Do you consider Constantine a successful usurper? Or a legitimate Augustus? And was Britannia, a breading ground for wannabe Emperors?

[Constantius]

"Don't forget Constantine (the Great) and then there is : Carausius I 286, Marcus 406, Marcus Carausius II 286-293, Allectus 293, Gratian 407, Magnentius had support of Britannia in 350. So perhaps Brittannia is not the place to send, disloyal generals" -Constantius

I always assumed that Constantine I was a usurper, but my supervisor pointed out to me that's technically not true since Galerius - the senior Augustus - did confirm him as Caesar.

"I believe Gildas refers to Britain as "cradle of Usurpers" and there's definitely something to say about that. The reason why though is quite simple: it was on the edge of the empire and did not have any neighbouring provinces who could send a field army do crush a usurpation during its inception.

Think of it as owning Australia in Risk. Once you have it, it's a great resource and easy to defend". -Dragases

I suppose that's true, its just a case of Galerius having no choice though. When Constantius dies and Constantine is proclaimed Augustus by the army, I suppose he must of realised he might have to face the legions stationed in Britannia and Gaul, he (Galerius ) had already given Severus the rank of Augustus. Again in 307 at the conference of Carnuntum Constantine rejects Filius Augustorum, basically threatening war again, and again Galerius reluctantly recognises him as Augustus, in 309 I think? -Constantius

Oh there's no doubt about it that Galerius had not envisioned a place for Constantine in his Tetrarchy during its inception. Yet Constantius Chlorus' death threw everything in shambles.

"The choice was forced upon Galerius and the fact that he acquiesced in the matter, meant Constantine won official legitimacy. Hence why it's so difficult to qualify him as a usurper." -Dragases


Those are a few quotes of a conversation, but I would like to hear other peoples opinions, concerning Constantine and the provinces of Britannia's frequent usurpers. I hope it will be an interesting discusion

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

It is indeed - and one I would need to do some reading around first to better acquainted with.

My first response is simply to wonder what proportion of 'usurping' Emperors came from Britian in relation to other provinces and dioceses from the end of, say, Septimius Severus onwards? Was Britain that unique and if so perhaps its isolation did indeed bestow some favour to it. However, my initial reaction is a little scepticism here. I would expect that if we totalled up all the successful and unsuccessful claimaints from the purple across the whole empire, Britain may have not been that unique!

But I do need to read more here.

[Constantius]

As do I, which is why a discusion will be useful.

[Diocletianus]

I think that Galerius saw that Constantine could be a rival to his rule and plans if he recognise as Caesar.I personnaly think that Constantine was not a usurper .

[Julianus Flavius]

We would first need to decide what exactly constitutes 'usurpation'; indeed, it seems that the 'losers' in any given claim for the throne is termed a usurper while the winner is termed an emperor. I mean, had Procopius defeated Valens and Valentinian he would be considered an emperor.
In reality Julian could be termed a usurper, as could Constantine, Maxentius and the rest, along with everyone involved in the Year of the Four Emperors.
/subjectivity: I don't like Constantine because he made the army less effective and began a speedup of the decay of true Roman values. My personal opinon, though

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

As a rough definition: a usurper is one who seizes the purple (or has it forced on him) while a legitimate emperor is already on the throne. The legitimate emperor either then recognises the usurper and legitimises him or seeks to remove him by force or negotiation.

Julian is a usurper. So is Constantine. So is . . . practically every emperor!

However, as the Empire never had an actual constitutional doctrine of Imperial office then it could be argued that acclamation by the troops itself was a legitimation of office?

[Dragases]

I'm not familiar enough with the history of the entire Third century, but I have tried to provide a list will all usurpers (not including sons and brothers, such as Decimus, Victorinus and Constans "II") and where there usurpation originated from Diocletian until Valentinian III (285-455):

Britain: Carausius (286-293), Alectus (293-296/7), Constantine I (306-337), Magnus Maximus (383-8), Marcus (406-7), Gratian (407), Constantine III (406-411)

Gaul: Amandus and Aelianus (285/6), Magnentius (350-353), Silvanus (350), Julian (360-363), Eugenius (392-394), Jovinus and Sebastian (411-3)

Illyricum: Vetranio (350), Procopius (365-366)

Egypt: Domitius Domitianus (ca. 295-296)

Africa: Domitius Alexander (308-309), Firmus (373-374), Heraclian (413)

Italy: Maxentius (306-312), Nepotianus (350), Priscus Atallus (409-410), Ioannes (423-425)

Spain: Maximus (409-411)

A couple of things seem quite obvious. Britain and Gaul provide the bulk of usurpations, also providing the only two successful usurpers (Constantine and Julian). However, a couple of other persons did receive imperial recognition at some stage (such as Vetranio, Magnus Maximus and Constantine III). Of all usurpers, Vertranio was the only one who was spared. Personally I believe that Vetranio never aimed at becoming a proper emperor himself (because of his old age and lowly origins). Rather he was trying to buy time for Constantius II when his army was becoming restive.

