In Hoc Signo Vinces - The Vision of Constantine

Their Augustus, the swift moving Constantine, had led them over the Alps and, as he had done against the Picts, the Franks, and other enemies of the empire, now led them to victory after victory in a civil war--civil war being practically a tradition these days--rolling up armies loyal to Maxentius, the young, decadent usurper in Rome.

Maxentius had risen to power by promising to keep Rome free of taxes and had kept power by seeing off the mightiest armies--whether led my Caesar Severus or by the emperors Galerius and Domitius Alexander. He had even faced down his own father, the former Maximian, and the greatest of emperors, Diocletian, who had divided the responsibilities of the empire, only to have Maxentius seize the capital city.

Yet now, on a path parallel to the River Po, Constantine's legions had thrown back Maxentius's armies again and again, smashing his shock troops, the heavily armored cavalry known as the katafraktoi. Constantine had a plan to neutralize them. His infantry trapped them in a pocket of legionnaires, where the horses could neither maneuver nor charge; then the foot soldiers, holding four-foot high shields close to their helmets, slashed at the horses unprotected fetlocks. The steel-encased cavalrymen where hurled to the ground, where Constantine's men butchered them.

But while he conquered, Constantine was forgiving to the civilians who lay in his path. Word of his generosity spread. Now after a march down the Adriatic coast, he had camped at the gates of Rome, a short siege away from restoring the ancient seat of imperial grandeur to the Western Empire, his Western Empire.

Behind Rome's walls, an indifferent Maxentius awaited the defeat of yet another challenger. Protected by his Praetorian Guard, he serenely pursued his pastimes of drinking and sleeping with other men's wives, Knowing (had not the auguries foretold it?) that Constantine was marching to his doom? The very words of the omen in the Sibylline books had stated it clearly: "Tomorrow the enemy of Rome will perish."

Maxentius was making sure of it. At the Circus Maximus, the people had publicly mocked him with jeers of "Are you a coward? for relying on the strength of Rome's defenses and not taking the field against Constantine. While Maxentius was popular with the common people, he was resented by the aristocracy. They hated his demands for bribes, his importuning of their wives for his private sport. Some remembered the martyrdom of Sophronia, who had killed herself rather than obey Maxentius's summons to leave her husbands bed for his own.

The time would come when, with the marriage of soldiering and the Catholic Church, chivalry would be born and, in Edmund Burke's phrase, "ten thousand swords must have leaped from their scabbards to avenge even a look that threatened a woman with an insult."

But that time had not yet arrived. And if Constantine was the rescuer of Sophronia's metaphorical sisters, it was not for their sake that he acted, but for Rome and his own.

Maxentius, stung by the mob's call of cowardice, decided to end Constantine's impertinence now. Early on the morning of October 28, A.D. 312, Rufius Volusanius, prefect of Maxentuius's Praetorian Guard, led his crack troops across the River Tiber in a surprise attack on Constantine's encamped forces.

Constantine's men were sleeping when the Praetorians burst upon them, piercing their unprotected bellies with swords or pilums -- six foot lances tipped by eighteen inches of steel. While Constantine's vanguard struggled to protect itself, the legionnaires farther back hurriedly donned their breastplates and helmets, grabbed their arms, and ran to rescue their comrades. Constantine, to the shock of his own officers, swung aboard his horse and rode at the enemy, plunging into the blood-spattering scrimmage just as he had done in Verona. Too much was at stake--it was death or glory.

And there was something more. Constantine meant to deny fate--the fate prophesied by the Sibylline books, a prophecy that had been broadcast By Maxentius's agents.

Constantine had a new symbol, a prophecy of his own. At Verona, he had called upon the Sol Invictus, the invincible sun god. But here, before the gates of Rome, he had a dream, a vision that he would conquer under the sign of the cross--the cross of Christianity, an unpopular and persecuted minority religion. Constantine himself had, as of yet, no belief in Christianity, but his mother and stepmother were Christians. His late father, Constantius, Augustus of the West, had been lax when ordered to persecute the sect. And earlier in his own career, as a young officer serving the emperor Diocletian, Constantine had seen Christians go to their death rather than accept other gods. Perhaps too he was encouraged in the interpreting of his dream by his stepmother's confessor Osius, the Catholic bishop of Cordova, who was traveling with him, an unofficial chaplain on the campaign.

