> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://romanempiretimes.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# Magnus Maximus: The Roman Commander Who Rose from Britain to Rule the West
- URL: https://romanempiretimes.com/magnus-maximus-the-roman-commander-who-rose-from-britain-to-rule-the-west/
- Published: 2026-08-20T19:05:36.000Z
- Updated: 2026-08-20T19:05:36.000Z
- Description: A Roman commander in Britain rose to imperial power in 383, ruled from Trier, challenged the western emperors, and later survived in Welsh tradition as Maxen Wledig.
- Author: Christina Athanasiou
- Tags: Roman Empire Historical Facts, roman empire, britannia, Magnus Maximus, Theodosius, Ammianus Marcellinus, Zosimus, Gratian, Emperor, Valentinian, Ambrose, Alps, Christianity, orosius, socrates, Damnatio memoriae, Constantinople

In 383 CE, Roman troops in Britain proclaimed one of their senior commanders emperor. Magnus Maximus crossed the Channel, entered Gaul and challenged the western emperor Gratian. Within months Gratian was dead, while Maximus had established an imperial court at Trier and taken control of Britain, Gaul and Spain.

 What began as an army proclamation in [Britain](https://romanempiretimes.com/what-was-life-really-like-in-roman-britain/) became a government that survived for approximately five years, operated through the institutions of the Roman state and eventually received a degree of recognition from the other imperial courts.

The settlement did not last. In 387, Maximus extended his rule into Italy and forced the young Valentinian II to flee east. The following year [Theodosius I](https://romanempiretimes.com/emperor-theodosius-i-the-man-who-defined-christianity-and-also-massacred-thousands/) marched against him. Maximus suffered two defeats in Illyricum, withdrew to Aquileia and was captured and executed. 

His son Victor was killed soon afterwards. The victorious government subsequently condemned Maximus as a tyrannus, annulled acts of his government and incorporated his defeat into the political image of the Theodosian dynasty. Yet not all ancient accounts portrayed Maximus in the same way, and his later reputation developed very differently in [Britain](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-did-the-romans-leave-britain/), where Magnus Maximus eventually became Maxen Wledig.

### A Spanish Commander with Connections to Theodosius

The early career of Magnus Maximus is incompletely documented. Ancient testimony identifies him as a Spaniard, while several pieces of evidence connect him with the military circle surrounding Theodosius the Elder, father of the future emperor Theodosius I. The broad association is reasonably strong, although some of the details reconstructed from it remain uncertain.

[Ammianus Marcellinus](https://romanempiretimes.com/ammian-or-ammianus-marcellinus-from-a-roman-soldier-to-one-of-the-best-historians-of-all-time/) mentions an officer named Maximus serving during Theodosius the Elder’s African campaign against Firmus in the 370s. Modern reconstruction commonly identifies this man with the future emperor, but Ammianus himself does not call him Magnus Maximus or provide information that makes the identification explicit. 

Zosimus also associates Maximus with earlier military service in [Britain](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-great-conspiracy-of-367-when-roman-britain-nearly-collapsed/) alongside a Theodosius. The evidence has therefore been used to reconstruct a previous connection between Maximus and the military networks from which the Theodosian family emerged, but the surviving ancient texts do not allow every stage of that early career to be recovered with certainty.

![Bust of Roman Emperor Magnus Maximus in the Capitoline Museums](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/magno-maximo-1.jpg)

Bust of Roman Emperor Magnus Maximus in the Capitoline Museums. Public domain. Upscale by Roman Empire Times

By 383, Maximus held a senior military command in Britain. He has often been identified as comes *Britanniarum*, although that particular title is not certain; even the modern reconstruction that proposes it treats the identification cautiously. What is secure is that Maximus was one of the commanders in Britain and occupied a position from which the troops could raise him to imperial power.

The reasons for the proclamation are more difficult to recover. Gratian had not been militarily unsuccessful, but dissatisfaction with his government appears in the surviving accounts. One issue was the emperor’s treatment of Alan soldiers whom he had recruited and favoured. Zosimus provides the most explicit version of this explanation:

> “This produced among his soldiers a violent hatred against him,  
> which being gradually inflamed and augmented incited in them  
> a disposition for innovation.”

