Magnus Maximus

Magnus Maximus AR Siliqua/Argentolus 1.7 grams Mediolanum mint- A.D. 387-388

That is the most based thing I’ve seen all month.

@Parthicus Thanks for the information. I’ll pass this info along.

Hello all, I am trying to help a friend of mine properly identify this Abbasid dirham, he recently aquired. Any assistance would be appreciated.

That lines up with them primarily being used to pay the soldier’s donatives. I believe on the accession of Valens and Valentinian I, it was recorded that a soldier got a pound of silver along with some solidii. Meaning they were traded by weight.

@John Conduitt I think Peter Guest, author, did a good job of trying to tackle the issue of two different weight standards circulating at the same time. From

I was thinking that as well. However, the curse tablet that refers to argentiolii was from the first half of the 4th century, well before Magnus Maximus introduced the 1.6 gram standard to Milian in 387.

Yes, that’s the issue with the 4th century. We don’t know a lot and have to speculate more than I’d prefer.

Absolutely. And this coin looks like it circulated for a week before it was buried.

Hi folks, I am delighted to share with you my recent acquisition: a splendid siliqua/argentiolus of Magnus Maximus, minted in Mediolanum during the period of A.D. 387 to 388. This particular piece is of great historical interest, given its production following Magnus Maximus's conquest of Italy from Valentinian II. Notably, these coins were minted at a weight standard 30% lower than previously established, yet they maintained a remarkable silver purity of 97-98%. It is intriguing to note that, despite the introduction of this lower weight standard, the production of siliquae at the heavier standard continued in both Trier and Italy. The rationale behind Magnus Maximus's decision to issue siliquae of reduced weight remains a subject of speculation. One theory posits that these lighter coins were minted to facilitate payments to the field armies and merchants supporting Maximus's eastern campaign in late 388, though definitive evidence for this hypothesis is lacking. Furthermore, the co-circulation of both weight standards, as evidenced by their presence in hoards discovered across Gaul, Britain, and Italy, suggests that these coins were likely traded based on their weight rather than their nominal denomination, indicating their function as a form of bullion coinage. Otherwise Gresham’s law would denote that they would have fully replaced the heavier coins over time in hordes. Magnus Maximus AR Siliqua/Argentiolus A.D. 387 to 388 Mediolanum (Milan) mint 1.72 grams Obverse: Head of Emperor Magnus Maximus Reverse: Roma with globe and spear seated on throne facing forward. RIC 19a. C. 20

What's particularly odd is the discovery of siliquae of various weights in large hoards, grouped together. This has led some historians, including one I've heard, to suggest that siliquae were valued and circulated more for their bullion weight than as a distinct coin denomination. This theory seems plausible to me, and I tend to agree with it.

The siliqua gradually phased out of production towards the latter part of Emperor Valens' reign in the East, with only a minimal quantity being struck under Theodosius I. So I am not surprised why we don’t see large numbers minted there. The reduction in the Italian mints suggests to me that Valentinian II likely wasn't preparing for war when Magnus Maximus crossed into Italy, as there would have been little need to strike a large number of siliquae in such a scenario. Moreover, the rapidity with which Maximus overran Valentinian II's territory implies that Valentinian II's army was probably smaller in size. Additionally, it's important to remember the 388 incident when a group of Christians burned down a synagogue, leading to their censure by Magnus Maximus, a decision that notably displeased St. Ambrose. This episode suggests that Maximus was a more shrewd politician than most historians acknowledge.

Fascinating subject, and one that I wasn't previously familiar with. It raises a question: Could the reduction in weight of siliquae in the Italian mints under Maximus's control also be connected? If my memory serves me right, he decreased their weights by approximately 30%, while maintaining their purity, and these circulated alongside the "heavier" issues still being produced at Trier.

Very nice coin. I have a nice one I will post this weekend, that recently arrived. I approve of this siliqua. Indeed, Maximus required large amount of funds to compensate his soldiers and the large number of barbarian clients he had at his disposal. Consequently, Maximus’s persecution of Priscillian and his followers probably had more to do with a need for coin than it did with any religious intolerance. The surge in siliqua production occurred prominently in the regions of his primary headquarters, specifically from 383 to 387 in Gaul and from 387 to 388 in Italy. These funds served a dual purpose, as they not only directly compensated the soldiers for their service, but also facilitated payments to merchants and farmers supplying the field armies.

