Marcus Aurelius Carus (282-3 AD)

The Byzantine chronicler Zonaras gave an interesting account of the way in which the Praetorian Prefect Carus came to be acclaimed as Emperor:

1. “Another rebellion also broke out against [the Emperor Probus, in 282 AD].  For Carus the commander of the region of Europe, had troops under him desirous of proclaiming him Emperor.  He notified Probus of this, begging to be recalled, but [Probus] did not want to remove him from command.  And so, the soldiers under Carus forced him to accept the office of Emperor and set off with him at once for Italy.  Probus, on learning of this, sent an army under a commander to resist him.  Yet the soldiers of this army, on approaching Carus, put their own commander in chains and handed him along with themselves over to Carus.  Probus was then slain by his own bodyguard [at Sirmium] when they learned of the soldiers’ defection to Carus.  The period of Probus's reign was not six whole years” (‘Epitome Ton Istorion’ 12:25).
   

Zonaras also gave an interesting description of Carus’ subsequent reign:

1. “When Carus came to power, he crowned his sons Carinus and Numerianus with the imperial diadem.  Then he set out at once on campaign against the Persians along with his son Numerianus, and seized Ctesiphon and Seleucia.  The Roman army was nearly imperilled during the course of the campaign: when it set up camp in a valley, the Persians ... moved along the river flowing beside it and came to the valley by a passage.  Carus, fortunately, attacked the Persians and routed them, returning to Rome leading a great number of captives and a good deal of plunder.  Then, when the nation of the Sarmati rose up, he fought and subdued that nation.  He was by birth a Galatian [i.e. from Gaul ??] and brave and shrewd in wars.  The story of his end is not agreed upon by historians:
   

2. -some say he was campaigning against the Huns and was slain there;
   

3. -while others say that, while he was encamped by the Tigris River where his army had set up camp, his tent was hit by a thunderbolt and they tell that he died in it” (‘Epitome Ton Istorion’ 12:26).
   

According to this second group of historians, Carus’ Persian campaign pre-dated his campaign against the Persians, and his death occurred just as he began to avenge the humiliation that the Persians had inflicted on the Romans under the Emperor Valerian  in 260 AD.

Eutropius was a member of this second group of historians:

1. “After the death of Probus, Carus, a native of Narbo in Gaul, was created Emperor.  He immediately made his sons, Carinus and Numerianus, Caesars, and reigned, in conjunction with them for two years.  News being brought, while he was engaged in a war with the Sarmatians, of an insurrection among the Persians, he set out for the east, and achieved some noble exploits against that people; he routed them in the field, and took Seleucia and Ctesiphon, their noblest cities, but, while he was encamped on the Tigris, he was killed by lightning” (‘Breviarium historiae Romanae’, 9:18).
   

Aurelius Victor gave an very similar account: having moralised on the deficiencies of a series of 3rd century Emperors, up to and including the Emperor Probus, he continued:

1. “Consequently, Carus, who was powerful because he held the post of Praetorian Prefect, was clothed in the imperial robe [after Probus’ murder], and his sons Carinus and Numerian became Caesars.  And since all the barbarians had seized the opportunity to invade [the Empire] once they learned of Probus’ death, [Carus] sent his son to defend Gaul and he straightway proceeded to Mesopotamia, accompanied by Numerian, because that land is ... a customary cause of war with the Persians.  There, after routing the enemy, while he was advancing beyond Ctesiphon, ... he was burned to death by a bolt of lightning” (‘De Caesaribus’, 38: 1-3).
   

Aurelius Victor, whose view was less charitable that that of Eutropius, reported that many people thought that Carus had deserved the attentions of the lightning bolt because he had defied the omens by marching beyond Ctesiphon.

Carus’ Dynastic Policies

It is clear from the account above that Carus had derived considerable benefits from the fact that he had two grown sons with whom he could share power.  He minted extensively for himself accompanied by one or both of his sons, as set out by Ragnar Hedlund (referenced below, at p 186-7) in a section headed: “Carus: a New Vespasian”. 

