Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Heliodromus, post: 8057092, member: 120820&quot;]Seems reasonable. <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie2" alt=";)" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /></p><p><br /></p><p>I didn&#039;t mean to dismiss the accomplishment of having managed to rule for so long, when so many had failed to do that, but this seems more a matter of competence (and not upsetting the army) rather than greatness. Diocletian had done the same too. I&#039;d hardly give Constantine any credit for having formed a &quot;dynasty&quot; .. all he really left behind was a chaotic mess that only resolved when Constantius II was left only man standing.</p><p><br /></p><p>My main argument was that I think Christianity would have thrived regardless of his involvement, although of course he was highly engaged. It&#039;s interesting to consider would Christanity have taken a different form if it had emerged into the mainstream under a different emperor, and without his particular touch, but it&#039;s hard to imagine that the infighting would not have eventually settled itself and some doctrinal consensus emerged.</p><p><br /></p><p>As far as the growth rate - birthrate is expressed as an annual percentage of the population, which is again an exponential rate (# births dependent on # parents). The thing with an exponential growth rate is that the numbers start small and then get extremely large with no change in growth rate. It took 300 years to go from close to 0% of the population to 10%, and in the early years that would have been small gains in absolute numbers, but when you&#039;ve reached the point of 5 million Christian parents, the absolute numbers are going to increase much more rapidly. It just happened to be Constantine on watch when it had gotten to this point. Maybe a different emperor (had Constantine not emerged), say Maximinus II, would have fought Christianity for another 20 years, but given the nature of it&#039;s growth it seems continued resistance was futile.</p><p><br /></p><p>Of course the growth rate won&#039;t have been exactly the same for 3-400 years, and in later years there may have been a &quot;tipping point&quot; where there was less resistance to pagan-Christian marriage and the rate grew.</p><p><br /></p><p>There is some evidence, which I currently forget, that when Constantine initially started work expanding Byzantium he wasn&#039;t intending to make it a new capital (not that he ever admitted it, despite Constantinople gaining it&#039;s own senate), but his plans changed and expanded after his frosty reception in Rome at his vicennalia in 327 AD. Given the mess and divided empire (split between his sons, Hannibilianus and Delmatius) he left behind, it also seems somewhat down to chance that it was Constantinople, and not Rome, that &quot;won&quot; as the capital. Perhaps down to Constantius II being the eventual sole survivor rather than Constantine II (Gaul) or Constans (Italy). Could Constantine have guessed this would be how it panned out?[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in