Read history

One day after the battle

Constantine entered Rome on 29 October 312 — the day after his victory over Maxentius at the Milvian Bridge, where Maxentius drowned in the Tiber during the retreat.

Contemporary imperial presentation treated the entry as a triumphal celebration attended by the Senate and the Roman people, whose enthusiastic response is described in Constantinian panegyrics.

The head in the procession

This was not simply a cheerful parade. Maxentius's recovered and mutilated remains were displayed, and his severed head became a focal point of the procession.

Nazarius's later panegyric says the head was afterwards sent across the Mediterranean to Africa, as proof of his death and as a symbol of the new regime's control.

What the sources actually are

Lactantius reports that the Senate and people acknowledged Constantine as emperor with rejoicing, and that the Senate awarded him the title Maximus.

The most vivid accounts of unanimous jubilation are panegyrics written to praise Constantine and to present his conquest of a Roman rival as Rome's liberation.

Even the category is argued over: whether the ceremony should be called a triumph, an adventus, an ingressus or a hybrid civil-war celebration remains a matter of scholarly interpretation.

Lactantius: a dream, and a mark on shields

The earliest surviving account says Constantine was instructed in a dream, immediately before the Battle of the Milvian Bridge on 28 October 312, to mark a heavenly sign of God on his soldiers' shields.

Lactantius says he complied, using an X-like symbol whose upper part was bent or turned. The crucial Latin wording is corrupt at exactly that point; scholars variously reconstruct a Chi-Rho or a staurogram-like emblem. There is no cross in the sky here and no Latin motto.

Eusebius: a cross above the sun, and a standard

Writing in the late 330s, Eusebius tells it differently: Constantine saw a luminous cross above the sun with the Greek command usually translated "By this conquer," and then dreamed that Christ ordered him to reproduce the sign as a protective military standard.

He describes the resulting labarum as a cross-shaped standard topped by a jewelled wreath containing the intersecting Greek letters Chi and Rho. He does not say the Greek words were adopted as an imperial motto or painted on shields.

The motto is a translation, not a record

"In hoc signo vinces" is a traditional Latin rendering of Eusebius's Greek phrase. No ancient source says Constantine formally adopted it as a motto in 312.

No contemporary administrative record or surviving shield verifies the episode at all. The detailed panegyric of 313, delivered in Constantine's own presence, says nothing about a dream, a vision or marked shields.

November 324, weeks after Chrysopolis

Constantine defeated Licinius at Chrysopolis on 18 September 324 and became sole emperor. Within weeks he had selected the existing Greek city of Byzantium for a new imperial and dynastic capital, and construction began there in November.

No secure contemporary source gives a universally accepted groundbreaking day. Treccani treats 18 November — the day Constantius II was elevated Caesar — as the probable date of the legal delimitation that fixed the expanded urban boundary; other later traditions give 8 November.

An expansion, not a new town

The project was a monumental refoundation of a city that already existed, not a settlement raised on empty ground. It aimed to assimilate the new capital institutionally and ceremonially to Rome while creating a political centre for the eastern part of a still-unified empire.

Later accounts describe Constantine enlarging Byzantium, ringing it with new walls, and providing the buildings, population and Senate expected of an imperial capital. The expanded Hippodrome reached roughly 450 metres.

No Byzantine Empire was involved

There was no "Byzantine Empire" in 324. That is a modern name for the medieval Roman state whose inhabitants called themselves Romans, and what Constantine had defeated was a co-emperor, not a foreign power.

The city was not finished quickly either. Building continued for about six years, until the formal dedication of Constantinople as New Rome on 11 May 330.

A one-line entry under 331

Almost everything attributed to the edict of 331 rests on a single sentence. Jerome’s translation and continuation of Eusebius’s Chronicle places an entry under that year saying that pagan temples were “overthrown” by an edict of Constantine.

No copy of the edict survives. Its date and its contents are reconstructed from Jerome, from Eusebius, and from later legislation.

Jerome’s adjacent entry says Constantinople was dedicated in 330 after the spoliation of almost all the eastern cities — so major seizures of temple objects came before the reported edict.

What the lost law may have said

A recent reconstruction identifies the lost edict as a prohibition of sacrifice and of the erection of cult statues.

Its strongest support comes a decade afterwards. A law issued by Constantine’s son Constans in 341 expressly treated Constantine’s prohibition as existing precedent.

If the reconstruction is correct, sacrifice and the making of cult statues became legally prohibited in Constantine’s domain — which did not mean that every temple was destroyed or emptied immediately.

Eusebius’s stripped temples

Eusebius reports that Constantine ordered doors, roof coverings and bronze images removed from temples, and that some of the statuary was put on display in Constantinople. He also describes the destruction of selected sanctuaries.

Eusebius does not securely date all of these actions to 331, and he arranged his highly favourable narrative thematically rather than reliably by year.

His sweeping rhetoric about temples “everywhere” cannot safely be read as proof that every sanctuary in the empire was physically destroyed.

What '341' stands for

No surviving source records an event in the year 341. The date is one proposed year for the moment Athanasius of Alexandria consecrated Frumentius as bishop for the Christians of the Aksumite kingdom — and the chronology is genuinely unresolved. The oldest narrative implies a date near 328; a letter of the 350s may imply considerably later. Recent scholarship concludes the two cannot be convincingly reconciled.

What is independently confirmed: by the mid-350s, a letter preserved by Athanasius — from the Roman emperor Constantius II to the Aksumite rulers Aizanas and Sazanas — treats Frumentius as a bishop elevated by Athanasius, and demands he submit to examination in Alexandria.

The story Rufinus told

The principal narrative comes from Rufinus of Aquileia, writing around 402–403 — some seventy to eighty years after the supposed events — citing Frumentius's companion Aedesius as his source. Two young relatives of a Tyrian philosopher survive the killing of their ship's company (found under a tree, studying); they serve at the royal court; Frumentius helps Christian Roman merchants already in the kingdom secure meeting places; he travels to Alexandria to request a bishop and is ordained himself.

Note what Rufinus does not say. He never names King Ezana, records no royal baptism, and calls the setting 'Further India' — a usage that could encompass the Horn of Africa, but the identification is debated.

Where the later legend outran the evidence

The old article's confident details do not survive the sources. Its 'pirates' distort Rufinus, who attributes the killing to local people after a truce with the Romans broke down; Frumentius baptizing Prince Ezana, founding Ethiopia's first monastery, and translating the New Testament into Ge'ez are later traditions or reconstructions, not things the fourth- and fifth-century evidence establishes. Even 'Coptic Christianity' is anachronistically precise for the period: Frumentius's connection was with the Alexandrian episcopate, before the institutional developments that produced today's Coptic and Ethiopian Orthodox churches.

The durable facts are narrower: Ezana's coinage shifts from disc-and-crescent imagery to crosses, royal inscriptions carry evolving religious language, and the Ethiopian church maintained an enduring institutional relationship with the Alexandrian patriarchate.

Two Roman armies in the Hautes-Alpes

In 353 the armies of Constantius II and of Magnentius met at Mons Seleucus, and Constantius’s victory ended Magnentius’s ability to sustain his claim to the imperial throne. Both armies belonged to the same empire; this was a civil war, not a defence against a foreign invasion.

Magnentius had already been beaten expensively at Mursa in 351 and had lost Italy in 352. Constantius carried the war into Gaul, and Mons Seleucus was where Magnentius made his last effective military resistance.

The ancient settlement is identified archaeologically with La Bâtie-Montsaléon, in France’s Hautes-Alpes.

Alone to Lugdunum

A late-antique account says Magnentius escaped alone from the encounter at Mons Seleucus and fled to Lugdunum, modern Lyon.

Eutropius records that Magnentius, defeated in multiple engagements, died by suicide at Lugdunum, and that his Caesar Decentius also killed himself, at Sens. The deaths are commonly dated to 10 and 18 August 353.

Those dates are the usual modern choice rather than settled fact: ancient chronological traditions give 10, 11 and 15 August for Magnentius, and a minority modern reconstruction has treated both men as executed instead.

A day the sources never fix

The year 353 is secure, but the surviving evidence does not establish the battle’s exact day. Modern reconstructions variously place it in July or in August.

The battle and the suicide were separate events in different places, and should not be run together into a single day. Magnentius died at Lugdunum, not on the field at Mons Seleucus.

Constantius consequently became the empire’s sole Augustus, although unrest and external attacks in Gaul continued.

