Can we talk about Constantine the Great?

[kochman]

Born in the western empire.

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.

Once again... Moesia is in the Diocese of Dacia, which is the EASTERN Empire, once again.

Gosh, I guess all my history books about Byzantium are wrong. He is not the founder. You know, historians like Norwich and Vasiliev... those guys are chumps, and you are right.

 

[Agent327]

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"

Indeed:

Most historians consider the reign of Justinian (527-565) as marking a significant break with the Roman past. This is difficult to support—Justinian not only considered himself the emperor of all of Rome, including the territories occupied by the Goths, but also spoke Latin as his primary language.

(http://wsu.edu/~dee/MA/BYZ.HTM)

The Byzantine Empire or Eastern Roman Empire, was the Roman Empire during the Middle Ages, centered on the capital of Constantinople, and ruled by Emperors. It was called the Roman Empire, and also as Romania (Greek: Ῥωμανία, Rhōmanía), by its inhabitants and its neighbours. As the distinction between "Roman Empire" and "Byzantine Empire" is purely a modern convention, it is not possible to assign a date of separation [...]

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire)

The ancient Roman Empire having been divided into two parts, an Eastern and a Western, the Eastern remained subject to successors of Constantine, whose capital was at Byzantium or Constantinople. The term Byzantine is therefore employed to designate this Eastern survival of the ancient Roman Empire.

(http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03096a.htm)

The area at this time was generally termed the Eastern Roman Empire. The fall of Rome in 476 ended the western half of the Roman Empire; the eastern half continued as the Byzantine Empire, with Constantinople as its capital.

( http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/87186/Byzantine-Empire)

Strictly speaking the Byzantine empire didn't even have a founder, as it was just the continuation of the East Roman empire.

And as arguing goes, feel free to take it up with the historians.Simply ignoring other people's posts doesn't make any of their arguments less valid. And as arguing goes, feel free to take it up with the historians you are referring to, but do not quote.

 

[kochman]

Norwich and Vasiliev certainly trump your sources. In fact, I put these two up against virtually anyone else in the world, in particular Vasiliev, whom most that study the empire consider to be the foremost authority on the topic.
Anyhow, you can word it however you want, doesn't change facts. The empire of Byzantium was centered in Constantinople, named in his life, made the capital in his life.
"evidence is clear"

To be techinical, no, there was no distinct announcement of a new empire, but it was a new empire, that is accepted by virtually everyone.

 

[Mathalamus]

the founding date of Byzantium is either 330 (the move of the capital) or 395 (permanent division). you cannot be more clear than that.

 

[HistoryFan]

Constantine was a ruler of the western Roman empire before he reunified the entire empire. He was granted the title CAESAR.

And I don't know what you're talking about. I researched for an hour and could not find one source saying he was a Byzantine ruler. Many said he founded the Byzantine empire but most mentioned none of the sorts. The history book I have sitting next to me, The Earth and its peoples a global history, tells me he was roman.

I don't think people like Richard Bulliet, Pamela Crossley, Daniel Headrick, Steven Hirsch, Lyman Johnson and David Northrup are ill-informed. I think they know history.

But hey this is why history is so great. People have different views. Some saw the Mongols as cruel barbarians with no morals. While others saw the good that they brought such as pax mongolia.

 

[kochman]

I researched for an hour and could not find one source saying he was a Byzantine ruler. Many said he founded the Byzantine empire but most mentioned none of the sorts.

Doesn't that make he a de facto ruler? Founding it?
Yes, he was Roman... but he founded Byzantium... making him a ruler of Byzantium. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Starting dates of the empire are as above, but I have 324 (not 330), when Constantine moved the capitol from Nicomedia to Constantinople... having already split from Rome.
Anyhow, agree to disagree I guess, but it seems my highly scientific poll here has proven once and for all that Constantine was a Byzantine ruler... I am kidding of course.

This is kind of for fun... if no one noticed... sorry if you are not having fun, and Merry Christmas!

 

[sweetdude]

I agree on both sides. yes he was roman, but the Eastern Roman Empire probably wouldn't exist nearly as long if it weren't for him "founding" it. I voted both because arguing one side or the other, there will always be a counter.

