Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="Heliodromus, post: 7883176, member: 120820"]I guess insulting by omission of honorifics might have been a bit too subtle, and anyways a bit futile given that with all these abbreviations the recipient would never know if they were being insulted or not (else, what's the point?!). The Constantinian period, with it's backstabbing rule-of-many, did provide an interesting opportunity for numismatic insults and flattery though, and it's interesting how often they did resort to it. The coinage was not only a way to feed your propaganda to the masses, but also a way to send messages to your peers! One thing that has always struck me about this is the need to deliver the message to the recipients, especially when they were being flattered. It seems highly unlikely one emperor would have any awareness of what another emperor was putting on his coins (especially bronze, but gold too) unless he was made aware of it, so I believe they must have from time to time (when something new was introduced) sent samples of coins to each other to make sure the message was received. The most obvious type of message was whether you recognized another emperor on your coins, which of course was the norm between the legitimate co-rulers, but was also used by usurpers looking to be accepted such as Carausius, Domitius Domitianus, or Maxentius' initial appeal to Maximinus (with whom he had no alliance). There are many examples in the Constantinian era of coinage being used for flattery, but not many, other than simple omission, that I can think of where it was used for insults. One very notable insult usage was Constantine's "new world order" coinage from Lyons in 307-308 (the CONCORDIA PERPET issue, RIC 250 etc), where Constantine attempts to boost his own legitimacy by demoting Galerius from senior to "IVN AVG" junior augustus !! Here's my beat-up example of RIC VI Lyons 254 with this "IVN(IOR) AVG" title. [ATTACH=full]1359568[/ATTACH] I've got to wonder in this case if Constantine sent a sample to Galerius ?! In any case, Galerius was well aware of the deteriorating situation and so in late 308 convened his conference at Carnuntum where Maximianus was forced into re-retirement, Maxentius was denounced as enemy of the state, Constantine and Maximinus were "awarded" the title of FIL AVG, and Galerius' buddy Licinius was brought in as AVG. This immediately resulted in another example of "insult" coinage, with Maximinus showing his displeasure by coining for the just-denounced/retired Maximianus as an in-your-face insult to Galerius ! Here's my examples of Maximinus' post-Carnuntum coinage for Maximianus, from both Antioch and Alexandria: RIC VI Antioch 112c [ATTACH=full]1359569[/ATTACH] RIC VI Alexandria 102 var [ATTACH=full]1359570[/ATTACH] At Alexandria additional insult was added by noting Maximianus as SEN AVG, or "EN AVG" on this oddly abbreviated variation (indicating him as senior to the legitimate Galerius). Interesting to wonder who examples of these might have been sent to? Maybe to Constantine and Maximianus to show Maximinus's loyalty, maybe to Galerius to make sure it was not lost on him ?! I guess on the "insult" front we can also include the 1st civil war coinage of c.316 AD from Constantine and Licinius where they not only briefly stopped recognizing each other, but also modified the legends to be less inclusive (AVG vs AVGG). This topic - numismatic insults and flattery - really deserves a thread to itself. On the flattery front there are tons of examples.[/QUOTE]

Log in or Sign up

Reply to Thread

Useful Searches