Constantine the Great. The Emperor Who Changed the Course of History

Over the past few years – roughly the same period during which I’ve been writing this blog – I’ve repeatedly come across traces of Emperor Constantine, often in places far apart from one another. Sometimes it happened by chance, other times more deliberately. The first encounter was in far-off York, in northern England. I was busy taking photos and probably wasn’t paying full attention to the guide, but the statue of Constantine didn’t surprise me. After all, who hasn’t heard of this emperor? He was the one who founded Constantinople – the eastern capital of the Roman Empire, named in his honour.

Later, in the Vatican, I visited the Room of Constantine in the Raphael’s Rooms, richly decorated with frescoes illustrating scenes from his life. A few years on, during another visit to Rome, I took close-up photos of the Arch of Constantine – by then already aware that my next journey would soon take me to Istanbul, once known as Constantinople, and home to the famous Hagia Sophia. Even though the great basilica has seen better days, it still houses remarkable Byzantine mosaics, including one of Constantine offering his city as a religious gift.

And so, the time has come for a post about the emperor and visionary – Constantine the Great. He was one of the most significant emperors in Roman history. Under his rule, Christianity ceased to be persecuted. He was not only a brilliant military strategist but also a far-sighted leader. It was Constantine who moved the capital of the empire to Byzantium, renaming it Constantinople – today’s Istanbul. Although he was only baptised towards the end of his life, his impact on the development of Christianity was profound. He also convened the first ecumenical council – the Council of Nicaea – which played a crucial role in shaping the doctrine of the Church.

By the end of the third century, the Roman Empire was plunged into chaos: civil wars, economic crises, and external threats had seriously weakened the state. In response, Emperor Diocletian introduced a new system of rule – the tetrarchy – a model of shared power involving four emperors: two Augusti (senior emperors) and two Caesares (their junior partners and designated successors). The system was designed to ensure more effective administration of the vast empire and prevent succession conflicts. In 293 AD, Diocletian established the original tetrarchy as follows: Diocletian – Augustus of the East; Maximian – Augustus of the West; Galerius – Caesar of the East; and Constantius Chlorus – Caesar of the West. The tetrarchy functioned relatively effectively for about 10 to 12 years (293–305), but the following decade was marked by escalating succession crises and power struggles.

In 305 AD, an unprecedented event occurred in Roman history – Diocletian and his co-ruler Maximian voluntarily abdicated, stepping down from imperial power. Diocletian, weakened by illness, retired from public life and withdrew to his palace in Spalatum (modern-day Split), aiming to set a precedent: that imperial authority should not be lifelong or hereditary, but rather serve the stability of the state and operate on a principle of orderly transition. Maximian also relinquished his office, though unlike Diocletian, he struggled to let go of power and would later attempt to return to politics.

Upon their abdication, the senior emperors did not promote their own sons but instead selected trusted associates as the new Caesars – Flavius Severus (Severus II) in the West and Maximinus Daza in the East – both loyal military officers, particularly to Galerius. This deliberate sidelining of imperial sons broke with traditional expectations of dynastic succession. Among those overlooked were Constantine, son of the newly appointed Augustus Constantius Chlorus, and Maxentius, son of the retired emperor Maximian. Although the tetrarchy was based on merit rather than bloodline, this decision sparked unrest. When Constantius died in 306, his troops in Britain unilaterally declared Constantine emperor. Not long after, Maxentius seized power in Rome. Over the next several years, the empire descended into civil wars as multiple claimants fought for control. The final struggle for sole rule played out between three rivals: Constantine, who commanded support in the western provinces; Maxentius, who held power in Italy and the capital, Rome; and Licinius, who governed the eastern territories. It was between these men that the future of the Roman Empire would ultimately be decided.

Constantius Chlorus, the father of Constantine, embarked on a military campaign to Britain in 305 AD as the western Augustus, aiming to suppress Pictish raids and secure the northern frontier of the Roman Empire. This was a strategically significant operation: earlier barbarian attacks had unsettled the region, and the emperor sought to reaffirm his authority. At the time, Constantius was seriously ill. His son, Constantine, was then at the court of the eastern Augustus, Galerius – likely as a political hostage. Upon learning of his father’s condition and impending campaign, Constantine either escaped or was granted permission to join him. He travelled rapidly across Gaul to reunite with his father. Once in Britain, Constantine participated in the campaign against the Picts, though likely not on the front lines. His exact tactical role remains unclear, but sources confirm his presence alongside his father in military operations.

