Maxentius

At the turn of the fourth century, four soldiers ruled the Roman Empire: Diocletian, Maximian, Constantius and Galerius. This Tetrarchy, as modern scholars call it, was the brainchild of Diocletian, and under this emperor's leadership, the regime brought stability to an empire shaken after a half-century of political and military convulsions. These Tetrarchs defeated the resurgent enemies of the empire, they ended an epidemic of military rebellion that had lasted decades, and they attempted numerous reforms in an effort to better the empire both economically and spiritually.

This dissertation examines the Tetrarchy as an imperial dynasty, and it uses the concept of dynasty to highlight how the Tetrarchic regime was often at odds with imperial precedents. Like other Roman dynasts, the Tetrarchs employed adoption, marriage and shared nomenclature in the expression of their rule, but they also ignored certain dynastic norms. Diocletian and Maximian presented themselves as brothers despite being unrelated, and they used the names Jovius and Herculius to imply a close connection to Jupiter and Hercules. Diocletian and Galerius repeatedly excluded the sons of the Tetrarchs from the succession, and the sons themselves were variously hostages, symbols of imperial unity and targets of assassination. Moreover, for most of the Tetrarchic period, imperial women were neither empresses nor deified.

This study investigates these issues through the lens of the Roman army, and it presents the Tetrarchic dynasty as a military experiment, created by and tailored to soldiers. At the beginning of Tetrarchic rule, Rome's armies exerted an unprecedented influence over imperial politics, and the Tetrarchs themselves were products of these armies. This thesis shows that the Tetrarchs gave their sons and the imperial women important but subdued roles within their regime. It proposes that these approaches to dynasty and the decision to create the Tetrarchy came about because of military experience and responded to the pressing need to forestall army rebellion. Furthermore, the study argues that the regime represented the Augusti and their Caesars as pairs of brothers, and that it did so to appeal to the army. It is concluded that friendship, namely the camaraderie of Diocletian and Maximian, was central to dynastic cohesion and imperial unity during the Tetrarchic period. Whatever the intentions of the Tetrarchs, their dynastic junta could only be temporary, since the friendship of the Augusti could not be replicated.

PhD dissertation on the buildings and representation of emperor Maxentius (306-312 A.D.) in the city of Rome. The book analyzes all available evidence, especially coins and architecture, and arrives at new conclusions regarding the image of this ruler in the late Roman context.

This paper investigates the immense rhetorical and symbolic power of decapitation, from Sulla’s proscriptions through the dismemberment of Cicero to the treatment of Maxentius’ head after his death in 312. In particular, it investigates a range of late-antique cases of civil war violence to understand their broader social significance and how they reflect contemporary bodily discourses, notably focusing on the head as the most noble and identifiable part of the body as well as its importance for contemporary conceptions of the afterlife. Decapitation has a series of implications in terms of political and social spectacle that empower its efficacy in the staging of violence, not least in the context of civil war. It thus raises
questions such as: what role did violence inflicted on the human body play in internal political conflict in the late-antique world? What was at stake in the treatment of human bodies in civil war violence? And how did contemporary audiences perceive this violence?

The rule of Constantine I. (306–337 AD) marks a pivotal moment in the history of the Roman empire. On the threshold between Principate and Late Antiquity, the Roman monarchy experienced a profound social, political, religious, and cultural transformation. The book approaches the era focussing on the development of triumphal rulership. The attention lies on two main genera of historical sources that are analysed systematically: panegyrical texts (the Panegyrici Latini, but also the panegyrical figure poems of Publilius Optatianus and the Eusebius' tricennial oration) on the one hand and imperial coins and medallions on the other. Both Panegyrics and coins/medallions served as media of communicative interaction between the ruler and the ruled. On the basis of a close analysis of these sources, the book carves out fascinating tensions between tradition and innovation in the fields of military representation, court culture, religious change and social conflict. // —

Awards: Bruno-Snell-Preis (Mommsen-Gesellschaft); Walter-Hävernick-Preis (Numismatische Kommission) // —

