Key to Umbria

Maximinus (?)

Porphyry bust from Athribis, Egypt, now in Cairo Museum

Early Career

As set out in the page on Galerius I (305-7 AD), Maximinus was the son of a sister of Galerius.  The patronage of his uncle brought him rapid advancement through the ranks of the military while he was still a young man.  He was probably in his twenties in 305 AD when, apparently to general consternation, he was appointed as Caesar in the east.  Maximinus was married at this time and perhaps already had a baby son.  Lactantius recorded the fate of the boy and that of his younger sister after Maximinus died in 313 AD, during his war with Licinius: 

  1. “Licinius ... put to death Maximus, the son of [Maximinus], a boy eight years old, and also a daughter of [Maximinus], who was seven years old and had been betrothed to Candidianus” (‘De Mortibus Persecutorum’, 50: 6).

Thus, his two children had both been born in the period 305-7 AD.

Maximinus’ close family ties to Galerius and the years of loyal service in the east (where he administered Syria and Egypt from has main residence at Antioch) did not lead to automatic advancement within the imperial college.  Thus, after the execution of the Augustus Severus in September 307 AD, Galerius initially failed to designate a successor.  When he did so, at the conference at Carnuntum in November 308 AD, he appointed his colleague Licinius, a man who had never served as Caesar (a set out in the page on Galerius II (305-6 AD).  Constantine, who had been removed from the ‘official’ college at the time of his rebellion in September 307 AD, was reaccepted into it with his old rank of Caesar (a change of status that had little practical effect).

Maximinus was apparently frustrated by the appointment of Licinius, at least according to Lactantius:

  1. “[Maximinus] was incensed at the nomination of Licinius to the dignity of Emperor, and he would no longer be called Caesar or allow himself to be ranked as third in authority.  Galerius, by repeated messages, besought [him] to ... acquiesce in his arrangement, to give place to age, and to reverence the grey hairs of Licinius.  But [Maximinus] became more and more insolent.  He urged that, as it was he who first assumed the purple, so ... he had right to priority in rank ... Galerius, at length, overcome by the obstinacy of [Maximinus], abolished the subordinate title of Caesar, gave to himself and Licinius that of the Augusti, and to [Maximinus] and Constantine that of filios Augustorum (sons of the Augusti)” (‘De Mortibus Persecutorum’, 32: 1-5).

The new designations constituted a not particularly convincing attempt to stress the right of each Caesar to succeed ‘his’ Augustus.  They seem to have received them only a few months after Carnuntum: a papyrus (P. Cair. Isidor. 90) of 2nd March 309 AD defined the year with reference to the Consuls Licinius and Constantine, the latter described as filius augusti (son of Augustus).  This suggests that the new titulature had been in place at the end of 308 AD, when the consular designations would have been published.  Galerius minted for the new Tetrarchy soon after (as illustrated above).  Neither Caesar ever seems minted for himself as filius Augustus:

  1. Constantine continued to mint for himself as Augustus; and

  2. as Sutherland and Carson (referenced below, at p 31) observed:

  3. “... Maximinus came to reserve [the title filius Augustus], by way of a derogatory mark, to Constantine”.

Maximinus as Augustus (310-1 AD)

According to Lactantius, the disgruntled Maximinus later took matters into his own hands:

  1. “ ... some time after, in a letter to Galerius, [Maximinus] took occasion to observe that he had been saluted by his army under the title of Augustus at the last general muster.  Galerius, vexed and grieved at this, commanded that all the four [members of the imperial college] should have the appellation of Augustus” (‘De Mortibus Persecutorum’, 32:5).

Sutherland and Carson (referenced below, p 16) suggested that the acclamation of Maximinus  by his troops might well have occurred on 1st May of that year, during the celebration of his quinquennalia.  Galerius’ acceptance of it certainly occurred during 310 AD, because he designated himself as Consul for the 8th time for 311 AD, together with the Augustus Maximinus, who became Consul for the 2nd time.  The fact that both Licinius and Constantine accepted these designations suggests that they accepted the new situation.  As Simon Corcoran (referenced below, 2012, at p 12) summarised:

  1. “This moment [when Galerius conceded the title of Augustus to each of the erstwhile Caesares] marks the formal constitutional end of the Tetrarchic system”.

Galerius’ capitulation in the face of lobbying by Maximinus probably also constitutes early evidence of the protracted illness that was to lead to his death in the following year (see below). 

Maximinus was now the most senior of Galerius’ colleagues, since he had been the first of them to be elevated to the imperial college.  Evidence that Galerius held this view is to be found (inter alia) in his Edict of Toleration, which he issued just before his death in 311 AD. In the only version we have, which appeared translated into Greek in Eusebius’ (‘Historia Ecclesiastica’ (8:17), the issuers were given as  Galerius himself, Constantine and Licinius.  As Graeme Clarke (referenced below, at 656, note 162) pointed out, this cannot have been correct:

  1. “... [although Maximinus’] name (later subject to damnatio memoriae) does not appear [here], it is clear that [the edict] was issued by Galerius on behalf of [all] his imperial colleagues.”

Any other designation would have been completely unprecedented.  Since Constantine preceded Licinius, Galerius had clearly ranked his colleagues in order of the length of time since each had been appointed.  Thus, Maximinus must have been named first among his three fellow Augusti.

Death of Galerius (April/ May 311 AD)

Galerius had died en route to his palace at Romulianum [modern Gamzigrad, in Serbia].  It seems that Licinius was present at his death, since, according to Lactantius:

  1. “Dying, [Galerius] recommended

  2. -his wife [Valeria Galeria, the daughter of Diocletian, whom Galerius had designated as Augusta in ca. 308 AD]; and

  3. -his son [Candidianus, who was probably about 15 years old]

  4. to Licinius, and delivered them over into his hands” (‘De Mortibus Persecutorum’, 35: 3).

Bill Leadbetter (referenced below, 2009, at p 242) suggested that:

  1. “The cortege then moved on to Romuliana.  It may well have been Licinius (as was appropriate in the circumstances) who oversaw Galerius’ funeral rights and interment in the mausoleum there.” 

Consecration of Galerius 


RIC VI Cyzicus 75

The archeological evidence that Galerius was consecrated prior to his interment at Romulianum is described in the page on Consecrated Tetrarchs (306-11 AD).  If Bill Leadbetter (above) is correct in suggesting that Licinius presided over Galerius’ interment, then he presumably also arranged for the ceremony of consecration.  Both Licinius and Maximinus minted for divus Galerius, but on a restricted scale, while Constantine, the third Augustus refrained completely.  Perhaps surprisingly,  the largest number of divus Galerius coins was minted by Maxentius (below).

