The Mars/eagle and thunderbolt gold and Ptolemaic involvement in the Second Punic War more

COINS OF MACEDONIA AND ROME: ESSAYS IN HONOUR OF CHARLES HERSH Edited by Andrew Burnett, Ute Wartenberg and Richard Witschonke SPINK London 1998 v The Mars / eagle and thunderbolt gold and Ptolemaic involvement in the Second Punic War A.R. MEADOWS [plate 12] The student of Republican numismatics is used to seeking and seeing specific political references in the coin types of the period. In the paper that follows I offer an attempt at interpretation of a coin type that has, by and large, been left to its own devices in recent years. The enquiry will be divided into three parts: first an attempt to identify the sort of symbolism involved, by analogy with contemporary issues; second the suggestion of the precise reference in the reverse type in question; and third a summary of the historical background to the coinage.1 THE ISSUES AND THEIR CONTEMPORARIES During the Second Punic War (218-201 bc) Rome produced a series of issues of gold coinage with the following types: Obv. Bearded head of Mars in crested Corinthian helmet r.; border of dots Rev. Eagle with wings open on thunderbolt r.; below ROMA On the obverse, behind the head of Mars, the denomination was marked. Three denominations exist: \I/X, XXXX, XX (60, 40 and 20 asses).2 On the reverse six separate issues clearly emerge from the appearance or non-appearance of control marks to one side or another of the eagle: anchor (to r.); corn- ear (below 1.); spearhead (to r.); pentagram (to r.); staff (above). Of those issues without such a control mark, the recent Agrigento 1987 hoard has made it possible for M. Caccamo Caltabiano to distinguish by their differing styles two separate issues.3 When considered in the context of both archaeological finds and the parallel signed issues of silver coinage it is clear that the production of these gold issues fell into two phases. A 20 as corn-ear piece was found by the excavators at Morgantina sealed in deposit 25, dated to the destruction of the city in 211 bc.4 A terminus ante quern of 211 is thus provided 1 The following non-standard abbreviations will be used: Crawford, 'War and Finance' = M.H. Crawford, 'War and Finance', JRS 54 (1964), pp. 29-32; Hersh, Overstrikes - C.A. Hersh, 'Overstrikes as Evidence for the History of Roman Republican Coinage', NC6 13 (1953), pp. 33-68; Hersh, Additional Overstrikes = id., 'Some Additional Roman Republican Overstrikes", ANSMN 32 (1987), pp. 85-95; ESAEA = L. Criscuolo and G. Geraci (eds), Egitto e Swria antica dall' Ellenismo all' eta Araba. Atti del Colloquio Internationale (Bologna, 1989); SER = M. Caccamo Caltabiano (ed.), La Sicilia tra V Egitto e Roma. La Monetazione Siracusana dell' Eta di lerone II. (Messina, 1995); Thomsen = R. Thomsen, Early Roman Coinage (Copenhagen, 1957-61); Walbank, HCP = F.W. Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius (Oxford, 1957-79); Zehnacker = H. Zehnacker, Moneta. Recherches sur I'organisation et I'art des emissions monetaires de la Republique romaine (289-31 av. J.-C.) BEFAR 222 (Paris/Rome, 1973). All dates are bc. 2 For a full discussion of the nature of the denominational marks on these issues see Thomsen II, pp. 295-302. 3 M. Caccamo Caltabiano, '11 tesoretto di oro "marziale" di Agrigento e il problema delle origini del sistema denariale', in T. Hackens and G. Moucharte (eds), Proceedings of the Xlth International Numismatic Congress Brussels 1991 (Louvain, 1993) II, pp. 109—16. Cf. eand., 'Le prime emissioni del' oro "marziale" romano: il tesoretto di Agrigento 1987', Quademi dell' Istituto di Archeologia della Facolta di Lettere e Filosofia dell' Universita di Messina 5 (1990), pp. 1-17. 4 T. Buttrey, K. Erim, T.D. Groves, and R.R. Holloway, Morgantina Studies 11: The Coins (Princeton, 1989), no. 522. Context: ibid., pp. 153, 161-2. Date: Livy 26.21.14-17; TV. Buttrey, 'Morgantina and the Denarius', NAC 8 (1979) 149-57. The possibility that the destruction level was that of the sack of 214 bc (Livy 24.36.10) has now been decisively ruled out by A.M. Burnett, 'The Coinage of Punic Sicily during the Hannibalic War', in SER, pp. 383-99 at p. 386. 126 A.R. MEADOWS for this particular symbol issue and for the early anonymous issues. For the other symbol issues, Crawford has suggested a date of 209/8 bc on the evidence of Livy's description of the raiding of the aerarium sanctius in this year for the auntm vicesimarium contained therein.5 The data may be summed up as follows: RRC no. Date Symbol Mini 60 as 40 as 20 as 44/2-4 By 211 Anonymous Rome X (Plate 12,1) X (Plate 12,2) X (Plate 12, 3) 44/2-4 By 211 Anonymous Sicily X (Plate 12,4) X X 72/2 By 211 Corn-ear Sicily X 50/1 c.209/8 Anchor Rome X (Plate 12, 5) 88/1 c.209/8 Spearhead S.E. Italy X 105/2 c.209/8 Pentagram Etruria (?) X (Plate 12, 6) 106/2 c.209/8 Staff Etruria (?) X (Plate 12,7) How, then, are we to interpret these types? The first step is to take a look at contemporary coin designs to see what patterns emerge. By the beginning of the Second Punic War in 218 bc, the Roman coinage system had gradually achieved a level of homogeneity of appearance. The main silver denomination was now the didrachm with obverse type of Janiform head of the Dioscuri and reverse of Jupiter in a quadriga driven by Victory. It was accompanied by a drachm with similar types,6 while a small issue of silver shared a similar obverse design, with a galloping horse on the reverse (RRC 28/5). Of the cast bronze issues, the as also had a janiform head on the obverse, though here the head is bearded and probably represents the god Janus. The reverse consisted of the prow of a galley, as it did on all the cast bronze denominations. The obverses of these other denominations varied however: a head of Saturn (or Jupiter) on the semis, Minerva (or Mars) on the triens, Hercules on the quadrans, Mercury on