I would like to take the opportunity to make a link between two subjects discussed in this
Forum at the moment:
A. When an emperor looks like
his predecessor, and
B. The article about the usurper Julianus of Pannonia.
(My limited ability with computers does not allow me to post pictures of the coins concerned. Nevertheless I wanted to raise the question).
Under A. When an emperor looks like
his predecessor.
The phenomenon is relatively common during the third century A.D. in particular in the mints of
Gaul for
antoniniani (GALLIENUS/POSTUMUS and MARIUS/VICTORINUS).
By the way, there are a few coins of
Carinus, Numerianus and
Magnia Urbica of the issue SMSXXIA-I¨, minted in
Siscia, which deserve to be compared to the aureliani of Julianus of Pannonia in order to check if such a phenomenon also occurred there. Amongst others published in catalogues here follow the most pertinent aureliani:
-
Carinus,
cuirassed bust seen from front (
officinae A and B,
reverse VOTA PUBLICA): Emporium-Hamburg, Auktion 43, n° 424, 18-19.V.2000 ; H.J.Berk, Sale 94, n° 651, 16.I.1997 ; H.
Lanz, Auktion 82, n° 709, 24.XI.1997; H.J.
Berk, Sale 90, n° 395, 17.IV.1996, Munzzentrum Auktion 82, n° 876, 6-8.IX.1995.
- Numerianus, draped
cuirassed bust seen from rear (
officina I¨,
reverse VOTA PUBLICA): CGF, Vso XXVIII, n° 365, 8.II.2007; Emporium-Hamburg Auktion 53, n° 724, 19-20.V.2005; H.J.Berk, Sale 83, n° 863, 26.X. 1994,- coin illustrated (fig.2) in the article of
BCEN, 32,3, p. 60-.
- Numerianus,
cuirassed bust seen fron front (
officina I¨,
reverse VOTA PUBLICA): H.D.Rauch, Sale, 23.IX.2005, n° 1205.
-
Magnia Urbica, draped
bust on crescent seen from front (
officina A,
reverse SALUS PUBLICA): NAC
Auction 39, n° 827, 16.V.2007; H.
Lanz, Auktion 117, n° 1206, 24.XI.2003; H.D
Rauch, Auktion 58, n° 573, 28.X.1996.
1. Can it be considered that the above mentioned aureliani of
Carinus, Numerianus and
Magnia Urbica, minted in
Siscia (issue SMSXXIA-I¨), looks like those of Julianus of Pannonia because:
a. some features of the realistic
portrait of Julianus are
still present in the
portrait on the
obverse of these coins of
Carinus, Numerianus and even
Magnia Urbica ?
b.
obverse portraits of these coins have large heads like all the aureliani of Julianus when the normal
obverse portrait is rather with a small or medium size
head for the aureliani of
Carinus, Numerianus and
Magnia Urbica in
Siscia ?
The same phenomenon also occurs with
aurei minted in
Siscia at that time. Compare obverses of n° 4379 (
Carinus), n° 4311 and n° 4322 (Numerianus) published by X.Calico (Los Aureos Romanos, Barcelona, 2002) with obverses of Julianus n° 4413 and n° 4416. The same remark can be made for the
aureus of
Magnia Urbica n° 4406.
2. Can it be considered, if the answer is yes to point A.1, that these coins have been minted after those of Julianus of Pannonia in
Siscia ? And that this is the only possible explanation to the likeliness of the
portraits (probably already existing dies being slightly modified and used in urgency and/or real
portrait of absent emperors being unknown at the begining of the issue). If not, what is the other explanation for such a fact?
If the answer to point A.2 is yes, the conclusions are: firstly at
Siscia the issue of Julianus of Pannonia (SA-I¨
XXI) is followed by an issue of
Divo Caro,
Carinus and Numerianus
Augusti and
Magnia Urbica Augusta (SMSXXIA-I¨), secondly as Numerianus was dead by November 20th 284 A.D. (and deified at
Rome by end 284-begining 285 AD –see
DIVO NUMERIANO coins), Julianus of Pannonia could not have been in power by end 284-begining 285 A.D.
Under B. The article about Julianus of Pannonia.
If the conclusions, based on facts, under A.1 and A.2 are acceptable then what happens if they are
applied to the date of the usurpation of
Julian of Pannonia.
1. Can, on this basis, the following order of succession of
mint marks at
Siscia be considered as a appropriate one ?
a.
Carus et sui (XXIA-I¨) long lasting issue (
reverse VIRTUS AUGG), ending with a few
consecration coins of
Carus (
CONSECRATIO AUG) and shortened
obverse legends (
IMP C CARINUS/NUMERIANUS PF AUG) in its last phase is to be dated after the death of
Carus (September 283 A.D.) and was ended shortly thereafter by the usurpation of Julianus of Pannonia.
b. Then Julianus issued coins at
Siscia with a
mint mark mentioning the city of
Siscia that was probably
his headquarters (S[
Siscia]A-I¨
XXI) from September to December 283 AD.
c. Afterwards, once Julianus has been defeated and killed in
Italy and
Siscia taken over by
Carinus a very well structured issue with a special and complex
mint mark (S[Sacra]M[
Moneta]S[Sisciensis]XXIA-I¨ was minted from December 283 to March 284 A.D.
Carinus kept the name of the reconquered city (
Siscia) in the
mint mark to ease local difficulties but added that it was a sacred
mint city (
Sacra Moneta) because it was now in the power of the legitimate ruler.
2. Can it be considered, when looking closely to the very special SMSXXIA-I¨ issue, which contains the peculiar coins mentioned under A.1, that the legends of the reverses give a strong impression of a propaganda based on a return to a legitimate order after an usurpation? The founder of the dynasty,
Carus, is now a God (
CONSECRATIO AUG),
Carinus and Numerianus (
VOTA PUBLICA) take a joint consulate for 284 A.D. ensuring thus that the legal institutions are working orderly and
Magnia Urbica (
SALUS PUBLICA) confirm that the crisis is over.
In a second phase the legends of the reverses develop the prospects of a favorable future: under the cover of the
Divo Caro,
Carinus, now
head of the dynasty, is protected by
Jupiter (
IOVI CONSER),
Carinus and particularly Numerianus are both sure of the loyalty of the army (
FIDES EXERCIT AUGG) and
Magnia Urbica married to
Carinus in summer 283 A.D. is under the protection of
Venus (
VENUS GENETRIX), perhaps expecting a child.
Moreover if the coins of
Carinus, Numerianus and
Magnia Urbica looking like those of Julianus of Pannonia give the right order of the issues in
Siscia for the period, those coins of
Carinus and above all those of Numerianus with the
reverse VOTA PUBLICA give a precise date as they are linked to the joint consulate of
Carinus and Numerianus starting in January 284 A.D.
The same conclusion can be drawn from the
aurei with the
reverse PM TR I P
COS P P which were minted in
Siscia at the end of 283-begining 284 A.D. ( X.
Calico, n°4311 and n°4352).
By the end 283 A.D. Julianus of Pannonia has been eliminated.
3. So, finally, credit can be given to
Aurelius Victor (
Liber de Caesaribus paragraphs 38 and 39) when he clearly states that Julianus rebelled once the news of the death of
Carus were known (Cari morte cognita).
His text is focused on the events in the East that he discribes up to the access to power of Diocletianus (November 20th 284 A.D.), such an important figure that he is immediatly portrayed and evaluated. So, the events in the
West are difficult to include in the story and sound a little anecdotic. They are however included in the text through an adverb of time: meanwhile (interim) refering to the period opened by the death of
Carus (Numerianus, amisso patre) and with two sentences the author indicates precisely the date of the usurpation (Cari morte cognita), the location of the defeat and death of Julianus (battle of
Verona) and the consequences of the
victory of
Carinus: a march by
Carinus towards Illyricum (
Siscia).
At this point, to shorten the story and reach quickly the final battle between
Carinus and the already mentioned Diocletianus, he merged two similar actions by
Carinus and considers the movement of
Carinus to meet the army of Diocletianus (
Spring 285 A.D.) on the Margus as a simple extension of the one
Carinus has made about one year and a half before to fight Julianus of Pannonia (Autumn 283 A.D.).There is no mistake by
Aurelius Victor who mentioned several rebellions but is short in details about the year 284 A.D.
4. In fact,
Carinus moved very quickly in the Autumn 283 A.D., probably from Rhetia or Upper Rhine
limes to northern
Italy where he defeated the army of Julianus (battle of
Verona), who was moving there to cut
Carinus from
his basis (
Ticinum) and to get at
Rome a recognition from the Senate, an advantage in a future competition.
Carinus went after the battle to
Siscia where he stayed at least till
spring 284 AD.
At the end of 284 AD
Carinus made a second similar movement through
Italy (from
Rome to
Siscia) but it was then a much slower and wider move to gather as much troops as possible before meeting the army of Diocletianus on the Margus in Mesia, far beyond Illyricum he strongly controlled since end 283 A.D.
5. Finally, Julianus’ usurpation in Autumn 283 A.D. could have been a successfull one because of a central position, with a prince dead (
Carus), a young one far away commanding a retreating army through Mesopotania (Numerianus) and the last one (
Carinus) isolated and busy fighting on the
limes. Through a quick grasp on
Italy he could have made a decisive action gaining him a final advantage. A
swift move by
Carinus prevented this in the Autumn 283 A.D. On the contrary, Julianus’usurpation at the end of 284 A.D. would have made
his central position a very dangerous one. The eastern army is much nearer (
Nicomedia) and under the command of an experimented prince (Diocletianus) who is in control of the East, and
Carinus has
had one year to stabilize the situation and is in control of the
West. Julianus would have
had to fight on both fronts: always a desperate situation.
***********
