I think he sincerely believed, and was smart enough to realize that he had to move slowly and tolerate his pagan subjects, in order to create a lasting Christian dynasty. Ironically Julian the Apostate could have learned much from him.
Well you can't use some modern notion of what 'true conversion' is. You need to define 'conversion' in some sense intelligible to the 4th century and by that standard I think the answer is: he was sincere enough.
When we think of the comparative advantage of the two religions to the powerful, it is easy to forget that under the status quo, the emperor was not just chosen by the gods, but was the chief priest (pontifex maximus) of the state religion, a literal descendant of the goddess Venus through Aneas and the Julian dynasty, and his genius was worshipped as a god, with the emperor himself becoming a god upon his death. For us modern people, we are used to politicians abusing Christianity to boost their image, but even the most arrogant of our politicians don't demand everyone sacrifice to their "very stable genius" on pain of death! The only modern parallel I can think of is the emperor of Japan making the declaration that he was not a god.
I recently read a volume on Norse religion; it says that Christian missionaries quickly made inroads into Scandinavia insofar as getting people to accept Christ as a god. Much to their exasperation, however, they'd often continue to worship Norse gods alongside him and didn't see this as a contradiction.
Something similar likely happened with Constantine - according to surviving documents his gradual transition to monotheism seemingly began before his vision but he was always careful in his public statements to use language that the wider population would find acceptable
Meanwhile slavs destroyed their gods as soon as they converted. Holding to traditional ways of worrship but giving the glory to Christ. Making at that time logical assumtion that saints and angels are the good old gods, and demons the bad ones. With the holly trinity on top and not to be toppeled by anyother being. Wierdly enough even today we practice the old ways of worrship as a fun tradition. And allways on a saints day. Most of the people dont know this but I dont think it matters. Since we do not do anything prohibited by Jesus.
many persons of today do the same. They acknowledge the existence of the sole God, but worship their favourite youtuber. And let's not get into the esoteric nationalists.
My research into this topic is somewhat limited but I believe Constantine was willing to adopt Chritstianity, but had immense difficulty in deciding whether to adopt the Nicene, Arian, or other theology and saw religion equally as a public policy tool to redefine and unify the fractious Western and Eastern portions of the empire. As for his personal view of Christianity the sources are far too conflicted to make a definitive statement on his personal conversion.
If he operated out of callous self-interest the absolutely most beneficial for himself would have been to continue the path of Diocletian, to proscribe Christians, seizing their land, property, and treasure, and having them executed. Constantine could easily have made an exception for his Christian mother. Legitimizing Christianity and its church, and professing belief in it was clearly the uphill path, one that risked him losing the confidence of the people, tainting himself with stigma and distrust. Not flouting his beliefs and keeping a low profile, and not pushing his luck too far, was undoubtedly from feeling what he was doing already was dangerous enough.
well said - I think the conversion was authentic but Constantine was a soldier, not a theologian. When priests came to him with doctrinal differences he wasn't really able to follow their logic
I do not think Constantine has difficulty deciding one or another. I don't think he understood the distinctions or thought they mattered. There's no indication he saw Christianity as a way to unify anything. Only 5-10% of the population were Christians.
Not getting baptized until your death was the common practice at the time, the fathers even wrote sermons condemning the practice. The idea was to wait and wash away your sins last minute so you die clean
I find it interesting that Dante punishes people who did this in the Divine Comedy, albeit with a comparatively light punishment (having to wait an amount of time equal to their lifespan before getting to start Purgatory).
When reading in detail about Constantine, I get the impression the Roman people were sick of the constant civil wars and wanted a road to peace. The Christian focus on sin and forgiveness probably resonated with Constantine and the people for this reason.
"When historians attempt to provide what they view as the true story behind the conversion, they really only tell us about themselves." Never thought about it like that, absolutely brilliant. Subscribed with the bell.
The only area of history I've studied with any real depth is Church history. And I find it fascinating how variably Constantine is viewed within that narrow field. In low-church Protestant circles he is sometimes viewed as a cynical opportunist whose centralization of the church hierarchy was ruinous, in high-church Protestant circles he is viewed as a bad Christian who meant well, in Roman Catholicism he is viewed as a great leader and unifier of the Church, and in Eastern Orthodoxy he is venerated as Saint Constantine the Great. Which I think backs up the point you made, it is easy to see what we want to when viewing historical figures.
Yes exactly - Constantine also presents a unique problem because unlike other ancient figures where we have a dearth of information and so must speculate (thus leading to the construction of figures in our own image) Constantine has left us with an abundance of evidence but much of it is contradictory and its veracity can be doubted. So we're essentially in the exact same place as with other figures but the arguments just have more citations.
Most of history is like that. We don't know nearly as much about history as we are led to believe. School systems, Hollywood, educational TV channels, churches, political factions etc. have created narratives based in historical evidence but we don't know very much as 100% fact. A primary source is the best source a historian can use, most people's knowledge of history comes from unscholalry secondary sources, educated rational people use more peer reviewed secondary sources. Historians use primary sources or sources from the era in question. But think about today, think about news articles, podcasts, or anything written or said about what is happening today and how much of it is misinformation, twisted biased information, misinterpreted information or half truths etc. People often assume if they find a tablet from 1000 years ago that says X happened then it must be true. But if you find a news article written today about a political topic then the chances of it being objective, unbiased and completely accurate are like 0% so even primary sources aren't all that great. As a history major that was a week 1 lesson "everything you read is bullshit" we learned all about bias, misinformation and how bad the human brain is at recalling events accurately even when they are trying to be objective. There's so no completely accurate sources of information. Historians have to gather a ton of sources on one topic and read different perspectives on one thing. Like if you want to learn about a battle in a war you need to read about the battle from the perspective of generals on both sides, politicians, and accounts written by multiple soldiers on the ground level and analyze all of it, connect dots, and try to paint the best picture you can. And that's true of anything in history. And the further back it is, the harder it is to do that.
We know very little about how world leaders today really think or feel about things much less leaders thousands of years ago. Especially ones clouded in political and religious controversy
Hey man I just want to say I really enjoy your videos. I see so much history ‘content’ that really doesn’t interest me (especially regarding Rome as it’s one of the more popular topics online). Your videos especially regarding Caesar and your willingness to try and find a wider scope there that doesn’t follow the more conservative narrative on rails is honestly very unique and definitely reminds me of how my thought process approaching history changed after doing it at university. Keep up everything you’re doing and regardless of what you choose to make I’ll be tuning in. Regards
This is the type of video that I truly appreciate from you guys and why I cant wait til ya'll finally blow up. You always use nuance and tact when discussing things like this. It's so easy, ESPECIALLY as a youtube channel that wants to attract more viewers, to want to lean into bombast and "answers" but you guys always take real care with your subject matter and never try to "force" an answer for the sake of content. That is commendable.
I doubt you guys will see this but I also want to thank you for including subtitles. I know it's extra work and it probably goes mostly unappreciated, at least vocally, since it's easy for most to either not use them or take them for granted, but it means a lot for accessibility. I personally have no issues and just prefer captions because I read better than I hear, but my partner is hard of hearing and it can be difficult for her to understand a lot of videos. Having them available just flat out helps people, and that is great.
We're happy to do it - we want the content to be as accessible as possible so that there isn't a huge barrier to entry. The study of the classics is elitist enough as it is so we want to tear down walls where we can
One of the interesting things about constantine that i think doesnt get discussed often: he was the general from britain that finally managed to claim the throne. Of all the Britano-roman generals, a great many would try to claim the imperial title, but constantine alone would defy the british curse and redefine the empire's identity
Indeed it is. Though few will admit this about themselves; there’s not much money in it. Humans are dumb not from lack of intelligence, but from lack of humility.
This has been my view for some time aswell. I have no doubt that Constantine did indeed convert to Christianity and died a Christian; but his conversion wasn't as rapid as some might believe; he likely still held to some pagan beliefs before around 324. After all, even if he did have what he saw as a divine vision coming from Christ, it sounds very unlikely he would entirely change his religious beliefs so quickly, that's not really how faith works. I think it's worth pointing out that the theory of Constantine converting merely for political gain gained quite a bit of popularity after the release of Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code book, which practically every historian agrees is filled with psuedo-historical nonsense.
Thanks for the feedback - yes, the appraisal of him and his conversion in actual scholarship is much more nuanced than the pop history that presents him as a machiavellian mastermind. But even among scholars I think that too few recognize the enormous gulf between a pagan and Christian religious worldview and how even a heartfelt convert at this time would have found it difficult to abandon their pagan "instincts" immediately. We're hoping to bring this perspective a little more into the light
Does it actually matter whether or not the conversion was real? Give him the best possible position and all the benefit of doubt known to mankind, and still you are left with having to answer why his new god ought to have any more relevance than the old ones. Assuming he believed in all his gods with the same fervor, Jesus Christ would be no more credible as the son of God than Apollo, son of Zeus. 💛
Well if you're an Orthodox Christian then of course you believe the conversion was authentic... of St Constantine the Great, who's feast day is May 21st.
As a lover of history, especially the Greco-Roman period and as a man who went through a profound religious experience, I love Constantine. I can relate to a bit of his journey. My childhood religion is thought of as a bit of a cult outside of my home where it was revered. I never really bought it until I was faced with a serious medical issue. I had to find God before I faced he/her/them or faced the abyss. The same zeal I had for history, I turned to religion. I've always thought of myself a pragmatic and skeptical guy but also open-minded. I investigated everything under the sun before sitting at an empty Catholic Church. I had my head in my lap, beaten down by treatments and feeling overall depressed. I swear I heard something. Like a form of sleep paralysis, some kind of loud *something* that wakes you. You know? I was definitely halfway asleep, and so that's possibly what did it, but when I shot up, the church was bright, super bright. Also maybe due to my having woken up so quickly, but when my eyes adjusted there was one particularly bright beam coming through one of the stained glass panes. It cut a path through the church onto the station of the cross right in front of me, 7. It's when Jesus falls and is in great pain, in the particular wood carving in this church he's looking back and he's looking right at me. And I do mean, RIGHT at me, like direct eye contact. I could embellish the story to high heaven but unlike Constantine, I am no emperor. I had nothing to gain by my conversion, but holy shit was that a conversion. I've never seen light from the sun come through a window like that before nor after (also ironic, given Constantines apperent difficulty separating the two. If I had the previous religious understanding he did, I'd probably have followed him in the exact same boat). I beat my cancer, I have friends and acquaintances that'll say now "You don't seem catholic", "you don't act catholic", "well what about when the church did this or that" but I know what I am, I may not be the perfect catholic but I know what I am. So did Constantine. And I adore him for it.
You have made an excellent channel! Constantine may have been seen as a quasi Christian but almost everyone forgets that his mother Helena was a very committed Christian. She went to Jerusalem and established the Church of the Spectacular and she brought back many relics to Constantinople and Rome. Her faith had to rub off on her son.
Thank you! I fully agree and feel like it was a HUGE oversight on my part not to mention her. If I make a follow up to this on his reign I definitely will
This video was quite interesting in presenting the more realistic theory that Constantine needed to be mindful of Roman society and not to change too much at once, even if he was a true believer in Christianity. It definitely caused me to question my own bias regarding Constantine, since I thought of his actions through a more Machiavellian lens beforehand. An important thing that should certainly be looked at would be how the sentiment of people in Rome toward Christianity was changing on the whole, as that would deliver even greater insight than just the recorded actions of a single person, however influential he was as an emperor.
I imagine Constantine would be the one person in the Empire whom Christian theologians would hesitate to admonish for syncretism. Coming off a century of persecution by imperial decree on a stroke of unbelievable luck, one might be hesitant to push their luck
I don’t think he would pick a tiny minority religion practiced by people with little political power if he wasn’t truly converted to Christianity. I don’t see how his decision could be interpreted as a disingenuous political move.
Much appreciated! Constantine is one of those select few figures in history that really polarizes opinion and its difficult to produce an "objective" analysis of the man. Best we can do is acknowledge our biases at the door and try looking at both his accomplishments AND failures as we evaluate his legacy
@@tribunateSPQR I was really leaning on the cynical power player angle but you convinced me that things are not quite so straightforward. Now I'm wondering the same about Olaf Haraldsson II ahah.
@@BernasLL yes, he’s difficult to pin down and though there were certainly some political considerations I believe it was a heartfelt conversion. One of the things I wished we had gotten to was that Romans expected gods to speak with leaders so his repeated “encounters” with the divine (even different deities) would have been seen as a good thing whereas we interpret it as him faking them all. He very well could have but a Roman would expect their leaders to have these experiences so it fit the leadership mold he was trying to fill
I pretty much agree. His initial conversion was a shrewd political move and was a Pagan one i.e. adopting jesus as one God amongst many, but over time it seems he became more and more influenced by the christian priests around him and became more genuinely christian before he died
Thank you for your reasoned and balanced approached it is so refreshing to see a take that while understanding the political picture still allow for genuine human desire to reach for the Divine. I agree with you as well that humanity is far more complex than what the cynical outlook of modern man would like them to be. Thank you once more for this video.
Thanks for the kind words and positive feedback - we also believe that the ancients were just as intelligent and intellectually complex as we are today. It may be easier to make sweeping generalizations about those that came before but ultimately that is not useful in the quest for historical truth
Most of the time secularists bring this topic up in an effort to discredit Christianity and to assert that Constantine chose conversion for political benefits. The problem for the secularists is that Christians represented only 10% of the Roman Empire by the time of Constantines Edict of Milan in 313 A.D so there were no tangible political benefits for Constantine. Also the idea that Constantine did not take an interest in theological matters is belied by the fact that Ecumenical Councils have always been chaired by Roman Emperors and not the Bishop of Rome. Constantine was not a passive but active participant in First Council of Nicaea. Not only that but not a single Ecumenical Council has ever been chaired by a Bishop of Rome nor attended by a Bishop of Rome who merely sent his legates. Hardly the conduct of the "Primes inter pares".
I think David Potter put it best when he said there was a difference between Constantine being sincere towards Christianity vs actually comprehending it. By most accounts, I think it's safe to say that the conversion was sincere. What real benefit did Constantine have to gain from conversion? Least of all to a religion that had been frowned down upon by most other Romans and been persecuted multiple times. At that point in the empire's history, the emperor's power and legitimacy derived solely from the military, so Constantine didn't need to win over the common people/ grass roots movement of Christianity to increase his own power. At the same time, Constantine's understanding - or attempts to understand- Christian doctrine were a fluid process. He at first continued to depict himself with both Christian and pagan symbols on coins and in Constantinople constructed a huge statue of himself as Apollo. He also was dismissive towards the Arian controversy at first and didn't want the bishops involved to discuss what he perceived to be a petty theological issue, before then agreeing to host Nicaea. But even after that point he reversed his anti-Arian stance and was even baptised by an Arian on his deathbed.
A theological quibble: it’s not that ancient Christians delayed baptism because it diminished their culpability. It’s that baptism remits all sins, no matter how grave, but is also a once in a lifetime event. At a time when other means of sin forgiveness, like the sacrament of confession, were yet not fully developed, delaying baptism until the last possible minute made sense, so that one would enter Heaven as a clean slate
That's a Montanist belief that was condemned for over a century before Constantine was baptized. It seems more likely he was indecisive of which theology viz, Arianism or orthodox Monarchical trinitarianism, and it was only after the councils of Nicaea I and the subsequent affirmation by the theologians of the East did he feel comfortable to be baptized.
@@pedrogabrielwriter The Arian controversy didn't disappear after Nicaea. There was a large presence in Western Europe for centuries and it would evolve into many different subsets like Eunomianism or Semi-Arianism. As stated beforehand, I think St. Constantine genuinely had an internal struggle about the faith, which is why he delayed his baptism for so long.
@@lordspoice5192 I’m well aware, but there are theological differences between those heresies and pure Arianism. Also, Constantine ended up being baptized by an Arian priest regardless
@@pedrogabrielwriter The claim that he was baptized by an Arian priest comes from the Donations of Constantine, which is a known forgery. I don't mean to be rude, but you clearly aren't well read on this so please do not make matters of fact. Likewise, baptism of infants was an extremely common practice in the church prior to and after St. Constantine became emperor.
IMO, it’s absolutely ingenuous to say, “When in reality the world is shaped by forces, trends and factors that far surpass any single individual, even Roman emperors.” How then does a fire get started and grow without the necessity of a single spark. 🔥
An associated issue regarding the conversion of Constantine is as follows. As noted in the video, Christians in that era tended to be pacifists and were discouraged from military service. Any casual observer of western history can then see how decidedly militarized Christian societies became after Constantine. It was the conversion of Constantine that marked (but not necessarily caused) the beginning of the association of the Cross with the sword. This association continues to this day, most especially in the United States. So, this begs the following sorts of questions. How did/does the ongoing militarization of Christianity starting with Constantine affect the Church and the greater world? Describe major negative aspects of these effects. Are there any positive effects at all? Can military action every actually be inspired and justified by Christian theology in a logically coherent fashion?
As a Catholic, I don't doubt his authenticity. It was not a clean conversion though, as he knew that to fully lean into his faith publicly would likely put off much of the people he had to rely on for support in the aristocratic and military hierarchies. Ultimately, his actions speak louder than words, with his elevation of the Christian religion and patronage of many churches across the Empire, as well as his support for the orthodox Catholic interpretations of Christianity over the heresies of the time. Granted, his rejection of Arianism was imperfect, but most Arians were essentially just slightly misguided regarding the nature of Christ, and the absolutism of schism with them wasn't fully hammered out yet.
Imagine this guy that were gathered here today questioning the depths of his faith. This guy that was so instrumental in inventing the idea of the trinity. Christians love to bury their heads in the sand.
Another great video from Tribunate, notwithstanding the clickbait "why" in the title :) As ever so often, Tribunate challenges perceived perceptions about how we view the Romans, and here Constantine is delivered from the suspicion of hypocrisy usually connected with his conversion. He was not to much a bad Christian as a crafty Christian who realized that he had to bide his time until Rome was ready for a wholescale conversion. Good job, and convincing.
I just don’t see how it makes logical sense for the Roman Emperor to embrace a fringe minority religion most popular amongst women and slaves, if it was mere opportunism.
If 95% of your population is poor, and Rome is full of poor people who've formed mobs and caused trouble on and off for centuries, a religion that elevates humility and meekness can be a very useful moderator of popular frustrations.
@@williamchamberlain2263the problem with that is that the poor people rarely play a role in Roman politics And most of them weren't Christian, it would take Constantine some inhuman 4D chess mind to reach that conclusion without hindsight
I see that you explained this later on in the video.... Christians of that time were so terrified of sinning after their baptism that they pushed baptism as late as possible, as in on their deathbeds. It was Augustine decades later who brought in infant baptism. so Constantine hesitation to be baptized was not a proof of reluctant adherence. it was relatively common for the time. It seems to me that there was no real political advantage to be gotten from converting to Christ at that time as the percentage of those claim Christian faith was less than 10 % so i think ( well aware that this is still hotly debated) that he experienced something, but that his understanding of what Christianity actually was was very very poor my stand point is that of a convinced Christian who is an amateur theologian. I regard his superficial conversion as a disaster for the church, for it made claims of faith necessary to seek societal preferment; and of course it had the church gladly jump into bed with what the Bible calls the world I think Constantine converted to something but that he was not a genuinely born again Christian as the Bible describes it and as for his blasphemous hubris in likening himself to a thirteenth apostle?? need i say more??
I mean to be fair to Constantine, who remembers Matthias (well, except for He who never forgets of course)? I think his conversion was genuine, and if he had an attitude, especially early on, it mirrors the disciples quibbling over position in the kingdom right up until the crucifixion. Ultimately, though, we can't know on this side of heaven.
I think his baptism prior to his death says a lot. It seems to point to some belief, perhaps even some guilt for the sins (murders) he commited. He didn't seem to invested in the Arian vs Orthodox controversy so long as it didn't cause political division. Really it seems like an all of the above answer. There were politically beneficial reasons for conversion. But there was also danger. His legalization of the religion without making it the state religion does perhaps point to it being a personal matter for him.
It really comes down to a pretty simple question: why would a politician ever take a position that pisses off 90% of the population for the benefit of the other 10%? Either it benefits him greatly or he believes it. As discussed, the benefits of Constantine’s conversion were pretty small compared to the earthquake it would cause. The most reasonable conclusion is that it was sincere.
Constantine didn’t adopt into Christianity he literally only USED Christianity and please state it clear that the sign that he saw to conquer in was not even the cross they teach us about..
Why would Constantine use a minor religion that was being persecuted a few years ago to please the state? He could easily please the state by being a pagan, which is a more dominant religion and would've allowed for him to control the people much easier.
At a guess I would say his conversion might be similar to King Aethelstan (previously Guthrum, one of the leaders of the Great Northern Army) who was defeated by Aelfred the Great and converted to Christianity on assuming the throne of East Anglia towards the end of the 9th Century. A mixture of politics and new-found belief. I doubt Constantine truly believed the God of Christianity was The One True God, but that He was ascendant among a larger pantheon. But as you say, that is simply my opinion and can never be any more than that!
It still doesn't convincingly answer the question 'why'. Why adopt a religion that supposedly only the lower tenth of the society practiced? And why did it work out? None of this makes any sense, I'm sorry. There has to be a different story here.
