Ancient and ArchaeologyΜύ permalink
Roman Empire - Constantine - bad creative licence.
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Μύ
Posted by gonubierat (U6216353) on Thursday, 19th October 2006
After just watching the Roman Empire about constantine, and after recently studying the ancient texts myself in Church History at my university, I find it absolutely disgusting how Christianity is put in such a bad light.
It is sickening to see how directors and script writers who are against religion, or Christianity in particular will leave out the truth to suit themselves, teaching people who have not read the texts a false history.
I ask that if any one here wants to read the texts themselves, they are available either online, or via many texts. Eusebius is just one of these books, tranlated very well.
Please, read these texts, and judge the truth for yourselves.
I think they portrayed Constantine in a very bad light, making him seem like a nutcase, nowhere does the ancient text give that feel. Whereas for Nero, one can understand.
Comments appreciated.Link to this forum: Roman Empire - Constantine - bad creative licence.
-
Message 2
Posted by ElistanOnVacation (U3933150) on Friday, 20th October 2006
Nero thought he was god, Constantine just talked to him.
Link to this forum: Roman Empire - Constantine - bad creative licence.
-
Message 3
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Friday, 20th October 2006
Given what Constantine's reforms meant to Eusebius he was hardly going to write -
"God has distinguished him alone of all the sovereigns of whom we have ever heard as at once a mighty luminary and most clear-voiced herald of genuine piety, if a little nutty!".Link to this forum: Roman Empire - Constantine - bad creative licence.
-
Message 4
Posted by ElistanOnVacation (U3933150) on Friday, 20th October 2006
It is significant that Nero comes to us from Suetonius, whose ambition was to discolour the Julio-Claudians whilst Constantine had the more pro-partisan scribblings of Eusebios for his posterity. As Carr would say, know your historian first.
Link to this forum: Roman Empire - Constantine - bad creative licence.
-
Message 5
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Friday, 20th October 2006
I disagree totally with the original post.
The portrayal of Constantine was indeed artistic licence, but of a highly pro-Christian nature! Constantine was shown to have converted to Christianity before his war against Licinius. This is a crock. As anyone with any knowledge of Roman coinage knows, the Emperor uses his coins as personal advertising space. He advertises his achievements, his monuments, and HIS BELIEFS. Any coinage of Constantine the Great which had religious symbology related to the cult of Sol Invictus, not Christianity. He was a monotheist, but he wasn't a Christian. His involvement with the edict of Milan and the council of Nicaea was (in my opinion of course) due to the Christian influence of his family, who were undoubtedly converts. When he said "One empire, one Emperor, one god" he meant Sol, not Christ.
Utter Rubbish Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ, and a complete let down after the first episodes.Link to this forum: Roman Empire - Constantine - bad creative licence.
-
Message 6
Posted by yankee014 (U3352255) on Friday, 20th October 2006
Constantine is viewed by many as the first Christian emperor. Although he did worship the Christian god and did convert to Christianity on his death bed, it is important to realize that he still honored the traditional Roman gods. Constantine was polytheistic like all the emperors before him. He simply viewed the Christian god as just one diety amongst many others. However, he viewed the Christian god as the most powerful god after his victory on the bridge.
Link to this forum: Roman Empire - Constantine - bad creative licence.
-
Message 7
Posted by Alaric the Goth (U1826823) on Friday, 20th October 2006
I think that the programme's two main failings were:
1) It did not show Constantine's link with Britain (considering its British audience!): how it was that he was raised on a shield at Eboracum (York) by his soldiers (presumably when he was made one of the 'four Emperors' that the programme described in its opening part, and
2) What about his founding the 'New Rome', Constantinople? A city which was very important historically (for Europe and the near East), for arguably a thousand years after its founding,, if not more.
I did, however, learn a lot from it, I felt, and wanted to find out more. I did not take offence as a Christian!Link to this forum: Roman Empire - Constantine - bad creative licence.
-
Message 8
Posted by The Enquirer (U3669954) on Saturday, 21st October 2006
The point is, where is the evidence that he was emotionally (mentally?) unstable. Undoubtedly those who undergo a profound change in worldview, can be emotionally affected by it, but where is the evidence that this happened and why was he protrayed as emotionally unstable throughout?
Admittedly few men will accuse an absolute ruler of "being nutty" in his lifetime, but again where is the evidence for this? When you cast a man in a bad light it is only fair to state the evidence. It wouldn't have taken much for the narrator to have said, "We know from X's writings that Constantine was emotionally unstable."Link to this forum: Roman Empire - Constantine - bad creative licence.
-
Message 9
Posted by hirundo (U6243159) on Saturday, 21st October 2006
I have followed the programmes on Rome and the emperors with great interest and have found them largely accurate. Except for Constantine. He was portrayed as a Christian. Not so. He was for most of his life a follower of Sol Invictus and only became a Christian on his death bed. This programme was given a wholly inaccurate Christian bias. With regard to the Council of Nicea, he, as a pagan emperor, imposed the outcome upon what was a collection of 'bishops' who could not come to any form of agreement among themselves. As a fully paid-up atheist I do object to an historical programme being hi-jacked by Christianity.
Link to this forum: Roman Empire - Constantine - bad creative licence.
-
Message 10
Posted by The Enquirer (U3669954) on Saturday, 21st October 2006
Given the ending of the programme as a hypocritical murderer and his portrayal as emotionally unstable, one can hardly accuse the producers of being Christian!
