+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Ancient Civ Talk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=12)
+--- Thread: Constantine\'s Conversion (/showthread.php?tid=19140)
Constantine\'s Conversion - Jona Lendering - 07-13-2011
I just wrote a piece on the conversion of Constantine; perhaps it may be useful to some of you. http://rambambashi.wordpress.com/2011/07/13/common-errors-40-constantines-conversion/
Re: Constantine\'s Conversion - Nathan Ross - 07-13-2011
That is interesting - thanks.
I'd never before read that the 'solar vision' might have occured in 309/10 - it is plausible, from the evidence you present. It might be worth comparing the panegyric to descriptions of previous imperial visions (Aurelian's of Sol Invictus at Emesa, prior to his defeat of Zenobia, for example), to see whether an actual vision is intended here, or merely a rhetorical device to signify divine favour.
As for the vision on the road to Rome in 312, I've often wondered about an alternative explanation, rather more tactical than mystical. You're quite right that the persecutions were over by then - but I believe Maxentius was actually the first emperor to officially cancel the edicts, restore church property and allow the election of bishops in Rome. Quite when Constantine followed suit I'm not sure, but as the persecutions were not pushed with any great vigour, if at all, under Constantius perhaps it wasn't such a pressing issue in his domain.
The area controlled by Maxentius - Italy and Africa - would seem to have been the most heavily Christianised part of the western empire. We know that his army at Milvian bridge was largely composed of men recruited in southern Italy and north Africa, precisely those regions most affected by Christianity. Constantine, on the other hand, drew his force mainly from the north-western provinces, the Rhine and Britain, areas where Christianity had made few if any inroads.
Any neutral observer at the battle in 312, asked to identify the 'Christian army', would surely have chosen that of Maxentius, not Constantine. Could Constantine's adoption of a chi-rho banner or emblem, whether actually or just incidentally Christian, have been a conscious attempt to demoralise the large numbers of Christians in the opposing army?
hock: - Nathan
Re: Constantine\'s Conversion - Robert Vermaat - 07-18-2011
Quote:Could Constantine's adoption of a chi-rho banner or emblem, whether actually or just incidentally Christian, have been a conscious attempt to demoralise the large numbers of Christians in the opposing army?Demoralise or perhaps attempt to win them over? Armies changing sides, especially in Roman civil wars, were quite a common thing at the time. The sources don't really talk about that possibility, do they? The victory is foremost ascribeed to the enhanced morale of Constantine's troops, but how about any reluctance among the (perhaps) more Chritian troops on the opposite side?
Re: Constantine\'s Conversion - Dan Howard - 07-18-2011
Constantine converted to stop his wife from nagging him. It is the main reason why men do anything. That's why early Christian evangelists first target the ruler's wife when attempting to convert a people.
Re: Constantine\'s Conversion - Gaius Julius Caesar - 07-20-2011
That explains why he killed her then.... :roll: :lol:
Re: Constantine\'s Conversion - MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS - 07-20-2011
The idea Constantine might have tried to either instill the fear of God in the Christian army of Maxentius or win them over is not that far fetched i believe.
Though i see Constantines conversion as a total fake (i think he did not believe anything really and was an opportunist) The use of the ChiRho sign would have conveyed a certain message to the Maxentian troops. It is a line worth investigating.
M.VIB.M.
PS: I am convinced though that the ancient medic Chirho Proctor was behind all this since he knew that after the battle his clientele would go up a thousandfold.....
Re: Constantine\'s Conversion - Jona Lendering - 07-20-2011
Quote:Though i see Constantines conversion as a total fake (i think he did not believe anything really and was an opportunist)Thanks Henk. I wrote a reply to this interesting response, but thought it was better placed next to my original article; so I posted it here.
here.
Re: Constantine\'s Conversion - MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS - 07-20-2011
Interesting reply Jona, I also think he must have seen something, and sometimes when reading thucydides and other ancient authors i almost begin believing the ancient oracles.
The problem still is that these visions are often explained and mentioned by authors writing for a certain public as well as some of the ancient authors having their own agenda. It was not so silly that certain emperors did not look kindly upon astrologers and sooth sayers, but in a society which was so drenched with the belief in the gods, visions as well as natural fenomena which were being explained in terms of supernatural existence (an Egyptian meeting a crocodile and then offering a statue because he was convinced he had been visited by a god) as well as many other examples prove only one thing to me, that the ancient way of believing was deeply rooted and all abundant in the ancient society.
Another example is Paulus making use of the Greek altar for the unknown God, immediately stating that it was the Christian God.
We do not know what Constantine had for dinner that night, if he was on drugs or that the strain of the expedition made the vision appear. We just know he saw something.
The real conversion happened on his death bed, and well after his victory at the Pons Milvius.
I think he supported the early Christian Church for a reason:
Because he rewarded the church and Christ for rendered services, which for any Roman Emperor still engaged in the remains of the Cliens-Patronus system was only natural.
M.VIB.M.
Re: Constantine\'s Conversion - Jona Lendering - 07-21-2011
Quote:I think he supported the early Christian Church for a reason:Good point. It is a neat parallel to Constantine being buried between the remains of the Twelve Apostles: the emperor still was a dominus et deus. Constantine was a Christian, but it was a Christianity that had many pagan aspects - like patron/client.
Because he rewarded the church and Christ for rendered services, which for any Roman Emperor still engaged in the remains of the Cliens-Patronus system was only natural.
(Geez, Henk, we're actually agreeing on something. A miracle!)
Re: Constantine\'s Conversion - Robert Vermaat - 07-24-2011
Quote:I think he supported the early Christian Church for a reason:Meaning (to me) he was after creating a new client group, fresh and unburdened with old relationships? The creation of a brand-new capital (besides the strategic advantages of the place) could also point to this.
Because he rewarded the church and Christ for rendered services, which for any Roman Emperor still engaged in the remains of the Cliens-Patronus system was only natural.