[Poll-24] #22 panzerman vs #27 Severus Alexander (Round 2) CIT 2018

Hello everyone and welcome to Round 2 of the 2018 CoinTalk Imperator Tournament! If you are unaware of the tournament I invite you to get caught up with all the fun in the master thread;

https://www.cointalk.com/threads/ancients-it’s-time-the-second-annual-coin-imperator-tournament-2018.320328/



A big thank you to all of our participants. Here we go with the last, but certainly not least, match up of our spectacular Round 2!

............................................................​

#22 @panzerman


AV Stater ND 8.57g./ 17mm (Salamis Mint) Price 3149
King Nikokreon of Salamis 331-310BC
obverse/ Helmeted head of Athena right
reverse/ Nike standing left, holding wreath and stylis/ rudder in left field
Struck circa 323-17BC

Price: $6,000

Why It’s Cool:
Historical significance: Nikokreon was the King of the City State of Salamis, on the island of Cyprus. When Alexander started out on his campaign versus the Persian Empire, Nikokreon and the other Kings of Cyprus allied themselves with Alexander. After the death of Alexander, a period of chaotic warfare ensued amongst the Macedonian generals. Nikokreon, allied himself with Ptolemy against Antigonus. In 315 BC, he colluded with Seleucus and Menelaus (two of Ptolemy's generals) in crushing the Cypriot city kingdoms that had supported Antigonus. After this was completed, Ptolemy rewarded Nikokreon by making him his strategos of Cyprus in addition to remaining King of Salamis. After Nikokreon’s death in about 310BC, Ptolemy added Cyprus to his domain of Egypt. Cyprus would be under control of foreign rulers, till its independence in 1960!!!!



Very little is known about Nikokreon’s character except that he once had the philosopher Anaxarchus brutally tortured and killed in revenge for an insult that he had given Nikokreon in the presence of Alexander. In addition, it used to be accepted that Nikokreon was the king that Diodorus mentions was forced to commit suicide by Ptolemy. It is now thought that this might have been a different Cypriot king named Nikokles. This makes the disappearance of Nikokreon from the historical record around 310BC an interesting mystery.


Ruins of Salamis, Cyprus (Wikipedia)

............................................................​

#27 @Severus Alexander


Julius Caesar, denarius 49-48 BCE, military mint traveling with Caesar
Obv: Pontifical implements (simpulum, aspergillum, securis, and apex)
Rev: Elephant advancing right, trampling on serpent, CAESAR in exergue
References: Cr 443/1; Sydenham 1006; RSC 49
Note: Most dealers have obverse and reverse the other way around, but since exergues are otherwise exclusive to the reverse on Republican silver, I have gone with the minority opinion. --Also: it is not a fourrée! The dark stuff in the edge crack at the top is dirt, not base metal.

Price: $280

Why It’s Cool:
My coin for this round is a numismatic Darth Vader: the denarius that destroyed the Republic and sowed the seeds of Empire.

It is 49 BCE. Caesar has done the unthinkable: crossed into Italy with his army and thus plunged his world into civil war. Having scared off Pompey and the conservative faction, he has now entered Rome and is flinging his rhetoric at a sparse, nervous Senate. “The Gaulish threat is no more, so the sacred treasure no longer serves a purpose. Give it to me so I can defend the Republic!” Finally the senators are ready to concede, when a noisy tribune by the name of Lucius Caecilius Metellus shouts “Sacrilege!” and dares to interpose his veto.

Caesar is not pleased. “Come to me with your petty scruples when armies no longer march the length and breadth of Rome’s dominions. As it is, Caesar shall simply take what is rightfully his.” At his command, soldiers gleefuly batter down the door to the storerooms beneath the ancient Temple of Saturn. Inconceivably, though, the odious Metellus again interposes, not his veto, but his very body!

Caesar’s rage is monumental. (At the same time he is mystified why he envisions himself clad entirely in black, wielding a red sword of light, and slicing the hapless burlap-clad tribune in two. Feel the power of the Dark Side!) Drawing himself to his considerable height, with great difficulty he manages a venemous whisper: “Get. Out. Of. My. Way. Killing you will be easier than saying it.” An enveloping silence. Metellus pales, hesitates… and steps aside.

The treasure now belongs to Caesar, who smiles. Let law and sacred duty be damned… he must win! *​

Pliny reports that Caesar removed fifteen thousand bars of gold, thirty thousand bars of silver, and coins worth fifty million sestertii. The silver bars became elephant denarii, an estimated 22.5 million of them (based on the number of dies). Where did my coin’s silver originate? Carthaginean reparations? booty from Macedon or the East? Caesar’s enormous haul from Gaul enabled him to pay his debts, but it was the money from the state treasury that won him the war. In five years it would be passed down to his heir Octavian/Augustus, who used it to establish the Empire. The elephant denarius is truly one of the hinges upon which history turned.



With the obverse type (the accoutrements of his office as Pontifex Maximus), Caesar advertised his (alleged) legitimacy. The reverse type must also be some sort of propaganda, but what would Romans of the time have seen in it? A good topic for the comments, but I’d like to note an intriguing theory recently proposed on Forvm by Michael Harlan, and further developed by “crispina.” I’ll add a couple thoughts of my own here. Given the problems attending other hypotheses, I really think this new idea should be taken seriously.

Briefly: Previous elephants on Republican coins are most strongly associated, by far, with the Caecilii Metelli (see the coin pictured below). Now, it seems that Caesar regarded his principal enemy in the conservative faction to be Quintus Caecilius Metellus Pius Scipio, upon whom he laid most of the blame for the civil war. Reasonably so; Scipio was behind the past few years’ moves to declare Caesar an outlaw and to deprive him of his troops, a consulship, and protection from prosecution. Remember also that our obstinate tribune was a Caecilius Metellus!

If the elephant represents the enemy Caecilii Metelli, what is it trampling? There are a few possibilities, not mutually exclusive: 1) Salus, the health of the Republic; 2) the People, whom Caesar always claimed to champion; and/or 3) Caesar’s household genius. The snake’s connection with Salus is straightforward. Representations of the People’s guardian spirits (their household “genii locii”) and the genius of the paterfamilias** are less familiar to us because they were not public; but they would have been familiar to every Roman. You can see an example below, from Pompeii, of this very common household representation… a crested and bearded serpent, exactly as on the coin!

In Caesar’s view, the Caecilii Metelli had assaulted the Republic’s health, trampled on the People, and dealt a mortal insult to Caesar’s personal and family dignitas, which was the fundamental cause of his crossing the Rubicon. Moreover, these messages would be decipherable by everyday Romans of the time. Note that Scipio was also deeply jealous of Caesar’s position as Pontifex Maximus, as depicted by Caesar in the Bellum Civile, so both sides of the coin would do a tremendous job of pushing Scipio’s buttons. Coincidence? I think perhaps not! It is natural for us to assume that the name in the exergue must denote one of the animals on the coin, but there was no such convention at the time. In fact, quite the opposite was true. Representing a clan was one thing, but a living individual, whether figurative or otherwise? That was unheard of on Roman coinage. (Of course, Caesar would upend that convention eventually, but it would take a few more years!)



Bargain: Please note that my example features a complete name, and every device has good detail, even the toughest one, the snake. You can see from acsearch, factoring in fees, that you can’t get that in recent memory for less than about $400, usually more. Only three coins auctioned in the last ten years are even in the same value ballpark: two from Gorny & Mosch in 2008 ($320, weak name) & 2010 ($325, weak snake and bankers’ marks), and one from Obolos in 2018 ($335, nice but broken). (But I mustn’t forget @Orfew’s nice example for which he paid only a little bit more - another great bargain!)

A Canadian conclusion: Veni (excuse me!), Vidi (I’m not interrupting, am I?)… Vici? (If so, I’m terribly sorry!!)

---------------------
* True story! Well OK, I made up the light sabre bit. Sources: Plutarch (Caes. 35, Pomp. 62), Lucan (Phars. III.153-168), Pliny (Hist. Nat. XXXIII.17), Cassius Dio (XLI.17). Unsurprisingly, Caesar himself skims over the episode.

** “The genius was a kind of spiritual double, often portrayed as either a snake or a stately male in a toga and covered head. Somehow connected with the family line, the genius imbued the individual with procreative and inspirational powers. The genius was a kind of tether to the family line which, through the act of procreation, a paterfamilias was able to pass to the next generation.” unrv.com

............................................................​

A Gentle Reminder
Round 1 went about as well as anyone could have hoped from the perspective of keeping the commentary fun, interesting and friendly. It would be a challenge to run a tournament of this type on almost any other board but with the great people here on CT it has been both an honor and a pleasure. Lets try to keep up with the perfect score in the friendliness department by concentrating comments on why you liked an entry instead of why you didn't like the other.

Remember that everyone gets 3 votes to choose which coin you think comes out on top in each of the three categories. With that I will open the thread for comments, opinions, coin pile-ons and random posting of coin things as you see fit.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

That @panzerman coin

 

Man this one is hard!!! You have panzar's perfect gold oozing eye appeal, and a JC iconic denarius with an unbeatable bargain price of $280. Historical interest I could not split them so am forced to give 0.5% to each.

 

Panzerman's coin has one vote for "Bargain". LOL., Come on @panzerman, we know that was you!

 

Sev, when you started talking about the possible meaning of the elephant trampling the snake I was very taken aback by the line of thinking and railed against it. No! No no no! The snake is Gaul and Caesar is the elephant! Or that's what I vaguely thought I'd heard people say it meant. I couldn't image Caesar wanting to put his enemy's symbol on his coin! By the end of your discussion you won me over and I realized how biased I am in my modern thinking. We have to try to understand what people of that time knew, saw, and understood.

Bravo! Fantastic writeup. I hope you repost it in its own thread after the tournament so it can be a Featured post. Unbeatable history, fabulous price. I'm going to borrow this writeup for my website if you don't mind

P-man, that's a gorgeous example of the classic Athena/Nike AV stater. Did you have a particular issuer or style in mind when you hunted for one, or did this one simply grab you for its undeniable beauty and grade?

 

Nice Caesar and great write-up! And a bargain as well.

 

Bargain is an opinion. In our contest, the cheaper coin usually wins bargain category even if the coin was $10 and worth only $5. Both of these coins are overpriced in my book just as are all Athens owls, Tribute Pennies and coins of personalities non-students of history have heard of on TV. Similarly, gold coins always win eye appeal because most people can not compare good gold for bad gold but can not imagine any other metal beating gold. I, for one, am not using the categories when I vote. If I feel one coin is the better coin for what ever reason by a large measure, that coin will get all three of my votes. If I feel one edges out the other, I will split it 2:1.

 

I will have to use it in the description of my own elephant, if you don't mind either

@panzerman your coin is a pure beauty !



Q

 

I love both of these coins. I will say that I think the reason a lot of people have a bias toward gold is that the ancients themselves did as well. The dies were often cut by the best engravers and gold is so chemically inert that many gold coins still look the way they did in antiquity, even after being buried for centuries. Silver tones, bronze builds a patina. Not that those things are bad (I prefer toned and patina'd coins) its just that I can see some of the fascination with gold over silver / bronze going beyond modern bullion values. It's the time machine of metals.

This is a great match up. @Severus Alexander 's coin is historic, a great bargain, and his write up is peerless (Fantastic job, my friend). I agree you should post your write up after the tournament. It deserves a feature.

I think the more pressing question is which 3 people voted against that stater for eye appeal and will now need to be fitted for a pair of glasses, stat!

 

Certainly not me!! Here's what I gave myself:


Just... WOW, p-man. I'm so glad that coin is in Canada.

Absolutely, borrow away, I'd be most honoured!

OK, I will do that. Might help justify all the time I put into it when I should have been doing things I was supposed to be doing. But I'm super glad you like it. I'd be very interested to hear people's thoughts on the various snake/elephant meaning hypotheses and probably a main post is where to get that discussion going.

 

Talk about putting my coin to shame. Couldn't you have waited until p.2, Q?

 

Gold is sexy, but I decided to be a contrarian and gave the silver all 3 of my votes. It's too easy to just vote for the gold, but I set aside my immediate impressions and gave both coins a fair shake.

 

Just got home from work, another hot, humid day of mowing lawns Beautifull coin, magnificent historical write up to my Canadian buddy Severus Alexander Love the reverse/ obverse designs. I definately will put that on my wantlist for future auctions.
John

 

Thanks, John - I'm glad to hear you'll be seeking an elephant out, and certainly look forward to seeing the stunning example that you'll eventually land!

Frankly, besides being a jaw-dropping beauty, I think your coin was an excellent bargain for that quality. And the good news is that whoever wins, we know a Canuck will advance, eh?

 

That AV stater is almost blindingly beautiful, but the JC Elephant denarius is just so full of history that it's hard to beat in the Interest category. Not to mention the fact that @Severus Alexander nails it all with a writeup to end all writeups - entertaining, educational, and thought-provoking all at the same time.

I think I'm just going to call the winner of this match right now...

 

..i was just talking about this very thing with a friend last night, of how we impose on the past our contemporary judgments..it's hard not to do and really not fair when done.

 

Some of the strikes against other theories of the elephant/snake symbolism:

Conquest of Gaul, with the snake being a carnyx (the theory TIF mentioned): The biggest problem I see with this is that the snake simply doesn't look like a carnyx! There are several other examples of Gaulish war trumpets on RR coins and none of them look much like this. (Whereas the household genius representation is exactly right.)

Triumph over evil (Crawford): This is simply anachronistic. There's no evidence the snake represented evil to the ordinary person at this time.

Elephant vs. snake = the civil war tussle: There's an element of this in my favoured hypothesis (the familial conflict), but there's a specific snake-elephant trope that some have proposed as a basis for contemporary understanding of the image. From Pliny and one or two others comes the idea that the snake and the elephant are iconic enemies in constant conflict. One problem is that this belief does not seem to have been widespread. Another is that it doesn't actually tell us who or what families the snake and elephant actually represent. Third, Pliny says the two end up killing each other, so there is no victor. (Fair enough, war has no winners... but perhaps not great propaganda, at least not without an element of my favoured Harlan-type hypothesis as well.)

Any theory proposing the elephant = Caesar or (better) Caesar's family: There's very little to associate Caesar's family with elephants. A few much later authors, in trying to explain the issue, state that one of Caesar's ancestors killed an elephant, or that the name "Caesar" resembles the Punic word for elephant. These writings have an air of desperately trying to make sense of something that makes no sense to the author. I actually think this desperation supports Harlan's idea. The family of the Caecilii Metelli were reduced to nonentities soon after Caesar's victory, and disappeared from history in the first century CE. As a result, the association that was obvious in Caesar's time was utterly gone a couple centuries later, causing puzzlement to numismatists ever since.

There is one theory that dovetails with Harlan's: that Caesar was referring to and mocking Pompey by means of the elephant. Pompey had a couple of rather embarrassing and very public experiences with elephants, one where he tried to enter Rome in his triumph pulled by elephants (they got stuck!), and another where the games he sponsored involved the slaughter of elephants, much to the chagrin of the viewing public. Unfortunately for him, poor Pompey was sardonically associated with elephants in the public's mind, so the coin could imply criticism not only of the Caecilii Metelli but also of Pompey, who was equally trampling on the health of the Republic, the People, and Caesar's genius. That would leave only one of Caesar's principal enemies unalluded to on the coin, namely Cato. (He was perhaps impossible to attack due to his reputation for uprightness. Plus his power was rather limited as he didn't have much money... in a way, he just didn't matter much at this point.)

I should note that these issues and others are nicely discussed by Debra Nousek in her paper “Turning Points in Roman History: The Case of Caesar’s Elephant Denarius,” Phoenix, 2008, 62:290-307. She highlights Pompey's embarrassing elephants in particular, and also suggests that Caesar was appropriating the imagery of the Caecilii Metelli. I doubt this since it seems a stretch to suppose the general public would appreciate such a subtle move; but it was Nousek's paper that gave Harlan his original idea.

 

I do very much intend to reply with something meaningful to this thread before it closes, but truthfully, your write up has upended everything I thought I knew about the elephant denarius.

Why would Caesar want to associate himself with an elephant... weren't those for barbarians like Hannibal? Why on earth would a snake be the symbol of Gaul? Was there a tribe that held snakes especially sacred that Caesar defeated?

Did Caesar just like elephants in the same way I like penguins?... (fancy little things). Was he insinuating Pompey had gained some weight recently? Was he trying to mess with my head???

I'll need to do some reading my friend. Again, fantastic post and entry!

 

So, in a nutshell, you’re saying Caesar is not the elephant? But erm, his name is right there!

. Oh, ok, fine, I guess I’ll buy the argument about this being a sneaky-neat, shade-throwing broadside by Caesar against Metellus. Very cool!

 

Here is a AV Gallic Stater struck by JC enemies

AV Stater 5.49g.
Uniface Gallic War Stater
used to pay troops fighting Romans in Gaul campaign.