Thus, it should be no surprise that in the Roman Imperial period, state art on all levels was used to convey a heavy ideological message, whether on the huge and splendid scale of, say, the Severan Arch at Leptis Magna, or on the small scale of everyday coinage.

However, we must avoid the temptation to over-simplify, to overgeneralise. Just as Henry Ford is supposed to have said that his customers could have any colour of car that they wanted, so long as it was black, so I sometimes feel that the moneyers of Domitian could strike any reverse type that they chose, so long as it was of Minerva.

Thus, in reference to the early years of the Severan age, it must be appreciated that so far as the question of "propaganda in the imperial coinage" is concerned, there was no uniformity of approach, either from year to year or from mint to mint. I will demonstrate this by contrasting the denarii struck by the so-called mint of "Emesa" for Septimius Severus in early AD 194 with those struck for him a year later, in the first part of AD 195. Since neither RIC nor BMC RE V effectively identifies the groups of coins which fall into these two categories, I will begin the substance of my discussion by outlining how this can be done. I will omit the aurei from this discussion, because they would lengthen it considerably without adding correspondingly to my conclusions.

In a recent article in the Rivista Italiana di Numismatica (Vol XCVI), I suggested that the so-called mint of "Emesa" began to strike denarii for Septimius Severus at around the beginning of AD 194, and initially drew its reverse types largely from those already struck in AD 193 at Antioch for Pescennius Niger.

Septimius Severus' Rome denarii of AD 193 used only a small group of reverse types, alluding clearly to his military connections and his background: LIBERAL AVG, SAEC FRVGIF, legionary coins for all four Rhine legions and all twelve Danube legions except for X Gemina, FIDEI LEG, VICT AVG and VIRT AVG.

By way of contrast, Pescennius Niger's AD 193 Antioch denarii used a wide range of reverse types and legends, some of which had never been used previously. There are many varieties and irregularities, so I will use a simplified list based on RSC Volume III, RIC, BMC RE V ; a slightly fuller listing, not divided between the two mints of Antioch and Caesarea, can be found in T.V.Buttrey's President's Address in NC 1992. As to what is a basic or variant legend for Niger, I have considered it simpler and more logical to regard the legend subsequently adopted by Septimius Severus as "basic":

Pescennius Niger AD 193 Antioch denarius reverses



AETERNITAS AVS Crescent and seven stars

APOLLINI SANCTO Apollo naked, standing by column

BONAE SPEI Spes advancing left  holding flower

BONI EVENTVS Bonus Eventus standing front

CERER FRVG Ceres standing front

CONCORD MILIT Concordia standing between standards

FEIICITAS TEMPORVM Vase-shaped basket of fruit

FELICIT TEMPOR Cornear between crossed cornucopiae

FORTVNAE REDVCI Fortuna or Pax seated

FORTVNAE REDVCI Fortuna standing left

HIIARITAS AVG SC Globe held by Capricorns

INVICTO IMP TROPAE(A) Trophy with arms below

IOVI PRAE ORBIS Jupiter seated left

IVSTI AVG Globe held by Capricorns

MARTI AVG sometimes VICTOR Mars advancing right

MINER VICTRIC Minerva standing left

MONETAE AVG Moneta standing left

PIETATI AVG Niger sacrificing over altar

ROMAE AETERNAE Roma seated left

SAECVLI FELICITAS Crescent and seven stars

SALVTI AVG Salus standing left

VICTOR IVST AVG Victory walking left

VOTIS PVBLICIS Niger sacrificing over altar

Now, to compare this list with what was used for Septimius Severus, I must first date and identify the issues with which his so-called "Emesa" denarii began. In fact, both of these targets are more easily hit than might be expected.

Various factors, such as style and subsequent style and type progression, and common sense, indicate that the earliest "Emesa" denarius portrait dies were those which used the AD 193 Rome legend IMP CAE L SEP SEV PERT AVG. So far as dating is concerned, there are only five such dies known, of which four (on present information) are known coupled with reverse dies which contain AD 194 dating formulae such as II COS. This suggests strongly, given that the dies' working life would have been measured in days rather than weeks or months, that any use of them in AD 193 is improbable or at most insignificant.

