Is ‘propaganda’ a useful term for understanding the imagery of Roman coins?

The term ‘propaganda’ must always be considered carefully, particularly before applying it
to anything which pre-existed the terminology, not least because of the connotations the word has
accrued in connection with regimes such as those in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. The Oxford
English Dictionary defines ‘propaganda’ as ‘any association, systematic scheme, or concerted
movement for the propagation of a particular doctrine or practice’, and although coinage was a
pervasive example of the power of the Roman Empire whether or not the imagery it carried was
specific enough to contribute propaganda is debatable. There were certain ideas carried on Roman
coins, such as the emperor’s divine connections, which could in a more targeted context be
considered propagandistic. However, there are a number of other important themes represented on
Roman coinage which seem to reject the idea that there was a consistent ideology being transmitted
both temporally and spatially through the Roman Empire. Coins permeated every level of Roman
society and were therefore an important way to enforce and disseminate Imperial power and
promote particular images of the emperor and Rome. It cannot be denied that Roman coinage did
have some propagandistic aims, but nevertheless the strength of the term ‘propaganda’ can allow
for dangerous assumptions about the true purposes of the imagery of Roman coins. Because
imperial coins were not standardised, in the sense that each new emperor was free to mint them
with his own face and selection of images, they lack the consistent ideology that would need to be
present to declare that Roman coins were ‘propaganda’ as we understand the term.

There were a number of reasons why decorated coinage was so important in the Roman
world. Firstly, coins bore an image of the emperor which meant that everyone, regardless of
whether they had seen the emperor in the flesh or even visited Rome, knew the face of their ruler.
This also lends a kind of omnipresence to the emperor’s imperial
power; his face was in people’s homes and in their pockets, and this
a part of everyday life for everyone in the Roman world, which
almost makes it seem like the emperor was watching over all of his
subjects. This reminder of who was in power was also important
because one of the first acts after becoming emperor was generally
to make a payment to the troops, meaning that he immediately
needed to mint coins with his face on to remind his men who was in
power, as whoever controlled the army controlled the state. This
assertion of dominance through the propagation of a particular
image of the emperor has some elements of much more recent
Sestertius of Titus, 80-81AD. Reverse propagandistic campaigns, however the need to present an image
showing the Flavian Amphitheatre.
of the man who was in power does not necessarily imply the kind
of structure and planning we might now associate with
propaganda. The coins also allow for the association of the emperor with other things, which can be
depicted on the reverse of the coin. This allows for not only an image of the emperor but also the
association of the emperor with divinities, deeds, or mythology.

The artistic nature of Roman coinage was also particularly important. The vast majority of
the empire was probably illiterate and unable to speak the dominant language of the elite, so the
best form of communication, particularly in the provinces, was through images. People learnt about
their emperor from the coins which circulated at all social levels of the empire, and this saturation of
the empire with imperial images created a sense of unity among the very diverse peoples of the
empire because they were able to focus their sense of hierarchy on this singular individual as ruler. 1
1
Pg 12 ELSNER, J. Imperial Rome and Christian Triumph, 1998.
This use of art as a tool of unification occurs not just in coinage but in all other public forms of art,
however what the use of imperial imagery on coins allowed was a dissemination of imperial images
throughout all provinces and social classes in a way that could not have been achieved through
another medium. Although this perpetuation of images of the leader could be seen as holding
elements of propaganda, and coins certainly provided a useful tool for the spread of imperial
images, the depiction of the emperor and imperial symbols on Roman coins is still more a necessity
as an assertion of power than a carefully calculated and implemented scheme to propagate a
specific doctrine, which removes power from any claim that the imagery on Roman coins was
propaganda.

