What did the Romans think of Constantine’s Conversion? 

Exectly my thought

What i understood from this is that Constantine had to be ambiguous so as to not alienate roman aristocracy which was still overwhelmingly pagan provided if he really favored Christianity that is.

It kind of hints more at what the opinion was, in that not everyone was on board with Christianity in the early 4th century. The way the Arch was decorated shows this, but it's more implied than answered.

@@Transilvanian90 The video as it is would be a good introduction to the video that's "promised" in the title.

Thank you for this comment. Saved me time

The video makes it pretty clear, the Arch that was built for Constantine after he liberated Rome makes no reference to Christianity. The painting that was hung in the Senate house after Constantine died showed him going to the afterlife but which god or gods was "diplomatically" left out. Not to mention Rome wouldn't become majorily Christian till hundreds of years later, with the aristocracy holding their Pagen views till even later. You want him to just come out and say it? They didn't like it. Learn to read between the lines guys.

@@Brosephski69 None of that tells us how Roman's received Christianity. The arrival of new gods into the establishment was a natural sight in Rome, but immediately making a god the chief deity would always be dangerous regardless of the God (see Elagabalus). The fact that Constantine was being diplomatic with these actions doesn't tell us what Roman's made of Constantine's Christianity

He became Orthodox Christian ☦️

@@deVeresd.Kfz.1515 No difference between orthodox and catholic back then. They were the same.

@James Quinton Roman Catholicism came in 1054AD. Greek Orthodoxy and even the Liturgy and Greek language were used in the west, so learn Church history and Council of Nicaea 325AD before making that claim. Papacy was never a thing during the first 1000 years. Multiple patriarchates existed, whereas in Papism, there's only one Pope/Patriarch. The fact you don't know means you shan't argue Christian history with me

I agree

Fully agree.

Almost like a Time Traveler's Guide to Ancient Rome (that's an actual thing he did)

Make sure to leave a like

More than any other kind of history, it reminds me that I'm not immortal.

What I gathered from this video is that Constantine kept everything ambiguous and did not clearly come out and say, OK everyone today we start a new religion, so I guess many were still Pagan.

@@WAFFENAMT1 yes, likely they were like "yeye ok.. lets see how long his phase will last, I bet he will outgrow it soon"

Back then it was acceptable to belong to more than one religion.

He modified it. What the heck do you mean his conversion?

@@TBrewer64 Pagans didn’t have a concept of religion. For them, their spiritual beliefs were synonymous with history and the nature of the cosmos. Nobody converted to anything. People didn’t just wake up and decide “you know, I’m going to be a norse pagan today.” The closest thing they had were mystery cults and sects devoted to specific deities. When Jesus came, they initially just added him as another deity to their pantheons.

The Roman Empire would still exist.

@@sirgalahad1376 no, it wouldn't. It existed for another thousand years as a Christian Empire. You cannot blame Christianity for its downfall, and no serious historian does.

For better or worse, I would say Jesus and Mohammed would both have to rank higher than Constantine in terms of overall impact.

⁠​⁠@@ArakeenArchivist Some of the Romans themselves literally blamed Christianity, saying Christianity brought down the Roman Empire isn’t a new criticism. It’s so old in fact, that Augustine wrote “On The City of God Against The Pagans” addressing this exact argument, albeit with a shit ton of Christian cope, blaming the fall of a pagan empire on pagans. Christianity wasn’t a main factor but it certainly was a big factor.

@@ArakeenArchivist hey let the pagan ideologue enjoy their myth.

If you want I can help a little, being in an history university as a student I have some knowledge but I can't promise to give you a full picture. To complete the video, which did a good job to indicate the general situation of Costantine's period, I will try to explain the reaction of multiple classes to the conversion. For the slaves the new approach was well received, Chistianity was a "Salvific cult" and this really helped them seeing a way out of their misery after death; but for the one who were freed by their master (The libertii) it was good: Costantine allowed the slaves to be freed much easily by a ceremony held by a priest and not a public official (Manumissio in ecclesia) and gave many vantanges to the slaves/libertii under the christian idea that a slave was certainly inferior to his master, but still a person: for example all the slaves that were forcefully castrated by their masters could gained, after reporting the fact, full freedom. In general christians masters "were more willing" to also liberate them. For the "Plebs media" I can't say much but it wasn't a great shock: many roman emperors before Costanine, starting from the end of the II century, were linked to cults differents from the traditional roman paganism (It's said that Philippus the arab (244-249) was christian), like Eliogabolus (218-222 A.D) who believed in Syrian cults (The god of the mountain "Elagabal" in particular). So it wasn't so strange, sure christianity had suffered persecutions but, for sure it hadn't been the only one and also the roman society at that point had many cults and as long as Costantine respected them and made good laws for the public.. it could be ok; for sure there were protests but in the late empire the population had lost much of their political force anyway to really do anything. The senate reaction was very different. Even if christianity had gained supporters in the roman élites from the start of the III century, the senate position was still pagan; as said in the video Costantine was able to resist them by moderation but also by giving them favours (It stopped the emperor's support of the Equites class and the Pretorian guard giving their powers back to the senators) and building Costantinople: a city for the christian world while Rome could remain the centre of the empire and of pagan senators. Even with that there was a great opposition in the senate but after Diocletian the roman empire was pretty much an absolute monarchy and so they didn't have a great force; a later example of this is when the senator Simmacus in 384 tried to convince emperor Valentinianus II to keep the pagan cerimonies in the senate; the emperor simply refused and there was little he could do even if the senate was still to a good part pagan. For the senators it was better to do a "passive opposition" and pray/make sure the next emperor was more pagan, of course for many the religious question wasn't so important; like all politicians their aim was gaining power and so they could also support the christian emperor to obtain merits.

I am not a historian, but I have recently become aware of facts that have long been more or less ignored by historians and seem relevant here. I am going to write a lot of words to describe this. Then the last paragraph contains my educated guess about what Roman soldiers thought about the conversion. The facts in question concern mostly Emperor Vespasian (69-79) and his son Titus (79-81). But also Titus' younger brother Domitian (81-96), who was in the opposite political camp and may have been behind Titus' untimely death. Vespasian and Titus were lower nobility and had great military success under Nero in Germania. When Nero had serious trouble with the Jewish resistance in Palestine, he sent them there to clean up. Apparently they formed an alliance with queen Berenike from the (converted, originally Greek) Jewish Herod dynasty, to the point that at some point Berenike and Titus got engaged and her military strategist Josephus became a Roman historian. While Vespasian and Titus were in Palestine, Nero seems to have been killed by his slave Epaphroditus. (Officially it was suicide with only Epaphroditus present, but Domitian later killed Epaphroditus for 'not preventing Nero's suicide'.) Paul in one of his epistles sends greetings from the Emperor's household, especially from someone called Epaphroditus. After Nero's death there was a year with 4 very short-lived emperors (altering between the pro- and anti-Nero factoins) until Vespasian (anti-Nero) declared himself emperor in Alexandria, threatening to block the vital grain supply if necessary. Add to the above the fact that the symbols for early Christianity were fish and anchor, exactly like the symbols of the Flavian dynasty founded by Vespasian, and that all the earliest popes came from this family, and it seems likely that there was a Flavian-Herodian conspiracy to make Vespasian emperor, then Berenike empress as the wife of Titus, and to establish a revised form of Judaism as a state religion in Rome. (This makes sense as the Romans were impressed with Judaism because the Jewish resistance made up with religious fanaticism for what they lacked in organization. Also the lower Roman nobility tended to be disgusted by Nero's decadence and really liked the strict norms of Judaism. What they didn't like were details such as chopping off pieces of men's private parts and not being able to dine with non-Jews.) The supposed prosecution of Christians under Nero was anachronistic; it probably affected messianic Jews. The first actual prosecution of Christians in Rome occurred under Domitian and affected primarily the nobility, especially members of his own family. Given this background, it isn't too surprising that a bit over 2 centuries later Christianity comes to prominence in Rome. Most likely it had spread among the Roman troops to the point where by using a symbol of Christianity, Constantine could get his opponent's legions on his side. I am not sure if Constantine actually came from the Flavian dynasty, but he certainly called himself Flavius, creating a connection to Vespasian and Titus.