On the second point, namely the recognition of which OTHER dies of Septimius Severus belong to this First Issue of the so-called mint of "Emesa" , extensive study that I have made of die-linking in this series allows me to state with confidence that his other obverse dies in the First Issue are those few with the basic Rome first legend to which is added .CO, II C, II CO or II COS, that is to say NOT any with the series' usual legend ending COS II.

For those interested in detailed examination of the specific coins and dies, I can provide a list of the relevant dies and examples, a list of all reverses known at the so-called "Emesa" mint with first legend obverses, and a tabulation of the first list in terms of reverse type and die-links. For interest, the lists would also include Julia Domna. Numerous of the reverse legends include dating formulae, but for the sake of brevity I do not refer specifically to such formula additions in the discussion which follows.

To demonstrate the stark reality of the basis of reverse type selection in the Severan "Emesa" First Issue of AD 194, I offer you next a broad ruler-to-ruler comparison between all basic denarius reverse types struck for Pescennius Niger at Antioch in AD 193 and for the Severans in their AD 194 First Issue:

Reverse type:             Pescennius Niger           Severans



 1. AETERNITAS AVS              *                       *(JD)

 2. APOLLINI SANCTO             *                       -

 3. BONAE SPEI                  *                       *

 4. BONI EVENTVS                *                       *

 5. CERER FRVG                  *                       *

 6. CONCORD MILIT               *                       -

 7. FEIICITAS TEMPORVM          *                       *

 8. FELICIT TEMPOR              *                       *

 9. FORTVNAE REDVCI std.        *                       *

10. FORTVNAE REDVCI stg.        *                       *

11. HIIARITAS AVG SC            *                       -

12. INVICTO IMP TROPAE(A)       *                       *

13. IOVI PRAE ORBIS             *                       -

14. IVSTI AVG                   *                       -

15. LEG VIII AVG                -                       *

16. LEG XIIII GEM M V           -                       *

17. MARTI AVG/VICT(OR)          *                       *

18. MINER VICTRIC               *                       *

19. MONETAE AVG                 *                       *

20. PIETATI AVG                 *                       -

21. ROMAE AETERNAE              *                       -

22. SAECVLI FELICITAS           *                       -

23. SALVTI AVG                  *                       -

24. VENERI VICTR                -                       *(JD)

25. VICTOR IVST AVG             *                       *

26. VOTIS PVBLICIS              *                       -

I am not concerned here with the question of why the Severan mint proceeded as it did, but from our perspective it must count as an enormous wasted opportunity so far as propaganda for a specifically Severan position was concerned.

That fact does seem to have been appreciated quite rapidly. Comparable detailed die studies have allowed me to identify the Second Issue of the so-called "Emesa" mint. In it are found (die-linked to each other) the main group of COS I dies, similar style COS II dies, and all known COS II left portrait dies. The portrait style is clearly a progression from the First Issue, as is the reverse type selection. FORTVNAE is joined by FORTVNA, TROPAE(A) is dropped from INVICTO IMP, MONETAE is joined by MONET: these shortened forms are all retained to the exclusion of all others throughout the remainder of the series, with the exception that FORTVNA becomes FORTVN before being finally abbreviated in late AD 195 to FORT. Most dramatically of all, VICTOR IVST AVG is joined in the Second Issue by VICTOR SEVER AVG (which replaces it entirely in the Third Issue and then itself disappears, Niger having been eliminated).

One can speculate as to why the Severan mint acted as it did in this First Issue: confidence, contempt, incompetence, subverting the enemy, superstition, lack of imagination, who knows ? What is not in doubt, though, is that those responsible for the COS II series had thoroughly learnt their lesson. Consequently, when in early AD 195 Septimius Severus continued his mopping-up operations against former allies and sympathisers of Pescennius Niger, and conducted a campaign in Mesopotamia, the mint was well aware that these activities had to be presented in the most heroic and flattering manner possible, so far as the coinage was concerned.

When it comes to identifying the reverse types struck on the denarii of Septimius Severus in the early part of AD 195 in the "Emesa" series, RIC and BMC RE V are, once again, not of much help, since they offer with certainty only the types with TR P III in the reverse legend.

Fortunately, though, as was the case with early AD 194, there is extensive die-linking in the series at this point. Thus, examination of a considerable number of specimens permits me to assign a multitude of reverse types to early AD 195 COS II. Some of the types concerned had already been used in AD 194, so for convenience my list distinguishes between the general types, meaning those previously used in the series, and those specific to early AD 195 alone. It is this latter group, I suggest, which should be regarded as having the greater propaganda significance.

