#gallic empire

[corporialus]

Beautiful Aureus featuring a rare 3/4 Facing bust of Postumus, reverse features Postumus seated, suppliant before him.

[blueiscoool]

Coin reveals little-known Roman ruler

Treasure hunters have unearthed a coin bearing the head of a virtually unknown Roman ruler who briefly held power in Gaul around A.D. 270 as the empire teetered.

It is only the second coin ever found showing the head of Domitianus, who seized power — and the mint — in the breakaway Gallic Empire, which included modern England, France and parts of Germany and lasted for 15 turbulent years.

“We know next to nothing about Domitianus, except that he was ‘punished’ by the Roman Emperor Aurelian for treason,” Richard Abdy, curator of Roman coins at the British Museum, told Reuters. “But at least now we know what he looked like.”

Studied by coin experts

The first coin bearing Domitianus’ head was found in the Loire area of France in 1900, dismissed as a fake because his name was unknown and then lost from sight in a small museum in Nantes until very recently.

“It is now being studied by numismatists. When I showed our coin to the woman who has been working on it she jumped for joy because it bore out everything she had said about hers,” Abdy said, noting the French coin had been dated to A.D. 271.

The Gallic Empire was established in 260, when rule from Rome was weakening, by Postumus. He was succeeded nine years later by Marius, who held the throne for a matter of weeks before being strangled and in turn replaced by Victorinus, who ruled until 271 when he too was murdered.

Domitianus is believed to have murdered Victorinus, who had a habit of raping the wives of his subordinates, before himself being ousted by Tetricus. Tetricus ruled from 271 to 274, when he was defeated by Aurelian and the empire was restored.

Found on farmland

The British coin, which goes on show at the British Museum starting Wednesday, was found on farmland near Oxford just under a year ago as part of a hoard of 5,000 Roman coins fused together in an earthenware pot.

“It is a type of coin we know as a ‘radiant’ because there are rays radiating from his head. It is a two-denarii piece, which at that time, when they were coining money as fast as they could, would have been worth a couple of hours’ work,” Abdy said.

The base metal coin, which originally had a surface coating of silver, is now conservatively estimated to be worth a five-figure sum, Abdy said.

At the time it was minted, the once-mighty Roman Empire was undergoing a period of intense flux.

The years between 270 and 285 were marked by chaos in the empire, with more than 20 different emperors and 30 different pretenders fighting for power. Only one of these leaders died a natural death.

By Jeremy Lovell.

Original posted Feb. 24, 2004.

The Coin Hoard

Until this discovery was made some scholars doubted the historical significance of Domitianus who is named just twice in the historical sources. The Oxfordshire coin provides archaeological evidence suggesting that he successfully proclaimed himself emperor of a breakaway part of the Roman Empire during the reign of Aurelian (AD 270-5).

Richard Abdy (Curator of Roman coins at the British Museum) said that ‘during the 270s AD the fabric of the Roman Empire had become strained. Breakaway empires, like the so-called ‘Gallic Empire’ that included Britain, were established and ruled by a succession of rebel emperors. Finding a coin produced in the name of Domitianus means that he should now be recognised as one such rebel emperor.’

The failure of Roman writers to identify him as a rebel emperor even led the only other coin of Domitianus – found in France in 1900 – to be dismissed as a modern fake. The new discovery was struck from the same dies that were used to produce this earlier find and has therefore put its authenticity beyond any doubt.

Ian Leins (Finds Adviser, Iron Age and Roman coins, Portable Antiquities Scheme) said ‘the portrait on the new coin very closely resembles that of the rebel emperors Victorinus and Tetricus. It is highly possible that other coins of Domitianus exist in the collections of museums and individuals but have escaped detection. It is important that people start to pay more attention to these often neglected finds and record them with their local Finds Liaison Officer.’

