Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Constantine II and His Brothers: The Civil War of AD 340

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Sons of Constantine, AD 337-361

Part of the book series: New Approaches to Byzantine History and Culture ((NABHC))

Abstract

The subject of this chapter is the conflict between Constantine II and Constans in the spring of 340. It critically re-appraises the period immediately after the death of Constantine I in May 337 and looks afresh at the evidence for the formation of the imperial college of Constantine’s sons. The chapter re-evaluates a number of imperial constitutions from the early period of the sons’ reigns and argues that Constantine II, the eldest of the three brothers, sought to promote a governmental hierarchy in which he served as the senior, peripatetic figure of authority in a manner not dissimilar to Diocletian’s role in the Tetrarchy. The chapter also critically assesses the varied and problematic sources of evidence for the conflict of 340 and argues for an alternative interpretation whereby Constans rather than Constantine II becomes the principal aggressor.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Bleckmann 2003 and Cuneo 2012. See further below.

  2. 2.

    On the civil wars after 340, see the chapter by Mark Humphries in this volume.

  3. 3.

    E.g. Gibbon 1994, vol. 1: 670–671 (orig. vol. 2, chap. 18); DiMaio 1988: 240 n. 61; Hunt 1998: 5; Bleckmann 2003: 244–250; Meijer 2004: 125–126; Potter 2004: 462; Harries 2012: 189; Maraval 2013: 42–44; Crawford 2016: 63–64; Humphries 2017: 1095–1097.

  4. 4.

    See especially Burgess 2008.

  5. 5.

    See Bleckmann 2003: 226–236.

  6. 6.

    Constans was probably born in 323, or possibly 320; see for instance Barnes 1982: 45.

  7. 7.

    For Constantine II’s birthdate, see Barnes and Vanderspoel 1984: 175–176 n. 3.

  8. 8.

    Chantraine 1992, accepted by Barnes 2011: 165; Bleckmann 2003: 226 n. 3; Burgess 2008: 7–9.

  9. 9.

    The idea that Constans, even as an Augustus, was a minor under the guardianship of Constantine II is anachronistic, based on a questionable reading of Zos. 2.39: see Bleckmann 2003: 236–241, and Potter 2004: 688 n. 100.

  10. 10.

    Julian., Or. 2.94b–95a; cf. Or. 1.19a–20a (all translations from Wright 1913–1923).

  11. 11.

    For deference and obedience see Julian., Caes. 315a–b, and Aur. Vict., Caes. 39.29. For previous divisions of the empire, see Barnes 1982: 195–200.

  12. 12.

    Barnes 1982: 198, 76–80.

  13. 13.

    Rufinus, Hist. eccl. 10.16, trans. Amidon 1997: 28.

  14. 14.

    Burgess 2008: 33; Barnes 1983, passim (pace Arce 1982 and 1984).

  15. 15.

    For itineraries, see Barnes 1993: 218–225.

  16. 16.

    Julian., Or. 1.18c.

  17. 17.

    Burgess 2008: 22–23, followed by Woods 2011: 193.

  18. 18.

    Cf. Burgess 2008: 23. For discussions of the coins see also the chapters by John Vanderspoel and Shaun Tougher in this volume. For Constantinian coinage in general see the chapter by Eric R. Varner.

  19. 19.

    RIC 8: Trier 37; Lyons 1–3; Arles 17, 32, 40–41.

  20. 20.

    At Constantius’ mints: RIC 8: Heraclea 14; Constantinople 1, 39, 52; Nicomedia 4, 18, 25; Cyzicus 4, 19, 25, 30; Antioch 37, 39; Alexandria 4, 12, 22. At Constantine II’s mints: RIC 8: Trier 44, 68; Lyons 12, 17; Arles 42.

  21. 21.

    For the Diocletianic system, see further the chapter by Daniëlle Slootjes in this volume.

  22. 22.

    Barnes 1992: 251–252. For the Praetorian Prefects, see further the chapter by Caillan Davenport in this volume.

