David Vagi - Coinage and History of The Roman Empire, C. 82 B.C. - A.D. 480. 1 & 2-Routledge (2016)

CO IN A G E a n d
HISTORY o f t h e
ROMAN EMPIRE
COINAGE A N D
HISTORY OF T H E
R O M A N EMPIRE
C. 82 B.C. - A.D. 480
VOLUME I: HISTORY
DAVID L . VAGI
First published 2000 by FITZROY DEARBO RN
This edition published 2015 by Routledge

2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
,
Routledge is an imprint o f the Taylor & Francis Group an informa business
Copyright © 1999 by David L. Vagi
A ll rights reserved including the right of reproduction in whole

or in part in any form.
British Library and Library of Congress Cataloging'^publication data available
ISBN: 978-1-138-99907-7 (vol 1) (hbk)

ISBN: 978-1-57958-316-3 (set) (hbk)
Permission to use illustrations was granted by the following companies:

Classical Numismatic Group, Inc.; Leu Numismatik; Numismatic Fine Arts, Inc.;
Numismatica Ars Classica; Sotheby’s (New York and London); Miinzen
und Medaillen; Italo Vecchi, Ltd.; and Superior Galleries.
And by the following individuals: Rick Witschonke, David Hendin and the author.
Certain numismatic numbering systems are referenced by kind permission

of British Museum Publications, Bibliotheque nationale de France, Cambridge
University Press, The Danish National Museum, Dumbarton Oaks Research
Library and Collection, David Hendin, and Spink and Son, Ltd.
Permission to reference the catalog numbering system in this book is freely

granted by David L. Vagi and requires no prior written permission, providing the
user identifies the catalog numbers by proceeding them with the name Vagi, and
that the user also cites the title and author of this book in that same work.
The Mint map was substantially modified from an original reproduced with
the kind permission of Andromeda Oxford Ltd © 1999.
Analysis and pricing information are based on historical information and market
conditions. No information in this book should be construed as predictive.
Past performance is not a guarantee of future performance. This work is
for reference purposes only, and does not constitute an offer to
buy or sell any pieces described herein.
Book design, typography and pre^press by S tu d io 3 1 , I n c .

Dedicated in Living Memory
to
ESTH ER IVANKA
I 9 I 5- I 996
This pageintentionally left blank
Ta b le of C o n ten ts
A ckn o w led g em en ts a n d C r e d it s ix
S o urces x iii
Fo rew o rd by R o bert W. H oge xv
A u t h o r ’s Preface x v ii
How to U se t h is B ook x ix
HISTO RY OF TH E RO M A N EMPIRE: BIOGRAPHIES
CH APTER I :
C o llapse of t h e R e p u b l ic ( I m p e r a t o r i a l P e r i o d ), c. 8 2 -2 7 b .c .
23
CH APTER 2:
T h e J u l i O 'C l a u d i a n s , 2 7 b .c .- a .d . 68
91
CH APTER 3 :
The C iv il Wa r o f a .d . 6 8 -6 9
175
CH APTER 4:
T h e F l a v ia n s , a .d . 6 9 -9 6
203
CH APTER 5:
The A d o p t iv e E m pero rs and T he A n t o n i n e s , a .d . 9 6 -19 2
225
ch apter 6:
C iv il War an d the S e v e r a n -E m e s a n D y n a s t y , a .d . 19 3 -2 3 5
255
C H A P T ER 7 :
C r is is a n d D e c l in e , a .d . 235-26 8
3 11
CH APTER 8:
R eco very of E m p ir e , a .d . 2 6 8 -2 8 5
361
CH APTER 9:
T h e S e p a r a t is t E m p ir e s
385
CHAPTER IO:
The Tetrarch y, c . a .d . 2 8 4 -3 13
409
CHAPTER 1 1 :
The C o n s t a n t in ia n Era, c . a .d . 3 13 -3 6 4
457
A B r ie f In t r o d u c t io n to th e D iv id e d E m p ir e
527
CH APTER 1 2 :
The W estern R o m a n E m p ir e , a .d . 3 6 4 -4 8 0
533
CH APTER 1 3 :
T h e E a s t e r n R o m a n E m p ir e , a .d . 36 4 -4 9 1
583
B ib l io g r a p h y 6 17
In d e x 625
A c k n o w l e d g m e n t s a n d C r e d it s
Were it practical to do so, this section would be as long as the book itself.
After all, knowledge does not materialize from thin air. Thanks must first
be given to the historians of antiquity, whose writings provide the basis of
our knowledge, and to those who produced the coins which are the focus
of this work. Every word in this book has a source, however remote, and
even those portions which may come under the heading of ‘original
thought’ are hardly original, for such ideas can only be developed in the
context of existing knowledge. Now, to acknowledge some specific debts.
Contributions: O f the many people who contributed to this book, there

are five to whom I am most deeply indebted. Foremost are Robert Hoge
and Jim Wasserman, both of whom suffered with me since the start of this
project. My mentor Robert Hoge, curator at the American Numismatic
Association, reviewed every page of the text with selfless dedication. He
searched for errors — large and small, conceptual and technical — and
offered invaluable advice and encouragement. His considerable talents as a
numismatist, historian, literary stylist and grammarian (in both English
and Latin) were put to full use. The book’s designer, James Wasserman,
took on the project as if it were a personal jihad, not just another job. His
eye for composition and his attention to detail have made this book appear
magnificent even when its contents fall short. His dedication far exceeded
any normal expectations, and all who find the book pleasant to the eye
owe a hearty thanks to Jim. I am also deeply indebted to three other of my
colleagues — Alan Walker, Curtis Clay and Victor England — each of
whom made important contributions. Though their impacts cannot be
fully appreciated without comparing the final product to early drafts which
they reviewed, the reader may rest assured that without their help this
would have been a significantly flawed work.
Thanks are also due to those who contributed in their areas of specialty:
Rick Witschonke (the Imperatorial period), Matthew Kreuzer (the Julio^
Claudians; and especially in helping advance the idea of Livilla on cokv
age), Kerry Wetterstrom (Roman Egypt), Lawrence Adams (Kingdom of
the Bosporus) and Richard Me Alee and Michel Prieur (Roman Antioch).
I am also indebted to Herb Kreindler and Dennis Kroh, both of whom
reviewed extensive portions of the book. For their help in a variety of m at'
ters I would like to thank Lawrence Adams, Marty Armstrong, James
Beach, Simon Bendall, John Bergman, Harlan and Aaron Berk, Mike
Bezayiff, Lucien Birkler, Jan Blamberg, Eldert Bontekoe, John Burnham,
IX
X ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND CREDITS
Tom Cederlind, Greg Cole, Thomas Curtis, Ben Damsky, Kirk Davis, the
Davisson’s, Ralph DeMarco, Nick Economopoulos, Tom Eden, Rob and
Tory Freeman, Eric Gold, Ira Goldberg, Dieter Gomy, Michael Harlan,
David Hendin, Silvia Hurter, Stephen Huston, Bill Kalmbach, Jonathan
Kern, Frank Kovacs, Matthew Kreuzer, Brian Kritt, Dennis and Desiree
Kroh, Peter Lampinen, Hubert Lanz, John Lavender, Cathy Lorber, Con-
stantin Marinescu, Eric McFadden, William Metcalf, David Michaels,
David Miller, Barry Murphy, Wilhelm Miiseler, John Pett, Rick and Kent
Ponterio, Paul Rabin, Steve Rubinger, Roberto and Arturo Russo, Arnold
Saslow, John Saunders, Wayne Sayles, David Sear, Fred Shore, Jon Subak,
Richard Swan, Tom Tesoriero, David Tripp, John Twente, Italo Vecchi,
Hans Voegtli, Edward Waddell, Bill Warden and Kerry Wetterstrom. Spe-
cial thanks are due to all of the researchers who have produced auction
catalogs with useful notations. To those who, in error, I have failed to
thank, I offer my sincere apologies; rest assured that my gratitude is not
diminished because of the oversight.
For the encouragement and practical advice that transformed this project
from an idea into a going concern, I am indebted entirely to David Hen-
din, who freely shared his expertise in both publishing and numismatics.
For initiating the process with Amos Press I thank Beth Deisher and Brad
Reed, both of whom saw promise in my proposal. For carefully reviewing
the text for syntactic errors I am indebted to Suellen Ruttkay and Bill
Gibbs of Coin World and to Casey Corsa. Thanks are also due to Ann
Marie Aldrich and Bill Corsa, whose patience and confidence — through
understandably strained at times — were essential to the success of this
project.
I am thankful beyond measure to Al, Marsha, Jean-Paul, Brian, Pratima,

Jim, Mehrdad, VPJ and HCM for their constant mental support through
out this project. Equally important to the success of the project were all of
the friends and relatives with whom I was in less-frequent communication.
Without exception they offered encouragement when it was needed and
were accepting of my unattentiveness. Finally, cheers to David Sear, whose
immensely useful Roman Coins and Their Values has proven for more
than three decades that a book of this kind is not only useful, but essential.
Valuations: For teaching me how to evaluate the quality and the market
value of ancient coins I am principally indebted to Ira Goldberg. Were it
not for the training I received from him, these values no doubt would be
less useful. To assure a greater degree of consistency and accuracy, input on
the values was solicited from several of my colleagues whose anonymity is
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND CREDITS XI
preserved. A ll final decisions about the values were made independently

by the author.
Illustrations: Without photographs, this work would be considerably less

useful. Enough thanks cannot be given to Classical Numismatic Group,
Inc., whose senior directors, Victor England and Eric McFadden allowed
the use of illustrations from their auction catalogs. Additionally, the prin
cipals of C N G and of Freeman & Sear generously granted permission to
use photographs from the catalogs of Numismatic Fine Arts, Inc. Equally
important were the photographic contributions of my valued colleagues at
Leu Numismatik (Zurich), Numismatica Ars Classica (Zurich), Sotheby’s
(New York and London), Münzen und Medaillen (Basel), Italo Vecchi,
Ltd. (London) and Superior Galleries (Beverly Hills). Additional illustra
tions were provided by Rick Witschonke, Virginia Janssen, David Hendin,
Edward Waddell, Chris and Julie Salmon, Sameer Kazmi and the author;
line drawings were largely copied from antique books.
S o u rces
Many sources — primary and secondary — were used to gather informa-

tion for this book. Some of the primary sources consulted were Tacitus’
Histories and Annals, Suetonius’ De vita Caesarum (T h e Twelve Caesars’),
the Historia Augusta, (seemingly by one author in the age of Theodosius or
by several authors, collectively known as the Scriptores Historiae Augustae,
during the ages of Diocletian and Constantine the Great), Cassius Dio’s
Roman History and Livy’s Ab urbe condita libri. The works of other ancient
historians and chroniclers, such as Aurelius Victor, Eusebius, Eutropius,
Festus, Herodian, Lactantius, Zosimus, Ammianus Marcellinus, Saint
Augustine, Saint Athanasius, Candidus, Joannes Antiochenus, Josephus,
Malchus, Olympiodorus, Priscus, Zonoras, etc., were also invaluable. The
secondary sources most frequently consulted were: Michael Crawford’s
Roman Republican Coinage, the 10 volumes of The Roman Imperial Coinage
(various authors), Roman Provincial Coinage, Volume I (with supplement)
by Burnett, Amandry and Ripollès, the Catalog of Late Roman Coins in the
Dumbarton Oaks Collection and in the Whittemore Collection by Grierson and
Mays, the 29 volumes of A Catalog of the Greek Coins in the British Museum
(various authors), the Oxford Classical Dictionary, The Magistrates of the
Roman Republic by T.R.S. Broughton, several works of Michael Grant
(especially The Roman Emperors), Chris Scarre’s Chronicle of the Roman
Emperors, Clive Foss’s Roman Historical Coins, Kenneth H aris Coinage in
the Roman Economy, John Melville Jones’s A Dictionary of Ancient Roman
Coins, and the Atlas of the Roman World by Cornell and Matthews. Hun
dreds of other books, articles and commentaries in auction catalogs were
consulted, all of which have greatly enriched this work. A listing of many
of these is provided in the bibliography.
XIII
Fo rew o rd
Everyone interested in the history and coinage of the ancient Romans will
find many features to enjoy in the wonderfully comprehensive work under
taken by David Vagi. The capsule biographies of each coin-issuing indi
vidual are authoritative. Every biography has been designed to stand on its
own in providing full and appropriate background information for putting
the individual's place in history into perspective. Indeed, the author has
not shied away from running the risk of redundancy in order to give the
reader as complete as possible a presentation for each one, so that it can
stand alone for those seeking data relating exclusively to a specific person.
Information has been compiled from all sources, and from the best and
most recent studies.
The other portions of this richly-crafted work are no less fully real
ized. Readers will find solid, up-to-date surveys of all numismatic aspects
and will appreciate the care and skill devoted to every section of interest
to collectors: interpretation, value, population, aesthetics . . .
This impressive tome has earned a prominent place on the shelf of
anyone with an interest in Roman coinage. I know schools and libraries
will find frequent use for it as well. Mr. Vagi is to be congratulated on a job
well done.
R o bert W. H oge
Colorado Springs, Colorado
May, 1999
xv
A u t h o r ’s P r e f a c e
The purpose of this book is two-fold: to provide numismatists with a study

of Rome and its coinage which will enrich their avocation, and to afford
historians the opportunity to appreciate the role of coinage in the Roman
world. For these reasons, the story of Rome has been given a more promi
nent place than is usually found in numismatic references. After all, of
what significance are coins without context?
The main reason people collect Roman coins is that they allow us, in
some small way, to make a connection with a vanished world. This desire
is no modern invention, for the ancients were also collectors of antiques.
Pliny the Elder, in his Historia Naturalis, informs us that Rome’s first
emperor, Augustus, was a collector of antique and foreign coins. Two mil-
lenia later we can only imagine the silver decadrachms of Syracuse and the
gold staters of Alexander the Great that he gave to friends as gifts.
A t the other end of the spectrum we may shudder to think of the mil
lions of ancient coins that have been unearthed over the centuries only to
be melted for their bullion content. The reasons are manifold: sometimes
possessing such ‘antique’ items is illegal; other times it is simply easier for
the finder to reap his reward by converting coins into anonymous bricks of
metal.
For all its inherent conflicts, a well-established collector market pre
serves ancient coins to a far-greater degree than it destroys them. Though
much scholarship must be conducted after-the-fact, this is still preferable
to having nothing at all to study. If ancient objects had no value above and
beyond the intrinsic, the vast majority would end up in the melting pot,
preventing any opportunity for study.
Thus, in an era when international legislation threatens the very
foundation of collecting, collectors must remain focused on the true pur
pose of acquisition. These coins are not merely artifacts, or objects of
value, but ambassadors of culture. After all, if Roman coins could only be
seen in the pages of books or behind museum glass, would we be so moti
vated to learn about them? Or, for that matter, about the Roman Empire?
Certainly not. The tangibility of such objects would escape us, and as a
consequence, so might our fascination with their creation.
This book began as a modest project of perhaps 300 or 400 pages. As
work progressed it became evident that a larger book would be required to
tell the story of Rome and its coinage in any detail. As the level of research
deepened, the page-count increased, deadlines were surpassed, and antici
pations grew. The final deadline was an auspicious one: The Ides of March,
1999. Had I known in advance the amount of suffering required to bring
XVII
XVIII AUTHOR S PREFACE
this project to fruition — I must confess — I am not certain I would have

penned the first word. But it was my intention from the outset to make a
lasting contribution to a field which has provided me with countless hours
of enjoyment. I hope that the final product was worth the herculian effort
it required.
Over the years I have happily worked with ancient coins as a dealer,
collector, cataloger, researcher, writer and consultant. As I intend to
remain active in all of these areas, I invite serious enquiries regarding any
of those capacities at the following address:
D a v id L. Vagi
P.O. Box 20155
Greeley Square Station
New York, NY 10001-0002
How t o U se t h is B o o k
The book is divided into two volumes and is comprised of three main
sections:
Volume I: History of the Roman Empire

• Biographies and historical introductions
Volume II: Coinage of the Roman Empire

• Part One: Numismatic Introduction
• Part Two: Catalog and Tables of Values
Biographies. The history of Rome from Sulla through the death of Julius
Nepos is divided into 13 chapters based on individual epochs (with the
three ‘Separatist Empires’ of the 3rd Century being discussed in a chapter
of their own). The strictly chronological order of presentation changes
with the death of Jovian in A.D. 364: the remainder of the Empire is dis
cussed in two chapters, one for the Eastern and one for the Western
Roman Empire. Within these separate chapters, the discussions follow the
same chronological order as the earlier biographies.
A general introduction is given for each period. When necessary, the
introduction is supplemented with an historical overview, family tree or a
chronology table. The biographies are as comprehensive as possible within
the practicial limitations of this work. Much of the latest scholarship has
been incorporated, which sometimes alters the conclusions to which col
lectors have long been accustomed. The biographies have been written to
stand alone, but they are most useful when read along with related biogra
phies. The individual biographies are most often followed by sections
entitled Numismatic Notes, which contain information about the subject’s
coins.
Numismatic Introduction. This section, which opens with a general

introduction, is devoted to the coinage itself. Specialized sections on
denominations, deities and personifications, determining the dates of
coins, obverse types, reverse types, mints and mint marks, and how to
determine market value follow. The last section (which includes a photo
grading guide) is vital for understanding how the values presented in the
catalog apply to individual coins.
Coin Catalog: This final section is a listing of coins and their market
values. For a detailed description, see the introduction in Volume II.
XIX
H ISTO R Y OF T H E RO M A N EM PIRE
B io g r a p h ie s
CH A PTER ONE
“JSjgS®
C o l la p s e o f t h e R e p u b lic
( I m p e r a t o r i a l P e r io d )
c. 82-27 B-c *
D uring the six decades from the beginning of the Social War to the
Battle of Actium, there occurred a gradual decay of Rome’s tradi
tional Republican form of government. The order of the old Republic —
an elitist oligarchy — was replaced by the lawlessness of warlords who,
when necessary, openly opposed the senate by force of arms. Men such as
Sulla, Marius, Pompey, Caesar, Antony and Octavian all struggled for the
top position in a government that was destined to become a virtual hered
itary monarchy. What follows is a general framework of this turbulent era,
which often is called the Imperatorial Period.
9 1-8 8 B.C. — The Social War. From 91-88 B.C., Italians were engaged in
the “Social War,” in which some non-Roman Italians — who had long
been refused Roman citizenship — founded their own Italic senate and
initiated hostilities against Rome. It was a traumatic time for the Romans.
In the year 90 B.C. they struck more denarii than at any other time in the
Republic. Furthermore, they raised more legions than at any other time
except during the war against Hannibal. In 88 B.C., the allies even
appealed to Mithradates VI of Pontus for military support, but received
only some financial assistance. Eventually Rome earned a “victory” by
conceding to their enemies’ demands. All Italians were granted citizenship
in 88 B.C., though the promise was not fully enacted until 70 B.C. In the
aftermath of this war, Pompey Strabo, father of Pompey the Great, refused
to disband his armies, and resisted the senate’s attempt to disarm him fore-
ibly. Along with equally lawless acts by Sulla, this set the stage for dozens
of other men to act beyond the authority vested in them by the senate.
88-82 B.C. — The wars among Sulla, Marius and Mithradates V I. On

the very heels of the Social War, a conflict of dire consequence arose in
Asia Minor, where the Pontic king Mithradates VI opposed Roman rule
with the aid of Greeks in Asia. The so-called “First Mithradatic War”
began in 88 B.C. with an event that shocked the western world: Mithra
dates ordered the slaughter of all Romans living in Asia Minor. In a single
night, 80,000 Romans were butchered. Though this should have caused
Romans to unite, it instead created a division. The senate gave command
of the war against Mithradates to Lucius Cornelius Sulla, but the people of
23
24 HISTORY OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE: BIOGRAPHIES
Rome opposed that decision, usurped the senate and instead gave the com-
mand to Marius. Thus, Sulla first waged war in Rome itself, ousted Marius
and re-established the authority of the senate. He then went East to
restore Asia in the name of Rome. Meanwhile, Marius and his supporters,
Cinna and Carbo, returned to Rome and initiated a reign of terror that
lasted until Sulla’s return in 83/82 B.C. Meanwhile, Sulla was winning
hard-fought victories over Mithradates in Greece, though rivalries with
competing Republican generals Flaccus and Fimbria complicated matters.
Finally, in 85 B.C., Sulla made peace with Mithradates at Dardanus.
Thereafter he toured Greece and Asia, exacting revenge, seizing booty and
establishing his own extraordinary authority.
82-79 B*c * — Sulla’s Dictatorship. Sulla returned from the East in 83,
and with the help of Crassus and Pompey the Great was able to defeat the
remaining adherents to the Marian party (including the Samnites and the
Lucans) at the Battle of the Colline Gate in 82 B.C., and subsequently in
Spain. Thus began Sulla’s dictatorship, and along with it the first Roman
coinage that comes under the familiar term “Imperatorial.” In the mean
time Mithradates VI had renewed war against the Romans (83 to 81 B.C.,
the “Second Mithradatic War”). However, this time Sulla had Lucius
Licinius Murena, the propraetor of Asia who had agitated Mithradates
into action, conduct the war. During the three years Sulla exercised dicta
torial powers, he fought to re-establish the authority of the senate, thus to
return power to the privileged families. In the process many were exe
cuted, including some 90 senators and 2,600 equestrians. Sulla further
restructured the terms of high political office, including the requirement
that consuls and praetors must leave Rome and govern a province after
their term ended. Sulla held his last consulship in 80 B.C.; he abdicated his
dictatorship in 79 B.C. and retired, dying a year later.
82-67 — The Rise of Pompey. When Sulla returned from the East
and ousted the Marians, an important command was given to Pompey the
Great, who defeated armies of the Marian party in Sicily and North
Africa. It was during these campaigns that he received both a triumph and
the honorary title Magnus (“the Great”). Even after the abdication (79
B.C.) and subsequent death of Sulla, adherents to the Marian party
remained active in Spain. Pompey spent 77 to 71 B.C. in Spain restoring
senatorial authority in this important province. In 73 B.C. a devastating
slave revolt erupted in Capua under the leadership of Spartacus, and it
grew to such proportions that Rome itself was nearly sacked. The slave
armies traveled the length of Italy twice, defeating every consular army
sent against them. However, the slave army was defeated in Apulia in 72
COLLAPSE OF THE REPUBLIC ( IMPERATORIAL PERIOD) 25
B.C. by an army led by Crassus. This important victory had been earned by
Crassus, but Pompey — seeking his share of glory — returned from Spain
in 71 to stamp out the tattered remnants of the slave army. This angered
Crassus, who not only had to share the credit of victory, but also the con
sulship of 70 with the upstart Pompey. Together they revoked many laws of
Sulla (whom, ironically, they both had supported upon his return from the
East in 83 B.C.), thus allowing common people to hold office.
67-60 B.C. — Pompey’s glory. Once matters had been settled in Rome,
Pompey next tackled two serious tasks. The first was piracy in the Mediter
ranean, against which he was given extraordinary authority (imperium
extraordinarium) in 67 B.C. With great efficiency, Pompey eliminated pirat
ical activity. He was next given command in the East against Mithradates,
who had been waging a Third Mithradatic War since 74 B.C. Though pre
vious generals had failed to crush Mithradates, Pompey was able to defeat
the eastern monarch on the Euphrates and in 64 began to reorganize the
entire eastern portion of Roman territories. Pontus, Cilicia and Syria
became provinces and client kingdoms were established in Armenia, Cap-
padocia, Colchis, Galatia and Judaea. In the process, Pompey generously
gave land to his own veterans, an overture that did not please the senate,
which opposed it upon his return. However, for all Pompey gave away to
his soldiers, he brought back to Rome an astounding amount of loot from
the East, which enabled the Republic to become solvent for the first time
in recent memory. Italy itself had not been without its crises in the mean
time, for during the consulship of Cicero the conspiracy of Catiline had
ended in bloodshed — some 3,000 of Catiline’s supporters perished at Pis-
toria in 62 B.C.
60-53 B.C. — The First Triumvirate. Pompey, Crassus and Julius Caesar
joined forces in 60 B.C., pooling a tremendous amount of wealth, influence
and military prowess. This was a private pact without legal sanction but
was remarkably effective in combating the senate and in establishing the
supremacy of the generals. Through the arrangement, Caesar received a
five-year appointment to Cisalpine Gaul, Illyricum and Gallia Narbonen-
sis, allowing him to begin his famous campaigns in Gaul, which included a
minor invasion of Britain and two crossings of the Rhine. Largely due to
Caesar’s mediation, the pact was renewed in 56 B.C. at the Conference of
Luca, and in 55 B.C. Crassus and Pompey jointly held the consulship. The
three then carved up the territories: Pompey taking Spain, Caesar retain
ing Gaul, and Crassus taking Syria, from which he launched his invasion
of Parthia in 53 B.C. This campaign was a tremendous failure, and Crassus
— the richest man in Rome — died during a retreat near Carrhae. The
tattered remnants of the army were spared total destruction under the
leadership of Cassius, then a quaestor, but later a tyrannicide and Impera-
tor with his co-conspirator, Brutus.
5 3 - 4 9 B.C. — Prelude to civil war. With Crassus dead, Pompey and C ae
sar lost a powerful ally. Caesar, however, was building a stellar career with
his victories in Gaul. It culminated with the defeat of Vercingetorix at
Alesia in 52 B.C., and his conquest of Gaul was complete by 51 B.C. Mean
while in Rome, the senate and Pompey had united, and were sharply
opposed to the authority of Caesar. Aware of the danger he faced, Caesar
(through Gaius Scribonius Curio Junior) proposed that he and Pompey
both disband their armies. Though the senate passed the measure, it was
vetoed by Marcellus (the husband of Octavia), who was consul. On Janu
ary 7, 49 B.C., the senate (led by Pompey’s father-in-law, Metellus Pius
Scipio) issued a demand that Caesar, alone, disband his army and relin
quish his Gallic command. Pompey was now given authority to defend the
Republic against Caesar.
4 9 -4 4 B.C. — Civil war between the Pompeians and Caesar. Caesar

made his famous crossing of the Rubicon on January 10, 49 B.C., and took
Italy with ease, for Pompey and many senators fled to Greece. Caesar
secured Spain, and then pursued Pompey in Epirus, in northern Greece.
On August 9, 48 B.C., Pompey was defeated in a pitched battle at Pharsa-
lus. Some 20,000 of his men surrendered and Pompey fled to Egypt, where
he was murdered upon landing. Pompey’s cause, however, survived more
than a dozen years under the leadership of his sons. Meanwhile, Caesar
went to Egypt and found more trouble than he had anticipated. Ptolemy
XIII had overthrown Cleopatra VII, and so Caesar set about restoring the
queen. This he did, but with great difficulty, for he almost perished in the
process. N ext Caesar went to the Pontic region and defeated the rebel
Pontic king Pharnaces II at Zela in a five-day campaign during the Spring
of 47 B.C. (when he coined the phrase Veni vidi vici, “I came, I saw, I con
quered”). Caesar returned to Italy, then battled still more Pompeians in
North Africa (in the African War), which resulted in the suicide of Brutus’
uncle Cato Uticensis at Utica, and Caesar’s victory at Thapsus in April 46
B.C. Caesar returned to Rome late in July, and asked Cleopatra to join
him. Romans were treated to the splendor of four successive triumphs
being celebrated in September and October. Caesar was awarded a decade-
long dictatorship. Early in 45 B.C., Caesar went to war against more
Pompeians, and was victorious on March 17 at Munda, Spain, against the
two sons of Pompey the Great: Pompey Junior (who was executed) and
Sextus Pompey (who escaped). This was to be Caesar’s last campaign.
44 B.C. — The Murder of Caesar. The senate now gave Caesar almost
complete authority in Rome, including the title dictator perpetuus (dictator
for life) on February 14, 44 B.C. Caesar now was preparing in earnest for an
invasion of Parthia. Though Caesar subsequently rejected Marc Antony’s
offer of the royal diadem of a king three times, he was making arrange
ments to have a title to that effect outside of Italy. One month later, on
the Ides (15th) of March, Caesar was murdered by a group of senatorial
conspirators led by Brutus and Cassius. Subsequently, Marc Antony deliv
ered Caesar’s funeral eulogy on March 20, and in April presided at the
Parilian games held in honor of Caesar’s victory at Munda. Both events
enraged the populace against the conspirators, who, in fear for their lives,
fled to the East in August of that year. Though the senate abolished C ae
sar’s dictatorship, it did not achieve its aim of reclaiming its authority in
the long term.
4 4 -4 3 B.C. — Antony and Octavian Collide. Nineteen-year-old Gaius

Octavius (Octavian, later Augustus) was named heir to the political legacy
and most of the fortune of his great-uncle (and adoptive father), Caesar.
The beneficiary Octavian abandoned his studies in Greece and sped to
Rome to collect his inheritance. He arrived in May or June of 44 B.C., and
found Marc Antony (the most powerful ally of Caesar) to be confronta
tional. But Octavian proved formidable. After getting no satisfaction,
Octavian invaded Rome with an army of Caesar’s veterans in November
44 B.C., forcing Antony to leave for his proconsular duties in Gaul. But
Antony first had to oust Decimus Brutus, who had been made governor of
Gaul by Caesar. So Antony attacked, and besieged Decimus Brutus at
Mutina. Meanwhile, the orator Cicero had emerged from retirement and
began to defame Antony. The senate sent Octavian (now propraetor) and
the two consuls, Pansa and Hirtius, to relieve Decimus Brutus, whom A n t
ony had besieged at Mutina, in Cisapline Gaul. Though both consuls died,
the senatorial army was victorious; Octavian was hailed Imperator and
Decimus Brutus celebrated a triumph. Feeling their strength renewed, the
senate granted extraordinary powers to Brutus and Cassius (in the East)
and the naval commander Sextus Pompey (the surviving son of Pompey
the Great) to command the fleet in the West. Meanwhile, Octavian felt
left out, and so in May of 43 B.C., he occupied Rome militarily once again.
By August he was able to force the senate to make him consul in place of
Hirtius and Pansa, who had died, and to recognize officially his adoption
by Caesar.
4 3 - 4 2 B.C. — Triumvirs versus Republicans. Having senatorial authority

and an army, Octavian marched against Antony, but instead of fighting
him, joined him in forming the Second Triumvirate on November 11, 43

B.C. The third member was Lepidus, the governor of Hither Spain and
Gallia Narbonensis, who had fought on Antony’s side at Mutina. By this
political alliance, the trio ruled Rome and its territories for the next five
years (through 38 B.C.). Unlike the First Triumvirate of Pompey, Caesar
and Crassus, this was legally sanctioned (unwillingly) by a terrified senate
as the lex Titia: Triumviri rei publicae constituendae (meaning “Triumvirs for
the reorganization of the Republic”). Since the East was occupied by Bru
tus and Cassius, the three men divided the West among themselves, with
Octavian getting the short-end, for his territories were occupied by ene
mies: the western islands (including Sicily) by Sextus Pompey and North
Africa by Comuficius. Thereafter the infamous Triumviral proscriptions
began, which were spearheaded by Fulvia, Antony’s ambitious wife. Some
130 senators and 2,000 equestrians were executed, with Cicero, the orator
who had delivered his Philippics against the growing tyranny of Antony,
being among the first to perish (in December 43 B.C.). In response, Brutus
executed Gaius Antonius, a brother of Antony’s who had been captured in
Macedon. Also proscribed — rather foolishly — was Sextus Pompey, who
subsequently used the fleet the senate had given him to blockade the coast
of Italy. Octavian’s commander, Salvidienus, was unable to defeat him.
Meanwhile, the Triumvirs prepared for war against Brutus and Cassius.
Antony and Octavian left Lepidus in charge in Italy, and led their armies
east to Illyricum in preparation for war. Their supply lines (and route of
retreat) were cut off by the Republican fleet commanded by Murcus and
Ahenobarbus. Meanwhile, in the spring of 42 B.C., Brutus and Cassius
campaigned successfully against the Lycians and Rhodians, and after meet
ing at Sardes in the summer, sailed for northern Greece. Two battles
ensued at Philippi (at the beginning of October and on October 23). The
Triumvirs, led by Antony and Octavian, were victorious over the Republi
cans, whose leaders, Brutus and Cassius, both committed suicide.
42-40 B.C. — The Division of Spoils. The memory of Julius Caesar was
avenged, and the East — rebels and foreign enemies aside — now also
belonged to the Triumvirs. Among these rebels were Sextus Pompey (and
soon Murcus) in the West, Ahenobarbus in the Ionian Sea (soon allied
with Antony) and Labienus, who defected to the Parthians. Antony went
east and Octavian returned West. Late in 41 B.C., the Roman East was
invaded by Labienus in concert with the Parthian prince Pacorus. A ll this
occurred while Antony was in the East, but he was occupied with his new
love interest, queen Cleopatra VII of Egypt, and soon had to sail West to
resolve another crisis. During Antony’s absence, the youngest brother of
Antony, Lucius Antonius, and Antony’s wife, Fulvia, began to harass
Octavian. First they waged a verbal, then a military campaign against
Octavian known as the Perusine War (41-40 B.C.), which ended with the
defeat of Lucius Antonius early in 40 B.C. Although both Lucius Antonius
and Fulvia died of natural causes within months of the war’s conclusion,
civil war was imminent. However, it was averted when Antony and Octa-
vian met at Brundisium in October 40 B.C. Here, they divided the Roman
world: Antony received the East, Octavian received the lion’s share of the
West, while Lepidus was essentially limited to North Africa. Also in 40
B.C. both Antony and Octavian entered into political marriages, both des-
tined to fail: Antony married Octavian’s sister, Octavia, and Octavian
married Scribonia, a relative of Sextus Pompey, who had a powerful fleet
with which he controlled Sicily and Sardinia.
4 0 -35 B.C. — Consolidation of Power. In addition to the marriage

between Octavian and Scribonia, the Triumvirs made concessions to Sex
tus Pompey at the pact of Misenum in 39 B.C.: in return for grain ship
ments to Italy, the rebel admiral received Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica and
even Achaea (Greece). Subsequently, in 38 B.C., Octavian broke the pact
and attacked Sextus Pompey, but lost severely. The five-year Triumvirate
pact expired late in 38 B.C., but was renewed at the Treaty of Tarentum,
where Octavian traded many of his foot soldiers for 1 20 of Antony’s war
vessels. Now, Antony had enough soldiers for his planned invasion of
Parthia, and Octavian could again challenge Sextus Pompey at sea. Thus,
the next year, 36 B.C., was eventful. Antony’s invasion of Parthia with
some 100,000 soldiers failed miserably, due in large part to the treachery of
Artavasdes II of Armenia. Antony withdrew with heavy losses (perhaps
40,000 casualties), and willingly received support from his mistress, C leo
patra VII. In the West, Octavian’s campaign against Sextus Pompey had
two results. First, it caused the downfall of the third Triumvir, Lepidus,
who in August was unsuccessful in his treachery against Antony, and was
expelled as a result. Second, Octavian’s lieutenant, Agrippa, defeated Sex
tus Pompey at Naulochus in September, thus eliminating the tattered rem
nants of the Pompeian party (Sextus himself escaped to Asia Minor, where
he was killed).
3 5 - 3 1 B.C. — Prelude to Actium. Now the Roman world was exclusively

in the hands of Octavian and Antony. During the succeeding years, A n t
ony went to great lengths to reorganize the Roman East into provinces and
client kingdoms. With these reforms, and with Cleopatra VII as an ally, he
was in firm control of Asia. However, his success was at the expense of Ital
ian support, for Antony’s orientalized life invited suspicion in the West, a
situation which Octavian was only too willing to exploit. Antony and
Octavian openly defamed each other, especially since the political mar
riages of 40 B.C. had ended or were in disrepair. Both Octavian and
Antony remained in their spheres of influence, rallying support for the

civil war they knew would certainly come. The Triumviral pact expired at
the end of 33 B.C. The two consuls of 32 B.C. were Ahenobarbus and Sos-
ius, both of whom supported Antony. Octavian opposed their tenure by
(yet again) occupying Rome with his legions and terrorizing the senate;
both consuls and some 300 senators fled to the East for Antony’s pro tec-
tion. In essence, war had been declared.
3 1 - 2 7 B.C. — Actium, and the foundation of the Empire. Now Octavian

secured an oath of loyalty from citizens in Italy, declared war against Cleo
patra VII (and cleverly, not against Antony), and set out for Greece,
where he confronted Antony’s 30 legions. However, Cleopatra’s participa
tion caused Plancus, Ahenobarbus and many others to desert to Octavian
at the last moment, and Agrippa’s naval blockade of Antony’s camp took
its toll. The Battle of Actium occurred on September 2, 31 B.C.; soon after,
Antony and Cleopatra burst through the blockade and fled to Egypt. A n t
ony’s desperate effort to get four legions from Scarpus in Cyrene failed, and
he committed suicide in 30 B.C., soon after landing in Alexandria. C leo
patra also committed suicide after a fruitless meeting with Octavian, who
had come to collect her as a war trophy. Octavian subsequently made
Egypt into a kind of Roman province which was declared his personal
property. In 29 B.C., Octavian celebrated his triumph in Rome and dis
banded many legions by settling 120,000 veterans with land grants. O cta
vian had achieved absolute power, and did not want to lose it in the same
way Julius Caesar had nearly 15 years before. Thus, Octavian declared the
restoration of the Republic by forfeiting most of his authority to the senate
and the people on January 13, 27 B.C. He kept the consulship, the prov
inces of Spain, Gaul, Syria and Egypt, and the legions stationed therein.
Three days later, the senate granted him the title Augustus (meaning
“sacred” or “revered”), which was the name he came to be called for the
remaining 41 years of his life. Thus began the Roman Empire, a political
entity that would last more than 500 years in the West, and a thousand
years beyond that in the East.
Note to the reader: The inclusion of minor historical figures in the biogra
phies which follow has been limited to those who were both hailed Imper-
ator and produced coinage.
T h e I m p e r a t o r i a l P e r io d
SULLA
D ic t a t o r , 8 2 -7 9 b .c .
Lucius Cornelius Sulla, 138 -78 B.C. The early

life of Sulla is rather undistinguished, for he came
from an obscure but apparently wealthy Patrician
family and his only act of note was the arrest of
Jugurtha in 107 B.C., when he was serving as a
Quaestor under Marius. More than a decade later he attained a high
administrative post in the East, propraetor of Cilicia, and in that capacity
officiated at the first negotiations held between Rome and Parthia.
However, his career was launched during the Social War (91-89
B.C.), which earned him a reputation for vigorous military actions. He was
the most successful commander in southern Italy, and as a result of his vic
tories against the Samnites was made consul in 88 B.C., after the Social
War had been resolved and all Italians were granted Roman citizenship.
Just when Italy was on the verge of recovery, Rome was thrust into a new,
distant crisis. King Mithradates VI of Pontus, in a single night, caused the
slaughter of more than 80,000 Romans residing in Asia. A swift response
was necessary, and the senate gave command against Mithradates to the
consul and war-hero Sulla.
But the decision was reversed when the senate was usurped by adher
ents to Marius, a more experienced commander, who not surprisingly was
given the command in place of Sulla. This came as a shock to Sulla, who
was forced to flee. However, Sulla’s legions — who had fought under him
for two years — remained loyal. Enticed by the spoils of war and possible
land allotments, they joined Sulla and marched on Rome itself. Now the
tables had turned, and it was Sulla who chased Marius out of Rome, after
which he re-established the authority of the senate.
After establishing his regime, Sulla headed East in 87 B.C. to conduct
what is known as the First Mithradatic War (88-84 B.C.). Since Mithra
dates VI had also occupied Greece, Sulla concentrated his efforts there
first, and by 86 B.C. was able to expel the Pontic king from Athens and the
rest of Greece. Mithradates was now on the defensive and his defeat was
within Sulla’s grasp, but a schism in the Roman command prevented it. In
86 B.C. Sulla’s command expired and the senate gave the new command to
Lucius Valerius Flaccus (the consul suffectus who replaced Marius after his
death in 86 B.C.), who headed East and began to fight the Pontic king with
his own new command.
But when Flaccus’ soldiers began to desert to Sulla, he quarreled with

his own legate, Gaius Fimbria, who murdered Flaccus in Bithynia in 85
B.C. and took command. Fimbria nearly captured Mithradates VI in Asia,
and in a moment of supreme selfishness, Sulla and Fimbria refused to coop
erate (no doubt out of fear that the other would take credit for the vic
tory), which allowed Mithradates the opportunity to escape. Sulla made a
generous peace pact with Mithradates at Dardanus in 85 B.C., and then
turned on Fimbria, who committed suicide.
Sulla next sought retribution from those cities in Asia and Greece
that had betrayed Rome, and in the process established a great deal of
authority, the likes of which had not been seen in the Greek East since the
victories of Titus Quinctius Flamininus more than a century before. More
importantly, perhaps, he collected a vast amount of war booty. This he put
to immediate use during his invasion of Italy, for during his absence, Mar
ius had forced his way into Rome shortly before his own death in 86 B.C.
His supporters, first led by Cinna, then by Carbo, ruled cruelly thereafter.
When Sulla returned from the East, Marius’ supporters were in con
trol, but Sulla’s new-found wealth and battle-hardened legions gave him
the advantage. Upon landing at Brundisium in 83 B.C., Sulla was
approached by many resourceful leaders who wished to join his campaign.
Among them were Crassus, Metellus Pius and Pompey. The remaining
members of the Marian Party were ousted as Sulla took Rome again (the
Sibylline Books were burned in a resulting fire). Later, Sulla defended
Rome from the Samnites at the Battle of the Colline Gate in 82 B.C. The
remaining Marians fled to Spain, and were there defeated by Pompey, who
had been sent by Sulla.
Thus, with Sulla’s second invasion of Rome began his three-year dic
tatorship. In the meantime, Mithradates VI had renewed hostilities
against Rome, initiating what is called the Second Mithradatic War (83 to
81 B.C.). Sulla entrusted the war to Lucius Licinius Murena, the propra
etor of Asia whose careless actions had caused the Pontic king to rise up
again. In 81 B.C., after victory was secured in the East, Sulla held a magnif
icent triumph in Rome.
During his dictatorship, Sulla fought to re-establish the authority of
the senate in Rome and, in essence, to return power to the wealthy fami
lies (for the legislation of Marius had counteracted this traditional
arrangement). Enacting his reforms was accomplished through strict mea
sures, and in the process Sulla executed some 90 senators and 2,600 eques
trians. Other landmark political reforms were introduced, including the
requirement that consuls and praetors leave Rome to govern a province
after their terms ended.
While battling Mithradates, Sulla had sacked much of Greece to pay
his armies. One site victimized was Olympia, and so Sulla transferred the
Olympic Games to Rome, where they were held in 80 B.C., the year in
which he held his second and last consulship. Sulla reluctantly forfeited
his dictatorship in 79 B.C. and died of disease a year later after he had
retired to his estates in Campania.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : The gilded equestrian statue awarded to Sulla for his
victories against Mithradates VI is depicted on his coinage by the moneyer

A. Manlius in 80 b . c . Though a statue, this is a depiction of a living Roman
on coinage long before Julius Caesar. After the reign of Sulla, no standard
bronzes were struck in the Republic until the time of Julius Caesar.
FLACCUS
I m p e r a t o r , 8 3 - 8 2 B .C .
Gaius Valerius Flaccus, lifespan unknown. Flaccus, a member of the dis

tinguished Valeria gens, which is well-represented on Republican coinage,
served as praetor urbanus (city prefect of Rome) in 96 B.C., consul in 93
B.C. with M. Herennius, and c. 85-81 B.C. served as proconsul in Gaul,
notably during the consulships of L. Cornelius Scipio and C. Norbanus (83
B.C.). O f these three high appointments, it is his appointment in Gaul (by
which time he had been hailed Imperator) for which he struck coins.
Sulla enlisted the services of Flaccus in the war he had begun to wage
in Spain against the rebel Quintus, and as a result Flaccus later succeeded
T. Didius as proconsul in Spain. Didius had ruled so cruelly that the Celt-
iberians revolted against him at Belgida, trapped all of the senators in their
meeting house, and burned it to the ground while they were inside. Flaccus
took Belgida by surprise, and executed all who had participated in the
burning. In 81 B.C. Flaccus earned a triumph for his Gallic and Spanish
campaigns. (See the biographies of Metellus Pius and Pompey the Great
for details on Sertorius’ revolt.)
Flaccus was the brother of the Lucius Valerius Flaccus who replaced
Marius in 86 B.C. as consul suffectus, and who subsequently was chosen to
replace Sulla as commander in the war against Mithradates VI of Pontus.
Regrettably for Lucius Valerius Flaccus, he was murdered by his own lieu-
tennant Fimbria while marching through Bithynia in 85 B.C., some two or
three years before his brother Gaius Valerius Flaccus, the Imperator, struck
his coinage in Gaul.
Flaccus perhaps was the nephew of the Lucius Valerius Flaccus who
struck coins as moneyer in 108 or 107 B .C ., and who was consul in 100 b . c .
That Flaccus borrowed the obverse type of a bust of Victory from the ear
lier coins of his uncle serves to confirm their close blood relationship.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : Flaccus’ denarii of Massalia are a military issue. The
obverse shows the bust of victory, and the reverse a legionary eagle
between two standards, both of which bear a plaque with a single letter. A t
the left is an H, meaning hastati, and at the right a P, meaning principes.
The hastati were the spear-bearers on the front-line of the Roman battle
formation, and the principes held the secondary position directly behind
them. This was a well-controlled coinage, as Crawford lists 41 different
control marks, noting that each is represented by a single die. It is worth
noting that the ‘legionary eagle and standards’ reverse created by Flaccus
inspired a later issue of Gnaeus Nerius in 49 B.C. and served as the pro-
toype for Marc Antony’s prodigious issue of ‘legionary denarii’ half a cen
tury later. Flaccus’ type was included in the restoration series of the
emperor Trajan (A.D. 98-117).
METELLUS PIUS
Im p e r a t o r , 8 i b .c .
A d o p t iv e f a t h e r o f M etellu s P iu s S c ip io
Quintus Caecilius Metellus Pius, d. c. 63 B.C. Metellus Pius came to

prominence during the Social War, during which he served as praetor (89
b . c .) and propraetor from 88-82 b . c . He had earned his surname Pius in 99
b . c . for his effort to recall from exile his homonymous father, sumamed
Numidicus, who was instrumental in the defeat of Jugurtha.
Metellus Pius was called to Rome to oppose Marius, but left without
finding success in his venture. Subsequently, he established himself as an
independent power in North Africa until 84 B.C., when he was ousted by
Gaius Fabius Hadrianus. In the following year he joined forces with Sulla,
who had just returned victoriously from the First Mithradatic War. Metel
lus Pius gained distinction as Sulla’s best general, and shared the consul
ship with him in 80 B.C.
Thereafter, he gained a proconsular command in Farther Spain where
he campaigned from 79 to 71 B.C. against the rebel Quintus Sertorius, who
had been a loose cannon in Spain and North Africa ever since he was pro
scribed by Sulla in 83 B.C. Sertorius had established his own senate, by
which he ruled Spain. Sertorius relied upon local royalty as his base of
power, but also allied himself with outsiders who opposed the senate in
Rome; these included pirates, and even the Pontic king Mithradates VI,
with whom Sertorius made an ineffective pact in 76 or 75 B.C.
Metellus Pius was greatly boosted in his floundering campaign against
Sertorius by reinforcements led by Pompey the Great. But even together
they were unable to defeat Sertorius easily or quickly. Indeed, they essen
COLLAPSE OF THE REPUBLIC (IMPERATORIAL PERIOD) 35
tially wore him down until in 72 B.C., at the end of his resources, Sertorius
was murdered. While campaigning in Spain, Metellus Pius had several
places named in his honor. In 71 B.C., about the time the slave revolt of
Spartacus was quelled, Metellus Pius celebrated his hard-earned Triumph,
and afterward served as Pontifex Maximus from 81 to 63 B.C., after which
Julius Caesar was elected in his place to that exalted office.
N u m is m a t ic N o t e : Though Metellus Pius’ fame is largely derived from his
later campaigns in Spain against Sertorius, the coinage in his name was
struck at a North Italian mint in 81 B.C. while he fought for Sulla against
leaders of the Marian Party, such as Carrinas, Norbanus and Carbo. The
obverse type of Pietas alludes to his surname Pius, and the reverse type of
the elephant recalls the accomplishment of his ancestor Lucius Caecilius
Metellus, who in 251 B.C. captured an army of Carthaginian elephants at
Panormus.
CRASSUS
M em ber of th e F ir s t T r iu m v ir a t e , 6 0 - 5 3 B -c -
Marcus Licinius Crassus, c. 1 1 5 / 1 1 2 - 5 3 A man of immense wealth,

and in the opinion of Cicero the most accomplished orator of his day,
Crassus engaged in a remarkable career in which he opposed Marius, Sulla,
Pompey the Great and Julius Caesar for leadership in the crumbling
Republic.
Born into an influential aristocratic family, Crassus was introduced to
the dangers of partisan politics when his father (the consul of 97 b . c .) per
ished in 87 b . c . during the massacres of Marius. As a result, Crassus fled to
Spain, where he was able to raise a formidable private army by 85 B .C .,
about the time he reached his 30th year. Then he offered his army to Sulla,
who returned to Italy in 83 B .C . after achieving peace with Mithradates VI
of Pontus.
Thus, Crassus became involved in the triumphant return of Sulla, and
re-established himself in a position of great power in Rome. Crassus was
especially avaricious, and focused principally on seizing the wealth of those
adherents to the Marian party who were condemned in the proscriptions of
Sulla. Throughout the 70s B.C. Crassus’ fortunes and political status rose,
though he was considerably jealous of the meteoric rise of Pompey, who late
in the 70s earned the title Magnus (meaning “the Great”), for his victories
over Marian remnants in Spain and North Africa.
Crassus had political clout and vast wealth, but he desired military
honor beyond what little he had earned as commander of Sulla’s right
wing at the Battle of the Colline Gate in 82 B.C. Thus, when a slave revolt
broke out in southern Italy under the leadership of Spartacus, it proved too
good an opportunity for Crassus to miss. The first two armies Rome sent
against Spartacus were led by the consuls, both of whom were roundly
defeated.
Spartacus’ army had now attracted fugitives, bandits and slaves of
every description, including Thracian, German and Celtic renegades, and
numbered 90,000 or more at its height. Spartacus’ original idea of march
ing the length of Italy and crossing the Alps to freedom, was abandoned
when his massive army decided instead to continue plundering Italy, and
so the army traveled all the way back to the “toe” of Italy, defeating every
Roman army sent against it.
Crassus gained the proconsular command in 72 B.C. and led six
legions against Spartacus. His legions ended the revolt by crushing the
rebels in Lucania, and for this he earned a minor triumph (ovatio) in 71
B.C. However, much of Crassus’ glory was stolen at the last moment by
Pompey, who returned from his campaigns against the Marians in Spain
and “mopped up” the remnants of Spartacus’ army. As a result, Crassus not
only had to share his military glory with the upstart Pompey, but also the
consulship of 70 B.C.
The next decade, from about 69 to 59 B .C ., was one of limited success
for Crassus. His political aim of forcing the elite to share authority with
the common man was strongly opposed, but he was none-the-less able to
revoke many of Sulla’s laws. The one realm in which Crassus joined the
elite (optimates) was in their opposition to the growing power of Pompey,
who was in the East putting an end to piracy and defeating Mithradates VI
(who had risen against Rome a third time). Though Pompey’s gains were
staggering, he gave much to his vetarans, which angered the senators.
The major crisis in Italy during Pompey’s absence was the conspiracy of
Lucius Sergius Catilina, a man who, like Crassus, enriched himself during
Sulla’s conscriptions of 82 B.C. His radical agenda was repeatedly thwarted
by conservatives, and so, upon being denied the consulship of 62 B.C., he
headed a minor revolution backed by the rural poor. The orator Cicero,
then consul, easily crushed the revolt, which he subsequently exploited by
magnifying its importance as a “conspiracy” against the state. Pompey
returned to Rome late in 62 B.C., after the ordeal had come to an end.
The last seven years of Crassus’ life were quite eventful. By about 65
B .C ., Crassus had gained a new ally in Julius Caesar, a man in his late 30s
who had remarkable talent as a politician, and who held similar anti-elitist
views on government. Most importantly, Caesar was heavily in debt — a
problem Crassus was able to help him resolve. In 63 Caesar worked hard to
distance Crassus from Catiline — Crassus’ partner in the censorship —
whose failed ‘conspiracy’ caused the death of thousands of his supporters.
With Crassus’ patronage, Caesar rose considerably in office, and in 59 B.C.

was elected consul. Indeed, it was Caesar who convinced Crassus to join
forces with his enemy Pompey, who had returned from the East laden with
booty and fame.
Thus, the First Triumvirate, an unofficial pact which tied the
resources and destinies of Crassus, Pompey and Caesar, was founded in 60
B.C., after Caesar had won his election to the consulship for the year fol
lowing. From this arrangement, Caesar received a five-year proconsular
command in Gaul, and thus began his famous campaigns.
Largely due to the negotiating skills of Caesar, the Triumviral pact
was renewed in 56 B.C. at the Conference of Luca, thus ending the threat
that Pompey would lend his credibility and resources to the cause of the
optimates. The three men carved up the Roman world by attaining five-
year proconsular commands: Crassus in Syria, Pompey in Spain and Caesar
in Gaul. Meanwhile, in 55 B.C., Crassus became consul for a second time,
an honor that he shared with Pompey.
Despite all of his success and influence, Crassus knew he lacked an
essential ingredient: military distinction. The reputations of both Pompey
and Caesar had grown from their achievements at the head of armies, and
Crassus had done little. Even his signal victory over Spartacus was over
looked, for Pompey had robbed him of the glory he deserved. As such,
Crassus went to Syria with the idea in mind of waging war against the
Parthians — a relatively new foe through whom he could win the distinc
tion he so desperately desired.
But this venture was not to be a success. Indeed, it ranked among the
most shameful defeats in Roman history. With difficulty, Crassus raised an
army, and set out for Syria late in 55 B.C., taking with him Cassius, one of
the future assassins of Caesar. In the following year Crassus advanced into
western Mesopotamia, and in 53 had marched deeply into Parthian terri
tory. However, Crassus’ eagerness for victory outstripped his skill as a gen
eral, and he was easily outmaneuvered by the commander Surenas (acting
for king Orodes II), who hemmed him in and steadily killed off his legion
naires with volleys of arrows.
In the disorganized retreat, Crassus was killed by treachery. A great
many soldiers died, and even more importantly for the wounded Roman
pride, the legionary eagles (military standards) were captured. The recov
ery of these eagles was later of great importance to Octavian (Augustus),
who extensively celebrated the fact on his own coinage. Thus ended the
considerable, but hollow career of Crassus, who, for all his wealth, patrons
and friends, failed to achieve the true power he desired.
The only coinage attributable to Crassus are Syrian

N u m ism a tic N o t e :
tetradrachms bearing the immobilized types of the Philip Philadelphus and
Crassus’ monogram and Syrian bronzes dated to the 12th and 13th year of
the Pompeian Era. Additionally, a reference to his Parthian campaign may
be found on denarii struck by his son, Publius Licinius Crassus, the mon
eyer of c. 55 B.C. The reverse of the son’s denarii (Cr. 430/1) show Roma
standing next to a horse, presumably a reference to the 1,000 Gallic horse
men the son brought to the campaign, or perhaps to a defeated Parthian
cavalry. Crassus’ son accompanied his father on the campaign, and died
leading a cavalry engagement
POMPEY THE GREAT

M em ber of th e F ir s t T r iu m v ir a t e ,
6 0 - 5 3 B .C .
Fa t h e r of P o m pey J u n io r and S extus P o m pey

H u sba n d o f J u l ia ( d . of Ju l iu s C a esa r )
S o n -i n -l a w of M etellu s P iu s S c ip io a n d
J u l iu s C a esa r
Gnaeus Pompeius “ Magnus,” 106-48 B .C . Few Romans generals were as

talented as Pompey, who earned his surname Magnus (“the Great” ) at the
age of 23 while campaigning in North Africa. It was his struggle with Julius
Caesar and Crassus that defined Roman rulership during the post-Sullan
age, and set the stage for the civil wars that led to the foundation of the
Empire.
Pompey the Great was the son of Pompeius Strabo, a man who, along
with Sulla, ushered in the era of warlords that caused the half-century col
lapse of the Republic. Strabo had won important victories in the Social
War, but afterwards refused to disband the large army he had built from his
clientela. The senate was unable to force Strabo to give up his command, and
so, when Strabo died in 87 B.C., the army passed into the hands of his son,
Pompey the Great, who had fought at his father’s side in the Social War.
Thus, the return of Sulla from his campaigns against Mithradates VI
in the East spelled a great opportunity for Pompey the Great, who had a
large army anxiously awaiting a cause. Sulla intended to oust the Marian
Party, which had assumed control in Rome during his absence. Sulla was
glad to have Pompey as an ally and together they waged war on Rome,
finally earning a signal victory in 82 B.C. at the Battle of the Colline Gate.
Italy now belonged to Sulla, and Pompey had shared prominently in the
victory.
However, many Marians had fled to Sicily and North Africa, where
they planned to continue their struggle. Since Sulla had plenty to take
care of in Italy, he made Pompey a propraetor and empowered him to hunt
down the renegade Marians, which he did with exceptional cruelty. Since
Pompey’s wars were against Romans, the only popular part of his campaign
occurred in North Africa, where he defeated Gnaeus Domitius, who had
allied himself with the Numidian usurper Iarbal.
Pompey returned to Rome in 81 B.C., and extorted a triumph from
Sulla who, as dictator, was busy re-establishing senatorial authority and
revoking the populist laws of Marius. For good measure, the 25-year-old
Pompey was given the honorific cognomen Magnus (“the Great”), by
which he is best known to history.
After holding the consulship in 80 B.C., Sulla grudgingly retired from
his dictatorship in 79 B.C., and died in the year following. With the great
liberator and dictator gone, Marcus Aemilius Lepidus (the consul of 78
B.C. and an ally of Pompey) supported in Etruria a revolt, which his own
propaganda had provoked. The senate entrusted Pompey and Lepidus’ co
consul Catulus with the task of restoring order, which they did by 77 B.C.
Having learned well from his father’s example, Pompey refused the
senate’s order to disband the army he had assembled to defeat Lepidus, and
from a position of great strength he was able to extort a command in
Spain. There, Metellus Pius had been waging war since 79 B.C. against the
rebel Quintus Sertorius (who had established his own “Spanish Empire”
after he was proscribed by Sulla in 83 B.C.). Pompey arrived in 76 or 75
B.C., and he and Metellus finally defeated Sertorius in 72 B.C.
Meanwhile in Italy, a massive slave revolt (called the Servile War)
had erupted in Capua in 73 B.C. under the leadership of a Thracian gladia
tor named Spartacus. The slave army was invincible as it traveled the
length of Italy twice, ravaging the countryside and defeating one consular
army after another. However, the tide turned in 72 B.C., when one of
Pompey’s foremost opponents in Rome, Marcus Licinius Crassus, defeated
Spartacus’ army in Apulia. Sensing a great opportunity, Pompey led his
armies from Spain to southern Italy in 71 B.C., just in time to mop up the
shattered remnants of Spartacus’ army.
In doing so, Pompey robbed Crassus of the glory he, alone, justly
deserved. Crassus was only granted a minor triumph (omtio), and Pompey
took liberal credit for victories in Spain and Italy, even though in both
cases he was not the principal commander. Crassus, who had always been
envious of the upstart Pompey, was now justifiably angry at him, especially
since he had to share the consulship of 70 with Pompey. However, the two
men cooperated more than might have been expected, revoking many of
Sulla’s elitist laws. The legislative tide had once again turned in favor of
the common man.
As remarkable as Pompey’s accomplishments had been thus far, the

future held even greater glory. In 67 B.C., Pompey gained a command to
combat the piracy which had become so rampant in the Mediterranean.
He was remarkably successful in this endeavor, finishing off the pirates
within three months. In 66 B.C. he was given a command against the Pon
tic king Mithradates VI, who had been waging his third war against Rome
since 74 B.C.
Pompey immediately put Mithradates on the run, defeating him
repeatedly. The Pontic king became so unpopular with his war-weary sub
jects that his son, Pharnaces II, staged a revolt and Mithradates committed
suicide in 63 B.C. With the Third Mithradatic War over, Pompey set about
securing Roman interests in the East and reorganizing the territories.
Much to the dismay of the senate, he did this without its approval, and
even without its consultation, for in the process he was establishing a
power base for his future ventures.
Behaving with the audacity of a Hellenistic monarch, Pompey trans
formed Pontus, Cilicia and Syria into provinces, and made client king
doms of Armenia, Cappadocia, Colchis, Galatia and Judaea. Pompey was
especially generous to his veterans, whom he richly rewarded with land
grants. Despite selfish actions, Pompey still returned to Rome with enough
war booty that the Republic became solvent for the first time in about
three decades. A t long last, Rome and her vast territories were at peace,
and economic prosperity had returned.
During Pompey’s absence in the East, Crassus had made every effort
to defame him, for he was now more envious than ever. For all his wealth
and influence, Crassus lacked the military glory of Pompey, and in this era
of warlords, battle glory was an essential ingredient for those who desired
supreme authority. To make matters worse, the wealth Pompey had person
ally amassed in the East now outstripped even that of Crassus.
But the two men were destined to unite, for they had a common
enemy in the senate. Thus, when the senate opposed Pompey’s arrange
ments in the East after-the-fact, these two old enemies came to terms. In
60 B.C. an anti -optimates coalition known as the First Triumvirate was
born, which included Pompey, Crassus and a new man on the political
front named Julius Caesar. Caesar had recently come to prominence under
the patronage of Crassus, and had been elected to the consulship of 59 B.C.
To seal the deal, Pompey married Julia, the daughter of Julius Caesar by his
first wife Cornelia.
Though the First Triumvirate was a private pact without legal sanc
tion from the senate, it proved to be remarkably effective. Caesar pushed
Pompey’s legislation through the senate, and in return earned a remarkable
five-year appointment in Gaul.
However, the senate and the optimates tried to lure Pompey to their
cause in hopes he would abandon Crassus and Caesar. Thus, in 56 B.C.
Caesar called for a conference at Luca, at which the Triumvirate was
renewed. Crassus and Pompey were elected to the consulship of 55 B.C.,
and by the Lex Trebonia were given virtually unlimited authority. The
Triumvirs established their territories: Pompey took Spain (which he ruled
by proxy), Caesar retained Gaul, and Crassus chose Syria, from which he
planned to invade Parthia.
If Crassus conducted the Parthian war successfully, he would gain the
military glory he needed to round out his wealth and political clout. How
ever, Crassus led his legions into an ambush near Carrhae in 53 B.C., and
was defeated so shamefully that even in modern times it is considered one
of the worst defeats suffered by the Romans. With the death of Crassus in
53 B.C., and the death in 54 B.C. of Pompey’s wife Julia (who was equally
devoted to her father, Caesar), the two remaining Triumvirs were destined
to collide.
Caesar was winning important victories in Gaul, which he popular
ized in Rome by sending back his memoirs of the campaigns. Caesar’s con
quest was complete by 51 B.C., for in 52 B.C. he had defeated a Gallic
confederation under the leadership of Vercingetorix. In Italy in the mean
time, Pompey had become increasingly allied with the senate. He had
been awarded a sole-consulship so he could restore order in Rome, which
had suffered so greatly from gang warfare that even the senate house was
burned in 52 B.C. The senate was anxious to have Pompey as an ally, for
they feared the growing authority of Caesar.
If Caesar returned to Rome without his army, he would be at the
mercy of Pompey and the senate, and no doubt would be charged with seri
ous crimes. Caesar was now in a dangerous position. The threat was espe
cially real, because Pompey was the sole-consul (in 52 B.C.), and was on
good terms with the senate. Caesar thus proposed that he and Pompey
simultaneously disband their armies. Though the senate had approved the
measure, it was vetoed by the consul Gaius Claudius Marcellus. On Janu
ary 7, 49 B.C. the senate demanded that Caesar (alone) disband his armies
and forfeit his Gallic command. Caesar did not comply, and Pompey was
thus given the task of defending Rome from Caesar.
Caesar wasted little time in invading Italy. Rome offered no serious
resistance, as Pompey and many senators fled to Greece to mobilize their
forces. Caesar first secured Spain, and then pursued Pompey in Greece,
where his attempted naval blockade at Dyrrhachium was easily thwarted.
However, Pompey seems to have been pressured into engaging in a pitched
battle at Pharsalus on August 9, 48 B .C ., where he lost severely, and about
20,000 of his men surrendered.
Pompey fled from the battle, and is said to have even considered seek
ing asylum with the Parthian king Orodes II, with whom he recently had
been in communication. Instead, Pompey proceeded to Egypt, where he
was stabbed to death by courtiers of king Ptolemy XIII while disembarking
on September 28.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : With the possible exception of provincial aes of
Pompeiopolis (which bear no dates), no portrait coins of Pompey the

Great were struck during his lifetime. Pompey struck only three issues of
coinage. The first is an excessively rare aureus struck in 71 B.C. for his tri
umph of that year. The remaining two — denarii — were struck from 49-
48 B.C., and must be associated with his preparation for war with Caesar.
As such, they most likely were struck at (what seems to be) two different
mints in Greece.
Pompey’s portrait does, however, appear on many issues struck by his
sons from 46 to 40 B.C., most of which are denarii. Though the majority of
these were struck by Sextus Pompey, a series of now-rare denarii was also
struck by Pompey Junior on which the style of the portrait is distinctly
Hellenistic. Though Pompey’s features are far from idealized on these
coins, the large, upward gazing eyes and the crest of hair above his fore
head are imitative of the style employed for Alexander the Great. Indeed,
this is the only regular appearance of this style of portrait on a Roman coin
until the reign of Constantine the Great (A.D. 307-337), when the
Greek-inspired ‘heavenward gaze’ was again adopted.
On bronzes, Pompey’s image occurs in the guise of the two-faced
Janus on asses struck by Sextus Pompey. Portrait bronzes were also struck
at Pompeiopolis, a self-named city that Pompey “founded” in Cilicia on
the ruins of the antique city of Soli (which by then had been virtually
abandoned) and repopulated it with the pirates he had defeated in his
campaign of 67 B.C. The city’s coins bearing his portrait (and dates based
on an era beginning in 66 B.C.) were struck there well into Imperial times.
POMPEY JUNIOR
S on of Po m pey the G reat a n d M u c ia
B roth er of S extus P om pey
Gnaeus Pompeius (Junior), 79-45 B.C. As the

eldest son of Pompey the Great, Pompey Junior
was destined to be involved in his father’s career.
Unlike Sextus Pompey, his younger and more
resourceful brother, Pompey Junior was considered by his contemporaries
to be cruel and unintelligent.
His first notable action was a naval victory in which he destroyed

transports Julius Caesar had sent to the army he had assembled in Greece
to oust Pompey’s forces from Dyrrhachium (which they did early in 48
B.C.)* Early in the African War, he occupied the Balearic Islands and after
the Pompeians were defeated by Caesar at Thapsus in April, 46 B.C., he
went to Spain, where he linked up with his brother and the turncoat Titus
Labienus.
The Pompeians chose Spain not only for its strategic importance, but
also because it was in the midst of a revolt against Quintus Cassius, the
man whom Caesar had left in charge since 49 B.C. In Spain, the brothers
and Titus Labienus raised 13 legions and assumed control of the South of
Spain. But their temporary rise to power ended when Caesar came to
Spain to oust them. After some skirmishes, the Caesarean and Pompeian
armies clashed at the Battle of Munda on March 17, 45 B.C. Though Sex
tus Pompey and many of his followers were able to flee, Titus Labienus died
in battle and Pompey Junior was captured and executed.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : Much like his father, Pompey Junior died before the
era of ‘lifetime portraiture’ on coinage had debuted at Rome, and so his

bust only occurs on coinage struck posthumously. In Pompey Junior’s case,
however, there are only two such instances — a very rare denarius struck
within months of his death, and a rare aureus struck by his brother in S ic
ily in 42 B.C., upon which his bust confronts that of his father on the
reverse. Pompey Junior issued denarii with the portrait of his father (which
are discussed above, under Pompey the Great).
SEXTUS POMPEY
S on of Po m pey the G reat a n d M u c ia
B ro th er of P o m pey J u n io r
Sextus Pompeius Magnus, 6 7 -3 5 The legacy

of Pompey the Great did not die when he was mur
dered in Egypt in 48 B.C., but was handed down to
his two sons throughout the lifetime of Julius C ae
sar and nearly a decade beyond. The youngest of these sons, Sextus
Pompey, was a remarkably resourceful naval commander whose life bears
favorable comparison to that of the fugitive Greek king Demetrius
Poliorcetes.
After the Battle of Pharsalus in the Summer of 48 B.C., Sextus
Pompey accompanied his father to Lesbos, then to Egypt, and after the lat
ter was murdered there, Sextus Pompey fled West to North Africa. Caesar
pursued him there, and defeated him at the Battle of Thapsus in April 46
B.C. But Sextus Pompey escaped yet again, and found refuge with his older
brother, Pompey Junior, in Spain.
While there, Sextus Pompey commanded the garrison of Corduba
against Caesar at the Battle of Munda in March of 45 B.C. There, yet again,
the Pompeians lost to the Caesareans. Though the defeat was decisive
(and his elder brother Pompey Junior was captured and executed), Sextus
Pompey escaped once more. He soon gathered an army, with which he
harassed Carrinas and Pollio, the governors of Further Spain.
Following the murder of Julius Caesar in mid-March, 44 B .C ., the
political environment erupted. As soon as Antony left for his command in
Cisalpine Gaul (late in 44 B .C .) , Cicero went on the offensive. By February
of 43 B .C ., based on lobbying by Cicero and the future Triumvir Lepidus,
Antony had been declared a public enemy, and the senate had given Sex
tus Pompey command of the Roman fleet (Praefectus classis et orae mariti-
mae). However, opinion — once again — was quickly reversed; within
months the foundation of the 2nd Triumvirate saw Antony restored and
Sextus Pompey was declared an enemy in the proscriptions.
Thus, Sextus Pompey’s suspicion of the senate’s resolve served him
well, for he had temporarily based himself at Massalia. Sextus Pompey
responded to his being named a public enemy by using his new fleet to res
cue other fugitives of the Caesarean proscriptions, and to occupy Sicily.
From that island base he began to blockade the western coast of Italy. This
act brought reprisals from the Triumvirs, who in 42 b . c . sent Octavian’s
friend, the legatus Salvidienus, to oppose Sextus Pompey.
After some initial success near Rhegium, Salvidienus was severely
defeated off the coast of Messana. Sextus Pompey assumed the fanciful
title “son of Neptune” after this important victory, and began to receive
refugees from the Republican defeat that had occurred at Philippi in O cto
ber 42 b . c . Among those who joined his ranks were Murcus, a commander
who initially was an asset but who later fell out of favor.
Since Sextus Pompey not only was popular in Rome, but seemingly
was impossible to defeat, the Caesarean strategy shifted from warfare to
diplomacy. In 40 b . c . Octavian married Scribonia, a relative of Sextus
Pompey, and in the following year, with the pact of Misenum, Octavian
and Antony promised him an augurship and a consulship, and gave him
control over Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica and Achaea in exchange for his
promise to supply grain to Italy.
This truce lasted until 38 B .C ., when Octavian took command of the
Roman fleet and waged war against Sextus Pompey, whom he branded a
pirate chief. Though Octavian met only defeat in the first year, he bartered
with Antony at the Treaty of Tarentum to get 120 new vessels, and
renewed his efforts in 36 b . c .
The triumvir Lepidus, based in North Africa, joined the effort by
landing 14 legions in Sicily. However, Lepidus proved to be of no help, for
in August he used his legionary might to try to extort control of Sicily

from Octavian, who resisted the offer and instead challenged him. Lepi
dus’ legions defected, and he was expelled from the Triumvirate. Octavian
was now able to focus on the naval campaign against Sextus Pompey,
whom he defeated at the Battle of Naulochus in September 3, 36 B.C.
As was his custom, Sextus Pompey escaped yet again, but the legend-
ary commander’s luck ran out when he sailed to the East, hoping to estab
lish a base in Asia Minor. By this point in time, Marc Antony was in
control of the East, and Sextus Pompey was defeated in 35 B.C. by forces of
Antony led by the general Ahenobarbus (who was Antony’s governor of
Bithynia at the time) and Plancus, after which he was executed by Marcus
Titius.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : Since the main source of the Pompeian glory was its
fleet, most issues show galleys, the sea god Neptune, or other objects
related to naval exploits. The title awarded Sextus Pompey by the momen
tarily liberated senate early in 43 B.C., Praefectus classis et orae maritimae,
(by which he was given command of the Roman fleet in the West), is
proudly trumpeted in his coin inscriptions.
JULIUS CAESAR
M em ber of th e F ir s t T r iu m v ir a t e ,
6 0 - 5 3 B -c -
D ic t a t o r f o r L if e , 44 b .c .
G ran dun cle and A d o p t iv e Fa t h e r of A u g u st u s
(O c t a v ia n )
H u sba n d of C o r n e l ia , P o m p e ia and C a l p u r n ia
C o m p a n io n o f S e r v il ia (m . of Br u tu s) and Q ueen C leo pa tr a V II

Fa t h e r of J u l ia ( w . of P om pey th e G reat) and
P t o l e m y X V ( c a l l e d ‘C a e s a r io n ’)
S o n -i n -la w of C in n a
F a t h e r -i n -la w of P o m pey the G reat
Gaius Julius Caesar, 100-44 Perhaps the most famous of all Romans,
Julius Caesar hailed from a respectable, but not stellar, family of the gens
Julia . He was nephew to the wife of the dictator Marius, and received a
back-handed compliment from Marius’ enemy, Sulla (dictator, 82-79 B.C.)
when he commented that in Caesar he saw many Mariuses.
Julius Caesar came to prominence relatively late in life. Indeed, while
serving as a quaestor in Spain in 69 B.C., Caesar gazed upon a monument
to Alexander the Great, and was overcome with shame. While at age 31
Caesar had accomplished so little, Alexander had already conquered the
world. In this same year, at the far end of the Mediterranean, his future
lover Cleopatra VII was bom.
His early career was a model of strict adherence to the cursus hon-
orum, and as such was unremarkable. However, by 65 B.C., during his
aedileship, he became an ally of the immensely wealthy Marcus Licinius
Crassus. The reason for Caesar’s association with Crassus was that he was
heavily in debt, and Crassus had the means to solve his problem. Crassus,
like Sulla before, recognized the many skills of Caesar and realized it would
benefit him greatly to have Caesar as an ally.
Throughout his life, Caesar was married three times. His first wife,
Cornelia (who died in 68 B.C.), was the daughter of Cinna, the famous
henchman of Marius. Next, in 67 B.C., he married Pompeia, the grand
daughter of Sulla, whom he divorced in 61 B.C. (for “Caesar’s wife must be
above suspicion” ), and in 59 B.C. he married Calpumia, the daughter of
Piso Caesoninius (the consul of 58 B.C.), and remained married to her
until his death, ignoring her warnings against attending the senate meet
ing at which he was murdered. Caesar was notorious for his many affairs, of
which the two most serious were Servilia, the mother of his assassin Bru
tus, and queen Cleopatra VII of Egypt.
In 63 B.C. Caesar won his first major political victory by engineering
his election as pontifex maximus, the leadership position of Rome’s priest
hood. Soon thereafter, in 62 B.C., Caesar was implicated in the First Cata-
line Conspiracy, a movement backed by Crassus in which the rural poor
were to rise up and murder the consuls (one of whom was Cicero). In truth
there was little to the charges, but Cicero amplified the matter for his own
political gain.
Later in that same year, another of Caesar’s future allies, Pompey the
Great, returned to Rome. Pompey and Crassus were sworn enemies. How
ever, Pompey now had the upper hand, for he had rid the Mediterranean
of pirates, defeated the Pontic king Mithradates VI, and reorganized the
Roman east. In the process Pompey not only added to his already consider
able military glory, but he had seized so much booty that he was now even
wealthier than Crassus.
Caesar’s involvement in politics, and especially in opposing the sen
ate, continued to grow. After his governorship in Hispania Ulterior (‘Far
ther Spain’) ended in 60 B.C., Caesar waited outside Rome anticipating a
triumph and asked of the senate that he be permitted to run for the consu
late. When the senate refused, Caesar surrendered his anticipated triumph
and allied himself with Crassus and Pompey. This informal pact, known as
the First Triumvirate, was sealed by the marriage of Julius Caesar’s daugh
ter, Julia, to Pompey.
N ot surprisingly, Caesar was now allowed to stand for election, and
indeed won the consulship for 59 B.C. Pompey and Caesar worked
together against the senate, with Caesar forcing through Pompey’s legisla
tion, and in return having his own minor provincial appointment trans
formed into the Lex Vatinia, by which Caesar was not only given a five-year
proconsular command in Cisalpine Gaul, Illyricum and Gallia Narbonen-
sis, but given command of four legions for that same period. So long an
army command was exceptional in the Republic.
After finishing his consulship, Caesar remained outside Rome for the
first 3 months of 58 B.C., until Cicero had been exiled and Cato had been
sent to Cyprus. Caesar then departed to Gaul to begin what would be
turned into a 9-year effort to pacify Gaul and to enlarge his own reputa
tion. By conquering Gaul, Caesar hoped to conquer Rome itself. During
his first term in Gaul, Caesar traveled widely, launching a minor invasion
of Britain and twice crossing the Rhine. But the political front in Rome
was equally treacherous, for the senate and the optimates were warming up
to Pompey, and trying to lure him into abandoning Crassus and Caesar. So
in 56 B.C., Caesar organized a conference at Luca, by which the Triumvi
rate was renewed. Crassus and Pompey jointly held the consulship in 55
B.C., and by the Lex Trebonia had been given virtually unlimited powers.
A t the conference, the three men carved up the Roman territories
through their five-year proconsular commands. Pompey received Spain,
Caesar kept Gaul, and Crassus chose Syria, for he had a not-so-secret
desire to invade Parthia, and in the process gain the military distinction he
needed to complement his wealth. In 53 B.C., Crassus invaded Parthia, but
his over-zealous nature caused him to fail on a monumental scale, and
Crassus died a shameful death during the retreat near Carrhae.
It was during Caesar’s second command in Gaul, beginning in 56
B.C., that he earned his most impressive victories. Each step of the way,
Caesar made the most of his daring exploits by writing commentaries on
them: the seven “books” of De Bello Gallico, (published in 52/1 B.C., either
as one work or chapter-by-chapter) and the three of De Bello Civili (pub
lished posthumously). The writing was fresh and concise, remarkably free
of rhetoric, and the subject matter was of great interest to the public.
Between the distribution of his commentaries and the actions of his politi
cal henchmen, Caesar was as well represented as if he himself was in
Rome.
Though Caesar’s exploits could be discussed at great length, let it suf
fice to say that he did not begin his career as a general competently.
Indeed, he barely escaped the consequences of serious tactical errors in his
first few engagements. But Caesar was a fast learner, and soon he gained
the upper hand on the Gauls. His conquest bears strong similarities to
those of Alexander the Great in the East, for he was always far outnum
bered while deep in enemy territory with weak or nonexistent supply lines.
In most cases, Caesar made up his strategies on the spot.
Caesar’s intuition and charisma as a commander of men gained him

the undying loyalty of his soldiers. Though unlike Alexander he would not
always lead from the front, he would rush to the front — at great personal
risk — whenever a portion of his army was loosing ground. Caesar’s per
sonal appearance (apparently bare-headed and wearing an easily distin
guished cloak) rallied his beaten-down and outnumbered soldiers time and
time again to great victories.
His most ambitious campaign was the siege of Alesia, where the
Gauls had put their differences aside to unite against Caesar. They hoped
that through incredibly superior numbers they could destroy the Roman
legions to the man. Leading the loose confederation of Gauls was Verc-
ingetorix, a chieftain who had closely observed the ways of Roman war
fare, making him especially dangerous.
Caesar had his own legions as well as some German cavalry units, but
he could get no further supplies, for he was cut off. All told, his forces
probably numbered less than 30,000. In Caesar’s first engagement with
Vercingetorix, he came into such great personal danger that the Gauls
managed to strip him of his sword. But the Romans won the engagement.
The Gauls had some 80,000 foot soldiers and a cavalry that was superior in
number to the Romans and Germans combined. Realizing that large num
bers of reinforcements were on their way, Vercingetorix withdrew to the
hill-fort of Alesia, which Caesar began to besiege by establishing a perime
ter siege wall nearly nine miles long on hilly terrain.
Caesar had only a fraction of the soldiers of the Gauls, and was con
stantly raided while building the fortifications. Furthermore, he did not
have sufficient men to guard the lengthy wall and its 23 “forts.” Caesar
diverted a nearby river to fill the defensive trenches with water, and filled
other trenches with sharpened sticks. The amount of earth moved and
timber felled was astounding, but this was the Roman way: to win a war
through strategy, hard manual labor and patience. A month passed, and
Vercingetorix was running out of food and water.
But now the real trouble arrived. Caesar tells us that some 250,000
armed Gauls arrived to relieve the siege of Alesia — a force that alone was
10 times that which Caesar commanded. This meant that Caesar, in
essence, was now the one being besieged, as if caught between a hammer
and an anvil. Caesar quickly ordered the construction of a similar wall to
defend their rear. O f similar construction, this wall was even longer, for it
was the exterior ring of the existing fortifications.
N ot only did the Romans have about 350,000 men to fight, but they
were also prevented from gathering food, water, timber or other essentials.
The fighting was incredibly fierce for many days: the Gauls were fighting in
a last-ditch effort for their sovereignty, and the Romans were fighting for
their very lives, and for Caesar. Each new attack presented a different
problem, one to which Caesar had to respond to immediately. This meant

re-forming cohorts, diverting his resources and reinforcing in person where
his men needed him most. If there was any breach, his entire army would
be destroyed. Finally, he drove off the relief army and starved Vercinge
torix and his renegade army into capitulation.
Caesar’s undying courage under the worst imaginable circumstances is
almost beyond belief. Whereas most commanders would have withdrawn
or surrendered, Caesar fought on, for he needed to achieve his goals. That
his soldiers did not desert him is much to Caesar’s credit. After Alesia,
Caesar’s men continued to fight in Gaul, finishing off the few remaining
tasks, some of which were nearly as perilous.
Meanwhile in Rome, the rivalry between Pompey and Caesar was
magnified. In 54 B.C., Julia, the wife of Pompey and the daughter of C ae
sar, died, and in 53 B.C., Crassus was killed. Now, there was little to bind
the two, and the geographical separation did not help matters. The senate
was becoming alarmed about the power Caesar was amassing (and espe
cially his large and loyal army), and so once again it allied itself closely
with Pompey. This time, there was no “Conference of Luca” at which they
could settle their differences.
In 51 and 50 B.C., the conflict grew, for Caesar’s five-year appoint
ment in Gaul was coming to an end and his recent victory at Alesia had
raised his popularity among the people of Rome to new heights. His
legions were fiercely loyal to their commander. Caesar proposed that he
and Pompey disband their armies simultaneously. The senate first
approved this concept, which was then vetoed by the anti-Caesarian con
suls. Instead, on January 1, 49 B.C., the senate demanded that Caesar
alone disband his army before returning to Italy.
Realizing that he would be charged with crimes while at the mercy of
Pompey and his army, Caesar refused the senate’s demand. Meanwhile, the
senate gave Pompey authority to defend the Republic from Caesar, and on
January 10, Caesar crossed the Rubicon River with his legions. Though he
was unable to prevent the flight of Pompey to Greece, he took Italy with
the greatest of ease. Next, Caesar campaigned in Spain, where he defeated
Pompey’s lieutenants, Afranius and Petreius. In the meantime, his most
trusted comrade-in-arms, Titus Labienus (the father of the Labienus who
in 40 B.C. led the Parthian invasion of Syria), defected to Pompey.
Caesar’s next move was against Pompey himself. Caesar crossed over
to Greece to combat the forces Pompey had assembled in Epirus. On
August 9, 48 B.C., Caesar defeated Pompey at the battle at Pharsalus, cap
turing some 20,000 of Pompey’s men and sending Pompey in flight to
Egypt. But there was no safety for Pompey there, for he was murdered by
courtiers of King Ptolemy XIII while disembarking at Alexandria on Sep
tember 28.
Pompey’s head was then cut off and pickled, and we are told that
when Caesar arrived four days later, the sight of Pompey’s head caused him
to shed tears. Despite their opposition, Caesar recognized Pompey as a
great Roman, and felt his end was undignified. In any event, Caesar had
come to Egypt not only to pursue Pompey, but also to collect on some very
large loans made to the Lagid kings by Rabirius Postumus, loans which
Caesar had underwritten. However, what Caesar imagined would be a
short visit turned into an extended stay, and a very dangerous one at that,
for it resulted in the so-called Alexandrian War of 47 B.C.
Caesar had arrived in the midst of an inter-palace rivalry between the
siblings Ptolemy XIII and Cleopatra VII, who had jointly inherited the
throne from their father in 51 B.C. Caesar immediately took command in
Alexandria, and chose to support Cleopatra’s bid for the throne. Her
charm and courage had seduced Caesar, a seduction which was consum
mated in an amorous affair between the 5 2-year-old warlord and the 21-
year-old queen.
The Alexandrian War did not involve a large number of soldiers, but
it was very dangerous. On more than one occasion Caesar was nearly
killed. However, in Caesar’s most desperate hour, when all seemed cer
tainly lost, he and his legionnaires were rescued by a small army led by
Mithradates of Pergamum. On March 26, Ptolemy XIII fled, and was
drowned in the Nile.
Cleopatra was now queen again, and in the Egyptian tradition, she
married her 11-year-old brother, Ptolemy XIV and ordained him co-ruler.
Caesar stayed on for a luxurious cruise on the Nile with his new lover, but
soon left to solve other problems in Asia Minor.
In perhaps his most efficient war, Caesar defeated the rebel Pontic
king Pharnaces II at Zela in a five-day campaign during the Spring of 47
B.C. It was at this time he uttered the famous phrase Veni vidi vici (“I came,
I saw, I conquered” ). For Caesar this was sweet revenge, as Pharnaces II
had defeated his governor Calvinus at Nicopolis in the previous year.
Thereafter, Caesar settled many other affairs in the East (with Cleopatra,
in the meantime, giving birth to his son, Caesarion), and headed West.
Caesar arrived in Italy in July of 47 B.C. and stamped out a mutiny in
Campania, after which he made his way to Rome in October and resigned
his dictatorship. In December he departed for North Africa to battle more
Pompeians in the so-called “African War.” His campaigns were a success,
and resulted in the suicide of Brutus’ uncle Cato Uticensis at Utica, and a
crushing victory in April of 46 B.C. at Thapsus, where the commander
Metellus Pius Scipio committed suicide. Caesar returned to Rome on July
25th, having requested that Cleopatra join him there.
There was no end to the praise for Caesar. In addition to hailing C ae
sar dictator for the next decade, the senate awarded him four successive
COLLAPSE OF THE REPUBLIC ( IMPERATORIAL PERIOD) 5I
triumphs, for his victories in Gaul, Egypt, Pontus and North Africa. C leo
patra’s entourage arrived later in the year, and she stayed with Caesar at his
villa on the Tiber. Though Caesar was much beloved, the presence of
Cleopatra, loose talk of Caesar’s paternity of Caesarion, and the supposed
idea of making Alexandria a “second capital” to Rome, were not well
received by the conservative Romans.
However, Caesar still had more to accomplish. In November he set
out for Spain, where he hoped to stamp out the remaining Pompeians,
who were under the leadership of Pompey’s two sons. On March 17, 45
B.C., Caesar won an extremely difficult, but monumental victory at
Munda, resulting in the capture and execution of Pompey’s eldest son,
Pompey Junior. The victory was not complete, though, for the youngest
son, Sextus Pompey, managed to escape. Though he would never again
trouble Caesar, Sextus Pompey was a thorn in the side of Rome for the
next decade.
Caesar returned to Rome yet again, to celebrate his Spanish triumph
in October of 45 B.C. Now at the height of his power, he scarcely could
have imagined that he had less than six months to live, though by this
time the plot against his life may already have been formed. Meanwhile,
the senate heaped more honors on the great conqueror. On February 14,
44 B.C., he was given the title dictator perpetuus (dictator for life). In the
previous month he had placed his image on coinage. Both of these acts
were unprecedented in the history of Rome, and were identical to the hon
ors given to Greek kings of previous centuries.
Despite all that he had accomplished, Caesar still had visions of
Alexander the Great in his mind — he wanted to conquer the rest of Asia
as his hero had done nearly three centuries before. However, the Sibylline
Books prophesied that only a king could conquer Parthia, and Caesar was a
mere dictator.
Though no doubt the gestures were staged, Caesar’s chief lieutenant,
Marc Antony (who had run affairs in Rome during his absences in the last
five years), offered him the golden laurel of a king on three occasions,
which Caesar turned down each time. But it was known that he would ask
the senate to give him the title of king (rex) for use when he was outside of
Italy, though he would remain dictator in his own country. This, no doubt,
would ensure success against Parthia.
About one month after Caesar had been hailed “dictator for life,” he
was murdered in an annex of the the Theater of Pompey on the Campus
M artius (not the Senate House in the Forum, as is often reported) on the
Ides (15th) of March, bringing his grandiose plans to a halt. The plot was
well-concealed, and Caesar thus paid no heed to the warnings of his third-
in-command, Lepidus, only the day before, to beware of a conspiracy. In
all, about 60 vehemently Republican senators participated, and Caesar’s
body, riddled with stab wounds, fell lifeless at the base of a statue of
Pompey the Great. Leading the conspirators were Brutus and Cassius, two
men in whom Caesar had invested much hope. Indeed, Caesar had
recently appointed them to the two highest governmental posts in Rome.
Though the act of regicide was considered a noble one among
Romans, it is important to remember that not only was a dictatorship at
stake, but also the supremacy of the wealthy and high-born. As dictator,
Caesar would have continued to introduce “lower born” men and provin
cials into the senate (which he had enlarged to 900 members) and into
positions of power in his administration. To the aristocrats, this meant a
reversal of the social order that had so greatly benefited them since Rome’s
foundation. Caesar’s murder was equally an act of selfish practicality, as it
was an act in defense of the Republic.
A period of great chaos followed, in which Cleopatra fled Rome with
great haste, and Marc Antony maintained order, only later to have it chal
lenged by Caesar’s heir, young Octavian. The conspirators Brutus and C as
sius left Rome almost immediately, and departed Italy for good in August.
The combination of Antony’s stirring funeral eulogy, and the staging
of the Parilia games in honor of Caesar’s victory at Munda moved public
opinion strongly in favor of Caesar. His bequest of 300 sestertii per citizen
further endeared his memory to the Romans. When a comet appeared in
the skies over Rome in July of 44 B.C., many were convinced that it
embodied the soul of Caesar, for it occured during the public funerary
games being held in Caesar’s memory. Ever willing to exploit a political
advantage, his heir Octavian placed comets upon the heads of Caesar’s
statues, and in that same year secured both the deification of Caesar and
senatorial recognition of his status as Caesar’s heir.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : In January 44 B.C., Caesar became the first living
Roman to place his image on a coin struck at Rome, an action that shocked
his contemporaries and which no doubt contributed to the urgency of his
murder. With the exception of a very brief coinage struck by Flamininus in
Greece 150 years before, this had never before occured on Roman coinage.
Caesar’s “lifetime” portrait occurs only on denarii, but after his death his
portrait additionally occurs on gold and bronzes. Caesar’s posthumous por
trait coins were struck by his protege, Marc Antony, by various moneyers
who were sympathetic to the Caesarean cause, and by his adoptive son,
Octavian. The fallen dictator is shown wearing a laurel wreath, and often
also wearing a veil. Although a number of bronzes were struck with Caesar’s
portrait, only two gold pieces occur — a dual-portrait aureus of 43 B.C.
struck by Octavian to advertise himself as Caesar’s heir, and a restitution
aureus struck by the emperor Trajan (A.D. 98-117), which features an
unusual bare-headed portrait. These two aurei have portraits of very differ
ent styles, which has led some scholars to conclude that they are based on
different sculptural prototypes.
PTOLEMY XV (CALLED ‘CAESARION’)

S on of J u l iu s C a esa r and Q ueen C leo patra VII
Ptolemy X V Caesar (‘Caesarian’ ) Theos Philopator Philometor, 4 7 -30

B.C. Born in Alexandria on June 23, 47 B.C., to Cleopatra VII, the last
Greek queen of Egypt, Ptolemy XV (nicknamed “Caesarion” ) was reput
edly the son of Julius Caesar. Whether or not this was factual, Caesarion
probably would have succeeded his mother as the Roman-backed ruler of
Egypt had Julius Caesar remained in power at Rome.
Cleopatra’s association with Julius Caesar began shortly after the war
lord defeated Pompey the Great at the Battle of Pharsalus on August 9, 48
B.C. Having lost this signal battle, Pompey fled to Egypt with Caesar in fast
pursuit. Pompey was murdered at Pelusium on September 28 just as he was
disembarking; Caesar arrived on October 2, and soon realized that his
“visit” was going to become an extended stay, for Egypt had recently
undergone its own court revolution, and Caesar had gotten more than he
had bargained for.
Cleopatra had succeeded her father, Ptolemy XII Auletes, when he
died in 51 B.C., for she was his oldest child. She shared her reign with her
oldest brother, Ptolemy XIII, whom she married, for that was the custom in
Egypt. However, Cleopatra was expelled by the courtiers of her brother not
long after this, and she sought refuge in Syria.
Thus, after Pompey’s defeat and murder, Cleopatra turned to the
newly arrived Julius Caesar, a man whom she recognized as the undisputed
ruler of the Roman world. She seduced him into her private life and into
her struggle to regain the throne. It was during this tumultuous period, in
the fall of 48 B.C., that Cleopatra and Caesar began an affair that may
have resulted in the child Caesarion. The time-frame is tight, and in a best
case scenario, Cleopatra would have been pregnant just short of nine
months.
Caesar devoted himself to his Egyptian task (often called the A lexan
drian War), though he achieved it only with great difficulty. Indeed, a part
of the famous library went up in flames, and Caesar himself almost per
ished on more than one occasion. Late in March, 47 B.C., the tide turned
against Ptolemy XIII, as Caesar was rescued by the perfectly timed arrival
of an army led by Mithradates of Pergamum. Once Caesar’s victory was
complete, he arranged for his mistress Cleopatra to marry her 11-year-old
brother, Ptolemy XIV, ordaining him as co-regent.
It was Caesar’s intention that Caesarion would be heir to the Greek

dynasty in Egypt, an important kingdom which Julius Caesar (unlike oth
ers in Rome) hoped to shore up rather than to destroy. Caesar had
departed for Syria just weeks before Caesarion was born, and Cleopatra
made the long journey to Rome in time for Caesar’s great celebrations in
September and October of 46 B.C. She resided with Caesar until his mur
der in March 44 B.C., after which she and her entourage made a hasty
return to Egypt.
Upon returning to Alexandria, Cleopatra had her brother-husband
Ptolemy XIV murdered and replaced him with her 4-year-old son Caesa
rion, whom she married and made co-regent of her kingdom. In the sum
mer of 43 B.C., Cleopatra gained Roman recognition of Caesarion from
Publius Cornelius Dolabella, the consul suffectus who had replaced Julius
Caesar, and who subsequently gained the governorship of Syria. In
exchange for this recognition, Cleopatra gave Dolabella the four Roman
legions stationed in Egypt (which she was only too pleased to have an
excuse to expel). However, Dolabella soon lost the legions to Cassius.
In succeeding years Cleopatra became ally and lover to Marc Antony,
by whom she bore three more children, only one of whom (Cleopatra
Selene, the first wife of king Juba II of Mauretania) appears on coins.
Though Cleopatra’s association with Antony was promising, it made her
an enemy of young Octavian, Antony’s rival in the West. When Antony
lost to Octavian at the Battle of Actium in 31 B.C., Antony fled to Egypt.
In the following year, both Antony and Cleopatra committed suicide,
leaving Caesarion, then age 17, to the designs of Octavian, who promptly
murdered him on August 29 of 30 B.C. With the boy’s passing, the Lagid
dynasty of Ptolemaic Egypt was rendered extinct.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : Coins depicting Caesarion as an infant in his mother’s
arms were struck on the island of Cyprus, which was an important naval
station during the Hellenistic and early Imperial periods. It was captured
in 48 B.C. by Julius Caesar and shortly thereafter conferred upon Egypt.
Control of the island passed between Rome and Egypt several times in the
succeeding years, until Octavian claimed it for Rome after the deaths of
Marc Antony and Cleopatra in 30 B.C. A coin of Damascus formerly
thought to depict Caesarion is now reattributed to the reign of the
emperor Nero (A.D. 54-68), exactly one century later, based on a proper
reading of its date.
METELLUS PIUS SCIPIO

Im perato r , 4 9 (?) b .c .
A d o p t iv e S on of M etellu s P iu s
Fa t h e r -in -la w of P o m pey the G reat
Quintus Caecilius Metellus Pius Scipio, d. 46 B .C . The career of Metel

lus Pius Scipio arose from the patronage of Pompey the Great, who two
decades before had campaigned in Spain with Scipio’s adoptive father,
Metellus Pius (the consul of 80 B.C.). Though Scipio was descended of a
noble family, he apparently inherited none of his ancestors’ greatness, for
he was detested by his contemporaries.
Scipio’s political career was mere puppetry, and his military career was
as brief as it was degrading. Pompey the Great had married Scipio’s daughter
shortly before he had become sole-consul in the abortive elections of 52
B.C. However, in the final months of 52 B.C., Pompey elected as his co-con-
sul his new father-in-law, whom he also had just rescued from a bribery
charge. But one hand washed the other, and Scipio spearheaded the “war”
against Julius Caesar by introducing to the senate the legislation that
demanded that Caesar disband his legions and relinquish his command in
Gaul (January 7, 49 B.C.).
Caesar ignored the senate’s demand, crossed the Rubicon on January
10, 49 B.C., and invaded Italy. Pompey and his allies were taken by storm,
and had to flee to Greece. Shortly before this occurred, the senate had
granted Scipio the governorship of Syria, for which he had immediately
departed. When Scipio learned of Pompey’s flight, he gathered two
legions, apparently winning victories in the Amanus mountains, for which
he was hailed Imperator. He then delivered the legions to his son-in-law in
Thessaly (where he was confronted by Calvinus), apparently having
refused a bribe from Caesar to defect.
A t the Battle of Pharsalus (August 9, 48 B.C.), Scipio commanded
Pompey’s center. As the battle went in Caesar’s favor, both Pompey and
Scipio fled. Pompey went to Egypt, where he was murdered on September
28, as he was disembarking. Scipio headed to North Africa, where he took
up supreme command of the Pompeian remnants that had gathered there,
including Cato Ucitensis, Sextus Pompey and king Juba of Numidia.
Caesar’s subsequent travels to Egypt, Pontus and Italy allowed the
Pompeians to re-group for yet another war. In 46 B.C. Caesar arrived in
Africa, and the Pompeians were routed at Utica and at Thapsus (in April,
46 B.C.). The latter defeat was decisive, and was at the expense of Scipio,
who committed suicide after it became clear all had been lost.
BRUTUS
Im perator , 4 3 -4 2 b .c .
C o -c o n s p i r a t o r o f C a s s iu s
S on of M arcus Ju n iu s Brutus and S e r v il ia
H u sb a n d of P o r c ia and C l a u d ia
N eph ew o f C ato U t ic e n s is
B r o t h e r -in -la w of L e p id u s and C a s s iu s
Marcus Junius Brutus (adopted name Quintus

Caepio Brutus), 85 (or 79/8)-42 B .C . This amazing character has been
judged by history in two different lights: as a champion of liberty who
failed because of his virtues, or as a turncoat villain whom Dante placed in
the lowest circle of Hell. He is best remembered by historians for his lead
ing role in the assassination of Julius Caesar, and by numismatists for his
remarkable “Ides of March” coinage that subsequently advertised that fact.
Brutus claimed descent from Lucius Junius Brutus, who in 509 B.C. is
credited with expelling Tarquinius Superbus, the last of the kings to rule in
Rome. This same Brutus subsequently served as the first consul of Rome’s
fledgling Republic, and put his own children to death for their involve
ment in a plot to restore the Tarquian kings. On his mother’s side, Brutus
claimed descent from Servilius Ahala, who in the 5 th Century B.C. killed
Spurius Maelius, who was threatening to overthrow the Republic and
install himself as king.
Brutus was proud of his Republican ancestry, and thus depicted these
two ancestors, Brutus (the ancient) and Ahala, on the coinage he struck as
moneyer in 54 B.C. Indeed, the defense of the Republic, and the murder of
kings, was the hallmark of Brutus’ family.
A well-educated man belonging to the ruling elite of the Republic,
Brutus counted among his close friends Atticus, Cassius, Cato Uticensis,
Lepidus and Cicero, who declared Brutus to be “first among the younger
generation,” adding that he hoped he would soon be the “first man in the
state.” However, Brutus, like Seneca, was not entirely virtuous, despite his
adherence to Stoicism. Indeed, early in his career he is known to have
extorted 48 percent interest on loans to Greek cities in the East, even
though 12 percent was the legal maximum.
Also among Brutus’ friends was Julius Caesar, who viewed the young
man as his protege. Though Caesar engaged in many adulterous affairs
with women, his most serious was with Brutus’ mother, Servilia, who was
deeply in love with Caesar. Indeed, we are told that Caesar may have
believed that Brutus was his natural son, born of his affair with Servilia.
Despite all these connections, Caesar and Brutus had a complex rela
tionship, and Caesar considered Brutus to be positively unsympathetic.
Their first confrontation occurred when Brutus allied himself with Pompey
the Great, and thus took up arms against Caesar. Considering that Pompey
had killed Brutus’ father in 77 B.C., this seemed an odd choice, but in
terms of Republican causes, it was the noble choice. Even so, Caesar gave
orders that Brutus was not to be harmed, and after the Battle of Pharsalus
they reconciled, and Brutus was appointed as a legate in Cilicia.
Subsequently, in 46 B.C., Caesar appointed Brutus as proconsul of Cis
alpine Gaul — an extremely important post, and one well beyond Brutus’
qualifications. While serving in that capacity, Brutus remained loyal to
Caesar, even though in the meantime the latter had defeated and killed his
uncle, Cato Uticensis, in North Africa. Next, in 44 B.C., Caesar appointed
Brutus and Cassius to the two top praetorships in Rome. Brutus, who held
the top praetorship, the praetor urbanus, was also designated to share the
consulship of 41 B.C. with Cassius, his brother-in-law and future co
conspirator.
Caesar was now the top man in Rome, and perhaps as early as Sep
tember of 45 B.C., a conspiracy against his life had begun to form. By Feb
ruary 14 of 44 B.C., Caesar had achieved the unprecedented title “dictator
for life.” On February 15, 44 B.C. (and on two occasions thereafter), C ae
sar rejected Marc Antony’s offer of the royal diadem of a king, only to sub
sequently try to persuade the senate to give him a royal title for his actions
outside of Italy. Furthermore, he placed his image upon the coinage —
something that had never before occurred at Rome. Despite the deep debt
of gratitude that Brutus owed Caesar, such open acts of tyranny were intol
erable, and so a plot which involved some 60 men finally materialized.
The secret was so well-kept that even Cicero was not privy. It is
uncertain at which point Brutus became involved. Appian and Plutarch
tell us that Cassius pressured Brutus into participating, whereas Dio C as
sius suggests Brutus took the lead himself. In any event, Brutus’ good char
acter and ancestral legacy were an essential ingredient if the assassination
was to be perceived as an act of clear conscience.
The assassination occurred at the senate meeting on the Ides of
March (in March, the Ides falls on the 15th), 44 B.C. Caesar arrived late to
the meeting, and the conspirators were terrified that Caesar had been
warned; but he arrived none-the-less, and soon lay dead at the feet of a
statue of his former nemesis, Pompey the Great.
What became clear after the fact is that this was no coup or junta, but
rather an isolated act, to which there was no follow-up plan. Neither Lepi
dus nor Antony (who was co-consul with Caesar) were murdered, nor did
the conspirators have gifts for the public. They did not have the support of
the army, and had not even considered how they would calm Caesar’s vet
erans. Cicero, perhaps in resentment for having been excluded from the
plot, summarized it in six simple words in a letter to Atticus: “N o plan. No
thought. N o method.”
The murder of Caesar is often viewed as a noble act in the defense of

a venerable institution. But what institution? The conspirators would have
said the senate, and the right of the people to be ruled by a quasi-demo-
cratic form of government. Others, more accurately, would suggest it was
in defense of what the senate represented to the wealthy and privileged —
a guarantee that they would rule Rome. Caesar not only planned to keep
supreme power himself, but he would have “polluted” the senate and top
administrative and military posts with men of humble origins, allowing the
common man to take a share in power. Thus, it was the preservation of sta
tus for the wealthy and aristocratic — not the liberation from tyranny —
that was the heartfelt motive of the conspirators.
Brutus and Cassius occupied the Capitol after the murder, while A n t
ony convinced the senate on March 18 to declare a general amnesty and
also prevented Lepidus (whose troops had occupied the Forum) from tak
ing military action. But these were not acts of generosity by Antony, for he
did not want this great opportunity to slip by with a quick execution of the
conspirators. Instead, he planned to use it as a springboard for the
advancement of his own career.
Antony delivered an emotion-filled funeral oration for Caesar, and
public sentiment turned against the conspirators. Seeing no safety in
Rome, Brutus and Cassius left for calmer parts of Italy. They also ignored
their menial senatorial appointments (Brutus was first given a grain com-
missionership in Asia, and subsequently the governorship of Crete).
Indeed, they stayed in various cities along the western coast of Italy until
they finally fled to the East in August of 44 B.C.
Cassius went adventuring along the coast of Asia Minor and Syria
while Brutus went to Greece. There he gained the support of the governor
of Macedon, and also the support of the senate, which granted him and
Cassius proconsular commands, apparently late in February of 43 B.C. In
March, Brutus captured Gaius Antonius, the brother of Marc Antony, and
in the summer campaigned against the Bessi in Thrace, where he was
hailed Imperator.
While Antony and Octavian crossed over to Illyricum, Brutus and
Cassius met at Smyrna early in 42 B.C. and planned for the conflict by
attacking the Rhodians and Lycians, both of whom had formidable fleets
that could pose a threat to their rear. In the spring of 42 B.C. Cassius cap
tured Rhodes, and Brutus ravaged Lycia with the help of his fleet com
mander Casca. Brutus and Cassius met at Sardes in the summer after their
campaigns, and then departed to Greece to wage war against Antony and
Octavian.
Meanwhile in Rome, the political climate had changed. Antony and
Lepidus had joined forces with Octavian, and together they began to per
secute the conspirators who remained in Italy. Among the first to fall was
Cicero, who, although not a conspirator, had openly opposed the tyranny
of Antony and supported the Republican cause with his Philippics. In
response, Brutus executed Antony’s brother, Gaius Antonius, and became
somewhat fatalistic about his role in history. In a letter to Atticus, he sug
gested there was no more noble a position than his own, for if victorious
he would be the champion of the Republican cause, or he would be freed
from slavery by his death.
In the late summer of 42 B.C., the opposing armies met at Philippi in
northern Greece. Brutus and Cassius had agreed to a death pact in their
campaign against Marc Antony and Octavian. It occurred in two battles in
October, about three weeks apart. The first battle was won through some
fast action by Brutus, but ended with the suicide of Cassius, who seemingly
misinterpreted the outcome. The second began well for Brutus, who alone
faced Antony and Octavian, but soon turned against him. His forces
routed, Brutus sped away with a handful of close friends and committed
suicide on October 23, thus fulfilling his pact with Cassius.
There are two versions concerning what happened to Brutus’ body.
Plutarch tells us that Antony gave it a respectful funeral and sent the ashes
back to his mother in Rome. However, Suetonius and Dio Cassius suggest
that Octavian — bent on revenge — sent Brutus’ severed head via ship
back to Rome so it could be thrown at the feet of Caesar’s statue, but that
it was thrown overboard by superstitious sailors en route.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : Brutus is best known to numismatists for his “Ides of
March” denarii, which on the obverse bear his own portrait and on the
reverse shows a liberty cap flanked by two daggers above the inscription
EID. MAR. In the opinion of many numismatists, this is the most impres
sive of all Roman coins, for its reverse promotes the murder of Caesar as a
selfless act in defense of the Republic, yet the obverse features Brutus’ por
trait in the same fashion as that of the dictator he had killed. So remark
able was this coin type that it was even described by the ancient historian
Dio Cassius.
The other coins Brutus struck in gold and silver while preparing for
war with Antony and Octavian usually feature the goddess Libertas (Lib
erty), military trophies, priestly implements or have naval references. The
obverse design of aurei of the Thracian or Scythian king Koson are blatant
copies of Brutus’ coinage as moneyer, and some of them bear a monogram
that almost certainly represents the name of Brutus. Therefore, they
should be associated with Brutus’ actions in Thrace, where he was hailed
Imperator.
Brutus’ portrait appears on three issues, and though they all seem to
be derived from the same sculptural prototype, they differ in their treat
ment. Some are rather “Baroque” in appearance (the aurei of Servilius
6o HISTORY OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE: BIOGRAPHIES
Casca), others seemingly neo-Classical in their treatment (the aurei of

Pedanius Costa). The EID MAR denarii of Plaetorius Cestianus offer two
distinctly different busts: the so-called “plastic” type with softened fea
tures, and the “linear” type with strongly defined facial features.
A final mention is due the denarius of Lucius Servius Rufus, the mon
eyer of 41 B.C. who otherwise is unknown to history. The portrait on this
issue is certainly that of Brutus, as it compares so favorably with the
inscribed portrait issues Brutus himself struck. That there is no identifying
inscription makes perfect sense, for it would have been too blatant an
affront to the Triumvirs. However, it was struck at an opportune moment,
for in 41 B.C. the partisans of Antony and Octavian were very much at
war: Antony’s brother, Lucius Antonius, had extorted permission from the
senate to wage war on Octavian (resulting in the “Perusine War” ); and
Antony’s wife, Fulvia, was doing her best to undermine Octavian, who had
been saddled with the difficult task of settling 100,000 veterans. Amid all
this chaos and infighting, a portrait of Brutus — representing the orderly
Republic he had hoped to restore — is daring, but not out of place.
CASSIUS
I m p e r a t o r , 4 3 - 4 2 b .c .
C O -C O N SP IR A T O R A N D BRO TH ER -IN -LA W OF B r U T U S

H u sban d of Tertu lla
Gaius Cassius Longinus, d. 42 B .C . From the start of his career, Cassius

proved himself an able commander. When Crassus embarked for his inva
sion of Parthia in 53 B.C., Cassius was his quaestor. Indeed, it was Cassius
who warned Crassus that his final advance was foolhardy, but Crassus did
not listen, and forged on. In the engagement, both Crassus and his son
were killed, and it was incumbent upon Cassius to rally the retreating
armies.
Considering how severely shattered the Roman army had been, it is a
testimony to Cassius’ level head that he organized a successful retreat for
what remained of the legions. Cassius — who reputedly was often sarcastic
and ill-tempered, and certainly was a harsh disciplinarian — remained in
Syria, and two years later, in 51 B.C., repelled the invasion led by the
Parthian prince Pacorus I. For all he had done to protect Roman interests
in the east, Cassius established a fine reputation quite early in his career.
In 49 B.C. he served as tribune, and commanded a Pompeian fleet in
the Civil War of 49—48 B.C. However, he was not persecuted after
Pompey’s defeat at Pharsalus, but instead was pardoned by Caesar, who
appointed him as one of his legates. Indeed, Cassius may even have
accompanied Caesar on his lightning campaign against the Pontic king

Pharnaces II.
Back in Italy in 44 B.C., Cassius was appointed praetor peregrinus, the
second-highest command in the city of Rome; the highest office, praetor
urbanuSy was given to another protege of Caesar, Marcus Junius Brutus.
N ot only were Brutus and Cassius political allies, but Cassius was married
to one of Brutus’ half-sisters, Junia Tertulla. The two praetors were also
designated to share the consulship of 41 B.C. Little could Caesar have
known that these two young men whom he had supported, and indeed
promoted to the two highest offices in Rome, would conspire against him.
After his return from the Battle of Munda, Caesar was hailed “dicta
tor for life” by the senate on February 14, 44 B.C. Though he turned down
the golden diadem thrice offered to him by Marc Antony, Caesar had
made it clear that he would like to have that distinction bestowed upon
him for the time when he was outside of Italy. Furthermore, in January he
had placed his image on coinage — yet another unprecedented action. A
conspiracy to murder Caesar, which appears to have been formed by C as
sius, came to fruition on the Ides (15th) of March, 44 B.C., as a mob of 60
senatorial conspirators, including Brutus, stabbed Caesar to death in the
Theater of Pompey.
Immediately after the murder, Cassius and Brutus occupied the Capi-
toline, while Antony, who had shared the consulship with Caesar, con
vinced the senate to declare a general amnesty and prevented Lepidus
(whose troops had occupied the Forum) from taking military action. In the
aftermath, Cassius and Brutus went to rural locations in Italy, and ignored
their degrading senatorial appointments (Cassius was first given a grain
commissionership in Sicily, to which he responded “Am I the man to
accept an insult as if it was a favor?” and subsequently the governorship of
Cyrenaica). Instead, he and Brutus stayed in cities along the western coast
of Italy until they fled to the East in August of 44 B.C.
Cassius, having fled to Syria, was in familiar territory where his name
still commanded respect, and so he seized Syria from the legitimate gover
nor. Many others who either were involved in the conspiracy or who sym
pathized with the Republican cause, joined up with the refugee co
conspirators. Among those who offered their armies to Cassius were Mar-
cius Crispus, Staius Murcus and Caecilius Bassus.
Cassius’ ranks swelled by four additional legions from Publius Corne
lius Dolabella, the treacherous consul suffectus who had replaced Caesar
and subsequently gained the governorship of Syria. Dolabella confronted
Cassius in the Summer of 43 B.C., but committed suicide after he was
defeated by Cassius.
After the Battle of Mutina (at which Octavian defeated Lucius A nto
nius, the brother of Marc Antony), the senate gave Brutus and Cassius
supreme authority in the eastern provinces. But after Octavian forcibly

assumed power in Rome, the senate quickly reversed its decision and out
lawed the renegade Republicans. Meanwhile, both rebels were campaign
ing in the East to gather resources and allies for the struggle against
Antony and Octavian, who had since joined forces with Lepidus to found
the Second Triumvirate.
Cassius met with Brutus at Smyrna early in 42 B.C., after which he
subdued the island of Rhodes in the spring. In the summer he joined forces
with Brutus (who in the meantime had ravaged Lycia) at Sardes in Lydia,
and the two made their way to the northern Greece with their armies.
Upon arriving in Thrace, they encountered the Triumviral armies headed
by Antony and Octavian. The Republicans had the advantage, for not
only were they better equipped, but one of the opposing generals, O cta
vian, was seriously ill. However, Brutus and Cassius had agreed to a suicide
pact in the event they lost the battle, and it was this agreement, seemingly,
that proved to be their undoing.
The armies clashed in two battles — the first, at the beginning of
October, proving fatal for Cassius, the second, on October 23, proving
fatal for Brutus. Though the first battle was won by some clever actions by
Brutus, Cassius’ camp was captured, and when he saw messengers
approaching, he committed suicide. It is reported that he feared the worst,
that Brutus had been defeated and that all hope was lost. And so, Cassius
fulfilled his end of the suicide pact without wasting another moment.
This left Brutus in a bind, for now he had to lead both armies, and he
was the lesser general in any case. The next battle occurred about three
weeks later, and though it began in Brutus’ favor, it ended with his defeat,
after which he fulfilled his end of the suicide pact. One can only imagine
how the course of the western world might have been altered had Brutus
and Cassius emerged victorious, and Antony and Octavian (the future
Augustus) had perished.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : Though Cassius did strike several issues of coinage,
none of them bear his portrait. The two daggers on the reverse of Brutus’
EID MAR denarius not only represent the act of regicide, but more specifi
cally represent Brutus and Cassius as the principal conspirators. His most
interesting issue is a denarius that shows a rose and a diadem, above which
a crab holds an aplustre in its claws. His naval victory is represented by the
aplustre, the location by the crab (the symbol of Cos, near where the sig
nal battle occured) and the spoils of victory by the kingly diadem and the
rose (the symbol of Rhodes).
CORNUFICIU S
Im perato r , 42 b .c .
Quintus Cornuficius (Cornificius), d. 42 B.C. Cornuficius ranked among

the leading literati of the late Republic, and as a poet and orator was a
friend of Cicero and Catullus. But his talents were not limited to the writ
ten and spoken word, for he was a capable governor and general. In 48
B.C., Julius Caesar appointed him propraetor of Illyricum, in which capac
ity he played an important part in defending his province from the Pompe
ians. Caesar subsequently rewarded him in 47 B.C. with the augurship, a
permanent priestly office.
In 46 B.C. he was appointed to governorships in Syria and Cilicia,
and subsequently was made governor of Africa Vetus in 44 B.C. Following
the murder of Julius Caesar early in that year, Cornuficius refused to
acknowledge the authority of the Triumvirs, and sided with the senate in
the War of Mutina (43 B.C.). From his base in Africa, Cornuficius gave
military support to Sextus Pompey and gave refuge to many who had been
targeted in the Triumviral proscriptions.
In 42 B.C. Cornuficius was attacked by Titus Sextius, the governor of
the adjacent province of Africa Nova, and though initially successful in his
defense (for which he was hailed Imperator), he was defeated and killed
near Utica late in 42 B.C. He should not be confused with Lucius Comufi-
cius, the friend of Augustus and consul of 35 B.C. who is best remembered
for his unusual habit of riding an elephant in the streets of Rome.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : Although no portrait coins of Cornuficius were struck,
he is represented as the standing figure being crowned by Juno Sospita on

the reverse type he adopted. The coinage must date to 42 B.C., and it is
one of the last issues that can be considered Republican in character. Cor
nuficius makes reference to his province of Africa, to his augurate and
Imperatorship, and presumably to his Lanuvine origin (explaining his
choice of Juno Sospita for a reverse type).
SALVIDIENUS
Quintus Salvius Salvidienus Rufus, d. 40 B.C. A boyhood friend of O cta

vian, Salvidienus was named a legate in 42 B.C. to protect Italy against
Sextus Pompey, who had blockaded the Italian coast with the navy placed
under his command. Initially, Salvidienus was successful in his task,
defeating Sextus Pompey at Rhegium and being hailed Imperator. But
shortly thereafter he was defeated off the coast of Messana, not far from his
original victory; Octavian, we are told, observed the latter battle.
Thus, Rome’s efforts to contain Sextus Pompey by force came to an
end. In 39 B.C., at the pact of Misenum, the Triumvirs gave Sextus
Pompey control of Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica and Achaea in exchange for
his promise not to blockade grain shipments destined for Italy. (This
arrangement lasted until 37 B.C., when Octavian took command of the
fleet and waged war against Sextus Pompey.) In the meantime, Salvidienus
joined Octavian in the “Perusine War” of 41-40 B.C. against Lucius Anto-
nius, the youngest brother of Marc Antony. The Caesareans were victori
ous, though it required a cruel siege of Perusia (from which the name of
the war is derived).
For his extraordinary service at Perusia, Octavian rewarded Salvidie
nus with the governorship of Gaul and designated him to be a consul in 39
B.C. But Octavian’s fair-weather friend did not live long enough to enjoy
the latter honor, for during a siege of Brundisium he engaged in a treason
ous relationship with Marc Antony, who subsequently revealed the details
of his correspondence to Octavian. In 40 B.C., Octavian had the senate
declare Salvidienus a public enemy, upon which he seems to have commit
ted suicide to avoid execution.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : N o portrait coins of Salividienus are known, though
he is mentioned by name on denarii of Octavian (Augustus) struck in 40

B.C. On that coinage, his upcoming consulship is noted.
CALVINUS
Im p e r a t o r , 39 b .c .
Gnaeus Domitius Calvinus, lifespan unknown. Calvinus began his polit

ical career as an outspoken opponent of the First Triumvirate, as a Tribune
of the Plebs in 59 B.C. Although bribery was a normal part of attaining
public office in the late Republic, Calvinus and his fellow candidate, Gaius
Memmius, brought the concept to a new level of blatancy when, in the
corrupt elections of 54 B.C., they bought the support of the incumbent
consuls Ahenobarbus and Appius Claudius Pulcher. Though this fact was
later revealed by Memmius, and Calvinus was not successful in his bid of
54 B.C., he did win election in July 53 B.C., and was consul for the rest of
that year.
In achieving this, Calvinus demonstrated remarkable courage, and
was the only candidate to withstand the threats and the very real aggres
sions of Caesar, Pompey and Crassus. However, in the civil war that later
erupted, Calvinus was one of the few ex-consuls who supported Caesar.
Calvinus fought for Caesar against Metellus Pius Scipio in Thessaly (just
before Pharsalus), later against Pompey at Pharsalus, and later still against
the Pontic king Pharnaces II (by whom he was defeated at Nicopolis in 48
B.C. while serving as governor of Asia).
Calvinus’ promising career under Caesar (who planned on appointing
him as Lepidus’ replacement as magister equitum, “Master of Horse” ) was
cut short by the dictator’s murder in 44 B.C. He remained loyal to the C ae
sareans (Triumvirs), and though Antony and Octavian emerged victorious
at Philippi, it was due in no measure to Calvinus who, early in 42 B.C., lost
his entire fleet in the Adriatic to the Republican admirals Ahenobarbus
and Murcus. Calvinus barely escaped the defeat by sailing to Brundisium,
after which he apparently made his way back to Antony and Octavian’s
camp in time for the Battle of Philippi in October, 42 B.C.
Despite his embarrassments, Calvinus attained a second consulate in
40 B .C ., after which, in 39 B .C ., Octavian appointed him to a proconsulship
in Spain. While serving in that capacity, he treated his soldiers with great
severity, but but won a triumph in 36 B .C . for his victories against the Cer-
retani, who had rebelled. O f the later history of Calvinus little is known,
except that he held a priestly office in 20 b . c .
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : Calvinus’ Oscan-inspired denarii were struck for his

campaign against the Cerretani in 39 B.C., and conspicuously make no
mention of Octavian, who had appointed him proconsul. The priestly
implements on the reverse refer to his status as Pontifex, granted c. 45 B.C.
MURCUS
I m p e r a t o r , c . 4 5 - 4 2 b .c .
Lucius Staius (Statius) Murcus, d . 3 9 B .C . During the civil war between

Caesar and the Pompeians, Murcus served as a legate for Julius Caesar in
Gaul and Africa from 48 to 46 B.C. In 44 B.C., he was appointed proconsul
of Syria, where he was sent to restore order, for early in 46 B.C., Q. Caecil-
ius Bassus (formerly a supporter of Pompey) had rebelled, causing the
death of the governor Sextus Caesar (a young relative of Julius Caesar)
and the defeat of the replacement governor L. Antistius Vetus. Murcus.
With the help of Q. Marcius Crispus (proconsul in Bithynia and Pontus),
Murcus captured the armies of Bassus at Apameia shortly after his arrival,
and he was possibly hailed Imperator at this time.
After Caesar was murdered early in 44 B.C., Murcus supported O cta
vian, who had been named Caesar’s heir. But he soon switched his
allegiance to the Republican cause led by the renegades Brutus and C as
sius. Thus, in July of 43 B.C., Murcus gave his Syrian legions to Cassius,
who was campaigning in the region at the time. In gratitude, Cassius made
Murcus commander of his fleet, and in the spring of 42 B.C. Murcus seems
to have directed the siege of Rhodes.
Immediately thereafter, Murcus joined Brutus’ admiral Ahenobarbus
in the Adriatic, and together they defeated Calvinus, a Caesarean com
mander who was delivering soldiers and supplies to Antony and Octavian
in Illyricum. As important a victory as this was (Ahenobarbus was hailed
Imperator as a result), it did not prevent the defeat of Brutus and Cassius at
Philippi in October of 42 B.C., after which Murcus continued to oppose
the Triumvirs. Eventually, in 41 B.C., he joined the renegade Sextus
Pompey in the western Mediterranean. Though warmly received at first,
Murcus fell out of favor with Sextus Pompey and consequently was mur
dered at Syracuse in 39 B.C. Opinions vary about when and why Murcus
was hailed Imperator in 45, 44, 43 or 42 B.C.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : Murcus’ first coinage was tetradrachms of Antioch
struck while he was in command in Syria. Later he struck denarii during

his independent command from 42 to 41 B.C., after the Republican defeat
at Philippi but before his joining up with Sextus Pompey.
AHENOBARBUS
Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus, d . 31/30 B .C . Gnaeus Ahenobarbus was

the son of Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus (meaning “bronze beard”), a
commander with strong connections in Gaul who violently opposed the
First Triumvirate of Pompey, Caesar and Crassus, and who died at Pharsa
lus in 48 b . c . However, the most famous member of the Domitii> the
emperor Nero ( a . d . 54-68), was not to be born for nearly 70 years after
Ahenobarbus’ death.
Like his father, Gnaeus Ahenobarbus fought on the Pompeian side at
Pharsalus, but was pardoned by Julius Caesar after the battle. Several
months after Caesar was murdered, Ahenobarbus accompanied Brutus to
Macedon in their flight from Italy. During the proscriptions of the Caesari
ans in 43 B.C., Ahenobarbus (perhaps unjustly) was named as a participant
in the murder of Caesar. Thus, the early commitment he had made to the
cause of Brutus and Cassius now became his only option.
Brutus put Ahenobarbus to good use as a commander of 50 ships in
his fleet, and had him patrol the Adriatic, where he soon teamed up with
COLLAPSE OF THE REPUBLIC ( IMPERATORIAL PERIOD) 6?
Murcus, one of Cassius’ naval commanders. Early in 42 B.C. the two

defeated the fleet of Caesarean commander Calvinus, who was in the pro
cess of delivering troops and supplies from Italy to Illyricum, where A n t
ony and Octavian had already landed their armies. This action not only
hindered the Caesarean war effort, but also made their return to Italy vir
tually impossible. It was for this naval engagement that Ahenobarbus was
hailed Imperator.
After the defeat of Brutus and Cassius at Philippi in October, 42 B.C.,
Ahenobarbus remained a threat in the Ionian Sea, where he maintained
his fleet until 40 B.C., when he allied himself with Marc Antony (then in
the East) shortly before Antony became reconciled with Octavian at the
Treaty of Brundisium in October of that year.
As an ally of Antony, Ahenobarbus was appointed governor of
Bithynia and Pontus, and participated in the disastrous expedition Antony
mounted against the Parthians in 36 B.C. He next served in the effort to
eliminate Sextus Pompey, who in that same year had fled to the East after
being severely defeated by Octavian near Sicily. The triumviral pact
expired at the end of 33 B.C., and just as Ahenobarbus and Sosius (both of
whom favored Antony) assumed their duties as the elected consuls of 32
B.C., hostilities came to a head between the supporters of Octavian and
Antony. Ahenobarbus’ and Sosius’ efforts to censure Octavian were
opposed by Octavian, who occupied Rome and marched into the Senate
House with a complement of soldiers. Ahenobarbus, Sosius and some 300
senators fled Rome to the East to seek asylum with Antony at Ephesus.
Civil war was now inevitable.
Though there was a privileged place for Ahenobarbus in the 30
legions gathered by Antony, he was opposed to the involvement of C leo
patra VII, the queen of Egypt whom Antony had taken as common-law
wife. Already suffering from a deadly fever, Ahenobarbus defected to O cta
vian at the last moment before the Battle of Actium (September 2, 31
B.C.), and died of his illness either late in 31, or early in 30 B.C.
N u m is m a t ic N o t e : Ahenobarbus struck coins on two occasions, though

neither issue seems to bear his portrait. The first was in 41 B.C. as a rene
gade commander in the Ionian Sea following the Republican defeat at
Philippi and before he joined the cause of Antony in 40 B.C. This issue
includes an aureus and a denarius, both with portraits of different men —
presumably his ancestors. Next, after joining Antony, he struck coins for
the Triumvir that bore Antony’s portrait on the obverse, and on the
reverse featured his own name and a prow, an allusion to his own naval
supremacy.
PLANCUS
Im perato r , 40 b .c .( ? )
Lucius Munatius Plancus, C. 90/85 -after 22 B.C. Plancus enjoyed a long

and varied career as a commander and politician during the late Republic
and the early Principate. He began his career in 54 B.C. as a legate of Julius
Caesar in Gaul (during the Gallic War) and in Africa (during the civil war).
From 46 to 45 B.C. he served as praefectus urbi, and from 44 to 43 B.C.
was proconsul of Transalpine Gaul, where he founded colonies at Lug-
dunum and Augusta Rauricorum (near Basel, Switzerland) for veterans.
During the course of the War of Mutina (43 B.C.), in which Decimus Bru
tus (who had issued coins as a moneyer five years before, see Cr. 450 and
451) fought Marc Antony, Plancus allied himself with Antony. As a
reward for his service in that war, Plancus celebrated a triumph for his vic
tories in Gaul and was named consul with Lepidus in 42 B.C.
Plancus next fought for Antony in the Perusine War of 41-40 B.C.,
and early in 40 B.C. was sent to Asia as proconsul, where he had to defend
his territory from a Parthian invasion by the turncoat Quintus Labienus
and the Parthian prince Pacorus I. Plancus was successful enough to be
hailed Imperator (apparently for the second time), but later had to with
draw because of troop defections. Labienus now had free run, and only was
defeated in 39 B.C. by another of Antony’s commanders, Ventidius, who
knew Plancus from their service in the Perusine War.
In 35 B.C., while governing Syria as a legate of Antony, Plancus acted
with Ahenobarbus in capturing Sextus Pompey, who by then had run his
course and was hoping to establish a new “Empire” in Asia. Though he
had enjoyed a decade of service under Antony, in 32 B.C. Plancus switched
his allegiance to Octavian because he objected to the participation of
Cleopatra VII in the upcoming campaign at Actium. His defection was
especially damaging to Antony, for he revealed the existence and contents
of Antony’s will (which favored Cleopatra, Egypt and the east). This gave
Octavian the ammunition necessary to galvanize Italy in opposition to
Antony.
Under Octavian Plancus enjoyed a fruitful career, and was noted for
his associations with poets, including Horace. It was Plancus who proposed
in 27 B.C. that Octavian be given the name Augustus. Though the date of
his death is unknown, Plancus survived at least until 22 B.C., when he was
censor. His magnificent tomb at Gaeta is inscribed with his accomplish
ments, and specifically mentions his having been consul, Censor, twice
general of the army, a victor over the Rhaeti, and the builder of the Tem
ple of Saturn.
N u m is m a t ic N o t e : Munatius Plancus, the brother of Plautius Plancus

(the moneyer who struck denarii in 47 B.C.; Cr. 453/1) struck coins on two
occasions. The first was an issue of gold for Julius Caesar in 45 B.C. (while
praefectus urbi), which included an entirely new denomination, the half-
aureus (quinarius). The Caesar issue may have been a donative for the vet
erans of Munda. His final issue, aurei and denarii under Antony in 40 B.C.,
is associated with an issue of Ahenobarbus.
VENTIDIUS
Im perato r , 4 1 or 39O ) b .c .
Publius Ventidius Bassus, c. 89-c. 38 B.C. The life of Ventidius was

adventurous from birth, for he was born at the beseiged city of Asculum
during the height of the Social War. Indeed, while still an infant he was
captured and featured in the triumph of Pompeius Strabo, the cruel and
avaricious consul (and father of Pompey the Great) who had directed the
siege of Asculum.
Though Ventidius’ origins may have been respectable, he subse
quently had a difficult life, and seems to have earned a living either as an
army contractor or as a muleteer (mulio), as he is often described (or per
haps slandered?). As such, it comes as no surprise that he gravitated
toward the populist political movement of Julius Caesar, who saw great
promise in him, and gave him sufficient support so that he became a mem
ber of the senate.
After his benefactor Caesar was murdered early in 44 B.C., Ventidius
allied himself with Marc Antony. In 43 B.C. Ventidius became a praetor
and raised three legions in his native Picenum, which he devoted to the
defense of Antony following the latter’s defeat at Mutina in 43 B.C. Later
in that year, Ventidius was rewarded by being chosen to fill the consulship
which had been made vacant by Octavian. Naturally, the meteoric rise of
a man of such humble origins was resisted by the high-born senators.
Ventidius later returned to the field as a commander in Gaul, where
in 41 B.C. he fought for Antony in the Perusine War. After Antony and
Octavian had agreed to terms at Brundisium in October of 40 B.C., Vendi-
tius was sent to Asia as a proconsul to take over the duties of his comrade-
in-arms Plancus, who had failed to repel the Parthian invasion led by the
rebel Quintus Labienus and the Parthian prince Pacorus I.
In 39 and 38 B.C. Ventidius won successive victories against the
invaders. In 39 he captured and killed Labienus in Cilicia, where he was
victorious at Mount Taurus and at the Cilician Gates. For this Ventidius
was hailed Imperator, after which, still in 39 B.C., he managed to drive

Pacorus out of Syria and the Levant. When Pacorus renewed his assault in
38 B.C., Ventidius defeated and killed the Arsacid prince that same year at
the Battle of Gindarus in Cyrrhestica.
But his accomplishments were tainted by rumor that he had taken
bribes from Antiochus, the king of Commagene, who he was beseiging.
Antony became concerned not only about the alleged improprieties, but
also about the glory Ventidius was accumulating, and so he personally
replaced him in about July of 38 B.C. Upon returning to Rome, Ventidius
celebrated his Parthian triumph. This was the first of many Parthian tri
umphs to be celebrated in Rome over the next quarter-millenium, and was
long-remembered by those who attended. He died shortly thereafter and
was granted a public funeral.
The excessively rare denarii of Ventidius, seemingly

known from only two obverse and two reverse dies, were struck at an
uncertain mint in the East in 39 B.C., and are to be associated with his
campaigns against Labienus and Pacorus.
LABIENUS
Im perator Pa r t h ic u s , 4 0 /3 9 b .c .
Quintus Labienus “ Parthicus,” d. 39 B.C. Quin

tus Labienus was son of Titus Labienus, the legate
who Julius Caesar relied upon so heavily during his
famous Gallic campaigns of 58-51 B.C. That his
father abandoned Caesar to join Pompey’s cause in
49 B.C. (and eventually died at Munda with remnants of the Pompeian
Party) no doubt influenced his son to oppose the Caesareans, and later to
traitorously defect to the Parthians rather than face the consequences of
his wartime allegiances.
Labienus was sent to Parthia by Brutus and Cassius late in 43 or early
in 42 B.C. to seek military support from king Orodes II (whose general Sure-
nas had decimated the armies of Crassus in 53 B.C.) for their struggle with
Antony and Octavian. But time ran short, and Labienus was unable to
arrange any assistance before the battles of Philippi were fought in October
42 B.C., at which both Brutus and Cassius committed suicide. Labienus was
consequently in a bind, for he was now unable to return to the West.
In the meantime, however, Labienus convinced Orodes II to invade
Syria, and to allow himself to share the command with the king’s own son,
Pacorus I. Pacorus had invaded Syria more than a decade before, in 51
B.C., during the governorship of the famous orator Cicero (in nearby C ili
cia). But that invasion had failed. Pacorus had been defeated by the future
tyrannicide Cassius, who had remained in the East after surviving the
debacle of Crassus in 53 B.C.
Together, Labienus and Pacorus invaded Syria. Some scholars place
the invasion late in 41 B.C., but most agree it began early in 40 B.C., dur
ing Antony’s absence. The invasion required some 20,000 horsemen, and
was a success from the start. The first to be defeated was Antony’s gover
nor, Lucius Decidius Saxa, whose soldiers subsequently defected to Labie
nus. Saxa fled to Antioch, then to Cilicia, where he was captured and
executed. The cities of Apamaea and Antioch quickly surrendered, after
which the two leaders pursued separate attack routes — Labienus invading
Asia Minor, and Pacorus invading Palestine and Phoenicia.
Labienus overran much of Asia Minor, and in the process was hailed
Imperator. He was initially hindered by Antony’s ally Plancus, but soon
forced him to withdraw. Pacorus seized the coastal cities of Palestine and
Phoenicia (except Tyre, which was notoriously difficult to take) and
deposed the high priest John Hyrcanus II, replacing him with Mattathias
Antigonus, who had by bribery invited the Parthian invasion of Jerusalem.
However, early in 39 B.C., a new legate of Antony’s arrived, Publius
Ventidius Bassus. Ventidius drove Labienus and Pacorus out of Roman ter
ritories with remarkable success. He first pursued Labienus, defeating him
at Mount Taurus and at the Cilician Gates in 39 B.C., when the outlaw
was captured and executed. Ventidius next drove the Parthians across the
Euphrates, and when Pacorus invaded Syria yet again, in 38 B.C., he also
was defeated and killed by Ventidius in battle at Gindarus in Cyrrhestica.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : The historical circumstance and engraving style of
Labienus’ aurei and denarii point to Antioch as the probable mint.

Though they may have been struck early in 39 B.C., they most probably
belong to the latter half of 40 B.C., before he and Pacorus pursued separate
routes of conquest. Local tetradrachms and aes of Antioch dated to the
period of his occupation may also be ascribed to Labienus.
SCARPUS
Im perato r , 31 b .c .( ? )
G r e a t -n e p h e w o f J u l iu s C a esa r
Lucius Pinarius Scarpus, lifespan unknown. A member of the Pinarii,

one of the oldest and noblest Roman families, Scarpus was also a great-
nephew of Julius Caesar. Though it was another of Caesar’s great-nephews,
Octavian, who received his political legacy (by being adopted as his son)
and three-quarters of his wealth, Caesar bequeathed the remaining quarter
to two other of his great-nephews, Quintus Pedius and Scarpus.
A t first, Scarpus’ allegiance was to Octavian, but after Philippi (O cto
ber, 42 B.C.), he became more closely allied with Antony, who, in 31 B.C.,
placed him in command of four legions in Cyrenaica to defend Egypt from
any invasion launched from the West. After Antony lost to Octavian at
Actium (31 B.C.), he sought the support of Scarpus, who declined Antony
and instead turned his legions over to the governor of Africa, Cornelius
Gallus. Scarpus remained in high office in Cyrenaica until 27 B.C.
Scarpus’ issues of 31 B.C. are of considerable interest.

First, they are struck at a significantly reduced weight (as such, they are
possibly the only silver issues of the late Republic which were not struck to
the normal weight standard); second, they are struck in the names of both
Antony and Octavian. These two former allies were then formally at war
during the period of Scarpus’ coinage, and we must therefore assume that
his coinage for Antony was struck shortly before the Battle of Actium, and
that his coinage for Octavian was struck thereafter.
LEPIDUS
M em ber of th e S eco n d T r iu m v ir a t e ,
4 3 - 3 6 B .C .
B r o t h e r -i n -la w of B rutus
Marcus Aemilius Lepidus, 90/89-13/12 B.C. The

“third wheel” of political power in Rome during
the Second Triumvirate, Lepidus hailed from a
very important (but somewhat maligned) family that had been of consular
status since 285 B.C. By far the most important of his ancestors were Mar
cus Aemilius Lepidus, consul in 187 and 175 B.C. This man’s grandson
held the consulship in 78 B.C., but died in exile for his strong support of
Sulla. The family continued to be of importance long after the death of
Lepidus the Triumvir, for he was married to Junia, a sister of Brutus, and by
their offspring they were forebears of Nero (emperor, A.D. 54—68).
But equal fame was achieved by Marcus Lepidus, the Triumvir. Lepi
dus served as praetor urbanus, the highest post in Rome, in 49 B.C., and was
appointed governor of Nearer Spain in 48 B.C. His remarkable career con
tinued with the consulship in 46 B.C., followed by an appointment by
Julius Caesar as his magister equitum (Master of Horse) from 46 to 44 B.C.
Indeed, only one day before it occurred, it was Lepidus who warned Caesar
to be wary of a plot against his life; but Caesar did not pay heed, and was
murdered on March 15, 44 B.C.
As magister equitum, it was Lepidus who controlled the soldiers in
Rome when Caesar was murdered, and had Marc Antony not restrained
him, Lepidus no doubt would have executed the many conspirators. In the
aftermath, Antony had named Lepidus pontifex maximus, and named him
governor of Nearer Spain and Gallia Narbonensis. While serving in that
capacity, Lepidus reconciled the senate with the Pompeian renegade Sex
tus Pompey, who was campaigning in Lepidus’ territories.
Shortly thereafter, very late in 44 B.C., Antony left Rome to take pos
session of Gaul, but found the previous governor, Decimus Brutus, would
not leave. And so began the war to forcibly remove Decimus Brutus, who
soon was besieged at the city of Mutina, in Cisalpine Gaul. During the
course of the war, Lepidus joined forces with Antony, for, at the urging of
Cicero and Octavian, both men had been declared public enemies by the
senate. Antony and Lepidus were defeated by a senatorial army led by
Octavian and the two consuls, Pansa and Hirtius (both of whom were
killed in the war), and retreated to exile in Gaul as Octavian and Decimus
Brutus returned to Rome.
While this warfare was going on, the senate was temporarily in con
trol and it began to dole out extraordinary powers to the Republican rebels
Brutus, Cassius and Sextus Pompey. Octavian felt betrayed, and so, with
his army, extorted the consulship and a command against Antony. But
when Octavian confronted Antony, they agreed to join forces with Lepi
dus and formed the Second Triumvirate much like Caesar, Crassus and
Pompey had done before. Lepidus got much of Gaul and Spain as his
domain in this initial agreement.
Subsequently, the Triumvirs forced the senate to ratify their private
pact, and the trio prepared for the war against Brutus and Cassius. In 42
B.C., Antony and Octavian departed for Greece, leaving Lepidus (consul,
for a second time) to manage affairs in Italy. From the outset Lepidus was
the least important member of the Triumvirate, and this only made it more
obvious. After the Triumvirs were victorious at the battles of Philippi in
October 42 B.C., they returned to restructure their arrangement. The loser
was Lepidus, who was almost expelled for suspected collusion with Sextus
Pompey, but later was allowed to rule in North Africa.
Although Lepidus supported Octavian in the Perusine War (41-40
B.C.), and subsequently in the war against Sextus Pompey in 36 B.C., he
was denied the spoils of war, for Octavian had no intention of sharing. In
the war against Sextus Pompey, Lepidus landed 14 legions in Sicily in
August 36 B.C., ostensibly to engage the rebel’s land forces while Octavian
challenged him at sea. But before any such naval victory had been gained
by Octavian, Lepidus demanded Sicily be added to his own North African
territories. Octavian — no doubt feeling threatened and betrayed by the

lack of cooperation — challenged the third Triumvir. Lepidus’ legions
swiftly deserted to Octavian, who subsequently humiliated Lepidus by
stripping him of all authority except the title of Pontifex Maximus, which
he held until his own death in 13 or 12 B.C.
Lepidus first struck coinage in 61 B.C. as a moneyer.

Three types are attributed to his term as moneyer, though some researchers
believe that the two of them with the exceptional inscription SC were
actually struck at later dates (in the 50s B.C.) under special commission
from the senate. While in alliance with Octavian and Antony, Lepidus
struck coins jointly with them. The issues with Antony have uninspiring
designs, whereas those with Octavian (though not of great artistry) at least
offer portraits of both men. The portrait of Lepidus occurs only once on
provincials: on small bronzes of Ephesus on which he shares the canvas
with Marc Antony and Octavian. There are three non-portrait provincial
issues: two from Gaul that bear his name and were struck while he was
governing there; and one series from Spain, presumably struck while he
was governing Hither Spain, but with the added attraction that the city of
issue (Celsa) was renamed Colonia Lepida in his honor. The city’s name
reverted to Colonia Celsa after Lepidus’ downfall in 36 B.C.
MARC ANTONY
(MARCUS ANTONIUS)
M em ber of th e S eco n d T r iu m v ir a t e ,
4 3 -3 3 b .c .
B r o t h e r o f G a iu s A n t o n iu s a n d L u c iu s A n t o n iu s
H u s b a n d o f F a d ia , A n t o n ia , F u lv ia , O c t a v ia a n d
Q u e e n C l e o p a t r a V II
F a th e r o f M a r c u s A n to n iu s Ju n io r a n d A n t o n ia
(w. o f N e r o C la u d iu s D ru su s)
Marcus Antonius, c. 83/82-30 B.C. Another of the great and tragic figures
of Roman history, Marc Antony was a commander of exceptional ability
who, after what appears to have been a misspent youth, launched his
career in politics and warfare under the guidance of Julius Caesar.
Antony was a natural soldier with a strong constitution that even the
ravages of time and battle could not weaken. Furthermore, he had a gener
ous, affable nature that endeared him to his soldiers, and only enriched his
natural skills as a tactician. He was married four times to Roman women,

and once to Cleopatra VII, the Greek queen of Egypt, and among the five
women sired four boys and four girls.
The eldest of three sons of Marcus Antonius “Creticus” (so named for
his ignominious death in 71 B.C., which resulted from battle against
Cretan pirates), Antony’s earliest position of note was as a cavalry com
mander for Aulus Gabinus in Palestine and Egypt from 57 to 55 B.C. After
that assignment, Antony served his quaestorship of 52 B.C. in Gaul with
Julius Caesar, who saw promise in him, for he soon gave Antony important
responsibilities.
When civil war between Caesar and Pompey the Great was imminent
in 49 B.C., Antony (then a tribune) defended Caesar in the pro-Pompey
senate. When war broke out in 49 B.C., Antony fought at Caesar’s side in
Italy and Greece. After Caesar’s victory at Pharsalus (August 9, 48 B.C.),
at which Antony commanded the left wing, he returned to Italy as C ae
sar’s magister equitum.
Thereafter, Antony became Caesar’s top man in Rome, administering
his affairs during his lengthy absences. From 48 to 44 B.C., Caesar returned
only occasionally to Rome, for he was busy restoring Cleopatra VII to the
throne of Egypt, defeating Pharnaces II of Pontus, settling Roman affairs in
Asia Minor and Syria, as well as defeating the Pompeian remnants in
North Africa and Spain.
In October of 45 B.C., Caesar returned to Rome, never to leave again.
As reward for his loyal service, Antony was named Caesar’s co-consul for
44 B.C. In grandiose (and perhaps staged) gestures, Antony thrice offered
the golden diadem of a king to Caesar, who refused it each time. However,
by this time Caesar had been granted the title “dictator for life” and had
placed his image on coins, and so had already broken two of the most
sacred Republican traditions.
Antony was helping Caesar prepare for the invasion of Parthia he so
greatly desired. N o doubt it came as a great shock to Antony when, on
March 15, Caesar was murdered. Antony restrained Lepidus (another dis
tinguished follower of Caesar, whose troops had occupied the Forum) from
taking military action, and called for amnesty for the conspirators. Indeed,
this was too great an opportunity for his own political ambitions to let it be
solved by mob violence or decisive soldiering. Five days later, on March
20, Antony delivered a funeral eulogy for Caesar. This stirred the public
against the conspirators, many of whom left Rome quickly, and fled Italy
by mid-summer.
But Antony now had two new foes, a newly independent senate and
19-year-old Octavian, the heir to Caesar’s political legacy and most of his
fortune, who had abandoned his studies in Greece and arrived in Rome in
May or June of 44 B.C. to collect his inheritance. Antony immediately

thwarted the efforts made by Octavian for recognition. But Octavian was
resourceful, and managed to raise an army of Caesar’s veterans, with which
he occupied Rome in November, 44 B.C.
Because of Octavian’s aggressive actions, Antony had to leave Rome,
and so he headed to Gaul with the aim of assuming the proconsular duties
he had recently awarded himself. But Gaul was staunchly defended by
Decimus Brutus, who had been made proconsul of Gaul by Caesar, and so a
war resulted in which Antony besieged Decimus Brutus at Mutina in C is
alpine Gaul. Joining Antony in his campaign was the governor Lepidus,
who was second only to Antony within the Caesarean party.
Meanwhile, the orator Cicero had emerged from retirement to
defame Antony, and the senate responded to his powerful words. Octavian
(who had been named propraetor) and the two consuls, Pansa and Hirtius,
were sent with an army to relieve Decimus Brutus. Though both consuls
died in battle, the senatorial army was victorious. Decimus Brutus was
allowed to celebrate a triumph, and Octavian was hailed Imperator.
Antony, meanwhile, exiled himself in Gaul until it was safe to
emerge. In the aftermath, the senate granted extraordinary powers to Bru
tus and Cassius in the east, and gave command of the fleet in the west to
Sextus Pompey. Octavian was given nothing, and so he used his military
might to extort the consulship and a command to march against Antony,
who since February of 43 B.C. had been declared a public enemy. But when
he arrived, Octavian came to an agreement with Antony and Lepidus, and
no fighting occurred.
A political alliance known as the Second Triumvirate was formed by
Antony, Lepidus and Octavian on November 11 of 43 B.C., an alliance
unwillingly ratified by the senate. By this arrangement, the trio would rule
Rome and its territories for the next five years. Then followed the infa
mous proscriptions, spearheaded by Antony’s wife, Fulvia, in which some
130 senators and 2,000 equestrians were executed (with Cicero being
among the first).
In preparation for war against Brutus and Cassius, the two lead assas
sins of Julius Caesar who now controlled the eastern Roman territories,
Antony and Octavian departed for Greece in the spring of 42 B.C., leaving
Lepidus in charge in Italy. When the armies clashed several months later,
in October, Antony and Octavian were victorious. Afterward, Antony
went to the East and Octavian returned to the West.
While at Tarsus, Antony met Cleopatra VII, the queen of Egypt who
formerly had been a lover of his mentor, Julius Caesar. Antony and C leo
patra, though not terribly compatible on a personal level, found they had
political motives in common, and they wintered together in Egypt. Exactly
at this time, a full-scale invasion of Syria was launched by the Parthians,
led by the Republican renegade Labienus and the Parthian prince Pacorus.
Many of the legions defected to Labienus, for he represented the Republi-
can cause, and so the invasion was impossible to resist.
Despite the seriousness of the invasion, Antony had equally urgent
business in the West, where his brother and Octavian had gone to war.
Antony’s brother, Lucius Antonius, had started a war against Octavian in
41 B.C., and was defeated in February of 40 B.C. after a cruel siege at Peru
sia (from which the “Perusine War” derives its name). Octavian’s two
main antagonists in the war, Lucius Antonius and Fulvia, the wife of A n t
ony, died in the months following. Though their deaths did not directly
result from the war, they still affected Antony, who had arrived from Egypt
too late to alter the course of events.
Octavian and Antony met at Brundisium in October of 40 B.C. to
settle their differences. It was a productive meeting, and the treaty held
that Italy was common territory, Antony got the East, Octavian the West,
and Lepidus was limited to Africa. To seal the pact, Antony, now a wid
ower, married Octavian’s sister, Octavia. In the meantime, Antony had
sent his lieutenant Ventidius to restore order in Asia Minor, which he did
with remarkable success from 39 to 38 B.C. Antony returned east in 39
B.C., after agreeing to the pact of Misenum, by which the problem of Sex
tus Pompey was temporarily resolved.
Antony again returned to the West in 37 B.C., when the five-year
Triumvirate pact (then expiring), was renewed at Tarentum. The other
productive result of the negotiations at Tarentum was that Octavian
traded foot soldiers for war vessels — thus providing Antony with the
legions he needed to launch his invasion of Parthia, and allowing O cta
vian once again to challenge the naval supremacy of Sextus Pompey, a
renegade commander who controlled Sicily and other islands in the west
ern Mediterranean.
Antony returned to the East immediately, where, later in the year, he
married Cleopatra at Antioch, even though he was still married to O cta
via. The marriage was not legally binding in Rome, but it indicated that
Antony’s long-term plans were in the East, where he intended to join the
fortunes of Rome and Egypt.
The year 36 B.C. was eventful: in the West, Octavian ousted Lepidus
from the Triumvirate, and defeated Sextus Pompey in a pitched naval bat
tle off Sicily; in the East, Antony launched his Parthian invasion. Though
Antony had some 100,000 soldiers, and an alliance with Artavasdes II of
Armenia (which proved treacherous), his campaign was a complete disas
ter. He lost 35,000 or more of his soldiers, and after a disgraceful retreat,
had to avail himself of the relief offered by Cleopatra. Antony later
exacted his revenge on Armenia by annexing it in 34 B.C., and shamefully
displaying Artavasdes II in his triumph in Alexandria.
Over the intervening years, tensions had grown between Antony and
Octavian, now the sole masters of the Roman world. The Triumviral pact
expired at the end of 33 B.C., after which (in 32) Ahenobarbus and Sosius
(two staunch allies of Antony) took up their consulships. In an act of self-
preservation, Octavian occupied Rome, terrifying the senate with his
legions and causing the two consuls and about 300 senators to leave Italy
and seek Antony’s protection in the East. In 31 B.C., Octavian declared
war against Cleopatra, which in essence was also a declaration against
Antony.
The opposing forces of Antony and Octavian met near Actium on
the west coast of Greece, where a battle would eventually be waged to
determine which of the two men would rule the Roman world. Antony
suffered last-minute defections by Plancus, Ahenobarbus and others, such
as Asiatic kings, and found himself blockaded by Octavian’s commander
Agrippa. By early September, defections were increasing and Antony’s
supplies had run so low that he forced a pitched battle. His naval forces
were quickly bested by Agrippa, and so he and Cleopatra broke through
the blockade and sailed toward Egypt. What remained of his army and
navy stayed to fight in his name, and were roundly defeated.
Cleopatra sailed directly for Egypt, while Antony stopped at Cyrene
in an effort to get the four legions of his ally Scarpus, but this was in vain,
for Scarpus had in the meantime changed his allegiance. So Antony,
defeated yet again, made his way to Egypt to join Cleopatra. Antony com
mitted suicide in 30 B.C., shortly before Octavian arrived. Cleopatra
waited, but after realizing Octavian had nothing but hostile intentions,
she too committed suicide, robbing Octavian of a fine trophy for his
triumph.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : If one thing can be said of Marc Antony’s considerable

coinage, it is that he was willing to share his glory. Indeed, his famous
“legionary denarii” were a fitting testimony to the legions that supported
his cause. Furthermore, he allowed Ahenobarbus to strike highly personal
ized issues under his auspices, and he struck coins bearing the portrait of
his third wife, Fulvia. But more interesting still is Antony’s fondness for
dual-portrait issues, which he struck bearing his own image paired with the
busts of Julius Caesar, Octavian, Lepidus, Octavia, Lucius Antonius, Mar
cus Antonius Junior and Cleopatra VII. It is also worth noting that A n t
ony was the second living Roman to place his image on coins struck at
Rome. He did this in 44 B.C., very shortly after Caesar’s murder. On this
type (the only one struck in 44 B.C. for Antony), he is shown veiled and
wears a short beard — the former indicated his priestly duties, and the lat
ter, which he continued to wear until after Brutus and Cassius were
defeated, was a sign of mourning for his fallen mentor.
GAIUS ANTONIUS
B roth er of M arc A ntony and L u c iu s A n t o n iu s
U ncle of M arcus A n t o n iu s J u n io r
B r o t h e r -i n - l a w of F u l v ia and O c t a v ia
Gaius Antonius, d. 42 B.C. The second son of Marcus Antonius “Creti-

cus,” Gaius Antonius was the younger brother of Marc Antony and the
older brother of Lucius Antonius. His career began as a legate of Julius
Caesar in 49 B .C ., during which he was blockaded by the Pompeian fleet on
the island of Curicta, and subsequently taken prisoner. Caesar later
appointed him praetor urbanus and had him elected to the college of the
pontifices in 44 b . c .
After Caesar was murdered in March of 44 B.C., Gaius Antonius
assumed the duties of praetor urbanus, the post which had been abandoned
by Brutus. Later in 44 B.C., on November 28, Marc Antony was able to
secure Gaius Antonius’ appointment as governor of Macedon. This prov
ince was then occupied by the Republican renegade Brutus, who late in
February seems to have been made governor of Macedon, Illyricum and
Achaea by a then-independent senate. Gaius Antonius’ efforts to oust
Brutus failed, for the armies at Dyrrhachium and Apollonia deserted to
Brutus, and poor Gaius Antonius was blockaded at Apollonia in March 43
B.C. Vigorous actions by Brutus and Marcus Tullius Cicero, the son of the
orator Cicero who at age 17 had commanded a cavalry squadron at Pharsa
lus, caused Gaius Antonius to surrender.
Sometime after his capture, the senate revoked Gaius Antonius’ sta
tus as governor, and the unfortunate brother of Marc Antony was executed
by Brutus early in 42 B.C. The cause, it seems, was two-fold: firstly, as pun
ishment for having tried to incite Brutus’ troops to revolt, and secondly, in
retribution for Marc Antony’s proscription and execution of Cicero, the
famous orator who had been a strong supporter of the cause of Brutus and
Cassius.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : Gaius Antonius had only one issue of coinage struck
in his name, a denarius of 43 B.C. presumably struck at a mint that traveled

with him to Illyricum. Regrettably, it does not bear his portrait.
8o HISTORY OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE: BIOGRAPHIES
LUCIUS ANTONIUS
B ro th er of M arc A ntony an d G a iu s A n t o n iu s
U ncle of M arcus A n t o n iu s J u n io r
B r o t h e r -i n -l a w of F u l v ia and O c t a v ia
Lucius Antonius “ Pietas,” d. c . 4 0 B .C . The

youngest of three brothers, Lucius Antonius began
his career as a quaestor in Asia in 50 B.C., and six
years later, in the final year of Julius Caesar’s life,
served as tribune, giving the dictator even more powers in appointing mag
istrates. After Julius Caesar’s murder, Lucius’ oldest brother, Marc Antony,
became the unofficial leader of the Caesarean party. But Marc Antony was
soon ousted by Caesar’s grandnephew, Octavian, and thus had to leave
Italy and take up the post he had been granted in Gaul. Lucius Antonius
went with him as his legate (as the middle brother, Gaius Antonius, was
sent to occupy Macedon), and together, at Mutina, they suffered a degrad
ing loss to the senatorial army led by Octavian.
Through the influence of his brother, Lucius Antonius was elected
consul in 41 B.C. Thus began his most noteworthy role in history, first as
an antagonist, then as a military opponent of the Triumvir Octavian. Marc
Antony had gone East to settle diplomatic matters and confiscate wealth,
and Octavian had remained in the West to begin the unsavory task of seiz
ing land from 18 cities so that it could be given to 100,000 veterans who
were being discharged. Octavian’s task was made more difficult by propa
ganda that was issued by Lucius Antonius and Fulvia, the wife of Marc
Antony.
The verbal and political hostilities of 41 B.C. evolved into a military
conflict when Lucius Antonius, by force of arms, gained permission to
wage war on Octavian. The Triumvir Octavian responded with legions
called in from Spain and with help from his friends Agrippa and Salvidie
nus (who subsequently was made governor of Gaul and consul designate).
Lucius Antonius was besieged at Perusia (mod. Perugia), and the so-called
“Perusine War” ended in February of 40 B.C. with his surrender. To dis
tance him from the political scene in Rome, Octavian then appointed
Lucius Antonius as a promagistrate in Spain, where he seems to have died
not long thereafter.
Though a limited engagement, the Perusine War had serious conse
quences to the relationship between Marc Antony and Octavian. The two
men met at Brundisium in October of 40 B.C. to settle their differences so
that each could get on with the business of conquering their own enemies.
The aurei and denarii honoring Lucius Antonius’ con

sulship were struck at a mint moving in the East with his eldest brother,
COLLAPSE OF THE REPUBLIC (IMPERATORIAL PERIOD) 8 i
Marc Antony. Thus, it is likely that Lucius Antonius never handled one of
the coins bearing his own portrait. Two issues were struck, both of which
bear Marc Antony’s portrait on the obverse. One reverse type depicts For-
tuna or Pietas and is inscribed PIETAS COS. The type is a.direct reference
to Lucius Antonius because Pietas was his cognomen and because he held
the consulship in 41 B.C. The other reverse type features a fine portrait of
Lucius Antonius (in which the family resemblance is obvious) accompa
nied by his name and title as consul. O f great interest is the fact that Marc
Antony’s series of 41 B.C. offers equal treatment to Octavian, thus virtually
equating him to Lucius Antonius, even though Octavian was a Triumvir
and Lucius Antonius was merely a consul.
FULVIA
T h ir d w if e o f M arc A ntony
M o th er of M arcus A n t o n iu s J u n io r
S iS T E R -IN -L A W OF G a IU S A N T O N IU S A N D L U C IU S
A n t o n iu s
Fulvia, d. 40 B.C. O f the four wives Marc Antony

had, his third, Fulvia, was perhaps the most ambi
tious. She had a penchant for powerful men, and became active in the
political intrigues of her husbands whenever the opportunity presented
itself — taking the leading role when possible. She bore five children, two
of whom, Marcus Antonius Junior and Iullus Antonius, were by Marc
Antony.
Her first marriage was to Publius Clodius Pulcher, one of the most
powerful Roman aristocrats in the 50s B.C. He was the most formidable
opponent of the First Triumvirate, and indeed, it was his death in the gang
violence he so actively promoted that caused the senate house to be set
ablaze, thus leading to Pompey’s reign as sole consul in 52 B.C.
She next married Gaius Scribonius Curio Junior, the son of the hom
onymous orator who helped Sulla besiege Athens, and who served as con
sul in 76 B.C. As for his son, Fulvia’s second husband, he was a reckless but
loyal lieutenant of Julius Caesar, fighting for him both in the political cir
cles of Rome and on the battlefield. Indeed, it was Curio who made the
proposal in 50 B.C. that Pompey and Caesar disarm simultaneously to pre
vent civil war. In the year following, Curio died fighting the Numidian
king Juba I on behalf of Caesar.
Fulvia’s subsequent life was no less turbulent. She married Marc A n t
ony in 46 or 45 B.C., after he had established himself as the first man
behind Julius Caesar. Ever active in politics, Fulvia is said to have found
her true calling in 43 B.C. as the principal force behind the ruthless pro
scriptions issued by the Triumvirs (Caesareans).
She found another political cause in 41 B.C., the year her brother-in-
law, Lucius Antonius, held the consulship. Since her husband was in the
East settling political affairs and beginning an affair of the heart with the
Egyptian queen Cleopatra VII, Fulvia and Lucius Antonius decided to
advance his political standing by taking extreme actions of their own.
Much to her chagrin, the Triumvir Octavian had been given the
thankless task of finding land upon which to settle some 100,000 veterans
who were being discharged. This meant land had to be seized from 18 cit
ies, providing Lucius Antonius and Fulvia a golden opportunity to dis
credit him. That Fulvia targeted Octavian comes as no surprise: not only
was he the main political rival to her husband, but they had a lon gstan d
ing feud from when a proposed marriage between Octavian and Claudia
(Fulvia’s daughter by Clodius, and thus Marc Antony’s step-daughter) was
called off because of quarreling between Octavian and Fulvia.
Lucius Antonius persuaded the senate to give him the necessary per
mission in 41 B.C. to wage war on Octavian, who in response brought in
legions from Spain and called upon his friends Agrippa and Salvidienus for
additional help. Lucius Antonius retreated to Perusia (modern-day Peru
gia), where he awaited the legions from Gaul who were loyal to his
brother However, the Gallic legions refused to move against Octavian
unless the orders came directly from Marc Antony. The “Perusian War”
ended in February of 40 B.C. with the surrender of Lucius Antonius, after
which Fulvia fled to Greece, where she died later that year.
Fulvia’s portrait in the guise of Nike (Victory) occurs

on silver quinarii of Gaul, seemingly on Republican denarii of 42 B .C . (Cr.
494/40) and aurei of 41 b . c . (Cr.514/1), and on bronzes of Eumenia (in
Phrygia), a city which was renamed Fulvia in her honor during the period
of that coinage. Her regular bust also occurs on small bronzes of Tripolis,
Syria.
MARCUS ANTONIUS JUNIOR

S on of M arc A ntony a n d F u l v ia
N eph ew o f G a iu s A n t o n iu s a n d L u c iu s A n t o n iu s
Marcus Antonius the Younger, c . 4 3 - 3 0 B .C . The

eldest son of Marc Antony and his third wife, Ful
via (who died when he was about three years old),
Marcus Antonius Junior was given the name
“Antyllus” by the Greeks. In 37 B.C., as part of the agreements reached by
Marc Antony and Octavian at the Treaty of Tarentum, the boy was
betrothed to the only daughter of Octavian, Julia, who then was about 3
years old. Since the boy’s father was at that time married to Octavian’s sis
ter, the betrothal added a further dimension to the dynastic ties.
Because of his youth, little can be said of the boy or his accomplish
ments. Shortly after his father was roundly defeated at Actium in Septem
ber of 31 B.C., Marc Antony had his son assume the toga virilis in the event
the tide of events would miraculously change. According to Suetonius,
after the downfall of his father and of Cleopatra VII early in 30 B.C., Mar
cus Antonius Junior, then about 13 years old, took refuge near an image of
the god Julius (Caesar). Despite his pleas for mercy from Octavian, he was
nonetheless executed on April 30, 30 B.C.
Marcus had a younger brother named Iullus Antonius who survived
the aftermath of Actium, and was able to live a fuller, though no less tragic
life. Iullus married Marcella, the niece of Augustus, in 21 B.C. By her he
had a son of his own, named Lucius. Iullus was elected consul in 10 B.C.,
and seems to have been proconsul in Asia thereafter. Later he was con
victed of adultery with Julia, the daughter of Augustus, and after this he
committed suicide.
OCT A VIA
Fourth W if e o f M arc A ntony
S ist e r o f A u g u st u s (O c t a v ia n )
G r a n d -n i e c e o f J u l iu s C a esa r
M o th er of M a rcellu s ( h e ir of A u g u stu s) and
A n t o n ia (w. of N ero C l a u d iu s D r u su s)
M o t h e R 'I n -la w of , A g r ip p a , Ju l ia ,
N ero C l a u d iu s D r u su s
A u n t of J u l ia
G randm o th er of G e r m a n ic u s, C l a u d iu s a n d L iv il l a
G r e a t -g r a n d m o t h e r o f N ero C a esa r , D r u su s C a esa r , C a l ig u l a ,
A g r ip p in a Ju n io r , D r u s il l a , J u l ia L iv il l a , C l a u d ia O c t a v ia ,
C l a u d ia A n t o n ia , B r it a n n ic u s, L iv ia Ju l ia , T ib e r iu s G em ellus
and G e r m a n ic u s G em ellus
G r e a t - g r e a T 'G r a n d m o t h e r (a n d g r e a t -g r a n d m o t h e r ) of N ero
Octavia (Minor), c. 70^11 B.C. Octavia, the elder sister of Octavian, was
the only daughter of the nobleman Gaius Octavius and his wife Atia, who
was a niece of Julius Caesar. While under any circumstance Octavia would
have been an important woman in society, she was destined for greatness
because of the accomplishments of her great-uncle Julius Caesar and her
brother Octavian (Augustus).
Because her family connections were so complex and important, her

biography reads somewhat like a laundry list of relatives. What should not
be lost in all of this is the strength of her personality. Octavia was dearly
loved by the Romans, who admired her humanity and her undying loyalty,
even to those who betrayed her.
Octavia’s first husband was Gaius Claudius Marcellus (the consul of
50 B .C .), by whom she had two daughters and one son. Her son, Marcus
Claudius Marcellus (see his biography in chapter 2), became an heir-
apparent of his uncle Octavian (Augustus). One of the daughters from this
marriage, Marcella, was married to Octavian’s lieutenant Agrippa.
The year 23 B.C. was one tragic for both Octavia and Marcella, for
O ctavia’s eldest son, Marcellus, died, a blow from which his mother did
not soon recover. It was equally difficult for Marcella, who not only lost
her only sibling, but who two years later lost her husband, Agrippa,
because he was forced to marry Octavian’s daughter, Julia (who, ironically,
had only been compelled to marry Agrippa because she been widowed by
the death of Marcellus).
In the same year that her first husband died, 40 B.C., Octavia entered
into a politically motivated marriage with the Triumvir Marc Antony, who
had been married three times before and was her brother’s unwilling polit-
ical colleague. Octavia spent the winters from 39 to 37 B.C. with Antony
in Athens, and was instrumental in bringing about the Treaty of Tarentum
in 37 B.C., through which the Triumvirate was renewed. Antony’s subse
quent ill-treatment of Octavia contributed greatly to his discredit in the
West.
The treaty itself had no beneficial effect for Octavia. Immediately
after the treaty had been signed, Antony married Cleopatra VII in Anti-
och. Even when in 35 B.C. Octavia traveled to Greece laden with troops
and supplies, Antony forbade her to proceed beyond Athens, and sent her
back to Italy. In 32 B.C. (by which time Antony and Octavian were sworn
enemies) their separation became a divorce.
Octavia had two daughters by Antony, both of whom were named
Antonia, and thus are often distinguished by the appellations Major and
Minor (older and younger). The elder Antonia, bom in 39 B.C., married
Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus, grandfather of the emperor Nero ( a . d . 54-
68) was descended. The younger Antonia, bom in 36 B.C., was the future
wife of Nero Claudius Drusus (the younger son of Livia and the brother of
Tiberius), by whom she had Germanicus, Claudius and Livilla.
Octavia was loyal both to Octavian and Antony, and often undertook
grave responsibilities to aid them in their endeavors. She seems to have
loved Antony dearly, for even after he had forbidden her to visit him in 36
B.C., she rejected her brother’s advice of 35 B.C. to leave him. Even after
Antony divorced her in 32, Octavia became a willing parent to the three
step-children (Alexander, Ptolemy and Cleopatra Selene, the future wife

of Juba II) whom Antony and Cleopatra had sired.
N o te :Octavia is often referred to as Octavia Minor, because she had an

older half-sister from her father’s previous wife, Ancharia, who also was
named Octavia (Major). Thus, Octavia Minor (whose biography is pre
sented above) was a full sister of Octavian, whereas Octavia Major was a
half-sister. Since Octavia Major did not figure prominently in Roman his
tory, there is little reason to make the distinction in this book, and so
Octavian’s sister is simply referred to as Octavia.
O ctavia’s portraits on coinage occur in all three met

als, though only the silver is commonly found. The gold is represented by
two Imperial portrait aurei: one of 40 B.C. which must celebrate her mar
riage to Antony, and another of 38 B.C., when they lived together for the
summer in Athens. Her silver coinage, with the possible exception of a
quinarius of Gaul, is exclusively eastern cistophori (three-denarius coins):
one shows her bust jugate with Antony; the other places her small bust
above a cista on the reverse. The bronze is all of provincial manufacture,
and with the exception of a small bronze of Ephesus, is limited to the “fleet
coinage” series of Antony. The most interesting type in this series occurs
on the 3-as piece (tressis), which shows the busts of Antony and Octavian
jugate on the left, confronting Octavia’s bust on the right.
CLEOPATRA VII
Q u e e n o f E g y p t , 5 1 - 3 0 b .c .
D a u g h te r o f P to le m y XII A u le te s
C o m p a n io n o f J u l i u s C a e s a r
F i f t h w ife o f M a r c A n t o n y
M o t h e r o f P to le m y XV ( c a l l e d ‘C a e s a r i o n ’ ),
C le o p a t r a S e le n e , e tc .
S i s t e r o f P to le m y XIII, P to le m y XIV, B e r e n ic e IV
a n d A r sin ö e IV
Cleopatra V II Thea Philopator, 69-30 B.C. When Ptolemy XII Auletes

(“the flute-player” ) died in the spring of 51 B.C., the throne of Egypt was
inherited by his 18-year-old daughter, Cleopatra VII, and her eldest
brother, Ptolemy XIII, then about 12 years old. Cleopatra proved not only
to be the last of the Macedonian (Lagid) rulers of Egypt, but also one of
the most remarkable people in the history of the western world.
Cleopatra was perhaps Rome’s most dangerous foe after Hannibal, for
she nearly conquered Rome twice — not by force of arms, but by the subtle
art of seduction. She was a woman of remarkable courage, skill and intelli
gence, and was naturally gifted in business and politics. She was an
excellent mathematician and was fluent in nine languages, Latin not being
one of them. Her charm and ability cast a spell on two of Rome’s legendary
warlords, Julius Caesar and Marc Antony, which resulted in the survival of
Egypt as a sovereign kingdom during the most turbulent period of Roman
history.
Throughout Cleopatra’s lifetime the political environment in Rome
was unstable, so she tried to ally herself with the men she thought would
be most willing to allow Egypt to keep its autonomy. She is said to have
greatly admired Caesar, whom she considered her intellectual equal. How
ever, she was constantly frustrated by Antony’s vulgarity, emotional insta
bility and apparent lack of intelligence.
Cleopatra, who believed herself to be the New Isis, and was fluent in
the local language, was deeply respectful of Egyptian culture. Conse
quently, this Macedonian queen was popular among her subjects through
out Egypt, but was disliked by much of the population of Alexandria. As
such, it is truly remarkable that she was able to manage affairs in Egypt
while at the same time adeptly handling the Romans.
About the time Cleopatra became queen, in 51 B.C., a serious
drought began in Egypt that was to last for two years. In 50 B.C., at the
height of this natural disaster, Cleopatra went to war with her brother-hus-
band, Ptolemy XIII, with whom she shared power. By 48 B.C. at the latest,
Cleopatra was expelled from Egypt, and with her sister Arsinoë IV, took
refuge in Syria, a region that in the previous year had suffered from a
Parthian invasion.
Times were equally tumultuous in the West, for the two most power
ful warlords of Rome had declared war on each other in 49 B.C. Their dis
pute reached its climax on August 9, 48 B.C., when Julius Caesar defeated
Pompey the Great at the Battle of Pharsalus in Greece. After the battle,
Pompey fled to Egypt where, on September 28, the ministers of Ptolemy
XIII murdered him as he was disembarking.
The victorious Julius Caesar was in direct pursuit of Pompey, and
landed in Alexandria a few days later, on October 2, 48 B.C. With king
Ptolemy XIII on the frontier preparing to fight his sister Cleopatra, Caesar
took control of the palace, only later to receive the two quarrelsome sib
lings as his audience. Caesar was unimpressed by Ptolemy XIII and was
captivated by Cleopatra, who had had the audacity to be smuggled into
the meeting by being concealed in a rolled up carpet.
Thus began Caesar’s effort to restore Cleopatra to the throne, which
resulted in a small but exceptionally dangerous conflict known as the
“Alexandrian War.” Caesar soon found this to be treacherous work, and in
February of 47 B.C. he even had to abandon his purple cloak and swim to
safety. But there was also a romantic aspect amid all the danger, for the 52-
year-old Caesar had taken the 21 -year-old Cleopatra as his lover, with the
affair seemingly resulting in the conception of a child.
The turning point in the war occurred on March 26, when Caesar
and his legionnaires were rescued by forces led by Mithradates of Perga-
mum. His arrival was a godsend, and sent Ptolemy XIII into flight, during
which the king drowned in the Nile. Caesar then installed Cleopatra on
the throne, after which she married her 11-year-old brother, Ptolemy XIV,
to maintain the Ptolemaic tradition. Having accomplished his task, Caesar
and Cleopatra cruised the Nile for a few weeks, after which Caesar left to
campaign against the Pontic king, Pharnaces II, and subsequently to settle
various affairs in Syria and Asia Minor, North Africa and Spain.
In the meantime, Cleopatra remained in Egypt. On June 23, 47 B.C.,
she gave birth to Caesarion (Ptolemy XV), the boy who, we are told, was
sired by Caesar. After Caesar returned to Rome late in July of 46 B.C., he
summoned Cleopatra to join him. She and her entourage arrived in Rome
in time to enjoy the celebrations in September and October of the four
successive triumphs and the decade-long dictatorship Caesar had been
awarded. Cleopatra stayed in Caesar’s villa on the Tiber
Cleopatra’s visit was a most unusual affair for the conservative Roman
aristocracy, who found the whole affair to be exotic in the extreme. Cleo
patra’s demeanor, though stately, rubbed many the wrong way. The fact
that she stayed in Caesar’s villa on the Tiber, with her young brother-hus-
band in company (not to mention the fact that she had borne Caesar a
child), was sufficient to keep Rome buzzing with gossip for the entirety of
Cleopatra’s year-and-a-half stay.
N ot surprisingly, Cleopatra departed Rome swiftly after Caesar was
murdered in March, 44 B.C., and returned directly to Egypt. Upon landing,
she promptly had her younger brother, Ptolemy XIV, murdered, so she
could replace him as co-regent with her own 4-year-old son Caesarion,
who she married in the Ptolemaic custom. Furthermore, Cleopatra’s sister
and potential rival, Arsinoë IV, was removed from Alexandrian politics,
for Marc Antony, the top lieutenant of Caesar, appointed her regent of
Cyprus in 44 B.C.
A t long last, Cleopatra gained full control of her kingdom, and did
not even have to concern herself with the needs of the Romans, who were
occupied with their own political problems. The struggle between Repub
licans and Caesareans was settled at the Battle of Philippi in 42 B.C., at
which the Caesareans emerged victorious, though a number of Republi
cans and Pomepeians remained renegades from Parthia in the east to
Spain in the West.
In 41 B.C., Marc Antony met with Cleopatra in Tarsus. The two, no
doubt, had dined together many times in the company of Caesar during
the queen’s residence in Rome. Though they were not very compatible
personally, they shared political ambition, and one of the first things they
agreed to do, for both of their best interests, was to execute Cleopatra’s sis
ter Arsinoë IV, who had been ruling Cyprus. Cleopatra lost a bitter enemy,
Antony had one less loose end to contend with, and Rome recovered the
strategically important island.
Antony determined to winter with Cleopatra in Egypt, and thus
began the queen’s second great affair with a noble Roman. During the
course of his stay at Tarsus and Alexandria, Cleopatra was impregnated,
which resulted in twins in 40 B.C. While Antony was in Egypt, a massive
invasion of Syria was led by the Parthian prince Pacorus I, who was aided
by the renegade commander Labienus. The invasion was devastating, and
most of Asia Minor, Syria and the Levant were occupied through 39 B.C.
Despite the seriousness of the invasion, and the enjoyment of his stay
in Egypt, Antony had equally urgent business in the West, where his
brother, Lucius Antonius, and Octavian had gone to war (the “Perusine
War,” ending in February 40 B.C.). Antony left Egypt, perhaps promising
to come back soon, but in fact not returning or even seeing Cleopatra for
the next four years.
Antony arrived in Italy after the hostilities had ended, and met with
Octavian at Brundisium in October of 40 B.C. to settle their differences.
One result was that Antony’s lieutenant Ventidius was sent to oust Pacorus
and Labienus from Asia, which he did with remarkable success in 39 and
38 B.C. Antony went east in 39 B.C., spending the winter of 38 to 37 B.C.
in Athens with his new wife, Octavia (the sister of Octavian), and
returned to the West in the spring of 37 B.C., where he renewed the Tri-
umviral pact at Tarentum. Immediately after, Antony returned to the East,
where, later in 37 B.C., he married Cleopatra at Antioch (despite the fact
he was still married to Octavia). Though this marriage was not legally
binding in Rome, it was a signal event by which Antony and Cleopatra
hoped to join the fortunes of Rome and Egypt both at the present and,
especially, in the future, after Octavian was eliminated.
In the next year, 36 B.C., Cleopatra gave birth to her third child by
Antony, who had already embarked on his invasion of Parthia. The cam
paign was a complete disaster, ending in a disgraceful retreat and the need
to ask for the help of Cleopatra in restoring his large, tattered army. It was
at this point that Antony cut off all relations with Octavia, forbidding her
even to visit him.
In the spring of 34 B.C., Antony led a vengeful invasion of Armenia,
whose king, Artavasdes II, had switched his allegiance to the Parthians
during the invasion of 36 B.C., triggering the disaster that followed. Upon
returning to Alexandria, Antony celebrated his Armenian triumph. In
this same year, Cleopatra made her famous “Donations of Alexandria,” by

which she allocated large parts of the East to her children. This alarmed
the Romans, for it appeared as though Antony was allowing Cleopatra to
give away Roman territory. Since Sextus Pompey and Lepidus had been
eliminated, Antony’s only rival was Octavian. Antony’s poor treatment of
Octavia, and his open cooperation with Cleopatra made a bad impression
in the West and gave Octavian the ammunition he needed to discredit his
rival. The Triumviral pact, which expired at the end of 33 B.C., was not
renewed.
Cleopatra was firmly allied with Antony as they prepared for war.
While this had its advantages, it also offended many soldiers and good
commanders, who consequently defected to Octavian. Antony and C leo
patra spent the winter of 32 to 31 B.C. in Athens, preparing for the inevi
table conflict. In 31 B.C., Octavian forcibly caused the consuls and
senators loyal to Antony to flee to Greece, after which he formally
declared war on Cleopatra.
The armies and navies of Antony and Octavian confronted near
Actium on the west coast of Greece, and Octavian’s commander, Agrippa,
blockaded the camp of Antony and Octavian. The blockade was taking its
toll by early September, so Antony and Cleopatra burst through and fled to
Egypt with their separate fleets. Although Antony’s army and navy stayed
to fight Octavian, they were roundly defeated. In a virtual repeat of
Pharsalus 17 years before, Octavian pursued his vanquished foes to Egypt.
Though Cleopatra sailed directly for Egypt, Antony first visited
Cyrene in hopes of gathering the four legions he had left under the com
mand of his ally Scarpus, but this was in vain, for Scarpus could no longer
be counted among his supporters. After returning to Egypt, Antony com
mitted suicide in 30 B.C. shortly before Octavian landed.
Though her husband had lost his Empire and his life, Cleopatra, who
was nearing 40 years old, did not give up hope. Indeed, she waited for
Octavian to arrive, hoping to work out a new arrangement (and allegedly
trying ineffectively to seduce him). But she realized that Octavian had
only hostile intentions toward her, her family and toward her kingdom,
which he turned into a province, and in the future declared to be the per
sonal property of the emperor.
In her final act of chicanery, Cleopatra managed to commit suicide by
the bite of an asp. Suetonius tells us that Octavian was so anxious to have
Cleopatra as a trophy in his triumph that he enlisted Psyllian snake-
charmers to suck the poison from her wound, but the effort failed. O cta
vian subsequently murdered Caesarion, Cleopatra’s child by Julius Caesar,
though her three children by Antony were allowed to live under the care
of their step-mother, Octavia.
N u m is m a t ic N o t e : Cleopatra’s coinage was varied both in location of

mint and in typology. Her earliest coins were billon tetradrachms of the
standard Ptolemaic design that had been used for more than two centuries
(bust of Ptolemy I/eagle standing); however, her coins were generally dis
tinguished by a low silver content and a headdress of Isis before the eagle’s
legs on the reverse. Her most remarkable coins bear her easily recognizable
but often unflattering portrait, which sometimes is paired with the bust of
Marc Antony.
CH A PTER TWO
T h e J u l io - C l a u d ia n s
27 B .C . — a . d . 68
W ith the deaths of Marc Antony and Cleopatra in 30 B .C ., Rome

entered a new phase of its history known as the Empire. Although
for all practical purposes the Republic had stopped functioning more than
a decade before, most of its traditional, if decaying institutions remained.
The task at hand for Octavian (later known as Augustus) was simple in
purpose but complex in execution, for he intended to make a slow transi
tion from a Republic to a dictatorship. This required a series of careful
measures in the legal, social and military systems that retained the fa£ade
of Republican virtue, but which secured his absolute authority.
This transition took several decades to achieve, and the coinage clearly
reflects his progress. From the initial issues bearing the names of the mon-
eyers, the great Augustus ended his principate with issues that bore no
one’s name but his own. Even though he was advanced in age, his image
itself was youthful and idealized. (This alone was a remarkable transition
from the Republican concept of harsh realism in portraiture.) Many vol
umes have been written on the achievements of Augustus, and so only a
brief treatment is given here, and in his biography.
For nearly a century we find Rome under the autocratic rulership of
the Julian and Claudian families. With the childless marriage of Augustus
to Livia, these two powerful families joined fortunes, and came to be
known as the Julio-Claudians.
The Julians came into prominence with the impressive political
career of Julius Caesar, who achieved the unparalleled office of “dictator
for life” in 44 B.C., but was murdered soon thereafter. In Caesar’s will, he
had named his grand-nephew Octavian as sole heir of his political legacy,
and most of his fortune. It required nearly 15 years of civil war after C ae
sar’s death before Rome was united, and this occurred only after Augustus
gained the upper hand on his ally-turned-foe, Marc Antony.
The Julio-Claudians comprise the first half of Suetonius’ “Twelve
Caesars.” Though of great interest to most students of Roman history, the
interrelations of this dynasty are the most complex in the history of the
Empire. But what appears at first to be a hopelessly complex web of associ
ations is easily separated into several components. Once this is done, the
whole array becomes approachable, and the enjoyment of collecting Julio-
Claudian coins is greatly enhanced. What follows is a general outline of
the dynasty.
91
T h e J u l io - C l a u d ia n s
JULIUS CAESAR
(by adoption)
Scribonia (1st) = AUGUSTUS = (2nd) Livia = Tiberius Claudius Nero

(Octavian) |_________
r
Agrippa = Julia' AntoniaB = Nero Claudius TIBERIUSC = VipsaniaD
Drusus Agrippina
Gaius CaesarE
Lucius Caesar
Agrippa Postumus
Julia the Younger |
Agrippina Senior = Germanicus CLAUDIUSf = Valeria LivillaG = Drusus
Messalina
Nero Caesar11 Claudia OctaviaM Livia Julia 1

Drusus Caesar Britannicus Tiberius GemellusJ
CALIGULAk Germanicus Gemellus
Agrippina JuniorL = Gn. Dom. Ahenobarbus
Drusilla
Julia Livilla
= Claudia Octavia (1st)

NEROn = Statilia Messalina (3rd)
= Poppaea (2nd)°
Claudia Neronis
A. Earlier married to Marcellus; later to Tiberius. H. Husband of Livia Julia.

B. Daughter of Octavia and Marc Antony (thus, I. Wife of Nero Caesar; later betrothed to Sejanus.
niece of Augustus & half-sister of Marcellus). J. He and his brother possibly sired by Sejanus.
C. Later married to Julia. K. Husband of Caesonia, father of Drusilla Minor.
D. Daughter of Agrippa. Later wed Asinius Gallus. L. Later married to Claudius.
E. First husband of Livilla. M. Married to Nero.
F. First married to Aelia Paetina (by whom he had N. Nero was also a paternal great-grandson of Marc
Claudia Antonia); later to Agrippina Junior. Antony and Octavia.
G. Earlier married to Gaius Caesar; lover of Sejanus. O. Earlier married to Otho (emperor, a . d . 69).
Note: Names in CAPITALS are of emperors or dictators; names in italics are of people not found on coinage.
THE JULIO-CLAUDIANS 93
• Augustus (Octavian) comes to power in 44 B.C. when the will of

Julius Caesar is read, and it is revealed that he is heir to both his great-
uncle’s personal fortune and political legacy.
• The dynastic foundations are set when Augustus marries Livia in 38

B.C. Both of them had children from previous marriages, but in more
than half a century of marriage they had none together. Therefore, dif
ferent branches of the family existed along bloodlines, which was to be a
source of great rivalry. Three principal branches existed: the first (I) was
of Augustus’ blood, the second (II) was of Livia’s blood, and the third
(III, Ilia and Illb), through three later marriages, was of the mixed blood
from Augustus, Livia and Marc Antony. These branches are described
later.
• With so many potential heirs to the throne, conflicts occurred between

the family branches. Regrettably, even inter-branch marriages did not
reduce hostilities. First, Livia may have eliminated some of the heirs
favored by her husband, Augustus (though that has not been proven to
the satisfaction of many historians). Second, Tiberius tried to clear a
dynastic path by exterminating his deceased brother’s popular family;
helping Tiberius was his prefect Sejanus, who himself had ambitions for
the throne. Third, and much later, Agrippina Junior cleared the path
for her own son, Nero, by murdering her uncle-husband, Claudius, and
his son, Britannicus.
The three main family branches are:
• Branch I: Augustus’ direct descendants. N o male heirs of this branch

survived. The initial rivalry was between the brothers-in-law Marcellus
(Augustus’ nephew) and Agrippa (Augustus’ chief lieutenant). Shortly
after Marcellus died in 23 B .C ., Agrippa married his widow, Julia, who
was Augustus’ only daughter, and thus was uncontested heir-apparent
until his own death in 12 b . c . Augustus next looked to his grandchil
dren, whom Agrippa Julia had produced from 20-12 B .C . They included
three sons (Gaius Caesar, Lucius Caesar and Agrippa Postumus) and
two daughters (Julia the Younger [for whom no coins were struck] and
Agrippina Senior). All the boys and the eldest girl, however, died or
were banished during a six-year period ( a . d . 2-8). Only Agrippina
Senior survived this traumatic period, and her marriage to Germanicus
(a second cousin who headed Branch III) resulted in six children who
lived past childhood (Nero Caesar, Drusus Caesar, Caligula, Agrippina
Junior, Drusilla and Julia Livilla), four of whom were important in future
politics. But after having survived the destruction of her original family,
Agrippina Senior witnessed the systematic massacre of her husband and

children under the regime of Livia’s eldest son, Tiberius (the head of
branch II), who as a result succeeded Augustus in 14- Despite her great
suffering, it is Agrippina Senior who principally kept Augustus’ blood
flowing in the later Julio-Claudians.
• Branch II: Tiberius* direct descendants. This branch was headed by

Tiberius, the older brother of Nero Claudius Drusus and one of two sons
of Livia from her first marriage. Except in the grandchildren (who were
born of Livilla, the daughter of Augustus’ niece), no blood of Augustus
flowed in this branch. Tiberius had one son, Drusus, by his wife, Vipsa-
nia Agrippina, a daughter of Agrippa. Through his son, Tiberius had at
least one grandchild, Livia Julia, and two others, Tiberius Gemellus and
Germanicus Gemellus, who were officially attributed to Drusus, but
were likely sired by Tiberius’ praetorian prefect, Sejanus. When Tiberius
became emperor in 14, he tried to destroy the family of his long-since-
deceased brother, Nero Claudius Drusus, for their line was rich with the
blood of Augustus, and thus the people and senate favored them over
his own offspring. Leading this rival branch was Tiberius’ popular
nephew, Germanicus. Though several fine members of Germanicus’
family (including Germanicus himself) perished, the sinister designs of
Tiberius were unsuccessful, for Tiberius’ own son (Drusus) predeceased
him and in 37 he was succeeded by Germanicus’ youngest son, Caligula.
• Branch III: Nero Claudius Drusus’ direct descendants. This was the
most successful branch, despite the very early death of its founder in 9
B.C. (some 23 years before Augustus himself died). It was founded by
Nero Claudius Drusus (a son of Livia, and the younger brother of Tibe
rius) and Antonia (the daughter of Marc Antony and Augustus’ sister,
Octavia). Unlike Tiberius’ branch, this one was of very mixed blood,
including that of Augustus, Livia and Marc Antony. Nero Claudius
Drusus and Antonia had two sons, Claudius and Germanicus, and a
daughter, Livilla. During their generation the branch splits into two
sub-branches (Ilia and Illb), headed by the sons, which (genetically, at
least) developed separately. The daughter, Livilla, had marriages in both
branch I and branch II.
• Branch Ilia: Germanicus, direct descendants. This sub-branch was

headed by Germanicus, and was rich with Augustus’ blood. N ot only
was his maternal grandmother, Octavia, a sister of Augustus, but his wife
(Agrippina Senior) was Augustus’ granddaughter. Despite suffering
much loss at the hands of Tiberius and his prefect, Sejanus, three impor
tant children of Germanicus survived. The first was a son, Gaius (called
Caligula), who ruled cruelly from 37-41 and was murdered. The second
was a daughter, Agrippina Junior, who became the mother of the third
important offspring, the future emperor Nero (54-68), who, like his
uncle Caligula, ruled cruelly and was murdered. With N ero’s death, so
ended the Julio-Claudian dynasty.
Branch Illb : Claudius’ direct descendants. Since Claudius was born

sickly, he was put aside early in life, and hopes resided with his highly
popular brother, Germanicus. This obscurity spared Claudius fatal con
sequences in the “war” between the families headed by Tiberius and
Germanicus. In the meantime, Claudius’ marriages produced three chil
dren, of whom only a son, Britannicus, figured as a potential heir. When
his demented young nephew Caligula was murdered in 41, Claudius was
hailed emperor by the praetorian guards who wished to preserve their
power, and recognized Claudius as not only a legitimate candidate, but
one who they could dominate. Later, Claudius married one of his nieces,
Caligula’s sister Agrippina Junior, who also had a son from a previous
marriage (Nero). Though they produced no children together in mar
riage, some have speculated that Claudius had sired Nero before they
were wed. During Claudius’ principate (41-54) only two legitimate
male Julio-Claudian heirs remained: Britannicus and Nero, representing
the two sub-branches of Germanicus’ family. This spelled disaster for
Claudius and his son, Britannicus, both of whom were murdered by
Agrippina Senior and Nero so the latter could reign uncontested. Thus,
Claudius’ sub-branch ends.
AUGUSTUS 27 B.C- - A.D. 14

As O c t a v ia n : M em ber of th e S econd
T r iu m v ir a t e , 4 3 -3 3 b .c .
As O c t a v ia n : Im perator , 3 1-2 7 b .c .
As A u g u stu s : 27 b .c . - a .d . 14
G r a n d -n e p h e w a n d a d o p t e d s o n o f Ju l iu s C a esa r
H u sba n d of S c r ib o n ia a n d L iv ia
Fa t h e r of J u l ia ( by S c r ib o n ia )
B roth er of O c t a v ia
B r o t h e r -i n -l a w of M arc A ntony
F a t h e r -i n -la w of M a r cellu s, A g r ip p a a n d T ib e r iu s
A d o p t iv e f a t h e r o f T ib e r iu s and N ero C l a u d iu s D r u su s
U n cle of A n t o n ia
G r a n d -u n c l e o f G e r m a n ic u s, C l a u d iu s a n d L iv il l a
G r a n d fa th er of G a iu s C a esa r , L u c iu s C a esa r , A g r ip p a Po stu m u s,
J u l ia the Yo unger and A g r ip p in a S e n io r
G r e a t -g r a n d f a t h e r o f N ero C a esa r , D r u su s C a esa r , C a l ig u l a ,

A g r ip p in a Ju n io r , D r u s il l a a n d J u l ia L iv il l a
G r e a t -g r e a t -g r a n d f a t h e r o f N ero
Potential Heirs of Augustus
Marcellus 23 B.C. Murdered (?)

Agrippa 12 B.C. Died
N ero Claudius Drusus 9 B.C. Died
Lucius Caesar A.D. 2 Died
Gaius Caesar A.D. 4 Died
Agrippa Postumus A.D. 7 Banished
Asinius Gallus — Failed
Tiberius A.D. 14 Succeeded
Caesar Augustus (earlier Gaius Octavius, modified subsequently), 63

B.C. - A.D. 14 . Augustus was the son of Atia (a niece of Julius Caesar) and
of Gaius Octavius, an aspiring novus homo (“new man” ), who died young
in 59 B.C. without achieving the nobility he desired. However, his two
children by his second wife, Atia, would serve his memory well. They were
Octavia, the future wife of Marc Antony, and Octavian, who came to be
known as Augustus, and was the first “emperor” of Rome.
On balance, Augustus was a simple man who tackled enormous tasks
in a pragmatic manner. As such, his accomplishments were both real and
lasting. In his desire to achieve absolute power, Augustus demonstrated
remarkable patience as he slowly and methodically accumulated titles and
privileges, and restructured legal procedures to his advantage. Quietly,
almost invisibly, he transformed a Republic into a constitutional heredi
tary monarchy.
His life was remarkable, and he enjoyed the company of great men,
such as Virgil, Horace, Livy and Ovid. During his 57 years in power, he is
said to have found Rome brick and left it marble. From this statement can
be divined both a literal and a figurative truth which allows us, 2,000 years
later, to reckon the greatness of his accomplishment.
N o t e t o t h e r e a d e r : In his own biography, Augustus is referred to as
Octavian during the period in which he used that name (63-27 B.C.), and
as Augustus from 27 B.C. onward. However, in other biographies in this
book in which he is mentioned, the name Octavian is used only in the
Imperatorial Period (chapter 1), and the name Augustus is used for the
Imperial Period (chapter 2 and beyond). This has been adopted for the
sake of simplicity.
A s O c t a v ia n (63-27 b .c .)
Octavian was only 4 years old when his father died, and so he was raised by
his mother. Julius Caesar took an interest in helping his fatherless great-
nephew, and personally introduced him into society. While a teenager,
Octavian was appointed Pontifex and Praefectus Urbi in 47 B.C., and in 46
he accompanied Caesar at his military triumph in Rome. In the following
year, Octavian campaigned in Spain with Caesar, and subsequently went
to Apollonia in northern Greece, where he was to finish his studies.
But on the 15th (Ides) of March, 44 B.C., Julius Caesar was murdered,
and soon after Octavian learned that his great-uncle had adopted him as
his son, and by doing so had named him heir to his political legacy.
According to Suetonius, Octavian received three-fourths of Caesar’s for
tune (with the remaining one-fourth being divided between two other of
Caesar’s grandnephews, Quintus Pedius and Pinarius Scarpus).Though not
yet 20 years old, and frail of constitution, Octavian sensed the calling of
destiny and abandoned his studies (against the advice of his mother and
other family members). He and his friend Marcus Agrippa traveled back to
Rome, arriving in May or June of 44 B.C., whereupon he changed his name
to Gaius Julius Caesar and launched his career in politics.
Octavian found Marc Antony (a former ally of Caesar, and the theo
retical head of the Caesarean Party) to be confrontational, for Octavian
was a threat to the career Antony had built. Indeed, Antony had good rea
son to fear, for Octavian proved himself to be a bold and resourceful politi
cian from the start. Octavian allied himself with moderate Republicans,
catered to Caesar’s loyal veterans, and convinced the orator Cicero to
emerge from retirement and take up his cause against Antony.
A t this point, the political tide had turned strongly against Antony,
who offered stubborn resistance, but still had to flee Rome. Octavian
himself was getting resistance from the senate, which realized its peril and
offered support to Brutus and Cassius (who had fled for their lives in 44
B.C.) by granting them great authority in Greece and Asia.
In 43 B.C., Octavian was given command with the two consuls, Hir-
tius and Pansa, and confronted the renegade armies of Antony in northern
Italy at Mutina, where Antony was defeated by this senate-backed army.
Though the victory belonged to the senate, both consuls were killed in the
battle. Octavian (with the support of Caesar’s veterans and Cicero) was
named a replacement for one of the consuls, even though he was well
below the requisite age. In this same year, Octavian’s status as heir of C ae
sar was ratified by the senate, and his mother died, leaving him parentless.
Late in 43 B.C., laden with his new powers, Octavian marched against
Antony, who in the meantime had allied himself with another Caesarean,
Lepidus. But instead of fighting Antony and Lepidus, Octavian achieved a
truce with his two rivals on November 27. This was a wise move by Octa
vian, who realized his power in Rome had only come through brute force,
and had no guarantee of longevity. The three formed what is known as the
Second Triumvirate, a legally sanctioned political alliance by which the trio
would rule Rome and its territories for the next five years. In the pact, Octa
vian received control of Africa, Sicily and Sardinia.
On New Year’s day, 42 B.C., Julius Caesar was declared a god, and
Octavian thus became divi filius (son of a god). In the meantime, the
Republican renegades Brutus and Cassius had been ravaging Greece and
Asia, and had amassed a considerable war chest and a large, well-equipped
army. It was only a matter of time before these “Republican” forces would
engage whatever armies the Caesareans could assemble. The Republicans
needed to win to justify their murder of Caesar, and the Caesareans needed
to avenge Julius Caesar’s death.
Antony and Octavian left Lepidus in command in Italy, and led their
armies east to confront Brutus and Cassius. The armies of the Caesareans
(Triumvirs) and the Republicans met in northern Greece, near Philippi,
and engaged in two pitched battles. Octavian was so ill that he had to be
carried about the battlefield on a litter, and thus he had to rely on the
healthier and more experienced Antony to carry the day against the
Republicans. In October of 42 B.C., these battles occurred at Philippi
about three weeks apart. Cassius committed suicide after the first battle,
and Brutus did the same after having lost the second.
The memory of Julius Caesar was avenged, and Rome awaited the tri
umphant return of Octavian and Antony. This marked a new era in the
Roman world, and each of the Triumvirs thus tried to strengthen his own
position. Also, the three carved up the Roman world. Antony headed to
the east while Octavian and Lepidus remained in the West. In the follow
ing year, 41 B.C., Octavian came into conflict with Lucius Antonius, the
youngest brother of Marc Antony, and defeated him in what is called the
“Perusine War.” Octavian wisely spared the life of Lucius Antonius, so as
not to antagonize Marc Antony.
In 40 B.C., Octavian married Scribonia, a relative of Sextus Pompey,
the youngest son of the long-deceased warlord Pompey the Great. After
the murder of Julius Caesar (who in 48 B.C. had defeated Pompey the
Great), Sextus Pompey had re-activated his ambitions, and had been
given by order of the senate command of a powerful fleet which he used to
gain control of Sicily and Sardinia.
Though Octavian’s marriage to Scribonia had a political motive, it
also resulted in a daughter named Julia, who was to be the only child O cta
vian fathered. In the same year, 40 B.C., Octavian also came to an agree
ment with Antony known as the Treaty of Brundisium, by which Antony
married Octavian’s only sister, Octavia. Though the marriage was received
well by the public (who hoped it might prevent civil war), it was a private
failure.
Two years later Octavian divorced Scribonia, not only because it was
politically expedient, but also because (as Suetonius reports) he “. . . could
not bear the way she nagged . . . ” Octavian replaced Scribonia with an
aristocratic lady named Livia, who proved to be his final wife. This mar
riage was based principally upon love and, though childless, endured 52
years. They seemed perfect companions though, admittedly, Livia fre
quently had to turn a blind eye to Octavian’s extramarital affairs (which,
we are told, were numerous).
The five-year Triumviral pact expired in 37 B.C., and Octavia (the
sister to one Triumvir, and wife to another) was instrumental in organizing
the Treaty of Tarentum, at which their pact was renewed. Only one year
later, in 36 B.C., the complicated situation in the West was greatly simpli
fied when Octavian’s general Agrippa defeated Sextus Pompey in a
pitched naval battle off the coast of Sicily.
Not only did this remove Sextus Pompey, the last member of the
Pompeiian party, but during the campaign the least charismatic Triumvir,
Lepidus (who had control of Africa), came into conflict with Octavian. In
that same year, Lepidus was thus stripped of all honors except that of pontifex
maximus (high priest). The Roman world was now exclusively in the hands
of Octavian and Antony, who parceled it between themselves. Octavian
received the West, and Antony took command in the wealthier East.
With the geographical separation came also a political division
between Octavian and Antony. Octavian focused on restoring peace in
Italy, where his support grew enormously. From 35 to 33 B.C. he was
mainly occupied with wars in Illyria and Dalmatia, which gave Italy
greater security on its eastern front. His building projects, headed by his
lieutenant Agrippa, only added to Octavian’s popularity. In the meantime,
IOO HISTORY OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE: BIOGRAPHIES
Antony became more estranged to the Italians. His recalcitrant treatment

of his wife, Octavia (Octavian’s sister), in favor of the Egyptian queen
Cleopatra VII, only worsened public opinion. Furthermore, Octavian
fiendishly revealed the contents of Antony’s will, which left no doubt that
his tastes had become thoroughly Orientalized.
Even though public opinion in Italy was moving in Octavian’s favor,
when the Triumviral pact (and Octavian’s consulship) expired at the end
of 33 B.C., the incoming consuls (of 32 B.C.) were Ahenobarbus and Sos
ius, both of whom strongly supported Antony. Octavian thus occupied
Rome with his soldiers and terrified the senators: the two consuls and some
300 senators fled to Ephesus to seek Antony’s protection. The Triumviral
Pact was not renewed, amounting to a declaration of war.
In 31 B.C., Italy and the western provinces submitted to Octavian, who
assumed the consulship and officially declared war against Cleopatra VII,
with the dual purpose of also eliminating Antony. The war came to a head
in the spring of 31 B.C., when the armies and navies of the two warlords set
tled about five miles apart near the mouth of the Gulf of Ambracia on the
western shore of Greece. Octavian’s trusted naval commander, Agrippa,
blockaded Antony’s forces, and took his toll by the end of summer. Antony
and Cleopatra VII burst through Agrippa’s blockade and headed for Egypt,
leaving the main parts of their army and navy to stay and fight.
The epochal battle occurred on September 2 at Actium. It was a mas
sive engagement that filled the mouth of the gulf so thickly with warships
that it has often been described as a virtual land war at sea. Agrippa proved
to be the better admiral, and Antony’s fleet, abandoned by its leader, capit
ulated. A few days later, Antony’s land forces also surrendered, and one of
the great victories in Western history was complete.
After having made their journey to Egypt, Antony and Cleopatra
committed suicide separately in 30 B.C. rather than be taken to Rome to
adorn Octavian’s triumphal procession. As the new ruler of the Mediterra
nean, Octavian annexed Egypt (which had been a client kingdom) as his
own private territory and executed the boy Caesarion, who Cleopatra
claimed had been sired by Julius Caesar.
In 29 B.C., Octavian celebrated his triumph in Rome, and the doors
of the Temple of Janus were formally closed. This was a rare occurrence,
for they were only closed when Rome was at peace. Octavian subsequently
was hailed Imperator by the senate, but instead of being a title, it was
adopted as his praenomen. Octavian began the lengthy process of disband
ing his many legions by settling veterans with land grants.
Now, came the artful part of Octavian’s career, for after having
achieved absolute power, he did not want to lose it in the same manner as
Julius Caesar had nearly 15 years before. Thus began his mission to retain
his absolute authority without having it appear so. Octavian declared the
TH E JU L IO -C L A U D IA N S IO I
restoration of the Republic, and, on January 13, 27 B.C., forfeited most of

his authority to the senate and the people of Rome.
He kept only his position as consul, and the provinces of Spain, Gaul,
Syria and Egypt, complete with their legions. Three days later, the senate
granted Octavian the title Augustus (meaning “sacred” or “revered” ),
which he chose in preference to that of Romulus. However, his true prefer
ence was Princeps, which meant “first citizen.” Under succeeding emper
ors, Augustus came to mean the title of office of the emperor.
Note: For more details on this period, see the historical outline in the
introductory section of Chapter 1.
A s A u g u s t u s (27 b .c . - a . d . 14)
Although Augustus had achieved far more than one might have expected
from the frail teenager of 43 B.C., his career as leader of Rome was just
beginning. The five years following his being hailed Augustus were danger
ous ones, in which Rome’s new frontiers were secured or expanded. Augus
tus paid close attention to the submission and organization of Spain and
Gaul, two of Rome’s most important provinces.
In 23 B.C., Augustus resigned his decade-long possession of the con
sulship, but in its place the senate granted him for life the tribuniciae potes-
tas (“power of the tribunate” ). In this way Augustus attained perpetual
veto power, and with this gesture the Republic formally came to an end. In
that same year Marcellus, Augustus’ only nephew and heir-apparent, died.
Since Augustus had no son of his own, and was never in possession of good
health (twice recently, in 25 and 23 B.C. he had been critically ill), his
need for an heir seemed urgent.
N ext in line was his lifelong friend and lieutenant, Agrippa, who two
years later (21 B.C.) married Augustus’ daughter, Julia (who recently had
been widowed with the death of Marcellus). Only three years after that, in
18 B.C., Agrippa was granted a five-year co-regency with Augustus, which
was renewed in 13 B.C. But the search for an heir who did not die prema
turely proved to be Augustus’ lifelong frustration. Indeed, he would lose no
fewer than six prospects, only to be succeeded by Tiberius, the step-son
whom he disliked.
Shortly before he began three years of travel in Sicily, Greece and
Asia, Augustus turned down the senate’s offer of becoming dictator. He
introduced many pieces of legislation in 18 and 17 B.C. that supported tra
ditional Roman family values. In the latter year, Augustus adopted his two
eldest grandsons, Gaius Caesar and Lucius Caesar, and personally saw to
their education in hope they might succeed him when they came of age.
From 15 to 13 B.C. Augustus focused on the western European prov
inces. He resided in Gaul and annexed Rhaetia and Noricum. One of his
first actions in Gaul was to establish an Imperial mint at Lugdunum in 15

B.C., and, in a related measure, to reduce the senate’s jurisdiction to the
copper coinages only.
Two important deaths subsequently occurred. In 13 or 12 B.C., the
long-since-demoted Triumvir Lepidus died. Since Lepidus had retained the
title of Pontifex Maximus, it was now available and was given to Augustus,
who became the head of the Roman religion. In 12 B.C., Augustus’ heir-
apparent and comrade-in-arms Agrippa died. Once again, Augustus had
lost a promising heir, and his only daughter was widowed in the process.
Now, Augustus was without a suitable heir should he die any time soon.
Having no other personal option (for his two grandsons were only 8
and 5 years old), Augustus brought into the Imperial fold his two step
sons, Tiberius and Nero Claudius Drusus, the sons of Livia by her previous
marriage. With their promotion came an increase in Roman aggression in
the unconquered lands bordering the Rhine and the Danube. Nero Clau
dius Drusus died just three years later, in 9 B.C., from an accidental fall off
his horse.
Now Tiberius, who in 12 or 11 B.C. had been forced into an unhappy
marriage with Augustus’ daughter, Julia, was the only plausible heir in the
event of an emergency. However, Augustus did not care for Tiberius, and
viewed him simply as a regent for his two eldest grandsons, Gaius Caesar
and Lucius Caesar. While this arrangement suited Augustus, it angered
Tiberius, who realized that he was being used. N ot only had he been forced
to give up his blissful marriage to Vipsania Agrippina to enter into a hate
ful one with Augustus’ daughter, but he now had to deal with the “spoiled”
grandchildren of Augustus.
In the meantime, Tiberius’ service to the Empire as its leading field
general was being taken for granted by Augustus. The small measure of
help Augustus offered in 6 B.C. — granting Tiberius the tribuniciae potestas
for five years — rang hollow. Tiberius refused the title and “retired” to the
island of Rhodes, where he stayed in self-exile for the next eight years.
This left Augustus without a suitable heir who was of age.
In 2 B.C., after the most creative era of his principate had passed, the
senate hailed Augustus Pater Patriae, meaning “father of his country.” As
flattering as this was, it had little effect on Augustus’ spirit, for it occurred
in the same year he banished his only daughter Julia on a charge of adul
tery, for she had engaged in many affairs while Tiberius was absent.
Though heartbroken, Augustus had little choice in the matter, for about
15 years before he himself had introduced the legislation (lex Iulia de adul-
teriis) that made adultery a public crime.
Tiberius returned to Rome in the summer of A.D. 2 on the condition
that he stay out of public affairs. Later in that same year, Augustus’ second
THE JULIO-CLAUDIANS IO 3
grandson, Lucius Caesar, died, and only two years after that (A.D. 4), his
oldest grandson, Gaius Caesar, died. The only legitimate candidates for the
succession were now the 46-year-old Tiberius and Augustus’ remaining
grandson, the recalcitrant 16-year-old Agrippa Postumus. Augustus for
mally adopted both of them in A.D. 4., but by A.D. 7 he had banished
Agrippa Postumus, who would never return.
The years A.D. 6 to 9 were fraught with military crisis, which kept the
heir-apparent Tiberius busy on the frontier. Augustus soon realized that his
28 legions (which were reduced from 60 at the height of his civil war with
Antony) were insufficient. Indeed, when a revolt broke out in Pannonia, it
required three years of Tiberius’ full attention to suppress.
Just as Rome was emerging from this crisis on the Danube, the incom
petent general Publius Quinctilius Varus lost three legions to a Germanic
ambush in the Teutoburg forest. Now, Augustus had only 25 legions. This
devastating blow sent Augustus into depression. For several months there
after he occasionally banged his head against doors or walls and cried out
“Quinctilius Varus, give me back my legions!” After having experienced
these problems, Augustus postponed his plans to annex other European
territories.
During the last five years of Augustus’ reign, he resigned himself to
the fact that Tiberius would succeed him. Even so, the aging emperor may
have engaged in one last attempt to repair his relationship with Agrippa
Postumus, whom he had exiled seven years previously. If this were true, it
may have been what killed him, for Livia is said to have poisoned Augus
tus either to prevent such a meeting or in response to it having occurred.
Whatever the truth is, Augustus died at Nola on August 19, A.D. 14,
just one month short of reaching his 76th year. Tiberius, who sped back
from his journey to the Danubian front, arrived either while his adoptive
father was on his deathbed or shortly after he died. Unpopular though he
was, the 54-year-old Tiberius was hailed emperor. Except for the objection
of the opportunist Asinius Gallus, there was no significant opposition or
delay, for no one else was better qualified to succeed the great Augustus.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : Because of the various forms in which Augustus held

power, and the great length of his political career (some 57 years), his is by
far the most complex of all Roman coinages. As he shaped the political
system from the crumbling Republic to the Principate (from Imperium to
A uctoritas, as Michael Grant so appropriately described it in 1946), the
character of his coinage changed. T o simplify matters, his listings are
divided according to the phase of his career in which they were struck. N o
serious attempt has been made to catalog all of his Imperatorial or Imperial
coins, and relatively little attention has been paid to his ‘provincial’ coins,
for he struck them at perhaps 150 mints. It should also be noted that the
honorary coinage struck after his death was the largest of its kind in all
Roman history.
JULIA
Daugh ter of A u g u stu s ( by S c r ib o n ia )
N ie c e o f O c t a v ia
S t e p -d a u g h t e r o f L iv ia
W if e o f M a r c ellu s, A g r ip p a a n d T ib e r iu s
M o t h e r -i n -la w of G e r m a n ic u s
M o th er of G a iu s C a esa r , L u c iu s C a esa r ,
A g r ip p a Po stu m u s, J u l ia the Yo u n g e r and
A g r ip p in a S e n io r
G randm o th er of N ero C a esa r , D ru su s C a esa r ,

C a l ig u l a , A g r ip p in a J u n io r , D r u s il l a a n d
J u l ia L iv il l a
G r e a t -g r a n d m o t h e r o f N ero
Julia (often called Julia Major or Julia the Elder), 39 B.C. - A.D. 14 .
Famous for her kindness and sense of humor, Julia had little choice but to
endure a tragic life. She was bom to Augustus (Octavian) and his second
wife, Scribonia, whom he divorced the day after Julia was bom. Because
she proved to be Augustus’ only natural child, Julia was important to her
father’s political career from the very outset. A t the Treaty of Tarentum in
37 B .C ., while only a small child, she was betrothed to Marc Antony’s son
Marcus Antonius Junior, who was only about 7 years old.
Because Marc Antonius Junior died in 30 B.C., Julia was wed to her
17-year-old cousin Marcellus in 25 B.C. Though this union cemented Mar
cellus’ position as preferred eventual heir to Augustus’ throne, it was not
destined to last. Marcellus died in 23 B.C., apparently of natural causes, but
perhaps on the orders of Livia. Augustus needed a new heir, and so he
called upon his old comrade-in-arms, Agrippa, who all along had been the
only serious rival to Marcellus. Julia was thus married to Agrippa in 21
B.C., even though he was some 25 years her senior and had been married
several times before.
In 20 B.C. the couple produced a son, Gaius Caesar, and thereafter
they had four more children: Julia the Younger in c. 19 B.C., Lucius Caesar
in 17 B.C., Agrippina Senior in 14 B.C., and Agrippa Postumus in 12 B.C.
N o coins were struck for Julia the Younger, who (in A.D. 8), like her hom
onymous mother, was banished for rampant promiscuity (and apparently
was kept alive until 28 by the support of her step-grandmother, Livia).
Julia and Agrippa seemed to have gotten along well, and she accompanied
her husband in the East from 16-13 B.C.
THE JULIO-CLAUDIANS IO5
However, this fruitful marriage ended with Agrippa’s tragic death in

12 B.C. Julia was now a widow, and Augustus had lost a second heir-appar-
ent. Furthermore, he had no other immediate heir, as his grandsons were
merely children. Thus began a very unhappy stage of Julia’s life, as she was
forced by Augustus and her stepmother Livia to marry yet again (in 12 or
11 B.C.), this time to Tiberius, Livia’s eldest son. Tiberius was happily mar
ried to Vipsania Agrippina (a daughter of Agrippa, and the mother of
Drusus) and did not want to divorce her so he could marry Julia, the
widow of his ex-father-in-law. Political necessity, however, overshadowed
personal desires; Tiberius would become the emergency heir, but in essence
was perceived by Augustus as little more than the guardian of Augustus’
eventual heirs, his eldest grandsons, Gaius Caesar and Lucius Caesar.
Tiberius and Julia proved to be completely incompatible, and the
marriage was a failure. Tiberius spent as much time away from Rome on
campaigns as possible, and in 6 B.C. exiled himself on the distant island of
Rhodes while Julia remained in Rome. She engaged in affairs with many
aristocratic men, including perhaps the poet Ovid, and Iullus Antonius,
the youngest son of Marc Antony and Fulvia.
For her sexual escapades, Augustus reluctantly charged Julia with
adultery in 2 B.C. and exiled her to the barren island of Pandataria, where
she was accompanied by her mother, Scribonia. Suetonius tells us that this
was perhaps the most tragic event in Augustus’ life, and was far more hurt
ful even than the untimely deaths of his grandsons, Gaius and Lucius C ae
sars, or even the massacre of his legions under Varus in Germany.
While on Pandataria, Julia was forbidden to drink wine or indulge in
any other luxury. Five years after she was banished, Julia was allowed to
reside in somewhat greater comfort in Rhegium in southern Italy. Despite
this upgrade in lifestyle, Julia and her mother still lived in virtually com
plete isolation for the next 1 1 years, during which time her three sons per
ished. According to Tacitus, Julia died of slow starvation in 14 sometime
after her last son, Agrippa Postumus, was murdered (though some scholars
suggest she actually died two years earlier). In any case, she was starved
because her embittered former husband, the emperor Tiberius, discontin
ued the allowance Augustus had granted her, and forbade all gifts.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : All coins depicting Julia were struck by her father,
Augustus. Her Imperial issues are of interest, for one type is most unusual,
and another is controversial. On the former (represented by two issues of
denarii) Julia’s bust is shown together with those of her two eldest sons,
Gaius Caesar and Lucius Caesar. This format is interesting, but seldom
yields detailed portraits. The controversial issue is a denarius from the
same moneyer (C. Marius C. f. Tromentina) of 13 B.C., the year in which
Augustus renewed Agrippa’s tribunician power and designated him as his
successor. Several coins struck by the moneyers of 13 B.C. celebrate the

foundation of an Augustan dynasty in which Julia and Agrippa repre
sented the next generation, and their two sons Gaius and Lucius (for their
other son, Agrippa Postumus, had not yet been born) were considered the
eventual heirs. Indeed, it is in this remarkable series that ‘Imperial’ portrait
coins are first struck for Agrippa, Julia, Gaius and Lucius. The historical
context for the bust of Diana representing Julia is so strong that any doubts
must be ascribed to overly cautious scholarship.
MARCELLUS
N eph ew , s o n -in -law a n d in t e n d e d h e ir o f A u g u stu s
S on of O c t a v ia
F ir s t h u sban d (a n d c o u s in ) of J u l ia
B r o t h e r -i n -law of A g r ip p a
H a l f -b r o t h e r o f A n t o n ia
Marcus Claudius Marcellus, 4 2 -2 3 B.C. Marcellus — just like the future

emperor Tiberius — was born in the eventful year of 42 B.C., when his
uncle, Augustus (Octavian), had joined forces with Marc Antony to
defeat the Republican forces of Brutus and Cassius at Philippi.
Marcellus was the son of Augustus’ sister Octavia by her first husband
Gaius Claudius Marcellus (the consul of 50 B.C.). Two years after Marcel
lus was born his mother divorced the boy’s father at the urging of O cta
vian, who for political reasons wanted her to marry Marc Antony. Even
while a toddler Marcellus was thrown into the political mix when, in 39
B.C., he was betrothed to the daughter of Octavian’s rival Sextus Pompey
(though the marriage never occured).
Since Augustus had no sons of his own, his nephew Marcellus was
considered the foremost heir. Indeed, Augustus took a personal interest in
his nephew’s education in Spain, and originally betrothed him to a daugh
ter of Sextus Pompeius. However, in 25 B.C. Augustus insisted instead that
he wed Julia, the only child Augustus had fathered. Genetically this was a
very close match (they were first cousins), and it is perhaps fortuitous that
they did not have children.
After this marriage occurred, there remained no doubt that Marcellus
was Augustus’ preferred eventual heir, but since he was still only in his late
teens, he was not yet a practical one. Marcellus’ main rival was his brother-
in-law Agrippa, the trusted lieutenant of Augustus. The two men often
clashed — Agrippa because he believed his record of service should pre
vail, and the younger Marcellus because he was “family.” Indeed, when
Augustus fell seriously ill in 23 B.C., he gave his signet ring to Agrippa, not
THE JULIO-CLAUDIANS IO 7
Marcellus, for he felt his nephew was still too young for this responsibility
at that point.
The likelihood that Marcellus would inherit the throne not only dis
pleased Agrippa, but also Augustus’ wife, Livia, who had two sons of her
own (Tiberius and Nero Claudius Drusus). We can be justifiably suspicious
that Marcellus’ sudden death in 23 B.C. at age 19 was not natural, and was
perhaps engineered by Livia. Although Agrippa perhaps had the most to
gain from Marcellus’ death, it would seem to be out of character for him to
resort to such an underhanded act.
None-the-less, Agrippa became the leading heir to Augustus, a posi
tion which was greatly strengthened some two years later when he
divorced Marcellus’ sister, Marcella, and married his widow, Julia. Though
Marcellus’ death came as a shock to both Augustus and to the people of
Rome, it proved to be the first in a long line of tragic and suspicious deaths
of Augustus’ intended successors.
The coinage believed to portray Marcellus and Julia is

N u m is m a tic N o t e :
rare and controversial. The most complicating factor is that there is no
identifying inscription, and thus the attribution (even of the mint) is
uncertain. However, since the coin belongs to the ninth consulship of
Augustus (25 B.C.), it is likely that Marcellus and Julia are the subjects.
Other authorities suggest the man’s portrait is either Julius Caesar or
Agrippa, and that the woman’s portrait is Octavia, the mother of Marcel
lus. But in each of these alternate cases finding a proper context and a suit
able partner in 25 B.C. is difficult, and so the attribution must tentatively
remain with Marcellus and Julia.
AGRIPPA
S o n -i n -law a n d in t e n d e d s u c c e s s o r o f A u g u stu s
S eco nd h u sba n d of J u l ia
B r o t h e r -i n -l a w of M arcellu s
F a t h e r -i n -la w of T ib e r iu s
Fa t h e r of V ip s a n ia A g r ip p in a , G a iu s C a esa r ,
L u c iu s C a esa r , A g r ip p a Po stu m u s,
G r a n d fa th er of N ero C a esa r , D r u su s C a esa r ,

C a l ig u l a , A g r ip p in a Ju n io r , D r u sil l a a n d J u l ia L iv il l a
G r e a t -g r a n d f a t h e r o f N ero
Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa, c. 6 3 - 1 2 B.C. The lieutenant and a chosen

successor of Augustus, Agrippa was a close childhood friend of the first
princeps, and was an ardent supporter of his until his own death in 12 B.C.
Io 8 HISTORY OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE: BIOGRAPHIES
Although of relatively humble birth (he hailed from an equestrian

family from Dalmatia), he was relied upon heavily by Augustus. When
Augustus (Octavian) was recalled from his studies in Apollonia following
the murder of his granduncle Julius Caesar in 44 B.C., it was Agrippa who
accompanied him. He was an active commander in the Perusine War, gov-
erned Gaul, and later led an expedition across the Rhine. In 37 B.C. he
served as consul in Rome and he twice received the tribunician power dur
ing his illustrious career.
Agrippa was the chief architect of Augustus’ campaigns against Sex
tus Pompey, whom he defeated off the coast of Sicily in 36 B.C., thus
stamping out the remnants of the Pompeian Party, and making it possible
for Augustus to become the unrivaled commander of the Western Medi
terranean. He also served with distinction in the Illyrian War of 35-33
B.C. But his greatest contribution to the building of Augustus’ political
career was yet to come. Indeed, it was Agrippa’s genius as a naval com
mander to which Augustus owed his defeat of Marc Antony at the monu
mental Battle of Actium in 31 B.C.
Thereafter, Agrippa held additional consulships in 28 and 27 B.C.
During the next few years, Agrippa had to contend with his brother-in-law
Marcellus, who was Augustus’ nephew and son-in-law. Because of Marcel-
lus’ blood connections to Augustus, the young man was intended to be
Augustus’ eventual heir. N ot surprisingly, followers of Agrippa and Marcel
lus often clashed because both hoped to succeed Augustus, but each had
different qualifications.
When Augustus fell seriously ill in 23 B.C., it was to Agrippa that he
handed his signet ring, for Marcellus was only 19 years old and not ready
for the responsibility of ruling an Empire. But the rivalry did not last for
long, for Marcellus died prematurely in 23 B.C., perhaps as the result of a
cunning murder.
After taking on a diplomatic mission in the East, Agrippa returned to
Rome in 21 B .C ., where he switched wives. He divorced Claudia Marcella
(Major), a niece of Augustus and the sister of his former rival Marcellus
(who not long ago had died) so that he could marry Marcellus’ widow
Julia, the only daughter of Augustus. Together, Agrippa and Julia had five
surviving children, four of whom appear on coins.
Agrippa spent the next two years pacifying parts of Spain and Gaul,
and returned again to Rome in 18 B.C., whereupon he was given the tribu-
niciae potestas for a period of five years (which was renewed in 13 B.C.). His
next important mission began in 16 B.C., when he spent three years in the
East settling a variety of political and military problems and established
veterans in colonies. After this, he returned in 13 B.C. to Pannonia, where
his presence was instrumental in stamping out a potential revolt by fron
tier legions. Agrippa then returned to Rome, where he died a natural
death in 12 B.C.
THE JU LIO CLAU D IAN S IO9
This came as a great shock to the nation, and to his long-time friend
Augustus, who had chosen him as heir to the throne. Agrippa’s career was
remarkably eventful, but hardly as colorful as one might expect. Indeed, it
reads like a laundry list of accomplishments, tireless service, and unques
tioned loyalty to Augustus. N o doubt, these character strengths must have
concerned Livia, who was hopeful that one of her own two sons would suc
ceed Augustus. It is worth noting that Agrippa’s career was not entirely
devoted to warfare, as he also held top governmental posts and supervised
several massive building projects, including one that improved the water
supply of the city of Rome. Among these was the Pantheon, one of the
most enduring symbols of Rome, which much later in history was reno
vated by the emperor Hadrian.
N u m ism a ticN o t e : Agrippa’s precious metal coinage was struck during

two periods: 38 B.C. and 13-12 B.C. Most of Agrippa’s provincial coinage
occurred under Augustus, including the dual-portrait issues of Nemausus,
which were struck in three phases, c. 27 B.C., c. 16-10 B.C. and c. 9-3 B.C.
The most enigmatic issues of Agrippa, however, are the posthumous asses
which are most often attributed to the reign of Caligula. Many scholars
rightly believe the finest-style pieces were struck under Tiberius (14-37),
and that the series continued through the reign of Caligula (37-41) and
into the principate of Claudius (41-54). That they were struck by Caligula
at all is enigmatic, as his disdain for Agrippa was well known. Suetonius
relates: “Because of Agrippa’s humble origin, Caligula loathed being
described as his grandson, and would fly into a rage if anyone mentioned
him, in speech or song . . .”.
GAIUS CAESAR
S on of A g r ip p a a n d J u l ia
G r a n d s o n a n d in t e n d e d h e ir o f A u g u stu s
F ir s t h u sba n d of L iv il l a
Bro th er of L u c iu s C a esa r , A g r ip p a Po stu m u s,
J u l ia the Yo u n g e r and A g r ip p in a S e n io r
Gaius (Julius) Caesar, 20 B.C.-A.D. 4. Gaius C ae

sar and his younger brother Lucius Caesar were
adopted by their grandfather Augustus in 17 B.C., who personally saw to
their education. After his father, Agrippa, died in 12 B.C., Gaius Caesar
was hailed princeps iuventutis (in 5 B.C.), as he and Lucius Caesar became
the intended successors of Augustus.
But the brothers were spoiled and presumptuous about their future
roles in government, so in 6 B.C. Augustus tried to teach them some
no HISTORY OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE: BIOGRAPHIES
humility by awarding Tiberius the tribunician power for five years. But
Tiberius refused the honor since he was fed up with his marriage to Julia
and was not anxious to be drawn into conflict with his stepsons Gaius and
Lucius. Instead, Tiberius withdrew from public service and exiled himself
on the distant island of Rhodes.
In the following year Gaius Caesar turned 15, upon which he was des-
ignated for the consulship of A.D. 1 and prematurely admitted to the sen
ate. By all accounts, his public presentation was warmly received. Gaius
Caesar’s first and only wife was Livilla, the daughter of Nero Claudius
Drusus and Antonia, whom he married in 1 B.C. Livilla is better known
for her later marriage to Tiberius’ son, Drusus, and for her adulterous affair
with the praetorian prefect Sejanus. Though their marriage united the
families of Augustus and Livia, it produced no children, and thus did not
have the unifying effect their parents might have envisioned.
Gaius Caesar attained his first important mission in 1 B.C., when he
was sent to the East to direct a campaign against Parthia, which had seized
Armenia. Accompanying him as advisers were Sejanus, the future prefect
of Tiberius, and Domitius Ahenobarbus, the grandfather of Nero. While in
Syria, he celebrated his first consulate, and all seemed to be going well for
the young heir to the throne, though the death of his younger brother,
Lucius Caesar, in A.D. 2 must have come as a shock.
A similar fate, however, was awaiting Gaius Caesar, who near the end
of the war in the East suffered a serious wound that some 18 months later
proved fatal (though some suggested Livia may have had a hand in his
“natural” death). Gaius Caesar died at Limyra in Lycia on February 21 of
A.D. 4 while returning to Rome. His death was a shock not only to his
adoptive grandfather, Augustus, but also to the people of Rome, who seem
to have been fond of the young man. Once again — for the fourth time —
Augustus had lost an heir to the throne.
LUCIUS CAESAR
B roth er of G a iu s C a esa r , A g r ip p a Po st u m u s,
J u l ia the Yo u n g e r and A g r ip p in a S e n io r
Lucius (Julius) Caesar, 17 B.C. - A.D. 2. The

younger brother of Gaius Caesar, Lucius Caesar
was cherished by his grandfather, the emperor Augustus. The brothers
were jointly adopted by Augustus upon Lucius’ birth in 17 B.C. After their
father, Agrippa, died in 12 B.C., the brothers became the intended succes
sors of Augustus, though as yet they were far too young for the task.
THE JULIO-CLAUDIANS III
To remedy this, their mother, Julia, was married against her wishes to
Tiberius, the eldest son of Livia, who at the time was married to her ex-
husband’s daughter. Tiberius was to act as guardian for the spoiled boys, but
both the marriage and the guardianship proved too much for Tiberius to
bear, and so he exiled himself to the island of Rhodes in 6 B.C. and left his
new family to determine their own fates.
The years 3-2 B.C. were important for Lucius, who was hailed princeps
iuventutis, presented publicly (assuming the toga virilis), admitted to the sen
ate, and designated for the consulship in A.D. 4. However, in the summer of
A.D. 2, while en route to Spain to gain military experience, he died at Mas-
salia on August 20 of an illness which some considered suspicious.
AGRIPPA POSTUMUS
B roth er of G a iu s C a esa r , L u c iu s C a esa r ,

Agrippa Julius Caesar (formerly Marcus Vipsa-

nius Agrippa Postumus), 12 B.C.-A.D . 14. The
third and youngest son of Agrippa and Julia, Agrippa Postumus was the
last surviving male descendant of Augustus. He was born a few weeks after
his father died, and as such he acquired the agnomen Postumus. However,
Agrippa Postumus did not possess the noble qualities of his two older
brothers (spoiled though they were).
The ancient historians describe him as being physically tough, brut
ish, temperamental, stubborn, rebellious, seditious and depraved. Tacitus
goes so far as to call him “a savage without either the years or the training
needed for imperial responsibilities.” Indeed, from the outset the young
man was unable to deal with his older co-heir, Tiberius, who was adopted
along with him by Augustus in A.D. 4.
Through the influence of Livia, in A.D. 6 Agrippa Postumus was
‘abdicated’ from the Julian gens and sent to Surrentum (near Pompeii). In
A.D. 7 he was condemned by the senate to perpetual exile on the islands of
Planasia, where he remained under guard for the next seven years.
Even the boy’s death in 14 was an inauspicious event, and one for
which several possibilities exist. It seems that his Augustus either secretly
visited him a few months before his own death (where Tacitus tells us they
had a “tearful display of affection”) or was planning to do so. This aroused
the suspicions of Livia, who feared Augustus would try to bring his natural
grandson back into the Imperial fold. Since this would cost her own son,
Tiberius, the inheritance he was so near to receiving, we are told that Livia
poisoned Augustus before he embarked. If this were true, the grandson

who had caused Augustus so much grief and pain in his lifetime proved
also to be a cause of his death. N ot surprisingly, after his grandfather’s
death in 14 Agrippa Postumus was murdered by a staff officer who took
him by surprise.
Tiberius and Livia could now rest assured that no grandson of Augus
tus could threaten Tiberius’ principate. It remains uncertain whether
Agrippa Postumus’ death was carried out on the orders of Augustus, Livia
or Tiberius, though it seems most likely that Livia or Tiberius did it, for we
are told by Tacitus that Tiberius blamed it on Augustus.
In one of the more colorful events in Julio-Claudian history, a man
named Clemens, who had once been Agrippa Postumus’ slave, sped to Pla-
nasia to rescue his former master and deliver him to the armies in Ger
many, but arrived too late. Tacitus tells us that the inventive Clemens
stole Agrippa’s ashes and went into hiding in Etruria until his hair and
beard grew to sufficient length so that he could nearly pass as his former
master. By now it was the year 16, and Clemens began to plant rumors of
Agrippa’s survival, which were eagerly accepted by those who sought an
option to Tiberius.
We are told that many senators and members of Tiberius’ household
supported the impostor, who purported to have returned to claim his right
ful inheritance. But Clemens’ ruse did not last long after he emerged, for
he was tricked by agents of Tiberius, who kidnapped him and interrogated
him in the palace. After it became clear that Clemens would reveal no
useful information, he was killed. And with this story, so ends the chapter
of Augustus’ last biological heir.
N o t e : Understandably few coins were struck for Agrippa

N u m ism a tic
Postumus. The few that exist were struck by Augustus in the provinces
ASINIUS GALLUS
P o t e n t ia l su c c e sso r o f A u g u stu s
S eco nd h u sba n d o f V ip s a n ia A g r ip p in a
S t e p -f a t h e r o f D ru su s
Gaius Asinius Gallus, 4 1 B.C.-A.D . 3 3 .The son of

the distinguished orator and historian Gaius A sin
ius Pollio, Asinius Gallus was deeply involved with
the affairs of state. Augustus characterized him as a man eager for supreme
power, but unequal to the task.
The death of Augustus’ lieutenant Agrippa in 12 B.C. was a loss on
many levels, for not only was he a superb commander and the Imperial
THE JULIO CLAU D IAN S 11 3
heir, but he was also Augustus’ son-in-law, and the father of his grandchil
dren. Thus, Augustus’ daughter, Julia, was now a widow — and far too
important to remain unattached. Augustus’ adopted son Tiberius was then
happily married to Vipsania Agrippina (the daughter of Agrippa, and
mother of Drusus), but was compelled by Augustus and Livia to divorce so
he could enter a tragically unhappy marriage with the widowed Julia.
This chain of events spelled opportunity for Gallus, who married the
freshly divorced Vipsania Agrippina. By marrying her, Gallus believed he
had taken a step closer to the principate, but instead all he gained was the
enmity of Augustus’ eventual heir, Tiberius. Despite the apparent political
advantages of the marriage, it seems the two were compatible, for she bore
Gallus at least five sons, and Gallus welcomed his new step-son Drusus,
then just a toddler, who he claimed and raised as his own.
Gallus had a distinguished career in government. It seems one of his
earliest posts in government was the position of moneyer in about 16 B.C.,
after which he advanced through the cursus honorum at an accelerated
pace under the patronage of Augustus. Gallus later served in the senate,
was consul in 8 B.C., and then was governor of Syria from 6-5 B.C.
Though Gallus had been friendly with Augustus, his relationship
with Tiberius was understandably poor, for not only was Gallus perceived
as a competitor for the throne, but his sharp wit and opportunistic mar
riage to Tiberius’ former wife earned him no gratitude. Tiberius’ initial
hatred for Gallus only grew when the latter made a fierce remark at the
senate meeting in A.D. 14 where Tiberius was being confirmed emperor.
Gallus later fell victim to the political intrigues of Sejanus, and was
accused by Tiberius of having had an adulterous affair with Agrippina
Senior. Although Gallus had enjoyed a long and fruitful career, his down
fall was rapid. He was imprisoned in 30 (one year after Agrippina Senior
had suffered the same fate), and even after Sejanus was executed in 31,
neither Agrippina nor Gallus emerged from their imprisonment, for Tibe
rius had no intention of freeing these two trouble-makers. Gallus died of
starvation three years after his arrest without ever receiving a trial.
Gallus’ coinage as governor of Syria was struck in 5

B.C.,and there is no doubt that this portrait issue can be attributed to him.
Though there is no record of his being a moneyer, Gallus appears also to
have struck coins as one of Augustus’ three moneyers who perhaps served
in 16 B.C. (the date of this college of moneyers is not certainly known).
Though the approximately eight years between his serving as moneyer and
becoming consul is less than the decade normally required, Gallus enjoyed
such special patronage with Augustus that it would come as no surprise if
his progress was more rapid than normal.
ii4 HISTORY OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE: BIOGRAPHIES
LIVIA
A u g u sta , a .d . 1 4 -2 9
W ife o f A u g u s t u s
M o th er of T ib e r iu s and of N ero C l a u d iu s D r u su s
S t e p -m o t h e r o f J u l ia
G randm o th er of G e r m a n ic u s , C l a u d iu s ,
L iv il l a and D ru su s
G r e a t -g r a n d m o t h e r o f N ero C a esa r ,
D r u su s C a esa r , C a l ig u l a , A g r ip p in a Ju n io r ,
D r u s il l a , J u l ia L iv il l a , B r it a n n ic u s ,
T ib e r iu s G em ellus an d G e r m a n ic u s G em ellu s
G r e a t -g r e a t -g r a n d m o t h e r o f N ero
Julia Augusta (earlier Livia Drusilla), 58 B.C. - A.D. 29. The influence
of Livia in the construction of the Empire cannot be underestimated, for
she was the first matriarch of the Julio-Claudians, and one of the most
trusted advisers of her second husband, Augustus (Octavian). Indeed, for
Augustus’ last 52 years, Livia was perhaps the most influential person in
his life.
Before marrying Augustus she was married to Tiberius Claudius Nero,
by whom she gave birth to the future emperor Tiberius, and to his younger
brother, Nero Claudius Drusus. However, her husband had fought against
Augustus in 40 B.C. and only returned to Italy when it was safe. In 38 B.C.,
while she was still pregnant with Nero Claudius Drusus, she divorced her
first husband and married Augustus, who had been married three times
before. This marriage was a successful political union based on what by all
accounts was a genuine love and compatibility, but it produced no children.
Livia accompanied Augustus on many of his campaigns, and in his
will she was adopted into the Julii family and given the lofty title of
Augusta. She was the first lady to receive that title, and it was given spar
ingly until the principate of Domitian (81-96), after which it was granted
to wives of the Augusti as a matter of formality.
Livia was legendary for her dignity and chastity, as well as for her tire
less efforts to clear the path for her own son’s accession. This required the
banishment and murder of many people. Among her victims, it was
rumored, were Gaius Caesar and Lucius Caesar and, even more likely, her
own husband. Fearing that Augustus would try to bring his banished
grandson Agrippa Postumus back into the Imperial fold (and thus cost her
own son, Tiberius, the inheritance), she is said to have poisoned Augustus
as a preventive measure. Livia may also be credited with ordering the sub
sequent murder of Agrippa Postumus to assure he would never pose a
threat to Tiberius’ principate. However, it should be noted that some his
torians consider these accusations of murder made against Livia to have
been false.
After the death of Augustus in 14, Livia’s life became far more diffi
cult, as her son Tiberius eagerly shed her domineering influence. Even
though she had inherited the name and title Julia Augusta from her
deceased husband, Tiberius refused her any additional honors. What began
as mere intolerance grew with the passage of time to become hatred, and
she devoted her last few years to counteracting the intrigues of her son’s
praetorian prefect, Sejanus.
When Livia died in 29, Tiberius (who was then living in self-exile on
Capri) did not attend her funeral, disregarded the instructions in her will,
and forbade her deification. Her death was a great loss to the many who
fought hard to limit the powers of Sejanus and Tiberius, and within
months Agrippina Senior, Nero Caesar (and soon after, Drusus Caesar)
were all banished or imprisoned. She was consecrated by her grandson
Claudius in 42.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : Though Livia makes an impressive showing on pro
vincial coinage during the reigns of her husband and son (and more mod
estly under Caligula, Claudius and Nero), there are markedly fewer
dedicated to her in the Imperial series. This comes as somewhat of a sur
prise since she was Augustus’ wife for 52 years and subsequently survived
for 15 years into her son’s principate. Indeed, there seems to be only one
issue of Imperial coinage which offers a portrait bust of Rome’s first
Augusta — a dupondius struck grudgingly by her son in 22/3.
That the bust of Salus (health) on the dupondius represents Livia is a
foregone conclusion. The supplemental inscription AVGVSTA is of great
importance, for Livia was the only woman to hold the title Augusta at the
time. Furthermore, its symbolism of a recovery from illness is shared with a
sestertius from the same series depicting a carpentum, which certainly
alludes to a supplicatio decreed by the senate for her recovery from illness.
Tacitus (Annals 3.64) tells us that in the latter part of 22 Livia fell so seri
ously ill that Tiberius hastily return to Rome, adding that when Livia
recovered the senate vote a supplicatio for her and decreed that great games
(ludi magni) were to be held in honor of the Julian house. That the carpen
tum sestertius is inscribed IVLIAE AVGVST is additional evidence, for she
was given both that name and that title in the will of Augustus. The other
two dupondii in this series (inscribed IVSTITIA and PIETAS) are tradition
ally attributed to Livia, but in fact neither represents her. O f paramount
importance is the fact that both lack the supplemental inscription
AVGVSTA (which undoubtedly would have been added based on the pre
cedent set by the Salus dupondius). Furthermore, there are a host of rea
sons why they are more applicable to others. See the discussions following
the biographies of Livilla, Antonia and Agrippina Senior for further
details.
1 16 HISTORY OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE: BIOGRAPHIES
It is worth noting that Livia was about 80 years old when the Salus
dupondius was struck. That she appears to be pleasantly middle-aged is of
no consequence, for it was standard since the reign of Augustus to falsify
the youth of Imperial personages. The portrait on the Salus dupondius is
identical to those on some provincial coins struck in Livia’s honor, most
notably a didrachm of Byzantium (RPC 1779) and a bronze of Oea (mod.
Tripolis) in North Africa (RPC 835).
TIBERIUS A.D. 14 - 3 7
S on of L iv ia
S t epso n , s o n -i n -la w a n d h e ir o f A u g u stu s
H u sba n d o f V ip s a n ia A g r ip p in a a n d J u l ia
B ro th er of N ero C l a u d iu s D r u su s
Fa t h e r of D r u su s (by V ip s a n ia A g r ip p in a )
S o n -i n -la w of A g r ip p a
F a t h e r -i n -l a w of L iv il l a
G ra n d fa th er o f L iv ia J u l ia , and (? ) of
T ib e r iu s G em ellu s a n d G e r m a n ic u s G em ellus
U n c l e a n d a d o p t iv e f a t h e r o f G e r m a n ic u s, C l a u d iu s a n d L iv il l a
A d o p t iv e g r a n d f a t h e r o f N ero C a esa r , D r u su s C a esa r , C a l ig u l a ,

A g r ip p in a Ju n io r , D r u s il l a a n d J u l ia L iv il l a .
Potential Heirs of Tiberius
Germanicus A.D . 19 Murdered

Drusus A.D . 23 Murdered
N ero Caesar A.D . 30 Banished
Sejanus A.D . 31 Executed
Drusus Caesar A.D . 33 Starved
Tiberius Gemellus A .D 37 Executed
Caligula — Succeeded
N o te: Two other potential heirs were Germanicus Gemellus (who died in childhood) and
Claudius (who was never seriously considered by his uncle Tiberius).
Tiberius Caesar Augustus (earlier Tiberius Claudius Nero), 42 B .C . —

A.D. 37. Tiberius was the eldest of two sons bom to Livia and Tiberius
Claudius Nero, the head of the aristocratic Claudii family. His father was a
strong believer in the Republic, and as such he took up arms against the
Triumvirs in 40 B.C. After losing a battle he was forced to flee from the
Triumvirs, and did not return to Italy until the following year. He suffered
further injury when in 38 B.C. one of the Triumvirs, Octavian (Augustus),
forced him to divorce Livia so that Octavian could take her as his own
wife.
TH E JU L IO -C L A U D IA N S II?
A t the time Tiberius was 4 years old, and Livia was pregnant with his
younger brother, Nero Claudius Drusus. Thus, while still a child, Tiberius
was destined to play an important role in the politics of Rome. He was
given his first important task in 20 B.C., when he led a campaign against
the Parthians. Tiberius showed immediately that he had a flair for military
leadership, and he recaptured the standards Crassus had lost 33 years
before. Tiberius then tried his hand at governing Gaul in 16 B.C., and cam
paigned in the Alps in the following year with his brother. Tiberius then
returned to Rome in 13 B.C. to assume his first consulship.
In the following year, 12 B.C., tragedy struck when the celebrated
commander Agrippa died, for not only was he the husband of Augustus’
only daughter, but he was also the emperor’s foremost heir. Agrippa’s death
had dire personal consequences for Tiberius, who in 11 (or possibly 12)
B.C. was forced to divorce his own beloved wife, Vipsania Agrippina. This
was a doubly-cruel blow to Vipsania, who not only lost her loving hus
band, but who would now have to face life without her heroic father,
Agrippa.
But it was not much better for Tiberius, who was forced to divorce his
young, beautiful wife Vipsania (by whom he’d had a son, Drusus, who
would be his future heir) so he could enter into an unhappy marriage with
the widowed Julia. Tiberius spent most years of his marriage campaigning
on the frontiers, as he could not tolerate Julia. During this period Tiberius
was also the guardian of Gaius Caesar and Lucius Caesar, his new stepsons,
who replaced their father as heirs-apparent.
Tragedy struck again in 9 B.C. when Tiberius’ younger brother, Nero
Claudius Drusus, died by accident. By 6 B.C. Tiberius found the political
and social environment in Rome so unbearable that he moved to the
island of Rhodes, where he isolated himself for eight years. Meanwhile in
Rome, his wife, Julia, was engaging in embarrassing adulterous affairs, for
which she was banished in 2 B.C. and was eventually killed 16 years later.
Throughout Tiberius’ self-exile his life seems to have been in danger, for
the eldest heir-apparent, Gaius Caesar, did not want him back in Rome.
Tiberius returned in August of A.D. 2 on the condition that he not
participate in public affairs. Shortly after Tiberius had returned, the
younger heir, Lucius Caesar, died, and only two years after that, in A.D. 4,
the oldest heir, Gaius Caesar, also died. Though the deaths of the boys
must have come as a great relief to Tiberius (who was now 46 years old), it
was traumatic for Augustus, whose options for an heir had narrowed con
siderably. Indeed, the only legitimate candidates were Tiberius and his
remaining grandson, the temperamental 16-year-old Agrippa Postumus.
So Augustus formally adopted both of them in A.D. 4-, at which time Tibe
rius changed his name to Tiberius Julius Caesar and grudgingly adopted his
nephew Germanicus as his son.
While Tiberius and Germanicus went off to fight in Pannonia and

Germany, Agrippa Postumus continued to estrange his grandfather, never
outgrowing his foul disposition. Three years later, in A.D. 7, Agrippa Pos-
tumus was banished, never to return. With renewed vigor, Tiberius spent
most of his next eight years fighting in Germany and in the Balkans (dur
ing which the Roman general Varus lost his three legions to a Germanic
ambush in the Teutoburg forest) and proved once again that he was a
capable soldier and a competent leader.
He finally returned to Rome in October of A.D. 12, upon which he
was granted supreme power along with Augustus, who was in his 75th year.
In the summer of 14, Tiberius left Rome to head an army in the Balkans,
but just when he arrived, he was instructed by Livia to return, presumably
because she feared Agrippa Postumus would be named successor while
Tiberius was absent. However, by the time Tiberius had returned, Augustus
was either already dead or nearly so.
Despite the objections of Asinius Gallus (who we are told had long-
aspired to the throne) and Tiberius’ displays of false modesty, the senate
hailed the 54-year-old Tiberius as the second emperor of Rome in August
of the year 14, upon which he changed his name to Tiberius Caesar Augus
tus. The change of regime did not go over well with the public or with the
army. The frontier legions showed signs of open mutiny and, to prevent a
revolution, Tiberius sent his nephew Germanicus to Germany, and then
his son, Drusus, to Pannonia to restore order.
After a rocky start, Tiberius’ principate was launched by a fresh offen
sive deep into German territory, which Germanicus had the honor of lead
ing. Though Germanicus’ work was yet unfinished in 17, the new heir-
apparent was recalled to Rome, where he celebrated a magnificent tri
umph. In the following year Tiberius shared the consulship with Germani
cus, whom he then sent to Asia to settle a variety of urgent matters.
Tiberius perceived the great popularity of Germanicus as a threat —
not only to his own regime, but also to the one he envisioned for his natu
ral son, Drusus. Thus, Tiberius (it is believed) ordered his governor of
Syria, Gnaeus Calpurnius Piso, to poison Germanicus when he returned to
Antioch in 19. His widow, Agrippina Senior, and the people of Rome were
outraged and demanded a trial. They received it in 20 and Tiberius found
it politically expedient to abandon Piso, who was found guilty and killed
himself.
Tiberius had narrowly escaped serious consequences, but in the pro
cess his goal was achieved, for now his son, Drusus, was clearly next in line
to the throne. Thoughout all of the controversy Drusus had remained on
the frontiers fighting, and in May of the year 20 he was recalled from Pan
nonia so he could jointly hold the consulship with his father, Tiberius.
Father and son were on good terms when he first arrived, but with the
passage of time they grew apart. In the meantime, the praetorian prefect,
Lucius Aelius Sejanus, had become increasingly important in Tiberius’
regime, even though personally Tiberius did not care for him. Since Sejanus
himself aspired to the throne, he was only too willing to poison Tiberius’
mind against the other possible heirs, including his own son, Drusus, with
whom Sejanus had come into public conflict on more than one occasion.
But Sejanus was as crafty as he was ambitious, and he had already
seduced Drusus’ wife, Livilla. Their adulterous affair moved from the lewd
to the macabre when they conspired to murder Drusus so that they could
later be wed and eventually claim the throne themselves. So Drusus was
administered a slow-acting poison by his wife, the effects of which caused
his death on September 14 of the year 23. The plot was so well concealed
that it only became known when Sejanus’ own wife revealed it prior to her
own death eight years later.
Two years after Drusus’ murder, Sejanus asked Tiberius for the widow
Livilla’s hand in marriage, but the request was denied because the prefect
was not a senator, but merely an equestrian, and the match was not suffi
ciently dignified. As major a setback as this was, it did not cure Sejanus of
his ambition, for he next determined to become emperor by default.
Tiberius was tiring of life in Rome and in 26 he left the capital. He
first established residence in Campania, and in 27 settled permanently on
the picturesque island of Capri in the Bay of Naples, never again returning
to Rome. He left the day-to-day business of Roman politics in the hands of
Sejanus, who had become de-facto ruler in the capital. Indeed, not only
did he have the backing of Tiberius, but he also had an extensive network
of spies and the might of the praetorian guards behind him.
In 29, Tiberius’ 86-year-old mother, Livia, died. Their relationship
had been cold for at least 15 years, and recently he had refused even to
speak with her. Her estranged son, consumed by his debauched lifestyle on
Capri, did not even come to Rome for her funeral. Furthermore, he refused
her deification and ignored the instructions in her will. If Livia’s death was
pleasing to Tiberius, it was a windfall for Sejanus, who had long combated
the forceful Augusta.
In that same year Sejanus renewed his attacks on the remaining
obstacles in his rise to supreme power. In 29 and 30, three leading oppo
nents — Agrippina Senior and her two eldest sons, Nero Caesar and
Drusus Caesar — were imprisoned or banished after Sejanus charged them
with a variety of offenses, including planning to overthrow Tiberius. Now,
the only possible heirs other than Sejanus were Tiberius Gemellus (the
grandson of Tiberius), Caligula (the youngest son of Germanicus) and
Claudius (Tiberius’ bookish and sickly nephew).
The Imperial partnership between Tiberius and Sejanus reached its

apex in 31. In this single year Sejanus held the consulship with Tiberius
(even though he was not of senatorial rank), and plotted to overthrow his
regime. Details of Sejanus’ plot, however, were discovered by Tiberius’ sis-
ter-in-law Antonia, who had become the matriarch of the Julio-Claudians
when Livia died in 29. Antonia informed Tiberius of the imminent coup -
certainly not out of love for Tiberius (who probably had ordered the poi
soning of her eldest son, Germanicus), but out of a desire to punish Seja
nus, who had systematically targeted her grandchildren.
Five years of voluntary exile had not diminished Tiberius’ survival
instinct, and he arranged for Sejanus’ arrest, execution and replacement
all in one fell swoop. Sejanus’ family and partisans were then hunted down
with such speed and ferocity that it shocked contemporaries. There now
remained six years in Tiberius’ principate, which the ancient historians
characterize as being increasingly filled with debauchery.
The emperor was residing at Villa Jovis (the villa of Jupiter) on the
eastern summit of Capri. Here, Tiberius is said to have occupied himself
with literature, mythology, language, astrology and unwholesome acts of
violence and sexual perversion. We are told that condemned men were
thrown to their deaths from the precipitous cliffs that flanked the villa,
and that if they survived the fall, they were beaten to death below by men
armed with oars and boat hooks. The aged emperor’s sexual exploits are
equally disturbing, and the future emperor Vitellius was numbered among
the young male prostitutes, known as spintriae, who indulged the emperor’s
desires.
Residing with him on the island (and no doubt subjected to the cruel
ties of the environment) were Tiberius Gemellus and Caligula, both of
whom were named Tiberius’ heirs in 35. Caligula was older than his cousin
by a decade, and certainly was the craftier of the two, for he had made his
own plans for succession by securing the loyalty of the new praetorian pre
fect, Macro. While on a brief excursion to the mainland on March 16 of 37,
the 7 7-year-old Tiberius died in his seaside villa at Misenum in Campania.
One version — which is not entirely unbelievable — is that Caligula
had pulled Tiberius’ signet ring from his finger before he was dead, and that
the prefect, Macro, proceeded to smother the emperor with a pillow when
he began to speak. In any event, the partnership of Caligula and Macro
had at long last come to fruition, and the unfortunate Tiberius Gemellus
was executed a few months later on a charge of treason, leaving Caligula
unopposed as emperor.
Though the people called for Tiberius’ desecration, his corpse was
taken by armed escort to Rome where he was cremated by the soldiers,
after which his ashes were placed in Augustus’ mausoleum. Tiberius’ fru
gality, Claudian arrogance and stiff personality caused him to be unpopular
THE JULIO-CLAUDIANS 1 21
among the people, the senate, and oftentimes, the army. Indeed, it can
rightly be said that he neither sought, nor received the love of his people.
His reign was eventful only because of the dynastic intrigues and his
regrettable association with Sejanus. Without these exceptional circum
stances, his reign no doubt would have been a dull affair.
Curiously enough, the event of Tiberius’ reign that has had the great
est impact on world history — the ministry and crucifixion of Jesus Christ
— was no more than a minor event in the eyes of the emperor, who at the
time was occupied indulging his pleasures on Capri.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : With Tiberius we find almost a complete reversal of
the coinage policy of his predecessor, Augustus. Whereas Augustus’ gold

and silver offered an amazing variety of types, his aes coinage was mundane
and utilitarian. Tiberius’ precious metal coinage, in contrast, was dull and
unimaginative, but his aes coinage is of great interest. N ot only does it offer
some memorable types, but it also established firmly the practice of honor
ing both predecessors and family members.
In the years 22 and 23 Tiberius struck a series of dated aes dedicated to
family members who, in addition to himself, included his adoptive father
Augustus (sestertius and as), his mother Livia (sestertius and ‘Salus’
dupondius), his son Drusus (as), his daughter-in-law Livilla (‘Pietas’
dupondius), his twin grandsons Tiberius Gemellus and Germanicus
Gemellus (sestertius), and Agrippina Senior and/or Antonia (‘Justitia’
dupondius). Each of these types may be found in this catalog under the
listings of the persons named.
This series is especially interesting because by 22/23, Tiberius was
fond of none of these people, except Antonia (if she is even meant to be
represented) and his twin grandsons (who were too young yet to have
offended him or, perhaps, to have aroused his later suspicions that they
were fathered by Sejanus). As such, the series is the perfect illustration of
the propaganda value of coinage in the Empire, even if the messages pro
moted were not truthful.
When Tiberius ascended the throne, he sent his son Drusus and his
nephew Germanicus to the Danube and Rhine, respectively, to prevent
rebellion by the frontier legions. Since coins of Tiberius had not yet been
produced, both Drusus and Germanicus countermarked existing bronzes
with the abbreviated name of Tiberius. Also of note is that billon
tetradrachms were first struck at Alexandria during Tiberius’ reign for the
first time since the regime of queen Cleopatra VII. Though they were fur
ther debased with the passage of time, the denomination served as the
principal coin of the sealed Egyptian economy for nearly the next three
centuries.
DRUSUS
S o n a n d in t e n d e d h e ir o f T ib e r iu s
S t e p -s o n o f A s in iu s G allu s
S eco nd h u sba n d (a n d c o u s in ) of L iv il l a
Fa t h e r of L iv ia J u l ia and (?) T ib e r iu s G em ellu s
and G e r m a n ic u s G em ellu s
C o u s in a n d b r o t h e r -i n -la w of G e r m a n ic u s a n d
C l a u d iu s
G r a n d so n o f L iv ia and A g r ip p a
F a t h e r -i n -la w of N ero C a esa r
Drusus Julius Caesar, (often called Drusus the Younger or Drusus Jun
ior), 14/13 B.C. - A.D. 2 3 . Drusus was the son of Tiberius and Vipsania
Agrippina, the woman whom Tiberius was forced to divorce in 12 B .C . so
he could marry Augustus’ widowed daughter, Julia. Even though he was
essentially raised by his step-father, the senator Asinius Gallus, he was the
only natural son of Tiberius, and thus a potential heir to the throne.
Drusus’ prospects as heir brightened in A.D. 2 when he was hailed
princeps iuventutis, and further in A.D. 4, when his father was adopted by
the emperor Augustus. Though Augustus was not fond of Tiberius, he evi
dently saw some promise in young Drusus. N o doubt, Augustus had a hand
in arranging the young man’s marriage to Livilla, the sister of Germanicus.
The marriage occurred shortly after A.D. 4, the year Livilla’s previous hus
band, Gaius Caesar (Augustus’ eldest grandson), had died from an injury
he received fighting the Parthians.
This marriage bound together the two branches of Livia’s family and
served to cement Drusus’ position as a legitimate heir. Drusus and Livilla
soon had a daughter named Livia Julia for whom no coins were struck, but
who in 20 or 22 (accounts vary) was wedded to Germanicus’ eldest son,
Nero Caesar. Drusus’ prospects brightened further when Agrippa Postu
mus, the last grandson of Augustus, was banished in A.D. 7. This fortuitous
event cleared the path for Tiberius and his son considerably.
Now only Germanicus and his three sons remained as rivals. Though
slightly younger, Drusus was a contemporary of his popular cousin and
adoptive brother, Germanicus. Tacitus informs us that not only were the
two boys good friends, but that they did not allow their apparent rivalry to
come between their friendship.
The most positive development of all for Drusus, however, occurred
in 14, when Augustus died and the throne was passed on to his own father,
Tiberius. Indeed, Drusus played an immediate and important role when he
was sent to Pannonia to cure the frontier legions of their mutinous atti
tudes. Much like his cousin Germanicus (who had been sent to Germany
to do likewise), Drusus won the army over with his strong personality and
inspirational speeches.
THE JULIO-CLAUDIANS I 23
In the year following his father’s accession, Drusus held the consul
ship, and from 17 to 20 he commanded in Illyria, for which he celebrated a
triumph. The year 19 was especially eventful, for his cousin (and adoptive
brother) Germanicus was murdered in far-away Antioch by the Syrian
governor, Gnaeus Calpurnius Piso. There was no doubt in the minds of the
people that Piso had acted on orders of Tiberius.
Only a few weeks later (indeed, only a few days after news of German
icus’ death reached Rome) Drusus’ wife Livilla gave birth to twin boys —
Tiberius Gemellus and Germanicus Gemellus. With the birth of the twins
(always an auspicious event to the Romans), Tiberius now had a dynasty of
his own, complete with an able son and two grandsons. Now the path was
clear for Drusus, who was much older than Germanicus’ three sons.
Indeed, what was a tragic year for Rome, was a glorious one for Tiberius.
But there was another contender for the throne — one not yet
suspected by Tiberius — his praetorian prefect, Sejanus. Drusus was
incensed at the power which Sejanus had amassed — power no doubt he
felt entitled to as the emperor’s only son and the leading Imperial com
mander in the field. He was also perceptive enough to see that Sejanus was
looking after his own interests before those of his father. Thus, Sejanus and
Drusus swiftly became mortal enemies, and it was not long before they
clashed.
Time proved that Drusus was no match for Sejanus, who was not
about to let Drusus interfere with his own grand scheme. In 21, Drusus
held his second consulship and was given the tribuniciae potestas, and thus
was a virtual co-ruler with his father. However, Sejanus had long been
engaged in an adulterous affair with Drusus’ wife, Livilla (indeed, he may
have sired the twin boys), and together they plotted to remove Drusus
from contention. Sejanus convinced Livilla to administer a slow-acting
poison, from which Drusus died on September 14, 23. So ended the story
of Drusus.
His father, Tiberius, we are told, was not particularly distressed, for
with the passage of time he had become less and less fond of his son, whom
we are told was vicious and of poor moral character. The young man appar
ently had a cruel streak and found great pleasure in killing. Indeed, the
legionnaires had named the sharpest kind of sword, the drusianiyafter him.
The secret of Drusus’ death remained concealed for eight years, and
was only revealed in 31 by Sejanus’ wife, Apicata, as she cleared her con
science before her own execution. With the passing of Drusus, the field of
likely candidates had narrowed to the two eldest sons of Germanicus, and
they proved to be the next targets of Sejanus and Tiberius. As for the two
other candidates: Caligula was only 11 years old, Tiberius’ nephew Clau
dius was considered too sickly to be of consequence, and the twin grand
sons of Tiberius were mere children.
Drusus’ lifetime Imperial coinage is limited to an as, a

dupondius and a sestertius in the series produced by Tiberius in 22/23.
Drusus himself is portrayed on the as, his wife Livilla is portrayed (in the
guise of Pietas) on the dupondius, and the twin boys Tiberius Gemellus
and Germanicus Gemellus are portrayed on the sestertius. Tiberius struck
silver drachms (denarii) at Caesarea in Drusus’ honor in 32/33 and 33/34.
The central date of these two issues is 33, and since the tenth anniversary
of Drusus’ death occurred in that year, it no doubt was the reason for this
otherwise inexplicable issue. This coinage is especially appropriate since
only two years before, in 31, it was revealed that Drusus had been mur-
dered by Livilla and Sejanus. After learning of this, Tiberius no doubt felt
a measure of personal guilt for having invested enough trust and authority
in Sejanus that he was able to murder Drusus with such ease.
LIVILLA
W if e o f G a iu s C a esa r ; w if e a n d c o u s in o f D r u su s
M o th er of T ib e r iu s G em ellu s, G e r m a n ic u s
G em ellu s a n d L iv ia J u l ia
D augh ter of N ero C l a u d iu s D r u su s a n d A n t o n ia
S is t e r o f G e r m a n ic u s a n d C l a u d iu s
G randd augh ter of L iv ia , M arc A ntony and
O c t a v ia
D a u g h t e r -i n -l a w of T ib e r iu s , J u l ia and A g r ip p a
S i s t e r -i n -la w of A g r ip p in a S e n io r
A u n t of N ero C a esa r , D r u su s C a esa r , C a l ig u l a , A g r ip p in a Ju n io r ,

D r u s il l a , J u l ia L iv il l a and B r it a n n ic u s
Livia Julia or Livia Claudia (often called Livia or Julia Livilla the Elder),
c. 13 B.C. - A.D. 31. Although little-discussed in numismatic circles, Liv
illa was an important lady during the principates of Augustus and Tiberius.
As the only daughter of Nero Claudius Drusus and Antonia (and the sister
of Germanicus and Claudius), she was a desirable bride.
The date of Livilla’s birth is uncertain, though it must have occured
sometime between 14 and 11 B.C. Her absence from the design on the Ara
Pacis has led some researchers to surmise that she was born in 12 or 11
B.C., though most prefer 13 B.C.
Her first marriage, in 1 B.C., was to Gaius Caesar, the eldest grandson
of Augustus, and the young man in whom he had the highest hopes for
succession when he came of age. Indeed, this marriage not only cemented
the families of Augustus and Livia, but it also secured Livilla’s eventual
position as empress. Livilla accompanied her husband on his mission in
THE JULIO-CLAUDIANS I 25
the East, traveling extensively while there, but she suffered a great blow in
A.D. 4 when her husband died at age 24 from a wound he received in bat
tle against the Parthians.
Livilla was now a young widow, and eligible for another political mar
riage. Her second and final marriage was to her only cousin, Drusus, the
son of her uncle Tiberius. Augustus is said to have seen promise in Drusus,
and no doubt both he and Livia were happy to arrange the marriage in
hopes that it would unite the two branches of Livia’s family. The marriage
occurred shortly after A.D. 4, and soon resulted in a daughter named Livia
Julia, for whom no coins were struck.
We hear little of Livilla until well into the principate of Tiberius, and
what we are told is less than flattering. After what seems to have been an
initial period of closeness, Livilla and Drusus eventually grew apart. This
spelled great opportunity for Tiberius’ prefect, Sejanus: not only did he find
Livilla a worthy conquest (for he was notorious for his seduction of noble
wives), but through her Sejanus perceived a method of removing Drusus
from the succession. It is difficult to determine when their adulterous affair
began, but it may have been early enough for him to have sired her twin
boys, Tiberius Gemellus and Germanicus Gemellus, to whom Livilla gave
birth in 19.
Indeed, at some point later, Tiberius became openly suspicious that
Sejanus — not Drusus — was the twins’ natural father, thus making them
not his grandsons. But what followed was far worse, for Sejanus was able to
convince Livilla to poison her husband, Drusus, so that he could marry her
as soon as she became eligible. The plan was executed with great precision,
and Drusus died of what seemed to be natural causes in 23.
Livilla was now a widow again, and in the year 25 Sejanus asked Tibe
rius’ permission to marry her. But Tiberius denied the request, explaining
that Sejanus’ low birth made the match impossible. Despite this setback,
the two apparently continued their amorous relationship for the next six
years, during which Sejanus made every sinister effort to achieve his goal
of becoming emperor.
In 31, everything Sejanus and Livilla had planned came together at
once, and just as swiftly fell apart. The first problem occurred when Livilla
learned that Tiberius had given Sejanus permission to marry her own
daughter, Livia Julia. Though Sejanus defended the marriage as a mere for
mality, Livilla understandably did not want Sejanus to share beds with
both mother and daughter. (Note: There is confusion among the ancient
historians on this matter, and it may well be that Sejanus actually got per
mission to marry Livilla, not her daughter, Livia Julia.)
When Antonia (the mother of Germanicus) found a document
revealing Sejanus’ plot to overthrow Tiberius, she delivered it to him
L iv ia J u l ia
Though there are no coins known for Livia Julia, the granddaughter
of Tiberius and the daughter of Livilla and Drusus, her story is of
great interest. She was bom shortly after Livilla and Drusus were
wed, and, unlike Tiberius Gemellus and Germanicus Gemellus (who
may have been sired by Sejanus) there is no reason to doubt her par-
entage. A t the very least Livia Julia was their half-sister.
She herself was wed to her cousin Nero Caesar (the eldest son
of Germanicus), either in 20 or 22 (Tacitus suggests the former, but
the latter seems equally likely). Just as with her parents’ marriage,
this union bound the two branches of Livia’s family. It turned out to
be a promising union for Livia Julia because shortly after they were
wed, her father, Drusus, died, thus making Nero Caesar the leading
heir to the throne. But her clear path to becoming empress lasted
only a few years, for in 31 her husband was executed on the orders of
Sejanus, the prefect of Tiberius who had been having an adulterous
affair with her mother, Livilla, for more than a decade.
Historians are in some disagreement over what happened next.
It seems as though Sejanus pursued Livia Julia as the perfect bride by
whom he could further his personal ambitions. A t the height of his
power in 31, Sejanus seems to have gained Tiberius’ permission to
marry her. Since Livia Julia was the eldest descendant of Tiberius,
she was a better marriage prospect than her mother, Livilla, with
whom Sejanus was still adulterously involved. As if this weren’t
strange enough, it must be considered that Livia Julia was available
for marriage only because Sejanus had executed her husband.
But fate quickly sorted out the loose ends. Both Sejanus and
Livilla were executed in 31 for their various crimes, and the mother-
daughter love triangle never came to fruition. Livia Julia survived
the chaos and in about 33 married a “mere knight from Tibur”
named Gaius Rubellius Blandus, by whom she had a son named
Rubellius Plautus. Since her son was Tiberius’ great-grandson — and
thus a potential rival to the throne — he was put to death by Nero in
62. Concerning the fate of Livia Julia, we are told by more than one
source that she was murdered (seemingly in 43) on orders of Valeria
Messalina, the third wife of Claudius, and thus predeceased her son
by perhaps as much as two decades.
personally. The aging emperor had Sejanus arrested and executed. As part
of Sejanus’ downfall, a great many of his partisans and family were also
arrested and executed. Among them was Sejanus’ ex-wife, Apicata, who in
the final hours of her life revealed that Sejanus and Livilla had conspired
to poison Drusus. Her statement was confirmed through the interrogation
of other sources, and as a result Livilla was executed in that same year that
same year, and suffered damnatio memoriae.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : Livilla is represented on only one coin type — a
dupondius of 22/23 issued by Tiberius in the name of his son, Drusus. How
ever, this is not acknowledged in the standard references, such as RIC,
BMC and Cohen. Though this correct identification was proposed late in
the 19th Century, it was not adopted in Cohen’s multi-volume treatise
(which was revised and republished from 1880-1892), and as a result it has
been largely overlooked.
O f the three dupondii which Tiberius struck in the ‘family’ bronzes of
22/23, the one which honors Livilla bears the bust of Pietas, the personifi
cation of duty toward the gods, the state, and the family. As such, Pietas
was the ideal guise for the public image of Livilla. She was, after all, the
wife of Drusus and the mother of Tiberius’ twin grandsons. Equally strong
evidence can be found with the reverse inscription, for it is the only one of
the three dupondii which bears Drusus’ name and titles (the other two
name Tiberius). In the family aes series of 22/23, only three coins bear
Drusus’ name in the inscriptions: the as which portrays Drusus, the sester
tius which honors the twin sons he allegedly sired, and the Pietas dupon
dius. The three coins make a family set: a sestertius for the children, a
dupondius for the mother and an as for the father. As if more evidence
were necessary we should also consider that these are the only three Impe
rial coins bearing the name of Drusus (and, as such, they all should be of
relevance to Drusus and his family). Indeed, to conclude anything other
than that it is Livilla who is meant to be honored by the Pietas dupondius
is simply to ignore the overwhelming evidence at hand.
Ironically, this issue reflects the public image of Livilla as a devoted
mother and wife, in reality she was neither. N ot only did she conspire with
her adulterous lover Sejanus to murder her husband, but it seems likely
that her twin sons were sired by Sejanus. As such, the Pietas dupondius is
one of the least-forthright issues of the Julio-Claudians. For details about
the other two dupondii in the series, see the Numismatic Notes following
the biographies of Livia, Antonia and Agrippina Senior.
TIBERIUS GEMELLUS
H e ir A pparent (o f T i b e r i u s ), a .d , 3 5 - 3 7
S on of L iv il l a and D r u su s or S e ja n u s
B ro th er of G e r m a n ic u s G em ellus an d L iv ia J u l ia
C o u s in o f N ero C a esa r , D r u su s C a esa r , C a l ig u l a ,
A g r ip p in a J u n io r , D r u s il l a , J u l ia L iv il l a a n d
B r it a n n ic u s
G r a n d so n o f A n t o n ia ,N ero C l a u d iu s D r u su s,
and (?) T ib e r iu s
G r e a t -g r a n d s o n o f O c t a v ia a n d M arc A ntony
and (?) of L iv ia a n d A g r ip p a
Tiberius Julius Caesar Gemellus, A.D. 19-37. As Tiberius searched for an

heir to replace his own son, Drusus, who died in 23, he initially adopted the
two eldest sons of Germanicus, though no doubt he hoped one of his twin
grandsons, Tiberius Gemellus and Germanicus Gemellus, would eventually
succeed. Theoretically, both of these boys were in Tiberius’ direct bloodline,
and thus to him were preferable to the sons of Germanicus.
However, Tiberius suspected (and over time was convinced) that the
twins were bom of the adulterous affair between Livilla and Sejanus. Were
this the case, they would have been of no closer relation to him than Ger
manicus’ sons, and this uncertainty was always in the back of his mind.
Suetonius tells that Tiberius “hated” Tiberius Gemellus for being bom of
adultery, and that as such, he likened himself to the Trojan hero Priam,
who also had outlived his entire family.
During the last years of Tiberius’ life on Capri, his options for a youth
ful heir had narrowed to Tiberius Gemellus and his grandnephew Caligula
(the only surviving son of Germanicus, whom he had adopted as a grand
son). Claudius, it seems, was still considered too sickly for the job. Ten
sions between Tiberius and Caligula grew on Capri, for Tiberius was aware
of the latter’s capacity for brutality. Indeed, the dying emperor feared for
the life of Tiberius Gemellus, and Tacitus tells us that in the last few
months of his life, a weeping Tiberius clasped the 18-year-old boy and said
to Caligula: “You will kill him! And someone else will kill you!”
Since Tiberius had formally adopted Tiberius Gemellus and Caligula
as co-heirs in 3 5 , there must have been ample tension between the two
young men as Tiberius’ health declined. Indeed, Suetonius tells us that
Tiberius spared their lives not out of personal affection, but rather due to
the counsel of his chief astrologer. Even so, Caligula was not willing to
leave his own fate to chance, and so he made a pact with the praetorian
prefect Macro. When Tiberius died (some said with the assistance of
Macro), Caligula was hailed emperor just as had been planned.
Caligula then adopted his younger cousin and hailed him princeps
iuventutis. But this arrangement did not last, and in the same year Caligula
executed Tiberius Gemellus on suspicion of taking a poison antidote, an
act which constituted treason. But Suetonius informs us that the smell
Caligula detected on Tiberius Gemellus’ breath was not an antidote, but
medicine for “a persistent cough which was getting worse.”
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : It would seem that only three provincial cities struck

for Tiberius Gemellus, and coins depicting him are understandably rare.
The earliest pieces are from Cyrene, for they show him with his father and
his brother and must date prior to 23. Most likely these African issues are
associated with the ‘family’ bronzes struck at Rome by Tiberius and Drusus
from 22 to 23. Later in his life, when he was an heir-apparent to Tiberius,
coins seem to have been struck in his honor at Corinth and at Philadel
phia in Lydia sometime between 35 and 37.
GERMANICUS GEMELLUS
S on of L iv il l a a n d D r u su s or S e ja n u s
B roth er of T ib e r iu s G em ellu s a n d L iv ia J u l ia
C o u s in o f N ero C a esa r , D ru su s C a esa r , C a l ig u l a ,
A g r ip p in a Ju n io r , D r u s il l a , J u l ia L iv il l a a n d
B r it a n n ic u s
G r a n d so n of A n t o n ia ,N ero C l a u d iu s D r u su s,
and (?) T ib e r iu s
G r e a t -g r a n d s o n o f O c t a v ia a n d M arc A ntony
a n d (?) of L iv ia and A g r ip p a
Germanicus Julius Caesar Gemellus, A.D. 19-23/24. Although ancient

historical sources make appropriate references to his twin brother, Tiberius
Gemellus (who survived into his 18th year and was named co-successor to
Tiberius), they are understandably silent regarding Germanicus Gemellus,
who died at age 5. Some authorities place his death in 23, the same year as
his father died, others in 24- The word gemellus is an infrequently used
form of the word geminus, which means ‘twin.’
The Imperial issue (a sestertius with the twins’s heads

upon crossed cornucopias), and most likely the provincial issues, portray
ing Germanicus Gemellus and Tiberius Gemellus were struck by Tiberius
c. 22-23.
SEJANUS
Pra e t o r ia n Prefect, a .d . 1 4 -3 1
Po t e n t ia l su c c e sso r o f T ib e r iu s
C o m p a n io n o f L iv il l a
F a t h e r (? ) of T ib e r iu s G em ellus an d G e r m a n ic u s G em ellus
B r o t h e r -i n -la w of C l a u d iu s
U n cle of C l a u d ia A n t o n ia
Lucius Aelius Sejanus, c. 20/16 B.C. - A.D. 3 1 . As the praetorian prefect

of Tiberius, and his principal adviser from 23 to 31, Sejanus figures promi
nently in Julio-Claudian history. Indeed, when addressing the senate,
Tiberius characterized Sejanus as “the partner of my labors.”
Though Suetonius tells us that Tiberius did not like him personally,
Sejanus was his main instrument in the destruction of Germanicus’ family.
He also served as the emperor’s agent in Rome for the first five years Tibe
rius spent in self-exile on Capri. Though he was of distinguished parentage
on his mother’s side, and his father had been a very successful man, Seja
nus belonged to an equestrian (not a senatorial) family from Volsinii in
Etruria. Ironically, it was only because his ambitions were so high that he
rightly could be accused of “low birth,” a fact that Sejanus spent the best
years of his life trying to overcome.
Sejanus entered into the service of Tiberius along with his own father,
with whom he shared the duties of praetorian prefect in Rome. When his
father was appointed prefect of Egypt, Sejanus became the sole com
mander of the guard. Relatively early in his career (in the year 20 accord
ing to Tacitus) Sejanus arranged to have his daughter betrothed to the
eldest son of Claudius (a boy named Claudius Drusus, for whom no coins
were struck). Unfortunately, the boy, who was almost of age, choked to
death on a pear a few days later, robbing Sejanus of an Imperial marriage
that might have changed the course of his sinister career. Even the mar
riage of his sister Aelia Paetina to Claudius (who was not emperor, or even
an heir-apparent at that time) did not improve Sejanus’ nobility.
As time passed, Tiberius trusted Sejanus with ever-increasing author
ity that gave him a free hand in eliminating the potential rivals to the
throne. His first victim was Tiberius’ own son, Drusus, with whom Sejanus
often found himself in conflict. Sejanus seduced Drusus’ wife, Livilla, and
their adulterous affair took a foul twist when he compelled her to poison
her husband. In the same year Sejanus took yet another step to increase his
power when he convinced Tiberius to let him gather all nine praetorian
cohorts (which traditionally were spread out among Rome and other Ital
ian cities) and station them in a single barracks in Rome. This event was
THE JULIO-CLAUDIANS i3 i
to have a great impact not only on Sejanus’ authority, but also on the way
Rome was ruled for the next 450 years.
Sejanus’ most gruesome task, however, was to exterminate the sons of
Germanicus, whom Tiberius increasingly feared as rivals to the throne. For
Sejanus (who himself was aspiring to the throne), this was pleasurable
work — the fewer claimants, the better his own chances. Although Seja
nus was successful in almost all of his endeavors, he suffered a great setback
in 25 when his request to wed the recently widowed Livilla (with whom he
was still carrying on an affair) was denied by Tiberius due to his low birth.
However, Sejanus quickly recovered from this blow and moved on to other
tasks.
The first of these was convincing Tiberius to act upon his desire to
leave Rome and live the rest of his life in isolation on the island of Capri.
Tiberius first left to Campania in 26, but by 27 had established his resi
dence on Capri and never again returned to Rome. Sejanus now had virtu
ally supreme authority in Rome, and acted both as the eyes and ears of
Tiberius. The year 29 also brought good news to Sejanus, for Tiberius’
mother, Livia, died. This made his sinister work easier to conduct, and in
29 and 30 he was able to imprison or banished his three most potent ene
mies: Agrippina Senior and her two eldest sons, Nero Caesar and Drusus
Caesar.
But all of these foul acts were merely leading up to the year 31, when
Sejanus conspired to overthrow Tiberius himself. During that year not
only was Sejanus named joint consul with Tiberius, but Tacitus informs us
that he was also able to convince Tiberius to give him the hand of his
granddaughter, Livia Julia, in marriage. While this marriage no doubt
suited Sejanus, it brought a violent objection from Livilla, who would not
stand by idly as her own lover of several years married her daughter. As if
the family aspect of this were not disturbing enough, it must also be
remembered that Livia Julia was now a widow only because Sejanus had
recently arrested and executed her husband, Nero Caesar. (It is worth not
ing that the ancient sources are not entirely clear whether it was the
mother or daughter to whom Sejanus was betrothed.)
Regardless, Suetonius tells us that Tiberius took this outrageous
action only to placate Sejanus while his downfall was arranged. The house
of cards built by Sejanus was now beginning to tumble, and he determined
to usurp the throne before the opportunity passed him by. Amid of all this
tragedy Antonia — now the matriarch of the Julio-Claudians — appears
to have found a document revealing Sejanus’ plot. N o doubt with great
pleasure, she informed her brother-in-law Tiberius of her discovery.
Tiberius reacted quickly and cunningly, offering Sejanus’ job to an
ambitious soldier named Naevius Sertorius Macro if he would arrest Seja-
nus. The arrest was made in the senate house, and according to Tacitus,
Sejanus was executed on October 18 (after which Macro served as
praetorian prefect from 31-38.)- As a consequence, Sejanus’ family and
partisans were hunted down and executed with shocking ferocity, and the
many statues of himself he had erected were destroyed.
During the turmoil of this counter-revolution, Sejanus’ wife, Apicata,
revealed that Sejanus and Livilla had conspired to poison Drusus. Thus,
the doomed Apicata took satisfaction in causing the demise of Livilla, who
had been mistress to her husband for several years. Perhaps the greatest
unsolved mystery of Sejanus’ legacy was whether or not he was the natural
father of Livilla’s twin sons, Tiberius Gemellus and Germanicus Gemellus.
Though they were officially attributed to Livilla’s husband, Drusus, ample
suspicion existed, and we are told that even Tiberius was convinced Seja
nus was their father.
N o t e : N o portrait coins of Sejanus exist, although a provin

N u m ism a tic
cial coinage of Bilbilis in Spain mentions him by name as the joint-consul
of Tiberius in 31, the year to which the coins are dated. Some of Sejanus’
Spanish bronzes were purposefully damaged, by which his memory was
condemned for his crimes against the state.
NERO CLAUDIUS DRUSUS

S on of L iv ia
S t ep so n o f A u g u stu s
B roth er of T ib e r iu s
H u sba n d of A n t o n ia
Fa t h e r of G e r m a n ic u s, C l a u d iu s a n d L iv il l a
G ra n d fa th er of N ero C a esa r , D r u su s C a esa r ,

C a l ig u l a , A g r ip p in a J u n io r , D r u s il l a ,
J u l ia L iv il l a , B r it a n n ic u s , L iv ia J u l ia ,
T ib e r iu s G em ellus an d G e r m a n ic u s G em ellu s
G r e a t -g r a n d f a t h e r o f N ero
Nero Claudius Drusus (often called Drusus the Elder or Drusus

Senior), 3 8 - 9 B .C . Nero Claudius Drusus was the youngest son of Livia
and Tiberius Claudius Nero, head of the Claudii family. His father took up
arms against Marc Antony and Augustus (Octavian) in 40 B.C., and after
losing a battle he fled and did not return to Italy until the following year.
In 38 B.C. Augustus forced Tiberius Claudius Nero to divorce Livia so
Augustus could take her as his own wife. A t the time this occurred Nero
Claudius Drusus had been conceived, but not yet born. Thus, Nero Clau
dius Drusus was bom into the family created by the marriage of Livia to
Augustus, and into the Julio-Claudians. Augustus treated Nero Claudius

Drusus as if he was a natural son of his own, for he raised him in his own
household and saw to his education.
In 18 or 16 B.C., Nero Claudius Drusus married Augustus’ niece
Antonia, a remarkable woman who was destined to outlive her husband by
nearly half a century. Their brief marriage of about seven years was a suc
cess, and they had three children. The first was a son born in 15 B.C., who
eventually was given the name Germanicus; the second was Livilla, a
daughter born in about 13 B.C.; and the last was a sickly son named Clau
dius, born in 10 B.C. All three children were destined for important roles
in the history of the Julio-Claudians, with the youngest son becoming
emperor in 41.
The career of Nero Claudius Drusus was as exceptional as it was brief.
In 15 B.C. he campaigned with Tiberius against the Raetians and Vindeli-
cians, and three years later he dedicated the famous altar to Augustus at
Lugdunum. He was considered by Augustus to be his most capable general,
and so he entrusted him with the invasion of Germany in 12 B.C. He spent
the next three years fighting a host of Germanic nations. During these
campaigns he conducted geographic explorations which were of great use
to future generals.
In 9 B.C. he held the consulship, but died unexpectedly at the age of
29. He broke one of his legs after being thrown from his horse, and was
taken to the army’s summer camp, where he survived in agony for a
month, only to die of complications from the wound. Tiberius was devas
tated. He traveled from Rome to the army camp at great speed, and arrived
shortly before his brother died. He then accompanied his brother’s body
back to Rome for the entire, arduous journey.
The news was taken badly by Augustus, who had known him since
the moment he was born and had raised him as his own. The grief-stricken
emperor later wrote a biography of Nero Claudius Drusus. But hardest hit
of all was his wife, Antonia, who at age 27 was widowed, and refused ever
to marry again.
Although Nero Claudius Drusus was refused a full triumph for his
Germanic campaigns (the results of which were somewhat illusory), in his
memory the senate awarded him and his descendants the surname Ger
manicus, which his eldest son adopted. Nero Claudius Drusus was popular
among the people, the soldiers and the senate (for he is said to have har
bored strong Republican sentiments), and his death caused a lengthy
period of mourning.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : All of Nero Claudius Drusus’ coins were struck by his
son Claudius more than half a century after his death. Claudius was almost
exactly 1 year old when his father died.
ANTONIA
A u g u sta , a .d . 37 and 41
W if e o f N ero C l a u d iu s D r u su s
Daugh ter of M arc A ntony an d O c t a v ia
H a l f -s i s t e r o f M a rcellu s
S ist e r o f A n t o n ia M a jo r (g ra n d m oth er of N ero )

D a u g h t e r -i n -la w a n d n ie c e o f L iv ia
S i s t e r -i n -la w of T ib e r iu s
N ie c e o f A u g u stu s
M o th er of G e r m a n ic u s , C l a u d iu s a n d L iv il l a
G randm other of N ero C a esa r , D r u su s C a esa r , C a l ig u l a ,A g r ip p in a Ju n io r ,
D r u s il l a , J u l ia L iv il l a , B r it a n n ic u s , L iv ia Ju l ia , T ib e r iu s G em ellu s a n d
G e r m a n ic u s G em ellu s
G r e a t -g r a n d m o t h e r o f N ero
Antonia (Antonia Minor), 36 B.C. - A.D. 37. Of distinguished parentage,

Antonia was also fabulously wealthy, for she inherited vast land holdings in
the East from her father, Marc Antony. Though she needed no further cre
dentials, Antonia became even better connected within the Julio-Claudians
when in 18 or 16 B.C. she married Nero Claudius Drusus, the youngest son
of Livia.
Antonia’s older sister (also named Antonia, and referred to by histori
ans as Antonia Major) married into the Domitii family, giving birth to the
Ahenobarbus who married Agrippina Junior and sired the future emperor
Nero. Early in her life Antonia built a family Nero Claudius Drusus, who
died a premature, accidental death. Together they produced three children
who played important roles in Julio-Claudian history. The first, a son who
eventually took the name Germanicus, arrived in 15 B.C . Their next, a
daughter named Livilla born in about 13 B .C ., was destined for a troubled
life. Their last, a son named Claudius, born in 10 B .C ., was sickly from
birth but outlasted his contemporaries to become emperor in 41.
After her husband’s tragic death in 9 B.C., Antonia’s life took on a
new character, for her grief was unbounded. She refused to remarry, though
she remained active in raising her three children and in seeing to her eco
nomic interests in the East. She was especially active during the principate
of her brother-in-law Tiberius, during which she witnessed firsthand the
banishment, murder or execution of two children, their spouses, and two
of her grandsons. When her mother-in-law, Livia, died in 29, Antonia
became the matriarch of the Imperial household, depleted though it was.
Her most noteworthy contribution later in life occurred in 31, when
she discovered a document proving that the ambitious prefect Sejanus was
planning to overthrow Tiberius. Indeed, it was Antonia who informed
Tiberius, and she must have been satisfied to know that she was the instru
ment of Sejanus’ downfall, for he personally had caused so much tragedy in
her family. Antonia now had only two surviving male heirs — her young
est son, Claudius, and her youngest grandson, Caligula. Antonia had gone
to great lengths to protect Caligula from Sejanus, and also to curb the boy’s
bad behavior.
When Tiberius died in March of 37, and Caligula emerged as sole
emperor, Antonia tried to exert a moderating influence over her grandson.
Historians tell us that Caligula initially honored his grandmother (then
the only true ‘matriarch’ of the Julio-Claudians) with all the honors previ
ously accorded Livia, which included the title of Augusta, the top role in
the priesthood of Augustus, and the privileges of the Vestal Virgins.
Though doubts have been raised as to whether Antonia was hailed
Augusta by Caligula, there seems little cause for confusion. A n inscription
from Corinth names both Antonia (as Augusta) and Tiberius Gemellus, and
thus it must date to the first few weeks of Caligula’s principate. However, it
is possible that she did refuse the title as Suetonius proposes. Clearly, the
title was not used extensively with Antonia’s name until after it was recon
ferred on her posthumously in 41 by her surviving son, Claudius.
Caligula quickly came to resent Antonia’s meddling, and is said to have
either poisoned her or to have driven her to suicide less than two months
after he had become emperor, for she died on May 1 at the respectable age of
72. We are also told that Caligula did not attend her funeral in person, but
rather watched her pyre burn from the comfort of his dining room. If this
version of history can be trusted (and that is far from certain), it ranks
among the greatest acts of ingratitude imaginable considering how hard
Antonia fought to protect him from Sejanus. Four years later, Antonia was
given posthumous honors by Claudius, who succeeded his nephew Caligula.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : Most of A ntonia’s coins — aurei, denarii, dupondii
and provincial issues — were struck posthumously by her surviving son,

Claudius, who ruled from 41-54. The few issues struck during A ntonia’s
lifetime include provincial coins from the beginning of Caligula’s reign (in
37), when Antonia was first awarded the title of Augusta, and, seemingly
the issue of ‘Justitia’ dupondii struck by Tiberius in 22/23 (which are tradi
tionally misattributed to Livia). As such, these dupondii are of some inter
est, because they are the only Imperial coins struck in honor of Antonia
during her lifetime.
It seems unlikely that we have an actual portait of Antonia on these
dupondii, for the features of Justitia are impersonal and idealized. This cer
tainly is not the case with the other two dupondii in this series, which are
rightly attributed to Livia (as Salus) and Livilla (as Pietas). Instead, what
we have with Justitia is simply the personification of justice herself.
In the most general sense this coin applies specifically to the trial of
Gnaeus Calpurnius Piso for the murder of Germanicus. From that
perspective it is applicable to three people: Tiberius, Antonia and Agrip-

pina Senior. In the first case, Tiberius, this is certain not only because the
coin was struck in his name, but also because he went to great lengths of
“damage control” to distance himself from the controversy over Germani
cus’ murder, which he successfully pinned on Piso as an act of his design.
In the latter two cases, Antonia and Agrippina Senior, we can rightly view
the bust of Justitia as symbolic of both women. Each suffered greatly from
the murder of Germanicus — Antonia for having lost her only promising
son, and Agrippina Senior for having lost the husband to whom she was so
devoted. The facial features of Justitia are non-specific enough that she
could easily apply to either of these women without ruling out one or the
other. In all of these respects it is a masterful piece of propaganda, for in
one fell swoop it honored three people. For further discussion of the three
dupondii in this series, see the Nusmismatic Notes for Livia, Livilla and
Agrippina Senior.
GERMANICUS
S on of N ero C l a u d iu s D r u su s a n d A n t o n ia
B roth er of C l a u d iu s a n d L iv il l a
H u sba n d of A g r ip p in a S e n io r
Fa t h e r of N ero C a esa r , D r u su s C a esa r , C a l ig u l a ,

A d o pted so n o f T ib e r iu s
S o n -i n -la w of A g r ip p a a n d J u l ia
B r o t h e r -i n - l a w of D r u su s
G r a n d so n o f L iv ia , O c t a v ia a n d M arc A ntony
G ra n d fa th er o f N ero
U n c le p o sth u m o u sly o f B r it a n n ic u s , L iv ia J u l ia , T ib e r iu s G em ellus
and G e r m a n ic u s G em ellus
Germanicus Julius Caesar, 15 B.C. - A.D. 19. The older brother of Clau
dius and one of the legendary heroes of Rome, Germanicus was murdered
in the prime of his life and was revered ever after. Though he received his
name from German victories achieved by his father (Nero Claudius
Drusus), Germanicus himself fought against the Germans on more than
one occasion.
The year A.D. 4 was an eventful one for Germanicus, and for Rome.
Augustus’ eldest grandson, Gaius Caesar, had just died, leaving him with
only one grandson, the repugnant Agrippa Postumus. So, dynastic arrange
ments were reconfigured yet again. Augustus jointly adopted Agrippa Pos
tumus and his step-son, Tiberius, as heirs-apparent, at which time Tiberius
was compelled by Augustus to adopt his own nephew Germanicus.
Although Germanicus was still far down the ladder of succession, he

figured prominently into Augustus’ contingency plans. It was at this point
that Tiberius and the 19-year-old Germanicus left to wage war in Pan-
nonia and Germany. A year later, in A.D. 5, Germanicus’ status as poten
tial heir was confirmed when he married Agrippina Senior, a
granddaughter of Augustus. Their marriage was remarkably fertile, as they
had nine children, one of whom (Caligula) was destined to be an emperor.
Germanicus was named consul both in 12 and 18. On the strength of
his character alone he prevented a rebellion by the Rhine legions in 14,
upon the death of Augustus. However, Germanicus obtained his place in
history during the next three years, when he campaigned in Germany.
Much like his father’s campaigns of a quarter century before, Germanicus’
daring exploits made great press in the capital, but had only fleeting
results.
Contributing to his popularity with the army was his visit to the bat
tlefield in the Teutoburg forest where Varus had lost three legions in an
ambush seven years before. Indeed, Tacitus tells us that avenging the
defeat of Varus was the only purpose of the campaign. In concert with his
German campaigns, Germanicus assembled a fleet of some 1,000 ships in
16, which he failed to use with much success.
None of this pleased Tiberius in Rome, who viewed it as being con
trary to his personal interests. After all, Germanicus was spending vast
sums of money to benefit his own public image. Being both fiscally conser
vative and concerned about the longevity of his own regime, Tiberius
recalled Germanicus in 17. Upon arriving in Rome, Germanicus cele
brated a magnificent triumph before the people, who seem to have adored
him unconditionally.
In the meantime, the eastern portion of the Empire had become
unstable. Political upheavals in Armenia, Cappadocia, Commagene, Syria
and Judaea required prompt attention, and so Tiberius sent Germanicus on
a mission to settle these complex affairs. Germanicus’ charm and talent
served him equally well in the Greek East, though he seems to have abused
his authority when he entered the emperor’s province of Egypt to relieve a
sudden famine without first receiving written permission from Tiberius.
When Germanicus returned to Antioch he died under mysterious circum
stances on October 10, A.D. 19. Though it was reported as a death by ill
ness, all of Rome was certain he had been poisoned.
The grief of the Romans was unbounded, and we are told that they
screamed for days, and painted on walls “Give us back Germanicus!”
Though Tiberius had expected there to be public mourning, he could not
have anticipated it would be so emotionally charged. Leading the cry for jus
tice was Germanicus’ widow, Agrippina Senior, who had been with Ger
manicus in Antioch and had carried his ashes back to Rome. Her
protestations resulted in the recall of Gnaeus Calpumius Piso (a nobleman

whom Tiberius had installed as the governor of Syria at the same time he
had sent Germanicus to the East) to Rome. In 20 Piso was tried for the mur
der by the senate, with the trial being presided over by Tiberius himself.
Tiberius was now in a difficult position, for almost certainly it was on
his orders that Piso had poisoned Germanicus. But the emperor was a
crafty politician, and he distanced himself from the trial, abandoning Piso
in the process. Piso was found guilty for his actions, and as a result he com
mitted suicide. His wife of the time, Plancina, who Tacitus tells us was
spared only due to the intercession of Livia, was forced to commit suicide
in 34, after both Livia and Agrippina Senior were dead.
Though Tiberius did not honor his adopted son on

Imperial coinage, he portrayed him extensively on provincial coinage (on
which he often appears with his cousin Drusus). Germanicus did not
appear on Imperial coinage until nearly two decades after his death, when
he was honored by his only surviving son Caligula (37-41), and then by
his brother Claudius (41-54).
AGRIPPINA SENIOR
W if e o f G e r m a n ic u s
Daugh ter of A g r ip p a a n d J u l ia
G randdaugh ter of A u g u stu s
S ist e r o f G a iu s C a esa r , L u c iu s C a esa r ,

A g r ip p a Po stu m u s a n d J u l ia the Yo u n g e r
S i s t e r -i n -law of C l a u d iu s a n d L iv il l a
M o th er of N ero C a esa r , D r u su s C a esa r , C a l ig u l a ,

A g r ip p in a Ju n io r , D r u sil l a a n d J u l ia L iv il l a
G randm oth er of N ero
D a u g h t e r -i n -l a w of A n t o n ia
A u n t of B r it a n n ic u s , L iv ia J u l ia , T ib e r iu s G em ellus an d
G e r m a n ic u s G em ellu s
Vipsania Agrippina, 1 4 B .C . - A .D . 3 3 . The daughter of the commander

Agrippa and Julia (the only daughter of Augustus), Agrippina Senior was
destined to lead a life of tragedy and misery. In A.D. 5 she was married to
Germanicus, the eldest grandson of Livia. Their marriage not only resulted
in nine children (six of whom survived to adulthood and appear on coin
age), but also served to bind the families of Augustus and Livia.
Agrippina was remarkably devoted to her husband, and accompanied
him on all of his military campaigns. Initially this was on the Rhine from
14 to 16, and later during his mission in the East from 18 to 19. When
Germanicus was poisoned by the governor of Syria, Gnaeus Calpurnius
Piso, it spelled the ruin of Agrippina’s life. Though she had no hard evi
dence, she knew, based on the circumstances and the nature of Piso him
self that he had acted on orders of Tiberius.
After Agrippina bore Germanicus’ ashes back to Rome, she became
outspoken in her demand for justice. Tiberius and Sejanus did not react
well to her protestations, for they only added fuel to a fire they had hoped
would be extinguished without much fanfare. Thanks to her efforts, Piso
was recalled in 20 to Rome, where he stood trial, was found guilty, and
committed suicide in response to the verdict.
From 19 to 29 Agrippina Senior proved to be an outspoken critic of
Tiberius and his vicious prefect, Sejanus. With the same political adept
ness with which he had abandoned Piso during his murder trial, Tiberius
struck a dupondius which alludes to the tireless efforts of Agrippina in
seeking justice for her slain husband. However, this small measure of pub
lic acknowledgment did not reduce the personal desires of Tiberius and
Sejanus to ruin Agrippina Senior once and for all.
The pair began to malign Agrippina’s reputation at every possible
occasion, and even accused her of having had an adulterous affair with
Gaius Asinius Gallus, a sharp-tongued character who had himself aspired
to the throne since the reign of Augustus. In 26 Agrippina was refused the
right to remarry, which did little to better her relations with Tiberius. By
the year 29, Sejanus and Tiberius had managed to defame Agrippina and
her eldest son Nero Caesar enough that they were both arrested.
Agrippina’s punishment was so severe that she lost an eye during a
flogging she received from a centurion. In that same year the senate ban
ished her to the island of Pandateria, where she starved to death four years
later. While she was in exile, Sejanus himself was executed, bringing his
reign of terror to an end. But this did her no good, for she was not released,
her eldest son, Nero Caesar, died, and her second son, Drusus Caesar, was
imprisoned only to die as well. Tacitus informs us Agrippina died on O cto
ber 18 of 33, the same day on which Sejanus had been executed two years
before. Agrippina Senior’s memory was honored by her only surviving son,
Caligula, who became emperor in 37 (indeed, the first act of his reign was
to bring back to Rome the ashes of his mother and his two brothers) and
later still by her brother-in-law Claudius.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : Agrippina Senior was represented on coinage with
some frequency. However, during her tragic lifetime this probably occurred
only once on Imperial coinage: on a dupondius issued by Tiberius dated to
22/3, which traditionally has been attributed to Livia. In this case Agrip
pina is represented by Justitia, the personification of justice. O f the three
dupondii in the series, Justitia offers the least-human portrait. Both the
Livia (Salus) and the Livilla (Pietas) issues have human portraits, but in
the bust of Justitia we see little more than the personification herself, com-
plete with the linear forehead and nose joined by an unbroken line.
Since the facial features are not very helpful, we must rely on the his
torical context. The two viable candidates are Germanicus’ wife, Agrip
pina Senior, and his mother, Antonia, as his murder would have been a
great loss to both of them, and the concept of justice would apply to both.
Because Agrippina Senior was younger and more important to the dynasty,
she is the one most likely identified here, however, Antonia was not com
bative with Tiberius during the justice-seeking process, and thus would
have been a more likeable candidate for Tiberius to honor.
Considering the artists at the mint were more than capable of produc
ing exacting images, the indistinct character of the Justitia bust must be
assumed to have been purposeful. This almost leads one to conclude that it
was meant to represent Agrippina Senior and Antonia simultaneously, and
interchangeably. We can only be certain that it does commemorate the
justice achieved on behalf of the murdered Germanicus, and that the por
trait bust was not meant to represent Livia.
Agrippina Senior’s posthumous issues were far more extensive than
her single lifetime issue. Her last-surviving son Caligula struck a massive
issue of aurei, denarii as a compliment to the dual-portrait coins he also
struck for Germanicus and Divus Augustus. Caligula also struck sestertii
portraying her, which a few years later were followed up with a similar issue
by her brother-in-law Claudius (which themselves were restored some
three decades later by the emperor Titus). It is no exaggeration to say that
a height in Julio-Claudian coin artistry was achieved on her portrait sester
tii. The first ones, struck by Caligula, are the finest, and those later struck
by Claudius are nearly as masterful.
NERO CAESAR
S on of G e r m a n ic u s a n d A g r ip p in a S e n io r
A d o p t e d g r a n d s o n a n d p o s s ib l e h e ir o f T ib e r iu s
H u sba n d (a n d c o u s in ) of L iv ia J u l ia
S o n -i n -law of D r u su s
B ro th er of D r u su s C a esa r , C a l ig u l a ,
N ephew of C l a u d iu s a n d L iv il l a
G r a n d so n o f A g r ip p a , Ju l ia , N ero C l a u d iu s D r u su s a n d A n t o n ia
C o u s in o f B r it a n n ic u s, T ib e r iu s G em ellu s, G e r m a n ic u s G em ellus
and L iv ia J u l ia
G r e a t -g r a n d s o n o f A u g u stu s, L iv ia , O c t a v ia a n d M arc A ntony
Nero Julius Caesar, A.D. 6 (or 7 )~ 3 o /i. Nero Caesar began his public life
on favorable terms with the emperors Augustus and Tiberius, perhaps
because he and his younger brother, Drusus Caesar, were not the immedi
ate heirs to the throne.
In 20 or 22 (Tacitus suggests the earlier date, though the latter seems
equally likely) Nero Caesar was married to Tiberius’ own granddaughter
Livia Julia, who had just come of marriage age. By this point in time the
political scenario had changed, for the young man’s father, Germanicus,
had recently been murdered. Now the only more-suitable candidate that
remained was Drusus, the son of Tiberius — and this was simply because
he was older.
Thus, what had begun as an amicable relationship between Nero
Caesar and Tiberius degenerated into a life-and-death struggle. With the
passing of Germanicus, Nero Caesar and Drusus Caesar were now father
less, and were targets for Tiberius and his prefect Sejanus, who wanted to
be rid of them as badly as did Tiberius. When Tiberius’ own son, Drusus,
died four years later (in 23), the emperor had even more reason to fear the
sons of Germanicus, for they were the only significant rivals to Tiberius’
twin grandsons (who were then merely 4 years old).
When Nero Caesar married Tiberius’ own granddaughter, Livia Julia,
the young man had perhaps believed this would endear him to the
emperor, or at the very least afford him a degree of protection. But this was
not the case, for Livia Julia would routinely reveal their private conversa
tions to her mother Livilla, who would then pass the information to her
adulterous lover Sejanus.
Tiberius and Sejanus defamed Nero Caesar and Drusus Caesar at
every opportunity. Sejanus was especially crafty, and persuaded Drusus
Caesar that he would gain the throne if he turned against his older brother.
When the boys’ great-grandmother Livia died in 29, they lost what little
protection she had afforded them. In that same year, Sejanus convinced
the senate to declare both Nero Caesar and his mother, Agrippina Senior,
public enemies and to arrest them.
Most likely in the following year, Nero Caesar was exiled to the Pon-
tian Islands, where he died in 30 or 31 (authorities disagree). Though he
may have been executed, Suetonius tells us that he was forced to commit
suicide when an executioner displayed a hanging noose and the hooks by
which his corpse would be dragged. He further tells us that his and his
brother’s bodies were chopped into so many pieces that “. . . great difficulty
was later found in collecting them for burial.” Even the right of a decent
burial, it seems, was denied by Tiberius. It was not until six years later that
he and Drusus Caesar were honored by their brother, Caligula, who
erected statues and struck coins in their names after he became emperor.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : Coins honoring Nero Caesar and his younger brother
Drusus Caesar were struck by their adoptive grandfather Tiberius, and by

their surviving younger brother, Caligula.
D R U SU S C A E SA R
A d o p t e d g r a n d s o n a n d p o s s ib l e h e ir o f T ib e r iu s
B ro th er of N ero C aesa r , C a l ig u l a , D r u s il l a
A g r ip p in a J u n io r , and J u l ia L iv il l a
N eph ew of C l a u d iu s a n d L iv il l a
G ran d so n of A g r ip p a , Ju l ia , N ero C l a u d iu s
D ru su s a n d A n t o n ia
C o u s in o f B r it a n n ic u s , T ib e r iu s G em ellu s,
G e r m a n ic u s G em ellu s an d L iv ia J u l ia
G r e a t -g r a n d s o n o f A u g u stu s, L iv ia , O c t a v ia a n d M arc A nto ny
Drusus Julius Caesar, A.D. 8- 3 3 . Drusus Caesar faced a similar fate to

that of his brother (see the preceding biography), at first enjoying Imperial
favor, but eventually finding the team of Tiberius and Sejanus too power
ful to withstand.
Before he had reached his 20th year, Drusus Caesar realized the peril
of his situation and allied himself with Sejanus, who had promised him the
throne if he conspired against his older brother, Nero Caesar. But even this
treacherous effort failed to win over Sejanus, for he had no intention of
giving to Drusus Caesar that which he himself desired. Indeed, no amount
of cooperation with Sejanus and Tiberius could erase Drusus Caesar’s blood
lines. As long as he lived Drusus Caesar constituted a threat to Tiberius’
hopes for his surviving grandchild, Tiberius Gemellus, and to Sejanus’ pri
vate designs on the throne.
In the year 29 the terror reached a new level when the boy’s great
grandmother, Livia, died. Sejanus recognized their vulnerability and went
THE JULIO-CLAUDIANS I4 3
on the offensive, using his extensive spy network (which included Drusus
Caesar’s new wife, Amelia Lepida, who relayed personal information to
Sejanus) and the support of Tiberius from Capri. Drusus Caesar’s mother,
Agrippina Senior, and his older brother, Nero Caesar, were both arrested
in 29, and neither of them emerged from their subsequent banishments.
Young Drusus Caesar’s day of reckoning was not far off, and in 30, it
seems, he too was arrested by Sejanus on trumped-up charges made by,
among others, Cassius Severus, who was the chief accuser in his treason
trial. The senate promptly declared him a public enemy, and the unfortu
nate young man was imprisoned in the Palatine dungeons (some authori
ties are silent on when this happened, and others suggest this actually
happened in 33).
Even when Sejanus was executed in 31, Drusus Caesar was not
released by Tiberius, for he was still perceived as a threat. After perhaps
three years of imprisonment, Drusus Caesar was starved so severely that he
ate the fleece of his mattress, and soon died. Like his brother two years
before, Drusus Caesar’s corpse was reportedly chopped into such small
pieces that they could not easily be collected for a burial which, in any
case, he was refused by Tiberius. After his death, the senate was shocked
when pages from his diary were read aloud, recounting the agony of the
last days of Drusus Caesar’s life. Four years later, he and the older brother
whom he had betrayed were honored by their younger brother, Caligula,
who had survived to become emperor.
G A IU S (c alled ‘C A L IG U L A ’ )
A.D. 3 7 - 4 1
H e ir A p p a r e n t (o f T ib e r iu s ), a .d . 3 5 - 3 7
A d o p t e d g r a n d s o n a n d h e ir o f T ib e r iu s
H u sba n d of C a e s o n ia
Fa t h e r of D r u s il l a M in o r
B ro th er of N ero C a esa r , D ru su s C a esa r ,

A g r ip p in a J u n io r , D r u s il l a a n d J u l ia L iv il l a
N eph ew of C l a u d iu s a n d L iv il l a
G r an d so n of A g r ip p a , Ju l ia , N ero C l a u d iu s D ru su s a n d A n t o n ia
C o u s in o f B r it a n n ic u s , T ib e r iu s G em ellu s, G e r m a n ic u s G em ellu s
G r e a t -g r a n d s o n o f A u g u stu s, L iv ia , O c t a v ia a n d M arc A nto ny
Gaius Caesar Augustus Germanicus (earlier Gaius Julius Caesar G er

manicus), A.D. 12 - 4 1 . O f all the emperors of Rome, Caligula is the best
known for his personal depravity and abuse of power. Much like reports
made concerning the final years of Tiberius on Capri, however, specific
episodes of Caligula’s behavior may have been exaggerated by the ancient

historians. Even so, his dementia cannot be underestimated.
Caligula had a very different view of the office of emperor than did
his predecessors. He would settle for nothing less than full and unques
tioned authority, and even made strides toward having himself worshipped
as a god, as well as an emperor. He was blessed with a sharp mind and a
natural talent for public speaking and theatrics. This combination of tal
ent and mental illness made him a formidable opponent for those who
were accustomed to a rational emperor.
It was impossible to predict how Caligula would react to a situation
— with generosity, indifference or shocking cruelty. His relationship with
the senate was even worse than Tiberius’ had been, and when he
appointed his horse to the senate it was not an act of lunacy, but rather a
flamboyant condemnation of that institution. Likewise, when he collected
seashells as evidence of having conquered Neptune, he tested the limits of
his power by demanding a triumph from the senate.
Regrettably for the Roman state, Caligula had little or no formal
training in administration, or in warfare. Thus, he failed miserably in these
vital areas and, much like the most debauched of eastern Greek kings, he
sought to wield his authority through fear rather than virtue. Caligula was
addicted to nearly every form of sexual deviation, including incest, and
took personal delight in his cruelties, especially if they involved degrading
people who dared not resist.
Though it seems clear that Caligula suffered from a host of mental and
physical illnesses, it is difficult to identify them exactly. He is said to have
suffered from epilepsy as a child and later in life was able to sleep only about
three hours per night. When he was just a small boy with his parents at mil
itary camps in Germany, he earned his nickname “Caligula” from the sol
diers because of the military boots he wore (a regular boot was called a caliga;
his nickname, caligula, is the diminutive form meaning “little boot”).
If anything positive can be said of the young Caligula, it is that he was
a survivor. His youth was haunted by the destruction of his family at the
hands of Tiberius and Sejanus, which resulted in his father’s murder when
Caligula was only 7 years old, and the downfall of his mother and two
brothers when he was in his late teens. These events must have unnerved
the young man and contributed greatly to his future mental problems.
But the torture was just beginning for this future emperor, for he sub
sequently spent five years (from 32 to 37) on the island of Capri with Tibe
rius during the final, haunting years of that emperor’s life. By this point in
time, Tiberius had narrowed the succession to Caligula and Tiberius
Gemellus (theoretically his grandson, but whom he suspected to have
been sired by the former prefect Sejanus). Since Tiberius, in 35, had
declared Tiberius Gemellus and Caligula co-heirs to the throne and to his
personal fortune, no doubt there was tension between the two young men
as Tiberius’ health declined.
Caligula was seven years older than his cousin and was also the craft
ier of the two, for he had secured the loyalty of the praetorian prefect
Macro to ensure that there would be no doubt about his succession. His
association with Macro may have gone back to 31, when he and Tiberius
enlisted the prefect’s help in arresting Sejanus. In any event, we are told
that Caligula was sleeping with Macro’s wife, and that when Tiberius died
on March 16, 37 (with the able assistance of Macro, some said), Caligula
was hailed emperor with Macro’s help.
He returned to Rome, was warmly received by the senate, the people
and the army, and adopted the name Gaius Caesar Augustus Germanicus.
Nearly all had tired of Tiberius’ stingy and cruel regime, and with the
accession of Caligula came the opportunity for renewal, and for leadership
by the only surviving son of Germanicus. Caligula immediately adopted
Tiberius Gemellus and hailed him princeps iuventutis, though at the same
time he convinced the senate to alter Tiberius’ will so that he received all
of the wealth rather than sharing it with Tiberius Gemellus.
Caligula’s grandmother Antonia — who was then the matriarch of
the Julio-Claudians — made the fatal mistake of trying to restrain
Caligula’s aggressions. Though Caligula at first honored Antonia and
hailed her as the new Augusta, he soon tired of her heavy-handed influ
ence, and is said to have forced her death on May 1, less than two months
after his accession. However, this was only one of several important occur
rences in the early part of Caligula’s reign, for in October of 37 the new
emperor fell deathly ill. The episode was so serious that he named his
beloved sister Drusilla heir to the Empire.
Though Caligula soon recovered physically, the near-death experi
ence contributed to the decline of his mental state. His first two important
acts after his recovery were the murders of Macro and Tiberius Gemellus
early in 38. Caligula had already tired of Macro’s strong influence as pra
etorian prefect in Rome, so he appointed him prefect of Egypt, but even at
that, he forced him to commit suicide shortly before he was to set sail.
After first ridding himself of his meddlesome grandmother, Antonia,
and his overbearing prefect, Macro, Caligula next removed his cousin
Tiberius Gemellus, who was the only serious rival to the throne. The
unfortunate young man was executed on suspicion of taking an antidote
for poison — an act which constituted treason. But Suetonius informs us
that the odor Caligula detected on his cousin’s breath was no antidote,
only cough medicine. The act was not opposed, for Tiberius had not been
beloved, and his grandson thus did not enjoy the support of the army.
Caligula, quite to the contrary, had an illustrious pedigree: he was the son
of Germanicus, the grandson of Agrippa and Nero Claudius Drusus, and
the great-grandson of the Divine Augustus.
Shortly after these episodes occurred, Caligula was in for yet another
terrible shock. His favorite sister, Drusilla, whom he is said to have loved
both spiritually and physically, died on June 10, 38. His grief was
unbounded, and he forced the public to mourn for an extended period of
time. Furthermore, he gave her the distinct honor of becoming the first
woman to be consecrated.
Within a few months, Caligula had recovered from the shock, and
began to take out his aggressions on those whom he perceived as enemies.
A t the beginning of 39, Caligula reinstated the treason trials which had so
marred Tiberius’ principate, and which resulted in the deaths of many
great men. The senate now had no doubt that Caligula was both cruel and
unstable.
The emperor next traveled to Germany, where he launched a military
campaign in imitation of his father and paternal grandfather. His expedi
tion had no tangible result, other than the deaths of many other fine men.
Among those killed for allegedly plotting against him were the general
Gaetulicus and Marcus Aemilius Lepidus, the widower of Caligula’s sister,
Drusilla, who up until that point was one of the emperor’s frequent bed
companions, and perhaps his most likely heir.
Caligula did not stop with these crimes, for he soon banished his two
remaining sisters, Agrippina Junior and Julia Livilla. After wintering at
camps in Gaul and Germany, Caligula returned to Rome on August 31, 40,
out of fear that the senate and the praetorian guards might be plotting
against his life. This turned out to be one of Caligula’s more rational fears,
for three serious plots were formed, with the last one being successful.
His end came swiftly on January 24, 41, underneath the palace on the
Palatine Hill: before his German bodyguards could come to his rescue, he
had been stabbed to death by praetorians and senators. Also perishing in
the ambush (or later that same day) were his fourth wife, Caesonia, and
their baby daughter, Drusilla Minor. Caligula was temporarily buried in the
Lamian gardens, but later his remains were moved to the Mausoleum of
Augustus.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : Perhaps the most interesting reverse type of Caligula’s
reign is that which depicts his three sisters standing in a row in the guises
of Securitas, Concordia and Fortuna. Caligula, however, did not limit his
honorary issues to the living, for he struck massive issues in the names of
deceased members of his ill-fated family. Among those honored were his
father Germanicus, his mother Agrippina Senior, his two brothers Nero
Caesar and Drusus Caesar, his great-grandfather Augustus (the inscription
PRON (pronepos) means great-grandson), and ironically, it would seem,

Agrippa, the grandfather who he despised for his low birth even though
the Empire was built upon his military genius.
A sestertius which shows Caligula saluting the praetorian guards (to
whom he gave a generous bonus upon his accession) is of particular inter
est. N ot only is the boldness of the design unprecedented in the Empire,
but, it also lacks the SC customarily placed on æ s coinage. This coinage
was no doubt unnerving to the senators who Caligula despised and mis
trusted. For both of the reasons cited, we must conclude that Caligula took
great pleasure in producing this issue, and that he saw to it personally.
A long-running controversy in Roman numismatics is when the strik
ing of precious metal coins shifted from Lugdunum (which had been doing
the lion’s share of this since about 15 B.C.) back to Rome (which in the
meantime had produced æ s coinage). Sometime between the reigns of
Tiberius (14-37) and Otho (69) the shift occured; some scholars prefer the
first year of Caligla’s reign (the view taken in RIC), whereas others —
seemingly with a stronger case — prefer the year 64, late in the reign of
Nero.
Surprisingly, Caligula was not subjected to the damnatio memoriae
process by which ones memory was condemned for crimes against the
state. However, the senate did order that his æ s coinage be recalled and
melted because it bore the SC, a state of affairs they found intolerable.
Indeed, it is not uncommon to find aes of Caligula on which the portrait is
purposefully damaged or the first C in the obverse inscription (the letter
on his Imperial coins which represents his full name, Gaius) is chiseled off.
C A E SO N IA
Fo urth w if e o f C a l ig u l a
M o th er of D r u s il l a M in o r
Milonia Caesonia, d. A.D. 4 1 . N ot surprisingly,

Caesonia began her association with her future
husband, Caligula, as a mistress. He had been mar
ried three times before: in 33, to Junia Claudia; in
37, to Livia Orestilla; and in 38, to Lollia Paulina, making Caesonia his
fourth. Caesonia was older than Caligula, and had three children from a
previous marriage. We are told not only that she was promiscuous, but that
Caligula adored her, although he would not marry her until she bore him a
child. So on the day Drusilla Minor was born (or perhaps a month earlier)
late in the summer of 39, they were wed. Despite his reprehensible con
duct in other aspects of life, Caligula does appear to have been devoted to
his last wife and daughter. Caesonia and Drusilla Minor were both mur
dered on January 24, 41 by the soldier Julius Lupus, either at the same time
or shortly after Caligula was killed in an ambush beneath the palace on the
Palatine Hill.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : Caesonia’s portrait seems to appear only once — on a
rare bronze issued in 40/41 by the Judaean king Herod Agrippa I. The bust
of Salus (health) on æ s struck at Carthago Nova (nos. 563-4) by Caligula
is often misattributed as a representation of Caesonia. The obverse inscrip
tion dates the Carthago Nova pieces to A.D. 37-38, and Caligula did not
marry Caesonia until late in the summer of 39. In this case Salus represents
nothing more than a hope for the health of the Imperial family in Rome,
for in 37 Caligula’s grandmother Antonia fell deathly ill, and Caligula
himself was bed-ridden and nearly died.
DRUSILLA MINOR
Da ugh ter of C a l ig u l a a n d C a e so n ia
G randdaugh ter of G e r m a n ic u s a n d A g r ip p in a S e n io r
G r e a t -g r a n d d a u g h t e r o f A g r ip p a , Ju l ia ,N ero C l a u d iu s D r u su s
and A n t o n ia
Julia Drusilla (often called Julia Livilla the Younger), A.D. 39- 4 1 . Little
is known of Drusilla Minor, the daughter of Caligula and his fourth wife,
Caesonia. The infant was honored with the same name as her father’s
beloved sister, Drusilla, who had died only about one year before. Since
Caesonia was so promiscuous, Caligula was not entirely certain of his
paternity of Drusilla Minor. But Suetonius tells us his initial doubts were
dispelled when he observed her trying to scratch the eyes and faces of her
little playmates. Drusilla Minor was murdered on January 24, 41, along
with her mother at the time (or later in the same day) that Caligula was
assassinated in a corridor beneath the palace on the Palatine Hill. Her end
was as swift as it was brutal, for a praetorian guardsman crushed her head
against a wall.
portrait coins are known of Drusilla Minor. She

N u m is m a tic N o t e : N o
makes only one appearance on coinage — as a standing figure on a coin
struck by the Judaean king Herod Agrippa I. Agrippa I was raised at the
Imperial household in Rome from the age of 6, and was a close friend of
Caligula, Caesonia, and Claudius. Although she is shown as a more
mature figure on Agrippa’s coin, she is identified by the accompanying
inscription ©YrATPI, meaning “daughter.” Unfortunately for collectors,
this rare coin is also in great demand for its importance to Herodian spe
cialists. (Note: Because this coin also has a portrait of her mother Caeso
nia — and it is also her only coin — the catalog listings of mother and
daughter are combined).
D R U S IL L A
Daugh ter of G e r m a n ic u s a n d A g r ip p in a S e n io r
S is t e r o f N ero C a esa r , D ru su s C a esa r , C a l ig u l a ,

A g r ip p in a J u n io r and J u l ia L iv il l a
N ie c e o f C l a u d iu s a n d L iv il l a
G ran d d au gh ter of A g r ip p a , Ju l ia , N ero C l a u d iu s
G e r m a n ic u s G em ellu s a n d L iv ia J u l ia
G r e a t -g r a n d d a u g h t e r o f A u g u stu s, L iv ia ,
O c t a v ia and M arc A nto ny
Julia Drusilla, A .D . 1 6 - 3 8 . The second daughter born to Germanicus and

Agrippina Senior, Drusilla was the favorite sister of Caligula, her older
brother by four years. Their relationship was incestuous, and Caligula was
caught by his grandmother Antonia when he first seduced Drusilla before
she was of age. Despite their being siblings, and married, they allegedly
continued their unnatural relationship into adulthood.
Drusilla’s first husband, Lucius Cassius Longinus, the consul of 30, was
selected for her in 33 by her adoptive grandfather, Tiberius. But this was
not to the liking of Caligula, who took her from him and treated her as his
lawfully married wife. Drusilla’s next marriage, in 38, was to Marcus Aemi-
lius Lepidus, a descendant of the Triumvir Lepidus. He was deeply
involved with the Imperial family, and is said to have had sexual relations
not only with his wife Drusilla, but also with Caligula and his two sisters-
in-law, Julia Livilla and Agrippina Junior. But his eventful life came to an
end in 39, when he and the general Gaetulicus were executed by Caligula
for allegedly conspiring to murder him.
When Caligula fell deathly ill late in 37 — just a few months after his
accession — he named Drusilla as heir to the Empire. But Caligula soon
recovered, only to suffer the loss of his beloved sister in the summer of the
following year. Drusilla died on June 10, 38, when she was only 22 years of
age.
Perhaps nothing could have injured Caligula more than Drusilla’s
death, and in response he deified her. This was an unprecedented act, for
even Livia had not yet been deified. Accompanying the deification was a
mandatory period of public mourning throughout the Empire, during
which it was a capital offense to laugh, to bathe, or even to dine with one’s
relatives. Drusilla’s widower, Lepidus (who until his wife’s death was con
sidered to be Caligula’s most likely successor), was executed in the follow
ing year, allegedly for conspiring against the emperor’s life.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : Drusilla appears on a few Imperial and provincial
coinages, usually with her sisters. In the latter case, when she is shown as a
standing figure, she is given the attributes of Concordia. All of these coins
were struck during the reign of her brother, Caligula — some while she was
alive, others after she died and had been deified.
JU L IA L IV IL L A
S is t e r o f N ero C a esa r , D ru su s C a esa r , C a l ig u l a ,

A g r ip p in a J u n io r and D r u s il l a
G ran d d au gh ter of A g r ip p a , Ju l ia ,N ero C l a u d iu s
G e r m a n ic u s G em ellu s a n d L iv ia J u l ia
G r e a t -g r a n d d a u g h t e r o f A u g u stu s, L iv ia , O c t a v ia a n d M arc A nto ny
Julia Livilla (the Younger), A.D. 17 / 18 - 42. Although Caligula cherished

Drusilla, he was not overly fond of his youngest sister, Julia Livilla.
She was the last child of Germanicus and Agrippina Senior, and Tac
itus tells us she was born on the island of Lesbos shortly after her parents
landed there early in the year 18. The date of her birth, however, is not
certainly known. Though Tacitus suggests she was born in 18, Suetonius
tells us the three sisters were born in “successive years,” which would place
Julia Livilla’s birth in 17 since Agrippina Junior was born in 15 and
Drusilla in 16.
As soon as Julia Livilla came of age (in 33), her adoptive grandfather,
the emperor Tiberius, married her to Marcus Vinicius, a man remembered
for his mild character and elaborate oratorical style. Although Caligula is
said to have slept with Julia Livilla on occasion, he did not care much for
her, and instead drew greater pleasure from making her available for his
friends to sleep with.
When her elder sister, Drusilla, died in mid-38, Julia Livilla’s life took
a turn for the worse. Late in 39, when the widower Aemilius Lepidus (with
whom Julia Livilla was alledgedly having an affair) was tried and convicted
of plotting against the emperor’s life, both Julia Livilla and her eldest sister,
Agrippina Junior, were also implicated. As a result of the trial, the sisters
were exiled to the Pontian Islands late in the year. Slightly more than a
THE JULIO-CLAUDIANS 15 I
year later, their despotic brother was murdered, and the sisters’ fates rested
in the hands of his successor, their uncle Claudius.
He promptly recalled both young women in 41, and though he even
tually married Agrippina Junior, he was not impressed with the behavior of
Julia Livilla. She was quickly returned to her exile - seemingly at the
request of Claudius’ wife, Valeria Messalina - after being accused of having
an adulterous affair with Seneca, the man who would tutor her sister’s son
Nero. In the following year (42), Julia Livilla was executed on charges per
haps made by Messalina that Tacitus tells us not only were unsubstanti
ated, but against which she was not given the opportunity to defend
herself.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : Julia Livilla appears on very few Imperial and provin
cial coins, and her portrait bust occurs only on provincial coinage — once,
or perhaps twice. All coins which honor her were struck by her brother,
Caligula, sometime between 37 and 39. She is most often shown with her
two sisters, and when shown standing she is given the attributes of For-
tuna. Some researchers believe her portrait occurs on an issue attributed in
this and in other catalogs to Julia (the daughter of Augustus) and her
eldest son, Gaius Caesar. Though it might actually represent Julia Livilla
and Gaius (‘Caligula’), it seems better placed as an Augustan issue.
C L A U D IU S A .D . 4 1-54
S on of N ero C l a u d iu s D ru su s a n d A n t o n ia
B ro th er of G e r m a n ic u s a n d L iv il l a
H u sban d of P l a u t ia U r g u l a n il l a , A e l ia Pa e t in a ,
V a l e r ia M e s s a l in a a n d A g r ip p in a J u n io r
N eph ew of T ib e r iu s
B r o t h e r -in -law of S e ja n u s
Fa t h e r of B r it a n n ic u s , C l a u d ia O c t a v ia a n d
C l a u d ia A n t o n ia
G randuncle and A d o p t iv e s t e p -f a t h e r o f N ero
G r an d so n of L iv ia , M arc A nto ny an d O c t a v ia
U n cle of N ero C a esa r , D ru su s C a esa r , C a l ig u l a , A g r ip p in a J u n io r ,

Dru s il l a , J u l ia L iv il l a , T ib e r iu s G em ellu s, G e r m a n ic u s G em ellu s
B r o t h e r -in -law of G a iu s C aesa r , D r u su s a n d A g r ip p in a S e n io r
Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus (earlier Tiberius Clau

dius Drusus), 10 B.C. - A.D. 54. Although the appearance of being sickly
would be a disadvantage in the lives of most Romans, it proved to be an
effective defense in the treacherous world of the Julio-Claudians. Because
of the physical effects of his childhood diseases, which included a speech

defect, Claudius survived the virtual extinction of his branch of the family
either by being considered a nonentity, or by being kept around as the butt
of jokes. Despite his physical ailments, Claudius was far from incapable,
and his intelligence served him both in his private life, and as emperor.
He was bom at the provincial city of Lugdunum (in Gaul) on the
very day that the great altar of that city was dedicated. He was a well-con-
nected child, being the grandson of Marc Antony and Livia, the son of
Nero Claudius Drusus and Antonia, and the brother of Germanicus and
Livilla.
In his youth he was tutored by the historians Livy and Pollio, and
gained a thorough knowledge of Roman and related history. The subject
proved to be of great interest to him, and he penned books on the history
of the Carthaginians, the principate of Augustus, the game of dicing, and
he even wrote an autobiography (which was not well-received). Regretta
bly, none of these works survive.
He also spent a great deal of his time amusing himself by attending
games, gambling, womanizing and drinking. His family life was under
standably poor, with even his own mother, Antonia, describing him
uncharitably as “a monster of a man.” Indeed, Claudius did have a cruel
streak, for he is said to have enjoyed watching the faces of gladiators as
they died. Later in his life, he seems to have become an alcoholic, a debili
tation which no doubt contributed to his being dominated by his last wife,
Agrippina Junior, and their adviser Pallas.
He fared poorly in his six arranged marriages, only four of which actu
ally materialized. He was first betrothed to a noblewoman, Aemilia Lepida,
but it did not occur once her parents fell out of favor. His second match
was to Livia Medullina, who died on the very day they were to be wed.
His first marriage was to Plautia Urgulanilla, whom he divorced c. 24
for adultery and on the suspicion that she attempted to murder him. O f the
two children from the marriage, the first, a boy, choked to death on a pear,
and the second, a daughter, was believed to have been sired by his freed-
man Boter, and as such was denied. Claudius next married Aelia Paetina,
by whom he had a daughter named Claudia Antonia. But he divorced her
after the fall of Sejanus in 31, and engaged in a long-term affair with a
concubine Calpurnia. Next, in 39, he married the debauched 14-year-old
Valeria Messalina. Together they had a daughter named Claudia Octavia,
and a son originally named Germanicus, but who later was named Britan
nicus after his father’s victory in Britain.
The marriage with Valeria Messalina ended in extraordinary disgrace
(see her biography), and so she was executed. His final marriage, in 50, was
to his niece, Agrippina Junior. This union not only resulted in his own
murder four years later, but also in the murder of his only son, Britannicus.
Indeed, Tacitus tells us that Claudius believed it was his destiny first to suf
fer, and finally to punish the infamy of his wives.
During the first 47 years of his life, Claudius remained in the back
ground of Julio-Claudian politics. Augustus entrusted him with only one
augurate, and his uncle Tiberius invested no authority in him. Though
Claudius was not immune to drink and various entertainments, he seems
to have led a quiet, scholarly life as crimes of every description were com
mitted all around him.
Despite the anonymity of his early life, Claudius was brought forward
in 37 by his sadistic nephew Caligula, who made him consul and heaped
responsibilities upon him. N o doubt Caligula was aware that his uncle was
brighter than most imagined, but also, Caligula enjoyed having him
around as a butt of his jokes.
When Caligula was murdered by the praetorians on January 24, 41,
Claudius feared for his own life. N o doubt, he considered the possibility
that the praetorians (which had risen to great power a couple of decades
earlier under Sejanus) would kill him as well. If they had wished to extin
guish the remaining Julio-Claudian males, it would have been an easy task,
for only Claudius and two small boys, Nero (age 4) and Britannicus (age 1)
remained candidates.
The 50-year-old Claudius was discovered cowering behind a curtain
in the palace, and was conducted to the camp of the praetorians, who
declared their support for him at the same time that the senate was debat
ing the possibility of restoring the Republic.
On this surprising turn of events, the historian Tacitus wrote: “The
more I think about history, ancient or modern, the more ironical all
human affairs seem. In public opinion, expectation, and esteem no one
appeared a less likely candidate for the throne than the man for whom des
tiny was secretly reserving it.”
Clearly, the praetorian guards selected Claudius because they
believed he could be easily controlled. Though Claudius had no military
distinction in his past, he was the brother of Germanicus and son of Nero
Claudius Drusus, both of whom were heroes to soldiers. Claudius began his
principate by paying a bonus of 15,000 sestertii (150 aurei) to each of the
praetorians, which no doubt helped in crushing the senate-backed revolt
of Scribonianus in Dalmatia in 42. He furthered his reputation with the
army by personally taking part in the invasion of Britain in 43.
The major consequence of aligning himself so closely with the pra
etorians (as his uncle Tiberius had done) was that he earned the enmity of
the senate, which would haunt him throughout his principate. Indeed,
much of the “bad press” he received may be attributed to the poor relation
ship he had with the senate, and thus with the literati of the Empire. Clau
dius was a careful administrator who demanded that senators take their
responsibilities seriously, a request which did not endear him to that august
body.
In addition to the army, Claudius also relied heavily on his wives,
freedmen and friends. This earned him even greater indignation from the
senate, which now had another element with which they had to contend
for authority. Foremost among his freedmen was Narcissus; even the father
of the future emperor Vitellius numbered among his friend-advisers. How
ever, Claudius receives the worst condemnation for his deep reliance on
the counsel of his wives, all of whom had agendas of their own.
He was a strict ruler who executed at least 35 senators and 300
knights. For this practice Claudius was much maligned both in his lifetime
and thereafter (notably by Seneca and Nero), but there were at least six
serious attempts on his life, and he may have over-reacted out of fear.
Despite his stringent security measures and often violent retributions,
Claudius was, on balance, a thoughtful and careful emperor who applied
common sense to his legislation. He was traditional in his views, and vig
orously supported the laws, values and religion of Rome, while at the same
time being open-minded enough to see the Empire as something much
larger than Italy itself, for he encouraged vacant seats on the senate to be
filled with candidates from Roman Gaul.
His military conquests and building projects (both being categories by
which emperors are often measured) were considerable. He added Britain,
the provinces of Mauretania and Thrace to the Empire, completed two
massive aqueducts, and in 42 began construction of a new port at Ostia
that would be completed by Nero.
Though Claudius had always relied on the army and his closest advis
ers, there is ample evidence that he was firmly in control for the first eight
years of his principate. However, when he wed his niece Agrippina Junior
in 49, he came to be greatly influenced by his new wife and her ally, the
freedman Pallas. Agrippina Junior went to great lengths to purge the
palace of Claudius’ supporters, and in turn replaced them with men loyal
to her.
In the meantime, over a three-year period, Agrippina had convinced
Claudius to heap honors upon her own son, Nero, to such a degree that he
was honored far more than Claudius’ own son, Britannicus. Having care
fully constructed the scenario by which Nero would succeed Claudius
uncontested, Agrippina was free on the evening of October 12, 54, to feed
her 64-year-old husband a dish of poisoned mushrooms, which he
devoured without suspicion. The first dose apparently did not take, and a
second was required. So Agrippina had his doctor administer a second one,
which proved fatal in the early hours of October 13.
Agrippina’s plan was executed without a hitch, and her son Nero was
hailed emperor without hesitation. Britannicus was soon poisoned, and
thus removed as a rival. As successfully as Agrippina had achieved her

ambition, she found her son less than willing to share authority with his
domineering mother, and she spent the last five years of her life struggling
to maintain her authority and her life.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e s : The accession of Claudius was secured by the praeto
rian guards, who escorted him within their walls shortly after the murder of
Caligula. In recognition of their inital and continued support, Claudius
issued aurei and denarii depicting the praetorian camp with its circuit wall
inscribed IMPER(ator) RECEPT(us), as well as a second type bearing the
inscription PRAETOR(ianus) RECEPT(us) and showing him greeting a sol
dier. His æ s coinage is also of considerable interest, though it does not
honor the praetorian. It is clear on stylistic grounds that Claudius struck
much of his early æ s coinage at auxiliary mints in Spain, Gaul and the Bal
kans. It is also of some interest that after coining æ s so heavily up through
about 45, production ceased, and no significant issues of Imperial sestertii,
dupondii or asses were struck for about two decades, when Nero began
sometime between 62 and 64. In addition to striking coins in his own
name, Claudius also issued Imperial commemoratives for Augustus, Livia,
Antonia, Nero Claudius Drusus, Germanicus and Agrippina Senior.
Perhaps the most interesting issue of Claudius, however, is a quadrans
(or semis) which might mark his 50th year (his age upon accession). It
depicts on its reverse the altar of Lugdunum, and since Claudius was born
in Lugdunum on the very day the great altar was dedicated, this is a com
pelling conclusion to draw. However, von Kaenel (M unzprägung und
Mürizbildnis des Claudius, AMuGS 9, Berlin, 1986) opts for 44/45 instead.
Chronology aside, the coin’s greatest impact is on the theory of the loca
tion of the Imperial mint for precious metal coins from the reigns of Tibe
rius through Otho. This innocuous little coin cannot be separated on any
stylistic ground from Claudius’ precious metal issues, and its Lugdunese
iconography is thus an important indicator that Claudius was still striking
precious metal coins in Lugdunum. The ‘shift’ from Lugdunum to Rome,
therefore, must have occured after Claudius stopped striking coins (seem
ingly in 44/45 for aes and in 51/52 for precious metals). The two possibili
ties are the production hiatus between Claudius and Nero, or later in the
reign of Nero. The latter prospect is now heavily favored, with Claudius’
altar quadrans being only one part of a larger body of evidence.
CLAUDIA ANTONIA
Daugh ter of C l a u d iu s (by A e l ia Pa e t i n a )
H a l f -s i s t e r o f C l a u d ia O c t a v ia a n d B r it a n n ic u s
N ie c e o f S e ja n u s
S t e p -s is t e r o f N ero
Claudia Antonia, A.D. 2 7 -6 6 . O f Claudia Antonia, the daughter of Clau

dius by his second wife, Aelia Paetina, not much is known except that she
enjoyed a good reputation and endured a tragic life. Even though her
father’s earlier marriage to Urgulanilla had produced two children, Claudia
Antonia was destined to be Claudius’ longest surviving child.
Claudius’ first child was a boy named Claudius Drusus, who met an
inauspicious death in the year 20, just a few days after he had been
betrothed to a daughter of Tiberius’ prefect, Sejanus. Suetonius reports:
“[Claudius] lost Drusus just before he came of age, choked by a pear which
he had playfully thrown up and caught in his open mouth. . . .” To the sat
isfaction of those who suffered the loss of the boy (among whom would
have been Claudia Antonia), the murderous pear tree was uprooted.
Claudius’ second child by Urgulanilla was a daughter apparently sired by
Claudius’ freedman Boter, and so she was denied.
O f Claudia Antonia’s mother, Aelia Paetina, the sister of Sejanus, we
know little except that she had married Claudius by the year 28, and was
abandoned by him after three years of marriage as a consequence of her
brother’s downfall. Claudius then engaged in an affair with his concubine
Calpurnia, and subsequently entered into a disastrous marriage with Vale
ria Messalina in 38. For Claudia Antonia, her father’s marriage to Messal
ina meant she acquired two younger step-siblings, a boy, Britannicus, and a
girl, Claudia Octavia.
Following the disgraceful end to his marriage to Valeria Messalina,
Claudius considered re-marrying Aelia Paetina, but instead chose his niece
Agrippina Junior, whom he had recalled from exile. With this fourth and
final marriage, Claudia Antonia gained three more step-brothers. Two of
them, named Pompeius and Sulla, were soon executed, and the remaining
boy, later known as Nero, was destined to marry his adoptive sister Claudia
Octavia and to become emperor.
The remaining five years of her father Claudius’ life were eventful,
and Claudia Antonia no doubt observed the manipulation of her father by
her step-mother, Agrippina Junior. Claudia Antonia survived the transi
tion of power from Claudius to Nero in 54, shortly after which she endured
the murder of her half-brother Britannicus in 55.
Claudia Antonia had two husbands, both young noblemen of the high
est birth. The first, Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus, whom she married in 41, was
put to death by Claudius. The second, Faustus Cornelius Sulla Felix, who
was characterized by Tacitus as stupid, timid and despicable, fell victim to