[twofielder]

Coin of the Day #106 (8/18/2024)

I’m probably just going to keep picking from this bag, there’s so many nice ones…

Roman Splinter State - Gallic Empire

BI Antoninianus - 22mm 4.33g

Postumus 266-267 AD

Treveri Mint

Obverse IMP C POSTVMVS P F AVG

Bust of Postumus right, radiate, draped, cuirassed

Reverse SALVS AVG

Aesculapius (Asclepius) standing right, head left, leaning on serpent staff, globe at feet

Mairat 348

[mapsontheweb]

The Gallic War, 1st century BC.

by LegendesCarto

[todd-queen]

it's midnight but can we PLEASE talk about the use of Greek and Roman mythology in TBOSAS and what it means for each of the characters !!

Ex. Sejanus: Roman soldier, friend and confidant of the Roman Emperor Tiberius until his execution for treason in AD 31

[victusinveritas]

A bone pierced by a spear during the Gallic Wars, 58-50 BC.

[gorbo-longstocking]

names are hard

[oneapatheticwinter]

no hate to Vercingetorix (love u bestie), but if i were at the Battle of Alesia 52bc, i would simply ask Caesar to Chill™

[jkooll1212-blog]

How Did Julius Caesar Change the Course of History?

[azures-grace]

I made a comic after finishing the Gallic Wars, because I can and I thought it was funny.

Script: Caesar: Now, I like corn as much as the next guy-- Person: Sir, Uxellodunum has a lot of corn. Caesar: shit... what don't they have? Person: water, sir Caesar: take that. Stick Figure Caesar: WE'RE COMING FOR YOUR WATER!!

[whencyclopedia]

Aquileia

The ancient city of Aquileia was situated near the head of the Adriatic Sea west of the Roman province of Illyria. The strategic location of the city served a crucial role in the expansion of the Roman Republic by serving as a buffer against possible invasions from the Germanic tribes to the north. As a colony with major harbor facilities, Aquileia allowed the Romans to exploit both the neighboring gold mines as well as the region's own rich amber.

To the north of the colony was the independent territory of Noricum. It would become a Roman province in 16 BCE under Roman emperor Augustus (27 BCE to 14 CE). Although Noricum controlled a few minor routes over the Alps, its location south of the Danube and abundant iron and gold reserves were far more valuable to the Republic, allowing trade to emerge between Noricum and northeastern Italy, namely Aquileia. As a buffer and center of trade, the city would eventually become one of the largest and wealthiest cities of the Roman Empire, becoming the capital of Venetia et Istria.

A Gallic Region

Lying to the north and northeast of the Italian peninsula far to the west of Aquileia lay Cisalpine and Transalpine Gaul. During the early and middle Roman Republic, the area was not considered part of Italia, which only extended to the foothills of the Apennines. Cisalpine Gaul comprised the area from the plains of the Po River to the Apennines, while Transalpine Gaul extended beyond the Alps northward. Although sources vary, Cisalpine Gaul was initially the home of the Etruscans; however, Celtic tribes from north of the Alps – the Insubres and Senones among them – gradually moved into the area, and by the end of the 4th century BCE, the Etruscans had been completely forced out – thereby enabling the Celts (Gauls) to make the occasional raid into Italian territory.

Around 390 BCE, the Celts were bold enough to push further south and sack the city of Rome. Tom Holland in his Rubicon wrote that "a barbarian horde had burst without warning across the Alps, sent a Roman army fleeing from it in panic, and swept into Rome" (234). Although sporadic raids continued into the 3rd century BCE, in 225 BCE, Rome was able to defeat the Gallic invaders at Telamon – a city located on the coast of Etruria between Rome and Pisa. Realizing the importance and potential of the region, the Romans went on a three-year campaign, capturing Mediolanum (Milan) in 223 BCE. Further attempts to move northward were foiled by the Carthaginian commander Hannibal in the Second Punic War (218-201 BCE) where many of the Celtic tribes sided with Hannibal. After his defeat, Rome continued their foray into the region, establishing colonies at Cremona and Placentia (Piacenza).

Continue reading...

[take-it-on-the-run]

Fox Mulder Playlist

"You're my one in five billion."

Fox Mulder Masterlist | The X-Files Masterlist | Main Page Masterlist

A/N: Could also be interpreted as 'Being in Love With Fox Mulder'. You guys, I don't think you can understand the amount of yearning I feel for this man. He's already shot up to number two on my list™ and is probably going to get promoted to #1 if I write for him. I'm going to throw up because I love him so much.

