No description available.

Thesis--Münster. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (p. 5-9).

(in English) The work deals with the latest development in a period of Roman coinage, which stands off the general interest. The purpose of this work is to define and describe the motives used on Roman coins in the early period defined at the beginning of the government of Valentinian I in 364 and coinage reform of Anastasius I in 498; to classify the individual image groups and explain their importance in terms of state propaganda. The work also notes the relationship between the coin images and legends; use of mint marks as a part of the image content, and describes the relationships among the coin images and contemporary sociopolitical phenomena and events. An important part of the work will be integration of the field of late Roman coins into historical context. The aim will be to determine how the late Roman coins in character were based on previous coinage and then on the contrary how they influenced Byzantine coins.

This thesis investigates representations of dynastic legitimacy and imperial power in the later Roman Empire (AD 284-337). It explores the continuity and change in expressions of dynastic legitimacy by, for and about the emperors of this period, which were presented in coinage, panegyrics, and other literary and material evidence. I argue that familial relationships were used throughout this period to make legitimation claims or to counter claims made by rivals, rejecting the notion of clear breaks between the third century, the Tetrarchy and the reign of Constantine. The Tetrarchy’s creation of familial links through adoption and marriage led to a web of inter-familial relationships that they and later emperors used in promoting their own claims to imperial legitimacy. At the same time, the presentation of these imperial colleges as harmonious co-rulership relied heavily on the adaptation of pre-existing strategies, which in turn would be adapted by the emperors of the early fourth century. This thesis proceeds roughly chronologically, focusing on the regimes of individual emperors and their collaborators when possible. Chapter 1 examines the creation of the Tetrarchy as an extended ‘family’ and the adaptation of ideologies of third-century co-rulership. Chapter 2 explores the changes in the Second Tetrarchy, with an especial focus on the ‘Iovian’ family of Galerius and Maximinus Daza. Chapter 3 looks at Maxentius’ claims to both ‘retrospective’ and ‘prospective’ dynastic legitimacy. Chapter 4 examines Licinius’ legitimacy both as a co-ruler and brother-in-law of Constantine, and as the beginning of a new ‘Iovian’ dynasty. Chapter 5 delves deeper into the different claims to dynastic legitimacy made by Constantine over the course of his thirty-year reign. Taken together, these chapters offer a new approach by arguing against the dichotomy between ‘dynasty’ and ‘collegiality’ that tends to dominate scholarship of this period. Instead they focus on the similarities and continuities between the representations of imperial families and imperial colleges in order to understand how perceptions of dynastic legitimacy evolved in the third and fourth centuries.