Constantine I Perpetva Virtvs

[Heliodromus]

Not your everyday Constantine... I was quite pleased to just aquire this one!

Obv: CONSTANTINVS NOB CAES
Rev: PERPETVA VIRTVS
Exe: PT

RIC VI Ticinum 88, rated Common(!).

This special type (one of a few based on the theme of Virtvs) was minted in Ticinum in 307 by Maxentius, only for Constantine, on the occasion of recognising and welcoming Constantine into the family by way of having married his sister Fausta - having been fixed up by their father Maximianus for political gain.  In retrospect Constantine would prove to be a rather unsatisfactory brother-in-law, as within 5 years he would be entering Rome with Maxentius's severed head on a spear, having already killed (or forced to suicide) his treacherous father-in-law a couple of years earlier, and would go on to complete the hatrick by steaming his wife Fausta to death in an overheated bath.

Ben

[Varangian]

Now THAT is the kinda story every coin needs!

Nice find, and a very attractive coin!

[kklinejr]

Truly this is a piece that tells a tale.  Nice acquisition!

Ken

[curtislclay]

       According to Banduri writing in 1718, this is the only appearance of the legend PERPETVA VIRTVS on Roman coins, and the type is "among the rarer ones", which I take to mean not just rare, but very rare.  Banduri cites one spec. with PT, three with ST, and one with TT.
       However, the facts related by Ben derive from the ancient historians and orators, not from the coin itself--no word there of the marriage to Fausta, the alliance with Maximian, nor of course of the eventual fates of the parties involved!
       What we learn from the coin itself is that Maxentius struck coins for Constantine after their alliance, and that the mint of Ticinum lay within Maxentius' territory at the time.  Maybe something interesting could also be said about the types he used on his coins for Constantine.
       I think Maxentius was quite diligent in striking coins for Constantine at all of his mints.  Why is it, I wonder, that Constantine didn't return the favor?  Coins of Maxentius struck at Constantine's mints, Trier only I believe, are great rarities.

[seth]

fausta wasnt steamed to death in an overheated bath. she was strangled in her thermae.

[LordBest]

fausta wasnt steamed to death in an overheated bath. she was strangled in her thermae.

She was either steamed, boiled or strangled, the sources differ and there is no way for us to know. Either way Constantine was a little scumbag. I cant help thinking that if a) Maxentius had spent more on bridge maintainance and b) had learnt to swim, history would be very different.
Interesting coin type though, quite a bit better, s you say, than your average Constantine.
                                                     LordBest.

[Heliodromus]

Thanks for everyone's comments!

As Curtis notes, the coin type barely even hints (only by way of being a special type, and issued by Maxentius) at the special relationships behind it, but there are a few other hints from the other coins exchanged at the time.

In addition to this PERPETVA VIRTVS for Constantine as Caesar, Maxentius also issued VIRTVS PERPETVA AVG for Constantine as Augustus, depicting either Hercules wrestling the Nemean lion, or (per Failmezger - I've never seen one) Virtvs as on the first coin.  The significance of Constantine's title of Augustus, highlighted by both the reverse legend and the fact that's it's a legend variant of the earlier type as Caesar, is that this came about by Maximianus (as part of the deal) having reacclaimed him as such after Constantine had earlier accepted demotion by Galerius to Caesar after his initial acclamation as Augustus by his father. Again it's only the contemporary sources that supply this information, but the coin pairing does confirm the new title being part of the occasion of issuance of these special types. The Herculean reference seems to suggest acknowledgement of Constantine's legitimate succession into the Western house, both from his father as well as from Maximian, despite Maxentius having also had himself declared as a Western Augustus.

Continuing on the theme of Virtvs, Maxentius also issued VIRTVS CONSTANTINI CAES for Constantine as Caesar, with two alternate military themed designs, and this being a special type and the Constantinian legend both hint at the special relationship rather than a routine acknowledgement of a co-ruler.

The choice of VIRTVS as the theme for these coins, which perhaps seems rather cold given the family tie, should probably be taken to confirm the significance of Maximianus's deal with Constantine being seen purely as political/military, with Fausta merely being used as a pawn. Indeed she may have been as young as 9 at the time (her date of birth is uncertain, and an upper bound on her age is ~18), which would explain why she would not bear Constantine children for another 9 years. VIRTVS also appears to have been the bon mots du jour between imperators, as Severus had the year earlier issued VIRTVS AVGG ET CAESS NN to recognize the new Caesars.

