It is surprising that the last emperor who ruled the whole empire doesn't get more attention here. I've been on the lookout for one of his solidi for awhile as I think the engraving work is often nicely done. The only coin I do have of his is a small, common but carefully made bronze. It seems that the Siscia mint always had good quality control oversight. AE (15 mm, 1.50 grams, 12h), Struck A.D. 379-383, Siscia mint, 1st officina Obverse: D N THEODO-SIVS P F AVG, pearl-diademed, draped, and cuirassed bust right Reverse: VOT / V / MVLT / X, in four lines within wreath; ASISC in exergue Reference: RIC IX 29d.1 Provenance: Triton XI (January 8-9, 2008), Lot 1019
Nice to see a thread about Theodosius I! His coinage, though fascinating both historically and numismatically, is certainly underappreciated. I particularly like the larger AE coins and their interesting reverse iconography. Also, these can be quite attractive as far as late Roman bronze coins go: Theodosius I, Roman Empire, AE 2, 378–383 AD, Siscia mint. Obv: DN THEODOSIVS PF AVG; bust of Theodosius I, diademed, draped and cuirassed, r. Rev: REPARATIO REIPVB; Emperor, head l., standing facing, with r. hand raising kneeling turreted woman, and holding Victory on globe in l.; in exergue, BSISC. 22mm, 5.44g. Ref: RIC IX Siscia 26C. Theodosius I, Roman Empire, AE2, 378–383 AD, Siscia mint. Obv: DN THEODOSIVS PF AVG; bust of Theodosius I, diademed, draped and cuirassed, r. Rev: REPARATIO REIPVB; Emperor, head r., standing facing, holding standard and globe; in exergue, ANTA. 22mm, 4.48g. Ref: RIC IX Antioch 68A. Ex Spring Coins, Texas. The small AE4s are abundantly available and usually not very pretty. Yet, the first coin below is interesting since it shows a cross in the left reverse field instead of the more common Chi Rho monogram (☧) visible on my second example. Contrary to common belief, the cross wasn't very widely used as a symbol in early Christianity. In fact, the cross on this coin is quite early: Theodosius I, Roman Empire, AE4, 383–392 AD, Antioch mint. Obv: DN THEODOSIVS PF AVG; bust of Theodosius I, pearl-diademed, draped and cuirassed, r. Rev: SALVS REIPVBLICAE; Victory advancing l., carrying trophy over shoulder with r. hand, and dragging captive with l.; in l. field, cross; in exergue ANTB. 12mm, 1.16g. Ref: RIC IX Antioch 67B. Theodosius I, Roman Empire, AE4, 388–392 AD, Cyzicus mint. Obv: DN THEODOSIVS PF AVG; bust of Theodosius I, pearl-diademed, draped and cuirassed, r. Rev: SALVS REIPVBLICAE; Victory advancing l., carrying trophy over shoulder with r. hand, and dragging captive with l.; in l. field, ☧; in exergue, SMKB. 13mm, 1.40g. Ref: RIC IX Cyzicus 26B.
Given the reverse legend VIRTVS ROMANORVM, I think it's quite possible that the reverse figure may be the personification of Virtus, rather than the personification of Roma. True, the two are often depicted similarly, and can be difficult to distinguish. See this excerpt from the book by Myles McDonnell entitled Roman Manliness - Virtus and the Roman Republic (Cambridge 2006), at p. 149: What leads me to believe that this figure may be Virtus rather than Roma -- even though she is seated, not standing -- is not only the reverse legend, but the fact that the figure is portrayed with a bare right breast. See my comments on the subject in the thread at https://www.cointalk.com/threads/is-there-anything-more-macho-than-the-emperor-as-virtvs.361356/, as well as, most recently, in a comment of mine in the "Follow the coin theme game" thread (see https://www.cointalk.com/threads/follow-the-coin-theme-game-ancient-edition-post-‘em-if-you-got-‘em.300099/page-305#post-4691110). Also, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not familiar with portrayals of Roma herself with a bare breast. See the article at FORVM Ancient Coiins about Virtus (https://www.forumancientcoins.com/moonmoth/reverse_virtus.html), commenting as follows about an antoninianus of Philip I (see https://www.forumancientcoins.com/moonmoth/coins/philip_i_009.html for photo): "Virtus wears a helmet and carries a spear, but is this a male? The drapery of the clothing, and the bared breast, suggest otherwise. In fact, Sear (ref. 8974) says this might be Minerva, but Minerva doesn't bare her breast. That would be beneath her dignity, as it would be for Roma."
