User talk:Scipio3000

Why Constantine is responsible for the spread of Christianity

I am going to give references to all the material that I am going to present. If you need more info. on the books or authors let me know. I only want to provide a honest straight narrative of the history of Europe. My point is that Constantine the Great and the Roman Empire were responsible for spreading Christianity to Europe in the 4th Century AD as opposed to the time Charlemagne was crowned by the Pope as the "Emperor of the Romans" in the 9th Century AD, which became the Holy Roman Empire and that became the Habsburg dynasty. If anyone disagrees with my explanation as why my revision should not remain, please let me know. We should come to an agreed consensus and I hope the referenced material I am going to provide proves this. I took nothing from any of the links from Wikipedia so I suggest you check these out too. I got everything from my books. I used 5 seperate books, if need be, I can provide more sources. I am kinda embarrassed but I don't remeber exactly the proper way to do historical references nor do I know the system of putting up references on Wikipedia, but I will do my best....

The year 306 AD Rome and Italy were much less vital to the empire than they had been in the days of Hannibal or Augustus, but the ancient seat of power still had sufficient mystique that possession of it made it of great moral value to its imperial possessor.(1) In the West, the struggle was Maxentius, who had seized Italy and North Africa, and Constantine, who had suceeded his father Constantius as Western Emperor. in 312 Constantine invaded Italy and defeated Maxentius at Turin and Verona.(2) Constantine himself needed a to unite and inspire his troops, with the very conception of legitimate succesion under Diocletian system. He found God, or God found him, in a vision of a cross across the sun, a phenomenon that does in fact naturally occur under proper atmospheric conditions. Having seen the amazing sight, Constantine later told a biographer of a dream in which the long persecuted Christians had shown him a 'rho'[P] crossed with a 'chi'[X] and commanded 'In hoc signo, vincere'(In this sign conquer). If for no other reason than their remarkable persistence in the face of extensive persecution, the Christians were a moral force in the empire, and the soldiers accepted the generals vision and painted their emblem upon their shields. Constantines army had victory and vision on their side.(3)

He defeated Maxentius at the Battle of Milvian Bridge and made Christianity the state religion, confiscating temple treasure and building many new churches. This left him undisputed ruler of the Western provinces.(4) In 313 at the Edict of Milan constantine granted the Christians toleration and almost immediately, with the emperors patronage, an impressive building programme of cathedrals and churches started in Italy. In a few years the enormous Basilicas of St. John Lateran and St. Peter were built in Rome. Christian bishops were allowed to give Roman citizenship to slaves, and conduct their own law courts. A new heirarchy and a new kind of authority had come to Italy.(5)

At the Edict of Milan, Constantine iniated the Christianization of the Roman Empire. The conversion of parts of the Roman elite and promulagation of Christianity by Roman administrators set Europe on paths towards conversion, but fairly quickly the Church gathered its own momentum. charismatic individuals, some isolated holy men and women, others popular bishops and clergy, held great sway over local populations, while shrines devoted their lives to spiritual salvation achieved renown across Europe. Impressive ecclestical practices, such as cathedrals and monasteries, based upon traditional Roman imperial structures, began to replace these on the nascent urban landscapes across the continent.(6)

In 316 Constantine felt strong enough to attack his rival Licinius seizing Greece and the Balkans. The ensuing truce lasted until 324, when Constantine finally defeated Licinius; his victory reunited the Roman Empire. He also took personal interest in theology, participating in church councils at Arles in 314 and Nicaea in 325, and baptised on his deathbed in 337.(7) At Nicaea he presided over the first ecunenical council, representing the whole church, which defined beliefs for all Christians. A full ecclesiatical organization developed, with a heirarchy of bishops and a framework of patriarchates, provinces and dioceses throughout the empire.(8)

The two halves of the Roman Empire remained linked for half a century after the reigns of Diocletian and Constantine. Only in 395 AD, with the bitter death of Theodosius, did the complete break occure(9)

So based on that information, without Constantine and the incredible sway he had over the population and the networks and well connected logistics and roads of the Roman Empire allowed Christianity to spread rapidly and uniformly. At this time the Roman Empire was from Europe(England, France to the Rhine, Belgium, Swiss, [[Austria}], Spain, Italy, The Balkans, Greece, the Near East and North Africa). This is the majority of the known world at this time and without Constantine church councils, massive religious reforms, tolerance and promotion of christianity and the Roman empires connected and integrated society and logistics this would have never been possible, and Christianity may never had the chance to grow as it did. Nonetheless, it was constantine who gave Christianity its acceptance to the empire, its freedom to develop, the money and donations provided by the emperor for it to prosper, and its greatest push to a incredibly large, homogenious(culture-wise) society. If their is any disagreement with what I am saying please let me know. But please bring references and factual material, as that is the only thing that will suffice. Thanks for reading

1)M. Spilling(editor), "Battles of the Ancient World."(Barnes & Noble, Inc, 2007)*

2)C. Scarre, "The Penguin historical Atlas of Ancient Rome."(Penguin books, 1995)

3)M. Spilling(editor), "Battles of the Ancient World."(Barnes & Noble, Inc, 2007

4)C. Scarre, "The Penguin historical Atlas of Ancient Rome."(Penguin books, 1995)

5)H. Hearder, "Italy:A short history."(Cambridge University press, 1990)

6)A. Jotischky & C. Hull, "The Penguin Historical Guide of the MEdieval World."(Penguin books, 2005)

7)C. Scarre, "The Penguin historical Atlas of Ancient Rome."(Penguin books, 1995)

8)G.Parker(ed.), "The Compact hsitory of the world."(Times books, 1995)

9)H. Hearder, "Italy:A short history."(Cambridge University press, 1990)

• Books has 5 different authors if you need me to name them let me know.

On my article, Sicily

I feel that what Wikipedia is for and it's objective is to give people a good understanding and overview of a subject. I go on here to get the general idea of something and if I am interested there are links or references to find more information. But several articles on here are sloppy or not structured properly and I feel this to be the case with this article.

I want to give the general person a factual, informative introduction to Sicily and provide links if a certain time period interests them. But I want them to be able to go through each section and briefly get the general idea of each period in the long, fairly complicated and rich history of Sicily.

I feel that some material was forced into an article and did not fit, and some sections were too sloppy, random and they really weren't getting to the point, it was alot of names and dates and it was rushed. I still left a direct link to those articles too and several other important and informative links you unfortunately undid.

To the average reader, we want to present an easy-to read and understanable page where they can breeze through it and get the basics. I don't think we should go into too much detail especially material that is not really that relevant or instrumental to the History of Sicily. I guess I am saying I want to get to the point, without spending too much time on any one section. In conclusion, I feel that we need to stay with the facts in an easy to read, concise, chronological, factual manner.

At least read my changes

My changes should at least be reviewed. It flows better, it is historically accurate, detailed, informative, condensed, concise and to the point. I am willing to be flexible and I am open to any questions or concerns.

For a general page such as Sicily, I see it like being the "Introductory Homepage", I want to give a short, detailed summary and add several links for those who are interested in whatever section then they can find out more info. from that section. I also want to add Demographics, Cuisine, Tourism, Sports, Music. I should have told you what my intentions were.(Scipio3000 03:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC))

Talk archives

You deleted my request not to put comments on my talk archive. You said you did not know where to put your remarks. Why not try putting them directly on my talk page, rather than on an archive with an explicit "don't edit" template? Think about it. --Mathsci 08:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me?? I will delete what I want on my own talk page. You already told me this yesterday why are you telling me gain today?? I heard what you said. If I need to communicate with you I will do so, until then I will do what I want with my own personal talk page. Because after You read this I am going to delete it...why?? Because It takes up my page and I don't want it. If you can tell me what is on my page I can tell you what is on your front page. If you can be so bossy about how your page is set up, I can do so with mine. And I have dealt with enough crap on here, I don't need your sarcasm and insults...Think about it.(Scipio3000 17:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC))

Moving Ahead

Your block expires soon and I know you wish to get back to work. Please heed our encouragements and be productive. Please keep the following in mind.

1. Do not delete anything from an article talk page.
2. Do not revert without taking it to the article talk page.
3. Be prepared to compromise with other editors even it means surrendering something you personally think is important.
4. Communicate in a concise fashion; use as few words as possible and still be clear.

Thanks --JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 17:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

When I was making the changes I never realized that Wikipedia had so many rules & procedures. To be honest I was going to delete the whole page of Sicily and redo it, with references and make it extemely proffessional and of high quality. The other page looks like it has been piecemailed together. Some one did this section, someone else did this one, etc. I was going to put out a more coherent and more informative page.

I have no problem with a compromise if 1) It is backed by facts and citations 2)when it is finished we can bring experts in and get a group consensus to look at the two pages. I feel that factual referenced material should trump non referenced material. Every other page is afforded those rights and protection and I see no reason why Sicily shouldn't have those same rights.

The most ironic thing, is 1)No one has even read my changes. 2)I vastly improved the section I am so hated for. Regardless from here on out I am going to be given a difficult time, so I feel the only fair thing to do is to bring in experts to review the material at hand, and let actions and facts speak louder than words.(Scipio3000 17:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC))

BTW, JodyB thanks for having faith in me...I promise I am not going to change the Sicily page without agreement from others. Thanks again(Scipio3000 17:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC))

What I want to see reviewed for the Sicily article

1)Change the Greek, Phoenician/Carthage, Roman period, and call it "Ancient Sicily". And in the "History of Sicily article, I want to have a seperate Greek section and combine the Roman & Carthage and mention the Punic Wars.

2)Hopefully consolidate the Arab period and simply call it "Arab Sicily" or "Muslim Sicily" instead of having 4-5 different headings for that period and a few sentences underneath.

3)Change the name "Arab Norman" period into the historically accurate Norman period...this is very misleading and makes it seem like these two factions and their leaders were allies or that they ruled together in harmony, which is far from the truth.

4)Add the Hohenstaufen and Angevin periods that for some reason are not mentioned? The Angevin period, saw the Sicilian Vesper rising and is a very important event in Sicilian history.

5) Add Demographics, Cuisine, Politics and Sports.

6)Most important...Make sure that the majority of the material in all sections have references and citations. So this is purely a factual, accurate article.

• • • We will discuss this as a group and bring in experts to determine what is correct and what should stay.