Log in or Sign up
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Ancient Coins
>
Diocletian: Two Interesting Coins and a Legacy of Reform
>
Reply to Thread
Message:
<p>[QUOTE="Curtisimo, post: 2935103, member: 83845"]A recent trip to visit the remains of Diocletian’s palace in Split, Croatia have had me fascinated with all things Diocletian for the last several months! I have acquired two coins this year that were struck under Diocletian that I would like to discuss. My research led me in a lot of interesting directions so I will apologize in advance concerning the excessively long essay. I just can’t seem to curb my enthusiasm for my favorite new acquisitions. I hope that by writing essays like this on my research and offering it here to be freely available it will help others to learn when otherwise some of the information might be more difficult or expensive to find.</p><p style="text-align: center">[ATTACH=full]713518[/ATTACH]</p> <p style="text-align: center"><br /></p> <p style="text-align: center"><b><u>1.0 – Early Life of Diocletian</u></b></p> <p style="text-align: center"><br /></p><p>Diocletian was born some time ca. AD 244 near the Roman provincial capital of Salona in Illyricum (near modern day Solin, Croatia) during the anarchic period known as the Crisis of the Third Century. The first 40 or so years of Diocletian’s life are so obscure that most of what we know comes from sources written years and sometimes centuries after his death or else from sources that are considered less than reliable. Diocletian was likely born with the Greek name Diocles which he later changed after being hailed emperor in order to sound more Latin (he may have continued to use it in private). His family was of low status and his father may have been either a scribe or a freedman of the Roman senator Anullinus [1][2].</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]713524[/ATTACH]</p><p><i>Figure 2 – Salona, Illyricum (Modern Croatia). Hometown of Diocletian. Top left – Remains of the Basilica Urbana. Top right – Remains of one of the primary streets of Salona. Bottom – Remains of the Salona Amphitheater. Author’s photos</i></p><p><br /></p><p>Diocletian rose to power through distinction in the Roman army. Nothing is known of his early service but a 12th century Byzantine source claims that he eventually served as <i>Dux Moesiae</i> which means that he would have been a military leader in command of a specially formed army near the Danube frontier [2]. We do know with some certainty that he served as the commander of an elite cavalry unit that participated in a successful invasion of Persia [1]. After the death of both the emperor Carus and his son Numerian under suspicious circumstances during the campaign Diocletian was chosen as the new emperor by the troops. Zonaras claims that his first act upon taking the purple was to draw his sword in full view of the assembled troops and kill the presumably startled prefect Lucius Aper who he accused of assassinating the previous emperors [2]. Next he turned his attention to dealing with Carus’s only surviving son; the Emperor Carinus. In AD 285 the two opposing emperors met at The Battle of the Margus. During the battle the unpopular Carinus was killed by his own men who then hailed Diocletian as emperor of a united Roman Empire.</p><p><br /></p><p style="text-align: center"><b><u>2.0 – Reform, the Tetrarchy and the Stabilization of the Empire</u></b></p><p><br /></p><p>Diocletian now found himself in the precarious position of sole ruler of the Roman world. However, the empire that he inherited was not the wealthy and powerful Roman Empire of the second century. His victory had won him a divided and bankrupt empire that had nearly collapsed under the weight of 50 years of internal chaos. In the second century, Rome’s stability and strength had intimidated its potential enemies and deterred them from testing its defenses too forcefully. Now conversely, Rome’s unaccustomed weakness meant that the Sassanid Empire in the east and the Germanic tribes to the north could exploit the frontiers with ever increasing boldness. Even a competent emperor could not personally meet all challengers at once. To add to the dilemma, Diocletian knew that any successful general that he delegated authority to handle a crisis that he could not personally oversee would likely be hailed as a rival emperor by the troops he was leading.</p><p><br /></p><p>However, Diocletian was intelligent and far sighted and as such he developed a revolutionary strategy to reform the Roman state. To deal with the problem of multiple conflict zones within the empire Diocletian promoted his fellow soldier Maximian to the rank of Caesar in July of 285. This effectively made Maximian his heir which, in theory, would also help to solve another problem that had plagued the empire during the Crisis of the Third Century: the lack of an effective succession. This arrangement was so successful that Diocletian decided to take it a step further in 293 in order to deal with a series of military challenges that grew up in the west. Diocletian and Maximian would be Augusti (senior emperors) and two of their subordinates, Galerius and Constantius Chlorus, would become Caesars (junior emperors) in the east and west respectively. Under the new system, known as the tetrarchy, the Augusti would be tied to each other and to the gods by associating their new dynasties with the traditional Roman gods Jove (Diocletian) and Hercules (Maximian).</p><p><br /></p><p>This system brought stability and strength back to the Roman world. Within the empire a series of usurpers were defeated, in the north the barbarian incursions were checked and in the east the Sassanid capital of Ctesiphon was sacked and the Persians were forced into a humiliating peace agreement. While the city of Rome began to lose its political primacy during this period the emperors spent lavishly on the types of public monuments (such as the Baths of Diocletian and improvements to the forum) that had not been built in the city of Rome in over half a century.