What exactly Constantine believed in his heart no one can tell, but there are many official letters written by him professing his faith in Christ. He did remain the high priest of Sol Invictus until near the end of his life (and his coinage continued the practice of showing Sol Invictus), but this may have been the act of a compromiser, someone who was "hedging his bets" or someone who saw Christ as the real Sol Invictus (as many did).
The programme is faithful to his public profession. His death-bed baptism did not mean that he became a Christian then. He professed faith constantly before then.
This act was probably a manifestation of the belief current at the time (and still espoused by the Roman Catholic Church) that the act of baptism (with faith) actually cleansed one of sin. Thus quite a few men advised leaving baptism off to a later date in life. (This was the reason given by Tertullian for going away from the majority practice of infant baptism and leave it off to at least after the heady days of youth.)
As for the "Da Vinci Code" type claims about the Council of Nicea, seeLink to this forum: Roman Empire - Constantine - bad creative licence.
-
Message 11
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Saturday, 21st October 2006
Jean,
welcome to the boards. At least a Frenchman on these boards? Or is it an exiled Huguenot? Or a fundamentalist from Genève (smile)?
Don't mention that you are French, if you are. Some people here on the boards, I wonder why, seems not to like the French.
At least I see to reappear now "Inflandersfields", somebody I thought to be a Belgian compatriot on these British boards.
Welcome again and warm regards,
Paul.Link to this forum: Roman Empire - Constantine - bad creative licence.
-
Message 12
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Monday, 23rd October 2006
Hirundo,
Absolutely spot on. I've already stated supporting evidence to the same.Link to this forum: Roman Empire - Constantine - bad creative licence.
-
Message 13
Posted by TheGalloway (U5972718) on Monday, 23rd October 2006
I agree with hirundo,
And would add that early Christians had a near fanatical hatred of anything non Christian and to the best of my knowledge had a tendency of 'offing' non Christians.Link to this forum: Roman Empire - Constantine - bad creative licence.
-
Message 14
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Tuesday, 24th October 2006
As a fully paid-up atheist I do object to an historical programme being hi-jacked by Christianity.Μύ
I'm not a Christian and I would have to say that the scene in which Licinius was murdered being juxtaposed with Constantine reciting the Christian creed could have been seen as being provocative an offensive to Christians.Link to this forum: Roman Empire - Constantine - bad creative licence.
-
Message 15
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Tuesday, 24th October 2006
"I'm not a Christian and I would have to say that the scene in which Licinius was murdered being juxtaposed with Constantine reciting the Christian creed could have been seen as being provocative an offensive to Christians"
I agree, I suppose it could. Strangely though, there wasn't a big demonstration the next day calling for the producer to be beheaded..
Funny that!
Having said then, since Constantine didn't actually convert I can't see how it would offend Christians! Personally, I think that there should be an apology issued to all sun-worshippers! Constantine worshipped Sol Invictus not Christ!!! It's all a big fib!Link to this forum: Roman Empire - Constantine - bad creative licence.
-
Message 16
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Tuesday, 24th October 2006
I wasn't referring to the factual correctness of whether or not Constantine converted to Christianity. My point was regarding the progamme makers' use of the recital of the Christian creed.
P.S. Just because someone may be offended by something does not necessarily mean that that person is then going to react violently.Link to this forum: Roman Empire - Constantine - bad creative licence.
-
Message 17
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Tuesday, 24th October 2006
I have two words to offer.
Free speech.
If someone is "offended" they are free to change channel. I find Eastenders offensive on the grounds that it's bland, brain-numbing rubbish, so I don't watch it. because I don't watch it, it no longer offends me. I am personally sick and tired of people going off on one that something is "offensive" and "shouldn't be allowed". IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT DON'T WATCH IT!!!
(DL leaves the house to scream incoherently at a passing heron...)
It makes my blood boil! If something offends you, don't watch it! It's quite simple!Link to this forum: Roman Empire - Constantine - bad creative licence.
-
Message 18
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Tuesday, 24th October 2006
By that logic, similarly, if a post offends someone then that person shouldn't read it or react to it.
Link to this forum: Roman Empire - Constantine - bad creative licence.
-
Message 19
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Tuesday, 24th October 2006
Personally, I think that there should be an apology issued to all sun-worshippers!Μύ
Hi DL,
Peter Stringfellow and Brigitte Bardot have got their leathery sun-tanned asses into action and will march on No. 10 this Saturday.
Allegedly...
RF
p.s. I've just seen a severely traumatised Heron fall out of the sky. According to my Ladybird "Book of Roman Omens" (pg 22) it means I shouldn't plan on buying a monthly bus-pass...
Link to this forum: Roman Empire - Constantine - bad creative licence.
-
Message 20
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Tuesday, 24th October 2006
RF
How dare you! I'm extremely offended by you insinuation that I verbally abused said waterfowl!!!
OOPS hypocrisy alert.....
Best change channels quick!!!Link to this forum: Roman Empire - Constantine - bad creative licence.
-
Message 21
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Tuesday, 24th October 2006
Yes,
If a post is offensive, then it's usually best not to respond at all. Hence the term "Do not feed the troll". Offensive posters tend to give up and leave when starved of attention.Link to this forum: Roman Empire - Constantine - bad creative licence.
-
Message 22
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 25th October 2006
If Constantinus has to be remembered for something it is not that much for his contribution to the christian cause - it was later emperors that did most of the job, Constantine did only the first step but had you asked him he would not endorse this religion only (himself, he had signed the treaty of Mediolanum on complete religious freedom afterall) and of course, he was definitely not a christian. He should not be remembered that much for killing relatives and getting rid of political opponents - that was the normal for Rome (and not only). It amazes me also that presenting this documentary to the English viewers they did not present the link of Constantine with England.
