Anonymous student
History 101- 8:00
Grade estimate: A
Michael Grant
Constantine The Great: The Man and His Times
Published 1993
0
Throughout the history of the western civilization the world has had many ambitious
leaders. One of the most prominent of those leaders was Constantine “the Great”. Constantine
had influence on Christians and Pagans alike, he brought both peace and destruction, and unity
and disorder. In Michael Grant's Constantine the Great: The Man and His Times, he argues that
Constantine was a man of ambitions and he was willing to become an oppressor and a murderer
to fulfill those ambitions.
The first reason showing that Constantine was a man of ambitions was his first move to
abolish the Tetrarchy (rule of four) established by the emperor Diocletian. Constantine’s first act
was his claim he was a descendent of the emperor Claudius 2nd Gothicus. Grant pointed out
Constantine’s pronouncement reveals that he was prepared to disregard Diocletian’s main
principal of a none hereditary rule in the Tetrarchy. Upon his installment as Augustus of the
West and defeating both Maxentius and his father Maximian, Constantine moved forward with
his plot by conquering Licinius (who was Augustus of the east) twelve years later. Because of
Constantine’s superior military skills, Licinius surrendered at his capital Nicomedia and was
stripped of his title Augustus of the East and was murdered by Constantine shortly after. This
very act of defeating Licinius, made Constantine the sole Roman Emperor. A single Emperor had
not reigned since two decades prior when Diocletian established a Tetrarchy.
Michael Grant in this book also stressed the oppressiveness of taxes that Constantine
established to support him in his ambitions. As with every emperor before and after Constantine,
they laid heavy tax burdens upon the citizens of the empire in order to satisfy the empires needs.
He created severe taxation policies not only for his own extravagance but for the army, court,
official posts and the Christian church. The Chrysargyron gold and silver tax implemented
during his reign was very severe and impacted every citizen that couldn’t bribe their way out of
1
the taxation. Grant points out the historian Zosimus’ view on this tax, “He [Constantine] imposed
a tribute on gold and silver on all who engaged in commerce, even the pettiest tradesman in the
towns; wretched courtesans even were not exempt from the tax. As the fatal time approached, all
the towns were seen in tears and grief. Mothers sold their children… obliged to obtain by this
sorry trade the money which the collectors of the chrysargyron came to snatch from them.” Grant
explains that Constantine was caught unaware that his taxation policies he implemented, fully
contradicted his ambitions of his large empire by reducing agriculture and economy and
therefore his own works.
Another reason pointed out in the book that Constantine was an ambitious man was his
responsibility for the murder of his “friends”. Being an absolute autocrat, Constantine believed
he could kill anyone. Among his long list of victims is first, his friend Sopater, who was a pagan
philosopher. Constantine had killed Sopater because another senior administrative official was
jealous of his power. Secondly, his eldest son Crispus who was an outstanding military leader on
the field was killed because Constantine was convinced by his wife Fausta that he was plotting to
take the throne. And surprisingly Constantine also executed his wife Fausta due to a guilty
conscience plagued by his son’s death. These examples showed that Constantine believed he
could and would do anything to stay in power.
Constantine saw that his power he had worked so hard to earn would soon crumble
without a unified empire. Constantine was able to see outside the box on the religion of
Christianity. Seeing Christianity spread like a wildfire and its previous enemies come to an end,
he realized he could use it for the empires benefit. By putting Christianity on his side by
eliminating persecution, building churches and exempting land tax on the church he was able to
do so. Grant also explained that Constantine could well have believed in Christianity as he says
2
that God gave him power and in turn continued to support Christianity throughout his whole
reign.
One of the great strengths of this book that I found effective in presenting Grant’s thesis
was the unbiased approach of sharing both sides of the story. In this book Grant is able to show
both the Christian and Pagan historian views showing a good light or a bad light on
Constantine’s reign and character. As a reader you are able to take an analysis of either side of
Constantine or even both because of the insight of the two types of historians and the values each
have.
Another helpful strength incorporated into this book is that Michael Grant was able to
elaborate on the history before and after Constantine to get the whole picture and the reasons that
Constantine was put up with the challenges and success in his reign. For instance when Grant
was explaining about Constantine’s tax policies, he reviewed Diocletian’s previous tax policies
and economic struggles which Constantine added to and consequently made worse. Another
example was when Constantine was coming into power of Augustus of the West, Grant was
thoroughly able to describe the events that took place to get both he and his enemies to this point
of his reign.
The last strength that I found was Grant’s ability to back the views he showed readers.
One of the ways he was able to do that was by incorporating ancient coinage as another
authentication of the history he presented. For example, the ancient coinage would state “BEATA
TRAQVILLITAS”
meaning victory brought peace, or they would state “VICTOR OMNIVM GENTIVM” which
meant Conquer of all races. The coinage not only showed some of the current events but showed
what Constantine wanted to instill in the people. As Grant points out, his coins and medallions
offer a wide diversity of types and inscriptions showing what he wanted his people to think he
3
had done and what his policies were, and putting forward the ostensible keynotes of his actions.
This addition to the historian’s accounts of ancient times is a good tool to help readers view both
those events and the character of Constantine.
Aside from the book’s strengths it also had weaknesses. I found that this book though he
was able to incorporate both sides of the story it somewhat distracts the reader from grasping
Grant’s thesis fully. Though as I’ve said, that it helped having more than one view of
Constantine’s life, because it really degraded his thoughts on the thesis he was implying.
Also, one of the parts about this book that would have been very helpful in understanding
Constantine would have been effective use of maps. Especially during the first part of the book
which talks about Constantine’s civil wars and foreign wars, it became quite difficult to
understand where all of these events were happening. If in this book he was able to incorporate
routes showing where battles were fought and the progression of the empire then it would have
been a very good resource for the reader.
Finally, the last weakness I found was the structure of the book. Although, I liked how in
each chapter Grant was able to concentrate on one topic, he did not connect the effect or the
outcome of the chapter had on the other chapters. It was somewhat disappointing that there
wasn’t enough connection between government affairs to military affairs or Christianity and the
effects it had on war and taxes and vice versa. Also in each chapter it started over with
Constantine’s life making it less of a biography and more of a philosophical historical lesson. If
Grant would have made more of a connection with each chapter it would have been a better help
for me and its readers.
4
Apart from its weaknesses Grant wrote a very good book concerning Constantine the
Great. He was able to present his thesis in an unbiased way, presenting the facts and helping the
readers thought process and helping them decide for themselves.
5