What i understood from this is that Constantine had to be ambiguous so as to not alienate roman aristocracy which was still overwhelmingly pagan provided if he really favored Christianity that is.
It kind of hints more at what the opinion was, in that not everyone was on board with Christianity in the early 4th century. The way the Arch was decorated shows this, but it's more implied than answered.
The video makes it pretty clear, the Arch that was built for Constantine after he liberated Rome makes no reference to Christianity. The painting that was hung in the Senate house after Constantine died showed him going to the afterlife but which god or gods was "diplomatically" left out. Not to mention Rome wouldn't become majorily Christian till hundreds of years later, with the aristocracy holding their Pagen views till even later. You want him to just come out and say it? They didn't like it. Learn to read between the lines guys.
@@Brosephski69 None of that tells us how Roman's received Christianity. The arrival of new gods into the establishment was a natural sight in Rome, but immediately making a god the chief deity would always be dangerous regardless of the God (see Elagabalus). The fact that Constantine was being diplomatic with these actions doesn't tell us what Roman's made of Constantine's Christianity
@James Quinton Roman Catholicism came in 1054AD. Greek Orthodoxy and even the Liturgy and Greek language were used in the west, so learn Church history and Council of Nicaea 325AD before making that claim. Papacy was never a thing during the first 1000 years. Multiple patriarchates existed, whereas in Papism, there's only one Pope/Patriarch. The fact you don't know means you shan't argue Christian history with me
What I gathered from this video is that Constantine kept everything ambiguous and did not clearly come out and say, OK everyone today we start a new religion, so I guess many were still Pagan.
@@TBrewer64 Pagans didn’t have a concept of religion. For them, their spiritual beliefs were synonymous with history and the nature of the cosmos. Nobody converted to anything. People didn’t just wake up and decide “you know, I’m going to be a norse pagan today.” The closest thing they had were mystery cults and sects devoted to specific deities. When Jesus came, they initially just added him as another deity to their pantheons.
Constantine might have the greatest impact on world history of any single individual ever. Imagine how different the world would look if Europe never became overwhelmingly Christian
@@sirgalahad1376 no, it wouldn't. It existed for another thousand years as a Christian Empire. You cannot blame Christianity for its downfall, and no serious historian does.
@@ArakeenArchivist Some of the Romans themselves literally blamed Christianity, saying Christianity brought down the Roman Empire isn’t a new criticism. It’s so old in fact, that Augustine wrote “On The City of God Against The Pagans” addressing this exact argument, albeit with a shit ton of Christian cope, blaming the fall of a pagan empire on pagans. Christianity wasn’t a main factor but it certainly was a big factor.
While this is a great video with plenty of great information, it frustrates me that you do not answer the question posed in the video title. How did the average Roman react to his conversion? Wat about the reaction of the senate?
If you want I can help a little, being in an history university as a student I have some knowledge but I can't promise to give you a full picture. To complete the video, which did a good job to indicate the general situation of Costantine's period, I will try to explain the reaction of multiple classes to the conversion. For the slaves the new approach was well received, Chistianity was a "Salvific cult" and this really helped them seeing a way out of their misery after death; but for the one who were freed by their master (The libertii) it was good: Costantine allowed the slaves to be freed much easily by a ceremony held by a priest and not a public official (Manumissio in ecclesia) and gave many vantanges to the slaves/libertii under the christian idea that a slave was certainly inferior to his master, but still a person: for example all the slaves that were forcefully castrated by their masters could gained, after reporting the fact, full freedom. In general christians masters "were more willing" to also liberate them. For the "Plebs media" I can't say much but it wasn't a great shock: many roman emperors before Costanine, starting from the end of the II century, were linked to cults differents from the traditional roman paganism (It's said that Philippus the arab (244-249) was christian), like Eliogabolus (218-222 A.D) who believed in Syrian cults (The god of the mountain "Elagabal" in particular). So it wasn't so strange, sure christianity had suffered persecutions but, for sure it hadn't been the only one and also the roman society at that point had many cults and as long as Costantine respected them and made good laws for the public.. it could be ok; for sure there were protests but in the late empire the population had lost much of their political force anyway to really do anything. The senate reaction was very different. Even if christianity had gained supporters in the roman élites from the start of the III century, the senate position was still pagan; as said in the video Costantine was able to resist them by moderation but also by giving them favours (It stopped the emperor's support of the Equites class and the Pretorian guard giving their powers back to the senators) and building Costantinople: a city for the christian world while Rome could remain the centre of the empire and of pagan senators. Even with that there was a great opposition in the senate but after Diocletian the roman empire was pretty much an absolute monarchy and so they didn't have a great force; a later example of this is when the senator Simmacus in 384 tried to convince emperor Valentinianus II to keep the pagan cerimonies in the senate; the emperor simply refused and there was little he could do even if the senate was still to a good part pagan. For the senators it was better to do a "passive opposition" and pray/make sure the next emperor was more pagan, of course for many the religious question wasn't so important; like all politicians their aim was gaining power and so they could also support the christian emperor to obtain merits.
I am not a historian, but I have recently become aware of facts that have long been more or less ignored by historians and seem relevant here. I am going to write a lot of words to describe this. Then the last paragraph contains my educated guess about what Roman soldiers thought about the conversion. The facts in question concern mostly Emperor Vespasian (69-79) and his son Titus (79-81). But also Titus' younger brother Domitian (81-96), who was in the opposite political camp and may have been behind Titus' untimely death. Vespasian and Titus were lower nobility and had great military success under Nero in Germania. When Nero had serious trouble with the Jewish resistance in Palestine, he sent them there to clean up. Apparently they formed an alliance with queen Berenike from the (converted, originally Greek) Jewish Herod dynasty, to the point that at some point Berenike and Titus got engaged and her military strategist Josephus became a Roman historian. While Vespasian and Titus were in Palestine, Nero seems to have been killed by his slave Epaphroditus. (Officially it was suicide with only Epaphroditus present, but Domitian later killed Epaphroditus for 'not preventing Nero's suicide'.) Paul in one of his epistles sends greetings from the Emperor's household, especially from someone called Epaphroditus. After Nero's death there was a year with 4 very short-lived emperors (altering between the pro- and anti-Nero factoins) until Vespasian (anti-Nero) declared himself emperor in Alexandria, threatening to block the vital grain supply if necessary. Add to the above the fact that the symbols for early Christianity were fish and anchor, exactly like the symbols of the Flavian dynasty founded by Vespasian, and that all the earliest popes came from this family, and it seems likely that there was a Flavian-Herodian conspiracy to make Vespasian emperor, then Berenike empress as the wife of Titus, and to establish a revised form of Judaism as a state religion in Rome. (This makes sense as the Romans were impressed with Judaism because the Jewish resistance made up with religious fanaticism for what they lacked in organization. Also the lower Roman nobility tended to be disgusted by Nero's decadence and really liked the strict norms of Judaism. What they didn't like were details such as chopping off pieces of men's private parts and not being able to dine with non-Jews.) The supposed prosecution of Christians under Nero was anachronistic; it probably affected messianic Jews. The first actual prosecution of Christians in Rome occurred under Domitian and affected primarily the nobility, especially members of his own family. Given this background, it isn't too surprising that a bit over 2 centuries later Christianity comes to prominence in Rome. Most likely it had spread among the Roman troops to the point where by using a symbol of Christianity, Constantine could get his opponent's legions on his side. I am not sure if Constantine actually came from the Flavian dynasty, but he certainly called himself Flavius, creating a connection to Vespasian and Titus.
