Selections from the “B-C-E Collection”

Change Log: Created: Jan 2021. Updated: 9 Jan 2026

Recent (selected): Trier FHs, Magnentius, Maximinus & Constantine (both ex Dattari), Septimius (ARAB AIDAB), Julia Mamaea, Galba, Vetranio, Constantius II (one captive), Antoninus Pius Britannia, Fundanius.

Total Rulers: >50 (incl. Moneyers & Imperators). Coins: ~150.

---

CATALOG OF COINS:
Republican; Imperial; Civil War; Flavian; Adoptive; Severan; Crisis; Tetrarchy/Constantine; Family of Const.; Late 4th; Byzantine.

Blog entries re: “Barbarians, Captives & Enemies”

• Two Captives & Trophy: Prisoners of War on Roman Coins from Julius Caesar to Constantine “The Great”
• “A New Morning in Rome”: Aurelian’s Eastern Captives Coinage, c. 274 CE
• The Irony of Valerian’s Captive: AR Antoninianus Celebrating “Victory over Parthia”
• New Additions: Roman Bronze Coins with Distinguished Provenances Depicting “Barbarians, Captives, and Enemies”

---

INTRODUCTION

BARBARI. –Barbarians.–It is thus that the Greeks called all other people; and the Romans afterwards used the same expression to designate whomsoever were neither Greeks nor Latins.

S. W. Stevenson (1889) Dictionary of Roman Coins, page 124

And now, what will become of us without the barbarians?
Those people were some sort of a solution.

closing lines of Cavafy’s “Waiting for the Barbarians” (trans. E. Sachperoglou, OUP, 2007)

There is a tradition of scholarship exploring “barbarians” in Roman coinage and in Classical art and literature more generally. But I have yet to find another private collection that focuses on the whole of Roman “Barbarians, Captives, and Enemies” (B-C-E) coinage as a topic in its own right.

This collection asks: What is to be gained by framing the whole of “Barbarians, Captives, and Enemies (B-C-E)” coinage as a single category?

Across six centuries, the imagery of outsiders dominated by Rome was central to its Imperial self-portrait. The “B-C-E” coinage provides a catalog of many states and peoples with whom the Roman Empire came into conflict, and an official record of its changing self-conception vis-à-vis those relationships.

---

CATALOG OF COINS

Republican; Flavian; Adoptive; Severan; Crisis;
Tetrarchy/Constantine; Family of Const.; Late 4th; Byzantine.

Click Gold Text below to read more, images to supersize

Roman Republic

The two coins below were the first ever to depict a bound captive and trophy, what Lauren Kinnee (2016, 2018) calls the “trophy tableau monument” (or just “trophy tableau”). Trophies appeared on Greek coins, but the captives were a Roman innovation — a succinct representation of their imperialistic outlook and attitudes toward non-Romans.

C. Fundanius AR Quinarius. 101 BCE. Kneeling Germanic warrior (King Teutobodus?) bound to trophy.
Photo: Jacquier 51. Ex Sammlung R.L. (formed over three generations, 1890s-2010).

The design specifically commemorates Marius’ victories in the Cimbrian War against the Cimbri and Teutones (c. 102 BCE). In fact, the coins probably memorialize an actual scene from Marius’ Triumph in 101 BCE, in which the captured king Teutobodus was paraded through the streets of Rome:

“Their king, Teutobodus himself … having been captured in a neighbouring forest was a striking figure in the triumphal procession; for, being a man of extraordinary stature, he towered above the trophies of his defeat.”

— Florus, Epitome of Roman History, Book 1, Ch XXXVIII: 10 (Loeb 1929: p. 171).​

A few years later, a second Quinarius of this type was struck, also commemorating the Marian victories:

Cloelius AR Quinarius. 98 BCE. Seated Germanic captive, bound to trophy.
Photo: Jacquier 51. Ex Sammlung R.L. (formed over three generations, 1890s-2010).

(Cont. from prev. coin’s notes.) The coins must have been well-received, since the design was adopted by Roman sculpture, famously on the tomb of Caecilia Metella [Wiki] in Rome, c. 25 BCE (the captive’s face and torso are missing, but the rest of the “trophy tableau” is visible).

Sculpture, Tomb of Caecilia Metella, Rome (c. 25 BCE).
Sources: O. Lyubimova 2004 CC BY-SA (cropped); Kinnee 2016, citing Froglia 1976 in Paris 2000 (cropped)

This is an interesting case, then, in which the coins came first, and the rest of the artwork followed the numismatic lead. It was then copied and modified on numerous other Roman Republican, Imperial, and Provincial coins over the next 600 years, as well as sculptural artworks (incl. Trajan’s Column, the Arch of Constantine, and many others). With only a handful of exceptions, almost every emperor produced at least one captives type, ending with Zeno’s second reign, c. 476-491 (the latter unfortunately absent from my collection, but many examples can be seen here [ACSearch results]).

Titurius Sabinus. 89 BCE. Sabine women being abducted by Roman men.
Ex JMAL Coll. & J.P. Righetti (his hand-written tag).

The “Rape of the Sabines,” one of Rome’s founding myths. The phrase refers to “rape” in an older sense of the word, meaning “abduction” (the purpose of which, of course, was to compel reproduction). Today, we can’t help but see a story of sexual assault and violence toward woman.

The Roman reading tells us much about their Imperialistic sensibilities about violence and the state. It was a story about their own nature, inherited from their ancestors. The myth was about Rome taking what it needed from its neighbors through force and trickery (or strength and cunning, as they may have preferred to see it): take what you need, dominate your neighbors, absorb them and make them “us” (or, at least “ours”!), and then do the same to the next neighbor.

In turn, each of Rome’s neighbors became Sabines: Southern Europe, then W. Asia, N. Africa, then N. Europe and Britannia. (Until they weren’t, and Rome became their Tarpeia.)

Titurius Sabinus AR Denarius. 89 BCE. Roman Soldiers crushing Tarpeia with shields.

Another of Rome’s founding myths: The coin’s reverse depicts Tarpeia, the Vestal Virgin who betrayed Rome to the Sabines during a siege. Her punishment was to be crushed to death under Sabine shields & hurled from a cliff, later known as the “Tarpeian Rock.”

A classic scene invoking the contemporary relevance of Rome’s mythical founding to the ongoing “Social War” (91 – 87 BCE). The Republic was at war with its own allies & Italic neighbors, largely over the matter of (not) bestowing Roman citizenship. (Citizenship was worth fighting over; it was highly consequential for safety & well-being, and political & military decision-making). Though Rome “won,” it granted citizenship anyway, eventuating in “the Romanization of Italy.” [More comments.]

It is revealing that Romans publicly took great pride in the myth of their founding fathers crushing one woman for her treachery, and kidnapping and forcing their founding mothers into relationships we’d call slavery today. Our modern sensibilities about violence against women or otherwise — “the horror of bloodshed,” as Durkheim called it in 1895 — would be completely alien to Moneyer Titurius and his Roman countrymen. But it is precisely this spirit of domination that fueled Rome.

Caesar’s Gallic War

The following coins must be understood as a pair, both struck in 48 BCE by the Moneyer, Lucius Hostilius Saserna, who, along with his brothers, was a partisan of Julius Caesar (Crawford, p. 464). They broadcast Caesar’s Gallic victory and are intimately tied with his own “captives” coinage. Both figures on the following obverses appear again, about 2 years later, on the reverse of Caesar’s denarii, but as full-bodied prisoners.

Hostilius Saserna AR Denarius. 48 BCE. Female Gallic Captive (Gallia) (Video)

The male type gets all the attention (“Vercingetorix [?],” Cr. 448/2), but I’m more fascinated by this one (“Gallia,” Cr. 448/3).

This obverse die, specifically: It is, to me, plainly obvious that an actual, living captive was the model. We are presented not only with the details of her wild hair (personifying Gallia Comata, literally, “long-haired Gaul”). The talented master engraver has portrayed her visage and emotion with care, conveying her humanity with an exceptional depth of purpose. (It is important to recognize what a radical artistic act this was.)

We cannot escape her intensity of expression. Nor help but admire the dignity of her demeanor in captivity, and ponder what life might produce such a countenance. (Who was she? Might Vercingetorix have had a captured relative, lost to history? A wife, daughter, sister? Might she have even survived, like the daughter of Mark Antony & Cleopatra?)

(Though not recognized as such, there are two major stylistic classes of obverse dies for the “dreadlocked Gallia” denarius: this one and others like it depict her with profound realism; many others, in contrast, present a highly idealized personification. Both varieties have many dies of lesser merit, but only a few of truly fine style. A proper die-study is needed, but my opinion is that this one is the best — the “Master Die of the Dreadlocked Gallia.”)

Hostilius Saserna AR Denarius. 48 BCE. Male Gallic Captive (Vercingetorix?)

Excerpted from “Vercingetorix (?)” Note, below: The identification of this figure as Vercingetorix (or Vercingetorix-as-Pavor) is speculative. Michael Crawford, citing Bahrfeldt, explicitly denied it. (Yet Babelon, Sydenham & Sear treated it as plausible or probable.)

It certainly has the quality of an individualized portrait. His resemblance to the male figure on several of Caesar’s “trophy” denarii (Cr. 468/1, 2, 4) strengthens the case. Just as the Fundanius Quinarius (above) seems to illustrate Marius’ Triumph (with King Teutobodus), so Caesar’s coin below presumably portrays his own.

There is every reason to believe the average Roman would have equated these images with such a celebrated villain (now, a hero): Vercingetorix. Whatever else they intended, surely the coins’ producers anticipated as much.

Julius Caesar Denarius. Spain, 46-45 BCE. Gallic Captives. (Video)

Like the previous pair, this coin advertises Julius Caesar’s conquest of Gaul. The reverse imagery (and that of a few other varieties) may evoke an actual scene from Caesar’s Triumph in April, 46 BCE. In addition to a procession of captives, the tradition would have been to cart along a trophy of captured arms, possibly even with the captive Vercingetorix bound to it.

The same captives, Gallia & Vercingetorix, as on the pair of Hostilius Saserna denarii above. This type is numismatically and historically important, the first example of the “Trophy Tableau” with two captives instead of one (Kinnee 2016). (For the single-captive original “Trophy Tableau,” see the Fundanius & Cloelius Quinarii above.)

Caesar’s return from Gaul accelerated the ultimate end of “the Republic” and rise of “the Empire.” It was also an important turning point in the coinage.

For more on this type, see my blog post, “Two Captives & Trophy: Prisoners of War on Roman Coins from Julius Caesar to Constantine ‘The Great’“

Contrasting the Greeks’ & the Romans’ “Barbarians”

It is worth briefly noting that, for the Greeks, “Barbarian” – βάρβαρος (várvaros, barbaros) – was not necessarily a pejorative:

“…whereas there were Greeks who looked down with contempt on barbarians…there were others who admired non-Greek peoples and even idolized these peoples and certain aspects of their culture.”

— F. Snowden (1970: p. 170), Blacks in Antiquity

Greek coins and art often depict Africans or “Aethiopians” with a sense of respect (sometimes recalling mythical figures Delphos or Memnos), or at least anthropological curiosity. The Kantharos below is a well-known type depicting Janiform female heads, African and Hellenic. Note the symmetry and complementarity in the design:

Kantharos Depicting Janiform Ethiopian and Greek Female Heads, c 510 BCE.
Snowden, 1970, pp. 42-43, Fig. 12 (Rome, ETRU, 50571). See also Princeton’s & Neils, 1980, “The Negro Alabastra….”

For the Romans, however, the concept of the barbarian outsider was closely tied to warfare, slavery, and political domination. It defined who was “us” (deserving of respect and power) and who was “them” (deserving of conquest and submission). Much like modern ethnic stereotypes, it was a pejorative term connoting weakness, childishness, dirtiness, unsophistication, and lack of “civilization.” Being an imperial society, built upon the progressive conquest of new neighbors – and their frequent enslavement – the distinction between the Roman and the Barbarian was something like a national ideology.

First Century: Empire

The groundwork had been laid in the final half-century or so of the Republic — including construction of its most enduring numismatic tableau, the captive(s)-and-trophy. For the Empire’s first century, though, “captives” were surprisingly scarce in its repertoire of numismatic imagery.

Augustus did have several notable types, especially his various Aegypto Capta and Armenia Capta designs, and revived the trophy-and-kneeling captive of Memmius’ Republican Denarius (Crawford 427/1 [CRRO]; RIC 6 [Augustus, OCRE]; see also: RIC 1076 [Titus, OCRE]; RIC 827 [Trajan for Vespasian, OCRE]).

not my coins (links below):

Augustus Denarius: Armenian Warrior [OCRE RIC 519 = British Museum: R.6187].
Augustus Dupondius: Chained Crocodile representing Egypt [OCRE RIC 159 = Bochum Uni. ID1400].

With Augustus as a partial exception, barbarians, captives, and enemies never figured prominently in Julio-Claudian coinage (i.e., 27 BCE – 68 CE, Augustus through Nero). The few Julio-Claudian exceptions are “decorative” — captives and trophies among the sculptural group atop the triumphal arch for Nero Claudius Drusus, c. 41-5 (e.g., RIC 69 [OCRE] & 70 [OCRE]).

not my coins (links below):

Nero Claudius Drusus Aureus: Arch w/ Trophies & Captives Sculptural Group [OCRE RIC 69 = BNF IMP-6015].
Vitellius AE As: Judaea Capta [Ars Classica XVII (1934), 1311, Sir Arthur J. Evans = HJB 220, 323 = Hendin GBC6 6490].

On the whole, Augustus’ types were much more innovative and varied than the “captives” and “barbarians” that came before or after, which may be why few of them were adopted in the long-run. (See, e.g., RIC 160’s [OCRE] chained crocodile representing Egypt; RIC 518-520’s [519, OCRE] proud and fearsome Armenian warrior; but see also his captives-and-trophy rarity from Mauretania [RPC 866a], imagery he reclaimed after Brutus [Cr. 503/1, CRRO] appropriated it from Julius Caesar [above].)

Though often iconic, most of Augustus’ “captives” designs would remain singular (in both senses). Galba and Vitellius each had one type (plus variants), all rare. (Vitellius’ was the very first of what we consider the “Judaea Capta” types, but with VICTORIA AVGVSTI as legend [above; see also OCRE].)

First Century: Civil War, End of the Julio-Claudians

It is often observed that Romans preferred not to directly depict defeated Romans on their coinage, even traitorous enemies. One important exception is found on the rare Quadragens Remissae Asses issued by Galba in 68/9 from the Tarraco mint. (See also Victor Clark, re: Constantine/Licinius.)

It is worth remembering, though, “captives” had yet to become a major staple of Roman Imperial Coinage, so the practices and norms surrounding their representation were still unformed. This coin is also exceptional for depicting specific historical figures (and potentially a specific historical event).

Galba AE As. Tarraco, 68/69 CE. Nero’s provincial procurators as prisoners.

After Nero’s suicide, Galba was first in the “Year of the Four Emperors.” (But in this race, the goal is to finish last, rather than first. Seven months later he was overthrown by Otho. Next: Vitellius. Last: Vespasian.) The reverse type above is Galba’s only “captives coinage” (in several variations; OCRE).

The three figures, shown with hands bound in back and being marched into a triumphal arch (presumably soon to be executed), are traditionally identified as Nero’s monetary officials in the three provinces of Hispania.

Notably, he struck these not at the Rome mint (where the local elites might not have received it as well), but in Tarraco, where he expect a supportive audience. (Galba’s seat of power was in Hispania, where he had been Governor.) The reverse legend, QVADRAGENS REMISSAE (“Remission of the Fortieth”), advertises his abolition of Nero’s 2.5% duty on goods imported to and exported from Gallia and Spain (where these coins circulated and, we can imagine, the decision must have been popular).

(One wonders: Might the imagery allude to Nero’s triumphal arch Sestertii [RIC 143-150] and those depicting him adlocutio before three Prefects [e.g., RIC 130]?)

First Century. Flavian Dynasty: Judaea Capta, Britannia (?), Germania

Starting perhaps with the Hispania Denarius of A. Postumius Albinus in 81 BCE (Crawford 372/2), and continuing through Augustus’ extraordinary Armenian warrior Denarius in 19/18 BCE (RIC 520), a handful of late Republican/early Imperial coins portrayed conquered peoples with unusual humanity and respect.

During the Flavian period, however, Roman depictions of conquered peoples “hardened,” their range of variations narrowing. Then, under Trajan, Hadrian, and Antoninus Pius, there was a brief return to the tradition of honoring foreign personifications in a treatment distinct from the bound and mourning captives.

The coinage of Marcus Aurelius and his sons, however, largely abandoned that more “diplomatic” treatment. Instead, it favored the more militaristic paradigm — the one favored by the Flavians — which then persisted until the end of the fourth century.

Vespasian. Judaea Capta AR Denarius. 70 CE. Judaea (female Jewish captive) seated in mourning beside trophy. (Video)

Vespasian. Judaea Capta AE As. 71 CE. Judaea (female Jewish captive) mourning beside palm tree. (Blog w/ Video, incl. tags, provenance discussion).
Ex Kenneth Bressett (1928-) Collection, acq. 1957 ex Mark Salton-Schlessinger (1914-2005), with their tags/envelopes. (Possibly ex Hesperia List 1 [R. Hecht & V. Clain-Stefanelli, Spring 1951]?)

Vespasian AR Denarius. Rome, January – June 79 CE. Victory raising shield as trophy, Judaea seated in mourning at base.

Vespasian’s coinage ended it as it began, celebrating his defeat of the rebels in the First Jewish War. (Though Sear [RCV 2309] suggests it could’ve possibly celebrated Agricola in Britain; see the Titus Denarii below.)

Struck in his final months (dated by the rev. legend, TR POT X, for his tenth annual Tribuncian Power), it continued the imagery first used by Vitellius (see the Evans-Hendin coin above, sadly not mine!). After his death, his son Titus continued the type (with different legends) in the name of Divus Vespasian. (Another type I still need to add.)

Titus AR Denarius. Rome, 23 – 30 Jun 79 CE. Bound Jewish captive kneeling at base of trophy.

Titus’s first coinage at Rome can be dated remarkably narrowly to the eight days between Vespasian’s death (23 June) & Titus’s ninth Tribuncian Potest (1 July).

Though one could be forgiven for suspecting the imagery is drawn from the Fundanius Quinarius above, it is more directly borrowed from the Republican Denarius struck in 56 BCE by Moneyer C. Memmius, commemorating his uncle’s victory in Bithynia a year earlier (Craw. 427/1; see CRRO). Interestingly, a generation later, Trajan chose this design for a restitution issue naming Vespasian (RIC II, 826-7; see OCRE)!

Though traditionally associated with the “Judaea Capta” series, the inscriptions and iconography don’t rule out the possibility that this coin celebrates another military venture. As Sear argues (RCV 2493, 2505; see also preseceding & following Denarii), the most plausible alternative would be Britannia.

Titus AR Denarius. Rome, 80 CE. Two captives & trophy.
Photo: Gorny & Mosch. Ex Shlomo Moussaieff (acq. London, 1948-2000) & A. Short (Orfew) Colls.

There are reasons to interpret the coin above either as a Judaea Capta Commemorative (as Moussaief did; see Hendin GBC5 1584a), or as a celebration of Agricola’s campaign in Caledonia/Britannia (Scotland).

Levy’s (NNM, 1952) classic monograph, while addressing the Judaea coinage of Vespasian and Titus (including the latter’s Sestertii), seems to make no mention of the silver coins of Titus. Brin (SAN XIV.2, 1983: p. 38) argued for reinterpreting this and the captive kneeling coin above, based on the captive’s “different posture and different dress from the usual male captive.”

Given the dating and differences in imagery, particularly the apparent carnyxes shown (Gallic horns, absent from the Judaea trophies), I lean toward the Britannia interpretation for Titus’s two captives and trophy coins (i.e., celebrating Agricola’s victories in Caledonia).

Domitian AE Sestertius. Rome, 85 CE. Victory inscribes shield (DE GER) with Germania seated in mourning at base.

Though too worn on my example to be clearly legible, notice a key difference between the imagery on Domitian’s Sestertius and Vespasian’s final (Victory standing) Denarius above. Rather than simply erecting the trophy-shield, here Victory inscribes it, thus removing any doubt about the identity of the mourning figure. One might read this is an indication of Domitian’s desire to distinguish his own military glory, apart from that of his more accomplished father and old brother.

Domitian is often described as especially “eager” and “impatient for military glory,” but, as Jones (1992: p. 16) points out, this trait is almost universal among elite Roman Imperial males. In any case, with the success of his older brother’s and father’s Judaean campaign (in both the military and propaganda sense), it seems clear that he felt the need to emulate and achieve a military success of his own. His first success (by early 83) was a victory over the Chatti, a Germanic people across the Rhine, for which he celebrated a triumph and took the title “Germanicus.” His Germania Capta coinage began no later than 84 (RIC 201, COS X) and continued through his final coinage of 95/6 CE (RIC 781, COS XVII).

