Derniers achats (septimus)

You ask about the occasions of Septimius' IMP VIIII and X in 197, if, as I propose, IMP VIII commemorated the battle of Lugdunum on 19 Feb. 196. Now that is a minor problem, which we have to realize may be insoluable: the literary and epigraphical sources are so fragmentary that they often do not provide us with likely occasions for all of the imperatorial acclamations that are recorded on the coins and in the inscriptions. Here, however, is what I had to say about this question in my Oxford thesis:  

"Now Dio says that while Severus was involved in the civil war the Parthians captured Mesopotamia, and would have seized Nisibis itself, had not Laetus, who was besieged there, saved the place, and thereby acquired for himself even greater renown. When Severus himself came to Nisibis, Dio continues, the Parthians instead of awaiting him retired homewards; he therefore returned to the Euphrates and constructed boats for his march along the river into enemy territory. It is clear that when Severus arrived the Parthians abandoned Mesopotamia altogether; much territory will have passed back into Roman hands, perhaps with some skirmishing, and it is easy to suppose that Severus' tenth acclamation resulted from this success. It is usually assumed that Laetus 'saved' (διεσωσατο) Nisibis merely by holding it until Severus arrived; but it could be that he had actually broken the Parthian siege by himself and had advanced some way towards driving the Parthians out of Mesopotamia. If so the salvation of Nisibis, in about May 197, could have been the occasion of Severus' ninth imperatorial acclamation. Otherwise, IMP VIIII will probably belong to an unknown early success in the Parthian war before the arrival of the emperor himself."

Merci Curtis pour ces informations de grandes valeurs et érudition. Je pense que tout ceux qui sont intéressés ici par l'Histoire se sont régalés. Les arguments mêlent à la fois sources antiques, épigraphie et numismatique. Le placement de la date un an plus tôt semble de plus compatible avec le volume des monnaies frappées par Clodius Albinus Auguste (j'ai lu des chiffres autour de 3750000 deniers).

Thanks for the compliment, Septimus, but you leave me unclear on one essential point. Are you convinced by my arguments for the new chronology, or do you think the old chronology must be correct so I am mistaken, or are you undecided?

Yes, the small size of Albinus' coinage as Augustus fits much better with my new chronology, assigning Albinus a reign of about three months (c. Nov. 195-19 Feb. 196), than with the old chronology, according to which his revolt probably lasted about 15 months (c. Nov. 195-19 Feb. 197).

Oui, je suis assez convaincu par vos arguments qui s'emboîtent bien les uns avec les autres. Il me faudrait revoir les arguments des tenants de la date "traditionnelle" et voir pourquoi elle s'est imposée si longtemps (je ne parle pas de l'immobilisme consistant par confort à ne pas remettre en question des "dogmes", mais les éléments qui ont conduit à définir 197 comme l'année de la bataille et non 196).

septimus a écrit:

Il me faudrait revoir les arguments des tenants de la date "traditionnelle" et voir pourquoi elle s'est imposée si longtemps (je ne parle pas de l'immobilisme consistant par confort à ne pas remettre en question des "dogmes", mais les éléments qui ont conduit à définir 197 comme l'année de la bataille et non 196).

The reasons that led to the assignment of the Battle of Lugdunum to 19 Feb. 197 instead of 196 I have already stated above, at the beginning of my first post on this subject: Dio's statement that the siege of Byzantium lasted for "a full three-year period", misinterpreted to mean "three full years" when it actually meant "two full years and into the third".

This misinterpretation led to the conclusion that Septimius must still have been in Mesopotamia in summer 196, so he could not have defeated Albinus at Lugdunum several months before then, on 19 Feb. of the same year!

Misdating the Battle of Lugdunum to 19 Feb. 197 instead of 196 led to a large number of chronological problems with the evidence for other events of the years 195-197, five of which (a-e) I have explained above. But nobody recognized that the root of those problems might simply be that the Battle of Lugdunum had been dated one year too late.

I experienced myself the power of the accepted chronology! I wrote my senior thesis in college in 1966 on the history of the first ten years of Septimius' reign, then undertook at Oxford a study of the Severan imperial coinage of the first five years of the reign, 193-198 AD. But for years and years, despite encountering difficulty after difficulty in the chronology of the events of 195-197, I did not question the correctness of dating the battle of Lugdunum to 197. The possibility that the battle might have taken place a year earlier simply never entered my head. It was not until c. 1971, when I was halfway through writing up my Oxford study, that the correct solution finally occurred to me.

