Contantine I The Great\'s Greatest General

[Lucius Galerius Falconius]

Who was Constatine the Great's greatest, most valued, loyal, soldier/officer/general/official whatever!!??His right hand man!

[Memmia]

Hi Nicholas, the only name that springs to mind in the early days is Crocus, a German chieftan who was instrumental in aiding Constantine to succeed his father, Constantius. As well as being a German chieftan, he campaigned alongside Constantius against the Picts. After Constantius' death, he became a companion of his son, Constantine.

Constantine, early life

I feel that Constantine may have had several right hand men during his reign, many of whom fell in and out of favour dependant on the political and/ or religious climate :wink:

[Theodosius the Great]

I'd say Constantine's first son, Crispus.

Crispus was put in command of the legions in Gaul and he fought against an array of barbarian tribes for years. Later he led the naval battle against Licinius while Constantine won the land battle. Crispus made a brilliant admiral and general which made him the clear favorite of his father to suceed him. But for reasons now lost to history Constantine felt the need to have his son executed. If Crispus was plotting against his father he would have made a dangerous enemy having won so much glory and popularity among the legions.

~Theo

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Perhaps for all his 'Divine inspiration', he was not imune to the paranoia of earlier emperors, such as Germanicus' father...?

[Theodosius the Great]

Perhaps for all his 'Divine inspiration', he was not imune to the paranoia of earlier emperors, such as Germanicus' father...?

You mean Drusus ? Brother to Tiberius ? Was he assassinated ? I know he was in "I, Claudius" :wink: But I doubt most scholars give credence to such claims by Suetonius.

To answer your question : maybe, maybe not. I can't fairly or honestly judge the man without knowing any facts. He may have had legitimate cause for concern. To even tolerate such a risk would be seen as foolish in that period. Constantine once trusted his father-in-law (Maximinus) and regretted it. So, there's some justification for a little paranoia.

~Theo

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

That's my jist anyway....I know there is a lot of contention to the point I mentioned, just thought the idea was not beyond the relms of possibility,
the validity of the paranoia is only plausible if those writing the history are sypathetic to the victim or the one suffering from it....I have never read
'I Claudius' but the idea was not missed by the more contemporary writers of the time.....where there is smoke, there is usually fire... sometimes....

[Theodosius the Great]

Hi Gaius,

I know what you're saying and it is by no means inappropriate to consider that possibility. In this case, I think the possiblity of paranoia is rather diminished when we consider the times Constantine lived in.

The notion of a son betraying his father was not at all far-fetched since that is just what happened in the person of Maxentius who did so against his own father, Maximinus. Maxentius became a successful usurper by first using then betraying his father who was a one-time legitimate emperor. Constantine, I'm sure, would not have forgotten or have missed the lesson of not to fully trust anyone in such a cut-throat world that defined the 4th century AD.

I'm not defending Constantine's actions, just trying to put them in perspective of the times and events he lived through.

However, knowing that he killed his son is not enough to condemn him, IMO. There is such a thing as self-defense and if Crispus was planning a coup or civil war then I think Constantine ended up saving many lives by removing him. For some people it is enough to condemn him for killing his offspring which just mystifies me :? From a traditional Roman perspective, the father had supreme authority over his whole family and had the right to kill any of his children. Even from a Christian perspective I think Constantine's action could be biblically sanctioned since the bible recognizes that the state has the right to execute criminals. In this case, Constantine is synonomous with "the state" so we can't judge him as a mere man, IMO. He had some extra latitude due to his position. Just my jist for what it's worth.

~Theo

[Robert Vermaat]

I'm not sure who was Constantinus I prime general, I'll have to look it up.

As to the death of Crispus, I agree with those who think this might have been a mistake by the all-too-suspicious emperor. He may have been duped into thinking that his son wanted the throne, and too rashly nipped Crispus' ambitions in the bud. The charge was that he supposedly raped Fausta, Constantine's second wife.
Too bad, he killed a very able commander who may have involved into a very able general.

Fausta had a hand in Crispus' downfall, thereby paving the way for her own sons. She was herself executed with months after Crispus, after the plot was uncovered.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Sorry was not trying to condemn him, and more than likely, you are correct. Treacherous sons abound... :wink:
But....then again, he did write the history!LOL Or at least, the favourable history was writen about him...... :roll:

[Memmia]

Even though it is most likely Fausta fabricated many of the charges against Crispus (likely leading to her own demise at the hand of Constantine), Crispus must have been a real legitimate threat seeing as the damnato memoriae was never lifted against his name.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Poor Crispus..... :roll:

[taira1180]

But if Constantine would discovered latter that his son was Innocent, he couldn't simply say" Ei, i was wrong i commit a mistake". His authority would be diminish, so the better was to forget all the situation altogether.

[Memmia]

But if Constantine would discovered latter that his son was Innocent, he couldn't simply say" Ei, i was wrong i commit a mistake". His authority would be diminish, so the better was to forget all the situation altogether.

He could have lifted the damnatio and put the blame in it's entirety on Fausta and her accomplices if he wanted to restore his son's memory. He could have also made a public declaration of forgiveness for Crispus' sins in his role as a Christian emperor, but he didn't. This also throws doubt on the rumours that Constantine only converted to Christianity to gain forgiveness for putting his family to death.
A damnatio memoriae was worse than death itself in the eyes of the public- even death could be honorable, a damnatio against your name even forfeited respect after death. This in effect damned his son's name to Hell, I don't think even Constantine would have brushed this under the carpet so easily. Constantine adored his family, he took great care of Crispus as a child, even when he married Fausta and had another family. He could have packed his son away in infancy, but did not. He was proud of Crispus and promoted him, and dearly loved Fausta by all accounts, so he must have been betrayed appallingly to damn them both.
Even more curious is the fact that none of Constantine and Fausta's sons or successors restored Crispus or Fausta's names.
It was rumoured that Fausta was caught having an affair with a slave, but this may have been to further blacken her name, and it was said that Crispus was put to death for kidnapping and raping a girl- seeing that Constantine had passed laws imposing the death penalty for rape, maybe he had to uphold the law and set an example. These rumours were written way after the events, notably by Zonaras and Zosimus so it is difficult to know what the truth was.
Another rumour stated that Constantine was mimicking the offered sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham, but this one is probably complete propaganda.

Although, at the end of the day, we will probably never know what really happened.

Some good books to read

A very pro- Constantine book
Life and times of Constantine

A neutral to rather anti- Constantine book, (I feel anyhow)

Emperor Constantine


Plus, the original account by Eusebius of Caesaria

www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/vita-constantine.html

Best to read all three and come up with your own conclusions

P.S. I do apologise for possibly veering slightly OT now :oops:
Although these books do give a good insight into the relationship between Constantine and Crispus :wink:

[taira1180]

But it would be implicit that he had committed a mistake (even if others were the cause). I know persons who stick to their decisions whateaver are the consequences, and even if they latter know they were wrong all the time, because as they say "i have only one word". It's not rational, but happens.

[Theodosius the Great]

But it would be implicit that he had committed a mistake (even if others were the cause)

It is said that Constantine later erected a golden statue to the memory of Crispus, "the son whom I unjustly condemned."

Some good books to read

I've read the first two and agree that the Grant book was mostly neutral but turned negative. But Grant was more of a popularizer than a real historian in my view.

Best to read all three and come up with your own conclusions

Good advice. Eusebius is silent about the whole incident so we're really left with too little information to make conclusions. Of couse, Grant didn't let that stop him from making damning conclusions ... :?

~Theo