</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]713532[/ATTACH]</p><p><i>Figure 3 – The Baths of Diocletian. Top – The exterior of the baths. Bottom – The interior as redesigned by Michelangelo.</i></p><p><br /></p><p>Despite some setbacks, Roman fortunes seemed to be improving steadily. Then in May of 305 Diocletian did something unprecedented: He abdicated his imperium and demanded that Maximian do the same. Diocletian would be the only emperor in Roman history to voluntarily relinquish his authority.</p><p><br /></p><p>Unfortunately for Rome it soon became apparent that the tetrarchy would not be able to function without Diocletian’s guiding hand. Soon after his retirement his successors began to fight and intrigue against one another for power. The ensuing chaos is fairly difficult to keep straight so in the interest of clarity I have built a timeline of events that shows how complicated the system got (even excluding most usurpers) (see Figure 2). Constantine the Great would eventually emerge from the struggle as the first sole ruler of the empire since Diocletian 40 years earlier.</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]713519[/ATTACH]</p><p><i>Figure 4 – Timeline of the Tetrachy from AD 284 to 324.</i></p><p><br /></p><p style="text-align: center"><b><u>3.0 – Who is Depicted on Diocletian’s Coins? (RIC V:II 161)</u></b></p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]713520[/ATTACH]</p><p><font size="3">Roman Empire</font></p><p><font size="3">Diocletian, AD 284-350</font></p><p><font size="3">AE Antoninianus, Rome mint, 6th officina, struck AD 285-286</font></p><p><font size="3">Dia.: 24.73 mm</font></p><p><font size="3">Wt.: 3.55 g</font></p><p><font size="3">Obv.: IMP DIOCLETIANVS AVG. Diocletian radiate bust right.</font></p><p><font size="3">Rev.: IOVI CONSER-VAT AVG. Jupiter standing holding thunder bolt and scepter. XXIZ below.</font></p><p><font size="3">Ref.: RIC V:II 161</font></p><p><font size="3">Ex Auktion GM 92, Ex Dr. Busseo Peus Nachf.</font></p><p><br /></p><p>One of the criticisms levelled at Diocletian by some numismatists is that his reforms brought about the institutional abandonment of realistic portraiture on Roman coins. Rasiel Suarez dedicates an entire section in his write up on Diocletian in ERIC II to discussing how Diocletian’s coinage reform served to end the practice of lifelike portraits on coins for over 1,000 years [6]. However, the iconography of Diocletian’s coinage was very deliberate and there was much more to the story than simple artistic negligence. In order to make the coinage of the empire uniform during the tetrarchy Diocletian chose to have all of the co-emperors depicted with the same idealized features. However, this strategy only makes sense in the context of a multi-emperor system. As Figure 4 clearly shows there was a short period at the beginning of his reign in which Diocletian was sole emperor.</p><p><br /></p><p>The reverse legend of the above coin reads <i>IOVI CONSER-VAT AVG</i> which is a clear indicator of an Augustus in the singular [7]. Once Maximian assumes the imperial title this is quickly changed to the plural <i>AVGG</i> with the exception of a few coins apparently struck in error during the transition [7]. That helps to date this coin type to a period no later than the summer of AD 286.</p><p><br /></p><p>So if this coin is too early to fall into Diocletian’s mandate for uniform imperial portraiture whose likeness graces the obverse? The most obvious answer would be that it is an attempt to show the features of Diocletian and when I first began to research these sole rule types that is the conclusion that I at first suspected. However a closer inspection of the style of portraiture from Diocletian’s sole reign shows that there are inconsistencies with his likeness depending on mint location and that it is possible that the mint at Rome (and elsewhere) fell back on a generic likeness for what they believed an “Illyrian emperor” should look like.</p><p><br /></p><p style="text-align: center"><b><u>3.1 – Portraits of Power</u></b></p><p><br /></p><p>In order to consider the issue of whether the portraits from the Rome mint represented Diocletian’s features it is useful to compare the portraits of Diocletian’s sole reign with previous imperial portraits from other mints as seen in Figure 5.</p><p style="text-align: center"><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]713888[/ATTACH]</p><p><i>Figure 5 – A comparison of 3rd Century Imperial Portraits. Photos courtesy of the author and CNG.</i></p><p><br /></p><p>The above is just a sampling from two of the mints I found most interesting for this discussion along with gold issues from various mints that seem to depict the best style for each emperor. A few points of interest that stand out upon examination of Figure 5:</p><ol> <li>There seems to be a continuity of style at the mints that is retained even as features are modified to represent new emperors.</li> <li>There are enough individual features common to the representations of Cluadius Gothicus, Carus and Carinus that they can be identified reasonably well on coins from different mints (Ex.: The angular features of Claudius Gothicus, the shape of Carus’s head and the detailing of Carinus’s beard are all universal).</li> <li>The portraits of Aurelian, Probus and Diocletian struck at the Rome mint are all strikingly similar.