February 23rd: DIOCLETIANS’s shameful day

Here are five Diocletians, all different types. I gather that each of the two I describe as a "follis" should properly be called a "nummus" instead?

Diocletian, silvered AE Follis, 294-295 AD, Nicomedia Mint. Obv. Laureate head right, IMP CC VAL DIOCLETIANVS PF AVG/ Rev. Genius standing left, pouring out patera & holding cornucopiae, GENIO POPVLI ROMANI, mintmark SMN (Nicomedia). RIC VI 27a p. 556), Sear RCV IV 12788, ERIC II 539, Cohen 106. 27.8 mm., 8.6 g.



Diocletian, AE Antoninianus, 293-294 AD, Antioch Mint (7th Officina). Obv. Radiate, draped & cuirassed bust right, IMP C C VAL DIOCLETIANVS PF AVG / Rev. Jupiter stdg. left, holding long scepter, presents Victory on globe to Diocletian, CONCORDIA MILITVM; Z in lower middle field (= 7th officina of Antioch mint), XXI in exergue. RIC VI 322 (p. 256), Sear RCV IV 12637, Cohen 34. 20.87 mm., 4.75 g.



Diocletian, AR Argenteus, ca. AD 295, Heraclea Mint (1st Officina). Obv. Laureate head right, DIOCLETI-ANVS AVG / Rev. The four tetrarchs [the Augusti Diocletian and Maximian, and the Caesars Constantius Chlorus and Galerius], draped, sacrificing over a tripod altar, two of them on each side, before military camp gate with six turrets (four in front and two in rear), VICTORIA-SARMAT [referring to victories over the Sarmatians*]; in exergue, H A [Heraclea, 1st Officina]. RIC VI Heraclea 6 [see http://numismatics.org/ocre/id/ric.6.her.6], RSC V Diocletian 488j, Sear RCV IV 12612. Purchased from Kenneth W. Dorney, Oct. 2021. Ex. Ira & Larry Goldberg Auction 90, 2 Feb. 2016, Lot 3274. 19 mm., 2.70 g.



*See Stephen Williams, Diocletian and the Roman Recovery (Routledge, 2000) at p. 76 (preview at Google Books): “In 294 Diocletian launced a fresh offensive against the main body of the Sarmatians. . . . By the latter half of 294 they [the Sarmatians] had sustained such a defeat that they ceased to be a threat for many more years. Sarmatian warriors were taken into the Roman armies in large numbers, either as mercenaries or under treaty, and later fought well under Galerius against the Persians.”

Diocletian, billon abdication Follis, 305-307 AD, Trier Mint. Obv. Laureate bust right in imperial mantle (trabea), holding olive branch and mappa, D N DIOCLETIANO BAEATISSIMO SEN AVG / Rev. Providentia standing right, holding [scroll or short scepter?] and drapery with left hand and extending right hand to Quies standing left, holding branch downward with right hand and leaning on scepter with left hand, S - F across fields, PROVIDENTIA DEORVM QVIES AVGG; PTR in exergue. 27x28 mm., 9.6 gm. RIC VI Trier 673a (p. 208), Sear RCV IV 12927. [Die match to example sold by Numismatik Naumann in 2015; see https://www.acsearch.info/image.html?id=2337893.]



Recently ordered but not yet received:

Diocletian, Billon Tetradrachm, 292/293 AD (Year 9), Alexandria, Egypt mint. Obv. Laureate and cuirassed bust right, ΔΙΟΚΛHΤΙΑΝΟC CΕΒ / Rev. ENA/TOV / L [= Year 9 spelled out] within laurel wreath; in exergue, A [ = 1st Officina]. 19-20 mm., 7.39g., 12 h. Dattari 5787; Geissen 3264/65; BMC 16 Alexandria 2541 at p. 327; K & G 119.84; Emmett 4084.9, Milne 5065. Ex. Münchner Münzhandlung Karl Kreß [Kress] Auction 139, 20 Jun 1967, Lot 717.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Here’s how our member @Heliodromus (Ben) answered this question 10 years ago :
Follis is certainly wrong - this was the Roman name for a *bag* of coins of value 12,5000 "denarii communes" (i.e. denarii at a time when it was just an accounting unit, no longer an actual coin denomination). I'm not sure who introduced the incorrect modern usage of this name.
The name nummus is probably the best. There are contemporary references to this name being used for the bronze/billion coinage at the time of Diocletian's monetary reform, and the same name appears to have still been in use at least as late as c.321AD per reference to this coin's (nummus) value being halved, apparently in reference to a revaluation that occurred at the time Licinius introduced new coins marked "12 1/2" [denarii communes].

The issue of denominations/naming is complicated by Constantine's coinage reform of c.318AD when (per modern testing) he significantly increased the silver content of the bronze/billion coinage (from 1-2% to 4-5%), and reintroduced older reverse types associated with a higher yet (20%) silver content. Presumably per the increased silver content (and intended value association), this coinage reform increased the value (tariffing) of the bronze/billion coinage, and the question then becomes whether the denomination name stayed the same (nummus), or changed.

Given the apparently (c.321AD) post-reform use of the name nummus, it seems the safest guess is that the name nummus persisted after Constantine's c.318AD reform, but others have suggested that the denomination name changed and have equated this to the known "centenionalis" of this approximate time. The competing theory is that the "centenionalis" instead refers to a slightly later denomination introduced after Constantine's death.

 

Many fine coins in this thread! I have only one nummus of Diocletian at the moment, but it's quite lovely: VF+ with enough silvering left to make it shimmer, Heraclea mint...



Edited

 

You know me, mostly one coin per emperor. Here is an argenius



Diocletian may have been bad for the Christians, but he was good from the Roman Empire. After years of political unrest and defeats, he did bring order. And he was one of those rare emperors who left on his own terms and knew when to retire. Therefore he got to die of natural causes.

The Romans were intolerant of anyone who didn't tow the empire's line. If you got of course, you were crushed ASAP. With the breakaway provinces, like the one Carausius started, it took years.

 

One of my favorite Diocletian coins is this golden toned silvered chunker from Alexandria. I believe it’s from the first issue after dropping the tetradrachms.

 

That's a very nice, informative discourse on Diocletian and his monetary system, and the reverse types. I must correct myself about this, my only type coin for this emperor; it is a nummus, not a follis.

Antioch, 308 AD
"Abdication Nummus"

10.5 grams

 

That first coin is super nice!

 

Hi @robinjojo, that's a great coin, and actually dates a bit earlier.

It's RIC VI Antioch 73a, dating to 305 AD - the first abdication issue. There's an error in RIC which has the issue mark for RIC 72-73 being "ANT .", when it's really just "ANT".

The way to distinguish between RIC 72-73 and the later RIC 83 (since they do have the same mintmark) is based on size/weight.

The earlier RIC 72-73 was struck at the 1/32lb standard, weighing approx 10g and 27mm.

The later RIC 83 was struck at the reduced 1/48lb standard, weighing approx 6.5g and 23mm.

 

Thank you for the clarification. I will change the attribution on the coin's label. to RIC- 72-73, 305 AD.