Diocletian: A new Emperor for a new Empire (Death of the Principate and birth of the Dominate)

In 284 CE the affable but weak Emperor Numerian died under mysterious circumstances while returning from campaign in the East. His retinue sought to hide his death, which was probably due to natural causes from the strain of campaigning. When his death was discovered, Diocletian (Commander of the Calvary Guard of the Imperial Bodyguards) accused Numerian's retinue of having killed the Emperor, and was quickly proclaimed Augustus by the troops. Afterwards, Diocletian turned his attention to the tyrant Carinus, co-Emperor and brother of Numerian. After either defeating Carinus in battle, or after Carinus' assassination by a bodyguard (accounts differ), Diocletian was proclaimed sole ruler of the Roman world.

None of the above is anything new. In fact, it was pretty standard for the period of the preceeding 40+ years. During that time, Emperors came to power and were shortly assassinated, killed by rivals, killed in battle, captured by foreign powers, or died mysteriously. However, Diocletian was determined to be different. He knew that his survival depended on being a new Emperor and ushering in a new type of Empire.

END OF THE PRINCIPATE AND BEGINNING OF THE DOMINATE

Diocletian reorganized the weakened Empire and introduced a new class of bureaucratic officials, militarized the government to an extent never seen before, created a new image for the Emperor as that of a king-like figure (no more pretence that the Emperor was simply the 'First Citizen'), a new tax system designed to fill the empty coffers of the Empire, and recognizing the perils of a sole man holding onto power, appointed his military colleague, Maximian, as co-Augustus. Together, they were a well oiled machine who worked in perfect unison to shore up the borders of the East and West, and revitalize the Empire. They were as two heads of the same body. Nowhere is this special and perfect union more apparent than in these two coins:





Two Augustus, One Empire, One Army, One well-coordinated set of goals and policies.

Together, the Augustus of the West and East would appoint two Caesars to assist them. This sharing of power, known as The Tetrarchy, stabilized the Empire and brought an end to the chaos of the third century. Furthermore, Diocletian and Maximian would go on to set a first in Imperial history: First two Emperors to retire voluntarily from power. Naturally, like the well oiled machine they were, they retired on the same day.

While The Tetrarchy did not survive for long, Diocletian lived out the rest of his life in peace and tranquility. The reorganization of the military, the creation of bureaucratic class and a more efficient tax system, allowed the Empire to weather many storms and stay relatively stable for another 100 years after his retirement.

Unfortunately Maximian was not as content with retirement and came out of his civilian life twice to attempt to usurp Imperial power. The second time was against his son in law, Constantine The Great, who gave Maximian the option of committing suicide and damned his memory after his death.


Constantine The Great, son in law of Maximian and first Christian Emperor

Constantine would go on to keep the model of government of Diocletian intact, minus two changes: The first one relatively minor and temporary: One Empire, One emperor. The second change would be of monumental significance: One Empire, One God! Constantine would usher in 1,700+ years of Christianity in the western world.

*I used the pictures above from the seller, JA, as I just bought the Maximian and Diocletian coins today.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Gee where have I seen those particular coins?

 

Your post reminds me that many of us that collect ancient coins are lovers of history and scholarship first. The coins are a tangible connection to the past that allow us to ponder it in a direct way. This existential yearning for a palpable connection to history is something impossible to explain to non-collectors.

 

All of them have come from the world renowned collection of John Anthony

 

I had this Diocletian, a nice one with silvering, but of the coins I traded recently it happens to be the one I miss most since it was one of my first coins. Its on sale, so I hope I can buy it back when I have the cash (which I don't at the moment).

 

Since you picked those particular coins it might be good to add that Diocletian and Maximianus identified themselves respectively with Jupiter and Hercules who are shown on the reverses presenting victory to their emperor. There are also coins showing both gods together rather than one god and one emperor. These have legends naming the gods. IOVI ET HERCV. If you have trouble telling whether a coin shows a man or a god, remember the guideline that emperors do not appear nude so a figure wearing an item of clothing on his lower extremities is a man but a figure undressed down there is a god.



We might also point out that the green Maximianus of the original pair is a post-reform radiate while the other coins with XXI are pre-reform antoniniani. My last Maximianus is poorly struck in exergue but you can see a trace of its original XXI and branch under the groundline. These later Hercules images show him holding a long staff like Jupiter did in the early coins while early Hercules types show his club rather than the long staff. On well preserved coins you will see that Hercules had better abs than Jupiter but these tend to wear away after a while.

 

Nice write up and coins!
Most people give Diocletian a rough time for his reforms, but for the most part they worked and helped the Empire to continue to survive until 1453 CE. The Decline of the Western Empire is fascinating to study, and in my opinion it can be attributed to two main things: a lack of interest in civil service by the ruling classes/ downright incompetence and laziness and two major civil wars in the 380's and 90's that the Empire never really recovered from. Just my two bits
Sorry for the outburst of history, but this forum needs more collectors of Late Roman coinage!

