Roman History 27 - Constantine The Great Pt. 1 308-313 AD

This is from the podcast series The History Of Rome by Mike Duncan.
He currently does The Revolutions podcast.
www.revolutionspodcast.com/

[@WeSeGe]

I always listen to these videos when i wanna go to sleep, the tone in which he speaks is relaxing, always on the same pace, comfortable, and really enjoyable to listen to. Can't count sheep but i can count roman emperors.

[@Wallyworld30]

G. A. Same here. I’ve tried it with Dan Carlin and his big emotes kept waking me up. In the middle of the Knight I switched it back to Mike Duncan quick.

[@terrykrueger]

I didn't realize that I had so much company. The only problem is that when I wake up I usually have questions about a part that I slept through. "I wonder if he stopped calling himself Augustus?"

[@josephclark7814]

Same.

[@saseenkawzally5909]

G. A. Same

[@bill9989]

@@saseenkawzally5909 Same. It's gotten to the point where I even "listen" when I take a daytime nap.

[@RoboBoddicker]

In Diocletian's defense, you really can't beat the Balkans for a good cabbage.

[@bananian]

My cabbages!

[@mjonhouston]

I wish he had decreed that henceforth cabbages would be known as "fruit"., :-) ,...It's good to be the emperor!

[@brunixdsb]

DOTH THOU EVEN PRAISE BRASSICA PRIME

[@john1272]

He was going vegan to heal himself...with raw cabbage.

[@EinFelsbrocken]

@@brunixdsb BRASSICA PRIME!! Now thats a flashback! 😆

[@histguy101]

"And Constantine wasted No time in looking for a pretext for war" (waits ten years)

[@EinFelsbrocken]

Better wait 10 y for a war and be well prepared; than being plunged into it after 2 without setup 😁

[@EinFelsbrocken]

@King Italus Fuck off; "kINg". You call me jackass for writing an inoffensive statement? Just look at your reaction to it; KING 😂😂 Ugh, the nerve.

[@brendanquinn6894]

Mike Duncan is a pagan. None of the non believers understand him.

[@histguy101]

@@brendanquinn6894 help me understand

[@rebeccahaines9839]

Love the humor in this episode. "Look at me, Maximian...". The thought of Constantine "lurking ominously" like some kind of Lovecraftian nightmare made me laugh.

[@HVLLOWS1999]

Diocletian "My Cabbages!"

[@Nonamearisto]

Constantine's arch was decorated with spoila, decorations taken from older temples and monuments. That's why a labarum doesn't show up.

[@davidbryden7904]

This is my current favorite historical series. I've finally got a feel for Roman history, even though I wrote a "report?"(in 9th grade)on the 'Rise and fall of...' which earned me a B+. Thank you, good sir 🙏

[@gregoryking8085]

🎉

[@P1Gman]

I've been listening to these on and off for years. It's taken me 3 years, I think, to get this far. So much info to take in. Love this podcast.

[@Paddythelaad]

I started 5 months ago, its a regular go to for me when cooking or in the gym.

[@TheJbarrett]

Excellent again!

[@paulrosa6173]

The Basillica of Maxentius is not one of the largest roman buildings. The baths of Caracalla and Diocletian are. And that tripartite cross vaulting - that is gone in all but Diocletian's bath, now Santa Maria degli Angeli, is actually a copy of those in the bath complexes. The dome of the baths of Caracalla was also , I was surprised to learn on a Kanopy lecture series about ancient technology, as wide as that over the Pantheon. And contrary to what may have become a gross misimpression of roman bathing establishments - maybe due to the small bath construction featured on a PBS documentary many years ago, the water was changed frequently. PBS was just stupid to leave out a drain. Apparently the attendants of the big baths could change the water rapidly and refill just as rapidly from the 100,000s of thousands of gallons of reserve water they stored on site. The romans would not have been so stupid as to want to bathe in foetid water. Maybe in Romanian orphanages during the reign of Caucescu (I can't recall how to spell that mega crook's name) they would bathe a few dozen children in water that looked like sewage. But there was an aquaduct built just for the baths of Caracalla. I think the baths were the most impressive and usefull things the romans ever built and the kanopy lecture on ancient technology is really worth the watch. When the baths were finally abandoned because the aquaducts were broken by one of the invading tribes, they fell into disrepair but after over 200 years of continuous use. It took Europeans until the late 18th century to really provide public bathing facilities again. But there were something like hot tubs in some medievil towns. I read something online years ago that stated that one invading tribe from scandinavia didn't like the climate of Italy but liked the bath complexes. They went home and built the first saunas based on that idea. I don't know how true that story is.

[@histguy101]

Bathhouses of all sizes were a national pastime in medieval Europe. They were in every city. I've heard Paris had thousands of them. There were even bathhouse restaurants. They fell out of popularity, and in many places were outright banned in the 14th and 15th century during the Renaissance (because of the bubonic plague outbreaks). The aquaducts in Rome were cut by the Goths during the Gothic war, but several were repaired afterwards. Most other larger cities had at least one or two aquaducts, such as Neapolis.

[@paulrosa6173]

@@histguy101 - I've seen drawings of some of the bathing establishments in 18th century Paris. You can see them in Diderot's Encyclopedia. But the only mention of medieval bathing establishments I've ever heard of seemed to suggest they were small. The surviving bath complex in Bath, England seemed to be mostly from 18th century although built over the earlier structures.. But I have read that it was easier to bath in the middle ages than it was by the time of Versailles. All that piping under the park and hardly any of it indoors. One thing I found very funny was someth9ing I read years ago about the invading tribes. Some band from the Scandinavian regions actually invaded as far as Italy but didn't like the climate, perhaps. But they liked the bathing technology they discovered there and took home the idea. That may be the origin of the sauna?

[@joeguerra8435]

Finally. I made it to Constantine the Great and the beginning of the Christian Roman Empire. Prior to Constantine the Great I simply had no idea how little I knew about the Roman Empire. Now for the beginning of the big break up as The Roman Empire splits up into The Holy Roman Empire and The Byzantine Empire. As if there wasn’t already enough drama up to this point.

[@thomasjamison2050]

My impression of the battle before Rome was that Constantine realized that the army defending Rome included a great many Christians and he concluded that they would therefore be less willing to fight his soldiers if they had a Christian symbol on their shields.

[@vladalex2177]

Maximunus Daia. Let Apollo rest you’re noble bones forever. Defender of the true Rome. Roma Victor

[@Insectoid_]

Your* :) otherwise it’d be you are noble bones.

[@skeletalbassman1028]

I honestly can't get behind how rosy Mike Duncan is on Diocletian. Ultimately, the rise of serfdom played a huge role in regionalizing the empire and splitting the sense of common purpose that held it together.

[@histguy101]

If by "serf" you mean the coloni, they existed before Diocletian. By the time Diocletian came to power, most of Italy was being farmed by tenant farmers working the land of huge estates. And even after him, there was still the distinction of free coloni and nonfree coloni, and the free coloni could move around and work for whom they wanted to work for. We can't assume that a system is all bad and never beneficial throughout all of its development, or that the serfdom of the late middle ages is equal to the serfdom of centuries earlier, or the colonus of over a millennium earlier, or that it was the same everywhere, and a universal policy.

[@rustyshackleford2719]

Same. Diocletian is one of the worst emperors in my view but I suppose it all comes down to worldview.

[@davi1415]

You have to consider the fact that these people lived in a whole different time period, holding a different worldview that we consider to be horrible, but may be good to them. And circumstances might have made his policy seemed good at the time. Mike Duncan might have judged Diocletian based on how much he extended the Empire’s longevity and how he pretty much reestablished order after it has endured the crisis of the third century. His policy may have caused the empire to be split in half, but that was because his successor continued his policies rather than creating new ones.

[@KramYEET]

Ikr he seems to praise Diocletian for steering Rome through turbulence but brushes aside the fact that Diocletian just put his feet up and allowed the plane to nose dive by giving power to several power hungry glory hounds.

[@mike-gn1wi]

@@KramYEET you can’t blame a guy for having a proactive plan to stabilize the empire with an actual system that just didn’t pan out. Even if it failed, he is really the only emperor that tried to establish a stable succession to stop the constant bloodshed and power struggle that had tore the empire apart.

[@AshThunor]

I love how pretty much all the people discussed were from Serbia. But I guess they weren't Serbs, since the Serbs invaded later.

[@thatguy6919]

Serbia does not share any land with Dacia Moesia or Thrace, if you mean the more general term of Illyrica then consider how many countries are contained in that area, they werent all from Serbia in fact I dont think any of them

[@koksalceylan1088]

Romen Emperors were not Serbing any Slaves.

[@John-ti2xr]

Ash Thunor The slavic migrations hadnt happened yet so they were whatever the native illyric peoples were. Or maybe not since the cosmopolitan nature of the empire moved people all over.

[@ilionilion2693]

made in Serbia born in my please(Naisus)

[@eumeswil5672]

More like Albanians (of Illyrian extraction), if you asked me. Most 'Serbs' would nowadays probably define themselves as either Albanians or Aromanians/Vlachs, given the Proto-Slavic invasion (e. g. genetic admixture & language shift) had never happened.

[@kerryannegarnick1846]

The way I always interpreted the painting of the Chi Rho was that he painted it on his own or one of his soldier's shield and then instructed them to do the same. Obviously, we'll never know for certain, but that is what I feel is most likely because I think the sources would have said if he had just painted it on the front of his front row of troops. Of course, the sources are likely somewhat propagandistic, but the problem is that we'll almost certainly never find an intact Roman shield from this era with a Chi Rho on it, so we'll never know for certain and we just have to go with what makes the most sense to us. The reason why I think he did do it was because it was such a genius move in regards to improving his troops' morale, so I feel like he would have had them do it.

[@HVLLOWS1999]

The Battle of the Spot, near the Spot where the Milvian Bridge had been, but where their was now a temporary pontoon bridge. = Battle of the Milvian Bridge.

[@mariamolly3637]

Soothsayers: "The enemies of Rome are gonna die today Lord Maxentius!" Goes to war and dies Maxentius: "Am I a joke to you?"

[@tommyodonovan3883]

*"If you go to war you will destroy a great empire"*

[@mrchristian0457]

Very entertaining way of teaching. Thank you for this video! Admittedly it's an assignment, not out of my own will, but I think turning history into a story/narrative and not a list of facts and bullet points is a phenomenal way to convey history. The humor is really engaging. Honestly if I have time I plan to watch more of these videos.

[@gregoryking8085]

🎉

[@Tactical_DZ]

Incredible.

[@cryptoipc6560]

The analysis of Constantine's motives for adopting nominal Christianity is quite good. But it must be remembered that he was only a nominal Christian, not an actual disciple of Jesus Christ. Clearly, undeniably not a disciple of Jesus Christ, and therefore more of a Mohammed than a Peter or a Paul. He was a spiritually conscious renegade who wanted to remake Christianity in the image of a different Christ, a Christ who came to establish an earthly kingdom, not the one who came to build a purely spiritual kingdom. He rejected the real Jesus who declared "My Kingdom is not of this world," and he invented a false Jesus who says, "Let's make America - I mean Rome - great again."

