On the "Black Death"

Uber-blogger TigerHawk takes the New York Times to task on the "Black Death":

Never wanting to miss a chance, however petty, to whack the New York Times, as the son of a medievalist who had written about the "Black Death" it is my bounden duty to pick at the Grey Lady's headline: "Clues to Black Plague's Fury in 650-Year-Old Skeletons." There is no such thing as the "black plague." The disease in question is simply "plague," and it comes in three forms: bubonic, pneumonic, septicemic. The term "Black Death" refers to the specific plague pandemic that swept Europe in the 14th century. Plague at other times and places is not "black death." While septicemic plague can cause a certain blackening of the skin in the extremities, it is not "black plague." The "black" part of the Black Death was mostly metaphorical, arising from the suddenly and shocking mortality that would sweep a medieval village seemingly from nowhere, an apparently portent of the end of times.

Read the whole thing, and click through all the links, as TigerHawk provides a great discussion and some cool trivia.

The Black Death of 1348-1350 was the worst single attack of a series of attacks of epidemic disease in the 14th century. In some areas of Europe a half or a third of the population may have died; overall, in Europe, the death toll was perhaps a quarter of the population. An inquiry commissed by the papacy put the loss of life at 40 million! At one time fourteen hundred people died at Avignon in three days.

Technorati Tags: Black Death, plague, medieval history, TigerHawk

A Coin of the Antichrist?

Though the first six years of Nero's reign were marked by competent domestic and foreign administration, by 65 AD the emperor's excesses and affronts to Roman sensibilities had been so great that a number of Senators had decided that Nero must go. These transgressions included matricide; the murder of two different spouses (including kicking his pregnant wife Poppaea Sabina to death); indulgence in literature and the arts instead of the martial arts; and particularly vicious and gruesome persecutions of Christians, including the executions of Saints Peter and Paul (the small Christian community in Rome was indeed loathed by ordinary Romans, but the persecutions were so grisly that even the pagan population felt sympathy for the Christians). Oh, I almost forgot – Nero also enjoyed disguising himself and roaming the streets of Rome at night with his companions, where they would attack innocent people. Those who defended themselves were put to death for showing disrespect for the emperor. In addition to being one of the most infamous bad guys in all of history, you can easily see why some early Christians believed Nero to be the Antichrist. And it goes without saying that most modern Roman historians regard Nero as one of the worst, if not the worst, Roman emperors.

In 65 AD a large conspiracy was planned to eliminate Nero and replace him with a member of the Senatorial class, C. Calpurnius Piso (it is therefore referred to as the Pisonian Conspiracy.) Unfortunately for the conspirators, the conspiracy was too big, involved too many people, and was discovered on the eve of its execution. Once it was broken, Nero initiated a series of treason trials and, of course, executions. It is said that Nero planned to eliminate the Senatorial order entirely, and may have succeeded, had he not gone on an artistic tour of Greece.







The above denarius (RIC 64) features an image of Jupiter holding a thunderbolt and scepter with the legend IVPPITER CVSTOS, "Jupiter the Protector." The coin type was probably issued shortly after the conspiracy to publicize what Nero believed to be Jupiter’s role in safeguarding him from his would-be assassins. The obverse shows a laureate portrait of the emperor with the legend IMP NERO AVGVSTVS. By the time of the emperor Claudius (r.41-54 AD), obverse portrait fashion had changed from the idealization of Augustus and Tiberius to a more realistic style that sought to portray the objectivity and personality of the emperor. You can see this clearly in the obverse portrait of Nero; clearly not an attractive man. To me he looks a bit like Joey Buttafuoco …

Nero's artistic sensitivity shows on his coins and many collectors regard his coinage as the height of Roman artistic quality for the entire Imperial coinage series. Though this particular denarius is obviously flawed, I am not in the least bit disturbed by the shovel damage to the reverse side. On the contrary, as I said in an earlier post, ancient coin collecting can be an intensely personal experience, and part of that means acquiring particular coins that speak to you. Besides having a fairly intact portrait of Nero (difficult to find on a denarius at a reasonable price), including the obverse legend, as well as a fine reverse image, the shovel damage, while detracting from the coin's monetary value, adds greatly to the coin's character. In fact, I had the opportunity to buy the same coin type without shovel damage but with a far more worn portrait and almost no reverse detail, but did not do so.

I like to think that my coin had been in the ground for hundreds of years before a random farmer struck upon it while working in his field.

Technorati Tags: Nero, Antichrist, Jupiter, denarius, Poppaea, numismatics

Domitian AR Denarius, 90/91 AD

Here's one of the first coins of my collection, a denarius of Domitian from 90/91 AD. The obverse features a laureate portrait of Domitian facing right, with the legend IMP CAES DOMIT AVG GERM P M TR P X. The reverse has the goddess of war (and wisdom, poetry, medicine, and crafts), Minerva, standing left and holding a spear. The reverse legend reads IMP XXI COS XV CENS P P P. The RIC reference is 155. The coin is dated by the "TR P X" reference. TR P X means that, when the coin was struck, Domitian was serving his tenth term as Tribune of the People, which he assumed in September 90 AD. He assumed that office for the eleventh time in September 91 AD, so this coin dates somewhere in between those dates.

Domitian suffers from a severe biographical disadvantage, and thus so do modern historians wishing to study the man. The two leading second century Roman historians - Suetonius and Tacitus - who wrote on the life of Rome's first emperors were severely biased against Domitian. Tacitus bore a personal grudge against him (after the emperor recalled Tacitus's father-in-law, the general Agricola, from Britain) and Suetonius, in fact, was employed by the very faction that had Domitian assassinated. Popular belief, therefore, is that Domitian was a blatant autocrat who had little regard for the Senatorial class. True, toward the end of his reign Domitian initiated a paranoid purge of the Senate, but evidence exists that Domitian was well respected by the military and was a particularly effective administrator. For example, Domitian personally oversaw military operations in Germania. Contrast that active role with Nero, who sent the future emperor Vespasian to deal with the Judaean revolt while he himself embarked on an "artistic tour" of Greece. Yet, though his domestic and military administration was quite good, Domitian made little effort to hide the fact that he sought to create a blatant autocracy. Particularly egregious was his assumption of the office of Censor for life. This ultimately led to his downfall.

Two things are particularly interesting about this fairly common issue, besides the fact that the coin is in nearly extremely fine condition, notwithstanding a partial weak reverse legend. The first concerns the obverse portrait. As I said above, Domitian sought to create a naked autocracy, somewhat modeled on the kingdoms of the East. As such, his portrait conveys the glorification of the emperor through semi-divine characteristics such as the expressions of the facial features.

The second interesting thing is the reverse image of Minerva. While Domitian followed the abstract reverse types of the two preceding Flavian emperors, Vespasian and Titus, Domitian paid special respect to the goddess Minerva. The image of this deity is by far the most abundant reverse image on Domitian's coins.

Technorati Tags: Domitian, Vespasian, Titus, Agricola, Roman military commanders, Nero, Germania, Minerva, military history

Rebel Money

A farmer in England unearthed two gold aurei of the British secessionist emperor Carausius:

Two "extremely important" gold coins that shed light on a little known rebel
Roman emperor from the third century AD have been unearthed by a farmer in the
Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire area. They relate to the Roman commander
Carausius, who decalred himself emperor of Britain around 286 or 287 after the
emperor in Rome ordered his execution. He was overthrown in a coup d'etat by
his finance minister, Allectus, in 293.

