The Greatness of the Greats

[Porphyrogenitos]

Lord Norwich once wrote about Constantine I, Emperor of Rome:

"No ruler in all history has ever more fully merited his title of 'the Great'; for within the short space of some fifteen years he took two decisions, either of which alone would have changed the future of the civilized world. The first was to adopt Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire. The second was to transfer the capital of that Empire from Rome to the new city which he was building on the site of old Byzantium and which was to be known, for the next sixteen centuries by his name: the city of Constantine; Constantinople"

Norwich is using history changing actions as his premise for greatness (greatest of all actually). What do others think?

Also, what of the other 'Greats': Alfred, Catherine, Charles, Frederick, Gregory and so on? Alexander (the most famous name with that title no doubt) has already been covered by other threads from what I've seen but feel free to say things about him if you feel it necessary to bring it up again or throw new light on the matter.

 

[Mongoloid Cow]

Good question...

hmm... I reckon Ramesses II of Egypt was somewhat more important. Following the Pyrrhic victory of Hittites at the Battle of Qadesh, the first ever peace treaty in history was signed, which certainly changed the course of history more than the transfer of the capital or the change of the official religion. I think Lord Norwich is taking a Euro-centric, or even a Western-centric approach. Whereas the change of an official religion of the capital affects one empire which ended up affecting much of Europe, the invention of the official peace treaty is something which is now global and done all over the world.

 

[Porphyrogenitos]

I would like to know what you mean exactly by 'peace treaty'. Do you mean a written documet (backed by law,oath or other) or a verbal agreement between two rulers? I am curious as to what proof you have regarding this claim also.

As for Ramses II I hardly consider him deseriving of the Great title. He went to war quite a bit (Kadesh could have been a disaster and it was his fault with his overstretched lines), built on a large scale and managed to get a mention in the Bible (this said in tongue in cheek fashion and admittedly still disputed). None of these make him 'Great' though.

Norwich is actually being more than Eurocentric as Byzantium played a dynamic role in the East as well (trade alone was a very involved conduit affecting both East and West). The survival and rebirth of Rome did affect the East profoundly and I don't think that is a far fetched thing to say (Near East more so than the Far East admittedly...though the theft of those Chinese silkworms definitely redefined the economic influence of the East).

 

[Mongoloid Cow]

I'm pretty sure it was the first written peace treaty, before then all around the world IIRC it was a case of "I'm bigger than you so you give me gold and valuables and I won't attack you". The Hittites and Egyptians were perfectly matched and such a situation would never arise where one would gain dominance over the other. It was a major compromise for both empires, one which a weak or mediocre ruler could not make.

Ramesses also IMO was great in other fields too. First off, he expanded the empire to its greatest limits everywhere (except during the reign of Thutmosis the Conqueror) where it extended from Syria to the fifth cataract deep inside Nubia (modern Sudan). Great monuments were build, trade flourished between the nomes and cities of Egypt, as well as Egypt with other states and empire. The forced peace in the levant settled the normally highly aggressive and barbaric tribes and kingdoms in Israel and southern Syria. Qadesh was a strange battle, with sketchy details but it is commonly agreed that the Egyptian army put up a good fight against the superior army of the Hittites which ended up winning (at a huge cost) despite making stupid mistakes by separating the chariots from the main army where they almost got exterminated by the Hittites in nearby hills and so forth. The only bad things from his reign come from the Bible and so forth, and the historical correctness of his reign is not yet confirmable archeologically.

 

[Stefan Haertel]

Well, first of all I must say I don't agree to the slightest with Lord Norwich. Constantine destroyed all future for the Roman empire in a time in which attempts were made to save it. But OK.

I would like to know what you mean exactly by 'peace treaty'. Do you mean a written documet (backed by
law,oath or other) or a verbal agreement between two rulers? I am curious as to what proof you have regarding
this claim also.

This was, in fact, the first documented peace treaty of its kind in world history (at least the first that is known of).

I think most rulers who received the title "the Great" deserved it, in one form or the other (Maybe in exception of Constantine -I just don't like this guy). I can't name any good examples (too tired), but I'll think of sth.

 

[Frisian Warrior]

Even though they did not have the fine tech of writing as such, I think you can say the first peace treaty was between the first two cavemen who agreed not to kill each other. The Egyptians and Hittites did nothing new or revolutionary.
I think a leader can be considered 'great' when he is courageous, and Constantine was when he did the two things outlined above. Even if moving the capital to Constantinople was the reason for the downfall of the empire (which I don't think it was, or not only).

