Frage!

[Pipin]

Hallo Leute,

Wieder eine meine dumme Fragen!

http://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=532273

Diese münze ist, nach acsearch, Vetranio für Constantius II zugeschrieben. Die umschrift ist aber für Constantius ? Wie weiss man das dann? etwas kapiere ich nicht!
Danke im voraus für die Aufklärung.

Grüsse

Pipin

[Peter43]

Vetranio wurde vom Heer am 1. März 350 zum Kaiser ausgerufen. Da er nicht als Gegenkaiser von Constantius II. auftreten wollte, ließ er die Münzen zur Bezahlung der Armee unter dem Namen des Constantius prägen. Nach der Besiegung des Nepotianus ernannte ihn Constantius II. formell zum Augustus. Ab da tragen seine Münzen den Namen Vetranio. Nach der Besiegung des Magnentius traf er sich mit Constantius und übergab ihm seine Truppen. Der Titel als Augustus wurde ihm wieder aberkannt, was Vetranio annahm. Er lebte noch einige Jahre als reicher Mann.

Mit freundlichem Gruß

[curtislclay]

Nicht ganz richtig, denke ich: Vetranio hat vielmehr durchgehend vom 1. März-25. Dez. 350 Münzen sowohl für sich wie auch für seinen "Kollegen" Constantius II. geprägt.

Übrigens erhob sich Nepotianus anscheinend nicht im J. 350 wie überall zu lesen ist, sondern erst im folgenden Jahr 351, also nach der Abdankung von Vetranio, wie ich im US-Forum unter Classical Numismatics vorgeschlagen habe.

[Pipin]

OK, besten Dank für's aufklären! Noch eine Frage, zeigt das Portrait auf der Münze Vetranio oder Constantius II ??

Pipin

[curtislclay]

Die Legende benennt das Porträt, das also den Constantius II. darstellt, wenn CONSTANTIVS in der Legende steht!

[Pipin]

OK, wieder viel gelernt von den Profis! Nochmals vielen Dank!

Liebe Grüsse

Pipin

[justus]

Übrigens erhob sich Nepotianus anscheinend nicht im J. 350 wie überall zu lesen ist, sondern erst im folgenden Jahr 351, also nach der Abdankung von Vetranio, wie ich im US-Forum unter Classical Numismatics vorgeschlagen habe.

Es erscheint mir doch etwas unwahrscheinlich, dass Nepotianus sich zwar am 3. Mai des Jahres 350 von seinen Anhängern zum Kaiser ausrufen ließ und von Marcellinus, dem magister officiorum des Magnentius am 30. Juni 350 getötet wurde, wie man dies den Quellen (vgl. Aurelius Victor 42,6f; Zosimus 2,43; Hieronymus Chron. a. 2366; Socrates 2,25,10) entnehmen kann, wenn er - wie du sagst - sich erst im folgenden Jahr 351 erhoben haben soll.

[curtislclay]

Tüchtig, wie du meine Ausführungen darüber ablehnen kannst, offenbar ohne sie vorher gelesen zu haben!

Ich zitiere und bespreche da ausführlich die Quellen, die du bloss genannt hast.

[justus]

Du hast deinen Vorschlag hier unterbreitet, ohne ihn näher zu erläutern bzw. entsprechende Quellen oder Hintergründe zu benennen, was "unüblich" ist. Nun aber zu verlangen, dass sich jeder selbst über das "Warum und Wieso" in einem anderen Forum schlau machen sollte, ist (wie ich schon beim letzten Mal sagte), für mich nicht opportun. Du hast deinen Vorschlag hier unterbreitet, dann solltest du ihn auch hier begründen, damit jeder es nachvollziehen kann.

P. S. Aber vielleicht kann ja ein anderes Mitglied dieses Forums dein Statement ins nhd. übersetzen. Mein "Schulenglisch" ist leider nicht mehr so ganz "taufrisch"!