His reign left little record. Though, as his fairly abundant coinage attests, Carausius was able to maintain a vigorous monetary economy, even reforming the coinage of Britain on the pattern of the recently reformed Roman coinage. In fact, Carausius appears to have taken his role of "emperor" seriously, bringing relative stability to Britain; he even struck coinage in the names of Diocletian and Maximianus, the legitimate eastern and western Augusti in the first Tetrarchy, respectively, as a way to legitimize his rule. A gesture the legitimate emperors obviously did not return...

UPDATE: The website for the Portable Antiquities Scheme, a British program to record and document the amateur finds of archaeological interest in England and Wales found by the public, has a good write-up on the Carausius find, including photos of the coins. Take a look at the coin with the reverse legend CONCORDIA MILITVM; struck at Rouen, it's a nice coin, but the craftsmanship is pretty poor, at least in the legend, where the "A's" lack crossbars, and the lines in the "V's" do not touch. The other coin, with the reverse legend PAX AVG, was struck at the London mint, a mint which the rebel Carausius founded, which actually remained in service after Britain had been recaptured by Constantius I.

Technorati Tags: Carausius, Britain, secessionist, Rome, history, aureus, Diocletian, Maximianus, Portable Antiquities Scheme

This Date in History - Insane Emperor Edition

The assassination of the emperor Caligula happened on this date a mere 1,967 years ago.

According to Suetonius, who was writing in the early second century, there were two versions of what ultimately happened to the mad emperor. Neither are pleasant. The first was that while Caligula was talking to some young boys, the conspirator Chaerea came up from behind the emperor and slit his throat while another conspirator stabbed him in the chest. The second version, more violently detailed than the first, claims that once Caligula was isolated by the conspirators (a faction within the praetorians), he was asked the day's watchword. "Jupiter," the emperor replied. To which the Tribune responded, "So be it." Caligula looked incredulous as he was suddenly struck by a sword blow to the jaw. Knocked to the ground and writhing in agony, the rest of the conspirators continued to stab him. Some, Suetonius says, even "thrust their swords through his privates." This version, though more detailed, shares some curious details with the assassination of Julius Caesar, including the claim that Caligula was stabbed thirty times and had his genitals mutilated.

It was also 1,967 years ago today that the emperor Claudius, "poor Uncle Claudius" as Robert Graves famously had Caligula describe him, was proclaimed emperor by the praetorians. Claudius the "cripple, the stammerer, the fool of the family" was the most unlikely of candidates for Rome’s throne. According to Suetonius, after Caligula’s murder, Claudius, who was at that time 51 years old,

in great terror at the news of the murder…stole away to a balcony hard by and
hid among the curtains which hang before the door. As he cowered there, a common
soldier, who was prowling about random, saw his feet, intending to ask who he
was, pulled him out and recognized him; and when Claudius fell at his feet in
terror, he hailed him as emperor.

All things considered, Claudius turned out to be a pretty good emperor, sandwiched between the reigns of probably Rome's two worst emperors, his nephew Caligula and his great-nephew Nero…

Technorati Tags: history, Caligula, Claudius, assassination, terrorism, Rome

Update on Purchases

I purchased several new coins this past weekend. Keeping in line with my recent Severus kick, two coins are denarii of Septimius Severus, including one highly-sought legionary issue. While I've looked diligently and waited patiently for the right legionary, perhaps the coin I'm most anticipating is a denarii of one of the most infamous men in history, certainly of the Roman Empire -- the emperor Nero. For a guy like me who loves collecting imperial portraits, Nero's is one of the best and most recognizable of all Roman portraits.

Still, Nero was one ugly dude.

Technorati Tags: Septimius Severus, Nero, denarius, numismatics, history

BBC on William Marshal and the Medieval Joust

BBC on the medieval joust:

But while jousting was popular in medieval Europe, it originated as the
curtain-opener to a far more brutal affair.

This was the melee tournament - a brutal free-for-all with few rules
designed very much as a preparation for war.

A substantial portion of the article is devoted to the exploits of William Marshal, the star of the twelfth century tournament circuit:

As an international sport, the melee tournament attracted big money, and from
the 1170s to 1182 William's patron was Henry the Young King, son of Henry II,
and they were fixtures on the tournament fields of Flanders and France.

William Marshal was also apparently a heck of a general. A vernacular history of William Marshal survives, History of William the Marshal, offering both a unique picture of chivalric society and military culture in the twelfth century. Particularly interesting to me is the History's portrayal of intelligence in medieval warfare. Several instances in the History offer insight into effective reconnaissance and the countermeasures that it allowed medieval commanders to take. At Le Mans in 1189, Henry II sent the Marshal with a scouting party to reconnoiter the position of the opposing French army. They quickly spotted the enemy, but a thick fog hindered an accurate view. An attendant suggested they return to Henry II and inform him at least of the French army's position. The Marshal, however, insisted on getting close enough to gain precise information on the size, composition and location of the French troops. (a practice known as "autopsy.") So close did he get that he could have easily been hit by a crossbow bolt. Based the Marshal’s observations, Henry II took specific countermeasures including destruction of a significant bridge, staking nearby fords, and digging ditches to hinder the French advance. In 1202 the Marshal again sought to confirm for himself what his scouts had told him — that the French king had given up the siege of Arques.

The experience of William the Marshal — a knight, not a king — shows that reliance on intelligence for military success was not just a royal ideal. That the Marshal was widely regarded in his day as the greatest of knights, and that his History was written in the vernacular language, suggest that the necessity of acquiring precise and confirmable intelligence gained wide attention.

Technorati Tags: medieval history, military history, joust, William Marshal, BBC

The New York Times on Michael Yon

The New York Times has an article today on Iraq war blogger Michael Yon, who has spent more time embedded with U.S. troops in Iraq than anyone else, journalist or otherwise. The portrait of Yon is even-toned though somehwat flavorless, but includes this little nugget (via Memeorandum):

Along the way, he created a niche outlet that is better reported than most
blogs, and more opinionated than most news reporting, with enough first-hand
observation, clarity and skepticism to put many professional journalists to
shame.

Read the whole thing. It's surprising to me that the NYT highlighted Yon at all. It was once possible for a small cadre of mainstream media journalists to dictate the public's perception of war. As outlets like the NYT have discovered, though, despite their constant pessimistic coverage of the war in Iraq, they have largely been unable to perpetuate that coverage because of honest, in-your-face bloggers like Michael Yon.

I think Yon has changed the way war is covered, the way it is presented to the public and, ultimately, the way we understand war.

Technorati Tags: military history, Michael Yon, Iraq, war, media, journalism, New York Times, blogging

One Big, Happy Family

Even casual readers of this young blog probably know my affinity for the emperor Septimius Severus (r. 193-211 AD) and his two sons Caracalla (r. 198-211 with Severus; r. Feb-Dec. 211 AD with Geta; r. 211-217 on his own) and Geta (r. 209-211 AD with Severus and Caracalla; Feb-Dec. 211 AD with Caracalla.) The below image is of the Severan Tondo, a tempera painting on a wood panel, probably of Egyptian origin from the early third century. It, and countless others like it that have not survived, most likely served as an imperial portrait to be displayed in government offices and buildings, much like today the President's and Vice President's official portraits, along with that of the corresponding Cabinet member, adorn U.S. federal buildings.

The tondo depicts Septimius Severus with his wife Julia Domna (who, Roman coin collectors know, has her own extensive coinage, who's portraits come complete with elaborate hair styles), and their two children, Caracalla to the right and Geta to the left. Note that Geta's face has been removed, scratched out as if it were never there. That's because Geta suffered damnatio memoriae - literally meaning "damnation of memory" - a deliberate way of dishonoring the deceased. Usually reserved for traitors, Caracalla probably had his brother's image "erased" from memory over his own guilt in having his brother murdered, in his mother's arms, no less. That's right - Caracalla has his own brother killed; we're told Geta died in Julia Domna's arms.

The brothers Caraclla and Geta are infamous for their infighting. Some enthusiasts today believe that Caracalla was the truly evil one, whereas Geta was nice and unsuspecting. Both brothers had their partisans and my belief is that Caracalla just acted quicker than Geta did. There was no way either brother was going to share power, despite how much Severus wanted it to be.

Despite suffering damnatio memoriae and apparently having his image removed from official imperial depictions, it does not appear that Geta's coinage was massively recalled. Sure, Geta's coinage is not as common as Caracalla's, and his coins as Augustus are rarer than their current valuations suggest, his coins continued to circulate. Which suggests to me that the damnatio memoriae was less a hate-filled obsession and more a political expediency.

Technorati Tags: history, ancient history, Roman history, Severan Tondo

Caesar and Augustus: What's in a Name (or a Title)?

You've probably seen references on this blog to "Augustus (emperor)" and "Caesar (junior emperor)," and several people have asked me either what that means, or whether "Caesar" was a name or a title. It's probably a good idea to explain just what "Augustus" and "Caesar" meant in the Roman Empire, and what the differences are. The short answer is: The title Augustus refers to the Roman Emperor. Caesar, once a name of a branch of the Julian family, had since become a title denoting the "junior emperor." In the earlier empire this meant the emperor's heir and usually intended successor. Also, in the early empire, Augustus and Caesar were titles the emperor held, whereas the heir and intended successor only held the Caesar title. During the time of the Tetrarchy the title of Caesar also denoted an office, as the empire was ruled by four men through a system of a western Augustus and Caesar, and an eastern Augustus and Caesar. In the Fourth Century the Tetrarchy was abandoned and, while the empire was permanently split into eastern and western halves by Theodosius I, Caesar was retained as the title of the Emperor-designate. A more lengthy explanation follows below.

Caesar as a name

Caesar was originally a name, specifically a cognomen, of the gens Iulia. A cognomen is usually the third name in the Roman naming convention; originally a nickname, it had lost that function when it became hereditary (similar to surnames in medieval England.) The first recorded man with the name "Caesar" reached the Roman office of praetor during the Second Punic War. A much later source claimed that this man had killed an elephant in battle and that "Caesar" derives from the Punic word for elephant. It's interesting that perhaps the most famous of coins minted by Julius Caesar is the elephant-trampling-serpent issue. It has also been speculated that the cognomen "Caesar" means "hairy" or "full head of hair." This would suggest that either the Caesars of the gens Iulia were either renowned for their full head of hair or, given the Roman sense of humor, were known for going bald, as was the famous Julius Caesar (full name: Gaius Julius Caesar.) This story may, however, be a later invention.

Origins of the title Augustus

Julius Caesar's great-nephew Gaius Octavius was named as Caesar's heir in his will and was therefore renamed per Roman convention Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus (known to history as "Octavian" between his adoption and assumption of the title Augustus.) After 27 BC (the traditional date for the start of the Roman Empire), when Octavian was given the title Augustus (meaning "majestic," "venerable;" it obviously is the root for the English word "August") by the Senate, he styled himself Imperator Caesar Augustus, retaining the name Caesar to emphasize his connection to Julius Caesar. We know him today as "Augustus," which is how the average man on the Roman street would have known him. Imperator was a title of the Republic bestowed upon victorious Roman generals (it serves as the root for the English word "Emperor" but did not mean, and should not be understood to mean, that a man who held that title was necessarily the emperor.) Throughout the empire's history, the title of Augustus was officially held only by the Roman emperor, Imperator and Caesar could and were held by other men at the same time, most often the emperor’s children/heirs/intended successors. However, while the emperor was the only man who held the title of Augustus, his powers did not derive from the title. There was no constitutional office associated with "emperor." The Augustus was, therefore, the man who held a constellation of offices and their associated powers, such as princeps senatus, pontifex maximus, consulari imperium, and tribunicia potestas.

Change of Caesar from name to title

Augustus's heir, his step-son Tiberius (born Tiberius Claudius Nero), was renamed "Tiberius Julius Caesar" upon his adoption by Augustus and bore the name Caesar as a matter of course. That the name Caesar was becoming a title is evident in the emperor Claudius’s accession – he had no claim to the name Caesar, either by birth or adoption (though he was a member of the Julio-Claudian House.) Yet he is depicted on his coinage as "Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus."

A turning came in 68/69 AD – "The Year of the Four Emperors." The tyrannical Nero, after committing suicide in 68 AD, was the last of the Julio-Claudian emperors. The man who succeeded him, Galba, was the first emperor to use Caesar without either being a member of the Julio-Claudians or being born or adopted a Caesar. Not all of Galba's coins style him Caesar, but some do, along with the Imperator and Augustus titles. Galba also helped solidify what would become standard practice in the later empire when he gave the title of Caesar to his designated heir.

Galba and his designated heir were deposed shortly into his reign by Otho. I have heard it said that Otho did not use the Caesar title; that, instead, he took the title "Nero" at the behest of the tyrannical emperor's partisans. This, however, cannot be, as on all examples of Otho’s coins that I am aware of, he styles himself Imperator Caesar Augustus. In any event, Otho's reign was similarly brief as he was soon deposed by Vitellius. The later used the title Augustus on some of his coinage, but not the title Caesar. Instead, the title Germanicus was widely used, suggesting that Vitellius may have wished to replace Caesar with Germanicus.

So, by Claudius’s reign (41-54 AD), Caesar had probably become a title. Subsequent emperors styled themselves Caesar Augustus, whereas the heir was styled just Caesar. With some variations, this is the convention used for the rest of the empire’s existence.

Caesar as heir and successor

This is clearly evident during Vespasian's reign (69-79 AD). He took the titles Imperator Caesar Augustus and gave his eldest son (the future emperor Titus) the titles Imperator and Caesar. The younger son (the future emperor Domitian) just got the title Caesar. Because Domitian was styled Caesar in his father's reign, because he was given no real power during Vespasian's reign, and because their was no way that Vespasian could have known that Domitian would eventually succeed his elder brother Titus, I don't think Caesar at this time exclusively meant successor. Perhaps it meant a male member of the royal family - a personal title, like prince today.

At least before the Tetrarchy and beyond, there was no formal succession process in the Empire. However, the emperor Nerva began the custom of adopting the heir in the emperor’s lifetime and giving him the title Caesar. This ushered in Rome’s Golden Age under the rule of the Adoptive or "Five Good" emperors – Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, and Marcus Aurelius – each one the heir and successor of the one before. Marcus Aurelius broke the tradition when he appointed his own natural son, the dreadful Commodus, as heir.

The practice of designating the heir and successor as Caesar continued until Diocletian instituted the Tetrarchy, dividing the rule of the empire into two Augusti and two Caesars. Theoretically, the two Caesars were to succeed the two Augusti. Thereafter, in the fourth century, the heir was again styled Caesar and at some point even Nobilissimus Caesar.

Complicating matters is the fact that emperors often gave their successors the Augustus title, making them co-emperors, for example as the emperor Septimius Severus did with his two sons Caracalla and Geta.

Technorati Tags: history, ancient history, Roman history, Caesar, Augustus, titles

AR Antoninianus of Gordian III

Gordian III came to power amid the confusion of 238 AD. In that year a rebellion broke out, spearheaded by Gordian’s grandfather, the governor of Africa. The rising costs of maintaining a protracted war along the Danubian frontier compelled the reigning emperor, Maximius Thrax (the "Thracian"), to exact ever more revenue from the Roman aristocracy. When the oppressive taxation led to a revolt that reached Africa, Gordian’s grandfather, the governor of that province, also named Gordian, was proclaimed emperor by his legions (his son would become co-emperor as Gordian II). The rebellion was fiercely crushed by Maximius. Despite this, the Senate--unhappy that a provincial of humble origins was the emperor of Rome--joined the rebellion and recognized Gordian I as emperor. After troops loyal to Maximius (legio III Augusta, under the governor of Numidia) defeated Gordian II in battle, the elder Gordian, then some 80 years old, committed suicide. The Senate then elected two of its own—Balbinus and Pupienus—as co-emperors against Maximus. Without drawing the story out too much further, the Senatorial faction was able to draw enough support away from Maximius that his troops deserted him and he went the way most Roman emperors of the third century had gone: a violent death at the hands of his own troops.

Because of the popularity of the Gordiani, Balbinus and Pupienus were forced to raise Gordian III to the rank of Caesar (junior emperor). When Balbinus and Pupienus were murdered by the praetorian guard, that group elevated the 13-year old Gordian III to the purple. Despite reigning five and a half years, not much is known of the reign of Gordian III. As most teenage rulers are, Gordian III was a figurehead, under the influence of the praetorian praefect, his father-in-law Timestheus. Unlike other young Roman emperors (for example, Caligula, Nero, Commodus, Elagabalus), however, Gordian III’s reign was not a disaster, and was marked for the most part by competent, effective and stable government. Competent administrators were left in their offices and I think that Gordian III’s reign illustrates the advantage that a boy-emperor could bring: an emperor at a distance removed from political decision-making, factionalism and in-fighting, enabling Gordian III to be a symbol for imperial unity for the whole slew of imperial constituents. Not being a scholar of this period of Rome, I cannot confidently argue whether Gordian III in fact lived up to this belief, but the historical tradition appears to suggest that he did.

Gordian III's reign isn't a particularly well documented reign. Fortunately, he issued an expansive amount of coinage during his reign, minting both denarii and antoniniani alongside bronze issues. Below is a Gordian III silver antoninianus from my collection (RIC 144; RSC 98; Sear 5 #8612):

The obverse shows the standard antoninianus radiate bust for Gordian, with the legend IMP GORDIANVS PIVS FEL AVG. On the reverse is Fortuna seated left holding a rudder and cornucopia. A wheel is below the throne and the legend reads FORTVNA REDVX. What I really like about this particular Gordian antoninianus is the fact that there's still dirt left between the letters in the legends and around the outlines of the images. I like to think that dirt is the reminants of what encased the coin for over 1,700 years...

Though Gordian III's reign falls on the cusp of the period known as the "Crisis of the Third Century" for the Roman Empire, when it would be almost torn apart by barbarian invasions, Sasanian Persian expansion, and its own internal strife, his coins--in my opinion-- along with those of Philip the Arab and Trajan Decius are the last of the really nice silver portrait coins. Moreover, Gordian III’s coins today present collectors with a great opportunity to collect attractive, interesting and very reasonably priced pieces. His reign marks a period between the more expensive earlier imperial issues, and smaller and more crude coins that for the most part mark the later imperial coinage.

Issuing a large amount of coinage over nearly six years, coins of Gordian III are some of the most easily attainable Roman coins. Not to be confused, however, by the coinage of his grandfather and uncle, Gordian I and II respectively. The latters’ joint reign lasted three weeks in April 238 AD and, consequently, their coinage is extremely scarce. A collector who wishes to obtain at least a single coin from every canonical Roman emperor, as I do, needs to know how to tell the coinage of Gordians I and II from Gordian III. For starters, Gordian III was 13 when he ascended to the purple and was 19 when he died. Thus, all the coinage from Gordian III portrays a young, boyish emperor. Both Gordians I and II were much older when depicted on their coinage. Also, only Gordian III used PIVS or PIVS FEL in his legends, whereas only Gordians I and II used the AFR (Africanus) in their legends.

Technorati Tags: Roman history, Gordian III, coin collecting, Maximius Thrax, Balbinus, Pupienus, history

Severan Indulgence

I bought this coin while shopping for a Septimius Severus legionary issue and, while I have yet to find a nice legionary at a reasonable price, this coin struck me as quite interesting and attractive. Imagine my dismay when, no sooner had I ordered it, I found one with a bit more detail to it, for the same amount of money. Still, I think the below coin is a quality addition to my collection (RIC 266; RSC 222; Sear 5 # 6285):

Struck in 203-204 AD, the obverse features a laureate portrait of Severus with the famous "corkscrew" beard and the legend SEVERVS PIVS AVG, pretty standard for later issues of this emperor. It's the reverse that I really like. It shows Dea Caelestis, the patron diety of the city of Carthage, riding a lion and holding a thunderbolt and scepter; behind them springs water from a rock. In the exergue reads IN CARTH. What's special about this coin is the fact that the reverse legend--INDVLGENTIA AVGG--is not a metaphorical reference, but rather is literal. Severus, the first African emperor (born in Leptis Magna, whose magnificent ruins remain in what is today Libya), was commemorating an aqueduct he had built in that greatest of African cities, Carthage. INDVLGENTIA here refers not to the personification of Indulgence but rather the actual indulgence of the emperors (double "Gs" in "AVGG" mean their were two emperors at the time, in this case Severus and his eldest son Caracalla) in building the waterway. I suspect the aqueduct may have been built as a reward for that city's support of Severus claim to the purple in 193-194 AD against Pescennius Niger.

Technorati Tags: Roman history, Septimius Severus, Caracalla, Pescennius Niger, legionary, numismatics, military history

"William the Bastard at War" at 20

Military History Carnival #10 is up at Walking the Berkshires. One entry deals with Gary Smailes' musings on John Gillingham's essay, "William the Bastard at War," which originally appeared twenty years ago in Studies in Medieval History presented to R. Allen Brown.

Smailes' take on the battle of Hastings is that it was Harold who sought battle, trying to goad William, who sought to avoid it:

He knew William would try and force the issue, he also knew William would not
expect a battle. Yet, only weeks before Harold had fought a pitched battle at
Stamford Bridge and won. I suspect that in opposition to contemporary thinking
Harold set out to engage William in battle. On the morning of the battle of
Hastings, Harold forced William's hand engineering the situation to one which a
risky battle was unavoidable. I believe this went against William's plan. The
battle of [Hastings] was [a] gamble - Harold lost.

I have a different take on Hastings. While I completely agree with the assessment that medieval battle was rare (though this has become a contentious issue among today's medieval military historians), there were indeed situations where risking battle was preferred, even necessary. William's cross-Channel invasion force was famous in its own day. Armies of its size and composition were difficult to amass, and it was extremely unlikely that William would ever again be able to raise a force necessary to invade England and make good his claim to the throne. After all, this -- and not simply pillaging the countryside -- was William's goal. Battle was given, I think, because William had to risk it because of logistics and not because Harold forced his hand.

