Milvian Bridge

Was A Booby Trap At The Heart Of One Of The Most Pivotal Battles In World History? (Part two)

/ grailrunner / Leave a comment

If you haven’t read the first part of this double-header, click here for part one. This is the final wrap-up of a two-part deep dive into the ancient Battle of Milvian Bridge in 312 AD, to determine whether there was indeed a booby trap at the heart of the battle as some historical sources suggest.

Welcome back to our series called Inspirations From History!

The purpose of part one was to set the stage for why the battle happened and put its importance in context. We also met the key players: Constantine and Maxentius, and roughed out a psychological profile to probe the mystery at hand. If Maxentius really was a wily coward, superstitious and cautious, who relied on subterfuge and undermining enemy forces for victory, then yeah – he might have laid a booby trap. Instead, if Constantine was just lucky and bold and a good propagandist willing to use superstition and religion to advance his agenda and to inspire his men, then maybe no – the booby trap could have just been his insulting re-framing of the battle afterwards.

Well, which was it?

Pretty sure I have a good answer to that. There are 8 key historical sources to examine, all with solid claims to people who were there, spoke with those who were there, or otherwise had access to credible sources. I got my hands on all of them.

(1) Latin Panegyric 12, from an anonymous author and dating to 313 AD, only a year after the battle and representing the words of a speech made directly to Constantine

    The author describes Maxentius as growing gloomy and bitter at Constantine’s approach, rushing into a foolish formation, and panicking in his retreat. The narrowness of the bridge hindered the retreat, and the river “snatched up their leader himself in its whirlpool and devoured him when he attempted in vain to escape with his horse and distinctive armor by ascending the opposite bank“.

    No mention of a booby trap.

    (2) On the Deaths of the Persecutors by Lactantius, dating to 315 AD

    Chapter 44 describes Maxentius as staying behind in Rome at the games while his men fought the battle until he was shamed to ride out to fight and received what he thought was a favorable oracle. “Led by this response to the hopes of victory, he went to the field. The bridge in his rear was broken down. At sight of that, the battle grew hotter.” Then on seeing he was losing, Maxentius “fled towards the broken bridge; but the multitude pressed on him. He was driven headlong into the Tiber.”

    Still no mention of a booby trap, nor even Maxentius scheming by doing anything to the bridge.

      (3) Ecclesiastical History (between 312-324 AD) & Life of Constantine (337 AD), both by Eusebius and both would have been read by Constantine

      In the older work, Eusebius says Maxentius and his men drowned “when he fled” as he “passed through the river which lay in his way, over which he had formed a bridge with boats, and thus prepared the means of his own destruction“. Further, “Thus, then, the bridge over the river being broken…immediately the boats with the men disppeared in the depths“. No mention of a booby trap here either, but a casual reference that might be made more clear as we go here. Stick with me on this longer quote below.

      In his retelling of the story years later, the same author says of Maxentius, quoting more fully since it’s what inspired this entire quest):

      “…when in his flight before the…forces of Constantine, he essayed to cross the river which lay in his way, over which making a strong bridge of boats, he had framed an engine of destruction, really against himself, but in the hope of ensnaring thereby him who was beloved by God.” Later, “…one might say he had made a pit and fallen into the ditch which he had made. His mischief will return upon his own head..under divine direction, the machine erected on the bridge, with the ambuscade concealed therein, giving way unexpectedly before the appointed time, the bridge began to sink and the boats with the men in them went…to the bottom.”

      Constantine knew Eusebius well, and they would have definitely discussed this battle and its details, especially with Eusebius writing the guy’s biography. I can’t escape this account – the guy clearly says there was a booby trap.

      Is that the answer, then?

      Unclear so far. Let’s keep going. The other, equally old sources said nothing about it, in fact just the opposite.

      (4) Latin Panegyric 4, by Nazarius, dating to 321 AD

      Here, Maxentius is said to have arrayed his forces with disadvantage because he was “mad with fear“, in a “desperate state of mind and confused in counsel since he chose a location for the fight that would cut off escape and make dying a necessity.” The author’s first speech (now lost) would have covered more details, but he describes at least here the Tiber “filled with heaps of bodies” and an unbroken line of carnage “moving along with weakened effort among high-piled masses of cadavers, its waters barely forcing their way through“.

      No mention of a booby trap here, just a panicked retreat. Constantine wasn’t actually present when this speech was made, but he would have surely received the text and, I imagine, people who saw the battle would have been there to hear it and challenge anything said that was incorrect.

