08-02-2006, 10:34 PM
Quote:that's the first time I've ever heard that on any forum
You'll hear it from others, Mike. This is a very welcoming place
Quote:because I don't know much about anything and I think I'm just an annoyance for being here with barely any knowledge
You seem to have an inquisitive mind and most of us come here to learn. Even scholars aren't knowledgeable about every aspect of Rome in antiquity. Most them specialize in one area. So you should feel free to ask questions on this forum.
Quote:I've heard that Constantin built "Nova Roma" as a pure christian city without any conection to pagan past. But that seems to be period christians propaganda due to presence of pagan temples and own pagan past of Byzantium itself.
The other opinion is that Constantin moved capital city to "Nova Roma" to make it a new political center closer to the east. There is another question why he built the city in such a megalomaniacally style?
To your first point, Titus : I remember reading that too, but I think part of Constantine's rationale behind choosing Byzantium was that it was already a very Christian city. I don't know if it was dominated by Christians but the pagan temples were still standing as you said. Rome, he felt, was too pagan or too hostile to Christianity - Italy being a very conservative province - but it flourished in most other parts in the Empire as far away as Spain. But Christianity's stronghold remained in the Greek-speaking East.
To your second point about his imperial megalomania : I just don't see him as being remarkable in this respect - in fact you can say he was being very traditional :lol: Seriously, he did refound the city and invested heavily in its expansion and he wanted people to know it. So, it's not entirely unjustified.
BTW, no one criticises Rome for being named after Romulus :roll:
Jaime