Zosimus continues by saying that the troops in Britain were particularly affected, identifying Maximus as a Spaniard and describing him as a former fellow-soldier of Theodosius in Britain. He then assigns Maximus a personal motive, claiming that he resented Theodosius’s elevation to imperial power while he himself remained without comparable advancement. 

Zosimus also attributes personal resentment to Maximus, claiming that he was angered by Theodosius’s rise to imperial power. No other surviving source confirms that motive.

The surviving evidence allows several factors to be considered — dissatisfaction with Gratian’s court, the distribution of military and political favour, resentment among soldiers and Maximus’s own ambitions — but it does not establish that one of them alone caused the revolt. Modern reconstruction therefore remains cautious about both the motives of Maximus and those of the British troops who proclaimed him.

### The Revolt Crosses into Gaul

Maximus did not attempt to establish a separate imperial government confined to Britain. After his proclamation in 383, he crossed into Gaul with military support from the island and moved against Gratian. The confrontation between the two imperial forces is generally placed around Paris, although some later accounts compress or confuse the geography of the campaign.

For several days there was no decisive pitched battle. Instead, Gratian’s position deteriorated as soldiers began deserting him and transferring their allegiance to Maximus. Zosimus describes five days of minor fighting before first the Mauritanian cavalry and then additional troops changed sides. The collapse of Gratian’s regime was therefore not the result of one great battlefield defeat but of the disappearance of the military loyalty necessary to sustain it.

Gratian fled south. On 25 August 383 he was captured and killed at Lyon, with his death associated in the ancient tradition with Andragathius, one of Maximus’s senior commanders. Later authors supplied different details concerning the pursuit and the means by which Gratian was trapped, and those details cannot all be reconciled. The secure sequence is that Gratian lost control of his army, fled and was killed while Maximus took control of his former territories.

Maximus established his imperial court at Trier. Britain, Gaul and Spain came under his authority, and his regime operated through the ordinary machinery of Roman government. Officials were appointed, provincial administration continued, judicial proceedings were conducted and orders moved through the established hierarchy of the Gallic prefecture. The evidence also includes administrative activity in Spain, showing that Maximus’s authority extended beyond the army accompanying him in Gaul.

This was therefore no longer simply a British army in revolt. Maximus had created a functioning imperial government that would continue for years. He controlled major western provinces, possessed substantial military forces and operated from Trier, one of the traditional centres of imperial government in Gaul.

The treatment of Gratian’s former adherents also appears to have been selective rather than a general purge. Some individuals were endangered and some senior figures may have been eliminated, although even the fate of the powerful general Merobaudes has generated disagreement. Martin of Tours was able to intervene on behalf of men threatened after the change of regime, while other members of the Gallic political and aristocratic world continued under Maximus.

### Recognition, Diplomacy and an Uneasy Settlement

Gratian’s death did not leave Maximus as sole [emperor](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-five-worst-roman-emperors-a-legacy-of-tyranny-and-excess/). Valentinian II, Gratian’s younger half-brother, remained in Italy, while Theodosius I ruled the eastern [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/why-the-eastern-roman-empire-did-not-collapse/). Maximus consequently needed either to continue the civil war or obtain some form of accommodation with the surviving imperial governments.

![Magnus Maximus coin ](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/Magnus-Maximus-coin--1.jpg)

Magnus Maximus coin. Credits: Ichthyovenator, CC BY-SA 2.5\. Upscale by Roman Empire Times

Negotiations began early. Ambrose of Milan travelled to Maximus’s court as an envoy for Valentinian II, and his surviving account gives unusually direct evidence for the exchanges between Trier and Milan. Ambrose was writing in defence of his own conduct and cannot be treated as a neutral observer, but he had personally participated in the negotiations.

Maximus accused Ambrose and the Frankish commander Bauto of having prevented him from advancing into Italy. Ambrose responded by arguing that Maximus himself had originally requested peace:

> “Wherein then did Valentinian deceive you,  
> whom you asked to grant you peace  
> before he himself asked for it?”

Ambrose also recalls Maximus proposing that Valentinian should come to him “as a son to a father.” Ambrose rejected the proposal, arguing that the young emperor should not be required to cross the Alps under such circumstances. Troops meanwhile guarded the mountain passes, demonstrating how diplomacy and military precautions continued together.

The remains of Gratian themselves became part of the negotiations. Maximus retained the dead[ emperor](https://romanempiretimes.com/69-ce-the-year-of-the-four-emperors/)’s body, while Ambrose sought its return. The issue gave Gratian a continuing political significance even after his death and shows the depth of distrust between the two western governments.