  23. 23.

    Potter 2015: 43–44.

  24. 24.

    Potter 2015: 44.

  25. 25.

    Palanque 1944: 49.

  26. 26.

    Palanque 1944: 55.

  27. 27.

    Cod. Theod. 11.1.6. Trans. adapted from Pharr 1952.

  28. 28.

    For this date, Cod. Theod. 12.1.42 has been proposed as a lex gemina, despite bearing little relationship in content, as it was issued on 22 May 354 and was also addressed to the Senate of Caesena. However, if these laws are leges geminae, they must both date to 346 rather than 354 because of the mention of Rufinus and movements of Constans (see below). More likely they are simple coincidence. Cuneo 1997: 244–245, doubts they are leges geminae but concurs with a 354 date.

  29. 29.

    PLRE 1: 782–783 (Vulcacius Rufinus 25); Rufinus was in Gaul for the alternative date of 354.

  30. 30.

    Barnes 1993: 314 n. 31.

  31. 31.

    Lib., Or. 59.147–148.

  32. 32.

    Euseb., Vit. Const. 4.51, trans. Cameron and Hall 1999: 172. Eusebius strategically attributes this ad hoc division to Constantine I.

  33. 33.

    Julian., Or. 1.20a.

  34. 34.

    Kent 1981: 125.

  35. 35.

    MacCormack 1981: 188–190; Dearn 2003: 182. Note the association of the diadem with the rank of Augustus in Amm. Marc. 20.4.17–18 and 21.1.4.

  36. 36.

    Translation, provenance, and discussion in LSA 1665 (Gehn).

  37. 37.

    Pace Tantillo 1999, who makes an unconvincing case for the subject being Constantine I.

  38. 38.

    This should be held as distinct from the Tetrarchic practice (which lapsed under Constantine I) of victory titles being shared by all members of the imperial college (McCormick 1986: 112–113; Hebblewhite 2017: 56–58). This inscription does not concern victory titles, which by this point were largely individual and were never appropriated by Constantine II, but rather the attribution of responsibility for successes in the empire. It is much the same as when Constantius claimed credit for the battle of Strasbourg in 357, and Julian resentfully described it as a matter of duty that he sent Chnodomar to Constantius instead of parading his captive himself (Julian., Ep. ad Ath. 279c–d).

  39. 39.

    Mitford 1939: 187; Cuneo 2012: 65. I have chosen not to discuss another, fragmentary, Cypriot inscription (CIL 3 Supp. 6732) reproduced in Cuneo 2012: 69, from Mitford 1939: 189, as points that could be made from it would rest on an extensively reconstructed text.

  40. 40.

    Cuneo 2012: 65–66.

  41. 41.

    Cf. Chastagnol 1976: 262–264, for a similar case in Constantine II’s territory.

  42. 42.

    Milestone 94A, text 6, in French 2012: 158–159.

  43. 43.

    Bruun 1987: 194, suggests Constans and Constantius used coinage to “upgrade their own imperial rank” to equal that of Constantine II.

  44. 44.

    RIC 8: Siscia 18 and 18A; Börm 2015: 254 n. 86.

  45. 45.

    Athanasius, Apology against the Arians 87.4–7, and History of the Arians 8.1; Soc., Hist. eccl. 2.3; Barnes 1993: 34.

  46. 46.

    Athanasius, History of the Arians 19.3–4.

  47. 47.

    I have restored the MS date of receipt for Cod. Theod. 6.22.2 from Mommsen’s emendation to 16 December 338, due to the distances travelled and the questionable relationship of 6.22.2 to 12.1.24.

  48. 48.

    Cod. Theod. 12.1.27, 8 January 339.

  49. 49.

    For an astute but cautious commentary, see Cuneo 1997: 29–30.

  50. 50.

    Maraval 2013: 42–43.

  51. 51.

    Bleckmann 2003: 239.

  52. 52.

    Corcoran 2015.

  53. 53.