Nero, who was convinced in 56 that he had participated in a plot against his
life. Tacitus tells us, however, that there was no plot, and that the lies of an
old palace slave condemned the innocent man to banishment.
Claudia Antonia suffered a similar fate at the hand of her step-brother
Nero, who implicated her in Piso’s failed murder plot of 65, and had her exe
cuted in the following year. Though some historians doubt its veracity, one
explanation for her being targeted was her apparent refusal to marry Nero
after he had killed his second wife Poppaea with a kick to the stomach.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : All coins portraying Claudia Antonia were struck by
her father Claudius. In every case she shares the canvass with her half-
sister, Octavia and/or her half-brother, Britannicus.
V A L E R IA M E SSA LIN A
A u g u sta , a .d . 4 1- 4 8
T h ir d w ife o f C la u d iu s
M o th er of B r it a n n ic u s a n d C l a u d ia O c t a v ia
D a u g h t e r -i n - l a w of A n t o n ia
S tepm o th er of C l a u d ia A n t o n ia
G ran d d au gh ter of O c t a v ia
Valeria Messalina (or Messallina), c. A.D. 25 -4 8 . The dissolute third wife

of Claudius, Valeria Messalina married him in 39,'when she was only 14
years old. She soon bore him two children, Britannicus and Claudia O cta
via. Upon marrying Claudius, and though quite young herself, she also
became the adoptive mother of Claudia Antonia, whom Claudius had had
by his earlier marriage to Aelia Paetina.
Valeria Messalina was not shy about her ambitions, and she was ruth
less in her pursuit of them. Most shocking was her destruction of her
female rivals, including two of Claudius’ nieces, Livia Julia (the only
daughter of Drusus and Livilla) and Julia Livilla (the youngest sister of
Caligula). N ot surprisingly, Valeria Messalina was instrumental in the per
secution of Agrippina Junior, whose son, Nero, was the rival to her own
son, Britannicus. Since Nero and Britannicus were the only important
male heirs of the Julio-Claudians, the throne would go to one of the two
boys after the death of Claudius.
Suetonius and Tacitus tell us that she tried to have young Nero stran
gled one night as he slept, but that the attempt was foiled when the would-
be murderers were frightened by a snake that emerged from beneath the
boy’s pillow. Despite her less-than-virtuous demeanor, Valeria Messalina

was made the head Vestal in 43. This appointment was in particularly bad
taste, for she was notoriously promiscuous.
Indeed, it was this element of her personality which caused the great
est scandal in the principate of Claudius. Valeria Messalina had become
smitten by Gaius Silius, the consul-designate who was reputedly the best-
looking young man in Rome. So uncontrollable were her passions for S il
ius that even though she was still the emperor’s wife, she married her lover
in 48 while Claudius was away in Ostia.
The couple either did not wish to hide their deed, or were unable to
do so. When Claudius found out with the aid of his freedman Narcissus, he
did not take the news well, and it was only due to his freedman’s decisive
actions that disaster was averted. Many historians believe the marriage
may have been the first stage of a coup against Claudius, in which the new
lyweds would install Britannicus as emperor.
Though Claudius had always had poor luck with wives, this was the
most shocking and humiliating event of his life. In what most considered
justifiable revenge, Silius was brought to the praetorian camp (where Clau
dius had been taken for safety) and was swiftly executed. Messalina was
driven to suicide, after which her memory was damned.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : All coins of Valeria Messalina were struck under
Claudius. A didrachm from Caesarea shows the dynasty of Claudius

headed by his third wife Valeria Messalina, who appears on the obverse.
The reverse — a masterpiece of Julio-Claudian propaganda — shows the
two children by Valeria Messalina (Claudia Octavia and Britannicus)
holding hands, and Claudia Antonia, Claudius’ daughter by his earlier
wife, Aelia Paetina, standing alone. This general format was adopted for
similar issues struck elsewhere, and in the cases where the busts only were
shown, those of Claudia Octavia and Britannicus are confronted to indi
cate their shared parentage, and the bust of Claudia Antonia is shown at
the right facing her half-siblings.
B R IT A N N IC U S
S on of C l a u d iu s a n d V a l e r ia M e s s a l in a
B ro th er of C l a u d ia O c t a v ia
H a l f -b r o t h e r o f C l a u d ia A n t o n ia
S t e p -b r o t h e r of N ero
C o u s in o f N ero C a esa r , D ru su s C aesa r , C a l ig u l a ,

A g r ip p in a J u n io r , D r u s il l a , T ib e r iu s G em ellu s,
G e r m a n ic u s G em ellu s an d J u l ia L iv il l a
Britannicus ( earlier Tiberius Claudius Germanicus), A.D. 4 1- 5 5. As the

natural son of Claudius and one of only two male heirs to the Julio-Clau-
dian family, Britannicus would seemingly be the successor to his father.
But with the passage of time, Claudius’ son was surpassed by his step-son,
Nero, who not only would replace Claudius as emperor, but who also
would murder Britannicus soon thereafter.
Britannicus, according to Suetonius, was born 22 days into the reign
of his father (February, 41), who was then consul for the second time.
Though the senate awarded him with the new name Britannicus in honor
of his father’s invasion of Britain in 43, his name at birth seems to have
been Tiberius Claudius Germanicus. But even this is debated among histo
rians, who also cite Tiberius Claudius Caesar as his birth name.
Suetonius tells us that Claudius would proudly pick up little Britanni
cus and show him to soldiers or to audiences at games, all of whom would
echo his declaration: “Good luck to you, my boy!” The seemingly bright
future of Britannicus, however, was darkened when his mother, Valeria
Messalina, was disgraced and executed in 48. Britannicus was 7 years old at
the time, and some suspected his mother had planned to overthrow her
husband, and place Britannicus on the throne.
Especially damaging to his position was his father’s marriage to Agrip
pina Junior, who had three sons of her own, including a boy who would be
renamed Nero. Though Britannicus’ two step-brothers, Pompeius and
Sulla, were executed, Nero remained, and was rapidly promoted beyond
Britannicus, who was three years his junior. A t the time Nero was adopted
by Claudius in 50, he was hailed princeps iuventutis, which made him
guardian of Britannicus. Perhaps most damaging to Britannicus’ future,
however, was the marriage of his own sister Claudia Octavia to Nero in 53.
Even though Claudius began to doubt the suitability of Nero toward
the end of his own reign, nothing was done to strengthen Britannicus’
standing. By that point, Agrippina Junior had replaced the key tutors,
advisers and guardsmen with men loyal to her, and so the boy could rely on
no one.
Thus, when Claudius was murdered by his wife, Agrippina Junior, Bri
tannicus was locked away with his sister, Claudia Octavia, and his half-sis
l6 o HISTORY OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE: BIOGRAPHIES
ter, Claudia Antonia, so that Nero could be hailed emperor without

dispute. This left Britannicus in dire straits, for he had no real authority,
yet he remained a legitimate rival to Nero. It came as no shock when Bri
tannicus was poisoned at a dinner on February 11, 55, only four months
into Nero’s reign. The scenario hardly differed from the removal of Tibe-
rius Gemellus by Caligula a generation before.
Though the teenager’s death was officially attributed to epilepsy, it
was not seriously doubted that he had been murdered. One person who
knew for sure was Britannicus’ boyhood friend Titus (the future emperor),
who had shared some of the fatal beverage and had suffered severely from
the poison. Britannicus’ sister, Claudia Octavia (who was then N ero’s
wife), witnessed the shocking affair, but was unable to help her brother as
he violently perished a few feet away. Britannicus’ body was cremated that
evening and a quiet funeral was held the following day.
It is difficult to say whether he was poisoned by Nero or by Agrippina
Junior. Agrippina, however, is said to have wanted to keep Britannicus
around as a “backup” in the event Nero became too unruly, and so it would
seem Nero gained on both ends. Subsequently, other rivals were elimi-
nated, including Marcus Junius Silanus (who, like Nero, was a great-great-
grandson of Augustus), and much later a rival named Rubellius Plautus,
who was the great-grandson of Tiberius, and thus a great-great-grandson of
both Livia and Agrippa.
Historians are at a loss to explain why Claudius allowed Britannicus
to be victimized. Having personally witnessed so much murder and treach
ery within his family, Claudius easily could have predicted that the boy
would not long survive after his own death. Perhaps his memories of the
boy’s mother, Messalina, were so painful to Claudius that he simply gave
up on Britannicus.
Some believe the reason for his abandonment was that Nero was also
his natural son, conceived long prior to his marriage to Agrippina Junior.
Though this possibility sounds far-fetched, there are a number of anec
dotes recorded by ancient historians that indicate this may have been a
well-kept family secret. The very fact that Claudius put to death Agrip
pina’s two other sons, Pompeius and Sulla, and spared Nero seems to lend
credence to this theory. However, if this were a common rumor in the
Imperial household, it does seem odd that the gossipy Suetonius did not
mention it directly, for he did not shy away from rumor and innuendo.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : A considerable number of small bronzes were struck in
the cities of Asia Minor for Britannicus. Most if not all of them were struck
near the end of the reign of his father Claudius. Britannicus’ most impres
sive issue is of ‘sestertii’ from an Imperial mint in the Balkans. Though it
almost certainly belongs to the end of the reign of Claudius (as a
THE JULIO-CLAUDIANS l6 l
companion to the sestertius of Agrippina Junior and the sestertii and

dupondii of Nero as Caesar), some have theorized, rather fancifully, that it
was struck a quarter-century later by the emperor Titus (who attended the
banquet at which Britannicus was poisoned) as a memorial issue to his
boyhood friend. In this context it would be associated with the many
‘restored’ aes struck by Titus. But Britannicus’ coin differs from others in
the series in two important ways: it was struck in the Balkans (not at
Rome) and there was no prototype issue to restore. Despite the many dif
ferent issues struck for Britannicus, overall his coins are quite rare, espe
cially in comparison to those struck for Nero during the same period (50-
54). O f specific interest is the lack of Imperial coinage for Britannicus (the
‘Balkan sestertius’ aside), especially in light of the fact that young Nero
had aurei, denarii and cistophori struck for him. A ll of this numismatic
evidence supports the historical record, and we must conclude that from
the very outset Britannicus was not the favored heir.
A G R IP P IN A JU N IO R
A u g u sta , a .d . 5 0 -5 9
W if e (a n d n ie c e ) o f C l a u d iu s
M oth er of N ero
S is t e r o f N ero C aesa r , D ru su s C aesa r , C a l ig u l a ,

D r u s il l a and J u l ia L iv il l a
S t e p -m o t h e r (a n d c o u s in ) of B r it a n n ic u s
G ran d d au gh ter of A g r ip p a , Ju l ia , N ero C l a u d iu s D ru su s a n d A n t o n ia

C o u s in o f B r it a n n ic u s , T ib e r iu s G em ellu s, G e r m a n ic u s G em ellu s a n d
L iv ia J u l ia
G r e a t -g r a n d d a u g h t e r o f A u g u stu s, L iv ia , O c t a v ia a n d M arc A nto ny
Julia Agrippina (often called Agrippina the Younger or Agrippina

Minor), A.D. 15-59. Born late in 15 at Ara Uborium, Agrippina Junior
was the eldest daughter of Germanicus and Agrippina Senior. She was also
the sister of Caligula, the mother of Nero, and the niece of Claudius,
whom she would marry some 34 years later. As such, she had the unique
distinction of having been the sister of one emperor, the wife of another,
and the mother of yet another.
The chronology of Agrippina’s life up until the time of her marriage
to Claudius in 49 is vague. She was only 3 or 4 when her father, Germani
cus, was murdered in Antioch. When Agrippina turned 13 (in 28), Tibe
rius betrothed her to Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus, a reprehensible man
by whom she bore the future emperor Nero.
During the next five years she not only suffered through a difficult
marriage, and the sexual relationship with her brother Caligula, but she
also witnessed the murder of her mother and two older brothers, Nero
Caesar and Drusus Caesar. Indeed, Agrippina’s life could hardly be
described as pleasant. Perhaps her devotion to her future son (the one who
would be named Nero) was so extreme because of the extraordinary cir
cumstances of her early life.
Agrippina and her two younger sisters survived the reign of Tiberius,
along with their adoring brother, Caligula, who succeed him as emperor.
A t the beginning of their brother’s reign, the three sisters were honored
(and continued to be seduced), and it was several months into Caligula’s
principate that Agrippina’s famous son, Nero, was born.
But when Caligula’s favorite sister, Drusilla, died in mid-38, Agrip
pina and Julia Livilla’s relationship with their brother worsened. Late in
38, at Mainz, the sisters were implicated in the conspiracy of the general
Gaeticus, and were subsequently exiled for about two years. During their
exile, in the year 40, Agrippina’s near-invalid husband Gnaeus Domitius
Ahenobarbus, the father of Nero, died.
After their tyrannical brother Caligula was murdered in 41, Agrip
pina and Julia Livilla were recalled by their uncle Claudius, who had been
hailed emperor in his place. Claudius quickly tired of Julia Livilla, who
wasted no time in engaging in an embarrassing affair with the philosopher
Seneca. Both Julia Livilla and Seneca were exiled in that same year, with
the former being executed in 42.
Claudius decided to keep Agrippina around, as he was fond of her and
she apparently had behaved acceptably. A t some point after her return from
exile, Agrippina married Marcus Junius Silanus, a former consul who had
given his daughter to Caligula in marriage shortly before he ascended the
throne (but the daughter, Junia Claudilla, died in childbirth). The sources
are unclear about when Agrippina married Marcus Junius Silanus, though
Tacitus assures us it was before she married Claudius.
With the passage of time, this marriage was dissolved, for Claudius,
had grown unnaturally fond of her. Agrippina’s love life was strange and
incestuous, for she not only engaged in sexual relations with her brother,
but she was now seducing her uncle. According to Suetonius: “She had a
niece’s privilege of kissing and caressing Claudius, and exercised it with a
noticeable effect on his passions . . . ”
Having observed the emperor’s affections for Agrippina, the enor
mously wealthy freedman Pallas allied himself with Agrippina, and per
suaded Claudius to seek special approval from the senate to marry his niece.
On January 1, 49 (shortly after the execution of his former wife, Valeria
Messalina), Claudius made Agrippina Junior his fourth and final wife.
T H E JULIO-CLAUDIANS 16 3
The following year, 50, was eventful for the new family. Agrippina
was hailed Augusta, and the new Roman settlement on the Rhine, Colonia
Agrippinensis, was named in her honor. As for her son, Lucius Domitius
Ahenobarbus, he was adopted by Claudius and was renamed Nero.
Although Claudius adopted Nero, according to Suetonius he executed
Agrippina’s other two boys, who where named Pompeius and Sulla. The
ancient sources (it seems) are unclear whether the latter two boys were
Nero’s brothers, or his step-brothers by Marcus Junius Silanus.
The adoption of Nero in 50 meant that Claudius’ own son, Britanni
cus, had a legitimate competitor as heir. Indeed, it demonstrates how much
influence Agrippina had over her husband, for she was able to convince
him that it was in Britannicus’ best interest that he have the older Nero as
his guardian. It also demonstrates that she would stop at nothing to
achieve her goals: we are told that when a soothsayer prophesied that if
Nero became emperor, he would afterward kill his mother, Agrippina
replied “Let him kill me, only let him rule!”
Some three years after Nero had been hailed princeps iuventutis (in
51), Agrippina arranged his marriage to Claudia Octavia, the daughter of
Claudius from his earlier marriage with Valeria Messalina. Since Claudia
Antonia was the sister of Britannicus, Nero was not only the boy’s guard
ian, but also his brother-in-law. With each successive step, the noose was
tightened around the neck of young Britannicus.
But time was equally desperate for Agrippina, for Nero was less than
two months away from turning 17, and if she waited much longer she
would lose all claims to regency over him when he ascended the throne.
So, taking no chances, Agrippina served Claudius a dish of poisoned
mushrooms at dinner on October 12, 54- A second dose of poison was
required to finish off the 64-year-old emperor, who died in the early hours
of the 13 th.
During the first few months of Nero’s principate, Agrippina’s influence
over her son was considerable. Nero seemed amenable to her authority, hav
ing chosen “best of mothers” as the watchword for his first day on the
throne. She was aided by three important allies, the freedman Pallas (who
was rumored to be her lover), the praetorian prefect Burrus, and Nero’s
tutor, Seneca. Although there seems little merit to the rumor, she was said
to have seduced her son in an effort to increase her control over him.
Regardless of the tactics Agrippina employed, her heavy-handed
manner soon wore thin. The next major event which Agrippina may have
engineered was the poisoning of her son’s main rival, Britannicus, at
dinner on February 11, 55. With the death of Britannicus, Nero was
unopposed by any serious rival, and consequently had no further use for his
mother, whom he expelled from the palace later that year. The
government was then placed in the hands of Seneca and Burrus, who also
had turned against Agrippina.
Nero’s mother survived another four years, though she was constantly
on guard against murder attempts. Indeed, Nero found killing her no easy
task, and it required that he invent an elaborate scheme. If we can trust
Tacitus’ account, he constructed a ship that was rigged to collapse upon
her and then capsize. In March of 59, Nero thus invited his mother to dine
with him at Baiae, after which she boarded the magnificent vessel in the
Bay of Naples.
When the ship collapsed and sank, his 44'year-old mother survived
the ordeal and swam ashore (during her banishment by Caligula, she had
taken up sponge diving, and thus was a strong swimmer). She sought ref'
uge in one of her villas at Baiae, where she was murdered either by soldiers
or by the freedman Anicetus. Though few could condone Nero’s matri-
cidal act, even fewer appear to have mourned her passing.
Agrippina Junior first appears on coins struck by her

N u m is m a t ic N o t e :
brother Caligula, when he reigned from 37 to 41. On these sestertii she is
shown in the guise of Securitas standing beside her two sisters (who are
depicted in the guises of Concordia and Fortuna). Her more impressive
appearances, however, are as Augusta on coins struck from 50 to 54 (as the
wife of Claudius), and from 54-55 (as regent for her son, who had suc
ceeded Claudius as emperor).
NERO A .D . 54-68
C a esa r , a .d . 5 0 -5 4 (u n d er C l a u d iu s )
S on of A g r ip p in a J u n io r (b y A h en o ba rbu s)
H u sban d of C l a u d ia O c t a v ia , Po ppaea and
S t a t il ia M e s s a l in a
Fa t h e r of C l a u d ia N e r o n is
A d o pted so n a n d su c c e sso r o f C l a u d iu s
N eph ew of C a l ig u l a
S t e p -b r o t h e r of C l a u d ia A n t o n ia , B r it a n n ic u s and C l a u d ia O c t a v ia
G ran d so n of G e r m a n ic u s a n d A g r ip p in a S e n io r
G r e a t -g r a n d s o n o f A g r ip p a , Ju l ia ,N ero C l a u d iu s D r u su s a n d A n t o n ia
G r e a t -g r e a t -g r a n d s o n (a n d p a t e r n a l g r e a t -g r a n d s o n ) of M arc A ntony
and O c t a v ia
Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus (earlier Lucius Domitius

Ahenobarbus), A .D . 3 7 - 6 8 . One of the most infamous of the Roman
emperors, Nero was born in December of 37, the son of Agrippina Junior
and her loathsome first husband, Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus, who had
been consul under Tiberius in 32 and died when Nero was only 3 years old.
Fatherless and without an inheritance (for Caligula had seized his

father’s worldly possessions), Nero was raised by his mother, who herself
was sent into exile by her brother Caligula from 39 to 41. She was recalled
after his murder in 41, and eventually married her uncle, the emperor
Claudius, on New Year’s day, 49. The wedding greatly enhanced Nero’s
chances of eventually becoming emperor.
In that same year Nero also gained as a tutor the philosopher Seneca,
whom his mother had convinced Claudius to recall from Corsica (where
he had been in exile for eight years, allegedly for having had an adulterous
affair with her youngest sister, Julia Livilla). In the following year, 50,
Claudius adopted the boy, at which point he acquired the more familiar
name, Nero. As a result of his adoption, Nero became guardian of his step
brother, Britannicus.
Britannicus was three years younger than Nero, and, even though he
was the natural son of the reigning emperor, he was accorded lower status
than his new step-brother. In 51 Nero was hailed princeps iuventutis, and
the emperor’s preference for him advanced further in 53 when he allowed
Nero to marry his own (youngest) daughter Claudia Octavia, who also was
the sister of Britannicus.
In addition to being older than Britannicus, Nero also had the advan
tage of being a grandson (rather than a nephew) of Germanicus — a leg
endary figure among both the people and the army. But all of this mattered
little, for it was his mother, Agrippina Junior, who was taking the necessary
steps to assure that he became emperor. In mid-October 54, Agrippina poi
soned her husband Claudius and detained Britannicus so that Nero could
ascend the throne uncontested.
During the first few months of Nero’s reign, Agrippina’s influence was
considerable, for she had regency over him. But her heavy-handed manner
soon displeased Nero. Upon the urging of his friend, the future emperor
Otho, Nero expelled his mother from the Palace shortly after he (or Agrip
pina) poisoned his rival, Britannicus, at a dinner on February 11, 55.
The government was now firmly in the hands of Nero, who had just
turned 18. Since he had ousted his mother, Nero sought advice and sup
port from Seneca and Burrus, both of whom had adeptly turned against
Agrippina at the right moment. Although it took a great deal of planning,
Nero was able to murder his mother four years later, in March of 59.
A few dramatic episodes aside, the first five years of Nero’s reign were
productive and peaceful under the guidance of Seneca and Burrus. Nero
even made grandiose promises to the senate of a return to the principles of
his great-great-grandfather, the Divine Augustus. The succeeding years
were less impressive, as Nero indulged his passions for Greek culture,
drinking, singing, acting, musicianship, and sexual adventure. Meanwhile,
he left the seemingly mundane aspects of governing an Empire to a succes
sion of advisers.
From 60 to 63 there were two serious crises in the provinces. The first
occurred in far-away Britain, where in 60 a revolt erupted under the Celtic
queen Boudicca. Some 70,000 people (mostly Romans) were murdered in
London, and still more elsewhere; the Roman reprisals were equally terri
fying, claiming the lives of 80,000 or more. The revolt bore an uncanny
resemblance to the attack of the Pontic king Mithradates VI on Roman
citizens in Asia nearly 150 years before. Meanwhile, in Asia, the general
Corbulo, with some difficulty, was able to wrest Armenia from the
Parthians and install a puppet king.
The year 62 was eventful for Nero, as he was able to rid himself of
three important members of his entourage: the praetorian prefect, Burrus,
his tutor, Seneca, and his first wife, Claudia Octavia. Burrus died an appar
ent natural death (though some believe he was murdered), Seneca was
encouraged to retire, and Claudia Octavia was divorced and executed.
Nero swiftly replaced Claudia Octavia with his lover Poppaea, who was
formerly the wife of his friend Otho (whom Nero had earlier removed by
appointing him governor of Lusitania). Now nearing his 25th year, Nero
had completely reconstructed his life and his regime.
For the remainder of his reign, Nero relied upon lower-born men or
Greek and Oriental freedmen for his policies and for the maintenance of
his government. In the meantime, he devoted an unconscionable amount
of time to indulging his passions. His frequent stage performances as an
actor, poet, singer and musician were not to the liking of the public. N ot
only was his talent considered marginal, but his public appearances were
thought undignified.
Though Nero’s new freedom pleased him immensely, the senate and
the public soon tired of his antics, which they deemed more in line with a
Greek king than a Roman emperor. Especially shocking was the Great Fire
of 64, in which much of Rome burned to the ground. Nero, who was at the
seaside town of Antium when it started (there seems little truth to the
rumor that Nero “fiddled” while Rome burned), did much to relieve suffer
ing during and after the blaze, and then placed blame squarely on the small
Christian community in Rome. However, many believed Nero had the fire
started so that he could clear the land necessary to build his famous
“Golden House,” which he had begun to construct on a more modest level
a few years before.
So massive and expensive was this project that it seems inconceivable
that Nero would build it even in the best of times. With all of its gardens it
occupied more than 300 acres of the best land in Rome, stretching from
the Circus Maximus to beyond the Baths of Trajan and consuming prime
land of the Palatine, Caelian and Esquiline hills. It had an artificial lake,
and a colossal statue of Nero some 120 feet tall that was housed in a
vestibule so large it required a triple-colonnade a mile long. The palace
T H E JULIO-CLAUDIANS 167
was a miracle of engineering; the dining hall had a ceiling which

perpetually revolved by power of water, and other ceilings were made of
ivory, and were cleverly built so as to shower guests with perfume and
flowers.
Not only did Nero’s new palace prevent the original inhabitants from
returning to rebuild, but it compounded the fiscal crisis Rome faced from
the general rebuilding of the capital, and the expensive wars in Britain and
Armenia. Thus, it comes as no great surprise that in the following year, 65,
a plot against Nero’s life was formed.
The coup was headed by a nobleman named Gaius Calpurnius Piso,
who hoped to replace Nero as emperor. Though well-organized, it was
exposed shortly before its target date in mid-April, and N ero’s reprisals
were harsh. In the same year, Nero kicked his pregnant wife, Poppaea, to
death in a fit of rage. He subsequently married Statilia Messalina, a
depraved and ambitious woman who proved to be his last wife.
Nero’s next great venture was his “grand tour” of Greece in 67, where
he competed in the Isthmian, Pythian, Olympic and Nemean Games. He
had to bring forward the dates of the latter two Games so they could be
held while he was in Greece, and, not surprisingly, the emperor won
numerous contests against more qualified candidates. A t the Olympic
Games Nero won a chariot race even though he fell out of his chariot mid
way. During one of Nero’s drawn-out performances, the future emperor
Vespasian fell asleep, and was dismissed from the emperor’s entourage.
The Greek excursion was not only indulgent, but also was incredibly
expensive when the Imperial coffers were in no position to afford it. Were
it not for Nero’s policy of restriking silver coins in Egypt and Syria, the
Empire certainly would have been bankrupt. The political consequences of
his extravagence were enormous, and the ex-slave Helius (whom Nero had
left in charge of the government in Rome during his absence), traveled to
Greece to beg his immediate return. Grudgingly, Nero complied even
though he had not fully availed himself of Greek hospitality.
Nero returned to Rome late in 67, and within a few months a revolt
broke out in Gaul under Julius Vindex, the governor of Gallia Lugdunen-
sis. Though Vindex was easily defeated in May, he had gained the alle
giance of Galba, one of Nero’s most capable generals, who commanded
legions in Spain. A revolt was also sparked in North Africa under Clodius
Macer, and the Rhine legions (which had defeated Vindex) refused to take
further commands from Nero. With all of these sinister developments in
the provinces, the emperor’s support in Rome eroded quickly.
With the assistance of a freedman named Phaon, Nero fled to his villa
a few miles outside Rome. But Phaon seems to have betrayed Nero, for it
was only a few moments later that soldiers confronted the cowering
emperor in a back room. On June 9, 68, the 30-year-old Nero died in what
is best described as a combination suicide attempt and murder. His last

words “Qualis artifex pereo” (though translated differently depending on
the source) were to the effect: “What an artist the world is losing!”
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : If anything truthfully can be said of Nero, it is that he
paid close, personal attention to his coinage. Nero’s artistic sense can
clearly be seen on his coinage, which does not feature the austere portraits
of his predacessors, but instead offers a highly individualized image. His
penchant for music and the arts in general is demonstrated by the Imperial
reverse type that shows him as Apollo playing a lyre. The fiscal crises
which struck Rome beginning in about 62 had an impact on coinage, for
some time between 62 and 64 Nero reintroduced aes coinages (struck at
both Rome and Lugdunum), which had not been struck at the main Impe
rial mints for nearly two decades. Furthermore, the intrinsic value of his
precious metal coinage was decreased — slightly in the first decade of his
reign, and more precipitously in 64 when Nero reformed his coinage (from
54 to 64 his precious metal coins are dated, thereafter they are undated).
The weight of the aureus was dropped by about 2% (to 45 per Roman
pound) and the denarius by about 7% (to 96 per Roman pound).
The debasement strategy was employed to an extreme in the eastern
provinces where unimagineable quantities of tetradrachms in Egypt and
Syria were recalled and melted, only to be replaced just as rapidly with new
coins with a lower silver content. This occured most dramatically at A lex
andria in Egypt, where silver content fell from about 23% to about 15%
(in 65/6) and the output was enormous. It has been suggested that the
profits Nero accrued from the conversion at Alexandria was sufficient to
fund the rebuilding of Rome.
N ot surprisingly, the Alexandrian tetradrachms from Nero’s regnal
years 10 through 14 (63/4 to 67/8) are remarkably common. Erik Chris
tiansen, in The Roman Coins of Alexandria (Denmark, 1988), notes that
when he studied tetradrachms of Nero’s regnal year 12, he identified 1019
different dies out of the 1032 coins he examined. Considering this was
only one year (and was a limited sampling within that year), one quickly
comes to realize how many new tetradrachms Nero struck. Indeed, Chris
tiansen notes that fully one-third of the coins in each Alexandrian tet-
radrachm hoard found at the turn of the last century was Neronian, and
that experts such as Giovanni Dattari sent thousands to the melting pot
because the bullion was worth more than the coins themselves.
Back in Rome and Lugdunum, Nero paid as much attention to his
Imperial aes coinage as he did to the precious metal issues. He sometimes
indicated a dupondius with the marking II, an as with the marking I, and a
semis with the letter S. Furthermore, he experimented with different alloy-
denomination combinations. The sestertius and the dupondius had tradi

tionally been struck in orichalcum (an golden-colored mixture of copper
and zinc often called “brass” ), whereas the as, semis and quadrans were
struck in pure copper. Nero struck some of the smaller three denomina
tions in orichalcum. The fact that orichalcum was more highly valued
than copper is shown not only by the historical record, but also by the fact
that the orichalcum asses, semisses and quadrantes are lighter than their
copper counterparts, and consequently are noticeably smaller in diameter.
Nero’s motivations for this experiment remain a mystery. Indeed, only
rarely was the same done by later emperors, such as Vespasian and Trajan
and Hadrian. In every one of these later cases these coins weigh less (are
considerably rarer) than the standard copper issues.
Yet another interesting (but unresolved) aspect of Nero’s reign is the
strong likelihood that precious metal coin production was shifted from
Lugdunum to Rome either at the beginning of his principate or in about
64, when his ‘post-reform’ coinage was first struck. See the Numismatic
Note of Caligula for details.
C L A U D IA O C T A V IA
A u g u sta , a .d . 54 -6 2
F ir s t w if e (a n d f i r s t c o u s i n -o n c e -r e m o v e d ) of N ero
Daugh ter of C l a u d iu s a n d V a l e r ia M e s s a l in a
S is t e r o f B r it a n n ic u s
H a l f -s is t e r o f C l a u d ia A n t o n ia
Claudia Octavia, A.D. 40/1 -6 2 . The youngest

daughter of Claudius and his third wife, Valeria
Messalina, Claudia Octavia died young after enduring a tragic life. Her
date of birth is unknown, but certainly was before 41, shortly after which
her brother Britannicus was born.
She was originally betrothed to Lucius Junius Silanus, a nobleman
descended from Augustus who was in good favor with Claudius. But Sila
nus was discredited so that Claudia Octavia could be betrothed to Nero in
49 (for that match had dynastic importance: in that same year her father,
the emperor Claudius, married his own niece Agrippina Junior, who hap
pened to be the mother of her future husband, Nero).
Claudia Octavia and Nero were married in 53, apparently premature
of the normally acceptable age of 15. But since they were first-cousins-
once-removed, and their parents were niece and uncle, this was just one of
several dubious aspects of their family relations. The families of Claudius
and Germanicus were now linked by two marriages. Nero’s marriage to

Claudia Octavia was especially important, for he was already Claudius’
adopted son, and in 51 was hailed princeps iuventutis. Thus, the marriage
virtually guaranteed he would be Claudius’ successor.
In the following year, 54, Nero became emperor after Claudius was
poisoned. With her new husband being hailed emperor, Claudia Octavia
was made Augusta, a title she held until her downfall eight years later. One
can only imagine how she viewed this honor — perhaps reluctantly, as she
had earned it only because her father had been murdered. Her anguish
could only have been increased when she witnessed her only brother, Bri
tannicus, die violently from poison at a banquet that she also attended.
In addition to witnessing the murder of her father and brother, the
young bride was treated terribly by Nero, who tried to strangle her to death
several times and openly engaged in adulterous relationships. After five
years of sour marriage, Nero became enamored of Poppaea Sabina, who
then was the wife of Nero’s close friend, the future emperor Otho. In 58,
Nero seduced Poppaea and sent Otho to Lusitania (mod. Portugal) so that
he could have her to himself.
Nero’s relationship with Poppaea continued until, in 62, he deter
mined to get rid of Claudia Octavia so he could marry Poppaea. To achieve
this, he claimed Claudia Octavia was sterile (which may well have been
true), and that as such she could not perform the duties required of an
empress. The divorce was quickly granted (in 62), and Claudia Octavia
was sent to rural Campania to live under military guard.
But the ex-empress was very popular among the people, and when a
rumor of her reinstatement was sparked, Nero decided to get rid of her by
inventing charges of adultery and treason. Claudia Octavia, then perhaps
22 years old, was exiled to the island of Pandateria, where she was exe
cuted on June 9th of 62, after which we are told Nero’s new wife, Poppaea,
gloated over her severed head.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : T w o categories of coinage were struck for Claudia
Octavia. The earliest pieces depict her as the daughter of Claudius (on
which she always appears with her step-sister, Claudia Antonia) and the-
later pieces as the wife of Nero.
THE JULIO-CLAUDIANS I7I
PO PPA EA
A u g u sta , a .d . 6 2 -6 5
S eco n d W if e o f N ero (fo rm er w if e o f O th o )

M o th er of C l a u d ia N e r o n is
Poppaea Sabina, A .D . 3 1 (or before)-65. The sec

ond wife of Nero, Poppaea is described by the his
torian Tacitus as having possessed “every asset
except goodness.” She was a beautiful young woman with hair the color of
amber, who was rumored to have bathed in the milk of asses.
Tacitus continues: “From her mother, the loveliest woman of her day,
she inherited distinction and beauty. Her wealth, too, was equal to her
birth. She was clever and pleasant to talk to. She seemed respectable. But
her life was depraved . . . To her, married or bachelor bedfellows were alike.
She was indifferent to her reputation — yet insensible to men’s love, and
herself unloving. Advantage dictated the bestowal of her favors.”
Poppaea was the daughter of a homonymous mother (who was a
daughter of Poppaeus Sabinus, the consul of A.D. 9) and T. Ollius (who died
in 31), and originally was married to the praetorian prefect Rufrius Crispi-
nus, by whom she bore a child. But she was seduced away from Crispinus by
the future emperor Otho, an extravagant young man who was one of Nero’s
closest friends. This seduction was quickly transformed into marriage, after
which Otho boasted to Nero about the particular charms of Poppaea. Taci
tus speculates that Otho enticed Nero into taking a communal interest in
Poppaea so that he would be tied closer to the princeps, but that Otho’s plan
backfired when Nero decided he wanted Poppaea to himself.
So in 58, Nero seduced Poppaea and sent Otho to govern Lusitania so
as to distance him from Rome. For the next four years Nero continued to
tolerate his politically important but personally unfulfilling marriage to
Claudia Octavia, the daughter of the former emperor Claudius. Both Nero
and Poppaea dissolved their existing marriages in 62, and 12 days later
they were married. Nero’s affection, however, was limited to Poppaea and
their own family, for he murdered Rufrius Crispinus, her only son from her
previous marriage.
In short order the royal couple produced a daughter of their own,
Claudia Neronis, who was born at Antium, probably early in 63. Nero’s joy
was so great that the infant was hailed Augusta along with her mother. But
the Imperial couple’s good fortune ended when Claudia died four months
later.
By 65 Poppaea had become pregnant again, and Nero could antici
pate having a child to replace Claudia Neronis, and possibly an heir to the
throne. However, in the summer of that year, after having been chastised
for returning so late from the races, Nero delivered a swift kick to Pop-
paea’s stomach that proved fatal for both mother and fetus. By all
accounts, Nero loved Poppaea deeply and was anxiously awaiting the birth
of their second child, which have led some to believe the kick was “mis
guided.” After this grave national disaster, Nero promptly deified Poppaea
as well as her unborn child.
Although Poppaea possessed certain enviable attributes, few mourned
her death. The death of Poppaea marked the beginning of Nero’s period of
great cruelty, which would last three years before he was finally murdered.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : Poppaea is represented on provincial coinages struck
by Nero in Egypt and other provinces. On Imperial coinage she seems to

make one appearance, standing next to Nero on a reverse type inscribed
AVGVSTVS AVGVSTA (though the empress may be Statilia Messalina).
CLAUDIA NERONIS
A u g u s t a , a .d . 63
Da ugh ter of N ero a n d Po ppaea
Claudia Neronis (or Claudia Augusta), A.D. 63. Little can be said of
Claudia Neronis because of the brevity of her life. Tacitus reports that she
was born at Antium, the same city at which Nero had been born 26 years
earlier. She most likely was born early in 63, though some authorities sug
gest 64. Tacitus says Nero’s joy for his new daughter “exceeded human
measure” and the infant and her mother were both hailed Augusta. But
the family’s elation was not to last, as Claudia died at only 4 months of
age. Grief stricken, Nero had her declared a goddess.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : Tacitus notes that upon the birth of Claudia Neronis,
the senate decreed the construction of a temple of Fertility, presumably to

be built at Antium, which also was to host circus games. This building may
be the one depicted on the only coin that honors Claudia Neronis.
STATILIA MESSALINA
A u g u sta , a .d . 6 6 -6 8
T h ir d W ife o f N e r o
Statilia Messalina (or Messallina), lifespan

unknown. The third and final wife of Nero, S ta
tilia Messalina was empress from 66- 68. She was
wealthy, well-bred, and was noted for her intelli
gence and beauty. Regrettably for her, she married Nero when he was at
his most depraved.
Though Statilia Messalina’s family was noble at the time of her mar
riage to Nero, its fame was recent, and due almost entirely to the achieve
ments of Titus Statilius Taurus, who was second only to Agrippa in his
distinction as a commander of Augustus. She seems to have been a daugh
ter of a later T. Statilius Taurus, who was consul in 44.
In 65 Nero had kicked to death his beloved wife, Poppaea, who was
then pregnant with their second child (the first one having died at 4
months old). After this tragic event, Nero went into depression, which
only worsened after he was refused marriage by Claudia Antonia, another
daughter of his adoptive father Claudius, and a half-sister of his first wife.
For refusing, Nero implicated Claudia Antonia in Piso’s plot of 65, and in
the next year put her to death. Meanwhile, Nero continued his search for
a bride.
In that same year, he decided upon Statilia Messalina, who had been
a lover of his. However, she had recently married Marcus (Julius) Vestinus
Atticus — her fourth husband — a man who not only was one of the con
suls of 65, but who was a political enemy of Nero. So Nero decided to
remove Vestinus, but when it could not be proven that he had been privy
to the murder plot of Piso, Nero resorted to strong-arm tactics. He sent
guards to collect him at his home high above the Forum, but Vestinus
locked himself in a bedroom and committed suicide.
Although Nero was murdered in the Palace coup of 68, Statilia Mes
salina survived the revolution and the civil war that followed. She would
have married the future emperor Otho (who previously had been the hus
band of N ero’s second wife, Poppaea Sabina) had his death not prevented
the union. Indeed, Suetonius tells us that of the two letters Otho wrote the
night before he committed suicide, one of them was to Statilia Messalina.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : Though the empress portrayed standing next to Nero
on his AVGVSTVS AVGVSTA coinage is thought by some to be Statilia

Messalina, she is most likely Poppaea, Nero’s second wife. Statilia Messal
ina is represented on a few provincial issues.
C H APTER THREE
T h e C i v i l W a r o f a .d . 68-69
he Civil War of 68-69 was a watershed moment in Roman history for

T many reasons. First and foremost, it brought about the extinction of
the Julio-Claudians, who had ruled Rome for nearly a century. Second, it
reacquainted Romans with the brashness of warlords and the privations of
civil war, which they had been spared for several generations.
Late in the reign of Nero, governors in Gaul, Spain and North Africa
revolted. Though the rebellions in Gaul and North Africa were ineffec
tive, G albas revolt in Spain was a success, and played no small part in
causing Nero to be deposed in June of 68. Though Galba was the first to be
proclaimed, it was the general Vespasian who emerged victorious late in
69. Vespasian was a cautious man of respectable Italian ancestry who
established the “Flavian” dynasty, which began on solid footing but ended
in disgrace 27 years later.
Most shocking to the senate and praetorian guards in Rome was the
realization that an emperor could be made outside the capital. A similar
scenario had occurred in A.D. 14, when the Rhine and Danube legions
rebelled against the fledgling regime of Tiberius, but the grievances of the
soldiers were addressed by Germanicus and Drusus. This time Rome was
not so fortunate, and the course of events demonstrated the great power of
the frontier legions.
The civil war involved soldiers from almost every region of the
Empire: Gaul, Spain, North Africa, the Balkans, Syria, Judaea and Egypt.
The standards of rebellion were raised by both the common soldier and
commander alike. Indeed, the murder of Galba and his replacement by
Otho was made possible by the rank and file (of the praetorian guards in
Rome), as was the rebellion of Vitellius, which was sparked by the German
legionaries who were frustrated for not having been paid a bonus.
To the citizen, this was also a different kind of civil war from that
which had previously occurred in Rome. A century before, when the civil
war between Marc Antony and Octavian was raging, the citizens could
find enough substance in the causes of the war to choose sides. However,
by the end of this civil war (especially during the principate of Vitellius), it
had become a surreal affair.
This was no war of ideology, but one of simple greed and anarchy
within the ranks. The people were largely excluded, except when they
were being victimized. As might be expected, the citizens of Rome dis
played a “brutish indifference” to the outcome, for the candidates were not
i 75
deemed worthy of being fought over, and the causes for the war were with
out substance.
Tacitus describes the atmosphere in haunting terms: “Close by the
fighting stood the people of Rome, like the audience at a show, cheering
and clapping this side or that in turns as if this were a mock battle in the
arena. Whenever one side gave way, men would hide in shops or take ref
uge in some great house. They were then dragged out and killed at the
instance of the mob, who gained most of the loot, for the soldiers were
bent on bloodshed and massacre, and the booty fell to the crowd. The
whole city presented a frightful caricature of its normal self: fighting and
casualties at one point, baths and restaurants at another . . . all of the vices
associated with a life of idleness and pleasure, all the dreadful deeds typical
of a pitiless sack. These were so intimately linked that an observer would
have thought Rome in the grip of a simultaneous orgy of violence and
dissipation.”
For numismatists, however, this period is among the most impressive
in all Roman history. N ot only was a remarkable series of “anonymous”
coinage struck, but on the Imperial issues, portraiture underwent a revolu
tion. Though the portraits of Galba and Vitellius display none of the aus
tere dignity of the Julio-Claudian age, they gained in return a gritty
realism. The images of these two men are seldom flattering, and the best
examples were struck at the Rome mint. The coins they struck at mints in
Gaul, Spain and North Africa are also of interest for their style of engrav
ing, which is less realistic, and often is curious to the modem eye.
In t r o d u c t io n t o t h e C iv il W a r a n d it s Pa r t ic ip a n t s
Person as Imperator as Augustus

Nero (deposed and killed: June 9, 68)
Galba April 2 - June 9, 68 June 9, 68 - January 15, 69
Otho January 15 - April 16/17, 69
Vitellius January 1/3 - April 19, 69 April 19 - December 20, 69
Vespasian hailed by legions: July 1, 69

hailed by senate: December 21, 69
During the period 68 to 69, the title of Augustus was held by five men
in quick succession. Troubles began in March of 68 with an uprising in
Gaul led by a governor named Vindex, who quickly gained the support of
the Spanish governor Galba. Almost simultaneously, a separate and short
lived revolt erupted in North Africa under the legate Clodius Macer. The
THE CIVIL WAR OF A.D. 6 8 - 7 0 I7 7
reigning emperor, Nero, soon was deposed and forced to commit suicide,
after which the senate confirmed Galba’s claim on the throne.
After reigning seven months, Galba’s regime collapsed under internal
pressures, and he was replaced by Otho, the man who led the coup. But to
complicate matters, only a few days earlier the German legions had pro
claimed their governor, Vitellius, as a candidate for the throne. During the
next three months Otho and Vitellius fought for supremacy; Otho as the
sanctioned emperor and Vitellius as a rebel. In the end, Vitellius’ larger
armies were victorious, though their leader proved unsuitable for the
position.
Within six weeks of Vitellius’ accession, the frontier general Vespa
sian was proclaimed emperor by his soldiers in the East and set his own
plan into motion. Vitellius’ reign lasted merely eight months, and during
the final stages of his contest with Vespasian, another revolt erupted in the
northernmost part of Roman Germany under a Batavian named Julius
Civilis. This revolt was different from the earlier ones, for Civilis had no
designs on Rome itself; rather, he intended to free Gaul of Roman control.
After Vespasian ousted Vitellius, he turned his attention to Civilis, and
was able to crush the revolt late in 70.
Although the above-mentioned men were the most important leaders
of the era, many other people were instrumental in the flow of events. The
biographies of six of these men are given below as a supplement to biogra
phies of the three emperors and three rebels who issued coins. The biogra
phies of Nero and Vespasian, who caused and ended the civil war, appear,
respectively, in chapters two and four.
Lucius Verginius Rufus: Formerly a consul in 63, Verginius Rufus

belonged to an elite group of North Italians who held sway in the govern
ment of Rome. He became governor of Upper Germany in 67, and, unlike
Fonteius Capito, the indecisive governor of Lower Germany who con
trolled four legions, he came to the defense of Nero with his own three
legions and auxiliaries.
Though it seems Rufus tried to negotiate with Vindex at first, the sol
diers caused hostilities to escalate, the result being the battle at Vesontio
late in May 68. Rufus denied the request of his own soldiers that he assume
the purple, but none-the-less was slow to offer his support to Galba. Thus,
Galba was justifiably suspicious of this capable governor. Just after Galba
arrived in Rome in October of 68, Rufus was pressed once again by his
German legions to revolt, this time with the additional support of the
Danubian legions. But once again, Rufus refused.
Galba acted quickly, removing Rufus from his post and replacing him
with a feeble man named Hordeonius Flaccus. Rufus returned to Rome,
where Galba showed his gratitude by allowing him to be charged with a
crime. In the meantime, Fonteius Capito (the governor of Lower Ger-

many) was murdered by one of his own soldiers, Fabius Valens, and was
replaced by the future emperor Aulus Vitellius.
A revolt against Galba was formed by the seven legions and auxiliary
units of the two Germanies, and as their leader they chose Vitellius, who
had been in command for only about a month. After the downfall of
Galba in January, 69, Verginius Rufus (then in Rome) became suffect con
sul under the new emperor Otho, who hoped that by associating Rufus
with his fledgling regime, he might loosen Vitellius’ grip on the German
legions.
After the defeat and death of Otho the legions present at the First
Battle of Bedriacum tried to compell Rufus — for the third time — to
assume the purple. This time, however, the soldiers made it clear they were
not willing to accept his humble refusal. Despite this threat, Rufus did
refuse, and narrowly escaped murder by fleeing.
He survived long after the civil war ended, socializing in literary cir-
cles and even becoming guardian to Pliny the Younger, whose letters are
famous. Later in his life Rufus would purposely cloud the matter of his sup-
port of Nero by defending his actions as resistance to a nationalistic move
ment in Gaul (which, indeed, Vindex’s revolt was not). Rufus died soon
after his third consulship (under Nerva in 97), with his funeral oration
being delivered by none other than the historian Tacitus.
Gaius Nymphidius Sabinus: One of several men who had designs on the
throne during the civil war, Nymphidius was raised from tribune to prefect
in the praetorian guards by Nero in 65 for his role in suppressing the Piso-
nian conspiracy. He shared the post with Ofonius Tigellinus, who had
been prefect since 62, and who much earlier in his career had been exiled
for his adulterous affairs with Caligula’s sisters. But Tigellinus was by then
elderly and ill, and so was easily ousted by Nymphidius, who took sole
command of the guard in 68.
Nymphidius conspired with the senate to overthrow Nero, and in the
process offered a bribe of at least 7,000 denarii (280 aurei) per man to the
guards who were personally protecting Nero. During G alba’s march on
Rome, Nymphidius lost support with the senate, and especially with the
new emperor, who refused to honor the bribes the prefect had earlier
promised. Nymphidius’ fate was sealed when Galba replaced him as pra
etorian prefect with one of his own close friends, Cornelius Laco.
Thus, before Galba arrived in Rome, Nymphidius staged a coup. He
claimed to have been an illegitimate son of Caligula in hopes this would
establish him as a Julio-Claudian, and thus make him the most legitimate
candidate. Considering the nature of this claim, Nymphidius was probably
in his late 30s at the time. But his revolt failed quickly, and Nymphidius
T H E CIVIL W A R O F A.D. 6 8 - 7 0 179
was killed either by agents of Galba or by guards who were angered because
the payments he had promised them were not going to be paid.
Lucius Calpurnius Piso Frugi Licinianus: This unfortunate young noble

man came into the historical limelight during the most desperate hour of
Galba’s faltering regime. He was chosen by Galba as his successor on Janu
ary 10, 69, and was killed with him in the Forum at Rome only five days
later, being only 30 years old at the time. Piso was descended from Crassus
and was a great-great-grandson of Sextus Pompey on his mother’s side.
However, this illustrious lineage had brought the family nothing but
ill-fortune under the Julio-Claudians. One of Piso’s brothers was briefly
married to Claudius’ daughter Claudia Antonia, but was executed along
with his parents in 46. The subsequent reign of Nero proved no better, for
another of his brothers, Gaius Calpurnius Piso, was the architect of the
“Pisonian Conspiracy” which failed against Nero in 65 (with the Piso
under discussion being exiled as a result). Alone, orphaned and exiled,
Piso was recalled by Galba, who apparently had long intended to bequeath
him his name and property. However, Piso proved to be an unsatisfactory
candidate to the soldiers, and his adoption served the opposite of the
intended effect, and only expedited G alba’s downfall.
Gaius Licinius Crassus Mucianus: Another accomplished soldier of his

age, Mucianus distinguished himself during the reign of Nero as one of
Corbulo’s subordinates. He had been governor of Lycia-Pamphylia in 57,
was consul suffectus in 64, and in 68 Nero had appointed him governor of
Syria, the province he held when Vespasian staged his revolt against Vitel
lius. (Note: Coins were struck bearing Mucianus’ name while governing
Syria under Galba.) By mid-July of 69, Mucianus had been convinced by
Vespasian’s eldest son, Titus, to pledge his support to Vespasian’s cause.
While Vespasian marched into Alexandria to control the grain supply
destined for Rome, Mucianus led 20,000 of his soldiers on a purposely slow
march across Anatolia, up through the Balkans, and into northern Italy.
Indeed, it was Mucianus’ advance that provoked the Balkan commander
Antonius Primus to launch his own invasion of Italy before Mucianus
arrived. Mucianus’ advance in the Balkans was slowed when he had to
repel a Dacian incursion, but he continued thereafter and seems to have
arrived in Rome shortly after (estimates range from 1 to 20 days) Primus
had entered the capital.
Though Primus had been given the insignia of a consul, Mucianus
sent Primus’ legions back to the Balkans and quickly wrested control from
the upstart commander. Thereafter Mucianus, a consul in 70, held Rome
six months for Vespasian as his praetorian prefect, awaiting his arrival via
l8 o HISTORY OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE: BIOGRAPHIES
Brundisium. He used the troops to quell further rebellions, which occa

sionally erupted in the city. It also seems likely that Mucianus was respon
sible for the execution of Vitellius’ brother and son. A man of many
accomplishments, Mucianus remained one of Vespasian’s principal advis
ers, all the time profiting incredibly and reminding the emperor that he
owed his office to him. When Mucianus died in 76 or 77 his duties were
assumed by Titus.
Marcus Antonius Prim us: A Gaul by birth and a partisan of Galba, Pri
mus commanded Legio VII Gemina in Pannonia. In 69, shortly after the
downfall of Galba, he won over the armies of Pannonia and Moesia with
his eloquence and irrepressible drive. However, in his lust for glory he
caused Rome great harm, opening the gateway for a Sarmatian invasion
and the Gallic rebellion of Julius Civilis, both of which plagued the first
year of Vespasian’s principate.
Learning that the governor of Syria, Gaius Licinius Mucianus, was
leading his legions on a slow march to Italy, Primus decided to act first, and
with considerable bravery invaded Italy. With five legions under his com
mand, some 30,000 men in total (we are told), he captured Aquileia and
caused the defection of the fleet at Ravenna.
After numerous skirmishes, Primus won a major victory against the
Vitellian armies on October 24 and 25 at the Second Battle of Bedriacum.
Primus encountered the Vitellian armies at the ideal time, for their
emperor had remained at Rome, and his generals were either ill or were
behaving treacherously. In such a state, the Vitellian armies were demoral
ized, and fought poorly despite their larger numbers.
Tacitus offers us a haunting insight into the turning-point of the Sec
ond Battle of Bedriacum, which raged all day and into the night: “Neither
side had the advantage until, in the middle of the night, the moon rose,
displaying and deceiving the combatants. But the light favored the army of
Primus, being behind them; on their side the shadows of horses and men
were exaggerated, and the enemy spears fell short, though those who were
hurling them imagined they were on target. But the Vitellians were bril
liantly illuminated by the light shining full in their faces, and therefore
without realizing it provided an easy mark for an enemy aiming from what
were virtually concealed positions.”
After his victory, Primus pursued the Vitellian soldiers to the nearby
city of Cremona, where he captured them and then, in an act even more
scurrilous than his earlier sack of Aquileia, allowed his Danubian soldiers
to loot the city continuously from October 27 to 31. N ext he made his way
toward Rome, gaining the defection of soldiers sent against him on
December 17 at N am ia, just outside the city. This caused chaos in Rome:
THE CIVIL WAR OF A.D. 6 8 - 7 0 l8 l
street fighting broke out among rivals, Vitellius tried to abdicate but was
dissuaded, and the city prefect Flavius Sabinus (the brother of Vespasian)
was executed after being besieged in the temple of Capitoline Jupiter,
which burned to the ground in the process.
Primus entered Rome on December 20 (or 21), received the insignia
of a consul, and broke the Vitellian resistance. The terrified Vitellius was
captured, tortured and executed. For an uncertain, but brief period, Primus
was in control in the capital, but he was outmaneuvered politically by
Gaius Licinius Mucianus, who arrived the following day with his army
after the long trek from Antioch. The daring adventurer Primus then
retired to Tolosa, where he lived perhaps three more decades.
Flavius Sabinus: The older brother of Vespasian, Titus Flavius Sabinus

was a senator, and it was his status that enabled Vespasian to pursue a
respectable career. Sabinus had served the Empire in numerous capacities,
but throughout the civil war he was the prefect of Rome (praetor urbna-
nus) , a post that he may have held for more than a decade prior.
Sabinus figured prominently into Otho’s plan for survival, for that
short-lived emperor kept Sabinus on good terms in hopes of gaining the
support of Vespasian, who was then commanding the war in Judaea. Sabi
nus survived the collapse of O tho’s regime in mid-April 69, and when the
news of Otho’s suicide reached Rome, Sabinus took the lead in gaining
approval from the senate and praetorians for Vitellius, who was declared
emperor on April 19. N ot surprisingly, Sabinus continued to serve as pre
fect of Rome under Vitellius.
When Vespasian declared war against Vitellius, Sabinus was in a pre
carious position, which only worsened as the armies of Primus and
Mucianus advanced on Rome. When Vitellius expressed his desire to abdi
cate after his armies defected at Narnia on December 17, it was the silver-
tongued Sabinus who was able to negotiate the terms. However, Vitellius’
German praetorians — some 16,000 strong — joined with the public mobs
and brought an end to the negotiations.
To make matters worse, a group of German auxiliaries pursued Sabi
nus and his supporters (including his nephew Domitian, the youngest son
of Vespasian), forcing them to take refuge on the Capitoline Hill. They
settled in the temple of Capitoline Jupiter, and were withstanding the
siege when the temple — the supreme symbol of Rome and its Empire —
burned to the ground around them in broad daylight.
Despite all of the obscene events that had occurred during this civil
war, Tacitus considered this to be of particular importance. Indeed, he
called it “. . . the most lamentable and appalling disaster in the whole his
tory of the Roman commonwealth.” Though Domitian, who was only
about three months shy of his 18th birthday at the time, escaped in dis
guise, Sabinus was captured and callously executed, either on the spot or
after being delivered to Vitellius.
VINDEX
R e b e l , a .d . 68
Gaius Julius Vindex, c . A .D . 25-68. Descended from the kings of Aquita-

nia (southeastern Gaul), and himself a senator, Vindex was the son of a
Roman senator who seems to have been selected by Claudius. A t the time
of his revolt against Nero, Vindex was governor of Gallia Lugdunensis in
Transalpine Gaul, a wealthy province in which no legions were stationed.
His revolt began early in March of 68, and seems to have been
sparked in self defense. Nero had become increasingly hostile toward pro
vincial governors, and furthermore, seems to have fallen behind in the
payments normally sent to Gaul.
Vindex enjoyed widespread support among the oppressed citizenry,
whom he made swear an oath to the senate and people of Rome. Accord
ing to one (perhaps optimistic) estimate, he was able to raise 100,000 local
troops. Although the legionary colony of Lugdunum was the capital of
Vindex’s province, its citizens did not support the cause of Vindex. So he
besieged that city swiftly and successfully. Meanwhile, Vienne, further
down the Rhone in Gallia Narbonensis, offered its support.
In Rome, Nero was branding Vindex as a Gallic nationalist so as to
rally support. But the fact of the matter is that Vindex had no intention of
seceding from the Empire. Indeed, that course of action was rejected by a
Gallic council which met at Durocortorum (mod. Reims, about 90 miles
northeast of Paris).
Despite the success of his revolt, Vindex’s provincial background
assured that he was not qualified to become emperor. So he sought the sup
port of Galba, the elderly governor of Hispania Tarraconensis, in Spain.
On April 2, at Carthago Nova, Galba assumed the title Imperator and
agreed to spearhead the cause of Vindex. In the process he denounced an
appeal from the governor of Aquitania for help, seemingly against the
revolt of Vindex.
In that same month, another revolt — equally pro-senatorial, it
would seem — was launched by Clodius Macer, the propraetor of North
Africa. Despite overtures made by Galba, Clodius Macer did not join their
cause and continued to act independently.
Although Vindex had an immense army and had easily taken Lug
dunum, he now had to reckon with the legions under the command of
THE CIVIL WAR OF A.D. 6 8 - 7 0 183
Verginius Rufus, the governor of Upper Germany, who remained loyal to

Nero. In May of 68, Vindex and Rufus both led their armies to Vesontio
(mod. Besan^on), some 115 miles to the north-east of Lugdunum, where
the two commanders apparently discussed options to battle. But the Rhine
legions were anxious to fight, and may have forced a confrontation before
negotiations were finished. In any event, Vindex’s armies were roundly
defeated by the seasoned legionaries. Vindex died at the battle, though it is
uncertain whether he died in combat, by execution or by his own hand.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : Since neither the name nor the portrait of Vindex
appears on coins, issues must be attributed to him based on their historical

and geographical context. Opinions vary as to where his coinage was
struck. Vienne seems the most likely location for the bulk of the issues,
though Lugdunum or Nemausus may have contributed. A third Gallic
mint, at Narbo, is suspected to have coined for his colleague Galba.
CLODIUS MACER
R e b e l , a .d . 68
Lucius Clodius Macer, d. A .D . 68. Very few

details are known about Clodius Macer, who was
legatus Angusti propraetore Africae late in the reign
of Nero, and staged a revolt that lasted perhaps six
months. His grasp for power seems to have begun
in April 68, at about the same time that Galba, in
Spain, joined the cause of Vindex in Gaul. Just like Vindex and Galba,
Macer was revolting against Nero, an emperor who was notorious for his
ill-treatment of provincial governors.
Though his revolt undoubtedly began in Numidia, where he com
manded the Legion III Augusta, it soon was headquartered in Carthage,
the ancient capital of North Africa. Macer gained control of the fleet sta
tioned at Carthage, and made use of its excellent seaport to control the
North African grain supply that was destined for Rome.
Though Galba made overtures to Macer to join his revolt against
Nero, Macer did not respond favorably, preferring to stay his course alone.
The terms of G alba’s offer are unknown, and so it is difficult to gauge why
he refused. However, it would not be out of line to presume that Galba
wanted him to take a subordinate role, and that on those grounds alone
Macer opted for independence. Furthermore, Macer had supporters in
Rome, not the least of whom was Calvia Crispinilla, whom Tacitus
describes as “. . . the woman who had been N ero’s tutor in vice.”
Macer tried to increase his chance of survival by raising a new legion,

which he called Legion I Macriana. The numismatic evidence indicates
that he had some interest in Sicily, which was less than 150 miles from the
shores of Carthage, and he either made an abortive attempt to occupy the
island or simply made overtures to its citizens and soldiers. Macer was exe
cuted in October, 68 by the local fiscal procurator, Trebonius Garutianus,
just after Galba reached Rome and was able to arrange his murder.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : All of Clodius Macer’s coins — aurei and denarii —
bear the inscription SC, something usually not encountered on precious

metal coins. His types are patriotic and commemorative in nature. They
allude to the two legions under his control, to his main base of Carthage,
to Africa in general, and in some cases to the island of Sicily. Denarii of
Galba that are of identical style (and have the SC) no doubt were struck
after Macer’s downfall in October by partisans of Galba who took com
mand in Carthage.
Macer’s portrait coinage occurs in two main varieties, the rarer hav
ing his name in the genitive case (MACRI) and the more common with it
in the nominative case (MACER). In any event, fewer than 20 specimens
of his portrait coins are currently known, making them among the rarest in
the Roman series. They are supplemented by six non-portrait types. It is of
some interest that Macer borrowed his two most prominent designs from
Marc Antony’s legionary denarii, utilizing both the obverse and reverse
types. Researchers have noted it probably is no coincidence that Antony’s
prototypes were struck almost exactly a century before.
GALBA A .D . 68-69
Im p e r a t o r , a .d . 68
Servius Sulpicius Galba, 3 B.C.-A.D . 69. The first

emperor of Rome to reign briefly, Galba’s 7-month
principate was spent largely in the provinces.
Indeed, he spent only about 100 days in Rome as
emperor. His harsh discipline, aggressive reforms,
and parsimonious nature caused him to be disliked by soldier, senator and
citizen. In an earlier age, when Romans were not so fickle and greedy, he
might have been a success, but Galba lacked the political instinct to see he
was on a path of self-destruction.
Galba hailed from noble families on both his mother’s and father’s
sides. Throughout his career he enjoyed the support of Augustus, Tiberius,
Caligula and Claudius, and especially of the first Augusta, Livia. Indeed,
THE CIVIL WAR OF A.D. 6 8 - 7 0 1 85
she had bequeathed him 500,000 aurei in her will, but it was nullified by
her bitter son, Tiberius, who instead seized the funds for himself. Galba
was married to Aemilia Lepida, a granddaughter of the triumvir Lepidus.
Together they had two sons, whose names are not known.
Despite having been shorted the fortune in gold bequeathed by Livia,
Galba was immensely wealthy. So laudable were his qualities, and so
extensive were his wealth and family connections, that upon the death of
Caligula in 41, Galba was spoken of as a possible successor. Though he
remained a private citizen during the principates of Claudius and Nero,
G alba’s opportunity to become emperor occurred 27 years later.
He spent his early career as governor of Aquitania, then as consul in
33, followed by a military command in Upper Germany and, in 45, as a
proconsul in Africa. He ended his regular career as the governor of His-
pania Tarraconensis, in northern Spain. It was while he was serving in that
capacity that the revolt of Vindex against Nero occurred early in March,
68. Although Vindex’s revolt found immediate success in his own province
of Gaul, it could not prevail until someone with the necessary credentials
stepped up as Nero’s replacement.
The 70-year-old Galba proved to be a man of considerable ambition,
for on April 2, while at Carthago Nova on the south-eastern shore of
Spain, he allied himself with Vindex and was hailed Imperator by his
troops. In the same month, a revolt against Nero also broke out in North
Africa under the leadership of Clodius Macer, the propraetor in command
of Legion III Augusta in Numidia.
Though Galba and Clodius Macer each had only one legion under
their command, each soon raised an additional legion and stayed the
course of revolution. Macer had the additional benefit of a fleet and the
potential to disrupt grain shipments to Rome. Though Galba attempted to
gain his allegiance, Macer was unwilling to join his effort.
Just as the revolution under Galba and Vindex was taking shape, the
latter was defeated north of Lugdunum at the end of May by German
legions still loyal to Nero. Either at the end of May or in early June, Galba
arrived at Clunia, a city in the center of Spain, and learned of Vindex’s
death. However, he also received a good omen from the local oracle, and
thus was encouraged in his enterprise.
Meanwhile, in Rome, N ero’s regime was faltering. His guards were
sufficiently bribed (at nearly 300 aurei each) and abandoned him before he
could make good his escape to Alexandria by ship. On June 9, Nero was
deposed and condemned to death by flogging by the senate. Thus, he
reluctantly took his own life on that day, and Galba was hailed emperor in
his place, seemingly within 24 hours. N o longer was Galba a self-pro-
claimed Imperator hoping to gain the approval of the senate, but was
emperor.
i8 6 HISTORY OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE: BIOGRAPHIES
About this time Galba was en route to Tarraco on the East coast of
Spain and had been joined by the 33-year-old governor of Lusitania (mod,
Portugal), Otho, a man who not only disdained Nero, but who also hoped
to become Galba’s adopted successor. Invigorated with the support of the
senate and the praetorian guard in Rome, Galba and Otho departed Tar
raco late in the summer of 68, and led their modest army on a march
directly for Rome. Galba’s status was confirmed by a deputation of the sen
ate and the praetorian guard that met him in Narbo (mod. Narbonne)
early in July.
Rome was far from stable during his approach, which required all of
July and the first half of October. Galba, a man of stern temperament, sent
word ahead that he had no intention of honoring the bribes promised by
the praetorian prefect Nymphidius, by which he had secured the murder of
Nero. Indeed, he replaced Nymphidius with Cornelius Laco, a candidate
of his own choice. Nymphidius thus staged his own coup, but it failed
quickly, and Nymphidius was killed.
In October of 68, Galba arrived in Rome, which by then had been
purged of the revolutionary Nymphidius, but which still suffered from an
anxious praetorian cohort, whose members feared they would be dismissed
and reassigned to legions in the provinces. Though this did not happen,
Galba dismissed the German bodyguards, disbanded a legion of marines,
and ordered the Spanish legionaries that had accompanied him on his
journey to remain outside Rome.
However, good news came from North Africa, where Galba’s rival at
Carthage, Clodius Macer, was assassinated by the local Imperial procura
tor. N ot surprisingly, Galba’s partisans in North Africa declared for him
and even struck coins in his name that are identifiable by their style,
which is identical to that of Macer.
Galba’s reforms were a combination of repaying favors owed to his
main supporters and genuine attempts to restore morality and dignity. One
of his more practical actions occurred in November or December, when he
removed Verginius Rufus from his command in Upper Germany, and
installed Aulus Vitellius in Lower Germany. Though these made sense at
the time (for Rufus was immensely popular, and Vitellius was a dullard), it
soon backfired because the former was loyal and the latter was treacherous.
Galba’s downfall in January of 69 was swift. On New Year’s Day, the
legions of Upper Germany refused to recognize Galba; and by the 3rd, the
armies of both Upper and Lower Germany had switched allegiance to the
newly appointed governor Vitellius, even though he had virtually no mili
tary experience and had held his post only a month. Sparking the revolt of
the seven German legions, it seems, was the anger they harbored for hav
ing been shorted a reward due for their defeat of Vindex.
News of the defection traveled the more than 800 miles from Trier to
Rome, and reached Galba by the 8th or the 9th of January. Galba’s repres
sive regime was fast losing support, and so on January 10 he adopted Lucius
Calpurnius Piso Frugi Licinianus as his son, hoping that the presence of an
heir would demonstrate stability and hope for the future. His candidate
was a most noble young man descended from both Crassus and Pompey
the Great, but was not to the liking of the soldiers or the common man.
Making matters worse, he was also a brother of the Piso who had plotted
against Nero in 65.
Worse still, the praetorian guards were not satisfied with this stingy
emperor. Even a “mere token act of generosity,” Tacitus reports, would
have won the praetorian over to his cause. But even this Galba did not
offer. While Galba was taking a hard line on the army and finances, his
associate Otho was rallying support among the legionaries and praetorian
guards. Otho’s efforts were intensified after he was not chosen by Galba as
his adopted son.
Through his many acts of monetary generosity, Otho hoped he would
be the beneficiary of any revolt against Galba. Indeed, he most certainly
needed to be, for his “campaign of generosity” had bankrupted him. Otho
made one final bribe of 15,000 denarii to each of 12 key men in the praeto
rian guard, which inaugurated the plot for Galba’s overthrow. It was impec
cably timed to coincide with the arrival of the news in Rome of Vitellius’
revolt in Germany. This not only worked against Galba, but caused the pra
etorians to rally about their own candidate, Otho, in opposition to Vitellius,
whose armies were advancing on Italy.
Tacitus gives a dramatic, and probably accurate, description of the
few minutes preceding G alba’s murder in the Forum on January 15: “By
this time Galba was being carried hither and thither by the irregular
impact of the surging multitude. Everywhere the public buildings and tem
ples were crowded with a sea of faces. As far as the eye could see, the view
was one of doom. N ot a cry came from the mass of people. But their faces
wore a frightened expression.”
The praetorian guards loyal to Otho charged into the crowd on foot
and on horseback with their weapons drawn, trampling all between them
and the sedan of Galba. The guards in Galba’s personal escort defected to
the cause of Otho, after which the elderly emperor was dashed to the
ground and hacked apart with swords. Thus was the inglorious end of
Galba, who was decapitated and whose body was dragged through the
streets on a hook and tossed into the Tiber.
The triumphant praetorians proceeded with Otho to the Senate
House, where they displayed a variety of severed heads as proof of their
foul deed. Terrified by the events in the Forum and by the revolt by
Vitellius in Germany, the senate did not hesitate to vote O tho full
powers.
Though Galba’s reign lasted from June 68 through January, 69, most
of that time had been consumed by his arduous march from Spain to
Rome.
The principate of Galba, it can be rightly said, was both sad and
pathetic: sad because the once-high level of morality of Romans was no
more, and pathetic because Galba was unable to believe the evidence
before his eyes. His attempts to rule in an honorable manner more typical
of the Republican or the Augustan age was a terrible failure. He tried to
reform rapidly and in the process showed no political judgment, and in
that respect his brief principate resembles that of Pertinax nearly 125 years
later.
N u m is m a t ic N o t e : Galba’s coinage is among the most complex and

diverse in the entire Roman series. N ot only did he strike as Imperator
(which includes many of the anonymous “civil war coinages,” notably
including those on which his facial features are assimilated in the portrait
of Divus Augustus), but he also struck as emperor. He coined in all three
metals and at an uncertain number of mints in Spain, Gaul and North
Africa, as well as in Rome itself. His bronzes alone were complicated
enough to require treatment in a detailed monograph by Colin Kraay (The
Aes Coinage of Galba, ANS Numismatic Notes and Monographs no. 133,
New York, 1956).
G alba’s reverse types are varied, and many of them are historical in
content. Most of his coinage as Imperator is propagandistic in nature,
alluding to the provinces, the restoration of Rome and of liberty, and to his
victory itself. One of his most common types as Augustus celebrates Livia,
with whom he was closely acquainted. From this, Galba hoped to validate
his principate (he was, after all, the first non-Julio-Claudian emperor) by
demonstrating his ties to the Julio-Claudians. Beginning with his reign,
Caesar and Augustus (which were personal names under the Julio-Claudi-
ans) became Imperial titles indicating rank. Partisans of Galba struck
denarii on his behalf at Carthage after the downfall of Clodius Macer
which are distinguished not only by the crude style which can be observed
on Macer’s denarii, but also by the fact that SC occurs on the reverse. This
is a highly unusual feature for Roman silver, but was standard for the issues
of Macer. The SC occurs on no other precious metal coins of Galba except
for those which stylistically are attributable to Carthage.
OTHO A.D. 69
H u sba n d of P o ppa ea
Marcus Salvius Otho, A.D. 32-69. Hailing from

an equestrian family of only recent renown, Otho
holds the distinction of being the first emperor to
have openly attained his office through the murder
of his predecessor. Even if we believe the story of
Caligula causing the suffocation of Tiberius, his act merely expedited an
imminent, natural death. Such cannot be said of Otho.
Otho, who is described by Tacitus as an “extravagant young man,”
spent his youth in fashionable pursuits. He was renowned for his effemi
nacy and vanity, and was particular about his grooming. Suetonius tells us
“he shaved every day, and since boyhood had always used a poultice of
moist bread to prevent the growth of his beard.” He is famous to numisma
tists for his well-made toupee, which appears as a luxuriant head of hair on
his Imperial coin portraits.
He chose as one of his companions the beautiful and depraved Sabina
Poppaea, a woman nearly his age who hailed from a wealthy family and
was married to the praetorian prefect Rufrius Crispinus. But Poppaea regu
larly engaged in adulterous affairs, and one of her bed companions was
Otho, who later became her husband.
Being close friends with the new emperor Nero, and wishing to attain
greater prominence, Otho boasted to Nero about the charms of Poppaea.
He seems to have invited Nero to share their bed, but his plan of Imperial
seduction backfired when Nero decided he wanted Poppaea to himself,
and in 58 appointed Otho the governor of Lusitania (mod. Portugal) so
that he would be far from Rome. Otho remained at that post until 68,
when the standards of revolt was raised against Nero almost simulta
neously in Gaul, Spain and North Africa.
Otho was quick to join the revolt headed by Galba, the governor of
the neighboring province of Hispania Tarraconensis. N ot surprisingly,
Otho had his eye on the principate from the very outset of his alliance
with Galba. Initially he hoped to be named Galba’s adoptive son, and thus
successor. Since Galba was 70 years old, the wait may not have been too
long.
However, it became clear to Otho that he would be passed up for this
honor (which eventually was given to Lucius Calpurnius Piso Frugi Licin-
ianus). It was fortunate that Otho had hedged his bet by currying support
among the soldiers and the praetorian guards. Indeed, his liberal bribery
(during a time when Galba was behaving stingily) was potent, but also
drove him deeply into debt.
A t the turn of the New Year, 69, the armies of Germany revolted
against Galba, hailing Vitellius, the governor of Lower Germany, as their
leader. News of this development probably reached Rome shortly before
Galba adopted Piso as his heir on January 10.
O tho’s final overture was a bribe of 15,000 denarii to each of 12 key
men in the praetorian guard. Through this act, Otho assured their support
in his plot to overthrow Galba. On January 15, the plan was put into
action, and Galba was murdered callously in the Forum by the very praeto
rian guards who were supposed to protect him. The frightened senators
had little choice but to hail Otho emperor.
Suetonius tells us that although Otho was probably aware of Vitellius’
rebellion before he made his own attempt at the throne, he did not expect
Vitellius to oppose his elevation. A series of negotiations and assassination
attempts by both men were made subsequently but failed. It became clear
that only more civil war would determine the outcome. Otho soon gained
the support of the legions in Egypt, Africa, the Euphrates and the Danube,
but they would not prove to be large enough or close enough to protect
him from the legions advancing from Germany.
During Vitellius’ march, the environment was far from calm in Rome,
where the praetorian guards were drunk with their renewed power. C on
flicts with other soldiers and the senate were commonplace, and Otho
restored order by executing a few particularly troublesome “ringleaders” in
the camp, and by paying an additional bonus of 1,250 denarii per man. Fie
also appealed to the legions outside Rome by introducing a favorable
reform of the policy on annual leave. Otho was exhibiting the practicality
and political prowess Galba had lacked.
Fie further improved his odds of survival by keeping Flavius Sabinus
as prefect of Rome and Verginius Rufus as consul. The first appointment
was meant to placate Sabinus’ brother, Vespasian, who was commanding
the war in Judaea (and who consequently recognized Otho’s principate,
which he had not done for Galba), and the second was supposed to under
mine Vitellius’ credibility with the German legions, which had twice
before beseached Verginius Rufus to lead their rebellions.
It must be remembered that Vitellius commanded seven legions and a
great many auxiliaries, whereas Otho had only one legion, together with
auxiliary infantry and cavalry hastily gathered locally. Some of the praeto
rian remained in Rome to keep order in the unruly capital, while Otho
even raised an army of 2,000 gladiators to help in the effort. The three Bal
kan legions were expected, but most of the soldiers were still far from the
point of action.
In February, Vitellius’ armies had already advanced deep into Gaul on
their long march to Italy. Vitellius had not gone with the vanguard of his
army, but instead remained behind to raise more troops for the upcoming
war. In the process Vitellius gained the allegiance of the soldiers in Gaul
and Britain. The fact that he had a completely different foe than he had
when he began his revolt against Galba mattered little to Vitellius, for
recalling his legions would certainly have had dire consequences.
The German legions were led by Aulus Caecina Alienus and Fabius
Valens. Caecina led his legions through the Alps, and Valens along a more
southerly route, and though the latter experienced a near mutiny en route,
both armies marched rapidly, and joined in Italy near Cremona, a city on
the north bank of the Po River.
In mid- or late March, after a few skirmishes had already occurred in
southern Gaul and Italy (and it was clear that he had no more time to
waste), Otho left Rome to march north and take command of the war. He
established his headquarters at Brixellum (mod. Brescello), some 30 miles
(and on the opposite side of the Po River) from where the decisive battle
would be fought.
The skirmishes continued until early in April, finding Otho in a diffi
cult position. Before he had received the full strength of his Danubian
legions (of which only the Vanguard had entered Italy), Otho forced a
pitched battle just after Vitellius had been reinforced. Historians believe
he did this out of fear that with the passage of time he would lose the sup
port of his army, and would be left without even the opportunity to fight.
The engagement, known as the First Battle of Bedriacum, took place
on April 14. Otho’s armies were defeated. It was an exceptionally bloody
affair in which as many as 40,000 men died. The description of the after-
math given by Tacitus is grim. Neither Vitellius nor Otho were present
when the engagement took place, for Vitellius was still marching in Gaul
and Otho was at his headquarters south of the Po.
When O tho’s armies were defeated, the emperor was disheartened.
Even news that the bulk of the Moesian legions had reached Aquileia and
the urging of his commanders could not lift Otho’s spirits. It is possible, as
some have suggested, that he was unwilling to engage in more civil war,
and instead chose to commit suicide, which he did approximately two days
later, on April 16 or 17 (opinions vary).
After the fact, Verginius Rufus was once again enjoined by the sol
diers to become their candidate for emperor. This demand may have been
made by soldiers from both armies, since Vitellius was still in Gaul march
ing south when the battle was fought. But Rufus, under threat of death
should he refuse, did just that, and made a narrow escape back to Rome.
Three days later, on April 19, Vitellius was hailed emperor by the senate.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : The coinage of Otho’s reign is considerably different
from that of Galba. N ot only did Otho strike only as Augustus, but he
struck Imperial coins only at Rome. Thus, we find none of the curious
provincial styles so commonly observed on the issues of Galba. The rela

tive brevity of his reign — approximately three months — also assured
that there was no noticeable evolution of style. Also, his reign establishes
a terminus ante quern for the transfer of precious metal coin production
from Lugdunum to Rome, since no coins could have been struck for Otho
had the facilities still been located at Lugdunum.
Otho’s Imperial coinage consists entirely of aurei and denarii, for he
did not strike any Imperial bronzes. Considering the vast output of asses,
dupondii and sestertii by Galba and Nero, Otho’s decision to not strike
bronzes is understandable. However, the impressive issues of Galba must
have been a persistent and disconcerting reminder of the man he had
overthrown.
The issues can be divided into two major groups, depending on
whether the office of Pontifex Maximus is indicated. Since he received
that title on March 9, coins bearing PONT MAX (as the reverse inscrip
tion) must be dated to the period March 9 through mid-April. It is worth
noting that Otho is never shown wearing a laurel wreath on his Imperial
coinage, thus allowing us to fully appreciate the curly locks of his wig.
VITELLIUS A.D. 69
I m p e r a t o r , a .d . 69
S on of L u c iu s V it e l l iu s
Fa t h e r of P e t r o n ia n u s, V it e l l iu s G e r m a n ic u s
A N D V lT E L L IA
A ulus Vitellius, A.D* i5 (? )- 6 9 . Few of Rome’s

emperors have been as unsuited for the demands of
the office as Vitellius. What little importance he enjoyed in Rome before
his principate was due entirely to the achievements of his father, the con
sul Lucius Vitellius. Indeed, even his rise to supreme power was due to his
lack of redeeming qualities, combined with a quirk of fate.
The ancient biographers are quite hostile to Vitellius, and speak
almost exclusively of his faults, which included a tendency to steal and
embezzle when he held posts that allowed such opportunities. They also
tell us much of his gluttony at the dinner table, suggesting he spent some
nine million sestertii on banquets during his brief reign. A t one such gath
ering, we are told, 2,000 fish and 7,000 birds were served to the guests.
Historians are uncertain when Vitellius was born, variously citing
A.D. 12, 14 or 15. Suetonius tells us he was bom only a month or two after
Tiberius was hailed emperor in 14, but many historians prefer 15. Because
his father was the most renowned politician in Rome, Vitellius enjoyed a
decadent youth. However, the success of his equestrian family in recent
decades was not without a price, for his father owed his success to his
gilded tongue and his uncommon skill of flattery.
One consequence for his son, the future emperor Vitellius, was that
during the better part of his teenage years he served in the troop of male
prostitutes assembled by Tiberius for his enjoyment on Capri. While serv-
ing in that capacity, he earned the nickname spintria, meaning “sexual
invert,” or more accurately, a prostitute who practices sodomy. Suetonius
tells us this nickname clung to him for the rest of his life.
Vitellius had inherited his father’s skill for flattery, and was on friendly
terms with Caligula, with whom he must have become acquainted on Capri.
Later, Vitellius was crippled in one thigh when he was run down by a char
iot driven by Caligula who, Suetonius tells us, admired Vitellius for his skills
as a charioteer. Claudius admired Vitellius’ skill in dice — an avocation that
Claudius knew well, having himself penned a book on the subject. Claudius
was especially favorable to Vitelius’ family, for the father, Lucius Vitellius,
received the highest possible honors, and the future emperor Vitellius and
his brother (named Lucius Vitellius), served as co-consuls in 48.
After enjoying the favor of the previous three emperors, Vitellius had
become quite addicted to vice and gluttony in the manner of those close to
the Imperial household. As such, he became an admirer of Nero (whom he
accompanied on his singing tours), who appointed him governor of Africa
from 55 to 57.
After a relatively undistinguished career, Vitellius was appointed by
Galba as governor of Lower Germany in November or December of 68.
We are told he won this position not out of merit, but rather for his lack of
it, for Galba did not want a man of substance in a position that could
endanger his principate. However, fate intervened in a manner such that
Galba’s caution proved to be his undoing.
When Vitellius had been headquartered at his new post in Cologne
about a month, the legions under his command revolted against Galba, for
they felt spurned for not having received a bonus for their earlier defeat of
Vindex. The soldiers acknowledged that Vitellius did not have great cour
age or military experience, but he was convenient, and he had endeared
himself to even the lowliest of soldier by readily offering a hearty embrace.
News of this revolt was dispatched from Trier and soon arrived in
Rome. This contributed to the sequence of events that caused the murder
of Galba on January 15. Galba’s successor, Otho, gained the allegiance of
the legions in Egypt, Africa, the Euphrates and the Danube. However,
Vitellius had his seven German legions, and they would prove sufficient to
dislodge Otho. The fact that the circumstances of his soldiers’s rebellion
had changed (for the man against whom they rebelled, Galba, was dead)
mattered little to the soldiers, and Vitellius had neither the courage nor
the desire to bring his unlawful act to an end.
Vitellius sent the bulk of his army south under the joint command of
Aulus Caecina Alienus and Fabius Valens, the flamboyant soldier who had
gained his position by murdering his own commander Fonteius Capito, the
feeble old man Galba had appointed governor of Upper Germany in place
of Verginius Rufus. During this period a series of negotiations and assassi-
nation attempts were made by both rivals, and it became clear that more
civil war would be required to determine the outcome.
In the meantime, Vitellius stayed behind to raise troops for the
upcoming war, and managed to gain the support of legions in Gaul and
Britain. Caecina and Valens led their legions across the Alps, the former
via Switzerland, the latter through France. The two armies joined near
Cremona on the north bank of the Po River
Since the two armies of Vitellius marched at such a rapid pace (seem
ingly in competition with each other to arrive first), Otho found himself in
a difficult position. In late March and early April fighting between the
Vitellians and Othonians occurred on numerous occasions in southern
Gaul and in northern Italy. Meanwhile, Vitellius had only just made his
way into northern Gaul as hostilities began to escalate.
On April 14, at Bedriacum, some 22 miles from the city of Cremona,
Otho forced a pitched battle out of fear that his legions would defect
before the bulk of his reinforcements arrived from the Balkans. As many as
40,000 soldiers were killed by their fellow Romans at Bedriacum, and
Otho committed suicide two or three days later, leaving Vitellius the vic
tor. In a repeat of earlier history, Verginius Rufus (who was then a consul
under Otho) refused the purple for a third time. This time it angered the
soldiers so greatly that he barely escaped with his life.
Three days after the battle, on April 19, Vitellius was hailed Augustus
by the senate. He received the news while marching south through Gaul,
and celebrated it when he arrived in Lugdunum. Some 40 days after the
First Battle of Bedriacum, on or about May 24, Vitellius arrived at the bat
tle site, and proudly showed it to the soldiers who had accompanied him
on his march.
Vitellius was now at the head of an army of 60,000 men, which had
attached to it several times as many camp followers. He next engaged in an
undisciplined march along the eastern coast of Italy, which occupied the
end of May, all of June and the first half of July. We are told that he stopped
frequently to enjoy local hospitality, as if on vacation. Hostilities often
broke out in the ranks, and disputes with locals were no less common.
Finally, Vitellius entered Rome in July and led a splendid legionary
procession through the streets, which impressed the historian Tacitus, who
tells us that Vitellius was formally presented title of Augustus by the senate
on July 18. One of the new emperor’s first acts was to replace the existing
praetorian cohorts with men from his own German legions. In the process
he increased the count from 12 cohorts to 16, and doubled the size of each
cohort from 500 to 1,000 men.
Rivalry among the various legions, however, was to cause even more
civil war. A t the beginning of July, the general Vespasian (who had been
conducting the war in Judaea since 67) was hailed emperor by the legions
in Judaea and Alexandria; the Syrian legions did so by the middle of the
month. The situation was becoming quite confused: just as Vitellius’ Ger
man legions had found a rival in G alba’s Spanish legion, so had the eastern
armies with Vitellius’ Germans.
The eastern legions were quickly joined in their cause by the three
Moesian legions that had been summoned by Otho but had not arrived in
time to fight on his behalf at the First Battle of Bedriacum. N ot only did
they have a common bond with the eastern legions, but they had pillaged
Aquileia before returning to their bases in the Balkans, and understand
ably feared reprisal. So, under the leadership of the commander Marcus
Antonius Primus, they declared for Vespasian.
The end was already in sight for Vitellius before he had entered
Rome: simultaneously, armies in the East and in the Balkans were prepar
ing to move against the new emperor. The “coup” in the East enjoyed the
support of the prefect of Egypt, Tiberius Julius Alexander and of the Syrian
governor Gaius Licinius Mucianus, who had been persuaded by Vespasian’s
eldest son, Titus, to commit his legions to the cause.
Though Vespasian had not formally recognized G alba’s principate, he
did so with Otho, and it seems he was proclaimed Augustus upon learning
of the latter’s death. Caught in the middle was Vespasian’s brother, Flavius
Sabinus (who had been confirmed as city prefect of Rome by Otho) and
Vespasian’s youngest son, Domitian, who, though also residing in Rome,
was given the rank of Caesar.
Vespasian’s plan was simple, and probably was intended to minimize
further bloodshed. In August he left his son Titus to finish off the war in
Judaea and he moved to Alexandria, where he could seize control of the
grain shipments destined for Rome. A t the same time, Mucianus led his
20,000 Syrian soldiers on a slow march across Asia and the Balkans to
Italy. By the time Vespasian himself arrived, the Romans would most likely
have ousted Vitellius, or at the very least would have been receptive to a
liberating army.
Throwing a wrench into the works, however, was the Danubian com
mander Primus, who prepared his renegade armies for a preemptive inva
sion of Italy. By October Primus launched his offensive, clashing with
Vitellius’ generals in northern Italy. In the end, Vitellius’ leaders proved
too ill, incompetent or treacherous to defend Italy, and even the fleet at
Ravenna defected. A pitched battle occurred at Bedriacum, the site of

Vitellius’ earlier victory against Otho.
This time Vitellius’ forces (for he was not at this battle either) were
defeated on October 24 and 25, at what is known as the Second Battle of
Bedriacum. The remaining Vitellian armies fled to nearby Cremona,
where they were captured. Even though Cremona was an Italian town, and
had surrendered without offering resistance, it was sacked continuously
from October 27-31 by the Danubian soldiers.
Meanwhile in Rome, the atmosphere was understandably chaotic.
Even the army Vitellius had sent to protect the Appenine passes had
defected to Primus at Narnia on December 17. Upon learning this, rival
factions in the capital engaged in fierce street fighting, and Vitellius
approached the city prefect Sabinus with an offer to abdicate in exchange
for the staggering sum of one million aurei.
Though the deal was acceptable to Sabinus, it enraged the praetorian
guards and the mob in Rome, which demanded Vitellius retract his offer.
They took matters into their own hands, beseiging Sabinus and his sup
porters on the Capitoline Hill, which was set ablaze during the fight,
claiming even the inviolable temple of Capitoline Jupiter. Though young
Domitian escaped, his uncle Sabinus was executed.
On December 20, the Danubian legions led by Primus entered Rome,
ostensibly in the name of Vespasian, and Vitellius was captured and
dragged through the streets in an especially humiliating fashion. After
considerable torture, he was murdered in the Forum and his corpse tossed
into the Tiber. The senate then hailed Vespasian emperor in place of Vitel
lius. Primus’ soldiers plundered the city and massacred their opponents
before the arrival of Mucianus and his Syrian legions on the following day.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : Coins were struck in the name of Vitellius at mints in
Spain (probably Tarraco), Gaul (probably Lugdunum) and Rome. The first
two began to strike while Vitellius was Imperator and opposed to Otho,
who himself only used the Rome mint. As would be expected, Rome began
to strike for Vitellius only after Otho was overthrown and Vitellius was
hailed Augustus by the senate. Since Vitellius resumed coining bronzes at
Rome, it perhaps comes as no surprise that some of G alba’s reverse dies
were used by Vitellius.
The titulature in Vitellius’ coin inscriptions is useful for establishing
an internal chronology for the Rome mint issues. The title Germanicus is
shortened in three successive phases (GERMANICVS; GERMAN; and
GERMA, GERM or GER), with the longer renderings being earlier in the
sequence. Vitellius’ provincial coinage is limited to rare emissions for the
federation (koinon) of Macedon and Alexandria.
LUCIUS VITELLIUS
Fa t h e r of V it e l l iu s
G ra n d fa th er of Petro n ia n u s , V it e l l iu s
G e r m a n ic u s a n d V it e l l ia
Lucius Vitellius, lifespan uncertain. Lucius Vitel-

lius was one of four sons born to Publius Vitellius, a
knight from Luceria (not Nuceria, as is often
cited). His father had a successful career as a steward (procurator) of the
emperor Augustus, which paved the way for his sons. The most famous of
his sons was Lucius Vitellius, who is considered the most successful politi
cian of the age.
Though during his lifetime Lucius Vitellius was hailed as a model of
integrity, according to Tacitus he was held by later generations “. . . to be
an example of the ignominy that goes with sycophancy.” His career was
advanced principally through his connection to the ruling house of Augus
tus, and by the reign of Claudius he had distinguished himself remarkably.
The very fact that he was able to survive the tyranny of Caligula (for
whom he instituted the practice of his worship as a god) and maintained
good relations with Claudius — an emperor who perceived senators as
adversaries — speaks volumes of his talents.
As a flatterer, Lucius Vitellius had no equal. He was especially careful
to attend to the needs of the Imperial women, and seems to have pursued
Antonia, the mother of Germanicus, Livilla and Claudius. Though some
sources suggest he actually married Antonia, this is unlikely for other
sources insist she refused to remarry after the death of Nero Claudius
Drusus.
When entering the Imperial presence Lucius Vitellius would always
uncover his head, avert his gaze, and prostrate himself. Suetonius also tells
us he begged the indulgence of Messalina, the third wife of Claudius, to
remove her shoes, after which he occasionally kissed them. Toward the
end of his life and career, he was among the leading proponents of Clau
dius’ final marriage to Agrippina Junior.
Suetonius tells us that his sole embarrassment — beyond the shame
less flattery — was a scandalous affair he had with a freedwoman “. . .
whose spittle he would actually mix with honey and use not just secretly or
rarely, but every day, quite openly, as a lotion for his neck and throat.”
O f Lucius Vitellius’ three brothers, one was renowned for his luxuri
ous manner of living, another for his talents as a gourmet, and a third for
his friendship to Germanicus. This particular brother, Publius Vitellius, is
credited by Suetonius with the arrest of Gnaeus Piso, who was later con
victed of Germanicus’ murder. However, his relationship with Germanicus
cost him his own life, for in 32 he was forced to commit suicide by Tibe
rius, who implicated him in the coup planned by Sejanus.
Despite the fall of his brother Publius, Lucius Vitellius made great
advances in the last few years of Tiberius’ reign. His progress was due not
only to his own gift for flattery, but also because he volunteered one of his
two sons, Aulus Vitellius (the future emperor) for the troop of male prosti
tutes that served Tiberius during his self-exile on Capri.
His career was varied, for he led the Roman armies in Armenia in 18,
held a consulship in 34 and served as Legate of Syria from 35 to 37, during
which he deposed Pontius Pilate in Judaea. His last two consulships
occurred during the reign of Claudius, in 43 and 47. During the first of
these, he virtually ran the government on behalf of Claudius (who was
leading the invasion of Britain), and during the latter, Claudius chose him
as his colleague in the censorship. A n attempt to prosecute Lucius Vitel
lius in 51 failed, and it is believed that he died shortly thereafter.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : All coins depicting Lucius Vitellius were struck by his
son, the emperor Vitellius, and bear his son’s portrait on the obverse.
Three main reverse types were produced. Aurei and denarii show his por
trait bust with an eagle-tipped scepter before, or depict Lucius Vitellius as a
seated figure. Sestertii depict him seated on a platform, greeting togate fig
ures. With the exception of an issue of dual-portrait aurei from a Spanish
mint, all the remaining coins seem to have been struck at Rome. It would
seem likely that issues were also struck at the Gallic mint at which denarii
depicting Vitellius’ children were struck.
VITELLIUS GERMANICUS
and VITELLIA
C h il d r e n o f V it e l l iu s
H a l f -s i b l i n g s o f P e t r o n ia n u s
G r a n d c h il d r e n o f L u c iu s V it e l l iu s
Vitellius Germanicus (c. A.D. 62-69/70), Vitellia

(lifespan unknown). O f Vitellius’ two children,
Vitellius Germanicus and Vitellia, little is known.
They were both born of the same mother, Galeria Fundana, who was Vitel
lius’ second wife. The boy was supposedly 6 years old when his father
became emperor, and according to Suetonius, “. . . had so bad a stammer
that he could hardly force out a word.” Nothing is heard of the girl until
after her father’s reign.
Vitellius was so far in debt at the time Galba appointed him governor
of Lower Germany that in order to finance his journey he pawned the fam
ily jewelry and, after relocating his wife and children to an attic, rented
out his villa. This, no doubt, was one of the reasons Galba appointed Vitel
lius, for he presumed he would be so preoccupied with gleaning money
from every possible source (as he was well known for doing) that the pros
pect of staging a revolt would not cross his mind.
Vitellius left his family in Rome as he marched north to take up his
new command. After Galba was overthrown and Vitellius himself had
rebelled, his wife and children were treated well by the new emperor,
Otho. When Otho died in mid-April 69, Vitellius was promptly recog
nized by the senate as the new emperor. His son was hurriedly taken to
Lugdunum so he could be united with his father, who was still marching
south from Germany. There the boy was shown to the legionaries as proof
that a dynasty to replace the Julio-Claudians had been formed, and he was
given the agnomen Germanicus.
But Vitellius’ regime was short-lived, and as a result of his downfall
his son was killed. While Suetonius suggests the boy perished with his
father and his uncle, other sources indicate he was executed in 70 on
orders of the praetorian prefect Licinius Mucianus. The girl was more for
tunate, for she not only survived the civil war, but Suetonius tells us Ves
pasian arranged a marriage for her that proved to be a “splendid match,”
and provided her with a dowry and a wedding gown.
Vitellius also had another son, Petronianus, from his first wife, Petro-
nia. The poor lad, who we are told had only one eye, died of poison long
before his father ascended the throne. The poison was either voluntarily
taken to cure his parricidal tendencies, or more likely, was administered by
Vitellius. Suetonius makes his opinion on the matter clear: “. . . most peo
ple believed simply that Vitellius had done away with the boy.”
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : Though the coinage portraying Vitellius’ children is
generally thought to be limited to denarii and aurei, an Imperial as must be

added to the tally. Though in a poor state of preservation, its style identi
fies it as a product of a mint in Spain. Most of the commemorative aurei
and denarii of Vitellius’ children were struck in Rome, although examples
are known from mints in Spain and Gaul (presumably Tarraco and
Lugdunum).
JULIUS CIVILIS
R e b e l , a .d . 6 9 -7 0
Gaius Julius Civilis, lifespan unknown. As the chief of the Batavians, a

Germanic tribe that had been loosely allied with the Romans since the
campaign of Nero Claudius Drusus in 12 B.C., Julius Civilis was also a
Roman citizen. Civilis was lured into the civil war in the summer of 69 by
Antonius Primus, who was preparing to lead his Danubian legions on an
invasion of Italy. Primus encouraged Civilis to create a disturbance serious
enough that Vitellius’ remaining legions in Germany would be too occu
pied to march on Italy after his own invasion of Italy had taken place.
The request was echoed by Hordeonius Flaccus, the feeble appointee
of Galba who had replaced Verginius Rufus, and was still governing from
his base in Mainz (Moguntiacum). In this capacity Civilis launched a
nationalist revolt in Gaul. He gathered eight cohorts of Batavian regulars,
enlisted Germans from north of the Rhine, and was ready to strike.
A ll of his actions occurred within about a 300-mile stretch along the
Rhine, roughly between Mainz and where the river empties into the North
Sea. Since this was the northernmost part of Roman Gaul, it was quite far
from Rome, but would prove fatal to Rome’s ability to control its provinces
if it was not contained.
Civilis’ first move, an unexpected attack on the legionary camp at Vet
era, was a failure, principally because Hordeonius was able to dispatch two
legions which came to their aid. However, in the meantime Hordeonius was
murdered by his own soldiers, and news had reached Germany of the Vitel
lian defeat at the Second Battle of Bedriacum on October 24 and 25.
By early 70, many Gallic tribes had joined Civilis’ cause. Foremost
among these were the Treviri under Julius Classicus and Julius Tutor (who,
like Civilis, had been in the service of the emperors), and the Lingones
under Julius Sabinus. Tacitus tells us that the burning of the temple of
Capitoline Jupiter was especially significant to the “idle superstition of
Druidism,” as it signaled the imminent collapse of the Empire.
Civilis, with the assistance of Classicus, then engineered the assassina
tion of Dillius Vocula, the legionary commander who had foiled his first
attempt to take Castra Vetera. This murder was perpetrated at Novaesium
(mod. Neuss), where Civilis effortlessly gained the surrender of the two
legions stationed there. After executing the commanders, he forced the
legionaries to take an oath to the new Gallic Empire, which may have been
headquartered at Noviomagus (mod. Nijmegen, in The Netherlands).
This was a seemingly unprecedented event in Roman history, and one
which demonstrated how little integrity remained in the German legions:
they surrendered without a fight, allowed their commanders to be executed
or imprisoned, and then swore allegiance to the imperium Galliarum which

had been established by the enemy.
Civilis made a second attempt to take Castra Vetera, this time
unmistakeably in the name of his Gallic separatist movement. He success
at Novaesium must have stricken sufficient fear into the members of Legion
XV Primigenia that they quickly surrendered, only to be massacred by the
German auxiliaries. Later in his campaign Civilis captured a flotilla of 24
ships, and in concert with his foot soldiers and cavalry, destroyed all
legionary fortifications along the Rhine as far south as Mainz.
Most all of this transpired just after Vespasian secured power in
Rome. In 70 troops were sent against Civilis first by Gaius Licinius
Mucianus (who was holding Rome for Vespasian) and then by the emperor
himself. Leading the war on Civilis were Quintus Petillius Cerialis and
Annius Gallus, who were supported by Vespasian’s youngest son, Domi
tian, then 18 years old. Cerialis and Domitian established themselves at
Trier, after which they defeated Civilis at Rigodulum. A few minor set
backs then followed, but Civilis was finally defeated at Vetera, where the
rebel was forced to surrender late in 70. Civilis’ subsequent fate is
unknown.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : The attribution of coinage to the revolt of Julius C ivi
lis is based on several factors, including the assumption that he would

require coinage to pay his soldiers. Determining which of the “anonymous”
coinages of this period belong to Civilis is a more difficult matter. The
authors of RIC attribute five extremely rare issues — four denarii and one
aureus — to Civilis.
O f the greatest interest are denarii honoring Legio XV Primigenia,
which Civilis captured at Castra Vetera and then allowed his soldiers to
butcher. (The legion was cashiered in 70.) It is possible that Civilis struck
coins with the name of the legion in order to trumpet his accomplishment.
However, other authorities believe the issue was struck earlier in support of
Vitellius, for the auxiliaries of this dishonored legion were important to his
victory at the First Battle of Bedriacum. Alternatively, it could have been
struck to honor the heroes of the legion and its great leader Verginius Rufus,
who had defeated Vindex at the outset of the civil war. The end of the war
against Civilis is celebrated on a rare sestertius of Vespasian inscribed SIG-
NIS RECEPTIS and depicting a flying Victory offering to Vespasian a legion
ary eagle (aquila) — presumably of the captured XV Primigenia.
CH A PTER FO UR
T h e F la v ia n s
a .d . 69-96
he destructive Civil War of 68-69 ended with the rebellion and

T accession of Vespasian, a man of relatively humble origins who
founded a dynasty of his own. This was an important consideration for any
candidate to the throne (as Vespasian’s predecessor, Vitellius, recognized).
The Romans had lived for nearly a century under the ruling house of the
Julio-Claudians. Heirs, if anything, meant stability.
Stable succession was one of the principal reasons Vespasian hailed
his two sons as Caesars, and immediately struck coins portraying them as
heirs to the throne. Further, Vespasian went to great lengths to demon
strate his ties with the Julio-Claudians, both literally and spiritually. He
celebrated the glories of the Augustan age, which began at the Battle of
Actium almost exactly a century before his own accession. The new
emperor made full use of the propaganda value of coins by copying coin
designs associated with Augustus and his descendants.
The dynasty that Vespasian founded was not terribly long-lived, but it
did salvage Rome from its costly civil war and serve as a conduit between
the decaying Julio-Claudian dynasty and “adoptive” emperors of the 2nd
century. But it must be said that the Flavians were in some respects merely
a compressed version of the Julio-Claudians, for the dynasty began on a
high note and ended in disgrace.
The Flavian dynasty is neatly composed of the family lines estab
lished by two brothers, which developed separately in the first generation,
but were tied together in the second generation by two marriages of sec-
ond-cousins. N o fewer than nine members of the Flavian family are repre
sented on coinage, including a boy of Domitian’s who died in infancy, and
whose name is not recorded in the sources which have survived to the
modern day.
The portraits on Flavian coins are usually well executed, though the
degrees of realism or idealism vary depending on the minting facility and
the period. Later in the reign of Domitian the portraits take on a much
softer appearance, though not at the expense of their individualism or
accuracy. The portraits of the Flavian women typically bear a striking
resemblance to the emperors with whom they were associated, as was often
the case in the long history of Roman coinage.
And finally, another of the great institutions of 1st Century Roman
coinage, the mint at Lugdunum, ceased operation during the Flavian
203
T h e F l a v ia n s
Flavius Sabinus = Vespasia Polk
i i
Flavius Sabinus VESPASIAN = Domitilla the Elder
(City Prefect) (Flavia Domitilla I)
Flavius Sabinus
I
TITUS = Marcia
I
DOMITIAN = Domitia
I
Domitilla the Younger
(Consul, A.D. 69) Furnilla | (Flavia Domitilla II)
Son (name unknown)
Flavius Sabinus = Julia Titi Flavius Clemens = Flavia Domitilla III

(Consul, A.D. 82) (Consul A.D. 95)
Vespasian Jr.
Domitian Jr.
Note: Nam es in CAPITALS are of emperors; names in italics are of people not found on coinage.
THE FLAVIANS 205
dynasty, probably in about 79, but perhaps in 82. The mint at Rome had
regained its role as the principal Imperial mint in the west either in 37, the
first year of Caligula’s reign, or more likely c. 64, during the reign of Nero
(54-68).
VESPASIAN A.D. 69-79

a .d . 69 -7 1 : S o l e r e ig n
(w it h T it u s and D o m it ia n , as C a esa r s)
a .d . 7 1 -7 9 : S o le r e ig n
( w it h T it u s as Im p e r a t o r ;
D o m it ia n , as C a esa r )
H u sba n d of D o m it il l a t h e E ld er
Fa t h e r of T it u s, D o m it ia n , and
D o m it il l a t h e Yo u n g e r
Fa t h e r -i n -la w of D o m it ia
G ra n d fa th er of J u l ia T it i
G r e a t -g r a n d f a t h e r o f V e sp a sia n J u n io r
Titus Flavius Vespasianus, A.D. 9 -7 9 . With Vespasian we find a clean

break from the Julio-Claudians and their revolutionary successors, for he
was a simple man of modest family background. Indeed, the ancient histo
rians speak principally of his humble lifestyle, his affability, and his sharp
sense of humor as opposed to vices and moral bankruptcy, which is princi
pally what we learn of the Julio-Claudians.
Vespasian was born at Reate, in Sabine country not far from Rome,
with his father having been the first man in the family to amass a small for
tune. This he did as a tax collector in Asia, and later as a banker in the
Helvetian territory (mod. Switzerland). His mother’s family was of eques
trian rank, and Vespasian’s maternal uncle entered the senate and held a
praetorship.
Vespasian’s older brother, Flavius Sabinus, led a distinguished career,
while the future emperor held somewhat undistinguished and predictable
posts. He was military tribune in Thrace in 27, then quaestor on Crete and
aedile in 38. Finally, he became praetor under Caligula in 40.
However, it was not until his family came to enjoy the patronage of
Claudius’ freedman, Narcissus, that his career took off. In 43 he had com
manded Legio II Augusta in Claudius’ invasion of Britain. In that cam
paign he was closely associated with the emperor and is said to have fought
some 30 battles and taken 20 cities as he reduced most of the southern part
of Britain and took the Isle of Wight. For all of this, Vespasian was
awarded an ornamenta triumphalia and two priesthoods, and later was
important enough to be elected consul suffectus for the last two months of
51.
Thereafter he falls into relative obscurity, for he and his brother owed
their prominence to Narcissus, and consequently came under the suspicion
of Agrippina Junior, the wife of Claudius. Thus, it is not until later in the
reign of Nero that we hear much of Vespasian again. In 62 or 63 he was
proconsul of Africa, but did not abuse his position for financial gain, and
consequently was spared bankruptcy only by a loan from his brother. In 66
he was part of Nero’s entourage, travelling with him on his tour of Greece.
However, Vespasian offended Nero by falling asleep at one of his singing
performances, and as a result was expelled from the emperor’s entourage.
Since it was the habit of Nero to appoint governors and generals in
the provinces who were of no extraordinary merit, he gave Vespasian com
mand of three legions in 66, with which he was to direct the war in Judaea
that is commonly known as the First Revolt or the Jewish War. In February
of 67, Vespasian was appointed governor of Judaea. The future emperor
conducted a difficult campaign, but by mid-68, when Nero was over
thrown and replaced as emperor by Galba, he had pacified most of Judaea.
During the next year, from mid-68 to mid-69, Vespasian continued to
direct the war in Judaea as the West became embroiled in civil war. Three
successive emperors — Nero, Galba and Otho — fell in only 10 months.
By mid-69 an unsavory character named Vitellius was in command, and
Vespasian realized now was the time to act.
So, on July 1, presumably upon learning of Otho’s defeat and suicide,
his revolt began. Vespasian was hailed emperor by the legions in A lexan
dria under command of the prefect Tiberius Julius Alexander. Two days
later, on July 3, Vespasian was hailed by his own legions in Judaea, and by
mid-July (shortly before Vitellius entered Rome), he was also acclaimed by
the legions in Syria, which were under the command of the governor,
Gaius Licinius Mucianus. Though the senate did not officially recognize
his principate until December 21, 69, Vespasian always considered July 1,
when the soldiers hailed him emperor, to be his date of accession. This was
a serious annoyance to the senate, but helped maintain his popularity with
the soldiers.
N ot only did Vespasian have excellent qualifications for the post, but
he also had two sons as heirs, and a brother who was city prefect in Rome.
Furthermore, there were many omens favorable to his accession, including
one in which a dog brought a severed hand to his breakfast table, and
another more ancient superstition that held that at about this time the rul
ers of the world would come from Judaea.
Vespasian based his revolt in Antioch and instructed Mucianus to
lead 20,000 of his soldiers on a slow march to Italy. While in Antioch,
Vespasian struck the first coins of his as-yet-unofficial reign. It was hoped
THE FLAVIANS 207
that by the time Mucianus approached Rome, Vitellius would have been
overthrown, or at the very least, would have lost popularity. Vespasian left
his eldest son, Titus, in charge of the Judaean campaign (for Jerusalem had
not yet been taken) so that he himself could move to Alexandria and take
control of the grain supply, which was vital to Rome.
Meanwhile, legions in Spain and the Balkans supported Vespasian’s
claim. In the process, however, he did gain an unwanted ally in Marcus
Antonius Primus, a commander who managed to gain control of several
legions in Pannonia and Moesia. To give some legitimacy to what was lit
tle more than a personal adventure, Primus decided to act in the name of
Vespasian. However, in his lust for glory, Primus created an opportunity for
a Sarmatian invasion of Moesia, and sparked a nationalist rebellion in
Gaul and Germany led by the Batavian prince Julius Civilis.
By October, Primus had invaded Italy with five legions and had out-
maneuvered the Vitellian forces that had been left to defend northern
Italy. After defeating the Vitellians decisively at the Second Battle of Bed
riacum on October 24 and 25 of 69, Primus allowed his soldiers to plunder
nearby Cremona for four successive days. Thereafter, Primus marched
south to Rome, with the legions of Mucianus (who was delayed in Moesia
repelling the Sarmatian invasion) not far behind.
Though Vitellius was still popular in the capital, his odds of survival
diminished daily. They took a critical turn on December 17, when Primus
met the Vitellian army at Narnia, some 40 miles outside Rome. Before a
battle erupted, Primus convinced the Vitellians to defect, which left him a
clear path to Rome. When news of the defection reached Rome, anarchy
broke out in the streets and Vitellius approached the city prefect Flavius
Sabinus (the brother of Vespasian) with an offer to abdicate.
Though acceptable to both men, the praetorian guards and the mob
in Rome were incensed by the plan, and events in Rome moved violently
and rapidly. N ot only were Sabinus and many of his supporters besieged on
the Capitoline Hill and killed, but Vitellius himself was brutally murdered
shortly thereafter, on the 20th of December. Either on that day or the fol
lowing, Primus and his Danubian legions entered Rome in the name of
Vespasian. The plundering and massacre that ensued was halted only
when the Syrian legions of Mucianus arrived shortly thereafter and ousted
Primus.
While all these events were unfolding, Vespasian remained in A lex
andria. Indeed, he stayed there for another six months or so awaiting the
end of the Judaean war (then being directed by Titus), but it dragged on.
Unable to wait any longer, Vespasian departed Egypt in the summer of 70
via ship to Italy. During this period, Mucianus continued to hold Rome for
the emperor and reduced the size of the praetorian guard, which had been
greatly enlarged by Vitellius.
The new emperor landed at the Italian port of Brundisium and made
his way to Rome by land. While en route, the Judaean war ended (in Sep
tember, though Masada held out until 73). Vespasian arrived in Rome in
October of 70, some 15 months after he had been hailed by his soldiers,
and more than nine months after the senate had formally recognized his
regime.
But even after Vespasian had secured power in Rome, he still had to
contend with the nationalist revolt led by Julius Civilis in Gaul and Ger
many. The rebellion had been raging for about a year, and had cost Rome
every legionary outpost north of Mainz. Vespasian appointed Quintus
Petillius Cerialis as the new governor of Lower Germany, the province in
which Civilis’ revolt was based. Sharing command of an army with Annius
Gallus and Vespasian’s 18-year-old son, Domitian, Cerialis set out to crush
Civilis. The operation was over quickly, and Gaul and the two Germanies
were restored to Rome late in 70.
Everything was largely under control now, and the healing process
could begin. Suetonius tells us that Vespasian estimated he would need
400,000,000 aurei to get the Empire back on solid footing. With such sig
nificant fiscal demands, he soon acquired a reputation for greed and stingi
ness — qualities that may have been inborn to his personality, but that
were exacerbated by the financial crisis of the Empire. He raised money in
every possible way, even charging entrance fees to public restrooms.
Vespasian shamelessly and openly sold pardons to convicted crimi
nals, and took bribes from politicians and from those who desired posts in
government. It is said that he purposely solicited bribes from the greediest
applicants, knowing they would steal the most money, thus assuring there
were would be more money for Vespasian to acquire when he charged
them with extortion. Suetonius tells us this was so common a practice with
Vespasian that these appointees were nicknamed “sponges” because he
“. . . put them in to soak, only to squeeze them dry later.” However, it must
be said that through such extreme measures, Vespasian restored the fiscal
health of the Empire. Furthermore, he was not stingy in how he spent the
money, frequently spreading it among the most unfortunate.
Vespasian had a fairly static routine when in Rome. He rose early and
worked hard, though he was certain to reserve sufficient time each day for
pleasurable activities. He left much of the day-to-day operation of govern
ment to others; at first to Mucianus, but soon thereafter to his son, Titus.
He may also be credited with introducing men of talent into important
government posts, regardless of their family status.
Vespasian also added to the size of the Empire by annexing Comma-
gene in 72, and later by annexing northern England and southern Scot
land, and bringing order to Wales. Leading the British expeditions were
Gnaeus Julius Agricola, the father-in-law of the historian Tacitus. Another
THE FLAVIANS 2 QQ
famous governor who served under Vespasian was Marcus Ulpius Trajanus,
the father of Trajan, the future emperor. He served with distinction in the
East, and dissuaded the Parthians from invading Syria when Vespasian
refused to help them repel an invasion of their kingdom by the Alans.
Vespasian was responsible for much building in the West, including a
new temple of Capitoline Jupiter, the temple of Peace in the Forum, and
the Colosseum in Rome (the Amphitheatrum Flavium), which he began
to build in 71 but which was incomplete at his death. Vespasian died of
fever at a family villa in the Sabine country outside Rome on June 24, 79.
Just as one might expect of this hardy man, he requested to be propped up
on his feet just before he expired, for he believed that an emperor should
die standing.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : The coinage of Vespasian begins with two series of
coins struck in Judaea while he served as governor there under Nero. After
his bid for the throne became official, Vespasian first struck coins at A n ti
och and Alexandria as he awaited the downfall of Vitellius in Rome.
Throughout his principate Vespasian struck coins not only for himself, but
also for his two sons, both of whom held the rank of Caesar
He struck a great many denarii and aurei in the East, principally at
Antioch and Ephesus. The style of these pieces is remarkably fine, and
they are easy to distinguish from the products of Rome and other western
mints. Some of the coins attributed to Antioch, however, are better given
to Alexandria, where Vespasian was in residence while awaiting the down
fall of Vitellius. Two key diagnostics on these coins are the “scalloped”
truncation of Vespasian’s bust and the unusual letter G at the end of AVG,
which appears more like a Sigma.
Since Vespasian emerged victorious from the civil war which began
virtually on the centennial of the Battle of Actium, it comes as no surprise
that many of his coin designs are inspired by Augustan prototypes. This
had specific context because the civil war brought about the extinction of
the Julio-Claudian dynasty, and Vespasian wanted to demonstrate some
continuity for the dynasty he had established in its place. Also of interest
are the denarii (or cistophori) that were countermarked during Vespasian’s
principate, probably at Ephesus in the 70s. These countermarks — usually
applied to coins of older vintage — take the form of a sunken rectangle
containing the raised letters IMP. VES (or similar), often in ligature.
DOMITILLA THE ELDER

W if e o f V e s p a s ia n
M o th er of T it u s , D o m it ia n , and D o m it il l a t h e Yo u n g e r
M o t h e r -i n -la w of D o m it ia
G randm oth er of J u l ia T it i
G r e a t -g r a n d m o t h e r o f V e s p a s ia n J u n io r
Flavia Domitilla (I), d. before A.D. 69. A woman of humble origins,

Domitilla the Elder had only Latin citizenship at birth. Suetonius tells us
she gained Roman citizenship only after her father Flavius Liberalis, a
quaestor’s clerk from Ferentium, argued on her behalf before an arbitration
board.
Though we have virtually no further details of her life or marriage, we
do know that Domitilla married Vespasian in 39 or 40, and bore Vespasian
two sons, Titus and Domitian, and a homonymous daughter. Coins were
issued in the names of all three of these children. Both Domitilla and her
daughter died sometime before Vespasian held a magistracy.
Prior to their marriage, Vespasian had as a mistress a freedwoman and
secretary of Antonia named Caenis, and Domitilla was in a relationship
with an African knight from Sabrata to whom she was possibly a slave, or
“bond woman.” According to Suetonius, when Domitilla died, Vespasian
renewed his association with Caenis, “. . . who remained his wife in all but
name even when he became emperor.” After Caenis died, Vespasian con
tinued to have relations with other mistresses on a daily basis.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : Since Domitilla the Elder was not consecrated or
hailed Augusta, it must be assumed that the aurei and denarii bearing the
bust of a young woman identified as DIVA DOMITILLA AVGVSTA belong
to her daughter, Domitilla the Younger (the sister of Titus and Domitian).
As such, it would appear that there are no portrait coins of the wife of Ves
pasian, and that only the carpentum sestertii struck during the reign of
Titus are attributable to her. The reverse inscriptions (which name the 8th
consulship of Titus) date the coins to 80-81.
THE FLAVIANS 211
DOMITILLA THE YOUNGER

A u g u sta : Po st h u m o u sly
Daugh ter of V e s p a s ia n and D o m it il l a t h e E ld er

S ist e r o f T it u s a n d D o m it ia n
G randm o th er of V e s p a s ia n J u n io r
A unt (p o st h u m o u sly ) of J u l ia T it i
Fla via Domitilla (II), d. before A.D. 69. Like her

mother, Domitilla the Younger died before Vespasian ascended the throne
in 69. Unlike her mother, however, she was consecrated. O f this point we
are certain, but it is of some interest that Domitilla the Younger also
received the title of Augusta posthumously, for it accompanies the DIVA
on her coin inscriptions. This escaped the attention of ancient sources
such as Tacitus, Suetonius and Dio Cassius.
Little is known of Domitilla the Younger, except that she gave birth
to two boys (who were tutored by Quintilian) and one daughter, who bore
the same name as her mother and grandmother, and is thus called Domit
illa III by historians. This youngest Domitilla married Flavius Clemens,
who was one of two grandsons of Flavius Sabinus, the brother of Vespa
sian. Domitilla III and her husband had several children, one of whom was
the unfortunate Vespasian Junior, who was adopted by and then murdered
by Domitian.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : The attribution of coinage with the name Domitilla
remains a point of confusion among numismatists. Most sources, including

RIC, give all such coinage to Domitilla the Elder, the wife of Vespasian.
Other sources, such as Cohen, apportion the carpentum sestertii to Domit
illa the Younger. However, they are best attributed as follows: aurei and
denarii inscribed DIVA DOM ITILLA AV GV STA belong to Domitilla the
Younger, and the carpentum sestertii inscribed M EMORIAE DOMITIL-
LAE (or simply DOM ITILLA) belong to her mother, Domitilla the Elder.
Since the series of aurei and denarii herein attributed to Domitilla
the Younger bear no reverse inscription that precisely dates them, they
have traditionally been given to the reign of Titus, when the dated carpen
tum sestertii and the divi coinage of Vespasian were struck. However, met
rological evidence argues for the reign of Domitian — specifically to c. 82
to 83, after his monetary reform of 82. (See I. Carradice, Coinage and
Finances in the Reign of Domitian, A .D . 81-96, BA RIS 178, Oxford, 1983,
pp. 16-22.)
In addition to the metrological evidence, there are other aspects of
the aurei and denarii that call for their association with Domitian’s princi-
pate. Perhaps foremost is the fact that Domitian’s facial features can be
seen so clearly in Domitilla’s portrait. This argument is especially valid
when the coins of Julia Titi are taken in comparison, for her facial features
are strongly assimilated with those of Titus. Also, it seems likely that
Domitilla the Younger was hailed Augusta (posthumously) at the same
time that Domitian’s wife Domitia was given that title. Since Domitia
seems to have been hailed in 82, and that date corresponds with the met-
rological and iconographical evidence already mentioned, the conclusion
seems probable that these coins are best given to Domitilla the Younger.
TITUS A.D. 7 9 -8 1
a .d . 6 9 -7 1 : C a esa r
(u n d er V e s p a s ia n , w it h D o m it ia n )
a .d . 7 1 - 7 9 : Im perator
(u n d er V e s p a s ia n ; D o m it ia n , as C a esa r )
a .d . 7 9-8 1 : S o l e r e ig n
(w it h D o m it ia n , as C a esa r )
S on of V e s p a s ia n and D o m it il l a t h e E lder
B roth er of D o m it ia n a n d D o m it il l a t h e Yo u n g e r
Fa t h e r of J u l ia T it i
G r e a t -u n c l e o f V e s p a s ia n J u n io r
Titus Flavius Vespasianus, A.D. 39 -8 1 . Though he was destined to rule

only about 27 months, Titus was the ideal successor to his father, for the
moral character of both men was well-suited for supreme power. His rave
review by Suetonius as the “delight and darling of the human race,” may
have been well-deserved, but so generous a review is tempered by Dio C as
sius, who queried whether he would have been judged in so positive a light
had he ruled longer.
Because of the great favor his father and uncle enjoyed during the
regime of Claudius (41-54), Titus was brought up at court along with the
emperor’s son, Britannicus, with whom he shared the same teachers and
curriculum. They became very close friends, and Titus was seated near him
at the fateful dinner at which Britannicus was poisoned. Having shared
some of the poisoned wine from his friend’s cup, Titus himself fell seriously
ill as a result.
Suetonius relates a memorable story about the early life of Titus: “. . .
when one day Claudius’ freedman Narcissus called in a physiognomist to
examine Britannicus’ features and prophesy his future, he was told most
emphatically that Britannicus would never succeed his father, whereas
Titus (who happened to be present) would achieve that distinction.”
Titus was given the same name as his father, but was called by his
praenomen, Titus. He had two siblings, a sister named Flavia Domitilla
THE FLAVIANS 2 13
(Domitilla the Younger) who died while still a young woman, and a
brother, Domitian, who was 12 years his junior. Titus was married twice,
the first time to Arrecina Tertulla, the daughter of one of Caligula’s praeto
rian prefects, and later to Marcia Furnilla. Both women bore him a daugh
ter named Julia, though only the one from the second marriage (who is
usually called Julia Titi), is represented on coinage.
The career of Titus was accelerated in his 27th year, when he joined
his father in conducting the war in Judaea, of which the emperor Nero had
given Vespasian command in 66. Though Titus assisted his father in mili
tary and diplomatic capacities throughout the campaign (himself com
manding Legio XV), he was given sole command after mid-69, when
Vespasian became occupied with the details of his rebellion against Vitel
lius. A t this time, both Titus and his younger brother, Domitian (who
remained in Rome), were hailed Caesars by their father.
Titus finished the war in Judaea by taking Jerusalem late in 70, and
consequently was hailed Imperator by his soldiers. Because of the suspicion
aroused by the extreme loyalty of his soldiers, Titus sailed at once for Italy,
arriving early in 71. Upon reaching Rome he surprised his father (who was
not expecting him), saying “Here I am, father, here I am !” Together, he
and his father celebrated the Judaean triumph, with young Domitian at
their side.
Though both Titus and Domitian were named as heirs from the very
outset of Vespasian’s revolt, it was Titus in whom Vespasian had firmly
placed his hopes for succession. Indeed, once Titus was in Rome, he took
over command of the praetorian guards from Mucianus, the former gover
nor of Syria who had held that post since he occupied Rome for Vespasian
in December of 69.
During his tenure as Caesar and Imperator, collectively from 69 to 79,
Titus was not very popular. Indeed, his considerable intellectual and physi
cal attributes, as well as his pleasant singing voice, served as haunting
reminders of the principate of Nero. Also adding to his unpopularity was
his ruthless suppression of the two leaders of a plot against his father, and
his love affair with the princess Berenice, whom he had met in Judaea.
Berenice lived in Rome from about 75 to 79, and was only reluctantly sent
away by Titus at the insistence of Vespasian, who died shortly thereafter,
on June 23 of 79.
Titus succeeded his father smoothly, and his brief reign was marked
with a host of accomplishments and some unfortunate natural disasters.
The most significant of the latter was the eruption of Mount Vesuvius on
August 24, 79. Much of the Bay of Naples was coated with its emissions,
and the cities of Pompeii and Herculaneum were destroyed completely. A
serious fire and outbreak of the plague also occurred in Rome in the follow
ing year. The fire was severe, causing the destruction of the newly rebuilt
Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, the Temples of Isis and Serapis, and many
other important structures.
One of the positive events was the completion and dedication of the
Colosseum in Rome (the Amphitheatrum Flavium) in June of 80. It is esti
mated that 50,000 could be seated in the amphitheater, which ever since
Titus’ reign has been an enduring symbol of Rome.
The unpopularity Titus suffered prior to his accession was reversed
during his principate. His relations with the senate were cordial, for he
refused to put any of them to death or to confiscate property. Perhaps the
most famous story of Titus concerns his generous spirit. We are told that at
dinner one night he realized that he had done no good deed during that
day, at which point he lamented, “Friends, I have lost a day.”
While only about three months away from his 42nd birthday, Titus
died on September 13, 81, of fever in the very same country home where
his father had died slightly more than two years before. Though his rela
tionship with Domitian was certainly strained, it is unlikely that Titus died
of poison administered by Domitian, as is sometimes alleged.
For all the good Titus had done for the state and the people of Rome,
he was not entirely guilt-free, for on his deathbed he is said to have uttered
the words “I have made but one mistake.” Historians have long debated
what he meant by this, but to no avail. Perhaps it was his regret for having
ended his relationship with the princess Berenice at the insistence of his
father and public clamor. Alternatively, it may have involved his unfulfill-
ing relationship with Domitian, or possibly the adulterous affair he was
alleged to have had with his brother’s wife, Domitia. The truth, regretta
bly, will never be known.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : Titus first had coins struck in his name by his father
Vespasian, who did so both at Imperial mints and in the provinces from 69
to 79. Thereafter, Titus became emperor and struck coinages in his own
name, but for a much briefer period, from 79 to 81. During his tenure Titus
also struck coins in the name of his younger brother Domitian (who
retained the rank of Caesar throughout), his daughter, and his deceased
mother and father.
Also of interest is a series of ‘restoration’ coins Titus struck with the
designs of various Julio-Claudian bronzes, all of which must have been
familiar to the people. N ot only was this series in line with Flavian dynas
tic propaganda, but it also testifies to the staying power of aes coinage in
commerce, for the types honored would have been in circulation for 40 to
70 years. Titus honored ten different issuers with more than 60 varieties
recorded; his brother continued the series, but on a more modest scale.
Titus’ most famous issue, however, is his sestertius which depicts the
colosseum and which commemorates its dedication in June of 80 — an
THE FLAVIANS 2 15
event followed by 100 days of celebration. The colosseum sestertii are

dated by the inscription COS VIII to the period January 1, 80 through his
death in September, 81. Gold coins with the reddish “boscoreale” toning
were essentially created during Titus’ reign. The coins of this famous cache
acquired their distinctive tone from centuries of burial in the ashes issued
from Mount Vesuvius, which erupted in the summer of 79.
JULIA TITI
A u g u sta , c . 7 9 -9 0 /9 1
Daugh ter of T it u s
N ie c e o f D o m it ia n a n d D o m it il l a t h e Yo unger
G randdaughter of V e sp a sia n and
D o m it il l a t h e E lder
Flavia Julia, A.D. 64/65-90/91. Julia Titi was born

to Titus and his second wife, Marcia Furnilla, just before they divorced.
She had an older half-sister, also named Julia, who was born to Titus’ first
wife, Arrecina Tertulla, and who is not represented on coinage. Shortly
after the death of her grandfather Vespasian, and the accession of her
father, Titus, Julia Titi was given the title of Augusta.
Her father had taken a strong personal interest in her marriage, for
she figured prominently into the propagation of the fledgling dynasty. A t
first Titus tried to marry her to his younger brother, Domitian, but the lat
ter was already married to Domitia and did not want to divorce. So, Titus
arranged that she marry her second-cousin, Flavius Sabinus, one of two
grandsons of Vespasian’s brother (who also was named Flavius Sabinus).
This generation of the Flavian dynasty had two second-cousin mar
riages — one being the above-mentioned, another being between Flavius
Clemens, the brother of the Flavius Sabinus, and Flavia Domitilla III, the
homonymous granddaughter of Domitilla, the wife of Vespasian. This
Domitilla, the third in the family line, was the first cousin of Julia Titi, and
the mother of Vespasian Junior, the unfortunate lad who was half-heart-
edly adopted by Domitian.
Though already married to Flavius Sabinus, Julia Titi engaged in an
illicit love-affair with her uncle, Domitian, the man who had refused to
marry her the first time around. The affair had begun while Titus was still
alive, but only came to public attention after Domitian divorced and
exiled his own wife, Domitia, in c. 83. Thereafter, he openly lived with
Julia Titi, behaving in all manners as if they were husband and wife.
In about 84, Domitian’s attachment became so strong that he exe
cuted Julia Titi’s husband, Flavius Sabinus, on the flimsy pretext that a
216 h is t o r y o f t h e r o m a n e m p ir e : b io g r a p h ie s
herald had mistakenly declared him emperor instead of consul (the post to
which he had been elected jointly with Domitian in 82). Julia died either
in 90 or 91 while attempting to abort a child that presumably was fathered
by Domitian. The emperor was devastated at her passing, and in 91 conse-
crated her. Suetonius tells us that after Domitian was murdered, his ashes
were mixed with those of his beloved Julia Titi.
N u m is m a t ic N o t e : Though by no means common, the coinage issued in
the name of Julia Titi is extensive and was struck over a long period. The
first issues (limited to denarii and dupondii) occur under Titus, and cele
brate her being hailed Augusta. Later issues were struck by Domitian, both
during her lifetime and after her deification. The first issue under Domitian
(c. 81 to 82) is of aurei featuring her bust paired with her deified father.
Other issues of aurei, denarii and cistophori were struck in her name alone,
perhaps as early as 81. Her consecration coinage under Domitian is limited
to a rare, undated issue of aurei and two issues of sestertii dated to 90-91
and 92-94 based on their reverse inscriptions. Some provincial æ s were
also struck in her name.
Some of the coinage struck by Domitian for his wife, Domitia, and his
common law wife, Julia Titi, feature peacocks as reverse types. Interest
ingly, the bird on Domitia’s coinage is shown in profile with its tail feathers
folded, whereas the bird on Julia Titi coins is shown facing, with its tail in
splendor.
DOMITIAN A .D . 81-96
a .d . 6 9 -7 1 : C a esa r
(u n d er V e s p a s ia n , w it h T it u s )
a .d . 7 1-7 9 : C a esa r
(u n d er V e s p a s ia n ; T it u s a s Im perator )
a .d . 7 9-8 1 : C a esa r (u n d er T it u s )
a .d . 8 1 -9 6 : S o l e r e ig n
S on of V e sp a sia n and D o m it il l a t h e E ld er
B rother of T it u s a n d D o m it il l a t h e Yo u n g e r
H u sba n d of D o m it ia
Fa t h e r o f a d e if ie d s o n a n d a d a u g h t e r , n a m e s u n k n o w n
U n cle of J u l ia T it i
A d o p t iv e f a t h e r a n d g r e a t -u n c l e o f V e s p a s ia n J u n io r
Titus Flavius Domitianus, A.D. 51 -9 6 . As the last of Suetonius’ famous

“Twelve Caesars,” Domitian occupies a precarious position in Roman his
tory. Because of his autocratic, heavy-handed ways, he was despised by the
senate, and because he increased salaries and led campaigns in person, he
THE FLAVIANS 21 7
was loved by the army. His assassination comes as no surprise, for his
regime, much like that of Commodus a century later, became increasingly
despotic with the passage of time.
Domitian’s upbringing was not as privileged as that of his brother,
Titus, who was a dozen years his senior. While only 16 years old, Domitian
got his first taste of the political and military chaos that accompanies civil
war. The dangers became especially apparent when in mid-69 his father,
Vespasian, was hailed emperor by the legions in the East (where he and
Titus were leading the war in Judaea). Upon his father being elevated,
Domitian and Titus were made Caesars. Considering Vespasian’s revolt
was in opposition to Vitellius — who was then in power at Rome — it was
a far from secure situation for Domitian and his uncle, Flavius Sabinus,
who was the city prefect of Rome.
It all came to a head in the middle of December 69, as the Danubian
and Syrian legions loyal to Vespasian were advancing on Rome. Domitian
and his uncle were attacked by unruly soldiers and withstood a siege in the
temple of Capitoline Jupiter. Though his uncle was captured and executed,
Domitian donned a disguise and fled to safety as the inviolable temple was
burning to the ground. Within a day or two Vespasian had been recognized
as emperor by the senate, and Domitian was out of immediate danger.
After his father arrived from the East in October of 70, Domitian was
given a junior command in the campaign to end the nationalistic revolt of
Julius Civilis in Gaul and Germany. The war was a quick success, and
Domitian returned to Rome shortly before his brother, Titus, arrived from
the east, himself having brought the war in Judaea to a conclusion.
Together, in 71, the three men of the Flavian dynasty celebrated a magnif
icent triumph before crowds who no doubt welcomed the stability they
represented to the war-torn Empire.
Throughout the next decade, however, Domitian played a minor role
in government, even though the honors he received (including seven con
sulships) were considerable. It was clear to all that Titus was destined to
inherit the throne from his father. When Vespasian died in 79, Titus was
hailed emperor without opposition.
Domitian’s relationship with his brother was not ideal, but certainly
was not as bad as Suetonius would lead us to believe, for that historian sug
gests that Domitian . . never once stopped plotting, secretly or openly,
against his brother.” Most historians are equally quick to dismiss the
rumors that Domitian either poisoned Titus, or took measures to expedite
his death after he had fallen ill.
Even after Titus died late in 81 after ruling for 27 months, it was not
entirely clear that Domitian was meant to succeed him. But we are told
that Domitian took no chances, for he quickly covered the 40-plus miles
from their family villa to Rome before his brother had yet died, and had
2 18 h i s t o r y o f t h e r o m a n e m p ir e : b io g r a p h i e s
the Praetorian Guards hail him emperor. As callous as this may appear, it
no doubt was a practical necessity in the event any coups were in waiting.
O n the next day, September 14, Domitian was confirmed by the senate,
and soon after had his brother (who was popular with the senate) conse
crated.
Much like his brother and father, Domitian had inherited consider
able talents. Even the hostile Suetonius tells us Domitian was an archer of
the greatest skill, and that he was able to place an arrow between the
spread fingers of a hand without error. He also inherited the work ethic
and sense of responsibility that his father and brother had possessed, and
which he used to better the government.
Domitian sometimes was too strict in enforcing the standards of con
duct both in the government and in the private sector. In one of his more
famous acts, Domitian executed four of the six Vestal Virgins: three for
incest and one, the head Vestal, for her numerous love affairs. The head
Vestal, named Cornilia, was buried alive, and her lovers were publicly
beaten to death in the Forum. Such moral righteousness, however, demon
strates his hypocrisy, for Domitian’s sex life was anything but pedestrian or
moral.
Domitian married Domitia Longina while he was still in his late
teens, and they remained married for about 13 years. However, he engaged
in frequent affairs, and is said to have considered sex to be “bed wrestling.”
Most perverse, however, was his incestuous relationship with his niece,
Julia Titi. After he divorced and exiled his wife in about 83, Domitian
openly began to live with Julia Titi in the manner of husband and wife.
Only her death in 90 or 91 from an attempted abortion ended the affair,
and provided the opportunity for Domitia to re-enter the Imperial palace.
Even though Domitian left a surplus in the treasury after his death, he
was not as capable as his father at managing finances, for he had to resort
to heavy taxation, confiscations and debasement of the coinage to support
his enterprises. Most troublesome was the fiscal drain caused by the army.
But the soldiers were his strength both within and outside the Empire, so
Domitian thought it best to spend his money on the army. In addition to
other incentives, Domitian raised the annual pay of a legionnaire from 300
to 400 denarii.
His reign was relatively peaceful throughout the vast Empire, but was
troubled by invasions along the Rhine and Danube. Though hardly a gen
eral of great repute, Domitian was the first emperor since Claudius to cam
paign in person while in office. During the course of his 16-year reign,
Domitian led one campaign on the Rhine and three on the Danube.
The earliest campaign, in 83, was against a Germanic people called
the Chatti, who lived on the far side of the Rhine. Two years later, a more
serious war broke out on the Danubian front, where Romans battled
Dacians led by the king Decebalus. The costly war raged from 85 to 88,
THE FLAVIANS 2 IQ
only to be solved by diplomacy so that the Romans could fight the Quadi
and Marcomanni on the Upper Danube. Later still, Domitian waged war
against the Sarmatians on at least one occasion. The governor of Britain,
Agricola, also made important progress during Domitian’s reign by advanc
ing into northern Scotland before he was recalled.
Late in 88 or early 89 a revolt was sparked by Lucius Antonius Sat-
urninus, the governor of Upper Germany. However, it was unsuccessful
because the Rhine thawed unexpectedly, and Saturninus was starved of
the auxiliaries he had recruited in Germany. Left only with his two
legions, which probably reconsidered their loyalty to Saturninus, the rebel
was easily defeated by Lappius Maximus, the governor of Lower Germany.
This was one of the few events that reflected poorly upon Domitian’s com
mand of the army.
The failed revolt of Saturninus proved to be a turning point in Domi
tian’s reign, for with the passage of time, he became increasingly paranoid
and severe. But, as Domitian so rightly observed: “no one believes in a
conspiracy against the emperor until it has succeeded.” The execution of
senators increased and he came to rely upon spies, informants and the tor
ture of suspects to gather the information he desired. By 93, his regime had
become despotic, and few if any noblemen or senators felt secure in their
person or their possessions.
In 95 his frequent executions (including at least a dozen ex-consuls)
touched too close to home, as he executed his second-cousin, Flavius C le
mens, and banished the man’s widow, Flavia Domitilla III, who was Domi
tian’s own niece. We may also presume he murdered or exiled the
unfortunate couple’s children, two of whom were Domitian’s adopted
heirs.
Now that not even those close to Domitian could feel secure, a suc
cessful coup was formed. The pattern of events which led to the coup, as
well as its participants and its method of execution, bear an uncanny
resemblance to those which caused the downfall of Commodus almost a
century later. Among those leading the plot against Domitian were the
leaders of the Praetorian Guards, certain freedmen and chamberlains, and
Domitia, the wife whom he had recalled from exile about five years before.
Domitian’s murder, which occurred about one month before his 45th
birthday, was particularly gruesome. Having been relieved of the sword (or
dagger) he always kept under his pillow, Domitian was set upon by the
chamberlain Stephanus, who had been the steward of the recently exiled
Flavia Domitilla III. Domitian was stabbed in the groin by Stephanus, and
a fierce struggle ensued in which Domitian tried to gouge his attacker’s
eyes. But before Domitian could save himself, other conspirators burst into
the room and hacked him to death.
Not surprisingly, the senate was overjoyed at the news and condemned
his memory, though the army was angered at the passing of their benefactor.
The circumstances permitted a momentary recovery of power by the senate,

which elected an elderly senator named Nerva to fill the Imperial vacancy.
However, the army soon came to its senses and Nerva was forced to adopt a
military man, Trajan, as his son and intended successor.
Domitian’s legacy is severely tainted by his declining years, and by an
understandably hostile literary record written by members of the senatorial
class. Though Domitian did not receive a dignified funeral, the nurse who
cremated his body later returned to Rome and mixed his ashes with those
of his beloved niece, Julia Titi.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : Much of Domitian’s coinage was struck while he was
Caesar — from 69 to 79 under his father Vespasian, and from 79 to 81

under his older brother Titus. Though his most common type as Augustus
is that of Minerva standing, various interesting designs occur on gold, sil
ver and base metal coinages, some showing elaborate scenes of sacrifice or
architectural objects. Among his most interesting reverse types are those
celebrating the Saecular Games of 88, which sometimes combine ritual
with architecture. In addition to coinage struck in his own name, he also
produced issues for his deceased sister, brother and son, and ‘restored’ aes
coinages of six of his Julio-Claudian predacessors. Additionally, he struck a
large coinage for his beloved niece/common law wife Julia Titi, and a sin
gle provincial issue for his would-be heir, Vespasian Junior. With the
accession of Domitian we find a return to idealism in portraiture which
had been so widely used in the Augustan age, but which had been aban
doned during the civil war and its aftermath. Like Otho, Domitian was a
wig-wearer, and his lush toupee is carefully modeled on the coinage.
DOMITIA
A u g u s t a , a .d . 8 2 - 9 6
W ife o f D o m itia n
M o t h e r o f a d e if ie d s o n a n d a d a u g h t e r ,
N AM ES U N KN O W N
SlST E R -IN -L A W OF T lT U S A N D
D o m it il l a t h e Yo u n g e r
D a u g h t e r -i n - l a w of V e s p a s ia n and
D o m it il l a t h e E ld er
Domitia Longina, c. A.D. 5 0 -5 5 -c . 140. The daughter of Gnaeus Domi

tius Corbulo, the most renowned general of Nero (whose victories in the
east were rewarded only with his execution in 66), Domitia was already
married to a certain Lucius Lamia Aemilianus when she came to be pur
sued by Domitian. With his own father, Vespasian, now in supreme power,
THE FLAVIANS 221
Domitian was able to wrest Domitia from her husband. He initially took
her as a mistress, then, in 70 (or later), as his wife.
The story of her association with Domitian is tragic, though it did not
come to a crisis until after he became emperor. That Domitia was not a
chaste woman is attested not only by her affair with the actor Paris that
caused her to be exiled, but also by a great many other affairs, including
one allegedly with her husband’s brother, Titus. If this was true, Domitian
may have viewed his own affair with Titus’ daughter (which had begun
long before Titus died) as a measure of reciprocation.
Despite their mutual fondness for extramarital affairs, they were com"
patible for the first decade or more of their marriage. Domitia bore two
children, though exactly when they were born is disputed by historians —
the girl may have been born in 73 and the boy in 74, or in 82 and 83,
respectively. Since Domitia was hailed Augusta in 82, the latter seems
more likely. Unfortunately for the Imperial couple, both the daughter and
the son were short-lived.
Though the details are sketchy, it is known that Domitian divorced
and exiled Domitia c. 83, about the time she probably gave birth to her ill-
fated son. The reason Suetonius gives for this parting of the ways was that
Domitia had become romantically involved with an actor named Paris,
who, as a result, was murdered on orders of Domitian openly in the streets
of Rome. (This Paris is not to be confused with the actor of the same name
whom Nero murdered because he considered him to be a serious profes
sional rival on the stage.)
In any event, after Domitia was exiled, Domitian became more public
about the incestuous relationship he had already been engaged in with his
niece, Julia Titi. The uncle-niece relationship was essentially a common
law marriage, for they openly behaved as if husband and wife. The rela
tionship lasted until 90 or 91 (opinions vary), when Julia Titi died during a
botched abortion of a child whom Domitian presumably had sired.
Emotionally devastated and under public pressure, Domitian recalled
Domitia from exile soon after Julia Titi’s death and renewed his relation
ship with her. In the end, this proved to be a foolhardy move, for Domitia
became involved in the plot of 96 in which her husband was murdered.
Domitia — then a wealthy woman — survived her husband and lived in
grand style to a ripe old age.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : The coinage issued jointly in the names of Domitian
and Domitia seems to belong to the period 81-c. 83, whereas those which
honor her alone belong both to this early period and to years after she
returned from repudiation. See the Numismatic Notes for Julia Titi and
“Son of Domitian” for other details which apply to Domitia’s coinage.
DEIFIED SON OF DOMITIAN

S on of D o m it ia n a n d D o m it ia
G r a n d so n o f V e s p a s ia n and D o m it il l a t h e E ld er
N eph ew o f T it u s and D o m it il l a t h e Yo u n g e r
Name unknown, born c. A.D. 74 or 8 3. The infant boy portrayed on cer

tain coins of Domitia, the wife of Domitian, died in infancy (or perhaps at
two or three years old), and was consecrated. He is one of two children
Domitia bore Domitian, a brother and sister, both of whom died young
without their names being recorded in any source that survives. We can be
certain, however, that this boy is not one and the same as Vespasian Jun
ior, the great-nephew whom Domitian later adopted as his successor.
Exactly when the two children of Domitian and Domitia were born is
disputed. The confusion derives from a passage in Suetonius, which reveals
that Domitia “. . . had presented Domitian with a daughter during his sec
ond consulship and, in the following year, with a son.” This could mean
his second consulship, which began in 73 and continued into 75 (while he
was still Caesar under Vespasian), or his second consulship as Augustus
(Cos VIII), which occurred in 82.
Historians have interpreted Suetonius’ passage both ways with equal
frequency, and are still divided on the matter. However, considering Domi
tia was hailed Augusta in 82, the latter scenario may be more likely, as the
wives of emperors were often hailed Augusta upon the occasion of giving
birth (and that would be the year she gave birth to the girl).
Domitian seems to have divorced his wife and sent her into exile for
her adulterous activities c. 83, about the time she would have given birth
to the boy if the latter circumstance is the correct one. Thus, speculation is
invited: did Domitian suspect the boy had been sired by one of Domitia’s
lovers (Paris, perhaps?), or did he believe that since Domitia had produced
a viable heir to the throne it was practical to put her aside?
The unnamed, deified boy makes his most remarkable

appearance on aurei and denarii of Domitia, which portray him as young
Jupiter, with raised arms, seated on a globe among the stars in the constel
lation of the Great Bear, surrounded by the inscription DIVVS CAESAR
IMP DOMITIANI E On rare occasions, this reverse type is mistakenly(?)
muled with an obverse of Domitian. The boy is also represented on two
other rare series of coins: denarii with the inscription PIETAS AVGVST
showing him as a child standing before Domitia (who, in the guise of
Pietas, is seated left) and on sestertii with a similar scene but with the
inscriptions DIVI CAESAR MATRI or DIVI CAESARIS MATER.
THE FLAVIANS 223
VESPASIAN JUNIOR
A dopted so n , a n d h e ir o f D o m it ia n
G r a n d so n o f D o m it il l a t h e Yo u n g e r
G r e a t -n e p h e w o f T it u s a n d D o m it ia n
G r e a t -g r a n d s o n o f V e sp a sia n and D o m it il l a t h e
E ld er
N eph ew o f J u l ia T it i
Titus Flavius Domitianus (Junior), d. A .D .

95/6(?). A considerable drawback to Domitian’s principate was his lack of
an heir. Thus, sometime prior to 95 (but certainly late in his reign), he
adopted two of his great-nephews, and re-named them Vespasian and
Domitian. O f the boys we know very little, except that they were tutored
by the renowned rhetorician Quintillian, who counted Pliny the Younger
among his pupils.
The boys were two of seven children born to Domitian’s niece, Flavia
Domitilla III and her husband (and second-cousin) Flavius Clemens, the
grandson of Vespasian’s brother, Flavius Sabinus, and the brother of Fla
vius Sabinus, the husband of Julia Titi. This particular Flavia Domitilla
was the third generation of a family line of homonymous women: her
mother was the sister of Titus and Domitian (listed as “Domitilla the
Younger” ), and her grandmother was Vespasian’s wife (listed as “Domitilla
the Elder”).
Thus, the boys were of fine Imperial lineage, being great-grandsons of
Vespasian’s brother on the paternal side, and great-grandsons of Vespasian
on the maternal side. It is worth noting that scholars disagree as to
whether their father, Flavius Clemens, was the grandson or the son of Ves
pasian’s brother. The confusion may be traced to the historian Eusebius,
who, writing more than two centuries after the fact, refers to Flavia Domit
illa III as Clemens’ niece rather than his second cousin. Eusebius makes a
further error by suggesting Clemens and wife were Christians, when they
were more likely proselytes to Judaism.
N ot only was Clemens an unsavory character (Suetonius describes
him as being of “despicable idleness”), but he was also the only legitimate
rival to the throne who was of age. So, in 95, the year in which Clemens
was consul, Domitian leveled charges of atheism against him and Domit
illa as well, executing Clemens and exiling his wife to Pandateria. Since
we hear nothing of their boys, Vespasian Junior and Domitian Junior, after
96, we may presume they were killed or exiled as a result of the downfall of
their parents.
Domitian took these violent measures against the family of Flavia
Domitilla III to eliminate relatives-in-waiting for the throne. Though
Domitian no doubt justified these treacherous measures as acts of self
defense, they only served to expedite his murder, which occurred in

September of the following year at the hands of Stefanus, the steward of
Flavia Domitilla III.
N u m is m a t ic N o t e : The identification of the Vespasian Junior on coins of
Smyrna is secured by the obverse inscription OYECIIACIANOC

NEQTEPOC, which names the young man portrayed as ‘the younger Ves
pasian.’ The portrait is youthful and resembles no other Flavian male. As if
more proof were necessary, some of these Smymian coins share reverse dies
with issues of Domitian as Augustus, thus linking them to a period more
than 15 years after Vespasian died. N o coins are known which name or
portray Domitian Junior.
Sometimes incorrectly attributed to Vespasian Junior are small
bronzes struck at Aegae in Aeolis with the obverse inscription
OYHCIIHCIANOC KAICAP, meaning ‘Vespasian Caesar.’ This curious
issue features portraits of two radically different styles — one readily iden
tifiable as Vespasian, and another inexplicably youthful. Despite the vari
ant portraits and unusual inscription, the issue must be given to Vespasian
himself, and probably to c. 69/70, at the beginning of his reign. Beyond the
fact that we have no evidence of Domitian giving Vespasian Junior the
title Caesar, we must also consider that all three members of the early
dynasty — Vespasian, Titus and Domitian — are represented on that same
series of coins. This circumstance alone takes the Aegae coinage out of
context for the adopted Vespasian Junior, for it is at least 15 years too early,
and in all likelihood about 25 years too early.
The strangely youthful bust of Vespasian would seem to have been
produced upon the arrival in the East of news concerning Vitellius’ over
throw, and thus it reflects little more than the die cutter’s speculation as to
Vespasian’s appearance. When the official imagios arrived in the East
shortly thereafter, the Vespasian portrait issue was continued, but now
with an accurate image of the new emperor. In the same series at Aegae
there are coins with the confronted busts of Titus and Domitian, with the
former being laureate and the latter bare-headed. Since both sons were
named Caesar upon Vespasian being hailed Augustus, they understandably
were included in the issue of Aegae. The fact that Titus is laureate may
easily be explained by the fact that he was Vespasian’s heir apparent, and
by the fact that he was then directing the war in Judaea, and was hailed
Imperator by his soldiers after he took Jerusalem late in 70.
CH A PTER FIVE
T h e A d o p t iv e E m p e r o r s
AND
T h e A n to n in e s
a .d . 96-192
W ith the close of the chaotic 1st Century A.D., the Roman Empire
entered a new phase of its history — one of prosperity that is often
referred to as “the golden age” of the Empire. The wars and revolts that
interrupted this peace (at least initially) occurred only infrequently, and
seldom affected Rome itself. For more than eight decades the Empire was
ruled by men chosen principally for their merit, and only marginally for
their family ties. This was a marked contrast to the previous century, dur
ing which the Julio-Claudians and the Flavians treated the office of Augus
tus as a hereditary throne.
When Domitian’s principate ended with his murder in 96, an elderly
senator named Nerva was chosen as his replacement. In due course, he
“adopted” a military man named Trajan, who took office immediately after
Nerva’s death. This set into motion a tradition which survived for decades.
Perhaps too much credit has been paid on this point, however, for
none of the first four adoptive emperors (Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian and
Antoninius Pius) appear to have had legitimate male heirs to whom they
could pass the title of Augustus. Indeed, the first time in the 2nd Century
that an emperor had a legitimate son (Marcus Aurelius and his son Com-
modus), the tradition was broken without hesitation. It has even been sug
gested that Aelius — Hadrian’s first choice as successor — was his own
illegitimate son. Considering Hadrian’s frequent extramarital exploits, this
would come as no surprise, and his adoption of Aelius might well have
been a covert attempt to establish a hereditary monarchy. Though we
should feel free to admire the fortitude and efficiency with which the
adoptive emperors ruled the Empire, we should not place them on so high
a pedestal as to believe they would not have appointed sons of their own
had it been possible.
Once the laurel was passed to Trajan, a military man who wanted to
conquer with the same fervor as his hero, Julius Caesar, Rome was once
again poised for a significant expansion. When it became clear after the
fact that Trajan had conquered too much territory to control, the reins
were pulled back by Hadrian, who chose to concentrate his military might
225
on frontier defenses rather than expansion. Hadrian traveled extensively,

and devoted most of his attention, it seems, to the provinces.
The reign of Antoninus Pius was relatively peaceful, and through a
combination of good fortune and exportation of gold, he was able to main
tain peace. Unlike his predecessor, Pius did not leave Italy in his 22 years
on the throne, and worked hard to re-establish Italy as the most important
“province” of the Empire.
But the security of Pius’ era was shattered during the subsequent joint
reign of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, as border wars erupted simulta
neously in Europe and Asia. Most disconcerting was the increased strength
of the Germanic nations that launched regular invasions across the
Danube. N ot only was this traumatic during Marcus Aurelius’ reign, but it
proved to be an even greater threat in the 3rd century. Indeed, almost the
entirety of Marcus Aurelius’ reign was spent fighting border wars. Like Tra
jan, Marcus Aurelius was an outstanding servant of the Empire, seeking to
solve all problems at once. He fought tirelessly, and yet never lost his com
passion for domestic matters that must have seemed trivial in comparison.
The steady decline in the fortunes of Rome that occurred during the
principate of Marcus Aurelius were only compounded during the reign of
Commodus, who had inherited the throne directly from his father. Com-
modus was not fond of frontier warfare, and preferred the more theatrical
combat of gladiators and hunters. Thus, he spent most of his reign in
Rome, leaving the frontier battles to his generals.
Commodus’ degenerating state of mind and unbearable tyranny are
well-known to all students of Roman history, and his consequent assassina
tion came as a relief to the senate and the people. Only the chosen few in
the army and private sector who benefited from his patronage did not
applaud his passing.
This remarkable event forced Rome into a civil war during which five
men claimed the throne in a single year. The war exhausted most of the
energy and resources of the Empire until it was resolved in 197, and a great
many Roman soldiers lost their lives in battles against their fellow
Romans. Septimius Severus emerged as the victor, and with his Syrian wife
founded a dynasty that survived more or less intact until 235, when yet a
new age in Roman history began.
THE ADOPTIVE EMPERORS AND THE ANTONINES 227
NERVA A.D. 96-98

A d o p t iv e Fa t h e r of T r a ja n
Marcus Cocceius Nerva, A.D. 3 0 -9 6 . After the

downfall of Domitian, the senate elected a senator
named Nerva as the new emperor. Although he
probably was a distant relation of the Julio-Claudi-
ans, Nerva was elderly, unambitious and without
children. As such, he seemed to be a perfectly harmless candidate for a state
that had tired of despotic hereditary monarchs.
N ervas father and grandfather were talented lawyers (the latter hav
ing lived on Capri with the emperor Tiberius) and N ervas great-great-
grand-father was a supporter of Marc Antony who was able to switch his
allegiance to Octavian at the right moment. His career is a bit of a mys
tery, as he is not known to have held any military posts or provincial gov
ernorships, nor to have possessed any outstanding skills.
His most important asset may have been loyalty, for he found favor
under Nero, and apparently was helpful in suppressing the conspiracy of
Piso in 65. Nerva managed to survive the Civil War of 68-69 only to be
honored with consulships under both Vespasian, in 71, and Domitian, in 90.
His 16-month reign was brief and unremarkable, though the purity of
his intentions seemingly cannot be doubted. Though the much-improved
relations between the senate and emperor might have been expected con
sidering his career as a jurist, N ervas efforts are still praiseworthy. The fact
that his few accomplishments are loudly trumpeted on coinage and that he
ruled at the beginning of a new era perhaps help to distort our view of his
importance. None-the-less, his task was a difficult one, for he needed the
support of the army (still fiercely loyal to the memory of Domitian) as well
as the senate.
There were two plots against Nerva in 97, one among troops sta
tioned on the Danube, and another by the praetorian guards. A t one point
the praetorians burst into the palace, pushing Nerva and his associates
aside so they could hunt down two palace officials who had been instru
mental in the murder of Domitian. In a humiliating gesture to maintain
loyalty with the army, Nerva publicly thanked the praetorian mob for their
lawless act of violence. His adoption of Trajan, the governor of Upper Ger
many, in September or October of 97 was not an act of Imperial foresight
as much as a stop-gap measure to placate the army. Only about four
months after Trajan had been adopted, the 63-year-old Nerva died of natu
ral causes, possibly on January 25, 98.
N u m is m a t ic N o t e : Though the bulk of Nerva’s coinage is devoted to

commonplace themes, such as the senate, the army, liberty of the people,
and the like, he authorized a number of interesting types commemorating
his charitable acts and popular legislation. These are among the most
sought-after reverse types of the 1st Century. Commemorative divi coin
ages were struck after Nerva’s death by his successor, Trajan, and some 150
years later by Trajan Decius.
TRAJAN A.D. 9 8 - 1 1 7
C a esa r : a .d . 97 (u n d er N erva )
A u g u s t u s : a .d . 9 8 - 1 1 7
A d o p ted so n o f N erva
S on of T r a j a n Pa t e r
H u sb a n d o f P l o t in a
B ro th er of M a r c ia n a
U n cle of M a t id ia
G r a n d -u n c l e o f S a b in a
M arcus U lpius Traianus, c. A.D. 5 3 - 1 1 7 . Born at Italica in southern

Spain, Trajan belonged to the Ulpii, a family originally from Etruria which
had become respectable only in the previous generation. Tall, well-built
and dignified in appearance, Trajan pursued a career in the military in
which he found much success.
After nearly two decades of distinguished service (perhaps half of
which he spent in Syria, including while his father governed there) Trajan
gained higher commands. Eventually he held a praetorship and com
manded a legion. He became consul under Domitian in 91, ostensibly for
his valor in that emperor’s Germanic campaigns, and later was appointed
governor of Upper Germany.
The emperor Nerva — who had replaced Domitian after a palace
coup — was not in good standing with the army, and after surviving a sec
ond overthrow attempt, he adopted Trajan in September or October of 97
in hopes it would placate the army. Though it did little to serve Nerva
(who died four months later) it offered a clear path of succession for Tra
jan, who in January of 98 became the first emperor of non-Italian origin.
His reign of nearly 20 years was very productive, and his territorial gains
— however ephemeral — represented the height of achievement in
Roman history.
Upon becoming Augustus, Trajan remained in the provinces for more
than a year, securing the Rhine and Danubian frontiers. He entered Rome
in 99, and after holding games he initiated many building projects, he pre
pared for an invasion of Dacia, which he led personally in 101. He
returned to Rome in 103 and celebrated a triumph. However, his victory

was short-lived, for the Dacian king Decebalus rose again to massacre
Roman garrisons in 105, causing Trajan to return. This time his invasion
required the construction of the famous “Danube bridge,” and the cam
paign resulted in Decebalus’ death. The king’s decapitated head, which
was displayed in Rome, also makes appearances on Trajan’s coins.
The eastern portion of the Empire was also growing, not through
invasion, but through the annexation of Nabataea (the province of A ra
bia). The emperor returned to Rome in 107 and once again turned his
attention to building projects, which included the Aqua Traiana, a massive
aqueduct which brought water from Etruria to feed his new baths. He also
constructed the Via Traiana, a road that linked Beneventum and Brundis-
ium and provided an alternative route to the final leg of the Via Appia. His
other important building projects were: a harbor at the mouth of the Tiber,
a basilica, a magnificent forum and a column that recorded the Dacian
campaign. Most of his important architectural projects (including an ear
lier restoration of the Circus Maximus) are commemorated on coins.
Trajan’s final years were not spent supervising construction in Italy,
but rather on the Parthian front. He departed for the East in October of
113, with the intention of destroying Parthia completely, so it could never
again pose a threat to Romans. His successes in the East were enormous,
but too ambitious to be long-lived. Among the spoils were Armenia and
Upper Mesopotamia, and after sacking the Parthian capital of Ctesiphon,
the emperor made an excursion to the Persian Gulf.
Amid all of this success there was a general uprising in different parts
of Asia and Africa by Jews who were upset with their Roman overlords.
Hardest hit were Cyrenaica, Egypt, Cyprus and Judaea, where the revolts
caused much bloodshed and required a significant military response.
Meanwhile, revolts began to occur in his newly conquered territories,
and Trajan soon realized how vulnerable his “gains” were. As such, he
installed on the Parthian throne a puppet-king named Parthamaspates,
who was the son of the Parthian king, in hopes he would rule that nation
in the best interest of Rome. But this effort also proved ineffective.
Despite the problems in the East, the 64-year-old Trajan decided to
march west when he heard of new problems in Europe, but he died of nat
ural causes in Cilicia while en route early in August 117. While on his
deathbed, Trajan is supposed to have named Hadrian as his heir, but this
declaration may have been falsified after his death by his wife, Plotina,
who was at his bedside.
Though Trajan is principally remembered for his military actions, he
was also a kind and caring administrator who continued most of Nerva’s
charitable policies. His accomplishments as a builder are also of some con
sequence. Senators of his own day and far beyond considered Trajan to be
perhaps the best emperor Rome had ever known, in many cases holding
him in higher esteem than the great Augustus.
N u m is m a t ic N o t e : The inscriptions on Trajan’s sestertii, which tout his

many accomplishments, are the longest on all Roman coinage. His coin
age is of great interest for the many vivid reverse types as well as the
“restoration” issues he struck in 107 to commemorate the millions of older,
heavily worn denarii he recalled from circulation. Though all coins from
that series are very rare, about fifty types were struck. Trajan also struck
coinage in the name of relatives, including his father, Trajan Pater; his
adoptive father, Nerva; his wife, Plotina; his sister Marciana, and his niece,
Matidia.
TRAJAN PATER
Fa t h e r of T r a ja n and M a r c ia n a
G ra n d fa th er of M a t id ia
G ran dun cle of H a d r ia n
F a t h e r -i n - la w of P l o t in a
Marcus Ulpius Traianus, d . c. A .D . 1 0 0 . A man

of great accomplishment both in politics and war,
Ulpius Trajanus was the first senatorial member of the Ulpii, a family origi
nally from Tuder in Umbria, which more recently had settled in Baetica in
southern Spain.
Trajan’s father must have served with distinction under Nero, for he
came to prominence during the Jewish War (the First Revolt) waged by
Vespasian and Titus, in which he commanded the 10th Legion, and laid
siege to Joppa. After he had reduced the city to its final resistance, he pre
sented Titus with the honor of launching the final assault. When Vespa
sian returned to Italy and consolidated his power in Rome, he rewarded
the elder Trajan with the high office of consul suffectus in 70.
Trajan Pater served as governor of Syria from 73 through 77, and was
proconsul of all Asia from 79 to 80. During his tenure in the east he reor
ganized the frontier defenses and constructed two important roads. He
earned triumphal insignia (ornamenta triumphalia) for his success against
the Parthians in 75/6, who were incensed at Vespasian’s refusal to help
Vologases I repel an invasion of Parthian territory by the Alans.
Though the historians do not record the deification of Trajan Pater,
the numismatic record offers clear evidence. Indeed it was his first-genera-
tion success which paved the path for his own son’s rise to the highest
office.
THE ADOPTIVE EMPERORS AND THE ANTONINES 23I
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : On coinage struck during Trajan Pater’s lifetime in

Syria, he is mentioned only by name. On the coinage struck for Trajan
Pater’s consecration, he is shown bare-headed, thus distinguishing him as a
private citizen rather than an emperor. The dating of the divi series is
securely placed in 115 by Hill (The Undated Coins of Rome, A.D. 98-148),
though the authors of RIC had placed the silver in the years 112-114.
PLOTINA
A u g u s t a , c . a .d . 1 05 - 1 2 2 ( 1 )
W if e o f T r a ja n
S is t e r -i n -la w of M a r c ia n a
A unt of M a t id ia
Pompeia Plotina, c. A.D. 70- i 22(?). A modest and

benevolent woman bom at Nemausus in Gaul, Plo
tina married Trajan (who apparently was a relative) while he was still a sol
dier. She bore him no children and served her Empire by offering counsel to
him on many occasions.
Plotina apparently lived in harmony with her sister-in-law, Marciana,
who predeceased her by a decade or so. Though both women were offered
the title of Augusta on Trajan’s accession in 98, they apparently refused,
and seem only to have accepted the honor in 105. Plotina seems to have
been above reproach on all but perhaps one subject, the future emperor
Hadrian. Accounts of her involvement with Hadrian vary, but it is certain
that she took a personal interest in his career and was fond of him person
ally. Though probably nothing more than gossip, some believed she was in
love with Hadrian. Indeed, it was at her insistence that Trajan reluctantly
betrothed his grand-niece Sabina to Hadrian. The marriage was not a
happy one, but it tied Hadrian ever closer to Trajan, and thus to the title of
Augustus.
Plotina’s final act on behalf of Hadrian — of which two accounts sur
vive — occurred at the time of her own husband’s death. The first suggests
Plotina convinced her husband (while on his deathbed) to name Hadrian
as his successor. The other version purports that when she was unable to
convince Trajan to adopt Hadrian, she delayed the announcement of her
husband’s death for several days so she could forge documents proving it
was Trajan’s desire to be succeeded by Hadrian. Both Plotina and Hadrian
were in the East when Trajan died in Cilicia (117), and she bore her hus
band’s ashes back to Rome.
Authorities are in disagreement as to the year Plotina died, which is
variously reported to have been 121, 122, 123 or 129. The year 122 seems
most likely, but in any case, she died during the reign of her beneficiary
Hadrian, who did not hesitate to consecrate her.
MARCIANA
A u g u sta , c . a .d . 1 0 5 -1 1 2 /4
S ist e r o f T r a ja n
Daugh ter of T r a j a n Pa t e r
M o th er of M a t id ia
G randm o th er of S a b in a
S i s t e r -i n -la w of P l o t in a
Ulpia Marciana, c. A.D. 4 8 - 112 /4 . By all accounts, Marciana was a

woman of high character, though very little is recorded of her deeds.
Throughout her brother’s reign she lived as a widow, for in 78 she had lost
her husband Gaius Salonius Matidius Patruinus and did not remarry.
She was fortunate to enjoy a close friendship with her brother’s wife,
Plotina, and they spent a great deal of time together. The two were united
in most of their actions, including their joint acceptance of the title of
Augusta, which they refused in 98 but apparently accepted in 105. Like
other women in Trajan’s family, historians disagree about the date of her
death. Some suggest she died in the same year she was hailed Augusta
(105), but she more likely died in 1 1 2 or 114.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : The word consecratio makes its first appearance on the
coinage of Marciana, and thereafter became the standard employed for

issues of the divae and divi thereafter.
MATIDIA
A u g u sta , a .d . ii2 /4 (? )- ii9
Daugh ter of M a r c ia n a
N ie c e o f T r a ja n
M o th er of S a b in a
M o t h e r -i n -la w of H a d r ia n
Matidia, c. A.D. 68-119. As the daughter of Tra

jan’s sister and the mother of Sabina (wife of the future emperor, Hadrian),
Matidia was an important member of the Imperial court during the reign
of her uncle Trajan. Having no offspring of his own, the emperor appar
ently cared for Matidia as if she was his own daughter.
THE ADOPTIVE EMPERORS AND THE ANTONINES 2 33
We know regrettably little about Matidia’s life, except that she

received the title of Augusta when her mother died, and held it until her
own death in 119. Determining when Matidia became Augusta is difficult,
for opinions on the year of Marciana’s death vary considerably among his
torians, who place it in 105, 11 2 or 114.
Matidia was married at least twice and had at least as many children.
From one marriage, to Lucius Vibius Sabinus (the consul suffectus of 97),
she had a daughter named Sabina, who was wed to the future emperor
Hadrian. From another marriage Matidia gave birth to a daughter named
Rupilia Faustina, whose grandson was the future emperor Marcus Aurelius.
Matidia lived two years beyond her beloved uncle Trajan, and was conse
crated by her son-in-law Hadrian, who delivered her funeral oration and
built a temple for her in the Forum of Trajan.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : On the reverse of M atidia’s lifetime aurei and denarii,
she is shown with two children. One of these two girls must be Sabina, and
the other is most commonly called Matidia the Younger.
HADRIAN A.D. 1 1 7 - 1 3 8
FlR ST -C O U SIN -O N C E -R E M O V E D A N D A D O PTED SO N
of T r a ja n
H u sb a n d of S a b in a
A d o p t iv e Fa t h e r of A e l iu s a n d A n t o n in u s P iu s
G r a n d -n e p h e w o f T r a j a n Pa t e r
Publius Aelius Hadrianus, A .D . 76- 13 8 . The

character of Hadrian is difficult to assess, for there
were many dimensions to his personality and his policies. He would act in
an enlightened and responsible manner in some cases, and in others
behave in a cruel and monstrous fashion one might more readily expect of
Nero or Domitian. Thus, ancient and modern historians have judged him
in very different lights.
Although probably born in Rome, Hadrian belonged to a family liv
ing in Italica in Spain, and was a blood relative of Trajan (Hadrian’s grand
father was the brother of Trajan’s father — indeed, had they not been a
generation apart they would have been first cousins). Their close associa
tion can be traced back to Hadrian’s childhood, when at the age of ten his
own father died and he came under Trajan’s care. Although often annoyed
by Hadrian’s youthful indiscretions, Trajan none-the-less was fond of him.
When Nerva died in 98, it is said that Hadrian (then about 22 years
old) outran several other messengers so he could be the first to tell Trajan
of his accession. Two years later, the existing family ties were strengthened
when Hadrian married Trajan’s grandniece, Sabina (whom he treated very

poorly for the next 36 years). Under the guidance of Trajan, Hadrian made
rapid progress in the army, rising from lower offices, such as staff officer, to
higher ones, such as legionary commander and praetor.
In positions of great responsibility, Hadrian served the Empire well in
the first and second Dacian wars. He later came to govern Lower Pannonia
and to hold the consulship in 108. Throughout the principate of Trajan,
Hadrian’s greatest supporter was the emperor’s wife, Plotina. N ot only did
she engineer his marriage to Sabina, but she arranged (either by persuasion
or forgery) his succession after her own husband’s death in 117. Power was
transferred to Hadrian, who was then governing Syria and was designated
to hold the consulship in the following year. Though many doubted the
veracity of his adoption, it was not challenged.
The new emperor led his army to Europe where he settled the Danu-
bian frontier. Initially, he quelled a few minor revolts in the provinces and
conducted acts of generosity to the public in order to establish his princi
pate firmly. He also wisely reversed the expansionist policies of Trajan,
who had conquered more land than could be properly defended. He con
solidated Trajan’s gains by appointing client kings or by ceding territories
that were vulnerable.
Hadrian’s popularity with the senate suffered when he executed sev
eral ex-consuls suspected of conspiring against the throne, even though he
had promised never to execute a senator. Throughout his reign, Hadrian
was deeply involved in legal and administrative matters of government,
and many of his reforms caused him to be despised by the senate.
Hadrian’s reign was relatively uneventful in military terms, as Rome’s
enemies were quiet and Hadrian fortified the borders. Indeed, Hadrian
ushered in an era of domestic security commonly called the Pax Romana.
The one major exception was the Second Revolt in Judaea (132-135) led
by Simon bar Kosiba, which grew out of the chaos experienced late in Tra
jan’s reign and was sparked by some careless actions by the new emperor.
Hadrian is best known for his extensive travels throughout the
Empire, which had many practical applications, but were also cultural
excursions. His first trips (120-122) were to Gaul, Britain and Spain, then
to Asia (123) and Greece (125), after which he returned via Sicily to
Rome (127). He then resumed his travels (128-133), visiting Africa,
Greece, Asia Minor, the Levant and Egypt, and finally returning to Italy,
where he spent his remaining years.
Like many emperors, Hadrian was an accomplished builder. Three of
his most famous projects were the 80-mile wall along the border of
England and Scotland (known as Hadrian’s Wall), the massive temple of
Roma and Venus, and a complete reconstruction of Agrippa’s century-old
Pantheon, which was transformed into an architectural marvel. His most
personal building project, however, was his magnificent villa at Tivoli — a

160-acre estate so grand it could rightly be compared with the Golden
House of Nero.
The personal life of Hadrian was rife with pleasure, for he was a
patron of the arts and a great lover of Greek culture (which in his adoles
cence earned him the nickname “Greekling” ). He had many adulterous
affairs with married women and young boys, the most notorious of the lat
ter being with a Bithynian youth named Antinoiis, for whom he estab
lished a cult after the boy’s tragic death on the Nile in 130.
The homosexual aspect of Hadrian’s life may have inspired his choice
of a handsome, and apparently gay man named Aelius as his first heir. Just
as likely, however, is the possibility that Aelius was his own illegitimate
son (as some had rumored), and that Hadrian was covertly establishing
what he knew to be a hereditary monarchy. This possibility aside, Hadrian
had no rightful children of his own, and his failing health required that in
136 he name an heir.
His first choice (as related above) was Aelius, who in a quirk of fate
predeceased the emperor by about six months. Hadrian then adopted a 52-
year-old aristocrat named Antoninus Pius on the condition that he in turn
adopt both Aelius’ son, Lucius Verus (then 7 years old), and a distant rela
tive, Marcus Aurelius, a 17-year-old boy for whom Hadrian had great
affection. After what was an enigmatic but productive reign of 20 years,
the 62-year-old Hadrian died of natural causes on July 10, 138.
SABINA
A u g u s t a , a .d . i 28 ( ? ) - i 36/7
W if e o f H a d r ia n
Daugh ter of M a t id ia
Vibia Sabina, c. A.D. 83/6-136/7. As the grand-

niece of the emperor Trajan (who had no children
of his own) Sabina was destined for a political mar
riage. Arranging her marriage was Plotina, the wife of Trajan and the confi
dant of Sabina’s grandmother Marciana. It seems Trajan himself was not in
favor of the marriage, but deferred to his wife, who was insistent. The wed
ding occurred in the year 100, and though Hadrian’s position as heir to the
throne was by no means guaranteed, this made it highly probable. Like so
many political marriages, this one was not blissful, and not surprisingly pro
duced no offspring.
Hadrian was a man composed equally of good and bad qualities, and
the unfortunate Sabina was subjected almost exclusively to the latter. It
also seems Hadrian’s interests were too diverse to allow much affection for
Sabina. Even though she accompanied her husband on most if not all of
his travels, Hadrian largely ignored her and pursued his many affairs with
married women and young boys.
Despite his openly adulterous behavior, Hadrian did not approve of
similar behavior by Sabina, and in 121 or 122 he dismissed two court offi
cials with whom she had developed close relationships. The first was the
praetorian prefect Septicius Clarus, and the second was the historian Sue
tonius, who as a result was barred thereafter from the imperial archives.
Sabina was granted the title of Augusta at some point during her hus
band’s principate, and like most specific facts about the Augustae of the
Adoptive emperors, it is unclear exactly when this occurred. Some histori
ans suggest 117 or 120, while others prefer 128, the year that Hadrian
accepted the title pater patriae (and most likely the true date). After what
must have been an unhappy life and an unbearable marriage of nearly four
decades, Sabina died in 136 or 137. Though she may have died from natu
ral causes, it was widely rumored that Hadrian, realizing his own demise
was not far off, either poisoned her or forced her to commit suicide.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : The coinage of Sabina bearing the inscription
SABINA AVGVSTA HADRIANI AVG P P was not struck early in the reign
of Antoninus Pius as is stated in RIC (the error was corrected in BM C).
AELIUS
C a e s a r , a .d . 1 3 6 -1 3 8 ( u n d e r H a d r ia n )
A d o p t e d s o n a n d in t e n d e d s u c c e s s o r o f H a d r ia n
Fa t h e r of L u c iu s V e r u s
Lucius Aelius Verus (earlier Lucius Aurelius

Ceionius Commodus Verus), d. a.d. 138 .
Descended from a distinguished Etruscan family,
Aelius was a cultured and learned man with refined tastes, but with a frag
ile constitution and effeminate habits. It was the opinion of Gibbons that
as a “gay and voluptuous nobleman” of “uncommon beauty,” Aelius easily
won the approval of Hadrian over several other candidates of more distin
guished merit.
Others of the era preferred the idea that Aelius was an illegitimate
child of Hadrian, and that his curious adoption occurred for that reason.
After Aelius died, Hadrian made certain that Aelius’ son Lucius Verus, fig
ured into the long-term succession. This lends credence to the theory that
Aelius was in fact the son of Hadrian, for in this measure he would have
assured that his grandson would one day occupy the throne.
However, Aelius, who had been praetor in 130, was not an unquali
fied provincial, as both his father and grandfather had attained the high
office of consul. Though the details are incomplete, it would seem the
combination of the emperor’s own failing health and the death of his
empress Sabina prompted Hadrian to adopt Aelius in July or August (or
perhaps a little later) in 136. Upon being adopted, the new Caesar
changed his name to Lucius Aelius Verus and attended to the duties of his
new appointment as governor of Pannonia.
Aelius held consulships in 136 and 137, but his first must have occu
pied a negligible amount of time as only coins of his second are known.
Aelius energetically executed his duties in Pannonia, and near the end of
137 returned to Rome to make an address in honor of his benefactor
Hadrian. But after reigning scarcely more than a year, he died of an acute
illness on January 1, 138, the very day that he was to deliver his oration.
The increasingly ill Hadrian was now without an heir, and so on February
25 he filled the Imperial vacancy by adopting Antoninus Pius, who suc
ceeded him shortly thereafter.
ANTINOUS
C o m p a n io n o f H a d r ia n
Antinoiis, c. A.D. 110 -13 0 . The peace and pros

perity of Hadrian’s reign allowed the emperor luxu
ries uncommon to the office, including his
extensive, leisurely travels throughout the Empire.
In addition to absorbing local culture, Hadrian
also indulged his romantic inclinations, about which he composed many
verses.
Hadrian is chastised by contemporaries for these frequent adulterous
affairs, for — however unhappily — he was married to Sabina. His prefer
ence seems to have fallen upon married women and young boys. Foremost
of his male love interests was the youth Antinoiis, a native of Claudiopolis
in Bithynia whom he met when his travels brought him to that region.
The boy accompanied the emperor on his remaining travels, which
soon brought the entourage to Egypt. Perhaps the most tragic event in the
emperor’s life occurred there in October 130, when Antinoiis drowned in
the waters of the Nile under mysterious circumstances. Some said the
drowning was an accident, whereas others believed it was a ritualistic sui
cide intended to cure the emperor’s failing health. Indeed, the latter may
offer the best explanation for the unprecedented ‘honorary’ coins struck in
the boy’s name.
Hadrian was grief-stricken and established a city named Antinoopolis
(Sheikh Abade) near where the boy drowned. He also identified a new star
in the heavens which he believed embodied Antinoiis’ soul, and estab
lished a cult in the youth’s honor.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : A s part of the cult of Antinoiis, the Greeks built tem
ples and created priesthoods to service them. Festivals and games were
held in Antinoiis’ honor, and fortunately for collectors, coins were also
struck in numerous cities, often in connection with these events. N o
Imperial coins were struck in the name of Antinoiis, and the largest emis
sions occurred at the mint of Alexandria in Egypt.
ANTONINUS PIUS A.D. 1 3 8 - 1 6 1

C a e s a r : a .d . 138 (u n d er H a d r ia n )
A u g u s t u s : a .d . 13 8 -1 6 1
A d o pted so n a n d su c c e sso r o f H a d r ia n
H u sba n d o f Fa u s t in a S e n io r
Fa t h e r of Fa u s t i n a J u n i o r and G a l e r iu s
A n t o n in u s
G r a n d fa th er o f C o m m o d u s, A n n iu s V e r u s, L u c il l a
and A u r e l iu s A n t o n in u s
A d o p t iv e Fa t h e r of M arcus A u r e l iu s a n d
L u c iu s V e r u s
Titus Aelius Caesar Antoninus (earlier Titus Aurelius Fulvus Boionius

Arrius Antoninus), A .D . 86- 1 6 1 . When Aelius died unexpectedly on
New Year’s Day of 138, it came as unwelcomed news to Hadrian, who was
only too aware that his own days were numbered. The ailing emperor
announced on January 24 that Antoninus Pius, a respectable senator
whom he had relied upon as a close advisor, was his new successor. On
February 25 Antoninus was invested with the rank of Caesar, which he
held until Hadrian died on July 10.
The new emperor — age 52 when he took office in August — was
uncommonly tall and hailed from a good family that originally came from
Nemausus but had settled in Lanuvium. N ot only had his grandfathers and
his father been consuls in Rome, but Antoninus himself had served in that
capacity in 130, and sometime between 133 and 136 was proconsul of
Asia. Though he largely owed his succession to his marriage to Faustina
Senior (an aunt of Marcus Aurelius), he proved to be an excellent choice.
Antoninus earned his title “Pius” from the senate, who admired the tenac
TH E A D O PTIV E EMPERORS A N D TH E A N T O N IN E S 239
ity with which he lobbied for the deification of Hadrian, whom the senate
had grown to despise before his death.
Antoninus’ reign was similar to Hadrian’s in that the Empire enjoyed
great prosperity, no effort was made to expand territories, and military con
flicts were limited. Revolts of some consequence broke out twice in the
north of Britain (where he built the Antonine Wall some 80 miles north
of Hadrian’s Wall), and once in Mauretania, each of which took consider
able time and effort to quell. Lesser disturbances occurred along the Rhine
and Danube as well as in Egypt and Judaea. Diplomacy at the end of
Antoninus’ reign prevented a conflict with Parthia, which otherwise had
been silent since the reign of Trajan.
Antoninus was frugal in his expenditures, and we find his building
programs are less extravagant than those of Trajan and Hadrian; indeed,
when he died there were some 675 million denarii in the treasury. His per
sonality was more balanced than that of his predecessor, as he was not
prone to cruelty or arrogant dictatorship. He also differed from Hadrian in
that his personal habits and preferences were more in line with traditional
Roman culture, and he is not known to have left Italy in his more than
two decades as emperor.
His solitary weakness, it seems, was women, and even in that he was
not ostentatious. Thanks to his tact and diplomacy, relations with the sen
ate improved greatly during his reign despite his opposition to sharing
power with that institution. Indeed, Antoninus reserved the right to make
all serious decisions after consulting with his own council. His beloved
wife, Faustina Senior, died a young woman during the third year of his
reign, and he honored her memory extensively.
In accordance with the wishes of Hadrian, Antoninus had adopted
both Lucius Verus and Marcus Aurelius, whom he groomed as his succes
sors. While the former was given few responsibilities, the latter was made
Caesar in 139 and held that title for more than two decades before he
became emperor. Antoninus Pius’ principate was the height of the Pax
Romana, during which the fruits of many centuries of Roman labor were
enjoyed. Hardly a more ideal reign existed than his in which the 900th
anniversary of Rome’s foundation should be celebrated. This was the most
important event of his reign, and was commemorated with a series of
coins.
After a productive (if not extraordinary) reign of 22 years, the 74-
year-old Antoninus died of natural causes at his palace in Etruria on
March 7, 161. In accordance with the wishes of Hadrian, he was succeeded
in an orderly manner by Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus.
FAUSTINA SENIOR
A u g u sta , a .d . 1 3 8 -1 4 0 /1
W if e o f A n t o n in u s P iu s
M o th er of Fa u s t in a J u n io r and G a l e r iu s
A n t o n in u s
A u n t a n d m o t h e r -i n -law of M arcus A u r e l iu s
G randm o th er of C o m m o d u s, A n n iu s V e r u s,
L u c il l a and A u r e l iu s A n t o n in u s
Annia Galeria Aurelia Faustina, A.D. 98/105-140/1. Although only a

distant in-law of Trajan, Faustina Senior was an aunt of Marcus Aurelius,
one of two boys whom Hadrian designated to inherit the throne. Indeed, it
was probably because of his marriage to Faustina Senior that Antoninus
Pius was unexpectedly named the immediate successor to Hadrian, and
thus the custodian of young Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus.
Her marriage to Antoninus Pius was congenial, though not without
its problems. Faustina bore him four children, only one of whom, Faustina
Junior (later the wife of Marcus Aurelius), survived to see her parents
become emperor and empress. Faustina Senior was probably hailed
Augusta late in 138, but she died in only the third year of her husband’s
reign, while she was still a young woman.
O f Faustina’s character we have few insights, except that she was per
haps too frank, light-hearted and promiscuous for the demands of her
office. In this respect she was the exact opposite of her sober husband, who
executed his duties with tact, diplomacy and unwavering devotion.
Though Antoninus never remarried, he did indulge what may have
been his only weakness by taking as a concubine a certain Galeria Lysis-
trate, who was formerly one of Faustina’s slaves. Indeed, the slave-turned-
mistress appears to have wielded great authority over the widowed
emperor. Another important lady in the courts was Antoninus’ sister-in-
law Domitia Lucilla, who devoted herself to her son Marcus Aurelius, who
for more than two decades was groomed as successor to the throne.
Despite the troublesome personality of Faustina Senior, it is clear that
Antoninus Pius cared deeply for her. Regrettably, even the most funda
mental details of Faustina’s life are not certainly known. She may have
been bom in 98 or in 105, and is said to have been married to Antoninus
in 110, but even this seems unlikely. Alas, even the date of her death
seems uncertain, for it may have occurred in October or November of 140,
or early in 141. The greatest monument dedicated to this empress is a mas
sive temple dedicated in 141/2 and completed in about 150. It originally
was dedicated just to Faustina Senior, but -after the death of Antoninus in
161, Marcus Aurelius re-dedicated it to both husband and wife as the
Temple Divi A ntonini et Divae Faustinae. Today the impressive remains
THE ADOPTIVE EMPERORS AND THE ANTONINES 24 I
(which enclose the church of S. Lorenzo) still loom high above the ruins
of the Forum in Rome.
Nu m i s m a t i c N o t e : Most of the coinage struck for Faustina Senior is com
memorative, as she died early in her husband’s reign. Philip Hill, in The
Dating and Arrangement of the Undated Coins of Rome, A .D . 98-148, cites
numismatic evidence to suggest she was hailed Augusta in 139.
GALERIUS ANTONINUS
S on of A n t o n in u s P iu s and Fa u s t in a S e n io r
B ro th er of Fa u s t in a J u n io r
Marcus Galerius Aurelius Antoninus or Marcus

Annius Galerius Antoninus, d. before A.D. 1 3 8 .
Little is known of this boy except that he was one
of four children born to Faustina Senior and
Antoninus Pius. His siblings included a brother, Marcus Aurelius Fulvius
Antoninus, and two sisters, Aurelia Fadilla (who died before 134) and the
future empress Faustina Junior.
Though the Historia Augusta reports that Antoninus Pius had two
boys (whose names are known by inscriptions from the tomb of Hadrian
preserved in Medieval times), Dio Cassius reports that Pius had no sons
when he was adopted by Hadrian in 138. This scanty evidence leaves two
options: that Galerius Antoninus died before Pius’ accession, or that he
was born between 138 and 140/1. Because the ancient biographers do not
otherwise discuss the boy (and as an heir-apparent they certainly would
have) we must side with the option that he died before his father’s acces
sion. Some early scholars, including Cohen, believed Galerius Antoninus
survived well into his father’s reign because of a ‘mature’ portrait on a coin
that later was proven false.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : Galerius Antoninus is honored only on copper coins
intended to circulate in the provinces (exactly where is unknown, though

they often are found in the Balkans). His coinage was struck in two
denominations, approximating the Imperial sestertius and dupondius (or
as). Though they have Greek inscriptions, there are good stylistic reasons
to believe the dies were cut and the coins struck in Rome, and later
shipped to their destinations. They must have been struck after Faustina
Senior’s death, for she is diva. The lack of the title Caesar or the designa
tion divo for the boy is no obstacle for his having died before 138, as in that
case his family would not have been of Imperial rank during his lifetime
and he would not have been eligible for those honors.
MARCUS AURELIUS
A .D . 161-180
C a e s a r : a .d . 13 9 -1 6 1
(u n d er A n t o n in u s P iu s )
A u g u s t u s : a .d . 1 6 1 -1 8 0
( a .d . 1 6 1 - 1 6 9 : w it h L u c iu s V e r u s )
( a .d . 1 6 9 - 1 7 7 : so le r e ig n )
( a .d . 1 7 7 - 1 8 0 : w it h C o m m o d u s)
A d o pted so n o f A n t o n in u s P iu s a n d h e ir o f H a d r ia n
H u sba n d of Fa u s t in a J u n io r
Fa t h e r of C o m m o d u s, A n n iu s V er u s, L u c il l a a n d A u r e l iu s A n t o n in u s
S o n -i n -la w of A n t o n in u s P iu s and Fa u st in a S e n io r
F a t h e r -i n - l a w of L u c iu s V erus
Marcus Aelius Aurelius Verus (earlier Marcus Annius Verus), A .D .

1 2 1 - 180. Marcus Aurelius was the central figure of the Antonine dynasty,
for not only was he directly descended from Trajan’s father (fifth genera
tion), but he was related through marriage to Antoninus Pius and Lucius
Verus, and was the father of Commodus. Even more importantly though,
he was the ultimate choice of Hadrian as heir to the throne.
During the 22 years Marcus Aurelius held the rank of Caesar under
Antoninus Pius, he was cared for by his mother, the wealthy Domitia Luci
lla, who was the sister-in-law of Antoninus Pius and Faustina Senior. She
made certain that he studied under the finest tutors, and she devoted her
self to clearing her son’s path of succession of all obstacles. She no doubt
was also involved in solving her son’s early matrimonial complexities (see
the biography of Faustina Junior for details).
The pivotal event of Marcus’ reign as Caesar was his marriage to
Faustina Junior in 145. Though a far from ideal union, it resulted in a
dozen or more children. Marcus was awarded his first tribunician power in
146 and his wife was hailed Augusta, seemingly in 147. Through this
sequence of events, Marcus became virtual co-ruler with Antoninus Pius.
When Antoninus Pius died in 161, Marcus collected the inheritance
promised by Hadrian more than two decades before, and was hailed co
emperor along with his younger colleague Lucius Verus. In conjunction
with this event, Marcus Aurelius betrothed his 12-year-old daughter Luci
lla to his new co-emperor, who married her three years later.
Their joint reign started in crisis: the Parthians had broken their ear
lier peace treaty and had invaded Roman territories. Lucius Verus was sent
east to lead the Roman counter-offensive, which was extraordinarily suc

cessful and ended with the sack of Ctesiphon and Seleucia. All told, Verus
and his generals recovered Syria and Armenia, and conquered Mesopota
mia and Media- Furthermore, in 166 they forced the Parthians to sue for
an unfavorable peace.
The high spirits and acclamations that accompanied the victory,
however, were soon tempered by the side effects. One consequence was an
outbreak of plague, which the soldiers carried when returning to Europe.
This decade-long epidemic almost completely depopulated some regions of
the Empire and inflicted great harm on the city of Rome, which had not
suffered an outbreak in centuries. The depleted European provinces were
thus vulnerable to invasion by a host of Germans and Sarmatians. Most
alarming were invasions by the Marcomanni and Quadi, who crossed the
Alps and ravaged Italy itself. The joint emperors pressed hard and repelled
the invasion over three seasons of brutal warfare.
A t the conclusion of these border wars in 169, when the emperors
were returning to Rome, Lucius Verus suffered a fatal stroke. Marcus Aure
lius was now sole emperor, and his stay in Rome was brief, for renewed
Germanic invasions required his presence on the frontiers, from which he
did not return for six or eight years.
During the course of his wars, Marcus led his legions across the
Danube and deep into German territory, where his army was spared
destruction twice by miraculous events. His goal, it seems, was to force the
borders back into mountainous regions and away from the rivers. He also
allowed some of the invaders to settle within Roman territory — a strategy
which was not unprecedented, but which received mixed commentary.
Throughout it all, young Commodus was gaining valuable experience and
Faustina Junior was honored for her personal devotion to her husband’s
campaigns.
In 175 the emperor’s plans in Europe were cut short when he learned
of a revolt in Syria by the governor Gaius Avidius Cassius. The general
had led the Roman legions into Ctesiphon a decade before. Cassius
revolted after being misinformed about the emperor’s death. Delivering
the misinformation, apparently, was Faustina Junior, who not only had
amorous feelings for Cassius, but apparently believed her husband would
not recover from a serious illness he had contracted while on campaign.
Historians disagree on whether Marcus Aurelius proceeded directly to
Syria or returned to Rome first, but in any event it seems Cassius was mur
dered within about 100 days after he rebelled.
Marcus Aurelius traveled to Asia, not only to assure his eastern
legions that he was alive and still in command, but also to be certain the
revolt was completely crushed. It was on this journey that Faustina Junior
died of natural causes at a remote village in Cilicia.
After the eastern front was settled, Marcus Aurelius returned to Italy,
barely surviving a shipwreck en route. Upon arriving in December of 176,
he and his son Commodus celebrated their hard-earned German triumph.
Despite being only fifteen years old, Commodus was permitted to hold his
first consulship in 177. While in Rome he also married Crispina, and was
raised to the rank of Augustus. Barring his own death, Commodus was now
certain to succeed his father.
The two Augusti soon returned to the Danubian front to wage yet
another grueling border war in which Marcus Aurelius hoped to achieve
his original goals. However, after a reign of 19 years, Marcus Aurelius died
of natural causes in camp on March 17 of 180, and was succeeded by his
son Commodus.
Strong parallels can be drawn between Trajan and Marcus Aurelius,
both of whom were constantly fighting on the frontiers, and both of whom
won impressive victories over the Parthians and Germans. Furthermore,
these two reigns serve as a frame for the relatively tranquil reigns of
Hadrian and Antoninus Pius, during which the Pax Romana reached its
apex. Marcus Aurelius is best known for the 12 books of personal observa
tions and memoirs (his Meditations), which he composed in the last decade
of his life.
Marcus’ one weakness was his blind charity toward his own family:
not only did he tolerate gross marital indiscretions (and even treachery) by
his wife, but he bequeathed the Empire to his son, who must have demon
strated signs of the mental imbalances that marked his sole reign as one of
the vilest in all of Roman history. But if we ignore the atrocious acts of his
wife and son, and judge him solely for the actions of his own reign, it
becomes clear that Marcus Aurelius was a skilled and dutiful emperor
whose stoic demeanor would have achieved even greater form had the
world been at peace while he reigned.
FAUSTINA JUNIOR
A u g u s t a , a .d . 147-175/6
W if e o f M arcus A u r e l iu s
Daugh ter of A n t o n in u s P iu s and Fa u s t in a S e n io r
S is t e r o f G a l e r iu s A n t o n in u s
M o th er of C o m m o d u s, A n n iu s V eru s, L u c il l a and
A u r e l iu s A n t o n in u s
Annia Galeria Faustina, d. A.D. 175/6. The early life of Faustina Junior
might best be described as a game of matrimonial musical chairs.
She was originally betrothed to Lucius Verus, whereas her future hus
band, Marcus Aurelius, was originally betrothed to the daughter of Aelius.
But the year 138 brought a complete dynastic restructuring, for both
Aelius and Hadrian died, and Antoninus Pius was named emperor on the
condition that he adopt Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus. With such a
complex situation having arisen, the earlier marriage plans were aban
doned. Because of Lucius Verus’ extreme youth, it was deemed that his
older colleague Marcus Aurelius was better suited to marry Faustina Junior.
Nearly two decades later (in 164) Lucius Verus was compensated for his
loss of Faustina Junior when he married Faustina’s second daughter, Luci
lla. In any event, the new arrangement was made official in 145 when
Marcus Aurelius married Faustina Junior.
Their first child arrived in 146 or 147 (opinions vary), and in the next
25 years she had 12 or 13 more, with only five or six surviving childhood. By
146 it was clear that Marcus Aurelius was heir to the throne, and Faustina
Junior was hailed Augusta in the year following (though some scholars pre
fer 146). The Empire had been without an Augusta since her mother died in
140/1, and so Faustina Junior was given the title even though her husband
was only Caesar at the time. Faustina Junior accompanied her husband on
his many campaigns, and her devotion earned her the unprecedented title
Mater Castrorum (“mother of the camps”) in June of 174.
But it seems the apple did not fall far from the tree, for Faustina Jun
ior inherited her mother’s playful disposition and more. Rumors of her
adulterous affairs were rampant, with it being generally known she had a
penchant for sailors and gladiators. Another widely accepted rumor was
that Commodus (her only son to survive childhood) was sired by one of
her gladiator lovers rather than her husband.
More treacherous, however, was her last noteworthy act, which was
to alert the governor of Syria, Gaius Avidius Cassius, of her husband’s ill
health. Perhaps believing Marcus Aurelius would not survive the illness,
she may even have told Cassius that her husband was already dead. This
news prompted Cassius to stage a revolt in 175 that lasted perhaps 100
days. When news reached the East that Marcus Aurelius was very much
alive and in command, the usurper was murdered. It was believed that
Faustina Junior had amorous feelings for Cassius, and that this was why she
informed him of Marcus’ presumed death.
Though the veracity of individual rumors cannot be confirmed, the
sheer volume of these reports leads one to the unavoidable conclusion that
her sexual and moral conduct was reprehensible. Nonetheless, Marcus
Aurelius appears to have cared for her deeply, and he bore this burden with
the same fortitude as the other problems of state.
When Faustina Junior died at a small mountainside village in Cilicia
in 175 or 176, Marcus Aurelius honored her memory in many ways,
including a vast posthumous coinage. Though most of Faustina’s children
died in infancy or childhood, two of them (Commodus and Lucilla)
achieved Imperial rank. Though they may have been friendly during
childhood, they came into conflict in 182. Lucilla (who formerly had held
the rank of Augusta when her first husband Lucius Verus was alive) plotted
to murder her brother, who was then sole emperor. When the plot failed,
Commodus banished and executed his estranged sister. Only a decade later
Commodus himself met an ignominious fate, which brought to a close the
story of Faustina Junior’s ill-fated brood.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : The children of Faustina Junior make frequent appear
ances on coins, but usually in indistinguishable form, either being held in

Faustina’s arms or standing at her side. In one instance six children are
shown at once. In terms of specific depictions there are perhaps seven:
Lucilla and Commodus (on coinages in their own names), Titus Aelius
Aurelius (on a sestertius of Faustina Junior, seemingly struck in 147; see
RIC 1382 and Hill 762), Aurelius Antoninus (appearing with Lucilla on
the reverse of coins of Antoninus Pius dated to 148/9), Annius Verus
(appearing on medallions with Commodus, and possibly on a provincial
coinage), and two other children who appear on the reverse of sestertii of
Antoninus Pius dated to 156/7. Unfortunately, the latter two cannot be
certainly identified.
AURELIUS ANTONINUS
S on of M arcus A u r e l iu s a n d Fa u s t in a J u n io r
B ro th er of C o m m o d u s, A n n iu s V eru s a n d L u c il l a
G ran d so n of A n t o n in u s P iu s and Fa u s t in a S e n io r
Titus Aurelius Antoninus, A.D. 149. Aurelius

Antoninus, the most obscure of the Antonine
children to appear on coinage, died in the same
year he was born. He may have been the first boy born to the Imperial cou
ple, and the fact that he had a twin sister, Lucilla (later to be the wife of
the emperor Lucius Verus), was cause for celebration. Some authorities,
however, suggest another of his brothers, Titus Aelius Aurelius, was the
firstborn male (in 147), but in any case, he also died in infancy.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : During the reign of the childless Antoninus Pius, an
issue of coinage (including aurei, sestertii and dupondii) was struck to cel
ebrate the birth of Lucilla and Aurelius Antoninus. The cherubic busts of
the boy and his twin sister are set upon crossed cornucopias, in the same
manner as was done some 126 years before to honor Tiberius’ grandchil
dren. The obverses of the issue depict Antoninus Pius (who was then
Augustus) and are dated to his 12th tribunician renewal in 148/9. Since
this corresponds with the year the twins were born, we can be certain
Aurelius Antoninus and Lucilla are depicted. A similar issue of ‘crossed

cornucopias’ sestertii was struck during Pius’ 20th tribunician renewal in
156/7, but their identifications are not secure.
ANNIUS VERUS
C a esa r , a .d . 1 6 6 -1 6 9 /7 0
(u n d er M a rcus A u r e l iu s ,
w it h C o m m o d u s)
B ro th er of C o m m o d u s, L u c il l a and A u r e l iu s
A n t o n in u s
G ran d so n of A n t o n in u s P iu s and Fa u s t in a S e n io r
Marcus Annius Verus, A .D . 1 6 2 / 3 - 1 6 9 / 7 0 . The year 165 was tragic for

Marcus Aurelius and Faustina Junior, for two of their boys died: their last-
born, Hadrianus, died shortly after he was born; and the twin of Commo-
dus, Titus Aurelius Fulvus Antoninus. This left the Imperial couple with
only two boys, Commodus (aged four or five) and Annius Verus (aged
three). It was upon their shoulders that the hope for succession rested.
This brings us to the year 166, when Marcus Aurelius and Lucius
Verus jointly celebrated a triumph over the Parthians, and Marcus Aure
lius commemorated the 20th renewal of his tribunate. This was a water
shed year, and was the perfect occasion for Marcus Aurelius to elevate his
two young sons to the rank of Caesar. The ceremony took place on O cto
ber 12 , 166, and in some small way it must have lifted the spirits of the
Romans who — amid all their glory — were suffering from renewed bar
barian invasions and a crippling plague epidemic. Although Commodus
survived into adulthood to become emperor, his younger brother (who
bore his father’s original name) died soon thereafter, either in 169 or 170.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : Some early scholars, such as Cohen, believed the
young male bust on a series of anonymous quadrantes (see nos. 1172-5)

was that of Annius Verus. However, since the portraits occur in four dis
tinct varieties, they are better identified as the seasons. Even the issue of
Tarsus described in Annius Verus’ listings section may not portray him.
Some authorities argue that it is actually Marcus Aurelius and Lucius
Verus who are portrayed as the adopted sons of Antoninus Pius. Regretta
bly, the obverse inscription (‘sons of the emperor’) offers nothing to clarify
the matter. Indeed, were it not for the commemorative medallions struck
at Rome (a cast copy of which is illustrated above), the numismatic record
of this young Caesar might have to be abandoned entirely.
LUCIUS VERUS A.D. 1 6 1 - 1 6 9

(CO-EMPEROR OF M a RCUS A U R ELIU S)
S on of A e l iu s
A d o pted so n o f A n t o n in u s P iu s a n d h e ir o f
H a d r ia n
H u sban d of L u c il l a
S o n -in -law o f M arcus A u r e l iu s
Lucius Aelius Aurelius Commodus (earlier Lucius Ceionius Commo

dus), c. A .D . 1 3 0 - 1 6 9 . In the year 138 the 7-year-old boy who would come
to be known as Lucius Verus was brought into the Imperial fold. In the pre
vious year his destiny seemed clear: his father, Aelius, had been appointed as
Hadrian’s Caesar and intended successor. But Aelius died unexpectedly only
a few months before Hadrian himself died. Even so, Hadrian made provi
sions for Aelius’ son by requiring that his new heir, Antoninus Pius, adopt
Lucius Verus (who may have been Hadrian’s illegitimate grandson) as one of
his successors.
During the next 22 years Verus was aware he was destined to be
emperor, but apparently showed little desire to participate in government.
Meanwhile, his co-heir, Marcus Aurelius, held the rank of Caesar and was
heaped with titles and responsibilities. Verus’ only significant posts were
those of quaestor in 153, and of consul in 154 and 161.
Immediately after the death of Antoninus Pius in 161, Marcus Aure
lius and Lucius Verus were appointed co-Augusti, though the lofty title of
Pontifex Maximus was given only to Marcus. N ot only was Marcus nine
years Verus’ senior, but the title was itself indivisible (and remained so
until it was first shared in 238 by Pupienus and Balbinus). In that same
year Verus was betrothed to Lucilla, the 12-year-old daughter of his Impe
rial colleague.
In the meantime, the peace which Antoninus Pius had negotiated
with the Parthians late in his reign had collapsed, and Verus was sent to
defend the eastern territories from a new invasion. Already Armenia had
been captured and Syria was on the defensive.
Though historians dispute whether Lucius Verus spent most of his
time in the East fighting or luxuriating (indeed, in 164 he went to Ephesus
to marry Lucilla), he does seem to have been an excellent commander. But
the Parthian’s gains were short-lived, as Verus and his generals recovered
Syria and Armenia, and occupied Mesopotamia and Media (which for
merly had not been part of the Empire). Just as in Trajan’s day, the Romans
captured the capital city of Ctesiphon (165), and this time set it ablaze.
After Verus had forced the Parthians to sue for peace in 166 on terms
highly favorable to the Romans, he returned to Rome later in the year to
celebrate his triumph jointly with Marcus Aurelius. However, the Parthian
victory had two serious side effects: the European provinces were vulnera-
ble because so many soldiers had been withdrawn, and even worse, the
returning soldiers brought the plague with them. This plague epidemic was
very serious, and almost completely depopulated some regions of the
Empire. Rome (which was already suffering from a food shortage) was hit
especially hard and even a decade later was still suffering from this plague.
During the three years that followed the Parthian campaign (166—
169), Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus were fully occupied fighting the
Marcomanni and the Quadi. Though difficult, their effort was a success,
and tragedy only struck when they were returning to Rome early in 169 to
celebrate another triumph. The 38-year-old Verus died of a stroke or epi
leptic fit (though there were unfounded rumors that he had been poi
soned) at Altinum in Northern Italy
Although we cannot say Lucius Verus was a gifted leader or a man
free of vices — for he was fond of hunting, wrestling and other sports — it
would be equally unfair to malign him as an irresponsible lush who drank
himself to death. Indeed what he lacked in talent and resolve he made up
for with a strong sense of duty and loyalty to Marcus Aurelius. On balance
he seems to have been an asset to his senior colleague, who was charitable
toward him both in life and in memoria.
LUCILLA
A u g u s t a , a .d . 1 6 4 -1 8 2 /3
W if e o f L u c iu s V erus
Daugh ter of M arcus A u r e l iu s a n d Fa u s t in a J u n io r

S is t e r o f C o m m o d u s, A n n iu s V erus an d
G ran d d au gh ter of A n t o n in u s P iu s
and Fa u s t in a S e n io r
S is t e r - in -law of C r is p in a
Annia Aurelia Galeria Lucilla, A .D . 1 4 8 / 9 - 1 8 2 / 3 . The second of six

daughters born to Marcus Aurelius and Faustina Junior, Lucilla was the
twin of Titus Aurelius Antoninus, who died in the year of his birth.
Lucilla was engaged to Lucius Verus when he was named co-emperor
with her own father in 161. Lucilla was only 12 years old at the time of her
betrothal to Verus, who was about 31 years old, so the wedding was
delayed until Lucilla turned fifteen or sixteen. She remained in Italy as her
future husband traveled to the eastern front and waged war against the
Parthians, though in 164 Lucilla traveled to Ephesus where Verus took
leave of the campaign to marry her.
25° HISTORY OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE: BIOGRAPHIES
Together they had at least one, and possibly three children, the
fate(s) of whom are unknown. Considering the endless military demands
on her husband, they were probably not able to spend much leisurely time
together, and the fatal stroke he suffered while returning to Rome in 169
must have come as a shock to her. Lucilla’s life took a turn for the worse
thereafter.
The 20- or 21-year-old widow next entered into an unhappy marriage
with an elderly senator named Tiberius Claudius Pompeianus, a native of
Antioch who had twice been consul. The new marriage was carefully
arranged by her father Marcus Aurelius, who sought a man of unques
tioned loyalty (for Lucilla still bore the title of Augusta). Descended from
two generations of adulterous empresses, Lucilla maintained the family tra
dition by engaging in frequent extramarital affairs.
Lucilla seems not to have gotten along with her sister-in-law Crisp-
ina, and was envious of the fact that Crispina also held the title of
Augusta. Lucilla survived into the reign of her brother Commodus, but
they too quarreled, and either in 182 or 183 she joined in a plot ot murder
him. Her co-conspirators included an ex-consul and cousin named Marcus
Ummidius Quadratus, one of her husband’s nephews, Quintianus, and
most likely her sister-in-law Crispina. The plot succeeded to the point that
Quintianus was able to draw his dagger, but he was overpowered before he
could strike Commodus down.
When Lucilla’s role in the plot was exposed, Commodus exiled her to
Capri, where she was soon executed. Since the conspiracy was hatched
within the palace walls, it greatly unnerved Commodus, who thereafter
viewed most senators and advisors as potential assassins.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : For an infant portrait of Lucilla celebrating her birth,
see the listing of her twin, Titus Aurelius Antoninus (nos. 1574-6).
COMMODUS A .D . 1 7 7 - 1 9 2
C a esa r : a .d . 1 6 6 -1 7 7
(u n d er M arcus A u r e l iu s )
( a .d . 1 6 6 - 1 6 9 / 7 0 : w it h A n n iu s V er u s)
( a .d . 1 6 9 / 7 0 - 1 7 7 : a lo n e )
A u g u stu s : a .d . 17 7 -1 9 2
( a .d . 1 7 7 - 1 8 0 : w it h M arcus A u r e l iu s )
( a .d . 1 8 0 - 1 9 2 : so le r e ig n )
H u sban d of C r is p in a
B ro th er of A n n iu s V eru s, L u c il l a and A u r e l iu s A n t o n in u s
G r an d so n of A n t o n in u s P iu s and Fa u s t in a S e n io r
Marcus Aurelius Commodus Antoninus (earlier, and from 1 9 1 -2 ,

Lucius Aelius Aurelius Commodus), A .D . 1 6 1 - 1 9 2 . Born at Lanuvium
about five months after his father became emperor, Commodus was the
only boy of Marcus Aurelius and Faustina Junior to survive childhood.
Although the practice of hereditary rulership had been abandoned since
the age of the Flavians, the otherwise laudable Marcus Aurelius bestowed
the title of Augustus on his son.
Commodus’ career began in 166, when, as a 5- or 6-year-old, he was
made Caesar along with his 3 -year-old brother Annius Verus (who died
about three years later). Commodus’ training began in his early adoles
cence, when he accompanied his father on military campaigns on the
Danubian frontier and the Near East.
The dynastic intentions of Marcus Aurelius came to fruition in 177
when Commodus, then 15, was raised from Caesar to the rank of Augus
tus, and entered into a tragic marriage with Crispina. Commodus held the
title of Augustus jointly with his father for three years until the latter died
in 180. Commodus quickly abandoned his father’s expansionist policies
and frontier wars by negotiating a quick treaty with the Marcomanni in
which he forfeited territory and agreed to pay annual indemnities.
Commodus then returned to Rome to establish his new regime.
Within a year or two the emperor had managed to alienate his sister Luci
lla and his wife, Crispina, who overcame their personal differences to con
spire in 182 or 183 to murder him. Though their plot failed, it greatly
affected Commodus, who was unable to size up his silent enemies as easily
as he could a barbarian army. It also made him wary of the senate, because
at the moment the assassin drew his dagger and came forth he screamed:
“See! This is what the senate has sent you!”
Probably in the year 183 he banished and executed both his sister (for
her role in the plot) and his wife, whom he had divorced on a charge of
adultery. The latter act was one of supreme irony, for Commodus was a
rampant adulterer, and is said to have had a harem of 300 women and an
equal number of men.
From the very beginning of his principate Commodus showed no
interest in frontier warfare or the tedious details of government: he left
these tasks to his generals, prefects and courtiers. Making matters worse,
we are told that such appointments were not made rationally.
For the last dozen years of Commodus’ reign, the Empire was almost
entirely in the hands of his praetorian prefects, whom the emperor exe
cuted with the same enthusiasm that he appointed them. The first to exer
cise great authority was Perennis, who after “reigning” for five years (ISO-
185) was murdered by his own soldiers on a false rumor that he planned to
usurp the throne. Perhaps responsible for Perennis’ downfall was his suc
cessor, Cleander, who was virtual ruler of Rome for the next five years
(185-190). Cleander was only dethroned by an elaborate plot hatched by
the official in charge of Rome’s grain supply. By falsely creating a shortage
and blaming it on the incompetence and greed of Cleander, so were sown
the seeds of Cleander’s demise.
We hear very little about military conflicts during Commodus’ reign,
perhaps because his best generals, Ulpius Marcellus, Septimius Severus,
Pescennius Niger, Pertinax and Clodius Albinus, fought so efficiently that
the emperor did not have to leave Rome. In the final analysis, however,
this was a disadvantage to Commodus, for it allowed him to remain idle in
Rome, where his mental illness grew daily. Had Commodus been person
ally involved in the border wars, his reign may not have taken on such a
foul character.
His cruelties and excesses increased with the passage of time, and
rivaled those of Nero, Domitian, Elagabalus and of Caligula, with whom
he shared the same birthday. Toward the end of his reign a fire destroyed
much of Rome, which Commodus decided to rename Colonia Commodiana
in honor of himself. He was partial to Jupiter, Serapis, Isis and the hero
Hercules, and had himself venerated as the living incarnation of the latter.
The emperor took singular pleasure in public games and gladiatorial com
bat, in which he sometimes participated, remniscent of the stage indigni
ties of Nero more than a century before.
The emperor’s foul disposition and gladiatorial bent only served to
validate for many Romans the rumor that he had been sired by one of the
gladiators with whom his mother had consorted. Commodus was an excel
lent archer and could decapitate ostriches with arrows with crescent
shaped tips. He was in the habit of role-playing in every aspect of his life,
and in his final years often appeared in public wearing the lion skin and
carrying the club of Hercules — a guise he even dons on some coins struck
in 192. The list of his offenses could fill several pages, and thus will be
halted here with that in mind. Fortunately for historians, the veracity of
such outrageous behaviors — which otherwise might be easily dismissed as
hostile propaganda — is confirmed by some of the coins he struck.
Though Commodus had survived several murder plots in his 15-year
reign, by the end of 192 his mental state had degenerated so greatly that
not even his closest advisors felt secure. Fearing the degrading and possibly
lethal actions Commodus would take on New Year’s Day, 193, a plot was
hastily formed by his chamberlain Eclectus, his concubine Marcia (who
was Eclectus’ wife), and the praetorian prefect Quintus Aemilius Laetus.
On New Year’s eve of 192, Marcia administered poison to Com mo
dus, who vomited in reaction. Fearful of discovery, the conspirators com
manded an athlete named Narcissus to strangle the 31-year-old emperor.
Commodus’ death brought great joy to the senate, which had been living
in mortal fear for more than a decade. Though his memory was initially
erased (damnatio memoriae), only three years later Commodus was deified
by the senate at the insistence of Septimius Severus, who had no choice
but to honor Commodus so as to honor his own false claim of being the
son of Marcus Aurelius.
CRISPINA
A u g u s t a , a .d . 1 7 7 -1 8 2 /3
W if e o f C ommodus
D a u g h t e r -in -la w of M arcus A u r e l iu s a n d
Fa u s t in a J u n io r
S is t e r -in -law of L u c il l a
Bruttia Crispina, d. A.D. 182 /3 . The daughter of

Lucius Fulvius Bruttius Praesens, a nobleman who was consul in 153 and
180, and who had campaigned with Marcus Aurelius against the Sarma-
tians, Crispina married the emperor’s 15-year-old son, Commodus, in 177
or 178 (accounts vary). Contemporary historians tell us Crispina was an
exceptionally beautiful young woman, a fact which is supported by some of
her more flattering coin portraits.
For young Commodus, the year 177 was an important one: he cele
brated a military triumph with his father, who then appointed him consul
and raised him from Caesar to Augustus. The awarding of these public
honors left no doubt that Commodus was the intended successor to his
father. These events were also important for Crispina, who was hailed
254 h i s t o r y o f t h e r o m a n e m p ir e : b i o g r a p h i e s
Augusta in place of her mother-in-law, Faustina Junior, who died a year or

two before (though she shared the title with her sister-in-law Lucilla).
As her husband’s megalomania and paranoia became more acute, the cou
ple grew apart, and each pursued their own adulterous affairs. Though
Crispina may have been quite active in this manner, she could hardly have
compared with her husband, who is said to have had a harem of several
hundred women and men.
Commodus eventually divorced Crispina on charges of adultery and
banished her to the island of Capri, where she was later strangled to death.
This almost certainly occurred in 182 or 183 (though some historians even
suggest 188), and as such it seems likely that her falling out with Commo
dus was more closely related to the murder plot organized by Lucilla than
to her infidelity.
CH A PTER SIX
C iv il W a r a n d
T h e S e v e r a n -E m e sa n D y n a s t y
a .d . 193-235
he murder of Commodus on New Year’s Eve, 193, brought to a con

T clusion the “golden age” of the Roman Empire, though in fact it had
ceased to glitter more than two decades before. What followed was a dis
graceful display of greed, power lust and vanity that lasted six months.
The first of the new emperors, Pertinax, was a man of good intentions
who was murdered by corrupt men whose special interests he threatened.
This was followed by the lowliest event in Roman history, the selling of
the throne to the highest bidder, a man named Didius Julianus, who had
little to recommend himself to the office. Indeed, even the money he had
promised (for he was exceptionally wealthy) failed to materialize.
When Didius Julianus bought the throne, appeals went out to frontier
generals to liberate Rome and restore its dignity. Three men responded —
one in Britain, one in Syria and another in Pannonia. The latter, Septi-
mius Severus, marched on Rome quickly, ousted Didius Julianus and
replaced the corrupt praetorian guards with his own loyal Illyrian soldiers.
He made quick enemies of senators, who prayed for their deliverance by
the other two frontier generals, Clodius Albinus and Pescennius Niger.
Septimius Severus was equally capable as a politician and a soldier: he
bought off one of his adversaries while he defeated the other. Then, when
he was in a better position, he provoked his last opponent, Clodius A lbi
nus, into a war that Severus won in a pitched battle in Gaul. After a costly
and degrading civil war of slightly more than four years, the Empire was at
peace, and a new ruling house, the Severan-Emesan dynasty, had been
established.
This chapter is divided into two sections. The first, following this
brief introduction, concerns the Civil War of 193-197, and the second,
following another introduction, chronicles the dynasty founded by the
North African emperor Septimius Severus and his Syrian wife, Julia
Domna.
255
T h e C i v i l W a r o f a .d . 19 3 - 19 7
PERTINAX A.D. 19 3
H u sban d of T it ia n a
Fa t h e r of P e r t in a x J u n io r
Publius Helvius Pertinax, A .D . 1 2 6 - 1 9 3 . Perti

nax was a self-made man whose father, a freedman,
had been a timber merchant. It would appear that
he rose from his humble origins to the highest
offices in the Empire through talent and dedication alone. His brief princi-
pate represented an opportunity for deliverance from the injustices of
Commodus, but its quick failure only served to demonstrate how deeply
ingrained corruption had become.
Though he is portrayed as a man of unimpeachable morality, Pertinax
could not have been a complete stranger to corruption in the military and
government, for he held the two highest posts in Rome when Commodus
was at his most wicked. Indeed, it is better, perhaps, to believe he viewed
his principate as a golden opportunity to become a benevolent dictator,
and to restore the integrity that was then a thing of the past. But others
were unwilling to live up to the high standards Pertinax applied to his own
conduct, and it was naive that he should have expected to reform a corrupt
nation overnight.
There can be little doubt that Pertinax was privy to the coup by
which he gained the throne. To secure their positions, the conspirators
spread rumors that Commodus had died of natural causes and that Perti
nax had already been acclaimed Augustus. For this reason we may right
fully suspect Pertinax was hailed emperor on the evening of December 31,
192, rather than on New Year’s Day 193. Pertinax embraced his fellow sen
ators, whom he viewed as brothers who also had survived the tyranny of
Commodus.
Pertinax began his career as a teacher, after which he embarked on a
career in the military. In that capacity he served honorably in Parthia,
Britain and Noricum. As a general under Commodus, he had suppressed
two revolts in Africa in 190. He had also served as consul for the first time
in 175, and as governor of Moesia Inferior, Dacia, Syria, Britain and
Africa. A t the time of Commodus’ murder, he not only was serving out his
second consulship, but also was the prefect of Rome.
Important tasks faced Pertinax, for the treasury was virtually empty
and the systems of government were entirely corrupted. He immediately
engaged in fiscal and legal reforms that by all accounts were sensible and
CIVIL WAR AND THE SEVERAN-EMESAN DYNASTY 257
equitable, and given enough time he might have restored the Empire to
the glory it enjoyed under Marcus Aurelius and his predecessors. But his
noble intentions alarmed those who had become accustomed to the bene
fits derived from their posts in the government and the army. Most of Per-
tinax’s reforms were aimed at cutting out corruption that benefited the few,
and better distributing the wealth of Rome to the common man. Simply
put: Pertinax was changing too much too quickly, and at the expense of
the people who could do him the greatest harm.
Two coups were hastily attempted. The first occurred on January 3,
only two or three days after Pertinax had been hailed emperor, and the sec
ond in early March. Among those who led a plot against him was the con
sul Sosius Falco. Although the evidence against Falco was damning,
Pertinax pled for the man’s life, insisting his reign would not be stained
with the blood of a senator.
The truest threat against Pertinax came from the praetorian guards,
who felt slighted at the murder of Commodus and in not having a hand in
the selection of his successor. On March 28 the praetorians revolted and
stormed the palace, murdering the 66-year-old Pertinax after he had
reigned only 86 days. They placed his decapitated head on a lance and
paraded it in triumph before the citizens, who, it seems, understood their
grave misfortune. The senate — realizing the seriousness of its loss — con
secrated Pertinax, and Septimius Severus not only expelled the praetori
ans, but also adopted Pertinax’s name along with that of the Antonines.
Only Pertinax and Antoninus Pius depicted Ops, the

personification of wealth, on their coinage. A denarius of considerable rar
ity features his most interesting reverse type: MENTI LAVDANDAE, which
loosely translates as “praiseworthy good sense.” The majority of Pertinax’s
coins were struck at Rome, although he did strike denarii of distinctive
style at Alexandria. His portraiture is often magnificent, with his rare con
secration coinage offering a particularly virile image.
T IR A N A
A u g u sta , a .d . 193
W if e o f P e r t in a x
M oth er of P e r t in a x J u n io r
Flavia Titiana, lifespan unknown. Little is known of the origins and fate
of Titiana, the wife of the emperor Pertinax, except that she bore her hus-
band a homonymous son who was accorded the rank of Caesar in 193, and
a daughter whose name is not known.
In addition to the grief Titiana suffered from the disgraceful murder
and desecration of her husband, she had still more to endure. Her own
father, Titus Flavius Sulpicianus, immediately proceeded to the camp of
the praetorians in hopes of persuading them to hail him emperor in place
of his murdered son-in-law. Sulpicianus had been suffect consul under Mar
cus Aurelius and proconsul of Asia under Commodus, and he no doubt
considered himself fit for the job.
What began as a shameful exercise in flattery and bribery turned into
a public auction in which Sulpicianus went head-to-head with Didius
Julianus, who in the end offered the larger sum and was hailed emperor.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : Most Alexandrian tetradrachms bearing on their
obverse the bust of Titiana, and on their reverse the figure of Nike advanc
ing, which have appeared in the marketplace in the last few decades are
known counterfeits struck around the turn of the century (though the type
itself is known and confirmed as genuine). Also suspect are bronzes of
27mm and 24mm listed by Dattari, which may be genuine but which
require confirmation. Perhaps the only genuine issue that portrays Titiana
is the dual-portrait piece now in the British Museum.
PERTINAX JUNIOR
C a e s a r , a .d . 193
S on of P e r t in a x and T it ia n a
Publius Helvius Pertinax (Junior), d. A .D . 2 1 1 / 2 .

Bearing the same name as his father, Pertinax Jun
ior was perhaps 5 to 10 years old when his father
was hailed emperor. The Historia Augusta reports
that the senate proclaimed the boy Caesar, but that his incorruptible
father refused the offer, suggesting his son should be raised to that rank
only when he had earned it.
Unlike his father, Pertinax Junior was not murdered by the praetorians;
he survived nearly another 20 years. Septimius Severus was unbending in
his devotion to the memory of Pertinax, and subsequently placed Pertinax
Junior in charge of the sacerdotal (priestly) college. The young man also
became a close friend of the emperor’s youngest son, Geta. However, the lat
ter association proved to be his undoing, for when Caracalla murdered Geta
in 211 he initiated a general massacre of Geta’s partisans, which included
Pertinax Junior. Although the figure is probably exaggerated, the historian
Cassius Dio tells us that perhaps 20,000 were killed in the fratricidal purge,
ranging from the lowliest slave to men of high station.
Among those who fell with Pertinax Junior were Pompeianus (a
grandson of Marcus Aurelius), Papinian (one of his father’s distinguished
colleagues, and the praetorian prefect), and Cornuficia (a granddaughter
of Antoninus Pius and daughter of Marcus Aurelius). Though it is hardly a
valid excuse for Caracalla’s generally savage actions, it is perhaps under
standable that the emperor perceived Pertinax Junior as a threat. N ot only
had he been a supporter of Geta, but he was also the son of Pertinax, a
former emperor who was much beloved by the Romans.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : Coins depicting Pertinax Junior were struck only at
Alexandria. They occur in two issues: one dedicated exclusively to the

young prince (of which fewer than six specimens are known), and one
bearing both his portrait and that of his mother (which is believed
unique).
DIDIUS JULIANUS A.D. 19 3

H u sban d of M a n l ia S c a n t il l a
Fa t h e r of D id ia C la ra
M arcus Didius Severus Julianus, c. A.D. 1 3 3 / 5 -

19 3. After the praetorian guards murdered
nax on March 28, 193, the capital was in chaos but
the soldiers were in command. A n immediate
appeal was made by Flavius Sulpicianus, the father-in-law of Pertinax, that
he should be made emperor. But Sulpicianus found competition from a
senator named Didius Julianus, who was also one of the wealthiest men in
Rome.
Julianus was born in Milan and raised in the household of Domitia
Lucilla, the mother of Marcus Aurelius. He subsequently had an impres
sive career, governing several provinces and serving as consul with Perti
nax almost a decade before. Caught up in the moment, Julianus began to
bid against Sulpicianus for the chance to be hailed emperor. The bidding
war continued until Julianus pledged the sum of 25,000 sestertii per guard,
an offer that even Sulpicianus could not exceed. Before the day had ended,
one emperor had been murdered and another had bought his throne.
Drunk with power and blinded by greed, the praetorians conducted
Julianus in tight formation to the senate house, where the terrified senators
had little choice but to hail him emperor. Even greater than the senate’s
fear was the rage of the people, who immediately sent deputations to fron
tier commanders, requesting that they march on Rome and deliver them
from the tyranny of Didius Julianus and the praetorian guards. Since the
leading generals of the day had all been comrades-in-arms with Pertinax,
they were eager to avenge his murder and no doubt saw this as an ideal
opportunity to seize the title of Augustus.
This was a rare opportunity, and three generals responded: Clodius
Albinus, Septimius Severus and Pescennius Niger. Albinus and Niger were
far from Rome, which gave the upper hand to Septimius Severus, who
commanded three legions in nearby Pannonia. Severus rallied his men,
promised a generous bonus, and marched on Rome at a furious pace.
Events were moving at such an alarming rate that Julianus realized he was
doomed. Though he resorted to every act of desperation (including send
ing assassins after Severus, and even offering to share power with him), it
was to no avail, for Severus and his legions were nearing Rome.
To avoid bloodshed, Severus promised immunity to the whole of the
praetorian guard if they turned over the few men who killed Pertinax.
Fearful of the battle-hardened frontier legions, and still without the pay
ment promised by Julianus, the praetorians agreed to Severus’ terms and
informed the senate of their change of heart. The senate promptly deified
Pertinax, condemned Julianus, and declared Septimius Severus emperor.
On the 1st or 2nd of June (opinions vary) Didius Julianus was captured
and beheaded in the manner of a common criminal, thus bringing to a
conclusion his brief and shameful reign.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : The name Severus, which only appears on some of

Julianus’ coin inscriptions, was probably added after some coins had
already been struck without it. It has been suggested that the name was
initially excluded in an oversight (for Severus was one of Julianus’ names),
or that it was added later to demonstrate the sincerity of Julianus’ offer to
share his throne with Septimius Severus, who was then advancing on
Rome.
MANLIA SCANTILLA
A u g u sta , a .d . 193
W if e o f D id iu s J u l ia n u s
M o th er of D id ia C la r a
Manlia Scantilla, lifespan unknown. On the day

the senate was forced to hail her husband Didius
Julianus emperor, it also bestowed the rank of
Augusta on Manlia Scantilla and Didia Clara, the new emperor’s wife and
daughter. O f the virtues Manlia Scantilla may have possessed, beauty, it
seems, was not one of them. Indeed, the 19th Century historian S.W
Stevenson goes so far as to describe her as “the most deformed of women.”
She remains almost a complete mystery, and of her fate subsequent to being
stripped of her title of Augusta, we have no details and can only conclude
that she died in obscurity sometime thereafter.
DIDIA CLARA
A u g u sta , a .d . 193
Daugh ter of D id iu s J u l ia n u s and
M a n l ia S c a n t il l a
Didia Clara, born c . A .D . 1 5 3 . In stark contrast to

her mother, the daughter of Didius Julianus was a
woman of considerable beauty. Indeed, the same
historian who maligned her mother’s countenance suggests Didia Clara
was no less than “the most beautiful of the young women of her age.”
Didia Clara was married to a cousin named Cornelius Repentinus,
who was destined to be one of three men who held the job of prefect of
Rome during the tumultuous 13-week period that followed the murder of
Commodus. The office had originally been occupied by Pertinax, who
upon being hailed emperor vacated it and appointed his father-in-law, Fla
vius Sulpicianus, to the post. Following Pertinax’s murder, Didius Julianus
ousted Sulpicianus (who had been Julianus’ competitor at the “auction”
held by the praetorian guards) and appointed his own son-in-law, Repenti
nus, in his place.
In addition to being hailed Augusta, having a father as emperor and a
husband as city prefect, Didia Clara was also named beneficiary of her
father’s estate. But all of her fortune turned sour in a single day, either June
1 or 2 of 193, when her father was beheaded, she was stripped of her impe
rial title, and her inheritance was confiscated by the new emperor, Septi
mius Severus.
PESCENNIUS NIGER
A.D. 19 3 - 19 4
Gaius Pescennius Niger Iustus, c. A.D. 13 5 / 14 0 -
194. O f the three frontier generals who an
Rome’s call for liberation from Didius Julianus,
Pescennius Niger was the most legitimate candi
date. Indeed, when a group of outraged citizens
gathered in the Circus Maximus to draft a plea, it was to Niger that they
sent their request.
Unfortunately for Niger, the command he had gained through the
patronage of Narcissus (the athlete who strangled Commodus) was in
Syria, and thus news did not reach him fast enough to react before Septi
mius Severus, who commanded legions in Pannonia, was able to march on
Rome and depose Didius Julianus. While glad to be rid of Didius Julianus,
the senators disliked Septimius Severus, and we are told they prayed for
Niger’s success even though they were forced to declare him a public
enemy.
Niger hailed from an equestrian Italian family from Aquinum, a small
city about half way between Rome and Pompeii. He rose to high office
through a successful if unexceptional career in the army. He found his
greatest achievements under Commodus, for whom he fought the Dacians,
served as consul in 190 or 191, and as governor of Syria beginning in 191.
By all accounts he was a knowledgeable man with a great deal of
integrity, but who was also ferocious, lustful and a strict disciplinarian.
Though Niger had originally been hailed in opposition to Julianus, his new
rival unquestionably was Septimius Severus. After Severus had consoli
dated his power in Rome and neutralized Clodius Albinus in the West by
giving him the empty title of Caesar, he marched east in the summer of
193 to confront Niger.
Niger had consolidated his own authority in the East, and with nine
legions under his banner marched toward the Bosporus to meet the armies
of Severus. However, Severus’ Illyrian soldiers easily routed the Syrian
legions in successive engagements in Thrace (except at Byzantium), Cyzi-
cus and Nicaea. By this time, perhaps February of 194, Egypt and some cit
ies in Syria had switched allegiance to Severus.
The most important battle, however, occurred at Issus, in south-east-
ern Cilicia, where Alexander the Great had routed the Perisan king Darius
some 500 years before. This was a critical defeat, and according to one
source cost the lives of 20,000 of Niger’s men. Now a fugitive, Niger fled
south to his capital of Antioch, from which he apparently planned to flee
to the Parthians for safety. However, Severus’ general, Anullinus, captured
and executed him, and sent his severed head to the delighted Severus.
The chronology of these events is inconsistently reported, and a sum
mary is worth presenting. The time frame for Niger’s being hailed emperor
spans the period from late April to June 1 of 193; his defeat at Issus is vari
ously reported as having occurred sometime in March, April or May of
194. Niger’s subsequent fate is even more vague, as he may have been
overtaken before reaching Antioch, captured soon after reaching the city,
or he may have endured a siege of several months. Thus, his death
occurred sometime between March and October of 194*
Severus remained in the East for a while, punishing the cities in Syria
that had supported Niger to the end and dividing that region into two
provinces, Coele-Syria and Phoenicia. Subsequently, he led a campaign
against the Parthian vassals who had supported Niger’s claim to the
throne. In the process, Severus annexed most of Osroene and parts of
northern Mesopotamia, for which he was hailed Parthicus Arabicus and
Parthicus Adiabenicus.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : Like Otho some 125 years before, Pescennius Niger

struck no Latin bronzes, only Latin silver and gold, and provincial coin
ages. Niger’s Latin coinage (primarily from Antioch, although some from
Alexandria and Caesarea in Cappadocia) is rife with misspellings, reverted
letters and other technical imperfections. His portraits vary considerably
in their treatment, and the planchets of his denarii are often irregular in
shape. Because of their debased metal, the denarii typically have porous
surfaces.
CLODIUS ALBINUS A.D. 19 5 - 1 9 7

C a e s a r : a .d . 19 3 -19 5
(u n d er S e p t im iu s S ev er u s)
A u g u s t u s : a .d . 19 5 -19 7
(a g a in s t S e p t im iu s S ev er u s)
Decimus Clodius Septimius Albinus, c . A .D , 1 4 0 /

1 5 0 - 1 9 7 . Born into a distinguished family from
Hadrumetum, about 75 miles south of Carthage,
Clodius Albinus was a tall and portly man who pursued a career in the
army. Although a North African like Septimius Severus, he was from a
family of senatorial rank, and grew up in the lap of luxury. Little is known
of his personality, except that he had a melancholy outlook and a foul
sense of humor, but was brave in battle and harsh in his discipline.
He served admirably under Marcus Aurelius, who made him governor
of Bithynia in 175, and later under Commodus, for whom he fought the
Dacians and held many posts. He served as consul in 187, as governor of
Lower Germany in 189, and finally as governor of Britain in 191. When
the rapid succession of Commodus, Pertinax and Didius Julianus occurred
early in 193, Albinus was one of three frontier generals to answer Rome’s
call for liberation. However, before Albinus made a concerted effort on his
own account, his neutrality was purchased by Septimius Severus, who gave
him the empty title of Caesar, designated him as his heir, and even had
him add the name Septimius to his own. With Albinus placated and Rome
secured, Severus devoted much of 193 and 194 to defeating Pescennius
Niger in the East. Now only Severus and Albinus remained in positions of
authority.
Upon Severus’ triumphant return to Rome, his relationship with
Albinus (with whom he shared the consulship that year) began to sour.
The level of hostility reached a new height in 195, when Severus named
his own sons, Caracalla and Geta, as his successors, and forced the senate
to declare Albinus a public enemy. The news could hardly have come as a
shock to Albinus, who moved into Gaul and was immediately hailed
emperor by his own soldiers at Lugdunum in the fall of 195 (or early in
196, as other accounts would have it).
While Severus was busy passing laws in Rome, Albinus gained con
trol or the allegiance of Spain and the Rhineland, though the Rhine
legions withheld their loyalty. His original army of some 40,000 men
quickly grew in size. It was not until January of 197 that Severus marched
from Rome to meet his western foe. The two Roman armies met on Febru
ary 19, 197, near Lugdunum. The historian Cassius Dio (who is prone to
exaggeration) tells us each general commanded 150,000 men.
The battle was one of the largest in Roman history, and though
Severus initially was thrown from his horse, a quick cavalry action permit
ted his escape and the battle continued. Eventually, Severus’ Illyrian
legions defeated the soldiers of Albinus, who is said to have fled the battle
and committed suicide.
Severus is reported to have ridden his horse over the corpse of A lbi
nus, which he decapitated so he could display the rebel’s head in Rome.
This may be an invention by pro-senatorial historians, but if it was true, it
no doubt had a great effect in terrifying the senate. As a final insult to his
adversary’s memory, Severus is said to have executed Albinus’ wife and
children, and cast all of their corpses into the icy waters of the Rhone.
The legacy of Albinus is a difficult one to decipher, as he is usually
depicted as the innocent victim of Severus’ evil designs. One can only
marvel at his naivete in accepting Severus’ hollow gesture of shared
authority, and read on in shock as he failed to march on Rome during
Severus’ year-long absence in Syria. N o doubt Albinus would have been
warmly received by his friends in the senate who feared the day Severus
returned from the East.
Alternatively, he may have doubted the strength of his position, and
did not challenge Severus out of fear of certain failure. More likely,
though, Albinus was probably awaiting the right moment to strike. Per
haps he believed it was a wiser policy to let Severus march all the way to
Syria and exhaust his own legions fighting Niger. Indeed, had circum
stances been slightly different, Severus would have been defeated by Niger,
in which case Albinus would have been able to occupy Rome unopposed.
Clearly, it seems Albinus made an error in timing, for he did not go
on the offensive until after Severus had returned to Rome and declared
him a public enemy, at which point he had no choice but to engage in a
costly civil war.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : Clodius Albinus’ coinage falls into two distinct cate
gories: the early issues struck at Rome while he was Caesar under
Septimius Severus, and the much scarcer coinage he struck at the capital
of Lugdunum after he was proclaimed Augustus against Severus. The styles
are completely different and the coinages can be distinguished with the
greatest of ease, even when the inscriptions are indistinct.
S e v e r a n -E m e sa n D y n a s t y
A.D. 1 9 3 - 2 3 5
The 42 years between the acclamation of Septimius Severus in 193 and

the murder of Severus Alexander in 235 is usually described as that of the
“Severan Dynasty.” Though this is an appropriate enough label, it is per
haps too simplistic, for the dynasty was composed of both North African
(Severan) and Syrian (Emesan) members. Indeed, it was the Syrian side of
the family that restored the dynasty after it was overthrown by the usurper
Macrinus in 217.
Founding the dynasty was the North African general Septimius
Severus and his Syrian-born wife, Julia Domna. Severus and his two sons,
Caracalla and Geta, ruled the Empire for the first 24 years, from 193 to
217. The dynasty was restored by the family of Domna’s sister, Julia Maesa,
whose two grandsons, Elagabalus and Severus Alexander, collectively
ruled nearly 17 years, from 218 to 235.
Although Rome had first been ruled by a foreign-born emperor
almost a century earlier, when the Spaniard Trajan ascended the throne in
98, these were foreigners of a more exotic bent. The Punic and Syrian rul
ers contributed greatly to the introduction of foreign customs and religions
in Rome. The Severans introduced the worship of numerous North Afri
can, Punic and Egyptian deities, whereas the Emesans imported the wor
ship of the sun-god Heliogabal. Even the usurper Macrinus, who
temporarily interrupted the dynasty, was a mere knight of Moorish extrac
tions. Indeed, no true Roman occupied the throne during this period of
history.
These eastern and Punic religions were to have profound effects, not
only during the period of this dynasty, but also in the succeeding years.
Most important, perhaps, was solar worship, which became popular with
soldiers, especially in the form of Mithraism. Solar worship eventually
served as the conduit by which Constantine the Great was able to adopt
Christianity early in the 4th Century.
The fanaticism of eastern religion was quite different from the quiet,
reverent form of worship to which the Romans were accustomed. Their
form of paganism relied more on ritual and formula than actual belief, so
the bizarre rituals introduced by Elagabalus (218-222) as the chief priest of
the sun-cult of Heliogabal were quite a spectacle to the Romans.
Elagabalus combined his exotic rituals with a desecration of Roman insti

tution by marrying a Vestal Virgin. Few could have imagined that the
Imperial government would get that far out of hand, and it comes as no
surprise that he was murdered.
The Severan-Emesan dynasty came to an end in 235, when the rather
docile emperor Severus Alexander, still only 26 years old, was murdered
near the Rhine. Executing him were mutinous soldiers who wanted some
one who would courageously lead them into the forests of Germany, not
someone who would instead negotiate peace with offerings of gold. His
murder heralded a new era in Roman history in which warfare on the three
fronts — the Rhine, the Danube and the Euphrates — was rampant, and
no Imperial continuity was achieved until the formation of the Tetrarchy
some 50 years later.
SEPTIMIUS SEVERUS
A .D . 1 9 3 - 2 1 1
A u g u s t u s : a .d . 1 9 3-21 I
( a .d . 1 9 3 - 1 9 8 : so le r e ig n ;
1 95 -19 8 C aracalla as C a esa r )
( a .d . 1 9 8 - 2 0 9 : w it h C aracalla ;
G eta as C a esa r )
( a .d . 2 0 9 - 2 1 1 : w it h C aracalla a n d
G eta )
H u sban d of J u l ia D omna
Fa t h e r of C aracalla and G eta
U n c le o f J u l i a S o a e m ia s a n d J u l i a M a m a e a
G r e a t -u n c l e o f Elagabalu s and S everu s A lexan d er
B r o t h e r -in -law of J u l ia M a esa
Fa t h e r -in -la w of P l a u t il l a
Lucius Septimius Severus, A .D . 1 4 5 / 6 - 2 1 1 A n intensely superstitious

man, Septimius Severus hailed from a privileged and thoroughly Roman
ized family from the North African metropolis of Leptis Magna. He was a
short, powerful man perfectly suited to the rigors of war, and ambitious
enough to aspire to the throne.
On his father’s side he was descended from the Septimii, who were of
Punic origin, and on his mother’s side from the Fulvii, who were of Italian
descent. One of his grandfathers was the leading man in Leptis Magna dur
ing the principate of Trajan (98-117). Two of his family members were in
the senate when he was born, and through this, Severus and his brother,
Publius Septimius Severus, were themselves able to attain senatorial rank
from the emperor Marcus Aurelius (161-180).
Severus and his brother pursued careers in the army, and Severus
himself governed Gallia Lugdunensis from 185 to 187. During this time he
married as his second wife, Julia Domna, a daughter of the chief priest of
the Emesan sun-cult of Heliogabal. Together they had two sons, Caracalla
in 188 and Geta in 189.
In 190 Severus held the consulship in Rome, and in the following
year was appointed governor of Pannonia Superior. In that capacity he had
command of three legions. He did not act upon the murder of Commodus
on New Year’s Eve of 192, but only 12 days after the praetorian guardsmen
subsequently murdered the emperor Pertinax, Severus was hailed emperor
by his soldiers at Carnuntum on April 9, 193 (the Historia Augusta gives
the date as April 13, but this has been disproven by the “Dura Calendar” ).
He assumed the name of the slain Pertinax, and marched on Rome to
claim the throne, which had been purchased by a wealthy senator named
Didius Julianus at an informal auction held by the praetorian guardsmen
on March 28. N ot only did Severus earn the support of his three Pannon-
ian legions, but he also gained approval from the remaining legions sta-
tioned on the Rhine and Danubian fronts, giving him 16 legions in all.
Severus had three opponents to his claim: Didius Julianus, then the
emperor in Rome; Clodius Albinus, the governor of Britain; and Pescen-
nius Niger, the governor of Syria. Despite all this opposition, Severus was
in the best position, for he had the support of many legions, and was closer
to Rome than either Albinus or Niger. Furthermore, Julianus had little
more than the fickle praetorian guards to defend him.
Severus marched on Rome at so rapid a pace that all in Rome realized
Julianus was doomed. Julianus’ attempts to assassinate Severus failed, as
did his subsequent offers to share his authority. In hopes of avoiding a mas
sacre in Rome, Severus promised immunity to all the praetorian guards
men if they would turn over the men who murdered Pertinax. The
praetorians agreed to the terms, and the senate deified Pertinax, con
demned Julianus and hailed Septimius Severus emperor in his place. On
either the 1st or 2nd of June, 193, Julianus was captured and executed.
The senate soon came to despise Severus, and the now-humiliated pra
etorian could hardly have benefited from his presence. But both feared his
frontier legions, and so had no choice but to support his claim to the throne.
Meanwhile, the senate and the people vested much hope in Albinus and
Niger, both of whom had been proclaimed emperor by their troops.
One of Severus’ first actions was to trick the praetorian guards into
assembling, unarmed, for an address. Once they were all present, his Illyr
ian soldiers rushed in, deposed them, and replaced them. In addition to
replacing the treacherous praetorians with his loyal Illyrians, Severus also
doubled the size of the praetorian cohorts from 500 to 1,000 men. Pay was
increased from 300 denarii to 500 denarii, and other subsidies were added.
Though in reality these overtures barely kept pace with the reduction of
the purity of the denarius (now at about 50 percent silver), Severus created
a large, loyal army that could safeguard Rome while he conducted his
upcoming campaign against Niger. His inherent distrust of senators and
Italians was well served by their replacement with his Illyrian troops, sav
age and offensive though they seemed to the local population.
After he had consolidated his power in Rome, Severus bought peace
with Albinus and the British legions by investing him with the rank of
Caesar. This was a shallow, diversionary tactic that Albinus accepted, for
he must have considered the combined legions of the Rhine and Danube
too much to overcome at present. Now secure in the West, Severus turned
his attention to Niger in the East, and led an army toward Asia in the sum
mer of 193.
Niger, with nine legions under his command, marched to the
Bosporus to confront Severus, only to be routed in successive engagements
in Thrace, and at Cyzicus and Nicaea. By approximately February of 194,
word had spread throughout Niger’s Empire that Severus had gained the
upper hand, and Egypt and some cities in Syria switched their allegiance to
Severus. The critical defeat, however, occurred in the spring of 194 at
Issus, in southeastern Cilicia, where perhaps 20,000 of Niger’s men per
ished. Niger fled to Antioch in the South, where he then hoped to flee to
the Parthian vassals who were his allies. However, he was captured and
executed sometime between March and October of 194.
Severus remained in the East, exacting revenge on the cities in Syria
and the Parthian vassals who had supported Niger. During these cam
paigns, Severus was hailed Parthicus A rabicus and Parthicus Adiabenicus for
having annexed most of Osroene and northern Mesopotamia. Severus
then returned to Rome, more certain than ever that the astrologer he had
consulted before he married Julia Domna was correct — that whomever
she married would become a king.
Upon returning to Europe, Severus declared himself to be the son of
Marcus Aurelius, and made clear his intentions toward Albinus when, in
December of 195, he raised his own son, Caracalla, to the rank of Caesar.
Thus, in one fell swoop, Albinus was replaced both as Caesar and as
Severus’ heir to the throne. Furthermore, Severus forced the senate to
declare Albinus a public enemy. In response, Albinus moved into Gaul
and was hailed emperor at Lugdunum in the fall of 195 or early in 196.
After about a year of preparations, the opposing Augusti met near
Lugdunum on February 19, 197. In what was undoubtedly one of the larg
est battles in Roman history, Severus emerged victorious, causing Albinus
to flee the battlefield and commit suicide.
With Severus now in supreme command, the senate braced itself for
what it knew would be a difficult relationship with the emperor. Severus
now took his family with him on his conquest of Parthia. The war was a
great success, and when his legions occupied the Parthian capital of Ctesi-
phon on January 28, 198, they were ruthless. In addition to stripping the
great city of all its portable wealth, they killed all the men and enslaved
some 100,000 women and children.
Severus consequently hailed his 9-year-old son, Geta, Caesar, and
raised his 10-year-old son Caracalla from Caesar to Augustus. Two
attempts to take the city of Hatra failed, and the Imperial family traveled
to Egypt. They remained there nearly a year, during which a visit to the
tomb of Alexander the Great must have made a strong impression on
young Caracalla, who later in his life became obsessed with the Greek
king’s legacy. Late in 200 the family departed Egypt.
Severus and his eldest son Caracalla assumed the consulship at A nti
och on January 1, after which the royal family returned to Rome, arriving
before the end of 202. N ot long after their arrival, Caracalla was forced
into a hateful marriage with Plautilla, the daughter of prefect Plautianus.
The ceremony was magnificent, but if there was anyone Caracalla hated
more than his new bride, it was her father, Plautianus. Even Domna
objected to the union, but Severus paid no heed. Severus had made Plau
tianus, a possible kinsman from his home town of Leptis Magna, praeto
rian prefect in 197. The two were inseparable and he accompanied the
emperor on all of his early campaigns. Plautianus was given authority over
taxation and the grain supply, as well as other important functions of gov
ernment. As a result, Plautianus became exceptionally wealthy, and by the
time he convinced Severus to agree to the wedding, he was virtual co-ruler
with Severus.
As might be expected, the great wealth and power achieved by Plau
tianus caused him to suffer from an inflated ego, and he may even have
plotted to overthrow Severus and Caracalla. Plautianus was famous for
erecting statues of himself not just in Rome, but throughout the Empire. In
205, all of the prefect’s good fortune came to an end, when Severus’
brother, Lucius Septimius Geta, offered damning words about Plautianus
while he was on his own deathbed.
Caracalla was eager to strike while the iron was hot, and managed to
coerce statements from praetorian guardsmen confirming the suspicion
that Plautianus was plotting against Severus and Caracalla. Even Severus
could not deny the combined impact of the opinions of his wife and eldest
son, his deceased brother and a loyal praetorian guard. Severus called Plau
tianus to the palace on January 22, 205, where he did not contradict an
order given by Caracalla to a nearby guard to execute Plautianus. Cara
calla promptly divorced and banished Plautilla, and because Plautianus
was subjected to damnatio memoriae, his statues were torn down and his
inscriptions were erased.
Though this was a tragic event for Severus, to first discover that his
closest ally was unfaithful and then to have him executed, it was a moment
of triumph and relief for Caracalla and Domna. The populace in general
rejoiced, for Plautianus had behaved arrogantly.
Before the downfall of Plautianus, Severus and his family made an
expedition to North Africa, visiting his home town of Leptis Magna from
late in 202 to some time in 203. While in the region, Severus led a cam
paign against the desert tribes beyond Tripolitana — something he may
have wanted to do since childhood. Over the years, Severus lavished Leptis
Magna with a great many building projects, much of which remain today to
make that city one of the most impressive Roman ruins in existence.
In 203 the Severans returned to Italy, and in 205, Severus made his
two sons share the consulship, hoping they would learn how to cooperate;
instead, it served only to fuel their rivalry. The Imperial family spent the
three years from 205 to 208 partly in Rome and in Campania. Severus and
Domna were in for a difficult period as parents, for not only were Caracalla
and Geta well into their teens, but both Plautianus and Severus’ brother
were now deceased, and so there were fewer in the household to prevent
the siblings from clashing.
Severus gave his sons one last opportunity at sharing the consulship
in 208, but again they proved to be unable to work together. A t wit’s end,
Severus decided that a frontier military campaign would do his sons good,
and so he organized just such an offensive against the Caledonians in the
north of Britain.
The family arrived at Eburacum (mod. York) in the north of England
in 209, and in the beginning, Severus had both of his sons fight on the
front. This gave Severus the opportunity to raise his youngest son, Geta, to
the rank of Augustus. Domna now occupied a unique niche in history, for
she was simultaneously the wife of one emperor and the mother of two
others.
During the remainder of the war, Severus became increasingly ill, and
left Geta behind with his mother at camp headquarters while Caracalla led
the campaign. Father and eldest son often quarreled and, to the many sol
diers who witnessed the event, it even appeared as though Severus was
about to be stabbed in the back by Caracalla. Warning shouts from the sol
diers, we are told, foiled Caracalla’s attempt. As Herodian reveals: “He
regarded his father, who was suffering from a drawn-out illness and taking a
long time to die, as a troublesome nuisance and tried to persuade his doc
tors and attendants to do him some mischief while they tended to the old
man, so as to get rid of him sooner.” However, Severus, in his mid-60s, sur
vived that altercation and died a natural death on February 4, 211, at Ebu
racum. To his sons he gave a simple piece of advice: “Agree with each
other, give money to the soldiers, and scorn all other men.”
Peace was made with the Caledonians and the offensive abandoned
so they could conduct Severus’ body back to Rome. Caracalla was now the
senior Augustus, but he shared authority with his brother and, to a certain
degree, with Domna. Once the family arrived in Rome, they celebrated
Severus’ funeral and consecration, and placed his ashes in the Mausoleum
of Hadrian.
Though they paid him honor in public, his sons ignored Severus’
deathbed advice to settle their differences. Instead, within 10 months
G eta had been murdered by Caracalla, who for the remainder of his life
was haunted by dreams in which he was pursued by his deceased father and
brother, brandishing their swords.
The silver coinage was significantly debased during

Severus’ reign. Though the denarius had regained some of its integrity dur
ing the brief reigns of Pertinax (at about 87 percent pure), it returned fast
to approximately the 75 percent purity to which it had fallen during the
reign of Commodus. During Severus’ war with Pescennius Niger, the silver
content of the denarius dropped precipitously to about 65 percent, and by
the end of his reign had fallen to about 56 percent. His eldest son, Cara
calla, let it fall to about 50 percent, where on average it stayed until the
reign of Gordian III (238-244).
The coinage of the Severan-Emesan dynasty through 211 was truly
the coinage of Septimius Severus, for the coins issued in the names of his
sons (and to the degree possible, his wife) followed suit. The early period,
through about 202, offers interesting dynastic issues showing the portraits
of two or more family members. Sometimes their busts occur individually
on opposite sides of the coin; at other times they are jugate, confronted, or
facing. However, the most creative period in terms of reverse types was c.
201 to 206. Some of Severus’ “better” reverse types include: temple and
sacrifice scenes for the Saecular Games, the four seasons at play, a ship in
the Circus Maximus surrounded by exotic animals, Dea Caelestis riding a
lion bounding over gushing water, the arch of Septimius Severus and the
Stadium of Domitian.
CIVIL WAR AND THE SEVERAN-EMESAN DYNASTY 2 73
JULIA DOMNA
A u g u sta , a .d . 1 9 3 -2 1 7
W if e o f S e p t im iu s S everu s
M o th er of C aracalla an d G eta
S is t e r o f J u l ia M a esa
A u n t of J u l ia S o a e m ia s a n d J u l ia M am aea
G r e a t -a u n t o f E la gabalu s and S everus A lexan d er
M o t h e r -in -law of P l a u t il l a
Julia Domna, c. A.D. 170- 2 1 7 . O f all the members of the Severan-Emesan

dynasty, the one who probably deserves the highest accolades is Julia
Domna, the empress who served her Empire, her family and her army with
great dedication in spite of all the sinister events unfolding around her.
Perhaps her greatest contribution to Rome was her staunch opposi
tion to the division of the Empire between her two sons. Had Caracalla
and Geta been allowed to carve up the Empire between east and west, a
horrific civil war could have resulted. Alternatively, the plan might have
worked, and the division between East and West that was achieved by the
emperors Valentinian I and Valens in 364 could have been effected much
earlier.
Julia Domna was born in Syria, and was the only sister of Julia Maesa,
both of whom were daughters of Julius Bassianus, the high priest of the
Emesan cult of the sun-god Heliogabal. Theirs was one of the most promi
nent families in Syria, and one which became enormously wealthy through
their leadership of the religious cult. While Domna was destined to help
establish the Severan-Emesan dynasty in 193, Maesa was responsible for its
resurrection in 218, after the downfall of Macrinus.
Though of Syrian origin, Domna traveled to the western Mediterra
nean as a young woman. It would seem that her hand in marriage was
desirable, for her horoscope foretold that whomever she married would
become king. Her choice was Lucius Septimius Severus, a man of North
African extraction who already had been married once and was then gov
ernor of Gallia Lugdunensis. She married Severus in 187 and promptly
gave birth to two sons, Caracalla in 188 and Geta in 189.
Domna was hailed Augusta in 193 when her husband was hailed
emperor by the senate in Rome. She continued to feed her penchant for
travel by accompanying her husband on most of his military campaigns. It
was not since the era of Faustina Junior that an empress had traveled so
widely with the army, so in 195 she was honored as Mother of the Camp
(Mater Castrorum ), a title that she retained over the next 22 years.
In addition to serving her family and Empire, Domna was a patron of
the arts and literature. Her beauty was complimented by her intelligence
and broad intellectual interests, which earned her the nickname “the
philosopher.” She kept company with the literati of her day, including the
physician Galen, the lawyer Ulpian and the philosopher Philostratus,
whose Life of Apollonius she seems to have inspired. Later in her life, she
gained a reputation for adultery, and is even accused by the authors of the
Historia Augusta of plotting against her husband.
Her two greatest sources of grief, no doubt, were the intense rivalry
between her two sons and the dangerous authority of Plautianus, her hus
band’s praetorian prefect. Plautianus was possibly a kinsman of Severus,
and at the very least hailed from the same city. In total disregard for the
contempt all his family members held for Plautianus, Severus gave him
ever greater responsibilities. The hatred between Domna and the prefect
was well known, as each felt free to berate the other in public.
When, in 202, Plautianus arranged for his daughter, Plautilla, to
marry Domna’s eldest son, Caracalla, it must have come as the shock of a
lifetime. If anything, the event demonstrates that the true authority was
wielded by Severus and Plautianus, for the vehement objections of Domna
and Caracalla fell upon deaf ears. Geta, who intensely disliked his brother,
no doubt supported the endeavor, for his brother was bound to suffer as a
consequence.
It came as a great relief to Domna when, in January of 205, she
learned that Plautianus had been executed on Caracalla’s orders. Sitting in
the room with Domna when the news arrived was her daughter-in-law,
Plautilla, who reacted with terror rather than joy, for her fate was also
sealed in the bargain. Caracalla promptly divorced her and banished her to
the barren island of Lipari.
After Plautianus’ death, Domna attempted to strengthen family ties
and defuse the rivalry between her sons. But they were now in their teens
and were becoming more difficult to control with each passing day. Even
moving to rural Campania did not help matters. The joint-consulships the
boys held in 205 and 208 only gave them more topics upon which to
disagree.
Severus believed the only true solution was to give them a taste of
frontier warfare so that their aggressions might be put to more productive
use and so that they would be exposed to a harsher lifestyle. Early in the
campaign, Geta was raised to Augustus, the same rank Caracalla and
Severus held, and Domna was thus hailed Mater Augustorum. Domna
remained at Eburacum (mod. York) with Geta while the offensive was led
by Caracalla and Severus.
The campaign came to a grinding halt in February 211 when Severus
died. Peace was made and the family returned to Rome to celebrate
Severus’ funeral and consecration. The senate hailed Domna Mater Sena-
tus and Mater Patriae (“mother of the senate and of the fatherland” ), titles
unparalleled in Imperial history. In taking such titles, Domna was, perhaps,
drawing a comparison between herself and the great mother-goddess

Magna Mater (Cybele). However, grandiose titles did not help her defuse
the competition between her sons, who had set up a barrier to divide the
palace in Rome, and furthermore, intended to divide the Empire between
themselves.
Domna knew this would result in a civil war and, at the very least,
would diminish her authority over Imperial affairs. Thus, in her objection
to the idea, she posed the observation: “You may divide the Empire, but
you cannot divide your mother.” Through methods that are not entirely
clear, she was able to derail the idea before it gained acceptance.
But Domna would now have to deal with a tragedy far greater than
the death of her husband or the marriage of Caracalla to Plautilla. Late in
December of 211, Domna was tricked by Caracalla into inviting Geta to a
private meeting, at which the three were to settle their differences through
negotiation. Shortly after Geta arrived, however, Caracalla’s guards burst
into the room and murdered him, by some accounts while he lay in
Domna’s arms, begging her to save his life. It was a traumatic event and it
is a great testament to Domna that she was able to overcome it and remain
productive to both the Empire and to Caracalla.
Though she seems not to have accompanied Caracalla on his Ger
manic campaign, she did go to the East with him as he embarked on his
Alexander-inspired conquest of Parthia. She remained in Antioch to
monitor Imperial correspondences and oversee a great many other things.
Being back in her native Syria and being in a position of great power (she
even had her own praetorian guards) all appealed to Domna.
But her new-found happiness was shattered when she learned of Car
acalla’s murder in April 217. Indeed, realizing that she had no direct family
left and that she would lose her authority and prestige, Domna contem
plated suicide. But a message from Macrinus, who was attempting to dis
tance himself from the murder of Caracalla, informed her that she was still
Augusta, and so she chose to live on.
She remained in Syria, but being an essentially powerless Augusta did
not appeal to her and she seems to have devoted her energies to stirring up
a revolt against Macrinus, who seems to have consequently banished her
to Rome. After bearing her son’s ashes back to Rome and perhaps suffering
the effects of cancer, Domna starved herself to death.
The coinage of Julia Domna, though struck over a

long period, is relatively uneventful in terms of its reverse types. The most
noteworthy type that is truly her own is that commemorating, in 213, the
dedication of the Temple of Vesta, which had burned in 191. She does,
however, appear on a number of interesting dynastic issues commissioned
by Septimius Severus. The most famous is that which depicts Severus on
the obverse, and on the reverse Domna’s facing head between the con
fronted heads of her two sons. Her issues belonging to the lifetime of
Severus bear the obverse inscriptions IVLIA DOMNA AVG or IVLIA
AVGVSTA, whereas those struck during the period after his death are
inscribed IVLIA PIA FELIX AVG.
ANTONINUS
( c a l l e d 'CARACALLA')
A.D. 19 8 - 2 17
C a esa r : a .d . 1 9 5 -1 9 8
(u n d er S e p t im iu s S ev er u s)
A u g u stu s : a .d . 1 9 8 -2 1 7
( a .d . 1 9 8 - 2 0 9 : w it h S e p t im iu s S ev er u s)
( a .d . 2 0 9 - 2 1 1 : w it h S e p t im iu s S ev eru s
and G eta )
( a .d . 2 1 1 : w it h G eta )
( a .d . 2 1 1 - 2 1 7 : so le r e ig n )
S on of S e p t im iu s S everu s an d J u l ia D o m n a
B ro th er of G eta
H u sba n d of P l a u t il l a
N eph ew of J u l ia M a esa
C o u s in o f J u l ia S o a e m ia s a n d J u l ia M am aea
Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (earlier Lucius (Julius or Septimius)

Bassianus, nicknamed Caracallus, commonly called Caracalla), A.D.
188- 2 1 7 . Born April 4, 188, at Lugdunum while his father was governor of
Gallia Lugdunensis, Caracalla was a docile, affable youth who changed
with the passage of time. As he matured into his teens, his rivalry with his
brother, Geta, intensified, and after he murdered his sibling late in 211, his
mental and physical illnesses became quite serious, eventually causing his
decline and murder.
Caracalla was hailed Caesar and princeps iuventutis at Viminacium in
December 195 (often erroneously cited as 196), shortly after his father had
defeated Pescennius Niger and settled affairs in Asia Minor. A t this time
he was also re-named Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, for his father was now
claiming to be the son of the emperor Marcus Aurelius (161-180).
Severus’ main purpose in all this was to establish ties to the golden age of
Rome and to make clear to Clodius Albinus that he was establishing his
own dynasty — into which Albinus no longer figured. In 197 he became
Pontifex and Destinatus Imperator.
After Clodius Albinus had been defeated in February of 197, Severus

once again turned his attention to the East, taking his family with him on
a conquest of Parthia. The offensive was a great success, and upon taking
the Parthian capital of Ctesiphon on January 28, 198, the 10-year-old Car
acalla was raised from Caesar to Augustus, while his 9-year-old brother,
Geta, was hailed Caesar.
The family remained in Syria in 199, as Septimius failed on two occa
sions to capture the city of Hatra. Then they traveled to Egypt, entering
that country before the year was out and remaining in Egypt for almost a
full year, after which Caracalla aided his father, and on January 1, 202,
Caracalla shared the consulship with his father in Antioch.
In that same year, his father celebrated his decennalia with lavish
games, and Caracalla was forced into a hateful marriage with Plautilla, the
daughter of the corrupt and arrogant praetorian prefect Plautianus. If any
thing positive could be said about the marriage, it was that the dowry was
immense and the ceremony was as grand as Rome had ever seen.
However, Caracalla despised his new bride as much as he did his ava
ricious and treacherous father-in-law. Indeed, Caracalla and Plautilla may
justifiably be compared with Drusus and Livilla, in the same way Severus
and Plautianus equate to Tiberius and Sejanus. It was a re-run of palace
politics that almost exactly duplicated the situation that existed about 175
years earlier. The situation was not a productive arrangement to anyone
but Plautianus, who was profiting immensely from the trust and responsi
bility Severus had given him. Caracalla grew more hateful of his lot in life
with each passing moment. By January 205, only a few days after he had
been elected consul for a second time (this time sharing the honor with his
brother), Caracalla arranged the murder of Plautianus, and subsequently
divorced and banished his unwanted bride.
Caracalla spent the next three years in cosmopolitan Rome and rural
Campania with his family, and it was during this period that his social
excesses and his sibling rivalry grew to intolerable proportions. Caracalla
and Geta were both in their teens now, and their father did not approve of
the direction in which their energies were being spent, so he invented the
need to personally take charge of a campaign against the Caledonians in
what is modern Scotland.
After the two young heirs had shared the consulship again in 208,
Severus prepared for the campaign that would be his last. In 208 the family
departed Italy and arrived at Eburacum (mod. York), which served as a base
for the campaign. Throughout most of the war, Geta and Julia Domna
remained there, while Caracalla and Septimius led the legions.
Septimius was ill at the time, and so Caracalla assumed overall
responsibility for the campaign. This led to some disagreements, and he
became quarrelsome toward his father. A t one point, the bickering became
so heated that we are told Caracalla appeared ready to stab Severus in the
back in full view of the army. However, a sword was not necessary to slay
his father, for on February 4, 211, the emperor died of natural causes.
Caracalla made a peace with the Caledonians which was not entirely
unfavorable to the Romans, but did require that the border be withdrawn
to Hadrian’s Wall. The three remaining family members returned to Rome
bearing Septimius’ corpse. Along the way the hatred and mistrust that had
long been evident between the siblings grew to new proportions. Indeed,
each was so concerned about being poisoned by the other that they did not
dine or lodge together.
Their return to the capital began with a celebration of their father’s
funeral and consecration, but soon turned into a fratricidal war within the
palace, which had to be physically divided to prevent their murdering one
another. Their mother, Julia Domna, was at her wit’s end, and it was only
her strong objection that prevented the brothers from dividing the Empire
between themselves along geographical lines, Geta in the East and Cara
calla in the West.
With Geta gaining numerous and important allies to his cause, the
brinksmanship being practiced by the brothers lasted only about 10
months from the day their father died. After an earlier plan to poison Geta
was exposed, Caracalla convinced Domna to invite Geta to meet with him
late in December, perhaps on the 26th. Together, he said, the three of
them could work out their differences and put everything right again. But
the laurel branch turned out to be a sword; Caracalla had his guards burst
into the meeting room and slay Geta shortly after he had arrived.
A ll in Rome were shocked and many outraged, though few could
have considered it a surprise. Caracalla hastened to the praetorian camp
where he pled his case with the guardsmen, insisting he had killed Geta
while defending his own life. The story was not convincing enough, so he
offered a bonus of 2,500 denarii per man to gain loyalty and support. He
furthermore increased the payments-in-kind made throughout the ranks of
the army, and increased the salary of the legionnaire from 500 to as much
as 750 denarii per year. Though he offered no money or payment-in-kind,
Caracalla was able to convince the senate to support him as well.
The murder was bad enough, but what followed was difficult to
accept, for Caracalla ordered a general massacre of G eta’s partisans, and
some 20,000 are said to have perished. Among those killed were the
former Caesar, Pertinax Junior; Caracalla’s former wife, Plautilla (who was
in exile on the island of Lipari); and many others, from the lowliest friend
or athlete to praetorian prefects and senators.
A t last, Caracalla was sole emperor of Rome. The many promises he
had made, however, were costly, and there was an urgent need to raise
revenue. To this effect, Caracalla doubled the inheritance tax on estates,

and in 212 he introduced a law, the Constitutio Antoniniana, which granted
citizenship to virtually all free men in the Empire. This greatly increased his
base of taxation, principally that on inherited estates and slaves. Hidden
within this law was also a hint of Caracalla’s infatuation with Alexander the
Great, who likewise tried to integrate all the people he conquered.
In 213 the young emperor assumed his fourth and final consulship, but
departed Rome early in the year to wage war against the Alemanni, a con
federation of Germanic people who are first mentioned by ancient sources
during this campaign. It is at this time that the emperor began to wear the
caracallus (the hooded cloak from which his nickname, “Caracalla,” is
derived) and the wig of golden hair arranged in the German fashion.
Caracalla claimed a military victory, but he won more through subsi
dies, the regular payment of which kept the Germans pacified for another
two decades. For all of this, he won the title Germanicus Maximus from
the senate. In the following year, Caracalla defeated the Danubian Carpi
and reorganized a number of provinces as he made preparations to conquer
the non-Roman east.
Conquering Persia, be it under Parthian or Sasanian control, was a
goal common to many emperors, and a disproportionate number of them
died in their attempts. For Caracalla, however, this ideal took on a dimen
sion far greater than simply adding to the holdings of Rome, for it also fed
upon his desire to replicate the legendary accomplishments of Alexander
the Great.
In 214 Caracalla attended the Pythian games at Philoppopolis,
Thrace, where he was hailed “Alexander” (with the title appearing on the
commemorative coins struck for the games). Indeed, that Caracalla envi
sioned himself as Alexander novus is not surprising, for Alexander was
about 22 years old when he crossed the Hellespont and launched his Per
sian invasion. A t the similar age of 26, Caracalla held an identical position
— leader of the most powerful Empire in the Mediterranean world. Both
men thought in terms that were larger than life, and both were driven by
an insatiable (and perhaps slightly insane) desire to conquer the East.
Later in 214, Caracalla recruited a phalanx of 16,000 men, whom he
had outfitted in the same fashion as would have been Alexander’s soldiers
nearly 550 years before. He recruited soldiers from Sparta, supposedly
added elephants to his arsenal, and even chose commanders who had the
same names as Alexander’s own subordinates.
Caracalla next followed in Alexander’s footsteps, visiting Troy and
honoring it as did Alexander before him. The now-deranged emperor
staged military exercises there to honor the heroes of the Trojan War. He
himself played Achilles, and one of his closest friends, Festus, played the
role of Patroclus. However, to fulfill the Homeric drama, it was necessary
for the otherwise healthy Festus to die, which he did with immaculate tim
ing. A grand funeral was held for this fallen (poisoned) comrade, anoint
ing the upcoming war.
In addition to obvious mental illness, Caracalla was also suffering
from physical ailments. One of his visits while in the East was to Perga-
mum, where he sought a cure at the shrine of Aesculapius. (He had previ
ously visited a shrine of the Celtic healing god Apollo Grannus in
Germany, and later sought relief at the Temple of Serapis in Alexandria.)
In 214, the emperor wintered in Nicomedia, where he remained until early
April of 215. He then embarked for Antioch, arriving there in May, 215
with eight legions and establishing his headquarters. His mother, Domna,
remained there, coordinating many aspects of the campaign and monitor
ing the Imperial correspondence.
The emperor first campaigned unsuccessfully in Armenia, and then
went to Alexandria, arriving in December of 215. N ot surprisingly, he vis
ited Alexander’s tomb and sought cures for his illnesses while he wintered
in that city of half a million people. During his stay, a great tragedy
occurred that resulted in the slaughter of tens of thousands of unarmed
Alexandrian citizens. What prompted the slaughter is not certainly
known, but it may have been jeers directed at him for his impersonations
of Alexander, his murder of Geta or the unfounded insinuation that he was
having an affair with his mother. Regardless of the cause, Caracalla lured
many of those who jeered him into a confined area (on false pretenses, just
as he had done with Geta) and had them butchered to the man. The
slaughter continued for several days in all quarters of the city, as his sol
diers raped, robbed and murdered without cause, restraint or discretion.
Caracalla and his soldiers remained in Alexandria until March or April of
216, when they departed for Antioch.
Caracalla could now focus on his much anticipated Parthian cam
paign. He began by humbly requesting to marry the daughter of the
Parthian king, Artabanus. This overture was rejected, perhaps wisely.
Enraged, Caracalla crossed the Euphrates and invaded Media. He spent
the winter of 216 at Edessa, where he imprisoned the king of the Osroene,
Abgar, whom he also had lured to his court through trickery.
This was an ideal point in time for invading Parthia, since the king
dom had been divided between rival siblings, Artabanus IV and Volo-
gases VI. Since the two Parthian brothers could not get along, they had
divided their kingdom at some point after the death of their father, Volo-
gases V. This sibling rivalry offers an uncanny historical parallel to the
situation that had just been resolved in Rome. In any case, the dispute of
the Parthian brothers was eventually resolved by the vassal king of
Persis, Artashir, who overthrew the Parthians within a decade of C ara

calla s war.
Although the Parthians had been unprepared for Caracalla’s earlier
invasions, the kingdom was now ready to oppose his aggressions. However,
while en route to Mesopotamia, the 29-year-old emperor was murdered
near Carrhae on April 8, 217, as he stopped by the side of the road to
relieve himself. Responsible for the coup was Caracalla’s praetorian prefect
and successor on the throne, Macrinus, who may have feared for his own
life based on some correspondence he had read. Delivering the fatal sword
thrust was a soldier named Martialis, who held a grudge against the
emperor.
Caracalla’s body was cremated and his ashes sent to his mother, Julia
Domna, who was then residing in Antioch. Widowed and deprived of both
of her sons, Domna was ordered by Macrinus (who had been hailed
emperor) to accompany Caracalla’s ashes back to Rome, where she later
starved herself to death. Caracalla was deified Divus Antoninus Magnus
either early in September (perhaps on the 1st) of 217 under Macrinus, or
in 218 under Elagabalus.
The early coinage of Caracalla, from c. 196 to 211, fol

lowed patterns established by his father. There are many interesting
“dynastic” issues bearing two or more portraits, and a considerable number
of interesting reverse types. During this period, Caracalla’s portrait demon
strates his maturation from a small boy to a young man of 23; however, his
most interesting coinage begins in 212, after he had murdered Geta. The
portrait is now fully bearded and develops over the next five years into a
baroque image, often with a menacing scowl.
In 215 (or toward the end of 214), Caracalla introduced the double
denarius, an entirely new coin that is usually mistakenly called an antonin-
ianus, after Caracalla’s given name. It was an inflationary coin: though pre
sumably tariffed at two denarii (for it was ‘radiate’), it only weighed as
much as 1-1/2 denarii. Caracalla took another inflationary measure in 215,
when he reduced the weight of his aureus by 10 percent. These were only
part of his overall plan to increase revenue to pay for his massive army.
Other interesting types were struck to celebrate Severus’ victories in
Britain, and the rebuilding of the Circus Maximus in 213. Regrettably, the
emperor’s greatest architectural achievement, the Thermae Antoninianae
(Baths of Caracalla), is not commemorated or depicted on coinage. Cara
calla’s commemorative coinage, inscribed DIVO ANTONINO MAGNO,
was struck by Elagabalus or Macrinus, presumably at the same time as the
issues that honor his mother, Julia Domna.
PLAUTILLA
A u g u s t a , a .d . 2 0 2 - 2 0 5
W if e o f C aracalla
D a u g h t e r -i n - la w of S e p t im iu s S everu s
and J u l ia D o m n a
S i s t e r -i n -law of G eta
Publia Fulvia Plautilla, d. A.D. 2 1 1 /2. As the

daughter of Gaius Fulvius Plautianus, a man who came from the same
town as Septimius Severus and may have been his relative, Plautilla
became a tool in her father’s rise to power. Indeed, it was her father who,
in 202, convinced Severus to allow Plautilla to marry the emperor’s eldest
son, Caracalla, even though neither bride nor groom desired the match.
The marriage was accompanied by great festivities, for Plautilla had
been allotted an extraordinarily large dowry. Descriptions of the quality
and quantity of items, and the splendor of the procession make it hard to
imagine that a grander event had ever taken place. Upon being wed to
Caracalla, Plautilla was hailed Augusta, a title that she held with her unin
viting mother-in-law, Julia Domna, for three years.
Caracalla and Plautilla never got along, and their marriage was one of
political necessity rather than love. They despised each other so greatly
that they refused even to dine together. However, the stories of her loose
sexual conduct are probably unfounded, and may be chalked up to Severan
propaganda.
Plautianus had been made praetorian prefect in 197 and accompanied
the emperor on all of his early campaigns. He was given ever-increasing
authority over governmental functions, including the most important ones
— taxation and the grain supply. Through these high offices, he became
exceptionally wealthy and by the early 200s had become the virtual co
ruler of Septimius Severus. In addition to having his daughter marry the
heir-apparent, Plautianus even held the consulship in 203.
During his rise to power, however, Plautianus had become too avari
cious, and perhaps even planned to overthrow his benefactor. Whether or
not the latter is true, he had alienated the emperor’s wife, brother and
eldest son (his own son-in-law, Caracalla), and in so doing had made some
powerful enemies. With Severus, he seems only to have had one important
quarrel, which resulted from his erecting statues of himself all over the
Empire. More often than not, Plautianus’ own statues were larger than
those of the Imperial family; at other times he would include his own stat
ues among those of the Severans.
A deathbed testimonial by Severus’ brother, Publius Septimius Geta,
however, brought the matter of Plautianus’ loyalty to a head. Caracalla,
who was wholly unsatisfied with his marriage to the prefect’s daughter and
so deeply resented the man’s authority, furthered matters by coercing state

ments from some praetorian guardsmen that Plautianus had asked them to
murder Severus and Caracalla. Retribution was swift. Plautianus was called
into the palace on January 2 2 , 2 0 5 , where on Caracalla’s orders he was
murdered by a guard as the two Augusti stood by watching.
Considering the way Plautianus gained and abused his power, alien
ated members of the Imperial family and perhaps even plotted against the
emperor, it comes as no surprise that historians have drawn a parallel
between him and Tiberius’ more notorious prefect, Sejanus. It comes as no
surprise that Plautianus was subjected to damnatio memoriae.
For Caracalla, the death of Plautianus was a welcome event. N ot only
did he remove the man whom he considered his main rival to the succes
sion, but he also was able to divorce Plautilla. In this task Caracalla wasted
no time and immediately banished her and her brother Plautius to Lipari, a
volcanic island north of Sicily. Plautilla and her brother were put to death
late in 2 1 1 or early in 2 1 2 , after Caracalla murdered his brother Geta.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : This empress’ coinage began in 2 0 2 with issues cele
brating her marriage to Caracalla, and continued until her divorce three
years later. One of Plautilla’s otherwise pedestrian coin types, inscribed
PIETAS AVGG (SC) and showing Pietas holding a scepter and child, sug
gests the Imperial couple had a child.
GETA A.D. 2 0 9 - 2 1 1
C a esa r : a .d . 19 8 -2 0 9
(u n d er S e p t im iu s S ev erus a n d
C a racalla )
A u g u s t u s : a .d . 2 0 9 - 2 1 1
( a .d . 1 0 9 - 2 1 i : w it h S e p t im iu s S everus
and C a racalla )
( a .d . 2 1 1 : w it h C a racalla )
S on of S e p t im iu s S everu s an d J u l ia D o m n a
B ro th er of C aracalla
B r o t h e r -in -law of P l a u t il l a
N eph ew of J u l ia M a esa
C o u s in o f J u l ia S o a e m ia s a n d J u l ia M am aea
Publius Septimius Geta (earlier Lucius Septimius Geta), A .D . 1 8 9 - 2 1 1 .

The short life of Geta is not remembered for any particular achievement,
for he had little opportunity to accomplish anything positive. Instead, his
energies were devoted to a destructive and competitive relationship with
his elder brother, Caracalla. So intense was this fratricidal war that when
their plan to divide the Empire between themselves was foiled by their
mother, they determined that murder was the only viable alternative.
It is hard to explain why Caracalla, who was less than a year older
than his brother, was promoted so rapidly while Geta was essentially left
behind. Since we have no reason to doubt that the rivalry between the sib
lings was any less intense than the ancient authors have led us to believe,
it may be that this was born of the inequality of the authority they were
given by their father: G eta’s bitterness for being denied, and Caracalla’s,
envy of any honor, no matter how small, that his brother received.
G eta was bom at Milan in March of 189, and physically resembled his
father. He never married, though no doubt there was ample opportunity.
He was originally named Lucius after his father, but later, in 205, he
assumed the name Publius after his uncle, who died that year.
As a boy, Geta traveled far and wide with his family. In 197 he trav
eled to the East, accompanied by his mother and brother, joining their
father, who was preparing to launch a campaign against Parthia. The war
was a success, and when the Romans captured the capital city of Ctesi
phon on January 28, 198, Geta was hailed Caesar and princeps iuventutis.
His brother, who had held the title of Caesar since December 195, was
raised to the rank of Augustus. Thereafter, through 202, the family trav
eled throughout Asia and the Balkans, after which they visited their
father’s native province in North Africa from 203 to 204.
Upon returning to Rome, the boys’ uncle died, and Caracalla
arranged the murder of Plautianus. With these two members of the court
now deceased, there was less of a buffer between the quarrelsome siblings.
Considering that they were sharing the consulship of 205, their duties pro
vided ample opportunity for them to disagree and take opposing views on
all sorts of matters.
Both Caracalla and Geta were now in their teens, and began to
indulge in the pleasures of life offered in cosmopolitan Rome and rural
Campania. Dio Cassius relates: “They outraged women and abused boys,
they embezzled money, and made gladiators and charioteers their favorite
companions . . . if the one attached himself to a certain faction, the other
would be sure to choose the opposite side.” He continues his commentary,
telling of how Caracalla broke one of his legs after falling from his chariot
in a fierce race with Geta.
The brothers were again joint consuls in 208, after which their par
ents decided enough was enough. In the following year, 209, the family
departed for Britain, where Septimius Severus had decided to wage war
personally against the Caledonians. It was not necessary for the emperor
himself to lead this campaign, but he believed it would be good experience
for his sons, who at this stage of their lives were in dire need of discipline
and diversion from the attractions of palace life.
Upon arriving, Geta participated in some of the battles, and was
raised from Caesar to Augustus. Geta adopted the praenomen Imperator as
a result, but in 210 abandoned it in favor of Britannicus. Throughout the
rest of the campaign, Geta remained at the base camp of Eburacum (mod.
York) with his mother, while Caracalla and Severus battled ever-further
north on the Caledonian front.
On February 4, 211, Septimius Severus died at Eburacum, and Cara
calla arranged peace with the Caledonians so the family could return to
Rome with their father’s corpse. Septimius’ deathbed advice to his sons
was, in essence, to get along with each other, pay heed to the soldiers, and
to pay no heed to anyone else. On the journey home, Caracalla and Geta
did not stay in the same locations or dine together, out of fear of being poi
soned. Their joint reign lasted barely more than 10 months.
When they arrived at Rome the family celebrated Severus’ consecra
tion and funeral. Ignoring their father’s advice on being civil to each other,
the siblings physically divided the palace to prevent conflicts. They next
determined that the best solution to their fighting was to divide the
Empire, much as they had the palace: Geta would take Asia and Egypt,
and Caracalla would take Europe and the rest of North Africa. But Domna
prevented the plan, saying, “You may divide the Empire, but you cannot
divide your mother.”
Although Geta may have been the more likable of the two, he no
doubt realized he was in a life-or-death struggle with his brother, and so he
gathered a large following of partisans who were prepared to support his
cause. While Caracalla had the marginal support of the praetorian guard,
Geta sought alliances among the literati and the senate. The growing popu
larity of Geta must have alarmed Caracalla, who decided to act before
being acted upon. He first planned to murder Geta at the Saturnalian festi
val held on December 17 of 211, but word of his plot leaked in advance,
and Geta only redoubled his security. Caracalla then approached his
mother, asking that she invite both him and Geta to a private meeting at
which they could settle their differences. Ever hopeful, Domna agreed, and
the meeting was set for late December, perhaps on the 26th.
Caracalla had set his trap, and Geta, who had not yet reached his
23rd birthday, was murdered by guards who burst into the room on Cara
calla’s orders. The story of his being butchered by Caracalla while in his
mother’s arms may well be true, but it does have a melodramatic twist that
invites skepticism.
To safeguard himself, Caracalla went to the praetorian camp, where
he claimed he had narrowly escaped G eta’s attempt to murder him, and
that he had resorted to killing his brother only in self defense. Though
they probably did not believe Caracalla, the bribe and the pay raise he
offered helped them muster the resolve to support his cause. Without the
cash incentive, Caracalla pleaded the same case with the senate.
G eta’s many supporters were now leaderless, and Caracalla ordered
their slaughter to a man. We are told the victims numbered 20,000 and
included everyone from casual friends and charioteers to governors, pra
etorian prefects and senators. The murders occurred in every sort of loca
tion, public or private. Though Geta was also subjected to damnatio
memoriae, the authors of the Historia Augusta tell us his funeral was surpris
ingly elaborate.
Caracalla’s behavior toward Geta is often viewed as evidence of his
particular brand of evil, and his victim is likewise depicted as an innocent
victim of a butcher. Clearly, neither extreme is truthful, and either of the
young men was ready and willing to murder the other. In the end, perhaps
G eta was the lesser of the two evils, but Dio Cassius tells us he was mean,
stingy, brusque and gluttonous. Other histories, perhaps less reliable, such
as that of Victor and the Historia Augusta, depict him as a mild-mannered
youth who was courteous and mindful of his father’s opinions.
The slaughter of so many of G eta’s partisans, though a reprehensible
act, no doubt was necessary if Caracalla was to survive the ordeal, as many
powerful men and women were among those slaughtered. Had they not
been eliminated, it would only have been a matter of time before they
would have undermined Caracalla’s regime or would have successfully
attempted his murder.
The death of Geta has traditionally been assigned

C h r o n o l o g ic a l N o t e :
to February of 212, but is better placed in December of 211, perhaps even
on the 26th day. The date of 211 is now generally accepted by the aca
demic community. The confusion derives from piecing together informa
tion from different ancient sources. The generally reliable Dio Cassius
provides the age of Geta (230 months and 9 days), but offers no actual
birth date, whereas the notoriously unreliable Historia Augusta suggests
Geta was born in May of 189. When combined, these two pieces of infor
mation yield a date of death for Geta in February of 212.
However, other more reliable sources are available for determining
G eta’s date of birth. One of the Lives (or Passions) of the Martyrs dateable
to 203 records that a particular Christian martyr died on the birthday of
Geta, and another document (later in date, but probably accurate) indi
cates that that martyr died on March 7. This is confirmed by an additional
Church source.
Thus, we must “back date” G eta’s birth and murder by about three
months. Supporting this view is what we are told of Caracalla’s failed plan
to murder Geta at the festival of the Saturnalia (held December 17). The
numismatic evidence also supports this conclusion, for coins of Geta
inscribed TR P IV are of great rarity, with only a handful known. Thus, if
the renewal was on the traditional date of December 10, or was to occur on
New Year’s Day (in which case some coins were struck in anticipation),
their rarity is understandable, assuming he died in December. However, if
he had lived through February, their rarity would be difficult to explain.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : Much like his brother, Caracalla, the physical matura
tion of Geta is plainly shown on his coinage, which was struck during the
last 13 years of his life. His earliest coins depict him as a 9-year-old boy, and
his latest as a fully bearded 22-year-old. His portrait also figures into the
many combinations of the “family” issues of the Severans meant to demon
strate the promise of the dynasty. Other important types celebrate his two
consulships and his participation in the victories gained in Britain.
Though G eta’s coins are quite common, a great many of them were
melted or destroyed as part of the damnatio memoriae that followed his
death. Evidence of this can best be observed on medallic bronzes from the
provincial city of Stratonicea in Caria, upon which the name and portrait
of Geta has been frequently “erased” with a chisel.
MACRINUS A .D . 217-218
A u g u stu s: a .d . 21 7 -2 1 8
( a .d . 2 1 7 - 2 1 8 : s o l e r e i g n )
( a .d . 2 1 8 : w it h D ia d u m e n ia n )
Fa t h e r of D ia d u m e n ia n
Marcus Opellius Severus Macrinus (earlier Mar

cus Opellius Macrinus), c. A .D . 1 6 4 / 5 - 2 1 8 . Born
at Caesarea in Mauretania, Macrinus began his career as a lawyer and
eventually rose to become one of two praetorian prefects under Caracalla.
As such, he was involved in the murder of his benefactor, and three days
after Caracalla’s murder at Carrhae (in Mesopotamia) on April 8, 217, was
hailed emperor in his place — assuring the soldiers that their beloved
emperor had died a natural death.
Macrinus, who ruled only for about 14 months, was the first emperor
not of senatorial rank ( he was only a knight), and was also the first to hail
from Mauretania. One of his first official acts was to add the name Severus
to his own, and that of Antoninus to his son’s, in hopes that it would dem
onstrate his ties to the previous dynasties. Despite Caracalla’s unpopularity
among the people, he had been extremely popular with the soldiers.
Macrinus took command of the war Caracalla had begun with the
Parthians, but soon tired of the effort and sued for peace, offering the
enemy large sums of money in exchange. This did not please the soldiers,
and his questionable appointments of officials in Rome did little to ingrati
ate the senate and the general public. Even though Macrinus was very
much in command, he was an easy target for a coup.
Just such a coup was raised by the remnants of the Severan-Emesan
dynasty, the members of which had returned to Syria on Macrinus’ orders
after the murder of Caracalla. Leading the revolt were Julia Maesa (the sis
ter of the former Augusta, Julia Domna), and one of her two daughters,
Julia Soaemias. Together, they proposed Soaemias’ 14-year-old son,
Elagabalus, then the chief priest of their solar religious cult, as the candi
date to replace Macrinus.
Macrinus was residing at Antioch with his soldiers when the revolt of
Elagabalus arose on May 16, 218, at Emesa, the home of his family’s hered
itary priesthood. Macrinus sent his prefect, Ulpius Julianus, at the head of
an army with orders to crush the rebellion at Emesa. In the meantime,
Macrinus proceeded to nearby Apamaea, where he raised his son to the
rank of Augustus and gave the praetorians a generous bonus.
Julianus’ army was of divided opinion. Some of his loyal men began to
enter the city after battering down gates, but they were ordered to with
draw for the evening. In the intervening hours, the camp was infiltrated by
men from the Emesan army who spread the necessary rumors to undermine
what little loyalty remained, and when the battle began in the morning
the Antiochene soldiers soon turned against their officers, murdering them
to a man, and defecting to the Emesan cause.
The severed head of Julianus (rather than that of Elagabalus, for
which Macrinus had hoped) was delivered to the emperor at Apamaea.
Macrinus apprised the senate in Rome of the happenings, and it offered
support to Macrinus, for at the very least he did not represent two women
and a teen-aged sun priest.
The two armies eventually clashed on June 8 about 20 miles outside
Antioch, at the tiny village of Immae. Macrinus led his forces and
Elagabalus’ tutor, Gannys (a man of negligible military experience, if any),
led the Emesan legions with Elagabalus, his mother and grandmother there
to rally the men. The battle was hard-fought in the midday sun, and
Macrinus himself fled to Antioch just as the tide of battle turned against
him. His loyal praetorians were won over by Elagabalus, who promised
them their jobs and their lives if they would defect. Since Macrinus had
already fled, the offer seemed reasonable, and they accepted.
Thus, the victory belonged to the revolutionary army raised by the
Syrian women. The 54'year-old Macrinus made good his own escape in
disguise, and entrusted Diadumenian to loyal men who were to deliver him
to Parthia. Macrinus made it all the way to Calchedon and only a contrary
wind prevented him from crossing the Bosporus to European soil. But
instead, he was captured and dragged back across Asia Minor. Since a self-
inflicted injury prevented his being delivered to Antioch, the soldiers
escorting him executed Macrinus some 75 miles from the Syrian border —
but not before news reached him of the execution of his beloved son.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : Macrinus’ coinage has two especially interesting
aspects. The first concerns his portrait, which is sometimes shown with a
long beard, and at other times with a cropped beard. Until not long ago
some scholars believed this indicated the coins were struck at different
mints, but it has been proven that all were struck at Rome. The second
aspect of note are his coins with the inscription COS II. The confusion, as
scholars can best determine, arose when the mint workers in Rome
assumed Macrinus would consider the consulate that began on January 1,
218, to be his second (for he had already been in office for about eight
months). However, that was contrary to Macrinus’ wishes, and the orders
must have reached Rome after the COS II coins had already begun to be
struck. There was no official COS II because Macrinus did not reign into
219. So the fictional second consulship appears only on some coins struck
in the early part of 218. Both of these aspects are discussed in detail by
Curtis Clay in The Roman Coinage of Macrinus and Diadumenian (1979
Numismatische Zeitschrift, pp. 21-40).
DIADUMENIAN A.D. 2 18
C a e s a r : a .d . 2 1 7 -2 1 8 (u n d er M a c r in u s )
A u g u s t u s : a .d . 2 1 8 (w it h M a c r in u s )
S on of M a c r in u s
Marcus Opellius Antoninus Diadumenianus

(earlier Marcus Opellius Diadumenianus), A.D.
208- 2 18 . Little is known of Diadumenian, though we have a good idea of
his appearance, not only from his coin portraits, but also from the Historia
Augusta, in which he is described as “. . . beautiful beyond all others, some
what tall of stature, with golden hair, black eyes and an aquiline nose; his
chin was wholly lovely in its modeling, his mouth designed for a kiss, and
he was by nature strong and by training graceful.”
Diadumenian was 8 years old when in April of 217 he was hailed
Caesar and given the name Antoninus (after the slain emperor Caracalla)
by the soldiers at Zeugma while he being escorted from Antioch to join his
father in Mesopotamia.
In faraway Rome, the boy’s ninth birthday was celebrated with char
iot races on September 14, 217. It was during these celebrations, we are
told, that the Colosseum (Flavian Amphitheater) was struck by lightning,
the weapon of Jupiter, who happened to be the very god to whom the
Romans were praying for delivery from the unworthy reign of Macrinus.
The damage was so severe that it was not sufficiently repaired until early in
the reign of Severus Alexander (222-235).
Despite his natural gifts and the great authority his father had
attained, fate was not favorable to Diadumenian. When the armies of
Elagabalus revolted at Emesa on May 16, Macrinus traveled to the praeto
rian fortress at Apamaea, where he raised his son (who apparently was
there in residence) to the rank of Augustus. As an added incentive, we are
told, he offered the praetorians a bonus of 20,000 sestertii each, paying
one-fourth of the bounty on the spot and restoring certain other of their
privileges.
Such measures restored the army’s loyalty, but did not result in final
victory, as the armies of Macrinus were defeated outside Antioch by those
of Elagabalus on June 8, 218. After reigning as Caesar for 13 months, and
as Augustus for less than one, Diadumenian’s taste of supreme power came
to an end. After the battle, Macrinus fled north toward the Bosporus, and
entrusted Diadumenian to loyal men who were to deliver him to the
Parthians for safe keeping. However, the boy was captured en route at
Zeugma and executed sometime later in June.
Though rarer than the coins of his father, many coins

were struck for Diadumenian while Caesar. His Imperial coinage as Augus
tus — seemingly limited to denarii — is extremely rare, and until rela
tively recently was known by only one example. It is suggested by Curtis
Clay (The Roman Coinage of Macrinus and Diadumenian, in the 1979
Numismatische Zeitschrift), that a large issue was struck, only to be melted
down when news reached Rome of Macrinus’ defeat. Some of Diadume-
nian’s provincial coins, notably from Antioch, give Diadumenian the title
Sebastos (Augustus).
JULIA MAESA
A u g u sta , a .d . 2 1 8 -2 2 4 /5
S is t e r o f J u l ia D omna
S is t e r -i n -law of S e p t im iu s S everus
M o th er of J u l ia S o a e m ia s a n d J u l ia M am aea
G randm other of E lagabalus and S everus
A lexand er
A u n t of C aracalla an d G eta
Julia Maesa, d. A.D. 224/5. After the murder of Caracalla in 217, it must
have seemed as though the Severan-Emesan dynasty had come to extinc
tion. Had it not been for the wealth, prestige and desire of Julia Maesa, the
sister of Julia Domna, that would have been the case. But after returning to
her home in Emesa, Julia Maesa began to plot her family’s return, and
achieved her goal in short order.
Maesa had moved to Rome in about 193, accompanying her sister,
Domna. Though she was as shrewd as her sister, Maesa did not have so
broad an intellectual interest, a facet of Domna’s personality that made her
a more enduring figure in Roman history. Through her marriage to Julius
Avitus, a wealthy and prominent Roman who governed Asia, Mesopota
mia and Cyprus (and who had been consul in 209), Maesa gave birth to
two daughters, Julia Soaemias and Julia Mamaea.
The Severan-Emesan dynasty thus divided along two family
branches. The first to rule was the one founded by Julia Domna and Septi
mius Severus, who had two sons, Caracalla and Geta. The second was
founded by Domna’s sister, Julia Maesa, whose two grandsons, Elagabalus
and Severus Alexander, represented the “renewed” dynasty beginning in
218. All told, the family produced five emperors and four empresses, not
including the five women who married into the family and also were
hailed Augusta.
Though Maesa was an important adviser and ally of her sister while
she was empress, Maesa would not wield true power until after her nephew
Caracalla had been murdered and her sister had died. Following these
events, the new emperor, Macrinus, ordered Maesa and her family to
return to Emesa, though at the same time he forced Julia Domna to remain
in Rome, where she starved herself to death.
Upon returning to their home city, Maesa arranged for her eldest
grandson, Elagabalus, to take over duties as chief priest of the sun-cult of
the god Heliogabal. She soon discovered that the Roman soldiers sta
tioned in their city were fond of the young priest, and from this observa
tion were sewn the seeds of revolt. Maesa began to spread the rumor that
her grandson was the illegitimate son of Caracalla, the recently slain
emperor who commanded the loyalty of soldiers even after his death.
The revolt quietly gained momentum until on May 16, 218, after
celestial portents (a solar eclipse and a comet), the soldiers hailed the 14'
year-old Elagabalus emperor in opposition to the unpopular Macrinus, who
had assumed office only after participating in Caracalla’s murder. The fact
that Maesa was one of the wealthiest women in the Roman Empire did
much to motivate the soldiers, who were all too anxious to receive a gen
erous bribe.
Although advanced in age, Maesa took the leading role in rallying
the troops and staging the coup. A n initial effort by Macrinus to crush the
rebellion failed, ending with the soldiers defecting to the cause of the Eme
san forces. On June 8, 218, the two armies met at Immae, about 20 miles
outside Antioch, for a pitched battle to determine the outcome of the
rebellion.
The battle was difficult and many soldiers (all of whom were Roman)
died. If we believe the ancient sources, Maesa and her daughter, Julia
Soaemias, and the future emperor Elagabalus were all present at the battle,
riding in golden chariots. Though their soldiers began to retreat early in
the battle when Macrinus’ soldiers gained the upper hand, the three lead
ers apparently were able to convince them to renew the fight. However,
the account is glorified and reads like fiction, which it most likely is.
In any case, the armies loyal to Elagabalus emerged victorious. The
boy was hailed emperor, and his mother and grandmother were both hailed
Augusta. Though Macrinus and his son, Diadumenian, escaped after the
battle, both were eventually captured and executed. A handful of minor
revolts occurred throughout Asia and Egypt, but they apparently were
quelled without much difficulty.
The royal Emesan family, composed of Maesa, her two daughters and
two grandsons, made their way to Rome, wintering in Nicomedia en route
and only arriving in Rome in July of 219. Once there, Maesa continued to
wield power over her grandson, arranging his first marriage to the noble
woman Julia Paula. We are even told that she demanded and was given a
seat in the senate, a governing body that excluded women.
Despite her political prowess and best efforts to restrain young
Elagabalus, the boy turned out to be uncontrollable. The marriages Maesa
arranged for him failed miserably, and did nothing to reduce the severity of
his offenses to the Roman people. Julia Soaemias, the boy’s mother, was
not much suited for the rigors and responsibilities of the office of Augusta.
Indeed, her own contemptible behavior no doubt served as an inspiration
for her son to behave irresponsibly.
Maesa soon acknowledged that Elagabalus was a liability too great to
bear, and that if the dynasty she was re-founding was to survive, another
would have to take his place. The only choice that remained was her other
grandson, Severus Alexander, whom she was able to have appointed
Caesar in the summer of 221. This enraged Elagabalus, who tried to have
his younger cousin assassinated, but failed each time.
In the end this jealousy proved to be the emperors undoing; A lex
ander clearly had become the candidate of the army, which preferred the
respectful boy to his ridiculous cousin. The praetorian guardsmen mur
dered the emperor and his mother in March 222 and in their place
installed Severus Alexander as emperor, and the boy’s mother, Julia
Mamaea, as empress.
Though Maesa gained a more stable regime from this exchange, she
lost much of her control, for Mamaea was both ambitious and talented.
Maesa was slowly phased out of power as her daughter assumed greater
responsibilities. After having rescued her own dynasty from certain col
lapse, Maesa died either in 224 or 225, and was consecrated by her rever
ent grandson, Severus Alexander.
JULIA SOAEMIAS
A u g u s t a , a .d . 2 1 8 - 2 2 2
M o th er of E lagabalu s
Daugh ter of J u l ia M a esa
M o t h e r -i n -la w of J u l i a Pa u l a , A q u il ia S evera
and A n n ia Fa u s t in a
S is t e r o f J u l ia M am aea
N ie c e o f J u l ia D omna and S e p t im iu s S everus
A u n t of S everus A lexand er
C o u s in o f C aracalla a n d G eta
Julia Soaemias Bassiana, d. A.D. 2 2 2 . O f the four Syrian-born women

who held the title Augusta in Rome, Julia Soaemias was the least capable.
Like her profligate son Elagabalus, she preferred indulging herself in plea
sure to taking on the responsibilities of her office.
Soaemias was the wife of Sextus Varius Marcellus, a man of high posi
tion and varied interests. In 204 she bore a son, the future emperor
Elagabalus, who may well have been fathered by Marcellus, but consider
ing Soaemias’ adulterous record, this can hardly be confirmed. Her hus
band’s duties required that he travel throughout the Empire with some
frequency, and so Soaemias lived with a great deal of personal freedom.
Marcellus was an equestrian who embarked on a procuratorial career
during the reign of Septimius Severus, for that emperor’s wife, Julia
Domna, was his wife’s aunt. Marcellus was procurator in Britain at the
time of Septimius Severus’ fateful expedition there (208-211), and after
Geta was murdered in 2 1 1 , Marcellus was made praetorian prefect and pre
fect of Rome by Caracalla. Thereafter he was elected to the senate, and
served later as governor of Numidia, where he seems to have died some

time before 217.
O f the four Emesan women who held the title Augusta, Soaemias was
by far the most voluptuous and most promiscuous, engaging in numerous
extramarital affairs. In this respect she was the opposite of her sister, Julia
Mamaea. While living in Rome during the heyday of Severan-Emesan
rule, her loose conduct may have been a source of embarrassment for her
aunt and uncle, Septimius Severus and Julia Domna.
With the murder of Caracalla on April 8, 217, the Severan-Emesan
dynasty came to a temporary end with the acclamation of the commander
Macrinus. N o doubt fearing for their safety, Soaemias and her immediate
family members returned to Emesa under orders of the new emperor. There
they engineered the elevation of Elagabalus on May 16, 218, partly by con
vincing the soldiers that he had been sired by Caracalla, whose memory
was dear to the common legionary.
After its victory over Macrinus was complete, the entourage of the
revived Severan-Emesan dynasty made its way slowly to Rome, spending
the winter of 218 luxuriously at Nicomedia. Even though Soaemias now
had true responsibilities as empress, her legendary promiscuity continued.
One of her more noteworthy affairs was with Gannys, the tutor of
Elagabalus, who had commanded the army that was victorious over the
legions of Macrinus on the outskirts of Antioch. There seems to have been
some discussion of his marrying Soaemias, and being appointed Caesar.
Though the marriage never occurred, young Elagabalus seems to have
been in favor of the prospect initially, but the man’s condemnation of
Elagabalus’ aberrant sexual practices caused problems. A t some point the
two men drew swords (Gannys supposedly in self defense) and Gannys was
slain by the emperor’s guards.
Soaemias proved to be as irresponsible as an empress as she was in pri
vate life, and her lack of restraint in her own conduct no doubt proved to
be a source of encouragement for her son’s unusual behavior. Along with
her son she was murdered on March 11, 222, by the praetorian guards, who
had grown tired of his demands to remove Severus Alexander from power.
Their beheaded, nude bodies were dragged through the streets like com
mon criminals and tossed into the Tiber.
A common reverse type of Julia Soaemias depicts

Venus Caelestis, the Roman equivalent of Dea Caelestis, the Carthaginian
(Punic) goddess to whom her son wed the god Heliogabal in a ceremony
that paralleled the emperor’s own marriage to Annia Faustina in the sum
mer of 2 2 1 .
ANTONINUS
( c a l l e d ‘ELAGABALUS’)
A .D . 2 1 8 —2 2 2
S on of J u l ia S o a e m ia s
H u sba n d of J u l i a Pa u l a , A q u il ia S evera an d
A n n ia Fa u s t in a
G r a n d so n o f J u l ia M a esa
N ephew o f J u l ia M am aea
C o u s in o f S everus A lexander
S e c o n d -c o u s i n o f C aracalla a n d G eta
( r e p u t e d l y TH E N A T U R A L SON OF C A R A C A L L A )
G r e a t -n e p h e w o f S e p t im iu s S everus and
J u l ia D omna
M arcus Aurelius Antoninus ( earlier Varius Avitus Bassianus), A.D.

203/4- 222. Perhaps the most bizarre of all Roman emperors was the one
who was nicknamed Elagabalus, after the Syrian sun-god Heliogabal for
when he had formerly been high priest. Considering the shocking nature
of his activities — religious, social and sexual----- it is not the brevity of
his reign which causes such amazement, but rather that it lasted so long.
Historians have not been charitable to Elagabalus. Edward Gibbon in
the 18th Century characterized him as an emperor who “. . . abandoned
himself to the grossest pleasures with ungoverned fury, and soon found dis
gust and satiety in the midst of his enjoyments.” Taking it a step further
was the 19th Century historian, S.W. Stevenson, who called Elagabalus
“. . . the most cruel and infamous wretch that ever disgraced humanity and
polluted a throne . . .”
Born in 204, Elagabalus was the son of Julia Soaemias and Sextus Var
ius Marcellus. His mother was a promiscuous and voluptuous woman, and
his father (who died before he ascended the throne) was a man of immense
wealth and authority who had been made praetorian prefect under Cara
calla. His grandmother, Julia Maesa, was the sister of Julia Domna, the wife
of Septimius Severus and mother of Caracalla and Geta.
Elagabalus and his family had been living in Rome when Caracalla
was murdered in 217 and replaced by the prefect Macrinus — an event
that effectively ended the Severan-Emesan dynasty founded in 193 by
Septimius Severus. The family of three women and two boys returned to
Emesa under orders of Macrinus. There, Elagabalus, the older of the two
boys, assumed the office of high priest in the cult of the sun-god
Elagabalus.
Indeed, Elagabalus was executing his solemn but festive duties when
his grandmother, Julia Maesa, and mother, Julia Soaemias, gained the sup
port of the Roman armies stationed at Emesa and caused a revolt against
the unpopular Macrinus on May 16, 218. As their candidate for emperor,
they chose the 14-year-old priest of Heliogabal.
In the young priest’s favor were two celestial events: an eclipse of the
sun that occurred one day in April and, only a few days later, a comet that
streaked across the sky. Both were interpreted as portents — the first that
the sun-god was displeased with Macrinus’ reign, and the second, that a
redeemer was at hand.
The propaganda war between Macrinus and Elagabalus to a large
degree involved the slain emperor Caracalla. Macrinus had added Severus
to his own name, and Antoninus (the name of Caracalla) to that of his
son, Diadumenian, whereas Elagabalus was hailed as the illegitimate son
and rightful heir to Caracalla. The armies faced a difficult decision, but the
claims of Elagabalus seemed more probable, for he is said to have looked
much like the former ruler.
Macrinus, who was at Antioch, responded by sending his prefect
Ulpius Julianus to Emesa to restore order, while he traveled to the nearby
fortress of Apamaea. There, he gave the praetorians a bonus and raised his
own son from Caesar to Augustus. However, the soldiers whom Macrinus
had sent to Emesa ended up revolting, slaughtering their own commanders
and joining the cause of the young boy they presumed to be the son of Car
acalla. Alarmed, the senate in Rome supported Macrinus, for they had
tired of Severan rule long before and did not wish to see it return.
The two Roman armies clashed outside Antioch on June 8, 218, and
in a hard-fought engagement, the armies of Emesa emerged victorious.
Though both Macrinus and Diadumenian escaped — the former to the
north, the latter to the east — both were overtaken and executed.
Elagabalus was invested with the title of Augustus, while both his mother
and grandmother were hailed Augusta.
Elagabalus and his family were now in power, and began a slow march
toward Rome to take command. His principate was not met with universal
acceptance, though. The citizens of Alexandria rioted, causing many
deaths. Poorly planned revolts broke out among the Legio III Gallica,
Legio IV Scythia and among the fleet stationed off the coast of Asia
Minor. However, all were quelled, and the Imperial entourage was able to
winter in Nicomedia. In the middle of May, 219, they resumed their jour
ney — with the sacred stone of Emesa in tow — arriving in Rome in July.
Aside from his original victory over Macrinus and the few initial
uprisings, Elagabalus’ reign was uneventful in terms of military conflicts or
provincial uprisings. Instead, everything of interest occurred in Rome. If
we can believe even a portion of what the ancient historians have left us,
Elagabalus did not miss a single opportunity to offend the Romans and
their moral standards.
The ancient historians were extremely hostile toward his sexual prac
tices, some of which (no doubt) must be taken with a grain of salt. He is
accused of going in the night to taverns dressed in his transvestite fashion,
where he ousted the prostitutes already there and monopolized the activi
ties for the evening. Even in the Imperial palace he would stand nude in
doorways, seducing passersby to his bed chamber. We are also told that he
wished to have his genitals removed by surgery, and in exchange be given
the anatomy of a female.
One thing that is clear about Elagabalus is that he preferred men to
women. Indeed, there was only one “spouse” he did not divorce, the chari
oteer Hierocles, a blond Greek slave from Caria. N ot only did Elagabalus
behave in every respect as “wife” to Hierocles, but we are told that he rel
ished being beaten by him, and would contrive opportunities of being
caught in adulterous situations so that he could be guaranteed a beating in
consequence.
His religious rituals were as shocking to traditional Roman values as
was his personal conduct. Dio Cassius relates: “I will not describe the bar
baric chants which Sardanapalus (the emperor), together with his mother
and grandmother, chanted to Heliogabal (the god), or the secret sacrifices
that he offered to him, slaying boys and using charms, in fact actually shut
ting up alive in the god’s temple a lion, a monkey and a snake, and throw
ing in among them human genitals, and practicing other unholy rites,
while he invariably wore innumerable amulets.”
Also troubling were his marriages, of which there were at least three,
and perhaps more than five. His first, in the summer of 219, was to Julia
Paula, an aristocratic lady who was the daughter of the praetorian prefect
Julius Paulus, and the first of Elagabalus’ several wives. Though magnifi
cent games were held, the marriage lasted barely more than a year, and
they divorced late in 220.
Immediately thereafter, Elagabalus took the almost inconceivable
step of marrying Aquilia Severa, a Vestal Virgin. As a member of the most
solemn and holy of Roman religious institutions, she had taken a vow of
celibacy and was forbidden to marry. But Elagabalus was the chief priest
and chose to break that rule. To avoid more trouble than already was
raised, the wedding was a low-key affair in which the sun-god Heliogabal
represented was also married to the Roman goddess Vesta.
Though the young emperor seems to have cared for Aquilia Severa
(indeed, she may have been the only woman for whom he cared), the mar
riage failed in the summer of 221, perhaps at the insistence of his grand
mother, Maesa, who arranged his subsequent marriage to her friend Annia
Faustina, a much older (she was 35 to 45 years old) noblewoman
descended from the house of Marcus Aurelius.
Elagabalus also repudiated the parallel marriage of the gods Helioga

bal and Vesta, for he came to consider Vesta an unsuitable consort for his
own god. Instead, he re-married the god Heliogabal to Venus Caelestis
(Dea Caelestis), a lunar fertility goddess of Punic origin. Along with the
new marriages, Maesa also engineered the assassination of Annia Faus
tina’s husband and raised Elagabalus’ 13-year-old cousin, Severus A lex
ander, to the rank of Caesar on June 26, 221.
All of these changes failed to please the insatiable emperor, and
within a few months (late in 221) he divorced Annia Faustina and
returned immediately to Aquilia Severa. Maesa’s effort to stabilize her wild
grandson’s regime had failed. Elagabalus and Aquilia Severa were married
for a second time, though the celestial marriage between Heliogabal to
Venus Caelestis remained unbroken. Aquilia Severa remained Elagabalus’
wife until his murder less than six months later.
Especially troubling to Elagabalus was the rivalry of his popular
cousin, Severus Alexander. Elagabalus’ own mother, Soaemias, did not get
along with her sister, Julia Mamaea, the mother of Severus Alexander, and
thus the rivalry took on an internal dimension as well. Quietly overseeing
the whole affair was the boys’ grandmother, Maesa, who must have favored
the mild-mannered Severus Alexander as a desirable option to the inflam
matory Elagabalus.
The nine months between when Severus Alexander was hailed C ae
sar and when Elagabalus was murdered were treacherous ones for Mamaea
and Alexander. The popularity the young heir enjoyed with the soldiers
did bode well for his future, but also caused Elagabalus to try (unsuccess
fully) on several occasions to have him assassinated.
Early in 222, Mamaea and Maesa convinced the praetorian guards
men to murder Elagabalus and Soaemias. The event occurred on March
11, 222, after Elagabalus demanded that his cousin be stripped of his title,
and the praetorians did not obey his order. Instead, they murdered
Elagabalus and his mother, Soaemias. Their mutilated, nude bodies were
dragged through the streets of Rome and finally thrown into the Tiber like
common criminals. Two days later, on March 13, 222, Alexander was
hailed emperor in his cousin’s place, and his own mother, Mamaea, was
hailed Augusta in place of her slain sister, Soaemias.
The portraits of Elagabalus evolve in a relatively short

period from an idealized, youthful image to a rather sinister-looking indi
vidual with a “horn” protruding from his forehead, just above the laurel
wreath. His first interesting types celebrate his victory over Macrinus
(VICTOR ANTONINI AVG) and his relation, either as son or second-
cousin, to Caracalla (DIVO ANTONINO MAGNO). Some authorities
suggest the latter type was struck under his successor, Severus Alexander,
for whom similar patrimonial claims had been made.
Several of his later reverse types allude to his particular religious bent
(with inscriptions such as INVICTVS SACERDOS AVG, SACERD DEI
SOLIS ELAGAB or S VMMVS SACERDOS AVG), but his most noteworthy
type depicts the stone of Emesa (a conical meteorite), shaded below
umbrellas, in a cart being drawn slowly by four horses. The stone is also
featured alone, adorned with stars and an eagle, on extremely rare denarii,
and is shown in temples or in carts on far more common provincial
bronzes.
JULIA PAULA
A u g u sta , a .d . 2 1 9 -2 2 0
F ir s t W if e o f E lagabalu s
D a u g h t e r -i n -l a w of J u l ia S o a e m ia s
Julia Cornelia Paula, lifespan unknown. Hailing

from one of the most aristocratic families in Rome,
Julia Paula was the daughter of the praetorian pre-
feet Julius Paulus, and the first of Elagabalus’ several wives. The union was
probably arranged by the shrewd Julia Maesa, and occurred in the summer
of 219 shortly after the emperor arrived in Rome from Nicomedia in July.
Maesa no doubt viewed the marriage as a necessity for her 15-year-old
Syrian grandson, who would thus be integrated into aristocratic Roman
society. The age of Paula is unknown, with estimates ranging from that of a
12-year-old girl to a woman in her 30s.
The wedding ceremony was a grand event. Games and banquets were
held, donatives were given to equestrians, senators and the army, and Julia
Paula was hailed Augusta. A t the games, the public witnessed the deaths
of many gladiators, 51 tigers and an elephant. Despite the pomp and cir
cumstance, the marriage was a quick failure and lasted barely more than a
year. The couple was divorced late in 220, perhaps in September, with
Elagabalus using the excuse that that Paula was somehow bodily unsuit
able to be the wife of an emperor. Immediately thereafter, Elagabalus mar
ried Aquilia Severa.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : The fact that Julia Paula’s marriage occurred, or at
least was being promoted before August 28, 219, is proven by an extremely
rare issue of Alexandrian tetradrachms dated “year 2” of Elagabalus’ reign.
3° ° HISTORY OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE: BIOGRAPHIES
In addition to Alexandria, perhaps 30 provincial cities struck coins for the

first wife of Elagabalus.
AQUILIA SEVERA
A u g u s t a , a .d . 2 2 0 -2 2 1 & 2 2 1 - 2 2 2
V esta l V ir g in
S eco nd an d Fo urth W if e o f E lagabalu s

D a u g h t e r -i n - l a w of J u l ia S o a e m ia s
Julia Aquilia Severa, lifespan unknown. If

Elagabalus’ first marriage was a disaster, his second
was an atrocity. Elagabalus married Aquilia Severa late in 220, seemingly
within weeks of his divorce of Julia Paula. In this case, the marriage was
not merely a social event, but a religious ritual and an affront to Roman
divine law and ancestral custom.
Aquilia Severa was a Vestal Virgin, and a representative of the most
sacred religious order in Rome. As such she was forbidden to marry, and
had taken a 30-year vow of chastity (during which the first decade was
devoted to learning the rituals of her office, the next ten to executing
those duties, and the final decade to teaching their replacements). To
become a Vestal was a great sacrifice on behalf of Rome, and the citizens
recognized it as such.
But this did not deter Elagabalus, who at this point in his reign was
shedding the influence of his grandmother. Furthermore, the emperor was
also the chief priest (pontifex maximus) of the state religion, and could do
as he pleased within that realm. The true strength of the Roman religion
was in the observance of custom and ritual rather than in blind faith.
Thus, the violation of revered custom was especially troubling to Romans.
Sensing this, no doubt, Maesa insisted that the ceremony be modest, with
out games or festivals.
There were several divine associations with the marriage, and these
alone may have been all that was necessary for Elagabalus to choose a Ves
tal as his second bride. Indeed, not only did he have notions that a divine
child would result from the marriage of a high-priest of the god Heliogabal
and a priestess of Vesta, but he also held a parallel ceremony in which his
god Heliogabal married Vesta.
Probably during the course of this marriage, Elagabalus removed
sacred religious objects from shrines and temples throughout Rome, and
relocated them in his own new temple (the Elagaballium) on the Palatine
Hill. Among the many important objects he removed from the Vestal
C IV IL W A R A N D T H E S E V E R A N -E M E S A N D Y N A S T Y 3OI
temple were the Palladium, the shield of N um a Pompilius, and the Vestal
fire itself.
T he marriages of Elagabalus and A quilia Severa and of the god
H eliogabal and Vesta were as short-lived as they were unorthodox. Pre
sumably at the insistence of his grandmother, M aesa (who was seeking
some “damage control” in Elagabalus’ faltering regime), the emperor
divorced A quilia Severa in the summer of 221, seemingly in June or July.
He also repudiated the parallel marriage of the two gods, for regardless of
his personal feelings toward his earthly bride, he cam e to consider Vesta an
unsuitable com panion for the god H eliogabal.
T he marriage M aesa arranged in exchange was to the considerably
more noble A n n ia Faustina. A long with this new marriage also cam e the
raising of Elagabalus’ young cousin, Severus Alexander, to the rank of C a e
sar, and a new celestial marriage in which the god H eliogabal was paired
with Venus Caelestis (D ea C aelestis). But the earthly union failed within a
few m onths, and the emperor divorced A n n ia Faustina in the later part of
221 so he could immediately return to A quilia Severa, who seems to have
been the only woman he desired. T he couple were married for a second
time, but this time around there was no celestial com ponent, for
Elagabalus did not see any good reason for his deity to divorce Venus C a e
lestis. Elagabalus and A quilia Severa remained married until the emperor
was murdered in 222.
ANN IA FAUSTINA
A u g u sta , a .d . 221
T h i r d W if e o f E l a g a b a l u s
D a u g h t e r - i n - la w o f J u l i a S o a e m i a s
Annia Aurelia Faustina, born c . A .D . 1 7 5 or c.

185. T he shortest-wed of his three attested wives,
and certainly the m ost noble, A n n ia Faustina rep
resented a final, desperate measure by Elagabalus’ grandm other to salvage
the boy-emperor’s faltering regime.
O f A n n ia Faustina’s parentage there are several possibilities but no
certainty, except that she was a patrician descended from M arcus Aurelius
on both sides of her family. T he strong friendship she shared with M aesa is
testified to by the very act of her marrying Elagabalus: she was already mar
ried, and was between 35 and 45 years old — about twice the age of the
teen-age Elagabalus.
3o2 H IS T O R Y O F T H E R O M A N EM PIRE: B IO G R A P H IE S
Despite the difference of a generation, their apparent personal incom

patibility and the fact that her husband, Pomponius Bassus, would have to
be executed (on a seemingly trumped-up charge of treason), Annia Faus-
tina was either ambitious enough or loyal enough to comply with Maesa’s
request.
Annia Faustina was married to Elagabalus in June or July of 221, and
duly received the rank of Augusta, although she did not to adopt the name
Julia as Elagabalus’ previous wives had done. About the same time, the
emperor’s mild-mannered 13-year-old cousin, Severus Alexander, was
raised to the rank of Caesar.
N ot only might such a match have helped to restore some of the dam
age caused by the emperor’s two earlier marriages, but it also rejuvenated
the connection between the Severan-Emesans and the Antonines that
Septimius Severus had gone to great lengths to falsify at the beginning of
his principate nearly three decades before.
The wedding also had an exotic bent, for a parallel ceremony was
held for the emperor’s own deity, Heliogabal, whom he had divorced from
Vesta (not considered a suitable consort for the Emesan sun-god in his
opinion) when he separated from Aquilia Severa. This time, Elagabalus
decided upon the Uranic goddess Dea Caelestis. This particular goddess
was of Carthaginian (Punic) origin, and known to the Phoenicians as
Astarte and to the Assyrians and Babylonians as Ishtar, but most com
monly as Venus Caelestis or Juno Caelestis to the Romans. Symbolically,
this worked on several levels, for not only was the god Heliogabal a solar
deity and Dea Caelestis a lunar goddess, but the marriage also represented
the union of the Syrian and the North African (Carthaginian, Punic) ele
ments that comprised the Severan-Emesan dynasty. This was no mere
coincidence, for Septimius Severus had established the worship of Dea
Caelestis at Rome.
However, all of the obvious merits of this third earthly and second
celestial marriage failed to have the stabilizing effect for which Maesa had
hoped. It was only a few months before Elagabalus tired of Annia Faustina.
The couple was divorced before the year 221 was out, and though the
emperor maintained the celestial union of the god Heliogabal and Venus
Caelestis, he immediately returned to his previous wife, the former Vestal
Aquilia Severa.
N u m is m a t ic N o t e : Although provincial coins of Annia Faustina are rare,

they were struck at more than a dozen mints throughout Asia Minor and
the Levant. The prolific mint of Alexandria employed some 15 different
reverse types on her coinage. This demonstrates that a large coinage was
planned for her, but that it was cut short by the brevity of her marriage.
C IV IL W A R A N D T H E S E V E R A N -E M E S A N D Y N A S T Y 303
JULIA MAMAEA
A u g u sta , 2 2 2 -2 3 5
M o th er of S everus A lexand er
D a u g h t e r o f J u l ia M a e sa
M o t h e r - i n - la w o f O r b i a n a
S is t e r o f J u l ia S o a e m e ia s
N ie c e o f J u l ia D o m n a a n d S e p t im iu s S e v e r u s
A u n t of E la g a ba lu s
C o u s in o f C a r a c a l l a a n d G e t a
Julia Avita Mamaea, d. A.D. 235 . T he mother of the emperor Severus

A lexander, Julia M am aea was the last of the Severan-Em esan women to
rule in Rome. From her second husband, the procurator Gessius M arcianus
of A rea C aesarea in Syria, she had two sons, one of whom was the future
emperor. Regrettably for historians, most of that which is recorded about
her in the Historia Augusta must be regarded as pure fiction.
M am aea’s relations with the emperor C aracalla before his death in
217 were so frequent that it was not possible to disprove her claim that
Severus A lexander was the illegitimate son of C aracalla. T h is was just as
in the case of her sister, Julia Soaem ias, and her own son, the emperor
Elagabalus. However, unlike her promiscuous sister Soaem ias (with whom
she had a poor relationship), M am aea was reserved in her sexual conduct,
and so the possibility seems remote.
From 218 to 221, M am aea could do little but stand aside and witness
the foul conduct of her sister and nephew, who ranked am ong the most
debauched of all emperors — in many respects outdoing even C aligula.
But her moment to grasp power cam e in June of 221, when affairs had
becom e so treacherous that the family matriarch, Julia Maesa, arranged for
Elagabalus to adopt his younger cousin A lexander as Caesar.
T he next nine m onths were terrifying, for Elagabalus could see the
writing on the wall and he showed no modesty in his desire to have his
cousin assassinated. If this had taken place, M am aea certainly would also
have been murdered, so she had much to gain in her opposition to
Elagabalus. Indeed, a lethal family feud had begun.
Eventually, early in 222, M am aea and her mother, M aesa, conspired
with the praetorian guardsmen to have Elagabalus and Soaem ias mur
dered. Thus, having rid Rom e of her despotic nephew and contem ptible
sister, M am aea had cut a clear path of succession for herself, for she
intended to rule Rom e through her pliant son. M am aea was hailed
A ugusta when her son becam e emperor on M arch 13, 222. She remained
the dom inant person in the political affairs in Rom e for the 13 years her
son reigned.
304 H IS T O R Y O F T H E R O M A N EM PIRE: B IO G R A P H IE S
The transition of power was peaceful at first, even welcomed, but it

became explosive late in 223 or early in 224 when Mamaea’s principal
adviser, the lawyer and writer Ulpian (Domitius Ulpianus), seems to have
caused the murder of the two praetorian prefects over whom he had
authority. The enraged guardsmen were bent on revenge, and even though
Ulpian took refuge with Mamaea and the emperor in the palace, the sol
diers still slew him there after a bitter three-day struggle.
The composition of the ruling house changed further when in 224 or
225 Mamaea’s mother, Maesa, died. Her now-vacant title of Augusta was
taken up by the noblewoman Orbiana, whom Mamaea arranged for her
son to marry in 225. However, after less than two years Mamaea dissolved
the marriage because it was eroding her own influence with her son, and
because the father-in-law, Sallustius (who seems to have been raised to the
rank of Caesar), was conspiring against her with the praetorian guards.
From that point on, Mamaea did not allow her son to remarry, and
she remained the only Augusta in the Empire. As such, she claimed the
boastful title “Mother of the emperor, of the camp, of the senate and of the
nation” (Mater A ugusti et castrorum et senatus et patriae) and, later still,
“Mother of the whole human race” (Mater universi generis humani). She
gained a reputation for greed, and is said to have confiscated many proper
ties and estates — a practice of which we are told her son strongly disap
proved, but could do little to prevent.
Mamaea was popular in some circles, and despised in others. She had
much to overcome, for the extravagances of Elagabalus were not only fresh
in the minds of the Romans, but were also inextricably linked to the
dynasty itself. Her domination of Severus Alexander wore thin among the
soldiers as her son grew older, and many of the soldiers and senators
resented being ruled by a woman, preferring a stronger emperor. For these
reasons, there was an air of revolution in the Empire from the mid-220s.
In the end, it was Mamaea’s strength of character and her son’s lack of
resolve that brought the Severan-Emesan dynasty to an end after four
almost uninterrupted decades. After having returned from a mediocre Per
sian campaign, mother and son began to lead a campaign across the Rhine
against the Alemanni. But in February or March of 235, the soldiers
revolted and murdered Mamaea as she clutched to her breast her 26-year-
old son, who all the while was cursing her for having caused his grave
misfortunes.
C IV IL W A R A N D T H E S E V E R A N -E M E S A N D Y N A S T Y SOS
SEVERUS ALEXANDER
A.D. 222-235
C a esa r : a .d . 22 1 -2 2 2 (u n d er E la g a ba lu s)
S o n o f J u l ia M a m a ea
H u s b a n d o f O r b ia n a
G r a n d so n o f J u l ia M a e sa
N e p h e w o f J u l ia S o a e m ia s
C o u s in o f E l a g a b a l u s
S e c o n d -c o u s i n o f C a r a c a l l a a n d G e t a
G r e a t -n e p h e w o f S e p t i m i u s S e v e r u s a n d J u l i a D o m n a
Marcus Aurelius Severus Alexander (often called Alexander Severus;

earlier Gessius Bassianus Alexianus), A .D . 2 0 8 / 9 - 2 3 5 . T he reign of
Severus Alexander, like that of G ordian III that followed him by three
years, seems out of place in the m ilitant 3rd Century. N o t only did he dis
like warfare, but he was com pletely overshadowed in his regime by other
people — m ost notably his mother, Julia M am aea. It could rightfully be
said that the story of his principate is largely one of his dom ineering and
ambitious mother.
Severus A lexander was bom Gessius Bassianus Alexianus at A rea C ae
sarea, Phoenicia, and in 218 accom panied his cousin, Elagabalus, to Rom e
after the latter had been hailed emperor by the eastern legions. He was a vir
tual unknown in Rome during most of his cousin’s depraved principate, but
came to the forefront when he was hailed Caesar on June 26, 221, at which
point the 13-year-old Alexianus had his name changed to Alexander.
T he next nine m onths were treacherous times, as Elagabalus was
becom ing ever more unstable in his behavior and increasingly jealous and
suspicious of his young cousin. Popular superstition held that the spirit of
A lexander the G reat was making its way from the East about this time,
and when it “disappeared” after crossing the Bosporus, it was speculated
that it might reappear in Rom e in the guise of young Severus Alexander.
T his and many other factors swelled the popularity of the young C aesar
and severely dam aged the faltering regime of his cousin, who tried on more
than one occasion to have the boy assassinated but was unable to find any
one who would take on the task.
Finally, in M arch of 222, Elagabalus could take no more. He
demanded that Severus A lexander be stripped of his title and the praeto
rian guards refused. Instead, they turned on Elagabalus and his equally
debauched mother, Julia Soaem ias, and murdered them. Two days later, on
M arch 13, 222, young A lexander was hailed the new emperor of Rome.
Since A lexander was only 13 or perhaps 14 years old, power was
squarely in the hands of his mother, M amaea, and his grandmother, Julia
Maesa. His mother quickly took the leading role, ostensibly sharing power
3o 6 H IS T O R Y O F T H E R O M A N EM PIRE: B IO G R A P H IE S
with a council of 16 senators, among them the historian Dio Cassius. Much
else returned to normal, including the level of morality in the palace and
the nature of religious practice in the capital. The sacred stone of Emesa was
returned to Syria and the temple built by Elagabalus was re-dedicated to
Jupiter Ultor. Still, the facts that the Empire was essentially run by a woman
and that the senate had taken on a stronger leadership role caused a general
atmosphere of hostility among the praetorians, who felt slighted. With the
passage of time the schism became greater, to the extent that Dio Cassius
had to leave Rome during his second consulship (in 229), for his safety
could not be assured.
Late in the year 225, Mamaea arranged a marriage for her 16-year-old
son with Barbia Orbiana, a noblewoman whose father, Seius Sallustius
Varius Macrinus, seems to have been invested with the rank of Caesar on
the occasion. About this same time, Severus Alexander’s grandmother,
Maesa, died.
Severus Alexander’s marriage did not produce children, but seems to
have been compatible so much as to threaten Mamaea’s influence over her
son. Furthermore, the new Caesar and father-in-law Sallustius was causing
trouble with the already-disgruntled praetorian guards, perhaps trying to
convince them to support his own desire to replace Severus Alexander, or
at the very least to displace Mamaea.
Mamaea was unwilling to wait quietly as the praetorian guards took
matters into their own hands. She dissolved her son’s marriage in 227,
banished Orbiana, and charged Sallustius with high treason, for he had by
then taken some revolutionary measures. Severus Alexander did not have
the fortitude to prevent the banishment of his wife or the subsequent exe
cution of his former father-in-law in 227 or 228.
In the meantime, the venerable Parthian kingdom was overthrown
during the period of 223-230 by a more aggressive nation of people led by
King Ardashir. Known as the Sasanians (after Ardashir’s grandfather,
Sasan), this nation claimed to revive in the East the Achaemenid rule,
which had been displaced by the arrival of Alexander the Great more than
550 years before. In reality, the ethnic aspect of the “revival” was not so
clear-cut, but the Sasanians proved to be much more aggressive toward the
Romans than had been the Parthian kings, who had witnessed the decline
of their kingdom over the last few decades, being unable to prevent the
Romans from sacking their own capital, Ctesiphon, three times. By con
trast, the Sasanians were on the rise and showed every intent of expanding
the current kingdom to the shores of the Aegean, as their distant ancestors
had done.
In 230 news reached Rome that Ardashir had invaded Mesopotamia,
had taken Nisibis and Carrhae, and was pushing into Syria. After negotia
tions failed to produce results, Alexander and his mother departed to the
East at the head of an army to make a second diplom atic effort backed
with a show of force. T his attem pt also failed, especially since the Rom ans
were occupied with putting down a revolt by the Legio II Trajana within
their own ranks.
The Romans launched a costly three-pronged offensive in 232, which
resulted in heavy losses on both sides. Unfortunately for the Romans, it
was not executed with enough conviction to achieve any real success.
However, it forced a stalemate, allowed the Romans to recover Mesopota
mia and stopped Ardashir from advancing further during what little
remained of Alexander’s reign. The docile emperor, who had played a rela
tively nominal role in the whole affair, returned in the fall of 233 to Rome,
where he was given a triumph and was hailed Persicus Maximus.
This mild success in the East and the consequent celebration in
Rom e represented only temporary jubilation, for trouble of a more serious
nature erupted on the Rhine, where the A lem anni had invaded R om an
territory. During the previous few years the European river-fronts had
becom e dangerous, and not only would they prove to be the demise of
Severus Alexander, but also a continual torment to the Rom ans over the
next half century and beyond.
T he legions that had been withdrawn from the Rhine and Danube
fronts to fight the Sasanians were anxious to return and defend their
hom eland. A fter their brief stay in Rom e, Severus A lexander and M am aea
headed their legions to the Rhine in 234, where the soldiers expressed a
great desire to cross the river and take revenge against the A lem anni. To
this effect, a pontoon bridge was constructed and the Rom ans went on the
offensive. But after a quick Rom an victory, Alexander, ever peaceful and
cautious, attem pted to buy peace until the rest of his legions had arrived
from the East. Wise though this policy may have been, it only incensed his
battle-hungry soldiers, who mutinied and gave their support to Julius Verus
M axim inus (M axim inus I “T h rax” ), an aggressive T h racian officer of m on
strous proportions.
The 26-year-old emperor was murdered at Vicus Britannicus (a vil
lage not far from Mainz) in February or March 235, as he was being
clutched by his mother — an event that brought to an end the Severan-
Emesan Dynasty. The young emperor’s memory was at first condemned by
an intimidated senate, but he was later consecrated after a revolt was
mounted against Maximinus in 238.
The author(s) of the Historia Augusta portrays the reign of the gentle
Severus Alexander as a return to an earlier age when the senate had just
authority. As such, he is styled a noble, gentle, ideal prince. Though he
does seem to have been docile and his mother and grandmother did estab
lish an advisory committee of 16 senators, it is doubtful the jealous and
autocratic Mamaea allowed them much actual authority.
3 o8 h is t o r y o f t h e r o m a n e m p ir e : b io g r a p h ie s
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : The first coinage struck in Severus Alexander’s name

was during his nine-month tenure as Caesar under Elagabalus. Even
though Severus Alexander abandoned the inflationary Antoninianus
(double-denarius) introduced by Caracalla, his coinage was a far cry from
that of the emperor Augustus nearly 250 years earlier: though his aureus
was nearly comparable, his silver denarius had been reduced both in
weight and purity, and thus contained only 40 percent of the silver con
tent of an Augustan denarius. Despite the disproportionate suffering of the
denarius, that coin retained its traditional exchange rates of 25 per aureus
and one per 16 asses.
Three interesting architectural types were struck by Severus A lex
ander. The first celebrates the construction of the Nymphaeum, the sec
ond the re-dedication of Elagabalus’ temple to Jupiter Ultor, and the third,
on coins and medallions, commemorating the repair of the Colosseum
(Flavian Amphitheater), which had suffered a lightning strike in 217.
Equally interesting, and certainly more enigmatic, was a “reform” of c. 229
celebrated with dupondii inscribed RESTITVTOR MON (Alexander stand
ing) and MON RESTITVTA (Moneta standing). The nature of this event is
a mystery, though it may be a celebration of the effectiveness of A lex
ander’s decision in 222 to abandon the inflationary double-denarius.
ORBIANA
A u g u sta , a .d . 2 2 5 -2 2 7
W if e o f S e v e r u s A l e x a n d e r
D a u g h t e r -i n -la w o f J u l i a M a m a e a
Gneaea Seia Herennia Sallustia Barbia Orbiana,

lifespan unknown. Late in 225, more than three
years into his reign and at about the same time his
grandmother died, Severus Alexander married an ill-fated young woman
named Orbiana. Severus Alexander was about 16 years old at the time of
his marriage, which proved not only to be short-lived and childless, but
also his last. Little is known of Orbiana, including her age.
Orbiana hailed from a distinguished family and was the daughter of
Seius Sallustius Varius Macrinus, a nobleman of senatorial rank. We are
told that Sallustius was given the rank of Caesar after his daughter’s mar
riage had taken place, but it is impossible to establish truth in the matter.
Certainly, no coins confirm this.
Orbiana was selected for marriage by the emperor’s mother, Julia
Mamaea. It would seem that the match was too well-made; Alexander and
Orbiana got along well and perhaps even grew to love each other over the
course of their brief marriage. To most mothers this would be a blessing,

but the stakes in Imperial marriages were high, and to Mamaea, her son’s
fondness for his wife proved to be an obstacle rather than an asset.
Mamaea soon realized that Orbiana had a strong will of her own. This
was intolerable for Julia Mamaea; not only was there now a second
Augusta in the Imperial household (something that Herodian tells us
Mamaea greatly disliked), but the new Augusta would not be cowed by her
mother-in-law. N o doubt, Mamaea’s ability to control her obedient son
was slowly being eroded by the intimacy he shared with Orbiana.
Adding fuel to the fire was the father-in-law, Sallustius, who could
not have been blind to the machinations of Mamaea and seems to have
stirred up trouble with the praetorian guards to further his own designs on
the throne. When Mamaea dissolved her son’s marriage in 227, dire conse
quence followed for Orbiana and her father, who seem to have taken ref
uge in the camp of the praetorians.
Since this was a clear act of rebellion, Sallustius was executed on
charges of high treason and Orbiana was banished to North Africa. It is
impossible to say whether the “plot” that set all of these acts into motion
was real or was merely invented by Mamaea so she had a legitimate excuse
to end the marriage. In any event, young Severus Alexander — then about
18 years old — could do little but stand aside as his domineering mother
took matters into her own hands.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : The dearth of literary evidence on Orbiana caused

early historians and numismatists to speculate as to her identification. In
error, they determined that she was the wife of Trajan Decius (249—251),
and only changed consensus with the discovery of double-headed coins of
Severus Alexander and Orbiana.
CHAPTER SEVEN
C r is is a n d D e c l in e
a .d . 235—268
A tumultuous age began in 235 with the murder of Severus Alexander,

the last of the Severans to rule Rome. The relatively docile youth
was replaced by the militant giant, Maximinus I “Thrax” who, in an
extreme sense, characterizes the era that followed and came to a close in
268, when Claudius II “Gothicus” put Rome on a road to recovery.
For the historian, this is perhaps the darkest in all Roman history.
Beginning with the reign of Gordian III, we enter a period in which the
written histories are not only sparse but often unreliable. N o longer do we
have a Suetonius, Tacitus, Herodian or Dio Cassius to guide us, but rather
the summary accounts of the Christian writers of the 4th Century (which
tend to be “revisionist” ), and the highly unreliable biographies of the His
toria Augusta. The bleakest period occurs from the accession of Philip the
Arab in 244 to the capture of Valerian I in 260 when a sparse historical
record is further complicated by an alarming number of men (18 of whom
struck coins) who claimed the title of Augustus.
Though the fortunes of the Empire were gradually declining from the
start of this period, the most serious slips occurred in the early 250s, when
invasion and border warfare was incessant and was greatly outstripping the
capacity of Rome to respond. Complicating matters was the host of new
nomadic peoples by whom the Romans were confronted. N ot only did
they present problems of their own, but their arrival forced more estab-
lished enemies out of their own lands and into Roman territory. As a
result, defenses along the Danube and Rhine were breached almost yearly,
often in a coordinated manner so as to spread thin the Roman armies.
In Asia Minor the situation was no better, because a particularly
fierce and gifted man, Shapur I (241-272), became king of the Sasanians.
He was as terrifying an enemy as Rome had ever known, and in military
terms was as destructive as Hannibal or Mithridates VI. There hardly
could have been a worse time in Roman history for an enemy of Shapur’s
ability to emerge, for he was not content with his own kingdom, but
wanted to incorporate lands long-held by the Romans. His title alone,
“King of Kings of Iran and non-Iran,” said it all.
To make matters worse, the fickle frontier legions often hailed their
own commanders emperor, forcing one civil war after another — all at a
time when the Empire could least afford to squander its resources. Legions
311
3 12 H IS T O R Y O F T H E R O M A N EM PIRE: B IO G R A P H IE S
were withdrawn from the borders to support pretenders who marched on

Rome. In the meantime, a fresh assault would be launched into the territo
ries that were stripped of their armies. But the soldiers can hardly be
blamed. N ot only did such campaigns get them away from the cruelties of
the front, but they usually meant that a donative was paid out. Moreover,
the battles that occurred between two Roman armies were usually nominal
or were avoided entirely by negotiation or treachery within the ranks.
The 250s, and especially the 260s, were a period of adjustment in the
history of Rome, when it was forced to come to terms with the unpleasant
ness of its fate. Constant invasion caused frontier legions to revolt with
some frequency, often demanding that their own commanders accept the
purple. Since this often was equivalent to a death sentence, most did so
reluctantly.
The year 260 was disastrous. In the West, Gallienus’ youngest son,
Saloninus, was executed; in the Balkans, the commander Regalianus
revolted; in Asia Minor, Gallienus’ father, Valerian I, was captured by the
Persians, and in consequence a revolt was staged by Macrianus and Qui
etus in Antioch. Though Gallienus is much maligned by historians, he
showed remarkable energy and dedication in trying to restore an Empire
that was under siege on all fronts and several times from within. That his
Empire did not completely collapse is remarkable.
Usually the revolts staged by Roman commanders were not success
ful, but the reign of Gallienus was ripe with opportunity for such men, and
two major “breakaway states” or “separatist Empires” were founded. The
first, in Gaul, was founded in 260 by the general Postumus, and the second,
in Palmyra, was founded in about 261 by the leader Odaenathus. This
powerful eastern monarch assumed the titles “Ruler of the Romans” and
“Governor of the East.” Earlier, breakaway attempts were made in Syria by
Uranius Antoninus (253) and Macrianus and Quietus (260-261), but
both were short-lived. Information on the first two of these “separatist
Empires” may be found in chapter 8 .
During this period, three unfathomable events occurred. In the sum
mer of 251, the emperor Trajan Decius, his teenage son Herennius Etrus-
cus, and most of their soldiers were killed in a Gothic ambush led by
Kniva. They were the first Roman emperors ever to fall in battle against a
foreign enemy. Even worse were two other “firsts” in Roman history, both
of which occurred in 260. The 17-year-old emperor Saloninus was cap
tured and executed at Cologne by the rebel Postumus, and the emperor
Valerian I was captured by the Sasanian king Shapur I while attempting to
negotiate a truce. Shapur subsequently mutilated the elderly ex-emperor,
C RISIS A N D D E C L IN E 313
paraded him about using him as a footstool, and then putting his skinned
and stuffed body on display. Both of the latter tragedies contributed to the
establishment of separatist Empires.
The coinage suffered greatly during this period. The double-denarii of
the late 230s and early 250s were reduced in purity from earlier times, but
at 40 percent or more silver they were still readily recognizable as silver
pieces. After the reign of Gordian III, the denarius becomes a great rarity.
In the later 250s the currency began to slide so severely that, with the
exception of denarii struck by the separatist Carausius, no true silver coin
was struck again until Diocletian’s reform of 294. Gold coinage did not suf
fer any significant reduction in purity, but it came to be struck with less fre
quency, and often at weights that were both inconsistent and low.
The aes coinage also suffered, with the as and dupondius gradually
being abandoned and the sestertius coming to be struck on small, square
planchets of reduced weight. Furthermore, orichalcum (brass), the more
valuable copper alloy, was abandoned in favor of leaded bronze, regardless
of denomination. A new denomination, the double-sestertius, was intro
duced by Trajan Decius (249-251), but failed to take hold, except during
the reign of Postumus, the founder of the separatist Romano-Gallic
Empire.
So poor were the final double-denarii of Gallienus that they have
only the slightest trace of silver. There was no attempt to maintain the
beauty of these coins: they are small, ragged and of poor artistry. Consider
ing that Gallienus was a grand patron of the arts (and a devout Neo-Clas-
sicist), the pitiful decline in coinage is a very real reflection of the almost
insurmountable difficulties he faced. The Romans established new mints
to provide the vast quantities of coinage (however worthless) necessary.
The most important of these new facilities were located at Milan, Siscia
and Antioch.
Beginning with Claudius II Gothicus in 268, the period of decline
comes to an end. Almost every emperor for the next 60 years was of Illyr
ian origin — this being a noticeable shift from the heavy concentration of
African and Syrian emperors earlier in the century. About a generation
after the accession of Claudius II, the Empire saw an even greater degree of
organization and efficiency when Diocletian partitioned duties along geo
graphic lines. This innovation certainly helped Rome’s plight, but seldom
resulted in true peace and prosperity, and never brought back the good for
tune of the 2nd Century.
MAXIMINUS I ‘THRAX’
A.D. 235-238
H u s b a n d o f Pa u l i n a
Fa t h e r o f M a x i m u s
Gaius Julius Verus Maximinus, A .D . 1 7 2 /3 or c .