@@johaquila Man, this is definitely a weird conspiracy theory of sorts, and I have no idea how these jumps are explained. >Apparently they formed an alliance with queen Berenike from the (converted, originally Greek) Jewish Herod dynasty, to the point that at some point Berenike and Titus got engaged and her military strategist Josephus became a Roman historian. No, the Herodian dynasty was definitely NOT a converted Greek line; they were converts, yes, but they were Edomite in origin (modern-day southern Israel/Jordan) and they gained favour thanks to Gnaeus Pompey electing Antipater as Procurator of Judaea in 47 BCE, leading way to Herod the Great in the 30s BCE as a client king of the Roman Republic, near a century before Berenice. It's insinuated that their alliance was due to a recent conversion when that was certainly not the case. >Add to the above the fact that the symbols for early Christianity were fish and anchor, exactly like the symbols of the Flavian dynasty founded by Vespasian, and that all the earliest popes came from this family [...] there was a Flavian-Herodian conspiracy to make Vespasian emperor [...] What? The fish is a Christian symbol because the letters spelled out Christian doctrine; IChThYS = Iesous Christos, Theou Yios, Soter (Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour). Moreover, no Popes came from this family given that bishops are ELECTED and NON-HEREDITARY. Conspiracy bit's next part. >as the Romans were impressed with Judaism because the Jewish resistance made up with religious fanaticism for what they lacked in organization [...] and really liked the strict norms of Judaism. The Romans DISLIKED the Jews. Sure, they afforded Jews special rights but that was in Judea. The Romans saw paying homage to their gods as a sign of obedience and loyalty to the Roman state which is why Roman colonisation involved a process where parallels are made between Roman and foreign gods so that the natives would switch over to Roman worship; look up interpretatio romana and how Celtic gods were associated with Roman ones in Gaul and Britannia. Jews, not wanting to pay homage, were deemed as secret traitors. Tiberius forbade the practice of Judaism and Claudius outright banished them from the city. Plus, they were in rebellion in 66-73 CE, again in 115-117 CE, and finally 132-136 CE. To say that Romans by and large were 'impressed' by Jewish customs is laughably wrong. Going back to the 'Flavian-Herodian conspiracy', following the deification of Gaius Julius Caesar, his adopted son Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus-known to us as Augustus-adopted this as well. Why is this important? Because Vespasian and Titus themselves were deified; it makes NO SENSE to create a Jewish-esque religion that is monotheistic if the creators themselves are deified in a polytheistic religion. Now, notice how I typed that Caesar's adopted son had his own name? Well, when you are adopted, you gain the name of your adopter and your nomen (the middle bit, that's your clan name) becomes an adjective. So, Gaius Octavius born of the gens/clan Octavia, becomes Gaius Julius Caesar (his adopted father's name) Octavianus (the adjectival form of his own nomen, Octavius). Later on he added the cognomen Augustus but that doesn't matter. >I am not sure if Constantine actually came from the Flavian dynasty, but he certainly called himself Flavius, creating a connection to Vespasian and Titus. So, you're right, Constantine shares no blood with the Flavian dynasty. However, Flavius by that point had become a common first name (praenomen) because the Flavian dynasty freed a lot of people. You see, when you free a slave or give a freed slave citizenship, that slave adopts your praenomen + nomen as well; it's almost like they got adopted by you. For example, the great statesman Marcus Tullius Cicero had a personal slave named Tiro, and when Cicero died and Tiro was freed by will, he became Marcus Tullius Tiro. The same goes for our dear friend Josephus; he was Yosef ben Matityahu (Yosef son of Matityahu) but then was enslaved by Vespasian (whose full name was Titus Flavius Vespasianus) and freed by Titus (whose full name was also Titus Flavius Vespasianus), and so he became Titus Flavius Josephus. During the Flavian and subsequent dynasties, more and more freedmen adopted the Flavius name either because they were freed by the Flavians or they were descendants of those freed slaves, and by that point it had become a common name. The same happened with the name Marcus Aurelius. An emperor by the name of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (known to us today by his nickname Caracalla) issued an edict that declared all freedmen as Roman citizens. Because of that, millions of inhabitants of the Roman Empire suddenly got the name Marcus Aurelius which is why if you look at later emperors after Caracalla like Maxentius, his name was Marcus Aurelius Valerius Maxentius. My point is that Constantine calling himself Flavius (I mean it should be that his father named him Flavius and he was also named Flavius; Flavius Valerius Constantius) doesn't mean that he wanted a connection to the Flavians and that names aren't necessarily markers of lineage when we're talking late Empire.
More important what does present Rome think about Constantine’s conversion? Is it that tough to accept? you may even consider a visit to the Holy Land and visit the Church of the Holy Sepulchre🙂.
Returned back from a 4 day trip to Rome only yesterday. I think one thing that I didn't realise before I went, and wasn't apparent from the videos I have watched, was the sheer scale of some of what there is to see in the Forum. The enormity of it all has certainly left an impression on me that I will cherish forever
I could've told you that. 😊 I was overwhelmed by the size of the area and then to get into the details of the history/era of the building ruins just left me stunned. I wanted to see the art on Titus's arch like the Jerusalem temple goods. But when I got to the Coliseum somehow I missed it which I've no idea how that happened. Three days is not enough is an understatement. More like ten days and have a checklist and route to follow with notes. I learned that not all "guides" know much more than the visitors. I'd really love to go back Italy and spend my time in Rome. Pompeii needed more than 1 day also. But we did go up to the top of the volcano and that was really neat.
Thanks for the video. Though I think it didn't answer the question 'What Romans thought about Konstantine's conversion'. I would expect that to be depending on whether one was Christian or not. I would be surprised if the majority of pagans at the time thought that move a great idea.
My thoughts also. Other questions that sprung to mind: * Emperor Constantine was able to disband the Praetorian Guard. How? From their historical record I'd imagine they would sooner disband him. * Why was it customary for early Christians to defer Baptism?
@@BLAZINFAST Regarding the guard I assume that he just had his soldiers line them up. No diffraction from a modern junta lining up disobedient officers against a wall.
@@BLAZINFASTfor your last question: Some Christians thought it would be better for converts to be baptized late in their life, because they thought baptism might only forgive the sins committed before baptism. That’s what Tertullianus said.
@@BLAZINFAST He retired the Praetorian Guard by paying all of them a handsome amount of money and then sending them to the borders of the Empire where they would be of no use.
@@BLAZINFAST The Praetorian thing is actually pretty simple to answer. The guard had fought for another imperial claimant, so Constantine didn't have to worry about disbanding a group of armed guards around him, he simply created a different group when he took the throne
Question: Did the Roman's have museums? Please answer is one of your future Q&A episodes, or a great topic for you to cover in a future video. And, on another topic: Can you please do a show on the Gemonian stairs in the Roman Forum?
From my knowledge they most certainly did, even if their fruition was usually only for the higher classes. A good example can be found in Petronius's book "Satyricon" (Written at the end of the first century): during the story the protagonist Encolpius, to recover after being betrayed by his lover, goes "In pinacothecam" where he sees famous works from greek culture (Among the authors that are cited we can find Zèusi: a Greek artist who lived in the V century B.C). I used the Satyricon as a source because the book, a kind of "novel" we could say, is set in the mundane life of the roman's high classes and for this reason is very good to understand roman culture/society.
Lots of historic and cultural artifacts were stolen from the east as Rome expanded there. The sack of Corinth is a famous example of this. These historic 'pieces' heavily inspired Greco-Roman culture.
One could argue all the Arches and statues they preserved made Rome one big 'open air museum' reminding everyday Romans of it's glorius past. The replica of Romulus 's hut they kept rebuilding sounds like 'museum piece ' .
