Quote:Or is the real situation mentioned somwhere exactly :unsure: ?
The battle is described by several sources, although none of them quite agree on what happened and none are particularly clear... the idea we have of it today is a bit of a composite between differing versions, I think.
Zosimus (
Nova Historia 2.16,2-4) gives the most detailed description:
"
Maxentius threw a bridge over the Tiber, which was not of one entire piece, but divided into two parts, the centre of the bridge being made to fasten with irons, which might be drawn out upon occasion. He gave orders to the workmen, 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."
Constantine then "
encamped in a field before the city, which was broad and therefore convenient for cavalry… " and the battle commences...
"
As long as the cavalry kept their ground, Maxentius retained some hopes, but when they gave way, he retired 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."
I don't know about you, but this business of the trick bridge rigged to collapse sounds pretty unlikely to me - mainly because it's
completely stupid. Zosimus also seems to contradict himself when he says that the bridge collapsed unde the weight of fugitives... But he's a comparatively late source, and perhaps he was trying to make sense of some confusing earlier accounts...
Panegyrici Latini 4 and 12 (which are more or less contemporary to the battle) describe it, but don't say much about the bridge. 12.16 says "
the enemy was terrified, routed, hindered by the narrowness of the Milvian bridge, and with the exception of the instigators of that usurpation [i.e. the praetorians] ... all the rest went headlong into the river."
4.28 doesn't mention the bridge at all, but says that Maxentius "
array[ed] his men near the Tiber, stationing them upon its banks in a way that in a kind of foreboding of the coming disaster the fatal waves lapped at the feet of the last ranks…" This seems more lyrical than accurate, but at least situates the battle close to the riverbank.
Lactantius (
de Mortibus... 44.9) says that after Maxentius took the field, "
The bridge in his rear was broken down. At sight of that the battle grew hotter. The hand of the Lord prevailed, and the forces of Maxentius were routed. He fled towards the broken bridge; but the multitude pressing on him, he was driven headlong into the Tiber. " There's no mention here of the boat bridge, only the broken Milvian itself - unless it was the boat bridge that was 'broken'?
Eusebius (
Church History, 9.9.4-7) says that Maxentius "
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… Thus, then, the bridge over the river being broken, the passageway settled down, and immediately the boats with the men disappeared in the depths, and that most impious one himself first of all, then the shield-bearers who were with him, as the divine oracles foretold, “sank like lead in the mighty waters”…"
It's a bit unclear whether Eusebius is describing one bridge - the one made of boats, which later becomes 'broken' - or two, with the original stone Milvian bridge being the broken one...
Aurelius Victor (de Caesaribus 40.23) claims, confusingly, that the battle happened at Saxa Rubra, nine miles north of Rome, but that Maxentius's "
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."
Why this is an 'ambush' Victor doesn't make clear, but presumably Maxentius had originally broken the stone bridge in order to trap Constantine's army on the north bank (and attack it from the flank over the boat bridge, maybe?). But this sounds quite crafty, and the two panegyricists are united in thinking Maxentius a military klutz (although they were biased, of course...)
Only the anonymous
Epitome de Caesaribus (40.7) offers us a reasonable explanation of what was supposed to have happened: "
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."
So here we have two bridges, with the boat bridge 'a little above' (i.e. upstream from, I guess) the stone one. But there's no mention of either bridge being broken or collapsing. How far above is 'a little' we don't know, but none of these accounts say that both bridges were in the same place - the bridge of boats could have been quite a distance 'above' the stone bridge.
Here's a marker of the current position of river and bridge:
Google Map - Milvian Bridge
What actually happened? Who knows... None of the sources seem to agree on how many bridges were involved in the battle, how many collapsed or were broken, and whether any of this was intentional.
Maxentius's battle plan seems obscure: maybe he was at the mercy of oracles and superstitions, or maybe he just changed his mind at the last minute. Perhaps he really did have a cunning plan to trap Constantine, as Victor suggests. Perhaps he was just incompetent.
Any suggestions would be most appreciated!