Following the territorial rearrangement discussed below, Maximinus had added Galerius’ mints at Nicomedia and Cyzicus to his original mints at Antioch and Alexandria.  He minted for divus Galerius at two of these four mints:

  1. Alexandria (RIC VI Alexandria: 133; 143; 148; 151; 154; and 159); and

  2. Cyzicus (RIC VI Cyzicus 75, illustrated above). 

All of these coins had a traditional reverse design depicting a funerary altar and the reverse legend ‘AETERNAE MEMORIAE GALERI MAXIMIANI’.  The coins  identified Maximinus as ‘MAXIMINVS AVG FIL’ (i.e. as Galerius’ son).  This overtly dynastic claim might well have had substance: as noted below, Lactantius claimed that the widowed Valeria Galeria had rejected Maximinus’ unwanted marriage proposal on the grounds that, inter alia:

  1. “... she would not think of marriage while she was in [widow’s] weeds, and while the ashes of Galerius, her husband and, by adoption, the father of [Maximinus], were yet warm” (‘De Mortibus Persecutorum’, 39: 3-5). 

However, the small scale of Maximinus’ consecration coinage suggests that he placed much less emphasis on this aspect of his legitimacy than did either Constantine or Maxentius: 

  1. Since the death of Maximian in 310 AD, Constantine had been making a claim or legitimacy in terms of his descent from two consecrated Emperors :

  2. -his father, divus Constantius; and

  3. -their alleged ancestor, divus Claudius II

  4. (evidenced by a panegyric delivered at this court, as discussed in the page on Constantine, Divus Claudius and Sol Invictus). 

  5. Following the death of Galerius, Maxentius had minted enthusiastically for himself as:

  6. -son of divus Maximianus;

  7. -son-in-law of divus Galerius (who had been his mortal enemy while alive); and

  8. -relative of divus Constantius.

  9. (as discussed in the page on Maxentius in Rome: (311-2 AD)).

Licinius, the fourth contender for power, unfortunately, had no consecrated ancestors of whom he could boast.

Maximinus and the Jovian Dynasty

It seems to me that, since Maximinus was relatively unenthusiastic about his status as the son of divus Galerius, his adoption had probably been Galerius’ idea.  More specifically, Galerius had probably adopted him as part of a dynastic programme that envisaged:

  1. Maximinus as his designated successor; and

  2. Candidianus as his successor but one.

He had probably achieved this second objective by arranging for Candidianus betrothal to Maximinus’ young daughter.   We know from Lactantius’ account of the fate of Maximinus’ children after his death in 313 AD (during his war with Licinius, discussed in what page ?) that this betrothal had taken place by that time. 

  1. “Licinius ... put to death Maximus, the son of [Maximinus], a boy eight years old, and also [an unnamed]  daughter of [Maximinus], who was seven years old and had been betrothed to Candidianus” (‘De Mortibus Persecutorum’, 50: 6).

Its precise timing is unknown, but it is difficult to see why Maximinus would have promised his young daughter to Candidianus after Galerius’ death, since he already had a son of his own and presumably expected to produce more.  It seems more likely that he had agreed to the arrangement at the request of Galerius, and that he was sufficiently loyal to leave it in place after Galerius’ death.

If Galerius had designated Maximinus as his successor, it is odd that, at least according to Lactantius (above), he delivered his wife and son into the hands of Licinius before he died.  Torben Christensen (referenced below, at p 189) assumed that Lactantius had:

  1. “... most likely meant to signify that Galerius had appointed Licinius his successor as maximus augustus, so he was also entitled to take over his possessions [including his family]”. 

Christensen therefore suggested that Lactantius’ account was factually incorrect.  However, he might well have over-interpreted Lactantius: if Licinius was indeed present at Galerius’ death, then Galerius might simply have entrusted him with the immediate security of his family.

Crucial here is the attitude of the Augusta, Valeria Galeria.  According to Lactantius:

  1. “After the death of her husband, [Valeria Galeria] had repaired to [Maximinus’ territory] because she imagined that she might live with more security in his dominions than elsewhere, especially as he was a married man” (‘De Mortibus Persecutorum’, 39: 2).

The implication is probably that Licinius, who was unmarried, had tried to improve his standing within the imperial college by pressing her to marry him.  Valeria certainly did travel to Maximinus’ court (with or without the permission of Licinius and by unknown means), but Lactantius’ suggestion about her motives might well be incorrect:  

  1. Had she simply feared Licinius, she could presumably have joined her father, Diocletian, who apparently lived unmolested and happily retired in Licinius’ territory.  He would surely have been able to protect his helpless daughter from Licinius, had she overtly retired from public life.

  2. However, she had to think about Candidianus: in taking him into Maximinus’ territory, she might well have been honouring what she knew to have been Galerius’ intentions for him and, by implication, Galerius’ designation of maximinus as his successor.    

The attitudes of next generation were also important here.  According to Lactantius: 

  1. “Long before [the death of Maximinus, after his defeat by Licinius in 313 AD], apprehending evil from Licinius, Candidianus and Severianus [the son of Severus, who was by that time a young man] had chosen to remain with [Maximinus] ...” (‘De Mortibus Persecutorum’, 50: 4-5).

It seems likely that Severianus had been at Galerius court since the death of his father in 307 AD.  After the death of Galerius, it seems that both Candidianus and Severianus regarded Maximinus as the natural head of the extended family.

Territorial Division

The most urgent decision needed after Galerius’ death had been the division of his erstwhile territories between Maximinus and Licinius.  According to Lactantius, Maximinus moved quickly and pre-emptively to gain ground until Licinius managed to block his advance:

  1. “On receiving this news [of Galerius’ death, Maximinus] hastened from the east with relays of horses, in order to seize the dominions of Galerius and (while Licinius lingered in Europe) to arrogate to himself all the country as far as the narrow seas of Chalcedon [the Dardanelles].  On his entry into Bithynia, he ... abolished Galerius' tax, to the great joy of all.  Dissension arose between [Maximinus and Licinius] and almost an open war.  They stood on the opposite shores [of the Dardanelles] with their armies.  Peace, however, and amity were established under certain conditions.  Licinius and [Maximinus] met on the narrow seas, concluded a treaty, and in token of friendship joined hands. Then [Maximinus], believing all things to be in security, returned (to Nicomedia), and was in his new dominions what he had been in Syria and Egypt” (‘De Mortibus Persecutorum’, 36: 1-3).