If Constantine has to be rememebered for something is the fact that he took the decision to move the capital definitely from Rome to Byzantium, renamed Constantinople (city of Constantine) after him. A move that determined the history of whole Europe and Middle East for the next millenium. A move that proved to be more than successful considering the fact that Constantinople as set by Constantine and his team of consultants outlived its predecessor Rome and produced a civilisation that became the basis for the Medieval Arabic and Renaissance European civilisations.Link to this forum: Roman Empire - Constantine - bad creative licence.
-
Message 23
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Thursday, 26th October 2006
It amazes me also that presenting this documentary to the English viewers they did not present the link of Constantine with England.Μύ
England did not exist, as such, at the time of Constantine. The area in question was essentially the Roman province of Britannia.
When his father died in York (Eboracum), in 306, the troops declared Constantine as 'augustus'. This act was supported by the Eastern Roman Emperor who confirmed the title of 'caesar' on Constantine. This would have then made York the de facto capital of most of the Western Empire at the time. Constantine did, however, then quickly make steps to proceed to Rome.
I suppose the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ was keen not to be seen to be over-egg the pudding of Britain's importance in the story and so decided to leave the whole Britannia and Eboracum episode out. It is, after all, a classic 'footnote of history'.Link to this forum: Roman Empire - Constantine - bad creative licence.
-
Message 24
Posted by jacobitematt (U3577576) on Monday, 30th October 2006
Hi DL,
"The portrayal of Constantine was indeed artistic licence, but of a highly pro-Christian nature! Constantine was shown to have converted to Christianity before his war against Licinius. This is a crock. As anyone with any knowledge of Roman coinage knows, the Emperor uses his coins as personal advertising space. He advertises his achievements, his monuments, and HIS BELIEFS. Any coinage of Constantine the Great which had religious symbology related to the cult of Sol Invictus, not Christianity. He was a monotheist, but he wasn't a Christian. His involvement with the edict of Milan and the council of Nicaea was (in my opinion of course) due to the Christian influence of his family, who were undoubtedly converts. When he said "One empire, one Emperor, one god" he meant Sol, not Christ."
- Obviously, DL, you know I'll disagree with that! Certainly after the victory at Milvian Bridge Constantine was a Christian, and definately was by the time he took on Licinius. The ambivalent nature of the coinage was due to political necessity, as I have argued in our previous discussion on the issue. Again, if his family were Christians and influential, why wouldn't Constantine be Christian?
- All in all, I agree in that the series in general wasn't that good.
Best wishes,
jacobitemattLink to this forum: Roman Empire - Constantine - bad creative licence.
-
Message 25
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Monday, 30th October 2006
"Obviously, DL, you know I'll disagree with that! Certainly after the victory at Milvian Bridge Constantine was a Christian, and definately was by the time he took on Licinius. The ambivalent nature of the coinage was due to political necessity, as I have argued in our previous discussion on the issue. Again, if his family were Christians and influential, why wouldn't Constantine be Christian?
- All in all, I agree in that the series in general wasn't that good.
Best wishes,
jacobitematt"
Hello again matt!
I'll not go into too much detail as we've had this discussion before! However...
Certainly after the victory at Milvian Bridge Constantine was a Christian, "
Proof please! Where is the proof! He'd have been churning out Chi-Rho symbol coinage within the week, and you know it, yet he still persisted with his Sol Invictus ones! Had he been converted, his religious zeal would have meant that portraying Sol as his god of choice would have been heresy, and he'd have stopped it!
As for the argument that "that would be unpopular", he was a successful military leader, therefore had the army on his side, and was therefore pretty secure as Emperor.
Can you please find a non-Christian source that states that he was a Christian? I discount any Christian history from this as being unobjective, biased and not trustworthy. (Remember that history is always written by the victors!).
"if his family were Christians and influential, why wouldn't Constantine be Christian?"
Why should he automatically be Christian? My parents were very religious, my Mum still is an active leader in her Church. I'm not. Given the nature of Roman family life, would anyone who isn't the paterfamilias have the bottle to say "You're praying to the wrong God brother!". I doubt it. Family structure in Rome was VERY different to ours. All family members were the property of the paterfamilias, to do with as he saw fit, so best not to annoy him! Particularly if he's Emperor!!!Link to this forum: Roman Empire - Constantine - bad creative licence.
-
Message 26
Posted by jacobitematt (U3577576) on Monday, 30th October 2006
Hi DL,
"He'd have been churning out Chi-Rho symbol coinage within the week, and you know it, yet he still persisted with his Sol Invictus ones! Had he been converted, his religious zeal would have meant that portraying Sol as his god of choice would have been heresy, and he'd have stopped it!"
- No, Constantine didn't churn out Chi-Rhos immediately after victory. He had to tread carefully. However, why would he have to immediately show his religious allegiance? Not all converts to a religion become zealous and have to announce it publically. I think he was a Christian after Milvian Bridge, but perhaps a bit confused, his faith grew steadily.
As for the argument that he had a large army on his side and so could do what he wanted. Any Emperor is prone to assasination, no matter how successful; look at what happened to Probus and Aurelian. Christianity was a minority at the time.
As far as I know, there is no non-Christian source saying Constantine was a Christian, then again I can find no sources asserting that he wasn't Christian by the time of his death. All sources are in effect, subject to some degree of bias. History is written by the winners, but in some cases that is all we have to go on.
"Why should he automatically be Christian?"
