Classical Numismatics Discussion
  Welcome Guest. Please login or register. All Items Purchased From Forum Ancient Coins Are Guaranteed Authentic For Eternity!!! 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. Internet challenged? We Are Happy To Take Your Order Over The Phone 252-646-1958 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: Carthage tetrarchic officina assignments  (Read 1543 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Heliodromus

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2176
Carthage tetrarchic officina assignments
« on: March 20, 2021, 09:39:20 am »
The emperor-officina assignments of the tetrarchic "Salvis Avgg Et Caess Fel Kart" Carthage type are interesting. Well, at least a little bit interesting!  ;)

There were a number of issues of this type for the initial tetrarchy, then one for each of the subsequent line-ups. Starting with the last pre-abdication issue (RIC VI Carthage 33-34), someone decided to make the type even more "tetrarchic" by adding an "I" or "H" to the reverses, thereby noting the emperor on the obverse either as a member of the eastern house of I(vpiter) or western house of H(ercules).

Of course these I/H reverse markings needed to be paired with appropriate obverses, and mixing unintended pairings within a single officina was asking for trouble, so the mint rapidly chose to strictly assign each emperor to a different officina (this didn't happen immediately since Diocletian can be seen, unlisted, at multiple officinas).

As the tetrarchic line-up changed, with some members leaving (e.g. abdication) and others joining (new caesars), officinas needed to be reassigned. One obvious way to do this would have been to reassign freed officinas to new members of the tetrarchy, but we can see they didn't choose to do it this way, and instead *all* of the officina assignments changed with each change of the tetrarchic line up, as shown in the table below.

On closer examination, we can see that the way officinas appear to have been assigned is on the basis of seniority, with more senior members getting the lower officina number/letter (e.g. A=1 for Diocletian). We have three sets of changes after the initial assignments of RIC 33-34:

1) After the abdication of Diocletian and Maximianus, Constantius and Galerius are now the senior members and move up from officinas 3&4 to officinas 1&2, with the new caesars assigned the lowly 3&4, giving us RIC 39-40

2) After the death of Constantius, the remaining three members (Galerius, Severus and Maximinus) move up to officinas 1-3, and newly recognized Constantine becomes low man on the totem pole at officina 4, giving us RIC 43-44

3) Finally, after Maxentius usurps, Carthage immediately stops recognizing Galerius and Severus, and add Maxentius and his co-usurper, Dad, to the line-up instead. Here we can really see the assignments by seniority at play. Herculius Senior gets officina #1, Maximinus and Constantine move up to officinas 2&3, and Maxentius gets junior officina #4, giving us RIC 50-51.

What's interesting about this, given this pretty obvious assignment-by-seniority is what the actual pecking order was (at this fleeting point in time), with Maximianus #1, and Maxentius #4 behind Constantine and Maximinus.

From a collector's point of view these changing officina assignments are great since they effectively "date" the coins to a given tetrarchic line-up. For example, if you have a Constantine officina Delta you know if was issued by Severus as augustus, whereas if you have officina Gamma you know it was issued by Maxentius.

I'm using a coin I've had a long time to illustrate the type since it's uber-nice and deserves a second showing!

Ben

Offline SC

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 6070
    • A Handbook of Late Roman Bronze Coin Types 324-395.
Re: Cathage tetrarchic officina assignments
« Reply #1 on: March 20, 2021, 09:58:49 am »
Great post.  This is exactly what I was refereeing to in that other post on viewership challenges. 

I suspect you won't get many comments on this post.  But it will get views and will be useful to people for years.

Maybe all this sort of thing would be better in a wiki format??  Say under an entry for the Carthage mint.  Hotlinks would then provide cross-links to entries on other things like tetrarchy and specific emperors??

Confine Discussion to chat and ID such and find a way to jazz up the wiki interface and add more there.

SC
SC
(Shawn Caza, Ottawa)

Offline Heliodromus

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2176
Re: Cathage tetrarchic officina assignments
« Reply #2 on: March 20, 2021, 11:18:19 am »
Thanks, Shawn.

Yes - I'm surprised I've even got one reply to this one!  ;D

Ben

Offline Lech Stępniewski

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2929
    • NOT IN RIC
Re: Carthage tetrarchic officina assignments
« Reply #3 on: March 20, 2021, 12:42:31 pm »
Very informative post, Ben. The assignment-by-seniority is clear, but on such occasions it always amazes me how Constantius could become a senior augustus. How Hercules could be more important than Jupiter?

