Domitianus II : Little Known Romano-Gallic Usurper

[guy]

The third century of the Roman Empire is the least documented, most poorly understood, and the most confusing period of the Roman Empire. It includes my favourite period of Roman history to study: from AD 235 (the death of Severus Alexander) to AD 284 (the ascension of Diocletian).

The third century was a period of instability. It can be characterized by a near fatal array of diverse and destructive pressures. These included a devastating plague, numerous barbarian invasions, a lethal and aggressive Sassanian Empire, multiple rebellious and rogue generals, several civil wars, economic disruptions, the persecution of the Jesus movement, and a seemingly endless and confusing succession of emperors and usurpers who almost always died violently.

Despite the century's turbulence and monumental changes, Roman history between AD 235 and 284 is poorly documented. Reliable historians of previous eras included Tacitus and Cassius Dio. The next century had the reputable Ammianus Marcellinus.

Those of us interested in this period find our sources either too unreliable (the notorious Scriptores Historiae Augustae) or too detached in time (composed centuries later by Byzantine writers).

No period of the Roman Empire is more dependent on numismatic evidence for its understanding than the third century. It is through numismatic evidence that we know about Domitianus II, a possible usurper during the Romano-Gallic Empire.

As most people know, the Romano-Gallic Empire was a breakaway empire (AD 260-274) founded by Postumus. At its height, it included Britannia, Gaul, Germania, and Hispania. By 274 Aurelian defeated the later Romano-Gallic emperor Tetricus I and his son, forcing the secessionist state to reunite with the Roman Empire.

The Romano-Gallic Empire lasted fourteen years and was ruled by five accepted rulers:
Postumus (AD 260-269)
Marius (269)
Victorinus (269-271)
Tetricus I (271-274) with his son Tetricus II as Caesar (273-274)

An important usurper was Laelianus (269) who was unsuccessful against Postumus. Another usurper, until recently unrecognized and relatively unknown, was Domitianus.

It is recent numismatic evidence that has confirmed the existence of a usurper in AD 271 named Domitianus.

Literary evidence for a Domitianus is vague and unreliable. There is no concrete literary mention of a Romano-Gallic usurper with that name.

The numismatic evidence for Domitianus was non-existent until 1900. A coin of the unknown usurper was found as part of a hoard discovered in a vineyard in Cleons, France.

Suspiciously, this coin disappeared from public view for a century (and even museum officials thought the coin lost), preventing its closer scrutiny. Only plaster casts of the coin were available for study. Not surprisingly, this coin was deemed a modern forgery by many experts. The Romano-Gallic usurper, Domitianus, was thought to be a fabrication or misinterpretation of the literary sources.

This controversy took a dramatic turn in 2003, however, with the discovery of a single coin.

In April, 2003 a hoard of nearly 5000 coins was discovered by Brian Malin with the use of his metal detector near Chalgrove in South Oxfordshire, England. The hoard consisted of typical radiate coins of the AD 250s-70s. They were fused together within a third-century Roman pot. After an initial examination at Oxford's Ashmolean Museum, the Chalgrove hoard was taken to the British Museum conservation laboratory for further study.




The emperors depicted on the coins of the Chalgrove hoard ranged from Trebonianus Gallus (AD 251-3) to Probus (AD 276-82). Other coins included the emperors Gallienus (AD 253-68), Claudius II (268-70), Postumus (260-8), Victorinus (268-70) and Tetricus I and II (270-4).

There was one coin, however, that warranted special attention. Its bearded bust and radiate spiky crown head was typical of coins from that era and from other coins of the hoard. The inscription, however, was unique: IMP C DOMITIANVS P F Imperator Caesar Domitianus Pius (dutiful) Felix (fortunate) Augustus.

This coin confirmed the existence of a previously poorly documented usurper:

(Coin description from Wildwinds.com)
Domitianus, British Usurper, Antoninianus, 271 AD. IMP C DOMITIANVS PF AVG, radiate, cuirassed bust right / CONCORDIA MILITVM, Concordia standing left, holding patera and cornucopiae

Comparison between the Cleons coin discovered earlier and the Chalgrove coin shows that they are die-identical. Since the more recently discovered Chalgrove coin was undisturbed and examined in a controlled setting, it is considered authentic. The controversial Cleons coin is now thought to be authentic, also.