A now-lost inscription (CIL VI 31380) from the Forum Romanum commemorated divus Nigrinianus as Carus’ grandson, which suggests that he died and was deified while Carus was still alive:

Divo/ Nigriniano/ nepoti Cari

Geminius Festus v(ir) [p(erfectissimus)] rationalis

Four coins for divus Nigrinianus were minted in Rome.  Of these, three with the the mint marks KAA or KAcrescentA were almost certainly minted by Carinus, who was probably his father (as discussed below).  However, a fourth might well have been minted by Carus at the time of the boy’s death and deification.  This very rare  aureus (RIC V:2 p 202, number 471, illustrated in this page of the ‘Wildwinds’ website), which was minted in Rome, has an obverse design that depicted the young Nigrinain and a reverse design that depicted him  in a two-horse chariot that faces forward and is perched atop a four-storey funerary structure that is variously described as a crematorium or pyre.  This design, which is relatively unusual but by no means unprecedented, suggests that a formal ceremony of consecration had taken place.

Numerian (283-4 AD)

After the death of Carus, the army seems to have acclaimed Numerian as Augustus, thus raising his rank to that of his older brother, Carinus, with whom he also held the Consulship of 284 AD.  The Persian campaign continued for perhaps a year, before Numerian began to withdraw his army.   According to Zonaras:

1. “When [Carus] had died ... his son Numerianus was left behind as the only Emperor in the camp.  He immediately marched off against the Persians and battle broke out in which the Persians gained the upper hand and the Romans were turned to flight”  (‘Epitome Ton Istorion’ 12:27). 
   

This is the only surviving account of a defeat inflicted on Numerian’s army at the hands of the Persians.  Subsequent events suggest that Zonaras might well have been correct, and that the army was extremely unhappy about the perceived failure of Numerian and Aper. 

Aurelius Victor described events surrounding the death of Numerian in two separate sections:

1. -“Numerian, after losing his father, at the same time decided that the war was over, but while he was leading his army back he was murdered through the treachery of Aper, [who was both] the Praetorian Prefect and his father-in-law.  An infection of the young man's eyes had provided the opportunity for this.  In short, the deed was concealed for a long time, while the body was being carried in a closed litter on the pretext that he was ill, so that his eyesight might not be troubled by the wind.  But, after the crime had been betrayed by the odour of his decomposing limbs, Valerius Diocletianus, commander of the household troops [domesticos regens], was [acclaimed as Numerian’s successor] at a council of generals and tribunes, because of his good sense ...” (‘De Caesaribus’, 38:5 - 39:1).
   

2. - “[Diocletian], in his first speech to the army, drew his sword, gazed at the sun and, while attesting that he had no knowledge of Numerian’s murder and that he had not wanted the imperial power, transfixed Aper, who was standing beside him, with one blow.  It had been through his treachery ... that the good and eloquent young man, his son-in-law [i.e. Numerian] had perished” (‘De Caesaribus’, 39:9).
   

David Potter (referenced below, 2013, at p 27) absolved Diocletian from the charge of having murdered Aper on the grounds that:

1. “... it seems unlikely that [the historian Lactantius] would omit a tale that [Diocletian, whom he despised] began his reign in a fit of homicidal fury”.
   

However, Pierfrancesco Porena (referenced below) countered this view by pointing out that there must have been a large number of eye witnesses to such a public act. 

The discovery of the death of Numerian and the consequent acclamation of Diocletian can be securely dated to 20th November 284 AD:

1. ✴Lactantius (‘De Mortibus Persecutorum’, 17:1) specified Diocletian’s dies natalis, the anniversary of his acclamation, as “the twelfth of the kalends of December” (20th November); and
   

2. ✴Pierfranceso Porena (referenced below, at p 24, note 3) cited supporting evidence for this from an Egyptian papyrus (which allowed alternative dates in early chronicles to be ignored).
   

According to Timothy Barnes (referenced below, 1982, at p 93), Diocletian immediately designated himself as Consul for the rest of the 284 AD, and chose as his colleague the magnificently named Lucius Caesonius Ovinius Manlius Rufinianus Bassus.  By this act, he signalled that he no longer recognised the imperium of the surviving Augustus, Carinus: conflict between them was inevitable.

