The political and military aspects of accession of Constantine the Great (original) (raw)
Related papers
Journal of Late Antiquity, 2008
Modern scholarship, following the template laid down by Lactantius and Eusebius, has viewed the achievements of Constantine chiefly through the prism of his Christianity, with the result that his secular achievements have been comparatively neglected. This article addresses those secular policies, focusing on how Constantine sought to assert his legitimacy during the various stages of his rise to power. It takes as its starting point the modern debate on the legitimacy of Constantine’s elevation to the purple and whether or not he can be justifiably described as a usurper. Through close scrutiny of a variety of documentary sources—particularly inscriptions, but also coins—it establishes how Constantine sought to affirm the legitimacy of his position as emperor at a number of critical moments, and to have that legitimacy accepted both by other members of the imperial college and by the empire’s populace at large. It emerges that Constantine appealed to a variety of means to assert his legitimacy, for example, as a member of a college of emperors, as the preferred candidate of the army or Senate, as victor in civil war, or as a member of a dynasty. Furthermore, he invested considerable effort in buttressing his claims by actively deconstructing the legitimacy of his rivals, notably Maxentius and Licinius, whom he designated instead as tyranni. Thus Constantine made a notable contribution to the articulation of ideas of imperial legitimacy in the fourth century, and his strategies were adopted, most immediately, by his sons.
The central question of this research is: to what extend does Constantine present himself as a traditional Roman emperor? Chapter one will look at Constantine’s representation through buildings and iconography. The subject of the first paragraph is Constantine’s building activity in Rome. His appropriation of Maxentius’ buildings will be discussed, most notably the Basilica Nova and the Temple of Venus and Roma, as well as Constantine’s own building activity: the Thermae Constantinianae and his restoration of the Circus Maximus. The second paragraph of this chapter discusses Constantine’s representation through the iconography on the Arch of Constantine. It will be argued that Constantine is placed in the tradition of his renowned predecessors by the use of a traditional iconography on the Arch and by the re-use of decorative panels from the second century. The second chapter provides an analysis of Constantine’s coinage. Firstly, it is placed in the context of the Tetrarchs and of Maxentius. In the second paragraph, Constantine’s portrait is discussed. It will be argued that his portrait was modelled to resemble the portraits of Augustus and Trajan and that it had a distinctly different style than the Tetrarchs. The third paragraph considers the influence of Sol on the reverse side of Constantine’s coinage and the probable reference it makes to a ‘golden age’. Also a concise overview of the other themes on the reverse sides of Constantine’s coinage will be given and these themes will be placed in their proper context. In the conclusion both chapters will come together and some final remarks will be made on the themes that can be viewed both on coinage and by looking at Constantine’s building activity.
Caesaropapism of Constantine the Great and today's refl ection
2017
The emperor Constantine has rightly been called the most important emperor of Late Antiquity. His powerful personality laid the foundations of post-classical European civilization; his reign was eventful and highly dramatic. His victory at the Milvian Bridge counts among the most decisive moments in world history, while his legalization and support of Christianity and his foundation of a 'New Rome' at Byzantium rank among the most momentous decisions ever made by a European ruler (Encyclopediae Catholicae, 1911). The king (regnum) and the priest (sacerdotium) have always been the two centers of power and authority in human society and government. Until modern times the most common form of government in the world unifi ed these two powers in one way or another. Caesaropapism is a political system in which the head of the state is also the head of the church and supreme judge in religious ma$ ers. The term is most frequently associated with the late Roman, or Byzantine, Empire...
Galerius, Maximinus and the titulature of the Third Tetrarchy
Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 49, pp. 231-240, 2006
A recently published inscription from Heraclea Sintica in Macedonia (AE 2002.1293) gives full and detailed titulature for Galerius and Maximinus, dating to Dec. 307/Apr. 308. Among other things, this titulature confirms that Galerius initially counted his imperatorial iterations from his accession as Augustus in 305, and probably not until 310 did he back-date them to his appointment as Caesar in 293. It also provides the first clear evidence for a victory title borne by a Caesar between 305 and 324, even if the basis for the assumption of “Sarmaticus” by Maximinus is unclear. Overall, it gives a clear snapshot of the state of the “legitimate” imperial college, with only two members, between Galerius’s failed invasion of Italy (Sept. 307) and the Carnuntum conference (Nov. 308).
CONSTANTINE THE GREAT -THE MODEL OF BYZANTINE
2014
Paper was written for class during academic studies. Introduction: Throughout history, there are many interesting civilizations full of colorful characters who have played important roles in the events which have shaped both their culture and facets of the world which exists today. In our classroom we have taken a closer inspection of one such civilization – the Byzantine Empire - and asked to provide personal analysis on the following question: Who would you consider the greatest - the most Byzantine - emperor of the period? Upon review of the various emperors of the period, there is one individual who stands out from the pack and indeed, is the prototype for all others who came after. Constantine the Great is the very definition of what it means to be “byzantine” and it is the intent of this research paper to provide a brief overview of Constantine’s background, his contributions to the Byzantine Empire, and a personal analysis of why this researcher believes he is the most “byzantine”. In addition, a bibliography will also be listed for the further reading and research of the target audience.