So I recently picked up this scarce-ish LRB of Constantine. These coins were struck only in London, 310-312. The reverse showing CONCORDIA holding two standards seems to be reviving a Probus reverse motif. The reverse CONCORDIA MILITVM is “Concord of the Soldiers.” MILITVM is a genitive plural form, presumably of possession. I'm wondering what significance, if any, to attach to this CONCORDIA motif. It’s customary to think of concord as being between two persons or things—Antony and Octavian shaking right hands on a quinarius, for example. What is the “concord” between on this coin? Some thoughts: Between Constantine and his men? Does Constantine wish to show his concord with the soldiers that still could be glossed as CONCORDIA MILITVM? Among the rank and file of the soldiers themselves—a “Band of Brothers” motif? Hope to unite rival factions? A desire to unite the Roman army since it seems to be fracturing in the West thanks to Maxentius’s usurpation in Rome beginning in 306? Would love to hear some idle speculation that will prevent me from going out to stain my deck in this 90-degree Tennessee heat.
I don't have an answer to your question, someone here probably knows. My 195 Constantine I Londinium mint 310 to 312 AD AE Follis Obvs: CONSTANTINVS PF AVG, laureate and cuirassed bust right. Revs: CONCORD MILIT, Concordia standing half-left, holding two standards. Star to right, PLN in ex. 21x23mm, 4.55g RIC VI 195
I think concordia is also a deity, may represent these events where peace was made? Thanks for making this thread.
That’s an interesting suggestion. I’m trying to think of what was going on in Constantine‘s career in 310 that might prompt him or his die engravers in London to revive this motif. Is it just generic? Or is there, as you suggest, an event that could be commemorated. I guess I need to read more fourth-century history.
Though RIC VI gives A.D. 310- 312 range for this type, it should probably be 311- 312. Constantine is gearing up for his war against Maxentius (this type was only struck for him) and the CONCORDIA type is Constantine acknowledging that he needs the military and paying them respect.
There is also an earlier version, from 306-7 A.D., minted by Galerius shortly after the death of Constantius I. Presumably, Galerius was trying to show that he was now sole Augustus, everyone else was subordinate to him as Caesars, everyone was in agreement with this and everything was "hunky-dorey" (his words, not mine--hunkius-doreum). Constantine I, as Caesar Alexandria mint, A.D. 306-307 RIC 85 Obv: FL VAL CONSTANTINVS NOB CAES Rev: CONCORDIA MILITVM - Prince, on left, in military dress, receiving gift of Victory (with wreath) on globe from Jupiter, leaning on scepter ALE in exergue; Γ in field 20 mm, 3.5 g.
Yes Glenn, I think that reverse was struck for pretty much all the tetrarchs on earlier antoniniani. But that’s an interesting choice for Galerius to strike that coin in 306.
Here's one of Florian with a CONCORDIA MILITVM reverse. I suppose there was "harmony of the soldiers" -- until they switched sides and killed him! Florian, AD 276. Roman billon Aurelianus, 3.28 g, 21.2 mm, 12 h. Cyzicus, officina 3; issue 1, AD 276. Obv: IMP FLORIANVS AVG, Bust right, radiate, cuirassed and draped with paludamentum. Rev: CONCORDIA MILITVM, Victory stg. r., holding wreath in r. hand and palm against l. shoulder, facing Emperor in military dress stg. l., r. hand outstretched and holding long sceptre in l. hand; T in exergue. Refs: RIC 116; MER/RIC temp #4530; Cohen 15; CBN 1982-3; RCV 11853; Hunter 20.
I have one exactly like @Roman Collector. Is it a die match on the obverse? Florianus (A.D. 275-276) Type: Silvered AE antoninianus, 23mm 4.1 grams, bulk of silvering intact. Obverse: IMP FLORIANVS AVG, Radiate portrait right, draped and cuirassed. Reverse: CONCORDIA MILITVM, Victory standing right, presenting wreath of victory to Florian standing opposite and holding spear. Mintmark: S. (Cyzicus) Reference: Cohen 15; Sear 11853. Of course, we will never know how effective these were. Probably not so effective. With regard to Constantine, I share the view that this was struck to ensure the loyalty of the army at the time, after seemingly years of destructive civil wars in the later tetrachic times...
How much time elapsed between the death of Constantius and the appointment of a replacement Augustus? Your statement makes it sound like he was intending to rule alone. I'm sure he was not intending to replace Constantius with a full equal Augustus but I believe the main problem was that he did not see Constantine as the in-line replacement for Constantius since there were two Caesars obviously in line for the promotion and both were friends of Galerius. The problem with a tetrarchy is that it only allowed four positions and there were at least half a dozen people who thought they were next. In math, 2+2 and 3+1 both equal 4 but that does not hold in politics. Worse, Galerius was faced with 1+5 which did not equal 4 and even had Maximianus quite willing to come out of retirement. There were too many queen bees and not enough workers.
