The Gallic and Palmyrene Empires appear as significant components of the so-called Crisis of the Third Century.1 Notions of tradition were used by individual regents of both separatist states in the representation and political organization of their reign by adapting behaviours, idea(l)s, and institutions, which were already well-established in the central Empire. In doing so, they attempted to justify and simultaneously stabilize their usurped rule when they addressed their subjects, among whom members of the army and local elites as well as parts of the urban populations played a decisive role.2 The strategy of adapting existing notions of successful rulership resulted in complex and sometimes experimental expressions of imperial ideology and in some instances leaned into the realm of so-called ‘invented traditions’ as coined by E. Hobsbawm and T. Ranger.3
The present contribution asks what role the use of ‘tradition’ played for the stabilization and legitimization of usurped rule in the Gallic and Palmyrene Empires, how it was expressed and what its limitations were. In addition, it will examine to what extent specific expectations of parts of the imperial population were met through the continuation of selected public traditions in both realms. These goals will be realized through an in-depth analysis of documentary sources, among which coins and inscriptions are of greatest significance. The evidence will be supplemented by a critical study of literary sources, such as the Historiae abbreviatae by Aurelius Victor or the (infamous) Historia Augusta, despite the problems associated with these texts when studying the history of the Roman Empire between 235–284 CE.4 The present case study will first focus on the organization of public institutions of the Gallic Empire as well as on the representation of its rulers on coins. In a second part, the paper will examine the reign of the rulers of the Palmyrene Empire, especially regarding their imperial titles and their relationship to local civic communities. A brief comparison between the two realms will bring the analysis to an end, followed by a conclusion about the use of tradition and its impacts on the stability of separatist realms, which differed greatly from one another in spatial, political, and cultural terms.
1 Notions of Tradition in the Gallic Empire
The name Imperium Galliarum is a modern term for the separatist state that existed from 260–274, based on a passage in Eutropius on the reign of Victorinus (269–271).5 The Historia Augusta depicts its rulers as defenders of the Roman Empire (adsertores Romani nominis), thereby mockingly criticizing Gallienus for his lack of military achievements.6 At the peak of its power under Postumus (260–269) the separatist state controlled the territory of the Roman provinces Germania superior, Germania inferior, Raetia, and possibly the Alpine provinces as well as all regions of Gallia, Britannia, and Hispania (Figure 14.1).7 Its history began with the violent usurpation of Postumus after disputes with Saloninus, Gallienus’ son, and the praefectus praetorio Silvanus in Colonia Claudia Ara Agrippinensium (modern Cologne) due to unsolved conflicts about the distribution of loot.8 The revolt was not only supported by the military but also by many of Gaul’s senators. It can be assumed that local elites wanted the presence of their own imperial leader in situ, so that he could deal with the impending military threats directly. This may be related to the imminent danger of attacking barbarians at the Empire’s borders, as hinted at in the Historia Augusta.9 Furthermore, members of these elites wished perhaps to interact directly with their emperor in Gaul and subsequently deal with local and regional matters especially with regard to administrative and jurisdictional matters without detours via Rome. The emergence of the Imperium Galliarum can thus perhaps also be understood as a consequence of the gradual formation of specific “Gallic” interests and needs, which differed from the ones of the central Empire.10
Map of the Gallic Empire at the peak of its power under Postumus (258–268 CE)
by author
Remarkably, Postumus limited himself to exercising power only in the West, thus preventing the outbreak of an open civil war between him and Gallienus. His decision may have been prompted by internal political instabilities that had first to be overcome, a relative lack of military strength of the separatist realm compared to the central Empire or continued attacks by Germanic gentes, which tied his own troops to the Empire’s northern frontier.11 After a comparably long rule, Postumus was killed by his soldiers near Mogontiacum (modern Mainz) in spring 269. After that, the Gallic Empire became more and more unstable. Finally, in the fall of 273 Aurelian set out to reconquer the Empire’s West, having already succeeded in doing so in the East. The decisive battle took place in February or March 274 near modern Châlons-sur-Marne. After that, the Imperium Galliarum ceased to exist, as its provinces once again came under control of the central government in Italy.12
