Key to Umbria

Portrait bust of Constantius (provenance unknown)

Altes Museum, Berlin


Early Career

Flavius Constantius (or, possibly, Flavius Julius Constantius) was born in ca. 250 AD in Dacia.  We happen to know the date of his birthday: the anniversary of the natales of (the by-then deified) divus Constantius was recored in the entry under 25th July in the the so-called Chronogaph of 354 AD

Constantius’ early career is summarised in the ‘Origo Constantini Imperatoris’: 

  1. “He was first one of the imperial bodyguard, then a tribune, and later, praeses Dalmatiarum (governor of Dalmatia).  ... by his [first] wife Helena he ... had a son Constantine, who was later the mightiest of Emperors” (1:2).

Unlike some other early sources, this one asserts that Constantius and Helena were formally married, a proposition supported in detail by Timothy Barnes (referenced below, 2011, at p 38).  He deduced that their son, Constantine, was born in Naissus (modern Niš in Serbia) in ca. 273 AD, while Constantius himself was serving the Emperor Aurelian in his campaign against Queen Zenobia of Palmyra.  Barnes accepted (at p 28) the account in the ‘Historia Augusta’ that Constantius’ governorship of Dalmatia  extended from the death of the Emperor Carus (283 AD) to Diocletian’s defeat of Carus’ son, the Emperor Carinus (285 AD), commenting that this:

  1. “allows us to infer that Constantius earned the gratitude of Diocletian by a timely change of allegiance ...”

Constantius enjoyed the patronage of Maximian in the years leading up to his elevation to the Tetrarchy in 293 AD (below).  Thus, the author of a panegyric (Panegyric VIII, translated into English in Nixon and Rodgers, referenced below), which was delivered some time later (probably 297 AD) at Constantius’ court, probably at Trier, recorded that:

  1. “... thanks to the favour of your divinity [Constantius, I (i.e. the panegyrist himself) achieved] long ago that very access to the divine ears of your father [Maximian] that first brought me out into the public light” (1:5). 

The panegyrist recalled having witnessed two exploits of Constantius that had taken place  before his accession:

  1. “... the capture of a king of a most savage nation while he was in the act of preparing an ambush; and the complete burning and devastation of Alamannia, from the Rhine bridge [probably at Mainz] right up to the crossing of the Danube at Giunta [probably modern Günzburg] ...” (2:1).

Nothing more is known about Constantius’ capture of the king, but Timothy Barnes (as above, at p 39) suggested that his march to the headwaters of the Danube might well have formed part of the joint campaign of Diocletian and Maximian  against the Alamanni in 288 AD (described on the page: Diocletian and Maximian (285-93 AD)).

Constantius was probably also present when an earlier panegyric (Panegyric X, translated into English in Nixon and Rodgers, referenced below) was delivered at what was then still Maximian’s court, probably at Trier and probably in 289 AD.  It recorded;

  1. “You  ... [Maximian] so earnestly hold that harmony is a virtue that you have bound to yourself by ties of friendship and marriage even those who perform the highest office of your entourage ... Under the leadership of such men, .... that pliant and treacherous race of barbarians was crushed as it deserved ..” (1:4).

Timothy Barnes (as above, at p 41) strongly supported the opinion, shared by a number of other scholars, that this was an allusion to Constantius’ (second) marriage to Maximian’s daughter, Theodora.  If this is correct, Constantius became Maximian’s son-in-law some four years before his elevation to the rank of Caesar.

Appointment as Caesar (293-305 AD)

The circumstances in which Constantius was elevated to the rank of Caesar were described in detail on the page on the First Tetrarchy.  Maximian conferred his title on him, probably in Milan, on 1st March 293 AD.  His new official name, Marcus Flavius Valerius Constantius, incorporated elements of the names of both Diocletian and Maximian, and he shared with Maximian the signum Herculius.  He also retained part of his own name: Flavius Constantius.  He was always documented thereafter as the senior of the two Caesares, presumably because he was the older and the more experienced.

After his elevation, Constantius established his main residence at Trier (which Maximian had left vacant for him by moving to Milan).  His immediate priority was to defeat and destroy the usurper Carausius.  Thus, as the panegyrist remembered in Panegyric VIII (above):

  1. “... you immediately made Gaul your own [Constantius] simply by coming here.  Indeed, the swiftness with which you anticipated your accession and arrival caught the forces of [Carausius] trapped within the walls of Gesoriacum (modern Boulogne) ...” (6:1).