[curtislclay]

Wenn du nicht bereit oder fähig dazu bist, meine Argumente nachzulesen, dann halte gefälligst deinen Mund. Englisch muss man halt genauso wie Deutsch und Franzoesisch koennen, wenn man über Fragen der alten Geschichte mitreden moechte.

[justus]

Wenn du nicht bereit oder fähig dazu bist, meine Argumente nachzulesen, dann halte gefälligst deinen Mund. Englisch muss man halt genauso wie Deutsch und Fränzoesisch koennen, wenn man über Fragen der alten Geschichte mitreden moechte.

Entschuldigung, aber jetzt bin ich doch etwas geschockt! Ich versuche eigentlich immer die "Contenance" zu bewahren, auch wenn mir die Argumente anderer nicht gefallen. Mir zu sagen, ich solle den Mund halten, ist - mit Verlaub - nicht gerade die feine englische Art. Das hätte ich gerade von dir eigentlich nicht erwartet !

[justus]

Nun denn, hier Curtis Begründung für seine These aus dem US-amerikanischen Forum zum Nachlesen für jedermann:

In a talk at the Chicago Coin Show, Rosemont, IL, at 11 AM on 24 April, I will be exploring the possibility that the revolt of Nepotian at Rome should be assigned not to 350, as stated by the ancient chronographers and hence accepted by all modern scholars, but to the following year, 351.

That redating would solve many problems, though unfortunately I have not yet found any undeniable proof that it must be correct!

Magnentius issued a substantial number of bronze medallions at Rome before the revolt of Nepotian, that is, on the traditional chronology, between 28 Feb. and 1 June 350. However I have been able to show from the imperial titles on second-century bronze medallions that virtually all of them were struck in Nov.-Dec. of each year, but dated ahead to 1 Jan. for use as New Year’s gifts. I think third- and fourth-century bronze medallions, and then the contorniates, were overwhelmingly produced at the same time of the year for the same purpose. Thus a substantial issue of bronze medallions by Magnentius in March-May 350 would be highly anomalous. But if Nepotian actually rebelled in 351, then Magnentius’ first issue of bronze medallions could be assigned to late 350 and New Year’s 351, as expected. It was this difficulty with the medallions that first suggested to me the possibility of redating Nepotian’s revolt.

The sequence of the coinage shows that Magnentius elevated his brother Decentius to the Caesarship immediately after the revolt of Nepotian, and therefore, it would appear, in June or July 350. That early dating causes some problems, however. For example, if Decentius became Caesar in summer 350, why did he not assume the ordinary consulship with Magnentius on 1 Jan. 351, following a long established tradition for newly appointed Caesars of mature age? The fasti show that Decentius instead assumed the consulship with Magnentius only on 1 Jan. 352, suggesting that his elevation to the Caesarship, and hence Nepotian's revolt against Magnentius, occurred in the course of 351, not 350!

Questions and objections from Forvm members will be welcomed, either here or in person from those who can attend the talk!

Rick Witschonke of the ANS has recently sent me scans of an important article concerning this problem, namely D. Gricourt, Une maiorina inédite de Decénce, Cahiers Numismatiques 85, 1985, 72-76.

Gricourt publishes the first coin of Decentius to be coupled not only with the Roma seated type of Nepotian, but with Nepotian's legend too, VRBS ROMA, making it really impossible to propose that there was a nine-month gap between the end of Nepotian's coinage and the beginning of Decentius', as John Kent argued!
Moreover, this article turns out to be quite important to me for two other reasons.

First, I hadn't realized that there are two ancient sources which strongly support my idea that the revolt of Nepotian belongs to 351 not 350!