As Constantine's men sprang to battle, it was with the Christian symbol marked on their shields in charcoal. Constantine and his officers also drew the cross on their helmets. With sanctified bucklers they parried blows; with swords they plunged at the enemy. The Praetorians were outnumbered, and the advantage they had gained by surprise was collapsing under Constantine's counterattack. Archers pummeled the Praetorians with arrows; cavalry crashed their infantry. Constantine saw what needed to be done: Drive the Praetorians to the river at their backs, leaving them no escape save a jammed, panic-stricken flight across the Milvian Bridge--a bridge that he could turn into a slaughter pen.

Crossing the bridge on horseback was Maxentius, who was expecting the acclamation of his victorious soldiers; instead he saw their imminent collapse. He ordered their recall: in the open field they might be destroyed; behind Rome's walls they would be impregnable. But Praetorian discipline had snapped; the retreat was a mass stampede of fear-frenzied men, razor sharp swords at their backs, cavalry horses pounding after them, arrows slashing down in unpredictable, deadly flurries. They turned as a mob against their own officers, who tried in vain to stop them. In their blood-pounding ears was the roar of Constantine's legions, roused as the Augustus of the West reared his horse and waved a bloody sword at the enemy.

Maxentius, trying to rally his men at the Milvian Bridge, was hurled into the rushing river as the brutal, blood-panicked mob tackled his horse. Shaken by the impact of his fall, and weighted down by his heavy armor, he was swept helplessly along by the swift current. The Emperor's lungs were punished by blow after blow of suffocating water until he sank to the weeds at the river bottom, eventually resurfacing, only to have his head severed by a soldier of the new emperor.

As Constantine rode victorious into the city, Maxentius's head, raised on a spear point, followed him--a trophy for the conqueror, a warning to rivals, a target for the spit of the Roman mob, and something more than all this. For Constantine gave no thanks to the Roman gods. If Maxentius was their champion, here was his head.

Triumphant Constantine, Augustus Maximus of the empire, was about to inaugurate a revolution in the history of the world. Shortly after his victory, Constantine, and his fellow Augustus, Licinius, met in Milan to discuss imperial problems. Constantine's priority was the guarantee of religious freedom, which became known as the Edict of Milan. It is the first legal affirmation of religious liberty, issued more than 1,400 years before a similar idea would be promulgated in America. But what is equally interesting about the Edict of Milan is that it mentions only one specific religion--Christianity--and it mentions it repeatedly. Eusebius, who knew Constantine reproduces the imperial edicts in his The History of the Church: "Christians and non-Christans alike should be allowed to keep the faith of their own religious beliefs and worship...[N]o one whatever was to be denied the right to follow and choose the Christian observance or form of worship...[E]very individual still desirous of observing the Christian form of worship should without interference be allowed to do so....[W]e have given the said Christians free and absolute permission to practice their own form of worship."

In a follow up document, the Augusti are more specific still: "Accordingly it is our wish that when you receive this letter you will see to it that any of the former property of the Catholic Church of the Christians...shall be restored forthwith."

The Edict of Milan, issued by two professing pagans, was the first royal proclamation in a series that would establish Catholic Christianity as the religion of empire, an empire of which it remains the living embodiment, from a beginning that stretches before all time.

And your attempt to paint us as mass murderers that have dragged the world into the pit of hell is laughable. I can almost see you cursing with anger that this article dared be complementory toward the pukey Christians. Actually, I am used to people like you. Your type is real predictable.

The truth is that his vision is really the figment of some Medieval poet's imagination. Constantine basically had what amounted to a temporary fox hole conversion. After the battle he went back to worshipping his pagan son god.

Really? Is that why Constantine and his legions painted crosses on the shields and helmets during the battle of Milvian Bridge? Its not like this is some figment. Its documented. But I'm sure you can find a way to dismiss it since the article makes the Catholic Church look good. Well too bad, it didn't work.

And of course you show your lack of knowledge on history by stating that Constantine had a foxhole conversion. The fact is that Constantine remained loyal to the Catholic church even when it cost him his popularity. After the Nicene council, he traveled to Rome as part of his 25 years as emperor. There, when he refused to partake in Pagan ceremonies, riots erupted and a statue of him was literally defaced by mob thrown rocks.

And Constantine was officially received in to the CATHOLIC church on his deathbed. So much for your newspeak rewriten history.

