Quick View Thumbnails (minus the two images direct from CT Gallery): Is it time for a new Fallen Horseman thread yet? (By the way, feel free to post any other Fallen Horseman or FEL TEMP or related stuff.) I’ve been wondering about two features I’ve noticed but cannot identify (or find discussed elsewhere). Some examples below (auction links are to ACSearch.info records; NBD links to nummus-bible-database.com). Not exactly sure what to call them, but... Feature 1 (“extra leg”) I’ve only noticed this one on one particular scarcer type (certain Constans AE2s of Thessalonica). There's some kind of long line in between the rider's leg and the horse's leg. Feature 2 (“soldier’s kit”) is common and appears on AE2s and/or AE3s of all four (main) emperors (Constantius II, Constantius Gallus, Constans, and Julian II AE3s). But I still haven't seen anyone talk about it. An example illustrating both features (sadly, I sold it c. 2013/4): Example 1.1 / 2.1: Constans AE2 (Thessalonica, RIC 116) Showing Both Features. Roman Imperial. Constans (337-350) AE Maiorina (27mm, 6.24 g, 6h). Thessalonica Mint, 348 – 350. Obv: D N CONSTANS P F AVG. Pearl-diademed, draped and cuirassed bust right; holding globe. Rev: FEL TEMP REPARATIO / TSΓ* in exergue. Soldier spearing fallen horseman (FH1). Ref: RIC 116; NVMMVS BIBLE II NBD N° 18973 (this coin). Prov: Ex-Curtis, acq. Gitbud & Naumann (13 Apr 2013; see NBD link above); sold in 2013 or 2014 (wish I didn’t!); later, CNG EA 329 (25 Jun 2014), 564 (“Fairfield Collection”). FEATURE 1. “Extra Leg”: Between Rider’s Leg and Horse’s Hind Leg. (Stirrup? Some other gear? 2nd hindleg?) I don’t really know what it could be. It seems too long to be a stirrup (perhaps not the kind of stirrup that Doug meant, which would be in front of the horseman’s leg), but too small and flimsy to be the horse’s other hindleg. But maybe it is one of those? I’ve only noticed it on one other (current) example of my own – also a Constans, Thessalonica, type FH1 (clutching horse’s neck), with TSΓ* in exergue (RIC 116). But I’ve also seen it on other reverse dies (e.g., G&M 241, 2727 and – especially clearly – CNG EA 343, 625). Some Thessalonica-RIC 116's don't have it. Example 1.2: Roman Imperial. Constans (337-350) AE Maiorina (5.45, 25mm, 6h). Thessalonica Mint, 348 – 350. Obv: D N CONSTANS P F AVG. Pearl-diademed, draped and cuirassed bust right; holding globe. Rev: FEL TEMP REPARATIO / TSΓ* in exergue. Soldier spearing fallen horseman (FH1). Ref: RIC 116. Prov: Ex-Gitbud & Naumann Pecunem 15 (Vienna, 6 Apr 2014), 771 [since conserved]. [CT Gallery] FEATURE 2. Soldier’s “Kit”: Club? Axe / Fasces? The second feature is much more common. It is not visible on all Fallen Horsemen, but on at least some coins of all four main authorities to strike them. (It can be seen on the first coin shown, above). Guido Bruck (1961/2014, trans., Late Roman Bronze Coinage: An Attribution Guide for Poorly Preserved Coins: pp. 50-54) illustrates this feature on several of his drawings for both AE2s and AE3s of different mints and types of fallen horsemen. I see it regularly on AE2s and/or AE3s of Constantius II, Constantius Gallus, Constans, and Julian II (I haven’t included any of Julian’s here): It appears to be part of the soldier’s kit, hanging at the waist, beneath his shield and flowing capes. Sometimes it looks like a nondescript cylinder, sometimes like a club. Sometimes it looks like it could be an axe. Perhaps even a bit like the fasces carried over the shoulders of Brutus’ lictors, centuries earlier (below). Examples 2.2-2.4 (Group Zoom): Varieties of the “Soldier’s Kit” on examples of Constantius II (Cyzicus & Constantinople) and Constantius Gallus (Antioch). [A couple more in my previous comment here.] Ex 2.2-4 (Full images): Roman Imperial. Constantius II (Augustus, 337-361) AE Maiorina (5.20g, 25mm, 12h). Cyzicus, 351 – 355. Obv: D N CONSTANTIVS P F AVG. Diademed, draped and cuirassed bust right. Rev: FEL TEMP REPARATIO. Γ in left field. •SMKA in exergue. Soldier, bearing shield decorated with three pellets above and below central hub, spearing fallen horseman. Type FH3. Ref: RIC VIII 96; NVMMVS BIBLE II NBD N° 95642 (this coin). Prov: Ex-InAsta spa Auction 91, 427 (San Marino, 15 Dec 2020). [CT Gallery] Roman Imperial. “The Gran Constantinople.” Constantius II AE Maiorina (7.67g, 25mm, 12h). Constantinople, 348-351 CE. Obv: D N CONSTANTIVS P F AVG. Pearl-diademed, draped and cuirassed bust. Rev: FEL TEMP REPARATIO // Γ // CONSE* in ex. Soldier spearing fallen horseman. Ref: RIC 82; NVMMVS BIBLE II NBD N° 61536 (this coin). Prov: Ex-Bertolami Fine Arts Auction 37 (Rome, 19 Sep 2017), 1554 & EA 92 (London, 2 Oct 2020), 699. [CT Gallery] Roman Imperial. Constantius Gallus (351-354) AE Maiorina (4.44g, 22mm, 6h). Antioch, 351-354 CE. Obv: DN CONSTANTIVS NOB CAES//Δ. Bareheaded, draped, cuirassed bust r. Rev: FEL TEMP REPARATIO//AN- (exergue). Roman soldier, crested helmet, spearing fallen horseman (Germ.?) reaching upward (FH3), bareheaded (braided?), loose tunic, trousers. Ref: RIC 139. Prov: Ex-Peus EA 10 (Frankfurt, 18 Jan 2020), 599; DeVries Coll; F Taylor AUS 82. [CT Gallery] Maybe something similar to Fasces (Brutus & Koson coinage)? Don't know why a soldier would have that. Just a wild speculation. Any thoughts? Any examples that may clarify? If anybody wants to share other anatomical anomalies of the FH series, that’d be interesting too. For all the discussions, I suspect there’s still more of interest to see.
