Talk:Battle of the Milvian Bridge

In hoc signo vinces

I think it would be better translsted as "Under this sign, you shall win," rather than "Under this sign, you will conquer."

Furthermore, it should be "In this sign, you shall win", since "Under this sign" is "Sub hoc signo".--Panairjdde 07:46, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Vincit can be win or conquer; after all, omnia vincit amor...Kuralyov 03:12, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You are right, but you win a battle, and you can't conquer a battle.--Panairjdde 12:00, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Who ever mentioned a battle? Bill 12:01, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Take a look at the title! ^_^ The 'in hoc signo vinces' was referred to the battle of the next day, which Constantine was going to loose since his army was weaker. --Panairjdde 10:16, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What it definitely isn't is an imperative, which is what the article has it as now. Changing now. --85.20.0.210 (talk) 20:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Christians

"perhaps one out of every citizen of Rome was christian" -- what should be the correct statistic here? 209.21.108.34 15:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

1 in 10 according to the article history, I have added this word back in. Sfnhltb 16:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

The bridge

The only thing which I might dispute, from Dr. Paul Maier's recent translation of Eusebius, is that I was under the impression that Maxentius, in anticipation of Constantine's arrival, had already destroyed the Milvian Bridge. But, upon the counsel of a witch, Maxentius constructed a pontoon bridge so that he could meet Constantine in combat. Maxentius' ensuing retreat proved his undoing as he drowned trying to cross back over the pontoon bridge.

As I recall, it was not that the bridge was torn down, but that it was too small to transport an army of any size - and so a pontoon bridge was constructed next to it. Reid 05:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Article name

I see that this article used to be at Battle of the Milvian Bridge, as English idiom requires. I believe this should be non-controversial, and plan to move it back shortly. If anyone thinks otherwise, please write my talk page, and we can take this to WP:RM. Septentrionalis 18:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Nazarius

Shouldn't it be "Nazarius" not "Nazarititus" in the bottom of the references. See the Wikipedia site for Nazarius. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.62.173.122 (talk) 06:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Meteors

I'm surprised there is no reference to the meteor theory for Constantines vision which was well publicised. I'll add it if no one else does but I don't have expert knowledge of Constantine. JRPG (talk) 23:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

A cursory Google search doesn't turn up much more than that BBC article. Ormö's original paper, linked to in the article on the crater, dates the formation of the crater to 412 ±40 A.D., a period that doesn't include 312 A.D. The Guardian, with a better grasp of chronology but a poorer grasp of contingency, has attributed the "fall of the Roman Empire" to the same impact. A paper in Antiquity connects the impact to a local community's conversion to Christianity in the late-third-century. It looks to me like a one-off by the BBC. I don't think it deserves to be included in the article. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 03:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Nixon / Rodgers and Mynors

Heya, Mynors is not the translator. As it says in the title, "with the Latin text of R.A.B. Mynors". Nixon / Rodgers translate and comment the work, and at the end, they append the Latin text of Mynor's Oxford edition of the Panegyrici (iirc, without any or most of the apparatus, just the bare text). I'm not really opposed to appending that information to the title in the references, but Geuiwogbil is right that Mynor's name doesn't belong into the Notes citations. Varana (talk) 15:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Solar halo? NPOV

"The vision has been interpreted in a solar context (e.g. as a solar halo phenomenon), which would have been reshaped to fit with the Christian beliefs of the later Constantine." Maybe this really did happen. I'm going to be honest with you; I have never actually seen a solar halo that had a ☧ and "Εν Τούτῳ Νίκα" written under it. Redsox7897 (talk) 00:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I have never seen a miracle, though I have no objections to this interpretation appearing in the text. A secular interpretation is just as valid as a religious one, from the point of view of an encyclopedic entry. Having ONLY a religious interpretation in the text is not neutral, as it would only offer a specifically Christian point of view.Urselius (talk) 14:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

A Sun dog does seem to fit the contemporary description “A cross in the sky centered on the Sun” of the phenomenon very well. It is plausible that on this date 28th October 312 it could have been a cold day. It is not possible to check a dream. http://up.wiki.x.io/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/88/Fargo_Sundogs_2_18_09.jpg/250px-Fargo_Sundogs_2_18_09.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.30.200.33 (talk) 00:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

No, it does not - not at all. This is atheists looking for alternative explanations. While it should be noted in the article, beyond that, the interpretation is utterly subjective.50.111.60.244 (talk) 23:23, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Solar coinage of 313

Dear 121.7.176.43,

the coinage is quite certainly dated to 313 because it refers to the joint visit of Constantine and Licinius at Milan in 313 on the reverse (which is not pictured), and generally fits into the coinage of those years. In any way, the date of the coin clearly has to be after 312, because it was struck in the mint of Ticinum near Milan (demonstrated by the mint sign SMT (sacra moneta Ticinensis = imperial mint of Ticinum) on the reverse), which was ruled by Maxentius until Constantine's conquest in 312. If anything, it might be argued that it could be one or two years later, but certainly not earlier. As reference I have only the fundamental catalogue of Constantinian gold coinage, which is in German, so I hesitate to incorporate the source into the article itself: M.R. Alföldi, Die Constantinische Goldprägung (Mainz 1963), p. 166 Nr. 118.

Regards, Varana (talk) 22:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I have replaced the deleted sentence in the text. I have done this for two reasons: A) because it was correct, and B) it is an interesting pointer to the gradual nature of Constantine's Christian conversion. We know that Constantine was converted, he wasn't born into a wholly Christian family and any pointers to the timing and nature of the process of conversion are very valuable and should be referenced. If something supernatural happened to Constantine just prior to the Milvian Bridge he seems to have taken a number of years to analyse it and become convinced that what he experienced was a revelation from the God of Christ. Just because this may not fit in to your own personal views, "121.7.176.43," does not mean that this information should be suppressed.

About the coin itself, it shows evidence of having been comissioned by Constantine, that is it isn't a previous type which has had the name changed. The image of the emperor depicted on the coin is clearly a portrait of Constantine. His companion wears the radiate crown of a solar deity, and as a clincher, Constantine's own shield depicts the chariot of the sun. Urselius (talk) 14:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)