      (5) Origin of Constantine by an anonymous author, dating to 337 AD

      This account, though brief, sums up the battle as follows: “…when Constantine had arrived at the city, Maxentius, leaving the city, chose a plain above the Tiber in which to fight. There, defeated, with all his men put to flight, he perished amidst the straits of the people who were surrounding him, thrown from his horse into the river.” 

      No mention even of the bridge itself, nor in fact a collapse or breaking of the bridge. It just says he was thrown from his horse in a presumed retreat. Definitely no booby trap mentioned here.

      (6) The Caesars by Aurelius Victor, dating to 361 AD

      A short recount from this source describes the battle as follows:

      “Maxentius, growing more ruthless by the day, finally advanced with great difficulty from the city to Saxa Rubra, about nine miles away. His battle line was cut to pieces and as he was retreating in flight back to Rome he was trapped in the very ambush he had laid for his enemy at the Milvian Bridge while crossing the Tiber in the sixth year of his tyranny.”

      Strangely, the recount of this senior bureaucrat in imperial service who possibly had access to good sources mentions an “ambush” but no booby trap. Eusebius had mentioned an ambush but said it was hidden by the booby trap.

      (7) Epitome of the Caesars by an anonymous author, dating to the 360’s AD

      This recount presents a very different twist to the story:

      “Maxentius, while engaged against Constantine, hastening to enter from the side a bridge of boats constructed a little above the Milvian Bridge, was plunged into the depth when his horse slipped; his body, swallowed up by the weight of his armor, was barely recovered.“

      No booby trap here either, though it’s thirty years later and this author is first to suggest Maxentius was possibly headed TO the battle, crossing the intact bridge, when his horse slipped. I can’t give any credence to this one due to its later date and its crucial variance from much older sources.

      (8) New History by Zosimus, dating to the 5th & early 6th century but with access to much older sources

        In part one of this series, I quoted the Zosimus passage describing the booby trap and its iron fastenings. The author continues describing the battle: “As long as the cavalry kept their ground, Maxentius retained some hopes, but when they gave way, he tied with the rest over the bridge into the city. The beams not being strong enough to bear so great a weight, they broke; and Maxentius, with the others, was carried with the stream down the river.“

        So even though Zosimus had just described the booby trap as real, he doesn’t credit its triggering with killing Maxentius. Instead, it’s that the “beams” gave way.

        Okay, so what’s the answer? Was there a booby trap?

        No, it would seem there was not. Since most sources agree it was a rushed retreat and collapse of a temporary bridge, that’s likely what happened.

        Where did the booby trap story originate, then?

        This is something I learned as I researched this series: Constantine was a shrewd manipulator and propagandist. He had leveraged a supernatural vision before, and that wasn’t a Christian god. He leveraged a vision at Milvian. He painted himself as divine inevitability. This fellow knew Eusebius (a bishop) and the explosive new religion of Christianity as what they could do for him. It was very much to his benefit that he be the hero and liberator versus a wicked, scheming coward in Maxentius as this story was locked into history.

        Constantine made it up. That’s my conviction after poring through these sources. He just made it up. And I’m here two millenia later half-believing it.

        *

        Anyway, this has been intriguing for me and a long-time interest I enjoyed researching for you. Apologies for going long on it, but the background seemed important. Let me know what you think and if you believe the question is settled or not.

        Till next time,

        Was A Booby Trap At The Heart Of One Of The Most Pivotal Battles In World History? (Part one)

        / grailrunner / 1 Comment

        It’s October 28, 312 AD. Beyond this bridge lies Rome. You won’t even have to fight inside its gates. Just enter, and the empire is yours…the entire known world as you see it. It isn’t even a real bridge; your enemy destroyed the permanent one. What’s there now is temporary: made of wooden pontoons. The only thing between you and rule over every part of the greatest empire ever known is one army, commanded by a devious, superstitious foe who wins battles by bribing and persuading his enemy’s forces in the dead of night and hiding behind seiged walls. He’s joining battle on this side of the river, with his back against the water to signal there will be no retreats. No running.

        This will be the end of the scheming and intrigue. Before the end of the day, one of you will ride into the city to be welcomed by the Senate. And they will welcome whoever comes to them. That’s how they are.

        You would remake the empire, granting freedom and re-defining who the people aspire to become. You would create an optimistic world and encourage new ways of thinking, ushering in a great and brave era of humanity. Your enemy is vile, the son of a liar and a coward. He offers the empire only more of the same internal wars and greed, persecutions and oppression that almost took Rome down a generation before.

