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: Is this a Maximinus Thrax portrait ?  (Read 37986 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Numerianus

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1181
  • I love this forum!
Re: Is this a Maximinus Thrax portrait ?
« Reply #50 on: June 13, 2006, 07:33:15 am »
My reasoning is very primitive and base on a binary logic.
I pose two questions for which the answer should be Yes or No.

1. Do you accept  the information of HA that the emperor was a giant?
2. Do you accept that the coins  reflect  changing physical appearance?

In such a simplifying setting we have only 4 possible combinations. My preference is (Yes,Yes).
If this is correct it  means that the emperor suffered from the acromegaly and, probably, in its
fulgurant  form. 

What are your answers?

The author was persistent in emphasizing the physical strength of Maximian and  one cannot exclude
that everything written was an exaggration.  Eight feet? It is hard to beleive that  that the hight was
measured and recorded  correctly. But a 7-feet person  is aready a very tall guy for the epoch.  Evidences about the
``champion"  performance?  It is a legende, easily explained and typical. But it is  that  it is hard to imagine that 
the whole story was fabricated without  a substantial background.
Have we other examples of so quickly changing physical appearance of an emperor? No. 
 

Offline Tiathena

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1131
  • Nullum magnum ingenium sine mixtura dementiae fuit
Re: Is this a Maximinus Thrax portrait ?
« Reply #51 on: June 13, 2006, 11:59:59 am »
  
                 Salve Numerianus!
 
  “1. Do you accept  the information of HA that the emperor was a giant?
 
  No.  Not in the sense in which you intend the question.
 
  “2. Do you accept that the coins reflect changing physical appearance?
 
  No. Not in the sense in which I presently understand you to intend this question;  because this is an assumption based upon a fallacious presupposition.
 
  As I had said above: ‘It can hardly surprise us that in our earliest meditations the imagination will work as diligently as our reasoning.  Such for instance, that we should first conceive that they are a type of documentary record, showing us an evolution.  It is even a cute, childlike simplicity which – in like manner & reason – might first turn our thoughts to a ‘Darwinian’ sort of evolution, namely, a physical one which occurred not on the coins alone, but in the man himself which the coins merely reflect.’
 
  But this I think is much more of an immediate, visceral reaction to the dramatic changes of appearance as they occur on the coins.  To take these changes as a logical-predicate for assertion that they reflect like changes in the man-portrayed himself, is an insupportable inference.
   That this inference is not only insupportable but also probably-false, has numerous points of logical reference, not least of which is the geographical and individual diversity of the celators involved themselves – id est, variations in skill, style, available portrait models, etc.
  If all these coins had been produced by a single engraver, the possibility of some extraneous reality being reflected would increase – considerably.  We know this to not be the case however, and we are likewise aware of the plenitude of influences which may affect any artist in the rendering of a political subject.
  How much then might we reasonably imagine such factors applied to an Emperor of so brief a reign and who suffered Damnatio immediately after his fall, exponentially multiplied by the number of engravers, over the breadth of how many Provinces and individual mints and workshops tasked with rendering his portrait – in stages – over the period of those three years? ..&nd all the while, subject to the Emperor’s own preferences and requirements …
 
  “My reasoning is very primitive and base on a binary logic.
 
   Nothing wrong with primitive reasoning, but applying binary logic to these questions is worse than devoid of value.  Garroting the bride to fit the girdle.
 
   “My preference is (Yes,Yes).
  If this is correct it  means that the emperor suffered from … acromegaly and, probably, in its fulgurant  form.

 
  Well, with all due respect – no.  It doesn’t.
  This is not only non sequitor, it doesn’t even form a coherent syllogism.
 
  “The author was persistent in emphasizing the physical strength of Maximian and  one cannot exclude that everything written was an exaggration.
 
   Precisely.
  There was like consistency in all the descriptions of Telamonian Aias and Herakles as well… So?
  This serves no argument, but only a mundane observation of the apparent: the author was self-consistent.
 
   “Eight feet? It is hard to beleive that that the hight was measured and recorded  correctly. But a 7-feet person  is aready a very tall guy for the epoch.
 
