Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

IslandChillin OP t1_ixj41xy wrote

"A hoard of gold coins once thought to be fakes have been authenticated by researchers who say the artefacts reveal a long-lost Roman emperor.

The coins bear the name and image of a shadowy historical figure, Sponsian, whose existence was previously placed in doubt by experts who suggested the coins were the work of sophisticated 18th-century fraudsters.

But a scientific analysis has concluded that the coins are genuine third-century artefacts, and the researchers make the case that Emperor Sponsian was also the real deal.

“We’re very confident that they’re authentic,” said Prof Paul Pearson, of University College London, who led the research. “Our evidence suggests Sponsian ruled Roman Dacia, an isolated goldmining outpost, at a time when the empire was beset by civil wars and the borderlands were overrun by plundering invaders.”

722

Svarthofde t1_ixjnwfe wrote

But was he an emperor if he ruled only Dacia Felix, especially if it happened during the crisis of the 3rd century? Zenobia minted gold coins with her son's likeness, but named him Caesar not Augustus, so even though he appeared on many coins in Parthia and Asia minor he was never emperor

365

SolomonBlack t1_ixl7ouo wrote

Once Julius got it started everyone with eyes on power in the Roman world would mint coins as propaganda tools. Brutus minted coins to commentate murdering Caesar with his face on one side and daggers on the reverse. And you could do this because the coins were struck… with a hammer. Anyone with reserves of metal could do it not just the emperor at some super secure mint.

Yet while being on denarii doesn’t make you emperor it is physical evidence you existed.

228

luke_in_geneq t1_ixm64sq wrote

Just curious, what would be the benefit of making coins other than propaganda? Or is there none?

36

harkat82 t1_ixm6pqw wrote

For the state theres an obvious advantage, coins are a lot easier to use than raw gold so there's a benefit to the economy (assuming you can stop them being debased). So that's why emperor's did it. But for your average oligarch it's mostly just propaganda (or maybe theres a coin shortage in their region).

27

The_Original_Gronkie t1_ixncebo wrote

Can you imagine Musk or Bezos minting their own coins and valuing them based on the current price if the metal? That seems like something that would get those guys off.

8

TTKnumberONE t1_ixoilyt wrote

Let me introduce you to the majority of cryptocurrencies

9

__Geg__ t1_ixmkd0k wrote

Coins were used to pay troops, that spent them in the territory the army traversed.

14

aphilsphan t1_ixmwb8x wrote

You run into the problem of differences in silver/gold/etc content, so in addition to the difference in price between gold and silver themselves, the weights and purity of coins varied. Rome was a very sophisticated place to have a monetized economy under those circumstances. A merchant had to have a keen eye and good scales. It’s should be no real surprise that the economy in the West reverted to barter eventually. Imagine having a bag of euro and dollars and kroner today without access to a computer to know their immediate value.

5

sighthoundman t1_ixnsqo6 wrote

The consensus (not always the same as the truth) is that coins were first minted as a guarantee of purity/honest weight of the precious metals. Of course the people doing this put their logo on the product.

There is some evidence that gold coins were ceasing to be currency and becoming a method of hoarding gold in the latter half of the 3rd century.

1

dat_underscore t1_ixk7ka0 wrote

Caesars were emperors, just of a lower, junior grade to Augustuses. And, during the third century there were many emperors that only controlled a small amount of territory. In fact, barely any had control over the full empire

97

ScoffSlaphead72 t1_ixkocgz wrote

This is actually where I believe we got the hierarchy for emperors and kings. As in an emperor of a region being above the local kings of the region. For example, Germany after unification was ruled by an Emperor (Kaiser) and he ruled over regional kings like the king of bavaria or Saxony. I am trying to think of a better example but the only other I can think of is the HRE.

62

MidniteMustard t1_ixkqnmr wrote

Japan had a similar setup with daimyos, shoguns, and the emperor.

Doubtful it's related to Rome, but still an interesting similarity.

41

phenomduck t1_ixkxydf wrote

It's not super surprising to have a similar system pop-up.

Ruler of one region defeats the other. The victor, in order to more easily control a larger region, leaves the defeated ruler locally in charge as long as they swear allegiance to the larger empire.