As Constantius’s condition deteriorated, he withdrew to Eburacum (modern-day York), where he died shortly thereafter. In response, the legions stationed there, impressed by Constantine’s leadership and involvement, proclaimed him emperor. This was a typical instance of military acclamation, with strong precedents in Roman history (e.g. Septimius Severus, Claudius). Although technically illegal – violating the tetrarchic succession system – the army viewed Constantine as the natural heir, being both a commander and the son of the deceased Augustus. Nevertheless, other claimants remained, and Constantine spent the following years consolidating power and defeating rivals.

Nearly two millennia later, to commemorate Constantine’s proclamation as emperor in York in AD 306, a bronze statue was unveiled in 1998 near York Minster. Commissioned by the York Civic Trust and created by sculptor Philip Jackson, the monument highlights the city’s Roman legacy and its role in a turning point of imperial and Christian history.

Following the death of Constantius Chlorus, his son Constantine was proclaimed emperor by the legions. However, the eastern emperor Galerius recognised him only as Caesar, not Augustus. Constantine, nonetheless, began to consolidate his power in the western provinces, successfully defending the Rhine frontier, battling Germanic tribes, and securing the loyalty of the army, while avoiding direct conflict with other tetrarchs. In 307 AD, he formed an alliance with Maximian, the former Augustus and father of Maxentius, marrying Maximian’s daughter Fausta. However, relations with Maxentius, who ruled Italy, deteriorated in the following years.

After Galerius’s death in 311, Constantine declared himself Augustus, abandoning all pretence of adhering to the tetrarchic order. In 312, he launched a military campaign against Maxentius, culminating in a decisive victory at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge near Rome. According to tradition, on the eve of battle he saw a vision of the cross in the sky with the words In hoc signo vinces (In this sign, you will conquer), marking the beginning of his alignment with Christianity.

After taking control of Rome, Constantine solidified his rule over the western Roman Empire. In 313 AD, together with Licinius, co-emperor of the East, he issued the Edict of Milan, which granted religious freedom to Christians and brought an end to their persecution. However, the alliance with Licinius soon collapsed. In 316, a first military conflict broke out between them, culminating in Constantine’s victory at the Battle of Cibalae, which extended his influence over the Balkans. Yet, the final resolution of their rivalry would come only later. In 315, to mark the tenth anniversary of Constantine’s reign, the monumental Arch of Constantine was erected in Rome. It celebrated his triumph over Maxentius and symbolically affirmed his status as one of the empire’s leading rulers.

Constantine now faced a decisive confrontation with his final rival, Licinius, who ruled the eastern part of the empire. The conflict ended in 324 AD, when Constantine secured a decisive victory in battles at Adrianople, Chalcedon, and Chrysopolis (modern-day Üsküdar in Istanbul). This triumph made him the sole ruler of the Roman Empire – for the first time in several decades.

After seizing complete control of the empire, Constantine deliberately distanced himself from Rome, which he found politically and symbolically problematic. The city remained dominated by a pagan Senate, closely tied to the traditions of the old Republic. Though Constantine never converted during his lifetime, he increasingly aligned his rule with Christianity and sought a new centre of power that reflected the ideological and strategic realities of his reign.

From 324 AD, Constantine began spending more time in Asia Minor, particularly in Nicomedia, Diocletian’s former capital and a key eastern administrative hub. It was here that he established his imperial office and began preparing for the foundation of a new capital. That same year, he selected Byzantium – a historic Greek city on the Bosphorus – as the location for his new seat of power. Strategically placed between Europe and Asia, easily fortified, and with excellent maritime access, Byzantium offered both symbolic and logistical advantages. Today, Istanbul remains one of Europe’s largest cities, with a population three times that of greater Rome.

Meanwhile, in 325 AD, Constantine convened the First Ecumenical Council of the Christian Church in nearby Nicaea (modern İznik). Although unbaptised, he presided over the council and sought to enforce religious unity across the empire.

