Had it not been for the persecutions...

[ASCLEPIADES]

3) The experiment of the Tetrarchy failed, and to some looks ridiculous in hindsight.

 

As long as Diocletian was the emperor, it actually quite a success. Now yes, when he stepped down, everything quickly flew to hell. But while that specific arrangement did not work in the long term, it did establish the precedent of having mulitple legitimate emperors ruling in different parts of the empire as a way to cover all of the borders. While there of course continued to be civil wars for the next millenium, much of the chaos and bureacratic uncertainty over the nature of the principate was settled. And the idea of dividing the empire into two separately administered halves helped to ultimately save the eastern empire. Diocletian's legitimizing of the concept of multiple emperors ruling in different regions and his recognition that one man alone could not effectively run the empire was in the end very beneficial for the empire.

Primary sources of the late III / early IV centuries weren't quite informative on the tetrachic system; as we're really not sure on what exactly it was, even less what it was intended for, it's difficult to define to what extent it actually failed.

 

Late III century Crisis was largely due to the Empire

Edited July 22, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[ASCLEPIADES]

Of the later Roman emperors, Diocletian was undoubtedly one of the best. The only big black mark on his career was the persecution of the Christians. Due to the quick rise of Christianity after Diocletian, I think that he's gotten unfairly painted as a "bad" emperor. If it hadn't been for this, I do think that he would have been seen as an equal of Trajan or Marcus Aurelius. Does anyone else here agree with me?

In fact, it would be valid to question if Diocletianus and Galerius were actually right on the Christians becoming a major menace to the Roman institutions and way of life.

 

The Great Diocletianic Persecution of 303 ended in 306 by a Galerius decree on religious tolerance, basically ratified by Constantine and Licinus' Edict of Milan (313); even so, from 316 to 321 Constantine's army actually persecuted the Donatist Christians ("heretics") in Africa, as a "Christian" ruler; from 321 he issued restrictive laws against the Jews.

 

Becoming sole ruler after Licinius' demise (324), Constantine openly sponsored the first Ecumenical Council at Nicea (325) transforming "his" Christian church in an accessory executive branch within the Imperial government and banning the non-Nicean Christians (heretics), even burning Arrius' books.

 

After 329, in Eusebius' words "he razed to their foundations those of them which had been the chief objects of superstitious reverence", ordering the destruction of the Hellenic temples at Dydima, Mt. Athos, Aigeai, and Baalbek, among others. He also ceased many privileges of non-Christian religions.

 

And after his death (337) the real persecution of the pagan cults began under his sons, especially Constantius II.

By the end of the century, non-Christian religions were plainly forbidden.

And after his death (337) the real persecution of the pagan cults began under his sons, especially Constantius II.

By the end of the century, non-Christian religions were plainly forbidden.

[Maladict]

The double resignation of Diocletianus/Maximian was a unique event all along the Roman Imperial history; we don't have any satisfactory explanation for it. I can only conclude that they didn't remain on their thrones because they weren't able to.

 

They couldn't have stepped down voluntarily because no-one else did?

[ASCLEPIADES]

The double resignation of Diocletianus/Maximian was a unique event all along the Roman Imperial history; we don't have any satisfactory explanation for it. I can only conclude that they didn't remain on their thrones because they weren't able to.

 

They couldn't have stepped down voluntarily because no-one else did?

A sole case among hundreds suggests a unique explanation.

There are some reasons that explain why the other emperors didn

[Northern Neil]

A sole case among hundreds suggests a unique explanation.

There are some reasons that explain why the other emperors didn

[ASCLEPIADES]

Of the later Roman emperors, Diocletian was undoubtedly one of the best. The only big black mark on his career was the persecution of the Christians. Due to the quick rise of Christianity after Diocletian, I think that he's gotten unfairly painted as a "bad" emperor. If it hadn't been for this, I do think that he would have been seen as an equal of Trajan or Marcus Aurelius. Does anyone else here agree with me?

In fact, it would be valid to question if Diocletianus and Galerius were actually right on the Christians becoming a major menace to the Roman institutions and way of life.

Briefly, the real question would be:

 

Would the Roman state and culture have lasted some centuries more, were Diocletianus, Galerius & co successful in preventing the Christian Church access to the power over the Empire?

[Emperor Goblinus]

Of the later Roman emperors, Diocletian was undoubtedly one of the best. The only big black mark on his career was the persecution of the Christians. Due to the quick rise of Christianity after Diocletian, I think that he's gotten unfairly painted as a "bad" emperor. If it hadn't been for this, I do think that he would have been seen as an equal of Trajan or Marcus Aurelius. Does anyone else here agree with me?

In fact, it would be valid to question if Diocletianus and Galerius were actually right on the Christians becoming a major menace to the Roman institutions and way of life.

Briefly, the real question would be:

 

Would the Roman state and culture have lasted some centuries more, were Diocletianus, Galerius & co successful in preventing the Christian Church access to the power over the Empire?

 

While Christianity did radically change the culture of the empire, it's not like it destroyed it totally. Yes, most of the old religions died, but people continued to study the old philosophers, attend the games, and basically go about their lives as usual. The Christian Romans were still very much Roman. Look at Theodosius, who, while arguably being Europe's first Catholic king, was thoroughly a cultured Roman. He was steeped in the ideas of the Stoics, and when he went to Rome to attend the games, he carried himself in a very republican manner, dressing rather simply and treating the senators as equals. While it's true that he was a total autocrat and nearly bankrupted the state with his lavish court at Constantinople, that's no different than many of the pagan emperors. Roman culture continued to live on for centuries, and while traditional Roman religion and some old customs like gladiatorial combat died out, the Romans continued to be as Roman as ever.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Look at Theodosius, who, while arguably being Europe's first Catholic king, was thoroughly a cultured Roman. He was steeped in the ideas of the Stoics, and when he went to Rome to attend the games, he carried himself in a very republican manner, dressing rather simply and treating the senators as equals. While it's true that he was a total autocrat and nearly bankrupted the state with his lavish court at Constantinople, that's no different than many of the pagan emperors. Roman culture continued to live on for centuries, and while traditional Roman religion and some old customs like gladiatorial combat died out, the Romans continued to be as Roman as ever.

Salve, EG.

I know of no evidence of stoic influences on Theodosius; dressing simple is not the same as Republican, and he was certainly a despot by any measure; just remember the massacre of circa 7000 citizens at Thessalonica in April, 390 (Christian citizens, BTW).

As with any emperor, Roman senators under Theodosius (either at Rome or at Constantinople) were designed by him, and they were exclusively christians, so it's hardly surprising they were his friends.

 

Let's look at the cultured Roman Flavius Theodosius I:

After more than a thousand years, he closed the Olympic Games.

He issued laws (the Theodosian decrees) to prohibit all pagan worship by forbidding visits to pagan temples or even the adornment of the images of the gods: ""no one is to go to the sanctuaries, walk through the temples, or raise his eyes to statues created by the labor of man".

The eternal fire in the Temple of Vesta in the Roman Forum was extinguished.

The Vestal Virgins were disbanded.

In 388 a prefect was sent around Egypt, Syria, and Asia Minor for the purpose of destroying temples and breaking up pagan associations.

In 391 Theodosius refused to allow the Altar of Victory to be restored in the Roman Senate.

The Serapeum at Alexandria was destroyed in 392, the same as many other temples all around the Empire.

Pagan sacrifices, omens, and "witchcraft" were to be punished as lesa majestas (high treason, ie. by death: Codex Theodosianus, Liber XVI, cp X, sec X-XII).

 

And of course, as a direct antecedent of Medieval intolerance, the famous decree against the heretics in February 27, 379 (Codex Theodosianus, Liber XVI, cp. I, sec II):

 

Hanc legem sequentes Christianorum Catholicorum nomen iubemus amplecti, reliquos vero dementes vesanosque iudicantes haeretici dogmatis infamiam sustinere, nec conciliabula eorum ecclesiarum nomen accipere, divina primum vindicta, post etiam motus nostri, quem ex coelesti arbitrio sumpserimus, ultione plectendos.