 

[Icaria909]

Constantine was by no means a Byzantine ruler for the following reasons:
1. He founded Constantinople yes, but he was not the first emperor to change the capital. In fact the roman Empire was known to have four seperate capitals at one time. By the time Constantinople was built Rome wasn't even the capital of the Western Roman Empire anymore, it was in Ravena to north because it was a better defendable position. (to name a few of the roman capitals, ravena, nicomedia, trier, and more). So, you can't just argue that because founded a new capital he started the byzantine empire, he just added another capital to replace the other two that were already there. NOT that signaficant. (sources Charles Freeman and Julius Norwich)

2. Constantine may have allowed christianity, but the Romans were known for their toleration of other religions. THey usually let people practive what they want as long as they sacrificed offerings to the emperor. When Christians didn't do that they were prosecuted, but when Constantine revokes that rule, he playing to previous roman rulers ideas toward freedom of religion. If you want an example, consult meditations from Marcus Auralius who oultines that as one of the prime features of the great roman empire. So, no, stopping state sponsered persecution of christians doesn't count as a brake from roman tradition.

If anything, Constantine acted more like a True Roman than many of the previous emperors for the last century before his reign.

 

[Agent327]

Norwich and Vasiliev certainly trump your sources. In fact, I put these two up against virtually anyone else in the world, in particular Vasiliev, whom most that study the empire consider to be the foremost authority on the topic.
Anyhow, you can word it however you want, doesn't change facts. The empire of Byzantium was centered in Constantinople, named in his life, made the capital in his life.
"evidence is clear"

To be techinical, no, there was no distinct announcement of a new empire, but it was a new empire, that is accepted by virtually everyone.

Actually, as I've just shown - and you just admitted as much, since two authors doesn't equal 'the majority of historians', as you claimed earlier -, it is not. So who who is trying to 'change facts' here?

And, once again, Constantine was emperor of the Roman empire. (As mentioned, Byzantine empire is a convention and only became a reality after the disappearance of the Western empire.so it was not 'named in his life', as you say. The name didn't appear until much later and was never used by the East Romans themselves. The evidence is clear indeed, but you just choose to ignore it; that's not the sign of a historian, but of someone writing fake history.)

 

[kochman]

Well, I will agree to disagree. Its easier than actually writing out the names of all the historians. If you can't accept the foremost authority on the matter, then I can't force you.
I do recommend you read Vasiliev's two volumes. Its pretty much the top of the pile in terms of Byzantine History.
A point you make that I see is that it is true, because a historian says it, doesn't make it true... probably another historian will disagree.

Anyhow, looks like more people support the byzantine theory here... not that it really matters anyhow.

Merry Christmas!

 

[ac106]

I know this is kicking a dead horse but...

I recognize that many historians cite Constantine as the first Byzantine Emperor. And I understand how you can trace the lineage back to him. HOWEVER...

If you accept that Constantine was the founder of the Byzantine Empire then that means the Roman Empire changed in a fundamental way in 306 when he became Emperor. It would have had to change so much that you consider that the end of the Roman Empire and the start of the Byzantine Empire. What was this change? The moving of the capital to Constantinople? The tolerance of Christianity?

Also, the Empire (whether Roman of Byzantine) continued united until 364. If you accept that Constantine was the first Byzantine emperor that means, there was a Western and Eastern Byzantine Emperor after this date.

Does any historian argue this? Does anyone cite Romulus Augustulus as the last Western Byzantine Emperor? Of course not.

 

[phungus420]

If you accept that Constantine was the founder of the Byzantine Empire then that means the Roman Empire changed in a fundamental way in 306 when he became Emperor. It would have had to change so much that you consider that the end of the Roman Empire and the start of the Byzantine Empire.

No I don't. This is a false premise. Why would Constantine need to have brought about the end of the Roman Empire to be considered a Byzantine ruler? You need to justify this premise if you're going to assert it as fact.

 

[ac106]

No I don't. This is a false premise. Why would Constantine need to have brought about the end of the Roman Empire to be considered a Byzantine ruler? You need to justify this premise if you're going to assert it as fact.

No I don't at all. If your premise is that Constantine was the first ruler of the Byzantine Empire, I would like to know what happened to the Roman Empire since that is what he he became emperor of initially.

If he founded the Byzantine Empire, that means the Roman Empire ended with him. Otherwise, he is just the next Roman Emperor in the line starting with Augustus.

 

[kochman]

No I don't at all. If your premise is that Constantine was the first ruler of the Byzantine Empire, I would like to know what happened to the Roman Empire since that is what he he became emperor of initially.