2nd Century. Adoptive Emperors: Dacia, Parthia & Armenia

Parthamasiris Roy d’Armenie Vient devant Trajan. Plate XXII from Bernard de Montfaucon (1724),
L’Antiquité Expliquée et Représentée en Figures: Supplément 4. (Ex Esty.)
Parthamasiris as supplicant before Trajan. The son of Pacorus II and member of the Parthian Arsacid Dynasty, he briefly ruled as King of Armenia c. 113-4 until Trajan’s invasion. Though he pleaded his case to remain as a Roman client, Parthamasiris was expelled by Trajan. He disappeared during his return trip to Parthia, presumably killed. (The same image illustrates his Wikipedia page.)

Trajan Dacia Capta AR Denarius. c. 103-107 CE.
Photo: Jesús Vico.
Modifying Vespasian’s Judaea Capta (possibly the first solitary captive seated directly in front of the trophy since Cloelius), a similar variant was later used by Marcus Aurelius, Lucius Verus, and others.

Trajan’s first coins showing a Dacian captive and trophy may have been struck as early as 103, following his initial victory in the “First Dacian War,” concluding in a treaty with the Dacian King Decebalus in 102. By 105, however, hostilities had resumed. Trajan returned, this time destroying the capital of Sarmizegetusa, after which Decebalus committed suicide.

Trajan’s “Dacia Capta” Denarius. c. 108 CE.

Trajan’s “Dacia Capta” series was the most extensive “Capta” coinage since the Flavian series for Judaea. (Only a fraction shown here.) He also produced similar coins for Parthia, Armenia, and a few minor others. But the Dacian coinage and related public monuments – especially the Columna Traiani, which was also depicted on coinage — were clearly a centerpiece of his propaganda. They celebrated his victories in Dacian wars c. 101-2 and 105-6.

Dacia had long been a major power across the Danube and a potential threat to Rome since at least Julius Caesar’s time. (There is a strong argument that Brutus allied with Dacians in the Civil War against Antony and Octavian) After repelling their invasion into Moesia, Domitian reached a treaty with the Dacians.

Trajan, however, pursued an eastward conquest, famously bridging the Danube, conquering Dacia, and annexing it as a Province. From here, he was able to push further east into Armenia and (briefly) even Parthia. (Upon Trajan’s death, however, Hadrian largely abandoned the attempt to invade Parthia and hold Armenia.)

Trajan Dacia Capta AR Denarius. c. 110 CE.
Photo: Jesús Vico.
Unusual depiction of a standing captive with hands bound in front. Perhaps drawing on the imagery of Vespasian’s rare IVDAEA DEVICTA type from Lugdunum (RIC 1119 [Aureus] & RIC 1120 [Denarius]; standing female personfication, hands bound in front). (See also Augustus’ remarkable standing, armed Armenian [RIC 520], though not exactly appearing as a “captive.”)
This type is illustrated on Levy’s (NNM, 1952) Plate V, no. 1, with a detailed discussion of its numismatic and sculptural significance on pp. 14ff.

Hadrian AE Drachm. Alexandria, 120/1 CE. Armenian captives.
Photo: Leu. Ex-ETB & Dattari Collections. (See Alexandrian Provenance Coins.)

Captives coinage of Hadrian is very rare, perhaps only a few specimens each from Alexandria (two of three were in Dattari’s, then ETB’s collection) and Adramyteum (see RPC III 1673 & 1674). This one repeats  Trajan’s Alexandrian AE Drachm (RY 17, 113/4 CE) depicting Armenian captives. (Armenia’s distinctive tiara depicted w/ two vertical points.)

Mysterious, as Hadrian had abandoned the Province in 118. Perhaps, in the face of that decision’s unpopularity, this is a reminder that, under Trajan, he secured Armenian captives & its ongoing status as a client-state. (Armenia & Adoptive-Era Rome had a complicated on-again-off-again relationship.)

He may also have been promising strength & victory in the aftermath of the Kitos War (sometimes “Second Roman-Jewish War,” 115-117 CE), which devastated Roman Egypt. As it happened, he would keep that promise, suppressing the Bar Kochba Revolt (Judaea, 132-5 CE).

Antoninus Pius AE As. Rome (for Britain), 154/5 CE. Britannia mourning.
Photo: Naville. Ex “Mentor Collection” (estate of George Muller) & possibly much earlier provenance.

Britannia here is not a proper “captive,” strictly speaking, but very much in the tradition of “captives” coinage. She is shown as a personification, seated and mourning (as were Vespasian’s Judaea and Caesar’s Gallia). As on the Vespasian “Judaea Capta” AE As above, Britannia is shown alongside a shield (presumably captured from the defeated Britons).

A new device is included in this scene: rather than a trophy or figure of Victory, a Roman vexillum (military standard) looms over the scene, proclaiming dominion over Britannia. That first implication may be menacing, as with the trophy. But the standard adds a new and gentler, even welcoming (by Roman Imperial standards) quality to the scene: membership. Though put there by force, to be under the banner of Rome is to be part of its Empire.

Antoninus Pius’ first Britannia coinage (c. 143/4 CE) began after Urbicus had repressed a rebellion in the North and construction began on the Antonine Wall (north of Hadrian’s). The present coin is from a second series a decade later, shortly after the Wall’s construction was completed, and during a period of renewed unrest. A few years later the Romans would retreat back to Hadrian’s Wall.

Coins of these types are found almost exclusively in Britain, so there is a long-running debate about whether they were struck in Britannia (no mint is known), perhaps from Roman dies, or struck in Rome for use on the island. (The latter sounds more convincing to me.)

Marcus Aurelius AR Denarius. Rome, 164 CE. Armenia mourning.

A remarkable feature of M. Aurelius and L. Verus’ Armenian-Parthian captives series is that Rome considered Armenia an ally, and the Romans putatively liberated Armenia from invading Parthian overlords. And yet “she” (Armenia, like most Roman national personifications, is female) is depicted as a captive in the same mourning pose as Judaea and Dacia before her. We get a special glimpse here into the Roman attitude toward their friends: They can be friends as long as they are subjugated and submit to Roman domination and public humiliation.

Lucius Verus Sestertius. Female figure of Armernia mourning. 164 CE.
The notes for the previous coin apply here as well: From the Roman perspective, “Victory over Armenia” was not inconsistent with friendship and alliance.

Marcus Aurelius. German captive bound to trophy. 172-174 CE.
When you collect specialized types, sometimes you settle for low-grade examples as long as they represent something different from what you already have!

Lucius Verus Parthicus Armeniacus Denarius. Bound Parthian Captive. 165 CE.
Ex Justin Lee Collection, Ancient & Med. Coins Canada Auction 2, Lot 449.
Celebrating the same victory as the Armenia & Parthia types above, this coin shows Parthia (again, a personification) as a bound captive. Perhaps the Armenians were meant to feel lucky to have their hands and knees free to assume the traditional mourning pose, not bound in slavery by the Romans.

Commodus. Rome, 180 CE. Two Captives & Trophy (RIC 9a)
Ex FAC (RS111654) & ex Savoca.
An interesting variation, distinctive to Marcus Aurelius & Commodus’ captives iconography (shared with only a few Septimius Severus types): The two captives are not seated on the ground (as described by RIC) but on shields, propped against the base of the trophy at a 45 degree angle. (Almost a gentle touch, in a perverse Roman Imperial sort of way.)

Despite the internal traumas due to Commodus’ insanity & licentious proclivities, his reign is usually described as militarily calm. He issued coins after two troubles in Britannia were put down: incursions from the Barbarian north & a local legionary uprising.

However, his “captives” coinage must all relate to the Marcomannic Wars of his father (Bellum Germanicum et Sarmaticum). Commodus, as a young Caesar, had accompanied Marcus Aurelius north to prosecute was against the Sarmatians and various Germanic tribes.

In 176, the pair celebrated victory (perhaps a bit prematurely) with a Triumph in Rome. Captives coinage was struck for both with “DE SARM” and “DE GERM” (and related) legends. When M. Aurel. died in 180, Commodus promptly negotiated a peace, ending the wars (a few minor outbursts over the next year or two notwithstanding). Although they are not named here, no doubt this coin celebrates the conclusion of war in Germania and the region around Dacia.

Early 3rd Century. Severan Dynasty: Parthian & Germanic

Septimius Severus AR Denarius. Rome, 195 CE. PART ARAB PART ADIAB.
Photo: Naville.
The reverse declares a curious pair of titles, “Parthicus Arabicus, Parthicus Adiabenicus,” which Septimius assumed in 195 and are found on the Arch of Septimius Severus (Rome).
They refer to his punitive expeditions (in 194/5) to capture and annex the Parthian client states that had supported Syrian governor Pescennius Niger in the civil wars during the “Year of Five Emperors” (193). “Arabia” is the small Kingdom Osroene, east of Syria, covering middle Mesopotamia. The Kingdom of Adiabene is immediately east.
The repetition of Parthicus emphasizes that this was a proxy attack on Parthia (the suffixes acknowledging not on Parthia proper), while obscuring the immediate source of the conflict in Roman civil war.

Septimius Severus AR Denarius. Laodicea, c. 198-202 CE. Victory over Parthian captive: VICT PARTHICAE.
Photo: InAsta SPA.
The obverse of this coin declares Septimius’ new title, “Parthicus Maximus” (PART MAX), awarded c. 198 for another Eastward campaign, this time right into the heart of Parthia. The Parthians had marched through Orsoene and Adiabene, attacking Nisibis.
Septimius successfully drove the Persians out and pursued them. He sacked the capital, Ctesiphon, but failed to capture Hatra. (Again. They had supported Pescennius, yet repelled Septimius in his 194/5 punitive expedition.)
Declaring victory, having strengthened the Eastern defenses and purged Parthians from the territories captured in 195, he declared victory and returned West.

Septimius Severus AR Denarius. Rome, c. 207 CE. Parthian trophy captives: seated-mourning & standing-bound. RIC 214.
Photo: Naville.
Rare variant: The captive on the right is standing, rather than the more common imagery of two captives seated (as on the following denarii of Caracalla). Of this rare type, there are two varieties. On this, the rarer variety, the captive rests his knee on a helmet; the more common variety shows no object to lean against.
Note: A similar design (a palm tree instead of trophy) appeared on Flavian “Judaea Capta” Sestertii (e.g., Vespasian RIC 165; Titus RIC 149 – 153), then was adapted by Domitian (RIC 351) for his “Germania Capta” Sestertius. It was used again by Marcus Aurelius to depict German captives (RIC 1058, Sestertius). (This is the final appearance on RIC, to my knowledge.)

Caracalla AR Denarius. 202 CE. Parthian Captives (RIC 65)
Photo: Victor Clark.

This reverse of this denarius (and the following three) proclaims the title “Parthicus Maximus,” but the title is Septimius Severus’, not Caracalla’s (at this time). However, when Septimius died 10 years later (211 CE), Caracalla would receive the title. Unlike his father (and Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus before him), Caracalla merely inherited the title “Parthicus Maximus,” rather than earning it through victorious battle. (He did accompany Septimius on his Eastward campaign, but while still a child.)

In 216, he initiated his own Parthian campaign, but was assassinated by Macrinus before he had a chance to retroactively earn the title.

Caracalla AR Denarius. 201 CE. Parthian Captives (RIC 54b)
Example One; Example 2 Photo: Savoca; Example 3: Ex Rudi Smits, RCA Auction 1 (9 June 2013), (Video on Reddit)

Caracalla AR Antoninianus. c. 215 CE. Venus between captives.
Photo: InAsta SPA.

Elagabalus AE Tetrassarion. Nikopolis ad Istrum, c. 218-222 CE. Emperor’s foot on upper back of bound captive who crouches forward, 2nd captive cowering under shield, both bearded with curved caps.
Ex H.C. Lindgren (unpublished), H. Howard, G. Spradling, J. Winnett, and Zumbly Colls. This coin = HHJ (8.26.34.2, eds. from 2015-) = RPC VI 1197 (Temp.) ex. 1 = Wildwinds “plate coin” (Elagabalus & Moesia, Niko.).​ This coin also ill. on “Provenance Coins, Part III: RPC” page.

Captives are generally less common on Provincial coins, but this particular design is quite an unusual one. It probably harkens back to Septimius’ Parthian & Arab captives (possibly also Trajan’s Dacians, as the city was founded & named for Trajan’s victory over them).

Septimius had produced an extensive coinage celebrating his punitive expeditions into Arabia and Parthia — regions that had supported Pescennius Niger against him — annexing and installing client rulers. Interestingly, this included an unusual number of captives types at Nikopolis ad Istrum. The city had been a favorite of Septimius’, for he had been the favorite of theirs: Nikopolis awarded him important support in the civil war (or, one might say, his usurpation) against Pescennius Niger.

Though the relationship seems to have soured under Caracalla, Elagabalus restored relations with Nikopolis ad Istrum. Here, he may have been invoking both Nikopolis’ support of the Severan Dynasty’s founder, and his military achievements, a common tactic for shoring up one’s own legitimacy.

Severus Alexander. Alexandria, 234 CE. Germanic Captives.
Ex Errett Bishop Collection.

Depictions of “spurning” and other discomfort seem to become more common on mid 3rd to late 4th cent. The captives seem to be in what we’d call a “stress position” today. (Likewise Julia Mamaea’s RY 13 Tetradrachms. Interestingly, though their types are identical but interestingly they used different reverse dies. Different workshops?)

Are those captives wearing “Suebian knot” hairstyles? (Indicating Germanic identity.) They appear similar on Julia Mamaea’s RY 13 Tetradrachms. (See RPC VI, 10638. Interestingly, both struck identical reverse types in RY 13, but apparently with non-overlapping sets of reverse dies. Does the absence of die links suggest their coins were produced by different workshops at the Alexandria mint? The same happened with their RY 14 captives coins; Mamaea’s below; for Alexander’s, see RPC VI, 10647.)

Sev. Alex. and his mother Julia Mamaea were killed by the army a year or two later, reportedly in retaliation for having made peace with the Germans at the last moment, after preparing for battle. (Loot and plunder, it must be remembered, were a significant incentive to attack & source of income for the soldiers. The sudden peace may have been felt as a personal loss by the Legions.)

The Severans were replaced by Maximinus (see below), whose troops then turned on him 3 years later. The reverse design, however, continued without interruption.

Julia Mamaea. Alexandria, 235 CE. Germanic Captives.
Ex Collections Col. J. Curtis (1138), Gordon J. Dickie, and Thomas Beniak.
Struck in the final year of Severus Alexander’s reign, before he and Julia Mamaea were killed. The captives are shown nude (it’s clearer on better preserved examples) and with unkempt hair, in the style of Roman depictions of Celts, Gauls, and (in this case) Germans.

A rare and unusual reverse design, used only in the final year of Severus Alexander: The captives are posed facing one another, their feet inward, bound to the trophy and/or each other at the ankles. In the vast majority of Trophy-and-Two-Captives types, they’re back-to-back and any bindings hold the captives to the trophy at the wrist. (Compare the examples immediately above and below.)

It is also uncommon to find captives paired with female obverses. Empresses and other royal women were usually paired with reverses emphasizing family or personifications of generosity and peace. (And occasionally with, say, Venus Victrix and captive.) That Julia Mamaea was paired with the same “captives reverses” as Severus Alexander, emphasizing warfare and the taking of prisoners, probably communicated that she was actively directing matters of state, including military strategy.

3rd Cent., 235 – 284. Crisis & Recovery:
Germanic & Eastern Captives (Goths, Sassanids, Alemanni, et al.)

Maximinus I. Alexandria, 236/237 CE. Germanic Captives. [See also next.]
Photo: CNG EA 484, 610. Ex Rocky Mountain Collection & CNG MBS 79.
Re: the previous examples (Severus Alexander & Maximinus): Maximinus got rid of the ruler depicted on the Obverse, but kept the Reverse!
On this coin, the captives’ wrists are clearly bound together. What’s not entirely clear is whether they are also tied to the trophy or just seated below it. Answering this question will require another example; the coin below will suffice.

Maximinus I. Alexandria, 236/237 CE. Germanic Captives.
Photo: Kölner. Ex Sammlung Dr. Victor Wishnevsky (Teil III, 720) & Collezione Giovanni Dattari (1853-1923).
Another of the exact type as the previous coin (example no. 25 & no. 26 on RPC VI, 10711). The first is the better specimen; the second, the better provenance. More importantly, they were struck from different pairs of dies. (The reverses were undoubtedly engraved by the same individual.) The minor “narrative” details are what matter to me, so any minor variation may be instructive.
Looking closely on the Dattari-Wishnevsky coin, the right captive’s arms seem to be bound to the trophy with some cordage, possibly with a cuff or shackle on his wrist.

Gordian III. Alexandria, 239/240 CE. Trophy & Captives.
Photo: CNG EA 560, 523. Ex Beniak Collection, NFA 24 (F 1990 MBS), David R. Sear RCV 8839 (this coin illustrated).
The same design used by Maximinus, borrowed from Severus Alexander, is carried over into the reign of Gordian III. The history is sparse, but the German troubles to which it originally referred were probably under control and Gordian had not yet planned his Eastward campaign (see below). However, there had recently been a series of uprisings in N. Africa:

“The trophy type may commemorate the suppression of the African rebellion in A.D. 240. The type was repeated in the following two regnal years, and the allusion may have shifted to Gordian’s Persian campaign. However it is possible that the type has no topical significance, but merely serves to honor the military in a general way…”

David Sear, NFA Fall 1990 MBS (NFA 24, 18 Oct 1990), Lot 2475 (this coin)

Gordian III AR Antoninianus., struck c. 243-244 CE. Victory resting shield on captive (Sassanian?).

Gordian initiated a Persian military campaign in 243 CE. However, Shapur’s Sasanian army defeated Gordian’s at the Battle of Misiche in Mesopotamia in 244  – only the first such Roman defeat, with more to come  – commemorated at Naqsh-e Rustam (see also Valerian v. Shapur).

Depending on exactly when they were struck, the Persian captives depicted must be either anticipatory or mostly imaginary.

Gordian III AR Antoninianus., struck c. 243-244 CE. Victory resting shield on captive (Sassanian?).
Photo: AMCC (edited). Ex JB (Edmonton, d. 2019) Collection.

The motif of Victory balancing shield on captive can be traced to the rare Judaea Capta Asses of Vitellius (RIC 151 & several others), then Vespasian and Domitian, but on all of which the shield was mounted on a trophy (see, e.g., Vespasian’s RIC 1067 [Aureus] & 1068 [Denarius]).

On some Severan Denarii, Victory placed the shield directly upon the captive’s head or shoulders (e.g., Septimius’ RIC 509; Alexander’s RIC 257). This device was later used by Valerian for both Germanic captives & Parthian captives (see below) coins. (On similar types of Caracalla, Victory holds the shield to the opposite side.)

Gordian III AE Sestertius. c. 238-244 CE (prob. 243). Victory balancing shield on captive (Sassanian?).
(Same coin above & below.) Photo: Leu 12 (2022), 1386.
Ex Collections of Giuseppe Mazzini (1883-1961), George His (1927-2021) & Adrian Lang (Part I).
(This coin on “Provenance” page. An additional photo (from CNG MBS 69 [2005], 1465) illustrates RIC 337a on Wildwinds. Neither captures the green clamshell patina; see the video/blogpost, written before I found this coin published in Mazzini).

These Victory-and-captive Sestertii are of the same type as the AR Antoniniani above, and the same comments apply to this coin.

Philip II AR Antoninianus. 247 CE. East captive.
Photo: Leu Numismatik. Ex Adrian Lang Coll.

This specimen is notable for the detail on the reverse captive, whose pointed cap indicates an Eastern enemy. His father, Philip the Arab, had campaigned for Gordian III in Mesopotamia, and is actually depicted surrendering to Shapur in the relief at Naqsh-e Rustam (see also Valerian v. Shapur). Philip II was too young to have been responsible for military victories (or losses), so this must be a promise to regain Rome’s and his family’s lost honor against the Sasanians. Alas, the Decii rebelled before the Philippi could seek revenge against Shapur, and Philip Jr. was killed at about age 11 or 12.

Not to worry: Other Emperors would take up the effort … and find themselves immortalized by statues depicting them in surrender to Shapur too!

Gallienus. Colonia Agrippinensis (Cologne), c. 257 CE. Trophy & Alemanni Captives.
Photo: HJB. Ex Philip Ashton Collection.

Gallienus and Valerian both issued coins representing the two major enemies of Rome’s embattled middle third century. To the North, various Germanic peoples; to the East, various peoples & kingdoms of Persia. It was not always obvious which enemies were being depicted, but the Gallienus specimen above and the Valerian Antoniniani below identify the captives (i.e., w/ Gallienus’ title, GERMANICVS for defeating the Alemanni invaders, and the anticipatory VICT[ORIA] PART[HICAE] that would never come).

