Yeah, me too Zumbly. I think it is safe to say that as a senior Augustus, his reign was a failure. His inability to quash Constantine and Maxentius usurpations was a colossal failure. The sad thing is that he had actually stacked the succession deck in his favour by getting Severus II ( an old pal of his) appointed as Caesar of the West. And it still blew up in his face. Frankly I would like to see a HBO Rome type miniseries about Emperor Aurelian or Julian II. I suppose a guy can dream...........
http://www.forumancientcoins.com/dougsmith/max.html There was a time I got a lot of email as result of my website. In 1998, I got a question that generated the above page. The fractional below is one of the Galerius types that is harder to place than ones with GAL or MA.
It's fine, I get confused too, hence why I talked to Warren before I bought it I agree, same with the Severan period!
Alexandrian Galerius... Quite a change in the coinage during this period going from the small chunky Tets to the big Follis. Galerius - Billon Tetradrachm Obv:– MAXIMIANOC K, Laureate, cuirassed bust right Rev:– None, Eagle, standing left, head right, holding wreath in beak, Palm in left field.. Minted in Alexandria (L| D). A.D. 295 Reference(s) – Milne 5240 Galerius - Follis Obv:– IMP C GAL VAL MAXIMIANVS P F AVG, Laureate head right (divergent wreath ties) Rev:– GENIO IMPERATORIS, Genius standing left holding patera over lighted altar Minted in Alexandria (K | G / P // ALE). A.D. 310-311 Reference:– RIC VI Alexandria 101a Flan flaw on chin.
Hey, great adition! Blame the person, not the coin. Besides, if you believe christian writers, in the end he got what he deserved. I don´t do this period in particular, but let me tell you that a full tray of these huge coins makes an impressive view. I wish it to, so many good stories to tell..
Love ALL the posts and I think that OP post of Galerius is a super bargain at that price!! Congrats Mat!!! My follis of Galerius:
I've never considered an emperor's personal character when acquiring his coins. Here is my most recent of Galerius... Also a shout-out @KIWITI Welcome to the forum!
It has been said, many times, that history is written by the winners, in this case the Christians. The Christian Church blackened the reputation of those rulers who supported the old gods and opposed the spread of Christianity. It made no difference to the Church Fathers how else they ruled or what secular accomplishments they were responsible for. On the other hand, the same Church overlooked the flaws in emperors who supported the Church. Constantine was a monster in much of his personal life but none of this mattered to the Church Fathers for whom favoring orthodox doctrine trumped all else. Poor Julian (the Apostate) was a decent person and a competent ruler but Church apologists assured that it was his lapsed Christianity that became his most known trait. When it comes to evaluating Roman Emperors as either people or rulers consider the source of the evaluation.
Yes, and also, it's not sufficient to the cause of intellectual integrity to generalize. Christianity is not all people who call themselves Christian, neither is Paganism all people who call themselves pagan. Specifically who did what and how? It's certain that Galerius aroused Diocletian's distrust of the Christian sect, which led to a great deal of persecution, but from what I understand, the paranoia of the emperors had more to do with suspicions of political sedition, not with any disapproval of Christian theology. Galerius eventually had to concede that trying to eliminate Christianity was a failure, saying, "wherefore, for this our indulgence, they ought to pray to their God for our safety, for that of the republic, and for their own, that the republic may continue uninjured on every side, and that they may be able to live securely in their homes." This underscores the idea that the persecution was political in nature, rather than religious. Does that make it any better? Of course not, but it makes Galerius no different than any despot seeking to control the masses. The world is still full of them.
Oh, yes. The emperors had little interest in the theology of Christianity or probably any theology at all. Arguments among Christians, important to them, such as whether Christ was divine and eternal or created by the Father, assisted by the Holy Spirit would have been a matter of indifference at best to the rulers, though of extreme importance to Church Fathers as Arius was to demonstrate. Yes, the opposition of the Emperors was based on their fear that alienating the old gods might not be prudent and that Christianity might be a demobilizing and destabilizing force. Considering the unholy uproar Christian theological disputes were about to unleash on the stability of Rome they may have had a point. None of this, however negates the bias of Christian authors who were determined, no matter how much they disagreed among themselves over the inexplicable, to smear the reputation of any emperor who opposed them for any reason, political or theological. Lactantius in particular did a splendid job of creating the jaundiced image of the tetrarchy that we have and Jerome and Augustine of the Fourth century emperors. Gibbon may have had an insight when he ascribed the fall of the Roman Empire to a combination of barbarism and religion, each of which he theorized was a destabilizing force in the weakening of Rome and both major problems late Roman Emperors were at wits end trying to deal with.
Spot on Kevin and JA. Most of our sources from this period come from Christian authors who definitely had a score to settle with opponents of their faith, and opponents of Constantine. One of our main sources comes from Lactantius, a Christian scribe and tutor under Constantine I He claims that Galerius actually hated the Roman Empire and wanted to call it the Dacian Empire. ( Galerius's parents came from old Dacia when Aurelian evacuated Romans and Dacians from it in the 270's.) He then goes on to claim that Maximinus II was a "half barbarian"..... Again, this does not really make sense. Why would Diocletian appoint a person who hated the state to lead it? If Galerius hated Rome and all it stood for then why was he so fervent about the old Roman ways? If Galerius really did treat the Romans like Trajan did the defeated Dacian nobility, then why didn't the Roman soldiers and officers just kill him? As students of history we must always keep an open mind about the people we study, and who wrote the history books and what agendas if any they had. As the great Denis Diderot said" Skepticism is the first step towards truth"
It sounds very much like the rhetoric of modern pundits who dislike a particular president, regardless whether he's Democrat or Republican. How often have we heard, "He hates America?"
Thank you for this fantastic conversation. This is exactly WHY I began collecting ancient coins. I have been an ancient history buff for years, studied a lot of religious, military, and other histories centered on the ancient world(s). Great contributions...and most of what has been said is what I would have said... so, I won't repeat, rather I laud the conversation! Thank you!
Nice coin, Bing! I would love to find one of those. Sadly for me, all the dealers of ancients in my area went out of business years ago, which is a big reason I stopped buying ancients. This is one field of numismatics I prefer to stay away from online, unless you have any advice on ancient coin dealers I can trust online.
