Log in or Sign up
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Ancient Coins
>
Finn's 2021 Top 10 Lists
>
Reply to Thread
Message:
<p>[QUOTE="curtislclay, post: 8121726, member: 89514"]Finn,</p><p><br /></p><p>Nice acquisitions!</p><p><br /></p><p>You wonder why Geta was proclaimed Augustus late in 209. A possible explanation occurred to me when I was corresponding with Andrew Burnett a couple of years ago. Andrew quoted my idea as follows in the article he subsequently wrote on Zela, Acclamations, and Caracalla:</p><p><br /></p><p>‘I had an idea about the possible occasion of IMP XII = II on the coins. Septimius had made Caracalla IMP and AVG, and Geta Caesar, on the occasion of his own IMP XI for the capture of Ctesiphon early in 198. So maybe he made Geta IMP and AVG on the occasion of his own IMP XII and Caracalla’s IMP II? Those acclamations would then have occurred late in 209, when Geta apparently became Augustus, judging from the scarcity of his coins dated just TR P = 209. Septimius’ IMP XII medallion and Caracalla’s two IMP II medallions would belong to 1 Jan. 210, fitting with the fact that Caracalla’s two rev. types were also used on sestertii of 210. Septimius’ medallion depicts two emperors shaking hands (or holding a Victory on globe?) in the presence of other figures, probably a commemoration of the IMP XII = II victory and/or of Geta’s promotion to IMP and AVG. A problem for this reconstruction, however, is the beardlessness of at least one of Caracalla’s IMP II obv. dies, which might suggest that he was already IMP II on 1 Jan. 209 (accepting my argument from their titulature that virtually all second- and third-century bronze medallions were apparently struck for use as New Year’s presents). The occasion of this hypothetical acclamation for all three emperors late in 209 would presumably have been the success of Septimius’ invasion of Scotland, which according to Dio “forced the Britons to come to terms, on the condition that they should abandon a large part of their territory”. Septimius would have modestly declined the title BRIT on this occasion, only accepting it in the course of 210, maybe for a preliminary success in his attempt to quell the ensuing rebellion of the Maeatae, against whom he sent a punitive expedition according to Dio.’[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>
[QUOTE="curtislclay, post: 8121726, member: 89514"]Finn, Nice acquisitions! You wonder why Geta was proclaimed Augustus late in 209. A possible explanation occurred to me when I was corresponding with Andrew Burnett a couple of years ago. Andrew quoted my idea as follows in the article he subsequently wrote on Zela, Acclamations, and Caracalla: ‘I had an idea about the possible occasion of IMP XII = II on the coins. Septimius had made Caracalla IMP and AVG, and Geta Caesar, on the occasion of his own IMP XI for the capture of Ctesiphon early in 198. So maybe he made Geta IMP and AVG on the occasion of his own IMP XII and Caracalla’s IMP II? Those acclamations would then have occurred late in 209, when Geta apparently became Augustus, judging from the scarcity of his coins dated just TR P = 209. Septimius’ IMP XII medallion and Caracalla’s two IMP II medallions would belong to 1 Jan. 210, fitting with the fact that Caracalla’s two rev. types were also used on sestertii of 210. Septimius’ medallion depicts two emperors shaking hands (or holding a Victory on globe?) in the presence of other figures, probably a commemoration of the IMP XII = II victory and/or of Geta’s promotion to IMP and AVG. A problem for this reconstruction, however, is the beardlessness of at least one of Caracalla’s IMP II obv. dies, which might suggest that he was already IMP II on 1 Jan. 209 (accepting my argument from their titulature that virtually all second- and third-century bronze medallions were apparently struck for use as New Year’s presents). The occasion of this hypothetical acclamation for all three emperors late in 209 would presumably have been the success of Septimius’ invasion of Scotland, which according to Dio “forced the Britons to come to terms, on the condition that they should abandon a large part of their territory”. Septimius would have modestly declined the title BRIT on this occasion, only accepting it in the course of 210, maybe for a preliminary success in his attempt to quell the ensuing rebellion of the Maeatae, against whom he sent a punitive expedition according to Dio.’[/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
>
Finn's 2021 Top 10 Lists
>
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...