the sextans and Roma on the uncia.7 Early in the war these denominations were supplemented by two gold coins, a stater and half- stater, both with the same types: Janiform head on the obverse, and the well-known 'oath scene' on the reverse.8 These designs make it clear that a policy of monetary integration was being pursued by the Roman state at this period, and that some thought was being given centrally to the choice of coin designs. At the same time it is clear that the significance of these designs was not merely internal to the denominational system. References to the historical circumstances in which the early Roman coinage was issued have often been detected in their designs. So for the quadrigati Crawford suggested that the Dioscuri, protectors of the Roman people since the battle of Lake Regillus, alongside Jupiter and Victory, 'were presumably chosen in response to the Gallic threat (sc. of 225 bc)'. Holloway on the other hand, regarding the obverse type as depicting Janus, has argued for a reference to the closing of the temple of Janus in 235 bc in celebration of peace at the end of the First Punic War.9 On the accompanying gold, the oath scene has also been variously interpreted according to the various dates to which they have been assigned by modern scholars: as a reference to the granting of citizen rights to Campanians and Samnites in 334, or to the Caudine Forks in 321, or to the treaty between Rome and 5 RRC, pp. 33-5. Livy 27.10.11. See further below pp. 133-4. 6 RRC 28/3-4, 29/3-4, 30/1-2, 31/1, 32/1, 33/1. 34/1. An issue to the understanding of which Charles Hersh has recently contributed: C.A. Hersh, 'A Sicilian quadrigatus mint: the issue with a wheat ear control mark', in M.J. Price, A.M. Burnett and R.F. Bland (eds). Essays in Honour of Robert Carson and Kenneth Jenkins (London. 1993), pp. 140-4. 7 RRC 35/1-6, 36/1-5. On the identity of the divinities see Zehnacker, pp. 270-1. 8 RRC 28 and 29. Specimens also exist of a third denomination with the value XXX marked on the reverse: M. v. Bahrfeldt, Die Rbmische Coldinunzprdgung wahrend der Republik und unter Augustus (Halle, 1923), pp. 15-6, no. 3. The authenticity of these has frequently been doubted: they were included in their corpora neither by Sydenham nor Crawford. For a defence of authenticity and the claim that they belong to an attempt between 217 and 213-211 to abandon the quadrigatus system before the creation of the denarius, see Zehnacker, pp. 318-21. For a full account of the debate and further acceptance of authenticity cf. Thomsen IT, pp. 261-3, 303-4. 9 Crawford, RRC, p. 715, with n.l arguing for the identification of the Janiform heads with the Dioscuri. R.R. Holloway, 'Alcuni aspetti stilistici del Quadrigato Romano', in SER , pp. 335-43. For the suggestion that they might represent Fons the son of Janus or the Penates publici cf. Zehnacker, pp. 298-300. the mars/eagle and thunderbolt gold 127 Hieron of Syracuse in 263, or to the distribution of gold from reserves at Rome to five generals in 209. None of these occasions can be regarded as likely, however.10 It now seems most likely that these gold issues formed a small emergency issue struck in the first years of the war to prop up public confidence in the currency system at the time of the introduction of the semilibral bronze standard.11 This standard was probably introduced in 217 bc, and the gold must be contemporary or slightly later.12 The most plausible context now seems to be that described by Livy at the beginning of the campaigning season of 216 bc. Dilectu perfecto consules paucos morati dies, dum ab sociis ac nomine Latino venirent milites. Turn, quod nunquam antea factum erat, iure iurando ab tribunis militum adacti milites; nam ad earn diem nihil praeter sacramentum fuerat. ... Id ex voluntario inter ipsos foedere ad tribunos ac legitimam iuris iurandi adactionem translatum.13 As both Crawford and Zehnacker have stressed there is no need to see in the 'oath scene' a pictorial realisation of the new oath described by Livy: 'il parait de meilleure methode de ne pas etablir de lien direct entre les deux evenements, remission de stateres et le serment de 216, mais de les expliquer de maniere parallele, en les replongeant tous deux dans une meme ambiance de guerre, de peur des defections et de sursaut des energies romaines.'14 In the wake of the disaster at Trasimene in 217 bc, the Romans were casting their net wide for support against Hannibal, not just from their Italian allies, but from Sicily as well. In the winter of 217/16, Livy tells us, a fleet had arrived from king Hieron carrying not only half a million modii of grain, but also a force of archers and slingers. We might note here also that foremost of the gifts that Livy enumerates was a solid gold Nike weighing 220 Roman pounds. No doubt this came as welcome collateral against the gold coinage the state was now producing. The oath scene gold, as befitted its status as a creator of confidence in a new denominational system, was something of a showpiece. Its design reflected the ambience of 'strength through co-operation' that the Roman state sought to emphasise at the time of its production. That the unity of Rome and her allies was a very live issue in 216 bc is clear from the defections that followed the disastrous battle of Cannae in that very year. Given such a background for Rome's first issues of gold, what are we to make of the second Roman issue and its Mars/eagle on thunderbolt designs? Its role, like that of the oath scene gold issue, appears to have been to provide support for a new denominational system, consisting of the denarius and accompanying sextantal bronze: as such it 'formed an integral and substantial part of the denarius system from its inception'.15 Its designs are perhaps less straightforward. It is worth looking again at the contemporary coins in other metals. The new