POLL: Did Constantine Have A Good Reason To Execute Crispus?

I have been working on 4th Century coins a lot over the last few days and as a result reading about that era. In particular I have been thinking about some of the executions that took place late in the reign of Constantine the Great.

Constantine defeated Licinius the Elder in AD 324 and allowed him to retire, but had him executed in 325. It is commonly said that he didn't want to allow Licinius to live and had him killed at the first opportunity, but I can see no reason why he couldn't execute him right away if that is what he really wanted. That would not have been an uncommon response to a defeated enemy in this era. For this reason I suspect that Licinius the Elder might have been involved in some sort of plot against Constantine.

Then in early AD 326 while on their way to Rome, Constantine suddenly executes Crispus and a bit later his (Constantine's) wife Fausta. The two executions do appear to be related. One story is that Fausta accused Crispus of attempted rape to get him out of the way so that her three sons (Constantine II, Constans and Constantius II) would have a clear path to power after Constantine's death.

However, it should be noted that the execution of Licinius the Younger (aged about 10) seems to have been related in some way to the execution of Crispus and I believe this argues against accusations of sexual impropriety. I cannot help but wonder if there might have been some sort of information about the (alledged) plot by Licinius the Elder the year before that implicated some of those executed in AD 326?

I know this topic gets discussed often here, but I've never seen a poll so I'm adding one. I hope that you will not only vote, but also share your personal theory about what happened, show off any coins you have that you think add to this topic and that a friendly discussion will ensue.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

If we accept that Fausta's lie resulted in the killing, I doubt Constantine even felt he had been justified killing Crispus but killing Fausta was a no brainer. He could have killed her sons and not been looked down upon any more by history. Killing Licinius II was also a side dish. Perhaps we can understand why, considering the theology of the day, Constantine delayed his baptism until the last minute possible.

Those who watch 'Game of Thrones' have to realize that real history was at least as brutal. Had Fausta not been killed, I wonder when she would have gone after Constantine. Fausta was the daughter of Maximianus and sister of Maxentius. If there ever was a worse way of picking a spouse, I'm not sure what it was. We will never know the truth of history when the books were all written by people who loved or hated the emperor. Even today it is hard to find anything approaching unbiased accounts until everyone who knew the subject and their children have died.

 

One reason might be that Constantine's half sister Constantia was married to Licinius. Shortly after this incident, Constantine even issued a rare coin in the name of Constantia, calling her nobilissima femina

 

This period of history after the fall of the tetrarchs is one of the sad notes in my opinion about the reign of Constantine. In the early parts of his reign he did not demonstrate the bloodthirstiness that he did later in the reign. Perhaps it was due to some kind of change in his mentality or even mental illness of some kind. The sources are pretty biased but I suppose we will never know.

A bit later on, I always wondered why Constantius II didn't execute Julian but let him live, even after he revolted with the legions of Gaul. Of course we don't know what would have happened if Constantius (who was occupied with Persian affairs) had actually met Julian in battle, as he died along the way. Anyway, thanks for posting the poll. As a new member here I'm having a lot of fun reading the posts on here and finding some kindred souls. Coin collecting is mostly a solitary experience and it is very rewarding to be able to interact with people online who share the same interests.

 

Is it admitted that Crispus was executed because of his sexual abuse ?

 

My thoughts as well. I am very happy Doug told me about the existence of this wonderful forum. Thanks, @dougsmit !

 

The poll assumes too much. Is the history of the events written truthfully (and fully) or is it all lies and half-truths? Is there more to the events than we will ever know? Probably. If the Nazi's had won WWII, what would the history books be saying today? I for one take most of what we have read or been told with a grain of salt. So, did Constantine have a valid reason to execute Crispus? Did Prince John have a valid reason to rebel against Richard the Lionhearted? It's hard for us sitting in our living rooms 2000 years later (near a 1000 years since King John) to know anything of the times and circumstances.

 

@Bing

I'm not in my living room!

 

Neither am I.

Don't get me wrong @Aethelred, your inquiry is justified, but I think the answers will always ellude us.

 

How about: "The magical comfort of the internet."