Reviews: Latomus 75.2 (2016), 533—536 [Jean-Pierre Callu]; Journal of Late Antiquity 8.1 (2015), 235—237 [Noel Lenski]; KLIO 97 (2015), 360—372 [Frank Kolb]; Frankfurter Elektronische Rundschau 28 (2015), 63—71 [Raphael Brendel]; Geschichte in Wissenschaft und Unterricht 5/6 (2014), 391—393 [Raimund Schulz u. Uwe Walter]; L'Antiquité Classique 83 (2014), 455—457 [Alain Chauvot]; Göttinger Forum für Altertumswissenschaft 17 (2014), 1167—1177 [Horst Schneider]; Jahrbuch für Numismatik und Geldgeschichte 63 (2013), 377—385 [Kay Ehling]; Numismatisches Nachrichtenblatt 9 (2013), 332—333 [Bernhard Weisser]; Numismatisches Nachrichtenblatt 8 (2013), 314—315 [Karl Strobel]; H-Soz-Kult 8.4.2013 [Ulrich Lambrecht]. // —

"This is a formidable book. It demonstrates a remarkable mastery of a large and very complex body of sources. Wienand’s command of details as well as the big picture—the sweep of historical change over thirty-seven years—are heartily to be commended. In some ways, the book’s greatest virtue is also its main shortcoming. Wienand’s unflagging pursuit of precision, breadth, and depth can cause even the diligent reader to lose interest in—and track of—the argument. Overall, however, this is a very important book by a very accomplished young scholar.“
— Noel Lenski, in: Journal of Late Antiquity 8 (2015), 235—237

«I 'se...' non fanno la storia, ma possono essere di aiuto. A raccontare, a delineare le 'svolte', a soppesare il ruolo degli eventi. Ma anche a realizzare, come suggeriva Nietzsche, che nella storia 'la domanda: "Che cosa sarebbe accaduto se non fosse sopravvissuta questa o quest'altra cosa?" viene respinta quasi concordemente, e tuttavia è proprio la domanda cardinale, attraverso cui tutto si trasforma in qualcosa d'ironico.'»

Cosa hanno in comune le mitiche vicende di Romolo, di Lucrezia e delle oche del Campidoglio, la precoce morte di Alessandro «il Grande», la titubanza di Annibale Barca dopo la clamorosa vittoria di Canne, la straordinaria vita di Gaio Giulio Cesare e il suo feroce assassinio, le decisive battaglie di Filippi, Azio, Teutoburgo, ponte Milvio e Adrianopoli?
Si tratta di personaggi ed eventi, leggendari o reali, che hanno segnato vere e proprie svolte nella storia di Roma antica e che – per importanza e, spesso, imprevedibilità – hanno suggerito, già tra i contemporanei, interrogativi sui destini dell’uomo e del mondo, ispirando riflessioni ucroniche e controfattuali. Insomma, hanno generato quei famigerati «se» con i quali, ci è sempre stato insegnato, non bisognerebbe mai fare la storia.
Ma quando a porseli sono uomini che la storia l’hanno fatta in prima persona, come Cesare, Napoleone o il generale Montgomery, o grandi intellettuali, quali Livio, Plutarco, Gibbon, Burckhardt o Toynbee, forse un’eccezione la meritano. Ne è convinto lo storico Luca Fezzi il quale, esplorando una dozzina di questi «se» – tutti rigorosamente «di autore» –, ci guida lungo il corso delle millenarie vicissitudini dell’Urbe, città «eterna»
ma mai immobile, anzi, sempre «in bilico» tra scenari alternativi, spesso opposti. Potremo così chiederci, con la dovuta cognizione di causa, se quanto avvenuto era già scritto, o se sussistevano invece, per Roma, altre possibilità e quali sarebbero state le eventuali conseguenze: per esempio, non nascere, non diventare repubblica, venire abbandonata per la vicina Veio, scontrarsi con Alessandro o soccombere ad Annibale, non conoscere le imprese di Cesare, le riforme di Augusto e di Costantino, resistere più a lungo alle pressioni dei popoli germanici.
Con lo stesso spirito e grazie a una profonda conoscenza delle fonti, in questo percorso poco ortodosso ma assai intrigante tra momenti epocali della vicenda di Roma e del suo impero, l’autore ridà voce al controcanto delle narrazioni e testimonianze dissonanti, minoritarie, talvolta improbabili, eco lontane del perenne contrasto tra un passato irrevocabilmente unico e l’universo dei suoi infiniti ma irrealizzati possibili.