[@guillermofiscal4897]

Can you give me some sources? I am currently studying Constantine and trying to figure out his mysterious story, and whether he was a true Christian, or if he adopted Christianity for alternate means

[@matheus.bueno47]

@@guillermofiscal4897 This is sort of a theory that goes around, biggest reason for this is some of Constantine's art being influenced by the Sun God. Truth is, the idea of a single God was heavily connected to the Sun God, Sol Invictus, at the time, so it wasn't anything uncommon. Besides, new Emperors sometimes protrayed themselves with Sun symbols to bring an image Apollo, god of youthfulness. However, later on Constantine's reign, he has been protrayed with well known Christian symbols, most tend to forget that. Because of those conclusions, people think that Constantine wanted to create another religion, maybe around himself, and mix a bunch of symbolism from other monotheistic religions, that wasn't exactly true. I have read a couple of books on Constantine, in my view, he was very much a Christian, particularly later on his life, if he wasn't, he wouldn't be advocating for church councils like The Council of Nicea. The idea of universalism has been around since Claudius Gothicus and Aurelian days, so his portrayal with the Sun is not something new. And his many works of art and architecture later on his reign show his devotion to the Christian God. I personally think there are 2 major reasons why Constantine converted. The first one is a immediate response on his part (probably after having talked with his father) to the multiple persecutions on Christians during the 3rd century. He probably saw and realized it cause more harm than good, and no unity was going to come from that. His father Constantius, during his reign as Caesar, did not persecute Christians, or any other religion for that matter, and it seemed to be a good policy. The second major reason is this great opportunity that opens up for Constantine, to be the head of a movement of universalism, a new wave, that would bring unity and legitimacy to his reign. Like, Diocletian, Aurelian and Claudius, Constantine would make sure his throne is secure, by increasing his legitimacy, being one of the leaders of a new religion. There is also a third reason, maybe Constantine converted because he truly saw God, and thought it was the true faith. If you would like to know more about this, I recommend the book: Constantine, Divine Emperor of The Christian Golden Age. It talks SPECIFICALLY about Constantine's relantioship with faith and religious symbolism in his empire. Sorry for the long post!

[@ritterlott9914]

How about Constantine ' s grew as he grew older. The Trump reference was awful.

[@histguy101]

@@guillermofiscal4897 Some Christians don't like Constantine. It comes from the more anti-catholic movements of protestantism, such as the anibaptists, Baptists, and really takes its form of modern rhetoric in the 7th Day Adventist movement, and even the Jehovah's Witnesses.

[@Wallyworld30]

Christus Regnet Every Christian should be grateful to Constantine, for not for him they would likely be making sacrifices to Mars and Jupiter.

[@EverythingNetwork1]

WOULD ONLY BE RIGHT TO UPLOAD PART 2 ...WE HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR A ROMAN LECTURE FOR OVER A WEEK...THANKS

[@michelbel58]

The Sunday Law statement by Emperor Constantine.. -The law issued by the Emperor Constantine on the seventh of March, A.D. 321, regarding a day of rest from labor, reads thus: “All judges and city people and the craftsmen shall rest upon the venerable day of the sun. Country people, however, may freely attend to the cultivation of the fields, because it frequently happens that no other days are better adapted for planting the grain in the furrows or the vines in trenches. So that the advantage given by heavenly providence may not for the occasion of a short time perish.” -Joseph Cullen Ayer, A Source Book for Ancient Church History (New York: Charles Scribner’s sons, 1913), div. 2, per. 1, ch. 1, sec. 59, g, pp. 284, 285. -The latin original is in the Codex Justiniani (Codex of Justinian), Lib. 3, Title 12, Lex 3. -The law is given in Latin and in English translation in Philip Schaff’s History of the Christian Church, Vol. 3, 3d period, ch. 7, sec. 75, p. 380, footnote 1. -James A. Hessey’s Bampton Lectures, Sunday, Lecture 3, par. 1, 3d ed., Murray’s printing of 1866, p. 58. -See discussion in Schaff, as above referred to; in Albert Henry Newman, A Manual of Church History (Philadelphia: the American Baptist Publication Society, printing of 1933), rev. ed., vol. 1, pp. 305-307.

[@Kyle_Schaff]

Hey, my last name appears in the sources lol

[@michelbel58]

@@Kyle_Schaff Your right amazing 😀

[@egillskallagrimson5879]

That "good" meaning of the Chi Rho actually makes me think he pointed to Sol Invictus. At the very core of Neoplatonism you can find Hermetism, and the discourse of neoplatonism about the Absolute the supreme God is clearly a Hermetic construct. It is stated in the Corpus Hermeticum that Good is the only God, and that what peoples call good of the other gods is the manifestation of the "Good" / the true Absolute god. This thinking was around even before the times of Aurelian and pagan philosophers were trying to articulate a system of belief that reconcile all sincretic pagan cults into one more precise religion, but evidence do not suggest this was an attempt to create an organized religion, more the work of people of faith in the pagan side to get to something meaningful. And yes Christians seem to get the same point from the Hermetic teachings through neoplatonism. You can tell that most of the future controversy of the nature of the father and the son, the holy trinity and all obscure topics that are matter of conflict inside Christianity starts when christians adopt neoplatonich ideas that enrich the metaphysics of christianity and begin to discuss how to wrap them all together. For the 4th century already christianity was in bad shape in spiritual terms. The religion was on the rise but the original teachings of Christ and his disciples was beginning to fade in the mist of time. That is the esoteric teachings of Jesus was deluded or forgotten and thus the need of finding new meaning to sustain the faithful. It is at this time that christians develop their theology with convoluted meanings and metaphysical concepts and the stablishment of a dogma.

[@armyknightly100]

1:27 = (THE DOUBLE CROSSING)

[@retiredcolonel6492]

I just can’t get past the issue that Rome had a history of vain glory men who put their needs above those of the empire. To think that this could be permanently changed through the Tetarchy system just baffles me. It’s truly a “duh” moment in Roman history. Still Diocletian following throu with Claudius Gothicus and Valerian, restored the Empire and gave the West another 200 years and the East another 1400 years.

[@john_smith_john]

I think it's a great shame that these videos don't include all the attached photos referenced.

[@Northern5tar]

Wish I could see what the world would have looked like today if Constantine hadn't adopted "Christianity"...

[@Wallyworld30]

NorthernStar I imagine the American dollar bill would say in the gods we trust. Otherwise exactly the same.

[@tehutibrim594]

Read up on Mithraism which was C the 2nd true religion it may help u draw a visionary 2020 world from. Good reading fellas

[@Peter-lx3ok]

@@tehutibrim594 Any book in particular?

[@dgiacomo]

It would be a sad dark world. Christ brings light, hope and salvation to Mankind.

[@freyasslain2203]

no way was constantine gonna allow maximian to live he just postponed the death like he did with licinius and his son, and crispus, constantine's first born.i mean, he murdered his, own son

[@histguy101]

Well, with Crispus, he didn't wait, or the people guarding Crispus didn't wait.

[@StartaleTV]

1:39:00 "Killing women and children was not a nice thing to do, but clearly, Licinius had read his Macchiavelli" Didn't know Licinius was a time traveler also :P

[@Wallyworld30]

Machiavelli is brought up 3 or 4 times during the history of Rome. Clearly Caesar missed that day of class but Augustus read it. Sulla and Marius read it as well.

[@noanyabizniz4333]

​@@Wallyworld30You are unfathomably stupid.

[@j.adickey2002]

sardonic wit? rather than a literal factoid?in less than a day, there is a new DOCTOR WHO episode, that will air on DISNEY+ ....if time travelers are sloppy with their reading material... ;) ....o.k

[@j.adickey2002]

1:28:00 to 1:35:00

[@lazarusthehumblecritic8390]

So I'm just wondering if you're going to touch on whether Constantine's Mother was actually a Christian in secret according to some. As far as Constantine being a Christian, the more I study on it the more I see him as not different than any other true Roman he did what he needed to gain power. His mixing and weaving of Mithraism, along with Sol Invictus, then Christianity ending finally with him(by his own hand) being seen as the centre piece of worship as Christ on earth and as Apollo himself. Nothing new under the sun(no pun).

[@Ali-jx9qo]

His mother was a devout Christian ✝️ & regardless of what any Christian says, Constantine was never a believer by any means; rather he was a shrewd political player who saw the writing on the wall (along with the fanaticism inherent in the ever growing group of worshippers of Christ) & utilised religion along with his supposed conversion as a powerful mechanism for consolidating & cementing control of the empire & the subjects residing therein.

[@polkka7797]

I just see that he ended up believing it was Christianity that won’t him the throne and after that was a full convert

[@thurst6510]

I have been to the Arch of Constantine. Strange he was supposed to be a strong Christian however his arch has zero Christian symbols but many pagan symbols.

[@rayoski241]

Constantine's arch was decorated with spoila, decorations taken from older temples and monuments. That's why a labarum doesn't show up. someone posted that in the comment section

[@thurst6510]

@@rayoski241 Okay, however I still find it hard to believe that not one Christian symbol exist on the ark. If he was a promoter of Christianity you think there would be at least one Christian symbol.

[@rayoski241]

@@thurst6510 that is true, we can only speculate...it just seems odd that Constantine would use a persecuted minority religion such as Christianity.

[@thurst6510]

@@rayoski241 The story of Constantine seeing a Christian symbol prior to the Battle of the Milvian Bridge only came out after the Edict of Milan which was years after the battle. I'm not saying he did not promote Christianity, I am only recognizing how strange his life was interwoven between paganism and Christianity.

[@Figgy_23]

It’s also worth adding that the Senate commissioned it, not Constantine himself

[@yvelaine]

Flashpoint history is good for this too .

[@PrincipledUncertainty]

Whatever happened to Timaeus? I haven't seen anything from him in years. Is he OK?

[@jacerivera7907]

History

[@AngelRoseAngel1980]

🙏

[@armyknightly100]

1:27 = (MR GREAT)

[@437cosimo]

Not until 20 years after it happened to his historian.

[@charliebrown5755]

All emperors thought the gods or god was own their side

[@klausbrinck2137]

it´s not "kai-ro" but "he-ro", the initials of "christos", written in greek as "xristos", so it´s XP (he-ro)!!!

[@-timaeus-9781]

I know he says Kai rho, but it's not He-Rho either. It is pronounced Khi-Rho. Like a Key + Row.

[@klausbrinck2137]

@@-timaeus-9781 christos simply means anointed, or litteraly "having received the charisma" there is many related greek words ( as "charisma" too) and X is always pronounced as "he", straight, it´s impossible to miss the correct pronounciation. also in every not-related word, X is always pronounced as "he", straight. for the K-sound, Greeks have, after all, the letter K itself. there isnt any consonant -abundance/doubling in greek, each consonant always corresponds to a single and unique sound. ansnobody can tell if that wasnt the case also 1, 2, 3, or 4k years ago.