 

"We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title of Catholic Christians; but as for the others, since, in our judgment they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give to their conventicles the name of churches. They will suffer in the first place the chastisement of the divine condemnation and in the second the punishment of our authority which in accordance with the will of Heaven shall decide to inflict".

[Emperor Goblinus]

Salve, EG.

I know of no evidence of stoic influences on Theodosius; dressing simple is not the same as Republican, and he was certainly a despot by any measure; just remember the massacre of circa 7000 citizens at Thessalonica in April, 390 (Christian citizens, BTW).

As with any emperor, Roman senators under Theodosius (either at Rome or at Constantinople) were designed by him, and they were exclusively christians, so it's hardly surprising they were his friends.

 

When I referred to his stoicism, I was referring to the instance when he mourned for only one day after his wife died. While that has no bearing on his public actions, it does show that he did take seriously some of the old philosophies, if only privately. As to the Thessalonica massacre, that was definitely terrible, but it was definitely not the first time that a Roman emperor had done such a thing, as seen in Septimius Severus' massacre of 20,000 Alexandrians, or Aurelian's sack of Palmyra. And I never stated that his policies were republican, just his dress and demeanor (at least while he was in Rome), and I did say that he was a total autocrat. But then again, there never were any republican emperors. In practice, Theodosius was no more of an autocrat or killer than was Augustus. With the senators, because the imperial court rarely went to Rome, a number of them remained pagan or non-Nicene Christian into the fifth century. You mentioned that Thoedosius removed the Altar of Victory, which was a noted symbolic event in his reign. He wasn't the first one to do so, as it had been removed and put back in place several times by emperors before him. Also, the senators protested greatly about this, which showed that they didn't one hundred percent back his cultural policies, yet he still showed outward respect for the Senate's place Roman history and (formerly) governance.

 

Let's look at the cultured Roman Flavius Theodosius I:

After more than a thousand years, he closed the Olympic Games.

 

Definitely a bad spot on his career. Still, traditional Roman games continued to be held under him and long after, with the exception of gladiatorial combat. Huge animal fights were prominent in the celebrations of Justinian's African conquests, and chariot racing was a major sport in Byzantium for centuries. What Theodosius did was ignorant, but it's not like he dismantled the entire Greco-Roman circus traditions.

 

He issued laws (the Theodosian decrees) to prohibit all pagan worship by forbidding visits to pagan temples or even the adornment of the images of the gods: ""no one is to go to the sanctuaries, walk through the temples, or raise his eyes to statues created by the labor of man".

 

Very bad, but similar things had been going on in previous regimes, if not always to the same degree. Also, Theodosius did not become rabidly anti-pagan until after briefly being excommunicated by Ambrose for Thessalonica. In the heavily superstitious and spiritual ancient world, Theodosius probably was scared about the fate of his soul. That in no way excuses what he did, but it was for more personal reasons that he became a militant champion of Nicene Christianity, and such behavior did not characterize his entire reign. In addition to this, there were the revolts of Maximus and Eugenius who openly promoted paganism, and Theodosius' Christianity may have been a way to rally his own support base , and to distinguish himself from them.

 

The eternal fire in the Temple of Vesta in the Roman Forum was extinguished.

The Vestal Virgins were disbanded.

 

Again, other emperors had started this trend, and Theodosius just continued it. Also, while I don't have a source to prove it, I've read that that cult was near-dead by the time that the Theodosius killed it. The Vestal Virgins still undoubtedly had a strong cultural significance to the history of Rome, but it was far from its heyday of centuries past. What Theodosius did was intolerant, but it was not like he squashed a major and thriving religious cult,

 

In 388 a prefect was sent around Egypt, Syria, and Asia Minor for the purpose of destroying temples and breaking up pagan associations.

 

Wrong and indefensible, although many of the temples destroyed in the empire were done by zealous rogue Christians, not government officials.

 

In 391 Theodosius refused to allow the Altar of Victory to be restored in the Roman Senate.