A.      AD 194 and 195                   B.     Early AD 195 only



	BONA SPES                               PIETAT AVG

	BONI SPES                               ROMA AETERNA

	BONI EVENTVS                            SPQR OPTIMO PRINCIPI

	CERERI FRVG                             TR P III IMP (V) COS II:

	FORTVN REDVC (F.stg/std,                Captive

	Pietas, Hilaritas)                      Trophy and captives

	INVICTO IMP                             VICT AVG inscribing 

	LIBER AVG seated                        shield

	LIBER(A/L) AVG standing                 VENER VICT (hybrid)

	MART VICTOR                             VIRTVTE AVG

	MONET AVG

	SAECVL FELICIT

	VICT(OR) AVG :(wreath and) palm

		     :right with trophy

Again, for those interested in detailed examination, I can provide a listing of obverse dies and examples which includes over half these types, all linked to dated TR P III types. The other types all exist in comparable style, even though I have not so far linked them to dated types. Obviously, this is a continuing process, so neither Group A nor Group B should be considered as completely exhaustive, because additional specimens are continuously coming to light.

The propaganda significance of these early AD 195 COS II denarii can best be identified by a careful consideration of the types listed in Group B, in the right-hand column. For this purpose, it seems reasonable to omit from consideration the hybrid VENER VICT, while noting its usefulness in dating Julia Domna's comparable denarii.

Thus, we are left with: Septimius sacrificing, Roma seated, Septimius on horseback, grieving captive, two captives seated at the foot of a trophy, Victory inscribing a shield, and Virtus.

The significance of this group cries out: Septimius Severus is identifying with the glorious conquests in Mesopotamia by his respected predecessor Trajan, an emperor whose accession was in no small part due to his acceptability to the legions, an emperor renowned for the wisdom and stability of his reign as well as of his succession. Historians might question the comparability of the respective Mesopotamian campaigns of Trajan and Severus, but one of the objectives of propaganda is to allow the ruler to bask in reflected glory, to obtain credit by association. This opportunity for effective propaganda was certainly not squandered, whatever one may say of what happened a year before.

The individual Group B types do deserve, as I have said, a measure of consideration before I conclude:

1. PIETAT AVG: Septimius Severus sacrificing. Trajan used the type PIET with Pietas sacrificing (e.g. C.199); perhaps the substitution of Pietas by the emperor was influenced by the Niger sacrificing coins.

2. ROMA AETERNA: Roma seated was struck for Trajan (e.g. C.69) though not with this legend. The fuller form of legend ROMAE AETERNAE had already been used by Pescennius Niger, by Rome in AD 194 for Clodius Albinus, and by Alexandria in AD 194 for both Septimius Severus and Julia Domna.

3. SPQR OPTIMO PRINCIPI, usually rendered as PBINCIPI, Septimius on horseback. The legend is the most specific reference back imaginable to Trajan, whilst the emperor on horseback type had been struck for him with this legend (e.g. C.497). In this case, the propaganda allusion was so attractive that an Equus Severi was subsequently raised in Rome.

4. TR P III IMP (V) COS II: grieving captive with arms. This is in origin perhaps a confluence between Trajan's Dacian captive (e.g C.260, 529) and the Parthian captive of Lucius Verus (e.g. C.273); both types would still have been in circulation in AD 195. Nevertheless, a specific reference to Trajan is found in the curved sword in the exergue of some examples.

5. Same legend, two captives seated at foot of trophy. For Trajan, see e.g. C.185. Interestingly, Trajan's more common type, with a single captive seated at the foot of a trophy, is not known in the COS II series, but only appears later, in the IMP II group attributed to Laodicea ad Mare.

6. VICT AVG inscribing shield. For Trajan, see e.g. C.80, 247 for the type.

7. VIRTVTE AVG: for Trajan, see e.g. C.193, 402 for type. For both 6 and 7, the mint appears to have used substantive types of Trajan as precedents whilst substituting its own legends.

In addition, some of the types in Group A (AD 194 and 195) had also been utilised by Trajan but, in the circumstances, their specific propaganda intent in AD 195, so far as he is concerned, may be discounted.

I hope that