History, 02.09.2019 10:00 reyamukhtar

What effect did constantine's movement of the roman capital have

Answers: 1

Show answers

Answers

What effect did Constantine's movement of the roman capital have?
Constantine the Great moved the capital of the eastern part of the Roman Empire from Nicodemia (in northwestern Turkey) to nearby Byzantium, which he redeveloped and turned it into the capital of this part of the empire in 330 and renamed it Constantinople.
Emperor Diocletian had created two imperial capitals in 286. Nicomedia was turned to the imperial capital of the eastern part of the Roman Empire and was his seat. Milan, in Italy, was turned into the imperial capital of the western part of the Roman Empire and was the seat of Diocletian's co-emperor, Maximian. Diocletian created a co-emperorship to improve the defence of the vast frontiers of the Roman Empire which were under constant attack. He designated the mentioned cities as imperial capitals because they were closer to the frontiers to be defended than Rome. Rome became only the nominal capital of the whole empire. Co-emperorship in itself was nothing new. It had occurred several times previously.

Constantine started as a co-emperor under the arrangement created by Diocletian. When he became sole emperor after winning two civil wars, he decided to move the capital of the eastern part of the empire. The creation of a new capital for the east in itself was not a massive change, because this part of the empire already had a capital. It is not clear exactly why he did this. One thing which is quite certain is that it was at least partly a propaganda exercise. Constantine was good at propaganda. He even created a fictitious ancestry from a previous emperor. A new capital built by him was a showcase of the new dawn for the Roman Empire which his sole rule would usher in. The city was named after him (Constantinople means city of Constantine) and was given honorary titles such as "Roma Constantiniana," "The Eastern Rome" the "New, Second Rome" and "Alma Roma."

It has been suggested that Constantine wanted to build a Christian capital, but this is doubtful. It is not even sure whether he actually converted to Christianity He supported Christianity, and promoted its development, but continued to worship the Apollo-Sun god and asked both pagans and Christians to observe the day of the sun, which was devoted to this god. He also remained the head of the Roman state religion. It is said that he got baptised before his death, but this is not absolutely certain. He built important churches in Constantinople (the Church of the Holy Apostles and the Hagia Eirene) and elsewhere: The old Basilica of St Peter's in Rome (centuries later in fell in disrepair and was replaced by the current one) the Papal Archbasilica of St John's Lateran (which was Rome's cathedral and the original residence of the popes) and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem,

Answer from: Quest

It’s c i believe hope it

Answer from: Quest

One is a soap and the other a bird

Another question on History

History, 21.06.2019 19:30

In the decision for dred scott vs.sanford, (1857) in which a slave petitioned for his freedom in a st. louis court, on the grounds that his owner had taken him into free territory, and thus he ought no longer be regarded as possessing "slave" status, but should be regarded as a free man, the court decided as follows (excerpt): "in the circuit courts of the united states, the record must show that the case is one in which by the constitution and laws of the united states, the court had jurisdiction--and if this does not appear, and the court gives judgment either for plaintiff or defendant, it is error, and the judgment must be reversed by this court--and the parties cannot by consent waive the objection to the jurisdiction of the circuit court. a free negro of the african race, whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as slaves, is not a 'citizen' within the meaning of the constitution of the united states. when the constitution was adopted, they were not regarded in any of the states as members of the community which constituted the state, and were not numbered among its 'people or citizen.' consequently, the special rights and immunities guarantied to citizens do not apply to them. and not being "citizens" within the meaning of the constitution, they are not entitled to sue in that character in a court of the united states, and the circuit court has not jurisdiction in such a suit. the only two clauses in the constitution which point to this race, treat them as persons whom it was morally lawful to deal in as articles of property and to hold as slaves. since the adoption of the constitution of the united states, no state can by any subsequent law make a foreigner or any other description of persons citizens of the united states, nor entitle them to the rights and privileges secured to citizens by that instrument." why does the court say that the petitioning party in this case had no right to sue for his freedom? a) because he is too young b) because he is from a different state c) because he is "of the african race" with enslaved ancestors d) because he is, properly speaking, within his owner's jurisdiction

Answers: 1

Answer

History, 22.06.2019 18:30

The formed along a series of faults and stretches north from mozambique into syria and the middle east

Answers: 1

Answer

History, 22.06.2019 19:00

On what platform did republican richard nixon run for office ?

Answers: 1

Answer

History, 22.06.2019 19:00

In the excerpt, what does the diction ,or words used to express an idea ,show about the narrator