struck sextantal bronze retained the same types for the same denominations as had been used for the aes grave, emphasising continuity.16 The new silver denominations too, though necessarily different in design from the earlier quadrigati, maintained the military link with the Disocuri on their reverse, and introduced the helmeted head of Roma on the obverse.17 More remarkable are the parallel issues of victoriati.18 These introduced two new types to Roman silver coinage. On the obverse is a bearded head of Jupiter or Zeus, on the reverse is Victoria or Nike crowning a trophy with a wreath. The significance of these remarkable types was first pointed out by Zehnacker. As mentioned above, in 217/16 bc Hieron of Syracuse had offered to the Roman people a gold statue of Nike, ominis causa. Livy describes the Roman Senate's response: 10 Full accounts of the debate can be found in Thomsen II, pp. 255—8 and Zehnacker, pp. 309-14. " See Crawford, 'War and Finance', p. 31 with n.19, and RRC, p. 46. 12 For the semilibral's introduction during 217, see Crawford, RRC, p. 43. The suggestion that a terminus ante quern is provided by the ludi Romani of that year (ibid., p. 627 n.l) must, however, be rejected. See Crawford, CMRR, p. 55 n. 5. For the introduction of the gold as support only in 216 bc see Crawford, 'War and Finance', p. 31, following the date of Thomsen. Pace Zehnacker, p. 314, there are no strong numismatic grounds for favouring 217 for the first issue of the gold. 13 Livy 22.38.1-5: 'With the levy complete, the consuls delayed for a few days while the soldiers from the allies and the Latins arrived. Then something happened which never had before: an oath was administered to the soldiers by the military tribunes; prior to that day there had been nothing except the voluntary sacramentum. ... This was now transformed from a voluntary agreement amongst the soldiers themselves to a binding oath administered by the tribunes.' 14 Zehnacker, p. 314. Cf. Crawford, RRC, p. 715, 'presumably a call to loyalty addressed to Rome's allies, whatever the precise symbolism involved'. 15 Crawford, 'War and Finance', p. 32. Cf. RRC, pp. 3-5 and 33-5. 16 RRC 50/3-8, cf. above n.7. 17 RRC 44/5 (denarius), RRC 44/6 (quinarius), RRC 44/7 (sestertius). 18 They begin with RRC 44/1. For their date and position within the new denarius system, see Crawford, CMRR, pp. 56-7. 128 a.r. meadows Victoriam omenque accipere sedemque ei se divae dare dicare Capitolium, templum Iovis optimi maximi, in ea arce urbis Romanae sacratam volentem propitiamque, firmam ac stabilem fore populo Romano.19 'Nous ne pensons pas qu'il faille etablir un rapport plastique entre la statue et l'effigie monetaire; mais le rapport ideologique est incontestable.'20 Finds of early victoriati in Italy 'come exclusively from the Greek or Hellenised areas of Apulia, Campania, or northern Lucania'.21 These coins carried messages intended for the Hellenised populations of central and southern Italy: on the one hand they conveyed to a wide audience the omen of Victory on the Roman Capitol; on the other they advertised, to people likely to be impressed by the fact, that Hieron, the great king of Syracuse, had sided with Rome. These coins were at once an expression of self-confidence on the part of the Roman people and an advertisement that one of the great Hellenistic kings had sided with them against Carthage. It is against this background that the Mars/eagle on thunderbolt gold should now be examined.22 THE SPECIFIC REFERENCE Mars on the obverse carried the warrior resonance that Rome had favoured for her coinage since its beginning, and was none the less appropriate in the circumstances of the War with Carthage.23 The eagle and thunderbolt lands us in quite a different area, however. By the end of the third century bc such a design could have had but one clear iconographic reference to a Greek user seeing it on a coin. It had first appeared on the silver coinage of Ptolemy I Soter of Egypt at the very beginning of the century. Subsequently it remained, with a consistency unparalleled in any other hellenistic coinage, as the reverse type on all of the Ptolemies' coinage in bronze, the bulk of their silver issues, as well as the early gold of the first two Ptolemies. Amongst other coin-issuing authorities, appropriation of the badge of the Eagle on Thunderbolt became the standard means to claim a link with the Ptolemies or their coinage. Coincidentally, around 211 bc the city of Aradus began to issue coins on the distinctive Ptolemaic weight standard. These they made clearly identifiable by giving them Ptolemaic types, including the eagle on thunderbolt reverse.24 For similar reasons the Seleucid kings from Antiochus V to Antiochus IX placed 'le type par excellence des Ptolemees' on their royal issues minted on the Ptolemaic standard for use in Coele Syria.25 In these two cases the eagle on thunderbolt was a device to express a link with the Ptolemaic realm and its weight standard. Although suggestive of the resonance of the Ptolemaic coin design, this connection cannot help us in the case of the Roman gold. A far more obvious parallel comes from further west. In the winter of 226/5 Ptolemy III Euergetes, began to give financial support to the Spartan king Cleomenes III in his struggle against the Achaean League.26 This subvention received clear acknowledgement in the Spartan coinage of the following few years. The Ptolemaic eagle on thunderbolt appeared on the obverse of two groups of Spartan bronze.27 The reasons for such acknowledgement are obvious: on the one hand it showed suitable gratitude to Ptolemy for the gift; on the other, and perhaps more importantly, it emphasised to all who came in contact with the coin that 19 Livy 22.37.12: 'That they accepted the statue of Victory and the omen, and they would assign and dedicate to the goddess a Capitoline seat, the temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus, and that on that citadel of the city of Rome she would be gracious, favourable, sure and steadfast for the Roman people.' 