 

Of course you are right @Bing, there is not enough information to know or even really have an informed opinion on this topic. In fact we don't really have either side of the story, just a few basic facts and some rumours far removed from the actual events.

The thing about me is that I'm a sucker for a historical mystery and this certainly will is one.

 

I am as well

 

It would be awsome to be able to solve some of histories big mysteries.
I don't believe for a minute Constantine was the saint some historians tried to portray him as. Not sure I think he was the blood thirsty pshycho that other say either.
Maybe it was just politics? I don't know, but I've pondered the same question as you @Aethelred .
There's a chance science may be able to seperate fact from fiction some day.

 

Most definitely. Even today there are significant events about which we can not be confident we know what really happened.

If there were a knowable truth about Crispus, we would not be having fun with this poll!

 

So true.

 

Well here are my coins relevant to the discussion:


Crispus Caesar, AD 317-326
Ӕ Follis, 18m, 3.1g, 6h; London mint, AD 318
Obv.: FL IVL CRISPVS NOB CAES, Laureate draped cuirassed bust right
Rev.: PRINCIPIA I-VVENTVTIS; Crispus standing right in military dress, holding spear and shield, crescent in left field
In Ex.: PLN


Constantine II
AE Reduced follis, 18mm, 3.1g; 6h; London, 318 AD
Obv.: FL CL CONSTANTINVS IVN NC; Bust laureate, draped cuirassed, seen from back
Rev.: PRINCIPIA I-VVENTVTIS; Prince in military dress, standing right, cloak spread, leaning on reversed vertical spear, hand resting on shield; crescent right
In Ex.: PLN


Constantius II, AD 337-361
Æ15, 1.5g, 6h; Trier mint, A.D. 337- 340
Obv.: FL IVL CONSTANTIVS AVG; Laureate, cuirassed bust right.
Rev.: VIRTVS AVGG NN; Soldier standing holding spear and resting hand on shield In Ex.: TRP

If someone could find me the above reverse type with Constans...that would be great...


Constans, AD 337-350
AE, follis, 16mm, 1.5g; 12h; Siscia, AD 337-341
Obv.: CONSTAN-S PF AVG; rosette-diademed, draped and cuirassed bust right
Rev.: GLOR-IAEXERC-ITVS; two soldiers with spears and shields, facing one standard, chi-rho on banner
In Ex.: BSIS

I voted "Appropriate" because I am trusting that Constantine was in the best position to decide what to do with his family. I don't have a solid understanding of the family dynamics at the time, but in general, it is my understanding that the head of household could kill members of the family, as necessary. By today's measure this is ridiculous but I think it is unreasonable to apply a standard that didn't exist when judging the past.

 

neat thread! this chapter of history is full of everything we love about a drama, and it fills us with all the emotions. pity, anger, disbelief and wonder amongst others. we seek the answers but we are left with a puzzle that is missing several pieces that we continue to try to put together even without them and are only really left with our opinions based on what we've been told. so i say, heck no he didn't have a good reason!

 

The bit in the brackets makes it easy for me to answer this question in the affirmative.

"Did Constantine I Have (or at least believe he had) A Valid Reason For Executing His Son Crispus?"

Whether Constantine was actually right or wrong to do what he did, I don't know, I don't have enough information to form a conclusion either way. However, I can certainly accept that he believed he had a valid reason for killing Crispus at the time he issued the order, even if his decision was possibly based on "alternative facts" that may later prove to be wrong.

He was no saint. He really wasn't that nice. Afterall, he did a fair bit of killing. Any perceived advantage from being one of his close relatives would have quickly evaporated as things unfolded. All we can be sure about is that he wasn't any worse than Hitler or Stalin but probably wasn't as nice as Antoninus Pius. The truth lies somewhere in between.

 

I think it's where the answer is (at leat a light upon the answer)

Politics as we see it nowadays in so called civilized countries is made of television debates, supporters, polls and elections.

In those days, the best way to get rid of a competitor was to have them (him, most times) killed one way or another. Any reason a ruler would have to kill someone was a good one : who would come to him and say "Ahem, sorry to apologize, Master, but I think you did it wrong this time !"

Any young fellow too close to the throne is someone who either will kill you some day or be killed by you. Then, when you need a good reason, it's easy to find one

Q