</li> </ol><p>Percy Webb had already identified the fact that the mint at Lugdunum struck unique portraits of Diocletian during his sole reign (Note: the claim in RIC that portraits of Diocletian and Maximian can be distinguished from Lugdunum needs to be reconsidered. See <a href="https://www.cointalk.com/threads/diocletian-two-interesting-coins-and-a-legacy-of-reform.307405/page-2#post-2935853" class="internalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.cointalk.com/threads/diocletian-two-interesting-coins-and-a-legacy-of-reform.307405/page-2#post-2935853">Post#27</a> and <a href="https://www.cointalk.com/threads/diocletian-two-interesting-coins-and-a-legacy-of-reform.307405/page-3#post-2936291" class="internalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.cointalk.com/threads/diocletian-two-interesting-coins-and-a-legacy-of-reform.307405/page-3#post-2936291">Post#42</a>)[7]. However, RIC admits that it is unlikely that Diocletian ever visited Lugdunum during his sole rule and so the unique portraits may well be just artistic license on the part of the Gallic celators? There is a possibility that Diocletian visited Rome and he certainly visited Ticinum during his sole reign [8] and so these mints might well be expected to at least make nominal effort to capture his features. What seems most likely to have happened, however, is that upon Diocletian’s rapid conquest of the west and his apparently immediate need for money (his sole reign coinage is unexpectedly prolific) the mint at Rome simply reverted back to the iconography of the last reigning Illyrian emperor: Probus. An examination of the above figures shows that the antoniniani of Probus and Diocletian from Rome are virtually indistinguishable without the legends. In fact, from the time of Claudius II Gothicus to Probus (all from the province of Illyricum) there seems to have developed a somewhat uniform set of features for the so called “barracks emperors.” Aurelian, for instance, was over 60 when he became emperor but many of his coins show a much younger man with rounded and pleasant features that would later be adopted by Probus. Carus and Carinus were from a senatorial family that came from southern Gaul and so it is not surprising that they are depicted differently and with an eye for greater individual accuracy (especially Carus). When the mint at Rome needed to immediately begin striking for Diocletian it would not be surprising that they would have used Probus and Aurelian as models (all eastern provincials look alike right?) and that the pragmatic Diocletian did not object. A similar scenario is likely to have played out at other mints striking under the sole reign.</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]713528[/ATTACH]</p><p><i>Figure 6 - Portrait Bust of Diocletian(?)</i></p><p><br /></p><p>There is, of course, the outside possibility that the mint at Rome did indeed make an attempt to engrave new dies in the likeness of Diocletian and that he simply possessed the physical characteristics that were in style at the time (<i>late </i>classic good looks?). Most sculptural and other artistic representations of the tetrarchs are so stylized and abstracted that proper attribution can be tricky or impossible. The above bust is currently in the archeological museum of Istanbul and has typically been ascribed to Diocletian [10]. It was found in his imperial capital of Nicomedia and was sculpted in a style that mixes realism with ‘soldier emperor’ influence but avoids the abstract tetrarchic style. It shows similarities with early Rome (and a few other) mint coins and if it was a palace fixture not meant for public display it is possible Diocletian would have allowed his actual likeness to be carved in the same way that Maximian seems to have done [3].</p><p><br /></p><p>So in short my research on this coin has led to more questions than answers but that is part of the fun of researching these ancient works of art.</p><p><br /></p><p style="text-align: center"><b><u>4.0 – The Coinage Reform of Diocletian (RIC VI 33)</u></b></p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]713529[/ATTACH]</p><p><font size="3">Roman Empire</font></p><p><font size="3">Diocletian, AD 284-305</font></p><p><font size="3">AE Follis, Ticinum mint, struck AD 296-297</font></p><p><font size="3">Dia.: 31 mm</font></p><p><font size="3">Wt.: 8.63 g</font></p><p><font size="3">Obv.: IMP C DIOCLETIANVS P F AVG. Laureate head of Diocletian right</font></p><p><font size="3">Rev.: GENIO POPVLI ROMANI. Genius wearing mural crown holding patera and cornucopia</font></p><p><font size="3">Ref.: RIC VI 33</font></p><p><br /></p><p>The most lasting legacy of Diocletian for numismatists is the top-to-bottom currency reform he enacted around the year AD 294 [9]. The above coin was stuck at Ticinum (close to Milan) in the first few years after the reform. The style is not as abstract as coins struck in the following years would become but one can begin to notice a thickening of the neck to an almost impossible degree which is indicative of a move in that direction. This coin was introduced by Diocletian as an entirely new silver washed bronze denomination commonly called a Follis. This name is not what they were called in antiquity and more specifically it refers to a bag of coins from a later period [9][11]. Regardless of what it was called it was the workhorse of the new monetary system and its size and weight must have been comforting to traders used to the diminutive bronze antoniniani of the crisis years. The size of the coin may have been an attempt to recall the earlier imperial Aes while the raise of the gold weight and the restoration of a silver argenteus coin with the same content as Nero’s denarius are certainly references to the earlier monetary tradition.</p><p><br /></p><p>Assigning relative values to the coins of the reform and understanding how these coins traded against the coins already in circulation is not as easy as one might imagine. One of the items that make it incredibly difficult is the disagreement on what the XXI found on my pre-reform antoninianus and also on some (not all) of the post reform follis signifies. It has been suggested that it is a ratio of 20 to 1 (XX to I) bronze to silver within the coin [12] or that it means that the coin was valued at 20 of some denomination to 1 antoninianus. Sutherland makes the case that both the denarius and sestertius survived into the third century as a unit of account and that when Aurelian first introduced this symbol he was declaring that 1 antoninianus = 20 sestertii = 5 “denarius communis” (this being the pitiful descendant of the mighty denarius of republican fame)[13]. Sutherland’s view makes sense if the aim was to head off potential inflation and the silver content argument makes sense in that the measured silver content of post reform folli based on metallurgical analysis fall within a reasonable tolerance for the theory. If Sutherlands view is correct the continued use of XXI at some mints may have been continued in part to signify that the new follis was now valued at what the old antoninianus had been. The old antoninianus (and post reform radiates of similar size) were now worth 2 denarius communis which is likely not less than what they were trading at in any case.</p><p><br /></p><p>Regardless of which of the above theories you prefer is seems that the most widely accepted relative values can be summarized by Figure 7. Much of the evidence for the below comes from Diocletians “Edict of Maximum Prices” which you can find in the reference link below [4].</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]713797[/ATTACH]</p><p><i>Figure 7 - Diocletian's Coinage Reform</i></p><p><br /></p><p>It is worth noting that the denominations tariffed at set relationships were all on a silver standard. The relationship between the gold and silver pieces were likely allowed to fluctuate based on whatever the gold to silver ratio was at the time [9].</p><p><br /></p><p style="text-align: center"><b><u>5.0 – Four Emperors, One Coin Type</u></b></p><p><br /></p><p>I have saved the discussion of the reverse types for the end because I find them to be both fascinating and instructive for understanding the context of Diocletian and his policies. The reverse of the sole rule antoninianus shows the leader of the Roman pantheon, Jupiter / Jove, as conservator of the state. This was a popular theme on crisis coinage which noticed a sharp increase in the use of Jupiter in a military context. It also presages the association that Diocletian would make with his dynasty and Jupiter under the tetrarchy.</p><p><br /></p><p>The reverse of the post-reform coinage is different. It shows the “Genius” of the Roman people standing with a patera and cornucopia. The Genius can be defined as a spirit (closest thing in modern culture would be a soul) that could be representative of any individual, group or even object. The Genius holds a cornucopia as a sign of the prosperity that Diocletian promised under his new system. The Genius was a non-militant symbol of Roman unity that appealed to all levels of society (even the sizable minority population of early Christians would be unlikely to take offense). More importantly, this type appears on the vast majority of the coins struck during the tetrarchy creating an almost completely uniform currency across the expanse of the empire. Peace, prosperity, uniformity and stability were the order of the day according to the tetrarchs and these coin types are yet another extension of that philosophy.</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]713536[/ATTACH]</p><p><i>Figure 8 - Jupiter and Genius</i></p><p><br /></p><p style="text-align: center"><b><u>References</u></b></p><p><br /></p><p>[1] <a href="https://www.britannica.com/biography/Diocletian" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.britannica.com/biography/Diocletian" rel="nofollow">https://www.britannica.com/biography/Diocletian</a></p><p><br /></p><p>[2] Zonaras, J.: Online. <a href="http://speculumlinguarumetlitterarum.blogspot.com/2011/01/john-zonaras-alexander-severus-to.html" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://speculumlinguarumetlitterarum.blogspot.com/2011/01/john-zonaras-alexander-severus-to.html" rel="nofollow">http://speculumlinguarumetlitterarum.blogspot.com/2011/01/john-zonaras-alexander-severus-to.html</a></p><p><br /></p><p>[3] <a href="https://saintraymond.toulouse.fr/The-Roman-villa-of-Chiragan_a192.html" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://saintraymond.toulouse.fr/The-Roman-villa-of-Chiragan_a192.html" rel="nofollow">https://saintraymond.toulouse.fr/The-Roman-villa-of-Chiragan_a192.html</a></p><p><br /></p><p>[4] <a href="http://www.forumancientcoins.com/NumisWiki/view.asp?key=Edict%20of%20Diocletian%20Edict%20on%20Prices" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://www.forumancientcoins.com/NumisWiki/view.asp?key=Edict%20of%20Diocletian%20Edict%20on%20Prices" rel="nofollow">http://www.forumancientcoins.com/NumisWiki/view.asp?key=Edict of Diocletian Edict on Prices</a></p><p><br /></p><p>[5] <a href="http://saintraymond.toulouse.fr/Faites-un-bond-dans-le-temps-_a853.html" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://saintraymond.toulouse.fr/Faites-un-bond-dans-le-temps-_a853.html" rel="nofollow">http://saintraymond.toulouse.fr/Faites-un-bond-dans-le-temps-_a853.html</a></p><p><br /></p><p>[6] Rasiel, S., <i>ERIC II: The Encyclopedia of Roman Imperial Coins</i>. Dirty Old Books, 2010;</p><p><br /></p><p>[7] Webb, P. <i>The Roman Imperial Coinage, Volume V. Part II.</i> Spink & Sons, LTD, 1933; London, UK.