    Indeed, far from Constantine II being eradicated from the Code, this chapter will argue below that Cod. Theod. 2.6.5 and 10.15.3 are also attributable to him.

  54. 54.

    Cod. Theod. 11.9.2; Cuneo 2012: 93–94.

  55. 55.

    Collatio Mosaicarum 15.3, trans. in Gardner and Lieu 2004: 116–118; Corcoran 2000: 135–136.

  56. 56.

    Cod. Theod. 10.10.4.

  57. 57.

    PLRE 1: 510 (Ulpius Limenius 2).

  58. 58.

    PLRE 1: 782–783 (Vulcacius Rufinus 25); 705 (Placidus 2).

  59. 59.

    PLRE 1: 192 (Aurelius Celsinus 4); 918–919 (Fabius Titianus 6).

  60. 60.

    Chastagnol 1962: 114.

  61. 61.

    Anonymous Valesianus 5.21; Barnes 2011: 106.

  62. 62.

    There are in fact two laws from Aquileia to Petronius on 9 April, Cod. Theod. 2.6.5 and 10.15.3, but they are almost certainly leges geminae—a single law split between different sections of the Code (see Cod. Theod. 1.1.5–6).

  63. 63.

    Cod. Theod. 11.12.1, 29 April 340.

  64. 64.

    E.g. Cod. Theod. 5.8.1, 8.4.1, 15.14.1–4.

  65. 65.

    For memory sanctions, see Cahn 1987.

  66. 66.

    PLRE 1: 51 (Ambrosius 1); Barnes 1980: 161 n. 5.

  67. 67.

    After 25 February 341 and before 24 June 341: PLRE 1: 918–919 (Fabius Titianus 6).

  68. 68.

    Chron. min. 1.68; Chastagnol 1962: 109.

  69. 69.

    Lib., Or. 59.151–152, trans. Lieu and Montserrat 1996: 200. On the oration and the imperial ideology reflected in it see also the chapter by Christine Greenlee in this volume.

  70. 70.

    I thank Nicholas Baker-Brian for this reading. It has since been noted by Woudhuysen 2018: 178 n. 114.

  71. 71.

    Lieu and Montserrat 1996: 162.

  72. 72.

    Cahn 1987; Barnes 1993: 253–254 n. 18.

  73. 73.

    Hedrick 2000: xii; Flower 2006: xix, 5–6; Omissi 2016: 170–175.

  74. 74.

    See especially Burgess 1995, passim. The literary work (Codex Palatinus Graecus) judged by Cuneo 2012 to be the funeral oration of Constantine II contains too many anomalous features to be a genuine imperial eulogy.

  75. 75.

    Aur. Vict., Caes. 41.22, trans. Bird 1994: 51. Although the death of Dalmatius and Constantine II are juxtaposed, Aurelius Victor draws no connection between the two.

  76. 76.

    Eutr. 10.9; Jer., Chron. s.a. 340.

  77. 77.

    Epit. de Caes. 41.21, trans. Banchich 2009: 41.

  78. 78.

    Barnes 1992: 252.

  79. 79.

    Rufinus, Hist. eccl. 10.16; Oros. 7.29; Soc., Hist. eccl. 2.5; Sozom., Hist. eccl. 3.2. Sozomen claims Constantine II was killed by his generals, which seems to be an error rather than an alternative tradition in the sources, as related works directly contradict it.

  80. 80.

    Zos. 2.41, trans. Ridley 1982: 41–42.

  81. 81.

    Bleckmann 2003: 245–246.

  82. 82.

    Both names are associated with the many editions of this text. One may be a copyist, or they both may be the same person, who could perhaps also be associated with the hagiographer Symeon Metaphrastes. For a summary, see Neville 2018: 118–123. The edition used is Wahlgren 2006.

  83. 83.

    Sym. 89.1. Derivative versions of this text are preserved in other Byzantine chronicles.

  84. 84.

    Lieu and Montserrat 1996: 218.

  85. 85.

    Passion of Artemius 9, trans. Lieu and Montserrat 1996: 228.

  86. 86.

    Partes regendas at 41.20 and ius at 41.21.

  87. 87.

    DiMaio 1988: 241–242.

  88. 88.

    Zonar. 13.5.6–17, trans. Banchich and Lane 2009: 159.

  89. 89.

    Cod. Theod. 10.15.3 is attributed to Constantius (who was certainly in the East), and 2.6.5 names both Constantius and Constans. As we know from many other examples, neither attribution is dependable. The addressee does not help much either; he was a vicarius in Constans’ territory, but Constantine II also had a history of sending legislation to Africa.

  90. 90.

    Routes and distances were calculated using orbis.stanford.edu and omnesviae.org (note that only the former calculates accurate distances as the latter displays figures from the Peutinger Map).

  91. 91.

    355: Amm. Marc. 15.4.1–13. 361: Julian., Ep. ad Ath. 286b, and Elton 2013: 664.

  92. 92.

    Amm. Marc. 23.2.6–7 and 23.3.2–3, assuming around 12 days of marching and a journey of roughly 212 miles (calculated from google.com/maps to follow more accurately Ammianus’ route).

  93. 93.

    E.g. Benario 1986: 360; Grant 1974: xxix; Murison 1979: 188.

  94. 94.

    Veg., Mil. 1.9 and 1.27 (24 mp = 22 miles).

  95. 95.

    Amm. Marc. 15.10.4–5; McCormick et al. 2012: 185.

  96. 96.

    Amm. Marc. 23.2.6.

  97. 97.

    Amm. Marc. 15.10.4.

  98. 98.

    Veg., Mil. 3.6, for reconnaissance in fourth-century military doctrine.

  99. 99.

    Suet., Tib. 75.1, and Vit. 17.2; Cass. Dio 80.20; Lactant., De mort. pers. 44.9. Cf. Johnson 2009: 9.

  100. 100.

    Epit. de Caes. 41.21; Eutr. 10.9; Oros. 7.29.

  101. 101.

    Sym. 89.1, trans. Banchich and Lane 2009: 211.

  102. 102.

    Bleckmann 2003: 245–246.

  103. 103.

    Sym. 89.1; Cedrenus I.521.18 ff; Leo Gramm. 90, 5–15; Codex Palatinus Graecus 117.15. The quote is from Cedrenus.

  104. 104.

    Amm. Marc. 21.6.2; PLRE 1: 57 (Amphilochius 1).

  105. 105.

    Cod. Theod. 12.1.29 (19 January) and 10.10.5 (2 February).

  106. 106.

    Ramsay 1925, passim; Burgess 2008: 49–50.

  107. 107.

    Bleckmann 2003: 245–246.

  108. 108.

    Julian., Or. 1.18c.

  109. 109.

    Bleckmann 2003: 247–248.

References

  • Amidon, P. R. (1997). The Church History of Rufinus of Aquileia. Books 10 and 11. Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arce, J. (1982). The Inscription of Troesmis (ILS 724) and the First Victories of Constantius II as Caesar. ZPE, 48, 245–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arce, J. (1984). Constantius II Sarmaticus and Persicus. ZPE, 57, 225–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banchich, T. M. (2009). Epitome de Caesaribus. Retrieved from www.roman-emperors.org/epitome.htm.