During this period, Constantine pressed ahead with the transformation of Byzantium into a grand new capital. From 326 AD, the city underwent a major reconstruction. The imperial palace was built alongside with a new forum, temples, baths, Christian basilicas, city walls, and harbours. The city was formally inaugurated on 11 May 330 AD as Nova Roma (New Rome). Yet it was almost immediately referred to as Constantinople – City of Constantine, a name that would endure for centuries. The new capital symbolised a break with Rome’s pagan past, the emergence of a Christian empire, and the rise of a centralised imperial monarchy. Constantine relocated part of the administration there, and in time, Constantinople would fully assume the role of the eastern imperial centre – later the heart of the Byzantine Empire.

After founding his new capital, Constantine continued to strengthen his rule and pursue his vision of a reformed empire. Constantinople quickly rose to prominence as the chief imperial centre – the emperor relocated the court, officials, and part of the army there, making the city not only a symbolic seat of power, but also a functional hub for managing the increasingly important eastern provinces. As Constantine resided less frequently in Rome, Constantinople emerged as its full-fledged successor.

At the same time, Christianity, though not yet the official state religion, was becoming an integral part of imperial identity. Constantine supported the Church, funding major basilicas – including the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem and St Peter’s Basilica in Rome – and granting the clergy privileges and property. Though unbaptised for most of his life, his policies consistently favoured Christians.

After 330 AD, Constantine focused increasingly on consolidating the changes he had introduced. He completed Diocletian’s administrative reforms, restructured the army, centralised power, and began to portray imperial authority in quasi-sacred terms. The emperor came to be seen not only as a ruler, but as a “divinely appointed” leader, protector of the Church and supreme religious authority. His ideological programme rested on uniting imperial power with Christianity, while rejecting the pagan institutions of the old order.

In the final years of his life, Constantine prepared for succession. His three sons – Constantine II, Constans, and Constantius II – were granted the title of Caesar and designated to divide the empire between them. In 337 AD, while preparing for a planned campaign against the Persians, Constantine fell ill near Nicomedia, where he received baptism. It was a symbolic yet belated act – although a lifelong supporter of the Church, he only formally became a Christian on his deathbed.

He died on 22 May 337 AD, and his body was transported to Constantinople, where he was buried in the Church of the Holy Apostles – a site he had chosen as the imperial mausoleum. The church, though rebuilt several times, survived for centuries. However, during the Fourth Crusade in 1204, when crusaders captured and plundered Constantinople, it was destroyed and looted. Constantine’s sarcophagus was broken, and his remains were likely desecrated or lost.

After Constantine’s death, his three sons assumed power, dividing the empire among themselves. Soon after, a wave of purges swept through the imperial family, resulting in the murder of many of Constantine’s relatives. Although the empire would remain formally united for decades, its spiritual and political centre had permanently shifted eastwards—to the city that would bear Constantine’s name for the next thousand years.

Constantine the Great. The Emperor Who Changed the Course of History

The Life and Reign of Elizabeth I, Queen of England

To get a better sense of England’s history, it helps to look at the people who shaped it. Today’s focus is on Elizabeth I — a queen whose reign left a lasting mark on the country and helped define a golden age. Her story is full of power struggles, religious conflict, and personal strength, which made her one of the most memorable figures in British history. It’s also a good chance to revisit the history of religious divisions in Europe — a topic that will be coming up yet again in my posts.

Elizabeth I (1533–1603) was one of England’s most remarkable monarchs. Her reign, spanning from 1558 to 1603, is known as the Elizabethan Era, widely regarded as a Golden Age in the nation’s history. She governed during a time of intense religious turmoil, which she managed to navigate with careful balance, ultimately establishing a strong Protestant state. Her rule marked a flourishing of literature and maritime expansion, laying the foundations for England’s future global influence. However, her reign was also shadowed by her fraught relationship with a rival claimant to the throne — Mary, Queen of Scots. Elizabeth never married, earning her the title of the Virgin Queen, as she symbolically married England. Yet her persistent refusal to take a husband or name an heir stirred anxiety over the kingdom’s future and the stability of the succession.

