Constantine the ""Great""

I'm reading about the life of Emperor Constantine I, and I am surprised as to why he is hailed as a great Emperor when his entire life story sounds like that of the typical upstart and rebel warlord, of the same type that plagued the late Roman Empire and caused the Tetrarchy to be implemented in the first place.

He is indistinguishable from Maxentius or Licinius: he was just another power-hungry man who wanted to obtain more power than the other Caesars or Augustii, intriguing against his co-rulers and disregarding orders because he thought he had a better claim to rulership than others and going to war because - like everyone else - he thought he should be on the thone.

The only reason he's called ""Great"" is because he won the war of the Tetrarchy: we could have easily had a Maxentius the Great, or a Licinus the Great, and nothing would have changed.

Petty little warlord, only glorified because of the Edict of Milan and the Church's rise to power in later centuries. It's because of people like Constantine that the Crisis of the Third Century even occurred!

>"I should rule because I say so."
>"Fuck the Augustus, I can be Emperor if I want."
>"I'm plunging the Empire into civil war if you don't give me what I want, i.e. the title of Agustus [even though I'm already a wealthy and educated noble who could retire to his private villa and live in luxury)."

You are entirely correct. It should have been Diocletian the Great, or Aurelian the Great, but instead the Romans get saddled with Constantine. It's why Julian is labelled the Apostate, not because o f who he was or his exemplary qualities, but because christians couldn't handle Julian the Martyr, or Julian the Scholar.

I dislike Constantine merely for his part in helping Christianity develop into such a strong force.

Constantine was a questionable christian at best though. Even his deathbed conversion was done under a heretic.

Personally I dislike Constantine for abandoning the west in favor of Asia and the Balkans. Constantine himself wasn't that much of a Christian. Emperors like Theodosius are truly despicable in their destruction of old Roman ways such as closing the olympics and the destruction of Pagan artifacts.

>"he's a heretic because he isn't a part of my very specific denomination that aligns with those arbitrary preferences of mine."

I'm not a christian, just trying to point out that the religious situation at the time was vastly different from today. He didn't sign a declaration that pagans needed to be stamped out now. It's highly debatable how much he even knew about Christianity.

Constantine never treated Christianity seriously, and by seriously i mean how actual Christians treated it at the time. He saw Christianity as nothing more but another eastern cult, similar to cult of Mithras and Sol Invictus, which had pretty strong influence in the empire. He was in fact a follower of Sol Invictus through most of his life.

Constantine had a typical Roman viewpoint on cults and religions, which can roughly be summed up as "the more gods we worship, the more favor they'll show us." The Abrahamic idea of one, true god who has no tolerance for other cults and other gods is completely foreign to Greco-Roman syncretism.

Constantine was memed into history because Christians needed such a figure.

I've never really understood how Christians reconcile venerating worldly conquerors like Constantine as saints or figures of christian virtue and such. Isn't conquest for the sake of concepts like glory, domination, imperium, and so on about the least Christian way a person can spend their life?

I think you should examine that current era.
-Christians were just out of a major persecution
-Christians were still a minority
-Even after Constantine there was a threat of persecution-paganism being sponsored etc

Constantine became a Christian in this century, his bad deeds, lack of total piety etc were brushed by Christians because they really needed a figure. Again take a look at the century, 4th century Christians were in no place to be choosers, they were happy with what they got and then idolized him in the process

>killed his own son and wife for no reason beyond lust for power
>still considered a saint by the Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox, and Byzantine Catholics; considered a paragon of virtue by all the other Christian denominations.

>killing two people
>somehow worse than saving millions of souls over the centuries
Constantine was not perfect, but his actions led the west to salvation.

>killed his own son and wife

No it's because they were having sex together

Why would he kill his son and wife for power?

>It's highly debatable how much he even knew about Christianity
it's well known his mother was a christian. i think it's very likely he was raised christian. deathbed baptisms were very common in his day, hardly a sign he didn't take the religion seriously during his life

>No it's because they were having sex together

First of all, the accusations were never worded so boldly. Second, the accusations are widely held to be myths, with the actual reasons being Constantine's desire to keep a firm grip on his heirs and wanting to send a message that he would kill anyone - even relatives - to assure the continuation of his dynasty.