Torben Christensen (referenced below, at p 190-3) drew attention to the dating formula used in a letter (discussed below) on military privileges that Licinius issued Serdica on 10th June, 311 AD:

Divo Maximiano [Galerius] VIII [[et d(omino) n(ostro) Maximino Aug(usto) iterum]]


IIII  Idus Iunias Serdica

He observed (at p 192) that, by this time:

  1. “... a peaceful relationship existed between Licinius and Maximinus...: otherwise Licinius would not have described [Maximinus] as dominus noster or acknowledged his Consulate”.

He concluded (at p 194) that :

  1. “... purely chronological reasons make it difficult to imagine that [Maximinus’ march from Antioch to the Dardanelles and the subsequent] negotiations [with Licinius] occurred before 9th June (sic) [the date of the inscription] ... [these chronological] problems evaporate as soon as we accept that there must have been a clear agreement that Galerius’ possessions were to be divided so that Licinius took over the Balkans while Maximinus was given Asia Minor. ... It is natural to assume that [this] arrangement [had been] made at the same time that Galerius made Maximinus and Constantine Augusti, alongside Licinius [i.e. late 310 AD]”.

The territorial settlement is illustrated in this excellent map from Ian Mladjov's Resources.  Maximinus now took over Diocletian’s old residence in Nicomedia.  Galerius’ mints were now assigned as follows:

  1. Maximinus added the mints of Nicomedia and Cyzicus to his original mints at Antioch and Alexandria (see Ian Sellars, referenced below, p 479) ;

  2. Licinus added the mints of Thessalonica and Heraclea to his original mint at Siscia (see Ian Sellars, referenced below, p 531).

Maximinus, Primi Nominis

Lactantius claimed that Maximinus unilaterally adopted Galerius’ erstwhile position as maximus augustus, with the right to legislate across the Empire and to appoint Consuls.  Thus his observation that, after Constantine defeated Maxentius late in 312 AD :

  1. “The Senate ... decreed to him the title of primi nominis, a title that [Maximinus] had [until that time] always arrogated to himself” (‘De Mortibus Persecutorum’, 44: 11).

However, even had he not been Galerius’ son by adoption and his designated heir, precedent would have been on his side:

  1. In the east, Diocletian had been succeeded by his Caesar, Galerius, in 305 AD.  Galerius would have been succeeded by his Caesar, Maximinus (who had become the senior of the three other Augusti in 310 AD).

  2. In the west, Maximian had been succeeded by his Caesar, Severus, in 305 AD.  When Severus had died in 307 AD, his erstwhile Caesar, Constantine, had been in revolt. Galerius had therefore refrained from making any new appointments for more than a year.  Finally, he rhad ecalled Diocletian from retirement in order to ratify his decision to appoint an outsider (Licinius) as Augustus in the west and to reinstate Constantine as his Caesar.

The relationships between Maximinus and Licinius in the early months following Galerius death can be discerned to some extent from three surviving inscriptions:

  1. Two of these (AE 1937, 232, from Brigetio; and AE 2007, 1224, from Durostorum) were copies of a letter on military privileges that Licinius issued Serdica on 10th June, 311 AD.  Simon Corcoran described it in this note in the archive of the UCL Volterra Project gives some background on the letter itself.  He also discussed it in his paper (referenced below, 2015, pp 225-6), where he explained that:

  2. The letter was widely circulated  ... only in Licinius’s Balkan territories, with orders for public display, the two copies which survive coming from Danube fortresses”.

  3. As Torben Christensen pointed out (above), Licinius acknowledged Maximinus as dominus noster and  acknowledged his Consulate in the dating formula of the letter, suggesting that the two were not, by this time, at war (if they ever had been).  However, Simon Corcoran (as above, at p 226)  pointed out that the letter (at least as known from the inscription):

  4. “... carries no titulature to reveal the collegiate line-up or to demonstrate Licinius’s view of himself and his colleagues at that precise point ....”.

  5. Thus it is possible that Licinius initially had reservations about accepting Maximinus continuing seniority. 

  6. The third of these inscriptions (CIL III 5565) came from Bedaium in Noricum Ripense (modern Seebruck, in Bavaria), again in Licinius‘ territory.  It was on an altar dedicated to the goddess of victory that the dux (military commender) Aurelius Senecio had commissioned in celebration of a victory won on the 27th June 310 AD.  Since Galerius was not mentioned, the altar itself had presumably been dedicated after his death.  It reads:

Victoriae Augustae / [sac]rum pro salutem

[d(ominorum)] n(ostrorum) Maximini et

[Con]stantini et Licini [se]mper Aug(ustorum)

Aur(elius) Senecio / [v(ir) p(erfectissimus)] dux templum numini

eius ex voto a novo fieri iussit / per instantiam

Val(eri) Sam/barrae p(rae)p(ositi) eq(uitibus) Dalm(atis) Aq/uesianis

comit(atensibus) l(aetus) l(ibens) m(erito)

ob victoria facta V K(alendas) Iulias / Andronico et Probo co(n)s(ulibus)

  1. What is important here is that, in an inscription, the Augusti are named in the order: Maximinus; Constantine; Licinius.  Thus, any reluctance that Licinius initially manifested in relation to the relative seniority of the Augusti had been dispelled by the time of this third inscription. 

Consuls of 311 AD and 312 AD

Galerius had named himself as Consul (for the 8th time) for what was to be the last of his life, together with Maximinus, who became Consul for the 2nd time.  After Galerius’ death, Maximinus continued as the sole Consul.  Both Constantine and Licinius accepted these designations: as noted above, Licinius’ letter on military privileges of 10th June, 311 AD had the Consuls as divus Galerius and Maximinus. 

Maximinus named his  colleagues, Constantine and Licinius, as Consuls (each for the second time) for 312 AD.  These designations were accepted in the territories of all three Augusti, which suggests that, at least by this time, Constantine and Licinius accepted Maximinus’ right to nominate Consuls (and hence his pre-eminence within the college). 

Galerius’ Edict of Toleration

In the final days of his life, as described in the page on Galerius II (308-11 AD)) Galerius issued an Edict (published, for example, in Nicomedia on 30th April 311 AD) that granted freedom of worship to Christians across the Empire.  As Stephen Mitchell (referenced below, at p 113) pointed out:

  1. “The text [of the Edict] mentions a further letter, whose details are nowhere recorded, [which was] to be sent to judges instructing them what rules to observe.  It is likely that this [letter, rather than the Edict itself] would have contained advice on the vexed question of the restoration of Christian property [that had been confiscated during the period of persecution].”

Graeme Clarke (referenced below, at 656, note 162) pointed out:

  1. “Although, in our extant versions, [Maximinus’] name ... does not appear, it is clear that [the Edict] was issued by Galerius on behalf of [all] his imperial colleagues.”