37

chineseduckman t1_ixl6k7o wrote

>as long as they swear allegiance

*pay massive amounts of money in taxes/tribute

29

francisdavey t1_ixlk3fu wrote

There was only one shogun (when there was any). The emperor > shogun relationship was not at all like emperor's relationship with kings or imperial subjects in the Holy Roman Empire for instance.

The shogun *nominally* ruled on behalf of the emperor but in fact the emperor was a ceremonial figure and had no actual power (except, perhaps, at the outset of the Ashikaga Shogunate, when there was what we might think of as a civil war between pro- and anti-Ashikaga factions, one of which was "imperial").

Sometimes the shogun was themselves a figurehead - eg during much of the Kamakura Bakufu when it was the Hojo regents that were actually in control or at least nominally so.

Daimyo are more complicated and a bit more like feudal subjects in the Reich sense. But only a bit.

14

Orngog t1_ixl5k5e wrote

What about Mesopotamia?

5

ColonialGovernor t1_ixla6oo wrote

I find the King and emperor relationship a good example. Just a twist with the Caesar is that i think it also implies succession. Maybe like a king and crown prince relationship.

5

Welshhoppo t1_ixlhphe wrote

Sometimes usurpers would call themselves Caesar to try and appease the ruling Emperor. "I'm not really after your job, I'm just helping you out see. I'm totally just a Caesar."

Although that was later under the Tetrarch when the distinction was made by Diocletian.

7

Ferengi_Earwax t1_ixmmbxs wrote

My names Brutus, I'm not trying to stab you, just trying to scratch your back. ;)

5

Ferengi_Earwax t1_ixmm4oe wrote

That isn't where that system originated. It goes back to the Persians, mycaneans, Egyptians, and nearly the whole civilized history of the near east. Probably the most recorded widespread Era of this was the middle to late bronze age. It was an ever changing patch work of large empires with their "kings of the world" imposing their authority over smaller kings of territories. The tradition goes back as far as the sumerians. Another example is when the hittite emperor writes to the mycanean king and calls him a "great king" and differentiates between that kings Control over his petty kings. The same can be seen between Egypt and the hittites in the treaty of kadesh.

4

ScoffSlaphead72 t1_ixmn6vv wrote

It's not where it originated but it's where the language and specific style of it in european monarchies came from.

3

LateInTheAfternoon t1_ixlwksn wrote

>Caesars were emperors, just of a lower, junior grade to Augustuses

Only after the reform of Diocletian, the so-called tetrarchy. Before the tetrarchy Caesar was reserved for the emperor and occasionally for his to be successor (from the time of Hadrian to the reign of Diocletian). Originally Caesar was used for all male members of the imperial family (Augustus to Hadrian). Since the coin is from before Diocletian, Caesar means that it refers to an emperor.

edit: rephrased the last sentence.

11

Regulai t1_ixliwlz wrote

So in the Roman era there wasn't necessarily a fixed pure title universally used to mean "emperor" as we think of it today as Emperors usually had multiple titles unique to them. In particular many titles including Imperator could often be granted to other individuals (though not always common) and the most important titles varied: Augustus, Princeps, Caeser, Imperator, Dominus. And let's not mention the greek ones.

An emperor of the US titled in the Roman way would be something like: "The Majestic Field Marshal President Biden Washington" (note no use of Emperor/king as Roman emperors pretended to be democratic)

Imperator (the actual title) originally meant something akin to "Field Marshal" today, that is "a high ranking military office". While it is the most closely associated to attaining real power, it would at times be granted to notable generals or other individuals and as a title of 'General' wouldn't have had the same sense of "king" that we think of Emperor today.

Augustus and Princeps were both more like "Majesty" and "Great" types of titles and likely conveyed more of a "kingly" nature.

Caeser, while initially of key importance, over time became associated with heir's and would eventually be the equivalent of "crown prince".

Dominus was later added by Diocletian to replace Princeps, with the meaning basically being "lord".

45

kesint t1_ixllduk wrote

Isn't it a bit wrong to say that Princeps are a majesty and kingly title? Augustus received the title Princeps civitatis which is first citizen, since Rex and Dictator would create resentment amongst the influential people.

