CONSTANTINE IV EMBATTLED – CAN HIS COINS TELL US ANYTHING?

Abstract

Fundamentally, and contrary to opinion expressed in some of the major numismatic

handbooks, Constantine IV’s coinage is not difficult to understand. As noted by Marek
Jankowiak, his appearance on the coins departs from conventional portraiture to take on a
warlike appearance that is innovative in nature. This change in coin design may have
occurred several years earlier in the reign than previously argued – perhaps quite soon after
he became Emperor. If so, it is not necessarily inconsistent with a revised view of the dating
of key events in his war with the Arabs, in particular the direct and serious threat to
Constantinople.

Power point slide 1: Title and name

Power point slide 2: Abstract

Begin

The way in which a ruler is portrayed on his or her coins is rarely, one imagines, decided
randomly. For fairly obvious reasons, iconography was, in the pre-modern era, regarded as
an important way of delivering a political message. Constantine IV, at least nominal ruler in
Constantinople from perhaps as early as 662 and senior Augustus following the death of
Constans II1 until his own in 685, was an energetic and capable, sometimes ruthless,
Emperor. He is, in traditional historiography, associated with great deeds - his reign, in the
view of Ostrogorski inaugurating “a period of vital significance for world history as well as
for Byzantium2”.

Power point slide 3: Constantine IV – Pb seal at Dumbarton Oaks

Figure 1. DO Seals 6, no. 23.3.

1
The date from which Constantine assumed full power on the death of his father Constans II is disputed; see
Howard-Johnston, J., Witnesses to a World Crisis, Historians and Histories of the Middle East in the Seventh
Century, Oxford, 2010, p. 491. This paper represents a discussion of the coins and in order to be able to refer
to the conventional framework for the coinage the date of Constantine’s formal accession is referred to as
668.
2
History of the Byzantine State, 1968, p.123.

1
[I should say that the date from which Constantine assumed full power on the death of his
father Constans II is disputed. But this paper represents a discussion of the coins and in
order to be able to refer to the conventional framework for the coinage the date of
Constantine’s formal accession is referred to throughout as 668.]

At the last meeting of this group in 2013, David Woods spoke about the chronological
difficulties raised by the Chronicle of Theophilus of Edessa and their bearing on some of the
key dates of military events during Constantine’s reign. In addition, Marek Jankowiak has
published work on the large scale Arab military efforts against the Empire during the second
half of the 7th century3. This challenges, inter alia, the conventional idea of a long blockade
of Constantinople during the middle years of the 670s.

This talk has a rather more superficial genesis. A few weeks after the Worcester Round
Table, in a fairly lighthearted conversation with Andrew Oddy I suggested that the design of
Constantine’s coinage must have some kind of bearing on the struggle between Byzantium
and Islam and suggested that he look in the Dumbarton Oaks catalogue. Rather to my
surprise, when I actually bothered to check myself, in the 12 pages that Grierson gives to
the introductory section on Constantine and his coins, he mentions the Arab campaigns just
once – in a footnote that ascribes the poor quality of some of the copper coins, and the
reduction in their weight during the 670s, to (quote) “the annual sieges to which
Constantinople was subjected by the Arabs”4. More recently, I noted a reference to the
iconography of the coinage in Appendix 2 of Marek Jankowiak’s doctoral thesis of 2009
entitled The First Arab Siege of Constantinople AD 667-6695. Thus I should make clear that I
am not the first to draw attention to the significance of the coins themselves. Nevertheless,
and given what seems to be a lacuna in the standard numismatic works, I seek Dr
Jankowiak’s latitude, and that of my audience, to try and take the discussion a little further.

A number of scenarios exist for the timing and circumstances of Arab military actions
against the Empire and Constantine IV’s response. To parrot the title of this talk – can his
coins tell us anything?

Power point slide 4: Use of Greek fire

Figure 2.
Madrid Skylitzes.

3
Jankowiak, J., The First Arab Siege of Constantinople, in Zuckerman, C., Constructing the Seventh Century,
Paris, 2013, pp. 237-320.
4
DOC 2, footnote 19, p. 518.
5
University of Warsaw, February 2009.

2
Let us leap back and then forward. If Heraclius is left out, the most energetic military
leaders of early and middle Byzantium were probably Justinian I in the sixth century and Leo
III in the eighth. The reformed coinage of the first named is very well known. He wears a
cuirass and a helmet and his shield is emblazoned with a horseman spearing down onto
what, presumably, is a fallen foe. Justinian did not lead his armies in person and this martial
image is lightened by the fact that he also holds a globus cruciger.

Power point slide 5: Leo III (717-741) – Constantinople follis of 30 nummi. Attributed by
Grierson to 717-718.

Figure 3.
D. O. 24. 6.81 gms.

Leo III acceded to the throne in 717 - the point at which the Caliphate attempted the
capture Constantinople for a second time in an ambitious land-based and naval pincer
movement. Leo’s early coinage probably, but not certainly, struck in the same year6 shows
him in full military dress with a spear slung over his right shoulder in the manner of the
tough and experienced soldier he was. There is no concession to civil costume or insignia.
In DOC, in respect of this coinage, Grierson refers to (quote) “the traditional military
costume of the fifth and early sixth centuries as it had been revived by Constantine IV”7.

Power point slide 6

Reformed follis of Constantine IV. D. O. Class 1 of Constantinople. 17.46 grams.

Figure 4. D. O. 28.

Like Justinian I, Constantine IV struck heavy, impressive, “reformed” folles and half folles
and dekanummia at the very start of his reign, something that also allowed the
reintroduction of the pentanummium, not seen for perhaps 40 years. Roughly speaking, the
folles are around four or five times the weight of the last issues of Constans II.

6
The other class of copper coin struck before 720 (when Constantine V, as a two year old, was created co-
Emperor and included on the coinage) shows Leo in consular garb. He is likely to have assumed the consulship
on 1 January 718. See Grierson, A new early follis type of Leo III, NC 1974, pp. 73-76.
7
DOC 3, pp. 125-6.

3
Power point slide 7

Reformed half follis and dekanummium of Constantine IV showing “double value” marks.

Figure 5.

D. O. 37. 4.84 gms. D. O. 39. 3.62 gms.

As well as their own denominational marks, some of the half folles and all the dekanummia
incorporate those of coins of double their value (M and K respectively). In DOC Grierson
calls this an expression of “the value of the coin in terms of the debased follis of the middle
years of the century” – a comment that I confess I have never understood. In his later work
of 1982 he refers simply to a revaluation; the latter suggesting an uplifting of the value of
the whole base metal coinage, perhaps as a means of underpinning large scale investment
in the materiel of warfare. If so, the folles and halves would presumably have been struck in
large numbers and their rarity today is hard to explain8. The difficult conditions of the 670s,
perhaps resulting in a near total collapse of trade, may eventually have given rise to an
increase in prices, so perhaps the larger coins were called in for re-striking. By contrast, the
dekanummia, which are broadly to a similar weight standard as Constans II’s later folles,
must, perhaps for the same reason, have been struck in considerable quantities and are
common coins today.

Collectors might wish to note that about 20 specimens of the follis were included in the two
William Herbert Hunt sales but this is hardly surprising in view of the unlimited resources
available to him and his evident fetish for collecting these impressive looking coins.

In any case, it is the design of the coins themselves, rather than the place of coinage in the
economy, that is addressed in this paper. In this respect, the Dumbarton Oaks catalogue, it
seems to me, makes rather a meal of describing the various types. Grierson says that the
copper coinage is not easy to understand and terms the its phasing “obscure”9. To my mind,
though, the copper coinage is fundamentally quite simple and there may be a danger of
complicating it unnecessarily.

Unlike that of most of his predecessors, few of Constantine’s coins (and limited here to the
copper issues) are dated - which certainly militates against transparency. The dated copper
series – initially at Ravenna and then at Constantinople – only begins after 676, however,

8
Grierson (in Byzantine Coins, 1982, p. 114) suggests that they may have been struck only intermittently and
in small numbers as mainly ceremonial coins. This seems unlikely. About 20 specimens of the follis were
included in the Hunt sale but this is hardly surprising in view of the unlimited resources available to him and
his evident fetish for collecting these impressive looking coins.
9
DOC 2, p. 517.

4
and is not associated with any fundamentally new iconography10. In other words, the dating
appears to be an afterthought with no bearing on what I believe is the crucial change in
design that took place a number of years previously.

Here, a problem – certainly one that Grierson tried to grapple with in DOC 2 - is that some of
the folles and half folles are rare with minor variations in iconography – some coins showing
Constantine in military uniform include a shield while others do not – that are apparent
from only a few specimens and may not amount to substantive issues. The phasing of the
coinage, except in detail, should also not be much of a matter of dispute. The Emperor’s
two brothers, Heraclius and Tiberius, appear on the reverse of the folles until their physical
removal from the Imperial hierarchy which probably, although not certainly, took place in
68211. Because of the limited space on the smaller flans, the brothers do not appear on the
fractions and, thus, we need only look at the obverses, which show Constantine throughout
and, at its most simple, there are only three fundamentally distinct forms of portrait12.

Power point slide 8

Dekanummia – “globus” (beardless) and “spear” (bearded). Portrait types 2 and 3 (D. O.
Classes 1 and 2 for the copper).

Figure 6.

D. O. 38. 24.48 gms. D. O. - , MIB 89, var. 5.01 gms.

The first form of portraiture shows Constantine as a beardless young man wearing a crown
and the chlamys (a long robe that may be distinguished from the military cloak normally
worn partially over the cuirass) and holding a globus cruciger. This design occurs on all the
gold coins and also on the silver hexagram (which alone, but interestingly, bears the reverse
legend Deus Adiuta Romanis). These coins are attributed to the succession year of 668. On
the second portrait type, which includes all four denominations of the copper but not the
gold or silver, the crown is abandoned for a helmet and the chlamys for a cuirass; the globus
is temporarily retained. These coins also show Constantine as beardless – probably a
convention since he was, almost certainly, beyond the age of puberty at his accession.
Indeed, with one notable exception late in the reign, Constantine’s coin portraits make little
10
Both regnal and indictional dates are used, the former deriving from 654 when Constantine was elevated by
his father to the rank of co-Emperor.
11
The last regnal year in which Heraclius and Tiberius appear on the coinage is 28 (681/2 – on a dated follis of
Ravenna).
12
See DOC 2, pp. 514-5 for a summary of the three basic types. Addressing the variations, Grierson comments
a little cryptically: “Evidently the die-sinkers, when a new type was introduced, sometimes liked to retain
discordant elements from the old. Any system of dating .. .. must therefore be based on novelties rather
than survivals”.

5
attempt to convey his actual likeness and the length of his beard (best seen on examples of
the follis), and always fairly short in any case, seems to have only limited significance13.

[It’s quite possible that, for some rulers at least, the length of the ruler’s beard was simply
another means of distinguishing one issue of coin from another. This does enable a
chronological progression to be established.]

The third type is virtually identical to the first coinage of Leo III I mentioned earlier – helmet,
cuirass, and spear and (in most cases) shield – the whole warlike panoply. It is not an
original design but a revival of that last used on the gold by Justinian I and on the copper by
Arcadius and Honorius in around 402. It was used for all four denominations of the copper.

It is, I suppose, common sense that the spear type, on which Constantine IV is mostly shown
bearded14, is later than the globus type on which he is clean shaven. Both types of the
common dekanummia are frequently overstruck on coins of Constans II and it is perhaps
disappointing that I have been unable to find any examples of this denomination where
Class 2 is overstruck on Class 1. But this does not stand in the way of a backward shift in the
dating of Class 2 - since in this case there would have been very little time to call in Class 1
for overstriking. In a private collection in England there are two examples of spear type half
folles overstruck on globus type coins of 30 nummi15. Clearly, then, the half folles are struck
to a heavy module and it may be that restriking played a part in an uplift in the value of the
base metal coinage.

