OTD 1705 years ago Constantius II is born: Fear and loathing in Constantinople

[DonnaML]

Great coins, all!

I have only two Constantius II's:

Constantius II Caesar (son of Constantine I), silvered billon centenionalis, Trier Mint (2^nd Officina) 326 AD. Obv. laureate, draped and cuirassed bust left, FL IVL CONSTANTIVS NOB C / Rev. Campgate with six rows, two turrets, no door, and star between turrets; PROVIDEN-TIAE CAESS. In exergue: STR followed by pellet in crescent. RIC VII Trier 480S (p. 209), Sear RCV V 17618. 19 mm., 3.09 g.

 

Constantius II (son of Constantine I), AR reduced Siliqua, Lugdunum (Lyon) Mint, 360-361 AD. Obv. Rosette-diademed [despite description by all dealers as pearl-diademed], draped, and cuirassed bust right, D N CONSTAN-TIVS PF AVG / Rev. Victory advancing left, holding wreath in right hand and palm frond in left, both wings visible [despite description by all dealers as one wing visible], VICTORIA DD NN AVG; in exergue, mint mark LVG (Lugdunum). 17 mm., 2.06 g. RIC VIII 211 at p. 193 [both wings visible]; RSC V 259b (ill. p. 131) [rosette-diademed; both wings visible, = RIC VIII 211]; Sear RCV V 17948 (ill. p. 165) [applicable to RIC 210-211 & 214]. Purchased from Herakles Numismatics, July 2022; ex. Triskeles Auction 31, 27.03.2020, Lot 344; ex Spink Auction 16006, 26-27 Sep 2016, East Harptree Hoard Sale, Part of Lot 2929 (see https://www.numisbids.com/n.php?p=lot&sid=1689&lot=2929); from 1887 East Harptree hoard (one of 49 coins of this type in hoard; see article with inventory, “On a Hoard of Roman Coins Found at East Harptree, Near Bristol,” The Numismatic Chronicle (Vol. VIII, London 1888), pp. 22-46 at pp. 39-40; available at  https://archive.org/details/thirdnumismatic08royauoft/page/40/mode/1up). [Footnote re East Harptree Hoard omitted.]

As originally sold by Spink in 2016, marked by black dot:

Constantius II is also purportedly depicted on this coin, issued for Fausta:

Fausta (wife of Constantine I and daughter of Maximian), Billon reduced Centenionalis, Alexandria Mint (First Officina) 326 AD. Obv. Draped bust right, FLAV MAX FAVSTA AVG / Rev. Veiled Fausta standing facing, head left, holding two small children [representing Constantine II Caesar and Constantius II Caesar[?] in her arms, SPES REIP-VBLICAE; in exergue, SMALA [Alexandria, First Officina].  RIC VII Alexandria 40 (p. 709), Sear RCV IV 16582. 19 mm., 2.92 g. Ex. Dr. Frank Sternberg Collection, Sternberg I, Zurich, Nov. 30-Dec. 1, 1973, part of Lot 524 (catalogue p. 61). [Footnote omitted.]

[ewomack]

I have only a single, and rather humble, Constantius II example.

Constantius II - Cyzicus RIC VII 69 Constantius II AE3. 330-334 AD. FL IVL CONSTANTIVS NOB C, laureate, draped & cuirassed bust right / GLORIA EXERCITVS, two soldiers, helmeted, standing with spears & shields, facing two standards between them, dot on banners. Mintmark SMKΓ dot.

[Ryro]

15 minutes ago, DonnaML said:

Great coins, all!

I have only two Constantius II's:

Constantius II Caesar (son of Constantine I), silvered billon centenionalis, Trier Mint (2^nd Officina) 326 AD. Obv. laureate, draped and cuirassed bust left, FL IVL CONSTANTIVS NOB C / Rev. Campgate with six rows, two turrets, no door, and star between turrets; PROVIDEN-TIAE CAESS. In exergue: STR followed by pellet in crescent. RIC VII Trier 480S (p. 209), Sear RCV V 17618. 19 mm., 3.09 g.