At least for the Eastern enemies (particularly during the reign of the Sassanian King, Shapur I), depictions of Victory, trophies, and captives were largely aspirational. Persia/Parthia had always been trouble for Rome (monumental defeats under Crassus and Marc Antony reshaped early Imperial history), but the two superpowers had alternated in positions of dominance over the centuries.

By now, however, Rome was looking distinctly overextended and overmatched. And just a bit too slow to accept their new reality — as became painfully clear in 260 with Valerian’s capture.

Valerian I AR Antoninianus. Parthian captive. 257 CE.

Valerian I AR Antoninianus. Parthian captive. 257 CE.

See also: See Blog post, “Irony of Valerian’s Captive“: Valerian AR Antoninianus, VICT PART Captive, three years before he was taken captive himself by Persian King Shapur I. And Video (plus full writeup) on Reddit. The post shows the Triumph of Shapur I over Valerian, the famous bas-relief monument in modern-day Iran, inspired partly by Roman “captives” artwork.

Postumus AR Antoninianus. Treveri, 260/1 CE. Victory & captive.
Photo: moremoth (ebay UK). Ex Bill Welch.

Three hundred years after a Julius Caesar Denarius depicted Gallic captives conquered by Rome, the breakaway Roman-Gallic kingdom produced its own Roman-style captives coinage.

Claudius II Gothicus AE Antoninianus. Namesake Gothic Captives. 270 CE.
Claudius was given the title “Gothicus” after defeating them in the Battle of Naissus in 268, accompanied by Aurelian, who led the decisive cavalry attack [see Wiki article]. (Similar types with the legend “VICTOR GERMAN” also celebrated his defeat of the Alamanni at the Battle of Lake Benacus [Wiki] a few months later.)

Aurelian. Eastern Captives. 274 CE (Video)

Sol is often described as “spurning” (i.e., kicking/trampling) the left captive (as does Victory on a Constantine AE3 below). Here, Sol’s foot is pressing down on the binding between the wrists, allowing him to inflict discomfort on the back, shoulders, and wrists, all at once. (See also enlargement.)

As with depictions of “stress positions,” engravers gave special attention to the captives’ discomfort from the mid-3rd cent. onward.

See also: Blog post on Aurelian’s “New Morning in Rome” series of Eastern Captives coinage. Video of Aurelian Billon Denarius (275 CE), Victory & Parthian captive.

Aurelian. Serdica, 274 CE. Eastern captive in distinctive Phrygian cap.

Aurelian AE Denarius. Rome, 275 CE. Victory over bound captive.
Photo: Solidus.

Probus Billon Antoninianus. Germanic Captives. Rome, 282 CE.
Ex CNA V (9 Dec 1988), 479.

Probus Billon Antoninianus. German Captives. Rome, 282 CE.
Photo: Künker (edited). Ex Mark Salton-Schlessinger (1914-2005) & Lottie Salton collection.

Are there manacles on the captives’ legs or ankles on these ones? Are the captives wearing their hair “corded” (i.e., in “dreadlocks,” like Vercingetorix above). Or: Are those details just artifacts of the tools available (e.g., if engraving hair more finely was too difficult or time-consuming)?

Probus Billon Antoninianus. Rome, 281 CE. Emperor on horseback, Eastern captive underfoot.
Photo: Themis.

Given Probus’ equestrian background (and apparent constant preoccupation), it seems fitting that his coinage often depicts captives or enemies being underfoot of, or overpowered by, horses and their riders.

Probus Billon Antoninianus. Siscia, 276-282 CE. Emperor on horseback, Eastern captive underfoot.
Photo: CNG (edited).

See also Constantine’s ADVENTVS type below for a later coin (by 30 years) inspired by this design.

Carinus Billon Antoninianus. 282-3 CE. Emperor w/ bound Quadi captive.
Ex Crescent Collection. (Video)

The Quadi were another of the Germanic tribes with whom the Romans were in military conflict. Once again (see Sev Alex above, also the subsequent Alexandrian captives from Mamaea to Gordian III): Is the hair swept forward, as in a “Suebian knot”?

4th Cent. Tetrarchy, Licinius & Constantine:
Franks, Sarmatians, Alemanni, et al.

Galerius. AE Follis. Aquileia, 305/6 CE. On Horseback Spearing Two Fallen Enemies

Maxentius AE Half-Follis. Rome, c. 310 CE. Victory inscribing VOT X, bound captive to left.
Photo: W.W. Esty (edited for contrast/brightness). With a particular large captive illustrated, his hands clearly bound in back.

Esty comments that Maxentius’ VOT X types were struck around his Regnal Year 5, in early anticipation of reaching his tenth. (Esty’s main Vota page.) Shortly thereafter in 312, however, when they met at the Milvian Bridge, Constantine relieved Maxentius of the responsibility to keep any Decennial vows he’d offered to the gods.

Constantine I AE22 Follis. London, 311-312 CE. Emperor on horseback, captive underfoot.
Photo: CNG. Ex-Paul DiMarzio Collection of London Mint Æs & “CT Collections” (Lee Toone, w/ his collector tag), a plate coin in Cloke & Toone (7.01.007) [for another CT plate coin, see the Crispus below].

Rare type for Constantine, depicting the Emperor on horseback, with a bound captive under the horse’s hoof. A type popularized by Probus (see examples above), these are much less common for Constantine.

This issue may commemorate Constantine’s visit to London during the buildup to war with Maxentius. The following year, Constantine defeated Maxentius at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, 28 October 312.

Licinius II AE3. Bound Eastern (Sarmatian?) Captive. Antioch, 317-320 CE. Ex Giovanni Dattari (1853/8-1923) Collection of Late Roman Bronze Coins.
Photo: Victor Clark, 2020 (Victor’s Imperial Coins, VCoins, illustrated on his Licinius II page at ConstantineTheGreatCoins.com).
Note: I love how much the portrait resembles the “Porphyry Licinius” from Cairo! (Shown at the bottom of this coin’s description page.)

Licinius I. Ticinum, 319-320 CE. Captives & Standard.
Photo: Jesús Vico.

For the first time, we see the trophy replaced by a vexillum — that is, a standard bearing a banner. Though Licinius appears on the obverse, the banner’s message heralds the Vicennalia of Constantine (celebration for his 20th year of rule), albeit long in advance. This reverse was struck for Linicius, Licinius II, Constantine, Constantine II, and Crispus.

Though considerably less common (but still not rare), otherwise similar reverses were also struck with the trophy. They would be the very last of the long run of reverses depicting two seated captives at the base of a trophy, first introduced over 365 years earlier by Julius Caesar (an example is shown above).

Constantine I “The Great” AE3 Reduced Follis. Trier (•PTR), 320/1 CE. Germanic captives under Trophy.
Photo 1: Olympus. Photo 2: Koci.

Victor Clark has argued that the reverse references Constantine & sons’ battles against the Franks and Alamanni. There is also a slightly later (?) ALAMANNIA DEVICTA coinage, c. 323, celebrating the same.
In 324, the SARMATIA DEVICTA coinage began (see below). (The Sarmatians were a different group, further east, beyond the Danube.)

Many of the captives are depicted as being distinctively Germanic (without headwear, hair swept forward, wearing tunics/trousers typical of Western “barbarians”). I am uncertain the degree to which some may have been intended or interpreted simply as generic captives, collectively representing all of Rome’s “enemies.” But, in my experience, it usually is possible to tie the “captives” types to specific conflicts and enemies.

Crispus. London, 320 CE. Photo: CNG. Germanic (Franks & Alemanni) captives. (Blog w/ Video, incl. tags, provenance discussion)
Cloke & Toone Plate Coin (C&T 9.02.016). Ex Paul DiMarzio Collection of London Mint Æs & “CT Collections” (Lee Toone, w/ his collector tag). (See also the Constantine above, another CT plate coin.) I suspect also ex Langtoft B Hoard (2000); see CHRB XII (2009) No. 21 (3 ex.) and DNW 53 (13 Mar 2002), Lot 62; also Abdy (NC 2002) p. 391, 23.

On the identification of the captives as Germanic — as with the type above with trophy in place of vexillum (standard w/ banner) — see Victor Clark.

Such detailed specimens of captives coinage allow one to pursue interesting questions (when examined in groups): Is the right captive wearing a diadem or even radiate crown? What kind of clothing is the left captive wearing? Can we see the bindings and technologies of captivity (manacles and shackles on arms, wrists, legs, feet, torso, and, on other examples, the neck)?

See also, for example, my Forum comment & examples discussed here: FAC 130231 (31 Dec 2022 – 14 Jan 2023).

Constantine II. Siscia, 320 CE. More Germanic captives.
Photo: Leu Numismatik. Ex Adrian Lang Collection (Part II).
Similar appearance the Siscia reverses of Constantine I but with different clothing and hair from those portrayed at the other mints.

Constantine I. Lugdunum (Lyons), c. 320 CE. Germanic captives in exergue.
Photo: NBS (edited).

A distinctive feature of the Lugdunum mint is the use of a pair of bound captives seated back-to-back as a control/mintmark. The use of captives imagery for such subordinate (in a decorative sense) purposes dramatizes how ordinary and pervasive captives (or their imagery) were in the late Roman Imperial lifeworld.

Constantine I. Lugdunum (Lyons), c. 320 CE. Germanic captives in exergue.

As with the roughly contemporary VIRTVS EXERCITVS types above, Victor Clark notes the context of Crispus’ ongoing wars against the Franks and Alamanni, c. 318-320. The Lugdunum mint’s exergue captives may reference contemporary campaigns against Germanic tribes.

Constantine I AE. Antioch, 321-323 CE. Germanic captives in exergue. Ex Giovanni Dattari (1853/8-1923) Collection of Late Roman Bronze Coins.
Photo: Victor Clark, 2024 (Victor’s Imperial Coins, VCoins, illustrated on his “Assorted Reverses, 2” page at ConstantineTheGreatCoins.com).

Constantine I. Sirmium, 324-325 CE. Victory spurning Sarmatian captive.
Photo: Leu Numismatik. Ex Adrian Lang Collection (Part II).

As Sol did on the Aurelian Ant. above, Victory “spurns” the captive by placing her foot on the wrist bindings and leaning forward while pressing down.

The captive’s head is turned and gaze upward, a theme on Roman captives coinage since the Republican period. Presumably it indicates the captive’s recognition of and awe at Rome’s power (perhaps even his submission to it?).

