As most of you know will know, Aemilianus was a very short-lived emperor of the mid-3rd century. Indeed, his rule of some 3 months in 253 is kind of emblematic for the crisis of the 3rd century. Born in around AD 207, Aemilian was of African stock. In 253 he was in charge of the legions at Danubian frontier (Pannonia and Moesia). In this capacity he achieved an important victory over the advancing Goths, which emboldened him to make a bid for the imperial crown. Hence, he marched on Rome. After some success against Trebonianus Gallus and his son Volusianus, Aemillian was defeated and killed by his successor Valerian I. http://www.roman-emperors.org/aemaem.htm What I find curious is that Aemilian may never actually have entered Rome. Yet, all of his rare Antoniniae are supposed to have been minted in Rome. I would have thought that one important privilege and source of power was for an emperor to mint coins and use the "seigniorage", i.e. the difference between the value of the metal and the nominal value of the coins to pay troops and other supporters. However, if Aemillian never reached Rome, how did he get his hands on the coins? I have only one coin of Aemilian Obv.: IMP AEMILIANVS PIVS FEL AVG Rev.: APOL CONSERVAT RIC 1 I would be interested to see your Antoniniae of Aemillian or any other coins relevant to the events of AD 253.
Very pleasant coin from a scarce ruler. I don't have any coins from Aemilian but the coin in my avatar is from 253. Gallienus AD 253-268. Rome Antoninianus AR 22 mm, 1,99 g RIC V Gallienus (joint reign) 131 Cohen 125 Date: AD 253 Obverse Legend: IMP C P LIC GALLIENVS AVG Type: Bust of Gallienus, radiate, draped, right Reverse Legend: CONCORDIA AVGG Type: Two right hands clasped together
The celators must have received a bust of Aemilian so they had a model for the coin portraits. That's all I can think of. In the case of Gordian I and II we have coins minted in Rome with their likenesses yet neither of the Gordians ever left Africa before Gordian II was killed in battle against Capellianus the governor of Numidia who remained loyal to Maximinus Thrax. Gordian I hanged himself when he heard the news.
Here is an Antoninian of Valerian I, which dates to AD 253, I suppose September to December of 253 to be precise: Obv: IMP P LIC VALERIANO AVG Rev.: VIRTVS AVG Mint: Viminacium Year: 253 Does the reverse legend VIRTVS AVG (instead of AVGG) mean that Gallienus was not yet co-emperor?
Below I collect some open questions regarding Aemillianus and the events of AD 253 from the thread: 1. Given that Aemillianus has apprently not managed to enter Rome, how has he gotten hold of the minting profit from his coins? Maybe he hasn't? Maybe the senate ordered the production of coins in his name and held on to any minting profits until Aemillian would arrive in Rome? 2. Have other mints issued coins for Aemillianus? Specifically, has Viminacium, which was probably under his direct control issed coins for Aemillianus? Viminacium issued coins for Valerian in 253. 3. Was Gallienus appointed co-emperor (Augustus) together with Valerian in 253, or was he appointed shortly after Valerian, which could explain the VIRTVS AVG reverse for Valerian above. I know that some eastern mints didn't strictly observe the AVG vs. AVGG rules.
Excuse the ugly picture... Aemilian, Antoninianus - Rome mint, AD 253 IMP CAES AEMILIANVS P F AVG, radiate, draped and cuirassed bust right, seen from behind SPES PVBLICA, Spes standing left, holding flower and lifting skirt 3.70 gr Ref : RCV # 9844, RIC # 20, Cohen # 48 Ex @Alwin Q
Here's my only, very humble example of a coin of Aemilian, which came from a lot of uncleaned coins many years ago. It also answers @Tejas' 2nd question: Provincial Bronze (AE25) Moesia Superior, Viminacium Obv: IMP C M AEMIL ACHILIANVS Rev: P M S COL VIM P Meosia, standing between bull and lion AN X[IV?] in exergue Moushmov 61 25 mm, 9.1g.
We might say Aemilian was about as inconsequential 'emperor' as there was but since he did his thing near Rome ended up with more coins than most minor players AND is outshone in terms of being most minor by Silbannacus with whom he is associated in some reports. Perhaps the cheapest/easiest Aemilian is the bronze from Antioch. I have trouble understanding just how it came that he was included in this series from way out there in the Provinces. Anyone?