The likelihood is that Constantius had already been preparing for a campaign against Carausius’ forces in north west Gaul when he had been called away for his formal elevation.


As Eusebius commented, Constantius :

  1. “... surpassed most of the [other Tetrarchs] in regard to the number of his family, having gathered around him a very large circle of children, both male and female” (‘Vita Constantini’, 1:18).

As noted above, his oldest son, Constantine, the product of his first marriage to Helena, was born in ca 273 AD.  Constantius had  divorced Helena in ca. 288 AD in order to marry Maximian’s daughter (or stepdaughter), Theodora. Timothy Barnes (as above, at p 41-2) named the six children from this second marriage in what seems to be descending order of age:

  1. Flavius Dalmatius;

  2. Hannibalianus (who seems to have died in childhood);

  3. Julius Constantius;

  4. Constantia;

  5. Anastasia; and

  6. Eutropia (who was  presumably named for her grandmother, Maximian’s wife).

Campaign against Carausius and Allectus

Gold medallion (ca. 296 AD) commemorating

Constantius’ recovery of Britain for the Empire

Panegyric VIII (above) is the most detailed source of information for this crucial campaign.  Early in the speech, the panegyrist exclaimed:

  1. “I must relate without delay the exploits carried out under the leadership and auspices of your divinity [Constantius], the spectacle of which we are all enjoying ...” (5:4).

These exploits were clearly those associated with Constantius’ successful recovery of Britain, which (as the translator pointed out, at note 20) had:

  1. “... evidently [been] recreated in a triumphal procession that graced the celebration [at which the speech was being delivered]”.

From this it is clear that the campaign to recover Britain had taken about four years to complete.  As noted above, Constantius had moved very quickly against Carausius’ residual forces in Gaul, which were:

  1. “... trapped within the walls of Gesoriacum (modern Boulogne).  [Constantius also denied them access] to the Ocean that washes the gates of the city ... [rendering] the whole bay of the port ... impassable by driving piles at its entrance and sinking boulders there” (6:1-2).

The blocking of the port probably prevented Carausius from sending assistance by sea.  The fact that he did not do so by land suggests that he had already lost control of most of north west Gaul by this time.  However, even after the loss of this remaining base on the Continent, Carausius still had to be dislodged from Britain.

The panegyrist continued:

  1. “The whole war could have been finished immediately ...had not the necessity of the case persuaded you [Constantius] that time should be spent on building a navy” (7:3)

How long does it take to build a navy?  The panegyrist implies here that it took from 293 AD until Constantius’ successful invasion of Britain some three years later. However, a later part of the speech suggests that there had been a failed invasion in the interim:

  1. “Although your armies were unconquerable in courage, they were novices ... in the art of seafaring .... In addition, long impunity for their crime had inflated the audacity of [Carausius and his supporters], so that they gave out that [rather than the] inclemency of the sea, which had delayed your victory ..., [the cause of the setback] was really terror inspired by themselves ...” (12: 1-2).

The translator suggested (at note 46) that this putative failed invasion had taken place in 294 AD.

The panegyrist then described how the restored confidence of at least one of Carausius’ supporters had led to his downfall:

  1. “.... now that his fear of a common punishment had been laid to rest [because of the failed invasion], one of the henchmen of Carausius killed him: he judged that ... imperial power was recompense for such a hazard” (12:2).

Aurelius Victor named Carausius’ “henchman”:

  1. “[Carausius] was treacherously overthrown six years [after his initial rebellion] by a man named Allectus who, after he had been entrusted by [Carausius] to manage the treasury, fearing execution because of his misdeeds, had seized power through a criminal act” (‘De Caesaribus’, 39: 40). 

The idea that, before his coup, Allectus was ‘only’ a finance minister of some kind seems unlikely: after he had killed Carausius, he retained the support of the legions who had presumably acclaimed him as Augustus (a title evidenced by his coins).  He could have been motivated to murder Carausius to escape execution (as Aurelius Victor asserted), but this sounds suspiciously like the claim that Carausius himself had rebelled in similar circumstances.  It seems to me that the panegyrist’s account is more likely: Allectus and the legions of Britain probably believed that, following  Constantius failed invasion, Diocletian would reward Allectus’ treachery by allowing him to continue to control Britain in some official capacity.  If so, they had badly misjudged the situation.

