Re: Greek vs Roman pantheons
I won't deny that the Romans and Greek did fight. However, during the cultural exchange more than likely occurred prior to any conflicts in Magna Graecia (Southern Italy). Also, it's important to note that far more of Rome's religion and cultured was based off from the Etruscans who are believed to be related to the Greek of Asia Minor. But as far as I know their exact origins are still a bit shady.
I would be careful using the word massacre in regards to early Christians and blanketing pagan morality. As citizens of the Empire, Christians were expected to pay respect to the Imperial Gens. They refused to do so and were given the proper punishment in accordance with law. People like to overplay the acts of a few individuals who actually executed Christians (Diocletian, Nero). In all actuality, they were very minor players.
At the time of the late Empire, Roman emperors were fighting to keep stability within their borders. Many would be emperors would have to march to far flung provinces to put down rebellious generals or self proclaimed kings. The Christians refusing to respect the Imperial Gens and rioting in the streets was simply unacceptable. This is where you get certain laws, most famously those of Diocletian, condemning and basically proscribing Christians. However, these laws were only truly effective in the areas under Diocletian'c control. In the other three of four sections of the Empire Christians were free to do as they please.
In fact, there are stories of the governor of Carthage allowing Christians to make quick, one time offerings to the Gens and then return to their own faith. This become a big ole deal when one such Christians tries to become bishop of Carthage. It was such a scandal that another, more pro-Christian emperor, had to step in to settle it.
So in short, were there Christian persecutions, yes. Were those persecutions massacres, definitely not. No villages were being burned and family's slaughtered. In the minds of the Romans and most historians, the Empire was simply dealing with political and social criminals to the best of its ability.
Now lets fast forward to the late, late Empire and Emperor Theodosius. It was around this time when the patriarch of Alexandria allowed a Christian mob to round up a bunch of pagan priests and worshipers, lock them in the temple and then proceed to light it on fire using animal fats which burn much hotter and longer than other fuels. As if that wasn't enough, he also allowed the mob to destroy the Temple of Serapis which housed the contents of the Library of Alexandria.
Theodosius closed the Olympic games nearly 1400 years after their founding. He also made it illegal to burn incense in a private home because it was the most common offering to the old gods. Then he did a myriad of other crazy things.
Don't think I'm absolving the few bad, pagan emperors from their genocidal acts. I'm just pointing out the fact that the crimes were much more widespread during Christian rule because the Empire was more united through a network of bishops and patriarchs.
Finally, we are going to discuss the Crusades. Rome was not an example for Crusading nobles. The Crusades happened prior to the Renaissance so truly the Europeans knew very little about the Classical Era. It was about 200 years after the First Crusade that they finally started to open those duty tomes they stole from the hands of slain Muslims.
"a lust for domination" has nothing to do with the Crusades or with Pagan Roman culture. The Crusades, as any high school teacher would point out, were in part due to over population and war in Europe, as well as proving papal authority. Papal power had been waning for a couple decades and what better way to restore it then to rally lords from every kingdom behind a papal cause? Obviously, sending all these people to a different land would lessen the population and make resources more plentiful. It would also provide younger lords, who would otherwise have to fight fellow Christians for land, to find titles in the East.
Unfortunately for the pope, the whole thing backfired when they got to the Holy Land and figured out they were too far away from Europe to resupply and they pissed off their only possible ally (the Byzantine Empire (the Inheritance of Rome)). Basically what it led to was a bunch of ragged knights eating each other at the Siege of Antioch before walking back to Europe. Luckily for us, on their way back to Europe they robbed robbed enough little old ladies to bring back enough books to start the Renaissance 200 years after the fact.
- - - Updated - - -
Also when you discuss Christianity, especially from a historical perspective, you have to think of it as how it is: a sect of Judaism not accepted by Jewish religious authorities. This means that they weren't afforded the same respect given to the Jews under Roman rule.
Originally posted by Watchful Overseer
View Post
I would be careful using the word massacre in regards to early Christians and blanketing pagan morality. As citizens of the Empire, Christians were expected to pay respect to the Imperial Gens. They refused to do so and were given the proper punishment in accordance with law. People like to overplay the acts of a few individuals who actually executed Christians (Diocletian, Nero). In all actuality, they were very minor players.
At the time of the late Empire, Roman emperors were fighting to keep stability within their borders. Many would be emperors would have to march to far flung provinces to put down rebellious generals or self proclaimed kings. The Christians refusing to respect the Imperial Gens and rioting in the streets was simply unacceptable. This is where you get certain laws, most famously those of Diocletian, condemning and basically proscribing Christians. However, these laws were only truly effective in the areas under Diocletian'c control. In the other three of four sections of the Empire Christians were free to do as they please.
In fact, there are stories of the governor of Carthage allowing Christians to make quick, one time offerings to the Gens and then return to their own faith. This become a big ole deal when one such Christians tries to become bishop of Carthage. It was such a scandal that another, more pro-Christian emperor, had to step in to settle it.
So in short, were there Christian persecutions, yes. Were those persecutions massacres, definitely not. No villages were being burned and family's slaughtered. In the minds of the Romans and most historians, the Empire was simply dealing with political and social criminals to the best of its ability.
Now lets fast forward to the late, late Empire and Emperor Theodosius. It was around this time when the patriarch of Alexandria allowed a Christian mob to round up a bunch of pagan priests and worshipers, lock them in the temple and then proceed to light it on fire using animal fats which burn much hotter and longer than other fuels. As if that wasn't enough, he also allowed the mob to destroy the Temple of Serapis which housed the contents of the Library of Alexandria.
Theodosius closed the Olympic games nearly 1400 years after their founding. He also made it illegal to burn incense in a private home because it was the most common offering to the old gods. Then he did a myriad of other crazy things.
Don't think I'm absolving the few bad, pagan emperors from their genocidal acts. I'm just pointing out the fact that the crimes were much more widespread during Christian rule because the Empire was more united through a network of bishops and patriarchs.
Finally, we are going to discuss the Crusades. Rome was not an example for Crusading nobles. The Crusades happened prior to the Renaissance so truly the Europeans knew very little about the Classical Era. It was about 200 years after the First Crusade that they finally started to open those duty tomes they stole from the hands of slain Muslims.
"a lust for domination" has nothing to do with the Crusades or with Pagan Roman culture. The Crusades, as any high school teacher would point out, were in part due to over population and war in Europe, as well as proving papal authority. Papal power had been waning for a couple decades and what better way to restore it then to rally lords from every kingdom behind a papal cause? Obviously, sending all these people to a different land would lessen the population and make resources more plentiful. It would also provide younger lords, who would otherwise have to fight fellow Christians for land, to find titles in the East.
Unfortunately for the pope, the whole thing backfired when they got to the Holy Land and figured out they were too far away from Europe to resupply and they pissed off their only possible ally (the Byzantine Empire (the Inheritance of Rome)). Basically what it led to was a bunch of ragged knights eating each other at the Siege of Antioch before walking back to Europe. Luckily for us, on their way back to Europe they robbed robbed enough little old ladies to bring back enough books to start the Renaissance 200 years after the fact.
- - - Updated - - -
Also when you discuss Christianity, especially from a historical perspective, you have to think of it as how it is: a sect of Judaism not accepted by Jewish religious authorities. This means that they weren't afforded the same respect given to the Jews under Roman rule.
Comment