The goal of world propaganda, combined with "our democratic", is to achieve a negative perception of such a concept as empire in relation to our Fatherland, apparently, was crowned with success. The karty press and the citizens who think in its categories continue to assimilate and develop the catchy term "evil empire".
Here is a young, nice to me author A.V. Tsygankov, a philosophical arose: "... the logical end of the empire is world domination." Meanwhile, this is only half true; fully applicable to one single country - the United States, and sounds absurd in the context of our Motherland.
When they were sophisticated in denouncing the USSR, the concept of empire was glued, in accordance with the past of human history. "All empires must inevitably perish" - and they listed the Roman, Alexander the Great, the Persian empire, and so on; according to the laws of logic, we were given a place in the same row.
Meanwhile, the reasons for the creation of those empires, their fall are just pages in the history of mankind and have nothing to do with the present time. Now there is a different definition of empire, and other types of empires, and different goals pursued by them. Two types of empires, as antipodes with a strictly opposite essence. Like two healthy men: one takes care of his family, equips his home, makes friends-neighbors, works; the other has pumped up his biceps and trades in racketeering, slander, bribery, threats, robbing the world with the help of all-embracing and insatiable banks and companies.
The second man is exactly like America. Let's, at least briefly, recall its imperial features (or rather, the imperial face) in order to be convinced of this. To such an empire, the "logical conclusion" as the final product is absolutely fair.
Enough has been said about the fate of the Indians during colonization. And yet: out of 2 million of them, only a few hundred thousand remained by the end of colonization. The atrocities are identical to the fascist ones: ruthless destruction, dog-baiting, burning of villages, destruction of crops, outrage. Humanity was present only as a matter of discussion: "to kill everyone in a row or still leave women - will be useful for amusement." How many names of Indian tribes were there! What happened to them? And after all this, America has the audacity to invent a "law on conquered peoples" living in the USSR.
The United States increased its territory 10 times from 1776 to 1900. They especially profited at the expense of Mexico: in 1845 they annexed the Mexican state of Texas, in 1848 they dictated a monstrous treaty (as a result of the American-Mexican War of 1846-1848), according to which almost half of Mexico's territory was transferred to the United States. Greed is boundless: threatening war, again in 1853 (the so-called Gadeden Treaty) they seize 140 thousand km2 of Mexican land.
The annexation plans called for the complete conquest of Mexico; the usual scenario: ". .. to Mexico and the Mexican people(assigned) responsibility for all violent acts that threaten the lives of Americans and damage American property or their investments"(For some reason, the United States found the same threat to the life of Jews (relatives!) 150 years later in Iraq.)
Using the desire of Latin American countries to free themselves from the colonial dependence of Spain, the Americans began to cultivate the thesis of the "unity of interests" of all states of the Western Hemisphere, used the theory of pan-Americanism, and, having fought with Spain, established the complete political and economic hegemony of the United States in Latin America.
Under the far-fetched pretext of protecting property or eliminating riots, they invaded (1880-1890) in Chile, Colombia, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, Nicaragua and other countries in South America.
R. Olney's doctrine provided for the sole and absolute control over the territory of South America: " Currently, the United States is practically sovereign on this continent and their will is the law....".
Colombia was particularly unfriendly this law. The United States desired to single-handedly control and receive bribes from the Panama Canal, and the Colombians could not do anything about this impudent one. The United States broke off a narrow strip of Colombian soil, created the "independent" state of Panama, and installed an obedient government and started robbery.
Three quarters of a century later, the now "independent" Panama is trying to declare the created injustice - to revise the treaty of 1903 And what is the result? " The new agreements were beneficial, first of all, to the United States ... they made us even more dependent on Washington than before. In the 1903 treaty, at least there was at least a mention of Panama's sovereignty. And the 1977 agreements actually give the United States the right to interfere in the internal affairs of Panama without even asking our permission."(lawyer Mario Galindo).
