Leather Cuirass Lorica Musculata, I used to think no way but

[Robert Vermaat]

Vortigern,

There is no evidence of emperors leading from the front in this period.

What about Constantine the Great ? According to the Anonymus Valesianus (5), during the second war against Lincinius :

Wouldn't this seem to imply an active role in the battle ?

And I also remember reading about Constantine leading the cavalry against the Sarmatians and personally throwing the heads of many he had slain at the feet of Galerius. Of course, Constantine wasn't emperor at the time - only an officer in the Eastern armies. Still, he seems to have been a true warrior who was more than capable of leading men from the front.

Aurelian has a similar past as described by the HA in 'Aurelian' [18].

Then there's Maxentius during the battle of the Milvian Bridge. Didn't he lead his men out of Rome to confront Constantine ?

In fact, many of the Ilyrian emperors seem to have been great warriors which is why moderns refer to them as soldier-emperors. So, Julian doesn't really stand out against this background. He was merely the last of the Ilyrians.

Hi Theo,

All true, but you're preaching to the converted. :wink: The point here is 'from the front'.
You are certainly correct about Constantine, Licinius and Maxentius, who were all with their armiesin active roles, as were Valerian, Valens and others.
However, the claim that I refuted was that these descriptions also meant that these men were also in the front ranks. This, apart from (probably) Julian, is not reflected in the sources.

Constantine the general is of course (as you already said) not the same as Constantine the emperor. So on campaign, yes, but in the front ranks, no.