Elizabeth I was the daughter of King Henry VIII of England and his second wife, Anne Boleyn. Although initially recognised as a legitimate heir, she was declared illegitimate and removed from the line of succession after her mother’s execution in 1536. Later, however, an Act of Succession passed by Parliament during Henry VIII’s lifetime reinstated her in the order of succession – though without restoring her full status as a lawful daughter. Before Elizabeth came to the throne, it was held by her half-brother Edward VI, the son of Henry VIII and his third wife, Jane Seymour, who died young at the age of 15. He was succeeded by Mary I, daughter of Henry and his first wife, Catherine of Aragon – a devout Catholic who died without issue. Upon her death in 1558, Elizabeth ascended the throne as the last surviving, legally acknowledged daughter of Henry VIII, in accordance with his will and the law of succession. Her claim to the crown was contested primarily by the Catholic faction and the supporters of Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots, who regarded Elizabeth as illegitimate, since the Catholic Church had never recognised Henry’s marriage to Anne Boleyn. The Pope had refused to annul Henry’s first marriage to Catherine of Aragon, and thus Elizabeth – being the daughter of his second wife – was viewed by Catholics as born out of wedlock. As a result, Mary Stuart, the great-granddaughter of Margaret Tudor (Henry VIII’s sister), was considered by many as the rightful heir to the English throne.

Elizabeth I’s childhood was difficult, politically charged, and filled with uncertainty, despite her birth as a princess and the daughter of a king. She was born on 7 September 1533, the child of Henry VIII and his second wife, Anne Boleyn. From the beginning of the pregnancy, there had been an expectation that the baby would be a boy – a male heir to the throne – so the birth of a girl was a deep disappointment to the king. When Elizabeth was just three years old, her mother was accused –almost certainly falsely – of treason, incest, and witchcraft, and was executed in 1536. At the same time, Henry VIII declared Elizabeth illegitimate, removing her from the line of succession. Elizabeth, however, remained at court and received an exceptional education, far exceeding the standards of the time – for both women and men. She was taught classical languages, logic, rhetoric, and philosophy. Elizabeth became fluent in Latin, Greek, French, and Italian, and wrote with remarkable elegance and precision. During the reign of her half-brother, Edward VI, she was kept at the margins of power, but the greatest danger came during the rule of Mary I. As a Protestant and a potential heir to the throne, Elizabeth was viewed with deep suspicion by the queen. In 1554, she was arrested and imprisoned in the Tower of London on suspicion of involvement in a plot against Mary. Although no evidence of her guilt was found, she spent several months living in fear for her life.

As queen, Elizabeth restored Protestantism, originally introduced in England by her father Henry VIII following the Catholic reign of her sister, Mary I, by passing acts, which established a form of religious compromise. It is important to recall that a central motivation for Henry VIII’s break with the Catholic Church was his desire to annul his marriage to Catherine of Aragon, as she had failed to produce a male heir, and he wished to marry Anne Boleyn, Elizabeth’s mother – something the Pope refused to permit. Elizabeth’s religious policy, however, was at times inconsistent. Though often seen as the architect of a compromise between Catholics and Protestants, in reality her reign was not free from religious persecution, particularly against Catholics. These intensified following her excommunication. In 1570, Pope Pius V issued the bull declaring her a heretic and an illegitimate monarch. He released her subjects from their duty of obedience to her, leading to serious political and religious consequences. The excommunication gave moral support to Catholic plots against Elizabeth and heightened the threat posed by Catholic powers, especially Spain. In its wake, the queen increased repression of Catholics, treating them as potential traitors.

The relationship between Elizabeth I and Mary, Queen of Scots was complex – marked by political tension, personal mistrust, and a struggle for power. Though the two queens were related – they differed in nearly every respect: Elizabeth was a Protestant who ruled a stable England, while Mary was a devout Catholic whose reign in Scotland ended in rebellion and forced abdication. In 1568, Mary fled to England, hoping Elizabeth would help her reclaim her throne. Instead, she was immediately imprisoned and remained in captivity for the next 19 years, held in various castles. Elizabeth saw her both as a royal cousin and a serious threat to the English crown. Following the plot by nobles – a plan to assassinate Elizabeth and place Mary on the throne – Mary, though not directly involved in the conspiracy, was tried for treason, sentenced to death, and executed on 8 February 1587 at Fotheringhay Castle. Mary’s death had serious consequences: it damaged relations with Catholic powers in Europe, particularly Spain, and partly contributed to the attempted Spanish Armada invasion.