Upon the retirements of Diocletian and Maximian, Galerius and Constantius I were elevated to Augustii. But then Constantius I died shortly thereafter, leaving Galerius as, at least temporarily, sole Augustus. CI's troops then declared his son, Constantine I, as Augustus, a title that he accepted. I think, with this coin, Galerius was trying to appease all parties by recognizing Constantine's claim to power while asserting his own supremacy at the same time. This is just my interpretation, of course, but I know of no evidence that Galerius had any intention of elevating anyone to co-Augustus (co-Augusti?).
My understanding is that Galerius did indeed intend to honor the tetrarchic scheme, just not with Constantine as Augustus. Hence Severus II's status as Augustus in the West in the Third Tetrarchy. I defer to Timothy Barnes on nearly all things from this period: "The new ruler of Britain, Gaul and Spain immediately sent the customary laureled letter to Galerius in which he both announced his appointment by his father and his salutation as Augustus by his father’s army and requested recognition from the new senior Augustus as his father’s successor. Galerius, who was perhaps on campaign on the Danube, as he so often was in the first decade of the fourth century, was implacably opposed to recognizing as his equal in rank one whom he had excluded from the imperial college fifteen months earlier. But what could he do? He was in no position to dispute Constantine’s claim that his father had appointed him to the imperial college. Constantine was in undisputed command of his father’s army.…Whatever his hesitations, he had no choice but to accept the new military and political reality established on 25 July 306 in distant York.” [Barnes, Constantine: Dynasty, Religion and Power in the Later Roman Empire, pp. 63-64. (2014).] Galerius made his peace with this “new reality” by naming Constantine the Western Caesar, which Constantine strategically accepted in September of 306. However, I don't want to be too deferential to the scholarly tradition. I do find the timing of this coin of Galerius to be enigmatic if it was struck only for him in 306.
I have but one CONCORDIA MILITVM. I am posting, as I am enjoying the comments, and I want to learn a little more. Have patience with me, as this area is not my focus. RI MAXIMIANUS HERCULIUS 286-305 CE antoninianus Antioch 292-295 CE Pre-Reform CONCORDIA MILITVM Jupiter RIC V 621 H-officina 8
When I first began reading about the Tetrarchy I developed a dislike for Galerius - I visualized him as arrogant, conniving and self-serving, somewhat like Cassius In Shakespeare’s “Julius Caesar”. Then as I read further my attitude softened - I thought he exhibited great leadership and fortitude as he tried to hold the Tetrarchy together after the demise of Constantius. He strived mightily to put the Tetrarchy back on track at the emergency conference he called at Carnuntum to try and resolve the “Augustus crisis”, even though he made some big mistakes (Hobson’s choices). But every time I read about Galerius now I am haunted by the thought of his horrible demise: https://hekint.org/2018/06/07/the-most-loathsome-disease-of-the-emperor-galerius/
Really enjoy looking at ancients but still not my cup of tea. I do not understand why they can be cleaned but anything newer can not. My opinion.
Out of the various CONCORDIAE MILITVMI have I wanted to share one....It has to be a..... Septimius Severus denarius Obv:– L SEPT SEV AVG IMP XI PART MAX, Laureate head right Rev:– CONCORDIAE MILITVM, Concordia standing front, head left, holding a standard in each hand Minted in Laodicea-ad-Mare, A.D. 198-200 References:– BMC 285.654., RIC 502b (Common), RCV02 6269, RSC 78a
Thanks to you and everyone else for a fascinating and very enlightening thread. For years on end, as a casual collector, I was hardwired to dismiss most of the motifs and reverse legends, at least from the Tetrarchy on, as being too formulaic to be of much relevance to their immediate historical contexts. As this and other recent posts have amply demonstrated, Boy, was I wrong!
I’m glad you have enjoyed the thread! So have I. But I think your post begs the question--the very question I’m trying to get at. Is this just a generic motif Constantine decides to recycle? Or is there something about this peculiar moment, and that peculiar mint, that prompts this fairly localized striking? Lots of good things to ponder here.
Thank you for the clarification! ...As a novice, the gestalt that stays with me is the mere and sheer possibility that, this late, the more immediate context may have influenced the motif and legend, even as a 'recycle' of prior ones. There's a world of nuance here ...of which, up to now, I was entirely innocent!
