ABSTRACT

The Christian Roman Empire of the successors of Constantine was the heir of the pagan Roman Empire. There was a certain family likeness, but this next-generation Empire differed from the original series in that it was the product of cumulative evolutionary changes, some of them naturally progressive taken at their own pace, and some of them accelerated by the circumstances of the fraught middle years of the third century. In adapting to these circumstances Gallienus and Diocletian set in motion some of the administrative changes discernible in the substructure of the later Roman Empire, but it was Constantine who produced the nal version.1 His work was not simply a direct continuation of that of his predecessors. Michael Grant distinguishes between Constantine’s continuation of Diocletian’s reforms and his innovations which departed from them.2 Though he completed most of Diocletian’s reforms, he re-opened posts to senators, and abandoned the attempts to x prices throughout the Empire and to stabilize the silver coinage. In religious terms, Constantine was diametrically opposed to what Diocletian started, and as soon as he could do so he turned his back on the Tetrarchy.3 Constantine was a product of his time, a man for whom the trite stock epithets come readily to mind: ruthless, determined and decisive. He knew what he wanted, never wavered in his purpose and set about achieving it as soon as there was opportunity; once he had achieved sole rule he had the advantage of a lengthier reign than most of the Emperors of the last hundred years, and could sift and sort the governmental procedures that he inherited. Constantine rejected or reversed some of the trends that had shaped the century, and accentuated others that consolidated his power and supported his regime. This was not personal selshness in ensuring his own survival. He was the embodiment of the state, and it was his duty to ensure that it would continue after his death. He would not have recognized any pejorative intention behind the label ‘autocrat’, and would not have understood the distaste of the modern world for the concept of autocracy.