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

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

I think what Diocletian actually said is far more poignant: 'If you could show the cabbage that I planted with my own hands to your emperor, he definitely wouldn't dare suggest that I replace the peace and happiness of this place with the storms of a never-satisfied greed.'

[Diocle]

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.

The point, for me, isn't the christian religion or the more or less tolerance towards some religion, or how much the diverse emperors were tolerant, the problem is that constantinus and his christian iterested new allies, dismantled an old and good Roman principle: the separation between state and church, now the emperor must be blessed by the only one god and this sacral heritage is automatically transfered on his family and descendants.
The christians , I belive, were persecuted, not because of their religion but because their religion do not accept the politheistical nature of the Roman state, better, their religion did not recognize the state and his role of guarentee of the religious freedom, so for the Romans, they were, in some way, dangerous political extremists or terrorists.
The "Romanitas" or better, the political model, that the new germanic tribes found, when they occupied the Roman lands and became the new rulers of the western world (Franks, Saxons, Langobards etc.), was that of constantinus and not that of Julius Caesar, Augustus, Adrianus, Marcus Aurelius or the others great Roman Imperatores, so that they, as new rulers, repeated the model of state which they belived being the true Romanitas, they couldn't understand that they were imitating (is correct? I don't know, I'm Italian) an oriental, monotheistic, form of absolute tyranny.
For this reasons, I belive, from the middle age until modern age, the hereditary absolute monarchy of divine right was the only istitutional model accepted, in which the state and church was strictly connected and the concept of religious freedom was a nonsense.
These are only the most remarkable reasons for me (but I don't want to persuade anyone), to hate constantinus an his infamous dinasty!

UT EUM DII DEAEQE PERDANT IN AETERNUM!!!!


Suggestion for the readers, no it isn't about the Romans:

HISTORIA LANGOBARDORUM by PAOLO DIACONO (in english maybe Paul the Deacon?)

How they were wonderfully Pagans when they arrived in these unfortunate lands (well maybe only a little Arians but only a little)!! Truly a great, melancholy book, written when the Franks (invited from the pope! are you surprised?) were the new rulers of Italy. The history of the Great Migration, oral memory from father to son, the image of the great king Alwin who observe, from a mountain on the North-Eastern borders of Italy, the Venetian plains disclosed and opened for his people, great battles, great betrayals great characters!! Great book, read it!!!!

[Garibaldi]

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

You are quite wrong when you state that Constantine took away religious freedom and when you say Rome had religious freedom. There were only a few emperors that tolerated other religions, due to the fact that if you were an emperor you were supposed to be a GOD.

[Garibaldi]

You are also wrong in the separation of church and state because the Emperor was a God himself.

If we are getting into religion here the two religions that are least tolerant are Atheism and Islam. Christianity when you look at the true teachings of "Christ" is supposed to be a peaceful religion but there are times where there is a "Holy War" and these have been frowned upon by Christians of the modern age.
Judaism is also far older than most people think because before it was given the term religion it had the term "cult."

[Diocle]

My religion is atheism, and the word atheism is the only one word on which I agree in your posts!

[RandomSarmartian]

stop the religous warfare and get back on topic populesque

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

Talk about necro-posting!

[AntonioHundangir]

Costantinus have only "help" the christians to "reach power". i don't like constantine. (i thrust in old gods really. are serious things for me the ancestors traditions). have give freedom on religions. but the christians were organizated. and have power (money, land holdings). and they in many things were opposite of rome. (for the christians it's forbidden also the revenge.). the christians claim to be the only thrue. for that and other motivations they sometime (not ever) are been arrested. sometime they have also give problems (murders, burns, etc etc exactly like modern terrorists sometime). they have hate rome the first times. later have "infiltrate" the roman sistem, copy the roman organizations (bishops, etc etc no pagan temples was organizated like christian church, julian have try do to a "pagan church". for opposite to the christians. sorry for my english). the christians were an social problem, a social "anti-stick", they don't enter never completely in roman society traditions. so i don't like costantine. but if the christians have domitated the empire it's not his fault. he have give only religious freedom. the fault it's of costantius 2 (Arian), and of theodosius, that have arrest all non christians. destroys centuries of traditions. but in the 3rd century, "save life" religions like mithraism, sol invictus, similar to christians, was much enter in roman social sistem. he christians have won because they were much more organizated than others. constantine have help they, for their support in civil wars. (was much they. and much strong, with land holdings, money, people (clientes). etc etc. the guilty are the successor of constantine that have leave the religious freedom, doing of christian religion the only.(especially costantius 2 and theodosius....). BUT THAT's ONLY MY OPINION.

[Slaytaninc]

Constantine was son of a western Augustus, proclaimed by his soldiers as Augustus, and defeated Maxentius (himself an usurper if Constantine counts as one). That was good enough for the Romans so I see no reason to complain. Vespasian almost 3 centuries earlier was no more qualified by blood or chosen succession.