  • Banchich, T. M., & Lane, E. N. (2009). The History of Zonaras. From Alexander to the Death of Theodosius the Great. London and New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, T. D. (1980). Imperial Chronology, AD 337–350. Phoenix, 34, 160–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, T. D. (1982). The New Empire of Diocletian and Constantine. Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, T. D. (1983). Two Victory Titles of Constantius. ZPE, 52, 229–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, T. D. (1992). Praetorian Prefects 337–361. ZPE, 94, 249–260.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, T. D. (1993). Athanasius and Constantius: Theology and Politics in the Constantinian Empire. Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, T. D. (2011). Constantine: Dynasty, Religion and Power in the Later Roman Empire. Oxford and Malden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, T. D., & Vanderspoel, J. (1984). Julian on the Sons of Fausta. Phoenix, 38, 175–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benario, H. W. (1986). Legionary Speed of March Before the Battle with Boudicca. Britannia, 17, 359–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bird, H. W. (1994). Aurelius Victor: De Caesaribus. Liverpool.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bleckmann, B. (2003). Der Bürgerkrieg zwischen Constantin II. und Constans (340 n. Chr.). Historia, 52, 225–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Börm, H. (2015). Born to Be Emperor. The Principle of Succession and the Roman Monarchy. In J. Wienand (Ed.), Contested Monarchy. Integrating the Roman Empire in the 4th Century A.D (pp. 239–264). Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruun, P. M. (1987). Constans Maximus Augustus. In H. Huvelin, M. Christol, & G. Gautier (Eds.), Mélanges de numismatique offerts à Pierre Bastien à l’occasion de son 75e anniversaire (pp. 187–199). Wetteren.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgess, R. W. (1995). On the Date of the Kaisergeschichte. CPh, 90, 111–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgess, R. W. (2008). The Summer of Blood: The “Great Massacre” of 337 and the Promotion of the Sons of Constantine. DOP, 62, 5–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cahn, H. A. (1987). Abolitio nominis de Constantin II. In H. Huvelin, M. Christol, & G. Gautier (Eds.), Mélanges de numismatique offerts à Pierre Bastien à l’occasion de son 75e anniversaire (pp. 201–202). Wetteren.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, A., & Hall, S. G. (1999). Eusebius: Life of Constantine. Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chantraine, H. (1992). Die Nachfolgeordnung Constantins des Großen. Mainz and Stuttgart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chastagnol, A. (1962). Les fastes de la prėfecture de Rome au Bas-Empire. Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chastagnol, A. (1976). Les inscriptions constantiniennes du cirque de Mérida. Mélanges de l’école française de Rome, 88(1), 259–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corcoran, S. (2000). The Empire of the Tetrarchs: Imperial Pronouncements and Government A.D. 283–324 (Rev. ed.). Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corcoran, S. (2015). “The Augusti and Caesars Say”: Imperial Communication in a Collegiate Monarchy. In S. Procházka, L. Reinfandt, & S. Tost (Eds.), Official Epistolography and the Language(s) of Power. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference of the Research Network Imperium and Officium (pp. 219–236). Vienna.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, P. (2016). Constantius II. Usurpers, Eunuchs and the Antichrist. Barnsley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuneo, P. O. (1997). La Legislazione di Costantino II, Costanzo II e Costante (337–361). Milan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuneo, P. O. (2012). Anonymi graeci oratio funebris in Constantinum II. Milan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dearn, A. (2003). The Coinage of Vetranio: Imperial Representation and the Memory of Constantine the Great. NC, 163, 169–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • DiMaio, M. (1988). Smoke in the Wind: Zonaras’ Use of Philostorgius, Zosimus, John of Antioch, and John of Rhodes in His Narrative on the Neo-Flavian Emperors. Byz, 58, 230–255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elton, H. (2013). Imperial Campaigns Between Diocletian and Honorius: A. D. 284–423: The Rhine Frontier and the Western Provinces. In A. Sarantis & N. Christie (Eds.), War and Warfare in Late Antiquity (2 Vols., pp. 655–682). Leiden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flower, H. (2006). The Art of Forgetting: Disgrace and Oblivion in Roman Political Culture. Chapel Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • French, D. (2012). Roman Roads and Milestones of Asia Minor (Milestones, Fasc. 3.2 Galatia) (Vol. 3). London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, I., & Lieu, S. N. C. (2004). Manichaean Texts from the Roman Empire. Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbon, E. (1994). The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Ed. D. Womersley (3 Vols.). London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant, M. (1974). The Army of the Caesars. London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harries, J. (2012). Imperial Rome AD 384 to 363: The New Empire. Edinburgh.