[@-timaeus-9781]

@@klausbrinck2137 You are simply wrong about the pronunciation. It is Kh, same as it is in Hebrew and German. There is no letter for H in Greek unless you count the aspiration mark in front of some words, such as Hades which is written as 'Ades in the Greek.

[@klausbrinck2137]

@@-timaeus-9781 kzbin.info/www/bejne/iIKpZ5eQj9aLa6s 7:40 u can never beat a Greek in greek pronunciation, it´s more like that foreigners get it wrong...

[@-timaeus-9781]

@@klausbrinck2137 Ancient Greek isn't modern Greek ;)

[@virochanaasura8521]

“Regnum meum non est de hoc mundo” vs. “In Hoc Signo Vinces” I have never had a very high aesthetic opinion of the Hebrew language compared to Greek or Latin and I actively dislike Aramaic. It should then be no surprise that my favorite scene of the film ‘The Passion of the Christ’ was the exchange between Jesus and Pilate in Latin. It was also the perfect contrast between the sphere of materiality and spirit in which transcendental ideals such as ‘Truth’ become clouded when man is alienated from the metaphysical by his pursuit of power. Jesus’ Kingdom is that of Spirit and while this scene may not have been historical, it is consistent with his authentic teachings as reflected in the Q-Source and other legends. Satan, after all, offered Jesus the kingdoms of the world and he rejected these transitory forms in favor of the Eternal (Matthew 4:8). This was a lesson to his followers. But when the corporate church was faced with this same temptation from an imperial wolf’s paw in the sheepskin of faith it grasped the hand and the vision of Spirit became obscured by a Roman shield painted with a magical Christian talisman. Jesus became Jupiter. The hand was that of Constantine. Who was this Christian saint and “13th apostle” (which would displace Paul, interestingly enough - or was he another Judas) whose feast day is May 21? Who was this man who set the Classical World on the course to destructive cultural revolution and economic ruin? Oh yes, he was ‘great:’ a great friend and godfather to Odoacer. He was a child murderer like Herod who had his 13 year old nephew killed and thus bound his neck with a millstone, according to Jesus (Luke 17:2). He was also a murderer who had his own son and heir killed in a fit of paranoid pique and then his wife. Where was forgiving them “seven times seventy” (Matthew 18:22) or at the least the moderation to discern the truth of events, as a Christian ruler should (Proverbs 25:2)? He was a manifest hypocrite and oath breaker who made a public show of clemency with a trumpet in the marketplace (Luke 21:1-4) to defeated foes but had them secretly killed later. He was a thief who plundered pagan temples (Exodus 20:15) and gave the money to the hierarchical church which made Christians look like Gothic raiders. He was a tyrant who used the force of law to impose a cult followed by roughly 10% of the population of his people upon the 90% (imagine if Islam tried that in Europe today) and thus those seeking imperial favor or legal privilege flooded into the church: hardly true converts called by the Holy Spirit. Christians had always been diverse, and he use imperial power to pick a winner at the Council of Nicea and impose his opinions with threats of exile to which many buckled. Thus, if you had a different view on a minor theological point your property would be taken by the government and shared with the church while you were made homeless. Where did Jesus teach that, I wonder? This man who demanded he be called ‘sacred’ and ‘divine’ made great show of his claims that archangels told him where to place the boundaries of his new city (this is projecting the Roman God Terminus, a form of Lord Ganesha, onto them) and that Jesus appointed him his warlord. Now where was that office in the Sermon on the Mount? In short, he came to “steal, kill and destroy” (John 10:10) which sounds oddly familiar. Where does one find in his biography an example of the authentic teachings of the historical Jesus? None of his actions in power reflect the Kingdom of Spirit of which Jesus taught. Even the churches he built at public expense were part of an economic program that exasperated poverty and increased indentured servitude. Perhaps he thought since the poor were ‘blessed’ (Luke 6:20) he should make more of them. He certainly did. The Jews said ‘Give us Barabbas’’ while the church said ‘Give us Pilate.’ Where was the Christian prophet who warned, “This is an antichrist?” If there was one, killed or in exile is the answer.

[@tehutibrim594]

Quite long winded but an interesting read

[@alanpennie8013]

@@tehutibrim594 No Christian thought Constantine was a bad person because he wasn't a bad person, even if he wasn't a specially good one either.

[@tehutibrim594]

@@alanpennie8013 that's possible being he made em relevant, but he was really a murderer, do u kno how many family members he killed starting with his mother

[@kanyekubrick5391]

57:00

[@violetrose415]

1:40:49

[@joshportie]

The donatists the catholic church slaughtered those ones? Let's see how this part is spun.

[@classiclife7204]

"MaxiMINNNNus" ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[@Bless-the-Name]

Constantine is the man who paganized the Christian faith - which fulfilled the prophesy of apostasy. He established the Catholic Church where the foolish embrace the light bearer while the wise embrace the light.

[@Bless-the-Name]

Alpha and Omega Adam and Eve were told they can partake of any tree except the one that has knowledge of good and evil - so we know two things: 1) They had consciousness prior to partaking the forbidden fruit - because they understood what they were told to avoid. 2) They were allowed to obtain knowledge - because the other trees did not bare fruit that contained the mixture of lies and truth. They were (basically) warned to avoid anything that causes delusion - so we know the creator genuinely cares for His creation. After Adam and Eve partook of the forbidden fruit: they realised they were naked - which means they became aware they have a defiant attitude toward the creator (with a sense of vulnerability that took effect) and, thus, felt shame. This caused consciousness, present in man, to become corrupt which then allowed him to exploit the opportunity to assert dominion over others he considers inferior. This is why God told Eve, "Your desire shall be to your husband and he shall 'rule' over you." She was, after all, the weaker vessel - so she would become subject to the misogynistic attitude of those lacking in understanding. Therefore, it is attitude that has been evolving or devolving through the ages: and consciousness, being a composite of attitude, has forged institutions that have galvanized class within hierarchical structure. This situation was exasperated by a class of angels called "the Watchers" who left their eternal estate to found early civilization and establish religions that exalt their own interests. These interests include the liberation of lust - where they exist as a demonic possession in those who embrace the assertion of authority over others. Their religions (including false Christianity) depend upon a faith in the mystery, rather than Yahshua, to draw the unsuspecting into the delusion of thinking hierarchy is a vital component of civilization. For this reason: secular society cannot function without religion: and, as you should have guessed by now, religion is not sanctioned by the creator - so we know civilization, past and present, bares no resemblance to the (prophesied) Kingdom of Heaven. Yahshua told us not to get angry with another nor lust upon another - because these (attitudes), being sin in the heart, are the manifestation of one's assertion of authority over others. ...and sin (delusion) is when a person seeks to justify wicked behaviour as righteous. Yahshua showed us the eternal estate is available to those who practice humility - which is to say: the body of flesh, we have, allows us to develop a faith that facilitates a return to perfection. The correct attitude will facilitate greater hermeneutic understanding: and this can adjust conscious awareness - but salvation comes to those who acknowledge the authority of Yahshua (in faith). He told us to love one another as He loved us - so the Father in Heaven can see He loves the Father. Bless 💖 the Name The Three Pillars lnkd.in/e8NKKpb

[@stonedwalljack9276]

You sound like a jew XD

[@frankvandorp2059]

Yet every time you read your bible, you read a bunch of scripture that the Catholic church decided for you were "inspired by God", while they threw out other scripture as "heretical". If the Catholic church is "foolish", why are you still reading the Bible they created?

[@stonedwalljack9276]

​@@frankvandorp2059 Read the stuff they took out

[@greatexpectations6577]

1:10:36 Ricketyantoon bridge. The most underrated joke ever.

[@gregoryking8085]

I got you 🎉

[@charliebrown5755]

Smacky

[@shigjete]

No transcript, no subtitles, this is so difficult to understand and follow by a non native English speaker :(

[@gregoryking8085]

🎉

[@charliebrown5755]

Likennyous lol

[@lazarusthehumblecritic8390]

Knock knock

[@neverstopz9045]

@@lazarusthehumblecritic8390 Ah good, you're home.

[@supermariosunshine64]

Derek, you better had stopped listening.

[@levent-erhan]

was it Derick of Thersites the Historian?

[@lukaszspychaj9210]

@@levent-erhan What does he have to do with this? I only know him because of his parody channel (Remarkable Republican)

[@paulrosa6173]

There is a story - another I can't remember where I read it - that a rousing sermon in the days when Christianity was official but still early on, caused a crowd to systematically demolish the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus. The building was built of solid white marble, apparently, and I'm sure the blocks were bought up by contractors. There are only a few decorative pieces left on the site. That might even be why there was a sermon that day. Rather like the Bastille, builders could use the material and having a city tear it down for free, or at least with a lot of volunteer patriotic labor is cheaper than having to pay for the deconstruction. The High Altar in St. Peters is actually one of the largest blocks taken from the temple of Jupiter. Something similar almost happened to Notre Dame during the revolution. The grand nephew of the Duke de Saint Simon, the courtier of the time of Louis XIV who wrote the famous memoirs, wanted to buy the Cathedral from the convention as a spec venture to take the lead from the roof. He and his partner didn't get the rights to the building and the building survived except for the destruction of it's windows and some of the statues. The stones of the Bastille were sold as construction material and souvenirs. The reason most of the roman ruins are in such bad condition is because very early on the roofing , usually bronze plates, sometimes gilded as for the Pantheon, was stripped. Bronze is coinage metal and any bronze probably went straight to a mint. Once the roof was gone, the masonry was exposed to the weather and fell apart quickly. Trees grow in the soft lime mortar and often light weight aggregate and freezing weather in the winter eats into it. BTW - I don't think it has been said in anything in mainstream media I've read about the cathedral of Notre Dame. I found out recently the French government owns and maintains every church building and the works of art they contain in France built prior to 1905. The Catholic Church is only a tenant in them. I was so surprised. If the Church had still owned them, the Cathedral could never be repaired. The church is not that wealthy. It's going to cost billions and at Government rates of pay and that will probably be a major boondoggle. I suspect the city of Rome also owns the churches of the city because the Commune di Roma was paying for the restoration of Santa Agnese in Agone in the Piazza Navona back in 1995, the last time I visited Rome. But I haven't been able to find anything more on the situation. The Church does own Vatican City. For years I heard that the Church should divest itself of it's wealth and that was even some of the animus behind the settlements for the rabid persecution of child molesters. Boy buggery is a problem that has been around since before the Roman empire and in far more cultures than Catholic or European. I even suspect it's a right of passage or sexual development. Actually, the church may not own the buildings in many European cities. The old cathedrals and churches are now antiques and too difficult for small congregations to maintain and they are always monuments to the cultural heritage of the cities that built and paid for them through tithes that had the force of civil law to enforce them. If anyone knows something about this I'd love to find out more.