 

I talked a little about this early on. Also, the Altar, while being an important symbol of Roman imperial power, was not much more than war booty from Epirus set up by Augustus for his own personal grandeur, and not every emperor had taken it seriously, such as shown with Commodus putting his own image above it. While it did have great cultural symbolism, it was hardly an eternal Roman monument than had been around since Romulus.

 

The Serapeum at Alexandria was destroyed in 392, the same as many other temples all around the Empire.

Pagan sacrifices, omens, and "witchcraft" were to be punished as lesa majestas (high treason, ie. by death: Codex Theodosianus, Liber XVI, cp X, sec X-XII).

 

The destruction of the Serapeum was a great tragedy, but it was not completely the Christians' fault. It might not have happened if the pagans had not reacted violently and barricaded thmselves inside with hostages. As I said above, many other temples were destroyed by rogue Christians. This kind of behavior was not entirely new, as pagans and Christians were reported to have fought each other in Alexandria as early as 247. The decrees against pagan practices were started by Constantine to a certain extent, and then merely built upon by his sucessors. Theodosius was not some singular fanatic on the throne.

 

And of course, as a direct antecedent of Medieval intolerance, the famous decree against the heretics in February 27, 379 (Codex Theodosianus, Liber XVI, cp. I, sec II):

 

Hanc legem sequentes Christianorum Catholicorum nomen iubemus amplecti, reliquos vero dementes vesanosque iudicantes haeretici dogmatis infamiam sustinere, nec conciliabula eorum ecclesiarum nomen accipere, divina primum vindicta, post etiam motus nostri, quem ex coelesti arbitrio sumpserimus, ultione plectendos.

 

"We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title of Catholic Christians; but as for the others, since, in our judgment they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give to their conventicles the name of churches. They will suffer in the first place the chastisement of the divine condemnation and in the second the punishment of our authority which in accordance with the will of Heaven shall decide to inflict".

 

Again, something not entirely new. Previous emperors had moved against supposed heretics.

 

My main point is that while Theodosius did many things that permanently crippled the vitality of Roman paganism, he was hardly alone in the effort. Also, in a few instances, there were mitigating cirmcumstances which made the events that occurred more complex, if no less tragic. And where he felt that it didn't supposedly endanger his soul, he did show great respect for traditional Roman culture. It was in his military policy where I feel that he did the most damage, although that too wasn't all his fault, and is for another debate.

 

To get back to the overall argument, the new Christian Roman Empire was still Roman. It was radically changed, but the concept of being a Roman citizen continued to be important to all within the boundaries of the empire (excluding the barbarian officials, as well as Britain after 410) until the mid-fifth century, and continued to be important in the east until 1453. Prominent Christians like Augustine and Ambrose saw themselves as loyal Romans even though they opposed the old religions. And even before Constantine, there were many loyal Roman Christians. Christians served in the army at least as early as Marcus Aurelius, and by the time Diocletian came to power, many were prominent patricians. Their opposition to old Roman religious and some cultural traditions, despite the tragic fate of many old Roman symbols and practices, did not ncessarily make them un-Roman.

[ASCLEPIADES]

My main point is that while Theodosius did many things that permanently crippled the vitality of Roman paganism, he was hardly alone in the effort. Also, in a few instances, there were mitigating cirmcumstances which made the events that occurred more complex, if no less tragic. And where he felt that it didn't supposedly endanger his soul, he did show great respect for traditional Roman culture. It was in his military policy where I feel that he did the most damage, although that too wasn't all his fault, and is for another debate.

I entirely agree Theodosius knowingly crippled the Roman (and Greek) traditional religion, art and culture to a point of no return. Nobody forced him; he never looked for "mitigating circumstances" because he was quite proud of it. In fact, that's the reason why the Christian historians gave him the Magnus epithet ("The Great").

As the massacre of orthodox Christians at Thessalonica and the subsequent excommunication prevented Theodosius from being canonized, Ambrose alone was so rewarded for their deeds.

I would like to know your source on Theodosius' respect for the classical culture (or at least for its remains).