Constantius seems to have started preparations for yet another naval invasion of Britain almost immediately, and to have received help from Maximian in securing the Rhine frontier in his absence.  Thus, the panegyrist recorded:

  1. “First of all .... you guarded against the attempt of any barbarian nations to to renew hostilities while [you] were turned in the direction of Britain by calling on the majesty of your father [Maximian].  For you yourself, you [Maximian], ... by a novel shortening of your journey, reached the Rhine unexpectedly and protected the whole of the frontier ... by the terror inspired by your presence” (13: 2-3).

It also seems that Maximian assigned his Praetorian Prefect to help Constantius with the campaign.  Aurelius Victor continued his account (above) as follows:

  1. “When [Allectus] had held power [in Britain] for a short while, Constantius destroyed him through [Julius] Asclepiodotus, his Praetorian Prefect, who was sent ahead with a detachment  of the fleet and of the legions” (‘De Caesaribus’, 39: 41). 

The panegyrist (from 14:4 to 16:5) provided a detailed account of this invasion, while managing to avoid any mention of Asclepiodotus.  Reading between the lines:

  1. Constantius commanded what might have been a decoy fleet from Bononia, but seems to have been delayed by bad weather. 

  2. Asclepiodotus commanded another fleet, which set sail from the Seine estuary and took advantage of fog to avoid Allectus's ships stationed on the Isle of Wight.  Asclepiodotus  then managed to land undetected and burned his ships, presumably so they would not fall into Allectus’ hands.

  3. Allectus himself had expected Constantius’ fleet sail up the Thames Estuary and attack London.  When he was alerted to the approach of Allectus army, he hastily marched out to meet it.  Battle was engaged, probably on the South Downs, and Allectus was defeated and killed.

  4. Soldiers from one or more of the ships from Constantius fleet had landed by this time.  They caught up with the remnants of Allectus’ army, who were mostly Franks and who were busy looting London.  They easily massacred them, while allegedly leaving the grateful locals in peace to enjoy the spectacle.

The panegyrist then described how:

  1. “... as soon as you stepped onto the shore [Constantius], .... a triumphal crowd poured forth to meet Your Majesty ... (19:1).

The translator (at note 20) pointed out that this implies that Constantius arrived only after the fighting was over.  His triumph was commemorated by a series of gold medallions minted at Trier, one of which (illustrated above) was found in the Arras Treasure in 1922.  (The original is still in museum at Arras, and there is a copy in the British Museum).  The reverse shows Londinium, personified as woman on her knees outside the city walls, welcoming the victorious Constantius, who has just embarked on horseback from his ship in the Thames and is described as:

redditor lucis aeternae

the restorer [to Britain] of the eternal light [of Rome]

This was a magnificent achievement: Constantius’ plan had achieved its objectives, despite the problems with the weather.  He had maintained the confidence of his legions in the face of earlier failures, and he now gave substance to Diocletian’s central claim on power: any attempt to defy the Jovian and Herculian Emperors was destined to end in defeat.

Not surprisingly, the Tetrarchs adopted the title Britannicus maximus at this time.

Rhine Frontier

In the preamble to the Edict of Maximum Prices (November, 301 AD), Constantius had the title “Germanicus maximus II”.  Timothy Barnes (1976, referenced below) related these victories to two campaigns of Constantius that were alluded to in panegyrics delivered in Gaul:

  1. In Panegyric VIII (above), we learn that, during the whole of the period in which Constantius was preparing for the invasion of Britain (i.e. ca. 293-6 AD):

  2. “ ... you [Constantius] never ceased to destroy those enemies whom terra firma permitted you to approach ...” (7:3-4)

  3. What followed in the speech made it clear that these land-based enemies were Frankish allies of Carausius, including Chamavians and Frissians, who had occupied land in Batavia, along the estuaries of the Rhine and the Scheldt.

  4. In Panegyric VI (translated into English in Nixon and Rodgers, referenced below), which was delivered to the then Emperor Constantine in 310 AD, four years after Constantius’ death, the panegyrist looked back on Constantius’ career, listing (inter alia) four campaigns on the Rhine.  Timothy Barnes (as above) suggested that the first victory in this list was probably commemorated in the second of Constantius’ Germanic victory titles in 301 AD:

  5. “What shall I say about the nations of Francia, now torn away [for resettlement in Gaul - see below)]

  6. -not just from those areas that the Romans had invaded in the past;

  7. -but also from their original homeland and from the furthest shores of the barbarian world ...” (6:2).

