Re: Tribunicia potestate

In the early Empire, the number of years an emperor has held tribunicia
potestas is usually shown on coins of that year.

Tiberius's earliest coins, with TR.P.VI, are dated by numismatists to
4-5 AD, (and so on without a break up to TR.P.XXVIII in 36-37 AD).  The
dating is confirmed by the addition of AVGVSTVS in 14 AD, and of
COS.III., COS.IIII., or COS.V. in the appropriate years.  So he
evidently had five years of tribunicia potestas before 4 AD.

The emperors Caligula through Vespasian first had TR.P. when they became
Augusti.  So did Domitian, Nerva, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, Lucius Verus.

Titus first had TR.P. in 71, 8 years before he became Augustus, and
Marcus Aurelius in 147, 14 years before.  Trajan and (apparently)
Commodus had it a year before they became Augusti.

Thereafter, down to Gallienus and Postumus (both d. 268 AD), whenever
TR.P. is mentioned on the coins, the annual numbering is from their
accession as Augustus.

This is all based on a quick perusal of Sear's "Roman Coins and their
Values" (1988).

John Isles
Hanover, Michigan

-----Original Message-----
From: Classical Greek and Latin Discussion Group
[mailto:CLASSICS-L@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ling Ouyang
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2004 4:42 PM
To: CLASSICS-L@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Tribunicia potestate

Wait a sec, Tiberius first received tribunicia potestas in 6 BCE, but
for
only 5 years. Was it renewed in 1 BCE while he was in Rhodes? The next
mention of Tiberius receiving tribunicia potestas, I thought, was in 4
CE.

At 04:14 AM 4/30/2004 -0400, I wrote:
>I found this passage in Wikipedia [and have deleted it for now]
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribune :
>
>As a result, there was never actually an "office" of emperor; emperors'
>reigns were dated by their assumption of ''tribunicia potestas'', and
the
>actual constitutional position of the emperor was that of ''pontifex
>maximus'' (P.M.) ''tribunicia potestate'' (trib. pot.).
>
>I know it is not true that Tiberius' reign was dated by his assumption
of
>tribunicia potestas [yikes! that would put the start of his reign a
decade
>earlier] and so forth, but was it true in the late Empire? And "actual
>constitutional position" was that of ''pontifex maximus'' (P.M.)
>''tribunicia potestate'' (trib. pot.)"?
>
>Ling Ouyang
>http://janusquirinus.org/


Ling Ouyang
http://janusquirinus.org/