I advise those that don’t know my research  to get acquainted with it otherwise much of what will be discussed in this paper will make little or no sense at all.

Throughout my life I considered myself an initiate  and devoted believer in the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church; though, I surpassed its rudimentary teachings some time ago I am still amazed at its incredible artistic and mystical structure and how the Church is fulfilling the mission that Christ entrusted to its care since the dawn of Christianity.  Everything about the Roman Catholic Church and its mythoi (historicity)  informs the soul as to the WHYS and WHEREFORES of it trials and tribulations in its quest for knowledge of the WORD OF GOD.  Such research on the mythoi of Christianity explains what life is all about.  In a very real sense my studies into the literature, artworks and monuments of Christianity is my personal prayer to God.

It can be said, truthfully, without prejudice that Gnosticism and Heresy collectively symbolize the myriad forms of belief systems that spring out of the psyche: i.e. ego-consciousness and the unconscious mind of individual initiates meditating on the original narratives of Christianity; because, modernity is led to believe that initially there was, at the time, no standardized religious educational system that informed the vast majority of the populace (laity) as to what the standardized Christian belief system entailed.  Or let us say this is the mythoi vis-à-vis the dawn of Christianity that has been past down to posterity by those that wrote the sacred scriptures.

Personally, I beg to differ that this is what Gnosticism and Heresy is all about; however, I do believe that Gnosticism and Heresy were conceived and written by highly knowledgeable orthodox Catholics theologians.  One of the most glaring truths about Gnosticism and Heresy in contrast to the Catholic Church is that the narrative structure and demeanor of the four gospels of the New Testament in contrast to the Gnostic Gospels and those of the heretics is that the literary ambiance of the New Testament has far more sophistication to its storyline and content as to what a historical document should look like.  It is as if the Gnostic and Heretical writings were conceived as cat’s paws to teach the esotericism of the New Testament.  I do not deny the true and valid spiritual teachings of the Gnostic and Heretical texts; however, these were only conceived as cat’s paws by the authors of the Old and New Testaments in order to fine-tune those texts as Christian historicity and to validate the reasons for them to be writing esoterically in the manner in which they were.  Gnostic and Heretical texts never claim a historicity in fact they claim the extreme opposite of that mode of thought.  Another very important clue that Gnosticism and Heresies were conceived by the early Christian theologians is the fact that esotericism is NEVER DISCUSSED.  Now isn’t that an eye-opener?  If Christianity was truly arguing against sects of Gnosticism and Heresies that would have been a priori point to argue against them; therefore, something else is going on in the so-called conversation.

Gnosticism and Heresy is a cacophony of belief systems meant to symbolize CHAOS; whereas, the Roman Catholic Church is understood to symbolize ORDER OUT OF CHAOS.  Gnosticism and Heresy symbolizes the Trees of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden of Eden; whereas, the Roman Catholic Church symbolizes the Tree of Life.  Of course modernity would beg to differ; however, here we’re discussing the mythoi/historicity of Christianity not what modernity would have to say about it.