Regarding structures of government and administration, there were many attempts to either continue or at least mirror traditional political institutions of the central Empire.13 Military significant provinces of the Imperium Galliarum, whose boundaries and divisions remained unchanged to our knowledge, were administrated by governors from the senatorial order: the vir clarissimus Octavius Sabinus acted as praeses Britanniae inferioris between 261/262–266.14 The beneficiarius legati legionis Mascellio and the immunis legati Augusti pro praetore Germaniae inferioris Iulius Lupulus both served under an unnamed vir consularis, who acted as governor of the lower Germanic province between 261/262–266.15 This is remarkable insofar as senators played only a minor role in governing provinces with military significance under Gallienus,16 hinting at a symbiotic relationship between Postumus and the senatorial elite of his Empire and perhaps at the comparatively strong standing of Gaul’s senators in general. Regarding its provincial administration, the Imperium Galliarum thus appears to have been even more traditional than the central Empire. In addition, it had its own consuls, as we know from epigraphic evidence:17
It is possible that Gaul’s senators met in Cologne, which perhaps functioned as a temporary imperial center,18 to form a notables’ assembly in reminiscence and imitation of Rome’s senate, without, however, ever officially bearing the name ‘senatus’ of the Gallic Empire.19 As for the possible origins of such a body, M. Christol pointed out that there existed a public council already under Gallienus and Saloninus in Cologne.20 Starting with Postumus, this convention could have conferred powers and corresponding titles to the emperor, advised him, and served as a pool for suitable candidates for leading functions in the Imperium Galliarum. At first, the assembly probably served only in a transitional manner to support Postumus’ claims to power, but later as a more stable institution of the separatist state.21 It was likely the same body of senators that decided about the divinization of Victorinus.22 The assembly probably also conferred imperial titles to Postumus, who is known as Imperator Caesar M. Cassianus Latinius Postumus pius felix invictus Augustus, pontifex maximus, holder of the tribunicia potestas, consul, pater patriae and proconsul.23 In accepting these titles, Postumus presented himself as a regular ruler of a legitimate state with all the encompassing political powers and authority. On December 10, 261, the honorific Germanicus Maximus was added for the first time, thereby showing him as a successful defender of Gaul from invading Germanic gentes in 260 and 261.24 Quite naturally, Postumus’ successors presented themselves with similar titles.25 In addition, a praetorian guard was established in Treveris (modern Trier), thus copying yet another well-established institution from the central Empire.26
Finally, the continuation of road building projects and their upkeep as well as the construction and re-use of milestones – often with traditional Celtic leuga for informing travellers about distances to their next destination – remained important projects for the stability of the Gallic Empire and allowed emperors to represent their own rule publicly. While Postumus was primarily active in this regard in Britain, the central and the eastern parts of modern France as well as Spain, his successor Victorinus focused on Britain and the northern parts of Gallia while Tetricus I and Tetricus II primarily looked after the western parts of France.27
After Postumus’ rebellion against Rome, the Imperium Galliarum was largely cut off from the influx of freshly minted coins. This forced him and his successors to produce their own coinage, for instance, to pay their soldiers. The process of coin production was conceived as a process of intensive negotiations between the emperor and his advisors, as well as those individuals active in the minting sites. Against this backdrop, it was not uncommon for the choice of subjects, especially regarding the portrait of the emperor, to fall back on earlier examples and to subsequently develop new forms depending on political intentions, artistic skill and contemporary tastes.28
The mints of the Gallic Empire were located in Trier, Cologne, probably Mainz, and temporarily in Milan.29 Note that it is still a matter of discussion whether Cologne or Trier served as the main mint of the Empire.30 Coin portraits of individual emperors produced characteristic features that must be studied in detail for each ruler, especially regarding the question of the significance of tradition for the staging of political power. It can be assumed that the design of coins in general and of imperial portraits in particular were carefully deliberated between each regent and the mint masters, thereby at first consciously reverting to already existing modes of representation. This becomes clear when examining Postumus’ coins, whose depiction differs strongly from that of earlier soldier emperors (Figure 14.2a): we recognize a snub nose, a domed forehead, fleshy cheeks, hair divided into strands, that reaches his neck, and a full beard tapering to a point. This representation is understood by D. Boschung as a deliberate and direct reference to the Antonine rulers and to Septimius Severus in particular.31 B. Berressem, though, argues that Postumus actively adapted Gallienus’ portraits (Figure 14.2b), who in turn had based his own portrayal on the style of the Antonines and Severans.32 Competitive interactions between the two rulers are also reflected in their dealings with the representation of deities and abstract personifications on coins, which is of particular importance in the case of Hercules, as E. Manders and O. Hekster point out.33 In doing so, both Postumus and Gallienus attempted to distance themselves from earlier soldier emperors, such as Maximinus Thrax, and to emphasize a return to the state’s former glory.