Magnus Maximus AR Siliqua, AD 383-388, Trier Mint

Wonderful piece and write up

@Heliodromus Yes, the 4th century is a mess with regard to the names of the coin denominations and their place in the Roman economy. However, there seems to be sufficient evidence that silver did fluctuate in relation to the solidus. Interestingly, in the curse tablet, the man states the name of the solidus and argentiolus denominations, meaning that the official name for the denomination could have been "little silver coin", among the other names used. As weird as this may seem, there is evidence of the Roman state using such odd names in official documents. We also see this in an edict found in the Theodosian Code that states: " We command that only the centenionalis nummus is to be handled in a public transaction, after the coining of the maior pecunia(bigger money) has been discontinued. No one should therefore dare to exchange the decargyrus nummus for another coin, knowing that the coinage, if it can be detected in a private transaction, is to be vindicated to the fiscus.

But we then run into the issue of the Eastern Roman empire being even more centralized and continuing to chug along just fine. A good theory I heard about why the West was disproportionately affected was due to it bearing the brunt of the Crisis of the 3rd century, and the trade routes of the West never really recovered. Just food for thought.

As you said, Majorian was essentially trying to hold the Western Empire together with duct tape. The civil war of 388 was particularly bad as not only did the best units of the western Roman army get chewed up, but Theodosius I had the remainder of them transferred to the Eastern Roman Army after his victory. This coupled with the fact that the Western Empire simply couldn't replace it's losses meant that by the 5th century the Roman army was a shadow of it's former self.

Last Based Roman emperor imo.

Although the name "Siliqua" as a coin denomination was documented in northern Italy in the 320s, there remains uncertainty about whether the silver coin commonly referred to in the latter half of the 4th century is indeed the same denomination. Indeed, there is not much known about the siliqua denomination at all, some internet sources state that the exchange rate was 24 siliqua to a solidus, however, was this a "pre-reform" or "post-reform" exchange rate? The waters are even more murky by the fact that the copper coinage of the period seemed to fluctuate wildly in relation to the gold coinage, even in the same geographical area. Up until the 360's the prices seem to be noted in inflated denarius communis( a pound of meat in North Africa is reported to have sold for 175k D.C) and are of no value in helping to clear up the confusion. There is evidence to suggest that the value of silver coinage to the gold coinage was not fixed but fluctuated in relation to gold coinage, although these fluctuations were typically not as significant as those seen in copper coinage. It appears that the possible name for the denomination from the later part of the 4th century was "argentiolus." The term "argentiolus" can be traced back to 4th century Britain, with its earliest attestation found in a lead "curse" tablet. We can infer from this that a solidus and six argentioli were considered a substantial amount as Muconius went to the trouble of buying a lead sheet to inscribe a curse aimed at the thief. What we can definitively gather about this denomination is that it underwent devaluation in AD 357, dropping to a weight of 144 coins per Roman pound(2.25 grams), with a silver content ranging from 92% to 95%. Notably, Valentinian I and Valens took steps to boost the silver content in 368, raising it to approximately 97% to 98%. This change is denoted by the addition of "PS" on the reverse, signifying "pusulatum" or "refined." The denomination doesn't seem to have been widely used in the economic system of the Eastern Roman Empire, as there are no large emissions after the reign of Valens; the coin seems to have functioned in a ceremonial role thereafter Valen's reign. In the West the denomination had more staying power, but was likely still relegated to payments/donatives to the army, payments to merchants supplying the state, and a store of value for the landed aristocracy. The last point can be deduced from the large amounts of silver coins in coin hoards from Roman estates in Britain in the early 5th century. In 387, the Italian mints, under Magnus Maximus's control, reduced the weight of the denomination to around 1.6 grams. Gresham's law would suggest that the lighter coins would outcompete the heavier ones, and the latter would be taken out of circulation. However, that is not what occurred, as we see hoard finds with a mixture of the weight standards decades after the weight reduction took place. This implies that the coins may have been traded for their silver bullion, with the light and heavy coins both used as specie. The only time purchasing power is used for the denomination is in the works of Bury and Jones, where they deduced the payment of late Roman soldiers when compared to payment in kind, after taking into account the fluctuations between the gold and silver coinage. What they ultimately found was that a single siliqua or argentiolus was roughly equivalent to what it cost the state to support a late Roman soldier for half a day. Regardless of what the proper name and place in the late Roman monetary system for the denomination was, they are readily plentiful for collectors to purchase today without breaking the bank. Here is my latest purchase. Valens AR Siliqua/Argentiolus 2.25 grams Trier mint A.D. 364-378 And the coin in hand.

