Aureolus. Gallic Usurper, General of Postumus, AD 268-269. Antoninianus. 19mm, 3.06 gm. Here is a coin I have come across, all who know of this guy can fill us in on the rarity of a coin such as this, were there other types of coins, silver and larger ones with his image on them, He was not in the spotlight for long, all knowledge is always helpful for anyone such as myself being the first I have ever heard of this individual and know little on the history of his coins..? What I know is distilled from the internet about Aureolus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aureolus
My views on Aureolus have not changed since my 1998 page: http://www.forumancientcoins.com/dougsmith/feac75aur.html I do believe that these are interesting coins but a lot of the use the name that does not appear on the coins is hype to sell coins. Aureolus was a general loyal to Postumus. I prefer to call the coins 'Postumus, Milan mint' or 'Postumus during the revolt of Aureolus'.
I find it interesting that he decided to throw in his lot with Postumus rather than strike his own portrait coins. I suppose the belief was that Gallienus and/or his general Claudius II would make short work of his revolt. The wiki article on Aureolus' reads like a panegyric rather than a "fair and balanced" treatment of the facts.
Quite interesting, but since he didn't put his own name on there... well... But hey, regardless, that's a handsome coin in the OP. Terrific portrait.
I believe the interesting point made by the Wikipedia article is that Postumus was unable to assist against Gallienus/Claudius because he was occupied with other usurpers in his own region. Had this not been the case, the eventual outcome might have been different. Setting up as a third Augustus sandwiched between the Roman and Gallic empires would certainly not have gone well for Aureolus. As it was, he picked the wrong horse. Perhaps he was hoping that Claudius would march East to settle Palmyra leaving the West to Gaul. We never know why; it is hard enough to know what happened. The history of this period is muddy at best and based on later semi-historical fiction like Historia Augusta. The role and personality of Claudius II is thrown into considerable question since he was selected as most favored ancestor by Constantine I who even issued memorial coins for him. Nothing negative about the man would have survived that period. What we do not know for sure about much of Roman history should give you cause to read critically even more than usual. What we don't know about Gallienus through Carus is frightening. In some cases, the safest 'document' on the period is our coins. Historians make names for themselves by proposing new versions of 'facts' and discrediting the previous generation who had done the same thing a generation before. The difference between opinions, interpretations and facts needs to be kept in mind whenever reading 'history'.
I dunno, Aureolis and Postumus look like Santa Clause to me... Kinda like @dougsmit , too... Must be a conspiracy. I think I may have to rename these: DOUG SMITH, as struck by Postumus and Aureolis... AUREOLIS RI Postumus struck by Aureolus 268 CE Revolt of Milan Concordia POSTUMUS RI Postumus 259-268 CE Antoninianus Cologne Oriens ex: @TIF
Great Usurper Aureolus OP coin! Congrats! I would like to have that reverse type for my collection someday. Here is My seated FIDES version: Aureolus, Ant Aureolus, usurper (AD 267-268) in the name of Postumus. Æ Antoninianus Attribution: RIC Vii 378 Mediolanum Date: AD 268 Obverse: IMP C POSTVMVS P F AVG, radiate, cuirassed bust right Reverse: FIDES E-QVIT, Fides seated left holding patera and standard, P in exergue
Gallic Empire - Aureolus (usurper struck for Postumus, maybe) Antoninianus (267 A.D.) Milan Mint IMP C POSTVMVS P F AVG, radiate, draped & cuirassed bust right / FIDES EQVIT, Fides seated left holding patera and standard; P in exergue. RIC 377, Cohen 59; Sear 10938. (1.91 grams / 18 mm)
I agree with the point about sales hype. On their face, the "Aureolus" coins are issues of Postumus. The attribution to Aureolus rests on the (tentative?) assignment of these coins to Milan, which Postumus is not known to have held. Aureolus was beseiged there after rebelling against Gallienus. The idea of a propaganda issue directed specifically at the Equites, which Aureolus had commanded before his break with Gallienus, is intriguing. The best coins are the ones that raise questions which keep us up past bedtime.
This was an informative comment, thank you, basically it then is just another Postumus coin and should have no more or no less considered value simply because it was minted during this specific time of Aureolus..??