Relations with Theodosius were similarly complicated. An eastern expedition directed toward the Rhine was contemplated or begun in 384, but the surviving reference is brief. It may have been abandoned or may have ended without producing the confrontation apparently intended. Theodosius had substantial military and diplomatic commitments elsewhere, and war against Maximus was not an unavoidable consequence of the events of 383.

By 386, there is firmer evidence that Maximus had acquired a degree of acceptance in the East. His statues were displayed there, and Flavius Euodius, one of the leading officials of his government, was recognised as consul for 386\. A limited eastern coinage for Maximus has also been proposed, although that evidence remains disputed. These developments indicate that Maximus had received a degree of recognition by 386, although the extent and formal character of that recognition remain uncertain.

Maximus also created a dynastic arrangement of his own. His young son Flavius Victor was raised to the rank of Augustus, probably in 383 or 384\. Theodosius had likewise elevated his son Arcadius in 383\. The [empire](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-empire-behind-rome-how-society-really-worked/) therefore contained two imperial households openly providing for succession through their sons, while Valentinian II continued to rule Italy.

Between 383 and 387, Maximus governed his western territories, continued negotiations with the other imperial courts and obtained a degree of recognition. Relations with Valentinian II remained tense, but diplomacy continued throughout the period. It remains unclear whether Maximus had intended from the beginning to extend his rule into Italy.

### Martin of Tours and the Priscillian Affair

Religion occupied a prominent place in Maximus’s government. His surviving correspondence presents him as committed to Nicene [Christianity](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-forbidden-dionysian-mysteries-why-did-the-roman-empire-persecute-christianity/), while accounts concerning Martin of Tours show him dealing directly with bishops and ecclesiastical questions. Religious policy could also operate within imperial politics, especially when Maximus contrasted his position with the religious policies of Valentinian II’s court.

Sulpicius Severus provides an important counterweight to the uniformly hostile portrait created after Maximus’s defeat. He regarded the accession as unlawful and did not approve of the [civil war](https://romanempiretimes.com/for-rome-no-war-was-worse-than-civil-war/), but he could still speak positively about Maximus’s character. After making that distinction, Sulpicius added:

> “But the fact is, that a great empire can neither be refused  
> without danger, nor can be preserved  
> without war.”

The passage does not prove the claim that Maximus was forced unwillingly to accept the throne. Reluctance was a familiar element in presentations of irregular imperial accessions. It does show, however, that an ancient author could criticize the means by which Maximus obtained imperial power without portraying the rest of his life and government as uniformly vicious.

The most controversial religious episode of his reign concerned Priscillian, an ascetic Christian leader in Spain. The dispute predated Maximus. Priscillian and his supporters had already been condemned by ecclesiastical opponents, subjected to measures obtained from Gratian’s government, appealed to senior churchmen and imperial officials and eventually succeeded in obtaining assistance from figures at Gratian’s court. Maximus inherited a conflict that was already well developed rather than creating it himself.

After Maximus took control of Gaul and Spain, the dispute returned to official attention. A council was summoned at Bordeaux. Instantius, one of Priscillian’s associates, was condemned there, while Priscillian appealed directly to the emperor. The case then passed into secular judicial proceedings at Trier.

Martin of Tours strongly opposed this development. Sulpicius explains that Martin regarded exclusion from the churches as sufficient punishment and objected to putting the dispute before secular authority:

> “it was, besides, a foul and unheard-of indignity,  
> that a secular ruler should be judge  
> in an ecclesiastical cause.”

Martin initially obtained a promise from Maximus that harsh punishment would not follow. After Martin left Trier, however, Maximus entrusted the proceedings to the praetorian prefect Euodius. The accusations by this stage extended beyond questions of doctrine. Sulpicius reports allegations concerning nocturnal meetings, sexual behaviour and naked prayer, while the wider legal context associated the prosecution with *maleficium* and suspicions of magic and adultery. 

