Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Roman Emperors and the \"King\" title
#1
Edward Gibbon famously claimed:

Quote:But of the whole series of Roman princes in any age of the Empire, Hannibalianus alone was distinguished by the title of KING; a name which the subjects of Tiberius would have detested, as the profane and cruel insult of capricious tyranny. The use of such a title, even as it appears under the reign of Constantine; is a strange and unconnected fact, which can scarcely be admitted on the joint authority of Imperial medals and contemporary writers.
Gibbon, Decline and Fall, chapter XVIII.

Hannibalianus was Constantine’s nephew, one of a large group of family members that were given a portion of the empire and later killed off in the familial bloodbath. But I’m curious about this “King” title. We know that in Greek the Emperors were called king, basileus, so there is nothing unusual about that. I assume Gibbon must be referring to Latin, rex.

Ammianus Marcellinus calls Hannibalianus “king” in Latin in XIV.1.2, I know.

Gibbon said that the title was used on medals, and I’ve Googled, but I can’t find anything resembling “Rex” that I can read.

I see here that his title was “Rex Regum et Ponticarum Gentium,” or “King of the Kings and of the Pontic People.” King of Kings is an translation from a Persian title, I think, but Pontus had been in the Empire since before it was an empire, over 300 years. So this is a rather odd title.

So my questions are: does anyone know of any coin or medal or inscription where “Rex” is used for an Emperor? Does anyone know of any other case where “Rex” was used in a literary context, like Ammianus Marcellinus? Was Hannibalianus really unique in this case?
David J. Cord
www.davidcord.com
Reply
#2
Quote:Gibbon said that the title was used on medals, and I’ve Googled, but I can’t find anything resembling “Rex” that I can read.
As you probably know, Gibbon writes "medals" when he means coins, like this one.
posted by Duncan B Campbell
https://ninth-legion.blogspot.com/
Reply
#3
The coin inscription says "FL HANNIBALIANO REGI".
Jaime
Reply
#4
Regi comes from Regere and has not much to do with the word Rex.

M.VIB.M.
Bushido wa watashi no shuukyou de gozaru.

Katte Kabuto no O wo shimeyo!

H.J.Vrielink.
Reply
#5
Quote:Regi comes from Regere and has not much to do with the word Rex.

M.VIB.M.

Regere and rex are from the same root. "Regi" is probably the dative of rex. Since "Hannibaliano" is also in the dative, it would fit. "Fl(avio) Hannibaliano Regi" "To Flavius Hannibalianus, King". If he used the coins outside of Roman dominion or in an attempt to secede as King of Pontus or King of Kings, it would work; for a Roman emperor, it is certainly odd.
M. Caecilius M.f. Maxentius - Max C.

Qui vincit non est victor nisi victus fatetur
- Q. Ennius, Annales, Frag. XXXI, 493

Secretary of the Ricciacus Frënn (http://www.ricciacus.lu/)
Reply
#6
Quote:As you probably know, Gibbon writes "medals" when he means coins

Thanks! Actually, I wasn’t entirely sure what he meant when he used that term. In some contexts it seems clear, but I had thought he tended to use it as a catch-all for coins or non-monetary tokens.

Quote: Regere and rex are from the same root. "Regi" is probably the dative of rex. Since "Hannibaliano" is also in the dative, it would fit. "Fl(avio) Hannibaliano Regi" "To Flavius Hannibalianus, King". If he used the coins outside of Roman dominion or in an attempt to secede as King of Pontus or King of Kings, it would work; for a Roman emperor, it is certainly odd.

Constantine’s succession plans seem almost indecipherable to me. Did he expect all of his heirs to rule jointly and equally, or were some subservient to others? I’m wondering if there were shades of Diocletian’s tetrarchy here. Based upon Hannibalianus’ titles, it seems like he was (or was claiming) one of the highest positions, which previously would have been titled “Augustus.”

If no one else can think of any other instances of “Rex” being used, he must really have been unique.
David J. Cord
www.davidcord.com
Reply
#7
Quote:If no one else can think of any other instances of “Rex” being used, he must really have been unique.

The seniority of the Roman civil structure under Constantine and his immediate successors ranked something like this:

  1. Augustus/Sebastos
  2. Caesar
  3. Patrician (honorary)
  4. Praetorian Prefect
  5. Vicarius
  6. Consul


Zosimus actually says Constantine reintroduced and elevated the title of Patrician, though honorary, above that of Praetorian Prefect.

Since Hannibalianus' inheritence was so minimal it seems that a new rank had to be created for him. In his case "Rex" must have ranked between a Praetorian Prefect and a Vicarius. Just my guess. I doubt any of Constantine's designated successors were meant to be equal. It would have been unorthodox since there was always a senior emperor. Then again, his succession plans were also unorthodox! What a mess.

Normally, of course, Rex was used to refer to client or foreign kings.

~Theo
Jaime
Reply
#8
Quote:If no one else can think of any other instances of “Rex” being used, he must really have been unique.

In fact, there are quite a number of sources from the 4th c. onwards that use the word 'rex' for an emperor. Best read this article:
Fanning, S. (1992): Emperors and empires in fifth-century Gaul, in: Drinkwater, J.F. and Hugh Elton eds.: Fifth-century Gaul: a Crisis of Identity?, (Cambridge), pp. 288-97.