Great video; however Constantine's implication in the Council of Nicea may be overestimated. While Constantine did call the Council in 325, he really just followed the suggestions of Osius of Corduba. Constantine theoretically supervised the debates but Osius and Alexander of Alexandria were the actual masters. The Council condemned arianism and Arius was exiled... just to be recalled at the court of Constantinople in 334, where he died in 336. Several politically protected bishops professed the homoiousios (the Father and the Son are only similar in substance, but not equal), such as Eusebius of Nicomedia who baptised Constantine on his death bed. While Constantine might have been a Christian -he probably followed a form of henotheism or combined some elements of Sol Invictus with the Christian Jesus-, the Council of Nicea did not put an end to the religious turmoil of the Empire and arianism continued to thrive, particularly under his son Constantius II.
I was going to bring this up, thank you. Hard to say what's true with history this muddled and old, but I think a lot of Constantine's history was "re-written" by his successors.
But that's still strange that he didn't at least combine christianity idea with roman theos & instead made a blank canvas refering to an untitled divinity. Why did even his story of triumphant still mystery until many century later the retold becoming about his vision/ dream? How odd of his lifetime
Thanks for the very clear and interesting explanation of the history of the Arch. The monument stands out very clearly in my memory of having seen it nearly fifty years ago.
I appreciate your decision not to use music in the background of your videos. It makes them perfect in the late hours of the day when I want to listen to something but don't want sensory overload.
I took Latin for 5 semesters in high school, and I’ve always been fascinated with Ancient Rome - this channel is an amazing encyclopedia on ancient Roman history and culture
Many ask in comments section, what really Romans thought of his convention. After he moved his Empire capital, he named the city he build from scratch, over an older greek merchant post, New Rome. New York, New South Wales, you got the idea. After he died, his successors renamed the city Constantinople. This is what Romans thought of their Emperor !
The image seen at the end is the centerpiece of Triumph of Christianity, which was frescoed by Tommaso Laureti on the ceiling of the Hall of Constantine inside the Vatican Museum.
Africa as in the province was just Tunisia and parts of modern Algeria and, depending on the era, parts of Libya/Tripolitania, Maxentius also ruled what were the provinces of Numidia and Mauretania, so saying "North Africa" as a generalization of Africa+Numidia+Mauretania+Libya it's right👍 I think you can also said "North Libya" because that was also another ancient name for the whole continent, but it would lead to more confusion :P
While I certainly believe Constantine's importance cannot be overstated I would take issue with one statement on this video that Constantine "directed" the Council of Nicaea. He defiantly did credit his victory at the Milvian Bridge to the Christian God but he was not an overtly spiritual man himself. He was only baptized on his deathbed because he knew he had further questionable activates ( killing those he suspected were his enemies) to do and wanted to have his sin cleansed at the last possible moment. In relation to the Nicaean Conference he did attend and only instructed the Bishops to make a definitive decision on the basic tenets of the Christian faith. He was not overly concerned with what those decisions were only that they decide and put it in writing. Constantine was tired of the various factions in the Church fighting about doctrine and pleading their case to him. He wanted a definitive decision and wanted the Church purged of those not in agreement! The is really the birth of the Catholic ( and Greek ) church we have today and is also mainline Protestant church theology.
I enjoyed this video's tone, refreshingly professional for a YT essay, until I realized that the title's question isn't even adressed in full. Thank you for at least not using all caps and red arrows.
Constantine had the wisdom and foresight to realize that Rome was in her declining stage and that her glory and splendour were not going to last forever. He also saw the great potential but also the great danger that Christianity posed, so he hijacked a revolutionary and liberating movement and transformed into a tool of oppression and control that would have made the Roman core values of governance eternal. He totally succeeded in his effort, since all western civilization and its governace system is still based on the Roman blueprint, filtered through the Roman Catholic Church doctrine. That of Christianity vs. Rome is a false dichotomy: Rome restyled into Christianity to survive the changing times and they didn't even hide it. Pontifex Maximus is still one of the titles of the Pope, after all.
The empire was declining for a century at this point, hence why Diocletian introduced the rule of the Tetrarchy, to stabilize the empire. Constantine was opportunistic about it. He broke the rules of Diocletian, moved against the other Tetrarchs and conquered and reunited the empire under his banner. The Romans had a tradition of religious freedom, but early christians were quite militant. They burned down temples of pagan gods for example, because "there cant be another god". Maybe also to protest against the oppression (temples were also symbols of power). Thats why there were so unpopular with the people in charge and hunted. Of course not all christians were like this, but it was an excuse to hunt them down. In my opinion Constantine wanted to reunite the empire. He wanted it to be cohesive, so he tried to secure the inner peace. Another example for this is the council of Niceaa. As soon as the Christians had the security of not to be hunted anymore, they turned against each other. So Constantine summoned the council, so they could discuss all the theologic issues, and have a cohesive opinion what is right and what is wrong. That way he could also control the Christian believings. To be "Pontifex Maximus" was tradition under the emperors bevorehand. It was a very important office - the highest religious leader - which was also in charge to adjust the calender each year and to declare holidays. Caesar used this to extend his time as a Gouverneur of Galia, until he was reelected as a consul, so he couldnt get sued for his actions against the senate.
This is the first time after watching your videos I've felt you never answered the question or referenced a conclusion in your statement of intent, I would hope that more inviting titles don't get in the way of the story you're trying to tell moving forward as I do enjoy the honesty of the histories you tell on this channel
Constantine died in 337. The writers that report it are Lactantius and Eusebius of Caesaria. Lactantius was a court rhetorician(Latin) for Diocletian in Nicomedia, then later the tutor of Constantine's son in Gaul. He died in 325, 12 years before Constantine. Eusebius of Caesaria wrote his "Life of Constantine"(eulogy and panegyric)immediately after his death, knew him personally, and himself died in 339. So Lactantius wrote of the dream and the sign on the shields while Constantine was alive, and he lived with him, and Eusebius immediately after his death. I'm not saying it's true, but it wasn't 40 years later, and the authors were close to him.
@@histguy101 Constantine needed a living Jesus he strangled his sister's husband when he said that he had violated the Edict of Toleration Constantine was a politician from England and he did Evil things and was a troublemaker everybody that didn't agree with him was a heretic
Constantine after watching a weird light in the Sky: "For the Gods. What was that thing in the sky we just saw?" Lactantius: "A message from God, who wants you to reunify the Empire under the cross of Jesus. With the symbol he made in the sky you shall conquer!" Constantine: "You're right. If, in order to restore Rome's glory, I must use the signal of the God of christianity and spread his word throughout the Empire, then it shall be done!" *Draws sword* "FOR CHRIST!!!" Soldiers: *Draw swords* "FOR CHRIST!!!" *Meanwhile, a few kilometers away* Shepherd: *Returns home, finding his house completely destroyed by a meteorite* "Son of a b*tch..."
I often wonder how YT content makers feel when somebody says that their vids are good to put them to sleep. I have always thought it slightly insulting. BUT toldinstone is freaking great to put me to sleep. I will listen again tomorrow, as the content is awesome but for now, thank you and Zzzzz Zzzzzz Zzzzzzzz.
In that time there were to unconquered "Son's" that were the 2 most popular. Christ who the son of god, the pagan Sol Invictus, the unconquered Sun. Constantine used both the most on coin's. It was at the end of his life that he seems to be more for the Lord Christ
Speaking of Constantine, I really reccomend the BBC docu-drama "Rome: Rise and Fall of an Empire", in which Constantine's rise to power and his higly controversial religious reforms are told in a pretty accurate and human way
I don't mean to be sus or cynical. But just wondering (especially around the site you're refering) how far one could trust of bbc's issues of their "dramatic" insights. I hope I didn't open a can of worm here, did I?
@@men_del12 It's unusually well done, though they do exaggerate the effect of the Teutoberg Forest incident regarding Augustus Caesar. But highly recommend it also, the BBC were accurate to history and got some good experts in. This doc is from a decade ago though.
I don't really get why Orthodox churches made Constantine (and his mother lmao) a Saint. The way he behaved, specially his LATER conversion and complete ignorance about the Bible proves to me that he wasn't all interested in being a christian, but rather he was using the religion for it's zealotry and maybe for political-religious gain. After the supposed miracle of the Milvian Bridge (which, as you said, was told DECADES after the fact) he still represented himself as Sol Invictus in many coins and in his column. His actions and his own arch shows that he didn't wanted to infuriate the hellenic/"pagan" Romans, but if you believe in the christian god you can't be playing both sides. The real christian Saint is Theodosius (which I think also was deified/sanctified), he banned all other religions, he expropiated their properties and destroyed many temples and monuments and allowed both State persecution and lynch mobs, he's the epithome of christianity
Absolutely love your channel and the content you bring. Im especially a fan of ancient rome. Please keep making these videos, they´re amazing👍 P.S. Wanted to ask if you could do a video about the different uses of the colosseum troughout the time (like the fortress it was once transformed to).
Completely missing is the relationship between Constantine and other gods, especially Sol Invictus and goddesses like Victoria were prominent in his life and public representation. The best example in Rome is the magnificent arch, showing the sun god several times - directly and indirectly. Not to forget the column of Constantine in Constantinople topped by a figure of him with the attributes of Sol. Several other pieces of evidence for the admiration of the sun god exist as well (coins, the placement of the arch, establishment of attributes originating in the iconography of Sol as signs of emperors,...). It has been proposed that Constantine had an open definition of one god with several aspects like Jesus and Sol, connected to the cults of light deities popular at that time.
I think most would agree Constantine had some unorthodox religious views, even when he converted to Christianity, he pivoted between what would become Nicean Orthodoxy and the Arian heresy
good observation. constantine also allowed the converted "pagans" or "midplatonic esoteric christians" (whatever you want to call it) to celebrate saturnalia which ofc became christmas...but its also pretty dark bc saturn worship probably included human sacrifice ..like mithras and moloch cults... sometimes i think carthage and phoenicia never lost..they just started to infiltrate rome and used it as their vessel...to this day?
@@thomashauer6804 Romans never practiced human sacrifices, at least not as a Republic and certainly not after Augustus. On the contrary: the image of the human sacrificing barbarian was used to degrade enemies. If you have any sources for your claims...bring them on
There must be more to say about the Arch of Constantine. Seems kind of weird to reuse stone carved pieces that were left from other monuments. For example, the Dacians style of carving from the Arch does not match with the style carving from Trajan's Column. Have a nice day!
Warning: the title has nothing to do with the contents. This is simply a reading of a very shallow encyclopedia article about Constantine's political history at its most basic level. There is no investigation or discussion of what his contemporaries thought about his conversion.
Some things remained mystery though: 1. He said dedicated the arch for a divinity but neither entitled a christian god nor named from romans (or at least any deity) 2. For an emperor having his most popular story after his death (for years/ centuries later) is strange as if "they didn't speak much about his 'epic warfare' on that time at least?" 3. How the stories may have "evolve" to possibly track down the remaining references that could've been "close enough" to the original tale (though I mostly seen this as politic messes that sprinkled over Constantine & basically every ruler face since we mostly hypothesis about what might happen & believe in reliance to that idea or ideas).
Do a video on education and languages in the Roman Empire. Where there any dead languages back then that only the scholars or religious leaders knew or could read? What level of education was standard for the average Roman? Even if schooling wasn’t a standardized thing, what education would parents or the older people teach the kids? Could everyone do at least basic addition and subtraction? Was it common for common folk to speak multiple languages?
Just to be clear, The Council of Nicea affirmed The Father and Son are equal... they did not create a new doctrine or change the historical view of Early Christians.
The story of Constantine and Christianity has always reminded me of the adage saying (in one verse or another) that the commoners thought the gods real, the wise accepted they weren't, and the rulers knew they were useful. A common religion for the population was more beneficial to maintaining power than a variety of beliefs. And with Christianity proving to have staying power, it might have been the most viable religion at the moment. And one that promised eternal salvation, and all the sacrifices could be made in money, and without concern over which God was the right one for the blessing. Gods are useful. It is hard to imagine someone skillful enough to take sole control over the Roman Empire without understanding that dynamic.
Emperor Constantine the Great is a Saint in the Orthodox Church like Saint Patrick of Ireland, even tho they aren’t canonized saints in Catholicism. Another example on how Orthodoxy is older than the Catholic Church. We’ve had methods for canonization before the schism. The Frankish Catholics went back and reinvented the wheel
Is it an informative video? Yes.
Does it answer the question in the title? No.
Exectly my thought
What i understood from this is that Constantine had to be ambiguous so as to not alienate roman aristocracy which was still overwhelmingly pagan provided if he really favored Christianity that is.
It kind of hints more at what the opinion was, in that not everyone was on board with Christianity in the early 4th century. The way the Arch was decorated shows this, but it's more implied than answered.
@@Transilvanian90 The video as it is would be a good introduction to the video that's "promised" in the title.
Thank you for this comment. Saved me time
This has quickly become one of my favorite channels. Day to day details of antiquity are never discussed as much as they should be
I agree
Fully agree.
Almost like a Time Traveler's Guide to Ancient Rome (that's an actual thing he did)
Make sure to leave a like
More than any other kind of history, it reminds me that I'm not immortal.
Kind of wanted to know more about what Romans thought of Constantine’s conversion
The video makes it pretty clear, the Arch that was built for Constantine after he liberated Rome makes no reference to Christianity. The painting that was hung in the Senate house after Constantine died showed him going to the afterlife but which god or gods was "diplomatically" left out. Not to mention Rome wouldn't become majorily Christian till hundreds of years later, with the aristocracy holding their Pagen views till even later.
You want him to just come out and say it? They didn't like it. Learn to read between the lines guys.
@@Brosephski69 None of that tells us how Roman's received Christianity. The arrival of new gods into the establishment was a natural sight in Rome, but immediately making a god the chief deity would always be dangerous regardless of the God (see Elagabalus). The fact that Constantine was being diplomatic with these actions doesn't tell us what Roman's made of Constantine's Christianity
He became Orthodox Christian ☦️
@@deVeresd.Kfz.1515
No difference between orthodox and catholic back then. They were the same.
@James Quinton Roman Catholicism came in 1054AD. Greek Orthodoxy and even the Liturgy and Greek language were used in the west, so learn Church history and Council of Nicaea 325AD before making that claim.
Papacy was never a thing during the first 1000 years. Multiple patriarchates existed, whereas in Papism, there's only one Pope/Patriarch. The fact you don't know means you shan't argue Christian history with me
But WHAT did the romans think of his Conversion?
What I gathered from this video is that Constantine kept everything ambiguous and did not clearly come out and say, OK everyone today we start a new religion, so I guess many were still Pagan.
@@WAFFENAMT1 yes, likely they were like "yeye ok.. lets see how long his phase will last, I bet he will outgrow it soon"
Back then it was acceptable to belong to more than one religion.
He modified it. What the heck do you mean his conversion?
@@TBrewer64
Pagans didn’t have a concept of religion. For them, their spiritual beliefs were synonymous with history and the nature of the cosmos. Nobody converted to anything. People didn’t just wake up and decide “you know, I’m going to be a norse pagan today.” The closest thing they had were mystery cults and sects devoted to specific deities. When Jesus came, they initially just added him as another deity to their pantheons.
Constantine might have the greatest impact on world history of any single individual ever. Imagine how different the world would look if Europe never became overwhelmingly Christian
The Roman Empire would still exist.
@@sirgalahad1376 no, it wouldn't. It existed for another thousand years as a Christian Empire. You cannot blame Christianity for its downfall, and no serious historian does.
For better or worse, I would say Jesus and Mohammed would both have to rank higher than Constantine in terms of overall impact.
