Rohan O’Connor
Constantine the 'Great' is a man unlike any other. Throughout his meteoric rise to power and time spent as sole Emperor, he achieved many feats and grew ever more powerful, establishing himself as the first ‘Christian’ and then, Emperor of Rome. But is he truly deserving of this epithet?I would say not. But first, we must understand the nature of Constantine’s reign, about sources and their factuality, and secondly, the context of the period. Due to the nature of Constantine’s polarising changes in religious policy, the effect on the historiography of Constantine has been extremely profound—only Christians tended to love him. For the last two millennia, western literary tradition has been based around the Christian church, and prominent western historians of this time were also unsurprisingly Christian. Not to mention contemporary primary sources to Constantine were equally polarising, and the ‘official’ version of history we have stems from accounts endorsed by the Imperial College and written by Christians. Not to mention the prevalence of anachronism within accounts of Constantine’s ascension and earlier reign—stories told by an Emperor prone to altering or twisting past events, a notable example being at the Battle of the Mulvian Bridge, to suit his present narrative. This period of history's opinions of Constantine must be taken with a grain of salt.Moreover, Constantine was born son to a general and Caesar, a junior emperor in the west. He was absent from most of his son’s life, away in Gaul and Britannia, yet had him named as heir. As a Caesar, he was a member of the Tetrarchy established by Diocletian, a senior Emperor, who had worked hard to restore order to the Empire following ages of civil war and the crises of the third century. Already, we can see Constantine was born into a position of privilege, coming into power not entirely of his prowess but in part thanks to his father.
JOURNEY TO SOLE POWER
The truth of how Constantine managed to climb the Imperial ladder was due to his presence present at the right time to capitalise on the insecure treasury. Diocletian’s positive influence was stained by the Christian persecutions happening under him, though coordinated by Caesar Galerius, which helped lay the groundwork for part of Constantine’s rise by providing him with a noble cause to fight against, the highly unpopular persecutions being very costly and achieving little. Again, Constantine was also lucky to inherit the support of his father’s army, who were extremely loyal to him. Without this much-needed support, which although did not legitimise him, Constantine would have been swept out of the tournament for imperial status in the metaphorical qualifiers.Nonetheless, Constantine’s ascension would not have happened without merit of his own. He began by making incremental advancements in power, not taking many risks, and securing an alliance with one of the eastern emperors through a marriage with his sister against the other emperors. Within his campaign through Italy against Maxentius, Constantine made many wise tactical manoeuvres. By besieging Segusium but not allowing his men to plunder as was typical, Constantine set a precedent of winning in a politically tactical way, not only winning in the field but also winning the hearts of the Italian people—equally as important. These successes carried him through Torino, Milan, and Verona, until he defeated Maxentius at the famous battle of the Milvian Bridge outside Rome. When conflict later arose between Constantine and Licinius, the final hurdle on his track to Imperial dominance, Constantine’s successes in the field continued, securing minor victories at Cibalae and Mardia, securing a favourable peace settlement before resuming conflict, winning furthermore at Adrianople in a huge naval battle over the Hellespont, besieging Byzantium, then finally ending civil war and securing sole Imperial power after the Battle of Chrysopolis in September of that year.However, throughout this successful military spree, the seeds of the darker elements of Constantine’s reign to come began to sprout, and evidential behaviour gives us an insight into the ruthless ambition held by this ‘great’ emperor. Before war with Maxentius could begin, Constantine needed a just reason and decided the best way to tempt Maxentius into aggression was to bully his father into suicide—no way for an emperor to go, regardless of any attempt he made to undermine Constantine’s authority. Similarly, the shady behaviour of Constantine justified his wars against Licinius, the first caused by a fabricated plot against Constantine involving a man named Bassianus, following which Constantine demanded to execute Bassianus’ brother and Licinius’ friend Senecio. Licinius refused, and war began. The second conflict was also caused by Constantine whilst appearing to be caused so by Licinius, when Constantine moved his army across the Danube River into Licinius’ territory, claiming to be chasing enemies of Rome, for the second time. Politically wise or not, these instances prove Constantine’s subversive and provocative nature.Additionally, Constantine was incredibly lucky in his invasion of Italy and wars against Maximilius. Entering Italy, he was outnumbered, and his victory can equally be attributed to Maxentius’ failings as much as his own successes. Maxentius’ popularity amongst his citizens had been steadily declining, owing to failures to secure Rome’s grain supply from North Africa, even higher taxation of the nobility than under Diocletian, as well as further costly taxation against the average citizen to fund building projects that, although hugely beneficial for future generations, were far too expensive for this turbulent time. This was no doubt a large factor in Constantine’s triumphal parade through Italian cities. Even later at the battle of the Hellespont, Constantine was incredibly lucky to have Licinius’ vastly larger navy mostly destroyed in a storm, allowing his successful siege of Byzantium.Although Constantine achieved great military successes, he was highly fortunate on many occasions and did not honourably begin his term as sole ruler.
