Can we talk about Constantine the Great?

[kochman]

Constantine the Great.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/downloads.php?do=file&id=8812
Awesome leaderhead work from Ekmek, RulerOfDaPeople, C.Roland.
Can we talk about whether he should be Roman or Byzantine?

I say Byzantine, because of the following reasons:
1) He fought for Rome, but founded a new entity, with a new capital (G Washington fought for the British after all, before changing)
2) He fought against other Romans who would have preserved the status quo
3) He founded his empire as the first Christian nation, a huge break from the Roman tradition
4) The empire he founded was based somewhat on Rome, but was definitely more eastern oriented

Now, I know there are strong arguments for him being for Rome... such as there was never a formal split of the empires, at least an announced split.

 

[djvandrake]

The utterly ironic thing is the people we today call the "Byzantines" never referred to themselves as such. They were the eastern Romans and that's how the world referred to them. It wasn't until relatively contemporary historians started using the term that the "Byzantine" name became commonplace. King Byzos would have been so proud!

Historian references aside, I agree with you that he should be a leader of the Eastern Roman / Byzantine empire as he made the capital of his empre "New Rome" at the city of Byzantium. And the fact that city was renamed for him to Constantinople after his death. That Empire might not have survived long had he not made the push to create it separate from Rome and the west. It had a lot to do with the politics of the time, yes, but it was still a visionary thing to do.

 

[kochman]

This is true. They actually referred to themselves as "Romania" during their days. Byzos did get lucky! Not only did the name the civ after the city named after him... they named the civ that despite said city being renamed at the foundation of that civ!
Pretty funny indeed.

 

[phungus420]

Split the difference. At least that's what I did in Legends of Revolution. Made the most sense to do it that way. If I absolutely had to pick one, I'd put him in charge of Byzantium. Not for historical or realism reasons, but for gameplay. Byzantium has only one leader, Rome a couple, so I'd have put him as a leader for the civ with only one leaderhead, instead of the civ that has no current options. But since I could make him a valid choice for both, that's what I did Also it doesn't effect anything negatively, all it means is that the player can select him as a leader if they put Byzantium/Rome in a custom game; there wol't be two Constantines if Rome and Byzantium are in the game, unless there are like 5 Romes and Byzantiums, in which case some leaders have to repeat --just like in regular civ4 if a civilization is repeated and runs out of non used leaders.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

If I absolutely had to pick one, I'd put him in charge of Byzantium. Not for historical or realism reasons, but for gameplay.

I voted Byzantine for this reason also.

 

[ac106]

Historically, it should be Rome as the Empire wasn't divided under his rule. It split in 364 with Valentinian I in the West and Valens in the East.


However, given that he founded Constantinople and that he permanently shifted the balance of power in the Empire to the East, combined with Byzantium only having 1 leader (when they should have at least 3) I vote for Byzantium.

 

[HistoryFan]

Noooo he should not be considered a Byzantine ruler. not IMO. He was a ROMAN. Born in Gaul[?] He reunited the ROMAN empire. He set the foundations for the Byzantine empire to rise up, but he himself was a Roman. And that George Washington analogy is completely irrelevant. Constantine never once fought against the nation he came from. He fought un-unified Romans yes, but never once did he fight the people he fought for.
Just my opinion.

 

[Mathalamus]

i consider him the first Byzantine leader. he founded a capital on the right spot (you really cant get any better than the Bosporus) and relocated the balance of power to the east, hereby screwing the west in the long term.

because of him, the Eastern Roman empire lasted another 1123 years. only 3 nations managed to live for 1000 years plus. Kush is one of 1400+ years, Byzantium, as stated above and Venice for exactly 1000 years. it seems that most of Byzantines successors are long lived.

 

[phungus420]

only 3 nations managed to live for 1000 years plus. Kush is one of 1400+ years, Byzantium, as stated above and Venice for exactly 1000 years. it seems that most of Byzantines successors are long lived.

Arguably China and India could be on that list, though arguably not either; I suppose it depends on what you consider a continuous nation.

However Japan certainly has existed as an independent continuous nation for over 1000 years, hell the current Dynasty is even that old.

 

[Mathalamus]

yes but Japan underwent many many changes in the last thousand years so that it cant be the same state. it went from a medieval shogunate, to an empire, to an occupied nation and finally a Republic.t the first two are quite a bit different.

 

[phungus420]

yes but Japan underwent many many changes in the last thousand years so that it cant be the same state. it went from a medieval shogunate, to an empire, to an occupied nation and finally a Republic. the first two are quite a bit different.