Marcus Aurelius Carinus (283-5 AD)

As noted above, Carus had sent Carinus to defend Gaul when he himself departed for the east.  According to Raymond Davis (referenced below), Carinus actually campaigned on both the Rhine and the Danube in 283 AD.  Following his father’s death, he ruled as co-Augustus with his brother Numerian.  He spent the winter of 283-4 AD in Rome, and was thus still in the city when he and Numerian began their joint Consulship of 284 AD.  According the so-called ‘Chronography of 354 AD’:

1. “While [Carinus and Numerian] were ruling, there was a great famine [in Rome] and public buildings burned down: the Senate; the Forum of Caesar; the Basilica Julia and the Graecostadium”.
   

Whether Carinus was still in the city at the time of the fire is unknown. 

Carinus’ Victory in Britain

An inscription (CIL XIV 0126) that recorded the restoration of a bridge in Ostia dates to the period of the joint rule of Carinus and Numerian in 284 AD.  It records (inter alia) the victory title Britannicus Maximus, which, although it applied to both of them, must have reflected a successful campaign in Britain (presumably against incursions from the north) led by Carinus:

[[Im[pp(eratores) C]aesa[res]]]/ [[M(arci) [Aurelii]]] / [[C[ar]inus [et]]] /[[[Numeria]n[u]s]]

Pii Felices Invicti Augusti

Germanici maximi Brittannic[i]/ maximi Persici maximi

tribuniciae potestatis / co(n)ss(ules) patres patriae / proconsules

pontem Laurentibus/ adque Ostiensibus olim vetustate collabsum

lapideum restituerunt

The Emperors Carinus and Numerian

[with honorifics that included Brittannicus maximus]

restored with stone the old bridge that had collapsed a long time ago

for [the benefit of] the people of Laurentum and Ostia

The same victory titles appeared in an inscription (CIL VI 1116; LSA-1645) on the base of a statue that commemorated Diocletian, which also came from Ostia and which can be dated to 285 AD:

Imp(eratori) Caes(ari) C(aio) Valerio/ Diocletiano

Pio Felici/ Invicto Aug(usto), pontif(ici) max(imo)

Brittannic(o) maximo, Germanico/ max(imo)

trib(unicia) potest(ate) II, co(n)s(uli) II

p(atri) p(atriae), proco(n)s(uli)

honorati et decurion(es)/ et numerus militum/ caligatorum

To the Emperor Caesar Caius Valerius Diocletianus

pious, fortunate, unconquered Augustus, pontifex maximus

victorious over the British peoples, victorious over the Germanic peoples

holding the tribunician power for the second time, consul for the second time

father of the country, proconsul

The honorati, the decurions, and the soldiers of the lower ranks

[i.e. the members of all three ranks of the guild of construction workers] (set this up)

Diocletian cannot have visited Britain by this time, and this is the only example of the  application to him of the title Britannicus maximus at this early stage in his reign: one wonders whether the guild adapted a base intended for a statue of Carinus in order to support a statue of Diocletian.

This presumed British campaign might be alluded to by the court poet Nemesianus:

1. “Hereafter I will ... record your triumphs, you gallant sons of deified Carus [i.e. Carinus and Numerian], and will sing of our sea-board beneath the twin boundaries of our world, and of the subjugation, by [their] divine power, of nations that drink from Rhine or Tigris or from the distant source of the Arar or look upon the wells of the Nile at their birth; nor let me fail to tell what campaigns you first ended, Carinus, sub Arcto [beneath the Northern Bear or Pole Star, probably a reference to Britain] with victorious hand, well-nigh outstripping even your divine father, and how your brother seized on Persia's very heart and the time-honoured citadels of Babylon, in vengeance for outrages done to the high dignity of the realms of Romulus' race” (‘Cynegetica’, 64–73, reproduced on-line in LacusCurtius).
   

2. 
   

Carinus’ Dynastic Policies

After Carus’ death, Carinus continued his collegiate approach, as evidenced by his joint Consulship with Numerian.  In addition, in the summer of 284 AD, Carinus minted a series of coins (beautifully illustrated in this page of the website ‘Les Monnaies de l'Antiquité’) at the mint at Lugdunum (Lyon) that seem to have been used for a donarium (gift to the army) in which both Augusti were depicted: the legends read (somewhat optimistically as things turned out):

CARINVS ET NUMERIANVS AVGG/ VICTORIA AVGG

or variants thereof.  The brothers also shared their victory titles, as in the inscription from Ostia above and in two from Numidia below.

Despite his posthumous reputation for lechery (probably the result of the fact that history is written by victors), Carinus poured official honours on his wife, Magnia Urbica, who held the rank of Augusta.  An inscription (CIL VIII 2384) from Thamugadi (in modern Algeria) commemorated her as:

Magniae Urbicae Aug[usta]

matri castrorum, senatus ac patriae

coniugi d[omini] n[ostri] Carini invicti Aug[ustus]

Augusta Magnia Urbica

Mother of the armies, the Senate and the fatherland

Wife of our lord, Carinus, invincible Augustus

Carinus also minted a number of coin series for her (examples of which are illustrated on the page of ‘Dirty Old Coins’), beginning in 283 AD, which David Sear (referenced below, at p 523) suggests was the year of their marriage. 

Carinus’ Policy of Dynastic Deification

Following the death of Carus in 283 AD, Carinus and Numerian minted for him as Divus Carus (see below). 

There is also epigraphic evidence for two temples in Africa that were probably dedicated to divus Carus during the joint rule of Carinus and Numerian, both associated with the Praeses (provincial governor) of Numidia, Marcus Aurelius Decimus:

1. ✴An inscription (CIL VIII 4221) on an inscribed slab found on the north side of the necropolis at Marcouna, the ancient Verecunda, came from a temple dedicated to divus Carus, which Lavin and Mulryan (referenced below) described as:
   

2. “was one of very few new temples built in the provinces of Africa in the late 3rd century”.
   

[Pro salute] Impp(eratorum) ff(eli- cissimorum) dd(ominorum) nn(ostrorum)

Carini e[t Numeriani

divi Cari] genitoris

eorum tem[plum a funda]mentis

r(es) p(ublica) mun(icipi) Verecundensium consti[tuit]

dedicante] [M(arco) Aurelio] Decimo

v(iro) p(erfectissimo) p(raeside) p(rovinciae) N(umidiae)

For the health of of the fortunate Emperors Carinus and Numerianus

sons of divus Carus

this temple was founded by the municipium of Verecunda

Marcus Aurelius Decimus, governor of Numidia, dedicated it

1. ✴A similar inscription (CIL VIII 2717) survives from Lambaesis, Numidia:
   

[Divo Caro Ge]nit(ori)

dd(ominorum) nn(ostrorum)

Impp(eratorum) [CC(aesarum) M(arci) Aurel(i)] Carini

po[nt(ificis) maximi

Germanici maximi Persici maximi Britannici maximi

trib(unicia) pot(estate) II consulis II patris patriae proconsulis et

M(arci) Aurel(i) Numeriani

P(ii) F(elicis) Aug(usti) pont(ificis) maximi]

Germanici max]imi Persici maximi B[ritannici maximi

trib(unicia) pot(estate) II consulis patris patriae proconsulis

templum a solo inchoatum et consummatum]

dedicavit M(arcus) [Aurel]ius De[cimus

v(ir) p(erfectissimus) p(raeses) p(rovinciae) N(umidiae)

ex principe peregrinorum devotus numini maiestatiq(ue) eorum]

After the death of Numerian in about September 284 AD, Carinius continued to mint for divus Carus and also minted for divus Numerian (as discussed below).

Death of Carinus  

According to Timothy Barnes (referenced below, 1982, at p 93), after his acclamation as Emperor by Numerian’s army in November 284 AD, Diocletian made new consular designations: he named himself as Consul for the rest of the year and chose as his colleague an eminent Senator who might well have been present at Numerian’s travelling court: the magnificently named Lucius Caesonius Ovinius Manlius Rufinianus Bassus.  He thereby signalled that he no longer recognised the imperium of Carinus, and that conflict between them would decide which of them would continue to rule.

However, Carinus had to deal with the usurper Julianus. 

1. ✴Coins were minted in 284-5 AD at Siscia for the Emperor Marcus Aurelius Julianus, one of which (RIC had the reverse legend ‘PANNONIAE AVG’ (Augustus of Pannonia) and two of which had the reverse legend ‘VICTORIA AVG’ (victorious Augustus). 
   

2. ✴According to Aurelius Victor:
   

3. “[When he heard of the death of Numerian], Carinus made for Illyricum by skirting Italy.  There, he scattered Julianus’ battle line and cut him down.  For [Julianus] while he was governing the Veneti as corrector, had learned of Carus’ death and in his eagerness to seize the imperial power, he had advanced to meet the approaching enemy” (‘De Caesaribus’, 39:6).
   