An Easter letter that closed a list

Writing for Easter 367 and circulating from Alexandria, Bishop Athanasius used his Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter to identify a closed collection of accepted Old and New Testament writings.

His New Testament list runs: the four Gospels, Acts, seven Catholic Epistles, fourteen Pauline Epistles — Hebrews counted among them — and Revelation. Those are precisely the 27 books of the later generally accepted New Testament.

He said that no books should be added to or removed from the collection, using the language of books included in the canon and accredited as divine.

Three tiers of reading

Alongside the canon Athanasius set a second, separate category. He recommended Wisdom, Sirach, Judith, Tobit, the Teaching of the Apostles and the Shepherd for instruction without placing them in the canon.

The reason he gave was practical rather than doctrinal. He said he feared that less-informed Christians would be misled into reading similarly named apocryphal books.

He accused apocryphal and heretical authors of giving newly composed books ancient names in order to mislead readers who could not tell the difference.

What “first” can be claimed

The letter is the earliest extant Christian document listing exactly those 27 books. It was not the first Christian list of scriptural writings of any kind, and the claim only holds with that qualification.

It survives in pieces: part in Greek, with further portions preserved through Coptic and Syriac witnesses. The year 367 and the association with that Easter letter are secure; a precise dispatch day is less so.

This was a bishop’s annual Easter letter rather than a council decree, and it did not instantly legislate a universal canon for every Christian community.

Not 370, and not Germanic

The listing fixes this on 370, but Ammianus Marcellinus supplies a sequence and no calendar date. Modern references place the Hunnic–Alan–Gothic crisis between 370 and 375, with about 375 the conventional choice.

The attackers were not Germanic tribes. The Huns were a steppe confederation, and the first people they overcame were the Alans, an Iranian-speaking steppe people near the Don.

The Huns killed and plundered among the Alans, then incorporated the survivors into their forces before invading Greuthungian Gothic territory.

Two Gothic leaderships break

The Greuthungian ruler Ermanaric died by suicide, according to Ammianus. His successor Vithimiris was then killed fighting the Hunnic-Alan attackers.

Vithimiris had resisted with hired Hunnic support of his own — “Huns versus Goths” was not a clean ethnic division.

Alatheus and Saphrax took charge for the child Viderichus and led a retreat toward the Dniester.

The Danube as a moat

The Huns crossed the Dniester by a ford at night, bypassed Athanaric’s forward screen of observers, and drove the Tervingian leader into mountainous country.

As Athanaric’s following broke up, displaced Tervingi decided that Thrace, protected by the Danube, offered refuge. They reached the river and petitioned Emperor Valens in 376.

They did not arrive in 370 as invaders: the authorised Tervingian crossing and the unauthorised Greuthungian one both belong to 376.

381, not 383

Theodosius I convened an Eastern council at Constantinople in 381, and the surviving tradition places its sessions between May and July. The year 383 is not an alternative scholarly date: a separate imperial conference of Christian factions met at Constantinople in 383, which may explain the confusion.

He wanted a recognised Nicene episcopate in his eastern territories, a settlement of the contested Constantinopolitan see, and a coordinated answer to rival Trinitarian and Christological teachings.

The traditional account counts 150 bishops. They were Eastern bishops: this was not a general council with representative attendance from the Latin West.

Four canons that stick

The council reaffirmed the Nicene profession and, in its first canon, anathematized Eunomians, Arians, Pneumatomachi, Sabellians, Marcellians, Photinians and Apollinarians.

It restricted bishops from intervening outside their dioceses, gave Constantinople privileges of honour immediately after Rome because it was “New Rome”, and declared Maximus the Cynic’s episcopal acts invalid. Canon 3 granted honour after Rome; it did not say Constantinople outranked Rome.

The creed now called Niceno-Constantinopolitan was first explicitly attributed to this council in the acts of Chalcedon in 451, and its exact role in composing or adopting that text remains debated.

Three presidents in one gathering

Meletius of Antioch presided until he died during the council. Gregory of Nazianzus then resigned both the presidency and the Constantinopolitan see amid opposition.

The council installed Nectarius — a senator still a catechumen when he was selected, baptized immediately before his elevation — as bishop of Constantinople and final presiding bishop.