   So you illuminate a solitary instance – a microcosm of the whole problem with the Scriptores.
  We cannot do this.  We cannot just take random elements and say – this part is ‘incredible,’ but if we parse it, if we modify it – even but only-slightly! – if we revise it to what we suppose was probably meant, then we revivify its veracity and may reclaim it as a valid piece of historical information.
  Do you really think this methodology and practice was not a major contributor to the inconstancy and evolution of the Biblical texts as for example, mentioned above?
  It matters nothing that the aiming motive may be for greater elucidation of the essential elements – the effect is inevitably the creation of a new work entirely.
 
   “But it is…hard to imagine that the whole story was fabricated without a substantial background.
 
   Must we not ask all the more earnestly then – why is that so hard to imagine?
  Clearly there is a sort of anticipation of Machiavelli’s politico-literary aggrandizement of the Medici’s in the Scriptores.  A motive for the writing of which was infused with the politics of the time(s); elaborations, embellishments and even outright fictions all commingled neatly by a flatterer’s genius and all aimed at affects of those efforts far more than to the veracity of the sundry hayseeds from which it was ultimately harvested: - and this is but the beginning of the Problem of the Scriptores.
 
  “Have we other examples of so quickly changing physical appearance of an emperor? No.
 
  It is a curious singularity indeed, but we are not left with only one possible explanation for the diversity of his changing portrait ‘styles,’ and we cannot in good faith speak of his..changing physical appearance in such context, because that is precisely what begs the question.
  We can say with certainty that over the course of his life, Maximinus’ physical appearance did change – because we can say this about every human individual.
  What we cannot say is that we know in what ways those changes occurred, nor the pace.
  The coin portraits don’t tell us.  The Only thing they tell us with certainty is that his likeness was portrayed with some radical changes over a relatively brief period of time.
 
   Does the singularity of this phenomenon in the case of Maximinus’ portraiture on coins itself-suggest a greater or lesser probability of any particular causation?  No.
 
  To say it a last time, it is not my view that he did not have such disease(s), but that we do not know and cannot know based on the information we have, and that when all is weighed and carefully reflected, we lack sufficiently compelling ground to suspect its affirmative probability.
 
   Best,
   Tia
 
Facilius per partes in cognitionem totius adducimur.  ~ Seneca
My Gallery

Offline DruMAX

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 424
  • Pecunia non olet
    • Cache Coins
Re: Is this a Maximinus Thrax portrait ?
« Reply #52 on: June 13, 2006, 02:17:11 pm »
I tend to place quite a bit of doubt on early historical sources and their tendency to exaggerate if not out right manufacture facts about things like this...This after my first encounter with a historical study of Caligula and all the awful things attributed to him by historians and the many questions and possible bias that arise or the simple tendency for exaggeration or simply making things up. Caligula might have been one of the biggest victims of biased slander in history!!1 He might have been a monster...he might have been something in-between

For instance to say he was so large to wear his wife's bracelet as a ring? Exaggeration at best

To say he could knock out a horses teeth with a punch or was almost 9 feet tall? possible but still questionable

and the estimation of sizes, amounts, weights is notoriously information that most historians would say one should take with a grain of salt...often times while reading historical text a historian will greatly exaggerate amounts of men at the battle on either side.

I believe without doubt certain things about Maximinus Thrax:

1. He was most likely a very large man for his time...
2. His reign was rather short and he did not visit Rome during this time and apent much time with the army (I think)
3. He was probably rather fierce with a lot of Machismo.

Among other things.

I tend to think that he looked more like the statues of him and/or the coins that show a bit less chin. I tend to think that to say he had gigantism or some other disease is like trying to diagnose what might have been wrong with Caligula or what killed Mithradates...He may have had an overactive pituitary that caused his height...who knows...We know he was large and probably had a pronounced chin.

I tend to shy away from making any concrete statement on a coin portrait  (that often varies greatly and are prone to stylistic differences, or exaggeration) and some historical writings (that are often incorrect or subject to doubt.) even statues though in this case statues do seem to make on think his coins that show a bit less chin might be more correct.