This numismatic evidence has forced historians to add the name of Domitianus to the list of unsuccessful usurpers in the Romano-Gallic Empire. Like many usurpers and outlaws in Roman history, Domitianus is poorly documented. Two coins, however, at least help to confirm the existence in AD 271 of this mysterious usurper.


guy also known as gaius


Here is a good article on the subject:


http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/coin/index.html

 

Edited October 8, 2022 by guy

[sonic]

The third century of the Roman Empire is the least documented, most poorly understood, and the most confusing period of the Roman Empire. It includes my favourite period of Roman history to study: from AD 235 (the death of Severus Alexander) to AD 284 (the ascension of Diocletian).

 

The third century was a period of instability. It can be characterized by a near fatal array of diverse and destructive pressures. These included a devastating plague, numerous barbarian invasions, a lethal and aggressive Sassanian Empire, multiple rebellious and rogue generals, several civil wars, economic disruptions, the persecution of the Jesus movement, and a seemingly endless and confusing succession of emperors and usurpers who almost always died violently.

 

Despite the century

[barca]

As bad as things were, there was no imminent end to the empire on the horizon as there was in the 5th century. It was only after the crisis and "recovery" that things really fell beyond repair.

[Artimi]

As bad as things were, there was no imminent end to the empire on the horizon as there was in the 5th century. It was only after the crisis and "recovery" that things really fell beyond repair.

 

 

Curious question, that popped into my mind after your sentences.

 

Are countries/empires born with the seeds of their ends. I am not sure if this has been asked before, either here or at forums-

[guy]

Thank you everyone for reading my post.

Although I'm not a coin collector, I respect the work of numismatists in helping us to understand the past. Nowhere is the work of Ancient Roman numismatists more important than shedding light on the confusing, poorly-documented Third Century of Crisis.

The epigraphic evidence from the middle of the "Third Century of Crisis" is sparse. We lose the works of the reliable Cassio Dio after AD 229 during the reign of Severus Alexander. We are, therefore, forced to look more closely at the numismatic evidence.

Although I don't collect coins, I have needed to study the coins if I want a better understanding of this nebulous period of Roman history.

As an aside, I think Pat Southern, in her book Empress Zenobia, does an exceptional job using numismatic evidence to make her points.

Ian: I appreciate your use of numismatic evidence in the excellent book Stilicho: The Vandal Who Saved Rome. A single coin can sometimes convey an abstract concept better than several paragraphs.


 

 

As bad as things were, there was no imminent end to the empire on the horizon as there was in the 5th century. It was only after the crisis and "recovery" that things really fell beyond repair.

Barca: I disagree with your statement. I think the challenges and pressures on the Empire in the third century were as great as (if not greater than) those on the Empire in the early fifth century. The major difference, of course, was the skill and success of the leadership to meet those challenges.

For example, a feckless and incompetent Honorius in the fifth century was unwilling to even defend the city of Rome.

The third century had the benefit of many skilled and determined emperors. Without the successful reunification of the East by Aurelian during the depths of the Third Century of Crisis, for example, there might not have been an intact eastern portion of the Empire that was to survive as the Byzantine Empire for almost a thousand years after the collapse of the Western Empire.

Thanks, again, for reading,


guy also known as gaius

Edited November 29, 2016 by guy

[barca]

I think the challenges and pressures on the Empire in the third century were as great as (if not greater than) those on the Empire in the early fifth century. The major difference, of course, was the skill and success of the leadership to meet those challenges.

 

You may be right, but how can we really know how much more competent the 3rd century leaders were? As you pointed out, the 3rd century is one of the most poorly documented periods.

 

I agree that 5th century leaders such as Honorius were disgraceful, but there were also competent leaders such as Constantius and Majorian who tried to restore order, but ultimately failed.

[guy]

I think the challenges and pressures on the Empire in the third century were as great as (if not greater than) those on the Empire in the early fifth century. The major difference, of course, was the skill and success of the leadership to meet those challenges.

 

I agree that 5th century leaders such as Honorius were disgraceful, but there were also competent leaders such as Constantius and Majorian who tried to restore order, but ultimately failed.

 

Note the hedge in my statement: "early fifth century."

 

When Theodosius dies (AD 395), I feel that the Western Empire still had a great potential for lasting success and stability.

 

If Rome had a Stilicho (died 408) as emperor, instead of the worthless Honorius....