</p><p><br /></p><p>[8] <a href="http://www.keytoumbria.com/Umbria/Diocletians_Rise_to_Power_%28284-5_AD%29.html" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://www.keytoumbria.com/Umbria/Diocletians_Rise_to_Power_%28284-5_AD%29.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.keytoumbria.com/Umbria/Diocletians_Rise_to_Power_(284-5_AD).html</a></p><p><br /></p><p>[9] Sutherland, C.H.V. <i>The Roman Imperial Coinage, Volume VI.</i> Spink & Sons, LTD, 1967; London, UK.</p><p><br /></p><p>[10] Prusac, M. <i>Face to Face: Recarving of Roman Portraits and the Late-Antiquw Portrait Arts.</i> Brill, Leiden 2011</p><p><br /></p><p>[11] Smith, D. Online: <a href="http://www.forumancientcoins.com/dougsmith/galeriusfol.html" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://www.forumancientcoins.com/dougsmith/galeriusfol.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.forumancientcoins.com/dougsmith/galeriusfol.html</a></p><p><br /></p><p>[12] Smith, D. Online: <a href="http://www.forumancientcoins.com/dougsmith/feac73xxi.html" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://www.forumancientcoins.com/dougsmith/feac73xxi.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.forumancientcoins.com/dougsmith/feac73xxi.html</a></p><p><br /></p><p>[13] Sutherland, C.H.V. <i>Denarius and Sestertius in Diocletian's Coinage Refrom. </i>The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 51, Parts 1 and 2. (1961), pp. 94-97[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>
[QUOTE="Curtisimo, post: 2935103, member: 83845"]A recent trip to visit the remains of Diocletian’s palace in Split, Croatia have had me fascinated with all things Diocletian for the last several months! I have acquired two coins this year that were struck under Diocletian that I would like to discuss. My research led me in a lot of interesting directions so I will apologize in advance concerning the excessively long essay. I just can’t seem to curb my enthusiasm for my favorite new acquisitions. I hope that by writing essays like this on my research and offering it here to be freely available it will help others to learn when otherwise some of the information might be more difficult or expensive to find. [CENTER][ATTACH=full]713518[/ATTACH] [B][U]1.0 – Early Life of Diocletian[/U][/B] [/CENTER] Diocletian was born some time ca. AD 244 near the Roman provincial capital of Salona in Illyricum (near modern day Solin, Croatia) during the anarchic period known as the Crisis of the Third Century. The first 40 or so years of Diocletian’s life are so obscure that most of what we know comes from sources written years and sometimes centuries after his death or else from sources that are considered less than reliable. Diocletian was likely born with the Greek name Diocles which he later changed after being hailed emperor in order to sound more Latin (he may have continued to use it in private). His family was of low status and his father may have been either a scribe or a freedman of the Roman senator Anullinus [1][2]. [ATTACH=full]713524[/ATTACH] [I]Figure 2 – Salona, Illyricum (Modern Croatia). Hometown of Diocletian. Top left – Remains of the Basilica Urbana. Top right – Remains of one of the primary streets of Salona. Bottom – Remains of the Salona Amphitheater. Author’s photos[/I] Diocletian rose to power through distinction in the Roman army. Nothing is known of his early service but a 12th century Byzantine source claims that he eventually served as [I]Dux Moesiae[/I] which means that he would have been a military leader in command of a specially formed army near the Danube frontier [2]. We do know with some certainty that he served as the commander of an elite cavalry unit that participated in a successful invasion of Persia [1]. After the death of both the emperor Carus and his son Numerian under suspicious circumstances during the campaign Diocletian was chosen as the new emperor by the troops. Zonaras claims that his first act upon taking the purple was to draw his sword in full view of the assembled troops and kill the presumably startled prefect Lucius Aper who he accused of assassinating the previous emperors [2]. Next he turned his attention to dealing with Carus’s only surviving son; the Emperor Carinus. In AD 285 the two opposing emperors met at The Battle of the Margus. During the battle the unpopular Carinus was killed by his own men who then hailed Diocletian as emperor of a united Roman Empire. [CENTER][B][U]2.0 – Reform, the Tetrarchy and the Stabilization of the Empire[/U][/B][/CENTER] Diocletian now found himself in the precarious position of sole ruler of the Roman world. However, the empire that he inherited was not the wealthy and powerful Roman Empire of the second century. His victory had won him a divided and bankrupt empire that had nearly collapsed under the weight of 50 years of internal chaos. In the second century, Rome’s stability and strength had intimidated its potential enemies and deterred them from testing its defenses too forcefully. Now conversely, Rome’s unaccustomed weakness meant that the Sassanid Empire in the east and the Germanic tribes to the north could exploit the frontiers with ever increasing boldness. Even a competent emperor could not personally meet all challengers at once. To add to the dilemma, Diocletian knew that any successful general that he delegated authority to handle a crisis that he could not personally oversee would likely be hailed as a rival emperor by the troops he was leading. However, Diocletian was intelligent and far sighted and as such he developed a revolutionary strategy to reform the Roman state. To deal with the problem of multiple conflict zones within the empire Diocletian promoted his fellow soldier Maximian to the rank of Caesar in July of 285. This effectively made Maximian his heir