20 Zehnacker, p. 346. 21 Crawford, CMRR, p. 56 with map on p. 57. 22 'Le choix des effigies s'est fait, semble-t-il, d'une facon analogue a celle qu'on vient de voir pour les deniers et les victoriats.' Zehnacker, p. 349. 23 For war and conquest on earlier Roman issues, see A.M. Burnett, 'The Iconography of Roman Coin Types in the Third Century bc', NC 146 (1986), pp. 67-75. On the Greek, and specifically Ptolemaic, stylistic antecedents of the treatment of Mars, see Caccamo Caltabiano op. cit. n. 3 (1990), pp. 7-8. 24 On these issues see O. M0rkholm, 'The Ptolemaic "Coins of an Uncertain Era'", NNA 1975-6, pp. 23-57. The earliest dated issue, which follows a short undated series, belongs to 212/11 bc. For a recent, unsuccessful attempt to re-attribute these coins to Pelusium and a 'Soter era', see R.A. Hazzard and M.P.V. Fitzgerald, 'The regulation of the Ptolemaieia', Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada 65 (1991), pp. 6-23. 25 For these issues see now G. Le Rider, 'La politique monetaire des Seleucides en Coele Syrie et en Phenicie apres 200', BCH 119 (1995), pp. 392-404. 26 Pol. 2.51.2. For the date, F.W. Walbank, Aratos of Sicyon (Cambridge, 1930), pp. 200-1. 27 S. Grunauer-von Hoerschelmann, Die Miinzprdgung der Lakedaitnonier (Berlin, 1978), pp. 16-19, Groups TV and V. THE MARS/EAGLE AND THUNDERBOLT GOLD 129 Cleomenes could boast Ptolemaic support. In the circumstances of the war in the Peloponnese at this time, this was of particular significance since Cleomenes' opponents, the Achaean League, had themselves been in receipt of Ptolemaic subsidy until only two or three years previously. Cleomenes' choice of type thus becomes very pointed. While considering this example it is perhaps worth dwelling on the practice of acknowledging royal subsidy in choice of coin type. At some point between 229 and 226 bc a massive earthquake struck the island of Rhodes. Amongst the many offers of aid from around the Greek world was a massive quantity of silver, bronze, corn and wood from Ptolemy III (Pol. 5.89.1-6). The Rhodians seem to have made a very similar gesture to Cleomenes' in a coinage roughly contemporary with the Spartan issues. The Rhodian bronze coinage had on the obverse a portrait recently identified by R. Ashton as Berenike II, the wife of Ptolemy III: 'the Rhodians will have used at least some of Ptolemy's coined bronze ... to strike an innovative coinage ... reflecting the gratitude of Rhodes to its principal benefactor and trading partner.'28 A similar nod to Ptolemaic support is perhaps also to be seen in the late third century coinage of Thespiae in Boeotia. Here a small series of bronzes, again with a veiled female portrait, have been identified by A. Schachter as portraying a Ptolemaic queen, and connected to the reorganization of the Museia at Thespiae at some point between 215 and 208 bc, with which the Ptolemaic royal house was certainly connected.29 There are thus clear precedents for states acknowledging financial aid through the medium of coin types from the third century, and the possibility must be considered that the Romans were doing likewise. There can certainly be little doubt that Ptolemaic coinage and the eagle on thunderbolt motif were familiar to the inhabitants of Italy and Sicily at this period. Finds of Ptolemaic coins are amply attested from Sicily and various areas of Italy.30 That Ptolemaic coinage penetrated Rome, and indeed the Roman mint, is quite clear from two different phenomena: (1) the borrowing of a Ptolemaic coin type on an earlier Roman bronze issue;31 and (2) the overstrikes of Roman bronze coin upon Ptolemaic, which Charles Hersh has devoted so much effort to collecting.32 Three are known from precisely the period that interests us: a quadrans of 215-212 bc from the mint of Rome (RRC 41/8b) on a bronze of Ptolemy II and two quadrantes of 214-212 bc from a Roman mint in Sicily (RRC 42/2) also on bronzes of Ptolemy II.33 Moreover, Caccamo Caltabiano, op. cit. n. 3 (1990), pp. 10-11, has recently argued that the obvious stylistic antecedent of the treatment of the eagle is in fact Ptolemaic. In summary then, it is clear that acknowledgement of Ptolemaic financial assistance by adoption of Ptolemaic coin-type was a widespread phenomenon in the late third century bc. It is also clear that the eagle and thunderbolt would have been familiar as a Ptolemaic motif to Greeks, Italians and Carthaginians at this same period. Moreover it seems distinctly possible that in the slightly earlier issues of victoriati, the Romans had chosen a type to emphasise the support they had been receiving from another Greek king, Hieron of Syracuse, while with the oath scene gold they had sought to underline the importance of allies in war. The question now to be asked is whether there is any evidence for Ptolemaic alliance with, support of or subvention to the Romans in the environs of 212 bc. 28 R.H.J. Ashton, 'Rhodian Bronze Coinage and the Earthquake of 229-226 bc', NC 146 (1986), pp. 1-18, quotation from page 15. A representation of Zeus on contemporary Rhodian bronzes may also be Ptolemaic in inspiration: Ashton (ibid.). 29 A. Schachter, 'A Note on the Re-organization of the Thespian Museia', NC1 1 (1961), pp. 68-70. The coins in question are BMC Thespiae, nos. 14-26 (PI. XVI. 12-13). For a summary of the evidence linking Ptolemy IV and Arsinoe III to Thespiae and the Museia see P. Roesch, 'Les Cultes Egyptiens en Beotie', in ESAEA, pp. 623-4. 