 

By the time of Aetius (died 454), however, Rome may have already been in a terminal death spiral and nothing could have saved her.

 

I will defer to Ian on this, however.

 

 

guy also known as gaius

[sonic]

I think the challenges and pressures on the Empire in the third century were as great as (if not greater than) those on the Empire in the early fifth century. The major difference, of course, was the skill and success of the leadership to meet those challenges.

 

I agree that 5th century leaders such as Honorius were disgraceful, but there were also competent leaders such as Constantius and Majorian who tried to restore order, but ultimately failed.

 

Note the hedge in my statement: "early fifth century."

 

When Theodosius dies (AD 395), I feel that the Western Empire still had a great potential for lasting success and stability.

 

If Rome had a Stilicho (died 408) as emperor, instead of the worthless Honorius....

 

By the time of Aetius (died 454), however, Rome may have already been in a terminal death spiral and nothing could have saved her.

 

I will defer to Ian on this, however.

 

 

guy also known as gaius

 

Gee thanks Guy: no pressure then!

 

I think there may be some major differences between the periods under discussion.

 

As has been pointed out, in the third century a series of competent emperors - however short lived - managed to slowly piece the Empire back together again, both physically and mentally. After the 'Third Century Crisis' the majority of the Empire was happy enough - or scared of the emperor enough! - to continue to be 'productive citizens', paying taxes, supplying recruits for the army, and refraining from rebellion in any of its forms - although usurpations and cicil war did continue, especially during the 'reign' of Constantine and his sons. In addition, the barbarian invasions of the third century, although devastating, did not fundamentally damage the Empire's social and economic base as no permanent settlements were made, except on the Empire's terms. Furthermore, although the Empire had been riven by civil wars, the majority of the casualties were to be found in the army, which was often led in person by the emperor to face both internal and external enemies. Despite the constant usurpations, the Empire remained essentially united, with many of the differences between East and West being ignored. At the end of the century there was a feeling of renewal and confidence in the empire.

 

The fifth century is almost completely different. After the division of the empire between Valentinian and Valens the separation between East and West became an ever-growing division. This was not helped by the accession of two incompetent but relatively long-lived minors in 395 (Arcadius died in 408, Honorius in 423) and the succession of Theodosius II, who was not much of an improvement, in the East (408-450). The empire was not ruled 'jointly': instead, the two rival political courts generally dealt with each other in a hostile fashion - especially during the leadership of Stilicho in the West. Moreover, after Theodosius I's campaigns against the West, in effect the West was left to sort out its own problems without help from the East, again thanks largely to the policies of Stilicho in the West and his opponents in the East. Contrast this with events after the Battle of Adrianople in 378.

 

In addition, the barbarian 'invasions' of the West - especially the Goths in 401, and the Vandals, Alans and Sueves in 406 - resulted in large territories being lost for the purposes of taxation and army recruitment. When combined with the elite's withdrawal from military and political responsibility - especially in the paying of taxes and the supplying of recruits - the net result was the loss of the Western army and the growth of the 'Barbarian Kingdoms'. It is difficult to defeat an enemy in the long term when you are unwilling to take casualties in defeating him, relying instead on blockade and siege. Because they did not suffer from devastating casualties in war, the barbarian kingdoms were usually willing to re-open conflicts after only a short period of rest and renewal.

 

The growth of the barbarian kingdoms was helped by the desire of large segments of the population in Britain, Gaul and Spain to secede from a Roman rule which appeared to demand much in taxes but offered little in the way of protection from barbarian intruders, whether from outside or inside the Empire. Aetius was to spend a large part of his campaigning career putting down never-ending Bacaudic rebellions, a problem that was not on the same scale in the third century.

 

I hope this answers some of the questions!

 

Right, back to work - what was Valens doing in 370 .... ?

Edited February 8, 2012 by sonic

[sonic]

Ian: I appreciate your use of numismatic evidence in the excellent book Stilicho: The Vandal Who Saved Rome. A single coin can sometimes convey an abstract concept better than several paragraphs.

 

Thanks for the comment: it's much appreciated!

[guy]

I think there may be some major differences between the periods under discussion.

 

I hope this answers some of the questions!

 

Ian: Thank you for the thoughtful answer. I certainly have something to think about, now.

 

guy also known as gaius