1 8 2 / 3 - 2 3 8 . A man of truly humble origin, M axi
minus “Thrax” (“the Thracian”) was supposedly
born of a Gothic father and Alan mother, and was destined to be a Thra
cian herdsman had he not enlisted in an auxiliary unit of the Roman army.
Indeed, Maximinus was the first man in history to rise from the ranks to
the high office of emperor, and was also the first emperor who did not set
foot in Rome during his reign.
Maximinus is best remembered for his great physical stature, legendary
strength, paralyzing stare and voracious appetite — all of which seem to be
exaggerated to some degree by the authors of the Historia Augusta, who say
he was no less than eight and a half feet tall. In any case, Maximinus’ physi
cal attributes were remarkable, and they caused him to be recognized while
wrestling at a competition in Thrace that was attended by the emperor Sep-
timius Severus. The emperor was greatly impressed, and thus did his best to
Romanize him, and even appointed him as a personal bodyguard.
Caracalla, who also valued Maximinus’ skills and loyalty, raised him
to the rank of Centurion, but the giant quit the army when Macrinus
replaced the murdered Caracalla. He later was voted the power of a tri
bune under Elagabalus, though apparently he was offended by the youth’s
perverted advances. He remained aloof from military service until after the
accession of Severus Alexander, who appointed him to high posts during
the Mesopotamian and German campaigns of the 230s.
A long period of instability in the Empire began in March of 235,
when Severus Alexander was murdered by mutinous soldiers in Germany.
It seems the soldiers had earlier voted to hail Maximinus as his replace
ment. His rise to power set the stage for emperor-making in the next half
century, during which so many low-born soldiers from the Danubian
region claimed the purple. The senate found no comfort in this turn of
events, but could do little to change matters.
Two coups were hastily formed and aborted during Maximinus’ inau
gural year. The first one was a plan to tear down a bridge over the Rhine
after Maximinus had crossed it, thus stranding him. The second was
formed by the corps of archers from Osrhoene, but it also failed. These
attempts produced a level of bitterness and paranoia in Maximinus. One of
his remedies was to dismiss high-ranking officers in the army and to
replace them with his own hand-picked men.
CRISIS A N D D E C L IN E 315
After solidifying his authority, Maximinus set about pacifying Ger

many, which he attempted at great personal risk — in one case leading his
army through chest-high water to fight. For his costly but impressive vic
tory at the swamps in Württemberg in 235, the senate (which was sent a
painting depicting the Herculean feat) reluctantly awarded him the title
Germanicus Maximus. A t this time, perhaps, Maximinus also raised his son,
Maximus, to the rank of Caesar.
Maximinus next occupied his armies on the Danubian frontier, where
he based himself in Sirmium and spent the next two years fighting Sarma-
tians and Dacians. To pay for these protracted campaigns, the peasant-
emperor exacted his revenge on the wealthy and upper-classes by taxing
them at an extraordinarily high rate, and by demanding payment in bul
lion or its equal. Even though the more humble classes felt the pinch of
Maximinus’ taxation, it was the upper-class and the senate which, in the
spring of 238, acted upon their dissatisfaction by electing a council of 20
senators to organize the defense of Italy and by declaring Maximinus a
public enemy. To back up their decree, the senate supported the revolt of
the Gordiani in North Africa, which lasted only three weeks.
Maximinus led an invasion of Italy that he hoped would result in a
visit to Rome as conqueror, and the opportunity to punish the noblemen
within. In the meantime, the senate appointed two of their own members,
Balbinus and Pupienus, to rule and defend Italy during the crisis. Luckily
for the two bickering senators, Maximnus met resistance early on, and was
unable to take the city of Aquileia, which resisted his advance. Indeed, the
minimal actions taken by Pupienus to organize the defense of Italy were
hardly necessary.
The Thracian’s harsh discipline, incompetent subordinates, and disaf
fected army (which was facing possible starvation) proved to be his undo
ing. He and his son, Maximus, were assassinated by soldiers of Legion II
Parthica after they were awakened from sleeping off a midday meal. The
senate and the people of Rome must have been greatly relieved when the
severed heads of the Maximinus and his son were delivered to the capital.
The date of their murder is inconsistently reported as being sometime in
April, on May 10, or on June 24 of 238.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : The earliest portraits of Maximinus I are mere adapta

tions of those of his predecessor, Severus Alexander. Though Maximinus
had lived in Rome, his bold features and “jutting chin” apparently were
not known to the die engravers. Later, the engravers adopted his true por
trait, which appears on the vast majority of his coins.
3 i6 H IS T O R Y O F T H E R O M A N EM PIRE: B IO G R A P H IE S
PAULINA
W ife o f M a x im in u s I
M o t h e r o f M a x im u s
Caecilia Paulina, died c . A .D . 2 3 5 or before. Very

little is known of Paulina, though her memory is
consecrated on coinage struck during the reign of
Maximinus I. It is an assumption — though a safe
one — that she was the wife of Maximinus I rather
than his mother, sister or other relation. Maximinus is said to have wed
during the reign of Caracalla, and as a result fathered a son, Maximus. It
seems almost certain that Paulina died before Maximinus became emperor
because of the dating of some provincial bronzes.
N u m is m a t ic N o t e : We can be certain that Paulina was associated with

Maximinus I for she is portrayed on bronze coins of Anazarbus, Cilicia,
which is dated to that reign. On the bronze in question, the date ANC
indicates year 254 of the local Era of Anazarbus, which began in the fall of
19 B.C. Thus, the Era year 254 equates the date 235/6, just at the start of
Maximinus I’s reign. Also from Anazarbus emanated a bronze coinage in
the name of Maximus, which bears the identical date. As if further evi-
dence were needed, the portrait of Paulina is closely assimilated with those
of Maximinus and Maximus.
MAXIMUS
C a e s a r : a .d . 2 3 5 /6 -2 3 8
(u n d er M a x im in u s I)
S o n o f M a x im in u s Iand P a u lin a
Gaius Julius Verus Maximus, c. A .D . 2 1 6 —2 3 8 .

The son of Maximinus I “Thrax,” and presumably
of Paulina, Maximus was raised in the manner of
an aristocratic Roman, for his barbarian father had been in the service of
the emperors for about two decades before he was born. It is not entirely
certain when Maximus was raised to the rank of Caesar. It may have
occurred in 235, when his father was hailed Germanicus Maximus, but it
may also have occurred in 236. In either case, Maximus was about 20 years
old at the time.
Though by all accounts Maximus was handsome and capable, he is
said to have abandoned his responsibilities in favor of frivolous pursuits,
CR ISIS A N D D E C L IN E 317
and his arrogance soon caused him to be as intensely disliked as his father.
N o doubt he was not anxious to serve on the frontiers, for he was a cosm o
politan Rom an on the verge of marrying Junia Fadilla, a descendant of
A ntoninus Pius (who no doubt was related to Fabia Orestilla, the wife of
G ordian I). However, this wedding, which would have m ixed the barbar
ian blood of Maxim us with the noble blood of the A ntonine House, never
occurred. A fter serving at least two years at his fath ers side on the fron
tiers, M axim us was murdered along with his father outside of A quileia, and
his severed head was delivered to his beloved Rome.
GORDIAN I A.D. 238

(CO-EMPEROR WITH G oR D IA N II)
F a t h e r o f G o r d i a n II
G r a n d f a t h e r o f G o r d i a n III
Marcus Antonius Gordianus Sempronianus

Romanus “Africanus,” c. A .D . 1 5 7 / 9 - 2 3 8 . G ord
ian I is said to have been descended from the
G racchi on his father’s side, and from Trajan on the side of his mother. His
first wife, Fabia Orestilla, was said to have been a great grand-daughter of
A ntoninus Pius. It is uncertain how much of this is true, and m odern h is
torians have expressed serious doubts about the nobility of G ordian ’s
ancestry. W hat we can be certain of is that he was perhaps the wealthiest
m an in all the Empire. His vast estates constituted a small Empire in their
own right, and his home in Rom e was once owned by Pompey the G reat.
T he tales of his personal expenditures on public games seem almost
beyond belief: he could spend staggering sums on a regular basis without
concern that his wealth would be diminished, as his estates produced an
enormous and steady flow of income. But his unim aginable resources did
not seem to sour his disposition, for he is also said to have been a m an of
the greatest integrity. We know he was very fond of philosophy and litera
ture, and that he penned 30 books of verse on the lives of A ntoninus Pius
and Marcus Aurelius. We are told he was especially fond of bathing and
sleep, and did nothing to excess.
Later in his life he achieved high offices, including the consulship in
Rom e in 222, and the governorship of Lower Britain. In 237 or 238, when
G ordian was in about his 80th year and nearing the end of his career, he
becam e governor of N orth Africa. Indeed, he probably hoped that the
severe exactions of M axim inus (which especially targeted the wealthy)
would end so he could live his rem aining days in peace. T his was not to be,
however. Several local noblem en were levied fines so severe that they
3 i8 h is t o r y o f t h e r o m a n e m p ir e : b io g r a p h ie s
would cause their immediate ruin, and so they murdered the procurator
rather than paying. Desperate for a leader who could both sympathize with
their dilemma and assemble an army, these renegades implored the elder
Gordian to accept the title of emperor. The elder Gordian, with some
reluctance, agreed to take on the task and was made co-emperor along
with his middle-age son. Thus, father and son were drawn into the con
flict, presumably on March 19 or 22 of 238.
After entering Carthage and assuming the additional name Africanus,
the two Gordians drafted a letter expressing their intent, which arrived at
Rome within a few days. Along with the letter, the Gordiani sent one of
their agents on a mission to assassinate the praetorian prefect Vitalianus,
who was fiercely loyal to Maximinus and was an obstacle to the fledgling
revolt. Vitalianus was killed, which no doubt helped the senate to muster
its courage to confirm the request of the Gordiani. When news was posted
in the Forum, the people rejoiced and there followed several days of riots
during which informers, officials and tax collectors of Maximinus were
slaughtered to the man.
Maximinus was at Sirmium when news of the rebellion reached him,
and he immediately prepared to invade Italy. Meanwhile, the Gordiani
committed a fatal error when they demanded the resignation of Capel-
lianus, the governor of neighboring Numidia and a loathsome man with
whom the Gordiani had a bitter legal dispute. Instead of surrendering,
Capellianus marched on Carthage at the head of his legions. The younger
Gordian left Carthage with a group of local militia and crudely armed citi
zens to oppose Capellian’s advance. That the younger Gordian died in bat
tle, and his father hanged himself we are certain, but accounts vary as to
whether Gordian I committed suicide before or after news reached
Carthage of the defeat. Both of these events are said to have occurred on
April 12, ending a joint reign of only three weeks. For more details, see the
biography of Gordian II, below.
C h r o n o l o g i c a l N o t e : It is of some interest that although most historians

place this revolt in March and April of 238, at least one authority suggests
it occurred in January. Indeed, many of the details of this revolt are proba
bly different from what has come down to us in the Historia Augusta. His
torians and numismatists are at a loss to explain how such a well-crafted
and well-organized coinage could have been struck at Rome and at A lex
andria under circumstances as urgent as those described above. A time
frame of three weeks (21 or 22 days) seems wholly insufficient for the
quantity of coinage struck. Rather than a spontaneous revolt, the numis
matic evidence suggests theirs was a coup planned in advance with key
senators in Rome.
CR ISIS A N D D E C L IN E 3 19
N u m is m a t ic N o t e : Because the inscriptions on the coins of G ordian I and

Gordian II are identical, the coins can only be distinguished by the charac
teristics of the portraits. T he elder G ordian has a full head of hair, a thin
face, beak nose and slightly recessed jaw. T he younger G ordian has a
receding hairline, a long, flat nose, a pronounced forehead, heavy jaw and
jutting chin, and is fleshier in appearance.
GORDIAN II A.D. 238

(C O EM PE R O R WITH GORDIAN I)
S o n o f G o r d ia n I a n d O r e s t il l a
U n c l e o f G o r d i a n III
Marcus Antonius Gordianus Sempronianus

Romanus “Africanus,” c. A .D . 1 9 1 / 9 2 - 2 3 8 . T he
son of G ordian I and his first wife, Fabia Orestilla,
the younger G ordian was praised by his contem poraries as kind-hearted,
remarkably handsome, and in possession of an extraordinary memory. He
was a skilled adm inistrator who governed A chaea, served as Q uaestor
under Elagabalus, and as Prefect of Rom e and consul under Severus A le x
ander. Later, he served as his father’s deputy in N orth Africa.
T hough he was his father’s equal in adm inistrative skill and learning
(for he had a library of some 62,000 volum es), he did not possess his high
level of integrity. He was a staggeringly wealthy m iddle-aged bachelor with
many vices, foremost am ong them being women. T he Historia Augusta
tells us that “ . . . he had 22 mistresses formally attached to him, from all of
whom he had three or four children apiece.”
Indeed, the most telling assessment of his personal legacy is also found
in the Historia Augusta in which he is described as a man who wasted his
considerable genius by giving himself over to pleasure. Furthermore, he was
“ . . . a man of huge size. . . . He had a craving for cold drinks and passed the
summer with great difficulty unless he drank a great many of them .”
A s his father’s deputy in the governm ent of N orth Africa, the
younger G ordian becam e co-emperor with his father at the request of local
noblem an and with the consent of the senate in Rome. He was his father’s
titular equal, except that he did not share the high priesthood. W hen the
N um idian governor, Capellianus, opposed the elevation of the G ordiani, it
was the younger G ordian who assembled a large number of locals to pre
vent his advance on Carthage. Though the C arth aginian forces were far
larger in number than the N um idian legionaries, they were an untrained,
32° H IS T O R Y O F T H E R O M A N EM PIRE: B IO G R A P H IE S
undisciplined mob consisting of inexperienced local militia and enthusias-

tic provincials armed with farm implements and knives.
When the two forces met, perhaps on April 12, the Carthaginians
lost their composure at the mere sight of the Numidian cavalry, who were
renowned for their ability to control their horses precisely and to launch
their javelins with deadly accuracy. The “army” of Gordian II fled en masse
before the battle had even begun. What followed was not so much a battle
as a mass slaughter of Gordian’s undisciplined forces, many of whom died
of trampling by their own comrades. The slaughter was so complete that
the body of Gordian II — who had reigned only about three weeks —
could not be recognized after the fact. For more details, see the biography
of Gordian I, above.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : Because the inscriptions on coins of both Gordians are

identical, we must rely on the characteristics of the portraits when deter
mining which Gordian is portrayed. The elder Gordian has a full head of
hair, a thin face, beak nose and slightly recessed jaw. The younger Gordian
has a receding hairline, a long, flat nose, a pronounced forehead, heavy jaw
and jutting chin, and is fleshier in appearance.
PUPIENUS A.D. 238

(C o e m p e r o r w it h B a l b in u s )
Marcus Clodius Pupienus Maximus, c. A .D . 1 6 4 /

7 4 - 2 3 8 . With the death of the Gordiani in North
Africa, the hopes of the senate were dashed, as
they realized they had no choice but to defend
themselves. Maximinus had begun his invasion of
Italy and though he was not making rapid progress, the senators had no
reason to expect mercy if he reached Rome.
The senate, which had met in the temple of Castor and Pollux to
vote on its support of the Gordiani less than a month before, gathered in
the temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus on the Capitoline Hill to deter
mine its own fate. It had already established a council of 20 members ( vig-
intiviri reipublicae curandae causa) to see the Empire through the crisis, and
at this point selected two members of that council, Balbinus and Pupienus,
to take the leading positions as joint emperors.
This act was not only practical (one to manage government, the
other to defend Italy from Maximinus’ invasion) but was also symbolic:
Rome traditionally had been ruled by two consuls. It is also of some impor
tance that the two men shared their honors equally (although one man’s
C R ISIS A N D D E C L IN E 321
name had to come before the other, and this proved to be a bone of con
tention for Balbinus, whose name came second). Even the chief priest
hood, the pontifex maximus, was shared by the emperors. Although this had
never before occurred with this indivisible office, the practice would
appear again under future emperors.
Pupienus was perhaps a few years younger than his colleague and,
according to Herodian, hailed from a distinguished Etruscan family (which
is more likely than the “humble birth” the authors of the Historia Augusta
report. Like Balbinus, Pupienus had twice been consul and held governor
ships in the provinces, and seems also to have been Prefect of Rome some
time in the 230s. The first problem the co-emperors encountered was that
the people of Rome were opposed to the leadership of these two patricians.
A n angry mob demanded that a member of the Gordiani be included, for
that family, though also noble, was popular with the poor. The senate thus
bestowed the title of Caesar on Gordian III, the 13-year-old grandson of
Gordian I, in an effort to placate the public and no doubt to gain access to
the considerable wealth of the boy’s family.
Balbinus saw to administrative matters, while Pupienus was charged
with organizing the military defense of Italy. Pupienus and the council of
20 mobilized troops throughout the province and blockaded the roads
around Aquileia, the city at which the army of Maximinus was bogged
down in a tiresome siege. In addition to starving Maximinus of supplies,
Pupienus was making covert efforts to undermine the loyalty of his sol
diers, who in any case were not enthusiastic about waging war on their
own people. It did not take long for a plot to hatch, and Pupienus did not
even have to leave his headquarters at Ravenna before Maximinus and his
son were murdered in their camp after being roused from a midday nap.
Immediately, the army of Maximus wished to make peace with the Aqui-
leans, who were wary of a possible ruse. So they first showed the people of
Aquileia the severed heads of Maximinus and Maximus before they dis
patched them to Pupienus at Ravenna, and subsequently to Balbinus in
Rome. Pupienus then went to Aquileia to resolve the concerns of both
parties. The armies of both sides disbanded without incident.
Pupienus returned to Rome to great acclaim as the savior of Italy,
which did nothing but strain his already tense relationship with Balbinus,
who pointed out at every opportunity that his colleague really had done
nothing, and that Maximinus had defeated himself. To solve their differ
ences, the two men had hatched a plan which involved their jointly
leaving Rome on military campaigns: Pupienus against the Sasanians, and
Balbinus against the Goths on the Lower Danube. However, the rivalry
had become absurd and destructive, and proved to be their downfall. This
spelled opportunity for the praetorians, who were not in favor of being
ruled by men whom they did not choose. Riding a tide of public
resentment, the praetorians burst into the palace and dragged both men
into the streets. (In a stroke of bad timing, Pupienus’ German bodyguards
were elsewhere, and could not come to their rescue.) After being dragged
through the streets and mutilated, the two men were killed, to the relief of
everyone but the senate. For more details, see the biography of Balbinus.
C h r o n o l o g i c a l N o t e : Most authorities agree that the revolt of the Gor-

diani ended late in April of 238, and that Pupienus and Balbinus were
elected as co-emperors in that month (perhaps on the 22nd day). Using
that time-frame, a reign of 98 or 99 days would place their murders at the
very end of July (perhaps on the 29th day). However, the authors of RIC
suggest they reigned from the beginning of April through the end of June,
and at least one authority places their revolt in January, and thus dates the
rule of the co-emperors from early February through early May.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : All coin portraits of Pupienus are shown slightly from

behind, whereas those of Balbinus are shown slightly from the front - a
subtle but purposeful distinction which may indicate the seniority of the
latter. The reverses of Pupienus and Balbinus are shared on all denomina
tions except the double-denarius, upon which there is a common reverse
design (“clasped hands” ), but six different inscriptions. Each emperor used
three of these inscriptions on his own double-denarii, and only on very
rare occasions are they mistakenly “muled” with an obverse of the other
colleague.
BALBINUS A.D. 238

(C O -E M P ER O R WITH P U P IE N U S)
Decimus (or Decius) Caelius Calvinus Balbinus,

c . A .D . 1 7 8 / 6 5 - 2 3 8 . When the revolt of the Gord-
iani failed in North Africa, the senate elected two
of its own members, Pupienus and Balbinus, as
their replacement emperors. Balbinus was a distin
guished senator who had been consul in 203 and 213 and held several gov
ernorships in the provinces.
While Pupienus was initially in charge of the military defense of Italy,
Balbinus was responsible for administrative matters and securing peace in
Rome. This was no easy task for the elderly senator, who faced a riotous
population, a frantic senate and, worst of all, a dissatisfied praetorian guard
that felt slighted for not having been the instrument by which the new
emperors were chosen. The schism between the senate and the praetorians
was particularly strong, and resulted in violence when senators armed with
daggers murdered some unarmed praetorians who had impetuously burst in
on one of their meetings.
This incident was followed by an attack on the praetorian camp by
two senators, Gallinicus and Maecenas, who led an angry mob of citizens
and gladiators, hastily armed and driven to riot. The praetorians repelled
the attacks and later went on the offensive themselves, causing a small
civil war in Rome for several days. Amidst this chaos, Balbinus attempted
to make peace, but to no avail, for he was universally viewed as a weak
man with no real authority; he was even wounded when the public pelted
him with bricks.
The praetorians were now besieged in their camp, and the citizens
attempted to starve them of water. After suffering for a few days, the pra
etorians burst out of the camp and began to slaughter the citizens. Guer-
rilla-style warfare ensued and a considerable section of Rome was burned
to the ground in the process. Considering the circumstances, it would have
been difficult even for a popular emperor to keep the peace, but the unpop
ular Balbinus had no chance at all.
Once the military threat of Maximinus had ended, Pupienus
returned, riding a tide of popularity that only exacerbated the rivalry
between the Imperial colleagues. Clearly, Balbinus was the loser in the sit
uation, for while he was barely able to keep Rome from self-destruction,
Pupienus had “won” an important victory which spared Rome from certain
invasion. The two men quarreled over many things — at first privately but
then publicly, as their hostility grew. Their main bone of contention was
which of the two rulers should be accorded the highest honor. Balbinus
was upset that his colleague’s name had come first in inscriptions from the
very outset, even though he believed his own record and ancestry were
more illustrious. He was also jealous of the popularity his colleague
enjoyed for his easy victory over Maximinus, who had defeated himself.
Pupienus could do little in return but call Balbinus a timid, obese, lazy
Sybarite.
Balbinus was especially concerned about Pupienus’ German body
guards, who were both loyal and fearless. Understandably, Balbinus feared
that he might be assassinated by them. The praetorians had their con
cerns, for they suspected Pupienus might try to replace them with Ger
mans in the same way Septimius Severus had done with his Illyrians.
Finally — after Balbinus and Pupienus had ruled scarcely three months —
the praetorian guards decided to act before they were acted upon. They
stormed the palace while the German guards were occupied elsewhere and
dragged the two emperors into the street, where they were mutilated and
killed. For more details, especially on the chronology of the reign, see the
biography of Pupienus, above.
324 H IST O R Y O F T H E R O M A N EM PIRE: B IO G R A P H IE S
N u m is m a t ic N o t e : The first silver coinage of Balbinus and Pupienus was

exclusively of denarii, as that had been the only silver denom ination
struck for the previous 16 years (under Severus A lexander and M axim inus
I). However, to stretch resources the co-emperors soon began to strike
double-denarii, an inflationary coin introduced by C aracalla in 214 and
which had been abandoned in 222.
GORDIAN III A*D. 238-244

C a e s a r : a .d . 238
( u n d e r B a l b in u s and P u p ie n u s )
A u g u s t u s : a .d . 238 -2 4 4
G r a n d s o n o f G o r d ia n I
N e p h e w o f G o r d i a n II
A d o pt ed su c c e sso r o f B a l b in u s a n d P u p ie n u s
H u s b a n d o f T r a n q u il l in a
Marcus Antonius Gordianus “Pius,” c . A .D . 2 2 5 - 2 4 4 . Although

orphaned as a child, Gordian III belonged to a prominent and exception
ally wealthy family, then headed by his grandfather, Gordian I. His mother
was Maecia Faustina, a daughter of Gordian I and a sister of Gordian II.
Although we have virtually no insight into the personality of Gordian III,
we are told by the Historia Augusta that he was light-hearted, handsome,
winning and “. . . was loved by the people, the senate and the soldiers as no
prince had ever been before.”
The joint emperors Balbinus and Pupienus raised young Gordian III
to the rank of Caesar shortly after his grandfather and uncle perished in
their failed North African revolt. For the two emperors it was a prudent
move: not only did they fulfill the demands of the rioting populace, but
they also placated the praetorian guards, who viewed young Gordian as
their candidate. Additionally, the joint-emperors presumably gained access
to his family’s enormous wealth, from which it seems they hammered out a
large coinage in less than 100 days. Among these coins were ones honor
ing the young Caesar, though they constituted only a very small portion of
the output.
The chronology of this chaotic period is far from certain, although it
seems the co-emperors reigned with Gordian as their Caesar until July of
238, when the two Augusti were murdered and Gordian III was hailed
emperor in their place. Despite his youth (he was then about 13 years old),
Gordian was probably the best candidate, for he was not mature enough to
have an agenda of his own.
During this intense civil war, the enemies of Rome had become
active. The Goths and the Carpi had crossed the Danube, and the Sasani-
ans made advances in the East. Though his predecessors had planned to
meet these challenges (Balbinus against the Goths and Pupienus against
the Sasanians), their executions prevented any such action. The first three
years of Gordian’s reign were ostensibly under the guidance of the senate,
though no doubt they were careful not to upset the praetorians or the army
in the process. The Danubian frontier was managed through the presence
of existing legions and the payment of subsidies.
Among Gordian’s earliest tasks was the veneration of his deceased
grandfather and uncle, which included the dismissal of the legion that
caused their deaths under Capellianus. Although overtures like these,
which earned Gordian the title “Pius,” were commendable, in the latter case
it opened North Africa to a new revolt in 240 (by the provincial governor
Sabinianus) which had to be quelled by soldiers based in Mauretania.
In 241, the 16-year-old Gordian changed the complexion of his reign
by appointing Timesitheus, a man of exceptional character and experi
ence, as his commander of the praetorian guard. A t the same time he
strengthened his ties to Timesitheus by marrying his daughter, Tranquill-
ina. But the “honeymoon” was over before it began, for the Sasanian king,
Shapur I, had invaded Syria, requiring immediate attention from the
emperor and his father-in-law. En route to Syria, Gordian and Timesitheus
were delayed on the Danubian frontier, where they defeated the Carpi and
re-established peace in the region.
Gordian’s army was finally able to engage Shapur in the spring of 243.
The Romans quickly gained the upper hand against the Persians, and were
able not only to preserve Antioch, but to recover Nisibis, Hatra and Car-
rhae as Gordian’s legions advanced deep into Mesopotamia with the goal
of taking the capital, Ctesiphon. But the death of Timesitheus in the win
ter of 243 dampened the effort. The cause of Timesitheus’ death is not cer
tainly known; he either died of natural causes or was murdered by Philip
the Arab, his rival in life and replacement in death.
Though Gordian could no longer rely upon the counsel of
Timesitheus, he none-the-less led his army further against the Sasanians. It
seems, however, that he did not lead aggressively enough to satisfy his sol
diers, who no doubt wanted to sack the Sasanian capital and strip it of its
legendary wealth. The death of Gordian III at Zaitha in February or March
of 244 is a bit of a mystery, and is usually attributed to a coup by Philip I.
Philip told the senate that Gordian had died of natural causes, while
Shapur reports that he died in battle against the Sasanians at Misikhe.
Regardless of how Gordian — then 19 years old — actually died, it must
have been a lonely, frightening affair. Gordian was without an adviser he
could trust, and was at odds with the ambitious Philip, all the while trying
to lead an army so far from the comforts of the Rome he had known as a
child. We are told that Gordian, in a fit of desperation, offered to abdicate
in place of Philip and take a subordinate role, such as that of Caesar, or
even a lesser position, in exchange for his life.
N u m is m a t ic N o t e : Gordian III was the last emperor to strike the denarius

in quantity, and even in his reign it was being eclipsed by the double
denarius, which had been reintroduced by Pupienus and Balbinus. Denarii
of subsequent emperors are extremely rare. Antioch, which had been safe
guarded by Gordian’s armies, now became a regular Imperial mint.
TRANQUILLINA
A u g u sta , a .d . 24 1 -2 4 4
W i f e o f G o r d i a n III
Furia Sabinia Tranquillina, lifespan unknown.

Tranquillina was the daughter of Gaius Furius Sab-
inius Aquila Timesitheus, a man of good conscience
whom Gordian III appointed as the commander of the praetorian guard in
241. This was presumably before or upon the young emperor’s marriage to
Timesitheus’ daughter in May of that year. We know regrettably little of
Tranquillina, but are probably not out of line to assume she was perhaps 16,
or of similar age to her husband. Except that she produced no children and
accompanied Gordian and her father on their Sasanian campaign, details of
the marriage are unknown. Though her father died of illness (or murder) in
243, Tranquillina remained married to Gordian until he died in 244. She
appears to have survived him, but her subsequent fate is uncertain.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : The great rarity of Tranquillina’s Imperial coinage is

mysterious considering the great volume of coins struck in the name of her
husband. Furthermore, under the Antonines and Severans there existed a
tradition of striking large coinages in the name of empresses. Adding to
this enigma is the fact that her provincial coinage is not terribly scarce.
Some researchers suggest that her Imperial coins were recalled from circu
lation by Philip I, who is said to have despised her father, Timesitheus.
However, this seems impractical and unlikely. A more probable theory is
that her Imperial coinage was purposely small so as to avoid the appear
ance of a conflict of interest, considering that her father was the emperor’s
praetorian prefect and trusted adviser.
PHILIP I T H E ARAB’
A.D. 244-249
A u g u s t u s : a .d . 244-249
( a . d . 244-247: so le r e ig n )
( a . d . 247-249: w it h P h i l i p II)
H u s b a n d o f O t a c il ia S e v e r a
F a t h e r o f P h i l i p II
S o n o f J u l iu s M a r in u s
Marcus Julius Verus Philippus, c. A .D . 1 9 9 / 2 0 4 - 2 4 9 . T he specifics of

Philip’s origins are obscure, although we can be certain he was from the
H auran in A rabia Trachonitis, and most likely from the city which he later
renamed Philippopolis. O ne source, Eusebius (4th Century), suggests he
was the first C hristian emperor, though his actions clearly point to the
contrary.
If we believe the worst reports of the ancient historians, Philip’s rise
to the highest office was a cruel and calculated affair. He is said to have
caused the murders of both the prefect Tim esitheus and the emperor G ord
ian III. However, in even the most charitable version — where both
deaths occurred naturally — Philip cannot be absolved of personal am bi
tion, for he was an acknowledged enemy of Timesitheus, and he purposely
roused the army against Gordian.
In any event, Philip replaced Timesitheus as praetorian prefect (joining
his brother, Gaius Julius Priscus, the other praetorian prefect) and by the
time of G ordian’s death in February or March of 244, he was hailed as the
next emperor. His first actions were to inform the senate of G ordian’s death
and negotiate a quick peace with Shapur I. Many found the treaty terms,
which included an initial payment of 500,000 denarii (20,000 aurei), were
disgraceful — especially considering the recent success of the Romans.
However, Philip may have suspected that taking C tesiphon would be no
easy task, and instead settled for easy terms so he could safely go to Rome.
Because of this “victory,” Philip assumed the title Persicus maximus.
Philip quickly turned his attention to family affairs by placing his
brother, Priscus, in charge of the eastern portion of the Empire (rector Ori-
entis) and by appointing an in-law nam ed Severianus governor of M oesia.
He also deified his father, gave his 6- or 7-year-old son the rank of Caesar,
and hailed his wife as Augusta. Philip acted hastily in all of these matters,
for he did not wish to delay his long journey to Rom e, where he was an x
ious to establish his authority with the senate.
U pon his arrival at Rom e in July of 244, Philip was well-received by
the senate. From 245 to 247, Philip was occupied on the Danubian fron
tier, repelling invasions by the C arpi and apparently fighting the Germ ans.
A t the conclusion of the campaign in 247 he returned to Rome in triumph

and raised his son to the rank of Augustus. In 248 the Imperial family cele
brated the Saecular Games, which honored the 1,000th anniversary of the
foundation of Rome. Though celebrations began on April 21, the magnifi
cent games (which used exotic animals gathered by Gordian III for his
anticipated Persian triumph) seem to have been held later in the year. For
the people of Rome, this was a great event accompanied by a donative,
which did much to raise their spirits.
Philip’s glory was short-lived, for there was trouble once again on the
Danube, where soldiers had hailed the commander Pacatian as their
emperor. Although the rebellion was eventually stamped out, it proved to
be an open invitation for Goths, Carpi and various Germans to invade
Roman territories. As bad as this was, it was only one of four revolts that
plagued the final year of Philip’s rule. Ephemeral revolts by Silbannacus on
the Rhine and Sponsianus on the Danube are proven by the numismatic
evidence, but are not attested to in the historical record. The most serious
revolt occurred in the East, where the cruelties of Philip’s brother, Priscus,
had enraged both citizen and soldier. The legions chose a certain Jotapian
to lead their revolt, which proved difficult to quell, especially since Philip
could not attend to it personally.
This series of usurpations shook Philip’s confidence as a ruler, and he
is even said to have tendered his resignation to the senate, only to be dis
suaded by Decius, a senator and the prefect of Rome. But for Philip and his
family, the worst was yet to come. Having lost his confidence, Philip
appointed Decius to replace his in-law Severianus as commander-in-chief
of Moesia and Pannonia. This was a foolhardy move since all of the rebel
lious legions in that region would now come under the command of a sin
gle man. Decius was successful in his mission to restore order to the region
before the end of 248.
The inevitable occurred in about June of 249 when the soldiers pro
moted Decius as emperor. After some initial attempts at negotiation with
Philip, Decius was urged to march on Rome. Philip left the capital to
engage the approaching legions, which he encountered near Verona
(another account suggests Beroea in Macedon) in September or October
of 249. Though Philip had a larger army, he lost the battle and perished in
the process, either while engaging the enemy or by treachery among his
own soldiers.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : T he m ain event Philip celebrated on his and his fam

ily’s coinage was the millenniary celebration of R om e’s foundation. M any
of the coins struck for this important event depicted exotic anim als that
were featured in the games. O ne issue in particular, bearing the inscription
AETERNITAS AVGG, features the elephant, an anim al noted for its indeli
ble memory and long lifespan. Particularly noteworthy was the réintroduc
tion of the Æ drachm in A lexandria, Egypt, where the denom ination had
essentially been abandoned. T he m int at Rom e under Philip was organized
into six officinae, which are often indicated on the double-denarii by
Rom an numerals or Greek letters that appear in the exergue or in the
fields. T he P M in the inscriptions on some of Philip’s coins does not stand
for the traditional pontifex maximus, but rather the title Persicus maximus ,
which he earned for his victory over the Sasanians.
OTACILIA s e v e r a
A u g u sta , a .d . 2 4 4 -2 4 9
W ife o f P h ilip I
M o t h e r o f P h ilip II
D a u g h te r - in - la w (p o s th u m o u sly ? ) o f
Ju liu s M a r in u s
Marcia Otacilia Severa, d. A.D. 2 4 9 (7). Very little

is known of O tacilia Severa, an empress for whom a great quantity of coin
age was struck. She seems to have married Philip about a decade before he
becam e emperor, and gave birth to their only son, Philip Junior, in about
237. She may have been the daughter of a governor of Pannonia nam ed
Severus. M uch as with her husband, later Christian writers speculated that
O tacilia was a C hristian, and that she sought penance from Sain t Babylas,
Bishop of A ntioch, for her role in the murder of G ordian III. It is, of
course, unlikely that this is true.
U pon her husband’s accession in 244, O tacilia was given the title
Augusta. She later was hailed Mater Castrorum (“mother of the cam ps” )
and Mater Senatus et Patriae (“m other of the senate and the country” ). It is
not known whether she spent most of the reign in Rom e or accom panied
her husband on his cam paigns, but she almost certainly was in Rom e at the
time of her husband’s defeat by Decius. A lthough it seems likely that she
was executed by the praetorian guards, one source informs us that she sur
vived the ordeal to pass the remainder of her days in retirement.
PHILIP II A.D. 247-249

C a e s a r : a .d . 244-247 ( u n d e r P h i l i p I)
A u g u s t u s : a .d . 247-249 ( w it h P h i l i p I)
S o n o f P h il ip I and O t a c il ia S e v e r a
G r a n d s o n o f J u l iu s M a r in u s
Marcus Julius Severus Philippus, c. A .D . 2 3 7 -

2 4 9 . This young prince was destined for a short
and eventful life, for at about age 7 he was raised to the rank of Caesar
when his father was hailed emperor in February or March of 244. The
child retained that rank while on the arduous journey from Mesopotamia
to Rome, and during the more than two years of warfare against the Carpi
and Germans on the Danube. A t the conclusion of that campaign, Philip
Junior — then in his 10th year — was raised to the rank of Augustus when
Philip made his triumphant return to Rome in July or August of 247.
The sources differ in their telling of the boy’s fate, though his death
came as the result of his father’s death in battle against Decius in Septem
ber or October of 249. One version is that Philip Junior remained in Rome
with his mother, and that he did his best to secure his own safety by
administering bribes, perhaps surviving as late as November. But it is just
as likely that he was at his father’s side at Verona, and was either killed in
battle or was captured and then taken to Rome, where he was executed by
the praetorian guards.
JULIUS MARINUS
Fa t h e r o f P h il ip I
G r a n d f a t h e r o f P h il ip II
Julius Marinus, d. before A .D . 244. The father of

Philip I, Julius Marinus was an Arab chieftain
(Sheik) from Trachonitis who also apparently held
the rank of a Roman knight. Beyond this, nothing is known with certainty
except that he was deified by his son.
Upon the accession of Philip in 244, the name of what presumably
was his home town (located about 12 miles from Bostra, the capital of
Roman Arabia) was changed to Philippopolis. Furthermore, the town was
accorded the status of a Roman colonia, and Philip erected there a temple
dedicated to the deified Marinus and, seemingly, another relative (his
mother?), for the seated Roma on Philippopolitan coins holds two small
figures. Portions of this temple bearing inscriptions naming Philip and his
family members were discovered at the archaeological site.
C RISIS A N D D E C L IN E 33 I
N u m is m a t ic N o t e : The coinage of Philippopolis appears to be limited to

the reign of Philip I. For this reason it can be presumed that it was a rela
tively insignificant place, and that despite the lavish honors it briefly
received from its emperor-benefactor, it remained so. The most interesting
issues of the city are the two denominations struck for Julius Marinus, as
coins with his name or image were produced nowhere else. The obverses
commemorate his apotheosis not only by means of the appropriate inscrip
tion, but also by showing his bust resting upon an eagle with spread wings.
The reverse types depict Roma standing or seated.
SILBANNACUS c. A.D. 248(?)

Marcus Silbannacus, d. A.D. 2 4 8 ( 7). This man is unknown from any
source but a single coin bearing his name, which is in the cabinet of the
British Museum. During the final year or two of the reign of Philip I, S il
bannacus seems to have led a revolt in the West (perhaps on the Rhine);
his coin was found in Lorraine. The reverse type is unusual in that it
depicts Mercury holding not only his traditional caduceus, but also a small
figure of Victory.
SPONSIANUS c. A -D . 248(?)
Sponsianus, lifespan unknown. Sponsianus may be the most mysterious
of all “issuers” of coins in Roman history. His aurei — described in RIC as
“strange and barbarous” — are placed at the end of the reign of Philip I,
when at least two other revolts occurred. Based on their find sites in Tran
sylvania, they may be associated with a revolt on the Danube, if they are to
be linked to any revolt at all. Equally as vexing as the barbarous die
engraving is the choice of reverse type, which seems to be copied from a
Republican denarius struck in 135 B.C. (Cr. 242/1).
PACATIAN c. A.D. 248-249(1)

Tiberius (or Titus) Claudius Marinus Paca-
tianus, d. A .D * 2 4 8 . The revolt of Pacatian on the
Danube in the spring or early summer of 248
proved to be the beginning of the end for Philip I,
who had been emperor for nearly four years. The
commander pacatian, a consul suffectus in 248, was
hailed emperor by Danubian legions, who appar
ently had tired of Philip. Opinions on the length of his reign vary consid
erably among historians, with estimates ranging from a few weeks to a few
months. In any case, his revolt seems to have been crushed by Decius, who
had been sent to the region by Philip to take command in place of his own
incompetent in-law, Severianus. As the result of Decius’ arrival, Pacatian
was assassinated by his soldiers sometime between the spring of 248 and
early 249.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : This usurper’s coins appear to have been struck in

Moesia. The mint of Viminacium is often suggested, though it is worth
noting that if this was his mint, it seems odd no provincial issues were
struck there in his name, unless the production demands for his double
denarii were so great that the provincial coinage had to be abandoned.
Pacatian’s most interesting issue bears the reverse inscription ROMAE
AETER(nae) AN(no) MILL(esimo) ET PRIMO, which translates to “the
thousand and first year of eternal Rome.”
JOTAPIAN c. A.D. 248-249(7)

Marcus Fulvius Rufus Jotapianus, d. A.D. 248.
When Philip I appointed his brother Gaius Julius
Priscus governor of Mesopotamia, with general
authority over the Roman East, he no doubt hoped
his brother would rule competently in the family’s
best interest. However, such a great amount of
authority, which included the unorthodox title
“praetorian prefect and ruler of the East,” seems to have turned Priscus
into an autocrat whose ruthless tax collections stirred the locals into revolt
in the summer of 248.
In response, the army commander Jotapian was proclaimed emperor
by his soldiers. He apparently controlled a vast area, including Northern
Syria and Cappadocia, but was assassinated by his soldiers after a reign of
no more than a year. M uch like the revolt of Pacatian on the Danube, the
length of Jotapian ’s reign is disputed. Though it may have lasted only a few
weeks, it more likely endured several months, lasting into early or mid-
249. Jotapian ’s claim to be a relative of Severus A lexander may well have
been fictional. Alternatively, he may have been descended from the old
rulers of Com m agene, as Jotape was a name associated with that dynasty.
TRAJAN DECIUS A*D. 249-251

A u g u s t u s : a .d . 249-251
( a .d . 2 4 9 - 2 5 1 : so le r e ig n )
( a .d . 2 5 1 : w it h H e r e n n iu s Etr u scu s
AND H o ST ILIA n )
H u s b a n d o f H e r e n n ia E t r u s c il l a
Fa t h e r o f H e r e n n i u s E t r u s c u s a n d H o s t il ia n
Gaius Messius Quintus Traianus Decius (earlier Gaius Messius Quin

tus Decius), c. A .D . 1 9 0 / 2 0 1 - 2 5 1 . Born at Budalia, near Sirm ium , Decius
was one of the few Danubians of his era who rose to high rank in Rom e.
Though he hailed from a family of standing, he owed his success no less to
his own skills than to his marriage to H erennia Etruscilla, who was
descended from a noble Etruscan family.
Quite early in his career Decius gained senatorial rank, and later held
im portant adm inistrative posts, including the governorships o f N earer
Spain and Lower M oesia. Toward the end of the reign of Philip I, Decius
was the prefect of Rom e. His encouragem ent to the emperor not to abdi
cate earned him the dubious honor of being sent to the Danubian front to
put an end to the revolt of Pacatian and to rid the region of the G oths,
Germ ans and D acian Carpi who had flooded in during the crisis.
It could hardly have come as a surprise when in July the legions
hailed Decius as Augustus, and com pelled him to march against Philip.
Indeed, Sosim us tells us that Decius warned Philip in advance that this
was the inevitable conclusion, but that Philip asked him to go anyway.
T he veracity of this is doubtful; although Decius made overtures to Philip
after the fact, it was clear that the two men could not rule jointly, and so
the opposing armies met at Verona (or possibly at Beroea in M acedon) in
Septem ber or O ctober of 249.
In the resulting battle, Decius was victorious over the larger forces of
Philip, who perished. T he political chaos that had plagued Philip at the
end of his reign was now silenced, and Decius — the first in a long line of
emperors to hail from the Balkans — was master of the collapsing R om an
world. He entered Rom e in October, and his colleagues in the senate
confirmed his rank and heaped him with honors. Most interesting of these
was the bestowal of the surname Trajan, after the famous 2nd Century
emperor who not only had an excellent relationship with the senate, but
who also defeated the Dacian king Decebalus, and annexed Dacia as a
province of the Empire.
Decius’ main social agenda involved the ancient traditions of Rome,
most especially the worship of previous emperors and the observation of
traditional pagan ritual. This did not bode well for the few Christians in
the Empire, who were compelled to honor the pagan rituals or face death.
One victim of Decius’ reform was Pope Fabian, who was martyred in 250.
However dedicated Decius was to his social causes, the problems on the
frontier took precedence, as the withdrawal of Decius’ forces had made the
Danubian frontier vulnerable to yet another barbarian invasion.
The Goths and the Carpi invaded Roman territory simultaneously,
crossing the frozen waters of the Danube early in 250. Two future emperors
became involved in affairs at this point: Trebonianus Gallus, then gover
nor of Upper and Lower Moesia, and Valerian I, for whom Decius
invented an office that gave him overall authority in Rome during the
emperor’s absence.
It was also in 250 that Decius raised his eldest son, Herennius Etrus-
eus, to the rank of Caesar. Though only a teenager, the new Caesar was
sent to the front that summer at the head of an army while Decius settled
matters in Rome. However, it was not long before Decius too arrived, win
ning some important engagements against the Goths and the Carpi. He
was able to save Nicopolis ad Istrum by inflicting heavy losses on the
Gothic chieftain Kniva, who consequently abandoned his siege. Decius
was also successful in driving the Carpi out of Dacia.
But after he had suffered a small defeat at Beroe Augusta Trajana,
Decius learned that a local governor, Titus Julius Priscus (who had been
besieged in Philippopolis for several months), had hailed himself emperor
and defected to the Goths. Although Priscus was soon killed, Decius was
unable to prevent the ravage of Thrace that resulted. He led his army to
the Danube, where he linked up with the legions under the command of
Trebonianus Gallus. Together they hoped to defeat the booty-laden Goths
as they returned to their homeland. While awaiting the Goths, Decius
learned of a rebellion in the city of Rome led by a certain Julius Valens
Licinianus (by March this was suppressed by Valerian).
Meanwhile, the opportunity Decius and Gallus had been awaiting on
the Gothic front arrived in the spring of 251. The initial engagement was a
great success, prompting Decius to raise his eldest son to the rank of
Augustus, and his youngest son, Hostilian (who was still in Rome), to the
rank of Caesar (alternatively, this may already have occurred in 250).
Riding the tide of good fortune, Decius sought a decisive victory over the
Goths — but the opposite occured. Under the leadership of the chieftain
Kniva, the Goths ambushed the Romans in the marshes at Abrittus in
June, or possibly July, of 251. There, the Goths delivered one of the great
defeats in Imperial history, killing the 50- or 60-year-old Decius, his teen
age son, Herennius Etruscus, and most of their army.
Unless we take as fact Shapur Is account of Gordian III dying in bat
tle at Misikhe, Decius and Etruscus were the first Roman emperors to fall
against a foreign enemy. It remains uncertain whether his defeat was due
to the treachery of Trebonianus Gallus, who failed to rescue them with his
reserve force, and who was subsequently hailed emperor. In any event, the
ambush bears an uncanny resemblance to the even more serious defeat of
the emperor Valens by the Goths near Adrianople in 378.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : Decius produced one of the more interesting coinages

of the 3rd Century, with his monetary policy seemingly being determined
by runaway inflation. N ot only did he introduce an entirely new denomi
nation, the double-sestertius, but he also struck a small æ coin usually
called a semis by numismatists. Rather than a semis (a low value coin
abandoned more than a century before, and one which was of uncertain
function even when it was in regular production), the small coin more
likely was an as, though greatly reduced in weight. Supporting this theory
is the significant reduction in weight which can be observed in the other
æs denominations struck by Decius. It is worth noting that if the double
sestertius and the reduced as/semis were intended as remedies for inflation,
the measures quickly failed, for they were not adopted by his immediate
successors. He also struck a series of double-denarii honoring eleven of his
deified Imperial predecessors (which are described in a separate listing fol
lowing the regular coins of Decius). Many of Decius’ coins celebrate Dacia,
Pannonia and Illyricum, all provinces in the region from which he hailed.
His double-denarii from Antioch differ from those of Rome not only in the
style of artistry, but also by the presence of pellets or numerals either below
the bust or in the exergue on the reverse. These pellets and numerals indi
cate the officina in which the coin was struck — a system adopted for some
later coinages of Antioch.
HERENNIA ETRUSCILLA
A u g u sta , a .d . 2 4 9 -2 5 3 (?)
W if e o f T r a ja n D e c iu s
M o t h e r o f H e r e n n iu s E t r u s c u s a n d H o s t il ia n
Herennia Cupressenia Etruscilla, lifespan

unknown. Despite the commonness of Herennia
Etruscilla’s coins, the life of this noble Etruscan
lady reads like a blank page. Had an inscription not confirmed that she was
the wife of Decius, we would have to rely entirely on the numismatic evi-
dence, which in this case is quite strong. There exist a handful of “hybrid”
coins on which her obverse dies are paired with reverse dies intended for
Trajan Decius and Herennius Etruscus. There is a strong possibility that
coinage in her name continued to be struck under Trebonianus Gallus, as
Gallus’ wife was never hailed Augusta.
HERENNIUS ETRUSCUS
A .D . 2 5 1
C a e s a r : a .d . 250-2 5 1
( u n d e r T r a ja n D e c iu s , and
w it h H o s t il ia n ( ?) )
A u g u s t u s : a .d . 2 5 1 ( w it h T r a ja n D e c iu s )
S o n o f T r a ja n D e c iu s a n d H e r e n n ia E t r u s c il l a
B r o t h e r o f H o s t il ia n
Quintus Herennius Etruscus Messius Decius, d. A .D . 2 5 1 . As the eldest

son of Trajan Decius, Herennius Etruscus was destined to become involved
in the Imperial duties of his father, who had been hailed emperor by his
soldiers on the Danubian frontier and, after defeating the armies of Philip I
in October of 249, gained the approval of the senate.
Though his father had pacified the Danubian front before leaving to
confront Philip I, his battle preparations had deprived the region of the
legions that defended it. Thus, the Goths and Carpi exploited this weak
ness by crossing the Danube again early in 250. As Decius prepared to lead
a campaign to reclaim the region, one of the measures he took was to
appoint Herennius Etruscus to the rank of Caesar.
Since matters were not yet settled in Rome, Decius placed Etruscus in
command of the army, which the teenage Caesar then led to the Danubian
front in the summer of 250. Decius joined him on the front soon thereaf
ter, but the problems they faced were manifold, and Decius discovered that
he could do little to prevent the Goths from ravaging Roman territory.

Instead, the Romans waited to defeat the Goths when they attempted to
cross back over the Danube. In the meantime, Decius and Etruscus joined
their legions with those of the future emperor Trebonianus Gallus, who
was then a governor in Moesia.
When the Goths returned in the spring of 251, Decius and son made
their move. The initial engagement was a success, and in May or June of
251 Decius raised Etruscus to the rank of Augustus. A t the same time he
may also have raised his younger son, Hostilian, then residing in Rome, to
the rank of Caesar (if this had not already occurred in 250).
Decius hoped to inflict a great defeat on the Goths. The opposite
occurred, however, when the legions under joint command of Decius and
Etruscus were ambushed by the Goths in June or July of 251. The teenage
Etruscus and his middle-aged father were slaughtered along with the pre
ponderance of their army. Thus, Etruscus and his father are known to his
tory principally as the first Roman emperors to fall in battle against a
foreign enemy. Trebonianus Gallus, who was in charge of the reserve force,
failed to rescue Decius and his army, and it remains uncertain whether his
inaction was treacherous or merely unfortunate.
HOSTILIAN A.D. 251

C a e s a r : a . d . 2 5 0 ( ?) - 2 51
(V a r i o u s l y under T r a ja n D e c iu s ,
H e r e n n iu s E t r u c u s (?) and
T r e b o n ia n u s G a l l u s (?))
A u g u s t u s : a .d . 2 5 1
( w it h T r e b o n ia n u s G a llu s)
S o n o f T r a ja n D e c iu s a n d H e r e n n ia E t r u s c il l a
B r o t h e r o f H e r e n n iu s E t r u s c u s
A d o p t iv e s o n o f T r e b o n ia n u s G a l l u s
Gaius Valens Hostilianus Messius Quintus, d . A .D . 2 5 1 . The reign of

Hostilian is one of the sketchiest of the 3rd Century. N ot only was his era
extremely chaotic, but it is poorly documented by historians. Furthermore,
his largely ceremonial status has to be judged in terms of the four Augusti
with whom he was associated (and their individual chronologies are far
from certain). It is most helpful first to discuss the progression of events,
and then to discuss how they may have affected Hostilian.
As the son of Trajan Decius and the younger brother of Herennius
Etruscus, Hostilian assumed the junior role in the family power structure,
which also included his mother, Herennia Etruscilla, a noblewoman who
held the rank of Augusta. Young Hostilian (then perhaps in his early
teens) stayed in Rome with his mother while his father and older brother
went to the Danube to fight the Goths in the summer of 250. Even at
Rome the true power was not in the hands of Hostilian and his mother, for
Decius had created a special post for Valerian (the future emperor) that
accorded him great authority. This appointment was one of Decius’ more
prudent moves. In the early months of 251 Valerian crushed a serious
rebellion at Rome that had been staged by a certain Julius Valens
Licinianus.
In the course of waging war on the Danubian front, Decius and Etrus
cus (both of whom then held the rank of Augustus) were killed in an
ambush in June or July of 251. Hostilian — safe in Rome — was the only
surviving male of the ruling family, and he seems to have held only the
rank of Caesar at the time of that tragedy.
Immediately after Decius and Etruscus were killed, the Danubian
legions hailed their own commander, Trebonianus Gallus, as the new
emperor. Gallus rapidly arranged an unfavorable peace with the Goths,
and then marched to Rome to receive the confirmation of the senate.
Sometime after his arrival, Gallus agreed to share the rank of Augustus
with Hostilian. The subordinate rank of Caesar was given to Gallus’ own
son, Volusian, who also was betrothed to Hostilian’s sister.
Though Hostilian had lost his father and brother to the Goths, he
still had his mother and sister, and may have found comfort in having a
new adoptive father and brother-in-law. But this tidy arrangement ended
when Hostilian died of the plague, which at that time was a raging epi
demic in the capital as well as through most of the Empire. Despite the
lofty titles Hostilian briefly possessed, and the quantity of coins that were
struck in his name, he accomplished little or nothing.
C h r o n o l o g i c a l N o t e : Though most authorities ascribe Hostilian’s reign

exclusively to 251 (beginning in the spring, when his older brother Heren
nius Etruscus was hailed Augustus), others suggest he was hailed Caesar in
mid- or late 250. All seem to be in agreement, however, that his brief ten
ure as Augustus belongs to 251, after Gallus arrived in Rome and negoti
ated their joint-rulership. This can most likely be dated to late June or July
of 251. There is some numismatic evidence that during a very brief period
after Gallus’ arrival in Rome, Gallus was Augustus, Hostilian was Caesar
and Volusian had not yet been given a title. But that initial arrangement
probably lasted less than a month before Hostilian was made co-Augustus,
and Volusian was hailed Caesar. The date of Hostilian’s death is equally
uncertain, with estimates ranging from August to November of 251.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : A coin type struck by his adoptive father, Trebonianus

Gallus (AP0LL[0] SALVTARI, A pollo standing, holding a branch and a
lyre) invokes A pollo Salutaris (“the health-bringing A po llo” ), to deliver
the Rom ans from the plague. Though G allus could not have known his
young colleague would eventually die of the plague, his unusual type dem
onstrates just how serious the epidemic had become. A similar type was
struck by Valerian I, into whose reign the plague persisted.
TREBONIANUS GALLUS
A.D. 251-253
A u g u s t u s : a .d . 251-253
( a .d . 2 5 1 : w it h H o s t il ia n )
( a .D. 2 5 1 - 2 5 3 : WITH V o L U SIA n )
Fa t h e r o f V o l u s i a n
A d o p t iv e f a t h e r o f H o s t il ia n
Gaius Vibius Afinius Trebonianus Gallus, c.

A .D . 2 0 4 / 6 - 2 5 3 . Except that he hailed from an old Etruscan family in
Perugia, little is known about the early life of Trebonianus Gallus. He was
married to A fm ia G em ina Baebiana, by whom he fathered Volusian. It
comes as no surprise that Baebiana was not hailed Augusta, for the widow
of Decius, H erennia Etruscilla, was still alive at the time G allus was
emperor.
G allus’ political career was distinguished, for he was a leading senator
who had held the suffect consulship in 245. But the event that enrolled
him in the annals of history was his appointm ent in 250 as governor of
Upper and Lower M oesia, a highly unstable but im portant province that
had come under a fresh invasion by the G oths and the C arpi about the
time he arrived. G allus did his best to repel the G oths, but to little effect.
T he emperor Trajan Decius and his eldest son, Herennius Etruscus, soon
arrived at the front, and even their efforts failed when a local governor
named Priscus defected to the G oths.
However, what occurred in June or July of the following year (251)
was worse than could have been imagined: Decius and Etruscus were
ambushed and killed (along with most of their army) by the G oths near
Abrittus. It was one of the great defeats in Rom an history, and it is still
uncertain whether G allus (who was in charge of the reserve force) treach
erously failed to warn Decius of the ambush. In any event, G allus was
promptly hailed emperor by his soldiers.
His first act was to negotiate peace with the G oths, and in so doing he
promised an annual tribute of gold and allowed them to keep all of their
booty and prisoners. The terms were disgraceful, but considering the suc
cess of the Gothic ambush on Decius, they were probably the best he could
attain. But the worst was yet to come. Gallus now headed for Rome and
prepared for a reign which a 19th Century historian aptly described as “a
succession of miseries, devastations and horrors.”
When he arrived at Rome, Gallus discovered that the city was suffering
from an epidemic of the plague that was to cripple the Empire for at least
another 15 years. The new emperor secured his position by sharing his
authority with Hostilian, the teenage son of Trajan Decius, who had
remained in Rome with his mother. Though the boy had held the rank of
Caesar under his father, Gallus raised him to Augustus, while at the same
time he gave his own son, Volusian, the subordinate rank of Caesar.
This careful arrangement was shattered sometime between August
and November of 251, when Hostilian died of the plague. While Gallus
raised his own son to the now-vacant office of junior Augustus, his time in
the capital was far from pleasant. N ot only was the plague causing great
harm, but the Goths launched yet another invasion. It was not until the
following year (252) that the governor of Lower Moesia, the future
emperor Aemilian, crossed the Danube and defeated the Goths.
In that same year — as if the Romans were not already suffering
enough — the Sasanian king, Shapur I, invaded and captured Armenia. In
252/3 Shapur invaded the wealthy Roman province of Syria, and was so
successful that he even sacked Antioch, the third most important city in
the Empire. Much like the plague, the armies of Shapur would prove to be
a devastating force in the Empire for the next decade. But the destruction
in Asia Minor was not limited to Sasanian offensives, for the Goths and
other Germanic peoples also raided Asia Minor, probably because they had
already stripped the Balkan region of most of its portable wealth.
Although the Goths had no intention of remaining in Asia, their
raids were devastating and penetrated as far south as Ephesus. It seems that
Gallus found a scapegoat for the ill-fortune of the Empire in the Chris
tians. He renewed the persecutions of Trajan Decius, in which Pope
Fabian had been martyred. With all of this chaos, Gallus’ one area of suc
cess was on the Danubian frontier, where Aemilian was victorious. This
may have been good news for the frontier legions, but it did not bode well
for Gallus. The victorious Aemilian gave a large bonus to his legions, who
then hailed him emperor and urged him to march on Rome.
Gallus had the senate declare Aemilian a public enemy and sent for
help from another of his generals, the future emperor Valerian, who was
recruiting troops on the Rhine. But the advance of Aemilian that spring
(or summer) was too swift, and Valerian was unable to react in time. The
small army that Gallus was able to muster was no match for Aem ilian’s
seasoned and bribed legions. Both Gallus and his son, Volusian, were
murdered by their own soldiers, who were unwilling to face certain defeat
against A em ilian.
We know that these executions were carried out some 20 to 50 miles
north of Rome, in rural Um bria, but authorities are divided as to whether
they occurred in A pril or A ugust of 253. Despite the magnitude of the ill-
fortune Gallus faced, it is difficult to respect his feeble efforts at salvaging
the Empire. U nlike more energetic emperors of the 3rd Century (such as
Gallienus, A urelian or Probus), G allus seems to have been so over
whelmed that he was paralyzed into inaction.
His reign bears a striking parallel to that of Philip the A rab, as both
men began by hastily negotiating peace treaties and making a quick dash
to Rom e. Later in their reigns, both men took refuge in the capital, hoping
that their frontier generals would not only save the Empire but expect
nothing in return. T he final comparison, of course, is drawn in their m an
ner of death, for both perished when their armies refused to support them
in the m om ent of battle against the next contender.
N u m is m a t ic N o t e : Seem ingly in an attem pt to com bat runaway inflation,

G allus introduced a ‘radiate’ gold coin, which he struck alongside the tra
ditional ‘laureate’ piece. T he radiate crown normally indicated a double
denom ination, and G allus’ laureate gold coin may have been intended as a
double aureus (a ‘binio’) even though it was only about 50% or 60%
heavier than the laureate piece. In this respect it offers a ready parallel to
the silver double-denarius of Caracalla. Both of G allu s’ gold coins were
considerably underweight, with the radiate pieces typically weighing about
5.8 grams, and the laureate coins only about 3.6 grams.
VOLUSIAN A.D. 251-253

C a e s a r : a .d . 251
( u n d e r T r e b o n ia n u s G allus and
H o s t il ia n )
A u g u s t u s : a .d . 251-253
( w it h T r e b o n ia n u s G a llu s)
S o n o f T r e b o n ia n u s G a l l u s
Gaius Vibius Afinius Gallus Veldumnianus Volusianus, c . A .D . 2 3 0 -

2 5 3 . Despite the volume of his coinage that survives, Volusian achieved
very little in his approximately two years of rule, first as Caesar, then as
Augustus. Volusian came to power when his father was hailed emperor by
his soldiers following the ambush the G othic king Kniva sprang on Trajan
Decius at Abrittus in June or July of 251.
Shortly after Gallus returned to Rome, he was confirmed by the sen

ate and arranged to share the title of Augustus with Hostilian, the son of
Trajan Decius who had remained in Rome. Even though Volusian was
older than Hostilian, he was given the subordinate rank of Caesar. Ties
between Hostilian’s family and his own were strengthened by Volusian’s
betrothal to Hostilian’s sister. Furthermore, Gallus did not assign to his
own wife (Afinia Gemina Baebiana) the title Augusta, for Herennia Etrus
cilla, the widow of Decius and mother of Hostilian, was alive and in pos
session of that title.
But this arrangement unraveled sometime between August and N ov
ember of 251 when young Hostilian died of the plague that was ravaging not
only Rome, but most of the Empire. With this turn of events, Volusian filled
the now-vacant office of junior Augustus. No doubt news of terrible aggres
sions by the Goths and the Sasanians poured into Rome, further dampening
the spirit of a population beset with critical problems of their own.
Instead of combating the invasions themselves, father and son
remained at Rome, hoping the crises would resolve themselves. When
Aemilian, the governor of Lower Moesia, began to have success against
the Goths, his frontier legions hailed him emperor. Gallus and Volusian
tried to secure aid from the general (and future emperor) Valerian, who
was recruiting soldiers on the Rhine, but Aemilian marched to Italy at a
furious pace and Valerian came too late to help.
Gallus and Volusian gathered what few soldiers they could muster
that spring or summer of 253 and left Rome to face Aemilian. The two
emperors didn’t get more than about two days march from the capital
before they were murdered by their own soldiers, who had no desire to
engage the larger and more seasoned army led by Aemilian. We cannot be
certain of Volusian’s age, but his coin portraits indicate he was a young
man, perhaps in his 20s or early 30s.
AEMILIAN A.D. 253

H u s b a n d o f C o r n e l ia S u p e r a
Marcus Aemilius Aemilianus, c. A .D . 2 0 7 / 8 - 2 5 3 .

O f this ephemeral emperor we know very little,
except that he hailed from an obscure Maureta
nian family which perhaps lived on the island of
Jerba. A man of considerable talent, Aemilian rose
to the high office of consul. During the reign of Trebonianus Gallus and
Volusian, the Empire was besieged on all fronts and it was on this stage
that Aemilian made his entry into history.
CRISIS A N D D E C L IN E 343
Troubles were numerous: the Sasanians were raiding Roman territory

in the East, the plague was ravaging all parts of the Empire, and the Goths
had launched yet another offensive across the Danube and made destruc
tive sorties into Asia Minor. In 252, Aemilian, then governor of Lower
Moesia (having in 251 taken over the post vacated by Trebonianus G al
lus), executed the Goths who remained in Roman territory and crossed the
Danube to inflict an important defeat on the remaining tribesman. While
Aem ilian’s success was triumphant for the beleaguered frontier legions, it
did not bode well for Gallus and Volusian, who remained in Rome as the
frontiers unraveled.
Aemilian was energetic and ambitious, and was not bashful about his
desire to become emperor, for he gave to his soldiers the money that was
intended to subsidize a peace agreement with the Goths. In a virtual repeat
of recent history, Aemilian’s frontier legions hailed him emperor in the
spring or summer of 253, and urged him to march on Rome. Gallus
declared Aemilian a public enemy and sought the support of another of his
generals, the future emperor Valerian, who was then raising troops in Ger
many and Gaul.
But the advance of Aemilian from Moesia to just outside Rome was
too swift, and Valerian’s efforts were in vain. Gallus was able to gather
from the environs of Rome only a small army which, both in size and capa
bility, was no match for Aemilian’s seasoned legions. The inferior army of
Gallus was not anxious to engage Aemilian, and so they mutinied and
murdered Gallus and Volusian at Interamna in rural Umbria.
Being only a day or two from Rome, Aemilian proceeded there at the
head of his enlarged army and gained the approval of the senate, which
only weeks before had declared him a public enemy. Despite his immediate
success, Aemilian would soon meet a similar fate, for the legions that Vale
rian had gathered from Raetia and Noricum were marching on Italy.
Alerted to the advance of the challenger, Aemilian may have sought a
compromise, but in any case led his army from Rome.
The armies met at a bridge near Spoleto in Umbria, and Aemilian
was killed by his own soldiers. Though the fighting was inconsequential,
there must have been an engagement, for thereafter the site came to be
known as Pons Sanguinarius, “the bloody bridge.” The hasty demise of
Aemilian was perhaps a tragedy; he seemed to have the makings of an
excellent frontier emperor.
Though authorities agree that Aem ilian reigned for about three
months, the exact timing is debated. Estimates cover the entire period of
April through October. The two best possibilities are April through July,
or August through October. The historical record seems to favor the
former, whereas the numismatic record may support the latter, as his tet-
radrachms at Alexandria are dated only to “year two,” suggesting that
news of his accession reached Egypt sometime after the Egyptian New
Year on August 29.
CORNELIA SUPERA
A u g u sta , a .d . 253
W ife o f A e m ilia n
Gaia Cornelia Supera, lifespan unknown. This

empress is unknown to history except for her
appearance on coinage. Indeed, it is exclusively on
the strength of the numismatic evidence that she
is identified as the wife of Aemilian. Authorities in the 19th Century and
earlier had speculated she was possibly the consort of Trebonianus Gallus
or the wife of Valerian II.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : Cornelia Supera’s Latin issues are limited to double-

denarii, which have only two reverse types, Vesta and Juno. Her provincial
coinage, though also limited in scale, is more abundant, and includes issues
struck at Parium in Mysia, Julia in Phrygia and Aegae in Cilicia.
URANIUS ANTONINUS
A.D. 253-254
Lucius Julius Aurelius Sulpicius Uranius

Antoninus (also Sampsigeramus), d. A.D. 254(2).
The chaos of the Roman Empire in the early 250s
was viewed as an opportunity by the Sasanian king
Shapur I, who occupied Roman Armenia in 252
and in 252/3 invaded the wealthy Roman province of Syria. The Persian
armies made great advances and soon divided to attack simultaneously the
cities of Antioch and Emesa.
Though Antioch was taken by treachery in the summer of 253 and
suffered a terrible fate, Emesa offered tough resistance. Charged with the
defense of Emesa was a certain Sampsigeramus, who is almost certainly
Uranius Antoninus, a hereditary priest of Aphrodite and the sun-god El-
gabal. This was the same office the emperor Elagabalus (from whom U ra
nius certainly was descended) had held before he became emperor in 218.
N ot only did the Emesans defend their city, but they went on the
offensive, driving the Sasanians out of their vicinity. It is believed that
Uranius Antoninus was urged to assume power based on this achievement.

The Roman relief of Syria was understandably slow in coming. N ot only
was the plague paralyzing much of the Empire, but there was constant
invasion across the Danube, and as if matters were not difficult enough,
there were three different regimes in 253.
Though temporarily paralyzed, Rome was far from powerless, and the
new emperor Valerian I was prepared for action. His first important deed
was to nominate his eldest son, Gallienus, co-emperor. Leaving Gallienus
in charge of the European theater, Valerian was free to campaign in Asia
Minor. Either late in 253 or early in 254, Valerian was able to recover the
capital city of Antioch, probably because it had been so completely
depleted that the Sasanians simply abandoned it. What happened thereaf
ter at Emesa is not certainly known, except that Uranius Antoninus either
abdicated or was forcibly removed from power. It is also unknown whether
Uranius Antoninus survived his brief tenure as ruler of Emesa, but the
prospect seems unlikely.
H i s t o r i c a l N o t e : Until very recently the circumstances of Uranius

Antoninus’ revolt was not understood; three usurpers of similar context
are reported by ancient historians. A Uranius and an Antoninus are
reported by Zosimius (writing c. A.D. 500), and a certain Taurinus is
reported by the mid-4th Century historian Victor. Scholars of the 19th
Century placed his revolt during the reign of Severus Alexander (222-
235), and even until quite recently it was dated to c. 248-253/4 (for it was
thought to have been sparked by the harsh taxations of Gaius Julius
Priscus, the brother of Philip the Arab). Prompting this view was an aureus
with the reverse type SAECVLARES AVGG and depicting a low column
inscribed COS I. While this coin seemingly indicates a date no earlier than
248, when Philip I celebrated the millennium of Rome’s foundation, it
need not be associated with that date, as unrelated festivals bearing that
name were also held by other emperors in the 3rd Century. Offering the
most reliable evidence is a copper coin of his revolt bearing the date E EO
(year 565 of the Seleucid Era = A.D. 253/4), which certainly places him in
power at that time.
Numismatic Note: Since this usurper does not claim the titles of Augustus
or Imperator in his obverse inscriptions, he seems not to have taken those
titles. The fact that the reverse inscriptions on his aurei end with AVG or
AVGG need not alter that conclusion, for they undoubtedly were copied
from the reverse inscriptions of regular Roman coins. All of Uranius
Antoninus’ coinage appears to have been struck at Emesa in 253 and 254.
His aurei have Latin inscriptions, whereas his silver, billon and copper coin
ages have Greek inscriptions. His tetradrachms come in two distinctive
types: high silver content pieces struck on thin, broad planchets, and billon
pieces struck on thick planchets typical of the era. This usurper employed
many different reverse types. References are to H.R. Baldus, Uranius
Antoninus, Münzpragüng und Geschicte, Antiquitas 3 (1971).
VALERIAN I A.D. 253-260

A u g u s t u s : a .d . 2 5 3 - 2 6 0 ( w it h G a l l ie n u s )
H u s b a n d o f M a r in ia n a
Fa t h e r o f G a l l ie n u s
G r a n d f a t h e r o f V a l e r i a n II a n d S a l o n i n u s
Publius Licinius Valerianus, c. A .D . 1 9 0 / 5 -

2 6 0 + . Little is known about Valerian’s life before
about the year 250, although he hailed from the distinguished Licinia fam
ily of Etruria and had supported the revolt of the Gordiani in 238, a dra
matic year during which he was suffect consul. His mark on history,
however, was made at the end of his own tragic reign in 260, when he
became the first Roman emperor to be captured alive by an enemy.
While a senator, Valerian came into a position of great power in 250,
when the emperor Trajan Decius created a special post for him in Rome,
providing him with virtually unlimited authority to maintain the peace
during the emperor’s absence. He used this authority to crush a rebellion in
Rome led by a certain Julius Valens Licinianus in the early months of 251.
The succeeding emperor, Trebonianus Gallus (251-253), sent Vale
rian to the Rhine front to recruit soldiers, but his duties were cut short
when Gallus urgently requested he lead an army to defend Italy from the
advancing legions of the usurper Aemilian. Valerian’s response was not fast
enough to intercept Aemilian, whose freshly bribed legions marched at a
rapid pace. Gallus could only muster a small army, and he was executed by
his own soldiers at Interamna, not far outside of Rome. In the meantime,
Aemilian extorted the approval of the senate for his own regime.
The news of Gallus’ execution arrived while Valerian was en route, and
it prompted his soldiers to hail him emperor in opposition to Aemilian. The
large armies of the rivals met near Spoleto in Umbria (not far from where
Gallus had been executed only three months before), and Aemilian was
killed by his own soldiers, seemingly after a minor battle. Exactly when this
occurred is debated, but most likely it was in July or October of 253. As
these events unfolded, the eldest son of Valerian, Gallienus, was in Rome.
A n anxious senate seems to have hailed him Caesar before his victorious
father arrived, though no coinage was struck reflecting this occurrence.
Valerian gained senate approval for his own regime (in September?), and
hailed Gallienus co-Augustus.
Though we know in hindsight that the reigns of Valerian and G allie
nus — greatly troubled though they were — would last many years, there
was no indication at the time that this rapid succession of emperors would
end with Valerian. To make matters worse, the frontiers were subjected to
a fresh wave of assaults as Rome’s legions were occupied with yet another
civil war. Very early in their joint-reign, Valerian and Gallienus formally
divided their responsibilities geographically, with the father taking com
mand in Asia Minor and the son defending the borders in Europe. This
was the greatest crisis the Empire had yet known, and had there not been
two emperors, the history of the Romans might have been considerably
different.
Valerian arrived in the East early in 254 on a m ission to expel the
Sasanians who under Shapur I had launched a dam aging invasion in the
previous year. Valerian first recovered A ntioch, which had been so com
pletely sacked that the Sasanians seem to have abandoned it before he
arrived. He next turned his efforts to Emesa, which was held by the usurper
Uranius A ntoninus, who was soon expelled.
About this time the Goths were adding a new weapon to their arse
nal, a naval fleet, which they seem to have obtained from the Bosporan
kings. The pioneering venture, an assault on the town of Pityus in 256 by
the Borani, failed miserably. But subsequent attacks with a new fleet in 257
resulted in the burning of Trapezus and the pillaging of Panticapaeum. The
Goths quickly took to seafaring, which not only provided another dimen
sion to their attacks, but also allowed them to launch lightning-fast
assaults far and wide. Subsequent attacks by sea and land, caused Nicaea,
Nicomedia and other important cities to be razed to the ground.
Although Valerian would have had his hands full with the Goths in
Bithynia, two more threats emerged at the same time. The first was
Shapur, who renewed hostilities for a third time within a generation; the
second was an unseen foe, the plague. With three formidable enemies,
Valerian was destined to struggle against all hope to save the beleaguered
Roman East, while his son Gallienus could offer no help, for he faced simi
larly desperate conditions in Europe.
As troublesome as the Gothic and Scythian raiders were, the Sasani
ans were a more serious threat, and so Valerian focused on expelling
Shapur, who seems to have been principally interested in looting and
destroying rather than in occupying. The king’s invasion was a great suc
cess, for he captured 37 cities throughout Mesopotamia, Armenia, Cappa-
docia and Syria, which included (yet again) Antioch, where Shapur may
have installed a short-lived usurper named Cyriades or Mariades (though
during which of Shapur’s invasions is uncertain).
Seemingly by 258 the Sasanians had withdrawn and relative peace

returned to Asia Minor, though any prosperity had been carted away by
the Sasanians and Goths. A true recovery was not to take place, though,
for in 259 Shapur invaded once again — his fourth such invasion in a gen
eration. Valerian won a battle near Edessa, but the effects of the plague
within his ranks forced him to withdraw to that city, where he was
besieged. Seeing no good option, Valerian tried his hand at negotiation in
April, May or June of 260 (accounts vary). Accompanied by only a small
retinue of his top officials, Valerian was taken prisoner by Shapur, who evi
dently had no intention of negotiating.
We cannot be certain when Valerian died, for he was used by Shapur
as a living trophy of his triumph over the Romans. Shapur is said to have
mutilated the elderly emperor, and used his back as a stepping-stool when
mounting his horse. When not being humiliated by such acts, Valerian
was supposedly kept huddled in a small cage. After he died, we are told his
skin was removed, dyed, stuffed and preserved so it could be displayed for a
very long time in the royal palace.
Like his son Gallienus, Valerian has been unfairly maligned by later,
revisionist historians of Christendom. Sparking this contempt was Vale
rian’s persecution of Christians, whom he used as scapegoats for the monu
mental ills which Rome faced. His personal touch was to target Christians
from the upper echelons in his Empire, against whom he introduced edicts
in 257 and 258. Though these laws, reversed by Gallienus, seem indefensi
ble, it is equally unjust to condemn all of Valerian’s actions on the basis of
this one policy.
In addition to coinage in his own name, Valerian also

struck for his family members. The coinage of Valerian and Gallienus is
remarkably complex, and was struck at several mints, with the locations of
some being uncertain. Among their most productive mints were Rome,
Milan, Trier, Siscia, Sirmium, Cyzicus(?) and Antioch. It is of some inter
est that Valerian celebrated victories of Gallienus against the Germans,
perhaps to increase morale among his own soldiers. His types sometimes
refer rather optimistically to his exploits in the East. After his initial suc
cess against the Sasanians in 253/4, he issued types declaring him to be the
“restorer of the Orient’ (RESTITVT ORIENTIS) and even “restorer of the
human race” (RESTITVT GENER HVMANI). Another type, APOLL SALV-
TARI, invokes “the health-bringing Apollo” to deliver the army and the
people from the very plague which forced him into the fateful negotiations
with Shapur.
MARINIANA
W ife o f V a l e r i a n I
M o th e r o f G a llie n u s
G r a n d m o th e r o f V a le r ia n II a n d S a lo n in u s
Egnatia Mariniana, died c . A .D . 2 5 3 (7 ). Little is

known of Mariniana, although she is suspected to
have been the daughter of a governor of Moesia
named Egnatius Marinianus. It is presumed that
she died before her husband became emperor because all of her coinage is
commemorative. She may have been the mother of both of Valerian Ps
children, though some sources suggest she was the mother only of the
younger child, and that she was Valerian’s second wife. In any case, her
coinage is inextricably tied to the reign of Valerian and she almost cer
tainly was his wife. Though Valerian and Mariniana’s eldest son, Gallie
nus, is well-known to students of Roman history, their younger child,
Publius Licinius Valerianus, does not make an appearance on coinage and
apparently remained in Rome, where he was killed in 268 during the purge
of Gallienus’ adherents.
GALLIENUS a .d . 253-268
A u g u s t u s : a .d . 253-268
( a . d . 253-260: w it h V a l e r i a n I)
( a . d . 260: w it h V a l e r ia n I and
Salo n in u s )
( a . d . 260-268: so le r e ig n )
S o n o f V a le r ia n I a n d M a r in ia n a
H u sb an d o f S a lo n in a
F a th e r o f V a le r ia n II a n d S a lo n in u s
Publius Licinius Egnatius Gallienus, c. A .D . 213/8-268. The lengthy and

chaotic reign of Gallienus is especially difficult to evaluate. Many historians
(including ancient historians) have blamed him for the virtual collapse of
the Empire, suggesting he was more interested in luxuriating than problem
solving. The Historia Augusta scornfully reports that he wasted his time “. . .
in sensual pleasures, visiting taverns, and growing old in the arms of a for
eign woman.”
However, Gallienus’ vigorous actions and level-headed reform of the
army make such criticism unjustified. Indeed, he was a remarkably effec
tive emperor whose accomplishments were limited only by the chaos of
the age. Gallienus may also be credited with reversing the edicts that his
father had introduced in 257 and 258 to persecute Christians, resulting in
nearly four decades of tolerance toward Christianity in the Empire.
N ot only did Gallienus suffer great personal loss due to the destruc-
tion of his family, but his valiant efforts required that he campaign tire
lessly throughout his 15-year reign, only to be struck down by an assassin.
Indeed, the external difficulties which descended upon Rome during his
principate can hardly be ascribed to his incompetence, for they derived
from the failed policies of the past, and the whim of fate. N o doubt, even
Augustus or Trajan would not have found themselves better able to deal
with the multitude of problems that Gallienus faced with such courage,
fortitude and resilience.
Gallienus hailed from a distinguished Etruscan family and, like his
wife, Salonina (whom he made Augusta upon his accession), was fond of
art, literature and philosophy. Gallienus was an accomplished poet, and
counted the Neoplatonic philosopher Plotinus among his close friends. He
was also an advocate of the sculptural trend which glorified the achieve
ments of the Greeks, and the Romans of the Augustan age.
In marked contrast to this cultured man was the grave task he faced.
After his father, Valerian I, became emperor in July or October of 253,
Gallienus entered into a partnership to deliver the Empire from certain
destruction. He seems to have been hailed Caesar by the senate before his
father’s “victory” over Aemilian at Spoleto; he was quickly invested with
the purple along with his father, and the joint-Augusti divided the Empire,
with Gallienus taking command in Europe and his father marching to Asia
Minor. Little could they have known that when they parted they would
never see each other again.
The first five years of Gallienus’ reign were primarily spent fighting
Germans on the Rhine and Danube, for which he was hailed Germanicus
Maximus five times between 255 and 258. In previous reigns, Gothic inva
sion of the Danube had been the most persistent threat, but with the
Goths turning much of their attention to seafaring and raiding cities along
the Black Sea, their threat to the European provinces was lessened.
Instead, Germanic invasions became more frequent, especially after Vale
rian had withdrawn troops from the Rhine to check the invasion of Italy
by Aemilian. By early 258 the Danube frontier had been invaded again,
obliging the emperor (who since 256 had been assisted by his eldest son,
the Caesar Valerian II) to lead the campaign in person. N ot long after
father and son arrived, young Valerian II died, the result either of warfare
or natural causes. This was the first in a series of personal losses Gallienus
would suffer.
Later in 258, Gallienus abandoned the Danubian campaign that had
cost his eldest son’s life so he could repel an invasion of Italy launched
CRISIS A N D D E C L IN E 35 I
over the Rhine by the Alemanni (specifically, the Juthungi). Their

advance was so swift that they nearly reached Rome before they were
forced to retreat. When they did, they found Gallienus awaiting them near
Milan, where he defeated them severely. About this time, Gallienus
invested his younger son, Saloninus, with the rank of Caesar to replace
Valerian II. Saloninus was then sent to Cologne to establish his court and
see to the defense of the western provinces.
Fast approaching was 260 — the worst year the Romans would ever
know. Catastrophes occurred almost simultaneously throughout the
Empire. The Historia Augusta exaggerates the chaos of Gallienus’ reign by
suggesting there were more than 30 men who challenged his authority. In
reality, there were perhaps seven serious revolts, but each took its toll on
the disintegrating Empire.
In the East, Gallienus’ father, Valerian I, was leading an army debili
tated by the plague, and thus took refuge at Edessa. The Sasanian king
Shapur I besieged him there, and seeing no good option, the elderly emperor
tried to negotiate a truce with Shapur. However, the treacherous Persian
king took the emperor and the distinguished members of his delegation pris
oner, never to be released. Such a catastrophe had never before occurred in
the history of the Empire, and Asia Minor was now in a state of chaos. The
void was filled by the praetorian prefect Callistus (“Ballista”) and the quar-
termaster-general Macrianus Senior. After conspiring to revolt, they
installed at Antioch the latter man’s two sons, Macrianus and Quietus, as
rival emperors to Gallienus.
A t about the same time the Rhine defenses were breached by the
Alemanni, who invaded Gaul, and by the Franks, who advanced as far
south as Spain. Amid this great invasion, the governor of Lower Germany,
Postumus, staged his own revolt and besieged Gallienus’ son, Saloninus, at
Cologne. Postumus soon took the city, executing the teenager and his
advisers. As a result, Rome lost its western provinces to a succession of
independent rulers for the next 14 years.
Meanwhile, revolts erupted elsewhere in the Empire. There were
revolts not resulting in coinage: in Byzantium (in response to the Gothic
raids), in Egypt by one Aemilianus (in 262 or 263, thus not the emperor of
253), and in Pannonia and Moesia by Ingenuus. Although all three revolts
were crushed, the one by Ingenuus was quickly resurrected by another
usurper, Regalianus, whom Gallienus defeated by late 260 or early 261.
A t this point one can appreciate the multitude of problems that
afflicted Gallienus. Indeed, he could hardly be expected to simultaneously
end revolts in the Propontis, Syria, Egypt, the Balkans and Gaul. Other
less-spirited emperors before him (notably Philip I and Trebonianus G al
lus) lost their nerve during times like this, whereas Gallienus simply con
tinued to fight.
Gallienus had given his general Aureolus (who earlier had defeated
Ingenuus) the task of ending the six-month-old revolt of Macrianus and
Quietus, based in Antioch. Fortunately, Macrianus Senior and his eldest
son, Macrianus, had brought their own army into Illyricum to overthrow
Gallienus. There, in the spring of 261 they were defeated by one of Aureo-
lus’ commanders, Domitianus (who has been identified by some as the
Gallic Domitianus listed in chapter 8 ). The remaining son, Quietus, held
out for eight more months in the East before he was deposed by
Odaenathus of Palmyra, who was acting as Gallienus’ vice regent in Asia
Minor .
Even in these victories, Gallienus found no peace, for his trusted gen
eral Aureolus staged his own revolt, seemingly in 262. However, the two
men came to terms, and Aureolus was subsequently given command of
Gallienus’ new cavalry corp. Having restored order throughout most of the
Empire, Gallienus returned to Rome in 263 to celebrate his decennalia with
great pomp and circumstance.
During the ceremonies, Gallienus was no doubt dressed similarly to
the manner described in the Historia Augusta: “He went out in public
adorned with the radiate crown, and at Rome — where emperors always
appeared in the toga — he appeared in a purple cloak with jeweled and
golden clasps.” Gallienus’ style of dress bears a striking resemblance to that
of the equally courageous Julius Caesar.
The ever-changing military situation forced Gallienus to make three
important changes in military policy, the first being to exclude senators
from command posts. Next, he made Milan his military hub, as it was cen
tral to the Danube and Rhine and served as a ready deterrent to an inva
sion of Italy. He also created a field army and a new cavalry corps (a mobile
striking force sometimes called his “Dalmatian cavalry”). Though both
were expensive additions, they were essential in fighting enemies who
tended to coordinate the timing of their invasions, and who in recent years
had made more effective use of heavy cavalry.
Reinvigorated, Gallienus and his cavalry commander, Aureolus, set
out to recover the provinces lost to Postumus in the West. When the cam
paign began is uncertain; estimates range from late 263 to early 265. The
emperor’s progress against Postumus was impressive. He had trapped Postu
mus in a city in 265, but in the siege that followed Gallienus was injured
by an arrow. This was his second such injury in the last few years, and it
brought the offensive to a grinding halt.
Gallienus turned command over to Aureolus, who was unable to
make further headway and who may justly be suspected of treachery for
allowing Postumus to escape a siege which no doubt would have resulted
in his death. With the offensive stalled, it would appear as though G allie
nus came to some kind of non-aggression pact with Postumus, after which
Aureolus was, perhaps, sent to Raetia to raise more troops and then take
up a defensive command in Milan.
Asia Minor had been enjoying relative stability under the Palmyrene
leader Odaenathus, who had forced the Sasanians to sue for peace in 264.
In 266 Odaenathus took the offensive against Shapur I, with some histori
ans suggesting that he advanced so far into Mesopotamia that he sacked
Ctesiphon. The growing power of Palmyra was a double-edged sword for
Gallienus, who feared Odaenathus might change from ally to aggressor. In
any case, Odaenathus and his eldest son were murdered in 267, either in a
family squabble or the result of a conspiracy by Gallienus. Odaenathus’s
place was taken by his wife, Zenobia, and the royal couple’s son, Vabal-
athus. A seemingly minor effort by the praetorian prefect Heraclianus to
dislodge the two new regents failed, and served only to alert the
Palmyrenes to Rome’s hostility.
In 267, the Goths and the Heruli made preparations to invade Asia
Minor and Illyricum in their destructive recent fashion — jointly by land
and by sea. The assault, which began in late 267 or early 268, was particu
larly fierce, and is said to have involved some 2,000 ships and 320,000 sol
diers. So thorough was the invasion that even the islands of Rhodes and
Crete were attacked, and the Goths sailed to within sight of Italy before
they were compelled by circumstance to return. However, the most
intense pillaging was in Thrace, Macedon, Thessaly and central Greece.
After most of the damage had been inflicted and the Goths were
returning with the spoils of war, the greatly outnumbered armies of Gallie
nus delivered to them a monumental defeat at Naïssus, where it is said
some 30,000 to 50,000 Goths perished in a single day. There still exists
confusion as to whether this victory belongs to Gallienus or to the next
emperor, Claudius II, but the evidence, if properly interpreted, may favor
Gallienus despite the views of some later Christian writers who favored
Claudius II because Constantine the Great, claimed to be a descendant of
his.
Unfortunately for the fate of Rome, Gallienus was not able to follow-
up on his victory at Naïssus. Early in 268 (about when he had left for the
Balkans), Aureolus revolted again, this time openly defecting to Postumus.
Gallienus abandoned the Gothic war and arrived at Milan in September,
after Aureolus seems already to have been besieged by the commander of
the Dalmatian Cavalry, Claudius II. N o doubt wanting to finish off Aureo
lus himself, Gallienus took over command of the siege and placed Claudius
II in command of the reserve forces about 20 miles away at Ticinum.
After an exhausting reign of 15 years, Gallienus, then in his 50s, was
murdered within a couple of weeks of his arrival at Milan. He was lured,
unprotected, outside his command tent by a false alarm that a counter
offensive had been launched. Historians are certain that Claudius II either
delivered the fatal stab or was at the very least a leader of the conspiracy.
The other men implicated were also of Danubian origin: the prefect Hera-
clianus (who had failed to oust Zenobia and Vabalathus), Marcianus (who
had helped defeat the Goths at Naïssus), and Aurelianus, who was des
tined himself to become emperor in 270. After a liberal bribe to the sol
diers, Claudius II was hailed emperor in Gallienus’ place. He concluded
the siege of Milan, executed Aureolus, and then joined the senate —
spiteful about Gallienus’ policy of precluding them from commands in his
army — in a massacre of Gallienus’ family and adherents in Rome.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : The “silver” coinage of the Empire reached its abso

lute low point during the reigns of Gallienus, Claudius II and Aurelian
(pre-reform). The double-denarii are of simple artistry, crudely struck on
small, ragged planchets, and often appear to be merely copper (although
they typically contain perhaps 2 percent silver). Among the most interest
ing double-denarii struck by Gallienus are those honoring the legions
under his command, and those that portray animals sacred to the deities
which the reverse inscriptions invoke to preserve the emperor. The SP in
the reverse field of some of Gallienus’ double-denarii may stand for
Secunda Pannonia, the province in which the mint city Sirmium was
located. For listings of the ceremonial ‘entry’ bronzes struck under
Gallienus, see The So-Called Interregnum Bronzes, that follows the values
listings of Severina.
Also of note is a coin bearing the obverse inscription DIVO CAES Q
GALLIENO and the radiate bust of a boy (and the standard reverse type
CONSECRATIO/flaming altar). This may represent another son of G allie
nus named Quintus. Although doubts have been expressed about the
authenticity of the coin, some researchers consider it to be an issue of
Valerian II or Saloninus, in which case the Q might represent quondam
(meaning “formerly”) rather than the name Quintus.
SALONINA
A u g u sta , a .d . 254-268
W ife o f G a l l i e n u s
M o t h e r o f V a l e r i a n II a n d S a l o n i n u s
D a u g h te r - in - la w o f V a le r ia n I a n d M a r in ia n a
Julia Cornelia Salonina Crysogone, d. A.D. 26 8 .

Despite the vast quantity of coinage struck in her
name, we know very little about Salonina, who was a Greek, perhaps of
Bithynian extraction. She married Gallienus in about 240 and was hailed
Augusta and Mater Castrorum (“mother of the camps” ) in 254, about a

year after her husband became emperor.
It seems that Salonina was an ideal empress, for she had the tempera
ment to endure the privations of war, yet was cultured despite the trials she
faced. On many occasions her intervention proved vital to the accom
plishments of her husband, and to the loyalty of the army. She had an
interest in philosophy, and on that level was compatible with her husband,
who was also fond of the arts (himself being an accomplished poet). Both
husband and wife were in the circle of Plotinus, the famous Neoplatonic
philosopher of the mid-3rd Century.
Salonina was not the only woman in Gallienus’ life, however, for he
had taken on as a concubine a woman named Pipa, who was the daughter
of Attalus, king of the Marcommani. Officially, this was part of a negoti
ated agreement between the Romans and the Marcommani in which mili
tary assistance was given in exchange for land grants. Salonina appears not
to have been a Christian, as has been sometimes supposed.
She had three children by Gallienus, two of whom (Valerian II and
Saloninus) predeceased their parents during their short, tragic careers in
government. The rest of the family was no more fortunate, seeming to
have perished in September of 268 or shortly thereafter. Salonina and G al
lienus died at Milan, whereas Gallienus’ brother and his youngest child,
Marinianus (who was consul in 268), perished at Rome during the purge of
Gallienus’ adherents that followed. Their youngest child, who according
to different sources was a 3-year-old son named Licinius Egnatius Marin
ianus or a daughter named Licinia Galliena, had no coins issued in his or
her name.
Salonina featured prominently in the coinage of G al

lienus. The most unusual type of her reign bears the inscription AVGVSTA
IN PACE. In the past, this has been taken incorrectly as evidence of her
being a Christian. The three children of Salonina are shown as small
figures on the reverse of many of her coins and medallions with the
inscription PIETAS AVGG (SC).
VALERIAN II
C a e s a r : a .d . 256-258
( u n d e r V a l e r ia n I and G a l l ie n u s )
S o n o f G a l l ie n u s a n d S a l o n in a
B r o t h e r o f S a l o n in u s
G r a n d s o n o f Va l e r ia n I a n d M a r in ia n a
Publius Licinius Cornelius Valerianus, d. A.D.

258 . As the eldest son of Gallienus and Salonina,
Valerian II was brought into the Imperial succession early in 256, when he
was hailed Caesar. Later he joined his father on the Rhine frontier, where
they had considerable success. In 258, however, they began to fight on the
Danubian front, where Valerian II died in Illyricum early in the year of nat
ural causes or in battle. This was a terrible blow to Gallienus, who had
invested much hope in his eldest son for perpetuating his fledgling dynasty.
Gallienus soon raised his next-oldest son, Saloninus, to the rank of Caesar
in place of Valerian II. But this ended in tragedy when the young man was
killed by the rebel Postumus in 260.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : Valerian II’s lifetime coinage represents the continua

tion of the father-and-son dynasty originally formed by Valerian I and G al
lienus. The most obvious allusion to this is the reverse type IOVI
CRESCENTI (“the growing Jupiter”), which depicts Valerian II as the
infant Jupiter riding on the back of the goat Amalthea. His posthumous
coinage was considerable, and no doubt accurately reflects the amount of
grief suffered by his family. Some researchers have speculated about more
subtle indications of Valerian II’s coinage, such as a long lock of hair that
often falls behind the boy’s ear, which may have been intended to equate
him with the Egyptian god Horus, and thus with the renewal of time.
SALONINUS A .D . 260
C a e s a r : a .d . 25 8 -2 6 0
( u n d e r V a l e r ia n I and G a l l ie n u s )
A u g u s t u s : a .d . 260 (w it h G a l l ie n u s )
B r o t h e r o f V a l e r i a n II
G r a n d s o n o f Va l e r ia n I a n d M a r in ia n a
Publius Licinius Cornelius Saloninus Valerianus, c. A.D. 242 - 260 . Fol

lowing the unexpected death of Valerian II in 258, Gallienus invested his
next-oldest son, Saloninus, with the rank of Caesar late in that year,
almost certainly in concert with his efforts to repel the invasion of Italy by
the Alemanni. He then sent Saloninus to Cologne to establish a court
from which he could oversee affairs in the western provinces. Aiding his
teenage son were the praetorian prefect Silvanus, and Postumus, the gov
ernor of Upper or Lower Germany.
The summer of 260 was especially troubled; not only was Saloninus’
grandfather captured by the Sasanians, but, in his own part of the world,
Germans had invaded Gaul and Spain. Amid all this chaos, the governor
Postumus was hailed emperor by his soldiers. From the start, Saloninus and
Silvanus were on the defensive, as Postumus laid siege to them in the
court-city of Cologne. This dire development (either in June or in the fall
of 260) necessitated raising Valerian II from Caesar to Augustus. But the
acquisition of a new rank did not stave off the armies of Postumus, which
soon took the city. After holding the rank of Augustus for only a few
weeks, or at most three or four months, the unfortunate Saloninus, then at
approximately age 17, was executed with Silvanus by Postumus, who then
constructed a triumphal arch in memory of his victory.
N u m ism a t ic N o t e : Saloninus’ coinage as Augustus is extremely rare, with

perhaps fewer than 20 specimens known. The mint must have been
Cologne, the city in which he was besieged when his coinage as Augustus
was struck. For a specialized study see N . Shiel, The Coinage of Saloninus as
Augustus, ANSMN 24 (1979). The posthumous coinage for Saloninus was
extremely small in comparison with that struck for his brother, Valerian II.
Indeed, with a single emission from Lugdunum, it almost seems to be an
afterthought or an oversight, especially since normal obverse dies (not
ones specially inscribed DIVO) were employed. Perhaps Gallienus thought
it was in the best interest of the Empire not to issue coins that advertised
the crises which had befallen the family in 260, for his father had been
captured and Saloninus had been executed under shameful circumstance.
MACRIANUS A .D . 2 6 0 - 2 6 1
( C o -E m p e r o r w it h Q u i e t u s )
S o n o f M a c r ia n u s S e n io r
B r o t h e r o f Q u ie t u s
Titus Fulvius Junius Macrianus, d. A .D. 261.

Like many of the usurpers of the 3rd Century,
Macrianus and Quietus assumed the title of Augus
tus under desperate circumstances. In their case,
the Sasanian king Shapur I had captured the emperor Valerian I alive, and
had led his army on an invasion of Syria. Antioch was sacked so severely
that the destruction was more complete than had occurred seven years
before, when Uranius Antoninus had revolted.
Since the Roman legions in the East were now leaderless, the com
mander Macrianus Senior filled the void, and hailed his two sons, Macri
anus and Quietus, joint-emperors. The rebels made Antioch their
headquarters and their revolt, which began in the fall or winter of 260,
soon won approval throughout Asia Minor, Syria and Egypt. The true
leaders of the revolt, the young men’s father, Titus Fulvius Macrianus
Senior and the praetorian prefect Callistus (“Ballista”), seem not to have
appeared on coinage.
The Macriani went on the offensive, presumably to overthrow G allie
nus, by leading their army to Illyricum. However, their Syrian legions were
defeated by Domitianus, a subordinate of Gallienus’ commander Aureolus.
Some have speculated that this Domitianus is the one who issued the
unique Gallic-style double-denarius (see his entry in chapter 8 ). M ean
while, the remaining son, Quietus, and the prefect Callistus held out for
eight more months in the East before they were deposed by Odaenathus,
the leader of Palmyra, who was then acting as Gallienus’ vice-regent in
Asia.
N u m ism a t ic N o t e : Macrianus’ Imperial coinage is limited to aurei and

billon double-denarii. The coins of Macrianus and Quietus were struck
coins at two mints in the East and can be distinguished on the basis of
style. The work at the main mint is of superior style, and the smaller out
put of the ancillary mint is of cruder style. The location of neither mint is
certainly known, though Emesa is an obvious candidate for one of them.
QUIETUS A .D . 260-261
( C o E m p e r o r w it h M a c r i a n u s )
S o n o f M a c r ia n u s S e n io r
B r o t h e r o f M a c r ia n u s
Titus Fulvius Junius Quietus, d . A .D . 26 1 . As

related in the biography of Macrianus above, Qui
etus joined his elder brother as co-emperor in the
chaos that followed the capture of Valerian I by the Sasanians in 260.
Instigating the rebellion was Macrianus Senior, the father of both young
men, and the praetorian prefect Callistus. When Quietus’ brother and
father (collectively known as the Macriani) led their army to the Balkans,
where they were defeated by Imperial armies, Quietus remained in the East
with Callistus (nicknamed Ballista, meaning “catapult” ) to maintain the
revolt. They managed to hold out for about another eight months, and
eventually took refuge at Emesa, where the locals murdered them when
Odaenathus of Palmyra laid siege to the city on behalf of Gallienus.
N u m ism a t ic N o t e : Quietus’ Imperial coinage is limited to aurei, billon

double-denarii and asses.
REGALIANUS A .D * 260
H u s b a n d o f D r y a n t il l a
Cornelius Publius Gaius Regalianus, d . A .D . 260 /

261 . In the same chaotic year that spark
usurpations of Postumus in Gaul, and Macrianus
and Quietus in Syria, a revolt occurred in the Bal
kans under the leadership of Ingenuus, the gover
nor of Pannonia. Ingenuus was hailed emperor by his army at Sirmium in
the summer of 260, but his hastily organized revolt did not long survive.
He committed suicide shortly after being defeated in battle at Mursa by
Gallienus’ general, Aureolus.
Though Ingenuus was defeated, the cause of the revolt had not been
extinguished, and the dissatisfied soldiers sought a new leader for their
cause. In the fall of that same year they chose a commander named Rega
lianus, who may originally have fought alongside Aureolus to defeat
Ingenuus. Though Regalianus led a quick campaign against the Sarmatians
(in which he was victorious at Scupi, in Northern Macedonia), he met
defeat at the hands of Gallienus within a few weeks, and was killed by his
own soldiers late in 260 or early in 261. Little is known of Regalianus

except that he was from Dacia, and that he claimed descent from the
famous king Decebalus, who had been defeated by Trajan more than 150
years before.
N u m ism a t ic N o t e : The double-denarii of Regalianus were produced with

dies of extremely poor workmanship, and were crudely overstruck on ear
lier double-denarii and denarii drawn from circulation. Since his coins are
found in the vicinity of Carnuntum, it is assumed that his revolt was based
there, and that his coins were struck in that region, possibly in the city
itself.
DRYANTILLA
A u g u sta , a .d . 260
W ife o f R e g a l i a n u s
Sulpicia Dryantilla, d . A .D . 260/261 (?). Little is

known of Dryantilla except that she was the
daughter of Claudia Ammiana Dryantilla and
Sulpicius Pollio, an important senator and officer
under Caracalla. There is no reason to doubt she was the wife of Rega
lianus, though it has been suggested she was his mother.
N u m ism a t ic N o t e : Dryantilla’s double-denarii are of similarly crude man

ufacture to that of her husband.
CHAPTER EIGHT
°^ a
R e c o v e r y o f E m p ir e
a .d . 268—285
CLAUDIUS II ‘GOTHICUS’
A .D . 2 6 8 - 2 7 0
B r o t h e r o f Q u in t il l u s
M arcus Aurelius Valerius Claudius, A.D. 214/5

(or 2 i9 )-2 7 0 . A native of Dardania, Claudius II
was the first in a long line of emperors who hailed
from Illyricum, a region that had long been the
Empire’s strongest area for recruiting soldiers. Though an ambitious and
energetic emperor, he is praised too highly by later Christian historians,
who intensely disliked his predecessor, Gallienus, and who admired Clau
dius as a supposed relative of Constantine the Great.
Claudius had served vigorously under Gallienus, apparently helping
to defeat the usurper Ingenuus in the summer of 260, and participating in
the failed campaign against Postumus in 263/265. In the course of his ser
vice, Claudius II came to lead Gallienus’ cavalry, and may have been the
first man to engage Aureolus, the rebellious general who sided with Postu
mus and based his revolt at Milan. Once Gallienus had secured victory
against the Goths, he returned to Milan and took over the siege, placing
Claudius in command of the reserve forces at nearby Ticinum.
This must have upset Claudius, for he conspired with at least three
other commanders (one of whom was the future emperor Aurelian) to
murder Gallienus in September of 268. The army was angered by this, and
it required a very liberal bribe of 20 aurei per man to restore their support,
after which Claudius was hailed emperor in Gallienus’ place. Claudius next
completed the siege of Milan and executed Aureolus (whom he apparently
lured out with a false promise to spare his life).
Meanwhile in Rome, the senate was overjoyed at the death of G allie
nus, and engaged in a bloody purge of Gallienus’ family and adherents.
Because this was unpopular with the soldiers in the north of Italy, Claudius
beseeched the senate to stop the purge. But the amount of attention Clau
dius could pay to Rome was limited; the Alemanni had crossed the Rhone
in large numbers due to the garrisons of Raetia being weakened by the
activities of Aureolus.
Claudius led his army east to check the Alemannian invasion at Lake
Benacus. He did so with such success that half of the invading army was
361
lost, earning him the title Germanicus maximus. During this campaign, the
future emperor Aurelian was given command of the cavalry — the post the
emperor himself had once held. Claudius wintered in Rome, where he was
able to develop a strong relationship with the senate. Consequently, he was
able to lobby them to deify Gallienus (a task they did not support) so as to
shore up his own support in the army.
Early in the next year, Claudius seems to have received a request from
Spain, beseeching deliverance from the separatist Empire of Postumus. A t
the same time there occurred a short-lived revolt by the Spanish noble
man Laelianus at Trier, in February or June of 269. Encouraged, Claudius
sent an expeditionary force to southern Gaul and Spain under the leader
ship of Julius Placidianus, who easily restored Spain and the Gallic territo
ries east of the Rhone to the Central Empire.
A t the same time as the attack against Postumus’ separatist Empire,
Claudius returned to the Gothic front in the Balkans, where the general
Marcianus was continuing to harass the Goths, and from where Claudius
intended to drive them out for good. Despite some Goths returning from
across the Danube to offer help to their besieged comrades, the tribes suf
fered terribly from hunger, the plague and from the legions of Claudius.
Roman victories were substantial (though they may not include the famous
battle at Naïssus, which some scholars attribute to Gallienus), and earned
Claudius the surname Gothicus maximus.
As the Goths were beaten and dispersed, Claudius found a variety of
new tasks at hand. Many barbarians who had escaped by means of the Her-
ulian ships began to make piratic raids in the Aegean, but the cities them
selves and the Roman fleet were able to defend suitably. Many of the Goths
were either taken into the ranks of the Roman army or were settled in
Roman territories; there seemed little else that could be done with so many
refugees.
Then, in a virtual repeat of history, the upper Rhine was breached
once again (this time by the Juthungi near Raetia) and the Vandals were
preparing to invade Pannonia. These new emergencies required the
emperor to leave the Gothic front before he was able to conclude the cam
paign. Thus, his campaign was placed in the able hands of his eventual suc
cessor, Aurelian, the general who seems to have been the other principal
candidate considered as a replacement to Gallienus.
While in Pannonia, apparently on his mission against the Vandals,
Claudius II died of the plague at Sirmium in August or September of 270
(though this, in error, is often placed quite early in 270). In the aftermath,
Rome was plunged into yet another civil war as the senate and the Italian
legions (through a donative) supported the claim of Claudius’ brother,
Quintillus, and the Illyrian legions then engaged on the Gothic front sup
ported their own commander, Aurelian.
R E C O V E R Y O F E M PIRE 363
Claudius II enjoyed great military success during his brief reign but,
because of the difficulties he faced in Europe, he was unable to oppose the
expansion of Palmyra, which during his reign forcibly occupied most of
Asia Minor, all of Syria and the Levant, and even the prize province Egypt.
This unopposed conquest of the East must be taken into consideration
before Claudius’ European successes are too loudly applauded.
None-the-less, Claudius was renowned in his day (as evidenced by his
vast commemorative coinage), and rightly so, for, as historians such as
Edward Gibbon have noted, Claudius’ brief reign was the beginning of the
Empire’s recovery from the chaos of the era of Gallienus.
N u m ism a t ic N o t e : Excepting the initial donative of 268, Claudius’ coin

age continued the pitiful decline from the reign of Gallienus (though the
massive divo coinage struck in his memory only serves to confirm that by
the end of his reign, Claudius II was beloved by both senate and the army).
It is noteworthy that his epithet Gothicus is included in the inscription on
certain of his posthumous coins. He is further commemorated on coinage
by Constantine the Great, who claimed to be the grandson of Claudius’
daughter or niece. The extremely rare reduced sestertii (usually called
asses) of Claudius II lack the traditional S C on the reverse.
QUINTILLUS A .D . 2 7 0
B r o t h e r o f C l a u d i u s II
Marcus Aurelius Claudius Quintillus (earlier

Marcus Aurelius Quintillus), A.D. 22ç(?)-270.
The younger brother of Claudius II, Quintillus had
been placed in command at Aquileia to secure the
West while Claudius personally led the offensive
against the Goths. After news reached Italy of Claudius’ death from the
plague in August or September of 270, Quintillus paid a donative to the
army, curried the support of the senate, and was thus hailed emperor.
Perhaps his first official acts were to have the senate consecrate his
brother — something they were only too willing to do — and to add the
name Claudius to his own. But his hope that the Illyrian armies would sup
port him proved illusory, as they had in the meantime proclaimed for
another Illyrian named Aurelian, who was Claudius’ cavalry commander
and who had taken over the Gothic campaign in the Balkans.
Aurelian continued to oversee the return of the Goths to their side of
the Danube, and in the process spared cities en route the destruction they
otherwise were certain to suffer. These important accomplishments caused
his own soldiers and the legions in Pannonia to hail him emperor at Sir-
mium in opposition to the “legitimate” emperor, Quintillus. Recognizing
that Quintillus faced certain defeat, his own soldiers abandoned his cause
within days.
After a legitimate but brief reign, Quintillus committed suicide in
November (or perhaps October) of 270, presumably at Aquileia, where he
spent most of his reign. Though Zonoras and Eutropius erroneously place
his reign at only 17 days, it clearly was longer, and in all likelihood was two
or nearly three months. The names and fates of his wife and two children
are unknown.
C h r o n o l o g ic a l N o t e : Though it is the consensus of most scholars that

the death of Claudius II, the reign of Quintillus and the accession of Aure
lian occurred later in 270 (rather than earlier as was traditionally sup
posed), it is worth noting that Michael Grant, in The Roman Emperors,
cites a papyrus dated “25 May” that indicates the defeat of Quintillus was
by then known in Egypt. If the translation is reliable, then a return to the
earlier chronology is warranted.
N u m ism a t ic N o t e : The aurei of Quintillus are extremely rare, with all

known specimens being struck with the same artful obverse die. In addi
tion to coins bearing his own image, Quintillus caused a great many coins
to be struck in honor of his deceased brother, not only to honor him per
sonally, but also in the hope it would generate support for himself as the
legitimate successor. However, these posthumous coins, as well as a small
issue he struck specifically honoring Pannonia, failed to have their
intended effect.
AURELIAN A .D . 2 7 0 —2 7 5
H u s b a n d o f S e v e r in a
Lucius Domitius Aurelianus, c. A.D. 207/14 -

275. Like most of the emperors of his era, Aurelian
was of extremely humble origins, though he had an
outstanding career in the army. He became a cav
alry commander under Gallienus (in whose murder
he seems to have participated), and kept the same position under Gallie-
nus’ successor, Claudius II.
Although Aurelian was the second-most-likely successor to G allie
nus, he had to wait another two years before his opportunity arose. Indeed,
R E C O V E R Y O F EM PIRE 365
it came not long after Claudius II died of the plague in August or Septem
ber of 270 (though possibly earlier, see the Chronological Note for Quintillus
above), after which the deceased emperor’s brother, Quintillus, ascended
the throne with the support of the senate and the legions in Italy.
In the meantime, Aurelian was stationed in northern Greece and the
Balkans, where he had been placed in charge of finishing operations
against the now-humiliated Goths and Heruli. His success in this capacity
was so impressive that the legions under his command and those in Pan-
nonia hailed him emperor in opposition to Quintillus. His usurpation —
for that is exactly what it was — gained widespread support, causing the
legions of Italy to withdraw their support for Quintillus in October or
November of 270 (if not much earlier), after which the luckless emperor
committed suicide.
Aurelian was now the uncontested emperor of Rome, and though he
enjoyed the confidence of the army, the senate was none too pleased that
their “friendly” candidate had been lawlessly usurped. Aurelians first task
was to repel an invasion by the Vandals and Sarmatians on the Danube.
This he did with such efficiency that they sued for peace.
Next, Aurelian responded to an invasion of Italy by the Marcomanni
and Juthungi. Though initially routed, Aurelian was able to eject the
invaders. Because the invasions of the latter two had penetrated Italy and
threatened Rome itself, Aurelian began to construct a defensive circuit
wall around the capital (which was completed by his successor, Probus).
Perhaps as no other event of the 3rd Century, this was a clear indication of
the decline of the ancient capital.
Aurelian next marched to the Balkans, where it seems three ephem
eral revolts had occurred (by Septimius, Urbanus and a Domitianus, who
may be the same man as the one who revolted in Alexandria 25 years
later). About this time, Aurelian abandoned Dacia, a frontier province on
the opposite side of the Danube that had proven too difficult to maintain.
After one last campaign against the Goths in mid-271, all affairs were set
tled in central Europe, and Aurelian determined to recover the many prov
inces that had been lost to Palmyra in the East and the Gallo-Romans in
the West.
His first task was the recovery of Asia and Egypt, which had been
seized by Zenobia and Vabalathus largely during the reign of Claudius II.
Very early in his reign, Aurelian had granted the Palmyrene queen and
king the titles they desired, and even had struck coinage jointly with
Vabalathus at Antioch and Alexandria. But now Aurelian was ready to
wage war, and so he led his army into Asia late in 271 or, more likely, in the
spring of 272. Aurelian liberated one city after another in Asia Minor and,
near Antioch and Emesa, routed the armies of Palmyra. Vabalathus, Zeno
bia and the remaining armies took refuge in their capital city of Palmyra,
where they surrendered in 272 after a brief siege. Meanwhile, the future
emperor Probus recovered Egypt.
Aurelian then marched back to Europe with his two royal captives
and battled the Carpi in a decisive campaign. The Asiatic troubles had not
ended, however, for another revolt had sparked in Palmyra under the lead-
ership of Antiochus, who was probably a descendant of Odaenathus. Aure
lian returned to crush the new revolt, after which the Romans leveled the
Palmyrenes’ capital (which never recovered its former glory), and ousted
their supporter in Alexandria, Firmius.
After returning Asia and Egypt to the Roman yoke, Aurelian’s next
task was to achieve the same in Gaul, Britain and the two Germanies,
which formed the separatist Romano-Gallic Empire. Since its foundation
in 260 by Postumus, the fortunes of this Empire had fallen greatly, and it
seems that Aurelian was not only able to arrange the surrender of its two
Augusti, Tetricus I and Tetricus II, in advance, but was actually invited to
invade and “liberate” them.
Thus, instead of fighting an Empire that was at its peak of power (as
had been the case with Palmyra), Aurelian was prepared for an easy con
quest. However, a battle was still required — at least to achieve the illusion
that there was a struggle for independence. The Roman and Gallo-Roman
armies met not far from Paris, at Châlons-sur-Marne, in the spring of 274.
Though the battle was harder-fought than Aurelian may have anticipated,
he was victorious in the end, and captured the Tetrici for use in his
triumph.
Aurelian could now rightly claim to be the most successful emperor
since Trajan more than 150 years before, and he was not modest about tak
ing credit where it was due. Later that year he returned to Rome and cele
brated his grand triumph, at which he hailed his wife, Severina, Augusta,
paraded his royal captives, and styled himself the “restorer of the world”
(restitutor orbis). But much of his success had gone to his head, for he
declared himself “god and lord” (deus et dominus), reflected in the unusual
coin inscription DEO ET DOMINO NATO AVRELIANO AVG, which meant
Aurelian was “born God and Master.”
Late in 274, Aurelian set out to repel the Juthungi in Raetia, and in
the summer of 275 marched east toward his next most desired campaign,
the conquest of Persia. But he fell victim to his own strict discipline when
he reprimanded his secretary, Eros, who, in fear of punishment, convinced
some high-ranking officers that Aurelian intended to put them to death.
Naturally, they struck first, and Aurelian was murdered in October or
November of 275 at Caenophrurium (near Perinthus) while making ready
to cross into Asia. Much beloved by his soldiers, Aurelian was deified by
the senate, which is said to have resented his harsh authority. But few men
in Roman history so richly deserved the high honors Aurelian received. In

five energetic years he restored the integrity and the vast territories of the
Empire.
Not all of the crises Aurelian faced were in the Balkans or in far-flung
provinces. One “revolt” of special interest to numismatists occurred in
Rome itself. This abortive rebellion was sparked by disgruntled mint work
ers who, under the leadership of a certain Felicissimus and with soldiers of
their own, took up a defensive position on the Caelian hill. In the bitter
fighting that ensued, the leadership of Aurelian himself was required, and
as many as 7,000 soldiers died. Historians have attributed the revolt to
either 271 or 274. In the former case it would probably have resulted from
an effort to prevent profiteering from excessive debasement, whereas in the
latter case it no doubt would have been in response to his coinage reforms,
which were so closely regulated that very little opportunity remained for
profiteering.
In addition to his reform of the coinage (which is discussed below),
Aurelian also tried to regulate prices and assure delivery and affordability
of staple products. In this respect he was much like Diocletian, who applied
similar ideas on a larger scale. He also went to great lengths to formalize
the worship of the sun, and its chief deity, Sol. In so doing, he built a grand
temple to Sol in Rome and laid a foundation for pagan solar worship and
Mithraism, which Constantine the Great would so effectively “fuse” with
early Christianity about four decades later.
N u m ism a t ic N o t e : Aurelian initiated a major reform of the Empire’s coin

age in the spring of 274 (at which point he also began to issue coins in the
name of his wife, Severina). His reform was important enough so that even
two centuries later it was praised by the historian Zosimus. A t sensibly
reduced weights and purities he reintroduced denarii, double-sestertii and
sestertii (the latter two are usually called sestertii and asses, see the section
on denominations), all three of which had been largely abandoned by his
predecessors. Curiously, though (considering all of his reintroduced
denominations), Aurelian seems to have abandoned the billon quinarius,
an obscure ceremonial denomination.
Aurelians most important contribution by far was the reform of the
ailing double-denarius, which had become a negligible item under G allie
nus, Claudius II and Quintillus. N o doubt the recovery of the East, and
thus its revenues, allowed Aurelian to revamp his “silver” coinage. Many
scholars refer to his reformed double-denarius as an aurelianianus. The
name change truly is necessary because, though it maintained most famil
iar aspects of the double-denarius, it was indeed a different coin from the
double-denarius that it replaced. The aurelianianus was an improvement
in every way: weight was increased, the planchet was made broader and
round in shape, and the silver content was increased to 4.5 to 5 percent.
Even the die-cutting was greatly improved.
The meaning of the marks XXI or KA (20:1 in Latin and Greek,
respectively) that appear on the reverse of the aurelianianus has been
much-debated among scholars. One explanation is that it means a l/20th
part (5 percent), and thus the ratio of silver to base metal. Other explana
tions have been offered (such as the evaluation of the aurelianianus at 20
reduced sestertii), but the former seems most convincing because of its
sheer simplicity and apparent accuracy. Aurelian struck his aurelianiani in
immense quantities in an effort to replace the heavily debased double
denarii that he concurrently was withdrawing from circulation. Regretta
bly, Aurelian’s life was cut short not long after his reform began. His new
aurelianianus was maintained (in appearance, at least) until the reign of
Diocletian, but his other “reintroduced” denominations failed to effec
tively take hold under his successors.
Provincial coinage was struck with much less frequency after the reign
of Gallienus. Even so, it did not escape Aurelian’s attention and, in the
opinion of some, it actually ceased to be struck on a large scale due to the
proliferation of low-value double-denarii and aurelianiani, which elimi
nated the need. It is worth noting that certain bronzes of southeastern Asia
Minor already in circulation were revaluated with countermarks, indicat
ing in assaria their new denomination.
As was so often the case, the productive mint at Alexandria proved to
be an exception to the rule. The potin tetradrachm of Alexandria
remained a staple in Egypt for the next two decades, and Aurelian
“reformed” it by reducing its weight by between 15% and 20%, and by
withdrawing the earlier, heavier pieces from circulation. In this case, Aure
lian pursued exactly the opposite theory that he applied to the Imperial
coinage (in which he made the new coins more valuable, and withdrew the
lesser-value pieces from circulation). It is also of note that Aurelian uses
seven regnal years at Alexandria, but he only ruled for six calendar years.
Thus, it has been suggested by W. Metcalf (“Aurelian’s reform at A lexan
dria” in Studies in Greek Numismatics in Memory of Martin Jessop Price) that
Aurelian ‘compressed’ his regnal years around the time the coinage was
jointly being produced for Vabalathus. Seemingly, Aurelian’s coins dated
years 2 (B) and 3 (r) both fall within the regnal year that began on August
29, 271 and ended that same time in 272. Alternatively, both year 1 and
year 2 tetradrachms would belong to 270 if the Egyptian papyrus cited by
Grant (see the Chronological Note for Quintillus) can be taken as evidence
of Aurelian ascending the throne before August 29, 270, when regnal years
in Egypt began.
SEVERINA
A u g u sta , a .d . 2 7 4 -2 7 5
W ife o f A u r e l i a n
U lpia Severina, lifespan unknown. Regrettably

little is known of Severina, a lady who is abun
dantly represented on coinage. Her family history
is uncertain, but she may have been the daughter
of Ulpius Crinitus, a renowned general who served under Valerian and
who is said to have adopted Aurelian (in which case he may have
betrothed his daughter to Aurelian).
In any event, her name indicates that she belonged to the Spanish
family from which Trajan hailed, and thus was presumably related in some
manner to Laelianus, the usurper who seems to have conspired with Clau
dius II in an attempt to overthrow Postumus in 269. Severina was hailed
Augusta in 274 on the occasion of her husband’s glorious triumph in
Rome. Historians have long believed that she and the senate maintained
the government for a period of up to six-months following the murder of
Aurelian, but this does not appear to be based in historical fact. The
numismatic evidence indicates that Severina issued coins at some mints
after the issues for her husband had ceased, but it is not likely that the
‘interregnum’ between the murder of Aurelian and the accession of Tacitus
lasted more than a few weeks. O f the subsequent fate of Severina and her
daughter (whose name is not preserved) nothing is known.
N u m ism a t ic N o t e : Imperial coinage in the name of Severina was struck

only after she was hailed Augusta in 274. With the exception of Antioch
(where her coins may have been struck as early as April, 274), her coins
were not minted until the fall of 274 at the earliest. Similarly, at A lexan
dria her provincial coinage bears only the regnal years 6 and 7 — the
reform years of Aurelian’s coinage there. The authors of RIC note that Sev-
erina’s final issues at Rome, Ticinum and Antioch are struck at all officinae
of those mints, whereas the prior output had been shared by husband and
wife. The bulk of Severina’s final aurelianiani depict Concordia standing,
holding two military standards; the symbolism of the type is significant if
indeed she was at the helm alone. A t Alexandria, Severina’s tetradrachms
dated year 7 (the final year of issue) are at least twice as common as those
of the same date struck in her husband’s name. Metcalf (“Aurelian’s reform
at Alexandria” in Studies in Greek Numismatics in Memory of Martin Jessop
Price) notes that almost the entire difference in the population of year 7
Alexandrian tetradrachms is accounted for by a single reverse type for
Severina: an eagle standing left — which, not inconsequentially, is a type

which Aurelian himself did not strike in year 7.
TACITUS A .D . 2 7 5 - 2 7 6
H a l f -b r o t h e r o f F l o r ia n
Marcus Claudius Tacitus, c. A.D. 200(?)-270.

One of several emperors of the 3rd Century who
claimed to have had important ancestors, Marcus
Tacitus is said to have been a descendant of the
most famous of all Roman historians, Cornelius
Tacitus, who wrote his histories principally during the reigns of Trajan and
Hadrian. But like much of the history recorded for the late 3rd Century,
this story must be read with due skepticism.
The fiction begins with the idea that the murder of Aurelian so
reviled the army that they begged the senate to select the new emperor on
their behalf. The fiction continues that during an interregnum of perhaps
as long as six months, the senate eventually selected a 75-year-old senator
named Tacitus, who hailed from a noble Umbrian family and possessed a
personal fortune of some 280 million sestertii. Having already been consul
twice, and being a consul designate for 276, Tacitus accepted the burden of
supreme power with great reluctance due to his advanced age.
In point of fact, the story reads like pure fiction. Recent revisions of
the chronology of Aurelian’s final year indicate that there was little or no
time for an interregnum (for he seems to have been killed in October or
November, not in April as was formerly believed). Indeed, it is far more
likely that Tacitus was simply another Illyrian soldier whom the army lured
out of retirement. Some historians even find the idea that Tacitus was so
elderly untenable, and they believe rather that he was probably in his fif
ties. On the lighter side, we are told that he was fond of marbles, exotic
glassware, and that he ate lettuce in large quantities, preferring it to other
vegetables.
Once Tacitus assumed power in October or November of 275, he had
Aurelian deified and is said to have enacted a number of beneficial laws
and imposed capital punishment on all of the murderers of Aurelian who
could be identified. O f his wife and several sons, we know nothing. How
ever, he did make his half-brother, Florian, his praetorian prefect, and
despite serious incursions along the Rhine and Danube by the Franks, Lon-
giones and the Alemanni, the brothers marched east to the Balkans, where
they gathered the army which Aurelian had already outfitted for a cam
paign in Asia.
R E C O V E R Y O F EM PIRE 37 I
Instead of marching against the Sasanians, however, they faced the

more urgent task of repelling the Heruli and other piratic Goths, who had
once again raided Asia Minor. The tribes entered in Pontus and Cappado-
cia, and advanced as far south as Cilicia before Tacitus and Florian could
begin to combat them. The most distressing aspect of this invasion was the
fact that Aurelian had mustered these barbarians as allies for his antici-
pated war on Persia, and in the meantime they had turned to piracy.
After some considerable success (including an important victory in
Cilicia), Tacitus died at Tyana in Cappadocia in June or July 276.
Accounts vary concerning the cause of his death. Indeed, he may have
died of fever, fallen victim to murderers of Aurelian who had escaped per
secution, or perished in a mutiny instigated by unfair taxes levied by a rel
ative of his named Maximinus whom he had appointed governor of Syria
(and who himself was murdered).
N u m ism a t ic N o t e : Tacitus was the last emperor to issue provincial coin

age outside of the Egyptian mint of Alexandria, which continued to strike
for another two decades. Some of his aurelianiani may have reached 10%
silver content, for they bear in their exergue the markings XI or IA (mean
ing 10:1 in Latin and Greek, respectively).
FLORIAN A .D . 2 7 6
H a l f -b r o t h e r o f T a c i t u s
Marcus Annius Florianus, d. A.D. 276. The three-

month reign of Florian was truly insignificant. The
4th Century historian Eutropius best summed it up
by declaring Florian as an emperor “. . . who did
nothing worth remembering.” By far the most inter
esting aspect of his reign is how its circumstances almost exactly parallel
those of Quintillus, who reigned for a similarly brief period in 270.
When Florians maternal half-brother, Tacitus, was hailed emperor in
275, Florian was chosen as praetorian prefect, and together they led an
expedition into Asia Minor to expel the Goths who were making piratic
raids into Ponus, Cappadocia and Cilicia. When Tacitus died in June or
July 276, of uncertain cause at Tyana, Florian was hailed emperor by the
soldiers in his place. Afterward, the senate in Rome and most of the prov
inces confirmed his appointment. Florian next seems to have engaged the
Goths one last time. However, more serious troubles to the South soon
claimed his attention. The Syrian and Egyptian armies did not approve of
Florian, and had hailed instead their own general, Probus (another soldier
of Illyrian origin), as rival emperor. Florian marched south through the Cil-
ician Gates to Tarsus, where he awaited the legions of Probus then advanc
ing north. Although Florian’s army was larger, it was in poor health due to
the extreme climate, whereas Probus’ smaller army was local and thus was
accustomed to the heat.
After engaging in a skirmish, Probus wisely avoided a pitched battle
and waited for the heat to take its toll on the Balkan legions led by Florian.
With the passage of time, Florian’s legions were persuaded by the enemy to
avoid a senseless civil war by deposing their own candidate. Finding wis
dom in the proposal, the very soldiers who had hailed Florian emperor less
than three months before murdered him. Though his death seems to have
occurred in August or September of 276, some historians prefer a slightly
earlier date.
PROBUS A .D . 2 7 6 - 2 8 2
Marcus Aurelius Probus, A.D. 232-282. Much
like his Illyrian predecessor Aurelian, Probus was
hailed emperor by his own legions — in his case
only a couple of weeks after the legitimate
emperor, Florian, had been confirmed. The times
were unstable, and in the previous few months
three other emperors had perished, making Probus the fourth man within a
single year to don the purple.
Civil war had cost Rome its security beginning in the 240s, and even
now threatened to erase the impressive gains made by Aurelian. Vigorous
action was required to rescue the Empire from another perilous slide, and
Rome was fortunate that Probus had come into power. Probus was one of
Aurelian’s most effective generals, and it was he who recovered Egypt from
Palmyrene control in 272 (though another man named Tenagino Probus
had failed to liberate Egypt two or three years earlier). Subsequently, Pro
bus gained command of Roman armies in the East, and it was from this
position of power, in Syria and Egypt, that he staked his claim against Flo
rian in the summer of 276.
From the very outset of the civil war, Probus demonstrated the mili
tary genius that would make his reign a success. Although he engaged in a
skirmish with the larger forces of Florian, Probus avoided a pitched battle,
relying instead on the summer heat and the seeds of discontent to win the
battle. The strategy paid off, and in August or September of 276, Florian
was murdered by his own troops, leaving Probus in full command. The sen
ate, none too pleased at the turn of events, soon gave its approval.
That bloodshed was avoided was fortunate for Probus, since he would
need every soldier the Empire had during the next six years. The first half
of Probus’ reign was spent defending the Empire against external invasion,
whereas the second half was largely devoted to suppressing revolts from
within. The first problem he faced was a massive invasion of Gaul and
neighboring provinces by the Franks and other Germanic tribes, such as
the Burgundians, Alemanni and Senones.
Some of these invasions had begun about the time Aurelian was mur
dered, but were ignored by the new emperor, Tacitus, who instead led an
expedition against Gothic pirates in Asia Minor. The incursions across the
Rhine and Upper Danube had now become critical, especially in Gaul,
where they were no longer the typical border raids that that province expe
rienced with some regularity, but the most severe destruction that had
occurred there in about three centuries. Thus, Probus was forced to make
the long and arduous journey from Cilicia to Gaul.
He wintered in Siscia en route. There he defeated the Goths and did
much to restore the Balkan region before he continued his westward trek,
visiting Rome along the way. He arrived in Gaul in the spring of 277 and
spent two years pacifying the border provinces at great expense. In the pro
cess he recovered Raetia and defeated the Vandals in Illyricum. Through
out these campaigns Probus was always outnumbered by the invaders. The
magnitude of his achievement cannot be underestimated. Next, he
marched east to the Lower Danube where, in 279, he defeated the Getae
and then visited Siscia and, in an Aurelianic fashion, declared himself
“restorer of the world and of the army.”
Just when he had settled affairs in Europe, Probus hastened to Asia
Minor, where he fought a particularly brutal campaign against Lydius the
Isaurian, who was leading his band of robbers on piratic raids in Pisidia,
Pamphylia and Lycia. Meanwhile further east, two revolts erupted which, it
seems, were handled by Probus’ subordinates. The first of these occurred in
Syria under Julius Satuminus, who seems to have been the local governor,
and the second was brought about in Upper Egypt by a Nubian people called
the Blemmyae. Probus then wintered in Antioch, and while in Asia perhaps
signed a treaty with the Sasanian king Varhran II (276-293), resulting in
the emperor’s assumption of the title Persicus maximus.
Having visited most of his great Empire by 280 (he had gone from the
Syrian border to Gaul and back again), Probus had achieved peace on the
same grand scale as Aurelian. However, new troubles arose in the far west,
and in a virtual repeat of when he was hailed emperor four years before,
Probus traveled all the way back to Gaul. Along the way, he paused to set
tle about 100,000 Scythians within Roman territories.
The most serious of the western revolts was staged at Cologne by the
generals Bonosus and Proculus, while a less destructive one was led by the
governor of Britain, who was speedily suppressed by an officer named Vic-

torinus. Putting down the revolt of Bonosus and Proculus was a very diffi
cult task, but after several months of bitter warfare, Probus emerged
victorious.
After a great many accomplishments rivaling those of Aurelian, Pro
bus entered Rome late in 281 and celebrated his hard-earned triumphs. He
sponsored lavish games in which thousands of exotic animals, captives and
gladiators perished to the delight of the Roman spectators. After the festiv
ities ended, Probus departed Rome and prepared to lead his army on the
conquest of Persia that Aurelian had been ready to launch before his own
unexpected murder.
But just as Probus was ready to depart Illyricum, a rebellion led by
Marcus Aurelius Carus, his praetorian prefect, broke out in Raetia and
Noricum. Underestimating the seriousness of the uprising, Probus sent an
army led by subordinates to crush the revolt, only to learn that they had
defected to the enemy’s cause. Upon hearing this, the remaining soldiers in
Illyria, having tired of iron discipline and civilian projects, murdered
Probus in September of 282 in a look-out tower outside Sirmium, only a
few miles from where historians tell us he had been bom a half century
before.
Probus had many accomplishments beyond the realm of war, for he
devoted a great amount of effort to restoring the prosperity of regions that
had been ravaged since the reign of Gallienus, principally Gaul and the
Balkans. Although his most visible achievement was the completion of the
circuit wall around Rome that was begun by Aurelian, he also drained
marshes on the Danube and Nile, and introduced viticulture in Gaul and
the Danubian region. To accomplish these ambitious projects, Probus put
his soldiers to civilian work when they were not occupied by war.
Although this was of great benefit to the people, the army found it exhaust
ing and degrading.
The parallels between the reigns of Probus and Aurelian are as
remarkable as those between the ephemeral reigns of Quintillus and Flo
rian. Both men reigned for about the same duration, traveled tirelessly
throughout their Empire, after which they both celebrated a grand triumph
in Rome. And just when each prepared to embark on his most ambitious
conquest yet — that of Persia — both of these great men were cut down in
the Balkans by their own soldiers, the result of their harsh brand of
discipline.
N u m ism a t ic N o t e : Though historians tell us Probus was bom in Sirmium,

his unusual coinage commemorating Siscia has invited speculation that
this city (some 170 miles to the west of Sirmium) is his true place of birth.
O f all coinages of the Roman emperors, that of Probus offers the greatest
variety of obverse types, including unusual inscriptions and elaborate busts.

Indeed, coinage types that would be considered unusually ornate during
other reigns are absolutely commonplace. The mint marks are also com
plex, creating thousands of varieties. Because of the military nature of his
reign, Probus’ coins offer heavily armored obverse types and warlike reverse
types. Additionally, since he traveled so widely, he has an unusually large
number of Adventus types.
SATURNINUS A .D . 280
(Gaius(?) or Sextus (?)) Julius Saturninus, d.
A .D . 280 . Among the generals who rebelled
against Probus, Saturninus provides us with per
haps the greatest mystery. A man reportedly of
Moorish or Gallic extraction, he should not be
confused with the Publius Sempronius Saturninus
who is said to have revolted in the East during the
reign of Gallienus.
Sources often place his revolt in Egypt, where it may well have started
(and as a result, it perhaps sparked the contemporary revolt of the Blem-
myae on the Upper Nile). But considering he was either the governor of
Syria or simply a general operating in that region, the location more likely
was Antioch. We can be relatively certain that Saturninus revolted at the
behest of his soldiers, for the numismatic evidence shows that he sought
the approval of Probus, who then was in Pisidia waging war against the
pirate Lydius the Isaurian. After a very brief reign that ended in a siege by
armies loyal to Probus, Saturninus was killed by his own soldiers.
N u m ism a t ic N o t e : In addition to the aurei Saturninus struck in his own

name, he appears also to have struck aurei in the name of Probus with the
reverse inscription ending in AVGG, a wishful gesture in the hope that he
and Probus could reconcile.
PR O CU LU S, c. a .d . 280-281
Titus Aelius(?) Proculus, died c. A .D . 2 81 . Perhaps the most serious
revolt during the reign of Probus occurred in Gaul in 280. Though Probus
had pacified Gaul in 277 and 278, the destruction was considerable and the
region was far from recovered by the time the emperor marched east to
pacify the Danubian district. Indeed, Gaul had only been reclaimed from
the separatist Romano-Gallic emperors since 274.
Thus, for all the progress made by Aurelian and Probus, there was still
ample cause for revolt among a population which had suffered almost end
less revolution and invasion in the last two decades. While Probus was on
the opposite side of the Roman world (near the border of Syria), the Gauls
rebelled, hailing two generals, Titus Aelius Proculus and Quintus Bonosus,
as joint emperors at Cologne. It is not certain whether their revolts began
jointly, but there is little doubt that they soon joined forces.
Bonosus is said to have been of British descent, though his mother
was Gaulish. As commander of the Rhine fleet at Cologne, he apparently
lost a squadron to the Germans through his own carelessness and revolted
out of fear of the punishment awaiting him. During the earliest stages of
the revolt (when Proculus may have gained the allegiance of Lugdunum),
it appeared as though their support would not waiver, but shortly after Pro
bus arrived in person it lost momentum.
Probus eventually defeated the two rebels in separate engagements
near Cologne, after which Bonosus is believed to have committed suicide.
The circumstances of Proculus’ death are less certain, for he either perished
in battle or fled to the Franks (with whom he either sought or had already
obtained some kind of alliance), who promptly delivered him to Probus for
execution. A rebellion by the governor of Britain appears to have also fired
up at the same time, but it was quickly suppressed by one of Probus’ com
manders named Victorinus.
N u m ism a t ic N o t e : The coinages associated with this revolt have long

been a source of debate. The double-denarii attributed to Bonosus are now
generally dismissed as altered or misdescribed “barbarous radiates.” How
ever, the case for Proculus — whose coinage was unknown until very
recently — is perhaps stronger. His coinage seems to be represented by a
single specimen which many authorities accept as genuine: a silver-washed
double-denarius of a crude style reminiscent of the later products of the
Romano-Gallic Empire.
CARUS A .D . 2 8 2 - 2 8 3
A u g u s t u s : a .d . 2 8 2 - 2 8 3
( a .d . 2 8 2 - 2 8 3 : s o l e r e i g n )
( a . d . 2 8 3 : w it h C a r i n u s a n d N u m e r i a n )
Fa t h e r o f C a r in u s a n d N u m e r ia n
F a t h e r - i n - la w o f M a g n i a U r b i c a
G r a n d f a t h e r o f N ig r in ia n
Marcus Aurelius Carus (or Numerius(?)), c. A.D. 224/30-283. Little is

known of the early career of Carus, whom the emperor Probus made his
praetorian prefect in 276. Although some ancient historians suggest Carus
was born in Illyricum, others, more reliably, tell us he was born at Narbo, a
quiet town on the southern coast of Gaul. As such, his short-lived dynasty
represents a temporary break in the Illyrian line of emperors. The name of
his wife is not known, though he did have a daughter, named Aurelia
Paulina, and two sons, Carinus and Numerian, both of whom were associ
ated with his principate.
Early in September of 282, just as Probus had restored order in the
Roman world and was preparing to invade Persia, Carus was hailed
emperor by legions in Raetia and Noricum, two neighboring provinces that
spanned the Alps and the Upper Danube. Carus came to power with
remarkable ease, for the Empire’s soldiers had tired of the strict discipline
and civilian work details enforced by Probus. Thus the armies Probus had
sent to overthrow Carus joined his cause, and Probus was consequently
murdered outside Sirmium later that month.
Historians disagree about whether Carus was in the Alpine provinces
or was near Sirmium at the time of his accession, and further dispute
whether he visited Rome before marching east. Carus’ first orders of busi
ness were to demand the approval of the senate and to establish his dynasty
by giving the rank of Caesar to his eldest son, Carinus, in October, and to
his youngest son, Numerian, shortly thereafter — seemingly in November
or December.
The duties of government were formally divided among family mem
bers. The eldest son, Carinus, was to rule in the West while his father and
younger brother prepared to invade Persia. The latter two campaigned in
Pannonia, where that winter they defeated the Quadi and the Sarmatians
before departing to Asia. They had reached Antioch (their last stop before
invading Persian territory) by February or March of 283, where it seems
both Carinus and Numerian were raised from Caesars to Augusti.
The much-anticipated Persian campaign that followed was a great
success in which Seleucia and the capital Ctesiphon were taken. The cam
paign was not necessary, for the Sasanians had not been a threat to Rome
since the death of Shapur I in 272. Indeed, it seems to have been an expe
dition of glory and revenge, for Shapur had mercilessly ravaged the Roman
East for three decades. Its success was due largely to the incompetence of
the king, Varhran II (274/6-293), whose position was further weakened by
civil war with his brother, Hormazd. In any case, both Aurelian and Probus
had been prevented from conquering Persia by their sudden murders, and
at long last, Carus and Numerian were able to claim the honor that had
eluded those two great soldiers.
With the campaign being won so easily, the Romans planned to
march well past the capital, deep into Sasanian territory. But the armies
halted near Ctesiphon when the supreme commander, Carus, was discov
ered dead, some say in his command tent, along the banks of the Tigris.
Carus died, we are told, of a lightning strike, but most historians attribute
his death to the treachery of the praetorian prefect Aper, the man who also
seems to have killed Numerian on the return journey. Though Carus prob
ably died in July of 283 (after a 10-month reign), many historians prefer a
later date, such as August or November.
N u m ism a t ic N o t e : Though Carus earned the title Parthicus for his leading
role in the Persian campaign, this title only appeares on coins struck for
him posthumously, for his death (whatever the cause) was sudden. O cca
sionally his name is spelled in the Greek form KARVS instead of the Latin
CARVS.
CA R IN U S a .d . 2 8 3 -2 8 5
C a e s a r : a .d . 2 8 2 - 2 8 3
( u n d e r C a r u s , w it h N u m e r i a n )
A u g u s t u s : a .d . 2 8 3 - 2 8 5
( a . d . 2 8 3 : w it h C a r u s a n d N u m e r i a n )
( a . d . 2 8 3 - 2 8 4 : w it h N u m e r i a n )
( a . d . 2 8 4 - 2 8 5 : s o l e r e i g n , in o p p o s i t i o n
to D io c l e t ia n )
S on of C arus
B r o t h e r o f N u m e r ia n
H u s b a n d o f M a g n ia U r b ic a
Fa t h e r o f N i g r i n i a n
M arcus Aurelius Carinus, c. A.D. 250-285. In Carinus we find one of the

most maligned of all emperors, for the ancient historians have nothing pos
itive to say about him. To a large degree this can be attributed to the fact
that he was succeeded by Diocletian, a man who assumed his power
unlawfully as a usurper, and subsequently held power for more than two
decades. Be that as it may, in so damning a character appraisal there may
exist a core of truth.
Carinus is accused of many forms of treacherous and debauched
behavior, but the most scathing reviews are of his rampant bisexuality. He
is condemned as a corrupter of youth, who filled his courts with harlots,
actors and pimps. In the realm of marital relations, the reviews are no bet
ter, for he is said to have had nine wives in all, abandoning some of them
while with child. N ot surprisingly, he is said to have been an insatiable
adulterer — a vice that proved to be the motivation for his assassination in
the heat of battle.
As the eldest son of the newly declared emperor Carus, Carinus was
given command of the western half of the Empire so his father and younger
brother, Numerian, could launch an offensive against Persia. Carinus was
hailed Caesar in October 282 and was designated to hold the consulship of
283 with his father. Late in 282, Carus and Numerian led a campaign
against the Quadi and the Sarmatians, after which they crossed into Asia,
never to see Carinus again.
Carinus was soon occupied with a war in Gaul, where he repelled an
invasion by Germans on the Rhine early in 283. He then returned to
Rome, where he was hailed Augustus (as his younger brother had been at
Antioch), and seems to have married Magnia Urbica, who was hailed
Augusta. His next task was to repel an invasion of the Quadi along the
Danube, after which he held his second consulate, this time with his
brother, Numerian, for their father, Carus, had died sometime between July
and November of 283.
Meanwhile in 284, Numerian was leading his victorious armies west
in anticipation of a meeting with Carinus at Cyzicus. About this time, Car
inus was conducting a war in Britain, for which he earned the title Britan
niens maximus. But the unfortunate Numerian died en route in October or
November, only a week’s march from the location of the brothers’ would-
be summit meeting. Numerian’s death was blamed on his praetorian pre
fect and father-in-law, Aper, who was executed by the commander of the
guard, Diocletian. Since the soldiers apparently disliked Carinus, they
hailed Diocletian emperor in opposition to him.
What no doubt would have been a productive meeting between
brothers was now replaced by a perilous situation in which Carinus gained
a formidable rival at the head of a large, hostile army. Throwing his lot into
the middle of this chaos was another rival, named Julian, the governor of
Venetia (Venice) who had been hailed emperor by the armies of Pannonia
late in 284.
The two western rivals met near Verona in northern Italy early in
285, where Carinus defeated Julian, thus ending his two- or three-month
usurpation. Carinus was now ready for the next contender, Diocletian, who
had advanced into Moesia shortly after Julian perished. The battle
occurred at Margum (not far from modem Belgrade) sometime between
the early spring and late summer of 285. Though Carinus may actually
have been on the verge of defeating Diocletian, he was assassinated in the
midst of the battle by one of his own officers, whose wife he had reputedly
seduced.
The death of Carinus brought an end to a short-lived dynasty, and
ushered in a new, formidable era in Roman politics, spearheaded by Dio
cletian. In imitation of his predecessor, Diocletian soon shared his author
ity so as to make the defense of his vast Empire practicable.
N u m ism a t ic N o t e : Carinus — evil though he seems to have been — went

to great lengths to honor his family, for he not only issued coins in the
name of his wife, Magnia Urbica, but also struck coins posthumously in
honor of his father and brother, and for a boy, Nigrinian, who was presum
ably his son.
MAGNIA URBICA
A u g u s t a , a .d . 2 8 3 - 2 8 5
W if e o f C a r in u s
M o t h e r (? ) o f N i g r i n i a n
D a u g h t e r - i n - la w o f C a r u s
S i s t e r - i n - la w o f N u m e r i a n
Magnia Urbica, d. A .D . 28s(?). Magnia Urbica is

not mentioned by any ancient author, and is known only from her coinage
and a few inscriptions. As such, nothing of substance is known of her,
except that she was the wife of Carinus. She seems to have been married to
Carinus in mid-283, upon which she was also hailed Augusta. A t least one
historian suggests she died in 285, when her husband was defeated and the
memory of the short-lived dynasty was condemned.
The authors of the Historia Augusta almost certainly exaggerate when
they report that Carinus had married nine women, for they are especially
hostile toward this aspect of his life. One passage reads: “Carinus was the
most polluted of men, an adulterer and constant corrupter of youth . . . and
even made evil use of the enjoyment of his own sex. . . . By marrying and
divorcing he took nine wives in all, and he put away some while they were
still pregnant.” Regardless of the quantities involved, it seems that Magnia
Urbica was his last wife.
N u m ism a t ic N o t e : Some of Magnia Urbica’s coin inscriptions occur in

the honorary dative case rather than the customary nominative case, and
thus indicate that the coins are “dedicated to” the empress. Her coins are
limited to later issues of European mints, some of which were struck con
currently with the Divo Numerian issues at Rome. Helping to prove her
association with Carinus are a quinarius and a gold medallion that depict
both of their busts. Her denarii and quinarii are very rare.
NIGRINIAN
S o n o f C a r i n u s a n d (? ) M a g n i a U r b i c a
G r a n d so n of C a r u s
N e ph e w o f N u m e r ia n
Nigrinian, d. before A .D . 283. Like Magnia

Urbica, who seems to have been his mother,
Nigrinian is not mentioned in ancient literature.
However, an inscription reveals that he was the
grandson of Carus, and the numismatic evidence assures us that he was the
son of Carinus, for it was very late in that emperor’s reign that coins were
struck for the deified boy. if the child was born to Magnia Urbica (Carinus’
final wife), he must have died in infancy.
N u m ism a t ic N o t e : Nigrinian ’s coins are of considerable rarity, and appear

to have been struck only at Rome. On certain of his aurelianiani, he is
shown bare-chested in a heroic pose. Deceptive 20th Century forgeries
(commonly known by the name ‘The Geneva Forgeries’) exist of the coin
age of Nigrinian and four other issuers. Many of the known examples are
illustrated and described by R. A. G. Carson in the 1958 Numismatic
Chronicle, pp. 47-58, pis. V-VL A n offprint of the article was published in
1977.
NUMERIAN A .D * 2 8 3 - 2 8 4
C a e s a r : a .d . 2 8 2 - 2 8 3
( u n d e r C a r u s , w it h C a r i n u s )
A u g u s t u s : a .d . 2 8 3 - 2 8 4
( a . d . 2 8 3 : w it h C a r u s a n d C a r i n u s )
( a . d . 2 8 3 - 2 8 4 : w it h C a r i n u s )
S on of C arus
B r o t h e r o f C a r in u s
U n c l e o f N ig r in ia n
M arcus Aurelius Num erius Num erianus, c. A.D. 253/4-284. As the

youngest son of the Gallic-born Carus, Numerian was destined to share
command in the Empire after his father overthrew the emperor Probus in
September, 282. Ancient historians are unanimous in their appraisal of
Numerian as a man unsuited to war, but remarkably accomplished in
poetry and oratory.
After Carus’ accession was ratified by the senate late in 282, he estab
lished his dynasty by giving the rank of Caesar in October to his eldest son,
Carinus, whom he left in command of the West. Meanwhile, Carus and
Numerian repelled an invasion of Pannonia led by the Quadi and the Sar-
matians, in which it is said 16,000 barbarians perished. It was either during
or at the end of this campaign that Numerian was also hailed Caesar, seem
ingly in November or December.
Carus and Numerian departed to Asia in December, 282 or early in
283, and reached Antioch in February or March of 283. A t this time both
Carinus and Numerian were raised to the rank of Augustus. Since Carinus
was safeguarding Europe, his father and brother could embark on the Per
sian campaign knowing that they would not have to abandon their offen
sive midway to settle disturbances there.
The heyday of Persian military might had long passed, and the current
king, Varhran II, was not only an ineffective ruler, but also was distracted
by a dynastic contender, his brother Hormazd. N ot surprisingly, the Roman
campaign was a great success, and the capital Ctesiphon was sacked. How
ever, before further advances could be made, the supreme commander,
Carus, died not far from Ctesiphon, sometime between July and November
of 283.
Ancient historians tell us he died from a lightning strike, but modern
historians have rightfully suspected assassination, despite there being no
evidence for it. The prime suspect is the praetorian prefect Aper, who was
also the father-in-law of Numerian. Command of the army was now taken
up by the approximately 30-year-old Numerian, who then shared the
Empire with his brother Carinus.
Disheartened and not suited to the rigors of war, Numerian soon

negotiated peace with Varhran II, who was only too willing to agree to an
unfavorable treaty. It is uncertain whether Numerian spent the winter of
283/4 campaigning in Sasanian territory or led his armies back to Syria. In
either case, his desire to leave Persia was motivated not only by his own
temperament but also by his father’s death and the fact that the campaign
had already come to a successful conclusion.
Early in 284 the army embarked on the slow, arduous trek back toward
Europe, where Numerian intended to meet with his brother. But this was
not to be, for Numerian died en route in October or November of 284 near
Nicomedia, only about 125 miles’ march from Cyzicus, where the reunion
was to take place. Indeed, Numerian had been dead for several days before
the stench of his corpse revealed his fate to the columns of soldiers who fol
lowed his closed litter.
The natural suspect was Aper, who in recent days had claimed the
emperor purposely remained hidden in his covered litter for the health of
his eyes, which were afflicted by a debilitating infection. It is not certain
whether Numerian died of natural causes or was murdered. In any case, his
death was blamed on Aper, who was swiftly executed by the commander of
the bodyguard, Diodes (Diocletian), who was subsequently hailed emperor
in Numerian’s place. Diocletian, who may have participated in Numerian’s
murder, thus emerged as a rival to Carinus, whom the soldiers disliked.
Even though Carinus struck coins posthumously hon

oring Numerian, the overture did not win the support of the eastern
armies, who had declared their support for Diocletian.
JULIAN OF PANNONIA
A .D *2 8 4 - 2 8 5
Marcus Aurelius Sabinus Julianus, d. A.D. 285.

When Numerian died in the East in the fall of 284,
the Empire was split between the rival factions of
his elder brother, Carinus, in the West, and the
prefect Diocletian, who had been hailed in place of
Numerian in the East. Thrown into the middle of this rivalry was Julian,
the governor of Venetia (Venice) in north-eastern Italy, whose own revolt
formed in Pannonia.
Since Julian’s revolt took shape in the region surrounding Siscia, it
was Carinus who had inherited the problem. The two western rivals con
fronted each other near Verona, where Julian was defeated early in 285.
Though some sources place the battle in Illyricum, and others suggest it
occurred in December of 284, we can be certain that Julian’s revolt occu
pied two or three months, and that it most likely lasted from November,
284 through early February, 285. After the battle, Carinus absorbed into
his own army Julian’s soldiers whom he desperately needed for the upcom
ing war with Diocletian, who already had crossed over from Asia.
N u m ism a t ic N o t e : Like many short-lived usurpers, no provincial coins

were struck for Julian, whose coinage is limited to aurei and aurelianiani of
the Siscia mint, which he controlled during his usurpation. It would seem
that perhaps 30 of his aurei are known. The coinage of Julian was counter
feited by the maker of ‘The Geneva Forgeries.’ See the note for the coinage
of Nigrinian for details.
CHAPTER NINE
T h e R o m a n o - G a l l ic E m p ir e
c. a .d . 260 -274
he Roman Empire was in a state of chaos in the year 260. Italy was
T recovering from a shocking invasion by the Juthungi, who had swept
down from the Rhine only a few months before, and the senior emperor,
Valerian I, had been captured by the Sasanians. Since Gallienus (the son
of Valerian I) was then occupied on the Danube frontier, the western prov
inces were left in the hands of commanders who were to defend against
Germanic invasion.
One of the men in charge of the Rhine defense was Postumus, the
governor of Upper or Lower Germany, who rebelled against Gallienus in
260. Postumus was able to create his own separatist Empire by seizing west
ern provinces that had been under Roman control for centuries. Indeed,
this was no simple revolt, for it resulted in a new government, complete
with a senate modeled after the one in Rome.
Throughout Postumus’ reign, border wars along the Rhine and Danube
kept both the Romans and the Gallo-Romans occupied enough so that they
battled each other in only one serious campaign — and that ended in a
stalemate. The core of Postumus’ Romano-Gallic Empire was the three
provinces of Gaul (Lugdunensis, Aquitania and Narbonensis), the two Ger-
manys (Upper and Lower), and the island of Britain. Initially Postumus’
Empire also included Raetia, but that was lost to Gallienus in 263.
The whole of Spain and the Gallic territories east of the Rhone were
also part of the separatist Empire until the emperor Claudius II reclaimed
them beginning in late 268 or early 269. Indeed, it was probably in 269
that Postumus was murdered. It seems that the founder of the separatist
Empire had fallen victim to a conspiracy between the Spanish nobility
(represented by the usurper Laelianus) and the new emperor, Claudius II.
After the murder of Postumus, the separatist Empire spun in decline
for the next five years, being ruled by two members of noble Gallic fami
lies, Victorinus and Tetricus I (who associated his son with his reign). The
significantly biased Historia Augusta declares of the Romano-Gallic emper
ors: . . they were all sent from heaven to prevent the Germans being
afforded the opportunity of making themselves masters of Roman territory,
while that monster Gallienus was entangled in a net of unheard of profli
gacy.” Thus, we must take the scant, often contradictory information
about this separatist Empire with a grain of salt.
385
The Romano-Gallic Empire ended when Tetricus I surrendered to the

emperor Aurelian in the spring of 274 after a hard-fought battle at
Châlons-sur-Marne (not far from Paris), which itself may have been a
mere formality. Historians have rightly pointed out that a secret guarantee
of surrender had probably been made in advance. With the vast size of the
Roman Empire, the western provinces would prove equally hard to man
age in the remainder of Roman history, and they were the base of revolts
by many usurpers in the next two centuries.
N o t e : Much is still uncertain about the Romano-Gallic Empire, with two

hotly debated subjects being chronology of the reigns and mint locations.
The former is especially volatile. The beginning of Postumus’ reign is
placed in 259 or 260 (or seldom in 258), and its ending either in 268 or
269. The latter date affects the reigns of Laelianus and Marius, as well as
the beginning of the reign of Victorinus (which belongs to 268 or 269).
The dates of the reign of Tetricus I are inconsistently reported as begin
ning either in 270 or 271, and ending in 273, 274 or 275. The reign of
Tetricus II offers different chronological challenges that are only made
more difficult by the uncertainty of the framework to which it belongs.
The chronology adopted here is by no means certain, though it does take
into account current scholarship and opinions from outside the realm of
numismatics. Romano-Gallic coins were struck in considerable quantities,
with by far the largest outputs coming from Postumus and the Tetrici.
They are found principally in France, but also in England, Belgium, Lux
embourg, Holland, Germany and Switzerland, and perhaps elsewhere.
POSTUMUS A .D . 260-269
Marcus Cassianius Latinius Postumus, d . A .D .
269 . The year 260 was catastrophic throughout the
Roman Empire. In Asia Minor, the co-emperor
Valerian I was captured alive by the Sasanians, the
Juthungi had invaded Italy itself, and revolts were
flaring up in the Propontis, Syria, Egypt, the Bal
kans and Gaul.
Gallienus, the son of the captured Valerian I, now had to manage the
entire Empire himself, so he set out for the Balkans to quell the revolt led
there by Ingenuus (and reactivated by Regalianus). In the meantime, he
left the Rhine defense to his teenage son, Saloninus, and to subordinate
military commanders, one of whom was Postumus, then the governor of
T H E S E P A R A T IS T EM PIRES 387
Upper or Lower Germany. The anticipated invasions occurred as the A le

manni poured over the Rhine and invaded Gaul, and the Franks cut as far
south as Spain.
Amid this chaos, Postumus was hailed emperor by his legions in the
summer or fall of 260, possibly at Deuso (modern Diessen in Holland), as
this otherwise obscure village is commemorated on his coinage. (Alterna
tively, Deuso may be where Postumus was born, for he is said to have
hailed from a village.) Postumus’ first action was to besiege Cologne,
where Saloninus and his praetorian prefect, Silvanus, had established their
court.
Postumus had formerly co-directed Roman policy in Gaul with Silva
nus, but the two men had quarreled, and now were enemies. Silvanus
remained loyal to Saloninus and at some point while besieged probably
suggested that the boy be raised from Caesar to Augustus. However, the
prestige associated with the rise in rank did not protect Cologne from Pos
tumus’ legions. Both Saloninus and Silvanus were executed after the walls
were breached shortly after the siege began, after which Postumus erected
a triumphal arch to commemorate his victory at Cologne.
The renegade emperor established his headquarters at Trier, and went
about creating a smaller version of the Roman Empire, complete with its
own senate, consuls and praetorian guards. Postumus himself held the con
sulship on five occasions. Although he had the upper-hand on Gallienus
now, Postumus had no intention of threatening Rome, and made that
point clear to Gallienus, reporting that his express purpose was to protect
the western provinces.
Postumus spent the next two years fighting the Germans, over whom
he won a major victory at Magosa in 261. He appears to have visited Brit
ain to secure the loyalty of that island province, and then returned to Gaul
where he fought the Germans once again in 263. He had pacified his own
rebel Empire — by now extending from the Rhine to the south of Spain —
and he would now face the wrath of Gallienus.
N ot only had Gallienus lost his eldest son in 258 and his father in
260, but he had lost his younger son, Saloninus, to the treachery of Postu
mus in 260. Inevitably, Gallienus invaded Postumus’ territory with great
ferocity sometime between late 263 and early 265. After trapping Postu
mus in “a town in Gaul,” Gallienus began the siege, but was injured by an
arrow and had to withdraw. He was obliged to pass the leading role onto
his cavalry commander, Aureolus, who was unable to capitalize on the
impressive gains made by Gallienus. The offensive turned into a stalemate,
as Postumus wisely avoided fighting a pitched battle. The escape of Postu
mus from certain death in the siege invites speculation that Aureolus
allowed him to escape because they had become allies (as was shown to be
true a few years later).
From this point onward Gallienus was so occupied with crises in the
rest of the Empire that he never again took the field against Postumus.
Indeed, the historical and numismatic evidence would lead one to believe
they had entered into a non-aggression pact. To be sure, however, Gallie
nus had Aureolus make preparations for taking up a defensive position at
Milan, so as to discourage an invasion of Italy from Gaul.
Much to the disappointment of Gallienus, Aureolus revolted late in
267 or early in 268, clearly in alliance with Postumus, for he struck coins
with Postumus’ name and invited him to invade Italy. Whether Postumus
feared a trap, decided to honor a pre-existing agreement with Gallienus or
found the venture impractical is not certain. Traditional thinking has held
that the uprising of Laelianus prevented Postumus’ acceptance of Aureo
lus’ invitation, but the revised chronology makes that impossible. In any
case, he did not invade — a decision that either directly or indirectly
caused the murder of all men concerned.
After having just defeated the Goths at Naïssus, Gallienus returned
to Italy to wage war against his turncoat commander Aureolus, who by
then seems to have already established himself in Milan. Both Gallienus
and Aureolus perished at the siege late in 268, the emperor by assassina
tion, the usurper by execution. The next emperor of Rome, Claudius II
“Gothicus,” was probably responsible for Gallienus’ death, and certainly
was the one who executed Aureolus.
Several months later, Postumus faced an identical crisis in his own
realm, when one of his governors in Germany, a Spaniard named Lae
lianus, staged a revolt in Mainz sometime between February and June of
269. There is every reason to believe Laelianus’ revolt occurred in concert
with an invasion of the South by the new emperor, Claudius II. N ot sur
prisingly, the first territory to fall to Claudius was Spain, a region in which
Laelianus no doubt could assure the support of local nobility.
The Roman success in the South did little to distract Postumus from
taking revenge on Laelianus, whose revolt he crushed in two months or
less (probably ending in the spring of 269). Laelianus’ death set into
motion a series of violent overthrows, with the next victim being Postu
mus himself, for he was murdered in the aftermath sometime between
April and August 269.
The founder of the separatist Empire was killed by his own soldiers,
either for refusing to let them sack Mainz, or because there were men
among them who secretly supported the apparent conspiracy of Laelianus
and the Romans. Alternatively, he could have been killed by those who
attributed their current predicament to Postumus’ hesitation to invade
Italy in the previous year.
N u m ism a t ic N o t e : Postumus’ first issue of double-denarii contained about

20 percent silver, and were complimented with uncommonly heavy aurei
and a massive issue of sestertii and double-sestertii. All of these were far
more impressive than the degenerate coins then being produced by G allie
nus, and no doubt helped Postumus win support in his region. By the end
of Postumus’ reign, the purity of his double-denarii had dropped by more
than half, to about 8 percent, a purity that still was three or four times
higher than the issues of Gallienus or Claudius II. Coins bearing the letters
CA or CCA A on the reverse were struck at Cologne (Colonia Claudia
Agrippina Augusta).
In general, it can be said that Postumus was quite imaginative with
his coinage, and that he no doubt must have taken a personal interest in
determining its types. That Postumus associated himself with Hercules is
clearly demonstrated by the coinage. On a level equal to Maximian (286-
310), he identifies himself with the Graeco-Roman hero, initially on the
localized level with Hercules of Deuso (and those of Lugdunum —
MAGVSANO and PACIFERO), but later in a more general sense. Som e
times he is shown donning a club and the Nemean lion’s hyde. On much
rarer occasions his bust occurs jugate with Hercules. Postumus’ reverse
types depicting either Hercules or his attributes (club, bow, quiver, etc.)
formed a regular part of his coinage, while a much rarer component depicts
the labors of Hercules.
On other reverse types, Postumus — rightfully so — styles himself as
“restorer” of the Gauls and as victor over the Germans. But later he
extends these legitimate claims to the illusory by taking credit for the sal
vation of the Roman world (RESTITVTOR ORBIS and PACATOR ORBIS)
and Rome’s provinces in general (SALVS PROVINCIARVM). Whether
these types reflect a quiet alliance between Gallienus and Postumus or are
nothing more than simple braggadocio remains uncertain.
AUREOLUS a . d . 26 7 ( ? ) - 2 68
A lly o f P o st u m u s
Marcus (or Manius) Acilius Aureolus, d . A .D . 268. Aureolus rose from

his obscure origins as a Dacian shepherd to become one of the Empire’s
most decorated generals. He was serving as Gallienus’ governor of Illyri-
cum when, in 260, he stamped out the rebellion of Ingenuus in Pannonia
and Moesia, and sent his deputy commander, Domitianus, to defeat the
Syrian legions of the Macriani that had invaded Illyricum.
Although both engagements were successful for Aureolus, the revolt
of the Macriani persisted in Syria for another eight months, and Ingenuus’
rebellion was renewed later in 260 by Regalianus, a rebel whom Gallienus

himself eliminated. After these laudable successes, Aureolus revolted in
262, only to later reconcile with Gallienus. But this was not to be the last
time Aureolus would rebel against his benefactor.
In recent years the Sasanians, the Sarmatians and others had
employed heavy cavalry to great effect against the Roman legions, so G al
lienus created a new cavalry corp, and chose Aureolus as a commander.
The new (and very expensive) cavalry proved immediately effective in the
war against Postumus that Gallienus and Aureolus waged sometime
between late 263 and early 265. Indeed, Postumus was besieged in a town
in Gaul, and his end seemed near. However, Gallienus was wounded by an
arrow and was forced to leave the campaign in the hands of Aureolus, who
was either incapable or treacherously unwilling to capitalize on Gallienus’
gains, and thus the campaign was ended.
Although Postumus had not shown designs beyond his own borders
previously, Gallienus was wary, and so enlisted Aureolus to take a defen
sive position. Though the details of his task are far from certain, it seems
Aureolus was first sent to Raetia to recruit soldiers, which he was to then
lead south to Milan, where they could safeguard Italy from possible inva
sion. But to the faithless Aureolus, this was just another opportunity to
betray Gallienus, who was then occupied by a war in Greece against the
Goths and Heruli.
From here out the story of Aureolus takes two different paths that his
torians cannot seem to reconcile, so they will be presented separately. In
the first scenario Aureolus revolted while in Raetia or while already en
route to Italy, and was intercepted by Gallienus (or one of his officers) at
Pontirolo, where his army was routed and Aureolus was wounded. The
usurper then occupied Milan, where he endured a siege by both Claudius II
and Gallienus, or possibly just the latter.
Alternatively, Aureolus had already installed himself at Milan before
he declared for Postumus, and Gallienus hurried back from northern
Greece upon learning of his revolt. Aureolus may have briefly left Milan to
intercept an army led by Gallienus or one of his subordinates, only to be
wounded and return to Milan. This defeat may have been at the hands of
the future emperor Claudius II, who seems to have begun the siege of
Milan before Gallienus arrived. After Gallienus arrived, he took over the
siege and placed Claudius II in command of the reserve forces at nearby
Ticinum.
The two versions of this story conjoin at the point where Gallienus
has taken over the siege of Milan (which no doubt was a bitter, personal
affair). During the course of this siege, Gallienus was treacherously mur
dered in September of 268, almost certainly at the instigation of Claudius
II, who was hailed the new emperor. Aureolus is said to have attempted to
bribe Claudius II to save his own life and seems to have come to terms, for
he surrendered. But any such deal that was made was not honored by Clau
dius II, for Aureolus was executed shortly after leaving the walls of Milan.
Most noteworthy about Aureolus’ revolt, however, is its link to Postu
mus. N ot only did he invite Postumus to invade Italy, but the numismatic
record shows that Aureolus struck coins with the name and effigy of Postu
mus at Milan. It is possible that Aureolus was hoping to win Postumus’
support through such overtures, but more than likely he had come to an
agreement with him in advance. In either case, the alliance did not work
out, for Postumus refused Aureolus’ offer to invade. In the end, Postumus’
refusal proved to be the doom of both Aureolus and Gallienus, and quite
possibly contributed to his own downfall less than a year later.
N u m ism a t ic N o t e : The aurei bearing the name of Aureolus are believed

to be forgeries. However, while at Milan — a city never controlled by Pos
tumus — Aureolus struck aurei and double-denarii in the name of Postu
mus. The coins struck by Aureolus are distinguished from Postumus’
regular issues of Lugdunum and Cologne by their ‘compact’ die engraving
and their thick, short planchets. Also distinguishing them is the frequent
appearance of a P, S or a T in the exergue to indicate the three officinae in
use at Milan (Prima, Secunda and Tertiae). This feature is unique to Milan
for coins struck in the name of Postumus (though rarely a P or a V will
occur in the left field on the reverse of double-denarii of Cologne). How
ever, the best diagnostic for coins issued by Aureolus is the reverse inscrip
tion, for most often it ends with AEQVIT, EQVIT or EQVITVM (a reference
to the Equités (‘horsemen’), the special cavalry corp which Aureolus com
manded). The only coins without reverse inscriptions ending with one of
the three versions of (A)EQVITVM which are still attributed to Milan are
those which have an officina marker in the exerge.
LAELIANUS A .D . 2 6 9
Ulpius Cornelius Laelianus, d. A .D . 2 69 . Postu
mus was at his capital city of Trier when he learned
that one of his governors in Germany, Laelianus
(sometimes called “Lollianus” in the Historia
Augusta), had staged a rebellion at Mainz. The
date of the revolt is debated, but it probably began
either in February or June of 269 and lasted only a month or two.
Postumus was in a dangerous position, for Laelianus had two legions
of his own. This was equal to the number of soldiers Postumus could
muster on short notice. To make matters worse, Postumus’ territories to

the South were concurrently under attack by the emperor Claudius II.
This arrangement is so coincidental that it has led many researchers to
read between the historical lines, and arrive at the conclusion that Lae
lianus’ revolt was coordinated with the Roman offensive.
Whatever hopes Laelianus may have entertained, his revolt quickly
failed. Postumus moved in rapidly and besieged him at Mainz, and after a
few weeks, Laelianus was executed by his soldiers because, as the Historia
Augusta reports, “. . . he tasked them too severely.” Whatever the cause of
his demise, his death seems to have occurred sometime between April and
July of 269.
The siege of Mainz also proved fatal for Postumus, however, who was
murdered by his own troops in the aftermath. The reason for Postumus’
murder is open to speculation, although the traditional explanation is that
he refused to allow his soldiers to sack the city.
We know little of Laelianus except that he apparently was a brave
man of Spanish extraction and was a member of the noble family (the
Ulpii) from whom the emperor Trajan (98-117) hailed. A blatant allusion
to Spain occurs on an aureus that depicts Hispania reclining with a rabbit
at her side. This coin type, taken as evidence in addition to his respectable
Spanish nomen, shows that he probably enjoyed support among the nobil
ity of Spain. Thus, his association with the invasion of Claudius II is made
all the more likely, for in late 268 or early 269, Spain switched allegiance
from Postumus to Claudius II, seemingly without a fight.
N u m ism a t ic N o t e : It must be presumed that Laelianus’ coinage was

struck at Mainz, for not only was that the base of his revolt, but several of
his reverse dies were used by the subsequent usurper, Marius, in the pro
duction of his own coinage at Mainz. Though Laelianus has a few different
reverse types for his aurei, his double-denarii employ only Victory and Pax
as reverse types.
MARIUS A .D . 2 6 9
Marcus Aurelius Marius, d. A.D. 269. During
the chaos that followed the murders of Laelianus
and Postumus, the soldiers proclaimed one of their
own, an enormously strong soldier and blacksmith
named Marius, as their new emperor. Eutropius
states that “. . . a workman of the lowest class,
grasped the purple and was slain on the second
day,” and Marius Pollio suggests he “was only
emperor for three days.” But the extreme brevity of his reign can be dis
missed on the numismatic evidence alone, which suggests his reign almost
certainly lasted several months.
The circumstances of his death in the summer or fall of 269 are
equally uncertain. Though he is said to have been killed with a sword of
his own manufacture, by a soldier he had treated poorly at the forge where
they had worked previously, it is equally likely that he was strangled to
death as the result of a private quarrel.
N u m ism a t ic N o t e : With the exception of a small coinage produced at

Trier(?)> all of Marius’ coinage seems to have been struck at Mainz. His
own coinage shares reverse die links with the final issues of Laelianus. It is
also of interest that some double-denarii of his successor, Victorinus, have
portraits with the slightly modified portrait of Marius. N ot only are these
pieces quite rare, but they are also one of the best examples of “portrait
fusion” on Roman coinage. Marius expanded the use of reverse types con
siderably over that of Laelianus. This, combined with the far greater com
monness of his coins, suggests his reign was at least twice as long as that of
his predecessor.
DOMITIANUS c . A .D . 269C) or 271 (?)

Domitianus, lifespan unknown. This issuer is unknown to history, but
based on the style and fabric of the unique coin bearing his name and
image (which some authorities question), his bid for the purple can
securely be placed in the era of Victorinus (269-271). What follows is a
description of the coin’s occurrence and likely place in history as told in
part 2 of volume 5 of The Roman Imperial Coinage.
“In 1900 a hoard of 1300 coins, from Gordian III to Aurelian, was dis
covered at Cleons, Loire Inférieure, and fortunately fell into the compe
tent hands of Colonel Allotte de la Fuÿe. The bulk of the hoard consisted
mostly of coins of the Gallic Empire: there was one fine piece of Macrian
the younger, and one coin of Gallic fabric in good preservation which bore
the obverse inscription IMP C DOMITIAN VS PF AVG., with a radiate,
draped and cuirassed bust to right. The portrait is that of a large-featured,
heavily bearded man, distinguishable from those of Victorinus and Tetricus
I, though the style of the coin is similar to their regular coinage. . . .
Though we have no historical record of any western usurper named Domi
tian, there seems no reason to doubt the genuineness of the coin, or to
reject the attribution of it favoured by Colonel de la Fuÿe to Domitianus,
‘dux Aureoli fortissimus et vehementissimus,’ who actually achieved the vic
tory over the Macriani. We may fairly surmise that he made a momentary
grasp at power either during the troubles which preceded, or those which
followed, the reign of Victorinus, for the style of the coin suggests that his
rebellion had place in a mint-city in Gaul. . . .”
The authors suggest in a footnote that the coin might also represent
an attempt to rally the defeated Gallic army after the battle at Châlons-
sur-Marne (where the Tetrici were defeated by Aurelian in the spring of
274), but based on the style and fabric of the coin, this seems far less likely
than the original proposal of associating it with the reign of Victorinus.
Indeed, it is not impossible, or even unlikely, that Domitianus was a
usurper during the reign of Victorinus, rather than a contender at the
beginning or ending of his reign.
VICTORINUS A .D . 2 6 9 - 2 7 1
S o n o f V ic t o r ia
U n c l e o r F a t h e r (? ) o f T e t r i c u s
G r e a t - u n c l e o r G r a n d f a t h e r ( ? ) o f T e t r i c u s II
M arcus Piavonius Victorinus, d. A .D . 271 . The

descendant of a noble Gallic family, Victorinus
was proclaimed emperor by the soldiers after a two-
day interregnum that followed the murder of Marius. It appears that some
time between summer and the month of November in 269, Victorinus
opposed Marius’ revolt, and that he was perhaps inspired to action by his
mother, Victoria.
A wealthy noblewoman, Victoria (or Victorina or Vitruvia, for she is
called by all three names in the dubious passages of the Historia Augusta),
may have been instrumental in the downfall of Postumus, for she appears
to have secured the throne for both Victorinus and Tetricus I. But in any
event, Victorinus was one of the Gallic army’s top men, having served as
consul in the Romano-Gallic senate in 265 or 267, and being the tribune
of the guards at Trier at the time of his elevation.
Although Victorinus may have been the natural successor to Postu
mus, he failed to earn recognition from Spain, which seems to have
defected to the Romans during the brief usurpation of Laelianus. Victori
nus’ fortunes suffered an additional blow when the new emperor Claudius
II gained the support of the Aedui and incited them to revolt in Central
Gaul. In the process, Victorinus lost his territories east of the Rhone to
Claudius II, and only after a protracted siege of Autun in the fall of 270 did
he regain control of the heart of his Empire.
But in the end it was not military uprisings or Roman advances that
brought down the regime of this brave and talented soldier, but rather his
lust for the wives of his colleagues. His relentless pursuit of married women
earned him powerful enemies who resented his transgressions, and Victori
nus was killed after he propositioned one too many wives of his officers.
His murder occurred at Cologne sometime in 271 (with accounts varying
from the spring to early winter), ending a promising reign and forecasting
the inevitable downfall of the Romano-Gallic Empire.
N u m ism a t ic N o t e : Victorinus is unique among the Roman-Gallic emper

ors in that he was deified by his successor, Tetricus I, who struck memorial
coins in his honor with the reverse inscriptions CONSECRATIO and CON'
SACRATIO, the latter being a Gallic peculiarity. Victorinus’ coinage —
which seems to have been struck at only one mint (perhaps Lugdunum) —
records that he held two consulships and, more importantly, that his tribu-
nician power was renewed three times (suggesting his reign exceeded two
calendar years). Some 19th Century scholars suggested that the bust of
Victory he sometimes used as a reverse type was meant to personify his
mother, Victoria, thus named in the inscription VICTORIA AVG. Though
the possibility exists, it is impossible to prove. The most imaginative of
Victorinus’ coins were his aurei, which commemorate more than a dozen
Roman legions (and which some scholars consider to be more likely small
medallions than coins). Though some of the legions were based in Britain
and the Upper and Lower Rhine, most were stationed in the rest of the
Roman world, as far afield as Egypt, Phoenicia, Judaea, Pannonia, Dacia
and Moesia. Some scholars have suggested that the non-local legions
named represent detachments or vexillations of these legions which served
under Victorinus rather than the legions themselves.
TETRICUS I A .D . 2 7 1 - 2 7 4
A u g u s t u s : a .d . 2 7 1 - 2 7 4
( a .d . 2 7 1 - 2 7 4 : S o l e r e i g n )
( a . d . 2 7 4 : B r ie f l y w it h T e t r i c u s I I ( ? ) )
N e p h e w o r S o n (?) o f V i c t o r i n u s
F a t h e r o f T e t r i c u s II
G r a n d s o n o f V ic t o r ia
Gaius Pius Esuvius Tetricus, lifespan unknown. The uncertainty that

followed the apparently spontaneous murder of Victorinus was resolved by
the mother of the deceased, Victoria. If we are to believe the Historia
Augusta, she used her wealth to secure the elevation of Tetricus, the gover-
nor of Aquitania who probably was her grandson, and at the very least a
close relative.
Tetricus was hailed emperor at Bordeaux in 271 (accounts vary from
spring to fall), and then established his court at Trier, from which he could
deal more effectively with an anticipated invasion from Germany. He
made a formal entry at Cologne and in the opening year of his reign fought
the Germans. But the problems that had plagued Victorinus only grew
under Tetricus, who was to be the last of the Romano-Gallic emperors.
A t some point during his reign, Tetricus I raised his son, Tetricus II, to
the rank of Caesar, and (it appears) to the rank of junior Augustus not long
before their abdication. Tetricus I must have realized that his days were
numbered, and that his greatly reduced Empire would soon fall to the new
emperor, Aurelian, who returned to Europe late in 272 after crushing the
more formidable separatist Empire of Palmyra. Though Aurelian may have
begun his conquest as early as the summer of 273, Tetricus’ Gallic army
was defeated by Aurelian’s legions in a hard-fought battle at Châlons-sur-
Marne in the spring of 274. There, Tetricus and son surrendered to Aure
lian. A t long last, the Roman Empire was whole.
The battle at Châlons-sur-Marne may have been a mere formality,
since there is ample circumstantial evidence to suggest that Tetricus had
secretly agreed to surrender before the armies clashed. Indeed, Tetricus
may have invited Aurelian to invade, and to thus to rescue him from the
difficulties he faced. Although paraded as trophies in Aurelian’s triumph,
Tetricus and his son were honored and taken into Aurelian’s administra
tion. When the family’s senatorial status was restored, the father was
appointed governor of Lucania (in southern Italy) and is said to have lived
to a greatly advanced age.
N u m ism a t ic N o t e : The days when a separatist Empire seemed a good idea

had long passed by the time Tetricus I assumed command. Gaul had now
become a net importer of Roman coins, which were now of higher value
than their Gallic counterparts. The double-denarii of Tetricus was greatly
reduced in weight and purity, and had only 6 % to 8 % of the intrinsic value
of Postumus’ first issues. Furthermore, the planchets and method of strik
ing had degenerated so greatly (even from the preceding reign of Victori
nus) that differentiating the worst of the official coinages from the best of
the “unofficial mint” issues is often impossible.
TETRICUS II A .D . 274C)
C a e s a r : a . d . 2 7 3 - 2 7 4 ( u n d e r T e t r i c u s I)
A u g u s t u s (? ): a . d . 2 7 4 ( w it h T e t r i c u s I)
S o n o f T e tr ic u s I
G r a n d - n e p h e w o r G r a n d s o n (?) o f V i c t o r i n u s
G r e a t - g r a n d s o n o f V ic t o r i a
Gaius Pius Esuvius Tetricus (II), lifespan unknown. Bearing the same
name as his father, Tetricus II was raised to the rank of Caesar either in the
spring or summer of 273 (though some scholars prefer 271), and shared the
consulate with his father in 274. Along with his father, young Tetricus fiU
ius abdicated, and surrendered to Aurelian following the defeat of their
army at Châlons-sur-Marne in the spring of 274. Though the young man
was paraded through the streets of Rome in Aurelian’s triumph, he was
subsequently restored to senatorial status. He is said to have been very
intelligent, and though we know little of his actual accomplishments, his
career as a senator in Rome was stellar, for we are told that in his lifetime,
no other senator was so highly esteemed.
The nature of the titles accorded Tetricus II, and their

chronology, has been contested among scholars for more than a century.
There is ample numismatic evidence to suggest Tetricus II achieved the
rank of Augustus, although coins indicating this are often suspected of
being barbarous or outright counterfeits. N ot to be dismissed are the coins
with reverse inscriptions ending in AVGG, some of which are not rare and
are of undoubted authenticity. The coins that actually name Tetricus II as
Augustus on the obverse are so rare that, if genuine, they must fall within
the final weeks of the reign of the Tetrici as they prepared for the invasion
of Aurelian. The confusion of Tetricus II’s reign is largely due to the unre
liable literary sources of the period. For a closer study of the evidence, see
“A n Unpublished Coin in the Name of Tetricus II,” by C. H. V. Suther
land in the ANSMN 11 (1964).
T h e K i n g d o m o f Pa l m y r a
c* a .d . 260-272
The stability of the Roman East was shattered in 260 when Valerian I was
captured by the Sasanian king Shapur I. The eastern legions no longer had
a leader, and so a revolt was sparked in Antioch by the praetorian prefect
Callistus (“Ballista”) and the quartermaster-general, Macrianus Senior.
Though neither assumed the purple himself, they hailed Macrianus’ two
sons, Macrianus and Quietus, as emperors in opposition to Gallienus.
These developments had a similar effect in the European provinces,
where revolts and invasions demanded the full attention of Gallienus.
Unable to march into Asia himself, Gallienus had to rely on Septimius
Odaenathus (a leading citizen of Palmyra whose family seemed to have
been of recent importance, and who was only called “king of kings” post
humously) to restore order in Asia Minor. This meant not only suppressing
revolts, but also keeping the Sasanians in check.
Palmyra (the “city of palms,” also called Tadmor), a desert oasis
located between Mesopotamia and Syria, long had served as a buffer state
between Roman and Parthian territories. The region first caught the atten
tion of Rome under Marc Antony in the mid-30s B.C., and was incorpo
rated into the Roman province of Syria during the travels of Germanicus
in the east in A.D. 18. Palmyra’s affluence derived from its ideal location as
a staging point for caravans bound for the Euphrates and the Persian Gulf,
and thus to the sea-routes to India.
For seven years Odaenathus served the Romans admirably — first in
260, in the aftermath of Valerian’s capture. The Sasanian army was
defeated in Cilicia by the prefect Callistus (where even the harem of
Shapur was captured), and on its retreat, Odaenathus delivered a second
defeat, which drove the Persians out of Roman territory. In the process,
Odaenathus reclaimed Mesopotamia for Rome. In 261 he turned his atten
tion from the Sasanians to the Roman rebels, causing the murder of Quei-
tus when he besieged Emesa. For these services, Gallienus gave
Odaenathus the title “Ruler of the Romans” and “Governor of the East.”
Although peace had already been established with the Sasanians,
hostilities occurred again in 266, when Odaenathus defeated Shapur in a
pitched battle near Ctesiphon. In the following year, 267, he led his army
north to repel another invasion of Asia Minor by the Goths. The height of
his achievement, in the fall of 267, Odaenathus and his eldest son were
killed while returning from this campaign. The traditional explanation for
his murder is a domestic squabble, but historians have not overlooked the
possibility that it was committed by agents of Gallienus, who no doubt
feared the growing power of his eastern viceroy.
The throne of Palmyra was inherited by Odaenathus’ second wife,

Zenobia, and her son, Vabalathus (also called Athenodorus). A n unsteady
peace now existed between Palmyra and Rome, and shortly before his own
death in 268, Gallienus sent a general named Heraclianus on a campaign
against Palmyra. The venture was a failure, and achieved the opposite of
its intended result, for now Zenobia and Vabalathus were aware of Rome’s
hostility toward them. Neither Gallienus nor his successor, Claudius II,
would grant Vabalathus the titles that his father had earned from years of
valiant service.
Gallienus and Claudius II were so occupied with wars in Europe that
they could pay no attention to the East, and so relations worsened between
Palmyra and Rome. The Palmyrenes’ great expansion occurred during the
otherwise successful reign of Claudius II, when in 269 the queen and her
son conquered lands as far west as Ancyra. In late 269 or early 270, during
the last few months of the reign of Claudius II, they invaded and occupied
the important province of Egypt, jeopardizing the grain supply to Rome.
Shortly after his accession, the new emperor, Aurelian, granted
(either at the end of 270 or early in 271) the royal titles to Vabalathus and
Zenobia which they had long demanded. Aurelian hoped this overture
would placate them while he dealt with the local threat of the Vandals,
Juthungi and Marcomanni. Though it probably had some mild effect, his
gesture did not prevent the Palmyrenes from continuing to strengthen
their authority throughout Asia, nor did it dissuade Zenobia from hailing
herself Augusta, and Vabalathus from claiming the title Augustus. Egyp
tian papyri confirm that Vabalathus’ revolt in 272 began after April 17 and
had been suppressed by June 24.
When Aurelian had sufficiently stabilized Europe to focus on recover
ing his lost provinces in the East and West, he led his army past the walls
of Byzantium and cut a path directly across Anatolia, recovering city after
city. Finally, he engaged the Palmyrene armies at Immae, about a day’s
march from Antioch, where his cavalry was victorious over the Palmyrene
commander, Zabdas. He next routed the enemy at Emesa, giving Zenobia
no choice but to take refuge in her capital city of Palmyra.
The legendary siege skills of the Romans paid off yet again, for Zeno
bia and Vabalathus were captured later that year, narrowly escaping the
prospect of the Sasanians being drawn into the conflict. In the meantime,
the future emperor Probus had recovered Egypt. Although he spared the
city destruction, Aurelian executed Cassius Longinus, the chief adviser of
Zenobia (she blamed him for the revolt) and returned to Europe with his
two royal captives so they could be displayed in his triumph at Rome.
After returning to Europe to fend off a new invasion by the Carpi,
however, Aurelian learned that the 600 Roman archers stationed at
Palmyra under the command of Marcellinus and Sandarion had been

slaughtered. A new revolt had been ignited, this time led by a certain Sep
timius Apsaeus under the titular figurehead Antiochus, a descendant of
Odaenathus. We are told that the Palmyrenes had gained nominal support
in Egypt from a certain Firmius, a man of whom the Historia Augusta gives
a colorful, but certainly fictional account, and who may be the same man
who, papyri indicate, assumed the title epanorthotes or corrector.
Aurelian made the arduous journey to the desert oasis for a second
time, with Zenobia and Vabalathus still in chains, and crushed the rebel
lion in Palmyra. Next, he marched on Alexandria, where he caused Fir
mius to commit suicide. Once bitten, twice shy: Aurelian leveled Palmyra
before he left. The city never recovered its former glory, although Dio
cletian did construct some baths there from 293 to 303 for his soldiers.
ZENOBIA A .D . 2 6 7 - 2 7 2
Q u e e n : a .d . 2 6 7 - 2 7 0 / 1
A u g u s t a : a .d . 2 7 0 / 1 - 2 7 2
W if e o f O d a e n a t h u s
M o t h e r o f Va b a l a t h u s
D a u g h t e r o f J u l iu s A u r e l iu s Z e n o b iu s
Septimia Zenobia (Bat-Zabbai), born c. A.D. 2 4 i(? ). As the queen of

Palmyra, Zenobia gained authority through her husband and retained it
through her son, Vabalathus. Zenobia herself claimed descent from the
Macedonian rulers of Syria and Egypt, though her name indicates she was
of Semitic heritage.
Thus, when Odaenathus was murdered in 267, the throne was passed
onto the rightful heir, Vabalathus. The circumstances of Odaenathus’ mur
der are still uncertain, but the fact that his eldest son Hairanes (by an ear
lier wife) perished with him leads one to conclude that it was a dynastic
purge rather than a mere “domestic squabble” as we are often told.
Whether it was Gallienus or Zenobia who caused the murders is unknown.
In any case, Zenobia and Vabalathus, her son by Odaenathus, inher
ited an Empire that was now all-powerful in the East thanks to the fierce
leadership of Odaenathus. He had taken command on behalf of Rome, and
had defeated the armies of Shapur I on several occasions. The result was
that Zenobia and her son were in a unique position to threaten Roman
supremacy in the East.
Bearing that in mind, it seems a foolhardy move for Gallienus to have
sent an expedition against Zenobia in 268. Not only would the expedition’s
T H E S E P A R A T IS T EM PIRES 4O I
failure spell certain doom (for there would be no longer any doubt as to
Rome’s hostility), but even if successful, Gallienus was in no position to pro
tect the east. So it comes as no surprise that Zenobia viewed Rome as an
enemy, and that she took strong measures to consolidate her power as Rome
went through another three emperors in as many years.
Gallienus, Claudius II and Quintillus all refused to give her son,
Vabalathus, the same titles and honors won by his deceased father, and so
the hostilities grew. During the reign of Claudius II (268-270), Zenobia
led the campaigns by which Palmyra claimed Asia Minor and the Levant.
Next, either late in the reign of Claudius II or early in the reign of Aure
lian, she seized Egypt, a notoriously difficult land to conquer. Egypt was
dear to the Romans both as the emperor’s personal province and as one of
the main sources of grain for Rome.
Having little choice in the matter, the new emperor, Aurelian,
granted Vabalathus and Zenobia the titles they demanded, hoping it would
buy him the time he needed to settle affairs in Europe. In the end of 271 or
the spring of 272, Aurelian was ready to exact his revenge, and led his
army across Anatolia, liberating the Greek cities and defeating the
Palmyrene armies at Antioch, Emesa and finally at Palmyra, where Zeno
bia and her army eventually took refuge.
Supplies ran short in Palmyra, and Zenobia’s Armenian allies
defected to the Roman side. Zenobia then decided to appeal to the Sasani
ans for help. She made a dash toward the Euphrates on a camel, but was
overtaken by the Roman horseman, after which the city fell. Late in 272
Aurelian returned to Europe with the Palmyrene royalty with the inten
tion of featuring them in his triumph, bound with golden chains, while all
along the arduous journey they attracted the curious spectator. The royal
captives did not arrive in Rome until 273, after both the Danubian front
and the second revolt in Palmyra and Alexandria were settled.
Two versions exist of Zenobia’s fate: subsequent to Aurelian’s triumph
in Rome, she was beheaded by Aurelian or was allowed to retire to a villa
near Tibur, where she married a senator and later died peacefully. The lat
ter version seems more likely, for Eutropius says her descendants enjoyed
good reputation, and the Historia Augusta tells us that during the reign of
Valentinian I (364-375), her descendants were reckoned among the
nobility in Rome.
Zenobia was said to be dark complexioned and exceptionally beauti
ful, with black eyes that were “powerful beyond the usual wont . . .” In
inscriptions she is called Bat-Zabbai, daughter of La-Zabba, meaning the
“one with beautiful long hair.” Beyond her physical beauty, she was a
shrewd stateswoman and proved to be a capable general in the field. The
historians tell us that although chaste, she was not adverse to hunting and
drinking with her generals or with visiting dignitaries.
N u m ism a t ic N o t e : The coinage of Zenobia consists of billon double-

denarii struck at Antioch and/or Emesa, and potin tetradrachms struck at
Alexandria. Though her son had been issuing coins jointly with Aurelian
since the emperor’s accession late in 270, Zenobia does not appear on
coinage until late spring of 272, when war was declared. Her striking seems
not to have lasted more than about two months (perhaps considerably
less), and consequently her coins are very rare. Like the sole issues of her
son that were struck concurrently, her Alexandrian issues are dated year 5
(E), and thus are back-dated to 267, when her husband, Odaenathus, died
(rather than to late 270, when their titles were recognized by Aurelian).
VABALATHUS A .D . 2 6 7 - 2 7 2
K i n g : a .d . 2 6 7 - 2 7 0 / 1
A u g u s t u s : a .d . 2 7 0 / 1 - 2 7 2
S o n o f O d a e n a t h u s a n d Z e n o b ia
H a l f -b r o t h e r o f H a i r a n e s ( H e r o d e s )
Lucius Julius Aurelius Septimius Vabalathus

Athenodorus (also Wahballat), born c. A.D. 256/
7 (?). Much like his father, Odaenathus, Vabalathus owed his royal posi
tion to the bloodlines of his mother, Zenobia. After the murder of his
father and step-brother in 267, Vabalathus and his mother assumed con
trol of Palmyra, which at that time was the dominant force in Asia Minor.
Initially during the co-regency of Zenobia and Vabalathus, there was
an unsteady peace between Palmyra and Rome, which was shattered by
the failed expedition sent against Palmyra in 268 by Gallienus. The suc
ceeding emperors, Claudius II and Quintillus, both refused to grant Vabal
athus and his mother the titles they demanded. But in 269 and 270, during
the reign of Claudius II, the Palmyrenes seized most of Asia Minor, from
the heart of Anatolia to the border of Cyrene, including Egypt.
Late in 270 or early in 271, the new emperor Aurelian (270-275)
thought it wise to grant Vabalathus the titles of his deceased father. Later
still, most likely in 271, Vabalathus and his mother took further initiative
against Rome, and Vabalathus boldly claimed the title of Augustus.
However, Rome was now in capable hands. By late 271 or the spring
of 272, Aurelian began to direct his efforts to recovering the lost provinces
in the East and West. In the resulting war, both Vabalathus and Zenobia
were captured during the course of the siege of Palmyra, which fell later in
272. The king and his mother were then led away as captives for display in
Aurelian’s anticipated triumph at Rome.
N u m ism a t ic N o t e : The coinage of Vabalathus consists of double-denarii

struck at Antioch and potin tetradrachms (and one rare issue of Æ
drachms) struck at Alexandria. Both main coinages were struck in two
phases, the first being when he shared honors with Aurelian (late 270
through late 271 or spring 272), and the second being after he and his
mother had declared themselves independent from Rome (after which
Vabalathus was Augustus). The Imperial double-denarii Vabalathus struck
jointly with Aurelian at Antioch have his own laureate portrait on the
obverse and Aurelian’s radiate bust on the reverse. (It is worth noting that
scholars have disagreed as to which side is the obverse.) Equally challeng
ing is Vabalathus’ inscription, which adds VCRIMDR to his name. The
likely interpretation is Vir Clarissimus Rex (or Romanorum) Imperator Dux
Romanorum (with the first portion translating to ‘most noble man, king’ or
‘most noble Roman man’). A t the provincial mint of Alexandria, Vabal
athus uses his own regnal years 4 (A) and 5 (E) to Aurelian’s 1(A) and 2
(B), thus ‘back dating’ his accession to 267, when his father died.
T h e R o m a n o - B r it is h E m p ir e
c. a .d . 286/7-296/7
The island of Britain had always been a source of trouble for the Romans,
as it offered the unenviable combination of being poor in natural resources
and difficult to control. The Romans first took a serious interest in Britain
after hearing reports of its mineral wealth, which only later were proven to
be greatly exaggerated.
Although Julius Caesar campaigned there in 55-54 B.C., it was not
until the reign of Claudius (41-54) that serious efforts at annexation were
made. The next half century saw many tragedies in Britain, including the
immensely destructive revolt of Boudicca in 60, in which some 70,000
Romans are said to have perished and London was burned to the ground.
The Roman reprisals were equally ruthless. N ot long after this, the gover
nor Agricola (78-85) also campaigned with success.
Still later the emperors Hadrian and Antoninus Pius erected long
walls to help defend Britain from the Piets and Scots in the north. The
insurrections and border wars in Britain are almost too numerous to recall,
and in hindsight, the Romans probably would have chosen to leave the
island alone. But once they had staked their claim, the Romans were
unwilling to suffer the loss of pride associated with abandoning it. Even
the emperors Septimius Severus and Constantius I were to die at the fron
tier city of Eburacum (York), while preparing for campaigns in the north.
For a period of about 15 years (260-274), the island was incorporated
into the Romano-Gallic Empire founded by Postumus. In this first
separation from Rome, Britain did not play an important role, and indeed
was drawn away from Rome largely by virtue of its geographic location.
Britain had subsequently returned to Roman possession for only a dozen
years before it once again fell into the hands of a separatist emperor. But
this time Britain was the heart of the rebellion, not merely an adjunct.
Leading the revolt was a man of humble origins, the Roman naval
commander-turned-pirate, Mausaeus Carausius. Later he added some
coastal regions of northern Gaul to his Empire, and throughout was able to
defy attempts of the emperor Maximian to unseat him. However, after
about six years of independence, Carausius suffered a major defeat at Geso-
riacum (Boulogne) at the hands of the new Caesar Constantius I, and was
assassinated by his chief minister, Allectus, upon returning to Britain.
Allectus took command in his place, but did little over the next three
years except brace himself for the inevitable attack.
When it came, seemingly in 296, the Roman invasion was swift and
decisive, and Constantius returned Britain to the Roman world. The
island rarely experienced a moment’s peace thereafter, and was the source
of numerous revolts, including those of Magnus Maximus (383-388) and
Constantine III (407-411), both of which resulted in coinage. A general
deterioration in the west caused the Romans to strip the island of its garri
sons until it was abandoned for good in the 5 th Century. Thereafter, Brit
ain lost most of the wealth and prestige it once enjoyed, and reverted to a
virtual barter economy. It subsequently came to be occupied by Angles,
Saxons and Jutes, all people who earlier had frequently raided its coastal
cities.
CARAUSIUS A .D . 2 8 6 / 7 - 2 9 3
Marcus Aurelius Valerius Carausius (earlier
M ausaeus Carausius), d. A .D . 293 . Carausius was a
man of humble origins from Menapia, a seafaring
region between the Waal and the Scheldt rivers.
Carausius came to prominence in the Roman army,
and by 285 had risen to a high position in the
Channel Fleet, at which point he came into the ser
vice of the newly appointed Caesar Maximian.
A t that time a band of oppressed Gaulish peasants, united under the
name “the Bagaudae,” had turned to marauding, and had elected two of
their own, Amandus and Aelianus, as their emperors. Carausius’ naval
actions proved to be of great value to Maximian, who was able to crush the
Bagaudae. After the operation was finished, it seems, Carausius was
appointed as commander of the Channel fleet, though this may have

happened earlier. Maximian entrusted his new, gifted commander with the
task of ridding the western coasts of Frankish and Saxon pirates.
But it seems Carausius adopted the policy of attacking the pirates
after they returned from their raids so that he could claim a portion of the
booty for himself. On no level was this in Rome’s best interest, so M axim
ian (who was busy fighting the Alemanni and Burgundians on the Rhine)
sentenced him to death on the charge of embezzlement late in 286 or early
in 287 (accounts vary). Carausius was forewarned of the charge and, hav
ing no other option, sailed his fleet around to the western shores of Britain,
landing about 50 miles south of Hadrian’s Wall.
There he met with the Scots and Piets, arranging a treaty of resis
tance to Rome, and defeated the army assembled by the Roman governor,
Quintus Bassianus, who was stationed at nearby York. After absorbing
many of the Roman soldiers into his own ranks, Carausius marched the
nearly 200 miles to London, and assumed control. To the great advantage
of Carausius, many new fortresses had been built on the Saxon shore of
Britain, and Maximian himself was then occupied with Germans on the
Rhine.
It was not until 288 or 289 that Maximian could launch an offensive
against the rebel, but that attempt (which required the construction of a
new fleet) was a disaster, and immediate plans of ousting Carausius were
abandoned. In the truce that resulted, it is possible that Carausius negoti
ated rights to some territories in northeastern Gaul, though if not, he forc
ibly annexed them by 290.
Carausius was able to maintain his position while the Romans were
sufficiently distracted, and as a result was able to organize his own Empire
by copying the best aspects of Rome. Much like Postumus before him, he
held consulships and he even assumed the titles pontifex maximus and pater
patriae. Additionally, he struck coins honoring the legions, held Saecular
Games — in short, he was building a Roman Empire in miniature.
He trumpeted such themes, especially the concept of a Roman
renewal, on his coins. N ot only does he use the inscription ROMANO
RENOVA paired with the she-wolf suckling Romulus and Remus, but he
frequently uses the curious letters R S R. A new translation for these letters
is put forward by G. de la Bedoyere in the 1998 Numismatic Chronicle:
instead of meaning ratiortalis summae rei (chief finance minister), as has
long been thought, it almost certainly abbreviates redeunt saturnia regna
(‘the golden age returns’). These famous words appear in the second half of
a line from Vergil’s Fourth Eclogue, which are followed in the next sen
tence with lam nova progenies caelo demittitur alto (‘now a new generation is
sent down from heaven above’), which no doubt represents the unusual
inscription I N P C D A, which occurs on a medallion of Carausius. With
4o 6 h i s t o r y o f t h e r o m a n e m p ire : b io g r a p h ie s
this remarkable discovery, not only can we praise the suprisingly refined
and subtle propaganda of this mere provincial, but we can avoid finding in
the letters R S R a representation of the title Allectus is suspected as hav
ing held in Carausius’ regime.
In hope that Diocletian and Maximian would recognize him as a part
ner rather than an enemy, Carausius appealed to the joint Augusti
throughout his reign, even to the point of adopting their names, Aurelius
and Valerius. Though abundantly reflected in the coinage, this “fraternal”
policy was ineffective. The end for Carausius came about shortly after Dio
cletian and Maximian each adopted a Caesar in 293. The western Augus
tus, Maximian, chose Constantius I, who in the summer of 293 dislodged
Carausius from his possessions in Gaul — including the important naval
base of Gesoriacum (Boulogne). The latter feat was accomplished by a
siege that starved the inhabitants and kept Carausius’ navy at bay with a
flimsy but effective palisade that Constantius I built across the harbor
mouth (and which is said to have broken the day after the Carausians
capitulated).
The new Caesar attacked Carausius’ Frankish allies, clearing them
from their island and mainland strongholds in Batavia. This setback weak
ened Carausius’ authority, and effectively reduced his kingdom to the
island of Britain. Through being cut off from the continent, Carausius’
options were limited; he could no longer receive the supplies and military
support that had made his reign tenable. Indeed, it was this critical loss
that led to his assassination in 293 by his chief minister, Allectus, who
then assumed the title of Augustus in his place.
N u m ism a t ic N o t e : Carausius’ coinage is remarkably varied in design con

tent, with many elaborate obverse busts and a wide array of imaginative
reverse types. Equally fascinating is the variety of issue marks that appear
on the reverses. It is noteworthy that he produced denarii of good silver
years in advance Diocletian’s introduction of the argenteus (in 294). In
doing so, Carausius may have been following in the footsteps of Postumus,
who in 260 helped secure his own reign by producing coinage more valu
able than that of the Romans. The aurei of Carausius are very rare, with
perhaps 20 pieces known.
O f great interest are his overtures for recognition from Diocletian and
Maximian, whom he styled as his colleagues on some of his coinage. Best
known are his double-denarii that bear the jugate busts of Carausius, Dio
cletian and Maximian, declaring the three men as joint-Augusti both on
the reverse (with the inscription ending AVGGG) and on the obverse, with
the inscription CARAVSIVS ET FRATRES SVI (Carausius and his brothers).
Other coins Carausius struck were entirely in the name of either Diocletian
or Maximian, with no mention of himself except in the reverse inscriptions,
which end AVGGG (and as such also refer to him). These coins may be
distinguished from the regular products of Diocletian and Maximian by the
peculiarities of their manufacture and the reverse inscription. Carausius’
coinage has much in common — relatively speaking — with that of the
Romano-Gallic emperors, including the unusual facing bust, also struck by
Postumus.
ALLECTUS A .D . 2 9 3 - 2 9 6 / 7
M in is t e r o f C a r a u s iu s
Allectus, d. A.D. 296/7. Allectus was in a position

of great authority in the regime of Carausius at the
time of the latter’s murder. His title and responsi
bilities are not certainly known (for he is variously
called first minister, and even henchman and com
panion). Another possibility is that he was the chief finance minister
(rationalis summae rei)} though that long-held view has suffered a setback
with the new reading of R S R as redeunt saturnia regna (‘the golden age
returns’). In essence, almost nothing is known about this shadowy figure,
including his full name or his ancestry. Indeed, he may even have been
sent by the emperors to undermine Carausius, as some of the ancient
chroniclers intimate.
Speculation aside, we may be certain that Allectus had Carausius
assassinated upon his return to Britain in the summer of 293, after he had
lost the important naval base at Gesoriacum (Boulogne) to the new C ae
sar Constantius I. Though it would be unfair to blame Allectus for the col
lapse of his Empire (for the wheels had already been set in motion), it
would be equally unfair to suggest he was a competent ruler, for we are told
by the chroniclers that he “miserably oppressed the Britons and afflicted
them with manifold disasters.”
Now in possession of the hollow title of Augustus, Allectus managed
affairs in Britain while Constantius eliminated the last of Carausius’
former allies on the continent. In the meantime, the Romans also enlarged
their fleet (Constantius at Boulogne and his praetorian prefect Asclepi-
odotus about 100 miles south at Rouen) for the anticipated invasion,
which probably occurred in 296, though some scholars suggest 295, and
others 297. The attack was made simultaneously at two locations — by
Constantius along the coast of Kent, and by Asclepiodotus in Hampshire.
The navy commanded by Asclepiodotus may have been launched on
a rumor that Constantius had already sailed, and thus arrived sooner, nar
rowly missing the separatist fleet in the fog off the Isle of Wight. Upon dis-
embarking near Clausentum, the Roman army burned its fleet and
marched directly on London. En route they met the armies of Allectus
while still in Hampshire. Allectus was killed in the ensuing battle, and the
badly battered soldiers of Allectus retreated to London, which they
intended to pillage, but they were prevented from doing so by the timely
arrival of Constantius, who had led his fleet up the Thames. We are told
that the Britons were overjoyed at the island’s liberation by the Romans.
In retrospect, it is odd that the Tetrarchs chose this moment to
invade Britain, for at the same time wars were raging elsewhere in the
Empire. Diocletian had just begun to besiege Domitius Domitianus in
Alexandria, Maximian was guarding the Rhine front in place of Constan
tius I, and Galerius was battling the Sasanians on the eastern frontier. If
this troubled era demonstrated anything, it was that the Tetrarchic system
of shared authority was incredibly effective in dealing with the crises of a
vast Empire.
N u m ism a tic N o t e : Allectus initially followed in the numismatic footsteps

of Carausius, but soon faltered. He produced a more limited range of
reverse types, struck very few denarii (and these were merely billon) and
eventually reduced the size and weight of the double-denarius. The fact
that the reduced coinage has its own reverse type (war galley) and a QL or
QC in its exerge has misled some researchers to conclude that it is a
‘quinar ius.’
The recovery of Britain from Allectus was commemorated on various
gold coins and medallions issued by the Tetrarchs, including some struck at
a specially opened mint at Iantinum. The most famous of these is the 10-
aureus piece struck by Constantius I at Trier , which survived as part of the
famous Arras Hoard. Its reverse is inscribed REDDITOR LVCIS AETERNAE
(loosely translating to “returner of the eternal light”) and depicts Constan
tius, holding a spear, riding horseback toward the city walls of London;
beneath him is a galley along the bank of the Thames, and before him the
kneeling figure of Britannia (or London) welcoming him with open arms.
There is no mistake about the identification of the walled city, as the
inscription LON appears beneath the scene.
CHAPTER TEN
5^ a
T h e T etrarch y
c . a .d . 2 8 4 - 3 1 3
he Tetrarchy is comparable in many ways to the Age of Augustus

T three centuries before. In both cases, a leader of rare talent salvaged
Rome from a shameful state of affairs and set it on a path of reform.
Though this involved restrictions of freedom, higher taxes and bigger gov
ernment, its results were significant: borders were safeguarded, legal and
administrative reforms were enacted, and a level of dignity was restored to
the greatest power the Mediterranean world had ever known.
When we speak of the Tetrarchy, we speak of its founder, Diocletian.
The true Tetrarchy only occupied 12 of Diocletian’s 21 years on the
throne, for prior to his expansion to four rulers there were only two, and
for a very brief period in the beginning, there was only Diocletian himself.
Although he shared power with his colleagues, he retained the right to leg
islate and to veto, and in that sense he was the sole architect of his unique
brand of government. His greatest moment, however, occurred at the end
of his career, when he voluntarily abdicated his throne — an act that had
not occurred in Rome since the warlord Sulla did so in 79 B.C.
The form of government and the society created by Diocletian made
a great impact on the future of Europe and the Near East. Indeed, the very
foundations of Feudalism and of the serfdom of the peasant class can be
traced directly to his social and economic reforms. It comes as no surprise
that Diocletian (even more so than the Christian emperor Constantine
the Great) represents the ideal king of Dark Age and Medieval Europe.
Diocletian went to great lengths to dignify the office of Augustus, for
it had been severely debased in the previous decades by frequent usurpa
tions. He wore richly woven robes and required anyone who approached
him to perform adoratio by kneeling at his feet and kissing the hem of his
robe. These measures also affected the future of the Empire, for subsequent
emperors (including Constantine the Great, who abandoned the laurel
wreath in favor of a Greek-style diadem) retained in their courts the dig
nity that Diocletian had re-established.
Diocletian also demonstrated, with great clarity, the need for division
between East and West. He was not the first emperor to recognize this fact
(Valerian I and Gallienus had also made it their policy), but he was the
first to formalize it. N o longer was it a matter of temporary convenience or
of military necessity, but rather an organizational principle that came to be
409
recognized as fact. After his reign, only the greediest of emperors who cov
eted the whole Empire for themselves could ignore Diocletian’s model.
Throughout his more than two decades as Augustus, Diocletian
attempted to unify all aspects of the Empire: political, military, administra
tive, economic, legal and religious. Indeed, with an Empire so large and
diverse as his, this was a task worthy of men who chose Jupiter and Her
cules as their patron deities. Diocletian’s most important reforms were in
the realms of politics and war. Only a few months after taking office, he
shared his supreme authority with his comrade-in-arms Maximian. This
allowed them to deal with invasions on the Rhine and the Danube, which
not only happened with astonishing regularity, but quite often simulta
neously. A few years later, in 293, they each adopted a Caesar with whom
they shared their burden. This brought the number of rulers to four —
hence the reason historians have applied the name the Tetrarchy (rule of
four) to Diocletian’s great creation.
The best effect of this expansion from two members to four was the
new-found freedom it gave Diolcetian and Maximian. With few excep
tions, the Caesars attended to the seemingly endless requirements of
defending the Rhine and the Danube, and the Augusti applied themselves
to larger tasks, such as administration, reform and raising the money nec
essary to support the government and the army.
The second effect was military flexibility. On some occasions all four
of the Tetrarchs were required to wage war. The best example of this
occurred in the years 297 and 298, when all four members were either
stamping out rebellions or repelling invasions.
Much like the Adoptive Emperors of the 2nd Century, we may pre
sume that if Diocletian had had suitable heirs, he would have preferred to
share his authority with them rather than with army colleagues. But this
natural tendency hardly detracts from the genius of Diocletian’s willingness
to share authority, for he no doubt would have demanded the same degree of
loyalty and competence from his heirs that he did of his colleagues.
Indeed, it was a stroke of good fortune that he chose such a friend as
Maximian with whom to share the burden of supreme power. If he had
shared his authority with a more ambitious or less loyal man, his grand
design would have quickly degenerated into yet another civil war. Trust
and loyalty proved to be the cornerstones of their uncommon form of
government.
Diocletian was the most thorough organizer since Augustus. He
divided the Empire into four administrative units that were further subdi
vided into 12 dioceses and finally into 101 provinces. Though authorities
have often disputed the details, the number of dioceses seems eventually to
have increased to 14, and the number of provinces to 117.
TH E TETRARCH Y 4 1I
The four administrative units defined the regions for which the C ae
sars and Augusti had primary responsibility. The dioceses were adminis
tered by “vicars” who answered directly to the four praetorian prefects who
were attached to the Caesars and the Augusti. The governments of indi
vidual provinces were run by governors, who collectively were responsible
to the vicar of their diocese.
The dioceses initially were: Britanniae (south of Hadrian’s Wall),
Galliae (northern Gaul), Viennensis (southern Gaul), Hispaniae (Spain
and the westernmost part of North Africa), Italia (Italy and the trans-
Alpine regions of Raetia and Noricum), Africa (central portion of North
Africa, including Carthage), Pannoniae (the Pannonias and Dalmatia),
Moesiae (the Moesias, what remained of Dacia and all of Greece), Thra-
ciae (all of Thrace), Asiana (western part of mod. Turkey, including Lycia,
Pamphylia and Galatia), Pontica (most of the southern Black Sea coast
and Cappadocia) and Oriens (the vast territory from Cilicia due east to
Mesopotamia, as well as Syria, the Levant, Egypt and Cyrenaica).
Diocletian purposely segregated the authority for civil and military
matters. In so doing, he could have administrators do what they did best
and have military men ply their trade. Furthermore, since governors and
vicars had no military authority, the likelihood of their sparking a revolt
was greatly reduced. Even the military commanders were unlikely to be
able to gain enough support for a revolution, for their areas of responsibil
ity often overlapped into different provinces.
The arrangement was cunning, as it eliminated most of the circum
stances that had made it possible — even likely — that frontier command
ers would revolt against the emperor. The losers in this arrangement,
undoubtedly, were those of the senatorial class. N ot only were they forbid
den to hold military offices (a policy that Gallienus had initiated), but
soon they were prevented from holding provincial governorships except in
the regions traditionally allocated to them since the reign of Augustus.
The other great casualties were Italy and the city of Rome. Diocletian
was a practical man who was unmoved by sentimental attachment.
Though Italy and Rome may once have been the center of the Empire,
Diocletian and his Illyrian colleagues saw them for what they were at that
point in history. Italy was reduced to a diocese in the course of Diocletian’s
reorganization and became subject to taxation to which it traditionally
had been immune (indeed, this was one of the main catalysts for the revolt
of Maxentius in 306).
The focus of government and the army shifted from Rome to more
conveniently located cities. In the West, Trier and Milan were the court
cities, and in the East, Thessalonica, Nicomedia, and at a later stage, A nti
och, all became court cities. The most important of these was the
Bithynian city of Nicomedia. Strategically located between the Danube

and Syria, it became Diocletian’s “second Rome” and was the precursor to
Constantine’s monumental decision to found Constantinople on the Euro
pean shore only 50 miles to the west.
The invasions across the Rhine and Danube that had become epi
demic in the 3rd Century required that the army be nearly doubled in size
and undergo an extensive reorganization. The Empire now supported per
haps as many as 75 legions. The expansionist emperor Trajan had required
only 30 legions, and Caracalla had only 33 legions at the height of his
power. Furthermore, the naval fleets were strengthened and the land
armies were reinforced with heavily armored cavalry.
Costly though it was, so large an army was necessary to combat the
increased pressures on the frontiers and the greater sophistication of the
arsenals employed by Rome’s enemies. The army was reorganized into two
main components: the limitanei (or riparienses), which were stationed at
fortifications permanently based along the borders, and the comitatenses
(“soldiers of the retinue”), which were the mobile strike forces. The comi
tatenses were particularly strong in cavalry and were brought into action
wherever the need arose.
Though estimates vary widely, a conservative view of the number of
soldiers on the payroll would be about half a million, and there may well
have been as many as 900,000. With so large an army to support, tax reve
nues became more important than ever before. Although Diocletian
always managed to raise the money necessary, he had a sincere desire to
limit the suffering of the citizens, so he introduced economic reforms by
which he hoped to alleviate tax burdens and combat inflation. His two
main tactics were a coinage reform in 294 and the establishment of maxi
mum prices for goods and services in 301. Both failed miserably, for the
economy was too complex to be controlled by laws.
Legal reform was equally far-reaching, and much more effective, as
the Tetrarchs established a large bureaucracy to administer and enforce
their revised laws. These reforms removed many of the incentives associ
ated with a more liberal society and most citizens became trapped into
their socio-economic roles. In this respect, Diocletian can rightly be con
sidered the “father of Feudalism,” a system by which the poor became vir
tual slaves to landowners in the Dark Ages and the Medieval world.
At the heart of the matter were Diocletian’s efforts to stabilize agri
cultural production and streamline the manner in which the practical arts
were passed from one generation to the next. Indeed, farm hands were
legally tied to the farms they worked, and required the permission of the
landlords to leave and seek work elsewhere. Those with skills in a given
field were virtually forced to pass their occupations onto their offspring.
TH E TETRARCH Y 4 13
While these measures may have increased the efficiency of the economy in
the short term, they critically reduced personal freedom.
The worship of the pagan gods was encouraged by Diocletian, who
had adopted Jupiter as his personal patron deity. Since his colleague M axi
mian had similarly adopted Hercules, two “houses” or “dynasties” were
founded within the Tetrarchic system: the Jovian (of Jupiter) and the Her-
culian (of Hercules). The two Augusti went so far as to declare themselves
the sons of these deities, naming July 21, 287, as their divine birthdays. It
is also significant that the solar worship promoted by previous emperors
(notably Aurelian and Probus) was abandoned by Diocletian for a more
traditional form of paganism. It was only after Diocletian’s retirement that
the worship of the sun-god Sol was once again popularized by Constantine
the Great, who used that pagan solar deity to ease the conversion to Chris
tianity within the ranks of his army.
Most especially affected by the religious fervor of Diocletian and his
colleagues were the Christians, whose faith did not permit their worship of
other gods, even if it was only a symbolic gesture. In 297 or 298 Diocletian
required all soldiers and administrators to make sacrifices to the pagan
gods; those who refused were expelled. A few years later, the Tetrarchs ini
tiated a severe persecution of the Christians with the intent of destroying
the religion.
Late in February of 303 Diocletian issued an edict calling for the
destruction of churches and scriptures throughout the Empire, and later in
the year, issued orders to imprison the entire Christian clergy. In April of
304 this was extended to all those professing the Christian faith, with
death being the penalty. Constantius I in the West did not enforce many
of the anti-Christian edicts, though Maximian did so with some vigor,
seemingly out of loyalty to the wishes of Diocletian. In the East, however,
it was pursued with great fervor by Diocletian; Galerius; his wife, Galeria
Valeria; and their nephew, Maximinus Daia.
Diocletian must have been sorely disappointed when the Tetrarchy
he had so carefully built collapsed. After all, the fail-safe of his system was
its promise of smooth succession through the Caesars, who were destined
to replace the Augusti. Soon enough this system was tom apart by dissatis
faction among heirs and potential heirs: obvious candidates were passed up
for promotion while others were chosen because of their family ties or pri
vate agendas. If anything, this shows that it was Diocletian and the
unquestioning loyalty he inspired in his colleagues that supported the sys
tem. Had the course of succession been determined with greater wisdom,
the Tetrarchic system no doubt would have endured far longer. It was
Galerius who succeeded Diocletian with the greatest authority, and he
attempted to retain the facade of the Tetrarchy while maintaining absolute
power. A similar effort had been made by Augustus, who was successful in
his goal of consolidating his authority within a transparent framework of
Republican government. Regrettably for the Empire, Galerius failed where
Augustus and Diocletian had succeeded.
The Tetrarchic system collapsed entirely in 311, when the last of the
original four, Galerius, died. Four men claiming the title of Augustus
remained, but they were enemies of each other, entering into fair-weather
alliances to prevent their own demise. By 312 the four were reduced to
three, and by the summer of 313 only two remained — Constantine the
Great in the West and Licinius I in the East. It is at this point that most
historians agree the Constantinian Era begins.
A b b r e v ia t io n s o f T it l e s
a Augustus c Caesar
sa Senior Augustus sc Senior Caesar
ja Junior Augustus jc Junior Caesar
S'pa Self-Proclaimed Augustus pc Princeps and Caesar
fa Filius Augustorum us: Usurper
Note: The geographic divisions are only approximate, as members of the Tetrarchy often
operated in areas in which they did not have primary authority. The region of Thrace, though
located in Europe, was often considered part of the Asiatic realm. For the purposes of this
table, Thrace is not strictly considered to be in either the European or Asiatic categories. The
western and central portions of North Africa were usually considered part of the territories
allocated along with Italy, whereas the eastern portions (including Egypt) belonged to the
Asiatic portion.
JOINT-RULE OF DIOCLETIAN AND MAXIMIAN

(July 1, 285 to March 1, 293)
Date West East

285-286 Maximian (c) Diocletian (a)
us: Amandus
286-293 Maximian (ja) Diocletian (sa)

us: Carausius
FIRST TETRARCHY
(March 1, 293 to May 1, 305)
Date Western Europe Central/Eastern Europe Asia
293-305 Constantius I (sc) Maximian (ja) Diocletian (sa)

us: Allectus Galerius (jc) us: Domit. Domitianus
THE TETRARCH Y 4 15
SECOND TETRARCHY
(May 1,305 to July 25, 306)
305-306 Constantius I (sa) Severus II (sc) Galerius (ja)

Maximinus Daia (jc)
THIRD TETRARCHY
(July 25, or later, 306 to Spring, 307)
Date Western Europe Central Europe Asia
306- Constantine I (jc) Severus II (ja) Galerius (sa)

Feb.307 us: Maxentius (pc) Maximinus Daia (sc)
307 (Feb- Constantine I (jc) Severus II (ja) Galerius (sa)

Spring) us: Maxentius (sa) Maximinus Daia (sc)
us: Maximian (ja)
PERIOD OF DISPUTE
(Summer, 307 to November 11, 308)
Date Western Europe Central Europe Eastern Europe/Asia
307 Constantine I (jc,S'pa) us: Maxentius (sa) Galerius (sa)

us: Maximian (ja) Maximinus Daia (sc)
308 Constantine I (jc,s-pa) us: Maxentius (sa) Galerius (sa)

us: Alexander us: Maximian (ja) (after Maximinus Daia (sc)
April — in Gaul)
FIRST REVISED TETRARCHY

(November 11, 308 to mid-^lO)
308 Constantine I (jc,s-pa) Licinius I (ja) Galerius (sa)

us: Alexander us: Maxentius (a) Maximinus Daia (sc)
309 Constantine I (jc then Licinius I (ja) Galerius (sa)

fa; throughout s-pa) us: Maxentius (a) Maximinus Daia
us: Alexander (sc, then fa)
310 Constantine I (fa,S'pa) Licinius I (ja) Galerius (sa)

us: Maximian (a) us: Maxentius (a) Maximinus Daia (fa)
us: Alexander
SECOND REVISED TETRARCHY

(mid'310 to April, 313)
Date Western Europe Central /Eastern Europe Asia
310- Constantine I (ja) Licinius I (ja) Galerius (sa)
May 311 us: Alexander ('310) us: Maxentius (a) Maximinus Daia (ja)
May 311- Constantine I (ja) Licinius I (ja) Maximinus Daia (sa)

Oct. 312 us: Maxentius (a)
Oct. 312- Constantine I (sa) Licinius I (ja) shared w/ Maximinus Daia (ja)
313 Constantine I (sa)
DIOCLETIAN A.D. 284-305

A u g u s t u s : a .d . 2 8 4 - 2 8 5
( in o p p o s it io n t o N u m e r ia n )
a .d . 2 8 5 - 2 8 6 ( s o l e r e i g n ;
M a x im ia n a s C a e s a r )
a . d . 2 8 6 - 3 0 5 ( w it h M a x i m i a n )
Fa t h e r o f G a l e r ia Va l e r ia
F a t h e r -i n -l a w o f G a l e r i u s
Gaius Aurelius Valerius Diocletianus (earlier D iodes), c. A.D. 240/5-

3 i i / 2 (?). O f all the emperors of Rome, Diocletian stands second only to
Augustus as a reformer and organizer. Indeed, he took command of an
Empire shattered by revolution and invasion and introduced stability, as
well as the novel concept that power could be willingly and loyally shared.
He reorganized every aspect of Roman life — the provinces, the army, tax
ation, the economy and much more — in hope that his grand scheme
would salvage his decaying Empire.
As if all that were not enough, when much of his dream was achieved
and his health would no longer permit him to carry the burden of duty, he
voluntarily retired from office. Ever conscientious, he forced his co
emperor, Maximian, to abdicate as well, and oversaw the orderly transfer
of power to junior members of his command staff. Once he had accom
plished all that, he believed he could retire to his palace along the shores
of the Adriatic and tend his vegetable gardens knowing he had served his
Empire well.
But it was not long before Diocletian’s utopian arrangement was shat
tered, and it is this simple fact that forces historians to realize that Dio
cletian’s achievement was unique, and perhaps could have been achieved
by none other than himself. Immediately there were strife, jealousy and
selfish power struggles that had not occurred since Diocletian assumed
control more than two decades before.
Diocletian was bom sometime between 236 and 245 to a humble
family from Dalmatia, perhaps near Spalato, where he eventually retired.
Although his father may have been a freedman (a former slave), Dio
cletian rose from his obscure origins to become emperor. He fought in the
armies of Aurelian and Probus and served as a commander in Moesia in
the 270s. During the great Persian campaign originally mounted by Carus
in 283, he was appointed commander of the protectores domestici by Nume
rian, the son who replaced Carus as emperor in the East upon his father’s
unexpected death.
TH E T E TR A R C H Y 4 17
Upon the murder of Numerian late in 284, the soldiers chose Dio-
cletian as the most suitable replacement. He may have been hailed for no
reason other than the sincere hatred the soldiers harbored for Numerian’s
older brother, Carinus, who still retained the title of Augustus in the West.
Diocletian’s first act was to execute Aper, the praetorian prefect who was
considered responsible for the murders of both Carus and Numerian.
Though it is not inconceivable that Diocletian had a hand in their mur
ders, the ancient historians do not indicate this and there is no reason to
suspect it.
Diocletian was installed at Nicomedia on November 20, 284, as a
rival to Carinus. Civil war was now inevitable. Diocletian marched west
into the Balkans and confronted his opponent’s armies near Verona (or
Margum) in the spring or summer of 285. It appeared as though the larger
army of Carinus had gained the upper hand in this pitched battle when the
hated Carinus was struck down by one of his own embittered officers, leav
ing Diocletian the fortunate victor.
Diocletian now commanded the entire Roman army and was sole
Emperor from Britain to Mesopotamia. Despite the chaotic method of his
accession, Diocletian soon brought stability to the Empire. He quickly
realized the gravity of his responsibilities and he determined that he must
share his burden if he was to succeed. Initially he shared power with only
one colleague, his comrade-in-arms Maximian, upon whom he bestowed
the rank of Caesar in July of 285.
Maximian was immediately sent to Gaul to settle the revolt of the
Bagaudae, which had hailed two of their own men, Amandus and
Aelianus, as emperors. Upon successfully concluding that campaign, M ax
imian was invested with the rank of Augustus on April 1, 286. This made
Maximian equal in almost every respect, except that only Diocletian
retained sole authority to legislate and held veto power. More importantly,
there existed a tacit understanding that Diocletian was the senior
Augustus.
Perhaps on July 21, 287, the two Augusti formally declared them
selves the sons of the deities to whom they professed loyalty. Diocletian
chose Jupiter (Jove), the supreme deity of the Roman pantheon, whereas
Maximian chose Hercules, the mythological hero who was Jupiter’s instru
ment in ridding the world of evil. A further separation of duty and devo
tion occurred on the geographic level, for Maximian was to operate in the
western portion of the Empire (Italy and all points west), while Diocletian
was to oversee the Balkans, Asia and Egypt.
Diocletian spent the first eight years of his reign pacifying his eastern
portion of the Empire. Initially he fought on the Danubian front against
4i8 H IS T O R Y O F T H E R O M A N EM PIRE: B IO G R A P H IE S
the Sarmatians and others, earning the title Germanicus maximus. In 287,
however, he went to Asia Minor, where he reorganized the Syrian frontier
and installed Tiridates III as king of Armenia. This had practical applica
tion, but also was a show of force for the Sasanians and proved to be a dip
lomatic victory.
From 288 to 289 he returned to the European theater and in the first
year combined forces with his Imperial colleague to attack the Alemanni
— Maximian crossing the Rhine and Diocletian crossing the Danube. In
the following year, Diocletian renewed his campaign against the Sarma
tians. A t the same time, Maximian failed badly in his attempt to win back
the isle of Britain, which in 286 or 287 had been lost to a piratic naval
commander named Carausius. As a result, Carausius was able to seize the
coastal regions of northern Gaul. For the moment, the two legitimate
emperors had no choice but to suffer this territorial loss.
The year 290 is historically uncertain, for Diocletian may have
remained in Europe, but more than likely he campaigned against the
Saracens — an Arab tribe of the Sinai who had invaded Syria. By the fol
lowing year he had met with his colleague at Milan and had resumed resi
dence at Sirmium, seemingly taking on the Sarmatians once again in 292
and devoting the greater part of 293 to settling the Danubian front.
By this time, when Diocletian was preparing to celebrate his tenth
anniversary (decennalia), the co-Augusti realized that they needed help.
Thus, on March 1, 293, they expanded their system of shared authority to
include two new members, who would hold the rank of Caesars and would
each be subordinate to one of the Augusti. Perhaps the most immediate
need for this expansion was the attack they planned against Carausius and
his separatist British Empire. To make administration easier, the Empire
had been partitioned into 12 dioceses, with each Augustus and Caesar
assuming responsibility for a specific geographic region.
As his Caesar Diocletian chose Galerius, a man who seems to have
been his praetorian prefect. Galerius was installed at Diocletian’s eastern
capital of Nicomedia, and to seal the pact, divorced his first wife to marry
Galeria Valeria, the only daughter of Diocletian. A t the same time in
Milan, Maximian installed as his Caesar his praetorian prefect and son-in-
law, Constantius I. The new Caesar of the West was immediately sent to
dislodge Carausius from his naval bases on the Continent, which he did
with great success by the summer of 293.
With the new formula providing greater flexibility to handle military
threats in the far corners of the Empire, Diocletian was able once again to
battle the Sarmatians in 294, perhaps with his new Caesar at his side. To
numismatists this was an important year, for Diocletian implemented a sig
nificant coinage reform (see the Numismatic Note below), almost exactly
two decades after Aurelian’s great reform of 274.
TH E T E TR A R C H Y 4IÇ
Although the details are not clear (for some historians suggest Dio
cletian continued to fight on the Danube) it appears as though Diocletian
returned to Syria in 295 and 296. The Sasanians were under the leadership
of a new, fierce king, Narses, who perhaps was the cause of a revolt in
Egypt. The Tetrarchs were stretched to the limit during the next three
years, fighting on all fronts simultaneously. Indeed, this was the moment of
glory for Diocletian, for his system of rule shared among four proved to be
of great value.
Diocletian was immediately occupied with restoring Egypt, which
had revolted under the leadership of Domitius Domitianus, and, presum
ably, a shadowy usurper named Achilleus. The chronology is far from cer
tain, although it seems Diocletian was fully occupied toward the end of
296, through 297 and possibly into 298. He had taken Alexandria by 297,
when Domitius Domitianus was probably executed.
In the meantime, Constantius I had recovered Britain from Allectus
in 296 (or possibly 295 or 297), and subsequently had defeated the A le
manni. Maximian had defeated the Carpi and subsequently the Quinque-
gentiani, a Berber confederation that had revolted in Numidia. In the
East, Galerius had initially faltered against the Sasanian king Narses, but
by 298 had won an astounding victory, recovering Armenia, sacking the
capital of Ctesiphon and claiming much of Mesopotamia for the Romans.
The remaining years of Diocletian’s reign were relatively peaceful and
he devoted himself to domestic reform. His first task, in 299, was to reorga
nize the eastern provinces, which had been the site of revolt and invasion
in the preceding years. Meanwhile, the two Caesars were continuing to
defend the Rhine and the Danube from a perpetual series of invasions by
the Marcomanni, the Carpi, the Sarmatians, the Alemanni and other Ger
manic and nomadic invaders.
In 301, while still in the East at his headquarters in Antioch, Dio
cletian issued his ambitious Edict of Prices, which sought to restore stability
to the economy. Maximum prices were set for a variety of goods and services
in the hope that this would curb the ill effects of runaway inflation. Time
proved, however, that this Edict was ineffective, as the economic forces at
work could not be controlled even under the penalty of law.
In 302, Diocletian traveled throughout Asia Minor, and wintered in
Nicomedia with his Caesar Galerius, who most historians believe was the
motivating force behind the Edict of Persecution that Diocletian issued
late in February, 303. This document called for the burning of Scriptures,
the demolition of churches and the banning of meetings for worship. Later
in the year, he issued edicts that went one step further by causing the
imprisonment of clergymen.
During this same year, Diocletian traveled to Rome where he joined
Maximian in a celebration of their vicennalia (20th anniversary in power)
and their collective triumphs, which included the victory of Galerius

against the Sasanians. This was the only time Diocletian visited Rome
(which was now somewhat remote from the serious concerns of the
Empire) during his tenure as Augustus.
Either late in 303 or early in 304, Diocletian took yet another of the
many bold steps that characterized his principate, for he compelled his col
league Maximian to take an oath that they would retire from office simul
taneously. Maximian was not pleased with the prospect of forfeiting his
power, but he reluctantly agreed.
In mid-December, 303, Diocletian departed for Ravenna, and en route
became so ill that he had to be carried in a litter. Despite his ill health, in
304 Diocletian joined Galerius on the Danubian front to inspect the forti
fications. Perhaps once again under the influence of Galerius, he issued his
final anti-Christian edict in April, after which he returned to Nicomedia.
By year’s end his illness had become so severe as to nearly prove fatal.
The aged emperor announced that on March 1 he and Maximian
would jointly abdicate the throne and would be succeeded as Augusti by
their Caesars, Constantius I and Galerius. Diocletian did so at his Imperial
residence at Nicomedia and Maximian did likewise at his own headquar
ters in Milan. Though Diocletian’s unprecedented gesture is viewed as an
admirable act, we can assume with some certainty that if his health had
not been so poor he would not have been so eager to retire. Nevertheless,
his health improved in the spring.
A n arrangement identical to that created by Diocletian followed in
suit. Two new Caesars, Severus II and Maximinus Daia, were raised in
place of the newly promoted Augusti. Controlling this transfer of power
was Galerius, who was able to convince Diocletian to elect Caesars who
were loyal to himself rather than to Constantius I, whose health was fail
ing. In the process, the two most qualified candidates, Maxentius (the son
of Maximian) and Constantine I (the son of Constantius I) were passed up
for promotion.
Greatly anticipating retirement, Diocletian went to the magnificent
palace he had built on the Adriatic coast at Salonae (Split) to tend to his
gardens. Maximian reluctantly retired to Lucania in Southern Italy. How
ever, the selfish designs of Galerius bred discontent, and by the following
year both Constantine I and Maxentius had staked their own claims.
Even Diocletian was not excluded, for Maximian attempted to lure
him out of early retirement so that they could jointly return to restore
order. Diocletian refused, but Maximian ended up joining the revolt his
son had sparked in Rome. Sharing power with his own son was no easy
task, and Maximian tried unsuccessfully to overthrow him in 308, after
which he sought asylum with his son-in-law and cautious ally, Constantine
the Great (against whom he revolted in 310).
TH E T E T R A R C H Y 42 I
Since the Empire was in a state of Chaos, Galerius also appealed to

Diocletian by hailing him consul for the tenth time and by asking him to
preside at a conference at Carnuntum in November, 308. A t the confer
ence, Diocletian refused to emerge from retirement, but backed a new
arrangement that was as transparent as the one of 305. Galerius remained
the most powerful man in the Empire and Diocletian returned to retire
ment, probably living into his 70s and dying of natural causes. The date of
his death, probably 311, 312 or 316, is disputed among the ancient sources.
N u m ism a tic N o t e :With the exception of some impressive issues of gold

medallions, little of interest occured in the realm of numismatics prior to
293 in the reign of Diocletian. However, as part of his ambitious attempt
to reform the economy, Diocletian completely overhauled the coinage sys
tem, which had continued to degenerate since the reform of Aurelian in
274. Diocletian’s reform had long been attributed to the year 296, but
more recently it has been convincingly placed c. 293/4.
Diocletian reformed the gold aureus by standardizing its purity and
weight: initially, aurei were struck at 70 to the pound (about 4.6 grams),
but two years later he struck them at 60 to the pound, increasing their
weight to about 5.25 grams. Perhaps surprisingly, the reform of gold was
not universal, as some of his mints struck aurei of varying weights. Further,
in the Maximal Edict he specified that a Roman pound (c. 327 grams) of
gold should not cost more than 50,000 denarii communes (a ‘denomination’
seemingly represented by the post-reform laureate).
He also re-introduced high-purity silver in the form of the argenteus,
a coin which approximated the denarius issued by Nero more than two
centuries before. However, this attempt failed as his argentei — the first
coins of good silver to have been struck Empire-wide in about 4 decades —
were quickly removed from the marketplace. Scholars have long suggested
that they were exported in trade with the East and recoined into the Sasa
nian dirhems which are so common today.
Diocletian also reformed the bronze coinages by introducing massive
‘laureate’ bronze coins which often weighed more than 10 grams (and
which contained 2-3% silver). This coin is known to collectors incor
rectly as a ‘follis,’ but is better termed an argentiferous nummus, or simply a
nummus, as is done in this catalog. Two smaller bronzes were also intro
duced: a ‘radiate’ of about 3.0 grams with less than 1% silver content (usu
ally called a ‘post-reform radiate’), and a still-smaller ‘laureate’ piece of
half that weight and seemingly with no silver content which may have
represented the denarius communis. Other small pieces, such as nummus
fractions of uncertain value and the antiquated quinarius (now billon),
were also struck for ceremonial purposes. But Diocletian’s reforms went
well beyond the weight and purity of his coins. He engaged in a massive
recall of earlier coins (including stray provincial pieces), which were
melted down. Furthermore, he nearly doubled the number of mints (from
8 to 14), and ceased the production of provincial coinage at Alexandria
entirely.
MAXIMIAN A.D. 286-c. 310

C a e s a r : a .d . 2 8 5 -2 8 6 (u n d er D io c l e t ia n )
A u g u st u s, is t R e ig n : a .d . 2 8 6-305
( w it h D io c l e t ia n )
2n d R e ig n : a .d . 30 7 -3 0 8
(w it h M a x e n t iu s & C o n s t a n t in e I)
3R D R e i g n : c . a . d . 3 1 0 ( i n d e p e n d e n t )
S o n - i n - la w o f D i o c l e t i a n
F a t h e r o f M a x e n t i u s a n d Fa u s t a
S t e p -f a t h e r o f T h e o d o r a
G r a n d fa th er of R o m u lu s
Marcus Aurelius Valerius Maximianus (‘Maximian Herculius,)> c. A.D.

240 / 50 -c. 310 . The first man to benefit from the rise of Diocletian was his
comrade-in-arms Maximian. Like Diocletian, Maximian was of peasant
Illyrian origin — the son of a shopkeeper near Sirmium — who had risen
through the ranks of the army during the reigns of Aurelian, Probus and
Carus. He seems to have been about five years younger than Diocletian,
who not only had a healthy respect for Maximian’s skills in the art of war,
but must also have trusted him implicitly.
Maximian had two distinctly different careers as emperor — the first
being a noble affair, the second being tragic and disgraceful. During the 20
years he served as Augustus with Diocletian, he had assumed power legiti
mately, and was loyal and efficient. But his forced retirement in 305 caused
this healthy and ambitious man to seek any possible route back to power.
A t first he tried to persuade Diocletian to return with him, then he joined
the rebellion of his son, Maxentius; later, he allied himself with Constan
tine the Great; and finally, in 310, he stole an Imperial treasury to finance
his final, brief career as a renegade.
Maximian’s rise to power came quickly. N ot only was Diocletian
unexpectedly hailed emperor, but he took the bold step of offering to share
his supreme power with Maximian. Diocletian always remained the senior
Augustus, with veto power and the exclusive right to legislate, yet he
entrusted Maximian with a great deal of responsibility and gave him con
siderable freedom of action.
TH E TETRARCH Y 423
About three months after Diocletian had defeated Carinus, he

accorded Maximian the rank of Caesar. Most historians agree this occurred
on July 21, 285, though some suggest it occurred in November. Indeed,
since there are no coins known of Maximian as Caesar, some historians
question whether he ever held that rank. From the very outset, the two
men divided their responsibilities geographically, with Diocletian in the
East and Maximian operating in Italy and all points West.
Maximian’s first task was to quell a revolt staged by the Bagaudae, a
band of oppressed peasantry in Gaul, who had named two of their own,
Amandus and Aelianus, as Augusti. With the help of a naval commander
named Carausius, Maximian crushed the rebellion easily, after which M ax
imian repelled an invasion by the Alemanni and Burgundians along the
Rhine. Maximian was rewarded with the rank of Augustus on April 1, 286,
and in the following year declared himself the son of Hercules, his choice
for a celestial patron, just as Diocletian had done with Jupiter.
The next few years provided enough localized crises to keep M axim
ian in the West. After the victory over the Bagaudae, Maximian entrusted
Carausius with command of the Channel fleet so he could rid the western
coasts of Frankish and Saxon pirates. But this confident gesture backfired,
for Carausius himself turned to piracy and, upon becoming aware that he
was slated for execution, staged a sea-borne rebellion by which he was able
to take control of the island of Britain. Since Maximian was beset by suc
cessive invasions of Alemanni and Burgundians, he could do little to
oppose the pirate ruler. His sole attempt to oust Carausius probably
occurred in 289, and ended in disaster. So badly was he beaten that Carau
sius was able to take control of ports along the northern coast of Gaul
either by seizing them outright or by gaining them in negotiation.
By 291 Maximian was able to take leave of Gaul and go to Milan for a
conference with Diocletian, who in the meantime had been occupied on
the Danubian and Persian frontiers. They no doubt discussed strategies for
making their government and frontier defenses more effective, and for
reclaiming the territories lost to Carausius. The course of action they
eventually adopted was adding two junior members, Caesars, to the Impe
rial fold.
Maximian adopted his son-in-law, Constantius I, and Diocletian
chose his praetorian prefect, Galerius. The ceremonies took place concur
rently on March 1, 293, with Constantius I being installed at Milan and
Galerius receiving his title at Nicomedia. In the West, Maximian retained
control of Italy, Sicily and North Africa, and handed over control of the
troublesome province of Gaul to Constantius I, who established his court
at Trier.
One of the urgent purposes of this Imperial expansion was to defeat
Carausius. Constantius I attacked Carausius’ bases along the northern
coast of Gaul, besieging and capturing Gesoriacum (Boulogne) in the sum-

mer, and soon thereafter seizing the remainder of Carausius’ coastal posses
sions from his Frankish allies in Batavia. Utterly defeated on the
Continent, Carausius returned to Britain that summer only to be assassi
nated by his chief minister, Allectus. Constantius embarked on three years
of careful preparations for the anticipated invasion of Britain.
In 294 and 295 the West was relatively peaceful, whereas Diocletian
and Galerius were fully occupied on the Danubian front and in Asia
Minor. By 296, however, trouble erupted in all quarters of the Empire, and
each of the four leaders was simultaneously occupied with war: Diocletian
in Egypt, Galerius on the Danube and in Asia Minor, and Constantius I in
Gaul and Britain. While Constantius was occupied with the recovery of
Britain, Maximian kept the peace in the rest of the western part of the
Empire. He began by reinforcing the defenses on the Rhine and by repel
ling an invasion of the Carpi on the Danube.
In that same year, 296, after defending the Rhine and the Danube,
Maximian advanced south into Spain, where he seems to have cam
paigned briefly before crossing over either late in that year or in 297, to
Numidia, where he suppressed an uprising by a Berber confederation
known as the Quinquegentiani. By 298 all the dust had settled and the
victories were impressive. The Sasanians had been roundly defeated, the
rebellion of Domitius Domitianus and Achileus in Egypt had been crushed
and Britain had been recovered.
Maximian had singlehandedly restored peace to North Africa, estab
lishing a mint in Carthage, bringing an end to the Berber and Numidian
raiding parties, and strengthening frontier defenses from Mauretania to
Libya. For this he held a triumph in Carthage either late in 297 or on
March 10 of 298 (sources differ), and held a formal Triumph when he
reached Rome in 299.
During the remainder of the joint-reign of Diocletian and Maximian,
most of the frontier warfare was conducted by the two Caesars. Diocletian
devoted most of his effort to re-organizing and legislating in the East, with
Maximian most often administering affairs in the West from his headquar
ters in Milan.
The year 303 was eventful, for not only did the Great Persecution of
the Christians begin, but Diocletian and Maximian traveled to Rome,
where in November they celebrated their vicennalia (20th anniversary)
and multiple triumphs for victories in Britain, North Africa, Persia and
Egypt. However, Diocletian’s health was worsening, and when he left
Rome for Ravenna in mid-December, he was so ill that he had to be car
ried in a litter. Either prior to leaving Rome in 303 or at Ravenna early in
TH E TE TR A R C H Y 425
304, Diocletian persuaded Maximian to swear an oath jointly to abdicate

at some unspecified time in the near future.
During the remainder of 304, Dioceltian struggled with his illness,
and spent most of his time with Galerius, who was lobbying for his two
main agendas — the persecution of Christians and making certain that the
next Tetrarchic arrangement would favor him exclusively. By the end of
the year, Diocletian’s illness was nearly fatal and he did not recover until
the spring of 305. Having determined the time was right, he announced
that on March 1, he and Maximian would abdicate and pass the titles of
Augustus onto their Caesars, Galerius and Constantius I, who would in
turn elect their own Caesars.
This was an especially difficult event for Maximian, who was not yet
ready to abdicate, but felt obliged to keep his oath. To make matters worse,
Galerius arranged affairs such that M aximians own son, Maxentius, was
passed over for promotion in favor of Galerius’ nephew, Maximinus Daia,
and a comrade-in-arms, Severus II. Maximian had no choice but to retire
humbly to a villa in southern Italy, perhaps in Lucania.
The death of the new senior Augustus, Constantius I, in July of 306
brought about a new turn of events, for his son, Constantine I, seized
power in the West. Galerius once again passed up Maxentius by acknowl
edging Constantine I as Caesar and promoting Severus II from Caesar to
Augustus. This second insult to Maxentius, combined with Galerius’
intention to eliminate the Praetorian camp in Rome and to impose new
taxation on the city, caused a rebellion in the ancient capital. On October
28, 306, the citizens and the praetorian guards hailed Maxentius their
leader, and he assumed the titles Princeps and Caesar. Joining Rome was
all of southern Italy, the islands of Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica, and the
important diocese of Africa.
Maxentius soon asked his father to join the revolt, which he did
immediately, especially since his earlier efforts to lure Diocletian out of
retirement had failed. He began by marshaling forces in Rome to oppose
the expected invasion by Severus II, who was headquartered at Milan.
Maximian and Maxentius abandoned any pretense of cooperation with
Galerius and Severus II, and in February of 307 (or in April, at the latest)
both assumed the title of Augustus. Despite his greater reputation, M axim
ian was considered the junior of the two, for the rebellion had been
sparked by his son.
When Severus brought his armies to the walls of Rome in the spring
of 307, Maximian put his decades of military experience to good use.
Through both bribery and heartfelt appeals (he had formerly commanded
the men in Severus’ legions), he caused most of Severus’ army to defect.
Severus retreated north, being pursued the whole while by Maximian, who
eventually besieged him at Ravenna. Severus was coaxed into surrendering

and abdicating on the condition that his life would be spared.
Realizing his victory was only temporary, Maximian traveled to Gaul
to form an alliance with Constantine I, whom Galerius had grudgingly
hailed Caesar in the West. Both men realized that Galerius was their
enemy in common, and so Constantine married Maximian’s daughter,
Fausta, and made a half-hearted pact. Furthermore, Constantine pro
claimed himself Augustus, even though his official rank remained Caesar.
Galerius invaded Italy later in 307. Maxentius acted first by executing
the captive Severus II and then by employing his father’s tactic of bribery,
which caused another mass defection of troops to his cause. N ot wanting
to suffer the same fate as his ill-fated colleague, Galerius quickly withdrew
to Illyria before Constantine had the opportunity to advance on his rear.
Maximian returned to Rome early in 308 to join his son, whom he
promptly attempted to overthrow at a meeting (probably) on April 20. He
failed in this endeavor and fled Italy to seek asylum with his new son-in-
law, Constantine I. In the meantime, Constantine had stirred the vicar of
North Africa, Lucius Domitius Alexander, to revolt against Maxentius.
Whether Alexander did this based on a secret pact with Maximian before
he returned to Italy is uncertain. In any event, it was a master stroke that
contributed much to Maxentius’ eventual downfall by starving Rome of
most of its grain supply.
By now the Empire was in chaos, and Galerius was at a loss for a solu
tion. So he called a conference at Carnuntum on November 11, 308, at
which he hoped his opponents would be willing to make compromises.
Galerius’ first hope was to lure Diocletian out of retirement, but instead he
only managed to gain his attendance and his approval for a new arrange
ment sometimes called the First Revised Tetarchy.
In the new arrangement, Constantine was confirmed as Caesar
(though he still openly claimed the title Augustus), Maximian was
stripped of his self-proclaimed title of Augustus, and Maxentius remained a
public enemy. Meanwhile, Galerius retained his nephew, Maximinus Daia,
as Caesar, and raised another of his comrades, Licinius I, to the post of
Augustus which had been vacated by Severus II. In the end, nothing had
really changed and further unrest became unavoidable.
Maximian returned to Gaul in defeat, and could do little more than
serve as an adviser to Constantine. But after more than a year in that
capacity, he grew unsatisfied. In a fit of desperation, in the spring of 310,
Maximian revolted against Constantine, who was battling the Franks on
the Rhine. He seized the Imperial treasure in Arles, declared himself
emperor and, upon learning of Constantine’s unexpectedly fast pursuit,
fled south.
TH E T E T R A R C H Y 427
The purpose of his rebellion remains uncertain. It may have been an

abortive attempt to overthrow Constantine in Gaul or, from the south of
Gaul, he may have hoped to launch a naval expedition against his son in
Italy or, even more likely, to come to the defense of Alexander in
Carthage.
But Maximian’s third reign (which some historians, citing Lactantius’
De Mortibus Persecutorum, believe occured in 309) lasted only a few weeks.
Indeed, his plans were foiled by his own daughter, Fausta, who betrayed his
designs to her husband, Constantine. Constantine’s fast pursuit from the
Rhine ended in a siege of Massalia, where Maximian had taken refuge. By
June or July of 310 (though some historians prefer 311), Constantine had
executed his father-in-law or had allowed him to commit suicide.
The senate in Rome proclaimed Maximian divus, and Maxentius used
this to the fullest political advantage, for not only did it stir up enmity
against his sworn enemy Constantine, but it was well received by the army.
Maximian’s status changed late in 312 when Constantine took control of
Rome and subjected him to damnatio memoriae. In an effort to rehabilitate
M aximians memory, his wife, Eutropia, later swore that he had not sired
Maxentius.
On the whole, M aximians coinage follows the pat

terns established by Diocletian, and during the course of more than two
decades as Augustus many interesting reverse types were created. Since
M aximians ‘house’ was devoted to Hercules, that hero makes frequent
appearances on his coins. Sometimes Maximian appears in the guise of
Hercules, donning a lion’s skin and club about his shoulders (on aureliani
ani), or wearing the lion’s scalp on his head (on post-reform gold medal
lions and aurei).
Coins were struck for Maximian during every stage of his Imperial
career except the first and the last. Though ancient literary sources inform
us that Maximian began his career with the subordinate rank of Caesar
(from 285 to 286), the title does not appear on any of his coins; likewise,
we can be certain that no coins are attributable to M aximian’s ephemeral
third reign as Augustus. Between these, however, coins were struck for
Maximian during his first reign and for his first abdication (both with Dio
cletian), during his second reign (by Maxentius and Constantine the
Great), and after his second abdication. After his death he was honored
with commemorative coinages struck by his estranged son Maxentius, his
spurned son-in-law Constantine the Great and his comrade-in-arms and
beneficiary Licinius I.
AMANDUS C . A .D . 2 8 5 - 2 8 6
Gnaeus Silvius Amandus, d. A .D . 286. O f Amandus we know virtually
nothing except that he was a leader of the Bagaudae (Bacaudae), a group
of oppressed Gaulish peasants and army deserters who banded together
and turned to marauding while Carinus and Diocletian were occupied
with their own struggle in the Balkans. The name Bagaudae is of Celtic
origin and appears to have meant “the warriors.”
While this group was terrorizing Gaul, they apparently hailed two of
their chieftains, Amandus and Aelianus, as emperors. Upon consolidating
his own authority, Diocletian invested Maximian with the rank of Caesar
and sent him west to end the marauding. Upon arrival, Maximian enlisted
the assistance of the naval commander Carausius and was able swiftly to
crush the revolt. Though some historians suggest the revolt was quelled
late in 285, more likely it was not stamped out until the spring of 286.
As a consequence of this campaign, Maximian was raised to the rank
of Augustus, and entrusted Carausius with supreme command of the
Channel Fleet and the task of ridding the western coasts of Frankish and
British pirates. As is related in his individual biography, Carausius soon
carved out his own separatist Empire in Britain and coastal Gaul.
N u m ism a t ic N o t e : N o coins are known of Aelianus, and of Amandus the

authors of RIC list three.
DOMITIUS DOMITIANUS
C . A .D . 2 9 6 - 2 9 7 / 8
Lucius Domitius Domitianus, d. A .D . 297/ 8( 7).

Virtually nothing substantial is known of Domitius
Domitianus, whose career as an Imperial thorn
may have begun c. 271-272, when a man of that
name challenged the emperor Aurelian in the Bal
kans. However, the revolt for which he is best
known — and for which he struck coinage — occurred a quarter century
later at Alexandria.
The years 296 and 297 were particularly troubled for the Tetrarchs,
with wars developing simultaneously on several fronts. Constantius I was
involved with reclaiming Britain from the usurper Allectus, Maximian was
fighting the Quinquegentiani in North Africa, Galerius was struggling
against the Sasanians (whom he would later defeat), and Diocletian had
TH E TETRARCH Y 429
personally devoted himself to stamping out the revolt which had been
ignited in Egypt.
Revolts in Egypt were especially dangerous, for not only was that
province a steady source of monetary revenue, but it was also one of the
Empire’s three main sources of grain. During this time period, revolts had
broken out simultaneously in two of these primary sources, Africa and
Egypt, and the Tetrarchs were rightly concerned about securing them.
The chronology and circumstances of Domitianus’ revolt are far from
certain. Some scholars place its beginning in 295 and its ending as late as
298. Estimates of its duration range from only a few months to perhaps two
years. Adding to the confusion is the uncertain interplay between Domi
tius Domitianus and Aurelius Achilleus, a man with whom Domitianus is
often confused. Though Achilleus may have been the true source of Domi
tianus’ power, no coins are known that bear his name or likeness. It is pos
sible that these two men revolted simultaneously, with Domitianus in
Lower Egypt and Achilleus in Upper Egypt.
Unfortunately, the ancient sources are scanty, misleading or contra
dictory. Historians tend to link the Egyptian uprising to activities of the
Sasanian king Narses, who in 296 attacked Armenia and even threatened
Syria. Diocletian summoned Galerius from the Danubian front to launch a
counteroffensive, which he did with disastrous results in 297. He acted
rashly and was severely defeated by Narses at a battle that occurred
between Callinicum and Carrhae.
However, Galerius received reinforcements from the Danubian front
and launched a surprise offensive, recovering Armenia (from which the
puppet king Tiridates had been expelled), moving freely along the Tigris
and Euphrates, and even sacking the capital of Ctesiphon. In 298 Narses
was forced to agree to a humiliating treaty that gave Rome new territory
along the Upper Tigris and considerable war booty. So severe was the
defeat that the terms of the agreement remained largely intact for four
decades.
Since the ancient sources are not consistent in accounting for Dio
cletian’s whereabouts during the earlier part of this period, it is difficult to
determine exactly when and why the Egyptian revolt began. It could have
begun in 296 as the result of Sasanian aggressions, or in 297 in response to
Galerius’ defeat. Some historians suggest that the Egyptian revolt occurred
first (in 295 or 296) and thus provided Narses with the opportunity to
attack Armenia and Syria.
In all probability, Domtianus’ reign lasted about 18 months and
occurred during the years 296 and 297. Most historians believe he was
murdered either in the spring or the final weeks of 297, perhaps at the
hand of Achilleus, who may no longer have considered him useful. Domi
tianus’ death, however, seems not to have ended the revolt in Alexandria.
It may have been continued well into 298 with Diocletian besieging
Achilleus for perhaps eight months.
N u m ism a t ic N o t e : A ll of Domitius Domitianus’ coinage was struck at

Alexandria. It consists of six denominations — three each of Imperial and
provincial coinage. The Imperial denominations are aurei, nummi and
half-nummi, and provincial are octodrachms (or hexadrachms), tet-
radrachms and didrachms. With the latter pieces Domitianus earned the
distinction of being the last man to strike Roman provincial coinage.
Though all of his provincial coins are dated ‘year two,’ this fact alone
yields no important information about the date or even necessarily about
the duration of his revolt. The largest of his provincial coins depicts him
with a radiate crown, whereas the two smaller ones show him laureate.
Each denomination has only one reverse type: the largest portrays Serapis
advancing, the next features the bust of Serapis, and the smallest shows
Nike advancing.
GALERIUS A.D. 305-311

C a e s a r : a .d . 2 9 3 - 3 0 5 ( u n d e r D i o c l e t i a n )
A u g u s t u s : a .d . 3 0 5 - 3 0 6
( w it h C o n s t a n t i u s I)
A.D. 3 0 6 - 3 I I (VARIOUS ARRANGEMENTS)
S o n - i n - la w o f D i o c l e t i a n
H u s b a n d o f G a l e r ia Va l e r ia
F a t h e r o f M a x i m i l l a ( w. o f M a x e n t i u s )
F a t h e r -i n -la w o f M a x e n t i u s
U n c l e o f M a x im in u s D a ia
Gaius Galerius Valerius Maximianus (originally Maximinus, sometimes

called Armentarius), c . A .D . 250/ 60- 3 11 . O f the early life of Galerius lit
tle is known, except that he was a peasant herdsman from a village on the
banks of the Danube, not far from Serdica, in Dacia Ripensis (Upper M oe
sia). We are told that Galerius later renamed this village Romulianum in
honor of his mother, Romula, who had emigrated from the far side of the
Danube.
His personal life is a mystery, except that we are informed he had a
daughter, Valeria Maximillia, by his first wife (whose name is not known),
and a son, Candidianus, by a concubine. Like the other members of the
First Tetrarchy, Galerius made his way up the ranks in the Army under
Aurelian and Probus, and seems to have risen to become Diocletian’s pra
etorian prefect.
TH E TE TR A R C H Y 43 I
Galerius came to power at the Imperial palace in Nicomedia on

March 1, 293, when Diocletian appointed him as his Caesar in the eastern
portion of the Empire. Concurrently, at a ceremony in Milan, Diocletian’s
colleague, Maximian, installed his own Caesar, Constantius I. With the
addition of the two Caesars, the Tetrarchy was formed.
To strengthen his ties to Diocletian, Galerius was compelled to marry
Diocletian’s daughter, Galeria Valeria, shortly after his investiture — per
haps in June of 293. Galerius established his court at Thessalonica, for the
territories under his care were Illyria, the Balkans and seemingly parts of
western Asia Minor. Sources disagree about where the new Caesar spent
his first three years in office, though most likely it was the Danubian front,
keeping the Goths, Sarmatians, Marcomanni and Carpi in check while
overseeing fort construction and civilian projects.
In 296 trouble erupted in two places in Asia: the Sasanian king
Narses invaded Armenia and ousted the Roman puppet king Tiridates, and
a revolt was sparked in Egypt under the usurper Domitius Domtianus. Dio
cletian devoted his attention to the Egyptian revolt and summoned G ale
rius to abandon his campaign against the Carpi and Sarmatians along the
Danubian and instead to prevent Narses from advancing into the wealthy
Roman province of Syria.
Galerius’ first encounter with the Sasanian army was a disaster, for he
attacked with an inferior force, and was severely defeated at a battle
between Callinicum and Carrhae. By early in the following year Galerius
had recovered and replenished his army with units from the Danubian
front. He launched a surprise offensive into Armenia and recovered that
region. N ext he marched into Mesopotamia and even captured the capital
city of Ctesiphon. Thoroughly beaten, Narses sued for peace, and agreed to
unfavorable terms which not only ceded much of northern Mesopotamia
to the Romans, but which initiated a peace that remained more or less
intact for 40 years.
After so impressive a victory, Galerius proceeded to Antioch, whose
citizens no doubt received him warmly as the man who had prevented
Narses from sacking their city. He was joined there late in 298 by Dio
cletian, who had quelled the rebellion in Egypt with great difficulty after a
long siege. Together, they celebrated a triumph apparently wintered in the
capital city. From this point onward, Diocletian devoted himself princi
pally to re-organizing Asia, while Galerius seems to have returned to the
Danubian front, where he gained more victories against the Marcomanni,
the Carpi and the Sarmatians.
Over these years, Galerius’ impact upon Diocletian grew immensely,
and he is believed to be the principal inspiration for Edicts that Diocletian
issued in 303 and 304 calling for the persecution of Christians and the
destruction of their temples and Scriptures. His influence over the senior
Augustus, however, only came to its full realization on March 1, 305, when
Diocletian abdicated his throne, taking with him his reluctant colleague,
Maximian. The selection of the two Caesars approved by Diocletian was
made strongly in favor of Galerius, who now had his comrade, Severus II,
and his nephew, Maximinus Daia, as junior colleagues. His unfortunate co-
Augustus, Constantius I (the senior member of this Second Tetrarchy) was
not only in ill health but had been politically outmaneuvered.
One of the better-qualified candidates who had been passed over was
Constantine I, the eldest son of Constantius I. Ever since 293 the young
man had served as an officer in the East. While he gained valuable experi
ence, he was also something of a political hostage to help ensure the loy
alty of Constantius I in Gaul. Also neglected for promotion was
Maxentius, the son of Maximian. Both of these young men would prove
troublesome to Galerius in the near future as they pursued, with force of
arms, what they considered to be their rightful inheritances.
Now the most powerful man in the Roman government, Galerius
moved his court from Thessalonica to Nicomedia and took command of
Asia Minor as well as the Danubian provinces. His nephew, Maximinus
Daia, was given command of Syria and Egypt, and Severus II was given
Italy and North Africa. However, Galerius’ house of cards began to col
lapse about 17 months later, when the senior emperor, Constantius I, died
on July 25, 306, during a campaign against the Piets. Constantius’ son,
Constantine I, who had been released earlier that year by Galerius, had
earned the affection of the soldiers and was hailed Augustus in his father’s
place. Since the young man held no rank at all, his assumption of the pur
ple was a usurpation. He and Galerius finally agreed upon his assuming the
title of Caesar, at which time Galerius raised Severus II from Caesar to the
vacated title of Augustus.
Galerius was not particularly happy with this arrangement, even
though at least it prevented an open war between East and West. But trou
ble was brewing elsewhere — this time in Rome itself. The greatly
expanded army and bureaucracy created by Diocletian was effective, but
costly. In order to raise revenue, new taxes were being imposed on Italy
and on the city of Rome. This imposition combined with the intention of
eliminating the praetorian guards in the capital, sparked a revolt. On
October 28, 306, the Romans installed as their leader Maxentius, the son
of Maximian, whom Galerius had passed up for promotion in 305.
Maxentius had only a small army, but he called his father out of
retirement and together they assumed the titles of Augusti early in 307.
They repelled the invasion of Severus II, who himself was captured and
later executed. Galerius invaded later in 307, while Maximian was in Gaul
seeking an alliance with Constantine I. But Galerius’ luck was no better,
and he quickly withdrew to Illyria to avoid capture. In the meantime,
TH E T E TR A R C H Y 433
Constantine I had appointed himself Augustus, and a new revolt arose in

North Africa under the leadership of Lucius Domitius Alexander.
The Empire was in civil war, and Galerius invited Diocletian to
emerge from retirement, which he refused to do. Instead, Diocletian
agreed to attend a conference that Galerius held on November 11, 308, at
Carnuntum, where he hoped to resolve the disputes. The results, however,
were unsatisfactory. Nothing of substance changed except that the title of
Augustus, vacated by Severus II upon his surrender at Ravenna in the
spring of 307, was filled by another of Galerius’ comrades, Licinius I.
Constantine remained officially only a Caesar, though he still pro
claimed himself to be Augustus. Maximian was forced to abdicate and
retire, while Maxentius was confirmed as a public enemy. Indeed, Galerius
not only failed to make amends with these three men, but he also infuri
ated his nephew, Maximinus Daia, who was passed over for what he must
have assumed would be a guaranteed promotion from Caesar to Augustus.
The conference was a failure, and the struggle continued Empire-
wide. Galerius had little choice but to give Maximinus Daia and Constan
tine I each the title Filius A ugustorum (“son of the Augusti” ) in 309 and
Augustus in 310. Two other claimants, Maximian and Alexander of
Carthage, perished in 310, but now Galerius’ power was eroding and his
health was failing. Indeed, by the summer of 310 Galerius had succumbed
to an illness that would plague him for the year that remained of his life.
Galerius’ final act was to issue an edict of religious toleration. He pro
mulgated this on April 30, 311, at Serdica, just five days before he died.
After his death, the Balkan territories were quickly occupied by Licinius I
and Galerius’ territories in Asia Minor were claimed by Maximinus Daia.
Four men were now left to govern the Roman Empire — but this was no
Tetrarchy as Diocletian had envisioned, for each man held the title of
Augustus and each coveted the possessions of his rivals.
The death of Galerius was recorded in excruciating detail by the
Christian writer Eusebius, and it remains one of the literary highlights of
the era: “Without warning, suppurative inflammation broke out round the
middle of his genitals, then a deep-seated fistular ulcer: these ate their way
incurably into his inmost bowels. From them came a teeming indescribable
mass of worms, and a sickening smell was given off; for the whole of his
hulking body, thanks to over-eating, had been transformed even before his
illness into a huge lump of flabby fat, which then decomposed and pre
sented to those who came near with a revolting and horrifying sight.”
In addition to his regular Imperial coinage, Galerius

authorized a series of ‘autonomous’ coins at Antioch, Nicomedia and
Alexandria as part of his persecution of Christians. These are listed in a
separate section entitled Pagan Coinage of The Great Persecution, which
follows the catalog entry of Maximinus Daia. After a most painful death,
Galerius was consecrated and was honored by Maximinus Daia and Licin
ius I. Though these two Augusti would be expected to honor him (for they
were his beneficiaries), Galerius was also honored by his nephew and bitter
enemy Maxentius, who was willing to put aside his personal hatred to reap
the benefits of associating his own outlawed regime with that of his
deceased uncle.
GALERIA VALERIA
293( ? ) - 3i i
A u g u s t a , a .d .
W if e o f G a l e r iu s
D a u g h t e r o f D io c l e t ia n
Galeria Valeria, d. A.D. 314 / 5 . Galeria Valeria,

the daughter of Diocletian and his wife Prisca, led
an interesting life, though precious few details survive. Her life as Augusta
was no doubt a comfortable existence in the Imperial courts of Thessalon-
ica and Nicomedia, but good fortune abandoned her when her husband
fell ill and died in 311.
She married Galerius either in 292 or in June of 293 (or perhaps
around the time he was installed as Caesar on March 1, 293). Early in his
reign, Galerius honored his wife by assigning the name Valeria to a new
province that had been carved from Lower Pannonia. Valeria had no chil
dren of her own, so she adopted her husband’s bastard son, Candidianus,
whom he had sired with a concubine. The royal couple seems to have been
compatible, for she supported Galerius in his endeavors, especially the per
secution of Christians. We have no solid evidence of when Galeria was
hailed Augusta. It may have been when Galerius was made Caesar in 293,
when he was hailed Augustus in 305, or at the conference of Carnuntum
in 308.
On his deathbed, Galerius asked Licinius I to ensure the welfare of his
wife and his son, but Valeria feared for her safety, and fled to the court of
Maximinus Daia, the nephew of her former husband. Regrettably, that
arrangement did not work out either, for Maximinus Daia proposed mar
riage to her in 312. When she refused, he confiscated her estates and ban
ished her and her mother to Syria, despite the protestations of her father,
Diocletian. When Maximinus Daia neared death, Valeria and her mother
escaped and wandered for many months in Syria until they were discov
ered (in Thessalonica, by some accounts) in September of 314 or in 315.
Mother and daughter were beheaded by Licinius I, who earlier had exe
cuted Candidianus along with the sons of Severus II and Maximinus Daia.
CONSTANTIUS I ‘CHLORUS’
A .D . 3 0 5 - 3 0 6
C a e s a r : a .d . 2 9 3 - 3 0 5 ( u n d e r M a x i m i a n )
A u g u s t u s : a . d . 3 0 5 - 3 0 6 ( w it h G a l e r i u s )
H u sb a n d o f H e le n a a n d T h e o d o r a
F a t h e r o f C o n s t a n t i n e t h e G r e a t (b y H e l e n a ) a n d
C o n sta n tia (w . o f L ic in iu s I; by T h eod ora)
S o n - in - la w o f M a x im ia n
G r a n d f a t h e r o f C r i s p u s , C o n s t a n t i n e II,
C o n s t a n t i u s II, C o n s t a n s , C o n s t a n t i u s G a l l u s ,
Ju lia n II, D e lm a tiu s, H a n n ib a llia n u s , L ic in iu s II
a n d N e p o tia n
Flavius Valerius (or Julius) Constantius, c . A .D . 250- 306. The shortest-

lived of the original Tetrarchs, Constantius I was of humble Danubian ori
gin and rose through the ranks of the army to become governor of Damia-
tia, and seemingly the praetorian prefect of the emperor Maximian.
Constantius’ nickname Chlorus (“the pale” ) was applied posthumously,
not before the 6 th Century, and his supposed Dardanian nobility and kin
ship to the emperor Claudius II “Gothicus” are a later invention of his
eldest son.
In addition to his military and political career, Constantius (who was
reputedly generous and capable) had a rich family life. One of his earliest
associations was with a barmaid named Helena, whose father owned the
tavern in Naïssus at which she worked. Although it is disputed whether he
and Helena ever married, she did bear him a son, who later came to be
known as Constantine the Great.
Constantius severed his relations with Helena sometime in the 280s
so he could marry Theodora, the step-daughter of the emperor Maximian,
under whom he was serving. He and Theodora were presumably a happy
couple, for they had six children together. Though none of these children
attained imperial rank, the second generation proved to be both promi
nent and ill-fated in that respect.
On March 1, 293, Constantius was promoted to the rank of Caesar by
Maximian. After his investiture at Milan, he immediately departed for
Trier, where he established his court. He had been allocated the province
of Gaul, which at the time was not an enviable assignment, for Britain and
parts of coastal Gaul were in the possession of the usurper Carausius, and
Germans frequently launched invasions across the Rhine. Indeed, Con-
stantius spent almost all of his career as Caesar and Augustus fighting on
the Rhine and in Britain.
Constantius’ first task was to expel Carausius from his land bases in
Gaul so he would be confined to the island of Britain. In the summer of
293, fresh from his investiture, Constantius besieged Gesoriacum (Bou
logne) in a risky campaign. After a siege that caused starvation, the city
was captured. A palisade that Constantius had built across the mouth of
the harbor prevented Carausius’ navy from interfering with the siege.
The remaining portions of coastal Gaul held by Carausius were
reclaimed from his Frankish allies in Batavia. Roundly defeated, Carausius
returned to his island kingdom only to be assassinated by one of his minis
ters, Allectus, upon landing. Constantius next turned his attention to the
Rhine frontier while the shipyards at Gesoriacum and Rotomagus (Rouen)
began constructing vessels for an invasion of Britain.
By 296 (though some suggest 295 or 297) the navy was ready and the
long-anticipated invasion commenced. Constantius led his fleet from
Gesoriacum to the coast of Kent, and his praetorian prefect, Asclepi-
odotus, sailed from Rotomagus to the southern shores of Hampshire, where
he narrowly missed Allectus’ fleet in the fog near the Isle of Wight.
Asclepiodotus disembarked his army and set his vessels ablaze before
he led his legions on the nearly 100-mile journey to London. The Romans
were met en route by Allectus’ army, and in the ensuing battle the Romans
were not only victorious, but killed Allectus as well. The remaining sol
diers fled back to London, but were prevented from sacking the city by the
timely arrival of Constantius’ fleet, which could be seen sailing up the
Thames at the very moment. The invasion was a resounding success, but
Constantius did not have the luxury of time, for hostilities had renewed on
the Rhine. The other members of the Tetrarchy were occupied with wars
elsewhere (Maximian in Africa, Diocletian in Egypt and Galerius in Per
sia). But all these had had been concluded successfully by 298.
Constantius, however, faced a fresh invasion by the Alemanni, who
had been forced across the Rhine by the Burgundians. This was a difficult
year’s-end campaign in which he was wounded, but he eventually gained
the upper hand before a new wave of various Germans swept across the
frozen Rhine early in 299. In 302 Constantius defeated the Alemanni at
Langres in the most spectacular victory he had earned since expelling Car
ausius from Gaul and reclaiming Britain from Allectus.
Constantius’ health began to deteriorate in the succeeding years, and
by the time Diocletian and Maximian abdicated in May of 305 (which
made Constantius the Senior Augustus), his health was quite poor. In the
arrangements made for the succession, the two new Caesars, Severus II
and Maximinus Daia, were both allies of Galerius, who consequently was
the most powerful man in the Empire. The Caesar appointed to Constan-
TH E TE TR A R C H Y 43 7
tius in the West was Severus II, who was given what seemed to be the safer
command in Italy.
Shockingly passed over for promotion were the capable sons of the
two western members of the Tetrarchy: Maximian s son, Maxentius, and
Constantius’ own son, Constantine I. During the dozen years his father
had commanded in the West, Constantine I had served as an officer for
Diocletian. Though he was educated and trained in the art of war, he was
also a “hostage” by which Diocletian could assure that Constantius would
remain loyal.
After his promotion to Augustus, Constantius requested that C on
stantine I be sent west so they could be united. Constantius’ health was
now seriously faltering and the request seemed legitimate. None-the-less,
when Constantine departed Nicomedia, he traveled as quickly and quietly
as possible, for he suspected Galerius or Severus II might attempt to mur
der him en route. After journeying from the Propontis to Boulogne, young
Constantine was finally reunited with his father in 306.
Father and son jointly campaigned against the Piets with such success
that Constantius earned the title “Britannicus Maximus,” and his son
earned the admiration and affection of the soldiers under his father’s com
mand. However, this new arrangement ended on July 25, 306, when C on
stantius died of natural causes at Eburacum (York) after having served his
Empire for a dozen years as Caesar and less than 15 months as Augustus.
Constantius’ deathbed act was the transferal of imperium to his son,
an event witnessed by the soldiers, we are told. Initially, Constantine took
the title Augustus, but after some consideration he settled for the rank of
Caesar, which Galerius was willing to grant him under the circumstances.
In his father’s place as Augustus in the west, Galerius promoted Severus II
from his previous rank of Caesar.
Coinage was struck in the name of Constantius I for a

dozen years as Caesar, and for about 15 months as Senior Augustus. With
the exception of some spectacular gold medallions, these issues are virtu
ally identical to the issues of the other Tetrarchs. However, he was hon
ored with large posthumous coinages struck by the rebel Maxentius and by
his eldest son, Constantine the Great. Maxentius’ most interesting com-
memoratives refer to Constantius I as a cousin or blood relative with the
inscriptions COGN and ADFINI. This claim was a stretch, but was essen
tially true, for Constantius had married Maxentius’ step-sister, Theodora.
On some of the coins struck by his own son, Constantius is praised as
reposing with the greatest honor (REQVIES OPTIMORVM MERITORVM).
These issues, struck c. 317-318, not only honor Constantius, but also two
other deceased emperors: Constantine’s father-in-law, Maximian, and
Claudius II (268-270). The latter was an important part of Constantine’s
propaganda, in which he claimed descent from that beloved emperor based

on a fictional kinship between Claudius II and his own father.
HELENA
N o b l i s s i m a F e m in a , a . d . 3i 7(?)~324
A u g u s t a , a .d . 3 2 4 - 3 2 8 /3 0
F i r s t W ife o f C o n s t a n t i u s I
M o th e r o f C o n sta n tin e th e G r e a t
S te p - m o th e r o f C o n s t a n t i a a n d L ic in iu s I
G r a n d m o t h e r o f C r isp u s, C o n s t a n t in e II,
C o n sta n tiu s II, C o n s t a n s , C o n s t a n t i n a (w . o f
H a n n ib a llia n u s & C o n s ta n tiu s G a llu s ) a n d
H e le n a th e Y o u n g e r
G r e a t - G r a n d m o t h e r o f C o n s t a n t i a (w . o f
G r a tia n )
Flavia Julia Helena (Saint Helena), c . A .D . 248/50 (or c . 257 O - C . 328/

330. Helena figures into the early life of the emperor Constantius I, whom
she met while working at her father’s tavern in Naïssus. She was a
Bithynian by birth, and the city in which she was born, Drepanon (Drep-
ana), was later renamed Helenopolis in her honor. Her life was most
extraordinary, for not only was she the mother of Constantine the Great,
but she began life as a barmaid and ended it as a Christian saint.
The details of her relationship with Constantius I are not certain. A t
the very least she was his mistress, but more than likely she was his wife,
for they seem to have been married in about 270. This discrepancy may
have been invented by the opponents of Constantine the Great, who
wished to portray him as a bastard son by suggesting Helena was nothing
more than a concubine.
Whether it was a legitimate marriage or something less formal, H el
ena’s association with Constantius I ended in the 280s, when she was put
aside so he could advance his career by marrying Theodora, the step
daughter of the emperor Maximian. The exact date of the separation is
unknown, though sometime between 287 and 289 seems likely.
Thereafter Helena remained somewhat anonymous, working behind
the scenes to suppress the larger branch of the family that resulted from
Constantius’ subsequent marriage to Theodora. Considering her less-than-
exalted behavior as a barmaid and her vicious behavior toward her step
children, her suitability for sainthood seems dubious at best. Both she and
her daughter-in-law, Fausta, were given the title Nobilíssima Femina, per
haps around 317, and were jointly hailed Augustae on November 8 , 324.
TH E TETRARCH Y 439
By the time she was hailed Augusta, Helena had converted to Chris
tianity. About two years later, perhaps in an effort to distance herself from
the tragic deaths of Crispus and Fausta in 326, Helena embarked on a
Christian pilgrimage to Holy Places, upon which she gathered numerous
holy relics (the True Cross said to be among them) and constructed
churches in Bethlehem and Jerusalem. Sources differ on the date of her
death, which seems to have occurred when she was about 80 years old,
sometime between 328 and 330 while en route to Rome.
N u m ism a tic N o t e : Helenas lifetime issues as Nobilíssima Femina and

Augusta parallel those struck by Constantine the Great for his wife Fausta,
whereas her posthumous coinage was struck simultaneously with the issue
honoring Theodora, the woman who in the late 280s replaced her as the
wife of Constantius I.
A s late as the 19th Century, many numismatists believed that each of
the three coin types bearing the name Helena were struck for a different
royal lady. They alloted the coinage as follows: those inscribed SECVRI-
TAS REIPVBLICE were attributed to the wife of Constantius I, those struck
with the title Nobilissima Femina were given to the wife of Crispus (how
ever, these coins predate Crispus’ wedding in 321), and the type inscribed
PAX PVBLICA was given to the wife of Julian II ‘the Apostate.’ Such views
have long since been abandoned based on hoard evidence and other indi
cations which establish the dating criteria.
THEODORA
A u g u s t a , P o s t h u m o u s l y (?)
S e c o n d W ife o f C o n s t a n t i u s I
S t e p - d a u g h t e r o f M a x im ia n
S te p - s is te r o f M a x e n tiu s a n d F a u s ta
M o t h e r o f C o n s t a n t i a (w . o f L i c i n i u s I)
G r a n d m o t h e r o f D e lm a tiu s, H a n n ib a llia n u s ,
C o n sta n tiu s G a llu s , Ju lia n II, L i c i n i u s II
a n d N e p o tia n
Flavia Maximiana Theodora, lifespan unknown. Theodora was the

daughter of Afranius Hanniballianus (the consul of 292 and praetorian
prefect of Diocletian) and Eutropia, a lady who married the emperor M ax
imian, seemingly after Theodora was born. Sometime in the 280s (perhaps
in 288) she entered into a dynastic marriage with Constantius I, a soldier
who may have been her step-father’s praetorian prefect. However, to marry
her, Constantius I had to sever his ties to his former wife (or companion),
Helena. A few years after they married, Constantius was raised to the rank
of Caesar by his father-in-law.
Unlike most dynastic marriages, theirs flourished and in the process
produced three daughters and three sons. Although none of these six chil
dren attained Imperial rank, Theodora’s grandchildren figured promi
nently in the history of the Empire as the hapless victims of a dynastic
cleansing in 337 which nearly made her branch of the family extinct.
Coinage was struck for six of her grandchildren, all but one of whom
died under unpleasant circumstances. Delmatius and Hanniballianus were
given prominent places in Constantine the Great’s plan of succession, only
to be promptly slaughtered by the grandchildren of Helena; Nepotian
sparked a revolt in Rome which lasted only a month; and the three-year
rule of Constantius Gallus is remembered only for his astonishing cruelty.
Indeed, Julian II, “the Apostate,” was the only one of her grandsons who
served the Empire with distinction.
N u m ism a t ic N o t e : Restricted to a single type of the smallest bronzes

struck at Trier, Rome and Constantinople, Theodora’s posthumous coin
age was struck side-by-side with the posthumous commemoratives of Hel
ena, the woman with whom Constantius I severed relations so he could
marry Theodora. The very existence of Theodora’s coinage is somewhat
ironic, for it was struck by her step-grandchildren Constantine II, Con-
stans and Constantius II, the three emperors who were responsible for the
virtual extinction of Theodora’s branch of the family in 337. Her title
Augusta is unattested during her lifetime, and may have been awarded
posthumously.
SEVERUS II, A.D. 306-307

C a e s a r : a .d . 3 0 5 -3 0 6 (u n d er G a l e r iu s )
A u g u s t u s : a .d . 3 0 6 -3 0 7 (w it h G a l e r iu s )
Flavius Valerius Severus, d . A .D . 3 0 7 . Although

of humble Illyrian origin and not related to any of
the Tetrarchs, Severus II was a close friend of
Galerius, who hailed him Caesar upon his own
promotion to Augustus when Diocletian and Maximian retired on May 1,
305. O f all the men who legitimately held titles in the Tetrarchy, Severus
had the shortest and certainly the most unfortunate career.
Severus was installed as the Caesar for the western portion of the
Empire, and technically served under the western Augustus, Constantius I.
Since Constantius I was the Senior Augustus, Severus was senior in status
to the other new Caesar, Maximinus Daia, who was the nephew of
Galerius.
The new arrangement was stacked against Constantius I, for not only
was his health failing, but both of the new Caesars were loyal to Galerius
in the East. Theoretically, Severus should have been loyal to Constantius
I, for not only was he the Senior Augustus, but he also was the Augustus
under whom Severus (a Herculian) had been assigned to serve.
But Severus owed his position to his friend Galerius, so that is where
his loyalty rested. The fact that Galerius willingly gave Severus Pannonia
to add to his realm (which at that point was limited to Italy and North
Africa) demonstrates that he was quite trusting of his comrade-in-arms.
On July 25 of 306, some 15 months after Severus had been hailed
Caesar, Constantius I died at York while campaigning against the Piets.
On his deathbed, he bequeathed his throne to his eldest son, Constantine
I, who recently had joined him on the British front. Constantine and
Galerius compromised, and finally agreed that the young man would be
hailed Caesar in the West. Since that was Severus’ job description, he was
duly promoted to western Augustus.
However, this fortuitous turn of events brought no good luck to
Severus, who was required about this time to enforce Galerius’ new poli
cies in southern Italy. Since this region had become less important with
the passage of time, Galerius now intended to tax all of south Italy (includ
ing Rome), a region that had been exempt for centuries. He also intended
to eliminate Rome’s praetorian guard, which had already been reduced to a
city garrison, and which he believed was an unnecessary expense.
N ot surprisingly, the policy was immensely unpopular, and it was
Severus who suffered the consequences. The citizens and soldiers in Rome
favored revolt to submission. The praetorian guards spearheaded this
movement, for they were slated for extinction. They chose as their leader
Maxentius, the son of Maximian, the emperor who had been forced to
retire in 305. Maxentius was also unhappy with the tide of events, for he
had been passed over for promotion twice and was eager to stake his claim.
On November 28, 306, the rebellion became official, as Maxentius
illegally assumed the titles Caesar and Princeps. He controlled Rome and
all of southern Italy, and managed to gain the allegiance of Sicily, Sardinia,
Corsica and North Africa, and later still, Spain. Over the winter, M axen
tius had lured his father out of retirement and asked him to organize the
defense of Rome, which had relatively few soldiers.
It seems as though Maxentius and Maximian had assumed the titles
of Augustus by February 307, which left Severus with no option but to lead
an army from his headquarters in Milan to Rome and crush the revolt. He
set out late in February or early in March and arrived at the walls of Rome
early in the spring (though some authorities prefer the fall of 307).
Since most of the soldiers under Severus’ command had formerly

served under Maximian, Severus was at a great disadvantage. There was a
mass defection among Severus’ soldiers when they heard the old emperor’s
pleas and were sufficiently tempted by his bribes. Severus was now on the
defensive, and his retreat up the Italian peninsula was not swift enough to
avoid being forced to take refuge at Ravenna.
In a matter of days Severus had abdicated his throne and surrendered
(March or April) on the condition that his life be spared. Severus was
escorted back to Rome and Maximian immediately set out for Gaul, where
he hoped to make an alliance with Constantine the Great.
Galerius was furious at the turn of events and launched his own inva
sion of Italy, probably in April. This caused Maxentius to execute Severus
sometime during the summer of 307. N ot surprisingly, Galerius’ soldiers
began to defect in large numbers, for they were just as easily enticed by the
liberal bribes of Maxentius. N ot wishing to meet the same fate as his old
friend Severus, Galerius quickly retreated to Illyria, burning everything in
his path so as to prevent Maxentius from pursuing him.
MAXIMINUS II DAIA
A.D. 3 10 -3 13
C a e s a r : a .d . 3 0 5 -3 0 9 (u n d er G a l e r iu s )
F il iu s A u g u sto r u m : a .d . 30 9 -3 1 0
(u n d er G a l e r iu s )
A u g u s t u s : a .d . 3 1 0 - 3 1 3
( v a r io u s a r r a n g e m e n t s )
Gaius Galerius Valerius Maximinus (earlier “Daia” )> c. A .D . 270 (or

284 ? )- 3 i 3 . Maximinus Daia was born in Illyria, probably in 270, though
some authorities suggest he was born on November 20, 284, the same day
Diocletian was hailed emperor. He was the son of a sister of Galerius, and
thus found rapid promotion in the army until he became a member of the
Imperial bodyguard.
Pagan historians found little grounds upon which to fault Daia’s char
acter, except that he was of rustic origin and upbringing, and was “rather
greedy for wine.” However, Christian historians saw him as a force of evil
equal to his uncle Galerius.
When the two founders of the Tetrarchy, Diocletian and Maximian,
abdicated on May 1, 305, the previous two Caesars, Constantius I and
Galerius, were promoted to Augusti. Though Galerius technically was the
TH E TE T R A R C H Y 443
junior of the two new Augusti, he held sway over Diocletian and was able
to secure appointments of two Caesars who were loyal to him. These new
Caesars were Maximinus Daia, his nephew, and an old comrade-in-arms,
Severus II. In one fell swoop, Galerius had effectively gained control of all
but the westernmost territories that were governed by Constantius I.
Clearly, Galerius aimed to replace Diocletian in every respect.
On the occasion of his appointment, Maximinus Daia was adopted by
Galerius. To further cement their ties, Maximinus’ own daughter (who
may have just been born) was betrothed to his uncle’s son, Candidianus.
But what began as an ideal relationship soon turned into a bitter disap
pointment for Maximinus Daia, for he was twice overlooked for promotion
by his uncle Galerius.
Maximinus Daia immediately departed for his provinces of Syria and
Egypt, and made his headquarters at Antioch. Though extremely impor
tant, Syria and Egypt were remote from Europe, which proved to be the
main theater of action during the post-abdication period. There, in 306,
power was seized in the West by Constantine I and in Italy by Maxentius.
Thrown into the mix were Maximian (who joined his son’s revolt in Italy,
later took refuge with Constantine in Gaul and eventually rebelled on his
own account), and Alexander of Carthage, the vicar in the western part of
North Africa who revolted against the rebel Maxentius.
Daia suffered his first disappointment late in the summer of 306,
when he learned that the Senior Augustus Constantius I had died on cam
paign in Britain. His death left vacant the position of Junior Augustus (as
Galerius thus became Senior Augustus), which Galerius chose to fill with
Severus II rather than his nephew. The fact that Severus II was already
established in Europe (for in the process his territory did not change) must
have entered into the decision, but that did little to soothe Daia’s bruised
ego. Even so, Daia did move up in rank, for he was now the Senior Caesar,
with Constantine I becoming Junior Caesar.
His second disappointment occurred in the spring of 307, when
Severus II was captured and subsequently killed by the rebels Maxentius
and Maximian. Instead of promoting his nephew from Caesar to the now-
vacant post of Junior Augustus, Galerius did nothing at all for about 20
months, at which point he held a conference at Carnuntum on November
11, 308. Only one thing of substance was accomplished there: Galerius
appointed another of his comrade-in-arms, Licinius I, to the post vacated
by Severus II.
Maximinus Daia was understandably upset. N ot only had the office
remained vacant for nearly two years, but when his uncle did fill it, he
chose one of his friends — a man who had never even held the office of
Caesar. Maximinus Daia had probably just assumed the promotion would
be his and that someone new would be appointed Caesar in his place.
When Galerius gave the position to Licinius, it must have come as a far
greater shock to Daia than when he was overlooked earlier on account of
Severus II.
Galerius’ actions proved to be foolhardy for disappointment was not
limited to his nephew, but spread to the legions he commanded. The
Empire was in a state of chaos, and the last thing Galerius could risk was a
rebellion in Syria or Egypt. Thus, later in 309, he raised both Maximinus
Daia and Constantine I from Caesar to Filius A ugustorum (“son of the
Augusti” ), a “promotion” that both young men realized was meaningless.
By mid-310, the soldiers of Maximinus Daia hailed him Augustus; they
had grown tired of waiting for Galerius (who was now terribly ill) to do
this voluntarily. Upon being informed of this development, Galerius con
ferred the rank of Augustus on his nephew on May 1, 310, and reluctantly
did the same for Constantine, who demanded equal billing.
When Galerius finally succumbed to his terminal disease in May, 311,
his territories were seemingly bequeathed to Licinius, but effectively were
up for grabs. The two Augusti in a position to seize them were Licinius I
and Maximinus Daia, both of whom aggressively staked their claims.
Licinius was only able to claim Thrace, for Maximinus Daia had reacted
more quickly, and was able to claim all of Asia. The two men encountered
each other at the Propontis and narrowly averted battle by negotiation.
Maximinus Daia wintered in Nicomedia and abolished the edict of
religious toleration (Edict of Serdica) that Galerius had put into effect less
than a week before he died. With great personal conviction, Maximinus
Daia stepped up his anti-Christian activities in the east, determined to
destroy Christianity and to establish a pagan church with the organiza
tional efficiency which the Christians had created. To support his goals,
Daia falsified petitions from cities and forged documents, such as the Acts
(or Memoirs) of Pilate.
The Roman world was once again in a state of chaos, as four hostile
Augusti ruled over a divided Empire. Maximinus Daia was seemingly in a
position of strength, occupying all of the wealthy East and possessing a large,
loyal army. Since all four Augusti were concerned about potential aggres
sions by their neighbors, pacts were made early in 312. The first to unite
were Constantine I and Licinius I, which caused Maximinus Daia and M ax
entius to follow suit. In the aftermath, Daia declared war on Constantine.
Before Galerius died, he not only bequeathed his territories to his old
friend Licinius I, but also requested that he care for his wife, Galeria Vale
ria, and his son, Candidianus. Licinius may have been willing in this
respect, but Valeria was not, and so she fled to the court of her nephew,
Maximinus Daia. But there Valeria found trouble, for Daia (who, we are
told by Christian writers, had always fancied his aunt), insisted on marry
TH E TETRARCH Y 445
ing her. When she refused, Daia treated her poorly, confiscating her estates
and banishing her to Syria. N ot even the protestations of Valeria’s father,
Diocletian, prevented the outrage.
In the end, the alliance between Constantine I and Licinius I proved
the stronger of the two, for it is they who survived the civil war that fol
lowed. Late in 312, Constantine invaded Italy and defeated Maxentius at
the Battle of the Milvian Bridge This victory brought all of the Western
Empire under his command. Now only three Augusti remained, with C on
stantine having been named Senior Augustus by the senate. Maximinus
Daia had little choice but to recognize Constantine’s leading role, revoke
his declaration of war and reluctantly to obey his demand that Christian
persecutions in the East must end.
Daia ceded so much to Constantine out of necessity, for in that same
year, 312, much of his own territory suffered from a poor harvest, and thus
famine. This caused widespread civil unrest and increased brigandage and
piracy, especially in Armenia, where there was violent opposition to M axi
minus Daia’s insistence on the worship of the pagan gods.
Daia’s problems were not limited to his own realm, however, as his
co-Augusti met for a conference in Milan in the beginning of 313. Deter
mined to oppose any stronger alliance between Constantine and Licinius
than already existed, Maximinus Daia led his army on a long march from
Syria to Thrace. With the cruelty of a taskmaster, he drove his armies at
great speed across Asia Minor during the height of winter. What had so
alarmed Maximinus Daia was the planned marriage of Constantine’s half-
sister, Constantia, to Licinius I. Furthermore, the two European Augusti
shared support of the edict of religious toleration known as the Edict of
Milan. Though the marriage occurred on schedule in February, the confer
ence was interrupted by Daia’s surprise invasion of Thrace, the eastern
most territory belonging to Licinius I. Daia crossed the Hellespont late in
March and laid siege to Byzantium (which he may or may not have cap
tured), after which he seems to have captured Heraclea.
Constantine returned to his capital of Trier as Licinius sped east to
confront Maximinus Daia. This could hardly have been better news for
Constantine, who, bent on sole domination of the Empire, figured this
conflict would eliminate one of his two rivals. The numerical advantage
was with Maximinus Daia, whose 70,000 soldiers more than doubled the
30,000 men Licinius could muster to oppose him. However, Daia’s soldiers
were exhausted and were frustrated by their forced march from Syria.
The opposing armies met late in April in south-eastern Thrace, and
the demoralized armies of Maximinus Daia were easily defeated by Licin
ius, who proved himself the more capable general. Historians disagree not
only on the date, but also on the location of this watershed battle. It most
likely occurred on April 30, 313, at Tzirallum (near Heraclea). Alterna-
tively, it may have taken place on May 1 at Tzirallum, or nearby Byzan

tium, or even further inland at Adrianople.
Though later history shows that Licinius was no convert to Christian
ity, at this stage in time he was a supporter of the religion based on his new
alliance with Constantine- Thus, the battle was not merely one of East
against West, but one of Christianity against paganism. Just as had
occurred with Constantine’s Christian armies against Maxentius’ pagan
armies a few months earlier in Italy, Licinius’ outnumbered “Christian”
armies were victorious.
During the course of the battle, Maximinus Daia escaped and, dressed
as a slave, fled toward the Propontis and the city of Nicomedia, after which
he headed due south to Cilicia. He survived some three to six months
thereafter, eventually being discovered and besieged, sometime between
July and September, in Tarsus, where he either died of natural causes or
committed suicide.
His death was probably a quick and practical affair, albeit Christian
writers of the day described it in the most horrific of terms. He is said to
have become blind and reduced to a virtual skeleton, and to have taken a
poison which, unbeknownst to him, required four excruciating days to
prove fatal. O f the poison’s effects we are told: “. . . amid groans which he
uttered as if he were being burnt, he breathed out his guilty spirit in a
death of detestable horror.” All of this is certainly fiction, for it bears too
convenient a parallel to the excruciating death of his uncle Galerius, who
was his equal in Christian persecutions.
N u m ism a t ic N o t e : Coinage for Maximinus Daia was struck in all three

phases of his reign, as Caesar, as Filius A ugustorum and as Augustus. His
issues as Caesar and as Filius A ugustorum largely follow the pattern estab
lished by his uncle Galerius, with coins of the latter category not only
being quite rare, but limited to nummi of Siscia and Thessalonica. His
issues as Augustus — although not as interesting as those of Maxentius or
Constantine — did include noteworthy types. As a Jovian (the “house”
founded by Diocletian), he frequently depicted Jupiter. As a devout east
ern pagan, he favored the sun-god Sol, showing him in a facing quadriga
on billon argentei, and on his reduced nummi standing, holding either a
globe or the head of the Greco-Egyptian god Serapis.
THE TETRARCH Y 447
MAXENTIUS A .D . 3 0 7 - 3 1 2
P r in c e p s a n d C a e s a r : a .d . 3 0 6 - 3 0 7
A u g u s t u s : a .d . 3 0 7 - 3 0 8 (w it h M a x im ia n
a n d C o n s t a n t i n e I)
a .d . 3 0 8 - 3 1 2 ( s o le r e ig n )
S o n o f M a x im ia n a n d E u t r o p ia
B r o t h e r o f Fa u s t a
H u s b a n d o f Va l e r ia M a x im il l a
Fa t h e r o f R o m u l u s
S o n - in - la w o f G a l e r i u s a n d G a l e r i a V a le r ia
B r o th e r - in - la w o f C o n s t a n t in e th e G r e a t
S te p -b r o th e r -in -la w o f C o n s t a n t iu s I
S te p -b ro th e r o f T h e o d o ra
U n c le o f C o n sta n tin e II, C o n s t a n t i u s II a n d C o n sta n s
Marcus Aurelius Valerius Maxentius, c. A .D . 279 or 283- 312 . M axen

tius was probably born in Syria in about 283, seemingly while his father
was participating in the Persian campaign under Carus and Numerian.
Alternatively, he could have been born four years earlier, in 279. He had a
wife, Valeria Maximilla, who bore him two sons, the name of only one of
whom, Romulus, is known.
In genealogical terms, he was better qualified for promotion than any
one else in the Empire, for he was the only son of Maximian (who had
abdicated with Diocletian) and was the son-in-law of Galerius (who had
just been promoted to Augustus in Diocletian’s place). Despite these rela
tions, Maxentius had not been given any serious responsibilities, such as
military commands or consulships.
When Diocletian and Maximian retired in 305, and two new Caesars
were added to the Tetrarchy, it must have come as a shock to Maxentius
that he was passed up for promotion. This occurred again in August of 306,
when the western Augustus, Constantius I, died. Instead of pushing hard
to have his son-in-law promoted, Galerius acquiesced to the demands of
young Constantine I by hailing him Caesar.
Fewer than a hundred days later, the new emperor Severus II
announced that South Italy and the city of Rome would be subjected to
certain taxes to which they had been immune since time immemorial. Fur
thermore, he announced that the praetorian guard in Rome (which by
then was little more than a city garrison) was to be eliminated altogether.
To the citizens this was an outrage and to the guards it spelled doom, so a
rebellion was formed. As their leader the Romans chose Maxentius, who
was then living on the outskirts of Rome.
It was a desperate move, for Rome had only a small civic army in the
praetorian guards, whereas Severus II had a large force stationed at Milan,
in the north of Italy. But at least one important aspect was considered
before the revolt began: the compliance of North Africa was assured. This
meant the Romans and South Italians would have an abundance of grain
during their struggle. Furthermore, Sicily had also joined their revolt, pro
viding a much smaller but important source of food.
On October 28, 306, Maxentius assumed the titles of Caesar and
Princeps. A t this stage he was proceeding cautiously and respectfully, hop
ing that his father-in-law would formally recognize not only the plight of
the Romans, but also his desire to be included in the Imperial power struc
ture. But Maxentius did not get the response for which he had hoped;
instead, Galerius had his junior colleague, Severus II, prepare for war.
Maxentius did likewise over the winter of 306/7 by luring his father,
Maximian, out of his unwanted retirement in Southern Italy. Initially, his
inclusion in the revolt was perhaps the only thing that saved it from
instant failure. Maximian hurriedly organized the army and the city’s
defense, and marshaled the funds necessary to wage war. Though the cir
cumstances were hardly ideal, he was eager to emerge from a dull, forced
retirement.
By February of 307 (though some authorities suggest April), Maxen
tius and Maximian had assumed the titles of Augustus, and braced them
selves for invasion by Severus II, whom the rebels had deprived of the vast
majority of the territory allotted to him. The only areas still under Severus’
authority were Northern Italy and Pannonia; he intended to recover
Southern Italy, Sicily, Corsica, Sardinia and the diocese of Africa.
Late in February or early in March, Severus II led his army the 300
miles from Milan to Rome, where he confronted the rebels. But even
before he reached the walls of Rome (which had been built by Aurelian
and Probus some three decades ago), his campaign was faltering. Maxim
ian undermined the loyalty of Severus’ soldiers by offering generous bribes
and by appealing to their former loyalties, since they had previously been
under his command.
One of the first to take up the cause of the rebels was Severus’ own
praetorian prefect, Anullinus, who publicized the bribes in Severus’ camp.
The combination of sentimentality and gold proved too powerful, and
most of Severus’ army defected to the cause of the rebels in Rome. Severus
was now on the defensive, and he decided to withdraw before his losses
increased.
But events were happening too rapidly. Maximian struck while the
circumstances weighed in his favor. He immediately pursued Severus up
the Italian peninsula, nearly overtaking him before he obtained refuge
within the walls of Ravenna, some 180 miles north of Rome. Within a
matter of days Severus was compelled to abdicate his throne and surrender
in exchange for his life.
TH E TE TR A R C H Y 449
Maximian and his son had won the first contest, but they knew the
stakes would now be raised, so Severus II was delivered back to Rome (in
the summer of 307) while Maximian headed to Gaul, where he hoped to
make a pact with Constantine I, the Caesar in the West. In the meantime,
Galerius — now the only man in the Empire to legitimately hold the title
Augustus — prepared to exact his revenge. By April 1, 307, the rebels no
longer were recognizing his authority.
When Galerius invaded, Severus II was either executed or forced to
commit suicide. Galerius’ attempt to unseat Maxentius was no more suc
cessful than his predecessor’s, and he soon retreated before his own entire
army defected. Recalling the fate of Severus, Galerius burned the land as
he traveled so that any pursuit would be hindered. He managed to leave
Italy and take up a defensive position in Illyria.
Meanwhile, Maximian had been successful in Gaul, for he had made
a defensive pact with Constantine, which was sealed by the marriage of his
own daughter Fausta and Constantine. N o longer content with the title of
Caesar, by July 25, 307, Constantine felt confident enough to assume
unlawfully the title of Augustus. Maximian supported the self-promotion,
as both he and his son Maxentius had taken that same step about six
months earlier.
This arrangement among the Augusti surely was no more than a fair-
weather pact. N ot only did Constantine resist M aximians request that he
cut off Galerius’ departure from Italy, but later in 307, it would seem, Spain
pledged its allegiance to Maxentius. Constantine could hardly view this as
anything other than a betrayal, since it probably was instigated by agents
of Maxentius. Thereafter, the pact between Constantine and Maxentius
rapidly deteriorated. Maximian returned to Rome later in that year to join
his son, who, despite his relative youth and inexperience, was considered
the senior of the two Italian Augusti.
The first ten months of 308 were relatively uneventful in the East, but
much happened in the West, where fortune abandoned the Italian rebels.
The basis of their failure was their inability to share authority. A t a meet
ing of military officers in Rome, probably on April 20, Maximian
attempted to overthrow his son but failed to gain support, and fled to Gaul,
where he sought asylum with his new son-in-law, Constantine.
This shift was to have a devastating effect on Maxentius’ regime.
Later in the year (though possibly in 309) his father, with the support of
Constantine, convinced Lucius Domitius Alexander, the vicar of the dio
cese of Africa, to abandon Maxentius. N ot only had Alexander probably
been appointed to his post by Maximian, when he was a legitimate
emperor, but Maximian was considered something of a hero in the region,
where a decade before he had led the campaign that quelled the revolt of
the Quinquegentiani.
Maximian knew only too well that without grain from this fertile
region, Rome would soon be in the grips of famine, and that his son’s
regime would be endangered. Perhaps then he would consider sharing
power with his father. Maxentius seems to have been at a loss for what to
do; he did not retaliate against Alexander, Maximian or Constantine for at
least one year.
With so many contenders for authority, Galerius was equally con
cerned about the future, and later in 308, on November 11, he hosted a
conference at Carnuntum, a legionary camp and city on the Danube in
Upper Pannonia. A t the conference, nothing was truly resolved. Dio
cletian refused to emerge from retirement, Maximian was formally stripped
of all titles, Maxentius was declared a public enemy and Constantine I was
confirmed as Caesar in the West, but the only actual change was the
appointment of Licinius I, a comrade-in-arms of Galerius, to replace the
recently slain Severus II.
But this insubstantial change was to have a negative consequence: it
enraged Galerius’ nephew, Maximinus Daia, who inexplicably had been
“leap-frogged” and remained at the rank of Caesar. Galerius would pay for
this in the near future, as both Maximinus Daia and Constantine
demanded greater titles. In 309 he officially raised both of them from C ae
sar to the meaningless rank of Filius A ugustorum (“son of the Augusti”),
and in 310 to the rank of Augusti.
The year 309 was remarkably bad for Maxentius. On the personal
level, he was still stinging from his father’s attempt to overthrow him, his
sister was residing in Gaul with his enemy Constantine and the vicar
Alexander had betrayed his trust. To this, he could add the tragic death of
his young son Romulus, who in 309 had been made consul for the second
time. Maxentius honored his son with consecration, temples and a coin
age. In terms of his domain, it was also a difficult year for Maxentius. N ot
only had he lost the diocese of Africa in the previous year, but in the
present year he seems to have lost Spain (which was reclaimed by C on
stantine I). To make matters worse, much of Northern Italy was lost to
Licinius I, the new Augustus whom Galerius had stationed in Pannonia.
Amid this dissension, the Romans were rioting, for they were suffer
ing from a great famine without the African grain. Maxentius was wise
enough to feed his praetorian guards and soldiers well, and used them to
crush the riots without mercy. We are told some 6,000 citizens died as a
result. Ancient historians also inform us that Maxentius’ harsh financial
exactions and tireless pursuit of other men’s wives also caused dissent.
Maxentius realized that without the grain it was simply a matter of
time before his regime toppled. Thus, by the end of 309 (or equally likely,
early in 310), he sent his praetorian prefect, Rufius Volusianus, on an
expedition to Carthage. The campaign was incredibly destructive and
TH E TETRARCH Y 45 I
effective. The rebellious vicar Alexander was forced to hang himself

(probably late in the summer or in the fall of 310) and the diocese of
Africa was restored to Maxentius.
Constantine remained silent throughout the whole affair. He had
purposely distanced himself from Italian affairs, hoping that Maxentius
would be overthrown in the natural course of events. Back in 307 C on
stantine had not cut off Galerius’ retreat from Italy, and now, in 310/11, he
did not come to the aid of Carthage, even though he was an ally and he
stood to suffer if Maxentius recovered that important diocese.
Maximian was in the most difficult position of all, for he had grown
tired of simply being an adviser to Constantine, without a title and with
out serious responsibilities. Constantine, who was busy fighting the Franks
on the Rhine, did not want Maximian to interfere, so he insisted that
Maximian remain in Arles, far from harm’s way.
In a move that must have surprised everyone, Maximian staged a
revolt of his own, seemingly in the spring of 310. He seized the Imperial
treasury at Arles, hailed himself Augustus and fled south to Massalia. How
ever, Constantine was in very close pursuit. His father-in-law’s plan had
been betrayed by his daughter, Fausta (Constantine’s wife). Maximian was
captured within weeks of his betrayal and was either forced to commit sui
cide or was executed. The reason for his ill-fated revolt is open to specula
tion. One strong possibility is that he intended to sail for Carthage and
help Alexander resist the invasion of Maxentius’ prefect.
Thus in 310 the horizons were brightening considerably for M axen
tius: Rome was no longer in famine and, for better or for worse, his father
was out of the picture. Maxentius immediately had the senate consecrate
his father, perhaps out of familial devotion but certainly for the political
advantage it offered in celebrating the memory of a man who had been
killed by Constantine.
While all these major developments were occurring in the western
portion of the Empire, trouble was quietly brewing in the East. Galerius,
the senior Augustus, was critically ill and died early in May 311 of a disease
that had been plaguing him for a year. A mad scramble ensued, as his terri
tories were consumed by Licinius I and Maximinus Daia — the former
gaining Thrace and the latter the remainder of Asia Minor. War was
averted through negotiation when the rivals met at the crossroads of
Europe and Asia.
The Roman world was now divided into four geographic regions, each
ruled by a hostile Augustus. Constantine had the western provinces, M ax
entius occupied Italy and Africa, Licinius had all of the Balkans, Pannonia
and Illyria, and Maximinus Daia controlled all of Asia and Egypt. With all
four men feeling threatened by their neighbors, two alliances resulted:
Licinius I joined Constantine I and Maxentius joined Maximinus Daia.
With civil war inevitable, and after six years of residency in Gaul
(principally fighting on the Rhine), Constantine led an army of approxi
mately 40,000 men to the north of Italy, where he invaded the territories
of Maxentius. All the while, he kept an uneasy eye on Illyria, where his
new ally Licinius I commanded a large army. This was a risky venture for
the traditionally cautious Constantine, for we are told that he was out
numbered greatly by Maxentius, who had 150,000 or more men stationed
in northern Italy.
But numerical superiority did not prevent Constantine from invad
ing, nor did it prevent him from succeeding, for Maxentius’ legions were
undisciplined. Constantine captured Segusio, Turin, Milan and Verona,
near which Maxentius’ prefect, Rufius Volusianus, perished. After captur
ing Brescia and Aquileia, Constantine had secured the north; in the
meantime, his partisans were hard at work undermining Maxentius’ sag
ging popularity in Rome.
As Constantine’s armies camped outside Rome on the eve of the
pitched battle that would take place at the Milvian Bridge, Constantine
(who thus far had been under the exclusive protection of Sol-Apollo) is
alleged to have had a vision and a dream that caused him to convert to
Christianity. He instructed his men to paint a cross or a Christogram (a
monogram of Christ’s name) on their shields, and to go into battle in the
morning under the protection of the Christian god.
That next morning, October 28, 312, precisely six years after he had
illegally assumed power there, Maxentius led his army outside Rome to
engage Constantine. Maxentius dared not risk a prolonged siege, for he
was already unpopular in the city and the likelihood of a palace coup
increased with each passing day. The armies met in a skirmish on the Via
Flaminia, after which Maxentius forced a pitched battle at the Milvian
Bridge. In the course of the fight, Maxentius’ army was thrown into retreat
and the bridge of boats over which the men were retreating collapsed.
Maxentius drowned along with thousands of his men in the waters of the
Tiber.
Constantine was victorious, and assuming he could trust Licinius not
to attack, he had become master of the entire Western Empire. The citi
zens of Rome received him well and the senate declared him the Senior
Augustus in the Empire (titulus primi ordinis). Much to the joy of the citi
zens, he disbanded the praetorian guard. Maxentius’ body was fished out of
the Tiber, his head severed and placed on a pike and, after sufficient dis
play in Rome, was sent to Carthage as proof of his demise.
N u m ism a t ic N o t e : Perhaps the most impressive coinage of the Tetrarchic

period was produced by Maxentius at five cities in Italy and at Carthage.
Though his silver coins are extremely rare, he struck many types of gold
aurei and medallions and a large quantity of æs coinage. His nummi are
especially diverse in their designs (both obverse and reverse), and they are
supplemented with regular issues of fractional pieces. In these two respects,
his æs issues are quite unlike other coinages of the period.
The overriding theme on Maxentius’ coinage is patriotism. He went
to great lengths to show that he was the only leader who would champion
Rome’s old privileges and customs. One of his most telling types bears the
inscription CONSERVATOR VRBIS SVAE, meaning “protector of his city.”
Maxentius’ desire to show family links (which he believed entitled him to
hold power legitimately) resulted in his striking honorary coinages for his
father Maximian and for his in-laws, Constantius I and Galerius.
His gold is unusually impressive, for it includes a series of medallions
typically of 2-, 4- and 8 -aurei weight. Most examples of these medallions
are from a single cache (known as the “Parthenico Hoard”) reportedly
recovered from a Mediterranean shipwreck. His gold medallions were
almost certainly struck to pay army officers, including those who had
defected from the defeated armies of Severus II and Galerius.
In terms of his regular gold, the most significant issues are aurei from
Ostia which depict on their obverses the emperor’s full-facing head. This
form of portraiture was later used by Licinius and Constantine, but was
abandoned until it was reintroduced on a large scale by Constantius II
(337-361) in a militant form commonly known as three-quarter facing. By
the 5th Century this style of bust (depicting the emperor wearing a helmet
and armor, and holding a shield and spear) assumed popularity once again,
and subsequently was the standard design for gold solidi in the Byzantine
Empire.
ROMULUS
S o n o f M a x e n t iu s
G r a n d s o n o f M a x im ia n a n d G a l e r iu s
N e p h e w o f Fa u s t a
Marcus Valerius (or Marcus Aurelius) Romulus,

c . A .D . 292/4 (or 306) ~ 309. Named after the leg
endary eponymous founder and first king of Rome, Romulus was one of
two sons born to the rebel Maxentius and his wife Maximilla (the daugh
ter of Galerius, who does not appear on coinage). The name of his brother
is not known. Romulus held the unusual distinction of being the grandson
of two emperors.
Romulus never held the rank of Caesar, but was appointed consul in
308 and in 309. His extreme youth rendered the appointments purely
ceremonial. In the year of his second consulship Romulus died, dashing

Maxentius’ hope of having an heir to the Empire he was attempting to
build. The boy was consecrated and was honored with buildings and an
impressive coinage. Estimates of the boy’s age vary considerably: some his-
torians suggest he was about 15 years old, and others only about 3 years
old.
The death of Romulus was a severe blow to Maxentius, just when the
last thing he needed was more bad news. In 309, Rome was in the grips of a
famine, with shipments from Carthage withheld by the rebellious vicar
Alexander. The starving population frequently rioted, and Maxentius’
efforts to suppress them resulted in the deaths of 6,000 citizens. Making the
famine even worse was the fact that Alexander had been coaxed to rebel
lion by Maxentius’ own father, Maximian, who had failed in an attempt to
overthrow him in the previous year. With his father in exile, his son dead,
and his sister married to Constantine I, Maxentius had only his wife left as a
close family member.
N u m ism a t ic N o t e : A ll of Romulus’ coins were struck at Rome or Ostia by

his father after the boy died. Maxentius introduced some of the more
interesting inscriptions to ever appear on Roman coins, and those he
struck for his deified son are no exception. The NV represents Nobilissimus
Vir (“most noble man” ) and BIS CONS indicates that he was twice consul.
The standard reverse type for Romulus’ coins is architectural, with two
structures of similar form being represented. Both are circular, have a domed
roof surmounted by an eagle and have two ornamented doors, one of which
is shown ajar. The fact that the building is sometimes shown with an
unadorned brick exterior, and other times with four or six columns adorning
the facade, indicates they are meant to represent two different structures
(see Hill, The Monuments of Ancient Rome as Coin Types, pp. 13-15).
The unadorned building is considered to be the Sepulchre of Divus
Romulus, originally located on the Appian Way but since destroyed, and
the one bearing four or six Corinthian columns represents the Temple of
Divus Romulus. Maxentius began to construct the latter building in honor
of his son and in the name of Romulus, the legendary founder of Rome,
but he died before it was completed. Constantine the Great completed its
construction, and most of the original structure is still intact and can be
seen in the Forum.
THE TETRARCH Y 455
ALEXANDER OF CARTHAGE
A .D . 3 0 8 - 3 1 0
Lucius Domitius Alexander (Valerius Alex

ander), d. A .D . 310. Sources differ on the origin of
Alexander, but he seems to have come from peasant
stock either in Phrygia or Pannonia. The chronol
ogy of his rebellion is also debatable, with some
scholars preferring c. 308-309, and others 308-310 or 308-311. Although
elderly and timid, Alexander had served as governor of the diocese of Africa
since 303, no doubt as an appointee of the western Augustus, Maximian.
When Maxentius revolted against Galerius and Severus II late in 306,
an important part of his “Empire” was the province of Africa, whose vicar
Alexander had sworn allegiance to Maxentius’ cause. However, by the
summer or fall of 308 (most likely in June or July), Alexander had declared
himself Augustus at the encouragement of Constantine I and Maximian.
Constantine had established his rule in Gaul as a self-proclaimed
Augustus and an officially recognized Caesar. A t his side was his father-in-
law, Maximian, who had been stripped of all titles and had sought asylum
with Constantine after he failed to overthrow his son, Maxentius, in April
of 308. By this point in time, both Constantine and Maximian considered
Maxentius an enemy, not only because of his treatment of Maximian, but
also because in 307 he had seized Spain, a region which Constantine
regarded as being within his own realm. Thus it comes as no surprise that
Constantine and Maximian encouraged Alexander to revolt against
Maxentius.
Alexander and the citizens of North Africa were quite willing to sup
port the designs of Maximian. A decade earlier he (as a legitimate
emperor) had freed that region from the scourge of piratic raids made by
Numidian outlaws and the members of a Berber confederation known as
the Quinquegentiani.
While there from c. 296/7 to 297/8, Maximian had established a mint
in Carthage, strengthened frontier defenses from Mauretiania to Libya,
and had held a Triumph in Carthage either late in 297 or in the spring of
298. More recently, the anti-Christian elements thought highly of M axim
ian for his enforcement of Diocletian’s Edict of 303, which was upheld
with particular severity in North Africa.
Because he was based in Carthage, Alexander controlled one of the
three sources of grain most important to Europe and to Rome. Since M ax
entius could not feed his people with grain from Egypt (then securely in
the hands of Maximinus Daia, the nephew of the emperor Galerius), the
harvests from western North Africa were essential to his survival. Without
grain from Carthage, it was only a matter of time before the Romans
overthrew Maxentius. Indeed, Rome’s citizens succumbed to near-starva-

tion in 309, resulting in terrible riots that Maxentius had to crush without
mercy, causing the deaths of some 6,000 citizens. Either late in 309 or early
in 310, Maxentius sent his praetorian prefect, Rufius Volusianus, on an
expedition to recover North Africa and to overthrow Alexander. The
operation was a great success, and after a reign of perhaps 18 months,
Alexander was strangled to death, seemingly late in the summer or in the
fall of 310. Some scholars, citing Zosimus’ Nea Historia (penned c. 500),
suggest Alexander remained in power until 311, but this idea has been
abandoned by most scholars.
The expedition had severe consequences for the people of North
Africa because Constantine the Great and Maximian (the two men who
had prompted Alexander to revolt) did not come to come to their defense.
The campaign was so destructive that Constantine later devoted many
years to rehabilitating the region.
A t this point an interesting, but purely speculative possibility arises.
If Volusianus’ expedition against Carthage was launched early in 310 (as
many historians believe), Maximian may have revolted against Constan
tine with the intention of aiding Alexander (and, in the process, establish
ing his own regime at Carthage). After all, Maximian headed directly for
Massalia after he seized the treasury at Arles, and this port city was an ideal
staging point for such an expedition. We cannot be certain, however, that
that was his purpose for taking refuge there. He was being pursued by C on
stantine and may have entered that city for lack of any better options.
N u m ism a t ic N o t e : Alexander issued aurei and niimmi from the mint at

Carthage, which Maximian had established in 296 or 297. N ot surpris
ingly, the reverse types of his coinage largely celebrate the city of Carthage
and his province of Africa, and allude to his desire for recognition from the
legitimate authorities of the Empire. His coins are among the noted rarities
in the Imperial series, and excellent forgeries of his æs (of the type com
monly called ‘The Geneva Forgeries’) exist. Many of the known examples
are illustrated and described by R. A. G. Carson in the 1958 Numismatic
Chronicle, pp. 47-58, pis. V-VI. The article was also published in 1977 as
an offprint.
CHAPTER ELEVEN
T he C o n s t a n t in ia n Er a
c . a .d . 3 1 3 - 3 6 4
N amed after Constantine the Great, this era was the most important in
late Roman history. During the half century from 313 to 363, the
foundations of the post-pagan world were laid by Constantine and his
descendants. Within the Imperial government, Christianity found its first
and greatest supporter in Constantine, who transformed a once-perse-
cuted, fringe religion into the crown jewel of Western civilization.
More so than at any other point in Roman history, here western civi
lization took a turn from its past. For that reason, the Constantinian Era
represents a watershed moment in the world of Late Antiquity. In this 50-
year period, a new civilization was born as pagan Rome forfeited its storied
past to the post-Classical world. So monumental a change, however, was
not immediate, and in some respects is barely recognizable without careful
study.
Though there were many causes for discord within the Empire, three
emerge as the principal sources of strife in the Constantinian Era. First, the
ruling family founded by Constantius I (Caesar, 293-305; Augustus, 305-
306) was divided into two rival branches formed by the offspring of two
different women — Fausta and Theodora, the former branch being in
power and the latter being persecuted. Second, the long-standing rivalry
between East and West was given focus by the fact that there were now
two capitals, Rome and Constantinople. Third, the Christian faith came
to be divided principally along the lines of Arianism (strongly supported in
the East) and Orthodox Catholicism (promoted mainly in the West).
The history of this era is intricate, tedious and in many ways unfulfill-
ing to the student more in tune with the old ways of paganism. N o longer
are horrific acts motivated purely by the age-old faults in human nature,
but instead are often tied to religion. Initially this war was waged between
paganism and Christianity, but soon thereafter it came to be fought by the
various factions of Christianity. Energetic theologians and bishops offered
differing interpretations of the religion they shared in common, causing
the fragmentation of church and society.
The religious life of pagan Rome was far from passionate. Satisfaction
was derived from ritual and tradition rather than from the spirituality of
blind faith. Christianity inspired passionate debate — this is the aspect of
the Constantinian Era that is often difficult to appreciate. Few in the
457
modern western world can imagine going to war over the schism between
Orthodoxy and Arianism, but the fact remains that this was sufficient
cause for war, or at the very least, civil strife.
The fact that Constantine founded a city to defend his Christian
state was of paramount importance to the history of the western world.
Constantinople was built on the site of the Greek colony Byzantium, and
its location (on the European shore of the narrows that divided Europe
from Asia) was hand-picked for its strategic importance. We learn some
thing of Constantine’s reformist nature in his decision not to further
develop Diocletian’s capital of Nicomedia (slightly more than 50 miles
away on the Asiatic shore), nor to stay in his earlier Thracian capitals of
Sirmium and Serdica (which he had called “my Rome”).
In two very important respects Byzantium was hardly an ideal site for
a city: it was deficient in drinking water and was prone to attack from its
hinterland. But Constantine and his successors overcame these disadvan
tages by building defensive walls (first by Constantine, and subsequently
by Anthemius, the prefect of Theodosius II) and aqueducts.
Overall, Constantinople’s advantages far outweighed its disadvan
tages. Constantine became impressed with the strategic importance of the
“golden horn” when in this vicinity he defeated his rival Licinius I in Sep
tember, 324. Its location and magnificent harbor gave it ready access to
grain shipments from Egypt and the Cimmerian Bosporus. It was also an
ideal staging point for naval expeditions, or for land armies destined for
the Danube or the Euphrates.
Seemingly from about 326, when it was inaugurated, Constantinople
was styled as the “New Rome,” or altera Roma (“second Rome”). Eventu
ally, like Rome, it was divided into 14 regions (though with limited space
one was located outside its wall and another on the Asian side of the
strait). That Constantine named the city in his own honor (“city of Con
stantine”) comes as no surprise, for much like Romulus, the legendary
eponymous founder of Rome, Constantine believed he was founding a cap
ital for a new Empire of his own design.
Like Constantine’s other visionary projects, however, the importance
of Constantinople was not immediately felt. It has been estimated that a
dozen years after construction had begun, no more than about 50,000 peo
ple lived there (and even they were lured in by incentives, such as free
grain distributions). But within a few generations the city of Constantine
changed the world. It was formally dedicated in 330, and from the name of
the Greek city upon which it had been built the term Byzantine was
derived 14 centuries later to refer to the new cultural milieu.
Despite the potency of his vision, and the success of his many plans,
Constantine was no model man. He was suspicious, envious, murderous,
TH E C O N S T A N T IN IA N ERA 459
hypocritical, treacherous and a war-monger. His crimes against humanity

were manifold, and his actions rarely fell into a category that would be
embraced by the Christian faith he so staunchly defended.
His transgressions were often of the most sinister kind — such as his
hasty decisions to execute his wife and eldest son on charges he later came
to doubt. Constantine was a typical Roman emperor: cruel out of necessity.
For this reason many historians believe he did not morally convert to
Christianity until he was on his deathbed, for he knew better than any
other that as long as he reigned, he would have to be ready and willing to
commit mortal sins.
It is justifiable to say that most of the Constantine’s successes — with
the notable exception of embracing Christianity — were built upon the
achievements of Diocletian. Like that of the Tetrarchy, the Constantinian
government was based on a rigid framework by which political and military
stability could be achieved, no matter how bad the infighting or how serious
the threat of invasion. The Empire weathered a great many problems,
including the shameful fratricidal wars propagated by Constantine’s sons.
The foundation of the Constantinian Era may, with good reason, be
assigned to the year 313. In this year two men — Constantine the Great
and Licinius I — emerged victorious from the collapse of the Tetrarchy. A t
first neither man was strong enough to dislodge the other, so they were
forced to share the Empire. The fact that they were in-laws had no bearing
on their desire to rid themselves of one another. The Empire was divided
politically, religiously and geographically: Christian Constantine in the
West, and pagan Licinius in the East. The break was too severe, and the
rival emperors fought two costly civil wars between 313 and 324 in which
Constantine overcame Licinius and emerged as sole ruler of a Roman
Empire that had not been united for 40 years. Such civil wars were costly,
not only in terms of life and currency, but also in less tangible ways.
Threats to Imperial security, however, were not strictly internal. The
most formidable opponents of the Romans were located on the far sides of
the Rhine, the Danube and on the eastern frontier. On the Rhine, the
Romans were in constant warfare with the Germanic federation known as
the Alemanni; on the Danube they fought back invasions by the Quadi
and the Goths; and on their eastern frontier, they frequently came into
conflict with the Sasanians. In subsequent years, after the Empire was for
mally divided, a host of new nomadic and semi-nomadic enemies, such as
Huns, Vandals and Suevi arrived on the borders.
N ot surprisingly, the Roman army grew alarmingly during this era, by
some estimates reaching 75 legions under Constantine (a slight increase
over Diocletian’s 67 or more legions). Tiberius had had only 25 legions,
Trajan conquered vast territories with 30 and Caracalla had only 33.
Though many of Constantine’s field army legions only contained 1,000

men, and others were below the traditional strength of about 5,400 men, it
becomes clear how severe a burden the military had become during C on
stantine’s age.
Furthermore, Constantine’s legions were aided by field armies,
Palatine and non-Palatine auxiliaries, light and heavy cavalry, the per
sonal guardians of the emperor (numbering perhaps 15,000 alone) and the
mercenaries among the foederati — the immediate neighbors of the
Romans who contracted to help protect the Empire’s borders. A ll told,
Constantine may have employed and outfitted about 900,000 soldiers dur
ing peak periods — a force considerably larger than the typical level of
300,000 to 550,000 maintained from the time of the Julio-Claudians to
the fall of the West.
Beyond the costs of maintaining a large army, Constantine also had
to pay for a formidable Imperial bureaucracy, yet another institution he
had adopted directly from Diocletian. Revenue was critical and the collec
tion of the taxes necessary to support these costly institutions was efficient
and relentless. Penalties for illegal activities were far more severe during
the Late Roman period than in previous ages. Indeed, life was regimented
and costly, but the reward was a greater level of security from brigands and
barbarians.
In adopting Christianity, Constantine initially saw political advan
tage in his struggle to defeat his opponents in the Tetrarchy. Later it
became a more consuming passion as Constantine saw it as a tool for uni
fying and controlling his subjects. However, his desire to use Christianity
as a rallying point, through which his subjects would become loyal citizens
and taxpayers, failed.
The fragmentation of the Christian church was the greatest threat to
Constantine’s carefully laid plans, and he devoted an enormous amount of
his energy trying to rectify ideological differences. The most important of
the early Christian heretics was Arius, the Presbyter of Alexandria. His
teachings were condemned by Constantine at the Council of N icaea in
325, but then rehabilitated in about 335, due in large part to lobbying by
the moderate theologian Eusebius of Nicomedia (the bishop by whom
Constantine was later baptized).
Arius’ rehabilitation only worsened matters in the long term, for the
Empire came to be sharply divided between Orthordoxy and Arianism
during the reigns of Constantine’s sons and beyond. Especially recalcitrant
was Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria, whose political wrangling nearly
caused a civil war in 346 between his Orthodox Catholic supporter Con-
stans, in the West, and his heretic Arian opponent Constantius II, in the
East. The pre-existing rivalry between East and West was only intensified
by divisions within the Christian Church. By the time Constantius II

came to power, most westerners had become Orthodox Catholics, and
most easterners had come to support the teachings of the heretic Arian.
The main rift was as follows: the Alexandrian priest Arius (c. 250-
336) preached the separateness of God and Christ, whereas Orthodox
Catholics (led by the Bishop Athanasius) believed that Christ was part of
God, only lesser. To Arians, Christ was a separate being who served as
G od’s representative in the physical universe. This view allowed Chris
tianity to be truly monotheistic, unlike the polytheism of Graeco-Roman
paganism.
Though Constantine was successful in defeating his opponents on the
battlefield and in administering his Empire, he failed to secure a peace
beyond his own lifetime. Historians have long been vexed by his decision
to divide the Empire he had fought so hard to unite. In 335 he named five
heirs to his throne — three being his own sons by Fausta, and two others
being half-nephews from the branch of the family descended from his step
mother, Theodora.
It is impossible to believe that a deeply suspicious and warlike man
such as Constantine could have thought this arrangement would work. In
a sense, it was a return to Diocletian’s Tetrarchy: the three sons and one
half-nephew, Delmatius, were given the titles Caesar and responsibilities
for territories that did not overlap. However, it also was quite different:
there was no clear-cut order of seniority such as had been arranged by Dio
cletian (two Augusti and two Caesars, one being senior in each case).
Additionally, Constantine added to Diocletian’s formula a half-nephew,
Hanniballianus, who was given the un-Roman title Rex and stationed on
the eastern border. Clearly, his role as “king” was to provoke the Sasanians
and then to defend his territories against them.
N ot only was the Empire now divided among five young men who
essentially held equal rank, but collectively they represented two rival
branches of the family, which was a guarantee of infighting. The only pos
sible explanation is that Constantine viewed this as temporary, and that
he planned on altering the arrangement later — perhaps after he could
observe how his potential heirs handled their responsibilities. If that was
Constantine’s plan, he did not live long enough to see it through. Just as
he was setting out on his much-anticipated Persian campaign in the early
summer of 337 (the enemy had been sufficiently provoked to break the
peace treaty of 40 years), he died in the outskirts of Nicomedia. Before he
passed away, Constantine was baptized and cleansed of a lifetime of sin.
What followed could hardly have surprised Constantine, for his off
spring had inherited his instinct for survival. Within a couple of months
his three sons had arranged the murders of their half-cousins along with
other descendants of Theodora and their partisans- Only the three sons of
Constantine remained in power, each assuming the title of Augustus and
claiming his share of the Empire.
According to Julian II, who wrote retrospectively as a survivor of the
brothers’ murderous purge in 337, the names of those specifically responsi
ble were kept a well-guarded secret (though historians tend to credit C on
stantius II as being the ring-leader). Some two decades after Julian II’s
death, the murders were defended by St. Gregory of Nazianzus, who briefly
served as Bishop of Constantinople in 381. Gregory — a quarrelsome man
who disliked Julian II — explained that the army would have supported
only the true sons of Constantine as their leaders, and that the murders
were a preemptive strike against a revolt that would have resulted. Though
the barbarity of the act can hardly be defended, it did come to pass that the
three grandsons of Theodora who were spared on account of their youth or
frail health later haunted the sons of Constantine: two staged rebellions
and one behaved savagely when given authority.
With events such as these clouding Constantine’s legacy, it is difficult
to call his reign or “dynasty” a resounding success in its own time. It is best,
perhaps, to view him as a visionary, for he acted decisively upon his belief
in the decline of the West and of paganism. His foundation of Constanti
nople (shifting of the Imperial focus eastward) and his adoption of Chris
tianity proved over the slow course of time to have been landmark
decisions. Historians have not overstepped their bounds by crediting him
with saving Western civilization from the Moslem horde.
With the exception of Procopius (usurper, 365-366) and Anthemius
(467-472), both of whom claimed a distant kinship to the Constantinian
line, the last reigning member of the family was Julian II, a half-nephew
from Theodora’s side of the family. Considering that Julian II was a devout
pagan, he provides an ironic conclusion to the Empire’s first Christian
dynasty.
After briefly being ruled by the former comes domesticorum (count, or
companion of the household body guards) Jovian (363-364), the Empire
had its unity shattered permanently by discord within the army. From Feb
ruary, 364, the two capitals, Rome and Constantinople, would manage
their affairs separately. On the rare occasion when they had reason to
interact, it was in hostility as often as it was in cooperation. The fact that
their emperors were often of the same families seemed not to have affected
matters decisively in one direction or the other.
Forcing the division of the Empire were the armies of Gaul (which
were loyal to the memory of Julian II) and the eastern armies that had for
merly served under Constantius II. Their cultural and political differences
were so insurmountable that they decided civil war was avoidable only if
two emperors reigned — one in Rome and one in Constantinople. The

brothers Valentinian I and Valens took command, and except for two very
brief periods after the deaths of Gratian (378/9) and Theodosius I (394/5),
and a few later periods (which were as brief as they were inconsequential),
East and West were never without separate emperors again.
For the reasons detailed above, after this chapter (which ends with
the death of Jovian in 364) the biographies and value listings are divided
between the Eastern Roman Empire and the Western Roman Empire.
Aug. = Augustus
Caes. = Caesar
us: = Usurper
beg. = beginning
T h e C o n s t a n t in ia n E r a
Period West East