@@ArakeenArchivist
Some of the Romans themselves literally blamed Christianity, saying Christianity brought down the Roman Empire isn’t a new criticism. It’s so old in fact, that Augustine wrote “On The City of God Against The Pagans” addressing this exact argument, albeit with a shit ton of Christian cope, blaming the fall of a pagan empire on pagans. Christianity wasn’t a main factor but it certainly was a big factor.
@@ArakeenArchivist hey let the pagan ideologue enjoy their myth.
While this is a great video with plenty of great information, it frustrates me that you do not answer the question posed in the video title. How did the average Roman react to his conversion? Wat about the reaction of the senate?
If you want I can help a little, being in an history university as a student I have some knowledge but I can't promise to give you a full picture. To complete the video, which did a good job to indicate the general situation of Costantine's period, I will try to explain the reaction of multiple classes to the conversion.
For the slaves the new approach was well received, Chistianity was a "Salvific cult" and this really helped them seeing a way out of their misery after death; but for the one who were freed by their master (The libertii) it was good: Costantine allowed the slaves to be freed much easily by a ceremony held by a priest and not a public official (Manumissio in ecclesia) and gave many vantanges to the slaves/libertii under the christian idea that a slave was certainly inferior to his master, but still a person: for example all the slaves that were forcefully castrated by their masters could gained, after reporting the fact, full freedom. In general christians masters "were more willing" to also liberate them.
For the "Plebs media" I can't say much but it wasn't a great shock: many roman emperors before Costanine, starting from the end of the II century, were linked to cults differents from the traditional roman paganism (It's said that Philippus the arab (244-249) was christian), like Eliogabolus (218-222 A.D) who believed in Syrian cults (The god of the mountain "Elagabal" in particular). So it wasn't so strange, sure christianity had suffered persecutions but, for sure it hadn't been the only one and also the roman society at that point had many cults and as long as Costantine respected them and made good laws for the public.. it could be ok; for sure there were protests but in the late empire the population had lost much of their political force anyway to really do anything.
The senate reaction was very different. Even if christianity had gained supporters in the roman élites from the start of the III century, the senate position was still pagan; as said in the video Costantine was able to resist them by moderation but also by giving them favours (It stopped the emperor's support of the Equites class and the Pretorian guard giving their powers back to the senators) and building Costantinople: a city for the christian world while Rome could remain the centre of the empire and of pagan senators. Even with that there was a great opposition in the senate but after Diocletian the roman empire was pretty much an absolute monarchy and so they didn't have a great force; a later example of this is when the senator Simmacus in 384 tried to convince emperor Valentinianus II to keep the pagan cerimonies in the senate; the emperor simply refused and there was little he could do even if the senate was still to a good part pagan. For the senators it was better to do a "passive opposition" and pray/make sure the next emperor was more pagan, of course for many the religious question wasn't so important; like all politicians their aim was gaining power and so they could also support the christian emperor to obtain merits.
I am not a historian, but I have recently become aware of facts that have long been more or less ignored by historians and seem relevant here. I am going to write a lot of words to describe this. Then the last paragraph contains my educated guess about what Roman soldiers thought about the conversion. The facts in question concern mostly Emperor Vespasian (69-79) and his son Titus (79-81). But also Titus' younger brother Domitian (81-96), who was in the opposite political camp and may have been behind Titus' untimely death.
Vespasian and Titus were lower nobility and had great military success under Nero in Germania. When Nero had serious trouble with the Jewish resistance in Palestine, he sent them there to clean up. Apparently they formed an alliance with queen Berenike from the (converted, originally Greek) Jewish Herod dynasty, to the point that at some point Berenike and Titus got engaged and her military strategist Josephus became a Roman historian.
While Vespasian and Titus were in Palestine, Nero seems to have been killed by his slave Epaphroditus. (Officially it was suicide with only Epaphroditus present, but Domitian later killed Epaphroditus for 'not preventing Nero's suicide'.) Paul in one of his epistles sends greetings from the Emperor's household, especially from someone called Epaphroditus.
After Nero's death there was a year with 4 very short-lived emperors (altering between the pro- and anti-Nero factoins) until Vespasian (anti-Nero) declared himself emperor in Alexandria, threatening to block the vital grain supply if necessary.
Add to the above the fact that the symbols for early Christianity were fish and anchor, exactly like the symbols of the Flavian dynasty founded by Vespasian, and that all the earliest popes came from this family, and it seems likely that there was a Flavian-Herodian conspiracy to make Vespasian emperor, then Berenike empress as the wife of Titus, and to establish a revised form of Judaism as a state religion in Rome. (This makes sense as the Romans were impressed with Judaism because the Jewish resistance made up with religious fanaticism for what they lacked in organization. Also the lower Roman nobility tended to be disgusted by Nero's decadence and really liked the strict norms of Judaism. What they didn't like were details such as chopping off pieces of men's private parts and not being able to dine with non-Jews.)
The supposed prosecution of Christians under Nero was anachronistic; it probably affected messianic Jews. The first actual prosecution of Christians in Rome occurred under Domitian and affected primarily the nobility, especially members of his own family.
Given this background, it isn't too surprising that a bit over 2 centuries later Christianity comes to prominence in Rome. Most likely it had spread among the Roman troops to the point where by using a symbol of Christianity, Constantine could get his opponent's legions on his side. I am not sure if Constantine actually came from the Flavian dynasty, but he certainly called himself Flavius, creating a connection to Vespasian and Titus.
@@johaquila Man, this is definitely a weird conspiracy theory of sorts, and I have no idea how these jumps are explained.
>Apparently they formed an alliance with queen Berenike from the (converted, originally Greek) Jewish Herod dynasty, to the point that at some point Berenike and Titus got engaged and her military strategist Josephus became a Roman historian.
No, the Herodian dynasty was definitely NOT a converted Greek line; they were converts, yes, but they were Edomite in origin (modern-day southern Israel/Jordan) and they gained favour thanks to Gnaeus Pompey electing Antipater as Procurator of Judaea in 47 BCE, leading way to Herod the Great in the 30s BCE as a client king of the Roman Republic, near a century before Berenice. It's insinuated that their alliance was due to a recent conversion when that was certainly not the case.
>Add to the above the fact that the symbols for early Christianity were fish and anchor, exactly like the symbols of the Flavian dynasty founded by Vespasian, and that all the earliest popes came from this family [...] there was a Flavian-Herodian conspiracy to make Vespasian emperor [...]
What? The fish is a Christian symbol because the letters spelled out Christian doctrine; IChThYS = Iesous Christos, Theou Yios, Soter (Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour). Moreover, no Popes came from this family given that bishops are ELECTED and NON-HEREDITARY. Conspiracy bit's next part.
>as the Romans were impressed with Judaism because the Jewish resistance made up with religious fanaticism for what they lacked in organization [...] and really liked the strict norms of Judaism.
The Romans DISLIKED the Jews. Sure, they afforded Jews special rights but that was in Judea. The Romans saw paying homage to their gods as a sign of obedience and loyalty to the Roman state which is why Roman colonisation involved a process where parallels are made between Roman and foreign gods so that the natives would switch over to Roman worship; look up interpretatio romana and how Celtic gods were associated with Roman ones in Gaul and Britannia. Jews, not wanting to pay homage, were deemed as secret traitors. Tiberius forbade the practice of Judaism and Claudius outright banished them from the city. Plus, they were in rebellion in 66-73 CE, again in 115-117 CE, and finally 132-136 CE. To say that Romans by and large were 'impressed' by Jewish customs is laughably wrong.
