Did Constantine being over-emphasized by Historians of antiquity

[chloesu51]

Constantine is being claimed with great historical signifiance. How do you evaluate his historical role. Did his individual behavior decisively change Rome's fortunes? Why or why not?

[Ursus]

He finalized Diocletian's reforms and helped formalize the shift of the political power to the East. He was also a sound military tactician as far as this amateur can tell. I believe he certainly deserves his place in the Roman pantheon of significant emperors. But his "greatness" has to be understood in geopolitical terms, not the slavish praises heaped on him by a sycophantic Church.

[caldrail]

He was a dishonest and manipulative man, not to mention someone who was capable of having his nearest and dearest bumped off. His greatness emerges from his patronage of christianity (despite being a life long pagan) and also for his attempt to unify the early christian sects to exploit religion as an arm of government, thus setting the scene for some of the worst excesses of the middle ages. Arguably he saved the Roman Empire from collapse, but since he was partially responsible for that situation by virtue of his ambition and consequent civil war against his rivals, he comes across as another king rat.

[caldrail]

Talking about Constantine, I watched a program about Jerusalem last night. My suspicions were aroused when the presenter started discussing Jesus, and when we got to Constantine, I could only groan. He told his audience that Constantine converted to christianity in 312, which I understand was not the case, and there was not a hint of criticism for the man. It was, essentially, a pro-christian view with some dubious references.

 

I don't actually believe Constantine is over emphasised at all. His reign was a watershed for the Romans in many ways, and not always for the better.

[abvgd]

His promotion of Christianity was historically very significant, as was his promotion of Constantinople as a new seat of power. Granted, he did not have the final say in making Christianity a state religion nor did he build the big walls surrounding Constantinople, but his role was decisive nevertheless in both cases. The influence and role of Christianity does not need any elaboration, yet it was nearly crushed under Diocletian (so they say, at least). Constantinople as a strategically positioned capital city played a vital role in stabilizing the Eastern half of the empire in the 5th century as well as checking the advance of Persians, Arabs and Turks.

 

There are lots of potential if:s in both cases, and the very nature of these hypothetical scenarios leave little doubt as to the importance of his chosen religion and seat of power.

 

For instance, what if Christianity had remained a marginalized sect in the Roman Empire? Would the Empire still have fallen the way it did? If yes, would there have been anyone else capable of fulfilling the Church's role during the Early Middle Ages? What if Constantinople had not been built where it was? Would the Eastern half of the Empire have suffered the same fate as the Western half? Would a Justinian have been possible in those circumstances? Would the Byzantines have been able to withstand the onslaught of Persians and Arabs? If not, what implications would that have had for Early Medieval Europe?

 

Another important impact of Constantine's rule was the very nature of his rise to power. Diocletian had laid out new rules for how the Roman Empire was to be governed, with two Augusta ruling the two halves of the Empire with a further two Caesars ruling under each Augustus. Constantine wasn't supposed to become emperor and the way he did it, he broke Diocletian's system before it had a chance to prove its worth in practice. Without Constantine, would Diocletian's system of governance have solved the chronic mismanagement of the Empire? Hard to tell as it was never given a chance in practice, so Constantine definitely did alter the Roman Empire was governed in a very critical stage of its existence. Constantine did OTOH prove to be a very able and long-lived ruler on his own merits, but as usual the issue of succession was left hanging in the air after his rule.

 

So, to conclude, Constantine's role isn't at all over-emphasized. He, along with Augustus, ahaped events for centuries to come in a way that most emperors were unable to. Of course, influence is not all about personal virtues and capabilities. It's just as much, if not more, about historical circumstances and chance events. If someone like Aurelian or Julian the Apostate would have ruled a little longer, they might have influenced the Empire in a very profound way, but they didn't while Constantie did, snd that's all there is to it.

Edited September 27, 2012 by abvgd