 

Constantius II (son of Constantine I), AR reduced Siliqua, Lugdunum (Lyon) Mint, 360-361 AD. Obv. Rosette-diademed [despite description by all dealers as pearl-diademed], draped, and cuirassed bust right, D N CONSTAN-TIVS PF AVG / Rev. Victory advancing left, holding wreath in right hand and palm frond in left, both wings visible [despite description by all dealers as one wing visible], VICTORIA DD NN AVG; in exergue, mint mark LVG (Lugdunum). 17 mm., 2.06 g. RIC VIII 211 at p. 193 [both wings visible]; RSC V 259b (ill. p. 131) [rosette-diademed; both wings visible, = RIC VIII 211]; Sear RCV V 17948 (ill. p. 165) [applicable to RIC 210-211 & 214]. Purchased from Herakles Numismatics, July 2022; ex. Triskeles Auction 31, 27.03.2020, Lot 344; ex Spink Auction 16006, 26-27 Sep 2016, East Harptree Hoard Sale, Part of Lot 2929 (see https://www.numisbids.com/n.php?p=lot&sid=1689&lot=2929); from 1887 East Harptree hoard (one of 49 coins of this type in hoard; see article with inventory, “On a Hoard of Roman Coins Found at East Harptree, Near Bristol,” The Numismatic Chronicle (Vol. VIII, London 1888), pp. 22-46 at pp. 39-40; available at  https://archive.org/details/thirdnumismatic08royauoft/page/40/mode/1up). [Footnote re East Harptree Hoard omitted.]

As originally sold by Spink in 2016, marked by black dot:

Constantius II is also purportedly depicted on this coin, issued for Fausta:

Fausta (wife of Constantine I and daughter of Maximian), Billon reduced Centenionalis, Alexandria Mint (First Officina) 326 AD. Obv. Draped bust right, FLAV MAX FAVSTA AVG / Rev. Veiled Fausta standing facing, head left, holding two small children [representing Constantine II Caesar and Constantius II Caesar[?] in her arms, SPES REIP-VBLICAE; in exergue, SMALA [Alexandria, First Officina].  RIC VII Alexandria 40 (p. 709), Sear RCV IV 16582. 19 mm., 2.92 g. Ex. Dr. Frank Sternberg Collection, Sternberg I, Zurich, Nov. 30-Dec. 1, 1973, part of Lot 524 (catalogue p. 61). [Footnote omitted.]

This is the first time I've ever seen that STUNNING Spink Constantius II looking like a young Braddius Pittus

You've been holding out😉

In all seriousness, that Victory kinda steals the show. 

My recent Flames-ta... that is to say, Fausta, the Augusta that was boiled alive:

[DonnaML]

Thanks, @Ryro. I'm afraid that I've always been skeptical of the story of the dire fates of Fausta and Crispus. I think it's just a bit too suspiciously close to the myth of Theseus, Phaedra, and Hippolytus.

Edited August 8, 2022 by DonnaML

[Curtis JJ]

1 hour ago, DonnaML said:

close to the myth of Theseus, Phaedra, and Hippolytus

Interesting, wasn't previously aware of that parallel. (The similarities are in the relationships in the triangle, its discovery, and deaths, but the not the particularly scandalous method of death, right? Looks like both stories have multiple versions.)

I believe I've also seen a rival theory that what may have happened was Constantine discovered they were scheming to overthrow him, and they were killed or forced to commit suicide. That would make sense of why (maybe) Licinius II and seemingly others died in this whole affair. Depending which, if any, source you believe, and how far.

Edited August 8, 2022 by Curtis JJ

[Ancient Coin Hunter]

Like @Roman CollectorI also have the Phoenix on globe type...

 

Constantius II (337-361AD)
AE3 - 2.73 gram - 17 mm

Antioch mint, struck 348-350 AD

Obverse: DN CONSTANTIVS P F AVG, pearl diademed, cuirassed and draped bust right

Reverse: FEL TEMP REPARATIO, Phoenix, radiate, standing right on globe, star in right field, ANB in exergue

Reference: RIC VIII 129 var
 

[ambr0zie]

A nice thread!

LRB coinage is not a top priority for me because I feel that (not as a 100% rule though) the artistry level is decreased compared to the older coins in Roman Empire, not to mention the RR and Greek coinage. This didn't stop me in buying the LRB coins I found interesting ....

... and this is perhaps NOT something that can be said about my humble Gloria Exercitus coin with Constantius II

16.4 mm 2.28g
Constantius II, as Caesar, Æ Nummus. Treveri, AD 332-333. FL IVL CONSTANTIVS NOB C, laureate and cuirassed bust right / GLORIA EXERCITVS, two soldiers standing next to one another, each holding spear and resting on grounded shield, two standards between them; TR•P in exergue. RIC VII Treveri 540.