I have a few folles of the Tetrarchs, but I do not have them photographed.
Sorry

 

@dougsmit What is the difference between a typical antoninianus and a typical radiate as far as weight and dimensions? JA did not provide those details for both coins, so I'm kind of curious what to expect as far as size differences and weight differences.

 

It's easy to get drawn to the 240s and earlier as far as Roman coinage goes. After all, there are plenty of sweet silver issues with great portraits and great reverses from the time of the Republic to the 240s CE. However, I think the simpler Bronze and billion coinage of the late Empire has a charm of its own. I don't think any serious collector of Roman coinage is doing himself any service by ignoring those.

 

I am incapable of short answers. At the end of their time, antoniniani had a small silver content of about 4.7% and were washed with silver. The post reform radiates had no silver and were not issued washed. They are about the same size. If there is a difference, the post reform coins tend to be a tad thicker and smaller diameter but seeing this would require laying out a bunch of coins. The small alloy difference does seem to me to make them wear a bit differently but the difference is told by looking them up in catalogs like RIC. MOST of the last antoniniani had the alloy mark XXI somewhere on the reverse while none of the radiates did (since they were not made of that alloy). Most post reform radiates had a mintmark in the middle of the reverse field (there are exceptions). There are post reform folles (the larger coins) that were made of the XXI alloy and so marked but this question is only about the radiates. For the most part, coins of the Tetrarchs with a radiate crown with XXI or a mintmark in exergue are antoniniani while those without XXI and with a mintmark in the field are post reform radiates. There are exceptions to every rule. No post reform radiate was silvered at the mint but modern collectors trying to upgrade their coins might have done anything.

Pre reform antoninianus with XXI and part silvering. In this case the letters in the field are for officina 9 as used at Antioch.

We should mention that starting with Aurelian who started the standard alloy, some issues were marked KA instead of XXI. KA is Greek for XXI or 21. Fortunately by the time of Diocletian the KA issues had stopped.The ones at the end that could be confusing would be post reform coins of Cyzicus of the first officina which would have KA in the field. I don't have one to show but below is a similar K delta post reform radiate.

 

Sallent, I love your sweet new OP-additions (congrats)

... man, JA is really doin' a fine job of redistributing his sweet coins, eh?

Oh, I have a couple of pretty cool examples as well ... wanna see 'em?

Diocletian Antoninianus
(Rome Mint)
Struck ca. 290 AD
Diameter: 22 mm
Weight: 3.81 grams
Obverse: IMP DIOCLE TIANVS AVG, radiate and cuirassed bust right.
Reverse: IOVI FV LGERATORI, Jupiter standing facing, head right, preparing to hurl thunderbolt; at feet to left, eagle standing left, head right; XXI Γ in exergue
Ref. RIC V 168 var. (unlisted officina and with eagle)
Other: flan crack. RARE


Maximianus AE Follis
(Cyzicus Mint)
Date: 305 AD
Diameter: 28.5 mm
Weight: 8.44 grams
Obverse: D N MAXIMIANO BEATISSIMO SEN AVG - Bust of Maximianus, holding mappa and branch
Reverse: PROVIDENTIA DEORVM QVIES AVGG - Providentia and Quies facing each other, * between, S / F in fields, KD in exergue
References: RIC 28 b

 

The below two coins were my 3rd and 2nd (I posted them backwards) ancient coin purchases in the spring and winter in 2014.


Maximian, AD 286-305
AE, Follis, 8.8g, 31mm; 6h; Heraclea
Obv.: IMP CMA MAXIMIANVS PF AVG; laureate head right
Rev.: GENIO POPV-L-I ROMANI; Genius standing left, modius on head, naked except for chlamys over shoulder (falls low), holding paera from which liquid flows and cornucopiae
In Ex.: HTΓ



Dioclectian, AD 284-305
AE, Follis, 9.8g, 28mm; 1h; Aquelia mint
Obv.: IMP DIOCLETIANVS PF AVG; laureate head right
Rev.: SACR MONET AVGG CAESS NOSTR; crescent in left field; VI in right field; Moneata holding scales and cornucopiae
In Ex.: AQP

 

I've noticed that ants, probably because of the small silver content, tend to have shallow patinas, if they acquire a patina at all - many of them simply tone darkly. The radiate fractions, being bronze, can sometimes acquire thick, jade-like patinas. The OP coins are a good example of the contrast.

 

how about a alexandrian tet of the dude?

 

This coin of Aurelian was struck in Antioch- RIC 386. It has the letters VI in the field of reverse. Could they signify 6 in Roman numerals, or do they refer to another meaning?