The policy of the party seems to have been to encourage each province to start a separate government under its local ruler, in touch with the Roman Government, but with recognised independence. Britain was separated, and was only reunited to the empire at later times for short periods; Postumus, Victorinus, Tetricus, Carausius, Allectus, Constantius, Magnentius, Magnus Maximus, Jovinus, all ruled without any check from Italy. Syria was separated with such good will that the coinage for Zenobia was struck at the Imperial mint in Alexandria. In all, nineteen independent rulers are enumerated in this reign; and no attempt was made to reunite the provinces. There were gains in such a course; the heavy charge on Italy of keeping a great army was lessened; the risks of civil war seemed to be reduced, when each province was not tempted to set up its own ruler for the whole empire; and local feelings and variations could have free scope. It might be thought that three centuries of rule had fitted the provinces to hold their own in the world, and to be ruled independently. The result of the experiment in devolution, or home rule all round, was a time of such anarchy, misery and loss, as had not been known since a unified civilisation had existed in those lands. After the immediate catastrophes had been somewhat rectified by succeeding emperors, Aurelian took up the great task of reuniting the whole empire. He carried this out victoriously; Tetricus from Gaul and Zenobia from Syria adorned his triumph. But Rome was bitter at such a policy. A furious rebellion broke out, nominally called the revolt of the mint; that it was a great social movement was seen by Gibbon, though he confesses that it is mysterious how three senators, most of the senatorial families, and multitudes of minor people were involved in it. The fighting was so severe that five thousand of Aurelian's trained army were killed. That the mint workmen took part in it is certain: but probably the mint was adopted as headquarters of the movement owing to its strength. All this shows that, so far from the great victories making Aurelian popular in Rome, they were most bitterly opposed. The only ground for this must be that a very strong party clung to the little-Italy policy, and hated Aurelian in consequence. This movement gives good ground for interpreting the policy of Gallienus in the way we have done above, as being a great party policy and not merely an imperial freak.