Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Radagaisus, post: 10533082, member: 143094&quot;]Thank you very much for your reply. If my understanding is correct, the coins minted in Dacia were issued to pay the army. So the question is what happens after 257, during the reign of Gallienus, when the mint is closed and the coin circulation in Dacia drops visibly. </p><p>Are the coins made by jewellers enough to explain the hypothetical regime of a Roman usurper.? One can argue these coins were to pay the high-ranking officers. Ok, but what about the other soldiers? How were they paid and where are the money they spent? </p><p><br /></p><p>Perhaps these doubts make more sense if I ask the following question: what are the arguments that suggest these &quot;barbarous&quot; coins were produced in the 260s or 270s as opposed to, let&#039;s say, 4th or 5th century AD, when Dacia was indeed barbarous? There are many gold objects from the so-called Age of Migration, so why not these coins too, if they are authentic? In this scenario, at least, we won&#039;t be bothered so much by their anomalies. </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>On one hand, the (literary) historical sources are few, and even so, only Jordanes claims that Aurelian moved the legions south of the Danube. He is a controversial author writing in the 6th century (so later than all the others), blending fact and fiction in many of his accounts. On the other hand, historians use many other sources. Scholars working on Roman Dacia suggested that the province was practically abandoned during the reign of Gallienus, doubling the historical sources with observations on poor coin circulation, archaeological evidence (wall repairs, abandoned or reused buildings etc.), lack of inscriptions in Dacia after ca. 260, the two legions being faithful to Gallienus in 260, and inscriptions attesting units from the Dacian army elsewhere during the 260s. And there&#039;s even more. For example, the coins of Victorinus, an usurper from the Gallic Empire, from ca. 269 (after the death of Gallienus). Some examples in RIC V Vict. 16, 19, 20 and see below the reverse of Vict. 20 with the legend LEG XIII GEMINA P F (according to your hypothesis, this legion was rebellious in Dacia but hailed as pia fidelis at the other end of the empire):</p><p><br /></p><p><img src="https://ikmk.smb.museum/image/18218160/rs_exp.jpg" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /></p><p><br /></p><p>So if the paper suggests otherwise, that the bulk of the Dacian army was in the province supporting an usurper, it has to address the modern literature and the available evidence. Perhaps this can be improved in a future study, or at least, the existence for Sponsianus should be moved to a more obscure period.[/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