High Signal Podcasts Evidence ledger
Method
Browse
← Back to evidence

Evidence receipt / disagreement

Published · transcript-backed

Anthony Kaldellis: disagreement

30 Jun 2026 Lex Fridman Podcast #498 – Anthony Kaldellis: Roman Empire, Byzantine Empire, Rise & Fall of Empires

“Anyway, so I have not yet seen a convincing political argument for Constantine’s decision, which means that you then fall back on a personal explanation that he did this because he was a believing Christian, right?”

— Anthony Kaldellis

Source trail

Everything needed to verify it.

Speaker
Anthony Kaldellis
Attribution
Verified speaker
Claim type
disagreement
Recorded
30 Jun 2026
Publisher
Lex Fridman Podcast

Transcript context

…So Constantine’s conversion to Christianity and moving the empire towards Christianity is not something where it’s a gigantic majority of the people— … or it’s a political convenience because it’s the elites. It’s something else. I mean, it’s a pretty revolutionary decision, I would say. Exactly. Now, there used to be theories that Constantine did this for, like, pragmatic, cynical reasons, that he, like, wasn’t a true Christian or anything, but there was some kind of political gain to be had here. But I have never read a convincing account of what exactly that political gain is. We now know that there are fewer Christians. They were not that influential. You can make an argument that bishops are a kind of convenient social influencers, you might say. Like, you can use those. They’re not a threat to your position. Right? So a bishop is not gonna try to take the throne. So they’re not dangerous political operatives in that way. But they do have some influence over sectors of society, and so that might be a… Okay, I see that, but I don’t quite see the argument for, like, going full Christian just to get the support of some bishops, who actually pretty quickly turn out to be, some of them, more trouble than they’re worth. Anyway, so I have not yet seen a convincing political argument for Constantine’s decision, which means that you then fall back on a personal explanation that he did this because he was a believing Christian, right? And he came out, you know, in support of the religion that he held, and that’s kind of where most scholars are today. Though, I gotta tell you, historians are very uncomfortable about personal choice, like explaining history in terms of these kinds of personal choices. Because Constantine’s conversion is like, it’s massive. It opens the door. It incentivizes so many people to also convert. ‘Cause Romans will generally do what their, you know, rulers will tell them. If we’ve mentioned Hadrian a few times, Hadrian had this lover, Antinous, Greek boy from Bithynia, who died in an accident in Egypt, whatever, and Hadrian said basically that Antinous should be regarded as a god throughout the empire. And he was. We have, like, more statues and busts of Antinous from all of these temples all over the empire than I think of anyone else except Hadrian. So yeah, if the emperor says, like, “This is a person who’s a god now, you know, put statues of him everywhere,” they will. And when Constantine comes out in favor of Christianity, you know, suddenly people discover that, oh, this is an interesting rite. It’s got the support of the emperor. So one of the things here, going to the Perplexity, Constantine’s conversion to Christianity is usually dated to 312 AD linked to a visionary experience before the Battle of the Milvian Bridge. Do you believe that vision, that he had this religious experience before the Battle of the Milvian Bridge? Here it says, “But historians debate both its nature and its sincerity.”…

Stored transcript either side of the excerpt. The highlighted words are the published quote; the surrounding text is unedited source, never generated.

Search evidence