made himself master of Italy. Blindado

1eo Jovian363-364

AE 3, Heraclea

Diademed bust left, draped & cuirassed, D N IOVIANVS P F AVG
VOT V MVLT X in wreath, Mintmark HERACA

RIC 110A

Zosimus recorded: A meeting of the officers and soldiers was afterwards convened, in order to appoint a successor to the empire : since it would be impossible for them without a ruler to avoid the dangers to which they were exposed in the midst of an enemy's country. The general voice was in favour of Jovianus, the son of Varronianus, tribune of the domestic forces. When Jovian had assumed the purple and the diadem, he directed his course homewards with all possible speed. . . . They then marched forward four days, continually harassed by the enemy, who followed them when they were proceeding, but fled when the Romans offered any resistance. At length, having gained some distance of the enemy, they resolved to crops the Tigris. For this purpose they fastened skins together, and floated over. When the greater part had gained the opposite bank, the commanders crossed over in safety with the remainder. The Persians, however, still accompanied them, and followed them with a large army so assiduously, that the Romans were in perpetual danger, both from the unfavourable circumstances in which they were placed, and from the want, of provisions. Although the Roman army was in this condition, the Persians were willing to treat for peace, and for that purpose sent Surenas with other |90 officers to the Roman camp. Jovian, upon hearing this, sent to them Sallustius, prefect of the court, together with Aristaeus, who, after some discussion, agreed on a truce for thirty years. The conditions were, that the Romans should give up to the Persians the country of the Rabdiceni, and that of the Candueni, Rhemeni, and Zaleni, besides fifteen castles in those provinces, with the inhabitants, lands, cattle, and all their property ; that Nisibis should be surrendered without its inhabitants, who were to be transplanted into whatever colony the Remans pleased. The Persians also deprived the Romans of great part of Armenia, leaving them but a very small part of it. The truce having been concluded on these conditions, and ratified on both sides, the Romans had an opportunity of returning home unmolested, neither party offering or sustaining any injury, either by open force; or secret machination.

Jovian marched through all the towns in great speed, because they were so filled with grief [because they were being given over to Persian rule], that the inhabitants could not look patiently on him; such being the custom and disposition of those countries. Taking with him the imperial guard, he proceeded to Antioch. . . . Jovian now turning his attention to the affairs of government, made various arrangements, and sent Lucilianus his father-in-law, Procopius, and Valentinian, who was afterwards emperor, to the armic.s in Pannoriia, to inform them of the death of Julian, and of his being chosen emperor. The Bavarians who were at Sirmium, and were left there for its protection, as soon as they received the news, put to death Lucilianus who brought such unwelcome intelligence, without regard to his relationship to the emperor. Such was the respect they had to Jovian's relations, that Valentinian himself only escaped from the death they intended to inflict on him. Jovianus proceeding from Antioch towards Constantinople, suddenly fell sick at Dadostana in Bithynia, and died after a reign of eight months, in which short time he had not been able to render the public any essential service.
Blindado

1es Gratian367-383

AE3

Pearl-diademed, draped and cuirassed bust right, D N GRATIANVS P F AVG
Gratian standing right, holding labarum with Chi-rho on banner, and holding captive by hair, GLORIA ROMANORVM; Q to left, K over P to right, DSISCR in ex.

RIC 14c

Zosimus reports: [T] he emperor Valentinian, having favourably disposed the affairs of Germany, made provisions for the future security of the Celtic nations. . . . Valentinian was now attacked by a disease which nearly cost him his life. Upon his recovery the countries requested him to appoint a successor, lest at his decease the commonwealth should be in danger. To this the emperor consented, and declared his son Gratian emperor and his associate in the government, although he was then very young, and not yet capable of the management of affairs. . . .

When the affairs of the empire were reduced to this low condition, Victor, who commanded the Roman cavalry, escaping the danger with some of his troops, entered Macedon and Thessaly. From thence he proceeded into Moesia and Pannonia, and informed Gratian, who was then in that quarter, of what had occurred, and of the loss of the emperor [Valens] and his army. Gratian received the intelligence without uneasiness, and was little grieved at the death of his uncle, a disagreement having existed between them. Finding himself unable to manage affairs, Thrace being ravaged by the Barbarians, as were likewise Pannonia and Moesia, and the towns upon the Rhine being infested by the neighbouring Barbarians without controul, he chose for his associate in the empire, Theodosius, who was a native of a town called Cauca, in the part of Spain called Hispania Callaecia, and who possessed great knowledge and experience of military affairs. Having given him the government of Thrace and the eastern provinces, Gratian himself proceeded to the west of Gaul, in order, if possible, to compose affairs in that quarter. . . .

While the affairs of Thrace were, thus situated, those of Gratian were in great perplexity. Having accepted the counsel of those courtiers who usually corrupt the manners of princes, he gave a reception to some fugitives called Alani, whom he not only introduced into his army, but honoured with valuable presents, and confided to them his most important secrets, esteeming his own soldiers of little value. This produced among his soldiers a violent hatred against him, which being gradually inflamed and augmented incited in them a disposition for innovation, and most particulary in that part of them which was in Britain, since they were the most resolute and vindictive. In this spirit they were encouraged by Maximus, a Spaniard, who had been the fellow-soldier of Theodosius in Britain. He was offended that Theodosius should be thought worthy of being made emperor, while he himself had no honourable employment. He therefore cherished the animosity of the soldiers towards the emperor. They were thus easily induced to revolt and to declare Maximus emperor. Having presented to him the purple robe and the diadem, they sailed to the mouth of the Rhine. As the German army, and all who were in that quarter approved of the election, Gratian prepared to contend against Maximus, with a considerable part of the army which still adhered to him. When the armies met, there were only slight skirmishes for five days; until Gratian, |115 perceiving that the Mauritanian cavalry first deserted from him and declared Maximus Augustus, and afterwards that the remainder of his troops by degrees espoused the cause of his antagonist, relinquished all hope, and fled with three hundred horse to the Alps. Finding those regions without defence, he proceeded towards Rhaetia, Noricum, Pannonia, and the Upper Moesia. When Maximus was informed of his route, he was not negligent of the opportunity, but detached Andragathius, commander of the cavalry, who was his faithful adherent, in pursuit of Gratian. This officer followed him with so great speed, that he overtook him when he was passing the bridge at Sigidunus, and put him to death. Blindado

1et Valentinian II373-392

AE3, Nicomedia

Pearl-diademed, draped & cuirassed bust rightt, D N VALENTINIANVS IVN P F AVG
Roma seated on cuirass, holding spear and Victory on globe, VRBS ROMA

The SMN mintmark indicates that the coin was minted in Nicomedia, but RIC does not list this reverse type for that mint.

Sim to RIC 51

Zosimus reports: Valentinian being dead, the tribunes Merobaudes and Equitius, reflecting on the distance at which Valens and Gratian resided, the former being in the east, and the latter left by his father in the western part of Gaul, were apprehensive lest the Barbarians beyond the Ister should make an effort while the country was without a ruler. They therefore sent for the younger son of Valentinian, who was born of his wife the widow of Magnentius, who was not far from thence with the child. Having clothed him in purple, they brought him into the court, though scarcely five years old. The empire was afterwards divided between Gratian and the younger Valentinian, at the discretion of their guardians, they not being of age to manage their own affairs. The Celtic nations, Spain, and Britain were given to Gratian; and Italy, Illyricum, and Africa to Valentinian. . . .

Affairs being thus situated in the east, in Thrace, and in Illyricum, Maximus, who deemed his appointments inferior to his merits, being only governor of the countries formerly under Gratian, projected how to depose the young Valentinian from the empire, if possible totally, but should he fail in the whole, to secure at least some part. . . . he immediately entered Italy without; resistance, and marched to Aquileia. . . . This so much surprised Valentinian, and rendered his situation so desperate, that his courtiers were alarmed lest he should be taken by Maximus and put to death. He, therefore, immediately embarked,and sailed to Thessalonica with his mother Justina, who, as I before mentioned, had been the wife of Magnentius, but after his decease was taken in marriage by the emperor Valentinian on account of her extraordinary beauty. She carried along with her her daughter Galla. After having passed many seas, and arriving at Thessalonica, they sent messengers to the emperor Theodosius, intreating him now at least to revenge the injuries committed against the family of Valentinian. He was astonished at hearing of this, and began to forget his extravagance, and to lay some restraint on his wild inclination for pleasure. . . . Theodosius then delivered to Valentinian as much of the empire as his father had possessed; in which he only acted as he was enjoined by his duty to those who so merited his kindness. . . .

intelligence was brought that the emperor Valentianian was no more, and that his death happened in this manner: Arbogastes, a Frank, who was appointed by the emperor Gratian lieutenant to Baudo, at the death of Baudo, confiding in his own ability, assumed the command without the emperor's permission. Being thought proper for the station by all the soldiers under him, both for his valour and experience in military affairs, and for his disregard of riches, he attained great influence. He thus became so elevated, that he would speak without reserve to the emperor, and would blame any measure which he thought improper. This gave such umbrage to Valentinian. . . .

Eugenius became the sincere friend of Arbogastes, who had no secret which he did not confide to him. Recollecting Eugenius, therefore, at this juncture, who by his extraordinary learning and the gravity of his conversation seemed well-adapted for the management of an empire, he communicated to him his designs. But finding him not pleased with the proposals, he attempted to prevail on him by all the arts he could use, and entreated him not to reject what fortune so favourably offered. Having at length persuaded him, he deemed it advisable in the first place to remove Valentinian, and thus to deliver the sole authority to Eugenius. With this view he proceeded to Vienna, a town in Gaul, where the emperor resided; and as he was amusing himself near the town in some sports with the soldiers, apprehending no danger, Arbogastes gave him a mortal wound. Blindado

1eu Theodosius379-395

AE4

Pearl diademed, draped & cuirassed bust right, D N THEODOSIVS P F AVG
VOT V MVLT X within wreath, ASISC in ex

RIC 29d

Zosimus recorded: [Valentinian] commanded some legions from the stations in Pannonia and Moesia, to embark for Africa [to crush a rebellion]. On this the Sarmatians and the Quadi. . . , availing themselves, of the opportunity afforded by the departure of the legions for Africa, invaded the Pannonians and Moesians. . . . The barbarians therefore revenged themselves by plundering all the country along the Ister, carrying off all that they found in the towns. The Pannonians were by these means exposed to the cruelty of the barbarians, while the soldiers were extremely negligent in the defence of their towns, and committed as much mischief as the Barbarians themselves in all places on this side of the river. But Moesia was free from harm, because Theodosius, who commanded the forces there, courageously resisted the Barbarians, and routed them when they attacked him. By that victory he not only acquired great renown, but subsequently attained the imperial dignity. . . .

When the affairs of the empire were reduced to this low condition, Victor, who commanded the Roman cavalry, escaping the danger with some of his troops, entered Macedon and Thessaly. From thence he proceeded into Moesia and Pannonia, and informed Gratian, who was then in that quarter, of what had occurred, and of the loss of the emperor [Valens] and his army. Gratian received the intelligence without uneasiness, and was little grieved at the death of his uncle, a disagreement having existed between them. Finding himself unable to manage affairs, Thrace being ravaged by the Barbarians, as were likewise Pannonia and Moesia, and the towns upon the Rhine being infested by the neighbouring Barbarians without controul, he chose for his associate in the empire, Theodosius, who was a native of a town called Cauca, in the part of Spain called Hispania Callaecia, and who possessed great knowledge and experience of military affairs. Having given him the government of Thrace and the eastern provinces, Gratian himself proceeded to the west of Gaul, in order, if possible, to compose affairs in that quarter. . . .

During the stay of the new emperor, Theodosius, at Thesslonica, a great concourse arrived there from all parts of persons soliciting him on business, both public and private; who having obtained of him whatever he could conveniently grant, returned, to their homes. As a great multitude of the Scythians beyond the Ister, the Gotthi, and the Taiphali, and other tribes that formerly dwelt among them, had crossed the river, and were driven to infest the Roman dominions, because the Huns, had expelled them from their own country, the emperor Theodosius prepared for war with all his forces. . . . The army having made this good use of the occasion afforded by fortune, the affairs of Thrace, which had been on the brink of ruin, were now, the Barbarians being crushed beyond all hope, re-established in peace. . . .

Meanwhile, the emperor Theodosius, residing in Thessalonica, was easy of access to all who wished to see him. Having commenced his reign in luxury and indolence, he threw the magistracy into disorder, and increased the number of his military officers. . . . As he squandered the public money without consideration, bestowing it on unworthy persons, he consequently impoverished himself. He therefore sold the government of provinces to any who would purchase them, without regard to the reputation or ablity of the persons, esteeming him the best qualified who brought him the most gold or silver. . . .

