(Res gestae divi August!)
The Acts of the Divine Augustus is one of the most interesting documents of the era of the early principate. It has come down to us in the form of an inscription found in 1555 at the site ancient city; Ancyra (hence the name "Monumentum Ancyranum"). This inscription was made in Latin and Greek. Two other copies were found in the cities of Apollonia and Aithiochia. A comparison of three documents made it possible to almost completely restore the text of this important monument. The nature of this document, in which the author praises his work in every possible way, shows how critically one should treat its content.
§ 1. At the age of nineteen, by my own decision and at my own private expense, I raised an army, with the help of which I restored freedom to the republic, oppressed by a gang of conspirators (1). In the name of this, the senate, by an honorary decree, accepted me into its estate in the consulate of Gaius Pansa and Aulus Hirtius, giving me the right to submit my opinion along with the consulars, and gave me military power. The Senate charged me, as propraetor, with the consuls, to look after the security of the republic (2); the people, in the same year that both consuls fell in the war (3), elected me consuls and triumvirs for the reorganization of the state.
§ 2. Those who were the murderers of my parent, I sent into exile, repaying them for their crime by a sentence according to the laws, and subsequently, when they went to war against the republic, I defeated them twice in the ranks (4).
§ 3. I have fought many wars throughout the world, on land and sea, civil and foreign, and, as a victor, I have shown mercy to all citizens who asked for it. Foreign peoples, to whom it was safe to give forgiveness, I preferred to preserve rather than exterminate. The Roman citizens who took the oath to me numbered about five hundred thousand. Of these I brought into the colonies, or released at the end of their service in their municipality, a little more than three hundred thousand, and all of them I endowed with land or rewarded with money for military service. I captured six hundred ships, not counting those smaller than the triremes.
§ 5. The dictatorship proposed by all the people and the senate to the consulship of Marcus Marcellus and Lucius Arruntius to me personally and in my absence, I did not accept. With an extreme shortage of grain, I did not abandon my concern for food, which I managed in such a way that in a few days, with the help of my own means, I freed the whole people from fear and the danger that threatened them [famine] (5). I did not accept the consular authority, which was then offered to me for a year and indefinitely.
§ 8. Being consul for the fifth time by order of the people and the senate, I increased the number of patricians. I checked the composition of the Senate three times. During the sixth consulate, I carried out the censorship with Marcus Agrippa. The census was taken after a span of forty-two years (6). According to this census, there were four million sixty-three thousand Roman citizens. I made the second census alone, having consular powers, to the consulate of Gaius Censorinus and Gaius Asinius (7). According to this census, there were four million and two hundred and thirty-three thousand Roman citizens. The third census, having consular powers, I made, together with my son Tiberius Caesar, in the consulate of Sextus Pompey and Sextus Appuleius (8). According to this census of Roman citizens, four million nine hundred and thirty-seven thousand were counted.
§ 13. The Temple of Janus Quirinus, which our ancestors decided to close only after peace had been consolidated in the entire empire of the Roman people by victories on land and at sea, and which, from the founding of the city to my birth, as is remembered by people, was closed only twice, during my administration, by decree of the Senate, it was closed three times (9).
§ 15. To the Roman plebs, according to my father's will, I distributed three hundred sesterces per person, and in my own name to my fifth consulship I gave out four hundred sesterces per person from the spoils of war; once again on my tenth consulate, I counted out of my own property four hundred sesterces per person as a gift, and on my eleventh consulate, I distributed food twelve times with bread bought with my private funds, and when I was the twelfth time a tribune, I for the third time distributed four hundred sesterces per person. These distributions of mine have never covered less than two hundred and fifty thousand people. When I was the eighteenth time a tribune and the twelfth time a consul (10), I distributed sixty denarii (11) per person to three hundred and twenty thousand city plebs. In the colonies of my soldiers, on my fifth consulate, I distributed from the spoils of war a thousand sesterces per person; about one hundred and twenty thousand people received this triumphal gift in the colonies. On my thirteenth consulate, I distributed sixty denarii to the plebs, who then received the state grain ration. There were a little over two hundred thousand of them.
§ 16. The money for the lands with which I endowed the soldiers in my fourth consulate, and then in the consulate of Marcus Crassus and Gnaeus Lentulus augur, I paid to the municipalities. This amounted to the sum of six hundred million sesterces, which I counted for the lands in Italy, and the sum of two hundred and sixty millions, which I paid for the lands in the provinces. This is what I did, the first and only one of all those who, in the memory of my century, brought colonies of veterans to Italy or to the provinces ...
§ 17. Four times, with my private funds, I supported the state treasury by giving one hundred and fifty million sesterces to those who were in charge of it (12). To the consulate of Marcus Lepidus and Lucius Arruntius, to the military treasury, which was founded on my advice, to issue awards to soldiers who have served twenty or more years, I deposited from my personal property one hundred and seventy million sesterces ...
§ 25. I cleared the sea of robbers. In that struggle with the slaves who fled from their masters and took up arms against the republic, I, having captured almost thirty thousand fugitives, handed them over to their owners for execution (13). All Italy voluntarily swore an oath to me and demanded that I be the leader in that war in which I won the victory at Actium. The same oath was sworn to me by the provinces: Gaul, Spain, Africa, Sicily, and Sardinia.
§ 28. I brought colonies of veterans into Africa, Sicily, Macedonia, the two Spains, Achaia, Asia Minor, Syria, Narbonne Gaul, and Pisidia. There are twenty-eight colonies in Italy, bred under my auspices, grown during my lifetime and prosperous.
§ 34. At the sixth and seventh consulates, after I had extinguished civil wars, using the supreme power by universal consent, I transferred the state from my power to the disposal of the senate and the people. For this merit of mine, by decree of the senate, I was named Augustus (14), the doors of my house were publicly decorated with laurels, the civil crown was nailed over my door, and in the curia Julius a golden shield was placed, presented to me, as the inscription on it says, the Senate and the Roman people for courage, mercy, justice and piety. After that, I excelled everyone with my “authority”, while I had no more power than those who were my colleagues in the magistracy.
1. The supporters of Antony are meant.
2. This is exactly the meaning known formula in the decisions of the Senate, which literally means: to see that the republic does not suffer any damage.
3. In 43 BC. e.
4. At the battle of Philippi in 42 BC. e.
5. Apparently, in 23 BC. e.
6. The first census of Augustus was made in 28 BC. e.; the previous one is dated 70/69 BC. to the consulate of Gellius and Lentulus.
7. The second census of the population by August falls on the 8th year BC. e.
8. The third census of Augustus falls on the 14th year AD. e., its results were made public 100 days before the death of Augustus.
9. Until Augustus, the temple of Janus Quirinus was closed under Numa Pompilius and the second time - after the first Punic war, in 235 BC. e. Under Augustus, the temple was closed for the first time since the Battle of Actium in 29 BC. e.; the second time - in 25 BC. e., after the victory over the cantabras; the year of the third closing of the temple is unknown to us. It was rediscovered at the extreme old age of Augustus. (Evidence from Orosius with reference to Tacitus.)
10. The years of distribution, determined by Augustus from his consulates, fall on the following dates: the fifth consulate - in 29 BC. e.; the tenth - for 24 BC. e.; the eleventh - for 23 BC. e., when there was a shortage of bread in Rome; Augustus was tribune for the twelfth time in 12 BC. e., when he took the rank of supreme pontiff; for the eighteenth time as tribune and for the twelfth time as consul, Augustus was in 5 BC. e., when his son Gaius adopted a male toga; the thirteenth consulship of Augustus was in 2 BC. e., when the male toga was adopted by his son Lucius.
11. Sixty denarii equals two hundred and forty sesterces.
12. Two cases are dated, according to other sources, to 28 and 16 years. BC e., the dates of others are unknown to us.
13. This refers to the war with Sextus Pompey, ended in 36 BC. e.
14. In 27 BC.
Transl. and approx. V. S. Sokolova.
Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation
Pskov State
Pedagogical Institute named after S.M. Kirov
Department of General History
GRADUATE WORK
The Acts of Ammianus Marcellinus
as a source for history
late Roman Empire
Pikalev Pavel Arkadievich
5th year student
Faculty of History
Scientific adviser:
Senior Lecturer
chairs of world 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" of Ammian 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 a prominent place among the historians of ancient Rome. He wrote a great 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 time of the reign of Nerva, have not reached us. The 14th book already tells about the events of the 4th century AD. since 353. In the last, 31st, book, the presentation of events is brought up to the year 378, that is, before the battle of Adrianaple. We see that the author devoted 13 books of his work to a period of 257 years (96-353), and the remaining 18 books to a 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; at the same time, his work, in fact, approaches memoirs. True, there is another point of view. It seems quite possible that the exposition of the period 96-353 is found in some other work of Ammianus that has not come down to us, the continuation of which is the “History” known to us. Whether this is so, we will find out soon, if we ever find out at all.
