I legitimately cannot see Constantine as having been an actual,

>>2354578
>since Christianity was much more conducive to a centralized autocratic government than paganism ever was
How?

>>2354590
>"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's"

>>2354578
Dude had a vision from God and was a confirmed saint. Are you doubting the Catholic Church?

File: tig_0.png (25KB, 194x193px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 194x193px

>>2354635
>"Dude had a vision from God"
>the only two accounts that say this were not only written years later after the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, but are contradictory

>>2354707
The gospels were written years after Christ and are contradictory and no Christian doubts those. If you were truly a Christian, you would accept the church's view of SAINT Constantine. If you are not a Christian, you have no basis to doubt the faith of the man especially considering the position of the official religious administrative body.

>>2354590
One single beauracracy running the religion, for starters.

The ruler only needs to care about what the Pope/Patriarch wants, not what the leaders of ~10 major cults want, ~50 minors cults, and ~200 lesser cults, all of whom hold immense social and political power and have their own contracts and dealings with the state.

>>2354728
this, in a way. church traditions about constantine should have the same strength to non-protestant christians as traditions about say the authorship of the NT books and the deaths of Paul and co.

>>2354728
I'm not a Christian, so I believe most 'traditions' of the Church are invented ones.

>you have no basis to doubt the faith of the man especially considering the position of the official religious administrative body.

Really? Because the guy kept minting coins of himself with Sol Invictus for years after becoming Emperor. Also, odd that - despite unofficially pushing Christianity and even opening persecution against the pagans - he never actually made it formal by law. Seems like he was only testing the waters, and unwilling to actually commit himself to the religion. His death-bed conversion also reflects a very typical Roman attitude towards religion: "Oh well, guess I'll take do this weird ritual so I can have a better chance of going to a happy afterlife, got nothing to lose after all."

>>2354578
As evidenced by the multiple inscriptions in Constantinople he was following a religious policy of advocating paganism and Christianity.

>since Christianity was much more conducive to a centralized autocratic government than paganism ever was

That is a very dumb assumption worthy of your average teenage fedora tipper. The christian centres at the time were in Antioch and Alexandria. It was highly decentralized and there were a number of different denominations.
The centralization of authority in Rome was only a development of the early middle ages after governmental power literally ceased to exist. The only institution left to uphold public services in those times was the church.

File: Christians are the SJWS of late antiquity.png (102KB, 609x497px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 609x497px

>>2354816
The centralization of authority under the Christian Church began with Constantine, especially after the Council of Nicaea.

"The reign of Constantine established a precedent for the position of the Christian emperor in the Church. Emperors considered themselves responsible to the gods for the spiritual health of their subjects, and after Constantine they had a duty to help the Church define orthodoxy and maintain orthodoxy."

Richards, Jeffrey. The Popes and the Papacy in the Early Middle Ages 476–752 (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1979) pp. 14–15.

In reality, this opened the way for the Emperor to consolidate power easily, since the accusation of "heresy" and the threat of "anathema" became politicized and another weapon at the hands of the government (a weapon that had never really been wielded by previous pagans). The Council of Nicaea - by establishing 'orthodoxy' versus 'heresy' - allowed the Emperor to move against any individual or group that was accused of not holding "orthodox" views. I hope I don't have to explain to you how easily corrupted this can be, and how much more easily it can be used as a political weapon.

>>2354836
>Emperors considered themselves responsible to the gods for the spiritual health of their subjects, and after Constantine they had a duty to help the Church define orthodoxy and maintain orthodoxy.

LuL

Quite the downgrade from a half-deity then. It's as if the existence of the Roman Emperor before wasn't a spiritual one.

>In reality, this opened the way for the Emperor to consolidate power easily, since the accusation of "heresy" and the threat of "anathema" became politicized and another weapon at the hands of the government (a weapon that had never really been wielded by previous pagans). The Council of Nicaea - by establishing 'orthodoxy' versus 'heresy' - allowed the Emperor to move against any individual or group that was accused of not holding "orthodox" views.

That is a wrong conclusion. Constantine himself was only baptized on his deathbed. He was a follower of the Mithras Cult. The column of Constantine has an inscription dedicated to the Sun. As I said before. His religious policy was to harmonize everything and keep peace.

Oppressing 'heretical' groups was not on the agenda. In fact such a thing wouldn't even have been possible. The numbers of Christians at those times didn't particularly allow to denounce 60-70% of the population who were still pagan during Constantine's time. Especially considering that the high society, which only started to convert to Christianity after 'Constantine's turn', was predominantly pagan.
Attacking someone under the threat of the anathema was done by the various churches who found a common ground in the Council of Nicaea by themselves. By no means could it be used against pagans. The instrumentalization of churches by governments is a thing of the New Age, especially during the time of imperialism and nationalism. It is an anachronistical thought to assume the same principle for the workings of the Roman Empire.

>>2354758
So instead of a bunch of smaller institutions to please, you think a ruler would prefer having to deal with one single gargantuan institution with power so immense it could discard the ruler entirely if it wanted so? Hmmmm...

>>2354796
>His death-bed conversion also reflects a very typical Roman attitude towards religion: "Oh well, guess I'll take do this weird ritual so I can have a better chance of going to a happy afterlife, got nothing to lose after all."
this was actually common practice in early christianity because baptism was seen as a one time opportunity to absolve yourself of sins, meaning doing it early in life put you at risk for sinning again and losing your chance at salvation

>>2354728
Constantine isn't a saint in the Catholic Church, merely in the Orthodox Church.

I tend to see him as more like Cyrus. A mostly just man who served as an instrument of God's will.