More importantly, almost all usurpations happened in the West. Throughout the 4t century the only serious Eastern usurper was Procopius. We see a peak in the West under Honorius (no less than 8!), but after that the phenomenon disappears and does not resurface again until Phocas' mutiny in the early 7t century.

[Dragases]

As a rough definition: a usurper is one who seizes the purple (or has it forced on him) while a legitimate emperor is already on the throne. The legitimate emperor either then recognises the usurper and legitimises him or seeks to remove him by force or negotiation.

Julian is a usurper. So is Constantine. So is . . . practically every emperor!

However, as the Empire never had an actual constitutional doctrine of Imperial office then it could be argued that acclamation by the troops itself was a legitimation of office?

Backing of the army was definitely crucial. Sometimes it was sufficient to get emperors in charge who were considered legitimate, as in the cases of Jovian, Valentinian I and Valens.

Yet in other cases where there were no male family members of a previously ruling dynasty available, we see sometimes a gathering of "senate, army and people". This might seem a bit out of place for the later Empire, but after the death of Theodosius II (450) a whole series of emperors was "elected" this way in Constantinople. Think of Marcian, Leo I "Thrax", Anastasius and Justin I.

[Joar]

We see a peak in the West under Honorius (no less than 8!), but after that the phenomenon disappears and does not resurface again until Phocas' mutiny in the early 7t century.

Well, let's not forget the troublesome reign of Zeno, who was temporarily deposed by Basiliscus, and later on faced revolts by Marcian and Illus/Leontius.

[Dragases]

Well, let's not forget the troublesome reign of Zeno, who was temporarily deposed by Basiliscus, and later on faced revolts by Marcian and Illus/Leontius.

I stand corrected!

[Emperor Caesar]

It is simple Constantine was not a usurper. Although Galerius was basically forced to accept him he still accepted him so he is legitimate. I watched a TV show and it said Maxentius usurped somebody but I don't remember who.

[Dragases]

I watched a TV show and it said Maxentius usurped somebody but I don't remember who.

That would be the short-lived Severus, who was supposed to be Galerius' replacement for Constantius Chlorus as Augustus in the West (with Constantine as caesar).

[Julianus Flavius]

I think, when it comes to rebellions/usurpations, if one wins the ensuing civil war, they are an Emperor, and if they lose, they are a vile usurper it's all a matter of perspective and bias really. I mean, in secondary school, Constantine was worshipped as a saint almost for his religious reforms. If I had the gall to mention he stole power by force, or that the empire began to introduce increasingly draconian laws involving personal devotion since his claiming of the purple, I'd likely have been chucked out haha... however, if I was to suggest that Nero was not a rightful emperor, they'd likely agree. For the record, this school did not consider Julian a rightful emperor, even though his claiming of the purple was almost the same as Constantine's (starting in Britannia/Gaul, moving south to Rome then east) and he was Constantine's decendant and therefore rightful hier (although again that is rather subjective). Can't imagine why...
My point is, we're arguing over terminology here. It is almost as if the act of winning a civil war washes away the supposed crime of usurping authoritah... then it devolves into a "I don't liek this emperor" which inevitably evolves into a comment-war over Constantine and then it turns into a religious debate.

In the spirit of Godwin's Law, I propose Julianus Flavius' theorem: as a thread involving the legitimacy of Late Roman Emperors or civil policy continues, the chances of discussing Christianity and Constantine approaches 1.

[Gäiten]

IMHO he was an usurper, because he did not belong to the Chosen of the Tetrachy. But he was so successfull that Galerius was forced to recognize. Probably he hoped that would please him.

Due Britannia as a breeding ground for wannabe Emperors, I think any province or area with a certain legions stationed in was a potential breeding ground.