A. Aurelius Victor: Constantius persuaded Vetranio to abdicate and took over command of his army [25 Dec. 350]. But the harsh winter weather and the impassable Alps made him postpone his invasion of Italy. Meanwhile at Rome Nepotian revolted and was suppressed by Magnentius after ruling for 28 days. Even before then, anticipating the civil war, Magnentius had made his brother Decentius Caesar and put him in charge of Gaul, and Constantius had made Gallus Caesar [15 March 351] and given him command of the East. In a war that lasted over two years, Constantius then defeated Magnentius and Decentius and made them commit suicide [first battle between Constantius and Magnentius: Mursa, 28 Sept. 351].

B. Epitome de Caesaribus: Vetranio proclaimed himself emperor after Magnentius' revolt, but Constantius quickly persuaded him to abdicate [25 Dec. 350]. Constantius proclaimed Gallus Caesar [15 March 351], and Magnentius made Decentius Caesar and gave him command over the provinces north of the Alps. Around this time Nepotian made himself Augustus in Rome, but Magnentius suppressed the rebellion on the 28th day. Then Constantius won a victory over Magnentius at Mursa [28 Sept. 351].
Aurelius Victor and the Epitome have so many similarities that they are thought to derive from one and the same lost history. But it seems clear that that history narrated the events of Magnentius' reign in this order:

Abdication of Vetranio [25 Dec. 350]. Winter and Alps prevent Constantius from immediately invading Italy.

Caesarship of Gallus [15 March 351]; Caesarship of Decentius, around the same time.

Revolt of Nepotian.

Battle of Mursa [28 Sept. 351].

I hadn't realized this, but Gricourt points it out in a footnote, whereupon I checked the two texts on the internet!

Second, the possibility of moving Nepotian's revolt to 351 occurred to Gricourt too, but because of the weight of tradition, he couldn't accept it!

p. 76 in his article: If Magnentius made Decentius Caesar in spring 351 as Kent thought, then we would have to redate the usurpation of Nepotian too to the early months of 351. "But that would contradict the assignment of Nepotian's revolt to 350 in the Consularia Constantinopolitana, which seems indisputable and which was accepted as fact by both Kent and Bastien."

So Gricourt had the solution to the problem in his hand, but couldn't accept it simply because the ancient chronographer, surely in error as I think, assigned Nepotian's revolt to 350 rather than 351. Gricourt should have considered that the same chronographer assigns the abdication of Vetranio to 351, a clear error for 350, as was realized by modern historians centuries ago, and which everybody has accepted ever since. Similarly if the testimony of ancient sources is so unimpeachable, shouldn't Gricourt have accorded more weight to Aurelius Victor and the Epitome's dating of Nepotian's revolt to between 15 March and 28 Sept. 351, instead of merely commenting in his footnote 4 that these authors epitomize the confusion prevalent in the surviving written sources?

So I am beginning to think that my redating of Nepotian's revolt from 350 to 351, since strongly confirmed by Aurelius Victor and the Epitome, is absolutely correct, rather than just a possible alternative!

This is another example of how careful numismatic scholarship is able to write, or in this case, correct written history.

Thanks for your praise!

You remind me of a passage in Eckhel's wonderful Preface to his Doctrina Numorum, which I try to follow as well as I can.

"In my choice of material I shall strive for brevity, in order to place some limits on a work that could treat so many matters. I have tried to achieve brevity in various ways, by omitting material that is of no importance, or far fetched, or boring, or inappropriate"... Thus I will not describe or comment on the trite types such as Victoria and Spes that are repeated reign after reign but contribute nothing to our knowledge. "No less inappropriate is the annoying diligence of many authors, who in their explication of coins assume duties that are not theirs, and bore the reader with extensive treatments of historical or mythological topics, ignoring the fact that the purpose of numismatic scholarship is not to give lessons in history or mythology, but rather to correct, illustrate, or enrich with additional examples, the various facts that we already know in each of those disciplines."

This goes on for two more pages, every sentence so right and so beautifully and concisely written (the Latin is much simpler and more powerful that my attempted translation!) that they bring tears to my eyes when I read them, ending with the assurance that brevity must not be overdone, and that he will not hesitate to treat matters in detail when those details are needed to present the history of the question and the evidence and arguments relevant to its resolution. "Therefore far from fearing the censure of scholars when I treat matters in detail, I am confident that I will earn great gratitude from them on that account."

Rick Witschonke and the editor with whom he spoke hope that I will be able to publish these Magnentian arguments in an article in the American Journal of Numismatics.

Here, copied from a message I just posted on Moneta-L, are an expansion of my argument regarding the date of Decentius' Caesarship, plus summaries of two further arguments that I made at CICF but have not mentioned above:

Second, how could Nepotian have revolted in the course of 350, when the Chronographer of 354's list of urban prefects records that Magnentius' candidate Fabius Titianus was prefect of Rome continuously from 27 Feb. 350 to 1 March 351? In 351, in contrast, a certain Caelius Probatus was prefect for 26 days between 12 May and 7 June, two days less than the recorded 28-day length of Nepotian's usurpation. I surmise that Probatus was Nepotian's urban prefect, giving us exact dates for the usurper's reign, 10 May-7 June 351. The urban prefect whom, according to Aurelius Victor, Nepotian killed during his rebellion, will then have been Probatus' predecessor Aurelius Celsinus. Followers of the 350 chronology for Nepotian's revolt, since no serving urban prefect can have died in that year, have had to accuse Victor of error and propose that he meant instead the praetorian prefect!

Third, the coinage of the mint of Rome shows that Magnentius must have made his brother Decentius Caesar precisely during the revolt of Nepotian: coins of Decentius appear immediately after the revolt, taking over Nepotian's Roma seated reverse type, but Decentius was absent from the coinage before the revolt. Followers of the 350 date for Nepotian's revolt, above all Pierre Bastien, have had to conclude that Decentius became Caesar c. July 350, but this assumption brings problems. Aurelius Victor and the Epitome report that Decentius became Caesar at around the same time that Constantius Gallus became Caesar, and for that second promotion we have the date 15 March 351. Moreover Decentius shared the consulship with Magnentius on 1 Jan. 352, as though he had only been made Caesar in the course of 351, not on 1 Jan. 351, as we would expect if he was made Caesar in July 350. On the new chronology these problems disappear: Decentius was made Caesar in May-June 351, during the revolt of Nepotian, so indeed at around the same time as Gallus, who was promoted on 15 March 351, two or three months earlier; and the year of Decentius' consulship with Magnentius was indeed the one immediately following his promotion to the Caesarship.

Finally, the postponement of Nepotian's revolt from June 350 to May-June 351 allows for a much evener and more likely distribution of the coinage of
Magnentius at the mint of Rome over the thirty-one month period from 27 Feb. 350 to 26 Sept. 352 when he and Nepotian were recognized as emperors there.
On the old chronology, two of the three main issues of bronze coins and, according to Bastien's specimen counts, about 60% of the total volume of the
bronze coinage, were all produced between 27 Feb. and c. mid-July 350, during only the first four and one-half months or approximately 15% of the period in question, meaning that only one main issue and 40% of the coinage was issued during the remaining 85% of the period. Thus on this chronology the rate of production of bronze coins at the mint of Rome was approximately eight and one-half times higher during the first four and one-half months of this period than it was during the remaining twenty-six and one-half months! On the new chronology the production of the first two issues and 60% of the coinage extended from 27 Feb. 350 to c. late June 351, over a period of 16 months, leaving the remaining 15 months of the period for the production of the third issue and about 40% of the volume of the bronze coinage. In other words on this chronology the mint of Rome produced bronze coins at approximately a constant rate over the whole period in question.

In a paper read at a conference in 2006, which has just recently been published (2011), Michel Festy presents an excellent analysis of the literary evidence for the date of Nepotian's rebellion, and correctly favors 351 over 350.

The dating to 350 in the Consularia Constantinopolitana, Festy says, has been accepted without question since c. 1700 when it was advocated by the historian Tillemont. The different account of the Latin epitimators, assigning the revolt to 351, has always been rejected without serious consideration.

