 |
|
History: Constantine and Tony La Russa
|
 |
Contents
1. Introduction
2. Constantine I and his impact on Europe
3. Tony La Russa
4. Conclusion
5. Bibliography
Introduction
Traditionally it is said that every individual is a unique
personality that cannot have its double but in the same time
it an undeniable fact that some features of character are
common for many people as well as their interests may also
coincide and it is due to this human race is so solid and
really unified.
In fact it is hardly possible to deny tat the greatest people
in history are to a certain extent alike. Naturally they had
some difference, even very significant once but still they
had a lot of in common what made them really great. To support
this viewpoint it would be enough to have a look at the personality
of two outstanding people: Constantine I and Tony La Russa.
On the one hand they are not simply people from different
epochs and continents but they worked in different fields
but still they are to a certain extent similar in their methods
of work despite all the differences that exist between them.
Constantine I and his impact on Europe
Before starting to speak about the emperor Constantine I it
is necessary to dwell upon the sources where the information
about this person may be taken from.
At this respect, primary sources are of a paramount importance,
particularly those which are written by his contemporaries
or were created by himself. It seems to be obvious that they
are very significant for any serious analysis because they
convey the entity of the epoch Constantine I lived in and
it naturally helps understand to what extent he influenced
the future development of Europe and in the same time the
life and work of Tony La Russa is described by his contemporaries
only since he still leads an active life.
Moreover, basically primary sources permit to realize how
innovative was the policy of the emperor and what effect his
innovations had at those time. Consequently, it will contribute
to the understanding of the effect of his life and work for
the future history of the whole continent.
Actually, primary sources add that objectiveness for a researcher’s
perception that may be lost while studying some secondary
sources where the opinions of other authors and the degree
of retrospection is much higher. What is meant here is the
fact that in secondary sources authors extrapolate the deeds
and events of the Constantine’s epoch to the future
events and history. And vice versa they take into considerations
the future events that took place after the death of Constantine
I and the end of his epoch and transmit them to the period
of life and work of the emperor. In such a way, a researcher
deals with a bit changed information and cannot fully make
his or her own judgment about the personality of Constantine
I and his contribution to the history of Medieval Europe.
Speaking about primary sources that refer to Constantine I
his life and work as well as to his epoch than it may be said
that they are not very numerous but relatively sufficient
compared to personality of some other emperors or historical
figures. However, the specific of history as a science is
that there is never enough information and there is always
something hidden from historians that a researcher should
guess about, presuppose and build his own theories lacking
the necessary quantity of information and at this respect
simple logic may be at help.
But, returning to the primary sources concerning Constantine
I and his epoch, there could be named several among which
the most important seem to be the works of those who lived
at the same historical period as Constantine I did. Namely,
they are Lactantius and Eusebius, who were historians contemporary
of Constantine’s reign. As for their works there may
be named several of them. For instance, Lactantius is famous
for his work “The Death of Persecutors”, whereas
Eusebius wrote two major work about the emperor Constantine
I, they are “In Praise of Constantine” and “Church
History”. Also the works of Socrates and Sozomen, which
have the same title “Church History”, may be at
use for a researcher.
It is noteworthy that such a big quantity of primary sources
are associated with the church history. It is not surprisingly
because Constantine I produced probably the greatest impact
on the religion of all Europeans and not only of the Middle
Ages but even Renaissance and later epochs as well.
However, it is also should be pointed out that the emperor
himself also lived some sources that are extremely useful
for historians, for instance, his “To the Assembly of
the Saints” also conveys a lot of interesting facts
and information about Constantine’s views on religion
and his policy in this field. At this paper some of the works
mentioned above would analyzed in the context of the influence
of the emperor Constantine I the Great on the Medieval European
history.
There is no doubt that the most outstanding event that occurred
in the reign of Constantine I was the transformation of Christianity
into official state religion. Many historians both contemporary
and ancient put this event on the first place among all the
deeds that had ever been done by the emperor.
It is obvious that the choice of Christianity as the official
religion of the whole empire produced a significant impact
on the future Medieval history of all European continent both
western and eastern and shaped not only European religion
of the Middle Ages but European philosophy and culture as
well.