Maximus, who deemed his appointments inferior to his merits, being only governor of the countries formerly under Gratian, projected how to depose the young Valentinian from the empire. . . . This so much surprised Valentinian, and rendered his situation so desperate, that his courtiers were alarmed lest he should be taken by Maximus and put to death. He, therefore, immediately embarked,and sailed to Thessalonica with his mother Justina. . . . [A]rriving at Thessalonica, they sent messengers to the emperor Theodosius, intreating him now at least to revenge the injuries committed against the family of Valentinian. . . . The emperor, being delivered from this alarm, marched with great resolution with his whole army against Maximus. . . . Theodosius, having passed through Pannonia and the defiles of the Appennines, attacked unawares the forces of Maximus before they were prepared for him. A part of his army, having pursued them with the utmost speed, forced their way through the gates of Aquileia, the guards being too few to resist them. Maximus was torn from his imperial throne while in the act of distributing money to his soldiers, and being stripped of his imperial robes, was brought to Theodosius, who, having in reproach enumerated some of his crimes against the commonwealth, delivered him to the common executioner to receive due punishment. . . . The emperor Theodosius, having consigned Italy, Spain, Celtica, and Libya to his son Honorius, died of a disease on his journey towards Constantinople. Blindado

1ew Magnus Maximus383-388

AE2

Diademed, draped & cuirassed bust right, D N MAG MAXIMVS P F AVG
Emperor standing left, raising kneeling female; mintmarks PCON, SCON and TCON known, REPARATIO REIPVB

RIC 26a

Zosimus reports: While the affairs of Thrace were, thus situated, those of Gratian were in great perplexity. Having accepted the counsel of those courtiers who usually corrupt the manners of princes, he gave a reception to some fugitives called Alani, whom he not only introduced into his army, but honoured with valuable presents, and confided to them his most important secrets, esteeming his own soldiers of little value. This produced among his soldiers a violent hatred against him, which being gradually inflamed and augmented incited in them a disposition for innovation, and most particulary in that part of them which was in Britain, since they were the most resolute and vindictive. In this spirit they were encouraged by Maximus, a Spaniard, who had been the fellow-soldier of Theodosius in Britain. He was offended that Theodosius should be thought worthy of being made emperor, while he himself had no honourable employment. He therefore cherished the animosity of the soldiers towards the emperor. They were thus easily induced to revolt and to declare Maximus emperor. Having presented to him the purple robe and the diadem, they sailed to the mouth of the Rhine. As the German army, and all who were in that quarter approved of the election, Gratian prepared to contend against Maximus, with a considerable part of the army which still adhered to him. When the armies met, there were only slight skirmishes for five days; until Gratian, |115 perceiving that the Mauritanian cavalry first deserted from him and declared Maximus Augustus, and afterwards that the remainder of his troops by degrees espoused the cause of his antagonist, relinquished all hope, and fled with three hundred horse to the Alps. Finding those regions without defence, he proceeded towards Rhaetia, Noricum, Pannonia, and the Upper Moesia. When Maximus was informed of his route, he was not negligent of the opportunity, but detached Andragathius, commander of the cavalry, who was his faithful adherent, in pursuit of Gratian. This officer followed him with so great speed, that he overtook him when he was passing the bridge at Sigidunus, and put him to death. . . .

The reign of Gratian being thus terminated, Maximus, who now considered himself firmly fixed in the empire, sent an embassy to the emperor Theodosius, not to intreat pardon for his treatment of Gratian, but rather to increase his provocations. The person employed in this mission was the imperial chamberlain (for Maximus would not suffer an eunuch to preside in his court), a prudent person, with whom he had been familiarly acquainted from his infancy. The purport of his mission was to propose to Theodosius a treaty of amity, and of alliance, against all enemies who should make war on the Romans, and on refusal, to declare against him open hostility. Upon this, Theodosius admitted Maximus to a share in the empire, and in the honour of his statues and his imperial title. . . .

Affairs being thus situated in the east, in Thrace, and in Illyricum, Maximus, who deemed his appointments inferior to his merits, being only governor of the countries formerly under Gratian, projected how to depose the young Valentinian from the empire, if possible totally, but should he fail in the whole, to secure at least some part. . . . he immediately entered Italy without; resistance, and marched to Aquileia. . . .

Theodosius, having passed through Pannonia and the defiles of the Appennines, attacked unawares the forces of Maximus before they were prepared for him. A part of his army, having pursued them with the utmost speed, forced their way through the gates of Aquileia, the guards being too few to resist them. Maximus was torn from his imperial throne while in the act of distributing money to his soldiers, and being stripped of his imperial robes, was brought to Theodosius, who, having in reproach enumerated some of his crimes against the commonwealth, delivered him to the common executioner to receive due punishment. Such was the end of Maximus and of his usurpation. Having fraudulently overcome Valentinian, he imagined that he should with ease subdue the whole Roman empire. Theodosius, having heard, that when Maximus came from beyond the Alps he left his son Victor, whom he had dignified with the title of Caesar, he immediately sent for his general, named Arbogastes, who deprived the youth both of his dignity and life. Blindado

205b. ORBIANAGneaea Seia Herennia Sallustia Barbia Orbiana is best known as the wife of Severus Alexander. Possible one of three wives that he had. Little is known of Orbiana. She was from a distinguished family, the daughter of Senator Seius Sallustius Varius Marcinus. She was married to Severus Alexander around 225 when he was about 16. She must have initially met with the favor of Severus Alexander's mother Mamaea but this didn't last long. Orbiana had too much influence with Severus Alexander and this led to direct confrontation with Mamaea. Whether real or not, a plot was found to be led by Orbiana's father to turn the praetorian guards against Severus Alexander and put himself in power. The marriage between Severus Alexander and Orbiana was dissolved at Mamaea's insistence in 227 AD. Shortly later, Sallustius was executed and Orbiana was banished to North Africa.

ORBIANA, wife of Severus Alexander. Augusta, 225 AD. AR Denarius (19mm, 2.83 gm). Diademed and draped bust right / Concordia seated left, holding patera and double cornucopiae. RIC IV 319; RSC 1. VF

1 commentsecoli

207/1. Decimia or Flavia? - denarius (150 BC)AR Denarius (Rome, 150 BC)
O/ Helmeted head of Roma right; X behind.
R/ Luna in biga right, holding whip & reins; FLAVS below; ROMA in exergue.
3.95g; 19mm
Crawford 207/1 (61 obverse dies/76 reverse dies)
- Collection of Frederick Sydney Clark (1923-2016), British collector in East Sussex.
- Toovey's, 01/11/2017, Lot 701.

* Decimius Flavus or Gaius Flavius Fimbria:

This issue has been given to a member of the plebeian gens Decimia, of Samnite origin. The gens was relatively new at the time since its first identified member Numerius Decimius distinguished himself during the Second Punic War (Livy, xxii. 24), and probably received the Roman citizenship as a result. Two Decimii used the cognomen Flavus: a military tribune in 207 named Gaius Decimius Flavus (Livy, xxvii. 14), and his probable son of the same name, who was Urban Praetor in 184, but died immediately after his election (Livy, xxxix. 38).

Three other Decimii are then known: Marcus, Gaius, and Lucius, all ambassadors in Greece in 172-171 (Livy, xlii. 19, 35, 37 respectively). They were possible sons of the Praetor of 184, in which case our moneyer was the son of one of them, although nothing is known of him. However, none of them had a cognomen and Flavus simply meant "blond hair", a rather common cognomen unlikely to feature alone on a coin.

So the name could refer to another gens; it is indeed possible to read it as FLAVIVS. This name, widespread during the Empire after Vespasian, was nevertheless uncommon in the second century and therefore distinctive enough so that the moneyer did not need to add the rest of his name. Besides, only one Flavius is known in this century: the Popularis Gaius Flavius C.f. Fimbria, Consul in 104 alongside Marius. Fimbria was therefore born no later than 146 (the Consulship was reserved to men aged at least 42 years old), a date which would remarkably fit with his father moneyer in 150 and therefore in his 20s. As Fimbria was a novus homo, the moneyership held by his father would testify the ascension of the family before him.Joss

261/1. Domitia - denarius (128 BC)AR Denarius (Rome, 128 BC)
O/ Helmeted head of Roma right; corn-ear behind; XVI below chin.
R/ Victory in biga right, holding reins in left hand and whip in right hand; ROMA above; man fighting lion below; CN DOM in exergue.
3.84g; 18mm
Crawford 261/1 (71 obverse dies/89 reverse dies)

* Gnaeus Domitius (Calvinus?):

Our moneyer belonged to the old plebeian gens Domitia, but his identity is unknown. Babelon and ancient numismatists thought he was Ahenobarbus, the Consul of 96 BC, but it is not possible as he was already moneyer in 118 (the Narbo issue). Crawford postulated that he was from a collateral branch of the Ahenobarbi, and therefore a cousin of the Consul of 96, because he considered here that the Senatus Consultum De Agro Pergameno dates from 131 BC, but it is now dated 101, thus the Cn. Domitius Cn. f. mentioned there is doubtless the future Consul of 96*.

Gnaeus Domitius was more likely a Calvinus, from the other main stirps of the Domitii, but none of them is known during the 2nd century.

The figure below the chariot on the reverse is quite mysterious. Earlier numismatists thought it was a reference to the dogs fought by Ahenobarbus, the Consul of 122 who vanquished the Allobroges, but it is impossible as the battle was fought in 121, seven years after the denarius. Crawford considers the beast to be a lion, and therefore a reference to games organised by an Aedile; the corn-ear on the obverse would be a further reference to an aedileship.

* Harold B. Mattingly, "The Date of the Senatus Consultum De Agro Pergameno" in The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 93, n°3, 1972, pp. 412-423.Joss

297/1b. Quinctia - denarius (112-111 BC)AR Denarius (Rome, 112-111 BC)
O/ Bust of Hercules seen from behind, with head turned to left and club over shoulder.
R/ Desultor right, wearing cuirass; control-mark behind; rat right between TI Q below; D.S.S. incuse on tablet in exergue.
3.82g; 118mm
Crawford 297/1b (87 obverse dies/109 reverse dies)
- Naville Numismatics Live Auction 36, lot 534.

* Tiberius Quinctius:

The attribution of this issue to a Tiberius Quinctius is dubious as the few letters on the reverse could mean different things. Crawford rules out the possibility that the Q stands for Quaestor, so it should only be the first letter of a nomen, hence the attribution to a Quinctius. However a Quinctilius is also possible.

The significance of the rat below the horses is an enigma. It apparently cannot be related to any cognomen; Crawford may be right to reject previous attempts to link it to a name -- the solution is probably not as easy as simply translating "rat", "mouse" or "rodent" in Latin. Mus ("mouse") was nonetheless an attested cognomen, but the gens Decia that bore it was already extinct by the end of the 2nd century.

The reverse with the desultor was perhaps a statue, as the legend DSS stands for "de Senatus Sententia", usually found on public monuments.2 commentsJoss

308-324 AD - Licinius I - Van Meter 15 - IOVI CONSERVATORIEmperor: Licinius I (r. 308-324 AD)
Date: 308-324 AD
Condition: Fine/Mediocre
Denomination: Follis

Obverse: IMP LIC LICINIVS PF AVG
Imperator Licinianus Licinius Dutiful and Wise Emperor
Head right; laureate

Reverse: IOVI CONSERVATORI
To Jupiter, the Protector.
Jupiter standing left, holding Victory on globe in right hand, eagle to left on ground holding wreath.
Exergue: TSÎ“ (possible dots between letters?) (Thessalonica mint, third officina)

VM 15
2.29g; 22.9mm; 0°Pep

311a. AureolusAureolus. Romano-Gallic Usurper, AD 267-268. Antoninianus (19mm, 2.17 g, 7h). Struck in the name of Postumus. Mediolanum (Milan) mint, 2nd officina. 3rd emission, mid AD 268. Radiate, draped, and cuirassed bust of Postumus right / Concordia standing left, holding patera and rudder; prow of galley to left; S. RIC V (Postumus) 373; Mairat 215-21; AGK (Postumus) 6b; RSC (Postumus) 19. Near VF, dark brown patina.

Aureolus was an extraordinarily capable general who served under Valerian and Gallienus. Around AD 258, Gallienus stationed a new cavalry unit at Mediolanum that was to serve as a quick reaction force against any new invasions along the frontier of the central empire. Aureolus was given command of this unit. In AD 260-261 his forces defeated the armies of the usurpers Ingenuus and Macrianus, and recovered the province of Raetia. Following these victories, Gallienus and Aureolus led a Roman army against the breakaway Gallic provinces under Postumus. Gallienus was forced to leave the field after being injured in battle, and left the campaign in the hands of Aureolus. Aureolus ended the campaign shortly thereafter, and while the reason is uncertain, the historical record suggests it was due to either his incompetence or else treachery (he had come to a secret agreement with Postumus). While the former seems unlikely, given Aureolus’ record, the latter is possible, as there are indications that he had been preparing for a revolt as early as AD 262. Regardless, at some point in AD 267, Aureolus revolted and established his base at Mediolanum, where Gallienus besieged him in AD 268. The details of the revolt are unclear, but it appears that Aureolus first appealed to Postumus for aid, and, failing to gain the Gallic Emperor’s support, declared himself emperor. About the same time, Gallienus was murdered, and was succeeded by Claudius II Gothicus, who continued to beseige Mediolanum. Soon, though, it appeared that an agreement was reached, and Aureolus emerged from the city to meet Claudius. Any such concord, however, was simply a ruse, as Aureolus was taken into custody and executed.ecoli

313 - 2013 Edictum Mediolanense - Edict of Milan In February 313, Emperor Constantine I, who controlled the western part of the Roman Empire, and Licinius, who controlled the Balkans, met in Milan and, among other things, agreed to treat the Christians benevolently.

