Distinguishing between Maximian, Galerius, and Maximinus II

I disagree with this. Caesar was a rank almost all Augusti assumed in addition to the more important one: Augustus. Maximianus was not Gaius or Galerius. He was Imperator Caesar Marcus Aurelius Valerius Maximianus Herculius Augustus.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

It has been difficult to find the right wording on my page:
http://augustuscoins.com/ed/tetrarchy/distinguishing.html

Now I changed it to read:

"Two ancient sources say that Diocletian made Maximian Caesar (mid 285) and later Augustus (early 286; the precise dates are disputed), so there was a time period when coins of Maximian had the title Caesar but not the title Augustus. Nevertheless, scholars have identified no coins of Maximian without the title Augustus. Coins in that period must have been minted in the name of Diocletian only."

 

These two statements contradict each other. Maximianus may have been just Caesar but your first statement says there are coins while the second says there were not.

Who are the 'two ancient sources'? If they are SHA level, I'd be more likely to accept numismatic lack of evidence than a written comment by some of the later 'historians'.

 

@dougsmit , thanks again. I deleted "coins of" which was not intended and not correct. It now reads,

"Two ancient sources (Panegyri Latani 10(2) and Eutropius, Breviarum, IX, 20) , say that Diocletian made Maximian Caesar (mid 285) and later Augustus (early 286; the precise dates are disputed), so there was a time period when Maximian had the title Caesar but not the title Augustus. Nevertheless, scholars have identified no coins of Maximian without the title Augustus. Coins in that period must have been minted in the name of Diocletian only."

The early period of Diocletian's reign and his promotion of Maximian has been the subject of much scholarly attention for over a century. If it were just coins, we would think Maximian was promoted straight to Augustus.

By the way, I have not read the original sources, rather extracted my information from Williams' book Diocletian and the Roman Recovery.

http://augustuscoins.com/ed/tetrarchy/distinguishing.html

 

Adding another Galerius to this thread as I often find myself going back to the useful 5 rules to ensure Maximinus, Maximianus, and Galerius coins are sorted correctly. Rule 2 makes this one easy: Galerius, as Caesar, 293-305, AE follis, (26-28mm, 13.57g, 6h), Carthage, circa 298-299
Obv: MAXIMIANVS NOB CAES Laureate head of Galerius to right
Rev: SALVIS AVGG ET CAESS FEL KART / Δ Carthago standing facing, head to left, holding fruits in both hands
Ref: RIC 30b
ex. E.E. Clain-Stefanelli Collection

 

This comes up so often that I am ready to say we should change the way we name someone even though he has been called that by historians for a long time. There are, I believe, no Ae coins of Galerius that bear that name spelled out. Most use GAL. There are a couple that use GALER but without the IVS (an item now on my want list). I suspect, to him, he was primarily Maximianus and you should use that name when addressing him (while being prostrate before him, of course). We should call him "Maximianus II" since using Galerius just transfers the problem to separating the GAL VAL with an A and the GAL VAL without the extra A. If people realized that any coin reading MAXIMIANUS needs to be examined to see which of the two "two A's" it was, we might have less confusion. We still would have to rely on counting A's to spot the Maximi(no a)nus coins in the bunch. Speed reading may be a wonderful skill for novels but it is not so good for coins.