Maximinus might well have received the Edict only after Galerius himself had died.  Nevertheless, he duly promulgated it.  Thus, Eusebius reluctantly conceded:

  1. “[Galerius’] Edict of recantation, ... was posted in all parts of Asia and in the adjoining provinces.  After this had been done, Maximinus, ... being by no means satisfied  with its contents, instead of sending [it] to the governors under him, gave them [only] verbal commands to relax the war against us.  For, since he could not in any other way oppose the decision of his superiors by keeping the law that had been already issued secret, ... he gave an unwritten order to his governors that they should relax the persecution against us.  They communicated the command to each other in writing.  Sabinus, at least, who was [Maximinus’ Praetorian Prefect], communicated the will of the Emperor to the provincial governors in a Latin epistle [which Eusebius then translated into Greek]” (‘Historia Ecclesiastica’, 9:1: 1-3).

The Christians were clearly exhilarated:

  1. “... those who a little while before had been driven in bonds from their native countries under a most cruel sentence, returning with bright and joyful  faces to their own firesides; so that even those that had formerly thirsted for our blood, when they saw the unexpected wonder, congratulated us on what had taken place” (‘Historia Ecclesiastica’, 9:1:11).

However, it seems that Maximinus did not issue the supplementary letter mentioned in the Edict.  Thus, he did not put in place, the administrative framework that was needed to facilitate the restoration of the property that had been confiscated from the Church during the previous years of persecution.

Licinius’ Response to the Edict

Licinius probably also promulgated the  Edict as soon as it was released.  As Torben Christensen (referenced below, at p 187) pointed out:

  1. “... we have no reliable evidence that Licinius persecuted Christians when he was given Pannonia as Augustus: those few accounts of martyrs that claim to originate from there are of such a dubious quality that they cannot be used as a basis [to claim otherwise].  On the other hand, this does not mean that Licinius had started to pursue friendly policies towards the Christians.  He has not gone down in history  ... as a persecutor of Christians probably [because] the Christians formed such a small minority in Pannonia that it was easy for them to escape the attention of the authorities”.

However, like Maximinus, he does not seem to have facilitated the restoration of confiscated Christian property.  Thus, according to Timothy Barnes (referenced below, 2011, p 95):

  1. “When [Constantine and Licinius] met in Milan in February 313 AD [after Constantine’s defeat of Maxentius, their negotiations] ... required  only one legal innovation relating to Christians: it was that Licinius should extend to the territories [then] under his control the restitution of confiscated Christian property, which Constantine and Maxentius [below] had previously granted [in their respective territories] before 312 AD ... Hence, either while he was still in Milan or shortly after [his departure], Licinius must have issued legislation restoring  confiscated Christian property in the Balkans and Greece, even though this happens not to be explicitly attested in our surviving sources”.

When (as discussed in page ???) Licinius defeated Maximinus a few months later, he extended this legislation to cover the rest of the Empire.

Constantine’s Response to the Edict

As noted in the page on Constantine's Accession (306 AD), Lactantius claimed that, immediately on his acclamation by his father’s army, Constantine had formally ended the persecution of Christians

  1. “Constantine Augustus, having assumed the government, made it his first care to restore the Christians to the exercise of their worship and to their God; and so began his administration by reinstating the holy religion” ((‘De Mortibus Persecutorum’, 24:9).

However, as Simon Corcoran (referenced below, 1996, at p 185, 21a) observed:

  1. “This may not have entailed much action, since the mild attitude of Constantius meant that the persecution had had little effect in his provinces, except perhaps in Spain, which he only took over in 305 AD from Maximian”.

Thus, it is unlikely that Constantine needed to do anything in order to give effect to Galerius’ Edict in the territories that he controlled.

Maxentius’ Response to the Edict 

Maxentius had ended the persecution of Christians in his territories early in his reign (as described in the page on Maxentius in Rome: (308-11 AD)).  That page also described the subsequent unrest within the Church in Rome, which led to a papal vacancy that began with the exile of Pope Eusebius, in 308 AD and ended with the election of Pope Miltiades on 2nd July 311 AD.

At this point, Maxentius facilitated the return to the Church in Rome of property that had been confiscated during the period of persecution that had occurred before his coupThis is known from St Augustine’s defence of the posthumous memory of Miltiades, which was preserved in his Breviculus collationis cum Donatistis’ (III:34) of ca. 411 AD.  Here, St Augustine reminded Miltiades’ Donatist critics that, far from betraying the Church,  he (Miltiades) had obtained from Maxentius and his Praetorian Prefect letters to the Urban Prefect that ordered him to put the into effect measure need for the restoration.  Miltiades had duly despatched two deacons to the Urban Prefect, armed with the letters, and the restoration had been duly made.

Given the timing, it seems likely that Maxentius was responding to the spirit of Galerius’ Edict and supplementary letter.  In addition, he might have felt it expedient to secure good relations with Miltiades and his followers by giving them the same rights as those enjoyed by the Christians in Constantine’s territories.  However, in fairness to Maxentius, it is also entirely possible that the  internal problems of Church in Rome in the preceding period might well have precluded an earlier restitution.

Maximinus’ Subsequent Religious Policy

Renewed Persecution of Christians (late 311 - 312 AD)

Unfortunately, the Christians’ exhilaration at the apparent end of persecution (above) was premature.  As Eusebius noted:

  1. “But [Maximinus] ... could no longer bear this; and indeed he did not permit matters to go on in this way quite six months.  Devising all possible means of destroying the peace, he first attempted to restrain us ... from meeting in the cemeteries [presumably to suppress the public veneration of recent martyrs].  Then, through the agency of some wicked men, he sent an embassy to himself against us, inciting the citizens of Antioch to ask from him, as a very great favour, that he would by no means permit any of the Christians to dwell in their country; and others [i.e. citizens from other cities] were secretly induced to do the same thing” (‘Historia Ecclesiastica’, 9:2: 1-2).

Eusebius published a translation of a letter that Maximinus was forced (or found it expedient) to send to his Praetorian Prefect, Sabinus almost immediately after Constantine’s victory over Maxentius at the Milvian Bridge in October 312 AD, which ended the persecution in the east.  The letter is discussed in page ???.  In it, Maximinus justified (in retrospect) this renewed persecution:

  1. ... when I went last year [i.e. in 311 AD] to Nicomedia ...., citizens of the same city came to me with the images of the gods, earnestly entreating that [Christians] should by no means be permitted to dwell in their country.  But when I learned that many [Christians] dwelt in those regions, I replied that I gladly thanked them for their request, but that I perceived that it was not proffered by all, and that if, therefore, there were any that persevered in [Christianity], each one had the privilege of doing as he pleased ... Nevertheless, I  [subsequently] considered it necessary to give a friendly answer to the inhabitants of Nicomedia and to the other cities which had so earnestly presented to me the same petition, namely, that no Christians should dwell in their cities.  [I granted their petitions] because:

  2. -this same course had been pursued by all the ancient Emperors; and

  3. -it was pleasing to the gods ... (‘Historia Ecclesiastica’, 9: 9: 17-19).

Thus, as Maximinus acknowledged, although he (allegedly) denied an anti-Christian petition from the pagans of Nicomedia in 311 AD, he subsequently granted a string of similar supplications that issued from both provinces and individual cities (presumably starting with Antioch, mentioned by Eusebius, above).  These supplications and the affirmative imperial replies were duly publicised by inscription.  Thus, Eusebius reproduced what he described as a:

  1. “.. copy of a translation of the rescript of Maximinus in answer to the memorials against us, taken from the pillar in Tyre” (‘Historia Ecclesiastica’, 9:7:3, followed by the translation). 

This content is confirmed in two of these inscriptions that fortunately survive:

  1. an inscription from Arykanda (an ancient Lycian city in Turkey) contains both: 

  2. the petition (in Greek) from the province of Lycia and Pamphylia, which requested that:

  3. “... all the wickedness of the hateful practice of the atheists [i.e. Christians] be forbidden and prohibited, and ... injunctions  ... given for all to devote themselves steadfastly to the worship of the [traditional] gods, of the same family as you [Maximinus] ...”; and

  4. a fragment of the corresponding rescript (in Latin: (CIL III 12132); and

  5. an inscription (AE 1988, 1046) from Colbasa (modern Kusbaba in Turkey, on the road from Antalya to Burdur), published by Stephen Mitchell (referenced below), which preserves only the standard imperial rescript:

  6. “[Beginning missing] ... And let those rejoice especially who have been freed from those blind and deviant obscurities [of Christianity] and have returned to upright and good thinking.  ... But those who have persisted in the abominable superstition are to be separated and removed from your city and territory, as you request ... Moreover, so that you may know how much your petition has been welcome to us, ... we grant, ... that you request whatever benefaction you wish ..., for you will surely obtain the same without any delay, ... granted to your city for all time  ... Given in the 2nd consulship of the Emperors Constantine and Licinius [312 AD], on [6th April], at Sardis [the present day village of Sart, in Turkey, between Ankara and İzmir] to the people of Colbasa”. 

(These translations are from  this web page from the University of Arizona, which reproduces part of Lewis and Reinhold, referenced below.)

Stephen Mitchell (referenced below, at p 119) suggested that Maximinus had undertaken a major anti-Christian campaign that began in late 311 AD.  It led to the martyrdom of a number of prominent Christians, including:

  1. Peter, Bishop of Alexandria (26th November 311 AD;

  2. Lucian, a prominent priest from Antioch (7th January 312 AD); and

  3. Methodius of Bishop of  Olympus (20th June 312 AD).

The campaign entailed a substantial imperial progress, during  which he had stayed at Sardis (evidenced by the inscription above) precisely because it was a convenient place in which he might receive an orchestrated series of anti-Christian petitions.  According to Oliver Nicholson (referenced below, at p 4 and note 17), an inscription (‘Sylloge inscriplionum graecarum’: 900) commemorated:

  1. “... a month-long festival attended by [Maximinus] at Stratonicea in Caria, probably in 312 AD”.

Stephen Mitchell (as above) also referred to this inscription, pointing out that Stratonicea was the location of two important extramural sanctuaries: to Hekate at Lagina; and to Zeus at Panamara. 

Reorganisation of the Pagan Hierarchy

According to Lactantius, during this phase of persecution:

  1. “... [Maximinus] introduced a new mode of government in things respecting religion: for each city, he created a high priest (sacerdotes maximos), chosen from among the persons of most distinction.  The office of those men was to make daily sacrifices to all their gods, and, with the aid of the former priests, to prevent the Christians from erecting churches, or from worshipping God either publicly or in private; and he authorised them to compel the Christians to sacrifice to idols, and, on their refusal, to bring them before the civil magistrate.  And, as if this had not been enough, in every province he established superintendent priests (pontifices superponeret) chosen from men of even higher rank; and he commanded that all those priests newly instituted should appear in white habits, that being the most honourable distinction of dress” (‘De Mortibus Persecutorum’, 36: 4-5).

Eusebius, who had lived with this reform, gave a similar account:

  1. “[Maximinus]  ordered temples to be erected in every city, and the sacred groves, which had been destroyed through passage of time, to be speedily restored. He appointed [pagan] priests in every place and city; and he set over them in every province, as high priest, some political official who had especially distinguished himself in every kind of service, giving him a band of soldiers and a bodyguard” (‘Historia Ecclesiastica’, 8:14:9).

  2. “Priests for the images were then appointed in the cities and, besides them, high priests, by Maximinus himself.   The latter were taken from among those who were most distinguished in public life and had gained celebrity in all the offices which they had filled; and who were imbued, moreover, with great zeal for the service of those whom they worshipped.  Indeed, the extraordinary superstition of [Maximinus] ... led all his subjects, both rulers and private citizens, for the sake of gratifying him, to do everything against [the Christians], supposing that they could best show their gratitude to him for the benefits which they had received from him, by plotting murder against us and exhibiting toward us many new signs of malignity” (‘Historia Ecclesiastica’, 9:4: 2-3).

Oliver Nicholson (referenced below, at p 7-8) characterised Maximinus’ new priesthood as follows:

  1. Their power to arrest Christians implies that they had soldiers under their personal command ... Further, they were to swagger around, says Lactantius, wearing the white chlamys [cloak]... In the later Roman Empire [this style of dress] came to be the distinctive dress of the public man.  ... Maximinus' priests were ... public men, dressed in the official fashion.  A particular sort of public man, though: there appears to be no reference earlier than Maximinus to the white chlamys as the official dress of pagan priests.  ... In giving priests the right to the white chlamys, as well as in providing them with armed guards, Maximinus associated them with the imperial service, for which it was the official dress.  This does not imply that a different sort of man was being appointed to the priesthood:  ... It indicates rather the assimilation of the priesthood into the contemporary style and pattern of power”.

Maximinus’ Motivation

Torben Christensen (referenced below, at p 187) suggested that the speed with which the Christians were able to re-establish a vibrant presence after the implementation of Galerius’ Edict of Toleration:

  1. “... probably took Maximinus entirely by surprise.... He still regarded [the Church] as a harmful foreign body that must be destroyed for the sake of the Roman Empire and its people.  Thus, its prosperity could only serve to quicken his deliberations on the best ways to destroy Christianity. ... [However], ways had to be found of restricting the growth of the Church ... without violating the decrees of the Sabinus’ circular [which had previously publicised the Edict]”.