Technorati Tags: military history, Military History Carnival, John Gillingham, William the Conqueror

Note on the "Greatest Roman Emperor" Poll

History polls will be a regular feature on this blog. I like them; they're fun and they can usually spark some really good debate. The current poll, "Who was the greatest Roman emperor" will remain up until a sufficient number of visitors have voted in it. Hopefully traffic at this blog will increase to the point where I can have a poll every week or bi-weekly. I also encourage visitors to debate their choices in the comment section of this post (which is also linked on the sidebar.)

Technorati Tags: ancient history, Rome, poll,

Roman Ways of War and Peace

Some advice on peace, from the Roman way of waging war:

Stability was restored to the lands surrounding Transalpine Gaul, but the
cost in human lives had been high. ... Many--perhaps tens of thousands--must
have been killed, but we should not let the modern horror at such huge loss of
life blind us to the response of Caesar's Roman audience to such statistics. For
them, a dangerous movement of hostile peoples had been stopped and their
province, which was not far from Italy itself, secured for the future. In
the "Commentaries" Caesar often makes use of the verb "pacere" which meant "to
pacify" and was used for the defeat of any people, anywhere, who had refused
when challenged to submit to Roman authority. "Pax" or "peace" was the outcome
of a Roman victory. From the Roman perspective, peace had returned to the
northern frontier. [From Goldsworthy, Caesar: Life of a Colossus, p.
223.]

Some historians and enthusiasts believe the Roman Empire was the height of human political and military achievement before the United States. Rome was a de facto empire by 242 BC, when it acquired Sicily, its first province outside of Italy, an astounding 700+ years. One must realize, however, the staggering loss of life such a political and military entity was responsible for. In the end, does Rome's achievements, many of which she bequeathed to the modern world, justify the Roman way of war?

Technorati Tags: Roman Empire, Julius Caesar, military history, Sicily, Adrian Goldsworthy

Philip I Antoninianus Found in Bath Hoard

A hoard of at least 150, and possibly as many as 1,000, Roman coins was recently discovered in Bath, England at the construction site of a new hotel. The lot is said to contain silver and bronze antoniniani of the mid third century. Condition is said to be “mixed” and only a single coin is identified thus far by ruler: an antoninianus of Philip I.

Philip I was born in the Roman province of Arabia, hence the name history remembers him by, Philip the Arab. He reigned 244-249 AD, rising from humble origins first to praetorian prefect and then to emperor upon the death of the young Gordian III. Just about the only noteworthy thing about Philip’s reign is that the city of Rome celebrated its 1,000th anniversary in 248 AD. The event was celebrated with games, and commemorated by an interesting series of coinage depicting various types of animals. Soon after, however, the situation began to fall apart for Philip. At least four usurpers arose in the provinces; military men whose legions proclaimed them emperor. He faced Pacatian in Moesia; Silbannacus and Sponsianus on the Rhine; and, in the east, Jotapian. Order was eventually restored, in part, by appointing Trajan Decius to deal with the revolt in Moesia. Decius so impressed the rebellious troops he was sent to subdue that they proclaimed him emperor and convinced him to march on Rome. He did, and defeated Philip and his larger force at Verona. We do not know whether Philip was killed in battle, or whether his own troops killed him.

Here is an example of a silver antoninianus of Philip I (RIC 27b; RSC 9; Sear 5 #8919) from my own collection:



The scan is admittedly poor, but the coin is graded at nearly FDC – fleur de coin – and is stunning in hand. The obverse features a radiate and draped bust of Philip facing right with the legend IMP M IVL PHILIPPVS AVG. The reverse has Aequitas standing left holding scales and a cornucopia; the legend reads AEQVITAS AVGG. The double “G” in “AVGG” indicates that the coin was struck between 247 and 249, the time Philip’s son Philip II held the rank of Augustus and was co-emperor with his father.

I doubt the coin found in the Bath hoard looks anything like my coin. Then again, my coin hasn’t spent the last 1,700 years buried in the ground. I all likelihood my Philip antoninianus spent its 1,700 years preserved in various private collections. After all, coin collecting is the hobby of kings! It was probably dispersed from some great European royal collection between the 16th and 19th centuries and has probably been in scores of collections since that time, ultimately finding its way into mine about a month ago.

Technorati Tags: history, Bath, England, Philip the Arab, Rome, numismatics

Painted Statues

Mary Beard, professor of Classics at Cambridge University, answers a great question: were those beautiful white marble ancient statues actually painted?

The short answer is ‘yes’. Much of the pure, gleaming white marble
sculpture that we now admire was certainly coloured in some way. The question is
how was it coloured: a delicate wash, or bright, glaring hues?

Another question, though, is what about all the references in the ancient sources to plain white statutes, which are far more prevalent than references to colored statues?

Technorati Tags: Mary Beard, history, sculpture, Cambridge

Vespasian's Bum Rap

I had a friend over Saturday night to watch the football games, and in between the Redskins/Seahawks and Steelers/Jaguars games, he asked to see some of my coins. Here's a denarius of Vespasian that I showed him, struck in 73 AD when Vespasian held the office of Censor:

I love this coin, which is RIC 65, RSC 387. There's some wear on the reverse - an image of Vespasian sitting right on a curule chair with the legend PONTIF MAXIM, but the obverse, I think, is awesome. It's such an expressive portrait of one of Rome's greatest emperors. You can see the hairs on his head and the wrinkles on his admittedly austere face. The obverse legend reads IMP CAES VESP AVG CENS. Both legends, interestingly, read counter-clockwise, which I find charming. Imagine my disappointment, though, when my friend looked at this coin and remarked, "What a mean sonuvabitch this guy looks like!" Scotvs Capitis similarly remarked about one of his own Vesapsian coins, "doesn't he look like a cranky old fart?"

I have no idea how Vespasian was in his personal life; if he was, in fact, a "mean sonuvabitch" or a "cranky old fart." What I do know is Vespasian (r. 69-79 AD) was the best thing to happen to the empire at a critical time in its development. The reign of Nero (54-68 AD) was disastrous, and led to a painful civil war as at least three claimants vied in succession for the throne - Galba, Otho, and Vitellius, before Vespasian finally emerged victorious (69 AD - The Year of the Four Emperors.) Vespasian gave the empire practical and pragmatic leadership which provided much needed stable government.

One thing that's interesting about this coin, as I said above, is the expressive portrait. So many coins of Vespasian and his eldest son Titus appear worn and, although I've never conducted a scientific study, it seems to me that they appear worn in a higher proportion to coins of Domitian, the third and final emperor in the Flavian Dynasty. I heard a rumor that the reason this is is because the Flavians used a softer silver for their denarii. This isn't persuasive to me, though, as it doesn't explain why Domitian's coins would survive with more detail. In fact, Domitian raised the silver content of the Denarius by 12% (only to devaluate it in 85 AD.)

No, I think the reason is simply that Vespasian issued a massive amount of coinage, possibly because he had to raise a lot of cash, quickly, early in his reign, and consequently, the fineness of the silver and the quality of his silver coins was sketchy. But this appears to only have been a short-term problem.

