Julian vs. Julian II naming convention

[Tyler K]

I have searched high and low for an answer to this but have not been able to find an answer. Maybe someone here could help me out.

I have been a long time lover of Roman history in general and I have always seen the emperor who reigned 361-363 AD referred to as Julian the Apostate or simply Julian.

I have now been interested in Roman coin collecting for far less time, but in a numismatic context I almost always see the same emperor referred to as Julian II, or even Julian II "the Apostate", etc.

Can anyone explain the "II" that I see used with his name in relation to coinage?

The only other Julianus preceding him I can think of is Didius Julianus but I have never heard him referred to as Julian or Julian I, only Didius Julianus and, occasionally, Julianus.

Is it simply enough that they share the same cognomen? I think in the case of Claudius and Claudius Gothicus (sometimes referenced as Claudius II or Claudius II Gothicus) Claudius was a cognomen of the former and the nomen of the latter. I know I may be optimistic in hoping for a totally consistent convention but this questions is driving me crazy!

Thanks

[Justin W]

There was a usurper named Marcus Aurelius Sabinus Julianus or in English named Julian of Pannonia. He was before Julian II which I assume is the reason for Julian the apostate being named Julian II.

[Tyler K]

There was a usurper named Marcus Aurelius Sabinus Julianus or in English named Julian of Pannonia. He was before Julian II which I assume is the reason for Julian the apostate being named Julian II.

So I assume Julian of Pannonia issued coinage? This would explain why the Julian of 361-363 is called Julian II in the context of coins but not elsewhere. I will read up on Julian of Pannonia but I think your explanation is probably entirely correct. Thank you!

By the way, are there any other example you can think of where naming conventions may differ between the numismatic context and general history? I think I see Decius referred to as Trajan Decius more often in coin sources than in conventional ones but I cannot really think of any others.

[Justin W]

Julian of Pannonia did indeed issue coinage. As for the second part of your question, I can’t quite think of an example but another member probably could answer that.

[Tyler K]

Thanks again, Justin.

Maybe I will have to do a little digging on that topic myself!

[SC]

A lot of the numismatic names were entrenched in the 19th century.  I don't know why the more simplistic names stuck but they did.  It wouldn't seem hard to keep track of Julian of Pannonia and Julian the Apostate or Claudius and Claudius Gothicus.  Maybe because it dates back to an era when coin "tags" were all small and hand-written (usually in cursive) - the short forms took up less space???

Julian II and Claudius II are the most obvious cases. But what about some of the late Emperors.  Without going to my basement to thumb through various books I am not sure off-hand how common designations like Valentinian II and III, Theodosius II, Constant II etc. are in historical works.

SC

[Tyler K]

My historical knowledge begins to fade after the Theodosian Dynasty. As someone fairly new to ancient coins and numismatics in general I can say that Valentinian II and Theodosius II are how I have always known them through general history writing, so I would say they must be common.