It was not the religion of the lowest 10%. It was most popular in the biggest cities of the empire, like Alexandria, Antioch or Carthage, and least popular in the countryside. Pagan means something like rustic villager. This video itself also mentions Christianity was focused in eastern urbanized areas.
@@faramund9865 Christianity piggy-backed on the backs of previously pagan cults to spread itself; most importantly that of Dionysus (that was the fertile ground of the religious ethos in the eastern Mediterranean), eventually subduing them in favor of the Christian cult, but in the process incorporating many aspects of said cults into its own practices.
The Question is Constantine conversion Genuine? The Answer was yes but it was nuance than that, Constantine weren't a good christian and didn't become fully christian even after milvian Bridge. It was gradual and didn't fully become realized until the later half of Constantine life.
Lucifer and Prometheus are the same figure, so it's entirely possible. Some people think Jesus was a Buddha. The truth is basically impossible to know.
@@antonivsfortis They have very different aesthetics but the core of what they taught feels pretty similar to me. Incomprehensible higher realities and love for fellow humans. They were both reformers, with Jesus criticizing the elitist ritualism of the Jewish authorities and Gautama criticizing the unjust caste system.
We were not around then to know what happened. We can only speculate. It is easy to take a thought and run with it , or to take our modern cultural assumptions and try to stencil them onto the past but it would be inaccurate.
Assume Constantine was genuine and altruistic in all his motivations. Why then would Apollo, Sol Invictus, and Mithras be considered any less real than Jesus Christ?
Either way it's safe to say Constantine is practically the sole reason Christianity even exists today. It was a fringe religion, one of MANY religions in Rome. And there were so many different branches of Christianity that contradict Christianity as we understand it today, or Christianity mixed with other religions and philosophy. Also plenty of books that werent included in the bible.
His mom asked him to, and he eventually complied. That is the only documented historical fact that is supported by all of the available contemporary sources. Why didn’t you include this as a possible decisive factor? He was a Roman Emperor. Claudius listen to Livia, and even Caligula listened to Agrippina. Sometimes they complied to their Matres, sometimes they didn’t, but they always took their advice into serious consideration.
I find no irony or conflict with respect to a man Constantine professing belief in God and then acting otherwise frequently. God selected King David and others as leaders and servants and yet, such key individuals repeatedly fell into errors such as adultery and were even complicit in the murder of someone such as when David stole Uriah’s wife and allowed him to be murdered. Ultimately, it’s about God working mysteriously and majestically in His ways and for His purposes…….the selected individuals are entirely secondary and will always display their imperfections ……
Much of the Senate was still pagan. Even though it was politically irrelevant, stuff commissioned by the Senate would still have pagan iconography attached.
I don't know if this is true but I've heard in the past that the first bishop he asked to baptize him refused since he thought he wasn't a good enough Christian.
That wouldn't make a lot of sense, since the point of Baptism is that none of us are "good enough" on our own. The only reason I can think of to refuse Baptism might possibly be if you thought the person was insincere, and even then I'm not sure.
@@CantusTropus Different attitude towards baptism in the time. Basically you had to act like a christian fist prove yourself and then be baptized. Could be the insincere thing as well. As I said at first I'm not sure where I heard that. So take it with a grain of salt.
I think it’s clear that he believed in a literal Deus Sol Invictus. That being he believed in the unity of god with all things with the sun being core to this idea for obvious reasons. The most similar concept to his belief is Protestant views on Providence. A force greater than oneself but a force which is all and works for reasons beyond our comprehension.
Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if he viewed Sol Invictus as merely a Pagan interpretation of the true God. They did have distinct similarities, and Sol Invictus is a form of Henotheism that developed a solid century or so after Christianity came about.
The idea that he did it for political reasons is contradicted by his lukewarm public support of it. If telling people you were Christian was such a good political move why did his coins have pagan symbols?
I've heard that it was pretty common for worshipers of Sol Invictus, going all the way to Heliogabalus, to consider Jesus Christ to be but one more manifestation of their highly syncretic deity no matter how blasphemous the Christians themselves considered that view to be. Constantine was not raised in the old Pagan traditions but by a father who was devoted to Sol Invictus (a religion founded more recently than Christianity) and a mother who converted to Christianity.
I thought Peter Leithart did a great job on his book “Defending Constantine.” The author argues that Constantine, for all his flaws, was sincere in his conversion and did his best to start reforming the empire in Christ’s image. A great book; highly recommended.
I think the notion that the military remained pagan after the Emperor's conversion does not have as much to support as you intimatte. The emporer was not a civilian. He was a soldier, quite literally leading men into battle when he experienced the most important moment of his conversion. It stands to reason that military that were there and won the victory that this new deity wrought would have converted together with their emporer/general. We know in other parts of Europe, when Christian missionaries evangelized a king and he converted, his armies and subjects followed suit and we see in the case of early church missionary to the Anglo-Saxon and Germanic tribes, the Benedict monk, St. Boniface.
I think the answer is that Constantine's conversion was genuine but also driven by political realities of the rising numbers of Christians in the populace.
No. The Arch celebrating that victory in front of the Coliseum contains ZERO Christianity symbols or iconography. He sided with Christianity because his empire was collapsing at the edges by Goth incursions. And who better to fight the godless than a people who would eventually slaughter them for their "unbelief" all in the name of their god.
We only think he didn't really convert to Christianity because our society has become atheistic....we can't comprehend a man thinking about something greater than himself.....
Constantine was not baptized until shortly before his death. He said at the time that he wished he had not waited. (Baptism washes the soul clean of original sin, all actual sins, and remits all punishment. People did not want to be stuck in Purgatory for any length of time, so they waited until the last minute.) Clearly, he had converted some time before, and his baptism had no political ramifications for him as he was departing this world, so yes, his conversion was real.
Many prefer the official wedding to occur after a few years of successful experimenting living together. And when mortality hints our end is in site, people prefer to be remembered by their associations that they had and do value as of then. But, yes, since the early Christian church was in its infancy of sacramental living, one baptism for the forgiveness of sins predates the availability of the Sacrament of Confession/Penance, currently known as the Sacrament of Reconciliation.
There is a stubborn insistence here that Constantine was indeed a *true* Christian. No way -- he lived in a pagan world, got power through military prowess, and was a pragmatist looking for *any* way to strengthen his control over his huge, unwieldy empire. Plus he had 'converted' to some sort of cult of Apollo just a couple of years before opting for Christianity, which had oddly been catching on with the aristocrats he had to work with. Augustus, that ultimate administrator, had seen the value of declaring himself one of the gods as Emperor. Constantine was taking the next step of reducing the gods to just ONE, with himself as that deity's representative on earth. Constantine was thinking like a *Roman*, not like what people today consider a Christian. This is no cause for Christian triumphalism, but rather for pausing to consider that the cult of Christ could have very easily fallen by the wayside (and probably should have, given the weirdness it has brought to Western culture
It's an important question - one of the chief reasons I believe he opted to convert was a heartfelt conviction driven by some sort of religious experience
They didn’t, that’s a pervasive myth. The urban elite senatorial class remained pagan until at least the time of theodosius (who made Christianity the state religion) with whom they fought a battle at frigidis river and set up a puppet emperor against. Even when Alaric sacked Rome and Forced a random senator to be his puppet emperor said senator (Priscus Attalus) said Senator was forcibly converted to Christianity by the Goths
@@americanaccolon1319 not, it isn't It spread because early Christians would go anywhere and evangelize, something that was not typical of Roman paganism They also didn't "adopt readily" it was more of a slow burn and, considering how it was particularly popular with women, slowly the wives of Romans would give their children a Christian upbringing and it would go from there Now, as for the Roman elites, they did remain pagan for a long time though, specially in the west
Great video I do belive we all have our own crosses we need to carry. And for who he was (a sociopathic general, devout to his own glory and the glory of Rome) he has done what God intended him to do. Was he a Christian ofcourse he was not everything is a conspiracy theory. But was he a good Christian, no but how could have he been? He was the emperor of the strongest empire in history. If he wanted to he could have made himself a god. But no he took the God of the poor and misreble. The outcast Jew that got crusified and shunned by his own people. To a real roman Christ would be a mockery. Simply alien to their way of thinking. So thats why I belive it was really a spiritual encounter. Even when you said Apollo came to him I knew it was true. The devil tried to sway him away from his divine destiny but God used him as a vessel. Great video you got yourself a new subscriber❤
One very plain fact which I wish that historians would get a good bit more clear on - namely, the fact that Romans, were as agnostic as it gets! They did not view the "Pagan Gods", as being living beings at all, but instead, they were viewed in a context that is at least, very similar unto that in which we presently view the American Flag. Hence, for coinage of all things to have those symbols on them after his conversion, is a ridiculously moot point. Why wouldn't they - the various 'gods', were no more than literal patriotic or similar types of symbols. Geoff Rohde
I don’t feel that agnosticism is a useful lens for interpreting Roman religion. I did another video directly related to this subject that you might find interesting: ruclips.net/video/b8GfZe5w_tE/видео.html
The waiting until the last second to get baptized and take communion is very very suspicious. Waving that aside is almost impossible given that Constantine was surrounded by orthodox priests and bishops and not Protestants. Putting of taking communion was not something these clergy would have at all suggested for the emperor if he was a true christian.
At the time, it was pretty common to wait till you're near death to get baptized. Consider that this was around the time the concept of purgatory was becoming popularized, and with it the idea of penance in the here and now to prevent being temporally punished for sins before going to heaven in the hereafter. The issue is that baptism as a way of cleansing temporal sins was both the only means of penance at the time and was a one-time thing. Put it all together, and it makes sense a man whose political life entailed a lot of morally difficult choices wanted to wait till the last minute so as many of his sins as possible could be removed.
@@Adrian-f2b4e any primary sources to back any of that up? Baptism was most definitely not the only way of cleansing temporal sins. There is the sacrament of confession. Something being common doesn’t mean it would have been suggested to the emperor by the clergy if he was really a devout Christian.
@@playea123 This was one of the things being covered in history classes for my major a few years back. Unfortunately, in both classes and both professors, it fell under one of those things brought up as background information since not every topic could of course be given a clarifying primary source. In any case, for this matter, I trust the expertise of my professors, one a medievalist specializing in this era, and the other showcasing a deep knowledge of medieval and early modern history.
This is Rome. Their founder is best known for being the Cain to his brother's Able. Heck, at least one emperor (Claudius) was spared and corronated after his family was...cleansed...because the Praetorian guard thought he was the most controllable. To put it short, Fear of not being forgiven for getting rid of some redundant family members would not have been a concern.
Historians who claim otherwise reveal more about themselves? Interesting. You think you’re not revealing that you’re Christian with this video? In fact I’d rather listen to an impartial atheist historian than a Christian one.
Constantine didn’t convert into Christianity he literally only USED Christianity and please state it clear that the sign that he saw to conquer in was not even the cross they teach us about..