30 Sicily: G. Manganaro, 'Movimento di Uomini tra Egitto e Sicilia (RI-I sec. A.C.)', in ESAEA. pp. 513-53, 524-32. Po Valley: G. Gorini, 'Aspetti della Circolazione Monetaria nel III-II sec. A.C. in Alto Adriatico: I Bronzi Tolemaici', Atti e Memorie della Societa Istriana di Archeologia e Sturia Patria 76 (1976), pp. 43-9. Cf. Crawford, CMRR, p. 298. Apulia: A. Travaglini, 'Monete Puniche e Tolemaiche in Puglia', in SER, pp. 369-375. For further bibliography see Manganaro, art. cit., p. 525 n. 62 and M. Taliercio Mensitieri, 'Egitto e Magna Grecia Tirrenica nel III sec. A.C, in SER, pp. 355-67, 356-7. 31 RRC 23, where the Ptolemaic eagle on thunderbolt appears on the reverse facing left, but with head reverted. Burnett, art. cit. (n.23), p. 69 points out that the Ptolemaic prototype seems to be SNG Cop. 141, which he dates c.250. For a date 'nach der Reform von 266/265', cf. however W. Weiser, Katalog Ptoleindischer Bwnzemiinzen der Sammlung des Institute fiir Altertumskunde der Universitdt zu Kbln (Opladen, 1995), p. 30 ad no. 19. In view of the uncertainty concerning the precise date of the prototype and thus RRC 23 itself, speculation about the significance of borrowing on this occasion must be resisted. 32 Hersh, Overstrikes and Additional Overstrikes. Cf. Crawford, RRC, pp. 105-19 and eund., CMRR, pp. 336-7. 33 Hersh, Overstrikes, nos. 9 and 10 and Additional Overstrikes, no. 14. 130 a.r. meadows THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND The question of Ptolemaic relations with both Rome and Carthage throughout their wars is an intriguing one, for there is a puzzle. During the first Punic war, Ptolemy Philadelphus had been friendly to both powers and had refused to involve himself on one side or the other. KapxT|86vL0L 8' es FlToXefxaLov eTrpeafBeiJOVTo, tov nToXefxai'ou tou A&70u, f3aox\ea AiyuTrroi), 5uTX^La t&XavTa Kixpw|xevoi. Tcj) 8' t)v es te 'Pcou,caou<; Kai Kapx"n.8ovLOus <|)i\ia, Kai crvvaXka^ai a^as ETrexELpTjaev ak\y]\oi^. ov 8wr|0eLs 8' 8<j)t| xpT)vai cjuXois kolt' ex6pa>v crv\ju\xax£lv, ov KOtTa (J>CXwv.34 By the end of the Second Punic War however, Ptolemaic policy had changed. Late in 201, the Senate sent an embassy to Ptolemy Epiphanes to thank him 'quod in rebus dubiis, cum finitimi etiam socii Romanos desererent, in fide mansisset, et peterent ut, si coacti iniuriis bellum adversus Philippum suscepissent, pristinum animum erga populum Romanum conservaret.'35 Ptolemy now appears to be a sociuSy and has in some way proved himself more loyal to Rome than those who had gone over to Hannibal. He has stood resolutely behind Rome in her darkest hour. It is hard to believe that such language could refer simply to a maintenance of neutrality such as that displayed in the first war, particularly in the light of the rhetoric of societas. The likelihood must be that Ptolemy Philopator had made some active gesture of support to Rome during the course of the Hannibalic War.36 Some caution is perhaps required in reading such diplomatic pronouncements: were it a case of a deferential power thanking a stronger ally for remaining neutral, it might just be conceivable that this could be described as in fide manere. Yet this clearly was not the case. The reply sent by Epiphanes treats Rome at least as an equal, and arguably shows the Greek as the deferential party.37 Furthermore, the response of the Senate to this reply clearly shows that the relationship between the two powers has moved up a level: 'gratiae regi ab senatu actae responsumque tutari socios populo Romano in animo esse: si qua re ad id bellum [sc. against Philip] opus sit indicaturos regi, regnique eius opes scire subsidia firma ac fidelia suae rei publicae esse.'38 The Senate can by 200 bc expect more than neutrality from Alexandria; it knows that the resources of Egypt can be relied upon for firm and faithful support. But when did this change in Ptolemaic policy occur, and how did it manifest itself? A closer look at what little we know of Ptolemaic (in)activity in the Second Punic War helps to narrow down the date range a little. The famous episode of Decius Magius' enjoyment of Ptolemaic neutrality in the war in 216 bc may be a story much embellished by later narration, yet it is difficult to see what reason anyone could have had for inventing the account at its core.39 Confirmation of this neutrality comes from another event of the same year, when Hieronymus of Syracuse sought allies against Rome. According to Polybius, ambassadors were sent to Ptolemy Philopator, but were clearly unsuccessful in obtaining his support, for nothing is heard of the outcome.40 34 Appian Sik. L: "The Carthaginians sent an embassy to Ptolemy son of Ptolemy son of Lagos king of Egypt, seeking 2,000 Talents. But Ptolemy had a friendship with both the Romans and the Carthaginians, and sought instead to reconcile the two. Unable to do this, he replied that while one should assist friends to fight against one's enemies, one should not if they were fighting one's friends.' 35 Livy 31.2.3-4: 'because, in uncertain times, when even neighbouring allies had deserted the Romans, he had remained loyal; and they asked him whether, if the Romans were forced by injuries to declare war on king Philip, he would maintain his old attitude towards them.' 36 So L.H. Nealby, 'Romano-Egyptian Relations during the Third Century bc', TAPA 81 (1950). pp. 89-98, 95. 37 legati a rege Ptolomaeo uenerunt qui nuntiarent Athenienses aduersus Philippum petisse ab rege auxilium: ceterum, etsi communes socii sint, tamen nisi ex auctoritate populi Romani neque classem neque exercitum defendendi aut oppugnandi cuiusquam causa re gem in Graeciam missurum esse; uel quieturum eum in regno, si populo Romano socios defendere libeat, uel Romanos quiescere, si malint, passurum atque ipsum auxilia, quae facile aduersus Philippum lueri Athenas possent, missurum. (Livy 31.9.1-3). Further discussion of the situation in 201/0 in A.R. Meadows, 'Greek and Roman Diplomacy on the Eve of the Second Macedonian War', Historia 42 (1993), pp. 40-60. 