Me overhere thinking about the Roman Empire 17 times an hour.

Fascinating post! Your conclusion that Theodosius I was attempting to establish an independent dynasty early on aligns well with the historical narrative portraying the strained relationship between Gratian and Theodosius. This tension was so pronounced that Gratian effectively left the crisis in Thrace to Theodosius without offering any assistance. Another theory suggests that Theodosius I might have emerged as the sole competent officer in the region following the Battle of Adrianople, possibly leading him to declare himself Emperor in the prevailing power vacuum. Regardless of his path to power, Gratian reluctantly elevated Theodosius I to the imperial throne. Theodosius I had his reasons for disliking Gratian, given that his father, Count Theodosius, had fallen victim to a purge initiated in the early days of Gratian's reign. This circumstance could potentially explain why Theodosius I tolerated Magnus Maximus's regicide of Gratian for over four years, especially considering Maximus's pro-Theodosian military background. I submit a coin of Magnus Maximus and Theodosius I for this discussion. Theodosius I AR Siliqua Trier mint A.D. 389 to 392 1.75 grams and Magnus Maximus AR Siliqua Trier mint 2.25 grams A.D. 383-388

Killer coins everyone!

The man who would become known to us as Emperor Jovian was born in A.D. 331 in Roman Ilyria. His father, Varronianus, served in the army and eventually became the commander of the Imperial guards under Constantius II. Although Jovian's mother's name remains unknown to us, the influence of his father's military career was evident. Following in Varronianus's footsteps, Jovian joined the Imperial Guard. His service was first documented in 361 when he escorted the remains of Constantius II to Constantinople. Despite his youth, Jovian rapidly ascended through the ranks of the Eastern imperial military. He was part of Emperor Julian's Persian expedition in 363. But when Julian met his end at the hands of a Sassanid javelin, the army was thrown into disarray. Military leaders convened to determine a successor and the future course of action, given the precarious situation. After Julian's first-choice candidate declined the role due to his advanced age, Jovian was acclaimed Emperor. This was not a moment of pure triumph, as he faced an army trapped deep in enemy territory, with dwindling supplies and morale. Understanding the imminent threat of a Sassanid assault, Jovian negotiated a truce with the Persian Shah Shapur. The ensuing treaty stipulated a thirty-year truce, demanded the Romans forfeit their influence in Armenia, and mandated the surrender of several territories to the Sasanian Empire. This treaty reversed six decades of Roman gains, a setback that wouldn't be rectified until the reign of Eastern Emperor Maurice Tiberius. Following this treaty, Jovian led the remnants of the Roman expedition back to Antioch. The locals, frustrated by the terms of the peace agreement, expressed their anger with derogatory graffiti depicting the Emperor. Jovian then moved towards Constantinople to take control of the Empire and stabilize it. During his journey, he restored Christianity to its pre-Julian prominence within the empire, confiscated pagan temple funds for the Imperial treasury, and reintroduced the Labarum to the military. By December 363, while in Ancyra, Jovian appointed his young son, Varronianus, as consul. Tragically, during his travel from Ancyra to Constantinople, Jovian was found dead in his tent at Dadastana on 17 February 364. He was only 33. Although the exact cause of his death remains a matter of speculation, it's believed he might have inhaled toxic fumes emanating from fresh paint in his tent, worsened by a nearby brazier. He was buried in Constantinople. In later years, under the rule of Valentinian I and Valens, his son Varronianus was blinded and exiled. And now, I am pleased to present to you all my first siliqua of Emperor Jovian. Jovian 363-364AD Silver Siliqua Diademed, laureate and cuirassed bust/VOT/V/MVL/X, Constantinople RCV19206, 19mm, 1.75g