When I, Constantine Augustus, as well as I, Licinius Augustus, fortunately met near Mediolanurn (Milan), and were considering everything that pertained to the public welfare and security, we thought, among other things which we saw would be for the good of many, those regulations pertaining to the reverence of the Divinity ought certainly to be made first, so that we might grant to the Christians and others full authority to observe that religion which each preferred; whence any Divinity whatsoever in the seat of the heavens may be propitious and kindly disposed to us and all who are placed under our rule. And thus by this wholesome counsel and most upright provision we thought to arrange that no one whatsoever should be denied the opportunity to give his heart to the observance of the Christian religion, of that religion which he should think best for himself, so that the Supreme Deity, to whose worship we freely yield our hearts) may show in all things His usual favor and benevolence. Therefore, your Worship should know that it has pleased us to remove all conditions whatsoever, which were in the rescripts formerly given to you officially, concerning the Christians and now any one of these who wishes to observe Christian religion may do so freely and openly, without molestation. We thought it fit to commend these things most fully to your care that you may know that we have given to those Christians free and unrestricted opportunity of religious worship. When you see that this has been granted to them by us, your Worship will know that we have also conceded to other religions the right of open and free observance of their worship for the sake of the peace of our times, that each one may have the free opportunity to worship as he pleases; this regulation is made we that we may not seem to detract from any dignity or any religion. Moreover, in the case of the Christians especially we esteemed it best to order that if it happens anyone heretofore has bought from our treasury from anyone whatsoever, those places where they were previously accustomed to assemble, concerning which a certain decree had been made and a letter sent to you officially, the same shall be restored to the Christians without payment or any claim of recompense and without any kind of fraud or deception, Those, moreover, who have obtained the same by gift, are likewise to return them at once to the Christians. Besides, both those who have purchased and those who have secured them by gift, are to appeal to the vicar if they seek any recompense from our bounty, that they may be cared for through our clemency. All this property ought to be delivered at once to the community of the Christians through your intercession, and without delay. And since these Christians are known to have possessed not only those places in which they were accustomed to assemble, but also other property, namely the churches, belonging to them as a corporation and not as individuals, all these things which we have included under the above law, you will order to be restored, without any hesitation or controversy at all, to these Christians, that is to say to the corporations and their conventicles: providing, of course, that the above arrangements be followed so that those who return the same without payment, as we have said, may hope for an indemnity from our bounty. In all these circumstances you ought to tender your most efficacious intervention to the community of the Christians, that our command may be carried into effect as quickly as possible, whereby, moreover, through our clemency, public order may be secured. Let this be done so that, as we have said above, Divine favor towards us, which, under the most important circumstances we have already experienced, may, for all time, preserve and prosper our successes together with the good of the state. Moreover, in order that the statement of this decree of our good will may come to the notice of all, this rescript, published by your decree, shall be announced everywhere and brought to the knowledge of all, so that the decree of this, our benevolence, cannot be concealed.
From Lactantius, De Mort. Pers., ch. 48. opera, ed. 0. F. Fritzsche, II, p 288 sq. (Bibl Patr. Ecc. Lat. XI).
Bohemian

316-326 AD - Crispus - RIC VII Siscia 181 - CAESARVM NOSTRORVMCaesar: Crispus (Caes. 316-326 AD)
Date: 321-324 AD
Condition: Fine/VF
Denomination: Follis

Obverse: IVL CRIS-PVS NOB C
Julius Crispus Noble Caesar
Bust right; laureate
Possible damnatio mark

Reverse: CAESARVM NOSTRORVM
VOT X in two lines inside laurel wreath.
The Prince of our people offers vows so that he may serve for a prosperous ten years.
Exergue: ASIS

(Siscia mint, first officina)

RIC VII Siscia 181; VM 10
2.84g; 19.4mm; 195°Pep

35. Constantius II / Hoc Signo. . .Maiorina (larger AE 2), Mar. - Dec. 350, Siscia mint.
Obverse: DN CONSTANTIVS P F AVG / Diademed bust of Constantius II; A behind bust, star in front.
Reverse: HOC SIGNO VICTOR ERIS / Emperor standing, in military dress, holding standard with ChiRho, and spear. To the right stands Victory crowning him with a wreath and holding a palm branch. A in left field.
Mint mark: . ASIS*
5.55 gm., 22.5 mm.
RIC # 291; LRBC #1177; Sear #18203.

The reverse type on this coin refers to the vision Constantine the Great had before the Battle of the Milvian Bridge in 312. He saw a cross and the words HOC SIGNO VICTOR ERIS, which translate "By this sign you will be victorious."

Vetranio used this reverse type on coins minted in his name and the name of Constantius II during the 9 months he was emperor. RIC says, "This . . . evocation of the vision of Constantine before his victory over Magnentius is the clearest possible indication of Vetranio's loyalty to Constantius, and his expectation of the latter's triumph (over Magnentius)." (RIC VII, p. 344-45.)

On Roman coins, if an emperor is depicted on the reverse, it is usually the emperor whose name and portrait appears on the obverse of the coin. On this particular coin, it would not be out of place to have Constantius II represented on the reverse, especially because the coin was issued in advance of a coming battle with a pagan usurper (Magnentius). However, given the reverse legend, it is thought by many that the emperor depicted on this reverse is Constantine the Great himself.Callimachus

394/1b. Postumia - denarius (74 BC)AR Denarius (Rome, 74 BC)
O/ Bust of Diana right, draped, with bow and quiver over shoulder.
R/ Hound running right; spear below; C POSTVMI in exergue.
3.96g; 17mm
Crawford 394/1b (192 obverse dies/213 reverse dies, both varieties)
- ex Lockdales 145, lot 1414.

* Gaius Postumius At. or Ta. (Albinus Atilianus?):

This variant without the monogram in exergue is very rare; only three reverse dies seem to exist.

The moneyer belonged to the great patrician gens Postumia, but his family is much more difficult to ascertain. The patrician Postumii had few different branches and only one had survived by the 1st century: the Albini. There were also plebeian Postumii.

His obverse with Diana reproduces those of Aulus Postumius S.f. S.n. Albinus (RRC 335/9), and his probable son Postumius A.f. S.n. Albinus (RRC 372/1), thus implying that he was a member of the patrician family. However, the Albini never used the praenomen Gaius. It is nonetheless possible that our moneyer was adopted into the gens, as it occurred with Decimus Junius Brutus (RRC 450), adopted by an Aulus Albinus. The Postumii seem to have had difficulties producing male heirs; they indeed had 9 consulships between 186 and 99 BC, but very few magistrates bore that name in the 1st century. The disaster of the campaign against Jugurtha by the brothers Spurius and Aulus Postumius Albinus might have hit the gens hard; Aulus was also murdered during the Social War (Livy, Periochae, 75).

The monogram in exergue could therefore be deciphered as AT for the plebeian gens Atilia -- the possible family of Gaius Albinus before his adoption. Another moneyer, Lucius Atilius Nomentanus, likewise ligatured the first two letters of his name on his denarii in 141 (RRC 225/1). This theory would explain both the unusual praenomen for the gens and the monogram. His adoptive father could also be one of the two moneyer mentioned above.

Crawford links the moneyer with a Gnaeus Postumius who accused Lucius Licinius Murena, the consul elect for 62, of bribery in the famous Pro Murena by Cicero (56-58), who also says that Postumius was a (unsuccessful) candidate to the praetorship that year. The case was won by Cicero and no doubt that accusing a Consul of bribery did not help his career and the fate of the Albini, as they disappeared from history after this. 1 commentsJoss

40. Gallienus.Antoninianus, 260 - 268 AD, unidentified mint.
Obverse: GALLIENVS AVG / Radiate bust of Gallienus.
Reverse: MINEREA AVG / Minerva standing, with spear and shield. Palm branch below.
3.48 gm., 22 mm.
RIC #651 var; Sear #10290 var.

This coin has a spelling error on the reverse: MINEREA instead of MINERVA.
The city where this coin was minted is unknown, but it could possibly be Antioch or Cyzicus. For a discussion of the unusual style of this coin, and possible mint attributions, See RIC vol. V, part 1, p. 24.Callimachus

403. CarausiusMarcus Aurelius Mausaeus Carausius (d. 293) was a Roman usurper in Britain and northern Gaul (286–293, Carausian Revolt).

Carausius was a man of humble origin, a Menapian from Belgic Gaul who distinguished himself during Maximian's campaign against the Bagaudae rebels in Gaul in 286. As a result, he was appointed to command the Classis Britannica, a fleet based in the English Channel, with the responsibility of eliminating Frankish and Saxon pirates who had been raiding the coast. However, he was suspected of keeping captured treasure for himself, and even of allowing the pirates to carry out raids and enrich themselves before taking action against them, and Maximian ordered his execution. In late 286 or early 287 Carausius learned of this sentence and responded by declaring himself Emperor of Britain and northern Gaul.

He could count on the alliegance of the three legions based in Britain, as well as one in northern Gaul. How he was able to win support from the army when his command had been sea-based is uncertain. The emperor briefly assumed the title Britannicus Maximus in 285, and the British towns of Wroxeter and Caistor by Norwich towns show signs of destruction around this time, so it is possible Carausius won the army's support during military action in Britain shortly before his rebellion. Alternatively, if the accusations of larceny are true, he could perhaps afford to buy their loyalty. He also appears to have appealed to native British dissatisfaction with Roman rule: he issued coins with legends such as Restitutor Britanniae (Restorer of Britain) and Genius Britanniae (Spirit of Britain).

Maximian, busy with wars on the Rhine, was unable to challenge him immediately, but in the Autumn of 288 he began massing troops and ships for an invasion. In 289 an invasion of Britain intended to dislodge him failed badly due to storms, although a naval defeat is also possible. An uneasy peace continued until 293, during which Rome prepared for a second effort to retake the province, while Carausius began to entertain visions of legitimacy and official recognition. He minted his own coins and brought their value in to line with Roman issues as well as acknowledging and honouring Maximian and then Diocletian. Coinage is the main source of information about the rogue emperor; his issues were initially crude but soon became more elaborate and were issued from mints in Londinium, Rotomagnus and a third site, possibly Colonia Claudia Victricensis. A milestone from Carlisle with his name on it suggests that the whole of Roman Britain was in Carausius' grasp.

It has been speculated (namely, by the historian Sheppard Frere) that the rebellion of Carausius endangered Diocletian's vision of a strong, centralized government based on his tetrarchy. In any case, by early 293 Constantius Chlorus had gained control of northern Gaul, including the rebel's stronghold and port of Bononia, on which Carausius was heavily dependent. Constantius built a mole across the harbour mouth to ensure it did not receive maritime aid.

Constantius also regained the allegiance of the rebellious Gallic legion and defeated the Franks of the Rhine mouth who seem to have been working in league with Carausius. Weakened by these setbacks, Carausius was assassinated, possibly at York, by his treasurer, Allectus.

aVF/aVF Carausius Antoninianus / Pax / Green Patina and Nice Style

Attribution: RIC 895
Date: 287-293 AD
Obverse: IMP CARAVSIVS P F AVG, radiate and draped bust right
Reverse: PAX AVG, Pax standing left, holding branch and transverse sceptre.
Size: 20.91 mm
Weight: 3 gramsecoli

406a. Galeria ValeriaGaleria Valeria was Diocletian's daughter and, to cement the alliance between Diocletian and Galerius, Valeria was married to Galerius. It appears that this was not a very happy marriage. Galeria Valeria was sympathetic towards Christians during this time of severe persecution and it is possible that she was actually a Christian herself. The imperial couple were not blessed with any children during their eighteen year marriage. After Galerius died in A. D. 311, Galeria Valeria and her mother went to live at the court of Maximinus Daia, the caesar who became emperor of the East upon the death of Galerius.

Maximinus proposed marriage to Valeria soon afterward. He was probably more interested in her wealth and the prestige he would gain by marrying the widow of one emperor and the daughter of another than he was in Valeria as a person. She refused his hand, and immediately Maximinus reacted with hatred and fury. Diocletian, by now an old man living in a seaside villa on the Dalmatian coast, begged Maximinus to allow the two women to come home to him. Maximinus refused and had Valeria and her mother banished to live in a village in Syria.

During the civil war that erupted between Maximinus and Licinius, Valeria and Prisca disguised themselves and escaped, trying to reach the safety of Diocletian's villa. In the meantime, Diocletian had died, leaving the women without a haven of safety to which to run. For fifteen months the two royal fugitives traveled from one city to another, always living in fear of being discovered and in search of a little peace.

Finally, they were recognized by someone in the Greek city of Salonika. They were hastily taken to a square in the city and beheaded before a crowd of citizens who had once revered them as empresses. The bodies of Valeria and her mother were afterwards thrown into the sea.

Galeria Valeria Follis. AD 308-311. GAL VAL-ERIA AVG, Diademed & draped bust right / VENERI V-ICTRICI, Venus standing left, holding apple & scepter, * to left, G to right, (dot)SM(dot)TS(dot) in ex. ecoli

423/1. Servilia - denarius (57 BC)AR Denarius (Rome, 57 BC)
O/ Head of Flora right; lituus behind; FLORAL PRIMVS before.
R/ Two soldiers facing each other and presenting swords; C SERVEIL in exergue; C F upwards on right.
3.87g; 18mm
Crawford 423/1 (99 obverse dies/110 reverse dies)
- ROMA Numismatics, E-Sale 42, lot 484.
- Artemide Aste, 11-12 June 2016, lot 253.

