Co-opting of Imperial Legitimacy by Roman Usurpers

Tzimikes · Jan 6, 2023

I’ve recently watched @DiocletianIsBetterThanYou's video on politics in the age of Diocletian, and was fascinated by Carausius' propaganda painting himself as brother to Diocletian and Maximilian - the very same people he's usurping against. I've been thinking about similar cases of usurpers basing their legitimacy on the “legitimate” government and indeed, two more Tetrarchy era came to mind. Both Maxentius and Constantine tried to join the Imperial College based on the standings of their fathers and fathers-in-law (even as Galerius responded to Maxentius usurpation with an invasion—although iirc Maxentius was careful enough to not style himself as Caesar or Augustus at first, but only as princeps, in an unsuccessful case not to anger Galerius).
Much later in Byzantine history, Romanos I Lekapenos is perhaps similar too, first styling himself as regent and “father of the emperor” (while marrying his daughter to the minor Constantine VII as well) before crowning himself Emperor. Nikephoros Phokas and Tzimiskes similar seem to have justified their power by ruling for Basil II, who was still a child. Otherwise, I can't think of any other cases in Roman History.*

So, am I simply missing cases where usurpers tried to co-opt the legitimacy of the very people they're rebelling against? Or was the tetrarchy simply a unique situation for such usurpers? And in the case of Maxentius, how did he manage to supersede his father after basing his legitimacy on him?

* The only case I can think of which is remotely similar would be Zenobia/Vallabathus, who still minted coins with Claudius II on them, even as she took part of his territory. But that seems to be more about accepting his legitimacy, and less about actually drawing her own from it.

DiocletianIsBetterThanYou · Jan 6, 2023

Glad you enjoyed the video! I think that the coins depicting Aurelian and Vaballathus minted in Syria and Egypt in the early 270s probably does meet your criteria, as while Vaballathus wasn't usurping the imperial office, he was usurping imperial honours, such as the right to be minted on coins, the title Imperator, and the honour of having regnal years. In the case of regnal years, the coins retrospectively began his tally at 267/8, thereby ensuring that he had a higher iteration of regnal years than Aurelian. Some of the coins featured Aurelian on the obverse and Vaballathus on the reverse.

As for Maxentius, he appears to have gained superior credentials in the eyes of Rome's population (incl. the Senate and praetorians) by a) basing his power in the city of Rome itself, something that the Tetrarchs had avoided doing, b) defending Rome during Galerius' invasion, while Maximian was absent in Gaul, and c) leaning ever more heavily into propaganda centred on the city of Rome, especially after his father's flight from the city in April 308. According to Lactantius, he also looked like he was Maximian's senior in status as he had given power back to his father, rather than receiving imperial power from his father.

Tzimikes · Jan 7, 2023

DiocletianIsBetterThanYou said:
Glad you enjoyed the video! I think that the coins depicting Aurelian and Vaballathus minted in Syria and Egypt in the early 270s probably does meet your criteria, as while Vaballathus wasn't usurping the imperial office, he was usurping imperial honours, such as the right to be minted on coins, the title Imperator, and the honour of having regnal years. In the case of regnal years, the coins retrospectively began his tally at 267/8, thereby ensuring that he had a higher iteration of regnal years than Aurelian. Some of the coins featured Aurelian on the obverse and Vaballathus on the reverse.

Ahh, that is fascinating. I've looked up some more information in Aurelian and the Third Century, and the author mentions that the earliest coins minted by Zenobia don't even mention Vallabathus regnal year, before first mentioning it and then redating it to gain seniority, then more and more implying his equality to Aurelian, only to leave the Emperor off the coins alltogether once he started to attack Zenobia. I never thought I'd be so invested in coin propaganda!

DiocletianIsBetterThanYou said:
As for Maxentius, he appears to have gained superior credentials in the eyes of Rome's population (incl. the Senate and praetorians) by a) basing his power in the city of Rome itself, something that the Tetrarchs had avoided doing, b) defending Rome during Galerius' invasion, while Maximian was absent in Gaul, and c) leaning ever more heavily into propaganda centred on the city of Rome, especially after his father's flight from the city in April 308. According to Lactantius, he also looked like he was Maximian's senior in status as he had given power back to his father, rather than receiving imperial power from his father.

thanks for the answer! I'm admittedly somewhat confused by Tetrarchic ranks, but my understanding was that, even after their retirement, Diocletian and Maximian still kept the title of Augustus (or rather, senior Augustus) – so how would Maxentius give power back to him if he never lost it? Is actual power meant by it, or is a senior Augustus simply not quite as high of a ranking? Sorry for all these questions, the tetrarchy era just captivates me while breaking my brain.