Power point slide 9.

Half follis – K and CON. Grierson’s assertion of a vicennalian issue 654 to 674.

Figure 7.

Half follis – K and CON. Grierson’s

assertion of a vicennalian issue 654 to
674. DOC Class 2 (36 a-b & c).

There is little more than circumstantial evidence for the currently accepted date of the
change in design to a martial image. Grierson, in DOC, suggests 674 on the basis that K on
the reformed half folles stood for the 20 years since his association (as an infant) with his
father, Constans II, as co-Emperor. The coin also bears the letters CON. This might

13
It is quite possible that, for some rulers at least, the length of the ruler’s beard was simply another means of
distinguishing one issue of coin from another and bore no relationship to changes in hirsuteness.
14
There are examples of the follis, dekanummium and pentanummium where he is beardless.
15
I am grateful to Mr P. J. Donald for this information.

6
strengthen Grierson’s proposed dating – with CON (plus the fact that the coin is obviously a
half follis) the K could well be a number. On the other, the K and CON together might
form no more than the completely typical and expected combination of denomination and
mint mark.

Overall, the arguments seem weak. Hahn, in MIB16, demonstrates that the K/CON
combination also occurs for the beardless “globus” type. It is very unlikely that the issue of
a half follis would have been delayed for so long. Indeed, it seems to me that Grierson –
searching around for a date to attach to the Class 2 copper coinage – alighted, perhaps even
subconsciously, on the traditional timeframe for the siege and then sought to apply some
post-hoc numismatic reasoning.

Power point slide 10.

Spear type pentanummium.

Figure 8.

D. O. 40. 3.11 gms.

A similar problem with the conventional date for the change in design of 673/4 is the fact
that all the pentanummia appear to be of the spear type. If these were only struck after
673/4 there is a five year vacuum at the beginning of the reign. There is no obvious reason
why the introduction of this reform denomination should have been deferred.

Is it possible, then, to put back the date of introduction of the spear type to the late 660s? It
is combined - for all four copper denominations - with the beardless bust. Thus the youthful
portrait of the Emperor should not stand in the way of such an interpretation. It also means
that Heraclius and Tiberius, who appear on the reverse of the coins, would only have been
children at the time, but they had already been given the full rank of Augustus in 659 17 and
the appearance of children (and even babies) on Byzantine coins represented as adult
figures is quite normal. It does mean compressing the globus type into a shorter period but
these are only known for the beardless portrait. The spear type on the coppers is the
counterpart to the Class 2 Constantinople solidi which, like all the gold from that mint, is
undated. But Grierson (in DOC) puts the Class 2 solidus to as early as 668, following a few
months after the earliest crown and chlamys type of Class 1. Similarly, he suggests that a
hexagram, more or less the equivalent of the Class 2 solidus, and with the Deus Adiuta
Romanis legend, could have first been issued in 66818.

16
In Moneta Imperii Byzantini 3, Heraclius to Leo III 610-720, Vienna, 1981.
17
DOC 2 p. 402.
18
DOC 2 pp. 534-536

7
As a collector I would judge the Class 1 and Class 2 dekanummia to be equally common. But
even if Class 1 were to be the commoner this would not serve as an argument against the
early introduction of Class 2.

I have majored on the mint of Constantinople; in a paper of this length I have not been able
to look at Carthage or Syracuse. But the pattern of the gold issued at these mints is similar
to that at the capital19 and there is nothing I can see in the copper issued elsewhere that
presents difficulties.

Power point slides 11 and 12.

Syracuse – dekanummia of Constantine IV and Leo III in military apparel with spear.

Constantine IV. D. O. 62. 3.76 gms.

Leo III. D. O. 52. 2.02 gms.

Figure 9.

