Emperor Goblinus Posted April 13, 2006 Report Share Posted April 13, 2006 Maybe it was Theodosius (who razed the temples), however the reasons were probably the same as the ones mention in my previous post. Anyway, I recall reading it was Constantine who razed pagan temples, acording to my history book at least. Theodosius actively had temples smashed, while I think Constantine just turned a blind eye to the vandalizing of certain temples. Constantine didn't move too terribly strongly against paganism, simply because it was still dominant, and a backlash could have cost him his throne. Also, the army was mostly pagan, and an emperor that lost favor with the army in the late imperial period was doomed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Germanicus Posted April 13, 2006 Report Share Posted April 13, 2006 Constantine was evil BEFORE, converting This is where your problem lies Rameses - no one here is saying that Constantine was Evil at any stage. Becoming a Christian does not make one automaticly obey the laws of modern Christianity, that you seem to equate with "goodness". Constantine didn't make Christianity the official state religeon either, but yes, if he was truly converted he was the first Christian Emperor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperor Goblinus Posted April 13, 2006 Report Share Posted April 13, 2006 This is where your problem lies Rameses - no one here is saying that Constantine was Evil at any stage. Becoming a Christian does not make one automaticly obey the laws of modern Christianity, that you seem to equate with "goodness". Very true. All western medieval kings and Byzantine emperors were Christian, yet many of them were extremely unChristian in their behavior. Constantine didn't make Christianity the official state religeon either, but yes, if he was truly converted he was the first Christian Emperor. Didn't his son, Constantius II, try to crack down on pagan rituals? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rameses the Great Posted April 13, 2006 Report Share Posted April 13, 2006 (edited) No, he pillaged pagan temples because they were rich and plentiful. By fourth century AD, rome was generally fighting defensive wars on all fronts. Defence was expensive, supporting an army of 400 000 well trained and well armed, professional soldiers, and fortfications and infrastructure... ETC... and add to that, the new cavalry forces strained the economy. Rome was not gaining riches through conquest anymore, like under the late Republic and early empire. Constantine was an ambitious and ruthless politician. But he was a genious, I think. Exploiting Christianity like that was a smart move in the end. I am not saying he was evil, and he probably acted out of his better judgement and was willing to sagrifice a lot to save the empire. I don't wish to mock your believes, but that is my opinion. No, you never mocked me I respect your opinion just as you respect mine. Its just that politics were a big thing then, and that does not determine how righteous he was. He never exploited Christianity. The problem is that many do not know the story behind the man. He prayed to God, and God granted him a victory. If he was so ruthless, why did he not trust a pagan God. You have to understand that he could have got the death penaly because absolutely no Christian was safe at that time. His daughter was healed by an Alexandrian monk, and then he knew to change faiths. He did not chage the religion of the Roman empire for self-ambition, he changed because he believed that this was the right religion. Edited April 13, 2006 by Rameses the Great Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Germanicus Posted April 13, 2006 Report Share Posted April 13, 2006 The problem is that many do not know the story behind the man I think you'll find everyone posting in this topic is pretty well informed on the man. They just realise that faith can be a tool just as much as an army can. While I can see where you are comming from, I think it would serve you well do do some further reading - take the following for example :- Holland Lee Hendrix: President of the Faculty, Union Theological Seminary Constantine's conversion to Christianity, I think, has to be understood in a particular way. And that is, I don't think we can understand Constantine as converting to Christianity as an exclusive religion. Clearly he covered his bases. I think the way we put it in contemporary terms is Pascal's wager, it's another insurance policy one takes out. And Constantine was a consummate pragmatist and a consummate politician. And I think he gauged well the upsurge in interest and support Christianity was receiving, and so played up to that very nicely and exported it in his own rule. But it's clear that after he converted to Christianity, he was still paying attention to other deities. We know this from his poems and we know it from other dedications as well.... From PBS - which has some other interesting snippets on Constantine and his conversion you might be interested in. Mostly written by well known theologians and classics proffessors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rameses the Great Posted April 13, 2006 Report Share Posted April 13, 2006 I think you'll find everyone posting in this topic is pretty well informed on the man. They just realise that faith can be a tool just as much as an army can. While I can see where you are comming from, I think it would serve you well do do some further reading - take the following for example :- Ok, I can do this. Why did he convert for political reasons. He would have been ridiculed, dethroned, and killed. If this is your idea of a political reformation. GEEZ O MAN! He knew the risks of doing this and did it anyways. As athenian1771 can realte too, he shaped the way we do mass. One side of the congregation says something and the other replies to it. He saw all of this in a dream he had.I'm not trying to0 make you believe what I do, but don't say he did this for political ambitions, because I can tell you now he did not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Germanicus Posted April 13, 2006 Report Share Posted April 13, 2006 but don't say he did this for political ambitions, because I can tell you now he did not. It's impossible for me, or you for that matter to know for certain, but my belief is that politics figured greatly in his conversion, as all historical evidence suggests to the unbias viewer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rameses the Great Posted April 13, 2006 Report Share Posted April 13, 2006 Constantine would not have done it for only political reasons because all the other emperors were pagans. What political reasons would we have for him to change faiths. Why would God give Constantine's wife the direction to find the cross if they did not really change faiths for the changing to Christianity. For us to say he did it soley for political and self-ambition is absolutely untrue. He would have lost his throne but he believed against everyone that he was under the influence of God. Like it or not he did spread Christianity to the Roman world, and it would take more than political reasoning to change that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Germanicus Posted April 13, 2006 Report Share Posted April 13, 2006 I retire from the discussion, it's like talking to a brick wall. I've given you evidence, things to read, I can do no more. Believe whatever makes you comfortable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rameses the Great Posted April 13, 2006 Report Share Posted April 13, 2006 I don't mean to be rude at all but maybe you should have a bit more respect for a man, before discrediting his achievements. In the process you are saying that he did not change for the better he changed for politics. And even as you are entitled to your opinion, I must remind you that I am entitle to mine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Germanicus Posted April 13, 2006 Report Share Posted April 13, 2006 I don't mean to be rude at all but maybe you should have a bit more respect for a man, before discrediting his achievements. Whether you mean it or not, I do find you insulting. At no stage have I discredited his acheivements, I admire them. This discussion has nothing to do with respect for the man, that is your construct. As I already said, I will retire NOW or this will get ugly-er. Do not address me further in this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursus Posted April 13, 2006 Report Share Posted April 13, 2006 I felt the evolving discussion on Constantine warranted its own thread. I split it from the broader inquiry regarding paganism and the Byzantines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Princeps Posted April 14, 2006 Report Share Posted April 14, 2006 This is where your problem lies Rameses - no one here is saying that Constantine was Evil at any stage. Becoming a Christian does not make one automaticly obey the laws of modern Christianity, that you seem to equate with "goodness". Very true. All western medieval kings and Byzantine emperors were Christian, yet many of them were extremely unChristian in their behavior. Constantine didn't make Christianity the official state religeon either, but yes, if he was truly converted he was the first Christian Emperor. Didn't his son, Constantius II, try to crack down on pagan rituals? I think you are viewing Christianity in a very C20th/21st way there (If I am reading your statement correctly). It has never been a gentle religion, if that's waht you are suggesting by UnChristian. In fact, it still isn't. As for the rest of the thread discussion, Constantine apparently didn't persecute Pagans at all. He gave incentives to Christians though. More carrot than stick, from what I've read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted April 14, 2006 Report Share Posted April 14, 2006 Why would God give Constantine's wife the direction to find the cross if they did not really change faiths for the changing to Christianity? Can we stick to the facts on this forum instead of relying on mythology--whether pagan, Christian, or Rastafarian? It's hard enough to reconstruct the facts from the fragmentary evidence that we do have. The last thing we need is a bunch of random assertions about supernatural forces directing so-and-so's wife! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FLavius Valerius Constantinus Posted April 14, 2006 Report Share Posted April 14, 2006 (edited) I find it amazing that no one else during Constantine's time tried to speak out against him or the matter of fact, a large military rebellion never even occured. All I know very well that Constantine was actively involved with the Church/community, so it proves he does faith (even if still questioned). When he saw the success of his promoted religion, he eventually and comfortably assumed himself as Christian too. All the conspiracy about him being still pagan, I mean really, you can't really exspect converts to change culture/tradition overnight. To Constantine, the Church was a valuable "institution" that actually aided in social affairs. By this time, the temples really had no effect and the Church replaced it gradually. By the way, Rameses the Great, what is your culture/background. I noticed a hint of Coptic beliefs, or was it Orthodox. Anyways, you said Constantine was Orthodox. That statement I have a hard time comprehending because papal relationships and Catholic history itself essentially recognizes Constantine as one of our own. Edited April 14, 2006 by FLavius Valerius Constantinus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.