Domitianus was a Roman usurper against Diocletian, who seized power for a short time in Egypt. Domitianus revolted against Diocletian in 297 AD; it is possible that the rebellion was sparked by a new tax edict, but this uncertain. Numismatic and papyrological [1] evidence support Domitianus' claim to the purple. Domitianus died in December of the same year, when Diocletian went to Aegyptus to quell the revolt. Domitianus' corrector, Aurelius Achilleus, who was responsible for the defense of Alexandria, appears to have succeeded to Domitianus' claim to the empire; in fact, it was only in March 298 that Diocletian succeeded in re-conquering the city. In travelling to Egypt back in 2013 I came across a new excavation of a legionary fortress built by Diocletian in the environs of Luxor Temple by a German archaeological team. The theory posted on the placards at the site speculated that the fortress was designed to protect against future revolts in Upper Egypt and potential incursions of the Blemmyes, a nomadic tribe in the Sudan, below the second cataract of the Nile. Domitianus struck Alexandria tets in the usual style plus folles in the new style of the tetrarchs with the GENIO POPVLI ROMANI legend. In addition, along with the tetradrachm he issued two new denominations - the Octodrachm and the Didrachm [2] as a way of enabling the small change needs of his subjects. Gold aurei were also issued. It is speculated that the folles were designed for international trade outside of Egypt whereas the "native" coinage was intended for use within the province. Achilleus apparently was so short-lived that he issued no coins in his name - at least none have been discovered so far. In my quest to collect as many usurpers of the third century that I can find/afford I am waiting for a decent example of Domitianus to show up. References: [1] Aurelius Isodoros son of Ptolemaios. [2] The Coinage of Domitius Domitianus
The twin cities ancient coin club just had a presentation of short lived emperors last week. A couple of his in XF were there being passed around. Also included were Nepotian, G1 and G2, etc.
Thankfully there are cheaper options to represent Domitianus in one's collection! (Though I share the desire for one with DD's name on it. Of course!) Here are three coins he issued in the name of the tetrarchs, early in the revolt. I'm still missing Maximian.
Well, I guess it's time for me to show my DD one more time. @TIF, please look the other way, I don't want you to cry again Domitius Domitianus, Octadrachm, Emmett plate coin - Alexandria mint, AD 296-297 ΔOMITI-ANOC CEB, Radiate bust of Domitius right No legend, Serapis going right, LB in field (regnal year 2) 12.79 gr Ref : Emmett, Alexandrian coins #4241/2, this example illustrated, Dattari # 10830, RCV # 12982 (2000), Sear # 4801 var (It's actually an hexadrachm in Sear) Domitius Domitianus, stationed in Egypt, rebelled against Diocletianus in july 296 AD and was proclaimed emperor. He was defeated during spring 297 AD. Diocletian decided to close the alexandrian mint, so the coins of Domitianus are the last provincial coins from Alexandria. Also, Domitianus was the only ruler to strike octadrachms (in parallel with didrachms, tetradrachms and hexadrachms) For more information, see, in english : http://www.forumancientcoins.com/numiswiki/view.asp?key=Domitius Domitianus or "en français" http://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=54339.0 Also, the following comment, about another specimen sold at CNG (Triton XI, Lot # 539) "For the most part, scholars agree that the larger coins featuring the radiate bust must be a double, and thereby call it an octodrachm. At half the weight, then, the smallest coins with the Nike on the reverse must be tetradrachms, though these coins have erroneously been called heretofore didrachms. The weights of these tetradrachms appear consistent with the final issues of pre-reform tetradrachms of the Tetrarchs. The middle denomination poses the largest challenge to this arrangement. By weight, it should be a hexadrachm. However, no such denomination was known to have been struck in Egypt, though tetradrachms earlier in the third century achieved this weight. The obvious problem here would be the confusion caused in circulating the same denomination in two different weights. As this type is the rarest of the group, it is possible that it was meant for a special occasion, or more remotely, a stalled attempt to reinstitute the pre-reform coinage on an earlier weight standard. Further investigation may shed more light on this subject. Q
You're a cruel, cruel man, Cuke! What a fabulous acquisition. If you weren't such an awesome guy I'd have to hate you a bit .
Nice example! Condition isn't perfect but you've got one in his name. I see there are a couple folles available at upcoming auctions with a suggested hammer of between $1200 and $2400. I'm not sure but his tets may be a bit less expensive.