As a more direct numismatic reference to the circular family relationships, there's HERCVLI CONSERVATORI issued by Constantine from London in 307 for Maximianus, which (Maximainus not having control over any mints) seems to have been met with HERVCLI CONSERVAT CAES issued by Maxentius for Constantine, again with the Western/family Hercules and Nemean lion motif.

Finally we also have the Constantine issued PLVRA NATAL FEL and MVLT NATAL FEL Trier fractions, the former issued for Maximianus as well as Constantine, which ("Many happy births") is the only halfway direct recognition of Constantine's marriage to Maximianus's daughter.

As for the asymmetry of the numismatic recognition between Constantine and Maxentius, Maxentius issued both these special types for Constantine as well as his normal types in reasonable quantity, while Constantine had only responded with (as far as I'm aware) his normal MARTI PATRI CONSERVATORI (Trier?) and GENIO POP ROM (Lyons) types in excruciatingly small quantity. I think this asymmetry reflects  two things - first that Maxentius was a usurper with little support while Constantine was a legitimate Western Augustus (having been acclaimed first by Constantius I, acknowledged as Caesar by Galerius, then reacclaimed Augustus by Maximianus). Maxentius appears to have been hoping, and numismatically begging, for the family tie to encourage Constantine's support, while Constantine's cool response from a position of power perhaps signalled his early ambitious intentions (as noted in the contemporary sources) from the start. Secondly, Constantine very rapidly became hostile to Maxentius as the latter took control of Spain which had been Constantine's territory.

I'm currently reading the contemporary sources available in translation for Constantine, and shall try to compile a list of notable differences between them such as the precise means of Fausta's end (at least it seems to have been at bathtime!). There are many interesting details in these sources, some of which contradict the common abridged version of events. For example, it turns out that it was not the Milvian bridge itself that collapsed, causing Maxentius to drown, but rather a pontoon bridge of boats that Maxentius had constructed (having destroyed the permanent bridge), which he'd hoped to become Constantine's demise by way of a quick-detach device he'd fashioned to split the bridge at some opportune time.

Ben

[curtislclay]

Ben,
      Thanks for your interesting comments.
      As to the asymmetry of coinage, I had suspected that might be the reason, namely that Maxentius was the usurper and the weaker party hoping for recognition by the stronger.  Sort of like Carausius striking coins for Diocletian and Maximian, or Magnentius striking coins for Constantius II, but the legitimate emperors not deigning to respond.
      I wasn't aware, or had forgotten, about Maxentius taking over Spain.  What author tells us that? No mint there, unfortunately, or we'd learn about it from the coins!
      Aren't the NATALia of the fractions birthdays of the emperors, not childbirths of their wives?

[Heliodromus]

Curtis,

I'm still trying to relocate the primary reference to Maxentius's control of Spain... it's possible that I read it in one of the sources available online rather than in one of the books I've checked. I'll post it here as soon as I'm able to find it. I did also come across an unsupported secondary reference to Spain having turned to Maxentius around the time that he had bought his father back out of retirement as an Augustus.

I got the birth vs birthday interpretation of the NATAL coins from Failmezger, but I guess the legend in of itself is ambiguous. The fact that PLVRA NATAL FEL was also issued for Maximianus does seem to tie the date to that of Constantine's marriage, but it could have just been well-wishing, I suppose. I seem to recall that Constantine did mint at least one type to celebrate his own birthday, but off the top of my head I can't recall what legend he used there.

Had similar NATAL legends been used before in a way that helps clarify convention?

Ben
 

[Robert_Brenchley]

I cant help thinking that if a) Maxentius had spent more on bridge maintainance and b) had learnt to swim, history would be very different.
Interesting coin type though, quite a bit better, s you say, than your average Constantine.
                                                     LordBest.

You shouldn't fight a battle without ensuring your line of retreat. Big mistake; his only way out was over the bridge, and nobody can get a routed army over a single bridge in the face of a victorious enemy.

[curtislclay]

I see that Sutherland in RIC VI, p. 153, argues that the NATAL legends refer to Constantine's dies imperii, the birth of his reign, rather than to the anniversary of his emergence from his mother, his personal birthday. 
Sutherland doesn't mention the interpretation "childbirths of the emperor's wives" at all, and I wonder if that isn't just an untenable speculation of Failmezger's.  I have the impression that future childbirths were too uncertain and personal a matter to be referred to in such an open and explicit way on the coins.