Modernity is at a very great disadvantage because it is expected to believe a whole host of ideas that simply are the continuous mythoi of the sacred scriptures and not actual historical events at all.  In addition modernity is expected to believe and take into account data allegedly analyzed through Carbon-14 dating, which has nothing whatsoever to do with religious matters; yet, that data is expected to be taken into consideration.  Carbon-14 dating has been proven wrong in many an instance and always a new system of data-dating is in play.  Without mentioning Carbon-14 dating again in this paper it will be envisaged why it is necessary that it and other systems like it should be summarily dismissed as a very questionable science.  Let us put it another way.  There is not one ancient document that actually can be dated to what is considered the BC era.  All codices and ancient parchments are alleged to be scribal copies of that era.  Thus, Carbon-14 dating of archeological digs has nothing to do with the religious mythoi of the sacred scriptures.  Connecting ancient scrolls with archeological digs are assumptions at best.  In additional it should be realized that secular documents and religious documents are entirely two different genres of thought and the twain shall never meet.  The secular document is written via ego-consciousness: off the top of one head so to speak and the religious document is very mystical and esoteric in its construct, which most likely took a ruling body of religious individuals, to author: a monastery of monks.

Before getting into the discussion on Gnosticism and Heresy the reader is going to take a mystical journey through the esoteric structure of the Old and New Testaments as to how they were actually written and what spiritual influences governed their authorship: meaning what other religious culture’s mythoi had a hand in authoring the Judeao Christian Scriptures. This is going to take the reader psychically envisaging the entire panoramic view of the so called historicity and esoteric structure of the Judeao Christian Scriptures: Western Civilization.  The average person tends to view the sacred scriptures, artworks and monuments of antiquity from a historical rather than a spiritual perspective and that is because the psyche is hard-wire in the time/space continue to reason linearly: i.e. cause and effect. Religion has nothing to do with time: i.e. cause and effect.  In addition the reader will see that I tend to envisage all of the so called historicity: i.e. mythoi of Christianity as creatio continua of the Judeao Christian Scriptures.  The reader is going to have to consider that even up to the present moment of his or her life, in respects to the entire panoramic view of the Judeao Christian mythoi, is how he or she should think about the esoteric and spiritual WORD OF GOD.

How do I explain the inexplicable?  The average initiate is living a inauthentic life in the material world simple because the psyche has a false conception of life.  The soul via the psyche: ego-consciousness and the unconscious mind enters into the world not having a clue as to how to live life; however, prior to coming into the world there is a universal spiritual paradigm that is the foundation of the soul’s existence and it is the soul’s guide to life.  The universal spiritual paradigm’s rules are analogous to the rules on a Chess board, which never change.  The psyche living life in the world has no idea that this universal spiritual paradigm is eternally with it and it is the soul’s onus to attune to it.

Coming into the materialistic world the soul is in flight from spirituality (God).  The child looses it mystical sheen and becomes a human being living an inauthentic life not knowing it is out of synch with God.  This pseudo-life becomes a mythology (facade) written on the surface of life; whereas, esotericism, which explains the WORD OF GOD, exists beneath the surface text of that pseudo-life.  The whole of the sacred scriptures and life everlasting via the mythoi of Christianity through the Christian eras mystically conveys this universal spiritual paradigm in its literature, artworks and monuments and in the lives of the innumerable souls that live under the protection of its umbrella.

The paper deals with the city of Rome as an imperial residence under emperor Maxentius (306-312 AD). While Maxentius is often seen as a "traditional" emperor, and his representation as an antithesis to the representation of the tetrarchic emperors, the article argues that the buildings in and around Rome (basilica of Maxentius, Temple of Venus and Roma, Palatine palaces, suburbian villa complex) are a prime example of contemporary imperial representation.

Contested Monarchy reappraises the wide-ranging and lasting transformation of the Roman monarchy between the Principate and Late Antiquity. The book takes as its focus the century from Diocletian to Theodosius I (284–395), a period during which the stability of monarchical rule depended heavily on the emperor’s mobility, on collegial or dynastic rule, and on the military resolution of internal political crises. At the same time, profound religious changes modified the premises of political interaction and symbolic communication between the emperor and his subjects, and administrative and military readjustments changed the institutional foundations of the Roman monarchy. This volume concentrates on the measures taken by emperors of this period to cope with the changing framework of their rule. The collection examines monarchy along three distinct yet intertwined fields: Administering the Empire, Performing the Monarchy, and Balancing Religious Change. Each field possesses its own historiography and methodology, and accordingly has usually been treated separately. This volume’s multifaceted approach builds on recent scholarship and trends to examine imperial rule in a more integrated fashion. With new work from a wide range of international scholars, Contested Monarchy offers a fresh survey of the role of the Roman monarchy in a period of significant and enduring change. // – – –