* Gaius Servilius C.f. (Brocchus?):

The gens Servilia was originally patrician, but our moneyer was most likely a plebeian because at this time, the only remaining patrician branch of the gens was the Caepiones. The Servilii Gemini, likewise patricians at first, lost their status during the Second Punic War for an unknown reason and their descendants had erratic cognomina, making it difficult to reconstruct the genealogical tree of the gens. The one given by Crawford for RRC 239 is dubious, although possible.

Crawford also says that our moneyer was perhaps a brother of Marcus Servilius C.f., Tribune of the Plebs in 43 BC. He was possibly the Gaius Servilius Brocchus, son of Gaius, mentioned as Military Tribune by Flavius Josephus (Jewish Antiquities, xiv. 229), who tells that he served under the Consul L. Cornelius Lentulus Crus in Asia. It would match a career started in the 50, during which the Pompeian party was dominating, and continued as Pompey's supporter during the Civil War.

The meaning of his denarius has been debated. According to Crawford, the obverse legend refers to the priesthood of Flora, probably held by the gens, contradicting the view of Mommsen, who thought it was celebrating the establishment of the Ludi Florales in 173. This view has been in turn challenged by Robert Palmer, but without giving an explanation of his own*. It should also be mentioned that Pliny the Elder tells that there were statues of Flora, Triptolemus and Ceres by Praxiteles in the "Servilian gardens" (Natural History, xxxvi. 4), which obviously belonged to the gens, showing that Flora was of special importance for the Servilii.

The reverse reuses a common theme on Servilii's denarii: the duels of Marcus Servilius Pulex Geminus, Consul in 202, who was famous for his 23 victories in single combats (Plutarch, Aemilius Paullus, 31). The scene was depicted with variations on RRC 264 (horseback duel), RRC 327 (duel on foot), and RRC 370 (rider charging). It is also possible that RRC 239 shows another duel on horse, but disguised as the Dioscuri riding apart. The fact that our moneyer used this theme links him to the other direct descendants of Servilius Pulex Geminus, thus supporting Crawford's theory that he was a grandchild of Gaius Servilius, Praetor in 102.

* "Flora and the Sybil", in Ten Years of the Agnes Kirsopp Lake Michels Lectures at Bryn Mawr College, edited by Suzanne B. Faris, Lesley E. Lundeen, Bryn Mawr, 2006, pp. 58-70.3 commentsJoss

501. Constantine I Alexandria PosthumousAlexandria

The city passed formally under Roman jurisdiction in 80 BC, according to the will of Ptolemy Alexander but after it had been previously under Roman influence for more than a hundred years. Julius Caesar dallied with Cleopatra in Alexandria in 47 BC, saw Alexander's body (quipping 'I came to see a king, not a collection of corpses' when he was offered a view of the other royal burials) and was mobbed by the rabble. His example was followed by Marc Antony, for whose favor the city paid dearly to Octavian, who placed over it a prefect from the imperial household.

From the time of annexation onwards, Alexandria seems to have regained its old prosperity, commanding, as it did, an important granary of Rome. This fact, doubtless, was one of the chief reasons which induced Augustus to place it directly under imperial power. In AD 215 the emperor Caracalla visited the city and for some insulting satires that the inhabitants had directed at him, abruptly commanded his troops to put to death all youths capable of bearing arms. This brutal order seems to have been carried out even beyond the letter, for a general massacre ensued.

Even as its main historical importance had formerly sprung from pagan learning, now Alexandria acquired fresh importance as a centre of Christian theology and church government. There Arianism was formulated and where also Athanasius, the great opponent of both Arianism and pagan reaction, triumphed over both, establishing the Patriarch of Alexandria as a major influence in Christianity for the next two centuries.

As native influences began to reassert themselves in the Nile valley, Alexandria gradually became an alien city, more and more detached from Egypt and losing much of its commerce as the peace of the empire broke up during the 3rd century AD, followed by a fast decline in population and splendour.

In the late 4th century, persecution of pagans by Christians had reached new levels of intensity. Temples and statues were destroyed throughout the Roman empire: pagan rituals became forbidden under punishment of death, and libraries were closed. In 391, Emperor Theodosius I ordered the destruction of all pagan temples, and the Patriarch Theophilus, complied with his request. It is possible that the great Library of Alexandria and the Serapeum was destroyed about this time. The pagan mathematician and philosopher Hypathia was a prominent victim of the persecutions.

The Brucheum and Jewish quarters were desolate in the 5th century, and the central monuments, the Soma and Museum, fell into ruin. On the mainland, life seemed to have centred in the vicinity of the Serapeum and Caesareum, both which became Christian churches. The Pharos and Heptastadium quarters, however, remained populous and left intact.

veiled head only
DV CONSTANTI-NVS PT AVGG
RIC VIII Alexandria 32 C3

From uncleaned lot; one of the nicer finds.
ecoli

515. Theodosius ISon of a senior military officer, Theodosius the Elder, Theodosius accompanied his father to Britannia to help quell the Great Conspiracy in 368. He was military commander (dux) of Moesia, a Roman province on the lower Danube, in 374. However, shortly thereafter, and at about the same time as the sudden disgrace and execution of his father, Theodosius retired to Cauca. The reason for his retirement, and the relationship (if any) between it and his father's death is unclear. It is possible that he was dismissed of his command by the emperor Valentinian I, after the loss of two of Theodosius' legions by the Sarmatians in late 374.

In 378, after the death of the emperor Valens at the Battle of Adrianople, the emperor Gratian appointed Theodosius co-augustus for the East. After 392, following the death of Valentinian II, whom he had supported against a variety of usurpations, Theodosius ruled as sole emperor, defeating the usurper Eugenius on September 6, 394, at the Battle of the Frigidus.

RIC IX Constantinople 88a C
ecoli

515b. Magnus MaximusA Spaniard, Maximus was proclaimed emperor by his troops in 383, while serving with the army in Britain. Later legend made him King of the Britons; he handed the throne over to Caradocus when he went to Gaul to pursue his imperial ambitions.

Following his destruction of Gaul, Maximus went out to meet his main opponent, Gratian, who he defeated near Paris. Gratian, after fleeing, was killed at Lyon on August 25, 383. Soon after, Maximus managed to force Valentinian II out of Rome after which he fled to Theodosius I, the Eastern Roman Emperor. Maximus made his capital at Augusta Treverorum (Treves, Trier) in Gaul. He became a popular emperor, although also a stern persecutor of heretics.

Theodosius I and Valentinian II campaigned against Magnus Maximus in July-August 388. Maximus was defeated in the Battle of the Save, near Emona, and retreated to Aquileia. Andragathius, magister equitum of Maximus and killer of Gratian, was defeated near Siscia, his brother Marcellinus again at Poetovio. Maximus surrendered in Aquileia and although pleaded for mercy was executed. However, his wife and two daughters were spared. Maximus' son, Flavius Victor, was defeated and executed by Valentinian's magister peditum Arbogast in the fall of the same year.

What happened to his family is not related, although it is clear that they survived and that his descendants continued to occupy influential posts. We encounter a possible daughter of Magnus Maximus, Sevira, on the Pillar of Eliseg, an early medieval inscribed stone in Wales which claims her marriage to Vortigern, king of the Britons. Another daughter was possibly married to Ennodius, proconsul Africae (395). Their grandson was Petronius Maximus, who was another ill-fated emperor, ruling in Rome for but 77 days before he was stoned to death while fleeing from the Vandals on May 24, 455. Other descendants included Anicius Olybrius, emperor in 472, but also several consuls and bishops such as St. Magnus Felix Ennodius (Bishop of Pavia c. 514-21).

Magnus Maximus AE-4

Obv: MM right, DN MAG MAXIMVS PF AVG; Reverse: SPES ROMANORVM, campgate with two turrets and star above. Coin is nice VF for this small issue. ecoli

54 Galerius as Augustus: Nicomedia follis.Follis, 308 - 310 AD, Nicomedia mint.
Obverse: IMP C GAL VAL MAXIMIANVS P F AVG / Laureate bust of Galerius.
Reverse: GENIO AVGVSTI CMH / Genius standing, pouring from patera and holding cornucopiae.
Mint mark: SMND
6.61 gm., 24.5 mm.
RIC #54a; PBCC #964; Sear #14508.

The meaning of the CMH ligature in the reverse inscription is a mystery. It is found on coins from the mints of Nicomedia and Cyzicus. It is generally thought to refer to the value of the coin. One possible suggestion is that it means 100 (C) sestertii struck at a new weight of 48 to the pound (Greek M = 40; Greek H = 8).Callimachus

601, Julius Caesar, Imperator and Dictator, assassinated 15 March 44 B.C.Julius Caesar AR Denarius 40 B.C. 20 mm, 3.6 gm; aVF; Moving mint. 49-48 BC. Obverse: Pontifical emblems culullus, aspergillum, axe, and apex. Reverse: elephant right trampling dragon; CAESAR in exergue. Ex Windsor Antiquities.

It is not possible to adequately discuss Gaius Julius Caesar within the constraints of this gallery. He was born on either the 12th or the 13th of July in 100 B.C. [most scholars agree upon this date, but it is debated], and he was assassinated on 15 March 44 B.C.

Caesar is arguably the most important figure in Roman history; only Augustus and, perhaps, Constantine the Great made contributions of equivalent magnitude. Caesar was a truly gifted writer, orator, politician and soldier .

Library and book store shelves are crowded with a variety of biographies on the great man. Christian Meier, professor of Ancient History at the University of Munich, has written a scholarly as well as intriguing biography of Caesar. It is simply titled Caesar. It was first published in Germany in 1982, and a recently published paper back translation by David McLintock is now available from Fontana Press (a subsidiary of HarperCollins Publishers).

Caesar is fascinating.

J. P. Fitzgerald, Jr.
1 commentsCleisthenes

701a, Julius Caesar, Imperator and Dictator, assassinated 15 March 44 B.C.Julius Caesar

Of the great man, Joseph Sermarini states,"Gaius Julius Caesar is one of the most famous men in history. At the end of his brilliant military and political career he had gained control of the Roman state. His puppet senate heaped more and more honors upon him. In February 44 B.C. the senate named him dictator for life. Many senators, however, feared that he wished to become king, ending the Republic. On the 15th of March 44 B.C., 63 senators attacked him with knives they had hidden in the folds of their togas. This most famous of assassinations plunged the Roman Republic into 17 years of civil war, after which it would re-emerge as the Roman Empire."

It is not possible to adequately discuss Gaius Julius Caesar within the constraints of this gallery. He was born on either the 12th or the 13th of July in 100 B.C. [most scholars agree upon this date, but it is debated], and he was assassinated on 15 March 44 B.C.

Caesar is arguably the most important figure in Roman history; only Augustus and, perhaps, Constantine the Great made contributions of equivalent magnitude. Caesar was a truly gifted writer, orator, politician and soldier .

Library and book store shelves are crowded with a variety of biographies on this historical giant. Christian Meier, professor of Ancient History at the University of Munich, has written a scholarly as well as intriguing biography of Caesar. It is simply titled Caesar. It was first published in Germany in 1982, and a recently published paper back translation by David McLintock is now available from Fontana Press (a subsidiary of HarperCollins Publishers).

Caesar is fascinating.

J. P. Fitzgerald, Jr.
Cleisthenes

705a, Claudius, 25 January 41 - 13 October 54 A.D.Claudius. 42-43 AD. AE As.
Claudius. 42-43 AD. AE As (29 mm, 10.87 g). Obverse: TI CLAVDIVS CAESAR AVG P M TR P IMP P P, bare head right; Reverse: CONSTANTIAE AVGVSTI / S - C, Constantiae in military dress standing left, holding spear; RIC I, 111; aVF. Ex Imperial Coins.

De Imperatoribus Romanis: An Online Encyclopedia of Roman Rulers and their Families

CLAUDIUS (41-54 A.D.)

Garrett G. Fagan
Pennsylvania State University

Ti. Claudius Nero Germanicus (b. 10 BC, d. 54 A.D.; emperor, 41-54 A.D.) was the third emperor of the Julio-Claudian dynasty. His reign represents a turning point in the history of the Principate for a number of reasons, not the least for the manner of his accession and the implications it carried for the nature of the office. During his reign he promoted administrators who did not belong to the senatorial or equestrian classes, and was later vilified by authors who did. He followed Caesar in carrying Roman arms across the English Channel into Britain but, unlike his predecessor, he initiated the full-scale annexation of Britain as a province, which remains today the most closely studied corner of the Roman Empire. His relationships with his wives and children provide detailed insights into the perennial difficulties of the succession problem faced by all Roman Emperors. His final settlement in this regard was not lucky: he adopted his fourth wife's son, L. Domitius Ahenobarbus, who was to reign catastrophically as Nero and bring the dynasty to an end. Claudius's reign, therefore, was a mixture of successes and failures that leads into the last phase of the Julio-Claudian line.