The Licinian Wars
313-324 Constantine I (Aug., beg. 307) Licinius I (Aug., beg. 308)
Crispus (Caes., beg. 316) Val. Valens (co-Aug., 316-317)
Constantine II (Caes., beg. 316) Licinius II (Caes., 317-324)
Martinian (co-Aug., 324)
Constantine as Sole-Augustus
324-335 Constantine I (Aug.) Constantine I (Aug.)
Crispus (Caes., d. 326) Constantius II (Caes.)
Constantine II (Caes.)
Constans (Caes., beg. 333)
335-337 Constantine I (Aug.) Constantine I (Aug.)
Constantine II (Caes.) Constantius II (Caes.)
Constans (Caes.) Hanniballianus (Rex Regum)
Delmatius (Caes.)
The Sons of Constantine
337-340 Constantine II (Aug.) Constantius II (Aug.)
Constans (Aug.)
340-350 Constans (Aug.) Constantius II (Aug.)
Civil War and Decline
350-360 Constantius II (Aug.) Constantius II (Aug.)
us: Magnentius (Aug., 350-353) Const. Gallus (Caes., 351-354)
us: Decentius (Caes., 350-353)
Vetranio (co-Aug., 350)
us: Nepotian (Aug., 350)
Julian II (Caes., 355-360)
360-361 us: Julian II (Aug.) Constantius II (Aug.)
361-363 Julian II (Aug.)
363-364 Jovian (Aug.)
LICINIUS I A .D . 3 0 8 - 3 2 4
H u s b a n d o f C o n st a n t ia
F a t h e r o f L i c i n i u s II
S o n -i n -l a w o f T h e o d o r a a n d ( p o s t h u m o u s l y )
C o n s t a n t iu s I
U n c l e o f D e l m a t iu s , H a n n ib a l l ia n u s , C o n s t a n t iu s
G a l l u s , J u l i a n II a n d N e p o t i a n
H a l f - b r o t h e r - i n - la w o f C o n s t a n t i n e t h e G r e a t
Gaius Valerius Licinianus Licinius, c. A .D . 250 or c. 263/ 5- 325. Making

the fastest rise in the Tetrarchy was Licinius I, a soldier who was hailed
Augustus by his comrade Galerius even though he had not previously held
the rank of Caesar. Licinius survived the turmoil of the age to become sole
rival to Constantine the Great, against whom he waged and lost two costly
civil wars.
Little is known of Licinius’ origins except that he was born of peasant
stock in Dacia Ripensis (Upper Moesia) sometime around 250 or in the
early 260s. Early in his career in the army, Licinius came to know Galerius,
the man whom Diocletian made his Caesar in 293 and eventually, in 305,
chose as his replacement as Augustus.
As an officer in the army, Licinius served with distinction on G ale
rius’ campaign against the Sasanians in 297 and 298. This was one of the
great Roman successes of the age, and no doubt established Licinius’ credi
bility. Thereafter, he took up a command in the Danube and was a lieuten
ant on Galerius’ failed expedition into Italy in 307.
Because of this association with Galerius (who was Diocletian’s C ae
sar), Licinius was adopted by Diocletian. After having proved his compe
tence and loyalty several times over, Licinius was promoted to the rank of
Junior Augustus at the Conference of Carnuntum on November 11, 308.
While Galerius no doubt viewed Licinius as the best man for the job, his
choice infuriated other claimants, such as Constantine I, who at the same
conference was reduced from self-proclaimed Augustus to Caesar. Equally
upset was Galerius’ own nephew, Maximinus Daia, was had been “leap
frogged” and remained a Caesar.
Licinius settled into his headquarters in Pannonia, and instead of try
ing to oust his various enemies (Maxentius in Italy, Alexander in Carthage
or Constantine I in Gaul), he took on a defensive posture. When Galerius
died of illness in 311, a contest began between Licinius and Maximinus
Daia (whose soldiers had already proclaimed him Augustus in 310). The
bitter rivals quickly partitioned Galerius’ former territories, with Maximi
nus Daia getting all of the Asiatic territories and Licinius having to settle
for the smaller European portion.
The two men narrowly avoided a war when they confronted each
other at the Bosporus. They declared a truce, but each prepared for the war
they knew was inevitable. Licinius’ first preparation was to make an alli
ance with Constantine I in early in 312 — a measure countered by Maxi-
minus Daia, who entered into an alliance with the rebel Maxentius. Battle
lines had been formally drawn.
Within the year Constantine himself invaded Italy and deposed M ax
entius, leaving the Empire with only three emperors: Constantine the
Great, Licinius I and Maximinus Daia. The former two met at Milan in
313, where their alliance was formalized with Licinius’ marriage to C on
stantine’s half-sister, Constantia, and the joint issuance the Edict of Milan,
which established religious tolerance in the Empire.
Meanwhile, all was not well with Maximinus Daia in the East. His
realm was suffering from a famine induced by bad harvests, he had lost his
ally Maxentius, and he had grown concerned over the alliance of Licinius
and Constantine. Therefore, while his two opponents were occupied with
their meeting in Milan, Daia took the initiative and invaded Thrace, the
easternmost portion of Licinius’ territory. Licinius hastily departed Milan
before all issues had been settled and marched east to defend his territories.
The armies of Licinius and Maximinus Daia clashed late in April,
313, near Adrianople, where Daia’s larger force (which was exhausted and
demoralized by its fast march across Anatolia in winter) was roundly
defeated. During the battle, Maximinus Daia managed to escape in dis
guise and flee back to Asia, where he died in the fall of that same year at
Tarsus. Licinius wasted no time in executing a great many of Daia’s sup
porters and in taking command of all Asia and Egypt, which he happily
added to his Balkan holdings. The remainder of the Empire in the West
belonged to his ally and in-law, Constantine the Great.
For the first time since the foundation of the Tetrarchy, only two men
ruled. In the beginning the two Augusti tried to cooperate. Licinius
enforced the Edict of Milan in his eastern realm, for Christians had suf
fered greatly under the successive regimes of Galerius and Maximinus
Daia. Licinius insisted that all property confiscated from Christians during
the earlier “Great Persecution” should be restored.
This and other actions (such as claiming to be a descendant of Philip
I, who was thought of by some to be the first Christian emperor), led writ
ers of the day to conclude that Licinius was a Christian. But his later
actions against Christians proved that he was no convert from paganism.
The alliance of Constantine and Licinius I soon proved to be merely
one of convenience, and the men inevitably came into conflict. It was
clear to all that the Empire was divided by rivals in the East and West.
During the next 11 years, Constantine and Licinius brought their children
into the Imperial fold and engaged in two costly civil wars.
In an effort to prevent conflict, the two emperors installed a man

named Bassianus as a quasi-independent ruler in Rhaetia and Pannonia,
regions that together formed a “buffer state” along the northern and east
ern borders of Italy. Bassianus was related by marriage to both men: he was
Constantine’s half-brother-in-law and he was the husband of the sister of
Licinius’ wife. Theoretically, he would have no greater loyalty to either of
the emperors.
However, Licinius convinced Bassianus to revolt in his favor. C on
stantine learned of the treachery late in July, 315, and rushed from the
Rhine front to Italy. However, he did not consider it prudent to act imme
diately. Tensions escalated over the next year and the so-called First Licin-
ian War erupted in August or September of 316. Licinius quickly lost
ground to Constantine, who advanced into the Balkans and defeated him
in two battles, first on October 8 at Cibalae (about 50 miles west of Sir-
mium), and then further south-east at Campus Adriensis.
During the course of these battles, Licinius officially deposed C on
stantine for what he considered to be unlawful aggressions. In place of the
now “illegal” emperor Constantine, Licinius raised his frontier commander
Valerius Valens to the rank of Augustus in the West.
Though in military terms the defeats were not complete, Licinius and
Valerius Valens decided to sue for peace, which they gained through nego
tiations held very early in 317. In the settlement, Constantine gained the
title of Senior Augustus (formerly held by Licinius I), took control of all
Balkan territories except Thrace and half of Moesia, and had Valerius
Valens deposed. Licinius agreed to all of these terms and also executed
Valerius Valens as an added measure of security.
The reconciliation resulted in more territory for Constantine, who
controlled most of the western portion of the Empire. The acquisition of
the Balkans was especially important because it was a prime region for
recruiting soldiers. On March 1, 317, not long after their agreement had
been forged, the sons of both emperors were formally raised to the rank of
Caesar: Licinius II by his father and the half-brothers Crispus and C on
stantine II by their father.
Several years passed in which the rival emperors tolerated each other,
but Licinius realized that Constantine would not be content until he had
conquered the whole Empire. Licinius suspected that Christians in Asia
Minor were conspiring against him on behalf of Constantine, and so he
expelled all Christian officers from his army and began to persecute them
in 320 and 321. For Constantine, who had adopted Christianity about a
decade earlier, this was not only an affront to his own agenda, but it also
constituted a breach of the Edict of Milan, to which both men had agreed
in 313.
Hostilities between East and West continued to escalate, and in the

summer of 322 (or possibly in 323) Constantine entered Licinius’ territory
of Thrace on the pretext that he was protecting the region from encroach
ment by the Goths. Technically, this was a legal act, but Licinius perceived
it (perhaps rightly so) as an unwarranted aggression. By mid-324 the Sec
ond Licinian War had begun. This time, however, the results would not be
as indecisive as they had been in the first contest.
Constantine won an important battle against Licinius at Adrianople
on July 3, 324. By now Constantine’s eldest son, Crispus, was old enough
to participate, and he was entrusted with the fleet. In a brilliant maneuver,
Crispus captured the fleet of Licinius, which was considerably larger than
his own.
Facing defeat on land and at sea, Licinius retreated to Byzantium,
where he was besieged and was forced to return to Asian soil. A t some
point during his retreat — in a virtual replay of the final days of the First
Licinian War — Licinius hailed his magister officiorum Martinian as
emperor of the West in place of Constantine. Martinian’s task was to get
reinforcements from Asia and organize what remained of their fleet so as to
prevent Constantine from crossing over from Europe. Regrettably for
Licinius and for himself, he was not successful.
In this second war the stakes were high, and Constantine would settle
for nothing less than total victory. The combined forces of East and West
exceeded 250,000 men and 500 ships. N ot surprisingly, the casualties
(which may have exceeded 60,000 in Licinius’ army alone) were substantial.
After crossing over to Asian soil, the Licinians were routed at
Chrysopolis on September 18, 324. Licinius abandoned his plan to estab
lish himself at Calchedon and instead led the remainder of his army about
45 miles east to Nicomedia, where he prepared to make a last stand. His
ranks once had numbered about 150,000, but by this stage they were
reduced to one-fifth that amount by casualties and defections.
Clearly this “last stand” could have no good outcome for Licinius. But
a final battle was avoided when Constantia, the wife of Licinius and half-
sister of Constantine, negotiated terms of surrender in which the lives of
Licinius I and Martinian were to be spared. Constantine had now gained
control over the whole Roman Empire, and he placed Licinius and Mar
tinian under house arrest — the former at Thessalonica and the latter in
Cappadocia.
The men, however, did not long survive. Constantine failed to keep
his promise and executed both former emperors, presumably in the spring
of 325. In defense of Constantine’s act, two Christian historians inform us
that Licinius earned his death through his treacherous behavior. The 5th
Century historian and lawyer Scholasticus records that Licinius secretly
468 H IS T O R Y O F T H E R O M A N EM PIRE! B IO G R A P H IE S
conspired with the Goths to overthrow Constantine. The 12th Century

historian Zonaras offers a slightly different version, in which Licinius actu-
ally escaped to the Carpathian mountains, where his would-be allies, the
Visigoths, executed him.
CONSTANTIA
A u g u sta , a .d . 3 1 3 -3 2 4
N o b l is s im a Fem in a , a .d . 3 2 4 -c. 330
W ife o f L ic in iu s I
M o t h e r (? ) o f L ic in iu s II
D a u g h te r o f C o n sta n tiu s Iand T h eo d o ra
H a l f -s i s t e r o f C o n s t a n t i n e t h e G r e a t
S tepd a u g h ter of H elen a
A u n t o f D e lm a tiu s, H a n n ib a llia n u s , C o n s t a n t i u s G a l l u s , J u l i a n II
a n d N e p o tia n
Flavia Julia Constantia, e . A .D , 2 9 5 ( ? ) - e . 3 3 0 . Constantia was one of two

daughters of the emperor Constantius I and his second wife, Theodora. As
such, she was a half-sister of Constantine the Great, who had been bom to
Constantius I’s first wife (or concubine), Helena. Constantia led a tragic
life — initially because her branch of the family was persecuted as rivals to
Constantine the Great and later because of her arranged marriage to
Constantine’s rival, Licinius I.
Constantia came to the political forefront in 313, when she entered
into a political marriage with Constantine’s co-emperor, Licinius I, to
whom she had been betrothed in 310 or 312. The wedding took place in
February, 313 at Milan, where Constantine and Licinius had met to for
malize their alliance and issue the famous Edict of Milan.
Though Constantine and Licinius I began their careers as comrades
in arms under Galerius and grew to become luke-warm allies after they had
achieved Imperial rank, they came to be bitter enemies. This development
placed Constantia in a difficult position. A parallel may be drawn with
Fausta, the second wife of Constantine the Great, whose loyalty was like
wise tested between her husband and her father, Maximian.
In 313 Constantia was hailed Augusta, and within the next two years
gave birth to a son. Whether this son was the one raised to the rank of
Caesar in 317 is not entirely certain (see the biography of Licinius II for
details). Family bliss, however, was interrupted late in 316 when her hus
band and Constantine went to war. The so-called First Licinian War
ended in stalemate and a new truce that favored Constantine.
The Second Licinian War erupted in 324 and came to a more conclu
sive end than had the first. Constantia’s husband was roundly defeated in a
quick campaign and had it not been for her intervention, Licinius I no
doubt would have been killed in a “last stand” he was preparing to take at
Nicomedia. However, in a single night at the palace in Nicomedia, C on
stantia convinced her husband to surrender to Constantine. The next day
she negotiated terms of surrender on her husband’s behalf, which included
a promise that the lives of Licinius I and his son, the Caesar, would be
spared. That same evening the three dined together, after which Licinius
was taken to Thessalonica under house arrest. The fact that Constantine
went back on his promise a few months later and executed Licinius I is
hardly a discredit to Constantia.
Constantia retained favorable status with her half-brother. However,
because her husband had been deposed, Constantia was demoted in 324
from Augusta to Nobilissima Femina. A t the same time, Constantine raised
both his mother, Helena, and his wife, Fausta, to the rank of Augusta.
Constantia spent the remainder of her life in Constantine’s court, involv
ing herself in the heated debates of Christian dogma that raged at the
time. In particular, she seems to have devoted herself to restoring the
Christian heretic Arius, who had been condemned at the Council of
Nicaea in 325.
N u m ism a tic N o t e : It is curious that Licinius I did not strike coins for
Constantia when she was hailed Augusta, especially since she soon gave
birth to a son. Coins were struck in her name only after her demotion from
Augusta. On these excessively rare bronzes, Constantia is styled as both
Nobilissima Femina and the sister of Constantine (SOROR CONSTANTINI
AVG).
LICINIUS II
C a e s a r , a .d . 3 1 7 - 3 2 4
S o n o f L ic in iu s I a n d (?) C o n sta n tia

G ra n d so n o f C o n sta n tiu s Iand T h eo d o ra
C o u s in o f D e lm a tiu s, H a n n ib a llia n u s ,
C o n s t a n t i u s G a l l u s , J u l i a n II a n d N e p o t i a n
H a lf-n e p h e w o f C o n s t a n t in e t h e G r e a t
H a l f - c o u s i n o f C r i s p u s , C o n s t a n t i n e II,
C o n s t a n t i u s II, C o n s t a n s , C o n s t a n t i n a
(w . o f H a n n i b a l l i a n u s &l C o n s t a n t i u s G a l l u s )
a n d H e l e n a t h e Y o u n g e r (w . o f J u l i a n II)
Flavius Valerius Constantinus Licinianus Licinius (“ Licinius Junior” )*

c. A.D. 313/4 or c. 315-326. As a son of Licinius I, the Augustus in the
East from 313 to 324, Licinius II was destined to inherit his father’s
Empire. To that effect, he was raised to the rank of Caesar on March 1,

317, while still a small child. His investiture occurred at Serdica in a for
mal ceremony shared with Crispus and Constantine II, the two eldest sons
of his father’s rival, Constantine the Great.
We know little of Licinius II other than the circumstances of his
achieving that rank, and the fact that he was deposed in 324 and executed
in 326. Beyond this, the sources become muddied, for Licinius I had two
sons: one who was born to his wife, Constantia, and another who was bom
a bastard to his Syrian concubine, Mamertina. Determining which of these
two boys was the one hailed Caesar (and depicted on coins) may not be
done with absolute certainty; therefore, their fates are discussed separately
below.
As was called for in the surrender treaty of 324, the Caesar Licinius II
was stripped of his rank and exiled with his father to Thessalonica, only to
witness the latter’s execution early in 325. Licinius II was eventually
moved from Thessalonica to Pola, where in 326 (perhaps around the same
time Constantine executed his son, Crispus, and his wife, Fausta) he too
was executed.
The other young man, an illegitimate half-brother of Licinius II, had
his status restored by rescript after the war and was given high rank. How
ever, he was later implicated in the Cypriot revolt staged by Calocaerus in
334 (which was thwarted by the future Caesar Dematius), and as punish
ment was either executed or condemned to slavery at an Imperial weav-
ing-mill in Carthage in 336.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : Licinius II is perhaps more properly named Licinius

Junior, as his name on coinage often appears as LICINIVS IVN (or IVNIOR
on a medallion of Nicomedia). By far his most interesting issues are his fac-
ing-head solidi and the reduced nummi which show his bust confronted
either with the bust of his father or of Constantine II. Other nummi of
interest are those which show that Licinius I bestowed upon his own son
the additional name Constantine as a show of good faith in the agreement
made at Serdica on March 1,317. The inscriptions occur at Nicomedia in
the form VA CO LICINIVS NOB (or N) CS, at Heraclea as D N VAL
CONST LICINIVS NOB C, and at Alexandria in the expanded form VAL
CONSTANTIN VS LICINIVS N CAES. The goodwill did not last long, how
ever, for the coins are very rare and were probably restricted to 317.
TH E C O N S T A N T IN IA N ERA 47 I
VALERIUS VALENS a .d . 316-317

Gaius Aurelius Valerius Valens, d. A.D. 317. Dur
ing the First Licinian War, when Licinius 1 was los
ing ground in the Balkans to Constantine I, he
officially deposed Constantine for his unlawful
aggressions. He then optimistically replaced C on
stantine with Valerius Valens, one of his own fron
tier generals (dux limitatis) who was destined to hold the title of Augustus
for only three months before being executed.
Like most details of the period, exactly when Valerius Valens was
hailed Augustus is not certain. It may have occurred at the battle at
Cibalae on October 8 , 316, or shortly thereafter when the Licinian armies
were conducting a fighting retreat. In response to his being hailed co-
Augustus, Constantine seems to have raised his two eldest sons, Crispus
and the infant Constantine II, to the rank of Caesar (though they were not
formally installed until the spring of 317 ).
In either case, Licinius and Valerius Valens were on the defensive and
shortly into the New Year sued for peace. Constantine assumed the title of
Senior Augustus, took control of all Balkan territories except Thrace (and
half of Moesia) and demanded that Valerius Valens be deposed. Licinius
agreed to the terms and went one step further by executing Valerius
Valens, probably in January (perhaps on the 8 th) of 317. The execution
was not merely an act of good faith toward Constantine, but also removed
a potential rival within Licinius’ own realm.
N u m ism a t ic N o t e : Deceptive 20th Century forgeries (commonly known

by the name “The Geneva Forgeries”) exist of the nummi of Valerius
Valens and of four other issuers. Many of the known examples are illus
trated and described by R. A. G. Carson in the 1958 Numismatic Chronicle,
pp. 47-58, pis. V-VI. An offprint of Carson’s article was published in 1977.
MARTINIAN A.D. 324

Sextus Marcius(?) Martinianus, d. A.D. 325. The
fate of Martinian was virtually identical to that of
Valerius Valens — both men briefly served as the
co-emperor of Licinius I in the final months of his
civil wars with Constantine the Great. Martinian
did not reign as long (about two months) as Vale
rius Valens, but he survived a few months longer after being deposed, for
he was not executed until the following year.
During the final stage of the Second Licinian War, Licinius officially
deposed Constantine for his military aggressions into Thrace, which along
with half of Moesia was Licinius’ only European possession. In Constan
tine’s place, Licinius made his Master of Offices (magister officiorum), Mar
tinian, emperor of the West. Martinian was the second-highest-ranking
officer in Licinius’ administration and though the Imperial bodyguards
were under his command, the magister officiorum was not a military post.
The First Licinian War (316-317) had been relatively nondestructive
in comparison with the second. This time the combined land forces
exceeded 250,000 men and some 500 ships. With such large armies and
navies, it is not surprising that the casualties and defections were enormous.
By mid-324 the war had begun, and Licinius immediately began to
lose ground to Constantine. He engaged in a fighting retreat toward the
Bosporus and late in July he instructed Martinian to muster whatever sol
diers and vessels he could to prevent Constantine from crossing onto
Asian soil. Martinian, however, was unable to prevent the enemy’s
advance, for Constantine’s eldest son, Crispus, made a flotilla of light
transport ships, and Constantine’s legions entered Asia Minor virtually
unopposed.
Licinius was routed yet again at Chrysopolis on September 18, 323,
by which point the deaths in his army exceeded 60,000 and defections
numbered 50,000 or more. The Licinian army (now reduced from 150,000
to about 30,000) abandoned its defensive position at Calchedon and
retreated further east to Nicomedia, where they hoped to make one last
stand. However, the lives of the two emperors and their army were spared
by Constantia, the wife of Licinius I and a half-sister of Constantine, who
intervened and negotiated an honorable surrender in late September or
early October.
In exchange for their abdications, Constantine promised to spare the
lives of Licinius, his son Licinius II, and the co-emperor, Martinian. The
royal captives were placed under house arrest: Licinius I and Licinius II at
Thessalonica, and Martinian in Cappadocia. True to form, Constantine
soon went back on his word and executed both former emperors in the
spring of 325, followed by the execution of Licinius II in 326.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : Counterfeits of the nummi of Martinian were pro

duced by the same forger who produced certain coins of Valerius Valens
(for details see the note for the latter’s coinage).
CONSTANTINE I ‘THE GREAT’

A .D . 3 0 7 - 3 3 7
C a e s a r (r e c o g n iz e d ): a .d . 3 0 6 -3 0 9
F iliu s A u g u s to r u m (r e c o g n iz e d ):
a .d . 3 0 9 -3 1 0
A u g u s t u s ( s e lf- p r o c la im e d ): a .d . 3 0 7 -3 1 0
A u g u s t u s (r e c o g n iz e d ): a .d . 3 1 0 -3 3 7
S o n o f C o n sta n tiu s Iand H e le n a

H u s b a n d o f M in e r v in a a n d F a u s t a
F a t h e r (b y M i n e r v i n a ) o f C r i s p u s a n d (b y F a u s t a ) o f C o n s t a n t i n e II,
C o n sta n tiu s II, C o n s t a n s , C o n sta n tin a (w. o f H a n n ib a llia n u s &
C o n s t a n t iu s G a llu s ) a n d H e le n a th e Y o u n g e r (w. o f Ju lia n II)
S o n - in - la w o f M a x im ia n a n d E u t r o p ia
B r o th e r - in - la w o f M a x e n tiu s
H a l f - b r o t h e r o f C o n s t a n t i a (w . o f L i c i n i u s I)
H a l f - u n c l e o f D e lm a tiu s, H a n n ib a llia n u s , C o n s t a n t i u s G a l l u s , J u l i a n II,
L i c i n i u s II a n d N e p o t i a n
G r a n d f a t h e r o f C o n s t a n t i a (<ua o f G r a t i a n )
Flavius Valerius Constantinus, c . A .D . 272/ 3 , 274 (alternately, early

28 os)~ 3 37 . The importance of Constantine the Great to western history
cannot be underestimated. Only two other Roman emperors — Augustus
and Diocletian — had so great an impact on the future of his world. For
Constantine is inextricably tied to the emergence of Christianity as the
chief religion of the Western world, and thus with the introduction of
Europe into the post-Classical world.
Constantine was born at Naïssus to Helena, a Bithynian barmaid, and
Constantius I, a Danubian soldier whose origins were humble but who
achieved the ranks of Caesar and Augustus in the course of his duty. It is
not known if Constantine’s parents were married, but we can be certain
that Constantine was not ashamed about his origins, for he extensively
honored his parents in coinage and on other media. Historians sharply dis
agree on the subject of Constantine’s birth year, though most favor some
time between 272 and 274. Some of his panegyrists suggest he was born in
the early 280s, but these almost certainly are attempts to falsify his youth.
By all accounts Constantine was a violent, suspicious, temperamental
and intimidating man. The historian Eusebius reports that as a young man
Constantine was tall, graceful, and so completely surpassed “his contempo
raries in personal strength that he struck terror into them.” Indeed, this
man (who later in life gained the nickname “bull neck”) must have been a
frightening adversary, either in armor on the battlefield or in jewel-
encrusted robes in the royal court.
Throughout his lifetime, Constantine’s behavior was opportunistic
and inconsistent, for he followed policies that served his immediate needs.
474 H IS T O R Y O F T H E R O M A N EM PIRE! B IO G R A P H IE S
Foremost was his adoption of Christianity, the teachings of which he failed

to embrace. His impious personal behavior and his retention of the pagan
title Pontifex Maximus until his death demonstrate his hypocrisy on a pol
icy that was the cornerstone of his reign.
When Constantine’s father began to rise to the highest levels of the
government, he was forced to end his association with Constantine’s
mother, Helena, so he could marry Theodora, the step-daughter of the
emperor Maximian. Constantius I and Theodora subsequently had several
children, thus creating a separate branch of the “Constantinian” family.
Because the first generation of this rival branch was persecuted by Helena
and Fausta, its members were fairly innocuous. However, the second gener
ation figured tragically into the Imperial politics of Constantine and his
three surviving sons.
The story of the first Christian emperor is especially complex because
his treatment by Christian writers of the Late Roman and Byzantine eras is
excessively flattering. A t the same time they praise Constantine, these
same historians unfairly vilify his many opponents. For scholars, this is a
task not unlike trying to determine the point of view of the Germans or
Sasanians through histories written by Romans.
In truth, Constantine was an enigma. On the one hand he was a self-
assured emissary of God, and on the other he was an utterly ruthless mur
derer and a single-minded aggressor who would go to any length to become
sole emperor. This balance of qualities, seemingly in opposition, did not
prevent kings of the Middle Ages from viewing him as the archetype of the
European Christian king.
His major failures were few, but important. For example, it is hard to
imagine that a man of his worldly character would have believed that his
three sons and two half-nephews would share the Empire cooperatively
after he died. But whatever his failings, the achievements of Constantine
were numerous. He was a brilliant general, administrator and statesman
who not only led Europe’s conversion from paganism to Christianity, but
began construction of Constantinople (a “new Rome” ) on the Golden
Horn, an act that proved to be Europe’s salvation for a millennium after
his death.
He chose the location of his new city for the strategic importance it
played in the two wars he waged against Licinius I. Indeed, the foundation
of Constantinople (on a Greek settlement named Byzantium) ranks as one
of the great events of late antiquity. For this and other important reasons,
many historians consider him to be the first of the so-called Byzantine
emperors.
Because Constantine’s father was Caesar in the West, the Eastern
Augustus Diocletian retained Constantine as a “hostage” in his court at
Nicomedia to ensure the good behavior of the boy’s father. While serving
in Diocletian’s court, Constantine came to know his eventual rival, Licin
ius I, for both of them served with distinction in Galerius’ campaign
against the Sasanians from 297 to 298.
By the time Diocletian and Maximian abdicated in May of 305, the
health of Constantius I had begun to fail, so he petitioned that his son,
Constantine, should be released to join him in the West. The new Augus
tus in the East, Galerius, granted the request, and in 306 Constantine
embarked on the long journey from Nicomedia to Boulogne, where he met
his father. Wary of possible assassination by Galerius or the Caesar Severus
II, Constantine traveled swiftly and discreetly.
Both Constantine and his father were in dangerous positions, for
even though Constantius I was technically the Senior Augustus, he had
been politically outmaneuvered by Galerius, who had been Diocletian’s
confidant. Indeed, Galerius was so intent on installing his own candidates
Severus II and Maximinus Daia in the vacant offices of Caesar that he
bypassed two prime candidates: Constantine (who was the son of the cur
rent Senior Augustus) and Maxentius, the son of the retired emperor
Maximian.
In that same year (306) Constantine and his father sailed to Britain,
where they shared command in the war against the Piets. In the process
Constantine came to be admired by the soldiers under his father’s com
mand, and they supported his cause when Constantius I transferred his
imperium to Constantine while on his deathbed at York on July 25, 306.
The event is said to have been witnessed by soldiers, and in one swift
action, Constantine commandeered authority in Gaul, Britain and Spain.
Initially, Constantine took the title Augustus, for he was determined
to be a direct replacement for his deceased father. Upon further reflection,
however, he changed his mind. N ot only was it an “illegal” act (for the
title of Augustus would naturally go to one of the two men who already
held the rank of Caesar), but Galerius grudgingly offered him the legiti
mate title of Caesar. Constantine accepted, and Galerius promoted the
Caesar Severus II to Augustus.
Constantine cautiously remained in the West during this early part of
his reign, devoting himself to defending the Rhine. He waged war on the
Franks from 306 to 307, and made sorties into the territory of the Bructeri.
In 308 he even bridged the Rhine near Cologne to lead a punitive expedi
tion. With few breaks from frontier warfare, he remained more or less
occupied with the Rhine until he left Gaul in 312.
Because Constantine had essentially forced Galerius to hail him C ae
sar in 306, Maxentius (the son of Maximian, who had no rank) viewed
Constantine as the man who had robbed him of the new opening in the
Tetrarchy created by the death of Constantius I. As a result, Constantine

and Maxentius would never see eye-to-eye, and this was just the beginning
of their personal conflict.
Believing he never would be offered a legitimate chance for authority,
Maxentius rebelled in Rome on October 28, 306, claiming the titles Prin-
ceps and Caesar. Maxentius soon added to his renegade government his own
father, Maximian, who had unwillingly retired in 305 with Diocletian.
The father and son rebels proclaimed themselves Augusti early in 307
as they braced in the spring for an invasion of Italy led by the newly
appointed Augustus, Severus II. The invasion was easily repelled by M axi
mian, who bribed the invader’s soldiers. Severus II was captured and forced
to abdicate, and by the summer had been executed. The Tetrarchy now
numbered only three — an insufficiency that was not remedied until
November, 308.
Immediately after the victory over Severus II, Maximian left his son,
Maxentius, in Italy and traveled to Gaul to see Constantine. The two men
— seeing Galerius as their enemy-in-common — made a pact that was
sealed on March 31 with Constantine’s marriage to Fausta, the daughter of
Maximian and sister of Maxentius. Now fully committed to opposing
Galerius, Constantine did not hesitate to accept the title of Augustus that
Maximian offered him in July, 307 (though he remained a Caesar in the
mind of Galerius).
As these events were occurring in Gaul, Italy was invaded a second
time, later in 307. This incursion was led by Galerius himself, but it proved
no more successful than the effort led earlier by Severus II. Forewarned by
the fate of his predecessor, Galerius hastily withdrew to Illyria before his
retreat could be cut off, either by Maxentius or by his Gallic ally Constan
tine. About this time, perhaps, Spain switched its allegiance from C on
stantine to Maxentius — an event that Constantine no doubt attributed
to treachery on the part of Maxentius.
Having achieved his mission in Gaul, Maximian returned to Rome
early in 308 to join his son, only to discover that they were unable to share
authority. Maximian tried to overthrow his son in April of 308 but failed
and fled to Gaul to take refuge with his new son-in-law, Constantine.
Together, in the summer or fall of 308, they convinced the vicar of North
Africa, Lucius Domitius Alexander, to revolt against Maxentius.
By denying Rome most of its grain supply, Domitius Alexander had
the potential to starve the Romans, and thus to topple Maxentius’ regime
(presumably so that his benefactor Maximian could step in and take com
mand). Short food supplies caused civil unrest in Rome, and Maxentius
used his well-fed Praetorian guardsmen to quell civilian riots in which
some 6,000 died.
TH E C O N S T A N T I N I A N E R A 477
Realizing his peril, either late in 309 or early in 310 Maxentius outfit
ted an expedition against Carthage that was extraordinarily destructive,
but which restored North Africa to his domain and caused the death of
Alexander. Though some historians (following Zosimus’ Nea Historia) sug
gest the African revolt ended in 311, it more likely ended late in the sum
mer or in the fall of 310.
Since the Empire now had six claimants (one legitimate Augustus, two
legitimate Caesars and three rebels), Galerius held a conference at Carnun
tum on November 11, 308. A t this meeting he hoped to find a solution to
the problems the Empire faced — one that would still work in his own favor.
However, Galerius’ inflexibility assured that nothing was resolved, and
though a new member was added to round out the Tetrarchy, none of the
parties (save Galerius and the new member, Licinius I) emerged satisfied.
Installed at Carnuntum as the replacement for the slain Severus II
was Galerius’ comrade Licinius I, who was appointed Junior Augustus even
though he had not previously held the rank of Caesar. As for the other par
ticipants: Maximinus Daia remained Caesar and was enraged for being
“leapfrogged” by Licinius I; Constantine was confirmed as Caesar (though
he still claimed to be Augustus); Maximian was forced to abdicate a sec
ond time; and Maxentius and Alexander remained condemned as public
enemies.
The civil war reached a new level of crisis in 309 when the Syrian
and Egyptian soldiers of Galerius’ nephew, Maximinus Daia, threatened to
declare him Augustus. This concerned Galerius, who had thus far counted
on the cooperation of his nephew. Fearing the consequences of inaction,
Galerius gave to both Daia and Constantine the nebulous title Filius
Augustorum (“Son of the Augusti” ) so as to keep the rivals satisfied. How
ever, both recipients realized it was an empty promotion that had no more
authority than did their old rank of Caesar.
Constantine did not attend the conference at Carnuntum in person,
but rather sent his father-in-law, Maximian, as his representative. Thus,
when Maximian returned to Gaul without a title, he was allowed to serve
as an adviser to Constantine. But that arrangement did not last long, and
in a fit of desperation in the spring of 310 (though this date is debated
among scholars), Maximian revolted while Constantine was waging war
on the Rhine.
Maximian’s “third reign” was not only ephemeral, but its purpose is
unknown. Maximian was hotly pursued by Constantine, who abandoned
his campaign on the Rhine and chased Maximian to Marseilles, where the
downtrodden ex-emperor either committed suicide or was executed. It is
about this time that Constantine adopted into his propaganda the emperor
Claudius II (268-270), a hero whom he claimed was a relative of his
father, Constantius I. Though Constantine invented the claim in 310, he

did not promote it on coinage until 316, during the First Licinian War.
Meanwhile, in 310, events in the East took a fortuitous turn for C on
stantine: Maximinus Daia was hailed Augustus by his own soldiers, leaving
Galerius no choice but to ratify the promotion. Since Constantine had
received promotions in-step with Daia, Galerius likewise raised him from
Filius A ugustorum to Augustus to avoid similar problems in the West. A t
long last, Constantine was officially an emperor. Moreover, he seems to
have regained possession of Spain from Maxentius.
Early in May, 311, the scenario was simplified when the Senior
Augustus Galerius died of disease. His territories were quickly claimed by
Licinius I (in Europe) and Maximinus Daia (in Asia), who drew their terri
torial line at the Bosporus. Now only four claimants remained — though it
was no Tetrarchy, for the Empire was ruled by four de facto emperors: M ax
iminus Daia, Licinius I, Maxentius and Constantine — each of whom was
a rival to the other.
Each of the participants was insecure about his position, and so two
alliances emerged. Constantine and Licinius I made a pact of mutual
defense and sealed it with the marriage of Constantine’s half-sister, C on
stantia, to Licinius I. In response, Maximinus Daia and Maxentius subse
quently joined forces, though theirs quickly proved to be the weaker of the
two alliances.
After six years spent defending his own borders in Gaul, Constantine
went on the offensive in the fall of 312 and invaded Italy to oust his rival
Maxentius. Surprisingly, Constantine launched his campaign with consid
erably fewer soldiers than his opponent, but that did not prevent a series of
victories in Northern Italy that led to the final confrontation just outside
Rome.
This was perhaps the pivotal event in the reign of Constantine. It
branded him an aggressor, and it proved to be the moment at which he
shed his patronage of Apollo and Sol, and instead embraced the Christian
faith. On the eve of the battle, while camped in the outskirts of Rome, Con
stantine is said to have dreamed and to have experienced a celestial vision,
causing him to convert to Christianity. As a result of his transformation,
Constantine instructed his men to paint a cross or a Christogram (a mono
gram of Christ’s name) upon their shields prior to the battle on October 28,
312. The civil war between Maxentius and Constantine had now taken on a
religious dimension: paganism vs. Christianity.
After six years of less-than-competent rule in Italy, Maxentius had
become so unpopular in Rome that he decided to force a pitched battle
before his support eroded any further. The two armies initially engaged one
another on the Via Flaminia, and finally at the Milvian Bridge. Despite his
numerical superiority and urgency, Maxentius did not fare well, and his
army was thrown into retreat. Thousands of Maxentius’ soldiers, along

with Maxentius himself, died in the waters of the Tiber as they hurriedly
tried to cross to the river on a bridge of boats that collapsed.
Constantine was now the uncontested emperor in most of Europe. He
was welcomed by the senate, which unhesitatingly declared him the
Senior Augustus in the Empire ( titulus primi ordinis). Constantine disman-
tied the long-lived institution of the praetorian guards and introduced new
top military offices known collectively as magistri militum. The two main
officers were now the magister peditum, who was in charge of the infantry or
foot soldiers, and the magister equitum, who led the cavalry. The title of the
overall military commander in the later Empire came to be known as the
magister militum (“Master of Soldiers”).
Now only three men ruled the Empire, and Maximinus Daia (who
occupied all of Asia and Egypt) clearly was the odd man out. Thus when
Constantine and Licinius I met at Milan in February, 313, to formalize
their alliance, Daia sensed that he must strike swiftly if he was to survive.
As his two enemies were conducting the marriage of Licinius I and C on
stantia and were issuing the Edict of Milan (which established tolerance
for all religions), Daia led his soldiers from Syria to Thrace on a winter
march.
Early in the spring, Daia invaded Licinius’ European territory of
Thrace. Daia’s journey was so swift that Licinius I had to leave Milan
before all of his business had been concluded so he could repel the inva
sion. Constantine no doubt savored the moment, for one of his two com
petitors would certainly perish in this campaign.
Daia’s army was larger than Licinius’, but his soldiers were exhausted
and demoralized. N ot surprisingly, they fought poorly and were defeated
late in April, 313, seemingly near Heraclea. Though Daia himself escaped
dressed as a slave, he died as a fugitive before the year was out. Licinius’
victory was quite profitable; not only did he rid himself of a dangerous foe,
but he also took possession of all Asiatic territories. In the meantime (by
late May), Constantine had returned to his traditional capital of Trier.
The Empire was now ruled by only two men, Constantine and Licin
ius I, who were linked by a dynastic marriage and a political alliance. T he
oretically, this was an ideal point at which a new Tetrarchy could be
established, with each Augustus adopting a Caesar. But that was not to be,
for the two men inherently distrusted one other, and each ultimately
desired supreme power. The peace they shared was uneasy from the start —
so much so that they installed a man named Bassianus in Rhaetia and
Pannona, two provinces that together constituted a “buffer state” along
the Italian border. Since Bassianus was related to both men by marriage
(he was Constantine’s half-brother-in-law, and was the husband of Licin
ius’ wife’s sister), he might have been able to carry out his duties with
impartiality. However, while Constantine was occupied with problems

associated with the Donatist schism in North Africa, Bassianus seems to
have been enticed by Licinius to revolt on his behalf.
Late in July of 315, Constantine responded to the treachery of
Bassianus by rushing to Italy to prevent any westward spread of the rebel
lion. Tensions rose over the course of the next year, and the First Licinian
War began in August or September of 316.
Constantine acted swiftly and Licinius retreated eastward, suffering
defeats on October 8 at Cibalae and subsequently at Campus Adriensis.
Licinius officially “deposed” Constantine for his aggressions, and replaced
him as emperor in the West with his own frontier commander Valerius
Valens. The addition of Valerius Valens did not change the outcome for
Licinius, who sued for peace very early in 317.
The spoils of Constantine’s victory (luke-warm though it was)
included the undisputed title of Senior Augustus, the execution of Valerius
Valens and control of most of the Balkan territories (except Thrace and
half of Moesia). On March 1, 317, both emperors held formal ceremonies
at which their sons (Crispus, Constantine II and Licinius II) were raised to
the rank of Caesar.
During the next six years, Constantine remained in the Balkans to
keep an eye on Licinius. His family also began to grow: already bom were
Constantine II (at Arles, in 316) and Constantius II (in Illyria, in 317)
and soon to follow was Constans (at Constantinople, in 320 or 323). In
addition, Constantine’s eldest son, Crispus, who was bom to the wife (or
consort) of his youth, Minervina, was fast maturing.
Constantine and Licinius remained cautious allies until Constantine
entered Thrace at the head of an army in the summer of 322 (or possibly
323) on the pretext that he was defending the region from encroachment
by Goths. Though this was a legal act, Licinius saw it for what it was — an
unwarranted aggression into his own sovereign territory. Just as in the pre
vious war, the hostilities escalated until, by mid-324, the Second Licinian
War had begun.
Constantine achieved an important victory against Licinius at Adrian-
ople on July 3, 324, and Licinius’ navy was captured by Constantine’s eldest
son, Crispus (who did so with a much smaller fleet). Licinius retreated to
Byzantium, where he was besieged and opted to cross over to Asia. In a vir
tual repeat of his actions in the First Licinian War, Licinius hailed his magis-
ter officiorum Martinian as emperor in place of Constantine. Martinian and
Licinius, however, were defeated badly at Chrysopolis on September 18, 324
and soon prepared to make a last stand at Calchedon.
Licinius’ original army of about 150,000 men had been reduced by
casualty and desertion to only about 30,000. Neither side desired a final
battle, for it would be Roman against Roman. The surrender of Licinius
and Martinian was arranged by Constantia, the wife of Licinius and half-
sister of Constantine. Both Licinius and Martinian were deposed, though
Constantia arranged that their lives should be spared, and they should be
allowed to live in exile.
Licinius was placed under house arrest in Thessalonica together with
his young son, Licinius II, and Martinian was sent to Cappadocia. C on
trary to the promises he had made at the time of surrender, Constantine
ordered the executions of the men in the spring of the following year
(325), ostensibly because they had conspired to overthrow his regime, but
more likely because they represented a potential threat.
A round of promotions within Constantine’s family followed the vic
tory: on November 8 , 324, the day he founded the city of Constantinople
(his “New Rome” on the Bosporus), both his mother, Helena, and wife,
Fausta, were promoted from Nobilissima Femina (“most noble woman”) to
Augusta, and Constantius II, his middle son by Fausta, was formally hailed
Caesar.
After nearly two decades of warfare from Gaul to the Bosporus, C on
stantine had taken command of the whole Empire. A t this point Constan
tine began the projects that would shape the future of the western world.
Chief among these was his greatest architectural accomplishment, C on
stantinople, but also included were many other religious and secular build
ings throughout his Empire.
Constantine also worked tirelessly to unify the factions of the Chris
tian church. His most significant act (since failing to solve the Donatist
schism at Arles in 314) was the Council of Nicaea, which he hosted in
325. Here, Christian orthodoxy was defined in the Creed, and an illusory
victory was won over Arianism (which was condemned as heresy). C on
stantine also developed a framework by which he could bequeath the
Empire to family members, and planned extensively for the conquest of
Persia, which was cut short by his own death.
By far the darkest year of Constantine’s reign was 326, for within a
short span he ordered the execution of his eldest son, Crispus, his wife,
Fausta, and his exiled half-nephew Licinius II. N ot only did these tragic
murders damage his legacy among pagans and Christians alike, but they
caused some of his leading advisers and theologians (as well as his mother,
Helena, who conveniently embarked on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land) to
leave his court, apparently in protest of his behavior.
Constantine’s family was large and complex. Both he and his father
had sired children with two different women, thus creating three branches
to the Constantinian family. Most remote to Constantine was the step-
family created by his father, and most immediate were the two branches of
direct descendants he had sired. Needless to say, this created hostile
rivalries.
Constantine’s step-family was persecuted by his own mother, Helena,

and his wife, Fausta. His eldest son, Crispus, was also targeted by Fausta,
who saw him as a rival to her own three sons by Constantine. The rivalry
between Fausta and Crispus came to a head in 326, when Fausta leveled
charges of an uncertain nature against Crispus. So serious and convincing
were these charges that Constantine executed his eldest son in August or
September, 326.
Crispus was the emperor’s only son by Minervina, the woman with
whom he had had a long-term relationship prior to his political marriage
to Fausta. (Though Constantine most likely was married to Minervina,
hostile Christian historians — who attempted to contrast the ‘pagan’ and
‘Christian’ phases of his life — considered her to be nothing more than a
concubine.) Because of his impressive naval victory against Licinius I in
324, Crispus had achieved a hero status among the Romans. Indeed, his
rise and fall is comparable to that of the equally heroic Germanicus, who
had fallen victim to a family plot orchestrated by Tiberius some three cen
turies earlier.
One can hardly condemn Fausta’s motives (she was either concerned
for the welfare of her children or was smarting from rejection, as it was
rumored that Crispus refused her amorous advances), but her actions consti
tuted treachery of the highest order. Constantine believed the charges made
by Fausta and seems to have behaved rashly by ordering the execution of
Crispus; he soon regretted this decision so greatly that he tried to clear his
conscience by ordering the execution of Fausta a month or two later. In a
state of mourning, Constantine erected a golden statue in honor of the mar
tyred Crispus, the son whom he had “unjustly condemned.”
Perhaps lending credence to the rumors that amorous rejection
caused the fiasco is the punitive legislation Constantine drafted. Constan
tine’s most severe laws concerned sexual behavior: rapists and girls who
eloped with their lovers were to be burned alive; nurses who assisted elop
ing girls were to have molten lead poured down their throats; parents were
deported if they concealed a seduction of their daughter; and girls who
were raped while far from home were punished for having wandered so far
astray. Considering that Constantine’s paranoia was equaled only by his
prudery, his reasons for this legislation must remain a mystery.
The round of murders in 326 greatly simplified the Constantinian fam
ily structure: Helena, Constantine’s elderly mother, had taken leave; his
wife, Fausta, was dead, as was his eldest and most promising son, Crispus. He
did, however, have three sons and two daughters (by Fausta) as well as the
members of his step-family (who were able to emerge from their exile now
that both Helena and Fausta were removed from the political scene).
The next great event in the reign of Constantine occurred in the

summer of 330, when he officially dedicated his eponymous eastern capital
on May 11. This grand event was followed two weeks later with a celebra
tion of his 25th anniversary in power. Clearly, he had emerged from the
tragic executions of 326 by focusing his efforts on the substantive affairs of
church and state.
In 328 he had campaigned against the Alemanni on the Rhine with
his young son Constantine II at his side. Later still, in 332, he began a
major campaign against the Goths, which he continued in 334 against the
Sarmatians. Constantine II, at that time about 16 years old, left Trier to
join his father for the Gothic campaign. Together they won great victories,
including one against the Visigothic king Alaric I, who suffered nearly
100,000 deaths among his followers.
In the succeeding years, Constantine’s other heirs were given greater
responsibilities: in 333 his middle son, Constantius II, was installed at
Antioch, and his youngest son, Constans (who was then either 9 or 12
years old), was hailed Caesar on Christmas day. Toward the end of 335,
Constantine formalized his plan for succession by dividing the Empire
among his three sons (who already were Caesars) and two of his half-neph-
ews (who were brothers).
Though there were five heirs, only four were confirmed as Caesars
(the fifth, Hanniballianus, had a non-Roman title and peripheral duties).
Constantine had created his own junior Tetrarchy that was loosely based
on the one Diocletian had created more than four decades before.
Throughout the two years that remained of his life, however, Constantine
never relinquished sole proprietorship of the title of Augustus.
Since Constantine II was most familiar with the western provinces,
he was allotted Gaul, Britain and Spain (and seemingly the westernmost
part of North Africa, either as part of the original allotment or as a later
addition). The rest of the Empire was divided between the four other heirs:
Constantius II received Asia Minor; Constans received Italy and Illyria
(and eventually the lower Danubian provinces and North Africa); the
half-cousin Delmatius received the lower Danubian provinces (and seem
ingly the city of Constantinople); and the other half-cousin, Hannibal
lianus, inherited the Pontus and Armenia (with the title “King of Kings”).
By 336, Constantine (then probably in his early 60s) had recaptured
much of the Dacian lands that Trajan had conquered but which long ago
had fallen back into barbarian hands. Now he was able to focus on his last
important goal: conquering Persia. He had purposely installed Hannibal
lianus on the Persian frontier with the boastful title “King of Kings” to
antagonize the Sasanian king Shapur II. His presumptions were correct,
and Shapur II invaded Armenia — breaking the treaty the Sasanians had
agreed to under Diocletian, and thus giving Constantine an ideal opportu-
nity to retaliate.
In the very midst of preparations — indeed, while he was en route to
the eastern front — Constantine died on May 22, 337. While on his
deathbed at Achyrona (an Imperial residence outside Nicomedia) Euse
bius, the Arian bishop of Nicimedia, baptized Constantine, cleansing him
of a lifetime of mortal sins.
Soon thereafter, Constantius II, Constantine’s 20-year-old son, pre
sided over his funeral in Constantinople. The ceremony was held at the
Church of the Twelve Apostles, where the emperor was proclaimed the
13th Apostle. Later still, he was declared a Christian saint, just as had been
done for his mother, Helena.
Following Constantine’s death, there was an interregnum of 110 days
during which his heirs kept the titles they had been given, and Constan
tine’s idealistic formula (in which power was shared by the two branches of
the family) was put to the test. It failed immediately and miserably. In less
than three months many of Constantine’s half-brothers and half-nephews
(including Delmatius and Hanniballianus) were murdered, virtually exter
minating the rival branch of the Constantinian family. The path for the
three sons of Fausta finally had been cleared of immediate obstacles.
The three brothers absorbed the territories once ruled by Delmatius
and Hanniballianus and hailed themselves Augusti on September 9, 337.
Religious and territorial squabbles began among the three brothers even
before the half-cous ins were murdered. This was a tragic beginning to a
fratricidal contest in which only one of the three surviving heirs would die
a natural death.
Much is disputed about the chronology of C on

C h r o n o lo g ic a l N o te :
stantine’s reign. The Theodosian Code, which records the travels of the
emperor by listing the date and place of Imperial constitutions, is our most
complete source, but its accuracy has been challenged. O f particular
importance is the date of Constantine’s victory over Maxentius at the M il
vian Bridge. Though traditionally given to the year 312 , Patrick Bruun, in
his Studies in Constantinian Chronology (ANS NNM 146, 1961), citing
numismatic and historical evidence, suggests it occurred exactly one year
earlier, in 311. Though his view may be correct, it has not been adopted in
standard references.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : Like Diocletian, Constantine was an avid reformer of

coinage in all metals. Thus, his coinage is complex and diverse, incorpo
rating many denominations and a considerable variety of reverse types. A t
different stages in his reign Constantine abandoned Diocletian’s denomi
nations, and thus established a path for coinage which would survive the
remainder of the Roman Empire and serve as the foundation for the sue-
ceeding “Byzantine” series.
In gold Constantine replaced the reformed Tetrarchic gold aureus
(struck at 60 to the pound) with the lighter solidus, which was struck at 72
to the pound. The transition began in 309, but overlapped through 324,
after which gold coins of aureus weight make only occasional appearances
as ceremonial pieces. Constantine complimented his new solidus with two
half-denominations: a semissis or semis (struck at 144 to the pound) and
the 1-1/2 scripulum or nine-siliqua piece (typically c. 1.6-1.7 grams). Both
seem to have begun as ceremonial coins, with the former becoming part of
the regular system of the Byzantine Empire, and the latter being phased
out and replaced by the smaller, more practical gold tremissis (one-third
solidus) introduced in the 380s and struck at 216 to the pound.
Silver coin production in the form of the Tetrarchic argenteus (of
high purity, 96 to the pound) had ceased by c. 312, though this denomina
tion briefly re-emerged in billon form (perhaps 25% silver). Constantine
resurrected silver coinage in two entirely new forms of high purity silver:
the miliarensis and the siliqua. The first was probably a ceremonial piece
and was struck in two varieties: at 60 and 72 to the pound (imitating the
gold standards, respectively, of the aureus and the solidus). The so-called
siliqua (which was probably called an argenteus) was introduced in 324 and
was struck at 96 to the pound. Intrinsically this was an exact duplication of
Diocletian’s argenteus, but its thin, broad fabric and low relief gave it a
markedly different appearance. Principally for this reason, the term siliqua
is used to describe this coin in this catalog, even though it is probably
incorrect. Late in the reign of Constantius II (337-361), Constantine’s
longest-surviving son, the siliqua was reduced to 144 to the pound, thus
giving rise to the concept of heavy and light siliquae (though “pre-reform”
and “post-reform” are, perhaps, more accurate designations).
Base metal and billon coinage also underwent considerable change
during the three decades of Constantine’s reign. From a large nummus of
about 2 7 -3 1mm (which Constantine struck as Caesar), the denomination
was continually reduced in size and weight. The first drop occured c. 307/8
and and the second c. 311/3; the nummus was eventually reduced in size to
what numismatists call an Æ3 (c. 17-22mm). In 335/6 this once-impres-
sive coin was further reduced to a size category most often called Æ3/4
(15-18mm), and finally, around the time of Constantine’s death, it was
reduced again to the Æ4 module (10-12mm). The nummus continued to
be reduced in weight, purity (the small traces of silver being replaced with
lead) and value, eventually becoming what was called a nummus minimus.
Constantine struck various ‘fractional’ nummi denominations in the base
metal and billon series, most of which are not understood fully, but
seemingly are half- or quarter-nummi, or are late examples of the anti

quated quinar ius.
The development of Constantine’s bust types is also of interest. These
began with a relatively crude image with laurel wreath and short-cropped
hair (in the ‘pagan’ phase of his reign). Gradually his effigy was trans
formed into a less-militant image with longer hair, curling at the nape of
the neck. The portrait on some of Constantine’s final issues is ‘upward gaz
ing,’ which, when combined with the royal diadem (in place of the laurel
wreath), is remniscent of the ancient Greek portraiture of six centuries
before. In terms of their general treatment, Constantine’s portraits are uni
formly youthful, harking back to the Augustan ideal.
Also noteworthy is the shift in emphasis of reverse types from pagan
to Christian. Constantine’s earliest issues primarily honor the sun-god Sol,
and Jupiter, the chief pagan deity. Later, these two deities were abandoned
in favor of personifications (and deities-turned-personifications, such as
Victory).
Constantine made the best use of his coins for propaganda, paying
careful attention to the historical events of his reign. Although most of his
commemorative types bear portraits of himself or his sons on the obverse,
there was a rather large series of coins and medallions which featured the
busts of ‘Roma’ and ‘Constantinopolis’ — the personifications of the
Empire’s two capitals. These issues were so popular that they were perpetu
ated under Constantine’s sons, and in the case of the small silver pieces (c.
l.Og.), even into the 5th and 6 th Centuries.
Unfortunately, the remarkable variety of reverse types largely ended
with Constantine’s reign. Although his sons issued coins of some icono
graphie interest and variety, there was a homogenization of design which
would only increase with the passage of time. The once-vibrant Roman
coinage fast became standardized in appearance and lost most of its artistic
merit — setbacks from which it never recovered.
The commemorative coins struck after Constantine’s death are lim
ited to the smallest and least-valuable denomination, the reduced nummus
of the Æ 4 module. As a perfect reflection of his institutionalization of
Christianity through a gradual transition from paganism, the most com
mon piece shows Constantine driving a quadriga of horses (in the manner
of the sun-god Sol) skyward toward the hand of God (the manus Dei),
which emerges from clouds to receive him into heaven.
FAUSTA
N o b l is s im a Fem in a , a .d . 3 i7 (? )-3 2 4
A u g u sta , a .d . 324-3 2 6
S e c o n d w if e o f C o n s t a n t i n e t h e G r e a t
M o t h e r o f C o n s t a n t i n e II, C o n s t a n t i u s II,
C o n s t a n s , C o n s t a n t in a (w . o f H a n n ib a l l ia n u s
& C o n s t a n t iu s G a l l u s ) a n d H e le n a t h e
Y o u n g e r (<ua o f J u l i a n II)
D a u g h t e r o f M a x im ia n a n d E u t r o p ia
S is t e r o f M a x e n t iu s
S t e p m o t h e r o f C r isp u s
D a u g h t e r -i n - l a w o f H e l e n a a n d ( p o s t h u m o u s l y ) o f C o n s t a n t i u s I
A u n t of R o m ulus
Flavia Maxima Fausta, d . A .D . 326. Fausta was wed to Constantine the

Great on March 31, 307, perhaps at Arles or Lugdunum. The union
cemented a political alliance that had just been established between the
rebel governments of Constantine in Gaul, and Maxentius and Maximian
in Italy. Constantine’s marital status prior to his marriage with Fausta is
uncertain, but whether or not he was married to Minervina (the woman by
whom earlier he had sired Crispus), he ceased having relations with her.
The father and son rebels in Italy, Maximian and Maxentius, began
on friendly terms, sharing their authority. After Maximian had returned to
Italy from Gaul (where he made the alliance with Constantine), he had a
falling out with his son in April, 308, and fled back to Gaul as a fugitive.
There he took refuge with his daughter and new son-in-law, Constantine.
Determined to oust Maxentius from Italy, Constantine and Maximian
instigated the North African vicar Alexander to rebel against Maxentius.
Maximian, who still held the outlaw title of Augustus, represented
Constantine at the Conference of Carnuntum in November 308, where he
was stripped of his self-proclaimed title and returned to Gaul in despair.
Thereafter he took on an advisory role in his son-in-law’s Gallic govern
ment. This turn of events allowed Fausta to spend more time with her
father while her husband was fighting Germans on the Rhine.
This situation was unsatisfactory for Maximian, who grew restless.
Either late in 309 or in the spring of 310, he declared himself emperor and
seized the treasury at Arles. Unfortunately for Maximian, Fausta betrayed
him to Constantine, who departed hastily from the German front and pur
sued his father-in-law, who fled south and was eventually captured and
killed.
Clearly, Fausta had to choose sides once she became privy to her
father’s plot. The fact that she chose to betray her father and inform C on
stantine perhaps indicates that her relationship with her father was poor.
In the succeeding years the marriage of Fausta and Constantine produced

five children, each of whom was destined to play an important role in state
affairs. The births of three sons demonstrate the extent of Fausta’s travels,
for Constantine II was born at Arles in 316, Constantius II in Illyria in 317
and Constans at Constantinople in 320 or 323. Her two daughters each
married half-cousins: the eldest, Constantina, married the short-lived heirs
Hanniballianus and Constantius Gallus; Helena the Younger married
Julian II, the last emperor of the Constantinian dynasty.
Beginning with her betrayal of her own father and later with her
treacherous efforts to ensure the succession of her three sons, Fausta
proved her loyalty. She earned in parallel with her mother-in-law, Helena,
the titles Nobilíssima Femina (“most noble woman”), presumably in 317,
and Augusta on November 8 , 324, after the conclusion of the Second
Licinian War. Though Fausta was the wife of Rome’s first Christian
emperor, she remained a pagan throughout her life.
The one act for which she will forever be known is the framing of her
stepson, Crispus, in mid-326. The charges she leveled against him are not
certainly known, but they were compelling enough that Constantine
ordered his own son’s execution. Most historians agree that Fausta falsified
the charges in an effort to clear the path of succession for her own three
sons.
But in this act of treachery, Fausta sealed her own fate. In the fall of
that same year, perhaps in September or October, Fausta was condemned
by her husband in what seems to have been the reaction of a father whose
guilty conscience had gotten the better of him. She was suffocated to
death in a hot bath either at Trier or in Rome (opinions vary). However, it
was also rumored that Fausta was executed for having an adulterous affair
with a palace official — a slave, or perhaps even the stepson whom she had
betrayed. In any case, the deaths of Crispus and Fausta are inextricably
linked, either by fact or by effect.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : Coins issued in the name of Fausta (as Augusta) were

struck in parallel with those of her mother-in-law Helena, except that
Fausta’s ended with her death in 326 and those of Helena continued to be
struck at some mints.
CRISPUS
C a e s a r , a .d . 31 6 -3 2 6
S o n o f C o n s t a n t in e t h e G r e a t a n d M in e r v in a
S t e p so n o f Fa u s t a
H a l f - b r o t h e r o f C o n s t a n t i n e II, C o n s t a n t i u s II,
C o n s t a n s , C o n s t a n t i n a (w . o f H a n n i b a l l i a n u s
& C o n s t a n t iu s G a l l u s ) a n d H e le n a th e
Y o u n g e r (w . o f J u l i a n II)
H a l f -c o u s i n o f D e l m a t i u s , H a n n i b a l l i a n u s ,
C o n sta n tiu s G a llu s , Ju lia n II, L i c i n i u s II a n d N e p o tia n
G ra n d so n o f C o n sta n tiu s I a n d H e le n a
Flavius Julius (or Valerius) Crispus, c. A.D. 300 or 303/5-326. The

eldest son of Constantine the Great, Crispus was born while his father was
a political hostage in the courts of Diocletian and Galerius. He was the
only child born of his father’s union with Minervina, a woman who more
than likely was his first wife, but who may have been a concubine. Later in
his life, detractors rumored that Crispus was a bastard child, and had no
blood connection to Constantine. However, this is best regarded as hostile
propaganda spread by his stepmother, Fausta.
Crispus was awarded the rank of Caesar along with his infant half-
brother Constantine II late in 316, perhaps on October 8 . The investiture
was probably informal, for it seems to have been a response to the raising
of the general Valerius Valens to the rank of Augustus by Constantine’s
rival in the East, Licinius I. The First Licinian War, which occasioned
these appointments, was concluded by treaty on February 17, 317, greatly
to the advantage of Constantine, who gained much of the Balkans as a
result.
Less than two weeks after the truce, Constantine and Licinius I con
firmed their agreement on March 1, at Serdica. There, a ceremony was
held at which Crispus, Constantine II and Licinius’ son, Licinius II, were
formally hailed Caesar. Thereafter, Crispus (then a young teenager) was
sent to Trier to hone his skills in war and administration. Among his edu
cators was Lactantius, author of De Mortibus Persecutorum.
In 320 Crispus served with distinction in campaigns against the Ale-
mmani and Franks, making it plain that he possessed talent in the art of
war. Family life was also good for Crispus: he enjoyed the full confidence of
his father, had been adopted by his stepmother, and on March 1, 321, had
married a woman named Helena (not Helena the Younger, wife of Julian
II). Though Helena bore him a son in 322, no coins were struck for her or
her child.
Crispus’ greatest hour came late in 324 during the Second Licinian
War. The young Caesar was placed in charge of the Constantinian fleet and
during the course of his maneuvers he captured the considerably larger fleet
of Licinius. Not long after, he used the transport vessels under his command
to make a flotilla, over which his father’s soldiers marched onto Asian soil to
complete their victory. As a consequence of these actions, Crispus achieved
hero status, for his naval victory was compared to that achieved off Salamis
630 years earlier by the Macedonian king Demetrius Poliorcetes. Christian
historians, such as Eusebius, were not shy about heaping praise upon him
and comparing him to his father.
But Crispus’ glory was short-lived, perhaps because his achievements
were too impressive. Crispus accompanied his father and stepmother,
Fausta, to Italy, where he soon was accused of potentially treasonous
charges, the exact nature of which are not known. The approximately 21-
year-old Crispus was convicted and executed at Pola, seemingly in August
or September of 326.
The episode of Crispus’ downfall remains a mystery to historians.
Some suspect the charges were treason and that they stemmed from Cris
pus’ rumored request that his father abdicate on the 20 th anniversary of
his reign (which occurred in that very year, or in 327, depending on how it
is reckoned). A more fanciful rumor then in circulation was that Fausta
had fallen in love with him and that she came to detest him when he
rebuffed her amorous advances.
The overwhelming likelihood is that Fausta implicated her son-in-
law and that regardless of the nature of the charges, her aim was to remove
him as a rival to her own three sons (who were then quite young, and no
competition for the hero Crispus). Constantine soon realized the magni
tude of his error and commemorated his promising son with a golden
statue in honor of “the son whom I unjustly condemned.” The grief-
stricken emperor soon executed Fausta on charges that most historians
believe were linked to the death of Crispus.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : The date traditionally cited for Crispus’ being hailed

Caesar, March 1, 317, seems only to have been the formal date of investi
ture. Coins dated to late 316 were struck in Crispus’ name at Trier, Arles
and Ticinum.
DELMATIUS
C a e s a r , a .d . 3 3 5 -3 3 7

B r o th e r o f H a n n ib a llia n u s
B r o th e r - in - la w a n d h a lf- c o u s in o f C o n s t a n t in a
(w . o f H a n n i b a l l i a n u s & C o n s t a n t i u s G a l l u s )
N e p h e w o f L ic in iu s I a n d C o n s t a n t i a
C o u sin o f C o n s t a n t iu s G a l l u s , J u lia n II,
L ic in iu s II a n d N e p o tia n
H a lf- c o u s in o f C r isp u s, C o n s t a n t in e II, C o n s t a n t i u s II, C o n s t a n s and
H e l e n a t h e Y o u n g e r (w . o f J u l i a n II)
Flavius Julius Delmatius (or Dalmatius), c . A .D . 313 (or c . 3 i 5 * ) ~ 337 *

Perhaps the most tragic tale of the Constantinian Era is that of the descen
dants of Theodora and the emperor Constantius I, for their branch of the
family was at odds with Constantine the Great and his sons. As one of sev
eral grandchildren of Theodora, Delmatius was persecuted throughout his
childhood and eventually was murdered because his bloodlines established
him as a rival to the throne.
Delmatius spent his early years in quiet exile, studying in Toulouse
with his brother, Hanniballianus, who was a year or two his junior. As Del
matius matured, Constantine the Great must have considered the boy’s
father (also named Delmatius) a capable leader, for in 333 his father was
consul and in 334 was entrusted with the task of suppressing the revolt of
Calocaerus in Cyprus (some historians, perhaps rightly, attribute this
action to his homonymous father, however).
The father Delmatius — a half-brother of Constantine — not only
stamped out the revolt, but also burned the usurper alive as punishment.
Furthermore, he gathered sufficient evidence of the involvement of Licin
ius I’s bastard son (who had survived his father’s downfall and held high
rank) so that he too was killed, or at the very least was condemned to sla
very.
When Constantine the Great announced his plan of succession on
September 18, 335, he included the younger Delmatius. The honors fell
upon Constantine’s three remaining sons (Constantine II, Constantius II
and Constans) and his two eldest half-nephews from Theodora’s branch of
the family, the brothers Delmatius and Hanniballianus.
Hanniballianus was installed on the Persian border with the un-
Roman titles Rex regum et Pontiacarum gentium, so there were in essence
only four members of the regular rulership (all of whom were Caesars). As
such, Delmatius may have been added to the mix so that a new Tetrarchy
(hereditary though it was) would be created.
Delmatius was given the lower Danube territories (the eastern and
southern Balkans), consisting of Thrace, Macedon and Achaea. This
region at the time was peaceful, but it included the Danube frontier (some
times called the “Gothic bank” ) and was a prime region for recruiting sol
diers. His territory did not extend into Illyria (Pannonia), which we are
told was occupied by Constans. Historians have rightly suspected that
Constantine the Great purposely gave Delmatius the city of Constantino
ple (in Thrace) in hopes that the capital would not become a focus for dis
pute among his three sons.
Following Constantine’s death on May 22, 337, there was an interreg
num of 110 days during which each of the successors retained their titles
and theoretically ruled in the name of the deceased Constantine. How
ever, sometime during this period the brothers Delmatius and Hannibal
lianus were executed along with their father and other members of their
lineage, thus leaving Constantine’s three sons to carve up the Empire.
Spared in the purge because of their youth or sickliness were three of Del
matius’ cousins: Nepotian, Constantius Gallus and Julian II, each of whom
would later play a role in Imperial politics.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : The amount of coinage struck for Delmatius is consid

erably larger than that for his brother Hanniballianus. He coined at nine
Imperial mints from Gaul to the Bosporus whereas his brother struck only
at Constantinople. Just as with his brother, Delmatius’ name is not spelled
consistently, sometimes occuring as Dalmatius (both on coins and in liter
ary sources), though on coinage this variant occurs most often on issues of
Thessalonica and Nicimedia.
HANNIBALLIANUS
R ex R e g u m , a . d . 3 3 5 -3 3 7

B r o t h e r o f D e lm a tiu s
H u sb a n d a n d h a lf- c o u s in o f C o n s t a n t in a
( f u t u r e w. o f C o n s t a n t i u s G a l l u s )
N e p h e w o f L ic in iu s I a n d C o n s t a n t i a
C o u s in o f C o n s t a n t iu s G a l l u s , J u lia n II,
L i c i n i u s II a n d N e p o t i a n
H a l f - c o u s i n o f C r i s p u s , C o n s t a n t i n e II, C o n s t a n t i u s II, C o n s t a n s
Flavius Claudius Hanniballianus (o r Hannibalianus) c. A .D . 314/ 5 ( 7) -

337 . Hanniballianus was the younger son of Flavius Delmatius, son of
Constantius I (emperor, 305-306) and his second wife, Theodora.

Although the elder Dematius never achieved office higher than consul (in
333), his sons Delmatius and Hanniballianus shared in the plan of succes
sion enacted by his half-brother, Constantine the Great, in 335.
Since Constantine the Great was born to Constantius Is first com
panion, Helena, the descendants of that emperors subsequent wife, T he
odora, were considered rivals to a throne that was jealously guarded by
Constantine, his mother Helena, and his wife Fausta. Thus, the descen
dants of Theodora, including Hanniballianus, lived in semi-exile until
about 326, when Fausta was executed and Helena embarked on her pil
grimage to the Holy Land.
Hanniballianus was later styled Nobilissimus (“most noble”) by C on
stantine, and in November of 335, when he was perhaps 20 years old, he
was brought into the Imperial fold. Constantine gave him titular control
over the massive region of Pontus and the buffer-state Armenia. Instead of
the rank of Caesar (which was accorded to the other four heirs), he was
given the extra-imperial title Rex regum et Pontiacarum gentium (“King of
kings and of the Pontic peoples” ).
In addition to governing responsibilities, Constantine further hon
ored Hanniballianus by arranging that his eldest daughter, Constantina,
become his wife. Even though this marriage of half-cousins linked the rival
family branches of Helena and Theodora, it failed to prevent inter-family
warfare (as Constantine, no doubt, had hoped it might).
By giving Hanniballianus the boastful title “King of Kings” (Rex
regum), Constantine not only established the nature of his authority in
Armenia, but also made it clear that one day he was to take the place of
Shapur II (309-379) within his own kingdom. Further antagonizing the
Sasanians was Hanniballianus’ coin type, which features the river-god
Euphrates reclining.
Hanniballianus made his headquarters at Caesarea in Cappadocia,
which was an important military hub in the Roman East but was not par
ticularly central to his appointed territories. Because of this, many histori
ans have come to view his role in the administration as overseer of the
eastern front rather than strictly as governor of Armenia and Pontus.
Armenia was particularly troubled at this point in time. The Sasani
ans invaded it sometime in 335 or 336, and in so doing broke a treaty
which had stood for nearly 40 years. The surprise attack was provoked by
Constantine’s military buildup on the frontier, and though the Armenians
were able to oust Shapur’s armies with Roman help, they appear to have
lost their Christian king Tigranes in the process.
The Persian campaign was now Constantine’s driving ambition and
he could justify his mission by the fact that Shapur II had broken their
peace treaty. Indeed, leading his armies beyond Rome’s eastern border was
perhaps the only important goal Constantine had not yet achieved. But
the emperor of 30 years died just as he was embarking on his monumental
invasion, and within three months of that tragic event Hanniballianus
himself was murdered along with his brother Delmatius and many of his
family members and partisans.
The murders occurred sometime between May 22 and September 9,
337, and were engineered by the three sons of Constantine, who had no
desire to share their inheritance with descendants of Theodora. Hannibal
lianus’ widow, Constantina (herself the eldest sister of the murderers), dis
appeared from the political scene after the purge, only to re-emerge
powerfully in 350, when she supported the Pannonian Master of the Infan
try Vetranio, and later still, in 351, when she was married to another of her
half-cousins, Constantius Gallus.
All of Hanniballianus’ coins were struck at Constanti

nople. The first issue in silver is extremely rare and is dated by scholars to
335. His second was in base metal and is dated to 336-7, and is part of the
GLORIA EXERCITVS issues struck for the other members of Constantine’s
family after the module had been reduced yet again (making them what
are usually called Æ 4 ’s). Both issues have a similar reverse scene of the
river-god Euphrates reclining (on silver) or seated (on æs), with the
former being inscribed FELICITAS PVBLICA and the latter SECVRITAS
PVBLICA. His name is spelled Annibalianus on the silver coins and on
some of his base metal issue.
CONSTANTINE II A .D . 3 3 7 - 3 4 0
C a e s a r , a .d . 3 1 6 - 3 3 7
S o n o f C o n sta n tin e th e G r e a t a n d F a u sta

B r o t h e r o f C o n s t a n t i u s II, C o n s t a n s ,
C o n s t a n t in a ( w. o f H a n n ib a l l ia n u s &
C o n s t a n t iu s G a l l u s ) a n d H e le n a th e Y o u n g e r
(w . o f J u l i a n II)
H a l f -b r o t h e r o f C r i s p u s
H a l f -c o u s i n o f D e l m a t i u s , H a n n i b a l l i a n u s , C o n s t a n t i u s G a l l u s ,
J u l i a n II, L i c i n i u s II a n d N e p o t i a n
G r a n d s o n o f C o n s t a n t i u s I, H e l e n a , M a x i m i a n a n d E u t r o p i a
U n c l e o f C o n s t a n t i a (w . o f G r a t i a n )
Flavius Claudius (or Julius) Constantinus (“ Constantine Junior” )* c.

A.D. 316-340. Surprisingly little is known about Constantine II, the eldest
son of Constantine the Great and Fausta. His personality is largely a mys
tery except that we know he was so fanatical about Orthodox Christianity
that he threatened civil war in defense of his faith. O f his two wives, noth
ing of substance is known, not even their names.
Although his parentage was questioned in ancient times, we may be
certain that Constantine the Great was his father, and that Fausta — not a
concubine — was his mother. He was born at Arles, a city in southern
Gaul about 20 miles from the Mediterranean coast, and spent most of his
life in the western provinces.
Sometime late in 316, before he had reached his first year, Constantine
II was given the extraordinary rank of Caesar alongside his much older half-
brother, Crispus. About half a year later (after the First Licinian War had
ended), Constantine II and Crispus were formally invested with that rank
together with the child Licinius II, who was the heir of Constantine the
Great’s rival, Licinius I. The ceremony was held on March 1, 317, at Ser-
dica. Constantine II was elected consul four times (320, 321, 324 and 329)
during the two decades he held the rank of Caesar.
Constantine II’s formative years were eventful. In 323, though only
about 7 years old, he accompanied his half-brother, Crispus, on campaign
in Germany and in the following year, 324, the Empire came entirely
under the control of their father, Constantine I. In September of that year
Constantine I deposed Licinius I. In 326, Constantine II lost two close rel
atives: his mother, Fausta, and his beloved half-brother, Crispus. Both were
executed on orders of his father in a confused atmosphere of suspected
treason and infidelity.
The round of family executions certainly made it clear to Constan
tine II that no one was indispensable in his father’s regime and that being a
family member in and of itself offered no protection. Constantine II,
though motherless and only about 10 years old, was now the senior heir in
the Roman Empire. Consequently, he was sent to Trier to take over Cris
pus’ Gallic command.
Perhaps to acknowledge this important promotion, in 328 Constan
tine II’s birthplace, Arles, was renamed Constantina in his honor. The
young heir wasted no time in taking military action, and is credited with
defeating the Alemanni about this time, though he was merely at his
father’s side. In 332, he temporarily left the Rhine frontier and joined his
father’s campaign against the Goths and Sarmatians in Thrace and Moe
sia. Their campaign was so successful was that they reportedly caused one
of their opponents, the Visigothic king Alaric I, to sustain nearly 100,000
deaths among his followers. Constantine II subsequently returned to Trier.
Toward the end of 335, Constantine the Great announced a plan for
succession. The Empire was divided among his three sons, who already
were Caesars, and two half-nephews (themselves brothers), who were
brought into the Imperial fold. Since Constantine II was so familiar with
the western provinces, he was allotted Gaul, Britain and Spain, and seem
ingly the westernmost part of North Africa (south of Spain), either as part
of the original allotment or as a later addition.
The rest of the Empire was divided between the four other relatives:
Constantius II, Constantine II’s younger brother, received Asia Minor; his
youngest brother, Constans, received Italy and Illyria (and eventually the
lower Danubian provinces and North Africa); a half-cousin, Hannibal
lianus, inherited Pontus and Armenia; and another half-cousin, Delmatius,
received the lower Danubian provinces and (seemingly) Constantinople.
This arrangement survived the nearly two years left in the life of
Constantine the Great, who throughout retained supreme power as
Augustus. However, when Constantine died on May 22, 337, his idealistic
allotment (in which power was shared by two branches of the family) was
put to the test.
Constantine II wasted no time in exerting his ‘seniority’ over his two
brothers and two half-cousins, for on June 17, 337 (only 26 days after his
father had died. Indeed, perhaps immediately after the news had traveled
the 1,200 miles from Nicomedia to Trier), he issued a document which
released Bishop Athanasius from his exile in Trier. This involved a partic
ularly thorny religious matter, and one which would haunt Constantine’s
legacy.
The anti-Arian Bishop Athanasius had been exiled from his see in
Alexandria, and had sought refuge with Constantine II at Trier. Now that
Constantine II was attempting to test his authority, he ordered that A th a
nasius be allowed to return safely to Alexandria, even though that city was
not within his own realm. This infuriated Constantius II, a fanatical
Arian, who took exception to this proposal both politically and religiously.
However, with more than enough on his own agenda, Constantius II toler
ated Athanasius’ return on November 23, 337.
Sometime during the 110 days after Constantine’s death, the three
sons of Constantine conspired to murder Delmatius and Hanniballianus
together with most of their family members and partisans. That Constan
tius II took the lead in this purge is acknowledged by most historians. The
brothers then carved up the territories once occupied by their half-cousins,
and on September 9, 337, each assumed the title of Augustus.
As the Senior Augustus, Constantine II was theoretically in the posi
tion of greatest responsibility, but he was the loser in the aftermath. His
alloted territories in the West were remote, troubled and impoverished
compared with those given to his two younger brothers. Furthermore, he
was the only one who did not benefit from the murder of his half-cousins,
because he was geographically isolated from the territories which came up
for grabs. Angered by all of this, Constantine II antagonized his nearest
neighbor, Constans, by demanding that he forfeit Italy and North Africa.
The demand was refused.
Tensions among the brothers rose, and in June of 338, only nine
months into their independent reigns, they met in the Balkans (perhaps at
Viminacium) to settle their territorial disputes. If anything, this made mat
ters worse for Constantine II, for all of his demands were refused by his two
younger brothers, who themselves had formed a loose alliance of mutual
protection from Constantine II.
Having gained no satisfaction from negotiation, Constantine II
turned to force of arms. In the spring of 340 he launched a surprise offen
sive against his youngest brother, leading a large land and naval force into
Italy while Constans was away in the Balkans. If he assumed there would
be an element of surprise, he was sorely disappointed when a large army
that Constans had left behind ambushed him near Aquileia. The war was
over almost as soon as it had begun, for in March or April of 340, the 24-
year-old Constantine II was killed in a pitched battle. His corpse was
thrown into the Alsa river by Constans’ soldiers, but later was salvaged
and sent to Constantinople for an honorable burial.
N u m ism a tic N o t e : On many of Constantine II’s coins, his name appears

in the form CONSTANTIN VS IVN., with the abbreviation IVN being
expanded to IVNIOR on a gold medallion from Thessalonica. The date tra
ditionally cited for Constantine II being hailed Caesar (March 1, 317)
must be considered only as the formal date, for his earliest coinage at Trier,
Arles and Ticinum demonstrates he achieved the rank late in 316.
CONSTANS A .D . 3 3 7 - 3 5 0
C a e s a r , a .d . 3 3 3 -3 3 7
S o n o f C o n sta n tin e th e G r e a t a n d F a u sta

B r o t h e r o f C o n s t a n t i n e II, C o n s t a n t i u s II,
C o N ST A N T IN A (w . OF H AN N IBA LLIAN U S &
C o n s t a n t iu s G a llu s ) a n d H e le n a th e Y o u n g e r
(w . o f J u l i a n II)
H a l f -b r o t h e r o f C r i s p u s
H a l f -c o u s i n o f D e l m a t i u s , H a n n i b a l l i a n u s ,
C o n s t a n t i u s G a l l u s , J u l i a n II, L i c i n i u s II a n d
N e p o tia n
G r a n d s o n o f C o n s t a n t i u s I, H e l e n a , M a x i m i a n
a n d E u tr o p ia
U n c l e o f C o n s t a n t i a (w . o f G r a t i a n )
Flavius Julius Constans, A.D. 320 or 323-350. The youngest son of C on
stantine the Great, Constans was born into the opulent court of Constan
tinople, where he studied under Christian tutors and was prepared for a
leading role in state affairs. Though none of the three sons of Constantine
and Fausta receive good reviews from the ancient historians, Constans’
may be the worst. Indeed, in his case it was his caustic personality that
proved to be his undoing.
Historians are sharply divided on his date of birth, but Constans was
either 9 or 12 years old when he was hailed Caesar on Christmas day, 333.
A n arranged marriage to the daughter of the Cretan minister Ablabius was
planned for him, but it did not materialize, and his would-be bride later
married the Sasanian king Shapur II.
Nearly two years later, late in 335, Constans was installed in Italy as
the ruling Caesar. Though his father remained the only Augustus, he had
divided the Empire among five heirs, two being Constans’ brothers (Con
stantine II in the western provinces, and Constantius II in Asia Minor),
and two being his half-cousins (Delmatius in the lower Balkans, and Han
niballianus on the Persian front).
When Constantine I died in May, 337, Constans was baptized and
soon thereafter conspired with his brothers to murder their half-cousins,
Delmatius and Hanniballianus. The purge complete, the three brothers
absorbed the now-vacant territories and hailed themselves Augusti on
September 9, 337.
Because of his relative youth, Constans reigned with the help of
advisers and was technically subordinate to his eldest brother, Constantine
II, who had established his own court at Trier. Within months a conflict
emerged, for despite his seniority, Constantine II ruled the relatively unre
warding provinces of Gaul, Britain and Spain. To make matters worse, his
geographic isolation prevented him from benefiting from the “land rush”
that followed the murder of the half-cousins.
Constans and Constantius II benefited enormously from the purge:
the former nominally took control of the Balkan territories once ruled by
Delmatius, and Constantius II gained Hanniballianus’ former territories of
Pontus and Armenia. Constantine II was understandably jealous, for his
seniority was not reflected in the division of spoils, and he demanded of
Constans that he forfeit Italy and North Africa. But the request was
roundly rejected.
With the specter of war looming, the brothers held a conference in
June of 338 in the Balkans, perhaps at the military hub of Viminacium.
Here, no doubt, Constantine II hoped to acquire more territory and assert
himself over his younger brothers. But nothing of the sort occurred. In fact,
the exact opposite transpired, for Constans and Constantius II entered into
an informal alliance, each confirming the others’ territories. Young Con
stans now had an impressive realm that stretched from Constantinople in
the East to the borders of Italy and North Africa in the West
Later in 338 and into 339 tensions continued to mount, and C on
stans became increasingly concerned that he and his elder brother would
go to war. The alliance between the two younger brothers strengthened,
and Constans proved his sincerity by offering to recruit an army to help
Constantius II fight the Sasanians. In 339, he may also have given the city
of Constantinople and its Thracian hinterland to his brother. It seems he
also assuaged another of Constantius II’s concerns by accepting into Rome
the Alexandrian Bishop Anathasius, whom the Arian Constantius II had
exiled as a trouble-maker.
Meanwhile, Constantine II was still dissatisfied, and no doubt feared
the consequences of his younger brothers becoming too closely allied. War
could no longer be avoided and in the spring of 340 Constantine II
invaded Italy, only to die in an ambush outside Aquileia. Constans, who
was at the time in the Balkans recruiting soldiers for Constantius II, gained
total victory without even being present for the battle.
The political environment had changed a great deal in three short
years: of the original six rulers, only two remained, and the Empire was
divided between Europe and Asia. Domination of the Balkans remained
yet uncertain, for in the settlement that followed the death of Constantine
II, Constans may have forfeited all or part of the Lower Balkans to C on
stantius II (who already had Constantinople).
Nearly a decade remained of the reign of Constans, then a young man
of 17 or 20. He does not receive good reviews from historians such as
Aurelius Victor and Eutropius, who berate him for his avarice, meanness,
contempt, depravity and flagrant homosexuality. Constans can hardly be
credited with much common sense either, for he behaved contemptuously
toward his soldiers, who came to despise him. He is known to have waged
war against the Franks in the latter half of 341, successfully concluding this
campaign in the spring of 342. Either later in that year, or in the early part
of 343, Constans sailed to Britain, for which voyage he gained the histori
cal distinction of being the last legitimate emperor to visit that island. We
know virtually nothing of his operations there, except that they occurred
in the vicinity of Hadrian’s Wall.
In the realm of religion Constans was something of a hero to many in
the West, for he crusaded fanatically on behalf of Catholic Orthodoxy and
strongly opposed the Arianism espoused by eastern “heretics” (such as his
brother Constantius II). Religious infighting was only enflamed at the
Council of Serdica and almost came to blows in 346, when Constans
threatened war against Constantius II if the Bishop Athanasius (a
defender of the Nicene faith against Arianism) was not allowed to return
to his see at Alexandria on October 21, 346. Constans was also hailed for
his persecutions of non-Catholic Donatists in Africa in 347.
5 °° H IS T O R Y O F T H E R O M A N EM PIRE: B IO G R A P H IE S
The 12-year reign of Constans ended swiftly and by surprise on January

18, 350, at Augustodunum, where he was deposed by his own field com
mander (comes rei militaris) Magnentius. The coup took place at a party
hosted by Constans’ finance minister, Marcellinus, and from there, news
spread to the army, which wasted little time in supporting Magnentius.
Constans fled toward the Spanish border but was overtaken by soldiers near
the Pyrenees and killed by Gaiso, one of Magnentius’ officers.
CONSTANTIUS II A .D . 3 3 7 - 3 6 1
C a e s a r , a .d . 3 2 4 -3 3 7
S o n o f C o n s t a n t i n e t h e G r e a t a n d Fa u s t a
B r o t h e r o f C o n s t a n t i n e II, C o n s t a n s ,
C o N S T A N T I N A ( w . OF H A N N IB A L L IA N U S &
C o n s t a n t iu s G a llu s ) a n d H e le n a th e Y o u n g e r
(w. o f J u l i a n II)
H a l f -b r o t h e r o f C r is p u s
H a l f -c o u s i n o f D e l m a t i u s , H a n n i b a l l i a n u s , C o n s t a n t i u s G a l l u s ,
G r a n d s o n o f C o n s t a n t i u s I, H e l e n a , M a x i m i a n a n d E u t r o p i a
F a t h e r o f C o n s t a n t i a ( u >. o f G r a t i a n )
Flavius Julius Valerius Constantius, A .D . 317 - 361 . The middle son of

Constantine the Great and Fausta, Constantius II was destined to be the
longest-surviving of Constantine’s heirs, and the one who would most con
vincingly promote the policies of his father. But his 34 years on the throne
were not glorious and peaceful. Constantius II was tormented by religious
conflict, rebellion, fratricidal warfare, civil strife and fearsome invasions
across the Rhine, Danube and Euphrates.
Constantius II proved very much to be his father’s son. He was cau
tious, strategic, suspicious and prone to cruelty. He was also brave in the
face of danger, and seemed never to shy away from the unenviable tasks
that faced men who held his office. Some of his contemporaries considered
him stupid, dull-witted and unduly influenced by palace eunuchs. Despite
these handicaps, on most occasions Constantius II found the most efficient
solutions to his many problems.
Constantius II was bom in Illyria, perhaps at the provincial capital of
Sirmium, in 317, only a few months after his father had won a luke-warm
victory in the First Licinian War. Some six years later, just after his father
defeated Licinius I at Adrianople (the first important battle of the Second
Licinian War), Constantius II was nominated Caesar in July or August of
324. He was officially invested on November 8 , 324, seemingly at the cere
TH E C O N S T A N T IN IA N ERA 50I
mony where his mother, Fausta, and grandmother Helena were hailed
Augustae.
By defeating Licinius I for the second time, Constantine had taken
control of the entire Roman world. However, tragedy struck late in 326,
when Constantine executed both his eldest son, Crispus, and his wife,
Fausta. Since Crispus had formerly been situated in Gaul, Constantius II
was sent there to take command in his place. However, he was soon relieved
by his older brother, Constantine II, and was able to return to the East.
In 333, a decade after he was hailed Caesar (then about age 16), C on
stantius II was installed at Antioch to take on serious responsibilities. In
335, Constantine’s plan for succession was formalized, and he divided the
Empire among his three sons (Constantine II, Constantius II and C on
stans) and his two eldest half-nephews (Delmatius and Hanniballianus).
In 336, Constantius II journeyed to Constantinople, where in July he
celebrated his father’s tricennalia (30th year in power) and his own mar
riage to a half-cousin whose name is not recorded, but who was the sister of
Julian II.
Constantius II had been allotted the wealthy East, to which he had
become acclimated over the previous nine years. His domain stretched
from the Bosporus to Cyrenaica, and included the important regions of
Syria and Egypt. The eastern front (technically Armenia and Pontus),
however, was given to his half-cousin Hanniballianus, to whom Constan
tine had accorded the title “King of Kings” (Rex regum).
For most of his reign Constantius II used Antioch as his base of oper
ations. N ot only was it more affluent than Constantinople (which, newly
founded, had not yet come to prominence), but it was ideally located for
responding to the frequent Sasanian invasions of Northern Mesopotamia.
Constantine had left his children two grave problems: he had stirred up
the Sasanians into a warlike state, and he had divided his Empire among
five heirs who were unlikely to share. O f Constantine the Great’s three sons,
Constantius II proved the most capable in dealing with these problems, not
merely because he was perhaps the most competent, but also because he was
based in Asia Minor, the region most immediately and directly affected.
When his father died in May, 337, Constantius II presided over the funeral
in Constantinople, and at age 20 wasted no time in recruiting the army to
execute the leading members and partisans of the rival family branch
founded two generations earlier by the emperor Constantius I and his wife,
Theodora. Among those to fall were the Caesar Delmatius and the Rex
regum Hanniballianus, the two half-cousins with whom the sons of C on
stantine shared their inheritance.
Though Delmatius and Hanniballianus shared the same grandfather
as the sons of Constantine, that is where their similarities ended. Even
5o2 H IST O R Y O F T H E R O M A N EM PIRE: B IO G R A P H IE S
though Constantius II was not the eldest of the three sons of Constantine,
historians rightly have surmised that he took the leading role in the purge.
Though Constans was nearby, he was perhaps too young to be of much
assistance, and his eldest brother, Constantine II, at Trier, was too far away.
The purge was quick and efficient, but not entirely ruthless, for the
brothers spared the three youngest and sickliest of their half-cousins.
These were Constantius Gallus, Nepotian and Julian II, each of whom
later proved to be a thorn in the side of Constantius II (who no doubt
regretted that he had shown any mercy at all). Many saw the murders as a
necessary evil, for seldom (if ever) had two rival branches of a family ruled
together peacefully.
Once the murders had occurred, the three sons of Constantine each
assumed the title of Augustus on September 9, 337, 110 days after their
father had died. Each ruled in his appointed provinces, but the least satis
fied of the heirs was the eldest son, Constantine II, who had been given
the remote and relatively impoverished western provinces of Gaul, Spain
and Britain (and seemingly the westernmost part of North Africa).
Trouble began to brew almost immediately — first on the religious
front, and then on the territorial front. Less than a month after their
father’s death — even before the half-cousins were murdered, and fully 12
weeks before the brothers hailed themselves Augusti — Constantine II (a
devout Orthodox Catholic) antagonized Constantius II (an Arian) by
releasing the controversial bishop Athanasius from his exile at Trier and
restoring him to his see in Alexandria.
Since Athanasius’ Orthodox views opposed those held by Constan
tius II, in whose realm Alexandria was situated, this became a major diplo
matic conflict. However, Constantius II found it expedient to appease his
elder brother. Only in 339 did he grow so incensed at the activities of
Athanasius that he exiled him to Rome, where the bishop was offered
refuge by Constantius II’s younger brother, Constans (who was not only
an Orthodox Catholic but who, by this time, was a staunch ally of
Constantius II).
After the three became Augusti, Constantine II flexed his illusory
authority as Senior Augustus over the youngest brother, Constans, by
demanding that he forfeit Italy and the remainder of North Africa, and
thus make the land distribution more equitable. Though the demand
seems fair (Constans had all of the Balkans, which at that point in time
included Constantinople, and Constantius II had all of Asia, the Holy
Land and Egypt), it was rejected.
In June, 338, the three brothers held a conference in the Balkans,
probably at Viminacium, to find a solution. But the results did not favor
Constantine II, whose territorial demands were again refused. The two
younger siblings banded together: they confirmed each others’ territorial

acquisitions from Delmatius and Hanniballianus, and agreed to support
each other in the event Constantine II became aggressive. After the con
ference, Constantius II hurried back to Antioch, whence he led a counter
offensive against the Sasanian king Shapur II (309-379), who had invaded
Roman territory in the meantime.
In many ways the conference of June, 338 was a repeat of the one
hosted at Carnuntum 30 years earlier by Galerius, then the Senior Augus
tus of the revised Tetrarchy. Galerius invited all claimants to participate in
negotiations, but in the end he forced his own agenda. All of Galerius’
rivals left the Balkans dissatisfied and prepared for the civil war that would
follow.
With nothing resolved, trouble continued to brew between the
brothers Constantine II and Constans. Constantius II, however, remained
aloof because of the wars he fought against the Sasanians each and every
summer from 338 to 350. In the spring of 340, less than two years after the
failed conference, Constantine II invaded Italy in an attempt to take it
from his brother forcibly. However, he died in the process, leaving only
two emperors to rule: Constans in Europe and Constantius II in Asia.
During the tense period between the conference of June, 338 and the
invasion of Italy in the spring of 340, Constans seems to have given C on
stantius II control of Constantinople and its Thracian hinterland. Though
found on European soil, Constantinople was already “eastern” in charac
ter. Its inclusion in the Asian territories of Constantius II only made this
aspect of its culture all the more prevalent.
Constantius II and Constans co-existed for the next decade (340 to
350), but were never on particularly good terms. The fact that Constantius
II was usually occupied with Sasanian invasions of Northern Mesopotamia
no doubt improved relations between the brothers, for there was less idle
time for controversies to emerge. Constans had fewer problems in the
West. This was perhaps fortunate, for he seemed less competent to deal
with them.
The Orthodox Catholic Constans, however, was fully occupied by
religion, which was the only cause for a serious conflict between him and
Constantius II. Their inherent opposition as supporters of Orthodoxy and
Arianism was intensified at the Council of Serdica, and in 345 their differ
ences were brought to the forefront with the death of Bishop Gregory of
Alexandria (who had replaced the exiled Athanasius).
In 346, Constans threatened war against his older brother if he did
not allow Athanasius to reclaim his now-vacant see at Alexandria. It was
an uncanny return to the conflict Constantius II had earlier experienced
with his older brother Constantine II, for the restoration of Athanasius —
the champion of the anti-Arian Nicene doctrine — to Alexandria was the

focus of debate.
The problem was resolved when Constantius II conceded, and
allowed Athanasius to return to Alexandria in October 346. Constantius
II no doubt viewed the compromise as a matter of the utmost practicality,
for in the spring of that year the Sasanians had besieged the city of Nisibis
on Rome’s eastern frontier. Indeed, amid all the religious controversy,
Constantius II was preparing for a campaign (against Shapur II), which he
led personally in 347.
In January of 350, the western emperor Constans fell victim to a coup
led by his field commander Magnentius. The Gallic armies, who despised
Constans, immediately supported the coup, and hailed Magnentius as
their new emperor. In some respects this was a fortunate development for
Constantius II, for he now had an entirely legitimate reason to wage war in
the West, and to take command of the whole of the Empire, just as his
father had done a quarter century before. For the meantime, however, he
was still too occupied with Shapur II to visit the Balkans in person.
Instead, he was fortunate to have his eldest sister, Constantina, in
Pannonia (Illyria). She prevented the spread of Magnentius’ revolt beyond
the borders of Italy by convincing Vetranio, the Pannonian Master of the
Infantry (magister peditum), to side with Constantius II (for his loyalty was
wavering). With her blessings (and perhaps at her insistence), Vetranio
was hailed emperor at Sirmium on March 1, 350.
Vetranio held the Balkans for Constantius II, allowing him to finish
his war with the Sasanians. In the meantime, Magnentius lost Cologne to
the Frankish turncoat Silvanus, and suffered a usurpation in Rome in June,
350 by Nepotian, one of Constantius II’s three surviving half-cousins.
While Nepotian’s revolt alarmed Magnentius, it ended within a month.
The real threat to Magnentius’ immediate safety was posed by Ger
mans along the Rhine, whom Constantius II had stirred up to harass Mag
nentius’ rear. In response, Magnentius raised his relative Decentius to the
rank of Caesar in July or August, 350 and left him in Gaul to defend the
Rhine. Though both Constantius II and Magnentius now each had two
fronts to concern them, the problems in Mesopotamia were coming tem
porarily to an end, and Constantius II was able to travel to Europe to deal
with Magnentius in person.
Constantius II departed Antioch at the head of an army and crossed
onto European soil late in the fall of 350. He had traveled barely more
than 50 miles in Thrace when, at Heraclea, he was met by embassies from
both Vetranio and Magnentius — the former to assure loyalty, the latter to
discuss options to war. The eastern emperor continued his westward trek
for more than 350 miles until he arrived at Naïssus (mod. Nis), and over
saw the abdication of Vetranio on Christmas day, 350.
While wintering in the Balkans, Constantius II awaited his chance to

confront Magnentius in the spring. When additional diplomatic efforts
failed early in 351, Constantius II realized he was going to be in Europe for
the foreseeable future, and enlisted the help of one of his two remaining
half-cousins, Constantius Gallus, whom he raised to the rank of Caesar on
March 15.
In addition to receiving rank, Gallus was also married to Constantina
(the emperor’s sister, who had earlier supported Vetranio), and was sent to
Antioch with a praetorian prefect, Thalassius, to rule Asia in the
emperor’s name. Gallus’ task seemed relatively easy, for Shapur II was
behaving peacefully.
Now feeling confident in the security of Asia, Constantius II invaded
Italy in the summer of 351. His army was smaller than that commanded by
Magnentius, who defeated him at Atrans. Now uncertain as to how he
would fare in the war, Constantius II offered to make peace with the rebel,
but Magnentius refused, and instead invaded Pannonia that same summer.
Constantius II back-pedaled as Magnentius advanced more than 75
miles into Pannonia and captured the capital Siscia. The rebel pushed more
than 150 miles further, to the vicinity of Sirmium (which was beyond Con
stantius IPs rear), and then doubled back to the northwest another 70 miles
or so, where he established himself at Mursa (mod. Osijek). It was at this vil
lage, about 10 miles from the Danube, that the two armies met on Septem
ber 28, 351, in one of the bloodiest battles of the century.
Though the enormous casualties (about 55,000) were suffered almost
equally, Constantius II won the day with his cavalry and archers, who
picked apart Magnentius’ infantry. The victory of cavalry over infantry was
a watershed moment in military history, and greatly influenced the future
composition of the Imperial armies. It was now Magnentius’ turn to
retreat, which he did slowly back to Aquileia in Italy. Both armies had suf
fered so terribly that neither was anxious to confront the other.
However, by the summer of 352, Constantius II was in a position to
launch a second invasion of Italy, only to discover upon arrival that his
opponent had fled and taken refuge in Gaul. Thus, Italy and Sicily were
taken almost without a fight, as were North Africa and Spain (both of
which appear to have sided with Constantius II about this time). In one
fell swoop Magnentius had lost the greater part of his rebel Empire, which
was now reduced principally to Gaul. Constantius II pursued his enemy,
and in August of 353, both Magnentius and his relative, the Caesar
Decentius, committed suicide.
Now that he had gained control over the whole Empire, Constantius
II was destined to face new and equally menacing tasks. The first was to
remove his cruel and unpopular half-cousin Gallus from his Caesarship in
Antioch. Gallus had been ruling viciously and incompetently ever since
5 °6 H IS T O R Y O F T H E R O M A N EM PIRE: B IO G R A P H IE S
he had been installed. Until this point, Constantius II could do little to

remedy the situation, for he could hardly confront a usurpation in A sia
Minor before he had resolved his problems in the West.
Constantius II recalled Gallus to Milan in 354, certain he would not
resist, for he seems to have misled his young colleague into believing he
would be re-assigned in the West. However, when Gallus arrived at Istra
(not far from the Italian border) in the winter of 354, he was arrested, tried
and beheaded.
Now Constantius II ruled the whole Empire alone. He was far too sus
picious a man to elect a colleague who was not a family member (as Dio
cletian had done), yet he had no children of his own. There was only one
eligible relative: his half-cousin Julian II. Considering the poor experiences
he had had with his brothers and other half-cousins, Constantius II no
doubt would have brought Julian into power only when he decided it was
absolutely necessary.
Developments in the West, however, did not afford Constantius II a
moment’s rest. Both in the summer of 354 and in the spring of 355, he
campaigned in Raetia against the Alemanni. Just as these campaigns fin
ished, he was faced with a revolt at Cologne by Silvanus, the Frankish
Master of Infantry (magister peditum) who had defected to Constantius II
early in the campaign against Magnentius. Silvanus was hailed Augustus
by his soldiers on August 11, just four days after he had distributed their
long-overdue pay.
Silvanus’ revolt was symptomatic of the overly suspicious nature of
Constantius II, for he usurped out of fear he would be executed for treason
based on documents that were forged by his rivals (and that since had been
proven false). Silvanus, however, was murdered on September 7 by the
emperor’s Master of Cavalry (magister equitum), Ursicinus. The rebellion
had ended, but Cologne paid the price, for in the aftermath it was sacked
by Germans who had opportunistically crossed the Rhine.
This event, as well as other threats on the Rhine and Danube, con
vinced Constantius II that he could not rule his vast Empire alone. He
thus called upon his only remaining young relative, Julian II (who was the
half-brother of the recently executed Gallus). Although Julian had been
summoned shortly after Gallus’ death and charitably excused to resume his
studies in Athens, this time the emperor was certain he needed Julian.
Then a young man in his early 20s, Julian was hailed Caesar at Milan
on November 6 , 355. Just as Constantius II had done with Gallus, he gave
Julian one of his sisters (this time his youngest sister, Helena the Younger)
as a bride on the occasion of his investiture. The emperor and the Caesar
were destined to share the consulship three times, in 356, 357 and 360, but
were eventually to become rivals.
The eastern front was peaceful at this time, seemingly because Shapur
II’s own eastern borders were threatened by nomadic Chionites, presum
ably the first Hunnic peoples to arrive in the Middle East. This was fortu
nate for the Romans, for throughout the next five years there was
continual trouble on both the Rhine and the Danube. Constantius II gave
Julian the task of defending Gaul from the Germans, while he himself
mainly saw to defending the Danube.
Julian’s task was made more difficult by Constantius II, who did not
offer him the support he required. N ot only did Julian have a minuscule
army but, to make matters worse he was given no money to pay his soldiers
for at least the first three years he reigned as Caesar. Through all these
hardships, Julian proved to be a strong leader and a capable administrator
who greatly reduced the local tax burdens. N ot surprisingly, over the
course of five years he earned the undying loyalty of his men.
Constantius II had his hands full in the meantime. In 356 he fought
the Alemanni in concert with Julian, and in April and May of 357 took a
well-earned break to visit Rome to celebrate his 35th anniversary in power
(though he had been Caesar only since 324). The procession and cere
mony that accompanied his triumphal entry into Rome is recorded in
detail by the historian Ammianus.
A t the end of May, Constantius II left Rome and headed for Pan
nonia (Illyria), where in the spring of 358 he waged a quick and successful
campaign against the Sarmatians and Quadi, and entered Sirmium in tri
umph. The war against the Sarmatians, Quadi and Suevi was waged suc
cessfully into the spring of 359, after which Constantius II learned that
Shapur II had invaded Northern Mesopotamia after protracted negotia
tions had failed. Constantius II closed out his affairs in the Balkans and left
for Constantinople, where he wintered.
He learned of the first loss before he even reached Constantinople:
the fortress-city Amida (on the Tigris) had fallen in October despite 73
days of stubborn resistance by Ursicinus, the officer who had murdered the
usurper Silvanus in 355 and who was now the emperor’s Master of Infantry
(magister peditum).
Early in 360, while journeying through Cappadocia, the emperor
demanded of Julian II that a large portion of his Gallic army be sent to par
ticipate in the Persian war. The Gallic armies refused to obey Constantius
II’s command and instead mutinied in February, bestowing the rank of
Augustus on Julian II at Paris. Constantius II was so concerned with
Shapur IPs invasion that he did not immediately oppose his rival half
cousin. Instead, during the summer, fall and winter of 360 he traveled
extensively in Cappadocia, Northern Mesopotamia and Syria. The Sasani
ans made impressive gains in the war, and the emperor’s presence did not
5o 8 H IST O R Y O F T H E R O M A N EM PIRE: B IO G R A P H IE S
prevent the Mesopotamian cities of Singara and Bezabde from falling into
enemy hands. After the campaigning season ended, Constantius II
returned to winter at his old capital of Antioch, which he had not visited
since he had departed in the spring of 349.
Constantius II contemplated how he would deal simultaneously with
the Sasanians and the Roman armies in Gaul, for he could not be in both
places at the same time. In the meantime, Julian had fought hard in 360 to
pacify the Rhine front so as to free himself to head east early in 361.
Much to the surprise of Constantius II, all was quiet on the Persian
front when he visited it in the summer of 361. Shapur II had sustained
such heavy losses in his campaigns of the previous year that he had ceased
hostilities. This gave Constantius II the opportunity to turn his attention
to Julian, who had by then advanced into Italy and Pannonia. In the fall of
361, Constantius II left Antioch to march on Europe, but less than 100
miles into his journey he fell ill and died on November 3 at Mopsuestia in
Cilicia.
Constantius II was baptized on his deathbed by Euzoius, the Arian
Bishop of Antioch, and is said to have named Julian II his successor at the
same time. The latter act prevented the civil war that no doubt would
have erupted between Constantius’ own eastern legions and the Gallic
army commanded by Julian, who reached Constantinople early in Decem
ber, 361 and entered Antioch by June, 362.
The transfer of power was peaceful, but it did not prevent rivalry
within the army, which was united by Julian for a campaign against the
Sasanians. Less than 28 months later, after the deaths of Julian II and his
successor, Jovian, the army would cause the Empire to be permanently
divided between East and West.
Though few ancient or modern historians consider Constantius II a
dynamic leader, his achievements must not be underestimated. N ot only
did he keep the Empire whole on the occasions when it could have more
seriously disintegrated, but he also supported the two important institu
tions his father had built: Christianity and the city of Constantinople.
Indeed, it was his loyalty to his father’s legacy that assured that the pagan
Julian II did not unduly disturb Imperial Christendom.
Constantius II was intensely interested in religion, and assumed a
high role in church affairs as a “bishop extraordinary.” Unlike his two
brothers, he opted for the conservative route offered by the Alexandrian
priest Arius (c. 250-336), who preached the separateness of God and
Christ. Arius represented one side of a major schism in the church, with
his main rival being Bishop Athanasius (his superior at the see of A lexan
dria), who insisted that Christ was part of God, only lesser.
Arius followed the teachings of the Christian Apologists of the previ
ous generation who espoused that Christ was not only younger and inferior
to God, but was a separate entity. By professing that God was of one
essence, was whole and was transcendent, Arius believed Christ was
merely G od’s manifestation in the physical universe who acted as his inter
mediary in the earthly world.
To divide the essence of God between himself and Christ, Arius sug
gested, was to take a dangerous step toward polytheism. After all, the “vic
tory” of Christianity over paganism was seen by many as one of
monotheism over polytheism; if God shared his essence with Christ,
Christianity was little more than a polytheistic faith. But the opposition
led by Athanasius had many supporters, especially among the monks of
Egypt and the Christian population in the Latin West.
Athanasius’ Orthodox Catholicism was at odds with the majority of
Christians in the Greek East, who did not enjoy being subservient to the
Papacy and who were suspicious of Athanasius’ new piety. This religious
conflict dovetailed with the existing political and social differences
between East and West, which were so easily defined along geographical
lines. Despite Constantius IPs intentions, Arianism did not long survive
him as the view taken by the government, suffering defeat only a genera
tion after he died.
O f the emperor’s personal life we know a considerable amount from
the frank writings of the eye-witness historian Ammianus. A ll told, C on
stantius took three wives, the first of whom, in 335, was a step-cousin
whose name is unknown. The second was named Eusebia, and the third
Faustina. It was only the latter by whom Constantius II sired a child, a
daughter named Constantia who was born soon after her father died, and
who at age 16 married the emperor Gratian (in 378).
Constantius II was extraordinarily reserved, a poor public speaker and
was considered dim-witted. For this reason, he relied heavily on his grand
chamberlain, the Arian eunuch Eusebius. This influential courtier became
all-powerful in the East and caused the downfall of Constantius Gallus in
354. Though Eusebius oversaw affairs in the East while Constantius II was
fighting in Europe, his “reign” ended in 361 when he fell victim to Julian II
at the Calchedon Tribunal.
In the realm of athleticism, Ammianus tells us Constantius II was
more accomplished than he was in mental pursuits. His short, bowed legs
seem to have made him a good runner and jumper. Constantly campaign
ing, and not without natural talent, the emperor became highly skilled in
all arts of war, such as riding, javelin-throwing and, especially, archery.
The paranoia for which Constantius II became notorious is revealed
in two passage from Ammianus: “. . . if he discovered any ground, however
false or slight, for suspecting an attempt upon the throne he showed . . . a
cruelty which easily surpassed that of Caligula (Gaius) and Domitian and
Commodus.” He continues: “He enclosed the little building in which he
used to sleep with a deep ditch crossed by a collapsible bridge; when he

went to bed he dismantled the planks and pins, which he reassembled
when he was going out at daybreak.”
N u m is m a t ic N o t e : In addition to the coins Constantius II struck on his
own account, issues bearing his name were also minted by Constantine the
Great, Magnentius, Vetranio, Nepotian and by the citizens of Trier, who
revolted in his favor against Magnentius and Decentius.
Two important numismatic developments occurred in his reign: In
355/6 he reduced by one-third the weight of the silver siliqua (the succès-
sor of Diocletian’s argenteus), and c. 348 he introduced two new base
metal denominations, seemingly in conjunction with the 1, 100 th anniver
sary of the foundation of Rome.
Much confusion has surrounded the latter two coins, and various
names have been applied, with the most common one being centenionalis.
Though the name centenionalis occurs in ancient inscriptions and refers to
coins, one of the two recorded citations considerably post-dates the era of
these denominations. The most recognizable feature of the new æs coins is
the reverse inscription FEL TEMP REPARATIO (loosely translated: “happy
days are here again” ). The larger of the two coins (called a Billon Æ 2 in
this catalog), is most often called a centenionalis, and the smaller (called a
Billon Æ3 in this catalog) a half-centenionalis. Circulating alongside these
two new denominations was the Æ 4 , which was a further-reduced descen
dant of Diocletian’s argentiferous nummus.
The reign of Constantius II is also notable for the frequent use of
ornate busts, especially on gold. Though some of the facing busts produced
by Constantius II qualify as fully frontal, most are oriented slightly to the
right (a style commonly called “three-quarter facing”). Constantius II had
a particular liking for this portrait type and he adorned his bust in a mili
tant fashion, with cuirass, decorated shield, helmet and spear. This presen
tation became commonplace a generation or two later, and was the
standard format used by most of the early Byzantine emperors.
MAGNENTIUS A .D . 3 5 0 - 3 5 3
B r o t h e r o r C o u s in o f D e c e n t iu s
H u s b a n d o f J u s t i n a ( f u t u r e w. o f V a l e n t i n i a n I)
Flavius Magnus Magnentius, c. A.D. 303-353.

Probably born in 303 at Amiens (Ambianum) to a
Frankish mother and British father, Magnentius
seems originally to have been a slave of the
TH E C O N S T A N T IN IA N ERA 5 I I
emperor Constantine the Great. He pursued a career in the Roman army,

at first in a barbarian contingent but later in the army of Constans, becom
ing a field commander (comes rei militaris) in charge of the senior palatine
units of the western army, called the Herculiani and Joviani.
Constans, the Augustus in the West, was hated by his soldiers who,
after suffering under him for a decade, eagerly supported Magnentius’ coup.
Magnentius’ rebellion did not begin on the battlefield or the Imperial pal
ace, but rather at a birthday party held on January 18, 350, at Augusto-
dunum (mod. Autun) by the emperor’s finance minister, Marcellinus. Into
this festive occasion walked Magnentius, donning the purple. The soldiers
rapidly pledged allegiance to Magnentius, and Constans fled to the south,
only to be overtaken and executed near the Pyrenees.
The revolt was a quick success and Magnentius had become sole
emperor in the west. However, his easternmost territories, such as Italy and
Illyria, were as yet out of reach, and in truth he only controlled Gaul, to
which he soon added Britain and Spain. N ot long thereafter, however, Italy
and North Africa also pledged their allegiance to Magnentius. But the
revolt did not spread further east, as the Pannonian Master of Infantry (mag-
is ter peditum) Vetranio, who initially was wavering in his loyalty, remained
loyal to the house of Constantine — then represented only by Constantius
II, who was battling the Sasanians in the East. In the absence of a rightful
emperor in the Balkans, Vetranio was hailed emperor on March 1, on the
insistence of the emperor’s eldest sister, Constantina.
N ot long after Vetranio sided with Constantius II, Magnentius also
suffered a setback in Rome, where Nepotian, a half-nephew of Constan
tine the Great, staged a counter revolution on June 3. In the process, most
of Magnentius’ supporters in the western capital were killed, including the
prefect Anicius. Nepotian’s revolt, however, was quelled within the
month.
All the while, Magnentius was trying to make peace with Constantius
II, with whom he was quite willing to share the Empire. In one of his more
creative strategies, he tried to marry the emperor’s sister, Constantina. But
this, too, failed. In the meantime, Constantius II had stirred up the Ger
mans along the Rhine so they would create a distraction at Magnentius’
rear. This sinister development, as well as the revolt of Nepotian in Rome,
convinced Magnentius that he needed help in his struggle. In the summer
of 350 he raised his relative Decentius to the rank of Caesar and left him
in Gaul to defend it from invasion across the Rhine.
When Constantius II arrived in the Balkans, Magnentius realized
that war was inevitable. In a last-ditch effort to achieve a peaceful out
come, Magnentius sent an embassy to meet Constantius II at Heraclea late
in the fall of 350, but the rivals could not come to terms. On Christmas
day, 350, Constantius II oversaw the abdication of Vetranio and deter
mined to finish off Magnentius himself.
Diplomatic efforts in 351 failed miserably, largely due to the tribula

tions of the envoys, all of whom were taken captive by the opposition. The
rival emperors were in difficult positions: each realized this struggle would
end no time soon, and yet they both had to keep their eyes on two fronts.
Magnentius had given rank to Decentius so he could defend the Rhine,
and now, in the spring of 351, Constantius II raised his own half-cousin,
Constantius Gallus, to the rank of Caesar to manage affairs in Asia.
The war between Magnentius and Constantius II could now begin.
The first attack was launched by Constantius II, whose smaller armies were
defeated on the border of Italy at Atrans in the summer of 351. Encour
aged by this, Magnentius refused an offer from Constantius II to settle and
went on the offensive, leading his armies from Aquileia into Illyria in the
summer of 351. The usurper quickly gained the upper-hand, took Siscia
and advanced as far as Sirmium beyond which he slipped past Constantius
II’s rear and established himself at Mursa (mod. Osijek).
N ot long thereafter, on September 28, 351, the two armies clashed at
Mursa for one of the costliest battles of the entire 4th Century. Constan
tius II had superior cavalry and archers, but Magnentius commanded a
much stronger infantry, composed of both legionaries and German and
Frankish auxiliaries. The auxiliary infantrymen were unarmored, however,
and they proved easy targets for the eastern archers. Eventually, M agnen
tius’ auxiliaries had suffered so greatly that Constantius II’s cavalry and
lancemen were able to force the Gallic legions to break formation.
About 55,000 men died that day, and though the casualties were
fairly evenly distributed, the battle proved ruinous for Magnentius, who
was clearly the loser. It was a particularly costly battle that weakened
Roman military power in the West at a time when this could least be
afforded. The Germans whom Constantius II had aroused along the Rhine
were raiding deep into Roman territory.
Magnentius made a slow retreat to Italy, taking refuge at Aquileia,
where he continued to make religious concessions to the pagan senatorial
aristocracy. This policy served him well at this critical stage, for his sup
porters were numerous in Italy. Those who openly opposed his regime
escaped across the Adriatic to join the cause of Constantius II.
By the summer of 352, Constantius II was poised for an invasion of
Italy. Aware of his own vulnerability, Magnentius decided to flee to Gaul,
allowing his rival to take possession of Italy and Sicily in the fall of 352
without a struggle. North Africa and Spain seem also to have declared
against Magnentius about this time, thus reducing the rebel’s territory to
Gaul and, perhaps, Britain.
It seemed only a matter of time before Magnentius would have to
offer battle to Constantius II. However, even this opportunity was not
afforded the rebel. In the summer of 353, Magnentius became separated
from his army and was forced to take refuge at Lugdunum, while at the
same time his relative Decentius was faring badly in Germany. Germanic
raids were taking their toll and the city of Trier had revolted in favor of
Constantius II. Though the two had planned to join their forces, it was not
possible.
Each of the rebels met separate fates: Magnentius committed suicide
at Lugdunum on August 10, 353, rather than surrendering, and Decentius
committed suicide eight days later while encamped near Sens. Though
Magnentius also forced suicide on his own mother and youngest brother,
he was survived by his wife, Justina, who some 15 years later married the
western emperor Valentinian I. After a long struggle, Constantinian rule
was restored in the West, and for the first time in 16 years the Empire was
under the command of one emperor.
N u m ism a tic N o t e : In addition to striking coins in his own name, Mag

nentius also struck for Constantius II (early in his rebellion, when he still
hoped to reconcile), and for his relative Decentius, whom he later associ
ated with his regime. Magnentius’ coinage is quite complex and is treated
in detail by Pierre Bas tien in his Le Monnayage de Magnence (350-353),
first published in 1964 and revised in 1983. Magnentius’ coinage policy
varied depending on the mint. A t Rome, for example, he sometimes
divided production equally among the six officinae: coins in the name of
Constantius II were struck at the first three officinae (P, B and T), and
those in the name of Magnentius himself were struck at the latter three
(Q, E and S).
His most remarkable reverse type shows the Christogram (Chi-Rho)
flanked by A and co (Alpha being the first letter of the Greek alphabet, and
Omega the last). This issue shows that Magnentius was a policy opportun
ist, for it was intended to incite the Orthodox Catholics of the West
against the invading eastern emperor Constantius II, who was a devout
Arian. The type, which bears the inscriptions SALVS AVG NOSTRI or
SALVS DD NN AVG ET CAES, occurs either unadorned or within a wreath.
DECENTIUS
C a e s a r , a .d . 3 5 0 -3 5 3
B r o t h e r o r C o u sin o f M a g n e n t iu s
Flavius Magnus Decentius, d. A.D. 353. Little is

known of Decentius, other than that he was a
close relative of the western usurper Magnentius,
variously regarded as his brother or cousin. Decentius was hailed Caesar by

Magnentius while the latter was preparing to oppose the invasion of the
eastern emperor, Constantius II.
Magnentius had good reason to elevate Decentius, for Constantius II
had stirred up Germans along the Rhine, who began to invade Roman
territory. Since Magnentius was occupied on the eastern border of Italy
awaiting Constantius II, he was particularly vulnerable on the Rhine front.
Researchers disagree about when Decentius achieved his rank.
Though most suggest it occurred sometime between March and July of 351
(seemingly in response to Constantius Gallus’ being hailed Caesar by C on
stantius II), it likely occurred in July or August of 350, shortly after N epo
tian was deposed in Rome and the Germans along the Rhine became
active. This opinion seems more in line with the numismatic evidence.
After being hailed Caesar, Decentius was given a small army and
instructed to defend Gaul while Magnentius remained in Italy to confront
Constantius II, who was encamped in Pannonia. With such scanty
resources, however, Decentius could do little more than scramble from one
emergency to another.
Early in their struggle (prior to the Battle of Mursa) the usurpers lost
the important city of Cologne to a Frankish officer named Silvanus, who
defected to Constantius II. (Silvanus was rewarded in 352/3 with the office
of Master of Infantry [magister peditum] in Gaul, but in 355 he rebelled
against his benefactor upon being confronted with false charges of trea
son.) The rebels’ collective fate suffered greatly in the summer of 352
when Magnentius was forced to abandon Italy and he lost the allegiance of
Spain and North Africa.
Meanwhile, Decentius had come into conflict with hostile Germans,
including Chnodomarius, a leader of the Alemanni. Indeed, it may have
been his lack of success against Chnodomarius that caused the city of Trier
(then under the leadership of a certain Poemenius) to defect to the cause
of Constantius II. Exactly when the revolt at Trier occurred is uncertain,
though 353 is probable. Equally uncertain is whether the city was recap
tured by Decentius. This seems unlikely, however, since the historian
Ammianus tells us Poemenius was still alive in 355, some two years after
the death of Decentius.
As Magnentius continued his westward retreat, the Gallic kinsmen
planned to unite their armies in Gaul and offer battle to Constantius II.
Before they could meet, however, Magnentius became separated from his
army and took refuge at Lugdunum, where he was besieged and soon took
his own life. Eight days elapsed before news of Magnentius’ suicide reached
Decentius, who was encamped almost 200 miles away, near Sens. Certain
that his fate also was sealed, Decentius killed himself on August 18, 353.
TH E C O N S T A N T IN IA N ERA 5 15
N u m ism a t ic N o t e : The regular coinage of Decentius follows the pattern

of his senior partner, Magnentius. When Poemenius closed Trier’s gates to
Decentius, his counter-revolutionary government struck gold solidi and
base-metal Æ 2 ’s in the name of Constantius II, the emperor to whom they
had defected. Each denomination seemingly had only one reverse design,
and each was curious in a surprisingly different way: the solidi are unusu
ally heavy for that period in the West, and the Æ 2’s are underweight,
crudely produced, and show no palpable silver content. The Æ 2 ’s bear the
reverse type of the Christogram flanked by A and co, a design originated by
Magnentius as anti-Arian propaganda against Constantius II. The fact
that the people of Trier chose this familiar type is not only ironic, but
seems to show that Magnentius’ propaganda failed to have the necessary
impact. For descriptions of these emergency issues from Trier, see the list
ings of Constantius II.
VETRANIO A .D . 3 5 0
Vetranio, died c. A.D. 356. A n elderly soldier who
had served under Constantine the Great, Vetranio
had achieved the rank of Master of Infantry (mag
ister peditum) in Pannonia when Magnentius over
threw the legitimate western emperor, Constans,
early in 350. Vetranio’s loyalty wavered initially,
but within two months he chose to oppose Magnentius, who was then
advancing eastward.
Vetranio was hailed emperor by his troops at Mursa on March 1, 350,
seemingly because there was a need for an emperor on-site, and Constan
tius II was then unable to leave the Persian front. This bold maneuver
probably was not Vetranio’s idea, but rather that of Constantina, the eldest
daughter of Constantine the Great and a sister of Constantius II. It is gen
erally accepted that Vetranio had no personal designs on the throne and
that he agreed to assume the title of Augustus out of necessity.
Having failed to recruit Vetranio, Magnentius tried another route to
undermining Constantius II’s authority in the Balkans: he sought the hand
of Constantina in marriage. But in this he failed as well, and Constantina
remained unmarried for another year until her brother arranged a marriage
for her with a half-cousin named Constantius Gallus.
Another setback for Magnentius occurred early in June, when
another of Constantius IPs half-cousins, Nepotian, revolted against M ag
nentius in Rome. Fortunately for Magnentius, the rebellion ended in 27
days, and he was able to take command once again in the western capital
5 i6 h is t o r y o f t h e r o m a n e m p ir e : b io g r a p h ie s
(this was probably the occasion upon which Magnentius named his rela
tive Decentius as his Caesar).
Vetranio’s 10 months as Augustus were relatively uneventful, for he
seems to have done little more than maintain a defensive position and sus
tain the loyalty of the Balkan legions until Constantius II arrived late in
the fall of 350. Just after crossing onto European soil, Constantius II met at
Heraclea with embassies sent by Magnentius and Vetranio, after which he
traveled more than 350 miles to meet personally with Vetranio at Naïssus
(mod. Nis). He praised Vetranio’s loyalty, and on Christmas day he for
mally accepted his abdication and provided him with an opulent estate at
Prusa in Bithynia, where he retired and eventually died c. 356.
Vetranio struck coins at Siscia and Thessalonica both

in his own name and in that of Constantius II, the emperor to whom he
pledged his loyalty. His most interesting reverse type bears the inscription
HOC SIGNO VICTOR ERIS (loosely translated: “by this sign you shall con
quer”) and depicts an emperor being crowned by Victory and holding a
labarum (a banner inscribed with the monogram of Christ). The type
refers to the vision experienced by Constantine the Great prior to the Bat
tle of the Milvian Bridge on October 28, 312, and for this reason some
researchers believe it is Constantine himself who is being crowned, not
Vetranio as might otherwise be assumed. Vetranio uses the identical scene
on solidi inscribed SALVATOR REIPVBLICAE (“savior of the state”), a
combination which may allude to Constantine the Great having been the
savior of the Empire.
NEPOTIAN A .D . 3 5 0
N e p h e w o f L ic in iu s Iand C o n sta n tia
C o u s in o f D e lm a tiu s, H a n n ib a llia n u s ,
C o n s t a n t i u s G a l l u s , J u l i a n II a n d L i c i n i u s II
H a lf- n e p h e w o f C o n s t a n t i n e t h e G r e a t
H a l f - c o u s i n o f C r i s p u s , C o n s t a n t i n e II,
C o n s t a n t i u s II, C o n s t a n s , C o n s t a n t i n a (w . o f
H a n n ib a llia n u s & C o n sta n tiu s G a llu s ) a n d
Constantinus Flavius Popilius Nepotianus (earlier Julius Nepotianus),

d. A.D. 350. Nepotioan was one of the ill-fated grandchildren of Theodora
who survived (on account of his youth) the dynastic purge by the sons of
Constantine the Great in the summer of 337. Like his two surviving cous
ins, Constantius Gallus and Julian II, Nepotian lived in semi-exile in his
youth, but emerged after the execution of Fausta in 326.
TH E C O N S T A N T IN IA N ERA 5 I 7
Though Nepotian s homonymous father served as consul in 336 (the

year before he died in the massacre of Theodora’s family) we hear nothing
of Nepotian until June 3, 350, when, in the heat of the moment, he was
hailed emperor in Rome by a mob. The rebel government of Magnentius
had assumed control in Rome nearly 20 weeks earlier, after having over-
thrown the regime of the legitimate emperor Constans. Nepotian and his
ruffians confronted and killed Anicius, Magnentius’ praetorian prefect of
Italy. A more thorough purge of Magnentius’ partisans occurred in the days
that followed.
It is impossible to determine whether Nepotian revolted on his own
behalf or on behalf of his half-cousin, Constantius II (for whom he issued
coins). No doubt time would have made this clear, but his regime ended so
quickly that we are forced to speculate on that point. Perhaps Nepotian
should have devoted less time to his meticulous coinage and more to
securing his counter-revolutionary regime, for all that which good fortune
delivered to him was taken away on the 30th day of the same month.
Leading the counter-counter-re volution in Rome was Marcellinus,
the man at whose party Magnentius had been hailed emperor (and who
had since become his magister officiorum, or chief administrator). Predict
ably, a vengeful purge followed, one in which Nepotian, his mother and
his ringleaders were killed.
Numismatic Note: Nepotian’s coinage was struck only at Rome, and was
limited to two denominations (solidi and Billon Æ 2’s) and to two basic
reverse types. His production mode was virtually identical to that which
Magnentius had established at Rome, for he too struck coins in the name of
Constantius II. On his billon coinage of the G LO RIA ROMANORVM
type, Nepotian follows Magnentius’ formula by dividing production equally
among the six officinae at Rome. However, Nepotian may have used all six
officinae at Rome to coin the gold and billon issues in his own name with
the reverse inscription VRBS ROMA. There is no satisfactory explanation
for Nepotian’s curious use of three different obverse inscriptions, one of
which was used exclusively for gold and the other two for billon.
When Rome was recovered by Magnentius, he may have celebrated
the event by raising his kinsman Decentius to the rank of Caesar and cer
tainly did so by striking coins at Rome with the inscriptions BIS RES-
TITVTA LIBERTAS and RENOBATIO VRBIS ROME. The former inscription
denotes that Rome was “twice liberated” by Magnentius (first from C on
stans, then from Nepotian), and the second (more properly RENOVATIO
VRBIS ROMAE) is more generic in application. Though the first type was
struck only in the name of Magnentius, the second was struck in the names
of both Magnentius and Decentius.
CONSTANTIUS GALLUS
C a e s a r , a .d . 3 5 1 -3 5 4

H a lf- b r o th e r o f Ju lia n II
H u s b a n d a n d c o u s in o f C o n s t a n t i n a
( f o r m e r w. o f H a n n i b a l l i a n u s )
N ep h e w o f L ic in iu s Iand C o n sta n tia
C o u s in o f D e lm a tiu s, H a n n ib a llia n u s , L ic in iu s II
a n d N e p o tia n
H a l f - c o u s i n o f C r i s p u s , C o n s t a n t i n e II, C o n s t a n t i u s II, C o n s t a n s , and
Flavius Claudius Constantius Gallus (earlier Flavius Claudius Gallus),

c. A.D. 325/6-354. Born at the obscure city of Massa Vetemensis in Etru
ria, Constantius Gallus was one of the three grandsons of Theodora who
survived extermination by the grandsons of Helena in 337. Though G al
lus’ father and brother were killed in the family massacre, Gallus was per
mitted to live because he was sickly and was expected to die. Also
surviving the purge was his younger half-brother, Julian II, with whom he
shared the same father, Julius Constantius (consul in 335). The two boys
spent six years of their childhood together at the fortress of Macellum in
Cappadocia, where they received a strict Christian education.
Little else is known of Gallus until he came to power in 351. It was a
time of extreme crisis, for the East was under threat of invasion by the
Sasanians and the West had recently fallen to the usurper Magnentius.
The only legitimate emperor remaining was Constantius II, who up until
this point had ruled in Asia Minor, while his brothers (both now dead)
had ruled in Europe. However, Constantius II was anticipating an
extended stay in Europe to defeat Magnentius and recover the western
provinces. So he decided to share his Imperial burden with his eldest half
cousin, Gallus, who was then in his mid-20s.
Gallus was hailed Caesar at Sirmium on March 15, 351, at which
point he added Constantius to his given name and married his emperor’s
sister, Constantina (who had formerly been married to Gallus’ cousin H an
niballianus). To aid Gallus as his praetorian prefect, Constantius II
appointed the officer Thalassius. Constantius II remained in the Balkans as
Gallus and Thalassius traveled hastily to Antioch, where they established
their court by mid-May.
The Asiatic provinces of the Empire were relatively peaceful at the
time, but Gallus overreacted to the few problems that arose, including sev
eral conspiracies — real and imagined — which he brutally suppressed. He
also quelled a rebellion in Isauria, and crushed with great ferocity a revolt
in Syria Palestina in 352 and a civilian riot at Antioch late in 353. His
cruel and cavalier behavior made him unpopular with the public, the army
and the palace eunuchs who had long held sway in the courts of the East.
Inspiring him to behave so irresponsibly, we are told, was his wife,
Constantina, whom the historian Ammianus describes as a “mortal fury.”
Regrettably, no coins were struck in her name. After about two years of
abuse, a plot was launched by the chamberlain Eusebius, who had flooded
Constantius II with complaints of his half-cousin’s behavior. The emperor
responded by sending the prefect Domitianus and the quaestor Montius to
divine the truth of the matter. During the course of the investigation,
however, Gallus so incensed the soldiers and the populace against the
intrusion that the two men were lynched.
Constantius II was now in a difficult position, for if forced into a cor
ner, Gallus might rebel — and Constantius II already had his hands full
with the Gallic revolt. Thus he recalled Gallus to Milan in 354, seemingly
under the pretense that he was to be re-assigned in the West. During the
course of the arduous journey from Antioch, Gallus suffered the loss of his
wife, Constantina, who died in Bithynia. Gallus was arrested late in 354
not far from the Italian border, at Istra, and was tried for various crimes
against the state. Found guilty, the 29-year-old Caesar was beheaded on
the Emperor’s orders.
JULIAN II 'THE APOSTATE'

A .D . 3 6 0 - 3 6 3
C a e s a r : a .d . 3 5 5 -3 6 0
(u n d e r C o n sta n tiu s II)
A u g u s t u s : a .d . 3 6 0 -3 6 1
(riv a l o f C o n sta n tiu s II)
a .d . 3 6 1 -3 6 3 ( s o l e r e i g n )

H a lf- b ro th e r o f C o n sta n tiu s G a llu s
H u sb a n d a n d h a lf- c o u s in o f H e le n a th e Y o u n g e r
N ep h e w o f L ic in iu s I a n d C o n s t a n t i a
C o u s i n o f D e l m a t i u s , H a n n i b a l l i a n u s , L i c i n i u s II a n d N e p o t i a n
H a l f - c o u s i n o f C r i s p u s , C o n s t a n t i n e II, C o n s t a n t i u s II, C o n s t a n s a n d
C o n s t a n t i n a (w . o f H a n n i b a l l i a n u s & C o n s t a n t i u s G a l l u s )
Flavius Claudius Julianus, A .D . 331/ 2- 363. Few 4th century emperors are
as well known as Julian II, a remarkably talented man whose attempt to
restore pagan worship not only earned him the appellation “the Apostate,”
but also made his reign an uncanny conclusion to the Constantinian leg
acy. By anyone’s reckoning, Julian’s reign was an anachronism; his effort to
revive paganism proved too little and too late to withstand the rushing
tide of Christendom.
Julian’s religious policy as emperor was rooted in his childhood expe
rience, of which the defining moment had been his narrow escape from the
massacre of his branch of the family in 337. We are told Julian was spared
because of his extreme youth (as were his cousin Nepotian, and his half-
brother, Constantius Gallus, who was sickly). The murderous behavior of
the three sons of Constantine proved beyond a doubt to Julian that Chris
tians often did not practice what they preached.
Because his branch of the Constantinian family was out of favor,
young Julian and his half-brother maintained a low profile. Julian was edu
cated in Constantinople, where at an early age he was introduced to Clas
sical learning. After the death of his tutor Bishop Eusebius of Nicomdia in
341, Julian and Gallus were sent to the remote fortress of Macellum in
Cappadocia. There they spent six years in quiet isolation and received a
formal Christian education. Julian was a scholarly child whose interest in
Classical learning was not eliminated by his Christian indoctrination.
By about 347 Julian and Gallus were able to emerge from their exile,
and in 351 Gallus was given the rank of Caesar by his half-cousin, the
emperor Constantius II. While Constantius waged war in Europe, Gallus
reigned in the east. During Gallus’ three years of cruel and poor administra
tion, Julian renewed his studies of Classical subjects at Ephesus, Pergamum
and other centers of learning. Under the tutelage of leading Neoplatonist
philosophers, such as Maximus of Ephesus, Julian quietly converted to
paganism.
In 354 Gallus was stripped of his title and executed, leaving Constan
tius II and Julian as the only surviving males of the Constantinian line. As
a consequence, Julian, then in his early 20s, had to abandon his studies in
Athens so he could join his Imperial relatives in Milan. While there he
found an ally in Constantius IPs wife, Eusebia, who not only protected him
from mortal danger on more than one occasion, but also arranged for him
to return to Athens and resume his studies. However, the emperor’s prob
lems were too great to allow Julian the luxury of being a student, and he
was ordered to return to Milan, where, on November 6 , 355, he was
appointed Caesar. As routinely transpired, a dynastic marriage comple
mented the giving of rank, and Julian was wed to one of the emperor’s sis
ters, Helena the Younger.
Although the usurpers Magnentius and Decentius had been defeated
in August of 353, Constantius II was forced to stay in Europe because of
the problems on the Rhine. Therefore, he passed on to Julian the unenvi
able task of defending Gaul from Germanic invasion, which freed the
emperor to attend to the troubled Danube. Julian spent most of the next
five years campaigning on the Danubian front, and afterward returned to

Asia to repel a Sasanian invasion.
Julian quickly proved that his talents transcended scholarship. The
fact that he was a skilled soldier and administrator came as an unwelcome
surprise to Constantius II, who had hoped he would perform adequately
enough to defend Gaul, but not so well as to win the undying loyalty of his
soldiers. To thwart Julian’s success, Constantius II ordered his own com
mander stationed in modern Switzerland to deny Julian the help he des
perately needed.
As a relative newcomer to the art of war, Julian’s first years were espe
cially difficult. N ot only were the Franks and Alemanni a perennial threat,
but just three months prior to his investiture in 355 the armies stationed
north of the Seine rebelled at Cologne under Master of the Infantry ( mag
ister peditum) Silvanus. The rebellion ended within a month, but Silvanus’
armies (which had just been paid), were still in a rebellious frame of mind.
In 356 Julian drove marauding Germans out of Gaul (seemingly in
concert with Constantius II), but paid a heavy price when he lost two
legions to an ambush. Though he subsequently pushed northward and
recovered the important city of Cologne, he was unable to keep it and was
forced to retreated to Sens, where he was besieged during the winter by the
Alemanni.
In the succeeding years, from 357 to 359, Julian faced a great many
challenges, not the least of which was the treachery of Constantius’ com
manders who, under orders, failed to help him in his campaigns. Julian’s
army often was remarkably small, perhaps 13,000 men. Even so, he had the
courage to use his men offensively against barbarian armies of three times
his strength.
On some occasions (even though Julian preferred caution over aggres
sion) he had to give in to his army’s desire to attack. In one such case, at
Strasbourg in 357, his army demanded that they be allowed to launch a risky
evening offensive. The results were impressive: 6,000 enemy fell on the bat
tlefield and thousands more drowned in their attempt to escape across the
Rhine. The Romans lost only 243 soldiers and four officers.
Not only did Julian campaign with success against the Franks and the
Alemanni, but he also reformed the taxation system, cutting out waste and
corruption, and as a result reducing the tax burden in Gaul by more than
two-thirds. His task was especially difficult because his soldiers had not
been paid or been given bonuses since before he had arrived. Somehow,
though, Julian managed to quell rebellions, retain the loyalty of the sol
diers and earn their patience on the fiscal front.
Constantius II — then marching into Asia Minor to repel an inva
sion by Shapur II — was alarmed by the enormous popularity of his junior
colleague, who in 359 was proving his bravado by crossing the Rhine and
ravaging the lands occupied by the Alemanni. Constantius II tried to
reduce Julian’s authority by ordering him to send a large part of his army
for the campaign against the Sasanians. But the western armies saw
through the ruse and refused to obey. In a rebellious spirit, the soldiers pro
moted the reluctant Julian to the rank of Augustus at Paris in February,
360. Once again the Empire was divided, with rival Augusti ruling in the
East and West. Though Julian tried to gain the approval of Constantius II
through diplomacy, his efforts failed, for his rise was understandably
viewed as a usurpation.
Julian campaigned in Gaul during the remainder of 360, suffering the
death of his wife, Helena, who expired childless. The new emperor headed
east early in 361 to confront Constantius II, by now openly accusing the
emperor of being the leading conspirator in the purge of Julian’s family
nearly a quarter-century before. In the meantime, Constantius II was finish
ing his Persian campaign and preparing to deal with his rebellious half
cousin.
A decade earlier, when Magnentius had similarly revolted, Constan
tius successfully distracted his rival by stirring up the Germans along the
Rhine. It comes as no surprise, then, that he followed the same strategy in
his campaign against Julian. But his attempt to arouse Vadomar, a king of
the Alemanni, failed. Having pacified the Rhine front in advance, Julian
was able to make his journey to the Balkans unhindered. He arrived by the
summer of 361 and had nearly crossed over to Asian soil when Constan
tius II fell fatally ill. On his deathbed, Constantius II named Julian as his
successor, and it was he who inherited the whole Empire upon the death of
his half-cousin on November 3, 361.
Fortunately for both armies, the expected battle never occurred, but
the East versus West rhetoric with which the rival emperors had inspired
their armies was fresh in their minds. As sole emperor, Julian had to over
see the integration of his loyal Gallic legions and the hostile eastern
legions who had formerly served under Constantius II and who, only a few
weeks earlier, had been intent on killing him. On December 11, 361,
Julian entered Constantinople, the city in which he had been born and
baptized nearly three decades before.
Julian inaugurated his reign in poor fashion, for only a few days after
arriving at Constantinople he set up a court in which adherents to his
former rival (most notably the grand chamberlain Eusebius) were prose
cuted in what is known as the Calchedon tribunal. After wintering in
Constantinople, Julian departed in mid-May 362, crossing over to Asia.
He made his way across the heart of Anatolia and arrived in Antioch
by June, where he established his court in the palace formerly occupied by
Constantius II. Within weeks of his arrival, Julian made public his
intentions to restore observance of the pagan cults throughout the Empire;

this could hardly have come as a surprise, for Julian had declared his loy-
alty to paganism months earlier while encamped at Naïssus. However,
Antioch proved to be the city which most vehemently opposed his
attempt to restore paganism.
The end of 362 was quite eventful, for late in October the famous
Temple of Apollo at Daphne (on the outskirts of Antioch) was destroyed
by fire. This was shortly after Julian had failed to observe the festival of
Apollo traditionally held there (this rite had pagan origins, but had since
become largely Christian). He devoted the first part of 363 to preparing for
a Persian campaign that he intended to lead personally. Like so many
emperors before, Julian was seeking glory, hoping perhaps to duplicate the
achievements of Trajan or Alexander the Great.
A t this stage the conflicts between the Gallic commanders and the
eastern commanders were becoming more serious. A t about 65,000 men,
the expedition was perhaps the largest ever mounted against the Persians,
but a division within the command could only have disastrous results.
Nonetheless, Julian set out from Antioch on March 5, and by the 18th he
had reached Carrhae, an outpost which often changed hands during con
flicts between the Romans and Sasanians. From Carrhae Julian led his
armies south to the Euphrates and advanced deep into enemy territory,
defeating the Sasanian armies at every engagement during the next three
months.
Riding the tide of victory, Julian next besieged the capital of Ctesi-
phon. This proved an impossible task for his armies, however, and Julian
decided to abandon his siege and return to Roman territory along the
Tigris river. Only 10 days later, the 31-year-old emperor was killed during a
skirmish in the heart of Mesopotamia, near a place named Phrygia. The
details of the event are uncertain: it most likely occurred on June 26
(though some historians suggest July), and it is not certain whether he was
killed by the enemy or, as was rumored, by of one of the Christian soldiers
under his command.
Upon Julian’s death, the two factions of the army finally agreed to
hail Jovian, the comes domesticorum, as the new emperor. To spare his
starving army from certain defeat, the new emperor agreed to a disgraceful
treaty and returned to Antioch, where he immediately revoked Julian’s
pro-pagan legislation. Thus ended Julian’s anachronistic attempt to restore
pagan worship in the Empire.
Julian reformed many aspects of his Empire, proving that his earlier
efforts in Gaul were not merely populist, but were a reflection of his desire
to improve the conditions of his subjects. Julian was especially opposed to
bureaucratic waste and was a great patron of literature. In addition to
founding a library in the Basilica in Constantinople (which came to house
some 120,(XX) volumes), Julian himself was a prolific and gifted writer.
Indeed, more of his writings survive than do those of any other emperor,
including Marcus Aurelius. His compositions run the literary gamut from
spiritual investigations to biting satire.
Though Julian’s religious policy certainly was pro-pagan, it was not
necessarily repressive of other religions. With characteristic clarity, Julian
realized that Christianity was a threat to paganism primarily because it was
supported by the government. Thus, he starved Christianity of the govern
ment subsidies it had come to enjoy under previous regimes. In imple
menting his “affirmative action” policy toward paganism, Julian prohibited
many pro-Christian activities, excluded Christians from certain teaching
posts and supported the struggling faith of Judaism (and seemingly planned
to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem).
For these actions and especially his personal conversion to paganism,
Julian came to be known as “the Apostate.” Unlike ardent persecutors
such as Galerius and Maximinus Daia, Julian did not attempt the whole
sale destruction of Christianity, but rather tried to discourage it subtly by
repealing its favored status and ridiculing it. Had he reigned a few decades,
Julian’s light-handed approach might have been far more dangerous to the
survival of Christianity than were any of the horrific persecutions of the
Tetrarchs.
N u m is m a t ic N o t e : Julian struck coinage both as Caesar and as Augustus.

His portraits are among the most interesting in the Late Roman Empire
because significantly different styles of engraving can be observed. His
beard must have been a refreshing change for die cutters, as no heavily
bearded effigies had appeared on Roman coins for more than 125 years.
Much like that of the emperor Macrinus (217-218), Julian’s beard is
shown both short and long.
Julian’s most intriguing reverse type occurs on his billon Æ l’s struck
as Augustus. A humped bull is shown beneath two stars and the inscrip
tion SECVRITAS REIPVBLICAE (“the safety of the state”). N ot only is the
type unusual and enigmatic, but it is discussed in surviving ancient litera
ture. In his own writings, Julian berates the people of Antioch for mocking
his coinage, and though Julian does not provide the specifics, the historian
Socrates Scholasticus in his Historia Ecclesiastica tells us that Julian was
referring to his coinage with the bull. The type was struck throughout the
Empire, with a particularly large output in Antioch itself.
Differing views exist of the meaning of Julian’s bull. The idea most
widely accepted among scholars is that it is a symbol of his leadership or
guardianship of the people, and that as such it has no pagan connotation.
Others suggest it represents a sacrificial animal, or that the bull offers proof
that Julian’s natal sign was Taurus (his birthdate is not recorded in ancient
texts). Still others suggest it represents an actual object — a statue of the

Egyptian Apis bull that was unearthed in Egypt late in 362 and was later
delivered to the emperor in Antioch. If the latter provides the explanation,
the bull would symbolize the re-emergence of paganism; but many scholars
reject this enticing theory. It may be of some consequence that of the 13
mints that struck æs for Julian, only Rome and Alexandria — perhaps the
two most likely centers for production of a “pagan” issue — did not strike
the type.
JOVIAN A .D . 3 6 3 - 3 6 4
Flavius Jovianus, c. A.D. 330/1-364. The son of

the general Varronianus, who commanded the
officers corps as comes domesticorum for Constan
tius II, Jovian was born at Singidunum (mod. Bel
grade) late in the reign of Constantine the Great.
By 363 Jovian had filled his father’s shoes and was
commanding that élite corps for Julian II during that emperor’s ill-fated
expedition against Persia.
The historian Ammianus tells us Jovian was uncommonly tall — so
much so that “. . . for some time no royal robe could be found to fit him.”
O f his qualifications for office, Ammianus offers terse disapproval by speak
ing of his moderate education and his greed, and of the excessive time he
spent “jesting in public” and pursuing wine and women. On the positive
side, he acknowledges that Jovian made his appointments with great care.
One day after Julian’s death in June 363, the soldiers offered the
emperorship to the praetorian prefect Saturninius Secundus Salutius, who
declined on account of his advanced age. The soldiers’ next choice was
Jovian, one of the few qualified men who was satisfactory to the command
ers of both rival factions in the army — those from the eastern army for
merly commanded by Constantius II and the Gauls who had accompanied
Julian II on his trek to the East. Since the rivalry was not only cultural but
political, the opposing officers had a difficult time agreeing on candidates.
In the meantime, the Roman army (which had penetrated deeply into
enemy territory) was facing starvation and was suffering increasingly hos
tile attacks by the Sasanians. Jovian had little choice but to sign an unfa
vorable treaty with the Sasanian king Shapur II.
The Romans forfeited all territory east of the Tigris, parts of Armenia
(which was essentially abandoned by the Romans) and the cities of N is ibis
and Singara, both of which were west of the Tigris. The loss was grave, for
these lands had been acquired by the Romans during the campaigns of
52Ó H IS T O R Y O F T H E R O M A N EM PIRE: B IO G R A P H IE S
Galerius, in 298 to 299, and of Septimius Severus a century before that. In

exchange, Jovian was permitted to withdraw his demoralized army
unhindered.
The emperor led his soldiers on an exhausting march back to Anti-
och, where on October 22 he restored the anti-pagan laws that his prede
cessor, Julian II, had abolished. The new emperor stayed only briefly at his
capital before embarking on a long journey to Illyria (Pannonia). He
struck northward to Tarsus, where he visited Julian IPs temporary tomb,
and from there journeyed north to Ancyra, the ancient capital of Phrygia,
where he arrived a few days before the end of 363.
While residing at Ancyra, Jovian assumed the consulate in 364 with
his son, Varronianus, on January 1. We are told that Varronianus (who was
named after his grandfather) was very young and cried loudly when being
placed on the curule chair. Understandably, this was taken as an ill-omen.
Jovian soon was back on the road, heading toward Constantinople. How
ever, on the evening of February 17, 364, while sleeping at Dadastana (on
the border of Galatia and Bithynia), the 33-year-old emperor died.
We are told by ancient sources that his death was accidental, most
likely caused by fumes emanating from a brazier in his sleeping quarters,
although the noxious smell of fresh plaster in his quarters or indigestion
are also mentioned as possibilities by Ammianus. Following Jovian s death,
the two factions in the army clashed once again, causing the Empire to be
divided between East and West — an action that may have been moti
vated by recent unrest within the army then stationed in Gaul.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : Jovian had neither the time nor the inclination to

change the Imperial coinage. He was the last emperor to strike significant
quantities of the Æ1, a large coin that was phased out by his successors.
Jovian abandoned the “bull” design Julian II had chosen for the Æ 1;
whether pagan or not, it had been in any case a highly personalized
selection, and it comes as no surprise that Jovian changed it to the more
generic type of a standing emperor holding a labarum and a Victory on
globe. The portrait of Jovian — clean-shaven and youthful — harkens
back to the Constantinian model which the pagan Julian II had tempo
rarily abandoned.
A B r ie f
In t r o d u c t io n
to th e D iv id e d E m p ir e
A long the banks of the river Tigris in 363, Julian II “the Apostate,” the
last legitimate heir of Constantine the Great, met an ignominious end.
Julian was replaced by Jovian, a soldier who maintained a unified Empire for
almost two years before his own death, which was not in the heat of battle,
but from the fumes of a brazier. Shortly after Jovian’s death, the chemistry of
the Empire changed forever, as its two capitals were destined for permanent
separation.
Forcing this separation were the armies of Gaul (which had supported
the usurpation of Julian II) and the Eastern armies (which had formerly
served under Constantius II). They were forced to cooperate by Julian II
during his reign as Augustus (361-363), but after his death could not agree
on viable candidates for the throne. Initially, they settled on Jovian as a
man who was inoffensive to either party, but after his death in 364, they
decided that two emperors must reign — one in the East, and one in the
West. When the two armies came to this arrangement with Valentinian I
and Valens, civil war was narrowily averted. Except for two half-year peri
ods during the reigns of Gratian (378/9) and of Theodosius I (394/5) and a
few later periods (which were as brief as they were inconsequential), the
East and West were never without separate emperors again.
The cities of Rome, Milan and Ravenna variously served as capitals of
the Western Roman Empire, and Constantinople became the capital of
the Eastern Roman Empire. The split formally occurred in 364, but
became more severe in 395, when the brothers Honorius and Arcadius
inherited their fathers temporarily united Empire. No longer was one of
the emperors senior to the other, instead they were completely equal and
independent. Even though the two emperors continued to strike coins in
each others’ names, and laws were supposed to be applied universally in
the East and West, the sharpness of the division increased with the passage
of time. Though both Roman, the two Empires acted with increasing
autonomy, and occasional hostility. Indeed, their relations were so poor
that war was narrowly avoided on several occasions. After the deaths of
Honorius and Arcadius, a more congenial relationship was achieved.
In this era the historian must make a critical choice. Should the last
112 years of the Empire be discussed principally in terms of the East-West
division, or in terms of ruling houses of Valentinian, Theodosius and Leo?
The latter route has been chosen by most historians, as it offers a comfort
able transition from the Tetrarchic and Constantinian eras. But the former
527
T h e D iv id e d E m p ir e
A. Formerly the wife of the usurper Magnentius

B. Husband of Maria & Thermantia the Younger (daughters of the Master of Soldiers Stilicho)
C. Daughter of Bauto the Frank
D. Formerly the wife of Athaulf the Visigoth
E. Uncle of the Master of Soldiers Gundobad
Note: Names in CAPITALS are of emperors; names in italics are of people not found on coinage.
A B RIE F I N T R O D U C T IO N T O T H E D IV ID E D E M PIRE 529
is undoubtedly more appropriate. N ot only does it offer a true picture of

the post-Constantinian world, but also it avoids the chronological chaos of
the overlapping reigns in Rome and Constantinople.
We must remember that although the political interplay between
East and West was significant, the life of an average citizen of Constanti
nople — even in the most critical of times — was scarcely affected by cur
rent events in Rome. Even so, presentation as a “divided” Empire need not
be at the expense of understanding the dynastic ties that linked East and
West. It is hoped that the accompanying chart and table will be of value in
clarifying the historical framework.
WESTERN EMPIRE EASTERN EMPIRE

c . a .d . 364-395
Valentinian I, 364-375 Valens, 364-378
Gratian, 367-383 (also in east, 8/378-1/379) usurper: Procopius, 365-366
Valentinian II, 375-392 Theodosius I, 379-395 (also in west, 9/394—
usurper: Magnus Maximus, 383-388 1/395)
usurper: Flavius Victor, 387-388 wife: Aelia Flaccilla
usurper: Eugenius, 392-394
c . a .d . 395-457
Honorius, 393-423 (in east, 1/393-1/395) Arcadius, 383-408
usurper: Constantine III, 407-411 wife: Aelia Eudoxia
usurper: Constans II, 409/10-411 Theodosius II, 402-450
usurper: Maximus, 409—411 sister: Aelia Pulcheria (w. of Marcian)
puppet: Priscus Attalus (1st), 409-410 wife: Aelia Eudocia
usurper: Jovinus, 411—413 Marcian, 450-457
usurper: Sebastianus, 412-413
puppet: Priscus Attalus (2nd), 415-416
Constantius III, 421
wife: Galla Placidia
usurper: Johannes, 423-425
Valentinian III, 425-455
sister: Honoria
wife: Licinia Eudoxia
usurper: Petronius Maximus, 455
Avitus, 455—456
c . a .d . 457-476+
Majorian, 457-461 Leo I, 457-474
Libius Severus (Severus III), 461-465 wife: Aelia Verina
Anthemius, 467-472 Patricius, 470-471 (as Caesar)
wife: Aelia Euphemia Leo II, 474
daughter: Alypia (w. of Ricimer) Zeno, 474-475 & 476-491
usurper: Olybrius, 472 wife: Aelia Ariadne
usurper: Glycerius, 473-474 usurper: Basiliscus, 475-476
Julius Nepos, 474-475/480 wife: Aelia Zenonis
usurper: Romulus Augustus, 475-476 usurper: Marcus, 475-476
Leo Caesar, 476-477 (as Caesar)
The concept of dividing the Empire between two Augusti was noth-
ing new to the Romans. It made its debut more than two centuries before
the death of Jovian, when Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus inherited
supreme power from Antoninus Pius. But their experiment was little more
than a solution for a specific crisis, and it was abandoned as soon as Verus
concluded his Parthian campaign (after which the two emperors cam
paigned together in the West).
A terrifying prospect of a divided Empire emerged after the death of
Septimius Severus, for his two sons could not tolerate each other. Though
a division along geographic lines would have separated the quarrelsome
siblings, it undoubtedly would have resulted in a civil war. For this reason,
the division of the Empire was prevented by their mother, Julia Domna.
The first bona fide division was achieved by Valerian I and his son, G allie
nus, who acted with great autonomy — the father in Asia, and the son in
Europe. When Valerian I was captured by the Sasanians in 260, Gallienus
realized the magnitude of his loss as he desperately tried to control his vast
Empire alone.
The next division of consequence occurred during the Tetrarchy. Ini
tially it included two members (Diocletian in the East, and Maximian in
the West), but in 293 it was expanded to include four members, each of
whom was responsible for a specific geographic region. With the last ves
tiges of the Tetrarchy disappearing in 313, the Empire came to be divided
between the two survivors of the system — Constantine the Great and
Licinius I. After nearly a decade of hostility and mistrust, Constantine
overcame Licinius and ruled the whole Empire for the next 13 years.
Upon Constantine’s death in 337, the Empire was carved up among
his three sons. This division was formalized with geographic boundaries,
and was revised several times between 337 and 361, with different combi
nations of brothers and cousins sharing authority. After the last son of
Constantine the Great died in 361, the Empire was inherited intact by one
of Constantine’s nephews, Julian II (361-363). Julian ruled the Empire
single-handedly for three years until his own death, at which point author
ity passed to the soldier Jovian (363-364), whose brief rule brought the
Constantinian Era to a close.
Thus, the end of Jovian’s reign in 364 is the ideal point at which to
change the arrangement of this catalog. The format is still chronological,
except that the two Empires are discussed separately. Though it would
have been virtually as practical to separate East from West beginning with
the Tetrarchs some 80 years before, the consequences would have been too
great. N ot only would it have detracted from the historical element of the
Tetrarchic and Constantinian eras, but it would have been fundamentally
misleading, for the Empire was not yet divided, only partitioned.
A B RIE F I N T R O D U C T IO N T O T H E D IV ID E D EM PIRE 53 I
The West
The story of the last century is one of deterioration in the West, and pros
perity in the East. Over time the western provinces fell one by one: Spain
to the Visigoths (‘wise Goths’) and the Suevi, Gaul to the Franks, Burgun
dians and Visigoths, North Africa to the Vandals, and eventually Britain
to the Saxons, Angles and Jutes. Other European lands once possessed by
the Romans were occupied by the Alemanni and Lombards, and by
nomadic invaders such as the Gepids, Avars and Bulgars. The most crip
pling losses, however, were Illyria and Italy, both of which fell to the
Ostrogoths (‘bright Goths’).
Leading up to the fall of Italy were a series of Germanic and Hunnic
invasions, during which Rome was sacked by Visigoths in 410, narrowly
escaped destruction by Attila the Hun in 452, and was sacked again in
455, this time by the Vandals. In a great stroke of historical irony, this last
desecration of Rome was launched from Carthage — the city which had
been the great nemesis of Rome during the ancient Republic. Though the
Romans had thoroughly defeated the Punic colonists of Carthage more
than six centuries before, the old site was re-occupied in 439 by fair-haired
Germans migrating from Spain.
During the last century that Italy was under Roman sovereignty, it
was essentially ruled by generals who held the title Master of Soldiers
(M a ste r Militum). With names like Arbogast, Ricimer, Orestes and Stili-
cho, these men were usually of full or partial barbarian parentage. The
more famous leaders among the barbarians (such as Geiseric, Odovacar,
Alaric and Athaulf) were also influential in western Roman politics. In
some cases they married into the royal families or forced the senate in
Rome to hail as emperor a candidate of their choosing.
Though the various Germanic nations were enemies of Rome, they
were also enemies of each other. The survival of the Romans was due in
large part to the skillful exploitation of national rivalries, which caused the
“barbarians” to fight among themselves. Their other principal tool of sur
vival was gold. It was a long-standing policy of the Romans to buy peace
with their enemies by annual or occasional payments of tribute. Indeed, it
was a confusing time, for the political environment was ever-changing,
based on who was migrating where.
Amid all of this chaos, there existed a curious bond between Roman
and most Germanic barbarians, for they had a mutual interest in preserving
Christianity and Roman civilization (including all of its spiritual, material
and cultural aspects). As such, there existed a fine balance of enmity and
unity, resulting in a cultural assimilation during the 4th and 5th Centuries.
Roman rule in Italy ended in August of 476, when the German sol
dier Odovacar ousted Romulus Augustus. Constitutionally, Roman rule
continued until 480, when Julius Nepos (the last legitimate emperor, who
since 476 had been in exile in Dalmatia) was murdered. The final blow to
Italy, however, did not occur until 489, when the Ostrogothic king, The-
odoric, executed Odovacar and took possession of the peninsula in the
name of his own people. (For more information on the fall of the Western
Roman Empire, see the discussion that follows the biography of Romulus
Augustus.)
The East
Meanwhile, the Eastern Roman Empire remained on a relatively steady

course that laid the foundation for what is commonly known as the Byzan
tine Empire. The East was wealthier, and was built upon Greek and Asiatic
cultures far older than Rome itself. Based in Constantinople, the Byzan
tine Empire survived a thousand years after Rome fell, though the Romans
of the East had their share of problems along the way.
The main enemy of the Eastern Roman Empire was Persia, which was
then under the rule of the Sasanian kings. The Sasanians were fire-wor-
shippers who under their king Shapur I had overthrown the previous rul
ers, the Parthians, in 224/6. This revolution was considered to be a revival
of true Achaemenid rule, which had first been toppled by Alexander the
Great and later was usurped by the nomadic Parthians.
Though mortal enemies, the Sasanians and the Romans often cooper
ated to stem the tide of nomadic invasions from the Asiatic steppes. Just as
the western Romans shared a loose cultural bond with the Germanic peo
ples, so did the Eastern Romans with the Sasanians. But their bond was
not built on the similarities of their civilizations, but rather on the fact
that both had civilizations. A n influx of uncultivated people from the
steppes of Asia would serve the interests of neither Roman nor Sasanian.
The Sasanians eventually forfeited their dominion over the non-
Roman East to the Arabs, who arose as a united force early in the 7th C en
tury. By the middle of that century their Arabic invasion had ousted the
last of the Sasanian kings. But that event, which was succeeded by com
plex and interesting encounters with Arabs, Venitians and Crusaders, lies
well beyond the scope of this work.
CHAPTER TWELVE
T h e W e s t e r n R o m a n E m p ir e
a . d . 364-480
VALENTINIAN I A .D . 3 6 4 - 3 7 5
a .d . 364- 367: S o le r e ig n
a .d . 367- 375: S e n io r A u g u stu s
(w it h G r a t ia n )
Ruling in the East:

Va le n s(3 6 4 - 3 7 8 ) and Procopius ( 3 6 5 - 3 6 6 )
B r o t h e r o f V a le n s
H u sb an d o f S e v e ra a n d Ju stin a
F a t h e r (b y S e v e r a ) o f G r a t i a n a n d (b y J u s t i n a ) o f V a l e n t i n i a n II
an d G a lla
F a th e r - in - la w o f T h e o d o siu s Iand C o n s ta n tia (d. o f C o n s ta n tiu s II)
G r a n d f a t h e r o f G a l l a P la c id ia
G r e a t - g r a n d fa t h e r o f V a le n tin ia n III a n d H o n o r ia
Flavius Valentinianus, A.D. 321-375. Valentinian I was hailed emperor at

Nicaea on February 26, 364, just ten days after the accidental death of
Jovian, in whose army he was a commander of a division of spearmen. His
elevation came only after long discussion, and much like the elevation of
his predecessor, seems to have been arrived at for a lack of better options.
Valentinian hailed from peasant stock in Pannonia, though his father had
become a general in the army, and thus he was able to receive a good edu
cation. He had many enviable talents, which were not limited to adminis
tration and soldiering, but apparently included painting and sculpting. His
temperament was rigid, and he was not lenient when it came to pronounc
ing punishment or seeking revenge. But on balance the bad qualities he
had were few, and in any case were well-suited to survival as emperor.
Valentinian spent much of his youth in Africa, and later in his career
served in Mesopotamia under Constantius II. He was dismissed from a sim
ilar position by Julian II, who banished him to Egypt for his Christian
beliefs. However, Valentinian was recalled from his exile by the next
emperor, Jovian, who sent him to Gaul to help restore order in the West.
His success in that task earned him yet another commander position in the
army. Instead of continuing the failed policy of ruling the Empire alone,
Valentinian soon made his younger brother Valens co-emperor and split
the Empire, with his brother ruling in the East and Valentinian ruling in
the West. He chose the West because it was in greater need of attention
than the East, and so he decided to take on the task himself. Although the
533
concept of dividing the Empire between East and West was nothing new,
in this case the policy endured virtually undisturbed until the collapse of
the West in 476.
As emperor of the West, Valentinian made his capital at Milan, but
did not have the luxury to reside there, as he devoted himself almost
exclusively to frontier defense. With the exception of delivering relief to
Britain in 367 (which had been overrun by Saxons), Valentinian focused
on stabilizing the German nations. Indeed, he spent seven consecutive
years in Germany constructing fortifications and doing his best to keep the
existing rivalries between Germanic nations alive and active. As if this
were not enough to occupy him, the Eastern part of Europe became a prob
lem, for in 374 Germans and Sarmatians crossed the Danube and invaded
Raetia. Valentinian once again moved his headquarters, this time to Sir-
mium so he could launch offensives across the Danube himself.
To pay for his peaked military demands, taxes were raised in the
Empire. Perhaps because he and his family had risen from humble origins,
Valentinian was especially moderate on the underprivileged and took care
to keep the tax burden from affecting the poor too severely. Further, he
created a political apparatus through which the poor could seek justice
through officers known as Defenders of the People. The wealthy class must
not have enjoyed the consequences of Valentinian’s regime, but at least his
energetic frontier warfare spared them invasion and the like.
Valentinian was married throughout his reign, initially to Marina
Severa, by whom he sired Gratian. He divorced Severa in 368 and married
Justina (the widow of Magnentius), with whom he had yet another son,
Valentinian II. These step-brothers were destined to become emperors,
and indeed they shared leadership of the West for eight years. Aware of a
decline in his own health, Valentinian in 367 had appointed his eldest son
Gratian (then 8 years old) as co-emperor in the West. He did this with
great pomp and circumstance, and purposely tied his dynasty to the army,
in hopes that when he passed, the army would support his legacy. Indeed,
the “dynasty” he established (often called the House of Valentinian) lasted
nearly a century. Though Valentinian himself reigned less than 12 years,
his was perhaps the last successful principate in the West. He died at his
military headquarters at Bregetio on November 17, 375, from a rage-
induced stroke while receiving a delegation sent by the Quadi.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : Valentinian and Valens took a hard line on the deval

uation of the solidus and the silver coinage when in 366/7 they introduced
a law to reduce the problem of taxes being paid in underweight, impure or
false solidi. In its most extreme circumstances, this law required the coins
used for payment to be melted down into bars of pure gold. This effort sta
bilized the solidus at a very high purity and weight (72 to the Roman
T H E W E S T E R N R O M A N EM PIRE 535
pound), for in some cases it had fallen below 95 percent pure, and was
being struck at lower weights. This proved to be a wise venture, for it made
Roman coinage the high standard by which all other currencies were
judged, and gave Romans more bargaining power with their enemies, fed-
erates and army.
GRATIAN A .D . 3 6 7 - 3 8 3
a .d . 367- 3 7 5 : J u n io r A u g u stu s
( w it h V a l e n t in ia n I)
( w it h V a l e n t in ia n II)
Ruling in the East:
V a l e n s ( 3 6 4 - 3 7 8 ), T h e o d o s i u s I ( 3 7 9 - 3 9 5 )
a n d A r c a d i u s (3 8 3 - 4 0 8 )
S o n o f V a le n tin ia n I (a n d Sev era)

H u s b a n d o f C o n s t a n t i a (d . o f C o n s t a n t i u s II)
N eph ew o f Va len s
H a lf- b r o t h e r o f V a le n tin ia n II a n d G a l l a (w. o f T h e o d o siu s I)
Flavius Gratianus, A.D. 359-383. Gratian, the eldest son of Valentinian I

and Marina Severa, was born at Sirmium five years before his father
became emperor, and later in life was well known for his preference for
barbarian clothing and his passion for hunting. His other strong devotion
was to Christianity, in the name of which he was an avid persecutor of
pagans.
While aged only 7, Gratian was named consul — an appointment
which was merely symbolic, and to those who still held the senate in high
esteem, must have been insulting. But more was to come, because Gra-
tian’s father, whose health was failing, proclaimed him junior Augustus on
August 24, 367, at a lavish ceremony at Ambiani. Father and eldest son
had jointly held the titles of Augustus in the West for more than eight
years when Valentinian I died suddenly on the Danubian frontier in 375.
Thus the Western Roman Empire fell into the hands of 16-year-old G ra
tian as would be expected. But only five days later the army hailed Gra-
tian’s 4^year-old half-brother, Valentinian II, as co-emperor of the West. A
brief power struggle involving several important military men ensued, but
with little serious consequence, peace was restored. It is much to the credit
of Gratian that civil war was averted, for he behaved charitably and sug
gested his young brother establish his court in Illyria while he set out to
manage affairs in the less-stable western provinces.
Because of his youth, Gratian was strongly influenced by his former

tutor, the poet Ausonius, and his Master of Infantry, Merobaudes. Auso-
nius worked hard to restore good relations with the senate, which had
been alienated by the harsh policies of Gratian’s father. Gratian estab-
lished his court at Trier, from which he was able to direct campaigns
against the Alemanni from 376 to 378. In 378 or 374 (opinions vary) he
married Constantia, the 16-year-old daughter who was born posthumously
to Constantius II and his third wife, Faustina. Constantia (in whose name
no coins were struck) died in 383, and was able to produce only one son,
who died in childhood.
But in 378 the Romans suffered perhaps their greatest defeat in his
tory. The Visigoths had been making overtures of war in the East (for the
province of Thrace, though European, belonged to the East), and the
emperor Valens had led an army to deal with this tense situation. In
August Valens apparently grew tired of waiting for Gratian’s army to
arrive, or was eager to defeat them single-handedly, and so launched an
offensive before Gratian’s reinforcements arrived. Indeed, we are told that
Gratian arrived at Adrianople only in time to witness the aftermath of the
virtual destruction of the Eastern army, and the death of his uncle, Valens.
Gratian had now inherited the whole Empire, which he theoretically
shared with his 7-year-old half-brother. Even though Valentinian II would
have ruled only in name for at least the first decade, it would have been
simple enough for the brothers to divide the Empire between themselves.
But instead of pursuing that disastrous option, or taking on more than he
could handle, Gratian eventually decided to appoint a cousin of his by
marriage as the replacement of his slain uncle. After the Eastern throne
had remained vacant for about six months, the general Theodosius (who
recently had been recalled from Spain to take charge of the Danubian
frontier) was hailed Augustus in the East in January of 379.
Together Gratian and Theodosius I kept the Goths and the Alans in
check, but in 383 Gratian’s attention was required in Britain, where a
commander named Magnus Maximus had revolted, and subsequently
crossed the channel. When Gratian neared Paris his army deserted for lack
of monetary incentive, and left the 24-year-old emperor to flee for his life.
Gratian was overtaken near Lugdunum and was executed there on August
25, 383, exactly 16 years and one day after he had ascended the throne.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : Gratian was the first emperor to drop pontifex maximus

from his titulature, for he perceived it to be a relic of the pagan age.
VALENTINIAN II A .D . 3 7 5 - 3 9 2
a .D. 3 7 5 - 3 8 3 : J u n i o r A u g u stu s
( w it h G r a t ia n )
a .d . 383- 3 9 2: S o le r e ig n
Ruling in the East:

V a l e n s ( 3 6 4 - 3 7 8 ), T h e o d o s i u s I ( 3 7 9 - 3 9 5 )
a n d A r c a d i u s ( 38 3 - 4 0 8 )
S on of V a l e n t in ia n I ( a n d J u s t in a )
B roth er of G alla ( w. of T h e o d o s iu s I)
H a l f -b r o t h e r o f G r a t ia n
N eph ew o f Va le n s
B r o t h e r -in -law of T h e o d o s iu s I
U n cle o f G a lla P l a c id ia
Flavius Valentinianus, A.D. 371-392. Five days after the sudden death of
his father, the 4'year-old Valentinian II was hailed co-emperor (November
22, 375) with his older half-brother, Gratian, who had nominally held that
title with their father for more than eight years. This symbolic act was
engineered by Valentinian’s mother, Justina (a devout Arian who formerly
was the wife of the usurper Magnentius), the Frankish Master of Infantry
Merobaudes, and the Danubian commander Equitius. Both Justina and
Merobaudes took advantage of dissatisfaction among the Danubian sol
diers, who had tired of the Germans making the important decisions.
Power was now shared in the West by Gratian and the adults who
represented the child Valentinian II. The division of the West was formal,
with the court of Valentinian II having authority in Italy, western Illyria
and Africa. That Gratian did not respond to this lawless elevation with
force, and indeed that he did not resent his sibling, is much to his credit.
When Gratian was killed by Magnus Maximus in 383, Valentinian’s court
moved from Illyria to Milan. A temporary peace was arranged between
Valentinian II and the usurper, which lasted for nearly four years.
While at Milan, the influence of the emperor’s mother was greatly
diminished because of her loss of a religious dispute with St. Ambrose. But
more serious matters were at hand, for Magnus Maximus was still in con
trol of the westernmost provinces, and in 387 he launched an invasion of
Italy. In fear of his life, Valentinian II (now about 16 years old) and his
mother fled Milan and sought refuge in Thessalonica. Indeed, it was
through his mother’s efforts that the Eastern emperor Theodosius I agreed
to invade Italy and to restore her son’s rule. Regrettably, she was unable to
enjoy the fruits of her labor, for she died in 388.
Having taken part in the campaign against Magnus Maximus, Valen
tinian II was able to maintain his principate. However, his authority in the
West was greatly diminished, for Theodosius I remained in Italy for nearly
four years thereafter. Throughout this period, young Valentinian was at
odds with the Frankish Master of Infantry Arbogast, whom Theodosius
had endowed with great authority in the West. A t one point Valentinian
tried to oust the Frankish soldier, but found that when Arbogast refused to
resign, he could not forcibly retire him.
Their tense joint-rulership ended on May 15, 392, when the 21-year-
old Valentinian (held against his will at Vienna in southern Gaul) died,
either by his own hand or by strangulation on the orders of Arbogast. This
treacherous act brought about the extinction of the luckless House of Val
entinian. Three months later Arbogast installed the usurper Eugenius on
the throne in Rome, and through him ruled in the West for the next two
years.
MAGNUS MAXIMUS
A.D. 383-388
a . d . 383 - 387 : S o l e r e i g n
a . d . 387 - 388 : S e n i o r A u g u s t u s
(w ith F la v iu s V ic t o r )
Ruling in the East:

T h e o d o s i u s I ( 379 - 3 9 5 ) a n d
A r c a d i u s ( 383- 408)
Fa t h e r of F l a v iu s V ic t o r
Flavius Magnus Clemens Maximus, d . A .D . 388. The Spaniard Magnus

Maximus was a distant relative and comrade-in-arms of Count Theodo
sius, the illustrious father of Theodosius I, the emperor in the East at the
time of Maximus’ revolt.
Maximus earlier had served in North Africa, and had become the
commander of the Roman army in Britain, where he was fighting the Piets
and the Scots when his soldiers hailed him emperor in July of 383. He
quickly moved into Gaul and also claimed Spain for himself. The rightful
emperor of the West, Gratian, traveled west to crush Maximus’ rebellion,
but when he reached Gaul his troops abandoned him and the 24-year-old
emperor fled, only to be overtaken and killed at Lugdunum on August 25.
Theodosius I (struggling with the Sasanians in the East) and Valentinian
II (helpless in Milan) were not able to combat Maximus’ insurrection.
The usurper was able to extend his territories, and to enlist the help of
the infantry commander Merobaudes. In the summer of 384 Theodosius I
met with envoys of Maximus and there found it practical to recognize
Maximus as a de facto emperor (co-regent of the West), thus dividing the

Empire into three distinct portions. In 387 Maximus took advantage of the
undefended Alpine passes and invaded Italy in May of 387. The 16-year-old
Valentinian II escaped with his mother to Thessalonica, where they sought
the protection of the Eastern emperor Theodosius I.
Maximus’ unlawful cause found some ardent supporters in Italy,
including the renowned orator and consul Quintus Aurelius Symmachus.
A t this time Maximus raised his young son, Flavius Victor, as his junior co
emperor. In the following year, however, Theodosius patched up a peace
with the Sasanians and then led his army of Romans, Huns and Visigoths
on a fast march through the Balkans. Maximus stayed in Aquileia and sent
an army toward the Balkans to combat Theodosius, but his legions were
defeated several times, and Theodosius marched into Italy, where he found
Maximus at Aquileia. Despite his pleas for mercy, the usurper was finally
defeated and then beheaded in July or August, 388.
His son, Flavius Victor (who may have been with him or remained in
Gaul), was captured and executed by the Frankish Master of Infantry
Arbogast. Having gone to great expense to restore peace in the West, T he
odosius remained in Italy for more than three years and placed young Val
entinian II under the tutelage of Arbogast. A fanatical Orthodox
Christian, Maximus was quite active in his religious persecutions, and
even found a place in Welsh legend. Indeed, it would have been an inter
esting Empire had Maximus succeeded in ruling the West, as the entire
Empire would have been ruled by Spaniards, who no doubt would have
created a Spanish dynasty with their sons.
FLAVIUS VICTOR A .D . 3 8 7 - 3 8 8
J u n io r A u g u stu s (w it h M agnus M a x im u s )
Ruling in the East:

T h e o d o s i u s 1 ( 3 79 - 3 9 5 ) and
A r c a d iu s (3 8 3 - 4 0 8 )
S on of M agnus M a x im u s
Flavius Victor, d. A.D. 38 8 . The young son of Magnus Maximus, Flavius

Victor was proclaimed co-emperor by his father sometime in the middle of
387, when the latter was wresting Italy from Valentinian II. The coinage is
careful to show his youth and small stature, indicating he was subordinate
to his father.
Flavius Victor, whose age is not known (indeed he may have been
only an infant), was emperor for only about a year before he was executed
after his father’s defeat by Theodosius I. It is not entirely certain whether

he was left in Gaul while his father occupied Italy, or if he accompanied
him, though the former seems likely. In any case, his death came in August
of 388 at the hands of the general Arbogast, either with his father or
shortly thereafter.
Flavius Victor’s coins were struck at Trier and the

newly captured Italian mints of Milan and Aquileia. The reverse inscrip
tion on his rare solidus BONO REIPVBLICE NATI, meaning “bom for the
good of the state,” is among the most charming in the Imperial series.
EUGENIUS A .D . 3 9 2 - 3 9 4
Ruling in the East:
T h e o d o s i u s I ( 379 - 3 9 5 ) and
A r c a d i u s ( 3 83 - 4 0 8 )
Flavius Eugenius, d. A.D. 3 94 . History records

very little of Eugenius, who on August 22, 392, was
chosen to replace Valentinian II more than three months after the latter
had been murdered. Making this choice was Arbogast, a Frankish general
whom the Eastern emperor Theodosius I had named co-regent with Valen
tinian II. Eugenius was well-suited for the job because he was only a mid-
dle-ranking court official who had formerly been a professor of rhetoric
and Latin.
Eugenius was the ideal puppet emperor, for he was not likely to defy
the authority of the court officials and military commanders who had
installed him. Although a Christian himself, Eugenius was bearded and
tolerated a brief revival of paganism in Rome in an effort to gain support
against Theodosius I. After all, it was Theodosius’ relentless persecution of
pagans and heretics that provided a spark for revolution. By the spring of
393 Eugenius had moved East to occupy Italy, and it must have angered
Theodosius that he had to lead an army to defend Italy for a second time
in just a few years. Arbogast continued to rule the Western Roman Empire
through Eugenius until Theodosius I routed their army near Aquileia (or
along the Frigidus river in Pannonia) on September 5-6, 394. After their
defeat, Eugenius was captured and executed and Arbogast fled, only to
take his own life a few days later.
T H E W E S T E R N R O M A N E M PIRE 541
HONORIUS A .D . 3 9 3 - 4 2 3
S o le r e ig n
(except 421, w it h C o n s t a n t iu s III)
Ruling in the East:
T h e o d o s iu sI ( 379 - 3 9 5 ), A r c a d i u s ( 3 8 3 - 4 0 8 )
a n d T h e o d o s i u s II ( 4 0 8 - 4 5 0 )
S on of T h e o d o s iu s I and A e l ia F l a c c il l a
B ro th er of A r c a d iu s
B r o t h e r -i n -la w of A e l ia E u d o x ia
U n cle of T h e o d o s i u s II and A e l ia P u l c h e r ia
H a l f -b r o t h e r o f G a lla P l a c id ia
Flavius Honorius, A.D. 383/4-423. Born at Constantinople, Honorius

was the younger son of the reigning emperor Theodosius I and his first
wife, Aelia Flacilla. Honorius’ reign was one of the most tragic and mis
managed in all Roman history. Honorius was hailed emperor in January,
393, which raised the number of emperors in the East to three: Theodosius
I (age 46 or 47), Arcadius (age 16), and Honorius (age 8 ). However prom
ising this might have seemed, it soon became apparent that Honorius and
his brother had inherited none of their father’s talent, and that both were
destined to be ruled by their generals.
Honorius’ reign began in the midst of a tragedy, for at that time the
West was in the hands of the usurper Eugenius (392-394)- The last legiti
mate emperor of the West, Valentinian II, had been killed eight months
earlier, and so the task of restoring order in the West fell squarely on the
shoulders of Theodosius I. Thus, when Theodosius left Constantinople in
394 to oust Eugenius from Italy, he left his eldest son, Arcadius, in the East
to oversee matters during his absence.
Though Theodosius was successful in defeating Euguenius and his
supporters, the great emperor himself died in 395, leaving the 18-year-old
Arcadius emperor in the East, and the 12-year-old Honorius emperor in
the West. Both boys had ambitious generals as their advisers, the one
appointed to Honorius being the half-Vandal Master of Soldiers Flavius
Stilicho. His position was secure, for not only had he been appointed by
Theodosius I, but he was married to a niece of Theodosius, and had wed
both of his own daughters (first Maria then, after her death, Thermantia
the Younger) to Honorius.
The death of Theodosius was particularly damaging to relations
between East and West, as the generals Stilicho (regent in the West) and
Rufinus (regent in the East) fought for control of Illyria, an important
province which provided a steady supply of army recruits. Their private
quarrel caused an uprising by the Visigoths under their chieftain Alaric.
Though the Goths ravaged much of the Balkans and Greece from 395 to
397, the two generals were more concerned with their own struggle than
with sparing Greece from destruction. The conflict ended in treachery
when Stilicho (in what seemed to be a peaceful gesture) had Rufinus assas
sinated. When Stilicho refused to cooperate in the war against Alaric, he
was declared a public enemy in 397 by Arcadius, and tensions between
East and West rose to a new height.
A revolt in North Africa proved equally dangerous, for the leader of
the rebellion sought to ally himself with Arcadius in the East. Fortunately
the crisis ended, and disaster was narrowly averted. But the woes of the
Western Roman Empire were just beginning, and the remainder of Hono-
rius’ reign is a virtual laundry list of catastrophe. The close proximity of the
Goths convinced Honorius that his current capital at Milan was vulnerable
to fast invasion, and so in 404 he moved his court further south to Ravenna,
a city with easy access to the sea and natural protection afforded by its
marshy environs. The measure proved wise, because in 405 a confederate
army led by the Ostrogoths invaded Italy, and was repelled by Stilicho.
Riding the tide of this recent victory, the ambitious Stilicho planned
for his invasion of Illyria, and tried to gain the cooperation of the Visigoth
Alaric in his enterprise. But he was foiled when a Germanic invasion was
launched across the Rhine in 406. Even though Germany, Gaul and Brit
ain were laid waste to on an almost inconceivable scale, Stilicho was still
preoccupied with his desire to recapture Illyria, and offered no substantive
help to the depleted legions in the far West. Thus, the legions supported a
rebellion that began in Britain and spread into Gaul and Spain. Though
the first two leaders of this revolt were quickly murdered and replaced by
their own soldiers, it signaled the beginning of nearly a decade of chaos in
the westernmost provinces, which continued virtually unabated from 406
to 415.
During this period, the Roman armies were divided among loyalists
and usurpers, and thus were ineffective against the Germans, who poured
across the Rhine to settle in Gaul and Spain. The details are sketchy and
intricate, and are presented in the biographies of Constantine III (407-
411), Constans II (410-411), Maximus (409-411), Jovinus (411-413),
Sebastianus (412-413) and Priscus Attalus (second reign, 414-415). In
the meantime, Italy and eastern Europe were equally chaotic, for Alaric
and his Visigoths were being kept at bay only through the payment of huge
sums of gold.
The year 408 was especially important, for Honorius’ older brother
Arcadius, emperor in the East, died on May 1. He was replaced by his 7-
year-old son, Theodosius II, who had been hailed Junior Augustus in 402.
But Stilicho’s ambition was unbounded, and he claimed the right of
regency over East as well as West, only to be arrested on August 22 by his
own mutinous soldiers, who had been told he was planning to overthrow
Honorius and install his own son, Eucherius, on the throne. The short
sighted senate was fed up with German generals, and drove a great many
German soldiers out of Italy. But this purge (which kept another German
from holding such a position for the next half-century) was a Pyrrhic vic
tory, for most of the Germans joined the Visigoths.
With the loss of Stilicho and the western provinces in open revolt,
Alaric, in October, led his Visigoths on a second invasion of Italy — and
this one proved effective. Alaric blockaded Rome from 408-410, and their
siege was so effective that they avoided sacking it in the first year only
because they were paid a vast sum of gold by the senate. But in 409 they
renewed their pressure, captured Rome’s port, and forced the senate to
declare a candidate of their own, Priscus Attalus, as emperor in place of
Honorius. But Alaric soon tired of his arrangement with Priscus Attalus
and arranged to meet with Honorius near his court in Ravenna. During
the process, however, his delegation was attacked by a hated compatriot,
Sarus. Alaric suspected it was no coincidence, and that Honorius had
arranged it. So Alaric broke off negotiations and engaged in some treach
ery of his own, through which the gates opened for him.
The Visigoths poured into Rome in August of 410 and sacked the
Eternal City for about three days. In addition to booty, the invaders took
captives, including the emperor’s beloved half-sister, Galla Placidia. This
event shocked the Roman world, but the news was not immediately under
stood by the dull-witted Honorius, who was then residing at his court in
Ravenna. The historian Procopius informs us that when he was told that
“Rome had fallen,” he first thought that his pet cock — named Roma —
had died. His perplexed response, “. . . and I was only just feeding him,”
reveals his simplistic nature. The sack of Rome also did little for the Visig
oths, whose leader died later that year during his southward trek, from
which he had hoped to invade North Africa. Their subsequent fate in
Spain and southern Gaul was luckless, after which they decided to return
to central Gaul and settle.
Though Rome had not been sacked in almost eight centuries, the
Western Roman Empire’s misfortunes did not end there. The next five
years were plagued with continued rebellion in the westernmost provinces.
Some good luck, however, did come to Honorius in the form of a valiant
general named Constantius (better known as Constantius III), who was
able to quell revolts in the West, defeat the Visigoths, and recover Hono
rius’ half-sister, Galla Placidia, whom he made his reluctant wife in 417.
Since Honorius was ever-reliant on his generals, he must have felt good
about this new arrangement with Constantius III. However, in February of
4 2 1 , he hailed his prize general as his co-emperor, a decision which seemed
to please neither Honorius or his nephew, Theodosius II (who refused to
recognize the elevation). As unwilling as Honorius was to share his office,

he no doubt was saddened when a few months later (September, 421)
Constantius III died of what seemingly were natural causes.
The childless Honorius was thus robbed of an immediate heir, but in
turn received a future one, for Constantius III and Placidia had had two
children, one of whom was the future emperor Valentinian III. Ancient
historians tell us of another part of Honorius’ personality, for he was
unnaturally fond of his half-sister. His public expressions of this love,
which appeared blatantly incestuous to those observing, caused riots
between various political factions in the streets of Ravenna. However,
their love became strained and turned sour, causing Honorius to banish
Galla Placidia and her children in 422 or 423. After an exhausting and
luckless reign of more than 30 years, Honorius — then aged 39 — died of
natural causes shortly thereafter on August 25, 423. His death incited yet
another revolt, in which power was seized by a faction backing a usurper
named Johannes, who ruled for 18 months until he was deposed in 425 by
an army sent from Constantinople. In his place, the rightful emperor, the
6 -year-old Valentinian III, was installed.
N u m ism a tic N o t e : There are imitations of Honorius’ solidi, tremisses, sil-

iquae and half-siliquae attributed to the Visigoths (see RIC X, pp. 451-2);
of his solidi and siliquae attributed to the Suevi (see RIC X, p. 465); and of
his siliquae, half-siliquae and Æ 4 ’s attributed to the Vandals and N . Africa
in general (see RIC X, p. 467ff.).
CONSTANTINE III A .D . 407-411

a .d . 407- 408: S o le R e ig n
a .d . 4 0 8 - 4 0 9 /4 1 0 : A u g u stu s
(w it h C o n sta n s II, as C a esa r )
a .d . 4 0 9 /4 1 0 - 4 1 1 : S e n io r A u g u stu s
(w it h C o n sta n s II)
Ruling in the East:
A r c a d i u s ( 3 83 - 4 0 8 ) and T h e o d o s iu s II
(4 0 8 - 4 5 0 )
F a th e r o f C o n sta n s II
Flavius Claudius Constantinus, d. A.D. 411. During the early 5 th Cen

tury, Britain was slowly denuded of its legions because of more pressing
needs on the continent. The general Stilicho withdrew most Roman
troops from Britain and Gaul to repel an Ostrogothic army led by
Radagaisus that penetrated northern Italy late in 405. (Stilicho defeated

the Ostrogoths, but only with the aid of the Huns and by keeping Alaric’s
Visigoths in line with large sums of gold.)
Though disaster was averted in Italy, the provinces of Britain and
Gaul were unprotected. A great invasion of Gaul was launched across the
frozen Rhine by Burgundians, Vandals, Alans, Alemanni, Franks and
Suevi, which not only devastated Germany and Gaul, but also incited the
Piets to ravage Britain. This led to chaos and disaffection within the army,
which was not impressed with the feeble efforts of Stilicho, and so in 406
took matters into its own hands by raising three men in quick succession as
emperor: Marcus, Gratian and Constantine III. The first two were rapidly
deposed by their own soldiers, and of them we have no coins.
Constantine III was a common soldier, and in 407 he wrote to Hono-
rius explaining his hesitance, but none-the-less he asked for confirmation.
He mobilized his depleted army and quickly moved into Gaul, where he
established his court at Arles. In 408 he raised his eldest son, Constans II,
to the rank of Caesar, and his youngest son, Julian, to Nobilissimus (“most
noble” ). Regrettably, no coins were struck in the name of Julian. However,
we do have coins in the name of Constans II, whose principal task was to
conquer the north of Spain, which he did briefly.
In 409 the Visigoth Alaric launched his invasion of Italy, and as a
result Constantine III was able to gain temporary recognition from Hono
rius, with whom he held the consulship in that year. This did not please
Theodosius II in Constantinople, who did not agree to the pact, which in
part involved Constantine III providing help to Honorius in repelling the
Visogoths. However, in the same year treacherous actions by his own gen
eral Gerontius cost Constantine III his recently acquired territories in
northern Spain.
Instead of coming under the protection of the Roman armies, Spain
was now being ravaged by Vandals and other Germans with whom Geron
tius seems to have made a pact. Then in 409 the rebellious general raised a
man named Maximus (perhaps his own son), as emperor in Spain. Thus, at
the very peak of its nominal achievement, the Empire of Constantine III
began to collapse. He recalled his son, Constans II, from Spain in 410 and
hailed him co-emperor, perhaps in preparation for an invasion of Italy (in
410) that never materialized. Early in 411, Constans II was besieged and
executed by Gerontius at Vienne, and later in the same year Constantine III
himself was besieged by Gerontius at Arles. With him, and sharing his fate,
was his youngest son, Julian. But his turncoat general had to abandon his
venture because an army led by Honorius’ general, Constantius (the
emperor of 421, later called Constantius III), was fast approaching.
Thus Gerontius fled and Constantius III renewed the siege of Arles.
In September, Constantine III was captured just after he had taken the
vows of priesthood. But this act was futile, and did not spare his life as he
had hoped. Constantine III was executed on orders of Honorius while
being transported to Ravenna. Though his rebellion (and the offshoot
rebellion of Maximus in Spain) were crushed, a new Gallic revolt led by
Jovinus was sparked in the same year.
N u m is m a t ic N o t e : This rebel’s most interesting coins — inscribed VIC-

TORI A AAAVGGGG — were struck only at Lugdunum. Though once
believed to represent Honorius, Theodosius II, Constantine III and C on
stans II, hoard evidence has shown that they were struck before Constans
II was hailed co-emperor; therefore, they are dated to 407-408, and must
refer to Honorius, Arcadius, Theodosius II and Constantine III.
CONSTANS II A .D . 409/10-411
a . d . 408-409/10: C a e s a r
( u n d e r C o n s t a n t i n e III)
a . d . 4 09/410-411 : J u n i o r A u g u s t u s
( w i t h C o n s t a n t i n e III)
Ruling in the East:

A r c a d i u s (383-408) a n d
T h e o d o s i u s II (408-450)
S o n o f C o n sta n tin e III
Constans, d . A .D . 4 1 1 . As might be expected, the historical information

on Constans II — who we are told was a monk before being hailed Caesar
— is incomplete, and in some cases contradictory. We do know he was
associated with his father’s revolt during its second year, but probably with
the rank of Caesar. One source, Olympiodorus, tells us Constans was first
made Caesar, and was elevated to the rank of Augustus in 409 (or later)
when he was recalled from Spain by his father. More than likely he was
given the rank of Augustus in 410, either because of a host of new prob
lems which his father faced, or because of a planned invasion of Italy.
The first task entrusted to Constans II was to add Spain to his father’s
fugitive kingdom. This goal he achieved in 408 and 409 with the help of
the general Gerontius. However, the territorial gain was short-lived as the
Spanish soldiers guarding the pass at the Pyrenees revolted, allowing the
Vandals and other Germanic migrants to flow directly from Gaul into
Spain. Unable to control the situation he had been sent to remedy, C on
stans II fled back to Gaul, leaving the Roman citizens with no choice but
to take refuge within the walled cities of Spain.
Historians tell us that a severe famine forced many of them to resort

to cannibalism. Constantine III blamed Gerontius for the treachery of the
Spanish soldiers, and thus the general made a pact with the Vandals in
hopes it would preserve his life. As part of the pact, Gerontius declared
Maximus (who perhaps was his own son) as emperor of Spain.
From all this chaos in Spain, Constans II was recalled to Gaul by his
father, where he was hailed co-emperor. But Gerontius proved to be a fatal
thorn in the side of young Constans II, for early in 411 he besieged him at
Vienne and soon executed him. Only a few months later, Gerontius pro
ceeded to besiege the boy’s father Constantine III at Arles. Constans II
had a younger brother named Julian (for whom no coins were struck) who
was hailed Nobilissimus (“most noble” ) when Constans II was made Caesar.
Constans II is most often referred to only as “C on

stans,” but in this catalog he is designated “Constans II” to easily distin
guish him from the earlier emperor of the same name who reigned from
337-350. His extremely rare coinage (of which there are Cigoi forgeries)
seems to be limited to silver siliquae of Trier with the standard Roma-
seated reverse, all bearing the mint marks KONT or SMTR.
MAXIMUS A .D . 409-411
Ruling in the East:
II ( 4 0 8 - 4 5 0 )
T h e o d o s iu s
S on of G e r o n t iu s (?)
Maximus, d. A.D. 4 2 2 ( 7). The rebellion of C on

stantine III occurred out of desperation, for Ger
mans were pouring across the Rhine in numbers
not thought possible. The legions stationed in the West were receiving no
help from the emperor Honorius, who had his hands full keeping the Visig
oths out of Italy.
The leading general in this rebellion was Gerontius, who was as ver
satile as he was talented. In 408 he and Constantine Ill’s son, Constans II,
conquered northern Spain. However, the gain was short-lived as Vandals
and Suevi poured through Gaul and directly into Spain. Historians suspect
Gerontius spared his own interests by coming to secret arrangements with
the invaders. While this may have been a sensible course of action, it did
not please Constantine III, who recalled his son after he learned that
Gerontius had appointed a certain Maximus as emperor in Spain.
The identification of Maximus has been a point of considerable

debate. Some suggest he was Gerontius’ son, but perhaps more likely he
was his senior household officer (domesticus). Maximus’ reign lasted into
410, a year when six men claimed the title Augustus in the Roman Empire
(the other five being Honorius, Theodosius II, Priscus Attalus, Constan-
tine III and Constans II).
In 411, however, the western provinces were being reclaimed by
Honorius. In that year not only had Constantine III and Constans II been
killed, but Maximus’ supporter Gerontius had been forced to commit sui
cide. Maximus had apparently been with Gerontius at the siege of Arles,
and also had fled when he learned that Honorius’ general Constantius III
was fast approaching. But instead of choosing suicide, Maximus sought
protection among his barbarian allies in Spain, at which point his reign of
about two years ended. Maximus was officially deposed by Honorius and
allowed to retire to an obscure, private life in Spain. It is possible (but not
certain) that he is the same Maximus tryannus who rebelled in Spain in
about 420, only to be captured. That particular Maximus was paraded in
the streets of Ravenna in 422 during Honorius’ tricennalia, and subse
quently executed.
N u m is m a t ic N o t e : The coins struck by Maximus designate only three

Augusti, which presumably are meant to be Honorius, Theodosius II and
himself, thus denying recognition of the Visigothic puppet emperor Priscus
Attalus and of the Gallic usurpers Constantine III and Constans II, with
whom he was at odds. All of his coins were struck at Barcelona, and all
bear the mint mark SMBA. Though Maximus’ coin portraits are always
bearded, Cigoi forgeries exist on which he is unbearded.
PRISCUS ATTALUS
F IR S T R E IG N A*D* 4 0 9 —4 ^ ^
Ruling in the East:
T h e o d o s i u s II (408-450)
Priscus Attalus, c. A.D. 350-after 417. A Roman

senator of Ionian Greek origin, and a pagan fol
lower of Symmachus, Priscus Attalus came into
the political limelight in 408, when he took a leading role as representa
tive of the senate in negotiations with Alaric the Visigoth, who had begun
a siege of Rome. During this tumultuous period Attalus served as count of
the sacred largess (comes sacrarum largitionum), city prefect (praefectus urbi)
and consul. When the Visigoths captured the city’s granaries in 409 and
threatened to starve the Romans out, the senate bowed to the Gothic
demands by appointing Priscus Attalus emperor in opposition to Honorius
(who was currently reigning at Ravenna).
As part of his installation, Attalus had to be baptized, and so he was,
by an Arian bishop. The western emperor Honorius was probably regret
ting the execution of his best general Stilicho only a year before. Despite
Stilicho’s lust for power, he had managed to keep the Visigoths in check.
But all that had changed, and the Visigoths, led by their chieftain, Alaric,
had gained the upper hand in Italy.
Attalus served as Alaric’s agent in Rome until the Visigoths failed to
take Ravenna in 410, when fresh armies arrived from Theodosius II in the
East. Thus, Alaric renewed his focus on Rome, where in June he deposed
Attalus, who received a pardon from Honorius. When the Visigoths
entered Rome in August (24th through the 26th) of 410, it was the first
time the city had been sacked in eight centuries. Attalus was immediately
taken hostage by Alaric, and subsequently led away as a prisoner when the
Visigoths left. The coins Priscus Attalus struck prior to this traumatic
event are the height of irony, for their inscription INVICTA ROMA
AETERNA (“the unconquerable, eternal Rome” ) could not have been fur
ther from the mark. This seemingly permanent reversal, however, is only
half of Attalus’ story, for he reigned yet a second time at the behest of the
Goths, from 414 to 415. For details of the second reign, refer to that sepa
rate biographical entry.
The coins struck by Priscus Attalus during his first

reign at Rome are well known and indicate an issuance of respectable size.
More controversial, however, are his non-Rome-mint issues, which offer a
host of possibilities for both mint location and reign (first or second).
Especially thorny is an issue of siliquae of greatly inferior style and weight
(c. 1.00 grams) which almost certainly are of Gallic origin. They bear the
same types as the RESTITVTIO REIP issue attributed to Attalus’ second
reign, except that the inscription is VICTORIA AAVGG (or AVGGG) and
the mint mark is PSRV. Based on the mint mark, some authorities assign
this issue to Ravenna (a city which Attallus besieged, but never con
trolled) during the first reign, but the authors of RIC consider these coins
to be non-imperial issues of the Visigoths (see RIC X, p. 450), listed under
the heading of “Pseudo-Ravenna/Arles coinage.”
JOVINUS A .D . 411-413
a .d . 411- 412: S o le r e ig n
a .d . 412- 413 : S e n io r A u g u stu s

( w it h S e b a s t ia n u s )
Ruling in the East:

T h e o d o s i u s II ( 4 0 8 - 4 5 0 )
B ro th er of S e b a st ia n u s
Jovinus, d . A .D . 4 1 3 . Just at the point when the Western Roman Empire

appeared to be recovering from its ill fortunes of 407-411 (during which
Rome was sacked by the Visigoths and the westernmost provinces fell to
the usurpers Constantine III, Constans II and Maximus), a new revolt was
sparked against Honorius. This time it was supported by the Germans
along the Rhine, and led by Jovinus, the most powerful nobleman in Gaul.
Jovinus was proclaimed emperor in 411 either at Mainz or Mundi-
acum (Muntzen) by the Alan king, Goar, and the Burgundian king, Gun-
dahar (Guntiarus). Soon after the revolt had formed, the Visigothic king,
Athaulf, was persuaded by Priscus Attalus (the Gothic puppet emperor in
Rome from 409-410) to join in the cause of Jovinus.
A ll seemed to be moving in the right direction for Jovinus, until he
curried the support of Sarus (who was disliked by Athaulf) and then in 412
appointed his brother, Sebastianus, as co-emperor — a move which caused
Athaulf to withdraw his support. Athaulf secretly began negotiating with
Honorius, offering to betray Jovinus. With the help of Honorius’ Gallic
prefect Dardanus, Athaulf defeated Sebastianus and beheaded him. N ext
they besieged Valentia, the Gallic city to which Jovinus had fled for refuge.
After a confused reign of about two years, Jovinus surrendered to Athaulf
and Dardanus. But soon after Jovinus had been transferred to the Romans,
he was executed at Narbonne by Dardanus, after which his head was deliv
ered to Honorius at Ravenna on August 30.
N u m ism a t ic N o t e : Jovinus struck at Trier, Lugdunum and Arles. Cigoi

forgeries of Jovinus’ siliquae exist.
T H E W E S T E R N R O M A N E M PIRE 55 I
SEB ASTI ANUS A .D . 4 1 2 - 4 1 3

J u n io r A u g u stu s (w it h J o v in u s )
Ruling in the East:

II ( 4 0 8 - 4 5 0 )
T h e o d o s iu s
B rother of J o v in u s
Sebastianus, d. A.D. 4 13 . Very little is known of

this ephemeral emperor. Sebastianus was made co-emperor by his brother,
Jovinus, about a year after the latter had been declared emperor by the
Alans and Burgundians. But his inclusion in the revolt proved to be its
undoing, for Jovinus’ ally, the Visigothic king Athaulf, did not approve of
Sebastianus’ appointment. After a reign which probably lasted less than
one year, Sebastianus was betrayed and executed by Athaulf, who had con
spired with the legitimate Western emperor Honorius and his Gallic pre
fect Dardanus. Sebastianus’ severed head was then delivered to Honorius
as proof of A thaulf’s loyalty. Jovinus’ death at the hands of Athaulf and
Honorius came shortly thereafter (see the preceding biography).
N u m ism a t ic N o t e : Sebastianus’ coins are of the greatest rarity, and indeed

no hoard evidence has come to light to support their authenticity, as the
provenances of the extant specimens are not known. There are perhaps
fewer than a dozen specimens recorded, most of which, it seems, are of
dubious authenticity. The reported specimens all are siliquae of a single
emission from Arles.
PRISCUS ATTALUS
SE C O N D R E IG N , A .D . 4 1 4 - 4 1 5
Ruling in the East:
II ( 4 0 8 - 4 5 0 )
T h e o d o s iu s
Priscus A ttalus, d. after A.D. 4 1 7 . Though this shadowy character had

earlier proven ineffective as a puppet emperor of the Visigoths in 410 (see
his earlier biographical entry), he had been taken as a prisoner by King
Alaric. Much like the royal lady Galla Placidia, Attalus remained in Visig
othic hands under Alaric’s successor, Athaulf, who brought him to Gaul in
January of 414. There he composed verses to honor his king’s marriage to
Placidia at Narbonne, and in the following year, 415, was hailed for yet a
second time as emperor in opposition to Honorius (with whom Athaulf
had cooperated — without satisfaction — to defeat the rebels Jovinus and
Sebastianus).
Attalus’ second reign was a virtual repeat of his first, for he proved
virtually useless as an ally, and his ill-gotten principate was short-lived
(and was terminated in the same year that his sponsoring Gothic king
died). However, this time his benefactor did not die of natural causes, but
at the hands of the Roman commander (and future emperor), Constantius
III.
After an embarrassing career as puppet king to the Goths, Attalus was
captured by Honorius’ soldiers in April or May of 416 (though he may
have been deposed by Athaulf in 415) and taken to Rome, where he was
paraded through the streets. Since his execution might have enraged the
senate, the usurper was instead banished to the Lipari islands where he
lived out the rest of his days. But before he left Rome, Honorius cut off one
of Attalus’ thumbs and forefingers so he could never again draw a bow, and
thus could never lead a revolt. The fall of Attalus’ regime signaled the end
of nearly a decade of war between Germans, Romans and usurpers of every
extraction. Although far from stable, the westernmost provinces finally
returned to a state of relative peace.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : The possibility that Priscus Attalus struck coins dur

ing his second reign, in Gaul, has been acknowledged by many authorities.
The candidates, however, are excessively rare and at present do not offer
incontrovertible proof that such a coinage existed. The most likely issue is
a solidus with the mint mark COMOB below NB (certainly = Narbonne).
Regrettably, this coin is cited by Banduri as being in the French royal col
lection, and cannot be confirmed. The other likely candidate is a siliqua
with the (perhaps) incomplete mint mark SV which is of lighter weight
than those struck at Italian mints (see the note to Attalus’ first reign for sil
iquae with the mint mark PSRV, which have led some to “expand” this
coin’s mint mark to PSRV, and thus to speculate that it too belongs to
Attalus’ first reign). Interestingly, both the solidus and siliqua discussed
above bear the reverse inscription RESTITVTIO REIP, an inscription that
does not occur on Attalus’ earlier coins of Rome, and one which is partic
ularly appropriate for a “second reign” coinage.
CONSTANTIUS III A .D . 4 2 1
J u n io r A u g u stu s (w it h H o n o r iu s )
Ruling in the East:

II ( 4 0 8 - 4 5 0 )
T h e o d o s iu s
S eco nd h u sba n d of G alla P l a c id ia

Fa t h e r of V a l e n t i n i a n II I and H o n o r ia
H a l f - B r o t h e r -i n -la w of H o n o r iu s a n d A r c a d iu s
Fa t h e r -i n -la w of L ic in ia E u d o x ia
G ra n d fa th er of P l a c id ia the Yo unger (w. of O l y b r iu s)
Flavius Constantius (III), d. A .D . 4 21 . A Danubian soldier of exceptional

skill, Constantius III came into the limelight in 411, when he suppressed
the Gallic revolt of Constantine III and his son, Constans II. His efficiency
and skill earned him the office of Magister utriusque militae (Master of Both
Branches of Soldiery) by that same year. He held that post for a decade
under Honorius, and exerted great authority in Imperial affairs.
Constantius’ most important campaign was his vigorous naval block
ade of Spain and Gaul in 415, which resulted in the murder of the Visig-
othic king Athaulf. In the process Constantius III was able to negotiate
the return of the emperor’s half-sister, Galla Placidia, who had been forc
ibly married to Athaulf. As a result of his actions, Constantius III earned
her hand in a forced-marriage consummated on January 1, 417, upon
which his second consulship began (his first being in 414). This political
union transformed the Danubian military commander into a member of
the Theodosian royal family. The strength of his position was increased
with the birth of their first child, Honoria, and in 419 with the birth of
their only son, the future emperor Valentinian III.
Constantius III took another step toward the principate in 420, when
he was appointed consul together with the eastern emperor Theodosius II.
Though his brother-in-law Honorius may have been senior Augustus, he
was also incompetent and childless. So on February 8 , 421, Honorius
reluctantly declared his brother-in-law Constantius III as his co-emperor,
and in effect adopted his son Valentinian III as heir. The elevation of C on
stantius was well-received in the West where his achievements were
known, but it was not acknowledged by the eastern emperor Theodosius
II. This created the possibility of civil war, about which Constantius III
was already bellowing.
It seems that becoming emperor did not suit his personality, for C on
stantius III did not take well to the formal atmosphere of the court in
Ravenna, and perhaps as a consequence became avaricious (which he
apparently was not before his elevation). We are told he was an affable
host at dinner, but was extremely conscious of the dignity of his appear
ance before his soldiers and the public.
However, the new emperor’s health did not long hold out. After a
reign of less than seven months, the promising leader died, probably of
natural causes, at Ravenna on September 2, 421. Though not accepted by
Theodosius II during his lifetime, he was posthumously recognized as a
legitimate emperor by Theodosius in 425, the year that he restored the
western throne in the name of Constantius’ son, Valentinian III.
In the last years of his life it must have been apparent to Constantius
that his wife’s affection for her half-brother Honorius was bordering on
incest. As such, some contemporary sources suggest that Constantius’
death was not the result of illness, but rather of murder. Honorius, after all,
had much to gain from Constantius’ death: avoiding a civil war with his
nephew, Theodosius II, freeing the hand of his beloved Galla Placidia, and
“inheriting” his son, Valentinian III, as an heir to the throne. Indeed,
young Valentinian III proved to be the legacy of Constantius Ill’s brief
reign, for the boy had the only legitimate claim to the western throne after
the death of Honorius.
The coinage of Constantius III is limited to gold solidi

(rev. VICTORIA AVGGG, emperor standing, foot on captive, holding stan
dard and globe topped with Victory) and gold tremisses (rev. VICTORIA
AVGVSTORVM, Victory advancing right, holding wreath and globus cru-
ciger). Both issues were struck at Ravenna, which is identified by the RV in
the reverse field. Scholars dismiss variant issues (sometimes with the
reverse type of a votive in wreath, or the obverse inscription D N CON-
STANTIVS AVG or CONSTANTIVS AVG) as Germanic imitations. Seven
teenth century forgeries of a fictional half-siliqua with the reverse type
Victory advancing left (and with the mint mark SMN = Nicomedia) are
known.
GALLA PLACIDIA
A u g u sta , a .d . 4 2 1 -4 5 0
D a u g h t e r o f T h e o d o siu s I (a n d G a lla )
W ife o f A t h a u l f ( t h e V is ig o t h ) a n d
C o n s ta n tiu s III
M o t h e r (b y C o n s t a n t i u s III) o f V a le n tin ia n III
a n d H o n o r ia
H a lf - s is t e r o f A r c a d iu s a n d H o n o r iu s
M o th e r - in -la w o f L ic in ia E u d o x ia
G r a n d d a u g h t e r o f V a le n tin ia n I (a n d Ju stin a )
(Aelia) Galla Placidia, A.D. 388/90-450. Few Roman ladies had lives more
eventful than that of Galla Placidia. She endured many tragedies that indi
vidually would have been sufficient to ensure her place in history.
Her first role of note was as a hostage, for she was captured when the
Visigoths sacked Rome in 410. Although captured by their king, Alaric,
she remained a hostage under his successor, Athaulf, who married her in
an attempt to unite the fortunes of the Goths and the Romans. Hardly a
better choice existed, for she was the daughter of Theodosius I and the
half-sister of the reigning western emperor, Honorius. The wedding
occurred in 414 at Narbonne, and Placidia was soon with child. But the
union failed to have its intended effect, for Athaulf was blockaded by the
Roman commander Constantius III, and in 414/5 was murdered along
with his infant son Theodosius by a rival chieftain at Barcelona. Fully
aware of the value of this royal lady, the Visigoths ransomed her to the
Romans for the princely sum of 600,000 measures of grain and the right to
return (from coastal Spain and Gaul) to central Gaul with federal status.
Now freed from captivity at great expense, Placidia was forced by her
half-brother Honorius to marry his prize general, Constantius III, on Janu
ary 1 , 417. It was not a happy union, but it produced two children: a
daughter named Honoria in 417/8, and the future emperor Valentinian III
in 419. Four years later, in 421, Constantius III became co-emperor with
Honorius, and Placidia was hailed Augusta (a title that was not recognized
in the East until 423, and which she apparently held until her death 29
years later). Her unfortunate husband, however, died within the year.
After this tragic event, Placidia’s already warm relationship with her
half-brother grew to become incest. His public expressions of affection
(which we are told were blatantly incestuous to the observer), enraged
court officials and caused riots between various political factions in the
streets of Ravenna. Foremost in opposition to Galla was the Master of Sol
diers Castinus. What began as love between Honorius and Placidia soon
turned into hatred, and the emperor banished her in 423. She fled with her
two children to Constantinople, where she received asylum in the court of
her nephew, Theodosius II. But her absence from the West was not
lengthy. Honorius had been replaced by a rebel named Johannes, who in
about 18 months was ousted by an army sent from Constantinople.
Placidia returned to Italy to have her son, Valentinian III, crowned
emperor of the West. For the first dozen years of her child’s reign, Placidia
was the dominant influence in the courts, and in essence ran the govern
ment of the West (incompetently, according to Cassiodorus). But as her
son grew, so did the authority of the general Aëtius, whom Placidia herself
had appointed Master of Soldiers in 429. Placidia’s attempt in 430 to
replace Aëtius with Boniface failed, and from that point onward her influ
ence over her son was greatly reduced. In her declining years Placidia
devoted herself to civic projects. After having survived many ordeals, Pla
cidia died in Rome on November 27, 450, less than five years before her
son fell victim to assassins and Rome was sacked for a second time.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : Galla Placidia’s coinage can be divided into two

phases: 421-422 (struck at Ravenna in association with her husband,
Constantius III, who died in 421) and 424-450 (which includes both Ital
ian and Constantinopolitan coinage). The coins with the inscriptions AEL
PLACIDIA AVG and GALLA PLACIDIA AVG were struck exclusively at
Constantinople under Theodosius II, whereas those with D N GALLA
PLACIDIA P F AVG (by far the most common variety) were struck at west
ern mints under Honorius, Theodosius II and Valentinian III.
JOHANNES A .D . 4 2 3 - 4 2 5
Ruling in the East:
T h e o d o s i u s II ( 4 08 - 4 5 0 )
Johannes (John), c. A.D. 380-425. Little is

known of Johannes, except that he may have been
of Gothic origin, and that he had risen in H ono
rius’ court to become a high-ranking civil servant,
the primicerius notariorum (senior notary).
The last of the western usurpers associated with the reign of Hono
rius, Johannes was installed in September or November 423, shortly after
the unexpected death of Honorius (whose only legitimate heir, Valentin
ian III, was living in exile with his mother, Galla Placidia, in Constantino
ple). Providing Johannes’ support was the Master of Soldiers Castinus,
who had been instrumental in the banishment of Galla Placidia and her
son. Johannes ruled in Castinus’ name for more than a year before the east
ern emperor Theodosius II sent an army West. In the meantime, Johannes
had tried to gain approval from Theodosius II, who would not even allow
his embassy to plead his case.
Although Theodosius II had objected to the elevation of the child’s
father, Constantius III earlier in 421, he supported the claim of his grand
child, Valentinian III, no doubt because he believed restoring him and his
mother would give him greater control over events in the West.
Early in 425 Theodosius II sent an army by sea to end the rebellion of
Johannes. In the meantime Johannes had sent one of his generals, Aëtius
(the future Master of Soldiers), to raise an army among the Huns. But his
mission did not materialize, and indeed, its failure was the cause of
Johannes’ downfall. Even when the Constantinopolitan fleet was partially
ruined off the coast of Italy (with one of its two commanders, Ardaburius
the elder, being taken hostage after he washed ashore near Ravenna)
Johannes did not act decisively because the Hunnic reinforcements had
not arrived. Meanwhile, the other commander, Ardaburius’ son, Aspar,
landed and managed to enter Ravenna unopposed early in May or in June
of 425. Aspar’s journey through the marshes and easy entry to Ravenna
were attributed by some contemporaries to the guidance of an Angel.
After a reign of only 18 months, Johannes was promptly arrested and con
demned to death by Galla Placidia. Johannes was reportedly taken to
Aquileia where before he was executed he was mutilated and paraded
around the circus on the back of a donkey before cheering crowds.
N o t e : The portraits of Johannes are perhaps the most

N u m is m a t ic
extraordinary on coinage of late antiquity. Unlike the clean-shaven por
traits of his contemporaries, Johannes’ image recalls the glorious aspects of
art more akin to Phidias’ work in 5th Century B.C. Johannes also issued
gold coins at Ravenna in the name of the eastern emperor Theodosius II in
hopes of gaining his recognition. In his own name, Johannes struck gold at
Ravenna and Milan, silver at Ravenna, and Æ 4 ’s at Rome (principally)
and Arles.
VALENTINIAN III A .D . 4 2 5 - 4 5 5
a .d . 424- 425: C a esa r
( u n d e r T h e o d o s iu s II)
a .d . 425- 455: S o le r e ig n
Ruling in the East:

T h e o d o s iu sII ( 4 08 - 4 5 0 ) and
M a r c i a n (4 5 0 - 4 5 7 )
S o n o f C o n s ta n tiu s III a n d G a l l a P la c id ia
F ir s t h u s b a n d o f L ic in ia E u d o x ia
Fa t h e r of E u d o c ia th e Yo u n g er and P l a c id ia the Yo unger (w. of O l y b r iu s )
B roth er of H o n o r ia
S o n - in - la w o f T h e o d o siu s II a n d A e lia E u d o c ia
H a lf - C o u s in o f T h e o d o siu s II a n d A e lia P u lc h e r ia
B r o t h e r o f H o n o r ia
H a lf- N e p h e w o f H o n o r iu s a n d A r c a d iu s
G r a n d s o n o f T h e o d o siu s I (an d G a lla )
G r e a t- g r a n d s o n o f V a le n tin ia n I
Flavius Placidus Valentinianus, A .D . 4 1 9 - 4 5 5 . As the only son of C on

stantius III and Galla Placidia, young Valentinian belonged to the Theo-
dosian family by virtue of his mother. Though his political legacy lie in the
West, he spent his early years in exile in Constantinople with his mother.
The revolt of Johannes in 423 launched Valentinian’s career at an
early age, as he and his mother were sent west in 424 so they could be in
Italy when Johannes was overthrown. En route, Valentinian III was hailed
Caesar at Thessalonica on October 23, 424. When the eastern fleet ousted
Johannes early in May or in June of 425, the path was cleared for the 6 -
year-old Valentinian, who sailed with his family to Italy, where he was
hailed emperor of the West on the one-year anniversary of his being hailed
Caesar. This occurred with the full approval of the eastern emperor, his
future father-in-law, Theodosius II. A t long last, order was restored in the
West.
In 437, when Valentinian III had reached his 18th year, he married
the beautiful Licinia Eudoxia, presumably at the urging of his mother, who
still wielded great authority. Although his reign was devoid of usurpers,
many disheartening events occurred during his three decades on the west
ern throne. O f great concern was the unchecked growth in the power of
the Visigoths in southwestern Gaul.
Equally disturbing, if not more so, was the emigration of the Vandals
to North Africa. In 429 (the year that Aëtius was promoted to Master of
Soldiers) the Vandals, under the leadership of Gaiseric, crossed from Spain
into North Africa and continued to move east. By 439 they had taken
Carthage, and three years later had forced Valentinian III to recognize
their possession of the wealthiest portion of North Africa. This compli

cated the importation of grain (grown locally) and gold from the trans-
Saharan caravans. Furthermore, it proved to be the staging ground for the
invasion of Italy and the sack of Rome that followed Valentinian’s death
in 455.
Also of grave concern was Attila the Hun, whose mounted warriors
had unraveled Roman security in both the East and West. Early in Valen
tinian’s reign, his top general, Aëtius, used the Huns to combat the Visig
oths and Burgundians. But this policy was reversed when A ttila later made
aggressions of his own. Indeed, it was a confederation of Roman and Visig-
othic armies led by Aëtius that in June, 451, routed Attila at the Battle of
the Catalaunian Plains (in the heart of modern France). Although the
Visigothic king Theoderic I died in the battle, Attila was driven across the
Rhine.
Attila was not easily deterred, though, and he returned to the center
of Europe in 452, sacking many cities, including Aquileia, which he lev
eled completely. The Hunnic chieftain stopped short of sacking Rome
itself, not for a lack of strength, but out of fear that the victory would bring
him bad fortune, as it had done 42 years earlier to Alaric’s Visigoths. Fortu
nately for Romans both in the West and the East, Attila died of natural
causes in 453.
Even in the Eastern Roman Empire Valentinian found trouble. When
his cousin Theodosius II died in 450 without an heir, the right to appoint
the new emperor belonged to Valentinian. However, Theodosius II’s
widow and the Master of Soldiers Aspar took matters into their own
hands, and appointed a soldier named Marcian. Although this was hardly
constitutional, there was nothing Valentinian III could do to oppose it.
Just when Valentinian had rid himself of Attila and had grudgingly
acknowledged Marcian, another foe emerged from within his ranks. It
seems his Master of Soldiers Aëtius had grown all-powerful, and had
threatened the lives of the emperor and his chamberlain Petronius M axi
mus. Thus, on September 21, 454, Valentinian III mustered his courage
and personally murdered his prize general with the thrust of a dagger. This
act was viewed in dim light by his contemporaries, one of whom told the
emperor “with your left hand you have cut off your right hand.”
Less than a year later, on March 16, 455, the 36-year-old Valentinian
III was assassinated by two former bodyguards of Aëtius, who were moti
vated by Petronius Maximus to avenge their general’s death. The pair of
senseless acts cleared the path of succession for Petronius Maximus, who
either arranged, or at the very least encouraged both murders. Valentin
ian’s reign was yet another signpost in the decline of the Western Roman
Empire, and constituted the extinction of the Theodosian line in the
West.
Historians tell us that Valentinian was a skilled archer and horseman,

and that he was a good sprinter. However, we are also told that he was
effeminate, superstitious, kept company with astrologers and magicians,
and was a rampant adulterer. N o doubt, these character flaws were instru
mental in his downfall. His hedonistic and aloof demeanor cost Rome its
claims to Gaul, Spain and North Africa, and immediately after his death,
led to the sack of Rome itself. Furthermore, had superstition and an
untimely death not conspired against Attila the Hun, Valentinian almost
certainly would have lost what remained of his diminished Empire.
N u m ism a t ic N o t e : The weight of copper nummi (Æ 4s, which often are

called nummi minimi), which had been modest but attractive coins under
Arcadius, was reduced by 25 percent in 425. The result was a pitiful coin
that was tariffed at the rate of 25 pounds of coined nummi to the gold soli
dus. Twenty years later a government edict was required to stabilize the
nummus at 7,000/7,200 to the gold solidus in Rome. There are imitations
of Valentinian’s solidi, semisses, tremisses and siliquae attributed to the
Visigoths (see RIC X, pp. 453-6). Some of his solidi and tremisses are
attributed to the Burgundians or Franks (see RIC X, pp. 463-4), and some
of his tremisses are attributed to the Suevi (see RIC X, p. 466).
HONORIA
A u g u s t a , a .d . 426( ? ) - 45o ( ? )
S is t e r o f V a le n tin ia n III
D a u g h te r o f C o n s ta n tiu s III a n d G a l l a P la c id ia
H a lf- N ie c e o f H o n o r iu s a n d A r c a d iu s
H a lf - C o u s in o f T h e o d o siu s II a n d P u lc h e r ia
S is te r - in - la w o f L ic in ia E u d o x ia
A u n t o f E u d o c ia t h e Y o u n g e r a n d
P la c id ia t h e y o u n g e r (w . o f O ly b r iu s )
G r a n d d a u g h t e r o f T h e o d o siu s I (a n d G a lla )
Justa Grata Honoria, A.D. 417/8-454. Though Honoria was born in the
West, her early years were spent in exile in Constantinople with her
mother and brother. By 425 she had returned to the West, for her brother
had been installed as the new emperor in Ravenna. Honoria’s life is largely
a mystery: not only is she scarcely mentioned, but even when she is, the
information is often contradictory. We cannot be certain when she was
hailed Augusta, though one inscription suggests it was shortly after she
arrived in Italy, and thus 425 or 426 are possibilities. Some researchers,
however, suggest she was not hailed until she was age 13 or 16.
Little is known of how Honoria and her younger brother, the

emperor, got along early in their lives, but their relationship collapsed
when Valentinian discovered that his sister was with child as a result of an
adulterous affair. Her enraged brother perhaps suspected a plot was at
hand, and executed the man responsible (a court official named Eugenius,
who managed her estates). N ot surprisingly, the sources disagree on the
date of this event, which may have occurred in 434 or 449, though the lat
ter seems far more likely. Honoria did not escape punishment. We are told
that Valentinian also arranged her marriage to a certain Herculanus Bas-
sus, a man of consular rank and of good character.
Honoria was so enraged at her brother’s actions that in 450 she mes-
sengered a secret appeal to Attila the Hun, who construed it as a marriage
proposal, and who in June of that year demanded half of the Empire as a
dowry. The eastern emperor Theodosius II (who died only a few weeks
later) advised Valentinian to hand his impudent sister over to Attila, but
Valentinian did not follow his cousin’s advice, perhaps out of fear it would
legitimize A ttila’s fraudulent claim to half of the Empire. Attila proceeded
to invade the western Roman provinces to take by force that which he was
denied, but he was repelled in 451 at the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains.
Honoria was nearly executed for her treachery, was stripped of her title
Augusta (either at the time of her disgrace in 449 or certainly by the time
of the crisis of Attila) and may have been exiled as well. She seems to have
been forcibly married to Herculanus and to have died before 455.
All of Honoria’s coins were struck by her brother Val

entinian III at Ravenna and Rome.
LICINIA EUDOXIA
A u g u sta , a .d . 4 3 9 -c. 490
W ife o f V a le n t in ia n III a n d P e t r o n i u s M a x i m u s
D a u g h t e r o f T h e o d o s iu s II a n d A e l i a E u d o c i a
M o t h e r o f E u d o c ia t h e Y o u n g e r a n d
P l a c i d i a t h e Y o u n g e r (<w. o f O l y b r i u s )
D a u g h te r - in - la w o f C o n s t a n t iu s III a n d
G a l l a P la c id ia
S iste r -in - la w o f H o n o r ia
N ie c e o f A e l i a P u lc h e r ia
G randdaugh ter of A r c a d iu s a n d A e l ia E u d o x ia
Licinia Eudoxia, A.D. 422/3-c. 490. Yet another late Roman lady who was
celebrated for her great beauty was Licinia Eudoxia, the daughter of Aelia
Eudocia and Theodosius II, the ineffective but long-reigning emperor of
the East. In 424, while still an infant, she was betrothed to the 5-year-old
Valentinian III, who was then living in exile in Constantinople. On O cto
ber 29, 437, when Licinia Eudoxia had reached her 15th year, she was wed
to her betrothed, who was now an effeminate 18-year-old and emperor in
the West.
The union was ideal, as it literally wed the fortunes of East and West.
Valentinian traveled to Constantinople for the royal wedding, which
occurred on October 29, 437. The newlyweds wintered in Thessalonica,
and then made a ceremonial entry into their capital of Ravenna early in
438. On August 6 of the following year (seemingly after the birth of her
first daughter) Licinia Eudoxia was proclaimed Augusta, a title she
retained for the remainder of her tumultuous life. Though Valentinian III
reportedly engaged in open, adulterous affairs, their union endured.
Together they produced two daughters, neither of whom are represented
on coinage. The first was Eudocia the younger (the future daughter-in-law
of Petronius Maximus) in 438 or 439, the second Placidia the younger (the
future wife of Olybrius) in c. 441/2. No coins were struck in the names of
her children.
Upon the murder of Valentinian III in March of 455, the widowed
Eudoxia favored Majorian (who later was installed by Ricimer) as her hus
band’s replacement. But instead she was forcibly married to Petronius Maxi
mus, the man who had engineered the downfalls of Aëtius and Valentinian,
and in the process had claimed the throne for himself. But it was Licinia
Eudoxia who had the final revenge against her unwanted husband, for it is
believed that she summoned the Vandal king Gaiseric to her aid. N ot only
was this course of action sure to get results, but Eudoxia’s daughter, Eudocia
the younger, had been engaged to Gaiseric’s son Huneric. (Even this had
been stolen by Petronius Maximus, who forced her to be betrothed instead
to his own son, Palladius, who had been raised to Caesar.)
Though the advance of the Vandal army did cause the murder of her
unwanted husband, it also resulted in the sack of Rome itself in June of
455. Licinia Eudoxia paid a high personal price for her act, for she and her
two daughters were subsequently taken to Carthage as captives of Gaiseric.
They remained captive for seven years until, in 462, her release was
secured by the eastern emperor, Leo I. Though one account suggests she
returned to Rome, the overwhelming evidence suggests she went to C on
stantinople, where she spent the remainder of her life. The date of her
death is not recorded, though it probably was in the very early 490s.
N u m ism a tic N o t e : Licinia Eudoxia’s coins were struck by her husband

Valentinian III, her father Theodosius II, and his successor Marcian. They
may be divided into three further categories based on the obverse inscrip
tions. Used only at Italian mints were D N ELIA EVDOXIA P F AVG (exclu-
sively on tremisses and half-siliquae) and LICINIA EVDOXIA P F AVG

(almost exclusively on the facing-head solidi). Her more common inscrip
tion, AEL EVDOXIA AVG (used only on gold of Constantinople), however,
is a source of confusion because it is the same one that was used by her
grandmother, Aelia Eudoxia (in fact, it was the only inscription used by
Aelia Eudoxia). Fortunately, this inscription is shared only on certain
solidi and tremisses, each of which may be distinguished by aspects of their
reverses. On the solidi it is the actual design that provides the diagnostic,
for the grandmother Aelia Eudoxia exclusively used a seated Victory (and
Licinia Eudoxia did not use that design at all). On the tremisses, however,
both women employ identical types, so we must rely on the mint mark:
Aelia Eudoxia used CON, and Licinia Eudoxia used CONOB*.
PETRONIUS MAXIMUS A .D . 4 5 5
Ruling in the East:
M a r c ia n (4 5 0 -4 5 7 )
S e c o n d h u s b a n d o f L ic in ia E u d o x ia
S o n - in - la w o f T h e o d o s iu s II a n d A e lia E u d o c ia
Flavius Anicius Petronius M aximus, c. A .D .

396 - 45 5 . Flailing from what apparently was an
important family, Petronius Maximus became one of the most renowned
senators in Rome during the reigns of Honorius and Valentinian III, and
amassed a great personal fortune in the process. In addition to other high
posts, he twice served as consul (433 and 443), prefect of Italy (435 and
439/41), and prefect of Rome (420/1 and 433). But his lust for power, his
tory shows, greatly outstripped his ability to maintain it.
In essence, Petronius Maximus custom-designed a plot to replace Val
entinian III, who is said to have seduced his wife. First, he so greatly poi
soned Valentinian’s relationship with his prize general, Aëtius, that in 454
Valentinian III murdered the very man who had preserved his throne. In
turn, it seems, Petronius Maximus encouraged two of Aëtius’ former body
guards to exact revenge by murdering their emperor. Then, in an act of
supreme impudence, Petronius Maximus not only claimed the office of
emperor for himself, but also forced Valentinian’s widow, Licinia Eudoxia,
to marry him. In addition, he forced Eudoxia’s eldest daughter, Eudocia the
younger, to marry his own son, Palladius, who had been given the rank of
Caesar (but for whom no coins were struck).
The degree of plotting is almost inconceivable, yet Petronius M axi
mus achieved it with great precision, as he was even able to out-maneuver
Majorian, a high-ranking soldier who was a more desirable candidate (and

who would rule two years later). Petronius Maximus usurped the throne of
the Western Roman Empire on March 17, 455, but his reign was destined
to decline quickly, for it lasted a mere 76 days. A ll of his underhanded
plotting had so enraged his unwilling bride, Licinia Eudoxia, that she
called upon Gaiseric, the king of the Vandals in Carthage, to intervene.
News of Gaiseric’s acceptance of her invitation reached Rome early in
May, and instead of organizing a defense, Petronius Maximus readied him
self for escape. While on his horse and attempting to flee the doomed city
on May 31, 455, he was killed by a mob of angry Romans who pelted him
with stones. As was customary for rogue emperors in Rome, his body was
mutilated and tossed into the Tiber. On June 1, Gaiseric’s Vandals entered
Rome and sacked it, until the 16th, removing most every portable item of
value. Among the loot was Licinia Eudoxia and her two daughters, Placidia
the younger and Eudocia the younger, who became honored captives. When
they reached Carthage, Eudocia the younger married Gaiseric’s son,
Huneric, as had been arranged before the usurpation of Petronius Maximus.
N u m ism a t ic N o t e : Only solidi are known for Petronius Maximus. Indeed,

the first issues of his brief reign were created from existing dies of Valentin
ian III on which the obverse inscription was re-engraved. Only one reverse
type, depicting the emperor placing his foot on a human-headed serpent,
was employed. He did strike at Ravenna (with the mint mark RV above
COMOB), but the majority of his production was at Rome (RM above
COMOB). Forgeries by Cigoi are easily distinguished by the obverse
inscription, which is unbroken as compared to the genuine issues, upon
which MAXIMVS is broken either after the first M or the A.
AVITUS A .D . 455-456
Ruling in the East:
M a r c ia n ( 4 5 0 - 4 5 7 )
Marcus Maecilius Flavius Eparchius Avitus, d.

A .D . 4 5 6 . The sack of Rome by Gaiseric’s Vandals
was far more complete than that of the Visigoths
in 410, as most every portable item of value was
removed. After an interregnum of about 40 days, the Visigothic king
Theoderic II appointed his old friend Avitus, a native of southern Gaul, to
the vacant office of emperor in the West.
Avitus hailed from a senatorial family from the Auvergne and had
held most of the important governmental posts in Gaul. Among his close
friends was Theoderic I, the Visigothic king who died in battle against
Attila the Hun in 451. Indeed, just before he was hailed, he was serving as
Petronius Maximus’ personal envoy to the Visigoths, and he only learned
of the latter’s murder when he was in Gaul. His elevation to emperor
occurred at Toulouse on July 9 or 10, 455, at the behest of Theoderic II,
the new king of the Visigoths, and was ratified by an assembly of Gallo-
Roman nobleman in August.
Later that year Avitus made his way back to Italy, after which his ele
vation was acknowledged by Marcian in Constantinople. The two emper
ors joined forces to curb the pirating of the Vandals, which at first was
ineffective, but in 456 resulted in a victory off the coast of Corsica by a
commander named Ricimer, who Avitus promptly named his new Master
of Soldiers. The son of a Suevian father and a Visigothic mother (daughter
of the Visigothic king Wallia), Ricimer would prove to be the most impor
tant man in the West for nearly a generation. He was to hold absolute
power in Rome for the next 16 years, making and deposing the long list of
emperors that followed Avitus.
Life in Italy was especially treacherous for Avitus, who was unpopular
among the local aristocracy and the senate because of his provincial ori
gins and his personal indulgences. Complicating his plight was a severe
famine in Rome, about which there was little he could do. With all of
these strikes against him, Avitus also suffered from a loss of support by his
Visigothic allies, who had committed their military might to a war against
the Suevi and were ravaging what remained of Roman Spain.
Avitus was soon forced to dismiss his Gallic advisers and his Gothic
bodyguards, which made him an easy target for the team of Majorian and
Ricimer. In order to pay off his Gallic and Gothic compatriots, Avitus was
forced to sell quite a few bronze statues, which did not endear him to
Romans who were familiar with the works of art. With the popularity of
Avitus at an all-time low, he was vulnerable to Ricimer, who was being
hailed as the Deliverer of Italy because of his naval victory over the Vandals.
After Avitus had reigned only about 15 months, Majorian and Rici
mer openly rebelled, and deposed him on October 17, 456. He fled Rome
in hope of surviving the rebellion, but was overtaken by Ricimer, who
defeated him in battle and made him bishop of Piacenza. Avitus died
shortly thereafter en route to Gaul, either while on a pilgrimage or while in
flight after learning that the senate desired his execution. The supremacy
of Ricimer thus began with the deposition of Avitus.
The vast majority of Avitus’ coinage was solidi struck

at the re-opened Gallic mint of Arles. His rare tremisses may belong to
Arles, though most attribute them to Milan. There are imitations of Avi
tus’ solidi and tremisses attributed to the Visigoths (see RIC X, p. 457).
MAJORIAN A .D . 4 5 7 - 4 6 1
Ruling in the East:
L e o I (4 5 7 -4 7 4 )
Flavius Julius Valerius Majorianus, d . A .D . 4 6 1 .

After Avitus was deposed, there was a tense inter
regnum of more than five months during which
the eastern emperor Marcian died and power was
peacefully transferred to Leo I. Meanwhile, matters in the West were being
attended to by the Master of Soldiers Ricimer, who had selected Majorian
as his first candidate for the throne.
Majorian hailed from an accomplished military family. His maternal
grandfather (after whom he was named) had been Master of Soldiers in
Illyria under Theodosius I, and his father was a top financial minister in
Gaul for the general Aëtius. Indeed, when the emperor Valentinian III was
murdered in 455, his widow, Licinia Eudoxia, had favored Majorian as his
replacement. But she and Majorian were outmaneuvered by Petronius
Maximus, who not only seized the throne, but also forced marriage upon
Licinia Eudoxia.
During the brief reign of Avitus (455-456), Majorian allied himself
with Ricimer, the Master of Soldiers who was by then calling the shots in
the Western Roman Empire. Together they openly rebelled and ousted the
unpopular Avitus. N ot surprisingly, Majorian was Ricimer’s choice as the
new emperor, and they lobbied Constantinople for approval. The man of
letters Sidonius Apollinaris reported that the interregnum occurred
because Majorian was reluctant to take the high office that he was offered.
However, the concerns Majorian may have had were put aside when news
reached Italy that the eastern emperor, Marcian, had died. Majorian was
hailed emperor of the West on April 1, 457, and was installed officially on
December 28.
It is uncertain whether Majorian’s appointment was approved by Leo
I in Constantinople. In any event, Majorian established his court at
Ravenna, and at the end of 458 shifted to Gaul so he could deal with the
Visigoths and Burgundians. He remained there through 459 and, with the
help of the Gaulish magister militum Majorian defeated the Visigothic king
Theodoric II (A.D. 453-465) in battle and convinced him to sign a peace
agreement.
His next task was to free his Empire of the Vandal threat, which had
been a cause of terror for a generation or more. His first encounter with the
Vandals was in Campania, where a raiding party had landed and begun to
pillage. Majorian caught them by surprise and drove them back to sea with
out their booty, and without the Gaiseric’s brother-in-law, who was one of
the many casualties. By 460 he had assembled a fleet of about 300 warships
in Spain with which he hoped to attack the Vandals. However, through
treachery on the part of some Romans, the entire fleet was captured by the
Vandals while in port, before it could even be launched. Now without a
fleet, the Romans had to agree to humiliating terms to maintain the peace.
Majorian returned to Italy in 461, where his popularity had greatly
eroded and his benefactor Ricimer had turned against him. After a reign of
more than four years he abdicated his throne after he was captured in
Northern Italy on August 2. Five days later, on August 7, Majorian was
executed (or allowed to commit suicide) at Tortona, though some sources
report that dysentery was the cause of death. The Western Roman Empire
then entered a second interregnum, this time of slightly more than three
months, while Ricimer lined up his next candidate.
Majorian s principate was a great success until an episode of treachery
caused the destruction of his fleet. The ancient sources tell us that M ajo
rian was a man of exceptional talent, and his record proves that he was
determined to restore the glory of Rome in the West. N o doubt these vir
tues constituted a threat to Ricimer, who only too eagerly pounced upon
Majorian during his moment of vulnerability so that he could install a less
ambitious candidate.
With very rare exception, the solidi of Majorian are of

an ornate obverse type showing his helmeted and cuirassed bust facing
right, holding a spear and a shield inscribed with a Chi-Rho. This type
originated with a rare issue of Honorius from Ravenna, but was produced
in quantity only by Majorian, whose successor abandoned it. He struck
prodigious issues of gold tremisses and nummi (Æ4’s), the latter of which
are unusually heavy for the period; most (if not all) of his silver was struck
in Gaul. There are imitations of M ajorians solidi and tremisses attributed
to the Visigoths (see RIC X, pp. 458-9).
LIBIUS SEVERUS
(SEVERUS III) A .D . 461-465
Ruling in the East:
Leo I (457-474)
Libius (or Livius) Severus (also called Severus

III), d. A .D . 465. The western throne remained
vacant for more than three months after the abdi
cation and death of Majorian. Though the Master of Soldiers Ricimer had
seized the opportunity to overthrow Majorian, he apparently had not yet
lined up his next candidate. Eventually he decided upon a shadowy char

acter named Libius Severus, whom he installed on November 19, 461.
Severus hailed from Lucania in south-western Italy, a region that was
especially vulnerable to Vandal raiders. Though he reigned for almost
exactly four years, he remains a historical blank page, and clearly was no
more than a puppet emperor.
The Western Roman Empire was firmly in the hands of Ricimer, who
managed every aspect of its finances, foreign relations and defense while
Severus was in office. It should come as no surprise that historians disagree
about whether Libius Severus ever gained the approval of Leo I in C on
stantinople. The traditional historical view (based largely on the writings
of Jordanes) is that he did not. However, he struck many coins in the name
of Leo I at Italian mints, and there are inscriptions that suggest he did gain
approval in the East. Thus, there is ample reason to reconsider the tradi
tional view.
Severus’ reign was far from peaceful, and Ricimer had his hands full
defending his Empire. In addition to a campaign he led against the Alans,
Ricimer had to contend with Roman generals and the Vandal king
Gaiseric. The Vandals routinely raided the Italian coast and used their
king’s captive-bride, Licinia Eudoxia, as leverage in destabilizing Italian
politics.
Indeed, the Romans were fortunate that they did not suffer invasion
during Severus’ reign, for the Vandals were conspiring with Aegidius
(Majorian’s Master of Soldiers in Gaul who had recently accepted the title
of King of the Franks) to overthrow Ricimer. Had domestic problems with
the Visigoths not kept Aegidius occupied in Gaul, Italy most likely would
have been simultaneously invaded from the sea by Vandals and across the
Alps by Aegidius. Libius Severus died on November 14, 465. His death is
usually attributed to natural causes, but it is more likely (as was rumored by
Cassiodorus) that he was poisoned by Ricimer, who by now had found him
to be more of a liability than an asset.
N u m ism a t ic N o t e : Unlike his two immediate predecessors, Libius Severus

struck coins only in Italy, for the mint at Arles was in the hands of Aegid
ius, who had broken with Ricimer and established his own Romano-Frank -
ish enclave. O f special interest is the gold semissis denomination (which
was revived by Severus), and the Æ4’s, which bear the monogram of R ici
mer and are listed separately under his name. There are imitations of
Severus’ solidi and tremisses attributed to the Visigoths (see RIC X, pp.
459-60).
RICIMER
M a s t e r o f S o ld ie r s , a .d . 4 5 6 -4 7 2
S o n -i n -law of A n t h e m iu s a n d A e l ia Euph em ia
H u sba n d of A l y p ia
U n cle of G undo ba d
Flavius Ricimer, d. A.D. 472. Just like Sejanus and Gundobad, Ricimer
finds a valid place in a book on Roman numismatics. N ot only was he
instrumental in the high affairs of state, but he makes an appearance on
coinage itself. Ricimer was a soldier of Visigothic and Suevian parentage.
He was the grandson of a Visigothic king and had family ties to royalty
among the Suevi and Burgundians. Although debarred from the throne
because of his barbarian birth, Ricimer’s military successes made him the
most powerful man in Rome soon after he was made Master of Soldiers
(M agister Militum) by the emperor Avitus.
For 16 years he was the main force behind the raising and deposing of
western emperors, who served as his puppets. His one moment of conces-
sion was during the reign of Anthemius, who had been sent at the head of
an army by the eastern emperor Leo I. But even so, Anthemius knew that
his own survival depended on the support of Ricimer, and thus he offered
the hand of his daughter, Alypia, to Ricimer, and they were wed in the fall
of 467. It is worth noting that Ricimer played no part in leading the
Roman armada against the Vandals in 468, although he certainly had to
deal with the consequences of its unfathomable failure. Nothing here will
be said of his extraordinary actions, for they may be gleaned from the biog-
raphies of the emperors whom he controlled. Only six weeks after appoint-
ing Olybrius to the throne, Ricimer died on August 18, 472, presumably of
natural causes.
Ricimer’s record on coinage is controversial to some

scholars, but too likely to be excluded. The small bronzes in question
depict on their obverse Libius Severus and bear his appropriate inscrip
tions (on the rare occasion that they are visible). However, the wreath on
the reverse contains a monogram that is not that of Severus. Since the
monogram usually is composed of the letters R M I C E, it is rightly believed
to be that of Ricimer. The inclusion in some instances of an “A ” within the
monogram is a stumbling block to some authorities, but with no other fea
sible candidate to be found, they must still belong to Ricimer, who, after
all, was the source of Severus’ power. Though these nummi seem to have
originated late in the reign of Libius Severus, they were perhaps largely
struck during the 17-month interregnum that followed the latter’s death.
Most if not all of these nummi were struck at Rome; some heavier speci
mens of poor workmanship appear to be contemporary imitations.
ANTHEMIUS A.D. 467-472

Ruling in the East:
L eo I (457-474)
H u sb a n d of A e l ia Euphem ia
Fa t h e r of A l y p ia
F a t h e r -in -la w of R ic im e r
S o n - i n -l a w o f M a r c ia n
Procopius Anthemius, d. A.D. 472. After the death of Libius Severus the
Western Roman Empire endured more than a year and a half without an
emperor. Finally, Ricimer — who was in control throughout — chose to
cooperate with the eastern emperor Leo I in hopes of getting military sup
port in his war against the Vandals. Early in 467 the Vandals moved their
piratic operations from Italy and Sicily and raided the Greek Peloponnese.
While this proved fruitful for Gaiseric, it might have been counterproduc
tive in the long run, for Leo I realized he could no longer ignore affairs in
the West.
Thus, Leo I appointed a high-ranking Constantinopolitan named
Procopius Anthemius as Caesar for the West. Anthemius held numerous
Imperial ties in the East, for he was married to the daughter of the former
eastern emperor Marcian, and as his chief general, had scored victories
over the Goths and Huns. He was a possible successor to his father-in-law
in 457, but was outmaneuvered by the Master of Soldiers Aspar, who
installed Leo I instead.
Anthemius’ ancestry was also illustrious. His maternal grandfather,
named Procopius, served as the regent for the emperor Theodosius II
(402-450) during his childhood. He also claimed to be a descendant of the
Procopius who usurped the throne of Valens in 365 and 366 and was one
of the last members of the House of Constantine the Great. However, all
of these recommendations would not assure his survival in the West, for he
needed to maintain good relations with the Master of Soldiers Ricimer,
who was the most powerful man in Italy. To this effect, in advance of his
journey, Anthemius had offered Ricimer the hand of his own daughter,
Alypia, in marriage. The offer was accepted, and the road was paved for
Western Roman Empire to have a new, legitimate emperor who was duly
recognized in the East.
By April 12 of that same year Anthemius had reached the outskirts of
Rome, where he was hailed Augustus by the senate. During his more than
T H E W E S T E R N R O M A N EM PIRE 57I
five years as emperor in the West, Anthemius was never popular, for he
was a Greek of Galatian ancestry, and worse yet, he had been sent from the
East. Thus, it is ironic that the defining event of his reign — a failed naval
expedition against the Vandals — was one borne of his cooperation with
Constant inople.
Through no fault of his own, the great 1,100-ship armada assembled
by Leo I and captained by his brother-in-law Basiliscus, was destroyed by
the Vandals in 468. This tragedy not only devastated the spirit of the
Romans, but it virtually bankrupted the Eastern Roman Empire. A nthe
mius’ thin support slipped with the passage of time, especially since he
failed to deal with serious problems brewing in Gaul, where the Visigoths
were planning to annex the whole country. Though the Romans resisted,
the Visigoths scored important victories in which several Roman generals
and Anthemius’ son Anthemiolus perished.
Furthermore, Ricimer viewed Anthemius as a threat to his own
supremacy, for he had every intention of furthering eastern authority in
the West. Anthemius resided in Rome, whereas Ricimer based himself in
the North at Milan. Though the two reconciled their differences in 470
with the help of the bishop of Ticinum, it was just a matter of time before a
change occurred.
In the spring of 472 Ricimer arranged a coup, selecting as his next
candidate a patrician from the East named Olybrius, who had been sent to
Italy as an envoy of Leo I. Together they besieged Anthemius in Rome,
who, with the support of a small Visigothic army headed by Bilimer, was
able to hold out for about three months. In the aftermath Anthemius tried
to escape dressed as a beggar, but was captured and beheaded on the orders
of Ricimer’s nephew, Gundobad. Historians disagree about when this
occurred, which may have been in March or April, but more likely was on
July 11,472.
N u m ism a t ic N o t e : There are imitations of Anthemius’ tremisses attrib

uted to the Visigoths (see RIC X, p. 460).
AELIA EUPHEMIA
A u g u s t a , a .d . 4 6 7 - 4 7 2 ( 7)
W if e o f A n t h e m iu s
Daugh ter of M a r c ia n ( by h is f ir s t w if e )
M o th er of A l y p ia
M o t h e r -i n -la w of R ic im e r
(Aelia) Marcia Euphemia, lifespan unknown.

Regrettably, the ancient historians recorded very little of Aelia Euphemia,
except that she bore Anthemius one daughter and four sons. Historians are
not certain of her lifespan, nor when she lost the title of Augusta. Her only
daughter, Alypia (who makes a single appearance on coinage), was wed to
the Master of Soldiers Ricimer in hopes of uniting the ‘emperor-making’
general of the West and the appointee of Leo I in the East. This attempt
failed, and Alypia’s fate is unknown.
O f Euphemia’s sons, more is known. All but the one who in 471 died
in battle in Gaul played interesting roles in eastern politics during the
reign of Zeno. The eldest, Marcian (named after his grandfather, the
emperor) was destined for high political office, since he was married to
Leontia, the youngest of the two daughters of the emperor Leo I and Ver-
ina. He took his chance in 479 when his mother-in-law, Verina, convinced
him to overthrow Leo. However, the revolt failed immediately, leading to
the banishment of Verina and the capture of Marcian. The latter was ban
ished to Cappadocia, but soon escaped and raided Ancyra with a group of
rustic bandits, after which he was again captured, and banished by his
father-in-law to a fortress in Isauria. Marcian’s younger brother, Procopius
(named after his distant ancestor, the usurper Procopius, 365-366), was
also involved in the failed revolt against Zeno, but immediately fled to the
camp of Theodoric in Thrace. O f the youngest son, named Romulus, little
is recorded.
N u m ism a t ic N o t e : A ll of Aelia Euphemia’s coins were struck by her hus

band, Anthemius. Only the solidus (in two types) was struck in sufficient
quantity to be collectible, though a siliqua and a nummus (Æ 4 ) are known,
but each is apparently unique. Her sons are not known to have held the
title of Caesar or Augustus, and do not seem to be represented on coinage.
However, her daughter Alypia makes one brief appearance on coinage (see
her biography below), and may also have been hailed Augusta.
ALYPIA
A u g u s t a ( ? ), a . d . 4 0 7 ( ? ) - 4 7 2 ( ? )
W if e o f R ic im e r
Daugh ter of A n t h e m iu s a n d A e l ia Euph em ia
G randdaugh ter of M a r c ia n
Alypia, lifespan unknown. As the only daughter of Anthemius and Aelia

Euphemia, Alypia was destined for an interesting life. When her father
had been nominated as the next emperor of the West by Leo I, it probably
came as little surprise to Alypia that she would be a valuable diplomatic
asset to her father’s fledgling regime. Thus, in 467, the year in which all of
these events occurred, Alypia was wed to the “emperor-making” general,
Ricimer, who was still the most powerful man in Italy.
The gesture was intended not only to bind the fates of Anthemius
and Ricimer, but also to strengthen the ties between East and West. The
marriage was childless, and proved to be less than effective in binding the
two parties. In April of 472 Ricimer sponsored a patrician named Olybrius
as emperor in opposition to Anthemius. Though Anthemius and his fam
ily were able to hold out in Rome for about three months, their resistance
ended on July 11, 472, when Anthemius was captured and beheaded.
Although ancient sources make no mention of it, the numismatic
evidence suggests Alypia may have been hailed Augusta along with her
mother. If indeed this occurred, it would have been similar to the earlier
cases of Aelia Pulcheria and Honoria, both of whom were hailed Augusta
even though they were only sisters of the emperor. The fate of both Alypia
and her mother are unknown. Alypia had four brothers, whose lives are
related in the biography of her mother.
N u m ism a t ic N o t e : Offering evidence that Alypia may have been hailed

Augusta with her mother is a coin in the cabinet at Dumbarton Oaks. The
reverse of this unique solidus shows mother and daughter side-by-side. The
figure representing Alypia is smaller than that of Euphemia, and from the
viewer’s eye appears on the right, which is the position of lesser honor. But
this is the proper iconography for such an issue, and each is attired the
same, and in the manner associated with women who held the rank of
Augusta. Even though Alypia was childless and there is no literary evi
dence of her being hailed Augusta, her marriage to Ricimer was of such
importance to Anthemius’ imported regime that an exception may have
been made.
OLYBRIUS A .D . 4 7 2
Ruling in the East:
Leo I (457-474)
H u sb a n d of P l a c id ia th e youn ger
S o n -in -la w of L ic in ia E u d o x ia
Flavius Anicius Olybrius, d. A.D. 472. Descended

from the powerful senatorial family the Anicii (which was notorious for its
greed), Olybrius managed to escape from Rome just before it was sacked by
the Vandals in 455. He settled into a luxurious life in Constantinople, and
in 462 married Placidia the younger, the teen-age daughter of the former
western emperor Valentinian III, who had just arrived in the eastern capi
tal after spending seven years in Carthage as a captive of the Vandal king
Gaiseric.
The eastern emperor, Leo I, had negotiated her release while he was
warming relations with the Vandals, who had begun to extend their piratic
raids into eastern territory. By marrying Placidia the younger (for whom no
coins were struck), Olybrius became both a member of the House of Theo
dosius, an in-law of the Vandal Gaiseric, whose own son, Huneric, was
married to Placidia’s sister, Eudocia the younger. This latter relation
proved fruitful for Olybrius, who became Gaiseric’s candidate for the West
ern throne following the puppet-reign of Libius Severus (461-465). How
ever, Gaiseric’s plans did not materialize and the eastern emperor Leo I
instead backed his own candidate, a nobleman named Anthemius.
In the meantime, Olybrius and Placidia the younger had a daughter
named Anicia Juliana, who herself was destined for greatness in a later era.
Throughout Olybrius’ subsequent adventures, his wife remained in C on
stantinople, for she had experienced a lifetime’s adventure before she had
reached her 20th year. Although Olybrius had been passed up as western
emperor the first time around, a new opportunity arose in 472, when he
was sent to Rome by Leo I to resolve the conflict between Ricimer and his
puppet emperor Anthemius.
What happened next — Ricimer selecting Olybrius as the new west
ern emperor — is of some interest, for the circumstances of it are not
entirely certain. Although Olybrius had been sent only on a diplomatic
mission, his sojourn turned into an opportunity unparalleled. One ancient
source, John Malalas, tells us that an urgent letter dispatched by Leo I
accusing Olybrius of treason fell into the hands of Ricimer, who may have
confronted Olybrius with the unwelcomed news. Additionally, Ricimer
may have considered Olybrius’ marriage ties to Gaiseric to be a windfall,
for if he were emperor, peace might be achieved more easily with the
Vandals. That it would offend Leo I in the East was probably of no great
concern, for Ricimer had long been at odds with the eastern monarch.
In any event, Olybrius was hailed emperor in opposition to Anthemius
(apparently in April, 472), and the latter was promptly besieged in Rome.
After a resistance of about three months, Anthemius tried to escape dressed
as a beggar, but was captured. He was beheaded by Ricimer’s nephew Gun-
dobad, possibly in March or April, but more likely on July 11 of 472. How
ever, the ‘emperor-making’ general Ricimer died on August 18 — only a few
weeks after he had ousted Anthmius and installed Olybrius.
With this shocking turn of events, the new emperor Olybrius had to
fend for himself, establishing a rapport with Gundobad, Ricimer’s nephew
and replacement as Master of Soldiers. After a reign of about six or seven
months, Olybrius died of dropsy, perhaps on November 2, 472. With three
powerful men perishing in the course of a few months, the throne was
vacant for more than four months after Olybrius’ death, during which
Gundobad tried to maintain his new-found authority.
The coins of Olybrius are great rarities, with perhaps

fewer than 20 specimens known in total for all types of solidi and tremisses.
He chose an interesting inscription, SALVS MVNDI (“savior of the world”)
for his solidi and tremisses of Rome; all of his gold has the reverse type of a
plain or jewelled cross. Olybrius seemingly coined no silver or copper coins.
Lead seals with the extraordinary SALVS MVNDI reverse type are known,
and are paired with an obverse depicting the facing busts of two emperors
(inscr. DD NN AVGG), and as such may be presumed to represent Olybrius
and Leo I, the reigning monarchs in the West and the East.
GLYCERIUS A .D . 473—474
Ruling in the East:
L e o I (457-474), L e o II (474)
a n d Z e n o (474-475 & 476-491)
Flavius Glycerius, died c. A .D . 480. The year 472

proved to be a watershed, for not only had two
emperors perished, but the all-powerful Ricimer
had died as well. Though the eastern emperor Leo
I now had the legal right to rule in the West, the true power was held by a
Burgundian prince named Gundobad, who had succeeded his uncle, Rici
mer, as Master of Soldiers.
Gundobad had emerged on the scene only recently, and had been
given the rank of patrician by the former emperor, Olybrius, for his help in
the overthrow of Anthemius. After an interregnum of more than four
months Gundobad hailed Glycerius, the comes domesticorum of Olybrius
and a man of no particular distinction, the next emperor of the West. This
elevation, which occurred on March 5, 473, was not recognized in Con-
stantinople, for in the meantime Leo I had enlisted Julius Nepos, a Dalma
tian nobleman, to restore order in Italy.
The puppet-king Glycerius had his hands full defending Italy from an
invasion led by Widimir, king of a branch of the Ostrogoths. Glycerius
chose to bribe Widimir rather than fight him, and was able to divert their
armies to Gaul. But Glycerius’ problems were just beginning, for he would
lose the support of his army just as a conquering force arrived from the
East. His Master of Soldiers, Gundobad, left Italy to become heir-apparent
of the Burgundians upon learning that his brothers had been killed.
Shortly thereafter, in June of 474, Julius Nepos landed his forces near the
mouth of the Tiber and captured Glycerius without a fight.
On the 19th of June, Julius Nepos claimed the title of Augustus for
himself, which was ratified by the senate on the 24th. Though there is no
indication that Leo I had asked Julius Nepos to do anything more than
depose Glycerius, the eastern emperor had died in the meantime, and
Nepos seized the opportunity at hand. After a mismanaged reign of nearly
16 months, Glycerius was spared execution and was instead appointed
bishop of Salona, a see comfortably within the territory ruled by Nepos’
family. The vacated office of Master of Soldiers was initially filled by Ecdi-
cius, and then by Orestes. Despite the mercy Nepos had shown toward
Glycerius, many historians believe that Nepos was murdered in a plot
hatched by Glycerius.
N u m ism a t ic N o t e : The coins of Glycerius are quite rare, with apparently

fewer than 50 specimens known. Most of his coins are solidi and tremisses;
silver siliquae and half-siliquae are excessively rare, and no copper nummi
seem to have been struck, despite their being listed by Cohen.
GUNDOBAD
M a ster of S o l d i e r s , a .d . 4 7 2 -4 7 4
N e p h e w o f R ic im e r
Gundobad (or Gundobald), lifespan unknown. The maternal son of the

Burgundian king, Gundioc, Gundobad was himself Burgundian prince. He
inherited the office of Master of Soldiers in 472 from his uncle Ricimer,
who died in that year. His first notable act — for which he was granted
patrician status — occurred in July of 472, when he beheaded emperor
Anthemius on the orders of Ricimer, who subsequently installed Olybrius
on the throne. However, both Ricimer and Olybrius died in 472, leaving
Gundobad the new Master of Soldiers, and heir of the role of emperor-
maker.
Like all barbarians of the Arian faith, Gundobad was debarred from
the throne, and it does not seem that being emperor was an ambition of
his. After a short interregnum following the death of Olybrius, Gundobad
named Glycerius emperor of the West even though constitutionally the
right to decide belonged to the eastern emperor Leo I. In due course, Leo I
raised his own candidate, the Dalmatian Master of Soldiers, Julius Nepos,
whom he sent to Italy with an army to oust Gundobad and his puppet
emperor. But before Nepos arrived, Gundobad learned that his two broth
ers had died, perhaps by murder, which left him the sole heir to the Bur
gundian throne. As such, he abandoned his post as Master of Soldiers,
which was filled, in turn, by Ecdicius and by Orestes, the former secretary
to Attila the Hun. Gundobad returned across the Alps to the territories of
the Burgundians, where he eventually succeeded his father as king of that
nation.
N u m ism a t ic N o t e : Coins ascribed to Gundobad bear on their reverse a

monogram composed of the letters B N G A D. The fact that this mono
gram is paired with an obverse type of Zeno makes the attribution all the
more likely. However, unlike the monogram coins of Ricimer (which were
legitimate strikings of the Rome mint), the issue of Gundobad are best
viewed as Burgundian imitations of Zeno’s eastern coinage, and presum
ably were struck during his tenure as king of the Burgundians.
JULIUS NEPOS A .D . 4 7 4 - 4 7 5 / 4 8 0
Ruling in the East:
L eo II (474), Z e n o (474-475 & 476-491),
B asiliscus (4 7 5-476) a n d M arcus (475-476)
Flavius Julius Nepos, d. A.D. 480. When Glycer

ius usurped the western throne in March of 473,
the eastern emperor, Leo I, determined to recover
authority in the West, which legally had passed to him when the throne
became vacant by the death of Olybrius. Either in 473 or 474, Leo I
enlisted the services of Julius Nepos, the Master of Soldiers in Dalmatia
and a nephew by marriage of his wife.
578 H IS T O R Y O F T H E R O M A N E M PIRE: B IO G R A P H IE S
Nepos had inherited command of Dalmatia, in which his family had

established a hereditary monarchy. Though nominally under the aegis of
the Eastern Roman Empire, Nepos reigned in Dalmatia with almost total
autonomy. The request from Leo I seemed to be an even greater opportu
nity to Nepos, who proceeded to Constantinople, from where he launched
his expedition’ to recover the Western Empire. He executed his task with
great efficiency, landing his army near the mouth of the Tiber and captur
ing Glycerius without a fight on the 19th of June, 474. Glycerius was
spared execution and instead was appointed bishop of Salona, a see within
the territory ruled by Nepos’ family.
Though it is not clear that Leo (who, in the meantime had died) had
asked Nepos to do anything more than depose Glycerius, Nepos seized the
opportunity before him. The fact that the Eastern Empire was embroiled in
its own war of succession between Zeno and Basiliscus no doubt led Nepos
to the conclusion that he must act decisively, even if that meant autono
mously. His claim to the now-vacant title of Augustus in the West was
confirmed by the senate on June 24.
Nepos had, however, leaped out of the frying pan and into the fire, for
many forces were at work in the West. O f great concern were the Visig
oths, who for nearly a decade had threatened to annex all of Gaul and to
no longer be mere federates of the Romans. Under the leadership of their
new king, Euric, they (like the Vandals in North Africa) created their own
independent state. Nepos and the Romans in Gaul were unable to resist
the warlike Visigoths, and by treaty in 475 Nepos agreed to their demands,
which included most of Gaul and Spain.
Throughout his reign, Nepos was unable to gain the allegiance of the
Italians and Germans, who did not want to be ruled by yet another
emperor sent from the Greek east. Nepos appointed Ecdicius, the son of
the former emperor Avitus, as his new Master of Soldiers. But Ecdicius
proved wholly ineffective against the Visigoths, so Nepos replaced him
with a Pannonian named Orestes, who had formerly been secretary to
Attila the Hun.
But this proved — almost tiresomely so — to be a repeat of recent
history in the West, for Orestes rebelled against his benefactor and raised a
new candidate (in this case his own son, Romulus Augustus) as emperor.
Orestes led an army out of Rome to besiege Nepos at Ravenna, but the
fickle Nepos fled by sea on August 28, 475, before Orestes’ army arrived.
He proceeded to his native land of Dalmatia, where he resumed his duties
as hereditary ruler.
While in exile Nepos remained the constitutional western emperor,
though he had no opportunity to reclaim his throne without help from the
East. When Orestes and his son, Romulus Augustus, were overthrown in
late August 476, power was seized by a German soldier, Odovacar. Though
Nepos remained in Dalmatia during the nearly four years left of his life, the
numismatic evidence shows that he was recognized as emperor-in-absentia
by Odovacar (who similarly acknowledged Zeno’s authority). Indeed,
when Odovacar wrote to Zeno suggesting that a separate emperor was no
longer necessary in the West, Zeno showed support for Nepos by replying
that such correspondence should be delivered to the rightful western
emperor, Nepos.
Regardless of the formalities observed by the three men, Odovacar
was made a patrician by Leo and adopted the title of king while Nepos
remained exiled in Dalmatia. Zeno, who had only just regained his throne
from the usurpers Basiliscus and Marcus, was either unable or unwilling to
meddle in western affairs. Julius Nepos was murdered near Salona on May
9, 480, by two of his retainers who may have been acting on behalf of
Glycerius, the usurper whom almost six years earlier Nepos had replaced.
As a fitting end to the tale of Nepos, his beloved Dalmatia was occupied by
Odovacar in the following year.
N u m ism a t ic N o t e : Though it is customarily stated that the issues of

Romulus Augustus are the “last” struck for an emperor in the West, in
actuality that honor goes to Julius Nepos. Nepos struck coinage in his own
name (as well as for Leo II and Zeno) while he was an emperor in resi
dence in Italy (474-475), and had issues struck on his behalf subsequently
while he was in exile in Dalmatia (476-480). Hoard evidence, reverse die
links and stylistic factors confirm that Odovacar struck solidi in the name
of both Julius Nepos and Zeno at Milan and Ravenna after Romulus
Augustus had been deposed. These western issues in the name of Zeno are
often collected in lieu of coins bearing Nepos’ name, for they command a
lesser price. Furthermore, some solidi were struck in Nepos’ name at C on
stantinople by Zeno, who continued to recognize Nepos as his western col
league until his murder in 480. It remains uncertain whether or not Nepos
coined at Salonae during his exile. During the first year of his reign, Nepos
reintroduced the half-siliqua, and with it two original designs, some of
which he struck in his own name, and some in the names of his eastern
colleagues. There are imitations of Nepos’ tremisses attributed to the
Visigoths (see RIC X, p. 461).
ROMULUS AUGUSTUS
A .D . 4 7 5 - 4 7 6
Ruling in the East:
Z e n o (474-475 & 476-491),
Basiliscus (4 7 5 -476) and Marcus (475-476)
S on of O r est es (M a ster of S o l d ie r s)
Romulus “Augustus,” d. after A.D. 507. Romulus Augustus, who has tra
ditionally been called the last emperor of the Western Roman Empire, was
neither the last, nor even a legitimate emperor. Indeed, he was merely a
figurehead for his father’s army, and was deposed four years before the last
rightful western emperor, Julius Nepos, died.
None-the-less, his story and his coinage (which was struck at three
Italian mints) is of some interest. He was nicknamed Augustulus (“the lit
tle emperor”) because of his youth; but even this aspect of his life is a mys
tery; estimates of his age range from that of an small child to a 16-year-old.
The additional name Augustus, added to his first name, Romulus, may
have derived from its being spelled out on his coinage rather than being
abbreviated in the usual form (AVG). Alternatively, it may have been
spelled out fully because it already was a formal part of his name.
Romulus was the son of Orestes, a Pannonian soldier who had for
merly been secretary to Attila the Hun. Within a few months of his being
installed as Master of Soldiers, Orestes revolted against his benefactor,
Julius Nepos, who fled on August 28, 475, to his native Dalmatia. Though
Nepos remained the constitutional emperor of the West, he was never able
to return to Italy and reclaim the throne. Curiously, about two months
passed before Orestes hailed his son emperor on October 31, 475. Perhaps
forcing the decision was news from the East that Zeno had ended the usur
pation of Basilicus and Marcus and regained his throne.
Even though Orestes and Romulus Augustus held the two highest
offices in the Western Roman Empire, they were dependent on the Ger
man mercenaries for their base of power. It took about 10 months before
the Germans became fed up with the Pannonian Master of Soldiers and
staged a coup of their own. The leader of the revolt was the 43-year-old
Flavius Odovacar (Odacer), a German soldier whose father had also served
A ttila the Hun in a diplomatic capacity.
Prompting the revolt was a desire by the Germans to be given one-
third of the land in Italy, as had been done in other areas of the Empire to
placate Germanic invaders. It is uncertain whether Orestes gained his
power by making such a promise, or whether it was sprung upon him.
Regardless, when he refused the request, the Germans determined to take
it all by force of arms. Orestes fled toward Pavia and took refuge in Tici-
num, but was captured and executed on August 28, 476.
The Germans entered Ravenna a few days later (September 4) to
depose and execute the boy-emperor Romulus, but his youth and beauty
caused Odovacar to act mercifully. Instead of executing the youth, who
had reigned for about 10 months, he simply deposed him. Furthermore, he
granted him a massive annual pension of 6,000 solidi and sent him to
Campania, where he resided at a villa in the gulf of Naples for at least
three more decades. Odovacar was now in control of Italy, though the fact
that he nominally recognized the authority of Julius Nepos as western
emperor and Zeno as emperor in the East is proven by the coins he struck
in their names at mints under his control.
N u m is m a t ic N o t e : Coinage in the name of Romulus Augustus is com-
posed almost exclusively of solidi and tremisses. Some extremely rare silver
half-siliquae of Ravenna (which borrow the interesting type introduced by
Julius Nepos) are known, and until very recently no nummi were known.
C o lla pse of t h e W e st
When the senate in Rome and Odovacar informed Zeno (who had only
just recovered his own throne in Constantinople) that he was now master
of both East and West, it must have come as a mixed blessing. Indeed, such
a flattering offer had little value to Zeno, who knew that in practice he
would have to acquiesce to Odavacar’s claim to Italy. None-the-less, Zeno
made an attempt to establish a good relationship with Odovacar. He first
granted him the title of patrician, and then asked him to support the
return of Julius Nepos, who was still the constitutional emperor of the
West.
Though pleased with his new status as patrician, Odovacar apparently
refused to restore Nepos, and elected instead to take the title of King of
Italy. Having little choice in the matter, Zeno granted Odovacar all of
Italy, just as in recent times the Romans had granted Gaul to the Visigoths
and North Africa to the Vandals. When Julius Nepos was murdered in
480, there was no longer any hope that a Roman would rule in Rome, and
Odovacar promptly expanded his kingdom to include Noricum, Raetia,
Sicily and Dalmatia.
Although the regime of Odovacar might seem to have been a clean
break from the traditional Roman rule, in reality it was little more than a
change in semantics. Odovacar had simply chosen the title of King (rex)
rather than Augustus. Zeno dealt with him in the same tentative fashion
as eastern emperors had with the German generals who had effectively
ruled the West for the last few generations.
But alas, in 489 Odovacar’s rule was challenged by the Ostrogothic

king Theodoric, whom Zeno had convinced to invade Italy. This was a
master stroke by Zeno, for in one fell swoop Odovacar was ousted and the
Eastern Roman Empire was rid of the ever-looming threat of Theodoric’s
Ostrogoths, who had now moved westward. Odovacar was able to main
tain his status as King of Italy until 493, when Theodoric tricked him into
surrendering, and unhesitatingly executed him.
CHAPTER THIRTEEN
T h e E a s t e r n R o m a n E m p ir e
a .d . 3 6 4 -4 9 1
his final chapter chronicles the history of the Eastern half of the
T divided Roman Empire, from the accession of Valens in 364 through
the reign of Zeno, which ended in 491. A general discussion of the divided
Empire is presented at the beginning of chapter twelve, which includes
material relevant to this chapter. Accompanying that discussion is a table
that displays the reigns in East and West. Outside of a tabular format, this
can be difficult to visualize because the reigns are usually overlapping. Both
the introduction and the table should be of value in gaining a proper his
torical perspective on this final era of the Roman Empire.
One of the most heated debates about the Late Roman Empire con
cerns when it ended. Historians are at odds on this point, and each point
of view has something to recommend it. Some would place the changeover
from the Roman Empire to the Byzantine Empire during the Tetrarchy,
which began with the accession of Diocletian in 284, for it was during this
era that the Empire was divided between East and West with great
deliberation.
Others cite the reign of Constantine the Great (307-337) as the
turning point. Firstly, he founded Constantinople and made it the endur
ing capital of the East, and secondly, he institutionalized Christianity; and
if one associates anything with the Byzantine Empire, it is Constantinople
and Christendom.
A case can also be made for the year 364 (the point at which East and
West are divided in this catalog), for the division was formalized. Perhaps
equally valid is the year 395, when Theodosius the Great died and the
Empire was split between his two sons, Honorius and Arcadius. After all, it
was during this period that the last vestiges of paganism were stamped out,
and the division of East and West actually became hostile (though rela
tions later warmed again). However, the traditional point of transition is
476, the year that Italy and its venerable capital, Rome, passed into bar
barian hands. Italy was no longer ruled by an emperor, but by a German
named Odovacar who chose the title of king.
These viewpoints raise a number of valid questions. Most challenging
of all is, perhaps, determining if any date before 476 is really acceptable.
Did the various components of Roman society change at sufficiently differ
ent rates so that the search for a point other than 476 is futile? What
becomes apparent is that the transition was not an “event,”’ but rather a
583
process. Despite the cultural differences between the citizens of Rome and
Constantinople, both considered themselves to be Romans in every sense
of the word. After all, what were the options? Certainly nothing was as
noble and as civilized as being a Roman. This view persisted in the Eastern
Empire for many centuries after Rome itself fell.
The word “Byzantine” was first used to describe the post-476 Eastern
Empire by the French historian Montesquieu in the 18th Century. It was an
invention of this historian, and was derived from Byzantium (Byzantion),
the name of the old Greek colony upon which Constantinople was built.
The term was totally unknown to the people of the age to which it applies.
Ever since Montesquieu’s time, the word “Byzantine” has had a negative
connotation. Indeed, it is used to describe a degenerate society that is little
more than a pale shadow of its former being. Such a sweeping generalization
cannot fairly be made of the Byzantine Empire, for it alone was the savior of
Western Christendom. For nearly a thousand years after Rome fell, the city
of Constantinople served as the stalwart barrier that spared Western civili
zation from nomadic and Islamic invasion from the East.
VALENS A .D . 3 6 4 - 3 7 8
Ruling in the West:
V a l e n t i n i a n I ( 3 64 - 3 7 5 ), G r a t i a n ( 3 6 7 - 3 8 3 )
a n d V a l e n t i n i a n II ( 3 7 5 - 3 9 2 )
B r o t h e r o f V a le n tin ia n I
U n c l e o f G r a t i a n , V a l e n t i n i a n II a n d
G a lla (w . o f T h e o d o s i u s I)
Flavius Julius Valens, c. A.D. 328-378. In 364, following the death of

Jovian, the Empire fell into the hands of Valens’ older brother, Valentinian
I. On March 28, about one month after his elevation, Valentinian I pro
claimed Valens co-emperor, and gave him responsibility for the Eastern
Empire.
Like his older brother, Valens also had served in the armies of the
emperors Julian II and Jovian. In both cases Valens was a member of the
protector domesticus, or the household guards. Valens’ principate began in
crisis, for in 365 a rebellion was staged by the soldier Procopius. Though he
had widespread support and immediately gained control of Constantino
ple, Valens was able to crush Procopius’ rebellion in the following year. In
the process of his revolt, Procopius had sought the assistance of the Visig
oths, who were anxious for conquest even though the revolt had been
crushed. Valens took matters into his own hands and crossed into Visig
othic territory, where he ravaged their lands from 367 through 369.
T H E E A S T E R N R O M A N E M PIRE 585
Yet another usurpation — this time led by an official named The-

odorus in Antioch — occurred from 371 to 372, but was also crushed. In
the meantime his brother, Valentinian I, died of a rage-induced stroke in
375, leaving Valens as the senior Augustus. The West was now in the
hands of Valens’ 16-year-old nephew, Gratian, who was nominally joined
by his 4-year-old half brother, Valentinian II. But the troubles of the
now-separate West were not the immediate concern of Valens, who was
renewing aggressions against the Sasanians. Although his campaign was
a success, it was not stellar, and a luke-warm peace was negotiated in
376.
Indeed, the timing of this settlement may have been the result of a new
threat on the western borders of Valens’ Empire, for a new enemy, the Huns,
were causing problems for the Romans. So fierce were these eastern
mounted warriors that the Ostrogothic nation in the Ukraine was virtually
destroyed, and the Visigoths of Romania had poured across the Danube and
into Roman territory to escape the Mongol hordes. Though in reality the
Romans may have had little choice in the matter, their allowance of the
Goths to settle in Roman territory soon proved to be a fatal mistake. Dispos
sessed of their lands, the Visigoths soon became restless and resentful of
their fate, and began to ravage the Balkans at the very same time that
another wave of Germanic people crossed the Danube to flee the Huns.
Valens’ swift attention was required, and so he left Persia to confront
the Visigoths. Valens engaged the Visigoths in a pitched battle on August 9,
378, near Adrianople, at which the Roman army was so severely beaten that
Valens is known to posterity almost exclusively for this defeat. Either out of
necessity or poor judgment, Valens engaged the Visigoths on their own
terms, and led his legions into a terrifying ambush. Boxed in by Visigothic
charges, fully two-thirds of the eastern Roman army was butchered, most of
those being infantry, which seems to have been totally annihilated.
The whole affair is hauntingly similar to the Gothic victory of 251
that not only cost the lives of the emperors Trajan Decius and Herennius
Etruscus, but also resulted in the slaughter of their army. One of the casual
ties was the 50-year-old Valens, who either perished in battle or was
burned alive in the nearby house of a peasant where he had taken refuge to
dress his wounds.
O f great interest are the circumstances of the Battle of Adrianople,
for Valens did not wait for the arrival of Gratian’s western army, which was
en route. Some historians suggest Gratian’s arrival was deliberately delayed
in the hope that he would, in essence, be coming to the rescue of his
uncle, whereas others believe Valens did not wish to share the glory of vic
tory with his nephew, and so engaged the Visigoths before Gratian arrived.
Though the truth may never be known, it is worth acknowledging that
both explanations could co-exist and still be truthful.
Although not as talented as his brother, Valentinian I, Valens shared

much in common with him. Both tried to better the life of the common
man, and at the same time punished those who unfairly took advantage of
the government. Valens managed to rule the Eastern Empire competently,
doing much in his 14 years to establish peace with the Goths, protect
Armenia from Sasanian aggressions, and reduce taxes. By Christian histo
rians he is principally remembered as an Arian who took singular delight
in persecuting Catholics, pagans and philosophers.
PROCOPIUS A .D . 3 6 5 - 3 6 6
Ruling in the West:
V a l e n t i n i a n I ( 3 64 - 3 7 5 )
Procopius, c. A.D. 326-366. A native of Cilicia

and a relative of Julian II, Procopius served the
court of Constantius II and was a commander in
the army which Julian II assembled for his invasion
of Persia. Upon Julian’s death, Procopius brought the emperor’s corpse to
Cilicia for burial, and allowed Jovian to assume the high office even
though it was rumored that Procopius had been named his successor.
After Jovian died, the new emperor, Valentinian I, divided the
Empire between East and West so it could be managed properly. He
assumed responsibility for the more unstable West and installed his
younger brother, Valens, in the East. Because of this sudden change of
regime, Procopius was forced into hiding out of fear that he would be
arrested or executed as a potential usurper. But when Valens was traveling
to Syria in the year following his accession, Procopius re-emerged in C on
stantinople, where he staged a rebellion. It was an easy task, for there was
much dissatisfaction with Valens’ father-in-law, Petronius, an official who
was despised for his greed and cruelty.
Procopius was hailed emperor by disaffected soldiers on September
28, 365, and sought help from the Visigoths in his bid to overthrow
Valens. Though initially successful, Procopius soon began to lose his Ger
man generals, who were defecting with large numbers of soldiers to Valens.
After a reign of eight months, Procopius was defeated in battle at Nacolea
in Phrygia on May 27, 366, after which he was executed. The future west
ern emperor Anthemius (467-472) claimed descent from Procopius.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : Procopius struck coins at four mints Heraclea, C on

stantinople, Cyzicus and Nicomedia, with Heraclea being the only one
that produced only æs.
THEODOSIUS I A .D . 3 7 9 - 3 9 5
a .d . 379- 38 3: S o le r e ig n
(w it h A r c a d iu s )
Ruling in the West:

G r a t i a n ( 3 6 7 - 3 8 3 ), V a l e n t i n i a n II
( 3 7 5 - 3 9 2 ), Magnus Maximus ( 3 8 3 - 3 8 8 ),
Flavius Victor ( 38 7 - 3 8 8 ), Eugenius ( 3 9 2 - 3 9 4 )
a n d H o n o r i u s (3 9 3 - 4 2 3 )
S o n - i n - la w o f V a l e n t i n i a n I
B r o t h e r -i n -la w o f V a l e n t i n i a n II
H u sb a n d o f A e lia F la c c illa a n d G a l l a ( si ster o f V a le n tin ia n II)
F a t h e r o f A r c a d i u s a n d H o n o r i u s ( b y A e l i a F l a c c i l l a ), a n d o f
G a l l a P l a c id ia ( b y G a l l a )
F a t h e r - i n - l a w o f C o n s t a n t i u s III a n d A e l i a E u d o x i a
G r a n d f a t h e r o f H o n o r i a , V a l e n t i n i a n III, A e l i a P u l c h e r i a a n d
T h e o d o s iu s II
G r e a t -g r a n d f a t h e r o f L i c i n i a E u d o x i a
Flavius Theodosius, c. A.D. 346/7-395. One of the renowned leaders of

the late Roman Empire, Theodosius I was born at Cauca in north-west
Spain. He was the son of the renowned general Count Theodosius, who
had crushed insurrections in Britain (against the Piets and Scots) and
North Africa and had served as Valentinian I’s commander-in-chief on the
Rhine.
His son, the future emperor, had served with his father and had
learned much about soldiering and leadership. But Count Theodosius was
executed for high treason in 375/6, perhaps out of fear that he would stage
his own revolution amid the confusion that existed after the death of Val
entinian I. The Count’s son then retired to Spain and married Aelia
Flacilla, who bore him two sons, the future emperors Arcadius and Hono
rius. Late in 387 he married Galla (who died in childbirth about April,
394) and they soon produced the future empress Galla Placidia.
However, after the destruction of the eastern Roman armies in
August of 378 at Adrianople by the Visigoths, Count Theodosius’ son (a
cousin of Gratian by marriage) was lured out of his early retirement in
Spain to take command of the armies on the Danube as magister equitum.
About six months later, the western emperor Gratian invested Theodosius
I with supreme power in the East. The ceremony took place at Sirmium on
January 19, 379. Though both men carried on the affairs of state with gen
eral success, they did not see eye-to-eye and were often at odds.
Theodosius’ first challenge was to safeguard the Eastern Empire with
his depleted and demoralized army. He did this by making compromises
with the Visigoths and the Sasanians, both of which proved to be lasting if
not ideal. O f special interest was the bargain he struck with the Visigoths,
whom he was unable to hold back with his depleted armies. Theodosius
allowed the Visigoths to cross the Danube and settle in Thrace, where they
were given land as well as regular payments. Furthermore, they were
allowed to maintain their own tribal governments and to live under their
own laws. In return, the Visigoths were to provide standing armies for the
Romans to protect their borders from invasion. It was far from an ideal
solution, but it seems Theodosius had little choice in the matter.
This arrangement was also extended to other peoples, such as Huns,
and over time evolved from a temporary solution to a permanent part of
Roman life. But all of this required vast sums of money, and so Theodosius
applied taxes to all owned property, leaving nothing exempt. Some of his
related laws made virtual slaves of humble tenant farmers, who were for
bidden to move without the permission of their masters. Even the tax col
lectors feared Theodosius, for they would be severely flogged if they did
not collect all that was due.
The year 383 began on a high note when Theodosius raised his eldest
son Arcadius to the rank of Junior Augustus, but turned to crisis when a
Spanish kinsman named Magnus Maximus revolted in Britain and in
August killed the senior western emperor Gratian. Again, having little
choice in the matter, Theodosius acknowledged Maximus as de facto co
emperor with young Valentinian II. However, when in 387 Maximus
invaded Italy, Theodosius patched up a peace with the Sasanians in Arme
nia and marched at great speed into Italy. There his army of Romans, Huns
and Goths defeated the usurper at Aquileia, and nominally restored Valen
tinian II (who had fled) to his throne.
Theodosius I remained in Italy for more than three years, trying to
settle the Danubian front, though in the process he had to abandon the
westernmost portion. In 391 he returned to Constantinople, where he
raised his youngest son, Honorius, to the rank of Junior Augustus. In doing
so, Theodosius had left the Frankish soldier Arbogast as regent for the
emperor Valentinian II, who was now 20 years old, but far from capable of
running an Empire. This proved to be a foolish decision, for Arbogast soon
caused the murder or suicide of Valentinian II and installed a court official
named Eugenius as the new emperor of the West. For a second time, T heo
dosius I led an army into Italy, and this time he defeated the legions of
Eugenius and Arbogast on September 5-6, 394.
Theodosius I had now assumed control of the entire Roman Empire,
though he made no formal gestures to unite East and West. However, this
new arrangement lasted only five months, for after a reign of nearly 16
years, the 49-year-old emperor died of natural causes at Milan on January
17, 395. Successful enough to be sumamed “the Great,” Theodosius was
renowned in his day as an ardent defender of Christianity, and it is little

more than a footnote of the era that the last Olympic Games were proba
bly held during his reign, as he banned all pagan cults. Like many emper
ors, the historians simultaneously offer praise and condemnation on his
various personality traits, and as such he is a difficult person to size up.
Since Theodosius’ dynasty had been formed long before his death, the
temporarily united Empire was divided between his two incompetent sons,
Arcadius in the East and Honorius in the West.
AELIA FLACCILLA
A u g u s t a , a . d . 3 7 9 - 3 8 6 /8
W if e o f T h e o d o s i u s I
M o t h e r o f A r c a d iu s a n d H o n o r iu s
S t e p - m o t h e r o f G a l l a P l a c id ia
M o t h e r - i n - la w o f A e l i a E u d o x i a
G r a n d m o t h e r o f A e l ia P u l c h e r ia a n d
T h e o d o s iu s II
Aelia Flavia Flaccilla, d. A.D. 386 / 8 . Little is known of Aelia Flaccilla

except that she was renowned for her piety and generosity to the poor.
Born to a good family in Spain, Flaccilla was the daughter of Antonius,
who had attained the high post of prefect of Gaul. It may be assumed that
her marriage to Theodosius I in about 376 was a wedding of fortunes, for
the latter had retired to his ancestral estates in Spain at that time. Perhaps
they had planned to spend the remainder of their lives as local nobility.
However, three years after they were wed, Theodosius was recalled by
the western emperor Gratian, who first gave him command of the Danu
bian region and a few months later crowned him emperor in the East. Flac
cilla bore him two children, Arcadius in 377 and Honorius in 383/4 —
brothers who would share the Empire they inherited from their father. In
386 (or 388), after a decade or more of marriage to Theodosius, Aelia Flac
cilla died in Thrace (by one account). Theodosius remarried in 388, this
time to Galla, the sister of Valentinian II, for whom no coins were struck,
but who gave birth to the ill-fated Galla Placidia.
N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : Aelia Flacilla’s coinage — the first such issue for an

empress since the 330s — heralded a return to the time-honored Roman
practice of striking coinage for the important women of the Empire. The
fact that she assumed her first name, Aelia, as part of her title had a pro
found effect on future empresses, who adopted it as a title (rather than as a
name). Though she struck æs at eight mints, tremisses and siliquae were
struck only at Constantinople.
ARCADIUS A .D . 3 8 3 - 4 0 8
a .d . 383- 395: Ju n io r A u g u stu s
( w it h T h e o d o s iu s I)
a .d . 395- 402: S o le r e ig n
( w it h T h e o d o s iu s II)
Ruling in the West:

G r a t i a n ( 367 - 3 8 3 ), V a l e n t i n i a n II
( 3 7 5 - 3 9 2 ), Magnus Maximus ( 383 - 3 8 8 ),
Flavius Victor ( 38 7 - 3 8 8 ), Eugenius ( 3 92 - 3 9 4 ),
H o n o r i u s ( 393 - 4 2 3 ), Constantine III
( 4 0 7 - 4 1 1 ) a n d Constans II ( 4 0 8 - 4 1 1 )
S o n o f T h e o d o s iu s I and A e l ia F l a c c il l a
B r o t h e r o f H o n o r iu s
H u s b a n d o f A e l ia E u d o x ia
Fa t h e r o f T h e o d o s iu s II a n d A e l ia P u l c h e r ia
H a l f - b r o t h e r o f G a l l a P l a c id ia
F a t h e r - i n - la w o f M a r c i a n a n d A e l i a E u d o c i a
G r a n d f a t h e r o f L ic in ia E u d o x ia
Flavius Arcadius, c. A .D . 377 - 408 . O f all the late Roman emperors,

Arcadius may have been the most fortunate, for despite the brevity of his
life and his general lack of talent, his reign was remarkably placid.
The eldest son of Theodosius I and Aelia Flacilla, Arcadius was bom
in Spain in about 377 and was proclaimed co-emperor with his father,
Theodosius I, on January 19, 383. He was only 6 years old at the time of
his elevation, and was fortunate to enjoy a dozen years under the tutelage
of his father. But even this potentially fine training could not compensate
for Arcadius’ lack of natural ability.
When Theodosius left Constantinople in 394 to oust Eugenius from
Italy, he placed Arcadius in a position of great authority along with the
praetorian prefect Flavius Rufinus. When his father died in 395, the 18-
year-old Arcadius became sole emperor in the East, and his 12-year-old
brother, Honorius, inherited the western throne. A t the outset Rufinus was
marginally in control of Arcadius, and tried to persuade him to join their
fortunes through a marriage to his own daughter. But much like Sej anus to
Tiberius, the prefect was of humble birth and no such match was made.
It was not long before Rufinus came into conflict with Stilicho, a Ger
man soldier who held similar sway over Honorius in the West. Their dis
agreement caused an uprising by the Visigoths under their chieftain
T H E E A S T E R N R O M A N EM PIRE 59I
Alaric, who proceeded to ravage much of Greece. In response, Stilicho

marched east not only to quell the uprising, but also to claim the province
of Illyria (and thus the large number of soldiers it produced) for the West.
The conflict ended in a bit of treachery on the part of Stilicho, who in the
guise of peaceful surrender, instead had Rufinus assassinated.
Stilicho continued to be a thorn in Arcadius’ side when in 397 he
refused to cooperate in the war against Alaric’s Visigoths, and so he was
declared a public enemy, while at the same time Alaric was given the title
of Master of Soldiers in the Balkans. These severe tensions between East
and West were only exacerbated by a revolt in North Africa by a man
named Gildo, who sought to ally himself with Arcadius in the East.
Though the crisis soon ended satisfactorily, it could have been a formula
for disaster.
In 395 Arcadius married Aelia Eudoxia, the daughter of the Frankish
general Bauto, and promptly hailed her Augusta. The dullard Arcadius was
more than willing to let his energetic and beautiful wife run the affairs of
state almost single-handedly from 400 until her death in 404. Indeed, her
first actions were to check the aggressions of Stilicho (who was still consid
ered a fugitive by the rulers in Constantinople) by pitting him against the
Visigothic prefect, Alaric. But the issue found no resolution due to inva
sions from Germany and an uprising in Britain. In 401 the royal couple
had their only child, a son named Theodosius II, who at age 1 was hailed
co-emperor with his father in the year 402. When Aelia Eudoxia died in
childbirth in 404, the reins of power passed largely to the praetorian pre
fect Anthemius (not the future emperor of that name), who suppressed an
uprising by the Isaurians in Anatolia.
After a reign of more than a quarter century, the 31 -year-old Arcadius
died of natural causes at Constantinople on May 1, 408. He was succeeded
by his only son, Theodosius II — then only 7 years old — whom he had
hailed co-Augustus six years earlier. What Arcadius left can hardly be
called a legacy, for he was unimpressive in person, sluggish, dull, and
apparently had no enviable skills. Indeed, he was not suited for the
demands of the throne, and had no choice but to let more energetic men
and women run the Empire in his name.
AELIA EUDOXIA
A u g u sta , a .d . 4 0 0 -4 0 4
W if e o f A r c a d iu s
D a ug h ter of Bauto th e Fra nk
D a u g h t e r - i n - la w o f T h e o d o s i u s I (po sth u m o u sly )
and A e l ia F l a c c il l a
S i s t e r -i n -la w o f H o n o r iu s
M o t h e r o f T h e o d o s iu s II and A e l ia P u l c h e r ia
M o t h e r -i n -l a w o f M a r c i a n a n d A e l i a E u d o c i a
G r a n d m o t h e r o f L ic in ia E u d o x ia
(Aelia) Eudoxia, d. A.D. 404 . History records very little of this royal lady.
Eudoxia was a daughter of Bauto the Frank, a general of Valentinian I who
in 385 repelled a Sarmatian offensive and thus was presented the high
office of consul. After her father died, she was raised in the household of
his comrade-in-arms, Promotus, a general who defeated the Ostrogoths in
386 and who was instrumental in the suppression of Magnus Maximus.
When Promotus died in 391, she came under the care of the powerful
eunuch Eutropius, who was lord chamberlain in the court of Theodosius I.
Indeed, it was at his urging that Eudoxia married the emperor’s son, A rca
dius, on April 27, 395, some three months after his father died in Milan.
This was no easy feat, for a rival named Rufinus, the praetorian prefect of
the East, was lobbying for Arcadius to marry his own daughter. But
Eudoxia emerged victorious, and as the wife of the legitimate emperor of
the East, she inherited a position of great power.
In succeeding years she worked hard to undermine the influence of
Eutropius in the Imperial court. She achieved this in 399 with the help of
a certain Gainas, who she then undermined in the following year. After
she had given birth to two daughters, Eudoxia received the title Augusta
on January 9, 400, and for the four remaining years of her life she was vir
tual ruler of the Eastern Roman Empire. Although she possessed great
beauty, she had a quick temper and a forceful personality — all qualities
which permitted her to dominate her lackluster husband.
Eudoxia was also a pious Christian who frequently argued with high-
ranking Christian officials (most notably St. John Chrysostom, the patri
arch of Constantinople), and went to great lengths to destroy all the rem
nants of paganism. Some historians credit her with causing irreparable
harm to the relationship between church and state for centuries to come.
A ll told, she and Arcadius had five children, two of whom were the future
emperor Theodosius II, and Pulcheria, the future wife of the emperor Mar
cian. It was Pulcheria who inherited her mother’s strength of character, for
she tirelessly managed her brother’s affairs for decades. After nearly a
decade of marriage and meddling in palace politics, Aelia Eudoxia died

early in October, 404, the result of a miscarriage.
N u m ism a tic N o t e : A ll of Aelia Eudoxia’s coins were struck by her hus

band Arcadius. Gold was struck in the three principal denominations,
with the solidi being the most common. Eudoxia’s silver is very rare, and
the bronze quite common. For details about how to distinguish Aelia
Eudoxia’s coins with the obverse inscription A EL EVD O XIA AVG from
coins of her granddaughter, Licinia Eudoxia, with the same inscription, see
the notes accompanying the biography of Licinia Eudoxia and the coinage
listings of both women.
THEODOSIUS II A .D . 4 0 2 - 4 5 0
a .d . 4 0 2 - 4 0 8 : J u n io r A u g u s t u s
( w it h A r c a d i u s )
a .d . 4 0 8 - 4 5 0 : S o l e r e i g n
Ruling in the West:

H o n o r iu s (3 9 3 -4 2 3 ),Constantine III
(4 0 7 -4 1 1 ), Constans II ( 4 0 9 / 1 0 - 4 1 1 ) ,
Maximus (409-411), Priscus Attalus (409-410)
a n d ( 4 1 5 - 4 1 6 ) , Jovinus ( 4 1 1 - 4 1 3 ) , Sebastianus
( 4 1 2 - 4 13 ) , C o n s t a n t i u s III ( 4 2 1 ) , Johannes
( 4 2 3 - 4 2 5 ) a n d V a l e n t i n i a n III ( 4 2 5 - 4 5 5 )
S o n o f A r c a d iu s a n d A e l ia E u d o x ia
B r o t h e r o f A e l ia P u l c h e r ia
H u s b a n d o f A e l ia E u d o c ia
Fa t h e r o f L i c in ia E u d o x ia
B r o t h e r - i n - la w o f M a r c i a n
F a t h e r - i n - la w o f V a l e n t i n i a n III and P e t r o n iu s M a x im u s
N e p h e w o f H o n o r iu s
H a l f - C o u s i n o f V a l e n t i n i a n III a n d H o n o r i a
G r a n d s o n o f T h e o d o s iu s I a n d A e l ia F l a c c il l a
Flavius Theodosius, A .D . 4 0 1 - 4 5 0 . As the only son of the emperor A rca

dius and Aelia Eudoxia, Theodosius II was declared Augustus on January
10, 402, when he was exactly 9 months old. Though merely a formality, his
elevation left no doubt that he was destined to inherit his father’s Empire.
In fact, we are led to believe that Arcadius appointed the Sasanian king
Yezdegerd as the child’s guardian.
Arcadius died a premature, natural death at age 31 in the year 408,
which made the 7-year-old Theodosius II the new emperor of the East.
The early years of his reign were managed almost entirely by his regent and
praetorian prefect Anthemius (not the emperor of the same name). Two
serious crises — a grain shortage and an invasion of Moesia by the Huns —
were both managed admirably by Anthemius, who in 413 (shortly after
Rome was sacked by the Visigoths) also began construction of a massive
circuit wall around Constantinople. Equally influential was Antiochus,
and other palace eunuchs who had been firmly established in the eastern
courts for more than half a century.
Beginning in 414, however, both Antiochus and Anthemius fade into
obscurity, for that was the year Theodosius’ regency was transferred to the
boy’s older sister, Aelia Pulcheria (who herself was only 15 years old). N ot
only did she take over as regent, but she forced Anthemius to resign as pra
etorian prefect. For the remaining 36 years of Theodosius’ reign, Pulcheria
would be her brother’s strongest influence, often running the affairs of state
single-handedly.
One of her arrangements was the marriage in 421 of her brother to
Aelia Eudocia, a young lady formerly named Athenais who was the daugh
ter of an Athenian sophist. But Pulcheria came to regret this choice, for
the new empress soon began to supplant her authority, and within two
years she had also been hailed Augusta. She and Pulcheria often clashed,
which eventually caused Eudocia to be expelled.
The West once again erupted into chaos in 423. Within a couple of
months the matriarch Galla Placidia had been banished and her half-
brother, the emperor Honorius, had died. A usurper named Johannes
assumed control and Theodosius II (who had given asylum to Galla Pla
cidia and her children) now had to raise an army so order could be restored
in the West. The latter was achieved in 425, and Galla Placidia’s only son,
Valentinian III (the cousin of Theodosius II), was installed as the western
emperor. Since Theodosius II had been the force behind restoring Thodo-
sian rule in the West, his relations with that half of the Empire were excel
lent. This was a welcome change from the open hostility of the regents of
Honorius and Arcadius.
In 437 Theodosius betrothed his only daughter, Licinia Eudoxia, to
his cousin, Valentinian III, who had been emperor in the West (in name)
for a dozen years. His family woes continued in the East, and he did not
have the strength of character to interfere with the rivalry between his sis
ter and wife. Indeed, it became so intense that it broke up his marriage in
442 or 443, and forced Licinia Eudocia to retire to Jerusalem after the
divorce.
Though the military threats that afflicted the East could hardly com
pare with the chaos in the West, three were especially serious: the Sasani
ans, though defeated in 421, rose later at inopportune moments; the Goths
often ravaged Roman territory, as they had been doing since the reign of
T H E E A S T E R N R O M A N EM PIRE 595
Valens; and worse still were the Huns, a nomadic confederation that came
to be led by the infamous Attila in 434- Theodosius bought peace with
Attila through humiliating concessions averaging nearly 50,000 gold solidi
annually from the years 422 to 450. But Theodosius’ failure to pay what he
had promised prompted the Huns to sack the Balkans from 441 to 447, dur
ing which they leveled several important cities. Attila then made another
peace with Theodosius, after which he ravaged the western portion of the
Empire (related in the biographies of Valentinian III and Marcian).
Less than a decade after he had divorced his wife, Theodosius II died
of natural causes on July 28, 450, possibly from a fall off his horse. Because
he was elevated at such a young age, he held the title of Augustus for
nearly half a century, and thus was the longest-reigning of all Roman
emperors. He even outstripped the great Augustus, who actually ruled
longer — 56 years all together — but who only held the title of Augustus
for 41 years.
However, this accomplishment could hardly have pleased Theodosius
II, who hardly knew a moment of security in his half century of life. Theo
dosius was kind, generous, scholarly and peaceful — indeed he possessed
all the wrong qualities to lead an Empire constantly under siege. He was a
skilled calligrapher, and applied this talent to his all-consuming passion of
religion by patiently copying old manuscripts into the late hours of the
night. He apparently did not care much for the tedious details of running
an Empire, and is said to have routinely signed official documents without
inquiring into their contents. What most historians describe as weakness
in his personality, might better be described as kindness.
But Theodosius’ gentle nature cost Constantinople dearly, for he
more often achieved peace with gold and concessions than he did with
war. The two great accomplishments of Theodosius’ reign were the walls
around Constantinople and the Theodosian Code, a legal document which
took eight years to compile and was finally published in 438. N ot only
were they useful in their own day, but both proved to be works of lasting
value. The former protected the capital of Christendom from invaders of
every description for more than 1,000 years, and the latter has continued
to influence lawmakers into the modern age. It is also noteworthy that in
his religious zeal (no doubt greatly influenced by Pulcheria), Theodosius II
ordered the destruction of all pagan temples in the eastern Mediterranean.
N u m ism a tic N o t e : The gold tremissis was first struck in large quantity by
Theodosius II. The weight of the copper nummus (Æ4), which had been a
modest but attractive coin under Arcadius, was in 425 reduced by 25 per
cent. The result was a paltry coin that remained so until the reform of
Anastasius I in 498, at which point it was trading at 14,000-16,800 to the
gold solidus. Anastasius I introduced a massive copper piece valued at 40
nummi that was tariffed at 20 pounds of coined nummi to the gold solidus.
With the exception of a brief hiatus from 420 to 422, a star appears on the
reverse of the precious metal coins of Theodosius II. N ot only is this the
easiest way to distinguish his coins from those of Theodosius I, but it
became a defining characteristic of most subsequent issues struck in the
East. While Theodosius’ coinage in the East is common, very little was
struck in his name at western mints. The year 430 was of significance, for it
marked the hundredth anniversary of the foundation of Constantinople.
In commemoration of this event (which coincided with preparations for
Theodosius’ tricennalia), a new reverse type of Constantinopolis seated left
was introduced on the solidus. There are imitations of Theodosius’ solidi
attributed to the Visigoths (see RIC X, p. 453).
AELIA PULCHERIA
A u g u s t a , a .d . 4 1 4 - 4 5 3
S is t e r o f T h e o d o s iu s II
D a u g h t e r o f A r c a d iu s a n d A e l ia E u d o x ia
W if e o f M a r c ia n
S i s t e r -i n -la w o f A e l i a E u d o c i a
H a l f - C o u s in o f Va l e n t in ia n III and H o n o r ia
S t e p - m o t h e r o f A e l i a E u p h e m i a ( w. o f A n t h e m i u s )
G r a n d d a u g h t e r o f T h e o d o s iu s I a n d A e l ia
F l a c c il l a
N ie c e o f H o n o r iu s
A u n t o f L ic in ia E u d o x ia
(Aelia) Pulcheria, A .D . 3 9 9 - 4 5 3 . Being older than her brother Theodo

sius II, Pulcheria acted as his regent throughout most of his reign, even
after he had come of age. On July 4, 414, when she was aged 15, Pulcheria
was hailed Augusta and supplanted the regent Anthemius as the decision
maker in the palace. She held the title of Augusta for the nearly 40 years
that remained of her life, and found it easy (and indeed necessary) to dom
inate her weak-minded and indulgent brother.
However, she had to share her authority with others, most notably
her sister-in-law, Aelia Eudocia. The two royal ladies did not get along
very well, and they were frequently in conflict. Historians suggest Pulche
ria was supplanted by Eudocia in the late 420s and 430s, but that she even
tually defeated Eudocia, who was expelled from the courts by 443/4 and
forced to retire to Jerusalem. Pulcheria appears to have been a woman of
great character and generosity. She apparently was also chaste, and early in
her life had taken a vow of celibacy along with her two sisters, Arcadia and
Marina (for both of whom no coins were struck). This drastic measure no
doubt stemmed from strong religious beliefs, but was undertaken mainly to
avoid the prospect of outsiders marrying into the hierarchy and becoming
rivals to their brother.
Indeed, Pulcheria did not marry until her 51st year, and even then it
was not for love, but to legitimize the principate of Marcian, who she and
the Master of Soldiers Aspar had chosen to succeed her deceased brother.
The marriage was unconjugal, and Marcian was denied his rights as hus
band so that Pulcheria could remain chaste. Though Pulcherias strong
influence in secular policies can only be assumed, her importance in reli
gious debate is a matter of record. Indeed, she was instrumental in both
summoning and implementing the canons of the extremely important
Fourth Ecumenical Council of the Church at Chalcedon in 451. Three
years into her marriage to Marcian, Pulcheria died in July of 453 — the
same year in which Attila the Hun died. Ever true to her pious and gener
ous nature, Pulcheria left all of her earthly effects to the poor.
N u m ism a tic N o t e : All of Aelia Pulcherias coins were struck at Constan

tinople by her brother, Theodosius II, and her husband, Marcian. They
seem to have been struck at intervals throughout the entire period 414 to
453.
AELIA EUDOCIA
A u g u s t a , a .d . 4 2 3 -4 6 0
W if e o f T h e o d o s i u s II
D a u g h t e r - i n - la w o f A r c a d i u s a n d A e l i a E u d o x i a
S i s t e r -i n -la w o f A e l i a P u l c h e r i a
M o t h e r o f L ic in ia E u d o x ia
M o t h e r - i n - la w o f V a l e n t i n i a n III a n d P e t r o n i u s
M a x im u s
(Aelia) Eudocia (earlier Athenais), d. A .D . 4 6 0 . A elia Eudocia first trav

eled to Constantinople in 420 or 421 to resolve a legal dispute with her
brothers over their inheritance. Though still a pagan, her beauty and quick
wit caught the attention of the empress Aelia Pulcheria, who thought her
to be the ideal bride for her brother.
Under the influence of Pulcheria, Theodosius II married Athenais
(who had been baptized with the name Eudocia) on June 7, 421. Aelia
Eudocia must have been an unusual member of the Imperial court (which
was virtually monastic during her lifetime), for although a Christian, she
paid much attention to Classical learning. Her Athenian father, Leontius,
was a man of letters, and she inherited his penchant for literature, for she
wrote verse herself (some of which survives). One of her closest associates
was the pagan poet Cyrus, who held several of the highest offices in Con-
stantinople, but who was ruined because of his enormous popularity with
the people.
Eudocia had only one daughter, Licinia Eudoxia, who was destined to
be the wife of the emperor Valentinian III, and subsequently had a boy
who died young. In consequence of her giving birth to Licinia Eudoxia,
Eudocia was hailed Augusta on January 2, 423. Though she shared this
lofty rank with her sister-in-law, Pulcheria, her status was subordinate.
Nonetheless, the new empress wasted little time before she began to wield
her authority in the Imperial court. Eudocia and her sister-in-law were of
different temperaments, and though the two court matriarchs began on
good terms, they later clashed. This proved harmful to both women.
In October 437, her daughter, Licinia Eudoxia, married the western
emperor Valentinian III, and thus departed for Ravenna in the following
year. It was at this time (and seemingly because of this event) that Eudocia
left Constantinople on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. After this, her position
in the Imperial court began to disintegrate. Two of her foremost allies fell
in 440 and 441, and Eudocia was eventually expelled on a serious charge,
perhaps of adultery. She was excluded from court life by 443/4 (shortly
after her marriage to Theodosius II failed) and so she once again traveled
to Jerusalem, where she spent the rest of her life. There is ample evidence
to suggest she retained her title of Augusta until her death there on O cto
ber 20, 460. She was buried in the basilica of St. Stephen, the church that
she herself had founded.
N u m ism a tic N o t e : All o f Aelia Eudocia’s coins were struck by her hus
band, Theodosius II.
MARCIAN A.D. 450-457

Ruling in the West:
V a l e n t i n i a n III (425-455), Petronius Maximus
(455) a n d A v i t u s (455-456)
H u s b a n d o f A e l ia P u l c h e r ia
Fa t h e r o f A e l ia E u p h e m ia
Fa t h e r -i n -la w o f A n t h e m i u s
S o n - i n - la w o f A r c a d i u s a n d A e l i a E u d o x i a
B r o t h e r - i n - la w o f T h e o d o s i u s II
G r a n d f a t h e r o f A l y p ia
Flavius Valerius Marcianus, c. A.D. 391/2-457. Although not a blood

relation to any previous emperor, Marcian was an accomplished soldier of
Illyrian or Thracian origin who had risen to high office within the army.
His career was eventful, and in the early 430s he was taken as a prisoner of
war in North Africa by the Vandals while serving under Aspar, an Alan
who was then a general of Theodosius II. A t the time of his elevation he
was domesticus to Aspar, who had since risen to become Master of Soldiers.
Marcian was of sufficiently good character to be chosen as the succes
sor to Theodosius II, who had died of natural causes late in July 450 with
out an heir. Making this decision were Aspar and Pulcheria, the sister of
Theodosius II, who had largely managed the affairs of state for her brother
throughout his 48-year reign. But the decision may have been an easy one,
for we are told that on his deathbed Theodosius II requested of Aspar that
Marcian succeed him.
Upon his accession on August 25, 450, Marcian was married to Pul
cheria — not for love, but for the good of the Empire. (Marcian himself
was a widower and advanced in age.) Although Valentinian III in the
West did not acknowledge his elevation until the spring of 452, Marcian
immediately took a strong position against A ttila the Hun by refusing to
pay the annual indemnity of 2,100 pounds of gold that had been promised
by his weakling predecessor. Marcian is quoted as having remarked “I have
iron for Attila, but no gold.”
Though it was a courageous act, it was seemingly a foolish one. Fortu
nately, the Eastern Romans were spared retribution when, in 453, Attila
died on the last of his numerous wedding nights. The Hunnic nation then
disintegrated after they were defeated in 454 by a Gothic confederation at
the Battle of Nedao. Had Attila not died prematurely (or been occupied
with his conquests in the West), the fate of the Eastern Empire might have
been significantly different.
But his stand against Attila was uncharacteristic for his reign, which
was introspective. Indeed, Marcian (on the advice of Aspar) did nothing
to prevent the Vandals from sacking Rome, and he gave part of Pannonia
6oo H IS T O R Y O F T H E R O M A N EM PIRE: B IO G R A P H IE S
to the Gepids. Neither of these acts served to warm relations between East
and West, which had been harmed by the very fact that Marcian was
hailed emperor without the constitutional consent of Valentinian III.
Even in his own realm, Marcian was timid, for he dared not confront the
Sasanians, who had become quite aggressive in the buffer state of Arme
nia. Clearly, in this case Marcian was wisely conserving his resources in the
event the Huns declared war.
Marcian had a daughter from a previous marriage, Euphemia, who
later married the western emperor Anthemius (467-472). If Marcian suc
ceeded in any way, it was financially, for when his he died the treasury was
laden with more than 100,000 pounds of gold — the equivalent of 7.2 mil
lion solidi. Regrettably, all of this and more was lost by his successor, who
lost an 1,100-ship armada in an expedition against the Vandals in 4 6 8 .
After a productive, peaceful, and fortunate reign of more than six
years, the 65-year-old emperor died on January 27, 457, after suffering from
an illness of about six months. With his death also came a conclusion to
the Theodosian and Valentinian lines. Though most historians believe
Marcian died of natural causes, some sources report that he was poisoned.
Since his wife, Pulcheria, had died four years before and Marcian had no
son, there was no successor-in-waiting. Thus, the choice for his replace
ment fell upon the army, which was led by Aspar.
LEO I A .D . 457-474
a .d . 457- 4 7 0 : S o l e r e ig n
a .d . 470 - 4 7 1 : A u g u s t u s
(w ith P a tr ic iu s , a s C a e s a r )
a .d . 47 1 - 4 7 3 : S o l e r e ig n
a .d . 4 7 3 - 4 7 4 : A u g u s t u s
( w i t h L e o II, a s C a e s a r )
a . d . 4 7 4 : S e n i o r A u g u s t u s ( w i t h L e o II)
Ruling in the West:

M a j o r i a n ( 4 5 7 - 4 6 1 ), L ib iu s S e v e r u s ( 4 6 1 - 4 6 5 ),
A n t h e m i u s ( 4 6 7 - 4 7 2 ), Olybrius ( 4 7 2 ) a n d Glycerins ( 4 7 3 - 4 7 4 )
H u s b a n d o f A e l ia V e r in a
F a t h e r o f A e l i a A r i a d n e a n d L e o n t i a ( w . o f Pa t r i c i u s )
B r o t h e r -i n -la w o f B a s i l i s c u s
F a t h e r - i n - l a w o f Pa t r i c i u s a n d Z e n o
G r a n d f a t h e r o f L e o II
Flavius Valerius Leo (I), c. A.D. 401 or 411 - 4 7 4 . A man of humble ori
gins, apparently from the Bessi tribe in Thrace, Leo (who is sometimes
T H E E A S T E R N R O M A N E M PIRE 6oi
called “the Great”) rose from total obscurity to found a dynasty that would
rule Constantinople until the end of what most historians consider to be
the Eastern Roman Empire.
Leo owed his high career to the patronage of Aspar, the powerful
A lan Master of Soldiers in the East. Since there was no designated succes
sor to Marcian, the choice was made by the army, and Aspar proclaimed
Leo emperor on February 7, 457. Aspar probably elected Leo so that the
most legitimate candidate, former emperor’s son-in-law Anthemius (who
later was emperor in the West in 472), would not ascend the throne.
Despite the debt of gratitude that Leo owed Aspar, the new emperor
went to great lengths to shed the influence of his benefactor. This internal
war went in Leo’s favor when in 466 he rapidly promoted Zeno, and it
ended with the murder of Aspar in 471. Much to Leo’s credit, he broke the
power of the German soldiers led by Aspar, who had dominated his court
and threatened the stability of the Empire. But to achieve this he had to
replace them with equally fierce (and apparently less-well-mannered) Isau-
rians, led by a capable soldier named Taracsis, who is better known by his
adopted name, Zeno.
Throughout this five-year conflict one of the principal issues was
choosing a successor for Leo, who showed no signs of nearing death. How
ever, his only son had died at five months old in 463, and he had only
daughters. The first to advance was Zeno, who in 466 or 467 married Aelia
Ariadne, Leo’s eldest daughter. Soon after, Zeno went to Thrace to fight
the Huns, leaving Aspar in Constantinople. The latter strengthened his
own position in 470 when one of his sons, Patricius, was hailed Caesar and
betrothed to Leo’s younger daughter, Leontia. Now there were two quali
fied candidates for the succession, though neither of them were popular in
Constantinople.
The rivalry ended, however, when Aspar tried to win over Zeno’s
Isaurian soldiers, but failed to do so before Zeno returned from Thrace and
counteracted his efforts. Though Leo sympathized with Zeno, it seems that
the order to execute Aspar in 471 came directly from Leo. Though Patri
cius survived the ambush, he was seriously wounded and was deprived of
his rank and of the prospect of a royal marriage. Now only Zeno remained
as a viable successor.
Although Leo was the emperor of the East, he took considerable
interest in the ill-fortunes of the West. In 467 he appointed Anthemius as
emperor in the West, and in 473/4 enlisted the services of Julius Nepos to
oust the usurper Glycerius. But with the chaotic environment in Italy,
both men were deposed in short order. Another of his interventions in the
West occurred in 468, and it was such a catastrophe that it single-handedly
has blackened his record. Ever since the Vandals had occupied Carthage in
439, the Western Roman Empire had suffered the consequences. N ot only
was their traditional grain supply jeopardized, but the sea-borne Vandals
often turned to piracy in Sicily and Italy.
So Leo assembled an armada of more than 1,100 ships, which deployed
about 100,000 men. The expense (estimated at 7.5 million to 9.5 million
gold solidi) was extraordinary, and it bankrupted the Eastern treasury. How
ever, it was anticipated that Leo’s investment in the fleet would produce
enough revenue in loot that the expense was justifiable. Leó entrusted this
vital mission to his brother-in-law, the future usurper Basiliscus.
Through what must have been a stroke of good luck, Basiliscus won
impressive naval engagements at the outset, sending 340 Vandal ships to
the floor of the sea. However, the gross incompetence so natural to Basilis
cus soon emerged as he naively fell victim to the Vandal’s treachery. The
great Roman armada was destroyed in its entirety, and with its destruction
came dire consequences. The West was now demoralized and at risk, and
the East was bankrupt. The failure of the armada was equally as tragic as
the defeat suffered in 378 by the emperor Valens at Adrianople.
But after this great loss, Leo still had more than five years to reign,
during which he was often occupied with finding a successor (as was
related above). In October of 473, while in a declining state of health, Leo
gave the title of Caesar to the young son of Zeno, who was also named Leo,
and who is known to historians as Leo II. This seemed a more practical
option than giving that rank to Zeno himself, for he would have been an
unpopular choice. When Leo’s health took a dramatic turn, he hailed Leo
II Augustus, and the aged emperor died a few days later, either in late Jan
uary or early February of 474.
AELIA VERINA
A u g u s t a , a .d . 4 5 7 -4 8 4
W if e o f L eo I
M o t h e r o f A e l ia A r ia d n e a n d L e o n t ia
( u>. o f Pa t r i c i u s )
S is t e r o f B a s il is c u s
M o t h e r - i n - la w o f Pa t r i c i u s , Z e n o a n d A n a s t a s i u s I
( E m p e r o r , a .d . 4 9 1 - 5 1 8 )
G r a n d m o t h e r o f L e o II
A u n t of M arcus
(Aelia) Verina, d. A.D. 484. A most remarkable woman, Verina married

Leo I (who was her senior by decades) before he became emperor in 457,
and thus she bore the title of Augusta from the outset of his reign. Though
her rise to fame and power was relatively smooth, her later years were
dangerous and eventful, as she ended her days as a perennial rebel against
her son-in-law, Zeno.
Although Verina was influential during her husband’s principate, she
had a greater effect on the affairs of state after he died in 474. First, she
oversaw his succession. The legal heir was her grandson, Leo II, who had
been raised first to the rank of Caesar, then to Augustus just before her
husband’s death. However, Leo II was merely a child, and a sickly one at
that. To prevent an inevitable crisis, she arranged for her son-in-law (the
boy’s father, Zeno) to be proclaimed co-emperor. The child Leo II soon
died, leaving Zeno as sole emperor in the East. Thus her task of managing
the succession was achieved.
But her son-in-law proved to be every bit as unpopular as was
expected. Verina regretted her choice for many reasons, not the least of
which being that she now was somewhat subordinate to her own daughter,
who had also become Augusta with the elevation of Zeno. So Verina plot
ted Zeno’s overthrow. Her ingenious solution was to inform Zeno that his
life was in jeopardy, and thus trick him into fleeing Constantinople.
Though her plan worked perfectly, her subsequent machination
quickly began to unravel. The senate hailed her brother, Basiliscus, as
emperor, whereas Verina had hoped the honor would go to her lover,
Patricius (the Master of Offices, not the Patricius who was Caesar from
470-471, the first husband of her youngest daughter). Very soon, Basiliscus
and his sister’s lover, Patricius, were at odds, and the latter was executed.
This enraged Verina, who then diverted her energies to ousting her
brother and restoring son-in-law Zeno, whom she had just overthrown.
Such actions put her in great danger with Basiliscus.
Historians differ in their views on what happened next. Some suggest
Verina was able to conceal her guilt from Zeno (and thus escape immedi
ate punishment), whereas others believe she was imprisoned upon his
return. The remainder of her life was equally tumultuous. She continued
to be one of Zeno’s most formidable enemies, constantly plotting against
him and threatening the stability of his regime. N ot surprisingly, she spent
much of her life as a prisoner in barren fortresses in Isauria.
Verina had three children with her husband, Leo I: a son who died
young in 463, and two daughters. The eldest daughter was Ariadne, the
wife of the future emperor Zeno. The younger daughter (for whom no
coins were struck) was Leontia, who twice was involved with men who
aspired to the throne. Her first betrothal was to Patricius, a son of the Mas
ter of Soldiers Aspar. This young man was raised to the rank of Caesar in
470 by Leo I, but apparently the marriage never occurred, especially after
his father was murdered in 471.
Leontia’s second association (which this time resulted in marriage)
was with Marcian, a young man who was named after his grandfather, the
6 o4 h is t o r y o f t h e r o m a n e m p ir e : b io g r a p h ie s
emperor of 450-457. In 479 this second Marcian joined forces with his
mother-in-law, Verina, in an effort to overthrow Zeno. However, the
revolt failed immediately, leading to the banishment of Verina and the
capture of Marcian. The most notable act of her later life (well beyond the
scope of this work) was staging the revolt of Leontius, which in the fall of
484 resulted in her own death later that year after she took refuge with
rebels at the fortress of Cherris in Isauria.
N u m ism a tic N o t e : Most of Aelia Verina’s coins were struck late in the
reign of her husband Leo I, though hoard evidence indicates that some
were struck earlier in Leo’s reign. It is also possible that some were struck
during the brief reigns of her brother Basiliscus, or of her grandson Leo II.
PATRICIUS
C a e s a r , a .d . 4 7 0 -4 7 1 ( u n d e r L e o I)
S o n o f A sp a r (M a s t e r o f S o l d ie r s )
H u s b a n d o f L e o n t ia ( d . o f L eo I)
S o n - i n - la w o f L e o I and A e l ia V e r in a
B r o t h e r - i n - la w o f A e l i a A r i a d n e
Patricius, d. after A.D. 47 1 . The elevation of Leo I in February 457 was

due largely to the patronage of Aspar, the Master of Soldiers in the East
who had served under the previous emperor, Marcian. But the debt of grat
itude that Leo owed Aspar did not take hold, for the new emperor went to
great lengths to free himself from the influence of his benefactor.
Leo targeted the German soldiers led by Aspar who held sway over his
court, and replaced them with equally fierce Isaurians, who were led by a
soldier who adopted the name Zeno and was destined to become emperor.
Since Leo I had no living son to succeed him, the claims of succession
would no doubt be determined by the marriages of his two daughters, A ri
adne and Leontia. The first to take advantage of this prospect was the Isau-
rian Zeno, who in 466 or 467 married Leo’s eldest daughter, Ariadne.
Later, in 470, Aspar strengthened his position while Zeno was away at
war, for he managed to convince Leo I to raise to the rank of Caesar his
eldest son Patricius (not to be confused with Patricius, the lover of Aelia
Verina). This enraged the Constantinopolitans, for Patricius was an Arian,
and consequently not suitable for the office. Aspar also requested that
Patricius be wed to Leo I’s younger daughter, Leontia, but it seems that the
emperor did not agree to this. None-the-less, by hailing Patricius Caesar,
Leo I made it clear that Aspar’s son was his successor.
Even with this development, Zeno had not given up hope, and his
rivalry with Aspar grew until in 471 Aspar tried to win over Zeno’s Isau-
rian soldiers. But this last bit of treachery was his undoing, for Zeno has
tened back from the Hunnic war to defend his interests. Historians seem to
agree that it was Leo I who ordered the ambush in which Aspar and his
youngest son perished. Even though Patricius survived the ambush, he was
seriously wounded and was subsequently deprived of both his title and his
prospect of a royal marriage. The murder of Aspar was not without conse
quence to the Romans, for an Ostrogothic chieftain named Theoderic
Strabo (“squint-eye” ) began to ravage parts of Thrace, and was only per
suaded to stop through bribery.
N u m ism a tic N o t e : N o coins were struck in the name of Patricius,

although a solidus in the name of Leo may portray him on the reverse. The
inscription SALVS REIPVBLICAE is followeckby a C, which many scholars
believe indicates that the young man on the reverse is a Caesar. The stand
ing figure is a young man, nimbate and wearing a diadem and crown, some
times on a low dias. Since the obverse bears the name Leo and the title
Augustus (D N LEO PERPET AVG), the issue must belong to Leo I or to his
grandson, Leo II. The identification of the issuer is paramount in deter
mining who is represented by the standing figure on the reverse.
If the coin was struck by Leo II (Caesar 473-474; Augustus in 474),
the figure would most certainly be Leo II himself, for it would have to have
been struck during his approximately two-week reign as sole Augustus.
The authors of RIC put forth this view, with the crux of their argument
being that the standing figure is diademed, and must be an Augustus (thus
making Patricius, a Caesar, an unlikely candidate).
To this end a comparison may be drawn with certain solidi struck by
Basiliscus while Marcus was his Caesar. The reverse depicts two figures
enthroned — the junior figure is bare-headed whereas the senior figure is
diademed (thus: Basiliscus Augustus and Marcus Caesar). As important as
the diadem is to this issue (on which two people are simultaneously
depicted), it alone is not strong enough to contradict the identification of
the standing figure as Patricius. The comparison with the solidus of Basilis
cus and Marcus, after all, need not be taken too literally, for that coinage
was itself highly unorthodox as a joint-issue.
If the solidus was struck by Leo I (as is proposed by the authors of the
Dumbarton Oaks catalogue, and as is followed in this catalogue), the figure
on the reverse must either be Leo I or his Caesar Patricius. Because the fig
ure is diademed, Leo I has been suggested, but the purposely youthful
appearance of the figure makes this highly unlikely. Considering the
reverse inscription ends with the otherwise inexplicable letter ‘C ’ (most
6 o6 H IS T O R Y O F T H E R O M A N EM PIRE: B IO G R A P H IE S
likely an abbreviation of ‘Caesar’), Patricius seems not only to be a likely

candidate, but the one to which the inscription refers.
LEO II A .D . 474
a . d . 4 7 3 - 4 7 4 : C a e s a r ( u n d e r L e o I)
a . d . 4 7 4 : J u n i o r A u g u s t u s ( w i t h L e o I)
a .d . 4 7 4 : S e n io r A u g u s t u s ( S o le r e ig n , a n d w ith Z e n o )
Ruling in the West:

Glycerius ( 4 7 3 - 4 7 4 ) a n d J u l i u s N e p o s ( 4 74 - 4 7 5 / 4 8 0 )
S o n o f Z en o a n d A e lia A r ia d n e
G r a n d s o n o f L e o I a n d A e lia V e r in a
N ep h ew o f L e o n t ia ( w . o f P a tr ic iu s )
Leo (II), A.D. 467 - 474 . One of the great concerns of the aging Leo I was
finding a successor, for his only son had died in 463 while only five months
old. He was determined to do this so that civil war would be prevented
after his death. He made his first serious attempt in 470, when he raised
the son of the German Master of Soldiers Aspar, a young man named Patr-
icius, to the rank of Caesar. However, with the murder of Aspar in 471, the
hopes of that family disintegrated.
Now the only viable successors belonged to the family of Zeno, an
Isaurian soldier who had become the most important man in Leo’s army,
and several years earlier had married his eldest daughter, Aelia Ariadne.
Together they had a son, also named Leo, who is known to historians as
Leo II. When Leo I’s health began to fail late in 473, he announced that
his grandson, Leo II, was to be his heir. Leo I bypassed the boy’s father, his
son-in-law Zeno, because it would have been met with great protestation.
The boy Leo II was hailed Caesar in October, 473. When Leo I’s
health failed more dramatically in January, 474, he raised his grandson
from Caesar to Augustus. His timing was right, for the aged emperor died a
few days later, either in late January or early February of 474. The throne
of the Eastern Empire now fell squarely into the hands of the 7-year-old
Leo II, who in addition to being young, was also quite sickly.
Aware of the frailty of the situation, the boy’s grandmother (Leo I’s
widow), Aelia Verina, arranged for her grandson to appoint his own father,
Zeno, as his co-emperor. This occurred on February 9, 474, and proved to
be prudent, for the Eastern Empire was now in the hands of both father
and son. The sickly Leo II died of natural causes (though it was rumored
Zeno had killed him) in November of the very same year, thus leaving his
father, Zeno, as sole emperor. Although only an emperor in name, the brief
reign of Leo II served as the conduit by which power was transferred from
Leo I to Zeno.
N u m ism a tic N o t e : N o coins were struck for Leo II as Caesar (from O cto
ber, 473 to January, 474), as the pieces often ascribed to this period actu
ally belong to the Leo Caesar associated with Zeno in the aftermath of the
revolt of Basiliscus (for these, see the listing for Leo Caesar, 476-477). It is
doubtful whether any coins were struck in the name of Leo II during his
very brief joint reign with Leo I and his subsequent sole reign (collectively,
from January to February 9, 474). Two possibilities, however, are a particu
lar tremissis with a youthful bust (see D.O., p. 172), or the solidus
described in the catalog entry for Patricius. Indeed, the coinage of Leo II
seems to have been struck exclusively during his joint-reign with Zeno
(from February 9 to November, 474). The numismatic evidence makes it
quite clear that even though Leo II was merely a child, he held the
“senior” position of Augustus as compared to his father Zeno. This is dem
onstrated by his name coming first in the obverse inscription, and by his
smaller figure appearing at the more honorable position (on the left from
the viewer’s perspective) when the seated figures of Leo II and Zeno are
shown on the reverse of those coins.
ZENO A .D * 474-475 & 476-491

a .d . 4 7 4 : J u n io r A u g u stu s (w it h L eo II)
a .d . 4 7 4 - 4 7 5 : F ir s t S o le R e ig n
a .d . 4 7 5-476: D e po sed
a .d . 476 -4 7 7 : A u g u stu s
(w it h L eo C a esa r , as C a esa r )
a .d . 477-4 9 1 : S econd S o le R e ig n
Ruling in the West:

Glycerius ( 4 7 3 - 4 7 4 ) , J u l i u s N e p o s ( 4 7 4 - 4 7 5 / 4 8 0 ) ,
Romulus Augustus ( 4 7 5 - 4 7 6 ) a n d Odovacar ( K i n g , 4 7 6 - 4 9 3 )
H u s b a n d o f A e l ia A r ia d n e
F a t h e r o f L e o II
S o n -in - la w o f L e o I a n d A e lia V e r in a
B r o th e r - in - la w o f L e o n tia (w . o f P a tr ic iu s)
Zeno (earlier Tarasis or Tarasicodissa), c. A.D. 440-491. Hailing from an

illustrious family in Isauria (south-eastern Asia Minor), the future emperor
Zeno came into the service of emperor Leo I, who was trying to rid his cap
ital of the German soldiers led by the Master of Soldiers Aspar.
6 o8 H IS T O R Y O F T H E R O M A N EM PIRE: B IO G R A P H IE S
In 466 Leo began to promote Zeno, who was then going by his birth
name Tarasis or Tarasicodissa. In 468 Leo arranged that he marry his eldest
daughter, Aelia Ariadne, appointed him Master of Soldiers in Thrace, and
made him consul in 469. For these important occasions, he divorced his
wife, Arcadia, and changed his name to Zeno in honor of an Isaurian who
had achieved high office in recent memory.
Over the next several years Zeno was in conflict with the general
Aspar, who managed to have his own son, Patricius, hailed Caesar while
Zeno was at war and away from Constantinople. A quick return by Zeno in
471 ended these threats, and resulted in the murder of Aspar and the dep
osition of Patricius. Shortly before emperor Leo I died in late January or
February of 474, he’d hailed Zeno’s son (his own grandson), Leo II, co
emperor, leaving no doubt who would succeed him. But the child was
sickly, and so the widowed Aelia Verina had her son-in-law Zeno hailed
co-emperor with her grandson Leo II on February 9, 474. Leo II died
within months, and Zeno became sole emperor in November 474.
But Verina soon came to regret her decision to appoint her son-in-law
emperor, and she hatched a plot to oust him. She did so by advising him
that he must flee Constantinople immediately to avoid the assassin’s blade.
Believing his mother-in-law spoke truthfully, Zeno fled on January 9, 475,
and crossed the Bosporus to Calchedon. Thus, his “first reign” was less
than two months long.
With Zeno out of the capital, Verina ordered the slaughter of the
Isaurians who remained in Constantinople. Even though the coup was a
success due to the treachery of Verina, she was not justly rewarded: she
wanted her lover Patricius to be crowned Augustus, but the men in power
chose instead her brother, Basiliscus, who soon executed Patricius. N ot
surprisingly, this act caused Verina to despise her brother, and to turn
against him. She then devoted herself to restoring Zeno, so that Basiliscus
would pay for his actions.
Basiliscus handled his affairs so incompetently that he required no
help to alienate the army, the Church and the people. After more than 19
months in exile, Zeno gained the allegiance of the generals Illus and
Armatus, and was able to easily reclaim his throne from Basiliscus late in
August of 476. Basiliscus and his family were exiled to Cappadocia and
starved to death. According to some accounts, Verina was able to mask her
guilt from Zeno, and was thus spared a similar fate because she had helped
in the overthrow of Basiliscus.
Zeno was now firmly in control of the Eastern Empire again, and so
he began to solve the myriad of problems he faced, not the least of which
was a recently emptied treasury. Another problem was a bargain he had
made with Armatus, the Master of Soldiers (and nephew) of Basiliscus
whom he convinced to switch allegiance. Among the promises he made to
Armatus to secure his change of heart was that he would be appointed to a

high office, and that his son (then named Basiliscus, though it was later
changed to Leo) would be promoted to the rank of Caesar. Armatus was
made a consul and given the post of Master of Soldiers of Thrace, and his
son was made Caesar in 476.
However, sometime in 477(the year the Vandal Gaiseric died), Zeno
decided he could endure no more of Armatus’ outrageous behavior, and so
he executed him and deposed his son. Another of Zeno’s immediate con
cerns was the western portion of the Empire, which had fallen into a state
of disrepair during his absence. The rightful emperor Julius Nepos had fled
Italy, which was now in the hands of the German soldier Odovacar. Zeno
could do little to restore Nepos, and was forced to abandon the Western
Roman Empire. Zeno ceded Italy to Odovacar, who assumed the title of
king. The remainder of Zeno’s reign — which extends beyond the scope of
this work — was turbulent and fraught with rebellion. After a disturbed
reign of 17 years, Zeno died of natural causes on April 9, 491, and was suc
ceeded by the first Byzantine emperor, Anastasius I.
N u m ism a tic N o t e : Coinage in the name of Zeno occured in several

periods. The first coinage is from his joint-reign with Leo II from February
9 to November, 474 (which is covered in the listings of Leo II). His next
coinage, belonging to Zeno’s brief ‘first reign’ (from November, 474 to
January 9, 475), is understandably rare. Since the diagnostics which
distinguish these coins from the second reign issues are not consistent or
entirely certain, they are not listed separately in this catalog. For discus
sions of the possible diagnostics, see RIC X, pages 111 and 215, and D.O.
pages 174-5. For catalog listings, see RIC X, nos. 901-3 and 3605-6, and
D.O. nos. 604-5.
During the next phase of Zeno’s life, when he was deposed (from Jan
uary 9, 475 to late August, 476), it appears as though some coinage was
struck in his name at Antioch. When Basiliscus was ousted and Zeno’s
regime was restored (‘second reign’), a new phase of coinage commenced.
Initially Zeno struck coinage jointly with Leo Caesar (from August, 476 to
sometime in 477), all of which are covered in the listings of Leo Caesar.
N ot surprisingly, it is the coinage from his ‘second reign’ following the
deposition of Leo Caesar (from 477 to 491) which accounts for the vast
majority of Zeno’s issues. A t Western mints, some of these coins were
struck concurrently with issues in the name of Julius Nepos, even though
the latter had been in exile in Dalmatia since 476. Naturally, such coins
are attributed to mint operations under Odovacar, and the issues in the
name of Zeno, thus, are often collected in place of the much rarer issues
which bear the western emperor’s name. Furthermore, there are imitations
of Zeno’s solidi and tremisses attributed to the Visigoths (see RIC X, p.
6 IO H IS T O R Y O F T H E R O M A N EM PIRE: B IO G R A P H IE S
462), and imitations of his nummi (Æ 4 ’s) bearing the monogram of the
western Master of Soldiers Gundobad on the reverse which are attributed
to the Burgundians (see, respectively, RIC X, p. 464, and the separate list
ing for Gundobad in this catalog).
Perhaps the most interesting issue in Zeno’s name, however, is the
rare copper 40-nummus piece (catalog nos. 3818-9), the denomination of
which is identified by the XL (=40) on the reverse. It comes in two variet
ies, each of which appear to have been struck with only one pair of dies. It
was struck at Rome for only a very brief time, apparently under Odovacar,
and seemingly under the auspices of the senate. Though traditionally
dated to the end of Zeno’s reign (so as to place it as close as possible to the
reform of Anastasius I in 498), it more likely belongs to c. 477. On one of
the varieties the numeral IIII occurs under Zeno’s bust. This could indicate
a regnal year rather than an officina, and if so, would lead us exactly to
477/8. This matches well with the historical context, for this was the
period in which Odovacar was appealing to Leo I to reign in both the East
and West; to which Leo I responded that Julius Nepos was still emperor in
the West. These events could easily explain both why the issue was initi
ated, and why it ceased so quickly.
It clearly was a revival coinage, celebrating the glories of the Roman
past. It has a large planchet, individualized portrait, grandiose inscription,
an acknowledgement of the senate, and it copies a Flavian reverse type.
Undoubtedly it was inspired by a heavily worn asses of Vespasian which
had been “recycled” for circulation (see the discussion in the Introduction)
in the late 5th and early 6 th centuries A.D.
AELIA ARIADNE
A u g u s t a , a . d . 4 7 4 ( 7 ) —5 1 5
W if e o f Z e n o a n d A n a s t a s iu s I
( E m p e r o r , a .d . 4 9 1 - 5 1 8 )
D a u g h t e r o f L eo Iand A e l ia V e r in a
S i s t e r o f L e o n t i a ( w . o f Pa t r i c i u s )
M o t h e r o f L e o II
N ie c e o f B a s i l i s c u s
C o u s in o f M a r c u s
(Aelia) Ariadne, d. A .D . 515 . A royal lady who was destined to survive

nearly six decades as a member of the Imperial family in Constantinople,
Aelia Ariadne was the elder daughter of the emperor Leo I and the ever-
scheming Aelia Verina. Her first marriage, in 466 or 467, was to the Isau-
rian soldier Zeno, by whom she had a son named Leo (called Leo II by his
torians) in 467.
T H E E A S T E R N R O M A N EM PIRE 6 11
When her father died in 474 the succession fell upon her child Leo II,
who was so sickly that his father was proclaimed co-emperor. When the
boy died later that same year, her husband, Zeno, became sole-emperor in
the East. Throughout all this, Ariadne was hailed Augusta. It is uncertain
exactly at which stage this occurred, but it certainly was sometime in 4 7 4 .
In receiving this title, Ariadne had eclipsed the authority of her mother,
Verina, who had become accustomed to being the only Augusta in the pal
ace. Thus, Verina’s tenure as Augusta began with her being tricked by her
own mother into fleeing Constantinople less than two months into her
husband’s reign.
When Zeno’s reign was restored in the following year (476), she
returned with him and replaced her mother as the matriarch of the palace.
Regrettably, very little is recorded of her actions thereafter, though they
must have been interesting, for her husband’s reign was ever-in-jeopardy.
Even though her mother had wronged her, Ariadne fought for her release
from exile. Indeed, at one point she plotted against the general Illus
because he would not permit her return. In this case Illus came out on the
losing end, for he lost one of his ears in the process.
When Zeno died in 491 it fell upon Ariadne and leaders in the army
to choose his successor. They decided upon Anastasius I (emperor 491-
518), a man of considerable talent who not only became emperor, but on
May 20, 491, also became Ariadne’s second husband. Thus Ariadne had
the distinct honor of being both the last empress of the “Roman Empire”
and the first empress of the “Byzantine Empire.” But since these are dis
tinctions made only in the modern age, Verina, who died in 515, was none
the wiser.
N u m ism a tic N o t e : Aelia Ariadne’s solidi are somewhat unusual for they
do not have the customary M anus Dei (hand of God) crowning her from
above. This aspect had invited suspicion about the authenticity of all A ri
adne’s solidi, but the inclusion of one in a Scandanavian find has remedied
such doubts. Though the authors of the Dumbarton Oaks catalog place her
coins during the first sole reign of Zeno (474-475), the authors of RIC
argue this is unlikely based on the style of the Victory and the absence of
the M anus Dei, which was still present on the solidi of Aelia Zenonis.
Instead, Ariadne’s solidi more likely belong to the second sole reign of
Zeno (477-491), with some possibly being struck by her second husband,
Anastasius I (491-518). The explanation for the latter may be found in
their being two distinct groups of her solidi and tremisses, one with a
heavy bust, the other with a slight bust.
6 l2 H IS T O R Y O F T H E R O M A N EM PIRE: B IO G R A P H IE S
BASILISCUS A.D. 475-476

a .d . 4 7 5 : S o l e r e ig n
a .d . 4 7 5 : A u g u s t u s
(w ith M a r c u s , a s C a e s a r )
a .d . 475- 4 7 6 : S e n i o r A u g u s t u s
(w ith M a r c u s )
Ruling in the West:

J u l i u s N e p o s ( 474 - 47 5 / 4 8 0 ) a n d Romulus
Augustus ( 4 7 5 - 4 7 6 )
B r o t h e r o f A e l ia V e r in a
H u s b a n d o f A e l ia Z e n o n is
Fa t h e r o f M a r c u s
B r o t h e r - i n - la w o f L e o I
U n c le o f A e lia A r ia d n e a n d L e o n tia (w . o f P a tr ic iu s )
Basiliscus, d. A.D. 477. Although the succession of Zeno through his son,
Leo II, was legitimate, the new emperor was unpopular. Furthermore,
Zeno’s mother-in-law, Aelia Verina (who had arranged his succession),
wanted to be rid of him. The unpopularity of Zeno made a revolt immi
nent, and it was engineered by Verina, who tricked Zeno into fleeing C on
stantinople on January 9, 475.
Though her scheme worked perfectly, her follow-up plan failed. The
senate did not approve of her substitute candidate, her lover Patricius (not
the same Patricius as was Caesar from 470-471), and her brother, Basilis
cus, took advantage of the chaos to claim the throne for himself. Basiliscus
and Patricius soon quarreled, and the latter was executed. Considering his
sister had perhaps single-handedly created Basiliscus’ career, and then sup
ported him in the aftermath of his monumental loss of the Roman armada
in 468, his selfish actions would appear unjustified.
This whole turn of events deeply angered Verina, who turned her fury
against her brother. This was the last thing Basiliscus needed, for he was
scarcely more popular than the emperor he had replaced. Adding to his
woes was a terribly destructive fire in Constantinople that, among many
other buildings, destroyed important repositories for manuscripts and
ancient Greek sculptures. He managed to alienate the religious establish
ment by coming out in support of the Monophysites, who were very much
out of favor in their belief that Christ had only a single nature. And, as if
all this weren’t enough, through some foolish decisions Basiliscus alienated
his two leading generals, the Ostrogothic Master of Soldiers Theoderic
Stabo, and the Isaurian Illus.
Amid all this, Aelia Verina began to lobby for Zeno’s return, and as a
result was forced into hiding to avoid the wrath of her brother. In due
course Basiliscus associated his wife and son with his regime. His wife,
Aelia Zenonis, was presumably hailed Augusta upon his takeover in Janu
ary, 475. His son, Marcus, was given the rank Caesar late in the summer of
475, and apparently within weeks was raised to the rank of co-Augustus
(from late summer 475 to August 476). Having alienated his leading gen
erals, his sister, the religious hierarchy (who, when the tide turned against
him, he tried to lure back by making a retraction to his earlier comments),
Basiliscus was without allies.
Zeno gained the allegiance of both Illus and Armatus and marched
into Constantinople unopposed late in August 476. Thus ended Basiliscus’
20-month usurpation. As a consequence, Basiliscus, his son, Marcus, and
the rest of his family were exiled to Cappadocia, where they were cruelly
starved to death in the following year. When their surrender had been
negotiated, Zeno had promised not to “shed their blood,” and so he deter
mined that through a bloodless death by starvation he could both keep his
promise and kill them.
N u m ism a tic N o t e : Basiliscus’ coins were struck at mints under his control
in the East, as well as at Italian mints during the usurpation of Romulus
Augustus. His issues fall into three categories: his sole reign (January to
late summer 475), his reign with Marcus as Caesar (late summer!?] 475),
and his reign with Marcus as co-Augustus (late summer 475 to August
476). Issues of the latter two are cataloged under the listings for Marcus.
AELIA ZENONIS
A u g u s t a , a .d . 4 7 5 - 4 7 6
W if e o f B a s il is c u s
S i s t e r - i n - la w o f L e o I a n d A e l i a V e r i n a
M o th er of M a rcus
(Aelia) Zenonis, d. A.D. 477. Aelia Zenonis was

the unfortunate bride of Basiliscus — a man who
knew nothing but dishonor in the later years of his life. She apparently was
hailed Augusta in January, 475 during the first days of her husband’s revolt
against Zeno.
The story of Zenonis is an interesting one, for during the revolt we are
told that she fell in love with her husband’s nephew, Armatus. Their suf
fering, as one contemporary historian reports, “was finally cured by the
medicine of copulation.” Wishing only success for her handsome young
lover, Zenonis persuaded her husband to appoint him to the high offices of
consul and Master of Soldiers of Thrace, which infuriated the other Master
of Soldiers, the Ostrogoth Theoderic Strabo (“squint-eye”).
By all contemporary accounts, Armatus was a megalomaniac who
paraded in the streets on horseback, claimed to be descended from the
Greek hero Achilles, and had earned the derogatory name Pyrrhus (“pink
cheeks”) from the populace. When Basiliscus sent Armatus to hunt down
Zeno (who was in exile in Isauria), the latter’s generous promises caused
Armatus to switch his allegiance. Upon regaining his throne, Zeno ini-
tially kept his promises to Armatus, but soon realized his mistake and had
him executed. As for Armatus’ adulterous lover, Aelia Zenonis, she had
already been exiled to Cappadocia where she starved to death with her
husband and sons.
N u m ism a t ic N o t e : All of Aelia Zenonis’ coins — seemingly limited to

gold solidi and copper nummi — are of great rarity, and were struck by her
husband, Basiliscus.
MARCUS A.D. 475-476

a .d . 4 7 5 : C a e s a r ( u n d e r B a s ilis c u s )
a .d . 475- 4 7 6 : J u n i o r A u g u s t u s (w it h B a s ili s c u s )
Ruling in the West:

J u l i u s N e p o s ( 4 7 4 - 4 7 5 /4 8 0 ) a n d Romulus Augustus ( 4 7 5 - 4 7 6 )
S o n o f B a s il is c u s a n d A e l ia Z e n o n is
N e p h e w o f L eo I a n d A e l ia V e r in a
C o u s i n o f A e l i a A r i a d n e a n d L e o n t i a ( w . o f Pa t r i c i u s )
M arcus, d. A.D. 477 . O f Marcus we know very little. He was the eldest son
of the usurper Basiliscus, and he had two younger brothers, whose names
are not recorded, and who are sometimes mistakenly associated with the
coinage that is properly attributed to Leo Caesar, who served under the
emperor Zeno.
His father’s revolt began opportunistically, for the original rebellion
had been staged by his sister, Aelia Verina. But once this had occurred,
Basiliscus seized the opportunity to become emperor, even though it was at
the expense of his sister’s desire to place her own candidate on the throne.
N ot only did Basiliscus have the exiled emperor Zeno as an enemy, but he
also could count his enraged sister as a foe. Further still, Basiliscus was
unpopular among the religious leadership, the people and the army. It
seems a miracle his regime ever got off the ground.
One of his first steps was to hail his wife, Aelia Zenonis, as Augusta.
Late in the summer of that same year, 475, Basiliscus raised his son, Mar-
eus, to the rank of Caesar. This arrangement seems to have lasted for only
a few weeks before the young man was raised to Augustus. Within days of
Basiliscus taking this step, Julius Nepos had taken flight in the West. Mar
cus held the rank of Augustus with his father into the next year, until they
were deposed by Zeno late in August, 476. Along with the rest of his fam
ily, Marcus was exiled to Cappadocia, where he was starved to death in the
following year.
N u m ism a t ic N o t e : Just as with the succeeding issues of Zeno and Leo

Caesar, it was a highly unusual practice that joint-issue coins were struck.
Typically, coins devoted to the Augustus and to the Caesar were struck
separately. Coins were struck for Marcus both while he was Caesar in 475
and while he was Augustus from the late summer of 475 until August, 476.
In the former case, the coins are solidi with C at the end of the obverse
inscription (which draw a parallel, perhaps, to the solidi attributed in this
volume to Patricius), and in the latter, the inscription ends with AVG. All
gold for Marcus was struck at Constantinople, though the Æ 4 ’s that bear
his combined monogram with Basiliscus were struck at three mints at the
very least.
LEO CAESAR
C a e s a r , a .d . 4 7 6 -4 7 7 ( u n d e r Z e n o )
A do pted C a esa r of Zeno

S o n o f A r m a t u s (nephew o f t h e u s u r p e r B a s i l i s c u s )
Leo (formerly Basiliscus), d. A.D* 4 7 7 ( 7). The fugitive emperor Zeno

made many promises while raising the support necessary to regain his
throne. Among these were two he made to gain the allegiance of Armatus,
the Master of Soldiers and the nephew of the usurper Basiliscus. The first
was that Armatus himself would be appointed to a high office, and the sec
ond was that his son (then named Basiliscus) would be raised to the rank
of Caesar.
When the usurper Basiliscus was overthrown in August of 476, Zeno
re-established himself as emperor in Constantinople. Zeno honored his
promises to Armatus and his son, but soon realized his error and sometime
in 477 executed his fair-weather friend, and deposed his son, the Nobilissi-
mus Caesar (“most noble Caesar”). The execution, however, occurred sev
eral months after Armatus’ son had been hailed Caesar. Since the child’s
original name, Basiliscus, was the same as the recently deposed usurper, it
was necessary to change it. Thus, the child’s name was changed to Leo,
6 i6 H IS T O R Y O F T H E R O M A N EM PIRE: B IO G R A P H IE S
and it appears in that form on the rare coins attributed to his brief political
career. There is no literary evidence to suggest the boy, Basiliscus, changed
his name to Leo, but in this case the numismatic record seems to offer
what the written histories do not.
N u m ism a tic N o t e : Just as with the virtually contemporary issues of

Basiliscus and Marcus, it was uncommon that joint-issue coins were struck.
In this and many other references, this particular Leo is given the added
name Nobilissimus Caesar to readily distinguish him from the two previous
emperors of that name.
These issues have long been controversial, and though several
options for their attribution exist, only two have merit. The first is that
Zeno and Leo are the two younger sons of the usurper Basiliscus (whose
names, regrettably, are not preserved in the ancient sources). Though
plausible, the evidence against this theory far outweighs any argument for
it. The second option (first postulated in 1822 by the French numismatist
Baron Marchant) is convincingly argued by the authors of the Dumbarton
Oaks catalog, and is thus adopted here.
O f great interest to this series, and to the theory itself, is the identifi
cation of a die of Basiliscus and Marcus that mint workers re-cut with the
inscription of Zeno and Leo Caesar. If Basiliscus had been producing coins
for his two youngest sons, it seems unlikely that he would have re-cut one
of his own functional dies rather than create a fresh one. Conversely, it is
probable that Zeno would have re-cut and recycled dies of Basiliscus upon
his return.
There are other compelling argument as well. Firstly, if both Zeno
and Leo were Caesars, it would be unprecedented for the era that there
would be no mention of Basiliscus on the coinage, for he was the reigning
Augustus. Secondly, there is ample literary evidence of Basiliscus’ son Mar
cus’ being hailed Caesar, yet there is no mention of his two younger broth
ers holding that title. Finally, and most potently, the D N and the CAES in
the obverse inscriptions refer to a single Augustus and a single Caesar, not
to two Caesars.
B ib l io g r a p h y
This bibliography principally contains works on Roman history and coin

age, though certain important references from related fields are included.
When a reference is more readily located by its name or abbreviation than
by the name of its author, it is listed in that manner.
The following list is far from comprehensive, and the reader should consult
Dennis Kroh’s Ancient Coin Reference Reviews (Florida, 1993) for evalua
tions of major works, and Elvira Clain-Stefanelli s Numismatic Bibliography
(Munich, 1985) for a comprehensive listing of numismatic works pub
lished up through 1985.
Alföldi, Andreas. A Festival of Isis in Rome Under the Christian Emperors of

the lVth Century (Budapest and Leipzig, 1937).
— . Die constantinische Goldprägung. Untersuchung zu ihrer Bedeutung für
Kaiserpolitik und Hofkunst (Mainz, 1963).
— , and Elisabeth Alföldi and Curtis Clay. Die Kontorniat Medallions (2
vols., Berlin, 1976).
Amandry, Michel. Le Monnayage des Duovirs Corinthiens (Paris, 1988).
(Arras) Le Tresor de Beaurains, dit d’Arras, by Pierre Bastien and Catherine
Metzger (Wetteren, 1977).
(Ashmolean) Coins of the Roman Empire in the Ashmolean Museum, by
Colin M. Kraay and C.H.V. Sutherland (vol. 1, 1975).
(von Aulock) Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum: The Collection Hans von
Aulock (18 vols., Berlin, 1957-86; 4-vol. reprint, 1987 with a separate
index volume).
von Bahrfeldt, M. Die römische Goldmünzprägung wahrend der Republik und
unter Augustus (Halle, 1923).
Baldus, H.R. Uranius Antoninus, Münzprägung und Geschichte (Bonn,
1971).
Banti, A. and L. Simonetti. Corpus Nummorum Romanorum (18 vols., Flo
rence, 1972+).
Bastien, Pierre. Le monnayage de bronze de Postume (Wetteren, 1967).
— . Le monnayage de Vatelier de Lyon, de la réouverture de l’atelier par
Amelien à la mort de Carin (fin 274-285) (Wetteren, 1976).
— . Le monnayage de ï atelier de Lyon, Dioclétien et ses corégents avant la
réforme monétaire, 285-294 (Wetteren, 1972).
— . Le monnayage de Vatelier de Lyon, De la réforme de Dioclétien à la ferme
ture temporaire de Vatelier en 316 (294-316) (Wetteren, 1980).
617
6 l8 B IB L IO G R A P H Y
— . Le Monnayage de Magnence (350-353) (2nd ed., Wetteren, 1983).