Obverse of antoninianus of Postumus, 260–268 CE, Lyon (RIC V Postumus 75 or 315). Image: Clothed and armoured bust of Postumus with radiate crown, facing to the right. Legend: IMP C POSTVMVS P F AVG
Courtesy Münzkabinett der Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Archäologisches Institut, Photo Stephan Eckardt
14.2b Obverse antoninianus of Gallienus, 258–259 CE, Lyon (RIC V Gallienus (joint reign) 56). Image: Armoured bust of Gallienus with radiate crown, facing the right side. Inscription: GALLIENVS P F AVG
Courtesy of Münzkabinett der Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Archäologisches Institut, Photo Stephan Eckardt
Obverse of denarius of Laelianus, 269 CE, Trier (RIC V Laelianus 6). Image: Armoured bust of Laelianus facing the right side with radiate crown and cuirass. Inscription: IMP C LAELAINVS P F AVG
Courtesy of Münzkabinett Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien
Obverse of denarius of Marius, 269 CE, Cologne (RIC V Marius 6). Image: Armoured bust of Marius facing the right side with radiate crown and cuirass. Inscription: IMP C MARIVS P F AVG
Courtesy of Münzkabinett Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien
Obverse of denarius of Claudius II Gothicus, 268 CE, Rome (RIC V Claudius Gothicus 13). Image: Armoured bust of Claudius II Gothicus facing the right side with radiate crown and cuirass. Inscription: IMP C CLAVDIVS P F AVG
Courtesy of Münzkabinett Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien
Obverse of antoninianus of Victorinus, 269–271 CE, Cologne (RIC V Victorinus 117). Image: Armoured bust of Victorinus facing the right side with radiate crown and cuirass. Incsription: IMP C PIAV VIC[TOR]INVS P F AVG
Courtesy of Münzkabinett der Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Archäologisches Institut, Photo Stephan Eckardt
Subsequently, Postumus’ coinage influenced his successors since it allowed them to present their own identity as emperors in the context of already adapted traditions of the central empire. Accordingly, the usurper Laelianus appears to have continued the style of imperial representation established under Postumus (Figure 14.2c). Note, however, that in his case there was no time for fundamental adjustments of the imperial portrayal since he ruled for only a few months in 269.34 Iconographic differences between Marius (269) and his predecessors are then again striking (Figure 14.2d). Although the profile line and the general treatment of the hair around the emperor’s forehead still reminisce of Postumus’ and Laelianus’ portraits, Marius’ general hairstyle and his beard deviate strongly from them. It seems that he oriented himself towards Claudius II Gothicus (Figure 14.2e), who himself sought to distance himself from Gallienus. Marius’ representation on coins was therefore inspired by developments in the central Empire, thereby participating in contemporary trends in Roman ruler iconography. However, by retaining basic physiognomic features of Postumus’ iconography, he also placed himself within the same line of tradition founded by the first emperor of the Imperium Galliarum.35 The portrait of Victorinus (269–271) should be interpreted as a reference to the portrait of Postumus as well, due to the abundant hairstyle and the shape of the beard (Figure 14.2f).36 Postumus’ depiction had thus become a focal point of formal identification for the rulers of the Imperium Galliarum. Tetricus (271–274), too, embraced this by now traditional form of imperial representation, thus presenting himself as a true successor to Postumus and as a legitimate ruler of the Gallic Empire. Regarding forms of imperial representation on coins, a new pictorial standard had therefore been established towards the end of the Empire’s existence, which differed significantly from those of the central Empire.37
Also on the reverse of their coins, the emperors of the Imperium Galliarum for the most part used traditional themes and legends. There are, however, instances when specific local and regional identities were emphasized, as highlighted by L. Claes.38 This can be seen, for instance, on an antoninianus from Postumus, depicting on its reverse a personification of the river Rhine, with the inscription Salus provinciarum.39 This refers to the intended protection of the provinces of Gallia and Germania against invading forces as well as to their hoped prosperity under Postumus’ dominion. Other coins depict the emperor as restorer of the Gallic provinces (restitutor Galliarum).40 In addition, Postumus focused on messages concerning political Concordia, military Fides, imperial Laetitia and Salus as well as Victoria and Virtus of the emperor, thereby emphasizing his ties to the military and reacting to expected prospects of general prosperity under his leadership. Regarding the gods, he most often was associated with Hercules as well as Jupiter and – to a lesser extent – with Minerva and Neptune. The most important deity for Postumus, Hercules, also referred to local religious traditions, such as the cult of Hercules Deusoniensis, who appeared on his coins as an athletic man armed with a club and wearing a lion’s skin.41 The choice of Hercules Deusoniensis allowed Postumus to express military prowess (virtus) and to react to local cults, by incorporating its protagonists in his idealized public imagery. This made him not only an ideal Roman ruler in times of military unrest, but also an emperor of and for the people of Gaul in particular. His portrayal was thus oriented on the one hand towards the central Roman iconography of emperors. On the other hand, it offered notions of legitimation based on local (religious) traditions.
Surprisingly, Postumus’ successors were hardly associated with local cults. Victorinus often had themes minted on his coins that created a connection between him and his empire’s legions. Additionally, there are representations of the Pax, Salus, Victoria and Virtus Augusti.42 The coins of Tetricus and his son also had no room for specific local identities of the Gallic Empire.43 The reasons for these developments are not clear and must therefore remain hypothetical. It is possible that Postumus had a personal connection to the cult of Hercules Deusoniensis, which he emphasized accordingly in his imperial representation. Furthermore, rulers after him were possibly less keen on highlighting local traits of Gaul to justify their government and instead sought to present themselves as emperors within the framework of already established numismatic typological repertoires. Tetricus in particular might have been interested in staging himself together with his son in order to stress the dynastic notion of his rulership.
2 Notions of Tradition in the Palmyrene Empire
The Palmyrene Empire was a short-lived separate state that existed from 270–273 CE. Named after its capital city, Palmyra, it briefly controlled the provinces of Syria Palaestina, Arabia, and Aegyptus, as well as parts of Asia Minor (Figure 14.3) and was led by Septimius Vaballathus and his mother Septimia Zenobia, the wife of Septimius Odaenathus. Due to his military experience, the latter became exarch of Palmyra and was incorporated into the Roman senate in the middle of the third century CE.44 Under his command, the city prevailed against Persian attacks in 257/258. He was subsequently honoured as vir consularis,45 meaning that he officially served as Rome’s governor of Syria Phoenice.
Map of the area of influence of the Palmyrene Empire (270–273 CE)
by author
After the capture of Valerian I, the usurpers Quietus and Macrianus rebelled against Gallienus in Syria. Odaenathus nominally remained loyal to the emperor and defeated both insurgents in 261. In recognition of his achievements, he received the titles dux Romanorum, imperator, and corrector totius Orientis, thus strengthening his position in Syria as an imperial representative.46 While the conferring of the consular title is to be considered an outstanding, though not unusual and to a certain extent even traditional, honorific practice during the Principate, the bestowal of the latter positions is sensational and highlights the exceptionally strong position of Odaenathus. In addition, he accepted the titles râs Tadmor (prince of Palmyra) and rex regum, which mirrored the Persian titulature shahanshah (king of kings).47
Following his death in 267, Odaenathus was succeeded by his minor son with Zenobia, the ten-year-old Vaballathus, who inherited his father’s titles, i.e., rex regum, corrector totius Orientis and probably also that of dux Romanorum. Under the guidance of his mother Zenobia, he rapidly conquered most of the Roman East in 270, subsequently taking the title imperator, while his mother was proclaimed clarissima pia regina.48 A bilingual inscription from Palmyra in Greek and Semitic Palmyrene from July/August 271 is of interest in this context. It shows the commanders Septimius Zabdas and Septimius Zabbaios honoring their queen (
The almost word-for-word concordance between the two texts is remarkable, starting – unsurprisingly – with the names of the honoured (
The effort to address different groups, whose support was relevant for Vaballathus’ government, is also found in the ruler’s pastiched titulature: on papyri and milestones between 270–271 he appears as vir clarissimus rex consul imperator dux Romanorum (“
Obverse and reverse of denarius of Aurelian, 270–271 CE, Antioch (RIC V Aurelian 381). Obverse image: Armoured bust of Aurelian facing the right side with radiate crown and cuirass. Obverse legend: IMP C AVRELIANVS AVG. Reverse image: Armoured bust of Vaballathus facing the right side with laurel wreath. Reverse legend: VABALATHVS VCRIMDR
Courtesy of Courtesy of Münzkabinett Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien
In presenting himself in such a manner, Vaballathus consciously merged aspects of traditional Hellenistic kingship with his extraordinary position as Rome’s representative in Syria, while simultaneously blurring the boundaries between his own position and that of Aurelian, without, however, placing himself clearly above the latter. With the title rex (regum) he primarily addressed his own subjects, while the mention and depiction of Aurelian should convince the central Empire that its supremacy was still accepted by its Palmyrene allies. Furthermore, Vaballathus legitimized his rule before Roman officials and legions by using Roman titles like imperator and dux Romanorum. It can also be assumed that the Palmyrene Empire, like the Imperium Galliarum, attempted to imitate traditional political institutions of the central Empire. Whether this included the creation of a notables’ assembly in Palmyra, for instance, which functioned as a board for the legitimization of and for political advice for the young emperor and his mother, must remain hypothetical. It is clear, though, that Vaballathus acted as a traditional builder and took care of the realm’s infrastructure, as various milestone findings in the region clearly indicate.