Fox On The Run // Sweet

Fox on the run; you scream and everybody comes a-running; take a run and hide yourself away

Spooky // Dusty Springfield

You always keep me guessing; I never seem to know what you are thinking

Psycho Killer // Talking Heads

I can't seem to face up to the facts; I'm tense and nervous and I can't relax

Light My Fire // The Doors

The time to hesitate is through; no time to wallow in the mire

The Killing Moon // Echo & the Bunnymen

Fate; up against your will; through the thick and thin

Pretty Girls Make Graves // The Smiths

I could have been wild and I could have been free; but nature played this trick on me

The Adults Are Talking // The Strokes

They've been saying you're sophisticated; they've been complaining overeducated; you are saying all the words I'm dreaming

Fade Into You // Mazzy Star

I wanna hold the hand inside you; I wanna take the breath that's true

Vampire Empire // Big Thief

I see you there, rejecting all your earthly power; protecting and dissecting 'til you've emptied every hour

Lover, You Should've Come Over // Jeff Buckley

Too young to hold on; and too old to just break free and run

Cherry // Lana Del Rey

Love; I said real love; is like feelin' no fear

No. 1 Party Anthem // Arctic Monkeys

The look of love, the rush of blood; the "She's with me" is the Gallic shrug

The Night We Met // Lord Huron

I am not the only traveler; who has not repaid his debt; I've been searching for a trail to follow again; take me back to the night we met

Sailor Song // Gigi Perez

Oh, won't you kiss me on the mouth and love me like a sailor?; And when you get a taste, can you tell me what's my flavor?; I don't believe in God, but I believe that you're my savior

Everlong - Acoustic Version // Foo Fighters

And I wonder; when I sing along with you; if everything could ever feel this real forever; if anything could ever be this good again

[blueiscoool]

Archaeologists Uncover ‘Astonishing’ Remains of Horses Buried 2,000-Years-Ago

Archaeologists in France have uncovered nine “astonishing” graves containing the skeletons of 28 horses that were buried about 2,000 years ago, though their precise cause of death remains a mystery.

Discovered in Villedieu-sur-Indre, a commune in central France, two of the graves have been fully excavated so far, the French National Institute for Preventive Archaeological Research (INRAP) said in a statement.

The horses have been radiocarbon-dated back to somewhere between 100 BC to 100 AD.

Archaeologists found 10 complete horse skeletons in one pit and two in the other, all carefully placed in the same manner lying on their right flank with their heads to the south.

All these horses were buried at the same time shortly after their deaths, archaeologists said after observing the position of the skeletons and the connections between the bones.

Another grave is situated between these two pits but it contains two medium-sized dogs, both lying on their left side with their heads facing west.

Archaeologists have yet to fully excavate the remaining graves but have already identified a total of 28 horses from the skulls and coxal bones that appear on the surface.

Killed in battle, or ritual sacrifice?

However, the horses’ precise cause of death still remains unclear.

Archaeologists have ruled out an epidemic since there are no foals or mares in these graves; all the skeletons are fully-grown stallions aged over four years old. That leaves, archaeologists said, the possibilities that these horses were either killed in battle or as part of a ritual sacrifice.

When these horses died about 2,000 years ago, there was a fortified Celtic settlement known as an oppidum just a few hundred meters away and this location mirrors that of two other similar horse burial sites that archaeologists had previously uncovered in the same region.

Due to this location, they have hypothesized that the horses’ deaths at the sites could be connected to the battles of the Gallic Wars in which Julius Caesar conquered Gaul between 58 - 50 BC.

There may be another explanation, however: ritual sacrifice.

“The hypothesis that these animals were sacrificed as part of a complex ritual, of which only a few scraps remain, must also be considered,” the INRAP statement said.

If these horses were indeed buried as part of a ritual rather than killed in battle, the sheer number shows the “importance and extent of the sacrifice,” the statement added.