The story of Constantine seeing the **Chi-Rho** symbol before the Battle of the Milvian Bridge comes from two primary sources, both written after the events: 1. **Lactantius** (*De Mortibus Persecutorum* or *On the Deaths of the Persecutors*, written around 313-315 AD): Lactantius, a Christian author and advisor to Constantine, provides one of the earliest accounts. He describes how Constantine had a dream before the battle in which he was instructed to place the Christian symbol on his soldiers’ shields. In Lactantius' account, he refers to the symbol as a simple cross, not specifically the Chi-Rho. 2. **Eusebius of Caesarea** (*Life of Constantine*, written between 337-339 AD): Eusebius, a Christian bishop and historian, gives a more detailed version of the story. In this account, Eusebius claims that Constantine had a vision during daylight before the battle. He saw a cross of light in the sky along with the Greek words "Εν Τούτῳ Νίκα" (In this sign, conquer), which is translated into Latin as *in hoc signo vinces*. Eusebius also says Constantine later had a dream where Christ appeared and instructed him to use the **Chi-Rho** symbol (a combination of the Greek letters Chi (Χ) and Rho (Ρ), the first two letters of "Christ") on his soldiers' standards. These accounts differ slightly, but both emphasize that Constantine received divine guidance and associated the vision with Christianity. The **Chi-Rho** symbol became an important part of Constantine's military standard, known as the **Labarum**.
It's funny because Jesus is written to have said he would return before the current generation died. Ever since this failed prophecy, Christians have been retconning Jesus' return since. He was supposed to have come back long before Constantine was ever converted.
@@CantusTropus Jesus pulled the Cable Company trick - "We'll be there before 2PM and 6PM - but no man, not even Jesus knows the exact minute." In this case, the cable man never came, and Christians have been making up excuses and subtext to explain it ever since. "Oh well, time is different for God.... an hour doesn't mean an hour, a minute doesn't mean a minute!"
That's is a common misunderstanding of Mathiew 24 born of people equating His talk of judgement upon the temple, the Pharisees and Jerusalem in the previous chapter with end time prophecy. To put it bluntly, He promised that the generation that rejected Him as Messiah would not die off until they saw judgement fall on Jerusalem and it's religious establishment, a prophecy that came true when the Roman army sacked Jerusalem, destroyed the temple as well as the religious order headed by the Pharisees, and began the Jewish diaspora about 70 years later.
I’m a devout Christian and attend church every Sunday, go to confession and write icons but I also have sex with many different women, get drunk, fight, say hatful shit to people I don’t like, I hate ugly people and people whose skin is too light. So one can sincerely believe yet still struggle with sin and passions
True brother I also fail to reach Godlike love for all humans. My distrust in human nature and become zelously angry when I see blasthemy. I was angry with God for allowing so much torture to come upon my christian brothers in the middle east and in my part of the world the balkans. But God told us if we live for the flesh and blood we will never reach his glory and true sainthood. And that is a big struggle for me, and for most I would imagine. But God is good and he will lead us. Its summer time here so I'm not as pale as usual😂
🤣😂 Yep, looks like Constantine was also this type of ‘Christian’😆 PS It’s not funny really, I hope you’re just being silly, repentance and change of life style is at the heart of Christianity. The Bible makes it clear what will happen to those who don’t abandon their sinful lifestyle. There’s freedom from Christ offered to all those who cry out for His salvation✝️
This is probbably the most honest comment in a while. To all who laugh at this you surely should try to acuse yourself and I bet you will find something you struggle with that you don't even notice it's a sin until pointed out. All of us struggle, some more some less.
The first Christians were disproportionately drawn from among the poor and enslaved but there is evidence that high-profile individuals also adopted the faith early. There was a diverse core nearly from the beginning and that is likely one of the factors that increased its appeal
@@CantusTropus It does unless you presuppose that God doesn't exist and that atheism is the default, then you have to explain everything as a happy little acident or just a perfect turn of events that just so happened at a perfect time in just the right place with just the right idea with just the right people.
That's the thing about this era, you rebellious hipsters don't appreciate the religious convictions of our ancestors even 2 generations ago and want to make such elaborate narratives 🙄
You'll never find a more elaborate narrative than a god creating himself to sacrifice to himself to appease himself of mankind's sinful ways that exist because he made them that way.
Christianity in many of its first century forms was pacifist. That Constantine could convert to a version of it and use it to rule demonstrates how radically different this religion was to its Jewish apocalyptic roots. This newer, popular Christianity was primarily a mystery religion more in the mold of Mithraism than Judaism. It was a Christian version that thereafter modeled itself on Roman priestly and imperil hierarchy, even adopting many of the former’s titles, dress and rituals. Did Constantine convert out of genuine respect for Christianity or out of a shrewd political calculus? The question itself is malformed. In his day, Constantine would not have recognized a difference between the two.
Before his conversion Constantine worshipped the sun. After his conversion Constantine worshipped the sun. It was iteratively observed that Christian practice involved praying from pre-dawn till sunrise and that Sunday services gravitated toward morning. Constantine more than likely thought Christianity worshipped the sun. Eusebius did little to dissuade him of that. So, no real change there. The cult of Mithras was popular among Roman soldiers. We know little about the cult. But if it is true to its eastern origins, Mithra represented the sunrise, and if the cult of Mithras played out similarly, I doubt the idea that there was any risk to be incurred from the army’s perspective.
Said this under someone else, but I sometimes think people overlook how different "getting saved" is when your raised in a Christian household and live in a culture whose values are deeply shaped by Christianity, yet realize you've failed to live up to the standards...versus converting from a different belief system entirely. It makes sense a man who came from a different religious background is going to start conceptualizing his new faith/worldview in light of the one he had before, but that doesn't mean said new faith was not genuine.
@@CantusTropus -Christian practice involved praying from pre-dawn till sunrise and that Sunday services gravitated toward morning.- This one of the first things we know about Christian practice from investigation sponsored by Pliny the Younger. It mirrors what Josephus said of the Essenes and what Philo said of the Therapeutae. Praying facing the eastward toward the direction of the rising sun continued to be a part of some Christian practice for several centuries afterward. -Eusebius did little to dissuade him of that. - Here's a commentary on Psalm 91 by Eusebius, "The Logos has transferred by the New Alliance the celebration of the Sabbath to the rising of the light. ...In this day of light, first day and true day of the sun, when we gather after the interval of six days, we celebrate the holy and spiritual Sabbaths. ... All things whatsoever that were prescribed for the Sabbath, we have transferred them to the Lord's day, as being more authoritative and more highly regarded and first in rank, and more honorable than the Jewish Sabbath. In fact, it is on this day of the creation of the world that God said : "Let there be light and there was light." It is also on this day that the Sun of Justice has risen in their souls." (Eusebius, Commentaria in Psalmos 91, PG 23, 1169-1172). This is the sort of commentary that would provide confirmation bias to a (former?) sun worshipper. Eusebius also stated that, "The Savior's day derives its name from light and from the sun" (Eusebius, Life of Constantine 4, 18). Also, from Jerome, "If it is called day of the Sun by the pagans, we most willingly acknowledge it as such, since it is on this day that the light of the world has appeared and on this day the Sun of Justice has risen." (Jerome, In die Dominica Paschal homily CCL 78, 550). Also from Maximus of Turin, "We hold the day of the Lord to be venerable and solemn, because on it the Savior, like the rising sun conquered the darkness of the underworld and gleamed in the glory of the resurrection. This is why the same day was called day of the Sun by the pagans, because the Sun of Justice once risen would have illuminated it." (Homilia 61
Why? I thought it was nuanced and humble. He presented facts and questioned interpretation. He then ended with a tone of humility saying he lived 1700 years ago
Don't you just love motivated reasoning.? A background in later Roman Empire studies confirms what any critical analysis of this nonsense would discern.
![Twenty One Pilots - “The Line” (from Arcane Season 2) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/E2Rj2gQAyPA/mqdefault.jpg)
Do you believe that Constantine's conversion was heartfelt or that his adoption of Christianity was motivated by political considerations?
I think he sincerely believed, and was smart enough to realize that he had to move slowly and tolerate his pagan subjects, in order to create a lasting Christian dynasty.
Ironically Julian the Apostate could have learned much from him.
Well you can't use some modern notion of what 'true conversion' is. You need to define 'conversion' in some sense intelligible to the 4th century and by that standard I think the answer is: he was sincere enough.
Yes. Both of those.
@@ldamoff fair enough
When we think of the comparative advantage of the two religions to the powerful, it is easy to forget that under the status quo, the emperor was not just chosen by the gods, but was the chief priest (pontifex maximus) of the state religion, a literal descendant of the goddess Venus through Aneas and the Julian dynasty, and his genius was worshipped as a god, with the emperor himself becoming a god upon his death. For us modern people, we are used to politicians abusing Christianity to boost their image, but even the most arrogant of our politicians don't demand everyone sacrifice to their "very stable genius" on pain of death! The only modern parallel I can think of is the emperor of Japan making the declaration that he was not a god.
I recently read a volume on Norse religion; it says that Christian missionaries quickly made inroads into Scandinavia insofar as getting people to accept Christ as a god. Much to their exasperation, however, they'd often continue to worship Norse gods alongside him and didn't see this as a contradiction.
Something similar likely happened with Constantine - according to surviving documents his gradual transition to monotheism seemingly began before his vision but he was always careful in his public statements to use language that the wider population would find acceptable
Meanwhile slavs destroyed their gods as soon as they converted. Holding to traditional ways of worrship but giving the glory to Christ. Making at that time logical assumtion that saints and angels are the good old gods, and demons the bad ones. With the holly trinity on top and not to be toppeled by anyother being. Wierdly enough even today we practice the old ways of worrship as a fun tradition. And allways on a saints day. Most of the people dont know this but I dont think it matters. Since we do not do anything prohibited by Jesus.
many persons of today do the same. They acknowledge the existence of the sole God, but worship their favourite youtuber. And let's not get into the esoteric nationalists.
this seems common in trying to convert polytheists, the same thing happened in india
@@skin4700 Christianity is antiwhite. The destruction of our own gods *was done to us Whites,* we did not do it ourselves.
My research into this topic is somewhat limited but I believe Constantine was willing to adopt Chritstianity, but had immense difficulty in deciding whether to adopt the Nicene, Arian, or other theology and saw religion equally as a public policy tool to redefine and unify the fractious Western and Eastern portions of the empire. As for his personal view of Christianity the sources are far too conflicted to make a definitive statement on his personal conversion.