12

Regulai t1_ixlna24 wrote

That's just the pretense to justify being granted a special title to circumvent the disliked rex. In actual practice "princeps" basically was conceived to indicate rulership as an alternative to rex and is essentially equivalent to rex.

Until it was eliminated, even if other titles were typically favoured, Princeps was the title that legally most indicated "the ruler of the empire" (it essentially meant that it was "right" for you to be in charge).

16

Myriachan t1_ixmuug3 wrote

“Imperator” means like, “one who commands” and so could be considered “commander”. I guess “imperator” in Latin and “commander” in English both have the connotation of military leader.

English “emperor” does come from “imperator”, but with significant semantic drift.

6

Regulai t1_ixn05xt wrote

Its a very indepth topic, but I chose field marshal because I feel it best captures the full intent of how the title was used.

Originally imperator was more of a mere description referring to anyone who holds imperium, but over time it started to be used as a specific title that would be acclaimed by high ranking men after great victories. And then under empire was highly restricted to essentially only the main leaders. Added note in roman society 'command' was a significant status with significant legal implications and not something to be viewed as just a "military leadership" role

The closest parable to this sense is the 5 star marshal rank, which is a supreme rank but is not a standard position but instead typically given as an honor after wars and victories to leaders of militaries. And in fact dictators often take field marshal as their key title for much of this reason.

2

IolausTelcontar t1_ixmb3p9 wrote

Commander in Chief is basically Imperator in the US.

4

Regulai t1_ixmlasz wrote

"General of the Army" (the 5 star rank equivalent to marshal) would actually be the closer parable. In the US the title is mostly only given out as a great honour particularly after victory/war.

Imperator similarly is an honor title granted for success. Many emperors would in fact be proclaimed imperator multiple times for major achievements they attained, as opposed to a simple title equivalent to head of the army.

9

Vladimir_Putting t1_ixl5zhq wrote

If you declare yourself an emperor, rule territory, and no one stops you... Aren't you an emperor?

16

Pokeputin t1_ixli9zb wrote

It depends what you mean by "emperor", if you go by historic definition of a ruler of several peoples, or you go by the "Roman" meaning of emperor, which meant ruler of the Roman Empire.

To fit the first definition you have to satisfy it's requirements, just calling yourself like that won't change anything.

To fit the second option you need to be the legitimate ruler of the Roman empire, and the "legitimate" is the tricky part of the question.

13

[deleted] t1_ixlqcll wrote

[deleted]

4

Vladimir_Putting t1_ixlr0os wrote

>I should also be noted that because of this the emperor of japan would not be an emperor until like the 19th century

Weren't there multiple peoples inhabiting the Japanese islands, under Imperial rule, before the 19th century?

The "Japanese" aren't completely homogeneous to my understanding.

2

Pokeputin t1_ixlskfc wrote

I don't think personal unions count because despite having same head of state the countries remain separate and act each in their own interest so effectively they don't have a single ruling power.

That's why for example The British Commonwealth isn't an empire despite the king of the UK being head of state in all those countries.

I guess it makes sense to say all peoples in an empire should be under the common title though, but I think it can be tricky to define because sometimes you have states that are under a title in name, but practically independent and vice versa.

2

Ferengi_Earwax t1_ixmng7a wrote

Queen Victoria was crowned empress of India. More as a title to flatter her, but its technically correct because she was the figured head monarch of distinct countries/peoples.

2

Pokeputin t1_ixmphcv wrote

I was talking about the current British Commonwealth, during Queen Victoria Britain was obviously an Empire.

2

Ferengi_Earwax t1_ixmn78i wrote

The term emperor usually means you rule over various different lands and semi autonomous regions as an overlord. Even if you look at the tetrarchy, each of the emperors ruled over multiple provinces, with their Caesar being their number 2, and sometimes ruling over the lesser parts of that regions. Pretty much after the fall of rome, the term emperor returned to meaning "leader of the world".

2

wygrif t1_ixmviws wrote

I mean, Wikipedia lists shlubs like the son of Magnus Maximus as legit Augusti, so I think the standard for who counts is "did you claim it, have territory, and a army"

2

Mech-Waldo t1_ixnp527 wrote

Assuming that they're fake because we don't know who Sponsian was is silly. If you're gonna counterfeit a bunch of ancient gold coins, why would you make up an emperor who never existed?

1