@@johaquila Man, this is definitely a weird conspiracy theory of sorts, and I have no idea how these jumps are explained. >Apparently they formed an alliance with queen Berenike from the (converted, originally Greek) Jewish Herod dynasty, to the point that at some point Berenike and Titus got engaged and her military strategist Josephus became a Roman historian. No, the Herodian dynasty was definitely NOT a converted Greek line; they were converts, yes, but they were Edomite in origin (modern-day southern Israel/Jordan) and they gained favour thanks to Gnaeus Pompey electing Antipater as Procurator of Judaea in 47 BCE, leading way to Herod the Great in the 30s BCE as a client king of the Roman Republic, near a century before Berenice. It's insinuated that their alliance was due to a recent conversion when that was certainly not the case. >Add to the above the fact that the symbols for early Christianity were fish and anchor, exactly like the symbols of the Flavian dynasty founded by Vespasian, and that all the earliest popes came from this family [...] there was a Flavian-Herodian conspiracy to make Vespasian emperor [...] What? The fish is a Christian symbol because the letters spelled out Christian doctrine; IChThYS = Iesous Christos, Theou Yios, Soter (Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour). Moreover, no Popes came from this family given that bishops are ELECTED and NON-HEREDITARY. Conspiracy bit's next part. >as the Romans were impressed with Judaism because the Jewish resistance made up with religious fanaticism for what they lacked in organization [...] and really liked the strict norms of Judaism. The Romans DISLIKED the Jews. Sure, they afforded Jews special rights but that was in Judea. The Romans saw paying homage to their gods as a sign of obedience and loyalty to the Roman state which is why Roman colonisation involved a process where parallels are made between Roman and foreign gods so that the natives would switch over to Roman worship; look up interpretatio romana and how Celtic gods were associated with Roman ones in Gaul and Britannia. Jews, not wanting to pay homage, were deemed as secret traitors. Tiberius forbade the practice of Judaism and Claudius outright banished them from the city. Plus, they were in rebellion in 66-73 CE, again in 115-117 CE, and finally 132-136 CE. To say that Romans by and large were 'impressed' by Jewish customs is laughably wrong. Going back to the 'Flavian-Herodian conspiracy', following the deification of Gaius Julius Caesar, his adopted son Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus-known to us as Augustus-adopted this as well. Why is this important? Because Vespasian and Titus themselves were deified; it makes NO SENSE to create a Jewish-esque religion that is monotheistic if the creators themselves are deified in a polytheistic religion. Now, notice how I typed that Caesar's adopted son had his own name? Well, when you are adopted, you gain the name of your adopter and your nomen (the middle bit, that's your clan name) becomes an adjective. So, Gaius Octavius born of the gens/clan Octavia, becomes Gaius Julius Caesar (his adopted father's name) Octavianus (the adjectival form of his own nomen, Octavius). Later on he added the cognomen Augustus but that doesn't matter. >I am not sure if Constantine actually came from the Flavian dynasty, but he certainly called himself Flavius, creating a connection to Vespasian and Titus. So, you're right, Constantine shares no blood with the Flavian dynasty. However, Flavius by that point had become a common first name (praenomen) because the Flavian dynasty freed a lot of people. You see, when you free a slave or give a freed slave citizenship, that slave adopts your praenomen + nomen as well; it's almost like they got adopted by you. For example, the great statesman Marcus Tullius Cicero had a personal slave named Tiro, and when Cicero died and Tiro was freed by will, he became Marcus Tullius Tiro. The same goes for our dear friend Josephus; he was Yosef ben Matityahu (Yosef son of Matityahu) but then was enslaved by Vespasian (whose full name was Titus Flavius Vespasianus) and freed by Titus (whose full name was also Titus Flavius Vespasianus), and so he became Titus Flavius Josephus. During the Flavian and subsequent dynasties, more and more freedmen adopted the Flavius name either because they were freed by the Flavians or they were descendants of those freed slaves, and by that point it had become a common name. The same happened with the name Marcus Aurelius. An emperor by the name of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (known to us today by his nickname Caracalla) issued an edict that declared all freedmen as Roman citizens. Because of that, millions of inhabitants of the Roman Empire suddenly got the name Marcus Aurelius which is why if you look at later emperors after Caracalla like Maxentius, his name was Marcus Aurelius Valerius Maxentius. My point is that Constantine calling himself Flavius (I mean it should be that his father named him Flavius and he was also named Flavius; Flavius Valerius Constantius) doesn't mean that he wanted a connection to the Flavians and that names aren't necessarily markers of lineage when we're talking late Empire.