The imagery on Roman coins understandably underwent a quite drastic change when Rome
moved from a Republic to an Empire. Late Republican coins often depict the she-wolf suckling the
twins Romulus and Remus as a reminder of Rome’s mythological history. This provides the
precedent for mythological and divine imagery on coins. It was also not uncommon for prominent
citizens to mint coins glorifying their ancestors, although these images were often enhanced by
mythological or heroic attributes.2 Mythological and personal coins which characterised the Republic
are thus combined under the Empire to present the Emperor who, although he could not claim to be
a god himself, could claim descent from the gods through the line of deified emperors. This
promotion of the divine nature of the emperor through the associations made on coins could
potentially be seen as propagandistic in a society that didn’t have such a tradition of deifying its
emperors. From Augustus and even Julius Caesar most emperors were deified after their deaths,
meaning that even in Rome and central Italy the emperor was assumed to be in some way semi-
divine. In the provinces, particularly the Eastern provinces, this moved further with the advent of the
Imperial cult. Likewise, there are a number of examples of Imperial coins which represent other
members of the imperial family, drawn from familial representations on Republican coins. What the
imagery of Roman coins therefore seems to show is a reflection not a creation of Imperial practices.

The differences between depictions of emperors on

Roman coins are as important as the similarities for
understanding the kind of message they were trying to
spread. The obverse of a Roman coin is always recognisably
the emperor. He has distinctive features that would match
those in contemporary statuary and portraiture, and is
invariably shown crowned with a laurel wreath. Although Denarius of Hadrian, 134-138AD.
the obverse of the coin can vary, for example during the
early years of Nero’s reign when he was shown facing his mother Agrippina, what remains is still the
impression of a man in a position of power who
is very much a Roman. However, there are often
attempts at conveying the personalities of the
emperors depicted on coinage. This is most
evident on coins showing the emperor Hadrian,
such as one from 134-138AD which shows on
the obverse a reclining personification of Egypt.
Although his father Trajan was always depicted
on coins and in statuary clean shaven and with
his hair arranged like Augustus, Hadrian is always bearded and shown as a mature philosopher who
loved Greek culture and art. This is important because it reflects the very specific politics of image
Aureus of Nero, c.54AD. Obverse showing both Nero and
2
Agrippina.
Pg 27 D’AMBRA, E. Art and Identity in the Roman World, 1993.
propagation, where in appearance Hadrian was very different to his predecessors, but the building
projects and other deeds he had commemorated on the reverse of his coins showed that he was still
very much continuing the imperial traditions. 3 The differing depictions show that we cannot
necessarily consider the imagery of Roman coinage as constituting propaganda, because they did not
necessarily present a consistent image of unchanging imperial power. Instead they reflected the
personality and interests of the individual emperors.

The reverse of imperial coins were quite

often used to show things that the emperor had
done for the good of Rome and his people. Many of
these kinds of depictions involve images of building
projects or restorations carried out by the emperor
as a reminder of his imperial power and benevolence
towards his people. Buildings were often depicted;
Silver denarius of Trajan, 114AD. Reverse shows Trajan’s
Trajanic coins record the forum of Trajan, Trajan’s
column.
column, and his bronze equestrian statue. By
depicting monuments like this in the reverse of the imperial portrait imperial image-makers
established a direct connection between the emperor and monument, but also disseminated this
idea of emperor as patron of the arts throughout the empire. 4 This dissemination is particularly
important because the vast majority of inhabitants of the Roman empire would probably never visit
Rome. Coins are therefore a way of spreading images of Rome as centre of power throughout the
Roman world. Once again, this is something that could be considered in some ways propagandistic if
not for the fact that there is no centralised ideology being shown that is consistent throughout all
imperial coins.

Sestertius of Trajan, 103AD. Reverse shows the

Circus Maximus with expanded seating.

Sestertius of Trajan 105AD. Reverse shows the

construction of a bridge. The emperor Trajan minted a lot of coins depicting
restorations or improvements he had made to civic
buildings, such as the expansion of the Circus Maximus
or the restoration of the Forum Iulium. He also depicted
new projects, such as bridge building or aqueducts.
3
Pg 61 ELSNER, J. Imperial Rome and Christian Triumph, 1998.
4
Pg 72 ELSNER, J. Imperial Rome and Christian Triumph, 1998.
These projects were for the benefit of the people of the empire, and Trajan wanted to remind them
of the benefits the people were receiving under his rule as emperor. By connecting himself directly
with all of these projects he anticipates the praise and thanks of his people while at the same time
reminding them of the things they would be lacking were he not emperor. This is not propaganda in
the rather weighted sense of the word we would understand today, but it nevertheless shows how
coinage allowed the emperor to project a very specific image of himself across the emperor. In
reality, the majority of the people he ruled would never see him or even the monuments he had
restored or constructed, but by putting both his own image and that of his monuments on coins he
allows people at even the furthest parts of the empire to see the power of the emperor and the city
of Rome. The representation of art on coinage, whether sacred or secular, proved to be a significant
way of both announcing continuity and affirming cultural cohesion across the empire. 5 The
representation in images of Rome as central power on coins throughout the empire provided a
sense of cohesion and belonging to the vastly differing peoples enclosed within the borders of the
Roman world. This promoted sense of inclusion and cohesion is typical of what we might term
‘propaganda’, but in the context of a Roman coin, used throughout the Roman world, it only makes
sense that the images depicted on the coins needed to show something to which all Roman citizens
could relate.