Technorati Tags: Roman Empire, history, Vespasian, denarius

The Fall of Rome

Those of you who are interested in the history of the Roman Empire beyond its coinage will be substantially rewarded by reading Peter Heather's The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians. It is, in short, an outstanding piece of historical scholarship. Heather rejects the thesis that internal maladies caused a Roman decline and fall. In fact, Heather questions whether there was a decline at all and thinks there's little reason to believe that there was anything inevitable about the Western Roman Empire's fall occurring when it did (generally, but perhaps not numismatically, dated at 476 AD.) In doing so, Heather rejects the evidence traditionally cited for the internal strife thesis. For example, the division of the Empire into western and eastern halves and the tetrarchy under Diocletian in the late third century was, in fact, a rational and pragmatic thing to do. The Roman Empire was simply too large for a single emperor to rule from a single court. As the Empire's population grew with conquest, and the new populations embraced Roman culture, it became increasingly difficult to distribute the necessary patronage that kept the government running from a single Imperial court.

Similarly, Heather counters the "decline and fall" camp's taxation argument, which goes something like this: Rome was forced to make drastic military changes in response to the rise of Sasanian Persia in the third century. The Roman army suffered several devastating and humiliating defeats at the hands of the Sasanians. While the changes were eventually quite successful in stabilizing the Sasanian threat, the argument goes, the changes resulted in , among other things, over-taxation of the Empire's agricultural economy. This, it is thought, ruined not only the peasant class (who, it is argued, were forced to surrender much of their crops), but also the landowning class which could no longer build and run the Empire's metropolitan areas. Heather argues convincingly that the traditional view underestimates the Empire's economic and political vitality in the third and fourth centuries. His is a sophisticated argument, based upon both literary and archaeological evidence, which I won't bore you with here.

Also famously cited by Gibbon for the decline of Rome is the rise of Christianity. Gibbon argued that Christianity sapped the fighting spirit of the Roman army - an assertion Heather flatly denies. For Gibbon, indeed Constantine's conversion to Christianity in 312 AD was a key moment in the Empire's "decline" and eventual fall. Christianity, which Gibbon was generally hostile to, did, in fact, bring about significant cultural change, but probably had little effect on the function of the Empire, which, though the "nomenclature was different" was still divinely blessed under Christianity as it had been under the pagan religion. To cite just one example, that revenue was diverted from secular use into churches and religious houses was in reality not such a great change from the time before: significant money had been diverted throughout Rome's previous history into the pagan temples. Also, the fact that men were now entering the service of Christ, instead of the bureaucracy or military, had similarly little effect: the numbers of men entering the Christian profession was small and paled in comparison to the numbers of men who ran the bureaucracy. Moreover, Roman methods of military recruitment continued the way they had as before.

And, as if we needed additional evidence against the "decline and fall" thesis, perhaps the best evidence is the fact that only the western half of the empire fell. The eastern half, centered at Constantinople, continued to thrive, and even made substantial gains in the west under the emperor Justinian and one of history's greatest and perhaps under-rated generals, Belisarius, in the sixth century. Many people, myself included, have advanced the notion that the empire in the east last for a thousand more years after the fall of Rome in 476 AD. Heather, though, argues that, with the rise of Islam and the threat it posed, after about 700 AD, the eastern empire ceased to be "Roman" in the way that term is generally understood. Nevertheless, soldiering on for an additional 150 years after half of its territory has been overrun is an impressive feat and would have been impossible if the "decline" thesis were completely correct.

So why did the Western Roman Empire fall? According to Heather, the answer is the Germanic barbarians. External, rather than internal, strife. The term Heather uses is "exogenous shock." Simply put, the Hunnic invasions of Europe caused an increasingly economically and politically united Germanic people to migrate into the Empire. Let's look at this a bit more closely.

Centuries of exposure to the Roman world, through border trade and through serving as auxiliaries in the emperor's legions led to a revolution in Germanic society. Advances in agriculture among the Germans led to both an increase in Germanic population and wealth. The economic expansion meant social change, as increases in wealth created dominant social elites where none had previously existed.

Such an argument has significant implications for the frontiers of the Empire in the west, at the Rhine and Danube rivers. That the frontiers rested at rivers is no great surprise, but scholars have in the past advanced the idea that Augustus had wished to push the frontier east of the Rhine, to the Elbe River. It has generally been thought that Arminius's massacre of the three legions in the Teutoburg Forest in 9 AD made Augustus reconsider and settle for the Rhine. Not so, as Heather argues - it wasn't the Germans military prowess that kept the Romans out, but rather their poverty:

Roman expansion was driven by the internal power struggles of republican
oligarchs such as Julius Caesar and by early emperor's desire for glory. ...
Over time, however, the richest prizes were scooped up until, in the early
imperial era, expansion was sucking in territories that did not really produce
sufficient income to justify the costs of conquest. Britain, in particular, the
ancient sources stress, was taken only because the emperor Claudius wanted the
glory. With this in mind, the limits of Rome's northern expansion take on a
particular significance when charted against levels of economic development in
non-Roman Europe. ... The Roman advance ground to a halt not on an ethnic
divide, therefore, but around a major fault-line in European socio-economic
organization.

Superficially speaking, the richer Celts, Gauls, and Germans were scooped up, the poorer, less sophisticated Germans east of the Rhine were not. But, if Heather's thesis is correct, it doesn't explain why Rome did not attempt to conquer Germania once its economic revolution was underway. Perhaps the answer is that, by that time, German political and military prowess was indeed up to snuff. After all, in 9 AD the Germans might be able to muster a surprise raid in the Teutoburg Forest, but they lacked any and all political cohesion necessary to pose a threat to Rome. By the time the Huns came, and the Germans began mass migrations into Roman territory in the fourth and fifth centuries, they were able to form massive political supergroups. It's indeed interesting that, as Heather observes, all of the major barbarian successor states in what was the western Empire were created around the military power generated on the march.

It was not, however, simply the economic, political and military rise of the Germans that caused the western Empire to fall. The exogenous shock was set in motion by the invasion of the Huns into Europe in two successive waves (late fourth century, mid-fifth century), culminating in the Huns actual raids into the Empire under their leader Attila. The Huns, as fearsome as they were, were not the cause of the Empire's collapse; indeed, the Hunnic Empire itself collapsed shortly after Attila's death in 453 AD. The collapse of the singular Hunnic threat precipitated subsequent Germanic threats on multiple fronts. Though Romulus Augustulus, the last emperor in the west, wasn't deposed until 476 AD, Heather notes that: "The various crises faced by the western Empire in the intervening years represented no more than the slow-working out of the political consequences of the earlier invasions." The damage inflicted by the earlier invasions simply became too much to bear. Every time the western Empire attempted to quell one crisis, another appeared. Permanent loss of territory resulted in permanent loss of revenue. Yet it wasn't until the last Roman gasp - a joint east-west failure to retake the breadbasket of the Empire, North Africa, from the Vandals in 468 AD - that the fall was certain.

In the end, Heather concludes:

There is, I suspect, an inbuilt tendency for the kind of dominance
exercised by empires to generate an inverse reaction whereby the dominated, in
the end, are able to throw off their chains. The Roman had sown the seeds of its
own destruction, therefore, not because of internal weaknesses that had evolved
over the centuries, nor because of new ones evolved, but as a consequence of its
relationship with the Germanic world. Just as the Sasanians were able to
reorganize Near Eastern society so as to throw off Roman dominance, Germanic
society achieved the same in the west, when its collison with Hunnic power
precipitated the process much more quickly than would otherwise have been the
case. The west Roman state fell not because of the wight of its own 'stupendous
fabric', but because its Germanic neighbours had responded to its power in ways
that the Romans could never have foreseen. There is in all this a pleasing
denouement. By virtue of its unbounded aggression, Roman imperialism was
ultimately responsible for its own destruction.