And all this time maintained a contiguous dynasty and national identity. Japan has been the same nation in every rational sense for the last 1000 years. I really don't understand what your point is, or how and when you think the nation of Japan wasn't Japan in the last 1000 years. Did Emperor Meiji's reformation somehow destroy the nation of Japan? Did the American occupation destroy it? If that's your argument, how so?

 

[kochman]

Noooo he should not be considered a Byzantine ruler. not IMO. He was a ROMAN. Born in Gaul[?] He reunited the ROMAN empire. He set the foundations for the Byzantine empire to rise up, but he himself was a Roman. And that George Washington analogy is completely irrelevant. Constantine never once fought against the nation he came from. He fought un-unified Romans yes, but never once did he fight the people he fought for.
Just my opinion.

Not born in Gaul, he was born in the eastern half of the empire. He was from the Balkans.
He fought the Romans under another of the 4 leaders of the period (as set up by Diocletian years earlier) at the Battle of Milvan Bridge, where his army fought under the Christian Chi Rho (a cross of the time period). Not only did he fight a Roman leader with roman soldiers who wanted to maintain the status quo... he did so in Italy... and he was victorious. Then all the changes began.

 

[Agent327]

1) He fought for Rome, but founded a new entity, with a new capital (G Washington fought for the British after all, before changing)
2) He fought against other Romans who would have preserved the status quo
3) He founded his empire as the first Christian nation, a huge break from the Roman tradition
4) The empire he founded was based somewhat on Rome, but was definitely more eastern oriented

Now, I know there are strong arguments for him being for Rome... such as there was never a formal split of the empires, at least an announced split.

Not too mention:
1) he founded a new capital, not a new entity, at a more strategic location
2) there's lots of Romans who fought Romans (which, BTW, also is rather a moot point)
3) allowing Christianity is quite something else then making it state religion, which Theodosius did (for which the Christians thanked by referring to him henceforth as 'the Great')
4) moot again, as, as already mentioned, the 'Byzantines' referred to themselves as Romans (hence the later Rum Selcuks).

So, in short, since no Byzantine empire existed (as yet), how can Constantine be its leader?

 

[sabo]

After thinking about it I vote both, Wiki says he was born in Moesia, I'm not familiar with Moesia.

 

[kochman]

So, in short, since no Byzantine empire existed (as yet), how can Constantine be its leader?

Because he founded it... hello...

 

[kochman]

After thinking about it I vote both, Wiki says he was born in Moesia, I'm not familiar with Moesia.

Moesia is part of Illyricum, which is the Balkans of today.

 

[Agent327]

Because he founded it... hello...

I just argued, quite concincingly IMHO, that he did not. As did HistoryFan, BTW. (Nothing wrong with my hearing, thank you. Perhaps you have a bad connection?)

 

[kochman]

I just argued, quite concincingly IMHO, that he did not. As did HistoryFan, BTW. (Nothing wrong with my hearing, thank you. Perhaps you have a bad connection?)

It wasn't convincing at all. You might think it was, doesn't make you right. Its a general consensus among historians who have really researched this stuff that Constantine founded the Byzantine Empire. If you don't agree, take it up with historians, not me.
Arguing otherwise is just pointless.

What did Constantine do for the Roman Empire?
What did he do for the Byzantine Empire?

"evidence is clear"

 

[HistoryFan]

It makes absolutely no sense to me to have Constantine be the ruler of an empire that hasn't even existed in his life. That's like saying Caesar was the first Italian ruler. Or Dido was the first Tunisia ruler. Was Hammurabi the first ruler of Iraq? That is basically what you are saying when you say Constantine was a Byzantine ruler. He did lay the foundations for the Byzantine empire to arise but he was a Roman. Born in the western empire. His goal was to reunite the ROMAN empire. Not found his own empire. Yes he made a new capital but so did thousands of rulers before him [maybe not Roman rulers but other rulers].

It just makes no sense to say Constantine was a Byzantine ruler. And no most historians do not think of him as a Byzantine ruler. I've never even heard one refer to him as such. Every thing I have read or watched about him historians claim him as ROMAN.

What did he do for the Romans?

Umm he REUNITED the empire!???!?!!! And gave it at least another 100 years.

What did he do for the Byzantines?

He layed the foundations for the empire to be founded but he himself did nothing to help this cause.

 

[phungus420]

No it's not. It's like saying Dido was the first Carthaginian ruler, as she was a Pheonecian Queen who created Carthage. Get your analogies straight there guy.