Roman Empire - 'Chi-Rho' Centenionalis (AE2) of Constantius II (353AD)
Few bronze issues of the late Roman Empire have achieved the status of the Treveri (Trier) struck ‘Chi-Rho’ Centenionalis, issued in the name of Constantius II in 353AD, RIC#332, LRBC#67. The scarcity of the issue, its historical background, as well as the intense, decades-long debate which has surrounded its place in the Magnentius-Decentius uprising all serve to give the Chi-rho a captivating place in late-Roman numismatics.
It is first worth noting that when Magnentius murdered Constans and usurped the title of Emperor in 350AD, he faced an uphill battle in legitimizing his claim. As a result, he leaned heavily into the Christian symbolism which had been the hallmark of the latter part of the reign of Constantine I (father of his rival, and the ‘legitimate’ heir to the throne Constantius II), a strategy which produced a number of distinctive Chi-Rho issues in bronze. At Treveri, Roman historian Ammianus Mercellinus records that Constantius II found a fiercely loyal supporter in a prominent citizen by the name of Pomenius, who supposedly revolted against Magnentius, and handed the city over to Constantinus.
Although the events themselves are not generally questioned in the historiography, the place of these coins, effectively ‘mules’ of a Magnentius reverse with a Constantinus II obverse is. In the 1950s, JPC Kent asserted that the issue was prepared in preparation for Constantinus retaking the city, but in the 1980s P Bastien contested this claim, proffering that they were issued after the re-conquest. More recently, in the early 2000s, opinion again shifted following the analysis of WC Holt, which basically agreed with Kent’s narrative with some modification. The significance of this debate is most significant when considering whether the use of this distinctive reverse type was a propaganda move intended to reclaim the Christian symbolism, or simply a matter of convenience, as the reverse dies already existed. Scant historical evidence means that we are unlikely to ever know for certain, but this consideration serves to add further interest to what is already a fascinating issue.
This example has admittedly lived a difficult life, but fortunately comes to us with sufficient detail so as to be fully identifiable, and retains a bold Chi-rho symbol. An original deep-green patina lends some eye-appeal, and speaks to the age of this piece. In all, a solid and affordable example of a keenly sought issue of great historical and religious interest.
Few bronze issues of the late Roman Empire have achieved the status of the Treveri (Trier) struck ‘Chi-Rho’ Centenionalis, issued in the name of Constantius II in 353AD, RIC#332, LRBC#67. The scarcity of the issue, its historical background, as well as the intense, decades-long debate which has surrounded its place in the Magnentius-Decentius uprising all serve to give the Chi-rho a captivating place in late-Roman numismatics.
It is first worth noting that when Magnentius murdered Constans and usurped the title of Emperor in 350AD, he faced an uphill battle in legitimizing his claim. As a result, he leaned heavily into the Christian symbolism which had been the hallmark of the latter part of the reign of Constantine I (father of his rival, and the ‘legitimate’ heir to the throne Constantius II), a strategy which produced a number of distinctive Chi-Rho issues in bronze. At Treveri, Roman historian Ammianus Mercellinus records that Constantius II found a fiercely loyal supporter in a prominent citizen by the name of Pomenius, who supposedly revolted against Magnentius, and handed the city over to Constantinus.
Although the events themselves are not generally questioned in the historiography, the place of these coins, effectively ‘mules’ of a Magnentius reverse with a Constantinus II obverse is. In the 1950s, JPC Kent asserted that the issue was prepared in preparation for Constantinus retaking the city, but in the 1980s P Bastien contested this claim, proffering that they were issued after the re-conquest. More recently, in the early 2000s, opinion again shifted following the analysis of WC Holt, which basically agreed with Kent’s narrative with some modification. The significance of this debate is most significant when considering whether the use of this distinctive reverse type was a propaganda move intended to reclaim the Christian symbolism, or simply a matter of convenience, as the reverse dies already existed. Scant historical evidence means that we are unlikely to ever know for certain, but this consideration serves to add further interest to what is already a fascinating issue.
This example has admittedly lived a difficult life, but fortunately comes to us with sufficient detail so as to be fully identifiable, and retains a bold Chi-rho symbol. An original deep-green patina lends some eye-appeal, and speaks to the age of this piece. In all, a solid and affordable example of a keenly sought issue of great historical and religious interest.
Few bronze issues of the late Roman Empire have achieved the status of the Treveri (Trier) struck ‘Chi-Rho’ Centenionalis, issued in the name of Constantius II in 353AD, RIC#332, LRBC#67. The scarcity of the issue, its historical background, as well as the intense, decades-long debate which has surrounded its place in the Magnentius-Decentius uprising all serve to give the Chi-rho a captivating place in late-Roman numismatics.
It is first worth noting that when Magnentius murdered Constans and usurped the title of Emperor in 350AD, he faced an uphill battle in legitimizing his claim. As a result, he leaned heavily into the Christian symbolism which had been the hallmark of the latter part of the reign of Constantine I (father of his rival, and the ‘legitimate’ heir to the throne Constantius II), a strategy which produced a number of distinctive Chi-Rho issues in bronze. At Treveri, Roman historian Ammianus Mercellinus records that Constantius II found a fiercely loyal supporter in a prominent citizen by the name of Pomenius, who supposedly revolted against Magnentius, and handed the city over to Constantinus.
Although the events themselves are not generally questioned in the historiography, the place of these coins, effectively ‘mules’ of a Magnentius reverse with a Constantinus II obverse is. In the 1950s, JPC Kent asserted that the issue was prepared in preparation for Constantinus retaking the city, but in the 1980s P Bastien contested this claim, proffering that they were issued after the re-conquest. More recently, in the early 2000s, opinion again shifted following the analysis of WC Holt, which basically agreed with Kent’s narrative with some modification. The significance of this debate is most significant when considering whether the use of this distinctive reverse type was a propaganda move intended to reclaim the Christian symbolism, or simply a matter of convenience, as the reverse dies already existed. Scant historical evidence means that we are unlikely to ever know for certain, but this consideration serves to add further interest to what is already a fascinating issue.
This example has admittedly lived a difficult life, but fortunately comes to us with sufficient detail so as to be fully identifiable, and retains a bold Chi-rho symbol. An original deep-green patina lends some eye-appeal, and speaks to the age of this piece. In all, a solid and affordable example of a keenly sought issue of great historical and religious interest.