Barnes writes:

"Constantius became the adoptive son of the Augustus Maximian and Galerius the adoptive son of Diocletian, but, although Galerius was the Caesar and adoptive son of the senior Augustus, Constantius took precedence over him for a reason which no ancient source states explicitly, presumably either in virtue of a seniority gained through his previous career or because he was the older of the pair".
Lech Stępniewski
NOT IN RIC
Poland

Offline AMICTUS

  • Consul
  • ***
  • Posts: 285
Re: Carthage tetrarchic officina assignments
« Reply #4 on: March 21, 2021, 06:31:26 am »
May be not only for reasons linked to  Constantius himself,  whatever his age and talents were  but also for equality reasons  (1 and 4 = 2 and 3). That type of calculation was previously made to attribute officinae under 'Carus et sui'.

Offline Heliodromus

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2176
Re: Carthage tetrarchic officina assignments
« Reply #5 on: March 21, 2021, 09:16:26 am »
Quote
Barnes writes:

"Constantius became the adoptive son of the Augustus Maximian and Galerius the adoptive son of Diocletian, but, although Galerius was the Caesar and adoptive son of the senior Augustus, Constantius took precedence over him for a reason which no ancient source states explicitly, presumably either in virtue of a seniority gained through his previous career or because he was the older of the pair".

Thanks Lech. These Carthage assignments seem to confirm that, but what evidence does Barnes provide ?

Ben

Offline Heliodromus

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2176
Re: Carthage tetrarchic officina assignments
« Reply #6 on: March 21, 2021, 09:52:25 am »
Quote from: AMICTUS on March 21, 2021, 06:31:26 am
May be not only for reasons linked to  Constantius himself,  whatever his age and talents were  but also for equality reasons  (1 and 4 = 2 and 3). That type of calculation was previously made to attribute officinae under 'Carus et sui'.

Interesting... there may have been some additional criteria at play, but in this case that type of east vs west equality/fairness would only seem to fit for the first tetrarchy.

For the second line-up (RIC 39-40) we have both the Herculean/western augustus (Constantius) and caesar (Severus) outranking their corresponding eastern counterparts Galerius and Maximinus.

The tetrarchy was meant to replace the old dynastic system of succession with a merit-based selection of caesars, so perhaps Galerius's nepotistic pick of his sister's son Maximinus as caesar didn't sit well with Constantius !

Ben

Offline Lech Stępniewski

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2929
    • NOT IN RIC
Re: Carthage tetrarchic officina assignments
« Reply #7 on: March 21, 2021, 11:11:21 am »
but what evidence does Barnes provide ?

Well, his main point is that there is no ancient evidence why it was Herculean Constantius who became senior augustus, and not Iovian Galerius what one could expect. We know only the fact (from coins, inscriptions etc.) but not the reason.

The tetrarchy was meant to replace the old dynastic system of succession with a merit-based selection of caesars

It is very doubtful that so called "tetrarchy" (name invented in XIX c.) was intended as a new system. It was rather a series of improvisations. Only in 305 the shift of power was conflict-free (as far as we know but even this fact is not certain). Although it was probably also improvisation. You know very well these vota aurei from TREVERI (96-98) with VOT XX SIC XXX and case of Treveran abdication folles copied in a hurry (and too accurately) in far Cyzicus. And the years 306-313 (324?) are actually a civil war with short periods of peace (armistice?).
Lech Stępniewski
NOT IN RIC
Poland

Offline Heliodromus

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2176
Re: Carthage tetrarchic officina assignments
« Reply #8 on: March 21, 2021, 11:24:31 am »
Quote
Well, his main point is that there is no ancient evidence why it was Herculean Constantius who became senior augustus, and not Iovian Galerius what one could expect. We know only the fact (from coins, inscriptions etc.) but not the reason.

OK, but never mind the reason, does Barnes list any specific evidence that Constantius actually was senior augustus?

It's interesting that he's come to the same conclusion as these officina assignments appear to indicate, but as senior augustus why was his son, Constantine, still being held hostage by Galerius, with his release to go help Constantius in Britian in 306 apparently at the discretion of Galerius ?

Ben

Offline Lech Stępniewski

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2929
    • NOT IN RIC
Re: Carthage tetrarchic officina assignments
« Reply #9 on: March 24, 2021, 07:17:37 am »
OK, but never mind the reason, does Barnes list any specific evidence that Constantius actually was senior augustus?

I haven't found much more than the general rule given already in "The New Empire of Diocletian and Constantine" (my earlier quote was from "Constantine: Dynasty, Religion...):

Quote
"The principles governing the order of seniority are inferred partly from the actual order of names, partly from explicit indications in ancient writers, principally Lactantius, Mort. Pers. 18.5, 25.5, 28.1, 32.3, cf. J. Straub, Vom Herrscherideal in der Spätantike (Stuttgart, 1939), 37 ff. There seem to be three main principles: (1) Augusti precede Caesars; (2) within each rank, precedence depends on the order of dies imperii, apparently regardless of the date at which a Caesar was promoted to Augustus; (3) seniority among two or more emperors of the same rank who have the same dies imperii is determined by age or antecedent seniority.
(p. 3, n. 1).

According to his rule (I guess), Barnes then gives this order of the "Second Tetrarchy":

Constantius I
Galerius
Severus
Maximinus

In chapter "The Imperial Titulature" Barnes quotes "Military diploma dated 7 January 306 (found at Campagnatico in Tus-
cany, now in Florence)." (p. 20) where Constantius precedes Galerius. He also considers the hypothesis that Galerius assumed the purple on 21 May 293, so his dies imperii was later than Constantius' (1 March 293), but eventually rejects it (p. 62, n. 73)
Lech Stępniewski
NOT IN RIC
Poland

Offline Heliodromus

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2176
Re: Carthage tetrarchic officina assignments
« Reply #10 on: March 24, 2021, 08:20:40 am »
Thanks, Lech.

I wonder how much this seniority really mattered anyways, other than in matters of protocol such a who gets what officina, or appears first in a list, etc.

I've read (but not sure what sources support it) that in reality Diocletian was the boss and everyone else followed. The "tetrarchy" didn't guarantee any level(s) of shared (or borrowed) power other than what Diocletian chose to allow.

Perhaps Constantine's position as "hostage", which had been established by Diocletian, wouldn't have changed unless Diocletian (not Galerius) had commanded it. Diocletian doesn't seem to have been totally retired - he was consul for the 10th time in 308 AD, and it was him, not Galerius, who seems to have held the power at Carnuntum.

Ben


Offline Lech Stępniewski

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2929
    • NOT IN RIC
Re: Carthage tetrarchic officina assignments
« Reply #11 on: March 24, 2021, 09:41:22 am »
I wonder how much this seniority really mattered anyways, other than in matters of protocol such a who gets what officina, or appears first in a list, etc.

It's obvious that real power is always more important than titles. This was the case, for example, in communist Poland. Officially, the head of state was Przewodniczący Rady Państwa (Chairman of the State Council; formally something like president), but he really was nobody. He only stood at the airport to greet real foreign presidents, prime ministers, etc.

Diocletian doesn't seem to have been totally retired - he was consul for the 10th time in 308 AD, and it was him, not Galerius, who seems to have held the power at Carnuntum.

I am not convinced. I believe that he was AT THAT TIME rather like Polish Chairman of the State Council. With many great titles but with no real power. Just nobody, a puppet. We even do not know when this "powerful" man died. The dates range from 311 to 316 (a surprising exception in tetrarchs' biographies). One should also consider his daughter's fate after Galerius' death.
Lech Stępniewski
NOT IN RIC
Poland

Offline Joe Sermarini

  • Owner, President
  • FORVM STAFF
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 12153
  • All Coins Guaranteed for Eternity.
    • FORVM ANCIENT COINS
Joseph Sermarini
Owner, President
FORVM ANCIENT COINS

Offline Heliodromus

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2176
Re: Carthage tetrarchic officina assignments
« Reply #13 on: March 24, 2021, 02:46:24 pm »
That's great - thanks, Joe!

Ben

Offline Joe Sermarini

  • Owner, President
  • FORVM STAFF
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 12153
  • All Coins Guaranteed for Eternity.
    • FORVM ANCIENT COINS
Re: Carthage tetrarchic officina assignments
« Reply #14 on: March 24, 2021, 03:09:47 pm »
Feel free to change it if desired.
Joseph Sermarini
Owner, President
FORVM ANCIENT COINS

 

All coins are guaranteed for eternity