Barnes (as above) maintained that the other three victories in the list in Panegyric VI (above) must have occurred after 301 AD.  He suggested that they corresponded to the three additional victory titles that Constantius had acquired by the time of a military diploma of 7th January 306 AD (the text of which is recorded in AE 1961 240).  The corresponding texts from Panegyric VI are as follows:

  1. “Why should I recall

  2. -[Constantius’] victory in the territory of the Lingones [near modern Langres, in Burgundy];

  3. -... the fields of Vindonissa [a Roman legion camp at modern Windisch, Switzerland] strewn with the corpses of the enemy, [which are] still covered with bones; [and]

  4. -... the huge multitude of Germans from every nation that, enticed by the freezing of the Rhine, had dared to cross on foot to an island ... [where] they were cut off by  a sudden thawing of the river and, besieged by boats ...., compelled to surrender (6: 3-4).

Eutropius provided more detail about an engagement at Lingonae that is presumably the same one alluded to in Panegyric VI:

  1. “... a battle was fought by Constantius Caesar  ... at Lingonae [Langres], where he experienced both good and had fortune in one day;

  2. -for though he was driven into the city by a sudden onset of the barbarians, with such haste and precipitation that he [had to be] drawn up the wall by ropes after the gates were shut: yet,

  3. -when his army came up, after the lapse of scarcely six hours, he cut to pieces about 60,000 of the Alemanni” (‘Breviarium historiae Romanae’, 9:23: 1-2).

Eutropius places this engagement shortly after the recovery of Britain in 296 AD, but scholars generally follow Barnes (above)by placing it in the period 301-5 AD (as, for example, Bill Leadbetter, referenced below, at p 157).

Barbarian Settlement in Gaul

In Panegyric VIII (above), the panegyrist refers to two examples of the settlement by Maximian of barbarians in Gaul, where they cultivated land that would have otherwise been abandoned.  As noted on the page on Diocletian and Maximian (285-93 AD), these settlers seem to have enjoyed considerable privileges.  The panegyric also refers to two later occasions, after the elevation of Constantius, although in these cases the settlers seem to have had a more servile status:

  1. The first example occurred as a result of the campaign Chamavians and Frissians (above):

  2. “‘In all the porticoes of our cities sit captive bands of barbarians ..., and all these [are] parcelled out for service to the inhabitants of of your provinces [Constantius] until they might be led out to the desolate lands assigned to be cultivated by them” (9:2).

  3. The panegyrist later (at 9:3, glossed at note 28) described how these people were not only forced to cultivate abandoned land but also liable military service when required.

  4. The second example seems to have been a recent event at the time that the panegyric was delivered (i.e. ca. 297 AD):

  5. “... now, through your victories, Constantius, ... whatever land remained abandoned in the territory of the Ambiani, Bellovaci, Tricasses, and Lingones turns green again under cultivation by the barbarian” (21:1).

  6. The translator (at note 77) identified these territories as (modern) Amiens, Beauvais, Troyes and Langres.  The barbarians in question might have included the Chamavian and Frissian prisoners mentioned above, and/or other barbarians that had been captured during Maximian’s subsequent border campaign (while Constantius was involved in the invasion of Britain). 

A gold medallion minted at Lyon that depicted barbarian families crossing the Rhine by the bridge at Mainz (on the obverse) and being granted admission to the Empire by two Emperors (on the reverse) might well have been associated with these events: Maria Alföldi (referenced below) identified the Emperors as Maximian and Constantius and dated the coin to ca. 296 AD.  Ralph Mathisen (referenced below) came to a similar conclusion (at p 1024), and provided illustrations (at pp 1025-6) of a lead proof of this medallion (of which no originals survive).

In Panegyric VI (above), the panegyrist described the fate of the “Germans from every nation” who had crossed the frozen Rhine on a later occasion and become stranded on an island when the ice melted (above):

  1. “[The captured Germans] had to choose by lot:

  2. -those among their number who were to be given up to captivity ... ; and

  3. -those [who were] to carry home ... the obloquy for the betrayal of their fellows” (6:6).

These accounts of the settlement of barbarians in Gaul under both Maximian and Constantius illuminate the extent to which the agricultural economy had been devastated by the upheavals of the previous decades, and also the way that barbarian settlers were used to augment the military resources of the Empire.

