Replies

Constantine may be called Great but he became emperor by massacring one Roman army after another. He then destroyed the Tetrarchy system which Diocletian put in place to address the empire’s lethal weakness, the imperial succession. His reign set in motion the events that led to the collapse of the empire in the west, or at the very least undid the hard work of his predecessors in stabilizing the situation.

Constantine may be called Great but he became emperor by massacring one Roman army after another. He then destroyed the Tetrarchy system which Diocletian put in place to address the empire’s lethal weakness, the imperial succession. His reign set in motion the events that led to the collapse of the empire in the west, or at the very least undid the hard work of his predecessors in stabilizing the situation.

That's certainly one way to look at it. Another way is this:

Constantine may be called Great but he became emperor by massacring one Roman army after another.

No, they were doing that before Constantine. When Maxentius usurped his father Maximian's dominions, Galerius sent his co-emperor Severus to Italy to deal with the usurper. He failed. Then Galerius himself tried, and also failed. Both lost part or all of their armies. It was left to Constantine to finally and decisively defeat Maxentius. If you read Lactantius, he blames these wars on the fact that the imperial armies grew enormously under the Tetrarchy and men with huge armies following them are always going to find ways to use them to their advantage.

He then destroyed the Tetrarchy system which Diocletian put in place to address the empire’s lethal weakness, the imperial succession.

The Tetrarchy system was a failure from the beginning. It didn't even last one generation and it was hardly Constantine's fault that a flawed system failed so dramatically.

His reign set in motion the events that led to the collapse of the empire in the west, or at the very least undid the hard work of his predecessors in stabilizing the situation.

If you read Lactantius, it becomes clear that the reforms of Diocletian were a mixed bag at best. Yes, he was able to stabilize the frontiers of the empire and reform the internal workings of the provinces. But his economic reforms (cost controls) were generally a failure, his system of imperial succession was a complete failure, and his reform of religion -- that is, the Great Persecution -- was disastrous.

“...led to the collapse of the empire in the west”

Perhaps, but as cultural descendants of the Western Empire, it is hard for us to realize, as Constantine did, that the jewel of the empire lie in the East—not the West. The Eastern half of the empire lasted 1000 years longer than the West. If only that door in Constantinople had stayed locked.