“This exceptionally valuable book offers multiple perspectives on the development of the institutional, ideological and religious aspects of the Roman empire’s first Christian century. Breaking away from traditional divisions according to dynasty or religion, we see how the Roman state developed new answers to the central question of its own legitimacy. Eschewing simplistic generalizations, the diverse contributions offer multiple perspectives on the way the Roman system of government interacted with its subjects. Wienand has performed an invaluable service by facilitating a wide ranging encounter among scholarly styles to promote a well-articulated discussion of significant themes in the governance of the Roman Empire, illuminating not only the period under consideration, but earlier and later periods as well.”
—David Potter, University of Michigan

Reviews

Journal of Roman Studies 106 (2016), 361-363 [Alexander Skinner]; Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2015.11.34 [Jan Willem Drijvers]; Sehepunkte 15 (2015) Nr. 11 [Adrastos Omissi]; H-Soz-Kult 18.5.2015 [Raphael Brendel]

Reviewers Quotes:

"This is a book that deepens our sense of the complexity, and unexpectedness, of the late Roman Empire. It is a landmark."
—Alexander Skinner

"Contested Monarchy is an enormously valuable volume without a weak link in its chain of articles. It is a must have for any scholar working on late Roman political, social, or religious history and for the library of any university that offers courses on the fourth century. Its depth of inquiry and range of coverage means that it will be of great value to researchers but the articles are all sufficiently accessible that advanced students will be able to gain much from them as well. The articles can be read individually, but the volume repays reading as a whole."
—Adrastos Omissi

"This is a fine collection of articles articulating the contested Roman imperial rule of late antiquity. Everybody interested in the late Roman empire will profit from it."
—Jan Willem Drijvers

CONTENTS

<Introduction>
1. Johannes Wienand: "The Cloak of Power: Dressing and Undressing the King"

<Part One: Administering the Empire>
2. John Weisweiler: "Domesticating the Senatorial Elite: Universal Monarchy and Transregional Aristocracy in the Fourth Century AD"
3. John Noël Dillon: "The Inflation of Rank and Privilege: Regulating Precedence in the Fourth Century AD"
4. Sebastian Schmidt-Hofner: "Ostentatious Legislation: Law and Dynastic Change, AD 364–365"
5. Doug Lee: "Emperors and Generals in the Fourth Century"
6. Joachim Szidat: "Gaul and the Roman Emperors of the Fourth Century"
7. Michael Kulikowski: "Regional Dynasties and Imperial Court"

<Part Two: Performing the Monarchy>
8. Mark Humphries: "Emperors, Usurpers, and the City of Rome: Performing Power from Diocletian to Theodosius"
9. Johannes Wienand: "O tandem felix civili, Roma, victoria! Civil-War Triumphs from Honorius to Constantine and Back"
10. Hartmut Leppin: "Coping with the Tyrant’s Faction: Civil-War Amnesties and Christian Discourses in the Fourth Century AD"
11. Christopher Kelly: "Pliny and Pacatus: Past and Present in Imperial Panegyric"
12. Henning Börm: "Born to Be Emperor: The Principle of Succession and the Roman Monarchy"
13. Christian Reitzenstein-Ronning: "Performing Justice: The Penal Code of Constantine the Great"

<Part Three: Balancing Religious Change>
14. Harold Drake: "Speaking of Power: Christian Redefinition of the Imperial Role in the Fourth Century"
15. Bruno Bleckmann: "Constantine, Rome, and the Christians"
16. Noel Lenski: "Constantine and the Tyche of Constantinople"
17. Steffen Diefenbach: "A Vain Quest for Unity: Creeds and Political (Dis)Integration in the Reign of Constantius II"
18. Johannes Hahn: "The Challenge of Religious Violence: Imperial Ideology and Policy in the Fourth Century"
19. Rita Lizzi Testa: "The Famous ‘Altar of Victory Controversy’ in Rome: The Impact of Christianity at the End of the Fourth Century"