![Llanbeblig Book of Hours (held at the National Library of Wales) is traditionally thought to depict the Roman emperor and Welsh legendary figure Magnus Maximus (known in Welsh as Macsen Wledig). ](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/a-king-possibly-Magnus-Maximus-1.jpg)

**Llanbeblig Book of Hours* (held at the National Library of Wales) is traditionally thought to depict the Roman emperor and Welsh legendary figure Magnus Maximus (known in Welsh as **Macsen Wledig*). Public domain. Upscale by Roman Empire Times

By this stage, the proceedings involved charges that extended beyond doctrinal error, including accusations of *maleficium*, nocturnal meetings, sexual misconduct and other offences that could fall under [Roman criminal law](https://romanempiretimes.com/crime-punishment-roman-empire-justice-inequality/).

Euodius recommended capital punishment. Ithacius, the principal episcopal accuser, then withdrew from the final prosecution, and a court lawyer named Patricius replaced him. Because a capital prosecution required the proceedings to be repeated, another hearing followed. Priscillian, Euchrotia, Latronianus and several clerical associates were executed, while others were [exiled](https://romanempiretimes.com/exile-in-ancient-rome-what-happened-when-rome-sent-you-away/).

The distinction between religious and secular proceedings should not be pushed too far in the opposite direction. The conflict had been driven by bishops, its origins were ecclesiastical, and Martin’s objection arose precisely because the dispute had passed into a judicial process capable of imposing death. 

Maximus allowed that process to continue and approved the result. He subsequently presented himself to the bishop of [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-hidden-cruelties-disturbing-facts-about-the-roman-empire-part-2/) as a Catholic ruler acting against a movement he identified with Manichaeism.

Ambrose also refused communion with bishops associated with seeking the death of accused heretics and states that Maximus reacted angrily to his position. His testimony reinforces the evidence that the executions remained a serious point of controversy among contemporary churchmen.

Maximus’s surviving letters provide additional evidence for his involvement in church affairs. One was addressed to Valentinian II during the conflict over religious policy at Milan; another was sent to Siricius, bishop of Rome, and discussed ecclesiastical matters including the Priscillianist controversy. 

In these letters, Maximus consistently presents himself as a Nicene emperor. That position also served his political rivalry with Valentinian II, although it remains unclear how far political advantage and personal religious conviction can be separated.

### The Invasion of Italy

The uneasy settlement ended in 387 when Maximus crossed the Alps and entered Italy. The reason for that decision remains one of the unresolved questions of his reign. Hostility toward Valentinian II and his advisers had existed for years, religious disagreement may have contributed, and Maximus may have sought a final resolution of his position in the West. None of these explanations can be demonstrated as the single cause.

Valentinian II did not mount a successful defence. He fled with his mother Justina and members of the court and eventually reached Thessalonica, where he appealed to Theodosius. Maximus took control of Italy and appears also to have controlled Africa, establishing himself at Aquileia.

The reasons for Theodosius’s subsequent decision to fight are also presented differently in the ancient accounts. Zosimus gives a prominent role to Galla, Valentinian’s sister, whom Theodosius married. Orosius presents the campaign as vengeance for Gratian. The latter interpretation compresses the difficult years between 383 and 387, during which Theodosius had not avenged Gratian but had tolerated Maximus and eventually granted his regime limited recognition.

The political situation itself had changed significantly. As long as Valentinian controlled Italy, his territory stood between the governments of Maximus and Theodosius. Maximus’s occupation of Italy removed that buffer, while Valentinian and his family were now displaced claimants present within Theodosius’s sphere. Continued accommodation with Maximus therefore carried very different consequences after 387.

Theodosius prepared before advancing west. He secured affairs on the eastern frontier, made arrangements for the administration during his absence and assembled an army that included Roman forces and Gothic soldiers recruited in the Balkans.

The campaign of 388 was relatively short. The first major battle occurred near Siscia on the River Sava, where Theodosius’s forces crossed the river and defeated Maximus’s army. A second engagement followed soon afterwards. It is often located at Poetovio, but Pacatus does not actually supply that location, so it remains a reconstruction rather than a securely stated ancient detail.

After these defeats, Maximus’s military position collapsed and he withdrew to Aquileia.

### Aquileia and the End of Maximus

Ancient accounts differ over the circumstances of Maximus’s capture and death at Aquileia. Zosimus describes him being stripped of his imperial insignia, brought before Theodosius and then taken away for execution, while Sozomen says that Maximus was seized and killed by his own men.

Socrates likewise makes Maximus’s troops responsible for delivering him to the victor:

> “instead of fighting for him, they delivered him bound  
> to the emperor, who caused him  
> to be put to death.”