If he operated out of callous self-interest the absolutely most beneficial for himself would have been to continue the path of Diocletian, to proscribe Christians, seizing their land, property, and treasure, and having them executed. Constantine could easily have made an exception for his Christian mother. Legitimizing Christianity and its church, and professing belief in it was clearly the uphill path, one that risked him losing the confidence of the people, tainting himself with stigma and distrust. Not flouting his beliefs and keeping a low profile, and not pushing his luck too far, was undoubtedly from feeling what he was doing already was dangerous enough.
well said - I think the conversion was authentic but Constantine was a soldier, not a theologian. When priests came to him with doctrinal differences he wasn't really able to follow their logic
I do not think Constantine has difficulty deciding one or another. I don't think he understood the distinctions or thought they mattered. There's no indication he saw Christianity as a way to unify anything. Only 5-10% of the population were Christians.
That would make sense except that Constantine himself presided over the Council of Nicaea
@@samuelnerad2429 In which role he did what exactly?
Not getting baptized until your death was the common practice at the time, the fathers even wrote sermons condemning the practice. The idea was to wait and wash away your sins last minute so you die clean
It wasn’t “THE common practice” of the time. It just wouldn’t be strange to hear people doing it
I find it interesting that Dante punishes people who did this in the Divine Comedy, albeit with a comparatively light punishment (having to wait an amount of time equal to their lifespan before getting to start Purgatory).
When reading in detail about Constantine, I get the impression the Roman people were sick of the constant civil wars and wanted a road to peace. The Christian focus on sin and forgiveness probably resonated with Constantine and the people for this reason.
"When historians attempt to provide what they view as the true story behind the conversion, they really only tell us about themselves."
Never thought about it like that, absolutely brilliant. Subscribed with the bell.
Thank you!
You can say that about most authors
@@LorolinAstoriThats why you dont need to be that much critical about history. Just take the lesson and keep moving
@@LorolinAstoriAnd Theologians.
The only area of history I've studied with any real depth is Church history. And I find it fascinating how variably Constantine is viewed within that narrow field. In low-church Protestant circles he is sometimes viewed as a cynical opportunist whose centralization of the church hierarchy was ruinous, in high-church Protestant circles he is viewed as a bad Christian who meant well, in Roman Catholicism he is viewed as a great leader and unifier of the Church, and in Eastern Orthodoxy he is venerated as Saint Constantine the Great.
Which I think backs up the point you made, it is easy to see what we want to when viewing historical figures.
Yes exactly - Constantine also presents a unique problem because unlike other ancient figures where we have a dearth of information and so must speculate (thus leading to the construction of figures in our own image) Constantine has left us with an abundance of evidence but much of it is contradictory and its veracity can be doubted.
So we're essentially in the exact same place as with other figures but the arguments just have more citations.
Most of history is like that. We don't know nearly as much about history as we are led to believe. School systems, Hollywood, educational TV channels, churches, political factions etc. have created narratives based in historical evidence but we don't know very much as 100% fact.
A primary source is the best source a historian can use, most people's knowledge of history comes from unscholalry secondary sources, educated rational people use more peer reviewed secondary sources. Historians use primary sources or sources from the era in question. But think about today, think about news articles, podcasts, or anything written or said about what is happening today and how much of it is misinformation, twisted biased information, misinterpreted information or half truths etc.
People often assume if they find a tablet from 1000 years ago that says X happened then it must be true. But if you find a news article written today about a political topic then the chances of it being objective, unbiased and completely accurate are like 0% so even primary sources aren't all that great.
As a history major that was a week 1 lesson "everything you read is bullshit" we learned all about bias, misinformation and how bad the human brain is at recalling events accurately even when they are trying to be objective. There's so no completely accurate sources of information. Historians have to gather a ton of sources on one topic and read different perspectives on one thing. Like if you want to learn about a battle in a war you need to read about the battle from the perspective of generals on both sides, politicians, and accounts written by multiple soldiers on the ground level and analyze all of it, connect dots, and try to paint the best picture you can. And that's true of anything in history. And the further back it is, the harder it is to do that.
We know very little about how world leaders today really think or feel about things much less leaders thousands of years ago. Especially ones clouded in political and religious controversy
Hey man I just want to say I really enjoy your videos. I see so much history ‘content’ that really doesn’t interest me (especially regarding Rome as it’s one of the more popular topics online). Your videos especially regarding Caesar and your willingness to try and find a wider scope there that doesn’t follow the more conservative narrative on rails is honestly very unique and definitely reminds me of how my thought process approaching history changed after doing it at university. Keep up everything you’re doing and regardless of what you choose to make I’ll be tuning in. Regards
Thank you so much! It really means a lot to us to see such encouraging feedback and to know that the work we put in is useful to our audience.
I’m slowly becoming addicted to your videos. I recently discovered your channel and from the first video, I’ve been in love! Keep it up guys!
Thank you so much!! Really glad that you enjoy our content and we're so happy to see positive feedback like this. Much appreciated
This is the type of video that I truly appreciate from you guys and why I cant wait til ya'll finally blow up. You always use nuance and tact when discussing things like this. It's so easy, ESPECIALLY as a youtube channel that wants to attract more viewers, to want to lean into bombast and "answers" but you guys always take real care with your subject matter and never try to "force" an answer for the sake of content. That is commendable.
I doubt you guys will see this but I also want to thank you for including subtitles. I know it's extra work and it probably goes mostly unappreciated, at least vocally, since it's easy for most to either not use them or take them for granted, but it means a lot for accessibility. I personally have no issues and just prefer captions because I read better than I hear, but my partner is hard of hearing and it can be difficult for her to understand a lot of videos. Having them available just flat out helps people, and that is great.
Thanks for the kind words, its very encouraging to know that the extra effort we put in to depict the nuance inherent in these things is appreciated.
We're happy to do it - we want the content to be as accessible as possible so that there isn't a huge barrier to entry. The study of the classics is elitist enough as it is so we want to tear down walls where we can
One of the interesting things about constantine that i think doesnt get discussed often: he was the general from britain that finally managed to claim the throne. Of all the Britano-roman generals, a great many would try to claim the imperial title, but constantine alone would defy the british curse and redefine the empire's identity
"The human mind is a messy beast." I love this channel for sentences like this!
Thanks, glad to know people appreciate the extra effort
Indeed it is. Though few will admit this about themselves; there’s not much money in it. Humans are dumb not from lack of intelligence, but from lack of humility.
This has been my view for some time aswell. I have no doubt that Constantine did indeed convert to Christianity and died a Christian; but his conversion wasn't as rapid as some might believe; he likely still held to some pagan beliefs before around 324. After all, even if he did have what he saw as a divine vision coming from Christ, it sounds very unlikely he would entirely change his religious beliefs so quickly, that's not really how faith works.
I think it's worth pointing out that the theory of Constantine converting merely for political gain gained quite a bit of popularity after the release of Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code book, which practically every historian agrees is filled with psuedo-historical nonsense.
Thanks for the feedback - yes, the appraisal of him and his conversion in actual scholarship is much more nuanced than the pop history that presents him as a machiavellian mastermind. But even among scholars I think that too few recognize the enormous gulf between a pagan and Christian religious worldview and how even a heartfelt convert at this time would have found it difficult to abandon their pagan "instincts" immediately.
We're hoping to bring this perspective a little more into the light
Does it actually matter whether or not the conversion was real? Give him the best possible position and all the benefit of doubt known to mankind, and still you are left with having to answer why his new god ought to have any more relevance than the old ones. Assuming he believed in all his gods with the same fervor, Jesus Christ would be no more credible as the son of God than Apollo, son of Zeus. 💛
Well if you're an Orthodox Christian then of course you believe the conversion was authentic... of St Constantine the Great, who's feast day is May 21st.
And I’ll go with their account, instead of a modern, secular, summary
St Emperor Constantine the Great AND Undefeated!
@@DISTurbedwaffle918undefeated, undisputed, never tapped. Chael P Constantine
@@nupatriarch1681 "I like this lie better so I'll stick with that".
As a lover of history, especially the Greco-Roman period and as a man who went through a profound religious experience, I love Constantine. I can relate to a bit of his journey. My childhood religion is thought of as a bit of a cult outside of my home where it was revered. I never really bought it until I was faced with a serious medical issue. I had to find God before I faced he/her/them or faced the abyss. The same zeal I had for history, I turned to religion. I've always thought of myself a pragmatic and skeptical guy but also open-minded. I investigated everything under the sun before sitting at an empty Catholic Church. I had my head in my lap, beaten down by treatments and feeling overall depressed. I swear I heard something. Like a form of sleep paralysis, some kind of loud *something* that wakes you. You know? I was definitely halfway asleep, and so that's possibly what did it, but when I shot up, the church was bright, super bright. Also maybe due to my having woken up so quickly, but when my eyes adjusted there was one particularly bright beam coming through one of the stained glass panes. It cut a path through the church onto the station of the cross right in front of me, 7. It's when Jesus falls and is in great pain, in the particular wood carving in this church he's looking back and he's looking right at me. And I do mean, RIGHT at me, like direct eye contact. I could embellish the story to high heaven but unlike Constantine, I am no emperor. I had nothing to gain by my conversion, but holy shit was that a conversion. I've never seen light from the sun come through a window like that before nor after (also ironic, given Constantines apperent difficulty separating the two. If I had the previous religious understanding he did, I'd probably have followed him in the exact same boat). I beat my cancer, I have friends and acquaintances that'll say now "You don't seem catholic", "you don't act catholic", "well what about when the church did this or that" but I know what I am, I may not be the perfect catholic but I know what I am. So did Constantine. And I adore him for it.
Weird
@@eatfrenchtoast That's not a very nice way to respond to a heartfelt conversion.
All roads lead to christ. Beautiful testimony, my friend 😉😁
That’s beautiful brother. I’m always glad to see another story of how God still works even today.
You have made an excellent channel! Constantine may have been seen as a quasi Christian but almost everyone forgets that his mother Helena was a very committed Christian. She went to Jerusalem and established the Church of the Spectacular and she brought back many relics to Constantinople and Rome. Her faith had to rub off on her son.
Thank you! I fully agree and feel like it was a HUGE oversight on my part not to mention her. If I make a follow up to this on his reign I definitely will
Guessing that was a typo, but the real “Church of the Spectacular” is Là Sagrada Familia
This video was quite interesting in presenting the more realistic theory that Constantine needed to be mindful of Roman society and not to change too much at once, even if he was a true believer in Christianity. It definitely caused me to question my own bias regarding Constantine, since I thought of his actions through a more Machiavellian lens beforehand.
An important thing that should certainly be looked at would be how the sentiment of people in Rome toward Christianity was changing on the whole, as that would deliver even greater insight than just the recorded actions of a single person, however influential he was as an emperor.
Second comment ever on YT. Very good content. +1 sub. Please keep going
Thank you so much! Glad you liked it and honored that you felt it was worth the comment!
I imagine Constantine would be the one person in the Empire whom Christian theologians would hesitate to admonish for syncretism. Coming off a century of persecution by imperial decree on a stroke of unbelievable luck, one might be hesitant to push their luck
That is, if it WAS luck.