Going back to the 'Flavian-Herodian conspiracy', following the deification of Gaius Julius Caesar, his adopted son Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus-known to us as Augustus-adopted this as well. Why is this important? Because Vespasian and Titus themselves were deified; it makes NO SENSE to create a Jewish-esque religion that is monotheistic if the creators themselves are deified in a polytheistic religion.
Now, notice how I typed that Caesar's adopted son had his own name? Well, when you are adopted, you gain the name of your adopter and your nomen (the middle bit, that's your clan name) becomes an adjective. So, Gaius Octavius born of the gens/clan Octavia, becomes Gaius Julius Caesar (his adopted father's name) Octavianus (the adjectival form of his own nomen, Octavius). Later on he added the cognomen Augustus but that doesn't matter.
>I am not sure if Constantine actually came from the Flavian dynasty, but he certainly called himself Flavius, creating a connection to Vespasian and Titus.
So, you're right, Constantine shares no blood with the Flavian dynasty. However, Flavius by that point had become a common first name (praenomen) because the Flavian dynasty freed a lot of people. You see, when you free a slave or give a freed slave citizenship, that slave adopts your praenomen + nomen as well; it's almost like they got adopted by you. For example, the great statesman Marcus Tullius Cicero had a personal slave named Tiro, and when Cicero died and Tiro was freed by will, he became Marcus Tullius Tiro. The same goes for our dear friend Josephus; he was Yosef ben Matityahu (Yosef son of Matityahu) but then was enslaved by Vespasian (whose full name was Titus Flavius Vespasianus) and freed by Titus (whose full name was also Titus Flavius Vespasianus), and so he became Titus Flavius Josephus. During the Flavian and subsequent dynasties, more and more freedmen adopted the Flavius name either because they were freed by the Flavians or they were descendants of those freed slaves, and by that point it had become a common name.
The same happened with the name Marcus Aurelius. An emperor by the name of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (known to us today by his nickname Caracalla) issued an edict that declared all freedmen as Roman citizens. Because of that, millions of inhabitants of the Roman Empire suddenly got the name Marcus Aurelius which is why if you look at later emperors after Caracalla like Maxentius, his name was Marcus Aurelius Valerius Maxentius. My point is that Constantine calling himself Flavius (I mean it should be that his father named him Flavius and he was also named Flavius; Flavius Valerius Constantius) doesn't mean that he wanted a connection to the Flavians and that names aren't necessarily markers of lineage when we're talking late Empire.
@@ilcavaliereteutonico6842 thank you!!
More important what does present Rome think about Constantine’s conversion? Is it that tough to accept? you may even consider a visit to the Holy Land and visit the Church of the Holy Sepulchre🙂.
Returned back from a 4 day trip to Rome only yesterday. I think one thing that I didn't realise before I went, and wasn't apparent from the videos I have watched, was the sheer scale of some of what there is to see in the Forum. The enormity of it all has certainly left an impression on me that I will cherish forever
u gotta also visit istanbul the other great roman city
I could've told you that. 😊 I was overwhelmed by the size of the area and then to get into the details of the history/era of the building ruins just left me stunned. I wanted to see the art on Titus's arch like the Jerusalem temple goods. But when I got to the Coliseum somehow I missed it which I've no idea how that happened. Three days is not enough is an understatement. More like ten days and have a checklist and route to follow with notes. I learned that not all "guides" know much more than the visitors.
I'd really love to go back Italy and spend my time in Rome. Pompeii needed more than 1 day also. But we did go up to the top of the volcano and that was really neat.
Thanks for the video. Though I think it didn't answer the question 'What Romans thought about Konstantine's conversion'. I would expect that to be depending on whether one was Christian or not. I would be surprised if the majority of pagans at the time thought that move a great idea.
My thoughts also. Other questions that sprung to mind:
* Emperor Constantine was able to disband the Praetorian Guard. How? From their historical record I'd imagine they would sooner disband him.
* Why was it customary for early Christians to defer Baptism?
@@BLAZINFAST Regarding the guard I assume that he just had his soldiers line them up. No diffraction from a modern junta lining up disobedient officers against a wall.
@@BLAZINFASTfor your last question: Some Christians thought it would be better for converts to be baptized late in their life, because they thought baptism might only forgive the sins committed before baptism. That’s what Tertullianus said.
@@BLAZINFAST He retired the Praetorian Guard by paying all of them a handsome amount of money and then sending them to the borders of the Empire where they would be of no use.
@@BLAZINFAST The Praetorian thing is actually pretty simple to answer. The guard had fought for another imperial claimant, so Constantine didn't have to worry about disbanding a group of armed guards around him, he simply created a different group when he took the throne
Love your channel. One of few Crown Jewels of historical TH-cam
Question: Did the Roman's have museums? Please answer is one of your future Q&A episodes, or a great topic for you to cover in a future video. And, on another topic: Can you please do a show on the Gemonian stairs in the Roman Forum?
Bath houses and temples often featured prominent artwork that was available to the public
From my knowledge they most certainly did, even if their fruition was usually only for the higher classes. A good example can be found in Petronius's book "Satyricon" (Written at the end of the first century): during the story the protagonist Encolpius, to recover after being betrayed by his lover, goes "In pinacothecam" where he sees famous works from greek culture (Among the authors that are cited we can find Zèusi: a Greek artist who lived in the V century B.C).
I used the Satyricon as a source because the book, a kind of "novel" we could say, is set in the mundane life of the roman's high classes and for this reason is very good to understand roman culture/society.
As far as i remember.
Emperor Octavian had a personal museum filled with bronze age and stone age weapons, so probably yes
Lots of historic and cultural artifacts were stolen from the east as Rome expanded there. The sack of Corinth is a famous example of this. These historic 'pieces' heavily inspired Greco-Roman culture.
One could argue all the Arches and statues they preserved made Rome one big 'open air museum' reminding everyday Romans of it's glorius past. The replica of Romulus 's hut they kept rebuilding sounds like 'museum piece ' .
Just got off of work and ah yes a new toldinstone, excellent start to the weekend
Absolutely love the channel. Your videos have single handily been the cause for my obsession with ancient history. Keep up the fantastic work
9 minutes and we never got to hear what the Romans thought of his conversion
Excellent content. Well done.
Excellent job as always, almost poetic narration. Along with Majoranis Channel one of the most thoughtful channels focusing on Ancient Rome.
Wow. An absolute delight as usual. Thanks again!
In hoc signo vinces ✝️
Forever my favourite quote ❤️
Amazing channel! Constantine's Conversion is one of my favourite historical topics.
Great video; however Constantine's implication in the Council of Nicea may be overestimated.
While Constantine did call the Council in 325, he really just followed the suggestions of Osius of Corduba. Constantine theoretically supervised the debates but Osius and Alexander of Alexandria were the actual masters. The Council condemned arianism and Arius was exiled... just to be recalled at the court of Constantinople in 334, where he died in 336. Several politically protected bishops professed the homoiousios (the Father and the Son are only similar in substance, but not equal), such as Eusebius of Nicomedia who baptised Constantine on his death bed. While Constantine might have been a Christian -he probably followed a form of henotheism or combined some elements of Sol Invictus with the Christian Jesus-, the Council of Nicea did not put an end to the religious turmoil of the Empire and arianism continued to thrive, particularly under his son Constantius II.
I was going to bring this up, thank you. Hard to say what's true with history this muddled and old, but I think a lot of Constantine's history was "re-written" by his successors.
It was simply about one religion to rule them all.
@@huwhitecavebeast1972 please keep spamming that on comment after comment, I’m sure you’ll convince someone
Clearly Constantine wasnt a cleric. But he wanted cohesion in his empire and control.
But that's still strange that he didn't at least combine christianity idea with roman theos & instead made a blank canvas refering to an untitled divinity. Why did even his story of triumphant still mystery until many century later the retold becoming about his vision/ dream? How odd of his lifetime
Thanks for the very clear and interesting explanation of the history of the Arch. The monument stands out very clearly in my memory of having seen it nearly fifty years ago.
A simply incredible video. Historical filmmaking of the highest quality. The sheer fascination it captures and conveys in such a short time.
The chirho was such a based and holy symbol that it made constantine win the battle
Excellent production, as always.
Heading to rome this fall, super excited to see in person all the things i’ve seen in your videos.
Interesting history and certainly not all Christian holy sites are in the holy lands
As others commented, video does not fully answer the question in the title. But good info about Constantine & pivotal Roman history.
This is my first exprience of your channel thanks for not answering your own question. This is the first and last time ill be here.
Great video! Thank you.
Love your work.
I appreciate your decision not to use music in the background of your videos. It makes them perfect in the late hours of the day when I want to listen to something but don't want sensory overload.
I took Latin for 5 semesters in high school, and I’ve always been fascinated with Ancient Rome - this channel is an amazing encyclopedia on ancient Roman history and culture
Thank you!
Ok but what did the Romans think of his conversion lol that’s why I clicked on the video
Love the channel, and this is very informative, but I would like to know more about the reaction of Romans to his conversion.
Great job. Thank you!
Many ask in comments section, what really Romans thought of his convention.
After he moved his Empire capital, he named the city he build from scratch, over an older greek merchant post, New Rome.
New York, New South Wales, you got the idea.
After he died, his successors renamed the city Constantinople.
This is what Romans thought of their Emperor !
Watching Told In Stone videos while I’m the city of Rome is always a unique experience😌
Can someone please give me the name of that painting at the end? Absolutely stunning and very striking image of a new Christian Rome
The image seen at the end is the centerpiece of Triumph of Christianity, which was frescoed by Tommaso Laureti on the ceiling of the Hall of Constantine inside the Vatican Museum.
Is it me of did he basically ommit answering the question of the title?
Damn this was good clickbait from an almost always excellent channel
He probably did that to appease the algorithm. :P
1:50 Wasn't in just Africa, that was the name of the province? The continent got that name later
Africa as in the province was just Tunisia and parts of modern Algeria and, depending on the era, parts of Libya/Tripolitania, Maxentius also ruled what were the provinces of Numidia and Mauretania, so saying "North Africa" as a generalization of Africa+Numidia+Mauretania+Libya it's right👍
I think you can also said "North Libya" because that was also another ancient name for the whole continent, but it would lead to more confusion :P
While I certainly believe Constantine's importance cannot be overstated I would take issue with one statement on this video that Constantine "directed" the Council of Nicaea. He defiantly did credit his victory at the Milvian Bridge to the Christian God but he was not an overtly spiritual man himself. He was only baptized on his deathbed because he knew he had further questionable activates ( killing those he suspected were his enemies) to do and wanted to have his sin cleansed at the last possible moment. In relation to the Nicaean Conference he did attend and only instructed the Bishops to make a definitive decision on the basic tenets of the Christian faith. He was not overly concerned with what those decisions were only that they decide and put it in writing. Constantine was tired of the various factions in the Church fighting about doctrine and pleading their case to him. He wanted a definitive decision and wanted the Church purged of those not in agreement! The is really the birth of the Catholic ( and Greek ) church we have today and is also mainline Protestant church theology.
Why is the intro music just an ancient sounding version of the lick?
I enjoyed this video's tone, refreshingly professional for a YT essay, until I realized that the title's question isn't even adressed in full. Thank you for at least not using all caps and red arrows.
nice as always. wonderful and clear.
New to the channel! Love what you do! Thank you!!
I understood that Constantines mother was already a Christian convert so that had some influence on his thinking before the battle.
Those tours all look great. Definitely a good target audience here for their service.
Constantine had the wisdom and foresight to realize that Rome was in her declining stage and that her glory and splendour were not going to last forever.
He also saw the great potential but also the great danger that Christianity posed, so he hijacked a revolutionary and liberating movement and transformed into a tool of oppression and control that would have made the Roman core values of governance eternal.
He totally succeeded in his effort, since all western civilization and its governace system is still based on the Roman blueprint, filtered through the Roman Catholic Church doctrine. That of Christianity vs. Rome is a false dichotomy: Rome restyled into Christianity to survive the changing times and they didn't even hide it.
Pontifex Maximus is still one of the titles of the Pope, after all.
The empire was declining for a century at this point, hence why Diocletian introduced the rule of the Tetrarchy, to stabilize the empire. Constantine was opportunistic about it. He broke the rules of Diocletian, moved against the other Tetrarchs and conquered and reunited the empire under his banner. The Romans had a tradition of religious freedom, but early christians were quite militant. They burned down temples of pagan gods for example, because "there cant be another god". Maybe also to protest against the oppression (temples were also symbols of power). Thats why there were so unpopular with the people in charge and hunted. Of course not all christians were like this, but it was an excuse to hunt them down.
In my opinion Constantine wanted to reunite the empire. He wanted it to be cohesive, so he tried to secure the inner peace. Another example for this is the council of Niceaa. As soon as the Christians had the security of not to be hunted anymore, they turned against each other. So Constantine summoned the council, so they could discuss all the theologic issues, and have a cohesive opinion what is right and what is wrong. That way he could also control the Christian believings.
To be "Pontifex Maximus" was tradition under the emperors bevorehand. It was a very important office - the highest religious leader - which was also in charge to adjust the calender each year and to declare holidays. Caesar used this to extend his time as a Gouverneur of Galia, until he was reelected as a consul, so he couldnt get sued for his actions against the senate.
It's interesting how Milan had the imperial court. I been there, it's a nice city.
So, what did the Romans think of Constantin’s conversion ?
you didnt actually answer the title question at all. you just gave a brief history of constantine
Amazing work
I preferred your first title of this video.
This is the first time after watching your videos I've felt you never answered the question or referenced a conclusion in your statement of intent, I would hope that more inviting titles don't get in the way of the story you're trying to tell moving forward as I do enjoy the honesty of the histories you tell on this channel
Would the legions in battle mode carry enough paint to put the ChiRo on every shield?
Probably, or they could just acquisition it from a nearby city.
They just needed something to mark themselves, it didn't have to be refined. They could've used whatever vegetation was around them.
It wasn't said until 40 years after his death that they had painted the cross on the shields by one of his biographers
Constantine died in 337.
The writers that report it are Lactantius and Eusebius of Caesaria.
Lactantius was a court rhetorician(Latin) for Diocletian in Nicomedia, then later the tutor of Constantine's son in Gaul. He died in 325, 12 years before Constantine.
Eusebius of Caesaria wrote his "Life of Constantine"(eulogy and panegyric)immediately after his death, knew him personally, and himself died in 339.
So Lactantius wrote of the dream and the sign on the shields while Constantine was alive, and he lived with him, and Eusebius immediately after his death. I'm not saying it's true, but it wasn't 40 years later, and the authors were close to him.
@@histguy101 Constantine needed a living Jesus he strangled his sister's husband when he said that he had violated the Edict of Toleration Constantine was a politician from England and he did Evil things and was a troublemaker everybody that didn't agree with him was a heretic
7:18 It must bee said, Licenius was anachronisticly unphotogenic
Lol no shit
Nice video doc.
Constantine after watching a weird light in the Sky: "For the Gods. What was that thing in the sky we just saw?"
Lactantius: "A message from God, who wants you to reunify the Empire under the cross of Jesus. With the symbol he made in the sky you shall conquer!"
Constantine: "You're right. If, in order to restore Rome's glory, I must use the signal of the God of christianity and spread his word throughout the Empire, then it shall be done!" *Draws sword* "FOR CHRIST!!!"
Soldiers: *Draw swords* "FOR CHRIST!!!"
