Commodus Fides Exercitus: Mutiny in Britain! Possible Damnatio memoriae.

[Prieure de Sion]

Imperator Caesar Marcus Aurelius Commodus Antoninus Augustus
Reign: Commodus; Mint: Rome; Date: 186 AD; Nominal: Denarius; Material: Silver; Diameter: 18mm; Weight: 3.09g; Reference: RIC III Commodus 130d; Rare: R2; Provenance: Numidas Numismatik Vienna, Austria (Catawiki Auction 68867989); Pedigree: –; Special: Possibly signs of damnatio memoriae on the obverse.

Obverse: Head of Commodus, laureate, right; Inscription: M COMM ANT P FEL AVG BRIT; Translation: Marcus Commodus Antoninus Pius Felix Augustus Britannicus; Translation: Marcus Commodus Antoninus, the pious, the fortunate, Augustus, conqueror of the Britons; Reverse: Commodus standing, left on platform, three soldiers standing, right holding legionary eagles; Inscription: FID EXERC P M TR P XI IMP VII COS V P P; Translation: Fides Exercitus. Pontifex Maximus, Tribunicia Potestate Undecima, Imperator, Septimum, Consul Quintum, Pater Patriae; Translation: Loyalty of the army. High priest, holder of tribunician power for the eleventh time, Imperator for the seventh time, consul for the fifth time, father of the nation

 

Fides was the Roman personification of trust, loyalty and oath. She was also venerated under the name Fides Publica Populi Romani (roughly „general trustworthiness of the Roman people“). According to tradition, Rome’s second king Numa Pompilius established annual festivals in honour of Fides, and instituted that the higher priests (the three flamines maiores) were brought to the temple in a covered vaulted chariot drawn by two horses. There they were to conduct Fides‘ services with their heads covered and their right hands wrapped up to their fingers, thus showing absolute devotion to Fides and symbolising trust. There is historical evidence of the erection of a temple on the Capitol during the 1st Punic War. Its temple in Rome, consecrated in 254 BC by the consul Aulus Atilius Caiatinus, was located on the Capitol near the temple of Jupiter. Here the Roman Senate signed and kept treaties with other states, entrusting them to Fides‘ protection. As a rule, a standing woman is depicted, usually with ears of corn and a basket of fruit or a cornucopia and bowl. She thus embodies the „Fides publica“ – the promise of trust and loyalty between the emperor and the Roman people. In the later – and increasingly uncertain – imperial period, more and more issues of the „Fides militum“ and the „Fides exercitus“ were added, mostly with military attributes such as spear, sceptre, standard or aquila. These coins fervently invoke the loyalty of the legions and soldiers to their emperor. This „Fides Exercitus“ denarius type can be dated to the year 186 AD. Although the eleventh Tribunicia Potestate of Commodus already began on 10 December 185 AD, he did not take up the fifth consulate until 01 January 186 AD – and therefore marks the earliest possible issue of this denarius. On the reverse legend we still see the seventh imperatorial title (IMP VII) from 184 AD – thus the coming eighth imperatorial title (IMP VIII, bellum desertorum under the leadership of Pescennius Niger), which he receives in the course of 186 AD, marks the end of the issue. The minting period can therefore be set between January and the middle / end of the year 186 AD.

 

Mutinous legions in Britain against Commodus!

 