Festy has some hesitation about accepting the new date, however, because the numismatists, Bastien, Kent, and Gricourt, all accept 350 without question. Festy supposes that was because of numismatic evidence, when in fact the numismatists have merely been following Tillemont and the Consularia Constantinopolitana, just like everybody else!

Festy will probably be happy to learn that the actual numismatic evidence, namely the medallions of Magnentius and the large volume of ordinary coinage produced by the mint of Rome before the rebellion of Nepotian, strongly favors placing the revolt in 351 rather than 350.

I suggested that Celius Probatus, attested as being Urban Prefect from 12 May to 7 June 351, was Nepotian's appointee, allowing us to calculate the exact dates of Nepotian's usurpation. Festy attempts to preserve the 3 June date given by the Consularia Constantinopolitana for the beginning of the rebellion, by proposing that Probatus was instead Magnentius' prefect at the time of Nepotian's rebellion, whom Nepotian is said to have killed. So Nepotian rebelled outside of Rome on 3 June 351, then captured Rome and killed Probatus on 7 June.

Now the next recorded prefect, Clodius Adelfius, served from 7 June to 18 December 351, so cannot have been Nepotian's appointee, since his rebellion only lasted 28 days. Festy suggests that Adelfius was Magnentius' appointee, either declared prefect on 7 June even though the city was then in Nepotian's power, or appointed after Nepotian's suppression but whose term of office was then backdated to 7 June, expunging from the record the city prefect that Nepotian had doubtless appointed.

Festy's reconstruction seems possible, and of course it would be nice to preserve the attested 3 June date for the beginning of Nepotian's revolt. I think I would still prefer to reject that date, and view Probatus as being Nepotian's appointee. It seems unlikely to be mere coincidence that Nepotian's revolt lasted 28 days, while Probatus was prefect for 26 days, at just around the time when we know the rebellion took place!

[emieg1]

Du hast deinen Vorschlag hier unterbreitet, ohne ihn näher zu erläutern bzw. entsprechende Quellen oder Hintergründe zu benennen, was "unüblich" ist. Nun aber zu verlangen, dass sich jeder selbst über das "Warum und Wieso" in einem anderen Forum schlau machen sollte, ist (wie ich schon beim letzten Mal sagte), für mich nicht opportun. Du hast deinen Vorschlag hier unterbreitet, dann solltest du ihn auch hier begründen, damit jeder es nachvollziehen kann.

P. S. Aber vielleicht kann ja ein anderes Mitglied dieses Forums dein Statement ins nhd. übersetzen. Mein "Schulenglisch" ist leider nicht mehr so ganz "taufrisch"!

"Ich hasse, wenn einem eine gebratene Taube ins Maul fliegt, beim Schicksal auch noch auf Kompott zu bestehen." (Theodor Fontane)

(...wir hatten lange kein Zitat mehr...)

[areich]

Wenn du nicht bereit oder fähig dazu bist, meine Argumente nachzulesen, dann halte gefälligst deinen Mund. Englisch muss man halt genauso wie Deutsch und Fränzoesisch koennen, wenn man über Fragen der alten Geschichte mitreden moechte.

Entschuldigung, aber jetzt bin ich doch etwas geschockt! Ich versuche eigentlich immer die "Contenance" zu bewahren, auch wenn mir die Argumente anderer nicht gefallen. Mir zu sagen, ich solle den Mund halten, ist - mit Verlaub - nicht gerade die feine englische Art. Das hätte ich gerade von dir eigentlich nicht erwartet !

Ich finde, Du solltest mal ernsthaft drüber nachdenken. Und meinst Du mit "Contenance bewahren", denjenigen beim Admin anzuschwärzen?

[Peter43]

Na ja, "dann halte gefälligst deinen Mund." ist schon stark. Einem anderen Forumsmitglied als Curtis Clay würde man es nicht so durchgehen lassen.

Jochen