I've written previously about the coins issued at London between the years of 311-313AD under Constantine, featuring PLN in the exergue, and either a star in the right or left field. These coins of the third reduction, roughly 72 pieces to the Roman pound for a theoretical weight of 4.48g, with a 21-22mm beaded circle, are one of the highlights of the London mint in my opinion, due to the huge variety of types and combinations of varied busts, legends and diverse and historically interesting reverse types inextricably associated with Constantine's victory against Maxentius. During 313, there was a fourth reduction in the weight of the coinage at London, to roughly 96 pieces to the Roman pound for a theoretical weight of 3.36g, with a 19-20mm beaded circle. This weight would remain static for the remainder of the mint's existence, although the beaded circle diameter would curiously fluctuate up and down depending on the issue. One would expect a change of weight would coincide with a change in mint mark, but instead the */-//PLN was retained, possibly until 314AD, for a small issue. The vast majority of this issue is made up of SOLI INVICTO COMITI types for Constantine, a handful of GENIO POP ROM coins for Licinius, a figures seen less and less frequently at London from here on due to the coming civil wars between the two remaining Augusti. The only other type is a rare selection of MARTI CONSERVATORI types, all for Constantine, which I managed to get an example of this month. LMCC 8.01.005 RIC 253 IMP CONSTANTINVS P AVG - Draped and cuirassed, laureate bust right MARTI CONSERVATORI - Mars helmeted, in military dress, standing right, head right, right hand resting on reversed spear, left on shield */-//PLN 3.19g, 21mm 313-314AD These issues can be a little confusing as a group due to the fact that RIC VII did not distinguish between these reduced coins, and their larger sized equivalents, but thankfully the distinction here is easy due to the fact that none of the larger types share this bust and legend combination. There is one example of the type, illustrated in LMCC, from the Waddington hoard and now in the British Museum, and then a few I've managed to track to auction sales, including a beautiful (and expensive) example sold at Roma this year, and some misattributed and selling for a song. To be honest, I don't think rarity really counts for much in this example, because you can quite easily get a Constantine coin from London with a MARTI reverse if you want one, but I'm pleased to add another variety to my * PLN sub collection. After this issue, things take a strange turn at London, and between 314-318AD, eleven further mint marks are used while very few very rare new reverse types are added. Also this period sees Licinius' defeat and complete disappearance from the coinage, and the appearance of Constantine's sons. Please share your coins featuring Mars, or anything else you feel like.
On a side note, I know Constantine was the first emperor to adopt Christianity, this makes me wonder why he (and others who followed him) minted coins featuring the original Roman gods, and only the crosses on some coins, but never Jesus himself? and what sets them apart from the Byzantine Christian emperors who only featured Christ/Mary as their only deities? Back to the topic, here are my Marti coinage, Titus as Caesar under Vespasian/ Mars Lucius Verus An Indian Martian deity, Kartikeya, Hindu god of war, and also represents Mars! Yaudheya confederacy, ~3rd-4th century AD.
Thank you for a good write-up! Moneyer: Q. Minucius M.f. Thermus Date: 103 B.C. Obverse: Helmeted head of Mars, left (helmet has long crest and plume on each side). Border of dots. Reverse: Q·THERM·MF: Roman soldier fighting barbarian soldier in protection of fallen comrade. Border of dots. This reverse of this coin records the brave deeds of the moneyer's ancestor and namesake, who was consul in 193 BC. He was engaged in a severe contest with the Ligurians and is said to have distinguished himself by his bravery. Elagabalus 218-222 AD, AR Antoninianus. 218-219 AD. Obverse: IMP CAES M AVR ANTONINVS AVG, radiate draped bust right Reverse: MARS VICTOR, Mars advancing right, naked save for cloak floating behind waist, holding transverse spear and trophy over shoulder. Reference: RSC 113. RIC 122, BMC 17
Here are a couple more interesting PLN/star types from an earlier emission: London mint, A.D. 310-312 RIC 195 Obv: CONSTANTINVS P F AVG Rev: CONCOR-D MILIT - Concordia holding standard in each hand PLN in exergue; star in right field 23 mm, 4.2 g. London mint, A.D. 310-312 RIC 222 Obv: CONSTANTINVS P F AVG Rev: PRINCIPI IV-VENTVTIS - Prince, head left, with globe and inverted spear PLN in exergue; star in right field 24 mm, 4.3 g.
My example of Constantine I / Mars on a follis of Trier . Constantine I, AD 307 - 337 (struck AD 307/8), Trier Mint, 1st Officina. AE Follis: 6.65 gm, 26 mm, 6 h. RIC VI 776. Ex Spink 169, July 15, 2004.
There's a lot of speculation regarding that, and nothing conclusive. At London, the series following the coin I posted was the last to feature Sol, Constantine's most commonly referenced deity, with 318AD marking the final appearance. That said, Victory, maybe not a god but certainly a 'false idol', featured on London coinage in 324AD, a year before the mint's closure. I have read it argued that Constantine's attitude towards the gods was in line with the times; you prayed to the god that you thought was effective in preserving your position. I can't help but be cynical when it comes to thinking about the ancients and their religion, so I imagine others might have a different view.
thejewk, Well said , "you prayed to the god you thought was effective in preserving your position." It is also thought that Constantine embraced Christianity strictly for political reasons, bringing the growing mass of Christians into his sphere for strength in numbers. Constantine realized the growth of Christianity couldn't be stopped despite centuries of persecutions.
I don't think there is anything cynical about it. Constantine was a product of his times, and that was the norm. Indeed, the whole point of religious observance was to figure out who the most powerful god was and then appease that god so that he or she would protect you from your enemies and disaster. I think Constantine's attempts to understand Christianity were sincere, but the reason he wanted to understand it was still basic self-preservation. Keep in mind, too, that Christianity was a very different religion in the early 4th century compared to Christianity today. Most Christians today assume that the religion they follow is the religion brought to us by Jesus (or Paul). Yet many of the most fundamental beliefs of Christianity--the Trinity, the idea of salvation by grace rather than through good works or personal effort--these were all were much later developments and still not widely accepted during Constantine's time. Most Christians today probably don't realize that the doctrine of a triune God--"God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost"--never appears in the bible. These are all later, human-developed (divinely inspired, I suppose, if you're a believer) ideas. Many wars were fought, and many, many people killed, before they became widely accepted. There is also a lot of speculation that Helena, his mother, was a Christian and introduced him to Christianity at an early age.
Indeed. Helena was sainted in both Catholicism and Orthodox tradition. Given access to the Treasury by her son she caused to be built the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem and also the Monastery of St. Catherine at the foot of Mt. Sinai. Constantine himself, as other have suggested, supported a pantheon of gods on his coinage and personally he probably was partial to the Invincible Sol, Mithraism, Mars, and possibly others. After he had his vision before the Battle of the Milvian Bridge he apparently was partial to Christianity, as evidenced by Helena's building projects. But like other Christians averted baptism until his deathbed, supposedly to make sure he didn't have time to commit more sins before he ascended to heaven. The memorial coinage of Constantine struck by his sons is interesting in this regard because it doesn't seem particularly "Christian" in tone.
Terrific link, @PeteB --didn't just bookmark it; keeping it tabbed for a while. Regarding the origins of Trinitarianism, as @gsimonel mentioned, your link reminded me of further developments in the 4th century. Constantius II was Arian (denying the divinity of Jesus), while Athanasius, the bishop of Alexandria, was Trinitarian. Athanasius had to go into exile for a while in Aksum. Constantius sent an emissary there, trying to get him extradited. The Aksumites' response was effectively, 'Nuh-uh.' ...From the 5th century, Aksum adopted a form of Monophysitism, qualifying or denying the full humanity of Jesus. That always struck me as an understandable overreaction to the opposite end of the theological spectrum.
The Christological controversies, as an old professor of mine called them, were not really settled until even after the Council of Chalcedon (451 A.D.), which attempted to state that Jesus nature was both divine and human. However, Nestorians and other sects still were unwilling to accept this at face value.
...Meanwhile, for a little context, the canonical New Testament is full of references to what are already identified as heterodox doctrines. Just sayin'....
I've found the endless chapters in Gibbon about the various heresies based entirely, as far as I can tell, on navel gazing, pretty shocking. Even down to the Vandal occupation in Africa, people were being murdered and tortured purely based on the accident of who they absorbed a particular strain of speculation from. That was only settled during the reign of Justinian, and I haven't yet read further to see if any more people need to slaughtered because of a subtle piece of dogma they, in all likelihood, didn't understand anyway.
And if one really wants to get off-course look at the 4th century Nag Hammadi Codex, with heterodox "gospels", Gnostic texts, a Hermes Trismegistus text, and so on...
Thanks, @ancient coin hunter, for stepping into this puddle. First, in refence to what @thejewk said, the Vandals were adherents of Arianism, like Constantius II had been. Meanwhile, the Nag Hammadi Codex is no earlier than the extant manuscripts of the canonical New Testament. In which, Saints Paul and John are already denouncing heresy. (Humor me, for one minute, regarding the 'titles.' --Look: Christianity was born in a profoundly pluralistic society ...thanks to, Yep, the Roman and Hellenistic cultural infrastructure which was already well established. ...Which is only to say that pluralism, in order to make a grain of sense by its own terms, should be applicable in both directions.) The main point here being that key distinctions between theological orthodoxy and heterodoxy were being made while the Christians were still suffering various levels of persecution, sometimes overtly state-sponsored. Throwing a serious monkey wrench into the notion that, especially as early as this, Christian orthodoxy was reducible to its subsequent, often appalling enforcement by the subsequent, 4th-century Roman state. (--As perceived by the aforementioned Roman state, the militant Arian Constantius II emphatically included.) ...With the inexorable corollary that this was all about political expediency. Just, Doubting it.