In 184 AD barbarians crossed the border wall in Britain and cut down a Roman detachment (Dio LXXII 8. Comm. 6, 2. 8, 4. 13, 5. Dessau 1327). Commodus sent Ulpius Marcellus against them, who had already administered Britain in the time of Emperor Marcus (CIL VII 504). The latter succeeded in defeating the Britannians, but nevertheless there seems to have been a revolt among the three legions on the spot towards the end of 184 AD. Commodus‘ favorite Perennis is said to have made himself unpopular with the Britannian legions by appointing knight army commanders instead of senatorial ones (Comm. 6, 2). The disaffected troops even wanted to elect a counter-emperor (Comm. 8, 4), perhaps a Priscus (Dio vol. V p. 208 Dind.). In any case, the insurgents sent a large deputation of 1500 men to Rome to effect the overthrow of Perennis (Dio LXXII 9, 2-4). Apparently, the deputation – unhindered by anyone – got as far as just outside Rome, where Commodus is said to have met them. When asked about their motives, the mutinous soldiers are said to have replied to Commodus „they were here because Perennis had plotted against him and was planning to make his son emperor“. Commodus believed them, especially since another of Commodus‘ minions – Cleander – further encouraged him in this belief. Thereupon Commodus, fearing the deputation of the Britannic army, abandoned his all-powerful prefect to the soldiers, who killed him with his wife, sister and two sons (Dio LXXII 9, 4. 13, 1. Comm. 6, 2). The fact that Commodus not only abandoned Perennis to the mob, but also the family of his prefect, and that he subsequently appointed two „Praefecti praetorio“ instead of a single one as before, shows that Commodus certainly believed in a real conspiracy. To these historical events of the years 184 and 185 AD appear on aurei and denarii (RIC 110) for the first time on the backs of the coins an emperor standing on a pedestal in front of three soldiers, each holding a legionary eagle. The three soldiers probably symbolize the three mutinous legions stationed in Britain.

With this, however, the troubled times do not seem to have come to an end. Remarkable is the number of „Fides Exercitus“ issues on medallions, sestertii and denarii (RIC 130, 468) in different variations, which were continued in the following year 186 AD – among them the siberdenary presented here. All of them show the emperor Commodus in military dress; alone on a pedestal; in front of him are either three, four, five or six soldiers with three legionary eagles. Since here again explicitly three legion eagles are depicted, a reference to the three Britannic legions suggests itself again. Since there had also been similar aurei issues, one could possibly also assume possible donatives. However, the minting of sestertii speaks against it. Judging by the poor quality of individual dies, the coins were produced in a certain hurry, which in any case suggests an acute need for a large amount of currency. The mutinous legions in Britain were still not pacified after the fall of Perennis, and the mutiny continued. Commodus had recalled Pertinax (later emperor) from exile after the prefect’s fall and entrusted him with supreme command of the three Britannian legions. When Pertinax arrived on the island the unrest reached another peak. The soldiers were still without the desired new emperor and to this end proclaimed Pertinax as the new emperor. The latter refused and finally put down the uprisings of the legions – nevertheless the unrest among the soldiers had almost cost Pertinax his life. But also in Germania superior there were riots among mutinous soldiers in 186 AD, led by a certain Maternus. Maternus and his band of robbers roamed Gaul and Spain, raiding and plundering major cities. In addition to the unrest, there were attacks by Germanic groups who crossed the Rhine. An inscription from Urbinium speaks of a „nova obsidio“ from which the Legio VIII Augusta under the command of the tribune C. Vesvius Vindex was able to free itself. The wax tablet in Rottweil is dated 14 August 186 AD and mentions the liberation of Legio VIII.

Fides Exercitus, if not Fides Exercituum, may be understood here as an appeal to the mutinous Britannic legions. The three legionary eagles can be seen on almost all depictions of this. However, a reference to the events in Upper Germania would also be conceivable. Primary source: „Maria Regina Kaiser-Raiß; Die stadtrömische Münzprägung während der Alleinherrschaft des Commodus“.

 

Signs of a Damnatio memoriae?

 

Does the denarius on the bust of Commodus presented here show signs of a damnatio memoriae? One thing first – the term damnatio memoriae (condemnation of memory) is a modern neologism. In ancient times, the Romans spoke of „memoria damnata“ or „abolitio nominis“ and meant the cursing and demonstrative erasure of a person’s memory by posterity. The names of particularly despised and hated persons were erased from all annals, all accessible portraits and inscriptions were destroyed, and in the future it was avoided at all costs to mention the condemned person in public – although the mention of his name was never punishable. Modern research, especially in Rome, usually assesses the meaning of the damnatio memoriae differently today than it did in the past: according to this, the measures were by no means really intended to lead to the person concerned being forgotten, rather the memory of him was deliberately kept alive by cursing his name – it is no coincidence that almost everyone who fell victim to the damnatio in Rome is known by name. Often it can even be shown that the erasure of names and images of those affected remained intentionally imperfect: it should remain recognisable that something had been removed. In this context, one speaks of a „memory of forgetting“.