However, it was not only contemporary

events or buildings which could be depicted on
coinage. Some emperors used coins to anchor
themselves more firmly to the traditions of their
imperial predecessors. One example of this is
Antonius Pius who had coins struck during the
second century showing the earlier temple of the
Gold coin of Antonius Pius, c. 158-9, showing the
deified Augustus in order to assert his continuity
Temple of the Deified Augustus.
within the tradition of earlier emperors. 6 In a similar
way, early Tiberian coins show images of the deified Augustus. What this does is remind the viewer
of both the imperial and divine power of the emperor in question allowing for the propagation of an
image of continuous and consistent imperial power. Once again, there is an intention behind this
which is similar to the intention behind numerous propagandistic images, yet Roman coinage hardly
constitutes a concerted movement with the intention of transmitting one particular set of ideals.
These images of course enhanced imperial power, but it also has to be remembered that coinage is
something akin to the background noise of the art of the ancient world. The coins would have been
handled on a daily basis by most inhabitants of the Roman empire, yet it is highly unlikely anyone
ever sat down to really consider what the coins were depicting and from this was in some way won
over to the idea of immense imperial power being shown. It is therefore important to remember
that even if the emperor held the dissemination of his images on coinage as a propagandistic tool
the effects of these images on the Roman people cannot have been overwhelming; they would have
been far more interested in the value of the coin than the picture of a temple decorating it.

The emperor’s religious importance was

also explored in the art of Roman coinage. This
generally takes the form of the emperor
depicting on the reverse side of his coin an image
of a god or goddess with whom he felt he had a

5
Pg 73 ELSNER, J. Imperial Rome and Christian Triumph, 1998.
6
Pg 72 ELSNER, J. Imperial Rome and Christian Triumph, 1998.
Silver denarius of Domitian 92-3AD. Reverse showing
Minerva in battle.
particular affinity, for example the gold and silver coinage from the reign of Domitian which is mostly
devoted to the goddess Minerva whom he saw as his special patroness. 7 Roman state religion and
the Roman gods spread through the empire as it was conquered, although the native Roman gods
were often assimilated with local gods or goddesses to make their worship more natural in the
provinces. By placing Minerva on his coinage Domitian not only assumes some kind of divine
connection with the goddess but also ensured that images of her would be circulating throughout
the Roman world and that everyone would know that this was a divinity with which he, as emperor
and head of the Roman state, had a personal connection. She is significant because of her warlike
nature, which meant that an image of her with her attributes or in battle would have reinforced the
military prowess of the emperor whose face was shown on the other side of the coin. Her presence
on Domitianic coinage shows the kind of message the emperor wanted to transmit through the art
on Roman imperial coinage; that he was himself semi-divine because he was shown on a coin
alongside a goddess. This, however, does not necessarily constitute the kind of indoctrination we
would expect from ‘propaganda’.

One coin, however, that does come close to being described as truly propagandistic in the
modern sense of the word is one Neronian coin showing Nero as Apollo standing next to Poppaea as
Concordia. Association of the gods and members of the imperial family
with gods and goddesses was by no means unusual in the Roman
world, there is evidence to suggest that Nero actually thought that he
was a god. This makes his representation of himself as divinity on
coinage of this era more sinister, as it was acceptable for an emperor
to claim descent from the gods in the form of his deified predecessors,
but not for him to claim himself to be divine. It is therefore possible
that this image could be considered propagandistic because it is
Aureus of Nero, 64-66AD, Nero
perpetuating an ideology in which the emperor is a god rather than a
as Apollo and Poppaea as mortal. However, Neronian coins do not consistently present him in
Concordia. this manner, and have more commonplace images such as a seated
personification of Roma on the reverse. This shows that the imagery of
Roman coins lacks the systematic persistence of propaganda, as they are able to show a number of
different images and disseminate slightly differing ideologies.