Under the pretext of liberation from Spanish rule, they seized the island of Guam, the Philippine Islands, Puerto Rico, Cuba. (And on what basis is Guantanamo Bay still held on Cuban soil?)
The United States invaded Haiti (Port-au-Prince) at least 20 times to "fight riots" and carried out open aggression 6 times. ( Now they have a fix idea - to send troops to Russia to protect nuclear facilities, a kind of variation of the previous tricks about riots).
And the 14 islands of the Samoa archipelago, and Honduras, and the Dominican Republic, Korea, Japan, China, Turkey (the United States has special sympathy for the latter: " Of all the existing states, I would most like to wipe Spain and Turkey from the face of the earth. " (T. Roosevelt).
And we, as I recall, did not invite (in 1918) the Americans. neither to Murmansk, nor to Arkhangelsk, nor to the Far East. ("If this collapse ... is delayed by 25 years, then we would have time to Americanize Siberia and that would be the only thing worthy of an American investment". (Henry Adams, from the Senate Memorandum).
As you can see, the facts testify to the unconditional adherence to the theories that make up the essence of the American empire. " Exclusivity"the American empire (according to J. Strong) is that it," having developed in itself ... aggressive traits, it will move all over the earth"." New Canaan "," the promised land "," new nation ", which (according to J. Barjess) should not only respond to the call of backward peoples for help and guidance, but also force these peoples obey, applying, if necessary, any means".
And this country - truly a "fiend of hell" - dared to call my Motherland "the empire of evil"! "From a sore head to a healthy one" is too superficial a reflection of what happened.
The deeds of this criminal state cannot be accommodated in plump, multivolume works.
It would have taken Hitler 500-700 years to do all this. Not tens, but hundreds of thousands of lives were cost by the CIA's "interference" in the affairs of Greece and Italy. In Indonesia, the number of victims is estimated at three million. According to my humble generosity, this empire "fiend of hell" should be tried 16 times by the Nuremberg trials. For Vietnam alone, she should be put in the dock twice., the same for the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Yes, only for the inhuman murder of 400 children and women in Iraq, for the death of 1.3 million Iraqis, America is worthy of contempt and punishment.
History is crying out! But in spite of everything, the vicious detractors of my Fatherland continue to clothe us in the toga of the "evil empire". Have they ever leafed through history, let alone studied?
What are you, "truth-lovers" -democrats, do not whine about it monster, which scattered military bases all over the earth and keeps it under fear, entangled the whole world in a tsereush network, plundering peoples with the help of banks, TNCs, loans and foreign exchange funds, imposing cunning and dastardly treaties on the peoples in order to dictate their will.
Put your finger on the map, and you will immediately hear about America's "national interests" in this part of the planet. Meanwhile, as soon as Russia hints at its territorial robbery, then there and then: the guard! Empire!
Perhaps these are extremes, maybe it is beneficial for us to thicken the colors? Well, let's turn to the most civilized, gallant, kind of innocent virgin - this is, at least, the image of modern France.
Indochina, Africa, Napoleon's campaigns in Europe - everything was submitted to the Book of Oblivion. But let us, at least in large strokes, recall for what purpose imperial France galloped around the world, what barbarism it committed, what economic and political goals were pursued.
Jules Ferry's speech in the Chamber of Deputies on July 28, 1885: "... our colonial policy of colonial expansion is based on a certain system ... For rich countries, colonies are the most profitable place for capital investment. ... But, gentlemen, there is another, even more significant side of this question, much more important than the one I have just touched upon. For countries forced ... to widely export their goods, the colonial question is the question of markets. ... the acquisition of colonies means obtaining a sales market ... Where there is political domination ... there is economic domination(and vice versa - A.D.). ... the policy of colonial expansion ... brought us to Saigon, to Cochin, ... to Tunisia, ... to Madagascar - this policy is inspired by the truth "".
What modern thoughts are, isn't it !?
