Battle of milvian bridge

[AMELIANVS]

I wonder:How many pontoon bridges were built alongside Milvian bridge?I assume there were two pontoon bridges each one on either side of the stone bridge at least but if one consider huge amount of amassed soldiers it would be reasonable to guess maybe more pontoons were present than just those two alongside central stone bridge.Or is the real situation mentioned somwhere exactly :unsure: ?

[Nathan Ross]

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!

[AMELIANVS]

Thank you very much Nathan!I was lazy to find those descriptions personally mile: .I will examine it carefully.

[Urselius]

Reading between the lines of Zosimus it sounds like Maxentius wanted complete control over the river crossing, so that he could cross the river when he wanted, but deny the crossing to Constantine. To do this the obvious first step would be to demolish the spans of the existing stone bridge. This would deny it to Constantine. The two section wooden bridge (presumably a pontoon) could then be set up on the Maxentian-controlled shore. One section could be deployed and could act as an anchor for a moveable second section to be quickly put in place to bridge the river whenever Maxentius wanted his army to cross. If the fight was going against Maxentius he probably thought that he could have retreated over the bridge dismantling it behind him to give him time to fall back on Rome and set up a defence of the city itself. Unfortunately for Maxentius his forces seem to have broken and collapsed too quickly for an organised retreat across the bridge to be effected. There seems to have been a stampede to cross the bridge, during which it broke apart.

[Nathan Ross]

Maxentius wanted complete control over the river crossing, so that he could cross the river when he wanted... Unfortunately for Maxentius his forces seem to have broken and collapsed too quickly for an organised retreat across the bridge to be effected. There seems to have been a stampede to cross the bridge, during which it broke apart.

That does seem the best explanation based on the literary evidence, yes. A moveable pontoon 'bridge of boats' would be easier to control than a solid structure, whether broken or otherwise.

There are some problems, even so. Few if any of the sources I quoted above would have visited the battle site, and quite possibly their confused and contradictory stories were based on similarly confused reports. It's quite difficult to say, based on the evidence alone, whether both bridges were broken or collapsed, or only one.

The frieze of the Arch of Constantine only confuses things further. Whoever created it would certainly have known what happened at the battle - but it appears to show Constantine's troops advancing from the left over the intact arches of the stone bridge!



What happens after that is unclear - there could be the prow of a boat under the feet of the erased figure (Constantine himself?) third from the left, but otherwise it looks like the Maxentian cavalrymen are falling from the bridge into the river while Constantine's lighter horsemen and Moorish archers push through them.

One possibility might be that the pontoon bridge is right next to the broken stone bridge, and Constantine's men have climbed up onto the stone arches to shoot down at the men in the water.

Alternatively, the boat bridge might have been built across the demolished span of the Milvian bridge itself, so the arches on the left of the frieze lead directly onto the pontoon, which has collapsed.

The third possibility might be that the frieze shows the Maxentian fugitives trying to cross the intact stone bridge after the collapse of the bridge of boats (which might have happened during the battle?), and being pushed into the water by the crush and the pressure of the enemy behind them...

[Urselius]

What is also odd is that some sources (Zosimus and the Panegyrici Latini) indicate that the Maxentian cavalry were broken before the infantry, but it is the cavalry of both sides that are depicted in action on the bridge. Constantine used cavalry very aggressively on a number of occasions, for example at Turin and at Adrianople (where he led them personally). If Constantine broke the Maxentian cavalry and pursued them onto the bridge, cutting off the Maxentian infantry from their only means of retreat, then the swift collapse of all of Maxentius' forces is understandable. The Pretorians, having politically nailed their colours to Maxentius' mast, had nothing to loose and are the only unit described as putting up a really stubborn resistance, "... in despair of pardon they covered with their bodies the place which they had chosen for combat."

[Nathan Ross]

If Constantine broke the Maxentian cavalry and pursued them onto the bridge, cutting off the Maxentian infantry from their only means of retreat, then the swift collapse of all of Maxentius' forces is understandable.

Yes, very likely. M. P. Speidel, in his paper Maxentius and His "Equites Singulares" in the Battle at the Milvian Bridge (Classical Antiquity, Oct 86), suggests that the horse guards were amongst those 'instigators of the usurpation' who fought to the last, but the frieze clearly shows them in retreat across the river. Zosimus, as you say, says that it was the cavalry that gave way first, and if Maxentius fled with them it wouldn't be surprising if the rest of his troops followed quickly after him...

Speidel claims to see Maxentius himself portrayed among the drowning men on the frieze - this would make sense, but I can't follow his interpretation. He describes the tableau at the left of the Milvian bridge frieze as representing Constantine (broken away) surrounded by Roma, Victoria and Tiber (the figure in the water beside the bridge arch), 'with the vanquished Maxentius drowning at his feet.'

'It has long been suspected,' he also says, 'that treason made it possible for Constantine to cut off the retreat of Maxentius's army to the trans-Tiber part of the city, and indeed to take the city before the battle was over'. This seems an amazing claim - but the only references he gives are from Groag's Maxentius (1930) and Paschoud's Zosime (1971) - non-English sources are beyond me, unfortunately... Does anyone know what this suggestion of treason is based upon?

[Urselius]

There is a reasonably direct contradiction to the idea that Rome revolted in Maxentius' rear in Zosimus (2.17.1), who says: "... that the Romans were afraid to rejoice until Maxentius' head was displayed on a spear." This implies that the Roman populace were just waiting for the outcome of the battle before taking any overt action.

Like yourself, I also doubt the attribution of one of the soldiers in the Tiber on the arch frieze being Maxentius. One of the panegyrics says that Maxentius' armour was "distinctive." The soldier often identified as Maxentius is equipped identically to all the other heavy cavalrymen shown in the Tiber - a scale coat and a crestless Attic helmet. I'm sure that the sculptors could have made some attempt to show that an emperor was being depicted - muscle cuirass, pteruges, general's cloak and a crested helmet spring to mind.

[Nathan Ross]

I also doubt the attribution of one of the soldiers in the Tiber on the arch frieze being Maxentius.

Come to think of it, if he'd suffered damnatio memoriae and was being referred to solely as 'the tyrant', surely it would have been forbidden to portray him anyway, even at the moment of his death? :neutral:

[Urselius]

Good point.

Also, though emperors and ex-emperors were: drowned, beheaded, hanged, strangled etc.and in one case even had their body stuffed to act as a footstool, it was probably a big no-no for imperial propaganda to show anyone in imperial regalia being degraded - bad for every emperor's image!

[AMELIANVS]

Well if I'm correct this is also first notable monument known to us to depict Romans fighting and killing other Romans while on previous glorifying monuments it was a kind of taboo to even show a death Roman.