The Spanish Armada launched its attack on England in 1588, driven by escalating religious, political, and economic tensions between Catholic Spain and Protestant England. King Philip II of Spain, a devout Catholic, aimed to overthrow Elizabeth I and restore Catholicism in England, especially after her excommunication by the Pope in 1570. Tensions were further fuelled by Elizabeth’s support for the Protestant Dutch revolt against Spanish rule, and her tolerance of English privateers like Francis Drake, who frequently raided Spanish ships and colonies. The execution of Mary, Queen of Scots in 1587 – a Catholic figure seen by many as the rightful heir to the English throne – became a major turning point. For Philip, it confirmed the heretical nature of Elizabeth’s rule and provided a clear justification for military action. The Spanish plan involved uniting their fleet with ground forces in the Netherlands before invading England. However, the campaign ended in complete failure — the English launched a successful counterattack, and storms in the North Sea destroyed much of the retreating Armada. The defeat was seen as a major victory for Elizabeth I, firmly establishing England as a rising naval power.

The aforementioned Francis Drake played a significant role in Elizabeth I’s foreign policy as a key figure in her indirect conflict with Spain. Operating as a privateer under a royal letter of marque, he attacked Spanish ships and colonies, bringing substantial wealth to England and weakening Philip II’s power, all while avoiding formal war. Though seen as piracy by the Spanish, Drake’s actions fit perfectly into Elizabeth’s strategy of provoking and undermining her rival without officially declaring war. At the same time, Elizabeth supported his voyages of exploration, and his successful circumnavigation of the globe (1577–1580) boosted England’s prestige as an emerging maritime power. His knighthood in 1581 sent a clear message: Elizabeth not only approved of his actions, but regarded him as a crucial part of her policy toward Spain and England’s growing global ambitions.

Although Elizabeth I was not a patron of the arts in the traditional sense, her reign created an exceptionally fertile environment for the growth of culture, literature, and theatre. She valued poetry, theatrical performances, and education, and while her financial support was often more symbolic than systematic, her court attracted writers and actors alike. She supported the development of theatre by granting licences and royal protection, which allowed companies like the Lord Chamberlain’s Men – associated with William Shakespeare – to flourish. Culture also served political purposes: through art, Elizabeth’s image as a powerful, almost divine monarch was carefully shaped, and the flourishing of literature helped to engage the public and strengthen national identity. During this time, the English language rose significantly in status as a medium of high culture – Elizabeth herself often used it in public speech, and the works of Shakespeare and others helped elevate it to a literary force of its own.

In domestic affairs, Elizabeth I ruled with a great deal of caution – often bordering on suspicion and authoritarianism – which was reflected in the development of an extensive intelligence network. His web of spies operated both at home and abroad, effectively uncovering plots, assassination attempts, and any signs of opposition to the queen. While this system ensured internal stability and protected Elizabeth from genuine threats, it also led to restrictions on freedom of speech and civil liberties. Discussions about religion or the royal succession were closely monitored, and public commentary on such matters could be considered treasonous. As a result, society lived under a sense of suspicion and self-censorship, making Elizabethan England – despite its cultural flourishing – a state with a tightly controlled public sphere.

Although Elizabeth I spent much of her reign successfully strengthening the state and the economy – maintaining relative internal peace and supporting trade and the growing middle class – by the end of her rule, the socio-economic situation began to deteriorate. The costs of prolonged conflict with Spain, increased spending on defence and naval forces, along with poor harvests and rising inflation, led to higher taxes, unemployment, and soaring prices. The lower classes were hit hardest, as they saw little benefit from the era’s overseas expansion and cultural flourishing. Social discontent was growing, increasingly at odds with the official image of a powerful and prosperous England.

