Numismatic and History Discussion Forums > Roman Coins Discussion Forum

Constantine and Trajan - The SPQR & Standards Reverse Type

<< < (2/3) > >>

wolfgang336:

--- Quote from: DzikiZdeb on March 09, 2021, 10:17:03 am ---
--- Quote from: wolfgang336 on March 05, 2021, 11:09:28 am ---what event sparked Trajan's use of the type (the Dacian conquests?)

--- End quote ---
No, this reverse is related to the beggining of Parthian War. It belongs to Woytek group 14.3 (spring 113-summer 114) along with classic war motives: Victory, Virtus, Mars and two scenes: Trajan departing Rome for war (Profectio, RIC 263, Woytek 430) and Trajan appoints a new puppet king of Parthia (REX PARTHVS, RIC 263a, Woytek 431).

--- End quote ---

Interesting. It seems unlikely to me that Constantine would have tried to invoke the Parthian War in the aftermath of his victory over a fellow Roman army (presumably Constantine would not want to alienate Maxentius' surviving soldiers, who perhaps could be incorporated into Constantine's own army).

Evan

Heliodromus:

--- Quote ---Interesting. It seems unlikely to me that Constantine would have tried to invoke the Parthian War in the aftermath of his victory over a fellow Roman army (presumably Constantine would not want to alienate Maxentius' surviving soldiers, who perhaps could be incorporated into Constantine's own army).
--- End quote ---

The SPQR standards type doesn't seem too objectionable from that POV since the type itself is really just the "OPTIMO PRINCIPI" brag with a nod to the army via the standards design. The Sol with captives type would seem much more offensive, which is maybe why they are so rare excepting at Aquileia where the captive is depicted as a foreigner!

An alternative sequence/dating of types, which on consideration I'm currently favoring, is that the Trier gold SPQR (but obviously not the Italian ones) was issued earlier, maybe c.310, which would have meant that any Trajanic Dacian war association was replaced by this more proximate Constantinian one.

We'd then have Alexander of Carthage copying Constantine, rather than copying Trajan, which really makes more sense. Alexander also copied another of Constantine's Trier gold types, VBIQVE VICTOR, which adds to the intrigue. Were they in cahoots at this point? The non-numismatic evidence for an alliance is very slim - just a "Constantine & Alexander augusti" inscription from Alexander's territory, AFAIK, but the copying of coin types perhaps supports this.

Constantine's post-war use of the SPQR type, now in bronze hence for a wider audience, might be seen as one way of finessing the issue of civil war celebration ... concentrating on the principis (Constantine & colleagues who he also issued it for), rather than the defeated Maxentian troops.

So, why might Constantine have issued the gold Trier SPQR OPTIMO PRINCIPI c.310 ?

- Inviting the comparison to Trajan, to add to his portfolio of manufactured "right to rule" (descended from Claudius, blessed by Apollo) given the unseemly demise of his auctor imperii !
- Echoes of PRINCIPI IVVENTVTIS which dominate his 310 Trier gold reform

The type is a bit of a stretch for Constantine regardless of when we date it, both the "SPQR OPTIMO PRINCIPI" lie and having to discard Trajan's corona civica association on the Ticinum solidus. Given that the senate (the S of SPQR) did award Constantine a title ("maximus augustus") for his defeat of Maxentius, it would seem rather ironic if he'd initiated a claim of being awarded "optimo principi" instead at that time! It perhaps makes more sense if he'd already set the earlier (dubious) precedent for use of the type, then continued it as a convenient post-war feel-good type, not really offensive, and generic enough (given that "spqr optimo principi" wasn't meant to be taken literally) that he could use it for his colleagues too.

Ben

DzikiZdeb:

--- Quote from: wolfgang336 on March 10, 2021, 03:30:00 pm ---Interesting. It seems unlikely to me that Constantine would have tried to invoke the Parthian War in the aftermath of his victory over a fellow Roman army (presumably Constantine would not want to alienate Maxentius' surviving soldiers, who perhaps could be incorporated into Constantine's own army).


--- End quote ---

I do not think that the exact circumstances of the minting of the coin with the standards were still legible in the 4th century. Rather, it was recognized that "the reverse showing the banners leading our legions into battle will multiply the glory of our victorious troops, which can now be the banners of any true Roman soldier, no matter what command he has fought so far."

Heliodromus:
On a related note, I've posted a topic "Constantine and Alexander of Carthage" in the History section.

Ben

-ArtDeco-:
Such breathtaking examples in the photos above, wow.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page