Thank you for a great historical post. Many non-Catholics malign Constantine and try to promulgate the theory that the early Christian Church went "corrupt" around 320ish because of him (and the "real" Christian Church went underground from then until the Reformation), but I've never seen anyone address how the "corrupt" Catholic Church of 367AD was able to determine which books of the hundreds of forgeries floating around were Inspired and belonged in the Bible that they (non-Catholics) accept as God's Word.

The first list of the books that should belong to the Bible was put together in the 39th Pastoral Letter of Saint Athanasius, the bishop of Alexandria, in 367AD. The said list was then confirmed by the Council of Hippo in 393AD, Council of Carthage in the year 397, Pope Innocent I in 405AD, and finally, by the Council of Trent in 1546.

God works in mysterious ways. Look how he used Constantine.

Read this:
http://www.picknowl.com/au/homepages/rlister/baphist/blood/trail.htm
A friend of mine gave me a print copy of The Trail of Blood by JM Carroll a few months ago. I was skeptical about it at first, but after I did some more resaerch I became more convinced.

. Many non-Catholics malign Constantine and try to promulgate the theory that the early Christian Church went "corrupt" around 320ish because of him (and the "real" Christian Church went underground from then until the Reformation)

Oh, so that's it. Maybe they can get Michael Rivero to link up "what really happened" on his website.

I should be used to the attacks by now, but sometimes I just fly off! He came on the thread and basically accused us of being mass murderers and then says I'm over sensitive when I flame him for his dumb post. And of course, I was supposed to look at his profile first--out of sheer curiousity of him I suppose.

Your link doesn't work. But regardless, I'm not interested in the baptist blood trail. I'm interested in the truth about Roman History--something which you don't have.

You have yet to disprove the article-- or my assertions regarding Constantine, or the info put up by Dr. Carroll on the Inquisition.

More from Crocker:

Some have argued that Constantine's legacy is mixed, that his support for Christianity came at the price of severely compromising the church by making its operations part of imperical policy. Without Constantine's defending word, the Catholic church faced the prospect of endless persecution. Without Constantine taking a hand in church affairs, providing common sense, the threat of force, munificent sums, and marvelous basilicas, the arian controversy or any other virtually innumerable heresies might, in combination have fractured the church into non-existance.

Constantine began the creation of a christian empire, furthering Christ's call to the apostles to bring the faith to all the peoples of the world. It was Constantine's great delight that even delegates from outside the empire attended the Nicene Council. The model for Christian society took place under his watch.

Constantine provided the starting point for the divine right of kings as the guardians of the world until the liberal, secular democracy altered the equation by making religious indifference the paramount value....

When he merged the Church of Rome with the Roman Empire, it kicked off the Dark Ages which gave us the Inquisition, the Borgias, the St Bartholomew's Day Massacre, the Gun Powder Plot and a millennium of corruption and bloodshed that lasted until the rise of republics and democracies which followed the fall of the feudal kingdoms.

Are you saying that with the rise of republics and democracies corruption and bloodshed disappeared? On the contrary, violence and human evil has only escalated. "The dark ages" were times of unparalleled tranquility compared to what followed. Your knowlege of history is completely incomplete.

To be deep in history is to be a Catholic, you and I know that. Funny that it's OK to read a Baptist version of the history of Christianity (probably written in the 20th century) and that is supposed to be taken as seriously as the Bible is, but it isn't OK for them to read the Early Church Fathers! I love it when you (Catholics) quote the Church Fathers who studied under the apostles or were close in history to them, and we get "Well, where is that in the Bible?" but we are supposed to read the Baptist Trail of Blood (and other modern biased writing of history) and take something written in the last 50 years or so as more truthful than a disciple of an apostle - ha ha!

And if so, they HAD to be executed under Roman law. One could say that Constantine did not make any expections to the law, not even his own family. Something to think about anyway.

Let's not forget that there was a tradition of reverence for the rule of law among Romans going back all the way to Junius Brutus, the founder of the Roman Republic, who had his own son killed after he disobeyed a direct order in the field of battle. This incident is particularly amazing because this son's disobedience led directly to a victory in the given battle.

Constantine still gets more credit than Galerius, IMO. After all, his edict was motivated out of gratitude, not political calculation, and he never revoked it later, as Galerius might have done.

Galerius really can't get much credit at all considering he was a persecutor. And doesn't Eusebius claim that Galerius only issued this proclamation while deathly ill -- being eaten by alive by swarms of worms, as a divine punishment for his wicked life?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.