01-06-2009, 08:13 AM
Avete,
I agree with Vortigern and Severus that the main reaons for choosing Constantinople are rooted with military and climatic concerns. If we look at Constantine's military actions after the final war with Licinius it stands to reason that he needed a base in the Balkans. He spent years fighting across the Danube and even suceeded in restoring some authority over old Dacia. Later he had plans to invade Persia. These actions would be difficult to take if he had chosen to move his headquarters to faroff Rome. The trend of leaving Rome to fight long, foreign wars really started with Trajan and especially Marcus Aurelius and Septimius Severus.
Sure, he gave the city a senate. AFAIK, all major cities had one. But he did not elevate his new senate to the rank of the old Roman senate - that happened later under his son, Constantius II. (It's similar to the U.S. political structure where all 50 states have a senate house but none are equal to the US Senate.)
As for excluding pagans from Constantinople's senate, it never happened. In fact, just the opposite. Constantine very much wanted and encouraged Roman senators to take up residence in the new city. Free land was offered to them as an incentive. Most refused probably for economic reasons mainly. Peter Heather thinks they simply thought Constantinople would become another transitional capital like Trier, Nicomedia, et al. There was no air of permanence about the new Constantinople in the beginning, despite all the grand, new building construction and fanfare lavished upon it. So why should a Roman senator enroll himself in such a provincial Senate house ?
The idea of excluding pagans from positions of power based on religion is anachronistic in a 4th century context. Even Theodosius the Great, the slayer of pagan institutions, had many pagan officers in his armies and administration throughout his reign. Arbogast is a good example.
During the civil war against Maximus, Theodosius appointed the pagans Tatianus as Praetorian Prefect of the Orient and his son, Proculus, Prefect of Constantinople while he marched west with his army. And after the war was won Theodosius appointed another pagan in the West, Nicomachus Flavianus, as Praetorian Prefect. Flavianus owed his rise to power entirely to Theodosius. Another pagan prefect of his was Albinus.
Religious affiliations meant little in political circles. We see this clearly with the western usurper Eugenius, a Christian, who chose to ally himself with several pagans and went so far as to support the last so-called pagan revival in Rome.
Political factions were not split along religious lines during the fourth century. OTOH, removing officials solely because of their religious beliefs was the hallmark of pagan Emperors (e.g. Diocletian, Galerius, Licinius and Julian).
~Theo
I agree with Vortigern and Severus that the main reaons for choosing Constantinople are rooted with military and climatic concerns. If we look at Constantine's military actions after the final war with Licinius it stands to reason that he needed a base in the Balkans. He spent years fighting across the Danube and even suceeded in restoring some authority over old Dacia. Later he had plans to invade Persia. These actions would be difficult to take if he had chosen to move his headquarters to faroff Rome. The trend of leaving Rome to fight long, foreign wars really started with Trajan and especially Marcus Aurelius and Septimius Severus.
Quote:If my memory serves me right, Constantine formed a twin of the Senate because the Senate in Rome snubbed him on something (I forget what).According to Anonymus (5, 29-6, 30 - in the Origo Constantini Imperatoris), "In commemoration of his splendid victory Constantine called Byzantium Constantinople after his own name ; and as if it were his native city, he adorned it with great magnificence and wished to make it equal to Rome. Then he sought out new citizens for it from every quarter, and lavished such wealth on the city, that thereon he all but exhausted the imperial fortunes. There he also established a senate of the second rank, the members of which had the title of clari."
His new senate was made almost entirely of Christians. This was done on purpose, I think, because the Senate in Rome was prodominately Pagan.
Then he declared that the Senate can't do anything unless both Senatorial Houses agreed.
That almost never happened. So, what he did was effectively neuter the Senate.
The Christian-Pagan side of Rome-vs-Constantinople is why he built so many Churches in Constantinople, to rub the Roman Pagan noses in it.
Tom
Sure, he gave the city a senate. AFAIK, all major cities had one. But he did not elevate his new senate to the rank of the old Roman senate - that happened later under his son, Constantius II. (It's similar to the U.S. political structure where all 50 states have a senate house but none are equal to the US Senate.)
As for excluding pagans from Constantinople's senate, it never happened. In fact, just the opposite. Constantine very much wanted and encouraged Roman senators to take up residence in the new city. Free land was offered to them as an incentive. Most refused probably for economic reasons mainly. Peter Heather thinks they simply thought Constantinople would become another transitional capital like Trier, Nicomedia, et al. There was no air of permanence about the new Constantinople in the beginning, despite all the grand, new building construction and fanfare lavished upon it. So why should a Roman senator enroll himself in such a provincial Senate house ?
The idea of excluding pagans from positions of power based on religion is anachronistic in a 4th century context. Even Theodosius the Great, the slayer of pagan institutions, had many pagan officers in his armies and administration throughout his reign. Arbogast is a good example.
During the civil war against Maximus, Theodosius appointed the pagans Tatianus as Praetorian Prefect of the Orient and his son, Proculus, Prefect of Constantinople while he marched west with his army. And after the war was won Theodosius appointed another pagan in the West, Nicomachus Flavianus, as Praetorian Prefect. Flavianus owed his rise to power entirely to Theodosius. Another pagan prefect of his was Albinus.
Religious affiliations meant little in political circles. We see this clearly with the western usurper Eugenius, a Christian, who chose to ally himself with several pagans and went so far as to support the last so-called pagan revival in Rome.
Political factions were not split along religious lines during the fourth century. OTOH, removing officials solely because of their religious beliefs was the hallmark of pagan Emperors (e.g. Diocletian, Galerius, Licinius and Julian).
~Theo
Jaime