Other finds at the site, which sits on the slope of a valley, include buildings, pits, ditches and a road that archaeologists dated to the late 5th and early 6th centuries.

By Issy Ronald.

[twofielder]

Coin of the Day #52 (6/25/2024)

How about an ancient fake…

Roman Breakaway State - Gallic Empire

BI Antoninianus - 19mm 3.25g

Tetricus II as Caesar after 273 AD

Contemporary Imitation

Obverse …ESV TETRICVS CA…

Bust of Tetricus II right, radiate, draped, cuirassed

Reverse Nonsense legend

Cuirassed figured standing left, holding something in both hands (Possibly imitating PRINC IVVENT reverse with Tetricus II holding patera and sceptre)

[mapsontheweb]

Battle of Alesia,52 BC.

by LegendesCarto

[bonaesperanza]

More random Captive Prince thoughts, because I feel like being a sadist to all of my mutuals these books are living rent-free in my head right now. These ones are more about the plot and the worldbuilding.

Worldbuilding-wise, I loved the attention to detail, because as far as I could tell all the little details of how a medieval-ish army functions and how you would run it and what you would do with the horses and the supplies and the roads etc. etc. were pretty accurate. I mean, these books are by no means a treatise on warfare (in fact they can be delightfully pulpy, which I liked - I grew up on The Three Musketeers and the Scarlet Pimpernell and similar swashbuckling novels, and I got some of the same feelings here!), but there were details in there that most other authors don't bother to put in or inadvertently fuck up (I love ASOIAF to death but historically accurate it is not), and most of the military stuff seemed plausible enough as well, though again not described in too much detail so you can fill it in with your own assumptions or skim over if it's not something that particularly interests you. And I also loved the architectural details and could imagine everything quite well, but again, as I said previously, this may be because the author spent some time living near where I live so we've seen a lot of the same stuff probably.

Actually when I was first reading it and thinking it was going to be bad I was reading it exclusively for the architectural details lol, I was like yeah, yeah, they're all sucking each other off, but Damen please tell me again how you feel about the tiling?

What I also particularly liked is how the... scale of the conflict I guess? was refreshingly accurate for the "historical period".

The worldbuilding is a mashup of Ancient Greece and medieval France, but what it really felt like to me is a world where the Roman Empire never really consolidated to the extent that it did in our world and Italy went on into the middle ages (because these are decidedly feudal systems) with Cisalpine Gaul having the, well, Gallic culture, while the South had a Greek one. I may be thinking this because I live in Italy and so everything reminds me of Italy, but once I thought of it I couldn't unsee it.

I guess I gotta put in a cut somewhere and now's as good of a time as any?

But anyway, back to the scale of the conflict, the actual middle ages were filled with small and mid-sized countries, and petty local conflicts with family members turning onto each other over succession and stuff, and random small territories going back and forth (well, that's just Europe in general, always, TBH), and this is how it all felt like to me. Actual medieval history has a guy who started a rebellion because his brothers threw a pisspot at him and his father did nothing about it and he felt humiliated, and the war was secretly funded by his mother, so the combination of the small scale with a random local conflict that probably literally nobody cares about outside of the region we are in + everything being so intensely driven by interpersonal drama between insane people felt really authentic to me, like the kind of weird historical moment that would get turned into a funny Tumblr post. And of course the royals did a lot more sneaking around than was probably smart, but I can forgive that for the swashbuckling vibes and also because if Cleopatra could sneak into a palace in a carpet these guys can do whatever they want in my book.

Speaking of the petty interpersonal drama, I also liked the emphasis on how in this system personal reputation and the performance of kingship are king. Usually when you have a heavily political story it's much more based on the quid-pro-quo, "rational actor" kind of politics, but medieval politics also had a lot more going on in the cultural sense (and so do modern politics actually but at least pretending to be a "rational actor" IS the modern performance of leadership), and here you had people dealing political blows through meticulous management of their own and others' political reputations, which was fun to see, especially in combination with so many manipulative bastard characters. Like, how Laurent is manipulated into going to the border just because looking like a coward will lose him more political points than he can afford, and Damen's continued wearing of the slave cuff and instistence on not being served by slaves initially deals massive blows to his reputation, because these are cultures that value heroism, of one sort or another.