Also, Maximian seems to have constantly gotten the short end of the stick. He's defeated by Carausius, whom Constantius does a better job against, forced to abdicate by Diocletian, failed in his machinations against his own sons, before trying (and once again failing) the same thing against Constantine. Especially Diocletian and Constantine are, of course, some of the most formidable Emperors ever, while Maxentius was also more than capable, but it's almost impressive how a senior Emperor seems to have been overshadowed by everyone who surrounded him.

Tiberius Caesar · Jan 7, 2023

Perhaps Galba is one such example. His adoption of Caesar and Augustus in his nomenclature did suggest he was part of the domus he was rebelling against. Of course, Caesar and Augustus would later become institutionalized names, but that doesn't change that, in 69, the fact Galba claimed for himself the names Caesar and Augustus albeit not related to the house of Augustus was innovative in itself (he dropped his nomen Sulpicius in the process, becoming Servius Galba Imperator Caesar Augustus). Ironically, literary evidence suggests Galba took enormous pride in his biological ancestry, though there's no hint of that in his 'propaganda'. Instead, it seems he attempted to link himself to Diva Augusta, Livia Drusilla - he had been one of her proteges (he was included in her will).

As for Maxentius, this coin (minted in 310) was brought to my attention some time ago:

The obverse seems to depict four characters on the top of a temple, around what appears to be the goddess Roma. Below them, there are two characters who appear to be Hercules and Jupiter. Is Maxentius here suggesting support for the tetrarchs (perhaps the four characters above the temple), indeed implying that he was one of them?

Kirialax · Jan 7, 2023

Tzimikes said:
Much later in Byzantine history, Romanos I Lekapenos is perhaps similar too, first styling himself as regent and “father of the emperor” (while marrying his daughter to the minor Constantine VII as well) before crowning himself Emperor. Nikephoros Phokas and Tzimiskes similar seem to have justified their power by ruling for Basil II, who was still a child. Otherwise, I can't think of any other cases in Roman History.*

The usurpation of Alexios I Komnenos is another case, although it's not presented quite so clearly. The Doukas faction backed Alexios on the basis that he would support the claim of the son of Michael VII Doukas and Maria of Alania, Konstantinos Doukas, to the throne. Alexios indeed betrothed his daughter, the future historian Anna Komnene, to Konstantinos when she was born. This was largely done at a moment of convenience for the Doukas and Komnenos houses at a time of crisis - the Doukai had no military men to usurp the throne back from Nikephoros III, and the Komnenoi needed the Doukai to pull off the coup. They bound Alexios to them through having him marry Eirene Doukaina and they mostly out-maneuvered him during the coup itself, but shortly thereafter the Komnenoi start to assert themselves against the Doukai successfully, and when John II was crowned in 1092 they latched on to the figure of Nikephoros Diogenes and attempted to oust Alexios, since this made Alexios' own child his successor and not Konstantinos Doukas.

Tzimikes · Jan 7, 2023

Kirialax said:
The usurpation of Alexios I Komnenos is another case, although it's not presented quite so clearly. The Doukas faction backed Alexios on the basis that he would support the claim of the son of Michael VII Doukas and Maria of Alania, Konstantinos Doukas, to the throne. Alexios indeed betrothed his daughter, the future historian Anna Komnene, to Konstantinos when she was born. This was largely done at a moment of convenience for the Doukas and Komnenos houses at a time of crisis - the Doukai had no military men to usurp the throne back from Nikephoros III, and the Komnenoi needed the Doukai to pull off the coup. They bound Alexios to them through having him marry Eirene Doukaina and they mostly out-maneuvered him during the coup itself, but shortly thereafter the Komnenoi start to assert themselves against the Doukai successfully, and when John II was crowned in 1092 they latched on to the figure of Nikephoros Diogenes and attempted to oust Alexios, since this made Alexios' own child his successor and not Konstantinos Doukas.

Would Andronikos ascension also count? He did originally start out as Alexios II regent, after all. Wikipedia states he forced Alexios to proclaim him Emperor, before killing him, but no source is given for that claim, and I lack the necessary knowledge on the era to judge this claim. And I've never viewed Alexios usurpation in that light, but that makes a lot of sense. Also, it is quite funny how there's barely a decade between the Doukai plotting to remove Romanos Diogenes from the throne and them plotting to put a Diogenes on the throne to replace an Emperor they themselves put there. Generally, the Imperial families starting with Isaac I seem so interwoven with each other that I sometimes wonder why they're split in so many dynasties (especially since every Emperor).

Also, I apologize for the topic change, are you aware of any overviews about the Komnenian Dynasty? I've yet to see anything similar to Streams of Gold, Rivers of Blood or Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era covering this era. Exceppt for the Alexiad, I'm only aware of Magdalino's The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos.

Kirialax · Jan 7, 2023

Tzimikes said:
Would Andronikos ascension also count? He did originally start out as Alexios II regent, after all. Wikipedia states he forced Alexios to proclaim him Emperor, before killing him, but no source is given for that claim, and I lack the necessary knowledge on the era to judge this claim. And I've never viewed Alexios usurpation in that light, but that makes a lot of sense. Also, it is quite funny how there's barely a decade between the Doukai plotting to remove Romanos Diogenes from the throne and them plotting to put a Diogenes on the throne to replace an Emperor they themselves put there. Generally, the Imperial families starting with Isaac I seem so interwoven with each other that I sometimes wonder why they're split in so many dynasties (especially since every Emperor).

Yes, I think Andronikos would count. And that is, I suspect, one of the main reasons for Komnenian success: after becoming tightly intertwined and then pushing aside the Doukai, they manage to bind almost all of the other major families within the empire to themselves.

Tzimikes said:
Also, I apologize for the topic change, are you aware of any overviews about the Komnenian Dynasty? I've yet to see anything similar to Streams of Gold, Rivers of Blood or Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era covering this era. Exceppt for the Alexiad, I'm only aware of Magdalino's The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos.

A new general history of the twelfth century is something we desperately need. However, despite all the work being done on the period these days, it's dominated by people interested in intellectual culture and philology. So while it's great that we're now getting good studies on Tzetzes and Eustatios, we're not getting a whole lot more on political history, the economy, or the state.* So it's back to Magdalino and Angold for the general surveys. But there's good recent and forthcoming stuff: two new books on Byzantium and the Latins in the twelfth century, a wonderful but difficult book on the Alexiad, some new stuff on the Pechenegs, and an upcoming book on Alexios' Balkan wars.

* I proposed writing a new history of the operation of the Komnenian state for a postdoc, but I was informed that while such a thing is absolutely needed, no one would ever fund it and I should try something more trendy.

DiocletianIsBetterThanYou · Jan 7, 2023

Tzimikes said:
I'm admittedly somewhat confused by Tetrarchic ranks, but my understanding was that, even after their retirement, Diocletian and Maximian still kept the title of Augustus (or rather, senior Augustus) – so how would Maxentius give power back to him if he never lost it? Is actual power meant by it, or is a senior Augustus simply not quite as high of a ranking? Sorry for all these questions, the tetrarchy era just captivates me while breaking my brain.

The thing is, everyone is confused by Tetrarchic ranks haha. The abdicated Augusti were indeed Senior Augusti (and also 'Fathers of the Augusti/Caesars/Imperatores'), and although Lactantius presents Diocletian's abdication as a return to the status of a privatus (private citizen), the reality was clearly different. But what is a Senior Augustus? Is it an emperor emeritus? There was no precedent for the title being used in the context of abdication. When previously employed, it simply meant the older or more senior-ranking emperor and wasn't an official title, just a descriptor. But now it was being used as a title for abdicated emperors. The only previous emperor to abdicate was Tetricus, but that was in the context of civil war. He was Aurelian's enemy, not a member of his imperial college, and so he wasn't an honorary retired emperor, but rather, thanks to Aurelian's clemency and political astuteness, the new corrector of Lucania.