*Meanwhile, a few kilometers away*
Shepherd: *Returns home, finding his house completely destroyed by a meteorite* "Son of a b*tch..."
Keep up the great work
I often wonder how YT content makers feel when somebody says that their vids are good to put them to sleep. I have always thought it slightly insulting. BUT toldinstone is freaking great to put me to sleep. I will listen again tomorrow, as the content is awesome but for now, thank you and Zzzzz Zzzzzz Zzzzzzzz.
In that time there were to unconquered "Son's" that were the 2 most popular. Christ who the son of god, the pagan Sol Invictus, the unconquered Sun. Constantine used both the most on coin's. It was at the end of his life that he seems to be more for the Lord Christ
That ending was really cool
great topic, expertly presented
_"....and the question is left unanswered"_
Thank you for your hard work!
What is the painting at the end of video? It’s beautiful
Speaking of Constantine, I really reccomend the BBC docu-drama "Rome: Rise and Fall of an Empire", in which Constantine's rise to power and his higly controversial religious reforms are told in a pretty accurate and human way
I watched it because of your recommendation on another video and I can't thank you enough it's really quite good.
@@t.wcharles2171 nah it's dogshit
I don't mean to be sus or cynical. But just wondering (especially around the site you're refering) how far one could trust of bbc's issues of their "dramatic" insights. I hope I didn't open a can of worm here, did I?
@@men_del12 It's unusually well done, though they do exaggerate the effect of the Teutoberg Forest incident regarding Augustus Caesar. But highly recommend it also, the BBC were accurate to history and got some good experts in. This doc is from a decade ago though.
I don't really get why Orthodox churches made Constantine (and his mother lmao) a Saint. The way he behaved, specially his LATER conversion and complete ignorance about the Bible proves to me that he wasn't all interested in being a christian, but rather he was using the religion for it's zealotry and maybe for political-religious gain.
After the supposed miracle of the Milvian Bridge (which, as you said, was told DECADES after the fact) he still represented himself as Sol Invictus in many coins and in his column. His actions and his own arch shows that he didn't wanted to infuriate the hellenic/"pagan" Romans, but if you believe in the christian god you can't be playing both sides.
The real christian Saint is Theodosius (which I think also was deified/sanctified), he banned all other religions, he expropiated their properties and destroyed many temples and monuments and allowed both State persecution and lynch mobs, he's the epithome of christianity
*Constantino, ora pro nobis.*
The first Roman Catholic Emperor.
*Carlosmagno, ora pro nobis.*
Father of Western Europe Catholicism.
We needed more! What of his wive's and other plots? Love the channel.
Absolutely love your channel and the content you bring. Im especially a fan of ancient rome. Please keep making these videos, they´re amazing👍
P.S. Wanted to ask if you could do a video about the different uses of the colosseum troughout the time (like the fortress it was once transformed to).
Good one!
This guy sounds a lot like Oversimplified. Great video!
Completely missing is the relationship between Constantine and other gods, especially Sol Invictus and goddesses like Victoria were prominent in his life and public representation. The best example in Rome is the magnificent arch, showing the sun god several times - directly and indirectly. Not to forget the column of Constantine in Constantinople topped by a figure of him with the attributes of Sol. Several other pieces of evidence for the admiration of the sun god exist as well (coins, the placement of the arch, establishment of attributes originating in the iconography of Sol as signs of emperors,...). It has been proposed that Constantine had an open definition of one god with several aspects like Jesus and Sol, connected to the cults of light deities popular at that time.
I think most would agree Constantine had some unorthodox religious views, even when he converted to Christianity, he pivoted between what would become Nicean Orthodoxy and the Arian heresy
yeah and despite its title the video didn't really address the academic debate surrounding his conversion either
good observation. constantine also allowed the converted "pagans" or "midplatonic esoteric christians" (whatever you want to call it) to celebrate saturnalia which ofc became christmas...but its also pretty dark bc saturn worship probably included human sacrifice ..like mithras and moloch cults...
sometimes i think carthage and phoenicia never lost..they just started to infiltrate rome and used it as their vessel...to this day?
@@thomashauer6804 Wdym? Christians love sacrifices, I’m sure you’ve heard of Jesus being crucified before.
@@thomashauer6804 Romans never practiced human sacrifices, at least not as a Republic and certainly not after Augustus. On the contrary: the image of the human sacrificing barbarian was used to degrade enemies. If you have any sources for your claims...bring them on
There must be more to say about the Arch of Constantine. Seems kind of weird to reuse stone carved pieces that were left from other monuments. For example, the Dacians style of carving from the Arch does not match with the style carving from Trajan's Column. Have a nice day!
Warning: the title has nothing to do with the contents.
This is simply a reading of a very shallow encyclopedia article about Constantine's political history at its most basic level.
There is no investigation or discussion of what his contemporaries thought about his conversion.
Some things remained mystery though:
1. He said dedicated the arch for a divinity but neither entitled a christian god nor named from romans (or at least any deity)
2. For an emperor having his most popular story after his death (for years/ centuries later) is strange as if "they didn't speak much about his 'epic warfare' on that time at least?"
3. How the stories may have "evolve" to possibly track down the remaining references that could've been "close enough" to the original tale (though I mostly seen this as politic messes that sprinkled over Constantine & basically every ruler face since we mostly hypothesis about what might happen & believe in reliance to that idea or ideas).
Lactantius wrote his account during Constantine's lifetime.
Incredible!
The pagan in me cried....
As did I
I don't think this really answered the question posed in the title
Really well made, but I feel like I wasted nine minutes not getting a pivotal question answered.
Do a video on education and languages in the Roman Empire. Where there any dead languages back then that only the scholars or religious leaders knew or could read? What level of education was standard for the average Roman? Even if schooling wasn’t a standardized thing, what education would parents or the older people teach the kids? Could everyone do at least basic addition and subtraction? Was it common for common folk to speak multiple languages?
He really had an ability to defeat opponents without noses.
Where can I find the sources that you use for your videos?
Little kid at 9:34 absolutely fucking shredding the double recorder setup
The painting you showes at the end is completely wrong. It was painted in the reneissance.
Very interesting!
But, ähm, - What did the Romans actually think of Constantine’s Conversion?
Just to be clear, The Council of Nicea affirmed The Father and Son are equal... they did not create a new doctrine or change the historical view of Early Christians.
Underrated criminal.
The story of Constantine and Christianity has always reminded me of the adage saying (in one verse or another) that the commoners thought the gods real, the wise accepted they weren't, and the rulers knew they were useful.
A common religion for the population was more beneficial to maintaining power than a variety of beliefs. And with Christianity proving to have staying power, it might have been the most viable religion at the moment. And one that promised eternal salvation, and all the sacrifices could be made in money, and without concern over which God was the right one for the blessing. Gods are useful. It is hard to imagine someone skillful enough to take sole control over the Roman Empire without understanding that dynamic.
So true.
"Slaves, be obedient to your masters" ~Eph. Ch. 6
And now Scientology need sacrifices of even more money.
Love new takes on the big C, instant watch
Emperor Constantine the Great is a Saint in the Orthodox Church like Saint Patrick of Ireland, even tho they aren’t canonized saints in Catholicism. Another example on how Orthodoxy is older than the Catholic Church. We’ve had methods for canonization before the schism. The Frankish Catholics went back and reinvented the wheel
That's all pretty cool. I'm kinda curious what the Romans thought of Constantine's conversion.
Why doesn't the video answer the question in the title ?
That last painting is striking, what is its name?
What artist did the thumbnail? Durer?
Think how different things would be if Maxentius had won at Milvian...
For one, Praetorians would have kept making a mess of things, like they had for centuries
This was 100% INTERESTING AS F!!!!
what is the painting on the right at 3:19 ?
Can you do a video on spoilae?
Enjoyed this video very much.