Funny, we had the same discussion on an historical forum I also visit about the Pharaoh Akhenaton who shows signs of possibly having Marfan syndrome...who can say with all that inbreeding  :)

[BROKEN IMAGE LINKS REMOVED BY ADMIN]

Offline Robert_Brenchley

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 7307
  • Honi soit qui mal y pense.
    • My gallery
Re: Is this a Maximinus Thrax portrait ?
« Reply #53 on: June 13, 2006, 03:10:56 pm »
Royal inbreeding still leads to inherited disease; the British royals have two; haemophilia, which has come down from Queen Victoria, and porphyria, which goes back at least as far as George III. Anything can happen once the pool of elegible spouses shrinks until it's effectively limited to relations. But there can be no certaintly about the Pharaohs!
Robert Brenchley

My gallery: https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/index.php?cat=10405
Fiat justitia ruat caelum

Offline Numerianus

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1181
  • I love this forum!
Re: Is this a Maximinus Thrax portrait ?
« Reply #54 on: June 13, 2006, 03:26:40 pm »
The purpose of Suetonius and Tacitus was to denigrate the period of the empire  and
show the horrible decadence with respect to the Gold Age of Rome. I read recently an article on Tiberius
where the author summarized a modern trend in  appreciation of the reliability of the information.
In short, there is only one word truth on Tiberius ("tristissimus"). The same  distortions are  with Nero
and others.

Strangely, but in contrast to the common opinion,  H.A. is less politically engaged and more equilibrated.
   
There are examples that ancient chronics should be taken seriously when they tall about incredible
physical features.  I read somewhere that a medieval chronic reported that  some historical person
had a scull that cannot being  brocken by an axe strike.  Fantasy? Not at all!  The  skeleton was escavated and
it was found that the  skull bones were extremely thick, up to 8 cm.  The man suffered from a very rare bone disease ...

The origin of  many exaggerations can be explained, psychologically. Imagine a retired officer of Maximinus.
The damnation was in Rome and  the attitude of the military could be completely differet.
So, in  his memory, Maximianus  was a hero. Read the text once more,  some information comes from  someone
who admired  by the emperor implication in the  life of army. Could such a source write without exaggerations?
Surely, not.  The fact that the emperor wore Paulina's neck ring on his wrist  was a bit  modified
(but this hypothetical memoirist remembered sausage-like fingers of the emperor).   

By the way, my coins are not with  most dramatic depictions. Here is more spectacular example from coinarchives

Offline DruMAX

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 424
  • Pecunia non olet
    • Cache Coins
Re: Is this a Maximinus Thrax portrait ?
« Reply #55 on: June 13, 2006, 04:37:48 pm »
 ;D

Offline Numerianus

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1181
  • I love this forum!
Re: Is this a Maximinus Thrax portrait ?
« Reply #56 on: June 14, 2006, 02:23:09 am »
And one year before?

Offline Goodies

  • Consul
  • ***
  • Posts: 267
  • Coins are like old newspapers.
Re: Is this a Maximinus Thrax portrait ?
« Reply #57 on: June 25, 2006, 04:32:50 pm »
Hate to report this.. There will be no new pictures of Gantois321 coin, I'm afraid.. Coin's lost in the post underways, Gantois has reported. Some silly label saying "this is a coin" and "value $20,-".. there was a little hole.. etcetera

 :-[
Lex

Offline Goodies

  • Consul
  • ***
  • Posts: 267
  • Coins are like old newspapers.
Re: Is this a Maximinus Thrax portrait ?
« Reply #58 on: June 25, 2006, 04:38:40 pm »
@Thiathena your submit it sounds like you regard roman celators as modern artists..

Quote
we are likewise aware of the plenitude of influences which may affect any artist in the rendering of a political subject.

I tend to disagree with "plenitude of influences". Master may have influenced pupil, celators may influence each other in a coin house. But subtle similarities exist across artists for specific emissions, indicating the existence of statues or something alike to work off as an example. Roman coins are mass products, so were pictures of the emperor..

hmm "History and archeology" @Robert_Brenchley remember the Habsbug chin.. inbreeding..