It is likely that Romans of the Tetrarchic period also didn't have a very good idea of what a Senior Augustus was. The panegyric of 307 (to Maximian and Constantine) speaks of Maximian returning to the helm, drawing a distinction between Maximian's abdication years and his return to active rule from the end of 306 onwards. But, being a panegyric, the text does not provide any explanation that transcends rhetoric. But, like Lactantius, the orator sees Maximian as having returned to power, since the orator then seeks to justify his return. Likewise, the panegyric of 310 (to Constantine) speaks of Maximian having defied Diocletian's wishes by returning to power, and Eutropius, the Epitome de Caesaribus and Zosimus all speak of Maximian and Galerius trying to persuade Diocletian to return to power. Inscriptions and coins show that Senior Augusti were not Imperatores, which at the very least suggests that they would no longer be commanding military campaigns, and fittingly, on a pilaster at Felix Romuliana, the Senior Augusti are distinguished from the ruling Augusti and Caesars by their wearing civil garb (togas), whereas the active emperors wear paludamenta (military cloaks).

DiocletianIsBetterThanYou · Jan 7, 2023

Tzimikes said:
I've looked up some more information in Aurelian and the Third Century, and the author mentions that the earliest coins minted by Zenobia don't even mention Vallabathus regnal year, before first mentioning it and then redating it to gain seniority, then more and more implying his equality to Aurelian, only to leave the Emperor off the coins alltogether once he started to attack Zenobia. I never thought I'd be so invested in coin propaganda!

Yeah Watson's discussion is very useful!

DiocletianIsBetterThanYou · Jan 7, 2023

Tiberius Caesar said:
Perhaps Galba is one such example. His adoption of Caesar and Augustus in his nomenclature did suggest he was part of the domus he was rebelling against. Of course, Caesar and Augustus would later become institutionalized names, but that doesn't change that, in 69, the fact Galba claimed for himself the names Caesar and Augustus albeit not related to the house of Augustus was innovative in itself (he dropped his nomen Sulpicius in the process, becoming Servius Galba Imperator Caesar Augustus). Ironically, literary evidence suggests Galba took enormous pride in his biological ancestry, though there's no hint of that in his 'propaganda'. Instead, it seems he attempted to link himself to Diva Augusta, Livia Drusilla - he had been one of her proteges (he was included in her will).

As for Maxentius, this coin (minted in 310) was brought to my attention some time ago:

The obverse seems to depict four characters on the top of a temple, around what appears to be the goddess Roma. Below them, there are two characters who appear to be Hercules and Jupiter. Is Maxentius here suggesting support for the tetrarchs (perhaps the four characters above the temple), indeed implying that he was one of them?

It's a fascinating coin! They don't look much like Tetrarchs, but the case is a reasonable one to make when they are considered alongside Jupiter and Hercules.

Tiberius Caesar · Jan 7, 2023

DiocletianIsBetterThanYou said:
It's a fascinating coin! They don't look much like Tetrarchs, but the case is a reasonable one to make when they are considered alongside Jupiter and Hercules.

Yeah, it's a fascinating issue! Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find any good photo of this coin specifically (regrettably, it does not appear to be included in the RIC), but it was pointed out to me that these four characters are depicted with a sort of 'campgate', which does recall some tetrarchic iconography. If those are the tetrarchs, the centrality of Roma would point toward the fact that the emperors, albeit retaining the Hercules and Jupiter connotations, would need to have the goddess as the lone auctrix imperii.

Also noteworthy in this context the presence of the Dioscuri, flanking the four figures!

DiocletianIsBetterThanYou · Jan 7, 2023

I'm struggling to see a campgate, but that may be the photo's poor quality. Another case of Maxentius using the Dioscuri!

Steppenfool · Feb 4, 2023

@Tiberius Caesar @DiocletianIsBetterThanYou

Is the coin below the one you guys were referring to? The image seems to have disappeared.

Victor's Imperial Coins shows this example and description: Maxentius

Victor is extremely trustworthy when it comes to coins of this era, so I tend to trust his description:

Roma seated in hexastyle temple holding globe & sceptre, Jupiter and Hercules flanked by river gods in pediment, Victories as acroteria; H in left field.

