Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;dougsmit, post: 3299182, member: 19463&quot;]What makes Poemenius a usurper.&nbsp; He was in charge at a city that supported the most legitimate emperor of that period (Constantius II).&nbsp; That city issued coins in the name of legitimate emperor and none in the name of Poemenius.&nbsp; He might have been considered a traitor by Magnentius but that one has a stronger claim on the term usurper than anyone else of the period.&nbsp;&nbsp; Do we have any evidence that Poemenius had any personal interest in that issue as opposed to the city as a whole remained loyal to the sole remaining son of Constantine?</p><p><br /></p><p>I consider the term usurper to be overused in several other places.&nbsp; Pescennius Niger was not a usurper any more than was Septimius Severus.&nbsp; He was just the guy that lost and history is written by the winners.&nbsp; I always considered the use of names like Poemenius and Aureolus mostly hype by coin sellers.&nbsp; Worse is using Vetranio or Nepotian for coins with legends of Constantius II.&nbsp; They may have been in charge of a mint city at the time the coin was made and even issued coins in their own names but we don&#039;t call coins of emperors who were absent from Rome by the name of the local supporters.&nbsp; Who was in charge at Rome when Septimius Severus was in the East or Britain?&nbsp; Who issued the coins for Gordian I and II who never made it to Rome?&nbsp;&nbsp; There are coins of Pertinax struck at Alexandria but he was either in Rome or dead when they were made (how long did it take to get the word that Commodus was dead to Egypt?</p><p><br /></p><p>I&#039;m a bit simplistic in my belief that we need pretty solid details before we add names to the emperor list.&nbsp; Exactly who was in control in which mint city at which date becomes difficult in the last part of the empire.&nbsp; We are not consistent in how we handle such matters.&nbsp; Does a coin belong to the name on the coin or the ruler located in the mint city?</p><p><br /></p><p>I will be anxious to see how we handle Ricimer. He could not be emperor because he was not Catholic but he has his monogram on coins. (I forget who is on the other side?).</p><p><br /></p><p>We can&#039;t be too hard on Theodosius II for his terrible bronzes unless we acknowledge that his gold is probably the easiest and cheapest Roman gold (at least partially due to the amount he made to bribe the Huns).&nbsp; I bought mine (worn and ex jewelry) years ago for just over melt at that time.&nbsp; There are many available in mint state for those who want a perfect one.</p><p>[ATTACH=full]873653[/ATTACH][/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