 

This is one of the first ancient coins I have ever seen

AD 347 - AD 348
D N CONSTAN-TIVS P F AVG
Head of Constantius II, rosette-diademed, right
Rev: VOT/XX/MVLT/XXX within a wreath - mintmark SMKA (?)
RIC VIII Cyzicus 49

 

In a degree, the last coin I bought also features Constantius II along with Constantine II, a similar type being presented by Ryro earlier

FAUSTA. (Augusta, 324-326). Nicomedia Follis, AD 325-326. 18 mm 2.4 g

Obv : FLAV MAX FAVSTA AVG. Bust of Fausta, waved hair, mantled, right. / Rev : SALVS REI - PVBLICAE. Fausta, veiled, draped, standing front, head left, holding two children in her arms (Constantine II and Constantius II).  Mintmark MNA. RIC VII Nicomedia 130

 

Edited August 8, 2022 by ambr0zie

[O-Towner]

A bit more interesting FEL TEMP Ae Centenionalis type from Alexandria:

Obv: D N CONSTANTIVS P F AVG; Diademed bust left holding globe

Rev: FEL TEMP REPARATIO; Emperor standing left holding labarum and resting hand on grounded shield, two bound captive before: ALEA in exergue

Ref: RIC 54

 

[Curtis JJ]

2 hours ago, ambr0zie said:

LRB coinage is not a top priority for me because I feel that (not as a 100% rule though) the artistry level is decreased compared to the older coins in Roman Empire,

Indeed. Aesthetics is secondary at best. For LRBCs, I tend to focus on history.  Actually, the numismatic "anthropology" fascinates me even more than the history.
What kind of culture attaches the slogan "Happy Days Are Here Again" to the moment of death in battle? Or a pair of bound captives kneeling (as in O-Towner's, immediately above, or wittwolff's 3rd coin on the first page)?
Did the "common people" know what the legends meant? What did they make of the Gigantopithecal soldier leading the hobbit man from his serene little grass hut (as on maridvnvm's example above)? Did they even know what things like the "campgate" (?) represented?
Could they tell all those identical looking emperors apart? Did they even know who the different emperors were and what they did?

But, as you note, and coins above illustrate, there are exceptions. And something satisfying about -- busting out the thesaurus and getting all poetical & alliterative on these LRBCs --  the crisp, clean charm of a well-struck specimen in a state of high preservation. Or the fossilized-butter surfaces of a perfectly patinated bronze. The two-and-a-half score shades of gray with hidden iridescence on an East Harptree AR Siliqua... Too much? 🙄

Back to seriousness  😉  I've discovered evidence the Samurai existed 1,000 years before we realized! My barbarian fallen horseman above (prev. ^ comment) definitely has a full Samurai mask & helmet c. 1300. I'll inform "History" Channel (looks alien, plus Ancient Aliens musta had something to do with Samurai).

Actual seriousness: I find the barbarian/fallen horseman's armor detail interesting (e.g., the helmet, maybe a quilted or leather cuirass, the typical tasseled trousers [sorry, accidentally alliterative again... as always. Arrgh!]).

I'm curious about which of Rome's enemies are portrayed on the coins. When identified at all, I think this one is usually called "Eastern" / Persian / Sassanid. Other fallen horsemen look Germanic or Gallic, "Western." (Some authors say they're all just "generic enemies.") I think it's an open question whether more specific ethnicities are ever depicted and whose choice that was.

 

Turns out it's harder to crop out the horseman than I thought...doesn't help that the horseman and horse seem to possibly share one leg 🤣

Edited August 8, 2022 by Curtis JJ

[Steppenfool]

Poor Constantine and Constantius II. Never have any Father and Son been on the receiving end of such anachronistic moralising as these. The seething rhetoric, based largely on misconceptions, reverberates into the modern era. 

First off, we have to question the expediency of analysing the morals of Roman Emperors in the first place. They lived in a completely different world to us, with completely different values, and were trusted with a very tough and dangerous job. No emperor was morally pure, and all Augusti of note have massacres, enslavements, murder, purges, persecutions to their name. It appears pointless to waste energy peering into their soul through a few primary sources separated decades from the actual events, and millennia from ourselves. 

Regardless, let me forget all that and peer into the actions of the two men anyway. We'll start with Constantine, the main gripe obviously being the killing of his wife and son. The biggest problem with moralising in this instance is that the details are extremely scant, even by historical standards. All we have is rumour and speculation, the most bizarre and anachronistic of which is repeated by the pagan sympathiser Zosimus centuries later. What we do know is this: That Crispus was being groomed for the throne and was greatly admired, an incident happened, he was tried in a court of law and found guilty, was probably ordered (or chose) to commit suicide and suffered damnatio. Some time after, Fausta is dead and also suffers a damnatio. It is not even certain if the two events are related at all, and if they are, how they are related. There is not nearly enough information to make a moral judgement here. It could be, that Constantine proved morally just in not sparing his family members who had committed a capital crime, but letting due process commence. Nevertheless, we do know the following. That the stability of the empire was maintained, that there was no notable resistance to this execution, that the remainder of Constantine's family were loyal to him, that Fausta's three sons made absolutely no attempt to rehabilitate their mother and that nobody with knowledge of the event felt the need to record/spread a defence of Crispus or Fausta. The only way we can judge Constantine morally for these actions, is if we declare that there is no possible moral justification for an Roman emperor to kill their wife/son, which seems a bit silly. The execution of Licinius II is barely worth addressing morally because keeping him alive after defeating and executing Licinius I would be a ridiculous political error. 

Now lets move on to Constantius II's famous massacre. Constantine has just died, and the succession is a bit uncertain (this will cause other issues). In 337 we have two very clear familial camps. The Constantinian dynasty of Faustan stock, and that of Theodoran sock (Constantine's half siblings and their descendants). The three Faustan brothers are very, very young, vulnerable and probably rightly suspicious of the elder Theodoran stock. Whether a power grab/civil war from the Theodoran side was on the horizon or not, is impossible to say. However, it is hardly politically ridiculous that Constantius II either ordered or (more likely) went along with the murderous scheme of the power bloc in the East. To say the situation was politically unstable would be an understatement (and this would be proven again by later events), and the legacy of the dissolving of Diocletian's tetrarchy would no doubt impress on the young men. This was a morally neutral and highly contextual massacre which probably constituted pre-emptive self-defence. Furthermore, Constantius II and his cronies spared the young Gallus and Julian, he wasn't out for needless blood. Lastly, if we really want to peer into Constantius II's soul here, we have written testimony that the massacre played on conscience for decades after, to the point he believed his Persian stalemate was a form of divine justice. 

Moving on to 340, the murder of Constantine II by Constans. The numismatic and inscriptional evidence shows that Constantine II was being groomed for some sort of Senior position, perhaps with Constantius II as a Junior Augustus alongside him and Constans and Dalmatius as Caesars. Unfortunately, this wasn't communicated effectively, and even close sources like Eusebius seem to entertian the notion that Constantine divided the empire among his sons in his will. What is true however, was that power blocs (like in the case of Constantius II) were forming around each Augusti.

We even have an inscription after the death of Constantine where someone is blatantly unsure what to call Dalmatius, writing the following:

M p CXXXI d n Fl Delmatio betissimo Aug nobilissimo Caes Fl Octavian p p Sard devotus numique eius

It seems that poor Flavius Octavianus, governor of Sardinia had a difficult time working out if Dalmatius was a Caesar or an Augustus and therefore covered himself by issuing an inscription with both titles. Could this be because the Theodoran side were also planning to lay claim to a Senior position?

Back to the civil war of 340. On close analysis, it appears that Constantine II and Constans had disagreements about the role of Senior Augustus. It was acknowledged by Constans in some coin issues, yet he routinely violated this principle, making war and issuing laws in his own name. Constantine II probably aimed to check this attack on his seniority, by patrolling militarily with a small detachment in Constans lands, was was his right as Senior Augustus. Constans (or his court, the Augustus was not present) seized on the opportunity to increase their power and influence, and murdered Constantine II. The account of the ambush lends one to believe Constantine II and his troops did not expect it at all. 

Despite all this, a better use of our time would be to evaluate their competency as Emperor, a criteria that is timeless and shouldn't change with the vagaries of culture and time. Constantine's sole reign reflects the first unbroken decade of tumult in Rome since the beginning of the Crisis of the Third Century. Quite a remarkable achievement to any unbiased observer, considering the Roman Empire contained a myriad of complex problems. He knew which of Diocletian's innovations should be left alone, and which were massive failures and required a different approach. For Constantine's error in leaving the succession ambiguous, he still forged a strong enough dynasty that withstood civil war, general chaos, and an active Eastern front. Constantius II would continue this stability, ruling 24 years without ceding any terrain, defeating an usurper, and keeping a steady ship in an extremely volatile time which had the added twist of inter-Christian conflict. In one final act of amazing wisdom and stability he left a united and strong empire to the cousin who had declared war on him that same year. The real decline would begin under the much admired Julian, whose life and a large portion of his army would be lost in his bungled Persian War. The Romans would lose what Ammianus called "the Strongest Bulwark of the Orient" in Nisibis, and several other key eastern cities. After being kept safe by Constantius II for 24 years, they would never return to Roman control. 

It is also worth noting, that Constantine is still considered a Saint and an Equal to the Apostles by the Orthodox Church, and these Christians today would by in large agree that his burial place was suitable. Constantius II was more moderate in his theology and this angered the eventual victors, so they do not view him so kindly. 

Edited August 8, 2022 by Steppenfool

[Ryro]

22 hours ago, Steppenfool said:

1-Poor Constantine and Constantius II. Never have any Father and Son been on the receiving end of such anachronistic moralising as these. The seething rhetoric, based largely on misconceptions, reverberates into the modern era. 

2-It could be, that Constantine proved morally just in not sparing his family members who had committed a capital crime, but letting due process commence.

Lol! "Poor Constantine"!?!?! Bwahahaha

1- This first statement is some of the silliest hyperbole I've read in a while. You try everything, including nothing to let them off the hook!

2- See statement 1.

Familicide is heavily looked down upon in any time period.

These guys would be considered creeps in any time period. 

Here's a coin of his openly gay brother. Something the church killed countless men and women for... unless it was a priest and the other was underage:

Edited August 9, 2022 by Restitutor

[Steppenfool]

21 hours ago, Ryro said:

Lol! "Poor Constantine"!?!?! Bwahahaha

1- This first statement is some of the silliest hyperbole I've read in a while. You try everything, including nothing to let them off the hook!

2- See statement 1.

For someone who sure loves these atrocious men and put together such an attempt to let them off the hook, I'm shocked that you don't have any of their coins??

Familicide is heavily looked down upon in any time period. Just cause a bunch of modern loons think they have to worship and look up to them or their religious ideals start to fall apart, doesn't make them right.

These guys would be considered creeps in any time period. So please, post some coins or move along. 

Here's a coin of his openly gay brother. Something the church killed countless men and women for... unless it was a priest and the other was underage:

Poor X is a turn of phrase, I don't actually believe he is a serious object of pity. 

I don't see how the statement referenced in 2 is a hyperbole. Applying the law equally regardless of personal ties surely is a noble thing, no? The consul of 165 BC Titus Manlius Torquatus was lauded for this very feat, killing his son for disobeying orders on the field.  

I am quite shocked at the vitriol you have included in your response, when my reply was one of a historical nature. You have managed to insult an entire religious movement because I included a point about how their consistent beliefs indicate that Constantine's burial place wasn't ridiculous. Not to mention that you didn't attempt at all to engage in a historical discussion, but only continued more misplaced moralising.

I don't love these "atrocious" men, I am only trying to analyse their actions fairly and without an agenda. I don't have any photographs of their coins that I own on my machine. I was going to contribute later with some photos when I had the opportunity to take them. 

I don't care if Constans was gay, but if he was I doubt it was openly. I am not religious (Christian or otherwise), and this conversation doesn't involve the church or its scandals, and bringing them up only reveals some other agenda.

[Ryro]

5 minutes ago, Steppenfool said:

 

Poor X is a turn of phrase, I don't actually believe he is a serious object of pity. 

I don't see how the statement referenced in 2 is a hyperbole. Applying the law equally regardless of personal ties surely is a noble thing, no? The consul of 165 BC Titus Manlius Torquatus was lauded for this very feat, killing his son for disobeying orders on the field.  

I am quite shocked at the vitriol you have included in your response, when my reply was one of a historical nature. You have managed to insult an entire religious movement because I included a point about how their consistent beliefs indicate that Constantine's burial place wasn't ridiculous. Not to mention that you didn't attempt at all to engage in a historical discussion, but only continued more misplaced moralising.

I don't love these "atrocious" men, I am only trying to analyse their actions fairly and without an agenda. I don't have any photographs of their coins that I own on my machine. I was going to contribute later with some photos when I had the opportunity to take them. 

I don't care if Constans was gay, but if he was I doubt it was openly. I am not religious (Christian or otherwise), and this conversation doesn't involve the church or its scandals, and bringing them up only reveals some other agenda.

You come into my post not to share coins and only speak one sided and talk shit on my post. Even stating, "Poor Constantine and Constantius II. Never have any Father and Son been on the receiving end of such anachronistic moralising as these. The seething rhetoric, based largely on misconceptions, reverberates into the modern era." And then you say you don't understand how that can be considered hyperbole!?!?