        You’ve had a vision today. It isn’t your first omen, but it is the greatest: a mighty burning sign in the sky. “By this sign, conquer!” A voice in your head, promising your victory. You’ve had your soldiers paint it on their shields. They marvel at your confidence.

        It’s time. Waiting only empowers the enemy. Ride and fight! The Battle of Milvian Bridge begins!

        The Arch of Constantine frieze showing the battle (at bottom)

        That was the stage set on October 28 in the year 312, a battle that decided how world history would play out for the next two thousand years. It helped shape civilization as we know it, and even impacted how we think and see the world today. The story has everything you could want in a thriller: palace intrigue and power schemes, a superstitious emperor shamed by his people into abandoning his seiged city walls, a supernatural vision, and a brutal, violent conflict ending in the drowned screams of the defeated army.

        But some ancient sources such as church historian, Eusebius in Life of Constantine say there was a booby trapped bridge that decided the battle.

        Zosimumus, for example, an imperial bureaucrat writing quite some time later but drawing from older sources, said it clearly in his New History:

        “Maxentius threw a bridge over the Tiber, which was not of one entire piece, but divided into two parts, the center of the bridge being made to fasten with iron pins, which might be drawn out upon occasion. He gave orders to the engineers that as soon as they saw the army of Constantine upon the juncture of the bridge, they should draw out the iron fastenings that the enemy who stood upon it might fall into the river.”

        When I learned that, I just had to go deep to know the truth. I had to get inside the minds of some of the key players, especially the guy that lost that battle and would have set the trap (if there was one).

        How about I present the facts to you and we’ll see what you think. Welcome back to our series: Inspirations From History!

        A little background?

        Diocletian

        It all orbits around this guy here. His name was Diocletian, and in some ways he was the Abraham Lincoln of his day. On May 1st, in the year 305 AD on a parade ground in front of his army, he retired as emperor and was the very first to do so. He was ill and just wanted to tend to his vegetable gardens on the Adriatic shore. This was a shock to the system because he was the stabilizing force for the empire when it had all but shattered to its shakey core for 70 years before he came to power. In fact, during a 50-year period before Diocletian, there were no fewer than 60 claimants to the throne in a terrifying time of anarchy, intrigue, civil strife, plague, and foreign invasions.

        And now he wanted to tend vegetables.

        One important way he had stabilized the empire was a shared-power framework called the Tetrarchy. Although Diocletian had remained the ultimate and senior honcho, he primarily governed the eastern portion of the empire with the senior title (Augustus), aided by a junior (a schemer named Galerius, titled Caesar). His counterpart in the western portion was a fellow named Maximian (also titled Augustus), aided by his own junior: Constantius (titled Caesar).

        Here’s what that all looked like:

        Maximian

        And here’s Maximian. When Diocletian announced he was retiring, he forced this poor guy to retire too. And the surprises just kept coming…

        This was the new tetrarchy Diocletian announced on that parade ground. Constantius and Galerius got their promotions, but Constantine, the son of Constantius, was standing on the tribunal with these guys expecting to be named Caesar. That was the whole point of his previous 10 years, being groomed for this moment. He’d served under Galerius all but a captive to enable this promotion to happen. It was what he’d been told his whole life would happen.

        Then it didn’t. Because of Galerius. This guy here:

        Galerius

        Galerius hated Constantine, and had convinced old Diocletian that the tall, handsome and well-liked young man was too ambitious and wouldn’t respect authority. So he got passed up. That fellow, Maximinus who got the Caesar job in the east was Galerius’s nephew: a puppet placeholder till Galerius’s young son was old enough to take the title. Constantine will be commanding one side at the Battle of Milvian Bridge; it’s with his perspective that I opened this article above.

        Constantine

        Maximian had a son, too, a devious one who was also expecting to rise to the title of Caesar, a fellow named Maxentius. Not only was Maximian forced into retirement, but his son got passed over as well.

        Because of Galerius.

        Maxentius

        Galerius had convinced old Diocletian that Maxentius was insolent and unfit for rule, so he maneuvered his henchman, Severus into the Caesar job. And with all that intrigue, scheming Galerius wound up Augustus over the eastern empire with his nephew below him and a croney in waiting as Caesar in the west. Quite the layer cake, that Galerius! A true child of Rome.

        So everyone went along with that?

        Oh, no. Constantius was the only one not tied to Galerius here, and he did a thing.