- He shouldn't automatically be a Christian, I agree. However, you did say that his family was influential, so maybe their religion rubbed off onto Constantine, in much the same way as my dad's support for Spurs has passed onto me. Constantine, being Emperor or paterfamilias, could do as he pleased, and didn't have to follow Christianity. So why, then, did he build Christian buildings such as the original St. Peter's? Remember, influence is influence, regardless of social or family status. Narcissus was Claudius right-hand man, despite being a mere freedman.
Best wishes,
jacobitemattLink to this forum: Roman Empire - Constantine - bad creative licence.
-
Message 27
Posted by jacobitematt (U3577576) on Monday, 30th October 2006
Hi hirundo,
"As a fully paid-up atheist I do object to an historical programme being hi-jacked by Christianity".
- You are aware that Christianity was bound to play an important role in a program about Constantine? Constantine's historical importance rests on his conversion to, and legalising of, Christianity, and in founding Constantinople. It's a bit like protesting that the program shouldn't mention Constantinople!
Best wishes,
jacobitemattLink to this forum: Roman Empire - Constantine - bad creative licence.
-
Message 28
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Monday, 30th October 2006
jacobitematt,
"As far as I know, there is no non-Christian source saying Constantine was a Christian, then again I can find no sources asserting that he wasn't Christian by the time of his death. All sources are in effect, subject to some degree of bias. History is written by the winners, but in some cases that is all we have to go on. "
Which is precisely why I am sceptical! Who says he was a Christian? Christians do. He doesn't. There are no records of him stating so, and surely denying your own faith wouldn't sit comfortably with anyone with a strong faith?
"No, Constantine didn't churn out Chi-Rhos immediately after victory"
No, but surely had he converted, he'd have put a stop to idolatry such as depicting the sun god on coins! "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me". Enough said on that point. I stand by my opinion that he was undoubtedly a monotheist, but a devotee of the cult of Sol, not Christianity. Even his "speeches" on the recent Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ docu-drama could have been reinterpreted to mean this.
"Constantine, being Emperor or paterfamilias, could do as he pleased, and didn't have to follow Christianity. So why, then, did he build Christian buildings such as the original St. Peter's? "
Again, who says he built them? The Christian church. Do you see the pattern forming?
"However, you did say that his family was influential, so maybe their religion rubbed off onto Constantine,"
Or maybe his family's influence is what caused him to put a stop to persecuting Christians? Maybe his family caused him to intervene in the church, in order to prevent sectarian violence? Hence the Council of Nicaea?
"Remember, influence is influence, regardless of social or family status."
Yes, and Nero was a great emperor till he sacked Seneca. Doesn't change a thing. What I'm saying is that the only evidence of Constantine's alleged conversion comes from the Christian Church, and the Christian church at that time was undoubtedly self-promoting, violent towards unbelievers and quite capable of "amending" the truth to promote their cause. I view the Roman church with intense suspicion, particularly when you look at how they behaved AFTER Constantine, and see no reason why I should believe them. It's a matter of choice, and I choose to believe that the church was power-hungry and corrupt enough to lie about it, in order to gain influence, standing and power. They succeeded.Link to this forum: Roman Empire - Constantine - bad creative licence.
-
Message 29
Posted by jacobitematt (U3577576) on Monday, 30th October 2006
Hi DL,
"Which is precisely why I am sceptical! Who says he was a Christian? Christians do. He doesn't. There are no records of him stating so, and surely denying your own faith wouldn't sit comfortably with anyone with a strong faith?"
- Yes the only sources we have on the matter are Christian. However, Eusebius is a primary source and so would be in a better position to know than me or you.
"No, but surely had he converted, he'd have put a stop to idolatry such as depicting the sun god on coins! "
- But why would he? It would've been political suicide to suddenly de-legalise Sol Invictus, a faith very important to the soldiery. We agree that he was a monotheist, at least! I also agree that he originally was a follower of the Sol cult.
"Or maybe his family's influence is what caused him to put a stop to persecuting Christians? Maybe his family caused him to intervene in the church, in order to prevent sectarian violence? Hence the Council of Nicaea?"
- I expect so, yes. However, as emperor, it was his job to preserve the public peace. Maybe he saw Christianity as the best way of securing this, so naturally there had to be some form of religious unity.
"Yes, and Nero was a great emperor till he sacked Seneca. Doesn't change a thing. What I'm saying is that the only evidence of Constantine's alleged conversion comes from the Christian Church, and the Christian church at that time was undoubtedly self-promoting, violent towards unbelievers and quite capable of "amending" the truth to promote their cause. I view the Roman church with intense suspicion, particularly when you look at how they behaved AFTER Constantine, and see no reason why I should believe them. It's a matter of choice, and I choose to believe that the church was power-hungry and corrupt enough to lie about it, in order to gain influence, standing and power. They succeeded."
- I meant by "influence" that his family, Eusebius even, could have tried to convert/persuade Constantine to Christianity. History is full of rulers who have been influenced by others, so the point is valid. Obviously, you reject any history/source from the Catholic church, however these are primary sources and in a position to know. I choose to accept them. If you believe that Constantine wasn't Christian, didn't build the original St. Peter's, and that it's all a fib, can you answer me this though?
Why did Christianity become legalised during his time? Why is there Christianity now? Why didn't Constantine wipe out Christianity, if he was all powerful? Why did Christianity eventually become the official religion of Rome - if Constantine really remained a pagan it is hard to see Christianity flourishing?
Best wishes,
JacobitemattLink to this forum: Roman Empire - Constantine - bad creative licence.