[BROKEN IMAGE LINK REMOVED BY ADMIN]

Leopold of Habsburg (1676)

 ;)
Lx

Offline Numerianus

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1181
  • I love this forum!
Re: Is this a Maximinus Thrax portrait ?
« Reply #59 on: June 25, 2006, 06:13:07 pm »
 There are strange coincidences with the coins "lost in the post". I expressed already my concern in  the case
of Uranius. It is very regretful, anyway.  I hope that the collectors and dealers will be informed about this interesting
stolen item.

I have difficulties  following Tiatena's logique.But to  both  direct questions she gave negative replies.
It is her choice and convictions and we can hardly to find extra primary sources  to reinforced our position.
Foe me both answers are positive.
It is hard to understand why the  future Damnatio could affect portraits of the emperor to whome a honorable title
Germanicus was just  accorded. 

I have doubts that there was a negative attitude to Maximinus because he was
barbarian and military.  To be honest, Severans, probably, had less rights to be considered as  Romans. Caracalla gave the
Roman citizenship to all inhabitants of the empire. So, legally, Maximinus  was Roman as well as Philip, Probus, Diocletian etc. 
He was an outstanding general and lost his case because Rome still was the center of power.

Offline Tiathena

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1131
  • Nullum magnum ingenium sine mixtura dementiae fuit
Re: Is this a Maximinus Thrax portrait ?
« Reply #60 on: June 25, 2006, 09:24:27 pm »
 
    “@Thiathena your submit it sounds like you regard roman celators as modern artists..
 
   No – I regard human individuals as human individuals, ancient & modern alike.
 
  “..Subtle similarities exist across artists for specific emissions, indicating the existence of statues or something alike to work off as an example.
 
   Without doubt, but it’s really the subtle differences (and sometimes not-so-subtle) which strike our notice when admiring and critiquing the ‘aesthetic values’ & characteristics of a particular ‘work,’ or comparatively through a series and which have been the focal point of this discussion particularly.
 
  “Roman coins are mass products, so were pictures of the emperor.
 
  Roman coins were mass produced – dies were largely individually engraved, more often than not, by individual artists who had good grasp not only of the tools used and the methods of die engraving, but of artistic principles applied to rendering aesthetically pleasing and/or realistic, faithful images – or intentionally otherwise.
  The artists were human however, and what chains us to any belief or expectation that they divested themselves of their own subjectivity even when producing representative portraits of an Emperor?
  I should rather hold that they could not have so-divested themselves, even had they wished to or it had been an Imperial decree.
 
  “It is hard to understand why the future Damnatio could affect portraits of the emperor to whom a honorable title
Germanicus was just  accorded.

 
   Clearly it wouldn’t have affected such in that sense which would require a retroactive influence.  My interrogative on that point merely asks to reflect the brevity of his reign which may or may not have been sufficiently ‘long’ to engender particularly strong attitudes of favor or disfavor in such ways that they congealed into a position, and keeping in mind that he did suffer Damnatio soon – a reaction to him & his reign which probably did not arise only at the moment of his death but which preceded it by some measure …
  Whether he was genuinely awarded the title Germanicus, or he took it to himself I don’t know …
  Neither do I think that even if he was awarded the title in the usual way, such necessarily contradicts any resentiment of the man-himself.
 
   “I have doubts that there was a negative attitude to Maximinus because he was barbarian and military. To be honest, Severans, probably, had less rights to be considered as  Romans.
 
  Interesting view to be sure (which I’ve found all of Numerianus’ thinking to be throughout this discourse), but does this not again underscore one of the main underlying points regarding this whole question mark?
  Where were the real objections to Maximinus fostered and harbored?
  I have doubts that it was among the plebs and incline rather to think that such was product of the aristocracy.
  Septimius certainly was no uneducated ‘barbarian’ and paid his dues rising through the cursus honorum, yes? ..Entering the Senate, a Quaestor, Legate, Tribune, Praetor, military command, three Governorships, etc..?
  If we call his seizure of power a military coup, it was at least not as objectionable to the establishment as those which would come later by such as Maximinus I – was it?
 