@@ilcavaliereteutonico6842 thank you!!

More important what does present Rome think about Constantine’s conversion? Is it that tough to accept? you may even consider a visit to the Holy Land and visit the Church of the Holy Sepulchre🙂.

My thoughts also. Other questions that sprung to mind: * Emperor Constantine was able to disband the Praetorian Guard. How? From their historical record I'd imagine they would sooner disband him. * Why was it customary for early Christians to defer Baptism?

@@BLAZINFAST Regarding the guard I assume that he just had his soldiers line them up. No diffraction from a modern junta lining up disobedient officers against a wall.

@@BLAZINFASTfor your last question: Some Christians thought it would be better for converts to be baptized late in their life, because they thought baptism might only forgive the sins committed before baptism. That’s what Tertullianus said.

@@BLAZINFAST He retired the Praetorian Guard by paying all of them a handsome amount of money and then sending them to the borders of the Empire where they would be of no use.

​@@BLAZINFAST The Praetorian thing is actually pretty simple to answer. The guard had fought for another imperial claimant, so Constantine didn't have to worry about disbanding a group of armed guards around him, he simply created a different group when he took the throne

Bath houses and temples often featured prominent artwork that was available to the public

From my knowledge they most certainly did, even if their fruition was usually only for the higher classes. A good example can be found in Petronius's book "Satyricon" (Written at the end of the first century): during the story the protagonist Encolpius, to recover after being betrayed by his lover, goes "In pinacothecam" where he sees famous works from greek culture (Among the authors that are cited we can find Zèusi: a Greek artist who lived in the V century B.C). I used the Satyricon as a source because the book, a kind of "novel" we could say, is set in the mundane life of the roman's high classes and for this reason is very good to understand roman culture/society.

As far as i remember. Emperor Octavian had a personal museum filled with bronze age and stone age weapons, so probably yes

Lots of historic and cultural artifacts were stolen from the east as Rome expanded there. The sack of Corinth is a famous example of this. These historic 'pieces' heavily inspired Greco-Roman culture.

One could argue all the Arches and statues they preserved made Rome one big 'open air museum' reminding everyday Romans of it's glorius past. The replica of Romulus 's hut they kept rebuilding sounds like 'museum piece ' .

u gotta also visit istanbul the other great roman city

I could've told you that. 😊 I was overwhelmed by the size of the area and then to get into the details of the history/era of the building ruins just left me stunned. I wanted to see the art on Titus's arch like the Jerusalem temple goods. But when I got to the Coliseum somehow I missed it which I've no idea how that happened. Three days is not enough is an understatement. More like ten days and have a checklist and route to follow with notes. I learned that not all "guides" know much more than the visitors. I'd really love to go back Italy and spend my time in Rome. Pompeii needed more than 1 day also. But we did go up to the top of the volcano and that was really neat.

Thank you!

Interesting history and certainly not all Christian holy sites are in the holy lands

I was going to bring this up, thank you. Hard to say what's true with history this muddled and old, but I think a lot of Constantine's history was "re-written" by his successors.

It was simply about one religion to rule them all.

@@huwhitecavebeast1972 please keep spamming that on comment after comment, I’m sure you’ll convince someone

Clearly Constantine wasnt a cleric. But he wanted cohesion in his empire and control.

But that's still strange that he didn't at least combine christianity idea with roman theos & instead made a blank canvas refering to an untitled divinity. Why did even his story of triumphant still mystery until many century later the retold becoming about his vision/ dream? How odd of his lifetime

The image seen at the end is the centerpiece of Triumph of Christianity, which was frescoed by Tommaso Laureti on the ceiling of the Hall of Constantine inside the Vatican Museum.

