It is a well written account detailing everything we do not know about a man who may have existed but even that requires some assumptions. It is hard to study what does not exist. I loved the term 'murky episode' of Roman history. Those new to the study of Rome often assume there is the detail we have from the first centuries all the way to the end. The pot containing our knowledge is reconstructed from tiny pieces and leaks like a sieve. Where we have texts, we read very critically; where we don't have texts, we must rely on things like coins.
nice text, DS..I like to read about "one hit" imperators, or to find more about roman 'usurpers'..ingenus, or ingenvvs is also curios usurper, and I know, his coin, bearing his name, exist...
Alrighty then, but I don't own it http://www.britishmuseum.org/resear...object_details.aspx?objectId=1204340&partId=1
It may be that the mint personnel didn't know what silbannacus looked like and used a vague likeness of Philip when preparing dies. That would argue for an earlier date for this usurper.
History needs to be rewritten. Unless nobody else has done so yet, I hereby proclaim the obvious: Sibannacus was no Usurper, but indeed the 43st legitimate Emperor of Rome! Why that, you may ask? According to Wikipedia, "A second antoninianus has been published in 1996, bearing the shortened legend MARTI PROPVGT (To Mars the defender). According to the style, the coin was coined in Rome; since the shortened legend is present on Aemilianus coins, in 253, Silbannacus might have prevailed here during the march of Valerian on Rome. An interpretation of this facts leads to Silbannacus being an officer who was left in garrison in Rome while his emperor, Aemilianus, left to face his rival Valerian. After the defeat and the death of Aemilianus in September 253, Silbannacus would have tried to become emperor with the support of the troops confined in Rome, thus controlling the monetary workshop, before being quickly eliminated by Valerian and his son Gallienus." The fact that Silbannacus controlled the capital including the imperial mint and the troops stationed there, and if it was only for a couple of days, implies that he not only "tried" to become Emperor, but de facto actually succeeded. He had every right to feel legitimate as well, as Valerian had been declared enemy of the state by the Senate loyal to Aemilianus. After Aemilian´s demise the Senate had no choice but to officially accept Aemilianus´deputy or general Silbannacus, the new master of the city who could rightfully declare to rule in the name of the legitimate Emperor. Valerian was only "pardoned" after his troops took the city and Silbannacus was killed or himself declared declared enemy by a Senate who switched loyalty to the new strong man. Silbannacus was therefore no less legitimate than, let´s say, Quintillus or Florian. Doesn´t that make sense?
Silbannacus is listed as an usurper on my overview of Roman Emperors , their wives usurpers, Gallic and British seccessionists 190 in total. just saying:
I love those posters. Bought four of them as a celebratory gift for @Aethelred when he opened his shop for business. The story of Silbannicus is, of course, utterly fascinating. Thanks for the link, @galba68. Since I know you're a metal detectorist, and I used to be one, I know what sort of thoughts that article must have planted in your mind. There are bound to be at least one or two more out there, underneath those European fields and hedgerows... *sigh*