EMPEROR OF ALL, 324-337 AD
Now, I assess Constantine’s reign as sole emperor. Again, the extent of his greatness is highly disputed.This is evident in domestic policy. Many changes occurring under Constantine far outlasted his life and continued to keep alive the ‘Roman’ state for years to come. Namely, the city of Constantinople, which began major fortification and construction under Constantine. The city, owing to its highly defensible position, would remain the shining capital of the Eastern Empire. Further building projects, such as the spectacular St. Peter’s Basilica, and secular alike, serve as extra testament to the age of architectural and cultural prosperity that was fostered under Constantine. However, this all required funding, and economic policies became heavily problematic. Constantine brought a return to heavy taxes that began the formation of the system of mediaeval feudalism, helping the nobility and causing major strife for the poor. The creation of a new coin that would also far outlast Constantine, preventing the West from devolving to a bartering system after the fall of Rome, does not outweigh the serious economic problems guilty of foundation by Constantine.Additionally, Constantine’s conniving murderous side flared up in his reign, during which he had his promisingly virtuous son Crispus executed, then his wife Fausta. Even before this, just one year after his victory in 324, he had Licinius, and his ally Martinian executed after having promised them their lives upon their surrender. Although he tried to cover up his behaviour of backstabbing and familicide with the holy pilgrimage of his mother, now St Helena, the eyes of history and religion are not blind to these heinous misdeeds.On a wider scale, many consider Constantine to be the first stage of failure for the Western Empire. Constantine effectively undid two decades of work by Diocletian, destroying the tetrarchy that aimed to bring an end to civil war. Although an ideological heir to Diocletian, his watering down of the Senate with a lower barrier for entry accumulated the power of the Imperial College, straying even further away from the democracy of old. Alongside his poor economic policies, his reformation of the army is also widely considered to have played a huge role in the downfall of the Western Empire, with troops becoming less trained.Constantine arose through civil war, left the Empire embroiled in civil war, then set it off into a war with Persia it could not afford. He began Rome’s downfall, despite his lasting achievements.
SAINT OR SINNER?
Throughout his life, Constantine not only used Christianity as a tool for attacking his enemies but also for unifying the Empire. But was he really worthy of the praise mediaeval historians grant him as a Christian? Or did he use religion as a political tool?His use of the ‘Chi-Rho’ symbol at the battle of the Milvian Bridge has no evidence of being associated with Christianity at this time. The triumphal arch he built appears with no feature of this ‘holy’ symbol, strange for something so important to the story of his ascension. It is likely that Constantine anachronistically used Christianity as a political tool, aiming to unify the Empire under one theology. Indeed, his belief is likely to have furthered into actuality towards the end of his reign, and his involvements in doctrinal changes towards Church unity did have lasting impact, but still, to his death, Constantine was hedging his bets as to which religion was most beneficial to follow, only being baptised shortly before he knew he would succumb to his ailments.
SO, GREAT OR NOT?
Constantine is no doubt prominent. The scale and longevity of his influence were powerful, but Christianity was a cancer that sapped the Empire of the unity once had under pagan polytheism, a problem exacerbated by the failure to defend Rome’s ever-shrinking frontiers with an increasingly weak army. So instead, I would be tempted to call him 'Constantine the significant.'
Comments