Selections from the “BCE Collection”
Change Log: Created: Jan 2021. Updated: 19 Apr 2024
Recent (selected): Gordian III Tetradrachm, Vetranio, Constantius II (one captive), Postumus, Antoninus Pius Britannia, Commodus, Cloelius & Fundanius.
Total Rulers: 46 (incl. Moneyers & Imperators; 50 incl. Byzantine). Coins: >125.
Female personification of Gallia on a Republican Denarius from the Hostilius Saserna “Gallic captives” series, 48 CE (Crawford 448/2). Struck from a singular obverse die, among the finest and most affecting in all of Roman “barbarians” coinage. It seems to portray an actual living person, depicted with uncharacteristic reverence and humanity. Who was the model? History does not record whether Vercingetorix had a wife or daughter, or any Gallic women accompanying him during his captivity and public execution in Rome, so her identity remains speculative.
CATALOG OF COINS:
Republican; 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
There is a tradition of scholarship exploring ethnic and religious outsiders in Classical cultures, and a host of studies of “barbarians” in Roman coinage, art, and literature. But I have yet to find another private collection that focuses on the whole of Roman “Barbarians & Captives” coinage as a topic in its own right — that is, beyond specific historical episodes, such as the Flavian “Judaea Capta coinage” or “Trajan’s Dacian conquest.”
This collection asks the question: What is to be gained by framing the whole of “Barbarians, Captives, and Enemies” coinage as a single category?
Over its six centuries of production, the most salient theme of “BCE coinage” is the image of the outsider and its significance to the Roman Empire. Not only does it illustrate an assemblage of states and peoples with whom the Romans had conflict; the Barbarians, Captives, and Enemies coinage also illustrates the Imperial conception of itself vis-à-vis conquered neighbors and enemies, the array of relationships from the perspective of the Roman Empire, the range of strategies for conveying this vision, and a concise history of how that Imperial worldview took shape and changed over time.
Contrasting the Greeks’ & the Romans’ “Barbarians”
The concept of “The Barbarian” – βάρβαρος (Bar-Bar-os) in Greek – expresses neatly how Greek, Roman, and “Byzantine” (Eastern, late Roman) cultures viewed outsiders; more so, the concept tells us a great deal about Greek and Roman society itself. Indeed, by way of comparison, it may even reveal something about our own world today.
From its inception, the notion of Barbarian was about boundaries. However, it is worth briefly noting that, for the Greeks, “Barbaros” was not necessarily a pejorative.
Snowden contrasted two impulses in Hellenic attitudes:
“…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.”
— Frank Snowden, Jr. (1970: p. 170), Blacks in Antiquity. Belknapp/Harvard U. Press.
(See Chs. VIII: “Greco-Roman Attitude toward Ethiopians” & IX: “Early Christian Attitude toward Ethiopians.”)
When we see foreigners on Greek coins and other artworks, their depictions usually appear motivated by a sense of respect or anthropological curiosity. Greek images of Africans or “Aethiopians” (sometimes recalling Delphos, founder of Delphi; Memnos, Ethiopian defender of Troy; or other mythical figures), for instance, show none of the hostility that characterized most Roman depictions of non-Greco-Romans.
The Kantharos below is of a type known from many specimens. It depicts Janiform female heads, one African, one Hellenic. Note the symmetry and complementarity in the design, neither placed in a superior or subordinate position, physically or symbolically:
Kantharos Depicting Janiform Ethiopian and Greek Female Heads, c 510 BCE.
Illustrated: Snowden, 1970, pp. 42-43, Fig. 12 (Rome, Muzeo Nazionale Etrusco di Villa Giulia, 50571). Similar examples abound; see, e.g., Princeton’s. See also J. Neils, 1980, “The Negro Alabastra…,” Antike Kunst 23: pp. 13-23, pl. 3-7.
Snowden’s (1970) Blacks in Antiquity, is a foundational classic. Earlier: Beardsley’s (1929 [1922]), The Negro in Greek and Roman Civilization. More recently: Derbew (2022), Untangling Blackness in Greek Antiquity [G.B.: Preview; Cambridge: Biblio. (scroll down)].
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.”
Barbarism in Imperial Ideology
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.
We see these stereotypes regularly embodied in the imagery of Roman coinage. They graphically justify enslavement and battlefield killing, foreigners depicted as small and weak, often childlike, offering no resistance against the powerful and majestic – and always much larger – Roman soldier. The stereotype of the “Hairy Gaul” (Gallia Comata) is portrayed quite literally (albeit with uncharacteristic respect) on several Republican denarii. Barbarian leaders are portrayed kneeling in subservience, bound in captivity, or mourning in defeat.
By the 4th century, the term Barbarian had taken on religious connotation. At least within the Roman and Byzantine Empire, it often referred to non-Christians – or the “wrong kind” of Christians (e.g., famously, Alaric’s Goths in the Theodosian era). We begin to see the depictions of Roman conquerors bearing Christian symbols (crosses and Chi-rho standards), towering triumphantly over their Persian neighbors with pointed helmets, or bare-headed Germanic peoples in baggy tunics and trousers.
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
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).
This coin and the following are the first coins 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.
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 Collection, with his hand-written tag.
The “Rape of the Sabines,” one of Rome’s founding myths. It is quite revealing that Romans publicly took great pride in the myth of their founding fathers kidnapping and forcing the mothers of the first Romans into relationships we’d call slavery today. Two thousand years ago, though, such coercive social relations were far less objectionable (at least to those in power)
Titurius Sabinus AR Denarius. 89 BCE. Roman Soldiers crushing Tarpeia with shields.
Another of Rome’s founding myths, the killing of Tarpeia. Clearly our modern sensibilities about violence against women weren’t shared by Moneyer Titurius or his Roman countrymen. (We know much less about the perspectives of Roman Republican women.)
Gallic Captives from Caesar’s Gallic War:
Hostilius Saserna AR Denarius. 48 BCE. Female Gallic Captive (Gallia) (Video)
I have more to include about this coin and its “partner” below, but for now just a brief comment relevant to the overall course of Roman captives coinage:
Hostilius Saserna’s pair of Gallic portrait Denarii represents a short period in which “Barbarians” and Rome’s conquered enemies were accorded an unusual degree of esteem — at least artistically.
Hostilius Saserna AR Denarius. 48 BCE. Male Gallic Captive (Vercingetorix)
Julius Caesar Denarius. 46 BCE. Gallic Captives. (Video)
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 (Kinnee 2016). (For the single-captive original “Trophy Tableau,” see the Fundanius & Cloelius above.)
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’“
First Century. Transition: From Republic to Empire
Returning to the theme raised for the H. Saserna coins above:
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.
First Century. Flavian Dynasty: Judaea Capta, Britannia (?), Germania
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. (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]?)
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 this coin 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). I lean toward the latter.
Domitian AE Sestertius. Rome, 85 CE. Germania seated right in mourning.
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
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; evidently modeled on Vespasian’s rare IVDAEA DEVICTA denarius, struck only at Lugdunum [RIC 1120]. (See also Augustus’ remarkable standing, armed Armenian [RIC 520] – not exactly appearing as a “captive,” though.)
Hadrian AE Drachm. Alexandria, 120/1 CE. Armenian captives.
Photo: Leu. Ex-ETB & Dattari Collections.
Captives coinage of Hadrian is very rare, perhaps only a few types from Alexandria. 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).
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.
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. Laodicea, c. 198-202 CE. Victory over Parthian captive: VICT PARTHICAE.
Photo: InAsta SPA.
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 captive, 2nd captive cowering under shield.
Ex H.C. Lindgren (unpublished), H. Howard, G. Spradling, J. Winnett, and Zumbly Colls. This coin = HHJ (8.26.34.2, 2015-2021 eds.) = RPC VI 1197 (Temp.) ex. 1 = Wildwinds “plate coin” (Elagabalus & Moesia, Niko.).
Captives are much less common on Provincial coins & this design is quite unusual. 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.
Are those captives wearing “Suebian knot” hairstyles?
Sev. Alex. (and Julia Mamaea) were killed by the army and replaced (see Maximinus, below), 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 captives seem to be in what we’d call a “stress position” today. Depictions of “spurning” and other discomfort become more common on mid 3rd to late 4th cent. captives coinage.
3rd Cent., 235 – 284. Crisis & Recovery:
Germanic & Eastern Captives (Goths, Sassanids, Alemanni, et al.)
Maximinus I. Alexandria, 236/237 CE. Germanic Captives.
Photo: CNG EA 484, 610. Ex Rocky Mountain Collection & CNG MBS 79.
Re: prev. ex. (Sev. Alex.): Maximinus got rid of the ruler depicted on the Obverse, kept the Reverse.
Hard to be certain, but to me it looks like the captives may be bound to the trophy at the wrists/arms, not just seated below (also the prev. example of this type).
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. 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 1 : CNG MBS 69 (2005), 1465. Photo 2: Leu 12 (2022), 1386. Ex George His & Adrian Lang Collections.
These Victory-and-captive Sestertii are of the same type as the AR Antoniniani above, and the same comments apply to this coin.
As illustrated in sales of George His (2005) and Adrian Lang (2021) Collections, the former image also used as the “digital plate coin” for RIC 337a on Wildwinds. (Neither photo fully captures the green clamshell patina, maybe the nicest surface in my collection; see the video on my recent blogpost w/ provenance discussion).
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 Collection.
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. 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.
The Quadi were another of the Germanic tribes with whom the Romans were in military conflict. Once again (see Sev Alex above), is the hair swept forward, as in a “Suebian knot”? (Video)
4th Cent. Tetrarchy, Licinius & Constantine:
Franks, Sarmatians, Alemanni, et al.
Galerius. AE Follis. Aquileia, 305/6 CE. On Horseback Spearing Two Fallen Enemies
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 above].
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).
Licinius I. Ticinum, 319-320 CE. Captives & Standard.
Photo: Jesús Vico.
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.
The addition of the vexillum or standard with VOT XX banner was new to Licinius, Constantine, and their sons. In general, it is the more common type:
Crispus. London, 320 CE. Photo: CNG. Germanic (Franks & Alemanni) captives (see Victor Clark). (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.
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.
Note: Victor Clark also points out the context of Crispus’ ongoing wars against the Franks and Alamanni, c. 318-320. These campaigns against Germanic tribes are probably being referenced.
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.
It’s not entirely clear what’s happening on this coin 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, but perhaps it was well-suited to contemporary political narratives.
Constantius II AE Maiorina. Antioch, 348-351. Christian Standard (Cross) & Captives. (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).
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.)
Constantius II AE2 Maiorina. Thessalonica, 351. 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).
Constantius II on Horseback Spearing Enemy. Rome, under Magnentius, 350.
“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.
Among the heaviest specimens recorded. (I’d love to see Doug Smith’s >9g example!) Kent’s weight distribution in RIC VIII (pp. 68-71) shows 1 or 2 heavier among 405 specimens of Constantius II “Large AE2s” (348-350 CE) in major museum collections. Based on ACSearch records, specimens this heavy are actually probably much rarer than the 1-in-200 or 400 suggested by RIC.
Above: “Fallen Horseman” AE2s (and one AE3) of Constantius II. Interesting variations in reverse design from twelve of the fifteen “Fallen Horseman” mints: Alexandria, Amiens/Ambianum, Antioch (3), Aquileia, Arles / Arelate, Constantinople, Cyzicus, Heraclea, Lyons / Lugdunum, Nicomedia (2), Sirmium (2), Thessalonica.
The other three mints: for Siscia, see Constans, above; Rome, below; Trier I still need for all 15 mints.)
Constantius II AE Maiorina. Rome mint, 350 CE. Fallen Horseman.
Photo: moremoth (ebay UK). Ex Bill Welch Collection.
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 “starbust” 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: does the shield design represent the distinctive decorations used by different Legionary units? Is the coinage honoring one of them 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 (2), Antioch, Constantinople, Cyzicus, Nicomedia. (See also: video of 3 specs.)
Julian II AE3 Reduced Follis. Antioch, 360-363 CE. Fallen Horseman.
I always find it odd that these rarely appear at auction. Julian FH’s are rather scarce, but not THAT scarce (I have bunches that I’ve never gotten around to photographing). No one else seems much interested in them.
Julian II AE3 Reduced Follis. Thessalonica, 360-363 CE. Fallen Horseman.
Photo: CNG. Ex Martin Wettmark Collection (Swedish collector & expert on world error coinage).
An interesting specimen that has been double- or triple-struck (possibly with a second pair of dies from the same workshop?). The Roman soldier from the first strike appears to be spearing the Roman soldier from a second strike!
See also: A 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-to-mid fourth century, though, the imagery and message began a subtle shift: Under Constantine “the Great” and his sons, the captives and “barbarians” were now portrayed specifically as enemies of Christianity (pagans, or at least heretical Christians) — that is, religious outsiders, not just ethnic.
One of the clearest symbols for conveying this message can be seen on the coins below (and several of those above): the Emperor’s standard is now decorated with a Chi-rho symbol (also called a Labarum; sometimes a cross or another Christian symbol is shown). The prisoners are being captured literally under the banner of Christianity.
(And where Victory — a holdover from pre-Christian Rome — drags the captive, the Tau-rho is often placed in the field so there will be no mistaking the meaning: This is captivity and conquest for Christianity!)
Valentinian AE3. Siscia mint, 364-375 CE. Emperor dragging bound captive under Christian banner. (Video.)
Valens AE3. Dragging bound captive, 364-367 CE. 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.
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).
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.
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]).
Valentinian AE3. Rome mint (R.SECVNDA), c. 364-367 CE.
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).
Valentinian and Valens holding standards with Chi-rho banners, dragging bound Pagan captives.
Struck 364-367 CE, these early “Emperor dragging captives” issues are generally of higher artistry than those coming a few years later. They have no control symbols in the fields, allowing more space for the captives imagery. Later issues have shrinking imagery, the remaining space taken by symbols in the fields.
Theodosius AE3. Aquileia. Same type: Emperor, labarum, captive.
Gratian AE3. Siscia, 367-375 CE. Dragging bound captive.
Theodosius I AE3. Thessalonica, c. 383-4 CE. Scarce example of Esty Type 34.
It’s interesting that the larger AE2 module with the galley has Victory, but not the captive – only the smaller type adds the captive!
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.
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 at Alexandria, Antioch, Aquileia, Constantinople, Cyzicus, Heraclea, Nicomedia, and Thessalonica. (Similar reverses for later rulers.)
Arcadius AE2. Heraclea, 378-383.
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.
Honorius AE4. Rome, 409-410 CE. Very rare reverse for Honorius only. Esty Type 54.
Emperor with TWO captives! Apologies for poor quality photo! Need to take a better one when I have a chance.
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. Cherson, c. 472-474 CE. Emperor holding labarum & globe, bound captive kneeling to right.
The coin above is my latest-issued captive coin. To my knowledge, the only later “captives coins” may be the series of tiny Victory-dragging-captive AE4s struck under Zeno (476-491). Once again, better photo needed!
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.
Change Log (return to top): 19 Apr 2024 [Gordian III Tetradrachm, added links to Provenance Glossary for all prior collections noted]; 25 Oct 2023 [Vetranio]; 9-14 Oct 2023 [Postumus, various “Fallen Horsemen,” Antoninus Pius Britannia, Commodus]; 1-8 Oct 2023 [more text for var. reigns, adding new Constantine Trier, rearranging some images]; 19 Sep 2023 [Marian Quinarii of Cloelius & Fundanius]; Sep 2023 [Intro]; Aug 2023 [SMKS “Fallen Horseman”]; 25 Jul 2023 [Elagabalus, Nikopolis & Hadrian, Alexandria]; 12 Jun 2023; 17 May 2023; 9 Jan 2023, 10 Nov 2022, 20 Jul 2022, 2 July 2022, 21 Feb 2021