Fanning comes up with a good number of authors having no problem using the title rex for Emperors, including Tertullian, Orosius, Sulpicius Severus, Ammianus Marcellinus, Claudius Claudianus, St. Augustine, Jordanes, Hilary of Poitiers, Prosper of Acquitaine, Venantius Fortunatus, Ennodius, Isidore of Seville, Paul the Deacon, etc.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#9
Quote:I see here that his title was “Rex Regum et Ponticarum Gentium,” or “King of the Kings and of the Pontic People.” King of Kings is an translation from a Persian title, I think, but Pontus had been in the Empire since before it was an empire, over 300 years. So this is a rather odd title.

Ah, from the Anonymi Valesiani. Here's a link to the passage (scroll down to 6, 35).

Some think Hannibalianus' supposed title of King of Kings is indicative of Constantine's intention to place him on the Persian throne.

~Theo
Jaime
Reply
#10
Aha! Thanks, guys. That answers my questions. (It also, rather sadly, disproves one of Gibbon's statements.)

Although I still think it strange that he would be termed king of the Pontic people. Prior to Hannibalanius, who was the last person to claim such a title? I assume one of the client kings after Mithridates at the end of the Republic or start of the Principate. It's odd that this honorific was resurrected some centuries later.
David J. Cord
www.davidcord.com
Reply
#11
Quote:Aha! Thanks, guys. That answers my questions. (It also, rather sadly, disproves one of Gibbon's statements.)
Gibbon is, of course, correct that "rex" was a hated title for the men who ruled Rome. But it had common currency amongst the allied or friendly kingdoms ... like Armenia. Constantine appears to have nominated Hannibalianus to take the place of just such a friendly king; this is the natural inference from his title on the coinage that was struck in his name. Incidentally, the Excerpta Valesiana may be wrong to name him rex regum; no other source gives him this "Persian" title. (Another source calls him rex regum Ponticarum gentium, which is significantly different: "king of kings of the Pontic people".) The reason for this peculiar move on Constantine's part has been seen as a preparation for war against Persia; it was always important to bolster Armenia as a prelude to conflict in Mesopotamia.
posted by Duncan B Campbell
https://ninth-legion.blogspot.com/
Reply
#12
This may also be of interest.

In the Donations of Alexandria, Caesar's son Caesarion was proclaimed "King of Kings" and Cleopatra "Queen of Kings" (Dio, Book XLIX, 41).

Plutarch (Antony, 54) tells a different version. Antonius "proclaimed his own sons by Cleopatra Kings of Kings, and to Alexander he allotted Armenia, Media and Parthia (when he should have subdued it), to Ptolemy Phoenicia, Syria, and Cilicia. [5] At the same time he also produced his sons, Alexander arrayed in Median garb, which included a tiara and upright head-dress, Ptolemy in boots, short cloak, and broad-brimmed hat surmounted by a diadem. For the latter was the dress of the kings who followed Alexander, the former that of Medes and Armenians. [6] And when the boys had embraced their parents, one was given a bodyguard of Armenians, the other of Macedonians. Cleopatra, indeed, both then and at other times when she appeared in public, assumed a robe sacred to Isis, and was addressed as the New Isis. "

Now neither of Antonius' nor Caesar's sons by Cleopatra were Roman citizens but Antonius did make the proclamation in his capacity as Triumvir. Constantine seems to have been following this precedent of proclaiming his heir with the title in anticipation of conquering an eastern kingdom to bestow upon him.

~Theo
Jaime
Reply
#13
Quote:Incidentally, the Excerpta Valesiana may be wrong to name him rex regum; no other source gives him this "Persian" title. (Another source calls him rex regum Ponticarum gentium, which is significantly different: "king of kings of the Pontic people".)
Anyone following this thread might be interested in Karin Mosig-Walburg's theory that Hannibal(l)ianus held a "special position" overseeing the client kingdoms of Sophene, Iberia and the Lazi. Pontus fell within the remit of Constantius (II), who governed Asia.
posted by Duncan B Campbell
https://ninth-legion.blogspot.com/
Reply
#14
Quote:Anyone following this thread might be interested in Karin Mosig-Walburg's theory that Hannibal(l)ianus held a "special position" overseeing the client kingdoms of Sophene, Iberia and the Lazi. Pontus fell within the remit of Constantius (II), who governed Asia.

I suddenly remembered something I read in Mitchell's Anatolia. It struck me as noteworthy at the time but I never pursued it. During the Republic, someone (Pompey? He would make sense.) appointed a Roman citizen as king over one of the smaller Anatolian client states. I don't think it was Pontus. I wonder if he had to surrender Roman citizenship.

If I could read German I imagine I would be interested in what Mosig-Walburg says. :-(
David J. Cord
www.davidcord.com
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Complexion of the roman emperors Virilis 28 11,814 05-31-2021, 02:43 PM
Last Post: Till_When?
  Portraits of Roman Emperors Renatus 4 1,313 08-18-2020, 02:43 PM
Last Post: Athena Areias
  Charlemagne and later \"Roman\" emperors Epictetus 22 7,355 12-26-2011, 11:05 PM
Last Post: Kai

Forum Jump: