A Lesson in History - The Battle of Milvian Bridge (Long) (1229 hits)
Category: PoliticsRating: 0.75 on 4 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Tastycat (View user info) at 2005-03-23 09:09:22 EST
On October 28, 312 CE the fate of the Western world was decided between two great Roman generals in The Battle of Milvian Bridge. When Constantine the Great marched on the city of Rome his army had little chance of victory against the army of Maxentius, the general in control of the city and proclaimed Augustus of the Western Empire. Yet, somehow, Constantine drove back Maxentius' army from where they had met in the village Saxa Rubra across the Tiber River from Rome, and decimated them during the retreat across the Milvian Bridge. Constantine won this battle not on strength of numbers, and not even of better training, necessarily, but through a fervor induced by a vision of God, and the fear that this brought about in his enemies.
Milvian Bridge was a stone bridge (a successor of which stands today at the same site, by the Italian name Ponte Milvio or sometimes Ponte Molle) which carries the Via Flaminia road across the Tiber River into Rome. It is uncertain who built the bridge, but it is sometimes noted that the original (wooden) bridge was built about 220 BCE; stone bridge built in 109 BCE0, presumably as the traffic increased. Holding it was crucial if Maxentius was to keep his rival out of Rome, where the Senate would surely favor whoever held the city1. Maxentius knew this and had the bridge destroyed, it is not hard to keep your enemies from crossing a bridge if the bridge does not exist.
Some sources state that Constantine had roughly 50000 men on hand, while Maxentius had around 750002, but other sources state four-to-one3, others go as high as ten-to-one4, regardless of which numbers are correct, it is obvious that Constantine was greatly outnumbered. So what then allowed Constantine to win the Battle of Milvian Bridge?
On the evening of October 27, with the armies preparing for battle, Constantine reportedly had a vision as he looked toward the setting sun5; although Eusebius records the event as occurring when Maxentius' army was still in Northern Italy6. At any rate, a cross appeared emblazoned on the sun, and maybe the Greek letters XP ("Chi-Rho", the first two letters of "Christ" - χρ) intertwined with it; and Constantine either saw or heard the Greek phrase "Εν Τουτω Νικα", often rendered in Latin as "In Hoc Signo Vinces" — "Under this sign, you will conquer." Constantine, who was a pagan at the time, is said to have put the symbol (the labarum - ☧) on his solders' shields7.
This symbol, created entirely anew by Constantine, had both pagan and Christian meaning, and held sway for both offensive and defensive armies.
The Christian meaning of the symbol is obvious, in that it represents Christ, being the first two letters of his name. The pagan meaning is a little bit more obscure; the pagans, as a religion believing in the magical totems, omens, and forces, would be disturbed by this new symbol, if not outright frightened, because they would assume it to be magical or arcane, and be wary of it.
The army on the offensive would see the symbol as a divine sign, sent to their leader (or, in some accounts, their entire army8) that would provide protection and strength to them and help them win the battle. This added provision to their morale would increase their confidence, and a large amount of success in hand-to-hand fighting is the knowledge and confidence of a victory. An army on the defensive would see the symbol and be frightened because they would be ignorant of its meaning, and without knowing what the meaning of the symbol the army would be unable to anticipate its implications. Not only that, but they would see Constantine's army approaching them with a fanatical fervor of, for lack of a better term, biblical proportions - and that would definitely be something to scared of if the labarum itself did not give you enough cause to be frightened.
Inside Rome, however, the ancient Sibylline Books told Maxentius that on that particular day, the enemy of Rome would die. Assuming that the enemy of Rome was Constantine, and not himself, Maxentius ¬took his troops across the Tiber River, on a wooden pontoon-like bridge built to replace the Milvian Bridge that he had destroyed, to the village of Saxa Rubra ("Red Rock"), based on a scout's report, to Battle Constantine with the Tiber River at his back9.
However, Maxentius' scout was a little slow and by the time Maxentius and his army reached Saxa Rubra Constantine and his army had departed - in order to flank Maxentius' army and hem them in against the river and themselves10. This was to be the deciding point in the battle: front lines pitted against each other in densely populated conditions, the sheer want of the win separating the winners from the losers. With Constantine's army pressing Maxentius' against the shores of the river they were unable to use their (by any account) larger numbers to overpower Constantine's men and were either fighting, or standing, or trying to not fall into the swollen Tiber River.
Maxentius saw the battle was not going his way and ordered a retreat across his makeshift pontoon bridge, which he would dismantle as his army crossed and thereby strand Constantine and his army on the far side of the river from Rome. Unfortunately for him, the bridge collapsed under the weight of him and his forces and drowned him and a large portion of his army; the rest of his army was pinned between the shore of the Tiber River and Constantine's army, and subsequently surrendered.
That is the story in the history books, here comes the interesting part. No one is absolutely sure of what happened when Constantine saw the sign, and no one is certain of what really happened during the battle. There are at least four different accounts of how the battle went, and at least two reliable sources of what happened when Constantine saw the sign. Those facts are relevant only if you are studying the politics and strategy of war. However, this paper is not a study of the politics and strategy of war, this paper is a study of the causality in war, that is, the processes by which battles are won and the reasons why battle strategies work.
There are two main parts of wartime causality, first there are the soldiers, then there are the battle commanders.
In this battle, the soldiers of each respective army were equal in almost every quality, except for one aspect - numbers. Which, if comparison is proof, strength via numbers has never been a reliable source of confidence about the outcome of a battle, especially when a bridge is involved as a means of retreat, as was shown in the Battle of Brice's Crossroads in the American Civil War. This battle pitted a 3,200-man Confederate contingent against an 8,500-strong Union force. The battle ended in a rout of the Union forces across 6 counties; this was partially due to the Union army being bottle-necked at the bridge across the Tishomingo River11.
The caliber of the commander of an army will have great implications on the outcome of a battle, and indeed, the choices that the leader makes will ultimately set the stage for a campaign of war. In World War II, Gen. George Patton sent his Third Army to save the city of Bastogne and the soldiers trapped in it from the impending Nazi threat. Other generals asked by Allied Supreme Commander Dwight Eisenhower to help save Bastogne told him that is couldn't be done, and yet Gen. Patton accomplished it. He accomplished this feat by telling his men that it could be done, and by showing them exactly what needed to be done for it to work. Gen. Patton had a vision of the plan working, passed that vision on to his men, and the soldiers in his command, in turn, turned that vision into reality12. Constantine had a vision, and he passed that on to the troops, and they made the mystical protection of the labarum come to life. Constantine rode into battle with his cavalry, and showed his courage, and how to fight, and his fervor; his men fought with the same courage, the same skill, and the same fervor. Constantine fought with a semi-religious zeal and fury of "the gods"/"God" based on his vision, and the soldiers in his army followed suit.
Maxentius, on the other hand, was not in the front ranks of his army, and was not inspiring his army to fight against Constantine's. We can see this by the fact that Maxentius drowned in the river, he must have been near or at the back of his troops, as the bridge collapsed before letting very many soldiers in Maxentius' army, if any, across the Tiber. Maxentius' front lines would have been scared, not only of the new mystical labarum, but of the fury with which they were being attacked, and without a leader to tell them how to respond more so than their instinctual fight or flight mechanism they would have been very confused.
A third factor worth looking at in this case is the factor of motivation. This is a complex matter, but it can be broken down simply just for argument's sake in this circumstance. Maxentius' army was led by a tyrant. The people of Rome didn't like Maxentius, and it is unlikely that the army liked him very much either. A leader that is disliked by his troops does not make for a leader that those troops would want to fight for, essentially, Maxentius' soldiers fought because to refuse to fight would mean being killed or maimed, either by Maxentius, or the enemy army. Constantine, on the other side of the denarius, was well-liked and popular among his people, and his army. He had a way of pleasing everyone all at once without appearing to anyone to be making a compromise that disadvantaged them, and with that he garnered the support of his troops. On top of their personalities, another factor would have effected the morale of the troops, Constantine had been winning so far, and Maxentius had been losing for the most part. This would have weighed heavily on the troops as the entered the battle.
In conclusion, Constantine's victory at the Battle of Milvian Bridge was accomplished through impressive tactics, the skill of leadership, and a little bit of luck. Constantine relied on surprise to catch Maxentius' army off-guard, and it worked. Constantine relied on his own skill as a leader, from the vision he had of the labarum in the sky, all the way to his courage and bravery in battle, to convince his men to fight hard and keep fighting, and it worked. Maxentius relied on the pontoon bridge as a quick means of escape, and it didn't work. If the pontoon bridge had not collapsed under Maxentius' forces then the history of the world could have been very different. Good ort bad, we will never know.
Notes
0. Just, Tiber River, Islands, Bridges.
1. Wikipedia, Battle of Milvian Bridge.
2. Fortunado, The Battle at Milvian Bridge.
3. Wikipedia, Battle of Milvian Bridge.
4. Wikipedia, Battle of Milvian Bridge.
5. Wikipedia, Battle of Milvian Bridge.
6. Eusebius, The Life of The Blessed Emperor Constantine.
7. Wikipedia, Labarum.
8. Eusebius, The Life of The Blessed Emperor Constantine.
9. Fortunado, The Battle at Milvian Bridge.
10. Davis, 100 Decisive Battles: From Ancient Times to the Present, 79.
11. Answers.com, Battle of Brice's Crossroads.
12. Folsom, Great generals turn crisis into World War II victory.
Bibliography
Primary Sources
Eusebius of Caesarea. The Life of The Blessed Emperor Constantine. 15 Mar. 2005 <http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/vita constantine.html>.
---. Oration in Praise of the Emperor Constantine. 15 Mar. 2005 <http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/orat constantine.html>.
Secondary Sources
"Battle of Brice's Crossroads." Answers.com. 5th ed. 2005. 22 Mar. 2005 <http://www.answers.com/topic/battle of brice s crossroads>.
"Battle of Milvian Bridge." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. 2005. 20 Mar. 2005 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Milvian_Bridge>.
Davis, Paul K. 100 Decisive Battles: From Ancient Times to the Present. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.
Folsom, Anita. "Great generals turn crisis into World War II victory." The Detroit News 19 Dec. 2004, Natl. ed. 21 Mar. 2005 <http://www.detnews.com/2004/editorial/0412/19/A21 36591.htm>.
Fortunado. "The Battle at Milvian Bridge." Everything2.com. 24 Mar. 2004. 20 Mar. 2005 <http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1471530>.
Just, Felix. "Tiber River, Islands, Bridges." Ancient Rome Pictures. 12 Feb. 2002. Loyola Marymount University Los Angeles. 20 Mar. 2005 <http://myweb.lmu.edu/fjust/Rome Tiber.htm>.
"Labarum." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. 2005. 19 Mar. 2005 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labarum>.
--------------------
After his victory at Milvian Bridge, Constantine ordered a huge seated statue of himself to be placed in the basilica which Maxentius, his opponent, had been building in Rome. Fragments of the acrolithic statue (one in which only the head and extremities are made of stone) include the head, which apparently was reworked from one of Hadrian, and a portion of the arm, which, says Eusebius (Life of Constantine, I.40), held a spear in the figure of a cross to signify his victory.
The statue, its eyes raised to heaven, signifies the closeness of the emperor to God, its colossal size, the transcendental majesty of the emperor - Constantine's head alone was 9 feet tall. The figure also is without a beard, unlike Julian, the last pagan emperor, or Hadrian, the philosopher and admirer of Greek culture.
User Reviews
Submitted by nrduncan (user info) at 2005-03-23 10:31:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Meh
Submitted by j0andre1 (user info) at 2005-03-23 10:19:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
This makes me want to bleed on a saltine cracker
Submitted by polyamorousaj (user info) at 2005-03-23 09:43:05 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
Meh.
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2005-03-23 09:23:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Using morale, leadership, and terrain as a force-multiplier has been a successful combination for many generals when brute force in not necessarily an option.