4th Cent. Family of Constantine:
Various Captives & Fallen Horsemen (“FH”)

Constans AE Maiorina. Fallen Horseman. Thessalonica, 348-350.

An interesting question is which barbarian groups are being portrayed on these types. Some authors suggest they are all “generic” barbarians, others that they are all Sassanid (i.e., “Eastern”). But some reverse dies — such as this one — appear to portray Germanic or Gallic (i.e., “Western”) horsemen.

Clues may be found by comparing details of armor, decorations on horses (perhaps even the stirrups [if you believe they’re known to W. Eurasians then], bridle, etc.), headwear, tunics (or their absence), and trousers.

On the following specimen (Constans, Siscia), the fallen horseman’s headwear appears to be a Phrygian helmet, which the Romans often used to depict their Eastern enemies.

Constans AE Maiorina. Siscia Mint, 350. Fallen horseman.

Above: “Fallen Horseman” AE2s of Constans. Of the same types as the previous two above, from different die pairs (and officina for the Siscia). The Thessalonica (right) is from the archive of selected sold coins.

Constans Small AE2 Maiorina. Heraclea (?), 348-350. Roman soldier leading barbarian from hut.
Photo: Zeus.

Above: “Barbarian & Hut” Small AE2s of Constans. Antioch (left) & Nicomedia (right), 348-350.
(Left coin ex Ken Bressett Collection.) Photos: CNG & Zeus.

Constantius Small AE2 Maiorina. Trier, 348-350. Roman soldier leading barbarian from hut.
Photo: Künker. Ex Sammlung Carl-Friedrich Zschucke (1938-2023), “plate coin” in his book, Die römische Münzstätte Trier: von der Münzreform der Bronzeprägung unter Constans und Constantius II…. (more on this coin on Roman Provenance Coins page).

One the coins above, it’s not entirely clear what’s happening between the soldier and the small figure. Is this a barbarian being led into captivity? In an alternate possibility, the figure is being led toward the safety of the Empire.

The “rescue” possibility seems to be strengthened by the “Vergilian” imagery (Richardson 2008; see also: Vaneerdewegh 2017; Mattingly 1933): The design is remarkably reminiscent of Aeneas leading Ascanius away from the fall of Troy. (Though he is missing Anchises on his shoulder.) If correct, this must be among the gentlest treatments received by “barbarians” on any Roman coin.

Or perhaps something in between: an induction or conscription scene. A standard condition of acceptance into the empire, especially at this time, was a commitment to provide troops (whether as mercenaries or conscripts).

Note that the smaller child-like figure is bare-headed and wearing Roman-style tunic rather than barbarous cap and pants of the “fallen horseman” — thus, if “barbarian,” a Romanizing one. He is not led by the unarmed figure (the Emperor?) from the contemporary “galley” (FEL TEMP…) and “standards” (CONCORDIA…) reverses. Instead, he is led by a decidedly armed and armored soldier; while the spear is pointed peaceably downward, the military context is explicit. The soldier is leading a fresh recruit away from home and into the Legions.

Constantius II AE Maiorina. Antioch, 348-351. Christian Standard (Cross) & Captives. Ex Norddeutscher Privatsammlung (Peus e-10). (Video & 2 Others)

The captives are shown with clear markers of “Eastern” ethnicity (Sassanid, Persian). The Emperor now usually bears symbols of Christianity on his standard.

Constantius II. Cyzicus, 348-351. Standard with Chi-Rho Symbol & Captives.
Photo: Naville. Ex Elvira Clain-Stefanelli (1914-2001) Collection, the important curator of the National Numismatic Collection at the Smithsonian, and author of Numismatic Bibliography (Battenberg: 1985); Wildwinds “Digital Plate Coin,” RIC VIII Cyzicus 70, B (since cleaned).

Constantius II AE2 Maiorina. Thessalonica, under Vetranio, c. 350-1. Emperor spurning one captive.

This type with only one captive (Failmezger-Esty F425) — and the Emperor holding Victory on a globe in addition to the labarum — is considerably rarer than the type with two bound captives (rarer yet for Constantius Gallus; see RIC 179 on OCRE). According to Esty there is a single rarer FEL TEMP REPARATIO reverse: “Horseman rides down two foes” (F412).

Vetranio AE3 Follis. Siscia, 350. Emperor spurning (Persian?) captive. Failmezger-Esty F419.
Photo: CNG. Ex Collections of DFA and Dipl.-Ing. Adrian Lang.

The captive may be wearing a typical “Eastern” style Phrygian cap. Such a message would be consistent with Constantius’ current war in Persia. (This type was also struck by Vetranio for Constantius II, to whom he wished to show allegiance.) There was also a civil war between Magnentius and Constantius II, but this coin probably addresses it only indirectly, if at all.

Vetranio also struck coins for Constantius II with this reverse during the months before his abdication.

Vetranio’s reign is a brief but fascinating one, albeit muddled by conflicting contemporary accounts. Following the death of Constans, he was Emperor in the Danubian Provinces for only nine months (March to December 350). It is unclear whether and when he may have taken (or switched) sides during Magnentius’ rebellion and the civil war with Constantius II.

In any case, he publicly begged forgiveness and was pardoned by Constantius II. Vetranio is unusual among Emperors (even more so if actually a usurper) in that he abdicated and retired to live out his life on an estate in Bithynia. (For an interesting summary, incl. various accounts in the literature: Drinkwater 2000: pp. 146ff.)

Magnentius II AE2 Maiorina. Aquileia, c. 350-1. Spurning captive to left; kneeling supplicant, right.

Rather than bound captives, this coin depicts one figure in a “mourning pose” (though being spurned) and another in the classic “supplication pose.”

As noted above, there is an ambiguity to the mourning figures. It’s not always clear whether they are, strictly speaking, “captives.” They were also associated with bound captives (e.g., Caesar’s Gallica, Vespasian’s Judaea Capta). But, rather than depicting captured warriors (or specific enemy kings), the mourning figures tends to be personifications of defeated territories or peoples.

The typical depiction also suggests a different relationship to Rome. The personification has been defeated, but not entirely subjugated, unlike the bound captive who awaits slavery or execution. Instead, she may hope for a future under Roman hegemony (as, e.g., Antoninus Pius’s Britannia who would become a Province).

This reverse even demonstrates how such an outcome may be achieved: To the right, we see a figure in the classic “supplication pose.” (See, e.g., Naiden’s [2003, AJN] “Supplication on Roman Coins.”) Kneeling before the Emperor, the personification accepts the authority of Rome and begs the Emperor’s mercy. (And perhaps the religion, kneeling before the Chi-rho banner.) Thus, she may receive the Empire’s welcome and “benevolence.”

It is worth noting also that granting such mercy not only reaffirms the Emperor’s power, but demonstrates an important virtue of a good ruler, as the Romans saw it.

Constantius II on Horseback Spearing Enemy. Rome, under Nepotian (possibly Magnentius), 350. Spearing enemy.

An interesting complement to the imagery of the contemporary FEL TEMP REPARATIO fallen horseman type, in which the horseman is defeated. Above, the horseman is the one winning the battle.

As Victor Clark has pointed out, both Nepotian (RIC 198, 23-25mm) and Magnentius (RIC 204, 22-24mm) struck this type for Constantius II, but they are nearly indistinguishable, differing only slightly in size, per RIC VIII. At 24 mm, with the die slightly too large for the flan, I supect this was the larger Nepotian, but it’s a bit speculative.

“The Gran Constantinople.” Constantius II AE Maiorina (7.67g, 25mm, 12h). Constantinople, 348-351. Fallen Horseman. (Video here.)
Photo: Bertolami Fine Arts Auction 37, 699 & e-92, 1554. (My lower quality photo w/ comments.)

Among the heaviest specimens recorded. The weight distribution in RIC VIII (pp. 68-71) shows 1 or 2 heavier among 405 specimens of Constantius II “Large AE2s” (348-350 CE; i.e., counting only the earliest, largest issue of AE2s). Those weights are from museum specimens (Münzkabinett des Kunsthistorischen Museums [KHM] in Vienna). The KHM‘s distribution (about 1-in-200 or 1-in-400 weighing >7.6g) is consistent with Bland’s (1985: CH 7.133) hoard of 605 fallen horsemen, in which two coins were heavier (7.87g, 8.11g, with another 6 weighing 7.0-7.5g, all with “Γ” in the left rev. field).

A couple examples over 8g are reported in ACSearch (here and here). Doug Smith has a 9.5g monster from Cyzicus (see “ten assorted Falling Horsemen” w/ table on his FTR page). There is one more from Cyzicus, even larger:

not my coin
but my copy of Kovacs FPL 29 (1997), ex RBW Library

At an astonishing 10.61g, Frank Kovacs’s “Constantius II Piefort” is the runaway winner! Fortunately, Kovacs commented on the weight of Lot 69, so we can be sure it wasn’t a typo.

Above: “Fallen Horseman” AE2s (and one AE3) of Constantius II. Interesting variations in reverse design from thriteen of the fifteen “Fallen Horseman” mints: Alexandria, Amiens/Ambianum, Antioch (3), Aquileia, Arles / Arelate, Constantinople (2), Cyzicus, Heraclea, Lyons / Lugdunum, Nicomedia (2), Sirmium (2), Thessalonica (2), Trier (2).
For the other two mints: see Constans (Siscia), above & Constantius II (Rome), below.

The two Trier-mint Constantius II’s above and Constantius Gallus below complete my “Fallen Horseman mint set” (one from each of the 15 mints). Only two mints are really difficult, Amiens (Ambianum) and especially Trier (Treveri/Treves). RIC calls them common, but no one who collects them agees! I’ve only recently found examples after years of collecting “FHs.” In an embarrassment of riches, I won all three (and several non-FH Constantius AEs) in a single lot from the collection of the preeminent Trier-specialist C.F. Zschucke (1938-2023).

At some point, I’ll make a Fallen Horseman page, but for now I’ll mention the other collectors I know to have completed the set: Doug Smith, Dane Kurth, Martin Griffiths (“maridvnvm“), and Randy Harstock (“randygeki“; sadly, I didn’t finish mine in time to show him). I’d love to know who else has completed one.

Constantius II AE Reduced Maiorina. Siscia mint, 351-354 CE. Fallen Horseman: LXXII. LRBC 1204 (Carson et al. 1965: p. 70); RIC 334 (C); see also: Failmezger p. 116 (briefly, dating to 353). In RIC VIII, Kent (1981: p. 374) calls it “Common,” which — Juno Moneta forgive me — strikes me as rather absurd!