I don’t think he would pick a tiny minority religion practiced by people with little political power if he wasn’t truly converted to Christianity. I don’t see how his decision could be interpreted as a disingenuous political move.
I really enjoyed how you navigated us through the hazards of bias in this one. Great video very informative.
Much appreciated! Constantine is one of those select few figures in history that really polarizes opinion and its difficult to produce an "objective" analysis of the man. Best we can do is acknowledge our biases at the door and try looking at both his accomplishments AND failures as we evaluate his legacy
@@tribunateSPQR I was really leaning on the cynical power player angle but you convinced me that things are not quite so straightforward.
Now I'm wondering the same about Olaf Haraldsson II ahah.
@@BernasLL yes, he’s difficult to pin down and though there were certainly some political considerations I believe it was a heartfelt conversion.
One of the things I wished we had gotten to was that Romans expected gods to speak with leaders so his repeated “encounters” with the divine (even different deities) would have been seen as a good thing whereas we interpret it as him faking them all. He very well could have but a Roman would expect their leaders to have these experiences so it fit the leadership mold he was trying to fill
I pretty much agree. His initial conversion was a shrewd political move and was a Pagan one i.e. adopting jesus as one God amongst many, but over time it seems he became more and more influenced by the christian priests around him and became more genuinely christian before he died
Thank you for your reasoned and balanced approached it is so refreshing to see a take that while understanding the political picture still allow for genuine human desire to reach for the Divine. I agree with you as well that humanity is far more complex than what the cynical outlook of modern man would like them to be. Thank you once more for this video.
Thanks for the kind words and positive feedback - we also believe that the ancients were just as intelligent and intellectually complex as we are today. It may be easier to make sweeping generalizations about those that came before but ultimately that is not useful in the quest for historical truth
Completely fascinating! I’m so glad I found this channel, you gained a new subscriber, man! 😉💪🏼
Thank you for the kind words!!! Really glad you enjoyed the video!
Most of the time secularists bring this topic up in an effort to discredit Christianity and to assert that Constantine chose conversion for political benefits. The problem for the secularists is that Christians represented only 10% of the Roman Empire by the time of Constantines Edict of Milan in 313 A.D so there were no tangible political benefits for Constantine. Also the idea that Constantine did not take an interest in theological matters is belied by the fact that Ecumenical Councils have always been chaired by Roman Emperors and not the Bishop of Rome. Constantine was not a passive but active participant in First Council of Nicaea. Not only that but not a single Ecumenical Council has ever been chaired by a Bishop of Rome nor attended by a Bishop of Rome who merely sent his legates. Hardly the conduct of the "Primes inter pares".
Your whole channel is amazing
Thank you so much!
I think David Potter put it best when he said there was a difference between Constantine being sincere towards Christianity vs actually comprehending it.
By most accounts, I think it's safe to say that the conversion was sincere. What real benefit did Constantine have to gain from conversion? Least of all to a religion that had been frowned down upon by most other Romans and been persecuted multiple times. At that point in the empire's history, the emperor's power and legitimacy derived solely from the military, so Constantine didn't need to win over the common people/ grass roots movement of Christianity to increase his own power.
At the same time, Constantine's understanding - or attempts to understand- Christian doctrine were a fluid process. He at first continued to depict himself with both Christian and pagan symbols on coins and in Constantinople constructed a huge statue of himself as Apollo. He also was dismissive towards the Arian controversy at first and didn't want the bishops involved to discuss what he perceived to be a petty theological issue, before then agreeing to host Nicaea. But even after that point he reversed his anti-Arian stance and was even baptised by an Arian on his deathbed.
A theological quibble: it’s not that ancient Christians delayed baptism because it diminished their culpability. It’s that baptism remits all sins, no matter how grave, but is also a once in a lifetime event. At a time when other means of sin forgiveness, like the sacrament of confession, were yet not fully developed, delaying baptism until the last possible minute made sense, so that one would enter Heaven as a clean slate
That's a Montanist belief that was condemned for over a century before Constantine was baptized. It seems more likely he was indecisive of which theology viz, Arianism or orthodox Monarchical trinitarianism, and it was only after the councils of Nicaea I and the subsequent affirmation by the theologians of the East did he feel comfortable to be baptized.
@@lordspoice5192 Okay, but then why was he baptized more than 10 years after Nicea?
@@pedrogabrielwriter The Arian controversy didn't disappear after Nicaea. There was a large presence in Western Europe for centuries and it would evolve into many different subsets like Eunomianism or Semi-Arianism. As stated beforehand, I think St. Constantine genuinely had an internal struggle about the faith, which is why he delayed his baptism for so long.
@@lordspoice5192 I’m well aware, but there are theological differences between those heresies and pure Arianism. Also, Constantine ended up being baptized by an Arian priest regardless
@@pedrogabrielwriter The claim that he was baptized by an Arian priest comes from the Donations of Constantine, which is a known forgery. I don't mean to be rude, but you clearly aren't well read on this so please do not make matters of fact.
Likewise, baptism of infants was an extremely common practice in the church prior to and after St. Constantine became emperor.
IMO, it’s absolutely ingenuous to say, “When in reality the world is shaped by forces,
trends and factors that far surpass any single individual, even Roman emperors.”
How then does a fire get started and grow without the necessity of a single spark. 🔥
An associated issue regarding the conversion of Constantine is as follows. As noted in the video, Christians in that era tended to be pacifists and were discouraged from military service. Any casual observer of western history can then see how decidedly militarized Christian societies became after Constantine. It was the conversion of Constantine that marked (but not necessarily caused) the beginning of the association of the Cross with the sword. This association continues to this day, most especially in the United States. So, this begs the following sorts of questions. How did/does the ongoing militarization of Christianity starting with Constantine affect the Church and the greater world? Describe major negative aspects of these effects. Are there any positive effects at all? Can military action every actually be inspired and justified by Christian theology in a logically coherent fashion?
As a Catholic, I don't doubt his authenticity. It was not a clean conversion though, as he knew that to fully lean into his faith publicly would likely put off much of the people he had to rely on for support in the aristocratic and military hierarchies.
Ultimately, his actions speak louder than words, with his elevation of the Christian religion and patronage of many churches across the Empire, as well as his support for the orthodox Catholic interpretations of Christianity over the heresies of the time.
Granted, his rejection of Arianism was imperfect, but most Arians were essentially just slightly misguided regarding the nature of Christ, and the absolutism of schism with them wasn't fully hammered out yet.
Imagine this guy that were gathered here today questioning the depths of his faith. This guy that was so instrumental in inventing the idea of the trinity. Christians love to bury their heads in the sand.
Another great video from Tribunate, notwithstanding the clickbait "why" in the title :) As ever so often, Tribunate challenges perceived perceptions about how we view the Romans, and here Constantine is delivered from the suspicion of hypocrisy usually connected with his conversion. He was not to much a bad Christian as a crafty Christian who realized that he had to bide his time until Rome was ready for a wholescale conversion. Good job, and convincing.
I just don’t see how it makes logical sense for the Roman Emperor to embrace a fringe minority religion most popular amongst women and slaves, if it was mere opportunism.
If 95% of your population is poor, and Rome is full of poor people who've formed mobs and caused trouble on and off for centuries, a religion that elevates humility and meekness can be a very useful moderator of popular frustrations.
@@williamchamberlain2263the problem with that is that the poor people rarely play a role in Roman politics
And most of them weren't Christian, it would take Constantine some inhuman 4D chess mind to reach that conclusion without hindsight
Found my new favorite Rome channel. I really liked this one, and your other videos on Jesus, Cato, and the first Triumvirate. Subscribed!
Great Commentary!! I really enjoyed this a lot!!
Awesome, thank you!
Honesty anywhere is most rare. Thank you. Very informative and enjoyable.
Glad you enjoyed it!
I am ex-baptist Christian. It was the best thing I've ever done.
I see that you explained this later on in the video.... Christians of that time were so terrified of sinning after their baptism that they pushed baptism as late as possible, as in on their deathbeds. It was Augustine decades later who brought in infant baptism.
so Constantine hesitation to be baptized was not a proof of reluctant adherence. it was relatively common for the time.
It seems to me that there was no real political advantage to be gotten from converting to Christ at that time as the percentage of those claim Christian faith was less than 10 %
so i think ( well aware that this is still hotly debated) that he experienced something, but that his understanding of what Christianity actually was was very very poor
my stand point is that of a convinced Christian who is an amateur theologian.
I regard his superficial conversion as a disaster for the church, for it made claims of faith necessary to seek societal preferment; and of course it had the church gladly jump into bed with what the Bible calls the world
I think Constantine converted to something but that he was not a genuinely born again Christian as the Bible describes it
and as for his blasphemous hubris in likening himself to a thirteenth apostle?? need i say more??
I mean to be fair to Constantine, who remembers Matthias (well, except for He who never forgets of course)?
I think his conversion was genuine, and if he had an attitude, especially early on, it mirrors the disciples quibbling over position in the kingdom right up until the crucifixion. Ultimately, though, we can't know on this side of heaven.
I am a former Christian and I think this is a good take.
I think his baptism prior to his death says a lot. It seems to point to some belief, perhaps even some guilt for the sins (murders) he commited. He didn't seem to invested in the Arian vs Orthodox controversy so long as it didn't cause political division. Really it seems like an all of the above answer. There were politically beneficial reasons for conversion. But there was also danger. His legalization of the religion without making it the state religion does perhaps point to it being a personal matter for him.
Really loved this videos, keep it up!
Thank you! Appreciate the positive feedback!
It really comes down to a pretty simple question: why would a politician ever take a position that pisses off 90% of the population for the benefit of the other 10%? Either it benefits him greatly or he believes it. As discussed, the benefits of Constantine’s conversion were pretty small compared to the earthquake it would cause. The most reasonable conclusion is that it was sincere.
Constantine didn’t adopt into Christianity he literally only USED Christianity and please state it clear that the sign that he saw to conquer in was not even the cross they teach us about..
Why would Constantine use a minor religion that was being persecuted a few years ago to please the state? He could easily please the state by being a pagan, which is a more dominant religion and would've allowed for him to control the people much easier.
At a guess I would say his conversion might be similar to King Aethelstan (previously Guthrum, one of the leaders of the Great Northern Army) who was defeated by Aelfred the Great and converted to Christianity on assuming the throne of East Anglia towards the end of the 9th Century. A mixture of politics and new-found belief. I doubt Constantine truly believed the God of Christianity was The One True God, but that He was ascendant among a larger pantheon. But as you say, that is simply my opinion and can never be any more than that!
It still doesn't convincingly answer the question 'why'. Why adopt a religion that supposedly only the lower tenth of the society practiced? And why did it work out? None of this makes any sense, I'm sorry.