What is the fate of the historical work of this, no 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 Ammian read the first books of his work in Rome.1 The success of Ammian's book in the circle of the external pagan aristocracy of Rome is explained by the fact that the general ideological and political orientation of historical work impressed this part of the Roman senatorial nobility. The chanting of Rome and the ancient Roman virtues, the idealization of the activities of the pagan emperor Julian, the criticism of Christian sovereigns - all this appealed to 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 Emperor Julian the Apostate, made the work inaccessible to the reader, led to its oblivion. Interest in Ammian was revived only in the Renaissance. In the middle of the 15th century, the humanist Poggio Bracciolini discovered the manuscript of the Acts, already in the 16th century the work was reprinted many times. But still, he constantly remained in the shadow of his predecessors - Titus Livius, Tacitus, Polybius. At this time, researchers most of all appreciate the purity of speech and refinement of style, and, naturally, Ammianus could not attract their attention. He seemed rather pale, ponderous, and his language coarse. For a long time it was believed that he was only badly imitating the best antique samples. The study of Ammianus was hampered by the poor manuscript tradition of his composition. To this day, the Fulda Manuscript found by Poggio Bracciolini remains the most important manuscript. All other manuscripts, with the exception of the Hersfeld one, are only lists from the Fulda one and therefore are of no importance for restoring the text. Assumptions that the so-called Manuscript E (Vatic.Lat.2969) contains a tradition independent of the Fulda Manuscript turned out to be unfounded: this manuscript was copied in Rome in 1445, follows the Fulda one entirely, and the discrepancies are explained by the translator's corrections2.
The issue of the Hersfel manuscript of Ammianus is more complicated. Poggio Bracciolini already knew about its existence, but he failed to obtain this manuscript. In 1533, Sigismund Helenius, a scholar close to Erasmus of Rotterdam, published the text of Ammian in Basel, based partly on the previous edition based on the Fulda manuscript, partly on the Hersfeld manuscript. Then the manuscript disappeared again, and only in 1875 were 6 of its sheets discovered - 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. Thus, Clark believed that it goes back to the archetype common with the Fulda one, and Robinson believed that, on the contrary, it served as a source for the Fulda manuscript3.
The goal of world propaganda, combined with "our democratic" - to achieve a negative perception of such a thing as an empire, in relation to our Fatherland, apparently, was crowned with success. The burry press and citizens who think in terms of it continue to assimilate and develop the catchy term "evil empire."
So the young, pretty to me author A.V. Tsygankov appeared philosophical: "... the logical conclusion of the empire - world domination." Meanwhile, this is only half true; is fully applicable to one single country - the United States, and sounds absurd in the context of our Motherland.
When they excelled in exposing the USSR, the concept of empire was stuck, in accordance with the past of human history. "All empires must inevitably perish" - and they listed the Roman, Alexander the Great, the empire of the Persians and so on; according to the laws of logic, we were chosen 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 now. Now there is another definition of empire, and other varieties of empires, and various 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, robs the world with the help of all-encompassing and insatiable banks and companies.
The second man is exactly like America. Let's, at least briefly, resurrect in memory her imperial features (more correctly, the imperial muzzle), in order to be convinced of this. For 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, several hundred thousand remained by the end of colonization. The atrocities are identical to those of the Nazis: merciless destruction, dog-baiting, burning of villages, destruction of crops, abuse. Humanity was present only in the order of the discussion: "to kill everyone in a row or still leave women - they will come in handy for entertainment." 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.
From 1776 to 1900, the United States increased its territory 10 times. 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 the territory of Mexico passes to the United States. Greed is boundless: threatening war, again in 1853 (the so-called Treaty of Gadeden) seized 140 thousand km2 of Mexican land.
The annexation plans called for the complete subjugation of Mexico; normal script: ..to Mexico and the Mexican people(assigned) responsible for all acts of violence that endanger American lives and damage American property or investments". (For some reason, the United States found the same threat to the lives of Jews (relatives!) 150 years later in Iraq.)
Using the desire of Latin American countries to liberate Spain from colonial dependence, 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 made war with Spain, established the full political and economic hegemony of the United States in Latin America.
Under the far-fetched pretext of protecting property or eliminating unrest, they invaded (1880-1890) the territories of Chile, Colombia, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, Nicaragua and other countries South America.
R. Olney's doctrine provided for sole and absolute control over the territory of South America: " At present, the United States is practically sovereign on this continent and their will is law....".
This law was especially unfriendly to Colombia. The United States wanted to single-handedly control and receive bribes from the Panama Canal, and the Colombians could not do anything about this impudent. The United States broke off a narrow strip of Colombian land, created the "independent" state of Panama, planted an obedient government and started robbing.
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 treaty of 1903, at least, there was at least a mention of the sovereignty of Panama. 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, and Cuba. (And on what basis is the Guantanamo base on Cuban soil still held?)
The United States invaded Haiti (Port-au-Prince) at least 20 times to "combat riots" and carried out open aggression 6 times. ( Now they have a fixed 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 willingly wipe Spain and Turkey from the face of the earth. " (T. Roosevelt).
Yes, and we, as I remember, did not invite (in 1918) Americans neither to Murmansk, nor to Arkhangelsk, nor to Far East . ("If this collapse... delay for 25 years, then we would have time to Americanize Siberia and this would be the only thing worthy of American investment". (Henry Adams, from a memorandum to the Senate).
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 is," having developed in himself ... aggressive traits, he will move all over the earth". "New Canaan", "promised land", "new nation", which (according to J. Burgess) must not only respond to the call of backward peoples for help and leadership, but also force these peoples to submit, applying, if necessary, any means".
And this country - truly a "fiend of hell" - dared to call my homeland an "evil empire"! "From a sick head to a healthy one" is a too superficial reflection of what happened.
The deeds of this criminal state cannot be contained in plump, multi-volume works.
It would take Hitler 500-700 years to do all this. Not tens, but hundreds of thousands of lives cost the "intervention" of the CIA in the affairs of Greece and Italy. In Indonesia, the victims are estimated at three million. By my modest generosity, this "hell fiend" empire should be judged 16 times Nuremberg Trials. For Vietnam alone, she should be put in the dock twice, the same for atomic bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Yes, only for the inhumane murder of 400 children and women in Iraq, for the death of 1.3 million Iraqis, America deserves contempt and punishment.
History screams! 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 it?
Why don't you "truth-loving" Democrats whine about it monster who scattered military bases all over the earth and keeps it under fear, entangled the whole world with a tsar net, robbing peoples with the help of banks, multinational corporations, loans and foreign exchange funds, imposing slyly vile treaties on peoples in order to dictate their will.
Point your finger at 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, as immediately: guard! Empire!
Perhaps - these are extremes, maybe it is beneficial for us to exaggerate? Well, let's turn to the most civilized, gallant, sort of innocent virgin - that, at least, is the image of modern France.
Indochina, Africa, Napoleon's campaigns in Europe - everything has been handed over to the Book of Oblivion. But let us recall, at least in large strokes, for what purpose imperial France galloped around the world, what barbarism it committed, what economic and political goals were pursued.
Speech by Jules Ferry 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 advantageous place for investing capital. ... But, gentlemen, there is another, even more significant aspect of this question, much more important than the one I have just touched on. For countries compelled ... to export their goods widely, the colonial question is a question of markets. ... the acquisition of colonies means obtaining a market ... Where there is political domination, ... there is economic domination(and vice versa - A.D.). ... the policy of colonial expansion ... took us to Saigon, to Cochin China, ... to Tunisia, ... to Madagascar - this policy is inspired by the truth "".
What modern thoughts, 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. ... The order is given to rob. Everyone is captured or killed... The Colonel proceeds to divide the booty. At first, he himself noted in a notebook, then he refused ... They shared it with disputes and a fight. Then go! Each European received a woman to choose from... We walked back by crossings of 40 km along with the prisoners. Children and all those who were exhausted were finished off with blows from 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 strength she gave to the Central Asian peoples. From a nomadic state they were brought by the hand into modernity: science, education, health care, etc., modern literary language(for example, Kyrgyz). Thanks, appreciated.
Those who want to put us on a par with all the empires most often reproach the Caucasus. Like, the humanity of the imperial policy here is completely doubtful. Yes, war is war. First, the reasons (one of many), but in the words of the authors of the "History of the XIX century." Lavisse and Rambeau, from whom you can’t really get sympathy for Russia out of all 8 volumes: "... the highlanders lived by the fact that it was their custom to raid the plain, and they took away cattle, bread and inhabitants, for whom they demanded a ransom."
(A compelling characterization of democracy: we've gone back nearly a couple of hundred years.)
Enmity escalated into war, and then what? And then the natural process of civilization. The most disliked commander in the Caucasus is General A.P. Yermolov, and therefore it is necessary to recall his "military" activities.
"I approve of arable farming in order to lure the inhabitants to a permanent life .. ."
"I represent the establishment of a small military school, like our provincial military schools ...".
With the help of subsidies from the treasury, it gives Georgian peasants the opportunity to buy land that was previously bought by creditors for next to nothing. There are new newspapers, new educational establishments. A.P. Yermolov personally monitors the progress educational process, forms libraries, subscribes books from Russia for them. The translation of the huge "Codices" of King Vakhtang VI has begun. He streamlines legal proceedings, eliminates arbitrariness, organizes road construction, rebuilds Tiflis (the city center is rebuilt in the spirit of modern European architecture), lays out gardens and squares.
"Here in the khanates silk establishments are beginning to be in good condition", etc., etc. (Izl. according to O.M. Mikhailov.)
Such is the expansion Russian Empire and the deeds of her viceroy; creative activity forgotten, disrespect is cultivated, only negativity is exaggerated.
Of course, "sorting out" a more or less exhaustive history of all empires is a multi-volume work, but what has been said is enough to see our dissimilarity to any other empire.
Special type of empire: " The Russian state has existed for a thousand years; it is vast, populous, rich and occupies one of the first places in the world in terms of its power, which is why it is also called the Empire". (Elementary Geography. Petrograd. 1912) The tsarist historians formulated simply, as by an encyclopedic definition: lat. Imperium - power, state. Studying the history of the states of Europe, knowing their true "friendliness", the secrets of their policy, convince the justice of the imperial the motives of our kings (" Russia's only friends are its Army and Navy") and the validity of the construction of the empire by I.V. Stalin.
By the way, they gave 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.) on such risky steps as enslavement and systematic robbery colonies and other backward countries, the organization of new wars, which are the best for the bigwigs of modern capitalism"business" to extract maximum profits, finally, attempts world conquest economic(and with it the political - A.D.) domination "(I.V. Stalin. "Economic problems of socialism in the USSR", 1952, p.39).
Definition for the ages. ( As you can see, nothing has changed, only added. Remember Lenin's 5 Signs of Imperialism? The last, fifth was: the export of capital, in contrast to the export of goods. Modern imperialism has been enriched with many features, the most pernicious of which for us are:
The export of high-precision technologies and the destruction of high-tech industries,
-export of intellect and creation of conditions leading to the impossibility of recreating the intellectual potential of the nation in the future.)
In 288, in the city of Naissus, the illegitimate son of Constantius Constantine was born. As a child, he was sent as a hostage to the court eastern territory vast Roman Empire.
Constantine in 302 received the rank of the first ordinal tribune. Three years later, Maximian and Diocletian abdicate, Galerius becomes Caesar, and at the request of Constantius sends his son to him.
But there is another historical version that Constantine fled from Galerius and found his father in Gezoriak, who was about to go to battle with the Scots and Picts and Britain.
Constantius dies in Eborac after a victory. In July 306, after these sad events, the army proclaims Constantine Augustus. 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 reinforce the legitimacy of his rule in the western territory of the Roman Empire, Constantine proclaimed himself a descendant of Emperor Claudius Gothicus.
After Constantine became the full 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, receives the kingdom of Pontus and the title of king. With all this, Constantine still reserves the right to supreme ruler. The claims of the Persian king Shapur II to the right to own the provinces conquered by Diocletian are kindled in 337 new war. As a result of the fact that Constantine is suddenly overcome by illness, he is unable to go on a campaign against the enemy.
Shortly before his death, the emperor is baptized. Konstantin died on May 22. His burial is in Constantinople in the Church of the Apostles. Thanks to his deeds, Constantine received the nickname 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 a Christian education. Despite this, he still did not recognize Christianity as the state religion and postponed this important decision until that moment, until all power in the empire would have passed into his hands.