-
Message 30
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Monday, 30th October 2006
Good response Matt,
Not got much time now, so I'll just deal with your questions and catch up with the rest later!
"Why did Christianity become legalised during his time? "
Because to maintain it as a criminalised sect would have meant arresting and probably killing members of his own family, who I don't deny were Christians.
"Why is there Christianity now?"
I can't see what relevance that has, but I'll counter it with "Why is there any religion now?"
"Why didn't Constantine wipe out Christianity, if he was all powerful? "
See answer to question one. That would have meant wiping out his Mum for a start.
"Why did Christianity eventually become the official religion of Rome - if Constantine really remained a pagan " Rome is full of occasions where a "new" religion was imported and became popular, such as worship of Cybele. The only reason that it became the sole legal religion is because, unlike the polytheistic and pagan religions, it was intolerant of them, and persecuted them out of existence once it had the power to do so. After all, pagan worship is "idolatry" and therefore "evil". The previous new beliefs co-existed peacefully with the old Roman religions, Christianity didn't.
"if Constantine really remained a pagan it is hard to see Christianity flourishing?" Ah, but, add in the story that he converted to Christianity, and that gives the official approval of the Emperor to the religion. Even if he didn't convert, the Christian church said he did, and within Rome Constantine was revered as the man who reunited the Empire, so it gives Christianity great publicity, whether it is true or not! Add in the fact that his family were Christians, therefore his heirs would be heavily influenced by Christianity, if not converts.
Sadly Matt, like any good conspiracy theory, it relies on the conspiracy being born deep inside the movement who WROTE the history, so cannot be proved either way. There is the Christian written history, and physical evidence. The physical evidence contradicts the written history. That's all there is to it.Link to this forum: Roman Empire - Constantine - bad creative licence.
-
Message 31
Posted by jacobitematt (U3577576) on Tuesday, 31st October 2006
Hi DL,
Sadly I have a lot of time at the moment, having been made redundant!
"Because to maintain it [Christianity] as a criminalised sect would have meant arresting and probably killing members of his own family, who I don't deny were Christians".
- Yes, but Constantine had no qualms about getting rid of Crispus and Fausta. So I don't think he would have had a problem doing the same over religion.
"Why is there Christianity now?"
- Well, perhaps I didn't word it clearly. I meant that I couldn't see any reason why Christianity could have become Rome's faith, and eventually of Europe, if Constantine hadn't done what he did. True, Christianity would have survived with,or without Constantine, but not as a dominant religion. Why is there religion now? Due to personal faith, hope, state control, war - there are quite a few reasons.
"Why didn't Constantine wipe out Christianity, if he was all powerful? "
See answer to question one. That would have meant wiping out his Mum for a start."
- See first bit about Crispus and Fausta. Sometimes in politics blood ties are meaningless.
"Rome is full of occasions where a "new" religion was imported and became popular, such as worship of Cybele. The only reason that it became the sole legal religion is because, unlike the polytheistic and pagan religions, it was intolerant of them, and persecuted them out of existence once it had the power to do so. After all, pagan worship is "idolatry" and therefore "evil". The previous new beliefs co-existed peacefully with the old Roman religions, Christianity didn't".
- I agree with all of that. Christianity was an intolerant faith, which is why Constantine would have been careful not to openly espouse his new faith, too much. Ambiguity was the key to survival. Generally Roman society didn't like "new" things, especially some weird oriental religion based on a convicted criminal.
"Ah, but, add in the story that he converted to Christianity, and that gives the official approval of the Emperor to the religion. Even if he didn't convert, the Christian church said he did, and within Rome Constantine was revered as the man who reunited the Empire, so it gives Christianity great publicity, whether it is true or not! Add in the fact that his family were Christians, therefore his heirs would be heavily influenced by Christianity, if not converts".
- As I said a bit earlier, I think Christianity would have survived without Constantine, certainly not flourished though. It would've have been dangerous though, to lie about his faith or conversion. Surely Constantine had other advisors or henchmen who were pagan and who could have given the "true" version of events. Constantine's heirs were Christians, but if, as you maintain, Constantine wasn't, why would they be? As you said, Constantine was the emperor and paterfamilias, so why would they follow Christianity, at the risk of their father's disapproval, or worse?
I like a conspiracy as much as the next person, but I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one! I just can't see it. However, I'm intrigued, how does the physical evidence contradict the written records, coinage notwithstanding (which I believe is ambivalent and not conclusive as it shows both pagan and Christian symbology)?
Best wishes,
JacobitemattLink to this forum: Roman Empire - Constantine - bad creative licence.
-
Message 32
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Wednesday, 1st November 2006
Matt,
I'll dig you out some links on Roman coinage when I have the time! It isn't ambivalent at all, it's pretty obvious what the current emperor was into at the time.
Examples-
Titus had some good ones depicting the Flavian amphitheatre to commemorate its opening.
Trajan had depictions of Dacian slaves, and his column in Rome.
Caligula had ones depicting erm.... his Mum. make of that what you will (I have one of these ones at home)
They practically all had ones depicting gods from the Roman pantheon (as did Constantine) and also ones deifying a previous emperor (INCLUDING CONSTANTINE! Not very Christian that is it?)Link to this forum: Roman Empire - Constantine - bad creative licence.
-
Message 33
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Wednesday, 1st November 2006
Hi DL,
I know almost nothing about Roman coins but wouldn't half mind one or two of them (nowt rare of course). What sort of price range do they go for?
Cheers,
RFLink to this forum: Roman Empire - Constantine - bad creative licence.
-
Message 34
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Wednesday, 1st November 2006
Afternoon RF,
Hope you're well.
Roman coins go from worthless to priceless depending on what they're made of, which period they are from and condition.
If you're interested in collecting them, then I'd suggest looking on Ebay if you're looking at buying them. I have the good fortune to live on a site that local archaeologists have described as a "destroyed archaelogical site". It's basically an old Roman site which has been flooded, and destroyed by centuries of farming, dredging, canal building, road building, you name it. So basically, there are a lot of finds out there (the common theory is that it was some sort of water-shrine, long since smashed up) but they have no archaeological value as they're scattered everywhere. I've found some real beauties, which is what started me off!
Anyway, at one end of the spectrum, a common low grade bronze nummus from one of the common later emperors (Constantine and co) will cost you a pound at most, depending on condition, whereas my pride and joy, a silver denarius minted by Brutus in commemoration of Caesar's assassination (complete with portrait of Brutus on one side, with daggers and the words "EID MAR" on the reverse) will set you back around Β£3000 in good condition. The price will often depend on the length of the emperor's reign. One of the rarer emperors such as Pertinax (reigned only 93 days if I remember correctly) will be worth MANY times the value of someone such as Trajan who had a relatively long reign. The year of the four emperors is another money spinner, any of Galba, Otho or Vitellius' coins are always high value, so I'd guess you get what you pay for. I personally collect Republican denarii, initially for appearance, since some of them are like little works of art, but also that's where my interest in Roman history really lies. Many of the more well known patrician families minted coinage at some time or other, I have a fair few of Sulla's, Marius', even a couple of Ahenobarbus, Crassus and a lot of lesser known moneyers. Only one Caesar though, they tend to be somewhat overpriced!
Anyway, I'm waffling on about one of my favourite subjects.
So, starting from republican days, you can expect to pay Β£20-Β£100 for a silver denarius, depending on whose name is on it, condition and age.
For early Imperatorial coins, depending on who, I'd guess at Β£100 upwards for the likes of Pompey, Crassus, Caesar and Octavian. Rarities like Brutus, Anthony and Cleopatra will cost you big time (my Brutus came from a second hand shop for Β£5!) from dealers, but keep your eyes open and you may get lucky.
Julio-Claudian emperors are usually fairly pricey too, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius and Nero all range between Β£50-Β£100 on average, a lot more for the rarer issues. As I said earlier, Galba, Otho and Vitellius are like rocking-horse poop, and priced accordingly.
After that, you'd be talking about Β£20 ish for a denarius, large bronzes can often be worth as much, if in good condition (but many are quite common).After the "good emperors", the rot sets in, with the metal becoming more debased throughout the severan era, then the denarius is phased out all together, replaced by the antoninianus, a "double denarius". The silver gets more debased until even these are made in bronze. After that, I lose interest, since they all look the same!
For gold coins, I'd estimate multiply the price of the silver one by about 50. I only have a three of these, from Nero, Vespasian and Trajan, and I'd guess at around Β£1,500 each. I get mine authenticated through the local museum, and it adds a lot to the value.
If you do buy coins on Ebay, stick to sellers with high feedback and no negatives. There are a lot of fakes out there. It becomes easier to spot them with experience (look for wear where there shouldn't be any-that's always worked for me!), but the old saying holds true-if you see what looks like a bargain, which appears to be too good to be true, it's probably a fake. If you google forum ancient coins, that's a US coin dealer who has a gallery of fakes on his website, along with a fake reporting service.
CheersLink to this forum: Roman Empire - Constantine - bad creative licence.
-
Message 35
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Wednesday, 1st November 2006
Great post DL! I'm absolutely stunned by your collection - especially the Brutus denarius. Just googled and if it's the one I've just found then it's beautiful. I'll definitely have to get a couple of the cheaper items as I think it brings the history "closer" and makes it more real.
Right time to have a look at ebay...
Cheers,
RF
p.s. I'm well and hope you are too.
Link to this forum: Roman Empire - Constantine - bad creative licence.
-
Message 36
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Wednesday, 1st November 2006
Cheers RF,
It's a simple matter of using the finds from the garden to finance buying the ones I want. Have a look on Wildwinds.com as well if you have time, they have records of almost every coin going, including recent sale prices. Just pick through some of the republican ones and enjoy...
My personal favourite from the old republic is catalogued under "FUFIA1". It's a serrate denarius, with its edges nicked by hand to produce a serrated edge, and commemorates the end of the social war, with two figures representing peace between Rome and Italia. Beautiful and historic. Mine is also cupped (basically the coin is formed into a cup shape at minting), and makes it all the more stunning. To think that it dates back over 2000 years is truly something.Link to this forum: Roman Empire - Constantine - bad creative licence.
-
Message 37
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Wednesday, 1st November 2006
Great site and straight onto my "Favourites". Unfortunately my productivity at work is going to go right out of the window as I may be there for quite some time.
The Fufia is lovely and the craftsmanship on some of the coins is amazing. I think I know what I'll be asking Satan for this Christmas...
Cheers,
RFLink to this forum: Roman Empire - Constantine - bad creative licence.
-
Message 38
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Wednesday, 1st November 2006
Sadly I've spent many an hour on that site.
There is an intense satisfaction to be found when you have an unidentified one, and you track it down (especially if it turns out to be worth a fair few quid!)...
Enjoy.Link to this forum: Roman Empire - Constantine - bad creative licence.
-
Message 39
Posted by jacobitematt (U3577576) on Thursday, 2nd November 2006
Hi DL,
I look forward to your links on Roman coinage. As I'm not a numismatist I expect you know a lot more about Roman coinage than me! However, I didn't mean all Roman coinage, only that under Constantine.
You are right, of course, Constantine was deified. It is a strange thing for his sons to have done, as they were all Christians. However, I suppose it was part of imperial tradition - successful emperors tended to be deified. This just shows that Christianity wasn't in the position of supreme power in 337, and it is a good example of the necessity for ambiguity.
As an aside, it sounds as though you have an impressive collection of coins. How long have you ben collecting? Do you collect other coins, apart from Roman? It sounds like an interesting hobby. How do you get into it? I might take it up.
Best wishes,
JacobitemattLink to this forum: Roman Empire - Constantine - bad creative licence.
-
Message 40
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Thursday, 2nd November 2006
Hi Matt,
I've only really been collecting them for a couple of years, and moving house was what set me off. Basically I moved into an old cottage in Norfolk, set in 1/2 an acre of land. While tidying up the garden, I found a Vespasian denarius. I had a rough idea it was Roman, so took it to the museum in Norwich. They identified it and obviously asked where it had come from. After a long chat with them, they sent someone out to have a look, in case there was any archaeology to be found. They found another ten coins, and a bronze Roman brooch, but no atchaeology, just scattered finds. Because I live by the side of a canal, they think that there was some kind of shrine in the marshes, which was destroyed when they were drained, and finds are scattered all over. I've found over 40 more Roman since then, all from 1st and 2nd century, plus a couple of Anglo-Saxon ones (which I don't collect, so have sold them on). I've reported all of them, and because they are individual finds I've been able to do what I like with them. I've kept about 20, but sold the rest on to buy ones I'm more interested in. All together I've about 100 Republican coins, and the same again for early Imperial ones (ranging from Augustus to Hadrian). I don't collect any other kind of coins, and only buy Republican Roman ones, plus the odd Imperial rarity if I can find them!
In the meantime, I'd suggest looking up wildwinds.com for an in depth catalogue, they have an on-line collection, covering practically every coin known.
For the Brutus denarius we were discussing,
click on
Caligula and his mum
Some pagan Constantine coinage
These are coins praising Jupiter,
And of course Sol Invictus
and Mars...
The nearest one I can find to any Christian symbology is coin attributed to DIVUS CONSTANTINUS (in other words after his death) which shows a hand descending from heaven...
Have a good look through the site, the "TEXT" links for coins on there will give you an idea of pricing.
CheersLink to this forum: Roman Empire - Constantine - bad creative licence.
-
Message 41
Posted by jacobitematt (U3577576) on Thursday, 2nd November 2006
Hi DL,
Yes, I would agree, the examples of Constantine's coinage you showed me do seem pagan. I couldn't make out any Christian symbology on these examples.
Smashing website, though. It's a shame it doesn't sell. I would prefer to buy from a dealer in the UK, I've never liked buying things from overseas!
Do you use a metal detector to find these coins? If you find something are you obliged by law to report it, even if it's a single coin? How do you store your coins? I wouldn't mind owning some Roman coins - Republican or Imperial. Mind you a coin of Sulla would be great.
Unfortunately I live in the city, and the nearest Roman site to me is Silchester (Calleva), which Reading University excavates every year, so I expect lots of finds end up at the university or local museums.
Best wishes,
JacobitemattLink to this forum: Roman Empire - Constantine - bad creative licence.
-
Message 42
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Thursday, 2nd November 2006
Matt,
With UK dealers, I haven't found any internet based ones as yet, although Forum in the US have never let me down.
When the Constantine thing regarding coinage first occurred to me, I went through all of the coins on wildwinds (there's a lot) to see if that was correct, and so far I stand by it!
I have used a metal detector on the garden (DL junior found the Pertinax denarius with it), and there are several farms nearby who will let you search on their land too. Any multiple coin finds have to be reported (I report all mine through the local museum even though single coins don't need to be reported) although there are many who don't bother. I basically store them in an adapted jewellery case!
I have bought some good ones from Ebay to be honest, although I'd advise you to avoid buying any "Uncleaned, unresearched" ones. Regardless of what the adverts say, they HAVE been picked through, with all the high value and good grade ones removed and sold off separately. I bought a batch of 50 once, only to find that about half were worn flat or corroded beyond recognition, with the rest being poor grade late Imperial bronze (4th and 5th century). A load of rubbish. There are however some very trustworthy and reliable dealers on there, who don't sell fakes, particularly from Italy.
One of Sulla's! His are all a bit crude really...
(Quite apt?)
This one is supposed to depict Sulla in a chariot, and is much nicer!Link to this forum: Roman Empire - Constantine - bad creative licence.
-
Message 43
Posted by jacobitematt (U3577576) on Thursday, 2nd November 2006
Hi DL,
Having looked through some of Constantine's coinage, I'd still say that I believe him to have been a Christian. However your theory does deserve to be investigated more.
I'd imagine a Pertinax coin to be rather rare, as he didn't last long! I have had a look on e-bay, it's quite astonishing how many coins are up for sale. Trouble with those pictures though you can't tell if they're genuine or not. Is there a numismatist magazine around which I could buy? Anyway, thanks for the advice!
Best wishes,
JacobitemattLink to this forum: Roman Empire - Constantine - bad creative licence.
-
Message 44
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Thursday, 2nd November 2006
However your theory does deserve to be investigated more.
Μύ
Very gracious of you Matt, especially since DL's 'theory' is accepted as historical fact by all but the most die-hard christian revisionist!
Link to this forum: Roman Empire - Constantine - bad creative licence.
-
Message 45
Posted by jacobitematt (U3577576) on Thursday, 2nd November 2006
Good afternoon Nordmann,
I was under the impression that Constantine being a Christian is an established historical fact. I am aware of no historian, Christian or otherwise, arguing that Constantine didn't become Christian.
Unless I'm missing something ...?
Best wishes,
JacobitemattLink to this forum: Roman Empire - Constantine - bad creative licence.
-
Message 46
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Thursday, 2nd November 2006
Matt,
"I was under the impression that Constantine being a Christian is an established historical fact."
Only in Christian written history, which is hardly objective! Does "needs to be investigated further" mean that you aren't 100% convinced that the church is telling the truth?
Like yourself I accepted it as (pardon the pun) gospel truth too, until looking at Roman coins made me think that it doesn't quite add up!
I'm sure it's quite a common theory, but I can't see any way of proving it completely, it's all supposition and assumption.
BTW, Yes, Pertinax coins are pretty rare, on a par with the likes of Galba, Otho and Vitellius really.Link to this forum: Roman Empire - Constantine - bad creative licence.
-
Message 47
Posted by jacobitematt (U3577576) on Thursday, 2nd November 2006
Hi DL,
"I was under the impression that Constantine being a Christian is an established historical fact."
- I meant that in every book I've read Constantine is given as being a Christian, and that his Edict of Milan was one of the turning points in western civilization. I was also taught it as a fact at university, and I've never come across any historian or lecturer saying otherwise. But, these same historians and lecturers are reliant upon the sources available, be they written by the church or anybody else. What they have to decide are if the sources are reliable - and in the main I think they accept it as genuine.
No, "needs to be investigated further", does not mean that I can accept the theory - to me Constantine was Christian. The events after Constantine do not make sense if he wasn't a Christian. Am I 100% sure? About 99% sure, but can we really be certain about anything that happened in the past, especially when sources are scarce?
Yes, the coinage issue is interesting, but wouldn't somebody have noticed that before? The late Michael Grant, for example, he was into numismatics, but maintained that Constantine was a Christian. Maybe you could take your theory to a professor or something, or write into a history magazine, it might be worth a try. It might get a debate on it started in academic circles.
Best wishes,
MattLink to this forum: Roman Empire - Constantine - bad creative licence.
-
Message 48
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Thursday, 2nd November 2006
Matt,
Interesting idea,
However I can't see scholarly types wasting their "precious" time debating something suggested on a very basic assumption by an uneducated ex-squaddie!
Sadly things don't work this way, it would be interesting if they did, but they just don't.
As for your opinion, I consider your statement that your opinion has moved from a 100%, set-in-stone certainty to 99% a considerable success, and I take immense satisfaction from creating doubt in the face of "established" history! In other words, 1% doubt=job done for DL!
Agreed on the Edict of Milan, it was a major event in terms of the history of western civilisation, but could be interpreted as Constantine genuinely believing in freedom of religion (which was against Christian doctrine anyway), but remember that in formal education, you are generally being taught the teacher's (or lecturer's) interpretation of events, and that isn't always the path to the truth. After all, German universities in the 1930s taught "German Physics" to degree level. This was physics, minus all contributions from Jewish physicists, (which happened to include a certain Albert Einstein), in other words they were teaching fictitious garbage. What is accepted as truth today may not be tomorrow!
"The late Michael Grant, for example, he was into numismatics, but maintained that Constantine was a Christian"
I would love to see how any numismatism, say David Sear for example, can explain the glaring flaws in that one, you could (at a far extreme) compare it a Christian fundamentalist believing in Creationism. They ignore all evidence supporting Darwinian evolution, and replace it with "God did it". In this instance, it's ignoring all the evidence to the contrary (which coincidentally supports that Constantine worshipped Sol, and liked a bit of Jupiter too) and saying that "Constantine was a Christian, because the Christian church says so." For me that defence is not only worth challenging, there is no excuse NOT to challenge it!Link to this forum: Roman Empire - Constantine - bad creative licence.
-
Message 49
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Thursday, 2nd November 2006
Coins aside (though they tend to iterate what is already known), the Constantine I have always read about was a sun worshipper, right up to the end. He had a notion that the state required monetheism but was ambivalent himself to which form that should take. Pragmatically (and typically Roman) he hedged his bets on that score, though had a personal preference for one while his family opted for the other. In the end, in the manner of good patrician pater familias he consigned himself to the care of the god that his family would solicit for his solace in the afterlife. Christian historians (though with reference to Eusebius I use the term VERY loosely) seized on this deathbed conversion as the endorsement from the state that their religion, poised as it was at the time for a supreme elevation, had at last received its imprimatur.
And honestly, I do not believe there is much in the consensus opinion of Constantine that demurs from that view. To portray the man as even a closet christian is a gross disservice both to his memory and to historical fact. As a person who sees the advent of christianity to the empire's official religon as the death knell for open minded pragmatism in matters religious which was one of the hallmarks of Rome's genius in assimilation, I am afraid I would rank Constantine as the last great example of such open mindedness (only christians reckoned he prevaricated), and his deathbed conversion as a sad moment in Roman history. But that's just me.Link to this forum: Roman Empire - Constantine - bad creative licence.
-
Message 50
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Friday, 3rd November 2006
Nordmann,
OUTSTANDING.
Exactly what I've been on about!
Can you provide any references I can read up on?
CheersLink to this forum: Roman Empire - Constantine - bad creative licence.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Μύto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.