Classical Numismatics Discussion
  Welcome Guest. Please login or register. 10% Off Store-Wide Sale Until 2 April!!! Explore Our Website And Find Joy In The History, Numismatics, Art, Mythology, And Geography Of Coins!!! Expert Authentication - Accurate Descriptions - Reasonable Prices - Coins From Under $10 To Museum Quality Rarities Welcome Guest. Please login or register. 10% Off Store-Wide Sale Until 2 April!!! Explore Our Website And Find Joy In The History, Numismatics, Art, Mythology, And Geography Of Coins!!! Support Our Efforts To Serve The Classical Numismatics Community - Shop At Forum Ancient Coins

New & Reduced


Author Topic: Constantine I. not in RIC  (Read 1434 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Heliodromus

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2176
Re: Constantine I. not in RIC
« Reply #25 on: November 30, 2021, 07:48:37 am »
Quote
I could propose another theory.

Constantine had the "SAPIENT PRINCIP" published after defeating of Maxentius.
He traveled back to Trier via Rome. And threw out his coins in both cities as a sign of victory.

His first stop after Rome was Milan, to meet with Licinius, and he wasn't in Arles (solidus most likely struck while he was there) until later in the year.

Quote
At the same time, Licinius defeated the common enemy Maximinus Daia.
Wouldn't it be possible for him, to get the "SAPIENTIA PRINCIPIS" variant after defeating Maxentius Daia?!
As a sign of victory.

Licinius didn't issue any coins celebrating his victory over Maximinus, so it would be extremely odd if Constantine did it on his behalf instead !

Finally, the SAPIENTIA and PROVIDENTISSIMI claims hardly seem appropriate to celebrate an occasion when Licinius was caught with his pants down, unless we suppose Constantine was making a mockery of his new brother-in-law !  ;)

Offline Frans Diederik

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2918
  • carpe diem, vita brevis est!
Re: Constantine I. not in RIC
« Reply #26 on: November 30, 2021, 08:55:04 am »
What we should not forget is the tradition in Gaul and in Germania of imitating coins in a lightweight version. This tradition already commenced at the end of Postumus' reign and I think there are more imitative issues of Tetricus and Victorinus than official ones. So obviously there was a local demand of very lightweight coins in the region. There are imitative issues from Trier (or thereabouts) all during Constantine's reign and thereafter. A mint like Trier simply provided in the local demand.

Frans

Offline Heliodromus

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2176
Re: Constantine I. not in RIC
« Reply #27 on: November 30, 2021, 09:42:51 am »
I don't think that barbarous minims and high quality full(er) weight contemporary counterfeits necessarily have the same explanation. The high quality counterfeits were obviously intended to deceive and by hoard evidence appear to have succeeded. Minins arn't my area, but it seems they may have served more as a parallel monetary system, and were of unknown value, so explanations of face value and metallic composition would not apply to those.

This thread seems to have become a bit confusing, covering 4-5 distinct topics, from various types of official fractions to various types of unofficial coinage, all with different explanations.

Offline Laurentius

  • Praetorian
  • **
  • Posts: 69
  • Laurentius
    • My Gallery
Re: Constantine I. not in RIC
« Reply #28 on: November 30, 2021, 09:57:59 am »
Quote
Finally, the SAPIENTIA and PROVIDENTISSIMI claims hardly seem appropriate to celebrate an occasion when Licinius was caught with his pants down, unless we suppose Constantine was making a mockery of his new brother-in-law !

 ;D :laugh:

Quote
His first stop after Rome was Milan, to meet with Licinius, and he wasn't in Arles (solidus most likely struck while he was there) until later in the year.

Please do not get this wrong. I didn't want to question your theory with Milan.
I just wanted to bring in one more thesis.

@ Frans

Yes, I am familiar with this situation.
In archaeological circles these small gallic imitations are also called minimi. These were minted here in the Trier
region in large quantities for a short time to supply the densely populated region with money.
It can be assumed, that this mass edition is related to the brief closure of the official mint in Trier by the victorious
Emperor Aurelian.
Mainly the coins that were in circulation here, shortly before, were imitated. Most of these were coins from
Victorinus, Tetricus I and Tetricus II. Some Claudius Gothicus. No imitations here from Postumus. These were probably
imitated in other regions. 
The later imitations of the Constantinian dynasty were probably minted towards the end of this. Probably just before
the Valentinian dynasty flourished. These were mainly imitations of the Urbs Roma, Constantinopolis and Gloria
Exercitus types. Every now and then some Magnentius too.

best regards from Trier



Offline wolfgang336

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 946
  • Aut Caesar Aut Nullus
Re: Constantine I. not in RIC
« Reply #29 on: November 30, 2021, 09:49:19 pm »
Quote
Now to my question. The "SAPIENT PRINCIP"-Rev. was also available from Rome from Emperor
Licinius. Why? Who knows the connection?
The most obvious conclusion is that this second SAPIENTIA group were issued to celebrate a joint Constantine + Licinius occasion, specifically the edict of Milan in 313 AD (and/or contemporaneous strengthening of ties via Licinius's marriage to Constantine's sister), with the emperor's wisdom and foresight providing a foundation for peace and perpetual glory. Hopefully they didn't injure themselves with all the self back-patting.

It strikes me as unlikely that issuing a low-value coin for distribution to the plebs would be occasioned by the the Edict of Milan. Isn't religious tolerance a rather esoteric concept for the extremely uneducated, particularly at this point in time? I grant you that it makes more sense to celebrate an esoteric concept with a solidus which would have been directed at a different, more sophisticated audience...

Just my late night misanthropy before plunging back into pleadings....

Evan

Offline Heliodromus

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2176
Re: Constantine I. not in RIC
« Reply #30 on: November 30, 2021, 11:45:23 pm »
Quote
It strikes me as unlikely that issuing a low-value coin for distribution to the plebs would be occasioned by the the Edict of Milan. Isn't religious tolerance a rather esoteric concept for the extremely uneducated, particularly at this point in time? I grant you that it makes more sense to celebrate an esoteric concept with a solidus which would have been directed at a different, more sophisticated audience...

I'm not sure if there's any real distinction, as an occasion, between 1) announcing/ratifying the Edict of Milan, and 2) the marriage of Licinius to Constantia which I think (but not 100% sure) also happened at Milian. Nowadays it's the edict that gets the attention, but the joint imperial visit and marriage must have been the real event, and the sentiments of these fractions could really equally well apply to either - the two emperors joining forces for the common good. The Liberator Orbis coin type, seems a more direct reference to freedoms granted, although that was Rome only (although Cohen claimed to have seen it from Alexandria too), so not directly related to these Rome+Trier fractions. So, I suppose better to regard the somewhat generic feel-good messages on these fractions as reflecting the new imperial partnership/ties rather than the edict.

If these low value coins were indeed thrown to the crowd as the solidus depicts, then I guess it's more akin to throwing candy to the kids at a July 4th parade rather than what might be considered a distribution of cash. If you could grab a few then it wouldn't be totally insignificant (I think there'd been a time when a nummus was a day's wages for a laborer), but really just something to jazz up the occasion.

Maybe confirming the event as the joint imperial visit, there's the spectacular Constantine+Sol jugate "Felix Adventvs Avgg NN" medallion from Ticinum (RIC 111), and a perhaps related Licinius Profectio (departure) aureus from Siscia (RIC 218), but no gold celebrating the edict itself unless we consider the Arles Sapientia solidus as referring to it.

I hope you're not having second thoughts about your chosen profession there, although presumably it must be a bit depressing at times!

 

All coins are guaranteed for eternity