This query was prompted by an email exchange I've been having with @Victor_Clark. It concerns this coin. (Not mine by the way. A coin from Lucernae. I really need to pick up an example of this type.) It is a SOLI INVICTO COMITI coin with a captive at the feet of Sol. Typically this reverse type does not feature the captive; the variation is believed to refer to Constantine’s defeat of Maxentius at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge in 312. The coin was struck at western mints for Constantine, Maximinus Daia, and Licinius. Constantine and Licinius were allied at the time, so this shared numismatic motif might not be surprising for them. The inclusion of Maximinus Daia is problematic because Maximinus was allied with Maxentius. He certainly would have taken no joy in Constantine's victory. So why was this coin celebrating Constantine’s victory over Maxentius struck for an ally of Maxentius? Two possibilities come to mind: 1. This coin is antagonistic. Without Maximinus’s permission or consent, Constantine or his mint supervisors struck the coin as if to say, “Like it or not, Constantine won. You have to get with the program now, Maximinus. And we're going to make everyone think you are with the program by striking this coin in your name.” 2. This coin is an offering of an alliance--perhaps some wishful thinking that with Maxentius out of the picture, Maximinus might get on board with the other two. It's an invitation of sorts. Maybe not quite a peace offering, but a gesture of inclusion. Would anyone else like to join me in some idle speculation about why Constantine would strike this reverse type for Maximinus Daia?
I think both of your scenarios are reasonable, it seems like the first one is a bit more probable and "in your face" if you will. It seems like Constantine was a bit cold and remote as an individual if you consider his later actions. So it seems like he would not try to "cozy up" to Daia unless he absolutely had to.
Another possibility is that the presence of Maximinus is actually evidence against the above hypothesis I.e. that the coin refers to Maxentius’ defeat
I have not studied this coin in depth but my first reaction is not to accept the small figure as a supporter of Maxentius. The style hat on the figure is Persian. Why is this not a coin relating to Eastern wars rather than the internal struggles?
That is a good question. I’ve considered the possibility that the Phrygian cap style figure might just be a kind of all-purpose signifier for the barbarian “other,” which becomes a stand-in for any enemy or captive. But these responses are helping me rethink the coin. I posted looking for simplification and I’m just getting complication. But it’s good complication. It means I hadn’t thought everything through.
I think the reason why some argue that this captive commemorates Constantine's victory over Maxentius is that, four years later, the captive motif will be used again on these SOLI INVICTO COMITI coins soon after Constantine defeats Licinius in their first civil war. So the motif emerges after two great after Constantinian victories, prompting some to link their purpose. But again, it's good to take a step back and reconsider all these assumptions.
I haven't looked at the rarity ratings on this coin, but anecdotally, it seems this coin shows up too regularly to have been a mule. At about this time there seems to have been a common striking of coins for all three men--witness Maximinus II striking SOL WITH HEAD OF SERAPIS coins in the East for himself, Constantine, and Licinius, even though that particular type is far more common for Maximinus. The Sol with captive coin for Maximinus seems no accident.
maximinus was not an ally of MAXENTIVS. It isn’t supported by ancient texts or evidences. The type of the sol with captive has been minted in the name of maximinus by Rome, Ostia, Aquileia and probably from other mint under Constantine control. Probably maximinus was a good ally but something happened in the 313 and they (Constantine and licinius) decided to eliminate him. IMHO in the 312 after the milvian bridge events, Maximinus was the first ally of Constantine, probably Constantine disliked the try of licinius to enter in Italy moving war to Maxentius (and he didn’t succeeded).
Still working on this mystery. Roma's reply got me rethinking assumptions, such as whether or not Maximinus II Daia and Maxentius were allies. Lactantius says that they were, though it's fair to question Lactantius. But I suspect this is the early source that makes that connection: DE MORTIBUS PERSECUTORUM, CHAP. XLIII. ... Daia had entertained jealousy and ill-will against Licinius from the time that the preference was given to him by Galerius; and those sentiments still subsisted, notwithstanding the treaty of peace lately concluded between them. When Daia heard that the sister of Constantine was betrothed to Licinius, he apprehended that the two emperors, by contracting this affinity, meant to league against him; so he privily sent ambassadors to Rome, desiring a friendly alliance with Maxentius: he also wrote to him in terms of cordiality. The ambassadors were received courteously, friendship established, and in token of it the effigies of Maxentius and Daia were placed together in public view. Maxentius willingly embraced this, as if it had been an aid from heaven; for he had already declared war against Constantine, as if to revenge the death of his father Maximian.... Interestingly enough, Lactantius suggests that Constantine was not immediately aware of the alliance of Maxentius and Maximinus II, coming to discover it sometime after his victory at the Milvian Bridge. I'm intrigued by the possibility that my OP coin was struck during a time when Constantine was still unaware of Maximinus’s support of Maxentius: Lactantius: DE MORTIBUS PERSECUTORUM, CHAP. XLIV: ….. This destructive war being ended, Constantine was acknowledged as emperor, with great rejoicings, by the senate and people of Rome. And now he came to know the perfidy of Daia; for he found the letters written to Maxentius, and saw the statues and portraits of the two associates which had been set up together. The senate, in reward of the valour of Constantine, decreed to him the title of Maximus (the Greatest), a title which Daia had always arrogated to himself. Daia, when he heard that Constantine was victorious and Rome freed, expressed as much sorrow as if he himself had been vanquished; but afterwards, when he heard of the decree of the senate, he grew outrageous, avowed enmity towards Constantine, and made his title of the Greatest a theme of abuse and raillery.