4. ✴Zosimus (‘Historia Nova’, 1:73:1-3) described the usurpation of the Praetorian Prefect, Sabinus Julianus.  This part of his account is not readily accessible, since it was missing from the manuscript that is most usually translated into English.  However, Pierfrancesco Porena (referenced below) published the original Greek (at p 40) and summarised it in Italian.  According to this account, when the news of Numerian’s death reached Italy, probably in December 284 AD, the officers of the legions stationed in Italy proclaimed Sabinus Julianus, Carinus’ Praetorian Prefect, as Augustus.  Porena suggested that Carinus marched from Gaul to confront him in northern Italy.  As the only other early source that mentioned Sabinus Julianus recorded:
   

5. “Then Sabinus Julianus, who took power and, in campis Veronensibus [a location near modern Verona], was killed by Carinus” (‘Epitome de Caesaribus’ 38: 6).
   

Many scholars believe that Marcus Aurelian Julianus and Sabinus Julianus were the same person (see, for example, the paper by Bill Leadbetter referenced below).  However, Pierfanceso Porena presented a reasoned account for his assertion that these accounts relate to two usurpers, whose revolts were separated in time and place.  He suggested the following sequence of events:

1. ✴Julian of Pannonia was acclaimed as Augustus shortly after  the death of Carus in 293 AD, as recorded in the third sentence of Aurelius Victor.  He demonstrated his new power by marching against a barbarian incursion (“the advancing enemy”).   Having claimed victory against them, he minted for himself at Siscia as Emperor Marcus Aurelius Julianus  (above). 
   

2. ✴Carinus had been in no hurry to interrupt the ‘Emperor’ Julianus’ offensive against the barbarians: however, when he heard of Numerian’s death (probably in December 284 AD), he duly marched from Gaul into Pannonia and defeated him (as described in the first two sentences by Aurelius Victor).  
   

3. ✴We then pick up Zosimus: Carinus now marched south towards Verona, where he defeated and killed his erstwhile Praetorian Prefect, Sabinus Julianus. 
   

This battle near Verona was remembered in a panegyric (Panegyric XII, translated into English in Nixon and Rodgers, referenced below) that was delivered at the court of the Emperor Constantine in Trier in 313 AD: in a passage devoted to Constantine’s defeat of Maxentius’ army at Verona in 312 AD, the panegyrist referred to:

1. “... that miserable town, Verona, already stained by citizens’ blood in our middle age ...” (8:1).
   

The translator (at note 54) is clear that this referred must had referred to the middle age of the panegyrist and to Carinus’ defeat of Julianus in 285 AD.

Carinus was now in a position to confront the more formidable challenge from Diocletian.  According to Aurelius Victor:

1. “When Carinus reached Moesia, he straightway joined battle with Diocletian near the Magus [River, near modern Belgrade], but while he was in hot pursuit of his defeated foes, he died under the blows of his own men ....That was the end of Carus and his children [Carinus and Numerian]” (‘De Caesaribus’, 39:12).
   

With the murder of Carinus, probably in the summer of 285 AD, Diocletian became the last Augustus standing, and it is reasonable to assume that Carinus’ army accepted him as such.  According the Aurelius Victor:

1. “Pardon was granted to ... practically all [of the former supporters of Numerian and Carinus], especially one outstanding man named Aristobulus, the Praetorian Prefect, on account of his services.  This was a novel and unexpected occurrence ...  that in a civil war no-one was stripped of his possessions, reputation or rank” (39: 14-5).
   

Pierfrancesco Porena suggested that Carinus had appointed Titus Claudius Aurelius Aristobulus as his Praetorian Prefect after the usurpation of Sabinus Julianus (above) in late 284 AD.  He also designated Aristobulus as his colleague as Consul in 285 AD.  Diocletian retained Aristobulus as Praetorian Prefect, and shared the Consulship with him for the rest of 285 AD.   The obvious implication is that Aristobulus had been instrumental in the conspiracy that  had led to the murder of Carinus.

