Constantine and Maxentius: A Battle of Masters in Slave’s Clothing

The Vision of Constantine by Jacob Punel

Objective

This article offers a fresh perspective on Nietzsche’s master-slave morality, proposing that the shift in ethical values was not initiated by genuine subjugated groups but rather by rulers striving to undermine more dominant counterparts. Instead of a grassroots uprising, the transformation of ideals was orchestrated by elites who lacked the might to compete through direct means. Their strategy involved reinterpreting power as evil and frailty as virtue, reshaping the moral framework to their advantage. This analysis applies the concept to pivotal moments in history, such as the adoption of Christianity as both a political tool and a personal belief system, and major uprisings like those in France and Russia. By reexamining these events, this piece challenges the widespread belief that ideological revolutions emerge solely from the lower strata of society, highlighting their manipulation by those already in positions of authority.

Introduction

Nietzsche’s master-slave morality presents a dichotomy between two opposing value systems—one celebrating strength and vitality, the other elevating meekness and self-denial. In On the Genealogy of Morality, Nietzsche suggests that the latter arose not as a spontaneous creation of the downtrodden but as a deliberate inversion of values, spearheaded by intellectuals and spiritual leaders who lacked direct control over society. This article builds upon that idea, arguing that rather than originating from the truly powerless, the moral reversal was often engineered by a group within the nobel class—individuals unable to contend with their more capable peers. Lacking the means for direct confrontation, they employed ideological subversion to weaken their adversaries.

This perspective finds support in historical case studies, including how a Roman emperor leveraged faith to consolidate power and how revolutionary movements, often assumed to be driven by the masses, were in reality guided by elites seeking to reshape the political landscape.

Nietzsche’s Master-Slave Morality Revisited

Nietzsche distinguishes between two ethical frameworks. The first, associated with rulers and warriors, embraces vitality, confidence, and autonomy. The second, born from resentment (ressentiment), prioritizes submission, guilt, and the moral condemnation of power. A widespread assumption is that the latter arose spontaneously among the downtrodden, but Nietzsche suggests in Beyond Good and Evil that its origins are more complex. Rather than being the creation of true subordinates, this doctrine was largely shaped by those who lacked the ability to assert dominance directly.

A closer examination suggests that this moral shift was not a rebellion from below but a strategic maneuver by members of the elite who found themselves at a disadvantage. Unable to assert dominance through traditional means, they weaponized ideology to redefine the meaning of virtue. By casting assertiveness as cruelty and passivity as righteousness, they manipulated ethical norms to undermine their more robust counterparts. This process can be seen as a form of moral blackmail—an inversion of values designed to restrain those who embodied the original aristocratic ideals.

Constantine: Opportunist or True Believer?

In his struggle for power, Constantine faced Maxentius, a formidable opponent with superior military resources. Lacking a clear advantage, he turned to an emerging faith to secure control. His embrace of Christianity has often been seen as a calculated move, aligning himself with a growing ideology that appealed to the disenfranchised while subtly reshaping the balance of authority in his favor.

Christianity emphasized humility, submission, and obedience—values that contrasted sharply with Rome’s traditional ideals of strength and honor. By endorsing these principles, Constantine undermined the aristocracy, whose influence rested on notions of dominance and autonomy. Presenting himself as a pious ruler rather than a mere conqueror, he consolidated power while appearing to serve a higher moral cause.

This interpretation gains credibility when considering that Constantine’s conflict with Maxentius was not a single event but a prolonged struggle. Over time, he crafted a narrative that framed him as a liberator and his rival as a tyrant. By the time of the decisive battle at Milvian Bridge (312 CE), the ideological groundwork had been laid, making his victory seem not just a military conquest but a triumph of righteousness over oppression.

