Constantine Savior of Rome or is destroyer

1- Pretty much what everyone else has already said. Constantine is not responsible for the suppression of paganism within the Empire.

Constantine's monetary policy were closely associated with his religious ones, in that increased minting was associated with measures of confiscation of all the gold, silver and bronze statues from pagan temples

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.

he knew that division would lead to civil war but he had to give something to the family witch only lead to make his sons arrange the slaughter of most of the rest of the family by the army
thanks god the idiots didnt killed justinian

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.

yes but i was talking about prestige and political power
rome was still considered by the romans to be their motherland and the creation of constantinople probably only weakened the ideia that rome was the center of the world
and the creation of a new senate in constantinople and putting the new senate with has much power has the old one made rome losse the political value that had since a new emperor could be declared in constantinople so rome only lost the advantage that had since all emperors had been declared soo by the roman senate
 
i have some more points but they will have to wait because i have a really importante fisics exame on the 23 so untill then put what you think constantine did right or wrongh and lets comment on a civil way (i will use my battle axe if you dare desagreed with me:D)
 
yes but i was talking about prestige and political power
rome was still considered by the romans to be their motherland and the creation of constantinople probably only weakened the ideia that rome was the center of the world
and the creation of a new senate in constantinople and putting the new senate with has much power has the old one made rome losse the political value that had since a new emperor could be declared in constantinople so rome only lost the advantage that had since all emperors had been declared soo by the roman senate

I can see where you're coming from here, but even after the founding of Constantinople Rome was still viewed as the center of the world and its symbolic importance was huge. It was only after the fall of Western Rome that Constantinople became so central to Roman culture (yes it was important before then, but as a major capitol, not the religious and cultural center of all Romans.)
 
I can see where you're coming from here, but even after the founding of Constantinople Rome was still viewed as the center of the world and its symbolic importance was huge. It was only after the fall of Western Rome that Constantinople became so central to Roman culture (yes it was important before then, but as a major capitol, not the religious and cultural center of all Romans.)

Rome was the center of roman history culture and religion
Constantine by creating constantinople made a shift in the empire. Rome was no longer the center of the empire. Rome was no longer the center of the roman religion. And the creation of constantinople made that roman culture language and costumes were now autdated(its written this way?:confused:)
ex Emperor julian member of constantine family, never could speak latin correctely, was greek, and never set foot on rome
Constantinople was a New Rome (unofficial title) created in the fundations of byzantium(greek city) it only made that the roman west lost the attraction to the greek lead east

by the way i think this thread is being verry funny i never thought that it would gain this manny posts soo fast
THKS TO ALL THAT ARE COMMENTING
 
Last edited:
Justinian was in no way related to Constantine, and Latin was most likely his native language. He was far from unusual in having never set foot in Rome and many Emperors before Constantine hadn't, either. I want to say Maximinus Thrax was the first.

Also, I believe New Rome was he official name of the city and Constantinople was just a popular nickname at first.
 
DOminus Norvys i wrotte the name wrongh i meant julian the apostate sorry about that :p i already corrected the mistake
the names used in byzantium after constantine rebuilt the city were many among them "the New, second Rome", "Eastern Rome", Roma Constantinopolitana.
but New Rome was i think more of an title one that made many problems in the future regards the great shism
Once again sorry about my mistake in name of the emperor :D
 
Rome was the center of roman history culture and religion
Constantine by creating constantinople made a shift in the empire. Rome was no longer the center of the empire. Rome was no longer the center of the roman religion. And the creation of constantinople made that roman culture language and costumes were now autdated(its written this way?:confused:)
ex Emperor julian member of constantine family, never could speak latin correctely, was greek, and never set foot on rome
Constantinople was a New Rome (unofficial title) created in the fundations of byzantium(greek city) it only made that the roman west lost the attraction to the greek lead east

by the way i think this thread is being verry funny i never thought that it would gain this manny posts soo fast
THKS TO ALL THAT ARE COMMENTING

This was already the reality before Constantine (even before Constantinople, the capital had shifted to Ravenna, Nicomedia, and other places), he just made it official.

Besides, the East ruling their half of the Empire was definitely not a bad thing. The ERE survived almost 1000 years after the collapse of the WRE, and had it not been for some ridiculous historical accidents (Looking at you, Angeloi) they could have survived another 1000 years. The erosion of the Rome's power over the Empire was pretty much inevitable.
 
This was already the reality before Constantine (even before Constantinople, the capital had shifted to Ravenna, Nicomedia, and other places), he just made it official.

Besides, the East ruling their half of the Empire was definitely not a bad thing. The ERE survived almost 1000 years after the collapse of the WRE, and had it not been for some ridiculous historical accidents (Looking at you, Angeloi) they could have survived another 1000 years. The erosion of the Rome's power over the Empire was pretty much inevitable.

i know it was enevitable but puting the center of power in the greek east only aumented the gap between them and the latin west
i dont think the empire could have last more than it did, it could have happened but they had to get a verry good emperor had change the tradition of civil war(1) that happened almost every time an emperor died and he had 2 or more sons

(1) civil war in like the deposition of Isaac II Angelos by Alexios III Angelos and
 
DOminus Norvys i wrotte the name wrongh i meant julian the apostate sorry about that :p i already corrected the mistake
the names used in byzantium after constantine rebuilt the city were many among them "the New, second Rome", "Eastern Rome", Roma Constantinopolitana.
but New Rome was i think more of an title one that made many problems in the future regards the great shism
Once again sorry about my mistake in name of the emperor :D

Sorry, but Julian also almost certainly spoke Latin, and he was not exactly 'Greek,' though his mother was. Remember that his rise to power was almost entirely in the West, campaigning in Gallia against the Alemanni.

Most educated Romans throughout much of its history, probably from the mid Republic until around Justinian-Heraclius or so, would have spoken both Greek and Latin quite fluently.
 
Top