        That Summer, Constantius summoned his son, Constantine to his service in a campaign against the Picts. When Constantius died of natural causes about a year afterwards, Constantine was presented to the army as Augustus. Not the junior title of Caesar, mind you. Augustus: Severus’s job. Galerius was furious with this, refusing to acknowledge that title but allowing him as Severus’s junior, Caesar.

        Constantine went along for the time being, pleased with his insertion into the Imperial College. But Constantine’s success here infuriated old Maximian’s son, Maxentius, who took advantage of some unrest in Rome due to new taxes and got himself an elevated title (“First Citizen”), an act that even moreso infuriated Galerius. Maxentius hated his father, but knew it would make his claim to some kind of authority legitimate if his dad came back from retirement as Augustus (yes, Severus’s title). The Roman senate went along with it despite the lack of Galerius’s backing.

        Galerius ordered Severus to suppress this uprising through force in early 307, and it was in this battle outside Rome that Maxentius did something very interesting, very effective, and highly relevant to the question of whether there was a booby trap on Milvian Bridge.

        He bribed and persuaded Severus’s soldiers to switch sides and just drop the seige of Rome. I imagine this as happening around campfires in the dead of night, with Severus waking up at sunrise to the bulk of his army gone. Severus was taken captive, forced to abdicate, and was dead by September.

        Maxentius was fast becoming a hero to the people of Rome. Crucially while Maximian was away negotiating with Constantine to keep him out of the conflicts (granting Constantine the cherished Augustus title), Maxentius faced Galerius himself who had crossed the Julian Alps to deal with this himself. Galerius was a fierce and renowned general with a glory-filled career in war, and was headed straight for Rome to settle all this and bring order back to his marvelous plans for the empire under his rule.

        And Maxentius did it again. His agents infiltrated Galerius’s camp at Interamna and worked the invading soldiers with promises of rewards and promotions, and insistence that Galerius was in the wrong attacking his own son-in-law. And it worked again, with so many of Galerius’s men defecting that he was forced to retreat and leave Italy entirely without even fighting a battle!

        When Maximian returned, he was dumbfounded to find his own son had declared himself Augustus and had made Maximian’s role obsolete. Maxentius ran his father out of town, driving him into the arms of Constantine for protection.

        Couldn’t the old guy that retired come back and fix all this?

        Galerius did, in fact, meet Diocletian in November 308 with Maximian in attendance as well to try and convince the old man to come out of retirement and use his prestige and reputation to fix the world they’d broken. But he wasn’t leaving his cabbages and proposed a revised tetrarchy that everyone should have known wouldn’t work. He named a loyal lieutenant of Galerius’s (Licinius) as Severus’s replacement Augustus, demoting Constantine to Licinius’s Caesar, and charging Licinius with putting down Maxentius. Maximian was told to retire again.

        It isn’t worth diagramming that, because both Constantine and Maxentius were forces of nature that couldn’t have cared less about Diocletian’s new framework.

        So we’re ready for the Battle of Milvian Bridge then?

        Yes, we are. By 310, Maximian, after trying to spread a false rumor that Constantine was dead to declare himself Augustus once again, had hung himself. Galerius and Diocletian both died in 311. Licinius wound up dying at Constantine’s hands a little more than a decade later and isn’t important to the story or its impact anyway. Maximinus died of natural causes a year later and isn’t important to the story either.

        In 312, Constantine struck like lightning in a raid through Italy bound straight for Rome to take out Maxentius for good. Whoever won that, honestly, got the empire with just some loose ends to clean up.

        What happened?

        Before the battle was done, Maxentius had left the city walls (though he’d won two previous seiges through guile), lost the fight, tried to retreat (in a panic?), and drowned in the Tiber along with much of his army. His pontoon bridge had collapsed. Take a look at that stone frieze above on the Arch of Constantine to see a contemporary visual for that. It’s Constantine driving men on horses into the river.

        Twenty years later, a man named Eusebius who knew Constantine personally reported that Milvian Bridge had a booby trap. That was what fascinated me about this whole story. Yet the sources don’t agree, and the oldest sources don’t mention a booby trap at all.

        Maxentius was devious and could very well have planned such a trap, even trying to lure Constantine’s forces into it. And Constantine was a master of propaganda, claiming kinship with gods, which could have persuaded Maxentius’s minion in charge of a booby trap to trigger it instead against his own master.

        I had to know. WAS there a booby trap at all?

        In part 2, I’ll try and get you an answer on that.

        Till next time,