Consequently, it is necessary to analyze what made the emperor
to make such a step and what were the conditions and circumstances
that led him to such a decision. At this respect, the primary
sources of the historians, which were contemporary of Constantine’s
reign, are extremely important.
However, it should be pointed out that during his life Constantine
the Great several times radically changed his views on religion
and policy related to this aspect of life within his empire.
At the same time, he tended to be close to deity, to something
divine. In this context quite remarkable are words of Eusebius
in “The Conversion of Constantine” where the author
states that the emperor was convinced that “he needed
some more powerful aid than his military forces could afford
him, on account of the wicked and magic enchantments which
were so diligently practiced by the tyrant, he sought Divine
assistance, deeming the possession of arms and a numerous
soldiery of secondary importance, but believing the co-operating
power of Deity invincible and not to be shaken” (Ch27).
It means that he sought for support of his political power
from religion and obviously he wanted to be an emperor by
the God’s will.
Actually, this idea may be traced in the work of Michael Grants
“Constantine the Great: The Man and His Times”,
where he states that “it was by the will of God that
Constantine became possessed by the Empire” (1999:211).
So, it may be an evidence of Constantine’s intention
to be close to the almighty God. But it was only one of the
reasons why the emperor decided to convert to Christianity
not only himself but the whole empire.
Naturally, there were other reasons that were probably even
more important for Constantine and his empire. It is necessary
to say that at that epoch Roman empire was on its way to decline
and civil wars were normal part of the life of the empire.
Consequently, ideologically, the population of Roman empire
was so diverse that it was vitally important to find a unifying
force that would be able to unite all members of Roman society,
all the population of this huge country despite nationality,
social status, political views, etc.
Christianity with its particular philosophy was probably the
best solution of the problem for Constantine, especially if
take into consideration the growing popularity of Christianity
despite all prohibitions that were quite ordinary in pre-Constantine
epochs.
During the reign of Constantine, Christianity prospered. All
his deeds were accompanied by God’s will and divine
visions that the emperor saw from time to time. Even his conversion
to Christianity was predetermined by his vision that happened
during the war with his co-emperor Maxentius. As Eusebius
describes it, before the crucial battle of Milvian Bridge,
the emperor, being convinced that he needed a divine assistance,
prayed for it and got a vision of a cross of light at midday,
bearing the inscription of ‘in this sign you will be
victorious’.
However, the latter fact is nowadays traditionally explained
by optic illusion if not the invention of Constantine but
still it symbolize what attention he paid to Christianity
that should bring him victory in his struggle for power.
Thus, his conversion to Christianity had a dubious effect.
For him, it should become a state religion able to unite all
peoples and nations by one common idea, philosophy and naturally
religion. At the same time, conversion to Christianity of
the whole Roman empire had a much more serious and far going
consequences for all European civilization in the next epoch
that changed ancient world, i.e. the Middle Ages and even
further epochs.
However, religion was not the only sphere in which Constantine
I the Great produced a great impact on further development
of European civilization. He, possessing such a huge empire
as Roman, understood that Rome itself could not remain anymore
the center of the empire because it was too far in the west
and it was extremely difficult to control the whole empire
from this city. As a result he decided to create a new center
of empire that would unite it in a solid country, and that
would lead to the realization of dreams, which Alexander the
Great once had attempted to realize, dreams about the uniting
of West and East.
On changing several cities as potential centers of his empire
he decided to build a new city Constantinople on the basis
of Greek settlement Byzantium. The city, being geographically
perfectly situated, served as a bridge between Europe and
Asia. In such a way he underlined the necessity of the creation
of a really united empire in spite of all traditional views
and beliefs that treated his decision as a mistake because
Rome was a traditional and unique center of Roman empire.
But Constantine I was wise enough to change stereotypes and
build Constantinople. From this city he could easier control
all the territories of a huge empire, particularly its eastern
and northeastern borders.
At the same time, such a step of the Roman emperor had serious
consequences for European history. First of all, Constantinople
remained for a long time an independent and quite a powerful
state that was known as Byzantine empire that had existed
until the middle of the 15th century. During the Middle Ages
this empire was a cultural and scientific center of Europe.