A sword sheath? Although in the coin that I compared with my Ceylonese imitative clearly resembles a club.
I have to claim ignorance for myself on both as I can't say 100% what they are but... Feature 2, I've always assumed it was a sheath but odd that it is mostly depicted with a flat tip rather than pointed (though I have seen depictions of the former a few times). Some earlier FH don't show one at all. Could it be a quiver? Feature 1 I think is the other leg further back but I really don't know. I supposed it could be a strap? There seems to be a lot of freedom on the design, especially earlier issues.
I have always assumed it to be a parazonium, which often seem to have a square/round ended sheath. https://www.cointalk.com/threads/domitian-as-parazonium.290030/
Feature 1 must be the furthest hind leg of the horse with both legs stretched out. One similar to yours. These types don't often show all the legs. Some are clearer than others. The following coin has the horsemans legs tucked up and thus allowed a full depiction of the horse. Here they have again attempted to show the other hind leg
Great answers and info and examples, @JayAg47 , @randygeki and @maridvnvm ! Very helpful. I do think #1 must be the horse's other hind leg shown partially underneath the closest one, thank you. For #2, the sheath/scabbard for a sword or parazonium definitely makes sense and seems to fit. That seems like a great solution. I think the apparent cylindrical shape on certain coins may just be an artifact of the decorations on the sheath/scabbard and that, despite being a large coin for the time, it's still a pretty small feature to engrave. Couple more for fun: Including also a barbarian with very interesting trousers:
The barbarian detail is quite pronounced at Antioch. The depiction of the Parazonium does vary quite significantly and on some (see 3rd example below) is much narrower At Constantinople the parazonium is sometimes not depicted and yet at others appears as a series of dots Alexandria is not convincing and it could just a a sword / rod.... It is a similar vague story from the other mints....
I recently saw the following coin which clearly seems to show the second hind leg all the way down to a distinct hoof......
And just another Fallen Horseman from a multiple lot; these are very common coins, nothing special here; this one is from Cyzikus and the reverse is like this one that I found on https://www.tesorillo.com/aes/024/024i.htm Æ Centenionalis 21.88 x 22.95 mm, 5.335 g, 12h Mysia, Kyzikos, 348 – 350 AD, Officina Δ = 4th officina RIC VIII Cyzicus 93A var (unlisted officina); Failmzger 409; Obv.: DN CONSTAN-TIVS PF AVG Pearl-diademed, draped, cuirassed bust of Constantius II to r. Border of dots. Rev.: FEL TEMP RE-PARATIO Soldier spearing fallen horseman who is wearing a Phrygian helmet and is reaching backwards. Γ in left field. Mintmark: •SMKΔ Just bringing to life this old thread Please share anything relevant.
Are you sure of the attribution as RIC VIII Cyzicus 93A var. Wouldn't the dot preceding the mintmark make it RIC VIII Cyzicus 96? I don't have a 93A but I do have some 95 and 96 examples. RIC VIII Cyzicus 95 RIC VIII Cyzicus 96
You are right @maridvnvm, thank you very much. It doesn't seem to be RIC VIII Cyzicus 93A, but RIC VIII Cyzikus 95 according to RIC online at https://numismatics.org/ocre/id/ric.8.cyz.95 RIC VIII Cyzikus 96 is not in RIC online. However, the RIC VIII (pdf) doesn't have an entry for Γ in left field. Mintmark: •SMKΔ This is really very confusing. The attribution 93A I found it at wildwinds: https://www.wildwinds.com/coins/ric/constantius_II/_cyzicus_RIC_viii_093_1.txt Here is the page with numbers RIC VIII Cyzikus 93A, 95 and 96:
The difference between the two issues is the dot preceding the mintmark in the exe placing yours in the second of the two issues. The difference between RIC VIII Cyzikus 95 and 96 is the headwear of the captive. RIC VIII Cyzikus 95 is bare headed and bearded and RIC VIII Cyzikus 96 is beardless and wears a "pointed cap" for which read "phrygian cap". I would suggest that your is beardless and wears something on the head and thus would be RIC VIII Cyzikus 96. My examples above show the different details on the captives quite clearly.
Thank you so much for your explanation, and time and patience with me @maridvnvm, now I finally understand. Will change the attribution to RIC VIII Cyzikus 96 on my note.