The military situation changed drastically in March and April 272, when Aurelian prepared his conquest of Palmyra. Against this backdrop, Zenobia and Vaballathus were forced to usurp the imperial power for themselves, thus directly opposing Aurelian. Vaballathus appears now as a traditional emperor: papyri, coins, and inscriptions show him as Imperator Caesar L. Iulius Aurelius Septimius Vaballathus Athenodorus Persicus maximus Arabicus maximus Adiabenicus maximus pius felix invictus Augustus, while his mother is presented as Septimia Zenobia Augusta.56 However, there was no time for a complete consolidation of their claim to imperial power in the East due to Aurelian’s rapid military successes.57 While we can observe the formation of political and representative structures in the Imperium Galliarum until its downfall in 274 based on local (religious) realities and already well-established political and military practices of the central Empire, the Palmyrene Empire was still in the early stages of adapting Roman traditions of government and imperial self-representation against the backdrop of its own heritage and public structures of government. There was apparently not enough time between 270–272 for a fully realized formation and portrayal of a stand-alone political and cultural identity of the young separatist state, the basis for which was created by Odaenathus’ victories against the Persians.
3 Conclusion: Comparing Notions of Tradition in the Gallic and Palmyrene Empires
Emperors of the Gallic Empire were concerned with appearing as legitimate rulers and as true protectors of the Roman world against invading Germanic forces. Adherence to traditional structures of government and administration proved to be a useful tool for achieving this goal and to additionally create stability for their usurped reign. Furthermore, it masked their radical insurrections against the central Empire with which they constantly competed and which they simultaneously tried to mirror as much as possible. In doing so, these emperors were not mere vassals of Rome but claimed (temporary) sovereignty in the territories they controlled as saviours of the Imperium Romanum. By merging well-established forms of government and imperial self-representation with local traditions, they also responded to specific Gallic needs and interests as well as to regional (cult) practices and expectations regarding imperial representation. Of fundamental importance was Postumus’ reign, which created the foundation for subsequent successful portrayals of Gaul’s emperors, thus contributing to the establishment of new traditions in the Imperium Galliarum.
Initially, Palmyra’s rule in the Near East began at the behest of Valerian and Galienus after Odaenathus defended Rome’s borders against the Sasanids. The following years saw the establishment of Odaenathus’ reign in Syria based on his military victories and his charismatic leadership, which found its expression in the assumption of the title rex regum, while he retained all Roman positions with Gallienus’ approval. The inheritance of many titles and functions by Vaballathus was an important step towards the formation of an adapted form of Hellenistic kingship in Syria with corresponding dynastic concepts in mind. Zenobia and Vaballathus initially acted under the guise of providing stability in the East on behalf of the central Empire. After 270, however, the situation escalated, resulting in a possibly rushed attempt to establish a new imperial dynasty by force. The claim to rule as an independent leader in the East is clearly illustrated by Vaballathus’ assumption of the titles Imperator and Augustus. Palmyra thus saw the early stages of a fusion of various ruling traditions based on models of Hellenistic kingship as well as Roman, Persian and specifically local notions of successful leadership. Due to Aurelian’s military successes, however, it was not possible to firmly establish a finalized amalgam of these varying traditions of rule.
Adhering to traditions allowed the rulers of both separatist states to defend their usurped claims to power on an ideological level at least for some time. It resulted in a temporary stabilization of their reign, which in turn served to secure contested boundaries of the Imperium Romanum. While the Gallic Empire succeeded in establishing its own traditions on the borders towards the Germanic Barbaricum, Palmyra was still in the process of creating independent traditions of rulership in its precarious position between Rome and Persia when it was subjugated by Aurelian.
This leads to final remarks on the limitations of the use of traditions in terms of securing imperial power, since for successful and long-term rule, the firm control over public structures of government and administration as well as the army were in fact much more important: as is known, Tetricus and his son as well as Zenobia and Vaballathus were defeated by Aurelian in war, regardless of their ideological positions and adaptive imitations of traditional notions of imperial power. Even if the Gallic and Palmyrene Empires quickly vanished as a consequence of Aurelian’s victories, they were remembered, though, by subsequent generations also because they contributed to the preservation of the Imperium Romanum when the central Empire was arguably weakened.