The Roman Senate had the emperors Caligula, Nero, Domitian, Commodus, Geta, Elagabal and Maximinus Thrax punished in this way (Caligula, according to Cassius Dio, only de facto, since Emperor Claudius prevented a real damnatio of his nephew). The wording of a (presumably fictitious) damnation decree has survived in the Vita Commodi of the Historia Augusta (20, 4-5), and traces of the damnatio against Geta have been preserved on a papyrus (BGU 2056). Although no damnatio was officially imposed on Severus Alexander and Gordian III, there are nevertheless inscriptions and effigies that have been edited accordingly. The effigies of the emperors concerned (statues, busts, herms, coins, etc.) were often destroyed or damaged, but sometimes they were also confiscated and reworked into effigies of other personalities. Whether a dead princeps fell to the damnatio or, on the contrary, was raised among the gods (apotheosis or divinisation) was in fact the decision of the successor, not of the Senate. Thus not only Claudius prevented the damnatio of Caligula, but apparently also Antoninus Pius that of the unpopular Hadrian. Some of the emperors on whose memory the damnatio had been imposed were also rehabilitated by a so-called restitutio memoriae, e.g. Nero under Otho and Vitellius and in particular Commodus under Septimius Severus, who enforced a complete restitutio including apotheosis, since he claimed a fictitious relationship with Commodus. The damnatio procedure was also used against politically unpopular senators in the imperial era. As already mentioned, the aim was probably not to erase the memory – since the names of damned emperors could still be mentioned – but to curse the memory. The damnatio seems never to have been expressly ordered outside Rome. The preserved decree of damnation for Gnaeus Calpurnius Piso shows that the provinces were merely informed of how to proceed in the capital; the decision to imitate this lay formally with the local authorities.

Possibly the silver denarius presented here is also such a case – of cursing the memory of the Emperor Commodus, by „damaging“ the portrait, but in such a way that he is still recognisable in himself.

 

 

 

Thanks for reading. I hope you enjoyed the coin and the historical background.
The coin is part of my private Commodus collection: https://yothr.me/ 

[ambr0zie]

Stunning coin. The "perfect" damage makes me also suspect it is damnatio memoriae.

Another possibility (but I have never seen something like this before) would be a countermark?! It might be an optical illusion but I see LA here?

 

Here is my 130d example. I really like the portrait. Unfortunately the reverse shows damage, not related to damnatio memorae. This is what happens with an ancient silver coin if it's dropped on a hard surface. I bought it this way (and this made it very cheap) but this is the exact "performance" I managed to achieve with a RR denarius I have in my collection. 

[IanG]

Prieure de Sion, interesting post, thanks.

AmbrOzie, what happened to your Commodus - accidental damage to an ancient silver coin - has happened to me twice. The first time was my fault, I dropped a nice L.Scribonius Libo denarius on to a hard floor and the bottom of the perfectly round coin fell off giving it a straight edge. The second time was worse. I picked up the Greco-Baktrian Tetradrachm below (seen in the state I acquired it) with a pair of coin tweezers. I did nothing wrong but the coin must have already had some inherent fragility because as I lifted it out of the tray a small but perfectly obvious part of the coin's surface just crumbled away leaving a greyish silver base below. Not what you want on a coin like this! I am now neurotically careful when handling my higher value silver coins.

Greco-Baktrian Kingdom, Antimachos I Theos, Tetradrachm.

 

[Prieure de Sion]

14 hours ago, ambr0zie said:

The "perfect" damage makes me also suspect it is damnatio memoriae.

Another possibility (but I have never seen something like this before) would be a countermark?! It might be an optical illusion but I see LA here?

 

That's a good and perfectly valid question - after all, the spot on the bust seems almost perfectly square (by a primitive tool). But the square is not stamped quite like that - at the level of the eyes there is another part pressed in (circle) that leaves the square. While below - nose, upper lip - no "stamp" traces can be found and thus seems to be completely undestroyed.

 

What also surprises me a bit are the, from my point of view, existing scratch marks or even scrape marks. Nothing looks like struck from above (counterstamp)....

 

 

But still, it seems too "uniform" to have been "scratched" uncontrollably just like that with the free hand. I therefore think of three possibilities here:

1. no damnatio memoriae and no counterstamp! It is simply an attrition. Perhaps during storage of the coins (antique or modern), during a transport, in a box... a damage of some kind by external influences. But not intentional.

2. a deliberate damnatio memoriae. But perhaps with a small clumsy tool. This would be supported by the fairly uniform damage to the surface. Perhaps a person received a bag or box of Commodus coins and had been instructed to treat them all. Accordingly, he took a primitive tool and damaged all the coins accordingly. A primitive tool would explain the relatively uniform damage.

3. a kind of counterstamp. 

 

 

Edited April 7, 2023 by Prieure de Sion

[Marsyas Mike]

Interesting coin and presentation, @Prieure de Sion.  Recently a damaged Commodus sestertius of Commodus came my way - it has a big gouge across the portrait (and a corresponding one on the reverse, but shallower).  Is it a damnatio memoriae?  I'll never know - it could just be random damage.  

This one dates from around the same time as the OP, with the unusual (ironic?) reverse type PIETATI SENATVS - as Dio makes very clear, the Senate hated Commodus.  Too bad they didn't issue a coin showing Commodus holding up a severed ostrich head and waving it at a group of Senators in the Colosseum!  (See Cassius Dio for the full anecdote).  

Commodus  Æ Sestertius (c. 186-189 A.D.)      Rome Mint [M COMMOD]VS ANT P FELIX [AVG] BRIT, laureate head right / P[IETATI SE]NATVS [C]OS VPP, [S]-C, Commodus standing r. holding roll and clasping hands with the Genius of the Senate, standing left, holding sceptre. (15.71 grams / 27 x 24 mm) eBay Mar. 2023 (Hun.)   

Attribution and Notes:  RIC III 549; BMCRE 607; Cohen RSC 410. CNG and British Museum says it is Genius of the Senate, not a senator. 

 

Dates:  CNG: 189 A.D.  OCRE/RIC: 186-189 A.D. "...commemorates Commodus' bestowal of the title Pater Senatus by the Senate..." Arete Coins (VCoins) 

Die-Match Characteristics: Obv: ANT P-FEL break. Rev: Short arm on Commodus.

 Die-Match Obverse:  Roma Numismatics Limited E-Sale 27; Lot 592; 28.05.2016 

Die-Match Reverse: OCRE / Münzkabinett Wien Identifier ID65825 Inventory:  RÖ 13715

 

[Ancient Coin Hunter]

Nice write-up. Thank you.

[mc9]

Interesting write-up ! Here is what's left from my exemple:

M COMM ANT P FEL AVG BRIT : laureate head right

P M TR P X IMP VII COS IIII P P : Commodus standing left on platform, holding sceptre, right hand raised, addressing three soldiers standing right, FID EXERC in exergue.

Denarius, Rome, AD 186, RIC 130d; C. 141, 2.09 gr, 16.12 mm

Edited April 7, 2023 by mc9

[Prieure de Sion]

4 hours ago, Marsyas Mike said:

Interesting coin and presentation, @Prieure de Sion.  Recently a damaged Commodus sestertius of Commodus came my way - it has a big gouge across the portrait (and a corresponding one on the reverse, but shallower).  Is it a damnatio memoriae?  I'll never know - it could just be random damage.  

That's nice, isn't it, if it stimulates our imagination? Was it accidental damage to the sestertius? Yes, quite possibly. But it is also not impossible that it was done intentionally. Look at this straight line of damage. Exactly drawn as if on purpose. But we will probably never be able to say for sure. Still - it's great to think about it.

 

4 hours ago, Marsyas Mike said:

This one dates from around the same time as the OP, with the unusual (ironic?) reverse type PIETATI SENATVS - as Dio makes very clear, the Senate hated Commodus.  Too bad they didn't issue a coin showing Commodus holding up a severed ostrich head and waving it at a group of Senators in the Colosseum!  (See Cassius Dio for the full anecdote).  

This is a magnificent reverse (type)! I am still looking for a copy of this representation. It is so mendacious and so ironic. Commodus and the Senate with "Pietas Senatus". This is almost better than Caligula and his horse as senator. 
Very nice, I hope such a reverse runs across my path someday. Congratulations. And then also with this damage - perhaps a damnatio memoriae - yes this sestertius I would have taken.

 

22 minutes ago, mc9 said:

Interesting write-up ! Here is what's left from my exemple:

Now that's an interesting specimen. Was something intentionally cut off? Very interesting. Very nice!

 

20 hours ago, ambr0zie said:

Here is my 130d example. I really like the portrait. Unfortunately the reverse shows damage, not related to damnatio memorae. This is what happens with an ancient silver coin if it's dropped on a hard surface. I bought it this way (and this made it very cheap) but this is the exact "performance" I managed to achieve with a RR denarius I have in my collection. 

Yes a beautiful portrait. Very beautiful. The damage happened to you when the coin fell? Oh gods - I need to pay more attention!

[Orange Julius]

Could it have been scooped out to match a lighter and later weight standard? …or after the coins of the republic (where scooping was done), was it all clipping to reduce or skim weight? I ask because the face is intact… if I was looking to deface someone’s memory, I’d deface their face.

Edited April 7, 2023 by Orange Julius

[Orange Julius]

I’d like to know what this person was up to with this coin.

[ambr0zie]

23 minutes ago, Prieure de Sion said:

Yes a beautiful portrait. Very beautiful. The damage happened to you when the coin fell? Oh gods - I need to pay more attention!

No. I bought it this way, like I mentioned. 

... but this one is my work of art - 4 o clock obverse 

[mc9]

@Orange Julius,

You are right, the face is intact. But on the reverse, he has been decapitated, his hart cut out and his legs cut off. (not by me.)

Edited April 7, 2023 by mc9

[Prieure de Sion]

1 hour ago, Orange Julius said:

I’d like to know what this person was up to with this coin.

😳

Ok... this is definitely not unintentional damage. Someone has immortalized all his dislike in the coin.

[ComicMan]

1 hour ago, Orange Julius said:

I’d like to know what this person was up to with this coin.

I have seen scatches like this described as graffiti, somebody was probably just very bored with a knife on hand or something. Kinda like what happens in public restrooms haha.

[Prieure de Sion]

13 hours ago, ComicMan said:

I have seen scatches like this described as graffiti, somebody was probably just very bored with a knife on hand or something. Kinda like what happens in public restrooms haha.

Generally, I think that is not impossible - but in this case rather not - because it is a female person on the coin. Maybe I'm too "sensitive" - but a "lady" you do not scratch (out of boredom) the face. 

Perhaps it was external influences that caused the damage. But since the straight scratches go in all directions and on the front side are also visible indentations - I do not believe it.

Here, the image was deliberately "desecrated". And as I said - since it is a female person - I also do not believe simply out of boredom unconsciously just like that. 

[John Conduitt]

3 hours ago, Prieure de Sion said:

Generally, I think that is not impossible - but in this case rather not - because it is a female person on the coin. Maybe I'm too "sensitive" - but a "lady" you do not scratch (out of boredom) the face. 

Perhaps it was external influences that caused the damage. But since the straight scratches go in all directions and on the front side are also visible indentations - I do not believe it.

Here, the image was deliberately "desecrated". And as I said - since it is a female person - I also do not believe simply out of boredom unconsciously just like that. 

A child could easily do it. I know mine could 😂 Or another lady. I’m not even sure a man couldn’t do it out of boredom (deliberate but not malicious) - both sides are cut, not just the person. In the UK we have had women on coins in circulation for 186 years, and people have no problem defacing them, although it’s harder now with cupronickel and steal instead of bronze.

[Julius Germanicus]

Here is my Concordia Militum Sestertius of Commodus, struck in the same year as the OP coin, and featuring an ancient cut across the emperor's neck.

According to David Sear, "It is tempting to see in the deep slash across Commodus’ neck an expression of hatred for the regime, possibly following the emperor’s murder"

M COMMODVS ANT P FELIX AVG BRIT – Laureate bust of Commodus right 
P M TR P XI IMP VII [COS V P P] - Concordia standing frontal, head left, holding legionary eagle standard, vertical, in each hand; S-C, left and right, in field, CONC MIL in exergue
Sestertius, Rome 196 a.D.
29,5 mm / 20,20g
RIC 465 (a); Cohen 57 corr (COS IIII); BMCRE 576 (plate 106, Nr.8); Banti 27 (one specimen = the one in the BM), Sear 5738
ex Roma E-Sale 58 (20.06.2019), lot 1137 

[Ryro]

19 hours ago, Orange Julius said:

I’d like to know what this person was up to with this coin.

I have a coin with similar(ish) damage and I'd posted it wondering if not a damnatio why someone would intentionally do damage. 

An older collector had pointed out to me that lots of these coins are brought to surface and found when the fields get plowed. Could have simply been plowed.

Looking at your coin, it appears (though your be able to tell better with coin in hand) the patina wa scratched away, making me think the damage is modern. 

Here's mine:

[Prieure de Sion]

4 hours ago, John Conduitt said:

A child could easily do it.

Right - I hadn't thought of that at all, children or other women. But to what extent these people were allowed to "destroy" "valuable" coins - without getting scolded by the man?! But sure - that would also be a possibility.

 

3 hours ago, Julius Germanicus said:

Here is my Concordia Militum Sestertius of Commodus, struck in the same year as the OP coin, and featuring an ancient cut across the emperor's neck.

According to David Sear, "It is tempting to see in the deep slash across Commodus’ neck an expression of hatred for the regime, possibly following the emperor’s murder"

1st - fantastic Bronze! 

2nd - very interesting edit with the "scratch"

 

3 hours ago, Ryro said:

Here's mine:

Great what you all share here. Very interesting.

[Orange Julius]

11 hours ago, Ryro said:

Looking at your coin, it appears (though your be able to tell better with coin in hand) the patina wa scratched away, making me think the damage is modern. 

@Ryro nope, patina in the cuts with dirt on top in some places. Ancient for sure! 

Amyway, great coins everyone. It’s fun to imagine the lives of our coins and all they’ve seen.

With a glass/bottle or two of wine, while holding one of these coins, you can vividly imagine their past adventures.

Edited April 9, 2023 by Orange Julius

[Prieure de Sion]

Today the coin arrived at my home - and in will make a little video.

 

 

[Roman Collector]

On 4/8/2023 at 7:31 AM, Julius Germanicus said:

Here is my Concordia Militum Sestertius of Commodus, struck in the same year as the OP coin, and featuring an ancient cut across the emperor's neck.

According to David Sear, "It is tempting to see in the deep slash across Commodus’ neck an expression of hatred for the regime, possibly following the emperor’s murder"

M COMMODVS ANT P FELIX AVG BRIT – Laureate bust of Commodus right 
P M TR P XI IMP VII [COS V P P] - Concordia standing frontal, head left, holding legionary eagle standard, vertical, in each hand; S-C, left and right, in field, CONC MIL in exergue
Sestertius, Rome 196 a.D.
29,5 mm / 20,20g
RIC 465 (a); Cohen 57 corr (COS IIII); BMCRE 576 (plate 106, Nr.8); Banti 27 (one specimen = the one in the BM), Sear 5738
ex Roma E-Sale 58 (20.06.2019), lot 1137