Even into the later empire the

association of the emperor with the state
religion of the time remains persistent on
Roman coinage. Constantine, the first Christian
emperor, also minted coins showing him as a
Christian emperor, such as the silver coins of
315AD which show on the obverse the emperor
Constantine in a way which incorporates both
traditional imperial representations of Silver coin of Constantine, 315AD.
emperors on coinage and new Christian ideals.
Instead of in profile Constantine is shown facing the viewer with the large eyes and heavy features
which characterise other statues of him, such as the fourth century colossal marble head. He is not
garlanded with a laurel wreath as the earlier emperors were, but wears a helmet and is shown
mounted, although for the purposes of fitting this much into such a small space the artist has had to
use an artistic shorthand which reduces his mount to a bridled head. Although his monogrammed

7
Pg 27 KENT, J. P. C. Roman Coins, 1978.
helmet, showing the Chi-Rho of Christianity, and his sceptre, Constantine is nevertheless showing
that he is still part of the continuing tradition of Roman emperors by carrying an imperial Roman
shield. This shield is decorated with the she-wolf and twins, symbol of eternal Rome, juxtaposed
with the Christian symbolism on the rest of the coin, 8 and the detail that has been incorporated into
this coin further shows their importance as artwork as well as currency. What this demonstrates is
the need to reconcile change; the introduction of a new state religion, with the solid continuity of
imperial power. Constantine’s choice of religion may have alienated many of his subjects, but he
takes care on his coinage to show that he is still a Roman emperor and that the centrality of imperial
power has not changed. This kind of imagery on coinage takes slightly more significance than many
of its forerunners, which at least showed imperial imagery signifying part of a continuing tradition of
imperial power. The introduction of a new set of Christian images onto Roman coinage could in
some ways be seen as approaching propagandistic because these coins would have spread through
the entire empire before Christianity itself. What the coinage of Constantine therefore does is to
normalise these Christian images and symbols which may then have made the transition from
Roman religion to Christianity as the state religion easier for many Imperial citizens.

It is easy when looking at a Roman coin in an isolated context, particularly when working
from magnified photographs, to forget the true nature of a coin. They were vehicles for artwork and
their images are usually carefully considered and very detailed, but they were still coins. They
permeated every aspect of life for people of every social class throughout the Roman world, but
they do not have the same impact as statements of imperial power as other pieces of artwork, such
as monumental reliefs or arches. The ideology they trasmit is much more subtle and because of this
able to spread further as, when living anywhere in the Roman world, be it central Italy or one of the
provinces, these coins would have been a part of everyday life. Whether people would have spent
much time looking closely at what was on their coins is also important for whether or not we can
ever consider Roman coinage to have been propagandistic. One emperor, as far as most were
concerned, was as much like another, and a Roman landmark like the Circus Maximus or Flavian
Ampitheatre would have meant little to a market trader in some far-off province in Northern Europe
or the middle east. Nevertheless what the consistency of imagery on imperial coins does provide is
some sense of community cohesion for even these diverse people through a common coinage which
directly reminded them of the power of Rome herself as the centre of the empire and source of
imperial power and money. Because of its weighted meaning ‘propaganda’ is not a term useful for
the study of the imagery of Roman coinage because it implies that there was a consistent goal
behind the selection and dissemination of imperial images on coins. However, it can nevertheless be
denied that the images on imperial coins did have great power because of the way in which they
were disseminated so thoroughly throughout the Roman world, and because of this although the
term ‘propaganda’ cannot, strictly speaking, be applied to imperial coinage, there would
nevertheless, knowing the importance of coinage, have been some propagandistic goals behind the
selection of images to decorate Roman coins.

Bibliography
- D’AMBRA, E. Art and Identity in the Roman World, 1993.
- ELSNER, J. Imperial Rome and Christian Triumph, 1998.
- KENT, J. P. C. Roman Coins, 1978.

8
Pg 161 D’AMBRA, E. Art and Identity in the Roman World, 1993.