To get back to the overall argument, the new Christian Roman Empire was still Roman. It was radically changed, but the concept of being a Roman citizen continued to be important to all within the boundaries of the empire (excluding the barbarian officials, as well as Britain after 410) until the mid-fifth century, and continued to be important in the east until 1453. Prominent Christians like Augustine and Ambrose saw themselves as loyal Romans even though they opposed the old religions. And even before Constantine, there were many loyal Roman Christians. Christians served in the army at least as early as Marcus Aurelius, and by the time Diocletian came to power, many were prominent patricians. Their opposition to old Roman religious and some cultural traditions, despite the tragic fate of many old Roman symbols and practices, did not ncessarily make them un-Roman.

Constantine (and Licinius) issued the Edict of Milan (313) on religious tolerance. Rings any bell?

BTW, heretics were Christians too; the Theodosian administration had the sad honour of the first ever recorded executions for heresy, undoubtedly recorded because among the seven beheaded victims was Priscillianus, no less than a Bishop.

By merciless persecuting other Christians, Jews, Manicheans and Pagans for no other reason than his own religious convictions, Theodosius has a unique and well deserved place on the history of fanaticism and intolerance, close to Saint Peter Martyr of Verona, inquisitor and patron of the Inquisition.

[Emperor Goblinus]

I entirely agree Theodosius knowingly crippled the Roman (and Greek) traditional religion, art and culture to a point of no return. Nobody forced him; he never looked for "mitigating circumstances" because he was quite proud of it. In fact, that's the reason why the Christian historians gave him the Magnus epithet ("The Great").

As the massacre of orthodox Christians at Thessalonica and the subsequent excommunication prevented Theodosius from being canonized, Ambrose alone was so rewarded for their deeds.

I would like to know your source on Theodosius' respect for the classical culture (or at least for its remains).

 

No, no one did force him. But as I said before, if you look at the way that people approached their personal spirituality back then, he may have been genuinely afraid of going to hell. Again, that's no excuse, but the ancient mindset has to be taken into account. Yes, he was proud of what he did, but like I stated before, it's not like he immediately started persecutions once he was crowned. On one occassion, when Ambrose was involved in mob violence which led to the destruction of a synagogue in Milan, he ordered them to rebuild it. Sadly, Ambrose's strong will plus Theodosius' orthodoxy caused him to go back on that, but it does show that he wasn't one hundred percent in favor of bulldozing other religions, at least in such a violent fashion. And yes, his strong Christian stance is why he got the title "the Great", since he certainly didn't earn it on the battlefield.

With the Thessalonian massacre, Ambrose excommunicated him because he slaughtered innocent people, period, not just because they may or may not have all been Christians. With the canonization issue, the same thing happened to Constantine, whom the Catholic Church did not canonize because of his violence (though the Orthodox Church did), and most of the people that Constantine killed, both in his civil wars and against foreign enemies, were undoubtedly almost all pagan. Charlemagne was also not canonized because of his brutality. Ambrose, while I don't agree with many things that he did and stood for, excommunicated Theodosius to send the message that the emperor couldn't have people killed just because they defaced some imperial statues. While it was a step towards the pathetic and tragic situation seen in the Middle Ages of the church being above the state, Ambrose at the time was simply sending the message that emperors could not so flagrantly disregard Christian injunctions against killing and basic conducts of decency, and had to be held accountable for their actions like everyone else.

As for my source on Theodosius, it's Theodosius: The Empire At Bay by Gerard Friell and and Stephen Williams. I can't directly quote from it since I don't have it with me.

 

Constantine (and Licinius) issued the Edict of Milan (313) on religious tolerance. Rings any bell?

 

That didn't stop Constantine from destroying some pagan temples or actively moving againt the Donatists. While he was far better than later emperors, he did set a number of ugly trends.

 

BTW, heretics were Christians too

 

I never said that they weren't.

 

the Theodosian administration had the sad honour of the first ever recorded executions for heresy, undoubtedly recorded because among the seven beheaded victims was Priscillianus, no less than a Bishop.

 

Yes, that is very sad. I never tried to make the argument that he was another Marcus Aurelius.

 

By merciless persecuting other Christians, Jews, Manicheans and Pagans for no other reason than his own religious convictions, Theodosius has a unique and well deserved place on the history of fanaticism and intolerance, close to Saint Peter Martyr of Verona, inquisitor and patron of the Inquisition.

 

He was very bad, but his colleagues, Gratian and Valentinian II, were not that much better. Valentinian banned a number of outward displays of pagan worship. Gratian stopped the funds to the ancient city cults in Rome by giving up the title of pontifex maximus, a title which ws, at least unofficially, taken up by the pope. It's just that they were weaker personalities than Theodosius, or in the case of Valentinian, dominated by a magister militum. Theodosius had no such impairments, and thus acted with a stronger hand, to the great detriment of classical culture.

Also, while it was a bad time form non-Christians, the persecutions under Theodosius do not compare to the sadism of the Inquisition. The Romans could be unbelievably bloody, but when it came to suppressing non-Orthodox Christians, they did not come near the scale of the Inquisition.

[ASCLEPIADES]

BTW, heretics were Christians too

I never said that they weren't.

No, those were Theodosius, Ambrose & Co. Christians were far better persecuting other Christians than Diocletianus.

 

I never tried to make the argument that he was another Marcus Aurelius.

Actually, you described Theodosius as an "stoic".

 

With the Thessalonian massacre, Ambrose excommunicated him because he slaughtered innocent people, period, not just because they may or may not have all been Christians.

Do you mean Saint Ambrose of Milan? The Arrian, Manichean, Jewish and Pagan persecutor? You must be kidding.

 

... if you look at the way that people approached their personal spirituality back then, he may have been genuinely afraid of going to hell.

 

...when Ambrose was involved in mob violence which led to the destruction of a synagogue in Milan, he ordered them to rebuild it. Sadly, Ambrose's strong will plus Theodosius' orthodoxy caused him to go back on that, but it does show that he wasn't one hundred percent in favor of bulldozing other religions, at least in such a violent fashion.

 

...That didn't stop Constantine from destroying some pagan temples or actively moving againt the Donatists.

 

...He was very bad, but his colleagues, Gratian and Valentinian II, were not that much better. Valentinian banned a number of outward displays of pagan worship. Gratian stopped the funds to the ancient city cults in Rome by giving up the title of pontifex maximus, a title which ws, at least unofficially, taken up by the pope. It's just that they were weaker personalities than Theodosius, or in the case of Valentinian, dominated by a magister militum. Theodosius had no such impairments, and thus acted with a stronger hand, to the great detriment of classical culture.

My purpose is not to qualify the ancients as "bad" or "good", even less by comparing the extent of their deeds. That would be like comparing Hitler with Stalin (BTW, each one of them tried to use the other to excuse and attenuate their own massacres).

 

This thread's issue is on Diocletianus and his fellows; were they right on fearing the potential consequences of the Christian propagation over the Empire?

 

You have made a thorough exposition of the negative impact of Christianity over the Roman society, culture and way of life. We agree.

[Emperor Goblinus]

No, those were Theodosius, Ambrose & Co. Christians were far better persecuting other Christians than Diocletianus.

 

To a certain extent, that's true, although non-Orthodox Christians were never fully taken out of the empire until the Arab conquests of Syria and Egypt. Also, the Orthodox persecutions of the non-Orthodox were not the same type of persecutions that the pagan Romans used against the Christians. While they somewhat varied over time, Christians who were caught be the authorities were usually given the choice of recanting or death. Certainly not all Christians were chomping at the bit to die, but there was a great appeal in martyrdom, and thus the pagans' simplistic efforts failed miserably. Some Orthodox Christians even moved Persia after Consantine legalized their religion in order to be martyred, since the Persians then saw the religion as possible Roman infiltration. The Christian persecutions of other Christians was somewhat different. While there was violence and death as you mentioned, there was not so much the outright slaughter of earlier days. Pagans and non-Christians had many of their rights taken away, were banned from serving in the army and higher levels of government, and sometimes exiled from the empire. But there wasn't the straight forward "Throw them to the lions!" mentality which had characterized earlier persecutions, and other religions were suppressed mainly through bureaucratic strangulation, loss of political rights, and social ostracization from mainstream Roman society, something that in the long run was far more effective than just pure violence. And as I said before, even that didn't fully work, as theological divisions caused major problems for the empire up through Heraclius' reign.