  To my thinking this is only further reinforced by your saying here, Numerianus: “So, legally, Maximinus  was Roman as well as Philip, Probus, Diocletian etc.  He was an outstanding general and lost his case because Rome still was the center of power.
 
  Indeed, this seems most-probable to me: that it wasn’t merely a legal question – e.g. of his Roman citizenship, but of his Roman-ness in-himself.  He “lost his case” because he was ‘not of Rome.’

  How much might that same mode of thinking & perspective have reached into his portraiture as well?  Particularly the later in his reign & the nearer his Damnatio time, objection and opposition advanced him?
 
  All my thinking and ‘points’ as-such above are offered merely to illumine some of the ‘why’ I think at-bottom we can’t really know one or another way on this question about Maximinus.
  We don’t know enough to reach a conclusion.
  Some of the coin portraits do suggest that there may have been some such physiological anomaly, but the suggestion lacks sufficient strength to be truly compelling.
  As Numerianus has pointed to directly, this can be ‘overcome’ to some degree if one accepts the information offered by the Scriptores.
  It is no small ‘if.’
 
    Best, as ever -
    Tia
 
Facilius per partes in cognitionem totius adducimur.  ~ Seneca
My Gallery

Offline Numerianus

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1181
  • I love this forum!
Re: Is this a Maximinus Thrax portrait ?
« Reply #61 on: June 26, 2006, 03:01:22 am »
What is true and what is not true in Scriptores, is a very interesting and complicated subject.

In fact, Maximin's assession  to power should be considered as a revolution.  The empire faced
new challenges and the existing power structure was not able to meet them. Who were rulers
before? Elagabalus, Alexandre? Come on! Julias? Also not so obvious... 
The administration committed great errors. In particular, the intelligence  service was dismantled.
Romans, usually, were very well informed what is going on outside the empire and could do preventive
attacks,  before  invasions.  Suddenly, they lost interest about external world.
The army became less and less combat-ready except the 4th legion 
whose commander was Maximin.  So, the election of Maximin was a return to meritocracy rather than the
beginning of the "military anarchy".   His reign had the duration  a bit more that 3 years and in the period after Caracalla
until Diocletian this was  above average (close to one presidential term).
Of course, he had no choice but to exterminate the Severan camarilla but, probably, he did not succeded. 
The history after his assassination is quite mysterious. Pupien and Balbinus were good guys when  fighting
Maximin but immediately afterwards happened to be hatred by Romans as well. 
In April 238  these two proclaimed Damnatio Memoriae but  in May they were assassinated and replaced by a marionette (Gordian III was 13 years old).  This indicates the existence of the party which was quite happy with such a political system.
Could one expect its stability? The situation became recurrent and a new smart general was elected by the army.

I display a tetradrachm of Maximin, second reignal year, i.e. after September 11 of 235. His facial features
are not so heavy as at subsequent years though on tetradrachms they are less pronounced.   

Offline curtislclay

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 11155
Re: Is this a Maximinus Thrax portrait ?
« Reply #62 on: June 26, 2006, 03:39:26 am »
Numerianus,

What is your source for the dismantling of the intelligence system under Alexander, and for Maximinus' command of the fourth legion?

According to Herodian, Maximinus was in charge of training the recruits for Alexander's German campaign when he was proclaimed emperor.  Before that he held an important command in Mesopotamia, according to Whittaker's note in the Loeb Herodian, vol. 2, p. 133.
Curtis Clay

Offline Numerianus

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1181
  • I love this forum!
Re: Is this a Maximinus Thrax portrait ?
« Reply #63 on: June 26, 2006, 03:48:38 am »
Unfortunately, the  sources are not reliable:

On the Roman intelligence service I read a paper (in Russian) which gives more details and dates
but I am not so sure that  I can find it again. 


For 4th legion  there is paper in French on Maximian with a question at this point, see
http://www.empereurs-romains.net/emp28.htm

Offline Tiathena

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1131
  • Nullum magnum ingenium sine mixtura dementiae fuit
Re: Is this a Maximinus Thrax portrait ?
« Reply #64 on: June 26, 2006, 12:03:58 pm »
 
    I’m still glutting myself feasting on a more focused and penetrating study of the late Republic and, admittedly, it would be hard to pull myself away from it at this point.
  I need much to do the same with regard to the period extending from Macrinus to Diocletion, to be sure – and to really feel comfortable enough to speak more to these questions & points of interest (and they are fascinating in the extreme) in any meaningful way.
 
  From the relative shallows of my present grasp, saying: “Maximin's assession  to power should be considered as a revolution” – I have no problem with, as indeed that coincides with my present understanding.
  I confess being a little perplexed then by the following statement: “..the election of Maximin was a return to meritocracy rather than the beginning of the ‘military anarchy’ – as this seems to unravel the former statement, as well as perhaps being somewhat specious.
  Do we have any reason really to regard it as such over & beyond its having been an historical accident?  My impression as yet is not that Alexander was removed in order to proclaim Maximinus, but that Maximinus was seized upon after the driving aim and purpose - removing Alexander – was fait accomplis.
  On the other hand, reflecting further on this in conjunction with your thoughts regarding the omphaloskepsisian nature of the latter Severans, “meritocracy” makes sense as a relative-comparative.
  Again, from my not-knowing well-enough, it could very easily be only a flaw in my perspective and grasp – but I cannot presently see the inherent agreement of these two evaluations.
  Likewise in saying: “The empire faced new challenges and the existing power structure was not able to meet them.
  Of course this hinges on what is meant by “power structure,” but one might infer from the following sentence that ‘power structure’ has been reduced to the wearer of the Imperial mantle.  I simply can’t accept such a view – not even in the mid-to late 3rd century.
  It is perhaps a false inference tho’ and not at all what you have meant here.
 
  The weakness of the Emperor need not be much if anything more than just that, does it?  I’m hard-pressed (presently) to see or grasp in what ways the power-structure had been ‘revolutionized’ for better or worse such as was operant from Tiberius through the reigns of the Severans.
  The Emperor was always clearly apical in the power structure, but not as suspended in aether – there was a firm foundation upon which he both stood and by which he was supported – one which in fact established his power as an actuality and without which he was little more than just another Patrician in fine clothes.
 
  “The army became less and less combat-ready.
 
   It was the dominant Roman muscle as subject to atrophy as any other wasn’t it?  This again seems a condition to be laid at the feet of weak Emperors.
 
  “..he had no choice but to exterminate the Severan camarilla but, probably, he did not succeded.
 
  Good riddance to that miserable cabal – a purge that well-served the Empire even if only by their absence, but I don’t believe I follow what you mean in your saying this here.  My apology for that – I just miss the point you mean to be making, unless implying that some surviving residue continued to undermine the alleged Maximinus Revolution?
  I find that hard to imagine – but unfortunately, all I can do with regard to that point presently is imagine.
  ( How many of Elagabal’s ‘creatures’ survived the accession of Alexander? – and how many of any which survived would have stuck around once Alexander fell to be in the company of Maximinus – or, indeed, where could they have fled for sanctuary among others who might think them yet ‘useful?’ )
 
  “Pupien and Balbinus were good guys when  fighting Maximin but immediately afterwards happened to be hatred by Romans as well.
 
   Isn’t this again the same sort of problematic regarding the limitations & skewing of historical record?
 
  Were they in fact “good guys” – or rather more ‘ready-to-hand’ and useful (both members elected to the XX Viri Ex S.C. Rei Publicae Curandae)?  Much the latter I think, as seems well attested by the events and conditions which brought them to power, and borne out in the unfolding of all the subsequent events.
  After-all, Gordian III was proclaimed Caesar almost simultaneously with their own accession, while they were being pelted with sticks and stones – the imminent invasion of Maximinus notwithstanding.
   There is always some degree of guessing and gamble in advancing an individual to positions of ‘absolute power,’ since power more often than not changes the individual or at-least removes all inhibitors from expressions of his true nature.
  Pupienus and Balbinus were not the first regarded as expendable in such light, and it was not-least their own contrariness which facilitated their being expended.
 