This perhaps explains why Maximinus encouraged prominent pagans to submit anti-Christian requests on behalf of their provinces or cities, rather than simply legislating directly.

However, it is unlikely that Maximinus would have revived the persecution of Christians had he not perceived that this would bring him political advantages.  He presumably believed that positioning himself as the concerned patron of the powerful pagan élite would enhance the stability of his régime.  In other words, the Christians were probably useful victims in a programme that was designed to bolster Maximinus’ political position.

A similar consideration should probably apply to Maximinus’ reorganisation of the pagan religious hierarchy and his other measures that were clearly intended to reinvigorate pagan religious practice.  Of course, Christian writers like Lactantius and Eusebius associated these reforms with the machinery that Maximinus used to persecute them.  However, this might not have been Maximinus’ central motivation for the reform: for example, Oliver Nicholson (referenced below, at p 9) has suggested a motive of administrative tidiness:

  1. “It is not impossible that one of Maximinus' motive [for the reform] was to introduce a system of priesthoods that he considered better adapted to the administrative structure devised by Diocletian”.

On this model, the pontifices superponeret might have presided over the provincial assemblies: hence the perhaps over-confident assertion by Lawlor and Oulton (referenced below, at ii. 29, cited by Nicholson, at p 5) that Maximinus’ new priests

  1. “ ... were no doubt the presidents of the provincial diets [i.e. assemblies].”

Torben Christensen (referenced below, at p 225) preferred a model in which the two priesthoods were distinct, albeit that the high priests who presided over the provincial assemblies had provided the model for those introduced by Maximinus,:

  1. It only required an extension of [the functions of the high priests who presided over the provincial assemblies] to include the worship of all the gods of the Roman Empire, not just the Imperial cult”.

Taken together, Maximinus’ measures to marginalise Christians and to bolster traditional religion must have strengthened the political and religious élite in the provinces and ensured its continuing loyalty to ‘their Augustus’.

Political Alliances

Lactantius described the web of intrigue that he believed governed the relationships between the four contenders for power following Galerius’ death:

  1. “When [Maximinus] heard that the sister of Constantine was betrothed to Licinius, he apprehended that the two [other] Augusti ... meant to league against him; so he privily sent ambassadors to Rome, desiring a friendly alliance with Maxentius ...  The ambassadors were received courteously, friendship established, and in token of it the effigies of Maxentius and [Maximinus] were placed together in public view.  Maxentius willingly embraced this, as if it had been an aid from heaven; for he had already declared war against Constantine, as if to revenge the death of his father Maximian” (‘De Mortibus Persecutorum’, 43: 3-4).

Constantine and Licinius

The first thing to establish  in any analysis of this passage is the date at which Constantine promised his half-sister, Constantia, to Licinius, thereby cementing an alliance between them.  Unfortunately, the date is undocumented.  However, Torben Christensen (referenced below, at p 246) pointed out that:

  1. “From the entire context in Lactantius, it appears that [it] took place after Maximinus and Licinius had closed their pact of friendship [in or before June 311 AD] and at the latest when war broke out between Constantine and Maxentius, most [probably] in the autumn of 311 AD”.

Timothy Barnes (referenced below, 1981, at p 41 and p 62) also placed in in 311 AD.

A number of scholars have suggested what this putative alliance might have involved.  For example:

  1. David Potter (referenced below, 2013, at p 135) suggested that this marked the start of an alliance between Constantine and Licinius:

  2. “The terms, insofar as they can be reconstructed from later events, seem to have involved:

  3. -some sort of military demonstration by Licinius that would tie down some of Maxentius’ forces in northeastern Italy; followed by

  4. -a pledge of support from Constantine during what would be Licinius’ subsequent war against Maximinus”.

  5. Mats Cullhed, referenced below, at p 83) was similarly of the view that:

  6. “[An] alliance was sealed by the betrothal of Licinius to Constantine’s [half-]sister .... and it seems probable that the two Emperors, from the outset, agreed on a joint policy for the future division of the Empire between them, Constantine taking the western part and Licinius the eastern.  When Constantine invaded Italy in 312 AD, he occupied territory that Licinius had claimed for the preceding four years.  Yet this brought about no hostile reaction from Licinius, and their meeting at Milan in February 313 AD [during which the betrothal became a marriage] was held without any preliminary movements on either side.”

Such an agreement might well explain why:

  1. Constantine’s invasion of Italy in late 311 AD or early 312 AD found Maxentius’ army configured to address an attack from Licinius (as described on the page on Maxentius in Rome: (311-2 AD)); and

  2. after Constantine’s defeat of Maxentius, Licinius was able to employ his army in the defeat of Maximinus (as described on the page ???) without fear of a possible attack from the rear.

Note that the existence of this alliance is not unanimously accepted.  For example, Torben Christensen (referenced below, at p 259) argued that:

  1. “If [Constantine and Licinius] had been allies, Licinius’ inactivity [when Constantine invaded Italy] is quite mysterious.  A good strategy would, after all, have required Licinius to attack Maxentius’ army ... Then the allies could have joined forces and destroyed [Maxentius’ army] in a two-pronged manoeuvre and then marched quickly on Rome before Maxentius could establish any lines of defence.  None of this happened!”

It seems to me that this argument, on its own, is inconclusive:

  1. Licinius had made no significant move against Maxentius since his accession to the imperial college in 308 AD, probably because he feared defeat (the fate that had befallen Severus and then Galerius in 307 AD).

  2. Even had Licinius defeated Maxentius in 312 AD and retrieved the territory that was rightfully his, he would have still found himself uncomfortably wedged between Constantine and Maximinus. 

Thus, it is not difficult to imagine why Licinius might have preferred to keep his army unscathed for his subsequent expansion into Maximinus’ territory to the east.

Maximinus and Maximinus

Scholarly opinion is more divided in the case of the existence of an alliance between Maximinus and Maxentius.  Thus for example:

  1. Timothy Barnes (referenced below, 1981, at p 45) accepted Lactantius’ claim that this alliance had indeed existed:

  2. “[After Constantine’s defeat of Maxentius in 312 AD], there would [inevitably] soon be war in the east between Licinius and Maximinus, whose alliance with the now-dead Maxentius had clearly been directed against Licinius”.

  3. Mats Cullhed, referenced below, at p 84) was of a similar view, albeit that he doubted Lactantius’ statement that the alliance had been openly commemorated in Rome:

  4. “[An] alliance between Maximinus and Maxentius would have served a definite purpose in the context of 311-2 AD [that of neutralising thethreat that Licinius posed for Maxentius and Maximinus individually] and, if kept secret, would still have allowed Maximinus to pose as the leading Tetrarch.”