These “LXXII” bronzes were struck at Siscia and Aquileia once recaptured from Magnentius (whose captive types are still absent from this page; 1 or 2 await photography in my bank box). Note: Besides the numerals, I like the horseman’s facial detail. Often, entirely absent; here, he’s been given enough to allow a touch of humanity.

An unusual and fascinating type. One of the few Roman coins on which the denomination is expressed numerically: “LXXII” (reverse, start at the fallen horseman’s face) indicates “72 to the pound.” The Roman pound (libra) was the standard measure for coin denominations. This is also the exact number of Constantinian Gold Solidi to the Roman lb. In fact, some of Constantine’s and his sons’ AV Solidi were similarly inscribed “LXXII” (examples on ACSearch).

If the libra was ~324 grams (estimates vary c. 322-328), then the theoretical weight would be ~4.50g. The present ex. weighs 3.90g; close enough for bronzes, for which the mint allowed plenty of individual variability, as long as the batch averaged out. The weight of gold coins, however, was much more strictly controlled. A coin deviating even 3% (about 0.15g) would be highly irregular and unacceptable.

Much rarer and more interesting is the type with a Chi-Rho symbol in the center. Some examples shown throughout this CoinTalk thread by Victor Clark et al. (including my specimen sans Chi-rho, which really didn’t belong!). An interesting note: One of the coins Victor noted as “sold” had been acquired c. 2015 by W. Esty (“Valentinian”) and posted previously:

NOT my coin: The Victor Clark-Warren Esty example

That one doesn’t, however, appear on Esty’s educational pages for these types! (See his others: Constantius Gallus, both WITH & without Chi-rho [scroll down for AQS], Constantius II, LXXII but no Chi-rho.)

Constantius II AE Maiorina. Rome mint, 350 CE. Fallen Horseman.
Photo: moremoth (ebay UK). Ex Bill Welch.

Notice some interesting variations on this and a few other early types from Rome. On the obverse, Constantius is holding a globe, as on the Thessalonica issue above (for Constans, but also issued for C. II).

As Kurth notes of this type (RIC 174, FT577 = ex Bill Welch #024 [my specimen also ex Welch]; Helvetica’s Fel Temps, Rome page):

• The fallen horseman of RIC 174 is described as “sitting on ground”. This appears to be an error in RIC. The horseman is in fact kneeling on one knee. The fold in his tunic from near the ground to up and over the raised knee, the lower part of his left leg behind the body and the relative size of the upper and lower body supports this.

Most interesting to me, though, is the decorated shield. At other mints, the soldier’s shields occasionally have decorations beyond the usual central boss or hub (e.g., dots on one Cyzicus above or an extra ring for Arles). There are many other varieties, seemingly haphazard and perhaps at the whim of the engraver.

But the “starburst” pattern on the shield for Rome issues must be a deliberate design element. It appears on most or all dies for several of the early “Large AE2” types, and at many different workshops from the Rome mint. (See, e.g., RIC 174 & RIC 176.)

An interesting hypothesis from a CoinTalk member (ancient coin hunter, now on Numisforums, but capitalized): Might the shield design represent the distinctive decorations used by different Legionary units? Is the coinage honoring one of the Legions here? It certainly seems to resemble a shield pattern reputedly used by a late-4th century unit (Lanciarii Gallicani Honoriani). It may remain a mystery if a specific unit or legion was represented, but it seems plausible.

Above: “Fallen Horseman” AE2s of Constantius Gallus. Mints: Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, Cyzicus, Nicomedia, Trier. (See also: video of 3 specs.)
Interesting detail: The rare Trier Gallus (bottom right) mintmark was apparently bungled (“RRP” or “ARP”?) and corrected to TRP (or “T-RP”!). (See my note under the Constantius II’s about completing the “mint set.”) Were the style not correct and the coin from the preeminent collector of the mint, I might suspect someone had tooled another mint to look like Trier!

The “Fallen Horseman” coins were steadily reduced in size from 348 until 360, starting around 25-6 mm and over 5g, ending at 16 mm, under 2g. (I am summarizing. Size reductions came in a series of changes, often indicated by control symbols, measured by the number of coins to the Roman pound, in the case of the “LXXII” coins.) Thus, Constans, having died in 350, early in the series, does not have any small (AE3) “Fallen Horsemen,” only large ones (AE2).

Julian II, however, has only small sized (AE3) “Fallen Horsemen,” struck at 14 mints between 355 and 350 (Antioch, Alexandria, Arles, Aquileia, Constantinople, Cyzicus, Heraclea, Lyons, Nicomedia, Rome, Siscia, Sirmium, and Thessalonica). Of the 15 “FH” mints, only Trier and Amiens did not strike Julian II’s. (Amiens struck none for Julian & Trier only silver.) Overall, they’re a bit scarcer than the Constantius II ones, but sill relatively common. (Being unpopular among collectors, though, they rarely appear at auction.)

Above: Julian II AE3 Reduced Folles (355-360). Mints: Alexandria (ex JSD & Victor Clark), Antioch, and Thessalonica (photo: CNG).

The coin on the right (ex Martin Wettmark Error Collection) has been triple-struck (with at least two die-pairs). The Roman soldier from the first strike is spearing the Roman soldier from a second strike!

See also: Video showing two FH Maiorina issues (an exceptional 7.70g Constantius II and Constans from Thessalonica); video showing seven FH from three rulers; video of superb Constantius II FH of Antioch; video (reddit post) of 2 Constantius II FH Maironia, Aquileia & Constantinople, plus the Probus BI Denarius above; image of 3 Constantinian AE3s with bound captives beneath standards; gallery w/ video & additional images of 3 Maiorina pictured above; gallery w video & images of Constantius II FH Maiorina.

4th Cent. Late Empire:
Christian Conquerors

By this time bound captives and prisoners had been fixtures on Roman coins for well over 400 years. The general symbolism had always been that of foreigners dominated and enslaved by Rome. It was important propaganda, given how vital prisoners of war and newly enslaved populations were as sources of labor to sustain the Empire’s economy, infrastructure, and military.

By the early fourth century, though, the imagery and message began a subtle shift: Under Constantine “the Great” and his sons, the captives and “barbarians” are no long just ethnic and political outsiders, but religious. The “barbarians” are conceived as non-Christians or (possibly more often) the “wrong kind” of Christians (e.g., famously, Alaric’s Goths). The Roman conquerors often bear Christian symbols, towering triumphantly over Persians with pointed helmets and bare-headed Germanic peoples in baggy tunics and trousers.

And where Victory, a stubborn holdover from pre-Christian Rome, drags the captive, the Tau-rho or cross is often placed in the field so there will be no mistaking the meaning: This is captivity and conquest for Roman Christendom!

One of the clearest symbols of this message: the Emperor’s standard (or Labarum) is now decorated with a Chi-rho symbol (sometimes a cross). The prisoners are captured literally under the banner of Christianity.

Valentinian AE3. Siscia mint, 364-375 CE. Emperor dragging bound captive under Christian banner. (Video.)

Valens AE3. Siscia, 364-367 CE. Dragging bound captive, holding Chi-Rho labarum.

These earlier examples without control symbols in the field tend to be of greater artistic merit with larger, more detailed depictions of the Emperor and captive.

Theodosius AE3. Aquileia. Dragging bound captive.

Gratian AE3. Siscia, 367-375 CE. Dragging bound captive.

Arcadius AE3. Thessalonica. Dragging bound captive.
Photo: Alex Stanichev (edited). Of the six to strike this type — Valentinian I, Valentinian II, Valens, Theodosius, Gratian, and Arcadius — only the latter is uncommon. This one completes my “ruler” set. (I don’t have all the mints, much less all the mints for each Emperor.)

For an informative page and very fine private collection of these, see Esty Type 5 & the images page.
A few of my others below:

Valentinian AE3. Rome mint (R.SECVNDA), c. 364-367 CE. Emperor dragging bound captive.

An interesting example illustrating the Rome mint’s Officina numbers (one through four) spelled out on this and the Securitas AE3 types. See Warren Esty’s discussion on his LRBC Officina Numbers page (scroll to table near end).

Valens AE3. Constantinople (?), 367-375 CE. (“Barbarous”? Probably a contemporary imitation.)
Rough condition, but interesting.

If we interpret it as an official Roman Imperial issue, then it is a very rare specimen, dramatizing the centrality of Christian iconography and ideology to the Imperial mission of the mid/late 4th cent. In case the rest of the iconography wasn’t enough to convey the message of conquest in the name of Imperial Roman Christianity, two crosses are added as field marks on this type.

If we interpret it as a “Contemporary Imitation”: Depending who did the “imitating,” possibly a “barbarian” imitation of “barbarians” coinage, a “meta” theme I’m particularly fond of (see the Licinius II “barb” in my “two captives and trophy” post).

This type with 2 crosses on the reverse is cataloged in RIC IX but unillustrated (RIC 41b, Subtype 7 [+/+//CONSΔ] = OCRE 41b.7 [zero examples cited] = ERIC II 493 [tentative]).

Given the apparent rarity of the supposed official prototype (I’m unaware of any example photographed), this specimen may call into question whether the subtype exists as an official issue at all. There does, however, exist the Valentinian SECVRITAS w/ two crosses (CONS[A]); the specimen from the Aiello Coll. & Malloy LX, later FAC, appears stylistically more “conventional” than my coin.

Theodosius I AE3. Thessalonica, c. 384 CE. Emperor stepping on captive in galley, steered by Victory. VIRTVS AVGGG / Δ (left) / TES. RIC 61b, Esty Type 34 (same dies).
It’s interesting that the larger AE2 module with the galley has Victory, but only the smaller type adds the captive! This reverse is scarce.

Valentinian II AE3. Thessalonica, c. 384 CE. Emperor stepping on captive in galley, steered by Victory. VIRTVS AVGGG / A (left) / TES. RIC 61b, Esty Type 34 (this coin illustrated).
Photo: W.W. Esty (edited for contrast).

Two more examples, one each from Valentinian II (left) and Theodosius (I still need the Arcadius):

As Victor Clark writes of this type (quoting RIC X):
“In A.D. 383, Magnus Maximus defeated the Emperor Gratian and claimed the title of Augustus. Valentinian II fled his territory and Theodosius I moved to meet Magnus. Theodosius I temporarily occupied the mint of Thessalonica from 25 Aug 383 until autumn of 384. Theodosius returned control of the Western territories to Valentinian II including the mint in Thessalonica and this reverse type seems “to have been Valentinian’s earliest issue after his flight from Italy.” (RIC IX)”

Theodosius I AE2. Thessalonica, 383-90 CE. Emperor spurning captive. VIRTVS EXERCITI. Esty Type 31.
Ex CJ Sabine Collection.
In this period there is a multiplicity of common AEs with captives shown in one or another configuration with the emperor and legends reading VIRTVS EXERCITI or GLORIA ROMANORVM. (Another example of this type but Alexandria shown below in a photo with two Arcadius AE2s.)