I do have some exit questions that some people may want to debate. I am in no way equating the agressive imperial Roman state with the U.S. when I say this, but I happen to believe it's chauvinistic to think the United States will endure forever, unchanged. Assuming it does not, will the end be more like the fall of the Roman Republic, or the fall of the Roman Empire? If the latter, will it be like Gibbon's "internal maladies" thesis, or Heather's "exogenous shock"? More than a few acquaintances of mine have opined that our present illegal immigration problem is comparable to the wave of Germanic migrations the Romans faced in the fourth and fifth centuries. I think, at present, that hypothesis has some merit, but is also deeply flawed. But I'll opt out here and let you all flesh that out...

Technorati Tags: Peter Heather, Roman Empire, history, barbarians, military commanders

The Glory of the Romans

Here's a nice example of a "Gloria Romanorum" coin of the emperor Gratian (r. 367-383 AD) from the Siscia mint. The reverse image is of the emperor carrying a Chi-Rho labrum and dragging a captive behind him, with the legend GLORIA ROMANORVM. The obverse features a pearl-diademed, draped and cuirassed bust of Gratian facing right, with the legend D N GRATIANVS P F AVG. Reference is RIC 14cxi.

The coin is a fairly common late-empire bronze that seems to have been popular with the Valentinian Dynasty, as Valentinian I, Valens, and Gratian all issued the type; so did successors Theodosius I and Arcadius. The coins were issued at a time when the Roman Empire faced tremendous pressure from barbarians along the Danube frontier. In 378 AD, the Romans lost an entire army against the Goths at the battle of Adrianople, not to mention the eastern emperor Valens, who's body was never found after the battle. So the "Gloria Romanorum" type is a superb piece of Roman propaganda just as the empire was under siege from barbarian invasions.

As for Gratian, thought he didn't share the same ignominious fate as his uncle Valens, he was eventually assassinated after a fairly undistinguished reign. Gratian, not known to be particularly adept or even interested in military affairs (Ammianus Marcellius says he preferred to study the humanities rather than the art of war), probably wasn't the best choice as Valentinian's successor, as he wasn't well liked by the army.

Gratian's reign is, however, noteworthy for two things, in my opinion. First, the equation of Christianity with the office of the emperor, begun under Constantine, continued during the reign of Gratian. And second, Gratian continued the assimilation of barbarians into the empire. He even had barbarians as members of his court and army, which was a trend that would continue into the fifth century.

Technorati Tags: Gratian, barbarians, Valentinian, Valens, Adrianople, Theodosius, Arcadius, numismatics, coins, numismatics, Rome, Siscia, Roman Empire, history

"Campgates"

A popular collection specialty, especially but not exclusively for beginners, is coinage from the Constantinian Dynasty. There's several reasons for this: it lasted a great length of time (the better part of the 4th century); Constantine, one of the most famous Roman emperors, had several sons and relatives who issued coinage as Caesars and Augusti; various types of specimens are readily available; and very nice bronzes can be had from anywhere between $5 and $35 a piece. While I'm not really interested in them, bronze coins of the Constantinian Dynasty make a good starter set for the beginner collector.

One of the more popular Constantinian Period bronzes is the so-called "Campgate" type. I myself and not particularly enamored with the type - being 4th century coins, the obverse portraits aren't necessarily bad, but they are far, far less realistic than coins of the earlier empire. The reverses, the so-called "campgates," aren't especially beautifully artistic either. Depicted on the reverse of these coins is a simple tower-like structure that appears to be free-standing on bronze coins but appears part of a larger camp on some gold coins of the type.

What drives their popularity among collectors is the vast number of variations in which the type appears. The tower-like structure appears with a variety of decorations and details. Some have doors; on some, the door is merely an opening. Some consist of simple blocks; others, the blocks are decorated. Some have, say, seven rows of blocks; others more, others less. On top of the structure is a varying number of "beacons" or "turrets" or "signalling posts," which really just look like little pods. It's because of these pods, and the most abundant reverse legend of the type, PROVIDENTIAE AVGG (or CAESS) (meaning "Foresight of the Augusti/Caesars"), that I believe these structures to be signal towers. The "pods" depict posts used to signal danger by smoke or fire the next signal tower along the frontier.

Below are two "Campgates" of Constantius II as Caesar that I have. These are just two examples of Campgate coins. It's absolutely possible to find tons more campgate coins in mush better condition that these; that's how common they are. For the most part, these coins are very cheap and valued mostly by those collectors who are interested in mintmarks and minor differences in the die designs.





The coin, struck in 327 AD when Constantius was Caesar (junior emperor), has a laureate, draped and cuirassed bust facing right on the obverse and reads FL IVL CONSTANTIUS NOB C. On the reverse is, of course, a "campgate," with two turrets and seven rows of blocks with the top layer decorated with dots. A star sits above, and SMTSB is in the exergue. The reverse legend reads PROVIDENTIAE CAESS. The double "S" represents the fact that his brother Constantine II also held the title of Caesar at the time. I bought this coin for $3 at a recent coin show pick-bin.

This coin, struck between 327-329 AD, again, when Constantius II held the title of Caesar. When the obverse legend is the same as the first coin, the laureate, draped and cuirassed bust faces left in this coin. The reverse campgate has eight rows on this coin, two turrets, a star above, a dot left, and SMH and a delta in the exergue. The latter signifies that the coin was struck in the fourth office of the mint in Heraclea. The reverse legend, like the first coin, reads PROVIDENTIAE CAESS. I bought this coin at the same recent coin show, in a $5 pick-bin.

Technorati Tags: Campgates, Constantine, Constantius II, history, Rome, Roman Empire, numismatics, coins

Clodius for Christmas

I'm fortunate that my family for the most part has indulged me in my hobbies and Roman coins are no exception. For Christmas one of the coins my mom got me is this very fine silver denarius of Clodius Albinus struck in 193 AD (the scan really doesn't do it justice):

On the obverse is a bare portrait of Clodius which reads D CLODIVS ALBINVS CAES, and the reverse side has Providentia standing left holding a wand over globe at her foot and cornucopiae; the legend reads PROVID AVG COS. This, of course, is in part an abbreviation for PROVIDENTIAE AVGVSTI, which refers not to Albinus, but to Septimius Severus. A great piece of propaganda, it glorifies Severus for having the foresight and wisdom to select Albinus as aworthy successor (see below.) The coin's reference is RIC 1a.

Decimus Clodius Albinus was the governor of Britain at the time of the death of the emperor Pertinax in 193 AD and his replacement by Didius Julianus, who basically bought the throne from the praetorians by auction. He had gained military fame as a commander battling barbarians on the Dacian frontier during the reign of Commodus and, being born in North Africa, was one of a generation of generals, including Septimius Severus, who emerged from North Africa during this period. Upon the death of Pertinax, Albinus was probably proclaimed emperor by at least one of the British legions. Severus, the governor of Upper Pannonia at the time, had also been proclaimed emperor by his own legions, and offered Albinus the title of Caesar (junior emperor) and the promise of being Severus's heir--an offer Albinus accepted. This freed Severus to first pursue Didius Julianus and then Pescennius Niger, the governor of Syria who had also proclaimed himself emperor. Albinus's position became untenable once Severus was victorious against Julianus and Niger. Severus revoked Albinus's title and proclaimed his own son Caracalla as Caesar, perhaps to goad the latter into revolt, which he in fact did. Severus then moved against Albinus, meeting and defeating him at the battle of Lyons in 197 AD. According to Cassius Dio, the battle was fierce and included in excess of 100,000 Roman troops.