[LordBest]

You shouldn't fight a battle without ensuring your line of retreat. Big mistake; his only way out was over the bridge, and nobody can get a routed army over a single bridge in the face of a victorious enemy.

Though I understood there was some dispute over whether he lost, then died in the rout or the army routed because he died. I'm sure I read Maxentius had the tactical and strategic advantage, as well as numerical superiority, and that the battle went to Constantine only because of Maxentius death.
                                                  LordBest.

[Robert_Brenchley]

What's the source for the idea that Maxentius' army routed due to his death? It's possible; Hastings would be a parallel on that case, but I haven't come across it. His whole campaign seems to have been lacklustre to say the least; he was on his own ground, apparently with superior forces, but he seems to have made no attempt to concentrate his forces and force Constantine into as decisive engagement until he was at the gates of Rome. Rather, he let his forces be defeated in detail, as Constantine captured one city after another, another classic mistake. There's no sign of any scorched earth campaign or harrying of Constantine's supply lines, which contributed so much to, say, the defeat of Napoleon in Spain. My impresion is that he was a bad general and lost because of it.

[Heliodromus]

Maxentius was either over-confidant/hopeful or scared or alternately a combination of the two. Rather than meeting Constantine head-on at full strength he instead divided his forces between the more northern Itialian cities and in defence of Rome itself (where he presumably felt fairly secure due to the Aurelian wall he'd surrounded the city with, which had defeated Severus).. Having comited to this deployment, I guess his options became more limited as Constantine won the early battles and made progress thru Italy, and Constantine also made sure not to sack any of the cities he besieged or passed thru so that he would be welcomed rather than hindered as he progressed.

When Constantine was upon Rome, and had situated his troops at an open plain (suitable for cavalry deployment), Maxentius then consulted an oracle on his fortunes and gained false confidence from the prediction that "the enemy of Rome would be defeated" (which turned out to be true once you identified the real enemy), and foolishly came out and met Constantine on his own terms, with his only thought to retreat (or perhaps this was an early idea against siege?) being to destroy the Milvian bridge and replace it with a booby-trapped pontoon bridge which he hoped to be on the Rome side of when Constantine crossed! Apparently at the end of the day it was a cavalry charge led by Constantine himself which routed Maxentius's cavalry and put them into retreat and mostly into the Tiber.

You can probably put Maxentius's defeat down to a combination of his own incompetence (both strategically and tactically) as well as to Constantine's skills as a general which even his pagan detractors acknowledged.

Ben

[curtislclay]

     I see today in Barnes, New Empire of Diocletian and Constantine, p. 197, that there is no evidence that Maxentius ever controlled Spain.
     The evidence FORMERLY cited for that conclusion was the coins of Maxentius with mintmark T, around a hundred years ago when that mintmark was erroneously thought to indicate Tarraco!  Now that we know, or at least believe, that T indicates Ticinum in northern Italy, the supposed proof of Maxentius' possession of Spain of course disappears.  Ben's Constantine coin above is such an issue of Maxentius with mintmark T.
     Moreover Barnes cites positive evidence that Maxentius never controlled Spain:  "Both the emperor Julian and Orosius expressly state that Constantius ruled Spain, and there is no reason to dispute their testimony, since the panegyric of 313 fails to praise Constantine for liberating Spain and thus implies that it was never subject to Maxentius."

[Heliodromus]

Thanks, for the follow-up, Curtis. Certainly the lack of mention in a panegyric does seem a good point (they would hardly omit good material like that). I could swear that I had read the reference to spain in a primary source (vs a secondary which are unreliable), but I've been unable to find it again... I'm going to have to go thru them all in detail a second time anyway taking notes. I do still have the Origo Constantini unread, which is a good source for prior to 324, especially for political/military detail, so perhaps that'll throw some light on the original topic of why Constantine was so cool towards Maxentius.

Ben

[curtislclay]

Ben,
     You may count on it that there is no primary evidence regarding Maxentius and Spain, for otherwise Barnes would have cited it.
     He has a PhD from Oxford, with a dissertation on Tertullian, and has been professor of Roman history at Toronto since the early 1970s.  His books on Diocletian and Constantine were published by Harvard, and were hailed as an epochal achievement.    He has read all of the primary literature and all of the later scholarly literature, and there is simply no likelihood that a choice piece of primary evidence has eluded him!
Regards,
Curtis