<Epilogue>
20. Johannes Wienand: "The Empire’s Golden Shade: Icons of Sovereignty in an Age of Transition"

For a long time, Maxentius was mainly seen as an emperor who cherished and restored the Roman traditions to differentiate himself from the tetrarchic rulers and their decentralized government. Hence, Maxentian buildings were primarily considered to be a tribute to Rome’s grandeur.  Undoubtedly, Maxentian self-representation relied heavily on the idea of the Roma Aeterna and the image of Maxentius as conservator urbis suae. Nevertheless, the way he visualized his claim to power in his buildings shows that he highly adapted to the late antique concept of sovereignty and its means of illustration.

This paper deals with the Rome of the 4th century A.D., beginning with a coin bearing the image of Maxentius that depicts the emperor interacting with a personification of the Goddess Roma in her temple. It examines imperial strategies for self-depiction as a divine personage. Even if the depiction of the globe being passed from Roma to the emperor does not represent an actual event, it nevertheless refers to ceremonial acts situated in a specific architectonic context. The temple was restored by Maxentius and served, together with an imperial entrance hall (the Basilica of Maxentius) erected across from it, as a stage for an elaborate municipal and imperial ceremony. The coin image addresses these events, but, true to the nature of the medium, it exercises its ideological expressiveness without actually being present at the site of the ceremony. Construed in this way, the spatial references thus recall the modern phenomenon of cyberspace.

At the beginning of the 19th century, one of the most important Roman ruins, named Templum Pacis for many centuries, was identified and renamed as the Basilica of Maxentius thanks to the studies of archaeologist Antonio Nibby. Its dedication to Pacis-Peace, both incorrect and deeply evocative at the same time, comes to encompass a wide range of Christian meanings and connotations. The Basilica of Maxentius permeated Christian collective imagination, following two distinct lines that inevitably crossed during the Renaissance. The first line observed the legend that connected the temple to Augustus, claiming that the Templum Pacis collapsed at the time of Christ’s birth. In the following centuries, this tradition also established a connection with the downfall of Paganism and the beginning of a new Golden Age. The second line asserted that the Templum Pacis was a work of the Flavian dynasty, associating it with the reception of the Bellum Iudaicum in the Christian Church: the names of Vespasian and Titus, in fact, recall the conquest of Jerusalem and the destruction of Solomon’s temple; while the Templum Pacis recalls the transfer of Jerusalem’s spoils to Rome, as legacy for the Roman Church. Through the analysis of textual and iconographic sources, this paper aims to investigate the ideological meanings connected with the temple’s ruins, and the role of this monument in collective imagination.

Il contributo prende in esame il successo della Basilica di Massenzio nell’architettura del Quattro e Cinquecento, quale modello portatore di un’eredità formale e tecnica. La basilica entra in gioco – più o meno direttamente – in edifici e progetti diversi, significativi perché modelli a loro volta. Si è inoltre cercato di osservare la basilica come esempio a cui guardare in termini di scelte costruttive, cercando di capire debiti e punti di distanza tra l’antico e la sua ripresa.

This paper examines the representations of emperor Constantine's victory over Maxentius. Usually, the incipient Christianisation of Roman imperial ideology is to the fore regarding Constantine's victory over his civil war rival in the Battle at the Milvian Bridge (AD 312). But Constantine's victory marks a critical threshold also in another respect: As a close analysis of panegyrics, imperial coins/medallions and other triumphal imagery shows, Constantinian representation deliberately blurred the traditional dividing line between two opposing concepts of triumphal rulership: victory in wars against external enemies on the one hand and victory in civil war on the other. The paper retraces in detail the Constantinian innovations in these fields and interprets them in the broader political contexts of the late Tetrarchic era.

This paper examines the urban development between the Forum Romanum, the Palatine and the Flavian amphitheater from the early Empire down to Late Antiquity. Whereas traditional scholarship has tended to stress political upheavals, placing the analysis of single structures and building complexes in the foreground, the emphasis of the present study is on the underlying ideological and social background.