(Becker) Becker the Counterfeiter, by George F. Hill (two parts, London,
1924-5; reprints).
Bellinger, A. The Syrian Tetradrachms of Caracalla and Macrinus (New
York, 1940).
Berk, Harlan. Roman Gold Coins of the Medieval World, 383-1453 A .D .
(Chicago, 1986).
(BM C) Catalogue of the Greek Coins in the British Museum, various authors.
(29 vols, London, 18734927).
(BM CRE) Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum by Harold M at
tingly, et. al. (6 vols., London, 1923-1975).
(BM CRR) Coins of the Roman Republic in the British Museum, by H.A.
Grueber (3 vols., London, 1910).
Brauer Jr., George C. The Decadent Emperors: Power and Depravity in
Third-Century Rome (New York, 1995, reprint of 1967 original entitled
The Young Emperors: Rome, A .D . 193-244).
Broughton, T.R.S. The Magistrates of the Roman Republic (2 vols., New
York, 1951-2; supplement, New York, 1960).
Brown, Peter. The World of late Antiquity, A .D . 150-750 (London, 1971).
Brunn, Patrick. Studies in Constantinian Chronology (A N S N NM 146, New
York, 1961).
Burnett, Andrew. Coinage in the Roman World (London, 1987).
Bums, Thomas S. Barbarians Within the Gates of Rome: A Study of Roman
Military Policy and the Barbarians, ca. 375-425 A .D . (Indiana, 1994).
Butcher, Kevin. Roman Provincial Coins: An Introduction to the Greek Impe
rials (London, 1988).
Buttrey Jr., Theodore V. The Triumviral Portrait Gold of the Quattuorviri
Monetales of 42 B .C . (A N S NNM 137, New York, 1956).
Caesar, Julius. The Battle for Gaul. Anne and Peter Wiseman, trans. (Bos
ton, 1980).
Carradice, Ian. Coinage and Finances in the Reign of Domitian, A .D . 81-96
(Oxford, 1978).
Carson, R .A.G . Principal Coins of the Romans (3 vols., London, 1978-81).
— . Coins of the Roman Empire (London, 1989).
Christiansen, E. Coins of Alexandria and the Nomes (London, 1991).
Clarke, M.L. The Noblest Roman: Marcus Brutus and His Reputation (Lon
don, 1981).
Cohen, H. Description historique des monnaies frappées sous l’empire roman (8
vols., 2nd ed., Paris, 1880-1892).
(Copehagen) Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum: The Danish National
Museum, Copenhagen (43 vols., 1942+; 8 -vol. reprint, 1982+).
Cornell, T. and J. Matthews. Atlas of the Roman World (New York, 1982).
B IB L IO G R A P H Y 6 lÇ
Crawford, Michael H. Coinage and Money Under the Roman Republic: Italy
and the Mediterranean Economy (Berkley and Los Angeles, 1985).
— . Roman Republican Coinage (2 vols., Cambridge, 1974).
(Cunetio) The Cunetio Treasure, Roman Coinage of the Third Century
A .D ., by Ed Besley and Roger Bland (London, 1983).
Curtis, Col. J. The Tetradrachms of Roman Egypt (Chicago, 1957).
Dattari, G. Numi Augg. Alexandrini (Cairo, 1901).
Depeyrot, Georges. Les Monnaies d’Or de Diocletien A Constantin I (284-
337) (Wetteren, 1995).
(Dumbarton Oaks) Catalog of Late Roman Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks
Collection and in the Whittemore Collection, by Philip Grierson and
Melinda Mays (Washington D.C., 1992).
Foss, Clive. Roman Historical Coins (London, 1990).
Frolova, N .A . The Coinage of the Kingdom of the Bosporus (Oxford, 1979).
(Geneva) “The Geneva Forgeries,” by R .A.G . Carson (1958 Numismatic
Chronicle, pp. 47-58).
Geissen, A. Katalog Alexandrinischer Kaisermünzen, Köln (5 vols, Cologne,
1974-83).
(Getty) Ancient Portraits in the J. Paul Getty Museum, Volume I (Malibu,
1987).
Giacosa, G. Women of the Caesars. Their Lives and Portraits on Coins
(Milan, 1977).
Gibbon, Edward. The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (originally pub
lished beginning in 1776; numerous reprints).
Gnecchi, F. I medaglioni romani (3 vols., Milan, 1912).
Gobi, R. Die Münzprägung des kaisers Aurelianus (Vienna, 1993).
— . Regalianus und Dryantilla. Dokumentation, Münzen, Texte, Epigraphis
ches (Vienna, 1970).
Gordon, C.D. The Age of Attila (New York, 1993, reprint of 1960).
Grant, Michael. Aspects of the Principate Tiberius (A N S N NM 116, New
York, 1950).
— . Art in the Roman Empire (London and New York, 1995).
— . From Imperium to Auctoritas, a Historical Study of the AES Coinage in the
Roman Empire, 49 B .C .-A .D . 14 (Cambridge, 1946).
— . History of Rome (New York, 1978).
— . Roman Anniversary Issues: An exploratory study of the numismatic and
medallic commemoration of anniversary years 49 B .C .-A .D . 375 (Cam
bridge, 1950).
— . Roman Imperial Money (London, Edinburgh and New York, 1954).
— . The Antonines: The Roman Empire in Transition (New York and Lon
don, 1994).
— . The Army of the Caesars (New York, 1974).
020 B IB L IO G R A P H Y
— . The Emperor Constantine (London, 1993).

— . The Fall of the Roman Empire (Revised ed., New York, 1990).
— . The Roman Emperors (New York, 1985).
— . The Six Main AES Coinages of Augustus (Edinburgh, 1953).
Green, Peter. Alexander to Actium: The Historical Evolution of the Hellenis
tic Age (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1990).
Hahn, W. Moneta Imperii Romani/By zantini: Die Ostprägung des Römischen
Reiches im 5 Jahrhundert (Vienna, 1989).
Harl, Kenneth W. Coinage in the Roman Economy, 300 B .C . to A .D . 700
(Baltimore and London, 1996).
— . Civic Coins and Civic Politics in the Roman East, A .D . 180-275 (Berkley
and Los Angeles, 1987).
Harlan, Michael. Roman Republican Moneyers and Their Coinage, 63 B .C .-
49 B .C . (London, 1995).
Head, Barclay V. Historia Numorum (2nd ed., London, 1911).
Hendin, David. Guide to Biblical Coins (3rd ed., New York, 1996).
Hewitt, K.V. “The Coinage of L. Clodius Macer (A.D. 68)” (1983 Numis
matic Chronicle, pp. 64-80).
Hill, Philip V. The Coinage ofSeptimius Severus and his Family of the Mint of
Rome, A .D . 193-217 (London, 1977).
— . The Dating and Arrangement of the Undated Coins of Rome, A .D . 98-148
(London, 1970).
— . The Monuments of Ancient Rome as Coin Types (London, 1989).
Howgego, C.J. Greek Imperial Countermarks (London, 1985).
(Hunter) Roman Imperial Coins in the Hunter Coin Cabinet. University of
Glasgow (5 vols., by Anne Robertson, Oxford, 1962-82).
Imhoof-Blumer, F. and P. Gardner. Ancient Coins Illustrating Lost Master
pieces of Greek Art (reprint: Chicago, 1964).
Kadman, Leo. The Coins of Akko Ptolemais (Schocken, 1961).
— . The Coins of Caesarea Maritima (Jerusalem, 1957).
— . The Coins of the Jewish War, 66-73 A .D . (Jerusalem, 1960).
von Kaenel, Hans-Markus. Münzprägung und Münzbildnis des Claudius
(Berlin, 1986).
Kent, J.P.C., M. Hirmer and A. Hirmer. Roman Coins (London, 1978).
Kindler, A. The Coinage ofBostra (Warminster, 1983).
Klawans, Zander H. Imitations and Inventions of Roman Coins: Renaissance
Medals of Julius Caesar and the Roman Empire (Santa Monica, 1977).
— . Reading and Dating Roman Imperial Coins (1959, Racine, WI).
Kraay, C. M. The A es Coinage of Galba (A N S N NM 133, New York,
1956).
Kraft, Konrad. Das system der Kaiserzeitliche münzprägung in Kleinasien,
materialien und Entwürfe (Berlin, 1972).
B IB L IO G R A P H Y 621
Lacam, G. La Fin de L ’Empire Romain et Le Monnayage or en Italie, 455-493

(2 vols., Lucerne, 1983).
(Levante) Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum Switzerland I: Levante-Cilicia
(with Supplement I), by Eduardo Levante (Berne, 1986; supplement,
1993).
Lindgren, H.C. Ancient Greek Bronze Coins: European Mints (California,
1989).
— and Frank Ko vacs. Ancient Bronze Coins of Asia Minor and the Levant
from the Lindgren Collection (California, 1985).
(LRBC) Late Roman Bronze Coinage, A .D . 324-498 by R.A .G . Carson,
Philip Hill and J.P.C. Kent (reprint: London, 1965).
MacDowall, David W. The Western Coinages of Nero (A N S N N M 161,
New York, 1979).
Martin, Peter-Hugo. Die anonymen Münzen des Jahres 68 nach Christus
(Mainz, 1974).
Mattingly, Harold. Roman Coins From the Earliest Times to the Fall of the
Western Empire (London, 1928).
Mazzini, G. M onete imperiale romane (5 vols., Milan, 1957-8).
(M EC) Medieval European Coinage, Volume I, The Early Middle Ages (5th-
10th centuries), by Philip Grierson and Mark Blackburn (Cambridge,
1986).
Melville-Jones, John. A Dictionary of Ancient Roman Coins (London,
1990).
Meshorer, Ya’akov. Ancient Jewish Coinage (2 vols., New York, 1982).
— . The Coinage of Aelia Capitolina (Jerusalem, 1989).
Metcalf, William E. The Cistophori of Hadrian (A N S N S 15, New York,
1980).
— . The Silver Coinage of Cappadocia, Vespasian-Commodus (A N S N NM
166, New York, 1996).
Mildenberg, Leo. The Coinage of the Bar Kokhba War (Salzburg, 1984).
Millar, Fergus. The Roman Near East, 31 B .C .-A .D . 337(Cambridge and
London, 1993).
Milne, J.G . Catalogue of Alexandrian Coins (London, 1971; reprint of 1933
with supplement).
Mionnet, Théodore-Edme. Description des médailles antiques, greques et
romaines (7 vols., 9 supp, vols., 1806-37; 16-vol. Graz reprint 1972-3).
Oxford Classical Dictionary, The. Hornblower, S. and Spawforth, A., eds.
(3rd ed., Oxford, 1996).
Oost, Stewart Irvin. Galla Placidia Augusta: A Biographical Essay (Chicago,
1968).
Paulys Real. Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft (multi-vol
ume, Stuttgart, 1894 onward)
Ó 22 B IB L IO G R A P H Y
Penn, R.G. Medicine on Ancient Greek and Roman Coins (London, 1994).
Price, Martin J. and Bluma Trell. Coins and Their Cities (London, 1977).
(RIC) The Roman Imperial Coinage, various authors. (10 vols., 1923-1994,
with reprints).
Richter, G.M .A. The Portraits of the Greeks (Ithica, 1984).
Ridgeway, W. The Origin of Metallic Currency and Weight Standards (New
York, 1976; reprint of 1892).
Rosenberger, M. The Rosenberger Israel Collection (4 vols., Jerusalem,
1972-4).
(RPC) Roman Provincial Coinage, Volume I (with Supplement I), by
Andrew Burnett, Michel Amandry and Pere Pau Ripollès. (London and
Paris, 1992; reprinted 1998 with a supplement).
(R SC ) Roman Silver Coins, various authors. (5 vols., 1952-1987 with
reprints).
Sayles, Wayne G. Ancient Coin Collecting, (vols. 1,3 and 4, Iola, WI, 1996).
Scarre, Chris. Chronicle of the Roman Emperors (New York, 1995).
Schiel, N. The Episode of Carausius and Allectus : the literary and numismatic
evidence (Oxford, 1977).
Sear, David R. Greek Imperial Coins and Their Values: The Local Coinages of
the Roman Empire (London, 1982).
— . The History and Coinage of the Roman Imperators, 49-27 B .C . (London,
1998).
— . Roman Coins and Their Values (4th revised ed., London, 1988).
Seyffert, Oskar. The Dictionary of Classical Mythology, Religion, Literature
and Art (New York, 1995, reprint of 1891 original entitled The Dictio
nary of Classical Antiquities).
Spaulding, O.L. and H. Nickerson. Ancient and Medieval Warfare (New
York, 1993; originally entitled Warfare).
Spijkerman, A. The Coins of the Decapolis and Provinda Arabia (Jerusalem,
1978).
Stevenson, Seth W. A Dictionary of Roman Coins: Republican and Imperial
(London, 1964; reprint of 1889 original).
Stoneman, Richard. Palmyra and Its Empire: Zenobia’s Revolt Against Rome
(Ann Arbor, 1994).
Stumpf, Gerd R. Numismatische Studien zur chronologie der Römischen Stat
thalter in Kleinasien (122v. Chr.-163 n.Chr.) (Saarbrücken, 1991).
Sutherland, C. H. V. Coinage in Roman Imperial Policy, 31 B .C .-A .D . 68
(London, 1951).
— . Roman Coins (London and New York, 1974).
— . Roman History and Coinage 44 B .C .-A .D . 69, Fifty Points of Relation
from Julius Caesar to Vespasian (Oxford, 1987).
— and N. Olçay and K.E. Merrington. The Cistophori of Augustus (London,
1970).
B IB L IO G R A P H Y 623
Sydenham, E. A. The Coinage of Caesarea in Cappadocia (New York, 1978;

reprint of 1933 with supp.).
— . The Coinage of the Roman Republic (London, 1952).
— . Historical references on coins of the Roman Empire from Augustus to Gal -
lienus (London, 1917).
Syme, R. The Roman Revolution (Oxford, 1939).
Szaivert, W. Die Münzprägung der Kaiser Marcus Aurelius, Lucius Verus und
Commodus (Vienna, 1986).
Tonybee, Jocelyn M. C. Roman Historical Portraits (London, 1978).
— . Roman Medallions (A N S N S no. 5, New York, 1944).
(Traité) Traité des monnaies grecques et romaines, by Ernst Babelon. (9
vols., Paris, 1901-32).
Troxell, Hyla A. The Coinage of the Lycian League (A N S N N M 162, New
York, 1982).
Ulrich-Bansa, Oscar, Jr. Moneta Mediolanensis (352-498) (Venice, 1949).
Voegtli, Hans. Bilder der Heldenpenen in der Kaiserzeitlichen Griechischen
münzprägung ( Basel, 1977).
Walker, D.R. Metrology of the Roman Silver Coinage (3 parts, Oxford, 1976-
8 ).
Who Was Who in the Roman World. Bowder, Diana, ed. (Ithica, NY, 1980).
Wruck, W. Die Syrische Provinzialprägung von Augustus bis Traian (Stut
tgart, 1931).
Other Sources:
Among the most important sources are festschrifts, which are collections of
essays, usually in honor of a scholar. Examples include: Scripta Nummaria
Romana: Essays Presented to Humphrey Sutherland (London, 1978), Essays
in Roman Coinage Presented to Harold Mattingly (Oxford, 1956), Studies in
Greek Numismatics in Memory of Martin Jessop Price (London, 1998).
Equally useful are journals, of which a great many exist, ranging from those
intended mainly for the collector (such as the monthly magazine The
Celator) to those containing scholarly articles (such as the Numismatic
Chronicle, the Swiss Numismatic Review, the American Numismatic Society
Museum Notes (continued as the American Journal of Numismatics), and
others which offer both (such as the Journal of the Society of Ancient
Numismatics).
In d e x o f P e o p l e a n d S e c t io n s
( in a l p h a b e t ic a l o r d e r )
(V o lu m e I a n d V o lu m e II)
Aelius (Caesar, A.D. 136-138) [I] 236, [II] 353

Aemilian (Augustus, A.D. 253) [I] 342, [II] 435
Agrippa (lieutenant of Augustus) [I] 107, [II] 233
Agrippa Postumus (grandson of Augustus) [I] 111, [II] 236
Agrippina Junior (wife of Claudius, mother of Nero) [I] 161, [II] 274
Agrippina Senior (wife of Germanicus) [I] 138, [II] 257
Ahenobarbus (Imperator, 42 B.C.) [I] 66, [II] 202
Alexander of Carthage (Augustus, A.D. 308-310) [I] 455, [II] 521
Allectus (Augustus, A.D. 293-296/7) [I] 407, [II] 483
Alypia (daughter of Anthemius and A elia Euphemia) [I] 573, [II] 600
Amandus (Augustus, c. A.D. 285-286) [I] 428, [II] 497
Anonymous Quadrantes (see Quadrantes, Anonymous)
Anthemius (Augustus, A.D. 467-472) [I] 570, [II] 598
Antinoüs (companion of Hadrian) [I] 237, [II] 354
A ntonia (wife of Nero Claudius Drusus) [I] 134, [II] 252
Antonia, Claudia (daughter of Claudius) [I] 156, [II] 270
Antoninus (see ‘Caracalla’ and ‘Elagabalus’)
Antoninus, Aurelius (son of Marcus Aurelius and Faustina Junior) [I] 246,
[II] 368
Antoninus, Galerius (son of Antoninus Pius and Faustina Senior) [I] 241,
[II] 362
Antoninus Pius (Augustus, A.D. 138-161) [I] 238, [II] 355
Antonius, Gaius (brother of Marc Antony) [I] 79, [II] 211
Antonius, Lucius (brother of Marc Antony) [I] 80, [II] 212
Antonius, Marcus (see Marc Antony)
Antonius Junior, Marcus (son of Marc Antony and Fulvia) [I] 82, [II] 213
Arcadius (Augustus, A.D. 383-408) [I] 590, [II] 609
Ariadne, A eilia (wife of Zeno) [I] 610, [II] 622
Augustus (Octavian) (Augustus, 27 B.C.-A.D. 14) [I] 96, [II] 217
Aurelian (Augustus, A.D. 270-275) [I] 364, [II] 453
Aureolus (usurper, A.D. 267(?)-268) [I] 389, [II] 472
Avitus (Augustus, A.D. 455-456) [I] 564, [II] 595
Balbinus (Augustus, A.D. 238) [I] 322, [II] 416
Basiliscus (Augustus, A.D. 475-476) [I] 612, [II] 623
Britannicus (son of Claudius) [I] 159, [II] 272
Brutus (Imperator, 43-42 B.C.) [I] 56, [II] 197
Caesar (see Julius Caesar, Gaius Caesar, Lucius Caesar, Nero Caesar, Drusus Caesar
and Leo Caesar)
Caesonia (wife o f ‘Caligula’) [I] 147, [II] 264
Caesarion (see Ptolemy XV)
625
626 IN D EX
Caius Caesar (see Gaius Caesar)

‘C aligula’ (Gaius) (Augustus, A.D. 37-41) [I] 143, [II] 261
Calvinus (Imperator, 39 B.C.) [I] 64, [II] 202
‘Caracalla’ (Antoninus) (Augustus, A.D. 198-217) [I] 276, [II] 391
Carausius (Augustus, A.D. 286/7-293) [I] 404, [II] 481
Carinus (Augustus, A.D. 283-285) [I] 378, [II] 463
Carus (Augustus, A.D. 282-283) [I] 377, [II] 462
Cassius (Imperator, 43-42 B.C.) [I] 60, [II] 200
Civil War Coinages [II] 287
Civilis, Julius (rebel, A.D. 69-70) [I] 200, [II] 303
Clara, Didia (daughter of Didius Julianus) [I] 262, [II] 380
Claudius (Augustus, A.D. 41-54) [I] 151, [II] 266
Claudius II ‘Gothicus’ (Augustus, A.D. 268-270) [I] 361, [II] 451
Cleopatra VII (Queen of Egypt, 51-30 B.C.) [I] 85, [II] 215
Clodius Albinus (Augustus, A.D. 195-197) [I] 264, [II] 382
Clodius Macer (rebel, A.D. 68) [I] 183, [II] 292
Commodus (Augustus, A.D. 177-192) [I] 251, [II] 372
Constans (Augustus, A.D. 337-350) [I] 497, [II] 550
Constans II (Augustus, A.D. 409/10-411) [I] 546, [II] 586
Constantia (wife of Licinius I) [I] 468, [II] 525
Constantine I ‘the Great’ (Augustus, A.D. 307-337) [I] 473, [II] 533
Constantine II (Augustus, A.D. 337-340) [I] 494, [II] 547
Constantine III (Augustus, A.D. 407-411) [I] 544, [II] 585
Constantinian Era Commemoratives [II] 528
Constantius I ‘Chlorus’ (Augustus, A.D. 305-306) [I] 435, [II] 504
Constantius II (Augustus, A.D. 337-361) [I] 500, [II] 553
Constantius III (Augustus, A.D. 421) [I] 553, [II] 589
Constantius Gallus (Caesar, A.D. 351-354) [I] 518, [II] 561
Comuficius (Imperator, 42 B.C.) [I] 63, [II] 201
Crassus (Triumvir, 60-53 B.C.) [I] 35, [II] 187
Crispina (wife of Commodus) [I] 253, [II] 375
Crispus (Caesar, A.D. 316-326) [I] 489, [II] 543
Decentius (Caesar, A.D. 350-353) [I] 513, [II] 558
Delmatius (Caesar, A.D. 335-337) [I] 491, [II] 545
Diadumenian (Augustus, A.D. 218) [I] 289, [II] 399
Didius Julianus (Augustus, A.D. 193) [I] 260, [II] 379
Diocletian (Augustus, A.D. 284-305) [I] 416, [II] 485
Divi Series of Trajan Decius [II] 428
Divided Empire, a Brief Introduction to (historical text) [I] 527
Domitia (wife of Domitian) [I] 220, [II] 327
Domitian (Augustus, A.D. 81-96) [I] 216, [II] 321
Domitian, Deified Son of V l/222, [II] 329
Domitianus (Augustus, A.D. 269(?) or 271 (?))V l/393, [II] 474
Domitilla the Elder (wife of Vespasian) [I] 210, [II] 312
Domitilla the Younger (daughter of Vespasian) [I] 211, [II] 312
Domitius Domitianus (Augustus, c. A.D. 296-297/8) [I] 428, [II] 498
Domna, Julia (wife of Septimius Severus) [I] 273, [II] 389
IN D EX 627
Drusilla (sister o f ‘Caligula’) [I] 149, [II] 264

Drusilla Minor (daughter o f ‘Caligula’) [I] 148, [II] 264
Drusus (son of Tiberius) [I] 122, [II] 246
Drusus Caesar (son of Germanicus and Agrippina Senior) [I] 142, [II] 260
Dryantilla (wife of Regalianus) [I] 360, [II] 449
Dynastic Portrait Coinage of the Severans (see Severan Dynastic Portrait Coinage)
‘Elagabalus’ (Antoninus) (Augustus, A.D. 218-222) [I] 295, [II] 403
Etruscilla, Herennia (wife of Trajan Decius) [I] 336, [II] 430
Eudocia, A elia (wife of Theodosius II) [I] 597, [II] 614
Eudoxia, Aelia (wife of Arcadius) [I] 592, [II] 610
Eudoxia, Licinia (wife of Valentinian III) [I] 561, [II] 594
Eugenius (Augustus, A.D. 392-394) [I] 540, [II] 583
Euphemia, Aelia (wife of Anthemius) [I] 572, [II] 599
Fausta (wife of Constantine I) [I] 487, [II] 542
Faustina, A nnia (third wife o f ‘Elagabalus’) [I] 301, [II] 406
Faustina Junior (wife of Marcus Aurelius) [I] 244, [II] 366
Faustina Senior (wife of Antoninus Pius) [I] 240, [II] 360
Festival of Isis Coinage [II] 566
Flaccus (Imperator, 83-82 B.C.) [I] 33, [II] 186
Flaccilla, A elia (wife of Theodosius I) [I] 589, [II] 608
Flavius Victor (Augustus, A.D. 387-388) [I] 539, [II] 582
Florian (Augustus, A.D. 276) [I] 371, [II] 458
Fulvia (third wife of Marc Antony) [I] 81, [II] 212
Gaius (see ‘Caligula’)
Gaius Caesar (grandson of Augustus) [I] 109, [II] 234
Galba (Augustus, A.D. 68-69) [I] 184, [II] 293
Galerius (Augustus, A.D. 305-311) [I] 430, [II] 499
Galerius Antoninus (see Antoninus, Galerius)
Gallienus (Augustus, A.D. 253-268) [I] 349, [II] 441
Gallus, Asinius (potential successor of Augustus) [I] 112, [II] 237
Gemellus (see Germanicus Gemellus and Tiberius Gemellus)
Germanicus (son of Nero Claudius Drusus and Antonia) [I] 136, [II] 254
Germanicus Gemellus (son of Drusus and Livilla) [I] 129, [II] 249
G eta (Augustus, A.D. 209-211) [I] 283, [II] 396
Glycerius (Augustus, A.D. 473-474) [I] 575, [II] 601
Gordian I (Augustus, A.D. 238) [I] 317, [II] 413
Gordian II (Augustus, A.D. 238) [I] 319, [II] 414
Gordian III (Augustus, A.D. 238-244) [I] 324, [II] 417
Gratian (Augustus, A.D. 367-383) [I] 535, [II] 578
Great Persecution, Pagan Coinage of (see Pagan Coinage of the Great
Persecution)
Gundobad (Master of Soldiers, A.D. 472-474) [I] 576, [II] 602
Hadrian (Augustus, A.D. 117-138) [I] 233, [II] 348
Hanniballianus (Rex Regum, A.D. 335-337) [I] 492, [II] 546
Helena (first wife(?) of Constantius I) [I] 438, [II] 509
Herennius Etruscus (Augustus, A.D. 251) [I] 336, [II] 431
Honoria (sister of Valentinian III) [I] 560, [II] 593
628 IN D EX
Honorius (Augustus, A.D. 393-423) [I] 541, [II] 583

Hostilian (Augustus, A.D. 251) [I] 337, [II] 432
‘Interregnum Bronzes,’ So-C alled [II] 456
Isis, Festival of (see Festival of Isis Coinage)
Johannes (Augustus, A.D. 423-425) [I] 556, [II] 591
Jotapian (Augustus, c. A.D. 248—2 49(?)) [I] 332, [II] 426
Jovian (Augustus, A.D. 363-364) [I] 525, [II] 565
Jovinus (Augustus, A.D. 411-413) [I] 550, [II] 588
Julia (daughter of Augustus) [I] 104, [II] 232
Julia, Livia (daughter of Drusus and Livilla) [I] 126
Julian of Pannonia (Augustus, A.D. 284-285) [I] 383, [II] 468
Julian II ‘the A postate’ (Augustus, A.D. 360-363) [I] 519, [II] 563
Julius Caesar (Triumvir 60-53 B.C., Dictator For Life, 44 B.C.) [I] 45, [II] 191
Julius Nepos (Augustus, A.D. 474-475 and 477-480) [I] 577, [II] 602
Labienus (Imperator Parthicus, 40/39 B.C.) [I] 70, [II] 204
Laelianus (Augustus, A.D. 269) [I] 391, [II] 473
Leo I (Augustus, A.D. 457-474) [I] 600, [II] 616
Leo II (Augustus, A.D. 474) [I] 606, [II] 619
Leo Caesar (Caesar, A.D. 476-477) [I] 615, [II] 626
Lepidus (Triumvir, 43-36 B.C.) [I] 72, [II] 205
Libius Severus (Severus III) (Augustus, A.D. 461-465) [I] 567, [II] 597
Licinianus, Lucius Calpumius Piso Frugi [I] 179
Licinius I (Augustus, A.D. 308-324) [I] 464, [II] 523
Licinius II (Caesar, A.D. 317-324) [I] 469, [II] 526
Livia (wife of Augustus) [I] 114, [II] 238
Livia Julia (see Julia, Livia)
Livilla (wife of Drusus) [I] 124, [II] 247
Livilla, Julia (sister o f ‘Caligula’) [I] 150, [II] 265
Lucilla (wife of Lucius Verus) [I] 249, [II] 371
Lucius Caesar (grandson of Augustus) [I] 110, [II] 235
Lucius Verus (Augustus, A.D. 161-169) [I] 248, [II] 369
Macrianus (Augustus, A.D. 260-261) [I] 358, [II] 447
Macrinus (Augustus, A.D. 217-218) [I] 287, [II] 398
Maesa, Julia (sister of Julia Domna) [I] 291, [II] 401
Magnentius (Augustus, A.D. 350-353) [I] 510, [II] 556
Magnus Maximus (Augustus, A.D. 383-388) [I] 538, [II] 581
Majorian (Augustus, A.D. 457-461) [I] 566, [II] 596
Mamaea, Julia (mother of Severus Alexander) [I] 303, [II] 407
Marc Antony (Marcus Antonius) (Triumvir, 43-33 B.C.) [I] 74, [II] 207
Marc Antony and Octavian (dual-portrait coinage) [II] 210
Marcellus (nephew of Augustus) [I] 106, [II] 232
Marcian (Augustus, A.D. 450-457) [I] 599, [II] 614
Marciana (sister of Trajan) [I] 232, [II] 346
Marcus (Augustus, A.D. 475-476) [I] 614, [II] 625
Marcus Aurelius (Augustus, A.D. 161-180) [I] 242, [II] 362
Mariniana (wife of Valerian I) [I] 349, [II] 440
Marinus, Julius (father of Philip I) [I] 330, [II] 425
IN D EX 629
Marius (Augustus, A.D. 269) [I] 393, [II] 474

Martinian (Augustus, A.D. 324) [I] 471, [II] 527
Matidia (daughter of Marciana) [I] 232, [II] 347
Maxentius (Augustus, A.D. 307-312) [I] 447, [II] 517
Maximian (Augustus, A.D. 286-310) [I] 422, [II] 490
Maximinus I ‘Thrax’ (Augustus, A.D. 235-238) [I] 314, [II] 411
Maximinus II ‘Daia’ (Augustus, A.D. 310-313) [I] 442, [II] 513
Maximus (Caesar, A.D. 235/6-238) [I] 316, [II] 412
Maximus (Augustus, A.D. 409-411) [I] 547, [II] 586
Maximus, Magnus (see Magnus Maximus)
Messalina, Statilia (third wife of Nero) [I] 173, [II] 285
Messalina, Valeria (third wife of Claudius) [I] 157, [II] 271
Metellus Pius (Imperator, 81 B.C.) [I] 34, [II] 187
Metellus Pius Scipio (Imperator 49 B.C.(?)) [I] 55, [II] 196
Mines, Coins of [II] 332
Mucianus, Gaius Licinius Crassus [I] 179
Murcus (Imperator, c. 45-42 B.C.) [I] 65, [II] 202
Nepotian (Augustus, A.D. 350) [I] 516, [II] 560
Nero (Augustus, A.D. 54-68) [I] 164, [II] 277
Nero Caesar (son of Germanicus and Agrippina Senior) [I] 141, [II] 259
Nero Claudius Drusus (son of Livia) [I] 132, [II] 250
Neronis, Claudia (daughter of Nero and Poppaea) [I] 172, [II] 284
Nerva (Augustus, A.D. 96-98) [I] 227, [II] 335
Nigrinian (son of Carinus and(?) Magnia Urbica) [I] 381, [II] 465
Numerian (Augustus, A.D. 283-284) [I] 382, [II] 466
Octavia (fourth wife of Marc Antony) [I] 83, [II] 213
Octavia, Claudia (first wife of Nero) [I] 169, [II] 282
Octavian (see Augustus)
Octavian and Marc Antony (see Marc Antony and Octavian)
Odovacar (King of Italy) [II] 604
Olybrius (Augustus, A.D. 472) [I] 574, [II] 600
Orbiana (wife of Severus Alexander) [I] 308, [II] 410
Otho (Augustus, A.D. 69) [I] 189, [II] 297
Pacatian (Augustus, c. A.D. 248-249(?)) [I] 332, [II] 426
Pagan Coinage of the Great Persecution [II] 516
Palmyra, Kingdom of (historical text) [I] 398
Patricius (Caesar, A.D. 470-471) [I] 604, [II] 618
Paula, Julia (first wife o f ‘Elagabalus’) [I] 299, [II] 405
Paulina (wife of Maximinus I) [I] 316, [II] 412
Pertinax (Augustus, A.D. 193) [I] 256, [II] 377
Pertinax Junior (Caesar, A.D. 193) [I] 259, [II] 379
Pescennius Niger (Augustus, A.D. 193-194) [I] 262, [II] 381
Petronius Maximus (Augustus, A.D. 455) [I] 563, [II] 595
Philip I ‘the A rab’ (Augustus, A.D. 244-249) [I] 327, [II] 420
Philip II (Augustus, A.D. 247-249) [I] 330, [II] 423
Placidia, G alla (wife of Constantius III) [I] 555, [II] 590
Plancus (Imperator, 40 B.C.(?)) [I] 68, [II] 203
630 IN D EX
Plautilla (wife o f ‘Caracalla’) [I] 282, [II] 395

Plotina (wife of Trajan) [I] 231, [II] 345
Pompey the Great (Triumvir, 60-53 B.C.) [I] 38, [II] 188
Pompey Junior (son of Pompey the Great) [I] 42, [II] 188
Pompey, Sextus (son of Pompey the Great) [I] 43, [II] 189
Poppaea (second wife of Nero) [I] 171, [II] 283
Postumus (Augustus, A.D. 260-269) [I] 386, [II] 469
Primus, Marcus Antonius [I] 180
Priscus Attalus (First Reign, A.D. 409-410) [I] 548, [II] 587
Priscus Attalus (Second Reign, A.D. 415-416) [I] 551, [II] 589
Probus (Augustus, A.D. 276-282) [I] 372, [II] 459
Procopius (Augustus, A.D. 365-366) [I] 586, [II] 606
Proculus (Augustus, c. A.D. 280-281) [I] 375, [II] 462
Ptolemy XV (‘Caesarion’) (son of Julius Caesar and Cleopatra VII) [I] 53, [II]
196
Pulcheria, Aelia (sister of Theodosius II) [I] 596, [II] 613
Pupienus (Augustus, A.D. 238) [I] 320, [II] 414
Quadrantes, Anonymous [II] 330
Quietus (Augustus, A.D. 260-261) [I] 359, [II] 448
Quintillus (Augustus, A.D. 270) [I] 363, [II] 453
Regalianus (Augustus, A.D. 260) [I] 359, [II] 448
Restored Coins of Trajan [II] 341
Ricimer (Master of Soldiers, A.D. 456-472) [I] 569, [II] 598
Romano-British Empire (historical text) [I] 403
R om ano-G allic Empire (historical text) [I] 385
Romulus (son of Maxentius) [I] 453, [II] 520
Romulus Augustus (Augustus, A.D. 475-476) [I] 580, [II] 603
Rufus, Lucius Verginius [I] 177
Sabina (wife of Hadrian) [I] 235, [II] 351
Sabinus, Flavius [I] 181
Sabinus, Gaius Nymphidius [I] 178
Salonina (wife of Gallienus) [I] 354, [II] 443
Saloninus (Augustus, A.D. 260) [I] 357, [II] 446
Salvidienus (Imperator, 42 B.C.) [I] 63, [II] 201
Saturninus (Augustus, A.D. 280) [I] 375, [II] 461
Scantilla, Manlia (wife of Didius Julianus) [I] 261, [II] 380
Scarpus (Imperator, 31 B.C.(?)) [I] 71, [II] 205
Scipio {see Metellus Pius Scipio)
Sebastianus (Augustus, A.D. 412-413) [I] 551, [II] 588
Sejanus (potential successor of Tiberius) [I] 130, [II] 250
Septimius Severus (Augustus, A.D. 193-211) [I] 267, [II] 386
Severa, Aquilia (second and fourth wife o f ‘Elagabalus’) [I] 300, [II] 406
Severa, Otacilia (wife of Philip I) [I] 329, [II] 421
Severan Dynastic Portrait Coinage [II] 383
Severan-Emesan Dynasty (historical text) [I] 266
Severina (wife of Aurelian) [I] 369, [II] 455
Severus Alexander (Augustus, A.D. 222-235) [I] 305, [II] 408
IN D E X 631
Severus II (Augustus, A.D. 306-307) [II 440, [II] 511

Severus III (see Libius Severus)
Silbannacus (Augustus, c. A.D. 248(?)) [I] 331, [II] 425
Soaemias, Julia (mother o f ‘Elagabalus’) [I] 293, [II] 402
Sponsianus (Augustus, c. A.D. 2 4 8 (?)) [I] 331, [II] 425
Sulla (Dictator, 82-79 B.C.) [I] 31, [II] 185
Supera, Cornelia (wife of Aemilian) [I] 344, [II] 436
Tacitus (Augustus, A.D. 275-276) [I] 370, [II] 457
Tetricus I (Augustus, A.D. 271-274) [I] 396, [II] 476
Tetricus II (Augustus, A.D. 2 7 4 (0 ) [I] 397, [II] 478
Theodora (second wife of Constantius I) [I] 439, [II] 510
Theodosius I (Augustus, A.D. 379-395) [I] 587, [II] 607
Theodosius II (Augustus, A.D. 402-450) [I] 593, [II] 611
Tiberius (Augustus, A.D. 14-37) [I] 116, [II] 241
Tiberius Gemellus (son of Drusus and Livilla) [I] 128, [II] 248
Titi, Julia (daughter of Titus) [I] 215, [II] 319
Titiana (wife of Pertinax) [I] 258, [II] 378
Titus (Augustus, A.D. 79-81) [I] 212, [II] 313
Trajan (Augustus, A.D. 98-117) [I] 228, [II] 337
Trajan, Restored Coins (see Restored Coins of Trajan)
Trajan Decius (Augustus, A.D. 249-251) [I] 333, [II] 427
Trajan Decius, Divi Series (see Divi Series of Trajan Decius)
Trajan Pater (father of Trajan and Marciana) [I] 230, [II] 344
Tranquillina (wife of Gordian III) [I] 326, [II] 419
Trebonianus Gallus (Augustus, A.D. 251-253) [I] 339, [II] 433
Uranius Antoninus (usurper, A.D. 253-253) [I] 344, [II] 437
Urbica, Magnia (wife of Carinus) [I] 380, [II] 465
Vabalathus (Augustus, A.D. 270/1-272) [I] 402, [II] 479
Valens (Augustus, A.D. 364-378) [I] 584, [II] 605
Valens, Valerius (see Valerius Valens)
Valentinian I (Augustus, A.D. 364-375) [I] 533, [II] 577
Valentinian II (Augustus, A.D. 375-392) [I] 537, [II] 580
Valentinian III (Augustus, A.D. 425-455) [I] 558, [II] 592
Valeria, Galeria (wife of Galerius) [I] 434, [II] 503
Valerian I (Augustus, A.D. 253-260) [I] 346, [II] 438
Valerian II (Caesar, A.D. 256-258) [I] 356, [II] 444
Valerius Valens (Augustus, A.D. 316-317) [I] 471, [II] 527
Ventidius (Imperator, 41 or3 9 (?) B.C.) [I] 69, [II] 204
Verina, Aelia (wife of Leo I) [I] 602, [II] 617
Verus, Annius (son of Marcus Aurelius and Faustina Junior) [I] 247, [II] 368
Vespasian (Augustus, A.D. 69-79) [I] 205, [II] 305
Vespasian Junior (heir of Domitian) [I] 223, [II] 329
Vetranio (Augustus, A.D. 350) [I] 515, [II] 559
Victorinus (Augustus, A.D. 269-271) [I] 394, [II] 475
Vindex (rebel, A.D. 68) [I] 182, [II] 291
Vitellius (Augustus, A.D. 69) [I] 192, [II] 298
Vitellius Germanicus and Vitellia (children of Vitellius) [I] 198, [II] 302
632 IN D EX
Vitellius, Lucius (father of Vitellius) [I] 197, [II] 301

Volusian (Augustus, A.D. 251-253) [I] 341, [II] 434
Western Roman Empire, Collapse of (historical text) [I] 581
Zeno (Augustus, A.D. 474-475 and 476-491) [I] 607, [II] 620
Zenobia (Augusta, A.D. 270/1-272) [I] 400, [II] 479
Zenonis, A elia (wife of Basiliscus) [I] 613, [II] 624
In d e x o f P e o p l e a n d S e c t io n s
( in o r d e r o f p r e s e n t a t io n )
Sulla (Dictator, 82-79 B.C.) [I] 31, [II] 185

Flaccus (Imperator, 83-82 B.C.) [I] 33, [II] 186
Crassus (Triumvir, 60-53 B.C.) [I] 35, [II] 187
Pompey the Great (Triumvir, 60-53 B.C.) [I] 38, [II] 188
Sextus Pompey (son of Pompey the Great) [I] 43, [II] 189
Julius Caesar (Triumvir 60-53 B.C., Dictator For Life, 44 B.C.) [I] 45, [II] 191
Ptolemy XV (‘Caesarion’) (son of Julius Caesar and Cleopatra VII) [I] 53, [II]
196
Brutus (Imperator, 43-42 B.C.) [I] 56, [II] 197
Cassius (Imperator, 43-42 B.C.) [I] 60, [II] 200
Comuficius (Imperator, 42 B.C.) [I] 63, [II] 201
Murcus (Imperator, c. 45-42 B.C.) [I] 65, [II] 202
Ventidius (Imperator, 41 or39(?) B.C.) [I] 69, [II] 204
Lepidus (Triumvir, 43-36 B.C.) [I] 72, [II] 205
Marc Antony (Triumvir, 43-33 B.C.) [I] 74, [II] 207
Marc Antony and Octavian (dual-portrait coinage) [II] 210
Gaius Antonius (brother of Marc Antony) [I] 79, [II] 211
Lucius Antonius (brother of Marc Antony) [I] 80, [II] 212
Marcus Antonius Junior (son of Marc Antony and Fulvia) [I] 82, [II] 213
Octavia (fourth wife of Marc Antony) [I] 83, [II] 213
Cleopatra VII (Queen of Egypt, 51-30 B.C.) [I] 85, [II] 215
IN D EX 633
Augustus (Octavian) (Augustus, 27 B.C.-A.D. 14) [I] 96, [II] 217

Agrippa (lieutennant of Augustus) [I] 107, [II] 233
Asinius Gallus (potential successor of Augustus) [I] 112, [II] 237
Tiberius (Augustus, A.D. 14-37) [I] 116, [II] 241
Livia Julia (daughter of Drusus and Livilla) [I] 126
Germanicus (son of Nero Claudius Drusus and Antonia) [I] 136, [II] 254
‘Caligula’ (Gaius) (Augustus, A.D. 37-41) [I] 143, [II] 261
Julia Livilla (sister o f ‘Caligula’) [I] 150, [II] 265
Claudius (Augustus, A.D. 41-54) [I] 151, [II] 266
Claudia A ntonia (daughter of Claudius) [I] 156, [II] 270
Valeria Messalina (third wife of Claudius) [I] 157, [II] 271
Nero (Augustus, A.D. 54-68) [I] 164, [II] 277
Claudia Octavia (first wife of Nero) [I] 169, [II] 282
Claudia Neronis (daughter of Nero and Poppaea) [I] 172, [II] 284
Statilia Messalina (third wife of Nero) [I] 173, [II] 285
Lucius Verginius Rufus [I] 177
Gaius Nymphidius Sabinus [I] 178
Lucius Calpurnius Piso Frugi Licinianus [I] 179
Gaius Licinius Crassus Mucianus [I] 179
Marcus Antonius Primus [I] 180
Flavius Sabinus [I] 181
Galba (Augustus, A.D. 68-69) [I] 184, [II] 293
634 IN D EX
Otho (Augustus, A.D. 69) [I] 189, [II] 297

Lucius Vitellius (father of Vitellius) [I] 197, [II] 301
Julius Civilis (rebel, A.D. 69-70) [I] 200, [II] 303
Vespasian (Augustus, A.D. 69-79) [I] 205, [II] 305
Titus (Augustus, A.D. 79-81) [I] 212, [II] 313
Julia Titi (daughter of Titus) [I] 215, [II] 319
Domitian (Augustus, A.D. 81-96) [I] 216, [II] 321
Deified Son of Domitian V l/222, [II] 329
Anonymous Quadrantes [II] 330
Coins of the Mines [II] 332
Nerva (Augustus, A.D. 96-98) [I] 227, [II] 335
Trajan (Augustus, A.D. 98-117) [I] 228, [II] 337
The Restored Coins of Trajan [II] 341
Hadrian (Augustus, A.D. 117-138) [I] 233, [II] 348
Antinoiis (companion of Hadrian) [I] 237, [II] 354
Antoninus Pius (Augustus, A.D. 138-161) [I] 238, [II] 355
Galerius Antoninus (son of Antoninus Pius and Faustina Senior) [I] 241, [II] 362
Marcus Aurelius (Augustus, A.D. 161-180) [I] 242, [II] 362
Aurelius Antoninus (son of Marcus Aurelius and Faustina Junior) [I] 246,
[II] 368
Annius Verus (son of Marcus Aurelius and Faustina Junior) [I] 247, [II] 368
Lucius Verus (Augustus, A.D. 161-169) [I] 248, [II] 369
Commodus (Augustus, A.D. 177-192) [I] 251, [II] 372
Manlia Scantilla (wife of Didius Julianus) [I] 261, [II] 380
Didia Clara (daughter of Didius Julianus) [I] 262, [II] 380
Pescennius Niger (Augustus, A.D. 193-194) [I] 262, [II] 381
Clodius Albinus (Augustus, A.D. 195-197) [I] 264, [II] 382
IN D EX 635
Severan-Emesan Dynasty (historical text) [I] 266

Septimius Severus (Augustus, A.D. 193-211) [I] 267, [II] 386
Julia Domna (wife of Septimius Severus) [I] 273, [II] 389
‘Caracalla’ (Antoninus) (Augustus, A.D. 198-217) [I] 276, [II] 391
Geta (Augustus, A.D. 209-211) [I] 283, [II] 396
Macrinus (Augustus, A.D. 217-218) [I] 287, [II] 398
Julia Maesa (sister of Julia Domna) [I] 291, [II] 401
Julia Soaemias (mother o f ‘Elagabalus’) [I] 293, [II] 402
‘Elagabalus’ (Antoninus) (Augustus, A.D. 218-222) [I] 295, [II] 403
Julia Paula (first wife o f ‘Elagabalus’) [I] 299, [II] 405
Aquilia Severa (second and fourth wife o f ‘Elagabalus’) [I] 300, [II] 406
Annia Faustina (third wife o f ‘Elagabalus’) [I] 301, [II] 406
Julia Mamaea (mother of Severus Alexander) [I] 303, [II] 407
Severus Alexander (Augustus, A.D. 222-235) [I] 305, [II] 408
Maximinus I ‘Thrax’ (Augustus, A.D. 235-238) [I] 314, [II] 411
Gordian III (Augustus, A.D. 238-244) [I] 324, [II] 417
Philip I ‘the A rab’ (Augustus, A.D. 244-249) [I] 327, [II] 420
Otacilia Severa (wife of Philip I) [I] 329, [II] 421
Philip II (Augustus, A.D. 247-249) [I] 330, [II] 423
Julius Marinus (father of Philip I) [I] 330, [II] 425
Silbannacus (Augustus, c. A.D. 248(?))V1/331, [II] 425
Sponsianus (Augustus, c. A.D. 248(?))V1/331, [II] 425
Pacatian (Augustus, c. A.D. 248-249(?))V l/332, [II] 426
Jotapian (Augustus, c. A.D. 248-249(?))V l/332, [II] 426
Trajan Decius (Augustus, A.D. 249-251) [I] 333, [II] 427
The Divi Series of Trajan Decius [II] 428
Herennia Etruscilla (wife of Trajan Decius) [I] 336, [II] 430
Trebonianus Gallus (Augustus, A.D. 251-253) [I] 339, [II] 433
Volusian (Augustus, A.D. 251-253) [I] 341, [II] 434
Aemilian (Augustus, A.D. 253) [I] 342, [II] 435
Cornelia Supera (wife of Aemilian) [I] 344, [II] 436
Uranius Antoninus (usurper, A.D. 253-253) [I] 344, [II] 437
Valerian I (Augustus, A.D. 253-260) [I] 346, [II] 438
636 IN D EX
Gallienus (Augustus, A.D. 253-268) [I] 349, [II] 441

Valerian II (Caesar, A.D. 256-258) [I] 356, [II] 444
Macrianus (Augustus, A.D. 260-261) [I] 358, [II] 447
Quietus (Augustus, A.D. 260-261) [I] 359, [II] 448
Claudius II ‘Gothicus’ (Augustus, A.D. 268-270) [I] 361, [II] 451
Aurelian (Augustus, A.D. 270-275) [I] 364, [II] 453
The So-C alled ‘Interregnum Bronzes’ [II] 456
Tacitus (Augustus, A.D. 275-276) [I] 370, [II] 457
Probus (Augustus, A.D. 276-282) [I] 372, [II] 459
Proculus (Augustus, c. A.D. 280-281) [I] 375, [II] 462
Carus (Augustus, A.D. 282-283) [I] 377, [II] 462
Carinus (Augustus, A.D. 283-285) [I] 378, [II] 463
Magnia Urbica (wife of Carinus) [I] 380, [II] 465
Numerian (Augustus, A.D. 283-284) [I] 382, [II] 466
Julian of Pannonia (Augustus, A.D. 284-285) [I] 383, [II] 468
The Rom ano-G allic Empire (historical text) [I] 385
Postumus (Augustus, A.D. 260-269) [I] 386, [II] 469
Aureolus (usurper, A.D. 267(?)-268) [I] 389, [II] 472
Domitianus (Augustus, A.D. 269(?) or 271 ( ?))V 1/393, [II] 474
Victorinus (Augustus, A.D. 269-271) [I] 394, [II] 475
Tetricus I (Augustus, A.D. 271-274) [I] 396, [II] 476
Tetricus II (Augustus, A.D. 2 7 4 (0 )V l/397, [II] 478
The Kingdom of Palmyra (historical text) [I] 398
The Romano-British Empire (historical text) [I] 403
Diocletian (Augustus, A.D. 284-305) [I] 416, [II] 485
Maximian (Augustus, A.D. 286-310) [I] 422, [II] 490
Amandus (Augustus, c. A.D. 285-286) [I] 428, [II] 497
Galerius (Augustus, A.D. 305-311) [I] 430, [II] 499
Galeria Valeria (wife of Galerius) [I] 434, [II] 503
Constantius I ‘Chlorus’ (Augustus, A.D. 305-306) [I] 435, [II] 504
IN D EX 637

Severus II (Augustus, A.D. 306-307) [I] 440, [II] 511
Maximinus II ‘D aia’ (Augustus, A.D. 310-313) [I] 442, [II] 513
Maxentius (Augustus, A.D. 307-312) [I] 447, [II] 517
Alexander of Carthage (Augustus, A.D. 308-310) [I] 455, [II] 521
Licinius I (Augustus, A.D. 308-324) [I] 464, [II] 523
Licinius II (Caesar, A.D. 317-324) [I] 469, [II] 526
Valerius Valens (Augustus, A.D. 316-317) [I] 471, [II] 527
Martinian (Augustus, A.D. 324) [I] 471, [II] 527
Constantine I ‘the Great’ (Augustus, A.D. 307-337) [I] 473, [II] 533
Crispus (Caesar, A.D. 316-326) [I] 489, [II] 543
Delmatius (Caesar, A.D. 335-337) [I] 491, [II] 545
Hanniballianus (Rex Regum, A.D. 335-337) [I] 492, [II] 546
Constantine II (Augustus, A.D. 337-340) [I] 494, [II] 547
Constans (Augustus, A.D. 337-350) [I] 497, [II] 550
Constantius II (Augustus, A.D. 337-361) [I] 500, [II] 553
Magnentius (Augustus, A.D. 350-353) [I] 510, [II] 556
Decentius (Caesar, A.D. 350-353) [I] 513, [II] 558
Constantius Gallus (Caesar, A.D. 351-354) [I] 518, [II] 561
Julian II ‘the A postate’ (Augustus, A.D. 360-363) [I] 519, [II] 563
Jovian (Augustus, A.D. 363-364) [I] 525, [II] 565
A Brief Introduction to the Divided Empire (historical text) [I] 527
Valentinian I (Augustus, A.D. 364-375) [I] 533, [II] 577
Gratian (Augustus, A.D. 367-383) [I] 535, [II] 578
Valentinian II (Augustus, A.D. 375-392) [I] 537, [II] 580
Magnus Maximus (Augustus, A.D. 383-388) [I] 538, [II] 581
Flavius Victor (Augustus, A.D. 387-388) [I] 539, [II] 582
Eugenius (Augustus, A.D. 392-394) [I] 540, [II] 583
Honorius (Augustus, A.D. 393-423) [I] 541, [II] 583
Constantine III (Augustus, A.D. 407-411) [I] 544, [II] 585
Maximus (Augustus, A.D. 409-411) [I] 547, [II] 586
Priscus Attalus (First Reign, A.D. 409-410) [I] 548, [II] 587
Jovinus (Augustus, A.D. 411-413) [I] 550, [II] 588
Sebastianus (Augustus, A.D. 412-413) [I] 551, [II] 588
Priscus Attalus (Second Reign, A.D. 415-416) [I] 551, [II] 589
G alla Placidia (wife of Constantius III) [I] 555, [II] 590
Johannes (Augustus, A.D. 423-425) [I] 556, [II] 591
638 IN D EX
Valentinian III (Augustus, A.D. 425-455) [I] 558, [II] 592

Licinia Eudoxia (wife of Valentinian III) [I] 561, [II] 594
Avitus (Augustus, A.D. 455-456) [I] 564, [II] 595
Majorian (Augustus, A.D. 457-461) [I] 566, [II] 596
Libius Severus (Severus III) (Augustus, A.D. 461-465) [I] 567, [II] 597
Ricimer (Master of Soldiers, A.D. 456-472) [I] 569, [II] 598
Anthemius (Augustus, A.D. 467-472) [I] 570, [II] 598
Aelia Euphemia (wife of Anthemius) [I] 572, [II] 599
Alypia (daughter of Anthemius and Aelia Euphemia) [I] 573, [II] 600
Glycerius (Augustus, A.D. 473-474) [I] 575, [II] 601
Gundobad (Master of Soldiers, A.D. 472-474) [I] 576, [II] 602
Julius Nepos (Augustus, A.D. 474-475 and 477-480) [I] 577, [II] 602
Romulus Augustus (Augustus, A.D. 475-476) [I] 580, [II] 603
Collapse of the West (historical text) [I] 581
Valens (Augustus, A.D. 364-378) [I] 584, [II] 605
Procopius (Augustus, A.D. 365-366) [I] 586, [II] 606
Theodosius I (Augustus, A.D. 379-395) [I] 587, [II] 607
A elia Flaccilla (wife of Theodosius I) [I] 589, [II] 608
Arcadius (Augustus, A.D. 383-408) [I] 590, [II] 609
A elia Eudoxia (wife of Arcadius) [I] 592, [II] 610
Theodosius II (Augustus, A.D. 402-450) [I] 593, [II] 611
A elia Pulcheria (sister of Theodosius II) [I] 596, [II] 613
A elia Eudocia (wife of Theodosius II) [I] 597, [II] 614
Marcian (Augustus, A.D. 450-457) [I] 599, [II] 614
Leo I (Augustus, A.D. 457-474) [I] 600, [II] 616
A elia Verina (wife of Leo I) [I] 602, [II] 617
Patricius (Caesar, A.D. 470-471) [I] 604, [II] 618
Zeno (Augustus, A.D. 474-475 and 476-491) [I] 607, [II] 620
A elia Ariadne (wife of Zeno) [I] 610, [II] 622
Basiliscus (Augustus, A.D. 475-476) [I] 612, [II] 623
A elia Zenonis (wife of Basiliscus) [I] 613, [II] 624
Marcus (Augustus, A.D. 475-476) [I] 614, [II] 625
Leo Caesar (Caesar, A.D. 476-477) [I] 615, [II] 626
COINAGE a n d
HISTORY o f t h e
ROMAN EMPIRE
COINAGE A N D
HISTORY OF T H E
R O M A N EMPIRE
C. 82 B.C. - A.D. 480
V O L U M E II: C O I N A G E
DAVID L. VAGI
First published 2000 by FITZROY DEARBO RN
This edition published 2015 by Routledge

2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
Copyright © 1999 by David L, Vagi
A ll rights reserved including the right of reproduction in whole

or in part in any form.
British Library and Library of Congress Cataloging'kvpublication data available
ISBN: 978-1-138-99913-8 (vol 2) (hbk)

ISBN: 978-1-57958-316-3 (set) (hbk)
Permission to use illustrations was granted by the following companies:

Classical Numismatic Group, Inc.; Leu Numismatik; Numismatic Fine Arts, Inc.;
Numismatica Ars Classica; Sotheby’s (New York and London); Miinzen
und Medaillen; Italo Vecchi, Ltd.; and Superior Galleries.
And by the following individuals: Rick Witschonke, David Hendin and the author.
Certain numismatic numbering systems are referenced by kind permission

of British Museum Publications, Bibliotheque nationale de France, Cambridge
University Press, The Danish National Museum, Dumbarton Oaks Research
Library and Collection, David Hendin, and Spink and Son, Ltd.
Permission to reference the catalog numbering system in this book is freely

granted by David L. Vagi and requires no prior written permission, providing the
user identifies the catalog numbers by proceeding them with the name Vagi, and
that the user also cites the title and author of this book in that same work.
The Mint map was substantially modified from an original reproduced with
the kind permission of Andromeda Oxford Ltd © 1999.
Analysis and pricing information are based on historical information and market
conditions. No information in this book should be construed as predictive.
Past performance is not a guarantee of future performance. This work is
for reference purposes only, and does not constitute an offer to
buy or sell any pieces described herein.
Book design, typography and pre-press by S t u d i o 3 1, I n c .

Dedicated in Living Memory
to
ESTH ER IVANKA
1915-1996
Table of C o n ten ts
How to U se t h e C o in C a ta lo g xI
A b b r e v ia t io n s o f T erm s x iii
R eferen ces C o m m o nly C it e d x iv
PART 1:
N U M ISM A TIC IN TRO D U CTIO N
CH A PTE R I :
A B r ie f In t r o d u c t io n
17
CH A PTE R 2:
In tr o d u c tio n t o th e O b v e rse
39
CH A PTE R 3:
In tr o d u c tio n t o th e R e v erse
53
C H A PTE R 4:
D e itie s a n d P e r s o n ific a t io n s
63
C H A PTE R 5 :
D e n o m in a t io n s
77
CH A PTE R 6:
G re e k a n d R o m an C o in D a te s
117
C H A PTE R 7:
M in t s
13 1
CH A PTE R 8:
P r o d u c t io n , U se a n d R eco very
151
CH A PTE R 9:
D e te r m in in g V a lu e s
171
PART 2:
CATALO G A N D TABLES OF VALUE
A N ote A bout the Values

183
ch apter i :
C o l l a p s e o f t h e R e p u b l i c ( I m p e r a t o r i a l P e r i o d ) , c . 8 2 - 2 7 B -c -
185
C H A PTE R 2:
T h e Ju l i o - C l a u d i a n s , 2 7 b . c . t o a . d . 6 8
2 17
CH A PTE R 3:
T h e C iv i l W a r o f a .d , 6 8 -6 9
287
CH A PTE R 4:
T h e F l a v i a n s , a .d . 6 9 -9 6
305
CH A PTE R 5 :
T h e A d o p t iv e E m p e r o r s a n d T h e A n t o n in e s , a .d . 9 6 - 1 9 2
335
CH A PTE R 6:
C i v i l W a r a n d t h e S e v e r a n - E m e s a n D y n a s t y , a .d . 1 9 3 - 2 3 5
377
CH A PTE R 7:
C r is is a n d D e c l i n e , a .d . 2 3 5 - 2 6 8
411
CH A PTE R 8:
R ecovery of E m p ir e , a .d . 268-285
45I
CH A PTE R 9:
T h e S e p a r a t i s t E m p ire s
469
CH A PTE R IO :
T he Tetrarch y, c . a .d . 284-313
485
CH A PTE R 11 :
T he C o n s t a n t in ia n Era, c . a .d . 313-364
523
CH A PTE R 12 :
T h e W e s t e r n R o m a n E m p ir e , a . d . 364-480
577
C H A PTE R 1 3 :
T h e E a s t e r n R o m a n E m p ir e , a .d . 364-491
605
Concordance Table for Crawford 627
Concordance Table for RPC 631
Bibliography 63 5
Index 643
How to U se t h e C o in C a t a l o g
The catalog listings are presented in the same order as the biographies in
Volume I. Hundreds of thousands of issues (including varieties) were
struck by the Romans, and cataloging all of them is not the aim of this
book. The catalog is practical and informative rather than comprehensive.
Limited treatment is given to the vast provincial coinages, and separate
listings are given for specialized series’ of coins. The reader often will find
it useful to read the Numismatic Notes which follow most biographies for
they contain important information about the coins listed in the catalog.
The vast majority of Roman coins have designs which may be termed
‘generic’ for the purpose of determining their market value. This does not
mean they are uninteresting, just that their value to collectors is deter
mined exclusively by the physical attributes of the coin (style, grade, cen
tering, surface condition, etc.). Thus, one entry is given to represent
‘generic’ issues of each denomination. In some cases the ‘generic’ listing
may apply to hundreds of individual issues. Distinguishing ‘generic’ types
from ‘better’ types can only be learned through research and participation
in the marketplace. The more important and valuable types are listed sep
arately along with their appropriate values.
The presentation differs depending upon the nature of the coinage.
Up through the reign of Augustus (ending in A.D. 14) and in many iso
lated cases thereafter, listings are presented in the manner which is most
sensible for that issuer. However, beginning with the reign of Tiberius
(A.D. 14-37) the coinage usually lends itself to a more structured format,
which is used whenever possible.
In this structured format the obverse types generally are not described
unless they are so unusual that their market value is affected. Instead,
examples of obverse inscriptions and a description of the obverse bust
types are given at the beginning of the listings. As such, the catalog entries
are usually limited to a description of the reverse. The denominations are
presented in descending order of what is presumed to have been their
value in ancient times. Within denominations, ‘better’ reverse types (if
any) are presented in alphabetical order based on the reverse inscriptions.
On the occasions that it is the obverse which affects value, the type is
described.
When possible, coins are given one or two reference numbers. For
Imperatorial coins Michael Crawford’s Roman Republican Coinage (2 vol
umes) is usually used, and for Imperial coins, The Roman Imperial Coinage
(10 volumes) is most often cited. A variety of sources are used for
provincial coins.
XI
XII HOW TO USE THE COIN CATALOG
Values are provided in three grades (states of preservation) whenever

it is possible to do so with reasonable accuracy. Most often the grades Fine
(F), Very Fine (VF) and Extremely Fine (EF) are used.. However, Near
Mint State (n M S) is used for gold coins of the Divided Empire after A.D.
364 and Choice Very Fine (chVF) is used for all Imperial bronzes struck
through the end of the 3rd Century A.D. The latter distinction has been
made because bronzes struck through the later 3rd Century rarely are pre
served well enough to be considered EF in the same strict and accurate
manner as precious metal coins. A coin qualifying as chVF valued at
$l,500-$2,000 might be valued at $7,000-$ 10,000 in true EF, though such
large price spreads are not universal among bronzes.
For assistance in grading coins, the reader is directed to the photo
graphic grading guide presented in the chapter on determining the value
of ancient coins. A thorough reading of that chapter will reinforce the fact
that the values in this book are of limited use on their own. Technical
grade is only one of many factors by which the market values of ancient
coins are determined.
The values stated in the catalog are estimates for conservatively
graded, essentially problem-free coins. Noteworthy defects will decrease
the value of a coin (sometimes significantly), whereas merits will have the
opposite effect. A dash (— ) has two functions: it indicates either a value
which is difficult to determine (and which may not be very high) or it rep
resents a negligible value when it occurs in the lowest-grade column. It
should not be assumed that coins given the same value range are necessar
ily equal in value, for they may represent different ends of their shared
spectrum.
Most importantly of all, the values in this book are not offers by the
author or publisher to buy or sell such coins, nor are they assurances that
such coins can be bought or sold at such prices, or at any price at all.
Values are given in United States dollars.
C o m m o n l y U se d A b b r e v ia t io n s A n d T e r m s
A.D. Anno Domini (year of our Lord)

adv. advancing (moving either to the right (r.) or the left (1.))
Æ copper or its alloys, such as bronze or orichalcum (brass)
AR silver
AV gold
b. born
B.C. Before Christ
betw. between
Billon a low-grade alloy of silver
c. circa (approximate, as applies to date)
cf. conferee (consult...)
chVF Choice Very Fine (a grade)
confr. confronted
ctr. center
cuir. cuirassed (wearing armor)
d. died or daughter
diad. diademed (wearing a diadem crown)
dr. draped
EF Extremely Fine (a grade)
EL electrum (an alloy of gold and silver of varying purity)
helm. helmeted
ex. exergue (the bottom area of the reverse, often where the mint-
mark occurs)
ff following (unspecified numbers subsequent to the one(s) given)
figs. figures
F Fine (a grade)
g. grams
hd. head
hldg. holding
inscr. inscription or inscribing
Jr. Junior
1. left
laur. laureate (wearing a laurel leaf crown)
mm millimeters (indicating the diameter of a coin)
mod. modern (usually indicating the modern name of a location)
mon. moneyer (the official responsible for issuing coins)
NMS Nearly Mint State (a grade)
obv obverse (the front [“heads”] side of a coin)
Potin low-grade alloy of silver
XIII
XIV COMMONLY USED ABBREVIATIONS AN D TERMS / REFERENCES CITED
prev. previous
r. right
rad. radiate (wearing a spiky “radiate” crown)
rec. receiving
reel. reclining
rev reverse (the back [“tails”] side of a coin)
sim. similar
Sr. Senior
std. seated
stg. standing
var. variety (a variant of the coin described in the catalog number
which is cited)
VF Very Fine (a grade)
w. wife
yr- year
R e f e r e n c e s m o st c o m m o n l y c it e d in t h e C a t a l o g
Cr. Roman Republican Coinage, by M. Crawford

R IC The Roman Imperial Coinage (10 vols., various authors)
D.O. Catalogue of Late Roman Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks
Collection and in the Whittemore Collection, by R Grierson
and M. Mays
RPC Roman Provincial Coinage, Volume I (with supplement), by
A. Burnett, M. Amandry and P.P. Ripolles
BM C Catalogue of the Greek Coins in the British Museum (29 vols.,
various authors)
Fr. The Coinage of the Kingdom of the Bosporus, by N .A . Frolova
Hendin Guide to Biblical Coins (3rd ed.), by D. Hendin
Milne Catalogue of Alexandrian Coins, by J.G . Milne
Note: Other references sometimes cited may be found in the bibliography.

COINAGE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE
PART ONE
N u m ism a t ic In t r o d u c t io n
CH APTER ONE
A B r ie f In t r o d u c t io n
A ncient Rome is virtually impossible to define, for like all civilizations,

it is rife with contradiction. The level of sophistication it achieved in
law, art, religion, literature and politics was as high as humankind has
known. Yet other aspects are barbaric by most any standard. The idea that
Rome’s most prominent citizens gathered to watch hundreds — sometimes
thousands — of men and animals be butchered for mere sport shatters any
illusion that their world was very similar to our own.
Perhaps it is this intermingling of the familiar and the remote that
makes ancient Rome such a fascinating study, for we simultaneously realize
both how much and how little we’ve changed.
Finding a tangible link to the past often makes a faint connection
more real. To hold a coin that circulated in Rome in the reign of Tiberius
is no ordinary experience. It comes as a shock to many that Roman coins
are so common, that they have survived the passage of time in such great
quantities. However, it must be remembered that they were struck in
extraordinarily large numbers, for they were the backbone of commerce in
an Empire that reached from Britain to Mesopotamia and beyond.
Coins were often buried in hoards for safe keeping. A significant per
centage of these buried treasures were never recovered by their owners and
have remained secret ever since. The nature of coin hoards vary greatly,
ranging from clay pots filled with heavily-worn bronze coins, to caches of
uncirculated gold coins intended to pay armies. Ancient coins have been
discovered by accident and by design since ancient times, and they con
tinue to be found on a regular basis.
For this reason the most common of the copper coins in poor condi
tion are quite common. Indeed, they can be purchased for less than the
price of a cup of coffee. The rarer and more impressive coins in the series,
however, may command hundreds of thousands of dollars. The market
place for ancient Roman coins is as active today as it has ever been, and
this book is intended to make the collecting experience more meaningful
and enjoyable.
The ancient Romans produced a coinage as vast and as beautiful as any
in history. The Romans produced a remarkably modem coinage, for its basic
characteristics are still evident on most coins in circulation to this day. As
such, Roman coins offer a curious mix of the exotic and the familiar.
Romans were sticklers for uniformity and consistency. Though an
aureus of Nero (54-68) and a solidus of Leo I (457-474) are quite different
17
18 COINAGE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE: NUMISMATIC INTRO DU CTION
in their appearance, in real terms they are virtually the same. Both have
portraits of their issuer on the obverse surrounded by a Latin inscription,
usually abbreviated, that identifies both the issuer and his titles. The
reverses were host to a variety of designs — most often human figures,
mortal or divine — surrounded by an inscription.
Though the four centuries that separate these two coins are readily
apparent — in the style of the art, the method of engraving and the “fab
ric” of the planchet — they are fundamentally the same product. The
emperor is unrivaled on the obverse and the reverse is a canvas for propa
ganda. The two coins have the same level of Imperial dignity and served as
ambassadors of the might and affluence of Rome.
In certain other respects Roman coins are completely mysterious,
evading logical classification regardless of how intensely they are studied.
The collector must realize that minor varieties — even if they are unpub
lished — are absolutely commonplace. With great ease and with a modest
budget one could form a collection of “unpublished” Roman coins that are
undocumented in the major references.
This often puzzles the new collector, for rare or unpublished varieties
in most other fields of collectibles command substantial premiums over
known pieces. But such is not the case with Roman coins, or even with
Greek coins. Rarity is a factor in the price and the desirability of Roman
coins, but not necessarily a major one, for the element that makes a coin
unique must be important in and of itself before it creates strong demand.
But all of these subjects are discussed in greater detail in their relevant
chapters.
This book covers slightly more than 550 years of Roman history, and
documents the lives and coinages of 284 Romans. The biographies are
intended not only to provide a review of the events of each person’s life,
but also to provide insight into his or her personality and to demonstrate
that individual’s role in history.
A N o t e A b o u t t h e B io g r a p h ie s
Separating truth from fiction is a demanding task even in our own times.
Seldom is truth readily apparent in any situation, as there is always more
than one point of view to be considered. Imagine being a historian two
millennia from now and writing about the assassination of John F.
Kennedy. What conclusion^) would you draw? Though a truth does exist,
it is not universally acknowledged even in our own times. This is the prob
lem historians face as they tackle the complex history of the Romans.
The best effort has been made in this volume to present an accurate
and balanced view of Roman history. A great many ancient sources and
secondary sources were consulted. However, in the final analysis some
INTRO DU CTION 19
thing has to be written, and the views which seemed to have the greatest
merit triumphed. In cases where no conclusion could readily be drawn, the
conflicting viewpoints are presented so the reader might be aware of the
factors involved, and could freely draw a conclusion.
The ancient historians (upon whom we rely so heavily) were some
times inaccurate through no fault of their own; at other times they were
purposefully misleading to suit their political or personal agenda. Gossip is
rife in the writings of Suetonius, inaccuracies abound in the collected
works of the Historia Augusta. Devoutly Christian historians such as Lac-
tantius and Eutropius were pro-Christian to such a degree that their works
must be read with great caution.
Fortunately, the ancient historians are not our only source of informa
tion. Artifacts such as coins, inscriptions and papyri have proven time and
time again to be vital in either supporting or contradicting the literary
record. The archaeological record can scarcely stand on its own, but when
used in concert with other sources of information, it can sometimes offer
an invaluable perspective.
There are many different approaches to biographical writing. In this
book, when possible, three aspects are presented in each entry:
• A factual account of the events of the subject’s life.

• A n assessment of the subject’s personality.
• A n examination of historical context, so the reader may better under
stand how the subject fits into the larger scheme of Roman history.
A n equally important goal was to provide as much information as

possible in each biography. A n inevitable consequence of this is that some
information will appear in multiple biographies. Though this repetition
may be considered unnecessary or even wasteful (certainly it is noticeable
when several related biographies are read en bloc), this path has been taken
in anticipation that readers will use the biographies primarily for reference,
not for general perusal. As such, research should be easy and efficient.
C ir c u l a t io n
It is well documented both by literary and archaeological evidence that
ancient coins often circulated for centuries. A n excellent example is the
countermarking of older, worn coins in the east by the emperor Vespasian
in the early A.D. 70s. The majority of these denarii were at least a century
old at the time they were countermarked. In A.D. 107 the emperor Trajan
made a general recall of worn denarii from circulation, which were melted
in massive quantities. Offering proof that most of these coins were from
Republican and early Imperial times (by then 100 to 200 years old) is his
commemorative series of denarii in which he revives the designs of about

50 types that presumably were the more significant among those being
withdrawn.
The issuance of Imperial cistophori by the emperor Hadrian (117—
138) is similarly convincing. Most (if not all) of the planchets used were
older cistophori issued some 100 to 150 years earlier. We have no reason to
doubt that these “host” coins (the coins that were overstruck) had been in
circulation up until the time they were withdrawn for re-coining.
The most interesting of all, however, are the Ostrogoth or Vandal
issues of late 5 th or early 6th Centuries A.D. which had the value markings
XLII or LXXXIII “cut” into their surfaces. The “host” coins — asses, dupon-
dii, and the occasional sestertius of the 1st Century A.D. — were “recycled”
and assigned new denominations. During the 400 to 500 years that had
expired since these coins were struck and when they were reintroduced,
they could not have been in circulation uninterruptedly.
The “host coins” are often reasonably well preserved. (No coin could
endure such long service and still be remotely identifiable.) Had they been
true stragglers in circulation, one would expect to see a larger variety of
types, and especially later types, such as sestertii of Severus Alexander,
nummi of the Tetrarchy, etc. Interestingly, most of them are Flavian mid
dle bronzes — a phenomenon which seemingly carried over to the 40-
nummus coins the Ostrogoths struck in Rome during the reign of Zeno
(catalog nos. 3818-9). For not only do they have the general appearance
of the Flavian middle bronzes, but the Victory-on-prow reverse type is spe
cifically copied.
P u t t in g C o in s in t o C o n t e x t
The question most commonly asked about ancient coins is what they were
worth when they were in circulation. It is the simplest of questions, and
yet one of the most difficult to answer. This seems especially hard to accept
when you consider that the Romans struck coins in specific denominations
and that throughout most of Rome’s history we have a solid idea of what
Imperial coins were worth relative to each other. However, we have only a
vague idea of what they were worth in absolute terms.
Another frequent question is how many Roman coins survive? The
answer is “millions,” but this is a paltry figure in comparison to how many
were actually struck, and that is the point at which these two questions are
inextricably tied. The idea that the Roman economy was small or primi
tive must be abandoned, for it was advanced, complex and vast. Coins
often circulated for centuries and traveled as far as India, Ceylon and
China where they have been found in excavations.
INTRO DU CTION 2 1
One of the reasons the Romans struck so many coins is that they were
constantly being exported beyond the borders of their Empire, never to
return. The Romans were an affluent people who purchased luxury goods
such as silk, spices and gemstones. Every time these items were purchased
from foreigners, the monetary supply in the Empire diminished and new
coins had to be struck. Furthermore, old coins that had seen too much cir
culation were often withdrawn and re-coined.
Occasionally, texts survive that provide specific examples of the
quantities of silver and gold involved. By conquering the Kingdom of
Macedon in 167 B.C., the Romans seized some 75 million denarii, or about
a million pounds of silver. The Romans had always kept ample amounts of
gold in their treasury, but this practice peaked in the 5th and 6th Centu
ries A.D., when they excelled in their capacity as the only major producer
of gold coins in the Western world.
The emperor Marcian (450-457), for example, was able to amass
more than 100,000 pounds of gold, or the equivalent of 7.2 million solidi.
But this immense treasury was squandered by Marcian’s successor, Leo I,
who in 468 launched a naval expedition against the Vandals that is esti
mated to have cost between 7 million and 10 million solidi to outfit.
When the armada of 1,100 ships (and approximately 100,000 men) was
destroyed, it bankrupted the Eastern Roman Empire.
The expedition might never have been undertaken had Leo not
anticipated the financial gain would exceed the amount he put at risk.
Indeed, only a generation later, much larger sums were lining the Imperial
coffers. The first ‘Byzantine’ emperor, Anastasius I (491—518), amassed at
least 300,000 pounds of gold, a sum three times that of Marcian.
To put all of this high finance into terms of the “average man,” we
can look to more humble sources. Around the time of its destruction in
A.D. 79 the average pay of a laborer in Pompeii was about 8 asses (half a
denarius) per day, though actual salaries ranged from 5 to 16 asses per day.
Skilled miners in rural Dacia earned wages of 6 to 10 asses, which were
supplemented by free room and board valued at 2 to 3 asses per day, bring
ing their true salaries more in line with the workers at the resort town of
Pompeii.
These salaries are quite comparable with those paid to Roman foot
soldiers. In the time of Julius Caesar and long thereafter, a soldier earned
225 denarii per year (10 asses per day). This was increased to 300 under
Domitian (81-96), rose to 600 under Septimius Severus (193-211), and
was increased sharply again to 900 by his son, Caracalla (198-217), and
then doubled yet again to 1,800 denarii per year by Maximinus I (235-
238). O f course, many of a soldier’s basic expenses were paid in addition
his base salary.
We must also bear in mind that officers were paid considerably more
than the common soldier. Praetorian guardsmen received about three times
the salary of regular enlistees, or 750 denarii per year. This figure was raised
to an even thousand by Domitian, who paid his centurions 15,000 to 20,000
denarii per year (a figure which had risen as high as 34,000 per year by the
reign of Septimius Severus). Considering there were typically between
300,000 and 500,000 soldiers in the army at all times (and in some cases, we
are told, 750,000 or more), the sums involved were staggering.
Though the salary hike given by Septimius Severus was largely to
compensate for his debasement of his silver denarius, other pay hikes, such
as that given by Maximinus I, were purely intended to gain allegiance. We
must also bear in mind that salaries were just the beginning of the state’s
military expenditures. Consider also the costs of rations, armor, weapons,
maintenance, supplies, transportation, cavalry horses, ships and vehicles,
the cost of retiring (cashiering) soldiers, and the frequent bonuses and
donatives that were given.
The range of salaries was also quite broad in government. During the
reign of Augustus, provincial officials were paid annual salaries ranging
from 500 aurei (12,500 denarii) for an equestrian tribune, to 10,000 aurei
(250,000 denarii) for a senior proconsul in Asia or Africa. By the mid-2nd
Century A.D., it is estimated that perhaps 2 million aurei (50 million
denarii) were required just to pay the governors, procurators and junior
officers in provincial government. This translates to roughly 45,000
pounds of gold each and every year just for this portion of the Imperial
budget.
In light of the figure of 50 million denarii mentioned above, we can
get a better sense of the importance of the action taken by the new
emperor Hadrian in 118, when he burned documents representing arrears
of some 225 million denarii owed by Roman citizens.
Another good source for a glimpse at what money was worth is Dio
cletian’s edict of 301, which set price ceilings for a variety of goods and ser
vices. By this time the denarius was virtually a phantom denomination, for
silver denarii had not been struck as part of the regular coinage system for
more than 60 years. The denarius was a coin of account often called a
denarius communis.
Thus, the denarius of Diocletian’s time had no real relation to that of
Domitian or even of Septimius Severus. As part of his edict, Diocletian
tariffed the denarius in relation to gold: a Roman pound of gold (about 325
grams) could legally sell for no more than 72,000 denarii. In the reign of
Septimius Severus, they were striking aurei at 45 to the pound and the
denarius was valued at 25 per aureus. Thus, it theoretically required 1,125
denarii to purchase a pound of gold during the reign of Septimius Severus
— a figure l/64th that of Diocletian’s denarius communis.
IN TRO DU CTION 23
With the reader forewarned of that differential, we can report that a

daily salary for a baker was set at a maximum of 50 denarii, that of a farm
worker at half that amount, 25 per day. When adjusted for the difference
in the currency rates, these salaries compare almost identically with the 1 st
Century salary ranges for miners in Dacia and laborers in Pompeii. Clearly,
the Romans had a fixed idea of what a day’s work was worth.
But what could the Diocletianic laborer buy with his hard-earned sal
ary? A haircut would cost a maximum of two denarii, a pound of pork 12
denarii, and approximately a liter of common wine 16 denarii. Better wine
(called Falernian wine) would cost him a maximum of 60 denarii per liter.
A pound of purple-dyed silk spun into fine threads was priced in the edict
at 125 aurei, indicating it was valued at approximately three times that of
gold itself. The cheaper version, undyed white silk, cost only 10 aurei per
pound. A t the same time, a retail merchant might charge more than 40
aurei for a finely woven ceremonial garment of dyed wool.
Luxury goods, then as today, were expensive. A comparison of the
two wines named in Diocletian’s edict shows the better wine cost approxi
mately four times as much as the common wine. Pliny the Elder, an author
of the 1st Century A.D. who died while observing the eruption of Mount
Vesuvius, cites prices ranging from 1 to 16 denarii per pound for imported
spices and incense. However, he notes that rarer spices and perfumes com
manded 50 to 100 denarii per pound.
Determining how all this compares to modern times is not easy, for
inflation can skew statistics considerably from one decade to the next
depending on the health of an economy. However, if we assume that the
average salary of an unskilled laborer is basically equal then and now, it is
difficult not to conclude that the silver denarius was worth somewhere
between $100 and $150. Can this possibly be accurate?
If a model such as this is even remotely accurate, the copper as would
have been worth as much as $10. In essence, this would mean the Romans
did not produce coins that in modern terms we would consider “small
change,” and thus would have had to handle lower-price purchases in a
different manner than we do today.
Even the lowly quadrans — which was not issued regularly or in large
quantities, and may not even have been a coin per se (see the discussion
under quadrans in the denominations section) — would then be worth
more than $2 according to the model given above. The prospect that
quadrantes were not intended for “priced” consumer goods is supported by
the price lists posted by merchants at Pompeii, on which all goods and ser
vices were tallied in asses and never in semisses or quadrantes.
Since Imperial quadrantes and semisses were issued for use in metro
politan Rome (where subsidies for grain and other items were offered),
they probably had a very specific monetary function. In the provinces,
however, a variety of small bronzes were struck, and larger coins were even
cut in half to make change.
Many numismatists are of the opinion that despite how the mathe
matics of this seem to work out, the denarius was not so valuable a coin,
and that the copper was a coin of very little worth, for they are relatively
common finds as stray items at archaeological digs.
Clearly, there remains a mystery to be solved, for economists suggest
that more than half of the coins in circulation are generally low value
pieces, such as those which would be worth less than one dollar in the cur
rent economy.
To the contrary, in the 4th and 5th Centuries A.D. we have a very dif
ferent situation — one comparable to our own. There were tremendous
numbers of reduced nummi (Æ 4s) circulating, which individually had very
little purchasing power. In the mid-5th Century these nummi were tariffed
at about 7,000 to the gold solidus, and by the early 6th Century that figure
had doubled. As such, the paltry nummus was an ideal coin for daily pur
chases of food and other household staples.
A B r ie f H ist o r y o f R ome a n d it s C o in a g e
To gain a full appreciation of Roman coins the historical framework in
which they were produced must be understood. With that in mind, histor
ical outlines and biographical entries comprise the greater part of this
work. What follows is an abridged version of the history and numismatic
developments that are discussed in greater detail elsewhere. The discussion
begins long before Imperial coinage was produced so that a sense of per
spective may be gained for the role coinage played in the overall history of
Rome.
• The Republic Though the original (native) inhabitants of central Italy

may have used crude “lumps” of bronze known as aes rude to facilitate
trade from the 2nd Millennium B.C., the first true Roman coins were pro
duced sometime between 320 and 280 B.C. The coinages of the Roman
Republic were produced regularly from about 225 B.C. until the accession
of Augustus late in the 1st Century B.C. Coinage during the vast majority
of this nearly 200-year period either referred solely to Rome (so-called
“anonymous” issues) or to the deeds and actions of famous members of
the family of the moneyer, the official responsible for producing the coin
age. Sometimes the Republican coin designs made allusions to the
actions of the moneyer’s patron deity. Portraits of living Romans did not
occur on the central coinages of the Republic until January of 44 B.C.,
when Julius Caesar took that bold step. However, portraits of deceased
ancestors of the moneyers make occasional appearances later in the
INTRO DU CTION 25
Republic. True Republican-style coins that celebrated the moneyer’s fam

ily continued to be struck well into the Imperatorial period (c. 82 to 30
B.C.), though by the 40s B.C. they co-mingled with coins struck in the
names of the various Imperators and the Dictator Julius Caesar.
The Imperatorial Period The last half century of the Republic has been
termed the Imperatorial Period since this was the time when the great
generals, those holding Imperatorial power, fought to control the state.
It began in 83 B.C. when Sulla landed with his army at Brundisium and
marched on to seize power in Rome. The Imperatorial period was
fraught with wars waged by men such as Pompey the Great, Julius C ae
sar, Marc Antony and Octavian, all of whom tried to seize supreme
power in opposition to the traditional authority of the senate. Portraits
of living Romans first occurred on coins struck at Rome during this
period, establishing a trend that for half a millennium would be the
hallmark of the coinage of the Empire. Depending on one’s perspective,
this period ends sometime between 31 and 27 B.C. (In 31 B.C. Octavian
defeated Marc Antony at Actium; in 30 B.C. both Antony and Cleo
patra committed suicide, leaving Octavian in sole command; and in 27
B.C. Octavian adopted the name Augustus and was granted supreme
authority by the senate.) In this book, 27 B.C. has been chosen.
The Roman Empire Spanning almost exactly 500 years, this period
began with the reign of Augustus (the second of Suetonius’ “Twelve
Caesars,” whose “reign” began in 27 B.C.) and continued until the “fall”
of Italy to German soldiers in 476 (though Julius Nepos, in exile, was
recognized as the Western emperor until his murder in 480). Despite
three important “Separatist Empires,” the Empire was united until a for
mal division occured in 364 between East and West. Though there are
many opinions as to when this occurred, 364 has been chosen for this
book. The most outstanding characteristics of Roman Imperial coins are
the portrait gallery they form and the historical information they reveal.
The rise and fall of Rome’s fortune is clearly demonstrated by the grad
ual changes in the aesthetic and intrinsic value of the coins themselves.
When the Western Roman Empire fell in 476, it did not signal the end
of Rome’s legacy, for the eastern half of the Empire continued to flourish
for another thousand years. This successor culture is commonly known
as the Byzantine Empire.
Provincial Coinages This category overlaps the preceding three, which

principally concern the central coinages of the Republic and the
Empire. Provincial coins (often called “Greek Imperials” ) were made for
local use in the provinces of Rome, and were successors to the original,
independent Greek coinages. Thus, they most often have inscriptions in

the local language (usually Greek, though in Latin if a Roman colony,
or other languages when necessary). They are denominated to a local
standard, though it was compatible with the Imperial denomination sys
tem (such as 16 assaria and 16 asses being equal to a silver denarius or
drachm). Provincial coins were struck from the early 2nd Century B.C.
through the end of the 3rd Century A.D., and thus constitute a 500-year
history all their own. The Romans were practical in their approach to
coinage in the East (for they had more effectively monopolized it in the
Western Mediterranean), and often paid their soldiers with silver struck
in Athens, Macedon, Thasos, etc. Throughout the period of provincial
coinage cities struck so-called “quasi-autonomous” issues which did not
bear the portrait of an emperor or Imperial personage. Some cities (such
as Athens, Chios, etc.) did this regularly, but usually it was an isolated
occurence. A sub-category of provincial coinage is found in the regions
whose often-hereditary rulers exercised some self-government, and
essentially were vassal states (client kingdoms) loosely allied with
Rome. These client kings often issued coins with their own names and
portraits. Other times, especially in the 1st Centuries B.C. and A.D.,
Romans conducting their appointed duties (as governors, legates, pra
etors, propraetors, procurators, etc.) in the provinces would strike coins
bearing their names, and sometimes even their portraits. Though pro
vincial coinage was eventually overtaken by the debased double denar
ius (which was struck in extraordinarily large quantities), it was an
important part of the Imperial monetary system. Indeed, they are best
viewed not as the dying embers of a once-proud Greek coinage, but as a
fascinating branch of Roman coinage that preserves and celebrates
many aspects of Greek culture.
A B r ie f R o m a n H ist o r y
The origins of Rome were remarkably humble: a series of virtually defense
less villages of thatched huts set upon a cluster of seven hills in central
Italy. Though the literary accounts of Rome’s origin are entirely based on
legend, the archaeological record reveals much. Instead of the traditional
“foundation” date of 753 B.C. cited by Marcus Terentius Varro (who wrote
in the 1st Century B.C.), excavations show that some of Rome’s hills had
been inhabited since the close of the Bronze Age, about 1000 B.C. Indeed,
by the end of the 7th Century B.C., the Romans were literate, had an
established aristocracy and had even erected monumental buildings that
marked Rome as a city-state of some importance.
INTRO DU CTION 27
Throughout its history, Rome relied both upon its proximity to over
land trade routes and upon the river Tiber, which led to the Tyrrhenian sea
on Italy’s western shores. People of different origins lived in Rome from
early in its development, including Greeks, Sabines and Etruscans. Rome’s
earliest years are said to have been ruled by seven kings, the first of whom
was the eponymous Romulus. The last to rule, the Tarquinian king Lucius
Tarquinius Superbus, is said to have been overthrown in 510 B.C. by an
aristocratic coup. Though the event is probably real, the date is almost cer
tainly incorrect.
After Tarquinius Superbus was expelled, Rome established a strong
tradition of representative rulership, headed by two annually elected con
suls. This was democratic in a sense, but it was skewed in favor of aristo
cratic men, who constituted perhaps one in ten people living in Rome and
its immediate environs. This led to many conflicts with the plebs, or the
common poor. Considering that by c. 300 B.C. Rome seems to have had
about 750,000 inhabitants (and three times that amount living in the sur
rounding land), conflicts between aristocrats and plebs often took on large
proportions.
Until several generations after they produced their first coins, Rome’s
future was not very secure. Beyond domestic concerns, Rome also clashed
with foreigners, such as other peoples native to Central Italy, Greeks,
Gauls, Carthaginians and Epeirotes. Oftentimes warfare was brought to
Rome rather than the other way around. By far the most devastating con
flicts in Republican times occurred with its nemesis Carthage.
The Punic inhabitants of Carthage were seafaring merchants who
had frequent opportunity to compete with Roman trade and military ships
for control of the Western Mediterranean. They fought three immensely
destructive wars with Rome known as the Punic Wars. The First lasted
from 264 to 241 B.C., the Second from c. 218 to 201 and the Third from
149 to 146. The Third Punic War ended in utter ruin for Carthage, for its
surviving inhabitants were sold into slavery, the city was leveled and its
land was sewn with salt.
The Romans were slow to embrace the concept of coinage, even
though the Greek colonists in Southern Italy and Sicily (with whom they
regularly traded) had been using coins for more than two centuries before
Rome began to strike. N ot surprisingly, Rome’s first silver coins (beginning
c. 280 B.C.) were struck at Greek mints in Southern Italy (such as Neapo-
lis and Metapontum) and resembled those used by the Greeks.
By about 250 B.C. silver coins were being struck in Rome itself, and
were being produced alongside cast bronzes (massive rectangular bars
called aes signatum and heavy circular pieces called aes grave). Rome’s early
silver coins were not an integral part of a planned economy, but rather
were struck in response to occasional needs. It is worth noting that the

dating of these early silver issues is still hotly debated among scholars.
Despite this numismatic advance and the international contacts the
Romans gained through war and trade, they continued to use their crude,
cumbersome cast bronzes until the last quarter of the 3rd Century B.C.
About the time Rome abandoned its cast bronzes, it had emerged from the
Second Punic War as undisputed master of the Western Mediterranean.
As a natural consequence, it became a nation in need of consistently
issued coinage, and thus Rome underwent a numismatic revolution.
The Romans used a traditional Italic unit (called an ‘as’) for their
basic copper coin, and struck all of their gold and silver coins as multiples
of the as. Rome’s first gold coins, for example, were valued at 20, 40 and 60
asses. After experimenting with two silver denominations known to mod
ern numismatists as the “quadrigatus” and the “victoriatus,” the Romans
settled upon a silver coin called the “denarius.” This familiar coin seems to
have been introduced in 212 or 211 B.C., and was tariffed at ten copper
asses. About 70 years later its value was inflated to 16 asses, where it
remained for nearly the next four centuries.
Subsidiary denominations were struck in copper and silver, including
a small silver piece called a “sestertius,” which would maintain the same
value ratio (four per denarius), but would be transformed into a large brass
coin. Gold was only struck sporadically during the Republic and did not
become a regular part of Rome’s economy until the reign of Augustus (27
B.C. to A.D. 14). Although the purity of Roman silver was gradually
debased with the passage of time, gold remained of high purity, and only
occasionally suffered from fluctuating weight.
The first silver denarii of the Republic show on their obverse the
helmeted head of Roma and on their reverse Castor and Pollux (the
Dioscuri) riding on horseback, couching lances. Somewhat later, this
reverse type was largely supplanted by a chariot scene, in which a chariot is
drawn by two horses (a biga), three horses (a triga) or four horses (a quad
riga). A host of other animals and creatures (including stags and serpents)
sometimes replace the horses, and the identity of the driver is also quite
variable.
The designs of these earliest denarii (often called “anonymous”
issues) emphasize the glory of Rome, and only in the later stages is there a
shift in focus to the glorification of the moneyer, who was responsible for
striking coins. From this human tendency for self-promotion was born a
series of silver coins of enormous variety and historical value. Hundreds of
designs were created between about 135 and 41 B.C., making this one of
the most popular collecting areas.
By the mid-1st Century B.C., the Republic had become paralyzed
with bureaucracy and corruption, and the time was ripe for change. But
IN TRO DU CTION 29
change came in the form of civil war led by men who had no intention of
sharing power with the senate or of preserving the age-old Republican
form of government. The beginning of the end came in the late 80s B.C.
under the warlord Lucius Cornelius Sulla. Later still, men such as Crassus
and Pompey the Great behaved in a similarly autocratic manner, only later
to be joined by Julius Caesar, with whom they formed the First Triumvirate
in 60 B.C.
The rise of Caesar necessitated the fall of Pompey, which was com
pleted at the Battle of Pharsalus in 48 B.C. Caesar then held absolute
power until his assassination by Brutus, Cassius and dozens of senatorial
conspirators in March of 44 B.C. Caesar had been granted the title “dicta
tor” by the senate on several occasions, and on the last, it assumed a new
majesty: “dictator for life.” Several weeks later, in January of 44 B.C., C ae
sar became the first living Roman to have his portrait appear on a coin
struck at Rome.
With the fall of Julius Caesar we move into a new era in which Marc
Antony, Lepidus, Brutus, Cassius, Sextus Pompey and Octavian battled for
supremacy. Sometimes alone, other times in alliances, they fought to claim
authority for themselves, or in the case of Brutus and Cassius, to restore
the Republic. The coinage of this period (44 to 31 B.C.) is rich in history
and reflects dozens of plot twists that make this era one of the great dramas
in the history of the West.
Emerging victorious from these troubled times was Octavian, the
great-nephew of the murdered Julius Caesar, who defeated his former ally
Marc Antony at the Battle of Actium in 31 B.C. Octavian accepted the
name Augustus from the senate in 27 B.C., and it is at this point that most
historians agree the Empire began.
Augustus proceeded cautiously, proclaiming his dictatorship as little
more than a modified Republic (for the senate and the two consuls still
existed). However, during the next four decades he transformed Rome into
what may best be described as a hereditary monarchy. It would survive 500
years in all, and in Constantinople Rome’s legacy would continue for a
thousand years more.
Roman coinage was quite varied during the Imperatorial period and
the principate of Augustus, though toward the end of Augustus’ reign cer
tain conventions were established that set a more regimented pace for
Imperial coinage thereafter. Beginning with Tiberius’ reign in A.D. 14, the
coinage was launched onto a steady, though often interesting path.
For the next two centuries, no new denominations were introduced
and the general formula of coinage was largely unaltered. The main excep
tion was the Civil War of 68-69. During this period “anonymous” denarii
and aurei were struck in addition to the regular portrait coins of the men
who fought to become emperor. Other interesting aspects, such as the
“mines” coinage (seemingly struck for use at mines in the Balkans), “resto
ration” issues (such as those struck by Trajan) and the application of coun
termarks on circulating coinage, offer interesting adjuncts to the standard
Imperial issues.
During the 2nd Century A.D., Rome entered its most prosperous era.
Under Trajan (98-117), the Empire grew to its largest geographical extent
and after some paring down in size it enjoyed considerable peace and pros
perity under his successors Hadrian and Antoninus Pius. It was during this
era that the Pax Romana, a “golden age” of peace and prosperity, was
achieved. However, the subsequent reign of the philosopher-emperor Mar
cus Aurelius (161-180) saw a marked increase in frontier warfare on the
Rhine and Danube, which proved to be an ill omen for the remainder of
the Western Empire.
The good times enjoyed by Rome ended with the reign of Commodus
(177-192), the son of Marcus Aurelius, who proved to be a disgrace on
every level. When Commodus was murdered in a palace coup, Pertinax, a
man of integrity was hailed emperor. However, he was soon murdered and
the praetorian guard (the army cohorts stationed in Rome) auctioned off
the throne early in 193, plunging the Empire into turmoil. A civil war
erupted, and just as in 68 to 69, there were several claimants to the throne.
The stage had been set for the tumultuous 3rd Century, which would prove
to be the most uncertain in the history of the Empire.
After more than four years of warfare throughout the Empire, the
general Septimius Severus, a North African by birth, established a heredi
tary dynasty that ruled Rome almost continuously from 193 to 235.
Though usually called the Severan Dynasty, in this book it is referred to as
the Severan-Emesan Dynasty, for that name more accurately reflects the
composition of its African and Syrian members. As exotic as it all sounds
(and some of it, such as the reign of Elagabalus, was remarkably un-
Roman), it must be remembered that these were Romanized people who
considered themselves superior to the rustic population in their
homelands.
The greatest change in store for the Romans, however, was not ruler-
ship by Syrians or Africans, but domination by soldier-emperors from the
Balkans. This began in 235 with the overthrow of Severus Alexander and
continued almost without interruption for the next 150 years. Rome
entered a tailspin in which the Rhine and the Danube borders were
breached by Germanic and nomadic invaders without respite, causing the
throne to be usurped by the frontier commanders with great frequency.
Indeed, the enemies of Rome had changed with the passage of time.
N o longer were the Macedonians, the Carthaginians or the Pontic kings a
threat, for they had all been pacified long ago. Rome’s “civilized” enemies
in the east (at first the Parthians and later the Sasanians), were a constant
INTRO DU CTION 31
menace, but their potency changed with the ebb and flow of their own for
tunes. The enemies who lined up on the far side of the Rhine and Danube
were more persistent, for they desired to settle in Roman lands, to escape
more fierce people invading their own territories, or simply to loot.
The border of the Empire encroached on Italy when the so-called
Agri Decumates (the re-entrant zone where the Rhine and the Danube
meet) was lost in about 260. Now Italy was within a few days march for the
hostile Germans along the rim of Roman territory. In the mid-3rd Century,
Italy was invaded on more than one occasion by Germans. The arrival of
nomads from the steppes of Central Asia caused Germans to cross the riv
ers in shocking numbers, for they themselves were being driven from their
traditional lands and had nowhere to go but into Roman territory.
With the passage of time, Germanic weapons and tactics became
more advanced, especially when they added heavy cavalry and ships to
their arsenal. Fortunately for the Romans, they never mastered the skills of
conducting a siege. The Romans were almost always outnumbered (or at
least that is what we are told by Roman sources), and this is not necessarily
difficult to believe. Indeed, one gains great respect for the Romans, for it
was only through persistence and discipline that they emerged victorious
against the larger and fiercer armies of their enemies.
The low point of the Empire in the 3rd Century A.D. was undoubt
edly the reign of Gallienus (253-268), though this can hardly be attrib
uted to the emperor himself. The Empire was besieged on all fronts at
once: Gaul, the Rhine, the Danube, Asia Minor, Syria and Egypt. A s a
consequence, the Empire was greatly reduced in size, losing most of its A si
atic and Western provinces (which were not recovered until the 270s).
Reflective of this decline was the coinage itself, which became
debased, small, ragged and artistically unappealing. It was reformed several
times between 274 and 324, with further fine-tuning thereafter. It under
went a fairly comprehensive reform under the emperor Aurelian in 274,
and then two decades later was subjected to a remarkably thorough reform
by Diocletian.
During this period the Romans began to strike Imperial coins at a
network of mints located throughout the Empire, from London and
Carthage in the West to Constantinople and Alexandria in the east. Mint
marks came into regular use and types were often standardized Empire-
wide. One casualty was the abundant and varied provincial coinage, which
began to be phased out in the 260s. It had become virtually extinct by the
270s, and formally ended with the Alexandrian issues of Domitius Domi-
tianus (296-297/8).
The chaos of the 250s to the early 280s was remedied by one of Rom es
great reformers, the emperor Diocletian (284-305). During his reign, the
army was significantly increased and the government was renovated with a
clear vision of the problems it faced. Diocletian voluntarily shared his

authority, at first with one colleague and eventually with three. Thus in 293
the Tetrarchy (“rule of four”) was formed. Crises on virtually all fronts could
be handled simultaneously, in person, by an Augustus or a Caesar.
Diocletian improved upon his accomplishment by voluntarily abdi
cating the throne so the next generation of rulers could assume the bur
dens of state. Indeed, his abdication was even more remarkable than his
choice to voluntarily share authority 20 years before. Such an event had
not happened in the Roman world since Sulla abdicated in 79 B.C. — and
even he did so grudgingly, dying a year later.
However, Diocletian’s noble institution of a shared government did
not long survive his abdication, for his main successor, Galerius, was not a
man of the same caliber. Within a year chaos erupted, resulting in civil
wars that continued to damage the Empire for the next two decades. By
313 only two Augusti remained: Constantine I ‘the Great’ (307-337) and
Licinius I (308-324). Though allied in the earliest stage of their co-reign
— Constantine in the West and Licinius in the East — they later squab
bled and fought two civil wars known as the First and Second Licinian
Wars, they ended in 324 with Constantine emerging the victor.
For the first time in more than four decades, the Empire was united
under one ruler. Constantine remained in sole power until his death in
337, though in 335 he formally partitioned the Empire among his three
sons and two of his nephews. Very soon after Constantine’s death, both
cousins were murdered and his three sons carved up the Empire among
themselves.
Along with his rise to supreme power, Constantine effected two mon
umental changes in the Empire. The first was the adoption of Christianity
as the state religion, for with the exception of a few minor uprisings of
paganism, it remained the dominant faith throughout the rest of the
Empire. The second watershed event was the foundation of Constantino
ple as the eastern capital of the Empire.
Though Constantine’s conversion to Christianity was his own idea, the
establishment of a second capital in the east was nothing new, for Dio
cletian had made his capital at Nicomedia, a city only 50 miles from the old
city of Byzantium, upon which Constantinople was built. Having two capi
tals not only caused a division between East and West, but also ensured the
survival of Roman culture and Christendom, for Constantinople served as a
buffer against the invasion of Europe for the next 1,129 years.
The three sons of Constantine inherited a strong Empire, but one
that now was divided. If Constantine left one undesirable legacy, it was
that he had stirred up the Sasanians right before his death by preparing for
a great invasion which his unexpected demise prevented. His sons engaged
in a series of destructive civil wars that by 350 left only the middle son,
IN TRO DU CTION 33
Constantius II, alive. Even this heir suffered a defection by his cousin
Julian II (“the Apostate”) and died before he was able to settle the matter
in battle. The Constantinian Era came to a close one year after Julians
death, when his ill-fated successor, Jovian, died in his tent from inhaling
the fumes of a brazier.
What came next, in 364, was a new era in Roman history, one in
which there was a formal division between East and West. The reins were
taken up by the general Valentinian I, who was a commander under Jovian
in the Western provinces. N o doubt following the model of Diocletian
(who had taken great strides to divide East from West), Valentinian I
decided to share power with his younger brother, Valens. They divided
their responsibilities geographically, with Valens taking up residence in
the east (in Constantinople) and Valentinian I taking command in the
West. He chose Milan, in the north of Italy, as his headquarters instead of
the traditional capital of Rome, for Milan was closer to the theater of
action (Indeed, for this reason Milan had been used as a part-time capital
of the West since the reign of Claudius II ‘Gothicus.’)
Hereafter the treatment of the Empire changes in this book. Both the
biographies and the coin listings are separated based on the fact that there
were two separate Empires. Each had its own capital, its own armies and its
own emperor. Since the reigns of Eastern and Western emperors typically
overlap, the separate listings allow the reader to visualize the chronologi
cal arrangement not only within each Empire but also in terms of how East
related to West.
As the two Empires pursued increasingly separate paths, interactions
were limited, and often confrontational. Rome was sacked twice in the 5th
Century: in 410 by the Visigoths and in 455 by the Vandals; the feeble
attempts by the more prosperous East to “recover” the faltering West
failed. In August of 476, Rome itself fell to a coup led by the German sol
dier Odovacar, who ousted the puppet child-emperor Romulus Augustus.
The Western Roman Empire continued to be ruled, at least technically, by
Julius Nepos, the constitutional emperor who remained in exile in Dalma
tia until his own murder in 480.
It is at this point most scholars agree the Byzantine Empire begins, for
although Odovacar behaved peacefully toward Constantinople, the tradi
tional relationship between East and West had formally ended. However,
the final blow to Rome did not occur until 489, when the Ostrogothic king
Theodoric ousted Odovocar and claimed Italy in the name of his own peo
ple, though he maintained a thoroughly Roman chancellery. Thereafter
the survival of Roman culture was maintained by the Constantinopolitans,
who proudly called themselves “Romans” until their Empire was finally
overrun by the Ottoman Turks, who breached the walls of Constantinople
on the 29th of May, 1453.
34 COINAGE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE: NUMISMATIC IN TRO DU CTION
C o in D e s ig n s
The Romans had a fairly rigid formula for most of the coins of the Empire,
even those struck in the provinces. The obverse generally bore the portrait
of a noble individual, be it an Augustus (emperor), a Caesar, an Augusta
(empress) or a deified family member. This person is identified by an
inscription around the periphery of the coin, itself usually bordered by a
circle of pellets which indicate the limits of the design on the die.
These portraits usually take the form of a head or a bust (in which the
uppermost part of the torso is shown). Various ornaments and clothing are
worn, including wreaths, diadems and veils, and a wide range of clothing
and armor is also shown adorning the torso. Although usually there is only
one person portrayed (either shown in profile to the right or left, or some"
times shown facing the viewer), on occasion two, three or four people are
shown. Their busts are either jugate, back-to-back or confronted.
The reverse usually depicts a deity, a personification or an Imperial
personage, either standing, seated or engaged in some activity. Other times
multiple figures are depicted, typically greeting one another or participat
ing in a “scene,” such as an address. The remainder of reverse types depict
a wide range of animate and inanimate objects. The variety is impressive,
and the reader is referred to chapters three and four for a fuller discussion
of the types.
A N o t e A b o u t t h e I s s u e r s o f C o in s
Roman coins are inextricably linked to those who issued them. Indeed,
that is the very basis upon which they are classified in the most general
terms, and it is the staging point from which the other aspects of the coin
can be explored. But it is important to remember that the emperor who
issued the coin often is not the one who is portrayed.
In the closing years of the Republic, coins were still struck by money-
ers, but increasingly they came to be coined by men associated with the
most powerful leaders, such as Julius Caesar, Brutus and Marc Antony.
Even when the Republic had been replaced by Augustus’ Empire, the old
institution of moneyers (and the placement of their name on coinage) was
continued. But like so many of the Republican institutions that Augustus
initially honored, this too was phased out in his reign, never to recur.
We must also consider coins of the divi series, which the Romans
issued in memory of those who had died. Though these pieces are typically
classified under the person honored, they were struck by someone else,
usually a successor or a family member. The same can be said for coins of
living relatives of the emperor, for we must distinguish between who is por
trayed and who had the authority to issue the coinage.
INTRO DU CTION 35
Other times the issue is even more convoluted. The rebel Aureolus,
for example, struck coins at Milan in the name of his ally Postumus, who
was based in Gaul and who himself never controlled Milan. Although nei
ther Aureolus’ name nor his image appear on any authentic coin, we may
attribute certain coins in the name of Postumus to the mint of Milan based
on stylistic factors. Therefore, they must be attributed to Aureolus, who
controlled that city. Several other usurpers took the opposite approach and
struck coins in the name of their enemies in hopes of gaining their good
favor. Inevitably these overtures failed, but they were repeated many times.
P o r t r a it u r e o n R o m a n C o in a g e
Whether we speak in terms of quality or quantity, the portrait gallery on
Roman coinage is unequaled by any coinage produced before or since.
However, the Romans were not the first to depict living people on coin
age. In fact, they resisted the temptation for centuries. To Republican
Romans, the idea of portraying a living being on a coin was vain and dis
graceful, something better suited to Greek kings and dictators.
Despite their obvious limitations in comparison to truly three-dimen-
sional sculptures, coins are by far the most important and reliable source of
Roman portraits. O f the greatest importance are the inscriptions that
accompany and thus identify the portraits. The vast majority of busts in-
the-round that survive have no inscription, and it is standard practice that
they are identified based on a favorable comparison to an inscribed coin
portrait.
Coin portraits are also useful to art historians for dating sculptures.
This is especially true for portraits of women, whose coiffures generally fol
lowed a trend established by the women of the Imperial household. Coins
offer the most complete portrait gallery, for many of the men, women and
children who appear on coins have no equivalent bust that survives in-
the-round. Furthermore, even if they did survive, if there was no inscrip
tion and no coin with which to compare it, a positive identification would
be impossible.
The first time a living Roman had his portrait placed on a coin was in
about 196 B.C. This unprecedented event took place in Greece — far from
the immediate control of Rome. The Roman general T. Quinctius
Flamininus was in Macedon (northern Greece) to wage war on the king
Philip V. Flamininus’ hook-nosed and lightly bearded portrait appears on
the obverse of gold staters struck in Greece, perhaps at Chalcis or at
Corinth, where in 196 B.C. he proclaimed the “Freedom of Greece.”
Interestingly, Flamininus’ portrait was inspired by the portrait coins of
Philip V, the Macedonian king whom he had just defeated. The reverse
type — a standing Nike (Victory) — was modeled after a gold stater of the
type originated by Alexander the Great (336-323 B.C.), which was the
most prevalent gold coin in Greece at the time.
In Rome, however, no living Roman appeared on coinage for more
than 150 years thereafter. The only portraits used by the Romans until 44
B.C. were those of deceased ancestors or foreign kings whom the Romans
had conquered. Both of these applications involved propaganda and per
sonal boasting on the part of the moneyers who were in charge of issuing
coins.
The dictator Julius Caesar was the first living Roman to place his por
trait on coins struck in Rome. This occurred in January, 44 B.C., when
Caesar was nearing the apex of his power as Dictator quartum (his fourth
dictatorship); soon the senate appointed him to his highest post, Dictator
in perpetuo (“dictator for life”). His unprecedented use of the portrait was
the perfect compliment to his equally unprecedented title.
The title “dictator” traditionally was given only under dire circum
stances and was meant to be forfeited upon the resolution of the crisis for
which it was granted. In one fell swoop, two of the great traditions of
Rome fell by the wayside. Historians and numismatists have not been
remiss in pointing out that this was an important development in the his
tory of Rome and that his portrait on coinage may have been a major cause
of Caesar’s murder only a month later.
Once Caesar had established this practice, there was no turning back.
Indeed, only about a month or two later, Caesar’s chief henchman, Marc
Antony, placed his own portrait on coinage. Antony is shown bearded as
an indication of his mourning and wearing a veil to symbolize his priestly
position with the augurate. The greatest irony of this confused period is
that Brutus, one of the two lead assassins of Caesar, placed his own portrait
on coins in 42 B.C., shortly before his own death. The most famous of Bru
tus’ portrait coins is the EID MAR denarius, for not only does it bear his
image, but it stands out as perhaps the finest example of propaganda on
Roman coinage.
Most numismatists agree that the height of Roman coin portraiture
occurred in the 1st Century A.D., when the “Twelve Caesars” chronicled
by Suetonius ruled Rome. Many would also agree that the absolute peak
occurred from 60 to 75, beginning with the last issues of Nero, encompass
ing the Civil War of 68-69 and ending with the early issues of the Flavi
ans.
For the remainder of the 1st and the 2nd Centuries portraiture
remained strong and individualistic. However, it began to falter during the
3rd Century, most notably after it hit a temporary high-water mark in the
year 238. By the middle of the century portraits begin to lose some of their
individuality, assuming a caricature-like quality at the end of the reign of
Gallienus (253-268).
IN TRO D U CTIO N 37
In the second half of the 3rd Century portraits took on a uniform,

militaristic appearance, with closely cropped hair and beards. This style of
portrait was adopted by Diocletian and became an integral part of the ico-
nography of the Tetrarchy he formed in 293. In this case, however, indi
viduality was purposely sacrificed by the artists in order to express the
selfless unity of the emperors. In solidarity, there must be uniformity.
In the subsequent era of Constantine the Great and his sons the por
traits take on a wholly different character. Instead of a militant image,
Constantine and his sons presented a clean-shaven, youthfully idealized
image that harkened back to the Greek model of so many centuries before.
A t the height of their glory, the members of the Constantinian family
have flowing locks of hair upon the nape of their neck in a manner remi
niscent of Caligula and wear a diadem (instead of a wreath) in a clear asso
ciation with the Hellenistic Greek kings.
The Christian faith that Constantine had embraced had made a pro
found mark on coinage and art in general. With the exception of a few
pagans (such as Julian II or the occasional usurper) most Imperial portraits
thereafter were clean-shaven and idealized upon the Constantinian model.
Stylization gave way to crudeness with the passage of time, and by the late
5th Century, the “portraits” bear virtually no traces of individuality.
This process of ‘simplification’ — from the first portrait coinage of
Julius Caesar to the final issues of Julius Nepos — required more than five
centuries, and continued well into the Byzantine period, where realism
was lost to Christian piety, which found form in wide-eyes and blank
expressions.
C H A P T E R TW O
In t r o d u c t io n t o t h e O b v e r s e
he vast majority of Roman Imperial coins have on their obverse a por

T trait surrounded by an inscription. Though there are many exceptions
to this rule, they comprise only a very small percentage of coins struck in
the Empire. Sometimes there are no inscriptions on the obverse (called
anepigraphic), but this also is not common. The fields of the obverse are
generally flat, or slightly convex, whereas the reverse fields are usually a bit
concave, or sometimes flat.
When present, the inscriptions typically run clockwise, but some
times counterclockwise. Later in the Empire, in the 4th and 5th Centuries,
an unbroken obverse inscription indicates junior rank, whereas one that is
broken at the top indicates senior rank. Also during this period a letter
indicating the mint officina at which the coin was produced will occur at
the end of many reverse inscriptions (rather than in the exergue), a prac
tice that became commonplace on Byzantine gold.
However, the main purpose of the obverse inscription was to identify
the person portrayed (or the ruler authorizing the issue if there was no por
trait) and to cite his or her most important titles. Though the advanced
student can instantly recognize most portraits of emperors, empresses or
Caesars up through the mid-4th Century without the aid of accompanying
inscriptions, they are usually present. Sometimes they are quite brief and
have no abbreviations (such as HADRIANVS AVGVSTVS), but usually
they are simply a string of convenient abbreviations, seldom with more
than a pellet to separate them, and even that is not done consistently. The
four examples that follow should be of help.
1. obv IMP CAE C VAL HOS MES QU INTVS AVG.

This inscription belongs to a coin of Hostilian, a young man who held the
title of Augustus briefly in 251. In its expanded form it would read “Imper-
ator Caesar Gaius Valens Hostilianus Messius Quintus Augustus.” The first
two words and the last word indicate his rank and title, the words in-
between represent his full name.
2. obv C CAESAR DIVI AVG PRON AVG P M TR P IIII P P

From a coin of ‘Caligula’ this transcribes to: “Gaius Caesar, the Deified
Augustus’ great-grandson, himself Augustus, Pontifex Maximus, with the
power of a tribune (Tribunician Potestate) for the 4th time, Pater Patriae.”
Gaius was ‘Caligula’s’ actual name, and it is represented only by the single
39
letter C. Because it was struck during his 4th year of tribunician power (his
4th tribunate), it is dateable to A.D. 40-41.
3. obv D N F L VICTOR P F AVG

Typical of the Late Roman Empire, this inscription of Flavius Victor, a
rebel in the West who held the title Augustus from 387-388, reads:
“Dominus Noster Flavius Victor Pius Felix Augustus.” What it means is
“Our lord Flavius Victor, the happy and dutiful emperor.” The word Domi-
nus (lord) was first used by Aurelian (270-275), and occurred regularly
after the reign of Diocletian in place of Imperator (IMP). For this reason, it
is customary for some historians to refer to the era before Diocletian as
The Principate, and thereafter as The Dominate.
4. obv IMP CAES NERVA TRAIAN AVG GERM DACICVS

rev P M TR P VII IMP IIII COS V P P
In this case, we are reading an inscription that begins on the obverse, but
is too lengthy, and so continues onto the reverse. The emperor Trajan is
notorious for this, and indeed his inscriptions are the longest in the Impe
rial series. In its expanded form it reads: “Imperator Caesar Nerva Trajan
Augustus Germanicus Dacicus, Pontifex Maximus Tribuniciae Potestate
VII Imperator IIII Consul V Pater Patriae.” It translates to: “Imperator and
Caesar, Trajanus the Augustus, victor over the Germans and Dacians,
chief priest, with the power of a tribune for the 7 th time, imperator for the
4 th time, consul for the 5th time.”
Since the inscription is so complete on this coin, a chronological
investigation is merited. This coin can be dated precisely to the year 103 as
follows: it must date after 97/98 when his reign began and he received the
titles Augustus, Caesar, Pontifex Maximus and Pater Patriae. Narrowing
further, it belongs to 102 or later because that is year he was hailed Daci
cus, received his fourth Imperatorship, and had the power of a tribune
renewed for the seventh time. Flowever, all of this is irrelevant to the pre
cise dating of the issue, for it must have been struck after January 1, 103
(when Trajan was made consul for the fifth time), but before the year
ended (seemingly December 10 at the latest), for that is when his 7th tri
bunate expired.
S e l e c t e d I n s c r ip t io n s
Note: Most of the following occur on the obverses of Roman coins, though
some occur on reverses. The actual length of abbreviations may vary, or in
some cases they may not be abbreviated at all.
INTRO DU CTION TO THE OBVERSE 41
Selected Inscriptions
A(uro) A(rgento) A(ere) The duty to cast and strike gold, silver and bronze; when
F(lando) F(eriundo) it follows III VIR it refers to one of three men appointed
to coin money. It reads in the order aere argento auro
under the Republic.
A(rgento) P(ublico) F(eri- In reference to one of the principal officers of the mint;
undo) usually follows III VIR.
A D IA B (en icu s) (victor over) the Adiabeni
A FR (icanus) The cognomen of the Africani, in the revolt of A.D. 238.
A R A B (icu s) (victor over) the Arabians
A R M (enaicus) (victor over) the Armenians
A V G (usta) The title given to wives of men who held the title Augus-
tus, originally sparingly, later routinely.
AV G (ustus) A name adopted by the first emperor of Rome, Augustus

(O ctavian), which became his title, and was adopted by
most succeeding emperors.
AVGVR Member of the sacerdotal order, which professed the abih

ity to predict future events from reading animal entrails.
B R IT (an n icu s) (victor over) the Britons
C o r C A E S(ar) Originally a cognomen of some of the Julian gens, later

transformed into an Imperial title by Augustus and pri-
marily used for the heir to the throne, especially in the
1st Century A.D.
C E N S (o r) A public office by which the emperor controlled the

membership of the various aristocratic orders.
C O N S E C R A T IO “Consecration” or “Deification.” This always occurs on

the reverse.
C O S (= Consul) The highest office in the later Republic, shared by two

men. In the Empire it became much less powerful, but
remained the highest office associated with the senate,
and was often assumed by the emperor himself. W hen
done so more than once, C O S was followed by numbers
in reflection of that.
D A C (icu s) (victor over) the Dacians
D ES(ignatus) A word used in conjunction with other titles to indicate

that election to the office had occurred, but the term had
not yet begun.
D IC T (ato r) A title given in the Republic only when absolute author

ity was needed temporarily to remedy a grave crisis. Julius
Caesar earned it four times (i.e., his inscr. D IC T (ator)
QVARTfum]), and then indefinitely, D IC T (ator) (IN )
PERPETVO.
D IV O S, DIVA, D IV V S, D IV I “Divine” or “Deified”
D(om inus) N (oster) “Our lord,” appears before the name of emperors in the
later era of Rome (Diocletian and beyond), which thus is
often called “the Dominate.”
ET “and”
F(ilius) or F(ilia) “Son ” or “Daughter”
F IL (iu s) AV GG(ustorum ) Obverse inscriptions on coins of Constantine I and

Maximinus II Daia; indicates the nebulous rank “Sons of
the Augusti.”
G ER(m anicus) (victor over) the Germans
II V IR and III V IR (=Duumvir and Triumvir; literally Board of Two and

Board of Three). A position similar to consul, but in the
Roman colonies.
III V IR R P C Referring to the Second Triumvirate, meaning Triumviri

rei publicae constituendae (“Triumvirs for the reorganiza-
tion of the Republic” ). Established by the senate (as lex
titia) on Nov. 11, 43 B.C.
IM P(erator) Originally the title of a military commander in the

Republic, later came to be an honorary distinction
awarded to victorious generals. The emperors would be
awarded it for victories, real or imagined, gained person-
ally or by their generals. If gained more than once, was
followed by numerals to indicate the fact.
IN V IC T (u s) “Unconquered,” “Invincible”
IV N (io r) “Younger” or “Junior”
M A G (nus) or M A G N O Loosely translates to “the G reat.”
M ATER “Mother”
M A X(im us) “Greatest” (a superlative of Magnus).
M E D IC V S (victor over) the Medes
N (obilissim us) C(aesar) “Most N oble Caesar”
N (obilissim a) F(em ina) “Most N oble W oman”
O B C (ivis) S(ervatos) Refers to the corona civica, an oak wreath awarded for the
saving of the life of a Rom an citizen. This was frequently
given to emperors as their actions were deemed to have
had that effect.
O F (I, II, or III) Indicating officinae on the reverse of aes of Valentinian I,

Valens and Gratian.
O P T IM O or O P T IM V S Meaning “best,” this title was usually given to Jupiter, but

sometimes to emperors, such as Trajan.
P(ius) F(elix) “Dutiful” and “Happy,” titles used on most Late Rom an
coin inscriptions for emperors.
P (ater) P(atriae) “Father of his Country,” a title awarded to Augustus in 2

B.C. and adopted by many emperors thereafter.
P(ersicus) M (aximus) “Greatest of victors over Persia,” a title adopted by Philip

I (used on his first issues of Antioch) and given posthu
mously to Carus.
P(ontifex) M (axim us) “High Priest.” The head of the colleges of priests that
comprised the state religion. Augustus was appointed to
this office after the death of Lepidus, and thereafter it was
routinely voted to most emperors.
P or P ER P(etuus) “Continuous,” “Uninterrupted”
P A R(thicus) (victor over) the Parthians
PATER “Father”
P O N (tifex) “Priest.” Literally: “bridge maker”; see P M.
PR (aetor) Once the top office in the early Republic, it became less
important in the Empire. Literally: “one who leads.”
P R A E F (ectus) A high post with a wide range of applications in the army

and government. Literally: “Placed before.”
P R IN (cep s) IV (ventutus) “Leader of the Youth,” a title given to some young men of
the Imperial family (often after having achieved the rank
of Caesar).
P R O C O S (=Proconsul) Acting “in place o f ’ a consul. A specially assigned office,

usually with a wide range of authority limited to a geo-
graphic region.
P R O N (ep os) “Great-grandson”
R E G I or R E G IN A E “King” or “Q ueen.” Titles taken on by Cleopatra VII,

Vabalathus and Hannibalianus.
R E S T (itv it) or R E ST (itu tor) “Restored” or “Restorer.” A concept applied to buildings,

territories and even coinage.
RSR redeunt saturnia regna (“the golden age returns” ). A n

inscription on many of Carausius’ coins, previously
thought to mean rationalis summae rei (“chief finance
minister” ).
SA R M (aticus) (victor over) the Sarmatians
S(enatus) C(onsulto) “By decree of the senate,” used occasionally in reference

to coinage of all metals in the Republic, but roughly after
the reign of Augustus is limited to æ s coinage in the
Empire, and even then not universally applied. It may
refer to the release of metal for coining rather than the
actual right to coin. It sometimes appears on silver
denarii struck at Carthage in A.D. 68 to 69.
SO R O R “Sister”
S(enatus) P(opulus) Q (ue) “the senate and people of Rom e,” which frequently
R(om anus) appears on coins as SPQ R.
TR (ibuniciae) P(otestate) Literally: “with the power of a Tribune,” indicating the

power of a tribune (veto power, inviolability) without
actually being or serving as a tribune. Com m on people
were protected in the Republic by tribunes, but it became
largely symbolic in the Empire, when the emperor usually
claimed it. Renewals were indicated by numerals.
Head (not bust) Jugate

Wearing a combined Laureate (closest)
Mural & Rostral crown Draped (background)
Seen from front Wearing Lion’s Veiled

“Heroic” bust Scalp Draped
Globe at tip
Laureate
Drapery at shoulder
Laureate Radiate
wearing Aegis with Club & lion’s
skin at shoulders
Half-bust with arms Cuirassed half-bust

Radiate wearing Radiate-helmeted
Consular robes holding shield, spear
holding Scepter and with Horsehead
& globe
Cuirassed half-bust Full-facing Anepigraphic

Laureate-helmeted Bare-headed (no inscription)
holding Draped Rosette-Diademed,
Shield & spears Draped & Cuiraissed
Seen from front
Draped, wearing Bare-headed

Stephane (Diadem)
Resting on Crescent
Anepigraphic Laureate Half-bust

Upward-gazing Cuiraissed
Diademed holding Mappa and
Victory-on-globe
3/4-Facing Half-bust Pearl-diademed Confronted Half

holding Spear & Draped and busts, Laureate,
shield, Diadem- Cuiraissed wearing Consular
helmeted and Robes, holding
Cuiraissed Mappas and eagle
tipped Scepters
Diademed, draped Full-facing, Radiate

Crowned by Hand of and draped wearing
God (M anus Dei) crown with cross
BUST TYPES
Note: This list is limited only to the main types of human portraits (as dei
ties and personifications will have a variety of attributes).
Bust Types
General Form
Head The head and a portion of the neck, without indication of shoulders
or clothing.
Bust Shown with indication of shoulders, usually clothed or armored.
Seen in profile The standard format for “bust” portraits, where the shoulders are
aligned perpendicular to the viewer.
Profile bust seen Shown with the closest shoulder thrust forward, exposing the back
from behind at a slight angle.
Profile bust seen The opposite of the previous category, thus exposing the chest at a
from front slight angle.
Upward Gazing A revival of the Hellenistic Greek convention, this depicts the
emperor, usually diademed, looking slightly upward to the heavens
(“heavenward gaze” ).
Heroic This bust type shows the emperor bare-chested in the manner of
Hercules. It is uncommon for all emperors except Trajan, Hadrian
and Probus.
Globe at tip Used notably under N ero and Trajan, a globe sometimes appears at
the truncation of the bust. Under Nero this was indicative of the
Lugdunum mint on his aes (often blending in with the inscription).
Under Trajan it is ornamental.
Half-bust with arm A n ornate bust, shown from mid-chest, with one or two arms clearly
visible. Sometimes an arm is raised as if hailing or saluting, but more
often it is shown holding an object, such as a spear, scepter, mappa,
globe, etc.
With object The busts were often augmented with objects, which are described
in the last three sections below.
Resting on crescent This is used exclusively for empresses to indicate the coin is a double
denomination.
Direction
Right The standard direction of portraits for most reigns.
Left Rarely used, and then only for special occasions (though in some
cases it is the standard for a reign).
Bust Types
Facing or One of the most interesting portrait types, it can be either fully fron
3/4-facing tal or “three-quarter facing,” the term used to describe facing busts
which are slightly shifted to one side. It was first used in Imperial
times by Augustus, whose head (on a denarius) is shown facing in
the center of a shield. The next occurrence may be on dupondii of
Tiberius, whose head (it is believed) also occurs on shields. Much
later, under Septimius Severus, we find the head of his wife, Julia
Domna, fully facing, flanked by the confronted heads of her two
sons. Two late 3rd Century instances occur on the coinages of rebels
Postumus and Carausius. During the Tetrarchy and the Constantin-
ian-Era others occur, notably under Maxentius, Licinius I and II,
and Constantine the Great (sometimes nimbate). Constantius II
had a penchant for this type of portrait, adorned with cuirass, hel
met, shield and spear. This militant frontal portrait becomes com
mon by the reign of Arcadius, and becomes standard in early
Byzantine times.
Jugate Far more commonly seen on provincial coins than on Imperial

coins, this format places successive portraits (usually two or three)
facing the same direction, one slightly overlapping the other —
with the one beginning the “chain” being on the highest plane. This
occurs most commonly with related members of the Imperial house
hold (in which case the senior personage usually appears closest to
the viewer), but sometimes (especially in the 3rd Century) with an
emperor and his patron deity.
Confronted Again, far more common on provincial coins, this arrangement

shows two or more portraits facing each other. W hen it involves
more than two busts, the additional bust may occur jugate with one
of the busts, in a separate position, or may be shown full-facing in
the center.
Janiform This form shows two heads joined at the back, so that together they
form one head with two faces, each facing in opposite directions
(hence the name Janiform, after Janus, the god of beginnings and
endings). O n coinage of the period covered by this volume, this
form appears to be limited to aes depicting Pompey the Great ( in
which both heads have his features), although it does occur on
Imperial medallions.
Clothing & Armor

Draped The military cloak (paludamentum) often adorns the bust, with the
folds of its cloth visible; it usually is attached on the shoulder by a
fibula, a clasp which may resemble a button.
Drapery at shoulder Often referred to as “slight drapery at shoulder,” it appears as a small

section of cloth visible only upon one shoulder of the emperor.
Cuirassed Armor worn upon the torso, typically composed of a solid breast
plate or overlapping scale armor, and with straps shown hanging off
the shoulder. Often, an aegis (the Medusa or Gorgon head) appears
prominently in the center of the breastplate.
Draped and Perhaps the most common form for the busts of men on Roman
Cuirassed coins, the subject is shown with his armor below a paludamentum
(the toga was not worn with armor). In most cases, only the shoul
der straps will be visible to indicate the cuirass.
Bust Types
Aegis The aegis is a ‘cloak’ with the gorgon’s head (gorgoneion) in its cen-
ter which is associated with Jupiter and Minerva. Often the gorgo-
neion appears as the center piece on a cuirass, or as an entirely
separate device, independent of armor. It ranges from being only
slightly seen at one shoulder, to being prominently displayed on the
chest.
Consular Robes Sometimes the emperor is shown in a more peaceful guise, as a legis-
lator rather than as a general. This form occurs with some frequency
on the coinage of Probus, and even more so during the Tetrarchy,
when the emperor is shown wearing ornate robes (sometimes called
a trabea or an ‘Imperial mantle’), and is usually also shown holding
an olive branch, a scepter (typically eagle-tipped, the scipio) or a roll
of cloth called a mappa, the latter two of which are indicative of the
office of consul. Originally the consular robes (triumphal robes)
were worn only during the procession to the circus, where the con-
sul would preside at the games.
Headwear
Bare It is quite common in the first two centuries for an emperor to be
shown wearing no adornment on his head; thereafter it is unusual,
except for Caesars.
Laureate This is the most common form for the portraits of emperors in the
first 350 years of the Empire (except when a double-denomination
required the radiate crown). The wreath is comprised of laurel
branches. Other kinds of wreaths are made with leaves of oak or ivy.
Radiate The familiar “spiky” crown is closely associated with the sun-god
Sol. It consists of a metal head band with upwardly protruding
spikes. O n very rare occasions the crown has two head bands, seem
ingly to indicate a double of its already-double denomination.
Veiled This is most commonly found on the busts of empresses (who usually
wear a stephane beneath), but it also adorns the busts of some
deceased emperors (or in the case of Marc A ntony’s first denarius, as
a representation of his priestly duties). Most deified empresses are
veiled, though the massive coinages of Faustina Senior and Junior
are a notable exception.
Diademed The plain diadem, often called a stephane in the form worn by
women, was composed either of cloth or metal, and often had “ties”
trailing from the back, where it was bound. Sometimes it was a solid
band and, except in the earliest instances of its use, it has a medal
lion (or large Imperial gem) at the forehead. This form of crown was
reintroduced by Constantine the Great, who also adopted from the
ancient Greeks the concept of the “upward-gazing” portrait.
Pearl-Diademed The plain diadem evolved into the pearl diadem, which is the same
band (be it metal or cloth), only adorned with two rows of pearls
along the top and bottom, and usually with a medallion (itself sur
mounted by a large pearl or other device) at the forehead. Empresses
often wore some kind of pearl diadem, which was inter-woven into
their coiffure.
Rosette-Diademed A n even more ornate form of the diadem, this was composed of
large jewel-encrusted rosettes attached to the diadem and inter
spersed by pearls or pellets.
Stephanate A form of diadem (stephane) worn by empresses.

Bust Types
Rostral Crown This unusual crown is composed of overlapping prows (the ‘rams’) of
war galleys, often with one prow protruding from the front of the
crown above the forehead. It signifies naval glory and is properly
called a corona navalis.
Mural Crown More often called a ‘turreted’ crown in its Greek context, this head
dress is meant to resemble a city wall, complete with battlements
and towers. It signifies glory earned in the siege of a city, and is prop
erly called a corona muralis. Sometimes it is worn in conjunction
with the rostral crown.
Helmeted Many varieties of helmets are shown, with varying degrees of promi
nence given to the plumage (from short bristles to a raised “bridge”
with tall plumes). Sometimes the bowl of the helmet has designs,
such as stars or a Chi-Rho (Christogram), or other decorative
devices. Often a laurel wreath, radiate crown or diadem will be fitted
over the helmet.
Lion’s Scalp The scalp of the Nem ean lion symbolizes affinity for, or equation to,
the hero Hercules, who killed the Nemean lion and donned its scalp
and hide. The lion’s scalp is either fitted over the head of the
emperor (in the form of a parade helmet), or is draped over one of
his shoulders. It was most commonly worn by Commodus and Maxi-
mian, though many others (including Gallienus) are portrayed
wearing it. W hen worn upon the head, the paws of the lion are usu
ally shown tied about the neck.
Nimbate A convention limited essentially to the Christian emperors, this

showed a ring about the head commonly described as a “halo.” It
was first used by the devoutly pagan Antoninus Pius, seemingly in
connection with Sol, the sun-god who was often shown nimbate
and radiate. It is used occasionally in the Tetrarchy, but was first
used in a Christian context by Constantine the Great, and thereaf
ter occasionally by emperors and empresses.
Hand of God The hand of the Christian God as shown above the head of the
(Manus Dei ) emperor or empress, crowning the subject with a wreath, or what
more accurately appears to be a pearl diadem.
Cross Sometimes in the 4th and 5 th Centuries a cross adorns a crown or

helmet. The former notably occurs on the facing-head solidi of
Licinia Eudoxia (where it is the center piece of a radiate crown),
and the latter on nummi of Constantine the Great.
Objects Held
Thunderbolt Symbolizing Jupiter (Zeus), the thunderbolt represented the might
(Fulmen) of that supreme deity, and thus the transmission of that power
through the office of emperor.
Shield The shield is usually held close to the shoulder (which it covers)
with the exterior facing the viewer, though occasionally the interior
is seen when the shield is held at the far shoulder. It is usually
adorned with a series of pellets, or with a symbol, such as the aegis or
the Chi-Rho (Christogram). A t other times it shows an intricate
scene, such as a spearman on horseback riding down a foe or the
she-wolf suckling Romulus and Remus, etc. O n rare occasions it
bears an inscription, such as V O T IS X ET XX.
INTRODU CTION TO THE OBVERSE 51
Bust Types
Spear Called a hasta (or pilum or javelina) by the Romans, this weapon was
symbolic of the emperor. Thus, it is frequently held by emperors on
coinage from the late 3rd Century onward.
Globe The globe symbolized the world, and more often the Roman world
specifically. The ancient Greeks and Romans were aware that the
world was round, and it was represented as such. Oftentimes bands
are visible: they may represent longitude and latitude, but perhaps
also the zodiac, and thus the idea of the globe as the universe.
Globes are usually held in the emperor’s hand; as such they are
indicative of Roman domination of the world.
Globe, adorned It was common for the globe held by an emperor to be surmounted
by a small figure of Victory (Nike) bearing a wreath, which it
extends as if to crown the emperor. This was clearly adopted from
Greek iconography, though the globe itself was a Rom an addition,
as was the fact that a mortal was being crowned. The globe in the
later 5th Century was often topped with a small cross. The victory-
on-globe is often called a victoriola, and the cross-on-globe a globus
cruciger.
Mappa A roll of cloth holding dust or ashes (symbolizing mortality) origi-

nally dropped to signal the start of chariot races, it later came to rep-
resent the consulship, and is held by emperors for that association.
Laurel branch The branch may be the olive (symboling peace since Greek times, it
is meant in that context when held by an emperor) or the laurel (in
reference to purification or victory). Sometimes branches are shown
in conjunction with the eagle-tipped scepter ( scipio) or the mappa,
which symbolized the office of consul.
Scepter A symbol of royalty and kingship from early times in the Greco-
Rom an world, it was avoided during Republican and early Imperial
times (for it was considered appropriate for gods but not mortals),
except when it represented a specific military victory. In the late 3rd
Century the scepter began to appear on coins. It occurred as an
unadorned staff, or with its tip in the form of an eagle (then called a
scipio, and of consular symbolism), and later still with a cross at the
end (see below).
Long-Cross Often called a “cross-headed scepter,” it was a long scepter with a

small cruciform end. Emperors are shown holding this on the
obverse of regular coinage only in the latter half of the 5th Century.
Parazonium A short sheathed sword worn attached to the heavy armored belt
around the waist. It symbolized the virtue and valor of the emperor
when it appeared on coins.
Club A weapon associated with the hero Hercules (though it was used by
soldiers of the late Rom an army, often recruited from Tyre). W hen
held by an emperor, usually over his shoulder, it is meant to equate
him with Hercules, or at the very least to demonstrate his devotion
to that hero.
Horse Held by This unusual addition to the Imperial bust represents the role of the
Reins equites, or cavalry, in the Rom an defense. A s a coin type it seems first
to occur under Probus, and is used occasionally thereafter until the
Constantinian Era, about when the equestrian order ceased to exist.
CH A PTER TH REE
In t r o d u c t i o n t o t h e R e v e r s e
he reverse of Roman coins is undoubtedly the most variable, because

T it was arranged in so many different ways. Like the obverse, it typi
cally consists of a design surrounded by an inscription in the periphery,
although the inscription can appear horizontally across the field or in the
exergue. The fields are usually slightly concave, although with the passage
of time they tended to become flat.
In a most practical sense, all Roman coins were vehicles of propa
ganda. The obverse reminded the people on a daily basis who was in com
mand, whereas the reverse would deliver a wide array of messages that
promoted the interests of the government and the ruler. When actual
events are alluded to, they can sometimes be presented as having already
occurred, while others clearly had not yet happened (though they were
hoped for).
Most reverse types that have specific content are commemorative of
something, be it a birth, death, raising in rank, completion of a building
project, conclusion of a war, the enactment of a new policy, the payment
of a donative, etc. Regrettably more common are types which depict a
deity or personification in some traditional, even pedestrian guise. A list
ing and photographic guide to these types is presented after the general
introduction, but first is a list of the other categories of reverse types.
P r o v in c e s , C it ie s and R iv e r s
Just as the Romans represented certain concepts (such as justice, good for
tune, etc.) by personifying them, they also personified geographical fea
tures. Many geographical personifications appear on Imperial coins, of
which the principal ones are listed below.
• R e g io n s: Achaea, Africa, Alamannia, Arabia, Armenia, Asia,

Bithynia, Britain, Cappadocia, Cilicia, Dacia, Egypt, Gaul, Germania,
Illyria, Italia, Judaea, Macedon, Mauretania, Moesia, Noricum, Pan-
nonia, Parthia, Phoenicia, Phrygia, Sarmatia, Scythia, Sicily, Spain
(Hispania), Syria, Thrace, etc.
• C i t i e s : Alexandria, Aquileia, Carthage, Constantinople, London, Lug-
dunum, Milan, Nicomedia, Ravenna, Rome, Siscia, etc.
• R iv e rs: The Danube, Euphrates, Nile, Orontes, Rhine, Tiber, etc.
53
T ravel
This category is slightly different from the one above, and its types are of
some consequence because travel in ancient times came with no guaran
tees; it was an arduous and dangerous task, even for an emperor. Thus, the
emperor’s voyages were often worthy of commemoration, whether in light
of what he achieved on the trip, or simply because of his safe arrival,
departure or return. These are celebrated, respectively, with adventus and
redux types. There are many types that express the public’s hope for a safe
return of the emperor and a few that celebrate fortunate turns of fate when
an emperor had narrowly escaped a dangerous situation, such as a destruc
tive storm or a shipwreck.
T h e E m per o r a n d h is D y n a st y
Though the emperors, empresses and Caesars held the prominent position
on the obverse of most Roman Imperial coins, they also occur with great
frequency on the reverse. Usually they are involved in some sort of benefi
cial activity: the emperor conquering, the Caesar as the leader of the
youth, the empress as “mother of the camp” or aiding the poor and
orphaned. Other types were intended to represent the dynasty, or at the
very least the hopes invested in the dynasty. On rarer occasions there are
odd appearances, such as when Nero, in the guise of Apollo, is depicted
playing his lyre.
Featuring the “next generation” of rulers was common. On some occa
sions this took the form of two-headed coins, with a bust on each side.
Other times this required showing three or four heads, either jugate or con
fronted, such as occurred under Vitellius, Vespasian, Septimius Severus and
Julia Domna, Philip I, Valerian and Gallienus, Constantine the Great, etc.
This occurs with some frequency on medallions and provincial coinages.
The rise in rank or the adoption of a successor were perfect occasions
for such issues. One of the most common is the hailing of a wife Augusta, or
making a son Caesar and naming him PRINCIPI IVVENTVTIS (“leader of
the youth”). Among the most charming of these types is that of the IOVI
CRESCENTI (the “growing Jupiter”) struck in the name of Valerian II.
The birth of children — especially twins, who were always viewed
positively by the Romans — was another occasion for an issue to celebrate
the dynasty. Twins are sometimes represented with their heads set upon
the open ends of crossed cornucopias. Empresses are often shown with
their children on the reverse, where they are depicted as diminutive figures
at their mother’s feet or in her arms.
Other relatives who did not necessarily figure into the Imperial suc
cession were also shown. Caligula depicted his three sisters, Agrippina
Junior, Drusilla and Julia, in the guise of Secritas, Concordia and Fortuna
INTRO DU CTION TO THE REVERSE 55
on a particularly collectible issue of sestertii. Trajan struck coins in honor

of his sister, Marciana, who was key in the succession and was the grand
mother of Sabina.
E m p r e sse s
There is a marked difference between the coin types the Romans deemed
suitable for men and those given to women. Regrettably for collectors
(who prefer a broad spectrum of historical and attractive types) the types
struck for women are usually limited to the few deities and personifications
associated with what the Romans defined as womanly duty. Thus, very few
original types occurred. They are shown in many cases with their hus
bands, usually clasping hands as a symbolic gesture of their marriage.
Without a doubt, their provincial coinage is of much greater interest.
Most commonly shown are Venus, Pudicitia, Pietas, Hilaritas, C on
cordia, Cybele and Ceres. Among the few interesting types is the PVEL-
LAE FAVSTINIANAE type of Faustina Senior, which depicts the granting
of a charter for a guild (devoted to taking care of orphaned girls) taking
place in a two-story building (or orphans being received upon a platform).
The top story is occupied with a scene of the charter being signed, and the
bottom floor depicts women holding children. Another type is the MATR1
CASTRORVM type struck for Faustina Junior, upon which she is shown
seated before military standards; the inscription hails her “mother of the
camps” in commemoration of her devotion to traveling with the army.
C o n s e c r a t io n T ypes
The deified relatives or predecessors of the reigning emperor were com
monly found on coins. Key inscriptions for this category of coin are DIVO,
DIVA, etc. on the obverse, and AETERNITAS and CONSECRATIO on the
reverse. Though the typology can vary considerably on the provincial
coinage, it is generally limited to five major types on the Imperial coinage:
1) the eagle, 2) the peacock, 3) the funerary pyre or altar, 4) the funerary
vehicle, and 5) various architectural objects, such as columns, mausoleums
and temples.
The eagle and the peacock are typically shown standing alone (some
times on a scepter), or flying heavenbound bearing the deceased on its
back. The funerary pyre (or cremation building) looks very much like a
wedding cake but is actually a large structure with successively smaller
tiers, each festooned and containing statues, and usually a quadriga with
the emperor on the top. The altar is considerably smaller, usually is shown
with panels, and often is aflame.
The funerary vehicle takes different forms, but is usually a carpentum
(two-wheel carriage) drawn by mules, a larger wagon drawn by elephants,
or a fast quadriga drawn heavenbound by horses (in the case of Constant

tine the Great, toward the hand of God extending from the clouds). Some
architectural types show mausoleums (such as on the issues of Romulus) or
an honorary column or temple (both such “buildings” were dedicated to
Antoninus Pius on coins). Unusual types include a draped and orna
mented throne across which a scepter rests (sometimes with a peacock
standing before it), a comet (specifically the sidus Iulium, which repre
sented Julius Caesar), and a jubilant boy seated on a star-spangled globe
(of the heavens) with his arms raised.
These types were usually struck by the immediate successor to the
person named, or by a direct family member (whether the association was
real or simply claimed). However, the emperor Trajan Decius, as part of his
effort to restore worship of the Imperial cult, struck a series of double
denarii in the honor of 11 previous emperors.
D iv in e A ss o c ia t io n s
The emperors and empresses were, as a matter of practice, associated with
certain deities. They adopted many of the objects or animals (familiars)
that were associated with these supernatural beings, and often had their
features assimilated. This treatment is often subtle, though it certainly
would have been obvious to the Romans. In this topic it is necessary also
to consider the obverse of the coin.
Some of these assimilations are blatant, such as the depictions of an
emperor (Gallienus, Postumus, Maximian, etc.) as Hercules by showing
him wearing the Nemean lion’s scalp, and sometimes holding a club.
Antonia is assimilated with Ceres in her portraits by donning a wreath of
grain. Elagabalus is associated with the Emesan sun-god Heliogabal (of
whose cult he was the chief priest) by a small horn protruding from the
forehead. A less certain assimilation may be Valerian II as the Egyptian
god Horus, for a long, conspicuous curl of hair drapes down his neck.
Sometimes portraits are not identified by an inscription naming the
person who is portrayed, but rather the name of the deity or personifica
tion in whose guise they are shown. There are many good examples of this,
including Pompey the Great on both faces of Janus on asses struck by his
youngest son Sextus Pompey, and the Julio-Claudian women Livia and
Livilla, both of whom are portrayed, respectively, as Salus and Pietas on
dupondii struck by Tiberius in 22/3. Deities on quadrantes and semisses of
Domitian and Trajan often bear those emperors’ facial features; similarity,
the bust of the Genius of the Roman People often has the facial features of
Gallienus on the so-called interregnum bronzes struck during his reign. A
very late example of this practice occurs on the small brass coins issued for
the Festival of Isis, on which the features of Julian II can sometimes be

seen in the bust of Serapis.
C o m m e m o r a t io n s , A n n iv e r s a r ie s a n d F e s t iv a l s
This category includes a number of areas already discussed, including those
issues struck posthumously in honor of the deceased, or in commemoration
of a victory, or the granting of a new rank. However, it has a broader appli
cation. Buildings that have been restored, repaired or rededicated are
named. One of the most important of these is the Colosseum (Flavian
Amphitheater), which was rebuilt several times due to damage suffered
from lightning strikes and the resulting conflagrations.
Finishing such a major construction project (or the costly repair of
existing structures) was reason for celebration, and was one of the main
reasons buildings appear on coinage. Other times a temple was re-dedi-
cated, and thus appeared on coins. Another common reason for commem
oration was the passage of time, and with it, the celebration of
anniversaries. Often commemorated in coin designs were the celebration
of Saecular Games (centennial celebrations) and the anniversaries of
important events, such as the legendary foundation of Rome, fixed on
April 21, 753 B.C. This event was celebrated by Antoninus Pius (the
900th anniversary) and by Philip I (the 1000th anniversary).
The coinages issued by Antoninus Pius for this event depict a she-
wolf and twins, Aeneas leading Ascanius and carrying Anchises on his
shoulders, the Great Sow suckling her young under a tree (to illustrate the
Roman legend of the sow marking the site where Aeneas would found his
new Troy), and the descent of Romulus and Remus from Mars and Rhea
Silvia. Philip’s coins were of a simpler variety, primarily depicting the vari
ous animals gathered for the games (which themselves were symbolic of
other virtues). Even less obvious events were commemorated, such as the
bicentennial of the Battle of Actium, which was reflected in an issue of
“restoration” coins struck jointly by Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus.
M il it a r y
It comes as no surprise that war and victory play prominent roles on the
coinage of the Romans, who were imperious in nature and had remarkably
long borders to protect. The general theme is a Roman victory, even when
that was not necessarily the case, for coins were a principal source of govern
ment propaganda. Foes, when depicted in warlike coin types, are not only
shown subjugated, but also humiliated. They are shown prostrate, in the act
of begging or mourning, being run down with spear, being dragged, trampled
under foot or hoof, or bound and seated at the base of a trophy. Without fail,
they are depicted smaller than the emperor or the Roman who is dominat
ing them, sometimes to comic proportions.
Other military types suggest victory in a more sedate manner, such as
the kneeling Parthian returning the standards that Crassus had lost in 53
B.C., and Victory attaching an inscribed shield of victory to a palm tree.
Platform scenes also occur in which foreign kings either hand over their
kingdoms or receive the right to rule as a vassal of Rome.
Other platform scenes are of the adlocutio and congiarium types,
which, respectively, show the emperor addressing (‘haranguing’) a group of
soldiers, or giving a donative of money to citizens. Claudius secured his life
and reign in 41 by making a donativa to his soldiers; in commemoration of
their subsequent support, he issued denarii and aurei showing the praeto
rian camp in Rome. The donativa, unlike the congiarium, concerned sol
diers, and seemingly is not depicted on coinage. Gallienus issued to the
soldiers gold coins intended for dispensation that bore an inscription
meaning, in essence, “because you are loyal.”
Military objects abound, and the heaps of armor and trophies (con
structed of arms and armor) can sometimes reveal the construction of
these objects in remarkable detail. Sometimes, especially in the Imperato
rial and Augustan period, these trophies are naval in character, and have a
variety of items specific to warfare at sea. The anti-Caesarean rebel Sextus
Pompey, as well as the Romano-British usurper of three centuries later,
Carausius, were especially dependent on their navies, and thus issued coins
with naval themes.
Some of the most frequently represented types are those struck in
honor of the legions. Sometimes this occurs only through their names
being associated with a generic type (such as the coins struck by Marc
Antony and Septimius Severus), whereas other issuers, such as Gallienus,
Victorinus and Carausius, represented them with individualized designs
and inscriptions.
I n s c r ip t io n s
Note: For a list of inscriptions, some of which occur on the reverses of
Roman coins, see the previous chapter.
Some Roman coins lack figural types and are composed almost entirely of
inscriptions. Though in a great minority, they are not terribly uncommon
for the reverse types of the Julio-Claudians, which sometimes contain
nothing but lettering. The most common type in this category is the large
SC shown within a peripheral inscription that provides the name and titles
of the coin’s issuer. The SC stands for senatus consulto, and except in rare
instances, such as on denarii of Carthage, it is found only on base metal

coins, which were (theoretically, at least) the concern of the senate.
Inscriptions often are the principal design element, even if they are
not the exclusive one. Very common is the use of a wreath, either sur
rounded by or containing — and often both — inscriptions. This design
type was used regularly throughout the first four centuries of the Empire.
The early types tend to contain the inscriptions OB CIVES SERVATOS, EX
SC, or simply AVG. Later, under Trajan, the type occurs with SPQR
OPTIMI PRINCIPI. A t other times, a circular shield ( clipeus) is inscribed
SPQR or CL V (in reference to the clipeus virtutis).
But by far the most common, at least in terms of numbers of surviving
coins, are the votive types of the Constantinian Era, which usually have a
peripheral inscription surrounding the wreath, and a votive inscription in
the middle that takes a form similar to VOT V MVLT X (meaning five years
achieved, vows for the five coming undertaken). During the late 5th C en
tury, a letter indicating the mint officina at which the coin was struck
sometimes occurs at the end of the reverse inscription (rather than in the
exergue). This practice became commonplace on Byzantine gold coins.
M y t h o l o g ic a l
The great strength of the Roman religion was not necessarily in true belief
and devotion, but rather in the social framework created by its strict
adherence to tradition and protocol. Thus, the Romans were careful in
how they represented their deities and personifications, and as to how and
why they issued mythological types. True mythological types are less com
mon than might be expected. O f special interest are those, described
below, issued by Antoninus Pius for the 900th anniversary of Rome’s foun
dation.
A n im a l s a n d F a n t a s t ic C r e a t u r e s
A great many animals appear on coins issued by the Romans, who were as
fascinated with animals as we are today. Most often shown are common
animals, such as horses, mules, bulls, boars and eagles, though exotic ani
mals made regular appearances (often as a reminder of the games in which
so many of them were slaughtered). The practice of depicting animals on
coinage largely ceased during the Christian Era — indeed, after Constan
tine the Great’s dynasty ended in 363, even horses seldom appear.
Some late occurrences of animals include the bull during the reign of
Julian II, and occasionally the Phoenix as a symbol of renewal. Lions make
isolated appearances, such as on solidi of Honorius where one is being
crushed under foot (or under scepter) by the emperor. The lion also occurs
on reduced nummi of Leo I as a punning allusion to his own name.
6o COINAGE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE: NUMISMATIC INTRO DU CTION
Among the more exotic creatures are the leopard, elephant, camel,
hippopotamus, moose, stag, crocodile, crab, peacock and butterfly. Mytho-
logical creatures also occur. The most commonly seen ones being the
sphinx, the capricorn, Pegasus and the hippocamp. A much broader spec
trum of both real animals and fictional ones occur on provincial coinage in
general, and specifically on that of Roman Egypt.
The animals are generally symbolic of something, be it a province or a
legion, or a personal symbol of the emperor (such as Augustus’ sphinx).
Alternatively they can represent a concept, such as eternal memory (the
elephant), renewal (the phoenix), apotheosis (the eagle or peacock), or
symbolize a deity (such the stag of Diana or the eagle of Zeus).
A r c h it e c t u r e
This is one of the most popular categories of reverse types. Architectural
types sometimes show structures which no longer exist (and, thus, we can
only get a glimpse of them on coins) others give us contemporary views of
structures we can still see today.
A wide variety of structures are shown, such as statues, statuary
groups, altars, temples, triumphal arches, the praetorian camp, honorary
columns, metas, basilicas (meeting houses), and various buildings of a
more practical use, such as bridges, ports (such as the one at Ostia), N ero’s
Macellum and Trajan’s Forum, the Circus Maximus and amphitheaters.
Among the most famous of those structures that are still largely intact
are the Colosseum (Flavian Amphitheater), Trajan’s column, the Arch of
Severus and the Ara Pacis. Surviving in various degrees of ruin are the
Temple of Divus Antoninus and Diva Faustina, the Temple of Divus
Romulus, the Temple of Divus Julius, Trajan’s Forum, the Stadium of
Domitian, and the Circus Maximus.
This category also includes statues and statuary groups. The most
famous equestrian statue shown on coinage is that of Marcus Aurelius,
which survives to the present day. Other statues are frequently shown on
coinage, and in fact most depictions of deities and personifications are sim
ply representations of statues (and, thus, might best be described that
way). The statue of Spes advancing hardly changed over the centuries, and
is based on a standard prototype. The reclining Nilus surrounded by more
than a dozen putti (based on the Nilus from Iseum in the Vatican collec
tion) occurs on coinage, as does Hercules, who finds at least two sculptural
prototypes. One is the Hercules Victor statue now in the Palazzi dei Con-
servatori (which even on coinage was depicted on a pedestal), and the
other the “Farnese” Hercules in the Museo Nazionale in Naples.
F is c a l
There are relatively few of these types, though when they occur they are of
interest both to the historian and the numismatist. For example, a quadrans
of Claudius shows the inscription PNR within a pair of scales, which has
been taken to represent either Portorium Nundinarium Remissum or Pondus
Nummorum Restitutum (alternatively Ponderum Norma Restituta) and thus
relates either to the abolition of port taxes (the former) or the restoration of
the weights of coins (the latter, and seemingly correct interpretation).
A quadrans of Caligula bears the inscription RCC, which has been
taken as Remissa Ducentesima , and may refer to the abolition of a 1/2 per
cent tax on goods sold at auction. Galba issued a series of æ s in the winter
of 68 with the supplementary inscription R XL that alludes to the remis
sion of a 2-1/2 percent customs duty. The emperor Nerva was especially
“fiscal” with his coinage, and has four reverse types that directly relate to
taxes and charitable financial undertakings.
Trajan also withdrew vast quantities of earlier denarii, and in com
memoration of the withdrawn coins struck numerous restoration types
bearing their designs. His successor Hadrian issued sesterti inscribed RELI-
QVA VETERA HS NOVIES MILL ABOLITA SC which show a lictor apply
ing a torch to a heap of papers representing the many debts he had
annulled.
The reverses of quite a number of issues depict the emperor seated
upon a platform distributing handfuls of coins, or later in the Empire,
standing in a facing quadriga tossing coins to the public that no doubt
lined his route. And there is the ever-present appearance on the coinage of
Moneta; she appears for a host of reasons, including the establishment of a
new mint in Rome (to replace that in the Temple of Juno Moneta) under
Domitian, and the transfer of a mint from Ostia to Arles under Constan
tine the Great.
R e s t o r a t io n s
Many coins issued by the emperors were merely restorations of earlier
types. This may have been done to provide the current emperor with some
tangible link to the past, or to honor predecessors. In other cases, they may
have represented the most familiar of the coin types which were then
being withdrawn from circulation for re-coining. During the unstable
times of the Civil War of 68-69, older coin types, primarily those issued by
Augustus, were restored in the form of anonymous coinage.
In some cases the purpose was more specific than a general need to
recall the comfort and glory of an earlier age. The emperor Trajan struck res
toration series of denarii and aurei that reproduced the designs of many
Republican and early Imperial coins that had been withdrawn from circula
tion by his own decree. Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus issued restoration
coins in honor of the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Actium, and in
doing so chose to recycle the popular design of Antony’s “Legionary”
denarii. Oddly enough, Antony was not the victor in the battle, but these
coins were clearly representative of the event, and so that design was used.
Perhaps the most prolific of the restorers were the Flavians. N ot only
did they restore Augustan types, but the eldest son, Titus, issued a large
series of aes that restored a wide variety of Julio-Claudian and later types.
Specifically honored were Augustus, Agrippa, Tiberius, Drusus, Agrippina
Senior, Livilla (the latter two usually attributed to Livia), Nero Claudius
Drusus, Germanicus, Agrippina Senior, Claudius and Galba. N o doubt,
these types were largely meant to hearken back to an age before the
destructive civil war.
CH A PTER FO UR
D e it ie s
AND
P e r s o n if ic a t io n s
he pagan religions of the Greeks and Romans had many gods and god
T desses who had aspects by which they could be worshipped. Similarly,
there were a great many allegorical personifications which represented cer
tain virtues and concepts. In the later Christianized Empire, the deities
were dropped from coinage entirely. The exceptions to this were Victory
(originally a goddess, but transformed into a personification) and the per
sonifications of the cities of Rome and Constantinople.
The vast majority of reverse types on Imperial and provincial coins
depict gods, goddesses or personifications. The variety encountered on
provincial coins is considerable, and those figures shown here are the ones
which most frequently occur on the Imperial coinages. In the descriptions
below, the Latin name of the figure is given first, followed by the Greek
version (if any) in brackets thereafter. The functions of the figure are next
given, followed by his or her principal attributes (Attr.:), i.e., what he or
she may be holding or standing next to, etc. Bear in mind that the deities
and personifications often had many powers, sometimes overlapping or
complementary with those of other religious figures.
63
64 COINAGE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE: NUMISMATIC INTRODU CTION
Abundantia (Euthenia) Personifies abundance and plenty; she is similar to

A nnona and Uberitas. Attr.: She holds a cornucopia (often being emptied) and
grain ears or a modius.
Aequitas (Dikaiosyne) Personifies equity and fairness, especially in
commercial affairs, and thus is similar to Justitia. Attr.: She holds a set of scales
and cornucopia, or measuring rod (pertica), patera and branch.
Aesculapius (Asklepios) God of healing and of medicine; sometimes shown
with his attendant Telesphorus as a small figure. Attr.: He holds a staff entwined
with serpent, and sometimes a globe at his feet.
Aeternitas Personifies eternity and stability. Attr.: She holds a torch, globe,
phoenix, cornucopia, scepter or heads of Sol and Luna; often shown leaning
against a column or seated on a globe.
Ammon An Egyptian god often assimilated with Zeus (Jupiter) by the Greeks.
Attr.: He wears ram’s horns at his forehead.
Annona Personifies the harvest of grain; as such she is similar to Abuntantia,
and when an inscription is not specific she can be difficult to identify. Attr. :
She holds grain ears and a cornucopia (rarely a statuette); often with a ship’s
prow and/or a modius at her feet.
DEITIES AN D PERSONIFICATIONS 65
Apollo God of the sun (later assimilated, it would seem, into Sol; i.e. Apollo-
Helios), prophecy, health, literature and the fine arts (especially music); twin
of Diana. Attr.: He is effeminate in appearance and usually holds a lyre and
laurel branch or other object.
Bacchus or Liber (Dionysos) (standing at right, beside Hercules) God of the
vine. Attr.: He is often effeminate in appearance and holds a thrysus, wine
cup, and is usually accompanied by a panther; seldom shown on Imperial
coins, but frequently (as Dionysos) on provincial issues.
Bonus Eventus (not illustrated) Personifies luck and good fortune; literally
“good outcome.” Attr.: He holds a cornucopia, a patera, grain ears, a branch or
a poppy.
Cabiri (see Vulcan)
Castor (see Dioscuri)

Ceres (Demeter) Goddess of agriculture; as such she is related to Annona.
Attr.: She is shown wearing a headdress of grain ears, and usually holds grain
ears, poppies, a cornucopia or a torch.
Clementia Personifies clemency and mercy. Attr.: She holds a branch and
scepter, and sometimes is shown leaning against a column.
Concordia (Homonoia) Personifies concord and harmony, thus she is similar
to Patientia. Attr.: She holds a patera and a cornucopia or scepter, an olive
branch, a flower, ears of grain or a statuette of Spes; in her warlike aspect she
holds standards.
Cons tan tia Personifies courage and perseverance. Attr.: She is shown in
military garb and often holds a spear; chiefly used on the coinage of Claudius.
Constantinopolis Personifies the city of Constantinople as its personal Tyche,
and is similar to Roma. Attr.: She is shown turreted or helmeted, often holding
a cornucopia and globe with Victory upon it; her right foot is on a ship’s prow.
Cybele The great Anatolian mother-goddess; the Magna Mater or Mater Deum
(Mother of the Gods). Attr.: She wears a turreted crown, usually holds a patera
and tympanum (small drum), or a scepter, and is usually shown seated in a cart
drawn by lions or on a throne with lion supporters.
Diana (Artemis) The moon goddess, in some aspects similar to Luna; twin of
Apollo. Attr.: As the huntress, she often holds a bow with arrows, or is
accompanied by a hound or a deer; in her lunar aspect she holds a torch or is
shown with a crescent-moon on her head or at her shoulders.
Dioscuri Castor and Pollux (sons of Zeus); usually depicted on Republican
coins, though rarely on Imperial, upon which Castor sometimes appears. Attr. :
Caps (pilei) surmounted by stars.
Fecunditas Personifies fruitfulness and fertility (especially of Imperial
marriages), thus she is similar to Uberitas. Attr.: She often holds a cornucopia,
scepter, palm branch or caduceus and is accompanied by a child (or children),
which she holds or who stands at her feet.
Felicitas (Eutycheia) Personifies happiness associated with prosperity and

success. Attr.: She most often holds a cornucopia and a caduceus or scepter,
though also other objects, and sometimes leans against a column.
Fides Personifies good faith, loyalty and trustworthiness. Attr.: She holds a
cornucopia, patera, basket of fruit or grain ears, or in her military guise,
standard(s) or a scepter.
Fortuna or Fors (Tyche) Personifies good fortune, prosperity, etc. Attr.: She
most often holds a rudder and cornucopia, though also other objects;
sometimes she has a wheel at her side.
Four Seasons Personifying the seasons spring, summer, fall and winter. Attr.:
They are most often shown as four nude boys at play, but occasionally
individually, such as on a series of quadrantes.
Genius Personifies the “spirit” and positive qualities of its subject (most often
the people, the army or the senate of Rome, or of a city or region). Attr.: He is
usually shown almost fully nude, holding a patera (from which he sometimes
pours a libation onto an altar) and a cornucopia, globe, scepter, or the head of
Serapis; in his military guise he holds a standard.
Graces (see Three Graces)
Hercules (Herakles) A heroic demi-god famous for his strength and for his
many labors. Attr.: He is usually shown nude or nearly so, and holds a club, the
Nemean lion’s skin or a bow and quiver; he is usually bearded.
Hilaritas Personifies rejoicing, thus is similar to Laetitia. Attr.: She holds a

cornucopia and palm branch or scepter and may be accompanied by children.
Honos Personifies honor (particularly military), and thus he is similar to
Virtus, with whom he shared a temple. Attr.: He holds a cornucopia, olive
branch or scepter.
Indulgentia Personifies gentleness or leniency. Attr.: She holds a scepter and
sometimes a patera.
Isis An Egyptian goddess, the consort of Osiris (and thus of Serapis). Attr.: She
is shown with a rattle (sistrum), ears of grain, or suckling her infant Horus; she
has many guises, including that of a sea-goddess.
Janus The god of beginnings and endings (and doors or gates, comings and
goings). Attr.: He is easily recognized by his “janiform” bearded double-faced
head; the first month of the year was named after him.
Juno (Hera) The chief female divinity, the consort of Jupiter and a member of the
Capitoline Triad. Attr.: She is shown holding a patera, scepter or a statuette of
Athena, and is often accompanied by a peacock; she had many different aspects,
including that of Juno Moneta (the mint in Republican times was situated next to
her temple on the Capitoline Hill, and her sacred geese warned the Romans of an
impending attack by Gauls in 390 B.C.).
Jupiter or Jove (Zeus) The Father of the Gods, the chief god of the Roman
pantheon and of the Capitoline Triad, and the consort of Juno; the brother of
Neptune (Poseidon). Attr.: He is shown holding a thunderbolt, a scepter, or a
statuette of Victory, and is often accompanied by his eagle. He had a great
number of aspects and epithets. Except for one coin type of Valerian II, he is
depicted as a mature, bearded man.
Justitia Personifies justice, and was similar to the more commercially oriented
A equitas. Attr.: She holds a scepter, a patera or an olive branch.
Juventas Personifies youth or youthfulness. Attr.: She is shown draped,
holding a branch, trophy or patera, or dropping incense on a candelabrum.
P R IN C IP IIV V E N T V T IS (“leader of the youth”) was a title granted to the Caesar
or heir-apparent that was often recorded on coins.
Laetitia Personifies gladness and happiness; thus she is similar to Hilaritas.

Attr.: She holds a scepter, ears of grain, a wreath, an anchor or a rudder on
globe.
Liber (see Bacchus)
Liberalitas Personifies liberality (generosity). Attr.: She holds a cornucopia
and an item usually described as a tablet (tessera) or an abacus, but which
probably was a board drilled with denarius-sized recesses. This ‘coin counter’
board seemingly would be used for rapidly filling with a precise number of
coins and then for emptying them into the toga fold of a recipient.
Libertas (Eleutheria) Personifies liberty or the restoration of freedom. Attr.:
She holds a liberty cap (pileus) and a scepter, a wreath, ears of grain or a patera.
Luna (Selene) (not illustrated) Goddess of the moon who is usually replaced on
coinage by Diana in her guise as L ucifera, but who sometimes has that
appellation herself. Attr.: She wears a crescent moon upon her head and is
sometimes paired with her counterpart, the sun-god Sol (Helios).
Mars (Ares) God of war. Attr.: He is shown helmeted, sometimes wearing
armor (other times nude), and usually holding a spear along with either a
shield or trophy of arms; occasionally he holds an olive branch. He is difficult
to differentiate from Virtus, Romulus or a simple soldier.
Mercury (Hermes) The messenger-god. Attr.: He wears a wide-brimmed hat
(petasus), sometimes winged, and holds a caduceus and a purse (this because
he was also the patron of merchants and commerce).
Minerva (Athena) The goddess of wisdom who protected men in war, a

member of the Capitoline Triad. Attr.: She is shown helmeted, draped and in
armor, holding a shield and a spear or a statuette of Victory; she sometimes
stands upon a prow and is accompanied by her owl.
Minos (seemingly Serapis misdescribed; for commentary, see Pluto)
Moneta Personifies the mint, coinage, and money in general. Attr.: She holds
a set of scales and a cornucopia, or scepter, and is sometimes shown in trio as
the Three Monetae (representing gold, silver and bronze), with piles of coins
added at their feet. The trio appear infrequently on coins, but are a standard
type on medallions. The origin of Moneta is linked directly to the goddess Juno
in her role as Juno Moneta.
DEITIES A N D PERSONIFICATIONS 71
Nemesis A winged avenger-goddess who punished those guilty of wrong-doing

and assured fair distribution. Attr.: She typically brings a fold of her robe
toward her face (to spit as a sign of aversion), holds a caduceus, a purse, bridle,
measuring rod or other object; often a serpent or wheel is at her feet.
Occasionally she is assimilated with Victory.
Neptune (Poseidon) God of the sea, originally a god of water to the Romans;
the brother of Jupiter (Zeus). Attr.: He typically holds a trident and dolphin,
acrostolium (a decoration from a warship), anchor or globe. He sometimes is
shown with his right foot upon a prow.
Nobilitas Personifies high birth and nobility. Attr.: She holds a globe, scepter
or the Palladium (the statue of Athena stolen from Troy and eventually taken
to Italy by Aeneas).
Ops Personifies wealth, or perhaps more accurately, power and prosperity; the
wife of Saturn. Attr.: She holds grain ears or a scepter and she appears only on
coins of Antoninus Pius and Pertinax.
Patientia (not illustrated) Personifies patience and endurance, thus she is
similar to Constantia. Attr.: She holds a scepter and was used only by Hadrian.
Pax (Eirene) Goddess of peace. Attr.: She holds an olive branch, scepter,
cornucopia or caduceus, etc. She also may bear a wreath, palm branch or
military standard, etc. to represent peace achieved through a victory.
Pietas (Eusebeia) Personifies duty, loyalty and piety toward the gods, the state,
and the family; thus in some respects is similar to Vesta. Attr.: She is often
veiled, holds a patera, scepter, cornucopia, flower, etc. or is shown emptying a
box of perfume over an altar.
Pluto (Hades) Just as Minos, Pluto has been mistakenly identified as the seated
figure (see illustration) on coins struck by Caracalla from 215-217 because of
the fantastic creature at his feet (identified as Cerberus, with Pluto, and the
Minotaur, with Minos). Actually the figure is Serapis, wearing a modius; the
creature appears at the feet of Serapis’ cult statue in Alexandria.
Providentia (Pronoia) Personifies foresight and forethought. Attr.: She
sometimes leans against a column, and usually holds a scepter, a globe or a
wand (that she often points at a globe), and occasionally a spear, a rudder, a
cornucopia or a patera.
Pudicitia Personifies chastity and modesty. Attr.: She is usually veiled and
sometimes holds a scepter. Her cult may have been re-established in honor of
the Augusta Plotina.
Quies Personifies rest or repose. Attr.: A draped female holding a branch and
scepter, she is sometimes paired with Providentia.
Roma The goddess who personified Rome. Attr.: She is shown helmeted,
wearing armor and drapery (often with one breast exposed), holding a spear,
scepter, statuette of Victory (often on a globe) or a Palladium, a wreath or short
sword (parazonium) in its sheath. She is hard to distinguish from Virtus.
Romulus and Remus The legendary founders of Rome. Attr: The brothers are
shown as nude infants crouched below the she-wolf who suckles them. The
adult Romulus is shown in armor, holding spear and trophy. He is difficult to
differentiate from Mars or a simple soldier.
Salus (Hygieia) Personifies health, safety and general welfare (in Christian
times “salvation”). Attr.: She holds a scepter and is usually shown feeding a
snake from a patera.
Saturn (Kronos) (not illustrated) A very ancient agricultural deity, one of the
Titans, Saturn was believed to be the father of Jupiter (Zeus). Attr.: He is
bearded and robed, and sometimes has a harpa or a sickle. He appears
infrequently and is not named in the inscriptions.
Seasons (see Four Seasons)
Securitas Personifies security and confidence. Attr.: She is often seated or

leans against a column, and usually holds a patera or scepter, but alternatively
a cornucopia, palm branch, globe or crown.
Senatus A Genius personifying the senate. Attr.: He is shown bearded and
togate holding a scroll, scepter, branch or a globe.
Serapis An Egyptian god created by the Greek king Ptolemy I bearing relation
to Osiris, and thus was the consort of Isis. Attr.: He usually wears a modius
upon his head and often holds a scepter and raises his right hand. For another
depiction of Serapis, often misdescribed, see Pluto.
She-wolf (see Romulus and Remus)
Sol (Helios) The survgod. Attr.: He is usually shown nude or semi-nude, with
radiate head, raising his right hand and holding a globe or a whip. Often he
drives a chariot or is paired with his counterpart, the moon^goddess Luna
(Selene). He appears principally in the 3rd Century A.D. and on early
Constantinian-Era coins.
Spes (Elpis) Personifies hope, though she was worshipped as a goddess. On
coinage she principally represented the dynastic hopes of the emperor. Attr. :
She is shown in Archaic fashion (copied from a statue) advancing, raising the
hem of her dress and holding a flower.
Tellus Personifies earth both as a physical and spiritual concept. Attr.: She is
often shown reclining, with a variety of agricultural implements and products.
Three Graces The goddesses of charm, beauty and cultural pleasures; named
Euphrosyne, Aglaia and Thalia, they were the attendants of Venus. Attr.: They
are shown only on provincial coins as a statuary group: nude, sometimes
holding apples. The central figure is usually shown from behind with the two
at the sides facing.
Tranquillitas Personifies tranquillity. Attr.: She sometimes leans against a
column and holds a scepter or capricorn, or objects related to the grain supply.
Uberitas or Ubertas Personifies abundance, fruitfulness and fertility, thus she
is similar to A bundantia and Fecunditas. Attr.: She holds a cornucopia, cluster
of grapes or an uncertain object that may be a cow’s udder.
Utilitas or Utilitas Publica Personifies public utility. Attr.: She is simply

presented as a draped female, but is identified by the inscription. An exception
occurs under Constantine the Great, where she has the attributes of Moneta in
reference to the transfer of mint facilities from Ostia to Arles.
Venus (Aphrodite) The goddess of beauty and charm. Attr.: She variously
holds an apple, a mirror, a statuette of Victory, a helmet, dolphin or scepter.
Usually she is fully clothed, but sometimes is half-nude with her back turned
to the viewer, leaning against a column.
Vesta (Hestia) Goddess of family values and domestic life (i.e. the hearth),
and thus is similar in some ways to Pietas. Attr.: She is always draped and
variously holds a patera, simpulum, scepter, and torch, Palladium or trophy.
The maintenance of her cult was carried out by six Vestal Virgins who
sometimes are shown sacrificing before her circular temple.
Victoria or Victory (Nike) Personifies victory, though she was worshipped as a

goddess. Attr.: She is winged and usually holds a wreath and palm branch,
though often she holds or inscribes a shield, or erects a trophy of arms, crowns
an emperor, or drives a chariot. In early Christian times she loses her divine
status and becomes strictly a personification; later still (in the early 6th
Century under Justin I) she is transformed into a male Angel.
Virtus Personifies valor, courage, and bravery, thus is similar to Honos, with
whom she shared a temple. Attr.: She is usually shown in full armor and holds
a statuette o{Victory, a spear, shield or short sword in its sheath. Though she
often has one breast exposed, she is difficult to differentiate from Roma.
Vulcan or Vulcanus (Hephaistos) God of fire and iron, and more generally of
metal-working. Attr.: He wears a pileus and is shown holding a hammer, tongs
and often has an anvil at his feet. Also: The Cabiri Twin gods similar in
function to Vulcan, from whom they are said to have been descended. Attr. :
Perhaps appearing only on an issue of Claudius II , one of the Cabiri is shown
wearing a pileus and holding a hammer and tongs.
CH A PTER FIVE
D e n o m in a t io n s
E ver since coinage was invented late in the 7th Century B.C., it has
been produced in what could rightly be called denominations. The
regulation of weight was an integral part of the invention itself. The regu
lation of purity and the establishment of tariffed values (seemingly not
present at the beginning) followed very shortly thereafter. Even though
the names, weight standards and denomination systems may elude us all
these centuries later, they existed none-the-less.
The Romans struck coins in four basic compositions: gold, silver,
debased silver (‘billon’) and copper (or one of its main alloys). Since
Roman base-metal coins were struck in copper, brass (copper alloyed with
zinc), bronze (copper alloyed with tin) and leaded-bronze, they are collec
tively referred to in this book and in most others as ‘bronzes’ or are identi
fied with the terms æ s or Æ . Roman gold coins were generally pure, if not
always consistent in weight, but the silver was often debased. Whenever it
is important to do so, distinctions are made as to the purity of metals.
Always sticklers for organization, the Romans formalized their
denomination systems from the outset of what we would consider their
coinage (for their earliest ‘bronzes’ were lumps called aes rude — literally
meaning ‘rough bronze’). Compared with their Greek neighbors in South
ern Italy, the Romans adopted coinage into their economy relatively late,
and when they did start it was an eclectic combination of cast bronze
ingots and discs useful in central Italy and silver didrachms of the type
used by their Greek neighbors to the south. It was not until the Second
Punic War (217-211 B.C.) that the Romans seriously restructured their
coinage system, at which point the two fundamental denominations were
the copper-based as and the silver denarius.
The monetary systems of the late Republic and early Empire are well
understood, but matters become greatly confused during the 3rd, 4th and
5th Centuries when economic stress forced the coinage to evolve and to
be reformed in significant ways. Though many theories have been pro
posed, the later monetary reforms (as well as the proper names for the
coins) are still largely a mystery to researchers.
Our understanding of the late Roman denominational system suffers
from the dearth of literary and epigraphic evidence. Even more disconcert
ing is the fact that when documentation does exist, it is often contradictory.
The reader must bear in mind that perspectives on late Roman coin
age change rapidly in academic circles and many different opinions exist as
77
to proper names of the coins and their relative values. The sweeping
reforms of Diocletian, the fine-tuning of Constantine the Great, and more
subtle changes made by their successors all combine to create a confused
scenario. Therefore, a degree of caution has been exercised in the follow
ing list.
N am es: This is one of the most actively debated subjects in Roman numis
matics. Though the early period is relatively well understood, the names of
denominations in the later period, beginning in the 3rd Century A.D., are
often uncertain. Full descriptions of the denominations and their probable
names are given in the descriptions that follow, and when no definite
names can be applied to the coins, an effort is made to explain why.
What must be borne in mind is that the names applied to coinage
may be inconsistent. N ot only are there differences between official names
and the colloquial names (which themselves can vary depending on the
time and region in which they are applied) but we suffer the additional
confusion of the use of anachronistic names in some of the literary sources.
On no design of a Roman Imperial coin is the name of a denomination
stated in full. This was, however, not always the case in the provinces,
where we do have precious few examples. A t Byzantium a quasi-autono-
mous bronze explicitly states APACMA (meaning one drachm). Similarly, at
Antioch, coins struck by Nero, which formerly were attributed to Ephesus,
bear the inscriptions APAXMH (drachm) and AIAPAXMON (didrachm).
Nero was especially instructive in this manner, for not only did some
of his provincial pieces bear the names of their denominations, but his
Imperial coins sometimes offer substantial hints: an S (meaning semis)
appears on some of his æ s semisses, and he uses other marks such as a II to
indicate a dupondius. Later in the Empire indicators of purity sometimes
appear (such as XXI, meaning 5 percent pure). But at other times such let
ters indicate the weight standard to which a coin was struck, such as the
XCVI (96) or LXXII (72) meaning the number of coins struck to the
Roman pound.
Marks, however, are by far the exception, and we usually must rely on
the physical properties of the coins to determine how they fit into the
grand scheme of the monetary system. We can be sure that the Romans
had a well-defined system throughout Rome’s history, even if the evidence
does not survive to allow us to reconstruct it satisfactorily.
Authority for issue: Though the real power in the Empire rested in the
hands of the emperors or empresses, the senate had a public role in the
coining of aes coinages. The SC that appears on æ s coinages abbreviates
senatus consulto, indicating that in some capacity the senate was responsi
ble for its issuance (though exactly what capacity is debatable). It appears
DENOMINATIONS 79
on the vast majority of æ s coinages through the late 3rd Century A.D., and
no doubt the emperors tolerated it as mere window dressing from the days
of the Republic.
Weight and purity: Roman base metal coins were generally struck al
marco , meaning they were to produce the prescribed number of coins from
a Roman pound of coining metal. Thus, the weights of individual coins
vary, sometimes considerably. The weights of Imperial denarii and double
denarii often vary so much that it leads one to speculate that they may
have been struck in a similar fashion during certain periods of Roman his
tory. If a coin weighs more or less than that amount (within reason) there
is no reason to suspect it is a counterfeit on that evidence alone. Circula
tion wear usually contributes surprisingly little to the loss of weight.
Roman gold, however, was usually (if not always) struck al pezzo ,
meaning that the mintmasters paid close attention to the weight of indi
vidual pieces. In the late Empire, Julian II (360-363) instituted a policy of
having an official weigher (a zygostates ) in each municipality, by whom dis
putes about the weights of coins were settled. Thereafter appropriate
weights were produced, many of which were used specifically to weigh gold
solidi and can be termed solidi exagia .
The basic Roman weight was the pound (c. 327.5 grams, though the
exact weight is unknown). The smallest unit was the carat, being 1/1728th
of that pound. Purities of Roman coins vary considerably based on the
time and circumstance of striking. Copper was struck in nearly pure form
or in an alloy, such as bronze (containing up to 10 percent tin) and the
more valuable orichalcum (better known as brass — copper alloyed with
zinc). Pure copper was worth less than either of the principal alloys
(except, perhaps, leaded-bronze), and the base metal coinage therefore was
the opposite of silver or gold, which increased in value with purity. Later
in the Empire, the small nummi (Æ4’s, or nummi minimi) often contained
lead in amounts of 20-30 percent or more, as well as other impurities, sig
naling a degradation of the æ s coinage.
Debasement and Reduction: The decline of the Roman Empire is

reflected in the degeneration of its coinage over the course of five centu
ries. The story of Roman coins, it would seem, was one of gradual degener
ation of a denomination until it was finally discontinued and replaced, at
which point the cycle would begin again. With the exception of gold
(which rarely fell below 95 percent pure, and often exceeded 99 percent
pure), the final issues of Rome in the late 5th Century do not even
remotely compare with those of the 1st and 2nd Centuries.
The first important devaluation of coinage in the Empire occurred
under Nero (54—68), who reduced the purity of his silver denarius from
8o COINAGE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE: NUMISMATIC INTRODUCTION
approximately 96 percent pure to 88 percent; a corresponding drop in

purity took place in Alexandria where the AR tetradrachm — already an
impure coin — became even more so. Along with these drops in purity
also came a decrease in weight. Further debasements occurred under Com-
modus and other emperors, with one of the most significant being made by
Septimius Severus and Caracalla. The former reduced the denarius to
about 50 percent pure, and the latter introduced an inflationary double
denarius and reduced the weight of the gold aureus by about 10 percent.
In the mid-3rd Century a quick slide in the purity of the double
denarius occurred, resulting in its transformation from a visibly silver coin
into a virtually copper piece by 270. Aurelian, and later Diocletian,
reformed the coinage dramatically, but neither reform took hold for long.
Aurelian’s lasted about two decades, and Diocletian’s considerably less
than that. Constantine the Great fine-tuned Diocletian’s reformed denom
inations, introducing gold and silver coins (solidi, miliarenses and siliq-
uae) that would see the Empire through its final days. In each case, reform
was necessary because economic realities had made the coinage structure
impractical.
When silver was heavily alloyed with base metal, it usually is
described as being ‘billon,’ but sometimes also as ‘base silver’ or ‘potin.’ It is
not uncommon to find coins with contents ranging from 1/2 percent to 10
percent being given a coating of higher-purity silver (of about 66 percent)
on their surface (called “silvering” or “plating”). This was done so that the
coin could easily be identified as being a part of the silver series, even
though it did not have a high enough silver content for that to be readily
apparent without the surface treatment.
Accounting: The Romans used a “base-two” accounting system in which

their coins usually were worth half of the next-highest denomination, and
twice the next-lowest denomination. Though it did not translate from the
denarius to the aureus (with their 25-to-l value ratio), it worked well
within the gold, silver and bronze denomination sets. This system made
the abbacus an ideal tool for arithmetical calculations.
ABBREVIATIONS:
N = Gold
AR= Silver
Billon = Debased Silver
AL = Copper (or alloy of)
DENOMINATIONS 81
R e l a t iv e Va lu es of E a r ly Im p e r ia l C o in a g e
Value of coins at left in terms of coins heading column
Denomination Æ Quadrans Æ As Æ Al A/
t Sestertius Denarius Aureus
A/ Aureus 1600 400 100 25
A/ Quinarius 800 200 50 12.5 1/2

R Double 128 32 8 2 1/12.5
Denarius
A l Denarius 64 16 4 1 1/25
A l Quinarius 32 8 2 1/2 1/50
Æ Double 32 8 2 1/2 1/50

Sestertius
Æ Sestertius 16 4 1 1/4 1/100
Æ Dupondius 8 2 1/2 1/8 1/200
Æ As 4 1 1/4 1/16 1/400
Æ Semis t 2 1/2 1/8 1/32 1/400
Æ Quadrans † 1 1/4 1/16 1/64 1/1600
† These values are speculative, for the semis and quadrans may actually have been “redemp-
tive” coins rather than strictly monetary items. See the discussion under quadrans for details.
82 COINAGE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE: NUMISMATIC INTRODUCTION
T h e E a r l y E m p ir e
GOLD
Binio (p i. Biniones). A double-aureus. See A V Medallion for details.
Aureus (pL Aurei). Tariffed at 25 denarii, the aureus was the standard
gold coin of the Empire. Though first struck under Sulla (c. 83 B.C.), it was
not made a regular part of Roman coinage until the reign of Augustus. The
first massive issue was struck under Julius Caesar, and so large an issue was
not again produced until a century later under Nero.
The name originally was an adjective meaning “golden,” but soon
became a noun representing the denomination. The emperor is usually
shown wearing a laurel wreath, or simply bare-headed; depictions of
empresses vary. Like all Roman gold coins, the purity was consistently
high. It began being struck at 40 to the Roman pound, but was gradually
reduced in weight: under Nero (1/45), under Caracalla in 215 (1/50), and
Diocletian (1/60 and 1/70, sometimes indicated on the reverse, respec
tively, with the Greek letters Xi and Omicron). Special attention was paid
to the denomination by Trebonianus Gallus, who struck a gold coin with
his portrait adorned with a radiate crown (weighing c. 5.8 grams) and a
smaller piece with the traditional laurel wreath on his head (c. 3.6 grams).
They may best be viewed as a double-aureus (binio) and aureus introduced
to combat rapid inflation. Shortly thereafter, in the 260s and 270s, weights
were unregulated (see Light Aureus below), and during the Tetrarchy there
was variance depending on the date and the minting location.
The quality of the engraving on Roman gold coins is usually of a
higher standard than that achieved on the silver, though it is certainly sur
passed by some of the aes coinages, which had the benefit of a larger
planchet. The aureus was eventually replaced by the solidus, a lighter coin
introduced by Constantine the Great in 309. [c. 18-22 mm. Augustus-
Claudius: typically c. 7.6-8.0 grams. Nero-Septimius Severus: declining to
c. 7.1-7.4 grams. Thereafter declining to as low as c. 3.75 grams.]
Light Aureus. The aureus was victimized by the declining fortunes of

Rome in the mid to late 3rd Century A.D., but unlike the silver coinage
(which was routinely debased), the gold, with rare exception, maintained
its purity. Where the significant cuts were made, however, was in the
weight, which was sometimes reduced dramatically. The most tenable the
ory is that the number of coins required (for a donative, for example)
would be struck from the bullion on hand. Sometimes this resulted in
vastly underweight coins, but none-the-less, the necessary number of
coins. It was reduced most noticeably under Gallienus and Valerian, and
DENOMINATIONS 83
great strides were taken by later emperors, such as Claudius II, to stabilize
its weight. Another theory is that because the value of gold was rising in
relation to base metal, and that the most practical way to maintain the tra
ditional value ratios between aurei and sestertii (etc.) was to reduce the
weight of the aureus. The gold coins in this category usually fit somewhere
between the weights of the aureus and the quinarius, but sometimes fall
well below that of even the traditional quinarius. Unlike other gold coins,
their planchets are usually thin, crude, short, ragged or crimped. For
unusually heavy aurei, see the entry of AV Medallion. [c. 16-18mm; typi
cally c. 2.3-3.3 grams, declining to c. 1.5 grams.]
Quinarius (pi. Quinarii). Sometimes called a “quinarius aureus,” the gold

quinarius was the half-denomination of the aureus, and was struck infre
quently in some reigns and not at all in others. Consequently, it is much
rarer than the aureus, and did not form a regular part of the coinage.
Undoubtedly it was struck for ceremonial purposes, and probably specifi
cally for donatives. The treatment of the busts of emperors and empresses
is similar to those on the aureus. During some reigns of the mid to late 3rd
Century the weights of the gold coinage are so inconsistent that it is diffi
cult to distinguish a low-weight aureus (“light aureus”) from a quinarius.
[c. 13-16mm; c. 3.25-3.75 grams, declining to c. 2.1 grams].
SIL V E R & B IL L O N
Double-Denarius (commonly called an “ Antoninianus” )* The mislead

ing name “antoninianus” has been abandoned in this catalog in place of
the term double-denarius. This coin was introduced by Caracalla in 215
(though possibly at the end of 214), and we can only assume that it was
valued at two denarii (even though it only weighed about 1-1/2 denarii)
because of its “radiate” and “lunate” iconography — the men are shown
with radiate crowns, and the women’s busts rest on crescent moons (this
symbolism, at least for ‘radiate’ crowns, had already been used to indicate
‘doubling’ on bronze coinages, such as dupondii).
Its common name, antoninianus, is derived from the reference to the
argenteus antoninianus in the Historia Augusta . Scholars mistakenly attrib
uted that anachronistic name to the double-denarius because of the name
of Caracalla (Marcus Aurelius Antoninus). However, the passage was writ
ten long after the fact, and if the Historia Augusta is renowned for any
thing, it is that its entries are often flawed or fictional. Like Caracalla’s
denarius, his double-denarius was about 50 percent silver. The use of the
double-denarius was sporadic until the reigns of Pupienus, Balbinus and
Gordian III (238-244), when it supplanted the denarius as the principal
N Light Aureus
N Aureus
N Quinarius
/R Double-Denarius
Billon or Æ Aurelianianus ÄI Denarius
/R Quinarius
Billon or Æ Denarius
Billon or Æ Quinarius
Æ Double-Sestertius
DENOMINATIONS 85
Æ Semis
Æ Reduced Sestertius
Æ Quadrans
Æ Dupondius
Æ Uncia
Æ As
Æ Sestertius
silver coin of the Empire. From the 230s onward there sometimes occur
unusually heavy examples of the double-denarius, which weigh c. 5.5 to
7.5 grams. Because they are struck with regular dies, and are undistin
guished in any way other than their weight, they are often called “heavy”
double-denarii.
By the accession of Valerian I in 253, the silver content of the dou-
ble-denarius had fallen to about 20 percent. By the late 260s its silver con
tent had fallen below 5 percent, and by the early 270s it contained less
than 2 percent silver. Since their purity was so low, these coins were usu
ally coated with a thin layer of silver (called “silvering”) that would distin
guish them as part of the silver coinage system. This coating may have
been applied, or created by “pickling” in acid to bring out the surface silver
through enrichment. The double-denarius was inherited by Aurelian at its
lowest point, so in 274 he replaced the ailing denomination with a new
coin researchers often call an aurelianianus (see below), [c. 17-24mm, c.
4.0-5.0 grams, declining to c. 2.5 grams].
Aurelianianus (pi. Aurelianiani). This denomination was first struck by

Aurelian, and continued through Diocletian’s reform of 294, at which
point it was replaced by other coins. By the late 260s, the double-denarius
had been reduced to an essentially copper coin of small, irregular propor
tions, and it remained so during the first four years of the reign of Aurelian
(270-275). However, in the spring of 274 he reformed his coinage, with
the most important change being the replacement of the double-denarius
with a new billon ‘radiate’ coin that is often called an aurelianianus.
This does not seem to have been merely an upgraded double-denarius,
but a distinctly different coin. Its iconography is virtually identical to its
predecessor. However, its planchet was now large and round, and its silver
content was raised to 4.5-5 percent. Furthermore, the method of applying
the silver coating to the surface was greatly improved. Also, the value
marks XXI or KA, meaning 20:1 in Latin and Greek, respectively, appear
on the coin. Though the meaning of these value marks is much debated, it
most likely refers to the coin’s purity (l/20th or 20-to-l= 5 percent).
Tacitus (275-276), increased the content on some of his aurelianiani
to about 10 percent, an improvement that is indicated by the value marks
XI and IA (each indicating a 10-to-l ratio). The coinage of the emperor
Carus (282-283) offers further mysteries, for he struck similar coins with X
ET I in the exergue, and another of large size with two confronted portraits
and the enigmatic inscription XII. Other coins have a radiate crown with
two head-bands instead of one, perhaps indicating double purity similar to
those marked XI or IA. It is worth noting that when the aurelianianus was
abandoned by Diocletian in 294, it may have been replaced by the large
DENOMINATIONS 87
nummus, for some of those issues are marked XXI. [c. 20-24mm; typically
c. 3.5-4.5 grams, but actually ranges from c. 2.7-5.5 grams.]
Denarius (pi. Denarii). The standard silver coin of the Romans, it

required 25 denarii to equal a gold aureus. The denomination was used reg
ularly for more than 450 years — from its introduction in c. 212 B.C.
through the last large issue of Gordian III in 240. Thereafter, its role as the
principal silver coin of the Empire was overtaken successively by the dou-
ble-denarius, the aurelianianus, the argenteus and the siliqua.
The denarius (meaning “of ten” or “containing ten,” which later
became a noun describing the coin) was originally tariffed at 10 copper
asses and was struck at 72 to the Roman pound. By about 141 B.C. the rel
ative value of copper to silver had changed, and so the tariffed value
denarius was inflated to 16 asses, and its weight was reduced to 84 to the
Roman pound. The purity of the silver remained high until the reign of
Nero, when it was very slightly debased and its weight was dropped to 96
to the Roman pound, where it remained until nearly the end of the 2nd
Century A.D., when Commodus dropped it again.
From the time of the Flavians onward the weight of the denarius does
not seem to have been carefully regulated, and varies considerably on an
individual basis. The denarius suffered a great debasement under Septimius
Severus, dropping it to about 50 percent silver. After the reign of Gordian
III the silver denarius becomes a great rarity; it seems to have taken on a
ceremonial role. Later still, by the 260s and 270s, it becomes thoroughly
debased. Though it continued to be struck as a ceremonial piece up
through the Tetrachy, the denarius had two short-lived revivals: under
Aurelian (270-275), and under the Romano-British usurper Carausius
(287-293). Aurelians denarius was part of his reform of 274, and was a
handsome, but still heavily debased coin, whereas Carausius’s was struck in
good silver. A tangible successor to the true silver denarius was introduced
by Diocletian in 294 (perhaps called an argenteus ), but also was short
lived. [c. 18-22mm. Imperatorial-Commodus: typically c. 3.4-4.1 grams.
Septimius Severus onward: declining to c. 2.7 grams. Thereafter, in billon:
c. 2.3—2.8 grams.]
Quinarius (pi. Quinarii). The quinarius was the half-denomination of the

denarius, and was struck infrequently during the Imperial period. It was
introduced c. 212 B.C. (at which point it had a value of five asses) and was
used for a few years before it was abandoned. The denomination was
revived c. 101/100 B.C. (with the new value of 8 asses, since the denarius
had been retariffed to 16 asses) with the types of the then-defunct “Victo-
riatus,” which it no doubt was intended to replace. In Imperial times it was
reintroduced by Augustus, though it continued to be more rarely struck

than the denarius.
Under Augustus, it seems to have had specific use in the provinces
(especially in Gaul and in the East); under the later Julio-Claudians and
the Flavians its equivalent occurs in the East as a provincial hemidrachm.
Beyond these Augustan and later provincial applications, the true Imperial
quinarius is generally accepted as having been a ceremonial coin. The
treatment of the busts of emperors and empresses is sometimes ornate, but
usually similar to that on the denarius. The purity of the Imperial quinarius
followed that of the denarius, and the issues of the later 3rd Century are
heavily debased, though most often with traces of silvering on the surface.
These later pieces — surviving into the early 4th Century — are often
struck on broad, over-size planchets. For other coins which may be late
quinarii, see the entry Billon or Æ Nummus Fraction(?) in the Billon and
ÆS section of the Late Empire, [c. 13-16mm, c. 1.2-2.0 grams.]
Æ : COPPER, BRONZE & BRASS

Double-Sestertius. Struck only during brief periods in Roman history, this
coin was valued at two sestertii, and presumably would have been equal in
value to the tiny silver quinarius. It is distinguished from the sestertius not
only by its larger size, but also by the portraits, which show the emperor
wearing a radiate crown, and depict the empress’s bust resting on a cres
cent moon. It was first struck by Trajan Decius (249-251) and his wife,
Herennia Etruscilla, and later by the Gallic usurper Postumus. The so-
called “interregnum” bronzes with radiate crown (attributable to the reign
of Gallienus) would have been intended as double-sestertii, unless they
were strictly medallions. The dual-portrait bronzes of Aurelian and Sever-
ina (with his bust radiate, and hers on a crescent moon) — which have
been traditionally called sestertii — are actually double-sestertii. The same
can be said of the curious two-headed bronzes of Diocletian and Maximi-
anus (each bust radiate). Though the latter two conclusions have not been
proven to the satisfaction of all scholars, they are likely since the so-called
“asses” of this period are probably sestertii, [c. 35mm, declining to c.
24mm; c. 42-45 grams, declining to c. 7.5 grams.]
Sestertius (pi. Sestertii). This denomination began as a silver coin in c.

212/11 B.C. with the denarius and the quinarius. It was worth 2-1/2 asses,
or half of a quinarius, and one-fourth of a denarius. When the denarius was
revalued to 16 asses, the silver sestertius thus changed its value to four
asses. About the same time the sestertius became the “unit of account” in
Rome, and was the denomination in which transactions were reckoned,
though routinely they were paid in other coins.
DENOMINATIONS 89
The monetary reforms of Augustus transformed the sestertius into a

large coin struck in bright, “golden” orichalcum (brass). More than two
centuries later it had become a smaller piece, typically on a squared
planchet of leaded bronze. Although mass production of this coin ended
during the reign of Gallienus, it seems to have been reintroduced by Clau
dius II in the form of æs coins that are the size of an earlier as, and contin
ued to be struck occasionally up through the Tetrarchy. Because of their
smaller size, they have traditionally been called asses, when in fact they are
probably “reduced sestertii.” Except for those struck by Aurelian and Sev-
erina, all of these reduced sestertii are quite rare. Its role as the “unit of
account” of the Empire ended late in the 3rd Century A.D., when the ses
tertius was replaced by the denarius (which by then also was a seldom-
struck coin), [c. 30-35mm, declining to c. 25mm; c. 18-30 grams, declin
ing to c. 5.5 grams.]
Dupondius (pi. Dupondii). The dupondius was worth two asses, or half of
a sestertius, and was struck throughout the first 250 years of the Empire.
Though it originated in the Republic, it came to be struck frequently in
the Empire beginning under Augustus. Early in Imperial times it was struck
in yellow orichalcum (brass) to distinguish it from the less-valuable red
copper as. The denomination was made more easily recognizable by the
use of a radiate crown for emperors and by a crescent moon below the busts
of empresses (though this occured only in the mid-3rd Century).
The radiate crown was introduced on the denomination in 64 by
Nero (who also sometimes distinguished the denomination by placing II in
the exergue on the reverse). The use of the radiate crown to identify the
dupondius was important, especially since the metallurgical aspects of
these issues were sometimes variable. To confuse matters, in the early 3rd
Century dupondii were struck without the radiate crown, and they can
only be distinguished by their heavier weight. Indeed, the line of separa
tion is not always clear, and in fact under the Julio-Claudians it is often the
as that bears the radiate crown. Dupondii and asses often are referred to
collectively as “middle bronzes.” [c. 25-30mm; c. 11-16 grams.]
As (pi. Asses). This was the standard Roman copper coin, of which all
other æs coinages are either multiples or fractions. Though the origin of
the word “as” is not entirely certain, it seems to have meant a “full unit.”
Originally, early in the 3rd Century B.C., the as was a large cast coin, and
later came to be struck. It also was the official “unit of account” until that
role was taken over by the sestertius in the 2nd Century B.C. The as was
originally made of bronze, but during the Empire came to be struck in pure
copper (though Nero struck some in brass) until well into the 3rd Century
A.D., when it once again became bronze. On asses, the emperor is usually
shown bare-headed or laureate; the depictions of empresses vary. The later
pó COINAGE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE: NUMISMATIC INTRO DU CTION
Imperial bronzes struck from Claudius II through the Tetrarchy (which are
commonly called asses, see discussion above under Sestertius) are better
considered ‘reduced sestertii,’ and the so-called ‘semis’ struck by Trajan
Decius may actually have been a ‘reduced as.’ If the latter is true, the
experiment failed so completely that the reform was not adopted by
Decius’ immediate successors, [c. 23-30mm; c. 8-12 grams.]
Semis (pi. Semisses). The word semis means “half;” the related word
Semissis (pL Semisses) is only used for the Late Roman gold piece (half
solidus). If the semis played a standard role in the Roman monetary sys
tem, it would have been worth half of an as, and by consequence, two
quadrantes. It began as a large cast coin, and in the 2nd Century B.C. came
to be struck, and formed a regular part of the monetary system. In the
Empire it was never a commonly struck coin, and it was produced in both
orichalcum (brass) and copper. In some cases Nero identified the denomi
nation with the letter “S .” Except for a possible occurrence under Marcus
Aurelius (though they may be quadrantes), and what may have been a
brief revival under the emperor Trajan Decius (see his Numismatic Note ),
the semis did not survive past the reign of Hadrian. See the discussion
under Quadrantes, for the possible use of the semis as a tessera or redemp
tion coin rather than as an standard part of the coinage system, [c. 18-
20mm; c. 3.0-4.5 grams].
Quadrans (pi. Quadrantes). The quadrans was the smallest regularly

issued coin of the Empire, and if its presumed value of l/64th of a silver
denarius is accurate, was only useful for purchasing the very low-valued
goods and services. The word quadrans means “quarter,” and as such the
quadrans, based on its name and weight, would have been worth one-quar
ter of the copper as. Indeed, it is specifically named by ancient sources as
the cost of entry to public baths.
However, the monetary role of the quadrans (and semis) may not
have been as simple as we suspect. Many researchers believe they may
have been the token coinages called tesserae nummariae mentioned by
ancient authors. Suetonius informs us that the emperor Domitian would
throw handfuls of them into seating areas at public games. Were these
merely coins of the lowest value, this gesture would have been of little sub
stance, and furthermore, may have been received as an insult from the sen
ators and knights, into whose sections Suetonius tells us Domitian also
dispersed them.
Furthermore, the poet Martial tells us that clients visiting their Roman
patrons were sometimes given 100 quadrantes as a gift. Clearly, if these were
just low value coins, the gift would have constituted less than two silver
DENOMINATIONS 91
denarii (and would have been a cumbersome way to receive so low an

amount). But if they had redemption value for substantial products or ser
vices, it would be a gift of some consequence, perhaps an invitation to enjoy
the services available in Rome and its environs. As such, quadrantes may
have been intended for donatives, distributions and special gifts to the poor
or to guests. Indeed, quadrantes are seldom found outside of central and
southern Italy. Considering that a recurring design on quadrantes is the
modius (grain container), they may have been used as tokens redeemable in
Rome for grain allotments.
It must be recognized, however, that most numismatists subscribe to
the idea that the quadrans and the semis were standard coins without spe
cial redemptive value.
With rare exceptions, the quadrans was struck in copper. It was pro
duced most actively by the Julio-Claudians, and was not struck after the
reign of Marcus Aurelius (161-180). Unlike the rest of the Imperial coin
age, the quadrans seldom showed the portrait of the emperor or empress,
but instead offered a variety of topical designs. Those quadrantes without a
portrait and regal inscription are attributed to the general period from
Domitian through Antoninus Pius. The variety of designs on quadrantes
and semisses also blurs the line between official mint coinage and privately
produced “tesserae.” The denomination in some cases is noticeably smaller
during the principate of Nero, when he experimented with striking them
in more valuable brass, which greatly reduced their weight and diameter,
[c. 16—18mm (in copper), though as small as c. 11mm (in brass); c. 3.5
grams, though as low as c. 2.0 grams.]
Uncia (pi. Unciae). A denomination struck in Republican times and then

only in the 2n<^ Century in the Empire. If it belongs to the Imperial system
it would have been worth 1/3 of a quadrans, and 1/12 of an as. However, it
seemingly was struck only for circulation in the East. [c. ll-14m m , c. 0.8-
1.2 grams].
T h e T e t r a r c h ic R efo rm
This section includes the denominations introduced c. 294 by Diocletian,

which, except in gold, completely replaced the earlier system. This ambi
tious coinage reform was tied in with Diocletian’s overall attempt to
reform the economy by regulating prices and wages. However, it quickly
failed, as natural market forces rendered the structure impractical. Dio
cletian’s system rested upon a denarius communis (“common denarius”), or
coin of account that also had been used by Aurelian to set a standard by
which other coins, products and services could be valued. Researchers
/R Argenteus
/R Half-Argenteus
Billon Nummus (“Follis”)
Æ Post-Reform Radiate
Æ Post-Reform Laureate
DENOMINATIONS 93
believe this conceptual unit had an actual numismatic equivalent in the

copper “laureate” coin (though possibly the large billon nummus). Since
this coin was not struck in great quantities, it clearly was not the anchor of
the system, but none-the-less a representation of the unit.
Pro ba ble R e l a t io n o f T e t r a r c h ic Po st -R efo rm C o in a g e
(Value of coins at left in terms of coins heading column)
Denom ination Æ Æ Billon /R N Aureus

Laureate Radiate Nummus Argenteus
(denarius (“Follis” )
communis)
AI Aureus 600 300 120 24 1
/ R Argenteus 25 12'1/2 5 1 1/24

Billon Nummus 5 2 4 /2 1 1/5 1/120
(“Follis” )
Æ Radiate 2 1 2/5 2/25 1/300
Æ Laureate 1 1/2 1/5 1/25 1/600

(denarius communis)
Note: These are the probable initial rates, which later changed dramatically. By 301 or so, the
gold, silver and billon coinages seem to have risen two- to five-fold in compariston to the Æ
Post'Reform Laureate and Æ Post-Reform Radiate, both of which were soon discontinued.
For a different view of the values relationship, see Carson, Coins of the Roman Empire, pp.
237-9.
G OLD
Aureus (pi. Aurei). The reformed aureus of Diocletian was fixed at 60 to
the Roman pound, which is sometimes indicated by the Greek Z (60) in
the reverse field. Also at about this time the fabric changes from the broad,
thin planchet of the pre-reform to one of lesser diameter but higher relief.
This coin was probably called a solidus, the name by which its successor
coin (introduced by Constantine the Great in 309 at 72 per Roman
pound) is better known. Indeed, the aureus continued to be struck past
309, and for a few years was being produced concurrently with the solidus.
With the rare exception of ceremonial strikings, the aureus did not survive
past 324. [c. 16-22mm; typically 5.0-5.5 grams, though ranges from c. 4.1
to 7.3 grams.]
Quinarius (pi. Quinarii). A n extremely rare half-aureus. [c. 15mm; c.

2.7-2.8 grams.]
Quarter^Aureus. Another extremely rare fraction, purely ceremonial, [c.

12-13mm; c. 1.2-1.3 grams.]
SILVER
Argenteus (pi. Argentei). Believed to have been called a nummus argen

teus this coin represented the rebirth of the traditional Roman denarius,
but proved to be too pure for its own survival. It was introduced in 294 by
Diocletian, and at the theoretical weight of 96 to the Roman pound and
the purity of about 90% or higher, it was the virtual equivalent of the
reduced denarius of Nero. With the exception of the limited strikings of
the rebel Carausius (in Britain and Gaul, 286/7-293), the Romans had
been without a good silver coin for three generations when this coin was
introduced.
The theoretical weight of the argenteus at l/96th of a Roman pound
is demonstrated by the inscription XCVI that appears on the reverse of cer
tain issues. Since it was valued at l/24th of the reformed aureus struck at
60 to the Roman pound, each argenteus represented a single carat of the
gold in an aureus. It seems to have been introduced, rather optimistically,
at the rate of one per 25 denarii communes, but in January, 300 it was dou
bled to 50, and an inscription at Aphrodisias dated 301 seems to refer to
this coin, which it calls a nummus argenteus and tariffs at 100 denarii ( com
munes). The argenteus was struck in large quantities but saw little com
mercial use, as it was instead hoarded, melted or exported to the East to be
recoined into Sasanian dirhems.
Production of the nearly pure silver pieces had stopped by c. 312,
when the value of silver seems to have risen greatly in relation to copper,
thus making the denomination in its current, pure form a candidate for the
effects of Gresham’s law (bad money driving out the good). The argenteus
was reintroduced in a debased form after the pure argenteus was aban
doned (see Billon Argenteus in the subsequent section). Even when pure,
the argenteus played a subsidiary role compared with the gold and æs — a
complete reversal of the role of the denarius of the past. [c. 17-21mm; usu
ally c. 2.6-3.5 grams, though ranging from 2.0-4.0 grams. Theoretical
weight of c. 3.4 grams.]
Half-Argenteus. A considerably rarer companion to the argenteus that

was abandoned c. 312. [c. 14-15mm; c. 1.2-1.7 grams.]
BILLON AND ÆS
Billon Nummus (commonly called a “ follis” )* This denomination, a cor

nerstone of Diocletian’s reform of 294, initially was struck at about 32 to
the Roman pound, but declined steadily in weight over the next two
decades. Some of these issues are marked XXI in the same fashion as the
DENOMINATIONS 95
smaller aurelianianus, which ceased to be produced when the nummus was

introduced. Others are marked K-V, perhaps indicating they were valued at
20 sestertii (accounting units) and 5 denarii communes. Diocletian’s num
mus was argentiferous and initially contained about 3.4 to 4.3 percent sil
ver in the alloy, in addition to having two-thirds-pure silver applied to the
surface in the form of plating.
However, after Diocletian’s abdication in 305, if not slightly before, the
silver content of the alloy dropped to about 1-2 percent (see Reduced Billon
Nummus in next section). These coins may have been tariffed at 20 denarii
communes, for the contemporary argenteus seems to have been valued at
100 denarii communes. The inappropriate name “follis” has been abandoned
in this catalog. The word follis means “sacculus,” or a bag that held a stated
amount of metal, which we know from literary references often was in the
form of coins. While this term has numismatic significance in the 3rd, 4th
and 5th centuries, it is not mentioned specifically as the name of a coin until
498, when the 40-nummus bronze was called a follaro (by Greek speakers) or
a terentiani or terunciani (by Latin speakers). [Prior to the reduction of c. 307/
8: c. 2 6 -3 1mm; c. 7.5-12.5 grams].
Note: For nummi fractions (half-, third- quarter-nummi, etc.), see the Bil
lon and ÆS section under the The Late Empire.
Post-Reform Radiate. This invention of the reformed Tetrarchic mone

tary system has a similar appearance to the aurelianianus both in size and
design (though in one rare case the bust is inexplicably laureate, see RIC
VI, pgs. 359 and 670 for three instances), but it contains only an acciden
tal trace of silver. As such, it was not part of the ‘silver’ coinage, and was
not intended to replace the aurelianianus. It began as a substantial piece
(now extremely rare) and was quickly reduced in size and weight, at which
point it came to closely resemble the aurelianianus. Its principal reverse
type is CONCORDIA MILITVM (or CONCORDIAE AVGG), though votive
inscriptions in laurel wreaths also occur. It was largely discontinued after
the monetary system was adjusted in c. 301, though it did survive as late as
307 at Alexandria. [Initially: c. 24-25mm, 5.0-6.5 grams. Thereafter: c.
19-22mm; c. 2.6-3.2 grams].
Post-Reform Laureate (or Denarius Communis). The smallest coin in

Diocletian’s post-reform issues, the laureate contained only an accidental
trace of silver, and is sometimes mistakenly called an Æ quinarius. One of
its principal reverse types is VTILITAS PVBLICA, with the standing figure
of Utilitas. Considering this seldom-struck coin may have represented the
denarius communis, this reverse type seems especially appropriate, [c. 15—
18mm; c. 1.2-2.3 grams.]
T h e L a t e E m p ir e
This grouping covers almost everything struck from c. 300/301 onward,

although there is some overlap until about 324, as might be expected. The
initial part of this period presents a decline from the standards (set by Dio
cletian in 294) which were stabilized in reduced form by Constantine the
Great, principally by his introduction of the gold solidus (which eventu
ally replaced the aureus) and the silver siliqua and miliarensis (which
replaced the argenteus). The probable relationship of value between gold
and silver seems to have been unstable. The denominations created by
Constantine remained intact in one form or another for the remainder of
the Empire.
With one possible exception, Constantine did not introduce any new
billon or copper coins, but instead simply reduced Diocletian’s argentifer
ous nummus both in weight and purity. There seems to have been an
explosion in value of silver and gold in comparison to copper, which
caused Constantine, perhaps, to abandon “official” correlations between
the values of æs coins and precious metal coins.
The vast majority of the billon and copper coins of the Constantinian
Era (up until the reform of Constantius II in 348) seem to have been of
one denomination, Diocletian’s argentiferous nummus . This coin was grad
ually reduced in weight and purity, with the reductions occurring at differ
ent rates depending on the location and the era of the striking. After the
Constantinian Era it is replaced with other bronzes, some of them very
small (10-12mm), which perhaps were known as nummi minimi Egyptian
papyrii reveal that a Roman pound of gold (officially given a maximum
value of 50,000 denarii comunes under Diocletian’s reform) was in some
cases bringing somewhere between 300,000 and 1,500,000 denarii com
munes depending on the date and location of the transaction.
During the late Constantinian period and beyond, a number of names
are found in ancient inscriptions and literature clearly in reference to bil
lon and æs coinages (known collectively as pecunia). Numismatists have
attempted to assign these names to specific coins, but the efforts have gen
erally been speculative, and in some cases have resulted in names being
matched with coins in a manner that we are certain is not correct. The
best examples are the ‘follis,’ the ‘centenionalis,’ the ‘siliqua,’ and from an
earlier era, the ‘antoninianus.’ All four of these names are incorrectly
applied, yet they are so much a part of the standard terminology that shed
ding them is a difficult task. In this book all such terms have been aban
doned except ‘siliqua,’ which has been retained out of simple practicality.
With the possible exception of the term nummus (usually incorrectly
called a “follis” ), it is pure speculation to assign names to specific coins
DENOMINATIONS 97
with the evidence currently available. However, we can hazard a guess,

and a discussion follows on the ancient names and their possible associa
tions. (The catalog listings, however are not speculative, and most æs are
described with the term nummus or with a description of their diameter
such as Æ l, Æ2, Æ3, Æ3/4 and Æ4, rather than with speculative names).
The Centenionalis, Maiorina and Decargyrus Num m us. The first two of
these terms are often applied to larger-module billon and bronze coins of
the late Empire. They have been derived from ancient inscriptions, but
they seem to be used in variants, sometimes with pecunia or communes, and
as such may represent colloquialisms.
The centenionalis or centenionales communes (indicating 100) is men
tioned in inscriptions dated to 354 and 395. Since the last of these consid
erably post-dates the coinage to which the name centenionalis has
traditionally been applied, the name most likely belongs to a later coinage.
Names for the companion denominations of the centenionalis have been
invented by numismatists: the double centenionalis and half-centenionalis.
The double centenionalis (called a Billon Æ1 in this catalog) is typically
used to describe the largest bronze issued by Magnentius and Decentius,
and the half-centenionalis (called a Billon Æ3 in this catalog) is applied to
the half-denomination of the coin (called a Billon Æ2 in this catalog).
The term maiorina or pecunia maiorina is also used in inscriptions
relating to copper coinage of the late Empire, and specifically occurs in
inscriptions of Roman laws dated to 349 and 354. Regrettably, it is not
known whether maiorina is a synonym for centenionalis (in the inscription
of 354 it is mentioned in parallel with “centenionales communes ”) or is a dif
ferent denomination. Maiorina literally means “rather large,” and when
used in the phrase maiorina pecunia (as in the law of 395), it would mean
“the rather larger æs coin.”
The decargyrus nummus (which infers “ten” ) is not a term in general
use by numismatists, but is specifically named in the law of 395. In this law
(addressed to the praetorian prefect Rufinus in Italy), the centenionalis
denomination is meant to remain in circulation, while the production of
higher denominations is suspended; specifically the changing of decargyrus
nummus into other coins is forbidden. Some researchers have connected
this denomination name to the billon or æs coin of Æ2 size.
In the final analysis, the strongest possibility is that the maiorina or
the decargyrus nummus is the Æ2 (and seemingly also the Æ1), the cente
nionalis would apply to the post-348 coins of Æ3 size, and the Æ4 would
be called either a nummus or perhaps a fraction of the larger two
denominations.
ç8 COINAGE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE: NUMISMATIC INTRODU CTION
N Semissis
AI Solidus
N 1A/2 Scripulum (Nine-Siliqua) Tremissis
ÄI Light Half'Siliqua
ÄI Heavy Siliqua
Billon Argenteus Billon Nummus (Reduced)

DENOMINATIONS ÇÇ
Billon Æ3 (Reduced Nummus) Billon Æ3/4 (Reduced Nummus)
Æ4 (Reduced Nummus)
Billon Æ4 (Nummus Minimus)
Billon Æ3
Billon Æ2 (“Half-Centenionalis”)
(“Centenionalis”)
Billon Æ1 (“Maiorina”)
Æ2
IOO COINAGE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE: NUMISMATIC INTRODU CTION
GOLD
A ureus (pi. A urei). Though this denomination is principally associated

with earlier periods, it was struck occasionally after the solidus (see below)
was introduced. Initially there was some overlap, but strikings of the mid-
4th Century and beyond are of great rarity, and must be considered cere
monial pieces, especially since the solidus was by then the principal gold
coin. As such, most authorities refer to the later gold pieces of aureus
weight (60 to the Roman pound, worth 1 1/5 of a solidus) by the German
term festaureus. [c. 23-24mm; c. 5.0-5.4 grams.]
Solidus (pi. Solidi). This denomination, called a nomisma in Greek, was

introduced by Constantine the Great in 309. It was struck at 72 to the
Roman pound, and was intended as a replacement of the Diocletianic
aureus, which usually had been struck at 60 to the pound (though occa
sionally at 70 to the pound). For the first few years of its production, the
solidus (valued at 24 silver ‘pre-reform’ siliquae) was struck concurrently
with the Tetrarchic aureus, which it had almost completely replaced by
324. A series of solidi struck at Antioch (c. 336-7) have the letters LXXII
in the reverse field, reaffirming that the standard was 72 to the Roman
pound.
The solidus became the principal gold trade coin of the Mediterra
nean world, as the foes and federates of Rome rarely struck gold (and when
they did it was on a smaller scale, and usually was a re-coining of exported
solidi). Though Magnentius significantly reduced the weight of his solidus
and in the central Empire from c. 346-368 its purity fell to c. 95% (the
return to 99% purity was marked by the letters OB, meaning obryzum ),
this coin otherwise maintained its weight and purity until the fall of Rome,
and well into Byzantine times. After c. 450, a solidus was valued at 7,000
or more copper nummi (Æ4s), and was the preferred coin in the east. [c.
17-23mm; c. 4.3-4.6 grams, but occasionally as low as c. 3.7-4.1 grams
when they were purposely struck at lower weights.]
Sem issis (pL Semisses) This coin, the half-solidus at 144 to the Roman
pound, was also introduced by Constantine the Great. The word semissis
indicates “half;” the related word Semis (pL Semisses) is only used for the
early Imperial brass coin (half of an As). It was struck only for special occa
sions and ceremonial purposes in the 4th and 5th Centuries. However,
beginning in the 6th Century (which is beyond the scope of this work) it
was struck on a large scale and formed part of the regular coinage system of
the Byzantine Empire. The normal reverse type for semisses of emperors is
Victory seated, inscribing a votive on a shield, and for empresses often a
Chi-Rho in a wreath, [c. 16-18mm; c. 2.1-2.3 grams].
DENOMINATIONS IO I
1 -1/2 Scripulum or Nine-Siliqua (pi. 1 -1/2 Scripula or Nine-Siliquae).

This inconvenient denomination was introduced by Constantine the
Great and, like the semis, was never struck in quantity, fulfilling a purely
ceremonial function. However, unlike the semis, it was abandoned in
about 388, and was replaced by the slightly lighter — and more conve
nient — tremissis, a coin that eventually assumed a legitimate commercial
role. [c. 14-16mm; typically c. 1.6-1.7 grams.]
Tremissis (pi. Tremisses). This denomination, struck at 216 to the

Roman pound, was probably introduced in 383 or 384, and may have been
the invention of the usurper Magnus Maximus (383-388). During the late
4th and early 5th Centuries, tremisses are quite rare, but they came to be
struck on a large scale by about 430. N ot only did the tremissis eclipse the
semissis, but it nearly achieved the level of acceptability enjoyed by the
solidus. This was largely due to the fact that it fit into the Germanic
weight system. The normal reverse inscription for this denomination (for
emperors) is VICTORIA AVGVSTORVM, and the types show Victory in
various poses. Empresses typically used the cross-in-wreath design, [c. 13—
16mm; c. 1.2-1.6 grams.]
SILVER
Miliarensis or Miliarense (two types: ‘Heavy 9 and ‘Light’ ) (pi. Miliar-

enses) These large silver coins were introduced by Constantine the Great,
and many scholars consider them to be medallions rather than coins in the
commercial sense. Initially, they were struck to two standards concur
rently: the heavy miliarense at 60 to the Roman pound (as was the gold
aureus), and the light miliarense probably at 72 to the Roman pound (as
was the gold solidus). The target weight of the heavy version is confirmed
by a legal document and seemingly also by the appearance of LX (60) in
the exergue of some heavy miliarenses struck for Constans and Magnen-
tius at Aquileia (RIC 57 and 142), a mint which later marked some of its
reduced billon Æ2’s with LXXII, indicating 72 to the pound. The lighter
version of the miliarensis was equal to two gold carats, and was twice the
value of its smaller counterpart, the ‘light siliqua.’
Distinguishing the heavy and light miliarenses in the 5 th Century is a
difficult task; the iconographie differences no longer compliment the dif
ferences in weight, and indeed they often contradict. Light miliarenses
often, but certainly not always, had left-facing busts, whereas heavy milia
renses rarely had anything but right-facing portraits. Thus, distinguishing
heavy miliarenses from regular ones becomes not only virtually impossible,
but essentially unimportant, for both coins had become purely ceremonial
in nature, with the siliqua and half-siliqua taking on the commercial role.
[Heavy: c. 23-24mm; c. 5.1-5.7 grams. Light: c. 21-26mm; c. 3.9-4.9

grams].
Siliqua (two types: ‘Heavy* and ‘Light’ ) (pi. Siliquae) When introduced
by Constantine the Great in 324, the siliqua was struck at 96 to the
Roman pound, thus making it the intrinsic equivalent of Diocletian’s
argenteus, a coin which had been abandoned for about a decade. However,
the siliqua was distinctly different looking, for it was struck on a broader,
thinner planchet (in the same manner the solidus was broader and thinner
than the aureus).
There is no evidence to suggest this denomination passed by the
name siliqua (which originally was a word associated with weight), and,
indeed, it probably continued to be called an argenteus. However, the uni
versal acceptance of this name by numismatists has led it to being used in
this catalog.
In 355/6, Constantius II reduced the weight of the siliqua by about
one-third, striking them at 144 to the Roman pound (c. 2.3 grams). A t
half the weight of the ‘light’ miliarense, the reformed siliqua seems to have
been the silver equivalent of a carat (0.189 grams) of gold. As with the
gold coinage, the break between the pre-reform and post-reform versions
was not firm; some western mints continued to strike the heavier pieces
late into the 4th Century and beyond. Even though siliquae are usually
called ‘heavy’ or ‘light’ (as has been adopted in this catalog), they are per
haps better understood as ‘pre-reform’ and ‘post-reform.’ The massive strik
ing of siliquae ceased about 410.
The weight of the light siliqua was extremely variable, based on the
time and location of minting. This fact, perhaps, has led some researchers
to conclude that there were 1-1/2 siliquae later in the Empire, after the
reform of c. 355/6. However, these pieces are perhaps best understood as
siliquae struck to the older, heavy standard of 96 to the pound, possibly for
special use in donatives or ceremonies. The lighter siliqua often was struck
at weights of about 1.0 gram in the east during the mid-5th Century.
Though this weight is more in line with the half-siliqua, many scholars
still consider them to be siliquae because there is no change in the design.
Edges of siliquae were frequently clipped in Britain during specific periods.
The current theory is that the clipping was intended to create two reduced
denominations, one of 1.2 grams and another of 0.8 grams. [Pre-reform
(‘heavy’): c. 18-21mm; theoretical weight of c. 3.4 grams, true range c. 2.8-
3.8 grams. Post-reform (‘light’): c. 17-19mm; initial theoretical weight of
c. 2.3 grams, falling to c. 2.0 grams by later 4th Century, then to c. 1.3
grams at beginning of 5th Century; true range c. 1.3-2.3 grams.]
DENOMINATIONS IO 3
Denomination Number to the Theoretical Other Names

Roman Pound Initial Weight Applied
PRE-REFORM
Heavy Siliqua 96 c. 3.40 grams Argenteus,

1-1/2 Siliqua
Heavy H alf'Siliqua 192 c. 1.70 grams 3/4 Siliqua
POST-REFORM
Light Siliqua 144 c. 2.30 grams Siliqua
Light H alf'Siliqua 288 c. 1.15 grams H alf'Siliqua
Half-Siliqua (two types: ‘Heavy’ and ‘Light’) (pi. Half-Siliquae) In its

earliest form, the half-siliqua (to the “heavy” standard) was the equivalent
of the half-argenteus, and it is a great rarity. A t the reduced (“light”)
weight standard it was theoretically struck at 288 to the Roman pound. It
was introduced c. 379/80 or soon thereafter, and was struck in the West,
seemingly for ceremonial purposes until c. 474, after which it became a
regular component of the coinage system in Italy. Authorities have some
times used the term 3/4-siliqua to describe coins of c. 1.7 grams, but this
coin is perhaps better understood not as 3/4 of a light siliqua, but as half of
a heavy siliqua. The weights of half-siliquae were not carefully regulated,
and they vary considerably, with some weighing at levels appropriate for a
light quarter-siliqua. However, it seems this denomination suffered the
weight reductions affecting the siliqua in the late 4th and early 5th centu
ries. This denomination is not to be confused with the clipped siliquae of
Britain (see above), which were reduced in weight after they were minted.
[Heavy: theoretical weight of c. 1.7 grams. Light: theoretical weight of c.
1.15 grams. Actual range, including later reduced pieces, c. 0.5-1.2 grams;
c. ll-16m m .]
BILLON AND ÆS
Note: In the catalog listings the term ‘billon’ refers to any coin which was
intended to have some silver content, even if most often they do not sur
vive with any palpable trace of silver being visible on the surface or in the
alloy. The denominations are presented below in the relative chronologi
cal order in which they were introduced.
Billon Argenteus (pi. argentei). Much controversy is associated with

these particular coins. They are of the Æ3 module, but in some cases have
a substantial silver content, and thus would constitute a separate denomi
nation. The two issues we may be certain about are: billon argentei are the
IOVI CONSERVATORI AVG (Jupiter riding on back of eagle) of Licinius I
and the SOLI INVICTO COMITI (Sol in facing quadriga) of Maximinus II
Daia, both of which were struck at Trier c. 312-313 and seem to contain
about 25% silver. Later, c. 318-319, Constantine the Great struck some
coins of this same module at Trier in his own name and in the name of
Licinius II. Though most of these coins are clearly low-content silver
pieces (no different from the regular ‘Billon Æ3 s’), the occasional piece is
clearly of higher silver content. As such, the issue may represent an
attempt to re-introduce the denomination which failed quickly, [c. 18-
22mm; c. 2.8-3.6 grams.]
Billon Nummus (Reduced) (pi. Nummi). The successor to the billon

nummus (or “argentiferous nummus”) introduced by Diocletian in 294,
the denomination was reduced in weight and purity gradually, with two
sharp drops occurring in c. 307/8 and c. 311/13. In general, it was first
reduced by Constantine at his Western mints, after which his rivals in the
East followed suit. During the period 316 to 318, the fabric of the reduced
nummus was altered: no longer was it thin and spread irregularly at the
edges, but was instead struck on round, compact planchets. It is roughly at
this point, when the fabric of the coin was “reformed,” that the categoriza
tion of the nummus in this catalog switches to the designation Æ3.
Despite all the adjustments to the official value of the nummus since its
introduction in 293/4, it probably was tariffed at 25 denarii communes in
the east under Licinius I, for he seems to have cut its value in half in 321,
when he began to strike billon nummi (Æ3’s) with the marking X lir
(12-1/2). Since Licinius was striking no silver in his eastern realm, the
‘argentiferous’ nummus must have served in this capacity (with 12-1/2
being half of 25 denarii communes at which Diocletian had established the
value of his true silver argenteus). The possibility that they are half-nummi
is remote since these were the only billon coins struck at Licinius’s mints
from 321 to his surrender in 324. [After first reduction: c. 23-28mm; c.
4.6-7.5 grams. After second reduction: c. 21-24mm; c. 2.6-6.0 grams.]
Billon Half-Nummus (Reduced). These pieces were seldom struck, and

with the exception of some types depicting Sol or Genius standing (c.
305-310), they are limited to unusual types produced especially in 312-
313 and 317-318. Most were struck in memory of Maximinus, Constantius
I and Claudius II. Other larger pieces which fit this category were struck by
Maxentius, whose nummus was heavier than that of the contemporary
issues of Constantine. Some researchers suggest the larger examples in this
category are 3/4 nummi, but their larger size may simply be the result of
varying mint standards. For a discussion of a possible half-nummus struck
DENOMINATIONS 10 5
by Licinius in the early 320s, refer to the Reduced Billon Nummus entry
above. [The larger: c. 18-21mm; c. 1.9-4-5 grams. The smaller: c. 15-
18mm; c. 1.5-2.8 grams.]
Billon Quarter- and Third-(?) Nummus (Reduced). Although the quar-

ter-nummus is often similar in size and weight to the half-nummus, it can
be identified when taken in context with the nummi with which it is asso
ciated. The earliest pieces were struck by members of the First Tetrarchy.
Later issues were struck by Maxentius (and in the names of Maximianus
and Romulus), and still smaller coins issued a few years later by Constan
tine the Great (with one of the reverse types having the inscription SAPI-
ENTA PRINCIPIS). [The larger: c. 18-20mm; c. 1.5-2.3 grams. The
smaller: c. 13-16mm, c. 1.0-1.3 grams.]
Billon or Æ Nummus Fraction(?) These coins of uncertain status were

principally struck at Trier from c. 302 to 308 in the names of seven issuers
(Diocletian through Constantine the Great) during various stages of their
careers. They are about the size of a quinarius (and may well be quinarii),
but are, perhaps, more likely small fractions of the nummus. Their small
size (sometimes weighing only one-eighth of a nummus), votive reverses
and overall rarity assure us they were for distribution at special occasions.
Typical inscriptions, always in a laurel wreath, are MVLTIS XX, SIC X SIC
XX, VOT(IS) X SIC XX, VOT XX AVGG, VOT X CAESS (NN), VOTIS XXX,
VOT XXX AVG N, MVLT NATAL FEL or PLVR NATAL FEL. A n interesting
successor to these distribution coins is the POP ROMAN VS issue seemingly
struck for the dedication of Constantinople in 330. [c. 13-15mm; typically
1.0—2.0 grams, but range from c. 0.75—3.0 grams].
Billon Æ 3 (Nummus). Coins of this category are mixed both in their

design and in their alloy, for some have ample silvering on the surfaces
(see Billon Argenteus above), and others appear to be nothing more than
pure copper. These coins seem to have been struck at a reduced standard of
96 to the Roman pound, and coins of this size may well have been called
centenionalesy a name traditionally applied (in error) to the large billon
coins introduced by Constantius II in 348. [c. 18-22mm. From c. 313-c.
325/6: c. 3.0-3.5 grams; from c. 325/6-335/6: c. 2.5-3.0 grams.]
Billon Æ 3/4 (Nummus). This category represents a further decline of the

nummus, which was struck c. 335/6-337, the period during which the
module of the Æ3 was abandoned (though it was revived by post-Constan-
tinian emperors). This “reform” occurred in conjunction with Constan
tine’s division of the Empire between his sons and half-nephews, [c. 15-
18mm; c. 1.4—2.0 grams].
io 6 COINAGE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE: NUMISMATIC INTRODUCTION
N Medallion
Æ Medallion
Al Medallion
DENOMINATIONS IO 7
Æ Tessera or Token
“Trial” Strike
“Medallic” Strike
Æ Contorniate
Io 8 COINAGE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE: NUMISMATIC INTRODUCTION
Billon Æ 4 or Æ 4 (Nummus). Coins of this small module began to be

struck in 337 (after the adjustment of 335/6-337), and represent the final
Constantinian reduction of the Tetrarchic nummus. Originally, they still
had a trace of silver and may have been struck at the standard of 192 to the
Roman pound, but most examples of this coin do not meet the theoretical
weight of about 1.7 grams. Alternatively, it could have been based upon a
weight of about 8 carats (c. 1.5 grams). It began as a thin, spread coin, but
with the passage of time became thick, compact and heavily leaded. These
later pieces, which had lost any silver content and were probably identified
with the term nummus minimus, are simply called Æ4’s in this book. [Ini
tially c. 13-16mm, declining in late 4th and 5th Century to c. 10-12mm;
initially c. 1.3-1.7 grams, declining to 0.7-1.3 grams.]
Billon (or Æ ) Æ l, Æ 2 and Æ 3 (commonly called a ‘Double-Cente-

nion-alis,' ‘Centenionalis’ and ‘Half-Centenionalis’) This category of
coin was introduced in 348 by Constantius II, and usually is identified by
the inscription FEL TEMP REPARATIO, which was paired with several
standard designs. The principal denomination, the Æ2, was struck at two
different weights: the earlier (c. 348-352) at 60 to the Roman pound, and
later (beginning c. 352) at 72 to the Roman pound. The later pieces often
were ragged and had virtually no silver content. These ‘target’ weights are
certainly accurate, though the weights of specimens differ within the
expected range for æs coinages. Interestingly, some of the ‘reduced’ Æ2
pieces struck at Aquileia (RIC 187-98) and Siscia (RIC 334-41) have the
formula LXXII on the reverse, removing any doubt as to the standard of
72-to-the-pound at which they were struck. The western usurpers Mag-
nentius and Decentius struck coins which are based on these issues intro
duced by Constantius II. In their case they did not use the standard
inscription and types, but chose their own, and furthermore added a
slightly larger piece (usually called a ‘double-centenionalis’) which is
termed a ‘Billon Æ V in this book. [Æ1: c. 27- 30mm. Æ2: the heavier: c.
22-26mm; c. 4.9-6.1 grams; the lighter: c. 20- 22mm, c. 3.0—4.7 grams.
Æ 3: c. 14-20mm; c. 2.3-3.5 grams].
Billon Æ 1 or Æ 1 (sometimes called a “Maiorina” ). This module of coin

was introduced by Julian II at 36 per Roman pound, and perhaps was
inspired by the similarly large pieces struck by the usurper Magnentius.
Under Julian II and Jovian, this coin contained about 2 percent silver.
Thereafter it fell to a trace amount of less than 0.1 percent, and became a
purely copper coin, at which point it is simply termed Æ1. [Range c. 24-
32mm, usually c. 27-30mm; c. 7.5- 11.0 grams.]
Æ 2. This copper or leaded bronze coin is a successor to the nummus. It

ceased to be struck in 395 with the death of Theodosius II. If any of the
DENOMINATIONS IOÇ
ancient names are to be applied to this coin, it would seem to be the maio
rina that is named in the law of 395. [c. 22-25mm, c. 3.8-7.5 grams].
40 -Nummus. This large bronze was first struck at Rome by the Ostrogoths
in the name of the Eastern emperor Zeno (474-491), after the West had
fallen. Its denomination is identified on the reverse by the letters XL (the
Latin equivalent of 40). This Ostrogothic issue was small, and most likely
was limited to 477/8. However, the denomination was adopted in 498 by
the emperor Anastasius I, who identified its circulation value with a large
M (the Greek equivalent of 40); it is at this point that ancient texts reveal
that it commonly was known by the name follaro or “follis.” [c. 26-29mm,
c. 13.5-20 grams.]
M e d a l l io n s , M e d a l l ic Is s u e s , and R elated It e m s
Al Medallion. This category includes Roman gold pieces that are not part
of the normal coinage system, and were struck for reasons other than com
mercial necessity. Generally they commemorated special events and were
most likely made for distribution to high-ranking officials in the govern
ment or the army. Gold medallions were probably prized mainly for their
intrinsic value, although they certainly were prestigious items worthy of
display. They frequently were used in jewelry by both Romans and barbar
ians, and were consequently pierced, held in bezels, or were mounted with
suspension loops.
The weights of gold medallions typically range from 1.25 to 4-5 times
the weight of the standard gold coin of the day (aureus or solidus). The
occasional 12-solidus piece was struck, and the largest known examples
were struck to the standard of a full Roman pound (c. 327.5 grams). Som e
times gold coins without any unusual design elements were struck at
weights heavier than one, but less than two aurei. These enigmatic pieces
are usually called “heavy aurei.”
Another Roman gold coin which seemingly was ceremonial or was
struck for donatives was the binio, or ‘double aureus.’ This denomination
was usually equal in weight, and presumably in value, to two aurei. It usu
ally shows the emperor wearing a radiate crown to signify the double
denomination. Under Trebonianus Gallus, such a coin was struck, though
it typically weighed only about 50% or 60% more than its laureate com
panion (itself reduced to about 3.6 grams). Since biniones were struck so
infrequently, and were of exceptional value, they are considered by some
scholars to be medallions. It would seem that at least some biniones were
struck with dies intended for the striking of double-denarii.
Some gold pieces struck in the era of the solidus (post-324) were
about 20 percent heavier than the solidus, and thus are referred to as fes-
I IO COINAGE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE: NUMISMATIC INTRODUCTION
Electrum (EL) Stater
Billon Alexandrian Tetradrachm (early)
ÄI Cistophorus
Æ. or Billon Tetradrachm
Billon AlexandrianTetradrachm (late) Al or Billon Didrachm

DENOMINATIONS III
Alexandrian Æ Diobol
Provincial Æ 30 (meaning 30mm)

[others of varying diameters, c. 10-35 mm]
Alexandrian Æ Drachm
Provincial Æ “Medallion”
taurei. These had the same weight as the earlier aurei of Diocletian (at 60
to the Roman pound) during the period when solidi were being struck at
72 to the Roman pound. Often their reverse depicts the emperor tossing
handfuls of coins while standing in a facing quadriga.
A R Medallion. These issues are excessively rare in all but the 4th and 5th
Centuries A.D., and sometimes are of enormous size (such as those issued
by Priscus Attalus that weigh about 80 grams, or a quarter of a Roman
pound, and were the silver equivalent of a gold solidus). Some of the earli
est examples occur in the 2nd Century, during the period Domitian
through Hadrian, with weights ranging from 5 to 12 denarii. However,
most silver medallions do not exceed about 13 grams. Because the weights
of silver coins were fairly consistent, the medallions are quantified in terms
of multiples of the basic silver unit in use at the time. Usually they do not
show a great deal of wear, although there can be little doubt that some of
the larger pieces were valued for their precious metal value, as they show
signs of circulation. [Size and weight vary considerably.]
Bimetallic Medallion. Two different colored metals (most often red copper
and yellow orichalcum) were used to produce the planchets of these medal
lions, which were typically struck during the 2nd and 3rd Centuries A.D.
They had a central core composed of a different metal than the “ring” in
which it was contained. Although in most cases the striking pressure seems
to have fused the core to the ring, occasionally they are not entirely stable.
Sometimes they can be difficult to identify as bimetallic if a thick patination
obscures the surfaces. [Size and weight vary considerably.]
Æ Medallion. This category covers many numismatic items, and the line
which separates Æ medallions from regular bronze issues is not always
clear. Medallions were not part of the normal coinage system, and were
struck for special events, and most especially for New Year’s distribution.
Most likely they were given to officials in the government, the military,
though in some cases (such as the “medalets” struck for the Festival of Isis)
to the public.
Some of these medallions are distinctly “medallic” in appearance
because of their size, weight, or other peculiarities of production. However,
medallions struck up through the mid-3rd Century A.D. are usually also
identifiable by the absence of the SC that appears on virtually all the regu
lar æs coinage of the time. Medallions struck thereafter are usually distin
guishable only by the size of the planchets. Typically, Æ medallions are
larger and thicker than even the largest æs denomination of the reign to
which they belong. [Size and weights vary considerably.]
DENOMINATIONS I 13
Æ Trial Strikes or “ Medallic” Issues. Occasionally a coin struck with

regular dies has an uncommonly large, or off-metal planchet. These are
usually described as “trial strikes” when the metal of the planchet is differ
ent from that for which the dies would have been intended, and as “medal
lic strikes” (i.e. “medallic as” or “medallic dupondius”) when the dies used
are properly matched with the metal used in the striking. Such strikings
range in size from the quadrans through the sestertius. Even some double
sestertii of Trajan Decius are known which weigh exactly twice the weight
of a normal piece — and these should perhaps be considered “medallic”
rather than simply a “double-double-sestertius.” Trial strikes were usually
made as experiments by the mint to determine the suitability of the dies.
[Size and weight vary considerably.]
Æ Proto-contorniate. These were made presumably in the 3rd and 4th

Centuries by hammering up the edges of sestertii, dupondii, asses or other
bronzes taken from circulation. Some believe they were made as ‘counters’
or game pieces, but it seems more likely they were New Year’s gifts. In that
respect they inspired the unusual form of the contorniates described below.
Æ Contorniate. This category of base metal medallion derives its name

from its unusual form, which features a deep groove incised along the
periphery which either creates a rim or accentuates a raised rim that
already existed. Contorniates seemingly were produced in the 4th and 5th
Centuries at the mint of Rome, for there are at least three recorded
instances of their sharing dies with Rome mint products.
They may have been used as entrance tickets for games and festivals
or as prizes for the victors of competitions. More likely, however, they were
distributed at circus events held to celebrate the New Year. This idea was
presented by Curtis Clay in a lecture (yet unpublished) at the 1986 Inter
national Numismatic Conference in London. Mr. Clay asserts that contor
niates were struck at the Rome mint under the authority of the largely pro
pagan senate, and that they, in essence, were the successors of the large
Imperial bronze medallions, which ceased to be struck in any significant
quantity after the reign of Constantius II (337-361). That they were
inspired by the proto-contorniates seems a foregone conclusion consider
ing their unusual edges and the fact that so many of their designs are
derived from earlier bronze coin types.
They are among the final remnants of pagan life in the Empire before
the Christian church outlawed pagan games in 394. Their designs are
remarkably diverse, but the obverse usually bears the portrait of an earlier
pagan emperor, a Greek hero, or occasionally a charioteer or philosopher.
The reverses usually relate to Greco-Roman mythology or allude to games
and contests. One of the most common designs is a victorious charioteer,
whose name (or the name of his racing party) is sometimes also inscribed.
Many also have the unusual feature of silver inlays in the fields (usually a
palm branch or a monogram), but the majority are strictly of base metal,
[c. 35 mm—40mm; weights vary.]
Æ Tesserae, Tokens and Spintriae. Like contorniates, these were not offi
cial Roman coins, but coin substitutes of private manufacture. The
tesserae are interesting because some of them bear the portraits of emper
ors (often paired with Roman numerals), whereas others have inexplicable
designs. One category of token is the so-called spintriae, which feature a
variety of sexually explicit scenes, and as such are considered brothel
tokens. [Size and weight vary considerably.]
P r o v in c ia l C o in a g e
EL Stater (pi. Staters). The stater was issued for more than three centu
ries by the kings of the Bosporus, who were client-kings of the Romans. It
began as a coin of high-purity gold, and with the passage of time was
reduced to a mix of gold and silver known as electrum (abbreviated EL).
Normally these staters bear the portraits of at least two men, one of them
being a king, the other a Roman emperor. From the mid-3rd through the
early 4th Century they were debased to almost entirely base metal, [c. 18-
22mm; c. 7.5-7.9 grams, declining to c. 5.5 grams in base metal.]
Æ > Cistophorus (pi. Cistophori). This large silver coin was equal in
weight to three Roman denarii, and though it is considered by most
researchers to be a provincial coin, it shares many ties to the standard
Imperial coinage, including the exclusive use of Latin inscriptions. The
cistophorus was first struck c. 166 B .C . under the Attalid kings who ruled
Pergamum, and represented a reduction from the weight of the standard
tetradrachm. They were designed to be officially over-valued within the
Pergamene Kingdom in order to prevent their export. The last king of Per
gamum, Attalus III, bequeathed his kingdom in 133 B .C .
The Romans continued striking cistophori (sometimes at more than
10 mints) from the time they inherited the Pergamene kingdom through
the Severan period. Some of the early pieces were issued bearing the
names of the Roman proconsul in Asia. Many cistophori of Imperial date
(especially those of Hadrian) show obvious signs of having been over
struck on earlier cistophori, either of Attalid or Roman manufacture, and
those few that do not were probably overstruck well enough to obliterate
DENOMINATIONS II5
any traces of the undertype. A rare half-cistophorus was also struck during
the early phase of the coinage, [c. 24-30mm; c. 9.5-12 grams].
Æ Tetradrachm (pi. Tetradrachmi). This was the traditional major silver

denomination of the Greek world, and was also struck by the Romans at
numerous provincial mints in the East. The most prolific of these mints
was Antioch in Syria. A coin of this same denomination, but of different
fabric, was issued at Alexandria in Egypt, and is presented in a separate
listing below, [c. 2 4 -3 1mm; early coins typically c. 13.0-14.7 grams,
declining to c. 9.5 grams.]
/R Tridrachm, Didrachm, Drachm and Hemidrachm. These denomina

tions, also popular with the Greeks, were struck at more than two dozen
mints in the Near East, foremost of which was Caesarea in Cappadocia.
The drachm closely approximated the Roman denarius, and the
hemidrachm the quinarius. [Tridrachm: c. 24-26mm; c. 9.5-10.5 grams.
Didrachm: c. 18-23mm; c. 5.7-7.5 grams, declining to c. 4.0 grams.
Drachm: c. 16-21mm; c. 2.6-4.0 grams, declining to c. 2.2 grams.
Hemidrachm: c. 14-16mm; c. 1.3-1.8 grams.]
Billon Tetradrachm of Alexandria. This prolific coinage began under

Tiberius and continued through the usurpation of Domitus Domitianus,
thus covering a period of nearly three centuries. They began in 20/1 as a
debased silver coinage (about 31 percent pure), which followed the
debased tetradrachms struck by the last Greek rulers of Egypt. The Egyp
tian economy had been isolated ever since Ptolemaic times, with no for
eign coins allowed to circulate. For this reason a severely debased coinage
could be maintained within that economic microcosm. N ot surprisingly,
the provincial coinage of Egypt provided great profits to the Romans.
The purity of the tetradrachm dropped to about 23 percent under
Claudius, and to about 15-17 percent after Nero’s debasement of 58/9. A
great many of Nero’s pieces survive, since he recalled the existing tet
radrachms for melting, and recoined them into the new pieces of lesser
intrinsic value. But at the same time the purity fell, so did the weight.
Thus, the post-reform tetradrachm of Nero had less than one-third the sil
ver of Tiberius’s issue, and only about 15% of the Greek tetradrachms of
about a century earlier. From the later part of the reign of Commodus
through the era of Gallienus, the tetradrachm falls into the category of
debasement which many specialists call ‘potin,’ meaning it contains only
about 5-10 percent silver. Subsequently, from about 270-295, it is virtu
ally pure copper with only a trace of silver that most often is not even visi
ble on the surface, [c. 23-27mm, declining to c. 18mm; c. 9.5-14.5 grams,
declining to c. 6.0 grams.]
1 16 COINAGE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE: NUMISMATIC INTRODUCTION
Æ S of Alexandria. Subsidiary æs denominations formed an important

part of Egypt’s coinage system, though the billon tetradrachm was the
principal denomination. Foremost in this category was the drachm, a
large-module coin which, along with the hemidrachm, was introduced
during the reign of Nero. Smaller æs denominations (such as the obol,
worth one-sixth of a drachm and the chalkon, worth one-sixth of an obol)
also were struck, some of them quite early on in the history of Roman
Egypt. [Measurements of the various æs denominations are as follows:
drachm c. 3 3-36mm, hemidrachm c. 28-3Omm, diobol c. 23-26mm, obol
c. 19-21mm, dichalkon c. 12-15mm, and chalkon c. 10mm].
Æ “ Medallions” . Whereas some specific and reliable indicators exist by

which Imperial medallions can be differentiated from coins, there are few
(if any) such guidelines for provincial issues. In fact, some scholars believe
that even the largest and most impressive provincial bronzes were struck
strictly with monetary function in mind, and were the monetary equiva
lents to silver denarii and quinarii. None-the-less, the larger pieces are
called medallions by many numismatists, even if the practice may not be
strictly accurate. Diameter and weight are most often used to make the
determination, though occasionally the design or inscription are factors,
[c. 40-45mm; weights vary considerably.]
Æ Coinages. This category includes the vast majority of Roman Provin

cial issues, of which many thousands of different types are known. Since in
most cases the denominations were not indicated in the design, most pro
vincial æs are simply distinguished by their diameter as measured in milli
meters. For example, a provincial bronze with a diameter of 25 millimeters
would be cataloged as an “Æ25” or less often as an “Æ25mm.” Metallic con
tents can vary, though copper is always the principal ingredient. Signifi
cant percentages of lead or tin are not uncommon.
Denominations (such as assaria , chalki and obols ) in some cases were
explicitly marked on the coins. When the provincial bronzes approach the
higher end of the diameter spectrum (c. 40mm) they are often called
“medallions” by numismatists (see above), [c. 10-35mm; weights vary
considerably.]
CH A PTER SIX
G reek a n d R o m a n C o in D a tes
Imperial Coinage: Dating of Imperial coins can be a very precise task, for
some emperors used a host of inscriptions which represent their titles or
honors. If it is known when these were granted, the date of the piece can
be narrowed. In a great many cases this can be done at least to a single year,
though sometimes it can be narrowed down to a period of a few months or
a few days. However, these titles are only helpful when they appear on the
coins, and this is not always the case. Most fundamental of all are Caesar
(CAES) and Augustus (AVG), which indicated the offices of heir and
emperor. A brief outline follows.
Imperatorial Acclamation: This was generally taken upon the emperor’s

accession, and was sometimes augmented with subsequent acclamations
based on military conquests which occured during the reign. It is typically
shown as IMP, and additional acclamations are denoted by numerals
(example: IMP VII = the seventh Imperatorial acclamation).
Tribunician Power: The tribuniciae potestas was the veto power of the tri
bunes over legislation, a governmental weapon of great power of similar
level as Proconsular Imperium was in the provinces. It gave the emperor
total control over the senate, and, as such, the office was always held by the
reigning emperor. The office is usually abbreviated TR P, with each renewal
indicated by numerals (example: TR P XXVII = the twenty-seventh renewal
of the tribunician power).
Consulship: Another useful tool for dating coins, the consulship was the
highest office in the Republic, and remained the highest office in the sen
ate during Imperial times. Though the consulship was regularly held by
high-ranking senators, it was also held by the emperor or his heirs when
they wished to do so. It is usually abbreviated as COS, and its subsequent
renewals are indicated as those of the Imperatorial acclamation and tribu
nician power. When the consulship had been granted for the forthcoming
year, it was sometimes presented: COS DES or COS DESIG, or if it is not the
first, COS II DES III (meaning, currently in the second, and designated for a
third.)
Honorary Titles: Some of the most commonly awarded titles were for mil
itary victories. When the emperor conquered a foreign people, a compound
117
of their name which denotes “victory over . . . ” would be given to him,

such as Germanicus, Parthicus, Britannicus, etc. Other common titles are
the Pontifex Maximus (the office of high priest, usually abbreviated P M or
PONT MAX), Pater Patriae (meaning father of his country, usually abbrevi
ated P P), Pius and Felix (meaning ‘dutiful’ and ‘happy,’ and often adopted
jointly, as P F = Pius Felix). There are a number of other titles which were
held less commonly.
Vows: Later in the Empire the commemoration of vows made by emperors

became a frequent part of reverse designs. These essentially expressed
thanks for the years which the emperor had already reigned, and expressed
hope that a designated number more would follow. Once that number was
achieved, a new vow would be made. Although these vows are not always
a reliable tool for dating (for they often are struck prior to the year they
celebrate), sometimes they can narrow the time frame. They are especially
helpful since they occur in the later period, when lengthy titles had largely
been dropped from the obverse inscriptions, (example: VOT X MVLT XX =
ten years achieved, vows for ten more undertaken). This might also be
inscribed VOTIS X MVLTIS XX, or VOTIS X ET XX, or VOTIS X SIC XX
(with sic meaning ‘thus’). Alternatively, if the coin celebrates an expected
ten-year anniversary, it might read VOTIS DECENNALIBVS.
Provincial Coinage: In addition to their principal use in forming words,

the letters of the Greek and Latin alphabets had numeric values. On pro
vincial coins these letters, especially from the Greek alphabet, were used to
indicate the year in which a coin was struck. Such dates were recorded in
one of two manners: by era or by regnal year. Some commonly used eras
are: the Seleucid, which began in 312 B.C.; the Pompeian which began in
64 B.C.; the Caesarean, which began in 49 B.C. (although sometimes in 48
or 47 B.C.); and the Actian, which began in 31/30 B.C.
The ‘regnal year’ was the standard system used at Alexandria, and was
reckoned according to a fixed timetable beginning August 29 of each year.
The date of the emperor’s accession would be considered as part of ‘year
one,’ whether it occured on August 28 (with only one day before the reg
nal year officially ended) or December 15, or whatever date. Thus, if an
emperor came to the throne very shortly before August 29, it might be
impractical to strike coins bearing regnal year one, and so his inaugural
issue would be dated ‘year two,’ even though he might have been ruling for
a short time. Family members usually issued coins bearing his regnal years.
The date year was prefaced either by the abbreviation L (a symbol
used to indicate year in Ptolemaic times and originally found on papyrii),
or by the Greek word for year ETOYC or ETOYX (often abbreviated as ET
GREEK AN D ROMAN COIN DATES I 19
or E). An example would be L KA, meaning ‘year 24 of the emperor’s reign,’

from which the actual date can easily be determined from the year in
which that emperor came to the throne. On other occasions the dates are
spelled explicitly in Greek form: 3 = TPITOY, 4 = TETAPTOY, 9 = ENA-
TOY, 10 = AEKATOY, 13 = TPICKAIAEKA, etc. A table of the Greek alpha
bet and the numerical equivalents of the letters is presented below.
G reek L etter Form N um ber G reek L etter Form N um ber
Alpha A 1 Nu N 50
Beta B 2 Xi 60
Gam m a r 3 Omicron O 70
Delta A 4 Pi n 80
Epsilon E or £ 5 Koppa H or ? 90
Digamma or Stigma Ç or S 6 Rho p 100
Zeta Z 7 Sigma Z or C 200
Eta H 8 Tau T 300
Theta © 9 Upsilon Y 400
Iota I 10 Phi O 500
Kappa K 20 Chi X 600
Lambda (Lamda) A 30 Psi 'P 700
Mu M 40 Omega Q. or go 800
N ote: The Xi (^ ) often looks like a Sigm a (Z); the Zeta often takes the form I. The numbers
11 through 19 are composed by grouping I with the appropriate digit (IA=1 4 for example).
Note: The regnal years at Alexandria began on August 29 of each year, and continued
through August 28 of the following year. When shown on this table, the year indi-
cated is the one which began on August 29 of the year stated. In some cases two regnal
years are shown concurrently: (example: ‘1 & 2 Vespasian’ appears in the row desig
nated for the year 69. The ‘1’ represents the regnal year 68/69, of which he reigned
only in the portion in 69, and the ‘2’ represents the regnal year which actually began
in August of 69 and carried over into 70). (C) = Caesar.
Year Alexandrian Imperatorial Tribunician Consulship Caesar

(A.D.) Regnal Year Acclamation Power
14 1 Tiberius VII XV-XVI
15 2 Tiberius XVI-XVII
16 3 Tiberius XVII-XVIII
17 4 Tiberius XVIII-XIX
18 5 Tiberius VIII XIX-XX III
19 6 Tiberius XX-XXI
20 7 Tiberius XXI-XXII
21 8 Tiberius XXII-XXIII IV
22 9 Tiberius XXIII-XXIV
23 10 Tiberius XXIV-XXV
24 11 Tiberius XXV-XXVI
25 12 Tiberius XXVI-XXVII
26 13 Tiberius XXVII-XXVIII
27 14 Tiberius XXVIII-XXIX
28 15 Tiberius XXIX-XXX
29 16 Tiberius XXX-XXXI
30 17 Tiberius XXXI-XXXII
31 18 Tiberius XXXIIOCXXIII v
32 19 Tiberius XXXIII-XXXIV
33 20 Tiberius XXXIV-XXXV
34 21 Tiberius XXXV-XXXVI
35 22 Tiberius XXXVI-XXXVII
36 23 Tiberius XXXVII-XXXVIII
37 24 Tiberius XXVIII (cont)

1 & 2 Caligula IMP TR.P. COS
38 3 Caligula TR.P.'II
39 4 Caligula II'III II
40 5 Caligula III'IV III
41 5 Caligula (cont) -IV IV

1 & 2 Claudius IMP - IV TR.P.
42 3 Claudius TR.P.'II II (Note: He was

consul in 37)
GREEK AN D ROMAN COIN DATES 121

43 4 Claudius II'III III
44 5 Claudius V-VII III-IV
45 6 Claudius VIII IV-V
46 7 Claudius IX-XI v -v i
47 8 Claudius XII-XIII VI-VII IV
48 9 Claudius XIV-XV VII-VIII
49 10 Claudius XVI VIII-IX

50 11 Claudius XVII-XX IX-X Nero (part)
51 12 Claudius XXI-XXIII X-XI v Nero
52 13 Claudius XXIV-XXVI XI-XII Nero

53 14 Claudius XXVII XII-XIII Nero
54 15 Claudius XIII-XIV Nero (part)

1 Nero IMP TR.P.
55 2 Nero TR.P. - II COS
56 3 Nero II-III
57 4 Nero III III-IV II
58 5 Nero IV-V IV-V III
59 6 Nero VI V-VI
60 7 Nero VII VI-VII IV
61 8 Nero VIII-IX VII-VIII

62 9 Nero VIII-IX
63 10 Nero IX-X
64 11 Nero X-XI
65 12 Nero XI-XII
66 13 Nero XI XII-XIII
67 14 Nero XII XIII-XIV
68 14 Nero (cont) XIV V

1 Galba IMP TR.P.
69 2 Galba
1 Otho IMP
1 Vitellius IMP Titus (part)
1 & 2 Vespasian IMP'II TR.P. COS Domitian (part)
70 3 Vespasian III-V TR.P. - II II Titus
Titus (C) COS Domitian
71 4 Vespasian VI-VIII II-III III Titus
Titus (C) TR.P. Domitian
Domitian (C) COS
72 5 Vespasian III-IV IV(?) Titus

Titus (C) III-IV TR.P. - II II Domitian
73 6 Vespasian X IV-V Titus
Titus (C) II-III Domitian
Domitian (C) II

74 7 Vespasian V-VI V Titus
Titus (C) III-IV III Domitian
XI-XIV VI
>>
75 8 Vespasian Titus
Titus (C) X(?) IV Domitian
Domitian (C) III
76 9 Vespasian XVII-XVIII VII-VIII VII Titus

Titus (C) XI V-VI V Domitian
Domitian (C) IV
77 10 Vespasian XIX VIII'IX VIII Titus

Titus (C) VI-VII VI Domitian
Domitian (C) V
78 11 Vespasian XX IX-X Titus

1 Titus (C) XIII VII-VIII Domitian
79 11 Vespasian (cont) X-XI IX Titus (part)

2 Titus xiv-xv(?) VIII-IX VII Domitian
Domitian (C) VI
80 3 Titus XV IX-X VIII Domitian

Domitian (C) VII
81 4 Titus XVI-XVII X-XI Domitian (part)

1 Domitian IMP TR.P.
82 2 Domitian II-III TR.P. - II VIII
83 3 Domitian V II-III IX
84 4 Domitian VI-VII III-IV X
85 5 Domitian VIII-XI IV-V XI
86 6 Domitian XII-XIV V-VI XII
87 7 Domitian VI-VII XIII
88 8 Domitian XV-VXI VII-VIII XIV
89 9 Domitian XVII-XXI VIII-IX
90 10 Domitian IX-X XV
91 11 Domitian X-XI
92 12 Domitian XXII XI-XII XVI
93 13 Domitian XII-XIII
94 14 Domitian XIII-XIV
95 15 Domitian XIV-XV XVII
96 16 Domitian XV-XVI
1 Nerva IMP TR.P. COS II DES III
97 2 Nerva IMP II TR.P. - II COS III DES IV Trajan (part)

Trajan (C) IMP (Oct. 27) TR.P. COS
98 2 Nerva (cont) II IV Trajan (part)

2 Trajan TR.P. - II II
99 3 Trajan II-III
100 4 Trajan III-IV III
101 5 Trajan II IV-V IV

102 6 Trajan III-IV V-VI
103 7 Trajan VI-VII V
GREEK AN D ROMAN COIN DATES Ï23

104 8 Trajan V VII-VIII
105 9 Trajan VIII-IX
106 10 Trajan VI IX-X
107 11 Trajan X-XI
108 12 Trajan XI-XII
109 13 Trajan XIII-XIV

110 14 Trajan XIV-XV
111 15 Trajan XIV-XV
112 16 Trajan XV-XVI VI
113 17 Trajan XVI-XVII
114 18 Trajan VII XVII-XVIII
115 19 Trajan VIII-XI XVIII-XIX
116 20 Trajan XII-XIII XIX-XX
117 20 Trajan (cont) XX-XXI Hadrian (part?)

1 & 2 Hadrian IMP TR.P. COS
118 3 Hadrian TR.P. - II II

119 4 Hadrian II-III III
120 5 Hadrian III-IV
121 6 Hadrian IV-V

122 7 Hadrian V-VI
123 8 Hadrian VI-VII
124 9 Hadrian XII-VIII

125 10 Hadrian VIII-IX
126 11 Hadrian IX-X
127 12 Hadrian X-XI

128 13 Hadrian XI-XII
129 14 Hadrian XII-XIII
130 15 Hadrian XIII-XIV
131 16 Hadrian XIV-XV
132 17 Hadrian XV-XVI
133 18 Hadrian XVI-XVII
134 19 Hadrian XVII-XVIII

135 20 Hadrian II XVIII-XIX
136 21 Hadrian XIX-XX Aelius (part)
137 22 Hadrian XX-XXI Aelius
138 22 Hadrian (cont) -XXI Aelius (died Jan 1)
1 & 2 Ant. Pius IMP TR.P. COS DES II A. Pius (part)
(Note: He was
consul in 130)

139 3 Ant. Pius TR.P. - II COS II DES III M. Aurel.
M. Aurel. (C) COS DES
140 4 Ant. Pius II-III COS III M. Aurel.

M. Aurel. (C) COS
141 5 Ant. Pius III-IV M. Aurel.

142 6 Ant. Pius IV-V M. Aurel.
143 7 Ant. Pius IK?) V-VI M. Aurel.
144 8 Ant. Pius VI-VII COS DES IV M. Aurel.

M. Aurel. (C) COS DES II
145 9 Ant. Pius VII-VIII COS IV M. Aurel.

M. Aurel. (C) COS II
146 10 Ant. Pius VIII-X(?) M. Aurel.

M. Aurel. (C) TR.P.
147 11 Ant. Pius X(?)-XI M. Aurel.

M. Aurel. (C) TR.P. - II
148 12 Ant. Pius XI-XII M. Aurel.

M. Aurel. (C) II-III
149 13 Ant. Pius XII-XIII M. Aurel.

M. Aurel. (C) III-IV
150 14 Ant. Pius XIII-XIV M. Aurel.

M. Aurel. (C) IV-V
151 15 Ant. Pius XIV-XV M. Aurel.

M. Aurel. (C) V-VI
152 16 Ant. Pius XV-XVI M. Aurel.

M. Aurel. (C) VI-VII
153 17 Ant. Pius XVI-XVII M. Aurel.

M. Aurel. (C) VII-VIII
154 18 Ant. Pius XVII-XVIII M. Aurei.

M. Aurel. (C) VIII-IX
155 19 Ant. Pius XVIII-XIX M. Aurel.

M. Aurel. (C) IX-X
156 20 Ant. Pius XIX-XX M. Aurei.

M. Aurel. (C) X-XI
157 21 Ant. Pius XX-XXI M. Aurel.

M. Aurel. (C) XI-XII
158 22 Ant. Pius XXI-XXII M. Aurel.

M. Aurel. (C) XII-XIII
159 23 Ant. Pius XXII-XXIII M. Aurel.

M. Aurel. (C) XIII-XIV
160 24 Ant. Pius XXIII-XXIV M. Aurel.

M. Aurel. (C) XIV-XV
161 24 Ant. Pius (cont) XXIV M. Aurei. (part)

1 & 2 M. Aurei. IMP XV-XVI III
1 & 2 L. Verus IMP TR.P. - II II (Note: He was
consul in 154)
162 3 M. Aurel. XVI-XVII
3 L. Verus II-III
163 4 M. Aurel. II XVII-XVIII

4 L. Verus II III-IV
GREEK AN D ROMAN COIN DATES 125

164 5 M. Aurel. XVIII-XIX
5 L. Verus IV-V
165 6 M. Aurel. III XIX-XX

6 L. Verus III V-VI
166 7 M. Aurel. IV XX-XXI Commodus (part)

7 L. Verus IV VI-VII Annius Verus (part)
167 8 M. Aurel. XXI-XXII Commodus
8 L. Verus VII-VIII III Annius Verus
168 9 M. Aurel. V XXII-XXIII Commodus
9 L. Verus V VIII-IX Annius Verus
169 10 M. Aurel. XXIII-XXIV Commodus
9 L. Verus (cont) -IX Annius Verus
170 11 M. Aurel. VI XXIV-XXV Commodus
Annius Verus(?)
171 12 M. Aurel. XXV-XXVI Commodus
172 13 M. Aurel. XXVI-XXVII Commodus
173 14 M. Aurel. XXVII-XXVIII Commodus
174 15 M. Aurel. VII XXVIII-XXIX Commodus
175 16 M. Aurel. VIII XXIX-XXX Commodus
Commodus (C) TR.P.
176 17 M. Aurel. XXX-XXXI Commodus

Commodus (C) II
177 18 M. Aurel. IX XXXI-XXXII Commodus (part)

18 Commodus IMP - II II-III COS
178 19 M. Aurel. XXXII-XXXIII

19 Commodus III-IV
179 20 M. Aurel. X XXXIII-XXXIV

20 Commodus III IV-V II
180 20 M. Aurel. (cont) -XXXIV
21 Commodus IV V-VI
181 22 Commodus VI-VII III

182 23 Commodus V VII-VIII
183 24 Commodus VI VIII-IX IV
184 25 Commodus VII IX-X

185 26 Commodus X-XI
186 27 Commodus VIII XI-XII V
187 28 Commodus XII-XIII
188 29 Commodus XIII-XIV
189 30 Commodus XIV-XV
190 31 Commodus XV-XVI VI
191 32 Commodus XVI-XVII
192 33 Commodus XVII-XVIII VII
I 26 COINAGE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE: NUMISMATIC INTRODUCTION

193 1 Pertinax IMP TR.P. II (Note: He was Clodius Albinus (part)
Didius Julianus IMP TR.P. consul in 175)
1 Pescen. Niger IMP COS
1 & 2 Sept. Severus IMP TR.P. II(?)
Clodius Albinus (C) COS
COS
194 3 Sept. Severus II-IV II II Clodius Albinus

Clodius Albinus (C) II
195 4 Sept. Severus V-VII III Clodius Albinus (part)

Clodius Albinus IMP Caracalla (part)
4 Caracalla (C)
196 5 Sept. Severus VIII IV Caracalla
Clodius Albinus
5 Caracalla (C)
197 6 Sept. Severus IX-X V Caracalla

Clodius Albinus
6 Caracalla (C) IMP DESIG
198 7 Sept. Severus XI VI Caracalla (part)

7 Caracalla IMP TR.P. Geta (part)
6 Geta (C) (Hailed in
Jan. 198)
199 8 Sept. Severus VII Geta
8 Caracalla II
200 9 Sept. Severus VIII Geta

9 Caracalla III
201 10 Sept. Severus IX Geta

10 Caracalla IV
202 11 Sept. Severus X III Geta

11 Caracalla V COS
203 12 Sept. Severus XI Geta

12 Caracalla VI
204 13 Sept. Severus XII Geta

13 Caracalla VII
205 14 Sept. Severus XIII Geta

14 Caracalla VIII II
Geta (C) COS
206 15 Sept. Severus XIV Geta

15 Caracalla IX
207 16 Sept. Severus XV Geta

16 Caracalla X
208 17 Sept. Severus XVI Geta

17 Caracalla XI III
Geta (C) II
209 18 Sept. Severus XVII Geta (part)

18 Caracalla XII
18 Geta IMP TR.P.
210 19 Sept. Severus XVIII

19 Caracalla XIII
19 Geta II
211 19 Sept. Sev. (cont) XIX

20 Caracalla XIV
20/21 Geta III-IV
212 21 Caracalla II(?) XV

GREEK AN D ROMAN COIN DATES 12 7

213 22 Caracalla XVI IV
214 23 Caracalla III XVII
215 24 Caracalla XVIII
216 25 Caracalla XIX
217 25 Caracalla (cont) XX Diadumenian (part)

1 & 2 Macrinus IMP TR.P. - II COS
218 2 Macrinus (cont) COS II (in error) Diadumenian (part)

1 Diadumenian IMP
1 & 2 Elagabalus IMP TR.P. COS (in error)
219 3 Elagabalus TR.P. - II II

220 4 Elagabalus III III
221 5 Elagabalus IV Sev. Alexander (part)
222 5 Elagabalus (cont) V IV Sev. Alexander (part)
1 & 2 Sev. Alexander IMP TR.P. (beg Jan. 1) COS
223 3 Sev. Alexander II
224 4 Sev. Alexander III

225 5 Sev. Alexander IV
226 6 Sev. Alexander V II
227 7 Sev. Alexander VI

228 8 Sev. Alexander VII
229 9 Sev. Alexander VIII III
230 10 Sev. Alexander IX
231 11 Sev. Alexander X
232 12 Sev. Alexander XI
233 13 Sev. Alexander XII
234 14 Sev. Alexander XIII

235 14 Sev. Alex, (cont) XIV Maximus ( ?)
1 & 2 Maximinus I IMP TR.P.
2 Maximus (C)
236 3 Maximinus I II COS Maximus
3 Maximus (C)
237 4 Maximinus I III Maximus
4 Maximus (C) TR.P.
238 4 Maximin. I (cont) IV Maximus (part)

4 Maximus(C) (cont) Gordian III (part)
1 Gordian I IMP
1 Gordian II IMP
1 Balbinus IMP
1 Pupienus IMP
IMP TR.P.
1 & 2 Gordian III
239 3 Gordian III TR.P. - II COS
240 4 Gordian III II-III
241 5 Gordian III III-IV II
242 6 Gordian III IV-V

243 7 Gordian III V-VI
244 7 Gordian III (cont) VI-VII Philip II (part)

1 & 2 Philip I IMP TR.P.
1 & 2 Philip II (C)
245 3 Philip I II COS Philip II

3 Philip II (C)
246 4 Philip I III Philip II

4 Philip II (C)
247 5 Philip I IV II Philip II (part)

5 Philip II IMP
248 6 Philip I V III

6 Philip II
249 7 Philip I VI
7 Philip II
1 Traj. Decius IMP
250 2 Traj. Decius Her. Etruscus (part)

Hostilian(?)
251 2 Traj. Decius (cont) Her. Etrus. (part)

2 Her. Etruscus IMP Hostilian (part)
1 & 2 Treb. Gallus IMP Volusian (part)
2 Hostilian IMP
1 & 2 Volusian IMP
252 3 Treb. Gallus

3 Volusian
253 3 Treb. Gallus (cont)
3 Volusian (cont)
( 1 ?) & 2 Aemilian
1 Valerian I IMP TR.P. COS
1 Gallienus IMP TR.P.
254 2 Valerian I II II
2 Gallienus II COS
255 3 Valerian I III III

3 Gallienus III II
256 4 Valerian I IV Valerian II (part)

4 Gallienus IV
4 Valerian II (C)
257 5 Valerian I V IV Valerian II

5 Gallienus V III
5 Valerian II (C)
258 6 Valerian I VI Valerian II (part)
6 Gallienus VI Saloninus (part)
5 Val. II (C) (cont)
5 & 6 Saloninus (C)
259 7 Valerian I VII Saloninus
7 Gallienus VII
7 Saloninus (C)
260 8 Valerian I Saloninus (part)
8 Gallienus VIII
8 Saloninus (cae+aug) IMP
Postumus IMP TR.P. COS
1 Macrianus IMP
1 Quietus IMP
GREEK AN D ROMAN COIN DATES I2 9

261 9 Gallienus IX IV
Postumus II II
1 Macrianus (cont)
1 Quietus (cont)
262 10 Gallienus X V
Postumus III III
263 11 Gallienus XI
Postumus IV
264 12 Gallienus XII VI

Postumus V
265 13 Gallienus XIII

Postumus VI
266 14 Gallienus XIV VII

Postumus VII
267 15 Gallienus XV
Postumus VIII IV(?)
268 15 Gallienus (cont) XVI
1 & 2 Claudius II IMP TR.P.
Postumus IX IV(?)
269 3 Claudius II II COS(?)

Postumus X V
Victorinus IMP TR.P. COS
270 3 Claudius II (cont)

1 Quintillus IMP TR.P. COS
1 (or 1&2) Aurelian IMP
Victorinus II II
4 Vabalathus
271 3 (or 2&3) Aurelian
Victorinus III III
Tetricus I IMP TR.P. COS
5 Vabalathus
272 4 Aurelian
Tetricus I II
5 Vabalathus (cont)
5 Zenobia
273 5 Aurelian Tetricus II (part)
Tetricus I III II or III
274 6 Aurelian Tetricus II (part)

Tetricus I UK?)
Tetricus II IMP
275 7 Aurelian
1 Tacitus IMP TR.P. COS DES II
276 (l?)or2 Tacitus(cont) II-III

1 Florian IMP
1 & 2 Probus IMP TR.P.
277 3 Probus II COS

278 4 Probus III II
279 5 Probus IV III
280 6 Probus V
281 7 Probus VI IV
13° COINAGE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE: NUMISMATIC INTRO DU CTION

282 8 Probus VII V Carinus (part)
1 Carus IMP TR.P. COS Numerian (part)
1 Carinus (C)
1 Numerian (C)
283 1 Carus (cont) II II Carinus (part)
2 Carinus (cae+aug) IMP TR.P. COS Numerian (part)
2 Numer. (cae+aug) IMP TR.P. COS
284 3 Carinus II II
3 Numerian II II
1 Diocletian IMP TR.P. COS
285 3 Carinus (cont) Ill III Maximian (part)

2 Diocletian II II
286 3 Diocletian III Maximian (part)

1&2 Maximian IMP TR.P.'II
287 4 Diocletian IV III

3 Maximian III COS
288 5 Diocletian V
4 Maximian IV II
289 6 Diocletian VI
5 Maximian V
290 7 Diocletian VII IV

6 Maximian VI III
291 8 Diocletian VIII

7 Maximian VII
292 9 Diocletian IX
8 Maximian VIII
293 10 Diocletian X V Constantius I (part)

9 Maximian IX IV Galerius (part)
1&.2 Constant. I (C)
1&2 Galerius (C)
294 11 Diocletian XI Constantius I

10 Maximian X Galerius
3 Constantius I (C) COS
3 Galerius (C) COS
295 12 Diocletian XII Constantius I

11 Maximian XI Galerius
4 Constantius I (C)
4 Galerius (C)
296 Diocletian XIII VI Constantius
Constantius I (C) XII II Galerius
2 Domitius
Domitianus. (or 297?)
C H A P T E R SE V E N
s^ s
M in ts
he Romans employed a great number of mints throughout the history

T of their Empire. The vast majority were “provincial” mints, which
struck coinage for local use. Those struck by Roman colonies have Latin
inscriptions, but most were in Greek. There were more than 600 of these
mints, but while their coins formed part of the greater Roman system, they
were so different in content and type that they are not covered in this vol
ume beyond the listing of some provincial coins in the values section.
A brief mention should be made, however, of some of the more impor
tant provincial mints. Coining silver (or billon) and æs were Alexandria
(Egypt), Antioch (Syria), Caesarea (Cappadocia), and the Asiatic mints
that produced the cistophori (triple-denarii), such as Pergamum (Mysia),
Ephesus (Ionia), etc. Several mints in Cilicia (including Tarsus), Lycia and
Pontus also struck notable issues in silver.
Some of these “provincial” mints produced both local coinages and
Imperial coinages at the same time, and thus the distinction can only be
made between the two by the characteristics of the coinages themselves.
Chief among these are the denominations, design content and inscriptions.
Sometimes the Romans used temporary mints, especially during the
Imperatorial period when military leaders often had coins produced wher
ever their base of operations happened to be at the time. These “camp”
mints often moved from place to place while striking, and as such the coins
are categorized as having been struck at “moving” or “traveling” mints.
There is also the question of where the dies were engraved versus
where the coins were struck. It is commonly believed that for some provin
cial coins dies were cut at the central mint of Rome. A t other times dies
seem to have been cut (and coins struck) in one central workshop for a
considerable number of cities within a geographic area (of course, the coins
bore the names of the cities at which they were destined to be used). We
know this because obverse dies bearing the Imperial portrait were com
bined with reverses designed for several different cities. This was an effi
cient way to operate, but can often make matters difficult for researchers
who are trying to identify coins based on stylistic considerations.
Finally, certain coins were struck in mints which are as yet unidenti
fied. Researchers can only guess as to where their coins were struck based
on the physical properties of the coins, their stylistic peculiarities, and
their find sites. Indeed, there are many uncertain mints that struck Impe
rial coins in Britain, Gaul, Spain, Greece, Asia Minor, North Africa, and
131
MINTS I3 3
even in Italy and Sicily. Usually, these are referred to as uncertain mints in
“the East” or something to that effect, because being more exact is impossi
ble until more data is available.
Mint marks were sporadically used by the Romans since early in the
Republic, though they were not consistently placed on coins until the late
3rd Century A.D., under Diocletian. Some of the earliest mint marks on
Imperial gold and silver coins occur at the Eastern mints of Ephesus and
Byzantium under the Flavians. For Ephesus we have EPE or EPHE (some
times in ligature), and for Byzantium, the letters BY in monogram form.
For most of the history of the Imperatorial period and the Empire,
researchers must rely on the circumstances of production and the archaeo-
logical record as well as the subtleties of design, inscription, fabric and
method of striking to distinguish the products of one mint from another.
The mint at Rome was traditionally housed next to the Temple of
Juno Moneta on the Capitoline Hill. Sometime between about A.D. 70
and the early 2nd Century the mint was moved to a new location on the
Caelian Hill, not far from the Colosseum. This may have occurred early in
the reign of Domitian, as he issued an extensive series of dupondii and asses
depicting Moneta Augusti beginning in about 84 and continuing through
the end of his reign.
By the turn of the 3rd century A.D., Rome once again had begun to
lose its monopoly on coining Imperial currency, and by the later part of
that century, a well-established network of Imperial mints had been cre
ated throughout Europe, Asia Minor and North Africa. It was at this time
that mint marks evolved into a complex system employed Empire-wide.
Mint marks usually occur in the exergue (the area occupying the low
est portion of the reverse — sometimes separated from the rest of the
design by a line), though sometimes in the reverse field, and occasionally
on the obverse below the bust in the form of officina markers. On late gold
coins, officina marks sometimes are placed at the end of the reverse inscrip
tion, a practice that was carried on to Byzantine gold coins. One of the
most intriguing uses of control marks occurred at Ticinum, or possibly at
Siscia, where the individual letters in the words AEQVITI or EQVITI
(meaning “for the cavalry” ) were used in the control formulas with the offi
cina marks P, S, T, Q, V and VI.
Other letters and symbols (sometimes called “control marks”) regu
larly occur in the fields or alongside the mint mark in the exergue. They
often indicate the officina (the individual workshop) at which the coin was
struck, but in some cases may refer to things unknown to us. Sometimes
what seems to be a mint mark or an officina mark is actually an indication
of the coin’s denomination, its tariffed value, its purity or its weight (see
the section on Denominations for some examples).
The officinae were usually indicated on the coins by Roman numerals

or Greek letters (usually, but not always, based on the language spoken in
the region in which the mint was located), and were sometimes dedicated
to specific coinages. Careful study of the coinage can often reveal patterns.
For example, under Philip I the officinae were divided among the emperor,
his wife and his son, and at other times the officinae were dedicated to spe
cific denominations. The most officinae recorded at one mint is 15, at A nti
och during the reign of Constantius II, but their number rarely exceeded
10.
There was also a distinction in the types of Imperial mints, with some
being able to coin precious metals, and others not. Early in the Empire the
system was closely monitored by the Julio-Claudians and the Flavians, with
the precious metal rights in the West being assumed almost exclusively
either by Rome or Lugdunum.
In the 5 th Century the two types of mints were the M one ta Publica (a
permanent mint at which æs coins were struck, with the occasional addi
tion of precious metals), and the so-called Comitatensian mint (a mobile
mint which would only coin precious metals, and would usually accom
pany the emperor). Furthermore, the name Palatine mint was applied to the
mint in whatever city the emperor happened to be residing. The name
derived from the Palatine Hill (or more correctly, the palace) in Rome,
where the emperor resided in the heyday of the Empire.
Three tables are given below. The first lists selected abbreviations
found in the mint mark “formula” (which are not indicators of mints or
officinae). The second lists the ways in which the officinae are usually indi
cated. The third lists commonly used mint marks. Following these is a gen
eral outline of the mints and their activities listed geographically by region.
The final section lists the main Imperial mints accompanied by a brief out
line of their minting history.
MINTS I3 5
Select abbreviations
These usually appear before or after mint mark, but sometimes in the field.
Select abbreviations
OB obryzum or (solidus) obriziacus, meaning refined gold. First appeared
about 368 when gold coinage was upgraded from c. 95% (to which it
had fallen in the central Empire c. 346-368) to c. 99% pure.".
COM comes auri, representing the official in charge of gold in the treasury
COM OB comes obryzum
M Mone ta
P Pecunia (money) or Percussa (struck)!?]
PS pusulatus or (argentum) pusulatum , meaning refined silver, often paired

with mint marks at western mints, such as M DPS
SM Sacra Moneta (S may mean signata lit. “struck at”)
OF These letters, abbreviating officina, appear in the reverse field on some

coins of Valentinian I followed by a numeral indicating the actual offi
cina to which it refers, and in which the coin was struck.
Indicators of officina
These usually appear before or after the mint mark, but sometimes in the
field. Unusual varieties occur frequently and are not listed below.
A (I) or P or • first officina or Prima
B (II) or S or • • second officina or Secunda
r (III) or T or • • • third officina or Tertia
A (IV or IIII) or Q or • • • • fourth officina or Quarta
E (V) fifth officina
S (V I) sixth officina
z seventh officina
H eight officina
0 ninth officina
I tenth officina
AI eleventh officina
BI twelfth officina
n thirteenth officina
AI fourteenth officina
El fifteenth officina
T h e West
Britain produced a great deal of coinage at local “Celtic” mints in the 1st
Centuries B.C. and A.D., though these issues were discouraged by the
Romans, who attempted to meet the monetary needs of the island with the
emissions of Lugdunum or Rome during its early history. Later Britain
received the debased double denarii from numerous Western Roman and
Romano-Gallic mints. The London mint was opened by Carausius (286/7-
293), as was another British mint (either Camulodunum or Clausentum)
identified with the mint mark C or CL. The mint of London was closed in
324, from which point the island had to rely on output from Germany and
Gaul. Itwas reopened only once, by the usurper Magnus Maximus.
During the 4th and 5 th Centuries gold and silver flowed into Britain
for the first time in quantities, but the withdrawal of the Roman legions
caused an economic and coinage crisis, forcing the inhabitants to “recycle”
siliquae by clipping them to what appear to be two local weight standards.
N o coinage was struck in Britain again until about 600 A.D., when the
Anglo Saxon mints began operation. During Imperial times, “irregular”
mints in Britain produced and used imitations of Roman coins of the reign
of Claudius, of the double denarii of the 260s-270s, and of the nummi of
the Constantinian Era.
Germany was a place of limited minting during the early period of the
Empire, but became more important by the early 4th Century. The Augusti
of the separatist Romano-Gallic Empire (260-274) produced coinage at
Cologne (with the mint marks CA and CCAA), at Mainz (where the
usurpers Laelianus and Marius were based), and, seemingly at Trier and at
Lugdunum in Gaul. Various “barbarous” imitations of the radiate and Con-
stantinian-Era variety were produced in Germany. The mint of Trier
opened perhaps briefly under Gallienus in 256/7, and subsequently for the
Romano-Gallic usurpers; in 293/4 it opened again and remained a major
mint until the 420s.
Coins had already been struck in Gaul by the Celts and at Greek Mas-
salia before coming under Roman control. Perhaps the first Gallic mint to
strike for Rome was Narbonne (Narbo Martius) in 118 B.C., and thereafter
other Republican and Imperatorial coinages were struck at other mints, such
MINTS I37
as Massalia and Cabellio. Important local coinages of Imperial character

(the “crocodile æs”) were struck at the Roman colony of Nemausus, with
similarly large-module coins being struck at other Gallic mints, including
Nimes and Arausio.
The city of Lugdunum began its minting career with limited issues of
silver quinarii and some æs, and possibly some of the denarii or aurei of
Augustus usually attributed to Spain. However, in c. 15 B.C. it became the
chief minting center for Imperial gold and silver in the West, replacing
Rome (which continued to strike æs coinage). A t some point between the
reign of Tiberius (14-37) and Otho (69) this honor was returned to Rome,
though when this occurred is much debated. The traditional theory is that
it was transferred in the first year of Caligula’s reign, but it seems more
probably to have occurred late in the reign of Claudius or c. 64, under
Nero.
Whenever the shift occurred, Lugdunum was then relegated to strik
ing æs coinage, and produced massive issues for Nero and Vespasian. Lug
dunum seems to have ceased operation in either c. 79 or c. 82, after a final
issue of æs for Vespasian or Domitian. During the Civil War of 68-69,
“civil war” coinage, initially for Vindex, was struck in Gaul, with some
researchers suggesting Nimes as the principal mint.
After more than a century without mint activity, Lugdunum briefly
was re-activated by Clodius Albinus (from 195-196), and it may have been
reopened to coin for the Romano-Gallic emperors (260-274). Minting in
Gaul seems also to have occurred under Carausius (286/7-293), perhaps at
Rotomagus (mod. Rouen). A n Imperial mint was opened at Iantinum
(mod. Meaux), using the mint mark IAN, in connection with the Tetrar-
chic effort to oust Allectus from Britain, but it was only in operation c.
293/4, for Trier was opened and became the principal Roman mint in the
West.
The mint at Arles was opened in 313 when the facilities and person
nel were transferred from the mint at Ostia (the port of Rome), which had
been closed following the defeat of Maxentius. Arles remained an active
mint until the fall of the West more than 150 years later. The usurpers
Magnentius and Decentius opened a mint at Amiens, issuing coins from
350 to 353. Later in the mid-4rd Century, Lugdunum was reopened yet
again, staying open until c. 420. Some researchers attribute small silver
coins of Majorian, Anthemius, Julius Nepos and Anastasius to Soissons in
northern Gaul, though this theory is not universally accepted. The cities of
Narbonne and Nice may also have produced issues in the 5th Century. Bar
barous imitations similar to those of Britain were struck in Gaul for local
circulation. The Visigothic capital of Toulouse is believed to have been the
mint which produced Visigothic imitations of Roman coins in the 5th
Century.
Spain had produced coins for the Carthaginians and for its own inde
pendent cities long before the Romans began to strike there either late in
the 2nd Century B.C. or early in the 1st Century B.C. The first significant
Roman issues were produced c. 80-72 B.C. as the Romans battled the rebel
Sertorius. More were struck for the civil war between the Caesareans and
Pompeians in 49-45 B.C., during which Corduba seems to have struck for
the Pompeians. Provincial mints were especially active during the reigns of
Augustus and Tiberius.
The mints of Colonia Patricia, Emerita and Caesaragusta possibly
struck very large quantities of Imperial denarii and aurei for Augustus, with
some of those of Emerita bearing the city name. Thereafter minting activ
ity in Spain plummeted. Local copies of the æs of Claudius were produced
to remedy a dearth of coinage. Spain became active again during the civil
war of 68-69, striking for Galba, and Vitellius and producing some anony
mous issues. Tarraco seems to have been the principal mint for these coin
ages, though others undoubtedly were used. Thereafter, Spain’s minting
needs were supplied from abroad, and no Imperial mint seems to have been
opened there again. Barcino was briefly used as a mint city by the usurper
Maximus (409-411). Lusitania (mod. Portugal) had even fewer provincial
mints, and all ceased striking during the reign of Augustus.
Western North Africa was the site of considerable “temporary” mint
activity by the Caesareans and Pompeians during their civil war prior to 44
B.C., and seems again to have produced coinage for Clodius Macer and
Galba (in the style of Macer) during the civil war of 68-69. The principal
minting center was Carthage, which became a regular Imperial mint c. 296/
7 to aid Maximianus in his war against the Quinquegentiani, but which was
closed in about 307. It was briefly reopened during the revolt of Alexander,
c. 308-C.310 and seems to have continued until c. 311. Coins imitative of
Roman issues were struck at Carthage by the Vandals beginning in c. 425.
Under the Byzantines, Carthage was a mint of some importance.
Italy and Sicily
Italy and Sicily produced a large amount of coinage under the Republic.
However, unlike during later times, a considerable number of mints were
used. The earliest Roman coins were cast æs of various forms, with struck
coinage not commencing until early in the 3rd Century B.C. This first was
farmed out by contract at Greek mints in the south (Metapontum, Neapo-
lis, etc.), and only later at Rome itself.
By Imperatorial times, Rome had long been established as the princi
pal mint of the Republic, though in the 40s and through the 20s B.C., it
seems to have been supplanted by other mints. It has been suggested that
MINTS I3 9
Augustus’ precious metal coinage for the Battle of Actium and its after-
math (c. 32-27 B.C.), was struck at the south-eastern port city of Brundis-
ium, and that minting later shifted to Spanish mints (c. 25/20-16 B.C.),
after which it moved to Lugdunum (beginning c. 15 B.C.), where it
remained for some 50 to 80 years before returning to Rome. Though some
precious metal issues are attributed to Rome c. 19-12 B.C., many research
ers believe Rome was far more active throughout this period than is gener
ally acknowledged, and was not restricted primarily to æs coinages.
Exactly when Rome was reinstated as the regular mint for precious
metal coinage in the West is debated. This occurred sometime between the
reigns of Tiberius and Otho, with the most widely accepted theories being
that it either happened early in the reign of Caligula, at the end of Clau
dius’ reign, or later in the reign of Nero (c. 64). After this shift occurred,
Rome remained the principal mint in the West until the mid-3rd Century,
when minting activities began to be more evenly distributed throughout
the Empire.
Milan began to strike under Valerian and Gallienus, only to be closed
c. 274, and shifted to nearby Ticinum. Two decades later, the Tetrarchs
opened at Aquileia a mint that became quite important, eclipsing Ticinum
(closed 326). Aquileia remained open until c. 425. During the collapse of
the Tetrarchic system, a mint was briefly opened at Ostia by the “rebel”
Maxentius, but was closed in 313 by Constantine the Great, who moved
the operation to Arles. Milan was reopened in the 350s, and during the 5th
Century shared the bulk of the minting in Italy with Ravenna (founded c.
402). Both of these mints remained open (along with Rome, which by
then was of lesser importance) even after the fall of the Western Roman
Empire.
Sicily was the location of a great deal of minting by Greeks, Romans
and Carthaginians during the wars between Rome and Carthage, as well as
during times of peace; it was used as a mint by the Pompeians during their
wars with the Caesareans; and it also produced a limited number of provin
cial issues. Thereafter, the island seems not to have had a mint until Byzan
tine times.
Central and Eastern Europe
Central Europe (essentially the region between the Swiss Alps and the
Danube, bordered in the west by the Rhine) saw limited mint activity after
the Celts had been integrated into the Roman world. Some orichalcum
“dupondii” of Julius Caesar may have been struck in this region (though
northern Italy is usually favored), and Carnuntum (on the Danube at the
eastern end of the Alps) was a mint for the usurper Regallianus in 260.
Eastern Europe was an active area for Roman mints throughout most of
the Empire, though it became increasingly important with the passage of
time. It produced a large amount of Provincial coinage in base metal at its
numerous major cities. During the principates of Claudius and Nero (and
perhaps later) it seems to have had a quasi-imperial mint, perhaps at Perin-
thus, which principally struck æs to Imperial standards. These issues, which
may have been struck at more than one mint, are distinguishable from the
Imperial products of Rome and Lugdunum only on the basis of their stylistic
peculiarities and usually by a curious centering hole on both obverse and
reverse. Included in this series are the “sestertii” of Britannicus.
During the 2nd and 3rd Centuries provincial æs coinages were mas
sive. Viminacium, on the Danube, near the Transylvanian Alps, seems to
have coined silver double denarii for the rebel Pacatian, c. 248-249, and
possibly other silver for later emperors as well. The three main Imperial
mints of the region were Siscia (in Pannonia Superior, about 150 miles east
of Aquileia), Sirmium (in Pannonia Inferior, near the Danube, about 50
miles from modern Belgrade) and Serdica (in Moesia Inferior, about 150
miles north of Thessalonica). Though important mints, the emissions of
Serdica and Sirmium were sporadic. The coastal city of Salonae may have
struck gold in the name of the exiled Julius Nepos (c. 475-480), but this
has not been proven.
Greece, from Macedon in the north to the Pelopponesus in the south,
was the unfortunate recipient of much Roman attention during the Imper
atorial period. Many coinages were struck there by warlords using “travel
ing” mints, largely in association with the battles at Pharsalus in 48 B.C.
(Caesar versus Pompey), Philippi in 42 B.C. (Brutus and Cassius versus
Antony and Octavian) and Actium in 31 B.C. (Antony versus Octavian).
In later times, Greece declined greatly in importance, though a productive
mint at Thessalonica was opened during the Tetrarchy and remained
active until the fall of the West and after. An especially interesting series of
coins were struck on Crete under the Julio-Claudians.
T h e Propontis
The Propontis comprises the European and Asiatic territories lining the
shores of the Dardanelles, Sea of Marmara and the Hellespont, the bodies
of water linking the Aegean Sea with the Black Sea. It was a vital location
both for the economic and military interests of Rome, as it was the cross
roads between Europe and Asia. Thus, it comes as no surprise that four
important Imperial mints lined its shores. On the European side were Her-
aclea (formerly Perinthus) and Constantinople (founded by Constantine
the Great on the site of Byzantium). On the Asiatic shore were Cyzicus
MINTS 14 1
(founded in the 8th or 7th Century B.C.) and Nicomedia (built c. 265 B.C.
by the king Nicomedes I on the site of Astacus).
The first of these mints to become operational was Cyzicus, presum
ably in the mid-250s or the late 260s. Under Diocletian in the early 290s
both Heraclea and Nicomedia were opened. It must also be remembered
that one of these mints (perhaps Perinthus) struck important “Imperial”
coinages in the 1st and 2nd Centuries A.D. The mint and city that proved
to be the most important of the four — Constantinople — was the last to
open. It struck its first coins in 326, some four years before the city itself
was dedicated. A ll four mints, however, were used consistently throughout
the remaining history of the Roman Empire.
Asia Minor
Asia Minor, the region which comprises the Asiatic portion of modern
Turkey, or Anatolia, was an important center for provincial coinages. No
permanent Imperial mint was located in this region, even though the
major cities had struck coins for several centuries before the Romans
arrived. However, temporary minting occurred in some cities during the
later Republic, the Imperatorial period and into the Empire (notably at
Ephesus, under the Flavians).
The reason no true “Imperial” mint was founded in Asia Minor is that
large quantities of silver coinage were struck at Caesarea and Pergamum. In
both cases the silver coins bore Latin inscriptions and were denominated
in drachms, a unit which, at about 3.7 grams, weighed the same as the
Roman denarius of the era. Caesarea primarily struck hemidrachms,
drachms, didrachms, tridrachms, and Pergamum the cistophorus, in
essence a triple-denarius piece. Though the cistophorus was principally
struck at Pergamum, it seems to have been struck at more than 20 mints,
including Ephesus.
Silver coins were also struck at a number of other mints scattered
throughout Asia Minor, notably in Lycia and Cilicia in the south, and Pon-
tus in the north. The region of Commagene further to the south-east, pro
duced æs coinage in imitation of Julio-Claudian issues during that era, and
is thought to have produced Imperial æs for the Flavians, but the most
common of those issues are now attributed to Rome based on metallurgical
evidence. Also of note are the various mints that struck silver and billon
tetradrachms for the various Persian campaigns of emperors. Despite all
this silver, the most enduring legacy of Roman Asia Minor is the æs coin
age which was struck with a remarkable variety of designs at hundreds of
cities. The Romans also struck provincial issues on Cyprus, especially from
the Flavian through the Severan periods.
Syria, the Levant, and Egypt
Syria was an especially important province for the Romans, and Antioch
was one of the four capitals of the Empire (the others being Rome, C on
stantinople and Alexandria). It served as a mint city for the Romans from
the 1st Century B.C., and was extremely important throughout Rome’s his
tory. It struck vast amounts of provincial æs and silver tetradrachms with
Greek inscriptions, and on numerous occasions struck Imperial coinages
(with Latin inscriptions) in all metals. It was the city of choice for several
usurpers, who had used it as a base for revolts since the 1st Century B.C.
About 50 miles south was the coastal city of Laodicea ad Mare, which
struck for Septimius Severus and his family, and probably for others.
Another mint of occasional importance was Emesa, an inland city slightly
more than 100 miles to the south of Antioch, near the Phoenician border.
Most notable among those who struck at Emesa were the Severans and the
usurper Uranius Antoninus (253-254), though coins also may have been
struck there during the revolts of Macrinus and Quietus (260-261) and
Zenobia and Vabalathus (270/1-272).
The Levant, bordered by Syria on the north and Egypt in the south,
consists primarily of Phoenicia and Judaea. Its southern portion is often
referred to as the Holy Land. Though several mints in the Levant struck
silver tetradrachms for military purposes (notably during the reign of Cara
calla and later), no silver of any consequence was otherwise struck on
behalf of the Romans. However, two great revolts in Judaea were accompa
nied by silver coins based on the shekel (66-70) or on the tetradrachm and
denarius (132-135). Also, silver shekel-tetradrachms of Tyre (often misat-
tributed to Jerusalem) were struck well into the 1st Century A.D., seem
ingly for the payment of Temple taxes. A prodigious series of tetradrachms
was struck at Tyre during the reign of Trajan, at which point the city may
have begun to produce Imperial denarii. A n Imperial mint was opened at
Tripolis, a port city in Phoenicia, under Aurelian (270-275). It’s activity
was short-lived, however, for it closed c. 290.
Egypt was a remarkably important province to the Romans, which
valued it not only for its strategic importance, but also for its grain har
vests, which supplied the city of Rome. N ot incidentally, the Romans
made an immense profit off the coinage they produced for Egypt’s econ
omy, which had been sealed off from the external world since it was ruled
by the Lagid (Ptolemaic) kings. Egypt’s principal mint was Alexandria,
which produced billon tetradrachms and an array of æs coinages from the
reign of Augustus through Diocletian (ending with the usurpation of
Domitus Domitianus). As such, it was the last mint to strike what we con
sider to be provincial coins.
MINTS I4 3
About this time, c. 294, it began to produce Imperial issues, mostly

æs, but occasionally precious metal issues. In its earlier history, Alexandria
had occasionally minted Imperial coins, notably for Septimius Severus and
Pescennius Niger. By the time of Constantine the Great it had become an
important Imperial mint. Egypt’s neighbor to the west was Cyrene, which
coined an extremely small issue of denarii for Marc Antony and Augustus
about the time of the Battle of Actium (31 B.C.), when it was ruled by the
governor Scarpus.
T h e West
Londinium (mod. London) — This mint was opened under Carausius,

and later used by the Tetrarchs, but closed in 324- Magnus Maximus (383-
388) reactivated it, at which point it was called Augusta (hence the mint
marks AVG, AVGOB, etc.).
Camulodunum (mod. Colchester) — alternatively: Clausentum (Bit-
terne) or Glevum (Gloucester). This facility was operational under Carau
sius and Allectus, featuring the mintmarks C or CL.
Colonia Agrippinensis (mod. Cologne) — A mint for Postumus (260-
269) and possibly for subsequent Romano-Gallic usurpers.
Treveri (mod. Trier) — Though Trier may have coined for Gallienus (c.
256/7) and some of the Romano-Gallic usurpers (260-274), it opened as
an Imperial mint c. 293/4 and closed in the 420s or 430s.
Moguntiacum (mod. Mainz) — Laelianus and Marius struck coins at
Mainz, as may have other Romano-Gallic usurpers.
Ambianum (mod. Amiens) — Coins were struck here c. 350-353 for the
usurpers Magnentius and Decentius and for Constantius and Constantius
Gallus.
Iantinum (mod. Meaux) — A mainland mint in operation c. 293/4 in
connection with Constantius I’s invasion of Britain to defeat Allectus.
Rotomagus (mod. Rouen) — Struck pieces of distinctive style for Carau
sius (with no mint marks or with ‘R ’).
Lugdunum (mod. Lyon) — A n important Roman mint from the reign of
Augustus, though it had coined earlier. It struck most of the Imperial pre
cious metal issues of the Julio-Claudians and closed c. 420.
Arelate (mod. Arles) — The Ostia mint was transferred to Arles in 313/4.
The city was renamed Constantina in 318, and continued to strike
through the fall of the West.
Nemausus (mod. Nîmes) - Struck aes for Augustus.
Emerita (mod. Merida) - Opened in the mid-20s B.C., it is the only cer
tain Imperial Augustan mint in Spain.
Colonia Patricia (mod. Cordova) and Colonia Caesaraugusta (mod Sara
gossa) - Possible Imperial mints in Spain for Augustus.
Tarraco (mod. Tarragona) - Active during the Civil War of 68-69, and for
Vespasian in 70.
Barcino (mod. Barcelona) — Struck for the usurper Maximus (409- 411).
Carthage or Carthago (mod. Tunis) — Coins were struck at Carthage in
the early 40s B.C., and then in A.D. 68 and 69 for the civil war. It was
operational for about a decade under the Tetrarchs up through the revolt
of Alexander (308-310), after which it was moved to found the Ostia
mint.
Italy
Mediolanum (mod. Milan) — This mint seems to have opened under

Gallienus (c. 259); it closed c. 274, shifting to nearby Ticinum. It
reopened c. 352/7 and continued minting until early modern times.
Ticinum (mod. Pavia) — Though details are uncertain, it seems Ticinum
was founded c. 274, when Milan was closed. It remained active until mid-
326, when the operation seemingly was transferred to Constantinople.
Aquileia — This mint opened c. 294, about the time of Diocletian’s mon
etary reform, and eclipsed Ticinum. It closed c. 425.
Ravenna — Founded c. 402, Ravenna became an important mint because
it was the residence of the later emperors. Coins were struck at Ravenna
until the West fell, only to be reopened in the 550s.
Rome — The central mint of the Romans from Republican times, it struck
until the fall of the West, after which it was reopened in the 550s.
Ostia — The port of Rome served as a mint for the “rebel” Maxentius, c.
308/9. After his fall in 312 it was used briefly by Constantine, who closed
it and used the equipment and personnel to found a new mint at Arles.
MINTS 145
Central and Eastern Europe
Carnuntum - The rebel Regalianus seems to have struck here.

Siscia (mod. Sisak) — The loss of Gaul to Postumus in 260 necessitated
that Gallienus open a mint at Siscia c. 262. It eventually fell into the
hands of the usurper Julian of Pannonia (284-285). Then it was active
throughout the Tetrarchic and early Constantinian period.
Sirmium (mod. Mierovica) — This mint, near Belgrade, may have coined
for Gallienus, but certainly struck from 320-326 and from 351-364. Subse
quent coinages attributed to this mint in the late 370s and early 390s are
perhaps better attributed elsewhere.
Viminacium (mod. Kostolac) - The rebel Pacatian seems to have struck
here, and perhaps also some legitimate emperors in the next two decades.
Serdica (mod. Sofia) — Believed to have been opened by Aurelian (270-
275), this mint coined occasionally from c. 303-314, and possibly later.
Thessalonica (mod. Salonika) — This mint opened c. 298/9 after G ale
rius took up residence there. It continued to strike through the fall of the
West (and later) and was reopened in 518.
T h e Propontis
Heraclea — Founded on the site of Perinthus (which struck “Imperial”
issues for the Julio-Claudians and Flavians), Heraclea may have opened its
Imperial mint c. 291, and continued to strike until the reign of Leo I.
Constantinople (mod. Istanbul) — This mint was opened in 326 (four
years before the city was dedicated) with equipment and personnel pre
sumably transferred from Ticinum, which closed its mint that year. C on
stantinople soon became the main Imperial mint in the East, and
remained so for most of the thousand years of the “Byzantine Empire.”
Cyzicus — Perhaps opened under Valerian I (c. 253-5), the mint at Cyzi-
cus almost certainly was open by the reign of Claudius II (268—270). It
seems to have closed during Zeno’s reign and was reopened in 518.
Nicomedia (mod. Izmit) — Opened c. 294 and became important when
Diocletian later resided there. It remained active through 476 and beyond.
A sia Minor, Syria, the Levant, Egypt and Cyrenaica
Pergamum — This was an important mint for the coining of silver Cisto
phori and various quasi-imperial bronzes, all of which served as the main
coinages in Asia Minor for much of the early Imperial period. Here also
were struck aurei and denarii of Augustus.
Ephesus — The principal mint for Imperatorial and Imperial cistophori, as
well as for a large emission of early Flavian Imperial denarii and perhaps
other coinages.
Casarea in Cappadocia (mod. Kayseri) — During the reigns of Tiberius
through Nero a great volume of quasi-imperial silver (principally
didrachms, drachms and hemidrachms) was struck here, as well as bronzes
during this period and later. The claimant Pescennius Niger (193-194)
struck here as well.
Antiochia (Antioch) — In regular service from the 1st Century B.C., the
mint at Antioch primarily struck provincial silver and æs coinage. A n ti
och was occasionally active as an Imperial mint, especially under the Fla
vians, Hadrian, Pescennius Niger, Elagabalus and early in the reign of
Severus Alexander. Regular Imperial minting occurred from c. 240
onward, and it remained active through Zeno’s reign and beyond, being
reopened c. 498.
Laodicea ad Mare (mod. Lattakiya) — This mint was active c. 193-202,
and possibly later.
Emesa (mod. Homs) — Like Laodicea, this mint struck early in the reign
of Septimius Severus. It later struck for the rebel Uranius Antoninus (253—
254), and possibly struck coins for the revolts of Macrianus and Quietus
(260-261), and Zenobia and Vabalathus (270/1-272).
Tripolis (mod. Tripoli, Lebanon) — Opened by Aurelian (270-275), this
minor mint closed c. 290.
Alexandria — This was the Empire’s most prolific provincial mint (rival
ing Antioch and Caesarea), although the occasional Imperial coin was
struck here, especially under the Flavians and Severans. In c. 294, just
prior to when provincial minting ceased there, Alexandria began to strike
Imperial coins. It remained an important mint in Constantinian and later
times, and operated through the reign of Leo I. It was refounded c. 538.
Cyrene (mod. Shahat) — The commander Scarpus and perhaps others
seem to have struck here.
MINTS I4 7
Principal mint marks
This listing represents only a portion of the mint marks used, each being
listed without the officina marks, which may occur before or after the core
mint mark. The reader is cautioned that these marks will sometimes be
used by mints other than those listed.

A Arles, Rome, Antioch, etc.
A LE Alexandria
AM Amiens
AM B Amiens
AN A ntioch
ANT Antioch
ANTOB Antioch
AQ Aquileia
A Q V IL Aquileia
AQOB Aquileia
AQ PS Aquileia
AR Arles
ARL Arles
AVG London (called “Augusta” )
AV GO B London (called “Augusta” )
AV GPS London (called “Augusta” )
C Camulodunum(?), Constantinople
CA Cologne
CCAA Cologne
CL Camulodunum( ?)
COM Thessalonica, Milan, Sirmium
COM OB Thessalonica, Milan
CON Arles, Constantinople
CONOB Constantinople and various mints
CONS Constantinople
C O N SP Constantinople

C O N ST Arles
CP Constantinople
CVZ Cyzicus
C V Z IC Cyzicus
CVZICEN Cyzicus
E Ephesus
EPHE Ephesus
EM ERITA Emerita
H Heraclea
H ER A C Heraclea
H ER A C L Heraclea
HT Heraclea
IA N Iantinum
K Carthage
KART Carthage
KON Arles
K O N ST A N Arles
L London, Lugdunum
LG Lugdunum
LVG Lugdunum
LVGD Lugdunum
LVGPS Lugdunum
MD Milan
M DO B Milan
M D PS Milan
MED Milan
ML London
M LL London
M LN London
MN Nicom edia
M O ST Ostia
MINTS I4 9

M SL London
N IC Nicomedia
N IC O Nicom edia
N IK Nicom edia
PK Carthage
PLG Lugdunum
PLN London
PLON London
PTR Trier
R Rome
RM Rome
ROM A Rome
RO M O B Rome
RV Ravenna
RVPS Ravenna
SER Serdica
SIRM Sirmium
SIR O B Siscia
SIS Siscia
S IS C Siscia
S ISC P S Siscia
SM Sirmium
SM A L Alexandria
SM A N Antioch
SM A Q Aquileia
SM B A Barcino
SM H Heraclea
SM K Cyzicus
SM N Nicom edia
SM R Roma
SM SD Serdica

SM TS Thessalonica
SM T R Trier
T Ticinum
TES Thessalonica
T E SO B Thessalonica
THS Thessalonica
THES Thessalonica
T H SO B Thessalonica
TR Trier or Tripolis
TR E Trier
TROB Trier
TRPS Trier
TS Thessalonica
V RB ROM Rome
CH A PTER EIGH T
P r o d u c t io n
U se a n d R eco v ery
M any factors must be considered when arriving at the value of a

Roman coin on the collector market. Fortunately, most of these fac
tors involve tangible and intangible aspects that are second nature to col
lectors, and thus are easy to understand. Why would most collectors prefer
a coin of Julius Caesar over one of Trebonianus Gallus? Why would most
prefer a coin of fine style over one of crude style, or one which is perfectly
preserved over one which is heavily worn? Though the answers to these
questions come easily, the many factors which help us arrive at these con
clusions do not. The discussion of value determination will fall into two
sections: the first will concern the attributes of coins themselves, and the
second will examine aspects of the marketplace. In the discussions which
follow, the phrase all other things being equal must always be borne in mind.
Indeed, this phrase means exactly what it says — that absolutely all factors
but the one being examined are equal. We may first examine the stages in
the “life” of a Roman coin, each of which can either positively or nega
tively affect the appearance of a coin. The four stages are:
I. Coin Production (The Planchet, The Dies, The Striking Process)

II. Circulation and the Use in Ancient Times
III. Burial
IV. Recovery, Conservation and Subsequent Effects
I. C O IN P R O D U C T IO N
la . T h e Planchet
Metal Quality: This aspect is determined before the coin is even struck,
and is generally uniform within a particular issue. The metal most prone to
debasement in Roman coinage history was silver. While weight standards
fluctuated with gold, the purity rarely deviated by more than 5%. The
reduction in the purity of silver demonstrates the slow decline in the pros
perity of the Empire. Silver that has been alloyed with a significant
amount of base metal is far more likely to be adversely affected by burial in
the ground than is nearly pure silver. Thus, debased silver coins generally
are not as appealing as those of the highest purity.
151
“ Silvering” : This process of coating the surface of a base metal coin with a
thin wash of silver was a common practice at the Roman mints in the late
3rd and the 4th Centuries A.D. The goal was to identify the coins as part of
the precious metal series in a time when silver was not available in suffi
cient quantities to produce coinage of good silver. This “silvering” was
thin and was applied by different methods of varying effectiveness.
Research suggests that a process called “blanching” may have been com
monly employed. A planchet of base metal alloyed with trace amounts of
silver would be immersed in acids that affected copper, but not silver. A s a
result, a thin silver shell would remain on the surface, which would then
be bonded to the base metal core when the planchet was struck. Very
often these “silvered” coins emerge from the soil in a poor state, and are
corroded unevenly. Therefore evenly silvered coins command a premium.
Planchet size: Though the size of planchets tended to be fairly uniform

within an issue, they sometimes varied considerably. Planchet size can be
measured in terms of weight, thickness and diameter. In an ideal world the
planchet would be thick enough and broad enough for the entire design on
the die to be represented on the coin. The degree to which this was
achieved affects the market value of a coin. For some issues it is common
place to have a full planchet, and in others the planchets are usually too
small to encompass the whole design. Naturally, collectors are attracted to
coins which are well-centered on broad planchets, preferably with excess
metal beyond the scope of the dies. Coins so blessed will always sell for a
premium, and if they combine these assets with a planchet of unusual
heaviness, they are often classified as “trial pieces” or “medallic” strikings,
at least in a commercial sense.
Planchet flaws: A wide variety of defects on the planchet can affect the
final appearance of the coin. Some of these defects are obliterated in the
striking process, whereas others are only amplified. The most common
flaws are listed below.
• Laminations: Improper planchet production can result in a thin layer of

metal detaching from the surface either while or after a coin is struck. If
the detached piece was present when the coin was struck, it will bear
the design impressed by the part of the die with which it came into con
tact. When it separates from the rest of the coin, a shallow (usually
uneven) deficit results. Fortunately, laminations are usually isolated to a
small area of the coin’s surface.
• Impurities: The ideal planchet is homogeneous in content, and when
this is not the case (either because air or some other impurity exists in
the planchet) problems can result. Planchet impurities often survive the
PRODUCTION, USE AN D RECOVERY 1 53
striking process and remain undetected even during the circulation life
of a coin, only to be exposed after the coin has endured centuries of
burial. This occurs because different substances oxidize at different rates,
and thus the impurities will oxidize either slower or faster than the rest
of the coin.
• Striations: These are lines incised on the planchet (or occasionally on
the struck coin) by a file or similar tool. Striations can be divided into
two major categories. The first is “adjustment marks,” which were made
to reduce the weight of a planchet or to remove surface irregularities
which might damage the dies. Striations are more often visible on base
metal coins since gold and silver are softer, and thus traces of file marks
were easier to obliterate in the striking process. The second category of
striations might best be called “cutting marks,” as they were caused when
planchets were separated from one another during their production.
• Misshapen planchets: Rarely are the planchets of ancient coins per
fectly round. Indeed, more often they are slightly oval, squared, or sim
ply irregular. These defects — unless they are so unusual as to be
charming — inevitably reduce the collector value of the coin. They
most significantly reduce value if important parts of the design or
inscriptions are affected.
• Cracks: This topic is discussed later in the text (since it is more often
related to the striking process), but is mentioned here because the
cracks sometimes occur during planchet preparation.
Ib. The Dies
Style: This is the most difficult category to define, for what appeals to one
person may not appeal to another. Let it suffice to say, however, that
among those who have made a careful study of ancient art, there exist
parameters for defining style, be it fine style, average style or poor style.
Imperial coinage is diverse in its appearance based on where and when it
was struck. Dies cut by local artisans in Asia Minor have stylistic peculiar
ities which make them easy to distinguish from the products of Rome,
Illyricum, North Africa, Gaul or Spain. Sometimes the best products of a
certain period were produced in Rome (such as with the portraits of the
emperors Galba and Vitellius), and other times some of the most engaging
portraits were engraved at Ephesus or Antioch (especially under the Flavi
ans). To become familiar with the different categories of style, and the lev
els of quality within those categories, it is best to consult as many books
and catalogs as possible, including those which discuss other forms of art,
such as sculpture, gem-cutting, etc. In terms of the marketplace, it all
becomes quite simple: all other things being equal, coins of good style
command higher prices than those of lesser style. In later periods of

Roman history, where style becomes less of a consideration, it will usually
have a less significant effect on value as compared with earlier times.
Relief: Directly related to the work of the die engraver is the relief (or
depth) of the images. The raised parts of the design are properly called the
devices, and all of the flat area is referred to as the field. Devices include
not only the principal design element (a portrait, or deity, etc.) but also
the inscription and any border design. All other things being equal, a coin
of high relief will be more valuable than a coin of low relief because of the
sculptural effect that is achieved. Usually the price difference is significant
because high relief is obvious even to the untrained eye, and often it trans
forms what might otherwise be a bland image into an impressive work of
art.
Die State: A die is capable of producing the crispest image in the earliest
stages of its use. Indeed, with each successive strike, a die loses sharpness of
detail. Even if a coin is perfectly struck, the details of a design cannot be
transferred to the surface of a coin if they do not exist on the die. Several
aspects of die state are discussed below.
• Fresh die: The best impressions are made with freshly-cut dies, for they-
have all of the detail that the artist originally engraved. If the fields of a
coin have little or no evidence of die flow (see below) and the devices
are sharply detailed, it was struck with dies which had not seen much
use. Sometimes a coin was struck with one fresh die and another which
was severely worn (as is commonly observed on double-denarii of the
mid-3rd Century). The existence of a circular “guide line” (incised on
the die, raised on the coin) sometimes is a good indication that a die was
in an early state. This circle — which apparently was not used in every
case — was probably the first thing cut into the die, for it helped the
engravers cut the inscription in an orderly manner and center the
design. Since the “guide line” was often only intended as a temporary
guide (and thus was engraved lightly), it tended to disappear after a
modest amount of use. Other times, the cut is deliberately deep, and is
of little use in this exercise, for it survived well into the life of the die.
• Worn or eroded die: A die which has been used well into its ideal
lifespan will show the effects by producing images of reduced clarity.
The weak details on coins struck with worn dies are often mistaken for
circulation wear or simply a soft strike. Indeed, a coin can be fully lus
trous, but only have the detail of a coin grading Very Fine. A common
effect of excessive die use is the presence of “flow lines,” which are
PRODUCTION, USE A N D RECOVERY 155
etched into the die by the flowing metal of the planchet, which flows
rapidly when struck. These flow lines are damage to the die and are
reproduced in the form of raised lines in the fields that radiate from the
center toward the edges. Since die production was time-consuming,
expensive and required the expertise of both artists and metallurgists, it
was not uncommon for dies to be used past their ideal lifespan.
Cracked die: One of the most severe forms of damage to a die is a crack,
which can range from a small defect in the lettering or dotted border to
a heavy crack that goes from edge to edge. Cracks and splits are incused
in the die, and thus are represented on the surface of the coin as ridges
of raised metal. A related defect is a “die bulge” that perhaps originated
as a chip in the die. The contours of die bulges are usually smooth, indi
cating they were polished by the mint workers, or became smooth from
strike friction. Die cracks and bulges affect the value of the coin in
direct proportion to their seriousness. This includes not only the size of
the defect, but its location.
Rusted die: Occasionally (it would seem) a die would be put aside while
other dies were employed. If not properly protected from exposure to
oxygen, these dies (usually made of iron) would rust. When the dies
were reconditioned for use, the rust would be polished off, but small pits
would remain. These are reproduced on the surface of a coin as irregular
areas of raised metal.
Polished die: Before dies were put into service (and periodically during
their lifetime) their surfaces were polished with an abrasive substance to
remove impurities and minor defects. This routine maintenance pre
vented small problems from becoming more serious. Since the devices
— the recessed areas of the die — were beneath the flat surface, they
tended to remain “frosty” while the flat area (which created the fields on
the coin) was more highly polished.
Re-cut or re-worked die: This was a fairly common part of die mainte
nance. If an area of the die was losing detail, or had become damaged,
the die would often be repaired rather than discarded. Repairs were
made with some minor polishing or tooling, and under other more seri
ous circumstances might involve re-cutting or modifying the original
design. Sometimes re-cutting occured to correct an error made by the
original die cutter(s).
Ic. The Striking Process
This is the principal act in the minting process. The various effects and
defects associated with this process are discussed below.
Luster: When a coin is struck, the metal is compressed between the dies.
In reaction to this force, the metal expands and flows directly outward
from the center. This rapid flow of metal occurs in a split-second, and
makes tiny incisions on the surface of the die, which result in raised ridges
of metal too small to be seen individually with the naked eye (when this is
excessive, the flow lines can become large and distracting, as discussed
above). Collectively they create a visual effect called luster by reflecting
light at various angles. It is important to note that luster occurs only on
coins struck with slightly worn dies; when the dies are freshly polished (as
discussed above) the surfaces are endowed with a brilliant, mirror effect.
Though luster more properly belongs with the discussions of die character
istics, it is discussed under the striking process as a matter of convenience.
Centering: Though perfect centering is commonplace on modern coins, it

is very much the exception for ancient coins. A small degree of de-center-
ing, from about 5% or 15%, is normal and should be expected from almost
any hand-struck coinage. Minor de-centering does not significantly affect
the value of Roman coins if it is in the correct direction. For example, if it
clips the tip of the emperor’s nose, or decapitates the deity on the reverse,
then it will significantly reduce market value. However, if it simply shifts
the design 5% toward the back of the head, leaving some extra space
before the portrait, the value of the coin should not be affected to any sig
nificant degree (and in some cases may even be enhanced). However, per
fectly centered coins are the most desired by collectors, and as such they
command a premium.
Strength: This refers to the crispness of the strike. Coins which are sharply
struck bring a premium (sometimes a significant premium) above those
which have average or weak strikes. Coins that are softly struck are less
attractive because the fine die details will either be weak or totally absent.
If the area of insufficient strike is large, the surface may exhibit the rough
ness of the unstruck planchet.
Evenness: This factor is independent of centering or strength of strike, as

it is determined by the angle at which the dies impact the planchet.
Unevenly struck coins exhibit a sharp strike on one portion of a coin and a
weak strike on the opposing portion. If the faces of the die are aligned par
PRODUCTION, USE A N D RECOVERY I 57
allel to the planchet, it allows the force of the strike to be evenly distrib
uted, assuring no area of the design suffers from an insufficient strike.
Uneven strikes can reduce the value of a coin significantly, especially if
the weakness occurs in an important area of the design.
Multiple strikes: It almost always took more than one blow of the hammer
to strike an ancient coin, no matter how shallow the relief. This left ample
opportunity for the dies (or the planchet) to shift between blows of the
hammer. Nearly every ancient coin probably did shift slightly between
strikings, but the subsequent blows were strong enough to obliterate any
trace of this. In extreme cases this shifting caused spectacular errors (see
the discussion below), but more often it resulted only in slight “doubling.”
Multiple strikes are betrayed by a “shadow” of the outline of a design and
can sometimes greatly reduce value.
Planchet Cracks: The main cause of planchet cracks is the temperature. If

the planchet was not heated to the proper temperature while being pre
pared, and again before being struck, then it was probable that the
planchet would crack upon striking. If the metal is not fluid enough to
flow when the pressure of the blow is delivered, it releases its energy by
cracking, rather than flowing. Cracks are always wider at the edge of the
coin than they are where they terminate inward. Planchet cracks range
from small “hairline” fissures that might be visible only on one side of the
coin, to deep cracks that go completely through to the other side and
sometimes extend inward beyond the center of the coin. If a crack is deep
and severe, it greatly affects value, especially if the location is unfortunate.
If a crack is well hidden in the bust of the emperor it will not impact the
market value as greatly as one that affects the portrait. Sometimes (espe
cially under the Flavians and the Adoptive emperors) edge cracks on ses
tertii were closed by mint workers who hammered the edge of the coin at
the point of the crack. While it does seal the crack, it also flattens the edge
and pinches the rim.
Overstriking: As a measure of practicality (or necessity), Roman mints

would sometimes use existing coins from circulation as planchets for new
issues. The best practice in this case would be to melt the coins completely
and cast new planchets from the bullion, but this was not always a practi
cal option. Alternatively, the old coins could be hammered or filed until
the old design was virtually obliterated. Indeed, if a coin was overstruck
properly, no traces of the design of the host coin would survive the re
coining. When traces of overstriking do exist, they can be quantified in
terms of how much of each design exists; in other words, how much of the
design of the host coin (called the undertype) remains visible compared
with the new design (the overtype)? Needless to say, this varies consider
ably. Overstriking is especially evident on cistophori struck by Hadrian at
mints in Asia Minor. Value is affected negatively if the undertype
adversely affects an artistic coin, but value can be enhanced if there is
some academic importance to the overstriking.
Errors: Because Roman Imperial coins were hand-struck, minor imperfec

tions are to be expected. In some cases they were produced with such care
lessness that they must be categorized as “error” coins. A n interesting error
will often increase the value of a common coin, but it will greatly reduce
the price of a coin that otherwise would be of exceptional value for its art
istry or rarity. The categories of errors most commonly encountered on
Roman coins are described below.
• Double Strike: Severely double-struck coins — where a second image is

shifted considerably to one side or another or is rotated to a different
position from the first — are seldom encountered. Usually the result is
so unattractive that it renders the coin virtually uncollectible, but other
times it can create an interesting appearance, and thus enhance the
value of a coin.
• Flip strike: This error occurs when a planchet turns over between blows
of the hammer, resulting in the images of both dies being impressed on
both sides of the coin. The most recent blow tends to obliterate most
details of the earlier strike, though enough traces will exist such that it
can be determined that this error occurred in the striking process.
• Off-Center Strike: While moderate de-centering is very common on
Roman coins (and, indeed, should be expected), some are struck 30% or
more off center, and this is unusual. Although the values of such coins
are not necessarily increased with this defect, they sometimes are col
lectible as oddities.
• Brockage Strike: A “brockage” striking occurs when a coin that is
already struck adheres to one of the dies (usually to the reverse die,
which is held in the minter’s hand) and is not removed before another
fresh planchet is placed between the dies. The result is that the fresh
planchet receives the normal image from the clear die, and an incused
impression of that very same design from the coin that is stuck to the
opposite die. This is a relatively common error on denarii of the Roman
Republic, and is perhaps the most dramatic of all errors found on
ancient coins. Only very rarely will a brockage feature the reverse
design.
• Clashed dies: Occasionally the dies are hammered together when there
is no planchet between to absorb the impact. As a result of the dies
PRODUCTION, USE A N D RECOVERY 1 59
clashing, a “shadow” of the designs of each die, called “clash marks,” will
be faintly impressed onto the die opposite. Most coins subsequently
struck from these “clashed dies” will reflect the damage in their images.
This is an especially common occurrence on denarii of the Severans,
where faint outlines of the obverse bust can be seen in the otherwise-
blank fields of the reverse.
• “ Mules” : Many times in the history of Roman coinage, dies that were
not originally intended to be matched were used together, either by mis
take or as a measure of practicality. Such coins can be of value to the
researcher, for they sometimes shed light on conditions at mints (or out
side the mint, as many of these, no doubt, were struck by profiteering
mint workers on their own time).
II. CIRCULATION AND USE IN ANCIENT TIMES
Wear: This effect is the most natural for a coin; it is indicative of the pur
pose of its manufacture. Since wear is the byproduct of the stripping of sur
face metal over a long period of time, it tends to be evenly distributed and
affects the highest points of the design first. Even on heavily worn coins
the metal in the recesses of the design is largely protected from wear. As
such, you may expect to find luster in the protected areas of some gold and
silver coins even though they may be only Very Fine.
Countermarks and Counterstamps: Technically, these are forms of dam

age to the “host” coin, but they always had a practical purpose that is of
historical interest. Most often they were applied to re-value an issue, re
define its area of circulation, extend circulation life, or to propagandize a
change in regime. Countermarks most often take the form of an incuse
rectangle or circle containing a raised design, but sometimes they are
much more elaborate. Since countermarks were applied by hammering a
punch into the coin’s surface. This often would crack the coin if the coun
termark was applied near the edge. But more often the damage would be
limited to flattening the original design on the opposite side of the coin.
Most often countermarks were applied to base metal coins circulating in
the provinces, whether they were provincial or Imperial. Only vary rarely
are gold coins countermarked, but silver coins of the 1st Centuries B.C.
and A.D. were sometimes countermarked, notably in the East by Vespa
sian. In the late 5th or early 6th Centuries A.D., the Ostrogoths or the
Vandals “cut” the value markings XLII or LXXXIII into the surfaces issues of
Roman middle bronzes and sestertii (mostly of the 1st century A.D.) to
revalidate the antique “host” coins with current denominations.
l6 o COINAGE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE: NUMISMATIC INTRODUCTION
Test cuts and “Banker’s Marks” : These forms of damage were applied by
people who presumably were suspicious that a coin was a forgery. They
were applied at Rome mainly in the late Republic and early Empire,
though they are far more common with Greek coins. They are only
observed on precious metal coins. A test cut was applied by a chisel or
other edged instrument, and was usually delivered with the blow of a ham
mer. Banker’s marks were also created by a hammer blow, but the tool was
a punch with a narrow tip engraved with a design or shape. Although
punch marks are usually shallow (just deep enough to penetrate the silver
plating), test cuts can be so deep as to sever a coin. Some coins have more
than a dozen banker’s marks, which indicates that they may have been
used for more than merely determining if the specimen was counterfeit,
but perhaps also to demonstrate that the coin was acceptable to the party
who applied the mark.
III. B U R IA L
Patination: Certain aspects of the ancient coin market are especially sub
jective. One such aspect is patination, which is the often colorful result of
the way the surface of a coin has reacted with the chemical environment
of the soil in which it was buried. Results range from the spectacular to
horrific, with copper-based coinages being most severely affected. On
bronzes of similar rarity and state of preservation, patination is usually the
most important factor in determining its value to collectors.
Patination is not limited to copper-based coins. Indeed, silver coins
are also severely affected by burial, although the patination is usually
removed in a chemical bath. The closest thing to a patina for gold coins is
encrusted earth in the recesses of the design, or perhaps a reddish toning
resulting from the oxidization of the copper in the alloy. The latter can
often be attractive, and is especially desirable on first century aurei that
came from the “Boscoreale” find near Pompeii.
Most experienced collectors can recognize a high-quality patina, but
few will agree on what is the best kind of patina. Perhaps the most popular
kind is a slightly glossy medium green patina on bronze. Especially prized
by some collectors are extremely pale green, gray or blue patinas, which
sometimes are nearly white. However, the design details are especially
hard to see when a patina has this pale shade, so the coin must be tilted to
the best angle to be seen clearly. Thus, this definitely is an acquired taste.
Also popular are brown patinas, which range from tan to dark chocolate,
and are the kind most often encountered. Another popular surface condi
tion for a bronze is the virtual lack of a patina, which sometimes occurs
when a coin is buried in the silt of a riverbed or in clay deposits. A n exam-
PRODUCTION, USE A N D RECOVERY l6 l
pie of this is popularly known as a “Tiber patina,” and is so-named because

coins and other metal objects that have been buried for thousands of years
in the silt of the Tiber River often have these characteristics. More often
than not, though, a bronze has no patina because it has been subjected to
an acid cleaning — with the result not being very pleasing to the eye.
Especially important in patination is the consistency of both color
and texture (which usually vary on the surface of a single coin). Patinas of
inconsistent coloration are sometimes called “mottled”; those with incon
sistent texture are often called “rough,” “grainy,” “porous,” “pitted” or
“encrusted.” The texture of a patina can further be classified as “glossy” or
“matte” depending on how it reflects or absorbs light. It is also important
to remember that some patinas are more stable than others, and that the
harder patinas are more desirable. A sestertius that grades Extremely Fine,
but with pitted surfaces and a rough, multi-colored patina is worth consid
erably less than one which is only Very Fine but has a smooth, glossy emer
ald green patina. This is the main reason the values stated in this book for
copper-based coins must be interpreted with great caution, for they are
meant to represent coins which fall somewhere between the two descrip
tions just presented. The values in this book are for absolutely average sur
face conditions — in other words, for coins that are not affected either
negatively or positively by their patination.
Porosity, corrosion, pitting, crystallization: This damage to the surface of

a coin always lowers its value to collectors, usually considerably. Porosity
can range from the barely noticeable (often called “slightly grainy” ) to
damage so severe that the details of the coin are rendered illegible. The
effects sometimes cover the entire surface evenly, but are equally likely to
affect only isolated areas.
Encrustation: Also very common to ancient coinage is encrustation.