On 30 July 381, shortly after the council, Theodosius ordered churches delivered to bishops in communion with Nectarius and other named Nicene bishops, and dissenters expelled from those churches.

Who actually came to Rome in 382

Bishops assembled at Rome under Damasus I in 382, and a surviving Eastern synodical letter addresses Damasus, Ambrose and the other bishops gathered there.

Most Eastern bishops were meeting at Constantinople and said the short notice, the long journey and the needs of their recovering churches prevented them from travelling. They sent Cyriacus, Eusebius and Priscian instead.

Those three carried their synod’s doctrinal and episcopal settlement to Rome — the business the Western bishops wanted joined, after the disputes left by the Constantinopolitan council of 381.

The canon the synod may never have issued

The synod’s existence in 382 is well supported, but its precise meeting dates and complete acts do not survive.

The biblical catalogue called the Damasine list survives only through the much later manuscript tradition of the Decretum Gelasianum, and scholars disagree over whether its opening sections preserve acts of this synod.

No surviving fourth-century evidence shows that the synod commissioned an entire Latin Bible, or that its members prescribed a canon for Jerome to translate.

Four Gospels, and only four

Jerome returned to Rome during this conciliar activity, attracted Damasus’s confidence, and was prompted to revise the Latin Gospels against Greek manuscripts.

His own preface promises a revision of the four Gospels only, correcting readings that altered the sense while retaining most of the familiar Latin wording. Scholars date the work to 382–384.

Jerome knew that readers might call him a forger or sacrilegious merely for correcting familiar Gospel wording.

August 385, aboard ship at Ostia

By August 385 Jerome had left Rome and was aboard ship at Ostia, bound east. From there he wrote Letter 45 to Asella, defending himself against accusations concerning his relationships with Paula and Eustochium.

He asked Asella to defend his reputation among the Roman ascetic circle.

In the same letter he complained that Rome had praised him before he entered Paula’s household and vilified him afterwards.

No surviving sentence of exile

Damasus, Jerome’s patron, had died in December 384, removing his strongest protection inside the Roman church.

Modern scholarship describes a Roman church prosecution probably instigated by members of Paula’s family, against a background of escalating opposition to Jerome’s ascetic programme and his influence over Paula’s household. The death of Paula’s daughter Blaesilla after she adopted ascetic practices intensified hostility, though its medical cause cannot be established.

No surviving act of a Roman synod sentences Jerome to exile, and Letter 45 is a partisan self-defence: the exact charges and procedure cannot be recovered with certainty.

Paula followed later

Paula and Eustochium did not sail as Jerome’s companions. They followed him to Palestine afterwards and worked with him there.

Jerome remembered Paula’s young son stretching his hands toward the departing ship while another daughter pleaded from the shore.

Jerome travelled east and established himself at Bethlehem in 386; Paula and Eustochium sponsored the foundation of a monastery, women’s communities and a hospice.

A codex on the gaming table

At Augustine’s Milan residence in 386, the imperial official Ponticianus noticed a codex of Paul’s letters lying on a gaming table. He then told Augustine and Alypius about Antony of Egypt, and about two imperial agents at Trier who had abandoned their careers after reading Antony’s life.

This was a courtier’s private conversation, not a sermon.

The Confessions supplies no calendar date for what followed and was written more than a decade afterwards as a crafted theological autobiography; modern chronologies place the scene in the summer of 386, variously in July or August.

Take up and read

Shaken by Ponticianus’s story, Augustine withdrew with Alypius into a garden, separated himself to weep beneath a fig tree, and heard a childlike voice repeating “take up and read”.

He opened Paul’s letters and read Romans 13:13–14, which told the reader to reject revelry and sexual indulgence and to “put on” Christ. He wrote that his uncertainty immediately vanished.

Alypius read the following verse, applied it to himself and joined him; they then told Monica, who rejoiced at Augustine’s new commitment.

What the garden did not settle

The decision was specifically a conversion to an ascetic Christian life. Augustine relinquished his projected marriage, his teaching career and his courtly ambitions.

He was already a Christian catechumen and had substantially abandoned Manichaeism, so this was not a single step from one religion to another. Scholars have debated whether to describe the episode as conversion to Christianity, conversion to Christian asceticism, or the culmination of earlier changes.

He was not baptized until Easter 387, and was ordained a priest only around 391.