Close up from another coin with more detailed pediment can be found on this forum thread (image breaks when I post it), alongside a (probably erroneous) attribution of River God and Sol being present.

Maxentius Follis

I'm a sucker for a nice architectural type and this one fit the bill. Maxentius assumed power in a rebellion against Severus II, who had removed the...

www.cointalk.com

Therefore it seems that the two figures at the bottom within the triangle of the pediment are the River gods, and the other figures Victories. I'm not sure what the Victories are supposed to be holding? They don't have the wreaths like the Victories on the Romulus and Remus issues which I've attached at the bottom of this post.

The other issues indicate the the quadruple figure motif was maintained beyond this rare issue. Rather than trying to indicate he was within the tetrarchy, perhaps he was experimenting with Roman mythology on his coins before he realised that those were a bit close to his rival and cut the issue out and then opted for his City of Rome based coinage? There's another issue where the Discouri are said to be in the pediment alongside two altars, which I've also attached below.

One thing that would immediately make me reject the tetrarchic hypothesis is that it's too subtle, I think a Legend explicitly stating AVGG ET CAESS would be more fitting or perhaps AVGGG depending on how many rightful Augusti there were in his eyes, much like Carausius attempted.
I would also say that the the Tetrarchic figures are usually depicted as equals. There is the famous Argenetus campgate coinage where they are indistinguishable from each other, and also this is the case with the famous porphyry portrait. Having distinguishable members of the Tetrarchy, in different places/attributes/positions on the coin would appear to go against the messaging of the college.

Maxentius, 307-312. Follis (Bronze, 25 mm, 6.33 g, 6 h), Aquileia, 309-310. IMP C MAXENTIVS P F AVG Laureate head of Maxentius to right. Rev. CONSERV VRBS SVAE / AQΓ Roma, on the right, seated left within tetrastyle temple with shield at her side, holding scepter in her left hand and handing globe with her right to Maxentius, on the left, standing right and holding scepter in his left hand; at his feet, captive seated right, head left; on the architrave, she-wolf standing left, suckling Romulus and Remus; at each end of architrave, Victory presenting wreath. Drost 35b. Paolucci & Zub 173. RIC 113.

Maxentius (307-312). Æ Follis (25.5mm, 6.48g). Rome, 308/9-311. Laureate head r. R/ Roma seated facing, head l., in hexastyle temple, holding globe and sceptre; shield to r.; statues as acroteria; Dioscuri flanked by altars in pediment; RBS. RIC VI 208.

Steppenfool · Feb 4, 2023

@Tiberius Caesar @DiocletianIsBetterThanYou

I had an absolute horror show editing the above post, even accidentally posting it in the middle of rearranging it at one point. The main problem was I stumbled upon more information as I was creating it. It should be fixed now.

DiocletianIsBetterThanYou · Feb 4, 2023

I wish I could compare the coin above with the one that Tiberius posted, but the former image is now a broken link. I wouldn't consider the depiction of hierarchy to be an issue, as Tetrarchic media varied a lot between depicting equal fellowship (e.g. coin obverse portraits; the porphyry groups; certain coin reverses; panegyrics delivered before the western emperors) and depicting seniority (e.g. the Luxor cult chamber; the panel of the emperors enthroned on the Arch of Galerius; the Nicomedia frieze; the divine signa; the order of adoration given in ceremonial; the Panopolis papyri; fourth century literature; even several panegyrical passages spoken before the western emperors), with some media deftly combining both an image of fellowship with an image of seniority (e.g. the Romuliana pilaster; Tetrarchic titulature [titles are shared, but Diocletian always has the highest iteration of titles]).

It's also notable that, during the early part of Maxentius' reign, Maxentius' mints produced coins for Maximinus (I don't remember specifics/which mints, as I'm going from memory). Also, in early 307 the consular year in Maxentius' territories was 'Galerius VII Maximinus I' (this ceased in April). So, Maxentius (and/or Maximian) appear to have been seeking some kind of compromise, with one of them or both of them hoping to replace Severus (conspicuously absent). However, the likelihood that Maxentius and Maximian weren't really on the same page when it came to their goals makes it very difficult to reconstruct the emperors' respective goals. For example, Mats Cullhed wonders whether the mint reflected Maxentius' goals whereas the consular fasti reflected Maximian's. So, while it may be natural to expect something based more on Carausius' model, the complicated situation in Italy perhaps made that too difficult.