Africa as in the province was just Tunisia and parts of modern Algeria and, depending on the era, parts of Libya/Tripolitania, Maxentius also ruled what were the provinces of Numidia and Mauretania, so saying "North Africa" as a generalization of Africa+Numidia+Mauretania+Libya it's right👍 I think you can also said "North Libya" because that was also another ancient name for the whole continent, but it would lead to more confusion :P

Constantine died in 337. The writers that report it are Lactantius and Eusebius of Caesaria. Lactantius was a court rhetorician(Latin) for Diocletian in Nicomedia, then later the tutor of Constantine's son in Gaul. He died in 325, 12 years before Constantine. Eusebius of Caesaria wrote his "Life of Constantine"(eulogy and panegyric)immediately after his death, knew him personally, and himself died in 339. So Lactantius wrote of the dream and the sign on the shields while Constantine was alive, and he lived with him, and Eusebius immediately after his death. I'm not saying it's true, but it wasn't 40 years later, and the authors were close to him.

@@histguy101 Constantine needed a living Jesus he strangled his sister's husband when he said that he had violated the Edict of Toleration Constantine was a politician from England and he did Evil things and was a troublemaker everybody that didn't agree with him was a heretic

The empire was declining for a century at this point, hence why Diocletian introduced the rule of the Tetrarchy, to stabilize the empire. Constantine was opportunistic about it. He broke the rules of Diocletian, moved against the other Tetrarchs and conquered and reunited the empire under his banner. The Romans had a tradition of religious freedom, but early christians were quite militant. They burned down temples of pagan gods for example, because "there cant be another god". Maybe also to protest against the oppression (temples were also symbols of power). Thats why there were so unpopular with the people in charge and hunted. Of course not all christians were like this, but it was an excuse to hunt them down. In my opinion Constantine wanted to reunite the empire. He wanted it to be cohesive, so he tried to secure the inner peace. Another example for this is the council of Niceaa. As soon as the Christians had the security of not to be hunted anymore, they turned against each other. So Constantine summoned the council, so they could discuss all the theologic issues, and have a cohesive opinion what is right and what is wrong. That way he could also control the Christian believings. To be "Pontifex Maximus" was tradition under the emperors bevorehand. It was a very important office - the highest religious leader - which was also in charge to adjust the calender each year and to declare holidays. Caesar used this to extend his time as a Gouverneur of Galia, until he was reelected as a consul, so he couldnt get sued for his actions against the senate.

Lol no shit

Lactantius wrote his account during Constantine's lifetime.

He murdered his wife and his own child, such a "saint" lol

@@Verntallat7 who is canonized as a saint and why has no concern to you if you aren’t in the faith. I can tell by your disrespect that you are atheist

@@AristarchusEsti lol, I feel more comfortable with the Neoplatonism of Iamblichus and Proclus but you are right about the disrespect, I totally loathe the nazarene faith and their monsters

​@@TwizzElishus a few years at the very least, I started with the Enneads of Plotinus and one of those "A very short introduction to Plato" (following what I got in philosophy class at high school) and wasn't too impressed but then I discovered "Theurgy and the Soul" by Gregory Shaw, which is the best introduction to Iamblichus but before 2013 or so was out of print and super expensive, like hundreds of usd but got reprinted and from there the anotated translation of "On the Egyptian Mysteries" and then I read some papers on different aspects of theurgy, finally started to delve into Proclus with Chlups's introduction which I'm not gonna lie I find very difficult (but rewarding even if I have to reread every few pages). And to this day I keep reading and learning, currently on Gemistus Plethon, the last Neoplatonist of Roman Empire, who lived in the XV century in the twilight of Byzantium, he is more similar to Plotinus but still is amazing to find a Hellenic pagan philosopher advocating for the old gods just 500 years ago

@@Verntallat7 ​ ​ yea i can see you are a free thinker.. i mean it is really no secret anymore isnt it,..logos is light and the father the son...who is the lightbringer in old latin? *drum roll* who could it be...the gnostic neoplatonic roots are even more obvious its a freaking idol worshipping death cult in the vatican...not just since "vatican 2" blabla..probabaly from the freaking beginning....constantine allowed saturnalia festivals for his converted "pagan christians"..which became christmas and was like a dionysos cult just more brutal..probably similar to moloch and mithras festivals

For one, Praetorians would have kept making a mess of things, like they had for centuries

As did I

the romans think constatine must be a moderate ruler and still a pagan, giving christianity a chance in the empire, yet they never knew about the conversion