Unlike porosity (which is recessed), encrustation is raised. Nearly every
ancient coin is somewhat encrusted from its burial, raising the question of
how much of the encrustation can be safely removed. Sometimes encrusta
tion is so hard and solidly attached to the surface that removing it would
cause significant damage, and so it remains.
“ Horn Silvering” : A common effect on silver coins is “horn silvering,”

which often occurs when silver coins are buried together, and the chemi
cal elements of the soil leach silver from one coin and re-deposit it in a
modified form on the neighboring coin. This chemical process occurs over
centuries, and can be quite damaging to the appearance and value of a
coin.
“ Bronze D isease” : This is an active form of deterioration of the surface

(and often the interior) of a copper-based coin. Unless it is neutralized,
and then stabilized, it may spread rapidly and continue to transform the
copper into a powdery green byproduct. Bronze disease is very light green
in color and (unlike a patina) is soft and powdery. As such, it is easy to rec
ognize. Bronze disease usually can be “cured” through a series of soakings
in distilled water, but this should be done by someone who is experienced
in such procedures, otherwise the disease will probably recur. Damage
already done, of course, cannot be reversed.
IV- RECOVERY, CONSERVATION AND

SUBSEQUENT EFFECTS
Most ancient coins emerge from the earth more closely resembling a rock
or a charcoal briquette than the lustrous or finely patinated objects which
we so admire. The process of turning one of these encrusted lumps into a
presentable coin is often called the art of conservation.
It is important to recognize that virtually all ancient coins have been
cleaned after being unearthed. The cleaning may range from a mild soap
bath to remove dirt from gold coins (which are often unaffected by long
term burial) to intensive chemical or mechanical processes for severely
encrusted coins. The conservation process may be broken down into the
initial phase of cleaning, in which most of the debris is removed, and the
secondary phase of conditioning, in which the more detailed cleaning
occurs. In the case of a coin excavated decades or centuries ago, the condi
tioning process may occur in ever-finer gradations over several generations.
Proper and ethical cleaning requires talent, technical expertise, expe
rience and patience. O f course, “cleaners” will always have different levels
of skill, and different concepts of what is acceptable. Even the best clean
ers had to begin somewhere, and inevitably they made many mistakes
before they mastered their art.
A frequent complaint is that many coins are over-cleaned. However,
this is nothing new. The reason older, pedigreed coins may have a more
pleasant appearance is that they may have been able to recover from this
process over several decades or centuries. The “cabinet toning” that accu
mulates on a coin’s surface over the years often makes the ill effects of an
old cleaning less objectionable. Illustrations of tum-of-the-century auction
catalogs are not of the coins themselves, but plaster casts of the coins,
which do not accurately represent the surface condition, so collectors may
rest assured that most of those coins are not as perfect as they appear. The
main aspects of conservation are discussed in the section that follows.
Cleaning: This process will range from a mild treatment to a rigorous pro
cess involving chemical and mechanical components. Every ancient coin
that is fully visible — whether in a museum, an auction, or a private col
lection — has presumably been cleaned. Gold coins may only need to be
washed in a mild detergent, whereas a silver coin salvaged from a ship
wreck may require intensive care. The goal of cleaning is to return the
coin as much as possible to how it appeared before it was buried. This rule
is slightly different for copper-based coins, where the additional goal of
preserving the patination (which certainly did not exist before it was bur
ied) may also exist.
In an ideal world, everyone who cleaned a coin would be highly
skilled and exercise restraint and good judgment — but this certainly is
not the case. It is important to remember that every time you see an attrac
tive ancient coin you are witnessing the work of a (hopefully) skilled
cleaner.
Toning: To be strictly accurate, toning represents an erosion of the coin’s

surface, and technically it is damage. This erosion occurs on a microscopic
level and thus may not be significant. However, its effects on the appear
ance of the coin are often considerable, whether it is created over decades
or artificially in a few moments. Attractive toning often increases the
value of a coin, or at the very least makes a coin more desirable as com
pared to an untoned or unattractively toned coin. Catalog descriptions
will sometimes refer to the toning as “old collection toning” or “cabinet
toning,” since many coins from old collections have acquired an even
coating from spending many decades in wood and felt coin trays.
Pin scratches: These are often referred to in catalog descriptions, and are
the result of over-zealous effort to remove surface dirt or encrustation with
a sharp object. In the process, the metal of the coin is damaged, and the
value of the item is decreased considerably. Faint scratches are often called
“hairlines” or “hairline scratches.”
Waxing or lacquering: Although still done occasionally, applying a thin

layer of wax or lacquer to the surface of coin is largely a technique of anti
quarians of the past. The purpose was to isolate the surface of the coin
from oxygen, which in some instances could prove harmful, especially if
the air was humid. One notable collector who did this was the late King
Farouk of Egypt. More recently, this procedure has been frowned upon
because of its effect on the appearance of the coin. Additionally, some lac
quers or waxes will become “foggy” over time, making it more difficult to
appreciate a coin’s beauty.
Exceptional Damage: This section includes a number of undesirable

defects that occurred both in ancient and modern times. Incidental defects
that result from normal use in circulation or are inflicted as a result of care
less excavation are not described.
• ‘Damnation One of the most interesting forms of damage to ancient

coins is “damnatio,” which was an expression of emotion, be it a per
sonal or a sanctioned act. When deceased emperors were despised by the
public or condemned by the new regime, a period followed wherein the
effigies and inscriptions of the deceased were systematically destroyed.
This principally included sculptures, monumental inscriptions and
monuments, but it also included coins. Obviously this practice was not
entirely effective (at least on coinage), since coins from some of the
most hated emperors survive in large quantities. The damnatio memoriae
usually involved the recall of coinage of the targeted emperor, and in
more extreme cases, resulted in the chiseling of the portraits or inscrip
tions on coins still in circulation. The most remarkable instance of this
defamation occurs on numerous coins of Caligula (for the letter “C” rep
resenting his name was purposely removed), and on certain provincial
coins that bore the confronted portraits of the emperors Geta and Cara
calla. When it was learned that Caracalla had murdered his brother
Geta, some authorities apparently recalled the coins and with chisel
cuts “erased” both the portraits of Geta and the portion of the inscrip
tions that named him. The coins were then released back into circula
tion, making a statement that no doubt was as potent in the 3rd
Century as it is today.
• Graffito (pi. Graffiti): Coins sometimes were ‘inscribed’ by their own
ers in ancient times for a variety of reasons. In some cases it was merely
out of boredom, but at other times a graffito represents a political or reli
gious statement, a sign of ownership, or an attempt to transform a coin
into a magical amulet. In modern times, it may mark a coin as the prop
erty of the finder, and often takes the form of a simple “X” in the field.
Graffiti usually reduce the value of a coin considerably.
• Filing, clipping and other forms of metal removal: In modem times,
this form of damage is usually caused by an attempt to re-shape the coin
so it will fit into jewelry. Though this occurred in ancient times for the
same purpose, it was more commonly done by a culprit who kept the
excess metal that was removed and who returned the coin to circulation
at full value. Another ingenious method of removing metal from coins
was to put them into a bag containing sharp metal shavings. The bag
would be shaken vigorously and the metal shavings would remove tiny
pieces of metal from the surface of the coin. A t day’s end there would be
PRODUCTION, USE AN D RECOVERY 1 65
a profitable pile of gold shavings at the bottom of the bag. Clipping of

siliquae in 4th and 5th Century Britain was done to specific weight stan
dards, and current theory holds that the clipping was supervised by some
central authority to create reduced denominations.
Gilding: In ancient times this technique was commonly used for utili
tarian and decorative objects of every type, with the obvious advantage
being a great savings in the amount of precious metal used. On coins it
most often occurred on medallions or contorniates. Gilding is different
from silvering (see discussion above). In this process a thin coat of pre
cious metal is applied to the whole surface, or specific parts of the sur
face of a coin. Modern gilding is usually done by those who hope to pass
base-metal coins as precious metal pieces, or by jewelers who want to
achieve the decorative effect of a gold or silver coin while only paying
for one of a less costly metal.
Smoothing and Tooling: Both of these practices are commonly applied
to ancient copper, bronze and brass coins, and occasionally to precious
metal coins. Because of the effects of oxidization on coins, they often
emerge from the earth with pits or encrustation (see the discussion
above). The desire to smooth out these rough areas and create a more
pleasing object hails back to the Renaissance, when collecting the
objects of ancient Greece and Rome became fashionable. When encrus
tation is expertly removed without damaging the metal, it can greatly
improve a coin’s appearance. To qualify as “smoothing” the work should
be limited to the fields of the coin. When it is also applied to the
devices, or is done with severity in the fields, it must be classified as
“tooling,” which is the more serious form of this procedure. Finally,
when it goes beyond aesthetics, and into deception, it is termed re
engraving (see below).
Re-engraving: This is essentially the same as smoothing and tooling,
except that it is more often done to change the identification of the
coin than to enhance its appearance. It is usually done in modern times
by a knowledgeable party to increase the clarity of design details, or to
fictionalize elements of the design (to turn a common coin into a more
valuable one). In ancient times this would have been an extraordinary
occurrence for the purposes of commercial gain, but it was done to erase
images or inscriptions of emperors who were out of favor (see above,
damnatio) or to alter the images for any number of other reasons.
Inlays: This is a severe form of damage which, like most other catego
ries of damage, occurred both in ancient and modern times. In the
ancient world, inlays were commonly applied to the privately issued
contorniates of the late Empire, and were rarely applied to coins to
transform them into decorative objects, tokens, counters or into amulets
with a variety of applications. In modern times inlays have sometimes

been used to identify coins belonging to a particular collection. The
most famous example is the silver eagle-on-shield traditionally attrib
uted to the D’Este family, but which has recently been re-attributed to
the Gonzaga family. The inlaid Gonzaga coins fetch a significant pre
mium over what the coins would sell for without this attribute.
• Ex-Jewelry: Coins had been used in jewelry for several centuries before
the foundation of the Roman Empire, and like a great many practices of
the Greeks, the Romans followed suit. This ancient tradition has also
been popular in modern times. When coins are put into bezels, attached
to pendants or contained in any other way, they are likely to be dam
aged in the process. Typical signs of damage from inclusion in jewelry
include clipping, filing, scraping, soldering, piercing, harsh cleaning or
the appearance of “mount marks.” The value of “ex-jewelry” coins will
be reduced in accordance with the degree of damage and the merits of
the coin itself.
• Transformation into other objects: Though this obviously includes the use
of coins in jewelry (as discussed above), it also applies to coins which were
altered in ancient times for a variety of interesting reasons. Indeed, a small
book could be written on this topic alone. The most common reasons for
altering coins in the ancient world were to turn them into weights,
counters for board games, etc. In these cases the original coins were filed
down, re-shaped, inscribed. For a discussion of bronzes with hammered-up
edges (to create a raised rim), see the entry for Æ Proto-contomiate in the
denominations chapter. In other cases a coin was pierced so it could be
nailed to a coffin or a wall for spiritual purposes, or to be suspended from
the neck as a protective amulet. The idea that some sestertii or double ses
tertii were altered to be used as medallions in legionary standards is fanci
ful, as such “medallions” were much larger than coins.
COUNTERFEITS
The art of detecting counterfeits is relatively complex at its most advanced

level, and requires a mastery not only of minting technology, but also of
the more subjective aspects of Roman coinage, such as style and fabric.
Most counterfeits are either cast, struck or “assembled” by attaching an
obverse to a reverse. In all three of these categories the technology and
skill level varies considerably from the crude and obvious to the extremely
deceptive.
Some warning signs that a coin is counterfeit include the presence of
air pockets in the surface, a general “softness” of detail extending into the
PRODUCTION, USE A N D RECOVERY 167
areas of the design that should have been protected from wear, a lack of
crispness where the devices meet the fields, a seam (raised or recessed)
along the edge, a casting sprew that has been filed down, severe filing on
the edge, a surface that is “soapy” to the touch, a coin that does not have
the proper weight, diameter or stylistic appearance, or that shows no trace
of corrosion, even under microscopic examination.
Precious little can be taught on this subject by mere words and pic
tures, so instead, only the categories of counterfeits will be discussed. It is
important to remember that just as in grading, opinions about authenticity
can and do vary among experts. The best defense against counterfeit coins
is self-education, and being certain to make purchases from reputable deal
ers who are both knowledgeable and offer lifetime guarantees of authentic
ity. Purchasing coins in “source” countries is not only risky from a legal
standpoint, but quite often (no matter how convincing the “certificates of
authenticity” may be) collectors can end up owning a counterfeit.
Ancient counterfeits. Counterfeit coins have probably been made since

shortly after the invention of coinage in the 7th Century B.C. Since
Roman coins came much later in the history of coinage, the art of counter
feiting was by then quite advanced, as evidenced by the large numbers of
ancient counterfeits produced during the Republic and Empire. The main
class of counterfeit ancient coins is the fourré, or plated coin, which was
meant to resemble a coin of pure silver or gold but in reality had only a
coat of precious metal over a core of base metal.
The plating on fourrés can remain intact even after many centuries of
burial, but most often the base metal core has broken through at least in
some portions, for it oxidizes at a faster rate than the precious metal shell.
When it hasn’t broken through, it is simply because the plating has ade
quately protected it from the corrosive elements of the soil. The vast
majority of all fourrés were produced unofficially outside of Roman mints,
but there is reason to believe that some were made at the mints either by
profiteering mint workers or on order of the government itself so that it
could to stretch its own resources during a time of crisis.
Issuing a coin that is considerably debased is only one small step away
from issuing one that is plated, for the same motive is at hand. It is also
possible that some plated counterfeits were struck with dies stolen from
the mints, thus explaining why some of them are of such convincing style
and manufacture.
A t the very least this was done by Marc Antony, who struck many of
his Legionary denarii in lower-quality silver, and of which large numbers of
plated counterfeits survive. The original percentage of fourrés must have
been quite high for the Legionary denarii, since during the course of
decades of circulation the plated pieces no doubt were culled, leaving just
the solid pieces in use.
In most cases the fourré can be identified by its weight, which is usu
ally lower than that of even the lowest weight genuine specimen. In some
cases the plating was so thin that the core became exposed in the course of
circulation, for some that are unearthed do not bear a trace of precious
metal coating. A t other times the fraudulent coin was exposed by the
application of a “banker’s mark” that broke through the plating and
revealed the core.
Another kind of ancient counterfeit made in ancient times with the
intention to profit by deception is the cast copy. Such copies were made of
base metal or billon coins that were greatly overvalued in the market com
pared with the cost of production (just as is the case with modern coins).
Thus, there was ample room for profit in their imitation. This was espe
cially prevalent in Egypt, where the base metal and billon coins consti
tuted most of the coinage, and circulated at an especially high rate within
Egypt’s closed economy. Indeed, forged billon tetradrachms and nummi are
found with some frequency in hoards largely composed of genuine, govern-
ment-issued pieces. Additionally, ancient clay molds bearing the impres
sions of such coins are known.
Another form of ancient counterfeit is the “barbaric” imitation that
was presumably produced not with the intention of defrauding the recipi
ent, but rather to remedy a coin shortage. This occurred most often in the
far-flung provinces such as Spain, Britain and Gaul, but also occurred in
almost every part of the Roman frontier from the 1st Century B.C. through
the 4th Century A.D. Indeed, such imitations are known to have been pro
duced in Arabia, India and even the island of Sri Lanka. The most com
mon of these are the so-called “barbarous radiates” which imitated the
severely debased double denarii primarily of the 260s and 270s A.D.
Renaissance copies. Many of these were not created to deceive, but rather
to make suitable replacements for coins that were excessively rare or unob
tainable (such as sestertii of Otho, of which none are known to have been
struck). Other times the motive for production was more sinister. They
were original creations based on either the ancient prototypes, or on what
the artist might expect a prototype to look like if it existed. Although
sometimes these copies are fairly convincing, in general the style of
engraving is different enough from the ancient coins so that they are easy
to distinguish. The struck originals are remarkable antiques in their own
right, and are thus highly collectible. “After-castings” of them are com
monly encountered.
18th Century-early 20th Century copies. Unlike their Renaissance pre

decessors, most of these were made specifically to defraud the collector.
They were usually struck from dies which were cut by the hand of a skilled
artist. Four of the more famous counterfeiters were Becker, Caprara,
Christodoulos and the “Geneva forger.” Most of these coins are known
and published - and as such are seldom encountered in the marketplace,
except as collectibles in their own right. Naturally, other forgers were
active in this period, producing cast reproductions of authentic coins.
Because they have acquired the “cabinet toning” of their age, and often
have impressive pedigrees, they sometimes are assumed genuine and are
overlooked by catalogers.
Electrotypes. These are among the most deceiving counterfeits until the
edges are examined. They are made of two thin shells of metal which repli
cate the obverse and reverse designs down to the sharpest detail. The
shells are created by making a wax positive from a plaster negative of the
original coin. The wax is then coated with a layer of copper in the electro
plating process, after which the shells are given a thin coat of the appropri
ate precious metal.
Though the two shells may be used independently (for study pur
poses), they are often joined together at the edge, and the center cavity is
filled with base metal. Many electrotypes were produced at the British
Museum by Robert Ready, who stamped his initials into the edge. The eas
iest way to identify an electrotype is by examining its edge for the seam
along the center, where the edges of the shells were fused together. The
weight also is not usually accurate, and the initials of the maker may still
be present.
Recent forgeries. A more recent breed of counterfeit is produced by mak

ing plastic dies from an original ancient coin and then using the dies to
strike counterfeits. Since the style is exactly accurate on these die-struck
counterfeits, the numismatist must rely on other aspects such as fabric, sur
face appearance, evidence of re-tooling of the die, and even an extremely
close measuring of the devices on a suspected piece and an authentic coin
that are believed to have come from the same dies. In other cases, counter
feits are produced by using advanced casting techniques. A third major
category is the original method: producing hand-cut dies. Though some of
the modern counterfeits are quite deceiving, most are ferreted out during
the handling process from source to eventual buyer.
“ Tourist Class” Forgeries. These are crudely cast items destined for the
non-numismatist on holiday in lands where ancient coins once circulated.
In fact, their crudity tends to give credibility to their alleged antiquity if
the buyer has never handled authentic pieces. Most often, they are cast in
base or “pot” metal, even when the designs they copy belong to precious
metal coinages. Sometimes the designs are “mules” of unrelated obverse
and reverse types, or their designs are complete fabrications. The vast
majority of all counterfeits belong to this category.
Altered coins. See the discussion under Re-engraving in section IV.

CH A PTER N IN E
D e t e r m in in g Va l u e s
he best place to start in a discussion of value is with the absolute

T basics of the marketplace: supply and demand. Just as in every other
commodity or collectible, they are the two ruling factors in determining
fair market value. Though supply and demand is easily understood, the con
cept of fair market value is a bit more challenging, because there does not
seem to be a consensus of exactly what that means. Perhaps the best work
ing definition of fair market value is: the price achieved in a mutually satis
factory transaction between a knowledgeable buyer and a knowledgeable
seller. Many times such ideal conditions do not exist when a transaction
occurs, and that is when prices which are either too high or too low occur.
The values presented in this book are intended to represent fair market
value.
Condition and “ Eye Appeal” : The state of preservation, and in a more

general sense, the beauty of a coin, is of paramount importance to collec
tors. Condition is simply a matter of wear or damage the coin may have
received, whereas eye appeal takes in many other factors. The preference
for high-grade specimens stems from a simple desire to capture — as
closely as possible — what a coin looked like when it came off the dies.
Any imperfections acquired as it was struck, or thereafter, detract from the
full appreciation of the intention of the artist. For it is only on a perfect spec
imen that the full glory of the engraver’s art can be seen. Because there are
many elements which contribute to the beauty of a coin, many coins grad
ing Choice Very Fine are more valuable than coins that are essentially
Mint State. On bronzes much of the “eye appeal” exists in the quality of
the surface patination. In terms of market value, price increases due to
grade and “eye appeal” can be exceptional. For example, a nearly Mint
State coin can be worth anywhere from about five times to perhaps more
than 100 times the value of a coin of the same issue that is only in Fine
condition. The former (five times) would apply only to the most common
coins that are readily available in high grade. The latter would apply to the
most exceptional examples, and certainly would involve some additional
factors, such as style, provenance, and perhaps some heated competition at
auction. It would also apply to coins that are among the finest known of
their type. When coins of that caliber (sometimes called condition census)
come to market, buyer’s restraint often must be abandoned if the competi-
171
tion is to be outbid. The typical price spread between a coin that grades
Fine and one that is nearly Mint State is about five- to 20-fold.
Rarity: There is only one thing you absolutely must know about this topic:
rarity itself is not a significant factor in the value of a coin. Rarity only
becomes important when it has some significance attached to it. Since
people usually assemble collections with specific goals in mind, they will
inevitably need to acquire some coins which are rare. If enough collectors
are working toward the same goal, there exists a relationship between rar
ity and price. This is especially true for the most popular types of collec
tions (such as those formed by emperor). For the sake of discussion we may
compare Provincial coins and the reverse types of Imperial coins: in both
cases they can be exceptionally rare, but if they are not unusual in their
design content, or are in poor condition, neither will be of much value
despite their great rarity. Another point that should be understood is the
difference between absolute rarity and market rarity. Let’s compare two
hypothetical coinages, of which 50 specimens of each type are known to
exist. For the first, only five specimens are in permanently impounded col
lections (such as museums), and for the second issue, 45 of them are so
impounded. Even though the absolute rarity of these two issues is identical,
the market rarity is quite different. Assuming both issues are roughly equal
in all other respects, examples of the second type will be far more valuable.
Metal and Denomination: Two basic rules (with some obvious excep
tions) are: larger is more expensive, and gold is more expensive than silver
or copper. Although that is fairly simplistic, it most often is true. Some
fractional denominations (such as quinarii) regularly break the first rule.
Because the general appearance of a coin varies so greatly from one
denomination to another, the price will naturally be affected. Most
advanced collectors tend to specialize in the particular metal that most
appeals to them, and still others cannot resist collecting some of each. The
most expensive category is gold. It is impossible to say which is generally
more valuable between silver and copper in the Roman Imperial series.
The market for copper-based coinage is a bit easier to understand in this
respect, for (unlike silver) larger coins generally command higher prices
than the smaller ones.
Historical Value: Although all Roman coins are of some historical value,
some are far more important than others. The Romans frequently com
memorated their achievements (real, intended or hoped for) on their
coins, and when these events are well known to historians, the coins com
memorative of that event will enjoy a broad base of demand. Other times a
coin is of historical value simply because it is what it is. A good example is
DETERMINING VALUES I 73
a coin of an obscure usurper with an absolutely commonplace reverse type.

In this case, the content of the reverse design, or factors that otherwise
would be important, are not so vital because collectors are primarily inter
ested in acquiring a representative example of the issue.
Artistic Merit: The quality of the artistry is a significant factor in the

value of Roman coins. A coin of exquisite style will always command a pre
mium over one of pedestrian style, no matter how common the item.
However, fine style usually is only potent when the coin is in a pleasant
state of preservation. Style is difficult for most new collectors to under
stand. Moreover, it is sometimes hard to understand why it can contribute
so considerably to the price. To get a better feeling for this aspect you must
pay attention to both the generalities and the specifics of the coin, for
both contribute. A coin of fine style is equally as impressive at an arm’s
length as it is under a magnifying glass, and this is a quality which is prized
by the advanced collector. It is easy to recognize the difference between
poor style and good style, but only the educated eye can discern between
good style and great style. Since great style has never been common, it is
eagerly competed for when it becomes available, and can result in signifi
cant premiums. Beware, however, that good style in one series may not
qualify as good style in another series. Even a relatively humble denarius of
Vitellius (struck in A .D . 69) will compare favorably to the finest-style coin
of Marcian ( A .D . 450-457).
Fame: This factor is easy to understand. The more famous the issuer of the
coin, the more valuable that person’s coins will be relative to a coin of
identical rarity and condition issued by someone who is not generally rec
ognized. Though few in the general population have heard of Elagabalus,
many will be familiar with Caligula, even though the depravities of these
two emperors were comparable. Though collectors quickly learn the names
and reputations of lesser-known emperors and empresses, the demand is
still greatest for the emperors and empresses well known to history.
Nationalistic and Cultural Demand: The Romans frequently depicted

their subject peoples on the reverse of their coins. Most often they are
mentioned in negative contexts, such as having recently been conquered,
but in other cases (such as the emperor Hadrian’s famous “travel” series)
they are depicted in a positive light. Any such representations are of inter
est to collectors who share national or cultural ties with the peoples repre
sented. Thus, coins of this nature often will command prices far in excess
of what their rarity would dictate were there no special interest in the type.
Perhaps the best example is the Judaea Capta series initiated by Vespasian
and continued by his eldest son, Titus.
Provenance: Since collectors purchase the vast majority of the interesting

coins on the market, it should come as no surprise that collectors are inter
ested in who owned the coin before them. In the event the coin is not
from a very recent find, another collector probably owned it prior to it
coming up for sale. In general, the further back a pedigree can be traced,
the better. But even more important is who owned it, or in which auction
catalogs it may have appeared. Few things are more satisfying to the
advanced collector than paging through a 1920s Ars Classica auction cata
log and finding the very coin he holds in his hand. It is equally satisfying
to know that a coin was once owned by the renowned archaeologist Sir
Arthur J. Evans, or that it is illustrated in a standard reference, such as an
academic study or a publication of major private collection. Just like in
other fields of art and collectibles, a purchaser finds comfort and takes
pride in knowing he shares a tangible bond with a famous collector of days
past.
Collecting styles: Though certain aspects of Roman coins will always be

popular with collectors, others are more fickle and subject to sweeping
change. In the Renaissance it was prestigious to build a collection of ses
tertii because of the large format of the portrait. These collectors did not
react adversely to tooling and re-engraving if it made the coin more attrac
tive. Many of the gentleman collectors of the 19th and early 20th Centu
ries valued rarity and historical significance above condition. Late in the
20th Century there is an increased focus on condition and originality.
Coins must be high grade and unaltered, even at the expense of rarity and
historical value. That is not to say rarity and historical significance do not
factor heavily into the value of a coin in the modern market, but in gen
eral, collectors of moderate means seem to prefer high-grade common
coins to low-grade rarities.
GRADING STANDARDS
Now that all other aspects of a coin’s appearance — be it from production,

circulation, burial, recovery or restoration — have been discussed, we may
move on to grading itself. As all of the previous discussions should have
made plain, the technical grade of a coin is only one of many consider
ations in the determination of a coin’s market value. Nonetheless, it is
very important to most collectors, and what follows is a photographic and
verbal description to help the reader determine the grade of coins. It is
important to remember that the standards employed here were the ones
used to determine the values presented in this book. Grading standards
vary considerably, and differences of opinion exist even among experts.
To grade a coin one must simply determine the amount of detail that
remains. Although this is often affected by the competence with which it
was struck (and even by the state of the dies from which the coin was
struck), the most important factor is circulation wear.
G r a d i n g T e r m in o l o g y
English German French Italian
Good Sehr gut erhalten Très Bien Conservé Bello
Fine Schön Beau Molto Bello
Very Fine Sehr Schön Très Beau Bellissimo
Extremely Fine Vorzüglich Superbe Splendido
Mint State Stempelglanz Fleur de Coin Fior di conio

(F.D.C.)
Poor, Fair, Basal State: The lowest grade. Most coins in this state are not
identifiable except in the most general terms. No detail will be present and
even the outlines of the main devices may be incomplete. The coin is
likely to have numerous contact marks from its extensive circulation life,
and is also likely to be heavily corroded or encrusted.
Good (G): Coins qualifying as Good are far from what the name suggests.
These coins suffer from extremely heavy circulation wear and are generally
the lowest collectible grade. Even so, the coin must be quite rare to be in
demand. Only an outline of the devices will exist, and no detail will have
been spared in the central portion of the design. The edge of the obverse
and reverse fields may be worn to the point of obscuring the peripheral
inscription.
Fine (F): A coin that qualifies as Fine has suffered considerable circula
tion, but has not been worn to the point of losing all detail. The centers of
the devices will be worn smooth, but other important details are preserved
in the recesses of the design, such as basic features of the bust and the
inscription. This is a perfectly collectible grade, especially for rarer items.
Very Fine (VF): This may be the most popular grade among collectors
because it affords a pleasant amount of detail without the significant price
jump associated with the higher grades. Within this grade (from nearly VF
to choice VF) there is a wide range in appearance. Though it will be obvi-
I 76 COINAGE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE: NUMISMATIC INTRODUCTION
Fine (F) Very Fine (VF) Extremely Fine (EF)

AR Denarius AR Denarius AR Denarius
(enlarged) (enlarged) (enlarged)
Fine (F) Very Fine (VF) Choice Very Fine (chVF)

AE Sestertius AE Sestertius AE Sestertius
(reduced) (reduced) (reduced)
Fine (F) Very Fine (VF) Extremely Fine (EF)

Billon Aurelianianus Billon Aurelianianus Billon Aurelianianus
(enlarged) (enlarged) (enlarged)
ous that the coin circulated for quite some time, considerable detail should
remain, even toward the high points of the designs. Coins at the higher
end of this spectrum are usually quite attractive, and are eagerly sought
after by advanced collectors if they are interesting types with good eye-
appeal.
Choice Very Fine (chVF). In this catalog, this term is applied only to æs
coinages (asses, dupondii, sestertii, etc.) of the Empire struck through the
3rd Century A.D. In these cases, it substitutes for the EF category. Assum
ing the grade is assigned conservatively and accurately, this is generally as
nice as such coins are found. Early æs are very rare in a true Extremely Fine
condition, and if they are essentially problem-free coins, they command
significant premiums. For example: if such a coin is valued at $1,000-1,500
in Choice Very Fine, it might command $7,000-10,000 in true Extremely
Fine.
Extremely Fine (EF): Although some of the more prolific Roman issues
frequently survive in Extremely Fine or better, for the majority of Roman
coins, it is about as nice as they come. This is especially applicable to the
standard Roman bronzes of the first three centuries. A n Extremely Fine
coin should exhibit considerable detail, with only a trace of wear on the
highest points of the design. However, this wear will not eliminate the
detail, just soften it. In this grade, gold and silver coins are likely to have
original luster in the protected areas of the design if they did not suffer too
greatly during their centuries of burial.
Nearly Mint State, About Uncirculated, Superb or Superb EF (nM S):

This grade describes a coin that is essentially Mint State, but is slightly
weak on its highest points due either to imperfect strike or a momentary
foray into circulation. Modem wear, such as “cabinet friction,” may also
account for faint weakness that would disqualify a coin from the status of
Mint State. By all standards this should be a spectacular coin, with the
precious metal examples exhibiting considerable luster unless they have
been improperly cleaned.
Mint State or Uncirculated (MS or Une.): A coin of this grade literally

must have no trace of wear. It can be imperfectly struck and suffer from a
host of other minor impairments so long as this does not significantly
detract from the detail. Sometimes a coin can be technically Mint State
but because of strike or die imperfections, will exhibit detail more in line
with a coin grading Very Fine. These cases usually require an explanation
on the part of the cataloger. Luster should be plainly visible on precious
metal coins, and if fully struck, the details of the design should be crisp.
Bear in mind that Mint State coins are not always more attractive than
lower-grade coins.
Fleur de Coin (F.D .C .): Though this term only means Mint State, it has
come to be used as a description of virtual perfection. Needless to say,
coins of this level are rare even among issues that routinely survive in top
grade. The term is frequently misused to describe coins which are Mint
State, but not as nice as is required to be F.D.C. Precious metal coins must
exhibit original luster, their strike must be strong, and they must be nearly
perfectly centered. Even the style must be above par for the traditionalist
to assign this lofty grade. Many experts believe no patinated bronze can
qualify as ED.C. because its surfaces (no matter how attractive they may
be) have been altered from their original state. Truly F.D.C. coins com
mand a significant premium over EF or Mint State coins.
GRADE MODIFIERS
Since a coin does not always fit a grade category perfectly, or for some rea
son requires further explanation to communicate its appearance, grade
modifiers are routinely used. In other cases modifiers are used to explain
why it doesn’t quite measure up to the stated grade, or why it exceeds it.
About, Almost, Nearly or Virtually: If a coin falls just short of the next
highest grade, but is closer to the higher grade than it is to the lower grade,
these modifiers (or others to the same effect) will be used.
E x a m p l e s : About VF, Almost EF, Nearly Extremely Fine, Virtually Mint
State.
Choice, Good, Superb, -Plus: These or similar words are used to describe
a coin which is better than the grade stated, but still is closer to the lower
grade than to the next-higher one.
E x a m p l e s : Choice Very Fine, Good EF, Superb Extremely Fine, Very Fine-
Plus.
Grade Range: Sometimes a coin is best described with a grade range

because it has some merits of each grade mentioned, but does not fully
conform to either.
E x a m p l e s : F-VF, Fine t o Very Fine.
Split Grades: In some cases one side of a coin is better preserved than the
other. This is usually the result of one side being improperly struck or dam
aged in some way. When this occurs, the obverse is usually more detailed
than the reverse, largely because the striking process tended to more
heavily damage reverse dies than obverse dies. On the two examples
below, the grade before the slash is for the obverse, and the latter for the
reverse.
E x a m p l e s : F/VF, Extremely Fine/Very Fine.
A C A U T IO N A R Y N O T E O N U S I N G
T H E V A L U E S IN T H IS C A T A L O G
• The price ranges in this catalog are for conservatively graded, attractive
and virtually problem-free coins. The photographs and the verbal
descriptions of grades in the Grading section will provide guidance for
determining the grade of other coins. Any coin which is not conserva
tively graded, or has noticeable defects will be worth considerably less
than the values indicated. Alternatively, defect-free coins with excep
tional merits may well be worth a premium. Without a full understand
ing and acknowledgment of these basic principles, this value guide will
be of little use.
• Just because two different issues are given the same price range does not
necessarily mean they are equally valuable. For example: one of the
issues may consistently command a price at the lower end of the
$1,000-$ 1,500 range, whereas another more valuable type will consis
tently realize a price toward the upper end of the range. The first issue is
truly a lower-value piece, yet, they will fall into the same general cate
gory. Only market participation will make these differences clear.
• When a long dash (— ) occurs in place of value ranges this means that
determining an accurate value in that particular grade is speculative.
This sometimes means the coin is of extraordinary value; however, more
often than not this is not true. It may still be a coin of relatively modest
value.
• Coins are valued, when possible, in three grades. The various grades
used herein are abbreviated as follows: F (Fine); VF (Very Fine); chVF
(Choice Very Fine); EF (Extremely Fine); n M S (Nearly Mint State).
The last refers to a coin which is considerably better than Extremely Fine
in terms of wear, and may indeed be Mint State. The vast majority of
precious metal coins in this category have some mint luster.
• The listings that name the denomination without further detail refer to
common or “generic” types for that reign. If either the obverse or reverse
type is rare or significant, there is a strong likelihood the coin is worth a
premium above the figure listed.
• Subsidiary listings refer to specific reverse or obverse types of the
denomination described above. There is always a verbal description of
l8 o COINAGE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE: NUMISMATIC INTRODUCTION
these better types. The types listed are among the most avidly collected
of the reign.
• Whenever the term under appears in a description, that means the coin
in question was struck during the reign of the person listed.
IMPORTANT NOTE TO THE READER
The values in this book represent typical values achieved in equitable

transactions between knowledgeable buyers and knowledgeable sellers.
However, the reader should beware that depending on the buyers and sell
ers involved, as well as the venue and circumstances of the sale, prices may
vary considerably.
The values in this book are not intended for, and should not be relied
upon for conducting an accurate appraisal. Only an experienced numisma
tist who takes into account every aspect of a coin’s appearance, rarity,
importance and expected method of sale can provide an accurate
appraisal. N o warranty is made or implied by the author, the publisher or
by those who have contributed to the compilation of these values, that
coins matching the descriptions in the tables will realize the prices stated
even under equitable circumstances between a knowledgeable buyer and a
knowledgeable seller. This catalog does not constitute an offer by any party
either to purchase or to sell the coins described in this catalog at any price.
Furthermore there is no inherent suggestion or warranty that coins match
ing the descriptions in this book can be purchased for the prices quoted, or
for any price, either from the author, the publisher or in the marketplace.
This catalog is not intended to be a comprehensive guide to the values of
Roman coins. The complexities of the ancient coin market are numerous
and significant enough to assure that no guide to values will be useful
unless used in partnership with buyer restraint, experience and good taste.
It is the author’s express hope that this guide may help every reader
become a more successful collector.
C O I N A G E O F T H E R O M A N E M P IR E
P A R T TW O
C a talo g a n d Tables of Va l u e
A N ote A bo u t the Values
he value ranges provided in the catalog are estimates for conserva-

T tively graded, essentially problem-free coins. Noteworthy defects will
decrease the value of a coin (sometimes significantly), whereas merits will
have the opposite effect. A dash (— ) indicates a value which is especially
difficult to determine, not necessarily one which is high. It should not be
assumed that coins with the same value range are equal in value, for they
may represent different ends of the spectrum.
When possible, values are given in three states of preservation. These
valuations through the later 3rd Century A.D. are given in Fine (F), Very
Fine (VF) and Extremely Fine (EF) or Choice Very Fine (chVF), depend
ing on whether the coin is of precious metal (EF) or is copper-based
(chVF).
This distinction has been made because bronzes of that era are rarely
encountered in a state of preservation that strictly and accurately measures
up to EF in the same way that grade applies to a precious metal coin. A
coin qualifying as chVF might be valued at $1,500—$2,000, whereas the
same coin in true EF would be valued at $7,000-$ 10,000. Such value
spreads are not universal; sometimes they are smaller, other times larger.
The reader must also bear in mind that EF does not mean Nearly
Mint State or Mint State. Sometimes ancient coins survive in pristine
condition, and such coins will command a premium. Later in the Empire,
most of the valuations are given in Very Fine (VF), Extremely Fine (EF)
and Nearly Mint State (n M S) because gold coins of this era often survive
in superb condition.
To make proper use of the valuations in this book, read the section on
determining value carefully and thoroughly. Without a full command of
that information, the pricing in this guide will be of little practical value.
It must always be borne in mind that technical grade is only one of many
factors by which the true market value of an ancient coin is determined.
General Note for the Coin Entries

1. Denominations are given in bold at the beginning of the entry.
2. When dashes occur, that means all information of the previous coin
which is given in the area covered by the dashes applies to the present
coin.
3. Æ22, for example, means a copper-base coin with a diameter of 22
millimeters.
183
CH A PTER ONE
C o l l a p s e o f t h e R e p u b lic
(I m p e r a to r ia l P e rio d )
c. 8 2 - 2 7 B C -
Sulla
D ictator, 82-79
Sulla (Lifetime Coinage) F VF EF

1 A R ‘N ew Style’ Tetradrachm of A thens, under 400-600 700- 1500-
Sulla, c. 86-84 B.C. obv Helm. hd. r. of Athena rev 1000 2000
Owl, betw. monograms, stg. facing on amphora, all
in wreath. Thompson 1273'1340.
2 — . A s prev., but trophies in place of monograms. 400-600 900- 1750-

Thom pson 1341'5. Note: These issues were struck 1200 2250
during his campaign against Mithradates VI.
3 A R D enarius, issued by Sulla, 84-83 B.C. obv L 100-150 200-300 400-600

SV LLA , bust r. of Venus, Cupid with branch before
rev IMPER ITERV (M ), jug and lituus betw. two tro
phies. Cr. 359/2. Note: This issue probably cele
brates Su lla’s victory over the Samnites; it indicates
he had been hailed Imperator for a second time
(ITERVM ). Aurei of this type are known.
4 AV A ureus, mon. L. Manlius Torquatus, 82 B.C. 3000- 5000- 10,000-

obv L M A N LI PROQ, hd. r. of Rom a rev L SV LLA 5000 8000 15,000
IMPE, Sulla r. in quadriga, crowned by Victory. Cr.
367/2,4.
5 A R D enarius, — . A s prev. Cr. 367/1,3,5. Note: 50-75 150-200 250-350
These seem to celebrate Sulla’s victories in Greece.
6 — , issued by Sulla, c. 81 B.C. obv Hd. r. of Venus rev 70-100 150-200 300-400
Double cornucopia, Q below. Cr. 375/2. Note: Aurei
of this type are known.
7 — . obv Hd. r. of Venus, letter behind rev Double- 250-350 500-800 —

cornucopia, EX S C at sides, all in wreath. Cr. 376/1.
8 AV A ureus, mon. A. Manlius, 80 B.C. obv A 7000- 20 ,000-

M A N LI A F Q, bust r. of Roma rev L SV L L (A ) 10,000 30,000
FELI(X) DIC, equestrian statue of Sulla 1. Cr. 381/
la,b.
185
1 86 COINAGE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE: CATALOG A N D TABLES OF VALUE
Sulla [Posthumous Commemoratives) F VF EF

9 A R D enarius, mon. Faustus Cornelius Sulla, 56 150-200 400-600 900-
B.C. obv FA V STV S, diad., dr. bust r. of Diana, cres 1200
cent above, lituus before rev FELIX, Sulla std. 1. on
platform, Bocchus kneeling before, offering branch,
Jugurtha kneeling behind, hands bound. Cr. 426/1.
Note: The moneyer was Sulla’s son, who struck this
denarius to honor the 50th anniversary of Jugurtha’s
capture. This scene was engraved on Sulla’s signet
ring.
10 — , mon. Q. Pompeius Rufus, c. 54 B.C. obv SV LLA 300-400 900- 1750-

C O S , bare hd. r. of Sulla rev RVFVS C O S Q POM 1200 2250
RVFI, bare hd. r. of Q. Pompeius Rufus. Cr. 434/1.
Note: The Pompeius Rufus depicted was Sulla’s co-
consul in 88 B.C.; the moneyer was a grandson of
both men. Illustrated p. 185.
11 — . obv Q POMPEI Q F RVFVS, curule chair, arrow 50-75 100-150 250-350

at 1., branch at r., tablet below inscr. C O S rev
SV LLA C O S, curule chair, lituus on 1., wreath on r.,
tablet below inscr. Q POMPEI RVF. Cr. 434/2.
12 — , mon. L. Aemilius Buca, early 44 B.C. obv L 500-800 1500- 3000-

BV C A , diad. hd. r. of Venus rev “Sulla’s Dream”: 2000 5000
Sulla reel, r., Luna at r., Victory behind. Cr. 480/1.
Note: Struck at the same time as Julius Caesar’s first
portrait issue.
Flaccus
Imperator, 83-82 B .C .
Flacciis (as Imperator) F VF EF

13 A R D enarius, issued by Flaccus, 82 B.C. obv 50-75 100-150 250-350
Winged, dr. bust r. of Victory, control mark in field
rev C VAL FLA IM PERAT EX SC , legionary eagle
betw. two standards. Cr. 365/1 a-c. Note: This issue
was ‘restored’ by the emperor Trajan. Illustrated
above.
The values are estimates for conservatively graded, essentially problem-free

coins. Defects or merits will alter prices, often significantly. Dashes (—) indicate
values which cannot be accurately determined (at the high end) or which are
negligible (at the low end). Coins with the same value range are not always
equally valuable, for they may represent different ends of the same spectrum.
COLLAPSE OF THE REPUBLIC ( IMPERATORIAL PERIOD) 1 87
Metellus Pius
Imperator, 81 B .C .
A d o p t iv e f a t h e r o f M e t e l l u s P iu s S c ip io
Metel lus Pius (as Imperator) F VF EF

14 A R D enarius, issued by Metellus Pius, 81 B.C. obv 70-100 150-200 250-350
Diad. hd. r. of Pietas, stork before rev Elephant adv.
1., Q C M P I in ex. Cr. 374/1. Note: This issue was
‘restored’ by the emperor Trajan. Illustrated above.
15 — . obv As prev. rev Jug and lituus, IMPER below, all 70-100 150-200 500-800
in wreath. Cr. 374/2.
Crassus
Member of the First
Triumvirate, 60-53
Crass us (Provincial Coinage) F VF EF

16 A R Tetradrachm of Antioch in Syria, 54/3 B.C. 500-800 1000-
obv Diad. hd. r. of the deceased Seleucid king Philip 1500
Philadelphus rev Zeus std. 1., hldg. N ike and scepter,
monogram of Crassus (KPA) before, Greek inscr. at
sides, K A T in ex. R PC 4125. Illustrated above.
17 Æ 20-23 of Antioch, 55/4 B.C. obv Laur. hd. r. of 70-100 200-300

Zeus rev Zeus std. 1., Greek inscr. at sides, date IB
(year 12) in ex. BMC-.
18 — Sim. to prev., but of 54/3 B.C.; date IT (year 13) 70-100 200-300 —
in ex. BMC-.
1 88 COINAGE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE: CATALOG AN D TABLES OF VALUE
Pompey the Great

Member of the First Triumvirate,
6 0 - 5 3 B .C .
F a t h e r o f Pom pey J u n i o r a n d S e x t u s Pom pey

H u s b a n d o f J u l i a (d. o f J u l iu s C a e s a r )
S o n - in - la w o f M e t e l l u s P iu s S c ip io a n d
Ju liu s C a e s a r
Pomp ey the Great (Lifetime Coinage) F VF EF

19 AV A ureus, 71 B.C. obv M A G N V S, hd. r. of 15,000- 30,000-
Africa, wearing elephant’s scalp, jug behind, lituus 20,000 50,000
or jug handle before, all in wreath rev PRO C O S
below Pompey in triumphal quadriga r., above
which Victory flies. Cr. 402/1 a-b.
20 A R Denarius, 49 B.C. obv C N PISO PRO Q, hd. r. 200-300 400-600 900-

of N um a Pompilius, wearing diad. inscr. N U M A rev 1200
M A G N PRO C O S , prow r. Cr. 446/1.
21 — . obv V A RR O PRO Q, diad. terminal bust r. of 500-800 1000- 2000-

Jupiter rev M A G N PRO C O S below vertical scep 1500 3000
ter betw. dolphin and eagle. Cr. 447/la. Illustrated
above.
Pompey the Great (Posthumous Commemoratives)F VF chVF

22 Æ 25 of Pompeiopolis in Cilicia, under Domitian, 70-100 200-300 400-600
A .D . 83-4. obv No inscr., bare hd. r. of Pompey the
Great, star before rev nOMüHIOnOAEITcoN
©MP (yr.149), Athena stg. 1., F 1A A K MHNEMA in
field. BM C 50. Note: This coin is dated to the reign
of Domitian, though the type was also struck during
the reigns of other emperors, including Tiberius.
Note: Many other coins were struck for Pompey after his death, including aurei, denarii and
æs bearing his portrait. These are described in the listings of his two sons, Pompey Junior and
Sextus Pompey.
Pompey Junior
S o n o f P o m pey t h e G r e a t a n d M u c ia
B r o t h e r o f S e x t u s P o m pey
Pompey Junior (as Imperator) F VF EF

23 A R D enarius, 46-45 B.C. M POBLICI LEG PRO 150-200 400-600 700-
PR, helm. hd. r. of Roma rev C N M A G N V S IMP, 1000
female fig. (Hispania?), stg. r., bearing shield and
hldg. two spears, offering palm branch to soldier, stg.
1., foot on prow. Cr. 469/la-e. Illustrated above.
Pompey Junior (as Imperator) F VF EF

24 — . obv C N M A G N (V S) IMP (or IMP F or IMP B), 1000- 4000-
bare hd. r. of Pompey the Great rev M M INAT 1500 6000
SA B IN PR Q, stg. fig. of Corduba, at 1., hldg. spear,
greeting soldier, at r., disembarking from stern of
ship. Cr. 470/1 a.
25 — . Sim. to prev., but rev Soldier looks back toward 1000- 4000-
goddess at 1., and another goddess kneels at his r. (in 1500 6000
place of stern) Cr. 470/lb.
26 — . Sim. to 24, but rev Soldier is also crowned by a 1000- 4000-

city goddess who stands behind him on r. (in place 1500 6000
of stern) Cr. 470/1 C 'd . Note: SA B IN is sometimes
shortened to SA BI.
Pompey Junior (as Imperator) F VF chVF

27 Æ A s, — . obv Laur., bearded janiform hd. of 7 0- 250- —
Janus, value mark I above rev IMP C N M A G , 100 350
prow r., value mark I above. Cr. 471/1, RPC 486.
Note: A ll of Pompey Junior’s coins were struck in Spain (seemingly at Corduba) just prior to
the Battle of Munda, which occured on March 17, 45 B.C. The portrait of Pompey Junior
appears only on an aureus and a denarius, both of which were struck posthumously by his
younger brother, Sextus Pompey.
Sextus Pompey
S o n o f P o m pey t h e G r e a t a n d M u c ia
B r o t h e r o f P o m p ey J u n io r
Sextus Pompey (as Imperator) F VF EF

28 AV A ureus, 42 B.C. obv M A G PIVS IMP ITER, 7000- 20 ,000- 50,000-
bare hd. r. of Sextus Pompey rev PRÆ F C L A S ET 10,000 30,000 75,000
O R Æ M A R IT EX SC , confr. hds. of Pompey the
Great, at 1. with lituus behind, and Pompey Jr., at r.
with tripod behind. Cr. 511/1. Note: Struck in Sk>
ily. Illustrated above.
29 A R D enarius, 45-44 B.C. obv SE X M A G N PIVS 700- 1750- 4 000-

IMP SA L , bare hd. r. of Pompey the Great rev 1000 2250 6000
PIETAS, Pietas stg. 1., hldg. palm branch and seep'
ter. Cr. 477/1,3. Note: This and the following were
struck in Spain. Inscription variants are recorded.
30 — . obv SEX M A G N V S S A L IMP, bare hd. 1. of 1000- 4000-

Pompey Jr. rev As prev. Cr. 477/2. Note: The only 1500 6000
portrait of Pompey Junior in silver.
IÇ O COINAGE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE: CATALOG A N D TABLES OF VALUE
Sextu s Pompey (as Imperator) F VF EF

31 — , 44-43 B.C. obv N EPTV N I, bare hd. 1. of 1500- 5000- 15,000-
Pompey the Great, trident before, dolphin below rev 2000 8000 20,000
Q N A SID IV S, sea battle involving four galleys. Cr.
483/1. Note: N EPTV N I (“N eptune’s own” ) may
refer to Pompey the Great as a protégé of Neptune
rather than to Sextus Pompey as the “son of Nep-
tune.”
32 — . obv A s prev., but hd. r. rev Q N A SID IV (S), gal 400-600 1000- 2000-
ley r., star above. Cr. 483/2. Note: This and the pre 1500 3000
vious coin were perhaps struck at Massalia.
33 — , 42 B.C. obv M A G PIVS IMP ITER, diad. hd. r. 300-400 700- 1750-
of Neptune, trident behind rev PRÆ F C L A S ET 1000 2250
O R Æ M A R IT EX SC , ornate naval trophy. Cr.
511/2a-c.
34 — , 42-39 B.C. Inscrs. as prev., obv Bare hd. r. of 400-600 700- 1500-
Pompey the Great, lituus before, jug behind rev 1000 2000
Neptune stg. 1., foot on prow, betw. the Catanaean
brothers, each with a parent on their shoulders. Cr.
511/3a-c. Note: This issue was ‘restored’ by the
emperor Trajan.
35 — . Inscrs. as prev., obv The Pharos of Messana, 200-300 700- 1500-

ornamented galley before rev The monster Scylla 1000 2000
brandishing rudder. Cr. 511/4a-d.
Sextu s Pompey (as Imperator) F VF ch VF

36 Æ A s, 45-44 B.C. obv M A G N (V or V S) PIVS 70- 200-
IMP F, laur., bearded janiform hd. of Janus, altar in 100 300
center rev EPPIVS LEG, prow r. Cr. 478/1 a-b,
R PC 487. Note: Struck in Spain or Sicily. Som e
times there is no obverse inscription, and the
value mark I replaces the altar.
37 — , 43-36 B.C. obv M A G N V S (or abbreviation), 70- 150- 300-

laur. janiform hd. of Pompey the Great as Janus 100 200 400
rev PIVS IMP, prow r. Cr. 479/1, RPC 671. Note:
Struck in Sicily. The quality of the artistry varies.
Julius Caesar
Member of the First Triumvirate,
6 0 -5 3
Dictator For Life, 4 4 B .C .
A d o p t iv e f a t h e r a n d g r a n d u n c l e o f
A u g u s t u s (O c t a v ia n )
C o m p a n io n o f S e r v il ia (m . o f B r u t u s ) a n d Q u e e n C l e o p a t r a VII
F a t h e r o f P t o l e m y XV ( c a l l e d ‘C a e s a r i o n ’ )
Julius Caesar (Non-Portrait Coinage)

(Lifet ime Coinage) F VF EF
38 AV A u reu s, early 46 B.C. obv C C A E SA R C O S 1000- 1500- 2000 -
TER, veiled female hd. (Vesta?) r. rev A H IR TIV S 1500 2000 3000
PR, lituus, jug and axe. Cr. 466/1.
39 — A s prev., hut of fine style. 1000- 1500- 3 000-

1500 2000 5000
40 — , Jan., 44 B.C. obv C A E S DIC QVAR, diad. bust 1500- 4000- —

r. of Venus rev C O S Q V IN C in wreath. Cr. 481/1. 2000 6000
Note: See the listings of Plancus (nos. 120-1) for

aurei and quinarii struck for Caesar in 45 B.C.
41 A R D enarius, 49-48 B.C. obv C A E SA R below ele 150-200 250-350 400-600

phant adv. r. trampling serpent rev Simpulum
aspergillum axe and apex. Cr. 443/1. Note: This
issue was ‘restored’ by the emperor Trajan.
42 — , 48-47 B.C. obv Diad. female hd. r., LII behind 150-200 250-350 400-600
rev C A E S A R at base of trophy of G allic arms, axe
surmounted by animal hd. at r. Cr. 452/2. Note: The
LII = 52, C aesar’s age at the time of issue, thus plac
ing it immediately after the Battle of Pharsalus.
43 — , late 47 B.C. obv C C A E SA R IMP C O S ITER, 400-600 9 00- 2000 -

diad., dr. bust r. of Venus rev A A L LIE N V S PRO 1200 3000
C O S , Trinacrus stg. 1., r. foot on prow, hldg. triske-
les. Cr. 457/1.
44 — , 47-46 B.C. obv Diad. hd. r. of Venus rev C A E 150-200 250-350 400-600
SA R , Aeneas adv. r., hldg. Palladium and his father
Anchises. Cr. 458/1. Note: This issue was ‘restored’
by the emperor Trajan.
45 — , early 46 B.C. obv DIC ITER C O S TERT, 150-200 250-350 400-600

wreathed hd. r. of Ceres rev A V G V R P O N T M AX,
simpulum, aspergillum, jug and lituus, D or M in r.
field. Cr. 467/1 a-b. Note: The D indicates donativum
(largess), the M indicates munus (gift), assuring this
issue was struck for his veterans.
192 COINAGE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE: CATALOG A N D TABLES OF VALUE

46 — , late 46-early 45 B.C. obv Diad. bust r. of Venus, 150-200 250-350 400-600
cupid at shoulder rev C A E SA R below trophy of
G allic arms, two captives std. at its base. Cr. 468/1.
Note: Struck in Spain for veterans of Munda.
47 — . Sim. to prev., but obv bust 1., also with si. drap 150-200 250-350 500-800
ery, scepter and lituus at shoulder rev captive at 1.
kneeling. Cr. 468/2.
38 41
44 56
48

(Lifetime Coinage) F VF ch VF
48 Æ D upondius(?), late 45 B.C. obv C A E SA R DIC 100-150 250-350 700-
TER , dr. and winged bust r. of Victory, sometimes 1000
with star behind rev C C LO V I PRAEF, Minerva adv
1., hldg. trophy, gorgon-shield and spears; serpent
before. Cr. 476/la-b, RPC 601. Note: The fiist
Rom an orichalcum (brass) coin.
COLLAPSE OF THE REPUBLIC (iMPERATORIAL PERIOD) I93
E x ce p t w here n o te d , th e o b v erse h e a d is th a t o f Ju liu s C aesar.
Julius Caesar (Portrait Coinage)

49 A R D enarius, Jan., 44 B.C. obv C A E SA R D IC T 1000- 2000- 5000-
QVART, laur. hd. r., lituus behind rev M M ET TIV S 1500 3000 8000
below biga driven r. by Juno Sospita, raising gallic
shield and spear. Cr. 480/2a-c. Note: The first por-
trait coin of a living person struck in Rome.
50 — , Jan.-Feb., 44 B.C. obv C A E S A R IMP, laur. hd. 500-800 1000- 2000-

r., lituus and simpulum behind rev M M ETTIV S, 1500 3000
Venus stg. 1., hldg. Victory and scepter, resting
against shield set on globe, control letter in 1. field.
Cr. 480/3.
51 — . obv C A E S A R IMP, laur. hd. r., star behind rev P 500-800 1000- 2000-
SEPV LLIV S M A CER , Venus stg. 1., hldg. Victory 1500 3000
and scepter, often with star at base. Cr. 480/5a-b.
Illustrated p. 191.
52 — , Feb.-Mar., 44 B.C. obv C A E S A R D IC T PER- 500-800 1000- 2000-

PETVO , laur. hd. r. rev L BV C A , caduceus and fas- 1500 3000
ces crossed; in angles, globe, axe and clasped hands.
Cr. 480/6.
53 — . obv C A E SA R IM P M, laur. hd. r., crescent 500-800 1000- 2000-

behind rev L A EM ILIV S BV C A , Venus stg. 1., hldg. 1500 3000
Victory and scepter. Cr. 480/4.
54 — . As prev., but inscr. abbreviated, no crescent; 500-800 1000- 2000-

struck later. Cr. 480/8. 1500 3000
55 — . obv C A E S A R D IC T PERPETVO, laur. hd. r. rev 500-800 1000- 2000-

A s 51, but sometimes also with shield at base of 1500 3000
scepter. Cr. 480/9-11.
56 — . A s prev., but hd. also veiled. Cr. 480/12-14- 500-800 1000- 2000-
1500 3000
57 — . obv C A E S A R D IC T (IN ) PERPETVO, veiled, 500-800 1000- 2000-

laur. hd. r. rev C M A R ID IA N V S, Venus stg. 1., hldg. 1500 3000
Victory, resting against shield set on globe. Cr. 480/
15-16.
T h e v a lu es are estim ate s for co n se rv a tiv e ly grad ed , essen tially prob lem -free
co in s. D e fec ts or m erits w ill alte r prices, o fte n sign ifican tly . D ash e s (— ) in d icate
v a lu es w h ich c a n n o t be acc u rate ly d ete rm in e d (a t th e h ig h e n d ) or w h ich are
n eg lig ib le (a t th e low e n d ). C o in s w ith th e sam e v alu e ran ge are n o t alw ays
eq u ally v a lu a b le , for th ey m ay rep resen t d ifferen t en d s o f th e sam e sp ectru m .
194 COINAGE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE: CATALOG AN D TABLES OF VALUE
Except where noted, the obverse head is that of Julius Caesar.

(Post! lumous Commemoratives) F VF EF
58 AV A ureus, issued by O ctavian, 43 B.C. obv C 5 000- 10,000- 20 ,000-
C A E S A R C O S P O N T AVG, bare hd. r. of O cta 8000 15,000 30,000
vian rev C C A E SA R D IC T PERP P O N T M AX,
laur. hd. r. of J. Caesar. Cr. 490/2. N ote: Struck to
pay soldiers who supported O ctavian’s march on
Rome in May, 43 B.C., from which he extorted the
consulship and the right to wage war on Antony
and Lepidus in Gaul.
Note : For other aurei depicting Julius Caesar, see the

the ‘restored’ coins of Trajan, nos. 1276-8.
59 A R Denarius, Apr., 44 B.C. obv C A E SA R 500-800 1000- 2000-

PA REN S PATRIAE, veiled, laur. hd. r., lituus 1500 3000
before, apex behind rev C C O S SV T IV S MARIDI-
A N V S rendered in cruciform, the letters A A A F F
in angles. Cr. 480/19.
60 — , Apr.-May, 44 B.C. obv A s prev. rev P SEPV- 500-800 1250- 2000-

LLIV S M A CER , desultor (horseman) riding r., hldg. 1750 3000
whip, another horse at his side; wreath and palm
branch behind. Cr. 480/20. N o te : Both these types
were used by Marc Antony for his first portrait issue.
61 — , Aug., 43 B.C. obv N o inscr., laur. hd. r. rev L 500-800 1000- 2000-
FLA M IN IV S IIII VIR, Venus (or Pax) stg. 1., hldg. 1500 3000
scepter and caduceus. Cr. 485/1.
62 — , issued by Marc Antony, Apr., 43 B.C. obv M 400-600 700- 1500-

A N T O (N ) IMP, bare hd. r. of M. Antony, lightly 1000 2000
bearded, lituus behind rev C A E SA R DIC, laur. hd.
r. of J. Caesar, jug behind. Cr. 488/1. N ote : Struck in
Gaul, this issue is associated with Antony’s siege of
Decimus Brutus in Mutina.
63 — , Nov., 43 B.C. A s prev., but R P C added to A n t 400-600 700- 1500-

ony’s inscr. Cr. 488/2. N ote: This Gallic issue cele 1000 2000
brates A ntony’s formation of a Triumvirate with
Lepidus and O ctavian at their meeting at Bononia
in early November, 43 B.C.
64 — , 42 B.C. obv N o inscr., laur. hd. r., laurel branch 500-800 1250- 2000-
behind, caduceus before rev L LIVIN EIVS REGV- 1750 3000
LVS, bull charging r. Cr. 494/24.
65 — , 42 B.C. obv N o inscr., laur. hd. r. rev L MVS- 500-800 1000- 2000-
SID IV S LO N G V S, cornucopia on globe, rudder at 1500 3000
1., caduceus and apex at r. Cr. 494/39.
COLLAPSE OF THE REPUBLIC ( IMPERATORIAL PERIOD) I9 5

(Postl îumous Commémoratives) F VF EF
66 — , mon. C. Numonius Vaala, 41 B.C. obv C 400-600 700- 1500-
N V M O N IV S V A A LA , bare hd. r. of J. Caesar(?) 1000 2000
rev Soldier armed with shield and spear adv. 1. into
palisade protecting two armed soldiers, V A A L A in
ex. Cr. 514/2. Note: This issue is closely tied to two
others of 41 B.C. possibly portraying Brutus (no. 96)
and O ctavian (no. 233).
67 — , 40 B.C. obv N o inscr., laur. hd. r. rev TI SEM- 500-800 1250- 2000-
PRO N IV S G R A C C V S Q D E S(IG ), legionary eagle 1750 3000
flanked by standard, plough and decempeda (measur-
ing rod). Cr. 525/3-4. Note: This issue was struck to
finance O ctavian’s unenviable task of settling veter
ans, most of whom had first served under Julius C ae
sar. The letters S C (‘by decree of the senate’) occur
either on the obverse or the reverse, indicating
extra money was given by the senate so O ctavian
could complete his task.
68 — . obv DIVI IVLI, laur. hd. r., lituus behind rev Q 500-800 1250- 2000-
V O C O N IV S VITVLV S, bull-calf stg. 1. Cr. 526/2. 1750 3000
69 — . A s prev., but obv without inscr. or lituus, rev 500-800 1250- 2000-
with D E SIG (N ) in ex. Cr. 526/4. 1750 3000
70 — , issued by Agrippa for O ctavian, 38 B.C. obv 900- 3000-

DIVO IV LIV S DIVI F, confr. hds. of J. Caesar, laur. 1200 5000
at 1., and O ctavian, bare-headed at r. rev M
A G RIPPA C O S D ESIG in two lines. Cr. 534/2.
Note: The first coinage to bear the name of Agrippa.
Note: For other possible portraits of Divus Julius Caesar on denarii, see nos. 284-5.

(Postllumous Commemoratives) F VF ch VF
71 Æ “ Sestertiu s,” issued by Octavian, 38 B.C. obv 250- 500- 1750-

C A E S A R DIVI F, bare hd. r. of Octavian, lightly 350 800 2250
bearded rev D IVO S IVLIVS, laur. hd. r. of J. C ae
sar. Cr. 535/1, RPC 620. Note: Struck at an Italian
mint, this may have been a dupondius. A compan
ion issue is listed under O ctavian (no. 249).
Julius Caesar (Provincial Coinage) F VF EF

72 A R Tetradrachm of Antioch in Syria, 47/6 B.C. 150-200 500-800 1250-
obv Diad. hd. r. of the deceased Seleucid king Philip 1750
Philadelphus rev Zeus std. 1., hldg. Nike and scepter,
Greek inscr. at sides, date F (Caesarian year 3) in
ex. R PC 4127. Note: Struck while C aesar’s relative
Sextus Julius Caesar administered Syria for him.
Julius Caesar (Provincial Coinage) F VF ch VF

73 Æ 3 4 (D upondius?) of Lugdunum in G aul, c. 38- 150-200 500-800
36 B.C. obv IMP C A E SA R DIVI F D IV IIV LI, laur.
hd. 1. of J. Caesar, back-to-back with bare hd. r. of
O ctavian rev C O P IA below decorated prow r., meta
and globe above. R PC 517 and S-517A (a variant).
Note: Sometimes a palm branch is placed between
the two busts.
74 Æ 3 4 (Dupondius?) of Vienne, — . obv A s prev., 150-200 500-800

but hd. of J. Caesar bare rev Sim. to prev, but C I V
above. R P C 517.
75 Æ 2 3 of Thessalonica in Macedon obv Laur. hd. r. 70-100 200-300 400-600

of J. Caesar rev Bare hd. r. of Octavian. R PC 1554.
Ptolemy XV
(called ‘Caesarion’)
S o n o f J u l iu s C a e sa r a n d
Q u e e n C l e o p a t r a VII
Ptolerny XV (‘Caesarion’ ) (Provincial Coinage) F VF ch VF

76 Æ 2 7 -3 0 of Paphos(?) on Cyprus obv Dr., diad. 700- 1500-
bust r. of Cleopatra VII (as Aphrodite), scepter over 1000 2000
shoulder, cradling the infant Caesarion (as Eros) rev
KAEOnATPAS BAZIAIZEHE, two cornucopias
bound by fillet. RPC 3901. Illustrated above.
Metellus Pius Scipio

Imperator, 4 ç ( ? ) B .C .
A d o p t iv e S o n o f M e t e l l u s P iu s
F a t h e r -i n -l a w o f P o m p e y t h e G r e a t
Metel lus Pius Scipio (as Imperator) F VF EF

77 A R D enarius, issued by Met. Pius Scipio, 47-46 100-150 200-300 400-600
B.C. obv Q M ETEL PIVS, laur hd. r. of Jupiter rev
SC IP IO IMP, elephant adv. r. Cr. 459/1.
COLLAPSE OF THE REPUBLIC (iMPERATORIAL PERIOD) 197
Metel lus Pius Scipio (as Imperator) F VF EF

78 — . obv M ETEL PI V S SC IP IMP, bare hd. r. of Jupi- 200-300 500-800 1000-
ter, eagle and scepter below rev C R A S S IVN LEG 1500
PRO PR, curule chair betw. grain ear and hd. of
Carnyx; above, cornucopia supporting scales. Cr.
460/2. Note: Aurei of this type are known.
79 — . obv C R A S S IVN LEG PRO PR, turreted female 400-600 900- 3000-
hd. (U tica) r. betw. grain ear and caduceus, rostrum 1200 5000
below rev M ETEL PIVS SC IP IMP, trophy betw. lit-
uus and jug. Cr. 460/3.
80 — . obv Q M ETEL PIVS SC IPIO IMP G T A, 400-600 900- 2000-

genius of Africa stg. facing, hldg. ankh rev P 1200 3000
C R A S S V S IVN LEG PRO PR, Victory stg. 1., hldg.
caduceus and circular shield. Cr. 460/4- Note: The
abbreviation G T A likely means ‘genius terrae
Africae’ .
81 — . obv Q M ETELL SC IP IO IMP, hd. r. of Africa, 100-150 250-350 500-800

wearing elephant’s scalp, grain stalk before rev
EPPIVS LEG F C, Hercules stg., leaning on club
with lion’s skin. Cr. 461/1. Note: This issue was
‘restored’ by the emperor Trajan. Illustrated p. 196.
Brutus
Imperator, 4 3 - 4 2 B .C .
C o c o n s p ir a t o r o f C a s s iu s
B r o t h e r -in - la w o f L e p id u s a n d C a s s iu s
Brutu s (as Moneyer) F VF EF

82 A R D enarius, 54 B.C. obv BR V TV S, bare hd. r. of 100-150 250-350 500-800
L. Junius Brutus rev A H A L A , bare hd. r. of C. Servi-
lius Ahala. Cr. 433/2.
83 — . obv LIBERTAS, hd. r. of Libertas rev Procession 100-150 200-300 400-600

1. of four togate Romans; L. Junius Brutus preceeded
by accensus and flanked by lictors, BR V T V S in ex.
Cr. 433/1. Note: This issue was ‘restored’ by the
emperor Trajan.
ÖZ yD
Brutus (Non-Portrait Coinage) F VF EF

84 AV A ureus, 42 B.C. obv M SERVILIVS LEG, laur. 5000- 10,000- 20 ,000-
hd. r. of Libertas rev Q CA EPIO BR V TV S IMP, tro 8000 15,000 30,000
phy of arms. Cr. 505/4.
85 A R D enarius, — . obv BRVTVS, simpulum betw. 200-300 500-800 1000-

axe and knife rev LEN TV LV S SPINT, jug and lit 1500
uus. Cr. 500/7. Note: This type also exists as an
aureus.
86 — . obv LEIBERTAS, bare hd. r. of Libertas rev 400-600 500-800 1000-

C A EPIO BR V TV S PRO C O S, lyre betw. quiver 1500
and branch. Cr. 501/1. Note: Most likely struck
while Brutus was campaigning in Lycia.
87 — . obv L SE ST I PRO Q, dr., veiled bust r. of Liber 400-600 500-800 1500-

tas rev Q C A EPIO BR V TV S PRO C O S, tripod 2000
betw. axe and simpulum. Cr. 502/2.
88 — . obv C O S T A LEG, laur. hd. r. of Apollo rev 200-300 400-600 900-

BR V T V S IMP, trophy of arms. Cr. 506/2. 1200
89 — . obv C A S C A L O N G V S, laur. hd. r. of Neptune, 300-400 900- 2000-

trident below rev BR V TV S IMP, Victory adv. r., 1200 3000
hldg. wreath and palm branch. Cr. 507/2. Illustrated
p. 197.
90 — . obv L PLA ET CEST, laur., dr. bust r. of Ceres 700- 1500- 4 000-
wearing veil and modius rev BRVT IMP below axe 1000 2000 6000
and simpulum. Cr. 508/2.
91 A R Q uinarius, — . obv L SE ST I, chair and scepter, 100-150 200-300 400-600

modius below rev Q CA EPIO BR V TV S PRO C O S,
tripod betw. simpulum and apex. Cr. 502/4.
92 — . obv LEIBERTAS, laur. hd. r. of Libertas rev 100-150 200-300 400-600

Anchor and stem of prow. Cr. 506/3.
Brutus (Portrait Coinage) F VF EF

93 AV A ureus, 42 B.C. obv L BR V TV S PRIM C O S, 20 ,000- 75,000+
bare hd. r. of L. Junius Brutus, bearded, all in oak 30,000
wreath rev M BR V TV S IMP, bare hd. r. of Brutus,
lightly bearded, all in oak wreath. Cr. 506/1.
COLLAPSE OF THE REPUBLIC ( IMPERATORIAL PERIOD) I99
Brutus (Portrait Coinage) F VF EF

94 — . obv BR V TV S IMP, bare hd. r. of Brutus, lightly 15,000- 30,000- 65,000+
bearded, all in wreath rev (L) C A S C A L O N G V S, 20,000 40,000
trophy of arms, prows; sword at base. Cr. 507/1 a-b.
95 A R D enarius, — . obv BRVT IMP L PLA ET CEST, 15,000- 40,000- 100,000

bare hd. r. of Brutus rev EID M A R below pileus (lib 20,000 60,000 +
erty cap) betw. two daggers. Cr. 508/3. N ote: This
famous type was struck shortly before Brutus’ death
at Philippi, and is mentioned in ancient literature.
96
Brutus (Posthumous Commemorative[?]) F VF EF

96 A R D enarius, mon. L. Servius Rufus, 41 B.C. obv L 900- 1500- 4000-
SERV IV S RVFVS, bare hd. r. of Brutus(?), lightly 1200 2000 6000
bearded rev The Dioscuri stg. facing, hldg. spears.
Cr. 515/2. Note: This issue is closely tied to two oth
ers of 41 B.C. possibly portraying Julius Caesar (no.
66 ) and O ctavian (no. 233). This issue was
‘restored’ by the emperor Trajan.
Brutus (Provincial Coinage) F VF EF

97 AV Stater of Th race or Scythia, under Koson, c. 42 300-400 500-800 9 00-
B.C. obv Procession 1. of three togate Romans, the 1200
first and last with axe on shoulder, KOEÍ1N in ex.
rev Eagle stg. 1. on broken scepter, hldg. wreath in
talon; monogram of Brutus at 1. R PC 1701A. Note:
Koson was presumably a king aiding Brutus. The
obverse is adopted from the reverse of no. 83.
98 — . A s prev., but no monogram of Brutus. RPC 300-400 500-800 9 00-

1701B. 1200
T h e v a lu es are e stim ate s for co n se rv ativ e ly grad ed, essen tially prob lem -free
co in s. D e fec ts or m erits w ill alte r prices, o fte n sign ifican tly. D ash es (— ) in d icate
v a lu es w h ich c a n n o t be acc u rate ly d ete rm in e d (a t th e h ig h e n d ) or w h ich are
eq u ally v a lu ab le , for th ey m ay rep resen t d ifferen t en d s o f th e sam e sp ectru m .
Cassius
Imperator, 43-42 B.C.
CO - C O N S P I R A T O R A N D B R O T H E R - I N - L A W OF B R U T U S
Cassiiis (as Imperator) F VF EF

99 AV A ureus, 42 B.C. obv C C A S S I IMP LEIBER 3000- 5000- 10,000-
T A S, diad. hd. r. of Libertas rev LEN TV LV S SP IN T 5000 8000 15,000
below jug and lituus. Cr. 500/2.
100 — . A s prev., but Libertas also dr. and veiled. Cr. 3000- 5000- 10,000-
500/4. 5000 8000 15,000
101 — . obv C C A S S I IMP, diad. hd. r. of Libertas rev M 3000- 5000- 10,000-
SERV ILIV S LEG, flowering aplustre. Cr. 505/1. 5000 8000 15,000
102 A R D enarius, — . A s 99. Cr. 500/3. 250-350 500-800 1000-

1500
103 — . A s 100. Cr. 500/5. Illustrated above. 250-350 500-800 1000-

1500
104 — . A s 101. Cr. 505/2. 500-800 1250- 3000-

1750 5000
105 — . obv C C A S S I IMP, filleted tripod with lebes rev 500-800 1250- 3000-
LEN TV LV S SP IN T below jug and lituus. Cr. 500/1. 1750 5000
106 — . obv C C A SS E I IMP, diad. hd. r. of Libertas rev 1000- 3000- 7000-
M SERV ILIV S LEG, crab clasping aplustre in claws, 1500 5000 10,000
diadem and rose below. Cr. 505/3. Note: Refers to
the naval victory near the island of Cos which
gained Cassius his victory over the Rhodian navy.
Cassius (Provincial Coinage) F VF EF

107 A R Tetradrachm of Antioch in Syria, as Quaestor 400-600 9 00- 2000-
of Crassus, 53 B.C. obv Diad. hd. r. of the deceased 1200 3000
Seleucid king Philip Philadelphus rev Zeus std. 1.,
hldg. Nike and scepter, Greek inscr. at sides, mono
gram of Cassius ( r KAC) before, K A r in ex. RPC
4126.
108 — , while in command of Syria, 44/3 B.C. Types as 150-200 500-800 1700-
prev., but date S (Caesarian year 6 ) in ex. R PC 2500
4130.
Cornuficius
Imperator, 4 2 B .C .
Cornilficius (as Imperator) F VF EF

109 A R D enarius, issued by Cornuficius, 42 B.C. obv 5000- 15,000- 35,000-
Hd. 1. of Jupiter rev Q C O R N V FIC I A V G V R IMP, 8000 20,000 45,000
Cornuficius, veiled, stg. at 1., hldg. lituus, crowned
by Juno Sospita, stg. at r., hldg. spear and shiled,
crow perched on shoulder. Cr. 509/2.
110 — . obv Dr. bust r. of Africa, wearing elephant’s 5000- 15,000- 35,000-
scalp, two spears behind rev A s prev. Cr. 509/4. 8000 20,000 45,000
111 — . obv Wreathed hd. 1. of Tanit rev As prev. Cr. 5000- 15,000- 35,000-
509/5. Note: This issue was ‘restored’ by the emperor 8000 20,000 45,000
Trajan. Illustrated above.
Note: Aurei are known of the Jupiter-Ammon and Africa types.
Salvidienus
Imperator, 4 2 B .C .
Salvidienus (as Imperator) F VF EF

112 A R D enarius, issued by Octavian, 40 B.C. obv C 150-200 400-600 1000-
C A E SA R III VIR R P C , bare hd. r. of Octavian, 1500
lightly bearded rev Q SA LV IV S IMP C O S D ESIG,
thunderbolt. Cr, 523/la-b. Note: Variants are
known of the reverse inscription. Illustrated above.
Calvinus
Imperator, 39 B.C.
Calvinus (as Imperator) F VF EF

113 A R D enarius, issued by Calvinus, 39 B.C. obv 400-600 700- 2000-
O SC A , bare hd. r. of bearded male (Hercules?) rev 1000 3000
DOM C O S ITER IMP, display of priestly impie-
ments. Cr. 532/1. Illustrated above.
Murcus
Imperator, c. 45-42 B.C.
Murcus (as Imperator) F VF EF

114 A R D enarius, issued by Murcus, 42-41 B.C. obv 1000- 3 000-
Bare hd. r. of Neptune, trident over shoulder rev 1500 5000
Male, stg. at r., raising female, kneeling at 1.; trophy
in background, M V R C V S IMP in ex. Cr. 510/1.
Illustrated above.
Murcus (Provincial Coinage) F VF EF

115 A R Tetradrachm of Antioch in Syria, as Proconsul 150-200 500-800
of Syria, 45/4 B.C. obv Diad. hd. r. of the deceased
Seleucid king Philip Philadelphus rev Zeus std. 1.,
hldg. N ike and scepter, Greek inscr. at sides, date E
(Caesarian year 5) in ex. RPC 4129.
Ahenobarbus
Imperator, 42 B .C .
Ahenobarbus (as Imperator) F VF EF

116 AV A ureus, issued by Ahenobarbus, 41 B.C. obv 20 ,000- 50,000- 135,000
A H E N O B A R , clean-shaven male hd. r. rev C N 30,000 75,000 +
D O M ITIV S L F IMP NEPT, temple of Neptune. Cr.
519/1.
Ahen obarbus (as Imperator) F VF EF

117 — . issued by Marc Antony, 40 B.C. obv A N T IMP 4 000- 10,000- 35,000+
III VIR R P C , bare hd. r. of M. Antony, lituus 6000 15,000
behind rev C N D O M IT A H EN O B A R B V S IMP,
prow r., star above. Cr. 521/1.
118 A R D enarius, issued by Ahenobarbus, 41 B.C. obv 400-600 1000- 3000-

A H E N O B A R , bearded male hd. r. rev C N DOMI- 1500 5000
T IV S IMP, prow r. adorned with trophy. Cr. 519/2.
Illustrated p. 202.
119 — . issued by Marc Antony, 40 B.C. As 117. Cr. 400-600 900- 3000-
521/2. 1200 5000
119
Plancus
Imperator, 4 0 B .C .( ? )
Plane us (as Imperator) F VF EF

120 AV A ureus, under Julius Caesar, 45 B.C. obv C 1250- 1750- 3000-
C A E S DIC TER, winged, dr. bust r. of Victory rev L 1750 2250 5000
P L A N C PRAEF (or PR) VRB, tall one-handled
jug. Cr. 475/la-b.
121 AV Q uinarius, — . A s prev. Cr. 475/2. 1500- 3000- —

2000 5000
122 AV A ureus, under Marc Antony, 40 B.C. obv M 2000- 4000 - 15,000-
A N T O N IMP AVG III VIR R P C , lituus and stout 3000 6000 25,000
one-handled jug rev L P L A N C V S (PRO C O S or
IMP ITER), thunderbolt, tall one-handled jug and
caduceus. Cr. 522/2,4.
123 A R D enarius, — . A s prev. Cr. 522/1,3. Illustrated 300-400 700- 1500-

above. 1000 2000
Ventidius
Imperator, 41 or 39(7 ) B.C.
Ventidius (as Imperator) F VF EF

124 A R D enarius, under Marc Antony, 39 B.C. obv M 1500- 5000-
A N T IM (P) III V R P C, bare hd. r. of M. Antony, 2000 8000
lightly bearded, lituus behind rev P V EN TIDI
P O N T IMP, nude male stg. facing, hldg. scepter and
branch. Cr. 531/la-b. Note: Some of the letters are
engraved in ligature form. Illustrated above.
Labienus
Imperator Parthicus, 40/39 B.C.
Labieinus (as Imperator) F VF EF

125 AV A ureus, issued by Labienus, 40 B.C. obv Q 20 ,000- 50,000- 150,000
LA BIEN V S P A RTH IC V S IMP, bare hd. r. of Labie 30,000 75,000 +
nus, lightly bearded rev N o inscr., saddled horse stg.
r. Cr. 524/1.
126 A R D enarius, — . As prev. Cr. 524/2. Illustrated 5000- 10,000- 20 ,000-

above. 8000 15,000 30,000
Labienus (Provincial Coinage) F VF EF

127 A R Tetradrachm of Antioch in Syria, while in 200-300 700- 2000-
command of Syria, 41/40 & 40/39 B.C. obv Diad. 1000 3000
hd. r. of the deceased Seleucid king Philip Philadel-
phus rev Zeus std. 1., hldg. Nike and scepter, Greek
inscr. at sides, date 0 or I (Caesarian yrs. 9 & 10) in
ex. RPC 4132,3.
Labienus (Provincial Coinage) F VF ch VF

128 Æ 2 0 -2 3 — , 41/40 B.C. obv Laur. hd. r. of Zeus rev 70-100 200-300
Zeus std. 1., Greek inscr. at sides, date BOE or © in
ex. BM C 25,-. Note: Both dates represent one year:
the first is year 272 of the Seleucid Era, the second is
year 10 of the Caesarean Era. The switch no doubt
reflects the invasion by Labienus and Pacorus.
Scarpus
Imperator, 3 1 B .C .( ? )
G r e a t -n e p h e w o f J u l i u s C a e s a r
Scarp us (as Imperator) F VF EF

129 A R D enarius, in support of Marc Antony, Summer, 500-800 1500- 4000-
31 B.C. obv M A N T O C O S III IMP IIII, hd. r. of 2000 6000
Jupiter-Ammon rev SC A R P V S IMP, legionary eagle
and LEG VIII betw. two standards. Cr. 546/1.
130 — . obv A s prev., but sometimes A N T O N IO rather 300-400 500-800 1200-

than A N T O rev SC A R P V (S ) IMP A N T O N IO 1800
AVG, Victory adv. r., hldg. palm branch and wreath.
Cr. 546/2-3. Illustrated above.
131 — , in support of Octavian, Fall, 31 B.C. obv 400-600 900- 2000-

A V G V R PONTIF, hd. r. of Jupiter-Ammon rev IMP 1200 3000
C A E S A R DIVI F, Victory stg. r. on globe, hldg.
palm branch and wreath. Cr. 546/4.
132 — . obv IMP C A E SA R I SC A R P V S IMP, open hand 400-600 1000- 2000-

1. rev DIVI F AVG PONT, Victory adv. r., hldg. 1500 3000
palm branch and wreath. Cr. 546/6. Note: Aurei of
this type were also struck.
133 — Types as prev., but obv SC A R P V S IMP rev C A E 400-600 1000- 2000-
SA R I DIVI F. Cr. 546/7. 1500 3000
134 A R Q uinarius, — . Sim. to prev. Cr. 546/8. 400-600 900- —

1200
Lepidus
Member of the Second Triumvirate,
4 3 - 3 6 B .C .
B r o t h e r -i n - l a w o f B r u t u s
Lepid us (as Moneyer) F VF EF

135 A R D enarius, 61 B.C. obv Diad. hd. r. of female 30-50 100-150 250-350
(Roma?) rev M LEPIDV S A N XV PR H O C S,
equestrian statue of Marcus Lepidus. Cr. 419/la-b.
Note: The statue is of that of the Marcus Lepidus
who was consul in 187 and 175 B.C.
2o6 COINAGE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE: CATALOG A N D TABLES OF VALUE
Lepid us (as Moneyer) F VF EF

136 — , obv A L E X (S) A N D R E A , turreted hd. r. of Alex- 100-150 300-400
andria rev M LEPIDVS T V T O R REG P O N T M A X
S C , Marcus Lepidus crowning king Ptolemy V of
Egypt. Cr. 419/2. Note: This and no. 137 may be
special senatorial issues struck in the 50s B.C.
137 — , obv Veiled, laur. female hd. r. (the Vestal Virgin 150-200 500-800
Aem ilia or Concordia(?)), often with wreath
behind and simpulum below rev M LEPIDVS
A IM ILIA REF SC , the Basilica Aemilia. Cr. 419/
3b.
N ote: Lepidus’ brother, Lucius Aemilius Lepidus Paullus, also was a moneyer (Cr. 415/1).
Lepidus (Non-Portrait Coinage) F VF EF

138 A R Denarius, with Marc Antony, 43 B.C. obv M 400-600 9 00- 2000-
A N T O N (C O S ) IMP, lituus, jug and raven rev M 1200 3000
LEPID (C O S ) IMP, simpulum, aspergillum, axe and
apex. Cr. 489/1-2. Note: This coin was struck in
Gaul after Lepidus joined forces with Marc Antony
but before the Second Triumvirate was formed.
139 A R Quinarius, — . Types as prev., but obv M A N T 100-150 250-350 —

IMP rev LEP IMP. Cr. 489/3.
Lepidus (Portrait Coinage) F VF EF

140 AV Aureus, with Marc Antony, late 43 B.C. obv M 10,000- 30,000-
A N T O N IV S III VIR R P C , bare hd. r. of M. A n t 15,000 50,000
ony, lightly bearded, lituus behind rev M LEPIDVS
III V IR R P C , bare hd. r. of Lepidus, aspergillum
and simpulum behind. Cr. 492/2. Note: Celebrates
the formation of the Second Triumvirate.
141 — , 42 B.C. obv M LEPIDVS III VIR R P C , bare hd. 10,000- 30,000-
1. of Lepidus rev L M V SSID IV S LO N G V S, the Ves 15,000 50,000
tal Virgin Aem ilia stg. 1., hldg. simpulum and scep
ter. Cr. 494/1. N ote: Four other reverse types are
recorded for Lepidus in this series of aurei.
142 A R Denarius, with Octavian, 42 B.C. obv LEPI 500-800 900-

D V S P O N T M A X III V R P C, bare hd. r. of Lepi 1200
dus rev C A E SA R IMP III VIR R P C , bare hd. r. of
O ctavian. Cr. 495/2a. N ote: A n aureus of this type is
cited. The denarii are poorly struck and usually have
banker’s marks. Illustrated p . 205.
Lepidus (Provincial Coinage) F VF EF

143 A R Hemidrachm(?) of Cabellio in Gaul, 44-42 150-200 300-400 700-
B.C. obv C A BE , hd. r. of Apollo rev LEPI and cor 1000
nucopia in wreath. R PC 527.
144 A R Obol(?) of Cabellio, — . A s prev. R PC 528. 100-150 250-350 500-800

Lepid us (Provincial Coinage) F VF chVF

145 Æ 2 7 -3 0 of Lepida^Celsa in Spain, c. 44-36 B.C. 150-200 250-350
obv C O L V IC IVL LEP, dr. bust r. of Victory, palm
branch over shoulder rev Colonist ploughing with
team of oxen. R PC 261.
146 — . obv C O L V IC IVL LEP, helm, male hd. r. rev 150-200 250-350 —
Bull butting r. R PC 264.
147 Æ 21 — . obv C V I L, bearded hd. r. of Hercules, 70-100 200-300

club over shoulder rev Bull stg. r. RPC 265ff.
148 Æ 1CM 5 of Antipolis in G aul, 44-43 and later, obv 70-100 200-300
Diad. hd. r. of Venus rev Victory crowning trophy.
R PC 531-2. Note: This city seems to have struck
coins only during Lepidus’ governorship in Gaul.
149 Æ 1 6 of Ephesus in Ionia obv Jugate hds. r. of M. 200-300 400-600

Antony, O ctavian and Lepidus rev Statue of A rte
mis facing. RPC 2569-73.
Marc Antony
(Marcus Antonius)
Member of the Second Triumvirate,
4 3 - 3 3 B .C .
B r o t h e r o f G a iu s A n t o n iu s a n d
L u c iu s A n t o n iu s
H u s b a n d o f F u l v i a , O c t a v i a a n d Q u e e n C l e o p a t r a VII
F a t h e r o f M a r c u s A n t o n iu s J u n io r a n d A n t o n ia («/. o f N e r o C l a u d iu s D r u s u s )
Note: The issues that Marc Antony struck jointly with (or in the name of) Julius
Caesar, Ahenobarbus, Plancus, Ventidius, Scarpus, Lepidus, Lucius Antonius, Ful-
via, Marcus Antonius Junior, Octavia and Cleopatra VII are cataloged in the list
ings of the secondary figures. The dual-portrait coins that Antony struck with
Octavian (Augustus) are listed in a separate section below.
Marc Antony (Non-Portrait Coinage) F VF EF

150 AV “ Legionary” A ureus, 32-31 B.C. obv A N T 5000- 15,000-
AVG III VIR R P C , war galley r. rev Legionary 8000 20,000
eagle betw. two standards, number of a legion (LEG
XII, for example) betw. shafts. Cr. 544/2-7.
151 — . A s prev., but rev C H O R TIV M PRAETORI- 7000- 20 ,000- —

ARVM . Cr. 544/1. 10,000 30,000
2o8 COINAGE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE: CATALOG AN D TABLES OF VALUE
Marc Antony (Non-Portrait Coinage) F VF EF

152 A R “ Legionary” Denarius, 32-31 B.C. A s 150. Cr. 50-75 200-300 400-600
544/14-39. Note: Certain legions — some of which
are listed below — are worth a premium. The
legionary coins were struck in debased metal, and
often were fourré. As such, banker’s marks were fre
quently applied. For the bicentennial of the Battle
of Actium (A.D . 169) this type was ‘restored’ by the
co-emperors Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus.
153 — . As 151. Cr. 544/8. Note: The ‘named’ denarii in 150-200 300-400 9 00-
the Legionary series (Chortivm Praetoriarvm, Antiq- 1200
vae, Classicae, etc.) were struck in higher-purity sil
ver than those of the ‘unnamed’ legions.
154 — . A s prev., but rev LEG XII A N TIQ V A E. Cr. 544/ 150-200 300-400 9 00-
9. 1200
155 — . As prev., but rev LEG XVII C L A S SIC A E . Cr. 150-200 300-400 900-
544/10. 1200
156 — . A s prev., but rev LEG XVIII LYBICAE. Cr. 544/ 150-200 300-400 900-
11. 1200
157 — . A s prev., but rev LEG PRI. Cr. 544/13. Note: — — —

Som e authorities consider all of these to be false.
158 — . A s prev., but rev C H O R T IS SPECV LA - 150-200 300-400 900-

TO RVM , three standards, each decorated with two 1200
wreaths and a prow. Cr. 544/12.
159 A R D enarius, 38 B.C. obv M A N T O N IV S M F M 100-150 250-350 900-

N A V G V R IMP TERT, Antony, as priest, stg. r., 1200
hldg. lituus rev III VIR R P C C O S D ESIG ITER ET
TER, rad. hd r. of Sol. Cr. 533/2.
160 A R Q uinarius, 43-42 B.C. obv M A N T IMP, lituus, 50-75 150-200 400-600
jug and raven rev Victory stg. r., crowning trophy.
Cr. 489/4. Note: Struck in Gaul, perhaps at Lug
dunum.
152
T h e v a lu es are e stim ate s for c o n se rv ativ e ly g raded , essen tially p ro b lem -free
co in s. D e fec ts or m erits w ill alte r p rices, o ften sign ifican tly. D ash e s (— ) in d ic a te
v a lu es w h ich c a n n o t be accu rate ly d ete rm in e d (a t th e h ig h e n d ) or w h ich are
n e g lig ib le (a t th e low e n d ). C o in s w ith th e sam e v alu e ran ge are n o t alw ays
eq u ally v alu a b le , for th ey m ay rep resen t differen t en d s o f th e sam e sp ectru m .
Except where noted, the obverse head is that of Marc Antony.

Marc Antony (Portrait Coinage) F VF EF
161 AV A ureus, 42 B.C. obv M A N T O N IV S III V IR R 2000- 5000- 15,000-
P C, bare hd. r. rev L M V SSID IV S L O N G V S, fil 3000 8000 25,000
leted cornucopia. Cr. 494/14. Note: Four other
reverse types are recorded in this series of aurei.
162 — , 41 B.C. obv A N T AVG IMP III V R P C, bare 1500- 4000- 15,000-
hd. r. rev PIETAS C O S below Fortuna stg. 1, hldg. 2000 6000 25,000
cornucopia and rudder, stork before. Cr. 516/1.
Note: The reverse type alludes to Antony’s brother,
Lucius Antonius.
163 A R D enarius, Apr.-May, 44 B.C. obv Veiled hd. r., 300-400 700- 1500-
lightly bearded, lituus before, jug behind rev P 1000 2000
SEPV LLIV S M A CER , desultor (horseman) riding r.,
hldg. whip, another horse at his side; wreath and
palm branch behind. Cr. 480/22. N ote: Antony’s
first portrait coin. It was struck shortly after the
murder of Caesar, from whose coinage he borrowed
the types.
164 — , 42 B.C. obv N o inscr., bare hd. r., lightly bearded 250-350 500-800 1750-
rev V IBIV S V ARV S, Fortuna stg. 1., hldg. cornuco 2250
pia and Victory. Cr. 494/32.
165 — . obv M A N T O N I IMP, bare hd. r., lightly 150-200 300-400 9 00-
bearded rev III VIR R P C , distyle temple contain 1200
ing medallion with facing hd. of Sol. Cr. 496/1.
N ote: This issue seems to have been struck in
Greece immediately after the Battle of Philippi.
166 — , 4 1 B.C. A s 162. Cr. 516/2. 250-350 500-800 1750-

2250
167 — , issued by O ctavian, 40-39 B.C. obv 400-600 1000- 2000-

A N T O N IV S IMP, bare hd. r. rev C A E S A R IMP, 1500 3000
winged caduceus. Cr. 529/3. N ote: This commemo
rates the Pact of Brundisium of October, 40 B.C.
168 — , 3 7 ( 0 B.C. obv A N T O N IN V S A V G V R C O S 500-800 1250- 3000-

DES ITER ET TERT, bare hd. r. rev IMP TER TIO 1750 5000
III V IR R P C , Armenian tiara superimposed over
crossed bow and arrow. Cr. 539/1. N ote: This cele
brates an uncertain Armenian ‘victory,’ perhaps the
defeat of Artavasdes in 37 B.C. by Canidius Crassus.
169 — , 32 B.C. obv A N T O N AVG IMP III C O S DES 250-350 400-600 1500-
III III V R P C, bare hd. r. rev M SIL A N V S AV G Q 2000
PRO C O S in two lines Cr. 542/1.
Marc Antony (Portrait Coinage) F VF EF

170 — . obv As prev., but P behind A ntony’s ear rev 250-350 500-800 1750-
A N T O N IV S AVG IMP III in two lines Cr. 542/2. 2250
N ote: The letter ‘P’ behind A ntony’s ear is believed
to be an engraver’s initial.
171 — , 31 B.C. obv M A N T O N IV S AVG IMP IIII 400-600 1000- 2000-

C O S TE R T III VIR R P C , bare hd. r. rev Wreath 1500 3000
containing Victory adv. 1., hldg. wreath, D T V R in
field. Cr. 545/1.
Marc Antony (Dual-Portrait Coinage w/ Octavian)F VF EF

172 AV Aureus, issued by Marc Antony, late 43 B.C. 3000- 7000- 18,GOO-
obv M A N T O N IV S III VIR R P C , bare hd. r. of M. 5000 10,000 25,000
Antony, lightly bearded, lituus behind rev C C A E
S A R III VIR R P C , bare hd. r. of Octavian, lightly
bearded. Cr. 492/1. N ote: This and the next aureus
celebrate the foundation of the Second Triumvirate.
173 — , issued by Octavian, late 43 B.C. obv C C A E 3000- 5000- 15,000-

S A R IMP III VIR R P C P O N T A V (G ), bare hd. r. 5000 8000 20,000
of Octavian, lightly bearded rev M A N T O N IV S
IM (P) III V IR R P C AVG, bare hd. r. of M. A n t
ony, lightly bearded. Cr. 493/1 a-c.
174 — , issued by Marc Antony, 41 B.C. obv M A N T 3000- 5000- 15,000-

IMP AVG III VIR R P C M BA RBA T Q P, bare hd. 5000 8000 20,000
r. of M. Antony rev C A E SA R IMP P O N T III VIR
R P C , bare hd. r. of Octavian, lightly bearded. Cr.
517/1. N o te : There are inscription variants.
175 — , issued by Marc Antony, 41 B.C. obv M A N T 3000- 7000- 15,000-

IMP AVG III VIR R P C L G ELLO Q P, bare hd. r. 5000 10,000 20,000
of M. Antony, jug behind rev C A E SA R IMP P O N T
III V IR R P C , bare hd. r. of Octavian, lituus
behind. Cr. 517/7. N ote: Struck on broad planchets.
176 — , issued by Marc Antony, 40-39 B.C. obv M 3000- 5000- 15,000-
A N T O N IMP III V IR R P C , bare hd. r. of M. A n t 5000 8000 20,000
ony, sometimes with star below rev C A E SA R IMP
III V IR R P C , bare hd. r. of Octavian. Cr. 528/1 a-b.
N ote: Struck on broad planchets.
177 — , issued by Octavian, 40-39 B.C. obv C A E SA R 3000- 5 000- 15,000-

IMP, bare hd. r. of Octavian, lightly bearded rev 5000 8000 20,000
A N T O N IV S IMP, bare hd. r. of M. Antony. Cr.
529/1. N ote: This issue celebrates the Pact of Brun-
disium of October, 40 B.C.
178 A R Denarius, issued by Marc Antony, 41 B.C. As 250-350 500-800 1000-

174. Cr. 517/2. Illustrated p. 207. 1500
179 — , issued by Marc Antony, 41 B.C. A s 175. Cr. 300-400 700- 2000-
517/8. N ote: Struck on broad planchets. 1000 3000
Marc Antony (Dual-Portrait Coinage w/ Octavian)F VF EF

180 — , issued by Marc Antony, 41(?) B.C. obv M 250-350 500-800 1000-
A N T O N IMP III VIR R P C AVG, bare hd. r. of M. 1500
Antony, sometimes with star below rev C A E SA R
IMP P O N T III VIR R P C , bare hd. r. of Octavian,
sometimes lightly bearded. Cr. 528/3. Note: There
are inscription variants.
181 — , issued by Marc Antony, 40-39 B.C. A s 176. Cr. 250-350 500-800 1000-
528/2a-b. 1500
Marc Antony (Provincial Coinage) F VF EF

182 A R Drachm of Antioch obv Bare hd. r. of M. A n t
ony rev Turreted, dr. and veiled hd. r. of Tyche. RPC
4135.
Marc Antony (Provincial Coinage) F VF ch VF

183 Æ 3 8 of Thessalonica in M acedon, with Octavian, 200-300 400-600
c. 37 B.C. obv Dr. bust r. of Eleutheria rev Nike adv.
1., hldg. wreath and palm branch. R PC 1551.
184 Æ Sem is (c. 17-20m m ) “ Fleet C oinage” obv M 150-200 400-600

A N T IMP TE R C O S DES ITER ET TE R III VIR R
P C , bare hd. r. of M. Antony rev L BIBVLVS M F
PR D ESIG , half of galley r. RPC 4092. Note : For
additional “Fleet” coins, see the listings of Octavia.
Gaius Antonius
B rother of M arc A ntony and
L u ciu s A nto niu s
U ncle of M arcus A n to niu s J unior
B rother -in -law of F ulvia and O ctavia
Gaius Antonius (as Proconsul of Macedon) F VF EF

185 A R D enarius, in support of Marc Antony, early 43 1500- 4000- 18,000-
B.C. obv C A N T O N IV S M F PRO C O S, dr. bust r. 2000 6000 25,000
of the Genius of Macedon, wearing petasus (causia)
rev PON TIFEX below two simpula and an axe. Cr.
484/1. Illustrated above.
Lucius Antonius
B ro th er of M arc A nto ny an d
G a iu s A n t o n iu s
U n c l e o f M a r c u s A n t o n iu s J u n io r
B r o t h e r -i n - l a w o f F u l v i a a n d O c t a v i a
Lucius Antonius (as Consul) F VF EF

186 AV A ureus, issued by Marc Antony, early 41 B.C. 7000- 15,000-
obv M A N T IMP AVG (III) VIR R P C M NERVA 10,000 20,000
PRO Q P, bare hd. r. of M. Antony rev L
A N T O N IV S C O S, bare hd. r. of Lucius Antonius.
Cr. 517/4a-b.
187 A R D enarius, — . A s prev., but sometimes with jug 400-600 1000- 3000-
behind A ntony’s hd. Cr. 517/5a-c. Illustrated above. 1500 5000
188 — . As 186, but obv M A N T IMP AVG III VIR R P 400-600 1000- 3 000-
C M BA R BA T Q P. Cr. 517/3. 1500 5000
Note: For other references to Lucius Antonius on coinage, see the listings of Marc Antony.
Fulvia
T h ir d w if e o f M a r c A n t o n y
M o t h e r o f M a r c u s A n t o n iu s J u n io r
S i s t e r -i n -l a w o f G a i u s A n t o n i u s a n d L u c i u s A n t o n i u s
Fulvia (Provincial Coinage) F VF EF

189 A R Q uinarius(?) of Lugdunum , late 43 B.C. obv 150-200 250-350 700-
N o inscr., winged, dr. bust r. of Fulvia, as Nike rev 1000
LVGV DVNI A XL, lion adv. r. Cr. 489/5, RPC 512.
Note: The XL (=40) may refer to Marc Antony’s
age; since he was bom c. 83 B.C. it places this issue
in 43 B.C. Illustrated above.
190 — , 42 B.C. obv A s prev., but III VIR R P C added 150-200 250-350 700-
rev A N T O N I IMP A XLI (=41), lion adv. r. Cr. 1000
489/6, R PC 513.
Note: Fulvia is probably represented by Nike busts appearing o

non denarii of 42 B.C. (Cr. 494/
40) and aurei of 41 B.C. (Cr.514/1).
Fulvia (Provincial Coinage) F VF ch VF

191 Æ 1 8 of Eumeneia (Fulvia) in Phrygia, c. 41/40 100-150 200-300 500-800
B.C. obv Winged, dr. bust r. of Fulvia, as N ike rev
Nam es of magistrate and city, Athena adv. 1., hldg.
spear and shield. RPC 3139. Note: During the
period of this coinage the city of Eumenia changed
its name to Fulvia in honor of Antony’s wife. These
issues are often countermarked.
Fulvic1 (Provincial Coinage) F VF ch VF

192 Æ 1 6 , — . obv As prev. rev Names of magistrate and 100-150 200-300
city in ivy wreath. R PC 3140.
193 Æ 20 of Tripolis in Syria, 42/1 B.C. obv Bare hd. r. 200-300 400-600
of M. Antony rev Dr. bust r. of Fulvia, city name,
L r K (year 23). R PC 4509. Note: Presumably reck-
oned to the Pompeian Era, the date removes Octa-
via or Cleopatra as candidates for the female bust.
Marcus Antonius Junior

S o n o f M a r c A n t o n y a n d F u l v ia
N eph ew o f G a iu s A n t o n iu s a n d
L u c iu s A n t o n iu s
Marctis Antonius Junior (Portrait Coinage) F VF EF

194 AV A ureus, issued by Marc Antony, 34 B.C. obv 15,000- 30,000-
A N T O N AVG IMP III C O S DES III III V R P C, 20,000 50,000
bare hd. r. of M. Antony rev M A N T O N IV S M F F,
bare hd. r. of Marcus Antonius Jr. Cr. 541/2.
Illustrated above.
195 — A s prev, but obv M A N T O N I M F M N AVG 15,000- 30,000-

IMP TER T rev C O S ITER AESIGN TE R T III VIR 20,000 50,000
R P C . Cr. 541/1.
Octavia
F o u r t h w if e M a r c
A ntony
S is t e r o f A u g u s t u s
(O c t a v ia n )
M o th er o f M a r cellu s
( h e ir o f A u g u s t u s )
a n d A n t o n i a ( u /. o f
N er o C l a u d iu s
D r u su s)
G randm o th er of
G e r m a n ic u s,
C l a u d iu s a n d L iv il l a
Octav ia (Portrait Coinage) F VF EF

196 AV A ureus, issued by Marc Antony, 40-39 B.C. obv 10,000- 30,000-
M A N T O N IV S IMP III VIR R P C , bare hd. r. of 15,000 50,000
Marc Antony rev N o inscr., hd. r. of Octavia. Cr.
527/1.
Octav ia (Portrait Coinage) F VF EF

197 — , 38 B.C. obv M A N T O N IV S M F M N AV GV R 7000- 20 ,000-
IMP T E R (T ), bare hd. r. of Marc Antony rev C O S 10,000 30,000
D E SIG (N ) ITER ET T E R (T ) III VIR R P C , hd. r.
of Octavia. Cr. 533/3a-b. Note: Possibly from
Athens.
198 A R Cistophorus of Ephesus(?), issued by Marc 150-200 300-400 1500-

Antony, c. 39 B.C. obv M A N T O N IV S IMP C O S 2000
D ESIG ITER ET TERT, hd. r. of M. Antony,
wreathed in ivy, lituus below, all in ivy wreath rev III
VIR R P C , dr. bust r. of O ctavia above cista betw.
erect snakes. RPC 2201.
199 — . Inscrs. as prev. obv Jugate busts r. of M. Antony, 150-200 400-600 2000-
wreathed in ivy, and Octavia, dr. rev Dionysus stg. 1. 3000
on cista betw. erect snakes. RPC 2202.
200 A R Q uinarius, 39 B.C. obv III VIR R P C , diad., 100-150 200-300 400-600
veiled hd. r. of Concordia (representing Octavia)
rev M A N T O N C C A E SA R (IM P), two clasped
hands hldg. caduceus. Cr. 529/4a-b. Note: Presum
ably struck by O ctavian in Gaul.
Note: The quinarius listed above (no. 200) was struck shortly after O ctavian and Antony had
reconciled at Brundisium in October, 40 B.C. In addition to signing a treaty, Antony also
married O ctavia as a gesture of cooperation. Though in a general sense this quinarius trum
pets the “concord” these two men now theoretically enjoyed, the head of Concordia might
specifically represent O ctavia (as nos. 189-90 seem to represent Fulvia) in her new mediating
role as wife of Antony and sister of Octavian.
Octav ia (Provincial Coinage) F VF ch VF

201 Æ Four-A s (c. 33-38m m ) “ Fleet Coinage” obv M 1500- 4 000-
A N T IMP TER C O S DES ITER ET TER III VIR R 2000 6000
P C, confr. busts of M. Antony, bare-headed at 1.,
and Octavia, dr. at r. rev L A T R A TIN V S AV GV R
C O S DESIG, quadriga of hippocamps driven r. by
two drivers (Antony and Octavia?), value mark A
(= 4 ) below. R P C 1453. Illustrated p. 213.
202 Æ Th ree-A s (c. 30-35m m ) — . Inscrs. as prev. obv 1500- 4000-

Jugate hds. of M. Antony and O ctavian at I., confr. 2000 6000
dr. bust of O ctavia at r. rev Three galleys under sail
r., triskeles and value mark F (=3) below. RPC
1454.
203 Æ Two-As (c. 2 4 -3 1mm) — . A s 201, but rev Two 1000- 2000-
galleys under sail r., caps of the Dioscuri above, 1500 3000
value mark B (=2) below. R PC 1455.
Octav ia (Provincial Coinage) F VF ch VF

204 Æ A s (c. 14'17m m ) — . obv M A N T IMP TER T 200-300 500-800
C O S D ESIG ITER ET T E R III VIR R P C , jugate
hds. r. of M. Antony and O ctavia rev M O PPIVS
C A P IT O PRO PR PRAEF C L A S S F C, one galley
under sail r., Medusa hd.(?) and value mark A ( = 1)
below. R PC 1470.
205 Æ 13 of Ephesus in Ionia obv Dr. bust r. of Octa- 150-200 400-600

via(?) rev APXIE TPAM TAAYKDN EOE, bee.
RPC 2574.
Note: The “fleet coinage” cataloged here is only a representative selection of the issues struck;
another example is described in the listings of Marc Antony.
Cleopatra VII
Queen of Egypt, 51-30 B.C.
C o m p a n io n o f J u l iu s C a e s a r
F if t h w if e o f M a r c A n t o n y
M o t h e r o f P t o l e m y XV
( c a l l e d ‘C a e s a r i o n ’ )
Except where noted, coins listed below have on their obverse the bust of Cleopatra
VII, sometimes with identifying inscription.
Cleop atra VII (as Queen of Egypt) F VF EF
206 A R Tetradrachm of A scalon in Judaea rev 4000- 10,000- 30,000-
KAEOnATPAI B A IIA E IH E , eagle stg. 1., wings 6000 15,000 50,000
closed, palm branch over wing; dove and monogram
before. RPC 4866-8.
207 A R Drachm — . Sim. to prev. BM C (Ptolemies) 1. 1500- 3000- 7000-

2000 5000 10,000
208 A R Tetradrachm of A ntioch(?), c. 36 B.C. rev Bare 1000- 2000- 10,000-
hd. r. of M. Antony, sometimes with horse hd. or 1500 3000 15,000
monogram behind. RPC 4094-6. Illustrated above.
209 A R D enarius — , 32-31 B.C. obv A N T O N I 1000- 2000- 5000-

A R M E N IA DEV ICTA , bare hd. r. of M. Antony, 1500 3000 8000
Arm enian tiara behind rev C LEO PA TRA E REGI-
N A E REGV M FILIORVM REGV M , diad., dr. bust
r. of Cleopatra, prow before. Cr. 543/1. Note: Vari
ants of the inscriptions exist.
210 Billon Tetradrachm of Alexandria obv Diad. hd. r. 50-75 100-150 200-300
of Ptolemy I rev A s 206. BM C 2. Note: The Isis
headdress distinguishes most of Cleopatra’s tet-
radrachms from those of her brothers.
2 l6 COINAGE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE: CATALOG AN D TABLES OF VALUE
212
Cleop a t r a VII (as Queen of E g y p t ) F VF chVF

211 Æ 8 0 Drachm ai (c. 27m m ) of Alexandria Type as 150-200 500-800
prev., but double-cornucopia in place of headdress,
n in field. BM C 4.
212 Æ 4 0 Drachm ai (c. 21m m ) — . A s prev but M in 150-200 400-600 —

field. BM C 6 .
213 Æ 2 0 of P atras in Achaea, 32-31 B.C. rev Head 500-800 1500-

dress of Isis. R PC 1245. Note: Probably issued while 2000
A ntony and Cleopatra wintered in Patras before the
Battle of Actium.
214 Æ 1 9 of O rothosia in Phoenicia, 36-34 B.C. rev 400-600 1000- —

Ba’al of Orothosia in biga of griffins r. RPC 4501-2. 1500
215 Æ 21 of Tripolis, — , 36-35 B.C. rev Nike stg. r. on 500-800 2000- —

prow, hldg. wreath and palm branch. RPC 4510. 3000
216 Æ 2 3 of Berytus, — , 36-31 ( ?) B.C. rev Ba’al of 500-800 2000-

Berytus in quadriga of hippocamps, facing or 1. RPC 3000
4529-30.
217 Æ 2 4 of Akko-Ptolem ais in Phoenicia, 35-34 B.C. 500-800 2000-

obv Bare hd. r. of M. Antony in wreath rev Diad., dr. 3000
bust r. of Cleopatra. RPC 4741-2.
218 Æ 2 3 of D ora, — , 34-33 B.C. obv Jugate busts r. of 700- 2000-

Cleopatra and M. Antony rev Tyche stg. 1., hldg. 1000 3000
palm branch and caduceus. RPC 4752.
219 Æ 21 of C halcis in Coele-Syria, 32-31 B.C. rev 200-300 400-600 9 00-

Bare hd. r. of M. Antony. RPC 4771. 1200
220 Æ 1 7 — . rev Nike adv. r., hldg. palm branch and 150-200 250-350 400-600
wreath. R PC 4772.
221 Æ 1 6 — . rev Athena adv. 1., hldg. spear and shield. 200-300 400-600 900-
R P C 4773. 1200
222 Æ 25 of D am ascus, — , 37-36 B.C. rev Tyche std. 1. 400-600 900-
on rock, hldg. cornucopia and extending arm, river 1200
god swimming below, all in wreath. RPC 4781.
223 Æ 2 2 — , 33-32 B.C. A s prev. RPC 4783. 250-350 500-800 —
Note: For a coin portraying Cleopatra VII and her son Ptolemy XV (Caesarion), see the list
ing of the latter.
CH A PTER TWO
T he Ju l io - C l a u d ia n s
27 B .C . — A.D. 68
Augustus, 27 B.C. - A.D. 14

As Octavian: Member of the Second
Triumvirate, 43-33 B.C.
As Octavian: Imperator, 3 1 -2 7 B.C.
A s A ugustus: 27 B .C .-A .D . 14
A d o pte d so n o f J u l iu s C a e sa r
B r o t h e r o f O c t a v ia
H u s b a n d o f L iv ia
Fa t h e r o f J u l ia
G r a n d f a t h e r o f G a iu s C a e s a r , L u c iu s C a e s a r , A g r ip p a P o s t u m u s ,
J u l ia t h e Y o u n g e r a n d A g r ip p in a S e n io r
Note: Augustus held power in various forms for about 57 years, and as a result his
coinage is vast and complex. His coinage has been organized differently from most
others in this catalog to preserve the historical context in which each coin was
issued. It is also important to note that many of Augustus’ coins are not cataloged
below. Instead, they are presented in the listings of those on whose behalf he struck
them. For these, see the listings of Julius Caesar, Salvidienus, Scarpus, Lepidus,
Marc Antony and Octavia in the previous chapter, and the listings of Julia, Marcel
lus, Agrippa, Gaius Caesar, Lucius Caesar, Agrippa Postumus, Asinius Gallus and
Tiberius in this chapter. Additionally, some of Augustus’ posthumous commémora-
tives are listed under Caligula, Germanicus, the Civil War of 68-69, Trajan’s ‘resto
ration’ coinage, and the divi series of Trajan Decius.
Augustus (as Octavian, Non-Portrait Coinage) F VF EF

224 A R D enarius, c. 32-29 B.C. obv N o inscr., diad. hd. 100-150 250-350 500-800
r. of Venus rev C A E SA R DIVI F accross field, O cta
vian, in military garb, adv. 1., hldg. spear and
extending hand. RIC 251. Note: This and the next
were probably struck before the Battle of Actium.
225 — . obv N o inscr., diad. hd. r. of Pax, olive branch 100-150 250-350 500-800
before, cornucopia behind rev C A E SA R DIVI F
accross field, Octavian, in military garb, stg. r., hldg.
spear and saluting. RIC 253.
226 — . obv N o inscr., winged bust r. of Victory rev C A E 100-150 250-350 500-800
S A R DIVI F accross field, Octavian, as Neptune,
stg. 1., foot on globe, hldg. aplustre and scepter. RIC
256.
217
2 l8 COINAGE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE: CATALOG A N D TABLES OF VALUE
Augu stus (as Octavian, Non-Portrait Coinage) F VF EF

227 — , c. 30-27 B.C. obv N o inscr., Victory r. alighting 100-150 250-350 900-
on prow of ship rev IMP C A E SA R below Octavian 1200
driving triumphal quadriga r. R IC 264. Note: A n
earlier version is inscribed C A E S A R DIVI F.
228 — . obv N o inscr., laur. hd. r. of Apollo rev IMP 100-150 250-350 500-800
C A E S A R below Octavian, as city founder, driving
yoke of oxen r. RIC 272.
229 — . obv IMP below helm. hd. r. of Mars rev C A E 100-150 250-350 500-800
S A R inscr. on circular shield with star in ctr., lain
upon crossed sword and spear. R IC 274.
224
Except where noted, the obverses feature the portrait of Octavian (Augustus).
Augu stus (as Octavian, Portrait Coinage) F VF EF
230 AV A ureus, c. 27 B.C. obv C A E SA R C O S VII 1250- 4000- 15,000-
C IV IBV S SERVATEIS, bare hd. r. rev A V G V ST V S 1750 6000 20,000
above eagle, wings spread, stg. facing on oak wreath
flanked by SC ; laurel branches behind. RIC 277.
231 — . obv C A E S A R DIVI F C O S VII, bare hd. r, tiny 7000- 20 ,000-

capricorn below rev A E G V P T C A P TA , crocodile 10,000 30,000
stg. r. R IC 544- Note: The refined portrait style sug
gests it was struck at an eastern mint.
232 A R D enarius, 42 B.C. obv C A E SA R III V IR R P C , 100-150 250-350 500-800

bare hd. r. rev Wreath upon curule chair inscr. C A E
S A R D IC PER (or PR). Cr. 497/2a-c.
233 — , 41 B.C. obv M A R R IV S SE C V N D V S, bare hd. 700- 1000- 2000-

r. of O ctavian(?), lightly bearded rev Spear flanked 1000 1500 3000
by wreath and phalera. Cr. 513/2. Note: This issue is
closely tied to two others of 41 B.C. possibly por
traying Julius Caesar (no. 66 ) and Brutus (no. 96).
234 — , with Marc Antony, 40-39 B.C. obv C A E SA R 100-150 250-350 500-800
IMP, bare hd. r., lightly bearded rev A N T O N IV S
IMP, caduceus. Cr. 529/2a-c.
235 — , 37 B.C. obv IMP C A E SA R DIVI F III VIR 100-150 250-350 500-800
ITER R P C , bare hd. r., lightly bearded rev C O S
ITER ET TE R DESIG, sacrificial implements. Cr.
538/1.
THE JU L IO CL A U D IA N S 2 19

236 — , 36 B.C. obv IMP C A E S A R DIVI F III VIR 100-150 250-350 500-800
ITER R P C , bare hd. r., lightly bearded rev C O S
ITER ET T E R D ESIG , tetrastyle temple of Divus
Julius inscr. DIVO IVL; statue within, altar at 1. Cr.
540/2.
237 — , 35-34(?) B.C. obv N o inscr., bare hd. r. or 1. rev 100-150 250-350 900-
IMP C A E S A R DIVI F, ornamented round shield. 1200
R IC 543a-b.
238 — , c. 32-29 B.C. obv N o inscr., bare hd. r. or 1. rev 100-150 250-350 500-800
C A E S A R DIVI F across field, semi-nude Venus,
back to viewer, stg. r., hldg. scepter and helmet,
leaning on column against which shield rests. RIC
250a-b. Note: Probably struck before the Battle of
Actium.
239 — . As prev., but rev Victory stg. r. or 1., on globe. 100-150 250-350 500-800
R IC 254-5.
240 — . obv N o inscr., bare hd. r. rev C A E SA R DIVI F 100-150 250-350 500-800
across field, Mercury, hldg. lyre, std. r. on rock. RIC
257. Note: Probably struck before the Battle of
Actium.
241 — ,c. 30-27 B.C. obv N o inscr., bare hd. r. or 1. rev 100-150 250-350 500-800
IMP C A E S A R across field, trophy of arms upon
prow. RIC 265a-b.
242 — . A s prev., but, ithyphallic herm (boundary stone) 150-200 300-400 900-
of Jupiter Terminus with hd. of Augustus, thunder 1200
bolt below. R IC 269a-b.
243 — . obv N o inscr., laur. hd. r. of O ctavian (in guise of 150-200 300-400 900-
A pollo) rev IMP C A E S A R across field, statue of 1200
Augustus upon rostral column. R IC 271.
244 — . obv N o inscr., bare hd. r. rev IMP C A E S A R 150-200 300-400 900-
inscr. on the Curia Julia (the Senate House). R IC 1200
266.
245 — .As prev., but inscr. on the arcus Octaviani (Octa- 150-200 300-400 9 00-
vian’s A ctian arch). RIC 267. 1200
246 — , 28 B.C. obv C A E S A R C O S VI, bare hd. r. or 1., 400-600 1250- 3000-
lituus behind rev A E G V P T O C A P T A , crocodile 1750 5000
stg. r. R IC 275a-b. Note: Celebrates O ctavian’s sub
jugation of Egypt in 30 B.C.


247 — . obv C A E SA R DIVI F C O S VI, bare hd. r, capri 400-600 1500- 4000-
corn below rev A s prev. RIC 545. Note: The refined 2000 6000
portrait style suggests an eastern mint.
248 A R Q uinarius, c. 30-27 B.C. obv C A E S A R IMP 30-50 100-150 250-350

VII, bare hd. r. rev A S IA RECEPTA, Victory stg. 1.
on cista mystica betw. two erect snakes. RIC 276.
Note: Recent views place this massive issue in Italy
rather than Asia. It celebrates the acquisition of
Asiatic lands formerly held by Antony and C leo
patra.
249
Augustus (as Octavian, Portrait Coinage) F VF chVF

249 Æ “ Sestertius” , 38 B.C. obv DIVI F, bare hd. r., 150-200 300-400 9 00-
lightly bearded, star before rev DIVO S IVLIVS in 1200
wreath. Cr. 535/2, RPC 621. Note: Struck in bronze
(less valuable than brass), this may have been a
dupondius. The star represents Julius Caesar, for
whom a dual-portrait piece was also struck (no. 71).
Augustus (as Augustus, Non-Portrait Coinage) F VF EF

250 A R D enarius, c. 19 B.C. obv Q R V ST IV S FORTV- 100-150 250-350 500-800
N A E A N TIAT, jugate busts r. of Fortuna Victrix
and Fortuna Felix above ram-headed bar rev CAE-
SA R I A V G V ST O EX SC , altar inscr. FO R RE. RIC
322.
251 — . obv TV R P IL IA N V S III VIR (FER (O N )), busts 100-150 250-350 500-800
r. of either Liber or Feronia rev C A E SA R
A V G V ST V S SIG N RECE, Parthian king kneeling
r., offering standard. R IC 287-8.
252 — . obv L A Q V ILLIV S FLO RVS III VIR, helm., dr. 100-150 300-400 1000-
bust r. of Virtus rev A V G V ST V S C A E SA R , Augus 1500
tus driving elephant biga r. RIC 301.
Augustus (as Augustus, Non-Portrait Coinage) F VF EF

253 — . obv M D V RM IV S III V IR H O N O RI, hd. r. of 100-150 300-400 1000-
Honos rev A s prev. R IC 311. 1500
254 — , c. 18 B.C. obv SPQ R P A RE(N TI) C O N S SV O , 100-150 250-350 500-800

ceremonial toga and tunic betw. legionary eagle and
wreath rev C A E SA R I A V G V ST O , slow quadriga r.
R IC 96,9. Note: Varieties of the obverse inscription
are common; this type records the award of orna
menta triumphalia to Augustus.
Augustus (as Augustus, Non-Portrait Coinage) F VF chVF

255 Æ Sestertius, c. 18-15 B.C. obv O B C l V IS SERVA- 100-150 300-400 700-
T O S above, inside and below oak wreath betw. two 1000
laurel branches rev Name of mon. followed by title
III V IR AAAFF, all around large SC . R IC 323ff.
256 Æ Dupondius, — . obv A V G V ST V S T R IB V N IC 70-100 200-300 500-800

P O T E ST in three lines in oak wreath rev As prev.
R IC 324ff.
257 Æ Q uadrans, c. 9-4 B.C. Various obv and rev types. 5-15 30-50 70-100
R IC 420ff.
Note: The moneyer series of æs was struck at Rome in the names of more than 30 men who
Augustus appointed as moneyers from c. 22 or c. 18 through 4 B.C. The design is consistent
on sestertii and dupondii, with only the inscription (naming the moneyer) varying. The
quadrantes, however, vary in both design and inscription. Some emissions are rarer than oth-
ers, but no distinction in values is made here. Particularly important issues are listed sepa-
rately for Asinius Gallus. Aurei, denarii and asses were also struck by the moneyers; they
usually feature Augustus’ portrait and many of them are listed in the appropriate sections.
278
Except where noted, the obverses feature the portrait of Augustus.

Augustus (as Augustus, Portrait Coinage) F VF EF
258 AV A ureus, c. 19 B.C. obv A V G V ST V S, bare hd. r. 1000- 2000- 5000-
rev SIG N IS R EC EPTIS, Mars stg. 1., hldg. standard 1500 3000 8000
over shoulder. R IC 60.
259 — , c. 19-18 B.C. obv A V G V ST V S, bare hd. 1. rev 1500- 4000- 10,000-
N o inscr., sphinx std. r. or 1. R IC 511-2. 2000 6000 15,000
260 — . obv A V G V ST V S, bare hd. r. rev A R M E N IA 4000- 10,000-

C A P T A , Victory cutting throat of recumbunt bull. 6000 15,000
R I C 514.
Augu stus (as Augustus, Portrait Coinage) F VF EF

261 — , c. 18-16 B.C. obv N o inscr., bare hd. r. or 1. rev 900- 1750- 4000-
A V G V ST V S below capricorn r. or 1., cornucopia on 1200 2250 6000
back, hldg. rudder on globe. R IC 125,7,9. Note: The
capricorn was Augustus’ birth sign.
262 — , c. 15-13 B.C. obv A V G V ST V S DIVI F, bare hd. 900- 1750- 4000-
r. or 1. rev IMP X, bull butting, r. or 1. R IC 166,8. 1200 2250 6000
263 — . obv A V G V ST V S DIVI F, bare hd. r. rev IMP X, 900- 1750- 4000-
Apollo Citharoedus stg. 1., hldg. lyre and plectrum, 1200 2250 6000
A C T in ex. R IC 170.
264 — , c. 2 B.C. and later, obv C A E SA R A V G V ST V S 900- 1750- 3000-

DIVI F PATER PATRIAE, laur. hd. r. rev C L CAE- 1200 2250 5000
SA R E S A V G V ST I F C O S DESIG PRIN C
IVVENT, Gaius Caesar and Lucius Caesar stg. fac
ing, hldg. spears and shields, lituus and simpulum
above. R IC 206,9. Note: For other coins depicting
Gaius and Lucius, including aurei and denarii
depicting Lucius on horseback, refer to their indi
vidual listings. Illustrated p. 235.
265 AV Q uinarius, c. 11-10 B.C. obv A V G V ST V S 700- 1750- 4000-

DIVI F, bare hd. r. rev IMP XII (or T R PO T XIII), 1000 2250 6000
Victory std. r. on globe. RIC 184-5.
266 A R Denarius, c. 25-23 B.C. obv (IMP C A E SA R ) 250-350 500-800 1000-

AV G VST, bare hd. r. or 1. rev P C A R ISIV S LEG 1500
PRO PR, city walls of Emerita viewed si. from
above, the gate inscr. EMERITA. R IC 9-10.
267 — , c. 20 B.C. obv C A E SA R , bare hd. r. rev 200-300 500-800 1500-

A V G V ST V S, young bull stg. r. R IC 475. Note: 2000
O ften misattributed to the mint of Samos.
268 — , c. 19 B.C. obv C A E SA R A V G V ST V S, bare hd. 150-200 400-600 1000-

r. rev P PETRO N TV RPILIA N III VIR, Pegasus 1500
adv. r. R IC 297. Note: This type alludes to the death
of the poet Virgil, who was a friend of Augustus.
269 — . obv A s prev. rev T V R P ILIA N V S III VIR, 150-200 400-600 1000-
Tarpeia half-buried in shields. R IC 299. 1500
270 — . obv A s prev. rev As prev., but six-rayed star 100-150 250-350 500-800
above crescent. RIC 300.
271 — . obv A s prev. rev M D V RM IV S III VIR, boar r., 150-200 400-600 1500-
pierced by spear. R IC 317. 2000
272 — . obv A s prev. rev A s prev., but lion 1., attacking 100-150 300-400 900-
stag. R IC 318. 1200
273 — . obv C A E S A R A V G V ST V S, bare hd. r. or 1. rev 100-150 250-350 500-800

O B CI V IS SERVATO S in or around oak wreath.
R IC 75-7.
274 — . obv A s prev. rev SIG N IS REC EPTIS SPQ R, 100-150 250-350 500-800
legionary eagle and standard flanking round shield
inscr. C L V. R IC 85-7.

275 — , c. 19-18 B.C. obv N o inscr., bare hd. r. or 1. rev 300-400 700- 2000-
A R M E N IA C A P T A , Arm enian tiara at 1., quiver 1000 3000
and bow-case at r. RIC 515-6.
276 — . obv N o inscr. or A V G V ST V S, bare hd. r. or 1. rev 300-400 700- 2000-

C A E S A R DIVI F A R M EN RECE (or C A P TA ) 1000 3000
IMP VIIII in three lines divided by stg. Armenian
hldg. spear and resting bow on ground. R IC 518-20.
277 — . obv C A E SA R A V G V ST V S, bare hd. r. rev SIG- 100-150 250-350 500-800

N IS REC EPTIS, Mars stg. facing, hldg. legionary
eagle, standard over shoulder. RIC 41.
278 — . obv C A E SA R A V G V ST V S, hd. r. or 1., wearing 250-350 500-800 1000-

oak wreath rev DIVVS IVLIVS, eight-rayed ‘Julian 1500
com et’ (the sidus Iulium). R IC 37-8. Note: This
comet appeared at C aesar’s funerary games in July,
44 B.C. and was taken as proof of C aesar’s apotheo
sis. Another comet occured in 17 B.C., which was
thought to be the same.
279 — , c. 18 B.C. obv C A E SA R I A V G V ST O , laur. hd. 100-150 250-350 500-800

r. or 1. rev SPQ R, domed temple of four or six col
umns, chariot within. R IC 114-20.
280 — . obv A s prev. rev M A R VLT at sides of domed 100-150 250-350 900-
temple of six columns, legionary eagle and two stan 1200
dards within. R IC 105a-b.
281 — , c. 18-17 B.C. obv SP Q R IMP C A E SA R I AVG 150-200 400-600 1500-

C O S XI T R (I) PO T VI, bare hd. r. or 1. rev C IV IB 2000
ET SIG N M ILIT A PART R EC V P(ER ), facing
quadriga and stg. figs. on top of triumphal arch. RIC
132-7.
282 — , c. 18-16 B.C. A s 261. RIC 126,8,30. 100-150 250-350 500-800
283 — , c. 17 B.C. obv C A E SA R , oak wreath containing 400-600 1000- 2000-

youthful hd. r. rev Candelabrum dividing AVG VST, 1500 3000
all in ornate wreath. R IC 540. Note: The head,
Augustus as a young man (as O ctavian), is often
misattributed to his oldest grandson Gaius Caesar.
284 — . obv A V G V ST V S DIVI F, bare hd. r. rev M SA N - 250-350 500-800 1500-

Q V IN IV S III VIR, young male hd. r., comet at fore 2000
head. R IC 338. Note: The identity of the head on
the reverse of this and the following denarius is
much debated. It usually is thought to be a youthful
Julius Caesar (with the Julian comet at his fore
head). However, it is just as likely to be the Genius
of the new Saeculum or even Augustus himself.
285 — . obv AVG V S T DIVI F LVDOS SA E, herald stg. 250-350 500-800 1500-
1., hldg. winged caduceus and shield with star rev As 2000
prev. R IC 340.

286 — , 16 B.C. obv Shield upon which S C O B R P 900- 3000- 8 ,000-
CV M SA LV T IMP C A E S A R A V G V S C O N S sur 1200 5000 12,000
rounds wreath containing 3/4'facing bare hd. rev L
M ESC IN I V S RVFVS III VIR, Mars stg. r on pedes
tal inscr. SPQ R V P S PR S ET RED AVG in three
lines. R IC 356. N ote: The obverse of this piece rep
resents an imagio clipeata awarded the emperor by
the senate; the inscription on the pedestal gives
thanks for his safe return from Germany.
287 — , 15-13 B.C. obv A V G V ST V S DIVI F, bare hd. r. 100-150 250-350 700-
or 1. rev IMP X below Augustus std. 1. on platform, 1000
receiving branch from two soldiers. R IC 165a-b.
288 — . obv A s prev. rev IMP X, Diana stg. half-1., lean 100-150 250-350 500-800
ing on spear, hldg. bow, dog at her feet. R IC 173a.
289 — . A s 262. R IC 167,9. Illustrated p. 217. 100-150 250-350 500-800
290 — . A s 263. R IC 171a-b. 100-150 250-350 500-800
291 — , 13 B.C. obv A V G V ST V S, bare hd. r., lituus 100-150 250-350 700-
behind rev C M A R IV S C F T R O III VIR, palm 1000
branch borne in fast quadriga r. R IC 399.
292 — . obv C A E S A R A V G V ST V S, bare hd. r. rev C 100-150 250-350 700-

SV LP IC (IV S) PLATO RIN , figs. of Augustus and 1000
Agrippa std. half-left on platform decorated with
three prows; spear or scepter at 1. R IC 406-7.
293 — . obv A s prev. rev C A N T IST IV S R E G IN V S III 150-200 300-400 700-

VIR, simpulum, lituus, tripod and patera. R IC 410. 1000
294 — , 12 B.C. obv A V G V ST V S, bare hd. r. rev L 100-150 250-350 500-800

C A N IN V S G A LLV S III VIR, long-haired barbar
ian kneeling r., offering standard. R IC 416.
295 — , c. 2 B.C. and later. A s 264. RIC 207-8, 210-12. 70-100 150-200 300-400
N ote: A possible candidate for the Biblical ‘Tribute
Penny.’
296 — , c. A.D . 13-14. obv C A E SA R A V G V ST V S DIVI 100-150 250-350 500-800

F PATER PATRIAE, laur. hd. r. rev PO N TIF
M A XIM , Pax std. 1., hldg. branch and scepter. RIC
220. N ote: This type was adopted by Tiberius for his
main issue of denarii (see no. 440). Pax may repre
sent Livia.
297 A R Q uinarius, c. 25-23 B.C. obv AVGV ST, bare 30-50 100-150 250-350
hd. r. or 1. rev P C A R ISI LEG, Victory stg. r., crown
ing trophy, dagger and sword at base. R IC la-b.
Note: Struck at Emerita, Spain.
The portrait æs are first arranged chronologically, then by denomination. Obverses

have the portrait of Augustus.
Augu stus (as Augustus, Portrait Coinage) F VF chVF
298 Æ A s, c. 16-15 B.C. obv C A E S A R A V G V ST V S 50-75 150-200 400-600
T R IB V N IC POTEST, hare hd. r. rev Name of mon.
followed by III VIR AAAFF, all around large SC .
RIC 376ff.
299 Æ Sem is or Quadrans, c. 10 B.C. obv IMP C A E 30-50 100-150 250-350

SA R , laur. hd. r. rev A V G V ST V S, eagle stg. facing,
wings spread. RIC 227, RPC 508. Note: This and
the following were struck at uncertain mints in
Gaul.
300 — . obv IMP C A E SA R , bare hd. r. rev A V G V ST V S 30-50 100-150 200-300

DIVI F, bull butting 1. RIC 228, RPC 509.
301 Æ Medallic ‘distribution’ D upondius, 8/7 B.C. obv 700- 1250- 3000-
C A E S A R AVG V S T P O N T M A X T R IB V N IC 1000 1750 5000
POT, laur. hd. 1. crowned with wreath from behind
by Victory also hldg. cornucopia rev Name of mon.
followed by III V IR AAAFF, all around large SC .
R IC 426ff. Note: These issues are struck on oversize
copper planchets, presumably to celebrate Tiberius’
victories in Germany.
302 Æ A s, c. 7-6 B.C. obv C A E S A R A V G V ST PO N T 50-75 150-200 400-600

M A X T R IB V N IC POT, bare hd. r. or 1. rev N am e of
mon. followed by III VIR AAAFF, all around large
SC . R IC 427ff.
303 Æ Sestertius, c. A.D . 9-14. obv C A E SA R 500-800 1500- 5000-

A V G V ST V S DIFI F PATER PATRIAE, laur. hd. r. 2000 8000
or 1. rev Altar of Lugdunum, RO M ET AVG in ex.
RIC 231a-b. Note: Struck at Lugdunum, the A lta r
II’ series honors the city’s famous Altar, which
Augustus and Tiberius dedicated on August 1, 10
B.C.
304 Æ Dupondius, — . As prev., but obv Laur. hd. r. 50-75 200-300 500-800
only. R IC 232.
305 Æ A s, — . A s prev. RIC 233. 50-75 150-200 400-600
306 Æ Sem is, — . A s prev., but obv Bare hd. r. R IC 234. 30-50 100-150 250-350
307 Æ A s, A.D . 11-12. obv IMP C A E S A R DIVI F 50-75 150-200 400-600

A V G V ST V S IMP XX, bare hd. 1. rev PO N TIF
M A XIM T R IB V N PO T XXXIIII around large SC .
R IC 471. Note: Struck at Rome.
22Ó COINAGE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE: CATALOG A N D TABLES OF VALUE
The posthumous æs are arranged first by issuer, then by denomination. Except

where noted, the portraits are those of Divus Augustus.
Augu stus (Posthumous Commemoratives) F VF EF
308 AV A ureus, under Tiberius, obv TI C A E SA R DIVI 2000- 4000- 10,000-
AV G F A V G V ST V S, laur. hd. r. of Tiberius rev 3000 6000 15,000
D IV O S AVG V S T DIVI F, bare or laur. hd. r. of
Augustus, star above. R IC (Tib.) 23-4. Note: For
another aureus with these portraits, see no. 429.
309 — , under Caligula, obv C C A E SA R AVG GERM P 3000- 7000- 20 ,000-

M T R PO T C O S, bare or laur. hd. r. of Caligula rev 5000 10,000 30,000
N o inscr., rad. hd. r. of Augustus, two stars in field.
R IC (Gaius) Iff.
310 — . Sim. to prev., but rev D IVV S AVG PATER 3000- 7000- 20 ,000-
PATRIAE, rad. hd. r. of Augustus. RIC 3ff. Note: 5000 10,000 30,000
Obverse inscriptions and portrait types vary.
Illustrated p. 261.
311 A R Denarius, — . A s 309. R IC (Gaius) 2ff. 700- 1500- 3 000-

1000 2000 5000
312 — . A s 310. RIC (Gaius) 4ff. 700- 1500- 3000-

1000 2000 5000
A R Drachm (D enarius) of Caesarea see no. 520.
Augu:stus (Posthumous Commemoratives) F VF chVF

313 Æ Sestertius, under Tiberius, A.D . 22-23. obv 100-150 400-600 1500-
D IVV S A V G V ST V S PATER, Augustus, rad., std. 1., 2000
hldg. branch and scepter, altar before rev TI C A E
S A R DIVI AVG F AVG V S T P M T R PO T XXIIII
around large SC . RIC (Tib.) 49.
314 — , A.D . 34-37. obv DIVO A V G V ST O SPQ R in 150-200 400-600 1000-

three lines before quadriga of elephants with riders 1500
1., drawing car with std. fig. of Augustus hldg.
branch and scepter rev Sim. to prev., but inscr. end
ing XXXVI (or XXXVII or XXXIIX). RIC (Tib.)
56,62,68.
Augu stus (Posthumous Commemoratives) F VF chVF

315 — . obv DIVO A V G V ST O SPQ R around shield 100-150 400-600 1500-
inscr. O B C IV ES SER and supported by two capri 2000
corns, globe below rev A s prev. RIC (Tib.) 57,63,69.
316 Æ Dupondius, — . obv D IVV S A V G V ST V S 100-150 300-400 900-

PATER, rad. hd. 1. rev Large S C to sides of domed 1200
temple flanked by bases bearing a calf and lamb.
RIC (Tib.) 74-6.
317 — . obv A s prev. rev Large S C flanking Victory 1., 70-100 200-300 400-600
hldg. shield inscr SPQ R and set on cippus. RIC
(Tib.) 77-8.
318 — . obv A s prev. rev Large S C in oak wreath. RIC 150-200 400-600 1000-
(Tib.) 79. 1500
319 Æ A s, — . obv D IVV S A V G V ST V S PATER, rad. 50-75 150-200 300-400

hd. 1., star above, thunderbolt before rev Large S C
flanking female fig. std. r., hldg. patera and scepter.
R IC (Tib.) 71-3.
320 — . obv A s prev., but no star or thunderbolt rev 70-100 200-300 400-600
P RO VID EN T below altar with double-panelled
door flanked by large SC . RIC (Tib.) 81.
321 — . obv A s prev. rev Large S C flanking eagle, wings 70-100 200-300 500-800
spread, stg. on globe. R IC (Tib.) 82.
323 — . obv A s prev. rev Large S C flanking winged thun 70-100 200-300 500-800
derbolt. R IC (Tib.) 83.
324 Æ Dupondius, under Caligula, obv D IVV S 100-150 300-400 700-

A V G V ST V S above rad. hd. 1., flanked by large S C 1000
rev C O N SE N SV SE N A T ET EQ O RD IN P Q R,
Augustus or Caligula std. 1. on curule chair, hldg.
branch. R IC (Gaius) 56. Note: On a examples it is
possible to identify the seated figure as Caligula.
— , under Claudius, see no. 412.
325 — , under Titus, obv D IVV S A V G V ST V S PATER, 100-150 300-400 9 00-

rad. hd. r. or 1., sometimes with star above hd. rev 1200
IMP T V ESP AVG R E ST SC , Victory flying 1., hldg.
shield inscr SPQ R. RIC (Titus) 189-90.
326 Æ A s, — . Sim. to prev., but rev Eagle facing, wings 70-100 250-350 500-800
spread, stg. on globe or thunderbolt, cf. R IC (Titus)
197-208. Note: Many varieties are known.
327 — , under Domitian, obv D IVV S A V G V ST V S 70-100 250-350 500-800

PATER, rad. hd. 1., star above hd. rev IMP D AVG
R E ST SC , flamng altar, PRO V ID EN T in ex. RIC
(Dorn.) 455.
328 Æ Sestertius, under Nerva. obv D IVV S 150-200 400-600 1500-

A V G V ST V S, laur. hd. r. or 1. rev IMP NERVA 2000
C A E SA R AVG V S T R E ST around large SC . RIC
(Nerva) 135-7.
Augu stus (Posthumous Commemoratives) F VF chVF

329 Æ Dupondius, — . obv D IVV S A V G V ST V S, rad. 100-150 250-350 500-800
hd. r. or 1. rev IMP NERVA C A E S AVG R E ST SC ,
rudder on globe. R IC (Nerva) 131-2.
330 Æ A s, — . As prev., but obv Hd. bare rev Eagle stg. 70-100 250-350 500-800
on globe or thunderbolt. RIC (Nerva) 128-9.
331 — . A s prev., but rev winged thunderbolt. RIC 70-100 250-350 500-800
(Nerva) 130.
332 — . A s prev., but rev altar with double-panelled 70-100 250-350 500-800
door. RIC (Nerva) 133-4.
315
Except where noted, obverses of the provincial coins have the portrait of Augustus.
Augu stus (Provincial Coinage) F VF EF
333 AV Stater of the Bosporus, c. 8 B.C. - A.D . 13. rev 1250- 2,500- 4000-
Bare male hd. r., monogram behind, date (yrs.289- 1750 3,500 6000
310) below. RPC 1866-80. Note: These are dated to
the Bosporan era, which began in 297/6 B.C. The
man portrayed on the reverse may be a Bosporan
king or Agrippa (for another piece with a more con
vincing portrait of Agrippa, see no. 381). See also
no. 457.
334 A R C istophorus of A sia Minor, rev Pax stg. 1., 100-150 250-350 900-
hldg. caduceus, PAX before, cista with emerging 1200
snake behind, all in wreath. R PC 2203.
335 — . rev A V G V ST V S, sphinx std. r. R PC 2204ff. 900- 3000- 4 000-

1200 5000 6000
336 — . rev A V G V ST V S, capricorn r., hd. reverted, cor 150-200 400-600 1500-
nucopia at shoulder, all in wreath. RPC 2205ff. 3000
337 — . rev A V G V ST V S, six grain ears tied at stalks. 100-150 300-500 1250-
R PC 2206ff. 1750
338 — . rev A V G V ST V S, garlanded altar decorated with 100-150 300-500 1250-

confr. stags. RPC 2215. 1750
THE JULIO-CLAUDIANS 22Ç
Augu stus (Provincial Coinage) F VF EF

339 — . rev Triumphal arch surmounted by quadriga, the 150-200 500-800 1500-
architrave inscr. IMP IX T R PO IV (or PO V or 3000
PO T V ), the opening with S P R SIG N IS RECEP-
TIS. RPC 2216,8.
340 — . rev C O M A S IA E at sides of hexastyle temple 150-200 500-800 1500-

inscr. ROM ET AVGV ST. RPC 2217,9. 3000
341 — . rev M A R T VLTO at sides of circular temple of 150-200 500-800 1500-

four columns and with domed roof; standard upright 3000
in entrance. R PC 2220.
342 A R Drachm (D enarius) of Lycia rev One or two 70-100 150-200 300-400
lyres, various inscrs. and symbols. R PC 3307-9.
343 A R Tetradrachm of Antioch rev Statue of Tyche 80-120 200-300 500-800

std. r., river god swimming at feet. RPC 41 5 Iff.
Billon Tetradrachm of Alexandria, see the listings

of both Tiberius and Nero.
336
356
Augustus (Provincial Coinage) F VF chVF

344 Æ 3 0 of Carthago N ova in Spain rev C V AR RVF 50-75 100-150 200-300
SEX IVL POL II VIR Q, simpulum, aspergillum, axe
and apex. R PC 167.
345 Æ 2 8 of Bilbilis — . rev Mounted soldier r., hldg. 50-75 100-150 250-350
lance, BILBILIS in ex. R PC 390. Note: Augustus
struck many issues in Spain and North Africa.
Augustus (Provincial Coinage) F VF chVF

Æ Dupondius of Nemausus in Gaul,
see nos. 383-5.
346 Æ Quadrans(?) of Gaul, c. 10 B.C. obv N o inscr., 30-50 100-150 200-300

diad. male hd. r. rev GERM A N V S INDV TILLI L,
bull butting r. R IC 249, RPC 506. Note: The por
trait may be Germanus Indutilli, a local authority of
whom nothing is recorded.
347 Æ 18 of Philippi in Macedon obv V IC AVG, Vic 20-40 50-75 100-150

tory adv. 1. rev C O H O R PRAE PHIL, three stan
dards. R PC 1651. Note: This issue may post-date
Augustus.
348 Æ 16-18 of Philippi(?) obv AVG behind bare hd. r. 15-25 30-50 100-150
rev Two priests ploughing r. with yoke of oxen. RPC
1656.
349 Æ 27-29 of Thrace, king Rhoemetalces I, 11 B.C.- 30-50 100-150 200-300

A.D . 12. obv Jugate hds. r. of Rhoemetalces I and
Pythodoris rev Jugate hds. r. of Augustus and Livia,
capricorn and globe before. RPC 1708-9.
350 Æ 22-24, — • obv A s prev. rev Bare hd. r. of Augus 20-40 70-100 150-200
tus, sometimes vase before. R PC 1711-2.
351 Æ 18, — . obv Diad. hd. r. of Rhoemetalces I rev Bare 20-40 50-75 100-150
hd. r. of Augustus, sometimes vase or capricorn with
globe before. RPC 1718-20.
352 Æ 19 of Tralles in Lydia, legate(?) P. Vedius Pollio, 150-200 400-600

31-29 B.C. obv Bare hd. r. of Vedius Pollio, conical
object behind, rev Laur. hd. r. of Zeus. RPC 2635.
Note: A freedman himself, Pollio was cruel to his
slaves, throwing them alive to his moray eels as pun
ishment.
353 Æ 12 of Priene in Ionia, legate Macer. obv Bare hd.

r. of Macer rev Fig. stg., facing, tripod at r. RPC
2687. Note: This Macer seems to be M. Pompeius
Macer, who was, among other things, Augustus’
librarian.
354 Æ 31 of Cos (off the coast of Caria), with Nikias, 300-400 9 00-
c. 30 B.C .(?). obv N IKIAE behind bare hd. r. of 1200
N ikias rev KQ IQN A N TIO X O Z (or other magis
trate’s name). RPC 2724-31. Note: Nikias ruled the
island of Cos during the late Imperatorial or early
Imperial period.
355 Æ 18 of Hierapolis in Phrygia, proconsul Fabius 150-200 400-600

Maximus, 10/9 B.C. obv Bare hd. r. of Fabius M axi
mus rev Double-axe with fillet. R PC 2930. Note:
Paullus Fabius Maximus was a member of Augustus’
inner-circle.
Augu stus (Provincial Coinage) F VF chVF

356 Æ 35 of E ph esus(?) rev Large C A in circle of pellets 200-300 500-800 1500-
in wreath. RPC 2233. Note: The meaning of the let 2000
ters C A is much debated. Two possibilities are ‘C ae
sar Augustus’ and ‘Commune A siae.’ A ll C A coins
seem to have been struck in the 20s B.C.
357 Æ 2 5 of Ephesus(?) rev A V G V ST V S in wreath. 50-75 100-150 250-350

RPC 2235.
358 Æ 23 of Olba in Cilicia, high priest A jax, c. A.D. 50-75 100-150 250-350
10-16. rev Thunderbolt, inscr. and date. RPC
3724,7.
359 Æ 22 of Syria rev Large C A in wreath. RPC 4103-4. 30-50 80-120 200-300
360 Æ 2 1 of Antioch in Syria rev Greek inscr. and date 30-50 80-120 200-300
in archiereus wreath. R PC 4 2 5 Iff.
361 Æ 21 of Berytus in Phoenica, legate Varus, 6-4 100-150 250-350

B.C. rev P Q V IN C T ILV S V RV S (or var.), two
legionary eagles. RPC 4535. Note: P. Quinctilius
Varus, who lost three legions to a German ambush
in the Teutoberger Forest, was legate of Syria when
he issued this coin earlier in his career. Varus’ por
trait occurs on rare bronzes struck under Augustus in
North Africa.
362 Æ 2 1 , — , late 1st Century B.C .(?) obv Eagle stg. 1. 20-40 70-100 150-200
on thunderbolt rev Large AVG. RPC 4538.
363 Æ 2 0 of C halcis, Tetrarch Zenodorus, c. 32/1-20 50-75 100-150 250-350

B.C. obv Bare hd. r. of O ctavian (Augustus) rev Bare
hd. 1. of Zenedorus. RPC 4774.
364 Æ Prutah (Lepton) of Judaea, procurator Copo- 5-15 30-50 70-100

nius, A.D . 6-9. obv K A IC A P O C , ears of barley rev
Palm tree with fruit, LA S (yr.36=A.D. 6 ) in field.
R PC 4954. Hendin 635.
365 — , procurator Ambibulus, A.D . 9-12. As prev., but 5-15 30-50 70-100
dates different. R P C 4955-7. Hendin 636-8.
366 Æ 80-D rachm ai of Alexandria, c. 30-27 B.C. rev 100-150 300-400 500-800
Eagle stg. 1. on thunderbolt, cornucopia before, n
(= 80) behind. RPC 5001. Note: The first issue of
‘Rom an Egypt,’ this coin carries over the denom ina
tion last struck by Cleopatra VII.

Julia
D a u g h ter of A u g u stu s
S t e p -D a u g h t e r o f L iv ia
W if e o f M a r c e l l u s , A g r ip p a a n d T ib e r i u s
M o t h e r o f G a iu s C a e sa r , L u c iu s C a e s a r ,
A g r ip p a P o s t u m u s , J u l ia t h e Y o u n g e r a n d
Julia (Imperial Coinage) F VF EF

367 A R Denarius, under Augustus, 13 B.C. obv 2000- 7000- 15,000-
A V G V ST V S, bare hd. r. of Augustus, lituus behind 3000 10,000 20,000
rev C M A R IV S T R O III VIR, wreath above hds. r.
of Julia, in ctr., betw. those of Gaius Caesar and
Lucius Caesar. R IC (Aug.) 404.
368 — . obv A V G V ST V S DIVI F, oak wreath containing 2000- 10,000- 18,000-

bare hd. r. of Augustus rev A s prev. R IC (Aug.) 405. 3000 15,000 25,000
Illustrated above.
369 — . obv A s 361 rev Diad., dr. bust r. of Julia as Diana, 1000- 3000- 10,000 -
quiver at shoulder. R IC (Aug.) 403. Note: The his 1500 5000 15,000
torical context of this denarius favors the identifica
tion of Diana as Julia; see her Numismatic Note.
Julia <(Provincial Coinage) F VF chVF

370 Æ 1 8 of Pergamum in M ysia, under Augustus, c. 250-350 700-
10-2 B.C. obv AIBIAN HPAN XA PINO Z, dr. bust 1000
r. of Livia rev IOYAIAN A O PO AITH N, dr. bust r.
of Julia. R PC 2359. Note: A n interesting issue
depicting Julia and her adoptive mother.
371 Æ 1 5 of Pergam um (?), — , before 2 B.C. obv TAI 250-350 700-

KAIEAP, bare hd. r. of Gaius Caesar rev IOYZIA, 1000
hd. r. of Julia. R P C 5437. Note: This coin may
depict Caligula (Gaius) and his sister, Julia Livilla.
M arcellus
N ephew , so n -in -law and intended heir of A ug u stu s
S on of O ctavia
F irst H usban d ( and co u sin ) of J ulia
Marcellus (Provincial Coinage) F VF chVF

372 Æ 2 8 (D upondius) of an U ncertain Mint, 25 B.C., 1500- 5000-
proconsul M. Acilius Glabrio. obv IMP C A E SA R 2000 8000
DIVI F AVG V S T C O S IX, bare hd. r. of Augustus,
crowned by Victory adv. 1. rev M A C IL IV S G L A
BRIO PRO C O S, confr. hds. of Marcellus(?), at 1.,
and Ju lia(?), at r. R PC 5415.
Agrippa
S o N -IN -L A W A N D IN TEN D ED
SU CCESSO R OF A U G U S T U S
S e c o n d H u s b a n d o f J u l ia
Fa t h e r o f G a iu s C a e sa r ,
L u c iu s C a e s a r , A g r ip p a
P o s t u m u s , J u l ia t h e
Yo unger and
Agrip pa (Lifetime Coinage) F VF EF

373 AV A ureus, under Augustus, 13 B.C. obv C A E SA R 7000- 20 ,000-
A V G V ST V S, hd. r. of Augustus, wearing oak 10,000 30,000
wreath rev M A G RIPPA PLA T O R IN V S III VIR,
hd. r. of Agrippa, wearing mural and rostral crown.
R IC (Aug.) 409.
374 A R D enarius, under O ctavian (Augustus), 38 B.C. 200-300 400-600 1500-

obv IMP C A E S A R DIVI IVLI F, hd. r. of Octavian, 2000
lightly bearded rev M A G RIPPA C O S D ESIG in
two lines across field. Cr. 534/3. Note: For another
coin from this series see no. 70.
375 — , under Augustus, 13 B.C. A s 373, but both hds. 9 00- 3000- 10,000 -
bare. R IC (Aug.) 408. 1200 5000 15,000
376 — , 12 B.C. obv A V G V ST V S C O S XI, hd. r. of 1500- 5000- 12,GOO-

Augustus, wearing oak wreath rev M A G RIPPA 2000 8000 18,000
C O S TE R C O S S V S LEN TV LV S, hd. r. of Agrippa,
wearing mural and rostral crown. RIC (Aug.) 414.
Note: This was ‘restored’ by the emperor Trajan.
377 — . obv A V G V ST V S, hd. r. of Augustus rev 200-300 500-800 1200-

C O S S V S C N F LEN TV LV S, equestrian statue of 2000
Agrippa r. on pedestal ornamented with two prows.
R IC (Aug.) 412. Note: This was ‘restored’ by the
emperor Trajan.
Note: A denarius depicting Augustus and Agrippa seated, no. 292, is listed under Augustus.
Agrippa (Posthumous Commemoratives) F VF chVF

378 Æ A s, under Tiberius, Caligula and Claudius( ?). obv 70-100 200-300 500-800
M A G RIPPA L F C O S III, hd. 1. of Agrippa, wear
ing rostral crown rev S C flanking Neptune, stg. 1.,
hldg. dolphin and trident. R IC (Gaius) 58.
Illustrated above.
379 — , under Titus. As prev., but rev inscr. IMP T V ESP 150-200 500-800 —
AVG R E ST S C. R IC (Titus) 209.
380 — , under Domitian. As prev., but rev inscr. IMP D 150-200 500-800 —
AVG R E ST S C. RIC (Dorn.) 457.
Agrip pa (Provincial Coinage) F VF EF

381 AV Stater of the Bosporus obv N o inscr., bare hd. 1.
of Augustus rev Bare hd. r. of Agrippa(?), BAE
monogram behind, A below. R PC 1865. Note: For a
similar coin, see no. 333.
Agrippa (Provincial Coinage) F VF chVF

382 Æ 2 9 of Caesaragusta in Spain, under Caligula(?). 100-150 300-400
A s 378 rev C C A SC IPIO N E ET M O N TA N O II
VIR, priest ploughing r. with yoke of oxen. RPC
381.
383 Æ 2 8 of N em ausus in Gaul, under Augustus, c. 27- 70-100 200-300 400-600

10 B.C. obv IMP DIVI F, hd. 1. of Agrippa, wearing
rostral crown, back-to-back with bare hd. r. of
Augustus rev C O L NEM , crocodile r., chained to
palm, wreath with ties above. R PC 522-3.
384 Æ 2 7 , — , c. 9-3 B.C. A s prev., but Augustus is laur. 70-100 200-300 400-600
R P C 524.
385 Æ 2 7 , — , c. A.D . 10-14 As prev., but P added before 70-100 200-300 400-600
each bust. R PC 525.
386 Æ 2 8 of Cyrenaica. obv C A E SA R T R PO T 250-350 700-

AG RIPPA , confr. hds. of Augustus and Agrippa rev 1000
SC A T O P R O C O S in wreath. RPC 942.
G aius C aesar
S o n o f A g r ip p a a n d
J u l ia
G r a n d so n a n d
in t e n d e d h e ir o f
A u g u stu s
F ir s t h u s b a n d o f
L iv il l a
B r o t h e r o f L u c iu s
C a e s a r , A g r ip p a
P o s t u m u s , J u l ia
th e Yo un ger and
Gaius Caesar (Imperial Coinage) F VF EF

387 AV A ureus, under Augustus, 8 B.C. obv 900- 2000- 40 0 0 -
A V G V ST V S DIVI F, laur. hd. r. of Augustus rev C 1200 2800 6000
C A E S AVG V S F, Gaius Caesar riding r. on horse
back, hldg. shield and lance, three standards
behind. R IC (Aug.) 198.
388 A R D enarius, — . A s prev. R IC (Aug.) 199. 100-150 200-300 500-800

Note: For a portrait that is often misattributed to Gaius Caesar, see no. 283 under Augustus.
For portraits of Gaius on a denarius and (possibly) on a provincial bronze, see the listings of
his mother, Julia. The most common depiction of Gaius is on aurei and denarii of Augustus
(nos. 264 and 295; illustrated on this page below), upon which he is shown standing beside
his brother. Additional portraits of Gaius Caesar occur on provincial bronzes listed under
Lucius Caesar.
Gaius Caesar (Provincial Coinage) F VF ch VF

389 Æ24 of Tarraco in Spain, under Augustus, obv IMP 70-100 150-200 400-600
C A E S AVG T R PO T PON M A X P P, laur. hd. r. of
Augustus rev C V T C L C A E S AVG F, confr. hds.
of Gaius Caesar and Lucius Caesar. RPC 210.
390 Æ 3 6 of H ippo Regius in N . A frica, — . obv C A E 500-800 1500- 5000-

S A R A V G V ST V S, bare hd. r. of Augustus rev HIP- 2000 8000
PON E LIBERA confr. bare hds. of Gaius Caesar, at
1. with C behind, and Lucius Caesar, at r. with L
behind. RPC 709. Note: Struck 6-5 B.C. Illustrated
p. 234.
391 Æ 21 of Thessalonica in Macedon, — . obv Laur. 70-100 150-200 400-600

hd. r. of Augustus rev Bare hd. r. of Gaius Caesar.
R PC 1564.
392 Æ 1 7 of Pitane in M ysia, — . obv Bare hd. r. of 70-100 150-200 400-600

Gaius Caesar, pentagram before rev Bare hd. r. of
Lucius Caesar, hd. of Amm on before. RPC 2393.
Lucius C aesar
S o n o f A g r ip p a a n d J u l ia
G r a n d so n a n d in t e n d e d h e ir o f A u g u s t u s
B r o t h e r o f G a iu s C a e s a r , A g r ip p a P o s t u m u s ,
Luciu s Caesar (Provincial Coinage) F VF ch VF

393 Æ34-35 of H adrum etum in N . A frica, under 500-800 1500-
Augustus, obv H A D R A V G V ST V S, bare hd. r. of 2000
Augustus, lituus before rev L C A E F C C A E F, confr.
hds. of Gaius Caesar and Lucius Caesar. RPC 775.
Note: Possibly from the proconsulship of P. Quincti-
lius Varus, who later lost three legions to a German
ambush.
394 Æ 1 9 of Corinth in Achaea, — . obv Bare hd. r. of 100-150 300-400

Augustus rev Confr. hds. of Gaius Caesar and Lucius
Caesar. RPC 1136. Note: Struck 2-1 B.C.
395 Æ 1 7 of Pergamum in M ysia, — . obv Bare hd. r. of 70-100 150-200 400-600

Gaius Caesar rev Bare hd. r. of Lucius Caesar. RPC
2365.
Luciu s Caesar (Provincial Coinage) F VF chVF

396 Æ 2 0 of M agnesia ad Sipylum in Lydia, — . obv 100-150 300-400
Jugate hds. r. of Augustus and Livia rev Confr. hds.
of Gaius Caesar and Lucius Caesar. R PC 2449.
397 Æ 1 8 of N icaea, — . obv Jugate hds. r. of Gaius C ae 70-100 150-200 400-600
sar and Lucius Caesar rev Demos stg., arms
extended. R PC 2564.
398 Æ 2 0 of Tralles, — . obv Bare hd. r. of Lucius Caesar, 100-150 200-300

lituus before rev Capricorn with cornucopia r. RPC
2651.
Note: For depictions of Lucius Caesar and his brother on aurei (as illustrated on p. 235) and
denarii, see nos. 264 and 295. Other portraits of Lucius Caesar occur on provincial bronzes
listed under Gaius Caesar.
Agrippa Postum us
S o n o f A g r ip p a a n d J u l ia
G r a n d s o n a n d in t e n d e d h e ir o f A u g u s t u s
B r o t h e r o f G a iu s C a e s a r , L u c iu s C a e s a r ,
Agrippa Postumus (Provincial Coinage) F VF chVF

399 Æ 21 of Corinth in Achaea, under Augustus, obv 1000- 3000-
A G RIPPA C A E S A R C O R IN TH I, bare hd. r. of 1500 5000
Agrippa Postumus rev C HEIO POLLIO NE ITER C
M V SSIO P R ISC O II V IR in four lines in parsley
wreath. R PC 1141. Illustrated above.
400 Æ 2 0 of Apam ea in Bithynia, — . obv M AG RIPPA 1000- 4000-

T R PO T C I C, hd. r. of Agrippa rev AG RIPPA 1500 6000
AV G N EPO, hd. r. of Agrippa Postumus. RPC
2011. Note: This is part of an issue of Augustus
struck at the end of the 1st Century B.C. The other
two coins in the issue depict Augustus with Divus
Julius Caesar, and Augustus with Gaius Caesar and
Lucius Caesar, the older brothers of Agrippa Postu
mus, who at the time were his principal heirs.
401 Æ 2 6 of an U ncertain mint, — . obv C EB A C T O Y 500-800 1500-

©E, hd. r. of Augustus rev A rP in n A [?] A rP in n [?] 2000
KA I IOYA[I]AC YIO[C], stg. togate fig. of Agrippa
Postumus. R PC 542 O.
402 Æ 1 5 of an U ncertain mint, — . obv AGRIPPA[?],

bare hd. 1. of Agrippa Postumus(?) rev N ike adv. r.
R P C 5438.
A sinius G allus
P o t e n t ia l su c c e sso r o f A u g u s t u s
Asiniius Gallus (as Moneyer) F VF chVF

403 Æ Sestertius, under Augustus, c. 16 B.C. OB 150-200 400-600 900-
CI V IS SERV A TO S above, inside and below oak 1200
wreath betw. two laurel branches rev C A SIN IV S C
F G A LLV S III VIR A A A F F around large SC . RIC
(Aug.) 370.
404 Æ Dupondius, — . obv A V G V ST V S T R IB V N IC 100-150 300-400 700-

P O T E ST in three lines in oak wreath rev As prev., 1000
but usually without C F in inscr. R IC (Aug.) 371-2.
405 Æ A s, — . obv C A E SA R A V G V ST V S T R IB V N IC 70-100 200-300 500-800

POTEST, bare hd. r. of Augustus rev As prev. RIC
(Aug.) 373.
403
Asinius Gallus (Provincial Coinage) F VF chVF

406 Æ 1 9 of Temnus in A eolis, as governor of Syria, 6/5 150-200 400-600
B.C. obv A C IN IO C r A A A O C A T N O C , bare hd. r.
of Asinius Gallus rev A IIO A A A C O A IN IO Y
TA M N IT A N , wreathed hd. r. of Dionysus. RPC
2447. Illustrated above.
Livia
Augusta, A .D . L 4 ' 2 Q
W if e o f A u g u s t u s
M o t h e r o f T ib e r iu s a n d
N er o C l a u d iu s D r u s u s
S t e p -m o t h e r o f J u l ia
G r a n d m o t h e r o f C l a u d iu s ,
G e r m a n ic u s , L iv il l a a n d
D r u su s
Livia (Lifetime Coinage) F VF chVF

407 Æ Sestertius, under Tiberius, 22-23. obv SPQ R 300-400 700- 2000-
IVLIAE AVG VST, carpentum drawn r. by two 1000 3000
mules rev TI C A E S A R DIVI AVG F A V G V ST P M
T R PO T XXIIII around large SC . R IC (Tib.) 50-1.
408 Æ D upondius, — . obv SA LV S A V G V ST A below 200-300 500-800 2000-

dr. bust r. of Livia as Salus rev TI C A E S A R DIVI 3000
AV G F AV G P M T R PO T XXIIII around large SC .
R IC (Tib.) 47. Note: Securely identified as Livia by
the title Augusta, this issue is the basis for all studies
of Livia’s portraiture. The other two dupondii in this
series are listed under Livilla (Pietas, no. 477) and
both A ntonia and Agrippina Senior (Justitia, no.
498, and the listing immediately after no. 525).
Although the empror Titus restored the other two
dupondii in this series, he curiously did not restore
this one. Illustrated above.
Note: Livia may be represented by the seated figure of Pax shown on the reverses of aurei and
denarii struck by Augustus and Tiberius.
407
Livia (Posthumous Commemoratives) F VF EF

409 AV A ureus, under Galba, A.D . 68-69. obv (IMP) 1750- 3000- 7000-
SE R G A L B A (C A E SA R ) AVG, bust r. or 1. of 2250 5000 10,000
G alba rev DIVA A V G V ST A , Livia stg. 1., hldg. pat
era and scepter. RIC (G alba) 142ff. Note: Livia is
honored for having been a great benefactor to
G alba about a half century before he became
emperor (in 68 ). This overture was principally
meant to prove his own ties to the Julio-Claudians,
the dynasty which his revolt brought to an end.
410 A R D enarius, — . Sim. to prev. R IC (G alba) 143ff. 150-200 400-600 1500-

Illustrated p, 293. 2000
Livia (Posthumous Commemoratives) F VF chVF

411 Æ Sestertius, under Galba, obv IMP SER G A L B A 250-350 900-
C A E (S A R ) AVG (PO N M) T R P, bust r. or 1. of 1200
Galba rev Large S C flanking std. fig. 1. of Livia, hldg.
patera and scepter, A V G V ST A in ex. RIC (Galba)
331-8,432-3. Note: The reverse was inspired by the
PO N TIF M AXIM coinage of Augustus and Tibe
rius, thus strengthening the likelihood that Pax rep
resented Livia on the original issues. A rare variant
has R XL in the field (see no. 813 for details).
412 Æ Dupondius, under Claudius, obv DIVVS 70-100 250-350 700-

A V G V ST V S, rad. hd. r., flanked by S C rev DIVA 1000
A V G V ST A , Livia std. 1., hldg. grain ears and torch.
R IC (Claud.) 101. Note: This celebrates the long-
overdue consecration of Livia, conducted in 42 by
Claudius. The obverse honors Augustus, whose
priesthood was then led by Claudius.
413 Æ A s, under Galba, obv SER G A L B A IMP C A E 100-150 400-600 1000-

SA R AVG P M T R P (P P), bust r. or 1. of Galba rev 1500
As 409, but S C added. R IC (G alba) 65-7ff.
415
Livia (Provincial Coinage) F VF chVF

414 Æ 2 6 of Em erita in Spain obv TI C A E SA R 50-75 150-200 250-350
A V G V ST V S PON M A X IMP, laur. hd. 1. of Tibe
rius rev C A E IVLIA A V G V ST A , dr. bust r. of
Livia. RPC 40.
Livia (Provincial Coinage) F VF ch VF

415 Æ 2 4 of Oea (Tripolis) in N . Africa obv Dr. bust r. 70-100 200-300 500-800
of Livia rev Helm, bust 1. of Minerva, wearing aegis,
Punic inscr. before. RPC 835.
416 A R Drachm of Byzantium in Thrace obv Rad. hd. — — —

1. of Augustus rev Dr. bust r. of Livia. RPC 1779.
417 Æ 22 of Thessalonica in Macedon obv Bare hd. r. of 70-100 200-300

Tiberius rev Dr. and veiled bust r. of Livia. RPC
1577.
418 Æ 26 of Thessalonica, — . obv Bare hd. 1. of C lau 70-100 200-300 —

dius rev Dr. bust r. of Livia. RPC 1567.
419 Æ 19 of Gortyna(?) on Crete, obv Bare hd. 1. of 100-150 250-350

Claudius rev IV LIA A V G V ST A , diad., dr. bust r. of
Livia. RPC 1030.
420 Æ 19 of Pergamum in Mysia. obv Confr. busts of 50-75 100-150 200-300

Livia, dr., and Tiberius, laur. rev Tetrastyle temple
with statue of Augustus. R PC 2369.
421 Æ 20 of Ephesus in Ionia obv Jugate busts r. of 50-75 100-150 200-300

Augustus, laur., and Livia, dr. rev Stag stg. r., quiver
above. RPC 2599ff.
422 Æ23 of the Koinon of Cyprus, obv Bare hd. r. of 30-50 100-150 150-200
Tiberius rev IVLIA A V G V STA , Livia std. r., hldg.
patera and scepter. RPC 3919.
423 Æ 16 of Augusta in Cilicia, under Nero, obv Dr. 30-50 70-100 150-200
bust r. of Livia rev Capricorn with globe r., star
above. R PC 4007.
424 Æ 20-22, — . obv Dr. bust r. of Livia rev Statue r. of 50-75 100-150 200-300
std. Tyche, river god at feet. RPC 4013-4. Note:
This series may have continued into the 2nd C en
tury.
425 Æ Prutah (Lepton) of Judaea, procurator Pontius 30-50 50-75 80-150

Pilate, 26-35. obv IOYAIA K A IC A P O C , three ears
of grain bound rev TIBEPIOY K A IC A P O C LIS
(yr. 16=29), simpulum. RPC 4967. Hendin 648.
Note: The obverse of this coin honors Livia, and the
reverse Tiberius; it was struck in the last year of
Livia’s life. Four other prutot with Livia’s name were
struck by the procurator Valerius Gratus (15-26).
426 Æ 2 5 of Alexandria obv Dr. bust r. of Livia rev Dou- 100-150 200-300 700-
ble-com ucopia bound with fillet. R PC 5006. 1000
427 Æ 21, — . obv A s prev. rev Eagle stg. 1., wings closed. 100-150 200-300 700-
R P C 5008. 1000
Tiberius, a .d .14-37
S o n o f L iv ia
B r o t h e r o f N er o C l a u d iu s D r u s u s
S t e p s o n , s o n -in -la w a n d h e ir o f A u g u s t u s
H u s b a n d o f V ip sa n ia A g r ip p in a a n d J u l ia
F a t h e r o f D r u s u s ( by V ip s a n ia A g r ip p in a )
G r a n d f a t h e r o f L iv ia J u l ia , a n d (?)
T ib e r iu s G e m e l l u s a n d G e r m a n ic u s G e m e l l u s
Note: From the reign of Nero onward a standard approach is adopted for the pre
sentation of coins of most issuers. Firstly, obverse types bearing portraits of the main
issuer are not individually described. Instead, a sampling of obverse inscriptions and
a general description of bust types is provided. The listings themselves describe
only the reverse types unless there is something remarkable about the obverse. Sec
ondly, a “generic” listing is given for each denomination and “better” types are
listed separately. For further details, see to the introductory material.
Examples of obverse inscriptions:

Imperator: TI C A E SA R AVG V S T F IM PERAT(O R) V (VI or VII)
TI C A E S A R AVG F T R PO T XV (on the reverse)
Augustus: TI C A E S A R A V G V ST V S
TI C A E S A R DIVI A V G F A V G V ST V S (IMP VII, VIII)
T I C A E SA R DIVI A V G V ST I F A V G V ST V S
TI DIVI F A V G V ST V S
Tiber ius (as Imperator) F VF EF

428 AV Aureus, under Augustus, c. A.D . 13-14. obv 900- 2000- 5000-
C A E S A R A V G V ST V S DIVI F PATER PATRIAE, 1200 3000 8000
laur. hd. r. of Augustus rev AVG F T R P O T XV,
Tiberius, hldg. eagle-tipped scepter, driving trium
phal quadriga r., TI C A E S A R in ex. R IC (Aug.)
221,3. Note: This celebrates Tiberius’ victories in
Germany and Pannonia.
429 — . obv A s prev. rev TI C A E S A R AVG F T R PO T 1000- 3000- 10,000-

XV, bare hd. r. of Tiberius. R IC (Aug.) 225. Note: 1500 5000 15,000
This and the issue above note the renewal of Tibe
rius’ tribunician power, marking him as successor.
430 A R Denarius, — . A s 428. R IC (Aug.) 222,4. 150-200 300-400 1000-

1500
431 — . A s 429. R IC (Aug.) 226. 200-300 400-600 1500-

2000
431
Busts are right- or left-facing, bare-headed or laureate.
Tiber ius (as Imperator) F VF chVF

432 Æ Sestertius, under Augustus, c. A.D . 9-14. rev 900- 3000- 10,000-
Altar of Lugdunum, ROM ET AVG in ex. RIC 1200 5000 15,000
(Aug.) 240-1,47-8. Note: Minted at Lugdunum, the
A lta r II’ series celebrates that city’s famous Altar,
which both Augustus and Tiberius dedicated on
August 1, 10 B.C. The future emperor Claudius was
born in Lugdunum on that auspicious day.
433 Æ Dupondius, — . A s prev. RIC (Aug.) 235-6,44- 50-75 200-300 500-800
434 Æ As, — . A s prev. R IC (Aug.) 237-8,42,5. 50-75 150-200 400-600
435 — , c. A.D . 10. rev PON TIFEX TR IBV N 50-75 150-200 400-600
PO TESTA TE XII around large SC . R IC (Aug.)
469-70. Note: Struck at the Rome mint.
436 Æ Semis, — , c. A.D . 9-14- As 434- RIC (Aug.) 30-50 100-150 250-350
239,43,6.
Tiber ius (as Augustus) F VF EF

437 AV Aureus rev PO N TIF M AXIM , Pax (repesent- 9 00- 1750- 3000-
ing Livia) std. r., hldg. branch and scepter or spear. 1200 2250 5000
R IC 25,7,9. Note: This issue was ‘restored’ by the
emperor Trajan.
438 — , 14-16. rev T R PO T XVI (or XVII), Tiberius 900- 2000- 5000-
driving slow quadriga r, hldg. branch and eagle- 1200 3000 8000
tipped scepter, IMP VII in ex. RIC 1,3. Note: This
type celebrates a triumph Tiberius earned for his
Germ an and Pannonian campaigns. A related issue
was struck by Augustus in A.D . 13.
439 AV Quinarius rev T R PO T XVII (etc.), Victory std. 700- 1500- 3 000-
r. on globe, hldg. wreath. R IC 5-22. Note: This 1000 2000 5000
dated type begins with an issue of A.D . 15-16, and
17 issues later, ends with one dated to 36-37.
440 A R Denarius A s 437. RIC 26,8,30. Illustrated p. 100-150 200-300 500-800

241.
441 — A s 438. R IC 2,4- 150-200 300-400 900-

1200
448
450
Tiberius (as Augustus) F VF ch VF

442 Æ Sestertius, 22-23 obv CIV ITA TIBV S A SIA E 200-300 500-800 1500-
R E ST IT V T IS, Tiberius std. 1., hldg. scepter and pat 2000
era rev TI C A E S A R DIVI AVG F A V G V ST P M
T R PO T XXIIII around large SC . R IC 48. Note:
This type celebrates aid Tiberius gave to the cities of
A sia for earthquake recovery.
443 — , 34-37. obv N o inscr., ornamented quadriga 200-300 500-800 1250-

drawn r. without driver rev TI C A E S A R DIVI AVG 1750
F A V G V ST P M T R P XXXVI (or XXXVII or
XX XIIX) around large SC . R IC 54,60,66.
444 — . obv N o inscr., hexastyle temple of Concord, 200-300 500-800 1250-

numerous figs. about rev A s prev. R IC 55,61,67. 1750
Note: This celebrates the dedication of the temple,
which Tiberius rebuilt in A.D . 10.
445 Æ D upondius, 2 2 (?) rev C LE M E N T IA E S C, dec- 300-400 700-

orated shield with facing bust of Tiberius in ctr. RIC 1000
38. Note: This celebrates the awarding of a shield of
valor (clipeus virtvtis) to Tiberius by the senate.
446 — . A s prev., but M O D ER A T IO N I(S) SC . RIC 39- 300-400 700- —

40. 1000
447 — . rev P O N T M A XIM C O S III IMP VII T R POT 70-100 200-300 400-600
XXI (or XXII), caduceus betw. crossed branches and
cornucopia. R IC 89-90. R PC 3868. Note: Usually
attributed to Commagene, which was annexed by
Tiberius in 17.
244 C O IN A G E O F T H E R O M A N EM PIRE: C A T A L O G A N D T A B L E S O F V A L U E
Tiber ius (as Augustus) F VF chVF

448 Æ As rev PO N TIF M AXIM TR IB V N P O T E ST 70-100 250-350 500-800
XVII (or XXII) SC , female (Livia?) std. r., hldg.
scepter and patera. RIC 33-36, 41.
449 — , 22-23. rev PO N TIF M AXIM TR IBV N 70-100 250-350 500-800

P O T E ST XXIIII around large SC . RIC 44.
450 — , 34-37. rev PO N TIF M A X T R PO T XXXVI (or 70-100 250-350 500-800

XXXVII or XXXIIX) SC , rudder before globe. RIC
52,8,64.
451 — . rev PO N TIF M AXIM TR IB V N P O T E ST 70-100 250-350 500-800

XXXVI (or XXXVII or XXXIIX) SC , winged cadu
ceus. R IC 53,9,65.
452 Æ Quadrans rev A s 432. R IC 32. 30-50 100-150 300-400
Note: For other coins struck by Tiberius, see the listings of Augustus (Posthumous Com mem
oratives), Livia, Drusus, Livilla, Germanicus Gemellus, Sejanus, Agrippina Senior, N ero
Caesar, Drusus Caesar and Caligula.
Tiberius (Posthumous Commemoratives) F VF chVF

453 Æ Sestertius, under Titus, obv Sim. to 442 rev IMP 250-350 900-
T C A E S DIVI V ESP F AVG P M T R P P P C O S 1200
VII around large SC , R E ST above. R IC (Titus) 210.
454 Æ As, — . obv TI C A E SA R DIVI AVG F A V G V ST 100-150 400-600

IMP VIII, bare hd. 1. or r. of Tiberius rev IMP T
C A E S DIVI V ESP (F) AVG R E ST around large
SC . R IC (Titus) 211. Note: Longer versions of the
reverse inscription exist.
455 — . obv A s prev., but rev Winged caduceus, SC . RIC 100-150 400-600 —
(Titus) 215.
456 — , under Domitian, obv A s prev. rev IMP D C A E S 100-150 400-600

DIVI V ESP AVG R E ST around large SC . RIC
(Dorn.) 458.
Except where noted, the obverse of the provincial coins have the right-facing lau
reate or bare head of Tiberius.
Tiberius (Provincial Coinage) F VF EF
457 AV Stater of the Bosporus, king Aspurgus, c. 14- 1250- 2,500- 40 0 0 -
37. obv N o inscr., bare hd. r. of Tiberius (or Augus 1750 3,500 6000
tus?) rev Bare male hd. r., monogram behind, date
(yrs.311 -334=14-37) below. RPC 1881-1901. Note:
The reverse bust is probably king Aspurgus, but it
may be a Roman.
458 A R Drachm (Denarius) of Caesarea rev Mt. 100-150 200-300 500-800

Argaeus surmounted by rad. fig. stg. 1., hldg. globe
and scepter. R PC 3620. Note: The first in the pro
lific series of Imperial drachms (denarii) from
Caesarea.
Tiber ius (Provincial Coinage) F VF EF

459 Billon Tetradrachm of Alexandria rev Rad. hd. r. or 70-100 150-200 400-600
I. of Divvs Augustus, sometimes lituus before. RPC
5089ff. Note: Augustus struck no Alexandrian tet-
radrachms.
460 — , under Nero, 66-67 obv Laur. hd. r. of Nero rev 20-40 70-100 200-300
Laur. hd. r. of Tiberius. R PC 5295.
Tiberius (Provincial Coinage) F VF chVF

461 Æ 28 of Caesaraugusta in Spain rev C C A above 30-50 80-120 200-300
bull stg. r. or 1. R PC 334ff.
462 Æ 28 of Segobriga, — . rev SE G O B R IG A in two 30-50 80-120 200-300

lines in wreath. RPC 473-4
463 Æ 29f Italica, — . rev M V N IC ITALIC PERM DIVI 30-50 80-120 200-300
AVG, square altar inscr. PRO VID EN TIAE
A V G V ST I in three lines. RPC 65.
464 Æ 37-40 (Sestertius) of Colonia Iulia Pia Paterna 300-400 700- 2000-
in N . Africa, c. 23. rev PERM IS P C O R N ELI 1000 3000
D O LA BELLA E P R O C O S C P G C A S D D C P I
(or var.), Mercury std. 1. on rock, hldg. caduceus.
R PC 768. Note: Issues with C P I had formerly been
given to Clypea or Thapsus, but now are attributed
to Iulia Pia Paterna. One of this coin’s issuers, P.
Cornelius Dolabella, seemingly was a grandson of
the homonymous Dolabella who was so active in
the Imperatorial age. This Dolabella, proconsul of
Africa Proconsularis, restored peace to the region by
killing the Numidian brigand Tacfarinas.
465 Æ 28 of Oea in Syrtica rev Laur., dr. bust r. of 70-100 150-200 400-600
A pollo, lyre before, W Y’T behind, all in wreath.
RPC 834.
466 Æ 15 of Cibyra in Phrygia, governor L. Arruntius,

15-16(?). obv Bare hd. r. of Arruntius (?) rev Inscr. in
wreath. RPC 2887. Note: Augustus thought Arrunt
ius not only fit to be emperor, but capable of trying
for it if given the opportunity.
467 Æ 22'24 of Olba in Cilicia, high priest A jax, c. 10- 30-50 100-150 200-300
16. rev Thunderbolt, inscr. and date. RPC 3731.
468 Æ Prutah (Lepton) of Judaea, procurator Pontius 50-75 70-100 100-150

Pilate, 26-35. obv TIBEPIOY K A IC A P O C , lituus
rev wreath, date LIZ or LIH (yrs.17-18=30-31).
RPC 4968-9. Hendin 649-50. Note: Jesus was cruci
fied under the regime of Pontius Pilate.
469 Æ Obol of Alexandria rev TIBEPIOY, hippopato- 30-50 70-100 150-200

mus stg. r., date in ex. R PC 5075ff.
Drusus
S o n a n d in t e n d e d h e ir o f T ib e r iu s
S e c o n d h u s b a n d (a n d c o u s i n ) o f L i v i l l a
F a t h e r o f L i v i a J u l i a a n d (?) T ib e r i u s
G em e llu s a n d G e r m a n ic u s G em e llu s
G r a n d s o n o f L iv ia a n d A g r ip p a
Drusi is (Lifetime Coinage) F VF ch VF

470 Æ As, under Tiberius, 22-23. obv D R V SV S C A E 100-150 300-400 700-
S A R TI AVG F DIVI AVG N , bare hd. 1. of Drusus 1000
rev PO N TIF TR IB V N P O T E ST ITER around large
SC . R IC (Tib.) 45.
Note: The other two Imperial coins bearing the name of Drusus are listed under Livilla
(dupondius, no. 477) and Germanicus Gemellus (sestertius, no. 481).
Drusiis (Posthumous Commemoratives) F VF ch VF

471 Æ As, under Titus, obv Bare hd. 1. of Drusus rev IMP 100-150 300-400 700-
T C A E S DIVI V ESP F AVG around large SC . RIC 1000
(Titus) 216. Note: A longer version of the reverse
inscription occurs (R IC 217).
472 — , under Domitian, obv A s prev. rev IMP D C A E S 150-200 500-800

DIVI V ESP AVG R E ST around large SC . RIC
(Dom.) 459.
Drusus (Provincial Coinage) F VF EF

473 A R Drachm (Denarius) of Caesarea, under Tibe 150-200 400-600 1500-
rius, 33-34. obv TI C A E S AVG P M T R P XXXIV 2000
(or X X X V ), laur. hd. r. of Tiberius rev D R V SV S
C A E S TI AVG (F) C O S T R P (or PO T or P IT),
bare hd. 1. of Drusus. RPC 3621-2. RIC (Tib.) 84-7.
Note: This series occurs in two issues, dated 32/33
and 33/34. The central date, 33, no doubt was cho
sen by Tiberius because it was the 10th anniversary
of Drusus’ murder in 23. Several variants of the
reverse inscription are recorded. Illustrated above.
Drusus (Provincial Coinage) F VF ch VF

474 Æ 2 2 -2 3 of Italica in Spain, — . obv D RVSVS 70-100 150-200 300-400
C A E S A R TI AVG F, bare hd. r. of Drusus rev
M V N IC ITALIC, legionary eagle and vexillum
betw. two standards, PER AVG in field. RPC 71.
Drusiu
s (Provincial Coinage) F VF chVF
475 Æ 1 6 of Philippi(?) in Macedon, — obv DRV 15-25 30-50 100-150
C A E S behind bare hd. r. of Drusus rev Two priests
ploughing r. with yoke of oxen. RPC 1659.
476 Æ 2 9 of Sardes in Lydia, 23-26. obv Drusus and 150-200 300-400 500-800
Germanicus std. 1. on curule chairs rev Inscr. in
wreath. Both sides overstruck after 38/9 with circu
lar ‘inscription dies’ of the proconsul C. Asinnius
Pollio. RPC 2995.
Note: See the listings of Tiberius Gemellus, Germanicus Gemellus and Germanicus for por-
traits of Drusus.
Livilla
W if e o f G a i u s C a e s a r
a n d D rusus
D a u g h t e r o f N ero
C l a u d iu s D r u s u s a n d
A n t o n ia
S is t e r o f G e r m a n ic u s a n d
C l a u d iu s
M o t h e r o f T ib e r iu s
G e m e l l u s, G e r m a n ic u s
G e m e l l u s a n d L iv ia Ju l ia
G r a n d d a u g h t e r of L iv ia , M a r c A n t o n y a n d O c t a v ia
Livillí1 (Lifetime Coinage) F VF ch VF

477 Æ D upondius, under Tiberius, 22-23. obv PIETAS, 250-350 500-800 2000-
veiled, dr. and diad. bust r. of Livilla as Pietas rev 3000
D R V SV S C A E S A R TI A V G V ST I F T R PO T ITER
around large SC . R IC (Tib.) 43. Note: For details
about the attribution of this issue to Livilla, see her
Numismatic Note. The other two dupondii in this
series are listed under Livia (Salus, no. 408) and
both Antonia and Agrippina Senior (Justitia, no.
498, and the listing immediately after no. 525). This
dupondius was ‘restored’ by Titus. Illustrated above.
T h e v alu es are e stim ate s for co n se rv a tiv e ly grad ed , esse n tially prob lem -free
co in s. D e fec ts or m erits w ill alte r prices, o ften sign ifican tly. D ash es (— ) in d icate
v alu es w h ich c a n n o t be acc u rate ly d ete rm in e d (a t th e h ig h en d ) or w h ich are
eq u ally v a lu a b le , for th ey m ay rep resen t d ifferen t en d s o f th e sam e sp ectru m .
Tiberius Gemellus
Heir Apparent (of Tiberius), a .d . 35-37
S o n o f L i v i l l a a n d D r u s u s (o r S e j a n u s )
H e i r A p p a r e n t ( o f T i b e r i u s ), a . d . 3 5 - 3 7
C o u s in o f N er o C a e s a r , D r u s u s C a e s a r , C a l ig u l a ,
A g r i p p i n a Ju n i o r , D r u s i l l a , Ju l i a L i v i l l a a n d
B r it a n n ic u s
G r a n d s o n o f A n t o n i a , N e r o C l a u d i u s D r u s u s , a n d ( ? ) T ib e r i u s
Tiber ius Gemellus (Provincial Coinage) F VF chVF

478 Æ 25 (As) of Cyrene in Cyrenaica, under Tiberius, 500-800 1250-
c. 22-23. obv APOYIOI KAIIAP AYrOYZTOY 1750
YIOE, laur. hd. r. of Drusus rev TIB TEP
KAIZAPEE, confr. hds. of Tiberius Gemellus and
Germanicus Gemellus. RPC 947.
479 Æ 15 of Corinth in Achaea, under Tiberius or 300-400

Caligula, 35-37. obv C O R , Pegasus flying r. rev C A E
GEM , confr. dr. busts of Caligula(?) on 1. and Tibe
rius Gemellus (?) at r. RPC 1171. Note: If the por
trait identifications are correct, this is an important
coin, for it depicts both final heirs of Tiberius.
480 Æ14-15 Philadelphia (Neocaesarea) in Lydia, — . 500-800 1250-

obv TIBEPIO N C E B A C T O N (?), bare hd. r. of Tibe 1750
rius Gem ellus(?) rev NEO KECAPEIE or N EO KA-
IC A PEIC , winged thunderbolt. R PC 3017. Note:
Som e have identified the bust as Tiberius or Britan
nicus, but it almost certainly is Tiberius Gemellus as
teenage heir to Tiberius’ throne. Illustrated above.
Note: See the issues listed for Germanicus Gemellus, as they also portray Tiberius Gemellus.
Germanicus
Gemellus
S o n o f L iv il l a
a n d D r u s u s (o r
S ejan u s)
Brother of
T ib e r iu s
G em ellus
C o u s in o f N ero
C a e sa r , D rusus
C aesar,
C a l ig u l a ,
A g r ip p in a
Ju n i o r , D r u s i l l a , Ju l i a L i v i l l a a n d
B r it a n n ic u s
G r a n d s o n o f A n t o n i a , N e r o C l a u d i u s D r u s u s , a n d (?) T i b e r i u s
Germ anicus Gemellus (Imperial Coinage) F VF ch VF

481 Æ Sestertius, under Tiberius, 22-23. obv Confr. hds. 300-400 700- 2000-
of Tiberius Gemellus and Germanicus Gemellus set 1000 3000
upon the ends of crossed cornucopias, caduceus
betw. rev D R V SV S C A E S A R TI AVG F DIVI AVG
N P O N T T R PO T II around large SC . R IC (Tib.)
42. Note: This obverse inspired a coin of king Anti-
ochus IV of Commagene (38-72). Illustrated above.
Germanicus Gemellus (Provincial Coinage) F VF ch VF

482 Æ 2 7 (D upondius) of Cyrene in Cyrenaica, under 500-800 1250-
Tiberius, c. 22-23. obv APOYIOI KAIZAP 1750
AYrOYZTOY YIOZ, laur. hd. r. of Drusus, simpu
lum before, lituus behind rev TIB TEP KAIXAPEE,
confr. hds. of Tiberius Gemellus and Germanicus
Gemellus. R PC 946.
483 Æ 1 9 '2 3 (Sem is), — . obv Camel stg. r. or 1. in 400-600 1000- —

wreath rev A s prev. R PC 948-9. 1500
Note: For another of the Cyrene issues, see the listing of Tiberius Gemellus.
Sejanus
P r a e t o r i a n P r e f e c t , a .d . 1 4 - 3 1
P o t e n t i a l s u c c e s s o r o f T ib e r iu s
C o m p a n io n o f L iv il l a
U n c l e o f C l a u d ia A n t o n ia
Sejanius (Provincial Coinage) F VF ch VF

484 Æ 29 of Bilbilis in Spain, under Tiberius, 31. obv TI 400-600 1000-
C A E S A R DIVI A V G V ST I F A V G V ST V S, laur. 1500
hd. r. of Tiberius rev M VN A V G V ST A BILBILIS TI
C A E SA R E V L AELIO SE IA N O around C O S in
wreath. RPC 398. Illustrated, above.
485 Æ 22, — . Types as prev., but obv TI C A E SA R 300-400 900-

A V G V ST I F rev A V G (V ) BILBILIS TI C A E SA R E 1200
V L AELIO SE IA N O . R PC 399.
Nero Claudius Drusus

S o n o f L iv ia
B r o t h e r o f T ib e r i u s
H u sb a n d of A n t o n ia
Fa t h e r o f G e r m a n i c u s , C l a u d iu s a n d L iv il l a
Obverse inscription:
Memorial: N ER O CLA V D IV S D R V SV S G E R M A N IC V S IMP
E x c e p t w h ere n o te d , th e ob verse h as th e left-facin g bare h e a d o f N e r o C la u d iu s

D ru su s.

(Postllumous Commemoratives) F VF EF
486 AV Aureus, under Claudius, rev Triumphal arch 1500- 4000- 8,000-
surmounted by equestrian statue r. with spear betw. 2000 6000 12,000
two trophies with bound captives std. at their bases;
DE below statue, GERM inscr. on the architrave.
R IC (Claud.) 69.
487 — . A s prev., but DE GERM inscr. on architrave, 1500- 4000- 8,000-

statue 1. saluting, and no captives at base of trophies. 2000 6000 12,000
R IC 71.
488 — . rev DE G E R M A N IS, two oblong shields, two 1500- 4000- 8,000-
pairs of spears and trumpets, all crossed, standard 2000 6000 12,000
with flag behind. R IC (Claud.) 73. Illustrated above.

(Posthumous Commemoratives) F VF EF
489 A R D enarius, — . A s 486. RIC (Claud.) 70. 400-600 1250- 3000-
1750 5000
490 — A s 487. R IC (Claud.) 72. 400-600 1250- 3000-

1750 5000
491 — A s 488. R IC (Claud.) 74. 400-600 1000- 3000-

15 00 5000
492

(Posthumous Commemoratives) F VF ch VF
492 Æ Sestertius, under Claudius, rev TI CLA V D IV S 200-300 500-800 2000-
C A E SA R AVG P M T R P IMP (P P) SC , Claudius, 3000
togate, std. 1. on curule chair and hldg. branch,
amidst a display of arms and armor. R IC (Claud.)
93,109.
493 — . obv TI C LA V D IV S C A E S A R AVG P M T R P 200-300 700- 2500-

IMP (P P), laur. hd. r. of Claudius rev N ER O 1000 3500
CLA V D IV S D R V SV S G E R M A N IMP SC , sim. to
487, though no inscr. on architrave. R IC (Claud.)
98,114. Note: The reverse honors Nero Claudius
Drusus, and the obverse honors Claudius himself.
494 — , under Titus, rev IMP T C A E S DIVI V ESP F 250-350 700-

AVG P M T R P P P C O S VIII around large SC , 1000
R E ST above. R IC (Titus) 225.
Nero Claudius Drusus (Provincial Coinage) F VF EF

495 A R Didrachm of C aesarea, under Claudius. As 700- 2000- 4 000-
prev, but laur. hd. r. rev A s 487, but statue 1. and the 1000 3000 6000
architrave inscr. DE G E R M A N IS. R P C 3628. RIC
(Claud.) 125-6. Note: R IC cites a variety without
an inscription on the architrave.
Nero Claudius Drusus (Provincial Coinage) F VF ch VF

496 Æ 2 5 of Crete, — . obv TI KAAYAIOE K A IEA P 250-350 700-
TEPM E E B A ST O Z , laur. hd. r. of Claudius rev 1000
APOY KAAY TEP(M ) above and A N T ΩN IA
below confr. busts of Antonia, dr. at L, and Nero
Claudius Drusus, bare at r. RPC 1031.
497 Æ 17 of Clazomenae in Ionia, — . obv APO YCO C 100-150 400-600

HPW C, laur. hd. r. of Nero Claudius Drusus rev
K A A ZO M EN IW N , snake upon altar. R PC 2500.
Note: These are the only three provincial issues recorded for Nero Claudius Drusus.
Antonia
Augusta, A.D. 37 and 41
W if e o f N e r o C l a u d i u s D r u s u s
D a u g h ter of M a r c A n to n y
a n d O c t a v ia
H a l f -s is t e r o f M a r c e l l u s
N ie c e o f A u g u s t u s
M o t h e r o f G e r m a n ic u s ,
C l a u d iu s a n d L iv il l a
Memorial: A N T O N IA A V G V ST A
Antonia (Lifetime Coinage[?]) F VF ch VF

498 Æ Dupondius, under Tiberius, 22-23. obv IVSTI- 150-200 400-600 1250-
TIA , diad., dr. bust r. of Justitia rev TI C A E SA R 1750
DIVI AVG F AVG P M T R PO T XXIIII around
large SC . R IC (Tib.) 46. Note: The bust of Justitia
represents (but seemingly does not portray) Antonia
and/or Agrippina Senior. It no doubt reflects the
justice they received from the trial of Piso for the
murder of Germanicus, who was A ntonia’s most
promising son and Agrippina Senior’s husband. The
other two dupondii in this series are listed under
Livia (Salus, no. 408) and Livilla (Pietas, no. 477).
Note: This coin, without a catalog number, is also described for Agrippina Senior (immedi
ately following no. 525). For a portrait sometimes given to Antonia, see nos. 563-4-
On posthumous commemoratives, the obverse features Antonia’s right-facing,

draped bust. On aurei and denarii she wears a wreath of grain ears, on dupondii she
is shown bare-headed.
Antoilia (Posthumous Commemoratives) F VF EF
499 AV Aureus, under Claudius, rev C O N ST A N T IA E 1500- 4000- 8000-
A V G V ST I, Antonia, as Constantia, stg. facing, 2000 6000 12,000
hldg. long torch and cornucopia. R IC (Claud.) 65.
Note: Som e identify the reverse figure as Ceres.
Constantia is prominent on the coinage of Claudius
and the issues he struck for Antonia. It may repre
sent the courage and perseverance of Antonia.
500 — . rev SA C E R D O S DIVI A V G V ST I, two torches 1500- 4000- 8000-

linked by ribbon. RIC (Claud.) 67. Note: This 2000 6000 12,000
aureus and no. 503 allude to Claudius as the priest
of Divus Augustus.
501 A R Denarius, — . As 499. RIC (Claud.) 66 . 500-800 1000- 2000-

1500 4000
502 — . A s 500. R IC (Claud.) 68 . 500-800 1000- 2000-

1500 4000
Antonia (Posthumous Commemoratives) F VF chVF

503 Æ Dupondius, under Claudius, rev TI CLA V D IV S 150-200 400-600 1000-
C A E S A R AVG P M T R P IMP (P P) SC , Claudius 1500
(as priest of Divus Augustus), veiled and togate, stg.
I. hldg. simpulum. R IC (Claud.) 92, 104. Illustrated
p. 252.
504 — , under Titus, obv As 498 rev IMP T C A E S DIVI 250-350 500-800
V ESP F AVG R E ST (IT V IT ) around large SC . RIC
(Titus) 218-9. Note: Variants of the reverse inscrip
tion exist (R IC 220-1).
Antonia (Provincial Coinage) F VF EF

505 Billon Tetradrachm of Alexandria, under Claudius. 70-100 200-300 400-600
obv Laur. hd. r. of Claudius rev Dr. bust r. of A n to
nia. R PC 5117.
Antonia (Provincial Coinage) F VF chVF

506 Æ 21 of Thessalonica in Macedon, — . obv Laur. 70-100 200-300
hd. r. or 1. of Caligula rev veiled hd. 1. of Antonia.
R PC 1573-5.
Note: For other provincial coin portraits of Antonia, see the listings of Nero Claudius Drusus
and Valeria Messalina.
Germanicus
S o n o f N e r o C l a u d iu s D r u s u s
a n d A n t o n ia
B r o t h e r o f C l a u d iu s a n d
L iv il l a
H u s b a n d o f A g r ip p in a S e n io r
Fa t h e r o f N e r o C a e s a r , D r u s u s
C a e s a r , C a l ig u l a , A g r ip p in a
Ju n i o r , D r u s i l l a a n d
Ju l ia L iv i l l a
Germ anicus (Posthumous Commemoratives) F VF EF

507 AV A ureus, under Caligula, 37-38. obv C C A E 3000- 7000- 20,000-
S A R AVG GERM P M T R POT, bare or laur. hd. r. 5000 10,000 30,000
of Caligula rev G ER M A N 1CV S C A E S P C C A E S
AVG GERM , bare hd. r. of Germanicus. RIC
(Gaius) 11,17.
508 — , 40. A s prev., but obv C C A E SA R AVG PON M 3000- 7000- 20,000-
T R PO T III C O S III, laur. hd. r. of Caligula. RIC 5000 10,000 30,000
(Gaius) 25.
509 A R D enarius, — , 37-38. A s 507. RIC (Gaius) 700- 1500- 3000-

12,18. 1000 2000 5000
510 — , 40. A s 508. R IC (Gaius) 26. 700- 1500- 3000-

1000 2000 5000
512
Germ anicus (Posthumous Commemoratives) F VF ch VF

511 Æ Sestertius, under Claudius, obv G E R M A N IC V S 900- 3000-
C A E S A R TI AVG F DIVI AVG N , bare hd. r. of 1200 5000
Germanicus rev TI CLA V D IV S C A E SA R AVG
G ERM P M T R P IMP P P around large SC . RIC
(Claud.) 105.
Germ anicus (Posthumous Commemoratives) F VF ch VF

512 Æ Dupondius, under Caligula, obv GERM A N - 150-200 400-600 900-
IC V S C A E SA R in two lines above Germanicus, 1200
hldg. eagle-tipped scepter, in triumphal quadriga r.
rev SIG N IS R EC EPT D E V IC TIS GERM S C to
sides of Germanicus stg. 1., saluting and hldg. stan
dard. RIC (Gaius) 57. Note: This recalls the tri
umph Germanicus earned in 17 for his German
campaigns, in which he recovered the standards lost
by Varus in A.D . 9.
513 Æ As, — , 37-38. obv G E R M A N IC V S C A E SA R 100-150 300-400 700-

TI A V G V ST F DIVI AVG N , bare hd. 1. of Ger 1000
manicus rev C C A E SA R AVG G E R M A N IC V S
PON M T R PO T around large SC . R IC (Gaius) 35.
514 — , 39-41. As prev, but rev C C A E S A R DIVI AVG 100-150 300-400 700-
PRON AVG P M T R PO T III (or IIII) P P. RIC 1000
43,50.
515 — , under Claudius. As 511. RIC (Claud.) 106. 100-150 300-400 700-
Illustrated p. 254. 1000
516 — , under Titus, obv As prev., but hd. r. or I. rev IMP 150-200 400-600
T C A E S DIVI V ESP F AVG R E ST around large
S C . RIC (Titus) 226-9. Note: Sometimes RES-
T IT V IT appears above the S C (RIC 230).
517 — , under Domitian. A s prev., but hd. 1. rev IMP D 150-200 400-600
C A E S DIVI V ESP F AVG R E ST around large SC .
RIC (Dorn.) 460.
Germanicus (Provincial Coinage) F VF EF

518 A R Didrachm of Caesarea, obv G E R M A N IC V S 1750- 4000-
C A E S A R TI AVG F C O S II, bare hd. r. of Germ an 2250 6000
icus rev A R T A X IA S G E R M A N IC V S, Germanicus
crowning Artaxias of Armenia, both figs. stg. RPC
3629. R IC (Gaius) 59. Note: This and the following
drachm were struck under Caligula or Claudius
(opinions vary). Both celebrate Germ anicus’ instal
lation of Artaxias on the Armenian throne during
his fateful mission in the east.
519 A R Drachm (Denarius), — . As prev. RPC 3630. 1000- 2000- —

RIC-. 1500 3000
520 — . obv D IVV S A V G V ST V S, rad. hd. 1. of Augustus 150-200 400-600 1500-

rev G E R M A N IC V S C A E S TI A V G (V ) (F) C O S II 2000
P M (or IMP), bare hd. r. of Germanicus, lightly
bearded. R PC 3623. R IC (Gaius) 60-2. Note:
Inscriptions on the reverse vary. This drachm was
probably struck by Tiberius, though perhaps by
Caligula.
Germ anicus (Provincial Coinage) F VF chVF

521 Æ 23-24 of Italica in Spain, under Tiberius, obv 70-100 150-200 300-400
G E R M A N IC V S C A E SA R TI AVG F, bare hd. 1. of
Germanicus rev M V N IC ITALIC, legionary eagle
and vexillum betw. two standards, PER AVG in
field. R PC 70.
522 Æ 28'29 of Romula, — . obv PERM DIVI AVG 100-150 200-300 500-800
C O L ROM , laur. hd. 1. of Tiberius rev GERM AN -
IC V S C A E S A R D R V SV S C A E SA R , confr. hds. of
Germanicus and Drusus. R PC 74.
523 Æ21 of Cnossus on Crete, under Caligula, obv C 100-150 250-350

C A E S A R AVG G E R M A N IC V S, bare hd. r. of
Caligula rev G ER C A E SA R D O SSE N N O PVL-
C H R O II V I(R ), bare hd. r. of Germanicus. RPC
991. Note: The portraits are crude; an issue of Gor-
tyn has finely engraved portraits.
524 Æ 2 1 of Thessalonica in Macedon, — . obv Laur. 70-100 150-200 250-350

hd. 1. of Caligula rev Bare hd. 1. of Germanicus. RPC
1572.
525 Æ 15 of Aezanis in Phrygia, — . obv Bare hd. r. of 50-75 100-150 200-300

Germanicus rev Stag stg. r. RPC 3134-
Note: For other provincial coins depicting Germanicus, see the listings of Drusus and Drusus
Caesar.
Agrippina
Senior
W if e o f G e r m a n i c u s
D a u g h ter of
A g r ip p a a n d Ju l ia
S is t e r o f G a i u s
C a e s a r , L u c iu s
C a e s a r , A g r ip p a
Po stu m u s a n d
Ju l i a t h e Y o u n g e r
M o t h er of C a l ig u l a ,
N ero C a e sa r ,
D r u s u s C a e s a r , A g r i p p i n a Ju n i o r , D r u s i l l a a n d Ju l i a L i v i l l a
G r a n d m o t h e r o f N ero
Agrippina Senior (Lifetime Coinage[?]) F VF chVF

Æ Dupondius, under Tiberius, 22-23. obv IVSTI- 150-200 400-600 1250-
T IA , diad., dr. bust r. of Justitia rev TI C A E SA R 1750
DIVI AV G F AVG P M T R PO T XXIIII around
large SC . R IC (Tib.) 46. Note: The bust of Justitia
represents (but seemingly does not portray) Agrip
pina Senior and/or Antonia. It no doubt reflects the
justice they received from the trial of Piso for the
murder of Germanicus, who was Agrippina Senior’s
husband and A n tonia’s most promising son. The
other two dupondii in this series are listed under
Livia (Salus, no. 408) and Livilla (Pietas, no. 477).
Note: A catalog number for this coin, no. 498, is given in the listings of Antonia.
Agrip pina Senior (Posthumous Commemoratives') F VF EF

526 AV Aureus, under Caligula, 37-38. obv C C A E 3000- 7000- 20,000-
S A R A V G GERM P M T R POT, bare or laur. hd. r. 5000 10,000 30,000
of Caligula rev A G R IP PIN A M AT C C A E S AVG
GERM , dr. bust r. of Agrippina Sr. R IC (Gaius)
7,13.
527 — , 40. A s prev., but obv C C A E S A R AVG PON M 3000- 7000- 20,000-
T R PO T III C O S III, laur. hd. r. of Caligula. R IC 5000 10,000 30,000
(G aius) 21.
528 A R Denarius, — , 37-38. A s 526. R IC (Gaius) 8,14. 700- 1500- 3 000-

1000 2000 5000
529 — , 40. A s 527. R IC (Gaius) 22. 700- 1500- 3000-

1000 2000 5000
530 — , 40-41. A s prev., but obv inscr. ends T R PO T IIII 700- 1500- 3000-
C O S IIII. R IC (Gaius) 30. 1000 2000 5000
258 COINAGE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE! CATALOG AN D TABLES OF VALUE
532
Agrip pina Senior (Posthumous Commemoratives]) F VF chVF

531 Æ Sestertius, under Caligula, obv A G R IP PIN A M 400-600 1000- 4000-
F M AT C C A E SA R IS A V G V ST I, dr. bust r. of 1500 6000
Agrippina Sr. rev SPQ R M EM ORIAE A G R IP PL
N A E in three lines above and to 1. of ornamented
carpentum drawn 1. by two mules. RIC (Gaius) 55.
Illustrated p. 257.
532 — , under Claudius, obv A G R IP PIN A M F GER- 400-600 1000- 3 000-

M A N IC I C A E SA R IS , dr. bust r. of Agrippina Sr. 1500 5000
rev TI C LA V D IV S C A E SA R AVG GERM P M T R
P IMP P P around large SC . RIC (Claud.) 102.
533 — , under Titus, obv A s prev. rev IMP T C A E S DIVI 400-600 1250-
V ESP F AVG P M T R P P P C O S VIII R E ST 1750
around large SC . R IC (Titus) 231.
Agrippina Senior (Provincial Coinage) F VF EF

534 A R Tetradrachm of Antioch, under Caligula, obv 300-400 500-800 2000-
Laur. hd. r. of Caligula rev Dr. bust r. of Agrippina 3000
Sr. R P C 4166.
Agrippina Senior (Provincial Coinage) F VF ch VF

535 Æ 20 of Methyma on Lesbos, under Caligula, obv 70-100 200-300
Bare hd. r. of Caligula rev Dr. bust r. of Agrippina Sr.
R P C 2340. Note: Agrippina Senior gave birth to
Julia Livilla on Lesbos.
536 Æ 22 of Smyrna in Ionia, — . obv Laur. hd. r. of 70-100 200-300 500-800

C aligula rev Dr. bust of Agrippina Sr. confr. with
bare hd. of Germanicus. R P C 2471.
537 Æ 1 7 of Aezanis in Phrygia, — . obv Laur. hd. r. of 70-100 100-150 250-350

Germanicus rev Dr. bust r. of Agrippina Sr. RPC
3081.
Note: For another coin depicting Agrippina Senior, see no. 543.
Nero Caesar
S o n o f G e r m a n ic u s a n
B roth er of D rusus
C a e sa r , C a l ig u l a ,
A g r ip p in a Ju n io r ,
D r u s il l a a n d
Ju l i a L i v i l l a
G r a n d s o n o f A g r ip p a ,
Ju l i a , N e r o C l a u d i u
D r u s u s a n d A n t o n ia
Nero Caesar (Posthumous Commemoratives) F VF ch VF

538 Æ Dupondius under Caligula, 37-38. obv N ER O 200-300 500-800 1250-
ET D R V SV S C A E SA R E S, statuary group of Nero 1750
Caesar and Drusus Caesar , both cloaked and on
horses prancing r.; Nero Caesar (nearest) salutes rev
C C A E S A R AVG G E R M A N IC V S PON M T R
PO T around large SC . R IC (Gaius) 34- Note: The
statuary group on the obverse was commissioned by
Caligula, and its construction was overseen by C lau
dius. The type inspired a coin of king Antiochus IV
of Com magene (38-72). Illustrated above.
539 — , 39-40. As prev., but rev C C A E S A R DIVI AVG 250-350 500-800 1500-
PRON AVG P M T R PO T III P P. RIC (Gaius) 42. 2000
540 — , 40-41. As prev., but T R PO T IIII. R IC (Gaius) 250-350 500-800 1500-

49. 2000
Nero Caesar (Provincial Coinage) F VF ch VF

541 Æ 29 of Carthago Nova in Spain, under Tiberius. 150-200 400-600
obv TI C A E S A R DIVI A V G V ST I F A V G V ST V S P
M, hd. 1. of Tiberius rev C V I N C N ER O ET
D R V SV S C A E SA R E S Q V IN Q , confr. hds. of Nero
C aesar and Drusus Caesar. RPC 179.
542 Æ 28 of Caesaraugusta, — . obv TI C A E S A R DIVI 100-150 250-350

A V G V ST I F A V G V ST V S, laur. hd. 1. of Tiberius
rev C C A D R V SV S C A E S A R N ER O C A E SA R ,
confr. std. figs. of Nero Caesar and Drusus Caesar.
RPC 342.
543 Æ 20 of Corinth in Achaea, under Caligula, obv 100-150 200-300

A G R IP PIN A GERM , dr. bust r. of Agrippina Sr. rev
P V IP SA N IO A G R IPA II VIR C O R , confr. busts of
Nero Caesar and Drusus Caesar. R PC 1174-5.
Note: For other coins depicting Nero Caesar, see the listings of Drusus Caesar and Drusilla.
2ÓO COINAGE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE: CATALOG AN D TABLES OF VALUE
Drusus Caesar
S o n o f G e r m a n ic u s a n d
B r o th e r of N ero C a e sa r ,
C a l i g u l a , A g r i p p i n a Ju n i o r ,
D r u s i l l a a n d Ju l i a L i v i l l a
G r a n d s o n o f A g r i p p a , Ju l i a ,
N er o C l a u d iu s D r u s u s
a n d A n t o n ia
Drusi is Caesar (Provincial Coinage) F VF chVF

544 Æ 22 of Carthago Nova in Spain, under Tiberius. 100-150 250-350
obv T I C A E SA R DIVI A V G V ST I F A V G V ST V S P
M, bare hd. 1. of Tiberius rev C V I N C N ER O ET
DR V SV S C A E SA R E S Q VIN Q , confr. hds. of Nero
Caesar and Drusus Caesar. RPC 181.
545 Æ 28 of Caesaraugusta, — . obv TI C A E SA R DIVI 150-200 350-500

A V G V ST I F A V G V ST V S, laur. hd. r. of Tiberius
rev C C A N ER O C A E SA R D R V SV S C A E SA R II
VIR, confr. hds. of Nero Caesar and Drusus Caesar.
RPC 343. Illustrated above.
546 Æ 25 of Tingi in Mauretania, — . obv DRVSVS, 150-200 400-600

bare hd. 1. of Drusus Caesar rev N ER O IVL TIN ,
bare hd. r. of Nero Caesar. RPC 865.
547 Æ15 of Cnossus on Crete, under Caligula. N ER 100-150 200-300

C A E S A R PVLCH ER IIVIR, bare hd. r. of Nero
Caesar rev DRV C A E SA R C I P V SE IIVIR, bare
hd. r. of Drusus Caesar. R PC 997.
548 Æ 20 of Tabae in Caria, under Tiberius, obv 100-150 250-350

TEPM A NIKO E APO YIO X OIAAAEAOOI, confr.
busts of Germanicus and Drusus Caesar rev
TA B H N Q N A 0 H N A T O PA S ZE in wreath. RPC
2871.
Note: For other coins depicting Drusus Caesar, see the listings of Nero Caesar and Drusilla.

Gaius (called ‘Caligula’),

A.D. 37-41
Caesar, a . d . 3 5 -3 7
S o n o f G e r m a n ic u s a n d A g r ip p in a S e n io r
H u s b a n d o f C a e s o n ia
H e i r A p p a r e n t ( o f T i b e r i u s ), A . D . 3 5 —3 7
B r o t h e r o f N er o C a e s a r , D r u s u s C a e s a r , A g r ip p in a J u n io r , D r u s il l a a n d

Augustus: C C A E S A R AVG G E R M A N IC V S
C C A E S A R AVG G E R M (A N IC V S ) P M T R PO T
C C A E S A R AVG G E R M A N IC V S PON M T R POT
C C A E S A R AVG PON M T R PO T III(I) C O S III(I)
C C A E S A R DIVI AVG PRON AVG
C C A E S A R DIVI AVG PRON AVG P M T R P III(I) P P
Caligula (Heir Apparent) F VF EF

549 Æ 2 7 -3 0 (A s) of C arthago N ova in Spain, under 250-350 500-800
Tiberius, c. 35-37. obv TI C A E SA R DIV(I)
A V G (V ) F A V G (V ST V ) P M, laur. hd. 1. of Tibe
rius rev G C A E S A R TI N Q V IN (Q ) IN (or C ) V I
N K, bare hd. 1. of Caligula. R PC 182. Note : Coins
of smaller module (RPC 183 and 184) are known of
this issue.
550 Æ 2 9 (A s) of Caesaraugusta, — . obv TI C A E SA R 200-300 400-600

DIVI AVG F A V G V ST V S, laur. hd. r. of Tiberius
rev IV N IA N O LVPO PR C C A E S A R C POM PON
PARRA II V, legionary eagle betw. two standards, C
C A betw. shafts. R PC 364- Note: On this issue
Caligula is mentioned only by name.
B u sts are righ t- or left-facin g , b are-h e ad e d or lau reate.
Caligula (as Augustus) F VF EF

551 AV A ureus rev SPQ R P P O B C S in three lines in 3000- 7000- 20,000-
oak wreath. R IC 27. 5000 10,000 30,000
552 AV Q uinarius rev P M T R PO T (C O S, ITER or 2000- 4000-

PO T IIII), Victory std. r. on globe, hldg. wreath. 3000 6000
R IC 5,20,29.
553 A R D enarius A s 551. RIC 19,28. 700- 1500- 3000-

1000 2000 5000
Note: The other three reverse types of C aligula’s aurei and denarii are described separately in
the listings of Augustus (as illustrated above), Germanicus and Agrippina Senior.
2Ó2 C O IN A G E O F T H E R O M A N EM PIRE: C A T A L O G A N D T A B L E S O F V A L U E
Caligilia (as Augustus) F VF chVF

554 Æ Sestertius rev SPQ R P P O B C IV ES SERVA- 400-600 1000- 2000-
T O S in oak wreath. R IC 37,46,53. 1500 3000
555 — obv Pietas std. 1., hldg. patera, PIETAS in ex. rev 250-350 500-800 1500-
DIVO AVG S C at sides of garlanded hexastyle tem 2000
ple, before which Caligula sacrifices from patera
over altar; flanked by two attendants, one leading a
bull. R IC 36,44,51. N ote: Obverse inscriptions vary.
556 — rev A D L O C V T C O H , Caligula stg. 1. on plat- 500-800 1250- 3000-

form, saluting five soldiers stg. before , all hldg. 1750 5000
shields and swords, all but the foremost hldg. legion
ary eagles. R IC 32,40,48. Note: This lacks the cus
tomary SC .
557 — rev A G R IP PIN A D RVSILLA IV LIA SC , stg. 500-800 1500- 4000-

facing figs. of Agrippina Jr. (as Securitas), Drusilla 2000 6000
(as Concordia) and Julia Livilla (as Fortuna), each
hldg. a cornucopia, the first resting hers on a col
umn, the second also hldg. a patera, the last also
hldg. a rudder. R IC 33. N ote: Drusilla was alive
when this coin was struck, for its obverse inscription
cites Caligula’s first tribunate, which ended on
March 18, 38 (Drusilla died mid-year).
558 Æ As rev V EST A SC , Vesta std. 1., hldg. patera and 200-300 500-800 1000-
scepter. R IC 38,47,54. 1500
559 Æ Quadrans obv Pileus betw. large S C rev PON M 5-15 30-50 70-100
T R P III (or IIII) P P C O S TER T around large R C
C. R IC 45,52. Note: R C C may mean Remissa
Ducentesima, and refer to the abolition of a 1/2% tax
on goods sold at auction.
N ote: Caligula struck dupondii for Augustus, Germanicus and Nero and Drusus Caesars.
Caligilia (Provincial Coinage) F VF EF

560 AV Stater of the Bosporus, king Mithradates III
(or VIII), c. 39-45. obv N o inscr., laur. hd. r. of
Caligula(?) rev BA ZIA EílZ MI0PIAATOY, Victory
adv. 1., hldg. wreath and palm branch, date (yrs.336-
8=39-41) in field. R PC 1908-9 and S-1908A . Note:
The bust may also be that of Mithradates.
A R Tetradrachm of Antioch see no. 534.

561 A R Drachm (Denarius) of Caesarea rev IM PERA 200-300 500-800 1500-
T O R P O N T M A X T R POT, simpulum and lituus. 2000
RPC 3624. R IC 63.
562 Billon Tetradrachm of Alexandria — — —

Caligilia (Provincial Coinage) F VF chVF

563 Æ 27'30 (As) of Carthago Nova in Spain, obv G 50-75 150-200 300-400
C A E SA R AVG G E R M A N IC IMP P M T R P C O S,
laur. hd. r. of Caligula rev C N ATEL FLA C C N
POM FLA C II VIR Q V I N C, hd. r. of Salus, SA L
AVG in field. R PC 185. Note: The bust of Salus
often is incorrectly given to Caesonia; if it repre-
sents anyone, it would most likely be Antonia.
564 Æ 2 2 -2 3 , — . A s prev. RPC 186. 50-75 150-200 300-400
565 Æ 28 of Caesaraugusta, — . rev C C A 70-100 200-300 400-600

L IC IN (I)A N O E T G E R M A N O II VIR, priest
ploughing r. with yoke of oxen. RPC 371.
566 Æ 22 of Segobriga, — . rev SE G O B R IG A in two 50-75 150-200 300-400

lines in wreath. R PC 477.
567 Æ 2 1 of Thessalonica in Macedon 50-75 150-200 300-400

rev 0E X Z A A O N IK E Q N in two lines in wreath.
RPC 1576.
568 Æ 21'26 of the Bosporus, king Aspurgus, c. 14-37. 50-75 150-200 300-500
obv N o inscr., diad. hd. r. of Aspurgus, monogram
behind, IB before rev Bare hd. r. of Caligula. RPC
1904.
569 Æ 18-19 of Philadelphia in Lydia rev Capricorn 1. 50-75 100-150 150-200
with cornucopia at shoulder. RPC 3029.
570 Æ 24 of Judaea, king Herod Agrippa I, 37-44. rev 500-800 2000- 10,000-
N O M E B A SIA E Q S A r P in n A , Germanicus, 4000 20,000
hldg. eagle-tipped scepter, in triumphal quadriga r.,
date LE (yr.5=40/l) in ex. RPC 4976. Hendin 549.
Note: The reverse is modeled after the dupondius
Caligula struck for Germanicus. The inscription
means ‘money of King Agrippa.’
Note: Caligula was the last emperor to issue coins in Spain in large quantities. For other coins
struck by Caligula, see the listings of Augustus, Agrippa, Antonia, Germanicus, Agrippina
Senior, Nero Caesar, Drusus Caesar, Drusilla, Julia Livilla and Agrippina Junior.
Caesonia and Drusilla Minor
Caesonia:
F o u r t h W if e o f C a l ig u l a
M o t h e r o f D r u s il l a M in o r
Drusilla Minor:
D a u g h t e r o f C a l ig u l a a n d C a e so n ia
Caeso•nia and Drusilla Minor (Provincial Coinage ) F VF chVF

571 Æ 22 of Caesarea Paneas in Judaea, king Herod 1500- 3000- 7000-
Agrippa I, 37-44. obv K A IE Q N IA TYNH 2000 5000 11,000
ZEBAZTOY, dr. bust 1. of Caesonia rev
APOYXIAAA © Y rA T P IIE B A IT O Y , stg. fig. of
Drusilla Minor, hldg. Nike and branch, date LE
(yr.5=40/l) at 1. RPC 4977. Hendin 550. Illustrated
above.
Note: For æs of Carthago N ova mistakenly thought to portray Caesonia, see nos. 563-4.
Drusilla
D a u g h t e r o f G e r m a n ic u s a n d
S ist e r o f N er o C a e sa r , D r u s u s C a e s a r ,
C a l ig u l a , A g r ip p in a J u n io r a n d
Drusilla (Lifetime Coinage) F VF ch VF

572 Æ 2 1 of Smyrna in Ionia, obv VA IO N K A IC A PA 400-600 900-
TEPM A N IKO N ETII AO Y IO AA , laur. hd. r. of 1200
Caligula rev APOYCIAAAN ZM YPNAIW N
M H N O O A N H C , Drusilla (as Persephone) std. 1.,
hldg. poppies, grain and scepter. RPC 2472. Note:
The reverse inscription does not include the © EA
one would expect for a coin struck in the provinces
after Drusilla’s death and deification.
Note: For a sestertius depicting Drusilla during her lifetime, see no. 557.
Drusilla (Posthumous Commemoratives) F VF chVF

573 Æ 3 3 of Apamea in Bithynia, under Caligula, obv 700- 1500-
D1VAE D R VSILLAE IVLIAE A G RIPPIN A E, dr. 1000 2000
bust of Drusilla facing, flanked by confr. dr. busts of
Agrippina Jr. and Julia Livilla rev A G R IP PIN A C
C A E S A R IS AVG G ER M A N ICI M ATER C I C,
Agrippina Sr. std. 1., hldg. patera and scepter, D D in
field. R PC 2012.
Drusi lia (Posthumous Commemoratives) F VF chVF

574 Æ 2 0 2 4 , — . obv D R V SV S N ER O C A E SA R E S D 400-600 1000-
D, confr. hds. of Nero Caesar and Drusus Caesar rev 1500
A G R IP PIN A DIVA D R V SILL A IV LIA , stg., facing
figs. of Agrippina Jr. (as Securitas), Drusilla (as C on
cordia) and Julia Livilla (as Fortuna), each hldg. a
cornucopia, the first resting hers on a column, the
second also hldg. a patera, the last also hldg. a rud
der. RPC 2014.
575 Æ 2 0 of Miletus in Ionia, — . obv F A IO S KA IEA P 700- 1500- 3000-

TEPM A NIKO E E E B A IT O S , laur. hd. r. of 1000 2000 5000
Caligula, star before rev M IA H SIQ N @EA
APOYEIAAA, diad., dr. bust r. of Drusilla. RPC
27O4 . Note: This is the only coin on which her
portrait appears alone. Illustrated p . 264.
Note: Standing figures of Drusilla also occur on provincial coins listed for Julia Livilla.
Julia Livilla
D a u g h t e r o f G e r m a n ic u s a n d A g r ip p in a S e n io r
S is t e r o f N e r o C a e s a r , D r u s u s C a e s a r ,
C a l ig u l a , A g r ip p in a J u n io r a n d D r u s il l a
Julia ILivilla (Provincial Coinage) F VF ch VF

576 Æ 16 of Mylilene on Lesbos, under Caligula, obv 900- 2000-
IOYAIAN N E A N TEPM A NIKO Y MYTI, dr. bust 1200 3000
1. of Julia Livilla rev F K A IC A P A C E B A C T O N
MYTI, Caligula stg. facing, hldg. patera. RPC 2348.
Note: The only coin on which Julia Livilla’s portrait
occurs alone, it was struck on the island of her birth.
Illustrated above.
577 Æ 2 2 of Caesarea Paneas in Judaea, king Herod 9 00- 2500- 4000-

Agrippa I, 37-44- obv T A IQ [ . . . ], laur. hd. 1. of 1200 3500 6000
Caligula, date (yr.2=37/8) before rev IOYAIA
APOYZIAAA A r P in n iN A , stg., facing figs. of
Agrippina Jr., Drusilla and Julia Livilla, each hldg. a
cornucopia, the latter leaning on column. RPC
4973.
Note: For a coin which may portray Julia Livilla, see no. 371. Standing figures of Julia Livilla
occur on no. 557 and on provincial coins listed for Drusus Caesar and Drusilla.
Claudius, A.D. 41-54

S o n o f N er o C l a u d iu s D r u s u s a n d A n t o n ia
B r o t h e r o f G e r m a n ic u s a n d L iv il l a
H u s b a n d o f V a l e r ia M e s s a l in a a n d
A g r ip p in a J u n io r
F a t h e r o f B r it a n n ic u s , C l a u d ia O c t a v ia
a n d C l a u d ia A n t o n ia
A d o p t iv e s t e p -f a t h e r o f N e r o

Augustus: TI CLAV D C A E SA R AVG GERM P M (T R P or TR IB PO T P P)
TI CLAV D C A E SA R AVG P M T R P (III or IIII)
TI CLAV D C A E SA R AVG P M T R P VI IMP X(or XI)
TI CLA V D C A E SA R AVG P M T R P VIIII IMP XV I(or XVIII)
TI CLAV D C A E SA R AVG P M T R P X(or XI) IMP P P (C O S V)
TI CLAV D C A E S A R AVG P M T R P X P P IMP XVIII
TI C LA V D IV S C A E SA R AVG P M T R P IMP (P P)
Deified: DIVV S CLA V D IV S A V G V ST V S
Busts are right-facing and laureate or left-facing and bare-headed.

Claudlius (as Augustus) F VF EF
578 AV Aureus rev C O N ST A N T IA E A V G V STI, C on 1250- 3 000- 5 000-
stantia std. 1. on curule chair, feet on stool, r. hand 1750 5000 8000
raised. R IC 2ff.
579 — rev DE BR ITA N N on architrave of triumphal 1250- 3000- 7000-

arch with equestrian statue betw. two trophies. RIC 1750 5000 10,000
3Off. Note: First struck in 46, this type celebrates
Claudius’ invasion of Britain.
580 — rev Sim. to prev., but DE GERM A N IS. RIC 3ff. 1250- 3000- 7000-
1750 5000 10,000
581 — rev EX S C O B C IV ES SERVATO S in three lines 1250- 3000- 5000-

in oak wreath. RIC 5ff. 1750 5000 8000
582 — rev IMPER REC EPT on battlement of wall of 1250- 3000- 7000-
praetorian camp, soldier within. RIC 7ff. 1750 5000 10,000
583 — rev PACI A V G V STA E, Pax-Nemesis adv. r., 1250- 3000- 5000-
pointing caduceus at snake at feet. RIC 9ff. 1750 5000 8000
584 — rev P R A E T O R RECEPT, Claudius stg. r., greet 1250- 3000- 7000-
ing soldier wearing shield and hldg. legionary eagle. 1750 5000 10,000
R IC llff.
585 AV Quinarius — —
586 A R Denarius A s 578. RIC ff. 400-600 900- 2000-
1200 3000
Clauc ius (as Augustus) F VF EF

587 — As 579. R IC 32ff. 500-800 1000- 3 000-
1500 5000
588 — A s 580. RIC 4ff. 500-800 1000- 2500-

1500 3500
589 — A s 581. R IC 6ff. 400-600 900- 2000-

1200 3000
590 — As 582. RIC 8ff. 500-800 1000- 3000-

1500 5000
591 — As 583. R IC lOff. Illustrated p. 266. 400-600 900- 2000-

1200 3000
592 — A s 584. R IC 12ff. 500-800 1000- 2500-

1500 3500
604
Claudlius (as Augustus) F VF ch VF

593 Æ Sestertius rev EX S C (P P) O B C IV ES SERVA- 150-200 500-800 1500-
T O S in four lines in oak wreath. R IC 96,112. 2000
594 — rev SP ES A V G V ST A , Spes adv. 1., hldg. flower 150-200 500-800 1500-
and raising robe, S C in ex. R IC 99,115. 2000
— rev Triumphal arch: see no. 493.

595 — Official issue countermarked N C A PR applied 70-100 250-350
during the reign of Nero. Note : The N C A means
Nero Caesar Augustus, the PR may means Probavit
(approved for further circulation) or Populo Romano
(the Roman people).
596 — Official issue of a Balkan mint (Perinthus?); usu 70-100 300-400 1000-
ally with ‘centering holes’ on both obverse and 1500
reverse.
597 — Unofficial imitative issue from Spain or Britain; 50-75 200-300 —

struck on a small planchet and of crude style.
598 — As prev., but countermarked DV to indicate 50-75 200-300

acceptance of the coin at the value of an official
dupondius.
599 Æ Dupondius rev C ER ES A V G V ST A , Ceres std. 1., 50-75 250-350 700-

hldg. grain ears and a torch, S C in ex. RIC 94,110. 1000
600 Æ A s rev C O N ST A N T IA E A V G V ST I SC , C on 50-75 200-300 500-800

stantia, in military attire, stg. 1., hldg. spear. RIC
95,111.
Claud ius (as Augustus) F VF chVF

601 — rev LIBERTAS A V G V ST A SC , Libertas stg. fac 50-75 200-300 500-800
ing, hldg. pileus and extending 1. arm. R IC 97,113.
602 — rev Large S C at sides of Minerva adv. r., raising 50-75 200-300 500-800
shield and hurling javelin. RIC 100,116.
603 — Unofficial imitative issue from Spain or Britain; 20-40 100-150 —

struck on a small planchet and of crude style.
604 Æ Q uadrans 5-15 30-50 70-100
605 — rev Altar of Lugdunum, RO M ET AVG in ex. 50-75 100-150 250-350

R IC 1. N ote: This rare issue (possibly a semis) may
celebrate Claudius’ 50th year (A.D . 41), for he was
born at Lugdunum on the day the altar was dedi
cated 50 years prior to his accession. However, some
authorities place it a few years later, in 44/45.
606 — obv TI CLA V D IV S C A E SA R AVG, modius or 70-100 200-300 400-600

hand hldg. pair of scales above P N R rev PON M
T R P IMP C O S II. R IC 88-9. N ote: This ‘four days’
quadrans belongs to January 1-4, 41, for the P P of
Pater Patriae (awarded on January 5) is missing. The
PNR may mean Pondus Nummorum Restitutum, ‘the
weight of the coins is restored.’
N ote: For other coins struck by Claudius, see the listings of Livia, Nero Claudius Drusus,
A ntonia, Germanicus, Agrippina Senior, Claudia Antonia, Valeria Messalina, Britannicus
and Claudia Octavia. See Agrippina Junior’s listings for dual-portrait issues (aurei, denarii
and cistophori).
Claudius (Posthumous Commemoratives) F VF EF

607 AV A ureus, under Nero, 54. rev Sacred chariot 1500- 4000- 10,000-
(tensa) of Claudius r., EX S C in ex. R IC (Nero) 4. 2000 6000 15,000
608 A R D enarius, — . A s prev. R IC (Nero) 5. 400-600 1000- 2500-

1500 3500
Claudius (Posthumous Commemoratives) F VF chVF

609 Æ Sestertius, under Titus. Sim. to 594, but rev 200-300 700-
inscr. IMP T V ESP AVG R E ST SC . RIC. RIC 1000
(Titus) 232-5. N ote: Two longer reverse inscriptions
are recorded.
610 — , under Domitian. A s prev., but rev inscr. IMP D 200-300 700- —
C A E S AVG R E ST SC . R IC (Dorn.) 461. 1000
611 Æ Dupondius, under Titus. Sim. to 599, but rev 100-150 400-600 —
inscr. as prev. RIC (Titus) 236-8.
Claudius (Posthumous Commemoratives) F VF chVF

612 Æ As, — . Two rev types: Sim. to 600 and 602, but 100-150 400-600
rev inscrs. IMP T (IT V S ) V ESP (AV G) R E ST SC .
RIC (Titus) 239-44.
613 — , under Domitian. Two rev types: Sim. to 594 and 100-150 400-600
602, but rev inscrs. IMP D (O M IT) (C A E S) AVG
R E ST SC . R IC (Dorn.) 462-4.
N ote: For other posthumously issues see the coins of Caesarea listed below and aurei
described in the joint-issues of Nero and Agrippina Junior and the ‘restored’ coins of Trajan.
Clauc ius (Provincial Coinage) F VF EF

614 AV Stater of the Bosporus, king Cotys I, c. 45- 1250- 2,500- 4000-
68 (?). obv N o inscr., laur. hd. r. of Claudius(?) rev 1750 3,500 6000
Bare hd. r. of Britannicus(?), BA K monogram
behind, date (yrs.342-6=45-49) below. RPC 1912-4.
N ote: Portrait identifications are uncertain. For
another stater that may portray Claudius, see nos.
712-3.
615 — . As prev., but rev Laur., dr. bust. r. of Nero(?), 1250- 2,500- 4 000-
date (yrs.349-50=52-53) below. R PC 1915-6. 1750 3,500 6000
616 A R Drachm of the Koinon of Crete rev Two Cory- 200-300 700- 1500-
bantes dancing, clashing weapons. R PC 971. 1000 2000
617 A R Drachm of Pontus, king Polemo II, c. 38-64- 100-150 450-650 1250-
obv Diad. hd. r. of Polemo II rev Laur. hd. r. of C lau 1750
dius. R PC 3813-5.
618 A R Tetradrachm of Byzantium in Thrace coun- 100-150 250-350

termarked CL CA ES obv Diad. hd. r. of Alexander
the Great, wearing horn of Am mon rev Athena std.
1., hldg. N ike and scepter, trident in ex. RPC 1782.
619 AR Cistophorus of Ephesus(?) obv TI CLAV D 300-400 500-800 3000-

C A E S AVG, bare hd. 1. rev C O M A S I at sides of 5000
distyle temple of Pergamum inscr. RO M ET AVG;
Victory crowning Augustus within. R P C 2221. RIC
120. N ote: For other cistophori struck by Claudius,
see nos. 664-5 and 714.
620 — . obv A s prev. rev DIA N EPHE at sides of tetra- 300-400 500-800 3000-
style temple of Diana at Ephesus, cult statue of 5000
Diana (Artem is) within. R PC 2222. R IC 118.
621 AR Didrachm of Caesarea rev DE B R IT A N N IS 200-300 500-800 1500-

below Claudius in triumphal quadriga r. R PC 3625. 2000
R IC 122.
622 — . rev P P O B C IV ES SERV A TO S in oak wreath. 150-200 300-400 1000-

R P C 3626. R IC 123. 1500
Clauc ius (Provincial Coinage) F VF EF

623 — , under Nero, obv N ER O CLAV D DIVI CLAVD 150-200 300-400 500-800
F C A E S A R AVG G ERM A N I, laur. hd. r. of Nero
rev DIV O S CLAV D A V G V ST G E R M A N IC
PATER AVG, laur. hd. r. of Divus Claudius. RPC
3631,47,52-3. R IC (Nero) 613,19-20. Note: Two
portrait styles exist — youthful and mature.
624 A R Drachm (Denarius), — . A s prev. R PC 3648. 80-120 200-300 500-800

R IC (Nero) 621-2. Note: A related piece of lower
weight (24-Asses?) has Claudius’ head in a wreath.
625 A R Reduced Drachm (Denarius) of Lycia rev 150-200 400-600 1000-

Apollo Patroos stg., hldg. branch, AY in field. RPC 1500
3335. Note: Five other reverse types are recorded.
626 A R Tetradrachm of Antioch, under Nero, obv Laur. 150-200 300-400 500-800
hd. r. of Nero rev Laur. hd. r. of Divus Claudius.
R PC 4123.
627 Billon Tetradrachm of Alexandria 50-75 100-150 250-350
Claudius (Provincial Coinage) F VF chVF

628 Æ 32 of Perinthus in Thrace rev Claudius stg. 1. on 70-100 250-350 —
base, raising kneeling fig. of Tyche. RPC 1745.
629 Æ 20 of Aezanis in Phrygia, obv Laur. hd. r. of 30-50 70-100 150-200

Claudius rev Zeus stg. 1., hldg. eagle and scepter.
R PC 3090.
630 Æ 24 of Berytus in Phoenicia rev veiled founder 30-50 70-100 150-200

ploughing r. with team of oxen. R PC 4545.
631 Æ Diobol of Alexandria 20-40 70-100 150-200
632 Æ Obol, — . 15-25 70-100 150-200
Claudia Antonia
D a ug h ter of C lau diu s ( by A elia Pa etin a )
H a l f -sister of C laudia O ctavia and B rita nnicu s
N iece of S ejanu s
S t ep -sister of N ero
Claudia Antonia (Provincial Coinage) F VF EF

633 Billon Didrachm (18mm) of Alexandria, under 200-300 500-800
Claudius, 42-43. obv TIB KAAV KAI C E B A C
TEPM, laur. hd. r. of Claudius, LT (year three)
before rev AYTOKPA, the dr. bust 1. of Britannicus
betw. the confr. dr. busts of Claudia Octavia, at 1.,
and Claudia Antonia, at r., both set upon crossed
cornucopias. R PC 5135.
Clauc ia Antonia (Provincial Coinage) F VF chVF

634 Æ 1 6 of the Koinon of Crete, under Claudius, obv 900- 2000-
TI KAAYAIO I TEPM A N IK O S, bare hd. 1. of C lau 1200 3000
dius rev KAAY O K T A IA KAAY A N T O N IA ,
jugate, dr. busts r. of Claudia Antonia and Claudia
Octavia. R PC 1033.
635 Æ 25 of Patras in Achaea, — . obv TI CLA V D IV S 700- 2000-

C A E S A R AVG G ERM AN ICV, bare hd. 1. of C lau 1000 3000
dius rev LIBERIS AVG C O L A A P, type as 633.
R PC 1255.
Note: There are no coins on which Claudia A ntonia’s portrait occurs without one or both of
her siblings. A ll known issues which depict Claudia Antonia are listed either above or under
Valeria Messalina, Britannicus and Claudia Octavia. The only two issues which offer mean-
ingful portraits of Claudia Antonia are nos. 634 and 647.
Valeria Messalina
Augusta, A .D . 41-48
T h ir d w if e o f C l a u d i u s
M o t h e r o f B r it a n n ic u s a n d C l a u d ia O c t a v ia
S t e p m o t h e r o f C l a u d ia A n t o n ia
Valeria Messalina (Provincial Coinage) F VF EF

636 A R Didrachm of C aesarea, under Claudius, obv 3000- 7000- 15,000-
M E SS A LLIN A A V G V ST A , dr. bust r. of Valeria 5000 10,000 20,000
Messalina rev O CTA V IA B R IT A N N IC V S A N T O
N IA , stg. facing figs.: Britannicus betw. Claudia
Octavia, at 1. with whom he holds hands, and C lau
dia Antonia at r., who holds cornucopia. RPC 3627.
R IC (Claud.) 124.
637 Billon Tetradrachm of Alexandria, — . obv Laur. 70-100 100-150 300-400

hd. r. of Claudius rev Valeria Messalina stg. 1., lean
ing on column, hldg. two small figs. and grain stalks.
R PC 5164. Note: The two small figures no doubt
represent Claudia O ctavia and Britannicus.
Valeria Messalina (Provincial Coinage) F VF chVF

638 Æ 1 9 of C nossu s on Crete, — . obv TI CLA V D IV S 100-150 500-800 1000-
C A E S A R AVG G E R M A N IC V S, bare hd. 1. of 1500
Claudius rev V ALERIA M E SSA L IN A CAPI-
TIO N E C Y TH ERO IIVIR, dr. bust r. of Valeria
Messalina. R PC 1001-2. Illustrated above.
Valer ia Messalina (Provincial Coinage) F VF ch VF

639 Æ 2 9 -3 0 of N icaea in Bithynia, — . obv 400-600 1000-
M E Z IA A E IN A ZEBA ZTH N E A HPA, dr. bust r. 1500
of Valeria Messalina, grain ears bef. rev V KAAIOZ
POYcPOl A N 0Y I1A T O E N EIK A (I)EQ N , tetra-
style building. RPC 2038.
640 Æ 1 7 of Aegae in Aeolis, — . obv M E C C A A E IN A 100-150 400-600 900-

C E B A C T H , dr. bust r. of Valeria Messalina rev 1200
A irA E W N , Zeus stg. 1. RPC 2430.
641 Æ 1 9 of Tralles in Lydia, — . obv TI KAAY KAI 100-150 400-600 900-

C E B A C , confr. busts of Valeria Messalina, dr. at 1., 1200
and Claudius, laur. at r. rev KA IZAPEQ N BPET-
A N N IK O Z , Britannicus stg., facing, hldg. grain
ears. R PC 2654.
642 Æ 22 of C aesarea in Cappadocia, under Nero, 66 . 100-150 400-600

obv M E C C A A A IN A C EBA C TO Y , dr. bust r. of
Valeria Messalina rev A N T W N IA C E B A C T H , dr.
bust r. of Antonia (the deceased mother of C lau
dius). R PC 3657.
Britannicus
S o n o f C l a u d iu s a n d V a l e r ia M e s s a l in a
B r o t h e r o f C l a u d ia O c t a v ia
H a l f -b r o t h e r o f C l a u d ia A n t o n i a
S t e p -b r o t h e r o f N e r o
Britannicus (Imperial Coinage) F VF ch VF

643 Æ Sestertius of P erinthus(?), under Claudius, 50- 5000- 20 ,000-
54. obv T I CLA V D IV S C A E S A R AVG F BRITAN- 8000 30,000
N IC V S , dr. bust r. or 1. of Britannicus rev Mars adv.
1., hldg. spear and shield, large S C in field. R IC p.
130 (note). Note: This coin is from the same
Balkan-mint series as the sestertius o f Agrippina
Junior (no. 662) and the æs o f Nero as Caesar (nos.
681-2). Though from a Balkan mint, these coins are
‘Imperial’ in every other respect. The fancifully sug
gestion that this sestertius was struck three decades
later by Britannicus’ boyhood friend Titus must be
rejected, not only because of the similarities this
coin has with the aforementioned æs, but also
because the coin has no features to suggest it is a
posthumous striking.
Britarmicus (Provincial Coinage) F VF chVF

644 Æ 23 of Thessalonica in Macedon, under Claudius. 150-200 250-350 500-800
obv TI KAAO YA IO C K A IC A P C E B A C T O C , bare
hd. 1. of Claudius rev BPETA N N IK O C
© E C C A A O N I(K E D N ), dr. bust 1. of Britannicus in
wreath. RPC 1588.
645 Æ 17 of Tomis in Moesia Inferior, — . obv BPI- 150-200 300-400

TA NN IKO Y, laur. hd. r. rev TO M I HPQ, three
grain ears betw. two torches. RPC 1834.
646 Æ 18 of the Bosporus, king Cotys I, c. 45-68( ?). obv 150-200 250-350
BPITAN N IKO Y KAIZAPOZ, bare hd. r. of Britan
nicus rev Diad. hd. r. of Cotys I, BA K monogram
behind. RPC 1926.
647 Æ 13 of Cyzicus in Mysia, under Claudius, obv 9 00- 2000-

N E O C TEP M A N IK O C KY, bare hd. r. of Britanni 1200 3000
cus rev A N O K T A (?), confr., dr. busts of Claudia
A ntonia and Claudia Octavia. R PC 2248.
648 Æ21 of Ilium (Troy) in Troas, — . obv TIBEPIO C 150-200 400-600

KA AO YA IO C C E B A C T O C , bare hd. r. of C lau
dius rev TI KAAO YA IO C C E B A C T O Y YIO C IAI,
bare hd. r. of Britannicus, scepter before. R P C 2314.
649 Æ21 of Pergamum in Mysia, — . obv BP ETA N N I 150-200 400-600

K O C KAICAP, bare hd. r. of Britannicus rev
N EPQ N KAICAP, bare hd. r. of Nero (as Caesar).
R PC 2371.
650 Æ 17 of Smyrna in Ionia, — . obv ZMY(P), dr. bust 150-200 250-350 500-800
r. of Britannicus (?) rev EI1IO IAIZTO Y EIKAAIOZ,
Victory adv. r. R PC 2476. Note: Som e authorities
believe the portrait is that of young Nero.
651 Æ 2 I of Caesarea in Cappadocia, — . obv 150-200 300-400

KAAYAIOC K A IC A P BPIT A N N IK O C , bare hd. r.
of Britannicus rev K A IC A P ET H (yr.8=48)
O KTA O Y IA A N T W N IA , Claudia O ctavia and
Claudia A ntonia stg. facing, clasping hands and
hldg. cornucopia. R PC 3656.
652 Æ Prutah (Lepton) of Judaea, procurator Antonius 30-50 50-75 100-150

Felix, 52-59. obv NEPW KAAV KAIPCAP, two
shields and two spears crossed rev BPIT KA I above
palm tree with fruit, LIA (yr. 14=54) below. RPC
4971. Hendin 652. Note: This coin is jointly
devoted to Nero and Britannicus. It was struck in
54, the year which proved fatal for both Claudius
and Britannicus, but which brought Nero to the
throne. It is a companion to no. 674-
Britarinicus (Provincial Coinage) F VF ch VF

653 Æ 1 8 , — , king Herod Agrippa II, 56-95. obv TI 300-400 900-
C LA V D IV S C A E SA R AVG P M T R P P, laur. hd. 1200
r. of Claudius rev B R IT A N N IC V S AVG F, bare hd.
r. of Britannicus. RPC 4843. Hendin 568. Note: A
‘pre-royal’ coin of Agrippa II struck at Caesarea
Paneas. There is a smaller piece, c. 14mm with his
portrait.
654 Æ 2 2 of Aegae in Syria, king Herod Agrippa II, 56- 300-400 900-
95. obv BPETANNIKOE,dr. bustr. of Britannicus. 1200
rev ET P A irEA IQ N (NEI or AIO) in four lines in
wreath.RPC 4043, 5 or var. Illustrated p. 272.
Note: Britannicus appears with the other children of Claudius on coins listed under Valeria
Messalina, Claudia Antonia and Claudia Octavia. See no. 614 for a Bosporan gold stater that
may portray Britannicus.
Agrippina Junior
A ugusta, A .D . 5 0 - 5 9
W if e (a n d n ie c e ) o f C l a u d iu s
M o t h e r o f N ero
D a u g h t e r o f G e r m a n ic u s a n d
S is t e r o f N er o C a e s a r , D r u s u s C a e s a r ,
C a l ig u l a , D r u s il l a a n d J u l ia L iv il l a
Agrip pina Junior (as Augusta)

(Inck iding dual-portrait coins shared with Claudiias and N ero)
F VF EF
655 AV A ureus, under Claudius, 50-54. obv TI CLAVD 1250- 3000- 5000-
C A E S A R AVG GERM P M TR IB PO T P P, laur. 1750 5000 8000
hd. r. of Claudius rev A G R IPPIN A E AV G V STA E,
dr. bust r. of Agrippina Jr., wreathed in grain. RIC
(Claud.) 80. Illustrated above.
656 — , under Nero, 54. obv A G RIPP AVG DIVI 1250- 3000- 7000-
C LA V D N E R O N IS C A E S MATER, confr. busts of 1750 5000 10,000
Nero, bare-headed at 1., and Agrippina Jr., dr. at r.
rev N ER O N I C LAV D DIVI F C A E S AVG GERM
IMP T R P, oak wreath containing EX SC . RIC
(Nero) 1,3. Note: Issued only from October to
December, 54.
657 — , 55. obv N ER O CLA V D IV S DIVI F C A E S AVG 1250- 3000- 7000-

G ERM IMP T R P C O S, jugate busts r. of Nero and 1750 5000 10,000
Agrippina Jr. rev A G RIPP AVG DIVI CLAVD
N E R O N IS C A E S MATER, images of Divus C lau
dius and Divus Augustus std. on cart drawn 1. by
four elephants, EX S C above. R IC (Nero) 6. Note:
The second seated figure is sometimes described as
Fides Praetorianum.
Agrippina Junior (as Augusta)

(Including dual-portrait coins shared with Claudius and Nero)
F VF EF
658 A R D enarius, under Claudius, 50-54- obv AG RIP- 500-800 1000- 3000-
PIN AE A V G V STA E, dr. bust r. of Agrippina Jr., 1500 5000
wreathed in grain rev N ER O C LAV D C A E S
D R V SV S GERM P RIN C 1VVENT, bare-headed,
dr. bust 1. of young Nero. RIC (Claud.) 75.
659 — . A s 655. R IC (Claud.) 81. 500-800 1000- 2500-

1500 3500
660 — ., under Nero, 54- A s 656. RIC (Nero) 2. 500-800 1000- 3000-
1500 5000
661 — , 55. As 657. R IC (Nero) 7. 500-800 1000- 3000-

1500 5000
656
Agrippina Junior (as Augusta) F VF ch VF

662 Æ Sestertius of P erinthus(?), under Claudius, 50- 1500- 4000-
54- obv A G R IP PIN A AVG G E R M A N IC I F CAE- 2000 6000
SA R IS AVG, dr. bust r. of Agrippina Jr. rev N o
inscr., carpentum drawn 1. by two mules. RIC
(Claud.) 103. Note: This coin is from the same Bal-
kan-mint series as the sestertius of Britannicus (no.
643) and the æs of Nero as Caesar (nos. 681-2).
Note: For other dynastic issues depicting Agrippina Junior, see: N ero’s provincial coinage.
Agrippina Junior (Provincial Coinage) F VF EF

663 AV Stater of the Bosporus, king Cotys I, c. 45-
68(?). obv N o inscr., dr. bust r. of Agrippina Jr.(?) rev
Laur., dr. bust of Nero r. or 1., BA K monogram
behind, date (yr.352=55) below. R PC 1917.
664 A R C istophorus of Eph esus(?), under Claudius, 50- 500- 1250- 4 000-
51 .obv TI C LAV D C A E S A R AVG P M T R P X 800 1750 6000
IMP XIIX, laur. hd. r. of Claudius rev A G R IP PIN A
A V G V ST A C A E SA R IS AVG, dr. bust r. of Agrip
pina Jr. R PC 2223. R IC (Claud.) 117.
665 — . obv TI CLA V D C A E S AVG A G RIPP 450-650 1000- 3000-

A V G V ST A , jugate busts I. of Claudius, laur., and 1500 5000
Agrippina Jr., dr. rev D IA N A EPH ESIA, facing cult
statue of Diana (Artemis) of Ephesus. R PC 2224.
R IC (Claud.) 119.
Agrip pina Junior (Provincial Coinage) F VF EF

666 AR Tetradrachm of Antioch, under Nero, obv Laur. 150- 400- 1000-
hd. r. of Nero rev Dr. bust r. of Agrippina Jr. RPC 200 600 1500
4175.
667 A R Didrachm of Caesarea, — . obv N ER O CLAVD 250- 5 00- 1500-

DIVI CLAV D F C A E SA R AVG G ERM A N I, laur. 350 800 2000
hd. r. of Nero rev A G R IP PIN A A V G V ST A MATER
A V G V ST I, dr. and/or veiled bust r. of Agrippina Jr.
R PC 3632-3. R IC (Nero) 607-8. Note: Related
pieces of lower weight (24- and 12- Asses?) have
Agrippina’s head in a wreath.
668 AR Drachm (Denarius), — . A s prev., but Agrip 150- 400- 1000-

pina Jr. bust r. or 1. RPC 3637-42. RIC (Nero) 610- 200 600 1500
11.
669 Billon Tetradrachm of Alexandria, — , 56-59. obv 30-50 100- 3 00-

NEP(Q) KAAY KAIE SEBA TEP AYTO, laur. hd. r. 150 400
of Nero rev A r P in n iN A ZEBAZTH, dr. bust r. of
Agrippina Jr. RPC 5201ff.
Agrip pina Junior (Provincial Coinage) F VF ch VF

670 Æ 23 of the Bosporus, king Cotys I, c. 45-68(?). obv 50-75 100-150 400-600
Laur. hd. r. of Claudius rev Hd. 1. of Agrippina Jr.,
BA K monogram before. RPC 1924-5.
671 Æ 19 of the Koinon of Crete, c. 50. obv Bare hd. 1. 100-150 300-400
of Claudius rev Dr. bust r. of Agrippina Jr. RPC
1034.
672 Æ 16 of Cyme in Aeolis, under Nero, obv Laur. hd. 30-50 70-100 150-200
r. of N ero rev Veiled, dr. bust r. of Agrippina Jr. RPC
2434.
673 Æ 2 1 of Smyrna in Ionia, — . obv Confr. busts of 50-75 100-150 400-600

Agrippina Jr., dr. at 1., and Nero, at r. rev Nemesis
stg. r., hldg. caduceus. R PC 2479.
674 Æ Prutah (Lepton) of Judaea, procurator A n to 5-15 30-50 70-120

nius Felix, 52-59. obv TI KAAVAIOC KAICAP
TERM, crossed palm branches, LIA (yr. 14=54)
below rev IOYAIA A rP in n iN A in wreath. RPC
4970. Hendin 651. Note: The obverse names C lau
dius, the reverse Agrippina Jr. This was struck in 54
as a companion to no. 652.
Note: Agrippina Junior appeared on coins prior to her marriage to Claudius, including on a
sestertius of Caligula (no. 557) and on provincial coins listed for Drusus Caesar, Drusilla and
Julia Livilla.
Nero, A.D. 54-68

Caesar, A.D. 50-54
(under Claudius)
S o n o f A g r ip p in a J u n io r
H u s b a n d o f C l a u d ia O c t a v ia , P o p p a e a a n d
S t a t il ia M e s s a l in a
F a t h e r o f C l a u d ia N e r o n is
A d o p t e d so n a n d s u c c e s s o r o f C l a u d iu s

Caesar: N ER O N I C LAV DIO D RVSO GERM (A N IC O ) C O S D ESIG N
N ER O C LAV D C A E S D R V S(V S) GERM PRIN C IV V EN T
Augustus: N ER O C A E S A R AVG IMP (pre-reform)
N ER O C A E SA R (post-reform)
N ER O C A E S A R A V G V ST V S (post-reform)
IMP N ER O C A E S A R A V G V ST V S (post-reform)
IMP N ER O C A E S A R AVG P P (post-reform)
Note: The above inscriptions occur mainly on precious metal coins. N ero’s aes coinages have
a great many inscriptions (75 listed in R IC ). The inscriptions on the æs struck up through 66
do not have IMP, whereas those from 66 to 68 begin with IMP.
A s Caesar, e x c e p t w here n o ted , o b v erses h a v e th e b are-h e ad e d , d rap ed b u st o f

y ou n g N e r o righ t- or left-facin g . A s Augustus, N e r o ’s p recio u s m etal issues d e p ic t
h im righ t-facin g an d b are-h e ad e d (pre-reform ) or lau re ate (p o st-refo rm ). H is
im age o n th e æ s is m ore varied : right- or left-facin g , b are-h e ad e d or lau re ate, so m e
tim es d rap ed or w ith g lo b e or aeg is at th e tip o f h is bu st tru n catio n .
Nero (as Caesar) F VF EF

675 AV A ureus, under Claudius, 50-54. rev SA C E R D 1000- 3000- 6000-
C O O P T IN O M N C O N L SV PR A N V M EX SC , 1500 5000 10,000
simpulum, lituus, tripod and patera. RIC (Claud.)
76.
676 — . rev EQ V ESTER O R D O PRINCIPI IV V EN T in 1000- 3000- 6000-

four lines on circular shield, spear behind. RIC 1500 5000 10,000
(Claud.) 78.
677 — . obv TI C LAV D C A E S A R AVG GERM P M 1250- 4000- 7000-

T R IB PO T P P, laur. hd. r. of Claudius rev N ER O 1750 6000 10,000
C LAV D C A E S D R V SV S GERM PRIN C IVVENT,
bare-headed, dr. bust 1. of Nero. R IC (Claud.) 82.
678 A R D enarius, — . As 675. RIC (Claud.) 77. 200-300 500-800 2000-

3000
Nero (as Caesar) F VF EF

679 — . A s 676. RIC (Claud.) 79. 200-300 500-800 2,500-
3,500
680 — . A s 677. RIC (Claud.) 83. 500-800 900- 2,500-

1200 3,500
Nero (as Caesar) F VF ch VF

681 Æ Sestertius of Perinthus(?), — . rev EQ V ESTER 400-600 1500-
O R DO P R IN C IP IIV V E N T on shield, spear 2000
behind. R IC (Claud.) 108.
682 Æ Dupondius, — . rev SA C E R D C O O P T IN OM N 250-350 1000-

C O N L SV P R A N V M EX SC , simpulum, lituus, tri 1500
pod and patera. RIC (Claud.) 107. Note: This and
the previous coin are from the same Balkan-mint
series as the sestertii of Britannicus and Agrippina
Junior (nos. 643 and 662).
Note: For other coins struck for Nero as Caesar, see the listings of Britannicus. For coins
depicting N ero and Agrippina Junior, see nos. 656-8 and 660-1.
Nero (as Augustus) F VF EF

683 AV Aureus 900- 1750- 3000-
1200 2250 5500
684 — , 55-61. rev PO N TIF M A X T R P II P P (etc.) 1000- 1750- 4000-

around oak wreath containing EX SC . R IC 8ff. 1500 2250 6000
685 — , 60-63. rev PO N TIF M A X T R P VII C O S IIII P 1000- 1750- 4000-

P (etc.), EX S C in field; Ceres stg. 1., hldg. grain ears 1500 2250 6000
and torch R IC 23ff. Note: This the following two
types were struck from 60 to 63/4.
686 — , 60-64. rev Inscr. as prev., but Virtus stg. 1., r. foot 1000- 1750- 4000-
on pile of arms, hldg. sword and spear. RIC 25ff. 1500 2250 6000
687 — , A s prev., but rev Roma stg. r., 1. foot on helmet, 1000- 1750- 4 000-
inscr. shield placed on her knee. RIC 27ff. 1500 2250 6000
688 — , c. 64-66. rev IA N V M C LV SIT PACE P R 1000- 2000- 5000-

T E R R A M A RIQ PARTA, the temple of Janus with 1500 3000 8000
closed doors. RIC 50,8.
689 — , c. 65-66. rev V ESTA , hexastyle temple of Vesta 1000- 2000- —

with domed roof, std. fig. of Vesta within. RIC 61. 1500 3000
690 AV Quinarius, 55-56. rev V IC T AVG, Victory adv.

1., placing hand on shield before . RIC 10. Note:
N ero had one issue of gold quinarii, and none in sil
ver.
691 A R Denarius 100-150 300-400 1500-

2000
692 — A s 684. R IC 9ff. 150-200 400-600 1750-

2250
Nero (as Augustus) F VF EF

693 — As 685. R IC 24ff. 150-200 400-600 1750-
2250
6 9 4 ^ — As 686. RIC 26ff. 150-200 400-600 1750-

2250
695 — A s 687. R IC 28ff. 150-200 400-600 1750-

2250
696 — As 689. RIC 62. 150-200 400-600 2000-

3000
697 — , c. 67-68. rev N o inscr., legionary eagle betw. two 150-200 400-600 2000-
standards. R IC 68. 3000
702
Nero (as Augustus) F VF chVF

698 Æ Sestertius 150-200 500-800 1500-
2000
699 — but of a Balkan Mint (typically with short 50-75 250-350 500-800
planchets and ‘centering holes’ on the obverse and
reverse). See RPC 1758 and R IC I, pp. 186-7.
700 — rev S C at sides of the triumphal Arch of Nero 200-300 700- 2000-
surmounted by quadriga. RIC 143ff. Note: This arch 1000 3000
did not survive antiquity.
701 — rev D E C V R SIO below decursio scene: Nero, 250-350 1000- 4 000-
hldg. spear, on horseback r. with another soldier on 1500 6000
horseback, hldg. standard, with them two foot-sol-
diers, the foremost hldg. standard, S C sometimes in
field. RIC 105ff. Note: The common variety of this
type does not have the foot soldiers.
702 — rev A V G V ST I POR O S T S C (or PORT AVG 1250- 3000- 10,GOO-

S C ) arranged above and below the Port of Ostia 1750 5000 15,000
seen from bird’s-eye view; several ships, a statue of
Neptune and the river-god Tiber reel, within. RIC
178ff.
Note: Other rare sestertii of Nero have adlocutio and

congiarium scenes.
28o COINAGE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE: CATALOG AN D TABLES OF VALUE
Nero (as Augustus) F VF ch VF

703 Æ D upondius obv Hd. usually radiate 100-150 400-600 9 00-
1200
704 — rev M A C AVG SC , frontal view of the two-sto- 200-300 500-800 1000-
ried M acellum Magnum, sometimes with value mark 1500
II in ex. RIC 109ff.
705 Æ A s obv Hd. sometimes radiate 100-150 400-600 700-

1000
706 — rev A R A PA C IS in ex., S C to sides of the altar- 200-300 500-800 1000-

enclosure of the Ara Pads with decorated panels 1500
and doors. R IC 418ff.
707 — rev PO N TIF M A X T R P (O T ) IMP P P S C 200-300 500-800 1000-

(etc.), Nero, as Apollo Citharoedus, adv. r. playing 1500
lyre, sometimes with value mark II in ex. R IC 77ff.
Note: Sometimes these are struck in orichalcum.
708 — A s prev., but rev anepigraphic. RIC 73-6. 500-800 —

709 Æ Sem is 30-50 150-200 300-400
710 — rev CER TA Q V IN Q RO M A E (or RM A ) C O N S 50-75 150-250 400-600

SC , table with urn and wreath, shield below ,, some-
times with value mark S in field. R IC 228ff. Note:
Inscriptions vary considarably; the fullest reading
(itself non-existent) is given.
711 Æ Q uadrans 5-15 30-50 70-100
711
»-H
J
Nero (Provincial Coinage) F EF

712 AV Stater of the Bosporus, king Cotys I, c. 45- 1250- 4000-
o o
o o
68(?). obv N o inscr., laur hd. r. of Divus Claudius(?) 1750 6000

rev Laur., dr. bust r. ofN ero(?), BA K monogram
behind, date (yrs.353-7=56-60) below. R PC 1918-
22. Note: For another stater that may portray Nero,
see no 614-
713 — . A s prev., but rev Monogram is NEQ KP 1500- 3000- 6,000'

(=N E P Q N O E KA IEA PO E(?), Nero Caesar). RPC 2000 5000 9,000
1923.
714 A R C istophorus of E phesus(?), as Caesar, under 400-600 1250- 5000-

Claudius, 51 .obv N ER O N I C LAV D C A E S DRVSO 1750 8000
GERM , bare-hd.ed, dr. bust 1. of young Nero rev
C O S DES PRIN C IW E N T in three lines on round
shield in wreath. RPC 2225. R IC (Claud.) 121.
Nero (Provincial Coinage) F VF EF

715 A R Tetradrachm of Antioch, rev Eagle stg. r. on 100-150 200-300 400-600
thunderbolt. R PC 4186.
716 A R Didrachm of Antioch, as Caesar, under C lau 150-200 300-400 500-800

dius, 50-4. rev AIQPAXM QN, simpulum and lituus.
RPC 4171. Note: The inscription identifies the
denomination; it was formerly given to Ephesus.
717 A R Tetradrachm of Laodiceia ad Mare in Syria rev 150-200 400-600 1000-

Turreted, dr. hd. r. of Tyche, date in field. RPC 1500
4383-5.
718 A R Didrachm of Caesarea rev A R M EN IA C across 150-200 300-400 500-800

field, Victory adv. r., hldg. wreath and palm branch.
RPC 3634- R IC 615. Note: For other Caesarean
didrachms struck by Nero, see the listings of C lau
dius (posthumous) and Agrippina Junior.
719 A R Drachm (Denarius), — . rev Mt. Argaeus sur 70-100 150-200 300-400
mounted by stg. fig. hldg. globe and scepter, Greek
date in field. RPC 3649-50.
720 A R Hemidrachm (Quinarius), — . rev As prev. or 30-50 70-100 150-200

Victory std. r. on globe, hldg. wreath, or stg. r., foot
on globe, inscr. shield. R PC 3645-6. R IC 617-8
Note: These likely passed as quinarii.
721 — . rev As 718. R PC 3644. R IC 616. 50-75 100-150 200-300
723 — rev Rad. hd. r. of Divus Augustus. RPC 5294. 20-40 70-100 200-300
724 — rev Agathadaem on snake with poppies and ears 20-40 80-120 250-350
of grain or bust r. of Alexandria or galley under sail r.
RPC 521 Off, 5289ff, 5296ff.
Nero (Provincial Coinage) F VF ch VF

725 Æ 3 5 of Perinthus in Thrace rev Crossed cornuco 70-100 250-350 500-800
pias. R PC 1748.
726 Æ 2 6 of the Koinon of Macedon rev M acedonian 20-40 70-100 200-300

shield in inscr. R PC 1614.
727 Æ 1 7 of Thyatira in Lydia rev Double-axe. RPC 20-40 70-100 200-300

2382.
728 Æ 3 2 '3 5 of Rhodes (off the coast of Caria) obv 100-150 250-350 500-800
Rad. hd. r. or 1. of Helios (Sol) with features of Nero
rev Nike adv. r. or 1., hldg. wreath and palm branch.
cf. R PC 2752. Note: Only a small percentage of
these Rhodian bronzes assimilate N ero’s features
with the sun-god. Other times (RPC 2772) the radi
ate hd. is explicitly that of Nero.
Nero (Provincial Coinage) F VF ch VF

729 Æ 2 8 -2 9 of Antioch in Syria rev Large S C in 20-40 80-120 250-350
wreath. R PC 4309ff.
730 Æ Prutah (Lepton) of Judaea, procurator Porcius 5-15 30-50 70-100

Festus, 59-62. obv N EP W N O C in wreath rev
K A IC A P O , palm branch, LE (yr.5=59). RPC 4972.
Hendin 653. Note: For another prutah struck for
N ero see no. 653.
Note: For Judaean bronzes of Nero bearing the name of Vespasian, who then was governing-
Judaea, see nos. 892-4. For other provincial coins struck by Nero, see the listings of Tiberius,
Claudius, Agrippina Junior, Claudia Octavia, Poppaea and Statilia Messalina.
Claudia Octavia
Augusta, A .D . 54-62
F i r s t w if e o f N e r o
D a u g h t e r o f C l a u d iu s a n d
V a l e r ia M e s s a l in a
S is t e r o f B r it a n n ic u s
Claudia Octavia (Provincial Coinage) F VF EF

731 Billon Tetradrachm of Alexandria, under Nero, 56- 50-75 150-200 300-400
60. obv N EP(Q or O N ) KAAY KAIZ ZEBA TEP
AYTO, laur. hd. r. of Nero rev O KTAO YIA
ZEBAZTOY, dr. bust r. of Claudia Octavia. RPC
5202ff.
Claudlia Octavia (Provincial Coinage) F VF ch VF

732 Æ 2 7 of C nossu s on Crete, — , c. 55-60. obv Bare 200-300 400-600 700-
hd. r. of Nero, dr. and scepter at shoulder rev Confr. 1000
busts of Claudia Octavia, dr. at 1. with crescent
above, and Nero, at r., bare with star above. RPC
1005-6. Illustrated above.
733 Æ 2 0 of Corinth in Achaea, — , 54-5. obv Dr. bust r. 150-200 400-600

of Claudia O ctavia rev Genius of colony stg. 1. RPC
1191.
734 Æ 25 of Perinthus in Thrace, under Nero, obv 150-200 400-600

O KTA O YA ZEBA ZTH , diad., dr. bust r. of Claudia
O ctavia rev H PA nEPIN@IΩN, statue 1. of Sam ian
Hera. R PC 1755.
735 Æ 2 1 of Sinope in Paphlagonia, — . obv Laur. hd. r. 200-300 500-800

of Nero rev Dr. bust r. of Claudia Octavia. RPC
2137.
Clauc ia Octavia (Provincial Coinage) F VF ch VF

736 Æ 1 6 of Teos in Ionia, — . obv Dr. bust r. of Claudia 100-150 200-300
Octavia rev Dionysus stg. 1. RPC 2519-20.
737 Æ 2 0 of Sardis, — . obv Dr. bust r. of Claudia O cta 100-150 200-300

via, wearing wreath of grain rev female stg. r. RPC
3000.
738 Æ 2 3 of C aesarea Paneas in Judaea, under C lau 500-800 1500-

dius, with king Herod Agrippa II, 56-95. obv TI 2000
C LA V D IV S C A E S A R AVG P M T R P IMP P, laur.
hd. 1. of Claudius rev A N T O N IA B R IT A N N IC V S
O CTA V IA , stg. figs. of Britannicus, ctr., flanked by
Claudia O ctavia and Claudia Antonia, both hldg. a
cornucopia. R PC 4842. Hendin 567. Note: A ‘pre-
royal’ coin of Agrippa II.
Note: Claudia O ctavia appears with the other children of Claudius on coins listed under Bri-
tannicus, Valeria Messalina and Claudia Antonia.
Poppaea
Augusta, A.D. 62-65
S e c o n d W if e o f N e r o
( f o r m e r w if e o f O t h o )
M o t h e r o f C l a u d ia N e r o n is
Poppatea (as Augusta) F VF EF

739 AV A ureus, under Nero, c. 64-65. obv Laur. hd. r. of 9 00- 1750- 3000-
Nero rev A V G V ST V S A V G V STA , Poppaea and 1200 2250 5000
Nero stg. side by side. R IC (Nero) 44,56. Note: The
empress with Nero is probably Poppaea, but may be
Statilia Messalina. Illustrated p. 277.
740 A R D enarius, — . As prev. R IC (Nero) 45,57. 150-200 500-800 2000-

3000
Poppaea (Provincial Coinage) F VF EF

741 Billon Tetradrachm of Alexandria, under Nero, 62- 30-50 100-150 300-400
65. obv NEPQ KAAΣ Σ A IS SE B TEP AV (or var.),
rad. or laur. hd. r. of Nero rev EIO nnA IA
Z E B A ST H (or C E B A C T O Y ), dr. bust r. of Pop
paea. R PC 5267ff. Note: Poppaea’s bust on this issue
is crudely engraved compared to the provincial
bronzes listed below. Illustrated above.
Poppatea (Provincial Coinage) F VF ch VF

742 Æ 25 of Perinthus in Thrace, under Nero, obv 150-200 300-400 500-800
n O n n A I A ZEBA ZTH , dr. bust r. of Poppaea rev
(E, headdress of Isis in wreath. RPC 1756.
743 Æ 27 of Nicaea in Bithynia, — . obv N EPQ N 50-75 100-150 250-350

KAAYAIOZ KA IZAP ZEBA ZTOZ TEPM ANI, rad.
hd. r. of Nero rev π Oπ π AIA Σ EBAZTH , Poppaea,
as Securitas, std. r. or 1. RPC 2060. Note: For this
and the next issue, coins were subsequently struck
for N ero’s next wife, Statilia Messalina.
744 Æ 20 of Ephesus in Ionia, — . obv N EPQ N 70-100 150-200 400-600

n O n n A IA , jugate hds. r. of Nero, laur., and Pop'
paea, dr. rev AO Y IO A A A N 0Y FIA T Q
AIXM O KAH Z EOE, stag stg. r. R PC 2630.
745 Æ 27 of the Koinon of Galatia, — . obv NEPQNOZ 150-200 300-400 500-800

ZEBAZTOY, laur. hd. r. of Nero rev nOniTAIAZ
ZEBAZTHZ, dr. bust r. of Poppaea. RPC 3562.
Note: For a coin issued for the deified Poppaea, see no. 746 below.
Claudia Neronis
Augusta, A.D. 63
D a u g h t e r o f N ero a n d Po ppa ea
Claudia Neronis (Provincial Coinage) F VF ch VF

746 Æ 19 of Caesarea Paneas(?) in Judaea, obv DIVA 150-200 250-350 500-800
POPPAEA AVG, distyle temple with std. fig. inside
hldg. cornucopia rev DIVA C LAV D N ER F, circular
hexastyle temple with domed roof and stg. fig.
inside. R PC 4846. Hendin 578. Note: The authors
of R PC suggest this issue was struck in 65 (or later),
when Herod Agrippa II ruled Caesarea Paneas.
Illustrated above.
The values are estimates for conservatively graded, essentially problenvfree

Statilia Messalina
Augusta, A .D . 6 6 - 6 8
T h ir d W if e o f N e r o
S ta tili a Messalina (Provincial Coinage) F VF ch VF

747 Æ 2 7 of N icaea in Bithynia, under Nero, obv 150-200 300-400 500-800
N EPQ N KAAYAIOZ K A II A P IE B A S T O Z TE,
rad. hd. r. of Nero rev M EZEA AEIN A TYNE
SE BA E TO Y , Statilia Messalina, as Securitas, std. r.
R PC 2061. Note: Com panion issues for this and no.
750 were also struck for N ero’s wife, Poppaea.
748 Æ 2 3 of H ypaepa in Ionia, — . obv N EPD N 500-800 1500- 2,500-

M E £X A A (E )IN A , confr. busts of Statilia Messalina, 2000 3,500
dr., and Nero, laur. rev YFIAIIO Y TP H rH X in n O X
(or var.), statue of Artemis. RPC 2543-4-
749 Æ 19-22 of Ephesus, — . obv N EPQ N KA IEA P 500-800 1500- 2000-

E<t>E, laur. hd. r. of Nero rev M EZZAA IN A [ ], dr. 2000 3000
bust r. of Statilia Messalina. RPC 2631.
750 — . obv M E SSA L IN A [ ], dr. bust r. of Statilia M es 500-800 1500- 2000-
salina rev A IX M O K A H I E n A B IO A A PQMH 2000 3000
EOE, Rom a stg. r, hldg. scepter and statue of A rte
mis. R PC 2632. Illustrated above.
Note: The provincial issues listed above are complete for Statilia Messalina. For Imperial
aurei and denarii which may depict her, see nos. 739-40.
CH A PTER TH REE
ai ^ ‘
T h e C i v i l W a r o f a .d . 6 8 - 6 9
Civil War Coinages, A.D. 68-69
The series of coins collectively known as ‘Civil War’ issues is distinguished from
most Roman coins in that they do not name or portray any of the emperors or
rebels participating in the Civil War of 68-69. Most of these coins were struck in
Spain, Gaul and (seemingly) Northern Italy, but some types also appear to have
been struck in North Africa and along the northernmost stretch of the Rhine. The
large number of types, paucity of die links and a ‘restoration’ of one type almost four
decades later by the emperor Trajan assures us that the series was quite large.
Despite this, few examples survive. In this book the anonymous issues are divided
into four categories: issues for Galba, for Vitellius, for Vindex and for Julius Civilis.
The former two are listed below, the latter two under their own separate headings.
Only aurei and denarii were struck, with the silver often being fourré (silver
plated). Most of the Spainish-mint pieces were probably struck for Galba, and they
tend to celebrate the glory of Rome and of the Augustan age. Indeed, some are
direct copies of Augustan coins. Not only does the historical circumstance of
Galba’s uprising support the prospect of his striking large quantities of these coins
in Spain, but many of the types are similar to his portrait issues. Furthermore, his
facial features can be seen in the portrait of Divus Augustus which appears on some
of the Spanish-mint pieces. The Gallic-mint pieces generally are more revolution
ary in character, with most being struck for Vindex and others seemingly for Galba
and Vitellius. Vindex no doubt struck most of the Gallic-mint issues to pay his
enormous army, which Plutarch informs us numbered 100,000. The prodigious
issues struck in the name of Divus Augustus in Spain and Gaul may be distin
guished from their antique prototypes not only by stylistic and epigraphic differ
ences but also by their lower weights (for most were struck to the post-reform
Neronian standard).
In addition to the issues attribued to Galba and Vindex (both in 68) there seem
to be two other series — one attributed to Vitellius (69) and another to the separat
ist rebel Julius Civilis (late 69 to late 70). Many of the Vitellian issues (often called
‘Military Issues’) call for unity between the legions and the praetorians. Since the
German legions supported Vitellius and the praetorians opposed him, these coins
would have had good propaganda as the Vitellian legions marched from the Rhine
to the Tiber. More thorough descriptions and discussions of all of these coinages are
given in volume I of RIC (pp. 197-215) and in P.-H. Martin’s Die anonymen
Münzen des Jahres 68 nach Christus (Mainz, 1974). It is also worth noting that out
side of the main theater of warfare (Italy and points west), mints continued to
strike coins —usually in the names of the successive emperors, but sometimes with
out the name or portrait of an Imperial personage. A sampling of these is also pro
vided.
287
T h e four categories :
• Anonymous issues for Galba. Most presumably were struck at Tarraco from
April to June/July, 68. Some Gallic (Narbo?) and North African (Carthage)
coins seemingly also were struck for Galba.
• Anonymous issues for Vindex (from Vienne and/or Nemausus( ?), March to May,
6 8 ) (see nos. 772-781).
• Anonymous ‘military issues’ for Vitellius. Some may have been struck in South-
em Gaul by his commander Fabius Valens before the First Battle of Bedriacum
(at which Otho’s armies were defeated in mid-April, 69), but most, perhaps,
were struck in Northern Italy after that battle when the combined Vitellian
forces marched on Rome (arriving in July, 69).
• Anonymous German-mint issues for the nationalist uprising of Julius Civilis
from late 69 to late 70. The mint(s) are uncertain, but they must have been in
Germania Inferior and/or the northernmost part of Germania Superior (see nos.
877-891).
Civil War (Anonymous Coinage) F VF EF

S P A N IS H IS S U E S
(For Galba, A pril to June/July, 68)
751 AV A ureus obv BO N EVENT, bare hd. r. of female 5000- 10,000- 25,000+
rev RO M R E N A S C , Roma stg. r. hldg. Victory and 8000 15,000
spear surmounted by eagle. R IC 8.
752 — obv D IVV S A V G V ST V S, rad. hd. r. of Augustus 5000- 10,000- 25,000+

rev PAX, Pax stg. 1., hldg. grain ears and poppies, 8000 15,000
and pointing downward with caduceus. RIC 3.
753 — obv A s prev. rev H ISPA N IA , Hispania, shield 5000- 10,000- 25,000+
slung onto back, hldg. two spears and ears of barley. 8000 15,000
R IC 112. Note: The features of Galba are often
incorporated into the portrait.
754 — obv LIBERTAS R E ST IT V T A , bare hd. r. of Lib 5000- 10,000- 25,000+

ertas rev SP Q R on round shield in oak wreath. RIC 8000 15,000
26.
755 A R D enarius Sim. to 751, though sometimes with 300-400 500-800 1500-
expanded inscrs. R IC 9,11. 3000

756 — obv C O N C O R D IA H ISPAN IARV M ET GA L- 400-600 9 00- 2500-
LIARVM , confr. busts of Hispania, at 1. above cor 1200 3500
nucopia, and Gallia, at r. above oblong shield; betw.
Victory on stg. on globe, star and crescent above rev
V IC T O R IA P R, Victory, hldg. bow, driving biga r.
R IC 15. Note: This type demonstrates G alba’s sup
port for Vindex.
757 — obv G E N IO P R, bust r. or 1. of Genius, bare 300-400 500-800 1500-

headed, laur. or wreathed with berries, cornucopia 3000
at shoulder rev M A RTI VLTO RI, Mars adv. r., rais
ing shield and brandishing spear. R IC 17-9. Note: A
variant of this type (R IC 44) has different inscrip
tions and has a scepter at the G enius’ shoulder.
758 — obv LIBERTAS, hd. r. of Libertas rev RES-

T IT V T A below pileus (liberty cap) betw. two dag
gers, all flanked by P R. R IC 24. Note: The reverse is
a copy of the famous EID M A R denarius of Brutus.
759 — A s 754. RIC 27. 300-400 500-800 1500-

3000
760 — obv M O N ETA, female hd. (Moneta?) r. rev 500-800 1500- 2500+
W reath containing inscr. SA LV TA R IS above 2000
obverse die(?) over anvil betw. tongs and hammer.
R IC 30. Note: This issue no doubt alludes to the
rich silver mines of Spain which allowed G alba to
pay his soldiers. For a similarly numismatic reverse,
see no. 781.
N O R T H A FR IC A N ISSU E S
(For Galba, April to June/July, 68)
761 A R Denarius obv H ISP A N IA SC , dr. bust r. of H is
pania, perhaps laur., adorned with two javelins,
shield and grain ears rev SPQ R in angles of two
crossed spears with round shield in ctr. R IC 135.
Note: The S C on these denarii is also characteristic
of Carthaginian issues struck for Clodius Macer and
Galba. The two coins listed here were struck early
in G alba’s revolt or after Clodius M acer’s downfall.
762 — obv V IRTV S, helm, female hd. r. rev As prev. 500-800 1500- —
R IC 136. 2000
‘MILITARY ISSU E S’
N O R TH ER N ITALY and(?) SO U T H E R N GA UL
(For Vitellius, April to July, 69)
763 AV Aureus obv I O M C A P IT O LIN V S, diad. 5000- 10,000- 20,000+
heroic bust 1. of Jupiter Optimus Maximus, si. dr. at 8000 15,000
shoulder, small palm branch before rev V ESTA P R
Q V IRITV M , Vesta std. 1. on throne, hldg. patera
and torch. R IC 124- Note: This issue was ‘restored’
by the emperor Trajan.
2Q O COINAGE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE: CATALOG A N D TABLES OF VALUE

764 A R Denarius obv FIDES EXERCITVV M , clasped 300-400 500-800 1500-
hands rev C O N C O R D IA P RA ETO R IA N O RV M , 2000
Concordia stg. 1., hldg. branch and comcuopia. RIC
118.
765 — A s prev., but rev C O N C O R D IA PRO VÍN CIA- 300-400 500-800 1500-
RVM. R IC 119. 2000
766 — obv A s prev. rev FIDES PRA ETO R IA N O RV M , 300-400 500-800 1500-
clasped hands. R IC 121. 2000
767 — A s 763. RIC 125a. Illustrated p. 288. 300-400 500-800 1500-

2000
Note: For an issue which may belong to this Vitellian series, see no. 780 under Vindex.
755 759
774
Civil War (Provincial Coinage) F VF ch VF

768 Æ 1 4 of the Koinon of Macedon, 69(?). obv N o 15-25 50-75 100-150
inscr., N ike adv. 1., hldg. wreath and palm branch
rev M A KEAO N Q N, Macedonian shield. RPC
1621. Note: The authors of R PC suggest these
M acedonian issues were struck during the reign of
Otho.
769 Æ 20 of Smyrna in Ionia, 68-69. obv Nemesis stg. r. 20-40 100-150 250-350
rev River god reel. 1. RPC 2490. Note: During this
troubled period at least five issues of bronzes without
Imperial portraits were struck at Smyrna by the
strategoi Sosandros and Hieronymos.
770 Æ 1 6 '1 9 of Antioch in Syria, 68-69. obv N o inscr., 15-25 50-75 100-150
laur. hd. r. of Zeus rev Altar, garlanded and flaming,
ET ZIP (yr.l 17=68/9) below. RPC 4322. Note:
These bronzes were struck alongside the portrait
issues of Antioch in the names of G alba and Otho.
771 Æ 1 5 , — . obv N o inscr., hd. r. of Apollo rev Laurel 15-25 50-75 100-150
branch, E T ZIP (yr.l 17=68/9) below. R PC 4323.
THE CIVIL WAR OF A.D. 6 8 - 7 0 29I
Vindex
Rebel, A .D . 6 8
Vinde;x (Revolt Coinage) F VF EF

772 AV A ureus obv M A R S VLTO R, helm, and dr. bust 5000- 10,000- 25,000+
r. of bearded Mars rev SIG N A P R, legionary eagle 8000 15,000
and altar betw. two standards. R IC 50. Note:This
issue may belong with the Vitellian ‘Military Issues’
of 69.
773 — obv SA LV S ET LIBERTAS, female in military 5000- 10,000- 25,000+

garb stg. r., hldg. spear and resting shield on ground 8000 15,000
rev SP Q R in oak wreath. RIC 65.
774 — obv SA LV S G E N ER IS H V M A N I, Victory stg. 1. 5000- 10,GOO- 25,000+

on globe, hldg. wreath and palm branch rev A s prev. 8000 15,000
R IC 71a,b.
775 A R D enarius obv C A E S A R A V G V ST V S, laur. hd. 300-400 500-800 1500-

r. of Augustus rev DIVV S IVLIVS across field betw. 2000
rays of comet with tail. RIC 92.
776 — A s 772, but obv sometimes anepigraphic. RIC 300-400 500-800 1500-
39,51. Illustrated above. 2000
777 — obv R O M A R E ST IT V T A , helm., dr. bust r. of 300-400 500-800 1500-

Roma rev IVPPITER LIBERA TO R, Jupiter std. 1., 2000
hldg. scepter and thunderbolt. R IC 62.
778 — A s 773. RIC 66. 300-400 500-800 1500-

2000
779 — A s 774, but G E N ER IS sometimes G EN E or 300-400 500-800 1500-

G EN ER , and Victory sometimes stg. r. R IC 68-9,72- 2000
3.
780 — obv V EST A P R Q VIRITIVM , diad., veiled half 400-600 700-

bust. r. of Vesta, usually hldg. torch rev I O M (A X ) 1000
C A P IT O LIN V S, distyle temple with Jupiter Opti-
mus Maximus std. 1. within. RIC 127-8.
781 — obv V O LK A N V S VLTOR, bust r. of bearded 500-800 1500-

Vulcan wearing round cap rev G E N IO P R, coin die 2000
(or cap of Vulcan?) over anvil betw. tongs and ham
mer. R IC 79. Note: The same reverse type was used
at a Spanish mint under G alba’s authority.
2Ç2 COINAGE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE: CATALOG AN D TABLES OF VALUE
Clodius Macer
Rebel, A.D. 6 8
Obverse inscriptions:
Propraetor: L C M A CR I S C
L C LO D I M A C R I S C
L C (L O D I) M A CR I C A R T H A G O S C
L C LO D I M A C R I LIBERA S C
L C LO D I M A C R (I) LIBERATRIX S C
L C LO D IV S M A C E R S C
RO M A S C
Note: The above inscriptions occur in at least 26 different arrangements.
786
Clodiius Macer (Revolt Coinage) F VF EF

782 A R D enarius obv Dr. bust r. of Africa, wearing ele- 3000- 5000- 10,000-
phant’s scalp rev LIB AVG LEG III, legionary eagle 5000 8000 15,000
betw. two standards. RIC 1-4. Note: Two javelins
sometimes are shown behind Africa’s bust.
783 — As prev., but rev M A CR I A N A LIB LEG I. RIC 3000- 7000- 15,000-
5-6. 5000 10,000 20,000
784 — obv Lion’s hd. r. rev A s 782. R IC 7-11. Note: In 3000- 5000- 10,000-
one case, R IC 9, the AVG is not present. 5000 8000 15,000
785 — A s prev., but rev A s 783. RIC 12. 3000- 7000- 15,000-
5000 10,000 20,000
786 — obv Wingded bust r. of Victory, sometimes dr. rev 3000- 5000- 10,000-
A s 782. R IC 13-8. 5000 8000 15,000
787 — obv Libertas stg. 1., hldg. pileus and patera rev A s 3000- 7000- 15,000-
783. R IC 19-21. Note: In one case, R IC 19, it is 5000 10,000 20,000
M A CR IA N .
THE CIVIL WAR OF A.D . 6 8 - 7 0 293
Clodi us Macer (Revolt Coinage) F VF EF

788 — obv Dr. and turreted bust r. of Carthago, cornuco 3000- 5000- 10,000-
pia at shoulder rev SIC IL IA around triskeles run 5000 8000 15,000
ning clockwise, ears of grain in angles, facing
Medusa hd. in ctr. R IC 22-9. Note: This issue not
only celebrates Carthage as M acer’s base of opera
tions, but also propagandizes his claim to Sicily.
789 — obv R O M A SC , helm. hd. r. of Roma rev L 3000- 7000- 15,000-

C LO D I M A CR I, trophy of arms with two oval 5000 10,000 20,000
shields. R IC 30-1.
790 — obv Bare hd. r. of Clodius Macer rev PRO PRAE 5000- 10,000- 30,000-
A FR IC A E , war galley rowed r. by 4 to 8 oarsmen. 8000 15,000 50,000
R IC 34-42. Note: In two instances on this portrait
series A F R IC A E is misspelled — A F R C A E (RIC
32) and A FR IC A (R IC 39). Illustrated above.
791 — A s prev., but obv inscr. L C LO D I M A C R I SC ,. 7000- 15,000-

R IC 32-3. Note: This issue, which gives M acer’s 10,000 20,000
name in the genetive case, is far rarer than the pre
vious one, which uses the nominative case
(CLO DIVS).
Note: For issues possibly struck in North Africa during M acer’s reign (but in support of
G alba’s cause) see R IC vol. I, p. 202 for the discussion, and p. 215 for the types (nos. 135-6).
Galba, A .D . 68-69
Imperator, A.D. 68

Imperator: G A L B A IMP
G A L B A IM PERATO R
SE R (V ) G A L B A IMP
SE R (V IV S) G A L B A IM PERATO R
Augustus: IMP G A L B A C A E S A R AVG P P
IMP SER G A L B A AVG
IMP SER G A L B A C A E S A R AVG (P M, P M T R P or T R P)
IMP SER SV LP(I or IC ) G A L B A C A E S AVG T R P
SE R G A L B A AVG
SER G A L B A AVG IMP
SER G A L B A C A E S A R AVG

SE R G A L B A IMP A V G (V ST V S)
SER G A L B A IMP C A E S AVG (P M, P M T R P or T R P)
SE R G A L B A IMP C A E SA R AVG (P M) T R P (P P)
SER G A L B A IMP C A E SA R AVG PON M T R PO T (or P P P)
SE R SVLPI G A L B A IMP C A E (SA R ) AVG (P M) T R P
Note: N ot all inscriptions that omit AVG were struck before Galba became Augustus. Most
of G alb a’s longer inscriptions on his æs coinage are not listed.
Galba’s portraits as Imperator usually are right' or left'facing, laureate and set upon
a small globe. His busts as Augustus are right' or left'facing, bare'headed, laureate
or wreathed in oak leaves; often they are draped and/or cuirassed, and sometimes
are adorned with an aegis or set upon a small globe.
Galba (as Imperator) F VF EF

792 AV Aureus 1750- 3000- 7000-
2250 5000 12,500
793 — rev G A L L IA H ISPA N IA , Gallia, hldg. scepter, 1750- 4000-

and Hispania, hldg. shield, sword and spear, stg., 2250 6000
clasping hands. R IC 17 (Spain).
794 — rev H ISPA N IA , Hispania stg. 1., hldg. shield, 1750- 4000- —
spear, grain ears and poppy branch. RIC 20 (Spain). 2250 6000
795 A R Denarius 150-200 400-600 1500-

2000
796 — obv G A L B A IM P(ER), Galba, in military attire, 250-350 500-800

riding r. on horse, saluting rev H ISPAN IA, dr. bust
r. of Hispania, sometimes laur., adorned with two
javelins, shield and grain ears. RIC 1-3 (Spain).
797 — obv SER G A L B A IMP, Galba, in military attire, 250-350 500-800

riding r. on horse, hldg. javelin rev G A LLIA , dr.
bust r. of Gallia, adorned with two javelins, shield
and grain ears. RIC 85 (Gaul).
798 — obv A s prev. rev A s 796. RIC 86 (Gaul). 250-350 500-800 —

799 — A s 793. R IC 15-6 (Spain) and 109 (Gaul). 250-350 500-800 2000-
3000
800 — A s 794. RIC 19,21 (Spain). 250-350 500-800 2000-

3000
Note: A ll of G alba’s coinage as Imperator was struck in Spain and Gaul (and possibly in
N orth Africa) as a supplement to the anonymous ‘Civil War coinages’ which are listed sepa-
rately. Presumably no Imperial æs were struck for G alba as Imperator.
Galba (as Augustus) F VF EF

801 AV Aureus 1500- 3000- 7000-
2000 5000 12,500
802 A R Denarius Illustrated p. 293. 150-200 400-600 1500-

2000
803 — obv SER G A L B A IMP AVG, Galba, in military 500-800

attire, riding r. on horse, hldg. javelin rev T R E S
G A LLIA E , busts r. of the three Galliae in a row,
sometimes dr. and/or with globe at tips of their
busts. RIC 89-92. (Gaul). Note: Galba also struck
this type as Imperator, but without the title AVG
(RIC 89).
804 — rev Various types with additional inscr. S C in 300-400 700- 2000-
field. R IC 515,19-21 (Africa). Note: In addition to 1000 3000
its crude style, the S C on the reverse assures these
denarii were struck at Carthage (presumably after
the death of Clodius Macer). See also no. 761.
805 — rev H ISPA N IA , Hispania adv. 1., hldg. two 250-350 500-800 2000-
spears, shield, grain ears and poppy branch. RIC 3000
144ff (Rom e).
806 — rev As 793. R IC 154 (Rom e). 250-350 500-800 2000-

3000
807 — rev IMP below Gallia, in military attire, riding r. 250-350 500-800 2000-
on horse, saluting. RIC 145 (Rome). 3000
808 A R Quinarius rev V IC T O R IA G A L B A E AVG, 400-600 1250- 3 000-

Victory stg. r. on globe, hldg. wreath and palm 1750 5000
branch. RIC 131-2 (Lugdunum).
Galba (as Augustus) F VF ch VF

809 Æ Sestertius 200-300 500-800 1500-
2000
810 — rev A D LO C V T IO SC , G alba and a soldier stg. r. 400-600 1500- 5000-

on low platform addressing four soldiers, variously 2000 8000
armed, a horse among them. R IC 462-8 (Rom e).
811 — rev H ISP A N IA CLVN IA SV L SC , Galba, in 1000- 3000-

military attire and hldg. sword, std. 1., extending r. 1500 5000
hand to stg. female hldg. cornucopia and palladium.
R IC 469-73 (Rome).
812 — rev H O N O S ET V IR T V S SC , Honos stg. r., 400-600 1250- 2000-

hldg. scepter and cornucopia, facing Virtus, stg. 1., 1750 3000
hldg. spear and sword. RIC 474-8 (Rome).
813 — rev LI BERT (A S ) A V G (V ST ), Libertas stg. 1., 9 00- 2000-

hldg. pileus and rod; S C R XL in field. RIC 438-41 1200 3000
(Rom e). Note: Issues marked R XL show that Galba
removed the traditional 2-1/2% customs duty
applied to Spain and Gaul as reward for their sup
port.
Galba (as Augustus) F VF ch VF

814 — rev LIBERTAS R E ST IT V T A SC , Galba stg. 1., 1000- 3000-
raising kneeling fig. of Libertas, Roma stg., oversee 1500 5000
ing. R IC 479-80 (Rome).
815 — rev M A R S V IC T O R SC , Mars stg. facing, hldg. 400-600 1250- 2 000-

spear and trophy. R IC 481-2 (Rome). 1750 3000
816 — rev RO M A , Roma stg. 1., shield at feet, hldg. 1000- 3000-
branch and eagle-tipped scepter, resting 1. arm on 1500 5000
trophy; S C R XL in field. R IC 450.
817 — rev S C flanking Aesculapius stg. facing, leaning 1000- 3000- —

on serpent staff. RIC 486-8 (Rom e). 1500 5000
818 — rev SE N A T V S PIETATI A V G V ST I SC , togate 900- 2000-

senator stg. at r., hldg. branch, placing wreath on 1200 3000
hd. of Galba, in military attire, stg. at 1., hldg.
branch and small Victory. R IC 489 (Rome).
819 Æ Dupondius 100-150 300-400 1000-

1500
820 — rev SPQ R O B C IV ES SERV A T(O S) in four lines 200-300 400-600 —

in oak wreath. R IC 417-9 (Rome).
821 Æ As 100-150 250-350 900-

1200
822 — Sim. to 813. R IC 293,6 (Rome). 250-350 700- —

1000
823 — rev PRO VIDEN T below altar with double-pan 150-200 400-600 —
elled door flanked by large SC . RIC 499 (Rome).
824 — rev SC , legionary eagle betw. two standards, all 150-200 400-600 —
usually set on prows. R IC 297-304,507-9 (Rome).
Note: For all coins of Galba with the DIVA A V G V ST A and A V G V ST A reverse types, see
Livia’s posthumous commemoratives. For the countermarks TA LBA , TA L.K A I (and occa
sionally G A L B A ) which were applied to circulating æs of Nero at Perinthus (and perhaps
elsewhere), see RPC 1758-61.
Galba (Posthumous Commemoratives) F VF ch VF

825 Æ Sestertius, under Titus, obv IMP SER SV LP 300-400 9 00-
G A L B A C A E S AVG T R P, laur. hd. r. of Galba rev 1200
IMP T C A E S DIVI V ESP F AVG P M T R P P P
C O S VIII around large S C with R E ST above. RIC
(Titus) 245.
826 Æ Dupondius, — . obv SER G A L B A IMP C A E S 250-350 500-800

AVG T R P, laur. hd. r. of G alba rev Sim. to prev., but
RESTITV IT. R IC (Titus) 246. Note: The reverse
inscription is sometimes abbreviated (R IC 247).
THE CIVIL W A R O F A .D . 6 8 - 7 0 297
Galba (Posthumous Commemoratives) F VF chVF

827 Æ A s, — . obv A s prev. rev IMP T VESP AVG 200-300 500-800
R E ST SC , Libertas stg. 1., hldg. pileus and rod or
Pax stg. 1., hldg. cornucopia and applying torch to
heap of arms on ground. R IC (Titus) 248-9.
Note: For an aureus portraying Galba, see Trajan’s ‘restored coins.’
Galba (Provincial Coinage) F VF EF

828 A R Tetradrachm of Antioch rev Eagle stg. 1. on 100-150 200-300 9 00-
thunderbolt, palm branch before. R PC 4193-6. 1200
829 — As prev., but of exceptionally fine style and man 300-400 1000- 2000-
ufacture. R PC 4197-8. 1500 3000
Galba (Provincial Coinage) F VF ch VF

831 Æ 2 4 of Ilium (Troy) in Troas obv Confr. dr. busts 150-200 400-600
of the Senate, at 1., and Galba, at r. rev Statue of
A thena Ilias in wreath. RPC 2317.
832 Æ 2 8 of Antioch rev Large S C in circle in wreath. 70-100 200-300 400-600

RPC 4314.
833 Æ 2 5 -2 7 , — . rev E ni M O YKIA N O Y A N TI- 150-200 400-600

O XEQ N ET ZIP (yr.l 17 = 68/9) in wreath. RPC
4313. Note: Gaius Licinius Crassus Mucianus, the
Syrian legate who invaded Italy on Vespasian’s
behalf, is named on the reverse. Otho also struck
coins for Mucianus.
Otho, A.D. 69
H u sb a n d o f Po ppa ea
Augustus: IMP M O T H O C A E SA R AVG T R P
IMP O T H O C A E S A R AVG T R P
Note: The obverse inscription is carried onto the reverses (as P O N T M A X) of issues Otho
struck after March 9.
Busts are right- or left-facing, bare-headed, sometimes with drapery at shoulder.

Otho (as Augustus) F VF EF
834 AV A ureus. Illustrated above. 3000- 7000- 20,000-
5000 10,000 35,000
835 — rev V IC T O R IA O T H O N IS, Victory stg. or fly 3000- 8,000- —

ing r., hldg. wreath and palm branch. RIC 13,5. 5000 15,000
836 A R D enarius 250-350 500-800 2000-

3000
837 — obv Bare hd. 1. 300-400 900- 3000-

1200 5000
838 — obv Bust r., si. dr. 300-400 900- 3000-

1200 5000
839 — rev P O N T M A X, Otho, in military attire, riding 250-350 700- 2,500-

r. on horse, hldg. javelin. RIC 22. 1000 3,500
840 — A s 835, but Victory sometimes on globe. RIC 250-350 700- 2,500-
14,6-7. 1000 3,500
Otho (Provincial Coinage) F VF EF

841 A R Tetradrachm of Antioch rev eagle stg. 1. on 100-150 250-350 900-
thunderbolt, palm branch before. RPC 4199-4200. 1200
Otho (Provincial Coinage) F VF ch VF

843 Æ 2 8 of Antioch rev Large S C in wreath. RPC 100-150 300-400 700-
4320. Note: Because Otho struck no Imperial æs, 1000
the Antiochene issues are collected as substitutes.
844 Æ 2 8 , — . rev Sim. to 833. RPC 4316. 200-300 500-800 —
Vitellius, A.D. 69
Imperator, A .D . 69
S o n o f L u c iu s V it e l l iu s
F a t h e r o f V it e l l iu s G e r m a n ic u s a n d V it e l l ia
Imperator: A V ITELLIV S IMP G E R M A N IC V S
A V ITELLIV S IMP G ER M A N
Augustus: A V ITELLIV S G E R M A N IC V S IMP (AVG P M T R P)
A V IT ELLIV S G ER M A N IMP (AVG P M) T R P

A V IT ELLIV S AVG IMP G ER M A N
A V IT ELLIV S G E R M A IMP AVG P M T R P
A V ITELLIV S GERM IMP T R P
A V ITELLIV S G ERM IMP AVG (P M) T R P
A V ITELLIV S G ER IMP AVG P M T P P
Note: The two inscriptions given above for Vitellius as Imperator occur only on issues of
Spain and Gaul. It cannot be said with certainty that all coins with these two inscriptions
were struck before April 19, but it likely is the case.
Vitellius’ portraits as Imperator are right- or left-facing, laureate and set upon a
small globe; sometimes a small palm branch is placed before the bust. As Augus
tus, his busts are right-facing and bare-headed or laureate; on æs his busts are
sometimes left-facing or draped.
Vitellius (as Imperator) F VF EF

845 AV Aureus 1750- 3000- 7000-
2250 5000 12,500
846 — rev C O N SE N S V S EXERC ITV V M , Mars adv. 1., 2,000- 4000- 10,000-
hldg. spear, legionary eagle and standard. RIC 22ff 2,500 6000 15,000
(Spain and Gaul).
847 A R Denarius 100-150 300-400 1500-

2000
848 — rev A s 846. RIC 6ff (Spain and Gaul). 150-200 400-600 2000-
3000
849 — rev FIDES EXERC ITV V M , clasped hands. RIC 200-300 500-800
47ff (G aul). Note: This type was later struck at
Rome.
850 — rev FIDES PRA ET O R IA N O RV M , type as prev. 200-300 500-800 —

R IC 55 (Gaul).
851 — rev I O M A X C A P IT O LIN V S, distyle temple 200-300 500-800

with Jupiter Optimus Maximus std. 1. within. RIC
31,56 (Spain and Gaul).
Vitellius (as Imperator) F VF ch VF

852 Æ As 200-300 400-600 —
853 — rev C O N SE N S V S H ISPAN IARV M SC , H is 200-300 500-800
pania stg. 1., hldg. shield and two javelins. RIC 41
(Spain).
854 — rev As 849, but S C added. RIC 42 (Spain). 200-300 500-800 —
Note: A ll of Vitellius’ coinage as Imperator was struck in Spain and Gaul as a supplement to
the anonymous ‘Civil War coins’ which are listed separately.
Vitell ius (as Augustus) F VF EF

855 AV Aureus 1750- 3000- 7000-
2250 5000 12,500
856 — rev SP Q R O B C S in three lines in oak wreath. 2,000- 4000- 10,COO-

R IC 82. 2,500 6000 15,000
857 A R Denarius. Illustrated p. 298. 100-150 300-400 1500-

2000
858 — rev N o inscr., Victory std. 1., hldg. patera and 150-200 400-600 2000-
palm branch. R IC 7 Iff. 3000
859 — rev A s 849. R IC 67. 200-300 500-800 —
860 — rev A s 856. R IC 69A,83. 150-200 400-600 2000-

3000
Vitell ius (as Augustus) F VF ch VF

861 Æ Sestertius 400-600 1500- 4000-
2000 6000
862 — rev A N N O N A AVG SC , Vitellius, in military 500-800 2000-

attire, stg. r., hldg. spear and sword, facing Ceres, 3000
std. 1., hldg. patera and torch, ship’s prow behind,
flaming altar betw. R IC 13 Iff.
863 — rev H O N O S ET V IRTV S SC , Honos stg. r., 500-800 2000- 5000-

hldg. scepter and cornucopia, facing Virtus, stg. 1., 3000 8000
hldg. spear and sword. R IC 113.
864 — M A R S V IC T O R SC , Mars, sword at side, adv. 1., 500-800 2000- 5000-

hldg. trophy or legionary eagle. RIC 115-6ff. 3000 8000
865 — rev SP Q R O B C IV SER in four lines in oak 500-800 2000- 5000-

wreath. R IC 122,59. 3000 8000
866 — rev V IC T O R IA A V G V ST I SC , Victory stg. r., r. 900- 3000-

foot on helmet, inscr. O B C IV ES SER on shield 1200 5000
attached to palm tree. R IC 123-4ff. N ote: Though
this type is often collected as a precursor to the Fla-
vian Judaea C apta series, it more likely celebrates
the awarding of the corona civica and the clipeus vir-
tuitis to Vitellius by the senate.
867 Æ Dupondius 250-350 500-800 1500-

2000
868 — rev PAXS A V G V ST I SC , Pax stg. 1., hldg. cornu 300-400 700-
copia and applying torch to heap of arms. RIC 1000
149ff. N ote: This and the following may be asses.
869 — rev SC , legionary eagle betw. two standards, all 300-400 700- —
set on prows. RIC 153. 1000
870 Æ As 150-200 400-600 1250-

1750
THE CIVIL WAR OF A.D . 6 8 - 7 0 3O I
Vitellius (as Augustus) F VF ch VF

871 — rev PRO V ID EN T below altar with double-pan- 200-300 500-800 —
elled door flanked by large SC . R IC 129ff.
872 — rev V IC T O R A V G V S(T I) SC , Victory adv. 1., 200-300 500-800

placing shield on trophy with captive std. 1. on
globe at its base. R IC 151 -2ff.
Note: Though Vitellius may have struck at Spanish or G allic mints as Augustus, all coins
listed above are from Rome. For other issues struck by Vitellius, see the entries of Lucius
Vitellius and Vitellius Germanicus and Vitellia.
Vitellius (Provincial Coinage) F VF EF

Vitellius (Provincial Coinage) F VF chVF

874 Æ 2 3 of the Koinon of M acedon rev EEBA Z TO E 80-120 200-300
M A KEAO N Q N around M acedonian shield. RPC
1616-7.
Lucius Vitellius
F a t h e r o f V it e l l iu s
G r a n d f a t h e r o f V it e l l iu s G e r m a n ic u s
a n d V it e l l ia
Lucius Vitellius (Imperial Coinage) F VF EF

875 AV A ureus, under Vitellius. obv A V ITELLIV S 3000- 7000-
IMP G E R M A N IC V S, laur. hd. 1. of Vitellius, small 5000 10,000
globe at tip of bust rev L VITELLI III C O S C E N
SO R , laur., dr. bust 1. of Lucius Vitellius, eagle-
tipped scepter before. R IC (Vit.) 7 (Spain).
876 — . obv A V IT ELLIV S G ERM (A N ) IMP (AV G) 3000- 7000-

T R P, laur. hd. r. of Vitellius rev L V IT ELLIV S C O S 5000 10,000
III C E N SO R , type as prev., but bust r. R IC (Vit.)
76,98 (Rom e).
877 — . obv A V IT ELLIV S G ERM IMP AV G T R P, laur. 2,000- 4000- 12,000-

hd. r. of Vitellius rev L V IT ELLIV S C O S III C E N 2,500 6000 20,000
SO R , Lucius Vitellius std. 1. on curule chair, feet on
stool, extending 1. hand and hldg. branch or eagle-
tipped scepter. R IC (Vit.) 94,6 (Rome).
878 A R D enarius, — . As 876. R IC (Vit.) 77,99 900- 3000- 8000-

(Rom e). Illustrated above. 1200 5000 12,000
879 — . A s 877. R IC (Vit.) 95,7 (Rome). 200-300 500-800 2000-

3000
Lucius Vitellius (Imperial Coinage) F VF ch VF

880 Æ Sestertius, — . obv A V ITELLIV S GER- 3000- 10,000-
M A N (IC V S) IMP AVG P M T R P, laur., dr. bust r. 5000 15,000
of Vitellius rev L V ITELL C E N SO R II (or III) SC ,
Lucius Vitellius std. 1. on curule chair upon plat
form, extending 1. hand to foremost of three stg.
togate figs., a fourth fig. std. in the background. RIC
(Vit.) 114,34-5 (Rome).
Vitellius Germanicus and Vitellia

C h il d r e n o f V it e l l iu s
G r a n d c h il d r e n o f L u c iu s V it e l l iu s
Vitell ius Germanicus and Vitellia

(Impexial Coinage) F VF EF
881 AV A ureus, under Vitellius. obv A V ITELLIV S 2000- 5000-
IMP G E R M A N IC V S, laur. hd. 1. of Vitellius, small 3000 8000
globe at tip of bust rev LIBERIS IMP G E R M A N ICI,
confr. busts of Vitellius Germanicus, at 1., and Vitel
lia, dr. at r. R IC (Vit.) 8 (Spain).
882 — . obv A V ITELLIV S GERM (A N ) IMP (AVG) 2000- 5000-

T R P, laur. hd. r. of Vitellius rev LIBERI IMP G E R 3000 8000
M A N , type as prev. R IC (Vit.) 78,102 (Rom e).
883 — . obv A V ITELLIV S GERM IMP AVG T R P, laur. 2000- 5 000-

hd. r. of Vitellius rev LIBERI IMP GERM AVG, 3000 8000
type as prev. R IC (Vit.) 100 (Rome).
884 A R D enarius, — . obv A V ITELLIV S IMP G E R 400-600 1000- 3 000-

M A N , laur. hd. r. of Vitellius, small globe at tip of 1500 5000
bust rev LIBERI IMP G ER M A N , type as prev. RIC
(Vit.) 57 (Gaul).
885 — . A s 882. R IC (Vit.) 79,103 (Rome). 400-600 1000- 30 0 0 -

1500 5000
886 — . A s 883. RIC (Vit.) 101 (Rom e). Illustrated 400-600 1000- 3000-
above. 1500 5000
Julius Civilis
Rebel, A.D. 69-70
F VF EF
3
Civilis (Revolt Coinage)

.2
r-
g
AV Aureus obv SA LV TIS, dr. bust r. of Salus rev

C O N C O R D IA , Concordia stg. L, hldg. branch and
cornucopia. R IC 134.
888 A R Denarius obv A D SE R T O R LIBERTATIS, 500-800 1500-

helm. hd. r. of young male rev LEGIO N XV PRIM, 2000
Victory stg. r., placing helmet on trophy set on tree
trunk. R IC 130.
889 — obv G A LLIA , daid., dr. bust r. of Gallia, trumpet 500-800 1500-
behind rev FIDES below clasped hands hldg. grain 2000
ears and standard surmounted by boar. RIC 131.
890 — obv LIBERTAS R E ST IT V T A , diad., dr. and 500-800 1500-

veiled bust r. of Libertas, grain ear before rev C O N 2000
C O R D IA , Concordia std. 1., hldg. caduceus and
standard surmounted by boar. R IC 132.
891 — obv As prev. rev M A R S A D SE R T O R , Mars stg. 500-800 1500- —

facing, hldg. standard and shield. R IC 133. 2000
Note: A ll five issues given to Julius Civilis by the authors of R IC are listed above. Their attri-
bution must be considered tentative (see C ivilis’ Numismatic Note for details). For a bronze of
Vespasian celebrating the defeat of Civilis, see no. 934-
T h e v a lu es are estim ate s for co n se rv ativ e ly grad ed , e ssen tially prob lem -free
co in s. D e fec ts or m erits w ill alte r prices, o ften sign ifican tly . D ash e s (— ) in d icate
v a lu e s w h ich c a n n o t be acc u rate ly d e te rm in e d (a t th e h igh e n d ) or w h ich are
eq u ally v alu a b le , for th ey m ay rep resen t d ifferen t en d s o f th e sam e sp ectru m .
CH A PTER FO UR
T he F l a v ia n s , a .d . 6 9 -9 6
Vespasian, A .D. 69-79

A .D . 69-71: Sole reign
(with Titus and
Domitian, as Caesars)
(with Titus as
Imperator; Domitian,
as Caesar)
H u s b a n d o f D o m it il l a t h e E l d e r
F a t h e r o f T it u s , D o m it ia n , a n d D o m it il l a t h e Y o u n g e r
G r a n d f a t h e r o f J u l ia T it i
G r e a t -g r a n d f a t h e r o f V e s p a s i a n J u n i o r

Augustus: C A E S A R V ESPA S1A N V S AVG
IMP C A E S V ESP AVG P M
IMP C A E S V ESP AVG P M C O S III (or V ) (C E N S)
IMP C A E S V ESPA SIA N AVG C O S III
IMP C A E S V ESPA SIA N AVG P M T R P P P C O S III
IMP C A E S A R (AV G) V E SP A SIA N V S
IMP C A E S A R V ESP AVG C O S V C E N S
IMP C A E S A R V ESPA S AVG C O S III T R P P P
IMP C A E S A R V ESPA SIA N (V S) AVG
IMP C A E S A R V E SP A SIA N V S AVG (P M) T R P
IMP V E S P (A SIA N ) AVG
Deified: D IV V S A V G V ST V S V E SP A SIA N (V S)
Note: Many other inscriptions are recorded, especially for Vespasian’s æs coinages.

305
3o 6 c o in a g e of th e ro m an e m p ir e : catalo g a n d tables of valu e
Vespsisian (as Governor of Judaea) F VF chVF

892 Æ 24 of Sepphoris in Judaea, under Nero, 67/8. obv 200-300 400-600 1000-
ETII OYECriACIANOY EIPHNOnOAI 2000
N E P Q N IA (C ) CEn(W or Q P), cauduceus betw.
crossed cornucopias rev L AI (yr. 14=67/8)
N EPQ N O KAAYAIOY KAICAPOC in wreath.
R PC 4849. Hendin 586. Note: The obverse inscrip-
tion names Vespasian. The city itself is named
‘Neronias’ in honor of Nero, and is also referred to
as the ‘city of peace’ (Irenopolis).
893 Æ 17-20, — . A s prev., but obv type is a large SC . 250-350 500-800 1200-
R PC 4850. Hendin 587. 2200
894 Æ 2 1 of Caesarea Maratima, — . obv NEPW N CEB 250-350 500-800 1200-

KAICAP, laur. hd. r. of Nero rev ETII 2200
O Y E Z n A IIA N O Y KA IEA PE(W N ) L AI
(yr. 14=67/8) in wreath. R PC 4865.
A wide variety of busts occur. Except where noted, busts are right-facing, laureate
or bare-headed, often draped and/or cuirassed, or with drapery at far shoulder or a
globe at tip of bust.
Vespasian (as Augustus) F VF EF

895 AV Aureus 1000- 1750- 4000-
1500 2250 6000
896 — rev N o inscr., palm tree betw. Vespasian, stg. at 1., 2,500- 5 000- 18,000-
hldg. spear and sword, foot on globe, and mourning 3,500 8000 25,000
Jewess, std. at r. R IC 41a,53. Hendin 762.
897 — rev C A E S A R AVG F C O S C A E SA R AVG F 2000- 5000- 15,000-

PR, confr. hds. of Titus and Domitian. RIC 2. Note: 3500 8000 25,000
This honors Vespasian’s sons as Caesars and heirs
(with Titus as consul and Domitian as praetor).
898 — rev DE IVDA EIS, trophy of arms. RIC 301. H en 1800- 3500- 12,000-
din 769. 2500 7000 20,000
899 — rev IV D A EA below mourning Jewess std. r., 2000- 5000- 15,000-
sometimes with hands bound, at base of trophy or 3500 8000 25,000
palm tree. R IC 15-6,287. Hendin 758,60.
900 — rev SPQ R in oak wreath. RIC 66. Note: The 1250- 2000- 5000-
inscription is sometimes longer. 1750 3000 8000
901 — rev TR IV M P AVG below triumphal procession 4000- 12,000- 30,000-

of Vespasian and Victory in quadriga, accompanied 6000 18,000 50,000
by trumpeter, soldier and bound captive. R IC 294.
H endin 768.
902 — rev V ESTA above round Shrine of Vesta with 1250- 2000- 5000-
four columns, domed roof and staircase at entry, 1750 3000 8000
decorated with three statues. R IC 59ff. Note: This
celebrates the dedication of the shrine on the
Palatine Hill, which had burned in the fire of 64.
THE FLAVIANS 307
Vespaisian (as Augustus) F VF EF

903 AV Quinarius 1500- 3500- 8000-
2500 5000 12,000
904 AR Denarius 30-50 70-100 150-200
905 — rev N o inscr., Vespasian r. in triumphal quadriga. 50-75 150-200 400-600

R IC 363. Hendin 765.
906 — A s 896. R IC 363. Hendin 763. 70-100 250-350 500-800
907 — rev AVG in wreath. RIC 31 Iff. 50-75 100-150 300-400
908 — A s 897. R IC 2. Note: W hen struck at an eastern 150-200 300-400

mint, this type is inscribed LIBERI IMP AVG VES-
PAS (R IC 313ff).
909 — rev C O N SEN (S V S) E X E R C IT (V S), two sol 30-50 80-120 250-350

diers stg., each hldg. a legionary eagle, clasping
hands. R IC 259ff.
910 — rev IMP XIX, sow stg. r. with three young. RIC 30-50 80-120 300-400
109.
911 — rev IMPER, Vespasian on horseback r. R IC 271. 50-75 150-200 400-600
912 — A s 899 (with trophy). RIC 15ff. Hendin 759. 70-100 150-200 250-350
Note: This reverse is also known for Vitellius and
Domitian (Hendin 755, 796), but both are fourré
and seemingly unique.
913 — A s 899 (with palm tree). R IC 287. Hendin 761. 70-100 200-300 400-600
914 — rev IV D A EA DEV ICTA , mourning Judaea stg. 80-120 250-350 500-800
1., hands bound, palm tree behind. RIC 290. Hendin
770. Note: This issue usually is fourré.
915 — rev PACI O R B TER R AVG, hd. r. or I. of tow 50-75 100-150 400-600
ered female. R IC 317-8ff.
916 — A s 900. R IC 57,66. Note: The inscription is 50-75 150-200 400-600

sometimes longer.
917 — rev T R PO T X C O S VIIII, capricorn r., hldg. 30-50 80-120 200-300

globe and rudder. R IC 117-8.
918 — older, worn denarii countermarked IMP.VES. 150-250

Note: Though usually limited to denarii, these
countermarks sometimes occur on cistophori, etc.
They seem to have been applied at Ephesus in the
70s A.D .
919 AR Quinarius 150-200 400-600 1000-

1500
3°8 COINAGE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE: CATALOG A N D TABLES OF VALUE
925
947
Vespaisian (as Augustus) F VF ch VF

920 Æ Sestertius 50-75 250-350 1000-
1500
921 — rev C A E S AVG F D E S(IG ) IMP AVG F C O S 100-150 400-600 1500-

D E S(IG ) ITER SC , Titus, hldg. spear and sword, 2000
and Domitian, hldg. spear, stg. facing each other.
R IC 413-4.
922 — rev D EV IC TA IV D A EA SC , Victory stg. r., foot 900- 2,500- 7000-

on helmet, inscr. SPQ R on shield attached to palm 1200 3,500 10,000
tree, mourning Jewess std. to r. R IC 419. Hendin
776.
923 — rev H O N O S ET V IRTV S, Honos, hldg. scepter 100-150 400-600 1500-

and cornucopia, and Virtus, hldg. spear and sword, 2000
stg. facing one another. R IC 423.
924 — rev IV D A EA C A P T A SC , palm tree betw. 400-600 1250- 4 000-

mourning Jewess std. at r. and Jew stg. at 1., hands 1750 6000
bound, sometimes looking back; arms and armor
about. R IC 424-6. Hendin 773. Note: Sometimes
their positions are reversed (Hendin 774). O n rare
occasions the inscription is arranged C A P T A
IV D A EA SC .
925 — A s prev., but in place of Jew is Vespasian, stg. r., 400-600 1250- 4000-
hldg. spear and sword. RIC 427,733. Hendin 775. 1750 6000
926 — rev R O M A SC , Roma, resting hd. on r. hand and 500-800 1250- 4000-
hldg. sword, std. 1. on the seven hills of Rome; with 1750 6000
she-wolf and twins and fig. of Tiberis. R IC 442.
THE FLAVIANS 309
Vespiisian (as Augustus) F VF ch VF

927 — rev R O M A R E SV R G E (N )S SC , Vespasian stg. 500-800 1500- 4000-
1., raising kneeling fig. of Roma, presented by Min- 2000 6000
erva. R IC 407ff. Note: A similar type has the
inscription LIBERTAS R E ST IT V T A (RIC 430).
928 — rev S C or C O S III (S C ), Vespasian r. in trium- 150-200 500-800 1750-

phal quadriga. R IC 4 5 Iff. 2250
929 — rev SC , Vespasian on horseback r., spearing fallen 150-200 500-800 2000-
foe. R IC 523. 3000
930 — rev SC , palm tree. R IC 454. — — —

931 — rev SC , tetrastyle temple of Isis (Iseum) with 700- 2000- 7000-
semicircular pediment, decorated with many stat- 1000 3000 10,000
ues. R IC 453ff.
932 — rev SC , hexastyle temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, 500-800 1500- 4000-

decorated with many statues. RIC 452ff. Note: This 2000 6000
celebrates the reconsecration and rebuilding of this
sacred temple, which burned late in the reign of
Vitellius. This particular version, the third temple
of Jupiter Capitolinus, was dedicated in 75 but was
destroyed by fire in 80.
933 — As 902, but inscr. S C only. R IC 736. 500-800 1500- 4000-

2000 6000
934 — rev S IG N IS R EC EPTIS, Victory flying r., offer 500-800 2000-

ing legionary eagle to Vespasian, stg. 1. on platform. 3000
R IC 461. Note: This rare issue celebrates the defeat
of Julius Civilis and the return of the captured
legionary eagle of the XV Primigenia.
935 — rev SPQ R (P P) O B C IV (E S) SE R V (A T O S) in 100-150 400-600 1500-

oak wreath. R IC 457-9ff. 2000
936 — A s prev., but inscr. SPQ R A D SE R T O R I LIBER- 100-150 400-600 1750-

TA TIS PVBLICAE. R IC 411,55-6. 2250
937 — rev V IC T O R IA A V G (V ST I) SC , Victory stg. r., 100-150 400-600 1750-

foot on helmet, inscr. O B C IV SER on shield 2250
attached to palm tree. RIC 464,6. Hendin 777.
938 — As prev., but mourning Jewess std. 1. or r. at base 100-150 400-600 1750-
of palm tree beneath shield, which sometimes is 2250
bare. R IC 467-8. Hendin 778.
939 Æ Dupondius obv Usually rad. hd. r. or 1. 20-40 100-150 250-350
940 — rev T V T E L A A V G V ST I SC , woman std. 1. with 100-150 400-600 —

two children. RIC 398,480.
941 — rev V IC T O R IA N AV ALIS SC , Victory stg. r. on 70-100 200-300 500-800

prow, hldg. wreath and palm branch. RIC 481,745.
Hendin 779.
Vespaisian (as Augustus) F VF ch VF

942 Æ Dupondius(?) (27mm) rev PON M A X T R POT 30-50 100-150 300-400
P P C O S V C EN S, winged caduceus betw. crossed
cornucopias. R IC 798a-c. Note: Struck in orichal
cum for circulation in the east, this issue has the
laureate head of Vespasian. This and the related
orichalcum coins are not from Commagene as is
commonly believed.
943 Æ As 20-40 80-120 200-300
944 — rev IV D (A )E A C A P T A SC , mourning Jewess 250-350 700- 1500-

std. at r. or 1. of palm tree, arms and armor about. 1000 2000
R IC 489ff. Hendin 781.
945 — Sim. to prev., but inscr. IVD C A P SC . R IC 393. 250-350 700- 1750-
1000 2250
946 — rev PRO VIDEN T below altar with double-pan- 70-100 200-300 400-600
eiled door flanked by large SC . RIC 494ff.
947 — A s 932. RIC 496,765. 200-300 400-600 1000-

1500
948 — As 902, but S C added. R IC 548. 200-300 400-600 9 00-

1200
949 — As 941. R IC 503ff. 70-100 200-300 500-800
950 Æ As(?) (20mm) rev Large S C in wreath. RIC 796- 20-40 100-150 250-350
7. Note: This and the following two coins were
struck in orichalcum, presumably for circulation in
the east.
951 Æ Semis rev P M T R PO T P P, winged caduceus. 20-40 80-120 200-300

R IC 794.
952 — rev Large S C in wreath. R IC 795ff. 20-40 80-120 200-300
953 Æ Quadrans 5-15 30-50 70-100
954 — obv IMP V ESPA SIA N AVG, palm tree rev P M 70-100 200-300 400-600
T R P P P C O S III SC , standard with flag (Vexiil-
lum). R IC 504ff. Hendin 784- Note: Inscriptions
vary on this and the following quadrantes.
955 — A s prev., but obv Trophy of arms. RIC 507ff. 70-100 200-300 400-600
956 — A s 954, but rev Aspergillum, patera and lituus. 70-100 200-300 400-600
R IC 512-3.
THE FLAVIANS 3II
E x c e p t w here n o te d , th e o b v erse o f V e sp a sia n ’s p o sth u m o u s c o m m e m o ra tiv e s h av e

h is righ t-facin g , lau re ate h ead .
Vespaisian (Posthumous Commemoratives) F VF EF

957 AV Aureus, under Titus. 1000- 1800- 5000-
1500 2500 8000
958 — rev EX SC , shield against cippus topped with an 1250- 2000- 5000-
urn and flanked by laurel branches. RIC (Titus) 62. 1750 3000 8000
959 A R Denarius, — . 30-50 70-100 125-175
960 — rev EX SC , Victory adv. 1., placing shield on tro 30-50 100-150 400-600
phy of arms, mourning Jewess std. 1. at base. RIC
(Titus) 59a-b. Note: This copies a lifetime issue of
Vespasian with a longer inscription (Hendin 767).
961 — rev EX SC , ornamented quadriga r. or 1. RIC 30-50 80-120 300-400

(Titus) 60-1.
962 — A s 958. R IC (Titus) 62. 30-50 80-120 300-400
Vespaisian (Posthumous Commemoratives) F VF ch VF

963 Æ Sestertius, — . rev SC , Spes adv. 1., hldg. flower 300-400 700-
and raising robe. RIC (Titus) 147. 1000
964 — obv DIVO AVG V E SP (A S) SPQ R, Vespasian, 300-400 700- 2000-

hldg. scepter and Victory, std. r. on cart drawn by 1000 3000
four elephants rev IMP T C A E S DIVI V ESP F AVG
P M T R P P P C O S VIII around large SC . RIC
(Titus) 143-4.
965 — obv D IV V S A V G V ST V S V E S P (A SIA N ), Ves 300-400 700- 2000-

pasian std. 1., hldg. branch and scepter rev A s prev. 1000 3000
R IC (Titus) 145-6.
966 Æ Dupondius, — . obv Rad. hd. r. 50-75 300-400 900-

1200
967 Æ As, — . 50-75 250-350 700-

1000
Note: For other posthumous issues of Vespasian, see Domitilla the Younger, Trajan’s ‘restored
coins’ and the divi issues of Trajan Decius.
Vespaisian (Provincial Coinage) F VF EF

968 AV Stater of the Bosporus, king Rhescuporis I (or 700- 2,000- 3000-
II), c. 68-93. rev N o inscr., bare hd. r. of Titus, 1000 2,500 5000
BA PH monogram in field, date (yrs.365-374) below.
Frolova pl. 1, 1-5. Note: About 90% gold.
969 AR Tetradrachm of the Koinon of Cyprus 150-200 400-600 —

970 A R Cistophorus of Ephesus 400-600 1000- —
1500
971 AR Tetradrachm of Antioch. Illustrated p . 305. 125 225 375

Vespaisian (Provincial Coinage) F VF EF

972 A R Didrachm of Caesarea 70-100 150-200 400-600
973 — obv Laur. hd. r. of Vespasian rev Laur. hd. r. of 150-200 400-600 —
Titus. Syd. 102.
974 A R Hemidrachm, — . 50-75 100-150 200-300
Note: A n extensive series of æs was struck for Vespasian by the Jewish king Herod Agrippa II
(56-96). For details see Hendin, pp. 130451.
Domitilla the
Elder
W if e o f V e s p a s ia n
M o th er o f T it u s ,
D o m it ia n , a n d
D o m it il l a t h e
Yo un ger
G ran d m o th er of
J u l ia T it i
G r e a t -g r a n d m o t h e r
o f V e s p a sia n
J u n io r
Domi tilla the Elder

(Postllumous Commemoratives) F VF ch VF
976 Æ Sestertius, under Titus, obv M EM ORIAE 300-400 700- 2500-
D O M ITILLA E SPQ R, carpentum drawn r. by two 1000 4000
mules rev IMP T C A E S DIVI V ESP F AVG P M T R
P P P C O S VIII around large SC . RIC (Titus) 153.
Illustrated above.
977 — . A s prev., but obv D O M ITILLA E IMP C A E S 300-400 700- 2500-

V ESP AVG SPQ R. R IC (Titus) 154. 1000 4000
Domitilla the Younger

Augusta: Posthumously
D a u g h t e r o f V e s p a sia n a n d D o m it il l a t h e
E lder
S is t e r o f T it u s a n d D o m it ia n
G r a n d m o t h e r o f V e s p a sia n J u n io r
Deified: DIVA D O M ITILLA A V G V ST A
THE FLAVIANS 313
Except where noted, Domitilla the Younger’s bust is right-facing and draped.
Domi tilla the Younger
(Post! îumous Commemoratives) F VF EF
978 AV A ureus, under Domitian, c. 82-83 or later. 2000- 4000- 12,000-
DIVV S A V G V ST V S V ESPA SIA N V S, laur. hd. r. 3000 6000 20,000
of Vespasian rev DIVA D O M ITILLA A V G V STA ,
dr. bust r. of Domitilla the Younger. RIC (Titus) 69.
979 A R D enarius, — . rev C O N C O R D IA AVGVST, 1000- 2000- 5000-

peacock stg. r. RIC (Titus) 70. 1500 3500 8000
980 — . rev FO R T V N A AV GV ST, Fortuna stg. 1., hldg. 1000- 2 000- 5000-
rudder and cornucopia. R IC (Titus) 71. Illustrated 1500 3500 8000
p. 312.
981 — . rev PIETA S AV GV ST, Pietas std. 1., child 1000- 2000- 5000-
before. R IC (Titus) 73. 1500 3500 8000
982 — . rev PACI A V G V STA E, Nemesis adv. r., pre 1000- 2000- 5000-
ceded by snake. RIC (Titus) 72. Note: A specimen 1500 3500 8000
of this type cited in R IC is fourré.
Titus, A.D. 79-81

A .D . 69-71: Caesar
(under Vespasian, with Domitian)
A .D . 71-79: Imperator (under
Vespasian; Domitian, as Caesar)
(with Domitian, as Caesar)
S o n o f V e s p a sia n a n d D o m it il l a t h e E l d e r
B r o t h e r o f D o m it ia n a n d D o m it il l a t h e Y o u n g e r
F a t h e r o f J u l i a T it i

Caesar: IM PERATO R T C A E S A R A V G V ST I F
T C A E S IMP V ESP C E N (S )
T C A E S IMP V ESP PON T R PO T (C E N S)
T C A E S V ESPA SIA N IMP P (O N ) T R PO T C O S II (etc.)
T C A E S A R IMP V ESP
T C A E S A R IMP V E SP A SIA N (V S)
Augustus: IMP T C A E S V ESP AVG P M T R P (P P) C O S VII (or VIII)
IMP T IT V S C A E S V ESPA SIA N AVG P M

As Caesar, except where noted, busts are right- or left-facing and laureate, some
times cuirassed, and adorned with an aegis or a globe at tip of bust. As Augustus,
except where noted, busts are right- or left-facing and laureate.
Titus (as Caesar) F VF EF

983 AV Aureus, under Vespasian. 800- 2000- 5000-
1200 3500 8000
984 — rev N o inscr., palm tree betw. Titus, stg. at 1., 2,500- 5000- 18,000-
hldg. spear and sword, foot on globe, and mourning 3,500 8000 25,000
Jewess, std. at r. RIC (Vesp.) 160.
985 — rev IV D A EA DEVICTA, Victory stg. r., inscr. 2,500- 7000- 20,000-
IMP T C A E S on shield set on palm tree. RIC 3,500 10,000 35,000
(Vesp.) 373.
986 — rev V ESTA above round temple of Vesta with 1000- 2000- 5000-
decorated with three statues. R IC (Vesp.) 157ff.
Note: This celebrates the dedication of the temple,
which burned in the fire of 64 under Nero.
987 — obv IMP C A E SA R V E SP A SIA (N V S) AVG, 3000- 10,000- 35,000+

laur. hd. r. or 1. of Vespasian rev IMP T FLAVIVS 5000 15,000
C A E S A R AVG F, laur. or bare hd. r. of Titus. RIC
(Vesp.) 351-2,7. Note: Other inscriptions for this
type are T FLAVI V E SP A SIA N V S C A E SA R or
IMP C A E S V ESP AVG P TRI P C O S II.
988 A R Denarius 50-75 150-200 500-800
989 — rev N o inscr., Titus r. in triumphal quadriga. RIC 80-120 200-300 700-
(Vesp) 159,368. Hendin 789. 1000
990 — A s 984. RIC (Vesp.) 160,367. 70-100 250-350 9 00-

1200
991 — rev AVG in wreath. R IC (Vesp.) 339,44. 80-120 200-300 700-

1000
992 — rev C O S V, Pegasus stg. r. R IC (Vesp.) 192. 50-75 150-200 700-

1000
993 — rev C O S VII, She-wolf and twins, boat in ex. 50-75 150-200 700-
R IC (Vesp.) 204. 1000
994 — rev PACI O R B TE R R AVG, turreted hd. r. of 100-150 250-350 700-

female. R IC (Vesp.) 343,6. 1000
995 A R Quinarius 200-300 500-800 —

THE FLAVIANS 3I5
Titus (as Caesar) F VF ch VF

996 Æ Sestertius 200-300 500-800 2000-
3000
997 — rev IV D A EA C A P T A SC , palm tree betw. Titus 400-600 2000-

stg. at 1., hldg. spear and sword, foot on helm., and 3000
mourning Jewess std. at r. R IC (Vesp.) 608 (omit-
ting palm tree in descr.). Note: This type also occurs
for Titus as Augustus (R IC -).
998 — rev SC , Titus r. or 1. in triumphal quadriga. RIC 300-400 1000- 3000-

(Vesp.) 612,29a. Hendin 790. 1500 5000
999 — A s prev., but obv the Laur. bust of Titus is cuir, 400-600 2000- 5000-
and adorned with an aegis. R IC (Vesp.) 629b. 3000 8000
1000 — rev SC , Titus on horseback r., spearing fallen foe. 250-350 1000- 3 000-
R IC (Vesp) 613ff. 1500 5000
1001 — rev SC , Titus, hldg. scepter and Victory, stg. 1., 4000- 10,000-
foot on prow, before two Jewish suppliants (kneeling 6000 15,000
male, stg. female) with outstretched arms, behind
which is a palm tree. cf. R IC (Vesp.) 638var. H en
din 791.
1002 — rev V IC T O R IA A V G V ST I SC , Victory stg. r. 300-400 1250- 4000-

inscr. V IC AVG on shield attached to palm tree. 1750 6000
R IC (Vesp.) 614. Hendin 793.
1003 Æ Dupondius 50-75 200-300 900-

1200
1004 Æ Dupondius(?) (27mm) rev T R PO T C O S III 30-50 150-200 500-800

C E N SO R , winged caduceus betw. crossed cornuco
pias. R IC (Vesp.) 813-4. Note: Struck in orichalcum
for circulation in the east, this issue has the laureate
head of Titus. This and the related orichalcum coins
are not from Commagene as is often stated.
1005 Æ As 50-75 200-300 500-800
1006 — rev IV D A EA C A P T A SC , mourning Jewess std. 250-350 900- 1750-

r., sometimes on cuirass, at base of palm tree; arms, 1200 2250
armor and often a vexillum about. R IC (Vesp.)
620fif. Hendin 794.
1007 — rev PRO VID EN T below altar with double-pan- 70-100 250-350 700-
elled door flanked by large SC . RIC (Vesp.) 655ff. 1000
1008 — rev V IC T O R IA N AV ALIS SC , Victory stg. r. or 100-150 300-400 700-

1. on prow, hldg. wreath and palm branch. RIC 1000
(Vesp.) 627,89. Note: Victory also faces left (RIC
690).
1009 — rev SC , hexastyle temple of Jupiter Capitolinus 200-300 400-600

(the third), decorated with many statues. RIC
(Vesp.) 656. Note: This coin celebrates the reconse
cration and rebuilding of this sacred temple, which
burned late the reign of Vitellius.
3 l6 c o in a g e of th e rom an e m p ir e : ca talo g a n d tables of value
Titus (as Caesar) F VF ch VF

1010 — rev Sim. to 986, but S C added. RIC (Vesp.) 659. 200-300 400-600
1011 Æ As(?) (20mm) rev Large S C in wreath. RIC 50-75 200-300 500-800
(Vesp.) 804-6. Note: Struck in orichalcum for use in
the east.
1012 Æ Semis 50-75 150-200 400-600
1013 rev PO N TIF T R POT, winged caduceus. RIC 50-75 150-200 400-600
(Vesp.) 807-8.
1014 — rev Large S C in wreath. RIC (Vesp.) 809-11. 50-75 150-200 400-600
1015 — rev SC , mourning Judaea std. r. at base of palm 500-800 1500-

tree, arms, armor and yoke(?) about. R IC (Vesp.) 2000
“
812. Hendin 795var.
1016 — obv T IT V S IMP, palm tree rev Large S C in 400-600 700- —

wreath. R IC (Vesp.) 810. 1000
Titus (as Augustus) F VF EF

1017 AV Aureus 800- 2000- 5 000-
1200 3500 8000
1018 — rev T R P VIIII IMP XIIII (or XV ) C O S VII, 1000- 2000- 5 000-
bound captive Jew kneeling r. at base of trophy of 1500 3000 8000
arms. R IC 5,11,17. Hendin 785.
1019 — rev T R P IX IMP XV C O S VIII P P, trophy of 1500- 5000- 12,000-

arms betw. two captives std. back-to-back. RIC 21a. 2000 7000 18,000
Hendin 787.
1020 A R Denarius. Illustrated p . 313. 50-75 150-200 500-800
1021 — A s 1018, but with additional inscrs. RIC Iff. 70-100 200-300 700-
Hendin 786. 1000
1022 — rev T R P IX IMP XV C O S VIII P P, elephant stg. 70-100 200-300 700-

r. R IC 22a-b. 1000
1023 — rev Inscr. as prev., but dolphin coiled around 70-100 200-300 700-
anchor or upon tripod. RIC 26-7. 1000
1024 — A s 1019. RIC 21a-b. Hendin 788. 80-120 250-350 900-

1200
1025 A R Quinarius 200-300 500-800 —
Titus (as Augustus) F VF ch VF

1026 Æ Sestertius 200-300 500-800 2000-
3000
1027 — rev IVD C A P SC , palm tree betw. mourning Jew 500-800 1500- 5000-
ess std. and Jew stg., arms and armor before. R IC 91- 2000 8000
2. Hendin 792. Note: The figures face to the right or
the left in the two varieties.
THE FLAVIANS 3I7
Titus (as Augustus) F VF ch VF

1028 — rev IV D A EA C A P T A SC , palm tree betw. 700- 2000-
bound Jew, stg. at 1., looking back, and mourning 1000 3000
Jewess std. at r. RIC 93. Hendin 792a. Note: This
type also occurs for Titus as Caesar in his 6th con-
sulship.
1029 — rev SC , Titus r. in triumphal quadriga. RIC 101. 300-400 1000- 3000-
1500 5000
1030 — A s 1009 RIC 102. 500-800 1500- 4000-

2000 6000
1031 — obv N o inscr., the colosseum (Flavian Amphithe- 3000- 8000- 15,000-
ater) seen from bird’s-eye view, the Meta Sudans at 5000 12,000 25,000
r., uncertain structure at 1. rev IMP T C A E S VESP
AVG P M T R P P P C O S VIII SC , Titus, hldg.
branch, std. 1. among arms and armor. R IC 110.
Note: C ohen records an issue of this type struck
posthumously with the inscription DIVO AVG T
DIVI V ESP F V ESPA SIA N SC .
1032 Æ Dupondius 50-75 200-300 900-

1200
1033 — rev SC , the Meta Sudans. RIC 115. 400-600 1500- —

2000
1034 Æ As 50-75 200-300 700-

1000
1035 — Sim. to 1028. RIC 128. 250-350 900- 1750-

1200 2250
1036 Æ Semis 50-75 150-200 400-600
1036 — rev (I)V D C A P SC , mourning Jewess std. 1. at 500-800 1500-

(a) base of palm tree; arms, armor and yoke( ?) in pile to 2000
r. R IC 141. Hendin 795.
1037 Æ Quadrans obv IMP T V ESP AVG C O S VIII, 5-15 50-75 150-200
modius rev Large S C in wreath. R IC 136. Note: The
obverse type of a winged caduceus betw. crossed cor
nucopias is unpublished in the major references.
Note: A ll ‘restoration’ coins of Titus are cataloged under the issuers of the prototypes.
Titus (Posthumous Commemoratives) F VF ch VF

1038 Æ Sestertius, under Domitian, obv T DIVO AVG 400-600 1000-
DIVI V ESP F V ESPA SIA N O , Titus, rad. and hldg. 1500
branch and scepter, std. 1. before altar rev IMP
C A E S DIVI V ESP F D O M IT AVG P M T R P P P
around large SC . RIC (Domit.) 437-8. Note: Som e
times the T on the obverse follows AVG.
Note: For other coins of Divus Titus, see Julia Titi, the ‘restored’ coins of Trajan and the divi
issues of Trajan Decius.
3 l8 c o in a g e of th e r om an e m p ir e : ca talo g a n d tables of valu e
1031
Titus (Provincial Coinage) F VF EF

1039 AV Stater of the Bosporus see Vespasian.
1040 AR Cistophorus of Ephesus 400-600 1000- —
1500
1041 A R Tetradrachm of Antioch 250-350 500-800 —

1042 A R Drachm of Caesarea 80-120 250-350 —
Titus (Provincial Coinage) F VF ch VF

1044 Æ 2 7 -3 0 of the Koinon of Bithynia rev E n i M 400-600 1000-
M AIKIOY POYOOY A N 0Y IIA T O Y , palm tree 1500
betw. cuirass and shield, spears protruding from
behind. BM C-. Note: These issues were struck by
two proconsuls, M. Maecius Rufus or M. Salvidienus
Asprenas. The design celebrates the crushing of the
First Judaean revolt.
1045 Æ23 of Smyrna in Ionia, 79-81. obv Confr., laur. 50-75 100-150 250-350
hds. of Titus and Domitian rev River god Hermos
reel, to 1. BM C 297.
1046 Æ 19-22 of Caesarea(?) in Judaea rev IOYAIAIE 70-100 150-200 250-350

EAAW YKYIAE, Nike stg. r., foot on helm., inscr.
shield placed on knee or on palm tree before. H en
din 743-4. Note: The Greek inscription translates to
‘Judaea C apta.’
Note: A n immense series of æs was struck for Titus by the Jewish king Herod Agrippa II (56-
96). For details see Hendin, pp. 130-151. Also, for a coin of A ntioch issued by Titus for Tra
jan Pater, see the listings of the latter.