We cannot combine all the information into a single detailed death scene. What can safely be said is that Maximus fell into enemy hands at Aquileia and was executed in August 388\. Even the exact day varies in the surviving tradition, so the year and circumstances are more secure than attempts to insist upon one precise date.

![Aquileia, Roman Forum](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/Roman-Forum-in-aquileia--1--1.jpg)

Aquileia, Roman Forum. Credits: The Unexpected Guest, CC BY-SA 4.0

His imperial regime did not survive him. Flavius Victor, the young son whom Maximus had elevated to the rank of Augustus, was subsequently killed by Arbogast. Andragathius, the commander associated with Gratian’s death, committed suicide after learning that Maximus had been defeated.

Other members of Maximus’s family were treated differently. His mother and daughters were spared and received generous treatment. The destruction of the regime therefore did not mean that every member of Maximus’s family was killed, and accounts that compress their fate into a general slaughter are too broad.

Nor was there a comprehensive purge of everyone who had served Maximus. Some senior officials were killed or demoted, others lost favour, and legal measures attacked appointments and judgments made by the defeated government. At the same time, many people who had accommodated themselves to Maximus were subsequently reintegrated.

Symmachus was among the most conspicuous examples. He had publicly praised Maximus before the collapse of the regime and consequently found himself politically compromised after Theodosius’s victory. His exclusion was temporary, however. He was rehabilitated and eventually became consul in 391\. The postwar settlement involved punishment and political cleansing, but not the elimination of everyone who had served the defeated emperor.

### How a Defeated Emperor Became a Tyrant

After Maximus was defeated, the struggle over his reign continued through legislation, public commemoration and historical representation. Several acts of his government were annulled, his name was removed from inscriptions in some places, and officials associated with him could lose rank or favour.

These practices are frequently described as [*damnatio memoriae*](https://romanempiretimes.com/damnatio-memoriae-condemnation-and-eradication-in-the-political-sphere-of-rome/), although the expression itself is modern. The scholarship used here instead describes the measures taken against Maximus as “memory sanctions,” encompassing the removal of his name from inscriptions, the annulment of acts and appointments, and the political commemoration of his defeat.

Maximus was not simply erased. His defeat became one of the subjects through which Theodosius represented his own imperial legitimacy. Pacatus’s panegyric, delivered before Theodosius at Rome in 389, provides one of the clearest literary examples. Maximus appears through the conventional characteristics associated with the defeated *tyrannus*: greed, cruelty, cowardice, impiety and illegitimacy. These accusations cannot simply be detached from the genre and treated as neutral descriptions of Maximus’s personality.

The contrast was useful because the worse Maximus could be made to appear, the more completely his defeat could demonstrate the virtues of Theodosius. The language of *tyrannus* had already become a standard way of defining emperors who lost civil wars, and the portrait produced after 388 belongs within that political tradition.

The postwar narrative also simplified the preceding years. Gratian’s murder could be placed beside Theodosius’s eventual victory, allowing the war of 388 to appear as a direct act of punishment. The four years during which Maximus governed, negotiated and received a measure of recognition complicated that presentation and could therefore be minimized.

Later historians wrote under the influence of a political world dominated by the Theodosian dynasty, and some of the language used in the victory panegyrics reappears in their accounts. Hostile descriptions of Maximus in these later works therefore often echo themes already present in the postwar portrayal of him as a defeated *tyrannus*.

Other ancient testimony shows that attitudes toward Maximus remained more varied. Sulpicius could criticize his accession and civil war while speaking favourably about him in other respects. Orosius likewise regarded the manner in which Maximus had taken power as unlawful while still describing him as an able ruler. The political category of tyrannus therefore did not erase every alternative assessment.

Public commemoration made the same point in another way. Maximus’s name could be attacked while his defeat was remembered extensively. At [Rome](https://romanempiretimes.com/romes-tastiest-obsession-the-red-mullet-and-the-price-of-prestige/), inscriptions erected after the victory honoured the imperial family as destroyers of tyrants and restorers of public security.

[Constantinople](https://romanempiretimes.com/the-plague-of-justinian-when-death-came-to-constantinople/) also incorporated the victory into Theodosian representation. The obelisk erected in the Hippodrome in 390 referred to defeated tyrants, interpreted in this context as Maximus and Victor, while the monument as a whole presented the dynasty and its victories on one of the most public stages of the eastern capital. 

