Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Contantine I The Great\'s Greatest General
#16
"It is said that Constantine later erected a golden statue to the memory of Crispus, "the son whom I unjustly condemned."

Never heard that. But i think it agreed with what i said: he didn't lift the damnatio because it would be a public and official admission of being wrong, but a statue would be a way to amend himself without the public humiliation. Of course this is only speculation.
Reply
#17
Hi guys , I would have thought that erecting a statue in public 'to the son I unjustly condemned' was a rather public way of admitting that he had made a mistake :wink:
Although, maybe this was some sort of compromise ?

Is there any proof of this statue ever being erected, or was it just written after the event that it had existed? There were supposed Crispus coins minted in commemeration of him too, but I have heard rumours that these were fake or not actually authorised by Constantine. There is so much hearsay about Constantine from pro and anti Constantine historians, as I said, who knows ?
It would seem a bit odd to not lift the damnatio memoriae (in effect erasing someone's name in history) but at the same time, publicly erect a monument to them declaring them to have been killed unjustly.
Maybe a crime was committed, but it did not warrant execution :?
What do you think ?
Even Fausta's death is hearsay- it is generally thought she was suffocated in a super heated bath, others say she killed herself, others that she was exiled. One source, (and I'll see if I can find a reference)states a condemnation of Constantine for leaving Fausta 'at the mercy of Barbarians'- has anyone else ever heard of this ?

It's like a an imperial episode of Eastenders! :lol:

It also seem strange that after Crispus' execution, Crispus' wife and child disappeared too, never to be mentioned again.


Ah well, it all makes compelling reading, and don't let the truth get in the way of a good story. Big Grin
Memmia AKA Joanne Wenlock.
Friends of Letocetum
Reply
#18
Quote:I would have thought that erecting a statue in public 'to the son I unjustly condemned' was a rather public way of admitting that he had made a mistake
Although, maybe this was some sort of compromise ?
Despite his military skills, popularity, and probable innocence there were a couple of potential problems with Crispus being heir-apparent. First, he was probably a bastard which would have complicated his accession since he had three legitimate half-brothers. Second, unlike his brothers who were raised Christian, he remained a pagan which also would have potentially caused complications. So, restoring his image would cast more unnecessary embarrassment on the dynasty, IMO.

~Theo
Jaime
Reply
#19
Quote:
Memmia:1yjqxcpe Wrote:First, he was probably a bastard which would have complicated his accession since he had three legitimate half-brothers.
What makes you think he was illegitimate?
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#20
Grant claims that Minervina's status is disputed by modern scholars. She may have been a concubine. In any event, she disappears completely from the sources once Constantine marries Fausta.

This confusion is reminiscent of Helena's disputed role before she met Constantius Chlorus - whether she had once been a prostitute (or some equivalent) or not. She also may not have married him but became his concubine. Afaik, no one is certain.

In both cases, the sources are ambiguous which only rouses suspicions. This period of Roman history is relatively well documented yet all these personal relationships are ill-defined by the primary sources.

~Theo
Jaime
Reply
#21
But did the elevation of Crispus to Caesar not make all of that academical? In that position, it was clear for all to see that he was accepted as Constantine's son and heir.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#22
Yes and no. It's more complicated than that. Crispus was officially made "Caesar" along with Constantine II and Lincinius' son in 317 AD. At best he was always a co-heir, at least officially.

His (possible) illegitimacy and paganism could have been used as political weapons by his Christian-raised half-brothers to legitimize their power grabs that occurred following Constantine's death.

~Theo
Jaime
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Rome\'s Greatest General... Alexand96 29 8,853 02-01-2013, 03:54 AM
Last Post: D B Campbell

Forum Jump: