图密善二世罗马皇帝Domitian II

When you think of Roman emperors, the men on the tip of your tongue are likely to be famous names that belong to the dynasties of the early Julio-Claudians, the first century Flavians, or the largely second century Nerva-Antonines. Indeed, when I say the name Domitian, I'm willing to guess that most of you will think of the well-known Flavian emperor whose rule bookmarked the end of that renowned dynasty. But I doubt many of you have heard of Domitian II, a name that until recently, and the discovery of a single coin that changed Roman history forever, belonged only to the obscure writings of ancient sources, and even then not as an emperor. So why did history forget him? Well, the third century was a time of massive crisis for Rome and its leaders. Many were called soldier-emperors for a very good reason. Much of their reign was spent putting down rebellions and keeping enemies away from the door. Some were considered successful, such as Aurelian, who reunited a fractured empire, and others less so, such as Gallienus, whose preceding rule, despite a number of military victories, oversaw crisis and near collapse of central state control. It's suffice to say that these later emperors didn't enjoy much time wearing the purple. Often usurped by enemies within their own ranks, this was a very different time to that of the relatively peaceful early empire. It was a time of unremitting conflict. Rome no longer enjoyed long-lived patron emperors, such as Hadrian, affording historians like Cassius Dio the opportunity to muse on the lives of the emperors. The rule of third century emperors was short. So short, in fact, that there was little time for literature and the arts that would remember their names in posterity. In fact, we barely know anything about some of the short-lived usurpers, and only then because they managed to control a mint in rebellion just long enough to bash out a few coins bearing their name before being overthrown and disappearing into history. And so we come to Domitian II, for his name belongs to this rather shadowy period of Roman history and its obscure participants. In fact, the only material evidence we have for this challenger to the throne derives from just three coins. The first was part of a hoard discovered in the Loire-Atlantique, department of France, in 1900. But even as late as 1992, many doubted the coin's authenticity and dismissed it as a hoax, doubting whether Domitian existed at all. That was until another coin hoard was discovered in the village of Chalgrove in Oxfordshire, England, in 2003, within which was a single coin minted in his name, in a pot with some 5,000 other coins of the period, 250 to 275 CE. This was the coin that proved the French coin to be genuine and proof of his existence for Roman historians. Subsequently, the hoard, along with his coin, was acquired by the Ashmolean Museum in 2004, to add yet further support to his presence in history. A third coin was discovered with a metal detector in Bulgaria in 2006, and is now kept in the National Museum in Sofia. But who really was Domitian, and what was his significance both to the Romans and to history in general? Well, he was probably one of the many Roman generals who made a bid for power in the tumultuous third century, but was unsuccessful. There is scant written about him in ancient Roman sources, and what little there is may not refer to the same Domitian that appears on the coins. Nevertheless, the academic consensus, for now, is that they are one and the same. The ancient sources for the Gallic Empire are poor. The breakaway third century empire that concerns his fate is made up largely of brief notes from late fourth century Latin authors, who depended heavily on the now lost enmanche kaisergeschichte, scattered references from the first book of the ancient Roman historian Zosimus, and from information taken from the coinage minted by the Gallic emperors. While the lives of the Gallic emperors are covered within the Historia Augusta, this information is notoriously unreliable due to its interweaving of facts and invention. We first hear of Domitian in the Historia Augusta, which places him in the staff of Aurelius, then commander of the cavalry and later a usurper himself, in a battle against Macrianus and his two sons. They had made a bid for power in the east following the demise of and moved against Gallianus in 261 CE, meeting his forces headed by Aurelius in Illyricum, or the border of Thrace. It states, it was Domitianus indeed who won this victory, the bravest and most active of Aurelius' leaders, who claimed to be the descendant of the emperor Domitian and Domitilla. The latter sentence can be dismissed as a work of fiction. Unfortunately, this source is a combination of fact and fiction. Aurelian became emperor following a conspiracy against Gallianus, and it was during his reign that revolts broke out in a power struggle among Gallianus' former generals. Whilst Aurelian was preoccupied in battle in northern Italy with the Euthungi, the troops in Dalmatia proclaimed Septimius, possibly a military governor, as emperor 271 or 272 CE. But his revolt was short-lived, being killed by his own soldiers. There is no doubt that the revolt of Domitian was also brief but not ephemeral, since even if a matter of days it was long enough to mint coins to advertise his elevation, and this alone infers sufficient, if not brief, control of one of the imperial mints, unlike Septimius and a slew of other pretenders at this time. We can place Domitian in Gaul at the time of the so-called Gallic Empire that had broken away from Rome under the governor of Germania, inferior, posthumous in 260 CE. He would have been a military commander at the time Victorinus became emperor of this rebel state. In early 271 CE, Victorinus was slain by his quartermaster in apparent retribution for the seduction of his wife. Victorinus' mother, Victoria, was able to continue to hold power in Interregnum after his death and arranged for his deification and, after considerable payment to the troops, the appointment of Tetrarchus I as his successor. Victoria is thought to have come from a wealthy and distinguished Gallic family. She was able to employ her considerable resources to buy the support of the legions and so decide the question of succession by having her son replaced with Tetrarchus I, the governor of Gallia Aquitania, and who may also have been Interestingly, the Historia Augusta records her as a tyrant, presumably for her position as usurper to Aurelian. It also states that she bore the titles Mother of the Camp and Augusta and that she minted coins in her name, but this is doubtful given its unreliability and lack of corroborating evidence for these claims. We know nothing of Domitian's background, but if, as it seems, he lacked the financial means to buy off the soldiers, his claim was doomed to failure. Domitian may have been leader of the plot against Victorinus, but it is also possible that he, or a faction that chose to use him as a figurehead, were able to exploit this period of uncertainty to proclaim him as emperor and briefly seize power. We can suggest this transpired in northern Gaul in late 270 or early 271, but it is difficult to be specific as to where these events played out. Victorinus died in Cologne, which was his capital and main mint, though Trier, the second city of the Gallic Empire, also minted coins. We can't be sure if the coins of Domitian emanated from Cologne or Trier, as the legend types for his coins don't distinguish. Alternatively, it is also hypothesized that Domitian was in southern Gaul and made a bid for power there, having been encouraged by Aurelian's difficulties, overpowering an Alemannic incursion into Italy early in his reign. This view contends that he was suppressed by Aurelian's Praetorian prefect, Placidianus, who was in the Rhône Valley at the time, or by Tetrarchus I. This does seem to suggest a greater degree of support by being geographically distant from where his coins were minted, at least in the short term, even if it later evaporated. Zosimos, the historian and a late 5th century writer of the Historia Nova, mentions the fate of Domitian, but only to briefly list him as one of the several usurpers when writing the history of Aurelian. He is said to have been immediately apprehended and punished. Zosimos says no more about him, neglecting any detail as to where and when these events took place. Perhaps he was eliminated for treason by Tetrarchus I, or even dispatched by his own soldiers when it was clear that the matter of succession had been settled. Thereafter, Domitian disappears from history, his name waiting to be discovered again on a coin in a muddy field in the 20th century. His attempted coup should also be understood in the context of the troubled history of the Gallic Empire rather than that of the Empire as a whole, given that his reign lasted days or, at best, only a few weeks after his acclamation, and he does not seem to have secured significant military or political support. Domitian is more properly categorized as a Roman usurper rather than an emperor.