Since we brought up Pavel Josef Šafařík a few days ago, we thought we ought to mention a few other items outs of his composition of Slavic Antiquities (Slovanské starožitnosti or, in German, Slawische Alterthuemer). One of these is a coin inscription dated to the times of the Emperor Volusian, a third century Roman emperor. Šafařík thought it relevant because in the inscription there is a mention of a Vend. If in fact, that Vend refers to the Veneti or Venedi, then there we would have proof of Roman contact and wars with the Veneti already in the third century. Moreover, the campaigns of Volusian place him roughly in the neighborhood of where the later Slavs appeared, the same Slavs who, along with Antes, were derived by Jordanes from the Veneti.
There are a number of these relatively common coins in existence and no one will become rich selling one. Here is one example:
The inscription on the coin reads something like (there are, of course, variations, see below for a complete list):
IMPCVAFGALVENDVOLUSIANOAVG
Now, everyone agrees that the reason for this rather inconvenient placement of the letters is due to the limitations of the numismatic real estate. Further, there is agreement that “IMP” [sometimes on some coins “IM”] means “Imperatori” (or some variation thereof), that “VOLUSIANO” [occassionally on other coins “VOLUSSIANUS”] means “Volusianus” and that “AVG” means “Augusto,” “Augustus” (or some variation thereof). Beyond that, there is, as usual, some disagreement.
So what is beyond that? All the bold letters in the middle below:
IMP CVAFGALVEND VOLUSIANO AVG
Šafařík
Šafařík claims that what the above says is:
C VA F GAL VEND
and that that translates into:
Caesari VAndalico, Finnico, GALindico, VENDico
Essentially, he says the coin honors the Emperor as the conqueror of various peoples such as the Vandals, the Finns (!), Galls and the Venethi.
Others
Eckhel offers a different view saying that the above means:
Caio Vibio AFinio* GALallo VENDumniano
*(or Afino)
This last word apparently presents closer to an inscription found by Muratori which said Veldumnianus/Veldumniano. This piece of information comes from Gustave Horn in his book Le Compromis de 1868 wherein he cites Description historique des monnaies frappes sous l’Empire romain by Henry Cohen and continued by Feuardent (2nd edition), tome V, page 266 note 2. We have not been able to confirm this.
Vaillant is closer to Schafarik with:
Caio VAndalico Finnico GALindico VENDenico
Bottom Line
So we basically have two choices:
IMPERATORI CAESARI VANDALICO, FINNICO, GALINDICO VENDICO VOLUSIANO AUGUSTO (Schafarik)
and
IMPERATORI CAIO VIBIO AFINO GALLO VENDUMNIANO VOLUSIANO AUGUSTO
In other words, either this is a list of Volusian’s exploits and conquest with his name taking on all of the names of the conquered or defeated tribes or it is also his name but one that was simply given to him and has nothing to with his forays and activities.
What do we Know of this Guy?
Not much is the answer. Nor was he much of an Emperor. It all started in the reign of Emperor Decius. Decius was engaged with the Goths’s King Cniva (supposedly meaning “knife” making you ask what such translator would make out of, e.g., Cniga) when his son and then he fell in battle (first Roman Emperor killed by barbarians as far as we can tell). Decius’ campaign occurred in Moesia Superior. The governor of that province was Trebonianus Gallus. Upon the fall of the Emperor, Trebonianus Gallus was proclaimed Emperor by the local troops. He named Hostilian, the other son of Decius, co-emperor (Augustus) while making his own son Volusianus Caesar (a step below divinity). More relevantly, he also signed a treaty with the Goths allowing them to leave Roman territory with booty and captives and requiring the Romans to pay tribute (in the form of an annual “subsidy”) to the Goths – in effect, making payments to the barbarians so as to have them keep the peace. Needless to say the treaty was not popular in Rome or among the Romans.
After Trebonianus returned to Rome, he stumbled onto a plague break out which was ravaging the city. Apparently, Hostilian died in that plague. Thereupon Trebonianus named Volusian his new co-emperor. The year was A.D. 251. After that things quickly spiraled downwards. The Empire was invaded in multiple parts and the Emperor was not there to protect it Those who did decided that they would make better emperors. In the East, Uranius Antoninus defeated the Persian invaders. He then proclaimed himself Emperor. But, more importantly for Trebonianus and Volusian, Terbonianus’ replacement as governor of Moesia Superior, Aemilius Aemilianus refused to pay the tribute and defeated the invading Goths. Thereupon, the Moesian legions proclaimed Aemilianus Emperor. Aemilianus too thought he’d make an excellent Emperor, stripped Moesia of troops and headed for Rome. Forced to act Trebonianus Gallus and Volusian marched (slowly) against Aemilianus. Their troops, however, were not inspired and, judging the duo’s chances to be low or at least lower than those of Aemilianus, displayed initiative and proactively killed both Emperors in August of A.D. 253 joining with Aemilianus.
Post Scriptum
For what it’s worth Aemilianus too did not in the end inspire too much confidence and, when Trabonianus Gallus’ and Volusian’s reinforcements arrived (conveniently belatedly) in the persona of Valerian, the Rhine governor, the troops of Aemilianus (no doubt including the mutineers of Gallus’ and Volusian) went over to Valerian. Oh, and yes, they did kill Aemilianus before hand. Valerian’s rule lasted about ten years but then he was betrayed by Shapur of Persia and became the first Roman Emperor to die in captivity. Since Valerian was not fond of Christians who festered in strength in Rome at this time, Christian chroniclers took pleasure in his capture and came up with elaborate stories regarding the nature of Valerian’s death at the hands of Shapur (being forced to swallow molten gold, etc).
To make a Long Story Short(er)
In light of this, it seems unlikely that Volusian being such a non-entity was venerated with any kinds of tributes relating to his victories over Gauls, Finns (!) or Veneti. Nonetheless, the matter is not clearly settled and, in deference to Šafařík, we publish this article.
We also note that the Tabula Peutingeriana which may well be (in its sources) dated to the 3rd century does show the Veneti (as Venedi) close to the mouth of the Danube and that these campaigns against the Goths that Volusian participated in or at least was witness to from the vantage point of his father’s governorship in Moesia Superior would have been relatively close to that area.
If someone were interested in a more through examination of the coins we list them all below – perhaps the examination of the reverse side of these coins will provide some clues that, currently, escape us.
Variations on the Venetic Volusian Coin
These are the various variations, so to speak on actual coins (separations are, of course, a matter of interpretation). Most of these were apparently minted in Antioch, though some may have been minted in Rome:
IM C AF GAL VEND VOLVSIANO AVG.
IM C AF GAL VEND VOLVSINO AVG.
IM C V AF GAL VEND VOLVSIANO AVG
IMP C AF GAL VEND VOLVSSIANUS IV
IMP C V AF GAL VEND VOLVSIANVS AVG
IMP C V AF GAL VEND VOLVSIANO AVG
IMP C V AF GAL VEND VOLVSIANVS AVG
IMP C V AF GAL VEND VOLVSSIANVS AVG
IMP C V AF G M (VEND) VOLVSIANO AVG
Other Volusian Coins
C VIBIO VOLVSIANO CAES
IMP CAE C VIB VOLVSIANO AVG
IMP CAES C VIB VOLVSIANO AV
IMP CAES VIB VOLVSIANO AVG
IMP C C VIB VOLVSIANVS AVG
IMP C V AF G M VOLVSIANO AVG
VOLVSIANVS PIVS F AVG
Copyright ©2015 jassa.org All Rights Reserved