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hebblewhite, M. (2017). The Emperor and the Army in the Later Roman Empire, A.D. 235–395. London and New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hedrick, C. W., Jr. (2000). History and Silence: Purge and Rehabilitation of Memory in Late Antiquity. Austin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Humphries, M. (2017). The Fourth-Century Roman Empire: Internal. In M. Whitby & H. Sidebottom (Eds.), The Encyclopedia of Ancient Battles (pp. 1092–1107). Chichester and Malden, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, D. (1998). The Successors of Constantine. In A. Cameron & P. Garnsey (Eds.), The Cambridge Ancient History (The Late Empire, AD 337–425) (Vol. 13, pp. 1–43). Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, M. J. (2009). The Roman Imperial Mausoleum in Late Antiquity. Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kent, J. P. C. (1981). Roman Imperial Coinage (The Family of Constantine I, A.D. 337–364) (Vol. 8). London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lieu, S. N. C., & Montserrat, D. (Eds.). (1996). From Constantine to Julian: Pagan and Byzantine Views. A Source History. London.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Maraval, P. (2013). Les fils de Constantin. Constantin II (337–340), Constance II (337–361) and Constant (337–350). Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCormick, M. (1986). Eternal Victory. Triumphal Rulership in Late Antiquity, Byzantium, and the Early Medieval West. Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCormick, M., et al. (2012). Climate Change During and After the Roman Empire: Reconstructing the Past from Scientific and Historical Evidence. Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 43(2), 169–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meijer, F. (2004). Emperors Don’t Die in Bed. London and New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitford, T. B. (1939). Milestones in Western Cyprus. JRS, 29(2), 184–198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murison, C. L. (1979). Some Vitellian Dates: An Exercise in Methodology. TAPhA, 109, 187–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neville, L. (2018). Guide to Byzantine Historical Writing. Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Omissi, A. (2016). Damnatio memoriae or creatio memoriae? Memory Sanctions as Creative Processes in the Fourth Century AD. Cambridge Classical Journal, 62, 170–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palanque, J. R. (1944). Collégialité et partages dans l’Empire romain aux IVe et Ve siècles. Revue des Études Anciennes, 46, 47–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pharr, C. (1952). The Theodosian Code and Novels and the Sirmondian Constitutions. Princeton, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Potter, D. (2004). The Roman Empire at Bay. AD 180–395. London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Potter, D. (2015). Measuring the Power of the Roman Empire. In R. Dijkstra, S. van Poppel, & D. Slootjes (Eds.), East and West in the Roman Empire of the Fourth Century: An End to Unity? (pp. 26–48). Leiden and Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramsay, A. M. (1925). The Speed of the Roman Imperial Post. JRS, 15, 60–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ridley, R. T. (1982). Zosimus, New History. Canberra.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tantillo, I. (1999). L’ideologia imperiale tra cento e periferie. A proposito di un ‘elogio’ di Costantino da Augusta Traiana in Tracia. Rivista di Filologia e Istruzione Classica, 127, 73–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wahlgren, S. (2006). Symeonis Magistri et Logothetae Chronicon. Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woods, D. (2011). Numismatic Evidence and the Succession to Constantine I. NC, 171, 187–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woudhuysen, G. (2018). Uncovering Constans’ Image. In W. P. Burgersdijk & A. J. Ross (Eds.), Imagining Emperors in the Later Roman Empire (pp. 158–182). Leiden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, W. (1913–1923). The Works of the Emperor Julian (3 Vols.). London and New York.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK

    William Lewis

Authors
  1. William Lewis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to William Lewis .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK

    Nicholas Baker-Brian

  2. Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK

    Shaun Tougher

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Lewis, W. (2020). Constantine II and His Brothers: The Civil War of AD 340. In: Baker-Brian, N., Tougher, S. (eds) The Sons of Constantine, AD 337-361. New Approaches to Byzantine History and Culture. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-39898-9_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-39898-9_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-39897-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-39898-9

  • eBook Packages: HistoryHistory (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation