Constantine Savior of Rome or is destroyer

[the lord of rome]

I know that Constantine is viewed has one of the greatest emperors of rome and i acknowledge that he many of the reforms that he establish were necessary but i think that in the end many of his decisions only weakened the empire
1º Religion
his was in my opinion is biggest mistake, not the stopping of christians persecutions, but the suppression of other religions. That weakened the empire because the pagans were being repressed, and most of the empire was still pagan. Most of the next emperors were forced to spent much time trying to call the hate between cults, especially between christians, the christians spent more time killing themselves that defending the empire. The arrians hated the ortodox who hated Christian asceticism and many other christian cults. Much manpower and stability was lost because of this.
2º Crispus
I think this speaks for itself.
Killing is only capable son was suppid it doesn't matter he was folled it was stupid.
3º Constantinople
the creation of a new capital in the east probably made the western and eastern empires more divided
why would the eastern legions go and help the west if they were now the empire's heart?
rome stopped being the crown jewels of the empire to being only the "old" capital, the roman senate lost all its political power when the senate of constantinople was created
had the capital been rome would the east be more eager to help the west? probably no but the creation of a new capital, especially a christian one, only it only made the more pagan oriented western empire more isolated from the east, and it divided the church in a way that even now christianity is still divided between the pope and the patriarch of constantinople
this are only 3 points but i would love to see what you think about them
i have some more specialy about the creation of the limitanei that i think only made the western empire more dependeble in the foderaly (i will explain this latter if i have time i realy hate exame season)
fell free to comment even if its only to call me a stupid that doesn't know anything about the greatness of constantine

 

[Caesar Biden]

Like any person in history, Constantine was a flawed figure, but his reforms definitely did more good than harm. To all your points:

1. Religion: over-exaggerated. Religion played very little part in the Empire's downfall, unlike many historians like to claim. Not adopting Christianity ever would have been far, far worse, as this growing minority would undermine the Empire much more than pagans did.

2. Crispus: irrelevant to the fall of the Empire. This happened long before Rome was in serious trouble.

3. Constantinople over Rome: Rome was already a weak and fading city when Constantinople was established. Founding Constantinople and splitting the Empire gave Rome a new lease on life. It was much easier to manage two parts of the empire than for an emperor to try to be in every point at once.

 

[Artaxerxes]

In reply to number 3

Even during the wars of Augustus and Antony Rome was the lesser cousin of the Eastern provinces, the entire Western half of the Empire was much much poorer than the East and the legions loved the much greater chances of loot and easy service available in them.

By the time Constantine formally created Constantinople the Emperors had started to spend less and less time actually in Rome itself, while the middle classes and citizens of the Western empire had become thoroughly Romanised and had less interest in actually fighting Romes wars themselves, this led to a bleeding of powers and the increasing use of Germanic and other tribes as Rome just couldn't get the manpower otherwise.

 

[the lord of rome]

thanks for the replly

1. Religion: over-exaggerated. Religion played very little part in the Empire's downfall, unlike many historians like to claim. Not adopting Christianity ever would have been far, far worse, as this growing minority would undermine the Empire much more than pagans did.

i agreed that not adopting christianity would be worst but the problem were that most christian emperors hated paganism theodosious was the worst.
and costantine by persecuting pagans created a gap in the army sence most of the were followers of mitras or sol invicuts

2. Crispus: irrelevant to the fall of the Empire. This happened long before Rome was in serious trouble.

of the folloing emperors only justinian know what to do
and constantine sons were ussless they spent more time fighting ammong themselfs tham protecting the empire

3. Constantinople over Rome: Rome was already a weak and fading city when Constantinople was established. Founding Constantinople and splitting the Empire gave Rome a new lease on life. It was much easier to manage two parts of the empire than for an emperor to try to be in every point at once.[/QUOTE]

i know that rome was already a weak city and that the empire was rulled mostly form mediolanum or ravena but those citys were in italy in the west putting a capital in the east only weakeneed the western empire because it shifted the center of power
the devision of the empire is important but the only time it worked was durring the Tetrarchy and then only with the original Tetrarchy

 

[the lord of rome]

thks for the reply mate

In reply to number 3

Even during the wars of Augustus and Antony Rome was the lesser cousin of the Eastern provinces, the entire Western half of the Empire was much much poorer than the East and the legions loved the much greater chances of loot and easy service available in them.

By the time Constantine formally created Constantinople the Emperors had started to spend less and less time actually in Rome itself, while the middle classes and citizens of the Western empire had become thoroughly Romanised and had less interest in actually fighting Romes wars themselves, this led to a bleeding of powers and the increasing use of Germanic and other tribes as Rome just couldn't get the manpower otherwise.

yes but an western capital like mediolano would make the eastern emperors to help the west
from the moment the west gave away there political power their were desteny to fall because the east thought of the west has only a burden that had nothing to give to them but problems
about the the middle classes and citizens of the Western empire had become thoroughly Romanised and hadthat still hadnt appen durring constantine the legions of gaul were still in the time of Majorian gaul and hispaina were the heart of the west and the gauls and hispanians were willing to fight for the empire Aegidius in gaul was able to fight the franks for a long time with is gaulic trops. only the italians had become less interest in actually fighting Romes wars

 

[Basileus Giorgios]

i agreed that not adopting christianity would be worst but the problem were that most christian emperors hated paganism theodosious was the worst.
and costantine by persecuting pagans created a gap in the army sence most of the were followers of mitras or sol invicuts

Got a source for your statement about the religion of the soldiery?

Constantine also didn't persecute pagans. Christianity was only officially adopted as a state religion by Theodosius, and there were clearly large and active pagan communities for several generations after that.

of the folloing emperors only justinian know what to do
and constantine sons were ussless they spent more time fighting ammong themselfs tham protecting the empire

Justinian was probably the most succesful Emperor post-Constantine, yes, but I think it's difficult to argue that Constantius II, Valentinian I and Theodosius I enjoyed anything other than fairly successful reigns.

i know that rome was already a weak city and that the empire was rulled mostly form mediolanum or ravena but those citys were in italy in the west putting a capital in the east only weakeneed the western empire because it shifted the center of power
the devision of the empire is important but the only time it worked was durring the Tetrarchy and then only with the original Tetrarchy

The Western Empire flourished throughout the fourth century: and in any case, Constantinople only became a permanent centre of power once the permanent division of the Empire was well established. Throughout the fourth century, Constantinople was merely the most prominent of several imperial HQs that also included Trier, Milan and Antioch.

 

[the lord of rome]

Got a source for your statement about the religion of the soldiery?

Sol Invictus is the patron of soldiers and thanks to emperor auralian it became one of the most popular gods ammong soldiers
mitras is considered the god of soldiers and is misterys were for soldiers only
Geden, A. S. (15 October 2004). Select Passages Illustrating Mithraism 1925. Kessinger Publishing. pp. 51–. ISBN 978-1-4179-8229-5. Retrieved 28 March 2011. Porphyry moreover seems to be the only writer who makes reference to women initiates into the service and rites of Mithra, and his allusion is perhaps due to a misunderstanding.....The participation of women in the ritual was not unknown in the Eastern cults, but the predominant military influence in Mithraism seems to render it unlikely in this instance.

Constantine also didn't persecute pagans. Christianity was only officially adopted as a state religion by Theodosius, and there were clearly large and active pagan communities for several generations after that.

paper on the late roman empire
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/secondary/BURLAT/11*.html see Persecution of Paganism


Justinian was probably the most succesful Emperor post-Constantine, yes, but I think it's difficult to argue that Constantius II, Valentinian I and Theodosius I enjoyed anything other than fairly successful reigns.

about constantius II i dont know much i admit so i will not argue with you
but Valentinian I he is one of the best emperors i know of and about justinian i successors we have to admit that he was an exception
Theodosius i was speaking of emperos of the western part

The Western Empire flourished throughout the fourth century: and in any case, Constantinople only became a permanent centre of power once the permanent division of the Empire was well established. Throughout the fourth century, Constantinople was merely the most prominent of several imperial HQs that also included Trier, Milan and Antioch.

constantinople was in all but name the capital and the western part never liked the ideia of having to accept orders from constantinople

 

[Deleted member 67076]

Constantine did not surpress other religions, that was Theodosius.

 

[the lord of rome]

Constantine did not surpress other religions, that was Theodosius.

he had to supressed to achive is goal of regilious unity
one ex. the donatists they were one of the many christian cults originaly from carthage they were supressed by him because they refused to accept the sacraments and spiritual authority of the priests and bishops who had fallen away from the faith during the persecution of Diocletian.

 

[TheYoungPretender]

he had to supressed to achive is goal of regilious unity
one ex. the donatists they were one of the many christian cults originaly from carthage they were supressed by him because they refused to accept the sacraments and spiritual authority of the priests and bishops who had fallen away from the faith during the persecution of Diocletian.

Except most of the numistastic evidence (the iconography on coins, which would be the most common and effective form of propaganda during the age) has a Constantine who was very cagey - you see the occasional Chi-Ro, sure. You also see the occasional sun (Sol Invictus), and iconography associated with other gods. Often without specific wording saying which one he was talking about. A cagey man, Constantine.

Really, the way Constantine helped the Church grow was making it respectable, and because the Church's provided a ready-made chancellory of literate greeks with a hierarchy that communicated with each other. That's a positive advantage that allows a faith to grow without as much need of leg-breakers.

 

[Avitus]

he had to supressed to achive is goal of regilious unity
one ex. the donatists they were one of the many christian cults originaly from carthage they were supressed by him because they refused to accept the sacraments and spiritual authority of the priests and bishops who had fallen away from the faith during the persecution of Diocletian.

No, he flat out did not introduce anything that could be considered persecution of pagans, and your source actually confirms this, stating that actual persecution didn't begin until Theodosius and Valens (although it does make some ridiculous unsourced assertions about how exclusivist religions can't be tolerant in the long run, and implies that Constantine knew that there would be persecution eventually).

Constantine also didn't persecute Christian heresies in the traditional sense, since he spent most of his reign trying to establish the meaning of Orthodoxy, without which there can be no heresy to persecute. Even then, he was very lenient to persons found heretical, such as Arius, who was briefly exiled before having all of his punishments remitted.

 

[the lord of rome]

No, he flat out did not introduce anything that could be considered persecution of pagans, and your source actually confirms this, stating that actual persecution didn't begin until Theodosius and Valens (although it does make some ridiculous unsourced assertions about how exclusivist religions can't be tolerant in the long run, and implies that Constantine knew that there would be persecution eventually).

Constantine also didn't persecute Christian heresies in the traditional sense, since he spent most of his reign trying to establish the meaning of Orthodoxy, without which there can be no heresy to persecute. Even then, he was very lenient to persons found heretical, such as Arius, who was briefly exiled before having all of his punishments remitted.

yes but from the moment constantine gave power to the christian church, the church leaders began to attack the pagans and their shires
i know this was someting that would always appen from the moment he gave them power but i think he should have tried to do like in the republic

 

[Deleted member 67076]

yes but from the moment constantine gave power to the christian church, the church leaders began to attack the pagans and their shires
i know this was someting that would always appen from the moment he gave them power but i think he should have tried to do like in the republic

You got a citation for that? Right now you sound like someone paid by a Fourth Century senator that's got a bone to pick with St Ambrose.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

he had to supressed to achive is goal of regilious unity
one ex. the donatists they were one of the many christian cults originaly from carthage they were supressed by him because they refused to accept the sacraments and spiritual authority of the priests and bishops who had fallen away from the faith during the persecution of Diocletian.

Constantine was one for hedging his bets. He still used pagan symbols and appealed to pagan sensibilities and pagan religious practices long after he promoted Christianity. The persecution of non-Christians didn't start until Gratian in the west, and Theodosius in the east (and later) in the west.

 

[TaylorS]

The notion that Christianity weakened the Empire is the creation of Ed Gibbon and is based on Enlightenment-Era secular polemics, not fact. Unfortunately this bad history was re-popularized by Carl Sagan's ignorant rant about Christians burning down the Library of Alexandria in Cosmos.

 

[TheYoungPretender]

The notion that Christianity weakened the Empire is the creation of Ed Gibbon and is based on Enlightenment-Era secular polemics, not fact. Unfortunately this bad history was re-popularized by Carl Sagan's ignorant rant about Christians burning down the Library of Alexandria in Cosmos.

To be fair, the Serrapiam being burned was a good thing in terms of preserving books. However, the fact that the Library was in fact burned by Julius Caesar while he backed Cleopatra's coup does seem a touch ironic...

 

[Fabius Maximus]

The notion that Christianity weakened the Empire is the creation of Ed Gibbon and is based on Enlightenment-Era secular polemics, not fact. Unfortunately this bad history was re-popularized by Carl Sagan's ignorant rant about Christians burning down the Library of Alexandria in Cosmos.

I've always found it particularly ironic to see Christianity blamed for book-burning, given that 99% of the literature we have from the Classical world was preserved through being re-copied by armies of Christian monks.

 

[Caesar Biden]

I've always found it particularly ironic to see Christianity blamed for book-burning, given that 99% of the literature we have from the Classical world was preserved through being re-copied by armies of Christian monks.

*Ahem*

Not necessarily saying you're wrong, but I'm fairly certain Muslims made up more than 1%/.

 

[DominusNovus]

You got a citation for that? Right now you sound like someone paid by a Fourth Century senator that's got a bone to pick with St Ambrose.

Its very apt that you mention Ambrose, as he's a great example of the general level of tolerance in the government, pre-Theodosius.

Prefect Ambrose did his best to maintain peace between the various religious factions of the time and did not allow his own personal Orthodoxy to influence his governance. Bishop Ambrose, on the other hand, had no qualms whatsoever about using any and all of his influence to suppress all other faiths whenever possible.

 

[DominusNovus]

I know that Constantine is viewed has one of the greatest emperors of rome and i acknowledge that he many of the reforms that he establish were necessary but i think that in the end many of his decisions only weakened the empire
1º Religion
his was in my opinion is biggest mistake, not the stopping of christians persecutions, but the suppression of other religions. That weakened the empire because the pagans were being repressed, and most of the empire was still pagan. Most of the next emperors were forced to spent much time trying to call the hate between cults, especially between christians, the christians spent more time killing themselves that defending the empire. The arrians hated the ortodox who hated Christian asceticism and many other christian cults. Much manpower and stability was lost because of this.
2º Crispus
I think this speaks for itself.
Killing is only capable son was suppid it doesn't matter he was folled it was stupid.
3º Constantinople
the creation of a new capital in the east probably made the western and eastern empires more divided
why would the eastern legions go and help the west if they were now the empire's heart?
rome stopped being the crown jewels of the empire to being only the "old" capital, the roman senate lost all its political power when the senate of constantinople was created
had the capital been rome would the east be more eager to help the west? probably no but the creation of a new capital, especially a christian one, only it only made the more pagan oriented western empire more isolated from the east, and it divided the church in a way that even now christianity is still divided between the pope and the patriarch of constantinople
this are only 3 points but i would love to see what you think about them
i have some more specialy about the creation of the limitanei that i think only made the western empire more dependeble in the foderaly (i will explain this latter if i have time i realy hate exame season)
fell free to comment even if its only to call me a stupid that doesn't know anything about the greatness of constantine

1- Pretty much what everyone else has already said. Constantine is not responsible for the suppression of paganism within the Empire.
2- You won't find too many arguments from anyone throughout history on that point. Throw in the fact that a guy who came to power by overthrowing 4-man rule in the Empire decided to basically split it up among 5 heirs, and you get the idea that Constantine really didn't know how to handle family.
3- It had been a century since political power was focused in the west. Alexander Severus spent a good chunk of his reign in Rome, but then you had a century of barracks Emperors ruling from the Danube and Rhine and the Persian frontier. Then, the Tetrarchy was basically governed from Nicomedia, which is not exactly far from Constantinople.