  “In April 238  these two proclaimed Damnatio Memoriae but  in May they were assassinated and replaced by a marionette (Gordian III was 13 years old).
 
   Gordian was already in-standing for the Imperial title as Caesar which antedated the assassinations of the Senate’s game-cocks.
   Sorry, I know it’s a crude expression to use for two men who did probably deserve much better than they got – but that’s how I see it in the ‘big picture view.’  The Senate plucked up its two fighting roosters from the XX Viri and threw one in front of the unruly mob in Rome, the other in the path of an infuriated Maximinus.  What are we supposed to think – really?
 
  Neither can we ascribe the Damnatio of Maximinus to the isolated Will or ‘politics’ of Pupienus and BalbinusMaximinus was in universal contempt before either of the latter were even thrust into power.
 
  “This indicates the existence of the party which was quite happy with such a political system.
 
   Which party?
  I don’t see it.
  Romans were generally politically astute in my view – and had been for a very long time.  It would be idiocy to be pleased with such conditions & circumstances as a ‘system,’ and I’m far more inclined to take it for what I think it was – the nebulous reality of the internal dynamics of a system which was far more solid and grounded than such events would describe to the eyes-alone.
  Makes me think how apropos it might be just here to remember one of the truest things Kant ever said – “appearances are not things in themselves.
 
  “Could one expect its stability?
 
   That is a wonderful & far-reaching question to my thinking – and an important one.
  I hope to get to a study of this period at some point which might at-least afford me a view and understanding towards its answering…
 
 
   That is a handsome Tet, Numerianus!
  Here I share the only coin I have of Maximinus – a very special one (to me personally) which I will perhaps share elsewhere here at FORVM on another day …
 
   [BROKEN IMAGE LINK REMOVED BY ADMIN]
 
   Best, as always –
   Tia
 
Facilius per partes in cognitionem totius adducimur.  ~ Seneca
My Gallery

Offline Numerianus

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1181
  • I love this forum!
Re: Is this a Maximinus Thrax portrait ?
« Reply #65 on: June 27, 2006, 02:44:14 am »
Beautiful coin, Tia!

Writing my notes.  I was based  mainly on my intuition about the epoch. Rome empire was dynamic society and 
one should not think that it was something  uniform in centuries. Severan empire was quite different from that
in the periods of Antonini. Herodian indicates directly that the Army was tired of the long reign of Alexandre (i.e. of his mother)
but, probably, this was true for the whole society. 

I re-read the chapter of H.A. on Pupiennus and Balbinus. It sees that Maximin was still popular especially
between Army veterans. There was a true civil war in Rome and newly elected emperors felt safely only
under guard of German mercenaries.  The fact is that Gordian escaped their destiny. It can be interpreted
tha there was a force behind him that profited from the situation. Again a boy-emperor remained to be only
a symbol.  Of course, in the epoch when Barbarians attacked the empire it  was not the best solutions.
The situation required that the emperor should be a competent military.   

Offline Tiathena

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1131
  • Nullum magnum ingenium sine mixtura dementiae fuit
Re: Is this a Maximinus Thrax portrait ?
« Reply #66 on: June 27, 2006, 12:55:47 pm »
 
     Thanks Numerianus!
 
   Yes indeed, the Empire was of course very dynamic, as is history-itself, still I think (to the best of my present understanding) the structures of power within and at center of the Empire were essentially the same, for instance, through the Antonines and the Severans.
  There were shifts in the mechanisms within the structure which impacted the dynamics, such as, again for example, an increasingly more willful and vociferous military manhandling the scales in which the counterbalance were weak or preoccupied Emperors.
  I’m not sure I really accept Syme’s analysis on such points, either – and may incline far more than he to ascribe the shifts within the structure precisely to the relative strengths and weaknesses of individuals, as opposed to expansion and the inert gravity of the bureaucracy as a force which was progressively nullifying them.
 