Robert Graves' fictional characterization of Claudius as an essentially benign man with a keen intelligence has tended to dominate the wider public's view of this emperor. Close study of the sources, however, reveals a somewhat different kind of man. In addition to his scholarly and cautious nature, he had a cruel streak, as suggested by his addiction to gladiatorial games and his fondness for watching his defeated opponents executed. He conducted closed-door (in camera ) trials of leading citizens that frequently resulted in their ruin or deaths -- an unprecedented and tyrannical pattern of behavior. He had his wife Messalina executed, and he personally presided over a kangaroo court in the Praetorian Camp in which many of her hangers-on lost their lives. He abandoned his own son Britannicus to his fate and favored the advancement of Nero as his successor. While he cannot be blamed for the disastrous way Nero's rule turned out, he must take some responsibility for putting that most unsuitable youth on the throne. At the same time, his reign was marked by some notable successes: the invasion of Britain, stability and good government in the provinces, and successful management of client kingdoms. Claudius, then, is a more enigmatic figure than the other Julio-Claudian emperors: at once careful, intelligent, aware and respectful of tradition, but given to bouts of rage and cruelty, willing to sacrifice precedent to expediency, and utterly ruthless in his treatment of those who crossed him. Augustus's suspicion that there was more to the timid Claudius than met the eye was more than fully borne out by the events of his unexpected reign.

The possibility has to be entertained that Claudius was a far more active participant in his own elevation than traditional accounts let on. There is just reason to suspect that he may even have been involved in planning the murder of Gaius (Caligula). Merely minutes before the assassination of Gaius, Claudius had departed for lunch; this appears altogether too fortuitous. This possibility, however, must remain pure speculation, since the ancient evidence offers nothing explicit in the way of support. On the other hand, we can hardly expect them to, given the later pattern of events. The whole issue of Claudius's possible involvement in the death of Gaius and his own subsequent acclamation by the Praetorian Guard must, therefore, remain moot . . . yet intriguing

Copyright 1998, Garrett G. Fagan.
Published: De Imperatoribus Romanis: An Online Encyclopedia of Roman Rulers and their Families http://www.roman-emperors.org/startup.htm. Used by permission.

Edited by J. P. Fitzgerald, Jr.

Cleisthenes

706a, Nero, 13 October 54 - 9 June 68 A.D.6, Nero, 13 October 54 - 9 June 68 A.D. AE setertius, Date: 66 AD; RIC I 516, 36.71 mm; 25.5 grams; aVF. Obverse: IMP NERO CAESAR AVG PONT MAX TR POT PP, Laureate bust right; Reverse: S C, ROMA, Roma seated left, exceptional portrait and full obverse legends. Ex Ancient Imports.

NERO (54-68 A.D.)

It is difficult for the modern student of history to realize just how popular Nero actually was, at least at the beginning of his reign. Rome looked upon her new Emperor with hope. He was the student of Seneca, and he had a sensitive nature. He loved art, music, literature, and theatre. He was also devoted to horses and horse racing—a devotion shared by many of his subjects. The plebs loved their new Emperor. As Professor of Classics Judith P. Hallett (University of Maryland, College Park) says, “It is not clear to me that Nero ever changed or that Nero ever grew-up, and that was both his strength and his weakness. Nero was an extraordinarily popular Emperor: he was like Elvis” (The Roman Empire in the First Century, III. Dir. Margaret Koval and Lyn Goldfarb. 2001. DVD. PBS/Warner Bros. 2003).

De Imperatoribus Romanis: An Online Encyclopedia of Roman Rulers and their Families

Herbert W. Benario
Emory University

Introduction and Sources
The five Julio-Claudian emperors are very different one from the other. Augustus dominates in prestige and achievement from the enormous impact he had upon the Roman state and his long service to Rome, during which he attained unrivaled auctoritas. Tiberius was clearly the only possible successor when Augustus died in AD 14, but, upon his death twenty-three years later, the next three were a peculiar mix of viciousness, arrogance, and inexperience. Gaius, better known as Caligula, is generally styled a monster, whose brief tenure did Rome no service. His successor Claudius, his uncle, was a capable man who served Rome well, but was condemned for being subject to his wives and freedmen. The last of the dynasty, Nero, reigned more than three times as long as Gaius, and the damage for which he was responsible to the state was correspondingly greater. An emperor who is well described by statements such as these, "But above all he was carried away by a craze for popularity and he was jealous of all who in any way stirred the feeling of the mob." and "What an artist the world is losing!" and who is above all remembered for crimes against his mother and the Christians was indeed a sad falling-off from the levels of Augustus and Tiberius. Few will argue that Nero does not rank as one of the worst emperors of all.

The prime sources for Nero's life and reign are Tacitus' Annales 12-16, Suetonius' Life of Nero, and Dio Cassius' Roman History 61-63, written in the early third century. Additional valuable material comes from inscriptions, coinage, papyri, and archaeology.

Early Life
He was born on December 15, 37, at Antium, the son of Cnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbusand Agrippina. Domitius was a member of an ancient noble family, consul in 32; Agrippina was the daughter of the popular Germanicus, who had died in 19, and Agrippina, daughter of Agrippa, Augustus' closest associate, and Julia, the emperor's daughter, and thus in direct descent from the first princeps. When the child was born, his uncle Gaius had only recently become emperor. The relationship between mother and uncle was difficult, and Agrippina suffered occasional humiliation. But the family survived the short reign of the "crazy" emperor, and when he was assassinated, it chanced that Agrippina's uncle, Claudius, was the chosen of the praetorian guard, although there may have been a conspiracy to accomplish this.

Ahenobarbus had died in 40, so the son was now the responsibility of Agrippina alone. She lived as a private citizen for much of the decade, until the death of Messalina, the emperor's wife, in 48 made competition among several likely candidates to become the new empress inevitable. Although Roman law forbade marriage between uncle and niece, an eloquent speech in the senate by Lucius Vitellius, Claudius' closest advisor in the senatorial order, persuaded his audience that the public good required their union. The marriage took place in 49, and soon thereafter the philosopher Seneca [[PIR2 A617]] was recalled from exile to become the young Domitius' tutor, a relationship which endured for some dozen years.

His advance was thereafter rapid. He was adopted by Claudius the following year and took the name Tiberius Claudius Nero Caesar or Nero Claudius Caesar Drusus Germanicus, was preferred to Claudius' natural son, Britannicus, who was about three years younger, was betrothed to the emperor's daughter Octavia, and was, in the eyes of the people, the clear successor to the emperor. In 54, Claudius died, having eaten some poisoned mushrooms, responsibility for which was believed to be Agrippina's, and the young Nero, not yet seventeen years old, was hailed on October 13 as emperor by the praetorian guard.

The First Years of Rule
The first five years of Nero's rule are customarily called the quinquennium, a period of good government under the influence, not always coinciding, of three people, his mother, Seneca, and Sextus Afranius Burrus, the praetorian prefect. The latter two were allies in their "education" of the emperor. Seneca continued his philosophical and rhetorical training, Burrus was more involved in advising on the actualities of government. They often combined their influence against Agrippina, who, having made her son emperor, never let him forget the debt he owed his mother, until finally, and fatally, he moved against her.

Nero's betrothal to Octavia was a significant step in his ultimate accession to the throne, as it were, but she was too quiet, too shy, too modest for his taste. He was early attracted to Poppaea Sabina, the wife of Otho, and she continually goaded him to break from Octavia and to show himself an adult by opposing his mother. In his private life, Nero honed the musical and artistic tastes which were his chief interest, but, at this stage, they were kept private, at the instigation of Seneca and Burrus.

As the year 59 began, Nero had just celebrated his twenty-first birthday and now felt the need to employ the powers which he possessed as emperor as he wished, without the limits imposed by others. Poppaea's urgings had their effect, first of all, at the very onset of the year, with Nero's murder of his mother in the Bay of Naples.

Agrippina had tried desperately to retain her influence with her son, going so far as to have intercourse with him. But the break between them proved irrevocable, and Nero undertook various devices to eliminate his mother without the appearance of guilt on his part. The choice was a splendid vessel which would collapse while she was on board. As this happened, she swam ashore and, when her attendant, having cried out that she was Agrippina, was clubbed to death, Agrippina knew what was going on. She sent Nero a message that she was well; his response was to send a detachment of sailors to finish the job. When she was struck across the head, she bared her womb and said, "Strike here, Anicetus, strike here, for this bore Nero," and she was brutally murdered.

Nero was petrified with fear when he learned that the deed had been done, yet his popularity with the plebs of Rome was not impaired. This matricide, however, proved a turning point in his life and principate. It appeared that all shackles were now removed. The influence of Seneca and Burrus began to wane, and when Burrus died in 62, Seneca realized that his powers of persuasion were at an end and soon went into retirement. Britannicus had died as early as 55; now Octavia was to follow, and Nero became free to marry Poppaea. It may be that it had been Burrus rather than Agrippina who had continually urged that Nero's position depended in large part upon his marriage to Octavia. Burrus' successor as commander of the praetorian guard, although now with a colleague, was Ofonius Tigellinus, quite the opposite of Burrus in character and outlook. Tigellinus became Nero's "evil twin," urging and assisting in the performance of crimes and the satisfaction of lusts.

Administrative and Foreign Policy
With Seneca and Burrus in charge of administration at home, the first half-dozen years of Nero's principate ran smoothly. He himself devoted his attention to his artistic, literary, and physical bents, with music, poetry, and chariot racing to the fore. But his advisors were able to keep these performances and displays private, with small, select audiences on hand. Yet there was a gradual trend toward public performance, with the establishment of games. Further, he spent many nights roaming the city in disguise, with numerous companions, who terrorized the streets and attacked individuals. Those who dared to defend themselves often faced death afterward, because they had shown disrespect for the emperor. The die was being cast for the last phases of Nero's reign.

The Great Fire at Rome and The Punishment
of the Christians
The year 64 was the most significant of Nero's principate up to this point. His mother and wife were dead, as was Burrus, and Seneca, unable to maintain his influence over Nero without his colleague's support, had withdrawn into private life. The abysmal Tigellinus was now the foremost advisor of the still young emperor, a man whose origin was from the lowest levels of society and who can accurately be described as criminal in outlook and action. Yet Nero must have considered that he was happier than he had ever been in his life. Those who had constrained his enjoyment of his (seemingly) limitless power were gone, he was married to Poppaea, a woman with all advantages save for a bad character the empire was essentially at peace, and the people of Rome enjoyed a full measure of panem et circenses. But then occurred one of the greatest disasters that the city of Rome, in its long history, had ever endured.

The fire began in the southeastern angle of the Circus Maximus, spreading through the shops which clustered there, and raged for the better part of a week. There was brief success in controlling the blaze, but then it burst forth once more, so that many people claimed that the fires were deliberately set. After about a fortnight, the fire burned itself out, having consumed ten of the fourteen Augustan regions into which the city had been divided.

Nero was in Antium through much of the disaster, but his efforts at relief were substantial. Yet many believed that he had been responsible, so that he could perform his own work comparing the current fate of Rome to the downfall of Troy. All his efforts to assist the stricken city could not remove the suspicion that "the emperor had fiddled while Rome burned." He lost favor even among the plebs who had been enthusiastic supporters, particularly when his plans for the rebuilding of the city revealed that a very large part of the center was to become his new home.

As his popularity waned, Nero and Tigellinus realized that individuals were needed who could be charged with the disaster. It so happened that there was such a group ready at hand, Christians, who had made themselves unpopular because of their refusal to worship the emperor, their way of life, and their secret meetings. Further, at this time two of their most significant "teachers" were in Rome, Peter and Paul. They were ideal scapegoats, individuals whom most Romans loathed, and who had continually sung of the forthcoming end of the world.

Their destruction was planned with the utmost precision and cruelty, for the entertainment of the populace. The venue was Nero's circus near the Mons Vaticanus. Christians were exposed to wild animals and were set ablaze, smeared with pitch, to illuminate the night. The executions were so grisly that even the populace displayed sympathy for the victims. Separately, Peter was crucified upside down on the Vatican hill and Paul was beheaded along the Via Ostiensis. But Nero's attempt, and hope, to shift all suspicion of arson to others failed. His popularity even among the lower classes was irrevocably impaired.

[For a detailed and interesting discussion of Nero’s reign please see http://www.roman-emperors.org/nero.htm]

The End - Nero's Death and its Aftermath
Nero's and Tigellinus' response to the conspiracy was immediate and long-lasting. The senatorial order was decimated, as one leading member after another was put to death or compelled to commit suicide. The year 66 saw the suicides of perhaps the most distinguished victims of the "reign of terror," Caius Petronius and Thrasea Paetus. Petronius, long a favorite of Nero because of his aesthetic taste, had been an able public servant before he turned to a life of ease and indolence. He was recognized as the arbiter elegantiae of Nero's circle, and may be the author of the Satyricon. At his death, he left for Nero a document which itemized many of the latter's crimes. Thrasea, a staunch Stoic who had been for some years an outspoken opponent of Nero's policies, committed suicide in the Socratic manner. This scene is the last episode in the surviving books of Tacitus' Annals.

In the year 68, revolt began in the provinces. . . the end of Nero's reign became inevitable. Galba claimed the throne and began his march from Spain. Nero panicked and was rapidly abandoned by his supporters. He finally committed suicide with assistance, on June 9, 68, and his body was tended and buried by three women who had been close to him in his younger days, chief of whom was Acte. His death scene is marked above all by the statement, "Qualis artifex pereo," (What an artist dies in me.) Even at the end he was more concerned with his private life than with the affairs of state.

The aftermath of Nero's death was cataclysmic. Galba was the first of four emperors who revealed the new secret of empire, that an emperor could be made elsewhere than in Rome. Civil war ensued, which was only ended by the victory of the fourth claimant, Vespasian, who established the brief dynasty of the Flavians. The dynasty of the Julio-Claudians was at an end.