By coincidence this is a recent sale item from a dealer closing their Internet business in the UK. What is interesting is that the coin was originally sold by Baldwin in October 05, Lot 9832 for around $90 more than I paid for it and this was not expensive. I only make this comment because of some of the crazy prices recently bid in some auctions for what I would consider common coins. A real eyeopener for me was the Antoninian of Salonina selling for 3800 Euros recently , I was not really that impressed with paying around 40 Euros for a similar coin in 2019 as an impulse buy because it was the only one in the fair. A quick search the other day showed 400 for sale on VCoins ranging from $30.00. Back to my Aemilianus , this is my example. Aemilian (Jul-Oct 253) Antoninianus, Rome Obv: IMP AEMILIANVS PIVS FEL AVG Rev: ERCVL VICTORI, Hercules standing r., resting on club and holding bow and lion's skin on left arm. Acquired Sept 2021 Copperbark Ltd. 3.06g, 21-22mm dia. RCV 9832, RSC 13.
Commander of the Moesian troops, he obtained an important victory against the invading Goths and was, for this reason, acclaimed emperor by his army. He then moved quickly to Roman Italy, where he defeated Emperor Trebonianus Gallus at the Battle of Interamna Nahars in August 253, only to be killed by his own men a month later when another general, Valerian, proclaimed himself emperor and moved against Aemilian with a larger army.
I wouldn't say that Aemilianus was inconsequential. After all, he seemed to have achieved a significant victory against invading Goths. He was responsible for the demise of Trebonianus Gallus and Volusian and, although not intended, the long-lasting reigns of Valerian I and Gallienus. Speaking of Trebonianus Gallus and Volusian: Here is a Trebonianus Gallus Antoninian, which reportedly dates to AD 253. Obv.: IMP C C VIB TREB GALLVS P F AVG Rev.: MARTEM PROPVGNATOREM Mint: Antioch Year: 253 RIC 84 and his son Volusian, presumably also dating to AD 253 Obv.: IMP CAE C VIB VOLVSIANO AVG Rev.: AEQVITAS AVGG Mint: Rome Year: 253 (?) RIC IV 166
I don't have the answer, but it is impressive that they minted bronze coins for Aemilianus at Antioch, given that he was raised to the imperial office in Moesia and given his short reign of some 3 months.
I find this reverse particularly interesting. I wonder what the linguistic explanation is for the form ERCVL instead of HERCVL?
Here are a scarce Antoninianus and a very rare Sestertius of Aemilianus. Ironically the short-lived emperor could neither provide the peace nor the 10 years of rule he promoted on the respective reverses: IMP AEMILIANVS PIVS FEL AVG - Radiate, draped and cuirassed bust of Aemilianus right with his right shoulder advanced PACI AVG - Pax standing facing, head left, legs crossed, holing olive-branch and transverse scepter and resting on column Antoninianus, Rome August - October 253 RIC 8, RSC 26, Hunter 13, Sear 9838 IMP CAES AEMILIANVS P F AVG - laureate, draped, and cuirassed bust right / VOTIS DECENNALIBVS SC in four lines within laurel wreath Orichalcum Sestertius, Rome mint, struck ca. August 253 AD 29mm / 11,28 g RIC IV 54a (RRR), Cohen 67, Hunter 25, Sear 9862, Banti 18 (same obverse die) Why is it that roman mint bronzes of Aemilianus are outnumbered by the products of Viminacium and other provincial mints?
I'm not aware of any antoniniani minted for Aemilian in Viminacium. I'm pretty sure the minting of antoniniani, like all gold or silver coinage, was restricted to official, imperial mints (even though the antoniniani were pretty debased by his time). Viminacium was still a colony during Aemilian's time and thus, restricted to minting only bronze coinage, no silver or gold. Of course, this changed shortly after his death. Both Valerian and Gallienus minted "silver" antoniniani from Viminacium.
I think that, due to the debasement of the antoniniani, the use of bronze coinage fell out of favor. There was much less profit in minting large, bronze sestertii compared to minting smaller, largely-bronze, silver-ish antoniniani. Provinces and colonies, however, continued minting bronze coins, because that was their only option, but these coins were intended for local use.
This is my only Aemilian. With a rather optimistic reverse. I think Dougs question is a good one. There may be more events around Aemilians rule than the literature describes. Then again, Otho also got coins issued in Antioch, and his rule wasn’t much longer than the one of Aemilian. Perhaps issuing coins from Antioch, to circulate with the emperors name and portrait in those areas was a high priority?
The true breakdown in the relationship between the bronze coins and antoniniani occurred during the sole reign of Gallienus, when the sestertius ceased to be minted around 260 with the final and total debasement of the antoninianus into a potin coin with a silver wash. I guess there was no incentive to try to maintain a fixed relationship between the two denominations when the sestertius was probably worth more than an antoninianus. A couple of examples.. FIDES MILITVM VIRTVS AVGG Gallienus' sestertii don't come cheap.