There has to be a different story here.
It was not the religion of the lowest 10%. It was most popular in the biggest cities of the empire, like Alexandria, Antioch or Carthage, and least popular in the countryside. Pagan means something like rustic villager. This video itself also mentions Christianity was focused in eastern urbanized areas.
@@walterht8083 And how did that happen?
@@faramund9865 Christianity piggy-backed on the backs of previously pagan cults to spread itself; most importantly that of Dionysus (that was the fertile ground of the religious ethos in the eastern Mediterranean), eventually subduing them in favor of the Christian cult, but in the process incorporating many aspects of said cults into its own practices.
The Question is Constantine conversion Genuine?
The Answer was yes but it was nuance than that, Constantine weren't a good christian and didn't become fully christian even after milvian Bridge. It was gradual and didn't fully become realized until the later half of Constantine life.
Because he genuinely believed in it
This is such an interesting area to explore because we can't ever really have a definitive answer
You remind me of why Carl Jung was so fascinated with synchronicity.
Carl Yuck imo tbh
Didn't Constantine see Sol Invictus and Jesus Christ as basically the same person
I have never heard this idea before
Lucifer and Prometheus are the same figure, so it's entirely possible. Some people think Jesus was a Buddha. The truth is basically impossible to know.
@@starrmont4981 mmmmm Jesus and Buddha are not that similar.
@@antonivsfortis They have very different aesthetics but the core of what they taught feels pretty similar to me. Incomprehensible higher realities and love for fellow humans. They were both reformers, with Jesus criticizing the elitist ritualism of the Jewish authorities and Gautama criticizing the unjust caste system.
@@starrmont4981 How are Lucifer and Prometheus even comparable?
We were not around then to know what happened. We can only speculate. It is easy to take a thought and run with it , or to take our modern cultural assumptions and try to stencil them onto the past but it would be inaccurate.
Assume Constantine was genuine and altruistic in all his motivations. Why then would Apollo, Sol Invictus, and Mithras be considered any less real than Jesus Christ?
Very well said. I think this RUclips channel is clearly biased in favour of Christianity
I love how you occasionally sprinkle Marx into these videos. It makes them so much better : )
Either way it's safe to say Constantine is practically the sole reason Christianity even exists today. It was a fringe religion, one of MANY religions in Rome. And there were so many different branches of Christianity that contradict Christianity as we understand it today, or Christianity mixed with other religions and philosophy. Also plenty of books that werent included in the bible.
That sneaky Marx quote from the Eighteenth Brumaire at the end... I love this channel
Sneaky Marxism is the best kind
His mom asked him to, and he eventually complied. That is the only documented historical fact that is supported by all of the available contemporary sources. Why didn’t you include this as a possible decisive factor? He was a Roman Emperor. Claudius listen to Livia, and even Caligula listened to Agrippina. Sometimes they complied to their Matres, sometimes they didn’t, but they always took their advice into serious consideration.
I find no irony or conflict with respect to a man Constantine professing belief in God and then acting otherwise frequently. God selected King David and others as leaders and servants and yet, such key individuals repeatedly fell into errors such as adultery and were even complicit in the murder of someone such as when David stole Uriah’s wife and allowed him to be murdered. Ultimately, it’s about God working mysteriously and majestically in His ways and for His purposes…….the selected individuals are entirely secondary and will always display their imperfections ……
Much of the Senate was still pagan. Even though it was politically irrelevant, stuff commissioned by the Senate would still have pagan iconography attached.
Great question, perhaps forever unsolved. What the role, in Constantine's choice, of his mother Helena, a christian and also a Saint?
I don't know if this is true but I've heard in the past that the first bishop he asked to baptize him refused since he thought he wasn't a good enough Christian.
That wouldn't make a lot of sense, since the point of Baptism is that none of us are "good enough" on our own. The only reason I can think of to refuse Baptism might possibly be if you thought the person was insincere, and even then I'm not sure.
@@CantusTropus Different attitude towards baptism in the time. Basically you had to act like a christian fist prove yourself and then be baptized.
Could be the insincere thing as well.
As I said at first I'm not sure where I heard that. So take it with a grain of salt.
I think it’s clear that he believed in a literal Deus Sol Invictus. That being he believed in the unity of god with all things with the sun being core to this idea for obvious reasons.
The most similar concept to his belief is Protestant views on Providence. A force greater than oneself but a force which is all and works for reasons beyond our comprehension.
Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if he viewed Sol Invictus as merely a Pagan interpretation of the true God. They did have distinct similarities, and Sol Invictus is a form of Henotheism that developed a solid century or so after Christianity came about.
The idea that he did it for political reasons is contradicted by his lukewarm public support of it. If telling people you were Christian was such a good political move why did his coins have pagan symbols?
I think it was a genuine conversion. It took him a while to figure theology out, especially with different schools of thought emerging simultaneously.
I've heard that it was pretty common for worshipers of Sol Invictus, going all the way to Heliogabalus, to consider Jesus Christ to be but one more manifestation of their highly syncretic deity no matter how blasphemous the Christians themselves considered that view to be. Constantine was not raised in the old Pagan traditions but by a father who was devoted to Sol Invictus (a religion founded more recently than Christianity) and a mother who converted to Christianity.
Thank you for this video
I thought Peter Leithart did a great job on his book “Defending Constantine.” The author argues that Constantine, for all his flaws, was sincere in his conversion and did his best to start reforming the empire in Christ’s image. A great book; highly recommended.
Something that's not often mentioned is the impact of women. Constantine, Clovis, and Ethelbert of Kent all had Christian wives.
I think the notion that the military remained pagan after the Emperor's conversion does not have as much to support as you intimatte. The emporer was not a civilian. He was a soldier, quite literally leading men into battle when he experienced the most important moment of his conversion. It stands to reason that military that were there and won the victory that this new deity wrought would have converted together with their emporer/general. We know in other parts of Europe, when Christian missionaries evangelized a king and he converted, his armies and subjects followed suit and we see in the case of early church missionary to the Anglo-Saxon and Germanic tribes, the Benedict monk, St. Boniface.
I think the answer is that Constantine's conversion was genuine but also driven by political realities of the rising numbers of Christians in the populace.
No. The Arch celebrating that victory in front of the Coliseum contains ZERO Christianity symbols or iconography. He sided with Christianity because his empire was collapsing at the edges by Goth incursions. And who better to fight the godless than a people who would eventually slaughter them for their "unbelief" all in the name of their god.
He was making his mom happy
We only think he didn't really convert to Christianity because our society has become atheistic....we can't comprehend a man thinking about something greater than himself.....
You're onto nothing, the Romans were pagans.
Also because many use Christ as a means to gain power.
@@nathanaelswayne8024 low IQ take
You mean like the guy running for office who's selling Bibles?
@@nathanaelswayne8024 low I q take. Your atheist rulers think your dumb
Very well done
Thank you very much!
Constantine was not baptized until shortly before his death. He said at the time that he wished he had not waited. (Baptism washes the soul clean of original sin, all actual sins, and remits all punishment. People did not want to be stuck in Purgatory for any length of time, so they waited until the last minute.) Clearly, he had converted some time before, and his baptism had no political ramifications for him as he was departing this world, so yes, his conversion was real.
Many prefer the official wedding to occur after a few years of successful experimenting living together. And when mortality hints our end is in site, people prefer to be remembered by their associations that they had and do value as of then. But, yes, since the early Christian church was in its infancy of sacramental living, one baptism for the forgiveness of sins predates the availability of the Sacrament of Confession/Penance, currently known as the Sacrament of Reconciliation.
There is a stubborn insistence here that Constantine was indeed a *true* Christian. No way -- he lived in a pagan world, got power through military prowess, and was a pragmatist looking for *any* way to strengthen his control over his huge, unwieldy empire. Plus he had 'converted' to some sort of cult of Apollo just a couple of years before opting for Christianity, which had oddly been catching on with the aristocrats he had to work with. Augustus, that ultimate administrator, had seen the value of declaring himself one of the gods as Emperor. Constantine was taking the next step of reducing the gods to just ONE, with himself as that deity's representative on earth. Constantine was thinking like a *Roman*, not like what people today consider a Christian. This is no cause for Christian triumphalism, but rather for pausing to consider that the cult of Christ could have very easily fallen by the wayside (and probably should have, given the weirdness it has brought to Western culture
Part of me was thinking why he chose Christianity rather than just with toleration policies?
It's an important question - one of the chief reasons I believe he opted to convert was a heartfelt conviction driven by some sort of religious experience
Fraud lies to the public, believer lies to himself. No difference~
Great thoughts
Why did the urban elite adopt Christianity to readily?
They didn’t, that’s a pervasive myth. The urban elite senatorial class remained pagan until at least the time of theodosius (who made Christianity the state religion) with whom they fought a battle at frigidis river and set up a puppet emperor against. Even when Alaric sacked Rome and Forced a random senator to be his puppet emperor said senator (Priscus Attalus) said Senator was forcibly converted to Christianity by the Goths
@@americanaccolon1319 not, it isn't
It spread because early Christians would go anywhere and evangelize, something that was not typical of Roman paganism
They also didn't "adopt readily" it was more of a slow burn and, considering how it was particularly popular with women, slowly the wives of Romans would give their children a Christian upbringing and it would go from there
Now, as for the Roman elites, they did remain pagan for a long time though, specially in the west
If he was a savvy, smart politician, which he was, he converted for political motivations.
Great video I do belive we all have our own crosses we need to carry. And for who he was (a sociopathic general, devout to his own glory and the glory of Rome) he has done what God intended him to do. Was he a Christian ofcourse he was not everything is a conspiracy theory. But was he a good Christian, no but how could have he been? He was the emperor of the strongest empire in history. If he wanted to he could have made himself a god. But no he took the God of the poor and misreble. The outcast Jew that got crusified and shunned by his own people. To a real roman Christ would be a mockery. Simply alien to their way of thinking. So thats why I belive it was really a spiritual encounter. Even when you said Apollo came to him I knew it was true. The devil tried to sway him away from his divine destiny but God used him as a vessel. Great video you got yourself a new subscriber❤
One very plain fact which I wish that historians would get a good bit more clear on - namely, the fact that Romans, were as agnostic as it gets! They did not view the "Pagan Gods", as being living beings at all, but instead, they were viewed in a context that is at least, very similar unto that in which we presently view the American Flag. Hence, for coinage of all things to have those symbols on them after his conversion, is a ridiculously moot point. Why wouldn't they - the various 'gods', were no more than literal patriotic or similar types of symbols. Geoff Rohde
I don’t feel that agnosticism is a useful lens for interpreting Roman religion. I did another video directly related to this subject that you might find interesting:
ruclips.net/video/b8GfZe5w_tE/видео.html
The waiting until the last second to get baptized and take communion is very very suspicious. Waving that aside is almost impossible given that Constantine was surrounded by orthodox priests and bishops and not Protestants. Putting of taking communion was not something these clergy would have at all suggested for the emperor if he was a true christian.