Consecration Coins

Divus Carus

Seven mints passed to Carinus and Numerian at the time of Carus’ death in 283 AD: Lyon; Rome; Ticinum; Siscia; Cyzicus, Antioch and Tripoli.  Of these, Ticinum and Cyzicus never minted for divus Carus (for reasons that are unclear).  It is possible to put the other issues in roughly chronological order:

1. ✴If the assertion above that Julian of Pannonia acquired the mint at Siscia soon after Carus death, the coins for DIVO CARO PARTHICO that were minted there (RIC V:2 pp 147-8, numbers 108-13) must have been among the first to be minted.
   

2. ✴Three other coins with similar obverse legends might well belong to this early phase:
   

3. •RIC V:2 p 138, number 30, minted at Lyon for DIVO CARO PARTHICO, and
   

4. •RIC V:2,  p 140, numbers 48 and 50, minted at Rome for DIVO CARO PERS minted at Rome (although these might alternatively belong with the other Roman coins discussed below).
   

5. ✴The coins minted at Antioch (RIC V:2 p 150, numbers 126-7) and Tripoli (RIC V:2 p 150, number 129) must pre-date the acclamation of Diocletian by the army in the east in November 284 AD.
   

6. ✴The other coins minted at Lyon (RIC V:2 p 138, numbers 4, 28 and 29) could have been minted before Carinus left Gaul to engage with Julian of Pannonia.
   

7. ✴The coins minted at Rome (RIC V:2,  p 140, numbers 47-50) might well have been part of a series minted also for divus Numerian (below), since they have similar mint marks (KAA or KAcrescentA).
   

Divus Numerianus

According to Pierfrancesco Porena (referenced below, at p 31, my translation):

1. “... in the midst of the crisis that exploded on the death of Numerian...., Carinus tried to strengthen the dynastic cult”. 
   

The numismatic evidence for this is in the consecration coins minted at Rome for

1. ✴divus Numerianus (RIC V:2,  p 96, numbers 424-6); and
   

2. ✴divis Carus (RIC V:2,  p 140, numbers 47-50);
   

which seem to have belonged to a single series, as evidenced by the mint marks KAA or KAcrescentA. 

Divus Nigrinianus

Four coins for divus Nigrinianus were minted in Rome.  Of these, three with the the mint marks KAA or KAcrescentA almost certainly minted by Carinus (who was probably his father)  as part of the dynastic series that followed the death of Numerian.   (The fourth, which lacked this distinctive marking, migh well have been minted by Carus at the time of the boy’s death and deification, as discussed above).

Coin Iconography

DIVO CARO/ CONSECRATIO                                 DIVO CARO/ CONSECRATIO

RIC Rome 47                                                                  RIC Rome 49

All of the consecration coins minted by Carinus had the reverse legend ‘CONSECRATIO’.  Their reverse designs fell into one of two groups:

1. ✴a standing eagle (as in RIC Rome 47, above), occasionally standing on a globe or altar; or
   

2. ✴a lighted altar (as in RIC Rome 49, above).
   

Sabine MacCormack (referenced below, at p 99) described these two main reverse types with reference to the series of ‘CONSECRATIO’ coins minted by the Emperor Decius in 250-1 AD:

1. “These motifs expounded the strictly Roman significance of consecratio, in that the effect of the senatus consultum (decree issued by the Senate) of consecrating an Emperor had been to grant him:
   

2. -divine status, the achievement of which is alluded to by the eagle; and
   

3. -a cult, as indicated by the altar”.
   

Since Carinus had minted some of his divus Carus coins and all of those for divus Numarianus and divus Nigrinianus in Rome, he too was commemorating  ceremonies that had almost certainly involved the Senate, albeit (probably) at his instigation.  This suggests that Carinus arranged for senatorial confirmation of all three deifications in order to underline his legitimacy at what must have been a precarious moment. 

The deification of a recently-deceased Emperor by his successor(s) was actually a rare event in the 3rd century, when Emperors generally died at the hands of their enemies.   Thus, Carinus’ consecration coins constitute a rare example of the link between dynasty and deification at this time.  It is true that Carinus’ dynastic policy failed: as noted above, he was murdered after the battle that brought Diocletian to power.  Nevertheless, his consecration coins illuminate the numismatic tradition that the first Tetrarchs and their successors adapted to meet the changing circumstances that now surrounded imperial succession (as discussed in the page on the Deified Tetrarchs (306-11 AD)).