But looking at this photo, they do look a lot like river gods, and I agree that, if they are Tetrarchs, it would be a particularly subtle gesture.

Steppenfool · Feb 4, 2023

Interesting examples regarding the media that showed a Tetrarchic heirarchy, I was aware of the literary and titular examples but not visual depictions. I've found a nice article to read up on regarding these which should keep me busy. https://www.researchgate.net/public...modating_Political_Change_under_the_Tetrarchy

Hopefully my sluething has been successful and this was the coin posted previous!

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/notinric/6rom204_q.h

OBVERSE	IMPCMAXENTIVSPFAVG [IMP C MAXENTIVS P F AVG]; head r., laur.
REVERSE	CONSERV-VRBSVAE [CONSERV VRB SVAE]; Roma seated facing, head l., in hexastyle temple, r. holding globe, l. sceptre, Victories as actoteria, pediment contains Dioscuri flanked by river-gods. H in left field. RQ in exergue.
NOT IN RIC	UNLISTED OFFICINA - Q. RIC lists for this type only officina S (p. 377).

RIC VI, ROMA 204, MAXENTIUS, UNLISTED OFFICINA P

www.notinric.lechstepniewski.info

OBVERSE	IMPCMAXENTIVSPFAVG [IMP C MAXENTIVS P F AVG]; head r., laur.
REVERSE	CONSERV-VRBSVAE [CONSERV VRB SVAE]; Roma seated facing, head l., in hexastyle temple, r. holding globe, l. sceptre, Victories as actoteria, pediment contains Dioscuri flanked by river-gods. H in left field. RP in exergue.
NOT IN RIC	UNLISTED OFFICINA - P. RIC lists for this type only officina S (p. 377).

The second image seems to me to be arguably Jupiter and Hercules due to the globe/scepter on one figure and club/bow on the other, contrary to the description?

Tiberius Caesar · Feb 5, 2023

Steppenfool said:
@Tiberius Caesar @DiocletianIsBetterThanYou

Is the coin below the one you guys were referring to? The image seems to have disappeared.

Victor's Imperial Coins shows this example and description: Maxentius

Victor is extremely trustworthy when it comes to coins of this era, so I tend to trust his description:

Roma seated in hexastyle temple holding globe & sceptre, Jupiter and Hercules flanked by river gods in pediment, Victories as acroteria; H in left field.

Close up from another coin with more detailed pediment can be found on this forum thread (image breaks when I post it), alongside a (probably erroneous) attribution of River God and Sol being present.

Maxentius Follis

I'm a sucker for a nice architectural type and this one fit the bill. Maxentius assumed power in a rebellion against Severus II, who had removed the...

www.cointalk.com

Therefore it seems that the two figures at the bottom within the triangle of the pediment are the River gods, and the other figures Victories. I'm not sure what the Victories are supposed to be holding? They don't have the wreaths like the Victories on the Romulus and Remus issues which I've attached at the bottom of this post.

The other issues indicate the the quadruple figure motif was maintained beyond this rare issue. Rather than trying to indicate he was within the tetrarchy, perhaps he was experimenting with Roman mythology on his coins before he realised that those were a bit close to his rival and cut the issue out and then opted for his City of Rome based coinage? There's another issue where the Discouri are said to be in the pediment alongside two altars, which I've also attached below.

One thing that would immediately make me reject the tetrarchic hypothesis is that it's too subtle, I think a Legend explicitly stating AVGG ET CAESS would be more fitting or perhaps AVGGG depending on how many rightful Augusti there were in his eyes, much like Carausius attempted.
I would also say that the the Tetrarchic figures are usually depicted as equals. There is the famous Argenetus campgate coinage where they are indistinguishable from each other, and also this is the case with the famous porphyry portrait. Having distinguishable members of the Tetrarchy, in different places/attributes/positions on the coin would appear to go against the messaging of the college.