  5. However, Torben Christensen (referenced below, at p 246) asserted that:

  6. “Our sources contain no material that supports the assumption ... of [such an alliance]s.  After Galerius’ death, Maxentius had  attempted to gain recognition as a legitimate Emperor [by, for example, accepting Galerius’ appointed consuls for 311 AD until September of that year, but] was rejected ... by Maximinus and his two fellow Emperors.  [Maxentius] reacted by:

  7. -rejecting Maximinus’ Consular appointments and choosing himself as Consul. [which constituted] his official proclamation of his breach with the triarchy headed by Maximinus; and

  8. -[continuing] to strike coins in honour of [the divi] Maximianus, Galerius and Constantius, [thereby demonstrating] that he still regarded himself as sole legitimate representative of the Jovian-Herculean imperial family.

  9. These facts show clearly and directly that no rapprochement had occurred between Maximinus and Maxentius”

I have to say that I find Christensen’s arguments compelling.  Indeed it is possible to refine his arguments in relation to Maxentius’ Consular designations and his consecration coins, drawing on details presented more fully in the page on Maxentius in Rome: (311-2 AD).

Maxentius’ Consular designations

Maxentius had served as Consul, either alone or with his son Romulus, in every year from the time of the exile of his father (April 308 AD) until and including 310 AD.  However, this policy changed in 311 AD, when he initially refrained from making alternative Consular designations to those of Galerius, presumably in the hope of some accommodation with him in the new political climate that had followed his reconstitution of the imperial college. 

Maxentius continued the policy of not making alternative Consular designations for a short period after Galerius’ death, when Maximinus become to sole Consul.  However, as the so-called Chronograph’ of 354 AD recorded that

ex mense Septembro [311 AD] factum est Rufino et [Volusiano]

Thus, in September 311 AD, Maxentius designated two Senators as Consuls.  He then reverted to his traditional policy: he designated himself as sole Consul for 312 AD, ignoring Maximinus’ designations of Constantine and Licinius.  In view of this, we cane date Maxentius’ breach with Maximinus to September 311 AD.

Maxentius’ Consecration Coins of 311 AD

Sabine MacCormack (referenced below, at p 112) described the minting of this series of coins as:

  1. “... the perfect numismatic example ...  of how the idea of consecratio could be used as a propaganda weapon, as a claim for legitimacy”.

The series included coins that proclaimed Maxentius as:

  1. IMP MAXENTIUS DIVO MAXIMIANO PATRI (to the divine Maximian, father of the Emperor Maxentius) - RIC VI: Rome 243, 244 and 251; and Ostia 25 and 26;

  2. IMP MAXENTIUS DIVO MAXIMIANO SOCERO (to the divine Galerius, father-in-law of the Emperor Maxentius) - RIC VI: Rome 247, 248, 254 and 255; and Ostia 30 and 31;

  3. IMP MAXENTIUS DIVO CONSTANTIO COGN (to the divine Constantius, kinsman of the Emperor Maxentius: cognatus, as here, usually meant blood relative: other coins from Ostia used the more accurate adfinis, relative by marriage) - RIC VI: Rome 245 and 252; and Ostia 27, 28 and 29; and

  4. IMP MAXENTIUS DIVO ROMULO N V FILIO (to the divine and most noble Romulus, son of the Emperor Maxentius)) - RIC VI: Rome 249 and 256; and Ostia 32 and 33.

I hypothesised in the page on Maxentius in Rome: (311-2 AD) that this series was associated with three formal consecration processes that Maxentius had staged in Rome with the approval of the Senate, for: Galerius; Maximian; and (somewhat belatedly) Constantius.  I further hypothesised that two other coins in this series had been issued following the second of these consecrations, with the obverse legends: 

  1. DIVO MAXIMIANO SEN  AUG (to the divine Maximian, senior Augustus) - RIC VI: Rome 250 and Ostia 24; and

  2. DIVO MAXIMIANO IUN  AUG (to the divine Galerius, junior Augustus) - RIC VI Rome, 246 and 253.

Thus Maxentius stressed that his father ‘outranked’ Maximinus’ father by adoption, so his was the superior the superior claim to legitimacy. 


The key point here is that Maxentius had waited:

  1. almost a year after the death of his father before consecrating him; and

  2. about four months after Maximinus succeeded Galerius before rejecting Maximinus’ designation as Consul.

Both of these acts of subversion occurred in or about September 311 AD, and both must surely have been triggered by Maxentius’ realisation that he would never be accepted into the ‘legitimate’ imperial college.

This leads to the conclusion that any understanding between Maximinus and Maxentius (if indeed it existed) had most probably ceased by September 311 AD.  Even if it had continued in secret (and this seems highly unlikely), it had no practical effect whatsoever: as Lactantius recorded, Maximinus remained resolutely in the east until early 313 AD, following Licinius marriage to Constantia:

  1. “When [Maximinus] understood that [Constantine and Licinius]were busied in solemnising the nuptials, he moved out of Syria in the depth of a severe winter  [to invade the Balkans] ....” (‘De Mortibus Persecutorum’, 45:1).

Valeria Galeria and Diocletian

Galerius for Valeria Augusta: RIC VI Serdica 41

As noted above, Valeria Galeria and Candidianus had chosen to move to Maximinus’ territory after the death of Galerius.  Unfortunately, at least according to Lactantius, things did not work out as well there as Valeria had expected:

  1. “ ... but the wicked creature [Maximinus] became instantly inflamed with a passion for her.  [While] Valeria was still in mourning ... he sent a message to her, proposing marriage and offering, on her compliance, to put away his wife.  She frankly returned an answer such as she alone could dare to do:

  2. -first, that she would not think of marriage while she was in [widow’s] weeds, and while the ashes of Galerius, her husband and, by adoption, the father of [Maximinus], were yet warm;

  3. -next, that he acted impiously in proposing to divorce a faithful wife to make room for another, whom in her turn he would also cast off; and,

  4. -lastly, that it was indecent, unexampled, and unlawful for a woman of her title and dignity to engage a second time in wedlock. 

  5. This bold answer having been reported to [Maximinus], presently his desires changed into rage and furious resentment.  He pronounced sentence of forfeiture against the princess, seized her goods, removed her attendants, tortured her eunuchs to death, and banished her and her mother Prisca: but he appointed no particular place for her residence while in banishment; and hence he insultingly expelled her from every abode that she took in the course of her wanderings; and, to complete all, he condemned the ladies who enjoyed most of her friendship and confidence to die on a false accusation of adultery” (‘De Mortibus Persecutorum’, 39: 3-5).

