What Difference Did Constantine Make?

[Maty]

Just to add two bits worth here ... one of Constantine's major achievements was to stabilize the currency which had been in runaway inflation mode up to this point. (The new coinage of the  libra, solidus and denarius made up the £.S.d which anyone familiar with British currency until a few decades ago will recall.) This stabilization was done by using temple treasure, and in the process peeving quite a few devout pagans.

 

Therefore C. needed political support to balance those alienated pagans. This support was most easily obtained from those who had no interest in keeping treasure in the temples - i.e. the Christians. Not saying this was Constantine's only reason for backing the Christians, but given his general cynicism, I'd say it was certainly on the list. (Have you noted the total lack of Christian iconography on his triumphal arch, which was built somewhat earlier?)

[caldrail]

It's his behaviour. Constantine was a martial man (and successful too), a skilled propagandist (Visions in the sky), and had his own son executed for apparently sleeping with Constantines missus. Now I don't call that sociopathic as such, nor do I accept he needed to be, but he defintiely had a ruthless streak as any good Roman emperor required if he was going to survive and hold the reins. Nonetheless, Constantine was definitely shameless in his patronage of christianity which he supported for political reasons, not any spiritual motive.

[Novosedoff]

On 2/1/2016 at 11:07 PM, Maty said:

Just to add two bits worth here ... one of Constantine's major achievements was to stabilize the currency which had been in runaway inflation mode up to this point. (The new coinage of the  libra, solidus and denarius made up the £.S.d which anyone familiar with British currency until a few decades ago will recall.) This stabilization was done by using temple treasure, and in the process peeving quite a few devout pagans.

 

Therefore C. needed political support to balance those alienated pagans. This support was most easily obtained from those who had no interest in keeping treasure in the temples - i.e. the Christians. Not saying this was Constantine's only reason for backing the Christians, but given his general cynicism, I'd say it was certainly on the list. (Have you noted the total lack of Christian iconography on his triumphal arch, which was built somewhat earlier?)

Precisely. There is a chapter about Constantine in Stephen Williams' book about Diocletian, in which Williams mentions the fact that Constantine rummaged the pagan temples for gold. Because the Roman economy was crumbling with high inflation and years of political struggle between those who succeeded the tetrarchs. So the rise of Christianity was a by-product of the events and emerged rather out of necessity than spiritual devotion, Constantine didn't even mean to make it the dominant religion, it was supposed to be equi-distanced like any other. After all as an emperor Constantine was the highest Roman priest (or Pontifex Maximus) and so had the legal right to intervene and administer any existing religious cults. The myth of Constantine's baptistry on the deathbed  is among many other myths of Christianity and perhaps ain't worth any attention.

PS It is very difficult to avoid being called "the Great" once a man usurped authority by killing all his rivals.

[caldrail]

The myth of Constantine's baptistry on the deathbed  is among many other myths of Christianity and perhaps ain't worth any attention.

Christian history suggests that Constantine became a christian much earlier in 312 yet remained associated with the Unconquered Sun. His delayed baptism has been interpreted as a spiritual insurance policy (Eusebius would certainly disagree). 

PS It is very difficult to avoid being called "the Great" once a man usurped authority by killing all his rivals.

History tends to show that such ruthlessness is rarely responsible for nominating a title like "the Great". Mostly it earns a title like "the Tyrant". Romans in particular had strong views about tyranny and this was something a Roman emperor would be well advised to consider. After all, panem et circuses existed for practical purposes.

[Novosedoff]

Well, I think we've been over this on the other forum, caldrail 🙂

We may call Constantine whatever we like, but the facts give us a slightly different image

The devoted Christian who fed his enemies to wild beasts in the arena (see attached screenshot)

The same person who ordered to murder his own son and his own wife the very next year after the 1st Christian council of Nicaea was held. He promoted the Christianity only because he needed an excuse to rob the gold from pagan temples, after which the empty temples would be handed over to Christians     

[caesar novus]

What if he didn't enforce the Nicaea decision on holy ghost/spirit, aside from any resulting combat? Altho he didn't influence the decision, he wanted to stifle untidy disagreements. It strikes me as a committee type compromise - would history be much different if alternatives naturally rose to dominance? I hear a US cult church (tarzan piloted plane crash church) used the trinity structure to assign their leader to holy ghost/spirit status over worshipers.