But: NOW on http://news.google.com: a link to World Leaders Join St. Petersburg's Tricentennial Celebration which speaks of the greatness of czar Peter, who also moved a capital, but this time to the West.

 

[stormbind]

God is Great.

If you base greatness on one man's contribution to the time line then none match Jesus. There are the obvious changes mentioned in the Bible, but there are many more that come after that. It is just one tiny example, but the puritans who founded a democratic colonies in America were heavilly influenced by Jesus. I am sure you can find hundreds if not thousands of massive events which were all done in the name of God or inspired by the teachings of Jesus. There's no way any other character in history comes close to that level of influence.

 

[Evie]

To say that no one come close that level of influence is an extremely western-centric view.

Muhamad and Confucius are two names that leap to mind, whose influence on their part of the world even on to today is very close to the Jesus level.

 

[stormbind]

Confucius may have had a 500 year head start, but I do not think as many things were done in his name and nor do I think the number of followers are as many. There certainly aren't as many today.

Muhammad's teachings are based on and in addition to those of Jesus. Thus, Jesus directly influences Muhammad's followers aswell as his own followers, whereas Muhammad influences only his own.

I'm sticking with Jesus as being the most influencial man in all history.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Originally posted by stormbind
Confucius may have had a 500 year head start, but I do not think as many things were done in his name and nor do I think the number of followers are as many. There certainly aren't as many today.

Confucius' social philosophy, with its focus on relationships, had become so iconic of Chinese society - that most Chinese don't even realise it. All Chinese practise the forms of it, even if subconsciously.

But on the international scale, probably far behind the religious leaders of the world...

 

[Evie]

And not only the Chinesse (though they alone make up - even if only a sizeable portion of them practice it - several hundred millions.). However, Confucius' impact extend to all of far east asia (Vietnam, China, Taiwan, Japan, Korea, etc), as well as their international relations (or lack of thereof in certain cases) for twenty centuries (and thus the rest of the world - even if there is no relation to speak of. The closed, mysterious kingdoms did impact the world).

I stand by what I said that Confucius, while he may not have had exactly as great an impact as Jesus, especially on a geographical basis, is on the same level, and very close.

Oh, and by your argument on Jesus, then what can one say of the impact of the great prophets of judaism?

After all, not only did they impact all of THEIR followers, but they also impacted all of Jesus' AND all of Muhamad's.

Jesus can hardly be said to NOT have been inspired by the torah...

 

[Frisian Warrior]

If Confucius had been a little less conservative, the Chinese might have ruled the world. So, while his teachings influenced probably more people than Jesus' teachings did, I would not call him as great.
And yes, neither Jesus nor Mohammed would have been anywhere if it were not for Moses or Abraham. But to call them great because of that, is silly.

 

[Stefan Haertel]

God is Great.

I trust I'm not the only one here who'd feel easier without such statements.

If you base greatness on one man's contribution to the time line then none match Jesus. There are the obvious
changes mentioned in the Bible, but there are many more that come after that. It is just one tiny example, but the
puritans who founded a democratic colonies in America were heavilly influenced by Jesus. I am sure you can find
hundreds if not thousands of massive events which were all done in the name of God or inspired by the teachings
of Jesus. There's no way any other character in history comes close to that level of influence.

Maybe this comes from my wrecked, polluted atheist soul, but... I think that almost nothing of what happened in relation with Christianity had anything to do with Jesus. Religious leaders tend to becom subject to mythology quite soon after their death (another excellent example of this is Buddha, who, fifty years after his death, suddenly develops the ability to walk over water as well -at least in written sources). The gospels would be a perfect example of this. Even if they were written by those who claim they are (were), don't you think human memory would play several tricks on them? I think that they would have remembered Jesus the way they wanted to, and not the way he was. I believe the apostles were the true founders of Christianity, and Jesus had nothing to do with it.

Mind you, I don't believe that Jesus would have wanted all the horror and bloodshed done in his name. And God, would he exist, would propably not want such a thing either.

 

[stormbind]

When I first mentioned Jesus it was purely with respects to his historical influence and not religious beliefs.

I think, but do not know, that Jesus did not so much as add to the words of previous Jewish prophets, but utterly rewrote them.

 

[Evie]

Frisian Warrior - wheter or not Confucius was a conservator *in himself* is widely open to debate. Much like with Christianism, it was interpretation made much later that led to many of the problems (especially with the inquisition et al), specifically with the rise of neo-confucianism, and even more so with the ultra-conservative final dynasty (note : they were conservative because they were trying to "Be chinesse" - they were *not* of Chinesse origin, and thus sought to "be part of the picture" by applying and defending every last chinesse tradition).

