Was Constantine a good emperor?

Good at what? He was pretty obviously the best one at the time, since he won. He was probably the best one before the fall of the West, but the West was pretty fucked even during his reign. It was doomed to fall since at least Hadrian.

>>3278195
He ensured that the empire would last for over a thousand more years.

>>3278208
That was Theodosius II, but he laid out the ground work

Yes, only butthurt paganshits will disagree.

Outlawed gladiator fights and infanticide, pretty based

He founded Catholicism, which basically was Christianity but with pagan degeneracy, which would go on to bring about the dark ages for euope.

So no.

File: 1498794803733.jpg (69KB, 306x331px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 306x331px

>>3278264
Oh my, the ghost of Edward Gibbon hath come to shitpost at us.

Are you more butthurt that your consciousness has persisted after death, or that your model for the collapse of the Roman Empire is seen as laughable in modern academia?

File: WrN6wOr.jpg (49KB, 500x332px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 500x332px

>>3278284
enjoyable post

>>3278195
Egocentric, paranoid maniac who had no qualms with killing his own wife and son in his schemes for absolute power. He was a secularist who merely used Christianity as a cover for his opportunism.

>>3278387
>who had no qualms with killing his own wife and son in his schemes for absolute power
That's quite wrong, he nearly went insane with guilt afterward, and he did it because they were sleeping together

He outlawed gladiator fights, he made infanticide and killing your slave illegal. He was the first emperor who didn't pay homage to the pagan gods in his ti triumph, and he made it illegal for married men to have live-in lovers. He turned Roman society upside down at tremendous risk to his power

>>3278195
he was ok. i don't know why pagans hate him since he only stopped persecution of the church and legalized Christianity and it did not become the state religion of the roman empire until 380.

>>3278432
Mostly because they're dumb. Even someone like Hitchens credited Constantine with the Christianization of the Empire. It's one of those false facts

>>3278206
What did Hadrian do wrong?

>>3278438
Nothing, aside from half measures against the Jews, but Hadrian's reign marked the point where the Empire stopped being a place that grew and started being a place that got grown into.
He closed the Empire up, but failed to build a state that could transition into something stable. The realest truth that there is, is that the Roman Empire was always doomed to fall, at least in the West.
The East was fairly prosperous, though, which is why it managed to survive.

>>3278238
Literally ruined what made Rome great.

>>3278195
Aside from his more paranoid outbursts (killing his son and wife), he was an effective emperor in most things not concerning religion. In his dalliances into religion (namely Christianity), he caused a lot of stress by waffling between condoning Arianism and condemning it, thought that he could settle disputes in the church by just asking everyone to quiet down and get along, and generally didn't "get" Christianity up until his death (starting the tradition of Christian emperors not baptizing themselves until they were about to die so that they could be dicks for most of their lives, being buried with pagan items as well as christian ones to 'hedge his bets').

He also broke my boy Diocletian's (the best emperor) perfectly fine Tetrarchy, so he can eat a dick.

>>3278284
Academia is laughable.

>>3278438
Contract.

>>3279530
Tetrarchy sucked. Diocletian also gave the Emperor as a man the ability to dictate matters of Religion, which later Emperors used to Christianize the Empire.

Also, Diocletian as the best Emperor is ridiculous when the Empire was doomed already by the age of Diocletian.

>>3279555
sounds like you've got bad case of shit taste there, bud. Diocletian was fucking based, and he actually got to retire and live a quiet life out in the country, instead of getting assassinated like a lot of those other cucks. not his fault that the people after him were a bunch of greedy dumbasses.

>>3279580
It kind of was his fault, since like 1/4 of the Empire was actually a decent state that wasn't teetering on the brink of the Dark Ages, like the West was.
>Here, you be the Emperor of Italy, and sit on this busted throne while your buddy gets all the Gold coming in from Anatolia every week
If he wanted to split up the reign, he should have made sure each of the two to four empires he doled out were stable, instead of looking at the West and deciding to write it off.

No one managed to fix the West's problems, but nobody could if you gave away the ability to supplement it with Eastern money