In fact, there is a Syracusan follis20 on which Constantine is standing, wearing a helmet and
cuirass and holding a spear – there is no counterpart at Constantinople. It is, interestingly
enough, very similar iconographically to a Syracusan follis of Leo III that DOC places in the
first couple of years of that reign, i.e., 717-718 - the dates of a subsequent great Arab
assault on the capital. But where to place the Sicilian coin in the order of Constantine’s
issues on the island is problematic. While Grierson dates it to post 674, I am reluctant to
see it inserted between the globus and spear types at all. Lengthy fighting seems to have
taken place between the faction responsible for the assassination of Constans II and forces
loyal to the dynasty21. All that we can say at present is that it was struck by, or on behalf of,
Constantine.

An argument against a redating of the Constantinople issues is that it leaves the spear type
copper coinage to meet the requirement for base metal coins in the East for a long period,

19
DOC 2 p. 520 and p. 522.
20
DOC 3 p. 62.
21
Howard-Johnston, Witnesses, p.492.

8
some 15 years after about 670. Perhaps a devastated economy would only need small
change for which the dekanummia served and perhaps, as I suggested earlier, these modest
coins were produced from calling in and restriking the larger denominations.

If this vessel of thought is not taken to be too leaky, there is the possibility of an early and
radical change in the political message delivered by the iconography of Constantine’s
coinage. Quite soon after his succession, a generally pacific Imperial image may have
undergone a rapid and long-lasting transformation into a very martial one of helmet,
cuirass, spear and shield. The motive seems to be to display Byzantine martial prowess and
determination.

Power point slide 12.

Constantine IV embattled – perhaps early-mid 670.

D. O. - , MIB 80. 22.53 gms. 180.

Figure 10.

I have no intention of trying to fold these numismatic points into a source-based chronology
of the first half dozen years or so of the reign – an act (if I was foolhardy enough to attempt
it), for which I am utterly unqualified. It is clear, though, that the traditional idea of an
extended “close siege” of Constantinople in the mid 670s maintained by scholars of repute
until quite recently22 has, even more recently, been subject to keen examination.

My reading around the subject has been superficial at best, but I will pick out the following
quotes:

“ .. for five successive years Constantinople was blockaded throughout the summer
months. The hour of decision came in 678. A great sea fight before the walls ended in total
defeat for the Saracens23.”

“ .. The opening blow was struck against Constantinople itself in 670. .. A Roman
fleet .. attacked and annihilated the (Arabic) fleet that was evacuating the troops. This

22
For example, Kennedy H., The Great Arab Conquests, London, 2007, pp. 329-330.
23
The Cambridge Medieval History IV, Part 1 Byzantium and its Neighbours, 1966. More recently. Herrin, J.,
“The Formation of Christendom” (Oxford; 1986), p. 275.

9
victory, in 674, amounted to a Roman Trafalgar. Fighting continued by land, but the
initiative had passed to the Romans24.”

“ .. .. the siege of Constantinople was quickly lifted, perhaps on 25 June 668,

because of the famine and disease that struck the Arab army .. .. the long siege of
Constantinople in the 670s has no historical substance and should now be removed from
the handbooks25.”

Can numismatics (in a more detailed analysis than I have attempted) shed some more light
on the uncertainties represented here? I believe the answer is, potentially, yes.

So, what did the warlike appearance of Constantine on the coinage represent? There are
uncertainties. Perhaps a call to arms in defence of the city anticipating the difficult years of
the mid-670s? Or to mark the launching of a successful Byzantine counter-attack leading to
the turn of the tide by 674? Or a statement of Imperial power in the personage of the newly
acclaimed Emperor and to celebrate the lifting of the Arab blockade, even if enemy forces
remained in the vicinity.

As I hope I have been able to demonstrate, inter alia, it need not rule out either the second
or the third interpretation.

But perhaps any of them. Or none.

Thank you.

24
Howard-Johnston, Witnesses, pp. 226-7 and p. 494.
25
Jankowiak, The First Arab Siege, p. 304 and p. 316.

10