Fides Militum

Great post @Al Kowsky - that posting in Germany sounds pretty terrifying - and after Vietnam! A friend of mine served on a forward observation post in West Germany c. 1983 because he could speak German. He said he never worried about the Cold War getting hot because he could listen in on East German tank maneuvers - at one point, he could hear a tank commander pounding on the turret and screaming "Turn left! Turn left! The other left!" He tells me the Warsaw Pact just didn't seem all that motivated at that point. Although he followed up by noting that the forward observation guys were not expected to survive if things did get bad. My gratitude to you and all who serve/served.

So many great FIDES MILITVM types already posted, I had trouble finding one that wasn't a repeat. But here is Gordian III, and if my attribution is right, his first issue as Augustus (RIC 1!) - military faithfulness was apparently top of his list for coin types, for good reason:


Gordian III Antoninianus
(238-239 A.D.)
(1st Issue, 1st Officina)
Rome Mint
IMP CAES M ANT GORDIANVS AVG, radiate draped bust right / FIDES MILITVM, Fides standing with standard and transverse sceptre.
RIC 1 (Aug); RSC 86.
(4.31 grams / 21 mm)
eBay Nov. 2019

Was Gordian III killed by his troops? Not sure:

"The eventual fate of Gordian after the battle is unclear. Sasanian sources claim that a battle occurred (Battle of Misiche) near modern Fallujah (Iraq)and resulted in a major Roman defeat and the death of Gordian III. One view holds that Gordian died at Zaitha, murdered by his frustrated army, while the role of Philip is unknown. Scholarly analyses suggest the Sasanian version, "while defective, is superior" to the Roman one."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordian_III

Interesting (and sad) to note fighting near Fallujah is an ongoing thing, down through the centuries.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Al Kowsky, you might enjoy the internet radio station, My Best Sounds, which plays 1960s-80s AFRTS shows.

Interesting topic, and Doug brings up a good point. The Fides emperors didn't seem to have much luck lasting.

 

Helio. You pose an interesting dilemma, Maximian or Galerius ? Adding fuel to that dilemma is the fact that both emperors used identical inscriptions. Pictured below is my coin along with a few others for comparison.



This coin was recently auctioned by Lion King Auction #1, lot 198. The listing states Maximianus follis, (GALERIUS, CAES) (286-311). 10.2 gm, 29 mm. RIC VI, s. 319 61b (S). How do you like that for ambiguity .... The portraits are close but different.


This coin is coming up for auction by Gorny & Mosch, March 7th. It is listed as: Maximianus Herculius, 285-310 n. Chr. AE Follis, 29 mm, 9.57 gm. 306-307 n. RIC VI 77a. The portrait on this coin is very similar to my coin .


This coin was auctioned by ROMA last year. It is listed as: Galerius, AD 306-307. AE Nummus, 11.06 gm, 27 mm, 6 h. RIC 77a. It is similar to the above coin but different.

I have searched for another example struck from the same obverse die as my coin without success. For the time being, I'm going to stick to its current attribution. BTW, your Severus nummus is a very handsome coin .

 

James, Your Carinus antoninianus is a great example , & there is just enough of the reverse on the Maximinus I sestertius to attribute it . Thanks for posting.

 

R.C., Lovely portrait on your Victorinus ant. . The poor bloke was murdered by a jealous husband whose wife he seduced .

 

Mike, Thanks for the kind comments . The Czech border experience wasn't that bad until winter came . We were sleeping in 6 man tents with a small heater operating by diesel fuel. When the fuel ran out no one was eager to get out of their sleeping bag to refill it . I could have deserted & moved in with an aunt & uncle who were living in Dortmund, but FIDES MILITUM was keeping a watchful eye on me . The Gordian ant is an interesting coin . The poor kid didn't deserve his fate . I still believe that his praetorian prefect, Philip I, had him assassinated by undermining his leadership. I don't think we'll ever know what really happened...

 

nero my fav., I love early Rock n' Roll & Bebop music from the 1950s. I did hear Chuck Berry in concert in my junior year in H.S. He was a great performer ! I saw Chubby Checker live too when the "twist" was the dance craze back then . There isn't much modern Rock n' Roll that appeals to me & Rap music stings my ears .

 

I'm not sure if there's a set time when they air, Saturday afternoon seems to be a time, but I enjoy Vietnam-era A Date With Chris shows the most of the programs aired there.

 

I think we really need to look at the overall pattern of coinage to see where this fits in, and note that during the tetrarchy it's normal for any coin type to either be issued for all four tetrarchs, or occasionally (as here), different types for the augusti vs caesars. It would be unexpected for a coin type to be issued only for one member of the tetrarchy and not the others, especially here where we are dealing with explicity tetrarchic/inclusionary "AVGG ET CAESS" types.

We've got two reverse legends used in parallel, both at Aquileia and Ticinum.