which, in theory, would also help to solve another problem that had plagued the empire during the Crisis of the Third Century: the lack of an effective succession. This arrangement was so successful that Diocletian decided to take it a step further in 293 in order to deal with a series of military challenges that grew up in the west. Diocletian and Maximian would be Augusti (senior emperors) and two of their subordinates, Galerius and Constantius Chlorus, would become Caesars (junior emperors) in the east and west respectively. Under the new system, known as the tetrarchy, the Augusti would be tied to each other and to the gods by associating their new dynasties with the traditional Roman gods Jove (Diocletian) and Hercules (Maximian). This system brought stability and strength back to the Roman world. Within the empire a series of usurpers were defeated, in the north the barbarian incursions were checked and in the east the Sassanid capital of Ctesiphon was sacked and the Persians were forced into a humiliating peace agreement. While the city of Rome began to lose its political primacy during this period the emperors spent lavishly on the types of public monuments (such as the Baths of Diocletian and improvements to the forum) that had not been built in the city of Rome in over half a century. [ATTACH=full]713532[/ATTACH] [I]Figure 3 – The Baths of Diocletian. Top – The exterior of the baths. Bottom – The interior as redesigned by Michelangelo.[/I] Despite some setbacks, Roman fortunes seemed to be improving steadily. Then in May of 305 Diocletian did something unprecedented: He abdicated his imperium and demanded that Maximian do the same. Diocletian would be the only emperor in Roman history to voluntarily relinquish his authority. Unfortunately for Rome it soon became apparent that the tetrarchy would not be able to function without Diocletian’s guiding hand. Soon after his retirement his successors began to fight and intrigue against one another for power. The ensuing chaos is fairly difficult to keep straight so in the interest of clarity I have built a timeline of events that shows how complicated the system got (even excluding most usurpers) (see Figure 2). Constantine the Great would eventually emerge from the struggle as the first sole ruler of the empire since Diocletian 40 years earlier. [ATTACH=full]713519[/ATTACH] [I]Figure 4 – Timeline of the Tetrachy from AD 284 to 324.[/I] [CENTER][B][U]3.0 – Who is Depicted on Diocletian’s Coins? (RIC V:II 161)[/U][/B][/CENTER] [ATTACH=full]713520[/ATTACH] [SIZE=3]Roman Empire Diocletian, AD 284-350 AE Antoninianus, Rome mint, 6th officina, struck AD 285-286 Dia.: 24.73 mm Wt.: 3.55 g Obv.: IMP DIOCLETIANVS AVG. Diocletian radiate bust right. Rev.: IOVI CONSER-VAT AVG. Jupiter standing holding thunder bolt and scepter. XXIZ below. Ref.: RIC V:II 161 Ex Auktion GM 92, Ex Dr. Busseo Peus Nachf.[/SIZE] One of the criticisms levelled at Diocletian by some numismatists is that his reforms brought about the institutional abandonment of realistic portraiture on Roman coins. Rasiel Suarez dedicates an entire section in his write up on Diocletian in ERIC II to discussing how Diocletian’s coinage reform served to end the practice of lifelike portraits on coins for over 1,000 years [6]. However, the iconography of Diocletian’s coinage was very deliberate and there was much more to the story than simple artistic negligence. In order to make the coinage of the empire uniform during the tetrarchy Diocletian chose to have all of the co-emperors depicted with the same idealized features. However, this strategy only makes sense in the context of a multi-emperor system. As Figure 4 clearly shows there was a short period at the beginning of his reign in which Diocletian was sole emperor. The reverse legend of the above coin reads [I]IOVI CONSER-VAT AVG[/I] which is a clear indicator of an Augustus in the singular [7]. Once Maximian assumes the imperial title this is quickly changed to the plural [I]AVGG[/I] with the exception of a few coins apparently struck in error during the transition [7]. That helps to date this coin type to a period no later than the summer of AD 286. So if this coin is too early to fall into Diocletian’s mandate for uniform imperial portraiture whose likeness graces the obverse? The most obvious answer would be that it is an attempt to show the features of Diocletian and when I first began to research these sole rule types that is the conclusion that I at first suspected. However a closer inspection of the style of portraiture from Diocletian’s sole reign shows that there are inconsistencies with his likeness depending on mint location and that it is possible that the mint at Rome (and elsewhere) fell back on a generic likeness for what they believed an “Illyrian emperor” should look like. [CENTER][B][U]3.1 – Portraits of Power[/U][/B][/CENTER] In order to consider the issue of whether the portraits from the Rome mint represented Diocletian’s features it is useful to compare the portraits of Diocletian’s sole reign with previous imperial portraits from other mints as seen in Figure 5. [CENTER][/CENTER] [ATTACH=full]713888[/ATTACH] [I]Figure 5 – A comparison of 3rd Century Imperial Portraits. Photos courtesy of the author and CNG.