On the emergence, significance and impact of the Imperium Galliarum and the Palmyrene Empire see I. König, Die gallischen Usurpatoren von Postumus bis Tetricus. Vestigia 31 (Munich 1981); J.F. Drinkwater, The Gallic Empire. Historia Einzelschriften 52 (Stuttgart 1987); R.J. Bourne, Aspects of the Relationship between the Central and Gallic Empires in the Mid to Late Third Century and with Special Reference to Coinage Studies (Oxford 2001); U. Hartmann, Das palmyrenische Teilreich. Oriens et Occidens 2 (Stuttgart 2001); U. Hartmann, ‘Das palmyrenische Teilreich’, in: K.-P. Johne, U. Hartmann, T. Gerhardt, eds., Die Zeit der Soldatenkaiser I (Berlin 2008), 343–378; A. Luther, ‘Das gallische Sonderreich’, in: Johne, Hartmann, Gerhardt 2008, op. cit. (n. 1); 325–341; T. Fischer, ed., Die Krise des 3. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. und das Gallische Sonderreich. ZAKMIRA-Schriften 8 (Wiesbaden 2012).
E. Flaig, Den Kaiser herausfordern. Die Usurpation im Römischen Reich (Frankfurt am Main/ New York 2019, 2nd ed.).
E. Hobsbawm, T. Ranger, eds., The Invention of Tradition (Cambridge 1983), i.e., alleged traditions constructed in their respective present but projected back into a presumed past as conscious creations to fulfill strategic functions within the context of contemporary political and military deliberations.
On the problems connected to the study of the history of both separatist states based on literary sources alone, see, for instance, Hartmann 2001, op. cit. (n. 1), 17–39; B. Manuwald, ‘Das Gallische Sonderreich in literarischen Quellen’, in: Fischer 2012, op. cit. (n. 1), 13–27.
Eutr., 9.9.3: Victorinus postea Galliarum accepit imperium, vir strenuissimus. The most recent overview over modern scholarship is presented by Eck, ‘Stand der Forschung’, in: Fischer 2012, op. cit. (n. 1), 63–83.
HA Trig. tyr. 5.5. On Gallienus and the military, see also De Blois in this volume, pp. 229–240.
Eck 2012, op. cit. (n. 5), 69–70.
Aur. Vict., Caes. 33.8, Eutr., 9.9, Zos., 1,38,2, Zon., 12.24.
HA trig. tyr. 3.3.
König 1981, op. cit. (n. 1), 53–57; Drinkwater 1987, op. cit. (n. 1), 239–256.
K. Dietz, ‘Zum Kampf zwischen Gallienus und Postumus’, in: Fischer 2012, op. cit. (n. 1), 29–62.
A. Watson, Aurelian and the Third Century (London – New York 1999), 89–98; E. Cizek, L’empereur Aurélien et son temps (Paris 2004, 2nd ed.), 117–122.
R. Ziegler, ‘Rom und die Germanen am Niederrhein zur Zeit der Reichskrise des dritten Jahrhunderts n. Chr.’, in: D. Geuenich, ed., Kulturraum Niederrhein, Bd. 1 (Essen 1996), 11–26.
CIL VII 287 = RIB 605 = ILS 2548 (Lancaster).
AE 1930, 35 (Bonn).
On the political appointment of senators under Gallienus see L. De Blois, The Policy of the Emperor Gallienus (Leiden 1976), 57–82. Also see De Blois in this volume, pp. 229–240.
Eck 2012, op. cit. (n. 5), 70–72.
See Luther 2008, op. cit. (n. 1), 339–340, who also emphasizes, however, that the Imperium Galliarum had no official capital as far as we know.
Luther 2008, op. cit. (n. 1), 340–341. Compare Eck 2012, op. cit. (n. 5), 72–73, who rightfully remains sceptical that such an assembly was ever treated as a senate in its own right. König 1981, op. cit. (n. 1), 187 argues in a similar fashion.
M. Christol, ‘Réfléxions sur le provincialisme galloromain’, in: Instituto de Estudios de Administración Local, ed., Centralismo y descentralización (Madrid 1985), 95–96.
Ziegler 1996, op. cit. (n. 13), 20; R. Ziegler, ‘Kaiser Tetricus und der senatorische Adel’, Tyche 18 (2003), 230–231.
D. Kienast, W. Eck, and M. Heil, Römische Kaisertabelle (Darmstadt 2017, 6th ed.), 237.
See, for instance, CIL VII 1161 = CIL VII 1162; CIL XVII 1, 85; 202; CIL XVII 2, 150; 331; 334; 464; 491; 538; 615; AE 2002, 1061; AE 2004, 983. By tradition, the senate’s approval legitimized an emperor’s claim to power through a formal investiture. This remains true despite the fact that almost every imperial decision-maker was de facto designated by his predecessor or acted as an usurper backed by military power, see R. Talbert, The Senate of Imperial Rome (Princeton 1984), 354. The fact that the emperor was formally granted his powers by the senate becomes clear, for instance, when studying the lex de imperio Vespasiani (CIL VI 930 = CIL VI 31207 = ILS 244; Tac., Hist. 4,3,3), which likely preserves parts of a senatus consultum passed to recognize Vespasian at Rome in December 69 CE as legitime ruler of the Roman Empire, see P. Brunt, Lex de imperio Vespasiani, JRS 67 (1977), 95–116; A. Pabst, ‘“… ageret faceret quaecumque e re publica censeret esse” Annäherung an die lex de imperio Vespasiani’, in: W. Dahleim, ed., Festschrift für Robert Werner zu seinem 65. Geburstag. Xenia 22 (Konstanz 1989), 125–148; L. Capogrossi Colognesi, E. Tassi Scandone, eds., La “Lex de imperio Vespasiani” e la Roma dei Flavi. Atti del convegno, 20–22 novembre 2008. Acta Flaviana 1 (Rome 2009). It is possible that the mentioned notables’ assembly played a similar role in the Gallic Empire, thereby legitimizing their emperors’ claims to rule.
Kienast, Eck, Heil 2017, op.cit (n. 22), 235.
Kienast, Eck, Heil, op. cit. (n. 22), 236–240.
See CIL XIII 3679 = ILS 563 (Trier); CIL XIII 8267a–b = AE 2014, 907 (Cologne).
Bourne 2001, op. cit. (n. 1), 19–24.
J. Wienand, ‘Der Kaiser als Sieger. Metamorphosen triumphaler Herrschaft unter Constantin I’, Klio. Beiträge zur Alten Geschichte. Beihefte. Neue Folge 19 (Berlin 2012), 43–57; J. Mairat, The Coinage of the Gallic Empire, unpublished PhD thesis in two volumes, University of Oxford 2014, I, 148–152.
See Mairat 2014, op. cit. (n. 28), I, 23–50 on the topic. The author prefers Trier to be seen as the Empire’s main mint.
G. Elmer, ‘Die Münzprägung der gallischen Kaiser von Postumus bis Tetricus in Köln, Trier und Mailand’, Bonner Jahrbücher 146 (1941), 1–106; J. Lafaurie, ‘L’Empire gaulois. Apport de la numismatique’, in: H. Temporini, ed., ANRW II 2 (Berlin – New York 1975), 853–1012; B. Schulte, Die Goldprägung der gallischen Kaiser von Postumus bis Tetricus (Aarau 1983); Drinkwater 1987, op. cit. (n. 1), 132–147; H.-J. Schulzki, Die Antoninianprägung der gallischen Kaiser von Postumus bis Tetricus (AGK). Antiquitas 3,35 (Bonn 1996); Bourne 2001, op. cit. (n. 1), 25–29; Mairat 2014, op. cit. (n. 28), I. For the coin production in Trier see Bourne 2001, op. cit. (n. 1), 30–31; W. Knickrehm, Offizielle und lokale Münzprägestätten des Gallischen Sonderreiches in und um Trier (Trier 2014).
D. Boschung, ‘Zur Portraitdarstellung der Kaiser des Gallischen Sonderreichs’, in: Fischer 2012, op. cit. (n. 1), 88–95. On the iconographic depiction of Postumus see also Mairat 2014, op. cit. (n. 28), I, 52–78; 103–152.
B.N. Berressem, Repräsentation der Soldatenkaiser. Philippika 122 (Wiesbaden 2018), 264–266.
O. Hekster – E. Manders, ‘Kaiser gegen Kaiser’, in: K.-P. Johne, T. Gerhardt and U. Hartmann, eds., Deleto paene imperio Romano (Stuttgart 2006), 141; E. Manders, Coining Images of Power. IMEM 15 (Leiden/Boston 2012), 113–114. See also M. Horster, ‘The emperor’s family on coins (third century)’, in: O. Hekster, G. de Kleijn, D. Slootjes, eds., Crises and the Roman Empire (Leiden – Boston 2007), 300–302.
Mairat 2014, op. cit. (n. 28), I, 79–80.
Mairat 2014, op. cit. (n. 28), I, 80–82.
Mairat 2014, op. cit. (n. 28), I, 82–85.
Mairat 2014, op. cit. (n. 28), I, 86–95, 153–197; Berressem 2018, op. cit. (n. 32), 267–278.