O bici kod Milvijskog mosta

Na osnovu poznih antičkih izvora u radu je napravljena vojnoistorijska rekonstrukcija bitke koja se odigrala u okolini Rima 28. oktobra 312. godine, a koja je danas poznata kao bitka kod Milvijskog mosta. U prvom delu rada date su kratke biografije vladara Konstantina i Maksencija, detaljan prikaz dvaju vojski, te njihova strateška dejsva tokom građanskog rata 312. godine, koja su prethodila bici kod Milvijskog mosta. Potom, navedeni su izvodi iz više relevantnih istorijskih izvora koji se bave samom bitkom i njenim neposrednim posledicama. Konačno, data je rekonstrukcija svih strateških i taktičkih dejstava pre i tokom bitke, sa naglaskom na otvoreno pitanje tačnog mesta na kom se boj odvijao.

About the Battle of the Milvian Bridge

This article, based on the written sources from the late antiquity, represents a military historical reconstruction of the battle that took place in the surroundings of Rome on October 28th, 312. Nowadays, this battle is known as the Battle of the Milvian Bridge. The first part of the work consists of Constatine’s and Maxentius’ short biographies, a detailed description of two embattled armies and their strategic activities during the 312 civil war that preceded the Battle of the Milvian Bridge. In addition, précises of more relevant historical sources are quoted which deal with the battle itself and its immediate consequences. Finally, all strategic and tactical activities that took place before and during the battle has been reconsidered. The still open question of the battleground where the battle exactly did take place is especially emphasized.

The military exploits of Flavius Constantine were almost forgotten half a century after his death. John Chrysostom, one of the most illustrious men of his time, said the following about Constantine: “He made (renewed) many great cities and conquered numerous barbarian tribes, whose names we do not remember today”. And even today many of Constantine’s military achievements have often been neglected in a similar manner, pushed aside by the importance of his other deeds. On the other hand, there are only a few battles that have left such a huge impact on the course of history as the battle that took place by Milvian Bridge on October 28th 312. The manner in which the facts of what happened immediately before and during the battle was presented depended mostly on the author`s position towards the Christian religion. Thereby a military-historical aspect of this event has often been neglected, while the theological and even psychological elements related to its participants were prioritized. A careful reading of the available historical sources enabled us to show the Battle of Milvian Bridge as a real military event that took place within the framework of theoretical and practical skills of the rules of warfare of late antiquity. This battle was not the first, the largest nor the last military victory of Constantine the Great. The opponent he defeated was not someone whose defeat itself would bring glory to the victor. But it was undoubtedly a successful finish of the campaign Constantine almost invariably led from crossing the Alps in early spring to the triumphal entry into Rome on October 29th 312. Conquest of the capital enabled him to govern western half of the Empire autonomously, completely equal in everything to Licinius who ruled the East. The following year 313 they passed an edict of religious tolerance in Milan allowing Christians to freely practice their religion. Thanks to Christian historians, Lactantius and Eusebius, the saga of the alleged vision that bestowed a mythical aura on the battle has been preserved and made it a crucial event in the history of religion. The Battle of Milvian Bridge, inseparably linked to Constantine`s vision, eventually became the symbol of fundamental change of religious policy and overall social order of the late Roman state.

This paper investigates the impact of civil war on triumphal rulership for the period from Constantine’s triumph over Maxentius in 312 to Honorius’ triumph over Priscus Attalus in 416. These victory performances mark the starting and ending points of a series of triumphs in the city of Rome that deliberately included dramatic representations of martial achievements in civil war. I argue that the need to celebrate a civil-war victory with performances, monuments, and narratives that were formerly restricted to external victories (e.g., a triumphal procession, a triumphal arch, a battle frieze, etc.) resulted, on the one hand, from significant structural changes of the Roman monarchy in the third and fourth centuries and, on the other, from the fierce rivalry between emperors in the period of late Tetrarchic collegial rule, a situation in which a massive display of the emperor’s military achievements was an important prerequisite for the formation of loyalty and obedience within the imperial apparatus.