Oui, Dion bien sûr mais je pensais à d'autres sources: numismatiques il semblerait que non (je suppose que vous avez passé en revue toutes les émissions monétaires de la période), mais plutôt épigraphiques (mais vous en avez cité aussi dans vos arguments). De plus, les vestiges archéologiques en lien avec la bataille sont plus que ténus.

curtislclay a écrit:

I experienced myself the power of the accepted chronology! I wrote my senior thesis in college in 1966 on the history of the first ten years of Septimius' reign, then undertook at Oxford a study of the Severan imperial coinage of the first five years of the reign, 193-198 AD. But for years and years, despite encountering difficulty after difficulty in the chronology of the events of 195-197, I did not question the correctness of dating the battle of Lugdunum to 197 rather than 196. The idea simply never entered my head. It was not until c. 1971, when I was halfway through writing up my Oxford study, that the correct solution finally occurred

Les hypothèses les plus simples ne viennent pas forcément toujours à l'esprit et remettre en cause une vérité établie est plus difficile qu'il n'y parait! Il est dommage qu'il n'y ait pas plus de remise en cause de cette hypothèse auprès des historiens spécialistes de la période.

Do the history and coinage of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (Caracalla) fit with the date you are supporting (february 196 AD) for the battle at Vaise ?

One of the reasons usually given for the severing of the relationship between Clodius Albinus and Septimius Severus is his dynastic policy including changing name of Bassianus to Marcus Aurelius Antoninus and his nomination as Caesar thus depriving the already Caesar Clodius Albinus of any future and legitimacy. Can this nomination be dated by end 195 AD to keep the reason for the outbreak of the conflict valid ?

Does this date leave enough time to Clodius Albinus to cross to the continent, gain support in Germania and Gaul and meet Severus in battle in February 196 AD ?

Regards.

There can be no doubt that Caracalla was proclaimed Caesar in late November or December 195 AD.

1. Wilcken, Arsinoitische Tempelrechnungen aus dem J. 215 n. Chr., Hermes 20, pp. 455-6 ingeniously restored a fragmentary papyrus to record a celebration on an uncertain day in the Egyptian month Xoiak (27 Nov.-26 Dec.) in 215 AD, the occasion being the anniversary of Caracalla's proclamation as Caesar, "because our lord was proclaimed Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Caesar".

2. Septimius produced comparatively large issues of both bronze medallions and ordinary copper asses for New Year's Day 194, 195, and 196, but in the course of 196 he discontinued this practice, and over the next ten years produced virtually no more bronze medallions whatever, and no more larger issues of asses at any time in the year. But Caracalla Caesar's first rev. type, SEVERI AVG PII FIL, Sacrificial implements, is comparatively common on both bronze medallions and ordinary asses. These pieces must have formed part of Septimius' last New Year's issue of 1 Jan. 196, proving that Caracalla was certainly Caesar by the end of Dec. 195.

3. Dio 75.4.1: At the last horserace held in Rome before the Saturnalia, at which Dio himself was present, the people broke out in lamentations over the recent outbreak of civil war between Septimius and Albinus. The Saturnalia began on 17 Dec.; the games in question were probably the Ludi Divi Veri on 15 Dec. So the news of Septimius' break with Albinus must have reached Rome during the first half of December 195. Obviously Caracalla must have been made Caesar very soon after that break, since the papyrus from Arsinoe dates his elevation to the Caesarship to the month 27 Nov.-26 Dec. 195.

I don't think Caracalla's Caesarship was the cause of Albinus' revolt, however. Instead, as the vita Severi says, Septimius first broke with Albinus, doubtless having him proclaimed a public enemy, and then a little later proclaimed Caracalla Caesar, making his own son successor to the throne instead of Albinus.

I'd say that we don't have to speculate whether or not Nov./Dec. 195-19 Feb. 196 was enough time for Albinus to cross from Britain to the Continent, rally support, and finally meet Septimius in the decisive battle near Lugdunum.

Obviously it was enough time: for both dates, break with Septimius in late Nov. or early Dec. 195, Battle of Lugdunum on 19 Feb. 196, are so solidly attested that they may be regarded as certain.

Or do you think you can refute my other arguments that the Battle of Lugdunum to all appearances took place on 19 Feb. 196?

This consideration can never become an argument for returning the Battle of Lugdunum to 197 instead of 196, because Albinus probably realized well in advance that his break with Septimius was pending, so could have begun preparations a month or two before the formal break on c. 1 Dec. 195. In my Oxford thesis I was able to demonstrate that Septimius stopped issuing coins for Albinus as Caesar at the mint of Rome in summer 195; Albinus' normal one denarius reverse type was replaced by an additional, fourth, type for Septimius himself. Albinus could well have had friends in Rome who noticed this change and reported it to him. Moreover it must have become obvious fairly soon after Septimius marched from Asia Minor into Thrace, perhaps around 15 Sept. 195, that his four Moesian legions were not breaking off to return to their camps on the Danube, but were heading with the rest of the army towards Gaul.

...quand l'histoire et le numismatique ne font qu'un ...

Merci pour cet intéressant exposé. Cette hypothèse d'une bataille en février 196 semble séduisante. Si j'ai souvent lu que le siège de Byzance s'était achevé en 195, après plus de 2 années d'opérations, les articles - mêmes récents - continuent de placer la bataille de Lyon en février 197...
Curtis, avez-vous déjà publié votre démonstration replaçant la bataille en février 196 ? Dans votre thèse ou dans un article postérieur ?

