5 good emperors, 12 Caesars progress

I recently finished up my goal of getting the 5 "good emperors" - Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius - a project I started when I joined Cointalk at the end of April last year.

1. Nerva, billon tet of Alexandria (ex. Zurqieh)
2. Trajan, silver denarius (ex. JAZ Numismatics)
3. Hadrian, AE drachm of Alexandria (Ebay)
4. Antoninus Pius, AE 27 of Seleucis and Piera (Antioch) (ex. JAZ Numismatics)
5. Marcus Aurelius, AE drachm of Alexandria (ex. Zurqieh)

Twelve Caesars:

Augustus, AE As (ex. JAZ Numismatics)
Nero, billon tet of Alexandria (ex. Zurqieh)
Titus, billon tet of Alexandria (ex. JAZ Numismatics)
Domitian, AE 27 of Antioch (ex. JAZ Numismatics)

So I have eight more to go. Lately I've been focusing on the coinage of Alexandria as it reflects my interests and area of study in college (A.B. Egyptian Archaeology/ Languages, UC Berkeley before grad school). I know Galba and Otho struck coins at Alexandria, as well as Vespasian - the only Caesar I don't know about is Vitellius, so that's one for me to check out. I hope to finish up the 12 Caesars by the end of the year and then go back to focusing on the third century (no Florian, Tacitus, Carinus, Carus, Hostilian, Aemilianus, Herennius Etruscus, yet to name a few, along with Gordian I and II.

Thanks to @John Anthony and Zurqieh for being reliable sources of ancient coins for the collector.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I hope you are adding pics Ancient Coin Hunter... I am very interested in admiring your collection!

 

I agree. I would like to see some photos. Good luck completing the 12 Caesars. I had a lot of fun building mine.

 

Congrats, @ancient coin hunter! Great progress so far!! Of the 5 Good Emperors, I am just missing Nerva. And of the 12 Caesars, I've got Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, and Domitian... I need to get myself some Flavians lol

 

Congrats and good luck with the rest.

 

I've posted all of the pics before in separate threads - I didn't want to bore everyone.

 

..coin peeps don't get bored looking at coins again.. group'em up. good job agettin'em..

 

Yea, we'd love to see them!

Here are my (non-pristine) 6 of the 12 Caesars that I've got (grouped):

* I've got a new Domitian coming too!

 

just came in..got my 5 complete..Nerva was missing

 

Lovely Antioch piece!

 

Well, Justin, maybe “non-pristine” but very nice.

 

Thanks !

 

@ancient coin hunter You are missing one key coin from your Good Emperors collection. You need one ASAP.

You can't have Marcus Aurelius without his sidekick, Lucius Verus. While Marcus Aurelius spent half his reign in Rome, it was Lucius Verus who won many of the victories that secured the wealth and stability which Gibbons attributed to Marcus Aurelius. Therefore, I find it impossible to trully have a Good Emperors set without taking into account the partner to Marcus Aurelius' success for half his reign.

 

Hi @Sallent - actually I am looking at an ALexandrian tet of LV but haven't yet pulled the trigger because it is $250 and I might be able to find one cheaper at another outlet - but you make a good point about him being instrumental and doing some of the dirty work for Marcus Aurelius. So maybe it should be six "good emperors" ?

 

The problem with Gibbons is that subsequent generations continue to give his book far more relevance that what it deserves. It was the masterpiece of Roman history for the late 18th century, but in many ways it is badly outdated now.

For example, Nerva is one of his good Emperors, but the only good decision Nerva really made was appointing Trajan as his successor. And he didn't do that out of any real wisdom. Rather, the praetorian troops had tried to assassinate him and if he didn't pick a strong military leader immediately, he knew he would be dead within 24 hours. Other than that one decision made out of desperation, the rest of his short reign was mediocre at best. So if anything, Gibbons treating him as a good emperor is far kinder than what he deserves.

Another example of Gibbons giving us a wrong impression is the case of Commodus. Because Gibbons savaged him and loathed him, we often think of Commodus as being the emperor who brought the empire into terminal decline. However, the real history which modern scholarship and archeological research has uncovered shows us that the empire thrived after the bad stewardship of Commodus, didn't near-collapse until many decades after his death due to many factors that had nothing to do with Commodus, rebounded again, and then collapsed one last time. It's preposterous to try to blame Commodus for bad decisions made by other Romans more than 200 years after Commodus died. That would be like a US historian blaming President Andrew Johnson for the "collapse" of the United States.

 

i concur with @Sallent about LV..he was just as much and maybe more important than his counter-equal, MA...and i disagree with the "year of 4 emperors" too because Nero really should be included in fray i reckon...i make a motion we start calling it 'the 6 good emperors' and 'year of the 5 emperors'..

 

Good points, Sallent! I've been wondering why Commodus is considered such a bad emperor when, compared to his father Marcus Aurelius, his reign was so much more peaceful. These "disgraceful" deals Commodus cut with the Barbarians led to decades of peace, compared to the slogging, on-going wars Aurelius fought. It does appear Commodus suffered from delusions of grandeur later in his reign, but being Emperor is a stressful job!

Domitan too deserves more credit than he usually gets.

 

Good points, Sallent! I've been wondering why Commodus is considered such a bad emperor when, compared to his father Marcus Aurelius, his reign was so much more peaceful. These "disgraceful" deals Commodus cut with the Barbarians led to decades of peace, compared to the slogging, on-going wars Aurelius fought. It does appear Commodus suffered from delusions of grandeur later in his reign, but being Emperor is a stressful job!

Domitan too deserves more credit than he usually gets.

 

@Marsyas Mike look at Roman history and you will see a pattern that repeats itself so many times as to be suspicious. Almost without exception, every time an emperor is assassinated (especially if he didn't leave behind a strong successor of his own choosing) we are told by historians that he was a tyrant. Is it any surprise? After all, the emperor that succeeded him (or the emperor that overthrew the weak successor) had a vested interest in tarnishing his predecesor's reputation to make himself look more worthy of ruling. And the best way to dismiss any suspicion that the new emperor was guilty of regicide is to paint the old emperor as an illegitimate tyrant who deserved what he got, and thus was murdered by regular people/Senate/troops for his offenses to the gods and human decency.

And just about every emperor who left a strong successor on the throne (of his own choosing) has come down to us as a good Emperor because his successor had much to gain from pining his legitimacy on the wisdom, legitimacy to rule, and character of his predecessor. Thus historians would be bribed to weave pretty tales about the dead emperor.

 

Bore? Not possible!

Many of us missed this thread, @ancient coin hunter
We hereby request an encore performance of
photos of your awesome collection!

​