For someone who took a lot of time to stand up for their family honor I'm surprised you didn't know that Constans was openly gay. Oh wait, but that didn't fit the narrative that you are trying to put together... no agenda at all. Pfff

Keep your coins for another thread and as I asked in my short rebuttal previously asking you to move along, keep on stepping fool.

[Steppenfool]

1 hour ago, Ryro said:

You come into my post not to share coins and only speak one sided and talk shit on my post. Even stating, "Poor Constantine and Constantius II. Never have any Father and Son been on the receiving end of such anachronistic moralising as these. The seething rhetoric, based largely on misconceptions, reverberates into the modern era." And then you say you don't understand how that can be considered hyperbole!?!?

For someone who took a lot of time to stand up for their family honor I'm surprised you didn't know that Constans was openly gay. Oh wait, but that didn't fit the narrative that you are trying to put together... no agenda at all. Pfff

Keep your coins for another thread and as I asked in my short rebuttal previously asking you to move along, keep on stepping fool.

Haha. My opening salvo was just a counter to your Anti-Constantinian banter. I didn't really expect or mean for it to be taken personally. Of course statement 1. that you quoted was hyperbole, I never denied that. I said that statement 2 wasn't hyperbole and provided some historical context for that belief. 

What evidence is there that Constans was openly gay? It was rumoured that he engaged in homosexual activity and this contributed to the eventual usurpation of Magnentius. However, this is quite different from being openly gay or identifying as such. I don't see how this contributes to any narrative (?) I am trying to form either. Some of Rome's greatest and my favourite emperors were openly gay (such as Hadrian). I don't think this has any effect on their legacy or the way I interpret their politics. 

I am happy to leave the conversation now before it gets any more odious. I apologize if I have caused any upset. 

Edited August 8, 2022 by Steppenfool

[DonnaML]

I obviously have no official standing here, but without condemning or criticizing anyone or their viewpoint, can we please try not do this publicly here, especially including saying things in a way that's certain to cause personal offense and provoke an emotional/angry response? It reminds me too much of the squabbling at the other place!

[Magnus Maximus]

 I think he was a decent to good Emperor, overall. His defense of the east was very admirable; as he kept Shapur II at bay for 23 years. For reference, Shapur II is considered one of the greatest Persian kings. For Constantius II to have held him at bay for that length of time really was an achievement. While he was focused on the East, he didn’t ignore the west when he became sole Augustus as he left Julian in charge of the provinces. Another mark in his favor is that after it became obvious that he was dying, he made Julian his rightful heir instead of putting the empire through another civil war. 
Siliquae of his make up about 1/3 of the entire denomination in my collection. Here are just a few:

 

Edited August 8, 2022 by Magnus Maximus

[Magnus Maximus]

@Steppenfool It should be noted that Constantius II also spared Vetranio and allowed him to live in retirement.  I believe that they also corresponded to a degree after Vetranio’s retirement, where Vetranio told Constantius that the no sane man would want the burden of the Empire on their shoulders. 

Edited August 8, 2022 by Magnus Maximus

[Jims,Coins]

Bronze coin (AE 3) minted at Siscia during the reign of CONSTANTIUS II between 355 - 361 A.D. Obv. D.N.CONSTAN-TIVS.P.F.AVG. Rev. FEL.TEMP.-REPARATIO. Helmeted soldier advancing l., shield on l. arm, spearing fallen horseman; shield on ground at r., horseman is beardless & wears cap, he falls forward on neck of horse. RCS #4010. DVM #100. LRBC #1231.

Bronze coin (AE Centenionalis) minted at CONSE = Constantinopolis (Istanbul, Turkey) during the reign of CONSTANTIUS II between 348 - 350 A.D. Post-reform bronze coinage First period Obv. D.N.CONSTAN-TIVS.P.F.AVG. diad., dr. & cuir. bust r. Rev. FEL.TEMP. REP-ARATIO. Helmeted soldier advancing l., shield on l. arm, spearing fallen horseman; shield on ground at r., horseman is beardless & wears cap, he falls forward on neck of horse. RCS #4003. RICV111 #78 pg.453. DVM #90. LRBC #2026

Edited August 9, 2022 by Jims,Coins

[Topcat7]

I have (too many) Constantius II coins, but here are a few.

