The Arian Controversy and the Council of Nicea

[Theodosius the Great]

That makes sense if you consider that Costantinus as solar pagan, could be also an initiated and for that, accustomed to a certain sincretism. That was common in the men of the classic era, and started to end in its real and original form with the rise of the Christians since the IV century.

He may have been a syncretist in the beginning which would've led to his ultimate full conversion. As he learned more about Christianity he probably would've dropped such syncretic notions. If a pagan, wouldn't he be offending his god(s) since he was the Pontifex Maximus who forbade sacrifices and looted their temples ? Another hole I see in that theory is what I pointed out earlier - he sons were brought up as Christians.

Another reason I don't buy the syncretist theory is because Julian the Apostate makes no mention of it. He believed his uncle was a Christian.

Grant says that Constantine, a sincere convert in his view, feared angering God (his benefactor) after learning about God's eternal punishment from the Gospel of Matthew. The last thing he wanted to do was to lose favor from the One God who gave him victory. Lactantius also wrote a treatise On the Anger of God

in fact he says that to his councilor the christian bishop Eusebius that reported the story of the conversion in his Vita Costantini and that was already written in the panegiricus of 313 by an anonymous pagan author (anyway, Costantinus was not new to that kind of visions...: in 310, in Gallia he also saw Apollo...).

Yes, experiencing "visions" were common in this century and seems to have run in his family (e.g. Helena, his mother) Grant says that Constantine's "dream" and not necessarily his "vision" is what actually converted him. He says that Lactantius only reports the "vision" later in his life and seems to have confused the two events (assuming they both happened.) That "vision" of Apollo you mentioned was told by a Panegyrist who was merely trying to woo Constantine with the hope of being granted imperial funds for his temple to Apollo. Besides, pagan sources (especially anonymous ones) are always suspect when it comes to Constantine.

Also, the, now Christian, citizens were more cohesive than they had been before. In other words, they started to "feel" like "Romans" for the very first time. The state was no longer seen as a distant oppressive alien power that ruled over their lives

Mmmh, some doubts about that: first of all the christian emperors and reigns don't seem so "near" to the people, on the contrary, the increasing of beurocracy and court, the terrible oppression of the tax system, the adventus instead of the classic triumphus, the emperor seen as vicar of Christ (God) were typical of the christian emperors and "alien" at the same

The new tax system was Diocletian's creation, so any further alienation due to it cannot be attributed to Constantine. There should be no doubt about the new found unity Christianity brought to the empire because the evidence is there. For example, in the West, when most citizens became Christians they looked to the Emperors to uphold Orthodoxy since they were being persecuted by the barbarians who espoused Arianism. Even in the East which was fractured by schismatic / heretical Christians, the people would rally behind the Emperor in times of Persian invasions because the Persians were well known for persecuting Christians in their empire. Contrast this with the III rd century when Palmyra and Persia invaded and took over the East - there was no popular resistance towards the Palmyrans. What did they care which alien power ruled over them ? They had nothing in common.

The cohesion of the Romans as a "people" occurred after they were Christianized. The only thing we can argue over is to what degree and how long it took - but it did happen. Paganism was too amorphous to accomplish such a feat.

Theo