Maximian in Hispania and Africa

As noted above, Maximian had moved from Trier to Milan in 293 AD, leaving the administration of Gaul to Constantius.  What we know of his activity immediately thereafter is derived from Panegyric VIII (above).  For example, the panegyrist recorded that, as Constantius prepared for what was probably his second naval invasion of Britain in 296 AD:

  1. “ .... you [Constantius] guarded against the attempt of any barbarian nations [presumably from across the Rhine] to renew hostilities while [you] were turned in the direction of Britain by calling on the majesty of your father [Maximian].  For you yourself, you [Maximian], ... by a novel shortening of your journey, reached the Rhine unexpectedly and protected the whole of the frontier ... by the terror inspired by your presence” (13: 2-3).

The translator (at note 48) pointed out that it there is no obvious way in which Maximian could have shortened the usual route from Milan to Trier, and suggested that he had probably started from somewhere else.  One possibility was that he had been campaigning against the Carpi in Pannonia (see the page on Diocletian and Galerius in the east).

After Constantius’ naval victory, the panegyrist exulted:

  1. “And so, by this victory of yours, not only has Britain been liberated, but security has [also] been restored to all nations [facing] ... dangers from ... the sea in time of war.... Now, to say nothing of the Gallic coast, Spain is secure, ... now Italy too, and Africa. ... [These threatened communities rejoice in the fact that]  such a mighty force of naval rebellion has been halted in its tracks, ... [notwithstanding the fact that] Britain itself, which had furnished for so long a base for this crime, perceived your victory solely in terms of its own recovery” (18: 4-7).

The translator (at note 67) pointed out, while Constantius could certainly claim credit for the destruction of the pirates’ base in Britain, the associated suppression of piracy in the Atlantic and western Mediterranean was almost certainly the work of Maximian.  Support for this proposition is found in a fragment of an epic poem in Greek (P. Argent. 480, 1-3), which Timothy Barnes (referenced below, 1982, p54, note 35) suggested came from a panegyric that was to delivered to Diocletian while he was in Egypt in 298 AD.  The poet asserted that:

  1. The other rulers [would have assisted Diocletian and Galerius] if the Iberian war had not detained [Maximian] and if the battle din of the island of Britain had not blazed around [Constantius]” (adapted from the translation reproduced by Evan Haley, referenced below).

There might be archeological evidence for this campaign in Hispania:

  1. Jean-Charles Balty and Daniel Cazes (referenced below) suggested that the Roman villa of Chiragan at Martres-Tolosane (some 60 km south west of Toulouse) had served as Maximian’s base before he crossed the central Pyrenees to Hispania in ca. 296 AD (as discussed in more detail in the page on Maximian’s Herculian Dynasty).

  2. Evan Haley’s paper (above) deals with his theory that the magnificent palace that was discovered at Cordoba in 1991 had been built for Maximian, and that this had served as his base of operations in 296-8 AD.  Thus, Haley observed (at p 213):

  3. With Britain re-absorbed into the Empire, and with the Atlantic and western Mediterranean secure, Maximian could turn to the final pacification of North Africa and the definitive implantation of the diocesan system in Hispania and Africa, activities which were crowned, though not necessarily terminated in their administrative aspects, by Maximian's triumphal entry into Carthage on 10th March 298 AD [see below].  Cordoba would have served admirably as a strategic centre of Maximian's operations in the Iberian peninsula and western North Africa”.

The African provinces had long suffered the incursions of Berber tribes from the Atlas Mountains.  In the recent past, Titus Aurelius Litua, the governor of Mauretania Caesariensis, claimed victories over the Transtagnenses (CIL VIII 9324, from Caesarea) and the Quinquegentiani (CIL VIII 8924, from Saldae), and restored a bridge at Auzia that had been destroyed in a war (CIL VIII 9041).  These inscriptions presumably related to the same campaign, which can thus be dated (from the third inscription) to 290 AD.  However, while (on this, as on earlier occasions) the raiders were driven off with relative ease, they could just as easily return. 

Having cleared the coastal areas from the threat of pirates, Maximian seems to have decided to take charge himself of the suppression of inland invaders by driving them beyond the mountains and into the Sahara. 

  1. At the time that he delivered Panegyric VIII (above), the panegyrist expected:

  2. “... messengers coming at any moment now [i.e. in the spring of 297 AD) to announce the devastation inflicted on the Moors” (5:2).