[Lionheart]

I may say i agree with that. Every province specially in the West with a great deal of soldiers soner or later a commander will try to take power or in other cases the army proclaim him emperor because they are disatisfied with the emperor and the elite ruling the empire.
However mapping in some way the province we can say that britain was a complicated place for several reasons.
1) the provinces of Britain are very faraway from the central governement
2) dont forget that in Britain we have several roman towns mainly Eburacum to the north and Londinium to the south but a great part of Britain continued to be ruled by local elites or even mixed guys that have blood celtic and roman, in my opinion Britain was one of the provinces that suffered a less romanization because even if Rome did try to make them accept the roman culture and so on the celtic tradition persisted, that can be saw clearly after the order of the withdraw of the legion given by Honorius, in the next 100 years you can see that the roman culture was almost lost to a celtic matrix or to a anglo-saxon matrix of culture
3)the roman soldiers do not like to go to Britain or to any border province unless they come from there, that i understand i believe that a african soldier or even hispanic will rather prefer to go to a nearby province or stay in is own land rather that go to a faraway place.
4)about usurpers in the case of Britain my opinion is that great part of them only wish to rule over Britain or in some cases they would like to extend in power to the northern provinces of Gaul.
5) i also understand the question of the usurpers because in a time when the empire was falling apart the soldiers and even local population rather prefer to have a emperor nearby or a guy with full command because i believe they think that in this way they will be more protected from raiders, from robbers or even from other usurpers or even against the excess comited by the central power
This can be some reasons in my opinion that make usurpers popup.
About Constantine I i must say that he was a usurper. By the rules of the teatarchy he cant be elected emperor. Is father already have adopted Severus, the question is that Constantius died a year after become Augustus and Severus follow him in the next year falling in battle against former Augustus Maximianus if i'm not mistaken. The thing about Constantine is that in the end he was the victor so is usurpation was forgotten because the history is written by the winners and Constantine case in my opinion is one of that.
About Constantius III and before him Magnus Maximus they are the most sucessfull usurpers that come from Britian. But both lose in the end so they become usurpers if they did win or at least they coould keep their conquests perhaps now they are not put in the usurpers list but rather in the co-emperors list. Again the iron rule applies: History is written by the winners and not by the defeated.

[Diocle]

I think that constantinus (no, he was not great!), UT EUM DII DAEQUE PERDANT, was the perfect prototype of the usurper, he betrayed the legitimate Augustus, he betrayed his friends which helped him in his brutal conquest of the power, he betrayed the gods and the more ancient roman traditions, he betrayed the legacy of Diocletianus, ruined what remained of the tetrarchy, so doing he destroyed the last hope of not violent succession to the power; he was also a brutal assassin, he butcherd his own family members! In his cynical opportunism, only for his personal power, he destroyed the most important classical, greek-roman principle: the religious freedom; in the classical tradition the state, if the citizen accepted its autority, guaranteed that everyone could practise whatever religion he wanted; this principle was voluntary destroyed by constantinus, so that the western civilization will have to wait the modern American and French Revolutions, to restore the concept of religious freedom and separation between state and church!!!
Truly one of the worse personage of the whole western history!!
The fact that someone in our times try to present him like a successful politician, and not like as he was in reality, an usurper, a traitor, a tyrant and foul butcher, indicate, for me, how deep is the crisis of our democratic istitutions and principles, and how cynical are the times in which we are living!
MALA TEMPORA CURRUNT

[Emperor Caesar]

Well the tetarchy was a stupid idea anyhow. Maxentius was not a legitimate Augustus. And he made Christainity the official relgion but relgious tolerance was still in practice. He did allow you to worship whoever you felt like he did nto force CHristainity on anyone. Licinus was the one who was not tolerating. He persecuted Christains and this was a reason for Constantine's intervention in the east. A united empire is always a stronger empire when led by a great leader such as Constantine.

[julianus heraclius]

Well the tetarchy was a stupid idea anyhow. Maxentius was not a legitimate Augustus. And he made Christainity the official relgion but relgious tolerance was still in practice. He did allow you to worship whoever you felt like he did nto force CHristainity on anyone. Licinus was the one who was not tolerating. He persecuted Christains and this was a reason for Constantine's intervention in the east. A united empire is always a stronger empire when led by a great leader such as Constantine.

I beg to differ. The Tetarchy probably saved the empire. After nearly 50 years on internal and external threats which nearly destroyed the empire it took Diocletian and his vision to stablise the empire. His military and administrative reforms lasted for many centuries. He tried to re-invent the state around the pagan religion based on the Houses Jupiter and Hercules. It was Constantine and not Maxentius that gave ground to the christians.

As much as I admire Aurelian and indeed Julianus I think that Diocletian was truly a great man and is often unrecognised. If Augustus gave birth to the Roman Empire then Diocletian gave it a heart transplant that enabled to to carry on for many centuries to follow.

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

And he retired and grew cabbages! You can't beat that.

[Knonfoda]

Yes he was so awesome even the Romans wanted them back as his leader when he retired.

"But sire, we NEED you!"

"Damn it, can't you see I'm busy now? These cabbages aren't going to grow themselves!"

As much as I admire the Romans, they had some strange characters, what between an Emperor retiring to grow cabbages and another who nearly has a heart attack when he thinks his favourite pigeon has died.