[@deanmiller6463]

In France the churches are owned because of the French revolution. And I would say that the church is extremely rich, as you can see in germany where the church holds the largest holdings of land apart of the state. I would also suggest that being raped is not a rite of passage but a rather traumatic event.

[@paulrosa6173]

I can see all the maneuvering under the Tetrarchy taking place in the offices overlooking a casino in Vegas. These guys have a really degraded idea of the old roman ethic and everyone is on the make. It is a Trumpian casino and on the verge or bankruptcy and all the maneuvers smell of desperation. Everyone knows how to game the system. Constantine sounds just a bit too needful of too much respect. He doesn't sound so very different from the traditonal "bad emperors", actually. it sounds like Constantine is one of the mythical saints like St. Christopher that should have been removed from the list of the bonafide holy people. That was done maybe four Popes ago. But his sarcophagus is still in the Vatican and looks as fresh as the day it was carved. It is a massive porphyry thing at least 8 feet high. It also didn't seem to have a scratch or gouge on it. If the founder got to sit among the saints, I wonder if he has the foggiest idea what all the later ones were actually talking about? They might all have a very hard time understanding each other? But Constantine did issue the user's manual and assembled the texts so perhaps they just have to accept him by definition? And he must have loved the parable of the vineyard where the last one in gets the shortest hours and the best rate of pay per hour. As as catholic you weren't supposed to see it that way. Like Vegas casinos (I'm guessing) that may be seen as Union aggitation up there. Thanks to Mr. Duncan's presentation I can understand why Gibbon blamed the rise of Christianity on the collapse. The desire to die for the cause of the "glory" of the empire was slowly being transfered to the church and they really were just as vengeful and resentful as those crushed under the military burdens or the domination of Rome in its "glory" days. A man's rotting innards stunk up the city? Theres a trope too. No it didn't, they just couldn't or wouldn't repair or clean the drains anymore. There was no glory (and definitely no profit) to be had by spilling one's guts or treasure for the empire anymore than there is now for the spilling of blood for the maintenance of a variety of over priced politicians, entrenched elites or massive welfare states and expensive militray adventures. The ethic - if there ever really was a motivation one could really call ethics, was dead. I shouldn't talk, I'm sure, I need that stimulus check too. Actually I know I do but all the really important things that I need to do are so much more expensive. Keeping an ageing body alive is gaggingly expensive even if medicare pays for most. And I get constant mail asking for charitable contributions, that you have to do a little research about to make sutre they aren't scams. If I get to heaven, I'm going to snicker (maybe under my breath old senate style) giggle at Constantine and say - If you can do it anyone can?

[@TA-by9wv]

Take your meds plz

[@panocato1627]

PANAGIA MAZI MAS OLOUS PANTOTE

[@muricamarine9473]

Rome fucking lost it after decimus , period

[@richardmiranda640]

Vulgar words are off putting.

[@dgiacomo]

I am glad though Mike uses BC and AD, which is historically accurate and bit the made up way of marking time by the secularists and Politically Correct, “BCE and ACE,” which is bogus.

[@john_smith_john]

who cares

[@rosiehawtrey]

Ah, another member of "backwards collar merchants anonymous". 7% of the population being religious doesn't make bc/ad correct. Keep your opinions to yourself thanks. Sad little flat earther considering both sets of terms mean exactly the same thing. Personally I'm happy with BCE/CE because there's no way I'm going to glorify a bunch of murdering bastards and an imaginary person and belittle the rest of history over it. If it was up to me I'd arm the other side at the Milvian Bridge with a H&K P90 each. Would make this World a much better place.

[@peterkatow3718]

@@john_smith_john Here

[@tonymccake3057]

Zzzzz

[@jacquesaubin4454]

It's antiquated to use that. It's Before Common Era and CE . Get with modernity.

[@aronembleton7212]

How can you praise Diocletian so highly, praise the changes he made to the empire so highly, when he locked people into professions and locality, he made everyone into prisoners. You're completely underestimating that negative. Weighed properly, this makes him one of the worst emperors.

[@blindthrall]

The only reason I don't rate him worse is there are some real doozies.

[@frankvandorp2059]

Aron, please try to understand that not everything that ever happened in history is just like America Right Now where big government is bad. The idea that he made everyone into prisoners is laughably clueless.

[@astrafaan]

Well considering what he brought upon the world I'm not too inclined to regard him as "Great" :)

[@TA-by9wv]

What would that be?

[@poki580]

maxentius shouldnt really be pronounced as max sanchez lmao

[@gregoryking8085]

🎉

[@azman73681]

Wud hv been a good narrator but spoiled and quite irritating and anti climatic when you keep telling the ending/conclusion 10-20 yrs forward while you r still narrating

[@ritterlott9914]

The narrator, who I am so grateful for doing the series, has an obvious problem with Christianity. Most likely all religions . A question to atheists. What guides your moral compass? I look to the bible. This is a serious question.

[@SmoothGravy]

You don't not need an ancient text to know right from wrong. You know how you want to be treated by others and apply that. You don't want to be robbed, or assaulted, or violated and by not doing these things you increase the likelihood that others won't do them to you. Now a question for you: How can you believe in an unproven diety with zero evidence, and only 2000 year old hearsay?

[@Wallyworld30]

Graig Turson Livy’s History of Rome was Mike Duncan’s Bible during this stage of Mike Duncan’s life.