 

Actually, you described Theodosius as an "stoic".

 

In his personal life, yes he was. I never said that he made it part of his official duties.

 

Do you mean Saint Ambrose of Milan? The Arrian, Manichean, Jewish and Pagan persecutor? You must be kidding.

 

No, I'm not kididng. Yes, he was full-fledged bully who used the power of the state to persecute religious minorities. But I've read nowhere that his objection to the massacre was simply because the inhabitants were Christian, but just that it was a terrible thing to do. Ambrose was a bad guy in a numebr of ways, but he did not advocate senseless slaughter. The massacre was not a religious affair, it was a matter of the emperor acting arbitrarily for no good reason in a manner contrary to Christian values, and Ambrose did not believe that a person who committed such an act should get communion just because they were the emperor.

 

This thread's issue is on Diocletianus and his fellows; were they right on fearing the potential consequences of the Christian propagation over the Empire?

 

You have made a thorough exposition of the negative impact of Christianity over the Roman society, culture and way of life. We agree.

 

Christianity's negative impact on Roman culture was not necessarily natural or inevitable. Except for those isolated riots that I mentioned earlier, the real problems only occurred when emperors openly started promoting Christianity, spending massive amounts of public money on churches, giving bishops political power, and making orthodoxy a matter of national unity and patriotism. None of this is in the Bible, and while Christians had been proselytizing for centuries, it was in both theory and practice, a pacifistic religion that, while it was against a number of Roman cultural practices that were deemed "sinful," nearly all Christians were loyals Roman who lived out their lives like everyone else. Then a western Caesar suddenly sees a cross in the sky, paints it on the shields of his men, wins a battle, and then Christianity suddenyl becomes a tool to achieve the politcal unity that had been so damaged by the third century crisis. Of course that plan never started really working until the late seventh century, when the Monophysites were all under Muslim rule. But Constantine's senseless manhandling of a religion that was never meant to be heavily poltical. This misuse of the religion perpetually opened the door to bigots like Ambrose getting into power, less-than-devout Roman nobles manipulating their way into the clergy in order to gain immunity from public service, and ultimately, unbending orthodox emperors who ravaged much of classical culture because of personal beliefe and an idea in "uniting" the empire. The Christians before Constantine shouldn't be blamed for this and didn't deserve to be persecuted. The blame should fall on Constantine and his successors who warped Christianity for their own ends, and made it just as militaristic and class-concious as the rest of Roman society. Were their Christian bigots before Constantine who would have gladly smashed up pagan temples and burned classical documents? Of course there were. But if Christianity had just been left alone, with no support or persecution from the government, the Orthodox coup that occurred might never have happened. If anything, the persecution of Diocletian and earlier emperors just solidified Christians' faith, unity, and sense of purpose, at least for a time. If the emperors had not bothered with Christianity, it might have developed into a handful of separate, theologically diverse segments that couldn't have gotten any traction over the others, at least through official channels. As it was, the emperors handed the Christians martyrs which they could look up to and a common adversary, and then made it just another instrument of the state, just like the army, which ruined some of the core aspects of the religion, and caused it to fall into the hands of unscrupulous, undevout politicans, and power-hungry fanatics.

[ASCLEPIADES]

No, those were Theodosius, Ambrose & Co. Christians were far better persecuting other Christians than Diocletianus.