D'après Curtis, elle a étét publiée brièvement à la fin de cet article:" Roman imperial medallions : the date and purpose of their issue", proceedings of the 8th international congress of numismatics, New-York Washington, September 1973.

Voici un tableau replaçant les VIèmes à Xèmes acclamations impériales (195 à 197) suivant les chronologies traditionnelles et révisées. Curtis, est-ce bien cela?

Acclamations impériales	Chronologie traditionnelle	Chronologie révisée
IMP VI	Début été 195: Victoires sur les Arabes et Adiabènes	Début été 195: Victoires sur les Arabes et Adiabènes ou chute de Byzance
IMP VII	Été 195: Victoires sur les Arabes et Adiabènes	Été 195: Victoires sur les Arabes et Adiabènes ou chute de Byzance
IMP VIII	Début été 196: Chute de Byzance	Après le 19 février 196: Défaite de Clodius Albinus à Lyon
IMP VIIII	Après le 19 février 197: Défaite de Clodius Albinus à Lyon	Début 197: Succès initiaux dans la grande guerre parthique
IMP X	Tard dans l'année 197: Succès initiaux dans la grande guerre parthique (secours à Nisibe assiégée?)	Tard dans l'année 197: Secours à Nisibe assiégée?

Pouvez-vous également préciser ce point:

curtislclay a écrit:

On Septimius' denarii IMP VIII appeared about one sixth of the way through the production of 196 as shown by Reka Devnia specimen counts, thus fitting perfectly with my assignment of that acclamation to 19 Feb. 196.

J'ai trouvé 103 deniers romains datés de 196 avec IMP VIII et 31 avec IMP VII. Les autres IMP VIII sont de 197 ou sont non datés. Avec une acclamation plus tôt dans l'année par rapport à la chronologie traditionnelle, ne devrait-on pas avoir plus de deniers frappés en 196 avec IMP VIII?

IMP V. Early 195, probably for victory of c. Dec. 194. Simultaneous with titles PART ARAB PART ADIAB. First victory over Parthian vassals.

IMP VI and VII, approximately simultaneous, mid-195. One for second Parthian victory, the other for fall of Byzantium.

IMP VIII Battle of Lugdunum, 19 Feb. 196.

IMP VIIII mid-197, possibly for Laetus' breaking of the Parthian siege of Nisibis.

IMP X, fall 197. Parthians withdraw from Mesopotamia when Septimius arrives there with his army.

septimus a écrit:

Pouvez-vous également préciser ce point:

curtislclay a écrit:

On Septimius' denarii IMP VIII appeared about one sixth of the way through the production of 196 as shown by Reka Devnia specimen counts, thus fitting perfectly with my assignment of that acclamation to 19 Feb. 196.

J'ai trouvé 103 deniers romains datés de 196 avec IMP VIII et 31 avec IMP VII. Les autres IMP VIII sont de 197 ou sont non datés. Avec une acclamation plus tôt dans l'année par rapport à la chronologie traditionnelle, ne devrait-on pas avoir plus de deniers frappés en 196 avec IMP VIII?

Throughout 196 (TR P IIII), the mint was striking three denarius types for Septimius at a time, each type in approximately the same volume.

First TR P IIII issue, continuing from previous year: two of the three types show the tribunician number, namely TR P IIII Palladium, IMP VII 21 spec., IMP VIII 12 spec. TR P IIII Fortuna, IMP VII 10 spec., IMP VIII 19 spec. Average for one type: IMP VII 15.5 spec., IMP VIII 15.5 spec.

Second TR P IIII issue, confined to that year: ADVENTVI 47 spec., FORT. RED. 56 spec., TR P IIII Victory 45 spec. Average for one type: 49 spec.

Third TR P IIII issue, continuing into TR P V: only one of the three types with tribunician number, namely TR P IIII Pax seated, 26 spec.

Average number of denarii per type for TR P IIII coins in RD hoard:
Issue 1, IMP VII, 15.5 spec.
Issue 1, IMP VIII, 15.5 spec.
Issue 2, IMP VIII, 49 spec.
Issue 3, IMP VIII, 26 spec.

Total 106 spec., 15.5 of which (15%) with IMP VII, 90.5 (85%) with IMP VIII.

Error.

Thanks.

Quelques nouvelles entrées:
Clodius Albinus César pour son tout premier denier émis par Septime Sévère


Un Géta avec Minerve que je remplace (je m'étais trompé, je pensais avoir le buste drapé cuirassé)


Un denier hors du champ de ma collection, mais je n'avais pas encore de denier de la soeur, belle-soeur et tante

de bien belles acquisitions ...

le buste de Geta est superbe ....!!

Le Iulia Maesa également

Belle moisson de début d'été

Superbes ces trois dernières, avec de très beaux bustes