When I stated that the coin I posted earlier in this thread was my only coin of Theodosius I, I completely forgot to mention that one of the several rather wretched LRBs that I bought from a local coin shop a couple of blocks from where I lived, back in 1963 or 1964 when I was 8 or 9 years old -- at the price of four coins for a dollar! -- was actually a Theodosius I. All the dealer told me was that the emperor was known as Theodosius the Great, which I found immensely impressive at that age regardless of the coin's condition! I didn't identify the type until many years later, from my 1981 edition of Sear's Roman Coin Values. (It may be in poor condition, but at least it was identifiable!) I tried to photograph it for the first time today, so here it is: Theodosius I, AE2 (Sear: Maiorina), 379-383 AD, Aquileia Mint, 1st Officina. Obv. Pearl diademed, draped, and cuirassed bust right, DN THEODO-SIVS PF AVG / Rev. Emperor standing front, head left, offering right hand to turreted female on left to help her rise from kneeling position, and holding Victory in left hand on a globe, REPARATIO REIPVB; in exergue: SMAQP (P = 1st Officina). RIC IX 30d, Cohen 27, Sear RCV V 20497. 22mm., 4.3 g. (The bluish-green areas on the obverse don't appear to be powdery, and in any event don't seem to have advanced much in the 56 or 57 years I've owned the coin!) Anyway, I've seen worse (although certainly not in this thread), especially for a quarter! Although I'm still not planning to make it an "official" part of my collection and add it to my catalog.
What is actually impressive is that you kept it for all these years. And I think I see SMRS or Q in the exergue, so rather Rome than Aquileia.
You're quite likely correct. It depends on whether there are four or five letters in the exergue. Perhaps what I thought was the 5th letter is actually the last letter (B) of the reverse legend REIPUB. If it was minted in Rome, then it's RIC IX 43d, Cohen 27, Sear RCV V 20498. In terms of keeping it all these years, I don't think I've ever thrown out a coin, no matter how poor the condition. I still have all the other cheap "foreign" coins I collected as a child, including on family vacations to Caribbean islands. Also, I've added the word "turreted," from Sear, to the description of the kneeling female figure on the reverse. I can actually kind of see the turret now that I know what to look for. Presumably she is supposed to represent Tyche or Cybele or some other personification or goddess who's usually depicted that way. Although a pagan goddess seems rather unlikely for someone like Theodosius.
Donna I recently let this coin go to a new home, if I had known I would have contacted you.... It was a favorite of mine due to its intricate details, Theodosius I (the Great) was the ending of an empire, many historians mark 17 January 395 AD. the day of Theodosius' death as the beginning of the Middle Ages...
Lots of great stuff in this thread! My most unusual Theo is the following heavy miliarense: A heavy VOTIS V miliarense is known for Trier, but as far as I know this is the only known example from Constantinople. The denomination was probably used as a presentation issue, and this one would have been produced somewhere in the range of 379-383. At his hasty elevation to replace Valens? Upon his entry into Constantinople in 380? In 381 when he wowed Athanaric and the other Gothic chieftans with the marvels of the city? Later? I don't know, but I'd sure like to!
I have very few coins of Theodosius. Theodosius I - AE4 Obv:– D N THEODO-SIVS P F AVG, Pearl-diademed, draped and cuirassed bust right Rev:– VOT / X / MVLT / XX within wreath Minted in Alexandria (//ALEGamma). 9th August A.D. 378 - 25th August A.D. 383 Reference(s) – RIC IX Alexandria 13c (R)