 

To a certain extent, that's true, although non-Orthodox Christians were never fully taken out of the empire until the Arab conquests of Syria and Egypt. Also, the Orthodox persecutions of the non-Orthodox were not the same type of persecutions that the pagan Romans used against the Christians. While they somewhat varied over time, Christians who were caught be the authorities were usually given the choice of recanting or death. Certainly not all Christians were chomping at the bit to die, but there was a great appeal in martyrdom, and thus the pagans' simplistic efforts failed miserably. Some Orthodox Christians even moved Persia after Consantine legalized their religion in order to be martyred, since the Persians then saw the religion as possible Roman infiltration. The Christian persecutions of other Christians was somewhat different. While there was violence and death as you mentioned, there was not so much the outright slaughter of earlier days. Pagans and non-Christians had many of their rights taken away, were banned from serving in the army and higher levels of government, and sometimes exiled from the empire. But there wasn't the straight forward "Throw them to the lions!" mentality which had characterized earlier persecutions, and other religions were suppressed mainly through bureaucratic strangulation, loss of political rights, and social ostracization from mainstream Roman society, something that in the long run was far more effective than just pure violence. And as I said before, even that didn't fully work, as theological divisions caused major problems for the empire up through Heraclius' reign.

 

Actually, you described Theodosius as an "stoic".

 

In his personal life, yes he was. I never said that he made it part of his official duties.

 

Do you mean Saint Ambrose of Milan? The Arrian, Manichean, Jewish and Pagan persecutor? You must be kidding.

 

No, I'm not kididng. Yes, he was full-fledged bully who used the power of the state to persecute religious minorities. But I've read nowhere that his objection to the massacre was simply because the inhabitants were Christian, but just that it was a terrible thing to do. Ambrose was a bad guy in a numebr of ways, but he did not advocate senseless slaughter. The massacre was not a religious affair, it was a matter of the emperor acting arbitrarily for no good reason in a manner contrary to Christian values, and Ambrose did not believe that a person who committed such an act should get communion just because they were the emperor.

 

This thread's issue is on Diocletianus and his fellows; were they right on fearing the potential consequences of the Christian propagation over the Empire?

 

You have made a thorough exposition of the negative impact of Christianity over the Roman society, culture and way of life. We agree.

 

Christianity's negative impact on Roman culture was not necessarily natural or inevitable. Except for those isolated riots that I mentioned earlier, the real problems only occurred when emperors openly started promoting Christianity, spending massive amounts of public money on churches, giving bishops political power, and making orthodoxy a matter of national unity and patriotism. None of this is in the Bible, and while Christians had been proselytizing for centuries, it was in both theory and practice, a pacifistic religion that, while it was against a number of Roman cultural practices that were deemed "sinful," nearly all Christians were loyals Roman who lived out their lives like everyone else. Then a western Caesar suddenly sees a cross in the sky, paints it on the shields of his men, wins a battle, and then Christianity suddenyl becomes a tool to achieve the politcal unity that had been so damaged by the third century crisis. Of course that plan never started really working until the late seventh century, when the Monophysites were all under Muslim rule. But Constantine's senseless manhandling of a religion that was never meant to be heavily poltical. This misuse of the religion perpetually opened the door to bigots like Ambrose getting into power, less-than-devout Roman nobles manipulating their way into the clergy in order to gain immunity from public service, and ultimately, unbending orthodox emperors who ravaged much of classical culture because of personal beliefe and an idea in "uniting" the empire. The Christians before Constantine shouldn't be blamed for this and didn't deserve to be persecuted. The blame should fall on Constantine and his successors who warped Christianity for their own ends, and made it just as militaristic and class-concious as the rest of Roman society. Were their Christian bigots before Constantine who would have gladly smashed up pagan temples and burned classical documents? Of course there were. But if Christianity had just been left alone, with no support or persecution from the government, the Orthodox coup that occurred might never have happened. If anything, the persecution of Diocletian and earlier emperors just solidified Christians' faith, unity, and sense of purpose, at least for a time. If the emperors had not bothered with Christianity, it might have developed into a handful of separate, theologically diverse segments that couldn't have gotten any traction over the others, at least through official channels. As it was, the emperors handed the Christians martyrs which they could look up to and a common adversary, and then made it just another instrument of the state, just like the army, which ruined some of the core aspects of the religion, and caused it to fall into the hands of unscrupulous, undevout politicans, and power-hungry fanatics.

Can you name your primary sources on all that?