>it's well known his mother was a christian. i think it's very likely he was raised christian. deathbed baptisms were very common in his day, hardly a sign he didn't take the religion seriously during his life

You're an idiot. See: ().

completely agree

>somehow worse than saving millions of souls over the centuries
>Constantine was not perfect, but his actions led the west to salvation.

Do we really need to go through this again? Christianity's supernatural and divine claims are not real. Nobody was "saved' because of Constantine's actions. Nobody has ever been "saved" from believing in Christianity, a man-made religion like all the others before it and after it.

I actually agree with you. Roman civil wars were hugely damaging to the Empire and Constantine was a player in those. he gets a pass because might makes right when it comes to history and he defeated his rivals, but in terms of stability he wasn't any better than them. if he was really a good roman patriot he would have ruled his section of the empire and left it at that.

>"it's well known..."

We hardly know anything about his mother Helena, and you say Constantine was a Christian, despite his recognition and worship of pagan gods.

according to who? Eusibius who then has a big conversion scene for Constantine?

>according to who?

Asks the idiot who believes in the hagiography.

As one user already pointed out in this thread, "Constantine never treated Christianity seriously. He saw it as nothing more but another eastern cult, similar to the cults of Mithras and Sol Invictus, which had pretty strong influence in the empire. He was in fact a follower of Sol Invictus through most of his life.

Constantine had a typical Roman viewpoint on cults and religions, which can roughly be summed up as 'the more gods we worship, the more favor they'll show us.' The Abrahamic idea of one, true god who has no tolerance for other cults and other gods is completely foreign to Greco-Roman syncretism."

Let's make this a Diocletian thread, you know, the man whose many great contributions were hijacked by Constantine because of Christfags.

...

at least I'm referencing a source, unlike what you've quoted. how have you reached this conclusion?

ultimately it's all his fault

>Eusebius
>""source""

You've got to be fucking kidding me.

Not him, but primary sources for the period that aren't written by Christian authors are sparse as hell. Modern historians are in agreement using inscriptions and the like that the old view of Constantine as a hardcore Christian instead of someone who merely believed in the Christian God alongside traditional Roman sun god worship etc. is hilariously outdated and the preserve of 18th century Gibbonian-era scholars only.

Not him, but primary sources for the period that aren't written by Christian authors are sparse as hell. Modern historians are in agreement using inscriptions and the like that the old view of Constantine as a hardcore Christian instead of someone who merely believed in the Christian God alongside traditional Roman sun god worship etc. is hilariously outdated and the preserve of 18th century Gibbonian-era scholars only. Peter Brown, Jones and other Late Antiquity authorities talk a lot about it I believe.

Yes, he was one of our few sources. quite biased but we don't have anything better. and you still haven't said what you are using to back up your claims

Please don't confuse Catholics with Christians. The catholic church has killed millions of Christians.

>source

Why do you need sources for basic historical facts? Constantine minted coinage of himself standing next to Sol Invictus-Apollo in 313 CE; he deified his own father as a demigod-hero; in his early reign, Constantine had minted coins of himself being watched over by Mars, as a way of saying giving thanks for his early military campaigns. Constantine even picked an orator from Gaul to make a speech in which it was said Apollo had granted Constantine a vision.

These aren't hypotheses, these are FACTS. Do your own reading, lazy fuck.

>"he's a heretic because he isn't a part of my very specific denomination that aligns with those arbitrary preferences of mine."

Don't care, you all belong in the trash.

But Constantine put bans on building new temples and even gave orders for some temples to be pillaged

In other words, he was an opportunist who claimed to be pagan or Christian whenever it suited him.

Your point?

that seems to be at the least leaning christan a lot. he certainly never persecuted christans for the support of pagans aftet gaining power

>tfw everyone posting ITT is just Julian the Apostate talking to himself

You call that 'funny'?

0/10

Julian pls go

...