(1) Constantius II RIC VIII. Arles 261 FER 1030 Siliqua (Ex Magnus Maximus)

(4) CONSTANTIUS II RIC VII Heraclea 84b

(12) CONSTANTIUS II RIC VIII. Aquileia 241

(13) CONSTANTIUS II RIC VIII. Siscia 176

(22) CONSTANTIUS II RIC VII Siscia 217

(24) CONSTANTIUS II RIC VIII. Siscia 240 S

Edited August 8, 2022 by Topcat7

[Curtis JJ]

Okay, how about another Constantius or two... I finally got one from Arles mint (don't think I had one). It's also got some interesting differences in design from the usual, including the decorated shields, of which I only have a couple examples. (There are at least two posters here who have impressive collections of Fallen Horseman AE2s, including many more decorated shields than I have.) Also the appearance of Constantius' cuirass (?) under the drapery and hairstyle are pretty interesting and distinctive.

And something I don't think I've ever noticed before... EYELASHES!

 

 

 

Okay, if you insist, here's my ugly Siliqua:

[Topcat7]

9 hours ago, DonnaML said:

I obviously have no official standing here, but without condemning or criticizing anyone or their viewpoint, can we please try not do this publicly here, especially including saying things in a way that's certain to cause personal offense and provoke an emotional/angry response? It reminds me too much of the squabbling at the other place!

Hi Donna, I think that John Lennon said it best. "What if they gave a 'war' and nobody came?"

[Ancient Coin Hunter]

I agree with@DonnaML - let's stop the mudslinging and remember that we're basically here to enjoy our coins and learn more from others. Peace, folks.

[Restitutor]

20 hours ago, Steppenfool said:

Poor Constantine and Constantius II. Never have any Father and Son been on the receiving end of such anachronistic moralising as these. The seething rhetoric, based largely on misconceptions, reverberates into the modern era. 

First off, we have to question the expediency of analysing the morals of Roman Emperors in the first place. They lived in a completely different world to us, with completely different values, and were trusted with a very tough and dangerous job. No emperor was morally pure, and all Augusti of note have massacres, enslavements, murder, purges, persecutions to their name. It appears pointless to waste energy peering into their soul through a few primary sources separated decades from the actual events, and millennia from ourselves. 

Regardless, let me forget all that and peer into the actions of the two men anyway. We'll start with Constantine, the main gripe obviously being the killing of his wife and son. The biggest problem with moralising in this instance is that the details are extremely scant, even by historical standards. All we have is rumour and speculation, the most bizarre and anachronistic of which is repeated by the pagan sympathiser Zosimus centuries later. What we do know is this: That Crispus was being groomed for the throne and was greatly admired, an incident happened, he was tried in a court of law and found guilty, was probably ordered (or chose) to commit suicide and suffered damnatio. Some time after, Fausta is dead and also suffers a damnatio. It is not even certain if the two events are related at all, and if they are, how they are related. There is not nearly enough information to make a moral judgement here. It could be, that Constantine proved morally just in not sparing his family members who had committed a capital crime, but letting due process commence. Nevertheless, we do know the following. That the stability of the empire was maintained, that there was no notable resistance to this execution, that the remainder of Constantine's family were loyal to him, that Fausta's three sons made absolutely no attempt to rehabilitate their mother and that nobody with knowledge of the event felt the need to record/spread a defence of Crispus or Fausta. The only way we can judge Constantine morally for these actions, is if we declare that there is no possible moral justification for an Roman emperor to kill their wife/son, which seems a bit silly. The execution of Licinius II is barely worth addressing morally because keeping him alive after defeating and executing Licinius I would be a ridiculous political error. 

Now lets move on to Constantius II's famous massacre. Constantine has just died, and the succession is a bit uncertain (this will cause other issues). In 337 we have two very clear familial camps. The Constantinian dynasty of Faustan stock, and that of Theodoran sock (Constantine's half siblings and their descendants). The three Faustan brothers are very, very young, vulnerable and probably rightly suspicious of the elder Theodoran stock. Whether a power grab/civil war from the Theodoran side was on the horizon or not, is impossible to say. However, it is hardly politically ridiculous that Constantius II either ordered or (more likely) went along with the murderous scheme of the power bloc in the East. To say the situation was politically unstable would be an understatement (and this would be proven again by later events), and the legacy of the dissolving of Diocletian's tetrarchy would no doubt impress on the young men. This was a morally neutral and highly contextual massacre which probably constituted pre-emptive self-defence. Furthermore, Constantius II and his cronies spared the young Gallus and Julian, he wasn't out for needless blood. Lastly, if we really want to peer into Constantius II's soul here, we have written testimony that the massacre played on conscience for decades after, to the point he believed his Persian stalemate was a form of divine justice. 

Moving on to 340, the murder of Constantine II by Constans. The numismatic and inscriptional evidence shows that Constantine II was being groomed for some sort of Senior position, perhaps with Constantius II as a Junior Augustus alongside him and Constans and Dalmatius as Caesars. Unfortunately, this wasn't communicated effectively, and even close sources like Eusebius seem to entertian the notion that Constantine divided the empire among his sons in his will. What is true however, was that power blocs (like in the case of Constantius II) were forming around each Augusti.

We even have an inscription after the death of Constantine where someone is blatantly unsure what to call Dalmatius, writing the following:

M p CXXXI d n Fl Delmatio betissimo Aug nobilissimo Caes Fl Octavian p p Sard devotus numique eius

It seems that poor Flavius Octavianus, governor of Sardinia had a difficult time working out if Dalmatius was a Caesar or an Augustus and therefore covered himself by issuing an inscription with both titles. Could this be because the Theodoran side were also planning to lay claim to a Senior position?

Back to the civil war of 340. On close analysis, it appears that Constantine II and Constans had disagreements about the role of Senior Augustus. It was acknowledged by Constans in some coin issues, yet he routinely violated this principle, making war and issuing laws in his own name. Constantine II probably aimed to check this attack on his seniority, by patrolling militarily with a small detachment in Constans lands, was was his right as Senior Augustus. Constans (or his court, the Augustus was not present) seized on the opportunity to increase their power and influence, and murdered Constantine II. The account of the ambush lends one to believe Constantine II and his troops did not expect it at all. 

Despite all this, a better use of our time would be to evaluate their competency as Emperor, a criteria that is timeless and shouldn't change with the vagaries of culture and time. Constantine's sole reign reflects the first unbroken decade of tumult in Rome since the beginning of the Crisis of the Third Century. Quite a remarkable achievement to any unbiased observer, considering the Roman Empire contained a myriad of complex problems. He knew which of Diocletian's innovations should be left alone, and which were massive failures and required a different approach. For Constantine's error in leaving the succession ambiguous, he still forged a strong enough dynasty that withstood civil war, general chaos, and an active Eastern front. Constantius II would continue this stability, ruling 24 years without ceding any terrain, defeating an usurper, and keeping a steady ship in an extremely volatile time which had the added twist of inter-Christian conflict. In one final act of amazing wisdom and stability he left a united and strong empire to the cousin who had declared war on him that same year. The real decline would begin under the much admired Julian, whose life and a large portion of his army would be lost in his bungled Persian War. The Romans would lose what Ammianus called "the Strongest Bulwark of the Orient" in Nisibis, and several other key eastern cities. After being kept safe by Constantius II for 24 years, they would never return to Roman control. 

It is also worth noting, that Constantine is still considered a Saint and an Equal to the Apostles by the Orthodox Church, and these Christians today would by in large agree that his burial place was suitable. Constantius II was more moderate in his theology and this angered the eventual victors, so they do not view him so kindly. 

This was quite an interesting read! Now I don't profess to know nearly enough about this era (I usually start to lose interest in Roman history once my name-sake was assassinated ☹️), but it definitely got me to rethink some of my preconceived notions on the Constantinian dynasty and Constantine himself.

It is interesting how no one seems to blame Marcus Aurelius for the death of his wife Faustina II (who as a reminder died during a revolt that she may have inadvertently helped kick off). I think you could easily make the argument Marcus killed her in anger but I don't seem to find many historians who give credence to that notion. It's interesting then how for Constantine the consensus seems to be "he did it!", despite all the evidence seeming to be about the same in both cases, that is, circumstantial.

Now again I am not an expert in Constantine-era history so I could just be ignorant on some fact that makes Constantine seem more likely to have murdered than Marcus. I'm sure someone here knows more than me! But I do appreciate the stimulating conversation, and for all we know Constantine may be getting a bit of a bad rap here much like Domitian did for so long, and thankfully now Domitian has a much better historical standing than he did 100 years ago! Why thankfully? Because it's always a good day when our understanding of history becomes more accurate! 

Here's my Constans I:

[O-Towner]

One more kinda interesting Constantius II Ae type from Antioch:

Obv: (Anepigraphic); Laureate and cuirassed bust left

Rev: CONSTAN / TIVS / CAESAR / SMANTA in four lines, star above

Ref: RIC 55

Edited August 9, 2022 by O-Towner