Nero's popularity among the lower classes remained even after his death.

. . . .

It is not excessive to say that he was one of the worst of Rome's emperors in the first two centuries and more of the empire. Whatever talents he had, whatever good he may have done, all is overwhelmed by three events, the murder of his mother, the fire at Rome, and his savage treatment of the Christians.

Precisely these qualities are the reasons that he has remained so well known and has been the subject of many writers and opera composers in modern times. These works of fiction particularly merit mention: Henryk Sienkiewicz's Quo Vadis, one of the finest works of the 1907 Nobel Laureate in Literature, and John Hersey's The Conspiracy. Nero unquestionably will always be with us.

Copyright (C) 2006, Herbert W. Benario.
Published: De Imperatoribus Romanis: An Online Encyclopedia of Roman Rulers and their Families http://www.roman-emperors.org/startup.htm. Used by permission.

Edited by J. P. Fitzgerald, Jr.

1 commentsCleisthenes

708a, OthoOtho (69 A.D.)
John Donahue
College of William and Mary

Introduction
In January 69 Otho led a successful coup to overthrow the emperor Galba. Upon advancing to the throne, he hoped to conciliate his adversaries and restore political stability to the Empire. These ambitions were never to be realized. Instead, our sources portray a leader never fully able to win political confidence at Rome or to overcome military anarchy abroad. As a result, he was defeated in battle by the forces of Vitellius, his successor, and took his own life at the conclusion of the conflict. His principate lasted only eight weeks.
Early Life and Career
Marcus Salvius Otho was born at Ferentium on 28 April 32 A. D. His grandfather, also named Marcus Salvius Otho, was a senator who did not advance beyond the rank of praetor. Lucius Otho, his father, was consul in 33 and a trusted administrator under the emperors Tiberius, Gaius and Claudius. His mother, Albia Terentia, was likely to have been nobly born as well. The cognomen "Otho" was Etruscan in origin, and the fact that it can be traced to three successive generations of this family perhaps reflects a desire to maintain a part of the Etruscan tradition that formed the family's background.
Otho is recorded as being extravagant and wild as a youth - a favorite pastime involved roving about at night to snare drunkards in a blanket. Such behavior earned floggings from his father, whose frequent absences from home on imperial business suggest little in the way of a stabilizing parental influence in Otho's formative years. These traits apparently persisted: Suetonius records that Otho and Nero became close friends because of the similarity of their characters; and Plutarch relates that the young man was so extravagant that he sometimes chided Nero about his meanness, and even outdid the emperor in reckless spending.
Most intriguing in this context is Otho's involvement with Nero's mistress, Poppaea Sabina, the greatest beauty of her day. A relationship between the two is widely cited in the ancient sources, but the story differs in essential details from one account to the next. As a result, it is impossible to establish who seduced whom, whether Otho ever married Poppaea, and whether his posting to Lusitania by Nero should be understood as a "banishment" for his part in this affair. About the only reliable detail to emerge is that Otho did indeed become governor of Lusitania in 59, and that he assumed the post as a quaestor, a rank below that of praetor or consul, the minimum usually required for the office. From here he would launch his initial thrust towards the imperial throne.
Overthrow of Galba
Nero's suicide in June 68 marked the end of the Julio-Claudian dynasty and opened up the principate to the prerogatives of the military beyond Rome. First to emerge was Servius Sulpicius Galba, governor of Hispania Tarraconensis, who had been encouraged to revolt by the praetorians and especially by Nymphidius Sabinus, the corrupt and scheming praetorian prefect at Rome. By this time Otho had been in Spain for close to ten years. His record seems to have been a good one, marked by capable administration and an unwillingness to enrich himself at the expense of the province. At the same time, perhaps seeing this as his best chance to improve his own circumstances, he supported the insurrection as vigorously as possible, even sending Galba all of his gold and his best table servants. At the same time, he made it a point to win the favor of every soldier he came in contact with, most notably the members of the praetorian guard who had come to Spain to accompany Galba to Rome. Galba set out from Spain in July, formally assuming the emperorship shortly thereafter. Otho accompanied him on the journey.
Galba had been in Rome little more than two months when on 1 January 69 the troops in Upper Germany refused to declare allegiance to him and instead followed the men stationed in Lower Germany in proclaiming their commander, Aulus Vitellius, as the new ruler. To show that he was still in charge Galba adopted his own successor, Lucius Calpurnius Piso Frugi Licinianus, an aristocrat completely without administrative or military experience. The choice meant little to the remote armies, the praetorians or the senate and particularly angered Otho, who had hoped to succeed Galba. Otho quickly organized a conspiracy among the praetorians with promise of a material reward, and on 15 January 69 they declared him emperor and publicly killed Galba; Piso, dragged from hiding in the temple of Vesta, was also butchered. On that same evening a powerless senate awarded Otho the imperial titles.
Otho's Principate in Rome
It is not possible to reconstruct a detailed chronology of Otho's brief eight and a half weeks as princeps in Rome (15 January-15 March). Even so, Galba's quick demise had surely impressed upon Otho the need to conciliate various groups. As a result, he continued his indulgence of the praetorian guard but he also tried to win over the senate by following a strict constitutionalist line and by generally keeping the designations for the consulship made by Nero and Galba. In the provinces, despite limited evidence, there are some indications that he tried to compensate for Galba's stinginess by being more generous with grants of citizenship. In short, Otho was eager not to offend anyone.
Problems remained, however. The praetorians had to be continually placated and they were always suspicious of the senate. On the other hand, the senate itself, along with the people, remained deeply disturbed at the manner of Otho's coming to power and his willingness to be associated with Nero. These suspicions and fears were most evident in the praetorian outbreak at Rome. Briefly, Otho had decided to move from Ostia to Rome a cohort of Roman citizens in order to replace some of Rome's garrison, much of which was to be utilized for the showdown with Vitellius. He ordered that weapons be moved from the praetorian camp in Rome by ship to Ostia at night so that the garrison replacements would be properly armed and made to look as soldierly as possible when they marched into the city. Thinking that a senatorial counter-coup against Otho was underway, the praetorians stormed the imperial palace to confirm the emperor's safety, with the result that they terrified Otho and his senatorial dinner guests. Although the praetorians' fears were eventually calmed and they were given a substantial cash payment, the incident dramatically underscored the unease at Rome in the early months of 69.
Otho's Offensive against Vitellius
Meanwhile, in the Rhineland, preparations for a march on Rome by the military legions that had declared for Vitellius were far advanced. Hampered by poor intelligence gathering in Gaul and Germany and having failed to negotiate a settlement with Vitellius in early 69, Otho finally summoned to Italy his forces for a counterattack against the invading Vitellian army. His support consisted of the four legions of Pannonia and Dalmatia, the three legions of Moesia and his own imperial retinue of about 9,000. Vitellius' own troops numbered some 30,000, while those of his two marshals, Aulus Caecina Alienus and Fabius Valens, were between 15,000 and 20,000 each.
Otho's strategy was to make a quick diversionary strike in order to allow time for his own forces to assemble in Italy before engaging the enemy. The strategy worked, as the diversionary army, comprised of urban cohorts, praetorians and marines all from Rome or nearby, was successful in Narbonese Gaul in latter March. An advance guard sent to hold the line on the Po River until the Danubian legions arrived also enjoyed initial success. Otho himself arrived at Bedriacum in northern Italy about 10 April for a strategy session with his commanders. The main concern was that the Vitellians were building a bridge across the Po in order to drive southward towards the Apennines and eventually to Rome. Otho decided to counter by ordering a substantial part of his main force to advance from Bedriacum and establish a new base close enough to the new Vitellian bridge to interrupt its completion. While en route, the Othonian forces, strung out along the via Postumia amid baggage and supply trains, were attacked by Caecina and Valens near Cremona on 14 April. The clash, know as the Battle of Bedriacum, resulted in the defeat of the Othonian forces, their retreat cut off by the river behind them. Otho himself, meanwhile, was not present, but had gone to Brixellum with a considerable force of infantry and cavalry in order to impede any Vitellian units that had managed to cross the Po.
The plan had backfired. Otho's strategy of obtaining victory while avoiding any major battles had proven too risky. Realizing perhaps that a new round of fighting would have involved not only a significant re-grouping of his existing troops but also a potentially bloody civil war at Rome, if Vitellius' troops reached the capital, Otho decided that enough blood had been shed. Two weeks shy of his thirty-seventh birthday, on 16 April 69, he took his own life.
Assessment
To be sure, Otho remains an enigma - part profligate Neronian wastrel and part conscientious military commander willing to give his life for the good of the state. Our sources are at a loss to explain the paradox. Perhaps, like Petronius, he saw it was safer to appear a profligate in Nero's court? In the final analysis, Otho proved to be an organized and efficient military commander, who appealed more to the soldier than to the civilian. He also seems to have been a capable governor, with administrative talents that recalled those of his father. Nevertheless, his violent overthrow of Galba, the lingering doubts that it raised about his character, and his unsuccessful offensive against Vitellius are all vivid reminders of the turbulence that plagued the Roman world between the reigns of Nero and Vespasian. Regrettably, the scenario would play itself out one more time before peace and stability returned to the empire.
Copyright (C) 1999, John Donahue
Edited by J.P.Fitzgerald, Jr.

Cleisthenes

710a, Vespasian, 1 July 69 - 24 June 79 A.D.Silver denarius, RIC II, 10, aVF, 3.5 g, 18mm, Rome mint, 69-71 AD; Obverse: IMP CAESA[R] VESPASIANV[S AV]G - Laureate head right; Reverse: COS ITER [T]R POT - Pax seated left holding branch and caduceus. Ex Imperial Coins.

De Imperatoribus Romanis:
An Online Encyclopedia of Roman Rulers and their Families

Titus Flavius Vespasianus (A.D. 69-79)

John Donahue
College of William and Mary

Introduction

Titus Flavius Vespasianus (b. A.D. 9, d. A.D. 79, emperor A.D. 69-79) restored peace and stability to an empire in disarray following the death of Nero in A.D. 68. In the process he established the Flavian dynasty as the legitimate successor to the Imperial throne. Although we lack many details about the events and chronology of his reign, Vespasian provided practical leadership and a return to stable government - accomplishments which, when combined with his other achievements, make his emperorship particularly notable within the history of the Principate.

Early Life and Career

Vespasian was born at Falacrina near Sabine Reate on 17 November, A.D. 9, the son of T. Flavius Sabinus, a successful tax collector and banker, and Vespasia Polla. Both parents were of equestrian status. Few details of his first fifteen years survive, yet it appears that his father and mother were often away from home on business for long periods. As a result, Vespasian's early education became the responsibility of his paternal grandmother, Tertulla. [[1]] In about A.D. 25 Vespasian assumed the toga virilis and later accepted the wearing of the latus clavus, and with it the senatorial path that his older brother, T. Flavius Sabinus, had already chosen. [[2]] Although many of the particulars are lacking, the posts typically occupied by one intent upon a senatorial career soon followed: a military tribunate in Thrace, perhaps for three or four years; a quaestorship in Crete-Cyrene; and the offices of aedile and praetor, successively, under the emperor Gaius. [[3]]

It was during this period that Vespasian married Flavia Domitilla. Daughter of a treasury clerk and former mistress of an African knight, Flavia lacked the social standing and family connections that the politically ambitious usually sought through marriage. In any case, the couple produced three children, a daughter, also named Flavia Domitilla, and two sons, the future emperors Titus and Domitian . Flavia did not live to witness her husband's emperorship and after her death Vespasian returned to his former mistress Caenis, who had been secretary to Antonia (daughter of Marc Antony and mother of Claudius). Caenis apparently exerted considerable influence over Vespasian, prompting Suetonius to assert that she remained his wife in all but name, even after he became emperor. [[4]]

Following the assassination of Gaius on 24 January, A.D. 41, Vespasian advanced rapidly, thanks in large part to the new princeps Claudius, whose favor the Flavians had wisely secured with that of Antonia, the mother of Germanicus, and of Claudius' freedmen, especially Narcissus. [[5]] The emperor soon dispatched Vespasian to Argentoratum (Strasbourg) as legatus legionis II Augustae, apparently to prepare the legion for the invasion of Britain. Vespasian first appeared at the battle of Medway in A.D. 43, and soon thereafter led his legion across the south of England, where he engaged the enemy thirty times in battle, subdued two tribes, and conquered the Isle of Wight. According to Suetonius, these operations were conducted partly under Claudius and partly under Vespasian's commander, Aulus Plautius. Vespasian's contributions, however, did not go unnoticed; he received the ornamenta triumphalia and two priesthoods from Claudius for his exploits in Britain. [[6]]

By the end of A.D. 51 Vespasian had reached the consulship, the pinnacle of a political career at Rome. For reasons that remain obscure he withdrew from political life at this point, only to return when chosen proconsul of Africa about A.D. 63-64. His subsequent administration of the province was marked by severity and parsimony, earning him a reputation for being scrupulous but unpopular. [[7]] Upon completion of his term, Vespasian returned to Rome where, as a senior senator, he became a man of influence in the emperor Nero's court. [[8]] Important enough to be included on Nero's tour of Greece in A.D. 66-67, Vespasian soon found himself in the vicinity of increasing political turbulence in the East. The situation would prove pivotal in advancing his career.