  For my part and present however, this view is also more than a little intuitive…
 
  To expand that intuitiveness, even if only for the sake & pleasure of doing so – I incline to think the lion’s share of the resentment and dislike of Alexander was in the military, and that more-generally, he was probably fairly well liked, or at-least accepted with general approbation.
  He was certainly a friend to & of the Senate which had more than a little reason to like him a good deal it seems, and to the people even if only through his patronage of Ulpian as Praetorian Prefect, and for his nature which the Scriptores at-least, describe as good and noble.
 
  Clearly as you say tho’, even these good qualities and benefits were not the sum of what the Empire needed at the time, and as much or more needed a strong, aggressive, militarily active and competent Emperor.
  All combine in my view to make him all the more sympathetic in retrospect.
 
  As for Maximinus, as you say the H.A. – “..sees that Maximin was still popular especially between Army veterans.”  Even so, we are forced to question if not the truthfulness of the claim, at least the nature & strength of that popularity, since it was that very army which removed and sent his head to Rome on a pike.
  That doesn’t seem to suggest any deep-seeded fondness or loyalty, but more suggestive that he too, ultimately, was just a pawn in the Army’s bid for preeminence and self-aggrandizement – one which had exhausted its usefulness and was disposed of without serious compunction.
 
  “There was a true civil war in Rome and newly elected emperors felt safely only under guard of German mercenaries.  The fact is that Gordian escaped their destiny. It can be interpreted tha[t] there was a force behind him that profited from the situation.
 
  Was there “a true civil war in Rome”..?  ..Or just an explosion of partisan tensions?
  In either event, raising Gordian III to Caesar seems to have doused the flames pretty quickly.
  That Gordian ‘escaped’ like fate of either Pupienus or Balbinus may signify little if anything more than that the ‘internal crisis’ had been resolved and there was no ‘need’ for the Senate to contest what the mob had already compelled it to decide.  It may be an unfortunate error to mistake the accident of his age with an underwriting political motive and agenda if it was in fact (as we’re given to believe) that it was only that he was a Gordianus which recommended him to the purple, not his youthfulness and inexperience.
  The Senate and Princeps, more than the urban plebs had far more to lose from the weakness issuing from his youthfulness and inexperience.
  Indeed, as you’ve suggested above, there may have been those who believed they could wield the puppet to their own ends – but it seems to me a stretch to call that “a force behind him” in the implied sense.  There were always opportunists lurking around the Curia even in the Republic and as many or more around the Emperors from Augustus onwards …
  That it was an organized and concerted machination seems almost implausible to me, since it would have required a form and mode of short-sightedness, shallowness and almost treasonous denial of State interests that is just too incongruent with Roman politics in any age.
  Doesn’t error and miscalculation by the Senate and shortsightedness of the urban masses make more sense?
 
   Best,
   Tia
 
Facilius per partes in cognitionem totius adducimur.  ~ Seneca
My Gallery

gavignano

  • Guest
Re: Is this a Maximinus Thrax portrait ?
« Reply #67 on: July 24, 2006, 10:25:18 pm »
ok ok, I have been looking on the internet for more Max I acromegaly sources, but have hit a brick wall, as any further articles come as  pay for service. I will go interlibrary loan next. Stay tuned. Either I will prove he indeed was more than a tall guy, or...I'll admit defeat.  Joe

Offline Numerianus

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1181
  • I love this forum!
Re: Is this a Maximinus Thrax portrait ?
« Reply #68 on: August 07, 2006, 07:16:43 pm »
I prepared two more arrangements showing dramatic changes in his appearence.

gavignano

  • Guest
Re: Is this a Maximinus Thrax portrait ?
« Reply #69 on: August 07, 2006, 07:35:27 pm »
Numerianus - right on!!!
Here is an even more eerie portrait - yes, even today's plastic surgeons could not fix his acromegalic features to look like this.....because this was an early portrait, and then the disease took hold....

Offline Rugser

  • Deceased Member
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2608
Re: Is this a Maximinus Thrax portrait ?
« Reply #70 on: August 10, 2006, 12:36:05 pm »
Other three portraits of Maximinus I.

 

All coins are guaranteed for eternity