And here is how this expansion took place. From the diary of a French officer (about the storming of the city of Sikasso in West Africa) in 1898: " After the siege, the assault. ... An order is given to rob... Everyone is captured or killed ... The Colonel starts dividing the spoils. At first he himself noted in his notebook, then refused ... Divided with arguments and fights. Then let's go! Each European received a woman to choose from ... They walked back 40 km marches together with the prisoners. Children and all those who were exhausted were finished off with blows of rifle butts and bayonets. "
And again the same question: will such barbarism be found in the history of my Empire? On the contrary, the history of its expansion is full of humanism. How much she devoted to the Central Asian peoples. From a nomadic state, they were brought by the hand into modernity: science, education, health care, etc., the modern literary language (for example, Kyrgyz). Thank you, thanked you.
Those who want to put us on a par with all empires most often reproach the Caucasus. They say that the humanity of the imperial policy is completely doubtful here. Yes, war is war. First the reasons (one of many), but in the words of the authors of "History of the XIX century." Lavissa and Rambeau, who, out of all 8 volumes, do not have much sympathy for Russia: "... the mountaineers lived by the fact that it was their custom to raid the plains, and they took away livestock, bread and inhabitants, for whom they demanded a ransom."
(A compelling characterization of democracy: we are back almost a couple of hundred years.)
The enmity grew into a war, and then what? And then the natural process of civilization. The most disliked commander in the Caucasus is General A.P. Ermolov, and therefore should be reminded of his "military leadership" activities.
"I approve of arable farming in order to encourage residents to live permanently .. ."
"I can imagine the establishment of a small military school, like our provincial military schools ...".
With the help of subsidies from the treasury, it enables Georgian peasants to redeem land previously bought up by creditors for a pittance. New newspapers, new educational institutions appear. A.P. Ermolov personally monitors the course of the educational process, forms libraries, subscribes books for them from Russia. The translation of the huge "Code" of Tsar Vakhtang VI has begun. He streamlines legal proceedings, eliminates arbitrariness, organizes road construction, rebuilds Tiflis (the city center is being rebuilt in the spirit of modern European architecture), lays out gardens and squares.
"Here, in the khanates, the silk establishments begin to be in good condition.", etc., etc. (Excerpt after O. Mikhailov.)
Such is the expansion of the Russian Empire and the deeds of its governor; creative activity is forgotten, disrespect is cultivated, only negative is exaggerated.
Of course, "sorting out" a more or less exhaustive history of all empires is a multivolume work, but what has been said is enough to see our dissimilarity to any other empire.
A special type of empire: " The Russian state has existed for a thousand years; it is vast, crowded, rich and occupies one of the first places in the world for its power, which is why it is also called the Empire"(Elementary Geography. Petrograd. 1912) Tsarist historians simply formulated, as according to an encyclopedic definition: Latin Imperium - power, state. Studying the history of European states, knowing their true" friendliness ", the secrets of their policy, convince the motives of our kings (" Russia has only friends - her Army and Navy") and the validity of the construction of the empire by IV Stalin.
By the way, they are given an excellent description of the empires of the first type. And although his statements about imperialism are given in economic terms, nevertheless, they exhaustively characterize their political essence.
"... the need to maximize profits pushes monopoly capitalism(imperialism - A.D.) to such risky steps as enslavement and systematic robbery colonies and other backward countries, the organization of new wars, who are the best for the tycoons of modern capitalism"business" to extract maximum profits, finally try conquering world economic(and with him the political - A.D.) domination "(IV Stalin." Economic problems of socialism in the USSR ", 1952, p. 39).
Definition for the ages. ( As you can see, nothing has changed, just augmented. Remember 5 Leninist signs of imperialism? The last, the fifth, was: the export of capital, as opposed to the export of goods. Modern imperialism has been replenished with many features, the most destructive of which for us are:
Removal of high-precision technologies and destruction of high-tech industries,
- the export of intelligence and the creation of conditions leading to the impossibility of recreating the intellectual potential of the nation in the future.)
Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation
Pskov State
Pedagogical Institute named after S.M. Kirov
Department of General History
GRADUATE WORK
"Acts" of Ammianus Marcellinus
as a source on history
late Roman Empire
Pavel Pikalev
5th year student
Faculty of History
Supervisor:
Senior Lecturer
Department of General History
Dmitriev V.A.
Introduction
Chapter I. Ammianus Marcellinus as the last representative of ancient historiography.
Chapter II. Ammianus on Morality in the Roman Empire.
Chapter III. "Acts" Ammianus as a source of information about the peoples of the ancient world.
Chapter IV. Ammianus Marcellinus as a military historian.
Conclusion.
Applications.
Sources and Literature.
Introduction.
Ammianus Marcellinus is one of the greatest writers of late antiquity. He occupies the most prominent place among the historians of Ancient Rome. He wrote a large work on the history of the Roman state, consisting of the 31st book. The first 13 books, which contained the writing of Roman history, starting from the reign of Nerva, have not reached us. The 14th book already tells about the events of the 4th century A.D. since 353. In the last, 31st, book, the account of events is brought to 378, that is, to the battle of Adrianapolis. We see that the author devoted 13 books of his work to the period of 257 years (96-353), and the remaining 18 books to the period of 25 years (353-378). Such an uneven arrangement of the material is apparently explained by the fact that, starting from 353, Ammianus describes events; he himself was a participant or, at least, a contemporary; while his work, in fact, is close to the memoirs. True, there is another point of view. It seems quite possible that the exposition of the period 96-353 is in some other, which has not come down to us, the work of Ammianus, the continuation of which is known to us “History”. Whether this is so, we will find out soon, if ever.
What is the fate of the historical work of this, without a doubt, one of the most prominent historians of Rome in the 4th century? During his lifetime, he experienced the joy of recognition of his work in the circles of the educated pagan society of Rome. As his friend Libanius testifies, already in 391 Ammianus read the first books of his composition in Rome.1 The success of the book of Ammianus in the circle of the external pagan aristocracy of Rome is explained by the fact that the general ideological and political orientation of the historical work impressed this part of the Roman senatorial nobility. The glorification of Rome and the ancient Roman virtues, the idealization of the activities of the pagan emperor Julian, criticism of Christian princes - all this impressed the last representatives of the old Roman aristocratic ranks. However, after the death of the author, the fate of his work turned out to be rather sad. In the Middle Ages, Roman patriotism, and especially the praise of the Emperor Julian the Apostate, made the work inaccessible to the reader, led to its oblivion. Interest in Ammianus was revived only during the Renaissance. In the middle of the 15th century, the humanist Poggio Bracciolini discovered the manuscript of Acts, and already in the 16th the work was reprinted many times. But still, he constantly remained in the shadow of his predecessors - Titus Livy, Tacitus, Polybius. At this time, researchers value the purity of speech and sophistication of style most of all, and, naturally, Ammianus could not attract their attention. He seemed rather pale, ponderous, and his tongue rough. For a long time it was believed that he was only badly imitating the best antique examples. The study of Ammianus was made difficult by the poor manuscript tradition of his composition. The Fulda Manuscript, found by Poggio Bracciolini, remains the most important manuscript to this day. All other manuscripts, with the exception of the Hersfeld manuscript, are only copies with the Fulda manuscript and therefore are not relevant for the restoration of the text. The assumptions that the so-called E manuscript (Vatic.Lat. 2969) contains a tradition independent of the Fulda manuscript turned out to be unfounded: this manuscript was rewritten in Rome in 1445, completely follows the Fulda manuscript, and the discrepancies are explained by the translator's corrections2.
The question of the Hersfel manuscript of Ammianus is more complicated. Poggio Bracciolini already knew about its existence, but he could not get this manuscript. In 1533, Sigismund Gelenius, a scientist close to Erasmus of Rotterdam, published the text of Ammianus in Basel, relying partly on the previous edition based on the Fulda manuscript, partly on the Hersfeld manuscript. Then the manuscript disappeared again, and only in 1875 6 of its sheets were opened - the so-called Marburg fragments. Judging by these fragments, the Hersfeld manuscript was rewritten in the 9th century. There are different opinions about its origin. So, Clarke believed that it goes back to the common with the Fulda archetype, and Robinson believed that it, on the contrary, served as a source for the Fulda manuscript3.
Empire is a territorially vast, multi-ethnic, usually monarchical, centralized state. The empire has the following features:
1. Empire is large state... Empire is the largest of all possible state formations. The empire is the state - the world. There can be only one more than him - the aggregate humanity, united into a world state. The empire, figuratively speaking, seeks to fill a part of the world, to become self-sufficient and independent. Usually, an empire is made up of a union under one rule of several states - community states and territorial states. Empires were great military powers.
2. Empire polyethnic, since it includes many ethnic groups and peoples. Ethnicity (or ethnic community) is a historically formed in a certain territory, natural-geographical environment, a stable set of people with certain ethnic properties: language, religion, culture, ethnic identity, enshrined in self-name. Ethnicity is a collection of people who have a common culture, speak, as a rule, the same language, have a common self-name and are aware of both their community and their difference from members of other similar human groups. The world empire unites in its composition the territories inhabited by different peoples, provides tranquility within the borders and unhindered trade between distant territories on long trade routes. All together contributes to the normal economic development and prosperity of the state in the form of a world power.
Indeed, in ancient times, only on a large territory subject to despotic imperial power (the state-world) could an eternal war between small states, an endless chain of rise, change and death of a few states end. Empires were highly organized states that managed to establish a uniform and relatively durable order over a vast territory. The empire's task is to ensure the safety of its subjects, prevent collusion of vassals, and repel the offensive of external enemies.
The unity of the empire is ensured by the state-forming ethnos, the unity of the ruling class, the deification of the person of the ruler-monarch and the centralized bureaucratic apparatus of government.
With its polyethnicity, the empire always relies on the imperial, state-forming ethnos. State-forming ethnos- it is the predominant, governing ethnos that historically created the empire and does not necessarily constitute the majority of the empire's population. For example, the Persians in the Persian Empire, the Romans in the Roman Empire were an ethnic minority.
Having created an empire through conquest, imperial ethnic groups since the time of the Romans consider themselves to be the chosen people, bearers of a true culture, in the spread of which they see their historical mission. The idea of a chosen people arises spontaneously, subconsciously, but with the development of culture it is formed into political doctrines. For example, the most solid, long-existing Roman Empire, according to the official ideology, ruled over numerous provinces in the name of the common good. The Romans brought the "Roman peace", roads, post offices, aqueducts.
3. The empire is united by centralized power, it is authoritarianly governed from one center. The unity of the empire was ensured primarily by the person of the ruler-monarch. According to the belief of the ancient pagan peoples, the power of the king as a deity is universal. The king rules not only over his subjects, his power extends to the whole world. The whole world belongs to the king. This is where the idea of a universal, worldwide monarchy comes from.
The empire was held together by a centralized bureaucratic apparatus of government. The unity of the empire is ensured by the unity of the ruling class. The ruling class of the empire was the bureaucracy of the state-forming ethnic group.
Such a vast state is more inclined towards a monarchical form of government. All empires in the ancient East were monarchies.
But an empire can also be a republic. For example, the Roman Empire of the Republican period, the French Empire of the end XIX v. The metropolis is the republic, and the colonies were ruled, as a rule, by governors appointed from the center. The metropolis is the central part of the empire, where the state-forming ethnos lives. A colony is a territory that sharply differs from the metropolis in terms of the national and religious composition of the population, belonging to a different culture, politically governed from the metropolis and economically dependent on it. So, in the Roman Empire, Italy was the metropolis, in which the Romans and their kindred Latins lived, where self-government existed. Provinces are lands conquered outside Italy, ruled by governors appointed from Rome.
An empire's victory is never final. Sooner or later, the next empire will necessarily collapse, if only as a result of overstrain, weakening of the state-forming, imperial ethnos.
The emergence and change of world empires in the Ancient East
In the Ancient East, there was a chaotic struggle between small states, the rise and fall of empires. As a result of military conquests, empires arose. These empires, having reached their heyday, fell into decay, disintegrated, disappeared, were conquered, giving way to new empires. One empire was invariably replaced by another. World history represents the rivalry and change of world empires.
The first empire in the history of mankind was the Assyrian Empire of the 9th - 7th centuries. BC, and the Assyrian territorial state arose in the north of Mesopotamia in the XIV century BC. NS. The Assyrian Empire encompassed Western Asia, including Babylon and Egypt. Then it was replaced by the Persian Empire, which was much more extensive than the Assyrian Empire. It included Egypt, Syria, Asia Minor, Armenia, Assyria, Babylon, part of Central Asia and India. This empire lasted for about 200 years in the 6th-4th centuries. BC, from 565 BC to 330 BC
The Persian Empire was conquered by Alexander the Great (334-325 BC). After his death, the empire split into several kingdoms, the so-called Hellenistic monarchies, such as Macedonia, Egypt, Syria, etc. Hellenistic monarchies combined features of ancient Eastern societies and ancient (Greek) society. These monarchies came under the rule of the Roman Empire. It existed for several centuries (1st century BC - 5th century BC). The Roman Empire covered not only the Ancient East (except for India, China, Parthia (Iran)), but also the ancient Mediterranean territories, almost all of Western Europe, except Germany.
Administration of the Assyrian Empire
The empires, which included heterogeneous ethnic groups, were faced with the difficult task of organizing the management of the conquered lands, the task of rallying different lands and ethnic groups. First World Empire - Assyrian was a military power. Its kings were primarily military leaders. The power of the Assyrian Empire was based mainly on a strong military organization. The conquered lands were transformed into regions under the command of the royal governors and with the obligation to pay a certain tribute to the royal treasury.
The population of the conquered territories by hundreds of thousands, especially the communal, service and temple nobility, the ruling class forcibly moved to indigenous Assyria and other provinces. Thus, the goal of preventing the uprisings of the conquered peoples was achieved. Ethnic groups eventually mixed up, assimilated.
Governance of the Persian Empire
The Persian Empire had a more solid internal organization than the Assyrian Empire. Therefore, it existed for about 200 years from 565 BC. to 330 BC The dominant ethnos of the empire were the Persians. They occupied leading positions, were the core of the army. The Persians were ethnically tolerant. They left the conquered peoples their language, religion, customary law, even rulers (kings).
The empire was divided into large areas - satrapies. They were headed by governors - satraps, appointed by the king. To consolidate the tsarist power and weaken the satraps, the division of military and civilian power in the localities was introduced. The satraps possessed only civilian power. They stood at the head of the regional administration, ensured order and security, monitored the receipt of taxes, exercised judicial power. Military power, that is, command of the troops stationed in the regions, was entrusted to special military leaders. They did not depend on the satraps and were directly subordinate to the king.
Satraps and military leaders were closely associated with the central government and were under the constant control of the king and his officials. To control the activities of the satraps, the king sent special officials (“the ears and the eye of the king”) to individual satrapies. They pledged to monitor the activities of the satraps and, if necessary, could even remove them from office.
Consider types of crimes in ancient Rome , we will define the features of each of them.
As types of crimes XII Tables and other sources of law called: treason, extradition of a Roman citizen to the enemy, incitement of the enemy to attack the Roman state. The grave types of crimes in Ancient Rome included evasion of military service.
At Emperor Sulla implemented by such state crime as an insult to his greatness. This meant the greatness of the Roman people, the state, or rather Sulla himself.
V period of empire began to adjust under this term all kinds of acts against the existing system: unauthorized waging of war, armed uprisings, the murder of a magistrate, treason, incitement of the army to mutiny, substitution of state documents, a conspiracy to kill members of the consistory and the Senate. As a rule, for such types of crimes in Ancient Rome, punishment was provided in the form death penalty.
A number of crimes were defined as crimes against religion... These include the murder of the tribune of the people. It was a violation of LEX SACRATA, that is, “ sacred law". These types of crimes also included magic and witchcraft. A similar crime in ancient Rome was considered a violation of the vow of chastity by a vestal, which led to the death penalty for both perpetrators.
Until a certain time was severely punished confession of Christianity... However, since the transformation of Christianity into state religion, began to severely punish already for paganism, apostasy and heresy.
TO administrative offenses in ancient Rome, the so-called AMBITUS, that is, literally intrigues... They meant harassment and occupying a certain position by influencing.
but getting a job in illegal ways was a very common case. Practically not a single magistrate or official was found in their position thanks to only permissible methods. In ancient rome bribe, patronage, treats and entertainment were the usual means for applicants for various positions. The laws that were issued against such phenomena, in most cases, did not achieve their goal.
TO moral crimes, first of all, they referred to adultery, which was understood as a violation of marital fidelity by the wife. A woman who broke her loyalty to her husband lost half of her dowry and a third of her other property by confiscation, and was also sent into exile on the island. Half of her property was taken from her accomplice and was also sent into exile on another island.
Noticeable qualitative changes in history of criminal law Ancient Rome associated with the name Sulla... His law is 83 A.D. on murders and poisoners provided for punishment for the manufacture and sale of poison, carrying weapons for murder or theft, arson, as well as perjury in a case that involved the death penalty. For such types of crimes, punishment was imposed in the form links to islands and confiscation of property.
In ancient Rome, the law also provided for such a type of crime as private and public violence... Also subject to punishment kidnapping of free people or imprisonment of their freedom.
In 288, the illegitimate son of Constantine Constantine was born in the city of Naissa. As a child, he was sent as a hostage to the court of the eastern territory of the vast Roman Empire.
Constantine in 302 received the rank of the first ordinal tribune. Three years later, Maximian and Diocletian abdicate the throne, Galerius becomes Caesar, and at the request of Constance sends his son to him.
But there is another historical version that Constantine fled from Galerius and found his father in Gezoriac, who was already going to go to battle with the Scots and Picts in Britain.
Constantius dies in Eborac after his victory. In July 306, after these sad events, the army proclaims Constantine August. But he turns to Galerius with a request to relieve him of this post and recognize him as Caesar.
Constantine's request is granted, and he bears the title of Caesar for a year. The future emperor Constantine the Great in 310 takes part in the battle against the Franks.
When Maximian planned to regain his lost title, Constantine captured and executed him. To support the legitimacy of his rule in the western territory of the Roman Empire, Constantine proclaimed himself a descendant of the Emperor Claudius Gothic.
After Constantine became the full-fledged ruler of the western and eastern territories of the Roman Empire, it was decided to move the residence of the rulers to the East. The construction of Constantinople began in 326. In 332 he helps the Sarmatians in the fight against the Goths.
In 335, Emperor Constantine decides to divide the empire between his three sons and two nephews. Annibalian, one of the nephews, takes possession of the kingdom of Pontus and the title of king. With all this, Constantine still reserves the right of the supreme ruler. The claims of the Persian king Shapur II for the right to possession of the provinces conquered by Diocletian ignited a new war in 337. As a result of the fact that Constantine is suddenly overcome by illness, he is not able to go on a campaign against the enemy.
Shortly before his death, the emperor is baptized. Konstantin passed away on May 22. His burial is in Constantinople in the Church of the Apostles. Thanks to his deeds, Constantine was nicknamed the Great. Constantine, foreseeing the future development of his empire, pinned great hopes on Christianity. He truly believed in Christ. All of his sons received Christian education. Despite this, he still did not recognize Christianity as the state religion and postponed this important decision until the moment until all power in the empire would pass into his hands.