38 Livy 31.9.4: 'The Senate thanked the king and replied that the Roman people intended to protect their allies: if need should arise in any way in that war they would inform the king. In the meantime they knew that the resources of his kingdom were firm and loyal to the Republic' 39 Livy 23.10.11-13, 22.53.5. Cf. SSL Ital. Punica 11.369-384. (Pros. Ptol. 16122). 40 TTpoxei-piCTa(x£vos oe IloXviKXeiTov <tov> RupT|vaibv koi (!>i\68T|p.ov tov 'Ap7£iov, tovtow; u.ev eis 'iTaXiav aTreoreiAE, dots evroX.d? \akzCv imip KOivoTrpa-yids tois KapxT|&ovi<x<;, cip.a 6e Koa tovs doeXcjjous £ts 'AXejjavopeiav dTreTre|xiJ/ev. (Pol. 7.2.2). Cf. Livy 24.26.1: Heraclia eral filia Hieronis, uxor Zoippi, qui legatus ab Hieronymo ad regem Ptolomaeum missus volunlarium consciverat exilium. On the nature of Zoippus' embassy (= Pros. Ptol. 14823), Walbank, HCP II., p. 32. THE MARS/EAGLE AND THUNDERBOLT GOLD 131 At some point between 215 and c.210 the crunch came for Ptolemy in the shape of a Roman embassy requesting a concrete display of support. "Otl ol 'Pcou,aioi Trp£0"f3eurds E^aTrEcrmAav Trpos IlTOA£|xoaov, (3ouA.6ll£voi airco XopT)7t|9f)vaL 8id to ux^dATiv elvai Trap' carrots cnrdviv, cos dv tou fi£v Kara tt|v 'iTctXlav utto tcov o"TpaTOTre5coy d-rravTos e4>0apfxevou p-£XPL T^°v 7^ 'Pcop,t|s ttuacov, e^coOev 8e jjltj 7£vo|i,£vT)s erriKOupCas, ctTe Korra TfdvTa tcx |xepT| ttjs oi.KOujjLevT)s TroA£p<cov evecrTcoTcov kcxL crTpaTOTr£8cov TrapaKa8T)|xevcov, TrXt)v tcov koit' AtyuTTTOv tottcov. els ~ydp Tocroirrov KaTct TTjv 'Pcb|XT|v TrpoEpEp-qKEi TCt tt|s evSeuxs coctte tov Xikealkov u,£8i|xvov Tr£VT£Kca8£Ka 8paxi^cov "UTrdpxEiv.41 The precise dating of this Roman embassy is problematic. The terminus post quern is provided by the passage's position in our only source for Polybius' text at this point, the Excerpta de Legationibus Romanorum ad Gentes, the terminus ante by the Roman conquest of Sicily in 210.42 The contents of the passage hinder rather than help closer dating. There is evidently some rhetorical, perhaps apologetic exaggeration behind the description of Roman motivation. Kcrrd tt&vto: Td fxep-q tt)s olkod|jL£vt|s tto\e|xcov EvecrTcoTcov is simply wrong, since there was no war in Asia Minor at this time.43 Thus -Otto tcov o~TpaTOTr£8cov d-rravTOs £4>6apjx£vo\) p.£xpi tcov tt]s 'Pco|xt)s ttuacov cannot be relied upon as a reference to Hannibal's advance to Rome in 211 - the same wild historical license may be at work. In any case the identity of the army is suspiciously vague: this could conceivably be a reference to a Roman scorched earth policy.44 A more reliable guide to the dating of this passage may perhaps be found in the pattern of the Roman corn supply in these five years of the war. By the autumn of 216, following the disaster at Cannae, the resources of the Roman state were in poor shape. The commanders of forces in Sicily and Sardinia reported that they could neither pay nor feed their troops. The Senate's reply was pitiful and helpless: 'Responsum utrique non esse unde mitteretur' (Livy 23.21.4). The commander in Sardinia was fortunate enough to find benign allies there (Livy 23.21.5). Meanwhile, T. Otacilius Crassus in Sicily turned to a tried and tested source. Hieron II of Syracuse lent him money and grain enough for six months. This was not the first time that Hieron had helped Rome in this war,45 and it would not be the last. In the spring of 215, when the six months were up, the loan was extended to provision the fleet and prepare for Macedon. At the same time Hieron extended the credit still further by sending 200,000 modii of wheat and 100,000 of barley (Livy 23.38.12-13). Hieron and the resources of Syracuse were by now playing an important part in the maintenance of the Roman war effort. Within a few months, during the summer of 215 this help was to cease: 'In Sicilia Romanis omnia mutaverat mors Hieronis regnumque ad Hieronymum nepotem eius translatum' (Livy 24.4.1). The loss of this ally is not to be underestimated.46 By autumn the pinch was being felt, notably in Sicily where Otacilius was now forced to seek supplies for his fleet elsewhere, first in Africa, then Sardinia 47 In the 41 Pol. 9.11a: "The Romans sent ambassadors to Ptolemy, wanting to organise a supply of corn because of the great scarcity they were suffering since everything had been destroyed by the armies as far as the gates of Rome, and no help had come from abroad because wars had broken out and armies were in the field throughout every pan of the world except in Egypt. The scarcity in Rome had reached the point where a Sicilian medimnus cost fifteen drachms. Nevertheless, even in such circumstances the Romans did not forget their military preparations'. 42 In manuscript N (Monacensis Gr. 267) it occurs after Pol. 7.2-5 (a Roman embassy to Hieronymus of Syracuse in 215). M. Holleaux, Rome la Grece et les monarchies hellenistiques an troisieme siecle av. J.-C . (273-205). BEFAR 124 (Paris/Rome, 1921), p. 67 n. 2 ; Walbank, HCPtl, pp. 9-10. 43 Walbank, HCPII, p. 137. 44 If it was not simply a melodramatic way of describing the abject state of arable farming in the area at this period: "res haudquaquam erat populo facilis, et liberis cultoribus bello absumptis et inopia servitiorum et pecore direplo villisque dirutis aut incensis.' (Livy 28.11.9) - this specifically of the area of Rome and Latium, and in 206, long after Hannibal's irruption of 211. There may, however, be evidence for a Roman 'scorched earth' policy in 215 when around early February the Consul Fabius proclaimed 'ut frumcnta omnes ex agris ante kal. Iunias (c.20 April) primas in urbes munitas conveherent; qui non invexisset eius se agrum populaturum, servos sub hasta venditurum, villas incensurum.' (Livy 23.32.14). Since this cannot refer to the harvest of 215 (see PS. Derow, 'The Roman Calendar, 218-191 BC', Phoenix 30 [1976], pp. 265-81, 278-9), the frumentwn in the fields in winter/spring 215 can only have been the seed grain for that year. 45 After Trebia in 218 he sent troops (Livy 21.50.10; Pol. 3.75.7); following Trasimene the next year gold and grain were offered (Livy 22.37.Iff; Val. Max. 3.3; Zon. 8.26). 