THE FLAVIANS 319
Julia Titi
Augusta, c. 79-90/91
D a u g h t e r o f T it u s
N ie c e ( a n d c o m p a n i o n ) o f D o m it ia n
G r a n d d a u g h t e r o f V e s p a sia n a n d
D o m it il l a t h e E l d e r
Augusta: IVLIA A V G V ST A T AVG F (under Titus)
IVLIA A V G V ST A TITI A V G V ST I F (under Titus)
IVLIA IMP T AVG F A V G V ST A (under Titus)
IV LIA A V G V ST A (under Domitian)
Deified: DIVA IV LIA (A V G V STA ) (under Domitian)
E x c e p t w here n o te d , th e obverse h as Ju lia T it i’s righ t-facin g , d rap ed bu st.
Julia Titi (as Augusta) F VF EF

1047 AV A ureus, under Domitian, c. 81 -82(?). obv 4000- 15,000-
D IV V S T IT V S A V G V ST V S, rad. hd. r. or 1. of 6000 20,000
Titus rev IV LIA A V G V ST A DIVI TIT I F, dr. bust r.
of Julia Titi. R IC (Domit.) 216,a.
1048 — , after c. 82. rev DIVI T ITI FILIA, peacock stg. 4000- 10,000-
facing, tail in splendor. RIC (Domit.) 218,a. N ote: 6000 15,000
C ohen cites an example with Julia Titi’s bust left.
1049 A R D enarius, — . rev C O N C O R D IA A V G V ST I, 200-300 400-600 1500-

type as prev. R IC (Dom it.) 217. 2000
1050 — . As 1048. R IC (Domit.) 218. 200-300 400-600 1500-

2000
1051 — , under Titus, rev SA LV S AVG, Salus std. 1., hldg. 200-300 400-600 1250-
patera. R IC (Titus) 54. 1750
1052 — . rev V EN V S AVG (V S T ), Venus stg. r., partially 200-300 400-600 1250-
dr., with back to viewer, leaning on column, hldg. 1750
helmet and scepter. R IC (Titus) 55-6. Illustrated
above.
1053 — . rev V ESTA , Vesta std. 1., hldg. palladium and 200-300 400-600 1250-
scepter, S C sometimes in ex. R IC (Titus) 57-8. 1750
Julia Titi (as Augusta) F VF chVF

1054 Æ Dupondius, under Titus, rev C ER ES 150-200 400-600 1500-
A V G V ST (A ) SC , Ceres stg. 1., hldg. grain ears and 2250
torch. R IC (Titus) 177,a.
320 C O IN A G E O F T H E R O M A N EM PIRE: C A T A L O G A N D T A B L E S OF V A L U E
Julia Titi (as Augusta) F VF chVF

1055 — . rev C O N C O R D IA A V G (V ST ) SC , Concordia 150-200 400-600 1500-
std. 1., hldg. patera and cornucopia. RIC (Titus) 2250
178-9.
1056 — . rev V ESTA SC , type as 1053. R IC (Titus) 180. 150-200 400-600 1500-
2250
Except where noted, the obverse has Julia Titi’s right-facing, draped bust.
Julia Titi (Posthumous Commemoratives) F VF EF
1057 AV Aureus, under Domitian, c. 90-91 (?). rev 4 000- 15,000-
A V G V ST A , image of Julia Titi std. on car drawn 1. 6000 20,000
■
by two elephants with riders. R IC (Domit.) 219.
1058 — . As prev., but rev anepigraphic. RIC 220. 4000- 15,000- —

6000 20,000
Julia Titi (Posthumous Commemoratives) F VF ch VF

1059 Æ Sestertius, — , 90-91. obv DIVAE IVLIAE AVG 300-400 700- 2000-
DIVI TIT I F SPQ R, carpentum drawn r. by two 1000 3000
mules rev IMP C A E S DO M IT AVG GERM C O S
XV C E N S PER P P around large SC . RIC (Domit.)
400.
1060 — , 92-94. A s prev., but rev C O S XVI. RIC 300-400 700- 2000-
(Dom it.) 411. 1000 3000
Julia Titi (Provincial Coinage) F VF EF

1061 A R Cistophorus of Ephesus obv IVLIA 400-600 1000-
A V G V ST A DIVI T ITI F, dr. bust r. rev V ESTA , 1500
type as 1053. R IC (Domit.) 231.
Julia Titi (Provincial Coinage) F VF ch VF

1062 Æ 20 of the Koinon of Crete obv AYTO T IT O 150-200 400-600
K A IS YIO S, laur. hd. r. of Titus rev IOYAIA
■
ZEBA ZTH , diad., dr. bust r. of Julia Titi. BMC-.
1063 Æ 16 of Magnesia in Ionia obv IOYAIA 70-100 200-300

C E B A C T H , dr. bust r. of Julia Titi rev
M A T N H T Q N AEVKOOPY, two N ikai crowning
cult statue of Artemis Leukophryene. BMC-.
1064 Æ 21 of Smyrna, — . obv Sim. to prev. rev E d 150-200 400-600

cDAQPOV A N 0 V SM VPN A K IN , Cybele std. 1.,
lion at her feet. BM C 311-4.
Note: A ll provincial issues listed above were struck during Julia Titi’s lifetime.
THE FLAVIANS 32 I
Domitian, A.D. 81-96

A .D . 69-71: Caesar
(under Vespasian, with Titus)
A .D . 71-79: Caesar (under Vespasian;
Titus as Imperator)
A .D . 79-81: Caesar (under Titus)
S o n o f V e s p a s ia n a n d D o m it illa t h e E ld e r
B r o t h e r o f T itu s a n d D o m itilla th e Y o u n g e r
H u s b a n d o f D o m itia
F a t h e r o f a d e ifie d s o n a n d a d a u g h t e r , n a m e s u n k n o w n
U n c l e o f J u l i a T iti
A d o p t iv e f a t h e r a n d g r e a t - u n c l e o f V e sp a s ia n J u n i o r

Caesar: C A E S (A R ) AVG F(IL) D O M IT (IA N ) C O S II (etc.) (under Vespasian)
C A E S (A R ) AVG F D O M IT IA N V S C O S DES II (under Vespasian)
C A E S DIVI (AV G) V ESP F D O M IT IA N (V S) C O S VII (under Titus)
C A E S (A R ) AVG (or DIVI) F D O M ITIA N V S (C O S VII) (under Titus)
Augustus: D O M IT IA N V S AVG GERM
D O M IT IA N V S A V G V ST V S
IMP C A E S DIVI V ESP F D O M IT (IA N ) AVG (P M or G E R C O S X, etc.)
IMP C A E S D O M IT AVG GERM C O S XIII (etc.) C E N S PER P P
IMP C A E S D O M IT AVG GERM P M T R P IIII (etc.)
IMP C A E S D O M IT AVG G ERM P M T R P VIII C E N S PER P P
IMP C A E S D O M ITIA N AVG G ERM C O S XI
IMP C A E S DOM IT (IA N ) AVG G ERM C O S XI C E N S (PO T or PER P P)
IMP C A E S D O M IT IA N (V S) AVG G E R M A N IC (V S)
IMP C A E S D O M IT IA N V S AVG P M (or PO N T)
IMP C A E S A R D O M IT IA N V S AVG
A s Caesar, E x c e p t w here n o ted , b u sts are righ t- or left-facin g , lau re ate or b a r e

h ea d ed , o fte n d rap ed an d /o r cu irassed . A s Augustus, e x c e p t w here n o te d , bu sts are
righ t- o r left-facin g , lau re ate or b are-h e ad e d , o fte n d rap ed or w ith aegis.
Domi tian (as Caesar) F VF EF

1065 AV A ureus, under Vespasian or Titus. Illustrated 1000- 1750- 4000-
above. 1500 2250 6000
1066 — rev C O S VII, She-wolf and twins, boat in ex. 1000- 2000- 5000-
R IC (Vesp.) 241. 1500 3000 8000
Domi tian (as Caesar) F VF EF

1067 — rev V ESTA above round temple of Vesta with 1250- 2000- 5000-
decorated with three statues. R IC (Vesp.) 230,49.
Note: This type celebrates the dedication of this
temple, which burned in the fire of 64 under Nero.
1068 A R D enarius 30-50 70-100 150-200
1069 — rev AVG in wreath. R IC (Vesp.) 347. 50-75 150-200 400-600
1070 — rev C O S IIII, Pegasus stg. r. RIC (Vesp.) 238. 30-50 80-120 200-300
1071 — A s 1066. R IC (Vesp.) 241. 30-50 80-120 200-300
1072 — rev PACI O R B TER R AVG, hd. r. of towered 50-75 200-300 500-800
female. R IC (Vesp.) 350.
1073 — rev PRIN C EPS IV V EN T V T IS, goat stg. 1. in 30-50 80-120 200-300
wreath. R IC (Titus) 43,9.
1074 A R Q uinarius 150-200 400-600 1000-

1500
Domi tian (as Caesar) F VF ch VF

1075 Æ Sestertius 70-100 300-400 1250-
1750
1076 Æ D upondius 20-40 100-150 400-600
1077 Æ D upondius(?) (27mm) rev D O M ITIA N V S 30-50 150-200 400-600

C O S II, winged caduceus betw. crossed cornucopias.
R IC (Vesp.) 816. Note: Struck in orichalcum for cir
culation in the east, this issue has the laureate head
of Domitian. This and the related orichalcum coins
are not from Commagene as has been proposed.
1078 Æ As 20-40 100-150 300-400
1079 — rev PRO VID EN T below altar with double-pan- 70-100 200-300 500-800
elled door flanked by large SC . R IC (Vesp.) 687ff.
1080 — rev SC , hexastyle temple of Jupiter Capitolinus 200-300 400-600 1000-

(the third), decorated with many statues. RIC 1500
(Vesp.) 689ff. Note: This issue celebrates the recon-
secration and rebuilding of this sacred temple, from
which Domitian narrowily escaped as it burned late
in the reign of Vitellius.
1081 — rev SC , legionary eagle betw. two standards. RIC 70-100 200-300 500-800
(Vesp.) 704.
1082 — rev SC , Domitian r. in triumphal quadriga. RIC 70-100 200-300 500-800

(Vesp) 688,700.
1083 — rev S C or PRIN CIP IV V EN T SC , Domitian on 70-100 200-300 500-800

horseback r. or 1., hldg. scepter. R IC (Vesp.) 697ff.
1084 — rev Sim. to 1067, but S C added. R IC (Vesp.) 200-300 400-600 900-
690. 1200
T H E F L A V IA N S 323
Domi tian (as Caesar) F VF ch VF

1085 — rev V IC T O R IA A V G V ST SC , Victory stg. r. on 50-75 100-150 400-600
prow, hldg. wreath and palm branch. RIC (Titus)
174.
1086 — rev V IC T O R IA N A V A LIS SC , Victory stg. r. on 70-100 200-300 500-800

prow, hldg. wreath and palm branch or Victory stg.
r., crowning standard. R IC (Vesp.) 692,707.
1087 Æ As(?) (20mm) rev Large S C in wreath. RIC 20-40 100-150 250-350
(Vesp.) 817. N ote: This and the following coin were
struck in orichalcum for use in the east.
1088 Æ Semis rev D O M IT C O S II, winged caduceus. 20-40 80-120 200-300

R IC (Vesp.) 818.
1089 — rev IVD C A P SC , mourning Jewess std. 1. at base 500-800 1500-

of palm tree; arms, armor and yoke(?) in pile to r. 2000
R IC -.
Domi tian (as Augustus) F VF EF

1090 AV Aureus 1000- 1750- 4000-
1500 2250 6000
1091 — rev N o inscr., distyle temple, flanked by two Vic 1500- 5000-
tories, with std. cult statue inside. R IC 203. N ote: 2000 8000
Appearing only on aurei of 96, this seemingly is the
temple (the Templum Gentis Flaviae) that Domitian
built at his place of his birth on the Quirinal Hill in
Rome. This aureus is seemingly part of the series of
‘temple’ denarii (no. 1097).
1092 — rev Wreath containing cippus inscr. LVD SA E C 1500- 4000- 10,000-
FEC; in field, C O S XIIII,. R IC 115. 2000 6000 15,000
1093 — rev IMP VIIII C O S XI C E N S PO T P P, mourn 1250- 2000- 5000-

ing Germ ania std. r. on shield, a broken spear below. 1750 3000 8000
R IC 72ff. N ote: Other inscriptions occur.
1094 — rev T R PO T IMP II C O S VIII DES VIIII P P, 1500- 4000- 10,000-

helm, bust 1. of Minerva, wearing aegis or dr., some 2000 6000 15,000
times hldg. scepter. RIC 33,48. N ote: Other inscrip
tions occur.
1095 AV Quinarius 1250- 2000- —

1750 3000
1096 A R Denarius 30-50 70-100 150-200
1097 — rev N o inscr. or more commonly IMP 150-200 700- 1750-

C A E S (A R ) in field (or on architrave) of a deco 1000 2250
rated temple of four, six or eight columns; std. or stg.
deity or deities within. R IC 204-8. N ote: This series
(undated, but c. 94 or 96), depicts five different
temples honoring: Jupiter Capitolinus (the 4th tem
ple), Minerva Chalcidica, Serapis (the Serapaeum ),
Cybele-M agna Mater (the Sacellum M agnae M atris )
and Jupiter Victor or the Deified Emperors(?).
Domi tian (as Augustus) F VF EF

1098 — rev C O S XIIII LVD SA E C FEC, herald with 70-100 200-300 500-800
feathered cap, hldg. shield and baton adv. 1. RIC
117-8. Note: This and the next two types celebrate
the Saecular Games of 88.
1099 — rev C O S XIIII LVD SA E C FEC inscr. on cippus 70-100 200-300 500-800
at 1.; herald with feathered cap, hldg. shield and
scepter, stg. at r., incense burner betw. RIC 116,a.
1100 — A s 1092. RIC 115,a. 70-100 200-300 500-800
1101 — rev IVPPITER CO N SER V A TO R, eagle stg. on 70-100 250-350 1000-

thunderbolt. RIC 40. 1500
1102 — rev T R P C O S VII, dolphin coiled around 30-50 80-120 200-300

anchor or upon tripod. RIC 3-4ff Note: Other
inscriptions occur.
1103 A R Q uinarius 150-200 400-600 1000-

1500
Note: Most of Dom itian’s aurei and denarii depict Minerva standing, often on a prow.
1125
Domi tian (as A ugustus) F VF ch VF

1104 Æ Sestertius 50-75 250-350 1000-
1500
1105 — rev C O S XIIII LVD SA E C FEC S C (or var.); sev 250-350 900- 4 000-
eral scenes of Domitian sacrificing, usually before a 1200 6000
temple with two or more participants. R IC 375-9.
Note: These celebrate the Saecular Games of 88.
The temples shown are that of Jupiter Stator and a
private temple ( lararium) which Domitian had built
for Minerva in his house on the Palatine Hill.
1106 — rev G E R M A N IA C A P T A SC , trophy of arms 250-350 1500- 4 000-

betw. female captive std. at 1. and male captive stg. r. 2000 6000
R IC 252ff.
1107 — rev S C , Domitian stg. 1., sacrificing at altar before 250-350 9 00- 4 000-
shrine containing statue of Minerva. R IC 256ff. 1200 6000
1108 — rev SC , Domitian stg. at r., hldg. spear, before 250-350 9 00- 4 000-
him at 1. a German, presenting shield, kneels before 1200 6000
him. R IC 258ff.
1109 — rev SC , Domitian on horseback r., spearing fallen 150-200 400-600 1500-
German. R IC 257ff. Note: This issue is usually 2000
struck on ‘medallic’ planchets.
Domi tian (as A ugustus) F VF ch VF

1110 — rev SC , Domitian stg. 1., hldg. spear and sword, 200-300 500-800 2000-
the Rhine reel, at his feet. R IC 259ff. 3000
1111 — rev SC , Domitian stg. r., clasping hands over 400-600 2000- 7000-
altar with general escorted by two or three soldiers. 3000 10,000
R IC 260ff.
1112 — rev SC , Domitian stg., crowned by Victory, some- 150-200 400-600 1500-
times accompanied by Minerva. R IC 287ff. 2000
1113 — rev SC , Victory stg. r., foot on helmet, inscr. DE 150-200 400-600 1500-
G ER on shield attached to trophy with captive at 2000
base. R IC 255ff.
1114 — rev SC , round tetrastyle temple flanked by stg. 250-350 1500- 4000-
soldiers; a std. fig. within. RIC 413. 2000 6000
1115 — rev SC , triumphal arch with two arches sur- 300-400 1750- 5000-
mounted by two quadrigae of elephants. RIC 2 6 Iff. 2250 8000
1116 Æ Dupondius obv Rad. hd. r. or 1. 20-40 100-150 250-350
1117 — As 1105. R IC 365,81-3. 100-150 400-600 1000-

1500
1118 — rev SC , trophy of arms betw. two Germanic cap 70-100 200-300 400-600
tives std. back-to-back. R IC 266.
1119 — rev SC , standard with crossed shields, trumpets 70-100 200-300 400-600
and spears. R IC 267ff. N ote: Asses of this type were
also struck.
1120 Æ As 20-40 80-120 200-300
1121 — rev SA LV TI A V G V ST (I) SC , altar. R IC 242ff. 70-100 200-300 400-600
1122 Æ Semis 20-40 80-120 200-300
1123 — obv IMP D O M IT AVG GERM C O S XII (or 30-50 100-150 300-400
XIIII), helm., dr. bust r. of Minerva rev S C , owl stg.
RIC 308,74- Note: Quadrantes of this type were also
struck.
1124 — obv IMP D O M IT AVG GERM C O S XI, laur., dr. 70-100 200-300 400-600
bust r. of Apollo rev SC , lyre. R IC 273.
1125 Æ Quadrans 5-15 30-50 70-100
1126 — obv Rhinoceros stg. r or 1. rev IMP D O M IT AVG 15-25 70-100 200-300
G E (R M ) around large SC . R IC 434-5.
1127 — obv IMP D O M IT AVG GERM , dr. bust r. of 70-100 200-300 400-600
Ceres rev SC , ship sailing. RIC 431 A.
Note: The portraits of deities on semisses and quadrantes often have the features of Domitian.
A ll ‘restoration’ coins of Domitian are cataloged under the issuers of the prototypes.
Domitian (Provincial Coinage) F VF EF

1128 AV Stater of the Bosporus, king Rhescuporis I (or 700- 1500-
o o
o o
o o
II), c. 68-93. obv BACIAEíoC PHCKOYIIOPIAOC, 1000 2000
diad., dr. bust r. of Rhescuporis II rev N o inscr., laur.
hd. r. of Domitian, date (yrs.377-388) below. Frol
ova pi. 1, 9-21. Note: About 80% gold.
1129 — , king Sauromates I, c. 93-123. obv BACIAEíoC 700- 1500- 2000-

CAYOMATOY, diad., dr. bust r. of Sauromates I rev 1000 2000 3000
A s prev., but yr.390(=A.D . 93). Frolova pl. IV, 20.
1130 AR Cistophorus of Asia Minor 200-300 500-800 1500-

2000
1131 AR Tetradrachm of Antioch 50-75 100-150 300-400
1132 AR Tetradrachm of Tarsus rev Tyche of Tarsus std. 70-100 250-350 500-800
r. on rock, hldg. branch over river-god Kydnos
swimming r. below. S N G Levante 989.
1134 — rev N o inscr., Domitian in slow quadriga r. Syd. 150-200 400-600 —

121.
1135 Billon Tetradrachm of Alexandria 200-300 400-600 900-

1200
Domi tian (Provincial Coinage) F VF chVF

1136 Æ 2 6 -2 8 of Caesarea in Judaea rev IMP XXI C O S 100-150 250-350 500-800
SV I C E N S P P P , palm tree. Hendin 746.
1137 Æ 2 5 -2 6 , — . rev Inscr. as prev., but Nike adv. 1., 70-100 150-200 250-350
hldg. trophy and wreath. Hendin 747.
1138 Æ 2 4 -2 5 , — . rev N o inscr., Minerva stg. 1., hldg. 70-100 150-200 250-350
spear and shield and placing hand upon trophy of
arms. Hendin 749.
1139 Æ 1 9 , — . rev V IC T O R IA AVG, trophy of arms. 70-100 150-200 250-350

Hendin 751.
1140 Æ 2 7 -2 8 of Flaviopolis in Cilicia, 89-90. rev Confr., 50-75 100-150 250-350

dr. busts of the Dioscuri. S N G Levante 1529.
1141 Æ Drachm of Alexandria 30-50 150-200 500-800
Note: A large series of æs was struck for Domitian by the Jewish king Herod Agrippa II (56-
96). For details see Hendin, pp. 130-151.
THE FLAVIANS 327
Domitia
Augusta, A.D. 82-96
W if e o f D o m it ia n
M o t h e r o f a d e if ie d s o n a n d a d a u g h t e r ,
n am es un kn o w n
S i s t e r -i n - l a w o f D o m it ia n a n d D o m it il l a t h e
Yo unger
D a u g h t e r -in -la w o f V e s p a sia n a n d D o m it il l a t h e E l d e r
Augusta: D O M ITIA (E) AVG IMP C A E S DIVI F D O M ITIA N AVG (æs only)
DO M ITIA AVG IMP D O M ITIA N AVG G E R (M )
DO M ITIA A V G V ST A IMP D O M IT(IA N I)
E x c e p t w here n o te d , th e obverse h as D o m itia ’s righ t-facin g , d rap ed bu st.
Domi tia (as Augusta) F VF EF

1142 AV A ureus, under Domitian, obv IMP C A E S 4000- 8,000' 20,000-
D O M IT IA N V S AVG P M, laur. hd. r. of Domitian 6000 12,000 35,000
rev D O M ITIA A V G V ST A IMP DOMIT, dr. bust r.
of Domitia. R IC (Dom it.) 210.
1143 — . rev C O N C O R D IA AV GV ST, peacock stg. r. 3000- 7000- 20,000-

R IC (Dom it.) 212,B and 215,A-B. Note: The 5000 10,000 35,000
reverse inscription sometimes ends A V G V ST A or
A V G V ST I. Illustrated above.
1144 A R D enarius, — . A s 1142. R IC (Domit.) 210. 1000- 3000- 7000-

Note: R IC lists this issue as fourré. 1500 5000 12,000
1145 — . A s prev., but rev D O M ITIA A V G V ST A . RIC 1000- 3 000- 7000-

(Dom it.) 211. 1500 5000 12,000
1146 — . Sim. to 1143. R IC (Dom it.) 212B,215. 900- 2000- 7000-

1200 3000 10,000
1147 — . rev PACI AV GV ST, Nemesis adv. r., pointing 1000- 3000- 7000-
caduceus at snake at her feet. R IC (Dom it.) 213A. 1500 5000 12,000
Note: R IC lists this issue as possibly fourré.
1148 — . rev PIETAS AVGV ST, Pietas std. 1., hldg. scep 1000- 3000- 7000-
ter, a child before. RIC (Domit.) 214. Note: The 1500 5000 12,000
child shown is the deified son of Domitian.
Domitia (as Augusta) F VF chVF

1149 Æ Sestertius, — . rev DIVI C A E S A R MATRI (or
C A E SA R IS M ATER) SC , Domitia std. 1., hldg.
scepter and reaching toward child, stg. facing her.
R IC (Dom it.) 440'1. Note: The child shown (and
alluded to in the inscription) is the deified son of
Domitian.
Domi tia (as Augusta) F VF chVF

1150 Æ Dupondius, — . rev DIVI C A E SA R IS MATER 900- 2000-
S C , Domitia stg. 1., hldg. scepter and sacrificing over 1200 3000
altar from patera. RIC (Domit.) 442.
1151 Æ As, — . rev DIVI C A E S M ATER SC , Ceres stg. 700- 2000- —

L, hldg. grain ears and scepter. R IC (Domit.) 443. 1000 3000
Note: For other coins struck for Domitia, see the listings of the Deified son of Domitian.
Domitia (Provincial Coinage) F VF EF

1152 AR Cistophorus of Ephesus, under Domitian, obv 400-600 1000-
IMP C A E S D O M ITIA N AV G P M C O S VIII, laur. 1500
hd. r. of Domitian, rev D O M ITIA A V G V STA , dr.
bust r. of Domitia. R IC (Domit.) 228.
1153 — . Types as prev., but inscrs.: obv IMP C A E SA R 400-600 1000-

D O M ITIA N V S AVG rev D O M ITIA D O M ITIAN 1500
AVG P M C O S VI. RIC (Domit.) 229.
1154 — . obv D O M ITIA A V G V STA , dr. bust r. of Domi 400-600 1000-

tia. rev V EN V S AVG, Venus stg. r., partially dr., 1500
with back to viewer, leaning on column, hldg. hel
met and scepter. RIC (Domit.) 230.
1155 A R Didrachm of Caesarea obv Laur. hd. r. of Domi 250-350 700- —

tian rev Diad., dr. bust r. of Domitia. Syd. 129. 1000
1156 — obv Confr. busts of Domitian, laur. at 1., and 300-400 9 00- —
Domitia, dr. at r. rev Athena stg. Syd. 130. 1200
Domitia (Provincial Coinage) F VF ch VF

1157 Æ 25 of Amphipolis in Macedon obv Diad., dr. bust 70-100 150-200 300-400
r. of Domitia rev City goddess std. 1. BM C 96.
1158 Æ 22 of Smyrna in Ionia obv Confr. busts of Domi 70-100 150-200 400-600
tian, laur. at 1., and Domitia, dr. at r. rev Heracles
stg. 1., hldg. cantharus and club. S N G Cop. 1359.
1159 Æ 19 of Tralles in Lydia obv Dr. bust r. of Domitia 70-100 150-200 400-600
rev Demeter stg. 1. BM C 135.
Note: A n extensive series of aes coinages was struck in the provinces for Domitia.
THE FLAVIANS 329
Deified son of Domitian

S o n o f D o m it ia n a n d D o m it ia
G r a n d so n o f V e s p a sia n a n d
N e p h e w o f T it u s a n d D o m it il l a t h e Y o u n g e r
Deifie;d Son of Domitian

(Postllumous Commemoratives) F VF EF
1160 AV Aureus, under Domitian, c. 82-83 or later, obv 3000- 7000- 20,000-
D O M ITIA A V G V ST A IMP DOMIT, dr. bust r. of 5000 10,000 30,000
Domitia rev D IVV S C A E S A R IMP D O M ITIA N I F,
deified son of Domitian, nude with arms raised, std.
facing on banded globe, surrounded by seven stars.
R IC (Dom it.) 213. Illustrated above.
1161 AR Denarius, — . As prev. R IC (Domit.) 213. 800- 2000- 6000-

1200 3500 9000
1162 — . obv IMP C A E S D O M IT IA N V S AVG P M, laur. 900- 2200- 7000-

hd. r. of Domitian rev A s prev. R IC 209A (and note 1200 3800 10,000
R IC II, p.124).
Note: The boy is also shown as a standing figure on coins of Domitia (nos. 1148-9).
Vespasian Junior
A d o p t e d s o n , a n d h e ir o f D o m it ia n
G r e a t -n e p h e w o f T i t u s a n d D o m it ia n
G r e a t -g r a n d s o n o f V e s p a s ia n a n d
Vespaisian Junior (Provincial Coinage) F VF ch VF

1163 Æ 1 7 of Smyrna in Ionia, c. 95. obv 700- 1500- 3000-
O Y E C n A C IA N O C N EQ T EP O C , bare-headed, dr. 1000 2000 5000
bust r. of Vespasian Jr. rev ZM YPNAIQN, Nemesis
stg. r., spitting in robe, hldg. bridle. BM C 315.
1164 — . A s prev., but rev N ike adv. 1., hldg. wreath and 700- 1500- 3000-
palm branch. BM C 316-9. 1000 2000 5000
1165 — . A s prev., but obv bust often undraped, rev Nike r. 700- 1500- 3 000-
BM C 320-2 (or var.) Illustrated above. 1000 2000 5000
Note: Bronzes of Aegae in Aeolis sometimes are incorrectly attributed to Vespasian Junior.
330 C O IN A G E O F T H E R O M A N EM PIRE: C A T A L O G A N D TA B L E S O F V A L U E
A no nym o us Q uad ran tes of th e P e r io d

D o m it ia n t h r o u g h M arcus A u r e l iu s
The Romans had coined quadrantes (plural for quadrans, which literally means
‘quarter’) in Imperial times since the reign of Augustus, and continued to do so
through the reign of Marcus Aurelius (161-180). More often than not, quadrantes
bore the name of the issuing emperor, but seldom an Imperial portrait. Beginning in
the reign of Domitian, however, a considerable number of quadrantes bore no
inscription naming the emperor. Since they cannot be reliably cataloged under the
emperors who issued them, all of the ‘anonymous’ quadrantes are listed below.
Except where noted, the obverses have no inscription and the reverses are inscribed
only with SC. RIC references are to the listings in volume II, pp. 216-219.
Anon ymous Quadrantes F VF ch VF

1166 Æ Quadrans obv Helmet rev Owl stg. r., hd. facing. 15-25 70-100 200-300
R IC 11.
1167 — obv Winged petasus rev Winged Caduceus. RIC 5-15’ 30-50 70-100
32.
1168 — obv Griffin stg. r. or 1., placing paw on wheel rev 15-25 70-100 200-300
Tripod. RIC 27'8.
1169 — obv Hippopotamus stg. 1. rev Laurel branch. RIC 20-40 150-200 400-600
38.
1170 — obv Rhinoceros stg. 1. rev Olive branch. R IC 36. 15-25 70-100 200-300
1171 — obv A s prev. rev Owl stg. RIC 37. 15-25 70-100 200-300
1172 — obv Bust. r. of Spring as a child, crowned with 70-100 200-300 400-600
flowers( ?) and either dr. or wearing garland of flow-
ers rev Large S C in wreath of flowers and leaves, cf.
R IC 34- Van Heesch 3a,b. N o te : The portraits on
this and the following three coins are often misde-
scribed as being Annius Verus, the son of Lucius
Verus who died while a child. However, J. Van Hee-
sch (in Studia Paulo N aster Oblata, vol. I, 1982) has
shown that they represent the ‘four seasons.’
1173 — obv Hd. r. of Summer as a child, wearing a crown 70-100 200-300 400-600
and garland of wheat ears rev Large S C in wreath of
wheat ears. cf. R IC 34. Van Heesch 4.
1174 — obv Hd. r. of Fall as a child, wearing a crown and 70-100 200-300 400-600
garland of vine branch laden with grapes rev Large
S C in wreath of vine branch laden with grapes. RIC
34- Van Heesch 2. N o te : This particular bust is
sometimes misdescribed as Bacchus.
1175 — obv Veiled hd. r. of Winter as a child, crowned 70-100 200-300 400-600
with reeds rev Large S C in wreath of olive branches.
R IC 35. Van Heesch 1.
1176 — obv Laur., dr. bust r. of Apollo rev Tripod. RIC 26. 5-15 30-50 70-100
THE FLAVIANS 33 I
Anon ymous Quadrantes F VF ch VF

1177 — obv Dr- bust r. of long-haired Bacchus rev Ele 20-40 150-200 400-600
phant stg. r. R IC 33.
1178 — obv Laur. or diad. hd. r. of bearded Jupiter rev 5-15 30-50 70-100
Eagle stg. facing on thunderbolt, hd. r. or 1. R IC 1-5.
1179 — obv A s prev. rev Winged thunderbolt. RIC 6. 5-15 30-50 70-100
1180 — obv Helm, bust r. of Mars, sometimes cuir, rev 5-15 30-50 70-100
Trophy of arms. R IC 21.
1181 — obv As prev. rev Cuirass. RIC 19. 5-15 30-50 70-100
1182 — obv A s prev. rev Legionary eagle betw. two stan 15-25 70-100 200-300
dards. R IC 22.
1183 — obv As prev. rev Shield on which are she-wolf 15-25 70-100 200-300
and twins upon crossed spears. R IC 20.
1184 — obv A s prev. rev Cornucopia. R IC 23. 15-25 70-100 200-300
1185 — obv Dr. bust r. or 1. of Mercury, wearing winged 15-25 70-100 200-300
petasus, caduceus behind rev Cock stg. r. R IC 29-30.
1186 — obv A s prev., but no caduceus rev Winged cadu 5-15 30-50 70-100
ceus. RIC 31.
1187 — obv Helm., dr. bust r. of Minerva rev Owl stg. r. or 5-15 30-50 70-100
1., hd. facing. R IC 7-8.
1188 — obv A s prev. rev Olive tree. R IC 9. 5-15 30-50 70-100
1189 — obv A s prev. rev Club. RIC 10. 15-25 50-75 125-175
1190 — obv A s prev. rev shield facing, lying on spear. 15-25 70-100 200-300
R IC -.
1191 — obv Diad., dr. bust r. of Neptune, sometimes 15-25 50-75 125-175
bearded, trident behind rev Dolphin coiled around
anchor. R IC 14,6.
1192 — obv A s prev., but unbearded rev Dolphin. RIC 15. 15-25 70-100 200-300
1193 — obv Helm., dr. bust r. of Rom a(?) rev Aequitas stg. 15-25 50-75 125-175
1., hldg. scales and cornucopia. RIC 12.
1194 — obv A s prev. rev Fortuna stg. 1. R IC 13. 5-15 30-50 70-100
1195 — obv Hd. r. or 1. of bearded Tiber crowned with 15-25 70-100 200-300
reeds rev She-wolf and twins. R IC 17-8.
1196 — obv Diad., dr. bust r. of Venus rev Dove stg. r. or 1. 5-15 30-50 70-100
RIC 24-5.
1205
1175
C o in s o f t h e M in e s
In addition to the regular quadrantes struck by the Romans there is a series of frac-
tional æs (usually c. 14 to 17 mm in diameter) honoring the Imperial mines in
Noricum, Dalmatia, Pannonia (Illyria) and Dardania (Moesia). On the reverse the
word metallis (meaning mines) was abbreviated and paired with the name of the
mine (or the region), and sometimes with the name of an emperor. In the latter
cases the inscription may indicate that the mine was opened during that emperor’s
reign or, as has been suggested, that the mine was opened during that emperor’s ear-
lier tenure as governor of the region. The more important mines were the property
of the emperor, and were operated by lessees (conductores) under the supervision of
a provincial mine administrator, a procurator metallorum.
Most of these pieces were struck during the reigns of Hadrian and Trajan, with Mar-
eus Aurelius striking on a smaller scale. Most bear the portraits and inscriptions of
emperors on the obverse, though some are anonymous. Only infrequently does the
inscription SC occur (and this may merely represent an attempt to imitate the reg-
ular Imperial æs). Although their destination seems to have been the mining loca-
tions (for they tend to be found in the Balkans) they probably were struck in Rome.
Obverse inscriptions on coins naming emperors:

Trajan: IMP C A E S NERVA T R A IA N AVG (GERM or G E R D A C )
IMP C A E S T R A IA N AVG G ER D A C P M T R P C O S VI P P
IMP C A E S T R A IA N O AVG G E R D A C PART
IMP T R A IA N O AVG G ER D A C IC O (or D A C P M) T R P C O S V P P
Hadrian: H A D R IA N V S A V G V ST V S P P
IMP C A E SA R T R A IA IN H A D R IA N V S AVG
A nt. Pius: A N T O N IN V S A V G V ST V S
Most mines coins appear to be quadrantes, though some (such as the first piece,
with a radiate crown) may be semisses. Except where noted, the obverses feature the
right-facing laureate head of the emperor named.
Coins of the Mines F VF ch VF

1197 Trajan, A.D. 98-117 obv Rad. hd. r. rev M ETALL 150-200 400-600
V LPIA N I PAN N, Moneta-Aequitas stg. 1., hldg.
scales and cornucopia. R IC II, p.294, 706.
1198 — rev D A R D A N IC I, woman stg. 1., hldg. grain 100-150 250-350 500-800
ears, often gathering her gown with her 1. hand. RIC
II, p.294, 703-4.
1199 — rev M ETA LL(I) V LPIAN I DELM, type as 1197. 100-150 250-350 500-800
R IC II, pp.294-5, 705,10.
Coins of the Mines F VF chVF

1200 — rev M ETALLI PA N N O N IC I, type as 1197. RIC 100-150 250-350 500-800
II, p.294, 707.
1201 — rev M ETALLI V LPIAN I, type as 1197, some 100-150 250-350 500-800
times with SC . R IC II, pp.294'5, 708-9.
1202 Hadrian, A.D. 117-138 rev A E L IA N A PINCEN- 150-200 400-600

SIA in wreath. R IC II, p.474, 1012. Note: The Met-
alla Aeliana Pincensiana was opened by Hadrian at
Pincum or Pincus in Moesia.
1203 — rev M ET N O R in wreath. RIC II, p.474, 1011a- 100-150 250-350 500-800
b. Note: H adrians bust is sometimes draped.
1204 Antoninus Pius, A.D. 138-161 rev A s 1198. RIC 100-150 250-350 500-800
III, p .157, 1068b.
1205 Anonymous (under Trajan or Hadrian) obv 80-120 200-300 400-600

RO M A , helm., dr. bust r. of Roma rev A s 1198. RIC
II, p.475, 1016.
1206 — obv N o inscr., laur. hd. r. of Diana(?) rev 100-150 250-350 500-800
M ETA L(I) DELM, stag stg. 1. R IC II, p.474, 1015.
1207 — obv N o inscr., dr. bust r. of Diana, quiver at shoul 100-150 250-350 500-800
der rev M ETAL or M ETALI DELM, stag stg. 1. RIC
II, p.474, 1013, and var.
1208 — obv N o inscr., helm. hd. r. of Mars rev M ETAL 80-120 200-300 400-600
DELM, cuirass. R IC II, p.474, 1014.
1209 Anonymous (under Antoninus Pius) obv No 80-120 200-300 400-600

inscr., helm., dr. bust r. of Roma rev A s 1198. R IC II,
1016.
1210 Anonymous (under Marcus Aurelius) obv N o 150-200 400-600

inscr., laur., dr. bust r. of female rev M ETAL AVRE-
L IA N IS in wreath. R IC III, p.313, 1255. Note:
Seemingly the last coin struck for the Roman mines,
its reverse inscription indicates that the mine was
opened by Marcus Aurelius.

CH A PTER FIVE
T h e A d o p tiv e E m p e ro rs a n d t h e A n to n in e s
a . d . 9 6 -19 2
Nerva, a .d . 96-98
A d o p t iv e F a t h e r o f T r a ja n

Augustus: IMP NERVA C A E S AVG P M T R PO T
IMP NERVA C A E S AVG P M T R P II
IMP NERVA C A E S AVG P M T R P C O S II P P
IMP NERVA C A E S AVG P M T R P C O S III P P
IMP NERVA C A E S AVG P M T R P II D ESIG N III P P
Deified: D IV V S NERVA
Except t w here n o ted , b u sts are righ t-facin g an d lauréat« e.
Nerve1 (as Augustus) F VF EF

1211 AV Aureus 2000- 4000- 8000-
3000 6000 12,000
1212 AV Quinarius 2000- 5000- 10,000-

3000 8000 15,000
1213 A R Denarius. Illustrated above. 70-100 100-150 400-600
1214 A R Quinarius 500-800 1500- 4000-

2000 6000
Nerva (as Augustus) F VF ch VF

1215 Æ Sestertius 200-300 500-800 3000-
5000
1216 — rev F IS C IIV D A IC I C A LV M N IA SV BLA TA 300-400 3000- 7000-

SC , palm tree. RIC 58, 72, 82. Hendin 797. 5500 10,000
1217 — rev V EH ICV LA T IO N E ITALIAE R E M ISSA 300-400 1500- 5500-

SC , two mules grazing, cart in background. R IC 93, 2000 7500
104.
335
Nerve (as Augustus) F VF chVF

1218 — rev PLEBI V R B A N A E FRV M EN TO CO N - 300-400 1000- 3000-
ST IT V T O SC , modius with grain. R IC 89, 103. 1500 5000
1219 Æ D upondius obv Usually rad. bust r. 100-150 300-400 1000-

1500
1220 Æ As 100-150 250-350 700-

1000
1221 Æ Sem is 10-15 70-100 200-300
1222 Æ Q uadrans 5-15 50-75 150-200
1216
Nerva (Posthumous Commemoratives) F VF EF

1223 A R Didrachm of Caesarea obv Laur. hd. r. of T ra 100-150 400-600 —
jan rev Laur. hd. r. of Nerva. Syd. 155.
Note: For other posthumous coins of Nerva, see the issues of Trajan Pater, T rajan’s ‘restored
coins,’ and the divi issues of Trajan Decius.
Nervi1 (Provincial Coinage) F VF EF

1224 E L Stater of the Bosporus, king Sauromates I, c. 700- 2000- 4 000-
93-123. obv IOYAIOY BACIAEcoC CAYOM A- 1000 3000 6000
TOY, diad., dr. bust r. of Sauromates I rev N o inscr.,
laur. hd. r. of N erva(?), date (yrs.393-394) below.
Frolova pl. IV, 21-2. Note: About 75% gold. Note:
Though the dates indicate this issue was struck dur
ing the reign of Nerva, the facial features of Domi
tian are retained on the portraits.
1225 A R Tetradrachm of Antioch 200-300 400-600 700-

1000

THE ADOPTIVE EMPERORS AN D THE AN TON INES 337
Trajan, A.D. 98-117

Caesar: A.D. 97 (under Nerva)
Augustus: A.D. 98-117
A d o pted so n o f N erv a
S o n o f T r a ja n P a t e r
H u s b a n d o f P l o t in a
B r o t h e r o f M a r c ia n a

Augustus: IMP C A E S N ER T R A IA N O O PTIM O AVG G E R D A C
IMP C A E S N ER T R A IA N O O PTIM O AVG G E R D A C PA RTH IC O P M

T R P C O S VI P P
IMP C A E S NERVA T R A IA N AVG G ERM
IMP C A E S NERVA T R A IA N AVG G ERM P M
IMP C A E S NERVAE T R A IA N O AVG G ER D A C P M T R P C O S V P P
IMP T R A IA N O AVG G E R P M T R P
IMP T R A IA N O AVG G E R P M T R P C O S VI P P
Deified: DIVO T R A IA N O PARTH AVG PATRI, etc.
A w ide v ariety o f bu sts occur. E x c e p t w here n o ted , b u sts are righ t- or left-facin g ,
lau re ate or b a re-h e ad e d , o ften d rap ed an d /o r cu irassed , or ad o rn ed w ith an aeg is or
w ith d rap erv a t far shou lder.
Trajain (as Augustus) F VF EF

1228 AV A ureus 9 00- 2000- 6000-
1200 3000 9000
1229 — rev B A SIL IC A VLPIA, fascade of Trajan’s basil 1500- 3000- 7000-
ica. R IC 246. 2000 5000 10,000
1230 — rev FORVM T R A IA N , fascade of Trajan’s forum. 1500- 4000- 10,000-

R IC 255. 2000 6000 15,000
1231 AV Q uinarius 1000- 2000- 4 000-

1500 3000 6000
1232 A R Medallion of 8 Denarii 5000- 20,000- —

8000 30,000
1233 A R D enarius. Illustrated above. 20-40 50-75 150-200
1234 — obv Bust 1. 70-100 200-300 500-800
1235 — rev D A N V V IV S in ex., the Danube reel. RIC 50-75 150-200 500-800
100.
1236 — rev SPQ R O PTIM O PRINCIPI, Trajan’s col 70-100 150-200 400-600
umn. R IC 292.
Trajan (as Augustus) F VF EF

1237 — rev V IA T R A IA N A in ex., woman reel., hldg. 50-75 150-200 400-600
wheel and branch. R IC 266.
1238 A R Q uinarius 100-150 250-350 500-800
1250
1266
Trajain (as Augustus) F VF chVF

1239 Æ Sestertius 50-75 150-200 700-
1000
1240 — rev A Q V A T R A IA N A in ex., river god reel, 200-300 400-600 1500-

under grotto. RIC 463. 2000
1241 — rev A R M E N IA ET M ESO PO TA M IA IN 200-300 400-600 1000-

PO TESTA TEM PR R ED A C TA E SC , Trajan stg., 1500
reel. figs. of Armenia, Euphrates and Tigris at his
feet. R IC 642.
1242 — rev D A C IA A V G V ST PRO V ÍN CIA SC , Dacia, 900- 3000-

hldg. aquilia, std. 1. on rocks with two children, 1200 5000
“
hldg. grapes and grain ears. RIC 621-2.
1243 — rev IM PERATO R VIII (or VIIII) SC , Trajan std. 200-300 400-600 1500-
on platform with two officers, addressing five sol 2000
diers. R IC 655, 7.
1244 — rev PORTV M T R A IA N I, Trajan’s harbor. RIC 3000- 10,000- —

471. 5000 15,000
1245 — rev REX PARTH IS D A TV S SC , Trajan std. on 200-300 400-600 1000-

platform with prefect, presenting Parthamaspates to 1500
Parthian king. R IC 667.
1246 — rev SP Q R O PTIM O PRINCIPI SC , Trajan’s col 900- 2000- 10,000-

umn. R IC 601. 1200 3000 15,000
Traja n (as Augustus) F VF chVF

1247 — rev — , “Danube Bridge.” R IC 569. 200-300 9 00- 2000-
1200 3000
1248 — rev — , Octastyle temple with stg. fig. inside. RIC 200-300 400-600 1500-
575. 2000
1249 — rev — , Ornate triumphal arch with decorated 400-600 1500- 5000-
side structures and triangular roof. RIC 572. 2000 8000
1250 — rev — , Octastyle temple flanked by porticoes 400-600 1500- 5000-

seen at angles. RIC 577. 2000 8000
1251 — rev — , Circus Maximus. RIC 571. 700- 2000- 5000-

1000 3000 8000
1252 — rev — , Trajan on horseback, riding down Dacian 200-300 400-600 1000-
foe. RIC 534. 1500
1253 — rev — , Priest driving yoke of oxen r. R IC 567-8. 700- 2000- —

1000 3000
1254 — rev — , Tiber stg. 1., forcing to ground fig. of 900- 4000- —
Dacia. R IC 556-9. 1200 6000
1255 Æ D upondius obv Usually rad. bust 20-40 100-150 400-600
1256 — rev SEN A T V S POPVLVSQVE R O M A N V S SC , 100-150 400-600 900-

Trajan’s column, two eagles at base. R IC 679. 1200
1257 — rev SPQ R O PTIM O PRINCIPI SC , oval shield, 100-150 400-600 9 00-
two spears, round shield, sword and vexillum. RIC 1200
584.
1258 — rev V IA T R A IA N A in ex., woman reel., hldg. 100-150 400-600 9 00-

wheel and branch. R IC 641. 1200
1259 — rev D A C PA RTH ICO P M T R PO T XX C O S 20-40 70-100 200-300

VI P P around wreath containing large SC . RIC
648. Note: Struck for circulation in Antioch.
1260 Æ As 20-40 100-150 400-600
1261 — rev SPQ R O PTIM O PRINCIPI SC , cuirass. RIC 100-150 400-600 1000-
582. 1500
1262 — rev — , Upright club set upon base covered with 100-150 400-600 1000-
lion’s skin. R IC 581. 1500
1263 Æ Sem is rev SC , gaming table with urn and wreath 20-40 80-120 250-350
or statue of Hercules. RIC 687,9.
1264 Æ Q uadrans rev SC , she-wolf stg. 1. R IC 394. Note: 5-15 50-75 150-200
Quadrantes of Trajan struck for the Rom an mines
are listed at the end of values chapter 4.
1265 — obv Bearded hd. r. of Hercules, lion’s skin tied at 5-15 50-75 150-200
neck rev SC , upright club or boar adv r. RIC
699,702.
1266 Æ U n cia (c. ll-14m m ) obv N o inscr., bust r. rev 50-75 150-200 —
Large S C in wreath. RIC-.
Trajan (Posthumous Commemoratives) F VF EF

1267 AV Aureus obv Laur., dr. and cuir, bust r. of Trajan 3000- 8000- —
rev N o inscr., rad. phoenix stg. r. RIC (Had.) 27-8. 6000 15,000
1268 — obv IMP C A E S T R A IA N H A D R IA N (O ) O PT

AVG G D PAR, laur., dr., cuir, bust r. of Hadrian rev
DIVO T R A IA N O PATRI (AV G), laur., dr., cuir
bust r. of Trajan. R IC (Had.) 23-4.
Note: See also the divi issues of Trajan Decius and no. 1347.
Trajan (Provincial Coinage) F VF EF

1269 EL Stater of the Bosporus, king Sauromates I, c. 300-400 1000- 2000-
9 3 4 2 3 . obv BACIAEcoC CAYOM ATOY, diad., dr. 1500 3000
bust r. of Sauromates I, sometimes with spear before
rev N o inscr., laur. hd. r. of Trajan, date (yrs.396-
413) below. Frolova pl. V, 2 AT, 9. Note: About 60%
gold.
1270 A R Cistophorus of Asia Minor 150-200 300-400 700-

1000
1271 A R Tetradrachm of Antioch 50-75 150-200 400-600
1272 A R Tetradrachm of Tyre in Phoenicia obv Bust r. 50-75 100-150 300-400

of Trajan, eagle and club below rev Laur. hd. r. of
Melkart. BM C 1 Iff.
Trajan (Provincial Coinage) F VF ch VF

1275 Æ Drachm of Alexandria 20-40 150-200 —

T h e R esto r ed C o in s o f T r a ja n
In A.D . 107 Trajan struck a series of ‘restored’ coins to commemorate the millions
of older, worn coins he had recalled from circulation because, as Dio Cassius
(78.15) tells us, they were of the heavier weight used prior to the reform Nero
reform of A.D . 64. Though coins from this series are very rare, about fifty types were
struck, representing issues from Republican, Imperatorial and Imperial times.
Clearly, the political motive of Trajan was to associate his own glories with those of
Rome’s storied past, and in some cases to tie his own legacy to those predacessors
who he honored. The degree to which he was honoring the coins in their own right
is a matter of speculation.
Unless otherwise noted, when the coin honors a person it bears the laureate head
of that person on the obverse. The reverse inscription is IMP CAES TRAIAN
AVG GER DAC P P REST unless indicated otherwise. Many of the denarii from
the Republican and Imperatorial period restored by Trajan are not listed here. RIC
references are to the listings o f‘The Restored Coins of Trajan,’ vol. II, pp. 305-13.
Trajain, Restored Coins: AV Aurei F VF EF
1276 Ju liu s C aesar obv DIVV S IV LIVS rev Nemesis adv. 7000- 15,000-
1., snake at feet. R IC 815. Prototype: Non-specific. 10,000 20,000
1277 — A s prev., but obv bare-headed. R IC 816. Proto 7000- 15,000- —

type: Non-specific. 10,000 20,000
1278 — obv C IV LIVS C A E S IMP C O S III, bare hd. r. 7000- 15,000-

rev Venus stg. r., leaning on column, hldg. helmet 10,000 20,000
and spear, shield at feet. RIC 806. Prototype: N on
specific.
1279 A ugu stu s obv C A E S A R A V G V S T V S DIVI F 4000- 7000- 20,000-

PA TER P A TR IA E rev Crocidile r. RIC 819. Proto- 6000 10,000 30,000
type: Non-specific; for rev cf. RIC (Aug.) 544.
1280 — obv D IV V S A V G V ST V S rev Eagle betw. two 3000- 5000-

standards. RIC 820. Prototype: Non-specific; for rev 5000 8000
cf. Cr. 544/Iff.
1281 Tiberius obv TI C A E S A R DIVI A V G F 2000- 5000-

A V G V S T V S rev Livia as Pax std. 1. R IC 821. Proto- 3000 8000
type: RIC (Tib.) 25ff.
1282 C laudius obv TI C LA V D C A E SA R A V G P M T R 2000- 5000-

P VI IMP X rev Spes adv. r. R IC 822. Prototype: 3000 8000
“
Non-specific; for rev cf. RIC (Claud.) 99.
1283 — obv D IVV S CLA V D IV S rev Concordia std. 1. 2000- 5000- —

R IC 823. Prototype: Non-specific. 3000 8000
1284 — A s prev., but rev type Vesta std. 1. R IC 823A. 2000- 5000- —
Prototype: Non-specific. 3000 8000
Trajaii, Restored Coins: AV Aurei F VF EF

1285 Civil War of A .D . 68-69 obv I O M CAPI- 2000- 5000-
T O LIN V S, laur. bust 1. of Jupiter, palm before rev 3000 8000
Vesta std. 1. RIC 825. Prototype: R IC (Civil Wars)
124.
1286 G alba obv G A L B A IM PERA TO R rev Libertas stg. 2000- 5000- —

1. R IC 824. Prototype: RIC (Galba) 37. 3000 8000
1287 V espasian obv IMP C A E SA R V E SP A SIA N V S 2000- 5000-

A V G C O S VIIII rev Captive kneeling I. below tro- 3000 8000
phy. R IC 826. Prototype: Non-specific; for rev cf.
R IC (Titus) 5.
1288 — obv IMP C A E SA R V E SP A SIA N V S A V G rev 2000- 5000- —

A s prev., but captive r. RIC 827. Prototype: As prev. 3000 8000
1289 — obv D IVV S V E SP A SIA N V S A V G rev Winged 2000- 5000-

thunderbolt on throne. R IC 830. Prototype: N on 3000 8000
specific; for rev cf. R IC (Titus) 23.
1290 — obv D IVV S V ESP A SIA N V S rev A s prev. RIC 2000- 5000- —
829. Prototype: As prev. 3000 8000
1291 — obv A s prev. rev Confr. busts of Mercury and 2000- 7000- —
Jupiter above star. R IC 828. Prototype: Non-specific. 3000 10,000
1292 Titus obv IMP T IT V S C A E S V ESP A SIA N A V G P 2000- 5000-

M rev Trophy of arms. RIC 831. Prototype: Non-spe- 3000 8000
cific.
1293 — A s prev., but obv Laur. hd. 1. RIC 832. Prototype: 2000- 5000- —
A s prev. 3000 8000
1294 — obv D IV V S T IT V S, laur. hd. 1. rev Winged thun 2000- 5000-

derbolt on throne. RIC 833. Prototype: RIC (Titus) 3000 8000
■
23.
1295 — obv A s prev. rev Mars and Minerva stg. facing, 2000- 5 000-
hldg. spears and shields. R IC 834- Prototype: N on 3000 8000
■
specific.
1296 N erva obv D IVV S N ER V A , laur., dr. bust r. rev 2000- 7000-
N erva std. 1. in chariot drawn by two elephants with 3000 10,000
riders. R IC 835. Prototype: Non-specific.
1297 — obv Sim. rev Clasped hands. RIC 836. Prototype: 2000- 5000- —
R IC (Nerva) 2. 3000 8000
THE ADOPTIVE EMPERORS A N D THE AN TON INES 343
1290
Traja n, Restored Coins: AR Denarii F VF EF

1298 Flaccus (Imp. 83-82 B .C .) obv N o inscr., winged, 200-300 1000-
dr. bust r. of Victory, caduceus before rev C V A L 1500
FLA IM PERAT EX SC , legionary eagle betw. two
standards, on which are P and H. R IC 783. Proto-
type: Cr. 365/1.
1299 M etellus P ius (Imp. 81 B .C .) obv N o inscr., hd. r. 200-300 1000-

of Pietas, stork before rev Q C M P I, elephant stg. 1. 1500
R IC 784- Prototype: Cr. 374/1.
1300 Pompey the G reat obv M A G PIVS IMP ITER, bare 300-400 1000-
hd. r., lituus before, jug behind rev PRAEF C L A S 1500
ET O R A E M A R IT EX SC , Anapias and Amphino-
mus carrying parents, Neptune stg. betw. RIC 811.
Prototype: Cr. 511/3a.
1301 Ju liu s C aesar obv N o inscr., display of priestly 300-400 1000-

implements rev C A E S A R below elephant trampling 1500
serpent. R IC 800. Prototype: Cr. 443/1 (the
obverse— reverse arrangement being opposite).
1302 — obv N o inscr., diad. hd. r. of Venus rev C A E SA R , 200-300 1000-

Aeneas adv. 1., hldg. palladium, carrying Anchises. 1500
R IC 801. Prototype: Cr. 458/1.
1303 M etellus Pius Scipio obv Q M ETELL SC IPIO IMP, 200-300 1000-
hd. r. of Africa rev EPPIVS LEG F C, Hercules, 1500
nude, stg. facing, leaning on club, hldg. lion skin.
R IC 802. Prototype: Cr. 461/1.
1304 B ru tu s obv LIB E R T A S, diad. hd. r. of Libertas rev 300-400 1250-

B R V T V S, procession 1. of Brutus the elder betw. 1750
accensus and two lictors. RIC 797. Prototype: Cr.
433/1.
1305 — obv L SERV IVS RVFVS, bearded hd. r. of Bru- 500-800 2500-
tus(?) rev N o inscr., the Dioscuri stg. facing. RIC 5000
810. Prototype: Cr. 515/2.
1306 C ornuficius obv N o inscr., hd. 1. of Ceres rev 400-600 2500-

C O R N V FIC I A V G V R IMP, Cornuficius stg. at 1., 3500
crowned by Juno Sospita, stg. at r., with raven on
shoulder. RIC 808. Prototype: Cr. 509/5.
1307 A ugu stu s obv C A E SA R III VIR R P C , bare hd. r. 200-300 1000-
rev C A E S A R DIC PER inscr. on curule chair bear- 1500
ing wreath. R IC 807. Prototype: Cr. 497/2.
Trajaiti, Restored Coins: AR Denarii F VF EF

1308 A ugustus and Agrippa obv A V G V S T V S C O S XI, 400-600 1500-
laur. hd. r. rev M A G R IP PA C O S TE R C O S S V S 2000
L E N TV LV S, hd. r. of Agrippa, wearing rostral and
mural crown. R IC 818. Prototype: R IC (Aug.) 414.
1309 — obv A V G V ST V S, bare hd. r. rev C O S S V S C N F 200-300 1000-

LEN TV LV S, equestrian statue of Agrippa r. on ped 1500
estal. R IC 817. Prototype: R IC (Aug.) 412.
Trajan Pater
F a t h e r o f T r a ja n a n d M a r c ia n a
G r a n d f a t h e r o f M a t id ia
Examples of reverse inscriptions:

Deified: D IV V S PATER T R A IA N (V S)
DIVI N ERVA ET T R A I A N V S PAT (ER)
Trajan Pater (Lifetime Provincial Coinage) F VF chVF

1310 Æ 2 4 -2 8 of Antioch in Syria, under Titus Caesar, 400-600 900-
A .D 76 obv Laur. hd. r. of Titus rev E n i 1200
T P A IA N O V A N T IO X E Q N ET EKP (year 125 =
A.D . 75/6) in wreath. BM C 239. Note: Trajan Pater
was the Syrian governor in 76. Th at Titus honored
him with a coinage comes as no surprise, for Trajan
Pater had served him well during the Jewish War.
Trajan Pater (Posthumous Commemoratives) F VF EF

1311 AV A ureus, A.D . 115 obv Laur., dr. and cuir, bust r. 2000- 7000- 20,000-
of Trajan rev Bare-headed, dr. bust r. of Trajan 3000 10,000 30,000
Pater. R IC (Traj.) 762-3.
1312 — obv sim. to prev. rev Confr. dr. busts of Nerva, 2000- 7000- 20,000-
laur. at I., and Trajan Pater, bare-headed at r. RIC 3000 10,000 30,000
(Traj.) 726-7. illustrated above.
1313 A R D enarius — , obv Laur. (or laur. and dr.) bust r. 50-75 100-150 400-600
of Trajan rev Trajan Pater std. 1., hldg. patera and
scepter. R IC (Traj.) 251-2.
THE ADOPTIVE EMPERORS A N D THE AN TON IN ES 345
Plotina
Augusta, c. A .D . io5-i22(?)
W if e o f T r a ja n
SlST E R -IN -LA W OF M A R C IA N A
A u n t o f M a t id ia

Augusta: P LO TIN A AVG IMP T R A IA N (I)
PLO TIN A A V G V ST A IMP T R A IA N I C A E S
Deified: P LO TIN A AVG DIVI
Busts are right-facing, draped, and often diademed.

Plotina (as Augusta) F VF EF
1314 AV A ureus rev Various inscr., Vesta std. 1. RIC 3000- 7000- 20,000-
(Traj.) 728ff. 5000 10,000 25,000
1315 — rev A R A PVDIC, altar with fig. of Pudicitia. RIC 3000- 7000- 25,000-
(Traj.) 733. 5000 10,000 35,000
1316 AV Q uinarius — — —
1317 A R D enarius As 1314. RIC (Traj.) 730ff. Illustrated 700- 1500- 3500-
above. 1000 2500 6500
1318 — A s 1315. R IC (Traj.) 733. 700- 1500- 4000-

1000 2500 7000
Plotina (as Augusta) F VF chVF

1319 Æ Sestertius rev FIDES A V G V S T SC , Fides stg. r., 600-900 2500- —
hldg. grain ears and basket. RIC (Traj.) 740-1. 3500
Plotina (Posthumous Commemorative) F VF EF

1320 AV A ureus obv DIVI T R A IA N O PA RTH A V G
PATRI (or var.), laur., dr., cuir bust r. of Trajan rev
P LO TIN A E A V G , dr., diad. bust r. of Plotina. RIC
(Had.) 29-30. Note: Aurei with busts of Hadrian
and Plotina also exist, see RIC (H ad.) 32-3.
1321 — obv PLO TIN A E AVG, dr. bust r. of Plotina, 4000- 7000- 30,000-
wearing Stephane rev M A TIDIA E AVG, dr. bust r. 6000 10,000 50,000
of Matidia, wearing two diadems. RIC (H ad.) 34.
1322 AV Q uinarius (under Hadrian) obv As prev., but

P LO TIN A A V G DIVI rev T R A IA N I PA RTH IC I,
Vesta std. 1. RIC (Traj.) 736 & (H ad.) 31.
Note: For another aureus depicting Diva Plotina, see no. 1347.
Marciana
Augusta, c. A .D . 105-112/4
S i s t e r o f T r a ja n
D a u g h t e r o f T r a ja n P a t e r
M o t h e r o f M a t id ia
G r a n d m o t h e r o f S a b in a

Augusta: M A R C IA N A AVG SO R O R IMP T R A IA N I
Deified: DIVA A V G V ST A M A R C IA N A

Marciana (as Augusta) F VF EF
1323 AV A ureus rev C A E S A V G G E R M A D A C C O S 2000- 7000- 20,000-
VI P P, Matidia std. 1. betw. Matidia and Sabina, 3000 10,000 25,000
M A TID IA A V G F in ex. RIC (Traj.) 742.
1324 A R D enarius A s prev. R IC (Traj.) 742. 700- 1250- 3500-

1000 1750 6500
Marciana (Posthumous Commemoratives) F VF EF

1325 AV A ureus rev C O N SE C R A T IO , eagle walking r. 2000- 7000- 20,000-
or 1. on scepter. RIC (Traj.) 743, 5. 3000 10,000 25,000
1326 — A s prev., but rev carpentum drawn 1. by two 2000- 7000- 20,000-
mules. R IC (Traj.) 746. 3000 10,000 25,000
1327 AV Q uinarius A s 1325. R IC (Traj.) 744. — — —

1328 A R D enarius As 1325. R IC (Traj.) 743, 5. 700- 1500- 3000-
Illustrated, above. 1000 2500 6500
1329 — A s 1326. RIC (Traj.) 746. 700- 1500- 3000-

1000 2500 6500
1330 — rev EX SE N A T V S C O N SV LT O , Marciana std. 700- 1750- 4000-

on car drawn by two elephants. R IC (Traj.) 747. 1000 2750 6500
Marciana (Posthumous Commemoratives) F VF chVF

1331 Æ Sestertius As 1325, but rev S C added. RIC 500-800 2000- —
(Traj.) 748. 3000
1332 — A s 1326, but rev S C added. RIC (Traj.) 749. 500-800 2000- —
3000
1333 — A s 1330, but rev S C added. RIC (Traj.) 750. 600-900 2500- —
3500
Matidia
Augusta, A .D . i i 2( ? ) - i i9
D a u g h t e r o f M a r c ia n a
N ie c e o f T r a ja n
M o t h e r o f S a b in a
M o t h e r -i n - l a w o f H a d r ia n

Augusta: M A TIDIA AVG DIVAE M A R C IA N A E F
DIVA A V G V ST A M A TIDIA
DIVA M A TIDIA A V G V ST (A )

Matidia (as Augusta) F VF EF
1334 AV A ureus rev PIETA S A V G V ST , M atidia stg. 1. 2000- 7000- 20,000-
betw. Sabina and Matidia the Younger, upon whose 3000 10,000 25,000
heads she places her hands. RIC (Traj.) 759.
1334a AV Q uinarius rev FO R T V N A AVG, Fortuna stg. 1.,

hldg. rudder and cornucopia. RIC-. Seemingly
unique.
1335 A R D enarius A s prev. R IC (Traj.) 759. Illustrated 700- 1250- 3 000-

above: 1000 1750 5000
1336 — rev A s prev., but she holds her children. RIC 700- 1250- 3000-
(Traj.) 760. 1000 1750 5000
1337 — rev PIETAS AVG, Pietas stg. 1. at altar. RIC 700- 1250- 3000-
(Traj.) 758. 1000 1750 5000
Matidia (as Augusta) F VF chVF

1338 Æ Sestertius As 1334, but rev S C added. RIC 600-900 2500- —
(Traj.) 761. 3500
Matid ia (Posthumous Commemoratives) F VF EF

1339 AV A ureus (under Hadrian) rev C O N SE C R A T IO , 2000- 7000- 20,000-
eagle stg. facing on scepter. R IC (Traj.) 753 and 3000 10,000 25,000
(H ad.) 424.
1340 A R D enarius, — . As prev., but eagle sometimes 700- 1250- 3000-

walking r. or 1. R IC (Traj.) 751-2, 4-6 and (Had.) 1000 1750 5000
423, 5-6.
1341 — rev A s 1337. R IC (Had.) 427. 700- 1250- 3000-

1000 1750 5000
Hadrian, A.D. 117-138

FlRST-COUSIN-ONCE-REMOVED a n d adopted son
of T r a ja n
H u sb a n d o f S a b in a
A d o p t iv e F a t h e r o f A e l iu s a n d
A n t o n in u s P iu s

Caesar: H A D R IA N O T R A IA N O C A E SA R I
Augustus: H A D R IA N V S A V G V ST V S
H A D R IA N V S A V G V ST V S P P
H A D R IA N V S AVG C O S III P P
IMP C A E S A R T R A IA N H A D R IA N V S AVG
IMP C A E SA R T R A IA N V S H A D R IA N V S AVG
IMP C A E SA R T R A IA N V S H A D R IA N V S AVG P M T R P C O S III
Deified: D IV V S H A D R IA N V S AVG
Hadri an (as Caesar) F VF EF

1342 AV Aureus (under Trajan, A.D . 117) laur. hd. r. of
Hadrian rev IMP C A E S N ER T R A IA N OPTIM
A V G G ERM D A C , laur. hd. r. of Trajan. RIC
(H ad.) 1.
A wide variety of busts occur. Except where noted, busts are right- or left-facing,
laureate or bare-headed, often draped and/or cuirassed, or adorned with an aegis or
with drapery at far shoulder.
Hadrian (as Augustus) F VF EF
1343 AV Aureus Illustrated above. 9 00- 2000- 4000-
1200 3000 6000
1344 — rev N o inscr., Nilus reel.; various animals. RIC 1000- 2000- 5000-
308ff. 1500 3000 8000
1345 — rev A N N D C C CLX XIIII N A T V RB P C IR 1250- 4000-

C O N , male reel., hldg. wheel and three obelisks. 1750 6000
R IC 144- Note: The reverse inscription dates this
coin to 121.
1346 — rev D ISC IP LIN A AVG, Hadrian adv. r. followed 1000- 2000- 7000-
by soldiers. R IC 232. 1500 3000 10,000
1347 — rev D IVIS PA REN TIBV S, confr. busts of Trajan 2000- 7000- 20,000-
and Plotina, stars above. R IC 232A and 387. 3000 10,000 30,000
1348 — rev H ISPA N IA , Hispania reel., rabbit before. 1000- 2000- 5000-
R IC 305 1500 3000 8000
THE ADOPTIVE EMPERORS AN D THE AN TO N IN ES 349
Hadri an (as Augustus) F VF EF

1349 — rev P M T R P C O S III, Hercules std. facing, hldg. 1250- 4000-
club and distaff. R IC 55. 1750 6000
1350 — rev — , Distyle temple with Hercules and two 1000- 2000- 7000-
women stg. within, river god below. R IC 59. 1500 3000 10,000
1351 AV Quinarius 1000- 2000- 4 000-

1500 3000 6000
1352 A R Medallion of 8 Denarii 5000- 20,000- —

8000 30,000
1353 A R Denarius 20-40 50-75 150-200
1354 — obv Bust 1. 30-50 70-100 200-300
1355 — rev Various ‘travel’ or ‘provincial’ series types. 30-50 100-150 250-350
1356 A R Quinarius 100-150 250-350 500-800
1365
Hadri an (as Augustus) F VF ch VF

1357 Æ Sestertius 50-75 150-200 1000-
1500
1358 — rev Various ‘travel’ or ‘provincial’ series types. 200-300 500-800 1500-
2000
1359 — rev A D V EN TV I AVG IV D A EA E SC , Hadrian 700- 2500- 6000-

greets Judaea, who sacrifices at altar, and two (or 1000 4000 8000
three) palm-bearing children at her sides. R IC 890,
93-4. Hendin 798.
1360 — rev B R IT A N N IA SC , Britannia std. front, 1000- 2000- 5 000-

mourning, foot on stones, shield at r. R IC 845. 1500 3500 7000
1361 — rev C A P P A D O C IA SC , Cappadocia stg., hldg. 250-350 700- 1750-

standard and small Mt. Argaeus. R IC 847. 1000 2250
1362 — rev D A C IA SC , Dacia std. 1. on rock, hldg. vexil- 200-300 9 00- 2000-
lum and curved sword. R IC 849. 1200 3000
1363 — As 1346, but rev S C added. RIC 746. 400-600 1500- —

2000
Hadrian (as Augustus) F VF ch VF

1364 — rev EXERC SY R IA C SC , Hadrian L. on horse 900- 3000- 7000-
back, Haranguing three soldiers stg. before. RIC 1200 5000 10,000
931.
1365 — rev FELICITATI AVG C O S III P P SC , galley 1. 200-300 500-800 1500-

R IC 718ff. N ote: Many varieties of this type were 2000
struck.
1366 — rev IV D A EA SC , sim. to 1359. R IC 853. Hendin 1250- 4000- 10,000-

799. 1750 6000 15,000
1367 — rev M A VRETAN IA SC , Mauretania stg., hldg. 250-350 700- 2000-

javelins and leading horse. R IC 854-6, 8-9. 1000 3000
1368 — rev RELIQ VA V ET E R A H S N O V IES MILL 200-300 500-800 1500-

A B O LIT A SC , Lictor, usually before citizens, torch 2000
ing debt papers. R IC 590-3.
1369 Æ Dupondius obv Usually rad. bust r. 20-40 100-150 400-600
1370 — rev C O S III SC , Pegasus flying r. or 1. RIC 658-9. 50-75 200-300 500-800
1371 — rev — , Turreted woman std. 1. on rock, river-god 150-200 400-600 900-
before. R IC 680. N ote: Though Hadrian’s bust is 1200
laureate, the metal is orichalcum, identifying it as a
dupondius (this issue was made for use in A sia).
1372 Æ As 20-40 100-150 400-600
1373 — A s 1360. R IC 846. 150-200 500-800 —

1374 — A s 1361. R IC 848. 50-75 200-300 500-800
1375 — rev C O S III SC , Lyre. R IC 684. 50-75 200-300 500-800
1376 — rev — , Griffin bounding or std. r. RIC 681-3. 100-150 300-400 1000-
1500
1377 Æ Semis 20-40 80-120 250-350
1378 Æ Quadrans N ote: Quadrantes of Hadrian struck 5-15 50-75 150-200

for the Rom an mines are listed at the end of values
chapter 4.
1379 Æ Uncia (c. 11-H m m ) obv N o inscr., bust r. rev 50-75 150-200 —
Large S C in wreath. RIC 629b.
Hadrian (Posthumous Commemoratives) F VF EF

1380 AV Aureus (under A . Pius) obv Laur. hd. r. of 2000- 5000-
Hadrian rev C O N SE C R A T IO , Hadrian born aloft 3000 8000
on eagle. R IC (H ad.) 389A.
1381 A R Denarius obv Hadrian Bare-headed r. rev As 150-200 300-400 500-800

prev., but eagle stg. facing, on globe, hd. 1. RIC
(H ad.) 389B.
N ote: See also the divi issues of Trajan Decius.

1387
H adri an (P rovincial Coinage) F VF EF
1382 EL Stater of the Bosporus, king Sauromates I, c. 250-350 500-800 1500-

93-123. obv BACIAEcoC CAYOMATOY, diad., dr. 2000
bust r. of Sauromates I rev No inscr., laur. hd. r. of
Hadrian, date (yrs.414-420) below. Frolova pl. VI,
10-VII, 15. Note: About 60% gold. Similar electrum
staters were struck for Hadrian by the Bosporan
kings Cotys II (c. 124-133) and Rhoemetalces (c.
131-154).
1383 A R Cistophorus of Asia Minor 150-200 250-350 500-800
1385 A R Drachm of Amisus in Pontus 70-100 150-200 300-400
1386 A R Hemidrachm of Caesarea 50-75 100-150 150-200
H adrian (P rovincial Coinage) F VF ch V F
1389 Æ 3 5 (Sestertius) of the Koinon of Bithynia rev 70-100 250-350 700-

KOINON BEI0YN IA C, octastyle temple with vari 1000
ous ornaments. BMC 12ff.
Sabina
A u g u sta , A.D. i 2 8 ( ? ) - i 3 6 / 7
W if e o f H a d r ia n
D a u g h t e r o f M a t id ia
Exam ples of obverse inscriptions:
Augusta: SA BINA AVGVSTA
SA BIN A AVGVSTA HADRIANI AVG P P
Deified: DIVA AVG SABINA
DIVA AVGVSTA SABINA

352 COINAGE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE: CATALOG AND TABLES OF VALUE
Lifetime issues have right' or left-facing draped busts, which sometimes are dia
demed or wreathed. Posthumous commemorative busts are right-facing, veiled and
draped and sometimes diademed or wreathed.
Sabina (as A ugusta) F VF EF
1390 AV Aureus 1250- 2000- 7000-

1750 3000 10,000
1391 AV Quinarius — — —
1392 A R Denarius Illustrated p. 351. 30-50 70-100 200-300
1393 — obv Bust 1. 50-75 100-150 400-600
1394 AR Quinarius 300-500 750- —

1500
Sabina (as A ugusta) F VF ch V F
1395 Æ Sestertius 100-150 300-400 2000-

3000
1396 Æ Dupondius 50-75 200-300 500-800
1397 Æ As 50-75 200-300 4 00-600
1398 — obv HADRIAN VS AVGVSTVS, bare or laur. 150-200 400-600
hd. r. of Hadrian rev SABINA AVGVSTA, diad.,
dr. bust r. or 1. of Sabina. RIC (Had.) 978-80.
Sabina (Posthum ous C om m em oratives) F VF EF

1399 AV Aureus obv Veiled, dr. bust r., wearing diad. or 2000- 4000- —
grain wreath rev CONSECRATIO, Sabina born 3000 6000
aloft on eagle. RIC (Had.) 418-9.
1400 A R Denarius rev Eagle stg. on scepter. RIC (Had.) 100-150 150-200 400-600
4 20- 1.
1401 — rev PIETATI AVG, Altar. RIC (Had.) 422. 100-150 200-300 500-800
Sabina (Posthum ous C om m em oratives) F VF ch V F

1402 Æ Sestertius rev As 1399, but rev SC added. RIC 400-600 700-
(Had.) 1051. 1000
1403 — rev As 1400, but rev SC added. RIC (Had.) 1052. 400-600 700- ___
1000
Sabina (P rovincial Coinage) F VF EF
1404 Billon Tetradrachm of Alexandria 70-100 200-300 5 00-800

Aelius
C aesar, A .D . 1 3 6 -1 3 8 (u n d er H a d ria n )
A d o pt ed so n a n d in t e n d e d s u c c e ss o r o f
H a d r ia n
F a t h e r o f L u c iu s V e r u s
E xam p les of ob verse in scrip tio n s:
Caesar: L AELIVS CAESAR
L AELIVS CA ESA R T R P COS II
Except where noted, busts are right-facing, bare-headed, sometimes draped or with
drapery at far shoulder.
A elius (as C aesar) F VF EF
1405 AV Aureus 2000- 30 0 0 - 8 500-

3000 5000 12,500
1407 A R Denarius Illustrated above. 70-100 150-200 400-600
1408 — obv Bust 1. 70-100 200-300 500-800
1409 A R Quinarius 500-800 2000- —

3000
Aelius (as C aesar) F VF chV F
1410 Æ Sestertius 100-150 300-400 2000-

3000
1411 Æ Dupondius 70-100 200-300 900-

1200
1412 Æ As 70-100 200-300 7 00-

1000
1413 — obv HADRIANVS AVG CO S III P P, bust r., 300-400 700-

variously adorned, of Hadrian rev (L.) AELIVS 1000
CAESAR, bare hd. r. of Aelius. RIC (Had.) 986-9.
N ote: This celebrates Aelius’ adoption by Hadrian.
A elius (P rovincial Coinage) F VF EF
A elius (P rovincial Coinage) F VF ch V F

Antinoiis
C o m p a n io n o f H a d r i a n
Deified: ANTINOOV HPwOC
ANTINOOC HPΩ C
ANTINOOC HPΩ C A r AΘOC
ANTINOOC IAKXOC
H riATPIC ANTINOON ΘEON
Antin oüs (Posthum ous C om m em oratives) F VF ch V F
1416 Æ Medallion (42mm) of Corinth in Achaea obv 2000- 8000-

Bare-headed, dr. bust r. of Antinoüs rev Antinoiis 3000 12,000
(as Bellerophon) hldg. shield, capturing Pegasus.
BMC-. Note: This medallion was struck in 134 by
Hostilius Marcellus, a priest of the cult of Antinoüs
who donated the issue to the Corinthians on the
occasion of games held in Mantinea.
1417 Æ 27 of Megalopolis in Arcadia, — . obv Bare- 500-800 1500-

headed heroic bust 1. of Antinoiis rev Horse pranc 2000
ing r. BMC 89var. Illustrated above.
1418 Æ Medallion (37mm) of Bithynium in Bithynia 1500- 50 0 0 -

obv Bare-headed, dr. bust 1. of Antinoüs rev Anti 2000 8000
noiis, as Hermes, adv. 1., hldg. pedum, ox at his side,
star above. BMC -. Note: Bithynium was Antinoüs’
birthplace.
1419 Æ 2 2 of Nicomedia, — . obv Bare hd. r. of Antinoüs 400-600 1250- —

rev Bull stg. r. BMC 10. 1750
1420 Æ 15 of Mytilene on the Island of Lesbos obv Bare 400-600 1000- —

hd. r. of Antinoüs rev Bull stg. r. BMC 199. 1500
1421 Æ Medallion (37mm) of Smyrna in Ionia obv Bare 1000- 4000- —

hd. 1. of Antinoüs rev Prow of galley r. BMC 341. 1500 6000
1422 Æ Medallion (38mm ), — . obv Bare hd. 1. of Anti 1000- 4000- —

noüs rev Bull stg. r. BMC 339. 1500 6000
1423 Æ Medallion (34mm) of Tarsus in Cilicia obv Bare 900- 30 0 0 -

hd. 1. of Antinoüs rev Pantheress adv. 1., hldg. thyr 1200 5000
sus in raised paw. BMC 158.
A ntinoüs (Posthum ous Com m ém ora tives) F VF ch V F
1424 Æ Drachm of Alexandria obv Bare-headed, dr. bust 500-800 1250- 30 0 0 -

r. or 1. of Antinoüs, sometimes wearing hem-hem 1750 5000
crown rev Antinoüs, as Hermes, on horseback r.,
hldg. caduceus, cf. BMC 925.
1425 Æ Hemidrachm, — . As above, but obv bust r., 400-600 1000- 2000-
wearing hem-hem crown. BMC Supp. 2930. 1500 3000
Antoninus Pius, A .D . 1 3 8 -1 6 1
C a e s a r: A.D. 1 3 8 (u n d er H a d ria n )
A u g u s tu s: A.D. 1 3 8 -1 6 1
A d o pt e d so n a n d s u c c e s s o r o f H a d r ia n
H u s b a n d o f F a u s t i n a S e n io r
F a t h e r o f F a u s t in a J u n io r a n d G a l e r iu s
A n t o n in u s
G r a n d f a t h e r o f C o m m o d u s , A n n iu s V e r u s , L u c il l a a n d A u r e l iu s A n t o n in u s
Caesar: IMP T AEL CAES ANTONIN VS
IMP T AEL CA ESA R HADR ANTONINVS
Augustus: A NTONINVS AVG PIVS P P
A NTONINVS AVG PIVS P P IMP II
A NTONINVS AVG PIVS P P T R P
A NTONINVS AVG PIVS P P T R P XI (etc.)
A NTONINVS AVG PIVS P P T R P CO S III
IMP CAES T AEL HADR ANTONINVS AVG PIVS P P
Deified: DIVVS ANTONINVS
A wide variety of busts occur. Except where noted, busts are right-facing, laureate
or bare-headed, often draped and/or cuirassed, or with drapery at far shoulder.
A ntoninus Pius (as C aesar) F VF EF
1426 AV Aureus 1000- 2000- 50 0 0 -

1500 3000 8000
1428 AR Denarius 30-50 100-150 200-300
A ntonin u s Pius (as C aesar) F VF ch V F
1429 Æ Sestertius 150-200 400-600 1500-

2000
1430 Æ Dupondius or As obv Bust r. of Hadrian rev Bust 200-300 500-800 —

r. of Antoninus Pius. RIC 990-1.
1431 Æ As 70-100 200-300 500-800
A ntonin u s Pius (as A ugustus) F VF EF
1432 AV Aureus 700- 1500- 3000-

1000 2000 5000
1433 — rev AVRELIVS CAESAR AVG PII F COS, bare 1000- 2000- 5000-
hd. r. of Marcus Aurelius. RIC 415. 1500 3000 8000
1434 — rev LIBERALITAS AVG III, Pius std. r. on plat 900- 1750- 4000-
form, with by Liberalitas, citizen below holds out 1200 2250 6000
fold of toga. RIC 75.
1435 — rev TR POT COS III, Aeneas adv. r., carrying 900- 3000- 50 0 0 -
Anchises, hldg. hand of Ascanius. RIC 91. 1200 5000 8000
1436 — rev TRIB POT COS III, Mars descending toward 900- 2000- 50 0 0 -
Rhea Silvia, sleeping. RIC 99. 1200 3000 8000
1437 — rev VICTORIA AVG, Victory driving fast quad 900- 1750- 4000-
riga r. RIC 101. 1200 2250 6000
1438 AV Quinarius 1000- 2000- 4000-
1500 3000 6000
1439 A R Denarius. Illustrated p. 355. 20-40 3 0-50 100-150
1440 — obv Bust 1. 30-50 100-150 300-400
1441 — rev Sim. to 1433. RIC 411a. 30-50 100-150 200-300

1442 — rev TR POT COS III, She-wolf and twins, some 30-50 100-150 250-350
times in grotto. RIC 94-6.
1443 A R Quinarius 300-400 r 7o o - 2000-

1000 3000
A ntonin u s Pius (as A ugustus) F VF ch V F
1444 Æ Sestertius 50-75 100-150 500-800

1445 — rev AVRELIVS CAESAR AVG PII F COS SC, 150-200 300-400 1500-
bare-headed, dr. bust r. of Marcus Aurelius. RIC 2000
1212.
1446 — rev ALEXANDRIA COSH SC, Alexandria adv. 100-150 400-600 1500-
r., hldg. crown, grain ears to 1., crocidile to r. RIC 2000
578.
1447 — rev BRITANNIA SC or IMPERATOR II BRI 500-800 1500- 4000-

TAN (NIA) SC, Britannia std. 1., sometimes above 2000 6000
waves. RIC 742-5.
A ntoninus Pius (as A ugustu s) F VF ch V F
1448 — rev C O S III SC, She-wolf and twins in grotto. 100-150 300-400 1000-
RIC 603. 1500
1449 — rev DACIA COS II SC, Dacia stg. 1., hldg. crown 100-150 400-600 1500-
and standard. RIC 581. 2000
1450 — rev ITALIA SC, Italia std. 1. on starred globe, 100-150 300-400 1500-
hldg. scepter and cornucopia. RIC 746. 2000
1451 — rev IVNO SISPITAE SC, Junoni Sospita adv. r, 100-150 400-600 1500-
hldg. shield and javelin, snake before. RIC 608. 2000
1452 — rev OPI AVG SC, Ops std. 1. RIC 612-3. 100-150 300-400 900-
1200
1453 — rev REX ARMENIS DATVS SC, A. Pius stg. 1., 500-800 1500- 3000-
crowning Armenian king. RIC 619. 2000 5000
1454 — rev REX QVADIS DATVS SC, sim. to prev. RIC 500-800 1500- 3000-
620. 2000 5000
1455 — rev ROMAE AETERNAE SC, decastyle temple, 100-150 300-400 1000-
sometimes with fig. std. within. RIC 622-3. 1500
1456 — rev SYRIA CO S II SC, Syria stg. 1., hldg. crown 100-150 400-600 1500-
and cornucopia, Orontes swimming at feet. RIC 2000
590.
1457 — rev TEMPL DIV(I) AVG R EST CO S IIII SC, 100-150 300-400 1000-
octastyle temple containing statues. RIC 1003-4. 15 00
1458 — rev TIBER IS SC, Tiber reel., hldg. reed, hand on 100-150 300-400 1000-
ship. RIC 642. 1500
1460 — rev Sim. to 1445, though various inscr. and rev 70-100 200-300 500-800
bust often 1. RIC 1220.
1461 — rev Sim. to 1447. RIC 930. 100-150 250-350 700-

1000
1462 — rev PROVIDENTIAE DEORVM SC, winged 50-75 150-200 300-400

thunderbolt. RIC 663.
1463 Æ As 20-40 70-100 250-350
1464 — rev A NCILIA IMPERATOR SC, two oval 50-75 150-200 400-600
shields (ancilia). RIC 736.
1465 — rev Sim. to 1445. RIC 1223. 70-100 150-200 400-600
1466 — rev IMPERATOR II SC, sow r. under branch, 100-150 300-400 1000-
suckling four young, one or two more before. RIC 1500
733.
1467 — rev MVNIFICENTIA AVG CO S IIII SC, ele 100-150 200-300 700-
phant stg. r. RIC 862-3. 1000
A ntoninus Pius (as A ugustus) F VF ch V F
1468 — rev Sim. to 1457. RIC 1024-5. 50-75 150-200 300-400
1469 Æ Quadrans Note: Quadrantes of Antoninus Pius 5-15 50-75 150-200

struck for the Roman mines are listed at the end of
values chaper 4 .
1460
1472
1478
A ntonin u s Pius (Posthum ous C om m em oratives) F VF EF
1470 AV Aureus rev CON SECRA TIO, funeral pyre. 700- 1500- 5000-
RIC (M. Aurel.) 435, 7. 1000 2000 7500
1471 A R Denarius rev As prev. RIC (M. Aurel.) 436ff. 20-40 3 0-50 100-150
1472 — rev — , eagle stg. r., hd. 1., sometimes on altar or 20-40 3 0-50 100-150
globe. RIC (M. Aurel.) 429-34.
1473 — rev DIVO PIO, column. RIC (M. Aurel.) 439- 20-40 3 0-50 100-150
40.
1474 — rev — , altar. RIC (M. Aurel.) 441. 20-40 3 0-50 100-150
1475 — rev — , Antoninus Pius std. 1. RIC (M. Aurel.) 20-40 50-75 150-200
442.
A ntoninus Pius (Posthum ous Com m ém ora tives) F VF ch V F
1476 Æ Sestertius rev CO N SECRA TIO SC, eagle on 50-75 150-200 700-
globe. RIC (M. Aurel.) 1262-5. 1000
1477 — rev — , funeral pyre. RIC (M. Aurel.) 1266,8. 50-75 150-200 500-800
1478 — rev DIVO PIO SC, column. RIC (M. Aurel.) 50-75 150-200 7 00-
1269,71. 1000
1479 — rev — , altar. RIC (M. Aurel.) 1272-3. 50-75 150-200 7 00-
1000
1480 Æ As rev As 1477. RIC (M. Aurel.) 1267. 20-40 70-100 250-350
1481 — rev As 1478. RIC (M. Aurel.) 1270. 20-40 70-100 250-350
Note: See also the divi issues of Trajan Decius.
A ntoninus Pius (P rovincial C oinage) F VF EF
1482 EL Stater of the Bosporus, king Rhoemetalces, c. 250-350 500-800 1500-

131-154. obv BACIAEcoC POIMHTAAKOYOY, 2000
diad., dr. bust r. of Rhoemetalces, sometimes a club,
spear or trident before rev No inscr., laur. hd. r. of
Antoninus Pius, sometimes spear before, date
(yrs.439-450) below. Frolova pl. XX, 4-XXI, 6. Note:
About 60% gold.
1483 — , king Eupator, c. 154-170. obv BACIAEcoC 150-200 350-500 600-900

EYnATOPOC, diad., dr. bust r. of Eupator, some
times a club or spear before rev Sim. to prev., date
(yrs.451-458) below. Frolova pl. XXIV, 6-XXV, 29.
Note: About 50% gold.
1484 AR Didrachm of Caesarea 50-75 100-150 200-300
A ntoninus Pius (P rovincial C oinage) F VF ch V F
1487 — rev Various reverse types depicting the ‘Labors of 400-500 1500- —
Hercules’ and Zodiacal signs. 2000
1488 — rev Isis Pharia r., hldg. open sail, before the light 70-100 200-300 500-800
house of Pharos, date in field. Milne 200Iff.
1489 Æ 35 (Sestertius) of the Koinon of Cyprus rev 50-75 150-200 300-400

Bare-headed bust r. of M. Aurelius. BMC 42ff.
Faustina Senior
A u g u s t a , A.D. 1 3 8 - 1 4 0 /1
W if e o f A n t o n i n u s P iu s
M o t h e r o f F a u s t in a J u n io r a n d
G a l e r iu s A n t o n in u s
A u n t o f M a r c u s A u r e l iu s
G r a n d m o t h e r o f C o m m o d u s , A n n iu s V e r u s , L u c il l a a n d A u r e l iu s A n t o n in u s
Augusta: FAVSTINA AVGVSTA
FAVSTINA AVG ANTON IN I AVG (P P)
FAVSTINA AVG ANTONINI AVG PII P P
Deified: DIVA FAVSTINA
DIVA AVGVSTA FAVSTINA
DIVI AVG FAVSTINA
Lifetime issues have right- or left-facing, draped busts. Posthumous commemora

tive busts are right- or left-facing, draped and often veiled and/or diademed.
Fau stina Senior (as A ugusta) F VF EF

1490 AV Aureus 700- 1500- 3000-
1000 2000 5000
1491 A R Denarius 20-40 3 0-50 100-150
1492 A R Quinarius — — —
Fau stina Senior (as A ugusta) F VF ch V F

1493 Æ Sestertius 50-75 100-150 500-800
1494 — rev IVNONI REGIN AE SC, throne of Juno, 70-100 300-400 1250-
sometimes with scepter upon and/or peacock below. 1750
RIC (A. Pius) 1079-80.
1495 Æ Dupondius 20-40 70-100 3 00-400

1496 Æ As 20-40 70-100 250-350
Fau stina Senior (Posthum ous C om m em oratives) F VF EF
1497 AV Aureus 7 00- 1500- 3000-

1000 2000 5000
1498 — rev CONSECRATIO below quadriga 1. contain 900- 1500- 4000-
ing Sol(?) and Faustina Sr. RIC (A. Pius) 383. 1200 2000 6000
1499 — rev EX SENATVS CONSVLTO, Faustina Sr std. 1000- 2000- 5000-
upon cart drawn 1. by two elephants with drivers. 1500 3000 8000
R IC (A. Pius) 390.
Faustina Senior (Posthum ous Com m em oratives) F VF EF
1500 — rev PVELLAE FAVSTINIANAE, interior view 1000- 30 0 0 - 65 0 0 -

of two'storey bulding, the emperor legislating 1500 5000 10,000
above, orphans and women below. RIC (A. Pius)
397-8.
1501 AV Quinarius 1000- 2000- 4000-

1500 3000 6000
1502 AR Denarius. Illustrated p. 360. 20-40 30-50 100-150
1503 — rev No inscr., Ceres stg. RIC (A. Pius) 404B. 50-75 150-200 300-400
1504 — rev AETERNITAS, star of eight rays. RIC (A. 50-75 150-200 300-400
Pius) 355.
1505 — rev As 1500, but type of emperor on platform, 50-75 150-200 300-400
receiving orphan girl from woman. RIC (A. Pius)
399.
1506 — rev FAVSTINA AVGVSTA, dr. bust r. of Faus — — —

tina Jr. RIC (A. Pius) 407a.
1507 — obv A NTONINVS AVG PIVS P P T R P XII (or

XV I), laur. hd. r. of Antoninus Pius rev DIVA
FAVSTIN A, dr. bust r. of Faustina Sr. RIC (A. Pius)
325-6.
1508 AR Quinarius — — —
1514
Fau stina Senior (Posthum ous C om m em oratives) F VF ch V F
1509 Æ Sestertius 50-75 100-150 500-800
1510 — rev CON SECRATIO SC, Faustina Sr. riding 200-300 1000- 4000-
heavenward on back of torch-bearing Victory. RIC 1500 6000
(A. Pius) 1132.
1511 — rev MATRI DEVM SALVTARI SC, Cybele std. 70-100 300-400 1250-
1., hldg. drum, two lions at her side. RIC (A. Pius) 1750
1145.
1512 Æ Dupondius 20-40 70-100 300-400
1513 Æ As 20-40 70-100 250-350
1514 — rev Various inscrs., hexastyle temple. RIC (A. 50-75 150-250 600-800
Pius) 1168,95.
Fau stina Senior (Provincial Coinage) F VF EF
1515 Billon Tetradrachm of Alexandria obv Laur. hd. r. 100-150 250-350 400-600
of A. Pius rev Veiled and dr. bust r. of Faustina Sr.
BMC 1214.
Galerius Antoninus
S o n o f A n t o n i n u s P iu s a n d
F a u s t i n a S e n io r
B r o t h e r o f F a u s t in a J u n io r
Galeius A ntoninus (Posthum ous Commemoratives )F VF ch V F
1516 Æ 3 1 '3 4 (Sestertius) of an Uncertain Mint, c. 500-800 40 0 0 -

A.D . 147 or later, obv ©EA OAYCTEINA, dr. and 6000
usually veiled bust r. of Faustina Sr. rev M
r AAEPIOC ANTcoNINO AYTOKPATOPOC
ANTcoNEINOY YIOC, bare headed, dr. bust
r. of Galerius Antoninus. Coh. v. II, 443, 1.
1517 Æ 2 6 -2 8 (Dupondius or As), — . As prev. Coh. 500-800 30 0 0 - —

v. II, 443, 2. Illustrated above. 5000
Marcus Aurelius, A.D. 161-180

C a e s a r: A.D. 1 3 9 -1 6 1
(u n d er A n to n in u s P iu s )
A u g u stu s: A.D. 161 -1 8 0
(A .D . 1 6 1 - 1 6 9 : w ith L u c iu s V e ru s)
(A .D . 1 6 9 - 1 7 7 : sole reig n )
(A .D . 1 7 7 - 1 8 0 : w ith C o m m o d u s)
A d o p t e d s o n o f A n t o n i n u s P iu s a n d h e i r o f H a d r i a n
H u s b a n d o f F a u s t in a J u n io r
F a t h e r o f C o m m o d u s , A n n iu s V e r u s , L u c il l a a n d A u r e l iu s A n t o n in u s
S o n - i n - l a w o f A n t o n i n u s P iu s a n d F a u s t i n a S e n io r
Caesar: AVRELIVS CAESAR AVG PII F
AVRELIVS CA ESA R AVG PII F COS
AVRELIVS CA ESA R AVG Pli FIL
AVRELIVS CAES ANTON AVG PII F

AVRELIVS CAESA R ANTON IN I AVG PII FIL
Augustus: M ANTONINVS AVG ARMEN IAC VS
M ANTONINVS AVG GERM SARM
M ANTONINVS AVG T R P XXIII (etc.)
M AVREL ANTONINVS AVG
M AVREL ANTONINVS AVG ARM PARTH MAX
M AVREL ANTONINVS AVG ARM EN IACVS P M
IMP M A NTONINVS AVG
IMP M AVREL ANTONINVS AVG
IMP CAES M AVREL ANTONINVS AVG P M
Deified: DIVVS M A NTONINVS PIVS
E xcep t where noted, busts are right- or left-facing, bare-headed or laureate, som e
times draped and/or cuirassed, or with drapery at far shoulder.
M arcus A urelius (as C aesar) F VF EF
1518 AV Aureus 900- 1750- 4000-

1200 2250 6000
1519 — rev VOTA PVBLICA, Concordia stg. betw. M. 1000- 2000- 5 000-
Aurelius and Faustina Jr. RIC (A. Pius) 434. 1500 3000 8000
1520 AV Quinarius 1250- 2000- 4000-

1750 3000 6000
1521 A R Denarius 20-40 3 0-50 100-150
M arcus A urelius (as C aesar) F VF ch V F
1522 Æ Sestertius 50-75 150-200 7 00-

1000
1523 Æ Dupondius 20-40 70-100 300-400
1524 Æ As 20-40 70-100 250-350
M arcus A urelius (as A ugustus) F VF EF
1525 AV Aureus. Illustrated p. 362. 900- 1750- 3000-

1200 2250 5000
1526 — rev ARMEN T R P XVIII (IMP II) COS III, 1000- 2000- 5 000-
Armenia std. 1., mourning; either vexillum and 1500 3000 8000
shield before, or trophy behind. RIC 78ff.
1527 — rev DE GERM T R P XXXI IMP VIII COS III P 1000- 2000- 5000-
P, pile of arms and armor. RIC 362. 1500 3000 8000
M arcu s A urelius (as A ugustus) F VF EF
1528 — rev As prev., but DE SARM. RIC 366. 1000- 2000- 5000-
1500 3000 8000
1529 AV Quinarius 1250- 2000- 5000-

1750 3000 7000
1530 A R Denarius 20-40 30-50 100-150
1531 A R Quinarius 300-400 700- 2000-

1000 3000
Note: For dual-portrait coins of Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius (as Caesar), see nos.
1433,1441, 1445,1460 and 1465.
M arcus A urelius (as A ugustus) F VF ch V F
1532 Æ Sestertius 50-75 150-200 700-

1000
1533 — rev CONG AVG IIII TR P XXI IMP IIII COS III 70-100 300-400 1000-
SC, M. Aurelius and Verus std 1. on platform, Liber 1500
alitas stg. before, man climbing stairs. RIC 946.
1534 — rev DE GERMANIS IMP VIII COS III P P SC, 100-150 400-600 1500-
pile of arms and armor. RIC 1184. 2000
1535 — rev As prev., but DE SARMATIS. RIC 1190. 100-150 400-600 1500-
2000
1536 — rev Inscr. as prev, type of two Sarmatian captives 100-150 250-350 900-
std. at base of trophy. RIC 1185. 1200
1537 — rev RELIG AVG IMP VI COS III SC, tetrastyle 150-200 500-800 1500-
temple with domed roof, statue of Mercury within. 2000
RIC 1074-6.
1538 — rev VICT GERM(A) IMP VI COS III SC in 50-75 200-300 7 00-
wreath. RIC 1090-1. 1000
1539 — rev VIRTVS AVG IMP VI COS III SC, emperor 1000- 4000-
and five or six soldiers, one on horseback, crossing 1500 6000
bridge over Danube three boats billow. RIC 1047-8.
1541 Æ As 20-40 70-100 250-350
1542 — rev FELICITATI AVG P P IMP VIII COS III SC 50-75 200-300 400-600
(or sim.), galley with three or four rowers, prow or
stern with Neptune or Victory. RIC 1192ff.
1543 — rev GERMANIA SVBACTA IMP VI COS III 50-75 200-300 400-600
SC, Germania std. 1., mourning, weapons, and
sometimes trophy before. RIC 1094-5.
1544 — rev IMP VII COS III SC, Tiber reel., hand on 50-75 200-300 400-600
boat. RIC 1142-5.
Note: A quadrans of Marcus Aurelius struck for the

Roman mines is listed at the end of values ch. 4.
M arcus A urelius (Posthum ous C om m em oratives) F VF EF
1545 AV Aureus 1000- 1750- 4000-

1500 2250 6000
1546 A R Denarius 50-75 100-150 250-350
M arcus A urelius (Posthum ous Com m em oratives) F VF ch V F
1547 Æ Sestertius 100-150 4 00-600 1500-

2000
1548 Æ As 50-75 150-200 300-400
M arcus A urelius (P rovincial Coinage) F VF EF
1549 EL Stater of the Bosporus, king Eupator, c. 154' 100-150 300-400 500-800
170. obv BACIAEcoC EYLIATOPOC, diad., dr. bust
r. of Eupator, sometimes a club or spear before rev
No inscr., laur. hd. r. of Marcus Aurelius, sometimes
a star bef., date (yrs.464-467) below. Frolova pi.
XXXVII, 35'X X V III, 15. Note: About 50% gold.
1550 — , king Sauromates II, c. 174-210. obv BACIAEcoC 100-150 300-400 500-800
CAYPOMATOY, diad., dr. bust r. of Sauromates II
rev Sim. to prev., but rev date (yrs.471-478) below.
Frolova pl. XXIX, 6-23. Note: About 33-38% gold.
1551 AR Tetradrachm of Antioch 200-300 400-600 900-

1200
1552 A R Drachm of Caesarea 50-75 100-150 200-300
M arcus A urelius (P rovincial Coinage) F VF ch V F
1554 Æ Drachm of Alexandria 3 0-50 150-200 400-600
T h e values are estimates for conservatively graded, essentially problenvfree

coins. Defects or merits will alter prices, often significantly. Dashes (— ) indicate
values w hich can n o t be accurately determ ined (at the high end) or w hich are
negligible (a t the low end). Coins with the same value range are n ot always
Faustina Junior
A u g u sta , A.D. 1 4 7 -1 7 5 /6
W if e o f M a r c u s A u r e l iu s
D a u g h t e r o f A n t o n i n u s P iu s a n d
S is t e r o f G a l e r iu s A n t o n i n u s
M o t h e r o f C o m m o d u s , A n n iu s V e r u s , L u c il l a a n d A u r e l iu s A n t o n in u s
Augusta: FAVSTINA(E) AVG PII AVG FIL
FAVSTINA AVGVSTA
FAVSTINAE AVGVSTAE (under M. Aurelius)
Deified: DIVA AVG FAVSTINA
DIVA FAVSTINA
DIVA FAVSTINA PIA
DIVAE FAVSTINAE PIAE
DIVA FAVSTIN AVG MATR CASTROR
Busts are right- or left-facing, draped, sometimes diademed, veiled or with circlet of
pearls.
Fau stina Ju n ior (as A ugusta) F VF EF
1555 AV Aureus. Illustrated above. 700- 1500- 30 0 0 -

1000 2000 5000
1556 — rev MATRI MAGNAE, Cybele std. r., hldg. 900- 1500- 4000-
drum, flanked by two lions. RIC (M. Aurel.) 704. 1200 2000 6000
1557 AV Quinarius 1000- 2000- 4000-

1500 3000 6000
1558 A R Denarius 20-40 3 0-50 100-150
Fau stina Ju n ior (as A ugusta) F VF ch V F
1559 Æ Sestertius 50-75 100-150 500-800
1560 — rev As 1556, but rev SC added. RIC (M. Aurel.) 70-100 200-300 700-
1663. 1000
1561 Æ Dupondius 20-40 70-100 300-400
1562 Æ As 20-40 70-100 250-350
Note: Faustina Junior’s lifetime issues were struck by Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius.
Faustina Ju n ior (Posthum ous C om m em oratives) F VF EF
1563 AV Aureus 1000- 2000- 5 000-

1500 3000 8000
1564 — rev MATRI CA STRO RVM , Faustina Jr. std. 1., 900- 1500- 4000-
hldg scepter and globe with Phoenix, three stan- 1200 2000 6000
dards before. RIC (M. Aurel.) 751.
1565 A R Denarius 20-40 30-50 100-150
Fau stina Ju n ior (Posthum ous C om m em oratives) F VF ch V F
1567 Æ Sestertius
1568 — rev AETERN ITAS SC, Faustina Jr. std. 1. betw. 200-300 1000- 3000-
two dancing girls with veils aloft. RIC (M. Aurel.) 1500 5000
1697.
1569 — rev SIDERIBVS RECEPTA SC, Faustina Jr., as 200-300 1000- 30 0 0 -

Diana Lucifera, hldg. veil aloft, riding heavenward 1500 5000
in biga of horses. RIC 1717.
1570 Æ As 20-40 70-100 250-350
1571 — rev MATRI CA STRORVM SC, crescent and 30-50 100-150 3 00-400
seven stars. RIC (M. Aurel.) 1714.
Fau stina Ju n ior (P rovincial Coinage) F VF EF
Faustina Ju n ior (P rovincial Coinage) F VF ch V F

3 68 COINAGE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE: CATALOG AND TABLES OF VALUE
Aurelius
Antoninus
S on of M a rcus
A u r e l iu s a n d
F a u s t in a J u n io r
B ro th er of C om m odus,
A n n iu s V e r u s a n d
L u c il l a
G r an d so n of
A n t o n i n u s P iu s a n d
A urelius A ntoninus (Im perial Coinage) F VF EF
1574 AV Aureus, 148-9. obv ANTONINVS AVG PIVS 1250- 2000- 50 0 0 -

P P T R P XII, laur. or bare hd. r., sometimes with 1750 3000 8000
slight dr., of Antoninus Pius rev TEMPORVM
FELICITAS CO S IIII, crossed cornucopias sur
mounted by heads of Aurelius Antoninus and Luci
lla. RIC (A. Pius) 185a,b.
A urelius A ntoninus (Im perial Coinage) F VF ch V F
1575 Æ Sestertius, — ♦ As prev., but obv laur. hd. r. 150-200 400-600 1250-
(sometimes with slight dr.) rev with SC below cor 1750
nucopias. RIC (A. Pius) 857. Illustrated above.
1576 Æ Dupondius, — . As prev., but obv rad. bust r. 100-150 250-350 500-800
R IC (A. Pius) 859.
N ote: Antoninus Pius struck sestertii with the identical reverse inscription and type eight
years later, during his 20th tribunician (A.D. 156-157). Though the birth of children is cele-
brated their identity is uncertain.
Annius Verus
C aesar, A .D . 1 6 6 - 1 6 9 / 7 0
(u n d er M arcu s A u re liu s,
w ith C o m m o d u s)
S o n o f M a r c u s A u r e l iu s a n d F a u s t in a J u n io r
B r o t h e r o f C o m m o d u s , L u c il l a a n d A u r e l iu s A n t o n in u s
G r a n d s o n o f A n t o n i n u s P iu s a n d F a u s t i n a S e n io r
A nnius Verus (Provincial Coinage) F VF ch V F
1577 Æ 1 8 of Tarsus in Cilicia, obv KOPOI CEBA C 200-300 400-600 _

T O V, confr. busts of Commodus (?) and Annius
Verus(?), as Hercules and Hermes, or the Dioscuri;
club and caduceus crossed betw., sometimes a star in
field rev KOINOC KIAIAC TA PC O V
MHTPOnOAEDC, decastyle temple, eagle in pedi
ment. BMC 165-6. Note: For details, see volume I,
p. 247.
Lucius Verus, a . d . 1 61-169
(C o -e m p e ro r of M a rcu s A u re liu s )
S o n o f A e l iu s
A d o p t e d s o n o f A n t o n i n u s P iu s a n d
h e ir o f H a d r ia n
H u s b a n d o f L u c il l a
Augustus: IMP CA ES L AVREL VERVS AVG
L VERVS AVG ARMEN IA C VS
L VERVS AVG ARM PARTH MAX
L AVREL VERVS AVG ARMEN IA C VS
Deified: DIVVS VERVS
E xcep t where noted, busts are right- or left-facing, laureate or bare-headed, often
draped and/or cuirassed, or with drapery at far shoulder.
L u cius V erus (as A ugustu s) F VF EF
1578 AV Aureus. Illustrated above. 900- 1750- 4000-

1200 2250 6000
1579 — rev REX ARMEN (IS) DA T(VS) T R P IIII IMP 1000- 3000- 5500-
II C O S II, Verus std. 1. on platform, officers at his 1500 4000 8500
side, addressing king Sohaemus before him. RIC
(M. Aurel.) 511-3.
1580 AV Quinarius 1500- 3000- 7000-

2000 5000 10,000
1581 A R Denarius 3 0-50 70-100 200-300
1582 — rev Depicting std. fig. of either Armenia or 3 0-50 70-100 250-350
Parthia.
1583 — obv A N TON IVS AVGVR III VIR RPC, galley r. 70-100 150-200 400-600
rev A NTO NINVS ET VERVS AVG R EST LEG
VI, legionary eagle betw. two standards. RIC III, p.
2 4 8,443.
1584 A R Quinarius 250-350 900- 2000-

1200 3000
L u cius V erus (as A ugustus) F VF ch V F
1585 Æ Sestertius 70-100 200-300 900-

1200
1586 — rev FELIC AVG T R P III CO S II SC, galley with 100-150 400-600 1500-
several rowers. RIC (M. Aurel.) 1325ff. 2000
L u cius Verus (as A ugustus) F VF ch V F
1587 — rev PROFECTIO AVG T R P II COS II SC, 100-150 500-800

Verus on horseback 1., hldg. spear; four soldiers
walking alongside. RIC (M. Aurel.) 1321.
1588 Sim. to 1579, but rev SC added. RIC (M. Aurel.) 100-150 500-800 —
1370-2.
1590 Æ As 3 0-50 100-150 300-400
L ucius Verus (Posthum ous C om m em oratives) F VF EF
1591 A R Denarius rev CON SECRA TIO, eagle stg. or 3 0-50 100-150 250-350
funeral pyre. RIC (M. Aurel.) 596a,b.
1592
L u cius V erus (Posthum ous Com m em oratives) F VF ch V F
1592 Æ Sestertius 150-200 400-600 1000-

1500
1593 — rev CON SECRATIO SC, Verus std. on car 200-300 700-
drawn l. or r. by four elephants. RIC (M. Aurel.) 1000
1507-8.
L u cius V erus (Provincial Coinage) F VF EF
1594 EL Stater of the Bosporus, king Eupator, c. 154- 150-200 350-500 600-900
170. obv BACIAEcoC EYnATOPOC, diad., dr. bust
r. of Eupator, sometimes a club or spear before rev
No inscr., confr. bare-headed busts of Marcus Aure
lius and Lucius Verus, pellet, star, spear or spear
head betw., date (yrs.458-463) below. Frolova pi.
XXV, 24-XXVII, 34. Note: About 50% gold.

L u cius V erus (Provincial Coinage) F VF ch V F

Lucilla
A u g u sta , A.D. 1 6 4 -1 8 2 /3
W if e o f L u c iu s V e r u s
D a u g h t e r o f M a r c u s A u r e l iu s a n d
S is t e r o f C o m m o d u s , A n n i u s V e r u s a n d
G r a n d d a u g h t e r o f A n t o n i n u s P iu s a n d F a u s t i n a S e n io r
Augusta: LVCILLA AVGVSTA
LVCILLAE AVGVSTAE
LVCILLAE AVG ANTON IN I AVG F
Busts are right-facing and draped.
Lucilla (as A ugusta) F VF EF
1598 AV Aureus 1250- 2500- 50 0 0 -

1750 3500 8000
1599 — rev VOTA PVBLICA in wreath. RIC (M. 1250- 2000- 50 0 0 -

Aurel.) 790. 1750 3000 8000
1600 AV Quinarius 1250- 30 0 0 - —

1750 5000
1602 — rev As 1599. RIC (M. Aurel.) 791. 50-75 100-150 200-300
Lucilla (as A ugusta) F VF ch V F
1603 Æ Sestertius 50-75 150-200 500-800
1604 Æ Dupondius 30-50 100-150 250-350
1605 Æ As 30-50 100-150 250-350
Note: Lucilla’s coinage was struck by Lucius Verus and Marcus Aurelius. For infant portraits
of Lucilla, see nos. 1574-6.
Lucilla (P rovincial Coinage) F VF EF
1606 Billon Tetradrachm of Alexandria 250-350 400-600 7 00-

1000
Commodus, A.D. 177-192

C a e s a r: A.D. 166-177
(u n d er M arcu s A u re liu s )
(A.D. 166-169/70:
w ith A n n iu s V eru s)
(A.D. 169/70-177: alone)
Augustus: A.D. 177-192
(A.D. 177-180: w ith M arcu s A u re liu s)
(A.D. 180-192: sole reign)
S o n o f M a r c u s A u r e l iu s a n d F a u s t in a J u n io r
H u s b a n d o f C r is p i n a
B r o t h e r o f A n n iu s V e r u s , L u c il l a a n d A u r e l iu s A n t o n in u s
G r a n d s o n o f A n t o n i n u s P iu s a n d F a u s t i n a S e n io r
Caesar: COMMODO CAES AVG FIL GERM SARM
IMP CAES L AVREL COMMODVS GERM SARM
L AVREL COMMODVS CAES AVG FIL GERM
Augustus: L AVREL COMMODVS AVG
(with M. Aurelius) L AVREL COMMODVS AVG TR P III
IMP L AVREL COMMODVS AVG GERM SARM
Augustus: L AEL AVREL COMM AVG P FEL
(sole reign) M COMM ANT P FEL AVG BRIT
M COMMOD ANT P FELIX AVG BRIT P P
M COMMODVS ANT P FELIX AVG BRIT
M COMMODVS ANTONINVS AVG
Deified: M COMM ANTO AVG PIVS FEL
Except where noted, busts are right-facing, laureate or bare-headed, often draped
and/or cuirassed, or with drapery at far shoulder. Issues depicting Commodus wear
ing the lion’s scalp are listed individually.
Com m odus (as C aesar) F VF EF
1607 AV Aureus 900- 1750- 5000-

1200 2250 8000
1608 — rev PRIN CIPIIW EN TV TIS around square 1000- 2000- 5000-
altar inscr. FORT REDVCI. RIC 618. 1500 3000 8000
1609 A R Denarius 3 0-50 100-150 250-350

Commodus (as C aesar) F VF ch V F
1610 Æ Sestertius 70-100 200-300 900-

1200
1611 — rev DE SARM T R P II CO S SC, two captives 70-100 250-350 1000-

std. at base of trophy. RIC (M. Aurel.) 1557. 1500
1612 Æ As 30-50 100-150 400-600
Com m odus (as A ugustus) F VF EF
1613 AV Aureus 7 00- 1750- 4000-

1000 2250 6500
1614 — obv Hd. r. of Commodus, as Hercules, wearing 30 0 0 - 10,000- 3 0,000-

lion’s scalp. RIC 247,51,53. 5000 15,000 50,000
1615 — rev CON C MIL P M T R P XI IMP VII CO S V P 1250- 4000- 10,000-

P, Commodus betw. four soldiers who greet one 1750 6000 15,000
another. RIC 127.
1616 — rev CO S VII P P, Commodus stg. 1., crowned 1250- 40 0 0 - 10,000-

from behind from Victory, greeting Serapis and Isis. 1750 6000 15,000
RIC 246.
1617 — rev HERC COM P M T R P XVI CO S VI, Her 1250- 4000- 10,000-
cules stg. 1., sacrificing over altar, before tree with 1750 6000 15,000
lion’s skin. RIC 221.
1618 — rev PROVIDENTIAE AVG, Hercules stg. 1., foot 1250- 40 0 0 - 10,000-
on prow, resting club on tree trunk, greeting Africa, 1750 6000 15,000
with lion at his feet. RIC 259.
1619 — rev VIRT AVG P M T R P X IMP VII CO S IIII P 1000- 2000- 7000-
P, Commodus r. on horseback, spearing lion. RIC 1500 3000 10,000
114.
1620 AV Quinarius 1000- 2000- 4000-

1500 3000 6000
1621 AR Denarius. Illustrated above. 20-40 30-50 100-150
1622 — obv Hd. r. of Commodus, as Hercules, wearing 70-100 150-200 300-400

lion’s scalp. RIC 250-3.
1623 — rev FID EXERC P M T R P X IMP VII CO S IIII P 3 0-50 100-150 200-300
P, Commodus stg. 1. on platform haranguing sol
diers. RIC 1 lOff.
1624 — rev FORTVNAE MANENTI CVP P, Fortuna 3 0-50 100-150 200-300

std. 1., hldg. cornucopia and horse by its bridle. RIC
191a.
1625 A R Quinarius 300-400 700- 2000-

1000 3000
Com m odus (as A ugustus) F VF ch V F
1626 Æ Sestertius 50-75 100-150 500-800
1627 — obv Hd. r. of Commodus, as Hercules, wearing 200-300 500-800 2000-

lion’s scalp. RIC 637-9. 3000
1628 — rev HERCVLI ROMANO AVG SC, Hercules 250-350 1000- 30 0 0 -

stg. 1., hand on trophy, hldg. club and lion’s skin. 1500 5000
RIC 640.
1629 — rev IOVI DEFENS SALVTIS AVG COS VI P P 700- 1500- 40 0 0 -

SC, Jupiter stg. 1, turned r., hldg. scepter, brandish 1000 2000 6000
ing thunderbolt, seven stars in field. RIC 597.
1630 — rev LIBERALITAS AVG TR P V IMP IIII COS 70-100 400-600 1500-
II P P SC, Commodus std. 1. on platform, officer and 2000
Liberalitas stg. at his side, citizen approaching. RIC
300.
1631 — ret; MON AVG P M TR P XII IMP VIII COS V 50-75 250-350 1000-
P P SC, the three Monetae stg. RIC 500. 1500
1632 — rev P M TR P XVII IMP VIIII COS VII P P SC, 150-200 500-800 1500-
type as 1616. RIC 614a. 2000
1633 — rev PROVID AVG P M TR P XI IMP VIII COS 500-800 1250- 3000-
V P P SC, galley with tall mast sailing I. RIC 487. 1750 5000
1634 — rev; SALVS P M TR P VIIII IMP VII COS IIII P 250-350 900- 3000-
P SC, Salus std. 1. feeding snake, erect before col 1200 5000
umn topped with statue; tree at far 1., covering
above. RIC 439.
1635 — ret; VIC BRIT P M TR P VIIII IMP VII COS IIII 7 00- 1500- 4000-
P P SC, Victory std. r. on shields, inscr. shield on 1000 2000 6000
knee. RIC 440.

1637 Æ As 20-40 70-100 250-350
1638 — obv Hd. r. of Commodus, as Hercules, wearing 70-100 200-300 70 0 -
lion’s scalp. RIC 644-5. 1000
1639 — rev COL L AN COM P M TR P XV IMP VIII 200-300 700-
COS VI SC, Commodus ploughing r. . RIC 570. 1000
1640 — rev MVNIFICENTIA AVG TR P VIIII IMP VI 70-100 200-300 400-600
COS IIII P P SC, elephant stg. r. RIC 432.
Com m odus (Posthum ous Com m em oratives) F VF EF
1641 AR Denarius rev CONSECRATIO, eagle stg. on 150-200 500-800 —

globe. RIC (S. Sev.) 72A.
Commodus (Posthum ous Com m em oratives) F VF ch V F
1642 Æ Sestertius rev CO N SECRA TIO SC, female stg. 200-300 1000-
1. by lighted altar, hldg. patera and scepter. RIC (S. 1500
Sev.) 736A.
Note: See also the divi issues of Trajan Decius.
Com m odus (P rovincial C oinage) F VF EF
1643 EL Stater of the Bosporus, king Sauromates II, c. 100-150 300-400 500-800
174-210. obv BACIAEwC CAYPOMATOY, diad.,
dr. bust r. of Sauromates II rev No inscr., laur. hd. r.
of Commodus, spear, spear head or pellet bef., date
(yrs.477-489) below. Frolova pl. XXIX, 17-XXX. 39.
Note: About 33-38% gold.
1644 AR Didrachm of Caesarea 20-40 70-100 150-200
Crispina
A u g u sta , A.D. 1 7 7 -1 8 2 /3
W if e o f C o m m o d u s
D a u g h t e r - in - la w o f M a r c u s A u r e l iu s a n d
S is t e r - i n - l a w o f L u c il l a
Augusta: CRISPIN A AVGVSTA
CRISPIN A AVG IMP COMMIDI AVG
Except where noted, busts are right-facing and draped.
Crispina (as A ugusta) F VF EF
1646 AV Aureus 1250- 3000- 12,000-

1750 5000 18,000
1647 AV Quinarius 1250- 3000- 10,000-

1750 5000 15,000
1649 — obv Bust I. 50-75 150-200 300-400

C rispina (as A ugusta) F VF ch V F
1650 Æ Sestertius 50-75 150-200 700-

1000
1651 Æ Dupondius 30-50 100-150 400-600
1652 Æ As 30-50 100-150 400-600
Crispina (P rovincial Coinage) F VF EF

1500
CH A PTER SIX
C iv il W a r a n d
T h e S e v e ra n -E m e s a n D y n a s ty
a .d . 1 9 3 - 2 3 5
Pertinax, A .D . 193
H u s b a n d o f T it ia n a
F a t h e r o f P e r t in a x J u n io r
Augustus: IMP CAES P HELV PERTIN AVG
IMP CAES P HELV PERTINAX AVG
Deified: DIVVS PERT PIVS PATER
DIVVS PERTIN PIVS PATER
E xcep t where noted, busts are right-facing, laureate, sometimes draped or draped
and cuirassed. Posthumous portraits are bare-headed, sometimes draped.
P ertin ax (as A ugustu s) F VF EF
1654 AV Aureus 30 0 0 - 50 0 0 - 10,000-

5000 8000 15,000
1656 AR Denarius. Illustrated above. 300-400 800- 1500-
1200 2250
1657 — rev MENTI LAVDANDAE, Woman stg. 1. hldg. 300-400 800- 1500-
wreath and scepter. RIC 7. 1200 2250
1658 — rev SAECVLO FRVFIFERO, caduceus with six 300-400 800- 1500-
grain ears attached in wing formation. RIC 12. 1200 2250
P ertin ax (as A ugustus) F VF ch V F
1659 Æ Sestertius 400-600 1000- 4000-

1500 6000
1660 — rev LIB AVG TR P CO S II SC, Pertinax std. 1. 500-800 1500-

on platform, lictor stg. behind, Liberalitas stg. 2000
before, citizen climbing stairs, hldg. out his toga.
RIC 19.
37 7
P ertin ax (as A ugustus) F VF ch V F
1661 Æ Dupondius obv Rad. bust r. 300-400 500-800 1500-

2000
1662 Æ As 250-350 500-800 1250-

1750
P ertin ax (Posthum ous Com m em oratives) F VF EF
1663 AV Aureus 4000- 7000- 20,000-

6000 10,000 30,000
1664 A R Denarius 400-600 1000- 2000-

1500 3000
P ertin ax (Posthum ous C om m em oratives) F VF ch V F
1665 Æ Sestertius 700- 2000- 7000-

1000 3000 10,000
1666 Æ As 400-600 1000- —
1500
P ertin ax (P rovincial Coinage) F VF EF
Titiana
A u g u s ta , A.D. 193
W if e o f P e r t in a x
M o t h e r o f P e r t in a x J u n io r
T itian a (P rovincial Coinage) F VF EF
1668 Billon Tetradrachm of Alexandria obv KAICAP — — —

nEPTINAH, bare-headed, dr. bust r. of Helvius Per
tinax rev TITIANH CEBACTH, dr. bust r. of Titi
ana. Christiansen, BMC Supp., 3124. Note: The
only known specimen (weighing 11.04g.) was for
merly in the Mabbott Collection, and now is in the
British Museum collection.
Note: Most of the Alexandrian tetradrachms with the bust of Titiana on the obverse and
Nike advancing left on the reverse are counterfeits struck around the turn of the century.
However, the type itself is known to be genuine, with illustrations of it appearing in books
printed long before the counterfeits were produced (1696 in one case). Titiana’s Alexandrian
bronzes are suspect.
Pertinax Junior
C aesar, A.D. 193
S o n o f P e r t i n a x a n d T i t ia n a
P ertin ax Ju n ior (Provincial Coinage) F VF EF
1669 Billon Tetradrachm of Alexandria obv KAICAP 7000- 20,000-

nE P T IN A S, bare-headed, dr. bust r. of Pertinax Jr. 10,000 30,000
rev Nike adv. 1., hldg. wreath and palm, date (year
one) in field. Dattari 3980. Illustrated above.
Note: For another portrait of Pertinax Junior, see the Alexandrian tetradrachm of Titiana.
Didius Julianus, A .D . 193
H u s b a n d o f M a n l ia S c a n t il l a
F a t h e r o f D id ia C l a r a
Augustus: IMP CAES M DID IVLIAN AVG (first issue)
IMP CAES M DID SEVER IVLIAN AVG (second issue)
Except where noted, busts are right-facing and laureate, often draped and/or cui-
rassed, or with drapery at far shoulder.
Didius Julianus (as A ugustus) F VF EF
1670 AV Aureus 7000- 15,000- 30,000-

10,000 20,000 50,000
1671 A R Denarius. Illustrated above. 500-800 1000- 2000-

1500 3000
Didius Julianus (as A ugustus) F VF ch V F
1672 Æ Sestertius 400-600 1000- 2000-

1500 3000
1673 Æ Dupondius obv Rad. bust r. 400-600 1000- 2000-

15 00 3000
Note: Julianus’ first æs issue was entirely dupondii, and his second entirely sestertii.
Didius Julianus (P rovincial Coinage) F VF EF

Manlia Scantilla
A u g u s ta , A.D. 1 9 3
W i f e o f D i d iu s J u l i a n u s
M o t h e r o f D id ia C l a r a
O bverse inscriptions:
Augusta: MANL SCANTILLA AVG
MANLIA SCANTILLA AVG
M anlia Scantilla (as A ugusta) F VF EF
1675 AV Aureus 7000- 15,000- 30,000-

10,000 20,000 50,000
1676 A R Denarius. Illustrated above. 700- 1500- 3000-
1000 2000 5000
M an lia S can tilla (as A u g u sta ) F VF ch V F
1677 Æ Sestertius 500-800 1500- —

2000
1678 Æ Dupondius or As — — —
Didia Clara
A u g u sta , A.D. 1 9 3
D a u g h t e r o f D id iu s J u l i a n u s a n d
M a n l ia S c a n t il l a
Augusta: DIDIA CLARA AVG
Didia C lara (as A ugusta) F VF EF
1679 AV Aureus 7000- 15,000- 30,000-

10,000 20,000 50,000
1680 A R Denarius. Illustrated above. 700- 1500- 3000-
1000 2000 5000
Didia C lara (as A ugusta) F VF ch V F
1681 Æ Sestertius 500-800 1500-

2000
1682 Æ Dupondius or As — — —
Pescennius Niger, A .D . 1 9 3 - 1 9 4
Augustus: IMP C PESC NIGER IVS AVG COS II
IMP CAES C PESC(E) NIGER IV S(T ) AV(G)
IMP CAES C PESC NIGER IVS AVG CO S II
IMP CAES C PESC NIGER IV ST V S AVG CO S II
IMP CAES C PESCEN NIGER IV ST AV
N ote: There are many inscription variants, blundered and otherwise.
Busts are right-facing and laureate; rarely also draped and cuirassed, or with drapery
at far shoulder.
^
nq
P esce nnius N iger (as A ugustus) F VF

vO
o
o'
o
o
1683 AV Aureus obv Laur., dr. and cuir. r. 15,000- 20,000-

00
o
o
O
o
20,000 30,000
1684 A R Denarius obv Laur. r. Illustrated above. 400-600 7 00- 1750-

1000 2250
1685 — rev AETERN ITAS AVG, crescent and 7 stars. 400-600 900- 2000-
RIC 1. 1200 3000
1686 — ret; FELICKA, T, TA S) TEM PO R(A ), crossed 400-600 900- 2000-

cornucopias, sometimes with grain ear betw. RIC 1200 3000
13-5.
1687 — rev FELICITAS TEM POR(VM ), basket with 400-600 900- 2000-
fruits or grain ears. RIC 16-7. 1200 3000
1688 — rev FIDEI EXER(CITVI), three standards, shield 400-600 900- 2000-
inscr. VIC AVGG attached to one in center or three 1200 3000
vexilla, the center one inscr. VIC AVG. RIC 18-9.
1689 — rev HILARITAS AVG SC, two capricorns sup 400-600 900- 2000-
porting globe with stars. RIC 30A. Note: This 1200 3000
denarius is unusual in that it has the letters SC.
Note: In rare instances, obverse dies used to strike Imperial denarii were also used to strike
drachms of Caesarea with Greek-inscription reverses.
P escennius N iger (Provincial Coinage) F VF EF
1690 A R Tetradrachm of Antioch 1000- 40 0 0 - —

1500 6000
Clodius Albinus, A .D . 1 9 5 - 1 9 7
C a e s a r: A.D. 1 9 3 - 1 9 5
(u n d er Septim ius S ev eru s)
A u g u stu s: A .D . 1 9 5 - 1 9 7
(again st Septim ius S ev eru s)
E xam p les of ob verse in scrip tio n s:
Caesar: D CL(OD) SEPT ALBIN CAES
D CLODIVS ALBINVS CAES
Augustus: IMP CAES D CLO ALBIN (or SEP ALB) AVG
As Caesar, busts are right-facing and bare-headed; sometimes also draped and/or
cuirassed, or with drapery at far shoulder. As Augustus, busts are similar to those
struck as Caesar, but are laureate and are of more simplistic style.
Clodius A lbinus (as C aesar) F VF EF
1692 AV Aureus 15,000- 30,000- 75,000-

20,000 50,000 100,000
1693 — rev SAECVLO FRVGIFERO COS II, Saeculum 15,000- 40,000- —

Frugiferum enthroned 1., sphinxes at sides. RIC 10. 20,000 60,000
1696 — rev . SAEC FRVGIF COS II, Saeculum 100-150 300-400 1000-
Frugiferum stg. 1., hldg. caduceus and forked instru 1500
ment. RIC 8, 12.
Clodius A lbinus (as C aesar) F VF ch V F
1696a AE Sestertius 150-200 500-800 1500-

2500
1696b AE Dupondius or As 100-150 300-500 1000-

1500
Clodiius A lbinus (as A ugustus) F VF EF
1697 AV Aureus 40,000- 80,000- 200,000-

60,000 120,000 250,000
Clodius Albinus (as A ugustus) F VF EF
1698 A R Denarius 100-150 250-350 7 00-

1000
1699 — rev FIDES AVG CO S II, aquilia betw. two stan 200-300 500-800 1500-
dards. RIC 19. 2000
Clodius Albinus (as A ugustus) F VF ch V F
1700 Æ As — — —
S ev era n -E m esa n D yn a sty
A .D . 1 9 3 - 2 3 5
S e v e r a n D y n a s tic P o r t r a i t C o in a g e
Septimius Severus produced a series of aurei and denarii which offers portraits of all
five members of the founding dynasty. With the exception of two unusual pieces, all fea-
ture the bust of one member on the obverse and the busts of one, two or three relatives on the
reverse. W hen two busts occur on a side, they are confronted or jugate.
1719
1705
1734 1736
Severan D ynastic P o rtrait Issues F VF EF
O bverse: Septimius Severus

1701 AV Aureus rev AETERN IT IMPERI, confr. busts 2000- 40 0 0 - 10,GOO-
of Caracalla and Geta. RIC 174ff. 3000 6000 15,000
1702 — rev ANTONINVS AVG PLAVTILLA

AVGVSTA, confr. busts of Caracalla and Plautilla.
RlC -.U niqueO )
1703 — rev ANTONINVS A VG VSTVS, bust r. of Cara 2000- 4000- 10,000-

calla. RIC 157. 3000 6000 15,000
1704 — rev CONCORDIAE AETERNAE, jugate busts r. 2000- 5 000- 15,000-

of Severus, as Sol, rad., and Domna, as Luna, on 3000 8000 20,000
crescent. RIC 522.
1705 — rev FELICITAS SAECVLI, bust of Domna fac- 2000- 4000- 10,000-
ing, flanked by confr. busts of Caracalla and Geta. 3000 6000 15,000
RIC 159, 175, 181a-c.
1706 — rev IMPERII FELICITAS, confr. busts of Severus 2000- 40 0 0 - 10,000-

and Geta. RIC 98. 3000 6000 15,000
1707 — rev IVLIA AVGVSTA, bust r. of Julia Domna. 2000- 40 0 0 - 10,GOO-

RIC 161a,b. 3000 6000 15,000
1708 — rev SEVERI AVG PII FIL, bust r. of Caracalla. 2000- 7 000- 20,000-
RIC 72. Note: Struck in A.D. 196, this early issue 3000 10,000 30,000
celebrates Caracalla’s being hailed Caesar.
1709 A R Denarius Sim. to 1701. RIC 174, 78a, 251-2. 200-300 400-600 1000-
1500
1710 — Sim. to prev., but busts are of Severus and Cara- 200-300 400-600 1000-
calla. RIC 250. 1500
1711 — Sim. to 1703. RIC 15IB, 57. 200-300 400-600 1000-

1500
1712 — Sim. to 1705. RIC 181c. — — —
1713 — Sim. to 1707. RIC 161a, 273. 200-300 400-600 1000-
1500
1714 — rev L SEPTIMVS GETA CAES, bust r. of Geta. 200-300 400-600 1000-
RIC 132. 1500
1715 — rev P SEPT(IMVS) GETA CAES (PONT), bust 200-300 400-600 1000-
r. of Geta. RIC 164, 281. 1500
O bverse: Septimius Severus and Julia D om na
1716 AV Aureus obv FELICITAS PVBLICA, confr. 4000- 10,000-

busts of Severus and Domna rev PERPETVA CON 6000 15,000
CORDIA, confr. busts of Caracalla and Geta. RIC
312.
O bverse: Septimius Severus and C aracalla
1717 AV Aureus obv IMP PINVICTI PII AVGG, jugate 2000- 7 000- 20,000-
busts r. of Caracalla and Geta rev VICTORIA 3000 10,000 30,000
PARTHICA MAXIMA, Victory adv. 1. RIC 311.
O bverse: Julia Dom na

1718 AV Aureus rev AETERNIT IMPERI, confr. busts 2000- 4000- 10,000-
of Septimius Severus and Caracalla. RIC 539a. 3000 6000 15,000
1719 — As prev., but busts are of Caracalla and Geta. 2000- 4000- 10,000-
RIC 540. 3000 6000 15,000
1720 — rev ANTONINVS AVG PONT TR P III, bust r. 2000- 4000- 10,000-
of Caracalla. RIC 543. 3000 6000 15,000
1721 — rev P SEPT GETA CAES PONT, bust r. of Geta. 2000- 4000- 10,000-
RIC 571. 3000 6000 15,000
1722 AR Denarius Sim. to 1718. RIC 539a,b. 200-300 400-600 1000-

1500
1723 — Sim. to 1719. RIC 540-1. 200-300 400-600 1000-

1500
1724 — rev ANTONIN PIVS AVG PON T R P V, bust r. 200-300 400-600 1000-
of Caracalla. RIC 542. 1500
1725 — rev A NTONINVS PIVS AVG, bust r. of Cara 200-300 400-600 1000-
calla. RIC 544. 1500
1726 — rev A NTONINVS PIVS AVG BRIT, bearded 250-350 500-800 1500-
bust r. of Caracalla. RIC 545. 2000
1727 — Sim. to 1721. RIC 571. 200-300 400-600 1000-

1500
O bverse: C aracalla
1728 AV Aureus rev CON CORDIAE AETERNAE, 2000- 40 0 0 - 10,000-

jugate busts r. of Severus, as Sol, rad., and Domna, 3000 6000 15,000
as Luna, on crescent. RIC 36, 52, 59a-c.
1729 — rev P SEPT GETA CAES PONT, bust r. of Geta. 2000- 40 0 0 - 10,000-
RIC 17, 38, 53. 3000 6000 15,000
1730 — rev PLAVTILLA AVGVSTA, bust r. of Plautilla. 30 0 0 - 7000- —

RIC 163A. 5000 10,000
1731 — As prev., but inscr. PLAVTILLAE AVGVSTAE. 3 000- 7000- —

RIC 349. 5000 10,000
1732 AR Denarius rev AETERN IT IMPERI, confr. busts 200-300 400-600 1000-
of Severus and Caracalla. RIC 122. 1500
1733 — Sim. to 1728. RIC 125a,b. — — —
1734 — Sim. to 1729. RIC 29B, 38, 62. 200-300 400-600 1000-
1500
1735 — Sim. to 1730. RIC 139. 400-600 1500- —

2000
O bverse: G eta
1736 AV Aureus rev CON CORDIAE AETERNAE, 2000- 50 0 0 - 15,000-

jugate busts r. of Severus, as Sol, rad., and Domna, 3000 8000 20,000
as Luna, on crescent. RIC 7a,b.
1737 — rev SEV E R IIN V IC T I AVG PII FIL, rad., cuir, 2000- 5 000-
bust 1. of Caracalla( ?) or Geta( ?) as Sol, shown from 3000 8000
mid-chest, wearing aegis, raising r. hand. RIC 21.
1738 AR Denarius rev AETERN IT IMPERI, confr. busts 250-350 500-800 1250-
of Severus and Caracalla. RIC 5. 1750
Septimius Severus, A .D . 1 9 3 -2 1 1
A u g u s tu s: A.D. 1 9 3 - 2 1 1
(A .D . 1 9 3 - 1 9 8 : sole reig n ;
1 9 5 -1 9 8 C a ra ca lla as C a e s a r)
(A .D . 1 9 8 - 2 0 9 : w ith C a ra ca lla ;
G e ta as C a e s a r)
(A .D . 2 0 9 - 2 1 1 : w ith C a ra ca lla
and G e ta )
H u s b a n d o f J u l ia D o m n a
Fa th er of C aracalla an d G eta
B r o t h ER- i n - l a w o f J u l i a M a e s a
U n c l e o f J u l i a S o a e m ia s a n d J u l i a M a m a e a
Augustus: IMP CAE L SEP SEV PERT AVG
IMP CAE L SEP SEV PERT AVG COS II
L SEPT SEV AVG IMP XI PART MAX
L SEPT SEV PERT AVG IMP II(-X)
SEVERVS AVT PART MAX
SEVERVS PIVS AVG
SEVERVS PIVS AVG BRIT
Deified: DIVO SEVERO PIO
DIVO SEPTIM IO SEVERO PIO
Busts are right-facing, laureate, often draped and cuirassed or simply cuirassed.
Posthumous portraits are right-facing and bareheaded.
Septimius Severus (as A ugustus) F VF EF

1500 2250 6000
1740 — rev C O S III P P, the Stadium of Domitian, spec- 30 0 0 - 7000-

tators and combatants within. RIC 260. Note: 5000 10,000
Sometimes mistaken for the Circus Maximus. "
1741 — rev IN CARTH INDVLGENTIA AVGG, Dea 1250- 2000- 50 0 0 -
Caelestis riding lion over spring of water. RIC 193ff. 1750 3000 8000
1742 — rev PACATOR O RBIS, rad., dr. bust r. of Sol. 2000- 4000- 10,000-
RIC 282. 3000 6000 15,000
1743 — rev P M T R P XV CO S III P P, helm. hd. of Min' 2000- 4000- 10,000-

erva r. RIC 206. 3000 6000 15,000
1744 — rev SA C RA SAECVLARIA, Severus sacrificing 1500- 4000- 10,000-

before temple, acccompanied by Caracalla, Concor- 2000 6000 15,000
dia, flute-player and reel. Tiber. RIC 293.
Septimius Severus (as A ugustu s) F VF EF
1745 AV Quinarius 1250- 2000- —

1750 3000
1746 A R Denarius 15-25 20-40 70-100
1747 — rev A DVENTVS AVG VSTOR, galley 1. RIC 20-40 70-100 200-300
178
1748 — rev CO S III P P, the Arch of Septimius Severus. 400-600 900- 2000-
RIC 259. 1200 3000
1749 — Sim. to 1741. RIC 266-7. 20-40 50-75 150-200
1750 — rev LA ETITIA TEMPORVM, animal and 250-350 400-600 900-

human combat around ship with sail set and gang 1200
way lowered; in the Circus Maximus. RIC 274.
1751 — rev LEG IIT A L T R P CO S (etc.), legionary 20-40 50-75 150-200

eagle betw. two standards. RIC 1-17.
1752 — rev M VNIFICENTIA AVG, elephant stg. r. RIC 20-40 70-100 250-350
82, 100.
1753 — rev PROVIDENTIA, Medusa hd. facing, some 300-400 1000- 2000-
times on aegis. RIC 285-6. 1500 3000
1754 — rev R ESTIT V T O R VRBIS, helm. hd. r. of Roma. 200-300 400-600 1000-
RIC 290. 1500
1755 — rev SA ECV(L or LI) FELICIT(A S), crescent and 20-40 70-100 250-350
7 stars. RIC 416-8A.
1756 — rev V IC TO R IA E BRIT, Victory in various poses. 20-40 70-100 200-300

RIC 302, 32-7.
1757 — rev V O T IS DECENNALIBVS in wreath. RIC 20-40 70-100 250-350

520a.
1758 A R Quinarius 250-350 700- 2000-

1000 3000
Septimius Severus (as A ugustus) F VF ch V F
1759 Æ Sestertius 30-50 200-300 500-800
1760 — rev DIS AVSPICIB T R P II CO S II P P SC, Bac 70-100 300-400 1000-

chus, panther at feet, and Hercules stg. side by side. 1500
RIC 6 6 Iff.
1761 — rev LEG XIIII GEM M V T R P C O S SC, legion 70-100 300-400 1000-
ary eagle betw. two standards. RIC 652. 1500
1762 — rev MONET AVG COS II P P SC, the Three 50-75 250-350 900-
Monetae stg. facing. RIC 670, 8-9. 1200
1763 — rev P M T R P XV CO S III P P SC, distyle tem 400-600 900- —

ple; Aesculapius, and two snakes, within. RIC 775a. 1200
1764 — rev P M T R P XVIII CO S III P P SC, Severus, 400-600 900- 2000-

Caracalla and Geta stg. on platform haranguing 1200 3000
officer and two soldiers, all stg. below. RIC 800.
Septimius Severus (as A ugustus) F VF ch V F
1765 — rev V IC TO R IA BRITTANNICAH SC, Two 400-600 900- 2000-

Victories erecting trophy of arms. RIC 818. 1200 3000
1766 Æ Dupondius obv Rad. bust r. 20-40 150-200 400-600
1767 Æ As 20-40 150-200 300-400
1768 — rev P M T R P XVI CO S III P P SC, bridge with 400-600 1250- 3000-
towers at ends, boats below. RIC 786. 1750 5000
1770
Septimius Severus (Posthum ous C om m em oratives)F VF EF
1769 AV Aureus 1250- 2000- 50 0 0 -

1750 3000 8000
1770 A R Denarius 30-50 100-150 200-300
Septimius Severus (Posthum ous C om m em oratives) F VF ch V F
1771 Æ Sestertius 100-150 400-600 1000-

1500
Septimius Severus (Provincial Coinage) F VF EF
1773 AR Drachm of Caesarea 20-40 50-75 100-150
The values are estimates for conservatively graded, essentially problem-Tree

Julia Domna
A u g u sta , A.D. 1 9 3 -2 1 7
W if e o f S e p t i m i u s S e v e r u s
M o th er of C a r a ca lla an d G eta
S is t e r o f J u l i a M a e s a
A u n t o f J u l i a S o a e m ia s a n d J u l i a M a m a e a
Augusta: IVLIA AVGVSTA (under Septimius Severus)
IVLIA DOMNA AVG (under Septimius Severus)
IVLIA PIA FELIX AVG (under Caracalla)
Deified: DIVA IVLIA AVGVSTA
Except where noted, busts are right-facing and draped. Posthumous portraits are
also veiled.
Julia D om na (as A ugusta) F VF EF
1775 AV Aureus. Illustrated above. 1000- 1750- 40 0 0 -

1500 2250 6000
1776 — rev MATER CA STRORVM , Domna sacrificing 1250- 2000- 5000-

at altar, two signae at 1. RIC 567. 1750 3000 8000
1777 AV Quinarius 1500- 3000- —

2000 5000
1778 A R Double-Denarius obv Bust r. on crescent 30-50 70-100 150-200
1779 — rev LVNA LVCIFERA, Luna driving biga 1. RIC 30-50 100-150 200-300
379.
1780 AR Denarius 15-25 20-40 70-100
1781 — rev FECVNDITAS, Terra reel, under tree, hldg. 70-100 200-300 500-800
globe about which the Four Seasons play. RIC 549.
1782 — rev MATER AVGG, Domna, as Cybele, in cart 30-50 100-150 300-400
drawn by lions. RIC 562.
1783 — rev VESTA MATER, one or two Vestals sacrific- 100-150 400-600 —
ing before temple of Vesta, sacrificing. RIC 584-5.
1784 AR Quinarius 250-350 900- 2000-

1200 3000
Julia D om na (as A ugusta) F VF ch V F
1785 Æ Sestertius 3 0-50 200-300 500-800
1786 — rev MATRI CA STRORVM SC, Domna sacrific 50-75 300-400 1500-
ing over altar, standards at 1. RIC 884- 2000
Julia D om na (as A ugusta) F VF ch V F
1787 — rev MATRI MAGNAE SC or MATER DEVM 50-75 300-400 1500-

SC, Cybele std. r. or 1., flanked by two lions. RIC 2000
8 4 1 ,5 9 ,6 1 .
1788 Æ Medallic As rev FECVNDITAS SC, Tellus 150-200 500-800 1750-

(Terra) reel., the Four Seasons (Horae) at her side. 2250
RIC 872.
1789 Æ Dupondius or As 20-40 150-200 300-400
1790 — rev VESTA MATER SC, six Vestals sacrificing 200-300 400-600 1000-
before temple of Vesta. RIC 892a. 1500
Julia D om na (Posthum ous Com m em oratives) F VF EF
1791 A R Denarius rev CONSECRATIO, peacock adv. 200-300 900-

1., tail in splendor. RIC (Domna) 396 and (Sev. 1200
Alex.) 715.
Julia D om na (Posthum ous Com m em oratives) F VF ch V F
1792 Æ Sestertius rev CONSECRATIO SC, Domna on 250-350 1000-

back of peacock flying heavenward. RIC (Domna) 1500
609 and (Sev. Alex.) 716.
Julia D om na (P rovincial Coinage) F VF EF
1793 A R Tetradrachm of Emisa 70-100 150-200 700-

1000
1794 AR Drachm of Caesarea 20-40 50-75 100-150

1000
Julia D om na (P rovincial Coinage) F VF ch V F
1796 Æ Drachm of Alexandria 70-100 500-800 1000-

1500
Antoninus
( c a lle d ‘ C a r a c a l l a * ) ,
A .D . 1 9 8 -2 1 7
C a e s a r: A.D. 1 9 5 - 1 9 8
(u n d e r Septim ius S ev eru s)
A u g u s tu s: A.D. 1 9 8 -2 1 7
(A.D. 198-209: w ith Septim ius S ev eru s)
(A.D. 209-211: w ith Septim ius S everu s and G e ta )
(A.D. 2 11: w ith G e ta )
(A.D. 2 11-2 17: sole reign)
S o n o f S e p t im i u s S e v e r u s a n d J u l i a D o m n a
B rother of G eta
H u sb a n d o f P l a u t il l a
Caesar: M AVR ANTON CAES PONTIF
M AVR ANTONINVS CAES
Augustus: A NTONINVS A VG VSTVS
A NTONINVS PIVS AVG
A NTONINVS PIVS AVG BRIT (or GERM)
A NTONINVS PIVS FEL AVG
M AVREL ANTONINVS PIVS AVG BRIT
Deified: DIVO ANTONINO MAGNO
Note: Caracalla shares inscriptions with Elagabalus, including A N TO N '

INVS PIVS FEL AVG and IMP CAES M AVR A NTONINVS AVG.
As Caesar, busts are right'facing, bare-headed and draped or draped and cuirassed.
As Augustus, except where noted, busts are right'facing, laureate, often cuirassed
and/or draped. Posthumous portraits are right'facing and bare-headed. His appear'
ance ranges from that of a child to an adult with a full beard.
C aracalla (as C aesar) F VF EF
1797 AV Aureus 1000- 2000- 7000-

1500 3000 10,000
1798 A R Denarius 15-25 20-40 70-100
1799 — rev DESTINATO IMPERAT, Sacrificial impie' 15-25 30-50 100-150

ments. RIC 6.
C aracalla (as C aesar) F VF ch V F
1800 Æ Sestertius 50-75 300-400 1000-

1500
1801 Æ As 30-50 150-200 500-800
1814
C aracalla (as A ugustus) F VF EF
1802 AV Binio obv Rad. bust r. 30 0 0 - 7000- —

5000 10,000
1803 AV Aureus 1000- 2000- 50 0 0 -

1500 3000 8000
1804 — obv Bust 1.
1805 — rev FELICIA TEM PORA, the Four Seasons, as 2000- 50 0 0 - 15,000-
boys, at play. RIC 126, 53. 3000 8000 20,000
1806 — rev LAETITIA TEMPORVM, animal and 2000- 50 0 0 - 15,000-

human combat around ship with sail set and gang 3000 8000 20,000
1807 — rev P M T R P XVIII(-XX) COS IIII P P, rad. lion 1500- 4000- 10,000-
bounding 1., thunderbolt in jaws. RIC 273ff. 2000 6000 15,000
1808 — rev P M T R P XVIII COS IIII P P, temple behind 1500- 4000- 10,000-
Caracalla, sacrificing before Aesculapius, each with 2000 6000 15,000
an attendant. RIC 270.
1809 — rev PONTIF T R P VIIII COS II, Bacchus stg. 1., 1500- 4000- 10,000-
hldg cup and thrysus, four panthers stg. at his side. 2000 6000 15,000
RIC 85.
1810 AV Quinarius 1250- 2000- —

1750 3000
1811 A R Double-Denarius obv Rad. bust r. Illustrated 30-50 70-100 150-200

p. 391.
1812 — rev As 1807. RIC 273ff. 50-75 150-200 400-600
1813 — rev P M T R P XVIIII (or XX) COS IIII P P, 50-75 150-200 400-600
Diana driving biga of bulls. RIC 274b,c, 284a.
1814 A R Denarius 15-25 20-40 70-100
1815 — obv Bust 1. 50-75 150-200 400-600
1816 — rev ADVENT AVGG, Galley traveling over 3 0-50 70-100 200-300
waves
C aracalla (as A ugustu s) F VF EF
1817 — Sim. to 1805. RIC 126, 53. 250-350 400-600 900-

1200
1818 — rev IOVI SOSPITATORI, Jupiter stg. in tetra^ 70-100 200-300 500-800
style temple
1819 — Sim. to 1806. RIC 157. 250-350 400-600 900-

1200
1820 — rev P M T R P XVII COS IIII P P, elephant stg. r. 50-75 150-200 400-600
RIC 250A.
1821 — rev As 1807. RIC 273ff. 50-75 150-200 400-600
1822 — rev V IC TO R IA (E) BRIT, Victory in various 30-50 70-100 200-300

poses. RIC 169, 72A, 3, 231.
1823 — rev VIRTVS AVGG, Caracalla stg., river god, 70-100 200-300 500-800
two captives at feet. RIC 175.
1824 — rev VOTA SUSCEPTA XX, Septimius Severus 70-100 200-300 500-800
sacrificing at altar, flute player behind. RIC 181.
1825 A R Quinarius 250-350 7 00- 2000-

1000 3000
C aracalla (as A ugustus) F VF ch V F
1826 Æ Sestertius 3 0-50 250-350 900-

1200
1827 — rev P M T R P XVI IMP II CO S IIII P P SC, the 1500- 5 000- 20,000-
Circus Maximus. RIC 500a. 2000 8000 30,000
1828 — rev P M T R P XVIII IMP III COS IIII P P SC, 150-200 400-600 1500-
Caracalla stg. 1., foot on crocodile, receiving grain 2000
ears from Isis. RIC 544.
1829 — rev V IC TO R IA E BRITTANNICAE SC, Victory 400-600 90 0 - 2000-

erecting trophy of arms, Britannia and captive at r. 1200 3000
RIC 465.
1831 Æ As 30-50 150-200 400-600
1832 — rev P M T R P XVIIII COS IIII P P SC, rad. lion 70-100 300-400 900-
adv. 1. RIC 564c. 1200
1833 — rev V IC TO R IA E BRITTANNICAE SC, Victory 100-150 400-600 1000-

std. 1., with shield on knee. RIC 521. 1500
1835
C aracalla (Posthum ous C om m em oratives) F VF EF
1834 AV Aureus 2000- 7000- 20,000-

3000 10,000 30,000
1835 A R Denarius 200-300 500-800 2000-

3000
C aracalla (Posthum ous C om m em oratives) F VF ch V F
1836 Æ Sestertius 300-400 900- 2000-

1200 3000
C aracalla (P rovincial Coinage) F VF EF
1839 Billon Tetradrachm of Alexandria 200-300 7 00- 1250-

1000 1750
C aracalla (P rovincial Coinage) F VF ch V F
1840 Æ Drachm of Alexandria 100-150 500-800 1500-

2000
1841 Æ41 (Medallion) of Philippopolis in Thrace obv 400-600 1500- 3000-

Heroic bust 1. of Caracalla, aegis over 1. shoulder rev 2000 5000
KOINON 0PAKHN AAEZANAPIA EN
O IA in n O n O , statue of nude athlete stg. facing,
hldg. discus, P V 0IA across field. BMC 36. Note:
This commemorates the emperor’s attendance at
the Pythian games held at Philippopolis in 214.

Plautilla
A u g u s ta , A .D . 2 0 2 - 2 0 5
W if e o f C a r a c a l l a
D a u g h t e r - i n - l a w o f S e p t im i u s S e v e r u s a n d
J u l ia D o m n a
SlSTER-IN-LAW OF G e TA
Augusta: PLAVTILLA AVGVSTA

PLAVTILLA AVGVSTAE
PLAVTILLA AVG
Plautilla (as A ugusta) F VF EF
1842 AV Aureus 2000- 7000- 15,000-

3000 10,000 20,000
1844 A R Quinarius 700- 2000- —

1000 3000
Plautilla (as A ugusta) F VF ch V F
1845 Æ Sestertius — — —
1846 Æ Dupondius or As 70-100 400-600
Plautilla (P rovincial Coinage) F VF EF
1847 Billon Tetradrachm of Alexandria 400-600 1250- 2000-

1750 3000
Geta, A .D . 2 O 9 -2 II
C a e s a r: A.D. 1 9 8 - 2 0 9 (u n d er
Septim ius S everu s and C a ra ca lla )
A u g u s tu s: A.D. 2 0 9 - 2 1 1
(A .D . 2 0 9 - 2 1 1 : w ith
Septim ius S everu s and C a ra ca lla )
(A .D . 2 1 1 : w ith C a ra ca lla )
S o n o f S e p t im i u s S e v e r u s a n d J u l i a D o m n a
B ro th er of C aracalla
B r o t h e r - in - l a w o f P l a u t il l a
Caesar: GETA CAES PONT(IF) COS
GETA CAES PONTIF(EX)
L SEPTIM IVS GETA CAES
P SEPT GETA CAES PONT
P SEPTIM IVS GETA CA ES(A R)
Augustus: IMP CAE L SEPT GETA AVG COS II
IMP CAES P SEPT GETA PIVS AVG
P SEPT GETA PIVS AVG BRIT
P SEPTIM IVS GETA PIVS AVG BRIT
As Caesar, busts are right-facing, bare-headed and draped or draped and cuirassed.
As Augustus, except where noted, busts are right-facing, bearded, laureate, often
cuirassed and/or draped.
G eta (as C aesar) F VF EF
1848 AV Aureus 1000- 2000- 5000-

1500 3000 8000
1849 — rev PACATOR ORBIS, rad., dr. bust r. of Sol. 2000- 4000- 10,000-
RIC 50. 3000 6000 15,000
1851 A R Denarius 15-25 20-40 70-100
1852 — obv Bust 1. 20-40 70-100 300-400
1853 — rev CO S or PONTIF(EX) COS II, Geta in quad 20-40 70-100 250-350
riga. RIC 28, 63ff.
1854 — rev FELICIA TEM PORA, the Four Seasons, as 250-350 400-600 1000-
boys, at play. RIC 41. 1500
1855 — rev LA ETITIA TEMPORVM, animal and 250-350 400-600 1000-

human combat around ship with sail set and gang 1500
G eta (as C aesar) F VF EF
1856 — rev PONTIFEX COS, helm. hd. r. of Minerva. 200-300 400-600 1000-
RIC 35. 1500
1857 — rev TEM POR FELICITAS in wreath. RIC 22. 70-100 200-300 500-800
1858 AR Quinarius 300-400 900- —

1200
G eta (as C aesar) F VF ch V F
1859 Æ Sestertius 150-200 500-800 1250-

1750
1860 Æ Dupondius or As 50-75 150-200 400-600
1861 — rev PRINC IW E N T CO S SC, Geta, Caracalla 50-75 200-300 500-800

and Septimius Severus r. on galloping horses. RIC
130a-c.
G eta (as A ugustus) F VF EF
1862 AV Aureus 1250- 3000- 10,000-

1750 5000 15,000
1863 — rev LIB AVGG V ET VI, Caracalla and Geta std. 1500- 5 000- 15,000-
1. on platform, Liberalitas stg. and citizen approach- 2000 8000 20,000
ing before. RIC 87.
1864 AR Denarius. Illustrated p. 396. 20-40 50-75 100-150
1865 — rev A DVENTVS A VGVSTI, Geta r. on horse 20-40 70-100 300-400

back, hldg. scepter and saluting. RIC 84.
1866 — rev V IC TO R IA E BRIT, Victory adv. r. or stg. 1. 20-40 70-100 300-400

RIC 91-2.
G eta (as A ugustus) F VF ch V F
1867 Æ Sestertius 150-200 400-600 1000-

1500
1868 — rev CON CORDIAE AVGG SC, Caracalla and 200-300 500-800 1500-
Geta stg., clasping hands, altar betw., each crowned 2000
by a Victory. RIC 165.
1869 — rev V IC TO R IA E BRITTANICAE SC, Victory 400-600 900- 2000-

std. r. on arms, inscr. shield. RIC 166. 1200 3000
1870 — rev — , two Victories confr., attaching shield to 400-600 900- 2000-
palm tree; two captives at base. RIC 167. 1200 3000
1871 — rev VOTA PVBLICA SC, Geta sacrificing at tri 200-300 500-800 1500-
pod, bull below. RIC 187a,b. 2000
1873 Æ As 50-75 150-200 400-600

G eta (as A ugustus) F VF ch V F
1874 — rev T R P IIII COS II P P SC, elephant adv. r. 100-150 400-600 1000-
RIC 181. 1500
1875 — rev V IC TO RIA E BRITTANICAE SC, Victory 100-150 400-600 1000-

std. 1., hldg. palm, shield on knee. RIC 191a,b. 1500
G eta (P rovincial Coinage) F VF EF
1876 A R Tetradrachm of Antioch obv Adolescent bust 50-75 100-150 300-400

of Geta

1200 2000
G eta (P rovincial Coinage) F VF ch V F
1879 Æ 4 1 of Stratoniceia in Caria obv Confr. busts of 150-200 400-600 500-800

Caracalla and Geta (the latter often erased by chisel
cuts) rev Hecate stg. cf. BMC 69.
Macrinus, A .D . 2 1 7 - 2 1 8
A u g u s tu s: A.D. 2 1 7 -2 1 8
(A .D . 2 1 7 - 2 1 8 : sole reig n )
(A .D . 2 1 8 : w ith D iad u m en ian )
F a t h e r o f D i a d u m e n ia n
Augustus: IMP C M OPEL SEV M ACRINVS AVG (on AV and A R)
IMP CAES M OPEL SEV MACRINVS AVG (on Æ )
Except where noted, busts are right-facing, laureate, cuirassed and/or draped. His
beard is either cropped or fully grown.
M acrinus (as A ugustus) F VF EF
1880 AV Aureus 3 000- 5000- 15,000-

5000 8000 20,000
1881 — rev V IC T PART P M T R P II COS II P P, Vic 30 0 0 - 5000- 20,000-

tory flying 1. betw. two shields. RIC 50. 5000 8000 30,000
1882 — rev LIBERALITAS AVG, Macrinus and Diadu 30 0 0 - 50 0 0 - 20,000-

menian std. 1. on platform, officer and Liberalitas 5000 8000 30,000
stg. beside, citizen below. RIC 79.
M acrinus (as A ugustu s) F VF EF
1884 AR Double^Denarius obv Rad. bust r. 70-100 200-300 400-600
1885 A R Denarius. Illustrated p. 398. 30-50 50-75 100-150
1886 — rev PONTIF MAX T R P II CO S P P, Macrinus 50-75 200-300 —

and Victory in slow quadriga 1. RIC 36.
1887 — rev V IC TO R IA PARTHICA, Victory adv. r. 30-50 70-100 250-350

RIC 96-7.
1888 AR Quinarius 400-600 1000- —

2000
M acrinus (as A ugustus) F VF ch V F
1889 Æ Sestertius 150-200 900- 3000-

1200 5000
1890 — rev LIBERALITAS AVGVSTI SC, type as 1882. 250-350 1500- —

RIC 194. 2000

1500
1892 Æ As 100-150 250-350 900-

1200
1893 — rev As 1886, but SC added. RIC 152-3. 100-150 400-600 1500-
2000
M acrinus (P rovincial Coinage) F VF EF
Diadumenian, A .D . 2 1 8
C a e s a r: A.D. 2 1 7 - 2 1 8 (u n d er M a crin u s)
A u g u s tu s: A .D . 2 1 8 (w ith M ac rin u s )
S o n o f M a c r in u s
Caesar: M OPEL AN T DIADVMENIAN CAES
M OPEL DIADVM ENIAN(VS) CAES
M OPEL ANTONINVS DI ADVM ENIAN VS CAES
Augustus: IMP C M OPEL AN T DIADVMENIAN AVG

Except where noted, busts are right-facing, bare-headed and draped or draped and
cuirassed.
D iadum enian (as C aesar) F VF EF
1896 AV Aureus. Illustrated p . 399. 40 0 0 - 7000- 20,000-

6000 10,000 30,000
1898 A R Double-Denarius obv Rad. bust r. 200-300 400-600 1000-
1500
1899 A R Denarius 70-100 200-300 400-600
1900 A R Quinarius 600- 3000- —

1000 5000
Diadum enian (as C aesar) F VF ch V F
1901 Æ Sestertius 200-300 1500- 40 0 0 -

2000 6000
1902 Æ Dupondius or As 100-150 400-600 1500-

2000
Diadum enian (as A ugustus) F VF EF
1903 AR Denarius obv Laur. and dr. bust r. rev FELICI 2000- 50 0 0 - 10,000-
TAS TEMPORVM, Felicitas stg. 1. RIC 118. 3000 8000 15,000
D iadum enian (P rovincial Coinage) F VF EF
Diadum enian (P rovincial Coinage) F VF ch V F
1906 Æ 2 6 -2 8 of Marcianopolis in Moesia Inferior obv 20-40 100-150 250-350

Confr. busts of Macrinus, laur. at 1., and Diadume
nian, bare-headed at r. rev Various types. BMC 30ff.
N ote: Some of Diadumenian’s provincial coins, including issues of Alexandria, Antioch and
Hierapolis, name him Sebastos (Augustus).
Julia Maesa
A u g u s ta , A.D. 2 1 8 - 2 2 4 / 5
S is t e r o f J u l ia D o m n a
M o t h e r o f J u l i a S o a e m ia s a n d J u l i a M a m a e a
G ran d m o th er o f E la g a ba lu s an d S everus
A lexa n d er
Augusta: IVLIA MAESA AVG
IVLIA MAESA AVGVSTA
Deified: DIVA MAESA AVG
DIVA MAESA AVGVSTA
Busts are right-facing, draped and/or diademed. Posthumous portraits are some
times veiled.
Julia M aesa (as A ugusta) F VF EF
1907 AV Aureus 10,000- 3 0,000- 75,000-

15,000 50,000 100,000
1908 A R Double'Denarius obv Bust r. on crescent 30-50 70-100 150-200
1910 A R Quinarius 500-800 1750- —

2250
Julia M aesa (as A ugusta) F VF ch V F
1911 Æ Sestertius 3 0-50 250-350 700-

1000
1912 Æ Dupondius or As 3 0-50 150-200 500-800
Julia M aesa (Posthum ous C om m em oratives) F VF EF
1913 A R Denarius 200-300 500-800 —
Julia M aesa (Posthum ous C om m em oratives) F VF ch V F
1914 Æ Sestertius 200-300 500-800 —
Julia M aesa (P rovincial C oinage) F VF EF

Julia Soaemias
A u g u sta, A.D. 2 1 8 - 2 2 2
M o th er of E lag abalus
D a u g h t e r o f J u l ia M a e s a
S is t e r o f J u l i a M a m a e a
Augusta: IVLIA SOAEM IAS AVG
IVLIA SOAEM IAS AVGVSTA
Busts are right-facing, draped and/or diademed.
Julia Soaemias (as A ugusta) F VF EF
1916 AV Aureus 10,000- 30,000- 75,000-

15,000 50,000 100,000
1917 A R Double-Denarius obv Bust r. on crescent — — —
1919 AR Quinarius 500-800 1750- —

2250
Julia Soaemias (as A ugusta) F VF ch V F
1920 Æ Sestertius 70-100 400-600 —
1921 Æ Dupondius or As 30-50 150-200 500-800
Julia Soaemias (Provincial Coinage) F VF EF

Antoninus (called ‘Elagabalus’)*

A .D . 2 1 8 - 2 2 2
S o n o f J u l i a S o a e m ia s
H u s b a n d o f J u l ia P a u l a , A q u il ia S e v e r a a n d
A n n ia F a u s t in a
G r a n d so n o f J u l ia M a e s a
C o u s in o f S e v e r u s A l e x a n d e r
Augustus: A NTONINVS PIVS FEL(IX) AVG
IMP A NTONINVS AVG
IMP ANTONINVS PIVS AVG
IMP CAES ANTONINVS AVG
IMP CAES M AVR A NTONINVS AVG
IMP CAES M AVR A NTONINVS PIVS AVG (especially on Æ )
Note: Elagabalus shares inscriptions with Caracalla, including ANTON-

INVS PIVS FEL AVG and IMP CAES M A VR ANTONINVS AVG.
Except where noted, busts are right-facing, laureate, often draped, cuirassed or
both. His appearance ranges from that of a child to a young man with a close-cut
beard. A ‘horn’ sometimes protrudes from his forehead.
Elagabalus (as A ugustus) F VF EF
1923 AV Aureus 1000- 3 000- 7000-

1500 4500 12,000
1924 — rev CONSERVATOR A VG (V STI) or SA N CT 2000- 7000- 20,000-

DEO SOLI ELAGABAL, slow quadriga r. or 1. bear 3000 10,000 25,000
ing the stone of Emesa, on which is an eagle, shaded
by four umbrellas. RIC 61,64,143.
1925 — rev LIB AVG II (P M T R P II) CO S II P P, 1250- 4000- 10,000-

Elagabalus std. 1. on platform, Liberalitas stg. before, 1750 6000 15,000
citizen on steps. RIC 9-10.
1926 — rev P M T R P III (or V) CO S III (or IIII) P P, 1000- 30 0 0 - 10,000-

Elagabalus driving slow quadriga 1. RIC 35, 54. 1500 5000 15,000
1927 AV Quinarius 1250- 2000- —

1750 3000
1928 A R Double'Denarius obv Rad. bust r. 30-50 70-100 150-200
1930 — rev CO N CORDIA M ILIT or FIDES MILITVM, 15-25 30-50 100-150

legionary eagle(s) betw. two standards. RIC 60ff.
1931 — Sim. to 1924. RIC 62, 144. 150-200 400-650 800-

1200
Elagabalus (as A ugustus) F VF EF
1932 — rev COS III P P, stone of Emesa adorned by eagle — — —

and stars. RIC 176.
1933 — rev FELICITAS TEMP, galley upon waves. RIC 15-25 30-50 100-150
188.
1934 AR Quinarius 250-350 7 00- 2000-

1000 3000
1931
Elagabalus (as A ugustus) F VF ch V F
1935 Æ Sestertius 30-50 250-350 1000-

1500
1936 — rev P M TR P II COS II P P SC, type as 1925. 150-200 1000- —

RIC 289-90. 1500
1937 — rev Sim. to 1926, but SC added. RIC 308ff. 150-200 1000- —
1500
1938 Æ Dupondius obv Often rad. bust r. 30-50 150-200 400-600
1939 Æ As 3 0-50 150-200 400-600
1940 — rev Sim. to 1936. RIC 287, 91. 70-100 500-800 —
1941 — rev Sim. to 1937. RIC 310ff. 70-100 400-600 —
Elagabalus (P rovincial Coinage) F VF EF

Julia Paula
A u g u sta , A.D. 2 19 -2 2 0
F ir s t W if e o f E l a g a b a l u s
Augusta: IVLIA PAVLA AVG

IVLIA PAVLA AVGVSTA
Julia Paula (as A ugusta) F VF EF
1944 AV Aureus 10,000- 30,000- —

15,000 50,000
1946 A R Quinarius 900- 2000- 4000-
1200 3000 6000
Julia Paula (as A ugusta) F VF ch V F
1947 Æ Sestertius 900- 1750- 5000-

1200 2250 8000
1948 Æ Dupondius or As 100-150 400-600 900-
1200
Julia Paula (P rovincial Coinage) F VF EF

4o 6 c o i n a g e o f t h e r o m a n e m p ir e : c a t a l o g a n d t a b l e s o f v a l u e
Aquilia Severa
A u g u sta, A.D. 2 2 0 -2 2 1 & 2 2 1 -2 2 2
V e s t a l V ir g in
S ec o n d a n d F o u r t h W if e o f E l a g a b a l u s
O bverse inscription:
Augusta: IVLIA AQVILIA SEVERA AVG
Aquilia Severa (as A ugusta) F VF EF
Aquilia Severa (as A ugusta) F VF ch V F
1951 Æ Sestertius 500-800 1250- —

1750
1952 Æ Dupondius or As 300-400 900- —

1200
A quilia Severa (P rovincial Coinage) F VF EF
Annia Faustina
A u g u sta, A.D. 2 2 1
T h ir d W i f e o f E l a g a b a l u s
Augusta: ANNIA FAVSTINA AVG (on AR)
ANNIA FAVSTINA AVGVSTA (on Æ )
A nn ia Fau stina (as A ugusta) F VF EF
1954 AR Denarius rev CONCORDIA, Elagabalus and 7000- 15,000- 5 0,000-

Annia Faustina stg., clasping hands, star betw. RIC 10,000 20,000 75,000
232.
A nnia Fau stina (as A ugusta) F VF ch V F
1955 Æ Sestertius As prev., but rev with SC in ex. RIC — — —

399.
A nn ia Fau stina (P rovincial Coinage) F VF EF
1956 Æ 29 of Ephesus in Ionia rev Elagabalus and Arte 200-300 500-800 —

mis stg. SNG von Aulock 1908.
1957 Æ 23 of Hierapolis in Phrygia rev Wreath with 150-200 400-600 —

three-line inscr. A KTI A. BMC 148.
1958 Billon Tetradrachm of Alexandria. Illustrated 200-300 400-600 700-

p. 406. 1000
Julia Mamaea
A u g u sta , 2 2 2 -2 3 5
M oth er of S everus A lexa n d er

D a u g h t e r o f J u l ia M a e s a
S is t e r o f J u l i a S o a e m e i a s
N ie c e o f J u l i a D o m n a a n d S e p t im i u s S e v e r u s
Augusta: IVLIA MAMAEA AVG
IVLIA MAMAEA AVGVSTA
Except where noted, busts are right-facing, draped and/or diademed
Julia M am aea (as A ugusta) F VF EF
1959 AV Aureus 4000- 10,000- 20,000-

6000 15,000 30,000
1962 AR Quinarius 400-600 1500- 3000-

2000 5000
Julia M am aea (as A ugusta) F VF ch V F
1963 Æ Sestertius 200-300 150-200 400-600
1964 Æ Dupondius obv Bust often on crescent 20-40 150-200 300-400
1965 Æ As 20-40 150-200 300-400
1966 — obv Bust 1. 70-100 250-350 700-

1000
Julia M am aea (Provincial Coinage) F VF EF
Julia M amaea (Provincial Coinage) F VF ch V F
Severus Alexander, A .D . 2 2 2 -2 3 5
C a e s a r: A.D. 2 2 1 - 2 2 2
(u n d er E lagab alus)
S o n o f J u l ia M a m a e a
H u s b a n d o f O r b ia n a
G r a n d so n o f J u l ia M a e s a
N e p h e w o f J u l i a S o a e m ia s
C o u s in o f E l a g a b a l u s
Caesar: M AVREL ALEXANDER CAES ( a .d . 221-222)
M AVR ALEXANDER CAES ( a .d . 221-222)
Augustus: IMP ALEXANDER PIVS AVG ( a .d . 231-235)
IMP C M AVR SEV ALEXAND AVG ( a .d . 222-228)
IMP CAES M AVR SEV ALEXANDER AVG ( a .d . 222-228)
IMP SEV ALEXAND AVG ( a .d . 228-231)
IMP SEV ALEXANDER AVG ( a .d . 228-231)
As Caesar, busts are right-facing, bare-headed, draped and sometimes also cui
rassed. As Augustus, except where noted, busts are right-facing, laureate, often
cuirassed and/or draped. His appearance ranges from that of a child to a young man
with a close-cut beard.
Severus A lexand er (as C aesar) F VF EF
1969 AV Aureus 4 000- 15,000- —

6000 20,000
1970 A R Denarius 70-100 200-300 500-800
Severus A lexand er (as C aesar) F VF ch V F
1971 Æ Sestertius 500-800 2000- —

3000
1972 Æ As 200-300 900- —

1200
Severus A lexand er (as A ugustu s) F VF EF
1973 AV Aureus 900- 1500- 3000-

1200 2000 5000
1974 — rev LIBERALITAS A VGVSTI, emperor std. 1. 2000- 4000- 10,000-

on platform, Liberalitas stg. before, citizen on steps. 3000 6000 15,000
R IC 150.
1975 — rev P M T R P V COS II P P, the Nyphaeum Alex- 5000- 10,000- 30,000-

andri rendered as archway on portico. RIC 58. 8000 15,000 50,000
1976 — rev P M T R P II CO S P P, the Colosseum (Fla 10,000- 20,000- 80,000-

vian Amphitheater), portico and temple fascade at 15,000 30,000 100,000
sides, cf. RIC 33.
1977 AV Quinarius 1000- 2000- 4000-

1500 3000 6000
1978 A R Denarius Illustrated p. 408. 15-25 30-50 70-100
1979 — rev V O TIS VICENNALIBVS in wreath. RIC 50-75 200-250 400-600

261.
1980 A R Quinarius 400-600 900- 2000-

1200 3000
Severus A lexand er (as A ugustus) F VF ch V F
1981 Æ Sestertius 20-40 50-75 200-300
1982 — rev PROFECTIO AVGVSTI SC, emperor r. on 50-75 250-350 7 00-

horseback, led by Victory. RIC 596. 1000
1983 — rev P M T R P VIII CO S III P P SC, emperor 70-100 300-400 900-

driving slow quadriga r. RIC 495-6. 1200
1984 — rev PONTIF MAX T R P II CO S P P SC, the 7000- 30,000-

Colosseum (Flavian Amphitheater), gladiators 10,000 50,000
within, stg. figs. and meta at sides. RIC 410.
1985 — rev PONTIF MAX (or P M) T R P V C O S II P P 1000- 4000- —

SC, the Nyphaeum Alexandri. RIC 449, 53. 1500 6000
1987 Æ As 15-25 50-75 200-300
1988 — rev IOVI VLTORI P M T R P III CO S P P SC, 300-400 1000-

hexastyle temple of Jupiter Ultor, his statue within. 1500
R I C 413.
1989 — rev As 1985. RIC 448, 50. 900- 2000- —

1200 3000
1990 — rev Sim. to 1983. RIC 448, 52, 98. 50-75 200-300 400-600
S everu s A le x a n d e r (P o sth u m o u s C o m m em o rativ es)

See the divi issues of Trajan Decius.
Severus A lexander (Provincial Coinage) F VF EF
1992 — As prev., but struck on ‘medallic’ planchet. 30-50 150-200 400-600
Severus A lexander (Provincial Coinage) F VF ch V F
Orbiana
A u g u sta, A.D. 2 2 5 - 2 2 7
W if e o f S e v e r u s A l e x a n d e r
D a u g h t e R 'IN 'L a w o f J u l i a M a m a e a
Augusta: SALL BARBIA ORBIAN A AVG
Busts are right'facing, diademed and draped.
O rbiana (as A ugusta) F VF EF
1994 AV Aureus 7000- 30,000- 75,000-

10,000 50,000 125,000
O rb ian a (as A u g u sta ) F VF ch V F
1997 Æ Sestertius 100-150 400-600 1500-

2000
1998 Æ As 100-150 300-400 1000-

1500
O rbiana (P rovincial Coinage) F VF EF

1000
CH A PTER SEVEN
C ris is a n d D e c lin e
a .d . 2 3 5 - 2 6 8
Maximinus I
‘T h r a x , ’ A .D . 2 3 5 - 2 3 8
H u s b a n d o f P a u l in a
F a t h e r o f M a x im u s
Augustus: IMP MAXIMINVS PIVS AVG
MAXIMINVS PIVS AVG GERM
Except where noted, busts are right^facing, laureate, draped and sometimes cui'
rassed.
M axim inus I (as A ugustus) F VF EF
2000 AV Aureus 5000- 20,000- 50,000+

8000 30,000
2003 — rev V IC TO R IA GERM, Victory stg. L., captive 20-40 50-75 100-150
at feet. RIC 23.
2004 — rev V O TIS DECENNALIBVS in wreath. RIC 30-50 100-150 250-350

17.
M axim inus I (as A ugustus) F VF chV F
2006 Æ Sestertius 20-40 100-150 250-350
2007 — rev V IC TO R IA GERM ANICA SC, Victory 30-50 200-300 500-800

crowning emperor, captive at his feet. RIC 70.
2009 Æ As 20-40 150-200 300-400
M axim inus I (P rovincial Coinage) F VF EF
411
Paulina
W if e o f M a x im in u s I
M o t h e r o f M a x im u s
Deified: DIVA PAVLINA
Busts are right-facing, veiled and draped.
Paulina (Posthum ous Com m em oratives) F VF EF
2011 AV Aureus rev CON SECRATIO, Paulina reel. 1. — — —

on peacock heavenbound r. RIC 2.
2012 A R Denarius rev As prev. RIC 2. Illustrated above. 100-150 200-300 400-600
2013 — rev — , peacock stg. facing. RIC 1. 100-150 250-350 500-800
Paulina (Posthum ous C om m em oratives) F VF ch V F
2014 Æ Sestertius rev CON SECRA TIO SC, type as 150-200 400-600 1000-
2011. RIC 3. 1500
2015 — rev — , Diana stg. in biga r., hldg. torch. RIC 4. 200-300 900- —
1200
Paulina (P rovincial Coinage) F VF ch V F
2016 Æ 2 5 of Anazarbus in Cilicia obv 0 EAN 70-100 250-350 400-600

nAVAEINAN CEB, dr. bust r. rev ANAZ ENA
MHTPO, crescent and seven stars, BT above, ET
ANC (yr.254=235/6) below. SNG Levante 1482.
Maximus
C a e s a r: A .D . 2 3 5 /6 - 2 3 8
(u n d er M axim in u s I)
S o n o f M a x im in u s I and P a u l in a
Caesar: C IVL VERVS MAXIMVS CAES
IVL VERVS MAXIMVS CAES
M AXIMVS CAES GERM
M AXIM VS CA ESA R GERM

CRISIS AND DECLINE 413
Busts are right'facing, bare-headed, draped and shown slightly from behind.
M axim us (as C aesar) F VF EF
2017 AV Aureus — — —
2018 A R Denarius. Illustrated p. 412. 70-100 150-200 300-400
M axim us (as C aesar) F VF ch V F
2020 Æ Sestertius 50-75 150-200 400-600
2021 — rev PIETAS AVG SC, sacrificial implements. 50-75 150-200 700-
R IC 6 , 8. 1000
2022 Æ Dupondius or As 50-75 150-200 400-600
M axim us (P rovincial Coinage) F VF EF
Gordian I, A .D . 2 3 8
(C o -e m p e ro r w ith G o rd ian I I )
F a t h e r o f G o r d ia n II
G r a n d f a t h e r o f G o r d ia n III
Augustus: IMP CAES M A N T G ORD IA N VS AFR AVG
IMP M A N T GORD IAN VS AFR AVG

Note: These inscriptions were also used by Gordian II.
Gordian I (as A ugustus) F VF EF
2024 AV Aureus 15,000- 50,000' —

20,000 75,000
2025 A R Denarius. Illustrated above. 4 00-600 1000- 2000-

1500 3000
G ordian I (as A ugustus) F VF ch V F
2026 Æ Sestertius 400-600 1250- 3000-

1750 5000
G ordian I (P rovincial Coinage) F VF EF

1750
Gordian II, A .D . 2 3 8
(C o -e m p e ro r w ith G o rd ian I)
S o n o f G o r d ia n I
U n c l e o f G o r d ia n III
Augustus: IMP CAES M AN T GORDIANVS AFR AVG
IMP M A N T GORDIANVS AFR AVG

N ote: These inscriptions were also used by Gordian I.
Gordian II (as A ugustus) F VF EF
2028 A R Denarius. Illustrated above. 400-600 1000- 2000-

1500 3000
G ordian II (as A ugustus) F VF ch V F
2029 Æ Sestertius 400-600 1250- 3000-

1750 5000
G ordian II (Provincial Coinage) F VF EF

1750 3000
Pupienus, A .D . 2 3 8
(C o -e m p e ro r w ith B alb in u s)
Augustus: IMP C M CLOD PVPIENVS AVG (on denarii)
IMP CAES M CLOD PVPIENVS AVG (on double-denarii and æs)
IMP CAES PVPIEN MAXIMVS AVG (on double-denarii and æs)

CRISIS AND DECLINE 4 15
Except where noted, busts are right-facing, laureate, draped and cuirassed and
shown slightly from behind.
Pupienus (as A ugustus) F VF EF
2031 AV Aureus 15,000- 50,000- —

20,000 75,000

p. 414.
2033 — rev PATRES SENATVS, clasped hands. RIC 11. 100-150 200-300 500-800
2034 A R Denarius 100-150 200-300 400-600
Pupienus (as A ugustus) F VF ch V F
2035 Æ Sestertius 100-150 300-400 900-

1200
2036 — rev LIBERALITAS AVGVSTORVM SC, Balbi- 300-400 900- 2000-

nus, Pupienus and Gordian III std. 1. on platform, 1200 3000
soldier stg. behind, Liberalitas stg. before, citizen
approaching. RIC 13-4.
2037 — rev V O TIS DECENN ALIBVS SC in wreath. 300-400 900- 1750-

RIC 18. 1200 2250
2038 Æ Dupondius obv Rad. bust r. 400-600 1500- —

2000
2039 Æ As 400-600 1250- —

1750
Pupienus (P rovincial Coinage) F VF EF

1500
Pupienus (P rovincial Coinage) F VF ch V F
2041 Æ 34 of Tarsus in Cilicia obv Bust r. of Pupienus rev 200-300 500-800

Busts of Balbinus (at 1.), Pupienus (at r.) and Gord
ian III (ctr.). Note: A companion issue was struck
for Balbinus.
T he values are estimates for conservatively graded, essentially problem-free

4l6 c o i n a g e o f THE ROMAN em p ire: CATALOG a n d TABLES OF VALUE
Balbinus, A .D . 2 3 8
(C o -e m e p e ro r w ith P u p ien u s)
Augustus: IMP C D CAEL BALBINVS AVG (on denarii)
IMP CAES D CAEL BALBINVS AVG (on double-denarii and æs)
Except where noted, busts are right-facing, laureate, draped and cuirassed and
shown slightly from the front.
Balbinus (as A ugustus) F VF EF
2042 AV Aureus 15,000- 50,000- —

20,000 75,000

above.
2044 A R Denarius 100-150 200-300 400-600
2045 — rev V O TIS DECENNALIBVS in wreath. RIC-. 150-200 300-400 900-

1200
Balbinus (as A ugustus) F VF ch V F
2047 Æ Sestertius 100-150 300-400 900-

12 00
2048 — rev LIBERALITAS AVGVSTORVM SC, Balbi 300-400 900- 2000-

nus, Pupienus and Gordian III std. 1. on platform, 1200 3000
soldier stg. behind, Liberalitas stg. before, citizen
approaching. RIC 14-5.
2049 — rev As 2045, but SC added. RIC 20. 300-400 900- 1 750-
1200 2250
2050 Æ Dupondius obv Rad. bust r. 400-600 1500- —

2000
2051 Æ As 400-600 1250- —

1750
Balbinus (P rovincial Coinage) F VF EF
2052 Billon Tetradrachm of Alexandria 200-300 5 00-800 1000-

1500
CRISIS A N D D EC LIN E 417
Gordian III, A .D . 2 3 8 - 2 4 4
C a e s a r: A.D. 2 3 8
(u n d er B alb in u s and P u p ien u s)
A u g u s tu s: A.D. 2 3 8 - 2 4 4
G r a n d s o n o f G o r d ia n I
N e p h e w o f G o r d ia n II
A d o pt e d s u c c e s s o r o f B a l b in u s a n d P u p ie n u s
H u s b a n d o f T r a n q u il l in a
Caesar: M A N T GORD IA N VS CAES ( a .d . 238)
Augustus: IMP CAES GORD IA N VS PIVS AVG ( a .d . 238-240)
IMP C(A ES) M A N T G ORDIANVS AVG ( a .d . 240)
IMP GORD IAN VS PIVS FEL AVG ( a .d . 240-244)
As Caesar, busts are right-facing, bare-headed and draped. As Augustus, except

where noted, busts are right-facing, laureate, draped and/or cuirassed.
G ordian III (as C aesar) F VF EF
2053 AR Denarius rev PIETAS AVGG, display of 70-100 200-300 400-600

priestly implements. RIC 1.
2053
Gordian III (as C aesar) F VF ch V F
2054 Æ Sestertius rev LIBERALITAS A V G VSTO RVM 150-200 400-600 1000-

SC, Liberalitas stg. 1. RIC 2. 1500
2055 — rev As 2053, but with SC added in ex. RIC 3. 150-200 400-600 1000-
1500
Gordian III (as A ugustus) F VF EF
2056 AV Aureus. Illustrated above. 70 0 - 1500- 4000-

1000 2000 6000
2057 AV Quinarius 900- 1750- 4000-

1200 2250 6000
2058 A R Double-Denarius obv Rad. bust r. 5-15 15-25 20-40
2059 — obv Rad. bust 1. 15-25 70-100 150-200

G ordian III (as A ugustus) F VF EF
2060 — rev V O T IS DECENNABILIS in wreath. RIC 14. 15-25 70-100 150-200
2061 A R Denarius 15-25 20-40 50-75
2062 A R Quinarius 200-300 500-800 1250-

1750
Gordian III (as A ugustus) F VF ch V F
2063 Æ Medallion ( 38 mm) rev MVNIFICIENTIA 4000- 15,000- 30 ,0 0 0 -

GORDIAN I AVG, the Colosseum (Flavian 6000 20,000 50,000
Amphitheater), animal combat within, flanked by
statue of Fortuna and Meta Sudans.
2064 Æ Sestertius 20-40 50-75 200-300
2065 — rev A D LOCVTIO AVGVSTI SC, Gordian, on 200-300 900- 1500-

platform, addressing three soldiers, standards and 1200 2000
horse behind. RIC 313a-b.
2066 — rev AETERNITAS AVGVSTI SC, Gordian r. on 50-75 200-300 400-600

horseback, hldg. globe. RIC 314.
2067 — rev P M T R P II CO S P P SC, Gordian, hldg. 50-75 200-300 500-800

scepter, driving quadriga 1. RIC 276a.
2068 — rev V O TIS DECENNLIBVS SC in wreath. RIC 100-150 500-800 1000-

263a. 1500
2070 Æ As 15-25 50-75 200-300
2071 — obv Bust 1. 70-100 300-400 —
2072 — rev As 2067. RIC 276b. 20-40 100-150 300-400
2073 — rev V IRTVS AVGVSTI SC, Gordian std. 1. on 100-150 300-400 900-
cuirass, receiving branch from Virtus, stg. before, 1200
and being crowned by Victory, stg. behind; stan-
dards in ctr. RIC 326.
G ordian III (P rovincial Coinage) F VF EF
2074 A R or Billon Tetradrachm of Antioch 30-50 70-100 2 00-300
2075 Billon Tetradrachm of Alexandria issued as Caesar 70-100 300-400 500-800
2076 — Issued as Augustus 15-25 70-100 150-200
G ordian III (P rovincial Coinage) F VF ch V F
2077 Æ 2 S of Edessa, with King Agbar X. obv Bust r. of 20-40 70-100 150-200
Gordian rev Bust 1. of Agbar X. BMC 144ff.
Tranquillina
A u g u s ta , A.D. 2 4 1 - 2 4 4
W i f e o f G o r d ia n III
Augusta: SABINIA TRANQVILLINA AVG
Except where noted, busts are right^facing, diademed and draped.
Tranquillina (as A ugusta) F VF EF
2078 A R Double-Denarius obv Bust r. on crescent. 1500- 3000- 50 0 0 -

Illustrated above. 2000 5000 8000
2079 A R Denarius 2000- 5 000- 10,000-

3000 8000 15,000
T ran q u illin a (as A u g u sta ) F VF ch V F
2081 Æ Sestertius 30 0 0 - 10,000- —

5000 15,000
2082 Æ Dupondius obv Bust r. on crescent 1500- 5 000- 10,000-

2000 8000 15,000
2083 Æ As 1500- 50 0 0 - 10,000-

2000 8000 15,000
Tranquillina (P rovincial Coinage) F VF EF

Philip I ‘the Arab/

A .D . 2 4 4 -2 4 9
A u g u stu s: A.D. 2 4 4 - 2 4 9
(A .D . 2 4 4 - 2 4 7 : sole reig n )
(A .D . 2 4 7 - 2 4 9 : w ith P hilip I I )
H u s b a n d o f O t a c il ia S e v e r a
F a t h e r o f P h i l i p II
S o n o f J u l i u s M a r in u s
Augustus: IMP M IVL PHILIPPVS AVG ( a .d . 244-247)
IMP PHILIPPVS AVG ( a .d . 247-249)
Except where noted, busts are right-facing, laureate, draped and/or cuirassed.
Philip I (as A ugustus) F VF EF
2085 AV Aureus 1500- 40 0 0 - 15,000-

2000 6000 20,000

above.
2088 — obv Rad. bust 1. 50-75 70-100 100-150
2089 — rev AETERNITAS AVGG, rider on elephant 1. 15-25 3 0-50 70-100

R IC 58.
2090 — rev FELICITAS IMP P in wreath. RIC 84. 15-25 3 0-50 70-100
2091 — rev PAX FVNDATA CVM PERSIS, Pax stg. 1. 30-50 70-100 100-150
RIC 69.
2092 — rev SAECVLARES AVGG, with a lion, she-wolf 15-25 30-50 70-100
and twins, gazelle, antelope, goat or a stag. RIC 12ff.
2093 — rev V IC TO R IA CARPICA, Victory adv. r. RIC 70-100 200-300 400-600

6 6.
2094 A R Denarius 500-800 1250- 4000-

1750 6000
2095 A R Quinarius 500-800 1250- 3000-

1750 5000
Philip I (as A ugustus) F VF ch V F
2096 Æ Sestertius 20-40 50-75 200-300
2097 — rev ADVENTVS AVGG SC, Philip on horse 50-75 150-200 400-600
back r. RIC 165.
2098 — rev As 2089, but SC added. RIC 167a. 50-75 150-200 4 00-600
CRISIS AND DECLINE 42 I
Philip I (as A ugustus) F VF ch V F
2099 — rev FIDES EXERCITVS SC, four standards. RIC 50-75 150-200 400-600
171a.
2100 — rev MILIARVM SAECVLVM SC, column 50-75 150-200 400-600

inscribed CO S III. RIC 157a.
2101 — rev As 2092 but SC added; with a lion, she-wolf 50-75 150-200 400-600
and twins, antelope, stag or temple. RIC 158ff.
2102 — rev V O TIS DECENNA LIBVS SC, in wreath. 50-75 200-300 500-800
RIC 195a.
2104 Æ As 15-25 50-75 200-300
— rev As 2098. RIC 167b. 50-75 150-200 400-600
Philip I (P rovincial Coinage) F VF EF
2105 Billon Tetradrachm of Antioch 20-40 50-75 100-150
Philip I (P rovincial Coinage) F VF ch V F
2107 Æ Drachm of Alexandria 70-100 200- 400-

300 600
2108 Æ 35 of Apameia in Phrygia rev E ll M A VP 1500- 40 0 0 - 15,000-

AAESANAPOV B A n X I A11AMEQN, Noah and 2000 6000 20,000
his wife shown outside and inside of Noah’s Ark inscr.
NQE, dove with olive branch flying above. BMC 182.
Otacilia Severa
A u g u sta , A.D. 2 4 4 - 2 4 9
W if e o f P h il ip I
M o t h e r o f P h i l i p II
Augusta: M ARC OTACIL SEVERA AVG ( a .d . 244-245)
M ARCIA O TACIL(IA) SEVERA AVG ( a .d . 244-245)
M OTACIL SEVERA AVG ( a .d . 245-247)
OTACIL SEVERA AVG ( a .d . 247-249)

O tacilia Severa (as A ugusta) F VF EF
2109 AV Aureus 1500- 4000- 15,000-

2000 6000 20,000
2110 A R Double-Denarius obv Bust r. on crescent 5-15 15-25 20-40
2111 — rev FECVNDITAS TEMPORVM, Tellus reel r., 200-300 1000-

offering olive branch to child, another child at side. 1500
RIC 132.
2112 — rev SAECVLARES AVGG, hippopotamus. RIC 15-25 30-50 70-100

116b. Illustrated p . 421.
2113 AR Denarius 1500- 7000- —

2000 10,000
2114 A R Quinarius 700- 2000- —

1000 3000
O tacilia Severa (as A ugusta) F VF ch V F
2115 Æ Sestertius 20-40 50-75 200-300
2116 — rev MILIARVM SAECVLVM SC or SAECV 50-75 150-200 400-600

LARES AVGG SC, column. RIC 199a, 202a.
2117 — rev As 2112, but SC added. RIC 200a. 50-75 150-200 400-600
2118 Æ Dupondius obv Bust r. on crescent 15-25 50-75 200-300
2119 Æ As 15-25 50-75 200-300
2120 — rev As 2116. RIC 199b, 202b. 50-75 150-200 400-600
O tacilia Severa (Provincial Coinage) F VF EF
O ta cilia S ev era (P ro v in cia l C o in ag e) F VF ch V F
T h e values are estimates for conservatively graded, essentially problem-free

Philip II, A.D. 247-249

C a e s a r: A.D. 2 4 4 - 2 4 7
(u n d er P hilip I )
A u g u s tu s: A.D. 2 4 7 -2 4 9
(w ith P hilip I)
S o n o f P h il ip I a n d O t a c il ia S e v e r a
G r a n d s o n o f J u l i u s M a r in u s
Caesar: M IVL PHILIPPVS CAES ( a .d . 244-247)
M IVL PHILIPPVS NOBIL CAES ( a .d . 244-247)
Augustus: IMP CA ES M IVL PHILIPPVS AVG ( a .d . 247-249)
IMP M IVL PHILIPPVS AVG ( a .d . 247)
IMP PHILIPPVS AVG ( a .d . 247-249)
As Caesar, except where noted, busts are right-facing, bare-headed and draped. As
Augustus, except where noted, busts are right-facing, laureate, draped and cui
rassed.
Philip II (as C aesar) F VF EF
2124 AV Aureus 1500- 4000- 15,000-

2000 6000 20,000
2125 AR Double-Denarius obv Rad. bust r. 5-15 15-25 20-40
2126 — obv Rad. bust 1. 50-75 70-100 100-150
2127 — rev PIETAS AVG VSTOR, sacrificial imple 15-25 3 0-50 70-100
ments. RIC 215.
2128 AR Denarius 500-800 1250- 3000-

1750 5000
2129 A R Quinarius 500-800 1250- 3000-

1750 5000
Philip II (as C aesar) F VF ch V F
2130 Æ Sestertius 20-40 50-75 200-300
2131 — obv Bust 1. rev PRIN C IPIIV V EN TV TIS SC, 500-800 1250- 4000-
Philip II stg. L, hldg. standard and spear. RIC 258c. 1750 6000
2132 Æ Dupondius or As 15-25 50-75 200-300

Philip II (as A ugustus) F VF EF
2133 AV Aureus 1500- 40 0 0 - 15,000-

2000 6000 20,000

p. 423.
2135 — obv Bust 1. 50-75 70-100 100-150
2136 — rev AETERNITAS AVGG, rider on elephant r. 15-25 30-50 70-100

RIC 246A.
2137 — rev FELICITAS IMP P in wreath. RIC 242,7. 15-25 30-50 70-100
2138 — rev P M T R P VI COS P P, lion r. or I. RIC 238- 15-25 30-50 70-100

9.
2139 AR Denarius 500-800 1250- 4000-

1750 6000
2140 AR Quinarius 500-800 1250- 3000-

1750 5000
Philip II (as A ugustus) F VF ch V F
2141 Æ Sestertius 20-40 50-75 200-300
2142 — rev SAECVLARES AVGG, goat stg. r., or 50-75 150-200 400-600
column inscr. CO S II. RIC 264a,65a.
2144 Æ As 15-25 50-75 200-300
2145 — rev V O TIS DECENNALIBVS SC in wreath. 30-50 150-200 300-400

RIC 269.
Philip II (P rovincial Coinage) F VF EF
Philip II (P rovincial Coinage) F VF ch V F

Julius Marinus
F a t h e r o f P h il ip I
G r a n d f a t h e r o f P h i l i p II
Deified: 0 E H MAPINQ
Ju liu s M arin u s (P o sth u m o u s C o m m em o rativ e s) F VF ch V F
2149 Æ 3 0 of Philippopolis in Arabia Petraea obv Bare' 1250- 4000-

headed, dr. bust r. of Julius Marinus, supported by 1750 6000
eagle stg. r, wings raised rev Roma std. 1. on shield,
hldg. spear and eagle supported by two small figs.,
SC in field. BM C'.
2150 Æ 2 2 -2 4 — . obv Sim. to prev. rev Roma stg. 1., hldg. 900- 2000-
patera and spear, shield at feet, SC in field. BMC 2. 1200 3000
Illustrated above.
2151 — obv Sim. to prev., but eagle larger and full-facing 900- 2000-
rev As prev., but no SC in field. BMC 1. 1200 3000
Note: The values stated are for lightly porous specimens.
Silbannacus, c. A .D . 2 4 8 ( 7 )
Silbannacus (as A ugustus) F VF EF
2152 AR Double-Denarius obv IMP MAR SIL'

BAN NACVS AVG, rad. and cuir, bust r. rev V IC '
TO RI A AVG, Mercury stg. 1., hldg. Victory and
caduceus. RIC IV, pt. Ill, p. 105, 1.
Sponsianus, c . A .D . 2 4 8 ( 7 )
Sponsianus (as A ugustus) F VF EF
2153 AV Aureus obv IMP SPONSIANI, rad. hd. r. rev C

AVG, two stg. togate men flanking column sur'
mounted by statue, with bells above to 1. and r., and
grain ears below; man on r. holds lituus, man on 1.
an uncertain object. RIC IV, pt. Ill, p. 106, 1.
Pacatian, c. A.D. 248-249(2)
Augustus: IMP TI CL MAR PAC ATI AN VS AVG
IMP TI CL MAR PAC ATI AN VS P F AV(G)
Busts are right-facing, bearded, radiate, draped and cuirassed.
P acatian (as A ugustus) F VF EF
2154 A R Double-Denarius. Illustrated above. 1000- 2000- 50 0 0 -

1500 3000 8000
2155 — rev ROMAE AETER AN MIL ET PRIMO, 1500- 50 0 0 - —

Roma std. 1., hldg. spear and Victory. RIC 6. 2000 8000
Jotapian, c. A.D. 248-249(7)
Augustus: IMP C M F RV IOTAPIANVS
IMP M F R IOTAPIANVS (A)
IMP M F RV IOTAPIANVS AV
Busts are right-facing, bearded, radiate and cuirassed.
Jotapian (as A ugustus) F VF EF
2156 A R Double-Denarius rev VIC TO R IA AVG, V ic 2000- 50 0 0 - 15,000-

tory adv. r. or 1., hldg. wreath and palm branch. RIC 3000 8000 20,000
1-2. Illustrated above.
Trajan Decius, A .D . 2 4 9 -2 5 1
A u g u s tu s: A .D . 2 4 9 - 2 5 1
(A .D . 2 4 9 - 2 5 1 : sole reign )
(A .D . 2 5 1 : w ith H e re n n iu s
E tru s c u s and H o stilia n )
H u s b a n d o f H e r e n n ia E t r u s c il l a
F a t h e r o f H e r e n n i u s E t r u s c u s a n d H o s t il ia n
Augustus: IMP C M Q TRA IA N VS DECIVS AVG (AV, AR and Æ )
IMP CAES C MESS Q DECIO TRA I AVG (Æ only)
IMP CAES C MESS TRA I Q DECIO AVG (Æ only)
IMP TRA IA N VS DEC(IVS) AVG (AV and AR only)
Trajan D ecius (as A ugustus) F VF EF
2157 AV Aureus 7 00- 1250- 3000-

1000 1750 5000

above.
2159 — rev Types depicting Dacia, the Genius of Illyria, 5-15 15-25 30 -5 0
Pannonia or the Two Pannoniae. RIC 2ff.
2160 — rev V O TIS DECENN ALI B VS in wreath. RIC 15-25 70-100 150-200
30.
2161 A R Denarius 900- 1500- 4000-

1200 2000 6000
2162 A R Quinarius 300-400 900- 1500-

1200 2000
Trajan D ecius (as A ugustus) VF chV F
2163 Æ Double-Sestertius obv Rad. bust r. 200-300 500-800 2000-

3000
2164 Æ Sestertius 20-40 50-75 200-300
2165 — rev Sim. to 2159. RIC 10Iff. 20-40 50-75 250-350
2166 — rev LIBERALITAS AVG SC, Decius std. 1. on 100-150 300-400 700-
platform, upon which Liberalitas and soldier stand, 1000
citizen approaching. RIC 106,21.
2167 — rev As 2160, but SC added. RIC 110a,b. 50-75 150-200 400-600

Trajan D ecius (as A ugustus) F VF ch V F
2169 Æ As 15-25 50-75 200-300
2170 Æ Semis (or Reduced As) rev SC flanking Mars, 20-40 100-150 200-300
stg. 1., hldg. spear, resting against shield. RIC 128.
2172
T rajan D ecius (Provincial Coinage) F VF EF
T h e divi s e r ie s o f T r a j a n D e c iu s
T h e reasons Decius chose to honor these eleven emperors (and to omit others) on
his divi series is still puzzling to numismatists and historians. W hatever the criteria
for selection, the series reflects Decius’ effort to restore cult worship of the deified
emperors, and to recall the glory days of Rome just as the Empire was entering its
darkest age. It seems no mere coincidence that another diversified series of divi
coinage was struck nearly 150 years before by Trajan, the emperor whose surname
Decius was received from the senate upon his accession (and that the double-
denarii honoring Trajan are among the most common in the series). Some
researchers have speculated that Decius hoped the new, interesting designs would
divert attention from the dwindling silver content of the coins. By the time of this
issue, c. A .D . 250/1, the double-denarius had been so greatly reduced that it had no
more silver than a Severan denarius. Though formerly attributed to M ilan, the
series is now securely assigned to Rome. Occasionally, divi obverses are muled with
standard reverse dies used by Trajan Decius and Trebonianus Gallus (see R IC nos.
99-100).
The obverse always bears the image of the deified emperior named; the image is
always radiate, though it sometimes is a head or a bust, in which case it may be
draped and/or cuirassed, or may have slight drapery at the shoulder. T he reverse is
always inscribed C O N SE C R A T IO and features one of two types: a) eagle with
open wings, standing front, head right, or b) flaming altar with four panels, some
times with horns on top. R IC references are to the listings of Trajan Decius, vol. IV,
part III, pp. 130-2.
2182
Trajan D ecius (the divi series) F VF EF
2173 A R Double-Denarius. Augustus obv DIVO 50-75 100-150 200-300

A V G V ST O rev Eagle. RIC 77.
2174 — As prev., but rev Altar. RIC 78. 50-75 100-150 200-300
2175 — . Vespasian obv DIVO VESPASIANO rev Eagle. 50-75 150-200 200-300
RIC 79.
2177 — . Titus obv DIVO T IT O rev Eagle. RIC 81a,b. 50-75 150-200 200-300
2178 — As prev., but rev Altar. RIC 82b,a. 50-75 150-200 200-300
2179 — . Nerva obv DIVO N ERV(A)E rev Eagle. RIC 50-75 150-200 250-350
83a,b.
2181 — . Trajan obv DIVO TRA IA N O rev Eagle. RIC 50-75 100-150 200-300
85a, b.
2183 — . Hadrian obv DIVO HADRIANO rev Eagle. 70-100 200-300 400-600
RIC 87.
2185 — . Antoninus Pius obv DIVO PIO rev Eagle. RIC 50-75 100-150 200-300
89.
2187 — . Marcus Aurelius obv DIVO M ARCO 50-75 150-200 250-350

(ANTONIN O) rev Eagle. RIC 91a,b.
2189 — . Commodus obv DIVO COM MODO rev Eagle. 50-75 150-200 200-300
RIC 93.
2191 — . Septimius Severus obv DIVO SEVERO rev 50-75 150-200 250-350
Eagle. RIC 95.
2193 — . Severus Alexander obv DIVO ALEXANDRO 50-75 150-200 200-300

rev Eagle. RIC 97.
Herennia Etruscilla
A u g u sta , A .D . 2 4 9 - 2 5 3 (?)
W i f e o f T r a ja n D e c i u s
M o t h e r o f H e r e n n i u s E t r u s c u s a n d H o s t il ia n
Augusta: HER ETRVSC AVG (AV only)
HER ETRVSCILLA AVG (AR and AV only)
HERENNIA ETRVSCILLA AVG (Æ only)
Except where noted, busts are right-facing, diademed and draped.
H eren n ia E tru scilla (as A ugusta) F VF EF

1200 3500 7500
2196 A R Double-Denarius obv Bust r. on crescent 5-15 20-40 3 0-50
2197 — rev SAECVLVM NOVVM, hexastyle temple, 15-25 70-100 200-300

stg. fig. within. RIC 67a-c.
H e re n n ia E tru sc illa (as A u g u sta) F VF ch V F
2198 Æ Double-Sestertius obv Bust r. on crescent 900- 1750- 4000-

1200 2250 6000
2199 Æ Sestertius 20-40 70-100 250-350
2200 Æ Dupondius obv Bust r. on crescent 20-40 70-100 250-350
2201 Æ As 20-40 70-100 200-300
2200
H eren n ia E tru scilla (Provincial Coinage) F VF EF

CRISIS AND DECLINE 43 I
Herennius Etruscus, A .D . 2 5 1
C a e s a r: A.D. 2 5 0 - 2 5 1 (u n d e r T rajan
D e ciu s, and w ith H o s tilia n (? ))
A u g u s tu s: A.D. 2 5 1 (w ith T rajan
D e c iu s )
S o n o f T r a ja n D e c i u s a n d H e r e n n i a E t r u s c i l l a
B r o t h e r o f H o s t il ia n
Caesar: Q HER ETR MES DECIVS NOB C
HEREN ETRV MES QV DECIVS CAESA R
Augustus: IMP C Q HER R MES DECIO (or DECIVS) AVG
As Caesar, except where noted, busts are right-facing, bare-headed, draped or

draped and cuirassed. As Augustus, except where noted, busts are right-facing,
laureate, draped and cuirassed.
H eren n ius E tru scu s (as C aesar) F VF EF
2204 AV Aureus 2000- 5 000- 15,000-

3000 8000 25,000
2205 AR Double-Denarius obv Rad. bust r. Illustrated 15-25 3 0-50 70-100

above.
2206 AR Denarius — —
'2201 A R Quinarius — — —
H eren n ius E tru scu s (as C aesar) F VF ch V F
2208 Æ Sestertius 30-50 150-200 400-600
2209 Æ Dupondius or As 50-75 400-600 —
H eren n ius E tru scu s (as A ugustus) F VF EF
2210 AV Aureus 2000- 7000- 15,000-

3000 10,000 20,000
2211 AR Double-Denarius obv Rad. bust r. 100-150 400-600 —
H e re n n iu s E tru s c u s (P ro v in c ia l C o in ag e) F VF EF

Hostilian, A .D . 2 5 1
C a e s a r: A.D.
(V ariou sly u n d er T rajan D e ciu s,
H e re n n iu s E tr u c u s (? ) and
T reb on ian u s G a llu s (? ))
A u g u stu s: A.D. 2 5 1
(w ith T reb on ian u s G allu s)
S o n o f T r a ja n D e c i u s a n d H e r e n n i a E t r u s c i l l a
B r o t h e r o f H e r e n n iu s E t r u s c u s
A d o p t iv e s o n o f T r e b o n i a n u s G a l l u s
Caesar: C O V (A )L O STIL MES CO VIN TVS CA ESA R
C VAL H O ST M QVIN T CAES
C VAL H O ST(IL) MES QVIN TVS CAESAR
C VAL (ES) HOS MES Q VIN TVS N C
C VALENS HOSTIL MES Q VIN TVS N C
Augustus: C OVAL OSTIL MES COVIN TVS AVG
IMP C MES Q VIN TVS AVG
IMP CAE C VAL HOS MES Q V IN T(V S) AVG
IMP CAES C VAL H O ST MES Q AVG
IMP CAES C VAL HOSTIL MES QVIN T AVG
Augustus, except where noted, busts are right-facing, laureate, draped and/or cui
rassed.
H ostilian (as C aesar) F VF EF
2214 AV Aureus 2000- 5000- 15,000-

3000 8000 25,000

above.
H ostilian (as C aesar) F VF ch V F
2217 Æ Sestertius 70-100 200-300 400-600
2218 Æ Dupondius or As 150-200 400-600 —
H ostilian (as A ugustus) F VF EF

H ostilian (as A ugustus) F VF ch V F
2220 Æ Sestertius 100-150 250-350 500-800
2221 Æ As 200-300 500-800 —
H ostilian (P rovincial Coinage) F VF EF
Trebonianus Gallus,
A .D .251-253
A u g u s tu s: A .D . 2 5 1 - 2 5 3
(A .D . 2 5 1 : w ith H o stilia n )
(A .D . 2 5 1 - 2 5 3 : w ith
V olu sian )
F a t h e r o f V o l u s ia n
A d o p t iv e f a t h e r o f H o s t il ia n
Augustus: GALLVS PIVS AVG (AR only)
IMP CAE C VIB TREB GALLVS AVG (AV, AR and Æ )
IMP CAES C VIBIVS TREBON IAN VS GALLVS AVG (Æ only)
IMP C C VIB TREB GALLVS P F AVG ( A R of Antioch only)
Except where noted, busts are right-facing, laureate, draped and cuirassed.
T reb o n ian u s G allu s (as A u g u s tu s) F VF EF
2224 AV Heavy Aureus (‘Binio’) obv Rad. bust r. 1000- 3000- 7500-
1500 5000 12,500
2225 AV Aureus 900- 2000- 5000-

1200 3500 7500
2226 AV Light Aureus (or Quinarius) 500-800 1250- 3000-

1750 5000
2228 — obv GALLVS PIVS AVG, bust as prev. RIC 3 0-50 150-200 400-600
46b,8b.
2229 — rev IVNONI MARTIALI, circular distyle tem- 5-15 30 -5 0 100-150

pie, Juno std. within. RIC 54.
T reb on ian u s G allus (as A u g u stu s) F VF EF
2230 — rev SAECVL(L)VM NOVVM, hexastyle tem 5-15 30-50 150-200

ple, Roma(?) std. within. RIC 90-1.
2231 — rev V O TIS DECENN ALIBVS in wreath. RIC 15-25 70-100 150-200
49.
2232 AR Quinarius 200-300 900- 1500-

1200 2000
Trebonianus Gallus (as A ugustus) F VF ch V F
2233 Æ Sestertius. Illustrated p. 433. 20-40 50-75 200-300
2234 — rev APOLL(O) SALVTARI SC, Apollo stg., 20-40 70-100 250-350
hldg. branch and leaning on lyre set on rock. RIC
103-4. Note: Refers to the plague then ravaging the
Empire.

1500
2238 Æ As 20-40 100-150 300-400
Trebonianus Gallus (Provincial Coinage) F VF EF
Volusian, A.D. 251-253

C a e s a r: A.D. 251
(u n d er T reb on ian u s G allus
and H o stilia n )
A u g u stu s: A.D. 251-253
(w ith T reb on ian u s G allu s)
S o n o f T r e b o n ia n u s G a l l u s
Caesar: C VIBIO VOLVSIANO CAES
Augustus: IMP C C VIB VOLVSIANVS AVG
IMP C V AF GAL VEND VOLVSIANO AVG
IMP C VOLVSIANVS AVG
IMP CAE C VIB VOLVSIANO AVG

Augustus, except where noted, busts are right-facing, laureate, draped or draped
and cuirassed.
Volusian (as C aesar) F VF EF
2241 AV Aureus 2000- 5000- 15,000-

3000 8000 20,000
Volusian (as C aesar) F VF ch V F
2244 Æ Sestertius 70-100 200-300 400-600
2245 Æ Dupondius or As 150-200 400-600 —
V olusian (as A ugustus) F VF EF

p. 434.
V olusian (as A ugustus) F VF ch V F
2247 Æ Sestertius 100-150 250-350 500-800
2248 Æ As 200-300 500-800 —
V olu sian (P ro v in c ia l C o in ag e) F VF EF
Aemilian, A .D . 2 5 3
H u s b a n d o f C o r n e l ia S u p e r a
Augustus: IMP AEM ILIANVS P AVG (AR only)
IMP AEM ILIANVS PIVS FEL AVG
IMP CAES AEM ILIANVS P F AVG
IMP M AEMIL AEM ILIANVS P F AVG (AR only)

Except where noted, busts are right'facing, laureate, draped and cuirassed.
A em ilian (as A ugustus) F VF EF
2251 AV Aureus 7 000- 20,000- 75,000+

10,000 30,000

p. 435.

13.
A em ilian (as A ugustus) F VF ch V F
2254 Æ Sestertius 100-150 250-350 7 00-

1000
2255 — rev As 2253, but SC added. RIC 42a,54a. 150-200 400-600 1000-
1500
2256 Æ Dupondius obv Rad. bust r. 200-300 500-800
2257 Æ As 200-300 500-800
Aem ilian (P rovincial Coinage) F VF EF

1000
Cornelia Supera
A u g u sta, A.D. 2 5 3
W i f e o f A e m il ia n
Augusta: C CORNEL SVPERA AVG
CORNEL SVPERA AVG
C O R SVPERA AVG
Busts are right-facing, diademed and draped, resting on crescent.
C orn elia Supera (as A ugusta) F VF EF
2259 A R Double-Denarius. Illustrated above. 1500- 30 0 0 - 70 0 0 -

2000 5000 10,000
C ornelia Supera (P rovincial Coinage) F VF ch V F
2260 Æ 2 0 of Parium in Mysia obv G CORN SVPERA, 150-200 400-600 900-

diad. and dr. bust r. of Cornelia Supera rev Capri 1200
corn r., with cornucopia at shoulder, CGIHP below.
BMC-.
2261 Æ 2 0— . obv As prev. rev DEO AES SVB, Aescu 150-200 400-600 1000-
lapius, at 1., std. r., examining hoof offered by bull, 1500
at r., stg. 1., CGIHP below. BMC-.
2262 Æ 28 of Julia in Phrygia rev Cyblele std. 1., hldg. 200-300 500-800
patera and scepter, resting on drum, lion at feet.
BMC 6 .
2263 Æ 25 of Aegeae in Cilicia rev Domed tetrastyle 200-300 400-600

temple containing eagle, goat below. SNG Lev.
1792.
Uranius Antoninus,
A .D . 2 5 3 - 2 5 4
Usurper: L IVL AVR SVL ANTONINVS
L IVL AVR SVLP ANTONINVS
L IVL AVR SVLP VRA ANTONINVS
AVTOK COVAP ANTcoNINOC CEB (many varieties and abbreviations)
Busts are right- or left-facing, laureate, draped and cuirassed.
U ran iu s A ntoninus (L atin Coinage) F VF EF
2264 AV Aureus 3000- 7000- 15,000-

5000 10,000 22,500
2265 — rev CONSERVATOR AVG, stone of Emesa, dr. 7000- 20,000- 75,000
and ornamented, betw. two umbrellas. RIC 1. 10,000 30,000 +
2266 — rev— , slow quadriga 1. bearing two umbrellas and 7000- 20,000- 50,000
the stone of Emesa, on which is an eagle. RIC 2. 10,000 30,000 +
2267 — rev P M T R P XVIIII CO S IIII P P, rad. lion 1. 4000- 10,000- 20,000-

RIC 6 . 6000 15,000 30,000
U ran iu s A ntoninus (L atin Coinage) F VF EF
2268 — rev SAECVLARES AVGG, column inscr. COS 4 000- 10,000- 20,000-
I. RIC 7. 6000 15,000 30,000
2269 — rev SOL ELAG ABALVS, altar flanked at r. by 7000- 20,000- 75,000
umbrellas and candelabra, and on 1. by stone of 10,000 30,000 +
Emesa with eagle; jug below. RIC 8.
U ran iu s A ntoninus (Provincial Coinage) F VF EF
2270 AR Tetradrachm obv rad., dr. and cuir, bust r. rev 1500- 30 0 0 - 6500-
Various types, SC in field. BMC-. N ote: These large 2000 5000 8500
coins of high-purity silver may have been octa-
drachms rather than tetradrachms, which this
usurper also struck in debased alloy. Illustrated above.
2271 — rev Saddled camel stg. r., SC above. Baldus 28. 1750- 30 0 0 - 6500-
2250 5000 8500
2272 Billon Tetradrachm obv laur., dr. and cuir, bust r. 700- 1500- 3000-
rev Eagle stg., facing, SC in field, EMICA in ex. 1000 2000 5000
BMC 22-3.
2273 — obv Rad., cuir, half-bust 1. hldg. spear and shield 900- 2500- 4000-
rev As prev. Baldus 15. 1200 3500 6000
U ran iu s A ntoninus (Provincial Coinage) F VF ch V F
2274 Æ 3 0 obv Laur., dr. and cuir, bust r. rev Hexastyle 400-600 1250- 2500-
temple of Elagabal at Emesa containing eagle before 1750 3500
stone of Emesa flanked by two umbrellas; EHO (yr.
565 of the Seleucid Era = A.D. 253/4) in ex. BMC
24.
Valerian I, A .D . 2 5 3 - 2 6 0
A u g u stu s: A.D. 2 5 3 - 2 6 0
(w ith G allien u s)
H u s b a n d o f M a r in ia n a
F a t h e r o f G a l l ie n u s
G r a n d f a t h e r o f V a l e r ia n II and
S a l o n in u s
Augustus: IMP C P LIC VALERI AN VS (P F) AVG
IMP VALERI AN VS (P or P F) AVG
VALERIANVS P F AVG
Valerian I (as A ugustus) F VF EF
2275 AV Aureus 1000- 25 0 0 - 7000-

1500 4500 10,000
2276 AV Light Aureus (or Quinarius) 1000- 2000- 4000-

1500 3000 6000
2277 Billon Double-Denarius obv Rad. bust r. Illustrated 5-15 20-40 50-75
p. 438.
2278 — As prev, but virtually Æ — 5-15 20-40
2279 — rev DEO VOLKANO, tetrastyle temple, statue of 15-25 50-75 100-150
Vulcan within. RIC 5.
2280 — rev GALLIENVS CVM EXER SVO, statue of 15-25 70-100 150-200
Jupiter, base inscr. IOVI VIC TO R I. RIC 7-8.
2281 — rev V IC TO R IA E AVGG, Valerian, crowned by 15-25 70-100 150-200

Victory, driving biga r. RIC 54.
2282 — rev V IC TO R IA PARTICA, Victory stg. or adv. 15-25 50-75 100-150

1., sometimes with captive at feet. RIC 22.

139.
2284 Billon or Æ Denarius 200-300 500-800 1500-

2000
2285 Billon or Æ Quinarius 150-200 400-600 1000-

1500
Valerian I (as A ugustus) F VF ch V F
2286 Æ Sestertius 30-50 150-200 400-600
2287 — rev As 2283, but SC added. RIC 184. 50-75 200-300 500-800
2289 Æ As 30-50 200-300 400-600
Valerian I (P rovincial Coinage) F VF EF

Mariniana
W if e o f V a l e r ia n I
M o t h e r o f G a l l ie n u s
G r a n d m o t h e r o f V a l e r ia n II and S a l o n in u s
Deified: DIVAE MARINIANAE
Except where noted, busts are right-facing, veiled, draped and sometimes dia
demed.
M ariniana (Posthum ous C om m em oratives) F VF EF
2291 AV Aureus 5 000- 15,000- 50,000+

8000 20,000
2292 AR or Billon Double-Denarius obv Bust r. on cres 30-50 70-100 200-300

cent. Illustrated above.
2293 — rev FELICIT DEORVM, Felicitas stg. 1., hldg.

caduceus and cornucopia. RIC 7. Note: The reverses
of all other of Mariniana’s Imperial coins have the
inscription CONSECRATIO and feature a peacock,
either alone or carrying Mariniana heavenward.
2294 A R or Billon Quinarius 400-600 1500- —

2000
M ariniana (Posthum ous C om m em oratives) F VF ch V F
2295 Æ Sestertius 150-200 500-800 1500-

2000
2296 Æ Dupondius obv Bust r. on crescent 300-400 1000- —

1500
2297 Æ As 300-400 1000- —

1500
M ariniana (P rovincial Coinage) F VF EF
2298 Æ 26 of Viminacium in Moesia Superior obv 50-75 200-300 400-600

DIVAE MARINIANAE, veiled and dr. bust r. rev P
M S COL VIM, Moesia stg. 1. betw. bull and lion,
AN XV (=A.D. 253/4) in ex. BMC -. Note: The
date, year 15 (XV), is reckoned to the colonial era
of Viminacium.
Gallienus, A .D . 2 5 3 - 2 6 8
A u g u s tu s: A.D. 2 5 3 - 2 6 8
(A .D . 2 5 3 - 2 6 0 : w ith V alerian I)
(A .D . 2 6 0 : w ith V alerian I
and S alon in u s)
(A .D . 2 6 0 - 2 6 8 : sole reig n )
S o n o f V a l e r ia n I a n d M a r in ia n a
H u s b a n d o f S a l o n in a
F a t h e r o f V a l e r i a n II a n d S a l o n i n u s
Augustus: G ALLIEN VS (P F) AVG
IMP C P LIC G ALLIEN VS (P F) AVG
IMP GALLIENVS AVG
IMP GALLIENVS P (or P F) AVG
IMP GALLIENVS P F AVG GERM (or G M)
Gallienus (as A ugustus) F VF EF
2299 AV ‘Binio’ (Heavy Aureus) obv Bust 1., wearing 2000- 40 0 0 - 15,000-
wreath of reeds. 3000 6000 20,000
2300 AV Heavy Aureus obv Rad. bust r. Illustrated, above. 1000- 30 0 0 - 6000-
1500 5000 8000
2301 AV Aureus 900- 1750- 3000-

1200 2250 5000
2302 AV Light Aureus (or Quinarius) 700- 1250- 2500-

1000 1750 3500
2303 Billon Double-Denarius obv Rad. bust r. 5-15 20-40 50-75
2305 — obv Bust r., wearing rad. crown over lion’s scalp 70-100 250-350
rev V IRTV S FALERI, display of accoutrements of
Hercules. Note: This rare issue celebrates Gallienus’
ancestral home, and expresses hope for renewal after
the capture of his father, Valerian I.
2306 — obv Half-bust r., rad. and cuir., spear over shoul- 15-25 50-75 150-200
der.
2307 — rev Legionary series, various types. RIC 314-72. 20-40 70-100 200-300
2308 — rev COHH PRAET VI P VI F, lion adv. r. RIC 20-40 80-120 250-350
370j. Note: A part of Gallienus’ legionary series
(above), this honors the praetorian guards in Rome.
Gallienus (as A ugustus) F VF EF
2309 — rev C O S IIII P P, Gallienus, hldg. branch, in 70-100 500-800 —

quadriga. RIC 150.
2310 — rev DEO MARTI, tetrastyle temple, statue of 20-40 70-100 200-300
Mars within. RIC lOj.
2311 — rev DEO VOLCANO, temple, statue of Vulcan 15-25 50-75 150-200
within. RIC 633.
2312 — rev FIDES MILITVM in wreath. RIC 570. 15-25 50-75 150-200
2313 — rev — , eagle stg. 1. on globe betw. two standards. 15-25 50-75 150-200
RIC 14j.
2314 — rev FIDEI PRAET, eagle stg. betw. two standards. 15-25 50-75 150-200
RIC 568.
2315 — rev IO CANTAB, Jupiter stg., hldg. thunderbolt 15-25 50-75 150-200
and scepter. RIC 573.
2316 — rev P M T R P XIII C VI P P, lion adv. 1., bull’s 30-50 100-150 250-350
head at feet. RIC 602s.
2317 — rev P M T R P VII COS P P, Gallienus stg. betw. 100-150 7 00- —

two river gods. RIC 549. 1000
2318 — rev R ESTIT GALLIAR, Gallienus stg. 1., raising 15-25 50-75 150-200
fig. of Gaul. RIC 29j.
2319 — rev SISC IA AVG, Siscia std. 1 on bank of river 150-200 900- —
Savus in which (below) nymph swims. RIC 582. 1200
2320 — rev V IC TO R IA GERMANICA, Victory adv. r. 15-25 50-75 150-200

above globe betw. two std. captives. RIC 49
2321 — rev VOTA DECENNALIA (or VICENNALIA), 15-25 50-75 150-200

Victory stg. r., inscr. shield attached to palm tree.
RIC 3 3 3 ,5 4 0 4 .
2322 — rev V O T (IS) X ET XX in wreath. RIC 599. 15-25 50-75 150-200
2323 Billon or Æ Denarius 30-50 70-100 200-300
2324 Billon or Æ Quinarius 100-150 250-350 500-800
Gallienus (as A ugustus) F VF ch V F
2324a Æ Double-Sestertius(?) obv Rad. bust r. cf. RIC 200-400 1000- —

(joint reign) 200,41; (sole reign) 383,86,91,95,403. 1500
2325 Æ Sestertius 15-25 50-75 250-350
2326 — rev SPQR OPTIM O PRINCIPI in wreath. RIC 50-75 300-400 —

393.
2328 Æ As 30-50 150-200 300-400

CRISIS A N D D EC LIN E 443
Gallienus (as A ugustus) F VF ch V F
2329 — rev OB LIBERTATEM RECEPTAM or OB RED- 50-75 300-400

DIT LIBERTATEM, Libertas stg. 1. RIC 424-5.
Note: These rare bronzes celebrate the anticipated
defeat of Postumus.
N ote: For medallic double-sestertii and sestertii of the reign of Gallienus (which often are
misattributed to the “interregnum” that followed the death of Aurelian), see The So-Called
‘Interregnum Bronzes’ prior to the listings for Tacitus (275-276).
Gallienus (P rovincial C oinage) F VF EF
Gallienus (Provincial Coinage) F VF ch V F
Salonina
A u g u sta , A.D. 2 5 4 - 2 6 8
W if e o f G a l l ie n u s
M o t h e r o f V a l e r i a n II a n d S a l o n i n u s
D a u g h t e r - in - l a w o f V a l e r ia n I a n d
M a r in ia n a
Augusta: CORN SALONINA AVG
CORNELIA SALONINA AVG
SALONINA AVG
Salonina (as A ugusta) F VF EF
2332 AV Aureus 1000- 4000- 7000-

1500 6000 12,000
2333 AV Light Aureus (or Quinarius) 900- 2000- 5 000-

1200 3000 8000
2334 Billon Double-Denarius obv Bust r. on crescent 5-15 20-40 50-75
2336 — rev AVGVSTA IN PACE, Salonina std. 1., hldg. 3 0-50 100-150 300-400
branch and scepter. RIC 57-60.
2337 — rev PIETAS AVGG, Salonina, as Pietas, std. 1. 15-25 70-100 250-350
with two or three children. RIC 35,59. Illustrated
above.
Salonina (as A ugusta) F VF EF
2338 Billon or Æ Denarius 30-50 70-100 300-400
2339 Billon or Æ Quinarius 100-150 250-350 500-800
Salonina (as A ugusta) F VF ch V F
2340 Æ Sestertius 70-100 150-200 400-600
2341 Æ Dupondius obv Bust r. on crescent 100-150 300-400 700-

1000
2342 Æ As 50-75 200-300 400-600
Salonina (Provincial Coinage) F VF EF
Salonina (P rovincial Coinage) F VF ch V F
Valerian II
C a e s a r: A.D. 2 5 6 - 2 5 8
(u n d er V alerian I and G allien u s)
S o n o f G a llie n u s a n d S a lo n in a
B r o t h e r o f S a lo n in u s
G ra n d s o n o f V a le r ia n I a n d M a rin ia n a
Caesar: P C L VALERIANVS NOB C(A ES)
P LIC VALERIANVS CAES
VALERIAN CAES
Deified: DIVO CA ES(A RI) VALERIANO
DIVO VALERI ANO CAES
Except where noted, busts are right-facing, bare-headed and usually draped.
Valerian II (as C aesar) F VF EF
2345 AV Aureus 2000- 50 0 0 - 15,000-

3000 8000 20,000
2346 A R or Billon Double-Denarius obv Rad. bust r. 5-15 15-25 50-75

Illustrated above.
V alerian II (as C aesar) F VF EF
2347 AR or Billon Denarius 250-350 900- —

1200
2348 AR or Billon Quinarius 200-300 700- —

1000
Valerian II (as C aesar) F VF ch V F
2349 Æ Sestertius 150-200 400-600 —

2350 Æ As 200-300 500-800 —
V alerian II (Posthum ous Com m em oratives) F VF EF
2351 AV Aureus 2000- 50 0 0 - 15,000-

3000 8000 20,000
2352 Billon Double'Denarius obv Rad. bust r. 5-15 15-25 50-75
2353 Billon Quinarius 200-300 7 00- —

1000
V alerian II (Posthum ous Com m em oratives) F VF ch V F
2354 Æ Sestertius 150-200 400-600 —

2355 Æ Dupondius or As 200-300 500-800 —
2356
V alerian II (P rovincial Coinage) F VF EF

Saloninus, A .D . 260
C a e s a r: A.D. 2 5 8 -2 6 0
(u n d er V alerian I and G allien u s)
A u g u s tu s: A.D. 2 6 0 (w ith G allien u s)
B r o t h e r o f V a l e r i a n II
G ra n d so n o f V a le ria n I a n d M a rin ia n a
Caesar: LIC CO R SAL VALERIANVS N CAES
P CO R SAL VALERIANVS CAES
SALON VALERIANVS CAES
SALON VALERIANVS NOB CAES
Augustus: IMP SALON VALERIANVS AVG
Augustus, except where noted, busts are right-facing, laureate and draped.
Saloninus (as C aesar) F VF EF
2357 AV Aureus 2000- 50 0 0 - 15,000-

3000 10,000 25,000
2358 AV Light Aureus (or Quinarius) 1500- 4000- —

2000 6000
2359 A R or Billon Double-Denarius obv Rad. bust r. 20-40 50-75 100-150

Illustrated above.
2360 A R or Billon Quinarius 150-200 400-600 —
Saloninus (as C aesar) F VF ch V F
2361 Æ Sestertius 150-200 500-800 —

2362 Æ As 200-300 500-800 —
Saloninus (as A ugustus) F VF EF
2363 AV Aureus — —
2364 Billon Double-Denarius obv Rad. bust r. 200-300 500-800 —
Saloninus (Posthum ous C om m em oratives[?]) F VF EF
2365 Billon Double-Denarius obv SALON VALERI

AN VS CAES, rad., dr. bust r. rev CON SACRA-
TlO (sic), eagle stg. 1. RIC 15.
Saloninus (P rovincial Coinage) F VF EF
Macrianus, A .D . 2 6 0 -2 6 1
(C o -E m p e ro r w ith Q u ietu s)
B r o t h er o f Q u iet u s
Augustus: IMP C FVL M ACRIANVS P F AVG
E xcep t w here noted, busts are right-facing, laureate, draped and/or cuirassed.
M acrianus (as A ugustus) F VF EF
2367 AV Aureus 40 0 0 - 15,000- 50,000+

6000 20,000
above.
N o t e : T h e values given for double-denarii are for lightly porous specim ens.
M acrianus (P rovincial Coinage) F VF EF
2368a Billon Tetradrachm of Alexandria 70-100 150-200 250-350

Quietus, A .D . 2 6 0 -2 6 1
(C o -E m p e ro r w ith M a cria n u s)
B r o t h e r o f M a c r ia n u s
Augustus: IMP C FVL QVIETVS P F AVG
Except where noted, busts are right-facing, laureate, draped, and/or cuirassed.
Q u ietu s (as A u g u stu s) F VF EF
2369 AV Aureus 40 0 0 - 15,000- 50,000+

6000 20,000
above.
Note: T h e values given for double-denarii are for lightly porous specimens.
Q uietus (as A ugustus) F VF ch V F
2371 Æ As — — —
Q uietus (P rovincial Coinage) F VF EF
Regalianus, A .D . 2 6 0
H u s b a n d o f D r y a n t il l a
Augustus: IMP C P C REGALIANVS AVG
Busts are right-facing, radiate and draped.
Regalianus (as A ugustus) F VF EF
2373 A R Double-Denarius rev Various types. RIC V, pt. 1500- 3000- 8000-
II, pp. 586-7, 1-8. N ote: These are overstruck on 2000 5000 12,000
earlier denarii or double-denarii. Illustrated above.
Dryantilla
A u g u s ta , A.D. 2 6 0
W if e o f R e g a l i a n u s
Augusta: SVLP DRYANTILLA AVG
Busts are right-facing, diademed and draped, resting on crescent.
D ryantilla (as A ugusta) F VF EF
2374 A R Double-Denarius rev A EQ V ITA S A VGG, 1500- 30 0 0 - 7000-

Aequitas stg. 1., hldg. scales and double-cornucopia. 2000 5000 10,000
RIC V, pt. II, p. 588, 1. Note: Overstruck on earlier
denarii or double-denarii. Illustrated above.
2375 — rev IVNO or IVNONI REGINA, Juno stg. 1., 1500- 3000- 7000-
hldg. cornucopia and uncertain object. RIC 2. 2000 5000 10,000
CH A PTER EIGHT
R eco very o f E m p ir e
A .D . 2 6 8 - 2 8 5
Claudius II, ‘Gothicus,’

A .D . 2 6 8 - 2 7 0
B r o t h e r o f Q u in t il l u s
Augustus: CLAVDIVS AVG
IMP C CLAVDIVS AVG
IMP C M AVR CLAVDIVS AVG
IMP CLAVDIVS (P F) AVG
Deified: DIVO CLAVDIO (under Quintillus and(?) Aurelian and Constantine I)
DIVO CLAVDIO G O TH IC O (under Quintillus and(?) Aurelian)
DIVO CLAVDIO O PT(IM O ) IMP (under Constantine I)
Except where noted, busts are right-facing, laureate, often draped and/or cuirassed.
Claudius II (as A ugustu s) F VF EF
2376 AV Medallion of 8-Aurei obv Laur., cuir, bust r. rev 7000- 15,000- 30,000-
CON CORDIA EXERCITVS, Concordia stg. fac 10,000 20,000 50,000
ing, hldg. two standards with eagles. RIC 1.
2377 AV Aureus 1000- 2000- 50 0 0 -

1500 3000 7500
2378 Billon Double-Denarius obv Rad. bust r. — 5-15 20-40
2379 — obv Rad. half-bust 1., hldg. spear and/or shield 15-25 20-40 100-150
2380 — rev ADVENTVS AVG, Claudius II on horseback 15-25 20-40 100-150

1., saluting. RIC 13.
2381 — rev DACIA FELIX, Dacia stg. 1., hldg. ass-headed 15-25 3 0-50 150-200
staff. RIC 143.
2382 — rev DEO CA BIRO, one of the Cabiri stg., hldg. 20-40 70-100 200-300
hammer and nails. RIC 204.
2383 — rev REGI ARTIS, one of the Cabiri stg., hldg. 20-40 70-100 200-300
hammer and tongs. RIC 215.
451
Claudius II (as A ugustus) F VF EF
2384 — rev VICTORIAE GOTHIC SPQR, two captives 15-25 20-40 100-150
std. at base of trophy. RIC 251-2.
2385 Billon Denarius 100-150 400-600 900-

1200
2386 Billon Quinarius 70-100 300-400 700-
1000
Claudius II (as A ugustus) F VF ch V F
2387 Æ Reduced Sestertius obv Laur. hd. r. or 1. Note: A 150-200 400-600 1000-
similar piece with a radiate head is recorded (RIC 1500
173); it may be a reduced double-sestertius.
Claudius II (Posthum ous Com m em oratives) F VF EF
2388 Billon or Æ Double Denarius, under Quintillus 5-15 20-40

and(?) Aurelian, obv Rad. bust r. rev CONSECRA
TIO (or sic), pyre, altar or eagle. RIC 256ff.
Illustrated p. 451.
2389 — , obv DIVO CLAVDIO GOTHICO rev Altar. 5-15 3 0-50 100-150
RIC 263.
2390 — As prev., but rev Various non-CONSECRATIO 5-15 20-40 70-100

types. RIC 268-91. Note: An unusual grouping for
which more than 20 reverse types are recorded.
2391 Billon Nummus (c. 19mm), under Constantine the 5-15 3 0-50 100-150
Great, c. 317-8. obv Laur., veiled hd. r. rev
REQVIES OPTIMOR(VM) MERIT(ORVM),
Claudius II std. 1. on curule chair, hldg. scepter and
raising r. hand. RIC VII Rom 106.
2392 Billon Half- or Quarter-Nummus (c. 14'17mm), 5-15 3 0-50 100-150

— . As prev., but rev inscr. REQVIES OPTI-
MORVM MERITORVM. RIC VII Rom 109.
2393 — . rev MEMORIAE AETERNAE, eagle stg. r. or 1. 5-15 3 0-50 100-150

RIC VII Rom 112,5-6,9.
2394 — . rev As prev, but. lion adv. r. or 1., sometimes club 5-15 30-50 150-200
above. RIC VII Rom 121-2,5,8.
Note: Gold aurei and quinarii of the Constantinian MEMORIAE AETERNAE types are
listed in volume 5, part 1 of RIC (1927), which covers the contemporary coinages of Clau-
dius II, but are not listed in the more recent ( 1966) volume 7, which covers the reign of Con
stantine I the Great. The standard issues struck under Quintillus and/or Aurelian were often
imitated by unofficial mints in Gaul, Germany and Britain.
Claudius II (P rovincial Coinage) F VF EF

RECOVERY OF EMPIRE 453
Quintillus, A .D . 2 7 0
B r o t h e r o f C l a u d iu s II
Augustus: IMP C M AVR CL QVINTILLVS AVG
IMP QVINTILLVS (P F) AVG
Q uintillus (as A ugustus) F VF EF
2396 AV Aureus. Illustrated above. 40 0 0 - 7500- 3 0,000-

6000 15,000 50,000
2397 Billon Double-Denarius obv Rad. bust r. 15-25 30-50 70-100
2398 — rev PANNONIAE, Pannonia stg. 1., hldg. stan 20-40 50-75 150-200
dard and sometimes branch. RIC 60-1.
2399 — rev P M T R P CO S P P, Quintillus stg., hldg. 20-40 50-75 150-200

spear and globe. RIC 5. Note: A rare dated issue.
2400 — rev VIC TO R IA E GOTH IC, trophy betw. two 20-40 50-75 150-200
std. captives. RIC 87.
Note: Though Quintillus struck no æs, he may have produced denarii and quinarii
Q uintillus (P rovincial Coinage) F VF EF
Aurelian, A .D . 2 7 0 -2 7 5
H u s b a n d o f S e v e r in a
Augustus: AVRELIANVS AVG
IMP AVRELIANVS AVG
IMP C AVRELIANVS AVG
IMP C (L) DOM AVRELIANVS P F AVG

Ornate bust types also occur.
A urelian (as A ugustus)

[pre-reform issues: A .D . 2 7 0 -2 7 4 ] F VF EF
2402 AV ‘Binio* (Heavy Aureus) obv Rad. bust r. 1250- 40 0 0 - 10,0 0 0 -

1750 6000 15,000
2403 AV Aureus 90 0 - 1500- 3000-

1200 2000 5000
2404 Billon Double-Denarius obv Rad. bust r. — 10-20 30-50
2405 — rev DACIA FELIX, Dacia stg. 1. RIC 108. 5-15 20-40 70-100
2406 — rev P M TR P P, lion adv. r., COS in ex. RIC 325. 5-15 20-40 70-100

[post-reform issues: A .D . 2 7 4 -2 7 5 ] F VF EF
2407 AV Aureus 900- 1500- 40 0 0 -

1200 2000 6000
2408 Billon Aurelianianus obv Rad. bust r. Illustrated — 15-25 50-75

p. 453.
2409 — obv IMP DEO ET DOMINO AVRELIANO 50-75 150-200 300-400

AVG or DEO ET DOMINO NATO AVRELIANO
AVG. RIC 305-6.
2410 Billon Denarius rev VICTORIA AVG, Victory 20-40 50-75 150-200
adv. 1., hldg. wreath and palm, often captive at feet.
RIC 71-3.
N ote: For aurelianiani depicting Aurelian and Vabalathus, see the listings of the latter

[post-reform issues: A .D . 2 7 4 -2 7 5 ] F VF ch V F
2411 Æ Reduced Double-Sestertius (c. 29 -33 mm) obv 300-400 1000- 2000-
Rad. bust r., dr. or cuir, rev SEVERINA AVG, diad., 1500 3000
dr. bust r. of Severina on crescent. RIC (Aur. &
Sev.) 1-3. Note: See note at end of table.
2412 Æ Reduced Sestertius (c. 25 - 27 mm) rev CON 20-40 70-100 150-200
CORDIA AVG, Aurelian and Severina stg., clasp
ing hands; above, rad. hd. of Sol. r. RIC 80.
2413 — rev GENIVS EXERCI, Genius stg. 1. RIC 83, 50-75 150-200 400-600
370.
2414 — rev ROMA AET(ER), Roma std I. on cuirass. 50-75 150-200 4 00-600
RIC 84-5.
2415 — As 2411 but rev no crescent. RIC (Aur. & Sev.) 200-300 500-800 1000-
4. 1500

[post-reform issues: A .D . 2 7 4 - 2 7 5 ] F VF ch V F
2416 — obv SOL DOM IMP ROM (ANI), rad., dr. bust of 500-800 1500- 3000-
Sol facing above four horses, two diverted 1., two r. 2000 5000
rev AVRELIANVS AVG CONS, Aurelian stg. 1.,
hldg. scepter, sacrificing at tripod, S in ex. RIC 321-2.
2417 — obv SOL DOMINVS IMPERI ROMANI, bare 500-800 1500- 3000-
headed, dr. bust r. of Sol rev As prev. RIC 319. 2000 5000
2418 — obv SOL DOM IMP ROMANI, rad. bust r. of Sol 500-800 1500- 3000-
above four horses, all adv. r. rev As 2416. RIC 320. 2000 5000
Note: Some “laureate” æs of Aurelian (RIC 75-78) are struck to the large module of his dou
ble-sestertii, but do not have a radiate crown to indicate a double denomination. They seem
ingly are the earliest of Aurelian’s sestertii, which were abandoned in favor of the further-
reduced module of c. 25-27mm soon after his reform began.
A urelian (P rovincial Coinage) F VF EF
Severina
A u g u sta , A .D . 2 7 4 - 2 7 5
W if e o f A u r e l ia n
Augusta: SEVERINA (P F) AVG
SEVERINA AVGVSTA
SEVERIN AE AVG
Severina (as A ugusta) F VF EF
2420 AV Aureus 2000- 5 000- 15,000-

3000 8000 22,500
2421 Billon Aurelianianus obv Bust r. on crescent. 15-25 30-50 100-150

Illustrated above.
2422 Billon Denarius 20-40 50-75 150-200

2422
Severina (as A ugusta) F VF ch V F
2423 Æ Reduced Sestertius (c. 25-27m m ) rev IVNO 20-40 70-100 150-200
REGINA, Juno stg. 1., hldg. patera and scepter, pea
cock stg. before. RIC 7.
N ote: For æs with the bust of Severina on the reverse, see the listings of Aurelian.
Severina (Provincial Coinage) F VF EF
T he S o -C a lled ‘I n terreg n u m B ro n zes’
A casualty of the historical misconception that a lengthy interregnum existed

between the murder of Aurelian and the accession of Tacitus is a series of large
bronzes bearing the head of the Genius of the Roman people. Though long attrib-
uted to this interregnum (during which Severina seems to have been at the helm)
they actually belong to the closing years of the reign of Gallienus. T he strongest
evidence for this is the assimilation of Gallienus’ features in the portrait of the
Genius, which is blatantly obvious on many specimens.
T h e reverse type alludes to the presentation by the senate of a wreath of honor
to the emperor. T he inscription IN T V R B (probably meaning intrata vrbe or introi-
tus urbis rather than interrengum urbis) suggests the occasion was a ceremonial entry
into Rome, the city in which these unusual bronzes were struck. T h e entry for
which they were struck, however, is uncertain. It may have been the one of 266,
when Gallienus celebrated his seventh consulate, or more likely still, the one antic-
ipated in 268 after his defeat of the Goths and Heruli at Naïssus. Regrettably, G al
lienus never arrived for the latter, as he was murdered en-route while beseiging the
usurper Aureolus at Milan.
T he crudely produced “entry” bronzes presumably had nominal values of sester
tii and double-sestertii (less likely, asses and dupondii), but they no doubt were
intended more as commemorative medallions than as currency T h e double-sester-
tius is typically 2 8 - 3 1mm in diameter (range: 25-32m m ) and on average weighs
1 3 -1 6 grams (range: 8-33 grams). The sestertius is usually 26-27m m in diameter
(range: 2 4 - 3 1mm) and has an average weight of about 13 grams (range: 8 -1 8
grams). A survey of 111 specimens by David Yonge (“The So-Called Interregnum
Coinage,” 1979 Numismatic Chronicle, pp. 47-60) demonstrates that the radiate-
head examples are approximately ten times as common as those with the wreath.
T h e So-Called ‘Interregnum B ro n zes’ F VF ch V F
2425 Æ Double-Sestertius Medallion, c. 2 6 6 -8 . obv 100-150 300-400 1000-

GENIVS PR, rad. hd. r. of Gallienus as the Genius 1500
of the Roman People, wearing modius (often tur-
reted) rev Laurel wreath with medallion at top con
taining large SC with INT above, VRB below. RIC
V, pt. I, p. 361, 2-3. Illustrated above.
2426 — . As prev., but rev without INT VRB. RIC -. 100-150 300-400 1000-
1500
2427 Æ Sestertius Medallion — . As 2425, but hd. laur. 150-200 400-600 1000-
RIC 1. 1500
T a c i t U S , A .D . 2 7 5 - 2 7 6
H a l f - b r o t h e r o f F l o r ia n
Augustus: IMP C M CL T A C ITV S AVG
IMP C M CL T A C ITV S P (F) AVG
IMP (C) CL TA C ITV S AVG
Tacitus (as A ugustus) F VF EF
2428 AV Heavy Aureus 1000- 30 0 0 - 10,000-

1500 5000 15,000
2429 AV Aureus. Illustrated above. 1000- 2000- 6 000-

1500 3000 9000
2430 Billon Aurelianianus obv Rad. bust r. 5-15 20-40 50-75
2431 — obv Rad. half-bust 1., often with shield and spear 15-25 3 0-50 100-150
Tacitus (as A ugustus) F VF EF
2432 — obv Rad. half-bust 1., wearing consular robes, 20-40 70-100 200-300
hldg. scepter
2433 — obv IN VICTVS incorporated in inscr. RIC 194ff. 15-25 50-75 150-200
2434 — rev V IC TO R IA PONTICA AVG, Victory stg. r. 100-150 250-350 —

presenting wreath to Tacitus. RIC 204.
2435 Billon Denarius 150-200 400-600 1250-

1750

1200
Tacitus (as A ugustus) F VF ch V F
2437 Æ Reduced Sestertius (c. 23-24m m ) 200-300 500-800 1500-

2000
Tacitus (P rovincial Coinage) F VF EF
T acitus (P rovincial Coinage) F VF ch V F
2439 Æ 3 2 -3 5 (1 0 Assaria) of Perga in Pamphylia rev 150-200 300-400 500-800

Distyle temple, simulacrum of Pergaean Artemis
within. BMC 102.
2440 — . rev Zeus std. 1., hldg. prize urn and scepter (or 150-200 300-400 500-800
spear). BMC 104. Note: Tacitus’ issues at Perga are
the last provincial coins struck outside Alexandria.
Florian, A .D . 2 7 6
H a l f - b r o t h e r o f T a c it u s
Augustus: IMP C FLORIANVS AVG
IMP C M AN FLORIANVS P (or P F) AVG
IMP C M AN(N) FLORIANVS AVG
IMP M ANNIVS FLORIANVS AVG
VIRTVS FLORIANI AVG

Florian (as A ugustus) F VF EF
2441 AV Heavy Aureus 1700- 5 000- 20,000-

2500 8000 30,000
2442 AV Aureus 1500- 4000- 15,000-

2250 6000 25,000
2443 Billon Aurelianianus obv Rad. bust r. Illustrated 20-40 50-75 100-150
p. 458.
2444 — rev V IC TO RIA E AVGVSTI, two Victories hldg. 30-50 70-100 200-300
shield inscr. V O T X . RIC 43.
2445 Billon Denarius 250-350 500-800 1500-

2000

1500
Florian (as A ugustus) F VF ch V F
2447 Æ Reduced Sestertius (c. 23-24m m ) 300-400 900- 2000-

1200 3000
Note: Florian struck no provincial coins.
Probus, A .D . 2 7 6 -2 8 2
Augustus: IMP C PROB VS (P F) AVG
IMP C M AVR PROBVS (P F) AVG
IMP PROBVS (P F) AVG
PROBVS (P F) AVG
V IRTVS PROBI AVG

A wide variety of busts occur, from simply draped and/or cuirassed to more ornate
types of military or consular significance. Ornate types are common, and often are
left-facing.
Probus (as A ugustus) F VF EF
2448 AV ‘Binio’ (Heavy Aureus) obv Rad. bust r. 1500- 40 0 0 - 10,0 0 0 -

2000 6000 15,000
2449 AV Aureus 1000- 2000- 5000-

1500 3000 8000
2450 AV Quinarius 900- 1750- 5000-

1200 2500 8000
2451 Billon Aurelianianus obv Rad. bust r. Illustrated — 15-25 50-75

p. 459.
2452 — obv IMP DEO ET DOMINO PROBO AVG or 50-75 100-150 300-400
DEO ET DOMINO PROBO INVICTO AVG.
2453 — obv BONO or PERPETVO at beginning of inscr. 50-75 100-150 300-400
2454 — obv Horse hd. 1. before rad., helm., cuir, bust 1. of 200-300 900- 1750-
Probus, hldg. shield and spear. 1200 2250
2455 — rev ADLOCVTIO AVG, Probus and prefect on 200-300 1000-

platform, addressing soldiers, two with horses and 1500
captives. RIC 320-2. "
2456 — rev P M TRI P COS II P P, lion adv. r., thunder 15-25 70-100 200-300
bolt in jaw, sometimes with hd. of ox before. RIC
611-3.
2457 — rev P M TRI P COS III (P P), Probus in slow 3 0-50 100-150 250-350
quadriga. RIC 614-5.
2458 — rev SISCIA PROBI AVG, Siscia std. betw. two 70-100 200-300 400-600
river gods. RIC 764-6.
2459 — rev VICTORIOSO SEMPER, Probus stg., 200-300 1000-

flanked by four suppliants, two stg., two kneeling. 1500
RIC 224.
2460 — rev VOTIS X ET XX FEL or VOTIS X PROBI 15-25 70-100 200-300

AVG ET XX in wreath. RIC 457-63.
2461 Billon Denarius 100-150 300-400 900-

1200
2462 — rev P M TRI P COS III, Probus in slow quadriga. 150-200 400-600 1000-
RIC 247. 1500

1000
2464 — rev FELICIA TEMPORA, the Four Seasons, as 150-200 400-600 1000-
boys, at play. RIC 262. 1500
2454
Probus (as A ugustus) F VF ch V F
2465 Æ Reduced Double'Sestertius(?) obv Rad. bust r. 200-300 500-700 1000-

RIC 289-91. 1500
2466 Æ Reduced Sestertius (c. 23'24m m ) RIC 292- 150-200 400-600 7 00-
305. Note: Seemingly struck to two weight stan 1000
dards; two denominations may be represented.
Probus (P rovincial Coinage) F VF EF
Saturninus, A .D . 2 8 0
Augustus: IMP C IVL SATVRNIN VS AVG
Saturninus (as A ugustus) F VF EF
2468 AV Aureus obv Laur., cuir, bust r. of Saturninus rev

VIC TO RIA E AVG, Victory adv. r., hldg. wreath
and palm branch. RIC V, pt. II, p. 591, 1. Note:
Struck at Antioch or Alexandria. Illustrated above.
Saturninus (striking in the name of P robus) F VF EF
2469 AV Aureus obv IMP C M A VR PROBVS AVG, 7000- 20,000'

laur., dr. bust r. of Probus rev VIC TO RIA E A VGG, 10,000 30,000
Victory driving biga r. RIC (Probus) 919. Note:
Struck at Antioch.
Proculus, c. A .D . 2 8 0 -2 8 1
P rocu lu s (as A ugustus) F VF EF
2470 Billon Double-Denarius obv IMP C PROCVLVS

AVG, rad., cuir, bust r. of Proculus rev VIC TO RIA
AVG, female fig. stg. 1., hldg. wreath and scepter.
RIC -.
Carus, A .D . 2 8 2 -2 8 3
A u g u s tu s: A.D. 2 8 2 -2 8 3
(A .D . 2 8 2 - 2 8 3 : sole reig n )
(A .D . 2 8 3 : w ith C a rin u s and
N u m e ria n )
F a t h e r o f C a r i n u s a n d N u m e r ia n
F a t h e r - i n - l a w o f M a g n i a U r b ic a
G r a n d f a t h e r o f N ig r in ia n
Augustus: IMP (C) CARVS P F AVG
IMP C M AVR CARVS (P F) AVG
IMP C M AVR KARVS P F AVG
DEO ET DOMINO CARO AVG
Deified: DIVO CARO
DIVO CARO (AVG, PARTHICO, PERS or PIO)
C arus (as A ugustus) F VF EF
2471 AV Aureus 1500- 50 0 0 - 12,000-

2500 7500 18,000
2472 — obv DEO ET DOMINO CA RO AVG, laur., dr., 2000- 60 0 0 - 15,000-

cuir, bust r. rev V IC TO R IA AVG, Victory stg. 1. on 3000 8000 20,000
globe. RIC 96.
2473 Billon Double-Aurelianianus(?) obv Dr., cuir, bust 80-120 250-350 700-
r. with double-radiate crown rev ABVNDANTIA 1000
A VG, galley 1. with soldiers, X ET I in ex. RIC 5.
above.
2475 — obv CARVS ET CA RIN VS AVGG, jugate, rad., 200-300 500-800 1500-
cuir, busts r. of Carus and Carinus rev Various types. 2000
RIC 138ff.
C arus (as A ugustus) F VF EF
2476 — obv Name spelled KARVS 15-25 30-50 150-200
2477 Billon Denarius 150-200 3 00-400 1000-

1500

1200
C arus (as A ugustus) F VF ch V F
2479 Æ Reduced Sestertius (c. 23'24m m ) RIC 59-61. 150-200 400-600 1250-
Note: Smaller æs, often called semises, are probably 1750
sestertii of an even-further-reduced standard.
C arus (Posthum ous Com m em oratives) F VF EF
2480 AV Aureus 2 500- 6 000- 15,000-

3500 8000 20,000
2482 — obv DIVO CARO PARTHICO 5-15 3 0-50 100-150
C arus (P rovincial C oinage) F VF EF
2483 Billon Tetradrachm of Alexandria issued during 15-25 3 0-50 70-100

lifetime
2484 — Issued posthumously 20-40 50-75 100-150
Carinus, A .D . 2 8 3 -2 8 5
C a e s a r: A.D. 2 8 2 -2 8 3
(u n d er C a ru s , w ith N u m e ria n )
A u g u s tu s: A.D. 2 8 3 - 2 8 5
(A .D . 2 8 3 : w ith C a ru s and
N u m e ria n )
(A .D . 2 8 3 - 2 8 4 : w ith N u m e ria n )
(A .D . 2 8 4 - 2 8 5 : sole reign, in opp osition to D io cle tia n )
Son of C arus
B r o t h e r o f N u m e r ia n
H u s b a n d o f M a g n ia U r b ic a
F a t h e r o f N ig r in ia n
Caesar: CA RIN VS NOBIL CAES
IMP C M AVR CA RIN VS NOB C
M AVR CA RIN VS NOB C(A ES)

M AVR KARINVS NOB(IL) CAE(S)
Augustus: IMP C M AVR CAR1NVS (P F) AVG
IMP CARINVS P F AVG
C arinus (as C aesar) F VF EF
2485 AV Aureus 1500- 3000- 10,000-

2500 5000 15,000
2486 Billon Double-Aurelianianus(?) obv Rad., cuir, 50-75 150-200 400-600

bust r. rev FELICITAS REIPVBLICAE, Felicitas
stg. 1., leaning on column, X I in ex. RIC 194.
p. 463.
2488 Billon Denarius 150-200 300-400 1000-

1500

1200
C arinus (as C aesar) F VF ch V F
2490 Æ Reduced Sestertius (c. 23-24m m ) RIC 173-6. 150-200 400-600 1250-
N ote: Smaller æs, often called semises, are probably 1750
C arinus (as A ugustus) F VF EF
2491 AV Aureus 1500- 3000- 10,0 0 0 -

2500 5000 15,000
2493 Billon Denarius 150-200 300-400 1000-

1500
2494 — obv CARINVS ET NVMERIANVS AVGG, 250-350 700-

jugate, laur. busts r. rev VICTORIA AVGG, Victory 1000
adv. RIC 331-2.

1200
C arinu s (as A ugustus) F VF ch V F
2496 Æ Reduced Sestertius (c. 23-24m m ) RIC 285-91. 150-200 400-600 1250-
N ote: Smaller æs, often called semisses, are probably 1750
Carinus (P rovincial Coinage) F VF EF
2497 Billon Tetradrachm of Alexandria 15-25 30 -5 0 70-100
Magnia Urbica
A u g u s ta , A.D. 2 8 3 -2 8 5
W if e o f C a r in u s
M o t h e r ( ? ) o f N ig r in ia n
D a u g h t e r - in - l a w o f C a r u s
S i s t e r - i n - l a w o f N u m e r ia n
Augusta: MAG (MAGN or MAGNIA) VRBIC A AVG
MAGNIAE VR BICAE AVG
Except where noted, busts are right^facing, diademed and draped.
M agnica U rb ica (as A ugusta) F VF EF
2498 AV Aureus 3000- 80 0 0 - 30,000+

5000 12,000
2499 Billon Aurelianianus obv Bust r. on crescent 50-75 150-200 300-400

Illustrated above.
2500 Billon Denarius 300-400 900- 2500-

1200 3500
2501 Billon Quinarius 300-400 900- —

1200
Nigrinian
S o n o f C a r i n u s a n d ( ?) M a g n i a U r b ic a
G r a n d so n o f C a r u s
N e p h e w o f N u m e r ia n
Deified: DIVO NIGRIANO(sic)
DIVO NIGRINIANO
Except where noted, busts are right^facing and bare-headed.
N igrinian (Posthum ous C om m em oratives) F VF EF
2502 AV Aureus rev CON SECRA TIO, Nigrinian in 30 0 0 - 10,000- 50,000+

biga set upon funeral pyre. RIC (Numerian) 471. 5000 15,000
2503 Billon Aurelianianus obv Rad. hd. r. rev CON SE 300-400 500-800 1500-
CRA TIO , eagle stg. facing, hd. 1. RIC (Numerian) 2000
472.
2504 — rev Eagle stg. on altar. RIC (Numerian) 473. 300-400 500-800 1500-
2000
2505 — rev Altar. RIC (Numerian) 474. Illustrated 300-400 500-800 1500-
p. 465. 2000
2506 — obv Heroic bust r. seen bare from mid-chest rev 300-400 700- 2000-
As 2503. RIC 472. 1000 3000
Numerian, A .D . 2 8 3 - 2 8 4
C a e s a r: A .D . 2 8 2 -2 8 3
(u n d er C a ru s , w ith C a rin u s)
A u g u stu s: A.D. 2 8 3 - 2 8 4
(A .D . 2 8 3 : w ith C a ru s and
C a rin u s)
(A.D. 2 8 3 - 2 8 4 : w ith C a rin u s)
Son of C arus
B r o t h e r o f C a r in u s
U n c l e o f N ig r in ia n
Caesar: IMP C M AVR NVM ERIANVS NOB C
M AVR NVM ERIANVS (NOB) C
M AVR NVM ERIANVS CAES
NVM ERIANVS NOB CAES
Augustus: IMP C M AVR NVMERIANVS (P F) AVG
IMP C NVM ERIANVS (P F) AVG
IMP NVM ERIANVS (P F) AVG
Deified: DIVO NVMERIANO (AVG)

N um erian (as C aesar) F VF EF
2507 AV Aureus 2000- 5000- 15,OOG-

3000 7500 25,000
2513
N u m erian (as A ugustus) F VF EF
2509 AV Aureus 2000- 50 0 0 - 15,000-

3000 7500 25,000
p .466.
2511 — rev VNDIQVE V1CTORES, Numerian, hldg. 15-25 70-100 200-300

globe and scepter, stg. betw. captives. RIC 422-3.
2512 — rev VOTA PVBLICA, Carinus and Numerian 15-25 70-100 200-300
sacrificing at altar, two standards behind. RIC 461.
2513 Billon Denarius 150-200 300-400 1000-

1500

1200
N u m erian (as A ugustus) F VF ch V F
2515 Æ Reduced Sestertius (c. 23-24m m ) rev PAX 300-400 7 00-

A VG G , Pax adv. 1., hldg. branch and scepter. RIC 1000
440.
N u m erian (Posthum ous C om m em oratives) F VF EF
N u m erian (P rovincial Coinage) F VF EF

Julian of Pannonia,
A .D . 2 8 4 -2 8 5
Augustus: IMP C IVLIANVS P F AVG (or AV)
IMP C M AVR IVLIANVS P F AVG (on aurelianiani)
Except where noted, busts are right^facing, laureate, draped and/or cuirassed.
Julian of Pannonia (as A ugustus) F VF EF
2518 AV Aureus 2000- 5 000- 15,000-

3000 8000 22,500
2519 Billon Aurelianianus obv Rad. bust r. 400-600 900- 1500-
1200 2000
2520 — rev PANNONIAE AVG, the two Pannoniae stg., 400-600 900- 1750-
one hldg. standard. RIC V, pt. II, pp. 593-4, 4. 1200 2250
Illustrated above.
CH A PTER NINE
T h e R o m a n o G a l l i c E m p ire
a .d . 2 6 0 - 2 7 4
Postumus, A .D . 260-269
Augustus: IMP C M C A SS LAT POSTVM VS P F AVG
IMP C POSTVM VS PIVS F AVG
IMP C POSTVM VS P F AVG
IMP POSTVM V S AVG
PO STVM VS AVG
PO STVM VS PIVS AVG
Except where noted, busts are right-facing, laureate, often draped and/or cuirassed.
Postum us (as A ugustu s) F VF EF
2521 AV Aureus 2000- 50 0 0 - 12,000-

3000 7500 18,000
2522 — obv Helm., cuir, bust 1. of Postumus rev Various 3000- 60 0 0 - 20,000-
types. RIC 3ff. 5000 10,000 35,000
2523 — obv Laur., cuir, bust 1. rev AETERNITAS AVG,

three young, rad. hds., ctr. one facing, the other two
at the sides, confr. RIC 18.
2524 — obv Jugate, laur. hds. r. of Postumus and Hercules 40 0 0 - 8,000- 3 0,000-
rev HERCVLI LIBVCO, Hercules strangling 6000 12,000 50,000
Antaeus. RIC 273. N ote: One of several aurei of
Postumus depicting the labors of Hercules.
2525 — obv Bare-headed bust nearly fully facing, his cuir,

torso at an angle rev INDVLG PIA POSTVMI
AVG, Postumus std. 1., on curule chair, kneeling
suppliant before. RIC V, pt. II, p. 359, 277. Note:
This impressive bust also occurs as a reverse type
(RIC 280).
469
Postum us (as A ugustus) F VF EF
2526 — rev LIBERALITAS AVG, Postumus std. 1. on 2000- 6000- 20 ,0 0 0 -

platform with lictor and Liberalitas stg. beside, citi 3000 10,000 30,000
zens below. RIC 27-8.
2527 — rev P M TR P COS P P, rad. lion adv. 1., thunder 2000- 5 000- 20 ,0 0 0 -
bolt in jaws. RIC 1. 3000 8000 30,000
2528 — rev VIRTVS EXERCITVS, pile of arms and 2000- 5 000- 20 ,0 0 0 -

armor. RIC 44. 3000 8000 30,000
2529 AV Quinarius 1500- 40 0 0 - —

2000 6000
2530 — obv Helm., cuir, bust 1. rev QVINQ VENN ALES 1500- 5 000-
AVG, Victory stg. r., foot on helmet, inscr. V X or Q 2000 8000
on shield. RIC 50.
2531 Billon Double-Denarius obv Rad. bust r. Illustrated — 5-15 30-50

p. 469.
2532 — As prev., but from early in reign and of higher sil 5-15 15-25 50-75
ver content (about 20%).
2533 — obv Rad. bust 1. with club and lion’s skin at shoul 20-40 100-150 250-350
der rev Various types. RIC 292ff.
2534 — rev C C A A COS IIII or COL CL AGRIP COS 70-100 200-300 900-
IIII, Aequitas stg. 1., hldg. scales and cornucopia. 1200
RIC 285-6. Note: The inscription names the mint-
city Cologne (Colonia Claudia Agrippina Augusta).
2535 — rev DIANE REDVCI, Diana adv. r., hldg. bow 20-40 100-150 250-350
and leading stag. RIC 300.
2536 — rev IOVI VICTORI, Jupiter adv. 1., hldg. scepter 70-100 200-300 900-
and thunderbolt, C A in field. RIC 311. Note: The 1200
C A is a mint mark for Cologne.
2537 — rev PACATOR ORBIS, rad., dr. bust r. of Sol. 20-40 100-150 200-300
RIC 317.
2538 — rev SALVS PROVINCIARVM, the Rhine reel. 20-40 50-75 100-150
RIC 87.
2539 Billon Denarius 200-300 700- 1500-

1000 2000
2540 — obv Jugate, laur. busts 1. of Postumus and Her 400-600 1000- —
cules rev CASTOR, Castor, hldg. spear, stg. next to 1500
horse. RIC 335.
2541 — obv As prev. rev HERCVLIIMMORTALI, Her 400-600 1250-

cules hldg. club and lion’s skin, dragging Cerberus. 1750
RIC 347. Note: From a series of denarii of Cologone
honoring Hercules on the obverse and reverse.
THE SEPARATIST EMPIRES 47 I
Postum us (as A ugustu s) F VF EF
2542 — As 2527. RIC 95. 250-350 90 0 - —

1200

2000
2553
P o stu m u s (as A u g u stu s) F VF ch V F
2544 Æ Double-Sestertius obv Rad. hd. r. 3 0-50 200-300 700-

1000
2545 — rev FELICITA(S) on architrave of decorated tri- 250-350 900- —

umphal arch, AVG in ex. RIC 118-9. 1200
2546 — rev FELICITAS AVG (SC ) or GERM AN ICVS 70-100 400-600 900-
MAX V, trophy betw. two captives. RIC 120,9. 1200
2547 — rev HER(C) DEVSONIENS(I) or PACIFERO, 100-150 700-

Hercules stg., hldg. various implements, AVG some 1000
times in ex. RIC 13Off.
2548 — rev HERCVLI MAG VS ANO, Hercules stg. r., 100-150 700-
leaning on club with lion’s skin set on rock. RIC 1000
139. '
2549 — rev V IC TO R IA GERM ANICA SC, Victory adv. 70-100 400-600 900-
r., hldg. wreath and palm branch. RIC 177. 1200
2550 Æ Sestertius Note: The five issues below also occur 30-50 150-200 400-600
as double-sestertii.
2551 — rev ADVENT VS AVG SC, Postumus on horse 100-150 7 00- —

back 1., hldg. spear and raising r. hand. RIC 115. 1000
2552 — rev EXERCITVS AVG SC, Postumus on horse 250-350 900-

back 1., addressing three soldiers who hold stan 1200
dards. RIC 116.
2553 — rev LA ETITIA (SC ), galley with rowers, AVG 50-75 250-350 700-
sometimes in ex. RIC 142ff. Note: The galley some 1000
times has a steersman or a mast (rarely with a sail).
2554 — rev R ESTIT V T O R G ALLI AR SC, Postumus stg. 100-150 400-600

1., hldg. spear and raising kneeling fig. of Gaul hldg.
a branch. RIC 157-9.
P o stu m u s (as A u g u stu s) F VF ch V F
2555 — rev VIC TO R K A or AE) AVG (SC ), two Victo 100-150 400-600
ries stg., placing shield on palm tree; two captives
std. at base. RIC 166-8.
2556 Æ Dupondius obv Rad. hd. r. 3 0-50 150-200 400-600
2557 — rev Better types (most every type listed above for 70-100 300-400 700-
double-sestertii and sestertii occur) RIC 186-241. 1000
2558 Æ As 30-50 150-200 400-600
2559 — rev FIDES EXERCITVS, four standards, one 50-75 300-400 —

being a legionary eagle. RIC 244.
2560 — rev I O M SPONSORI SAECVLI AVG, Jupiter 100-150 7 00-

Optimus Maximus stg. at 1., hldg. thunderbolt and 1000
scepter, facing Postumus, stg. at r., sacrificing from
patera over tripod. RIC 248.
2561 — rev SAECVLI FRVGIFERO, winged caduceus. 50-75 400-600 —

RIC 240.
2562 — rev V IRTVS POSTVM I AVG, Hercules captur 100-150 700- —

ing stag. RIC 253. 1000
Aureolus, A .D . 2 Ó 7 (? )-2 6 8
A lly of P o stu m u s
Postumus: IMP C POSTVM VS P F AVG
IMP (C) PO ST VM V S AVG
A ureolu s (striking in the name of Postum us) F VF EF
2563 AV Aureus obv Rad. hd. r. of Postumus, dr. or dr. 1500- 4000- 10,000-
and cuir, rev Various types. RIC V, pt. II, p. 367, 2000 6000 15,000
366-9. Note: All seemingly struck with double-
denarius dies; one laureate issue is suspect.
2564 Billon Double-Denarius obv Rad. hd. r. of Postu 20-40 50-75 100-150
mus, dr. or dr. and cuir, rev Various types. RIC 370-
N ote: Aureolus struck at Milan in the name of Postumus, with whom he seems to have had a
pact. The officina markers P, S or T often appear in the exergue on the reverse, and most of
the reverse inscriptions end with AEQVIT, EQVIT or EQVITVM (for example: CO N
CO RD AEQVIT, FIDES EQVIT or VIRTVS EQVITVM ). See his Numismatic Notes for
details.
THE SEPARATIST EMPIRES 473
Laelianus, A .D . 2 6 9
Augustus: IMP C VLP CO R LAELIANVS
IMP (C) LAELIANVS P F AVG
T he bust is right-facing, laureate, cuirassed and/or draped.
Laelianus (as A ugustu s) F VF EF
2565 AV Aureus 7000- 20,000- 60,000+

10,000 30,000
2566 — rev TEMPORVM FELICITAS, Hispania reel. 1., 8000- 25,000- 75,000+
hldg. branch, rabbit at her side. RIC V, pt. II, p. 372, 12,000 30,000
1. Note: This reverse type of Hispania is one of sev
eral pieces of evidence indicating Laelianus was of
Spanish origin.
2567 Billon Double-Denarius obv Rad. hd. r. Illustrated 100-150 300-400 700-
above. 1000
2568 Billon Denarius rev VIRTVS MILITVM, Virtus stg.

1., hldg. spear and standard (ensign) inscr. XXX.
RIC 10. Note: The inscription on the ensign alludes
to the Legion XXX Ulpia Victrix, which was sta
tioned on the Rhine in Lower Germany.
Marius, A .D . 2 6 9
Augustus: IMP C M AVR M ARIVS (P F) AVG
IMP C MARIVS P F AVG
Except where noted, the bust is right-facing, laureate, draped and/or cuirassed.
M arius (as A ugustus) F VF EF
2569 AV Aureus 7000- 20,000- 60,000+

10,000 30,000
2570 Billon Double-Denarius obv Rad. hd. r. Illustrated 70-100 200-300 400-600
above.
2571 — rev CO N CO RD (IA or IAE) M ILIT(VM ), 70-100 200-300 400-600

clasped hands. RIC V, pt. II, p. 377, 5-8. Note: Being
one of Marius’ most common types, this would seem
to celebrate the unity of the armies which formerly
had supported Postumus and Laelianus.
Domitianus, c . A .D . 2 6 9 ( 7 ) or 2 7 1 (1 )
D om itianus (as A ugustus) F VF EF
2572 Billon or Æ Double-Denarius obv IMP C DOMI-

TIA N V S P F AVG, rad., dr. cuir, bust r. of Domi
tianus rev CON CORDIA MILITVM, Concordia
stg. 1., hldg. patera and cornucopia. RIC V, pt. II, p.
590, 1.

Victorinus, A.D. 269-271
U n c l e o r F a t h e r ( ?) o f T e t r ic u s
G r e a t U n c l e o r G r a n d f a t h e r (? ) o f
T e t r ic u s II
Augustus: IMP C VIC TO RIN V S (P) AVG
IMP (C or CAES) VIC TO R IN V S P F AVG
IMP C (M) PIAVVONI(VS) V IC TO RIN V S P F AVG
IMP VIC TO R IN V S AVG
Deified: DIVO VIC TO RIN O PIO
Except where noted, busts are right-facing, laureate, and usually draped and/or cui-
rassed.
V ictorin us (as A ugustus) F VF EF
2573 AV Aureus 3000- 7000- 20,000-

5000 10,000 30,000
2574 — obv Rad. or laur., cuir, half-bust r., hldg. shield 3000- 7000- —
and spear. 5000 10,000
2575 — rev COM ES AVG, helm., cuir, bust r. of Mars. 30 0 0 - 8,000- —

RIC 6. 5000 12,000
2576 — rev FIDES MILITVM, eagle with wreath in beak 3000- 7000-
stg. on globe betw. two standards. RIC V, pt. II, p. 5000 10,000
387, 7.
2577 — rev Various legionary types. RIC 11-25. 3 000- 8,000- —

5000 12,000
2578 — rev ROMAE AETERNAE, helm., dr. bust r. of 30 0 0 - 8,000- —

Roma. RIC 26. 5000 12,000
2579 — obv Jugate, laur., dr. busts r. of Victorinus and

Mars or laur., cuir, half-bust r., hldg. shield and spear
rev V IC TO R IA AVG, winged half-bust r. of Vic-
tory, hldg. wreath and palm. RIC 30,101'2. Note:
Some attribute the bust on the reverse to Victori-
nus’ mother, who may have been named Victoria.
2581 Billon Double-Denarius obv Rad. hd. r. Illustrated — 5-15 30-50
above.
V ictorin u s (as A ugustus) F VF EF
2582 — obv Rad. half-bust 1., hldg. spear and shield rev 50-75 150-200 300-400
LEG XXX VLP V IC T P F, Jupiter stg., hldg. scepter
and thunderbolt, capricorn at feet. RIC 52. Note:
Legion XXX Ulpia Victrix was stationed on the
Rhine in Lower Germany; its usual badge was Nep-
tune, not Jupiter and a capricorn. The P F on most
of Victorinus’ legionary coins is an indication of the
pia fidelis (piety and fidelity) of the soldiers.
2583 — rev VIRTVS AVG, Diana stg. 1., hldg. scepter, 15-25 50-75 100-150
placing r. hand on stag. RIC 81. Note: Victorinus
claimed Diana as his helper (adjutrix).
2584 Billon Denarius 250-350 500-800 1500-

2000
2585 — rev LEG XXII PRIMIGENIE, Hercules stg., hldg. 300-400 90 0 - —

club and bow, capricorn at feet. RIC 91. 1200
V ictorin us (Posthum ous Com m em oratives) F VF EF
2586 Billon Double-Denarius obv Rad. hd. r. rev 15-25 70-100 300-400
C O N S(E or A)CRA TIO, eagle stg. r. or 1. on globe
or base of column, with wreath in its beak. RIC 82-
5. N ote: RIC lists four non-commemorative reverse
types (86-9) that are muled with this obverse.
Tetricus I, A .D . 271-274
A u g u s tu s: A.D. 271-274
(A.D. 2 7 1 -274: Sole reig n )
(A.D. 274: B riefly
w ith T e tricu s I I (? ) )
N e p h e w o r S o n (? ) o f V ic t o r i n u s
F a t h e r o f T e t r ic u s I
Augustus: IMP C C P ESV TETR IC V S AVG
IMP C (C) P ESVVIVS T ETR IC V S AVG
IMP C T ETR IC V S (P F) AVG
IMP T ETR IC V S PIVS (or P F) AVG
IMP T ETR IC V S AVG

Except where noted, busts are right-facing, laureate, and usually draped and/or cui
rassed.
T etricu s I (as A ugustu s) F VF EF
2587 AV Aureus. Illustrated p . 476 . 2 000- 4000- 15,000-

3000 6000 20,000
2588 — obv Laur., cuir, half-bust 1., hldg. shield and scep 2000- 5 000- 2 0,000-
ter or spear. RIC V, pt. II, pp. 403-4, 19-20,28,32. 3000 8000 30,000
2589 — obv Laur. hd. 1. rev V IC TO R IA GERM, Tetricus 2 000- 5000- 20,000-
I stg. 1., hldg. globe, being crowned by Victory, hldg. 3000 8000 30,000
palm; captive at feet. RIC 38.
2590 Billon or Æ Double-Denarius obv Rad. hd. r. — 5-15 30-50
2591 — rev Various issues with inscr. ending AVGG. RIC 5-15 15-25 50-75
V, pt. II, pp. 421-4, 225ff. Note: More than 20 issues
of Tetricus I with this form of reverse inscription are
listed in RIC.
2592 — rev VOTA PVBLICA, altar. RIC 149. 15-25 30-50 100-150
2593 Billon or Æ Denarius 250-350 500-800 —
2596
T etricu s I and T etricu s II (Joint-C oin age) F VF EF
2594 AV Aureus obv IMP TETR IC I AVGG, Confr. busts

of Tetricus I, laur., dr. and/or cuir., and Tetricus II,
dr. and bare-headed rev P M T R P C O S III P P,
Tetricus I presenting globe to Tetricus II, both hldg.
scepters, altar betw., VOTA or V O T X in ex. RIC
204-5.
2595 — obv IMPP T ETR IC I PII AVGG (or var.), jugate

busts r. of Tetricus I, laur. and cuir., and Tetricus II,
bare-headed and dr. rev Various types. RIC 206-11.
Illustrated p. 478 .
2596 Billon or Æ Double-Denarius Sim. to prev. RIC 250-350 500-800 —

212-3.
2597 Billon or Æ Denarius obv Sim. to 2594 rev P M T R

P C O S III P P, Tetricus I stg., sacrificing from patera
at altar, beside which Tetricus II stgs., hldg. globe
and being crowned by Victory. RIC 214-
Tetricus II, A .D . 2 7 4 ( 2 )
C a e s a r: A.D. 2 7 3 -2 7 4 (u n d er T e tric u s I )
A u g u s tu s (? ): A.D. 2 7 4 (w ith T e tric u s I )
S on o f T e tric u s I
G r a n d N e p h e w o r G r a n d s o n (?) o f V ic t o r in u s
Caesar: C PIV ESV TETR IC V S CAES
C P (E or ES or ESV) T ETR IC V S CAES
PIVS ESV TETR IC V S
Augustus: IMP C PES T ETR IC V S C AVG
C PIV T ETR IC V S P AVG
Note: CAES is often abbreviated CA, CS CES or ES.
Except where noted, busts are right-facing, radiate and draped.
T etricu s II (as C aesar) F VF EF
2598 AV Aureus obv Dr., bare-headed bust r. 30 0 0 - 10,GOO- 3 0,000-

5000 15,000 50,000
2599 Billon or Æ Double-Denarius — 5-15 100-150
2600 — rev Various issues with inscr. ending AVGG. RIC 5-15 50-75 150-200
V, pt. II, pp. 421-4, 225ff. Note: More than ten
issues of Tetricus II with this form of reverse inscrip
tion are listed in RIC.
2601 — rev HERC COM ITI, Hercules stg. in temple. 5-15 50-75 150-200
RIC 230.
2602 Billon or Æ Denarius obv Dr., bare-headed bust r. 300-400 1000- —

15 00
T etricu s II (as A ugustus) F VF EF
2603 Billon or Æ Double-Denarius 100-150 300-400 —
N ote: For joint-coinages of Tetricus II and his father, see the listings of the latter.
T h e K in g d o m of Pa l m yra
c . a .d . 260-272
Zenobia, A .D . 2 6 7 - 2 7 2
Q u e e n : A.D. 2 6 7 -2 7 0 /1
A u g u s ta : A.D. 2 7 0 /1 -2 7 2
W if e o f O d a e n a t h u s
M o th er of V a ba la th u s
Augusta: S ZENOBIA AVG
ZENOBIA AVG
Zenobia (as A ugusta, with V abalathus) F VF EF
2604 Billon Double-Denarius obv Diad., dr. bust r. of 1000- 1750- 40 0 0 -

Zenobia on crescent rev IVNO REGINA, Juno stg. 1500 2250 6000
1., hldg. patera and scepter, peacock at feet, star
before, H in ex. RIC V, pt. II, p. 584, 2.
2605 — rev PIETAS AVG, Pietas std. 1., hldg. hand of 1000- 1750- 4000-
child and leaning on spear. RIC 1. 1500 2250 6000
Zenobia (P rovincial Coinage) F VF ch V F
2606 Billon Tetradrachm of Alexandria, 271/2. obv 250-350 500-800 1500-

CEEITIMIA ZHNOBIA CEB, diad., dr. bust r. of 2000
Zenobia rev Homonoia stg. L, hldg. double-cornuco-
piae and raising r. hand, LE(= yr.5 of Zenobia) in
field. Milne 4353. Illustrated above.
Vabalathus, A .D . 2 6 7 -2 7 2
K in g : A.D. 2 6 7 - 2 7 0 /1
A u g u s tu s: A.D. 2 7 0 /1 -2 7 2
S o n o f O d a e n a t h u s a n d Z e n o b ia
King: VABALATHVS VCRIMDR
Augustus: IM C VHABALATHVS AVG

V abalathus (as King, w ith A urelian) F VF EF
2607 Billon Double-Denarius obv Laur., dr. and cuir, bust 15-25 30-50 100-150
r. of Vabalathus rev IMP C AVRELIANVS AVG,
rad., cuir, bust r. of Aurelian, officina letter below.
RIC V, pt. I, p. 308, 381. Note: These dual-portrait
coins were struck only at Antioch. To cope with the
production demands, Aurelian added an officina to
the eight already in use. The officinae are indicated
by letters below the bust of Aurelian, with the ninth
represented by 0 (in Greek) or AH (in Latin).
V abalathus (P rovincial Coinage) F VF ch V F
2608 Billon Tetradrachm of Alexandria, 270/1. obv A K 15-25 50-75 150-200

A AOM (or AYT K A A) AVPHAIANOC CEB,
laur., dr., cuir, bust r. of Aurelian, LA(= yr.l of
Aurelian) in field rev IAC OYABAAAA0OC
AΘN (O )V A (VT) CP(co), laur.-diad., dr. and cuir,
bust r. of Vabalathus, LA(=yr.4 of Vabalathus) in
field. Milne 4303-26.
2609 — , 271/2. As prev., but obv LB(= yr.2 of Aurelian), 20-40 50-75 150-200
rev LE(=yr.5 of Vabalathus). Milne 4330-48.
2610 Æ Drachm (c. 21 - 25 mm), — , 270/1. obv 70-100 200-300

AVPHAIANOC KAI A ΘHNO▲wPOC, confr.
busts of Aurelian, laur., dr. and cuir, at 1., and Vabal
athus, dr. and wearing hem-hem crown at r. rev
Wreath with LA(= yr.l of Aurelian) and LA(= yr.4
of Vabalathus). Milne 4327-9.
V abalathus (as A ugustus, with Zenobia) F VF EF
2611 Billon Double-Denarius obv Rad., dr. bust r. of 150-200 300-400 70 0 -

Vabalathus rev Various types. RIC V, pt. II, p. 585, 1000
1-8. Illustrated p. 479.
2612 — rev IW E N T VS (IVENVS or VIRTVS) AVG, 150-200 300-400 900-

Hercules stg., lion’s skin dr. over arm, leaning on 1200
club, hldg. apples. RIC 4,7.
Vabalathus (Provincial Coinage) F VF ch V F
2613 Billon Tetradrachm of Alexandria, 271/2. obv AVT 250-350 500-800 1000-
K OYABAAAA0OC A 0N O CEB, laur., dr. and 1500
cuir, bust r. of Vabalathus rev Rad., dr. bust r. of
Helios, LE(= yr.5 of Vabalathus) before. Milne
4349.
2614 — rev Homonoia stg. 1., hldg. double-comucopiae 300-400 900-

and raising r. hand, LE(= yr.5 of Vabalathus) in 1200
field. Milne 4350-2.
T h e R o m a n o -B r it is h E m p ir e
A.D. 2 8 6 / 7 - 2 9 6 / 7
Carausius, A .D . 2 8 6 /7 - 2 9 3
Augustus: CA RA VSIVS P F AVG
IMP (C) CARAVSIVS AVG
IMP CARAVSIVS P F
IMP (C) CARAVSIVS P F AVG
V IR T (V S) CARAVSI (AVG)
Note: The titles Pontifex Maximus and Augustus are often misspelled or are
abbreviated improperly. Many other inscriptions are recorded.
C arausius (as A ugustus) F VF EF
2615 AV Aureus 40 0 0 - 10,000- 30,000+

6000 15,000
2616 — obv V IRTVS CARAVSI, helm., cuir, half-bust 1., 5 000- 15,000-
hldg. shield and spear rev ROMANO RENOVA, 8000 20,000
she-wolf and twins. RIC 534.
2617 AR Denarius. Illustrated above. 250-350 900- 1500-

1200 2000
2618 — obv Laur. half-bust 1. wearing consular robes and 500-800 1500- 4000-
hldg. eagle-tipped scepter or globe rev Various types. 2000 6000
2619 — rev A DVENTVS AVG, Carausius, hldg. scepter 250-350 1000- 1750-
and saluting, on horseback 1., a captive std. below 1500 2250
horse’s raised r. foreleg. RIC 535ff.
2620 — rev EXPECTAT(E or I) VENI, Britannia stg. at 250-350 1000- 1750-

1., hldg. standard or trident, greeting Carausius, stg. 1500 2250
at r., hldg. scepter. RIC 554-7. Note: This and the
previous type allude to Carausius’ arrival in Britain.
2621 — rev VIRTVS AVG, rad. lion adv. 1., thunderbolt 500-800 1500- 4000-
in jaws. RIC 591-2. 2000 6000
Carausius (as A ugustus) F VF EF
2622 — rev VOTO PVBLICO or VOTVM 300-400 1000- 2000-

PVBLIC(VM) around altar inscr. MVLTIS XX IMP 1500 3000
in three lines. RIC 595-7. N ote: This type seems to
celebrate his fourth consulate, accompanied by a
donative, vows and Saecular Games.
2623 Billon or Æ Double-Denarius obv Rad. bust r. 15-25 50-75 150-

200
2624 — obv Full-facing bust, bare-headed, dr. and cuir. 400-600 1500-
rev SALVS AVG, Salus stg. 1., hldg. scepter and 2000
feeding snake rising from altar. RIC 400.
2625 — obv Laur. half-bust 1. wearing consular robes and 70-100 250-350 500-
hldg. eagle-tipped scepter or globe rev Various types. 800
2626 — obv Rad., cuir, half-bust 1., hldg. shield and spear, 50-75 150-200 400-
sometimes wearing plumed helm, rev Various types. 600
2627 — obv Jugate busts r. of Carausius, wearing consular 200-300 7 00-

robes, and Sol, hldg. whip rev PAX AVGVSTI, Pax 1000
adv. 1., hldg. branch and scepter. RIC 341.
2628 — rev COHR(T) (or COH) PRAET, four stan 70-100 250-350 500-
dards. RIC 13,741'2. Note: This reverse rather opti 800
mistically honors the praetorian guardsmen
(cohorts) stationed in Rome.
2629 — rev GENIO BRITANNI, Genius stg. 1. bef. altar, 70-100 250-350 500-
hldg. patera and cornucopiae. RIC 240. 800
2630 — rev VICTOR(IA) GERMA(N) or VICT(ORIA) 50-75 150-200 400-

GER(M), trophy betw. two captives. RIC 432,531- 600
2,1030-1. Note: These types (and related issues
inscribed GERMANICVS MAX V; RIC 39-40)
probably refer to Carausius’ victories prior to his
revolt, but they may allude to actions during the
Carausian occupation of northeastern Gaul.
2631 — rev Legionary types. RIC 55-84,268-76. Note: 70-100 250-350 500-
This large series seems to honor the legionary 800
detachments which supported Carausius.
2632 — rev PAX CARAVSI AVG, Pax stg. 1., hldg. 50-75 150-200 400-
branch and scepter. RIC 146. 600
2633 — rev SAECVLARES AVG around cippus inscr. 100-150 300-400 —

COS IIII. RIC 393.
2634 — rev TVTELA (AVG), Tutela stg. 1. by altar, hldg. 70-100 250-350 500-
patera, wreath (or flower) and cornucopia or scepter. 800
RIC 682-9. Note: Variants exist.
N ote: Carausius used several mints in Britain and Gaul, including (at the very least) London,
Colchester, and Rouen. The mint marks are always on the reverse, in the exergue and/or in
the field. RIC references are to volume V, pt. II, pp. 463-549.
C arausius
(striking in names of D iocletian and M axim ian) F VF EF
2635 Billon or Æ Double-Denarius obv CARAVSIVS 7 00- 2000-

ET FRATRES SVI, jugate, rad., cuir, busts 1. of Car 1000 3000
ausius, Diocletian and Maximian rev PAX AVGGG,
Pax stg. 1., hldg. branch and scepter. RIC 1. Note:
Several other reverse types have been recorded
since volume V of RIC was published in 1933.
2636 — obv IMP C DIOCLETIAN VS P F AVG, rad., 2 0-40 70-100 250-350

cuir, bust r. of Diocletian rev Various types with
inscr. ending AVGGG. RIC 3-31. Note: Many
obverse inscriptions and bust types are known.
2637 — obv IMP C M AXIMIANVS P F AVG, rad., cuir, 20-40 70-100 250-350
bust r. of Maximian rev As prev. RIC 32-49. Note:
Many obverse inscriptions and types are known.
2638 — obv Type normal to Carausius, with his bust and 20-40 50-75 200-300
inscr. rev Various types with inscr. ending AVGGG.
see RIC 334-6,43,62-72,8,443,95-6,510-12,21, etc.
Note: RIC references are to volume V, pt. II, pp. 550-6; the last entry refers to pp. 493-507.
Allectus, A .D . 2 9 3 -2 9 6 /7
M in i s t e r o f C a r a u s i u s
Augustus: (IMP) ALLECTVS P F AVG
IMP C ALLECTVS P F AVG
IMP C ALLECTVS P (or P F I) AVG
IMP C ALLECTVS (PIVS) FELIX AVG
IMP C ALLECTVS P F IN(V) AVG
A llectu s (as A ugustus) F VF EF
2639 AV Aureus. Illustrated above. 5 000- 15,000- 50,000+

8000 20,000
2640 Billon Denarius rev SALVS AVG, Salus stg. 1., 700- 2000- —
feeding snake in her arms. RIC 15. 1000 3000
2641 Billon or Æ Double-Denarius obv Rad. bust r. 15-25 50-75 200-300

A llectu s (as A ugustus) F VF EF
2642 — obv Helm., rad., cuir, half-bust 1., hldg. shield and 70-100 250-350 5 00-800
spear rev PAX AVG, Pax stg. 1., hldg. branch and
scepter. RIC 28.
2643 — rev LEGIO II, lion adv. 1. RIC 24. 70-100 250-350 500-800
2644 — rev ROMA AETER(N), Roma stg. 1. in temple. 50-75 150-200 400-600
RIC 40,113.
2645 — rev VIRTVS AVG, Hercules stg. 1. in temple. 50-75 150-200 400-600
RIC 52.
2646 — rev VIRTVS EXERCIT, four standards. RIC 123. 50-75 150-200 400-600
2647 Billon or Æ Reduced Double-Denarius obv Rad. 15-25 50-75 150-200

bust r. rev LAETITIA AVG, galley variously outfit
ted. RIC 124-7. Note: This issue is usually misde
scribed as a ‘quinarius.’
2648 — As prev., but rev inscr. VIRTVS AVG. RIC 55- 15-25 50-75 150-200
9,128-31. Note: Sometimes there is a bird on the
mast, or Victory or Neptune is aboard.
Note: Though Allectus continued to use more than one mint (seemingly London and
Colchester), he struck only in Britain because Carausius had lost the continental territories.
Mint marks are always on the reverse, in the exergue and/or in the field. RIC references are to
volume V, pt. II, pp. 558-570.

CH APTER TEN
T he T e tra rc h y
c . a .d . 2 8 4 - 3 1 3
Diocletian, A .D . 2 8 4 -3 0 5
A u g u s tu s: A.D. 2 8 4 - 2 8 5
(in op p osition to N u m e ria n )
A.D. 2 8 5 - 2 8 6 (sole reig n ;
M axim ian as C a e s a r)
A.D. 2 8 6 - 3 0 5 (w ith M axim ian )
F a t h e r o f G a l e r i a V a l e r ia
F a t h e r - i n - l a w o f G a l e r iu s
Augustus: DIOCLETIAN VS A VG (V STV S)
DIOCLETIANVS P F AVG
IMP C C VAL DIOCLETIANVS P F AVG
IMP C DIOCLETIANVS P F AVG
IMP DIOCLETIANVS (P F)AVG
Abdication D N DIOCLETIANO BAEATIS(S)
D N DIOCLETIANO B(A )EA T(ISSIM O ) SEN AVG
D N DIOCLETIANO FELIC(ISSIM O) SEN AVG
D N DIOCLETIANO F S (or P F S) AVG
P re -re f o rm : c . A.D. 2 8 4 - 2 9 3 / 4
Except where noted, busts are right-facing and laureate, often draped and/or cui
rassed.
D iocletian (as A ugustu s) F VF EF
2649 AV Aureus 700- 1250- 30 0 0 -

1000 1750 5000
2650 — obv V IRTVS DIOCLETIAN I AVG, laur., cuir, 2,000' 5000- 10,GOO-
half-bust r., hldg. upright spear in r. hand and shield 3,000 7500 15,000
and two spears in 1. rev IOVI CONSERVAT AVGG,
Jupiter stg. 1., hldg. thunderbolt and scepter. RIC V/
2 140.
485
D iocletian (as A ugustus) F VF EF
2651 — rev IOVI CONSERVATORI AVG, Jupiter stg. 1., 8 00- 1500- 4000-
hldg. scepter and thunderbolt, eagle at feet; O in 1200 2000 6000
field. RIC V/2 316-7. N ote: Minted at Antioch in
284, the O indicates this issue was struck at 70 to
the Roman pound (c. 4.7g.).
2652 — rev Sim. to prev, but no AVG, and Z in field. RIC 800- 1500- 4000-
V/2 315. Note: Minted at Antioch in 290, the £ 1200 2000 6000
indicates it was struck at 60 to the Roman pound (c.
5.4g.), the weight Diocletian adopted for his aurei.
2653 — obv Laur., cuir, half-bust r. or 1., hldg. spear and 1000- 3000- 7 000-
shield rev Various types. RIC V/2 Iff. 1500 5000 10,000
2654 — rev FATIS VICTRICIBVS, the Three Fates, var 900- 1500- 4000-
iously hldg. cornucopia and a rudder, stg., hldg. 1200 2000 6000
hands. RIC V/2 293-4,314.
2655 AV Quinarius 900- 1750- 4000-

1200 2250 6000
2656 Billon Aurelianianus obv Rad. bust r. 5-15 15-25 3 0-50
2657 — rev AETERNITAS AVGG, elephant with driver 30-50 150-200 300-500
r. RIC V/2 205.
2658 — rev IOVI FVLGVRATORI, Jupiter r. or 1., hldg. 15-25 20-40 70-100
thunderbolt, eagle at feet. RIC V/2 167-8.
2659 — rev PRIMIS X MVLTIS XX, various types. RIC 15-25 30-50 80-120
V/2 175-9. Note: This marks Diocletian’s decennalia.
2660 Billon Denarius 70-100 250-350 500-800

2661 Billon Quinarius 70-100 250-350 500-800
2662 — rev MAXIMIAN VS AVG, laur., dr. and some 150-200 400-600 1000-
times cuir, bust r. of Maximian. RIC V/2 336. 1500
D iocletian (as A ugustus) F VF ch V F

2663 Æ Reduced Double-Sestertius(?) obv Rad. hd. r. 300-400 1000- 3000-
rev MAXIMIAN VS AVG, rad. hd. r. of Maximian. 1500 5000
RIC V/2 338. Note: In addition to having both
heads radiate, this piece is larger (27mm) and
heavier (7.25g.) than any of the ‘laureate’ bronzes
listed in RIC, all of which are classified as reduced
sestertii in this catalog. It was probably struck early
in his reign, when he named Maximian co-emperor.
2664 Æ Reduced Sestertius RIC V/2 199-202. 200-300 400-600 1250-

1750
Note: All gold coins in this pre-reform listings were struck prior to 293. For coins struck in
the name of Diocletian by Carausius, see nos. 2635-6, and 2638.
THE TETRARCHY 487
2656
P o s t-re fo rm : c . A.D. 2 9 3 / 4 - 3 0 5
Except where noted, busts are right-facing and laureate, often draped and/or cui-
rassed.
2665 AV Medallion of Ten Aurei obv DIOCLETIANVS

AVG ET MAXIMIAN VS C, confr. busts of Dio
cletian and Galerius, wearing consular robes rev
M AXIM IANVS AVG ET CON STAN TIVS C,
confr. busts of Maximian and Constantius I, wearing
consular robes. RIC VI Trev 2. Note: This piece cel-
ebrates the foundation of the Tetrarchy.
2666 AV Aureus. Illustrated p. 485. 7 00- 1250- 4000-

1000 1750 6000
2667 — rev CO N STA N TIVS NOB CAES, laur. hd. r. of 2000' 5000- 10,000-
Constantius I. RIC VI Tic 2. Note: Struck in 293, 3000 7000 15,000
this celebrates Constantius being named Caesar.
2668 — rev HERCVLI DEBELLAT, Hercules fighting the 1500- 30 0 0 - 7 500-

Lernean Hydra. RIC VI Sis 1,25. 2500 5000 10,000
2669 — rev HERCVLI VIC TO RI, Hercules std. facing, 2500- 5 000- 15,000-
lion’s skin over leg, bow and quiver at r., IAN in ex. 3500 8000 20,000
RIC VI '. Note: This is from a rare series of aurei of
Maximian and Diocletian believed to have been
struck in 294 at Iantinum (mod. Meaux, France). A
similar piece is listed for Maximian (no. 2729).
2670 — rev IOVI CONSERVATORS laur. hd. r. of Jupi 1000- 3000- 7000-
ter. RIC VI Trev 54. 1500 5000 10,000
2671 — rev IOVI FVLGERATORI, Jupiter adv. r., strik- 7 00- 1500- 5000-
ing down anguipede giant with thunderbolt. RIC VI 1000 2000 8000
Trev 20. N ote: This issue of aurei, struck at Trier in
294, marks the recovery of Britain, whose ‘Augusti’
had (in Diocletian’s view) rebelled unjustly. This
remarkable type also appeared on aurei of 287.
2672 — rev IOVI VIC TO R I, Jupiter adv. r., hurling thun- 700- 1500- 50 0 0 -
derbolt at giant. RIC VI Sis 7. 1000 2000 8000
2673 — rev M AXIMIANVS P F AVG, laur. hd. r. of 3,000- 5000- 15,000-

Maximian. RIC VI Tic 6. Note: Struck in 293 to 4,000 8000 20,000
celebrate Maximian being named Augustus.
2674 — rev P M TR P VIII COS IIII P P, lion adv. 1., 2000- 4000- 10,000-
thunderbolt in jaws. RIC V/2 4-5. Note: Struck at 3000 6000 15,000
London, c. 293-6.
2675 — rev PROVIDENTIA AVGG or VIRTVS MIL- 1000- 30 0 0 - 7000-

ITVM, campgate, doors open. RIC VI Rom 5a,7a. 1500 5000 10,000
2676 — rev VIRTVS ILLVRICI, Diocletian, brandishing 3,000- 5000- 15,000-

spear, on horse galloping r.; below, galley with armed 4,000 8000 20,000
soldiers. RIC VI Trev 87a.
2677 — rev VOT XX AVGG in three lines in wreath 900- 2000- 50 0 0 -

with eagle at base. RIC VI Aqu 7a. 1200 3000 8000
2678 — rev XX DIOCLETIAN I AVG and mint mark in 900- 2000- 50 0 0 -

five lines in wreath. RIC VI Nie 13,5. Note: The 1200 3000 8000
mint-monogram of Nicomedia (NIK in ligature)
sometimes occurs at the top of the wreath.
2679 AV Quinarius rev GAVDETE ROMANI or VOTIS 900- 2000- 50 0 0 -

ROMANORVM, two Victories stg., hldg. tablet 1200 3000 8000
inscr. SIC XX SIC XXX. RIC VI Aqu 14a, 15.
2680 A R Argenteus 100-150 250-350 700-

1000
2681 — rev VICTORIAE SARMATICAE, campgate 100-150 300-400 900-

with open doors. RIC VI Nie 22a,5a. 1200
2682 — rev VIRTVS MILITVM, campgate. RIC VI Ant 100-150 300-400 900-
42a. 1200
2683 — rev XCVI and mint mark in wreath. RIC VI Tic 150-200 300-400 1000-
20a, Aqu 16a. Note: XCVI (= 9 6 ) indicates how 1500
many argentei were struck to the Roman pound.
2684 A R Half-Argenteus rev VOT XX SIC XXX four 200-300 500-800 1500-
lines in wreath. RIC VI Trev 135-6. 2000
2685 Billon Nummus (c. 26-31mm) 15-25 20-40 50-75
2686 — rev GENIO POPVLI ROMANI, Genius stg. 1., 15-25 3 0-50 100-150
hldg. patera and cornucopia, K-V in field. RIC VI
Ant 54a. Note: These nummi of Antioch have the
numerical formula KV (=20,5), perhaps indicating
it was valued at 20 sestertii (accounting units) and 5
denarii communes. Other nummi are marked XXI
SIS (RIC Sis 110-3), and XXI or XX (RIC Ale
30a,2a). The XXI (meaning 20-to-l) was the stan
dard marking for the aurelianiani abandoned in
Diocletian’s reform.
2687 — rev FORTVNAE REDVCI AVGG N N, Fortuna 15-25 30-50 100-150

std. 1. on wheel, hldg. rudder and cornucopia. RIC
VI Trev 381a.
2688 — rev HERCVLI VICTORI, Hercules stg. facing, 5-15 50-75 150-200
leaning on club, hldg. three apples and lion’s skin.
RIC VI Sis 162-5ff.
THE TETRARCHY 489
Diocletian (as A ugustu s) F VF EF
2689 — rev IOVI CON S CAES, Jupiter stg. 1., hldg. Vic 15-25 30-50 100-150
tory on globe and leaning on scepter. RIC VI Ale
41-2.
2690 Billon or Æ Nummus Fraction(?) (c. 13-15mm) 70-100 150-200 400-600

rev MVLTIS XX or SIC X SIC XX or V O T (IS) X
SIC XX or V O T XX AVGG or V O T XX SIC XXX
in wreath. RIC VI Trev 563ff. Note: These may be
quinarii.
2691 Æ Post-Reform Radiate (c. 20-22mm) obv Rad. 5-15 20-40 50-75
bust r. rev CON CORDIAE AVGG or CON COR-
DIA MILITVM, Diocletian stg. at 1., rec. Victory on
globe from Jupiter, stg. at r., leaning on scepter. RIC
VI Tic 25, Her 13ff. Note: No examples of the rare
‘prototype’ issue of this denomination (c. 24-25mm)
are known for Diocletian, though they are for his
three colleagues.
2692 — rev V O T XX and officina letter in wreath. RIC 15-25 30-50 80-120
VI Tic 36-8ff.
2693 Æ Post-Reform Laureate (c. 15-18mm) rev VTILI- 50-75 100-150 200-300
TAS PVBLICA, Utilitas stg. facing, hd. 1., hands in
gown. RIC VI Tic 27a, Rom 48.
D io cletian (A b d icatio n C o in ag e)
E xcep t where noted, the obverse has a right-facing half-bust, laureate, wearing
consular robes and holding olive branch and mappa.
D iocletian (A bdication C oinage) F VF EF
2694 AV Aureus, struck after the abdication on May 1, 1500- 40 0 0 - 10,GOO-

305. rev PROVID(ENTIA) DEORVM QVIES 2000 6000 15,000
AVGG, Providentia stg. at 1., greeting Quies, stg at
r., hldg. branch and leaning on scepter. RIC VI Ser
10a, Ant 69. Note: Only two small issues of aurei
were struck.
2695 Billon Nummus (c. 25-27mm), — . rev PROVI 20-40 70-100 150-200
DENTIA DEORVM QVIES AVGG, type as prev.
RIC VI Lon 76ff. N ote: By far the most common
abdication issue, it was struck at 13 mints.
2696 — . As prev., but rev inscr. PROVIDENT DEOR 20-40 70-100 200-300
Q VIES AVGG. RIC VI Rom 116a.
2697 — . rev QVIES AVGG (or A VGVSTORVM ), Quies 30-50 100-150 250-350
stg. 1., hldg. olive branch and leaning on scepter.
RIC VI Trev 712-3, etc.
2698 — , (c. 23-25mm), — . rev PROVIDENTIA 2 0-40 70-100 150-200

DEORVM QVIES, type as 2695. RIC VI Ant 83,9-
90. Note: For the final coins of this Antiochene
series, see nos. 2700-01.
D iocletian (A bdication Coinage) F VF EF
2699 Billon or Æ Nummus Fraction(?) (c. 13-15mm), 100-150 400-600

— . obv Laur hd. r. rev QVIES AVGG, Quies stg. 1.,
hldg. olive branch and leaning on scepter. RIC VI
Trev 681a. N ote: This may be a quinarius.
2700 Billon Nummus (c. 23-25mm), struck after the 20-40 70-100 150-200
Conference of Carnuntum, Nov., 308. As 2698.
RIC VI Ant 113ff (cf. Ant 96-7).
2701 — . As 2695, but rev inscr. PROVIDENTIA 20-40 70-100 150-200

DEORVM. RIC VI Ale 80,109ff. Note: A bust of
Jupiter or Sol sometimes adorns Diocletian’s breast.
2702 Billon Half'Nummus (c. 20mm), — . As prev., but 20-40 70-100 150-200
no busts on Diocletian’s breast. RIC VI Ale 86-94.
N ote: This issue may have been struck shortly
before Carnuntum. A t c. 3.0g., this is half the
weight of the related 5.5-7.5g. nummi.
N ote: After Diocletian and Maximian abdicated on May 1, 305, they became Seniores
Augusti, felicissimi et beatissimi and a massive coinage was struck for them during the next
three years. Issues were also struck after their retirements were again confirmed at the Confer-
ence of Carnuntum in November, 308. These final issues were struck until 311. An extremely
rare reverse type for Diocletian’s abdication nummi is: VOTA PVBLICA, galley traveling
right, Serapis reclining at the stern, Isis standing near prow, holding billowed sail.
D iocletian (P rovincial Coinage) F VF EF
2703 BillonTetradrachm of Alexandria 5-15 15-25 50-75
Maximian, A .D . 2 8 6 - 3 1 0
C a e s a r: A.D. 2 8 5 - 2 8 6
(u n d er D io cle tia n )
A u g u stu s:
1 st R e ig n : A.D. 286-305
(w ith D io cle tia n )
2 nd R e ig n : A.D. 307-308
(w ith M a x e n tiu s &
C o n sta n tin e I )
3 rd R e ig n : A.D. 310
(in d ep en d en t)
S o n - i n - l a w o f D io c l e t i a n
F a t h e r o f M a x e n t iu s a n d F a u s t a
S t e p -fa t h e r o f T heod ora
G r a n d fa th er of R o m ulus
1st Reign: IMP C M AVR VAL MAXIMIANVS P F (or P) AVG
IMP C (or C M A) MAXIMIANVS P F AVG

THE TETRARCHY 491
IMP M AXIM IANVS AVG
IMP M AXIMIANVS P F (or P) AVG
MAXIM IANVS A VG (V STV S)
MAXIM IANVS P F AVG
Abidcation D N MAXIMIANO BAEATIS(SIM O) (SEN AVG)
D N MAXIMIANO FELICIS(SIM )
D N MAXIMIANO FELICÍSSIMO SEN AVG
D N MAXIMIANO F S (or SEN) AVG
2nd Reign: D N MAXIMIANO P F S AVG
IMP M AXIMIANVS P F S AVG
MAXIMIANVS P F AVG
Deified: DIVO MAXIMIANO (under Licinius I)
DIVO MAXIMIANO PATRI MAXENTIVS AVG (under Maxentius)
DIVO MAXIMIANO SEN AVG (under Maxentius)
DIVO MAXIMIANO SEN (FORT or FORT IMP) (under Constantine I)
DIVO MAXIMIANO O PT(IM O) IMP (under Constantine I)
IMP MAXENTIVS DIVO MAXIMIANO PATRI (under Maxentius)
Note: The inscriptions of Maximian and Galerius are easily confused on both lifetime (Gale-
rius as Augustus) and posthumous issues.
P re -re f o rm : c . A.D. 2 8 6 - 2 9 3 / 4
Excep t where noted, busts are right-facing and laureate, often draped and/or cu i
rassed.
M axim ian (as A ugustus, F irst Reign) F VF EF
2704 AV Aureus 700- 1250- 30 0 0 -

1000 1750 5000
2705 — obv V IRTVS MAXIMIANI AVG, laur., cuir, 3,000- 5000- 15,000-
half'bust r., hldg. upright spear in r. hand and shield 4,000 8000 20,000
and two spears in 1. rev VIRTVS AVGG, Hercules
strangling Nemean lion, club at 1. RIC V/2 500.
2706 — obv Laur., cuir, half'bust r. or 1., hldg. spear and 1000- 30 0 0 - 7000-
shield rev Various types. RIC V/2 Iff. 1500 5000 10,000
2707 — rev FATIS V IC TR IC IBV S, the Three Fates, var- 900- 2500- 6 000-
iously hldg. cornucopia and a rudder, stg., hldg. 1200 3500 8000
hands, £ in field. RIC V/2 617-8. N ote: The Z indi-
cates these aurei were struck at the heavy weight of
60 to the Roman pound (c. 5.4g.).
2708 AV Quinarius 900- 1750- 40 0 0 -

1200 2250 6000
2710 — obv Rad. bust 1., club over r. shoulder, hd. of lion’s 15-25 30-50 80-120
skin at 1. shoulder rev Various types.
2711 — rev AETERNITAS AVGG, elephant with driver 30-50 150-200 300-500
r. RIC V/2 349.
2712 — rev AVSPIC FEL, Liberalitas stg. 1., hldg. tessera 15-25 30-50 80-120
and caduceus, altar or child at feet. RIC V/2 469-71.
2713 — rev PRIMIS X MVLTIS XX, various types. RIC 15-25 30-50 80-120
V/2 511-4.
2714 — rev VIRTVS AVGG, Hercules, hldg. apple and 70-100 250-350 500-800
club, stg. beneath tree round which snake is
entwined. RIC V/2 568-9. N ote: This rare type
shows Hercules in the garden of the Hesperides.
2715 — rev VNDIQVE VICTORES, Maximian stg. 1., 15-25 30-50 80-120
hldg. scepter and Victory on globe. RIC V/2 431.
2716 Billon Denarius 70-100 250-350 500-800
M axim ian (as A ugustus, F irst Reign) F VF ch V F
2718 Æ Reduced Double-Sestertius(?) see no. 2663. 300-400 1000- 3000-

1500 5000
2719 Æ Reduced Sestertius RIC V/2 532-7. 200-300 400-600 1250-

1750
N ote: All gold coins in this pre-reform listings were struck prior to 293. For coins struck in
the name of Maximian by Carausius, see nos. 2635, and 2637-8.
P o s t-re fo rm : c . A .D . 2 9 3 / 4 - 3 0 5
rassed.
M axim ian (as A ugustus, First Reign) F VF EF
2720 AV Medallion of Five Aurei, 293. obv Hd. r. of 15,000- 70,000- 200,000
Maximian wearing lion’s scalp rev VIRTVTI AVGG 20,000 100,000 +
V ET IIII COS, Hercules, nude, stg. facing, hd. r.,
being crowned from 1. by Roma, hldg. bow and
extending 1. hand toward reel, river-god. RIC VI -.
2721 AV Aureus 700- 1250- 40 0 0 -

1000 1750 6000
2722 — obv Hd. r. of Maximian wearing lion’s scalp rev 3,000- 50 0 0 - 15,000-
Various types. 4,000 8000 20,000
2723 — obv Laur hd. 1. rev Various types. 700- 1500- 50 0 0 -

1000 2000 8000
THE TETRARCHY 493
M axim ian (as A u g u stu s,.F irst Reign) F VF EF
o o
CO
o o
o o
2724 — rev COM ES AVGG, distyle temple with domed 5000- 15,000-
roof, Mars stg. within. RIC VI Trev 36b,37 8000 20,000
2725 — rev HERCVLI CONSERVATORI, bearded hd. r. 1000- 30 0 0 - 7000-

of Hercules, wearing lion’s scalp. RIC VI Trev 46. 1500 5000 10,000
2726 — rev HERCVLI DEBELLAT (or VIRTVTI 7 00- 1500- 5000-

AVGG), Hercules fighting the Lernean Hydra. RIC 1000 2000 8000
VI Trev 9ff. Note: This type also occurs with the
inscription HERCVLI V IC TO R I (RIC VI Sis 14).
2727 — rev HERCVLI INMORTALI, Hercules, hldg. 700- 1500- 5 000-

club and lion’s skin, adv. r., leading Cerberus in 1000 2000 8000
chains. RIC VI Trev 48.
2728 — rev HERCVLI V IC TO R I, Hercules, facing, std. 7 00- 1500- 5000-

on rocks, hd. r., hldg. club and lion’s skin; bow and 1000 2000 8000
quiver at r. RIC VI Tre 13-4-
2729 — rev IOVI FVLGERATORI, Jupiter adv. r., strik- 700- 1500- 5 000-
ing down anguipede giant with thunderbolt, IAN in 1000 2000 8000
ex. RIC VI -. Note: See no. 2669 for another aureus
attributed to the mint of Iantinum.
2730 — rev MARTI PROPVGNATORI, helm., cuir, bust 1000- 3000- 7000-
r. of Mars. RIC VI Trev 59-60. 1500 5000 10,000
2731 — rev PACATORES GENTIVM, Maximian in fac 1000- 40 0 0 - 10,000-

ing quadriga led by soldier. RIC VI Trev 65b-66. 1500 6000 15,000
2732 — rev PROVIDENTIA AVGG or VIRTVS MIL- 700- 1500- 5 000-

ITVM, campgate, doors open. RIC VI Rom 5b,7b. 1000 2000 8000
2733 — rev VIRTVS (or VIR TV TI) AVGG, Hercules, 700- 1500- 50 0 0 -
sometimes hldg. club, carrying Erymanthian boar on 1000 2000 8000
shoulders. RIC VI Trev 24-6.
2734 — rev VIRTVS AVGG N N, Maximian on horse 1000- 3000- 7000-

back r., hldg. shield and spearing kneeling foe, tram 1500 5000 10,000
pling another. RIC VI Cyz 3.
2735 — rev VIRTVS ILLVRICI, Maximian, brandishing 3,000- 5 000- 15,000-

spear, on horse galloping r.; below, galley with armed 4,000 8000 20,000
soldiers. RIC VI Trev 87b. N ote: This type cele
brates the defeat of Allectus, which required a mas
sive naval expedition.
2736 — rev V O T XX AVGG in three lines in wreath 900- 1750- 50 0 0 -

with eagle at base. RIC VI Aqu 7b. 1200 2250 8000
2737 — rev XX MAXIMIANI AVG and mint mark in 900- 1750- 5000-
five lines in wreath. RIC VI Nie 14,6. Note: A mint- 1200 2250 8000
monogram of Nicomedia (NIK in ligature) some
times occurs at the top of the wreath.
2738 AV Quinarius rev GAVDETE ROMANI, two Vic 900- 2 000- 5 000-
tories stg., hldg. tablet inscr. SIC XX SIC XXX. RIC 1200 3000 8000
VI Aqu 14b. Note: For other quinarii, see RIC Sis
29-30.
2739 A R Argenteus 100-150 250-350 700-

1000
2740 — rev VICTORIAE SARMATICAE, campgate 100-150 300-400 900-

with open doors. RIC VI Nie 22b,5b. 1200
42b. 1200
20b, Aqu 16b. Note: XCVI (= 96), indicates how 1500
2743 Billon Nummus (c. 26-31mm). Illustrated above. 15-25 20-40 50-75
2744 — obv Jugate busts r. of Maximian, cuir., and Her 200-300 500-800
cules, hldg. club rev GENIO POPVLI ROMANI,
Genius stg. 1., hldg. patera and cornucopia. RIC VI
Trev 276.
2745 — rev GENIO POPVLI ROMANI, Genius stg. 1., 15-25 30-50 100-150
Ant 54b. Note: See no. 2686 for details about the
value-marker K-V.
RIC VI Sis 163ff.
2747 — rev ROMAE AETER, hexastyle temple, Roma 30-50 80-120 250-350
std. within. RIC VI Lon 100.
2748 Billon Quarter-Nummus (c. 17-20mm) rev GENIO 15-25 30-50 150-200
POPVLI ROMANI, Genius stg. 1., hldg. patera and
cornucopia. RIC VI Sis 146-7. Note: At about 1.5-
2.3g., this is one-fourth of the related nummus of c.
8.0- 10.0g.

rev MVLTIS XX (X ) or SIC X SIC XX or VOT XX
AVGG or VOT XX SIC XXX in wreath. RIC VI
Trev 564ff. Note: These may be quinarii.
2750 Æ Post-Reform ‘Heavy’ Radiate (c. 24-25mm) obv 150-200 400-600 1500-
Rad., dr. bust r. rev CONCORDIA MILITVM, 2000
Maximian stg. at 1., rec. Victory on globe from Jupi
ter, stg. at r., leaning on scepter. RIC VI Cyz 13.
Note: This extremely rare ‘prototype’ issue (c. 5.0-
6.5g.) was abandoned in favor of the smaller, lighter
issue (c. 3.0g.) described below.
2751 Æ Post-Reform Radiate (c. 20-22mm) As prev., 5-15 20-40 50-75

but rev inscr. CONCORDIAE AVGG or CON
CORDIA MILITVM. RIC VI Tic 25, Her 14ff.
2752 — rev VOT XX and officina letter in wreath. RIC 15-25 3 0-50 80-120
VI Tic 36-8ff.
THE TETRARCHY 495
M axim ian (as A ugustus, First Reign) F VF EF
2753 Æ Post-Reform Laureate (c. 1 5 '18mm) rev VTILL 50-75 100-150 200-300
TA S PVBLICA, Utilitas stg. facing, hd. 1., hands in
gown. RIC VI Tic 27b, Rom 62.
2754 — As prev., but rev type Aequitas stg. 1., hldg. scales 50-75 100-150 250-350
and cornucopia. RIC VI Sis 94.
M axim ian (F ir s t A b d icatio n C o in ag e)

E xcep t where noted, the obverse has a right-facing half-bust, laureate, wearing
consular robes and holding olive branch and mappa.
M axim ian (F irst A bdication Coinage) F VF EF
O. CD
0 0
0 0
2755 AV Aureus, struck after the abdication on May 1, 7000-
305. rev PROVID DEORVM QVIES AVGG, Provi' 10,000
dentia stg. at 1., greeting Quies, stg at r., hldg.
branch and leaning on scepter. RIC VI Ser 10b.
Note: Only one small issue was struck.
2756 Billon Nummus (c. 25'27m m), — . rev PROVI' 20-40 70-100 150-200
DENTIA DEORVM QVIES AVGG, type as prev.
RIC VI Lon 76ff. Note: The most common abdica-
tion issue, it was struck at 13 mints. A rare variant,
Rom 116b, abbreviates the reverse inscription.
2757 Billon or Æ Nummus Fraction(?) (c. 1 3 '15mm), 100-150 400-600

— . obv Laur hd. r. rev QVIES AVGG, Quies stg. 1.,
hldg. olive branch and leaning on scepter. RIC VI
Trev 681b. Note: This may be a quinarius.
N ote: An extremely rare reverse type for Maximians abdication nummi is: VOTA
PVBLîCA, galley traveling right, Serapis reclining at the stern, Isis standing near prow, hold'
ing billowed sail.
M axim ian (as A u g u stu s, S eco n d R eig n )

E xcep t where noted, busts are right'facing and laureate, often draped and/or cui-
rassed.
M axim ian (as A ugustus, Second Reign) F VF EF
2758 AV Aureus 1250- 2000- 7000-

1750 3000 10,000
2759 — rev FELIX INGRESS SEN AVG, Roma std. 1. on 1500- 3000- 10,000-
shield, hldg. scepter and shield inscr. V O T XXX. 2000 5000 15,000
RIC VI Rom 136.
2760 — rev FELIX KARTHAGO, Carthago stg. facing, 1500- 2500- 8,000'
hd. 1., hldg. fruits in both hands. RIC VI Car 46. 2000 3500 12,000
2761 AR Argenteus 200-300 400-600 1000-

1500
2762 AR Half-Argenteus rev VIRTVS MILITVM, 200-300 500-800 1250-

campgate. RIC VI Trev 761-2. 1750
M axim ian (as A ugustus, Second Reign) F VF EF
2764 — obv Laur. half-bust I., wearing consular robes, 30-50 80-120 250-350
hldg. eagle-tipped scepter rev GENIO POPVLI
ROMANI, Genius stg. 1., hldg. cornucopia and sac
rificing from patera over altar. RIC VI Lug 209.
2765 — rev CON SERV (AT ORES ) VRB SVAE, hexas- 15-25 3 0-50 100-150
tyle temple, Roma std. within. RIC VI Tic 84ff.
2766 — rev TEMPORVM FELICITAS, Felicitas stg. 1., 15-25 30-50 100-150
leaning on long caduceus, hldg. cornucopia. RIC VI
Lug 281.
2767 Billon Half-Nummus (c. 22-23mm) rev GENIO 15-25 30-50 150-200
POP ROM, Genius stg. 1., hldg. patera and cornuco
pia. RIC VI Trev 738. Note: At about 4.0-4.5g., this
is half the related nummi of c. 6.5-8.5g.

rev PLVR NATAL FEL in wreath. RIC VI Trev 747.
N ote: These may be quinarii.
2769 — . rev VOTIS XXX or VOT XXX AVG N or VOT 70-100 150-200 400-600
XXX AVGG (NN) in wreath. RIC VI Trev 751-
4,93.
M axim ian (Second A bdication C oinage) F VF EF
2770 Billon Nummus (c. 23-25mm), struck after the 30-50 100-150 400-600
Conference of Carnuntum, Nov., 308. obv MAXIM-
IAN VS P F AVG, laur., cuir, bust r. rev QVIES
AVG, Quies stg. 1., hldg. olive branch and leaning
on scepter. RIC VI Trev 788.
2771 Billon Half-Nummus (c. 20mm), — . obv Laur. 20-40 70-100 150-200
half-bust r., wearing consular robes, hldg. olive
branch and mappa rev PROVIDENTIA DEORVM,
Providentia stg. at 1., greeting Quies, stg at r., hldg.
branch and leaning on scepter. RIC VI Ale 86-94.
Note: These may have been struck shortly before
Carnuntum. A t c. 3.0g., it is half the weight of the
associated nummi of 5.5-7.5g.
Except where noted, M aximian’s head is right-facing, veiled and sometimes also
laureate.
M axim ian (Posthum ous C om m em oratives) F VF EF
2772 Billon Nummus (c. 24-27mm), under Maxentius. 15-25 30-50 150-200
rev AETERNA(E) MEMORIA(E), domed shrine
with four or six columns, doors open, surmounted by
eagle. RIC VI Rom 243-4,50-1, Ost 24-6.
THE TETRARCHY 497
M axim ian (Posthum ous Com m em oratives) F VF EF
2773 — , under Licinius I. rev MEM DIVI MAXIMIANI, 100-150 300-400

domed shrine without columns, doors closed, sur
mounted by eagle. RIC VI Thes 48. Note: This is
the rarest of Maximians commemoratives.
2774 Billon Nummus (c. 19mm), under Constantine the 5-15 3 0-50 100-150
Great, c. 317-8. rev REQVIES OPTIM OR(VM )
M ERIT(ORVM ), Maximian std. 1. on curule chair,
hldg. scepter and raising r. hand. RIC VII Rom 104-
2775 Billon Half- or Quarter-Nummus (c. 14-17mm), 5-15 3 0-50 100-150

— . As prev., but rev inscr. REQVIES OPTI-
MORVM MERITORVM. RIC VII Rom 107.

