Avidius Cassius\' portrait

[Epictetus]

We have one possible parallel for a provincial revolt occurring, which did not result in any coinage in the name of the rebelling officer. That would be the revolt of Julius Vindex in Nero's reign. Vindex claimed he was rebelling against Nero on behalf of the Senate and People and apparently did not claim the title of Imperator or Augustus for himself (indeed he later apparently offered to back Galba). But for some weeks or months, he was the head of a rebelling province, and yet struck no coins in his own name (as Clodius Macer did in Africa some months later). It is clear coins were struck in Gaul during this period, the so called "Civil War" issues, which strike an interestingly noncommital tone, depicting generic images of Roman military loyalty and the safely dead and deified Divus Augustus.

If there were a similar class of "neutral" coins struck in the East during Cassius' tenure, it might indicate he saw himself as another Vindex. But no such coinage exists that I am aware of. And there are surviving documents that name Cassius as Augustus, so it doesn't seem likely that he started a revolt in the manner of Vindex-- i.e. as a Roman officer acting on behalf of the Senate and People, without claiming the purple for himself. It is clear something withheld Cassius from going "all the way" and striking coins of himself. Did he see himself as protecting the "legitimate" regime of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus against other powerful Romans who might be tempted to seize the throne (say, Claudius Pompeinus)? Was he hoping to marry the widow Faustina (and had she given some indication of willingness to do this?), thus legitimizing himself as Marcus' successor?

This is simply speculation, but is it conceivable that Cassius struck coins as Commodus as Emperor and they haven't been recognised for what they are?