[/I] The above is just a sampling from two of the mints I found most interesting for this discussion along with gold issues from various mints that seem to depict the best style for each emperor. A few points of interest that stand out upon examination of Figure 5: [LIST=1] [*]There seems to be a continuity of style at the mints that is retained even as features are modified to represent new emperors. [*]There are enough individual features common to the representations of Cluadius Gothicus, Carus and Carinus that they can be identified reasonably well on coins from different mints (Ex.: The angular features of Claudius Gothicus, the shape of Carus’s head and the detailing of Carinus’s beard are all universal). [*]The portraits of Aurelian, Probus and Diocletian struck at the Rome mint are all strikingly similar. [/LIST] Percy Webb had already identified the fact that the mint at Lugdunum struck unique portraits of Diocletian during his sole reign (Note: the claim in RIC that portraits of Diocletian and Maximian can be distinguished from Lugdunum needs to be reconsidered. See [URL='https://www.cointalk.com/threads/diocletian-two-interesting-coins-and-a-legacy-of-reform.307405/page-2#post-2935853']Post#27[/URL] and [URL='https://www.cointalk.com/threads/diocletian-two-interesting-coins-and-a-legacy-of-reform.307405/page-3#post-2936291']Post#42[/URL])[7]. However, RIC admits that it is unlikely that Diocletian ever visited Lugdunum during his sole rule and so the unique portraits may well be just artistic license on the part of the Gallic celators? There is a possibility that Diocletian visited Rome and he certainly visited Ticinum during his sole reign [8] and so these mints might well be expected to at least make nominal effort to capture his features. What seems most likely to have happened, however, is that upon Diocletian’s rapid conquest of the west and his apparently immediate need for money (his sole reign coinage is unexpectedly prolific) the mint at Rome simply reverted back to the iconography of the last reigning Illyrian emperor: Probus. An examination of the above figures shows that the antoniniani of Probus and Diocletian from Rome are virtually indistinguishable without the legends. In fact, from the time of Claudius II Gothicus to Probus (all from the province of Illyricum) there seems to have developed a somewhat uniform set of features for the so called “barracks emperors.” Aurelian, for instance, was over 60 when he became emperor but many of his coins show a much younger man with rounded and pleasant features that would later be adopted by Probus. Carus and Carinus were from a senatorial family that came from southern Gaul and so it is not surprising that they are depicted differently and with an eye for greater individual accuracy (especially Carus). When the mint at Rome needed to immediately begin striking for Diocletian it would not be surprising that they would have used Probus and Aurelian as models (all eastern provincials look alike right?) and that the pragmatic Diocletian did not object. A similar scenario is likely to have played out at other mints striking under the sole reign. [ATTACH=full]713528[/ATTACH] [I]Figure 6 - Portrait Bust of Diocletian(?)[/I] There is, of course, the outside possibility that the mint at Rome did indeed make an attempt to engrave new dies in the likeness of Diocletian and that he simply possessed the physical characteristics that were in style at the time ([I]late [/I]classic good looks?). Most sculptural and other artistic representations of the tetrarchs are so stylized and abstracted that proper attribution can be tricky or impossible. The above bust is currently in the archeological museum of Istanbul and has typically been ascribed to Diocletian [10]. It was found in his imperial capital of Nicomedia and was sculpted in a style that mixes realism with ‘soldier emperor’ influence but avoids the abstract tetrarchic style. It shows similarities with early Rome (and a few other) mint coins and if it was a palace fixture not meant for public display it is possible Diocletian would have allowed his actual likeness to be carved in the same way that Maximian seems to have done [3]. So in short my research on this coin has led to more questions than answers but that is part of the fun of researching these ancient works of art. [CENTER][B][U]4.0 – The Coinage Reform of Diocletian (RIC VI 33)[/U][/B][/CENTER] [ATTACH=full]713529[/ATTACH] [SIZE=3]Roman Empire Diocletian, AD 284-305 AE Follis, Ticinum mint, struck AD 296-297 Dia.: 31 mm Wt.: 8.63 g Obv.: IMP C DIOCLETIANVS P F AVG. Laureate head of Diocletian right Rev.: GENIO POPVLI ROMANI. Genius wearing mural crown holding patera and cornucopia Ref.: RIC VI 33[/SIZE] The most lasting legacy of Diocletian for numismatists is the top-to-bottom currency reform he enacted around the year AD 294 [9]. The above coin was stuck at Ticinum (close to Milan) in the first few years after the reform. The style is not as abstract as coins struck in the following years would become but one can begin to notice a thickening of the neck to an almost impossible degree which is indicative of a move in that direction. This coin was introduced by Diocletian as an entirely new silver washed bronze denomination commonly called a Follis. This name is not what they were called in antiquity and more specifically it refers to a bag of coins from a later period [9][11]. Regardless of what it was called it was the workhorse of the new monetary system and its size and weight must have been comforting to traders used to the diminutive bronze antoniniani of the crisis years. The size of the coin may have been an attempt to recall the earlier imperial Aes while the raise of the gold weight and the restoration of a silver argenteus coin with the same content as Nero’s denarius are certainly references to the earlier monetary tradition. Assigning relative values to the coins of the reform and understanding how these coins traded against the coins already in circulation is not as easy as one might imagine. One of the items that make it incredibly difficult is the disagreement on what the XXI found on my pre-reform antoninianus and also on some (not all) of the post reform follis signifies. It has been suggested that it is a ratio of 20 to 1 (XX to I) bronze to silver within the coin [12] or that it means that the coin was valued at 20 of some denomination to 1 antoninianus. Sutherland makes the case that both the denarius and sestertius survived into the third century as a unit of account and that when Aurelian first introduced this symbol he was declaring that 1 antoninianus = 20 sestertii = 5 “denarius communis” (this being the pitiful descendant of the mighty denarius of republican fame)[13]. Sutherland’s view makes sense if the aim was to head off potential inflation and the silver content argument makes sense in that the measured silver content of post reform folli based on metallurgical analysis fall within a reasonable tolerance for the theory. If Sutherlands view is correct the continued use of XXI at some mints may have been continued in part to signify that the new follis was now valued at what the old antoninianus had been. The old antoninianus (and post reform radiates of similar size) were now worth 2 denarius communis which is likely not less than what they were trading at in any case. Regardless of which of the above theories you prefer is seems that the most widely accepted relative values can be summarized by Figure 7. Much of the evidence for the below comes from Diocletians “Edict of Maximum Prices” which you can find in the reference link below [4]. [ATTACH=full]713797[/ATTACH] [I]Figure 7 - Diocletian's Coinage Reform[/I] It is worth noting that the denominations tariffed at set relationships were all on a silver standard. The relationship between the gold and silver pieces were likely allowed to fluctuate based on whatever the gold to silver ratio was at the time [9]. [CENTER][B][U]5.0 – Four Emperors, One Coin Type[/U][/B][/CENTER] I have saved the discussion of the reverse types for the end because I find them to be both fascinating and instructive for understanding the context of Diocletian and his policies. The reverse of the sole rule antoninianus shows the leader of the Roman pantheon, Jupiter / Jove, as conservator of the state. This was a popular theme on crisis coinage which noticed a sharp increase in the use of Jupiter in a military context. It also presages the association that Diocletian would make with his dynasty and Jupiter under the tetrarchy. The reverse of the post-reform coinage is different. It shows the “Genius” of the Roman people standing with a patera and cornucopia. The Genius can be defined as a spirit (closest thing in modern culture would be a soul) that could be representative of any individual, group or even object. The Genius holds a cornucopia as a sign of the prosperity that Diocletian promised under his new system. The Genius was a non-militant symbol of Roman unity that appealed to all levels of society (even the sizable minority population of early Christians would be unlikely to take offense). More importantly, this type appears on the vast majority of the coins struck during the tetrarchy creating an almost completely uniform currency across the expanse of the empire. Peace, prosperity, uniformity and stability were the order of the day according to the tetrarchs and these coin types are yet another extension of that philosophy. [ATTACH=full]713536[/ATTACH] [I]Figure 8 - Jupiter and Genius[/I] [CENTER][B][U]References[/U][/B][/CENTER] [1] [url]https://www.britannica.com/biography/Diocletian[/url] [2] Zonaras, J.: Online. [url]http://speculumlinguarumetlitterarum.blogspot.com/2011/01/john-zonaras-alexander-severus-to.html[/url] [3] [url]https://saintraymond.toulouse.fr/The-Roman-villa-of-Chiragan_a192.html[/url] [4] [URL='http://www.forumancientcoins.com/NumisWiki/view.asp?key=Edict%20of%20Diocletian%20Edict%20on%20Prices']http://www.forumancientcoins.com/NumisWiki/view.asp?key=Edict of Diocletian Edict on Prices[/URL] [5] [url]http://saintraymond.toulouse.fr/Faites-un-bond-dans-le-temps-_a853.html[/url] [6] Rasiel, S., [I]ERIC II: The Encyclopedia of Roman Imperial Coins[/I]. Dirty Old Books, 2010; [7] Webb, P. [I]The Roman Imperial Coinage, Volume V. Part II.[/I] Spink & Sons, LTD, 1933; London, UK. [8] [URL='http://www.keytoumbria.com/Umbria/Diocletians_Rise_to_Power_%28284-5_AD%29.html']http://www.keytoumbria.com/Umbria/Diocletians_Rise_to_Power_(284-5_AD).html[/URL] [9] Sutherland, C.H.V. [I]The Roman Imperial Coinage, Volume VI.[/I] Spink & Sons, LTD, 1967; London, UK. [10] Prusac, M. [I]Face to Face: Recarving of Roman Portraits and the Late-Antiquw Portrait Arts.[/I] Brill, Leiden 2011 [11] Smith, D. Online: [url]http://www.forumancientcoins.com/dougsmith/galeriusfol.html[/url] [12] Smith, D. Online: [url]http://www.forumancientcoins.com/dougsmith/feac73xxi.html[/url] [13] Sutherland, C.H.V. [I]Denarius and Sestertius in Diocletian's Coinage Refrom. [/I]The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 51, Parts 1 and 2. (1961), pp. 94-97[/QUOTE]
Your name or email address:
Do you already have an account?
No, create an account now.
Yes, my password is:
Forgot your password?
Stay logged in
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Ancient Coins
>
Diocletian: Two Interesting Coins and a Legacy of Reform
>
Home
Home
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Activity
Recent Posts
Forums
Forums
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Posts
Competitions
Competitions
Quick Links
Competition Index
Rules, Terms & Conditions
Gallery
Gallery
Quick Links
Search Media
New Media
Showcase
Showcase
Quick Links
Search Items
Most Active Members
New Items
Directory
Directory
Quick Links
Directory Home
New Listings
Members
Members
Quick Links
Notable Members
Current Visitors
Recent Activity
New Profile Posts
Sponsors
Menu
Search
Search titles only
Posted by Member:
Separate names with a comma.
Newer Than:
Search this thread only
Search this forum only
Display results as threads
Useful Searches
Recent Posts
More...