While science, culture and art in Western and Central Europe
were in decline, in Byzantine empire the heritage of ancient
Greece and Rome was kept and multiplied. Furthermore, contacts
of the empire with other European countries, either friendly
or not (like in the period of Crusades), enriched the culture
and science of Western Europe.
Moreover, Byzantine empire brought Christianity, so carefully
brought up by Constantine the Great in his empire, and civilization
in Eastern Europe. Traditionally treated as barbarous tribes
of Slavs became Christians who learned a lot from Byzantine
culture and Christian religion, even alphabet and literacy
were brought in Eastern Europe, for instance Kievan Rus, from
Byzantine empire.
Another very serious impact that Constantine produced on Europe
by building Constantinople was the idea of unification and
uniting of Europe and Asia. In the Middle Ages Western Europe
was practically isolated from Asia that still remained the
desired land for Europeans. It may be said that Constantine,
introducing of Christianity as a state religion, showed them
the way where the Promised Land was and this way lied through
his city, Constantinople.
By the way, the idea of uniting the empire is extremely important,
particularly for Medieval Europe that suffered from feudal
wars between representatives of one and the same nation. Probably,
Constantine was one of the last emperors who managed to unite
such a huge territory with enormous population in one empire.
However, Constantine’s achievements in conversion of
Roman empire to Christianity and creation of a new center
of the empire are not the only ones. He also contributed to
the development of culture and arts. The achievements and
experience of architects that worked at that time were widely
used later in Byzantine empire and in Western Europe as well.
Also his reformation of army was quite important but it probably
did not such an effect as other deeds of Constantine the Great.
As for legislative activity and reforms it should be said
that the Roman laws produced a significant impact on the development
of jurisprudence in Europe and naturally, Constantine by his
state activity made his own contribution into the development
of Roman, and consequently, European legislation.
Tony La Russa
At first glance Tony La Russa has nothing in common with the
great Roman emperor Constantine but when his life story and
work are analyzed deeper than it becomes obvious that to a
significant extent they used similar methods in their work
and their relation to people though some not less significant
differences may be found as well. Furthermore, the fields
where Constantine and Tony La Russa worked do not add arguments
to compare and contrast these two outstanding people of their
times.
Nonetheless it is possible to say that to a certain extent
sport and big politic are similar to one another and the methods
that are used in politics may be successfully applied in sport
as well and vice versa.
However, it should be said that researchers possess much more
wider range of views on Constantine, his personality and deeds,
than on Tony La Russa’s ones. The main reason is that
when Constantine I is discussed it is possible to use both
primary and secondary sources and thus, it is possible to
view his politics, his personality in retrospection. In such
a way a modern researcher have more tools to define his role
in history while the only sources about Tony La Russa are
works of his contemporaries this is why it is practically
impossible to fully appreciate his contribution into the development
of sport and sport management in the US and probably in the
world at large.
Nonetheless, some conclusions may be made even now since the
contribution of Tony La Russa into the development of baseball
and sport at large are obvious and his managerial talent is
well known. So, comparing Constantine I and Tony La Russa
it would be better to compare their deeds since nothing describes
a person better than a person’s deeds. In fact some
similarities between Constantine I and Tony La Russa may be
found when the career of the latter as a sportsman is discussed.
It is a well-known fact that he was seriously injured and
the injury disturbed him till the end of his career but it
has never stopped him. It reveals his boldness and ability
to overcome difficulties and the same traits may be found
in the character of Constantine I, especially when he introduced
Christianity as the main religion of Roman Empire. Obviously,
introduction of Christianity met a strong opposition, but
Constantine I ignored it and realized his plans regardless
all the problems he faced.
The further development of Tony La Russa career as a manager
soon revealed his difference from Constantine I. Despite the
fact that Tony La Russa received a Juris Doctor degree he
never entered the legal profession while Constantine, being
a ruler, an emperor of the most powerful country at the time
could not fail to develop his legal and legislative activities.
Moreover he introduced a number of legislative innovations
that have already been described above. Unlike Constantine,
Tony La Russa estimated: “I decided I’d rather
ride the buses in the Minor League than practice law for a
living” (Will 2004:105).
On the other hand this fact from the biography of Tony La
Russa may be treated as a trend that reveals the fact that
he did not like radical changes in his life and in his surrounding
that was absolutely untypical for Constantine who, despite
his name, which symbolizes constancy, introduced radical changes
quite readily and in first turn it concerns his religious
views which he changed so often and eventually stopped upon
Christianity.
On the other hand, it is impossible to say that Tony La Russa
is a man who has permanent interest, or more precisely who
is fully devoted to one organization. He often changed clubs
he played in or he managed and he readily accept such changes
and this can be treated as pragmatism from his part just like
Constantine whose policy was marked by a high degree of pragmatism
so that he even changed the capital of his empire out of sheer
pragmatism.
Furthermore, an important part of Constantine’s politics
was aimed at the unification of West and East of Europe and
Asia. To a certain extent the changes of clubs made by Tony
La Russa during his career as a payer and manager may be interpreted
in the same way as an attempt to unify baseball teams from
different parts of the US as a part of one sport of one country
but this kind of unity is rather spiritual while Constantine
rather tended to physical unification through cultural, religions,
economic and political expansion of Roman Empire to East and
West.
Managerial abilities and inclinations of Tony La Russa compared
to Constantine I worth particular attention. Generally speaking
it is possible to estimate that Tony La Russa attitude to
his players is much more human compared to the attitude of
Constantine I to his people but it may be explained by the
huge time gap between them and the enormous difference in
moral and ethical views of their epochs. Obviously Constantine
did not pay much attention to actual needs of his people.
For instance, his introduction of Christianity as the official
religion of Roman empire was made practically violently despite
the exiting variety of different religious cults, which had
deep historical roots and a lot of adepts who really believed
in different Gods the new official religion suggested them
instead. It means that individuals were of little importance
for Constantine.
As for Tony La Russa, it should be said that he appreciated
individuals much more than the ancient Roman emperor but still
his attitude to his player was and remains in fact quite seriously
criticized because it is considered to be impersonal attitude.
What is meant here may be clearly explained by George Will
who, in his book “Men at Work: The Craft of Baseball”,
characterizes Tony La Russa along with his long-time pitching
coach Dave Duncan as “making more use of statistical
analysis than any other team in the major leagues” (2004:381).
It means that statistical data are more important for Tony
La Russa than personalities of his players but it does not
necessarily mean that he won’t give a chance to a person
whose statistics is not perfect yet.
Finally, it should be said that both Constantine I and Tony
La Russa were real leaders in the field they worked. It is
evident that they had a strong charisma that made people follow
them, believe their ideas which were quite innovative and
even extraordinary to a certain extent. In fact it is their
charisma that made both Constantine and Tony La Russa so significant
personalities in the history of world politic and sport correspondingly.
Conclusion
Thus, taking into consideration all above mentioned, it is
possible to conclude that Constantine I and Tony La Russa
are very similar to one another in their style of work and
some traits of character, but there are also some differences
which are not only the result of their indvidual inclinations
but simply the result of difference in the epochs, life style,
mentality, social surrounding and social status. Anyway their
contribution in the world politic and sport are obvious but
at this point it is necessary to underline that it would be
a bit erroneous to limit their impact only by the spheres
they worked in. Obviously influenced other spheres of life
as well since both politic and sport are closely related to
culture, economy, and other spheres of life. On the other
hand it is necessary to remember that methods they used in
their work are widely criticized and not always accepted since
they are not democratic and impersonal to a certain extent.
Bibliography:
1. Alfoldi, Andreas. The Conversion of Constantine and Pagan
Rome. Oxford 1969.
2. Barnes, Timothy D. "Lactantius and Constantine."
JRS 63, 1973.
3. Barnes, Timothy D. Constantine and Eusebius. Cambridge,
Mass., 1981.
4. Eusebius. The Conversion of Constantine.
5. Grants, Michael. Constantine the Great: The Man and His
Times. LA: Routledge, 1999.
6. Jones, A. H. M. Constantine and the Conversion of Europe.
Oxford 1989.
7. Lieu, Samuel N. C., and Dominic Montserrat, (ed.). Constantine:
History, Historiography and Legend. New York: New Publishers,
1998.
8. Will, George. Men at Work: The Craft of Baseball. New York:
Touchstone, 2004.
|
|