Lactantius’ assertion that Maximinus banished both Varleria Galeria and her mother, Valeria Prisca seems odd: he goes on to say that Diocletian was still alive at this point, in which case, one would have thought that Valeria Prisca would still have been with him at their palace at Split.  Lactantius continued:

  1. “But the Empress [Valeria Galeria], an exile in some desert region of Syria, secretly informed her father, Diocletian, of the calamity that had befallen her.  He despatched messengers to [Maximinus], requesting that his daughter might be sent to him.  He could not prevail.  Again and again he entreated; yet she was not sent.  At length he employed a relation of his, a military man high in power and authority, to implore [Maximinus] by the remembrance of past favours.  This messenger, equally unsuccessful in his negotiation as the others, reported to Diocletian that his prayers were vain (‘De Mortibus Persecutorum’, 41).

This reinforces the suggestion that Valeria Prisca did not, at least initially, share her daughter’s exile: surely, had she done so, Diocletian would have sought her return as well.

A sentence later in Lactantius’ account might explain Maximinus’ cruel treatment of Valeria Galeria:

  1. “Long before [their executions by Licinius in 313 AD), Candidianus and Severianus, apprehending evil from Licinius, had chosen to remain with [Maximinus]; while Valeria [had] favoured Licinius, and was willing to bestow on him that which she had denied to [Maximinus], all rights accruing to her as the widow of Galerius” (‘De Mortibus Persecutorum’, 50:5).

There is no indication as to the timing of Valeria’s change of heart in relation to Licinius, but this possibly explains why Maximinus refused to allow her to leave his territory for that of Licinius, even in the face of the pleas of Diocletian.

Constantine’s Invasion of Italy (312 AD)

In late 311 or early 312 AD, probably after the negotiation of his alliance with Licinius (above), Constantine crossed the Alps and swept across northern Italy.  He established a base at Milan, and then inflicted a decisive defeat on Maxentius’ army at Verona.  From there, he was able to march unopposed along Via Flaminia to Rome.  Maxentius marched out to meet him on 28th October 312 AD, to suffer defeat and death.  (The details of this campaign are in the page on Constantine's Invasion of Italy (312 AD)).

According to Eusebius:

  1. “Immediately [after Constantine’s victory], all the members of the Senate and the other most celebrated men, with the whole Roman people ... received [Constantine] as their deliverer, their saviour, and their benefactor ....” (Historia Ecclesiastica” 9:9:9-11). 

A panegyric (Panegyric XII, translated into English in Nixon and Rodgers, referenced below) that was delivered in Trier in 313 AD touched on Constantine’s largesse towards the Senate:

  1. “.... you [Constantine] restored to the Senate its former authority, refrained from boasting of the salvation that [its members] had received through you, and promised that its memory would rest eternally in your breast” (20:1).

In return, according to Lactantius:

  1. “This destructive war being ended, Constantine was acknowledged as Emperor, with great rejoicings, by the Senate and people of Rome.  ... The Senate decreed to Constantine, by reason of his virtue, the title of ‘primi nominis’ ...” (‘De Mortibus Persecutorum’, 44: 10).

This was a huge blow to Maximinus: Constantine had used the authority of the Senate to reinforce his claim to be at the head of the imperial college.  Lactantius imagined Maximinus’ reaction to Constantine’s assumption of this title:

  1. “... which [Maximinus] had always arrogated to himself.  [Maximinus], when he heard that Constantine was victorious and Rome freed, expressed as much sorrow as if he himself had been vanquished; but afterwards, when he heard of the decree of the Senate, he became outraged, avowing enmity towards Constantine and making his title of ‘imperatorem maximum ’ a theme of abuse and raillery” (‘De Mortibus Persecutorum’, 44: 10-12).

Immediately after his designation by the Senate, Constantine (as he was now entitled to do) appointed Consuls for the year 313 AD.  He chose himself and Maximinus.  In accepting this designation, Maximinus seems to have acknowledged that he had been outmaneuvered.

Read more:

‘RIC’ - see Sutherland (1967) below

S. Corcoran, "The Augusti and Caesars Say’: Imperial Communication in a Collegiate Monarchy”, in

  1. L. Reinfandt, and S. Tost, (Eds.), “Official Epistolography and the Language(s) of Power. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference of the NFN Imperium and Officium” (2015)  Vienna, pp 219-36

D. Potter, “Constantine the Emperor”, (2013) Oxford

I. Sellars, “The Monetary System of the Romans: A Description of the Roman Coinage from Early Times to the Reform of Anastasius”, (2013) Google Books

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

S. Corcoran, “Grappling with the Hydra: Co-ordination and Conflict in the Management of Tetrarchic Succession”, in

  1. G. Bonamente et al. (Eds), “Costantino Prima e Dopo Costantino”, (2012) Bari, pp. 3-15

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

G. Clarke, “Third Century Christianity” in:

  1. A. Bowman et al. (Eds), “Cambridge Ancient History,Volume 12: The Crisis of Empire, 193-337 AD”, (2005, 2nd edition) pp. 589-671

M. Cullhed, “Conservator Urbis Suae: Studies in the Politics and Propaganda of the Emperor Maxentius” (1994) Stockholm

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

O. Nicholson, “The ‘Pagan Churches’ of Maximinus Daia and Julian the Apostate”, Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 45 :1 (1994) 1-10

  1. (Link to this article:

N. Lewis and M. Reinhold (Eds.), “Roman Civilization Selected Readings, Vol II: The Empire” (1990) Columbia

S. Mitchell, “Maximinus and the Christians in AD 312: A New Latin Inscription”, Journal of Roman Studies, 78 (1988), 105–24.

  1. (Link to this article in this page of Constantinethe

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

T. Barnes, “Constantine and Eusebius”, (1981) Harvard

S. MacCormack, “Art and Ceremony in Late Antiquity”, (1981) Berkeley

T. Christensen, “C. Galerius Valerius Maximinus: Studies in the Politics and Religion of the Roman Empire: 305-13 AD”, (1974) Festskrift udgivet af Københavns Universitet (available on-line in English translation)

C. Sutherland, “Roman Imperial Coinage: Volume VI: From Diocletian’s Reform to the Death of Maximinus (294-313 AD)”, (1967, reprinted 1973) London

H. Lawlor and J. Oulton, “Eusebius, Church History”, (1927-8) London

Maximinus, Augustus Maximus (311-2 AD)    

  1. Diocletian (died 311 AD ?)

  2. Maxentius in Rome: (311-2 AD)     Maxentius' Consecration Coins (311 AD) 

  3. Maxentius' Rotunda on the Sacra Via      Maxentius and the Gens Valeria  

  4. Constantine's Invasion of Italy (312 AD)  

  5. Battle of the Milvian Bridge (312 AD)

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

Return to the History Index