Elizabeth I was known for her use of intense white face powder, which became a distinctive element of her royal image. Made from toxic lead-based white, the powder was used to hide the scars left by smallpox and to give her skin the pale, unnatural hue then considered a mark of aristocratic purity and social superiority. Her makeup was completed with reddened lips and cheeks, often coloured using equally harmful substances. Despite the damage these cosmetics caused over time, Elizabeth continued to use them, carefully crafting the image of an ageless and untouchable queen. In her later years, she became increasingly obsessed with her appearance and the effects of ageing; according to some accounts, she had mirrors removed from her palaces so she would not have to see the toll taken on her skin by the very makeup that had helped build her legend.

Elizabeth I died on 24 March 1603 at the age of 69, at Richmond Palace near London. Her death followed a long period of declining health – she suffered from weakness, insomnia, and depression. In her final days, she refused to lie down or allow doctors near her. She died childless, bringing an end to the Tudor dynasty. After her death, the throne passed to James VI of Scotland, who became James I of England, the first monarch of the Stuart dynasty. A great-grandson of Margaret Tudor, sister of Henry VIII, and the son of Mary Stuart, he held a legitimate and recognised claim to the English succession. His accession marked the beginning of the personal union between England and Scotland.

Although some Catholics hoped James might restore their faith, given his mother’s background, he maintained Protestantism as the state religion, and after the discovery of the Gunpowder Plot in 1605, Catholic persecution intensified. Later, his grandson James II – the last Catholic monarch of England – would attempt to reintroduce Catholicism during his reign, but was deposed in the Glorious Revolution of 1688. The throne then passed to his Protestant daughter Mary II and her husband William of Orange, firmly re-establishing Protestant rule and ensuring that Catholicism would never again return as the state religion in England.

The Life and Reign of Elizabeth I, Queen of England

Living the Good Life. Lessons from Epicurus

During my most recent visit to the Vatican Museums, where I’ve been several times before, I found myself more focused on photographing the artifacts than taking in the overall experience. I took many pictures of sculptures, including several busts. Even with Google Lens, I haven’t been able to identify all of them. However, a few of the figures portrayed sparked my curiosity. One of them is Epicurus, a philosopher from ancient Greece.

Epicurus (341–270 BCE) was an influential ancient Greek philosopher who founded the school of thought known as Epicureanism. His philosophy revolves around the pursuit of happiness and tranquility, achieved through understanding the nature of the world, cultivating friendships, and minimizing unnecessary desires.

Pleasure was the highest good for Epicurus, but not in the hedonistic sense of indulging in all forms of gratification. Epicurus made a distinction between different types of pleasure. He emphasized katastematic (static) pleasures, which are longer-lasting and result from a state of contentment and the absence of pain, over kinetic (active) pleasures, which are fleeting and often lead to dissatisfaction once fulfilled. For Epicurus, the pursuit of intellectual and emotional pleasures – such as friendship, knowledge, and philosophical contemplation – was more valuable and sustainable than mere physical pleasures.

The root of human suffering lies in fear – particularly the fear of gods and the fear of death, which are based on misunderstandings about the nature of the world and should be dispelled through rational inquiry. According to Epicurus, the gods, if they exist, are indifferent to human affairs and do not interfere in the world. Therefore, fear of divine punishment is irrational. Similarly, he posited that death is merely the cessation of sensation, so it should not be feared. “Death is nothing to us”, because when we are alive, death is not present, and when death occurs, we are no longer there to experience it. Epicurus sought to free individuals from superstitions and the anxiety caused by beliefs in fate or divine retribution.

Epicurues promoted a life of moderation, where desires are carefully chosen and controlled to avoid pain and achieve a state of tranquility. He distinguished between natural and necessary desires (such as the need for food and shelter), natural but non-necessary desires (such as the desire for luxury), and vain and empty desires (such as the pursuit of wealth, fame, or power). He argued that happiness is achieved by fulfilling only the natural and necessary desires, as they are easy to satisfy and do not lead to further pain or anxiety. He also believed in the importance of simple living. He encouraged his followers to enjoy the simple pleasures of life, such as friendship, conversation, and the contemplation of nature, as these are the most reliable sources of lasting happiness. He argued that genuine friendship is based on mutual respect, trust, and shared values, not on utility or gain. Friends help one another navigate life’s difficulties, provide emotional support, and enhance the pleasures of life through shared experiences.

Living the Good Life. Lessons from Epicurus