Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Heliodromus, post: 7989742, member: 120820&quot;]Yes, still Jupiter, but this is now a different denomination.</p><p><br /></p><p>The previous silver rich denomination (examples above I posted from different mints) had lasted from c.317-320 AD, supported by both Constantine and Licinius, but by 321 AD relations between the two had gone bad and Constantine stopped recognizing the Licininii on his coinage altogether!</p><p><br /></p><p>Somewhat oddly (perhaps attempting to keep things civil and avert an increasingly inevitable conflict with Constantine), Licinius nonetheless continued to include Constantine and his sons on his coinage, but now did a 100% about face and in 321 AD replaced the previous silver rich denomination with this silver-free one that was only valued at 12 1/2 denarii (per the X III~ mark).</p><p><br /></p><p>Previously Licinius has used the same bust types for his own son Licinius II as for Constantine&#039;s sons Crispus and Constantine II, but that stopped with this new denomination. Licinius II (6 yrs old!) gets this helmetted left-facing warrior bust, while Constantine&#039;s sons get right facing LDC busts.</p><p><br /></p><p>It&#039;s hard to guess exactly what message Licinius was trying to send with these differentiated busts for Licinius II, although it seems likely it was related to the deteriorated relationship between himself and Constantine. It seems a bit of a passive-aggressive thing to do - include Constantine &amp; sons on his coinage despite no reciprocity, but try to promote his son as special in this way.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

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