Throughout history, there have been many great leaders with very different styles of commanding. Some of these methods, while unorthodox, benefited the land’s people, the land’s economy, and people’s spirituality. In Rome, there were two powerful leaders who approached the throne differently: Gaius Octavius, “Augustus” and Flavius Valerius Aurelius Constantinus Augustus, “Constantine”. Both of these men inspired changes for the Roman Empire, such as: political reforms, spiritual reforms, and social reforms. This paper will discuss which of the two men should have been deemed the true “Augusti”.
The decline of Rome was sharp, but had long lasting effects. Rome’s social environment, economic system, currency, and its allies deteriorated. This …show more content…
Augustus, while conquering Egypt, didn’t do much to expand his power, however, Constantine did. He signed an important document that single-handedly changed the social structure of the empire. He reformed the army under Christianity and made the empire more Christian (unofficially). Rome has had an impressive history. Going from a republic to a widespread empire is no small task. Many efforts were made in order to save Rome from its decline, such as: the Edict of Milan, and moving the capital to Constantinople; another effort was made in Rome’s late antiquity period. The empire would not have lasted in its imperial phase, as it was too big to sustain, and that caused its ultimate downfall (Dutton 172). In conclusion, the Roman Empire was a diverse nation with diverse leaders. Both Augustus and Constantine were powerful leaders, who had different approaches to try to save the empire. Through political, social, and spiritual reforms, the empire grew and fell. While both men were deemed “Augusti”, the most efficient Augusti was Constantine. He removed the fear of being persecuted for one’s religion with the Edict of Milan, and moved the capital of the empire to a more central
The decline of Rome was sharp, but had long lasting effects. Rome’s social environment, economic system, currency, and its allies deteriorated. This …show more content…
Augustus, while conquering Egypt, didn’t do much to expand his power, however, Constantine did. He signed an important document that single-handedly changed the social structure of the empire. He reformed the army under Christianity and made the empire more Christian (unofficially). Rome has had an impressive history. Going from a republic to a widespread empire is no small task. Many efforts were made in order to save Rome from its decline, such as: the Edict of Milan, and moving the capital to Constantinople; another effort was made in Rome’s late antiquity period. The empire would not have lasted in its imperial phase, as it was too big to sustain, and that caused its ultimate downfall (Dutton 172). In conclusion, the Roman Empire was a diverse nation with diverse leaders. Both Augustus and Constantine were powerful leaders, who had different approaches to try to save the empire. Through political, social, and spiritual reforms, the empire grew and fell. While both men were deemed “Augusti”, the most efficient Augusti was Constantine. He removed the fear of being persecuted for one’s religion with the Edict of Milan, and moved the capital of the empire to a more central