RIC VII Rom 110,3.
2777 — . rev As prev, but. lion adv. r. or 1., sometimes club 5-15 30-50 150-200
above. RIC VII Rom 120,3,6.
M axim ian (P rovincial Coinage) F VF EF
2778 BillonTetradrachm of Alexandria 5-15 15-25 50-75
Amandus, c. A.D. 285-286
Augustus: IMP C C AM ANDVS P F AVG
IMP S AM ANDVS P F AVG
Busts are right-facing and radiate, sometimes also draped and cuirassed.
A m andus (as A ugustu s) F VF EF
2779 Billon Double-Denarius rev (sic)ALVS AVG,

Pax(?) stg. 1., hldg. branch and scepter. RIC V/2, p.
595, 2.
2780 — rev SPES P A IV III, helm, male stg. 1., hldg. — — —

spear and shield. RIC V/2 1.
2781 — rev VENVS AVG, Venus stg. 1., hldg. apple and — — —
spear. RIC V/2 3.

negligible. Coins with the same value range are not always equally valuable, for
they may represent different ends of the same spectrum.
Domitius Domitianus
c. A.D. 296-297/8
Augustus: DOMITIAN V S AVG
IMP C L (or LVCIVS) DOM ITIVS DOM ITIANVS AVG
Except where noted, busts are right-facing and laureate.
D om itius D om itianus (as A ugustus) F VF EF
2782 AV Aureus rev V IC TO I(sic) AVG, Victory adv. 1., 15,000- 30,000- 100,000
hldg. wreath and palm branch. RIC VI Ale 5. 20,000 50,000 +
2783 Billon Nummus (c. 25-28mm) rev GENIO 400-600 1000- 2200-
POPVLI ROMANI, Genius stg. 1., hldg. patera and 1500 3000
cornucopia; at feet, eagle with wreath in beak. RIC
VI Ale 19-20. Illustrated above.
2784 Billon Half-Nummus (c. 20mm) As prev. RIC VI — — —

Ale 45.
2785
D om itius D om itianus (Provincial Coinage) F VF EF
2785 Billon Octodrachm of Alexandria (c. 23mm) obv 400-600 900- 1500-
AOMITIANOC CEB, rad. hd. r. rev Serapis adv. r., 1200 2000
hldg. scepter and raising hand, palm branch and LB
in field. Milne 5245. Note: This issue is often cata
loged as a hexadrachm.
2786 Billon Tetradrachm (c. 20mm), — . obv 400-600 900- 1500-

AOMITIANOC CEB, laur., dr. and cuir, bust r. rev 1200 2000
Bust 1. of Serapis, LB in field. Milne-. Note: The
rarest of his three provincial issues.
2787 Billon Didrachm (c. 18mm), — . obv As prev. rev 250-350 500-800 1250-
Nike adv. 1., hldg. wreath and palm branch; LB in 1750
field. Milne -.
TH E TETRA RCHY 499
Galerius, A.D. 305-311

C a e s a r: A.D. 29 3 -3 0 5
(u n d er D io cle tia n )
A u g u stu s: A.D. 3 0 5 -3 0 6
(w ith C o n sta n tiu s I)
A.D. 30 6 -3 1 1 (various
arrangem ents)
S o n - in - l a w o f D io c l e t ia n
H u s b a n d o f G a l e r ia V a l e r i a
U n c l e o f M a x i m i n u s II D a i a
F a t h e r - in - l a w o f M a x e n t iu s
Caesar: GAL VAL MAXIMIANVS NOB CAES
M AXIM IANVS CA ES(A R)
M AXIM IANVS NOB C(A ES)
Augustus: GAL MAXIMIANVS P F AVG
IMP C GAL VAL M AXIMIANVS P F AVG
IMP (C) M AXIM IANVS P F AVG
M AXIM IANVS (P F) AVG
Deified: DIVO GAL VAL MAXIMIANO (AVG) (under Licinius)
DIVO MAXIMIANO (under Licinius)
DIVO MAXIMIANO (IVN) AVG (under Maxentius)
DIVO MAXIMIANO MAXIMINVS AVG FIL (under Maximinus II)
DIVO MAXIMIANO SO CERO M AXEN TIVS AVG (under Maxentius)
IMP MAXENTIVS DIVO MAXIMIANO SO CERO (under Maxentius)
Note: The inscriptions of Maximian and Galerius are easily confused on both lifetime (Gale
rius as Augustus) and posthumous issues.
P re -re f o rm : c . A.D. 2 9 3 / 4 - 2 9 4
rassed.
G alerius (as C aesar) F VF EF
2789 — rev AETERN ITAS AVGG, elephant with driver 50-75 200-250 400-600
r. RIC V/2 676.
and caduceus, child at feet. RIC V/2 693.
2791 — rev PRAESIDIA REIPVBLIC, Constantius and 20-40 70-100 150-200

Galerius stg., facing each other, hldg. Victory on
globe, captive betw. RIC V/2 716.
2792 Billon Denarius 100-150 300-400 700-

1000
N ote: All of Galerius’ gold coins were struck in 293 or later and are listed in subsequent sec-
tions.
P o s t-re fo rm : c . A .D . 2 9 3 / 4 - 3 0 5
rassed.
2794 AV Aureus 700- 1250- 40 0 0 -

1000 1750 6000
2795 — rev FORTVNAE REDVCI, turreted, veiled hd. 1500- 4000- —

of the Tyche of Antioch(?) r. RIC VI Ant 23b. 2000 6000
2796 — rev MARTI PROPVGNATORI, helm., cuir, bust 1000- 3000- 7 000-
r. of Mars. RIC VI Trev 62-3. 1500 5000 10,000
2797 — rev PROVIDENTIA AVGG or VIRTVS MIL- 700- 1500- 50 0 0 -

ITVM, campgate, doors open. RIC VI Rom 6b,8b. 1000 2000 8000
2798 — rev SIC X SIC XX COS IIII in three lines in 900- 1750- 5 000-
wreath. RIC VI Trev 82. 1200 2250 8000
2799 — rev SOLI INVICTO, rad., dr. bust r. of Sol. RIC 1000- 30 0 0 - 7000-
VI Trev 83, Nie 17, Ant 26. 1500 5000 10,000
2800 — rev VOT X CAESS in three lines in wreath with 900- 1750- 5000-
eagle at base. RIC VI Aqu 5b,6. 1200 2250 8000
2801 AV Quinarius rev ORIENS AVGVSTOR, Sol stg. 900- 2000- 50 0 0 -

1., hldg. whip and raising r. hand. RIC VI Sis 31b. 1200 3000 8000
2802 — rev VIRTVS AVGG, Hercules stg. facing, hldg. 900- 2000- 5000-
bow and lion’s skin, leaning on club. RIC VI Rom 9. 1200 3000 8000
Note: A t about 2.8g., this is half a c. 5.4g. aureus.
2803 AV Quarter-Aureus rev VOTIS X SIC XX in four

lines in wreath. RIC VI Trev 99. Note: Probably a
donative piece, this irregular denomination was
struck for the tenth anniversary of the First Tetrar
chy. The only recorded example weighs 1.25g.
2804 A R Argenteus 100-150 250-350 700-

1000
2805 — rev VICTORIAE SARMATICAE, campgate. 150-200 400-600 1250-

RIC VI Sis 10. 1750
THE TETRARCHY 5OI
Galerius (as C aesar) F VF EF
2806 — rev V IRTVS MILITVM, campgate. RIC VI Ant 100-150 300-400 900-
43b. 1200
2 lb ,22, Aqu 17b. Note: XCVI (= 96), indicates how 1500
2808 Billon Nummus (c. 26-31mm). Illustrated p. 499. 15-25 20-40 50-75
2809 — rev GENIO POPVLI ROMANI, Genius stg. L, 15-25 30-50 100-150
Ant 55b. Note: See no. 2686 for details about the
value-marker K-V.
2810 — rev HERCVLI VIC TO R I, Hercules stg. facing, 5-15 50-75 150-200
RIC VI Sis 166.
2811 — rev IOVI CONS CAES, Jupiter stg. 1., hldg. Vic 15-25 3 0-50 100-150
43-4.
2812 Billon or Æ Quinarius(?) (c. 15-18mm) rev PRIN- 70-100 250-350 500-800
C IP IIV V EN T V T IS, Galerius, in military garb, stg.
r., hldg. spear and globe or stg. 1., hldg. standard,
another to r. RIC VI Rom 53-61. Note: The reverse
inscription is abbreviated different ways.
2813 Billon or Æ Nummus Fraction(?) (c. 13- 15mm) 70-100 150-200 400-600
rev MVLTIS X (X ) or SIC X SIC XX or V O T X SIC
XX or V O T XX CA ESS or V O T XX SIC XXX in
wreath. RIC VI Trev 562ff. Note: These may be qui-
narii.
2814 Æ Post-Reform ‘Heavy’ Radiate (c. 24 25mm) obv 150-200 400-600 1500-
Rad., dr. bust r. rev CON CORDIA MILITVM, 2000
Galerius stg. at 1., rec. Victory on globe from Jupiter,
stg. at r., leaning on scepter. RIC VI Cyz 14b. Note:
This extremely rare ‘prototype’ issue (c. 5.0-6.5g.)
was abandoned in favor of the smaller, lighter issue
(c. 3.0g.) described below.

but rev inscr. CON CORDIAE AVGG or CO N
2816 — rev V O T X (or XX) and officina letter in wreath. 15-25 3 0-50 80-120
RIC VI Tic 39-42, Rom 87-9ff.
2817 Æ Post-Reform Laureate (c. 15-18mm) rev VTILI- 50-75 100-150 200-300
gown. RIC VI Tic 28b, Rom 49b.
2818 — rev MARTI PROPVGNATORI, Mars adv. r., 70-100 150-200 300-400
hldg. spear and shield. RIC VI Sis 93.
rassed.
G alerius (as A ugustus) F VF EF
2819 AV Aureus 700- 1250- 4000-

1000 1750 6000
2820 — rev X MAXIMIANI AVG and mint mark in five 900- 1750- 50 0 0 -
lines in wreath with mint-monogram of Nicomedia 1200 2250 8000
(NIK in ligature) at top. RIC VI Nie 38.
2821 AR Argenteus 200-300 500-800 1500-

2000
2822 — rev VIRTVS MILITVM, campgate. RIC VI Trev 250-350 500-800 1750-
635, Ser lib . 2250
2823 AR Half-Argenteus rev VIRTVS MILITVM, 200-300 500-800 1250-

campgate. RIC VI Trev 757. 1750
2825 — obv Cuir, half-bust 1., wearing laur. and plumed 20-40 70-100 200-300
helm., hldg. spear (or scepter) and shield rev
VIRTVS AVGG ET CAESS N N, Galerius on
horseback r., hldg. shield and spearing kneeling foe,
trampling one or two others. RIC VI Aqu 66ff.
2826 — rev IOVI CONS CAES, Jupiter stg. 1., hldg. Vic 15-25 30-50 100-150
54-5.
2827 — rev VIRTVS MILITVM, campgate without 20-40 70-100 200-300

doors. RIC VI Cyz 39.
2828 — rev TEMPORVM FELICITAS, Felicitas stg. I, 5-15 50-75 150-200

Lug 282.
cornucopia. RIC VI Sis 169b. Note: At c. 1.5-2.3g.,
this is one-fourth of the related nummus of c. 8.0-
10.0g.

rev VOT XX AVGG in wreath. RIC VI Trev 682b.
Note: This may be a quinarius.
bust r. rev CONCORDIA MILITVM, Galerius stg.
at 1., rec. Victory on globe from Jupiter, stg. at r.,
leaning on scepter. RIC VI Ale 59b.
THE TETRARCHY 503
Galerius’ head is right-facing, veiled and sometimes also laureate.
Galerius (Posthum ous C om m em oratives) F VF EF
2832 Billon Nummus (c. 23-26mm), under Maxentius. 15-25 3 0-50 150-200
rev AETERN A(E) M EM ORIA(E), domed shrine
with four or six columns, doors open, surmounted by
eagle. RIC VI Rom 246ff, Ost 30-1.
2833 — , under Licinius I. rev FORTI FORTVNAE, For 20-40 70-100 200-300
tuna stg. 1. by wheel, hldg. rudder on globe and cor
nucopia. RIC VI Sis 205ff.
2834 — . rev MEM DIVI MAXIMIANI, domed shrine 15-25 3 0-50 150-200
with closed doors surmounted by eagle. RIC VI
Thes 48.
2835 — , under Maximinus II. rev AETERNAE MEMO 20-40 70-100 200-300
RIAE GAL(ERI) MAXIMIANI, lighted altar, the
front decorated with garland and eagle. RIC VI Cyz
75, Ale 133ff.
G alerius (P rovincial Coinage) F VF EF
2836 Billon Tetradrachm of Alexandria, as Caesar. 5-15 15-25 50-75
Galeria Valeria
A u g u s ta , A.D. 293(?)«'3ii
W i f e o f G a l e r iu s
D a u g h t e r o f D io c l e t ia n
Augusta: GAL VALERIA AVG
Busts are right-facing, diademed, wearing drapery or embroidered robe and some-
times upon a crescent.
G aleria V aleria (as A ugusta) F VF EF
2837 AV Aureus, under Galerius. rev VENERI VIC- 4 000- 10,000- 50,000+
TRIC I, Venus stg. facing, hd. 1., hldg. apple and 6000 15,000
raising dr. of gown over shoulder. RIC VI Sis 196,
Nie 53, Ant 50.
2838 — As prev., but Z (retrograde) in rev field. RIC VI 40 0 0 - 10,000- 50,000+

Ser 32-4, Thes 29. Note: The E indicates these aurei 6000 15,000
were struck at the heavy weight of 60 to the Roman
pound (c. 5.4g.).
G aleria V aleria (as A ugusta) F VF EF
2839 — As 2837, but at end of rev inscr. NIK (in ligature) 40 0 0 - 10,000- 50,000+
VL (in ligature) XC. RIC VI Nie 47. Note: The 6000 15,000
meaning of the numerical formula (VL XC) which
follows the monogram of Nicomedia is unknown,
but it may relate to how the aureus was valued in
comparison to argentei and nummi.
2840 Billon Nummus (c. 26-30mm), — . As 2837. RIC 20-40 50-75 150-200
VI Sis 204,10-11, Ser41-3. Illustrated p. 503.
2841 — As prev., but at end of rev inscr. CMH (in liga 20-40 50-75 150-200
ture). RIC VI Nie 57-8. Note: Like the numerical
formula on the aureus of Nicomedia listed above,
the meaning of CMH is uncertain.
2842 — (c. 23-24mm), — . As 2840, but smaller. Note: 20-40 50-75 150-200
The smallest examples were struck at Alexandria.
Constantius I, ‘Chlorus,*
A .D . 3 0 5 - 3 0 6
C a e s a r: A.D. 293-305 (u n d er M axim ian )
A u g u stu s: A.D. 305-306 (w ith G aleriu s)
H u sba n d of H elen a an d T heo d o ra

F a t h e r o f C o n s t a n t in e t h e G r e a t ( b y H e l e n a )
a n d C o n s t a n t i a ( w . o f L ic in i u s I;
by T h eo d o r a )
S o n - i n - l a w o f M a x im i a n
G r a n d f a t h e r o f C r i s p u s , C o n s t a n t i n e II, C o n s t a n t i u s II,
C o n s t a n s , C o n s t a n t i u s G a l l u s , J u l i a n II, D e l m a t i u s ,
H a n n i b a l l i a n u s , L i c in i u s II a n d N e p o t ia n
Caesar: CO N STA N TIVS CAES
CO N STA N TIVS NOB C(A ES)
FL VAL CON STA N TIVS NOB C(A ES)
Augustus: CO N STA N TIVS (P F) AVG
IMP C CON STA N TIVS (P F) AVG
Deified: DIVO CON STANTIO (under Constantine I)
DIVO CON STANTIO AVG (or PIO) (under Maxentius or Constantine I)
DIVO CON STANTIO PIO PRINC(IP or IPI) (under Constantine I)
IMP MAXENTIVS DIVO CON STANTIO ADFINI (or COGN ) (under

Maxentius)
THE TETRARCHY 505
P re -re fo rm : c . A .D . 2 9 3 / 4 - 2 9 4
E xcep t where noted, busts are right-facing and laureate, often draped and/or cu i
rassed.
C onstantius I (as C aesar) F VF EF
and caduceus, child at feet. RIC V/2 649.
2845 — rev PRAESIDIA REIPVBLIC, Constantius and 20-40 70-100 150-200

Galerius stg., facing each other, hldg. Victory on
globe, captive betw. RIC V/2 671.
2846 — rev V IRTVS AVGG, Hercules, hldg. apple and 70-100 250-350 500-800
club, stg. beneath tree round which snake is
entwined. RIC V/2 670. Note: This rare type shows
Hercules in the garden of the Hesperides.
2847 — rev VNDIQVE VIC TO RES, Constantius stg. 1., 20-40 70-100 150-200
hldg. scepter and Victory on globe. RIC V/2 645.
2848 Billon Denarius 100-150 300-400 7 00-

1000
Note: All of Constantius’ gold coins were struck in 293 or later and are listed in subsequent
sections.
P o s t-re fo rm : c . A .D . 2 9 3 / 4 - 3 0 5
E xcep t where noted, busts are right-facing and laureate, often draped and/or cu i
rassed.
2850 AV Medallion of Ten Aurei rev REDDITOR

LVCIS AETERNAE, Constantius, hldg. spear,
riding on horseback toward fig. (below which is
inscr. LON) kneeling with open arms before the
walls of London; galley with soldiers on the Thames
below. RIC VI Trev 34. N ote: This famous medal
lion was struck to celebrate the defeat of Allectus
and the recovery of Britain.
2851 AV Aureus 900- 1500- 50 0 0 -

1200 2000 8000
2852 — rev COM ITES AVGG ET CA ESS N N N N, the 1000- 2 000- 7000-
Dioscuri stg. facing., hldg. r., stars above, each hid. 1500 3000 10,000
scepter. RIC VI Aqu 1.
2853 — rev FORTVNAE REDVCI, turreted, veiled hd. 2000- 7000- 20,000-
of the Tyche of Antioch(?) r. RIC VI Ant 23a. 3000 10,000 30,000
2854 — rev HERCVLI DEBELLAT or V IRTVTI AVGG, 1000- 2000- 7000-

Hercules fighting the Lernean Hydra. RIC VI Sis 3, 1500 3000 10,000
Trev 92.
5o6 COINAGE OF THE ROMAN em p ire: CATALOG AND TABLES OF VALUE
2855 — rev MARTI PROPVGNATORI, helm., cuir, bust 1250- 40 0 0 - 10,000-

r. of Mars. RIC VI Trev 61. 1750 6000 15,000
2856 — rev PACATORES GENTIVM, Constantius in 1250- 40 0 0 - 10,000-

facing quadriga led by soldier. RIC VI Trev 67-8. 1750 6000 15,000
2857 — rev PROVIDENTIA AVGG or VIRTVS MIL 1000- 2000- 7000-

ITVM, campgate, doors open. RIC VI Rom 6a,8a. 1500 3000 10,000
2858 — rev VOT X CAESS in three lines in wreath with 1000- 2000- 7000-
eagle at base. RIC VI Aqu 5a. 1500 3000 10,000
2859 AV Quinarius rev ORIENS AVGVSTOR, Sol stg. 90 0 - 2000- 5000-

1., hldg. whip and raising r. hand. RIC VI Sis 31a. 1200 3000 8000
2860 AR Argenteus 100-150 250-350 7 00-

1000
34a ff. Illustrated p. 504. 1200
21a, Aqu 17a. Note: XCVI (= 96), indicates how 1500
2863 A R Half-Argenteus rev VOT X SIC XX four lines 200-300 500-800 1500-
in wreath. RIC VI Trev 134. 2000
2865 — obv Laur., dr. bust 1., club over r. shoulder, hd. of 20-40 70-100 200-300
lion’s skin at 1. shoulder rev Various types.
2866 — rev GENIO POPVLI ROMANI, Genius stg. 1., 15-25 30-50 100-150
Ant 55a. Note: See no. 2686 for details about the
value-marker K-V.
RIC VI Sis 176c,7b.
CIPIIVVENTVTIS, Constantius, in military garb,
stg. r. or 1., variously hldg. standard, spear and/or
globe. RIC VI Rom 50-61. Note: The reverse
inscription is abbreviated several ways.

rev VOTIS X SIC XX or VOT XX CAESS or VOT
XX SIC XXX in wreath. RIC VI Trev 571ff. Note:
These may be quinarii.
THE TETRARCHY 507
2870 Æ Post-Reform ‘Heavy’ Radiate (c. 24'25mm) obv 150-200 400-600 1500-
Rad., dr. bust r. rev CON CORDIA MILITVM, 2000
Constantius stg. at 1., rec. Victory on globe from
Jupiter, stg. at r., leaning on scepter. RIC VI Cyz
14a. Note: This extremely rare ‘prototype’ issue (c.
5.0-6.5g.) was abandoned in favor of the smaller,
lighter issue (c. 3.0g.) described below.

but rev inscr. CON CORDIAE AVGG or CON
2872 — rev V O T X (or XX) and officina letter in wreath. 15-25 30-50 80-120
RIC VI Tic 39-42, Rom 87-9ff.
2873 Æ Post-Reform Laureate (c. 15-18mm) rev V TILI 50-75 100-150 200-300
gown. RIC VI Tic 28a, Rom 49a.
C onstantius I (as A ugustus) F VF EF
2874 AV Aureus 90 0 - 1500- 5 000-

1200 2000 8000
2875 — rev X CON STANTI AVG and mint mark in five 1000- 2000- 7000-
lines in wreath with mint-monogram of Nicomedia 1500 3000 10,000
(NIK in ligature) at top. RIC VI Nie 37.
2876 AR Argenteus 200-300 500-800 1500-

2000
2877 — rev VIRTVS MILITVM, campgate. RIC VI Ser 250-350 500-800 1750-
11a. 2250
VIRTV S AVGG ET CA ESS N N, Constantius on
trampling another. RIC VI Aqu 66a.
2880 — rev HERCVLI VIC TO R I, Hercules stg. facing, 5-15 50-75 150-200
leaning on club, hldg. three apples, lion’s skin dr.
from elbow. RIC VI Ale 53.
2881 Billon or Æ Quinarius(?) (c. 15-18mm) rev IOVI 70-100 250-350 500-800
CONSERVAT AVGG, Jupiter stg. 1., hldg. thunder
bolt and leaning on scepter. RIC VI Rom 125,7.
2882 — rev VIRTVS AVGG, Hercules stg. r., leaning on 70-100 250-350 500-800
club. RIC VI Rom 128.
2883 Billon Quarter-Nummus (c. 17-20mm) rev GENIO 15-25 3 0-50 150-200
cornucopia. RIC VI Sis 167-9a. Note: At about 1.5-
2.3g., this is one-fourth of the related nummus of c.
8.0-10.0g.
C onstantius I (as A ugustus) F VF EF

rev VOT XX AVGG (NN) in wreath. RIC VI Trev
682,4. Note: These may be quinarii.
bust r. rev CONCORDIA MILITVM, Constantius
stg. at 1., rec. Victory on globe from Jupiter, stg. at r.,
leaning on scepter. RIC VI Ale 59a.
Except where noted, Constantius’ head is right-facing, veiled and sometimes laure
ate or laureate and cuirassed.
C onstantius I (Posthum ous C om m em oratives) F VF EF
2886 AV Aureus, under Constantine the Great, obv 1500- 5 000-

DIVVS CONSTANTIVS, bare hd. r. rev CONSE 2000 8000
CRATIO, four-level pyre surmounted by Constan
tius, as Sol, in quadriga. RIC VI Trev 809.
2887 Billon Nummus (c. 27-30mm), — . obv Laur. half- 30-50 80-120 250-350
bust r., wearing consular robes, hldg. olive branch
and mappa rev CONSECRATIO, eagle, wings
spread, stg. r., sometimes on altar. RIC VI Lug
202,51.
2888 — , (c. 25-28mm), — . rev MEMORIA FELIX, altar 15-25 30-50 150-200
betw. two eagles or with one eagle on top. RIC VI
Trev 789, Lug 264-8. Note: There are several variet
ies of this reverse type.
2889 — . rev As prev., but tetrastyle temple with eagle stg. 15-25 30-50 150-200
within. RIC VI Lug 269.
2890 Billon or Æ Nummus Fraction(?) (c. 18mm), — . 30-50 70-100 200-300

As 2888. RIC VI Trev 790. Note: At c. 1.75-2.5g.,
these are associated with nummi weighing 5.0-7.0g.
2891 Billon or Æ Nummus (c. 19mm), — , c. 317-8. rev 5-15 3 0-50 100-150
REQVIES OPTIMOR(VM) MERIT(ORVM),
Constantius std. 1. on curule chair, hldg. scepter and
raising r. hand. RIC VII Rom 105. Note: This and
the following three coins were struck about a decade
after the previously listed pieces, by which time the
module for the nummus had declined.
2892 Billon or Æ Half- or Quarter-Nummus (c. 14- 5-15 30-50 100-150

17mm), — . As prev., but rev inscr. REQVIES
OPTIMORVM MERITORVM. RIC VII Rom 108.

RIC VII Rom 114,8.
2894 — . rev As prev, but. lion adv. r. or 1., sometimes club 5-15 3 0-50 150-200
above. RIC VII Rom 121,4,7.
THE TETRARCHY 509
C onstantius I (Posthum ous Com m em oratives) F VF EF
2895 Billon Nummus (c. 24'26m m), under Maxentius. 15-25 3 0-50 150-200
rev AETERN A(E) M EM ORIA(E), domed shrine of
four or six columns, doors open, surmounted by
eagle. RIC VI Rom 245,52, Ost 27-9.
2896 — . rev M EM (ORIA) DIVI CON STANTI, domed 15-25 30-50 150-200
shrine or square altar-enclosure with arched double
doors (closed), eagle with spread wings stg. on top.
RIC VI Tic 96'7, Aqu 127.
2888
C onstantius I (P rovincial Coinage) F VF EF
2897 BillonTetradrachm of Alexandria, as Caesar. 5-15 15-25 50-75
Helena
N obilíssim a Fem ina, A.D. 317(1)^324
A u g u sta , A.D. 324-328/30
F i r s t W ife (? ) o f C o n s ta n tiu s I
M o th e r o f C o n s ta n tin e th e G re a t
G r a n d m o t h e r o f C r i s p u s , C o n s t a n t i n e II,
( w . o f H a n n ib a llia n u s & C o n s ta n tiu s
G a l l u s ) a n d H e l e n a t h e Y o u n g e r (w . o f J u l i a n II)
Nob. Fem.: HELENA N F
Augusta: FL HELENA AVGVSTA
Deified: FL IVL HELENAE AVG

H elena’s bust is right-facing and draped; it is also diademed on Augusta and conse-
cration issues.
H elena (as Nobilíssima Femina) F VF EF
2898 Billon Æ 3 (nummus), under Constantine the 70-100 200-300 400-600

Great, 318-9. rev Star in wreath. RIC VII Thes 48,
50. N ote: Struck only at Thessalonica. Illustrated p .
509.
H elena (as A ugusta) F VF EF
Ln
2899 AV Medallion of Two Solidi, — , 324-5, rev SECVRI- 20,000- —
o
o
o
o
Oo
TAS REIPVBLICE, Pax, stg. r., hldg. branch. RIC VII 30,000
o
o
o
o
Tic 177.
2900 AV Solidus, — . As prev. RIC VII Tic 183. 40 0 0 - 10,000- 30 ,000-

6000 15,000 50,000
2901 Billon Æ 3 (nummus), — . As prev. RIC VII Tri 458, 15-25 30-50 70-100
etc.
2902 — . obv No inscr., diad. bust r., wearing embroidered 50-75 150- 400-
robe rev FL HELENA AVGVSTA in three lines, star- 200 600
in-crescent above. RIC VII Ant 61. Note: From a
series of æs struck at Antioch honoring six members
of Constantine’s family.
H elena (Posthum ous C om m em oratives) F VF EF
2903 Billon Æ 4 (nummus), under the sons of Constan 15-25 30-50 70-100
tine the Great, 337-340. rev PAX PVBLICA, Pax,
stg. 1., hldg. branch and scepter. RIC VIII Con 33,
etc.
N ote: For an anonymous silver piece which likely portrays Helena, see no. 3052 under Con-
stantinian Era Commemoratives in the next chapter.
Theodora
A u g u sta, p o sth u m o u sly (?)
S ec o n d W if e o f C o n s t a n t iu s I
S t e p - d a u g h t e r o f M a x im i a n
G r a n d m o t h e r o f D e l m a t iu s , H a n n ib a l l ia n u s ,
C o n s t a n t i u s G a l l u s , J u l i a n II,
L ic in i u s II a n d N e p o t i a n
T h eod ora (Posthum ous Com m em orative) F VF EF
2904 Billon Æ 4 (nummus), under the sons of Constan 15-25 50-75 100-150
tine the Great, 337-340. obv FL MAX THEODO-
RAE AVG, diad., dr. bust r. rev PIETAS
ROMANA, Pietas stg. r., hldg. child. RIC VIII Tri
65, etc. Illustrated above.
THE TETRARCHY 5II
Severus II, A .D . 306-307

C a e s a r: A.D. 305-306 (u n d er G aleriu s)
A u g u s tu s: A.D. 306-307
(w ith G aleriu s)
Caesar: FL VAL SE VERVS NOB C(A ES)
SE VERVS NOB C(A ES)
SE VERVS N O B(ILISSIM VS) CA ESA R
Augustus: IMP C SE VERVS P F AVG
SE VERVS A V G (V STV S)
As Caesar, except where noted, busts are right-facing and laureate, often draped
and/or cuirassed. As Augustus, except where noted, busts are right-facing and lau
reate, often draped and/or cuirassed.
Severus II (as C aesar) F VF EF
2905 AV Aureus. Illustrated above. 1500- 40 0 0 - 12,000-

2000 6000 18,000
VIRTV S AVGG ET CA ESS N N, Severus on
trampling another. RIC VI Aqu 68a.
2908 — As prev., but rev type Severus, in military garb, 20-40 70-100 200-300
stg. facing, hldg. Victory; spear, shield and captive at
his sides. RIC VI Aqu 73a.
2909 — rev HERCVLI V IC TO R I, Hercules stg. facing, 20-40 70-100 200-300

leaning on club, hldg. three apples, lion’s skin dr.
from elbow. RIC VI Ale 62.
2910 — rev PERPETVITAS AVGG, Roma std. 1. on 20-40 70-100 200-300

shield, hldg. scepter and Victory on globe. RIC VI
Ale 56.
CIPI IVVEN TVTIS, Severus, in military garb, stg.
r., hldg. spear and globe or stg. 1., hldg. two stan
dards. RIC VI Rom 125,7.
cornucopia. RIC VI Sis 170a,71a. Note: At about
1.5-2.3g., this is one-fourth of the related nummus
of c. 8.0-10.0g.
Severus II (as C aesar) F VF EF
2913 Billon or Æ Nummus Fraction(?) (c. 13'15mm) 70-100 150-200 4 00-600

rev VOT XX AVGG or VOT X CAESS (NN) in
wreath. RIC VI Trev 683,5a,7. Note: These may be
quinarii.
2914 Æ Post'Reform Radiate (c. 20-22mm) obv Rad. 15-25 30-50 70-100
leaning on scepter. RIC VI Ale 60a.
2915 Æ Post-Reform Laureate (c. 14mm) rev VTILI- 50-75 100-150 250-350
gown. RIC VI Rom 129a. Note: Struck c. 305, this
post-reform laureate is of a smaller module than
those of the First Tetrarchy; no. 2940 is a compan-
ion piece.
Severus II (as A ugustus) F VF EF
2916 AV Aureus 1500- 40 0 0 - 10,000-

2000 6000 15,000
2917 — rev FELICITAS SAECVLI AVGG N N, two 1750- 50 0 0 - 15,000-

Victories stg., together hldg. wreath with VIC 2250 8000 20,000
AVGG within. RIC VI Aqu 74.
K>
O O
2918 — rev VIRTVS AVGG ET CAESS. Severus adv. r., 1500- 5000-
o o
o o
hldg. trophy over shoulder, dragging captive, 2000 8000
00
another captive at feet in front. RIC VI Sis 153.
2919 A R Argenteus rev VIRTVS MILITVM, campgate. 400-600 1250- 3000-

RIC VI Ser 21. 1750 5000
2921 — As 2907. RIC VI Aqu 81b. 20-40 70-100 200-300
2922 Æ Post'Reform Radiate (c. 19-22mm) obv Rad. 15-25 3 0-50 70-100
leaning on scepter. RIC VI Ale 84.

negligible. Coins with the same value range are not always equally valuable, for
they may represent different ends of the same spectrum.
THE TETRARCHY 513
Maximinus II ‘D aia/
A .D . 310-313
C a e s a r: A.D. 305-309
(u n d er G aleriu s)
Filiu s A u g u s to ru m : A.D. 309-310
(u n d er G aleriu s)
A u g u stu s: A.D. 310-313 (v ario u s arran g em en ts)
N e p h e w o f G a l e r iu s
Caesar: GAL VAL MAXIMINVS NOB C(A ES)
MAXIMINVS NOB C(A ES)
Filius Aug: M AXIMINVS FIL AVGG
Augustus: IMP C GAL(ER) VAL MAXIMINVS P F AVG
IMP MAXIMINVS (P F) AVG
M AXIM INVS A VG VSTVS
As Caesar, except where noted, busts are right-facing and laureate, often draped
and/or cuirassed. As F iliu s A u g u storu m , busts are right-facing and laureate. As
Augustus, except where noted, busts are right-facing and laureate, often draped
and/or cuirassed.
M axim inus II (as C aesar) F VF EF
2923 AV Aureus 90 0 - 1750- 50 0 0 -

1200 2250 8000
2924 — rev PRIN CIPIIVVEN TVT, Maximinus, in mili 900- 2000- 6,000-
tary garb, stg. 1. betw. two standards, saluting and 1200 2500 9,000
leaning on scepter. RIC VI Rom 149.
2925 AR Argenteus rev VIRTVS MILITVM, campgate. 400-600 1000- 2 000-

RIC VI Ser 22. 1500 3000
2926 AR Half-Argenteus rev V IRTVS MILITVM, 300-400 500-800 1500-

campgate. RIC VI Trev 763. 2000
2928 — obv Helm., cuir, half-bust 1., hldg. spear and 30-50 80-120 400-600
shield decorated with riders and captives rev MAXI-
MINVS NOBILISSIM VS CAESAR, Maximinus,
in military garb, stg. facing, hd. 1., hldg. globe
(sometimes surmounted by Victory) and leaning on
scepter; altar at 1. RIC VI Ant 120,35.
2929 — obv As prev. rev SOLI IN VICTO, Sol stg. in fast 70-100 200-300 500-800
facing quadriga, two horses each in opposite direc
tions. RIC VI Ant 140,5.
M axim inus II (as C aesar) F VF EF
2930 — obv Cuir, half-bust I., wearing laur. and plumed 20-40 70-100 200-300
VIRTVS AVGG ET CAESS N N, Maximinus on
trampling another. RIC VI Aqu 68b. N ote: Simi-
larly ornate right-facing busts exist (Aqu 86-8 ).
2931 — As prev., but rev Maximinus, in military garb, stg. 20-40 70-100 200-300
facing, hldg. Victory; at his sides a spear, shield and
captive. RIC VI Aqu 73b.
2932 — rev CONCORD IMPERII, Concordia, wearing 20-40 50-75 150-200

modius, stg. facing, hd. 1., hldg. scepter and end of
gown. RIC VI Ale 52.
2933 — rev HERCVLI VICTORI, Hercules stg. r., lean 20-40 50-75 150-200
ing on club dr. with lion’s skin. RIC VI Ant 152.
Note: About 23mm.
2934 — rev IOVI PROPAGAT ORBIS TERRARVM, 20-40 70-100 200-300

Maximinus, togate, stg. r., being crowned by Victory
which stands on globe he holds. RIC VI Ant 134.
Note: The reverse inscription, meaning ‘to the
Jovian enlarger of the entire world,’ is optimistic.
Lug 284.
2936 — rev VIRTVS MILITVM, campgate without 100-150 400-600 900-

doors. RIC VI Cyz 40. 1200
cornucopia. RIC VI Sis 170b,7 lb. Note: At about
1.5-2.3g., this is one-fourth of the related nummus
of c. 8 .0- 10.0g.

rev VOT X CAESS (NN) in wreath. RIC VI Trev
685a,6,8. N ote: These may be quinarii.
2939 Æ Post-Reform Radiate (c. 20-22mm) obv Laur. 15-25 30-50 70-100
leaning on scepter. RIC VI Ale 60b. Note: Though
clearly part of the ‘radiate’ series, its bust is laureate.
2940 Æ Post-Reform Laureate (c. 14mm) rev VTILI- 50-75 100-150 250-350
gown. RIC VI Rom 129b. Note: Struck c. 305, this
post-reform laureate is of a smaller module than
those of the First Tetrarchy; see no. 2915.
THE TETRARCHY 5 15
M axim inus II (as Filius Augustorum) F VF EF
2941 Billon Nummus (c. 24'26mm) rev GENIO 20-40 70-100 200-300
A VGVSTI, Genius stg. 1., hldg. patera and cornuco-
pia. RIC VI Sis 200a.
2942 — . As prev., but rev inscr. GENIO CA ESA RIS. 20-40 70-100 200-300
RIC VI Thes 32a.
2943 — . rev VIR TV TI EXERCITVS, Virtus adv. r., rest 30-50 100-150 300-400
ing trophy on shoulder, hldg. spear. RIC VI Thes
39a.
Note: Listed above is every issue struck by Maximinus II Daia with the obverse inscription
M AXIM INVS FIL AVGG, which indicates his rank of Filius Augustorum. His and Constan-
tine the Great’s companion issues were struck only at Siscia and Thessalonica.
M axim inus II (as A ugustus) F VF EF
2944 AV Aureus 900- 1750- 50 0 0 -

1200 2250 8000
2945 — obv Laur. half-bust r., wearing consular robes, 1250- 30 0 0 - 8,000-
raising r. hand and hldg. scepter rev CON SVL P P 1750 5000 12,000
PROCONSVL, Maximinus stg., hldg. globe and
baton. RIC VI Nie 62.
2946 — rev SOLI (or SOLE) INVICTO, Sol stg. 1., rais 900- 2000- 6,000-
ing r. hand and hldg. hd. of Serapis or Victory on 1200 2500 9,000
globe. RIC VI Ant 159-60, Ale 132.
2947 — rev V O T IS X SIC ET XX and mint mark in five 1000- 2 000- 7 000-
lines in wreath. RIC VI Ant 130. 1500 3000 10,000
2948 Billon Argenteus obv Rad., dr. cuir, half-bust 1., rais 3 0-50 150-200 300-400
ing r. hand, hldg. globe rev SOLI IN VICTO
COM ITI, Sol in facing quadriga, two horses each
facing in opposite directions. RIC VI Trier 826.
Note: About 25% pure.
2949 Billon Nummus (c. 23-25mm). 5-15 2 0-40 50-75
2950 — , (c. 20-22mm) Illustrated p. 513. 5-15 20-40 50-75
2951 — rev HERCVLI VIC TO R I, Hercules stg. facing, 15-25 3 0-50 70-100
hd. 1., leaning on club dr. with lion’s skin, sometimes
hldg. lion’s skin and three apples. RIC VI Her 77,
Nie 68,75.
2952 — rev SOLI IN VICTO, Sol stg. 1., raising r. hand 15-25 30-50 70-100
and hldg. hd. of Serapis. RIC VI Her 78.
2953 — rev SPQR OPTIM O PRINCIPI, legionary eagle 15-25 30-50 70-100
betw. two standards, surmounted by hand and
wreath. RIC VI Ost 95ff.
5 ï6 COINAGE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE: CATALOG AND TABLES OF VALUE
Pa g a n C o i n a g e o f T h e G r e a t P e r s e c u t i o n
Though formerly attributed to the period of Julian II, these pieces were struck c.
3 0 5 -3 1 3 as part of T he Great Persecution of Christians in the east by Diocletian,
Galerius and Maximinus II Daia. Though the persecution of Christians had
occured under many previous regimes since the 1st Century, it was pursued assidu
ously by the Tetrarchs. Indeed, it was only halted (it would seem) when they deter
mined that it was working to the advantage of Constantine the Great, who
embraced the religion as a result. Associated with the persecution is a series of
‘autonomous’ coins struck at the cities of A ntioch, Nicomedia and Alexandria.
T he bulk of these coins were probably struck c. 3 1 0 -3 1 2 under Galerius or M axim i
nus Daia (though the issues of Nicomedia can perhaps be attributed to Galeria
Valeria, the second wife of Galerius). T he issues of Alexandria occur in two
denominations and celebrate Serapis and Nilus. W ith the voluminous issues of
A ntioch we find a variety of mint marks, officinae and control marks, which suggest
the output was large and complex. Depicted on the issues of A ntioch are some of
the city’s most famous statues: the Tyche erected by Eutychides (a pupil of Lysip
pus), the Apollo by Bryaxis of Athens, and possibly the Zeus Nikephoros of the
Temple of Apollo at Daphne which Antiochus IV commissioned for his great festi
val of 167 B.C.
Pagan Coinage of T h e G reat P ersecu tion F VF EF
2954 Æ Quarter-Nummus (c. 14- 16mm) of Antioch obv 15-25 20-40 70-100
GENIO ANTIOCHENI, the Tyche of Antioch std.,
facing; the river-god Orontes below rev APOLLONI
SANCTO, Apollo stg. 1., hldg. lyre and patera,
SMA in ex.; Greek letters sometimes in field.
2955 — . obv IOVI CONSERVATORI, Jupiter std. 1., 15-25 20-40 70-100
hldg. globe and scepter rev VICTORIA AVGG,
Victory adv. 1., hldg. wreath and palm branch, ANT
(or SMA) in ex.; Greek letters sometimes in field.
Illustrated above.
2956 — . obv GENIO CIVITATIS, dr., veiled and turreted 50-75 200-300
bust r. of the Tyche of Antioch rev APOLLONI
SANCTO, Apollo stg. 1., hldg. lyre and patera,
SMA in ex.; Greek letters sometimes in field.
2957 — . As prev., but no inscr. or mint mark. N ote: Possi 70-100 250-350 —
bly a tessera.
2958 — , of Nicomedia obv DEAE SANC CERERI, diad., 100-150 300-400

dr. and veiled bust 1. of Ceres, hldg. grain ears in r.
hand rev GEN CIVIT NICOM, Genius of Nicome
dia, wearing modius, stg. 1., hldg. cornucopia and
rudder, OPA in ex.
TH E TETRARCHY 5 I7
Pagan Coinage of The Great Persecution F VF EF
2959 — , of Alexandria obv DEO SA N CTO SERAPIDI, 30-50 150-200

hd. r. of Serapis, wearing modius with floral arrange-
ment rev DEO SA N CTO NILO, Nilus reel, r., hldg.
cornucopia and reed, ALE in ex.; Greek letter some
times in field.
2960 Æ Eighth-Nummus (c. ll-12m m ), — . Sim. to 3 0-50 100-150 —

prev., but inscr. abbreviated.
Maxentius, A .D . 307-312
P rin ce p s and C a e s a r:
A.D. 3 0 6 -3 0 7
A u g u s tu s: A.D. 3 0 7 -3 0 8
(w ith M axim ian and
C o n s ta n tin e I)
A.D. 3 0 8 -3 1 2 (sole reign)
S o n o f M a x im i a n
B rother of Fau sta
Fa th er of R om ulus
S o n - in - l a w o f G a l e r iu s a n d G a l e r i a V a l e r ia
B r o t h e r - in - l a w o f C o n s t a n t in e t h e G r e a t
Princeps: D N MAXEN TIVS PRINC
MAXENTIVS PRINC IN VICT
Caesar: M AVR MAXEN TIVS NOB CAES
MAXEN TIVS NOB C
Augustus: IMP (C) M AXEN TIVS P F AVG
IMP MAXENTIVS P F AVG CONS (II)
MAXEN TIVS P F AVG
As Princeps and Caesar, busts are right-facing and laureate. As Augustus, except
where noted, busts are right-facing and laureate, often draped and/or cuirassed.
M axentius (as Princeps and C aesar) F VF EF
2961 AV Aureus 40 0 0 - 10,000- 35,000+

6000 15,000
2962 — rev HERCVLI COM ITI AVGG ET CA ESS NN, 4000- 10,000- 35,000+
Hercules stg. r., hldg. bow and lion’s skin and lean 6000 15,000
ing on club. RIC VI Rom 137,47.
5 l8 c o in a g e o f t h e r o m a n e m p ir e : c a t a l o g a n d t a b l e s o f v a l u e
M axentius (as Princeps and C aesar) F VF EF
2963 A R Argenteus rev VIRTVS MILITVM, campgate. 1000- 30 0 0 - 7000-

RIC VI Rom 153. 1500 5000 10,000
Note: Maxentius struck as Princeps and as Caesar only at Rome and Carthage. As Augustus
he continued to strike at these two mints, as well as at Ticinum, Aquileia and Ostia. Addi-
tionally, Constantine the Great struck one issue of nummi for Maxentius at Trier.
M axentius (as A ugustus) F VF EF
2965 AV Medallion of Eight Aurei obv Bare hd. r. rev 15,000- 70,000- 200,000
ROMAE AETERNAE VICTRICI AVG N, Roma 20,000 100,000 +
std. r. on shield, hldg. scepter, presenting globe to
Maxentius, stg. at r., wearing consular robes and
hldg. scepter. RIC VI Rom 173.
2966 AV Medallion of Four Aurei obv Bare hd. 1. rev 7000- 20,000- 60,000-
PRINCIPI IMPERII ROMANI, Mars adv. r., trophy 10,000 30,000 80,000
over shoulder, hldg. spear and shield. RIC VI Rom
172.
2967 AV Medallion of Two Aurei obv Rad. hd. r. rev 5000- 10,000- 25,000-
HERCVLI COMITI AVG N, Hercules, laur., stg. r., 8000 15,000 40,000
leaning on club set on rock, hldg. bow., lion’s skin
dr. over arm. RIC VI Rom 171.
2968 AV Aureus 40 0 0 - 8,000- 20,000-

6000 12,000 30,000
2969 — obv Full-facing, dr. bust of Maxentius rev VIC 7000- 40,000- 125,000
TORIA AETERNA AVG N, Victory adv. r., pre 10,000 60,000 +
senting globe to Maxentius, in military garb, std. at
r. on cuirass, shield behind. RIC VI Ost 10. Note:
This obverse bust type (sometimes also cuirassed) is
used with four other reverse types struck at Ostia, all
of which are extremely rare.
2970 — rev FELIX KARTHAGO, Carthago stg. facing, 40 0 0 - 8,000- 20,000-

hd. 1., hldg. fruits in both hands. RIC VI Car 47. 6000 12,000 30,000
2971 AR Argenteus 500-800 1500- 4000-

2000 6000
2972 — rev MARTI PROPAG IMP AVG N, Mars, hldg. 700- 1750- 5000-
scepter, stg. r. clasping hands with female fig., she- 1000 2250 8000
wolf and twins betw. RIC VI Rom 189, Ost 11.
2973 — rev TEMPORVM FELICITAS AVG N, she-wolf 700- 1750- 5000-

and twins. RIC VI Rom 190-1, Ost 13. 1000 2250 8000
2974 Billon Nummus (c. 23-27mm). Illustrated p. 517. 5-15 20-40 50-75
2975 — obv Laur. half-bust r. or 1., wearing consular robes, 30-50 80-120 250-350
hldg. eagle-tipped scepter rev Various types.
2976 — obv Laur., cuir, half-bust 1., hldg. shield, spear 30-50 80-120 250-350
over shoulder rev Various types.
THE TETRARCHY 5 19
M axentius (as A ugustu s) F VF EF
2977 — rev A DLO CVTIO AVG N, Maxentius stg. 1. on 200-300 700-

platform with officers and captives, addressing sol- 1000
diers. RIC VI Rom 206,42.
2978 — rev AETERN ITAS AVG N or SAECVLI 30-50 80-120 250-350

FELIC(ITAS) AVG N, she-wolf and twins, some-
times betw. Castor and Pollux with their horses.
RIC Ost 14-20, 51'2.
2979 — rev CONSERVATORI AVG N, Hercules wres- 3 0-50 80-120 250-350

tling Nemean lion, club behind. RIC VI Rom 214.
2980 — rev FEL PROCESS CONS III AVG N, Maxen 150-200 500-800
tius, saluting, stg. in slow, facing quadriga. RIC VI
Rom 216,63.
2981 — As prev., but Maxentius, crowned from above by 150-200 500-800

Victory, in quadriga of elephants 1. RIC VI Rom
215,7.
2982 — rev FELICITAS PVBLICA, Felicitas stg. 1., hldg. 30-50 80-120 250-350
long caduceus, leaning on column. RIC VI Aqu
101-2.
2983 — rev MARTI COM ITI AVG N, Maxentius riding 200-300 700-
1., saluting and hldg. spear, his horse led by Mars, 1000
who holds trophy. RIC VI Rom 218.
2984 — rev MARTI PATRI CONSERVATORI, Mars, 150-200 500-800

nude, stg. r., leaning on spear and resting shield on
ground. RIC VI Trev 772c. Note: This issue of Trier
is the only one struck for Maxentius by Constantine
the Great, and is the only issue in Maxentius’ name
struck at a mint not under his control.
2985 — rev V IRTVS AVG N, Maxentius std. 1. on curule 200-300 700-

chair, crowned from behind by Victory, rec. globe 1000
from soldier; another soldier and two standards in
background. RIC VI Rom 225.
2986 Billon Half-Nummus (c. 20mm) obv Various busts 15-25 50-75 150-200
rev V IC TO R IA AETERNA AVG N, Victory stg. r.,
inscr. V O T X (or XX or XX FEL) on shield set on
column, captive std. behind. RIC VI Rom 227-36,
Ost 60-4. Note: At c. 2.75-3.25g., this is half the
weight of its associated nummi of c. 5.5-7-Og.
2987 — rev V O T QQ MVL X (or X FEL or XX or QQ) in 20-40 70-100 200-300

four lines in wreath. RIC VI Rom 237-8.
2988 Billon Third' or Quarter-Nummus (c. 17-19mm) 20-40 100-150 250-350

rev CONSERV VRB SVAE, hexastyle temple,
Roma std. within. RIC VI Rom 278-80. Note: At c.
1.75-2.5g., these are associated with nummi of c.
5.5-7.0g.
M axentius (as A ugustus) F VF EF
2989 — rev V O T QQ MVL X (or XX or X FEL) in four 20-40 100-150 250-350

lines in wreath. RIC VI Rom 281a-c.
2990 — obv Hd. r., wearing lion’s scalp rev V O T X FEL in 50-75 150-200 300-400
three lines in wreath. RIC VI Aqu 128, Rom 241.
Romulus
S o n o f M a x e n t iu s
G r a n d so n o f M a x im ia n
a n d G a l e r iu s
N eph ew o f Fa u sta
Deified: DIVO ROMVLO N V BIS C(ON S)
DIVO ROMVLO N V FILIO M AXENTIVS AVG
IMP M AXENTIVS DIVO ROMVLO N V FILIO
Except where noted, busts are right-facing and bare-headed.
R om ulus (Posthum ous C om m em oratives) F VF EF
2991 Billon Nummus (c. 23-26mm), under Maxentius. 70-100 150-200 400-600
rev AETERN A(E) MEMORIA(E), domed Temple
of Divus Romulus with two doors (one ajar), sur
mounted by eagle. RIC VI Rom 249,56, Ost 32-3.
Note: The temple is shown with four or six columns.
This building, in the Forum in Rome, still exists.
2992 — . rev AETERNAE MEMORIAE, domed Sepul 70-100 150-200 400-600

chre of Divus Romulus with two doors (one ajar),
surmounted by eagle. RIC VI Rom 207,57, Ost 34.
Note: The sepulchre is shown without columns.
Once located on the Appian Way, it no longer
exists. Illustrated above.
2993 Billon Half-Nummus (c. 20mm) As prev. (Sepul 50-75 100-150 250-350
chre of Divus Romulus). RIC VI Ost 58-9. Note: At
c. 2.75-3.25g., this is half the weight of its associated
nummi of c. 5.5-7.-0g.
2994 Billon Quarter-Nummus (c. 16-19mm) As prev. 30-50 100-150 200-300

(Sepulchre of Divus Romulus). RIC VI Rom
226,39. Note: A t 2.0g. or a touch heavier, this may
be a one-third nummus, for its associated nummi are
c. 5.5-7.0g.
THE TETRARCHY 52 I
Rom ulus (Posthum ous C om m em oratives) F VF EF
2995 — As prev., but obv Bare-headed half-bust r., wear 100-150 300-400 —
ing consular robes. RIC VI Rom 240.
Alexander of Carthage,
A .D . 3 0 8 - 3 1 0
Augustus: IMP ALEXANDER P F AVG (nummi)
IMP C ALEXANDER P F AVG (aurei)
Busts are right-facing and laureate.
A lexand er of C arthage (as A ugustus) F VF EF
2996 AV Aureus rev INVICTA ROMA FEL 15,000- 3 0,000- 100,000

KARTHAGO, Carthago stg. facing., hd. 1., hldg. 20,000 50,000 +
fruit in both hands. RIC VI Car 62.
2997 — rev INVITA(sic) ROMA FEL KARTHAGO, 15,000- 30,000- 100,000

Roma std. 1. on shield, leaning on scepter and hldg. 20,000 50,000 +
Victory on globe. RIC VI Car 63.
2998 Billon Nummus (c. 20-25mm) 7 00- 1250- 3000-

1000 1750 5000
2999 — rev A FRICA AVG N, Africa stg. facing, hd. 1., 7 00- 1250- 3000-
hldg. standard and tusk; at feet lion with captured 1000 1750 5000
bull. RIC VI Car 64.
3000 — rev G LORIA EXERCIT(VS) KART, Alexander, 7 00- 1250- 4000-

rad., riding r. on horse, saluting. RIC VI Car 65-6. 1000 1750 6000
Illustrated above.
3001 — rev ROMAE AETERNAE, hexastyle temple 700- 1250- 4000-

with Roma std. within. RIC VI Car 70. 1000 1750 6000
3002 — rev SPQR OPTIM O PRINCIPI, legionary eagle 700- 1250- 4000-
betw. two standards, the one at 1. surmounted by 1000 1750 6000
hand, at r. with wreath. RIC VI Car 72.
3003 — rev V IC TO R IA ALEXANDRI AVG N, Victory 7 00- 1250- 3000-

adv. r., hldg. wreath and palm branch. RIC VI Car 1000 1750 5000
73. N ote: This type is also paired with the inscrip
tions V IC TO R IA A VG VSTO N O STRO and
ROMAE AETERNAE (RIC 74-5).
C H APTER ELEVEN
T h e C o n s ta n tin ia n E ra
c . a .d . 3 1 3 - 3 6 4
Licinius I, A .D . 3 0 8 - 3 2 4
H u s b a n d o f C o n s t a n t ia
F a t h e r o f L ic in i u s II
H a l f - b r o t h e r - in - l a w o f C o n s t a n t in e t h e
G r ea t
U n c l e o f D e l m a t iu s , H a n n ib a l l ia n u s ,
C o n s t a n t i u s G a l l u s , J u l i a n II
a n d N e p o t ia n
Augustus: IMP (C) LIC LICINIVS P F AVG
IMP LICINIVS AVG
IMP LICINIVS PIVS FELIX AVG
LICINIVS AVG VSTVS
LICINIVS P F AVG
Except where noted, busts are right-facing and laureate, sometimes cuirassed. Elab
orate busts are common on his billon Æ 3 s.
Licinius I (as A ugustu s) F VF EF
3004 AV Aureus 7 00- 1250- 3000-

1000 1750 5000
3005 — obv LICINIVS AVG OB D V FILII SVI, facing, 1500- 5000- 10,000-
bare-headed, dr., cuir bust rev IOVI CONS LICINI 2000 8000 15,000
AVG, Jupiter entroned facing, hldg. scepter and
Victory on globe, eagle at his feet upon basis inscr.
SIC X SIC XX. RIC VII Nie 41, Ant 31-2. Note:
The OB D V on the obverse abbreviates ob diem
quinquennalium, indicating it was struck in 321. This
is perhaps the last time Jupiter appears on Roman
coins — in this case, being modeled after Phidias’
famous statue in the Temple of Zeus at Olympia.
3006 — rev SECVRITA S AVGG, Licinius, hldg. branch, 900- 2000- 7000-
driving quadriga r. RIC VI Sis 195,218a. 1200 3000 10,000
3007 AV 1- 1/2 Scripulum (Nine-Siliqua) rev IOVI 90 0 - 2000-

CONSERVATORI AVGG, Jupiter enthroned 1., 1200 3000
hldg. thunderbolt, leaning on scepter. RIC VI Tre
794.
523
Licinius I (as A ugustus) F VF EF
3008 — rev VBIQVE VICTORES, Licinius, in military 1000- 2000-

garb, stg. facing, hd. r., hldg. spear and globe, cap 1500 3000
tives std. at feet. RIC VI Tre 799-800.
3009 AV Solidus 700- 1250- 4000-

1000 1750 6000
3010 — rev PRINCIPIS PROVIDENTISSIMI, owl upon 700- 1500- 50 0 0 -

column inscr. SAPIENTIA in four lines; at base, 1000 2000 8000
helmet, spear and shield. RIC VII Arl 2.
3011 — rev VIRTVS AVGVSTI, lion stg. 1., hd. facing, 700- 1500- 50 0 0 -
club above. RIC VII Arl 5. 1000 2000 8000
3012 AR Heavy Miliarensis obv Helm., cuir, bust 1., 1500- 4000-
hldg. shield, spear over shoulder rev VOTA ORBIS 2000 6000
ET VRBIS SEN ET P R, flaming cippus, on square
basis, inscr. VOTA XX XXX MVL FEL, in field, L.
RIC VII Aqu 80.
3013 Billon Argenteus obv Laur., cuir, half-bust r. or 1., 30-50 100-150 200-300
hldg. thunderbolt, scepter over shoulder rev IOVI
CONSERVATORI AVG, Jupiter, hldg. scepter and
thunderbolt, std. on eagle stg. r., wings spread. RIC
VI Tre 825, VII Tri 211-2. Note: Struck c. 312-3,
this argenteus contains about 25% silver. Its greatly
debased successor is listed as no. 3023.
3014 Billon Nummus (c. 20-22mm) 5-15 15-25 30 -5 0
3015 — obv D D N N IOVII LICINIIINVICT AVG ET 150-200 400-600 900-

CAES, confr. laur., dr. half-busts of Licinius I and 1200
Licinius II, sometimes eacg hldg. a scepter; both
hldg. betw. a trophy of arms or statue of Fortuna or
Victory on globe, rev IO M ET (FORT CONSER or
VICT CONSER or VIRTVTI) D D N N AVG ET
CAES, Jupiter stg. 1., leaning on scepter; at 1. a tro
phy of arms with two std. captives at base. RIC VII
Her 50, Nie 38, Cyz 13. Note: Struck to celebrate
the formal investitures of Licinius II and Constan
tine II as Caesars, this and its related issues may
have been distributed at the ceremony held at Ser-
dica on March 1, 317, or on other occasions in 318.
3016 — rev HERCVLI VICTORI, Hercules stg. r., lean 15-25 20-40 70-100
ing on club dr. with lion’s skin. RIC VI Ant 170a.
3017 — rev SPQR OPTIMO PRINCIPI, legionary eagle 15-25 20-40 70-100
betw. two standards, the one at I. surmounted by
hand, at r. with wreath. RIC VI Ost 95b,7b.
3018 Billon Half-Nummus (c. 16-18mm), c. 313. rev 15-25 50-75 150-200
FVNDAT PACIS, Mars adv. r., hldg. trophy and
dragging captive. RIC VII Rom 13. Note: This and
the following issue weigh c. 1.3-1.8g.
THE CONSTANTINIAN ERA 5 25
Licinius I (as A ugustu s) F VF EF
3019 — rev GLORIA PERPET, two Victories adv. r., both 15-25 50-75 150-200
hldg. wreath and palm branch, standard betw. RIC
VII Rom 15.
3020 Billon QuarteivNummus (c. 13mm), c. 313. obv 15-25 50-75 150-200
Bare hd. 1. rev SAPIENTIA PRINCIPIS, owl upon
altar with spear across front; at base, shield and hel
met. RIC VII Rom 17. Note: These weigh c. 0.85-
l.lg .
3021 Billon Æ 3 (nummus) (c. 17-22mm). Illustrated — 5-15 3 0-50

p. 523.
3022 — rev SAECVLI FELICITAS, shield inscr. AVG 15-25 50-75 150-200
upon garlanded cippus. RIC VII Rom 160.
3023 — rev sim. to 3013. RIC VII Tri 212, Arl 196-7. 15-25 50-75 150-200
Note: Struck c. 318-319 by Constantine the Great
as a companion to his own ‘two-Victories’ issue, its
silver content is very low, more like other Billon
Æ 3 ’s of the era.
3024 — rev VIRT EXERC, Sol stg. facing at ctr. of large 80-120 250-350 400-600
X-shaped ‘camp plan.’ RIC VII Thes 68. Note: The
meaning of this reverse type, struck only at Thessal-
onica c. 319, is much-debated.
Note: For a Festival of Isis issue, see no. 3423.
Constantia
A u g u s ta , A.D. 3 1 3 - 3 2 4
Nobilíssim a Fem ina, A.D. 3 2 4 - c . 3 3 0
W if e o f L ic in i u s I
M o t h e r (? ) o f L ic in i u s II
D a u g h t e r o f C o n s t a n t iu s I a n d T h e o d o r a
H a l f - s is t e r o f C o n s t a n t i n e t h e G r e a t
A u n t o f D e l m a t iu s , H a n n ib a l l ia n u s , C o n s t a n t iu s G a l l u s , J u l ia n II and N e p o t ia n
C o nstan tia (as N obilissima Femina) F VF EF
3025 Billon Æ 3 (nummus) (c. 20mm), under Constan

tine the Great, 326-7. obv CON STA N TIA N F, dr.
bust r., hair in plaits decorated with pins rev
SO RO R CONSTANTINI AVG around wreath
with medallion at top and PIETAS PVBLICA in
three lines within, CON SB in ex. RIC VII Con 15.
Licinius II
C aesar, A.D. 3 1 7 - 3 2 4
S o n o f L ic in i u s I a n d (? ) C o n s t a n t i a
G r a n d so n o f C o n s t a n t iu s I a n d T h e o d o r a
C o u s in o f D e l m a t i u s , H a n n i b a l l i a n u s ,
C o n s t a n t i u s G a l l u s , J u l i a n II a n d N e p o t i a n
H a l f - c o u s in o f C r i s p u s , C o n s t a n t i n e II, C o n s t a n t iu s II, C o n s t a n s ,
C o n s ta n t i n a (w . o f H a n n ib a llia n u s & C o n s ta n tiu s G a llu s ) a n d
H e l e n a t h e Y o u n g e r ( w . o f J u l i a n II)
Caesar: D N VAL LICIN LICINIVS NOB C
LICINIVS IVN NOB C(A ES)
Except where noted, busts are right-facing and laureate, sometimes cuirassed. Elab
orate busts are common on his billon Æ 3 ’s.
Licinius II (as C aesar) F VF EF
3026 AV Aureus obv Facing, bare-headed, dr., cuir bust 1500- 50 0 0 - 10,000-
rev IOVI CONSERVATORI CAES, Jupiter 2000 8000 15,000
entroned facing, hldg. scepter and Victory on globe,
eagle at his feet upon basis inscr. SIC V SIC X. RIC
VII Nie 42, Ant 33. Note: This unusual type is the
only gold struck for Licinius II. Illustrated above.
3027 Billon Nummus (c. 20-22mm) obv D D NN 150-200 400-600 900-

LICINIVS ET CONSTANTIN VS NOB CAESS, 1200
confr. laur., dr. half-busts of Licinius II and Constan
tine II, hldg. statue of Fortuna betw. rev I O M ET
FORT CONSER D D N N NOB CA ESS, Jupiter
stg. 1., leaning on scepter; at 1. a trophy of arms with
two std. captives at base. RIC VII Nie 40. N ote: See
no. 3015 for the historical context of this issue.
3028 Billon Æ 3 (nummus) (c. 17-22mm) — 5-15 50-75
3029 — obv VAL CONSTANTIN V S LICINIVS N 15-25 50-75 150-200

CAES, laur. hd. r. rev IOVI CONSERVATORI,
Jupiter stg. 1., leaning on scepter, hldg. Victory on
globe. RIC VII Ale 21. Note: The obverse inscrip
tion includes Licinius II’s briefly adopted name
Constantine.
3030 — rev ROMAE AETERNAE, Roma std. r., inscr. 15-25 30-50 100-150
XV on shield set on knee. RIC VII Rom 154.
X-shaped ‘camp plan.’ RIC VII Thes 70. N ote: The
THE CONSTANTINIAN ERA 527
Licinius II (as C aesar) F VF EF
3033 Billon Half-N ummus(? ) rev PRINCIPIA 150-200 400-600 900-

IVVEN TVTIS, Licinius II, in military garb, stg. r., 1200
hldg. spear and globe. RIC VII Rom 139. Note: At
c. 1.6'2.0g. this issue (shared with Constantine II)
weighs the same as a half-nummus, but the type and
the execution of the dies resemble a quinarius.
Valerius Valens, A .D . 3 1 6 -3 1 7
Augustus: IMP C AVR VAL VALENS P F AVG
V alerius V alens (as A ugustus) F VF EF
3034 Billon Nummus (c. 22mm), under Licinius I. obv 30 0 0 - 7 000- 15,000-
Laur. hd. r. rev IOVI CONSERVATORI, Jupiter stg. 5000 10,000 20,000
1., leaning on scepter and hldg. globe upon which a
wreath'bearing Victory stands; at 1. an eagle stg.
with wreath in beak, VI (or IIII) in r. field, SKM in
ex. RIC VII Cyz 7. Illustrated above.
3035 — . As prev., but rev AVGG added to inscr. and K 3000- 7000- 15,000-
XA and wreath in field; ALE in ex. RIC VII Ale 19. 5000 10,000 20,000
Note: These Alexandria-mint nummi are more
compact (c. 19mm) than the Cyzicene issues above.
Martinian, A .D . 3 2 4
Augustus: D N M MARTINIANO P F AVG
D N (M) M ARTINIAN VS P F AVG
IM (sic) CS MAR M ARTINIANVS P F AVS {sic)
Note: Variants may exist.

M artinian (as A ugustus) F VF EF
3036 Billon Nummus (c. 20-22mm), under Licinius I. 900- 1750- 4000-
obv Rad., dr., cuir, bust r. rev IOVI CONSERVA- 1200 2250 6000
TORI, Jupiter stg. 1., leaning on scepter upon which
eagle perches and hldg. globe upon which a wreath-
bearing Victory stands; at 1. an eagle stg. with
wreath in beak, at r. a std. captive, X lir in r. field,
SMNA(etc.) in ex. RIC VII Nie 45-7.
Illustrated p. 527.
3037 — . As prev., but SMKA in ex. RIC VII Cyz 16. 900- 1750- 4000-
1200 2250 6000
Note: The X lir (= 12 1/2) seems to indicate that Licinius halved the tariffed value of these
nummi, from 25 to 12 1/2 denarii communes.
C o n st A N T iN iA N E ra C o m m e m o r a t iv e s
T he earliest coins and medallions in this ‘anonymous’ series were presumably struck
for distribution at the ceremonies for the consecration of Constantinople, which
were presided over by Constantine the Great on May 11, 330. Striking continued
through c. 340 with massive issues of nummi (Æ 3, Æ3/4 and Æ 4 ) intended for
general circulation. Thereafter production decreased, though it continued with a
variety of Æ 4 types until c. 348, after which only medallic issues were struck.
No anonymous gold coins or medallions are known, though two base metal
pieces cataloged below may have been patterns for 1-1/2 solidus pieces. A lterna
tively, they may represent the only known examples of a full-size nummus coinage
struck for the consecration ceremonies. In the case of these two larger bronzes, the
Roma piece duplicates the types of the common small bronzes, whereas the C o n
stantinople issue has an entirely new design both on its obverse and reverse.
T h e silver pieces associated with the two cities are especially interesting. There
are large silver medallions presumably distributed at the consecration ceremony,
and small silver ‘medalets’ which also were donative or distribution pieces. These
smaller pieces may be viewed as a Late Roman revival of the slightly heavier qui
narius of earlier days, which performed a similar function. T he reverse letters on
the ‘medalets’ honor the Empire’s two capitals: the K = Constantinople, and both
the P (the Greek Rho) or R (the Latin equivalent) = Rome. It would follow that
the helmeted busts on the obverses are personifications of the cities indicated.
There are occasional pieces with the head of an empress (Helena?) or perhaps an
emperor, but they are the exception. A nother silver piece, discovered near press
time and seemingly unique, appears to honor the Empire’s ‘third capital’ of A ntioch
(see no. 3064A ).
Some of these small silver pieces are engraved in fine style (compact, high
relief), whereas others are of debased style (low relief, coarse execution). The
former probably belong to the period 330 to 346 (and perhaps specifically to 330),
whereas the coarse ones are from a later period, seemingly the 5th -6th centuries.
Indeed, it is probable that they were struck for centennial and bicentennial cele
brations in Constantinople.
These small silver pieces weigh c. 0 .8 -l.lg ., with most being 1.0 gram or slightly
more: as such, it is difficult to establish their unit. It is possible that they were one-
scripulum pieces, since that unit (l/288th of a Roman pound) weighed c. l.lg .
Alternatively, they may have been fractions of the siliqua (a light half- or heavy
third-siliqua) or of the miliarensis (heavy one-fifth). It is also possible that no
‘denomination’ was intended, as was the case with some silver medallions.
The coins and some medallions listed below are also cataloged in R IC volume
V II, but an overview of the series is given by J. R C. Kent in “Urbs Roma and Con-
stantinopolis medallions at the mint of Rom e” in Scripta N um maria Rom ana, Essays
Presented to Humphrey Sutherland (London, 1978), pp. 105-115, pis. 12-13.
3044 3057
3041
3039 3056
C o in s d edicated to R o m e
T he usual types are: obv V R B S RO M A , left-facing, helmeted, draped and cuirassed
bust of Roma rev No inscription, She-wolf standing left, suckling Romulus and
Remus; usually stars or other symbols above and mint mark in exergue.
Coins dedicated to Rom e F VF EF
3038 A R Medallion (c. 27-30mm), c. 330. obv No inscr., 40 0 0 - 10,000-

rosette-diad. hd. r. of Constantine the Great rev D 6000 15,000
N CONSTANTIN VS MAX TRIVMF AVG, Roma
enthroned r., hd. facing, hldg. globe and scepter,
shield at side, mint mark in ex. RIC VII-. Note: The
weights of these pieces vary from c. 15.0-19.0g.
3039 AR One-Scripulum(?) (c. ll-13m m ), c. 330-346. 200-300 400-600 900-

obv Usual type r., but no inscr. rev Large R Kent pi.2, 1200
29. Note: The P represents Rome.
3040 — , (c. 13-15mm), c. 5th-6th Centuries. As prev., 70-100 200-300 400-600

but of coarser style, and sometimes R instead of R
Kent pl.2, 30.
3041 Billon or Æ Medallion (c. 30-34mm), c. 330-354. 1250- 4000- 10,GOO-

obv Usual type r. or 1. rev Various types. Kent pl.l, 1750 6000 15,000
12-5.
3042 Billon or Æ Nummus(?) (24mm), c. 330. Usual 500-800 1500- 4000-

types, CONS in ex. RIC-. Note: It has been sug 2000 6000
gested that this seemingly unique piece is a pattern
for a yet-undiscovered 1-1/2 solidus medallion.
3043 Billon Æ 4 , c. 330. obv POP ROM AN VS, laur., dr. 5-15 50-75 150-200
bust 1. of Genius of the Roman People, cornucopia
over 1. shoulder rev Milvian Bridge with tower at
each end over flowing water. RIC VIII Con 22.
N ote: It is not certain that the Milvian Bridge is
depicted, but the supposition is strong. See the note
of its companion piece, no 3056, for more details.
3044 Billon Æ 3/4 (nummus) (c. 15-18mm), c. 330-335. — 5-15 30 -5 0

Usual types.
3045 Billon Æ 4 (nummus) (c. 13-16mm), 336-337. obv 5-15 20-40 50-75
Usual type rev GLORIA EXERCITVS, two soldiers
stg. facing, hldg. spears and shields, standard betw.
RIC VII Her 156, etc. Note: With the exception of
a few stray pieces, these ‘mules’ were struck only at
the Propontic mints as a practical necessity to cope
with the reduction in the size of the planchets.
3046 — , 336/7-340. Usual types. — 5-15 20-40
3047 — , c. 337-340. Usual types, but obv inscr. VRBS 5-15 30-50 70-100
ROMA BEATA. RIC VIII Rom 17ff. N ote: Struck
only at Rome, the inscription on this issue is per
haps inspired by contemporary medallions.
3048 — , c. 347-348. obv Usual type rev VOT XX MVLT 5-15 3 0-50 70-100
XXX in four lines in wreath. RIC VIII Her 49ff.
Note: Struck only at the Propontic mints.
THE CONSTANTINIAN ERA 53 I
Coins dedicated to R om e F VF EF
3049 — , c. 348. obv Usual type, but inscr. ROMA rev PR, 20-40 80-120 200-300
emperor or Roma stg. facing, hd. r., hldg. spear and
shield. RIC VIII Rom 104. Note: Struck only at
Rome; the PR presumably means Pop Romanus.
C o in s dedicated to C o n stan tin o p le

The usual types are: obv C O N ST A N TIN O P O L IS, left-facing, draped and cui
rassed bust of Constantinopolis, wearing laureate or diademed helmet, with scepter
over shoulder rev No inscription, Victory standing left on prow, holding scepter
and shield; usually symbols in field and mint mark in exergue.
Coins dedicated to Constantinople F VF EF
3050 AR Medallion (c. 27-30mm), c. 330. obv No inscr., 30 0 0 - 8,GOO-

rosette-diad. hd. r. of Constantine the Great rev D 5000 12,000
N CON STAN TIN VS MAX TRIVM F AVG, tur-
reted Constantinopolis enthroned r., hd. facing,
hldg. grain ears(?) and cornucopia, and foot on
prow, mint mark in ex. RIC VII Con 53. N ote: The
weights of these pieces vary from c. 15.0-19.0g.
3051 AR One-Scripulum(?) (c. ll-13m m ), c. 330-346. 200-300 400-600 900-

obv No inscr., helm., dr., cuir, bust r. or 1. of Con- 1200
stantinopolis rev Large K. cf. Kent pi.2, 28. Note:
The K represents Constantinople.
3052 — . obv No inscr., pearl-diad., dr. female bust r. rev 200-300 400-600 1000-
As prev. RIC-. Note: Though the bust often is 1500
described as Constantine I or II, the facial features
are female, making Helena the likely candidate.
3053 — , (c. 13-15mm), c. 5th-6th Centuries. As 3051, 70-100 200-300 400-600

but of coarser style. Kent pi.2, 28.
3054 Billon or Æ Medallion (c. 30-34mm), c. 330-354- 1250- 4000- 10,GOO-

obv Usual type r. or 1. rev Various types. Kent pi.2, 1750 6000 15,000
16-21.
3055 Billon or Æ Nummus(?) (24mm), c. 330. obv 500-800 1500- 4000-

CONSTANTINOPOLI, turreted, dr. bust 1. of Con 2000 6000
stantinopolis rev Victory stg. facing, hldg. palm
branch, wreath and supporting two shields, CONS
in ex. RIC-. Note: This piece, seemingly unique, is a
companion issue of no. 3042.
3056 Billon Æ4 , c. 330. obv POP ROM ANVS, laur., dr. 5-15 3 0-50 70-100
bust 1. of Genius of the Roman People, cornucopia
over 1. shoulder rev Star above mint mark, all in
wreath. RIC VIII Con 21. Note: Struck only at
Constantinople (at all eleven offtcinae), the silver
content of these c. l.Og. coins is higher than other
‘billon’ coinages of the era; as such, they most prob
ably were distribution pieces struck for the consecra
tion ceremony at Constantinople. Its companion
issue is no. 3043.
Coins dedicated to Constantinople F VF EF
3057 Billon Æ 3/4 (nummus) (c. 15-18mm), c. 330-335. — 5-15 30-50

Usual types.
3058 — . As prev, but obv CONSTANTINOPOLI. RIC 5-15 20-40 50-75

VII Her 115,44, etc. Note: This inscription variant
occurs at the four mints on the shores of the Pro
pontis, and in this case is a regional peculiarity.
3059 Billon Æ 4 (nummus) (c. 13-16mm), 336-337. obv 5-15 20-40 50-75
Usual type rev GLORIA EXERCITVS, two soldiers
stg. facing, hldg. spears and shields, standard betw.
RIC VII Her 157, etc. Note: See no. 3045.
3060 — , 336/7-340. Usual types. — 5-15 20-40
3061 — . Usual types, but Victory hldg. wreath and palm 5-15 30-50 80-120
branch. RIC VIII Rom 19ff.
3062 — . As prev., but rev also inscr. VICTORIA AVG. 5-15 3 0-50 80-120
RIC VIII Rom 2Off.
3063 — , 347-348. obv Usual type, but inscr. CONSTAN- 5-15 30-50 70-100
TINOPOLI rev VOT XX MVLT XXX in four lines
in wreath. RIC VIII Her 50ff. Note: Struck only at
the Propontic mints.
3064 — , c. 348. obv CONSTANTINOPOLIS, cuir, bust 20-40 80-120 200-300

r. of female, laur. or pearl-diad. rev PR, Pax stg. fac
ing, hd. 1., hldg. branch and scepter. RIC VIII Rom
105-6. N ote: This piece was struck only at Rome;
the PR presumably means Pop Romanus.
C o in d edicated to A n tio ch (T h eo u p o lis)

T h e piece below is presumably part of the series principally associated with the
capitals Constantinople and Rome (which are indicated by the letters K and P or
R ). T he earliest of these — in fine style and struck on compact planchets — were
likely struck for the ceremonies held at Constantinople in 330- Subsequent issues
are of debased style and are carelessly struck in low relief on comparatively broad
planchets. For these reasons they are attributed to the 5th and 6th Centuries A .D .,
and it has been proposed that they were struck for the centennial (in 430) and
bicentennial (in 530) of Constantinople. Since A ntioch assumed the name
Theoupolis (‘city of God’) on November 29, 528, after recently suffering a crip
pling earthquake, the historical context lends itself well to this discovery piece,
which has both the letter T and that city’s familiar Tyche bust. As such, it would
have been an ideal tribute to the Empire’s ‘third capital’ at the time of its own
rebirth, which occured almost concurrently with Constantinople’s 200th birthday.
C oins dedicated to A n tio ch F VF EF
3064A AR One'Scripulum(?) (0.98g.), c. 530. obv Tur

re ted bust r. of the Tyche of Antioch rev Large T.
Kent -. Seemingly unpublished. Note: The T seems
to represent the city name Theoupolis (Antioch).
Constantine I, ‘the Great/

A .D . 307-337
C a e s a r (reco g n ized ): A.D. 306-309
F iliu s A u g u sto ru m (reco g n ized ):
A.D. 309-310
A u g u stu s (self-p ro claim ed ):
A.D. 307-310
A u g u stu s (reco g n ized ): A.D. 310-337
S o n o f C o n s t a n t iu s I a n d H e l e n a
H u s b a n d o f M in e r v i n a a n d F a u s t a
F a t h e r o f C r i s p u s , C o n s t a n t i n e II, C o n s t a n t i u s II, C o n s t a n s ,
C o n s t a n t i n a (w . o f H a n n i b a l l i a n u s & C o n s t a n t i u s G a l l u s ) a n d
H e l e n a t h e Y o u n g e r ( w . o f J u l i a n II)
S o n - i n - l a w o f M a x im i a n
B r o t h e r - in - l a w o f M a x e n t iu s
H a l f - b r o t h e r o f C o n s t a n t i a ( w . o f L i c i n i u s I)
H a l f - u n c l e o f D e l m a t iu s , H a n n ib a l l ia n u s , C o n s t a n t iu s G a l l u s ,
J u l i a n II, L ic in i u s II a n d N e p o t ia n
Caesar: CONSTANTIN VS N C
CONSTANTIN VS NOB C(A ES)
FL VAL CONSTANTIN VS N C
FL VAL CON STANTINVS NOB C(A ES)
Filius Aug: CONSTANTIN VS FIL AVGG
Augustus: CO N STA N TIN VS AVG
CON STAN TIN VS MAX AVG
CON STAN TIN VS P F AVG
D N CON STA N TIN VS P F AVG

(also used by Constantine II & Constantine III)
FL VALER CON STA N TIN VS P F AVG
IMP CON STAN TIN VS AVG
IMP (C) CON STANTINVS P F AVG
Deified: DIVO CON STANTINO AVG
DIVO CON STANTINO P
DV CON STA NTINVS PT AVGG

As Caesar, except where noted, busts are right-facing, laureate, and often are
draped and/or cuirassed. As F iliu s A u gu storu m , Constantine’s head is right-facing
and laureate. As Augustus, except where noted, busts are right-facing and laureate
(or diademed), and often are draped and/or cuirassed. Elaborate busts are common
on his billon Æ 3 ’s, and only the most unusual types are noted.
C onstantine I (as C aesar) F VF EF
O Os
3065 AV Medallion of Four Aurei obv Bare hd. r. rev 7000- 20,000-
o o
o o
o o
o o
O
PRINCIPI IIVVENTVTI(sic), Constantine stg. 1., 10,000 30,000
hldg. scepter, saluting standard at 1. RIC-. Note:
This was struck for Constantine by Maxentius in
the first half of 307, when they were allies.
3066 AV Aureus 400-600 1250- 3000-

1750 5000
3067 — rev PRINCIPI IVVENTVT, Constantine, in mil 400-600 1500- 4000-

itary garb, stg. 1., hldg. scepter and either hldg. stan 2000 6000
dard or saluting it. RIC VI Rom 150-1.
3068 AR Argenteus 300-400 900- 1500-

1200 2000
3069 — rev CONSERVATOR KART SVAE, hexastyle 300-400 1000- 1750-

temple, Carthago stg. within, XCVI in ex. RIC VI 1500 2250
Car 49. Note: XCVI (= 96), indicates how many
argentei were struck to the Roman pound.
3070 A R Half-Argenteus 200-300 400-600 900-

1200
3071 — rev HAEC VOTA VMLT ANN or PLVR 250-350 500-800 1500-
NATAL FEL or V O T X FELICI TER in laurel 2000
wreath. RIC VI Tre 639-41.
3073 — rev CON STANTINO P AVG B R P NAT, Con 20-40 50-75 200-300
stantine stg. facing, hd. 1., in military garb, hldg.
globe and leaning on scepter. RIC VI Lug 252,70-
1,86.
3074 — rev HERCVLI CONSERVAT CAES, Hercules 20-40 50-75 200-300

fighting the Nemean lion, club at r. RIC VI Tic 87.
3075 — rev MARTI PACIF, Mars adv. r., hldg. branch 20-40 50-75 200-300
and spear and shield. RIC VI Lon. 94.
3076 — rev PERPETVITAS AVGG, Roma std. 1. on 20-40 50-75 200-300

shield, hldg. scepter and Victory on globe. RIC VI
Ale 63.
3077 — rev PRINCIPI IVVEN TVTIS, Constantine stg. 20-40 50-75 200-300
facing, hd. 1., in military garb, hldg. two standards.
RIC VI Lug 244-5.
3078 — rev ROMAE AETER, hexastyle temple, Roma 30-50 80-120 3 00-400
std. within. RIC VI Lon 100.
Constantine I (as Caesar) F VF EF
Lug 283.
3080 — rev V IRTVS AVGG ET CA ESS N N or 3 0-50 80-120 300-400

V IRTVS CON STANTINI CAES, Constantine on
trampling another. RIC VI Tic 71 -2,8-9,82-3, Aqu
82-5,108-11.
3081 — rev As prev., but obv ornate, military half-bust. 50-75 100-150 400-600
RIC VI Aqu 86-91.
CIPI IVVEN TVTIS, Constantine, in military garb,
stg. r. betw. two standards, leaning on spear and rais
ing r. hand. RIC VI Tre 679-80.

rev MVLT TATAL FEL or PLVR NATAL FEL in
wreath. RIC VI Tre 744-6. Note: This and the fol
lowing piece may be quinarii.
3084 — rev V O TIS X or V O T X CA ESS (NN) in 70-100 150-200 400-600

wreath. RIC VI Tre 748-50.
3085 Billon Half-Nummus (c. 22-23mm) rev GENIO 15-25 50-75 150-200
POP ROM, Genius stg. 1., hldg. patera and cornuco
pia. RIC VI Tre 737. Note: Struck c. 307, this issue
weighs c. 4-0-4.5g. Further-reduced examples of c.
2.0-2.5g. were struck at Trier c. 310-311 (RIC 896-
902) when the nummus weighed only c. 3.5-5.0g.
3086 Æ Post'Reform Radiate (c. 19-22mm) obv Rad. 15-25 50-75

bust r. rev CON CORDIA MILITVM, Constantine
stg. at 1., rec. Victory on globe from Jupiter, stg. at r.,
leaning on scepter. RIC VI Ale 85.
C o n stan tin e I (as F iliu s A u g u s to r u m ) F VF EF
3087 AV Aureus rev CONSVL DD NN, Constantine

stg. 1., laur. and togate, hldg. globe and baton; £
(retrograde) in r. field. RIC VI Thes 28. Note: The X
indicates these aurei were struck at the heavy
weight of 60 to the Roman pound (c. 5.4g.).
3088 Billon Nummus (c. 24-26mm) rev GENIO 50-75 100-150 400-600
A VGVSTI, Genius stg. 1., hldg. patera and cornuco
pia. RIC VI Sis 200b.
3089 — As prev., but rev inscr. GENIO CAESARIS. RIC 50-75 100-150 400-600
VI Sis 203, Thes 32b.
3090 — rev VIRTVTI EXERCITVS, Virtus adv. r., trophy 50-75 100-150 400-600
over shoulder, hldg. spear. RIC VI Thes 39b.
Note: Every issue struck Constantine struck with the obverse inscription CON STAN TIN VS
FIL AVGG (indicating his rank of Filius Augustorum) is listed above.
3098
C o n s ta n tin e I (as A u g u stu s)

N ote: Because denominations were introduced (and abandoned) at different stages
of Constantine’s reign, his issues as Augustus are presented in a slightly different
order than usual.
C onstantine I (as A ugustus) F VF EF
3091 AV Aureus 700- 1250- 30 0 0 -

1000 1750 5000
3092 — rev GAVDIVM REIPVBLICAE, trophy of arms 700- 1500- 40 0 0 -

betw. std. captives (Francia and Alemannia). RIC 1000 2000 6000
VI addenda, p. 688.
3093 — rev GAVDIVM ROMANORVM, trophy of 700- 1500- 40 0 0 -

arms, std. captive at 1. RIC VI addenda, p. 688. 1000 2000P 6000
3094 AV Medallion of 1-1/2 Solidi obv Rad., dr., cuir, 5000- 15,000- 30 ,000-
half-bust 1., hldg. globe and raising r. hand rev 8000 20,000 50,000
CONSTANTIN VS ET CON STA N TIVS NOBB
CA ESS, confr. half-busts of Constantine II and
Constantius II, each laur., wearing consular robes,
hldg. eagle-tipped scepter and globe. RIC VII Ant
70. Note: Struck in 326, this medallion celebrates
the consulships of Constantine I (his 7th) and Con
stantius II (his 1st), and includes Constantine II,
who had previously held that office three times.
3095 — obv No inscr., diad. hd. r., slightly upward-gazing 2500- 50 0 0 - 15,000-
rev GLO RIA CONSTANTINI AVG, Constantine, 3500 8000 20,000
in military garb, adv. r., hldg. spear and trophy, two
captives std. at feet. RIC VII Thes 163.
3096 AV ‘Festaureus’ rev V O TIS XXX XXX in two lines 1500- 40 0 0 - 10,000-
in wreath with medallion at top. RIC VII Thes 207. 2000 6000 15,000
Note: Struck in 335, when Constantine was parti
tioning the Empire among his heirs. When this was
struck the solidus was the Empire’s standard gold
coin and the aureus (at 60 to the pound) was a cere
monial item representing a 1-1/5 solidus.
3097 AV Solidus 400-600 900- 20 0 0 -

1200 3000
Constan tin e I (as A ugustu s) F VF EF
3098 — obv Facing nimbate, bare-headed half-bust of 7000- 40,000- 125,000

Constantine, dr., cuir., hldg. globe and raising r. han 10,000 60,000 +
rev V IC TO R IO SO SEMPER, Constantine stg. fac
ing, rec. wreath from turreted fig. of Ticinum at 1.
and being crowned by Victory, hldg. palm branch, at
r. RIC VII Tri 534. Note: An issue of great icono
graphie importance, other versions show Constan
tine holding a scepter and Victory on globe, or
simply show him nimbate, draped an cuirassed. In
each case his face is angled slightly right or left.
3099 — obv No inscr., upward-gazing, diad. hd. r. rev Var 500-800 1500- 3000-
ious types. RIC VII Sirm 62, Her 131, etc. Illustrated 2000 5000
p. 533.
3100 — rev DEBELLATORI GENTIVM BAR- 500-800 1500- 3000-

BARARVM, Constantine stg. at r., greeting soldier 2000 5000
at 1.; captive kneeling betw., GO TH IA in ex. RIC
VII Tri 534-
3101 — rev GAVDIVM ROMANORVM, captive std. 1., 500-800 1500- 30 0 0 -

sometimes looking back at trophy of arms, shield 2000 5000
and bow at base, ALAMANNIA or FRANCIA in
ex. RIC VII Tri 535,824.
3102 — rev PAX AETERNA AVG N, Pax and Respub- 500-800 1500- 30 0 0 -
lica stg. at 1., presenting wreath or Victory on globe 2000 5000
to Constantine, wearing tunica, stg. at r. RIC VII
Tri 16-7.
3103 — rev PRINCIPIS PROVIDENTISSIMI, owl upon 500-800 1500- 40 0 0 -

column inscr. SAPIENTIA in three or four lines; at 2000 6000
base, hlemet, spear and shield. RIC VII Arl 1,3.
3104 — rev SECVRITA S REIPVBLICAE, Securitas stg. 500-800 1500- 30 0 0 -

facing, hand on hd., leaning against column. RIC 2000 5000
VII Tri 246.
3105 — rev V IC TO R OMNIVM GENTIVM, Constan 500-800 1500- 3000-

tine, in military garb, stg. 1., hldg. standard and 2000 5000
shield; two begging suppliants at 1., std. captive at r.
RIC VII Tri 27-31.
3106 — rev V IC TO R IA CON STANTINI AVG, Victory 900- 2000- 5 000-

adv. 1., hldg. trophy and palm branch; LXXII in r. 1200 3000 8000
field. RIC VII Ant 98-100. N ote: LXXII ( = 72)
appears only on one issue struck at Antioch, c. 336-
337. It confirms that the solidus was struck at 72 to
the Roman pound.
3107 AV Semissis rev PONT MAX T R IB P P P PROCS, 300-400 900- 1750-

Constantine, togate, std. 1. on curule chair, hldg. 1200 2250
globe and baton. RIC VI Tre 795. N ote: This piece,
listed as unique, weighs 2.2g.
3108 AV 1-1/2 Scripulum (Nine-Siliqua) see RIC VII 300-400 900- 1750-
Con 117-21. 12 00 2250
C onstan tin e I (as A ugustus) F VF EF
3109 — rev As 3101; FRANCIA in ex. RIC VII Tri 365. 400-600 1000-
Note: These rare coins weigh c. 1.4-1.75g. as com 1500
pared to a c. 4-5g. solidus.
3110 A R Half-Argenteus rev VIRTVS MILITVM, 200-300 400-600 900-

campgate. RIC VI Tre 758ff. 1200
3111 Billon Argenteus(?) obv Helm., cuir, bust 1., spear 20-40 80-120 200-300
over shoulder rev VIC TO RIA E LAETAE PRINC
PERP, two confr. Victories placing shield inscr.
V O T PR on cippus. RIC VII Tri 208A. Note: This
issue is much debated. Unlike the first billon
argentei of Maximinus II and Licinius I (c. 312-
313), this later one, c. 318-319, is not consistent in
appearance. If intended as a réintroduction of the
billon argenteus, it failed quickly, for his subsequent
issues with this design, struck c. 320 and later, are
no different than other ‘billon’ Æ 3 ’s with very low
silver content.
3112 A R Medallion of Four Siliquae obv Rosette-diad. 2 000- 7000- 15,000-

hd. r., A VG VSTVS downward bef. rev CAESA R in 3000 10,000 20,000
wreath. RIC VII Are 410, Sis 259. Note: Struck c.
336-337 for Constantine’s vicennalia (20th anniver
sary); from the same issue as the one listed for Con
stantine II (no. 3193). At slightly more than 13.0g.,
this is also equivalent to three light miliarenses.
3113 A R Heavy Miliarensis 400-600 1250- 4000-

1750 6000
3114 A R Light Miliarensis 400-600 1250- 4000-

1750 6000
3115 — obv No inscr., upward-gazing, diad. hd. r. rev 900- 4000-

CONSTANTIN VS (MAX) AVG, four standards. 1200 6000
RIC VII Thes 150-1.
3116 Billon Miliarensis rev CRISPVS ET CONSTANT 200-300 500-800 20 0 0 -

IN V S C C, confr. bare hds. of Crispus and Constan 3000
tine II. RIC VII Sir 14. Note: Struck 320, some
researchers suggest this is a double-argenteus. In
either case, it is a medallic issue.
3117 A R Heavy Siliqua 70-100 150-200 4 00-600
3118 — obv No inscr., upward-gazing, diad. hd. r. rev 300-400 900- 1 750-
CON STANTIN VS AVG, Victory adv. 1., hldg. 1200 2250
wreath and palm branch. RIC VII Her 145, Nie
140-1, etc.
3119 Billon Nummus (c. 24-28mm) 15-25 3 0-50 70-100
3120 Billon Nummus (c. 20-23mm) 5-15 15-25 3 0-50

Constantine I (as A ugustus) F VF EF
3121 — obv D D N N CON STANTIN V S ET LICINIVS 150-200 400-600 900-

AVGG, confr. laur., dr. half-busts of Constantine I 1200
and Licinius I, hldg. statue of Fortuna betw. rev I O
M ET FORT CON SER D D N N AVGG, Jupiter
stg. 1., leaning on scepter; at 1. a trophy of arms with
two std. captives at base. RIC VII Nie 39. Note: See
no. 3015 for the historical context of this issue.
3122 — rev HERCVLI V IC TO R I, Hercules stg. r., lean- 15-25 20-40 70-100
ing on club dr. with lion’s skin. RIC VI Ant 170c.
3123 — rev LIBERATORI (or R ESTIT V T O R ) VRBIS 15-25 3 0-50 100-150

SVAE, Roma std. in hexastyle temple. RIC VI Rom
303-4,12. Note: Struck at Rome c. 312/3, the
inscriptions ‘liberator or recoverer of his city’ refers
to his freeing Rome from Maxentius.
3124 — rev SOLI IN VICTO COM ITI, Sol stg. facing, 20-40 100-150 300-400
rad, hd. facing, hldg. globe in raised r. hand. RIC VI
Tic 133, VII Tre 105 (not noted), etc. Note: The
facing head of Sol is a rarity within this very com-
mon issue.
3125 — rev SPQR OPTIM O PRINCIPI, legionary eagle 15-25 20-40 70-100
betw. two standards, the one at 1. surmounted by
hand, at r. with wreath. RIC VI Ost 94ff.

rev V O T X AVG N in wreath. RIC VI Tre 791-2.
Note: These may be quinarii.
3127 Billon Half-Nummus (c. 16-18mm), c. 313. rev 15-25 50-75 150-200
FVNDAT PACIS, Mars adv. r., hldg. trophy and
dragging captive. RIC VII Rom 12. N ote: This and
the following issue each weigh c. 1.3-1.8g.
3128 — . rev GLORIA PERPET, two Victories adv. r., 15-25 50-75 150-200
both hldg. wreath and palm branch, standard betw.
RIC VII Rom 14.
3129 — , c. 310-311. rev MARTI CONSERV, Mars stg. r., 15-25 50-75 150-200
leaning on spear, resting shield on ground. RIC VI
Tre 896-7. Note: At about 2.0-2.5g., this is half the
weight of its associated nummus of c. 4.0-5.Og.
3130 — , c. 312-313. rev PACI PERPET, Pax stg., hldg. 15-25 50-75 150-200
branch and standard, XII in field. RIC VI Rom 355-
8. Note: At about 1.8-2.2g., this is half of a nummus
of c. 3.75-4.5g. The XII seemingly is a value marker.
3131 — . rev VIRT EXERCIT GALL, Virtus stg. 1., lean 15-25 50-75 150-200
ing on spear, hldg. sword, XVI in field. RIC VI Rom
359-60. Note: The XVI may be a value marker.
3132 Billon Quarter-Nummus (c. 13mm), c. 310-311. 30-50 80-120 200-250

rev V O TIS X or V O T X MVL XX in wreath. RIC
VI Tre 903-13. N ote: At about 0.75-1.25g., this is
one-fourth of a nummus of c. 3.5-5.0g.
Constan tin e I (as A ugustus) F VF EF
3133 — , c. 313. rev SAPIENTIA PRINCIPIS, owl upon 15-25 50-75 150-200
altar with spear across front; at base, shield and heb
met. RIC VII Rom 16. Note: These weigh c. 0.85-
l.lg .
3134 Billon Æ 3 (nummus) (c. 17-22mm). — 5-15 3 0-50
3135 — obv No inscr., laur. hd. r. or diad., dr., cuir, bust r. 20-40 70-100 150-200
rev CON STANTINVS AVG in three lines, wreath
above. RIC VII Rom 281, etc.
3136 — obv Cuir, bust L, hldg. shield, spear over shoulder, 150-200 1000-
wearing plumed helm, inscr. on back of bowl with 1500
Chi'Rho rev As 3111. RIC VII Sis 61. Note: Struck
c. 319, this is one of the earliest numismatic indica-
tions of Constantine’s devotion to Christianity.
3137 — obv Inscr. ending CO S IIII, laur. half-bust 1., 50-75 150-200 400-600
wearing consular robes, hldg. eagle-tipped scepter
rev SOLI IN VICTO COM ITI, Sol stg., hldg. globe,
raising r. hand. RIC VII Lyo 37, etc. Note: A rare
‘dated’ bronze.
3138 — rev CONSTANTIN IAN A DAFNE, Victory, 15-25 3 0-50 100-150

look in r., std. 1., on cippus, hldg. palm branches;
trophy and kneeling captive before. RIC VII Con
29ff. Note: A type which has attracted many inter
pretations.
3139 — rev LIBERTAS PVBLICA, Victory stg. facing on 15-25 50-75 150-200
prow, hldg. a wreath in both hands. RIC VII Con 18.
3140 — rev PAX PERPETVA, Pax stg. facing, leaning 15-25 50-75 150-200
against column, hldg. olive branch and scepter. RIC
VII Rom 143.
3141 — rev PLVRA NATAL FEL in three lines in wreath. 150-200 400-600 —
RIC VII Rom 321.
PROVIDENTIAE AVGG. See no. 3145.
upon garlanded cippus. RIC VII Rom 158-9.
3143 — rev SPES PVBLIC across field, serpent pierced by 500-800 1500- 3000-
shaft of vexillum with Chi-Rho. RIC VII Con 19. 2000 5000
Note: The serpent may represent Licinius I, the
pagan whom Constantine had recently defeated.
X-shaped ‘camp plan.’ RIC VII Thes 66-7. Note:
The meaning of this reverse type, struck only at
Thessalonica c. 319, is much-debated.
C onstantine I (as A ugustu s) F VF EF
3145 — rev VTILITAS PVBLICA or PROVIDENTIAE 200-300 500-800

AVGG, Moneta (or female hldg. cornucopia) stg.
on prow at 1., greeted by soldier or by turreted fig. of
Arles. RIC VII Arl 30-1,49-51. Note: Struck at
Arles c. 313-5, these two issues note the transfer of
the minting operation from Ostia to Arles.
3146 Billon Æ 3/4 (nummus) (c. 15-18mm) rev G LO 5-15 20-40

RIA EXERCITVS, two soldiers stg. facing, hldg.
spears and shields, two standards betw. RIC VII
Thes 198, etc.
3147 Billon Æ 4 (nummus) (c. 13-16mm) As prev., but — 5-15 20-40

only one standard. RIC VII Ale 65, etc.
Note: For Festival of Isis issues, see nos. 3424-32.
Busts are right-facing, veiled, sometimes also laureate or draped and(?) cuirassed.
C onstan tin e I (Posthum ous C om m em oratives) F VF EF
3148 AV Solidus, under the sons of Constantine the

Great, obv DIVVS CON STA N TIN VS AVG
PATER AVGG, veiled hd. r. rev No inscr., Constan
tine I, veiled and togate, riding in quadriga heaven-
bound toward the hand of God (manus Dei)
emerging from cloud. RIC VIII Con 1.
3149 Æ 4 (nummus) (c. 14-15mm), — . As prev., but 5-15 15-25 50-75

shorter obv inscr. RIC VIII Nie 18, etc.
3150 — . rev AETERNA PIETAS, Constantine I, in mili 15-25 30-50 100-150

tary garb, stg. r. or 1., hldg. spear and globe. RIC VIII
Lyo 1-3, etc.
3151 — . rev IV S T VENER MEMOR, Justitia stg. 1., hldg. 5-15 20-40 70-100
scales and rod(?). RIC VIII Ale 28, etc. Note:
Though the figure on the reverse is often described
as Aequitas, it more likely is Justitia.
3152 — . rev VN MR across field, Constantine I, veiled 5-15 15-25 50-75

and togate, stg. r., raising r. hand. RIC VIII Con 68,
etc. Note: VN MR abbreviates venerata memoria.
Fausta
N obilíssim a F em in a , A .D . 3 1 7 ( 7 ) -3 2 4
A u g u sta, A .D . 3 2 4 - 3 2 6
S e c o n d w if e o f C o n s t a n t i n e t h e G r e a t
M o t h e r o f C o n s t a n t i n e II, C o n s t a n t i u s II,
C o n s ta n s , C o n s ta n tin a ( w . o f
H a n n ib a llia n u s & C o n s ta n tiu s G a llu s )
a n d H e l e n a t h e Y o u n g e r ( w . o f J u l i a n II)
D a u g h t e r o f M a x im ia n
S is te r o f M a x e n tiu s
S te p m o th e r o f C ris p u s
Nob. Fem.: FAVSTA N F
FAVSTAE NOBILISSIMAE FEMINAE
Augusta: FLAV MAX FAVSTA AVG
Except where noted, busts are right-facing and draped.
Fau sta (as Nobilíssima Fem ina ) F VF EF
3153 A R Half-Argenteus, under Constantine I, c. 307-8. 1500- 30 0 0 -

obv Dr. bust 1. rev VENVS FELIX, Venus std. 1., 2000 5000
hldg. globe and palm branch. RIC VI Tre 756.
3154 Billon Æ 3 (nummus) (c. 17-22mm), — , c. 318-9. 70-100 200-300 400-600

rev Star in wreath. RIC VII Thes 49, 51. Note:
Struck only at Thessalonica.
Fau sta (as A ugusta) F VF EF
3155 AV Medallion of Two Solidi, — , 324-5. obv FLA 20,000- 50,000-

VIA MAXIMA FAVSTA AVGVSTA, dr. bust r. rev 30,000 80,000
PIETAS AVGVSTAE, Fausta, nimbate, std. facing
on dias, suckling infant, flanked by two wreath-
bearing genii and figs. of Pietas and Felicitas, hldg.
caduceus. RIC VII Tri 443-5. Note: A two-solidus
medallion with the standard SPES REIPVBLICAE
reverse was struck for Fausta at Ticinum.
3156 AV Solidus, — . rev SALVS REIPVBLICAE, Fausta, 40 0 0 - 10,000- 30 ,0 0 0 -

as Salus, stg. facing., hldg. two children. RIC VII 6000 15,000 50,000
Tic 182.
3157 — . As prev., but rev inscr. SPES REIPVBLICAE. 40 0 0 - 10,000- 30 ,0 0 0 -

RIC VII Sirm 61. 6000 15,000 50,000
3158 Billon Æ 3 (nummus) (c. 17-22mm), — . As 3156. 15-25 3 0-50 70-100

RIC VII Tri 459, etc.
3159 — . As 3157. RIC VII Tri 460, etc. Illustrated above. 15-25 3 0-50 70-100
Fau sta (as A ugusta) F VF EF
3160 — . obv No inscr., bust r., wearing embroidered robe 50-75 150-200 400-600
rev FLAV MAX FAVSTA AVG in three lines, star-
in-crescent above. RIC VII Ant 56,62. Note: From a
series of æs struck at Antioch honoring six members
of Constantine’s family.
Crispus
C a e sa r, A.D. 3 1 6 - 3 2 6
S o n o f C o n s t a n t in e t h e G r e a t a n d
M in e r v in a
S tepso n of F a u sta
H a l f - b r o t h e r o f C o n s t a n t i n e II,
(w . o f H a n n ib a llia n u s & C o n s ta n tiu s G a llu s )
H a l f - c o u s in o f D e l m a t i u s , H a n n i b a l l i a n u s , C o n s t a n t i u s G a l l u s ,
G r a n d so n o f C o n s t a n t iu s I a n d H e l e n a
Caesar: CRISPVS N O B(ILISS) CAES
CRISPVS NOBIL C(A ES)
D N FL IVL C RISPVS NOB CAES
FL IVL CRISPVS NOB C(A ES)
IVL CRISPVS NOB C(A ES)
Except where noted, busts are right-facing and laureate (or diademed), and often
draped and/or cuirassed. Elaborate busts are common on his billon Æ 3 ’s.
Crispus (as C aesar) F VF EF
3161 AV Solidus 1000- 3000- 7000-

1500 5000 10,000
3162 — obv Heroic, laur. half-bust 1., seen nude from 1500- 5 000- 15,000-
behind, ornamented strap over shoulder, hldg. spear 2000 8000 20,000
and shield rev Various types, cf. RIC VII Aqu 36,
Sirm 33,8, etc. Note: An obverse type used exten
sively for Crispus, its composition is borrowed from
Greek Hellenistic art — a practice which Constan
tine the Great favored. Illustrated above.
3163 — obv No inscr., upward-gazing, diad. hd. r. rev 1000- 3000- 8,000-
CRISPVS CAESAR, Victory adv. 1., hldg. wreath 1500 5000 12,000
and palm branch. RIC VII Sirm 63, Nie 110-1.
Crispus (as C aesar) F VF EF
3164 — rev GAVDIVM ROMANORVM, Alemannia 1000- 30 0 0 - 10,000-

std. 1., sometimes looking back at trophy of arms, 1500 5000 15,000
shield and bow at base, ALAMANNIA or FRAN-
CIA in ex. RIC VII Tri 243,362-3.
3165 — rev SECVRITAS REIPVBLICAE, Securitas stg. 1000- 3000- 8,000-

facing, hand on hd., leaning against column. RIC 1500 5000 12,000
VII Tri 247.
3166 AV 1-1/2 Scripulum (Nine-Siliqua) rev As 3164; 1000- 2000- 50 0 0 -

FRANCIA in ex. RIC VII Tri 366. Note: These 1500 2500 8000
weigh c. 1.4-1.75g. as compared to a c. 4.5g. solidus.
3167 A R Heavy Miliarensis obv Rad., dr., cuir, bust 1., 30 0 0 - 5000- 15,000-
hldg. globe and raising r. hand rev VOTA O RBIS 5000 8000 20,000
ET V RBIS SEN ET P R, flaming cippus, on square
basis, inscr. VOTA XX XXX MVL FEL, in field, L.
RIC VII Aqu 81.
3168 A R Light Miliarensis rev FELICITAS ROMAN- 2000- 4000- 10,000-

ORVM, Constantine I and his three sons, in mili 3000 6000 15,000
tary garb, stg. side-by-side, hldg. scepters and globes,
all beneath an arch supported by columns. RIC VII
Nie 89.
3169 Billon Æ 3 (nummus) (c. 17-22mm) — 5-15 30 -5 0
3170 — obv No inscr., laur., dr., cuir, bust 1. rev CRISPVS 20-40 70-100 150-250
CA ESA R in two lines, star above. RIC VII Cyz 31,
etc.
3171 — obv Laur., dr. half-bust 1., with 1. hand hldg. spear 300-400 7 00- 1500-
and shield, with r. hand the bridle of a horse, the 1000 2000
neck and hd. of which is at 1. rev BAEATA TRAN-
QVILLITAS, globe set on altar inscr. VO TIS XX in
three lines, three stars above. RIC VII Tre 373.
N ote: This honors Crispus as the Prince of Youth,
and as such, leader of the Equités (horsemen). The
equestrian order died out in the 4th Century.
3172 — obv As prev. rev CAESARVM NOSTRORVM 300-400 7 00- 1 500-

around V O T IS V in three lines or V O T X in two 1000 2000
lines. RIC VII Lyo 100, Aqu 98.
3173 — rev CLARITAS REIPVBLICAE, Sol adv. 1., 80-120 150-200 400-600
hldg. globe and whip. RIC VII Tri 124. Note: Schol
ars place this piece in 316, indicating that even
though Crispus was formally hailed Caesar on
March 1, 317, he achieved the rank late in 316 as a
consequence of the First Licinian War.
3174 — rev PAX PERPETVA, Pax stg. facing, leaning 15-25 50-75 150-200
against column, hldg. olive branch and scepter. RIC
VII Rom 144.
Crispus (as C aesar) VF EF
X-shaped‘camp plan.’ RIC VII Thes 69. Note: The
N ote: For Festival of Isis issues, see nos. 3433-6.
3177 Billon or Æ Half-Nummus(?) rev PRINCIPI 150-200 400-600 900-

IW E N T , Crispus, in military garb, stg. r., hldg. 1200
spear and globe. RIC VII Rom 137-8. Note: At c.
1.6-2.0g. this issue (shared with Licinius II) weighs
the same as a half-nummus, but the type and the
execution of the dies favor a quinarius.
Delmatius
C a e sa r, A.D. 335-337
G r a n d so n o f C o n s t a n t iu s I a n d T h e o d o r a
B r o t h e r o f H a n n ib a l l ia n u s
B r o t h e r - i n 'L a w a n d h a l f - c o u s in o f C o n s t a n t i n a
{vu. o f H a n n i b a l l i a n u s & C o n s t a n t i u s G a l l u s )
N e p h e w o f L ic in i u s I a n d C o n s t a n t i a
C o u s in o f C o n s t a n t i u s G a l l u s , J u l i a n II, L i c in i u s II a n d N e p o t i a n
H a l f -n e p h e w o f C o n s t a n t in e t h e G r e a t
H a l f - c o u s in o f C r i s p u s , C o n s t a n t i n e II, C o n s t a n t i u s II, C o n s t a n s
C a esar: FL DALM ATIVS NOB C(A ES)
FL DELM ATIVS NOB C(A ES)
FL IVL DELMATIVS NOB C
Note: Blundered inscriptions sometimes occur.
D elm atius (as C aesar) F VF EF
3178 AV Solidus rev PRINCIPI IVVEN TVTIS, Delma 2000- 5 000- 15,000-
tius, in military garb, stg. 1., hldg. standard and scep 3000 7000 25,000
ter, two standards behind. RIC VII Thes 213, Con
113. N ote: On the issues of Thessalonica, Delmatius
wears a plain diadem.
3179 — rev DELMATIVS CA ESA R, Victory adv. 1., 2000- 5000- 15,000-
hldg. wreath and palm branch. RIC VII Con 98. 3000 7000 25,000
3180 AR Heavy Siliqua obv No inscr., plain-diad. hd. r., 1000- 3000-
upward-gazing rev As prev. RIC VII Her 147, Nie 1500 5000
186.
Delm atius (as C aesar) F VF EF
3181 — obv As prev., but rev inscr DELMATIVS NOB 1000- 3000- —
CAESAR. RIC VII Thes 217, Con 136. 1500 5000
3182 Billon Æ3/4 (nummus) (c. 15-18mm) rev GLO 5-15 20-40 70-100
Thes 202, etc.
3183 Billon Æ 4 (nummus) (c. 13-16mm) As prev., but 5-15 20-40 70-100
only one standard. RIC VII Thes 228, etc. Illustrated
p. 545.
Hanniballianus
R ex Regum, A.D. 335-337
G r a n d s o n o f C o n s t a n t iu s I a n d T h e o d o r a
B r o t h e r o f D e l m a t iu s
H u s b a n d a n d h a l f - c o u s in o f C o n s t a n t i n a
{future w. o f C o n s t a n t i u s G a l l u s )
N e p h e w o f L ic i n i u s I a n d C o n s t a n t i a
C o u s in o f C o n s t a n t i u s G a l l u s , J u l i a n II, L i c in i u s II a n d N e p o t ia n
H a l f - n e p h e w o f C o n s t a n t in e t h e G r e a t
H a l f - c o u s in o f C r i s p u s , C o n s t a n t i n e II, C o n s t a n t i u s II, C o n s t a n s
Rex Regum: FL ANNIBALIANO REGI
FL HANNIBALLIANO REGI
Busts are right-facing, bare-headed, draped and cuirassed.
H anniballianus (as Rex Regum) F VF EF
3184 A R Heavy Siliqua rev FELICITAS PVBLICA, 2000- 7000-

Euphrates reel. 1., elbow on urn, hldg. fish and rud 3000 10,000
der, reeds in background. RIC VII Con 100.
3185 Billon Æ 4 (nummus) (c. 13-16mm) rev SECVRI- 70-100 200-300 400-600
TA S PVBLICA, Euphrates std. r. on ground, lean
ing scepter, urn at side, reed in background. RIC VII
Con 145-8. Illustrated above.

Constantine II, A .D . 337-340

C a e sa r, A.D. 316-337
S o n o f C o n s t a n t in e t h e G r e a t a n d F a u s t a
B r o t h e r o f C o n s t a n t i u s II, C o n s t a n s ,
C o n s t a n t i n a {vu. o f H a n n i b a l l i a n u s &
C o n s t a n t iu s G a l l u s ) a n d H e l e n a t h e
Y o u n g e r (tv. o f J u l i a n II)
H a l f - b r o t h e r o f C r is p u s
H a l f - c o u s in o f D e l m a t i u s , H a n n i b a l l i a n u s , C o n s t a n t i u s G a l l u s ,
G r a n d s o n o f C o n s t a n t i u s I, H e l e n a a n d M a x im i a n
Caesar: CON STAN TIN VS IVN N C
CO N STA N TIN VS IVN NOB C(A ES)
D N FL CL CON STA N TIN VS NOB C
FL CL CON STAN TIN VS IVN N C
Augustus: CON STAN TIN VS AVG
D N CON STAN TIN VS P F AVG
FL CL CON STA N TIN VS (P F) AVG
FL CL CON STANTINVS P F AVG
Note: Though inscriptions Constantine II used as Augustus were also used by

Constantine I and Constantine III, their coins are easily distinguished based
on the portraits and reverse types.
As Caesar, except where noted, busts are right-facing and laureate (or diademed),
and often draped and/or cuirassed. As Augustus, except where noted, busts are
right-facing and laureate (or diademed), and often draped and/or cuirassed. Elabo
rate busts are common on his billon Æ 3 s.
C onstan tin e II (as C aesar) F VF EF
3186 AV Solidus. Illustrated above. 300-400 700- 1750-

1000 2250
3187 — obv No inscr., upward-gazing, diad. hd. r. rev 400-600 1250- 3000-
CON STA N TIN VS CA ESA R, Victory adv. 1., hldg. 1750 5000
wreath and palm branch. RIC VII Sirm 64, Nie 112.
3188 — rev GAVDIVM ROM ANORVM , Alemannia 400-600 1250- 3000-

std. 1., looking back at trophy of arms, shield and 1750 5000
bow at base, SARM ATIA in ex. RIC VII Tri 364.
3189 — rev SECVRITA S REIPVBLICAE, Securitas stg. 4 00-600 1250- 3000-

facing, hand on hd., leaning against column. RIC 1750 5000
VII Tri 247.
Constan tin e II (as C aesar) F VF EF
3190 — rev V IC TO R IA CONSTANTINI AVG, Victory 900- 2 000- 5000-

adv. L, hldg. trophy and palm branch; LXXII in r. 1200 3000 8000
field. RIC VII Ant 101. Note: LXXII (=72) appears
only on one issue struck at Antioch, c. 336-337. It
confirms that the solidus was struck at 72 to the
Roman pound.
3191 AV Semissis rev PRINCIPI IVVENTVTIS, Con 300-400 700- 1750-

stantius II, in military garb, stg. r., hldg. spear and 1000 2250
globe. RIC VII Nie 116. Note: These rare pieces,
struck at Nicomedia c. 326-326, weigh c. 2.1-2.3g.
3192 AV 1-1/2 Scripulum (Nine-Siliqua) rev As 3188. 300-400 7 00- 1750-

RIC VII Tri 367. Note: These weigh c. 1.4-1.75g. as 1000 2250
compared to a c. 4.5g. solidus.
3193 A R Medallion of Four Siliquae obv Bare hd. r., 2000- 7000- 15,000-
CA ESA R downward bef. rev XX in wreath. RIC VII 3000 10,000 25,000
Are 411, Sis 260. Note: This piece, struck c. 336-
337, is often mistaken as a later issue and given to
Constantius Gallus. At slightly more than 13.0g.,
this is also equivalent to three light miliarenses. See
no. 3112 for a companion piece.
3194 A R Heavy Miliarensis 1500- 4000- —

2000 6000

1500 5000
3196 — obv No inscr., upward-gazing, diad. hd. r. rev 500-800 30 0 0 -

CONSTANTIN V S IVN NOB C, four standards. 5000
RIC VII Her 149.
3197 — rev CONSTANTIN V S CAESAR, four stan 400-600 1000- 4000-

dards. RIC VII Tri 581. 1500 6000
3198 AR Heavy Siliqua 70-100 150-200 400-600
3199 Billon Æ 3 (nummus) (c. 17-22mm) — 5-15 30 -5 0
3200 — obv No inscr., laur., dr., cuir, bust 1. rev CON- 20-40 70-100 150-200
STA N TIN VS IVN NOB C or CONSTANTINVS
CA ESA R in three lines, star or wreath above. RIC
VII Rom 282-3, etc.
3201 — obv Laur., dr. half-bust 1., with 1. hand hldg. spear 250-350 500-800 1000-
and sometimes shield, with r. hand the bridle of a 1500
horse, the neck and hd. of which is at 1. rev BAE-
ATA TRAN QVILLITAS, globe set on altar inscr.
V O T IS XX in three lines, three stars above. RIC
VII Tri 381,8,415,9. Note: A rare issue honoring
Constantine II as the Prince of Youth, and as such,
leader of the Equités (horsemen). The equestrian
order died out in the 4th Century.
Constantine II (as C aesar) F VF EF
3202 — rev CLARITAS REIPVBLICAE, Sol adv. 1., 80-120 150-200 400-600
hldg. globe and whip. RIC VII Tri 125-6. Note:
Scholars place this piece in 316, indicating that
even though Constantine II was formally hailed
Caesar on March 1, 317, he achieved the rank late
in 316 as a consequence of the First Licinian War.
upon garlanded cippus. RIC VII Rom 163-4.
X-shaped ‘camp plan.’ RIC VII Thes 71. Note: The
3205 Billon Æ3/4 (nummus) (c. 15-18mm) rev G LO 5-15 20-40

Thes 199, etc.

only one standard. RIC VII Thes 223, etc.
3207 Brass Æ 4 Medallet (15mm) rev VOTA VICEN- 200-300 500-800 1500-
NALIOR, Constantine the Great std. facing, hd. 1., 2000
hldg. scepter and and raising mappa. RIC-. Alföldi,
Festival o f Isis, pi. 1,32. Note: Struck for the vicenna-
lia of Constantine the Great in July, 326, this piece
is akin to the brass issues of the Festival of Isis.
C onstantine II (as A ugustus) F VF EF
3208 AV Solidus 300-400 700- 1750-

1000 2250
3209 AV 1 - 1/2 Scripulum (Nine-Siliqua) 300-400 7 00- 1750-

1000 2250
3210 — rev SECVRITAS REIPVBLICAE, Securitas stg. 400-600 1250- 3000-

facing, leaning against column, hand on hd. RIC 1750 5000
VIII Tri 18.
3211 A R Heavy Miliarensis 1500- 4000- —

2000 6000
3212 — rev GAVDIVM POPVLI ROMANI around 1500- 5000-

wreath containing SIC XX SIC XXX. RIC VIII Sis 2000 8000
47.
3213 A R Light Miliarensis 400-600 1000- 30 0 0 -

1500 5000
3214 — rev CON STAN TIN VS P F AVG, three stan 400-600 1000- 40 0 0 -
dards. RIC VIII Thes 49. 1500 6000
3215 AR Heavy Siliqua 70-100 150-200 400-600

Constan tin e II (as A ugustus) F VF EF
3216 — obv No inscr., upward-gazing, diad. hd. r. rev 200-300 400-600 1000-
CONSTANTIN VS A VG VSTVS, Victory adv. 1., 1500
hldg. wreath and palm branch. RIC VIII Con 15-6.
Constans, A .D . 3 3 7 - 3 5 0
C aesar, A.D. 3 3 3 - 3 3 7
S o n o f C o n s t a n t in e t h e G r e a t
and Fau sta
B r o t h e r o f C o n s t a n t i n e II,
C o n s t a n t i u s II, C o n s t a n t i n a ( w . o f
H a n n ib a llia n u s & C o n s ta n tiu s
G a llu s ) a n d H e le n a t h e Y o u n g e r
{ vu. o f J u l i a n II)
H a l f - c o u s in o f D e l m a t i u s , H a n n i b a l l i a n u s , C o n s t a n t iu s G a l l u s ,
G r a n d s o n o f C o n s t a n t i u s I, H e l e n a a n d M a x im i a n
Caesar: FL CON STANS NOB CAES
FL IVL CONSTANS NOB C(A ES)
Augustus: CONSTANS A VG (V STVS)
CONSTANS P F AVG
D N CONSTANS P F AVG (also used by Constans II)
FL IVL CON STANS P(IVS) F(ELIX) AVG
N ote: Constans’ siliquae are easily distinguished from those of Constans II (A.D. 409/10-11)
with the same inscription based on their finer style, fabric and different reverse type.
As Caesar, except where noted, busts are right-facing and laureate, and often
draped and/or cuirassed. As Augustus, except where noted, busts are right-facing
and diademed, and usually draped and/or cuirassed.
C onstans (as C aesar) F VF EF
3218 AV Solidus 200-300 500-800 1500-

2000
3219 — rev V IC TO R IA CAESAR NN, Victory adv. 1., 900- 2 000- 5000-
hldg. trophy and palm branch; LXXII in r. field. RIC 1200 3000 8000
VII Ant 104. Note: LXXII (=72) appears only on
one issue of Antioch, c. 336-337. It confirms that
the solidus was struck at 72 to the Roman pound.
3220 A R Light Miliarensis rev CONSTANS CAESAR, 300-400 900- 2 000-

four standards. RIC VII Tri 585. 1200 3000
Constans (as Caesar) F VF EF
3221 AR Heavy Siliqua 70-100 150-200 400-600
CON STANS A VG VSTVS, Victory adv. 1., hldg. 1500
wreath and palm branch. RIC VIII Con 19-20.
3223 Billon Æ3/4 (nummus) (c. 15- 18mm) rev G LO 5-15 20-40
Thes 201, etc.
3224 Billon Æ4 (nummus) (c. 13-16mm) As prev., but — 5-15 20-40

3238
C onstans (as A ugustu s) F VF EF
3225 AV Solidus. Illustrated p. 550. 150-200 400-600 900-

1200
3226 AV Semissis 150-200 400-600 1500-

2000
3227 — rev OB VIC TO RIA M TRIVMPHALEM, two 150-200 500-800 2 000-

confr. Victories hldg. wreath containing V O T XV. 3000
RIC VIII Sis 126.
3228 AV 1- 1/2 Scripulum (Nine-Siliqua) 150-200 400-600 1500-

2000
3229 — rev SECVRITA S REIPVBLICAE, Securitas stg. 150-200 400-600 1750-

facing, leaning against column, hand on hd. RIC 2250
VIII Tri 19.
3230 AR Medallion of Four Siliquae rev TRIVMFA- 2 000- 7000- 15,000-

T O R GENTIVM BARBARARVM , Constans, in 3000 10,000 20,000
military garb, stg. 1., hldg. standard and shield. RIC
VIII Thes 80. Note: At slightly more than 13.0g.,
this is also equivalent to three light miliarenses.
3231 AR Heavy Miliarensis 300-400 900- 2000-

1200 3000
3232 — rev GAVDIVM POPVLI ROMANI around 300-400 1000- 2500- .

wreath containing SIC V SIC X. RIC VIII Sis 49. 1500 3500
C onstan s (as A ugustus) F VF EF
3233 — rev VIC TO RIA E DD NN AVGG, Victory std. r. 400-600 1500- 4000-
on cuirass, shield behind, inscr. V O T X MVLT XX 2000 6000
on shield set on her knee; LXAQ in ex. RIC VIII
Aqu 57. Note: The LX (=60) before the mint signa-
ture occurs only on two issues of Aquileia (the other
for Magnentius), and presumably reflects the weight
standard of 60 to the Roman pound at which heavy
miliarenses were struck.
3234 A R Light Miliarensis 300-400 900- 2 000-

1200 3000
3235 — rev CONSTANS P F AVG, three standards. RIC 300-400 1000- 25 0 0 -

VIII Thes 51. 1500 3500
3236 A R Heavy Siliqua 70-100 150-200 400-600
3237 A R Heavy Half-Siliqua rev V IC TO R IA D D N N 250-350 500-800

AVGG, Victory adv. 1., hldg. wreath and palm
branch. RIC VIII Sis 179.
3238 Billon Æ 2 (‘Centenionalis’) (c. 20-24mm) rev FEL 5-15 20-40 50-75
TEMP REPARATIO, soldier adv. 1., spearing fallen
horseman. RIC VIII Ale 72-3, etc. Note: Other
standard reverse types exist for this series.
3239 Billon Æ 3 (‘Half-Centenionalis’) (c. 14-20mm) 5-15 20-40 50-75
3240 — rev FEL TEMP REPARATIO, rad. phoenix stg. r. 5-15 20-40 70-100
on globe or mound of rocks. RIC VIII Tri 226,32,
etc. N ote: Neglible silver content.
3241 Billon Æ 4 (nummus) (c. 13- 16mm) — 5-15 20-40

Constantius II, A .D . 3 3 7 -3 6 1
C aesar, A .D . 3 2 4 - 3 3 7
S o n o f C o n s t a n t in e t h e G r e a t a n d F a u s t a
B r o t h e r o f C o n s t a n t i n e II, C o n s t a n s ,
C o n s ta n tin a ( w . o f H a n n ib a llia n u s &
C o n s ta n tiu s G a llu s ) a n d H e le n a th e
Y o u n g e r ( w . o f J u l i a n II)
H a lf - c o u s in o f D e lm a tiu s, H a n n i b a ll i a n u s , C o n s t a n t i u s G a l l u s ,
G r a n d s o n o f C o n s t a n t i u s I, H e l e n a a n d M a x i m i a n
F a th e r o f C o n s ta n tia ( w . o f G ra tia n )
Caesar: FL IVL CO N STA N TIVS NOB C
Augustus: CON STA N TIVS (P F) AVG
D N CON STA N TIVS P F AVG
FL IVL CO N STA N TIVS PERP AVG
FL IVL CO N STAN TIVS PIVS FELIX AVG
As Caesar, except where noted, busts are right-facing and laureate (or diademed),
and usually draped and/or cuirassed. As Augustus, except where noted, busts are
right-facing and diademed, and usually draped and/or cuirassed.
C onstantius II (as C aesar) F VF EF
3242 AV Solidus 200-300 500-800 1500-

2000
3243 — obv No inscr., upward-gazing, diad. hd. r. rev 400-600 1250- 3000-
CO N STA N TIVS CA ESAR, Victory adv. 1., hldg. 1750 5000
wreath and palm branch. RIC VII Sirm 65.
3244 — rev V IC TO R IA CA ESA R NN, Victory adv. 1., 900- 2000- 50 0 0 -

hldg. trophy and palm branch; LXXII in r. field. RIC 1200 3000 8000
VII Ant 102-3. Note: LXXII ( = 72) appears only on
one issue of Antioch, c. 336-337. It confirms that
the solidus was struck at 72 to the Roman pound.
3245 AV 1-1/2 Scripulum (Nine-Siliqua) rev PRINCIPI 200-300 500-800 1500-

IVVEN TVTIS, Constantius II, in military garb, stg. 2000
r., hldg. spear and globe. RIC VII Nie 116.

1200 3000
3247 — rev CO N STA N TIVS CAESA R, four standards. 300-400 900- 2 000-
RIC VII Tri 582-3. 1200 3000
3248 A R Heavy Siliqua 70-100 150-200 400-600

C onstantius II (as C aesar) F VF EF
CO N STA N TIVS CAESAR, Victory adv. I , hldg. 1500
wreath and palm branch. RIC VII Her 146, Nie
187.
3250 Billon Æ 3 (nummus) (c. 17-22mm) — 5-15 3 0-50
3251 — obv No inscr., laur., dr., cuir, bust 1. rev CON- 20-40 70-100 150-200
STA N TIV S NOB CAES or CON STANTIVS
CA ESA R in three lines, star or wreath above. RIC
VII Rom 284,6, etc.
3252 Billon Æ 3/4 (nummus) (c. 15-18mm) rev G LO 5-15 20-40
Thes 200, etc.

C onstantius II (as A ugustus) F VF EF
O O
O O
O O
O O
3254 AV Medallion of 4-1/2 Solidi obv Diad., dr., cuir 10,000- 100,000
On
bust 1. rev G LORIA ROMANORVM, Constanti 15,000 +
nopolis enthroned 1., foot on prow terminating in
eagle’s hd., hldg. thrysus and Victory on globe. RIC
VIII Ant 69. Note: Elaborately detailed and natural
istic, this is one of the finest examples of Late
Antique numismatic art. For a companion piece, see
no. 3326.
3255 AV ‘Festaureus* obv Diad., dr., cuir, bust 1. rev 1250- 5000- 15,000-
G LO RIA ROMANORVM, Constantius II, hldg. 1750 8000 20,000
eagle-tipped scepter and distributing coins, stg. in
facing fast quadriga, two horses each in opposite
directions. RIC VIII Nie 77. Note: When this was
struck the solidus was the Empire’s standard gold
coin and the aureus (at 60 to the pound) was a cere
monial item representing a 1-1/5 solidus.
3256 AV Solidus. Illustrated p. 553. 150-200 400-600 900-

1200
3257 — , Trier in revolt against Magnentius and Decentius, c. 400-600 1500- 3000-
353. rev V IC TO R IA AVG N OSTRI, Constantius 2000 5000
II, in military garb, hldg. spear and globe, stg. at r.;
to his 1., Victory, hldg. wreath and palm branch,
departs 1., looking back. RIC VIII Tri 329-31. Note:
These rare solidi were struck when Trier was under
the leadership of a man named Poemenius.
3258 — obv Helm., diad. half-bust 3/4-facing, hldg. shield 125-175 200-300 500-800
and spear rev Various types.
3259 — obv Diad. half-bust 1., wearing consular robes, 250-350 900- 1500-
hldg. globe and scepter rev Various types. 1200 2000
C onstantius II (as A ugustu s) F VF EF
3260 AV Semissis rev V IC TO R IA AVGVSTORVM, 150-200 400-600 1500-

Victory std. r., inscr. V O T XXX O R XXXX on 2000
shield supported by winged genius (cupid). RIC VIII
Ant 92-3.
3261 AV 1 - 1/2 Scripulum (Nine-Siliqua) 150-200 400-600 1500-

2000
3262 — rev SIC X SIC XX in four lines in wreath. RIC 250-350 500-800 2000-
VIII Sis 40. 3000
3263 — As 3260; inscr. V O T XXX or XXXX. RIC VIII 150-200 400-600 1500-
Nie 101, Ant 179. 2000
3264 AR Medallion of Four Siliquae rev GAVDIVM 2000- 7000- 15,000-

POPVLI ROMANI around wreath containing SIC 3000 10,000 20,000
XX SIC XXX in four lines. RIC VIII Sis 145. Note:
A t slightly more than 13.0g., this is also equivalent
to three light miliarenses.
3265 A R Heavy Miliarensis 300-400 900- 2 000-

1200 3000
3266 — rev GAVDIVM POPVLI ROMANI around 300-400 1000- 2 500-

wreath containing SIC X SIC XX. RIC VIII Sis 48. 1500 3500

1200 3000
3268 — rev CO N STA N TIVS P F AVG, three standards. 300-400 900- 2 500-
RIC VIII Thes 50. 1200 3500250
0 -3500
3269 — rev FELICITAS ROM ANORVM , Constantius II 400-600 1000- 3000-

and Constantius Gallus stg. side-by-side facing, hds. 1500 5000
confr., both in military garb and hldg. scepter and
globe, all beneath an arch supported by columns.
RIC VIII Sirm 13.
3270 A R Heavy Siliqua 70-100 150-200 400-600
V O TIS XV (or XX) MVLTIS XX (or XXX) in 1500
wreath. RIC VIII Ant 35-6.
3272 — obv As prev. rev CO N STA N TIVS A VG VSTVS, 200-300 400-600 1000-
Victory adv. 1., hldg. wreath and palm branch. RIC 1500
VIII Con 17-8.
3273 — rev CO N STA N TIVS AVG, three upright palm 70-100 150-200 500-800
branches, star above. RIC VIII Sis 61.
3274 A R Heavy Half-Siliqua rev V IC TO R IA D D N N 250-350 500-800

AVGG, Victory adv. 1., hldg. wreath and palm
branch. RIC VIII Sis 178.
3275 A R Light Siliqua 30-50 70-100 150-200

C onstan tiu s II (as A ugustus) F VF EF
3276 Æ 2 (c. 22-24mm), Trier in revolt against Magnentius 20-40 70-100 200-300
and Decentius, c. 353. rev SALVS AVG N OSTRI,
Chi-Rho flanked by A and co. RIC VIII Tri 332-6.
Note: W hen the citizens of Trier revolted on behalf
of Constantius II, they struck solidi (no. 3257) and
these crude bronzes, which are underweight and vir
tually silver-free. The reverse has the Chi-Rho type
of Magnentius, but instead of the usual inscription
SALVS DD NN AVG ET CAES used by Magnen
tius, they are inscribed SALVS AVG NOSTRI.
3277 Billon Æ 2 (‘Centenionalis’) (c. 20-24mm) rev FEL 5-15 20-40 50-75
TEMP REPARATIO, soldier adv. 1., spearing fallen
horseman. RIC VIII Ale 72-3, etc. Note: Other
standard types exist for this series.
3278 — As prev., but rev LXXII in field. RIC VIII Aqu 20-40 50-75 150-200
187ff, Sis 334ff. Note The LXXII shows that these
‘reduced’ billon Æ 2 ’s (after c. 352) were struck at 72
to the Roman pound. Though weights vary because
æs were struck al marco, the target of c. 4.50g. fits
well with the observed range of c. 3.0-4.7g.
3280 — rev FEL TEMP REPARATIO, rad. phoenix stg. r. 15-25 30 -5 0 70-100
on globe or mound of rocks. RIC VIII Tri 227, etc.
N ote: Negligible silver content.
3281 — rev FEL TEMP REPARATIO around large M, 100-150 400-600

three pellets arranged across. RIC VIII Rom 313.
N ote: Known only for Constantius II at Rome.
Magnentius, A .D . 3 5 0 - 3 5 3
B r o t h e r o r C o u s in o f D e c e n tiu s
H u sb an d o f Ju s tin a ( f u tu r e w . o f
V a l e n t i n i a n I)
Augustus: D N M AGNENTIVS (P F) AVG
IMP CAE MAGNENTIVS AVG
M AGNENTIVS AVG
3293
Busts are right-facing, bare-headed (or diademed), draped and cuirassed.
M agnentius (as A ugustu s) F VF EF
3283 AV Medallion of Three Solidi obv Bare-headed, dr., 5000- 10,000- 30,000-
cuir, bust r. rev LIBERATOR REIPVBLICAE, Mag 8000 15,000 50,000
nentius, nimbate, in military garb with flowing
cloak, riding r. toward turreted fig. of Aquileia, hldg.
scroll and cornucopia. RIC VIII Aqu 122. N ote:
This medallion of 351 commemorates Magnentius’
formal entry into this important mint-city.
3284 AV Solidus 700- 1500- 3000-

1000 2200 5000
3285 AV Semissis 7 00- 1250- 3,000-

1000 1750 4,000
3286 AV 1-1/2 Scripulum (Nine-Siliqua) 7 00- 1250- 3,000-

1000 1750 4,000
3287 AR Medallion of Four Siliquae rev TRIVMFA- 5 000- 10,000- 3 0 ,000-

T O R G ENTIVM BARBARARVM , Magnentius, in 8000 15,000 50,000
military garb, stg. 1., hldg. spear and labarum. RIC
VIII Aqu 141. Note: A t about 13.0g., this is also
equivalent to three light miliarenses.
3288 AR Heavy Miliarensis 7 00- 1500- 4000-

1000 2000 6000
3289 — rev FELICITAS PERPETVA around laurel 900- 1750- 5 000-

wreath containing V O T V MVLT X in four lines; 1200 2250 8000
LXA Q * in ex. RIC VIII Aqu 142. Note: The LX
(=60) before the mint signature occurs only on two
issues of Aquileia (the other for Constans), and pre
sumably reflects the weight standard of 60 to the
Roman pound at which heavy miliarenses were
struck.
3290 AR Light Miliarensis 400-600 1000- 2000-

1500 3000
3291 AR Heavy Siliqua 200-300 400-600 1000-

1500
3292 Billon Æ1 (‘Double-Centenionalis’) (c. 27-30mm) 50-75 150-200 400-600

55^ COINAGE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE: CATALOG AND TABLES OF VALUE
M agnentius (as A ugustus) F VF EF
3293 — rev SALVS D D N N AVG ET CAES, Chi-Rho 50-75 150-200 4 00-600

flanked by A and co. RIC VIII Ami 34, etc. Note: Of
the many ‘standard’ reverse types employed by Mag
nentius, this one is certainly the most creative, for it
was meant to incite the Orthodox Christians of the
west against the Arian Constantius II, who
intended to reclaim the western provinces.
3294 — As prev., but design set in wreath. RIC VIII Arl 50-75 150-250 500-700
188, etc.
3295 Billon Æ 2 (‘Centenionalis’) (c. 22-25mm). 20-40 50-75 100-150

Illustrated p. 556.
3296 — As 3293, but smaller. RIC VIII Ami 39, etc. 20-40 70-100 150-200
3297 — As 3294, but smaller. RIC VIII Arl 192, etc. 20-40 70-100 150-200
3299 — rev BEATITVDO PVBLICA, Magnentius, wear 100-150 400-600

ing consular robes, std. 1. on curule chair, raising r.
hand and. hldg. scepter. RIC VIII Aqu 164-6. Note:
Celebrates his consulship of 351.
Note: For Festival of Isis issues, see no. 3448.
Decentius
C aesar, A.D. 3 5 0 - 3 5 3
B r o t h e r o r C o u s in o f M a g n e n t i u s
Caesar: D N DECENTIVS FORT (or N OB) CAES
D N DECENTIVS CAESAR
DECENTIVS FOR CAES
MAG DECENTIVS NOB CAES
Busts are right-facing, bare-headed, draped and/or cuirassed.
D ecentius (as C aesar) F VF EF
3300 AV Solidus 1000- 2 000- 50 0 0 -

1500 3000 8000
3301 AV Semissis rev V IC TO R IA D N CAES, Victory 1700- 5000-

adv. 1., hldg. wreath and palm branch. RIC VIII Tri 2500 8000
282.
Decentius (as Caesar) F VF EF
3302 AV 1-1/2 Scripulum (Nine-Siliqua) As prev., but 1000- 3000-

sometimes also V IC TO R IA D D N N CAES. RIC 1500 5000
VIII Tri 283-4.
3303 AR Heavy Miliarensis 1000- 4000- 10,000-

1500 6000 15,000
3304 AR Light Miliarensis rev PRINCIPI IVVENTV- 900- 3000- 7000-

TIS, Decentius, in military garb, stg. r., hldg. spear 1200 5000 10,000
and globe. RIC VIII Tri 303.
3305 AR Heavy Siliqua 1250- 4000- —

1750 6000
3306 Billon Æ1 (‘Double-Centenionalis’) (c. 27-30mm) 50-75 150-200 400-600
3307 — rev SALVS D D N N AVG ET CAES, Chi-Rho 50-75 150-200 400-600

flanked by A and co. RIC VIII Ami 35, etc.
3308 — As prev., but design set in wreath. RIC VIII Arl 50-75 150-250 500-700
189, etc.

Illustrated p. 558.
3310 — As 3307, but smaller. RIC VIII Ami 40, etc. 20-40 70-100 150-200
3311 — As 3308., but smaller. RIC VIII Arl 193, etc. 20-40 70-100 150-200
3312 Billon Æ3 (‘Half-Centenionalis’) (c. 14-20mm) 20-40 50-75 100-150
Vetranio, A .D . 3 5 0
Augustus: D N VETRAN IO P F AVG
Busts are right-facing, laureate, draped and cuirassed.
V etran io (as A ugustu s) F VF EF
3313 AV Solidus rev SALVATOR REIPVBLICAE, 4000- 10,000- 50,000+

emperor, stg. at 1., hldg. labarum, crowned by Vic 6000 20,000
tory, stg. at r., hldg. palm branch. RIC VIII Sis 260.
3314 — rev V IRTVS EXERCITVM , emperor stg. facing, 4000- 10,000- 50,000+
hldg. spear and trophy, at the base of which sits a 6000 20,000
captive. RIC VIII Thes 124.
V etran io (as A ugustus) F VF EF
3315 AR Heavy Miliarensis rev GAVDIVM POPVLI 2000- 40 0 0 - 15,000-

ROMANI, wreath containing V O T V MVL X 3000 6000 20,000
betw. two palm branches. RIC VIII Sis 261.
3316 — rev VIRTVS EXERCITVM , emperor stg. facing, 2000- 40 0 0 - 15,000-

hldg. labarum, resting hand on shield. RIC VIII 3000 6000 20,000
Thes 125.
3317 AR Light Miliarensis rev V IC TO R IA AVGVS- 1500- 30 0 0 - 10,000-

TORVM , Victory adv. 1., hldg. wreath and palm 2000 5000 15,000
branch; a palm branch at 1. RIC VIII Sis 262-3.
3318 AR Heavy Siliqua Sim. to prev. RIC VIII Sis 269. 2000- 40 0 0 - —
3000 6000
3319 Billon Æ2 (‘Centenionalis’) (c. 22-24mm) 30-50 70-100 250-350
3320 — rev HOC SIGNO V IC TO R ERIS, type as 3313. 30-50 100-150 300-400
RIC VIII Sis 275ff. Illustrated p. 559.
3321 Billon Æ3 (‘Half-Centenionalis’) (c. 14-20mm) 20-40 50-75 150-200
N ote: Vetranio struck coins at Siscia and Thessalonica in the name of Constantius II.
Nepotian, A .D . 3 5 0
G r a n d so n o f C o n s t a n t iu s I
a n d T h eod ora
C o u s in o f D e l m a t i u s ,
H a n n ib a l l ia n u s , C o n s t a n t iu s
G a l l u s , J u l i a n II a n d L ic in i u s II
H a l f - c o u s in o f C r i s p u s ,
C o n s t a n t i n e II, C o n s t a n t i u s II,
C o n s ta n s , C o n s ta n tin a ( w . o f
H a n n ib a llia n u s & C o n s ta n tiu s
G a llu s ) a n d H e le n a t h e Y o u n g e r
{ w . o f J u l i a n II)
Augustus: D N IVL NEPOTIAN VS P F AVG
FL NEP CON STANTINVS AVG
FL POP NEPOTIANVS P F AVG
Bust types vary, and are described in the catalog entries.
N epotian (as A ugustus) F VF EF
3322 AV Solidus obv Pearl-diad., dr., cuir, bust r. rev 7000- 20,000- 75,000+
V R BS ROMA, Roma enthroned 1., hldg. spear and 10,000 30,000
globe surmounted by Chi-Rho, a shield at her side.
RIC VIII Rom 167.
Nepotian (as Augustus) F VF EF
3323 Billon Æ 2 (‘Centenionalis’) (c. 22-24mm) obv 1250- 3000- 7000-

Bare-headed, dr., cuir, bust r. rev GLORIA 1750 5000 10,000
ROMANORVM, Nepotian riding r., spearing bar
barian with outstretched arms; shield and broken
spear below, star in r. field. RIC VIII Rom 200.
Illustrated p. 560.
3324 — obv As prev. rev As 3322, but globe surmounted 1250- 3000- 7000-
by Victory. RIC VIII Rom 202. 1750 5000 10,000
3325 — obv Laurel-and-rosette diad., dr., cuir, bust r. rev 1250- 3000- 7000-
As prev. RIC VIII Rom 203. 1750 5000 10,000
N ote: Nepotian struck coins at Rome in the name of Constantius II.
Constantius Gallus
C aesar, A.D. 3 5 1 - 3 5 4
G r a n d so n o f C o n s t a n t iu s I a n d
T h eo d o ra
H a l f - b r o t h e r o f J u l i a n II
C o u s in o f D e l m a t i u s , H a n n i b a l l i a n u s ,
L ic in i u s II a n d N e p o t ia n
H a l f - c o u s in o f C r i s p u s , C o n s t a n t i n e II, C o n s t a n t i u s II,
C o n s t a n s , a n d H e l e n a t h e Y o u n g e r ( w . o f J u l i a n II)
Caesar: CO N STA N TIVS CAE
CO N STA N TIVS NOB CAES
D N CON STA N TIVS IVN NOB C
D N (FL) CON STA N TIVS NOB CAES
Busts are right-facing, bare-headed, draped and cuirassed.
C onstantius Gallus (as C aesar) F VF EF
3326 AV Medallion of 4-1/2 Solidi obv Bare-headed, dr., 10,000- 40,000- 100,000
cuir bust 1. rev G LORIA ROMANORVM, Con- 15,000 60,000 +
stantinopolis enthroned 1., foot on prow with lion’s
hd., hldg. thrysus and Victory on globe. RIC VIII
Ant 71 A. Note: For an equally large and impressive
medallion, see no. 3254.
3327 AV Solidus 250-350 1000- 3000-

1500 5000
C onstantius Gallus (as C aesar) F VF EF
3328 AV Semissis rev GLORIA REIPVBLICAE or V IC 250-350 900- 2000-

TO R IA AVGVSTORVM, Victory std. r. on cuirass, 1200 3000
shield behind, hldg. shield inscr. VO TIS V (or
wreath with star) supported by winged genius
(cupid). RIC VIII Ant 94-6.
3329 AV 1-1/2 Scripulum (Nine-Siliqua) As prev. RIC 250-350 900- 2000-

VIII Ant 100-1. 1200 3000
3330 A R Heavy Miliarensis 900- 3000- 7 000-

1200 5000 10,000
3331 A R Light Miliarensis 900- 3000- 7000-

1200 5000 10,000
3332 A R Heavy Siliqua 200-300 500-800 1500-

2000
3333 — rev No inscr., star in wreath with medallion at 250-350 500-800 1750-
top. RIC VIII Arl 209-10, etc. 2250

Illustrated p. 561.
3335 — rev FEL TEMP REPARATIO, soldier adv. 1., 20-40 50-75 150-200
spearing fallen horseman, LXXII in field. RIC VIII
Aqu 189ff, Sis 335ff. Note The LXXII shows that
these ‘reduced’ billon Æ 2 ’s (after c. 352) were
struck at 72 to the Roman pound. Though weights
vary because æs were struck al marco, the target of c.
4.50g. fits in the range of c. 3.0-4.7g.
N ote: For Festival of Isis issues, see no. 3449.

Julian II, A .D . 3 6 0 - 3 6 3
C a e s a r: A.D. 355-360
(u n d er C o n sta n tiu s I I )
A u g u stu s: A .D . 360-361
(riv al of C o n sta n tiu s I I )
A.D. 361-363 (sole reign)
G r a n d so n o f C o n s t a n t iu s I a n d
T heod ora
H a l f - b r o t h e r o f C o n s t a n t iu s G a l l u s
C o u s i n o f D e l m a t i u s , H a n n i b a l l i a n u s , L i c i n i u s II a n d N e p o t i a n
H a l f - c o u s i n o f C r i s p u s , C o n s t a n t i n e II, C o n s t a n t i u s II, C o n s t a n s a n d C o n s t a n t i n a
{w . o f H a n n ib a llia n u s & C o n s ta n tiu s G a llu s )
Caesar: D N CL IVLIAN VS NOB CAES
D N IVLIANVS NOB C(A ES)
FL CL IVLIANVS NOB C(A ES)
Augustus: D N CL IVLIANVS AVG
D N FL CL IVLIANVS P F AVG
FL CL IVLIANVS PERP AVG
FL CL IVLIANVS P F (or P P) AVG
IVLIANVS AVG
As Caesar, busts are right-facing, bare-headed, draped and cuirassed. As Augustus,

except where noted, busts are right-facing, diademed, draped and cuirassed.
Julian II (as C aesar) F VF EF
3337 AV Solidus 250-350 900- 2 000-

1200 3000
3338 AV Semissis rev V IC TO R IA AVGVSTORVM , 250-350 900- 20 0 0 -

Victory std. r., inscr. V O T V on shield supported by 1200 3000
winged genius (cupid). RIC VIII Arl 240.
3339 AV 1-1/2 Scripulum (Nine-Siliqua) As prev. RIC 250-350 900- 2 000-

VIII Arl 242. 1200 3000
3340 AR Heavy Miliarensis rev D N IVLIANVS (NOB) 500-800 2 000- 4000-

CAES, three standards. RIC VIII Arl 247-9. 3000 6000
3341 AR Light Miliarensis rev VIRTVS EXERCITVS, 400-600 1250- 3000-

soldier stg. r., hldg. spear, leaning on shield. RIC 1750 5000
VIII Thes 204. Note: Heavy miliarenses of this type
were also struck.
3342 AR Heavy Siliqua rev V O TIS V MVLTIS X in four 80-120 200-300 500-800
lines in wreath. RIC VIII Thes 206, etc.
Julian II (as C aesar) F VF EF
3343 — rev No inscr., star in wreath with medallion at 100-150 250-350 7 00-
top. RIC VIII Arl 255. 1000
3344 — rev V O TIS V in two lines in wreath. RIC VIII 80-120 200-300 500-800
Nie 102a.
3345 A R Light Siliqua rev As 3342. RIC VIII Arl 263-5. 20-40 70-100 150-200
3346 — As 3343. RIC VIII Arl 257. 80-120 200-300 500-800
3348 Æ 4 (c. 1347m m ) rev SPES REIPVBLICE, Julian, 5-15 20-40 50-75
in military garb, stg. r., hldg. globe and spear. RIC
VIII Ale 88.
Julian II (as A ugustus) F VF EF
3349 AV Solidus 250-350 90 0 - 2 000-

1200 3000
3350 — obv Pearl-diad. half-bust 1., wearing consular 400-600 1250- 5000-
robes, hldg. scepter and mappa rev VIRTVS EXER- 1750 8000
C IT V S ROMANORVM, Julian II, wearing consu
lar robes, hldg. scepter and mappa, enthroned facing
or stg. 1. RIC VIII Ant 204-6. Note: Struck in cele
bration of Julian’s fourth consulship.
3351 AV Semissis rev V IC TO R IA D D N N AVGG, 250-350 900- 20 0 0 -

Victory std. r., inscr. V O T X on shield supported by 1200 3000
winged genius (cupid). RIC VIII Lyo 207.
3352 AV 1-1/2 Scripulum (Nine-Siliqua) rev GLORIA 250-350 900- 2 000-

(or V IC TO R IA ) ROMANORVM, type as prev., 1200 3000
but V O T XX on shield. RIC VIII Ant 207-9.

1750 5000
3354 — rev V IC TO R IA ROMANORVM, Julian, in mil 500-800 2 000- 4000-
itary garb, stg. facing, hldg. scepter and globe, being 3000 6000
crowned from behind by Victory, all beneath an
arch supported by columns. RIC VIII Sirm 104.
3355 A R Heavy Siliqua rev V IC TO R IA AVGVSTI N, 80-120 200-300 5 00-800

Victory adv. 1., hldg. wreath and palm branch. RIC
VIII Rom 325-6.
3356 A R Light Siliqua 20-40 70-100 150-200

3357 A R Light Half-Siliqua rev V IC TO R IA PERPETV, 400-600 1000- —
Victory adv. L, hldg. wreath and palm branch. RIC 1500
VIII Tri 366.
Julian II (as Augustus) F VF EF
3358 Billon Æ1 (‘Maiorina’) (c. 27-30mm) rev 30-50 100-150 400-600

SECVRITA S REIPVB, bull stg. r., hd. si. facing,
two stars above, sometimes eagle before. RIC VIII
Arl 313-23, etc. N ote: For theories on the meaning
of Julian’s bull, see his Numismatic Note. Illustrated
p. 563.
3359 Æ 3 (c. 19-21mm) obv Helm., cuir, bust 1., hldg. 5-15 20-40 50-75
spear and shield rev V O T X MVLT XX in four lines
in wreath. RIC VIII Sirm 108.
3360 Æ 4 (c. 13-17mm) As 3348. RIC VIII Lyo 220-1,3- 5-15 20-40 50-75
5, etc.
Note: For Festival of Isis issues, see no. 3379 and

nos. 3450-60.
Note: Julian’s effigies as Augustus are both clean-shaven and bearded, with latter type being
engraved in several different styles.
Jovian, A .D . 3 6 3 - 3 6 4
Augustus: D N IO VI AN V S P F (or P F P) AVG
D N IOVIANVS P F P P AVG
D N IOVIANVS PEP (or PERP) AVG
Busts are right-facing, diademed, draped and cuirassed.
Jovian (as A ugustu s) F VF EF
3361 AV Solidus. Illustrated above. 300-400 700- 1750-

1000 2250
3362 AV 1-1/2 Scripulum (Nine-Siliqua) rev V IC T O 400-600 900- 2 000-

RIA A VGVSTI, Victory std. r., inscr. V O T V MVL 1200 3000
X on shield supported by winged genius (cupid).
RIC VIII Con 171.
3363 AR Heavy Miliarensis rev V O TIS V MVLTIS X in 1000- 4000- —

four lines in wreath. RIC VIII Ant 225. 1500 6000
3364 AR Light Miliarensis rev GLORIA ROM AN 1000- 40 0 0 -

ORVM, Jovian, in military garb, stg. facing, hd. r., 1500 6000
hldg. spear and globe, beneath fluted archway sup
ported by columns. RIC VIII Ant 226.
Jovian (as A ugustus) F VF EF
3365 — rev R ESTIT V T O R REIP, Jovian, in military 1000- 4000-

garb, stg. 1., hd. r., hldg. labarum and Victory on 1500 6000
globe. RIC VIII Arl 328.
3366 A R Heavy Siliqua rev V O T V MVLT X in four 70-100 200-300 500-800

lines in wreath. RIC VIII Arl 329. Note: This type is
shared with light siliquae, and they may only be dis
tinguished by weight.
3367 A R Light Siliqua 50-75 100-150 250-350
3368 Billon Æ 1 (‘Maiorina’) (c. 27-30mm) 70-100 250-350 500-800
3369 Æ 3 (c. 19-21mm) rev V O T V or V O T V MVLT X 5-15 20-40 70-100

in wreath. RIC VIII Con 178-9, etc.
Festival of Isis Coinage

As the Roman Empire underwent a transformation from paganism to Christianity
under Constantine the Great, the vestiges of Greek and Roman religions began to
fade from all forms of art, including coinage. One pagan remnant which survived
into the later 4th Century was an annual commemorative coinage for the Festival
of Isis held each year in Rome. T he Festival of Isis coins are among the most inter-
esting of all Roman coins, for they depict aspects of Egypto-Roman paganism
which, except on provincial issues, did not occur on Roman coins, even in the age
when paganism was the official state religion.
T he Festival coins are often called small medallions because they had a specific
ceremonial function, and because the vast majority of them are struck in brass
(orichalcum ), an expensive alloy of copper which had been long-abandoned on
regular coinage. Much like the contemporary ‘contorniates’ (which also have
pagan images), there is no doubt that the Festival of Isis issues were struck by the
government at the mint of Rome.
Both the ‘Imperial’ issues (bearing the portraits of emperors) and the ‘anony
mous’ issues (with the portraits of deities) were probably distributed at the Festival
of Isis in Rome (the navigium Isidis) or possibly on the occasions of Imperial vows,
which occured on January 3, for the standard inscription is V O T A P V B L IC A
(‘public vows’). Indeed, a brass ‘medallet’ of Constantine II inscribed V O T A
V IC E N N A L IO R (no. 3207) seems closely related to the V O T A P V B LIC A issues
cataloged below. It is also of interest that some of the earliest Festival of Isis coins
have V O TA P V BLIC A reverses paired with ‘abdication’ obverses of Diocletian
and Maximian.
A large percentage of these festival coins were pierced in ancient times, indi
cating that they were used as amulets worn about the neck or nailed to the frames
of buildings or to sarcophagi. The coins were never common, even in ancient
times, and they obviously were valued as keepsakes. We may be sure that their role
in commerce, if any was intended, was not a significant consideration.
Isis was an important goddess to the Romans, for she had many guises. Two of
them which apply to this coinage were that of a sea goddess and as guarantor of the
abundance of harvests and the fertility of fields. Since Egypt was a vital source of
grain for the Empire, and this grain was delivered by ship, it is only natural that Isis
— in her dual-capacity — would have relevance.
The first Festival of Isis issues were struck by D iocletian and his three col
leagues, but they are exceedingly rare and have not been cataloged here. Thereaf
ter, following a single issue by Licinius I, production began on a more sizeable scale
under Constantine the Great, and continued until the 380s, when the last dateable
issues were struck by Valentinian II.
Though a great many types are known for the Festival of Isis coinage, this
comes as no surprise considering they were probably struck each and every year for
the better part of a century. However, the quantities must have been small, as few
survive. A short listing of types from 337 to 364 is offered in R IC volume V III, pp.
300-305, but the best coverage is offered in Andreas A lföldis doctoral dissertation
A Festival o f Isis in Rome Under the Christian Emperors o f the IVth Century. This mon
umental work, published in 1937 as part of the Dissertationes Pannonicae (for the
Institute of Numismatics and Archaeology of the Pázmány-University, Budapest),
is regrettably as rare as the coins themselves.
T he catalog that follows is virtually complete, and is based on A lföldis work.
The listings are divided between ‘anonymous’ and ‘Imperial portrait’ issues, both of
which make use of the same table of reverse types. The ‘anonymous’ listings are
subdivided by obverse type based on design content, and the ‘Imperial portrait’ list
ings are arranged in chronological order by emperor. Values are only approximate,
and are based on design content, size and rarity. Slight surface porosity is to be
expected.
R e v e rs e Types of F e stiv al of Isis C o in s

Except where noted, all reverses are inscribed V O T A PV BLIC A . Grammatical
errors are common.
R everse Types of Festival of Isis Coins
A Sol-Serapis stg. r., raising r. hand and hldg. globe in 1.
Ba Serapis stg. r., raising r. hand and hldg. globe in 1.
Bb Serapis stg. r., hldg. scepter, placing hand on hd. of devotee kneeling at 1.
Be DEO SARAPIDI, Serapis, std. facing on throne, hldg. grain ears and scepter
Ca Isis adv. (or stg.) 1., hldg. sistrum and situla
Cb Isis stg. facing, looking 1., raising r. hand
Cc Isis, stg. facing, looking r. or 1., hldg. sistrum, situla and/or sometimes a disc-
shaped object or dish of fruit
Cd Isis, stg. facing, looking r., hldg. branch and uncertain disc-shaped object
(dish of fruit?)
Ce Isis stg. facing, looking 1., raising both hands (sistrum in r. hand?)
Cf Isis as mummy, adv. 1., hldg. scepter and laying raised 1. arm on breast
Cg Isis as sea-goddess, reel, to r., hldg. cornucopia with both hands
Ch Isis std., facing, suckling Horus
Ci Isis stg. r. in galley, supporting sail
Cj Isis stg. 1., looking either r. or 1., in galley, supporting sail
Ck Isis, hldg. sistrum, std. 1. in galley traveling r.
Cl Isis stg. 1. in galley, hldg. sistrum in raised r. hand and situla in 1. hand, several
rowers below her
Cm Isis std. 1. in galley, hldg. sistrum, several rowers before her at 1.
Cn Isis, hldg. sistrum, in cart drawn 1. by two mules
Co NO INSCRIPTION, Isis, hldg. sistrum, in cart drawn 1. by two mules
Cp Isis, hldg. sistrum, in cart drawn 1. by two mules which are accompanied by
Anubis hldg. branch
Cq Isis, facing and hldg. sistrum and basket or disc(?), in cart drawn by two
sphinxes, in front of cart Horus stg. and the Sothis dog, sometimes rad.,
bounding, waves below
Cr NO INSCRIPTION, Isis, facing and hldg. sistrum and basket or disc(?), in

cart drawn by two sphinxes, in front of cart Horus stg. and the Sothis dog,
sometimes rad., bounding, waves below
Cs Isis, hldg. sistrum and scepter, sitting on the back of the Sothis dog, bounding
r. and looking back
Ct Isis, with sistrum and situla, and Anubis, with palm branch and caduceus,
both adv. 1.
Cu Isis, stg. 1. and hldg. sistrum, embraces Anubis, stg. r. and hldg. caduceus
Cv Isis and winged Nephtis, each wearing elephant headdresses, stg. confr., join
ing their raised hands (or slight variety of this description)
Cw Isis and Osiris, with lower bodies of serpents, confr., jointly raising a sacred
vessel, from which the uraeus-snake sometimes emerges
Da Anubis stg. 1., hldg. sistrum and caduceus
Db Anubis stg. 1., hldg. branch and caduceus

Dc Anubis, wearing long robe and hldg. sistrum, std. at prow of ship, facing r.
E Harpocrates stg. 1., setting his r. forefinger to his mouth, and hldg. a cornuco
pia in 1.
F Nilus reel, to r., hldg. ship and sometimes a reed

Ga Sphinx, sitting r., raising r. foreleg
Gb Sphinx, sitting 1., raising foreleg

Ha Devotee of Isis kneeling r., arms outstretched
Hb Devotee of Isis stg. r., hldg. basket on her hd.
He Devotee of Isis adv. r., hldg. in each hand a candelabrum
Hd Devotee of Isis stg. facing, hldg. two burning torches
He Devotee of Isis adv. r. with cow(?)'topped standard over shoulder
I Cupid, brandishing whip, stg. on back of sea^monster with the upper body of
a bull and tail of a fish adv. r., dolphin below
J Neptune, at 1., stg. r., 1. foot on prow, hldg. dolphin and trident, facing Isis at
r., stg. 1., hldg. sistrum and sacred vessel
K Two naked deities stg. facing, emerging from a calyx of lotus, hldg. snakes and
a small, uncertain object; betw. them at their feet a sacred vessel with the
uraeuS'Snake
3 3 8 5 (rev. E) 3 3 8 8 (rev. D a)
3 4 3 4 (rev. C a )
3 3 9 9 (rev. C i)
3 4 2 4 (rev. C j)
341 5 (rev. F)
3 4 0 0 (rev. C n ) 3 4 7 5 (rev. C h )
A n o n y m o u s C o in s of th e F e stiv al of Isis
Except where noted, coins with Isis alone have the obverse inscription ISIS
FA RIA ; all others are inscribed DEO SA R A P ID I or DEO SER A PID I. Grammati-
cal errors are common.
A nonym ous Coins of the Festival of Isis F VF EF
obv Rad, dr. bust r. or 1. of Sol-Serapis, wearing

modius
3370 Æ 3 rev Ca,Ci,Da 200-400 500-800 1000-

1500
3371 — . rev Cb,Ch,Cn,Db,E 200-400 500-800 1000-

1500
3372 — . rev Cg,Ct,Cw,Ha,He 400-600 900- —
1200
3373 Æ 4 rev Ca,Ci,Da,F 80-120 150-200 500-800
3374 — . rev Db,E,Ga 100-150 200-300 700-900

3375 — . rev Ce 150-200 250-350 850-
1000
3376 — . rev Cg,Hd,I 250-500 7 00- 1500-
1000 2000
obv Rad., dr. half-bust r. or 1. of Sol-Serapis, wear
ing modius and raising r. hand
3377 Æ 3 rev Ba,Ca,Da 200-400 500-800 1000-

1500
3378 — . rev Cs,Cv 400-600 900- —
1200
obv VOTA PVBLICA, rad., dr. bust r. of Sol-
Serapis, wearing modius; bearded with features of
Julian II
3379 Æ 3 rev Da 400-600 900- —

1200
obv Rad., dr. facing bust of Sol-Serapis, wearing
modius
3380 Æ 3 rev Ch 400-600 900- —

1200
obv Dr. bust r. or 1. of Serapis, wearing modius
3381 Æ 3 rev A,Ca,Ci,Da 200-400 500-800 1000-

1500
3382 — . rev Ch,Cn 200-400 500-800 1000-
1500
3383 — . rev Cs 250-500 700- 1500-
1000 2000
Anonymous Coins of the Festival of Isis F VF EF
3384 Æ 4 rev A,Ba,C i,Da,F 80-120 150-200 500-800
3385 — . rev Ch,Cn,Db,E,Ga 100-150 200-300 700-900
3386 — . rev Cf 250-500 700- 1500-

1000 2000
obv Dr. half-bust 1. of Serapis, hldg. sistrum, wear-

ing modius
3387 Æ 3 rev Cv 400-600 900- —

1200
obv Dr. facing bust of Serapis, wearing modius
3388 Æ 4 rev C i,Da,F 150-200 250-350 850-

1000
obv Dr. bust r. of Isis, wearing hem-hem crown
3389 Æ 3 rev A,Ba,Ca,Ci,Da,F 200-400 500-800 1000-

1500
3390 — . rev Ch,Cn,Db,E 200-400 500-800 1000-

1500
3391 — . rev Cs 250-500 700- 1500-

1000 2000
3392 — . rev Cg,Cq 400-600 900- —

1200
3393 Æ 4 rev Ca,Ci,Da,F 80-120 150-200 500-800
3394 — . rev Cb,E,Ga,Gb 100-150 200-300 700-900
3395 — . rev Cc 150-200 250-350 850-

1000
obv DE ISIDI, dr. bust r. of Isis, wearing hem-hem

crown
3396 Æ 3 rev Ca,Ci,F 250-500 700- 1500-

1000 2000
obv VOTA PVBLICA , dr. bust r. of Isis, wearing

hem-hem crown
3397 Æ 3 rev Da 250-500 7 00- 1500-

1000 2000
3398 Æ 4 rev A,E,F 150-200 250-350 850-

1000
obv Dr. half-bust 1. of Isis, hldg. sistrum, wearing

hem-hem crown
3399 Æ 3 rev Ba,Ca,Ci,Da,F 200-400 500-800 1000-

1500
3400 — . rev Ch,Cn 250-500 700- 1500-

1000 2000
3401 — . rev Cs 400-600 900- —

1200
3402 — . rev Cv,Hc — — —
3403 Æ4 rev Ci,Da 100-150 200-300 700-900
obv D EA ISIS FARIA, dr. half-bust 1. of Isis,
hldg. sistrum, wearing hem-hem crown
3404 Æ 4 rev Ci 150-200 250-350 850-

1000
obv VOTA PVBLICA , dr. half-bust 1. of Isis,
hldg. sistrum, wearing consular robes and hem-
hem crown
3405 Æ3 rev Ci 250-500 700- 1500-

1000 2000
3406 — . rev Ch, 400-600 900- —
1200
3407 — . rev Cs,Cu,Hb — — —
obv Dr. facing bust of Isis, wearing hem-hem
crown
3408 Æ3 rev Ci 250-500 700- 1500-

1000 2000
3409 — . rev Cs — — —
obv Dr. facing bust of Isis, wearing hem-hem
crown, hldg. sistrum
3410 Æ 4 rev Da 150-200 250-350 850-

1000
3411 — . rev E 250-500 700- 1500-
1000 2000
3412 — . rev Be 400-600 — —
obv Jugate busts r. of Sol-Serapis, rad., dr. and
wearing modius, and Isis, wearing hem-hem
crown
3413 Æ3 rev Ci 200-400 500-800 1000-

1500
3414 — . rev Bb — — —
obv Jugate busts r. or 1. of Serapis, dr. and wearing
modius, and Isis, wearing hem-hem crown
3415 Æ3 rev A,Ca,Ci,Da,F 200-400 500-800 1000-

1500
3416 — . rev Ch,Cn 250-500 700- 1500-
1000 2000
3417 — . rev Cc,Cs 400-600 900- —

1200
3418 — . rev Cv — — —
3419 — . obv Isis also hldg. sistrum rev Cs — — —
obv VOTA PVBLICA , jugate busts r. of Serapis,
dr. and wearing modius, and Isis, wearing hem-
hem crown and hldg. sistrum
3420 Æ 3 rev Da,Ci 250-400 7 00- 1500-

1000 2000
3421 — . rev Cc — — —
obv DEO SARAPID I(?), confr. busts of Serapis,
dr. and wearing modius; and Isis, wearing hem-
hem crown and hldg. sistrum
3422 Æ 3 rev Ch — — —
Im p erial P o r tr a it C o in s of th e F e stiv al of Isis

Except where noted, obverses have the right-facing, laureate bust of the emperor
named in the accompanying inscription. Busts are usually draped and/or cuirassed.
Im perial P o rtra it Coins of the Festival of Isis F VF EF
Licinius I, A.D . 3 0 8 -3 2 4
3423 Æ 4 rev Ca 250-500 700- 1500-

1000 2000
Constantine I, as Augustus, A.D. 3 0 7 -3 3 7
3424 Æ 3 rev Ca,Ci,Cj 200-400 500-800 1000-

1500
3425 — . rev Ck 400-600 900- —

1200
3426 Æ 3/4 rev Cl 250-500 700- 1500-

1000 2000
3427 — . rev Da 150-200 250-350 850-

1000
3428 — . rev Db 200-400 500-800 1000-

1500
3429 — . rev Dc 500-800 — —

3430 Æ 4 rev Ca,Cj 100-150 200-300 700-900
3431 — . rev ] 400-600 900- —

1200
3432 — . rev Db 150-200 250-350 850-

1000
Im perial P o rtra it Coins of the Festival of Isis F VF EF
Crispus, as Caesar, A.D. 3 1 6 -3 2 6
3433 Æ 3 rev Cm 400-600 900-

1200
3434 Æ 3/4 rev Ca 150-200 250-350 850-
1000
3435 Æ 4 rev Cl(?) 250-500 700- 1500-
1000 2000
3436 — . rev Cj, Db, 150-200 250-350 850-
1000
Constantine II, as Caesar, A.D. 3 1 6 -3 3 7
3437 Æ 4 rev Ca,Cj,Da 100-150 200-300 700-900

3438 — . rev Cc(?) 250-500 700- 1500-
1000 2000
3439 — . rev Db 150-200 250-350 850-
1000
Constans, as Augustus, A.D. 3 3 7 -3 5 0
3440 Æ4 rev Cj(?) 150-200 250-350 850-

1000
3441 — . rev Db 250-500 7 00- 1500-
1000 2000
Constantius II, as Caesar, A.D. 3 2 4 -3 3 7
3442 Æ 4 rev Cj,Db 150-200 250-350 850-

1000
Constantius II, as Augustus, A.D. 3 37-361
3443 Æ3/4 rev Cj 150-200 250-350 850-
1000
3444 Æ4 rev Cj,Da,Db 100-150 200-300 700-900
3445 — . rev C o 400-600 900- —
1200
obv Diad. half-bust r. or 1. of Constantius II, wear
ing consular robes, hldg. scepter and sometimes
also a branch(?)
3446 Æ4 rev Cj 150-200 250-350 850-

1000
3447 — . rev C o 500-800 — —
Magnentius, A.D. 35 0 -3 5 3
3448 m / 4 rev Ci(?),F 200-400 500-800 1000-
1500
Constantius Gallus, A.D. 3 5 1 -3 5 4
Imperial Portrait Coins of the Festival of Isis F VF EF
3449 Æ3/4 rev Ci,F 200-400 500-800 1000-

1500
Julian II, as Augustus, A.D. 36 0 -3 6 3

(see also no. 3379)
3450 Æ 2 rev Ch 1000- 1500- 30 0 0 -

1500 2500 5000
3451 — . rev Cs 1000- 1500- 3000-

1500 2500 5000
3452 — . rev Cv 1000- 2000- —

1500 3000
3453 Æ 4 rev Ci(?) 100-150 200-300 700-900
3454 — . rev Cn 150-200 250-350 850-

1000
obv Diad., cuir half-bust 1. of Julian II, hldg. Vic

tory on globe and a shield with she-wolf and twins
3455 A R Medallion rev Da (or Db) — — —
3456 Æ 2 rev Ch 1000- 1500- 3000-

1500 2500 5000
3457 — . rev Cd 1000- 2000- —

1500 3000
3458 — . rev K,Cr,Cw 1000- 2 000- —

1500 3000
obv Helm., diad., cuir bust 1. of Julian II, seen

from behind, hldg. shield
3459 Æ 4 rev Ca,Da,Cn 100-150 200-300 700-900
3460 — . rev Cp 250-500 7 00- 1500-

1000 2000
Jovian, A.D. 3 6 3 -3 6 4
3461 Æ 2 rev Cs 1000- 1500- 3000-

1500 2500 5000
3462 — . rev Cv 1000- 2000- —

1500 3000
3463 Æ 4 rev C i,Da 100-150 200-300 700-900
3464 — . rev Ch,Cn,E 150-200 250-350 850-

1000
3465 — . rev Cp 250-500 700- 1500-

1000 2000
obv Diad. half-bust r. of Jovian, wearing consular

robes, hldg. eagle-tipped scepter and globe
Im perial P o rtrait Coins of the Festival of Isis F VF EF
Un i-n
O O
O O
3466 Æ 2 rev Ch 1000- 3000-
Ni
1500 5000
3467 — . rev Cw 1000- 2000- —

1500 3000
Valentinian I, A.D. 36 4 -3 7 5
3468 Æ 2 rev Ch 1000- 1500- 3000-

1500 2500 5000
3469 Æ 3 rev Cc,C s 400-600 90 0 - —

1200
3470 — . rev Ch 250-350 700- —
1000
3471 Æ 4 rev Da,F 100-150 200-300 700-900
3472 — . rev E 150-200 250-350 850-
1000
3473 — . rev Cc 250-500 7 00- 1500-
1000 2000
Valens, A.D. 3 6 4 -3 7 8
3474 Æ 2 rev C c 1000- 1500- 3000-

1500 2500 5000
3475 — . rev Ch 600-900 1200- 2000-
1500 3000
3476 Æ 4 rev Da,F 100-150 200-300 700-900
3477 — . rev Ch,E 150-200 250-350 850-
1000
Gratian, A.D. 3 6 7 -3 8 3
3478 Æ 3/4 rev Ca 200-400 5 00-800 1000-

1500
3479 Æ 4 rev Da 150-200 250-350 850-
1000
3480 — . rev Cn 250-500 700- 1500-
1000 2000
Valentinian II, A.D. 3 7 5 -3 9 2
3481 Æ 4 rev Da 150-200 250-350 850-

1000
3482 — . rev Ch 250-500 700- 1 500-
1000 2000
CH A PTER TW ELVE
T h e W e s t e r n R o m a n E m p ire
A .D . 3 6 4 - 4 8 0
Valentinian I, A .D . 3 6 4 - 3 7 5
A.D. 364-367: Sole reign
A.D. 367-375: S en io r A u g u stu s
(w ith G ra tia n )
B ro th er of V alen s
F a t h e r o f G r a t i a n a n d V a l e n t i n i a n II
F a th e r -in -la w o f T h e o d o siu s I a n d C o n s t a n t i a ( d . o f C o n s ta n t i u s II)
G r a n d f a th e r o f G a l l a P la c id ia
G r e a t - g r a n d f a t h e r o f V a l e n t i n i a n III a n d H o n o r i a
Augustus: D N VALENTIN IAN V S P F AVG (also used by Valentinian II & III)
D N VALENTINIANVS AVG
VALENTINIANVS AVG
Except where noted, busts are right-facing, diademed, draped and cuirassed.
V alentinian I (as A ugustus) VF EF n MS
3483 AV ‘Festaureus’ obv Diad., dr., cuir, bust 1. rev 5 000- 20,000- 40,000-
G LO RIA ROMANORVM, emperor, nimbate in 8000 30,000 60,000
facing quadriga, distributing coins. RIC IX, p.209, 1.
Note: W hen this was struck the solidus was the
Empire’s standard gold coin and the aureus (at 60 to
the Roman pound) was a ceremonial item repre-
senting a 1-1/5 solidus.
3484 AV Solidus 200-300 400-600 900-

1200
3485 — obv Diad. half-bust 1., wearing consular robes, 500-800 1500-
hldg. mappa and scepter rev SALVS REIP, emperor 2000
adv. 1., hldg. labarum and Victory on globe, foot on
captive. RIC IX, p. 173, 3a.
3486 AV Semissis 200-300 300-400 450-600
3487 AV 1-1/2 Scripulum (Nine-Siliqua) 500-800 90 0 - 1250-

1200 1750
5 77
Valentinian I (as A ugustus) F VF EF

1750 3000
3489 AR Light Miliarensis obv Bust r. or 1. 300-400 900- 1500-

1200 2000
3490 AR Heavy Siliqua obv Bust r. or 1. 150-200 300-400 700-

1000
3491 AR Light Siliqua. Illustrated p. 577. 30-50 70-100 150-200
3492 Æ1 200-300 900- —
1200
3493 Æ 2 rev GLORIA ROMANORVM, campgate, S 200-300 900- —
above. 1200
3494 Æ3 5-15 20-40 70-100
3495 — rev SECVRITAS REIPVBLICAE, emperor stg. 15-25 30-50 100-150
facing, hldg. labarum and shield; officina mark (such
as OF III) in field. RIC IX, p.66, 17a.
Note: Though the inscription D N VALENTINIAN VS P F AVG is used by all three Valen-
tinians, their coins can be distinguished by the portraits styles: Valentinian I is broad-headed
and middle-aged, Valentinian II has a long, thin and youthful profile, and, in comparison to
both, Valentinian Ill’s effigy is simplisticly engraved.
Gratian, A .D . 3 6 7 -3 8 3
A.D. 3 6 7 - 3 7 5 : Ju n io r A u g u stu s
(w ith V alen tin ian I)
A.D. 3 7 5 - 3 8 3 : S en io r A u g u stu s
(w ith V alen tin ian I I )
S o n o f V a le n tin ia n I
H u sb an d o f C o n s ta n tia
( d . o f C o n s t a n t i u s II)
N eph ew of V alens
H a l f - b r o t h e r o f V a l e n t in ia n II
Augustus: D N GRATIAN V S P F AVG
D N GRATIAN VS AVG
D N GRATIANVS AVGG AVG

THE WESTERN ROMAN EMPIRE 579
G ratian (as A ugustu s) VF EF n MS
3496 AV Solidus 200-300 400-600 900-

1200
3497 AV Semissis 200-300 300-400 450-600
3498 AV 1-1/2 Scripulum (Nine-Siliqua) 500-800 900- 1250-

1200 1750
G ratian (as A ugustus) F VF EF
3499 AR Heavy Miliarensis 400-600 1250- 2 000-

1750 3000
3500 AR Light Miliarensis obv Bust r. or 1. Illustrated 300-400 900- 1500-

p. 578. 1200 2000
3501 AR Heavy Siliqua 250-350 500-800 —

3502 AR Light Siliqua 30-50 70-100 150-200
3503 — rev PERPETVETAS, Phoenix stg. 1. on globe. 150-200 700- —

RIC IX, p.25, 56a. 1000
3504 AR Heavy Half-Siliqua 250-350 500-800 —

3505 AR Light Half-Siliqua 250-350 500-800 —
3506 Æ1 200-300 900- —
1200
3507 Æ2 5-15 3 0-50 100-150
3508 — rev GLORIA ROMANORVM, campgate, S 200-300 900- —

above. 1200
3509 Æ3 5-15 20-40 70-100
3510 — rev GLORIA NOVI SAECVLI, emperor stg. fac 15-25 3 0-50 100-150
ing, hldg. labarum and shield; officina mark (such as
OF III) infield. RIC IX, p.66, 15.
3511 Æ4 5-15 2 0-40 —


58 ° COINAGE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE: CATALOG AND TABLES OF VALUE
Valentinian II, A .D . 3 7 5 - 3 9 2
3 7 5 ^ 3 8 3 : Ju n io r A u g u stu s
(w ith G ra tia n )
A.D. 3 8 3 - 3 9 2 : Sole reign
S o n o f V a l e n t in ia n I
H a l f - b r o t h e r o f G r a t ia n
N eph ew of V a len s
B r o t h e r - i n - l a w o f T h e o d o s iu s I
Augustus: D N VALENTIN IAN VS P F AVG (also used by Valentinian I & III)
D N VALENTIN IAN V S IVN P F AVG
Valentinian II (as A ugustus) VF EF n MS
3512 AV Solidus 200-300 400-600 900-

1200
3513 AV Semissis 200-300 300-400 450-600
3514 AV 1-1/2 Scripulum (Nine-Siliqua). Illustrated 500-800 900- 1250-

above. 1200 1750
3515 AV Tremissis 100-150 200-300 350-500
V alentinian II (as A ugustus) F VF EF
3516 A R Heavy Miliarensis 400-600 1250- 20 0 0 -

1750 3000
3517 A R Light Miliarensis obv Bust r. or 1. 300-400 900- 1500-

1200 2000
3518 A R Heavy Siliqua 250-350 500-800 —

3519 A R Light Siliqua 3 0-50 70-100 150-200
3520 — rev PERPETVETAS, Phoenix stg. 1. on globe. 150-200 7 00- —

RIC IX, p.25, 56b. 1000
3521 A R Heavy Half-Siliqua 250-350 500-800 —

3522 A R Light Half-Siliqua 250-350 500-800 —
3523 ‘Medallic’ Æ 1 obv Helm., diad., cuir, half-bust r.,
hldg. shield and scepter with Chi-Rho top rev G LO
RIA ROMANORVM, Roma std. 1. on shield, hldg.
spear and Victory. RIC IX, p. 125, 37.
3524 Æ 1 rev Victory adv. 200-300 900- —

1200
3525 Æ2 5-15 3 0-50 100-150

Valentinian II (as A ugustus) F VF EF
3526 Æ3 5-15 20-40 70-100
3527 Æ4 5-15 20-40 —

Note: Though the inscription D N VALENTINIANVS P F AVG is used by all three Valen-
both, Valentinian Ill’s effigy is simplisticly engraved.
Magnus Maximus, A .D . 3 8 3 - 3 8 8
A.D. 3 8 3 - 3 8 7 : Sole reign
(w ith Flav iu s V ic to r)
F a t h e r o f F l a v iu s V ic t o r
Augustus: D N MAG M AXIMVS P F AVG
D N M AXIMVS P F AVG (æs of Constantinople)
Magnus M axim us (as A ugustus) VF EF n MS
3528 AV Solidus. Illustrated above. 1750- 2 500- 4500-

2250 4000 6000
3529 AV Semissis 1750- 3000- —

2250 5000
3530 AV Tremissis 1000- 1750- —

1500 2250
Magnus M axim us (as A ugustus) F VF EF
3531 AR Heavy Miliarensis 900- 1750- 5 000-

1200 2250 8000
3532 AR Light Miliarensis 7 00- 1500- 4000-

1000 2000 6000
3533 AR Light Siliqua 30-50 70-100 200-300
3534 Æ2 50-75 200-300 400-600

M agnus M axim us (as A ugustus) F VF EF
3535 Æ 4 (large module of c. 14- 16mm) Note: This larger 50-75 200-300 400-600
size of Magnus Maximus’ small bronzes seems only
to have been struck at Trier, Lugdunum and Are-
late; apparently none were struck for his son.
3536 Æ 4 (small module of c. 12-13mm) 30-50 150-200 300-500
N ote: Some of this usurper’s coins were struck at Theodosian mints, including Constantino-
pie, from where extremely rare solidi and Æ 2 ’s are attested. The evidence is clear on this
point (see D.O. pp. 101-2). Thus, we must consider that some coins of Valentinian II, Theo-
dosius I and Arcadius with AVGGGG on the reverse (see RIC IX, 224-5, nos. 46-7) belong
to the period of Maximus’ recognition, mid-384 to mid-387, rather than to the earlier period,
378-383, when the same inscription would have referred to Gratian, Valentinian II, Theodo
sius I and Arcadius.
Flavius Victor, A .D . 3 8 7 - 3 8 8
Ju n io r A u g u stu s (w ith M agnus M axim u s)
S o n o f M a g n u s M a x im u s
Augustus: D N FL V IC TO R P F AVG
N ote: There are variants of this main inscription.
Flavius V icto r (as A ugustus) VF EF nMS
3537 AV Solidus 5 000- 10,000- 2 0,000-

8000 15,000 30,000
3538 — rev BONO REIPVBLICE NATI, two emperors 5 000- 10,000- —
std. facing, Victory with spread wings behind. RIC 8000 15,000
IX, p.79, 15.
3539 AV Semissis 40 0 0 - 10,000- —

6000 15,000
3540 AV Tremissis 1750- 3000- —
2250 5000
Flavius V ictor (as A ugustus) F VF EF
3541 A R Light Siliqua Illustrated above. 100-150 200-300 400-600

3542 Æ 4 rev Campgate. 50-75 200-300 —
Eugenius, A.D. 392-394
Augustus: D N EVGENIYS P F AVG
Busts are right-facing, bearded, diademed, draped and cuirassed.
Eugenius (as A ugustus) VF EF n MS
3543 AV Solidus 10,000- 20,000- 35,000-

15,000 30,000 50,000
3544 AV Tremissis 30 0 0 - 6000- —

5000 9000
Eugenius (as A ugustus) F VF EF
3545 A R Heavy Miliarensis 2000- 50 0 0 - 15,000-

3000 8000 20,000
3546 A R Light Miliarensis 1500- 4000- 10,000-

2000 6000 15,000
3547 A R Light Siliqua Illustrated above. 100-150 200-300 400-600

3549 Æ4 50-75 250-350 —
Honorius, A .D . 3 9 3 -4 2 3
Sole reign (e x c e p t 4 2 1 , w ith
C o n sta n tiu s I I I )
S o n o f T h e o d o s iu s I a n d A e l i a F l a c c i l l a
B r o t h e r o f A r c a d iu s
B r o t h e r - i n - l a w o f A e l i a E u d o x ia
U n c l e o f T h e o d o s iu s II a n d
A e l ia P u l c h e r ia
H a l f - b r o t h e r o f G a l l a P l a c id i a
Augustus: D N HONORI AVG
D N HONORIVS P F AVG
D N ON ORIVS P F AVG
H on orius (as A ugustus) VF EF nMS
3550 AV ‘Festaureus’ rev G LORIA ROMANORVM, 2500- 50 0 0 - 12,000-

Victory adv. 1., hldg. wreath and palm. RIC 1203. 3500 8000 15,000
Note: When this was struck the solidus was the
the Roman pound) was a ceremonial item repre
senting a 1-1/5 solidus.
3551 AV Solidus 200-300 400-600 900-

1200
3552 — obv Helm., diad. half-bust 3/4-facing, hldg. shield 150-250 300-400 5 00-800
and spear rev Various types. Illustrated p. 583.
3553 — obv Helm., diad., dr. and cuir, bust r. rev V IC T O 250-350 500-750 1500-
RIA AVGGG, emperor stg. facing, foot on lion, 2000
crowned by hand of God, hldg. sword and p-cross
scepter, RV in field, COB in ex. RIC 1310.
3554 — obv Diad. half-bust 1., wearing consular robes, 600-900 1500- 2 5,000-
hldg. mappa and eagle-tipped scepter rev VOTA 2000 35,000
PVBLICA, two emperors std. facing, MD in field,
COM OB in ex. RIC 1207.
3555 — obv Full-facing diad. bust, wearing consular 4 000- 15,000+

robes, hldg. mappa and scepter rev V O T XXX 6000
MVLT XXXX, emperor std. facing, hldg. mappa and
eagle-tipped scepter, RV in field, COM OB in ex.
R I C 1330.
3556 AV Semissis 200-300 300-400 450-600
3557 AV Tremissis 100-150 200-300 350-500
35 5 5
H on orius (as A ugustus) F VF EF
3558 A R Heavy Miliarensis 400-600 1250- 20 0 0 -

1750 3000
3559 A R Light Miliarensis obv Bust r. or 1. 300-400 900- 1500-

1200 2000
3560 A R Light Siliqua 30-50 70-100 150-200
3561 A R Light Half-Siliqua 100-150 250-350 400-600
3562 Æ 2 rev GLORIA ROMANORVM, emperor stg. 5-15 3 0-50 100-150

facing, hldg. standard and globe. RIC 55.
H onorius (as A ugustu s) F VF EF
3563 Æ3 5-15 20-40 70-100
3564 Æ4 rev Cross. 5-15 20-40 —
Constantine III, A .D . 4 0 7 -4 1 1
A.D. 4 0 7 - 4 0 8 : Sole R eig n
A.D. 4 0 8 - 4 0 9 /4 1 0 : A u g u stu s
(w ith C o n sta n s I I , as C a e s a r)
A.D. 4 0 9 / 4 1 0 - 4 1 1 : S en io r A u g u stu s
(w ith C o n stan s I I )
Fa t h er o f C on sta n s II
Augustus: D N CON STA N TIN VS P F AVG (also used by Constantine I & Constan
tine II)
FL CL CON STA N TIN VS AVG (also used by Constantine II)
FL CL CON STA N TIN VS P F AVG (also used by Constantine II)
C onstan tin e III (as A ugustus) VF EF n MS
3565 AV Solidus rev V IC TO R IA AVGGG (or 2000- 3000- 5 000-

AAVGGG, A AA VG GG G ), emperor stg. r., hldg. 3000 5000 8000
standard and Victory on globe, foot on captive; var
ious mint marks. RIC 1502ff.
3566 AV Tremissis rev VIC TO R IA AAVGGG, Victory 1750- 30 0 0 -

adv. r., hldg. wreath and globe, AR in field, 2250 5000
CONOB in ex. RIC 1524.
C onstantine III (as A ugustus) F VF EF
3567 AR Light Siliqua rev V IC TO R IA AAVGGG (or 200-300 400-600 900-

AA A VG GG G ), Roma std. 1., hldg. spear and Vic 1200
tory on globe, various mint marks. RIC 1525ff.
Illustrated above.
3568 Æ 4 rev V IC TO R IA AVGGG, Victory adv. 1., hldg — — —

wreath and palm, LVGP in ex. RIC 1546.
Note: Though Constantine Ill’s obverse inscriptions were used previously by Constantine I
and Constantine II, his coins are easily distinguished by their cruder style and fabric. Half^sil-
iquae in the name of Constantine III with an anepigraphic reverse depicting a Chi-Rho
flanked by an Alpha and Omega are considered by some authorities to be false.
Constans II, A .D . 4 0 9 /1 0 -4 1 1
A.D. 4 0 8 - 4 0 9 /1 0 : C a e s a r (u n d er C o n sta n tin e I I I )
A.D. 4 0 9 /4 1 0 - 4 1 1 : Ju n io r A u g u stu s (w ith C o n sta n tin e I I I )
S o n o f C o n s t a n t in e III
Augustus: D N CONSTANS P F AVG (also used by Constans)
C onstans II (as A ugustus) F VF EF
3569 AR Light Siliqua obv Diad., dr., cuir, bust r. rev 5 000- 12,000- 25,000-
V IC TO R IA AAAVGGGG, Roma std. 1. on cuirass, 8000 18,000 30,000
hldg. Victory on globe and spear, SM TR in ex. RIC
1540.
3570 — As prev., but in KONT ex. RIC 1540-1. Note: 5000- 12,000- 25,000-
Constans II sometimes wears a laurel-and-rosette 8000 18,000 30,000
diadem on this issue of Arles.
Note: Constans IPs siliquae are easily distinguished from those of Constans (A.D. 337-350)
with the same inscription by their crude style and fabric and their different reverse type.
Maximus, A .D . 4 0 9 - 4 1 1
S o n o f G e r o n t i u s (?)
Augustus: D N MAXIMVS P F AVG
M axim us (as A ugustus) F VF EF
3571 AR Light Siliqua rev VIC TO R(sic) AAAVGGG, 900- 2 000- 4000-
Roma std. 1. on cuirass, hldg. spear and Victory on 1200 3000 6000
globe, SM BA in ex. RIC 1601. N ote: Forgeries exist
with the mint mark SMB. Illustrated above.
3572 Æ 2 (c. 20mm) rev VIC TO R IA AVGGG, emperor

stg. 1., hldg. Victory on globe, raising kneeling fig.,
“ “
SM BA in ex. RIC 1602-3.
3573 Æ 3 or Æ 4 (c. 12mm) rev As prev., but type of Vic 200-300 500-800 —
tory adv. 1., hldg. wreath and palm. RIC 1604.
Priscus Attalus
First Reign,
A .D . 4 0 9 - 4 1 0
Augustus: IMP PRISCVS ATTALVS P F AVG
PRISC ATTALVS P F AVG
PRISCVS ATTALVS P F AVG
P riscu s A ttalus (as A ugustus, F irst R eign) VF EF n MS
3574 AV Solidus. Illustrated above. 7000- 15,000- 3 0 ,000-

10,000 20,000 50,000
3575 AV Tremissis 4000- 7000- —

6000 10,000
Priscu s A ttalus (as A ugustus, F irst Reign) F VF EF
3576 AR Medallion of 24 Siliquae rev INVICTA 10,000- 30,000- 75,000+

ROM A AETERNA, Roma std. facing, hldg. spear 15,000 40,000
and Victory on globe, lion’s heads decorating sides
of throne. RIC 1408. Note: This massive piece (c.
50mm) was the silver equivalent of a gold solidus.
3577 AR Heavy Miliarensis 40 0 0 - 15,000- —

6000 20,000
3578 AR Light Miliarensis 4000- 15,000- —

6000 20,000
3579 AR Light Siliqua 30 0 0 - 7000- —

5000 10,000
3580 — of Ravenna( ?) or of Visigothic manufacture( ?)

rev V IC TO R I AAVGG (or AVGGG), Roma std. 1.,
in ex. PSRV RIC 3701-2. Note: Some authorities
attribute this issue to Attalus’ second reign.
3581 AR Light Half-Siliqua rev V IC TO R IA ROM AN 30 0 0 - 7000-

ORVM, Victory adv. 1., hldg. wreath and palm, PST 5000 10,000
in ex. RIC 1413.
3582 Æ3 — — —
3583 Æ 4 obv Partial inscr.: ...TALVS..., bust r. rev Victory 1000- — —
adv. I., RM in ex. Unlisted in RIC. 1500
Note: Coins of Priscus Attalus’ second reign are listed as nos. 3589-90.
Jovinus, A .D . 4 1 1 -4 1 3
A.D. 4 1 1 - 4 1 2 : Sole reign
(w ith S eb astian u s)
B r o t h e r o f S e b a s t ia n u s
Augustus: D N IOVINVS P F AVG (the AVG sometimes in ligature)
Jovinus (as A ugustus) VF EF n MS
3584 AV Solidus rev V IC TO R IA AVGG, emperor stg. r., 7000- 15,000- 30,000-
hldg. standard and Victory on globe, foot on cap 10,000 20,000 50,000
tive. RIC 1701-2.
3585 — As prev., but rev inscr. R ESTIT V T O R REIR RIC 7000- 15,000- 3 0,000-
1703-8. 10,000 20,000 50,000
Jovinus (as A ugustus) F VF EF
3586 AR Light Siliqua rev VIC TO R IA AVGG, Roma 700- 1250-

std. 1. on stylized cuirass or chair, hldg. Victory on 1000 1750
globe and spear. RIC 1718-9. Illustrated above.
3587 — As prev., but rev inscr. R ESTIT V T O R REIR RIC 700- 1250- —
1720-1. 1000 1750
Note: Half-siliquae in the name of Jovinus with an anepigraphic reverse depicting a Chi-Rho
flanked by an Alpha and Omega are considered false by some authorities. Also, examples of
Jovinus’ siliquae which seemingly are of double-weight are doubted by some authorities.
Sebastianus, A .D . 4 1 2 -4 1 3
Ju n io r A u g u stu s (w ith Jo v in u s)
B r o t h e r o f J o v in u s
Augustus: D N SEBASTIA N VS P F AVG (the AVG sometimes in ligature)
Sebastianus (as A ugustus) F VF EF
3588 AR Light Siliqua obv Diad., dr., cuir bust r. rev 5000- 10,000- 25,000+
V IC TO R IA AVGG, Roma std. 1 on stylized cuirass 15000 15,000
or chair, hldg. Victory on globe and spear, KONT in
ex. RIC 1718-9. Illustrated above.
Priscus Attalus
Second Reign, A .D . 4 1 5 -4 1 6
Augustus: IMP PRISCVS ATTALVS P F AVG
P riscu s A ttalus (as A ugustus, Second Reign) VF EF n MS
3589 AV Solidus obv Diad., dr., cuir bust r. rev RES-

T IT V T IO REIP, emperor hldg. standard and raising
kneeling fig.; NB in field, COM OB in ex. RIC 1416.
Note: Though the mint mark allows attribution of
this solidus to Narbonne, the siliqua below is vari
ously attributed to Narbonne or Ravenna.
Priscu s A ttalus (as A ugustus, Second Reign) F VF EF
3590 AR Light Siliqua As prev., but rev Roma std. 1. RIC

1417. Note: Attalus’ siliquae with the mint mark
PSRV (no. 3580) may be from his second reign.
N ote: Coins of Priscus Attalus’ first reign are listed as nos. 3574-83.
Constantius III, A .D . 4 2 1
Ju n io r A u g u stu s (w ith H o n o riu s )
S e c o n d H u s b a n d o f G a l l a P l a c id i a
F a t h e r o f V a l e n t i n i a n III a n d H o n o r i a
H a l f - B r o t h e r - in - l a w o f H o n o r iu s a n d
A r c a d iu s
F a t h e r - i n - l a w o f L i c in i a E u d o x ia
G r a n d f a t h e r o f P l a c id i a t h e Y o u n g e r ( w . o f O ly b riu s )
Augustus: D N CON STA N TIVS P F AVG (also used by Constantius II)
C onstantius III (as A ugustus) VF EF n MS
3591 AV Solidus obv Diad., dr., cuir bust r. rev V IC T O 5 000- 10,000- 20,000-
RIA AVGGG, emperor stg. facing., hldg. standard 8000 15,000 30,000
and Victory on globe, foot upon captive, RV in field,
COM OB in ex. RIC 1325. Illustrated above.
3592 AV Tremissis obv As prev. rev V IC TO R IA 3000- 55 0 0 -

AVGVSTORVM , Victory adv., hldg. wreath and 5000 8000
globus cruciger, RV in field, COM or COM OB in
ex. RIC 1339 & 1341.
Note: Because of their cruder style and fabric and their different reverse type, the solidi of
Constantius III are easily distinguished from those of Constantius II (A.D. 337-361) with the
same inscription. Constantius II did not strike tremisses.
Galla Placidia
A u g u sta, A.D. 4 2 1 - 4 5 0
D a u g h t e r o f T h e o d o s iu s I
W i f e o f A t h a u l f ( t h e V i s ig o t h ) a n d
C o n s t a n t iu s III
M o t h e r o f V a l e n t i n i a n III a n d H o n o r i a
H a l f - s is t e r o f A r c a d iu s a n d H o n o r i u s
M o t h e r - i n - l a w o f L i c in i a E u d o x ia
Augusta: D N GALLA PLACIDIA P F AVG
AEL PLACIDIA AVG
G ALLA PLACIDIA AVG
Galla Placidia (as A ugusta) VF EF n MS
3593 AV Solidus obv Diad., dr. bust r., crowned by hand 3000- 60 0 0 - 9000-
of God rev V O T XX MVLT XXX, Victory stg. 1., 5000 8000 12,000
hldg. long cross, star and RM or RV in field,
COM OB in ex. RIC 2007ff. Illustrated above.
3594 — As prev., but rev officina letter following inscr.,

no mint letters in field, CONOB in ex. RIC 230-1.
N ote: Other types of eastern solidi were also struck.
3595 AV Semissis rev SALVS REIPVBLICAE, Chi-Rho 2 000- 4000- 7000-

in wreath, COM OB in ex. RIC 2054. 3000 6000 10,000
3596 AV Tremissis rev No inscr., cross in wreath, 1000- 2000- 3500-

COM OB in ex. RIC 2066-7. 1500 3000 5000
Galla Placidia (as A ugusta) F VF EF
3597 A R Light Siliqua rev SALVS REIPVBLICAE, Vic 400-600 1500-

tory std. r. on cuirass, inscr. Chi-Rho on shield, 2000
RVPS in ex. RIC 2082.
3598 A R Light Half-Siliqua rev No inscr., Chi-Rho in 400-600 1250- —

wreath, RV in ex. RIC 2092. 1750
3599 Æ4 150-200 400-600 —
N ote: Siliquae and half-siliquae of Galla Placidia with mint marks of Aquileia are considered
false by some authorities.
Johannes, A.D. 423-425
Augustus: D N IOHANNES P F AVG
Johannes (as A ugustus) VF EF n MS
3600 AV Solidus rev V IC TO R IA AVGGG, emperor stg. 3000- 60 0 0 - 10,000-

r., hldg. standard and Victory on globe, foot on cap 5000 8000 15,000
tive, RV or MD in field, COM OB in ex. RIC 1901 -
3601 AV Semissis rev V IC TO R IA AVGVSTORVM , 2000- 4000-

Victory std. r. on cuirass, hldg. shield inscr. with 3000 6000
Chi-Rho supported by column and Genius, RV in
field, COM OB in ex. RIC 1903.
3602 AV Tremissis As prev., but rev Victory adv., hldg. 1500- 30 0 0 - —

wreath and Victory on globe. RIC 1904-6. 2000 5000
Johannes (as A ugustus) F VF EF
3603 AR Light Siliqua rev VR BS ROMA, Roma std. 1., 30 0 0 - 7 000-

hldg. scepter and Victory on globe, RVPS in ex. 5000 10,000
RIC 1907.
3604 AR Light Half-Siliqua rev V IC TO R IA AVGG, 3000- 7000-

Victory adv. 1., hldg. wreath and palm, RV in ex. 5000 10,000
RIC 1908.
3605 Æ 4 rev As prev., but PCON or RM in ex. RIC 100-150 500-800 —

190941.
3606 — rev SALVS REIPVBLICE, Victory adv. 1., hldg. 100-150 500-800
trophy, dragging captive, p-cross in field, RM, PRM
or RPM in ex. RIC 1912-23.
N ote: The portraits on most of Johannes’ precious metal issues are rosette-diademed, whereas
his bronzes are pearLdiademed.

Valentinian III, A .D . 4 2 5 -4 5 5
A .D . 4 2 4 - 4 2 5 : C a e sa r
(u n d er T h eo d o siu s I I )
A .D . 4 2 5 - 4 5 5 : Sole reign
S o n o f C o n s t a n t iu s III a n d G a l l a P l a c id i a
F ir s t H u s b a n d o f L ic in i a E u d o x ia
B r o t h e r o f H o n o r ia
G r a n d s o n o f T h e o d o s iu s I ( a n d G a l l a )
G r e a t - g r a n d s o n o f V a l e n t in ia n I ( a n d J u s t in a )
Augustus: D N PLA VALENTINIANVS P F AVG
D N PL VALENTINIANVS P F AVG
D N VALENTINIANVS P F AVG (also used by Valentinian I & II)
D N VALENTINIANO (or further abbreviated; for æs only)
V alentinian III (as A ugustus) VF EF n MS
3607 AV Solidus. Illustrated above. 200-300 400-600 900-

1200
3608 — obv Diad. half-bust 1., wearing consular robes, 600- 1500- 3000-
hldg. mappa and cross-headed scepter rev VO T 1000 2000 4000
XXX MVLT XXXX, emperor stg. facing, raising
kneeling female, RM in field, COM OB in ex. RIC
2040-6.
3609 — As prev., but rev Various inscr., emperor std. fac 600- 1500- 3000-
ing, hldg. mappa and long cross, RV in field, 1000 2000 4000
COM OB in ex. RIC 2032-6.
3610 AV Semissis 7 00- 1500- 2500-

1000 2000 3500
3611 AV Tremissis 100-150 200-300 350-500
Valentinian III (as A ugustus) F VF EF
3612 A R Light Siliqua 900- 1500- —

1200 2000
3613 A R Light Half-Siliqua 900- 1500- —

12 00 2000
3614 Æ 2 (c. 20mm) obv Helm., diad., bearded half-bust 50-75 200-300
r., hldg. shield and spear rev CON CORDIA AGV,
two emperors nimbate stg. facing, each hldg. spear
and, betw. them, a long cross. RIC 461.
V alentinian III (as A ugustus) F VF EF
3615 “Æ 3 ” (c. 15mm) 70-100 250-350 —

3616 Æ4 50-75 150-200 —
Note: Though the inscription D N VALENTINIANVS P F AVG is used by all three Valen-
both, Valentinian Ill’s effigy is simplisticly engraved. For solidi depicting Valentinian III as
Caesar see no. 3739; for solidi depicting him as Augustus see no. 3740.
Honoria
A u g u s ta , A.D. 4 2 Ó (? )-4 5 o (? )
S i s t e r o f V a l e n t i n i a n III
D a u g h t e r o f C o n s t a n t i u s III a n d
G a l l a P l a c id i a
S i s t e r - i n - l a w o f L i c in i a E u d o x ia
Augusta: D N IV ST GRAT HONORIA P F AVG
Note: This inscription on tremisses sometimes has G RT for GRAT.
H on oria (as A ugusta) VF EF n MS
3617 AV Solidus obv Diad., dr. bust r., crowned by hand 2000- 5 000- 10,000-
of God rev BONO REIPVBLICAE, Victory stg. 1., 3000 8000 15,000
hldg. long cross, star above, RM in field, COM OB
in ex. RIC 2022. Illustrated above.
3618 AV Semissis rev SALVS REIPVBLICAE, Chi-Rho 2000- 5 000- 8000-

in wreath, COM OB in ex. RIC 2053ff. 3000 7000 10,000
3619 AV Tremissis rev No inscr., cross in wreath, 1500- 2 500- 4500-

COM OB in ex. RIC 2063ff. 2000 4000 6000
Licinia Eudoxia
A u g u sta, A.D. 439-c. 490
W if e o f V a l e n t i n i a n III a n d
P e t r o n iu s M a x im u s
D a u g h t e r o f T h e o d o s iu s II
AND A e LIA EUDOCIA
D a u g h t e r - i n - l a w o f C o n s t a n t i u s III
a n d G a l l a P l a c id i a
S is t e r - i n - l a w o f H o n o r i a
Augusta: AEL EVDOXIA AVG (also used by Aelia Eudoxia)
D N ELIA EVDOXIA P F AVG
LICINIA EVDOXIA P F AVG
Licinia Eudoxia (as A ugusta) VF EF n MS
3620 AV Solidus obv LICINIA EVDOXIA P F AVG, dr. 7000- 20,000-

full-facing bust, wearing rad. headdress and diadem 10,000 30,000
with cross rev SALVS REIPVBLICAE, empress
enthroned facing, RV in field, COM OB in ex. RIC
3621 — obv AEL EVDOXIA AVG, diad., dr. bust r., 1750- 3500- 6000-
crowned by hand of God rev Various inscr., Con- 2250 5500 8000
stantinopolis std. 1., hldg. globus cruciger and scep
ter. RIC 264, 290, 298, 306, 318, 328-9.
3622 — obv As prev. rev VIC TO R IA AVGGG, Victory 1750- 50 0 0 -

stg. 1., hldg. long cross, CONOB in ex. RIC 513. 2250 8000
Note: This issue was struck under Marcian. '
3623 AV Tremissis obv AEL EVDOXIA AVG, diad., dr.
bust r. rev No inscr., cross in wreath, CON OB* in
ex. RIC 336, 346 & 522.
3624 — As prev., but obv D N ELIA EVDOXIA P F

AVG. RIC 2074. Note: This issue (attributed to
Rome or Ravenna under Valentinian III) is obverse
die-linked to the half-siliqua that follows.
Licin ia Eudoxia (as A ugusta) F VF EF
3625 AR Light Half-Siliqua obv As prev. rev No inscr., — — —

Chi-Rho in wreath. RIC 2093.
N ote: Licinia Eudoxia’s gold coinage with the inscription AEL EVDOXIA AVG is often con
fused with coins bearing the same inscription issued for her grandmother, Aelia Eudoxia. The
confusion only exists with certain solidi and tremisses of Constantinople, for in all other
cases the obverse inscription, the mint, or the denomination allows them to be separated.
The coins in question can be distinguished as follows: 1) solidi: Aelia Eudoxia uses a seated
THE WESTERN ROMAN EMPIRE 5 95
Victory reverse type, Licinia Eudoxia does not; 2) tremisses: since both women use the same
reverse type — cross in wreath — the diagnostic is the mint mark, with CON being used by
Aelia Eudoxia, and CO N O B* being used by Licinia Eudoxia.
Petronius Maximus, A .D . 455
S e c o n d H u s b a n d o f L ic in i a E u d o x ia
S o n - i n - l a w o f T h e o d o s iu s II a n d
A e l ia E u d o c ia
Augustus: D N PETRONIVS M AXIM VS P F AVG
Petronius M axim us (as A ugustus) VF EF n MS
3626 AV Solidus obv Diad., dr., cuir bust r. rev V IC T O 7000- 15,000- 20,000-
RIA AVGGG, emperor stg. facing, hldg. long cross 10,000 20,000 30,000
and Victory on globe, foot upon human-headed ser
pent, RM in field, COM OB in ex. RIC 2201-2.
Illustrated above.
3627 — As prev., but RV in field on rev. RIC 2203. Note: 7 000- 15,000- 20,000-
This issue of Ravenna shows Petronius Maximus 10,000 20,000 30,000
wearing a rosette-diadem, whereas on the solidus
above, from Rome, he wears a pearl-diadem.
A v i tU S , A .D . 455-456
Augustus: D N AVITVS PERP AVG (or AG)
D N (or A N) AVITVS PERP F AVG
D N AVITVS P F AVG

values w hich can not be accurately determined (at the high end) or w hich are
negligible (at the low end). Coins with the same value range are n ot always
Avitus (as A ugustus) VF EF n MS
3628 AV Solidus rev VICTORIA AVGGG, emperor stg. 6000- 17,000- 35,000+
r., hldg. long cross (or standard) and Victory on 9000 25,000
globe, foot on captive, AR, MD or RM in field,
COMOB in ex. RIC 240Iff. Illustrated p. 595.
3629 AV Tremissis rev No inscr., cross in wreath, 4000- — —

COMOB in ex. RIC 2405ff. 6000
Avitus (as A ugustus) F VF EF
3630 A R Light Siliqua rev VRBIS ROMA, Roma std. 1., 4 000-
hldg. spear and Victory on globe, RMPS in ex. RIC 6000
2410.
3631 Æ4 — — —
Note: Avitus is shown bearded on his solidi from Arelate and Milan, whereas on all other of
his coins he is clean-shaven.
Majorian, A .D . 457-461
Augustus: D N IVLI VS MAIORIANVS P F AVG
D N IVL MAIORI AN VS P F AVG
D N MAIORIAN VS P F AVG
Note: Many varieties of Majorian’s inscriptions are recorded.
M ajorian (as A ugustus) VF EF nMS
3632 AV Solidus obv Helm., diad., dr., cuir, bust r., hldg. 2000- 3500- 6000-
spear and shield inscr. with Chi-Rho rev VICTO 3000 5500 8000
RIA AVGGG, emperor stg. facing, hldg. long cross
and Victory on globe. RIC 2605ff. Illustrated above.
3633 — obv Diad., full-facing half-bust, wearing consular

robes, hldg. mappa and long cross rev VOTIS MVL-
TIS, two emperors enthroned facing, RV in field,
COMOB in ex. RIC 2601-3.
Majorian (as Augustus) VF EF n MS
3634 — obv Diad., dr., cuir, bust r. rev As 3632. RIC 2604- — — —
3635 AV Tremissis obv As 333 rev Cross in wreath. RIC 1000- 1750-
2611. 1500 22 50
M ajorian (as A ugustus) F VF EF
3636 A R Light Siliqua or Half-Siliqua obv As prev. rev 30 0 0 - 7000-

V IC TO R IA AVGG, Victory stg. 1., hldg. long cross. 5000 10,000
RIC 2650-3.
3637 Æ 3 or Æ 4 obv As 3634. 100-150 500-800 —
Note: Siliquae/half-siliquae of Avitus with the reverse type V O TIS MVLTIS, emperor stg.
facing, hldg. spear and shield (RIC 2649), are seemingly false.
Libius Severus (Severus III),

A .D . 461-465
Augustus: D N LIBIVS SEVERVS PERPETV AVG
D N LIBIVS SEVERVS P F AVG
D N LIB SEVERVS P F AVG
N ote: Varieties of these inscriptions exist.
Libius Severus (as A ugustus) VF EF nMS
3638 AV Solidus rev V IC TO R IA AVGGG, empror stg. 2000- 3500- 6000-

facing, hldg. long cross and Victory on globe, foot 3000 5500 8000
on human-headed serpent, RV, RM, MD or AR in
field, COM OB in ex. RIC 2702ff. Illustrated above.
3639 AV Semissis rev SALVS REIPVBLICAE, Chi-Rho 2000- 3500- —

in wreath, COM OB in ex. RIC 2707-8. 3000 5500

COM OB in ex. RIC 2709ff. 1500 2250 5000
Libius Severus (as Augustus) F VF EF
3641 AR Light Siliqua rev VRBIS ROMA, Roma std. 1. 1500- 40 0 0 -

on cuirass, hldg. spear and Victory on globe, RMPS 2000 6000
in ex. RIC 2711.
3642 AR Light Half-Siliqua As 3640. RIC 2712-3. 900- 1500- —

1200 2000
3643 Æ 4 rev V IC TO AVG, Victory stg. 1., hldg. wreath 250-350 500-800
and palm branch. RIC 2714. Note: For Severus’
Æ 4 ’s with the monogram of Ricimer, see no. 3644-
Ricimer
Master of Soldiers, A.D. 456-472
S o n - in - l a w o f A n t h e m iu s a n d A e l ia E u p h e m ia
H u s b a n d o f A l y p ia
U n cle o f G u n d o ba d
R icim er (as Magister M ilitum) F VF EF
3644 Æ 4 obv Crude inscr. naming Libius Severus around 300-400 7 00- _
diad, dr., cuir, bust r. rev Monogram of Ricimer, 1000
sometimes in wreath, no mint mark. RIC 2715-7.
Illustrated above.
Anthemius, A .D . 467-472
H u s b a n d o f A e l ia E u p h e m ia
F a t h e r o f A l y p ia
F a t h e r - i n - l a w o f R ic im e r
S o n - i n - l a w o f M a r c ia n
Augustus: D N ANTHEMIVS PERPET AVG
D N ANTHEM IVS PERPETV AVG
D N ANTHEM IVS P F AVG
N ote: Many varieties of Anthemius’ inscriptions exist.

THE WESTERN ROMAN EMPIRE 59 9
A nthem ius (as A ugustus) VF EF n MS
3645 AV Solidus obv Helm., diad. half-bust 3/4-facing, 1250- 2000- 3500-
hldg. shield and spear rev SALVS REIPVBLICAE, 1750 3000 5000
two emperors stg. facing, together hldg. globus cru-
ciger, various objects or mint marks betw. RIC
2802ff. Illustrated p . 598.
3646 — obv Diad., dr., cuir, bust r. rev As prev., but hldg. — — —
long cross betw. RIC 2866.
3647 AV Semissis rev SALVS REIPVBLICAE, Chi-Rho 2000- 4000- —

in wreath, COM OB in ex. RIC 2836-9. 3000 6000
3648 AV Tremissis rev No inscr., cross in wreath, 1250- 2000- —

COM OB in ex. RIC 2841ff. 1750 3000
A nthem ius (as A ugustus) F VF EF
3649 AR Light Half-Siliqua rev No inscr., Chi-Rho in 1000- 2000- —

wreath, RM in ex. RIC . 1500 3000
3650 AR Light Quarter(?)-Siliqua rev SALVS

REIPVBLICAE, Roma std. L, hldg. spear and Vic
tory on globe, CON OB in ex. RIC 2905. N ote: Per
haps a reduced-weight half-siliqua (see pp. 102-3).
3651 Æ 3 or Æ 4 rev Monogram of Anthemius in wreath, 100-150 500-800

RM in ex. RIC 2857-65. Note: Many varieties of
Anthemius’ monogram are recorded.
Aelia Euphemia
A u g u s ta , A.D. 4Ó7-472(?)
W if e o f A n t h e m iu s
D a u g h t e r o f M a r c ia n
M o t h e r o f A l y p ia
M o t h e r - i n - l a w o f R ic im e r
Augusta: D N AEL M ARC EVFEMIAE AVG
D N AEL MARC EVFEMIAE P F (or P P) AVG
D N AELIAE MARCIAE EVFIMI AG
D N EVYFYMIA P F AVG
6oo COINAGE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE: CATALOG AND TABLES OF VALUE
Busts are right-facing, diademed and draped.
A elia Euphem ia (as A ugusta) VF EF n MS
3652 AV Solidus rev VICTORIA AVGGG*,Victory stg. 15,000- 35,000+

1., hldg. long cross, COMOB in ex. RIC 2827-9. 20,000
Note: For another solidus, see no. 3654. Illustrated
p. 599.
A elia Euphem ia (as A ugusta) F VF EF
3653 AR Light Siliqua rev VRBIS ROMA, Roma std.

facing, hldg. spear and Victory on globe, RMPS in
ex. RIC 2853.
Alypia
Augusta(?), A.D. 4Ó7(?)-472(?)
W i f e o f R ic im e r
D a u g h t e r o f A n t h e m iu s a n d A e l ia E u p h e m ia
G r a n d d a u g h t e r o f M a r c ia n
A lypia (as A ugusta[?]) VF EF n MS
3654 AV Solidus of Aelia Euphemia obv D N EVFYMIA

P F AVG, dr. full-facing bust, wearing rad. headdress
and diadem with cross rev GLORIA REIPVBLI-
CAE, Aelia Euphemia (larger, at 1.) and Alypia
(smaller, at r.) stg., facing, each nimbate, crowned
and hldg. globus cruciger, RM in field, COMOB in
ex. RIC 2805. Note: This coin — presently unique
— may have been struck in 467 to celebrate Aly-
pia’s marriage to the Master of Soldiers Ricimer.
Olybrius, A .D . 472
H u s b a n d o f P l a c id i a t h e y o u n g e r
S o n - i n - l a w o f L i c in i a E u d o x ia
Augustus: D N ANICIVS OLYBRIVS AVG (or AG)
N ote: Variants occur with the letter S reverted.

THE WESTERN ROMAN EMPIRE 6oi
O lybr ius (as A ugustus) VF EF n MS
3655 AV Solidus obv Full-facing, diad., dr., cuir, bust rev 20,000- 50,000+
SALVS MVNDI, cross, COM OB in ex. RIC 3001. 30,000
3656 AV Tremissis obv Diad., dr., cuir, bust r. rev As prev. 15,000- 35,000+ —
RIC 3002-3. Illustrated p . 600. 25,000
3657 — rev No inscr., cross in wreath., COM OB in ex. 15,000- 35,000+ —

RIC 3004. 25,000
N ote: The SALVS MVNDI issues are attributed to Rome, the anepigraphic tremisses to Milan.
Glycerius, A .D . 473-474
Augustus: D N GLVCERIVS F P (or P F) AVG
D N GLYCERIVS F P AVG
G lycerius (as A ugustus) VF EF n MS
3658 AV Solidus rev V IC TO R IA AVGG (or AVGGG), 8 000- 50,000+

emperor stg. r. (or facing), hldg. long cross and Vic 15,000
tory on globe, sometimes with 1. foot on step, RV or
MD in field, COM OB in ex. RIC 3101ff.
3659 AV Tremissis rev No inscr., cross in wreath, 5 000- 10,000- —

COM OB in ex. RIC 3108ff. Illustrated above. 8000 15,000
G lycerius (as A ugustus) F VF EF
3660 AR Light Half'Siliqua rev V IC TO R IA AVGGG,

Victory adv. 1., hldg. wreath and palm, RM in ex.
RIC 3111.
Note: Glycerius’ head is variously adorned with a pearl-diadem, rosette-diadem or laurel'

rosette crown. Small bronzes of Glycerius are reported by Cohen, but are unconfirmed.

values w hich can n o t be accurately determined (at the high end) or w hich are
negligible (a t the low end). C oins with the same value range are n ot always
6o2 COINAGE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE: CATALOG AND TABLES OF VALUE
Gundobad
Master of Soldiers, A.D. 472-474
N e p h e w o f R ic im e r
Gundobad (as M agister M ilitum) F VF EF
3661 Imitative (‘non-ImperiaP) Æ4 of Zeno obv Crude 300-400 700-

inscr. naming Zeno around diad., dr., cuir, bust r. rev 1000
Monogram of Gundobad in wreath, no mint mark.
R I C 3785.
Julius Nepos,
A .D . 474-475 & 477' 48o
Augustus: D N IVL NEPOS P F AVG (sometimes with AVG in ligature)
D N IVLI NEPOS P F AVG
D N IVLIVS NEPVS IVG
E xcep t where noted, busts are right-facing, diademed, draped and cuirassed.
Julius N epos (as A ugustus) VF EF nMS
3662 AV Solidus obv Helm., diad. half-bust 3/4-facing, 2000- 5000- 10,000-
hldg. shield and spear rev V IC TO R IA AVGGG, 3000 8000 15,000
Victory stg. r., hldg. long cross; numerous varieties.
RIC 3 2 0 Iff. Illustrated above.
3663 AV Tremissis rev No inscr., cross in wreath, 1750- 3000- —

COM OB in ex. RIC 3214ff. 2250 5000
Julius N epos (as A ugustus) F VF EF
3664 AR Light Siliqua rev VRBIS ROMA, Roma std. 30 0 0 - 7000-

facing, hldg. spear and Victory on globe, RVPS in 5000 10,000
ex. RIC 3215.
3665 AR Light Half-Siliqua rev No inscr., turreted fig. 1000- 2000-

stg., hldg. scepter and cornucopia, foot on prow, RV 1500 3000
in field. RIC 3216.
Julius N epos (as A ugustus) F VF EF
3666 Æ 4 (c. 14mm) rev Monogram of Julius Nepos in 150-200 500-800 —

wreath. RIC 3222.
N ote: Issues in the name of Julius Nepos were struck while he was in Italy (474-475 ) and
when he was in exile in Dalmatia after Romulus Augustus had been deposed (477-480). The
former issues were struck under the direction of Nepos himself, and the latter by the king Fla
vius Odovacar, who had deposed Romulus Augustus. Most scholars suggest the issues in the
name of Julius Nepos can be segregated into these two phases by the quality of the artistry,
which is believed to have declined under Odovacar (even though he continued to use the
mints of Milan, Ravenna and Rome). Odovacar seems only to have struck solidi (at Milan
and Ravenna) and tremisses (at Milan) for Nepos. Alongside these solidi and tremisses bear
ing Nepos’ name, Odovacar also struck tremisses with the name of the eastern Emperor Zeno
at his Italian mints, and they are they often collected in lieu of the rarer issues that name
Nepos because they command about one-fourth the price.
Romulus Augustus,
A .D . 475-476
S o n o f O r est es (M a s t e r o f S o l d ie r s )
Augustus: D N ROMVLVS AVG VSTVS P F AVG
D N ROMVLVS A G V ST V S P F AVG
D N ROMVL A G V ST V S P F AVG
N ote: Many varieties exist, with P F being shortened to P, the AVG in liga
ture, and the S being reverted.
R om ulus A ugustus (as A ugustus) VF EF n MS
3667 AV Solidus obv Helm., diad. half-bust 3/4-facing, 7000- 15,000- 30,000+
hldg. shield and spear rev V IC TO R IA AVGGG, 10,000 20,000
Victory stg. 1., hldg. long cross, sometimes a star in
field, COM OB or COM OB. in ex. RIC 34 0 Iff.
N ote: The reverse inscription sometimes is followed
by pellets or a star; various mint markings occur in
the field. Illustrated above.
3668 AV Tremissis rev No inscr., cross in wreath, 40 0 0 - 7000- —

COM OB in ex. RIC 3409ff. 6000 10,000
3669 — As prev., but no wreath. RIC 3422. 40 0 0 - 7000- —

6000 10,000
6o4 c o i n a g e o f t h e r o m a n em p ire: CATALOG a n d TABLES OF VALUE
Romulus Augustus (as Augustus) F VF EF
3670 A R Light Half-Siliqua rev No inscr., turreted fig. 40 0 0 -

stg., hldg. scepter and cornucopia, foot on prow, RV 6000
in field. RIC 3413.
3671 Æ 4 obv Partial inscr.: ...GVST P AV..., bust r. rev 1000-

Victory stg. facirlg. Note: Recently discovered, 1500
unlisted in RIC.
Odovacar, A .D . 476-493
Odovacar (as King of Italy) F VF EF
3672 A R Light Half'Siliqua obv FL ODOVAC, dr. and

cuir, bust r. rev Monogram of Odovacar in wreath,
RV in ex. RIC 3501.
3673 Æ 4 obv As prev., but ODOVAC rev As prev., but 150-200 250-400 500-750
no mint mark. RIC 3502.
N ote: The coins above were struck at Ravenna c. 477 and bear the name and monogram of
Flavius Odovacar. They are listed as supplements to the issues that Odovacar struck at Italian
mints in the names of Julius Nepos and Zeno (and perhaps others). See the note following the
listings of Julius Nepos for more details about Odovacar’s Italian-mint coinages. No biography
is given for Odovacar (Odoacer).
C H A PTER TH IRTEEN
T h e E a s t e r n R o m a n E m p ire
a .d . 3 6 4 - 4 9 1
Valens, A .D . 364-378
B r o th e r o f V a le n tin ia n I
U n c le o f G ra tia n , V a le n tin ia n II and
G a l l a ( w . o f T h e o d o s i u s I)
O b verse in scrip tio n s:
Augustus: D N VALENS P F AVG
D N VALENS PER F AVG
Note: There are varieties of these inscriptions.
E xcep t where noted, busts are right-facing, diademed, cuirassed, and usually
draped.
V alens (as A u g u s tu s) VF EF n MS
3674 AV Solidus 200-300 400-600 900-

1200
3675 — obv Diad. half-bust 1., wearing consular robes, 500-800 1500-
hldg. mappa and scepter rev SALVS REIP, emperor 2000
adv. 1., hldg. sd
flabarum and Victory on globe, foot on
g
captive. RIC IX, p. 174, 3b.
3676 AV Semissis 200-300 300-400 450-600

1200 1750
V alens (as A ugustu s) F VF EF

1750 3000
3679 AR Light Miliarensis obv Bust r. or 1. Illustrated 300-400 900- 1500-

above. 1200 2000
3680 AR Heavy Siliqua 150-200 300-400 700-

1000
3681 AR Light Siliqua 30-50 70-100 150-200
3682 Æ1 200-300 700- —

1000
605
V alens (as A ugustus) F VF EF
3683 Æ 2 rev GLORIA ROMANORVM, campgate, S 200-300 900-

above. 1200
3684 Æ3 5-15 20-40 70 100
3685 — rev SECVRITAS REIPVBLICAE, emperor stg. 15-25 30-50 100-150

facing, hldg. labarum and shield; officina mark (such
as OF III) in field. RIC IX, p.66, 17b.
Procopius, A .D . 365-366
Augustus: D N PROCOPIVS P F AVG
Except where noted, busts are right-facing, bearded, diademed, cuirassed, and usu
ally draped.
Procopius (as A ugustus) VF EF n MS
3686 AV Solidus rev REPARATIO FEL TEMP, emperor 7000- 15,000- 30,000-
stg. facing, hldg. spear and shield. RIC IX, p. 192, 6. 10,000 20,000 50,000
3687 — As prev., but rev SECVRITAS REIPVB. RIC IX, 7000- 15,000- 30 ,000-
p.210, 4. 10,000 20,000 50,000
Procopius (as A ugustus) F VF EF
3688 AR Light Siliqua rev VOT V in wreath. RIC IX, 200-300 400-600 2000-
p.213, 13e. 3000
3689 — As prev., but obv Bust 1., rev VOT . V in wreath. 250-350 500-800 2000-
RIC IX, p.213, 13k-l. 3500
3690 Æ 1 As 3686. RIC IX, p.192, 6. — — —

3691 Æ 2 As 3686, but hldg. labarum. RIC IX, p.240, 6. 400-600 1500- —
2000
3692 Æ 3 sim. to 3686 but obv Bust r. or 1., rev Emperor 15-25 50-75 150-200
hldg. spear or labarum; sometimes with Chi-Rho in
field and/or indeterminate object at emperor’s feet.
RIC IX, p. 193, 7ff. Note: This denomination was
struck on planchets of large and small modules.
Illustrated above.
THE EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE 607
Theodosius I, A.D. 379-39 5

A.D. 3 79-3 ^3 : Sole reign
A.D. 383-39 5: Senior Augustus
(with Arcadius)
S o n - in - l a w o f V a l e n t in ia n I
B r o t h e r - i n - l a w o f V a l e n t i n i a n II
H u s b a n d o f A e l ia F l a c c i l l a a n d G a l l a (sister o f V a l e n t i n i a n II)
F a t h e r o f A r c a d i u s , H o n o r i u s a n d G a l l a P l a c id i a
F a t h e r - i n - l a w o f C o n s t a n t i u s III a n d A e l ia E u d o x ia
G r a n d f a t h e r o f H o n o r i a , V a l e n t i n i a n III, A e l ia P u l c h e r i a a n d T h e o d o s iu s II
Augustus: D N THEODOSIVS P F AVG
Theodosius I (as Augustus) VF EF n MS
3693 AV Solidus 200-300 400-600 900-

1200
3694 — rev CO N CORD IA AVGGG, Constantinopolis 200-300 400-600 1000-

std. facing, hldg. scepter and globe, foot on prow. 1500
RIC IX, p. 223, 45d. Illustrated above.
3695 AV 1- 1/2 Scripulum (Nine-Siliqua) 500-800 900- 1250-

1200 1750
3696 AV Tremissis 100-150 200-300 350-500
Theodosius I (as Augustus) F VF EF
3697 A R Heavy Miliarensis 400-600 1250- 2000-

1750 3000

1200 2000
3699 AR Light Siliqua 30-50 70-100 150-200
3700 — rev PERPETVETAS, Phoenix stg. 1. on globe. 150-200 7 00- —

R IC IX, p.25, 56c. 1000
3701 AR Heavy Half-Siliqua 250-350 500-800 —

3703 Æ1 200-300 900- —
1200
3704 Æ 2 obv Helm., diad., dr., cuir, half-bust r., hldg. 5-15 3 0-50 100-150
spear and shield rev Various types.
3705 Æ3 5-15 20-40 70-100
3706 Æ4 5-15 20-40

Aelia Flaccilla
Augusta, A.D. 3 7 9 —3 8 6 / 8
W ife o f T h e o d o siu s I
M o th e r o f A rc a d iu s a n d H o n o riu s
S te p -m o th e r o f G a l l a P la c id ia
M o t h e r -i n - l a w o f A e li a E u d o x ia
G ra n d m o th e r o f A e lia P u lc h e r ia a n d
T h e o d o s i u s II
Augusta: AEL FLACCILLA AVG
Busts are right-facing, diademed and draped.
A elia Flaccilla (as A ugusta) VF EF nMS
3707 AV Solidus rev SALVS REIPVBLICAE, Victory 7000- 15,000- 25,000+

std. r., inscr. a Chi-Rho on shield upon column. 10,000 20,000
RIC IX, p.225, 48. Note: The shield sometimes is on
her knee.
3708 A V Semissis(?) rev Chi-Rho in wreath. Cf. RIC IX, 40 0 0 -

p.232, 76. Note: The tremissis may not exist for 6000
Flaccilla.
A elia Flaccilla (as A ugusta) F VF EF
3709 A R Light Siliqua As prev. RIC IX, p.232, 78. 1500- 3000- —
2000 5000
3710 Æ 2 A s 3707. RIC IX, p.153, 34. Illustrated above. 70-100 150-200 250-350
3711 — As 3707, but rev Empress stg. facing. RIC IX, 80-120 200-300 400-600
p .197,25.
3712 Æ 4 rev As prev. RIC IX, p. 153, 35. Note: This 5-15 3 0-50 150-200
denomination was struck on planchets of large and
small modules.
Arcadius, A.D. 383-408

A.D. 383-39 5 : Ju n io r A u g u stu s
(w ith T h eo d o siu s I)
(w ith T h eo d o siu s II )
S o n o f T h e o d o s iu s I a n d A e l ia F l a c c i l l a
B r o t h e r o f H o n o r iu s
H u s b a n d o f A e l i a E u d o x ia
F a t h e r o f T h e o d o s iu s II a n d A e l ia P u l c h e r i a
H a l f - b r o t h e r o f G a l l a P l a c id i a
F a t h e r - i n - l a w o f M a r c ia n a n d A e l i a E u d o c ia
Augustus: D N ARC A D IVS P F AVG
D N ARCADI AVG
A rcadius (as A ugustus) VF EF NMS
3713 AV Solidus. Illustrated above. 200-300 400-600 900-

1200
3714 — obv As prev., but small, childlike bust rev CO N 250-350 500-800 1000-
CO RDIA AVGGG or AVGGGG (followed by offi- 1500
cina letter), Constantinopolis std. facing, hldg.
scepter and globe, CON OB in ex. D.O. 1-4.
3715 — obv Helm., diad. half-bust 3/4-facing, hldg. shield 200-300 400-600 900-
and spear rev As prev., but CON CORD IA AVGG. 1200
RIC 37ff.
3716 AV Semissis 200-300 300-400 450-600

1200 1750
3718 AV Tremissis 100-150 200-300 350-500
A rcadius (as A ugustu s) F VF EF

1750 3000

1200 2000
3721 AR Light Siliqua 30-50 70-100 150-200
3722 AR Light Half-Siliqua 100-150 250-350 400-600
3723 Æ2 5-15 3 0-50 100-150

6 io COINAGE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE: CATALOG AND TABLES OF VALUE
A rcad lius (as A ugustus) F VF EF
3724 — obv Diad., dr., cuir, half-bust r. hldg. spear and 5-15 3 0 -5 0 100-150
shield, crowned by hand of God rev Various types.
3725 Æ3 5-15 20 -40 100-150
3726 Æ4 5-15 20 -4 0 —
Aelia Eudoxia
A u g u sta, A.D. 400-404
W i f e o f A r c a d iu s
D a u g h ter of Bau to t h e Frank
S is t e r - in - l a w o f H o n o r iu s
M o t h e r o f T h e o d o s iu s II a n d
A e l ia P u l c h e r i a
M o t h e r - i n - l a w o f M a r c ia n a n d
A e l ia E u d o c ia
Augusta: AEL EVDOXIA AVG (also used by Licinia Eudoxia)
A elia Eudoxia (as A ugusta) VF EF nMS
3727 AV Solidus obv Diad., dr. bust r., crowned by hand 1750- 4000- 80 0 0 -
of God rev SALVS REIPVBLICAE (followed by 2250 6000 10,000
officina letter), Victory std. r. on cuirass, pointing to
shield inscr. with Chi-Rho, CONOB in ex. RIC
lOff. Illustrated above.
3728 AV Semissis rev No inscr., Chi-Rho in wreath, 1750- 4000- 80 0 0 -

CON OB in ex. RIC 18. 2250 6000 10,000
3729 AV Tremissis rev No inscr., cross in wreath, CON 500-800 1000- 2000-
in ex. RIC 21. 1500 3000
A elia Eud oxia (as A ugusta) F VF EF
3730 A R Heavy Miliarensis As 3728, but CONS in ex. 30 0 0 - 10,000- —

RIC 46. 5000 15,000
3731 AR Light Siliqua obv As 3729 rev As 444. RIC 50. 500-800 1500- —
2000
3732 Æ 3 (c. 14-18mm) obv As 3727. Note: On rare occa 3 0-50 70-100 200-300
sions the bust is draped and cuirassed; Eudoxia’s æs
were seemingly struck on two modules.
N ote: For details on how to disginguish the gold coins of Aelia Eudoxia with the inscription
AEL EVDOXIA AVG from those of her granddaughter Licinia Eudoxia with the same
inscription, see the note following no. 3625.
THE EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE 6 11
Theodosius II, A.D. 402-450

A.D. 402-408: Ju n io r A u g u stu s
(w ith A rc a d iu s)
S o n o f A r c a d iu s a n d A e l i a E u d o x ia
B r o t h e r o f A e l ia P u l c h e r i a
H u s b a n d o f A e l ia E u d o c ia
F a t h e r o f L i c in i a E u d o x ia
N e p h e w o f H o n o r iu s
Augustus: D N TH EODOSIVS P F AVG
Theodosius II (as A ugustus) VF EF nM S
3733 AV Medallion of Two Solidi rev GLORIA

ROMANORVM, std. figs. of Roma, facing at 1., and
Constantinopolis, half-left at r., star at 1., cross
above, CON OB in ex. RIC 216.
3734 AV ‘Festaureus’ rev VIC TO R IA ROM AN 2500- 50 0 0 - 12,GOO-

ORVM, Victory adv. 1., hldg. wreath and palm, p- 3500 8000 18,000
cross and star in field, CONOB in ex. RIC 217.
Note: When this was struck the solidus was the
the pound) was a ceremonial item representing a l
l/5 solidus.
3735 AV Solidus obv Helm., diad. half-bust 3/4'facing, 150-250 300-400 500-800
hldg. shield and spear rev Various types.
3736 — obv As prev. rev FELICITER N VBTIIS, three 2500- 7000-

nimbate stg. facing figs.: Theodosius II in center, 3500 10,000
with hands on shoulders of Valentinian III and
Licinia Eudoxia, who clasp hands, CON OB in ex.
RIC 267. N ote: A marriage commemorative.
3737 — obv Helm., dr., cuir, half-bust r., seen from 800- 1500- 3000-
behind, hldg. shield and spear, rev GLORIA 1200 2000 4000
REIPVBLICAE, Roma and Constantinopolis std.
facing, hldg. scepters and a shield inscr. V O T XV
MVLT XX; star in 1. field, CON OB in ex. RIC 207.
3738 — obv As 3735 rev GLOR ORVIS TERRA R (fol 250-350 7 00- 1750-
lowed by officina letter), emperor stg. facing, hldg. 1000 2250
standard and long cross, star in 1. field, CONOB in
ex. RIC 232.
3739 — obv As 3735 rev SALVS REIPVBLICAE, Theo 200-300 400-600 900-
dosius II std. at 1. facing, Valentinian III stg. at r. fac 1200
ing at, both wearing consular robes and hldg.
cruciform scepter, star above, CONOB in ex. RIC
233-6. Note: Struck in 425, when Valentinian III
was Caesar.
6 l2 c o i n a g e o f t h e r o m a n e m p ir e : c a t a l o g a n d t a b l e s o f v a l u e
Theodosius II (as Augustus) VF EF n MS
3740 — As prev., but rev both nimbate and seated. RIC 150-250 300-400 7 00-
237-45. N ote: Struck c. 425/6-429, when Valentin 1000
ian III was Augustus.
3741 — rev VICTORIA AVGGG, emperor stg. r., hldg. 200-300 400-600 900-
standard and Victory on globe, foot on captive, RV 1200
in field, COMOB in ex. RIC 1322ff.
3742 — obv Diad. half-bust 1., wearing consular robes, 500-800 1500- 3000-
hldg. mappa and cross-headed scepter rev VOT 2000 5000
XXX MVLT XXXX, type as 3739. RIC 254.
3743 AV Semissis 150-200 250-350 500-800
3744 AV Tremissis 100-150 200-300 350-500
3745 — rev No inscr., trophy of arms flanked by two stars, 150-200 250-350 500-800
CONOB in ex. RIC 333.
Theodosius II (as Augustus) F VF EF

1750 3000
3747 A R Light Miliarensis obv Bust r. or 1. Illustrated 300-400 900- 1500-

p. 611. 1200 2000
3748 A R Light Siliqua 50-75 150-200 300-400
3749 A R Light Half-Siliqua 70-100 150-200 400-600
3750 Æ 2 (c. 20mm) obv Helm., diad., bearded half-bust 50-75 200-300
r., hldg. shield and spear rev CONCORDIA AGV,
two emperors nimbate stg. facing, each hldg. spear
and, betw. them, a long cross. RIC 460.
3751 Æ3 5-15 20-40 100-150
3752 — o b v As 3735. 5-15 20-40 100-150
3753 Æ4 5-15 20-40 —
3754 — rev Monogram of Theodosius II in wreath. RIC 5-15 20-40 —

462-5.
Aelia Pulcheria
A u g u sta , A.D. 414-453
S i s t e r o f T h e o d o s i u s II
D a u g h t e r o f A r c a d iu s a n d A e l ia E u d o x ia
W i f e o f M a r c ia n
SlSTER-IN-LAW OF A e LIA E u DOCIA
A u n t o f L ic in i a E u d o x ia
Augusta: AEL PVLCHERIA AVG
E xcep t where noted, busts are right-facing, diademed and draped.
A elia P u lc h e ria (as A u g u s ta ) VF EF n MS
3755 AV Solidus obv Diad., dr. bust r., crowned by hand 1250- 2000- 3500-
of God rev Various inscr.; Victory stg. 1., hldg. long 1750 3000 5000
cross, star in field, CON OB in ex. RIC 226ff.
3756 — obv As prev. rev Various inscr.; Constantinopolis 1250- 2000- 3500-
std. 1., hldg. scepter and globus cruciger, star in field, 1750 3000 5000
COM OB or CON OB in ex. RIC 261ff.
3757 — obv As prev. rev SALVS REIPVBLICAE, Victory 1250- 2500-

std. r., inscr. shield with Chi-Rho, star in field, 1750 3500
CON OB in ex. RIC 205-6. Illustrated above.

CO N O B* in ex. RIC 21 Iff. 1500 2250 5000
3759 AV Tremissis rev No inscr., cross in wreath, 500-800 1000- 1750-

CO N O B* in ex. RIC 214ff. 1500 22 50
A elia P ulch eria (as A ugusta) F VF EF
3760 A R Light Siliqua rev No inscr., cross in wreath, 300-400 700- 1500-
C O N S* in ex. RIC 375ff. Note: Struck under Theo 1000 2000
dosius II.
3761 — rev Wreath containing SAL REIPVI in three 400-600 1000-

lines, CO N S* in ex. RIC 531. Note: Struck under 1500
Marcian. Half-siliquae of this and the previous type
are reported, but not listed in RIC.
3762 Æ3 100-150 250-350 —

values w hich can n o t be accurately determ ined (at the high end) or w hich are
negligible (at the low end). C oins with the same value range are n ot always
6 l4 c o i n a g e o f t h e r o m a n e m p ir e : c a t a l o g a n d t a b l e s o f v a l u e
Aelia Eudocia
A u g u sta, A.D. 423-460
W i f e o f T h e o d o s iu s II
D a u g h t e r - i n - l a w o f A r c a d iu s a n d A e l ia E u d o x i a
S is t e r - i n - l a w o f A e l i a P u l c h e r i a
M o t h e r o f L ic in i a E u d o x ia
M o t h e r - in - l a w o f V a l e n t in ia n III and P e t r o n iu s M a x im u s
Augusta: AEL EVDOCIA AVG
A elia Eudocia (as A ugusta) VF EF n MS
3763 AV Solidus obv Diad., dr. bust r., crowned by hand 1250- 2000- 3500-
of God rev Various inscrs.; Victory stg. 1., hldg. long 1750 3000 5000
cross, star in field, CONOB in ex. RIC 228ff.
3764 — obv As prev. rev Various inscrs.; Constantinopolis 1250- 2000- 3500-
std. 1., hldg. scepter and globus cruciger, star in field, 1750 3000 5000
COM OB or CONOB in ex. RIC 262ff.

CO N O B* in ex. RIC 248ff. 1500 2250 5000
3766 AV Tremissis rev No inscr., cross in wreath, 500-800 1000- 1750-

CO N O B* in ex. RIC 253ff. Illustrated above. 1500 2250
A elia E udocia (as A ugusta) F VF EF
3767 A R Light Siliqua rev No inscr., cross in wreath, 300-400 900- 1750-
C O N S* in ex. RIC 384ff. 1200 2250
3768 Æ 3 rev CONCORDIA AVG, empress std. facing, 100-150 250-350 —

arms crossed, star in field, CONS in ex. RIC 428.
Marcian, A .D . 450-457
H u sb an d o f A e lia P u lc h e ria
F a t h e r o f A e l i a E u p h e m ia
F a t h e r - i n - l a w o f A n th e m iu s
S o n -in -la w o f A rc a d iu s a n d A e lia E u d o x ia
B r o t h e r - i n - l a w o f T h e o d o s i u s II
G r a n d f a t h e r o f A ly p ia ( w . o f R ic im e r)
Augustus: D N MARCIANVS P F AVG
D N MARCIANVS P F
D N M ARCIANO P F A (or AV)
N ote: There are varieties of these inscriptions.
M arcian (as A ugustu s) VF EF n MS
3769 AV Solidus obv Helm., diad. half-bust 3/4'facing, 150-250 300-400 500-800
hldg. shield and spear rev V IC TO R IA A VG G G
(usually followed by officina letter), Victory stg. 1.,
hldg. long cross, star in r. field, CON OB in ex. RIC
505ff. Illustrated p. 614.
3770 — obv As prev. rev G LOR ORVIS TERRAR, 200-300 400-600 7 00-
emperor stg. facing, hldg. standard and long cross, 1000
star in 1. field, TESO B in ex. RIC 523.
3771 — rev V IC TO R IA AVGGG, emperor stg. facing, 250-350 600-800 1200-

hldg. long cross and Victory on globe, foot upon 1500
human-headed serpent, RV in field, COM OB in ex.
RIC 2301.
3772 AV Semissis 200-300 300-400 500-700
3773 AV Tremissis rev VIC TO R IA AVG VSTO RVM , 100-150 200-300 350-500
Victory adv., hldg. wreath and globus cruciger, star
in field, CONOB in ex. RIC 518-20.
3774 — rev No inscr., cross in wreath, COM OB in ex. 150-250 300-500 7 00-
RIC 2305. 1000
M arcian (as A ugustus) F VF EF
3775 AR Heavy Miliarensis obv Bearded bust 1000- 2000- 6000-

1500 4000 8000
3776 AR Light Miliarensis obv Bust r. or bearded 1. 1000- 2000- 6000-

1500 4000 8000
3777 AR Light Siliqua 400-600 1000- —

1500
3778 Æ 4 rev Cross in wreath. RIC 566. 20-40 70-100 —

3779 — rev Monogram of Marcian in wreath. RIC 535ff. 15-25 30-50 —
Note: Coins struck at Italian mints in the name of Marcian are rare. Solidi and tremisses were
struck at Ravenna and Milan, and small æs were struck at Rome. Half'Siliquae of Constants
nople are reported, but unlisted in RIC.
6 i6 COINAGE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE: CATALOG AND TABLES OF VALUE
Leo I, A .D . 457-474
A.D. 470-4 7 1 : A u g u stu s
(w ith P a triciu s , as C a e s a r)
A.D. 4 7 1-473: Sole reign
A.D. 473-474: A u g u stu s
(w ith L e o II, as C a e s a r)
A.D. 474: S en io r A u g u stu s
(w ith L e o II)
H u s b a n d o f A e l ia V e r i n a
F a t h e r o f A e lia A ria d n e a n d L e o n tia { w . o f P a tr ic iu s )
B r o t h e r - i n - l a w o f B a s il is c u s
F a t h e r - in - l a w o f P a t r ic iu s a n d Z e n o
G r a n d f a t h e r o f L e o II
Augustus: D N LEO PERPET AVG
D N LEO PERPETV(VS) AVG
D N LEO P F AVG
D N LEO
Note: Many blundered varieties are known, including some with Leo’s name
rendered HEO, LEOS, LEONIS, LEON, LEONS or AEONS.
L e o I (as A u g u stu s) VF EF nM S
3780 AV Solidus obv Helm., diad. half-bust 3/4-facing, 150-250 300-400 500-800
hldg. shield and spear rev VIC TO RIA A VG G (or
A V G G G ). Victory stg. 1., hldg. long cross, CONOB
in ex. RIC 605ff. N ote: A seemingly unique variant
(D.O. 534) has four G ’s at the end of its reverse
inscription.
3781 — obv Diad half-bust 1., wearing consular robes and 500-800 1500- 4000-
hldg. mappa and cruciform scepter rev VIC TO R IA 2500 6000
AVGGG, emperor std. facing, nimbate and wearing
consular robes, hldg mappa and cruciform scepter,
star in 1. field, CONOB or TH SO B in ex. RIC 603ff;
620ff. Illustrated above.
3782 — rev V IC TO R IA AVGGG, emperor stg. facing, 200-300 400-600 700-

hldg. long cross and Victory on globe, foot upon 1000
human-headed serpent, RV, MD or RM in field,
COM OB in ex. RIC 2501ff.
3783 AV Semissis rev VIC TO RIA AVG G G , Victory 150-200 250-350 400-600
std. r., hldg. shield inscr. XVXXX, XXXX or XXV,
star and p-cross in field, CONOB in ex. RIC 608ff.
3784 — rev SALVS REIPVBLICAE, Chi-Rho in wreath, 200-300 450-650 800-

CO M O B in ex. RIC 2519ff. 1200
Leo I (as Augustus) VF EF n MS
3785 AV Tremissis rev V IC TO R IA A VGVSTO RVM , 100-150 200-300 350-500

in field, COM OB in ex. RIC 518-20.
3786 — rev No inscr., cross in wreath, COM OB in ex. 150-200 300-500 600-800
RIC 2503ff.
L eo I (as A ugustus) F VF EF
3787 A R Heavy Miliarensis 900- 1750- 4000-

1200 2250 6000
3788 A R Light Miliarensis obv Bust r. or 1. 700- 1500- 3000-

1000 2000 5000
3789 A R Light Siliqua 300-400 900- —

1200
3790 A R Light Half-Siliqua (perhaps imitative) 400-600 1000- —

1500
3791 A R Light Quarter(?)-Siliqua (perhaps imitative) — — —

3792 Æ2 70-100 250-350 —
3793 Æ 4 rev Monogram of Leo I in wreath. 15-25 3 0-50 —
3794 — rev Lion 1., stg. or crouching. Note: The lion is a 15-25 3 0-50 —
punning allusion to Leo’s name.
Note: For another Æ 4 struck by Leo I, see no. 3798.
N ote: The coins of Leo I are easily distinguished from those of Leo II (the son of Zeno) or Leo
Caesar (the adopted Caesar of Zeno) based on their obverse inscriptions. In both of the latter
cases, the name Leo is paired with that of Zeno (Leo II = D N LEO ET ZENO P P AVG; Leo
Caesar = D N LEO [or LIEO] ET ZENO NOV CA ES). For other issues likely struck by Leo I,
see the notes that follow the listings of Patricius and Leo II.
Aelia Verina
A u g u s ta , A .D . 457-484
W if e o f L e o I
M o th e r o f A e lia A ria d n e a n d
L e o n tia (w . o f P a tr ic iu s )
S is t e r o f B a s il is c u s
M o t h e r - in - l a w o f P a t r ic iu s , Z e n o a n d
A n a s t a s i u s I (Byz. emp, 491-518)
G r a n d m o t h e r o f L e o II
A u n t of M arcus
Augusta: AEL VERINA AVG
Note: The V ’s are often rendered as a Greek beta.

6i8 COINAGE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE: CATALOG AND TABLES OF VALUE
Aelia Verina (as Augusta) VF EF n MS
3795 AV Solidus obv Diad., dr. bust r., crowned by hand 2000- 5 000- 10,000-
of God rev VICTORIA AVGGG (sometimes fol 3000 8000 15,000
lowed by officina letter), Victory stg. 1., hldg. long
cross, star in r. field, CONOB or CONOB. in ex.
RIC 606'7, 631'3. Illustrated p. 617.

CONOB* in ex. RIC 614'5. 2000 5000 8000
Aelia Verina (as Augusta) F VF EF
3797 Æ 2 rev SALVS REIPVBLICAE, Victory std. r., 500-800 1500-

hldg. shield inscribed with Chi-Rho, CONE in ex. 2000
RIC 655-6.
3798 Æ 4 obv Inscr. and bust r. of Leo I rev Letters b E 2 0-40 100-150
flanking the stg., facing fig. of Aelia Verina, hldg.
globus cruciger and scepter. RIC 713-8. Note: The b
E in the field abbreviates the name Verina, with the
Greek beta replacing the Latin V.
Patricius
Caesar, A.D. 470-471 (under Leo I)
S o n o f A s p a r (M a s te r o f S o ld ie rs)
H u s b a n d o f L e o n t i a ( d . o f L e o I)
S o n -in -la w o f L eo I a n d A e lia V e rin a
B r o t h E R 'i n 'L a w o f A e l i a A r i a d n e
Patricius (as Caesar) F VF EF
3799 AV Solidus in the name of Leo I(?) obv D N LEO

PERPET AVG, helm, bust facing of Leo I(?), with
shield and spear rev SALVS REIP(or R)VBLICAE
C, young male stg. facing, sometimes on low dias,
wearing robe, hldg. globus cruciger, star in r. field.
RIC (Leo II) 801-2. D.O. 532.
Note: The obverse inscription on this solidus names a Leo as Augustus, and is taken by differ-
ent scholars to mean Leo I or Leo II. The authors of the Dumbarton Oaks catalogue attribute
it to Leo I, and thus identify the smaller figure on the reverse as Patricius. The authors of RIC
identify the solidus as the only issue struck by Leo II during his approximately two-week reign
as sole Augustus (making the figure on the reverse Leo II). Though the former view is
adopted here, the coin is in either scenario an extremely rare and important issue. An inter
esting parallel to 3799 is a rare solidus issue (RIC 636'8, D.O. 533), presumably of Leo I. Its
obverse type, obverse inscription and reverse inscription (including the “C ” at the end) are
identical to 3799; its reverse type of two seated, nimbate emperors is the same as no. 3800.
Though this issue is given to Leo I and Leo II by the authors of RIC and D.O., the conclusion
of the latter is puzzling since it is their view that 3799 - a coinage identical in all important
respects - belongs to Leo I and Patricius.
Leo II, A .D . 474

A.D. 473-474: C a e s a r (u n d e r L e o I)
A.D. 474: Ju n io r A u g u stu s
(w ith L e o I)
A.D. 474: S en io r A u g u stu s
(S ole reig n , and w ith Z en o )
S o n o f Z en o a n d A e lia A ria d n e
G ra n d s o n o f L eo I a n d A e lia V e rin a
N ephew o f L e o n tia { w . o f P a tr ic iu s )
Augustus: D N LEO ET ZENO P P AVG
Note: The Z is sometimes reverted. See the note below for another possible
inscription.
L e o I I (as A u g u s tu s) VF EF n MS
3800 AV Solidus obv Helm., diad. half-bust 3/4-facing, 900- 1500- 2500-
hldg. shield and spear rev SALVS REIPVBLICAE 1200 2000 3500
(followed by officina letter), Leo II and Zeno nim
bate std. facing, sometimes star in field, CONOB in
ex. RIC 803-4. Illustrated above.
3801 — rev V IC TO R IA AVGGG, Victory stg. 1., hldg. 900- 1500- 2 500-
long cross, star in field, CONOB in ex. RIC 805. 1200 2000 3500
3802 AV Semissis rev VIC TO R IA A VG G G , Victory 900- 1500-

std. r., hldg. shield inscr. XXXX, star and p-cross in 1200 2000
field, CON OB in ex. RIC 806.
3803 AV Tremissis rev V IC TO R IA A VG VSTO RVM , 7 00- 1250-

Victory adv., hldg. wreath and globus cruciger, star 1000 1750
in field, CON OB in ex. RIC 807.
Note: The coins of Leo II listed above are easy to distinguish from those of Leo Caesar (the
adopted Caesar of Zeno) by their obverse inscription. The obverse inscription of the issues of
Leo II ends P P AVG, whereas that of Leo Caesar ends NOV CAES. For a coin that some
authorities believe was struck in the name of Leo II during his very brief reign as sole Augus
tus, see no. 3799. Other coins of interest are gold solidi (RIC 3201-2) and semisses (RIC
2532) with the mint mark COM OB, presumably of Rome, which are usually given to Leo I,
but which may actually belong to Leo II. This speculation is based upon their apparent con
nections to issues of Julius Nepos (RIC 3201-9). If true, this would be of some significance
because their obverse inscription, D N LEO PERPET AVG, is otherwise given exclusively to
Leo I. This might also have bearing on the coinage given in this catalog to Patricius even
though that issue is eastern. No silver or æs issues of Leo II are known, though light half-sili-
quae with the eagle reverse and Æ 4’s with the monogram reverse are sometimes attributed to
him in error.
Zeno, A .D . 474-475 & 476-491

A.D. 474: Ju n io r A u g u stu s
(w ith L e o I I )
A.D. 474-4 7 5 : First Sole Reign
A.D. 4 75 -476: Deposed
A.D. 476-4 7 7 : Augustus
(with Leo Caesar, as Caesar)
A.D. 4 7 7 -4 9 1 : Second Sole Reign
H u sb an d o f A e lia A ria d n e
F a t h e r o f L e o II
S o n - i n 'L a w o f L e o I a n d A e l i a V e r i n a
B r o t h e r ' i n ' L a w o f L e o n t i a (w . o f P a t r i c i u s )
Augustus: D N ZENO PERP AVG
D N ZENO P F AVG
D N ZENO PERP F AV
IMP ZENO FELICÍSSIMO SEN AVG (on Æ 40'Nummus)
IMP ZENO SEMPER AVG (on Æ 40'Nummus)
N ote: There are blundered varieties of most of Zeno’s inscriptions. The Z is

sometimes reverted and the AVG in ligature.
Z en o (as Ju n io r A u g u stu s, w ith L e o II )

Refer to the listings of Leo II (nos. 3 8 0 0 '3 ).
Zeno (as A ugustus, First Sole Reign) VF EF nMS
3804 AV Tremissis obv D N ZENO PERP AVG, diad.,

dr. and cuir, bust r. rev No inscr., cross in wreath,
•CO M O B* in ex. RIC 3605-6. N ote: The key diag'
nostic for identifying this issue is the pellets flank'
ing the mint mark.
N ote: For additional issues which seem to belong to Zeno’s first sole reign, see RIC X, nos.
901'3, and D.O. nos. 604-5. For a discussion of the diagnostics by which coins of this period
may be identified, see RIC X, p. I l l and 215, and D.O. pp. 174-5.
Z en o (D ep osed , in exile during th e u su rp atio n of B a siliscu s)
Zeno (D eposed) VF EF n MS
3805 AV Solidus obv Helm., diad. half-bust 3/4-facing,

hldg. shield and spear rev VIC TO R IA A VG G G ,
Victory stg. 1., hldg. long cross, star in field,
A N TIO B in ex. RIC 904.
THE EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE Ó2 I
Zeno (as Augustus, with Leo Caesar)

Refer to the listings of Leo Caesar (nos. 3844-5). N o t e : Zeno may have struck solidi
at Constantinople immediately after his return from exile before he began to strike
with Leo Caesar (see R IC X, p. 305, no. 905).
Zeno (as Augustus, Second Sole Reign)

Zeno (as Augustus, Second Sole Reign) VF EF n MS
3806 AV Solidus obv Helm., diad. half-bust 3/4-facing, 150-250 300-400 500-800
hldg. shield and spear rev VICTORIA AVGGG
(followed by officina letter, sometimes T and offi
cina letter), Victory stg. 1., hldg. long cross, one or
two stars in field, CONOB in ex. RIC 91 Off.
Illustrated p. 620.
3807 — As prev., but rev. no officina letter (sometimes 1000 - 2000-

replaced with X or *), no star(s), sometimes RV, MD 1500 3000
(and other letters, stars, etc.) in field, COMOB in
ex. RIC 3 3 0 Iff.
3808 AV Semissis rev VICTORIA AVGG (or 150-200 250-350 400-600

AVGGG), Victory std. r., hldg. shield inscr. with
X ’s and/or V’s, star and p-cross in field, CONOB in
ex. RIC 913ff.
3809 — rev SALVS REIPVBLICAE, Chi-Rho in wreath, 1000 - 2000- —

COMOB in ex. RIC 3658-9. 1500 3000
3810 AV Tremissis rev VICTORIA AVGVSTORVM, 100-150 200-300 350-500

in field, CONOB in ex. RIC 914ff. N ote: Many
errors occur in the reverse inscription.
3811 — rev No inscr., cross in wreath, COMOB in ex. 500-800 1000 - —

RIC 3210, 60-3. 1500
Zeno (as Augustus, Second Sole Reign) F VF EF

3812 A R Heavy Miliarensis 1000- 2000- 50 0 0 -
1500 3000 8500
3813 A R Light Siliqua rev Various inscrs. in wreath. RIC 250-350 500-800 —
943-5a.
3814 AR Light Half-Siliqua rev No inscr., turreted fig. 300-400 700-

stg., hldg. scepter and cornucopia, foot on prow, 1000
MD or RV in field. RIC 3636-20, 44-46.
3815 — rev No inscr., eagle with spread wings, sometimes 300-400 700- —
on branch or with cross above RIC 3621-4, 47-8. 1000
3816 — rev No inscr., Victory adv. 1., hldg. wreath and 300-400 900- —
palm, sometimes RV in ex. RIC 3615, 43, 49. 1200
3817 — rev No inscr., Chi-Rho in wreath. RIC 3664- 400-600 1000- —

1500
Ó22 COINAGE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE: CATALOG AND TABLES OF VALUE
Zeno (as A ugustus, Second Sole Reign) F VF EF
3818 Æ 40'Numm us obv Bearded bust r. of Zeno, IIII 300-400 900- 2000-
below rev IM (N )VIC TA ROMA, Victory adv. r., 1200 3000
hldg. trophy and wreath, SC in field, #X L # in ex.
RIC 3666-7. Note: Zeno’s bust is sometimes draped,
and his head apparently laureate or diademed. The
XL identifies the denomination as 40 nummi.
3819 — As prev., but rev G LORIA ROMANORVM, 300-400 900- 2000-

Victory also stg. on prow. RIC 3665. 1200 3000
3820 A E2 or AE3 100-150 200-300 —
3821 Æ 4 rev Monogram of Zeno in wreath or circle. 15-25 30-50 —
3822 — rev Zeno stg. 15-25 30-50 —
Note: Gold was struck in Zeno’s name at Italian mints by Julius Nepos and Odovacar.
Aelia Ariadne
Augusta, A .D . 474(?)-5i5
W i f e o f Z e n o a n d A n a s t a s i u s I (Byz•emp, 4 9 1 - 5 1 8 )
D a u g h te r o f L eo I a n d A e lia V e rin a
S i s t e r o f L e o n t i a (w . o f P a t r i c i u s )
M o t h e r o f L e o II
N ie c e o f B a s il is c u s
C o u s in o f M a r c u s
Augusta: AEL ARIADNE AVG (or AV)
Note: There are varieties of this basic inscription.
A elia A riadne (as A ugusta) VF EF nMS
3823 AV Solidus obv Diad., dr. bust r. rev VIC TO RIA 15,000- 50,000+
A V G G G (followed by officina letter), Victory stg. 20,000
1., hldg. long cross, star in r. field, CONOB or in ex.
RIC 933, 936.
3824 AV Tremissis obv As prev., rev No inscr., cross in 5000- L5,000-

wreath, CON OB or CO N O * in ex. RIC 933a-5, 8000 20,000
938. Note: A mule struck with a reverse die of Zeno
is recorded (RIC 937). Illustrated above.
Basiliscus, A .D . 475-476
A.D. 4 75 : Sole reign
A.D. 4 75: A u g u stu s
(w ith M a rc u s, as C a e s a r)
(w ith M a rc u s)
B r o t h e r o f A e l ia V e r in a
H u s b a n d o f A e l ia Z e n o n is
Fa th er of M arcus
B r o t h e r --i n - l a w o f L e o I
U n c le o f A e lia A ria d n e a n d L e o n tia ( w . o f P a tr ic iu s )
Augustus: D N BA SILISCV S PERT AVG
D N BA SILISCV S P F AVG
D N BA SILISCU S P P AVG
D N BASILISCU S P AVG
N ote: There are varieties of the letter forms.
B asiliscu s (as A u g u s tu s) VF EF nM S
3825 AV Solidus obv Helm., diad. half-bust 3/4'facing, 600-900 1000- 1700-
hldg. shield and spear rev V IC TO R IA A VG G G 1500 2200
(followed by officina letter), Victory stg. 1., hldg.
long cross, often with star in field, CONOB in ex.
RIC 100Iff. Illustrated above.
3826 — As prev., but rev. no officina letter, and COM OB 800- 1500- 25 0 0 -
or .COM OB. in ex. RIC 3301ff. 1200 2000 3500
3827 AV Semissis rev V IC TO R IA AVG G , Victory std. 1200- 2000-

r., hldg. shield inscr. XXXX, star and p'Cross in field, 1800 3000
CON OB in ex. RIC 1006-7.
3828 AV Tremissis rev VIC TO R IA AVG VSTO RVM , 200-300 450-650 7 50-
Victory adv., hldg. wreath and globus cruciger, star 1000
in field, CON OB in ex. RIC 1008-9.
3829 — rev No inscr., cross in wreath, COM OB in ex. 250-350 500-800 1000-
RIC 3303ff. 1500

values w hich can n o t be accurately determined (at the high end) or w hich are
negligible (at the low end). C oins with the same value range are n ot always
B asiliscu s (as A u g u stu s) F VF EF
3830 A R Heavy Miliarensis obv As prev., but hd. 1. rev 2000- 5 000- 15,000-
GLORIA ROMANORVM, emperor, nimbate, stg. 3000 8000 20,000
facing, hldg. spear and shield, star in I. field, CON
in ex. RIC 1013.
3831 A R Light Half-Siliqua rev No inscr., turreted fig. 900- 2000-

stg., hldg. scepter and cornucopia, foot on prow, RV 1200 3000
infield. R IC 3307-8.
3832 Æ 4 rev Monogram of Basiliscus in wreath. RIC 50-75 200-300 —

1014, 6 . Note: See also no. 3835.
Note: Siliquae of Basiliscus are reported, but not confirmed. For all issues struck jointly in the
name of Basiliscus and Marcus, refer to the listings of Marcus (nos. 3836-3843).
Aelia Zenonis
A u g u sta, A.D. 475-476
W i f e o f B a s il is c u s
S is te r-in -la w o f L eo Iand A e lia V e rin a
M o th e r o f M a rcu s
Augusta: AEL ZENONIS AVG (on Solidi)
A ZENONIS (on Æ 4’s)
A elia Zenonis (as A ugusta) VF EF nMS
3833 AV Solidus obv Diad., dr. bust r., crowned by hand 15,000- 3 0 ,000-
of God rev VICTORIA AVGGG (followed by offi- 20,000 50,000
cina letter), Victory stg. 1., hldg. long cross, star in r.
field, CONOB in ex. RIC 100Iff. Illustrated above.
A elia Zenonis (as A ugusta) F VF EF
3834 Æ 4 obv Diad., dr. bust r. rev Monogram of Aelia 500-800 1500- —
Zenonis in wreath. RIC 1017-8. 2000
3835 — As prev., but rev Monogram of Basiliscus. RIC — — —

1015.
Marcus, A .D . 475-476
A.D. 475 : C a e s a r (u n d er B asiliscu s)
A.D. 475-476: Ju n io r A u g u stu s
(w ith B a siliscu s)
S o n o f B a s ilis c u s a n d A e l i a Z e n o n is
N ephew o f L eo Ia n d A e lia V e rin a
C o u s in o f A e l i a A r ia d n e a n d L e o n t i a ( w . o f P a t r i c i u s )
Caesar: D N BASILISCI ET MARCI C
Augustus: D N BASILISCI ET M ARC P AVG
D N BASIL ET MAR P AVG
Note: There are varieties of letter forms and blundered inscriptions.
M a rcu s (as C a e s a r) VF EF n MS
3836 AV Solidus obv Helm., diad. half-bust 3/4-facing,

hldg. shield and spear rev VIC TO R IA A VG G G A,
Victory stg. 1., hldg. long cross, star in r. field,
CON OB in ex. RIC 1020.
3837 — rev SALVS REIPVRLICAE(sic), nimbate figs. of

Basiliscus, diad. at 1., and Marcus, bare-headed at r.,
std. facing, each hldg. mappa, star above, cross
behind, CONOB in ex. RIC 1019.
M a rcu s (as A u g u stu s) VF EF n MS
3838 AV Solidus Types as 3836. RIC 1024-7. 1000- 1750- 3000-

1500 2250 5000
3839 — Types as 3837. RIC 1021-3. Illustrated above. 1000- 2 000- —

1500 3000
3840 AV Semissis rev VIC TO R IA A VG G , Victory std. 1000- 1750-

r., hldg. shield inscr. XXXX, star and p-cross in field, 15 00 2250
CON OB in ex. RIC 1028-9.
3841 AV Tremissis rev VIC TO RIA A VG VSTO RVM , 900- 1500-

Victory adv., hldg. wreath and globus cruciger, star 1200 2000
in field, CON OB in ex. RIC 1030-1.
M a rc u s (as A u g u s tu s) F VF EF
3842 Æ 4 rev Monogram of Basiliscus and Marcus in 70-100 250-350 —

wreath. RIC 1034.
3843 — rev No inscr., Basiliscus and Marcus std. facing, 70-100 250-350 —
each hldg. globe. RIC 1032-3.
Leo Caesar
C aesar, A.D. 476-477 (u n d er Z en o )
A d o pted C a esa r o f Zen o

S o n o f A r m a t u s (nephew o f t h e u s u r p e r B a s i l i s c u s )
Caesar: D N ZENO ET LEO NOV CAES
L eo C aesar (as N obilissimus Caesar) VF EF n MS
3844 AV Solidus obv Helm, bust facing, with shield and 3000- 60 0 0 - 10,000-
spear rev VICTORIA AVGGG (followed by offi 5000 8000 15,000
cina letter), Victory stg. 1., hldg. long cross, star in r.
field, CONOB in ex. RIC 906.
3845 AV Tremissis obv Diad., dr., cuir, bust r. rev VIC 1500- 2250-
TORIA AVGVSTORVM, Victory adv. r., hldg. 2000 3000
wreath and globus cruciger, star in r. field, CONOB
in ex. RIC 907-9. Note: The tremisses are often
poorly inscribed, with the Z of ZENO reversed; LEO
spelled LIEO; VICTORIA spelled VICTOBIA; or
CONOB spelled CONOR. Illustrated above.
N ote: The coins attributed above to Leo Caesar (the adopted Caesar of Zeno) are easy to dis
tinguish from those of Leo II (the son of Zeno) based on their obverse inscriptions. The
obverse inscriptions of Leo Caesar end with NOV CAES, whereas those of Leo II end with P
P AVG. All of Leo Caesar’s coins were struck at Constantinople. The authors of RIC indicate
that Æ 4’s may have been struck for Zeno and Leo Caesar (see RIC X, p. 298, note to no. 808,
and p. 312, no. 947).
C raw ford C o n c o r d a n c e T ab le
N ote: Craw ford num bers followed by * refer to types ‘restored ’ by th e

em peror Trajan.
Craw ford CHRE Craw ford CHRE
3 5 9 /2 3 4 6 1 /1 81
3 6 5 /1 * 1298 466/1 3 8 -9
3 6 5 /l a - c 13 4 6 7 /l a -b 45
3 6 7 /1 ,3 ,5 5 468/1 46
3 6 7 /2 ,4 4 468/2 47
3 7 4 /1 * 1299 4 6 9 /l a - e 23
3 7 4 /1 14 4 7 0 /la 24
3 7 4 /2 15 4 7 0 /l b 25
3 7 5 /2 6 4 7 0 /l c - d 26
3 7 6 /1 7 4 7 1 /1 27
3 8 1 /la ,b 8 4 7 5 /1 a-b 120
4 0 2 /l a - b 19 4 7 5 /2 121
4 1 9 /l a - b 135 4 7 6 /1 a-b 48
4 1 9 /2 136 4 7 7 /1 ,3 29
4 1 9 /3 b 137 4 7 7 /2 30
426/1 9 4 7 8 /la - b 36
4 3 3 /1 * 1304 4 7 9 /1 37
4 3 3 /1 83 480/1 12
4 3 3 /2 82 4 8 0 /2 a -c 49
4 3 4 /1 10 4 8 0 /3 50
4 3 4 /2 11 4 8 0 /4 53
4 4 3 /1 * 1301 4 8 0 /5 a -b 51
4 4 3 /1 41 4 8 0 /6 52
4 4 6 /1 20 4 8 0 /8 54
4 4 7 /la 21 4 8 0 /9 4 1 55
4 5 2 /2 42 4 8 0 /1 2 - 1 4 56
4 5 7 /1 43 4 8 0 /1 5 - 1 6 57
4 5 8 /1 * 1302 4 8 0 /1 9 59
4 5 8 /1 44 480/20 60
4 5 9 /1 77 4 8 0 /2 2 163
4 6 0 /2 78 4 8 1 /1 40
4 6 0 /3 79 4 8 3 /1 31
4 6 0 /4 80 4 8 3 /2 32
4 6 1 /1 * 1303 4 8 4 /1 185
627
628 CRAWFORD CONCORDANCE TABLE
C raw ford CHRE Craw ford CHRE
4 8 5 /1 61 5 0 9 /2 109
488/1 62 5 0 9 /4 110
4 8 8 /2 63 5 0 9 /5 * 306
4 8 9 /1 -2 138 5 0 9 /5 111
4 8 9 /3 139 5 1 0 /1 114
4 8 9 /4 160 5 1 1 /1 28
4 8 9 /5 189 5 1 1 /2 a -c 33
4 8 9 /6 190 5 1 1 /3 a * 1300
4 9 0 /2 58 5 1 1 /3 a -c 34
4 9 2 /1 172 5 1 1 /4 a -d 35
4 9 2 /2 140 5 1 3 /2 233
4 9 3 /1 a-c 173 5 1 4 /2 66
4 9 4 /1 141 5 1 5 /2 * 1 305
4 9 4 /1 4 161 5 1 5 /2 96
4 9 4 /2 4 64 5 1 6 /1 162
4 9 4 /3 2 164 5 1 6 /2 166
4 9 4 /3 9 65 5 1 7 /1 174
4 9 5 /2 a 142 5 1 7 /2 178
4 9 6 /1 165 5 1 7 /3 188
4 9 7 /2 * 1307 5 1 7 /4 a -b 186
4 9 7 /2 a -c 232 5 1 7 /5 a -c 187
5 0 0 /1 105 5 1 7 /7 175
5 0 0 /2 99 5 1 7 /8 179
5 0 0 /3 102 5 1 9 /1 116
5 0 0 /4 100 5 1 9 /2 118
5 0 0 /5 103 5 2 1 /1 117
5 0 0 /7 85 5 2 1 /2 119
5 0 0 /1 86 5 2 2 /1 ,3 123
5 0 2 /2 87 5 2 2 /2 ,4 122
5 0 2 /4 91 5 2 3 /la -b 112
5 0 5 /1 101 5 2 4 /1 125
5 0 5 /2 104 5 2 4 /2 126
5 0 5 /3 106 5 2 5 /3 -4 67
5 0 5 /4 84 5 2 6 /2 68
5 0 6 /1 93 5 2 6 /4 69
5 0 6 /2 88 5 2 7 /1 196
5 0 6 /3 92 5 2 8 /l a - b 176
5 0 7 /l a - b 94 5 2 8 /2 a -b 181
5 0 7 /2 89 5 2 8 /3 180
5 0 8 /2 90 5 2 9 /1 177
5 0 8 /3 95 5 2 9 /2 a -c 234
CRAWFORD CONCORDANCE TABLE 629
Craw ford CHRE Craw ford CHRE
5 2 9 /3 167 5 4 4 /1 * 1280
5 2 9 /4 a -b 200 5 4 4 /1 151
5 3 1 /la -b 124 5 4 4 /2 -7 150
5 3 2 /1 113 5 4 4 /8 153
5 3 3 /2 159 5 4 4 /9 154
5 3 3 /3 a -b 197 5 4 4 /1 0 155
5 3 4 /2 70 5 4 4 /1 1 156
5 3 4 /3 374 5 4 4 /1 2 158
5 3 5 /1 71 5 4 4 /1 3 157
5 3 5 /2 249 5 4 4 /1 4 - 3 9 152
5 3 8 /1 235 5 4 5 /1 171
5 3 9 /1 168 5 4 6 /1 129
5 4 0 /2 236 5 4 6 /2 -3 130
5 4 1 /1 195 5 4 6 /4 131
5 4 1 /2 194 5 4 6 /6 132
5 4 2 /1 169 5 4 6 /7 133
5 4 2 /2 170 5 4 6 /8 134
5 4 3 /1 209
RPC C o n co r d an ce T able
RPC CHRE RPC CHRE
40 414 525 385

65 463 527 143
70 521 528 144
71 474 5 3 1 -2 148
74 522 601 4
167 344 620 71
179 541 621 249
181 544 671 37
182 549 709 390
185 563 768 464
186 564 775 393
210 389 834 465
261 145 835 415
264 146 865 546
2 6 5 ff 147 942 386
3 3 4 ff 461 946 482
342 542 947 478
343 545 9 4 8 -9 483
364 550 971 616
371 565 991 523
381 382 997 547
390 345 1 0 0 1 -2 638
398 484 1 0 0 5 -6 732
399 485 1030 419
4 7 3 -4 462 1031 496
477 566 1033 634
486 27 1034 671
487 36 1136 394
506 346 1141 399
508 299 1171 479
509 300 1174 543
512 189 1191 733
513 190 1245 213
5 1 4 -5 73 1255 635
517 74 1453 201
5 2 2 -3 383 1454 202
524 384 1455 203
6 31
632 RPC CONCORDANCE TABLE
RPC CHRE RPC CHRE
1470 204 2038 639

1551 183 2060 743
1554 75 2061 747
1564 39 1 2137 735
1567 418 2201 19 8
1572 524 2202 19 9
1 5 7 3 -5 506 2203 334
1576 567 2 2 0 4 ff 335
1577 417 2205fF 336
1588 644 2 2 0 6 ff 337
1614 726 2215 338
1 6 1 6 -7 874 2 2 1 6 ,8 339
1621 768 2 2 1 7 ,9 340
1651 347 2220 341
1656 348 2221 619
1659 475 2222 620
1701A 97 2223 664
1701B 98 2224 665
1 7 0 8 -9 349 2225 714
1 7 1 1 -2 350 2233 356
1 7 1 8 -2 0 35 1 2235 357
1745 628 2248 647
1748 725 2314 648
1755 734 2317 831
1756 742 2340 535
1779 416 2348 576
1834 645 2359 370
1865 381 2365 395
1 8 6 6 -8 0 333 2369 420
1 8 8 1 -1 9 0 1 457 2371 649
1904 568 2382 72 7
1 9 0 8 -9 560 2393 392
1 9 1 2 -4 614 2430 640
1 9 1 5 -6 615 2434 672
1917 663 2447 406
1 9 1 8 -2 2 712 2449 396
1923 713 2471 536
1 9 2 4 -5 670 2472 572
1926 646 2476 650
2012 573 2479 673
2014 574 2490 769
RPC CONCORDANCE TABLE 633
RPC CHRE RPC CHRE
2500 497 3629 518

2 5 1 9 -2 0 736 3630 519
2 5 4 3 -4 748 3631 623
2564 397 3 6 3 2 -3 667
2 5 6 9 -7 3 149 3634 718
2574 205 3 6 3 7 -4 2 668
2 5 9 9 ff 421 3644 721
2630 744 3 6 4 5 -6 720
2631 749 3647 623
2632 750 3648 624
2635 352 3 6 4 9 -5 0 719
2651 398 3 6 5 2 -3 623
2654 641 3656 652
2687 353 3657 642
2704 575 3 7 2 4 ,7 358
2 7 2 4 -3 1 354 3731 467
2 7 5 2 ff 729 3 8 1 3 -5 617
2818 651 3868 447
2871 548 3901 76
2887 466 3919 422
2930 355 4007 423
2995 476 4 0 1 3 -4 424
3000 737 4092 184
3017 480 4 0 9 4 -6 208
3029 569 4 1 0 3 -4 359
3081 537 4123 626
3090 629 4125 16
3134 525 4126 107
3139 191 4127 72
3140 192 4129 115
3 3 0 7 -9 342 4130 108
3335 625 4 1 3 2 -3 127
3562 745 4135 182
3620 458 4 1 51 ff 343
3 6 2 1 -2 473 4166 534
3623 520 4171 716
3624 561 4175 666
3625 621 4186 715
3626 622 4 1 9 3 -6 828
3627 636 4197 829
3628 495 4 1 9 9 -2 0 0 841
634 RPC CONCORDANCE TABLE
RPC CHRE RPC CHRE
4 2 5 Iff 360 4954 364

4309fF 729 4 9 5 5 -7 365
4313 833 4967 425
4314 832 4 9 6 8 -9 468
4316 844 4970 674
4320 843 4971 653
4322 770 4972 730
4323 771 4973 577
4 3 8 3 -5 717 4976 570
4 5 0 1 -2 214 4977 571
4509 193 5001 366
4510 215 5006 426
4 5 2 9 -3 0 216 5008 427
4535 361 5 0 7 5 ff 469
4538 362 5 0 8 9 ff 459
4545 630 5117 505
4 7 4 1 -2 217 5135 633
4752 218 5164 637
4771 219 5 2 0 1 ff 669
4772 220 5 2 0 2 ff 731
4773 221 5 2 1 0 ff 724
4774 363 5 2 6 7 ff 741
4781 222 5 2 8 9 ff 724
4783 223 5294 723
4842 738 5295 460
4843 654 5 2 9 6 ff 724
4846 746 5415 372
4849 892 5420 401
4850 893 5437 371
4865 894 5438 402
4866 206
B ib l io g r a p h y
T h is bibliography principally con tain s works on R o m an history and c o in

age, th ou gh certain im p ortan t references from related fields are included.
W h e n a referen ce is m ore readily located by its n am e or ab breviation th an
by th e n am e of its author, it is listed in th at m anner.
T h e following list is far from com p reh en sive, and th e reader should con su lt
D ennis K ro h ’s Ancient Coin Reference Reviews (Florid a, 1 9 9 3 ) for evalu a
tions of m ajor works, and Ehjira C lain -S tefan elli’s Numismatic Bibliography
(M u n ich , 1 9 8 5 ) for a com p reh en sive listing of n um ism atic works pub
lished up through 1 9 8 5 .
Festival o f Isis in Rome Under the Christian Emperors of

A lföldi, A nd reas. A
the lVth Century (Budapest and Leipzig, 1 9 3 7 ).
— . Die constantinische Goldprägung. Untersuchung zu ihrer Bedeutung für
Kaiserpolitik und Hofkunst (M ainz, 1 9 6 3 ).
— , and Elisabeth A lföldi and C u rtis C lay. Die Kontorniat Medallions (2
vols., Berlin, 1 9 7 6 ).
A m an d ry, M ich el.Le Monnayage des Duovirs Corinthiens (Paris, 1 9 8 8 ).
(A rras) Le Tresor de Beaurains, dit d’Arras, by Pierre B astien and C a th erin e
M etzger (W e tte re n , 1 9 7 7 ).
(A sh m o lean ) Coins o f the Roman Empire in the Ashmolean Museum, by
C o lin M . Kraay and C .H .V . S uth erlan d (vo l. 1, 1 9 7 5 ).
Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum: The Collection Hans von
(v o n A u lo ck )
Aulock ( 1 8 vols., Berlin, 1 9 5 7 -8 6 ; 4 'v o l. reprint, 1 9 8 7 w ith a separate
index vo lu m e).
Die römische Goldmünzprägung wahrend der Republik und
v o n Bahrfeldt, M .
unter Augustus (H alle, 1 9 2 3 ).
Baldus, H .R . Uranius Antoninus, Münzprägung und Geschichte (B o n n ,
1 9 7 1 ).
B an ti, A . and L. S im o n etti. Corpus Nummorum Romanorum (1 8 vols., F lo
ren ce, 1 9 7 2 + ).
Bastien, Pierre.Le monnayage de bronze de Postume (W e tte re n , 1 9 6 7 ).
— . Le monnayage de Vatelier de Lyon, de la réouverture de Vatelier par
Aurélien à la mort de Carin (fin 274-285) (W e tte re n , 1 9 7 6 ).
— . Le monnayage de Vatelier de Lyon , Dioclétien et ses corégents avant la
réforme monétaire, 285-294 (W e tte re n , 1 9 7 2 ).
— . Le monnayage de l’atelier de Lyon, De la réforme de Dioclétien à la ferme -
ture temporaire de Vatelier en 316 (294-316) (W e tte re n , 1 9 8 0 ).
635
636 BIBLIOGRAPHY
— . Le Monnayage de Magnence ( 3 5 0 - 3 5 3 ) (2n d ed., W e tte re n , 1 9 8 3 ).

(B eck er) Becker the Counterfeiter, by G eorge F. H ill (tw o parts, L on d on ,
1 9 2 4 -5 ; rep rin ts).
Bellinger, A . The Syrian Tetradrachms o f Caracalla and Macrinus (N ew
Y ork, 1 9 4 0 ).
B erk, H arlan . Roman Gold Coins o f the Medieval World, 383-1453 A .D .
(C h ica g o , 1 9 8 6 ).
(B M C ) Catalogue o f the Greek Coins in the British Museum, various authors.
(2 9 vols, L on d on , 1 8 7 3 -1 9 2 7 ).
(B M C R E ) Coins o f the Roman Empire in the British Museum by H arold M a t
tingly, et. al. (6 vols., L on don, 1 9 2 3 -1 9 7 5 ).
(B M C R R ) Coins o f the Roman Republic in the British Museum, by H .A .
G rueber (3 vols., L on don, 1 9 1 0 ).
B rauer Jr., G eorge C . The Decadent Emperors: Power and Depravity in
Third-Century Rome (N ew York, 1 9 9 5 , reprint of 1 9 6 7 original en titled
The Young Emperors: Rome, A.D. 1 9 3 -2 4 4 ).
B rough ton , T .R .S . The Magistrates o f the Roman Republic (2 vols., N ew
York, 1 9 5 1 -2 ; supplem ent, N ew York, 1 9 6 0 ).
Brow n, P eter. The World o f late Antiquity, A.D. 150-750 (L on d o n , 1 9 7 1 ).
B runn, P atrick . Studies in Constantinian Chronology (A N S N N M 1 4 6 , N ew
York, 1 9 6 1 ).
B u rn ett, A nd rew . Coinage in the Roman World (L on d o n , 1 9 8 7 ).
Burns, T h o m as S. Barbarians Within the Gates of Rome: A Study o f Roman
Military Policy and the Barbarians, ca. 375-425 A.D. (In d iana, 1 9 9 4 ).
B u tch er, K evin. Roman Provincial Coins: An Introduction to the Greek Impe
rials (L o n d o n , 1 9 8 8 ).
B u ttrey Jr., T h eod ore V . The Triumviral Portrait Gold o f the Quattuorviri
Monetales o f 42 B .C . (A N S N N M 137, N ew Y ork, 1 9 5 6 ).
C aesar, Julius. The Battle for Gaul. A n n e and P eter W isem an , trans. (B o s
ton , 1 9 8 0 ).
C arrad ice, Ian. Coinage and Finances in the Reign o f Domitian, A.D. 81-96
(O xfo rd , 1 9 7 8 ).
C arso n , R .A .G . Principal Coins o f the Romans (3 vols., L on d o n , 1 9 7 8 - 8 1 ) .
— . Coins o f the Roman Empire (L on d o n , 1 9 8 9 ).
C h ristian sen , E. Coins of Alexandria and the Nomes (L o n d o n , 1 9 9 1 ).
C lark e, M .L . The Noblest Roman: Marcus Brutus and His Reputation (L o n
don, 1 9 8 1 ).
C ohen, H . Description historique des monnaies frappées sous l’empire roman (8
vols., 2n d ed., Paris, 1 8 8 0 - 1 8 9 2 ) .
(C o p eh ag en ) Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum: The Danish National
Museum, Copenhagen (4 3 vols., 1 9 4 2 + ; 8 - vol. reprint, 1 9 8 2 + ) .
C o rn ell, T . and J. M atthew s. Atlas o f the Roman World (N ew Y ork, 1 9 8 2 ).
BIBLIOGRAPHY 637
C raw ford, M ich ael H .Coinage and Money Under the Roman Republic: Italy
and the Mediterranean Economy (Berkley and Los A ngeles, 1 9 8 5 ).
— . Roman Republican Coinage (2 vols., C am bridge, 1 9 7 4 ).
(C u n e tio ) The Cunetio Treasure, Roman Coinage o f the Third Century
A .D ., by Ed Besley and R oger Bland (L on d o n , 1 9 8 3 ).
The Tetradrachms o f Roman Egypt (C h ica g o , 1 9 5 7 ).
C urtis, C o l. J.
D attari, G .Numi Augg. Alexandrini (C airo , 1 9 0 1 ).
D epeyrot, G eorges. Les Monnaies d’Or de Diocletien A Constantin I (284-
337) (W e tte re n , 1 9 9 5 ).
(D u m b arton O aks) Catalog o f Late Roman Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks
Collection and in the Whittemore Collection, by Philip G rierson and
M elinda Mays (W ash in g to n D .C ., 1 9 9 2 ).
Foss, C liv e. Roman Historical Coins (L o n d o n , 1 9 9 0 ).
Frolova, N .A . The Coinage o f the Kingdom o f the Bosporus (O xfo rd , 1 9 7 9 ).
(G e n e v a ) “T h e G en ev a Forgeries,” by R .A .G . C arso n (1 9 5 8 Numismatic
Chronicle, pp. 4 7 - 5 8 ) .
G eissen, A . Katalog Alexandrinischer Kaisermünzen, Köln (5 vols, C o log n e,
1 9 7 4 -8 3 ) .
(G e tty ) Ancient Portraits in the J. Paul Getty Museum, Volume I (M alibu,
1 9 8 7 ).
G iaco sa, G . Women of the Caesars. Their Lives and Portraits on Coins
(M ilan , 1 9 7 7 ).
G ib bon, Edward. The Decline and Fall o f the Roman Empire (originally pub
lished beginning in 1 7 7 6 ; num erous rep rin ts).
G n e cc h i, F.I medaglioni romani (3 vols., M ilan, 1 9 1 2 ).
G obi, R . Die Münzprägung des kaisers Aurelianus (V ien n a, 1 9 9 3 ).
— . Regalianus und Dryantilla. Dokumentation, Münzen, Texte, Epigraphis-
ches (V ien n a, 1 9 7 0 ).
G ord o n , C .D . The Age o f Attila (N ew York, 1 9 9 3 , rep rin t of 1 9 6 0 ).
G ran t, M ich ael. Aspects of the Principate Tiberius (A N S N N M 1 1 6 , N ew
Y ork, 1 9 5 0 ).
— . A rtin the Roman Empire (L o n d o n and N ew York, 1 9 9 5 ).
— . From Imperium to Auctoritas, a Historical Study of the AES Coinage in the
Roman Empire, 49 B.C .-A .D . 14 (C am bridge, 1 9 4 6 ).
— . History o f Rome (N ew York, 1 9 7 8 ).
— . Roman Anniversary Issues: An exploratory study of the numismatic and
medallic commemoration of anniversary years 49 B.C .-A .D . 375 (C a m
bridge, 1 9 5 0 ).
— . Roman Imperial Money (L o n d o n , Edinburgh and N ew York, 1 9 5 4 ).
— . The Antonines: The Roman Empire in Transition (N ew Y ork and L o n
don, 1 9 9 4 ).
— . The Army o f the Caesars (N ew York, 1 9 7 4 ).
638 BIBLIOGRAPHY
— . The Emperor Constantine (L on d o n , 1 9 9 3 ).

— . The Fall o f the Roman Empire (R evised ed., N ew York, 1 9 9 0 ).
— . The Roman Emperors (N ew York, 1 9 8 5 ).
— . The Six Main AES Coinages o f Augustus (Edinburgh, 1 9 5 3 ).
G reen , P eter. Alexander to Actium: The Historical Evolution o f the Hellenis
tic Age (B erkeley and Los A ngeles, 1 9 9 0 ).
H ah n , W . Moneta Imperii Romani/Byzantini: Die Ostprägung des Römischen
Reiches im 5 Jahrhundert (V ien n a, 1 9 8 9 ).
H arl, K en n eth W . Coinage in the Roman Economy, 3 0 0 B .C . to A.D. 700
(B altim o re and L on don, 1 9 9 6 ).
— . Civic Coins and Civic Politics in the Roman East, A.D. 180-275 (Berkley
and Los A ngeles, 1 9 8 7 ).
H arlan , M ich ael. Roman Republican Moneyers and Their Coinage, 6 3 B .C .-
49 B .C . (L on d o n , 1 9 9 5 ).
H ead, B arclay V . Historia Numorum (2n d ed., L on don, 1 9 1 1 ).
H en din , D avid. Guide to Biblical Coins (3rd ed., N ew York, 1 9 9 6 ).
H ew itt, K .V . “T h e C o in ag e of L. Clodius M acer (A .D . 6 8 ) ” (1 9 8 3 Numis
matic Chronicle, pp. 6 4 - 8 0 ) .
H ill, Philip V . The Coinage o f Septimius Severus and his Family of the Mint o f
Rome, A.D. 193-217 (L on d o n , 1 9 7 7 ).
— . The Dating and Arrangement of the Undated Coins o f Rome, A.D. 98-148
(L o n d o n , 1 9 7 0 ).
— . The Monuments o f Ancient Rome as Coin Types (L on d o n , 1 9 8 9 ).
H ow gego, C .J. Greek Imperial Countermarks (L on d o n , 1 9 8 5 ).
(H u n te r) Roman Imperial Coins in the Hunter Coin Cabinet. University of
Glasgow (5 vols., by A n n e R obertson, O xford, 1 9 6 2 - 8 2 ).
Im hoof-B lum er, F. and P. G ardner. Ancient Coins Illustrating Lost Master
pieces o f Greek Art (rep rin t: C h icag o , 1 9 6 4 ).
K adm an, L eo. The Coins o f Akko Ptolemais (S ch o ck en , 1 9 6 1 ).
— . The Coins o f Caesarea Maritima (Jerusalem , 1 9 5 7 ).
— . The Coins o f the Jewish War, 66-73 A.D. (Jerusalem , 1 9 6 0 ).
vo n K aenel, H ans-M arkus. Münzprägung und Münzbildnis des Claudius
(B erlin , 1 9 8 6 ).
Roman Coins (L o n d o n , 1 9 7 8 ).
K en t, J .P .C ., M . H irm er and A . H irm er.
K indler, A . The Coinage ofBostra (W arm in ster, 1 9 8 3 ).
K law ans, Zander H . Imitations and Inventions o f Roman Coins: Renaissance
Medals o f Julius Caesar and the Roman Empire (S a n ta M o n ica, 1 9 7 7 ).
— . Reading and Dating Roman Imperial Coins ( 1 9 5 9 , R acin e, W I ).
K raay, C . M . The A es Coinage of Galba (A N S N N M 1 3 3 , N ew Y ork,
1 9 5 6 ).
Kraft, K onrad. Das system der Kaiserzeitliche münzprägung in Kleinasien,
materialien und Entwürfe (B erlin , 1 9 7 2 ).
BIBLIOGRAPHY 639
L acam , G . La Fin de L ’Empire Romain et Le Monnayage or en Italie, 455-493

(2 vols., L u cern e, 1 9 8 3 ).
(L e v a n te ) Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum Switzerland I: Levante-Cilicia
(w ith Supplem ent I), by Eduardo L ev an te (B ern e, 1 9 8 6 ; supplem ent,
1 9 9 3 ).
Lindgren, H .C . Ancient Greek Bronze Coins: European Mints (C aliforn ia,
1 9 8 9 ).
— and Frank K ovacs. Ancient Bronze Coins o f Asia Minor and the Levant
from the Lindgren Collection (C aliforn ia, 1 9 8 5 ).
(L R B C ) L ate Roman Bronze Coinage, A.D . 324-498 by R .A .G . C arso n ,
Philip H ill and J .P .C . K en t (rep rin t: L on d o n , 1 9 6 5 ).
M acD ow all, D avid W . The Western Coinages of Nero (A N S N N M 1 61,
N ew York, 1 9 7 9 ).
M artin , P eter-H u g o. Die anonymen Münzen des Jahres 68 nach Christus
(M ainz, 1 9 7 4 ).
M attingly, H arold.Roman Coins From the Earliest Times to the Fall o f the
Western Empire (L on d o n , 1 9 2 8 ).
Mazzini, G . Monete imperiale romane (5 vols., M ilan, 1 9 5 7 -8 ).
(M E C ) Medieval European Coinage, Volume I, The Early Middle Ages (5 th-
IOth centuries), by Philip G rierson and M ark B lackburn (C am bridge,
1 9 8 6 ).
M elville-Jon es, Jo h n . A Dictionary o f Ancient Roman Coins (L on d o n ,
1 9 9 0 ).
M eshorer, Y a ’akov.Ancient Jewish Coinage (2 vols., N ew York, 1 9 8 2 ).
— . The Coinage o f Aelia Capitolina (Jerusalem , 1 9 8 9 ).
M etcalf, W illiam E. The Cistophori of Hadrian (A N S N S 15, N ew York,
1 9 8 0 ).
— . The Silver Coinage o f Cappadocia, Vespasian-Commodus (A N S N N M
16 6 , N ew York, 1 9 9 6 ).
M ildenberg, L eo. The Coinage o f the Bar Kokhba War (Salzburg, 1 9 8 4 ).
M illar, Fergus. The Roman Near East, 31 B.C .-A .D . 33 7 (C a m b rid g e and
L on d o n , 1 9 9 3 ).
M ilne, J.G . Catalogue o f Alexandrian Coins (L o n d o n , 1 9 7 1 ; rep rin t of 1 9 3 3
w ith supplem ent).
Description des médailles antiques, greques et
M io n n et, T h éo d o re-E d m e.
romaines (7 vols., 9 supp, vols., 1 8 0 6 -3 7 ; 16-vo l. Graz rep rin t 1 9 7 2 -3 ).
Oxford Classical Dictionary, The. H ornblow er, S. and Spaw forth, A ., eds.
(3rd ed., O xford , 1 9 9 6 ).
O ost, S tew art Irvin. Galla Placidia Augusta: A Biographical Essay (C h ica g o ,
1 9 6 8 ).
Paulys R eal. Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft (m u lti-v o l
um e, S tu ttg art, 1 8 9 4 onw ard)
640 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Medicine on Ancient Greek and Roman Coins (L on d o n , 1 9 9 4 ).

P en n , R .G .
Coins and Their Cities (L on d o n , 1 9 7 7 ).
P rice, M artin J. and Blum a T rell.
(R I C ) The Roman Imperial Coinage, various authors. ( 1 0 vols., 1 9 2 3 -1 9 9 4 ,
w ith rep rin ts).
R ich te r, G .M .A . The Portraits of the Greeks (Ith ica, 1 9 8 4 ).
Ridgew ay, W . The Origin o f Metallic Currency and Weight Standards (N ew
Y ork, 1 9 7 6 ; rep rin t of 1 8 9 2 ).
Rosenberger, M . The Rosenberger Israel Collection (4 vols., Jerusalem ,
1 9 7 2 -4 ).
(R P C ) Roman Provincial Coinage, Volume I (w ith S upplem ent I), by
A nd rew B u rn ett, M ich el A m an d ry and Pere Pau Ripollès. (L o n d o n and
Paris, 1 9 9 2 ; reprinted 1 9 9 8 w ith a supplem ent).
(R S C ) Roman Silver Coins, various authors. (5 vols., 1 9 5 2 -1 9 8 7 w ith
rep rin ts).
Sayles, W ay n e G . Ancient Coin Collecting, (vols. 1,3 and 4, Iola, W I, 1 9 9 6 ).
S carre, C h ris.Chronicle o f the Roman Emperors (N ew York, 1 9 9 5 ).
S ch iel, N . The Episode o f Carausius and Allectus : the literary and numismatic
evidence (O xford , 1 9 7 7 ).
Sear, D avid R . Greek Imperial Coins and Their Values: The Local Coinages of
the Roman Empire (L on d o n , 1 9 8 2 ).
— . The History and Coinage o f the Roman Imperators, 4 9 - 2 7 B .C . (L o n d o n ,
1 9 9 8 ).
— . Roman Coins and Their Values (4 th revised ed., L on don, 1 9 8 8 ).
Seyffert, O skar. The Dictionary of Classical Mythology, Religion, Literature
and Art (N ew York, 1 9 9 5 , reprint of 1891 original en titled The Dictio
nary o f Classical Antiquities).
Spaulding, O .L . and H . N ick erson . Ancient and Medieval Warfare (N ew
York, 1 9 9 3 ; originally en titled Warfare ).
Spijkerm an, A . The Coins o f the Decapolis and Provinda Arabia (Jerusalem ,
1 9 7 8 ).
S teven so n , S eth W . A Dictionary o f Roman Coins: Republican and Imperial
(L o n d o n , 1 9 6 4 ; reprint of 1 8 8 9 origin al).
S to n em an , R ich ard . Palmyra and Its Empire: Zenobia’s Revolt Against Rome
(A n n A rb or, 1 9 9 4 ).
Stum pf, G erd R . Numismatische Studien zur chronologie der Römischen Stat
thalter in Kleinasien (1 2 2 v. C h r .-1 6 3 n .C h r.) (S aarb rü ck en, 1 9 9 1 ).
S uth erlan d, C . H . V . Coinage in Roman Imperial Policy, 31 B .C .-A .D . 68
(L o n d o n , 1 9 5 1 ).
— .Roman Coins (L o n d o n and N ew York, 1 9 7 4 ).
— .Roman History and Coinage 44 B .C .-A .D . 69, Fifty Points o f Relation
from Julius Caesar to Vespasian (O xford , 1 9 8 7 ).
— and N . O lçay and K .E . M errington . The Cistophori o f Augustus (L o n d o n ,
1 9 7 0 ).
BIBLIOGRAPHY 64 1
S yd enh am , E. A . The Coinage o f Caesarea in Cappadocia (N ew Y ork, 1 9 7 8 ;

rep rin t of 1 9 3 3 w ith supp.).
— . The Coinage o f the Roman Republic (L on d o n , 1 9 5 2 ).
— . Historical references on coins o f the Roman Empire from Augustus to Gal
lienus (L o n d o n , 1 9 1 7 ).
Sym e, R . The Roman Revolution (O xford , 1 9 3 9 ).
Szaivert, W . Die Münzprägung der Kaiser Marcus Aurelius, Lucius Verus und
Commodus (V ien n a, 1 9 8 6 ).
T on y b ee, Jo cely n M . C . Roman Historical Portraits (L on d o n , 1 9 7 8 ).
— . Roman Medallions (A N S N S n o. 5, N ew York, 1 9 4 4 ).
(T ra ité ) Traité des monnaies grecques et romaines, by E rn st B ab elon . (9
vols., Paris, 1 9 0 1 - 3 2 ).
T ro x e ll, H yla A . The Coinage o f the Lycian League (A N S N N M 1 6 2 , N ew
Y ork, 1 9 8 2 ).
Moneta Mediolanensis (352-498) (V e n ice , 1 9 4 9 ).
U lrich -B an sa, O scar, Jr.
V oegtli, H ans. Bilder der Heldenpenen in der Kaiserzeitlichen Griechischen
münzprägung ( Basel, 1 9 7 7 ).
W alk er, D .R . Metrology o f the Roman Silver Coinage (3 parts, O xford , 1 9 7 6 -
8 ).
Who Was Who in the Roman World. Bow der, D iana, ed. (Ith ica , N Y , 1 9 8 0 ).
W ru ck , W . Die Syrische Provinzialprägung von Augustus bis Traian (S tu t
tgart, 1 9 3 1 ).
O th e r S o u rc e s:
festschrifts, w h ich are co llectio n s of

A m o n g th e m ost im p ortan t sources are
Scripta Nummaria
essays, usually in h o n o r of a scholar. Exam ples include:
Romana: Essays Presented to Humphrey Sutherland (L o n d o n , 1 9 7 8 ), Essays
in Roman Coinage Presented to Harold Mattingly (O xfo rd , 1 9 5 6 ), Studies in
Greek Numismatics in Memory o f Martin Jessop Price (L o n d o n , 1 9 9 8 ).
Equally useful are journals, of w h ich a great m any exist, ranging from those
intended m ainly for th e c o lle cto r (such as th e m o n th ly m agazine The
Celator) to those con tain in g scholarly articles (such as th e Numismatic
Chronicle, th e Swiss Numismatic Review, th e American Numismatic Society
Museum Notes (co n tin u ed as th e American Journal o f Numismatics), and
oth ers w h ich offer b oth (su ch as th e Journal o f the Society of Ancient
Numismatics).
In d e x of P eo ple and S e c t io n s
( in a l p h a b e t ic a l o r d e r )
(V o l u m e I and V o l u m e II)

A emilian (Augustus, A.D. 253) [I] 342, [II] 435
Agrippa (lieutenant of Augustus) [I] 107, [II] 233
Alexander of Carthage (Augustus, A.D. 3 0 8 -3 1 0 ) [I] 455, [II] 521
Alypia (daughter of Anthemius and A elia Euphemia) [I] 573, [II] 600
Amandus (Augustus, c. A.D. 2 8 5 -2 8 6 ) [I] 428, [II] 497
Anonymous Quadrantes (see Quadrantes, Anonymous)
Anthemius (Augustus, A.D. 4 6 7 -4 7 2 ) [I] 570, [II] 598
Antinoüs (companion of Hadrian) [I] 237, [II] 354
A ntonia, Claudia (daughter of Claudius) [I] 156, [II] 270
A ntoninus (see ‘Caracalla’ and ‘Elagabalus’)
A ntoninus, Aurelius (son of Marcus Aurelius and Faustina Junior) [I] 246,
[II] 368
Antoninus, Galerius (son of Antoninus Pius and Faustina Senior) [I] 241,
[II] 362
A ntoninus Pius (Augustus, A.D. 13 8 -1 6 1 ) [I] 238, [II] 355
Antonius, Gaius (brother of Marc A ntony) [I] 79, [II] 211
Antonius, Lucius (brother of Marc A ntony) [I] 80, [II] 212
Antonius, Marcus (see Marc Antony)
Antonius Junior, Marcus (son of Marc Antony and Fulvia) [I] 82, [II] 213
Arcadius (Augustus, A.D. 3 8 3 -4 0 8 ) [I] 590, [II] 609
Ariadne, A eilia (wife of Zeno) [I] 610, [II] 622
Augustus (O ctavian) (Augustus, 27 B.C.—A.D. 14) [I] 96, [II] 217
Aurelian (Augustus, A.D. 2 7 0 -2 7 5 ) [I] 364, [II] 453
Aureolus (usurper, A.D. 267( ?)—268) [I] 389, [II] 472
Avitus (Augustus, A.D. 4 5 5 -4 5 6 ) [I] 564, [II] 595
Basiliscus (Augustus, A.D. 475—476) [I] 612, [II] 623
Brutus (Imperator, 4 3 -4 2 B.C.) [I] 56, [II] 197
Caesar (see Julius Caesar, Gaius Caesar, Lucius Caesar, Nero Caesar, Drusus Caesar
and Leo Caesar)
Caesarion (see Ptolemy X V )
643
644 INDEX
Caius Caesar {see Gaius Caesar)

‘Caligula’ (Gaius) (Augustus, A.D. 3 7 -4 1 ) [I] 143, [II] 261
‘Caracalla’ (Antoninus) (Augustus, A.D. 19 8 -2 1 7 ) [I] 276, [II] 391
Carinus (Augustus, A.D. 2 8 3 -2 8 5 ) [I] 378, [II] 463
Carus (Augustus, A.D. 2 8 2 -2 8 3 ) [I] 377, [II] 462
Cassius (Imperator, 4 3 -4 2 B.C.) [I] 60, [II] 200
Civilis, Julius (rebel, A.D. 6 9 -7 0 ) [I] 200, [II] 303
Clara, Didia (daughter of Didius Julianus) [I] 262, [II] 380
Claudius (Augustus, A.D. 4 1 -5 4 ) [I] 151, [II] 266
Claudius II ‘Gothicus’ (Augustus, A.D. 2 6 8 -2 7 0 ) [I] 361, [II] 451
Cleopatra V II (Queen of Egypt, 5 1 -3 0 B.C.) [I] 85, [II] 215
Clodius Albinus (Augustus, A.D. 19 5 -1 9 7 ) [I] 264, [II] 382
Commodus (Augustus, A.D. 17 7 -1 9 2 ) [I] 251, [II] 372
Constans (Augustus, A.D. 3 3 7 -3 5 0 ) [I] 497, [II] 550
Constantine I ‘the Great’ (Augustus, A.D. 3 0 7 -3 3 7 ) [I] 473, [II] 533
Constantine II (Augustus, A.D. 3 3 7 -3 4 0 ) [I] 494, [II] 547
Constantine III (Augustus, A.D. 4 0 7 -4 1 1 ) [I] 544, [II] 585
Constantius I ‘Chlorus’ (Augustus, A.D. 3 0 5 -3 0 6 ) [I] 435, [II] 504
Constantius II (Augustus, A.D. 3 3 7 -3 6 1 ) [I] 500, [II] 553
Constantius Gallus (Caesar, A.D. 3 5 1 -3 5 4 ) [I] 518, [II] 561
Cornuficius (Imperator, 42 B.C.) [I] 63, [II] 201
Crassus (Triumvir, 6 0 -5 3 B.C.) [I] 35, [II] 187
Crispus (Caesar, A.D. 3 1 6 -3 2 6 ) [I] 489, [II] 543
Decentius (Caesar, A.D. 3 5 0 -3 5 3 ) [I] 513, [II] 558
Delmatius (Caesar, A.D. 3 3 5 -3 3 7 ) [I] 491, [II] 545
Diocletian (Augustus, A.D. 2 8 4 -3 0 5 ) [I] 416, [II] 485
Divi Series of Trajan Decius [II] 428
Divided Empire, a Brief Introduction to (historical text) [I] 527
Domitian (Augustus, A.D. 8 1 -9 6 ) [I] 216, [II] 321
Domitian, Deified Son of V 1/222, [II] 329
Domitianus (Augustus, A.D. 269(?) or 271 ( ?))Vl/393, [II] 474
Domna, Julia (wife of Septimius Severus) [I] 273, [II] 389
IN D EX 645

Dynastic Portrait Coinage of the Severans {see Severan Dynastic Portrait Coinage)
‘Elagabalus’ (Antoninus) (Augustus, A.D. 2 1 8 -2 2 2 ) [I] 295, [II] 403
Etruscilla, Herennia (wife of Trajan Decius) [I] 336, [II] 430
Eudocia, A elia (wife of Theodosius II) [I] 597, [II] 614
Eudoxia, A elia (wife of Arcadius) [I] 592, [II] 610
Eudoxia, Licinia (wife of Valentinian III) [I] 561, [II] 594
Eugenius (Augustus, A.D. 3 9 2 -3 9 4 ) [I] 540, [II] 583
Euphemia, A elia (wife of Anthemius) [I] 572, [II] 599
Faustina, A nnia (third wife o f ‘Elagabalus’) [I] 301, [II] 406
Flaccus (Imperator, 8 3 -8 2 B.C.) [I] 33, [II] 186
Flaccilla, A elia (wife of Theodosius I) [I] 589, [II] 608
Flavius Victor (Augustus, A.D. 3 8 7 -3 8 8 ) [I] 539, [II] 582
Fulvia (third wife of Marc A ntony) [I] 81, [II] 212
Gaius {see ‘Caligula’)
Galba (Augustus, A.D. 6 8 -6 9 ) [I] 184, [II] 293
Galerius (Augustus, A.D. 3 0 5 -3 1 1 ) [I] 430, [II] 499
Galerius Antoninus (see Antoninus, Galerius)
Gallienus (Augustus, A.D. 2 5 3 -2 6 8 ) [I] 349, [II] 441
Gallus, Asinius (potential successor of Augustus) [I] 112, [II] 237
Gemellus (see Germanicus Gemellus and Tiberius Gemellus)
Germanicus (son of Nero Claudius Drusus and A ntonia) [I] 136, [II] 254
G eta (Augustus, A.D. 2 0 9 -2 1 1 ) [I] 283, [II] 396
Glycerius (Augustus, A.D. 4 7 3 -4 7 4 ) [I] 575, [II] 601
Gordian III (Augustus, A.D. 2 3 8 -2 4 4 ) [I] 324, [II] 417
Gratian (Augustus, A.D. 3 6 7 -3 8 3 ) [I] 535, [II] 578
Great Persecution, Pagan Coinage of {see Pagan Coinage of the Great
Persecution)
Gundobad (Master of Soldiers, A.D. 4 7 2 -4 7 4 ) [I] 576, [II] 602
Fladrian (Augustus, A.D. 1 1 7 -1 3 8 ) [I] 233, [II] 348
Flanniballianus (R ex Regum, A.D. 3 3 5 -3 3 7 ) [I] 492, [II] 546
646 INDEX
Honorius (Augustus, A.D. 3 9 3 -4 2 3 ) [I] 541, [II] 583

‘Interregnum Bronzes,’ So-C alled [II] 456
Isis, Festival of (see Festival of Isis Coinage)
Johannes (Augustus, A.D. 4 2 3 -4 2 5 ) [I] 556, [II] 591
Jotapian (Augustus, c. A.D. 2 4 8 -2 4 9 (?)) [I] 332, [II] 426
Jovian (Augustus, A.D. 3 6 3 -3 6 4 ) [I] 525, [II] 565
Jovinus (Augustus, A.D. 4 1 1 -4 1 3 ) [I] 550, [II] 588
Julia, Livia (daughter of Drusus and Livilla) [I] 126
Julian of Pannonia (Augustus, A.D. 2 8 4 -2 8 5 ) [I] 383, [II] 468
Julian II ‘the Apostate’ (Augustus, A.D. 3 6 0 -3 6 3 ) [I] 519, [II] 563
Julius Caesar (Triumvir 6 0 -5 3 B.C., Dictator For Life, 44 B.C.) [I] 45, [II] 191
Julius Nepos (Augustus, A.D. 4 7 4 -4 7 5 and 4 7 7 -4 8 0 ) [I] 577, [II] 602
Leo I (Augustus, A.D. 4 5 7 -4 7 4 ) [I] 600, [II] 616
Leo Caesar (Caesar, A.D. 4 7 6 -4 7 7 ) [I] 615, [II] 626
' Lepidus (Triumvir, 4 3 -3 6 B.C.) [I] 72, [II] 205
Libius Severus (Severus III) (Augustus, A.D. 4 6 1 -4 6 5 ) [I] 567, [II] 597
Licinianus, Lucius Calpurnius Piso Frugi [I] 179
Licinius I (Augustus, A.D. 3 0 8 -3 2 4 ) [I] 464, [II] 523
Licinius II (Caesar, A.D. 3 1 7 -3 2 4 ) [I] 469, [II] 526
Livia Julia (see Julia, Livia)
Livilla, Julia (sister o f ‘Caligula’) [I] 150, [II] 265
Lucius Verus (Augustus, A.D. 1 6 1-169) [I] 248, [II] 369
Macrianus (Augustus, A.D. 2 6 0 -2 6 1 ) [I] 358, [II] 447
Macrinus (Augustus, A.D. 2 1 7 -2 1 8 ) [I] 287, [II] 398
Maesa, Julia (sister of Julia Domna) [I] 291, [II] 401
Magnentius (Augustus, A.D. 3 5 0 -3 5 3 ) [I] 510, [II] 556
Magnus Maximus (Augustus, A.D. 3 8 3 -3 8 8 ) [I] 538, [II] 581
M ajorian (Augustus, A.D. 4 5 7 -4 6 1 ) [I] 566, [II] 596
Mamaea, Julia (mother of Severus Alexander) [I] 303, [II] 407
Marc Antony (Marcus Antonius) (Triumvir, 4 3 -3 3 B.C.) [I] 74, [II] 207
Marc Antony and O ctavian (dual-portrait coinage) [II] 210
M arcian (Augustus, A.D. 4 5 0 -4 5 7 ) [I] 599, [II] 614
M arciana (sister of Trajan) [I] 232, [II] 346
Marcus (Augustus, A.D. 4 7 5 -4 7 6 ) [I] 614, [II] 625
Marcus Aurelius (Augustus, A.D. 16 1 -1 8 0 ) [I] 242, [II] 362
M ariniana (wife of Valerian I) [I] 349, [II] 440
Marinus, Julius (father of Philip I) [I] 330, [II] 425
INDEX 647

M artinian (Augustus, A.D. 324) [I] 471, [II] 527
Matidia (daughter of M arciana) [I] 232, [II] 347
Maxentius (Augustus, A.D. 3 0 7 -3 1 2 ) [I] 447, [II] 517
M aximian (Augustus, A.D. 2 8 6 -3 1 0 ) [I] 422, [II] 490
Maximinus I ‘T hrax’ (Augustus, A.D. 2 3 5 -2 3 8 ) [I] 314, [II] 411
Maximinus II ‘Daia’ (Augustus, A.D. 3 1 0 -3 1 3 ) [I] 442, [II] 513
Maximus (Augustus, A.D. 4 0 9 -4 1 1 ) [I] 547, [II] 586
Maximus, Magnus (see Magnus Maximus)
Messalina, Statilia (third wife of Nero) [I] 173, [II] 285
Messalina, Valeria (third wife of Claudius) [I] 157, [II] 271
Mines, Coins of [II] 332
Mucianus, Gaius Licinius Crassus [I] 179
Murcus (Imperator, c. 4 5 -4 2 B.C.) [I] 65, [II] 202
Nero (Augustus, A.D. 5 4 -6 8 ) [I] 164, [II] 277
Neronis, Claudia (daughter of Nero and Poppaea) [I] 172, [II] 284
Nerva (Augustus, A.D. 9 6 -9 8 ) [I] 227, [II] 335
Nigrinian (son of Carinus and(?) Magnia U rbica) [I] 381, [II] 465
Numerian (Augustus, A.D. 2 8 3 -2 8 4 ) [I] 382, [II] 466
O ctavia (fourth wife of Marc Antony) [I] 83, [II] 213
O ctavia, Claudia (first wife of Nero) [I] 169, [II] 282
O ctavian (see Augustus)
O ctavian and Marc Antony (see Marc Antony and O ctavian)
O tho (Augustus, A.D. 69) [I] 189, [II] 297
Pacatian (Augustus, c. A.D. 248—249( ?)) [I] 332, [II] 426
Palmyra, Kingdom of (historical text) [I] 398
Patricius (Caesar, A.D. 4 7 0 -4 7 1 ) [I] 604, [II] 618
Paula, Julia (first wife o f ‘Elagabalus’) [I] 299, [II] 405
Pescennius Niger (Augustus, A.D. 1 9 3 -1 9 4 ) [I] 262, [II] 381
Philip I ‘the Arab’ (Augustus, A.D. 2 4 4 -2 4 9 ) [I] 327, [II] 420
Philip II (Augustus, A.D. 2 4 7 -2 4 9 ) [I] 330, [II] 423
Placidia, Galla (wife of Constantius III) [I] 555, [II] 590
648 INDEX

Pompey the Great (Triumvir, 6 0 -5 3 B.C.) [I] 38, [II] 188
Pompey, Sextus (son of Pompey the Great) [I] 43, [II] 189
Postumus (Augustus, A.D. 2 6 0 -2 6 9 ) [I] 386, [II] 469
Primus, Marcus Antonius [I] 180
Priscus Attalus (First Reign, A.D. 4 0 9 -4 1 0 ) [I] 548, [II] 587
Priscus Attalus (Second Reign, A.D. 4 1 5 -4 1 6 ) [I] 551, [II] 589
Probus (Augustus, A.D. 2 7 6 -2 8 2 ) [I] 372, [II] 459
Procopius (Augustus, A.D. 3 6 5 -3 6 6 ) [I] 586, [II] 606
Proculus (Augustus, c. A.D. 2 8 0 -2 8 1 ) [I] 375, [II] 462
Ptolemy X V ( ‘Caesarion’) (son of Julius Caesar and Cleopatra V II) [I] 53, [II]
196
Pulcheria, A elia (sister of Theodosius II) [I] 596, [II] 613
Quadrantes, Anonymous [II] 330
Quietus (Augustus, A.D. 2 6 0 -2 6 1 ) [I] 359, [II] 448
Restored Coins of Trajan [II] 341
Ricim er (Master of Soldiers, A.D. 4 5 6 -4 7 2 ) [I] 569, [II] 598
Rom ano-British Empire (historical text) [I] 403
Rom ano-G allic Empire (historical text) [I] 385
Romulus Augustus (Augustus, A.D. 4 7 5 -4 7 6 ) [I] 580, [II] 603
Rufus, Lucius Verginius [I] 177
Sabinus, Flavius [I] 181
Sabinus, Gaius Nymphidius [I] 178
Satuminus (Augustus, A.D. 280) [I] 375, [II] 461
Scantilla, M anlia (wife of Didius Julianus) [I] 261, [II] 380
Scipio (see Metellus Pius Scipio)
Sebastianus (Augustus, A.D. 4 1 2 -4 1 3 ) [I] 551, [II] 588
Septimius Severus (Augustus, A.D. 19 3 -2 1 1 ) [I] 267, [II] 386
Severa, Aquilia (second and fourth wife o f ‘Elagabalus’) [I] 300, [II] 406
Severa, O tacilia (wife of Philip I) [I] 329, [II] 421
Severan-Em esan Dynasty (historical text) [I] 266
Severus Alexander (Augustus, A.D. 2 2 2 -2 3 5 ) [I] 305, [II] 408
INDEX 649
Severus II (Augustus, A.D. 3 0 6 -3 0 7 ) [I] 440, [II] 511

Severus III (see Libius Severus)
Silbannacus (Augustus, c. A.D. 248(?)) [I] 331, [II] 425
Soaemias, Julia (mother o f ‘Elagabalus’) [I] 293, [II] 402
Sponsianus (Augustus, c. A.D. 248( ?) ) [I] 331, [II] 425
Sulla (Dictator, 8 2 -7 9 B.C.) [I] 31, [II] 185
Supera, Cornelia (wife of Aem ilian) [I] 344, [II] 436
Tacitus (Augustus, A.D. 2 7 5 -2 7 6 ) [I] 370, [II] 457
Tetricus I (Augustus, A.D. 2 7 1 -2 7 4 ) [I] 396, [II] 476
Tetricus II (Augustus, A.D. 274(?)) [I] 397, [II] 478
Theodosius I (Augustus, A.D. 3 7 9 -3 9 5 ) [I] 587, [II] 607
Theodosius II (Augustus, A.D. 4 0 2 -4 5 0 ) [I] 593, [II] 611
Tiberius (Augustus, A.D. 1 4 -3 7 ) [I] 116, [II] 241
Titi, Julia (daughter of Titus) [I] 215, [II] 319
Titus (Augustus, A.D. 7 9 -8 1 ) [I] 212, [II] 313
Trajan (Augustus, A.D. 9 8 -1 1 7 ) [I] 228, [II] 337
Trajan, Restored Coins (see Restored Coins of Trajan)
Trajan Decius (Augustus, A.D. 2 4 9 -2 5 1 ) [I] 333, [II] 427
Trajan Decius, Divi Series (see Divi Series of Trajan Decius)
Trebonianus Gallus (Augustus, A.D. 2 5 1 -2 5 3 ) [I] 339, [II] 433
Uranius Antoninus (usurper, A.D. 2 5 3 -2 5 3 ) [I] 344, [II] 437
Urbica, Magnia (wife of Carinus) [I] 380, [II] 465
Valens (Augustus, A.D. 3 6 4 -3 7 8 ) [I] 584, [II] 605
Valens, Valerius (see Valerius Valens)
Valentinian I (Augustus, A.D. 3 6 4 -3 7 5 ) [I] 533, [II] 577
Valentinian II (Augustus, A.D. 3 7 5 -3 9 2 ) [I] 537, [II] 580
Valentinian III (Augustus, A.D. 4 2 5 -4 5 5 ) [I] 558, [II] 592
Valeria, Galeria (wife of Galerius) [I] 434, [II] 503
Valerian I (Augustus, A.D. 2 5 3 -2 6 0 ) [I] 346, [II] 438
Valerian II (Caesar, A.D. 2 5 6 -2 5 8 ) [I] 356, [II] 444
Valerius Valens (Augustus, A.D. 3 1 6 -3 1 7 ) [I] 471, [II] 527
Ventidius (Imperator, 41 o r3 9 (? ) B.C.) [I] 69, [II] 204
Verina, Aelia (wife of Leo I) [I] 602, [II] 617
Verus, Annius (son of Marcus Aurelius and Faustina Junior) [I] 247, [II] 368
Vespasian (Augustus, A.D. 6 9 -7 9 ) [I] 205, [II] 305
Victorinus (Augustus, A.D. 2 6 9 -2 7 1 ) [I] 394, [II] 475
650 INDEX
Vitellius, Lucius (father of Vitellius) [I] 197, [II] 301

Volusian (Augustus, A.D. 2 5 1 -2 5 3 ) [I] 341, [II] 434
W estern Roman Empire, Collapse of (historical text) [I] 581
Zeno (Augustus, A.D. 4 7 4 -4 7 5 and 4 7 6 -4 9 1 ) [I] 607, [II] 620
Zenonis, A elia (wife of Basiliscus) [I] 613, [II] 624
In d e x of P eo ple and S e c t io n s
( in o r d e r o f p r e s e n t a t io n )
Sulla (Dictator, 8 2 -7 9 B.C.) [I] 31, [II] 185

Flaccus (Imperator, 8 3 -8 2 B.C.) [I] 33, [II] 186
Crassus (Triumvir, 6 0 -5 3 B.C.) [I] 35, [II] 187
Pompey the Great (Triumvir, 6 0 -5 3 B.C.) [I] 38, [II] 188
Sextus Pompey (son of Pompey the Great) [I] 43, [II] 189
Julius Caesar (Triumvir 6 0 -5 3 B.C., Dictator For Life, 44 B.C.) [I] 45, [II] 191
Ptolemy X V (‘Caesarion’) (son of Julius Caesar and Cleopatra V II) [I] 53, [II]
196
Brutus (Imperator, 4 3 -4 2 B.C.) [I] 56, [II] 197
Cassius (Imperator, 4 3 -4 2 B.C.) [I] 60, [II] 200
Cornuficius (Imperator, 42 B.C.) [I] 63, [II] 201
Murcus (Imperator, c. 4 5 -4 2 B.C.) [I] 65, [II] 202
Ventidius (Imperator, 41 o r3 9 (?) B.C.) [I] 69, [II] 204
Lepidus (Triumvir, 4 3 -3 6 B.C.) [I] 72, [II] 205
Marc A ntony (Triumvir, 4 3 -3 3 B.C.) [I] 74, [II] 207
Marc A ntony and Octavian (dual-portrait coinage) [II] 210
Gaius Antonius (brother of Marc Antony) [I] 79, [II] 211
Lucius Antonius (brother of Marc Antony) [I] 80, [II] 212
Marcus Antonius Junior (son of Marc Antony and Fulvia) [I] 82, [II] 213
O ctavia (fourth wife of Marc Antony) [I] 83, [II] 213
Cleopatra V II (Queen of Egypt, 5 1 -3 0 B.C.) [I] 85, [II] 215
INDEX 651
Augustus (O ctavian) (Augustus, 27 B.C.-A.D. 14) [I] 96, [II] 217

Agrippa (lieutennant of Augustus) [I] 107, [II] 233
Asinius Gallus (potential successor of Augustus) [I] 112, [II] 237
Tiberius (Augustus, A.D. 1 4 -3 7 ) [I] 116, [II] 241
Livia Julia (daughter of Drusus and Livilla) [I] 126
Germanicus (son of Nero Claudius Drusus and A ntonia) [I] 136, [II] 254
‘Caligula’ (Gaius) (Augustus, A.D. 3 7 -4 1 ) [I] 143, [II] 261
Drusilla M inor (daughter o f ‘Caligula’) [I] 148, [II] 264
Julia Livilla (sister o f ‘Caligula’) [I] 150, [II] 265
Claudius (Augustus, A.D. 4 1 -5 4 ) [I] 151, [II] 266
Claudia A ntonia (daughter of Claudius) [I] 156, [II] 270
Valeria Messalina (third wife of Claudius) [I] 157, [II] 271
Nero (Augustus, A.D. 5 4 -6 8 ) [I] 164, [II] 277
Claudia O ctavia (first wife of Nero) [I] 169, [II] 282
Claudia Neronis (daughter of Nero and Poppaea) [I] 172, [II] 284
Statilia Messalina (third wife of Nero) [I] 173, [II] 285
Lucius Verginius Rufus [I] 177
Gaius Nymphidius Sabinus [I] 178
Lucius Calpurnius Piso Frugi Licinianus [I] 179
Gaius Licinius Crassus Mucianus [I] 179
Marcus Antonius Primus [I] 180
Flavius Sabinus [I] 181
Galba (Augustus, A.D. 6 8 -6 9 ) [I] 184, [II] 293
652 INDEX
O tho (Augustus, A.D. 69) [I] 189, [II] 297

Lucius Vitellius (father of Vitellius) [I] 197, [II] 301
Julius Civilis (rebel, A.D. 6 9 -7 0 ) [I] 200, [II] 303
Vespasian (Augustus, A.D. 6 9 -7 9 ) [I] 205, [II] 305
Titus (Augustus, A.D. 7 9 -8 1 ) [I] 212, [II] 313
Julia Titi (daughter of Titus) [I] 215, [II] 319
Domitian (Augustus, A.D. 8 1 -9 6 ) [I] 216, [II] 321
Deified Son of Domitian Vl/222, [II] 329
Anonymous Quadrantes [II] 330
Coins of the Mines [II] 332
Nerva (Augustus, A.D. 9 6 -9 8 ) [I] 227, [II] 335
Trajan (Augustus, A.D. 9 8 -1 1 7 ) [I] 228, [II] 337
T he Restored Coins of Trajan [II] 341
Trajan Pater (father of Trajan and M arciana) [I] 230, [II] 344
Hadrian (Augustus, A.D. 11 7 -1 3 8 ) [I] 233, [II] 348
Aelius (Caesar, A.D. 13 6 -1 3 8 ) [I] 236, [II] 353
Antinoiis (companion of Hadrian) [I] 237, [II] 354
Antoninus Pius (Augustus, A.D. 13 8 -1 6 1 ) [I] 238, [II] 355
Galerius Antoninus (son of Antoninus Pius and Faustina Senior) [I] 241, [II] 362
Marcus Aurelius (Augustus, A.D. 161 -1 8 0 ) [I] 242, [II] 362
Aurelius Antoninus (son of Marcus Aurelius and Faustina Junior) [I] 246,
[II] 368
Annius Verus (son of Marcus Aurelius and Faustina Junior) [I] 247, [II] 368
Lucius Verus (Augustus, A.D. 16 1 -1 6 9 ) [I] 248, [II] 369
Commodus (Augustus, A.D. 177 -1 9 2 ) [I] 251, [II] 372
M anlia Scantilla (wife of Didius Julianus) [I] 261, [II] 380
Didia Clara (daughter of Didius Julianus) [I] 262, [II] 380
Pescennius Niger (Augustus, A.D. 19 3 -1 9 4 ) [I] 262, [II] 381
Clodius Albinus (Augustus, A.D. 19 5 -1 9 7 ) [I] 264, [II] 382
INDEX 653
Severan-Em esan Dynasty (historical text) [I] 266

Septimius Severus (Augustus, A.D. 1 9 3 -2 1 1 ) [I] 267, [II] 386
Julia Domna (wife of Septimius Severus) [I] 273, [II] 389
‘Caracalla’ (Antoninus) (Augustus, A.D. 19 8 -2 1 7 ) [I] 276, [II] 391
Plautilla (wife of ‘Caracalla’) [I] 282, [II] 395
G eta (Augustus, A.D. 2 0 9 -2 1 1 ) [I] 283, [II] 396
Macrinus (Augustus, A.D. 2 1 7 -2 1 8 ) [I] 287, [II] 398
Julia Maesa (sister of Julia Domna) [I] 291, [II] 401
Julia Soaemias (mother o f ‘Elagabalus’) [I] 293, [II] 402
‘Elagabalus’ (Antoninus) (Augustus, A.D. 2 1 8 -2 2 2 ) [I] 295, [II] 403
Julia Paula (first wife o f ‘Elagabalus’) [I] 299, [II] 405
Aquilia Severa (second and fourth wife of ‘Elagabalus’) [I] 300, [II] 406
A nnia Faustina (third wife o f ‘Elagabalus’) [I] 301, [II] 406
Julia Mamaea (mother of Severus Alexander) [I] 303, [II] 407
Severus Alexander (Augustus, A.D. 2 2 2 -2 3 5 ) [I] 305, [II] 408
Maximinus I ‘T hrax’ (Augustus, A.D. 2 3 5 -2 3 8 ) [I] 314, [II] 411
Gordian III (Augustus, A.D. 2 3 8 -2 4 4 ) [I] 324, [II] 417
Philip I ‘the Arab’ (Augustus, A.D. 2 4 4 -2 4 9 ) [I] 327, [II] 420
O tacilia Severa (wife of Philip I) [I] 329, [II] 421
Philip II (Augustus, A.D. 2 4 7 -2 4 9 ) [I] 330, [II] 423
Julius Marinus (father of Philip I) [I] 330, [II] 425
Silbannacus (Augustus, c. A.D. 248(?))V1/331, [II] 425
Sponsianus (Augustus, c. A.D. 248(?))V 1/331, [II] 425
Pacatian (Augustus, c. A.D. 24 8-249(?))V l/ 332, [II] 426
Jotapian (Augustus, c. A.D. 24 8 -249(?))V l/ 332, [II] 426
Trajan Decius (Augustus, A.D. 2 4 9 -2 5 1 ) [I] 333, [II] 427
T he Divi Series of Trajan Decius [II] 428
Herennia Etruscilla (wife of Trajan Decius) [I] 336, [II] 430
Trebonianus Gallus (Augustus, A.D. 2 5 1 -2 5 3 ) [I] 339, [II] 433
Volusian (Augustus, A.D. 2 5 1 -2 5 3 ) [I] 341, [II] 434
A em ilian (Augustus, A.D. 253) [I] 342, [II] 435
Cornelia Supera (wife of A em ilian) [I] 344, [II] 436
Uranius Antoninus (usurper, A.D. 2 5 3 -2 5 3 ) [I] 344, [II] 437
Valerian I (Augustus, A.D. 2 5 3 -2 6 0 ) [I] 346, [II] 438
654 INDEX
Gallienus (Augustus, A.D. 2 5 3 -2 6 8 ) [I] 349, [II] 441

Valerian II (Caesar, A.D. 2 5 6 -2 5 8 ) [I] 356, [II] 444
Macrianus (Augustus, A.D. 2 6 0 -2 6 1 ) [I] 358, [II] 447
Quietus (Augustus, A.D. 2 6 0 -2 6 1 ) [I] 359, [II] 448
Claudius II ‘Gothicus’ (Augustus, A.D. 2 6 8 -2 7 0 ) [I] 361, [II] 451
Aurelian (Augustus, A.D. 2 7 0 -2 7 5 ) [I] 364, [II] 453
The So-C alled ‘Interregnum Bronzes’ [II] 456
Tacitus (Augustus, A.D. 2 7 5 -2 7 6 ) [I] 370, [II] 457
Probus (Augustus, A.D. 2 7 6 -2 8 2 ) [I] 372, [II] 459
Proculus (Augustus, c. A.D. 2 8 0 -2 8 1 ) [I] 375, [II] 462
Carus (Augustus, A.D. 2 8 2 -2 8 3 ) [I] 377, [II] 462
Carinus (Augustus, A.D. 2 8 3 -2 8 5 ) [I] 378, [II] 463
Magnia Urbica (wife of Carinus) [I] 380, [II] 465
Numerian (Augustus, A.D. 2 8 3 -2 8 4 ) [I] 382, [II] 466
Julian of Pannonia (Augustus, A.D. 2 8 4 -2 8 5 ) [I] 383, [II] 468
T h e R om ano-G allic Empire (historical text) [I] 385
Postumus (Augustus, A.D. 2 6 0 -2 6 9 ) [I] 386, [II] 469
Aureolus (usurper, A.D. 2 6 7 (? )-2 6 8 ) [I] 389, [II] 472
Domitianus (Augustus, A.D. 269(?) or 271 ( ?))V 1/393, [II] 474
Victorinus (Augustus, A.D. 2 6 9 -2 7 1 ) [I] 394, [II] 475
Tetricus I (Augustus, A.D. 2 7 1 -2 7 4 ) [I] 396, [II] 476
Tetricus II (Augustus, A.D. 274(?))V l/397, [II] 478
T he Kingdom of Palmyra (historical text) [I] 398
T h e Rom ano-British Empire (historical text) [I] 403
A llectus (Augustus, A.D. 293-296/7) [I] 407, [II] 483
Diocletian (Augustus, A.D. 2 8 4 -3 0 5 ) [I] 416, [II] 485
Maximian (Augustus, A.D. 2 8 6 -3 1 0 ) [I] 422, [II] 490
Amandus (Augustus, c. A.D. 2 8 5 -2 8 6 ) [I] 428, [II] 497
Galerius (Augustus, A.D. 3 0 5 -3 1 1 ) [I] 430, [II] 499
Galeria Valeria (wife of Galerius) [I] 434, [II] 503
Constantius I ‘Chlorus’ (Augustus, A.D. 3 0 5 -3 0 6 ) [I] 435, [II] 504
INDEX 655

Severus II (Augustus, A.D. 3 0 6 -3 0 7 ) [I] 440, [II] 511
Maximinus II ‘Daia’ (Augustus, A.D. 3 1 0 -3 1 3 ) [I] 442, [II] 513
Maxentius (Augustus, A.D. 3 0 7 -3 1 2 ) [I] 447, [II] 517
Alexander of Carthage (Augustus, A.D. 3 0 8 -3 1 0 ) [I] 455, [II] 521
Licinius I (Augustus, A.D. 3 0 8 -3 2 4 ) [I] 464, [II] 523
Licinius II (Caesar, A.D. 3 1 7 -3 2 4 ) [I] 469, [II] 526
Valerius Valens (Augustus, A.D. 3 1 6 -3 1 7 ) [I] 471, [II] 527
M artinian (Augustus, A.D. 324) [I] 471, [II] 527
Constantine I ‘the G reat’ (Augustus, A.D. 3 0 7 -3 3 7 ) [I] 473, [II] 533
Crispus (Caesar, A.D. 3 1 6 -3 2 6 ) [I] 489, [II] 543
Delmatius (Caesar, A.D. 3 3 5 -3 3 7 ) [I] 491, [II] 545
Hanniballianus (Rex Regum, A.D. 3 3 5 -3 3 7 ) [I] 492, [II] 546
Constantine II (Augustus, A.D. 3 3 7 -3 4 0 ) [I] 494, [II] 547
Constans (Augustus, A.D. 3 3 7 -3 5 0 ) [I] 497, [II] 550
Constantius II (Augustus, A.D. 3 3 7 -3 6 1 ) [I] 500, [II] 553
Magnentius (Augustus, A.D. 3 5 0 -3 5 3 ) [I] 510, [II] 556
Decentius (Caesar, A.D. 3 5 0 -3 5 3 ) [I] 513, [II] 558
Constantius Gallus (Caesar, A.D. 3 5 1 -3 5 4 ) [I] 518, [II] 561
Julian II ‘the Apostate’ (Augustus, A.D. 3 6 0 -3 6 3 ) [I] 519, [II] 563
Jovian (Augustus, A.D. 3 6 3 -3 6 4 ) [I] 525, [II] 565
A Brief Introduction to the Divided Empire (historical text) [I] 527
Valentinian I (Augustus, A.D. 3 6 4 -3 7 5 ) [I] 533, [II] 577
Gratian (Augustus, A.D. 3 6 7 -3 8 3 ) [I] 535, [II] 578
Valentinian II (Augustus, A.D. 3 7 5 -3 9 2 ) [I] 537, [II] 580
Magnus Maximus (Augustus, A.D. 3 8 3 -3 8 8 ) [I] 538, [II] 581
Flavius Victor (Augustus, A.D. 3 8 7 -3 8 8 ) [I] 539, [II] 582
Eugenius (Augustus, A.D. 3 9 2 -3 9 4 ) [I] 540, [II] 583
Honorius (Augustus, A.D. 3 9 3 -4 2 3 ) [I] 541, [II] 583
Constantine III (Augustus, A.D. 4 0 7 -4 1 1 ) [I] 544, [II] 585
Maximus (Augustus, A.D. 4 0 9 -4 1 1 ) [I] 547, [II] 586
Priscus Attalus (First Reign, A.D. 4 0 9 -4 1 0 ) [I] 548, [II] 587
Jovinus (Augustus, A.D. 4 1 1 -4 1 3 ) [I] 550, [II] 588
Sebastianus (Augustus, A.D. 4 1 2 -4 1 3 ) [I] 551, [II] 588
Priscus Attalus (Second Reign, A.D. 4 1 5 -4 1 6 ) [I] 551, [II] 589
Galla Placidia (wife of Constantius III) [I] 555, [II] 590
Johannes (Augustus, A.D. 4 2 3 -4 2 5 ) [I] 556, [II] 591
656 INDEX
Valentinian III (Augustus, A.D. 4 2 5 -4 5 5 ) [II 558, [II] 592

Licinia Eudoxia (wife of Valentinian III) [I] 561, [II] 594
Avitus (Augustus, A.D. 4 5 5 -4 5 6 ) [I] 564, [II] 595
M ajorian (Augustus, A.D. 4 5 7 -4 6 1 ) [I] 566, [II] 596
Libius Severus (Severus III) (Augustus, A.D. 4 6 1 -4 6 5 ) [I] 567, [II] 597
Ricim er (Master of Soldiers, A.D. 4 5 6 -4 7 2 ) [I] 569, [II] 598
Anthemius (Augustus, A.D. 4 6 7 -4 7 2 ) [I] 570, [II] 598
A elia Euphemia (wife of Anthemius) [I] 572, [II] 599
Alypia (daughter of Anthemius and Aelia Euphemia) [I] 573, [II] 600
Glycerius (Augustus, A.D. 4 7 3 -4 7 4 ) [I] 575, [II] 601
Gundobad (Master of Soldiers, A.D. 4 7 2 -4 7 4 ) [I] 576, [II] 602
Julius Nepos (Augustus, A.D. 4 7 4 -4 7 5 and 4 7 7 -4 8 0 ) [I] 577, [II] 602
Romulus Augustus (Augustus, A.D. 4 7 5 -4 7 6 ) [I] 580, [II] 603
Collapse of the West (historical text) [I] 581
Valens (Augustus, A.D. 3 6 4 -3 7 8 ) [I] 584, [II] 605
Procopius (Augustus, A.D. 3 6 5 -3 6 6 ) [I] 586, [II] 606
Theodosius I (Augustus, A.D. 3 7 9 -3 9 5 ) [I] 587, [II] 607
A elia Flaccilla (wife of Theodosius I) [I] 589, [II] 608
Arcadius (Augustus, A.D. 3 8 3 -4 0 8 ) [I] 590, [II] 609
A elia Eudoxia (wife of Arcadius) [I] 592, [II] 610
Theodosius II (Augustus, A.D. 4 0 2 -4 5 0 ) [I] 593, [II] 611
A elia Pulcheria (sister of Theodosius II) [I] 596, [II] 613
A elia Eudocia (wife of Theodosius II) [I] 597, [II] 614
M arcian (Augustus, A.D. 4 5 0 -4 5 7 ) [I] 599, [II] 614
Leo I (Augustus, A.D. 4 5 7 -4 7 4 ) [I] 600, [II] 616
A elia Verina (wife of Leo I) [I] 602, [II] 617
Patricius (Caesar, A.D. 4 7 0 -4 7 1 ) [I] 604, [II] 618
Zeno (Augustus, A.D. 4 7 4 -4 7 5 and 4 7 6 -4 9 1 ) [I] 607, [II] 620
A elia Ariadne (wife of Zeno) [I] 610, [II] 622
Basiliscus (Augustus, A.D. 4 7 5 -4 7 6 ) [I] 612, [II] 623
A elia Zenonis (wife of Basiliscus) [I] 613, [II] 624
Marcus (Augustus, A.D. 4 7 5 -4 7 6 ) [I] 614, [II] 625
Leo Caesar (Caesar, A.D. 4 7 6 -4 7 7 ) [I] 615, [II] 626

David Vagi - Coinage and History of The Roman Empire, C. 82 B.C. - A.D. 480. 1 & 2-Routledge (2016)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

David Vagi - Coinage and History of The Roman Empire, C. 82 B.C. - A.D. 480. 1 & 2-Routledge (2016)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

David Vagi - Coinage and History of The Roman Empire, C. 82 B.C. - A.D. 480. 1 & 2-Routledge (2016)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CO IN A G E a n d

This edition published 2015 by Routledge

Copyright © 1999 by David L. Vagi

A ll rights reserved including the right of reproduction in whole

British Library and Library of Congress Cataloging'^publication data available

ISBN: 978-1-138-99907-7 (vol 1) (hbk)

Permission to use illustrations was granted by the following companies:

Certain numismatic numbering systems are referenced by kind permission

Permission to reference the catalog numbering system in this book is freely

Book design, typography and pre^press by S tu d io 3 1 , I n c .

Fo rew o rd by R o bert W. H oge xv

HISTO RY OF TH E RO M A N EMPIRE: BIOGRAPHIES

Contributions: O f the many people who contributed to this book, there

I am thankful beyond measure to Al, Marsha, Jean-Paul, Brian, Pratima,

preserved. A ll final decisions about the values were made independently

Illustrations: Without photographs, this work would be considerably less

Many sources — primary and secondary — were used to gather informa-

The purpose of this book is two-fold: to provide numismatists with a study

this project to fruition — I must confess — I am not certain I would have

Volume I: History of the Roman Empire

Volume II: Coinage of the Roman Empire

Numismatic Introduction. This section, which opens with a general

88-82 B.C. — The wars among Sulla, Marius and Mithradates V I. On

4 9 -4 4 B.C. — Civil war between the Pompeians and Caesar. Caesar

4 4 -4 3 B.C. — Antony and Octavian Collide. Nineteen-year-old Gaius

4 3 - 4 2 B.C. — Triumvirs versus Republicans. Having senatorial authority

him, joined him in forming the Second Triumvirate on November 11, 43

4 0 -35 B.C. — Consolidation of Power. In addition to the marriage

3 5 - 3 1 B.C. — Prelude to Actium. Now the Roman world was exclusively

Antony remained in their spheres of influence, rallying support for the

3 1 - 2 7 B.C. — Actium, and the foundation of the Empire. Now Octavian

Lucius Cornelius Sulla, 138 -78 B.C. The early

But when Flaccus’ soldiers began to desert to Sulla, he quarreled with

N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : The gilded equestrian statue awarded to Sulla for his

victories against Mithradates VI is depicted on his coinage by the moneyer

Gaius Valerius Flaccus, lifespan unknown. Flaccus, a member of the dis­

N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : Flaccus’ denarii of Massalia are a military issue. The

Quintus Caecilius Metellus Pius, d. c. 63 B.C. Metellus Pius came to

N u m is m a t ic N o t e : Though Metellus Pius’ fame is largely derived from his

Marcus Licinius Crassus, c. 1 1 5 / 1 1 2 - 5 3 A man of immense wealth,

With Crassus’ patronage, Caesar rose considerably in office, and in 59 B.C.

The only coinage attributable to Crassus are Syrian

POMPEY THE GREAT

Fa t h e r of P o m pey J u n io r and S extus P o m pey

Gnaeus Pompeius “ Magnus,” 106-48 B .C . Few Romans generals were as

As remarkable as Pompey’s accomplishments had been thus far, the

N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : With the possible exception of provincial aes of

Pompeiopolis (which bear no dates), no portrait coins of Pompey the

Gnaeus Pompeius (Junior), 79-45 B.C. As the

His first notable action was a naval victory in which he destroyed

N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : Much like his father, Pompey Junior died before the

era of ‘lifetime portraiture’ on coinage had debuted at Rome, and so his

Sextus Pompeius Magnus, 6 7 -3 5 The legacy

in August he used his legionary might to try to extort control of Sicily

N u m i s m a t i c N o t e : Since the main source of the Pompeian glory was its

G ran dun cle and A d o p t iv e Fa t h e r of A u g u st u s

C o m p a n io n o f S e r v il ia (m . of Br u tu s) and Q ueen C leo pa tr a V II

F a t h e r -i n -la w of P o m pey the G reat

Caesar’s intuition and charisma as a commander of men gained him

Gaius Valerius Flaccus, lifespan unknown. Flaccus, a member of the dis

Quintus Caecilius Metellus Pius Scipio, d. 46 B .C . The career of Metel

Quintus Salvius Salvidienus Rufus, d. 40 B.C. A boyhood friend of O cta

Gnaeus Domitius Calvinus, lifespan unknown. Calvinus began his polit

Quintus Labienus “ Parthicus,” d. 39 B.C. Quin

The aurei and denarii honoring Lucius Antonius’ con

O ctavia’s portraits on coinage occur in all three met