Religious extremism during the republic or empire

[Septimus Flavius Galarius]

I was wondering besides the jewish zealots, was there any religion or sect that declared it was there religious duty to wipe out Rome in order to restore their religious or nationalist supremacy.

[Antiochus of Seleucia]

I don't think the Jewish Zealots, assuming you mean the Sacarii, had a goal of 'wiping out Rome'. They killed Romans and Jews alike.

[caldrail]

I was wondering besides the jewish zealots, was there any religion or sect that declared it was there religious duty to wipe out Rome in order to restore their religious or nationalist supremacy.

You can easily interpret the Book of Revelations in this way. It reads like an inflammatory article designed as propaganda against Rome, much like islamic tirades against america today. It also means that there were extremists trying to persuade their peers to take up the cause, and as always happens with extreme politics, they weren't able to inspire the majority to take action.

[Ursus]

I don't know what you mean by "wipe out Rome" but local religious leaders were often behind rebellions. The druids are often cited as a focal point of Celtic resistance to Romanization, who consequently had to be snuffed out. The Cicilian pirates who opposed Rome in conjunction with Mithradates may have practiced some version of the Mithraic cult. And when Cleopatra and Antony opposed Octavian, they claimed to be Isis and Osiris incarnate.

[Jasminia]

To add to Ursus...

 

If you consider the Eastern Roman Empire/Byzantine Empire to be Roman, you can include Islam (7th-8th centuries).

 

Generally, post-Constantine (with a very brief break during Julian the Apostate's reign), Christianity became quite aggressive in "wiping out" the "pagan" religions, particulary the traditional state religions. The more power the bishops and monks got, the less the government did.

 

Julian the Apostate (4th century) also tried to do a number on Christianity resulting an a weakening of the Roman political machine. In his attempt to restore traditional religions and guarantee freedom of religion, he tried to separate church from the state at the level of the governing classes. Not sure of a "return" to the status quo matches your question, but it's an attempt to restore religious "supremacy" of tolerance.

[caldrail]

To add to Ursus...

 

If you consider the Eastern Roman Empire/Byzantine Empire to be Roman, you can include Islam (7th-8th centuries).

 

Generally, post-Constantine (with a very brief break during Julian the Apostate's reign), Christianity became quite aggressive in "wiping out" the "pagan" religions, particulary the traditional state religions. The more power the bishops and monks got, the less the government did.

 

Julian the Apostate (4th century) also tried to do a number on Christianity resulting an a weakening of the Roman political machine. In his attempt to restore traditional religions and guarantee freedom of religion, he tried to separate church from the state at the level of the governing classes. Not sure of a "return" to the status quo matches your question, but it's an attempt to restore religious "supremacy" of tolerance.

 

yes, this sort of thing is becoming clearer as I read about christian development. The early cults were sometimes militant but the lack of tolerance because of reputation by romans meant things were kept quiet. Also, later christians didn't want to record their faith as being responsible for militancy or acts thereof, so there's bound to a certain amount of religious license in christian history. The balance of power between church and government became an issue after Constantine when the faith was organised, if not completely unified. This movement in my opinion peeks later at the beginning of the First Crusade. Julian of course despised christianity and I wonder if it was partly the need to share power or populairty with them that led him to act against it.

[Septimus Flavius Galarius]

I don't know what you mean by "wipe out Rome" but local religious leaders were often behind rebellions

 

What i meant was local religious leaders wanting to wipe out all traces of roman influence in their area, such as roman culture, military, and government, and not neccessary Rome the city itself, though some probaly wanted too. Sorry about the confusion.

 

The druids are often cited as a focal point of Celtic resistance to Romanization, who consequently had to be snuffed out

 

Gaius Suetonius Paulinus actually attacked the druid stronghold at mona which allowed Boudica to revolt in his absence, and i don't believe that the Druids were neutralized until Gnaeus Julius Agricola became governor.

 

I don't think the Jewish Zealots, assuming you mean the Sacarii, had a goal of 'wiping out Rome'. They killed Romans and Jews alike.

 

the Sicarii did want to wipe out Rome, because i think they believed that only descdents from david could rule judea. They killed other jews because they believed they were collarbarating with Rome or they didn't support armed rebellion against Rome. They believed that their god was going to descend from heaven and destroy the Roman legions. But all they accomplished was turning Rome more vicious in response to the jewish revolts, and they actually did alot more damage than any good for judea.

[caldrail]

I don't think the Jewish Zealots, assuming you mean the Sacarii, had a goal of 'wiping out Rome'. They killed Romans and Jews alike.

 

the Sicarii did want to wipe out Rome, because i think they believed that only descdents from david could rule judea. They killed other jews because they believed they were collarbarating with Rome or they didn't support armed rebellion against Rome. They believed that their god was going to descend from heaven and destroy the Roman legions. But all they accomplished was turning Rome more vicious in response to the jewish revolts, and they actually did alot more damage than any good for judea.

 

The jewish sicarii were extremists with religious and patriotic motivations. Their homeland had been taken over by Rome after all. The thing is, we tend to think of these people as a coherent group but they weren't. They were divided amongst themselves just as much as modern islamic groups. There really is a parallel with today although circumstance is different. Its also worth stating that whilst many of the common people may have shared their sentiments they weren't prepared to act in the same manner. For them it was life as usual wherever possible, despite the roman presence.

 

There is some speculation that early christians were also harbouring extremists. It was a young personality cult with an axe to grind - Rome had crucified its spiritual leader. Blaming the jews for this act came later during the hard line early medieval period. Romans weren't keen on these christians in their midst. There were rumours of drinking blood, cannabalism, and it was known that they only worshipped that one god of theirs and refused similar honours to the emperor. Some romans may have been curious (hence a trickle of recruits in the early days), but most wouldn't want to associate with them. The christians for their part must have felt this keenly. Their faith had effectively cut them off from polite society. Most would have accepted that as something unavoidable, and in any case they would have kept it quiet to prevent any ill-feeling. Some however, a small minority, may well have resented this attitude toward them. Unless the theory that these groups burned Rome in ad64 is correct, then it clear they never acted to the same extent as the jews given their smaller numbers. In any case, later christian leaders wanted their predecessors remembered as heroes and martyrs, bravely dying for their faith. If there were any violent or criminal acts in the name of christianity, it was brushed under the carpet.

[edgewaters]

The thing is, we tend to think of these people as a coherent group but they weren't. They were divided amongst themselves just as much as modern islamic groups.

 

This group (the Zealots) probably even moreso than modern comparisons. After all, they were battling each other in the streets during the siege of Jerusalem!! Gangs of zealots under three leaders - Eleazar, Simon, and John, struggled for control of the city; Eleazar (leading the Sicarrii) was driven out and fled to Masada before the siege but Simon and John were battling each other even as the Romans sieged the city.