  3. In Panegyric IX (above), which was delivered in Gaul shortly thereafter, the panegyrist spoke of:

  4. “... you, invincible Maximian, hurling lightning upon the smitten hordes of Moors ... (21:2).

  5. In Panegyric VII (translated into English in Nixon and Rodgers, referenced below), which was delivered at Constantine’s court during a famous visit by Maximian (newly emerged from retirement) in 307 AD, the panegyrist remembered how Maximian had:

  6. “... overwhelmed, forced to capitulate and resettled the fiercest tribes of Mauretania, who had [unwisely] trusted to their inaccessible mountaintops and natural fortifications” (8:6).

  7. Eutropius summarised more prosaically:

  8. “Maximian, the Emperor ... brought the war to an end in Africa by subduing the Quinquegentiani and compelling them to make peace” (‘Breviarium historiae Romanae’ 9:23:3). 

Evidence for Maximian’s presence on the ground can be found in an inscription (CIL VIII 8836) from Tubusuctu (modern Tiklat in Algeria) that can be dated to 305 AD, which records the completion of horreum (a warehouse of some kind, perhaps a granary) that Maximian had ordered during his campaign in the area against the Quinquegentiani:

Dd(omini) nn(ostri) Diocletianu]s et Maximianus seniores Aug(usti) et

[dd(omini) nn(ostri) Constantius et Maximianus in]victi Imperatores et

[Severus et Maximinus nobili]ssimi Caesares

quo tempore? d(ominus) n(oster) Maxim]ianus invictus senior Aug(ustus) feliciter

[comprimens turbas? Quinquege]ntaneorum ex Tubusuctitana

[regione copiis iuva?]retur horrea in Tubusuctitana

[civitate fieri] praeceperunt anno pro(vinciae) CCLXV[I].

Maximian issued a rescript (Frag. Vat. 41) from Carthage on 10th March 298 AD.  He minted coins for himself and his colleagues there at about this time, each of which each of which had the reverse legend:


It is possible that these commemorated Maximian’s triumphal entry into the city.  As noted in the page on Diocletian and Maximian in Rome, a remark in Panegyric VII (above) implies that Maximian made his first visit to Rome immediately after his victory in Africa (see paragraph 8:7 and the translator’s note 32), and it seems likely that he arrived there directly from Carthage.  The inscriptions (CIL VI 1130) from the Baths of Diocletian confirm that Maximian commissioned this massive complex “on his return from Africa”. C.E. V. Nixon (referenced below, 1981, at note 10) suggested that he had probably arrived in Rome in time to celebrate the start of his sixth Consular year, 299 AD.

Read more:

T. Barnes, “Constantine: Dynasty, Religion and Power in the Later Roman Empire”, (2011) Chichester

W. Leadbetter, “Galerius and the Will of Diocletian”, (2009) London

J-C. Balty and D. Cazes, “Sculptures Antiques De Chiragan: Volume 1:5: Les Portraits Romains; La Tétrarchie ”, (2008)  Toulouse

R. Mathisen, “Peregrini , Barbari , and Cives Romani: Concepts of Citizenship and the Legal Identity of Barbarians in the Later Roman Empire”, American Historical Review, 111:4 (2006) 1011-40

E. Haley, “A Palace of Maximianus Herculius at Corduba?”, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 101 (1994) 208–14

C. E. V. Nixon and B. S. Rodgers, “In Praise of Later Roman Emperors: The Panegyrici Latini”, (1994) Berkeley

T. Barnes, “New Empire of Diocletian and Constantine”, (1982) Harvard

C. E. V.  Nixon, “The Panegyric of 307 and Maximian's Visits to Rome”, Phoenix 35 (1981) 70–6

T. Barnes, “Imperial Campaigns (285-311 AD)”, Phoenix, 30:2 (1976) 174-93

M. Alföldi, “Zum Lyoner Bleimedaillon”, Gazette Numismatique Suisse, 8 (1958) 63-8

Diocletian (284-305 AD)

Diocletian's Rise to Power (284-5 AD)      Diocletian and Maximian (285-93 AD)

First Tetrarchy (293-305 AD)      Diocletian, Maximian and Rome (285-305 AD)

Military Campaigns: Maximian and Constantius  in the West (293-305 AD)

Military Campaigns: Diocletian and Galerius in the East  (293-305 AD)

Imperial Cult (285-305 AD)

Diocletian to Constantine (285-337 AD): Literary Sources 

Return to the History Index