46 See P. Marchetti, "La datation du denier Romain et les fouilles de Morgantina', RBN 117 (1971), pp. 83-5. 47 Livy 23.41.8 - this must surely have been the purpose of these extraordinary voyages. Otacilius would resort to Africa again in 212 (Livy 25.31.12-15); Sardinia, together with a large amount of grain, had just been won by T. Manlius Torquatus (23.41.6-7). 132 A.R. MEADOWS Senate there was a repeat of the previous autumn's experience when the Scipios begged for money, clothes and grain for their men. Again the Senate was helpless, but this time there could be no question of refusal, nor any hope of borrowing from Hieron - instead the loan had to be taken out at home (Livy 23.48.4—23.49.4). Yet this can have solved only half the problem: money and clothes could perhaps have been procured by resourceful publicani, but a shortage of grain was a shortage of grain. Hieron had been able to send it because he had the resources and the granaries. The three societates that answered the call at Rome in 215 can have had neither. The Scipios had made it clear that money was not enough - they needed the product not the purchasing power (Livy 23.48.5) - so grain must have been sent. The most plausible source is perhaps the Sardinian windfall of that summer (Livy 23.41.7); but the Senate could not rely on windfalls forever. We do not hear of another import of Sardinian grain until the autumn of 212 (Livy 25.20.3): Sardinia rarely produced grain surplus to that required for the troops that held it, neither, after the death of Hiero, did Sicily (Livy 23.48.7). Some hope may have been held after the assassination of Hieronymus in 214 of regaining the loyalty of Syracuse, where feeling towards Rome was mixed, but this was dashed late in the same year by the arrival of Hippocrates and Epicydes (Livy 24.32.2-9). Meanwhile at Rome there is evidence that the problems in Sicily were seen as a watershed, first in the arrangements for Otacilius' fleet (Livy 24.11.7-9), then in the fiercely repressive measures of the Censors, vacui ab operum locandorum cura propter inopiam aerarii(Uvy 24.18.2). Such must have been the atmosphere in which the Senate swallowed its pride and sent ambassadors to Ptolemy. If the exaggerations of Polybius 9.1 la are exaggerations, and not complete fabrications, then we may perhaps see the recent outbreak of war in Sicily behind the irocvTOf t« |xepT|, the 'scorched earth' policy of Fabius in 215 behind the diravToq £<{>0ctp|j,evov, and the desire to find a replacement for the external help of Hieron as the immediate catalyst. Certainly the years 214 and 213 were the blackest Rome faced financially. In 214 the cavalry and the centurions went without pay. Throughout 213 Marcellus' forces in Sicily lived hand to mouth as the Proconsul was forced to split his army and secure Roman grain supplies first at Murgantia, then Leontini.48 Throughout the years 214-212 we hear of no exports of grain from Sicily: 'that in book 25 no import of grain from Sicily is mentioned, but only from Sardinia, is not imputable to chance, in the preceding years war having raged furiously in Sicily itself; when, after the fall of Syracuse, peace had been restored in the island, the import of grain from Sicily to Rome also revived, compare the striking passages from books 26-27.'49 By 212 things were picking up: 'Booty was coming in almost every year from 212 (Syracuse) onwards down to 206 (Spain).'50 In 212 also Sardinia produced a profit in grain. Furthermore, there was at the same time a new political element to Rome's crisis. By the winter of 215/14 the monarchy of Syracuse was not the only one of deep concern to the Roman senate. In the previous Summer, M. Valerius Laevinus had intercepted envoys from Philip of Macedon on their way to Hannibal. From these was discovered the existence of an alliance between the two men. The ramifications of such an alliance for Ptolemy and his western trade routes were considerable, and this would surely have been obvious to the Roman Senate. Rome was now all that stood between the nations of Macedon and Carthage carving up the west between themselves. An embassy in 214 on political grounds alone is attractive. If a request was to be made to Ptolemy for economic help in 214, the Roman ambassadors now had a trump card to play. The embassy to Ptolemy is thus best placed in the environs of 214 or 213. But was it successful? It has often been assumed so,51 though no evidence has been adduced to support this claim. It is now time to consider whether the Mars/eagle gold could provide this evidence. First comes the question of precise chronology. 48 Livy 24.36.10; 24.39.11. On ihe chronological problems and date of this campaign, Walbank, HCP II., p. 3. 49 J.H. Thiel, Studies on the History of Roman Sea Power in Republican Times (Amsterdam, 1946), p. 56; Livy 26.32.3, 26.40.15-16, 27.5.1-6, 27.8.19. Cf. 28.11.8. 29.1.14. 50 Crawford, RRC, p. 33. 