The Confucianist social system (as opposed to the political one) is still widely present in China, Japan et al...and one can hardly deny that Japan has been unable to modernize itself. Or that China is fast retaking its place as one of the world's greatest power.

Also, if one puts says that Mohamad is "not as great as Jesus" because he worked based on Jesus' teachings (hence, Jesus influenced both HIS followers and Muhamad's), then necessarily, Jesus who worked based on the Torah is not as great as the writers of the Torah, who influenced both THEIR followers and Jesus's).

Of course, I disagree with the premise that this "inspiration" make those who come after lesser (I was simply illustrating a problem in Stormbind's argument) ; I'll stand by what I said earlier that Muhamad is pretty close to Jésus, and that the only reason under which one can claim that Jesus has had more influence is that Jesus has had seven hundred more years for his influence to play a role.

 

[Porphyrogenitos]

Very interesting discussion. I would just like to add that Jesus (and his teachings) would not have attained the importance they did in the West if it were not for someone like Constantine. He was the one after all who embraced Christianity and thus brought it to supremacy wherever the Romans held sway (as opposed to Islam which spread thanks to Mohammed himself and his direct followers). Admittedly, had it not been him, another emperor may have done it but that is not history but guesswork. Sticking to the facts we have Constantine to thank (or blame) for Christianity's domainace in the Roman Empire, with all its subsequent effects on world history.

As for the shift to Constantinople, it was not responsible for Rome's fall. Byzantium kept it going for another 1000 odd years in the East (despite what Popes, Anti-Popes and Holy Roman Emperors had to say about it). The fall of Rome was due to other factors which we can perhaps discuss in another thread.

 

[stormbind]

Originally posted by Oda Nobunaga
Of course, I disagree with the premise that this "inspiration" make those who come after lesser (I was simply illustrating a problem in Stormbind's argument) ; I'll stand by what I said earlier that Muhamad is pretty close to Jésus, and that the only reason under which one can claim that Jesus has had more influence is that Jesus has had seven hundred more years for his influence to play a role.

I am not an expert on Religions and do not know the technical differences between Christianity and Islam.

However they are widely accepted as being very similar. I did check an Islamic source and they clearly stated that Jesus is their 2nd-last Prophet which insinuates that he is indeed very influencial in their beliefs - more so than Mohammad is in Christianity.

 

[stormbind]

Originally posted by Porphyrogenitos
I would just like to add that Jesus (and his teachings) would not have attained the importance they did in the West if it were not for someone like Constantine.

I am not dissagreeing but I will say that religions are notoriously difficult to influence through politics. Religion also spreads through word of mouth so for as long as their was trade we cannot know for sure that it wouldn't have achieved the same without the Roman Empire.

It's not hard to immagine the spread of Christianity influencing Constantine's politics to a greater degree than Constantine's politics influenced the spread of Christianity.

 

[Porphyrogenitos]

First let me point out that the way in which we view religion and politics today is vastly different from that of antiquity and the Middle Ages. That said the importance of Constantine to Christianity can be seen thus:

Trade is important in disseminating ideas and so forth but without political power it lacks a legal framweork in which to dominate. Sure Christians would have continued to exist just like the so called heretics (Bogomils, Monophysites, Nestorians etc) continued to exist in later Christendom. The difference being that none of those 'heretical groups' managed to dominate the wider political sphere as Christianity did. This was a result of Constantine (maybe someone else would/could have done it but they ddn't so we'll go with the facts rather than the ifs).

There are other examples: England and Protestantism. Would the Protestant faith have emerged as the dominant religion if not for the work of Elizabeth (and others)? Sure Catholics still existed in England but they were not the religion officially espoused and thus spread by the English wherever they went (and they went to many places as we know). Islam is another case example (religion spread through political power, the military being an extension of this).

The Roman Empire functioned in likewise fashion. It covered a vast area and so the officially embraced religious doctrine found vast tracts of lands in which to fortify itself. This would not have been possible without official (political) permission.

As I have said time and time again though, the official religion does not eclipse other faiths totally (the Inquisition tried and failed). What it does however is allow one religion dominance. Constantine gave Christanity this role. Without him it could have well and truly been eclipsed by another rival religion around at the time. Constantine's decision solidified and elevated Christianity above the rest though for better or worse.

 

[stormbind]

Queen Elizabeth saw that religious wars were responsible for political instability and therefore took a totally neutral stance. She did not increase the popularity of either Catholisism or Protestantism, but instead promoted mutual respect.

As for other religions, it could be just as easilly said that Christianity was more succesful simply because it made more sense!

Did not the word of Christ influence Constantine before Constantine influenced the spread of Christianity?