Constantine's Civil War Triumph of AD 312 and the Adaptability of Triumphal Tradition

There existed an ancient consensus on the awarding of triumphs, clearly apparent during the Late Republic and Early Empire: a general could expect to triumph after a civil war victory if it could also be represented as being
over a foreign enemy. A triumph after a victory in an exclusively civil war was understood as being in clear breach of traditional practices. This consensus continued during the Later Roman Empire. Nevertheless, as this paper will argue,
Constantine may have taken to Caesar’s final triumph, which, celebrating his victory over Pompeius’ sons at Munda in 45 BC, was only over civil opponents, as a precedent. It is clear that Constantine did not conceal the civil war aspect of
his victory, which is still visible today on the arch of Constantine, in particular on its inscription. By examining dealings in the immediate aftermath of civil conflicts, with a focus on Constantine, this paper will also consider the differences and similarities between two central Roman celebrations, the triumph and the adventus. The key distinguishing feature may have been that a triumph usually involved the display of spoils, while an adventus did not; and the assumption that the distinction between the two celebrations became virtually elided is wrong. Furthermore, the sacrifice on the Capitol is not a conclusive diagnostic, as it was often a feature of the non-triumphal adventus. The triumph was part of the rhetoric of political legitimation for the victor: the rules of triumph were flexible to some extent, but significantly, the ritual itself often varied.