This is one of my favorite coins. I do have a special affinity for Albinus - I like his portraits and I sympathize with his position and I feel bad that he was completely outwitted by the far more able Severus. The Civil War period, as well as the subsequent Severan Dynasty, are cool periods of Roman history to study. In any event, this coin, though not struck strongly, includes a full legend on both the obverse and reverse, which is fairly rare for a coin of Albinus. Clodius Albinus coins tend to be poorly struck, often on small planchets, with bad dies that appear quite overused. This Albinus coin is actually quite attractive. The portrait is great with nice detail remaining in the hair and beard, and you can still see the folds in Providentia's gown. Neither the obverse, nor the reverse, are off-center, another plus for an Albinus coin. And the silver has only a faint trace of porosity.

Technorati Tags: history, numismatics, Rome, Roman Empire, Clodius Albinus, Septimius Severus, Pescennius Niger, Pertinax, Didius Julianus, Cassius Dio, Providentia, military history

Strategies and Specialties

One of the best and most enjoyable things about collecting Roman coins is settling on a specialty for your collection and a strategy for achieving it. There are, in the macro-sense, two broad ways to build a collection - purchase uncleaned lots, or purchase individual coins. Of course, the two are not mutually exclusive, and both are immensely rewarding - but in different ways. If your passion and pleasure is to clean and attribute dirty coins, sometimes encrusted in over 1,500 years of dirt, then uncleaned coins are for you. The overwhelming odds are, however, that you'll never amass a high-grade collection that way. Uncleaned lots usually consist of lower-grade coins of the Constantinian Era (more on that in a subsequent post.) If you want a really nice, beautiful collection that will impress even your non-nerdy, non-numismatic friends and relatives, then you must purchase individual coins from a reputable dealer.

The latter, for the most part, is my collecting "strategy." There are no coin dealers or antique shops in my immediate vicinity, so I buy from reputable Internet dealers, almost exclusively through Vcoins. Coin shows are great places to pick up really cheap, lower-grade coins and sometimes you can make some interesting finds, like this antoninianus of Volusian in a $3 pick-bin:

As you can see, the coin is badly worn, it almost looks as if it was damaged during cleaning. Both the obverse and reverses are difficult to make out; the reverse nearly impossible to me. I believe the coin is RIC 188, which is a silver antoninianus, with a radiate portrait of Volusian facing right and reads IMP CAES C VIB VOLUSIANO AVG. The reverse, I'm pretty sure, is Apollo standing left, holding a branch and a lyre, and reads APOLL SALVTARI. Volusian was both Caesar and Augustus, during his father Trebonianus Gallus's reign between 251-253 AD, raised to the latter rank as co-emperor after Hostilian died.

Rarely, though, would I buy from a dealer at a coin show. First off, higher-grade individual coins offered by dealers at coin shows are generally grossly overpriced compared to what you can get a comparable coin from a "one price" Internet store. The reason is that coin show dealers are more than happy to bargain with you. They know the market way better than an individual collector like myself could know it. If a sucker is willing to pay the grossly inflated "sticker price," all the better, but dealers, in my experience, artificially jack up the price precisely for those who attempt to haggle. The dealers know how much they paid for the coin, and having haggled countless times before, they know how much they can get out of you virtually as soon as you start talking. It's safer, in my opinion to stick to reputable Internet dealers who offer coins at a "one price" store.

Ask any collector, boiling down a collection to a single specialty is tough. I've been unable to do it so far. I know I like collecting silver denarii with really nice portraits of emperors famed for their military prowess. Narrowing further, I like those silver denarii with really nice portraits of military emperors to come with attractive military-themed reverses, such as legionary standards, captives, or the various "capta" series. However, as I reveal more of my collection, you'll see that this has been a difficult area to restrict myself to. That's because I also buy according to what really makes a powerful emotional impression on me. Ancient coin collecting, indeed all of numismatics, is an intensely personal experience and sometimes what strikes me at the moment as a really historical and worthy piece of art has nothing whatsoever to do with military themes.

That said, I've also joined the ranks of the many Roman coin collectors who have set the almost unreachable goal of obtaining at least one coin from every canonical Augustus (emperor) and Caesar (junior emperor). I've expanded this impossible goal to, in addition, acquiring a coin from anyone who controlled a mint and issues coinage in the Roman Empire. Thus, that means guys like Clodius Albinus, Pescennius Niger, Babinus and Pupienus, not to mention Galba, Otho and Vitellius. Some of these coins are way out of my budget, but it gives me some bargains to hunt for, which is a very important aspect of the hobby.

Technorati Tags: history, numismatics, Rome, Roman Empire, Volusian, Apollo, military history

Welcome to The Punch Die

Welcome to The Punch Die, a weblog of history and numismatics, mostly chronicling my budding obsession with collecting Roman coins.

For as long as I can remember, I've been a collector of things, be them baseball cards, or comic books, or U.S. coins, or even stamps for a little while. A recent visit to New Orleans and a chance encounter with an antique dealer on Royal Street led to to my first purchase of an ancient Roman coin - the silver denarius of the emperor Trajan below:


The obverse is a laureate portrait of Trajan with slight drapery on left shoulder and reads IMP TRAIANO AVG GER DAC P M TR P COS V P P. The reverse shows Victory standing left holding a wreath and a palm and reads SPQR OPTIMO PRINCIPI. Reference is Roman Imperial Coinage (RIC) 193.

I was immediately struck by two things: the beauty and detail of a coin that's over 1,900 years old, the fact that a nearly 2,000 year old coin is not only readily available for historians and enthusiasts like myself to collect, but also comparatively inexpensive to what I figured such a coin would cost. And that's despite the fact that, in hindsight, I overpaid a great deal for the coin. What did I expect buying it on Royal Street in New Orleans? In any event, I consider it the hobby's "entrance fee" and it's certainly been worth it.

As my profile indicates, I'm a medievalist by formal academic training, a Roman enthusiast by informal seasoning, and a numismatist by obsession. In this blog I will primarily be showcasing and discussing the various coins in my collection, providing a "real time" chronicle of both my collection as it grows, and of my efforts to that end. But, as any collector of Roman coins knows, it is impossible to separate the numismatic obsession from an acquisition of a firm understanding of almost all facets of Roman history. My particularly interest is military history, but on this blog I'll also discuss all aspects of ancient and medieval history, sometimes as it relates to numismatics, but oftentimes independent of the hobby.

Most Roman coin collectors would agree that the acquisition of several "landmark" texts in the field is necessary, almost even before you buy your second coin, if not your first. Some are obscure and some - like RIC and Sear's Roman Coins and Their Values - are voluminous and expensive. And while I was surprised at the breadth of Internet resources for Roman coin collecting, I was far more surprised at the scarcity of blogs devoted to the hobby. There are a few, and some, like Scotvs Capitis, are quite good. But it is my intention with The Punch Die to also expand the presence of Roman coin collecting in the blogosphere. Hopefully, one day this blog will grow into a running discussion for other historians, numismatists, Roman coin enthusiasts, and even archaeologists - who are often at odds with collectors of ancient coins. One day perhaps this blog will be a valuable resource. So, let's see...

Technorati Profile

Technorati Tags: history, numismatics, Rome, Roman Empire, Trajan, Victory, military history, blogging