Judaea and the Accession to Power

In response to rioting in Caesarea and Jerusalem that had led to the slaughter in the latter city of Jewish leaders and Roman soldiers, Nero granted to Vespasian in A.D. 66 a special command in the East with the objective of settling the revolt in Judaea. By spring A.D. 67, with 60,000 legionaries, auxiliaries, and allies under his control, Vespasian set out to subdue Galilee and then to cut off Jerusalem. Success was quick and decisive. By October all of Galilee had been pacified and plans for the strategic encirclement of Jerusalem were soon formed. [[9]] Meanwhile, at the other end of the empire, the revolts of Gaius Iulius Vindex, governor of Gallia Lugdunensis, and Servius Sulpicius Galba , governor of Hispania Tarraconensis, had brought Nero's reign to the brink of collapse. The emperor committed suicide in June, A.D. 68, thereby ensuring chaos for the next eighteen months, as first Galba and then Marcus Salvius Otho and Aulus Vitellius acceded to power. Each lacked broad-based military and senatorial support; each would be violently deposed in turn. [[10]]

Still occupied with plans against Jerusalem, Vespasian swore allegiance to each emperor. Shortly after Vitellius assumed power in spring, A.D. 69, however, Vespasian met on the border of Judaea and Syria with Gaius Licinius Mucianus, governor of Syria, and after a series of private and public consultations, the two decided to revolt. [[11]] On July 1, at the urging of Tiberius Alexander, prefect of Egypt, the legions of Alexandria declared for Vespasian, as did the legions of Judaea two days later. By August all of Syria and the Danube legions had done likewise. Vespasian next dispatched Mucianus to Italy with 20,000 troops, while he set out from Syria to Alexandria in order to control grain shipments for the purpose of starving Italy into submission. [[12]] The siege of Jerusalem he placed in the hands of his son Titus.

Meanwhile, the Danubian legions, unwilling to wait for Mucianus' arrival, began their march against Vitellius ' forces. The latter army, suffering from a lack of discipline and training, and unaccustomed to the heat of Rome, was defeated at Cremona in late October. [[13]] By mid-December the Flavian forces had reached Carsulae, 95 kilometers north of Rome on the Flaminian Road, where the Vitellians, with no further hope of reinforcements, soon surrendered. At Rome, unable to persuade his followers to accept terms for his abdication, Vitellius was in peril. On the morning of December 20 the Flavian army entered Rome. By that afternoon, the emperor was dead. [[14]]

Tacitus records that by December 22, A.D. 69, Vespasian had been given all the honors and privileges usually granted to emperors. Even so, the issue remains unclear, owing largely to a surviving fragment of an enabling law, the lex de imperio Vespasiani, which conferred powers, privileges, and exemptions, most with Julio-Claudian precedents, on the new emperor. Whether the fragment represents a typical granting of imperial powers that has uniquely survived in Vespasian's case, or is an attempt to limit or expand such powers, remains difficult to know. In any case, the lex sanctioned all that Vespasian had done up to its passing and gave him authority to act as he saw fit on behalf of the Roman people. [[15]]

What does seem clear is that Vespasian felt the need to legitimize his new reign with vigor. He zealously publicized the number of divine omens that predicted his accession and at every opportunity he accumulated multiple consulships and imperial salutations. He also actively promoted the principle of dynastic succession, insisting that the emperorship would fall to his son. The initiative was fulfilled when Titus succeeded his father in A.D. 79.[[16]]

Emperorship

Upon his arrival in Rome in late summer, A.D. 70, Vespasian faced the daunting task of restoring a city and a government ravaged by the recent civil wars. Although many particulars are missing, a portrait nevertheles emerges of a ruler conscientiously committed to the methodical renewal of both city and empire. Concerning Rome itself, the emperor encouraged rebuilding on vacated lots, restored the Capitol (burned in A.D. 69), and also began work on several new buildings: a temple to the deified Claudius on the Caelian Hill, a project designed to identify Vespasian as a legitimate heir to the Julio-Claudians, while distancing himself from Nero ; a temple of Peace near the Forum; and the magnificent Colosseum (Flavian Amphitheatre), located on the site of the lake of Nero 's Golden House. [[17]]

Claiming that he needed forty thousand million sesterces for these projects and for others aimed at putting the state on more secure footing, Vespasian is said to have revoked various imperial immunities, manipulated the supply of certain commodities to inflate their price, and increased provincial taxation. [[18]] The measures are consistent with his characterization in the sources as both obdurate and avaricious. There were occasional political problems as well: Helvidius Priscus, an advocate of senatorial independence and a critic of the Flavian regime from the start, was exiled after A.D. 75 and later executed; Marcellus Eprius and A. Alienus Caecina were condemned by Titus for conspiracy, the former committing suicide, the latter executed in A.D. 79.
As Suetonius claims, however, in financial matters Vespasian always put revenues to the best possible advantage, regardless of their source. Tacitus, too, offers a generally favorable assessment, citing Vespasian as the first man to improve after becoming emperor. [[19]] Thus do we find the princeps offering subventions to senators not possessing the property qualifications of their rank, restoring many cities throughout the empire, and granting state salaries for the first time to teachers of Latin and Greek rhetoric. To enhance Roman economic and social life even further, he encouraged theatrical productions by building a new stage for the Theatre of Marcellus, and he also put on lavish state dinners to assist the food trades. [[20]]

In other matters the emperor displayed similar concern. He restored the depleted ranks of the senatorial and equestrian orders with eligible Italian and provincial candidates and reduced the backlog of pending court cases at Rome. Vespasian also re-established discipline in the army, while punishing or dismissing large numbers of Vitellius ' men. [[21]]
Beyond Rome, the emperor increased the number of legions in the East and continued the process of imperial expansion by the annexation of northern England, the pacification of Wales, and by advances into Scotland and southwest Germany between the Rhine and the Danube. Vespasian also conferred rights on communities abroad, especially in Spain, where the granting of Latin rights to all native communities contributed to the rapid Romanization of that province during the Imperial period. [[22]]

Death and Assessment

In contrast to his immediate imperial predecessors, Vespasian died peacefully - at Aquae Cutiliae near his birthplace in Sabine country on 23 June, A.D. 79, after contracting a brief illness. The occasion is said to have inspired his deathbed quip: "Oh my, I must be turning into a god!" [[23]] In fact, public deification did follow his death, as did his internment in the Mausoleum of Augustus alongside the Julio-Claudians.

A man of strict military discipline and simple tastes, Vespasian proved to be a conscientious and generally tolerant administrator. More importantly, following the upheavals of A.D. 68-69, his reign was welcome for its general tranquility and restoration of peace. In Vespasian Rome found a leader who made no great breaks with tradition, yet his ability ro rebuild the empire and especially his willingness to expand the composition of the governing class helped to establish a positive working model for the "good emperors" of the second century.

Bibliography

Since the scholarship on Vespasian is more comprehensive than can be treated here, the works listed below are main accounts or bear directly upon issues discussed in the entry above. A comprehensive modern anglophone study of this emperor is yet to be produced.

Atti congresso internazionale di studi Flaviani, 2 vols. Rieti, 1983.

Atti congresso internazionale di studi Vespasianei, 2 vols. Rieti, 1981.

Bosworth, A.B. "Vespasian and the Provinces: Some Problems of the Early 70s A.D." Athenaeum 51 (1973): 49-78.

Brunt, P. A. "Lex de imperio Vespasiani." JRS (67) 1977: 95-116.

D'Espèrey, S. Franchet. "Vespasien, Titus et la littérature." ANRW II.32.5: 3048-3086.

Dudley, D. and Webster, G. The Roman Conquest of Britain. London, 1965.

Gonzalez, J. "The Lex Irnitana: A New Copy of the Flavian Municipal Law." JRS 76 (1986): 147-243.

Grant, M. The Roman Emperors: A Biographical Guide to the Rulers of Rome, 31 B.C. - A.D. 476. New York, 1985.

Homo, L. Vespasien, l'Empereur du bons sens (69-79 ap. J.-C.). Paris, 1949.

Levi, M.A. "I Flavi." ANRW II.2: 177-207.

McCrum, M. and Woodhead, A. G. Select Documents of the Principates of the Flavian Emperors Including the Year of the Revolution. Cambridge, 1966.

Nicols, John. Vespasian and the Partes Flavianae. Wiesbaden, 1978.

Scarre, C. Chronicle of the Roman Emperors. The Reign-by-Reign Record of the Rulers of Imperial Rome. London, 1995.

Suddington, D. B. The Development of the Roman Auxiliary Forces from Caesar to Vespasian, 49 B.C. - A.D. 79. Harare: U. of Zimbabwe, 1982.

Syme, R. Tacitus. Oxford, 1958.

Wardel, David. "Vespasian, Helvidius Priscus and the Restoration of the Capitol." Historia 45 (1996): 208-222.

Wellesley, K. The Long Year: A.D. 69. Bristol, 1989, 2nd ed.

Notes

[[1]] Suet. Vesp. 2.1. Suetonius remains the major source but see also Tac. Hist. 2-5; Cass. Dio 65; Joseph. BJ 3-4.

[[2]] Suetonius (Vesp. 2.1) claims that Vespasian did not accept the latus clavus, the broad striped toga worn by one aspiring to a senatorial career, immediately. The delay, however, was perhaps no more than three years. See J. Nicols, Vespasian and the Partes Flavianae (Wiesbaden, 1978), 2.

[[3]] Military tribunate and quaestorship: Suet. Vesp. 2.3; aedileship: ibid., 5.3, in which Gaius, furious that Vespasian had not kept the streets clean, as was his duty, ordered some soldiers to load him with filth;,they complied by stuffing his toga with as much as it could hold. See also Dio 59.12.2-3; praetorship: Suet. Vesp. 2.3, in which Vespasian is depicted as one of Gaius' leading adulators, an account consistent with Tacitus' portrayal (Hist 1.50.4; 2.5.1) of his early career. For a more complete discussion of these posts and attendant problems of dating, see Nicols, Vespasian, 2-7.

[[4]] Marriage and Caenis: Suet. Vesp. 3; Cass. Dio 65.14.

[[5]] Nicols, Vespasian, 12-39.

[[6]] Suet. Vesp. 4.1 For additional details on Vespasian's exploits in Britain, see D. Dudley and G. Webster, The Roman Conquest of Britain (London, 1965), 55 ff., 98.

[[7]] Concerning Vespasian's years between his consulship and proconsulship, see Suet. Vesp. 4.2 and Nicols, Vespasian, 9. On his unpopularity in Africa, see Suet. Vesp. 4.3, an account of a riot at Hadrumentum, where he was once pelted with turnips. In recording that Africa supported Vitellius in A.D. 69, Tacitus too suggests popular dissatisfaction with Vespasian's proconsulship. See Hist. 2.97.2.

[[8]] This despite the fact that the sources record two rebukes of Vespasian, one for extorting money from a young man seeking career advancement (Suet. Vesp. 4.3), the other for either leaving the room or dozing off during one of the emperor's recitals (Suet. Vesp. 4.4 and 14, which places the transgression in Greece; Tac. (Ann. 16.5.3), who makes Rome and the Quinquennial Games of A.D. 65 the setting; A. Braithwaite, C. Suetoni Tranquilli Divus Vespasianus, Oxford, 1927, 30, who argues for both Greece and Rome).

[[9]] Subjugation of Galilee: Joseph. BJ 3.65-4.106; siege of Jerusalem: ibid., 4.366-376, 414.

[[10]] Revolt of Vindex: Suet. Nero 40; Tac. Ann. 14.4; revolt of Galba: Suet. Galba 10; Plut. Galba, 4-5; suicide of Nero: Suet. Nero 49; Cass. Dio 63.29.2. For the most complete account of the period between Nero's death and the accession of Vespasian, see K. Wellesley, The Long Year: A.D. 69, 2nd. ed. (Bristol, 1989).

[[11]] Tac. Hist. 2.76.

[[12]] Troops in support of Vespasian: Suet. Vit. 15; Mucianus and his forces: Tac. Hist. 2.83; Vespasian and grain shipments: Joseph. BJ 4.605 ff.; see also Tac. Hist. 3.48, on Vespasian's possible plan to shut off grain shipments to Italy from Carthage as well.

[[13]] On Vitellius' army and its lack of discipline, see Tac. Hist. 2.93-94; illness of army: ibid., 2.99.1; Cremona: ibid., 3.32-33.

[[14]] On Vitellius' last days, see Tac. Hist. 3.68-81. On the complicated issue of Vitellius' death date, see L. Holzapfel, "Römische Kaiserdaten," Klio 13 (1913): 301.

[[15]] Honors, etc. Tac. Hist. 4.3. For more on the lex de imperio Vespasiani, see P. A. Brunt, "Lex de imperio Vespasiani," JRS (67) 1977: 95-116.

[[16]] Omens: Suet. Vesp. 5; consulships and honors: ibid., 8; succession of sons: ibid., 25.

[[17]] On Vespasian's restoration of Rome, see Suet. Vesp. 9; Cass. Dio 65.10; D. Wardel, "Vespasian, Helvidius Priscus and the Restoration of the Capitol," Historia 45 (1996): 208-222.

[[18]] Suet. Vesp. 16.

[[19]] Ibid.; Tac. Hist. 1.50.

[[20]] Suet. Vesp. 17-19.

[[21]] Ibid., 8-10.