The result was not oblivion but a controlled reconstruction of memory. Maximus’s status as emperor was rejected and acts of his government were attacked, while his defeat was repeatedly remembered because it contributed to the political legitimacy of the dynasty that had defeated him.

### How Maximus became Maxen Wledig

The consequences of Maximus’s departure from Britain are more difficult to establish than later accounts suggest. British tradition eventually connected him with a major withdrawal of troops from the island, but the end of Roman government in Britain cannot be reduced to the events of 383.

Military and administrative change continued for decades after Maximus. Later civil wars drew additional forces from the north-western provinces, political authority in northern Gaul changed substantially, and Britain’s relationship with the imperial government weakened through a longer process. Maximus’s expedition formed part of that history, but the evidence does not justify treating him as the man who single-handedly emptied Britain of Roman troops and caused Roman rule to collapse.

![A 1906 illustration titled The Dream of Macsen Wledig by Thomas Prytherch. Not a portrait of Magnus Maximus. Medieval Welsh tradition](https://storage.ghost.io/c/aa/80/aa80281a-abce-4f35-865f-05153c8cc335/content/images/2026/08/The-Dream-of-Macsen-Wledig--1--1.jpg)

A 1906 illustration titled **The Dream of Macsen Wledig* by Thomas Prytherch. Not a portrait of Magnus Maximus. Medieval Welsh tradition. Public domain

Maximus’s departure was one stage in a longer series of troop movements and military changes in Britain. Roman forces continued to be withdrawn or reorganised in the decades that followed, so the weakening of imperial control cannot be attributed to the events of 383 alone.

Gildas, writing much later, explicitly connected Magnus Maximus with the departure of Roman forces. His historical section, however, is strongly rhetorical and moralizing rather than a straightforward chronological record, and attempts to extract a continuous sequence from it create substantial problems.

Gildas’s later unnamed *superbus tyrannus*, usually associated with Vortigern, has also been interpreted as another reference to Magnus Maximus. That reading is based on structural parallels within Gildas’s narrative and on the repeated use of tyrant figures. Gildas himself, however, does not explicitly identify Maximus as the ruler who invited the Saxons.

The later Welsh tradition developed Maximus in another direction. Magnus Maximus became Maxen Wledig, attached to stories of Wales, dynastic ancestry and the movement of British power onto the continent. These traditions were written centuries after the events and cannot supply missing information about Maximus’s fourth-century career.

They do, however, show how differently his memory developed. The Theodosian government remembered a defeated tyrannus. Later British tradition incorporated Maximus into explanations of the end of Roman rule and the ancestry of rulers who came afterwards. In Gaul too, memories of his reign could differ from the official language produced after his defeat.

Magnus Maximus was a senior Roman commander in Britain whose soldiers proclaimed him emperor in 383\. He displaced Gratian and established a government that ruled Britain, Gaul and Spain from Trier. Over the following years, his regime negotiated with the other imperial courts, received a degree of recognition and raised his son Victor to the rank of Augustus. In 387, Maximus entered Italy and forced Valentinian II to flee east. 

Theodosius defeated him the following year, and Maximus was executed at Aquileia. After his death, Theodosian legislation and public commemoration presented him as a defeated *tyrannus*, while later British tradition remembered him very differently as Maxen Wledig.

💡

****Sources Used**:  
  
John Matthews, Western Aristocracies and Imperial Court, A.D. 364–425.  
  
Adrastos Omissi, Emperors and Usurpers in the Later Roman Empire: Civil War, Panegyric, and the Construction of Legitimacy.  
  
Adrastos Omissi, “Damnatio Memoriae or Creatio Memoriae? Memory Sanctions as Creative Processes in the Fourth Century AD.”  
  
Adrastos Omissi, “Two Letters of the Usurper Magnus Maximus (Collectio Avellane 39 and 40).”  
  
Guy Halsall, Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West, 376–568.  
  
Ammianus Marcellinus, Res Gestae.  
  
Ambrose of Milan, Letters.  
  
Sulpicius Severus, Chronicle and Dialogues.  
  
Zosimus, New History.  
  
Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History.  
  
Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History.  
  
Orosius, Histories Against the Pagans.  
  
Pacatus, Panegyric to Theodosius.  
  
Collectio Avellana, Letters 39–40.