Its in your history books. Look no further.
I think here you are confusing the splitting up of the East and West with the foundation of the Byzantine Empire. This is easy to do, as there was really no declaration of "hey, we are the byzantines now"... it was somewhat of a morphing into a different entity. The biggest shift would be the reign of Constantine. Basically, the Byzantine Empire took the focus off the West... and that was the most radical change.
I would say 324, when Constantine moved the capital to Byzantium, was fairly important (moved from Nicomedia, not Rome... Rome had already lost it)... the victory of the Battle of Milvan Bridge started it all though that was not the line in the sand. To me, I would say the move East is what made the separation.

This didn't make the Western portion disappear of course... hence the confusion.
The bottom line, no one made bigger changes than Constantine, and those were made over the length of his life... not in one day... Rome wasn't built or split in a day...

 

[Agent327]

Its in your history books. Look no further. [...]
The bottom line, no one made bigger changes than Constantine, and those were made over the length of his life... not in one day... Rome wasn't built or split in a day...

Exactly.

You keep referring to history books without actually quoting any...

The 'foundation' of the Byzantine empire never occurred - and your concept of Constantine's importance seems not be based on any historical facts. It's impossible to argue with someone who jeeps changing positions and never admits he does. I'm done here.

 

[kochman]

Exactly.

You keep referring to history books without actually quoting any...

The 'foundation' of the Byzantine empire never occurred - and your concept of Constantine's importance seems not be based on any historical facts. It's impossible to argue with someone who jeeps changing positions and never admits he does. I'm done here.

You're right. It never existed by your logic, because they didn't have a parade to say "We are now the Byzantines".
Who are all these crazy people writing books about a Byzantine Empire that never existed?! Authors I mentioned, books they wrote:
Byzantium: The Early Centuries by John Julius Norwich
A Short History of Byzantium by John Julius Norwich
History of the Byzantine Empire: Vol. 1, 324-1453 by Alexander A. Vasiliev (OOPS, notice the start date... 324... the year that Constantine moved the capital to Byzantium, coincidentally, the exact year I call the beginning of the Empire).

Are you happy now?

In tennis this is called "Point, Set, Match"

 

[ac106]

You're right. It never existed by your logic, because they didn't have a parade to say "We are now the Byzantines".
Who are all these crazy people writing books about a Byzantine Empire that never existed?! Authors I mentioned, books they wrote:
Byzantium: The Early Centuries by John Julius Norwich
A Short History of Byzantium by John Julius Norwich
History of the Byzantine Empire: Vol. 1, 324-1453 by Alexander A. Vasiliev (OOPS, notice the start date... 324... the year that Constantine moved the capital to Byzantium, coincidentally, the exact year I call the beginning of the Empire).

Are you happy now?

In tennis this is called "Point, Set, Match"

what i think YOU are confusing is that the overall "history" of the Byzantine Empire dates back to Constantine, while the actually empire as a separate entity from the old Roman Empire does not.

If you were to write a history book on the United States, it would be incomplete to start from 1789 with the writing of the Constitution. You would start with the founding of Colonies or the beginnings of Revolution.

When an author like Vasiliev quotes 324 it doesn't mean that the Byzantine Empire was born on that date but that it can trace its roots and history to that date. Again, if that is the start date of the Byzantine Empire, that means Rome ended on that date because there was only one empire until 364 when it was split between East and West.

 

[kochman]

Again, I take Vasiliev's studies to be more thorough than anyone here, or anyone else in the world.

I agree to a point with what you are saying, but again, the foundation of the Byzantine Empire and the end of the Roman Empire are not necessarily mutual dependent, as some folks seem to be arguing here. Because they never really changed names, they co-existed for a time.

 

[HistoryFan]

The Earth And Its Peoples: A Global History second edition

I have already cited this as one of my many sources where Constantine is defined as Roman. I do not know what historian community you speak of that says Constantine was a Byzantine ruler. According to your logic the people of Jamestown were the first American rulers. I mean they DID found a new city far away from the empire that switched the focus. Or maybe whoever founded Philadelphia was the first American ruler.

The Romans didn't think of Aeneas as their first Roman ruler did they?


Alas, as I said this is history. These questions are what fuel the search, if everyone agreed then there would be no need for archaeologists to search for answers, no need for historians to ask questions, etc.

 

[kochman]

Your "global history"... versus a specific history from the number 1 historian of the period...
hmmm...

Yeah, I am going to go with the specific history from the number 1 historian of the period... call me a stickler.

Your analogies are not really relevant. Those cases don't prove anything, as it was a completely different set of circumstances. Each case is unique, and in this case, Vasiliev is right.