51 For example by Thiel, op cit. (n. 49), p. 56; G. Rickman, The Corn Supply of Ancient Rome (Oxford, 1980), p. 150, J. Briscoe, 'The Second Punic War', in CAM VIII (Cambridge, 1989), p. 50. Cf. E. Gruen, The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome (Berkeley, 1984), p. 677 n. 24: 'Polybius does not explicitly give Ptolemy's response. But it can hardly be doubted that the king proved obliging.' the mars/eagle and thunderbolt gold 133 As has been noted above, a Sicilian gold 20 as piece (RRC 72/2) was found by the excavators at Morgantina sealed in deposit 25, dated to the destruction of the city in 211 bc.32 A terminus ante quern of 211 is thus provided for the coin and associated denarii. A terminus post is produced by consideration of (a) the latest known date of the pre-denarius coinage and (b) overstrikes of the earliest sextantal standard bronze coins that accompanied the Mars/eagle and thunderbolt. The former, assuming Rome copied the Campanian cities in introducing the quadrantal bronze standard (the last pre-denarius version), yields a date of late 216/early 215.53 Similarly, 'the evidence of Capuan, Calatian and Atellan overstrikes points unmistakably towards a date after 216/15 for the introduction of the post- semilibral weight standard and a date somewhat after that for the introduction of the denarius.'54 For the latter, coin of Hieron II is found overstruck by quadrantal, sextantal and uncial Roman bronze, whereas bronze of Hieronymus and the subsequent democracy is found overstruck by sextantal and uncial only. Since the bronze coin of Hieronymus was first issued in early 214, all the evidence seems to conspire towards a terminus post quern for the denarius of circa mid 214.55 The broad range of c. mid 214-c.211 for the Mars/eagle and thunderbolt gold coin and the denarii results. One further piece of evidence reinforces this range and may narrow it down further. In 1976 a Punic half-shekel overstruck on a Roman denarius was published that set a date for the first denarius before the Carthaginian withdrawal from Sicily in 210 once and for all.56 'The piece probably derives from a hoard discovered at Enna c.1966, which did include a number of examples of this Carthaginian issue.'57 This hoard has now been dated by Burnett to 212 or 211 bc on the basis of its Syracusan and Siculo-Punic contents. Virtually all issues and dies of the coinage of the Syracusan democracy are represented, suggesting that the hoard was buried after the democracy had ceased minting. The democracy fell in autumn 212 bc, though minting may of course have ceased before that. Siculo-Punic issues attributed tentatively to the mint of Agrigentum are represented by half shekels (3 obverse dies) and quarter shekels (3 obverse dies). Agrigentum fell into Punic hands in 213 bc. 212 bc may therefore, on balance, be the more likely year of deposit of the Enna hoard, and the range 214-212 bc suggested for the inauguration of the denarius and the Mars/eagle on thunderbolt gold. In any event, the inception of these coins coincides precisely with the period (214-213 bc) at which we have independently arrived for the date of the Roman embassy to Ptolemy. On the basis of both type and date, therefore, the reasons for linking the first gold issues with Ptolemaic help are strong. But what sort of help did Ptolemy send? When the Romans received aid from Hieron, on two occasions (in 217 and 216 bc) the help came in the form of money as well as grain. Polybius does not mention a request for money, but this does not remove the possibility that Ptolemy did send gold, to ensure that he was backing the winner.58 Having decided finally to come down on one side of the fence, quite possibly on learning of the Macedonian-Carthaginian pact, Philopator will not have wished his aid to be indecisive. In fact, the suggestion of a Ptolemaic source of gold for these early Mars/eagle issues (RRC 44/2-4 and 72/2) potentially solves a problem. According to Livy (27.10.11), it was not until 209/8 that the aerarium sanctius was raided for the aurum vicesimarium it contained. Indeed, it is on the basis of this passage that the later issues of Mars/eagle gold (RRC 50/1, 88/1, 105/2 and 106/2) may be dated.59 The 52 Above p. 125 n. 4. Attempts by P. Marchetti to narrow this down to 214 bc by assuming that the levels excavated at Morgantina belong to the period of Roman occupation of the site prior to 213 bc must now be firmly rejected. Marchetti's case was first put forward in 1971 (art. cit. n. 46). For a robust re-assertion, cf. 'Numismatique romaine et Histoire', Cahiers du Centre G. Clotz 4 (1993), pp. 25-65, 30-5. For conclusive evidence that the levels concerned must post-date 213, see Burnett loc. cit. (above n. 4). 53 Crawford, 'War and Finance", p. 30. 54 Crawford, RRC, p. 31; cf. ibid. p. 43 for the end of the of the semilibral in early 215. 55 Date of Hieronymus' coin: R.R. Holloway, The Thirteen Month Coinage of Hieronymus of Syracuse (Berlin, 1969), pp. 37-43; not 216-215 as stated by Crawford, RRC, p. 31. The same mistake vitiates the account of the overstrikes by W.T. Loomis, "The Introduction of the Denarius', in R.W. Wallace and E.M. Harris (eds), Transitions to Empire. Essays in Greco-Roman History, 360-146 BC, in honor ofE. Badian (Norman / London. 1996) pp. 338-55 at 342. 56 Originally published by L. Villaronga, 'Reacunacion cartaginesa sobre un denario romano', GN 40 (1976), pp. 15-18. Cf. Hersh, Additional Overstrikes, pp. 86-7 no. 1. 57 So Buttrey art cit. (n. 4), p. 156, following Villaronga. The hoard was published by A.M. Burnett, 'The Enna Hoard and the Silver Coinage of the Syracusan Democracy', SNR 62 (1983), pp. 5-26, (discussion of the overstrike on p. 12). 58 Since Livy does not record the Polybian embassy to Ptolemy, his silence on what was sent in reply cannot be pressed. 59 Crawford, RRC, p. 34: 'that part of the aurum vicesimarium which was sent away from Rome presumably provided the bullion for the signed issues of Mars/eagle gold (other than that with the corn-ear) from military mints'; ibid, n.4 for suggestions as to the disposition of this gold. a.r. meadows question thus arises, where did the bullion come from for the earlier issues, which must have been produced prior to 212 or 211 bc? Given Crawford's reconstruction of the circumstances that gave rise to the denarius' introduction, something would have had to occur in c.213 in terms of bullion availability and confidence in the treasury. A gift of gold from Ptolemy would certainly account for this. 1. BMCRR 185 2. BMCRR 188 3. BMCRR 189 4. BMCRR 186 KEY TO PLATE 5. BMCRR Italy 19 6. BMCRR Italy 76 7. BMCRR Italy 60 MEADOWS, MARS/EAGLE GOLD