(And speaking of heroism, the emphasis on the physical activity-related activities that are the centerpiece of noble life in both countries were wonderful, especially since because both Ancient Greece and the European Middle Ages were really into that in their respective ways and it makes the mashup feel really well-done and coherent in how she tied it together.)

What's notable is a lack of any kind of religion, which felt particularly glaring during the whole Kingsmeet thing - in the real world there would likely be a belief in some kinda curse from the Gods or something similar to discourage the drawing of weapons, but since I'm not really religious and tend not to personally care about religion (while ofc recognizing its anthropological importance) I really didn't care and it didn't diminish my enjoyment of the series.

Still, I do have to say that the ending of the last book felt reeeeaally rushed, and that felt really glaring exactly because the rest of the series had such amazing detail work and excellent pacing and very gradual plot development.

I didn't get the part with the doctor and the letter (why didn't he say anything earlier? how would they verify the authenticity of the letter? Did anyone even have the time to READ the thing?) but I'm gonna be honest with you here, I read book 3 under a heavy fever and it was like 2 AM when I got to that part, so I'm not sure that I haven't missed something that makes it make more sense.

BUT even if that part makes sense, I feel like the Regent was dealt with far too quickly. Like in one paragraph he is in control of everything, in the next they've already beheaded him and that's it. I can imagine in my head that a lot of the nobles were probably already sick of him and took little convincing, that they were disapproving both of his meddling in foreign politics and of his likely grave breach of cultural rules via taking an aristo kid as a pet, or that he initially rationally seemed a better choice over Laurent until Laurent proved himself to be more competent and with a more competent ally, or they already had some hints about what happened that the audience didn't and the evidence confirmed what was inconclusive before.

But I feel like in a series that spends so much time detailing the shifting alliances between the characters and the public's opinion on everyone that matters? I really needed to be sold on it a bit more. Like I really needed some discussion over what to do with the Regent, I needed them to keep him in a cell for a while as they decided whether to kill him (and have the leads scared that the Regent will turn them over as Laurent often does to people), I needed them to consider the evidence just a little bit more, I needed some post mortem with the council members where they explain what was happening on their side of the things. It needed to be MUCH longer and more detailed.

Another thing I wondered at was why the Regent was so insistent to paint Laurent's collaborations with the Akielons as a bad thing when he was... also collaborating with the Akielons? Like he is foaming at the mouth calling them barbarians and accusing Laurent of sleeping with the prince-killer but it feels more like setup for Damen's big declaration of love than an actual political strategy because my brother in Christ, you are literally in the Akielon royal palace, in the middle of Akielos to which you ran after your nephew started a rebellion, with the Akielon king sitting next to you as your equal. Why do you think that you can convince your people that YOUR Vere-Akielos alliance is somehow more morally pure than Laurent's? This was also the right moment to pull out all the patricide allegations that seemed to be going around for Damen, but IIRC he didn't use that as much as he could if at all.

Since there were some Akielons in the room as well, I was also wondering WTF was Kastor doing as the Regent was shitting on his country and calling them barbarians and making it like allying with them is a grave transgression? Why was HE allowing this humiliation? It felt like a very unpolitical thing to do from a character whose strength was in his political acumen (obviously meaning the Regent, not Kastor) and the plot just let it slide by.

I feel like a lot of this is due to this being the first time that the story had to fit within the constraints of a traditional book? So it needed a decisive traditional climax and perhaps it was getting too long for a traditional format, or the author got a bit tired of it and wanted to wind it up now that she wasn't getting regular feedback as you do with serialized publishing, or she prioritized emotional impact over plot logic.

I don't know. I still think they're great books, and the conclusion was emotionally satisfying in the sense that the psychological and interpersonal threads were wrapped up impeccably, I just wanted more detail on the political side. It's still grabbed me like nothing else did for a long time, I can take a mid ending, half of my favourite series will never have one at all because the author wrote themselves into a corner and then died lol.