[@michaelfisher7170]

I can attempt to answer. You don't need to believe in a god to train your children that treating others the way you want to be treated is admirable, and that violent or criminal behavior should be rejected and punished. I as an atheist see no need for existential threats of hellfire or promises of eternal reward as necessary for simply wanting to live in a way that hurts no one, that seeks to help where and when it can. I don't need to believe that an omniscient god is looking over my shoulder to know that stealing what belongs to another is wrong. And I don't live in fear that my very thoughts might be evidence against me. If people choose to believe, that's no problem with me. I just expect the same right to decide for myself that is extended to others. Not a deep analysis, but I hope this helps answer your question.

[@tehutibrim594]

Knowing right from wrong for starters, the bible is written by men, many of them with extremely kolorful bakkgrounds none trustworthy. I've learned more about rape, murder and pillaging reading the bible then righteousness, or how silly the 12 disciples were or that Stephen Acts 8:2 seems more important than so-kalled Jesus

[@richardscathouse]

I look to reason, knowing full well kicking potential allies will gain me no allies

[@dgiacomo]

Why won’t the narrator ever say the persecution of “Christians?” He just refers to it as the “Great Persecution.” Could it be he doesn’t want his audience to have sympathy for Christians?

[@frankvandorp2059]

After the Christians seized power in Rome, they persecuted the pagans a hundred times worse than they were ever persecuted themselves. Historically Christians have been the perpetrators of persecution a lot more than the recipients. The only reason we're even calling Diocletian's persecution the "Great Persecution", as opposed to all Constantine's heirs did later, is because Christians rewrote history and cast themselves as the innocent victims.

[@justrelaxtoday]

historian becomes a parody spokesman and cannot contain himself professionally without the barbaric disposition to ridicule a water shed moment in history. He has to face the notion that the romans were always religious no matter what association christianity has in his nomadic and erratic mind.

[@pharaohsmagician8329]

Show me on the Legionarie Doll where the Pope touched you

[@maugustyniak]

The fact that Constantine officially broke with Jewish - bleh - tradition, means that the original Catholic Church is correct and good.

[@joshamaya196]

Jesus was an observant Jew. He did all these "bleh" traditions, yet he pressed importance on the spiritual application of them. The Jews were very much into observing and observing only, and not so much in tune with the spiritual aspect. This caused friction with them and Jesus, and ultimately lead to them killing Him. Isn't it a bit concerning to you that an organization would come to change and later abhore things that Jesus would have done? I'm not saying that all Jewish tradition is good, but it's not necessarily bad. While most of Constantine's decisions were completely against Jesus' own beliefs, and were political in nature. Something very concerning happened during this time, and it's about time the church acknowledged it.

[@gerryboric6777]

He was a Roman pagan worshipper he taught was the god appolo

[@Northern5tar]

@@joshamaya196 Jesus would never ever call himself a Jew. Jews where inhabitants of Judea. Be it Edmoites, Moabites, Canaanites, Hebrews, Romans, Greeks, etc. Everyone was called a Jew. John the Baptist lost his head over this fact. Secondly, Jesus wouldn't have said he was from Judea. He would say Galilee, a Nazarene. As to traditions. Jews followed Talmudic traditions. Pharisees, and Sadducees and Rabbinic Judaism. Jesus called them children of Satan. Kinda tells you what he thought of their teachings and traditions. Jesus was no Jew and followed no Judaic traditions. He did uphold the ten commandments but even those he condensed to just two; the Golden Rule being the first and foremost.

[@michaelfisher7170]

The only thing I'd offer as comment is that yes, Christians rejected the observances of Judaism....but then they took up the call for converting others....bleh.

[@Hugh_Morris]

@@Northern5tar but wasn't Jesus The Messiah - King of the Jews?

[@dgiacomo]

Mike is a great storyteller, smart and makes history accessible, but why does he constantly downplay the likelihood of what obvious? The hand of God in formation Christendom.

[@zoeygeorge2403]

It's not anti-Christian bias to not assume the existence of a deity in anything, it's much more accurate and accessible in fact.

[@stevenromo90]

This podcast series is generally good, but the Narrator's anti-Christian bias really makes it hard to listen to sometimes.

[@Kyle_Schaff]

Did you end up getting to the last episode of the series? Mike goes over the factors at play in the late-Roman Empire and talks about his opinion on the role Christianity played. I think you misinterpreted some wording or emphasis if you believe Mike is anti-Christian. It’s funny seeing your comment to me because future episodes have folks in the comment section calling Mike an anti-pagan Christianity-apologist - particularly in regards to Emperor Julian.

[@frankvandorp2059]

He is way too friendly to Christianity. For example, he assumes almost all Christian historiography as fact, including the unlikely tales that Galerius lit fires in Diocletian's palace, or that Nero persecuted Christians. Those are very likely to be inventions by later Christian writers to make their own tribe seem more innocent and persecuted.

[@alejandromadrid8075]

You know, listening to this whole series, not a single emperor has been second guessed, doubted, mistrusted, suspected or impugned by the narrator as much as Constantine has. Its like he is to the narrator a Roman version of Trump. Hey, Diocletian called, and he wants his anti-Christian bias back. LMFAO.

[@gregoryking8085]

🎉

[@frankvandorp2059]

He is way too kind to Constantine. He even blames Diocletian for the chaos of the early 4th century after he abdicated, while the blame should go to the power-hungry opportunists who actually started those civil wars, like Constantine. You seem to have a very strong pro-Christian and pro-Constantine bias here. No surprise, as Constantine literally had centuries of Christian writers writing propaganda for him, who had the power to suppress any alternative viewpoints to their narrative.

[@mdb1239]

What a disappointment. You have fallen off the EXCELLENCE wagon. What happened here? Disappointed in this episode. Very disappointed.

[@gregoryking8085]

🎉

[@westbethkid]

Gotta love Maximian--he sounds like a real clown