ABSTRACT
Two years before his death in 337, Constantine had divided the empire among his three sons, Constantine II (b. 316), Constantius (b. 317) and Constans (b. c. 320), and his nephews Dalmatius the Younger and Hanniballianus the Younger. Upon Constantine’s death this unwieldy arrangement was upset by the imperial armies who declared that they would have nobody but the sons of Constantine to rule over them. (Eus., V. C. IV, 51 and 58, Greg. Naz., Or. IV, 21). Egged on by the rumour that Constantine was poisoned by his ‘halfbrothers’, the soldiers carried out a massacre of the surviving male members of Constantius Chlorus’ family together with their male offspring. The army, or a faction of it, clearly feared that Constantine’s final arrangement of a five-fold division of the empire was a sure recipe for civil war. (Cf. Bowen, 1982: Di Maio and Arnold, 1992:158-75.)
Constantius, who was the only one of the three sons of Constantine to reach Constantinople in time for the funeral, and thus present at the new capital when the massacre took place, was universally blamed for instigating what Gibbon (rev. Bury, ii, 1909:236) terms the ‘promiscuous massacre’ of 337. He was then in charge of defending the eastern frontier against an impending attack by Shapur II and
would have only just arrived at the new capital. Unsure of the rival forces, both political and ecclesiastical, Constantius probably knew of the plot but did nothing to prevent it. Later tradition would place the blame squarely on him; this was indeed the view of Julian (Ep. ad Ath. 270C (3.5-8, p. 215, Bidez)), who blamed his cousin’s childlessness on his murder of his paternal relatives, and the view of historians who supported Julian as this provided them with justification of Julian’s later rebellion against his imperial cousin. The remorse which Constantius was said to have shown for the massacre was probably caused more by his sense of guilt in not preventing the murder rather than actually instigating it. It was rumoured that the emperor had left a will which was entrusted to Eusebius, the Arian bishop of Nicomedia, when he feared he was being poisoned by his half-brothers, and that the will ordered their execution. If such a will had existed, it would have served to exonerate Constantius. Flavius Dalmatius (cos. 333), the half-brother of Constantine, was probably the first victim. He was followed by his sons among whom were Caesar Dalmatius (the Younger) whose appointment to Caesar was deeply unpopular with the soldiers (Aur. Vict., Caes. 41, 22 and Eutr., X, 9, l) and his brother Hannibalianus (the Younger)—the recently appointed King of Kings to the Pontic regions (Zos. II, 40, 3). (See above, pp. 61-62.) Prominent among the other victims was Julius Constantius, the half-brother of Constantine, who perished together with an elder son whose name is lost to us. His other two sons were spared because the soldiers thought that Gallus appeared too sickly to live for long and Julian’s extreme youth (he was in fact about eight years old) aroused the soldiers’ pity (Jul., loc cit.and Soc., H. e. III, 1, 8, Soz., H. e. V, 2, 7-9 etc.). Nepotianus the son of Constantine’s sister Eutropia was another one spared and would attempt to usurp the throne thirteen years later. The Praetorian Prefect Ablabius who was probably instrumental in Constantine’s policy of involving his nephews in government and to whose daughter Constans was betrothed (Amm. XX, 11,3 and Athan., hist. Ar. 69), was later (early 338?) executed in cold blood at the entrance to his house. (Cf. Eunap., Vit. soph. 464 and Zos. II, 40, 3.)
With the demise of the Caesars Dalmatius and Hannibalianus, a new division of authority was now urgently required and Constantius met his brothers Constantine II and Constans at Viminacium in Pannonia in September 337. Constantius remained in charge of the East and to his former sphere of government was now added Thrace, part of Dalmatius’ original territory. Constantine II obtained Gaul, Britain and Spain, to which was probably added Mauretania. To
Constans was allocated Italy, Illyricum and Africa. However, this arrangement lasted for less than two years. Constantine II was said to have attempted to increase his allotted territory by demanding Africa or Italy from Constans. The latter’s apparent disregard of his brother’s request for a fairer division opened the way for rivalry and intrigue between the two courts (cf. the role of the tribune Amphilocius in Amm. XXI, 6, 2). Constantine II waited until Constans was in a province which was loyal to himself and then sent in an army under the pretext of their being en passage to the eastern front. Constans, then in Dacia (Jan.-Feb. 340), was apprised of the real intention of his brother and sent a vanguard to oppose the invasion to be followed by the main force. His generals made a feigned attack on Constantine’s forces near Aquilea and then withdrew, leading the enemy forces into a series of well-laid ambushes. Cut off from behind, Constantine was killed ‘along with a large number of his forces (March 340). (Cf. Aur. Vict., Caes. 41, 21, Eutr., 10, 9, 2, Ruf., H. e. X, 16, p. 982, 10-12, Soz., H. e. III, 2, 10, Zos. II, 41, Zon.XIII, 5, 7-16.) His territories were now incorporated into those of Constans with approval of Constantius (Jul., Or. II, 94C-D). He was declared a public enemy (Cf. CT XI, 12,1) and his memory partially condemned (CIL V, 8030, VIII, 12272, AE 1935, 4 etc.).