However, some scholars argue that Constantine’s conversion was not purely cynical but also had personal and mystical dimensions. Accounts of his vision before the Battle of the Milvian Bridge suggest a genuine spiritual experience rather than mere political maneuvering. In this reading, Constantine embodies a paradox: both a master manipulating ideology for power and an individual who, perhaps unconsciously, internalized the very moral framework he helped promote. This complexity aligns with Nietzsche’s view in The Antichrist, which explores the deep entanglement of power and belief in shaping historical events.

The French and Russian Revolutions as Modern Examples

Both the French and Russian Revolutions are often framed as uprisings of the oppressed against their rulers, but a closer look reveals a more complex reality. These movements were not spontaneous revolts of the powerless but struggles between competing elite factions, with one group using popular discontent as leverage to seize control.

In 1789, France witnessed a confrontation between the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie, a class that had gained economic power but lacked political privilege. Rather than being led by the starving masses, the upheaval was orchestrated by this ambitious group, who framed their cause in terms of liberty and equality to gain the support of the lower strata. Once the monarchy fell, these so-called revolutionaries assumed positions of power, replacing the old hierarchy with a new ruling class.

A similar pattern emerged in Russia in 1917. The Bolsheviks, though claiming to represent the proletariat, were largely composed of intellectuals and middle-class figures. They deployed Marxist rhetoric to rally workers and peasants, yet once they succeeded in toppling the tsarist regime, they installed an authoritarian state with themselves at the helm.

In both cases, weak masters orchestrated ideological shifts to overthrow stronger competitors, using the masses as instruments in their pursuit of dominance.

The Eternal Cycle of Master-Slave Power Struggles

Throughout history, shifts in ethical values have often been less about justice and more about struggles between competing elites. While revolutions are typically seen as uprisings of the downtrodden, they frequently serve as instruments for ambitious factions seeking to unseat dominant rivals. Those in weaker positions have repeatedly redefined morality to portray their adversaries as malevolent, positioning themselves as champions of righteousness.

A crucial aspect of this strategy is the manipulation of victimhood. By appealing to the genuinely oppressed—whether slaves, peasants, or laborers—aspiring rulers amass a following, using popular grievances to advance their own objectives. Once in power, these new leaders rarely dismantle hierarchies but instead establish fresh structures that favor their own authority. The cycle persists, as moral narratives continue to be reshaped by those seeking influence.

However, Nietzsche warns against reducing all moral shifts to mere deception. In Thus Spoke Zarathustra, he introduces the figure of the Übermensch, who transcends resentment and forges meaning independently. True strength lies in the ability to shape principles out of personal will rather than leveraging ideology as a tool of control. Breaking free from this repetitive struggle requires moving beyond reactive ethics toward an existence defined by self-affirmation and creative power.

Conclusion

This analysis challenges the traditional belief that slave morality emerged from the truly powerless. Instead, it suggests that those unable to compete through conventional means reshaped ethical norms to undermine stronger opponents. Figures like Constantine and the leaders of revolutionary movements demonstrate how ideological shifts have historically been driven by elites seeking to secure dominance.

Recognizing these historical patterns is key to understanding modern political and ideological movements. Many narratives that appear to champion justice may, in reality, be power struggles disguised as moral causes. To break free from this cycle, one must move beyond reactive morality. A truly Nietzschean approach requires the conscious creation of ideals that affirm life, strength, and the pursuit of higher aspirations without reliance on resentment or manipulation.

Bibliography

Nietzsche, Friedrich. Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Translated by Walter Kaufmann. New York: Viking Press, 1954.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. Beyond Good and Evil. Translated by Walter Kaufmann. New York: Vintage Books, 1966.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. On the Genealogy of Morals. Translated by Walter Kaufmann and R. J. Hollingdale. New York: Vintage Books, 1989.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. The Antichrist. In The Portable Nietzsche, edited and translated by Walter Kaufmann, 565–656. New York: Viking Press, 1954.

Battle of the Milvian Bridge: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Battle-of-the-Milvian-Bridge

The Dream of Constantine: https://www.historytoday.com/archive/foundations/dream-constantine