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: Question re. division of late Roman Empire after Constantine  (Read 489 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Cloudcuckoo

  • Praetorian
  • **
  • Posts: 67
Question re. division of late Roman Empire after Constantine
« on: April 25, 2023, 08:10:05 am »
Hello all,

I've a hopefully straightforward question. It arose when reading around the history of the divisions of the Empire after the death of Constantine I, between the 3 brothers Constantine II, Constans and Constantius II. If Constantius II had the Eastern Empire, including Egypt, how is it that coins were struck in the name of Constans at the mint of Alexandria during that period?

My interest was peeked by a particular coin I've just obtained, but I am sure I've other examples of the apparent contradiction from elsewhere. I've only just got around to trying to understand, but have been unable to find a simple explanation spelled out anywhere. Was it usual for LRCs to be struck at mints in the name of Emperors that had power over other parts of the empire?

For the sake of eye candy, here's my new coin..

Constans, Centenionalis, Alexandria, struck 348-359 AD. ex Derek Aldred
5.03g, 21mm, 180⁰
Obvs. DN CONSTA-NS PF AVG Rosette diademed, draped & cuirassed bust left holding globe
Rev. FEL TEMP REPARATIO Emperor standing left over two captives, holding shield & labarum bearing chi-rho symbol. Star left field. ALEA in exergue.
Ref. RIC VIII 65A

Offline Kevin D

  • Consul
  • ***
  • Posts: 314
Re: Question re. division of late Roman Empire after Constantine
« Reply #1 on: April 25, 2023, 06:45:38 pm »
I have a solidus struck at Milan (western part of the empire) in the name of Arcadius (ruling in the eastern part of the empire at the time) by his brother Honorius (ruling in the western part of the empire at the time).

I don't know specifically about your coin, but there was a practice of one emperor striking in the name of a co-emperor in other cases, such as the one detailed above.

Offline Cloudcuckoo

  • Praetorian
  • **
  • Posts: 67
Re: Question re. division of late Roman Empire after Constantine
« Reply #2 on: April 25, 2023, 08:32:17 pm »
Yes. To be clear, I know there are many such instances, but I was wondering if there was significance to it. Whether, for the entire period it was entirely usual for all parts of the empire to mint some in the name of the Augustus of the other part regardless of the political situation. Whether, when it was done it, indicated concord, and when not, the reverse? In other words, did it carry any meaning?

Offline SC

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 6068
    • A Handbook of Late Roman Bronze Coin Types 324-395.
Re: Question re. division of late Roman Empire after Constantine
« Reply #3 on: April 26, 2023, 06:14:14 pm »
Chapters could be written on this.

The short answer is that the standard practice was for each Emperor to strike coins for all of the others whom they recognized as official co-emperors.

Thus "splits" like under Constantine's family, Valentinian's family, Theodosius' family, etc. were official and were more like the division of the Empire under Diocletian's tetrarchy than an actual split into independent polities.  This was generally true whether each part had a little independence or a lot of independence - as long as they recognized each other.

By contrast, usurpers and rebels were usually not recognized by existing emperors, though sometimes the usurper or rebel would strike coins for the official emperor thus "recognizing" them and signalling that they were seeking to in turn be recognized as a legitimate co-emperor.

Though the usual practice was for emperors to strike coins for each other there were still some more subtle politics (court intrigue) that were played.  For example, one emperor might not strike coins for all of another emperor's sons, thus coins for some caesars at some times only appear in the territory of daddy, not others.  Or they might signal a lower status for others with such obscure things like un-broken legends or bare heads.....

SC



SC
(Shawn Caza, Ottawa)

Offline Cloudcuckoo

  • Praetorian
  • **
  • Posts: 67
Re: Question re. division of late Roman Empire after Constantine
« Reply #4 on: April 26, 2023, 06:46:01 pm »
Thank you so much for that answer, SC. Just the sort of 'in a nutshell' summation I was looking for, but could find nowhere else. Much appreciated!

Regards,
Derek

Offline Kevin D

  • Consul
  • ***
  • Posts: 314
Re: Question re. division of late Roman Empire after Constantine
« Reply #5 on: April 28, 2023, 01:43:37 pm »
Yes. To be clear, I know there are many such instances, but I was wondering if there was significance to it. Whether, for the entire period it was entirely usual for all parts of the empire to mint some in the name of the Augustus of the other part regardless of the political situation. Whether, when it was done it, indicated concord, and when not, the reverse? In other words, did it carry any meaning?

Yes, there was significance and meaning to it, as Shawn has written. Using the example of my solidus cited above, I interpret the meaning to be a proclamation by Honorius of co-rulership with Arcadius. When rulers recognized one another in this way, it implied partnership and mutual defense; in effect it could act as a warning to those that might contemplate aggression against one rulers' domain. The meaning could be interpreted as 'we are one', 'we are united'. Whether or not such proclamations were honored in times of trouble is another matter.

From Grierson and Mays  ‘Catalogue Of Late Roman Coins…’ :
Page 3, “In form, it is true, the Empire remained a unit, with legislation issued in the names of all imperial colleagues and officials of the mints reminded from time to time that coins should be issued in the names of co-rulers in the other half of the Empire. But Western emperors only rarely visited the East, and Eastern emperors had no acquaintance with the West at all.”
Page 6, “Where the coins were being struck by one or more co-emperors in each other’s names, the actual emperor responsible for the minting was the one in whose territory the mint was situated, not the emperor whose name appeared on the coin.”

 

All coins are guaranteed for eternity