Maxentius, 307-312. Follis (Bronze, 25 mm, 6.33 g, 6 h), Aquileia, 309-310. IMP C MAXENTIVS P F AVG Laureate head of Maxentius to right. Rev. CONSERV VRBS SVAE / AQΓ Roma, on the right, seated left within tetrastyle temple with shield at her side, holding scepter in her left hand and handing globe with her right to Maxentius, on the left, standing right and holding scepter in his left hand; at his feet, captive seated right, head left; on the architrave, she-wolf standing left, suckling Romulus and Remus; at each end of architrave, Victory presenting wreath. Drost 35b. Paolucci & Zub 173. RIC 113.

Maxentius (307-312). Æ Follis (25.5mm, 6.48g). Rome, 308/9-311. Laureate head r. R/ Roma seated facing, head l., in hexastyle temple, holding globe and sceptre; shield to r.; statues as acroteria; Dioscuri flanked by altars in pediment; RBS. RIC VI 208.

Yeah, it is a similar coin - not identical though!

For reference, I took the image from a Facebook post of Marco Cecini.

Steppenfool · Feb 5, 2023

Tiberius Caesar said:
Yeah, it is a similar coin - not identical though!

For reference, I took the image from a Facebook post of Marco Cecini.

That is an interesting one. Certainly more interesting than I imagined, I have never seen an example like that! I think we can still safely identify Jupiter, Hercules and two river gods within the pediment. The two figures at the corners of the roof do appear to be winged, victories. The other two figures on the roof are perhaps the Discouri like you mentioned. I am getting Sol/Victory/Triumphal quadriga vibes from the summit of the temple? Much like the below Probus coin? Although they do look more humanoid on the example you posted. It's also worth noting that Maxentius utilised the Elephant quadriga on coins, but they don't look like elephants. on your example I think a lot of the confusion regarding these issues is due to the tiny engraving for these figures that can't accomodate much detail.

Although this scultupe is of course modern, something like this is what I think we might be looking at on the coin?

quadriga-sculpture-paris-france-facade-grand-palace-68743756.jpg

Tiberius Caesar · Feb 5, 2023

Steppenfool said:
That is an interesting one. Certainly more interesting than I imagined, I have never seen an example like that! I think we can still safely identify Jupiter, Hercules and two river gods within the pediment. The two figures at the corners of the roof do appear to be winged, victories. The other two figures on the roof are perhaps the Discouri like you mentioned. I am getting Sol/Victory/Triumphal quadriga vibes from the summit of the temple? Much like the below Probus coin? Although they do look more humanoid on the example you posted. It's also worth noting that Maxentius utilised the Elephant quadriga on coins, but they don't look like elephants. on your example I think a lot of the confusion regarding these issues is due to the tiny engraving for these figures that can't accomodate much detail.

View attachment 61484

Although this scultupe is of course modern, something like this is what I think we might be looking at on the coin?

That might be so! It is admittedly very hard to gauge details, even due to the fact the photo isn't very good. But since, as you mentioned, these figures look humanoid, I'd suggest, alternatively, that they might be tritons:

821px-Kameo_Augustus_mit_Tritonengespann_KHM_IXa_56.jpg

Or compare the composition of Commodus and tritons now housed at the Capitoline Museum, from the Horti Lamiani:

AC_FhM8hpGuFtdt-r4gYzO1cCmMH4ykJowh2MdAW5iLjRTcPPPDIRHXIxaGHMUe8WmzWVPrdRHgM9Uo=s1200

Search

Search

Co-opting of Imperial Legitimacy by Roman Usurpers

Tzimikes

DiocletianIsBetterThanYou

Tzimikes

Tiberius Caesar

Kirialax

Tzimikes

Kirialax

DiocletianIsBetterThanYou

DiocletianIsBetterThanYou

DiocletianIsBetterThanYou

Tiberius Caesar

DiocletianIsBetterThanYou

Steppenfool

Maxentius Follis

Steppenfool

DiocletianIsBetterThanYou

Steppenfool

RIC VI, ROMA 204, MAXENTIUS, UNLISTED OFFICINA P

Tiberius Caesar

Maxentius Follis

Steppenfool

Tiberius Caesar

More History Discussions

Recent History Discussions

Trending History Discussions