This is a very rough draft by a non-numismatist (me) written for other non-numismatists at a non-numismatic Ancient Roman history site. Any constructive criticism of this future post would be appreciated: Numismatic evidence shows three unsuccessful usurpers, one possible fictional usurper, and one triumphant usurper who then became Emperor. As we have discussed before, the third century of the Roman Empire is poorly documented. The century’s best historians (Cassius Dio and Herodian) become silent by AD 240. After this time, Roman history becomes a confusing haze. Numismatic evidence becomes one of the few firm anchors in the rapidly shifting tides of history from the period known as the “Third Century Crisis.” Phillip the Arab (AD 204-249, ruled AD 244-49) was one of the more famous emperors from this confusing period. In AD 248, he led the celebrations of the Secular Games to coincide with the 1000th anniversary of the founding of Rome. View attachment 135069 RIC 12 Antoninianus Obv: IMPPHILIPPVSAVG - Radiate, draped and cuirassed bust right. Rev: SAECVLARESAVGG Exe: I - Lion advancing right. Unfortunately, Phillip also faced at several usurpers: In 248, the legions of the Danube rebelled and hailed Pacatian (Tiberius Claudius Marinus Pacatianus) emperor. There is numismatic evidence of his existence: View attachment 135070 RIC 5, C 6 Antoninianus Obv: IMPTICLMARPACATIANVSPFAVG - Radiate, draped and cuirassed bust right. Rev: PAXAETERNA - Pax standing left, holding branch and scepter. c.248-249 (Viminacium). $5,860 4/2/01 View attachment 135071 RIC 6 Antoninianus Obv: IMPTICLMARPACATIANVSPFIN - Radiate, draped and cuirassed bust right. Rev: ROMAAETERANMILLETPRIMO - Roma seated left, holding Victory and scepter. [Per RIC, legend for this type should be IMP TI CL MAR PACATIANVS AVG]. c.248-249 (Viminacium). $13,000 1/12/04. (The reverse legend ROMAE AETER[nae] AN[no] MILL[esimos] ET PRIMO means “the thousand and first year of eternal Rome,” referring to Rome’s recent celebration of its 1000th anniversary.) In the East, Jotapian (Marcus Fulvius Rufus Iotapianus) led another uprising from Syria and Cappadocia in response to unfair taxation. He, too, has numismatic evidence: View attachment 135072 RIC 2v Antoninianus Obv: IMPCMFRIOTAPIANVSAV - Radiate, cuirassed bust right. Rev: VICTORIAAVG - Victory advancing left, holding wreath and palm. [RIC unlisted legend]. c.249 (Nicopolis). $14,500 5/21/03 Two other possible usurpers are thought by some historians to have led unsuccessful rebellions: Marcus Silbannacus and Sponsianus. There is no literary evidence of Silbannacus. There is, however, at least some rare numismatic evidence of Silbannacus who is thought to have led a rebellion from the Rhine region. View attachment 135073 RIC 1 Antoninianus Obv: IMPMARSILBANNACVSAVG - Radiate, draped and cuirassed bust right. Rev: VICTORIAAVG - Mercury standing, facing, holding Victory and caduceus. [Interestingly, the reverse of the above coin is unique in that it depicts Mercury not only holding the traditional caduceus but also a small figure of Victory.] According to dirtyoldcoins.com, there are now three Silbannacus coins known. http://www.dirtyoldcoins.com/roman/id/Coins-of-Roman-Emperor-Silbannacus.htm On the other hand, there is no accepted literary or numismatic evidence for Sponsianus, making him a controversial, if not fictional, usurper. His aurei found in Transylvania in 1713 are thought to be modern forgeries. http://www.the-orb.net/romcoins/spons.jpg Finally, the treacherous Trajan Decius, after defeating the usurper Pacatian, betrayed Phillip and killed him in battle. Decius then succeeded Phillip as emperor, a dubious honor. http://www.dirtyoldcoins.com/roman/id/decius/dec045.jpg RIC 7a, Calicó 3301, C 108 Aureus Obv: IMPTRAIANVSDECIVSAVG - Laureate, draped and cuirassed bust right. Rev: VICTORIAAVG - Victory advancing left, holding wreath and palm. 249 (Rome). $7,494 5/10/05 Only through numismatic evidence have we been able to confirm the existence of some of the otherwise-unknown usurpers (and possibly refuting the existence of another) from this confusing period of Ancient Roman history. Numismatists can help to shed light for us on Ancient Roman history, especially its more obscure chapters. guy All pictures and attributions from Dirtyoldcoins.com
My only comment is that the facts of what happened in the later years of Phillip and early time of Decius is far from certain. You can believe who you wish making either of them a hero or a villain. Most seem to agree that Phillip wanted to abdicate before Decius bailed out the empire by defeating both usurpers and Goths so the story that he was forced to assume power by his soldiers has some possible merit. It is interesting how Pertinax became a reluctant hero while Decius is called treacherous. I suspect a part of this relates to Decius being strongly anti-Christian which colored later histories but we still don't have uncolored facts. From a Senatorial outlook, Phillip was an outsider and ineffectual so Decius was just correcting a problem they had been having since Maximinus. I'd like to know the latest thinking on the history of the period. IMHO, no one in their right mind would want to be Roman Emperor in those days.
Mat and Ancient Doug: Thank you both for taking the time to read my post and responding. When this forum’s tresviri monetales speak, I will always listen. :thumb: I was initially hesitant to use the adjective “treacherous” to describe Decius. I rejected the words “notorious” or “infamous” because they seem to reflect an even greater pro-Christian anti-pagan bias. Instead, I settled on the word “treacherous.” Let me explain why. You know the story as well as anyone. In the Roman Senate, Decius had initially strongly supported Phillip’s reign after Phillip had offered to resign because of the pressures of the job. Decius went on to serve the Emperor Phillip courageously by defeating the usurper Pacatian and pushing back invading barbarian tribes. Later, after some coercion from the men in his legions, Decius decided to exert some pressure or demands on the Emperor. At that point Decius was transformed from a loyal general to a potential usurper. For this reason, I think the word “treacherous” is appropriate. It is hard to imagine any former entrusted supporter who later tries to usurp power is anything else but “treacherous.” As a side note, Decius’s persecution of a small and relatively peaceful minority (the Christians) was a fruitless waste of resources. It is important to note that only ten years later, one of his successors, Gallienus, halted this divisive and senseless persecution. Thank you, again, for reading and responding to my post. guy Addendum: Much of our information about Decius’s “reluctant elevation to Emperor” comes from the unreliable and biased Zosimus. He was a pagan who wrote about Decius 250 years after the fact. For perspective, read Zosimus’s propaganda about the “excellent emperor Dacius” and his betrayal to the Goths by Gallus. http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/zosimus01_book1.htm I doubt any army would later follow a general who knowingly allowed a Roman army to be destroyed (or worse, follow someone who actively betrayed the army to the enemy).
Constructive criticism? None here, only praise. Thoroughly enjoy studying Roman history, and now learning about the "Third Century Crisis" provides more room [motivation] for study. Thanks for your informative posting, and as time permits, feel free to do more. Good on you!!!