[[22]] On Vespasian's exploits in Britain, see esp. Tac., Agricola, eds. R. M. Ogilvie and I. A. Richmond (1967), and W. S. Hanson, Agricola and the Conquest of the North (1987); on the granting of Latin rights in Spain, see, e.g., J. Gonzalez, "The Lex Irnitana: a New Copy of the Flavian Municipal Law." JRS 76 (1986): 147-243.

[[23]] For this witticism and other anecdotes concerning Vespasian's sense of humor, see Suet. Vesp. 23.

Copyright (C) 1998, John Donahue. Published on De Imperatoribus Romanis, an Online Encyplopedia of Roman Rulers and their Families.
http://www.roman-emperors.org/vespasia.htm
Used by permission.

Edited by J. P. Fitzgerald, Jr.

Cleisthenes

Abduction of the Sabine women.AR denarius. 89 BC. 3,65 grs. Bare-headed, bearded head of King Tatius righ. TA (ligate) below chin. SABIN behind / Two Roman soldiers, each carrying off a sabine woman in his arms. L TITVRI in exergue.
Crawford 344/1a. RSC Tituria 1.

Livy. History of Rome. 1.9.
The Roman state had become strong enough to hold its own in war with all the peoples along its borders, but a shortage of women meant that its greatness was fated to last for a single generation, since there was no prospect of offspring at home nor any prospect of marriage with their neighbours. Then, in accordance with the decision of the senate, Romulus sent messengers to the neighbouring peoples to ask for alliance and the right of marriage for the new people: cities, like everything else, start small but later if their own excellence and the gods assist them, they grow in strength and in fame. It was certain that at the beginning of Rome the gods had been propitiated and that it would not lack in valour. Therefore, men should not disdain to join blood and family ties with other men.
But nowhere were the emissaries given a fair hearing. Some scorned, others feared the great power growing in their midst, both for themselves and for their descendants. In more than one place the emissaries were asked, even as they were being sent packing, why they hadn't offered asylum to women (criminals) too: that way they'd have had their marriage and with others of their own rank! The youth of Rome took this insult badly and began to think seriously about the use of force. Romulus, to gain time till he found the right occasion, hid his concern and prepared to celebrate the Consualia, the solemn games in honour of equestrian Neptune. He then ordered that the spectacle be announced to the neighbouring peoples. He gave the event great publicity by the most lavish means possible in those days. Many people came, some simply out of curiosity to see the new city, and especially the nearest neighbours, from Caenina, Crustuminum and Antemnae; the entire Sabine population came, wives and children included. Received with hospitality in the houses, after having seen the position of the city, its walls, and the large number of buildings, they marvelled that Rome had grown so fast. When it was time for the show, and everybody was concentrating on this, a prearranged signal was given and all the Roman youths began to grab the women. Many just snatched the nearest woman to hand, but the most beautiful had already been reserved for the senators and these were escorted to the senators' houses by plebeians who had been given this assignment. The story goes that one woman, far and away the most beautiful, was carried off by the gang of a certain Thalassius, and because many wanted to know where they were taking her, they repeatedly shouted that they were taking her to Thalassius, and that it how the nuptial cry came to be.

The party was over, and the grieving parents of the girls ran away, accusing the Romans of having violated the laws of hospitality and invoking the god who was supposed to have been honoured at that day's festival. Nor did the girls themselves hold much hope. But Romulus went among them in person to assure them that none of this would have happened if their fathers hadn't been so inflexible in not letting them marry their neighbours. But now they would have the status of wives with all the material rewards and civil rights of citizenship and they would have children, than which nothing is dearer. They should cool their anger and give their hearts to the men who had already taken their bodies. A good relationship often begins with an offence, he said. And their husbands would treat them with extra kindness in hope of making up for the parents and country they so missed. The men added their blandishments, saying that they'd been motivated by love and passion, entreaties which are very effective with women.

benito

Achaea. Uncertain mint. Caracalla AE22. Hero and soldierCaracalla AE22, 5.4gm.
Obv: [.....TONI....]. Laureate, draped and cuirassed bust of youthful Caracalla to right.
Rev: T..EATWN. Hero holding shield in l. and short sword in his r. advancing on soldier falling to his knees with shield raised behind.
Possible Arcadia, Tegea.
ancientone

AE provincial, Saitta, Lydia (Sidas Kaleh, Turkey), Senate/River-God (mid-2nd to early 3d century AD) IÐ„Î¡A - [CYNKÎ›HTOC], bare-headed youthful draped bust of Senate right / CAIT[THNÎ©N] + [Ð„PMOC] in exergue, River-God Hermos reclining left, holding reed and cornucopiae, resting arm on urn (hydria) from which waters flow.

Ó” (base metal yellow, orichalcum?), 22 mm, 5.68 g, die axis 6.5h (coin alignment)

It is difficult to read the name of the river. I think that Ð„PMOC is more likely, but VÎ›Î›ÎŸÐ¡ is also possible, representing the other important local river, Hyllos.

Possible catalog references are BMC Lydia 25 (or 26-27?), SNG Copenhagen 398, SNG München 439.
For the Hyllos reverse, Leypold 1153.

To emphasize the autonomy of certain Hellenistic polises, even under the Roman rule they sometimes used allegorical figures of Senate or Demos on obverses of their coins instead of imperial portraits. Saitta was issuing similar-looking coins with busts of emperors and their family as well, but in this issue the town Senate is honoured as the ruler. IÐ„Î¡A CYNKÎ›HTOC = Holy Senate. CAITTHNÎ©N = Saitta, Ð„PMOC = Hermos, the name of the river and its god.

River-Gods or Potamoi (Î Î¿Ï„Î±Î¼Î¿Î¯) were the gods of the rivers and streams of the earth, all sons of the great earth-encirling river Okeanos (Oceanus) and his wife Tethys. Their sisters were the Okeanides (Oceanids), goddesses of small streams, clouds and rain, and their daughters were the Naiades, nymphs of springs and fountains. A River-God was depicted in one of three forms: as a man-headed bull; a bull-horned man with the tail of a serpentine-fish in place of legs; or as a reclining man with an arm resting upon a pitcher pouring water, which we see in this case. The addition of cornucopia symbolizes the blessings that a particular river bestows on those who live near it.

Saitta or Saittae (Î£Î±Î¯Ï„Ï„Î±Î¹, Ptolemy 5.2.21: Î£ÎÏ„Ï„Î±Î¹, Î£Î¬ÎµÏ„Ï„Î±Î¹) was a polis in eastern Lydia (aka Maeonia), in the rivers' triangle between the upper Hyllus (modern Demirci ÇayÄ±, c. 12 km to the west) and the Hermus or Hermos (modern Gediz Nehri, c. 20 km to the south). In Roman imperial times it belonged to the "conventus" of Sardis in the Roman province of Asia (conventus was a territorial unit of a Roman province, mostly for judicial purposes).

Now its ruins are known now as Sidas Kaleh or Sidaskale in Turkey, near the village of Ä°çikler (Ä°cikler Mahallesi, 45900 Demirci/Manisa). They were never excavated, so are little known or cared for. Ruins of a stadium and a theatre survive, together with remains of some temples and tombs.

Not much is known about it. It was a regional centre for the production of textiles. In 124 AD the town was probably visited by emperor Hadrianus. During the Roman period the cult of the moon god MÄ“n Axiottenus was very popular in the city. Because of its reference to "angels" (both literally as the Greek word and by their function as god's messengers) it was possibly close to the more general Asia Minor cult of Theos Hypsistos, Î˜ÎµÎ¿Ï‚ á½•ÏˆÎ¹ÏƒÏ„Î¿Ï‚, "the highest god" (200 BC – 400 AD), which in turn was perhaps related to the gentile following of the Second Temple in Jerusalem.

Known Roman provincial coins issued by this city feature portraits of emperors from Hadrian to Gallienus, thus covering the period from 117 to 268 AD, with the peak around the Severan dynasty. The semi-autonomous issues are usually dated from mid-2nd to mid-3d century AD.

Later Saittae was the seat of a Byzantine bishopric. Bishop Limenius signed the Chalcedon Creed, while Bishop Amachius spoke at the Council of Chalcedon. Although an Islamic area now, Saittae remains a titular see of the Roman Catholic Church.Yurii P

Aeolis, Kyme - [SNG Kayhan 84; SNG von Aulock 1623; SNG von Aulock 7690; SGCV II 4174; BMC 11; Klein 333; Rosen Collection 538]Silver Hemiobol, 0.48g, 8mm, Kyme mint, ca.450-400 B.C.

Obv. - KY (retrograde K), head of eagle left

Rev. - incuse square of mill-sail pattern

Very life-like eagle

Possible Die Match: http://www.acsearch.info/record.html?id=499715
___________

Purchased Through FORVM Auction Catalog from Andreas Reich [Areich on Forum Ancient Coins]

Ex. Andreas Reich Collection and Photo
2 commentsrenegade3220

Alexander III (The Great) (356-323 BCE)Metal/Size: AE16; Weight: 4.4 grams; Denomination: One Half Unit; Mint: Unknown; Date: 334-310 BCE; Obverse: Macedonian shield, boss decorated with thunderbolt with 5 pellets between each of 5 double half moon symbols. Reverse: Crested Macedonian helmet with pellet and earflaps below; monogram (possible A) lower right - B and A to either side of helmet. References: Price #104; Liampi Chronologie, series II, group l, 8-22;SNG München #892; SNG Alpha Bank #829.museumguy

Alexander III The Great, Macedonian Kingdom, 336 - 323 B.C., Possible Lifetime IssueThis is the same coin in my collection, different picture, as the Alexander tetradrachm listed as [300mem].

Silver tetradrachm, Price 3971, VF, 16.081g, 26.1mm, 0o, Egypt, Memphis mint, c. 332 - 323 or 323 - 305 B.C.; obverse Herakles' head right, clad in Nemean lion scalp headdress tied at neck; reverse ALEXANDROU, Zeus enthroned left, legs crossed, eagle in right, scepter in left, rose left, DI-O under throne. Ex Pavlos S. Pavlou. Ex FORVM, "The Memphis issues are among the finest style Alexander coins. Experts disagree on the date of this issue. Some identify it as a lifetime issue and others as a posthumous issue (Joseph Sermarini).

Alexandros III Philippou Makedonon (356-323 BC)

"Alexander III of Macedon, better known as Alexander the Great, single-handedly changed the entire nature of the ancient world in little more than ten years.

Born in the northern Greek kingdom of Macedonia in 356 BC, to Philip II and his formidable wife Olympias, Alexander was educated by the philosopher Aristotle. Following his father's assassination in 336 BC, he inherited a powerful yet volatile kingdom, which he had to secure - along with the rest of the Greek city states - before he could set out to conquer the massive Persian Empire, in revenge for Persia's earlier attempts to conquer Greece.

Against overwhelming odds, he led his army to victories across the Persian territories of Asia Minor, Syria and Egypt without incurring a single defeat. With his greatest victory at the Battle of Gaugamela, in what is now northern Iraq, in 331 BC, the young king of Macedonia, leader of the Greeks, Overlord of Asia Minor and Pharaoh of Egypt also became Great King of Persia at the age of 25.

Over the next eight years, in his capacity as king, commander, politician, scholar and explorer, Alexander led his army a further 11,000 miles, founding over 70 cities and creating an empire that stretched across three continents and covered some two million square miles.

The entire area from Greece in the west, north to the Danube, south into Egypt and as far east as the Indian Punjab, was linked together in a vast international network of trade and commerce. This was united by a common Greek language and culture, whilst the king himself adopted foreign customs in order to rule his millions of ethnically diverse subjects.

Primarily a soldier, Alexander was an acknowledged military genius who always led by example, although his belief in his own indestructibility meant he was often reckless with his own life and that of those he expected to follow him. The fact that his army only refused to do so once, in the13 years of a reign during which there was constant fighting, indicates the loyalty he inspired.

Following his death in 323 BC at the age of only 32, his empire was torn apart in the power struggles of his successors. Yet Alexander's mythical status rapidly reached epic proportions and inspired individuals as diverse as Julius Caesar, Cleopatra, Louis XIV and Napoleon.

He continues to be portrayed according to the bias of those interpreting his achievements. He is either Alexander the Great or Iskander the Accursed, chivalrous knight or bloody monster, benign multi-culturalist or racist imperialist - but above all he is fully deserving of his description as 'the most significant secular individual in history'."

By Dr. Joann Fletcher
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/alexander_the_great.shtml

"When Alexander saw the breadth of his domain, he wept for there were no more worlds to conquer."--attributed to Plutarch, The Moralia.
http://www.pothos.org/alexander.asp?paraID=96

Edited by J. P. Fitzgerald, Jr. 1 commentsCleisthenes

ALFOLDI 060.009 OBVERSE: IMP C M AVR PROBVS P F AVG
REVERSE: ROMAE AETERNAE
BUST TYPE: F1 (BASTIEN'S CLASSIFICATION)
FIELD / EXERGUE MARKS: --//XXIQ
WEIGHT 3.60g / AXIS: 6h / WIDTH 22mm
RIC 739
ALFOLDI 060.009
COLLECTION NO. 642
NOTE: VERY NICE COIN IN HAND BUT UNFORTUNATELY IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO MAKE A NICE PICTURE OF IT DUE TO THE UNEVEN PATINABarnaba6

610 files on 7 page(s)