At the time, it was pretty common to wait till you're near death to get baptized.
Consider that this was around the time the concept of purgatory was becoming popularized, and with it the idea of penance in the here and now to prevent being temporally punished for sins before going to heaven in the hereafter.
The issue is that baptism as a way of cleansing temporal sins was both the only means of penance at the time and was a one-time thing. Put it all together, and it makes sense a man whose political life entailed a lot of morally difficult choices wanted to wait till the last minute so as many of his sins as possible could be removed.
@@Adrian-f2b4e any primary sources to back any of that up? Baptism was most definitely not the only way of cleansing temporal sins. There is the sacrament of confession. Something being common doesn’t mean it would have been suggested to the emperor by the clergy if he was really a devout Christian.
@@playea123 This was one of the things being covered in history classes for my major a few years back. Unfortunately, in both classes and both professors, it fell under one of those things brought up as background information since not every topic could of course be given a clarifying primary source. In any case, for this matter, I trust the expertise of my professors, one a medievalist specializing in this era, and the other showcasing a deep knowledge of medieval and early modern history.
He murdered his family and no other religion would offer him forgiveness
This is Rome. Their founder is best known for being the Cain to his brother's Able. Heck, at least one emperor (Claudius) was spared and corronated after his family was...cleansed...because the Praetorian guard thought he was the most controllable.
To put it short, Fear of not being forgiven for getting rid of some redundant family members would not have been a concern.
I mean we can say this of most of you and the op presenting this topic. But none of you did anything to the level of Constantine
He could have been tripping
The title of this video irritates me as there is no way to know 100% for sure.
Historians who claim otherwise reveal more about themselves? Interesting. You think you’re not revealing that you’re Christian with this video? In fact I’d rather listen to an impartial atheist historian than a Christian one.
Tricked by his Anatolian (pseudo-Greek) witch mother… to hand over an empire to Anatolia.
😊
Constantine didn’t convert into Christianity he literally only USED Christianity and please state it clear that the sign that he saw to conquer in was not even the cross they teach us about..
The story of Constantine seeing the **Chi-Rho** symbol before the Battle of the Milvian Bridge comes from two primary sources, both written after the events:
1. **Lactantius** (*De Mortibus Persecutorum* or *On the Deaths of the Persecutors*, written around 313-315 AD): Lactantius, a Christian author and advisor to Constantine, provides one of the earliest accounts. He describes how Constantine had a dream before the battle in which he was instructed to place the Christian symbol on his soldiers’ shields. In Lactantius' account, he refers to the symbol as a simple cross, not specifically the Chi-Rho.
2. **Eusebius of Caesarea** (*Life of Constantine*, written between 337-339 AD): Eusebius, a Christian bishop and historian, gives a more detailed version of the story. In this account, Eusebius claims that Constantine had a vision during daylight before the battle. He saw a cross of light in the sky along with the Greek words "Εν Τούτῳ Νίκα" (In this sign, conquer), which is translated into Latin as *in hoc signo vinces*. Eusebius also says Constantine later had a dream where Christ appeared and instructed him to use the **Chi-Rho** symbol (a combination of the Greek letters Chi (Χ) and Rho (Ρ), the first two letters of "Christ") on his soldiers' standards.
These accounts differ slightly, but both emphasize that Constantine received divine guidance and associated the vision with Christianity. The **Chi-Rho** symbol became an important part of Constantine's military standard, known as the **Labarum**.
It's funny because Jesus is written to have said he would return before the current generation died. Ever since this failed prophecy, Christians have been retconning Jesus' return since. He was supposed to have come back long before Constantine was ever converted.
That old saw? That dog won't hunt. Plus, bringing it up when it's not relevant to the discussion makes you look like an obsessed fanatic.
@@CantusTropus Jesus pulled the Cable Company trick - "We'll be there before 2PM and 6PM - but no man, not even Jesus knows the exact minute." In this case, the cable man never came, and Christians have been making up excuses and subtext to explain it ever since. "Oh well, time is different for God.... an hour doesn't mean an hour, a minute doesn't mean a minute!"
That's is a common misunderstanding of Mathiew 24 born of people equating His talk of judgement upon the temple, the Pharisees and Jerusalem in the previous chapter with end time prophecy. To put it bluntly, He promised that the generation that rejected Him as Messiah would not die off until they saw judgement fall on Jerusalem and it's religious establishment, a prophecy that came true when the Roman army sacked Jerusalem, destroyed the temple as well as the religious order headed by the Pharisees, and began the Jewish diaspora about 70 years later.
I’m a devout Christian and attend church every Sunday, go to confession and write icons but I also have sex with many different women, get drunk, fight, say hatful shit to people I don’t like, I hate ugly people and people whose skin is too light. So one can sincerely believe yet still struggle with sin and passions
Lmfao
True brother I also fail to reach Godlike love for all humans. My distrust in human nature and become zelously angry when I see blasthemy. I was angry with God for allowing so much torture to come upon my christian brothers in the middle east and in my part of the world the balkans. But God told us if we live for the flesh and blood we will never reach his glory and true sainthood. And that is a big struggle for me, and for most I would imagine. But God is good and he will lead us. Its summer time here so I'm not as pale as usual😂
🤣😂 Yep, looks like Constantine was also this type of ‘Christian’😆
PS It’s not funny really, I hope you’re just being silly, repentance and change of life style is at the heart of Christianity. The Bible makes it clear what will happen to those who don’t abandon their sinful lifestyle. There’s freedom from Christ offered to all those who cry out for His salvation✝️
This is probbably the most honest comment in a while.
To all who laugh at this you surely should try to acuse yourself and I bet you will find something you struggle with that you don't even notice it's a sin until pointed out.
All of us struggle, some more some less.
Still makes no sense to me at all why Europe would adopt the religion of the slaves and poor. That is literally an incredible, non-credible story.
The first Christians were disproportionately drawn from among the poor and enslaved but there is evidence that high-profile individuals also adopted the faith early. There was a diverse core nearly from the beginning and that is likely one of the factors that increased its appeal
Because it is the one true religion.
Babby's first intro to Nietzsche 101
Doesn't that support the idea that it is in fact the True Faith, rather than a random human invention?
@@CantusTropus It does unless you presuppose that God doesn't exist and that atheism is the default, then you have to explain everything as a happy little acident or just a perfect turn of events that just so happened at a perfect time in just the right place with just the right idea with just the right people.
I suspect Mohammed, Joseph Smith and Constantine were visited by the same dark angel.
That's the thing about this era, you rebellious hipsters don't appreciate the religious convictions of our ancestors even 2 generations ago and want to make such elaborate narratives 🙄
Those are definitely all words.
You'll never find a more elaborate narrative than a god creating himself to sacrifice to himself to appease himself of mankind's sinful ways that exist because he made them that way.
Christianity in many of its first century forms was pacifist. That Constantine could convert to a version of it and use it to rule demonstrates how radically different this religion was to its Jewish apocalyptic roots. This newer, popular Christianity was primarily a mystery religion more in the mold of Mithraism than Judaism. It was a Christian version that thereafter modeled itself on Roman priestly and imperil hierarchy, even adopting many of the former’s titles, dress and rituals.
Did Constantine convert out of genuine respect for Christianity or out of a shrewd political calculus? The question itself is malformed. In his day, Constantine would not have recognized a difference between the two.
Eusebius made up the story of Constantine seeing the cross in the sky.
Before his conversion Constantine worshipped the sun. After his conversion Constantine worshipped the sun. It was iteratively observed that Christian practice involved praying from pre-dawn till sunrise and that Sunday services gravitated toward morning. Constantine more than likely thought Christianity worshipped the sun. Eusebius did little to dissuade him of that. So, no real change there. The cult of Mithras was popular among Roman soldiers. We know little about the cult. But if it is true to its eastern origins, Mithra represented the sunrise, and if the cult of Mithras played out similarly, I doubt the idea that there was any risk to be incurred from the army’s perspective.
I'm gonna ask for a source on basically all of those claims. The Bishops would have quickly disabused him of that idea.
Said this under someone else, but I sometimes think people overlook how different "getting saved" is when your raised in a Christian household and live in a culture whose values are deeply shaped by Christianity, yet realize you've failed to live up to the standards...versus converting from a different belief system entirely. It makes sense a man who came from a different religious background is going to start conceptualizing his new faith/worldview in light of the one he had before, but that doesn't mean said new faith was not genuine.
@@Adrian-f2b4e I agree totally.
@@CantusTropus -Christian practice involved praying from pre-dawn till sunrise and that Sunday services gravitated toward morning.- This one of the first things we know about Christian practice from investigation sponsored by Pliny the Younger. It mirrors what Josephus said of the Essenes and what Philo said of the Therapeutae. Praying facing the eastward toward the direction of the rising sun continued to be a part of some Christian practice for several centuries afterward.
-Eusebius did little to dissuade him of that.
- Here's a commentary on Psalm 91 by Eusebius, "The Logos has transferred by the New Alliance the celebration of the Sabbath to the rising of the light. ...In this day of light, first day and true day of the sun, when we gather after the interval of six days, we celebrate the holy and spiritual Sabbaths. ... All things whatsoever that were prescribed for the Sabbath, we have transferred them to the Lord's day, as being more authoritative and more highly regarded and first in rank, and more honorable than the Jewish Sabbath. In fact, it is on this day of the creation of the world that God said : "Let there be light and there was light." It is also on this day that the Sun of Justice has risen in their souls." (Eusebius, Commentaria in Psalmos 91, PG 23, 1169-1172). This is the sort of commentary that would provide confirmation bias to a (former?) sun worshipper.
Eusebius also stated that, "The Savior's day derives its name from light and from the sun" (Eusebius, Life of Constantine 4, 18).
Also, from Jerome, "If it is called day of the Sun by the pagans, we most willingly acknowledge it as such, since it is on this day that the light of the world has appeared and on this day the Sun of Justice has risen." (Jerome, In die Dominica Paschal homily CCL 78, 550).
Also from Maximus of Turin, "We hold the day of the Lord to be venerable and solemn, because on it the Savior, like the rising sun conquered the darkness of the underworld and gleamed in the glory of the resurrection. This is why the same day was called day of the Sun by the pagans, because the Sun of Justice once risen would have illuminated it." (Homilia 61
This is such faulty reasoning
Why? I thought it was nuanced and humble. He presented facts and questioned interpretation. He then ended with a tone of humility saying he lived 1700 years ago
Don't you just love motivated reasoning.? A background in later Roman Empire studies confirms what any critical analysis of this nonsense would discern.
Only reason why Christianity took over Rom was political..to survive ,take it ..