[Novosedoff]

Well, my personal view of the decisions of the council of Nicaea may strike someone as very cynical, but I do believe that Arianism and the holy trinity concepts certainly were not the top priority. I think the top priority was the decision that forbade priests to engage in usury. Basically the decision meant a few different things: 1) Christian priests did engage in usury, so usury could be regarded  as a source of their regular income before the council, 2) Constantine turned Christianity into a state-sponsored religion, so priests would no longer need to engage in other activities

[caldrail]

I don't think Constantine would have cared less about usury, he was only interested in creating a stable controlled society, and Christianity was a means to an end. But of course, they might have been right, hence he got baptised at the end of life - just in case.

[Novosedoff]

On 12/1/2021 at 11:42 PM, caldrail said:

hence he got baptised at the end of life 

Let's say you are about to die, and I am a chaplain who succeeded in converting some of your heirs.
Let's say over the years of your life time you didn't give a damn about attending church service, killed your wives, children, enjoyed watching your enemies being torn apart by wild beasts in the arena while chewing popcorn, became a full-fledged dictator by eliminating your opponents one by one, robbed temples for gold, you even less cared about all that bullsh*t nonsense recorded in our books with resurrections, moon walks on the water and Jews all over the place.
The day you die I walk out from your house with tears in my eyes and address the crowd with words full of piety, I tell the crowd that you died in peace and we all witnessed your baptistry on the deathbed. I tell the crowd I have a few witnesses who can confirm my words (all of my witnesses turned out to be Christians like me). Is my fairy tale enough to turn you into a Christian?

 

Edited December 3, 2021 by Novosedoff

[caldrail]

Don't forget, N, Romans were a deeply superstitious people. Constantine was a military man and used to hard choices, obedience, and good order, but in dealing with the afterlife who was to say the Christians were wrong? And for that matter, whilst he felt it necessary, as rulers sometimes do, to execute members of his own family, that doesn't mean he felt void of regret or fear his actions would rebound on him.

[Novosedoff]

Yeah, that's why in addition they proclaimed Constantine saint, so he is still venerated as such at least in Eastern tradition (the Catholic church has proven to be more prudent in  relation to Constantine) 

A bunch of locos worshipping another loco - that's so like humans, I mean the superstitious part of them, i.e. the majority..

[guy]

This is an interesting old thread, for sure.

Constantine is to Christianity what Henry VIII is to Protestant Anglicism. Although neither man is an exemplar of the faith they promoted, both were essential for the change in the religious trajectory of their time. Both men were opportunists who used a less powerful church to achieve their goals against entrenched elites.

Novosedoff: Although I may agree with your point, the anecdote you highlighted showing Constantine’s viciousness was in 306 AD, six years before his conversion to Christianity.

Finally, I always found Constantine’s deathbed Christian baptism very indicative of his faith. He was baptized by Eusebius of Nicomedia, an Arian Christian whose faith was condemned by Constantine’s own First Counsel of Nicaea that occurred just a few years before his death.

 

Edited December 5, 2021 by guy

[Novosedoff]

Ok, 6 years before conversion were d*mn sure enough to have turned Constantine into a kind and benevolent person, playing bones with his visitors, petting his German shepherd, sniffing at flowers and making flower crowns for himself and his Mr doggy to make it all look even more crazy

While lying on his deathbed struck with paralysis he was d*mn sure thinking of nothing else but Jesus and his conversion to Christianity, so when he saw a bishop performing his water ritual magic instead of "Get off my sight, you freaking idiot" Constantine was surely thinking something like "At last happy to become a part of your community! Please give me that f cross to kiss"

 

Edited December 5, 2021 by Novosedoff

[caldrail]

You seem to regard this as a black or white issue regarding mindset and behaviour. Just because there is a stereotypical behaviour of a modern christian to observe does not mean that Constantine complied with that 1700 years ago.

He was a life long pagan by default, no matter what Eusebius claimed, a military conqueror who won a civil war, a determined character who was ruthless enough to take power in the empire, and defend that power against those who acted against his interests. That alone places him apart from most common worshippers. Could you take on the established order and grab power in your own country? No, of course not, or you already would be appearing in the news in that context.

But what comes across in the sources is an expedience. People turn on those they suspect for survival. It's necessary in that sort of dangerous political climate where winner takes all. Although Constantine felt the need to be ruthless, it does not necessarily follow that he was a complete and terrible psychopath. His record has a limited amount of bloodletting, something then he may have felt he had to do rather than why not? So a part of him would have regretted the necessity to bump off his wife and son (who may actually have been having an affair, they weren't directly related). As such, and as he approaches his final moment, it is perfectly reasonable that he might have wondered if these preachers were right and he was destined for Hell because of his actions. So a last minute conversion is an insurance policy, another expedience, just in case.