FIDES MILITIVM AVGG ET CAESS NN for the augusti only

VIRTVS AVGG ET CAESS NN for both the augusti and caesars

Then we have the tetrarchic line-ups:

1st tetrarchy
augusti: Diocletian + Maximianus
caesars: Galerius + Constantius

2nd tetrarchy (after abdication of Diocletian and Maximianus)
augusti: Galerius + Constantius
caesars: Daia + Severus

3rd tetrarchy (after death of Constantius)
augusti: Galerius + Severus
caesars: Daia + Constantine

If we look at all existing obverse legends for the FIDES MILITVM AVGG ET CAESS NN type, we see:

1) IMP CONSTANTIVS PF AVG
2) IMP MAXIMIANVS PF AVG

3) IMP C SEVERVS PF AVG
4) IMP C MAXIMIANVS PF AVG

The way RIC attributes these, which I would agree with, is that 1) & 2) are Constantius & Galerius from 2nd tetrarchy, and 3) and 4) are Severus and Galerius from 3rd tetrarchy. The "IMP" vs "IMP C" MAXIMIANVS legends can be assigned to 2nd vs 3rd tetrarchy based on association... "IMP MAXIMIANVS" can be associated with 2nd tetrarchy "IMP CONSTANTIVS" (both IMP vs "IMP C") while "IMP C MAXIMIANVS" can be associated with 3rd tetrarchy "IMP C SEVERVS" (both "IMP C").

According to these attributions the type was not issued during the 1st tetrarchy, as we see confirmed by lack of the FIDES type for Diocletian and the lack of the VIRTVS type for Constantius and Galerius as caesars.

If we instead consider that one or both of IMP MAXIMIANVS or IMP C MAXIMIANVS might refer to Maximianus (not Galerius), then this would of course be 1st tetrarchy and we'd have to conclude that Maximianus (who controlled Italy) had struck this tetrarchic "AVGG ET CAESS" type just for himself, while ignoring all other members of the tetrarchy, which seems very unlikely.

Finally, if we look at the bust styles for the immediately preceding "SACRE MONET AVGG ET CAESS NOSTR" type, we see that the bust style for Maximianus and Galerius are indeed very similar (and easily distinguished since we have Maximianus augustus vs Galerius caesar).

So, all told, I think it makes sense to accept the RIC attributions where both IMP MAXIMIANVS and IMP C MAXIMIANVS refer to Galerius, not Maximianus.

The cases where dealers/auctions have attributed these coins to Maximianus appear to be based on them just looking at the legend and/or bust style without looking at the overall context or the way RIC actually attributes them.

Note incidentally that that Lion King auction has wrongly attributed that coin as RIC 61b, when it's really RIC 71a (IMP C MAXIMIANVS PF AVG).

Congratulations to anyone who didn't fall asleep reading this!

 

Helio., Thank you for presenting your complex analysis . Your analysis reminds me of an 8 move chess combination that either leads to checkmate or it doesn't. I want to reread it tomorrow when my mind is less foggy (I had 2 glasses of Pinot Noir with dinner this evening ). I will also review numerous files in my archive to see if they help or hinder your analysis. I must admit that I never viewed the obverse & reverse inscriptions in their totality to come to a conclusion . I have to wonder if this is a fool-proof method to reach a conclusion . Never the less, attributing these coins is no easy matter as proven by all the different auction houses & dealers reaching different different results. Numismatics is fun & challenging .

 

Coins of Constantius I as Augustus are less common than as Caesar. This FIDES MILITVM was shortly before he died but not by the hands of his troops as I understand it. I have read conflicting stories and doubt any of them are to be believed.

 

I forgot this one of Macrinus, which depicts Fides Militum, but without the FIDES MILITVM inscription. Fides looks like she's about to tip over.



Macrinus, AD 217-218.
Roman AR denarius, 2.94 g, 19.5 mm, 6 h.
Rome, AD 217.
Obv: IMP C M OPEL SEV MACRINVS AVG, laureate and cuirassed bust, right.
Rev: PONTIF MAX TR P COS P P, Fides Militum standing facing, head right, right foot on helmet and holding a military standard in each hand.
Refs: RIC 22A; BMCRE 38; Cohen 60; RCV 7345; ERIC II 69.

 

I have read that Constantius was old & sickly when he called to see his son Constantine. He held the title of Augustus for less than 15 months, so those coins are scarcer than the ones with the N. CAES title .

 

A.C. That's a great portrait of Macrinus with a long beard .

 

I won the FIDES MILITVM tetradrachm pictured below last year from CNG 477 .


GALERIUS. AD 305-311 (struck circa AD 305), Ticinum Mint, 1st Officina. Billon Tetradrachm: 11.54 gm, 29 mm, 6 h. Slight doubling on reverse. RIC VI 55b. Ex Benito Collection.

 

Really enjoyed your writeup, @Al Kowsky . And the Czech invasion experience. I can feel your tension at the Time!

I believe this is the only “FIDES” coin that I have of any time period... and it is from the Republic.


RR AR Denarius A Licinius Nerva 47 BCE 3.58g Rome FIDES One-armed horseman gllpng drggng naked warrior hair Cr 454-1 Syd 954

 

Great post.
My only and lonely Fides Militvm will be another Valerian (his facial expression says he doubts....)



Q

 

The RIC 77a attribution is correct, as is the date (which comes from the attribution), but of course this 306-307 date range is 3rd tetrarchy, and Maximianus had retired in 305 AD.

I don't think this is a case of Gorny going out on a limb and saying RIC is wrong and they really think this is Maximianus, otherwise they'd have given a 1st tetrarchy date range. Instead, they seem to have first attributed the coin, copying the RIC number and date, but then ignored the attribution when writing the blurb and given a name of "Maximianus Hercules" rather than the correct "Galerius Maximianus".

You'd think catalogers would be more careful, but here we've got 2/3 of the ones you mentioned making mistakes, so they really can't be relied on.

 

I agree with @Heliodromus. The type was apparently not struck during the first Tetrarchy at either Aquileia or Ticinum. RIC has got it wrong occasionally but not nearly as frequently as auction cataloguers including many of the highly respected ones.