This paper describes the construction process deployed in building Roman vaults with flanking walls. The Roman method of applying concrete, known as opus caementicium, in layers has led researchers to assume that Roman vaults were successively constructed in combination with the flank walls. Using two examples from the period of Maxentius, I can prove that the walls were first of all built up like a surrounding "box" as far as the crown height, whereby a later joint between the vault and the walls was prepared. Once the masonry for the walls was completed, the scaffolding was removed to create space for the centring for the vault. The spatial conflict between the scaffolding and centring is the main reason why I believe that the described process was a standard method used for constructing concrete vaulting with flanking walls.

The article is devoted to the study of constructional and architectural peculiarities of mausoleums of Maxentium and Tor de' Schiavi and creation of their reconstructions. The main aim is to show spatial structure of the buildings' interior which consists of two connected
elements crypt and upper chamber. The sources, mainly depictions of the monuments made from 16-th to 18-th centuries, let us imagine how did their interiors look and to understand attitude of Renaissance and classic architects to the scheme of a building. This scheme was based on connection of underground crypt with annular vaulting and upper chamber with the cupola.

Vojni podvizi rimskog cara Konstantina I Velikog ([C.] Flavius Valerius Aurelius Constantinus Augustus, 306—337) pola veka nakon njegove smrti bili su gotovo zaboravljeni. Znameniti teolog Jovan Zlatousti zapisao je sledeće: „Mnoge i velike načinio (obnovio) je gradove i brojna plemena varvarska pokorio je, čijih se imena danas ne sećamo”. Ratni uspesi bili su nepoznati potomcima njegovih saboraca, potisnuti u drugi plan značajem ostalih Konstantinovih postignuća. Na gotovo istovetan način i danas su često zanemareni njegov talent i umeća koja je iskazao kao ratnik i vojskovođa, provevši više od četiri decenije u vojnim pohodima. Od ovog pravila nimalo ne odstupa način na koji se opisuje njegova uloga u događajima neposredno pre i tokom bitke kod Milvijskog mosta, koja se vodila 28. oktobra 312. godine u okolini Rima.

Ne osporavajući pravo da „svakome bude slobodno da um svoj okrene onoj religiji za koju smatra da je u skladu s njegovim stavom”, Konstantinov ratni uspeh u ovoj bici, koliko god to danas jeretički zvučalo, nije bio proizvod uplitanja viših sila. Ono što je Konstantin tada učinio, nesumnjivo je bilo delo promišljenog stratega i znalca, vladara koji je ceo život bio posvećen artis militaria. Sve što je ostalo zapisano o Konstantinovim vojnim podvizima mora se danas sa mukotrpnim naporom tražiti između redova u delima autora kojima su ta njegova postignuća, iz ovog ili onog razloga, bila manje značajna od nekih drugih događaja koji su obeležili njegovu dugu vladavinu. Otuda je i potekla namera da se vojnoistorijski sveobuhvatno rekonstruiše ova značajna bitka nakon koje je otpočela po mnogo čemu prelomna epoha povesti Rimskog carstva.

Prvi deo knjige SUPARNICI sadrži kratke vojničke biografije rimskih vladara Konstantina i Maksencija (M. Aurelius Valerius Maxentius Augustus, 306—312). Potom su u drugom delu POLAZAK U POHOD detaljno prikazane sukobljene vojske, te njihova strateška dejstva tokom građanskog rata 312. godine koja su prethodila bici kod Milvijskog mosta. Treći deo IZVORI sadrži izvode iz više relevantnih istorijskih izvora u kojima se pisalo o bici i njenim neposrednim posledicama. Centralni deo BITKA potpuna je rekonstrukcija svih strateških i taktičkih dejstava pre i tokom bitke, sa naglaskom na još uvek otvorenom pitanju tačnog mesta na kom se boj odvijao. Na kraju, u završnom delu pod naslovom ULAZAK POBEDNIKA opisan je Konstantinov pobedonosni ulazak u Rim sa osvrtom na istorijske posledice bitke kod Milvijskog mosta.