L. Claes, ‘Coins with power?’, Jaarboek voor Munt- en Penningkunde 102 (2015), 24–41.
RIC V 2, 87. Mairat 2014, op. cit. (n. 28), I, 104–105.
RIC V 2, 82.
RIC Supp. 91. G. Moitreux, Hercules in Gallia (Paris 2002), 261–262 (see also the discussion in O. Hekster, ‘Gallic images of Hercules’, Journal of Roman Archaeology 17 [2004], 674); Mairat 2014, op. cit. (n. 28), I, 106–107; Berressem 2018, op. cit. (n. 32), 266. It is usually accepted in current scholarship that the name “Deusoniensis” is derived from a toponym, i.e., a place named “Deuso” or “Deusone”. In the historical tradition of Late Antiquity, such a place name is mentioned in Jerome’s Chronicon in connection with a battle in the year 373 and the defeat of an army of the Saxons in the settlement area of the Franks (2389: Saxones caesi Deusone in regione Francorum). A precise localization of this place is, however, not possible, see B.H. Stolte, ‘Deusone in regione Francorum’, Tijdschrift voor Geschiedenis 70 (1957), 76–86.
Mairat 2014, op. cit. (n. 28), I, 163–181.
Instead, numerous coins are known with representations of the Comites Augustorum, Fides Militum, Hilaritas Augustorum, and Laetitia Augustorum. In addition, there are representations of Pax Augustorum, Pietas Augustorum, Salus Augustorum, Spes Augustorum, Victoria Augustorum and Virtus Augustorum, see Mairat 2014, op. cit. (n. 28), I, 182–197.
Gawlikowski 1985, 257, Nr. 13 (April 252); CIS II 3944 = PAT 90 (October 251); PAT 2753 (around 250).
See, for instance, the bilingual inscriptions CIS II 3945 = PAR 291 (April 258).
HA. Gall. 1,1; 3,3; 10,1, Zos., 1,39,1, Synk., 466,25–26, Zon., 12,23–24; CIS II 3946 = PAT 292. On the notion of the corrector totius Orientis see S. Swain, ‘Greek into Palmyrene. Odaenathus as Corrector totius Orientis’, ZPE 99 (1993), 157–164.
Hartmann 2008, op. cit. (n. 1), 354–355; Kienast, Eck, Heil 2017, op. cit. (n. 22), 230.
CIS II 3947 = PAR 293 (August 271).
CIS II 3947 = IGLS XVII/1, 57: “Sur un fût de colonne de la travée sud, au sud-est du tétrapyle (section B). Six lignes de grec, puis quatre d’araméen. 57 × 60 cm; h.l.: 4 cm”.
See, for instance, CIS II 3945; 3971.
Hartmann 2001, op. cit. (n. 1), 45–64; 76–85; 108–128.
CIS 3946: ṣlm’ spṭmyws ’dy[nt] mlk mlk’ / wmtqnn’ dy mdnḥ’ klh spṭmy’ / zbd’ rb ḥyl’ rb’ wzbdy rb ḥyl’ / dy tdmwr qrṭsṭ’ ’qym lmrhwn / byrḥ ’b dy šnt 582. = Statue of Septimius Odaenathus, king of kings and corrector totius Orientis. Septimius Zabda, great commander, and Septimius Zabbaios, commander of Palmyra, the most excellent dedicated this to their master, in the month of Ab in the year 582.
Both commanders are also known due to literary sources, HA. Aurel 15.2–3 (Septimius Zabbaios tried to defend Palmyra against Aurelian); Claud. 11.1 (Septimius Zabdas was responsible for the conquest of Egypt, see also Zos., 1.44.1; 51.1).
T. Fleck, ‘Das Sonderreich von Palmyra’, Geldgeschichtliche Nachrichten 199 (2000), 245–252, 247; Hartmann 2008, op. cit. (n. 1), 362–363; R. Bland, ‘The Coinage of Vabalathus and Zenobia from Antioch and Alexandria’, The Numismatic Chronicle 171 (2011), 133–186.
See on this effect on Roman coins, for instance, A. Wallace-Hadrill, ‘Image and authority in the coinage of Augustus’, JRS 76 (1986), 66–87, 71–72. I would like to thank Sven Betjes for this observation.
See, for instance, RIC v.2, 5, corr.; RIC v.2, 2 var; ILS 8924 = AE 1904, 60 = AE 1904, 76 = AE 1904, 91. See also Kienast, Eck, Heil 2017, op. cit. (n. 22), 231–233.
Watson 1999, op. cit. (n. 12), 70–88; Cizek 2004, op. cit. (n. 12), 103–117.