Theodosius I AE4. Cyzicus, 388-392 CE. Victory dragging bound captive (Video)
Ex Old Swiss Collection, c. 1970s.

Notice the cordage running in front of the torso from the waist to a collar around the neck. Additionally (I haven’t seen it mentioned elsewhere), on the reverses of this type from the Cyzicus mint, the captive is always kneeling (sometimes cross-legged). At the other mints (as on the Arcadius below) he is always standing or crouching.

Arcadius AE4. Victory dragging bound captive. Thessalonica, 388-393 CE. Photo: CNG (edited).

Compare this Thessalonica mint captive’s standing/crouching posture with that of the kneeling Cyzicus captive.

This reverse (Esty Type 39) was issued on AE4s for Valentinian II, Theodosius I, Arcadius, and Honorius (and similar reverses for later rulers), struck at Alexandria, Antioch, Aquileia, Constantinople, Cyzicus, Heraclea, Nicomedia, and Thessalonica.

Shown above, a handful of my examples (with American penny for scale), selected more or less randomly from my larger pile of them, pulled from group lots over the years. The first four are Arcadius (Constantinople X2, Siscia, Cyzicus), then five Theodosius (Cyz X2, Thessalonica, Cyz X2), and four Valentinian II (Nicomedia, Heraclea, Antioch, Cyz). (None of these appear to be Honorius; nor from Alexandria or Aquileia.) The bottom row are uncertain but increasingly crude and tiny (down to 11mm). The later coins tend to be unidentifiable, often indistinguishable from Vandal imitations.

Arcadius AE2. Heraclea, 378-383. GLORIA ROMANORVM. Esty Type 35 (Arcadius Only).

Another low-grade example of a common type, but the important details are there.

The Emperor on the obverse is being crowned by the “Hand of God,” or manus Dei. On the reverse, he stands triumphantly holding a labarum and shield over a bound captive. The legend proclaims GLORIA ROMANORVM, but the imagery says the captive has been taken — the “barbarians” conquered — in the name of the Christian God.

Below, the same coin, along with another example of the same type, but Nicomedia mint. To the left, a Theodosius VIRTVS EXERCITI with captive (Esty Type 31) from Alexandria (see abolve for a Thessalonica example):

Below, moving from larger 22mm AE2s to small 15mm AE4s of Honorius, struck one genertation later:

Honorius AE4. Rome, 409-410 CE. GLORIA ROMANORVM. Esty Type 54. (Rare reverse type.)
See also Kent 1988: p. 284: Type 2, p: 291, ill. 9-13 (RIN XC [to issue PDF]).

Emperor with TWO captives (technically, captive and supplicant). The mintmark is off-flan for the top coin, but both are probably from the Rome mint (lower coin: SH[RT]; compare to CNG e-222, 464).

On both examples, the right figure is kneeling with arms raised to the Emperor. The upper coin’s supplicant appears to be holding something up, presenting it, though I see only empty hands on other examples. (Maybe it’s just a peculiarity of that reverse die, but I am reminded of the Augustan Denarii & Aureus depicting him “receiving child from standing barbarian” [to OCRE types].)

Gratian AE2. Kneeling crowned female, probably a personification of “The Republic.”

The imagery invokes the sense of bringing the world “to its knees,” indicating how closely the Romans equated statehood with domination. (Not exactly a captive, but the type of image also used for personifications of barbarian nations or peoples.)

Honorius AV Solidus. Mediolanum, c. 395 CE. Emperor trampling captive.
Sold c. 2015 (Archive of Sold Coins).

Kurth Type “d” / Wildwinds RIC 1206.4 (see Dane Kurth’s “[…]Honorius’ […] Solidi of the emperor with captive at foot.”)

Leo I (457-474 CE) AE2. Constantinople for Cherson, c. 472-474 CE. Emperor holding labarum & globe, bound captive kneeling to right.

For the moment, the coin above is my latest-issued captive type. The only later “captives coinage” is that of his successor Zeno (476-490), who struck coins of similar type alongside a number of different tiny AE4 Nummi with Victory-dragging-captive or Emperor-with-captive designs. Although scarce-to-rare, it is interesting that Zeno’s bronze coinage (but not the gold) — arguably the last gasp of Roman Imperial bronzes — emphasized such a rich variety of captives images.

Leo I (457-474 CE) AE4. Constantinople for Cherson, c. 472-474 CE. Emperor holding labarum & small captive.
Photo: W.W. Esty (edited for contrast). Only the head of the captive is visible (lower right). But this is actually a decent coin for this type, which is always crude. (Happily, though, his name “LEO” is fully visible.) One of the last “captives” coins of the Romans, followed only by those of Zeno a few years later.

5th & 6th Cent. E Roman / Byzantine:
Coda, “Spearing a Dead Horseman”

The image of the enemy has now retreated to a subordinate position in numismatic iconography. One must look closely, and even then it is not obvious: Beginning with gold coins of the Christian Emperors in early 5th century Rome, the image of the emperor on horseback spearing a fallen enemy migrated entirely from the reverse onto the obverse, but only as a tiny decoration on the Emperor’s shield. (Similar imagery can be found on Probus’ obverse shields, but not to the exclusion of other enemies/captives on the reverse.) The imagery persisted until at least the turn of the eighth century on the coinage of Constantine IV Pogonatus (668-685 CE) and Tiberius III (698-705 CE).

Theodosius II Solidi (shield detail), c. 430-450 CE.

Ironically, the horseman-spearing-fallen soldier motif is easier to discern on the flattened left coin (RIC X 292) than the right (RIC X 257), despite its condition.

Marcian Gold Solidus, 450-457 CE (Video)

Justininian AE Follis. Horseman on shield. Nicomedia (541/2 CE) & Constantinople (540/541 CE).
Blog Post & Video on “Justinian Plague Follis”

Justin II Gold Solidus. Constantinople, 565-578 CE.

Constantine IV Pogonatus Gold Solidus, 674 – 681 CE. Ex Rasiel Suarez, ERIC II Cover Coin (also illustrated on p. 1319).

See also my “NumisLit Exhibit” on this coin & book.

NOTES

“Vercingetorix (?)” Note (return to coin): Several late Roman Republican Denarii depict a middle-aged, bearded Gallic warrior and captive, often thought to be Vercingetorix, the great chieftan and most important enemy of Julius Caesar in Gaul.
The identification of this figure as Vercingetorix (or Vercingetorix-as-Pavor) is speculative. Michael Crawford, citing Bahrfeldt, explicitly denied it. (Yet Babelon, Sydenham & Sear treated it as plausible or probable.)
It certainly has the quality of an individualized portrait. His resemblance to the male figure on several of Caesar’s “trophy” denarii (Cr. 468/1, 2, 4) strengthens the case for Vercingetorix. But we have no direct evidence of identity.
The main argument against Vercingetorix often boils down to “they wouldn’t have.” But Republican coin reverses had already depicted defeated kings, thus honoring Rome and its victorious generals. Plainly, they weren’t opposed to depicting an enemy warrior, at least a generalized one, on the obverse (or chief/king, since he is clearly middle-aged).
Vercingetorix was Rome’s most celebrated enemy since Hannibal. Just as the Roman memorialized the myth of Hannibal, thus elevating its own victory, so Caesar dramatized the warlike ferocity of his own enemies. Moreover, he outdid even Scipio, who had let Hannibal escape to survive in the Seleukid Court: Caesar had dragged the enemy leader back to Rome as his greatest prize.
Vercingetorix was probably paraded through the streets in Caesar’s Triumph (just as Marius had done with King Teutobodus, above), perhaps executed at a climactic moment. Just as the Fundanius Quinarius (above) seems to illustrate the actual scene of Marius’ Triumph, so Caesar’s coin below presumably portrays his own.
As with so many debates about ambiguous or “disguised” portraits on ancient coins, we are limited not only by the paucity of direct evidence but a presentism of imagination – too-narrow a conception of meaning, reception, and use of symbols – especially as experienced in antiquity.
There is every reason to believe the average Roman would have equated these images with such a celebrated villain (now, a hero): Vercingetorix. Whatever else they intended, surely the coins’ producers anticipated as much.

Change Log (return to top): .
21 Feb 2021 ; 2 July 2022, 20 Jul 2022, 10 Nov 2022, 9 Jan 2023, 17 May 2023; 12 Jun 2023; 25 Jul 2023 [Elagabalus, Nikopolis & Hadrian, Alexandria]; Aug 2023 [SMKS “Fallen Horseman”]; Sep 2023 [Intro]; 19 Sep 2023 [Marian Quinarii of Cloelius & Fundanius]; 1-8 Oct 2023 [more text for var. reigns, adding new Constantine Trier, rearranging some images]; 9-14 Oct 2023 [Postumus, various “Fallen Horsemen,” Antoninus Pius Britannia, Commodus]; 25 Oct 2023 [Vetranio]; 19 Apr 2024 [Gordian III Tetradrachm, added links to Provenance Glossary for all prior collections noted]; 26 May 2024 [Galba AE As]; 28 May 2024 [more on Julio-Claudian & early Imperial, incl. photos of 4 rare museum specs.]; 14 Jun 2024 [Julia Mamaea, Theodosius VIRTVS EX, line drawing for Honorius Esty 54, prov. for Gordian III Sest., var. desc. ed.]; 22 Jun 2024 [Septimius (ARAB AIDAB), addl. info on Parthicus Maximus]; 26 Jun 2024 [revisions (new text, revised photos) to Saserna & Caesar’s Gallic war coins]; 28 Jul 2024 [four new LRBCs: Maxentius, Arcadius, Valentinian II, Leo, ex WW Esty]; Aug-Nov 2024 [Maximinus & Constantine (both ex Dattari)]; 15 Sep 2025 [Magnentius]; 12-15 Dec 2025 [Constantius II hut & “Fallen Horsemen” from Trier ex Zschucke, Montfaucon plate, introduction sections edited down significantly]; 9 Jan 2026 [Vespasian Victory Denarius & Titus Kneeling Captive]; 23 Jan 2026 [a couple tray photos for Theodosius, Valentianian II, and Arcadius bronzes]; 7 Feb 2026 [Constantius II Fallen Horseman photos added to grid, CONSA* (ex Sabine) & TSD].