If Rome Had Not Accepted Christianity - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Rome, Greece, Egypt & other ancient history (c 4000 BCE - 476 CE) and pre-history.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15162465
One could argue that without Christianity, Rome would not survive until it did. The Bythentines used it as a powerful tool to control both its people and the barbarian hordes roaming around. It was such a big deal that conquest of Justinian and Belisarius would have not been possible at all without Christian as an example. The reason that Justinian with Belisarious could do it is because Italian Queen and North African ruler were Christianised barbarians that wanted to submit to Justinian in the first place. So Justinian had a lot of local support. Another big question is how much Christianity changed the Roman empire as it gradually morphed it in to the state religion. What most people don't consider is that Roman Empire was pretty diverse and multicultural in our understanding. And when I say this, I mean that the empire survived because the different occupied territories outside of Italy supported Rome due to it providing security, some infrastructure, ability to trade and not touching the local culture, religion and so on usually. Rome exterminated only the trouble makers who constantly rebelled. Although from time to time some cultures were prosecuted including the Christians. So once Christianity slowly but surely started becoming a state religion, this also brought a certain stop to the cultural and religious tolerance within the empire.
#15162470
noemon wrote:Threw in the towel...lol

He established the Creed and Christianity as we know it.

No doubt Constantine was sincere in his conversion to Christianity (though I note that he only agreed to be baptised on his deathbed, once he had already committed all his sins), and I also have no doubt that he really did see a vision of a giant cross at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge (though no-one else seemed to remember seeing it, lol). But I also have no doubt that he was making a hard-headed political decision, to harness the religious sensibilities of a third of the population of the Roman Empire behind his dynastic ambitions. And yes, I think there was a certain element of "throwing in the towel", since he was the first emperor who was sensible enough to realise that attempting to eradicate Christianity was a quixotic and wasteful enterprise. It was better to harness it.
#15162476
Potemkin wrote:^ There's also the point that the European Christians regarded Islam as a Christian heresy rather than a separate religion in its own right. This is why Dante placed Mohammed in the circle of Hell reserved for heretics.


There is actually strong evidence that Islam was realistically a Jewish Heresy, as the divinity of Christ was not accepted.
#15162486
Potemkin wrote:No doubt Constantine was sincere in his conversion to Christianity (though I note that he only agreed to be baptised on his deathbed, once he had already committed all his sins), and I also have no doubt that he really did see a vision of a giant cross at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge (though no-one else seemed to remember seeing it, lol).


I understand exactly where you are coming from and as always this is always where the problem lies. Western historiography has not bothered to understand either a) the relationship between the Greeks, Romans, Jews, Thracians, Persians, Germanics or more importantly b) the relationship of the Greeks(more specifically) with religion, God and cults.

The analysis of the events has relied on the polemics and panegyrics of the time but noone has bothered on actually making a true anthropological analysis by trying to comprehend the relationship of people with cults(over 1500 of them) during the time or the process with which someone declared that cult as affiliated with them.

A Greek person was expected and proactively encouraged to join at least 10 religious cults/societies/brotherhoods over his lifetime and the foreigner the better. A Greek person would join Thracian cults, Persian, Indian, Jewish, Germanic, Buddhist and at least another 6 local ones. Greeks spent copious amount of money sending their youth to be educated by great people and to be initiated in great mysteries(foreign and Greek). They had turned this into an industry since at least Plato and Pythagoras who popularised it, by the time of Constantine, this system had been developed to the extremes of absurdity and by parochial elite Romans to the extremes of kitschness as well.

This is something that you need to put into perspective, and also you need to understand the relationship of the Greeks with the Priesthood, to be a priest was a high honour for a Greek person and rich people would pay immense amount of money just to be the Priest of the Festival, that is the lead presenter of the festivities, that is how sponsorships came to be.

Greek Christianity organised and democratised a permanent priesthood that stabilised the post. Greeks flooded christianity for many social reasons and with great ease, when they had a permanent network in place they did what any other human/corporation in their place would have done, turn it into a monopoly.

Constantine never was 'baptised' mate not even on his death bed, but he was Christian and had been initiated in the religion, nor did he ever see "a vision", because Constantine had no such concept, as far as he was concerned he had already been initiated and his Christian works speak for themselves anyway.

You have simply fallen to the christian narrative and its antecedents, who simply cannot digest that the first Christian emperor was not baptised but was actually Christian, because they prefer to tell you a lie than bother explaining the complicated truth(which most people will not understand anyway). That at the time, Constantine had been initiated to cults from India to Ireland and one of those cults was also Christianity.

On top of that, there are more layers of nonsense that have been added by "enlightened" westerners who then wrote their own polemics or panegyrics simply piling up on errors.

But I also have no doubt that he was making a hard-headed political decision, to harness the religious sensibilities of a third of the population of the Roman Empire behind his dynastic ambitions. And yes, I think there was a certain element of "throwing in the towel", since he was the first emperor who was sensible enough to realise that attempting to eradicate Christianity was a quixotic and wasteful enterprise. It was better to harness it.


The reason you think "he threw the towel" is because you cannot see the world through Constantine's eyes, you can only see them through your own. I can assure you that at no point did that thought even pass from his mind.

The secularism of the time cannot be fathomed because it is being rationalised by people whose secularism is profoundly anti-religious and still in its infant stage. We 've had urban secularism for a few decades, perhaps a century depending where you are.

Greco-Roman people in Constantine's time had ultra-secular society for at least 8 centuries before Constantine while their secularism and religiosity were of a different kind than it is for people today. There are 700 years between Plato and Constantine, 700 years of uninterrupted city-building and unhindered propagation of ultra-secularism, cultism and all their baggage. Not 20-30 or 50 years as most people imagine the timing gaps in the antiquity. We 've had 30 years of Sagan and most people think "we 've been enlightened". The contradictions, fake news, post-truths, post-modernism, hippies, yippies, even trans, in their own variations had already happened by the time of Constantine.

There are several things that are simply out of perspective.
#15162573
Potemkin wrote:By the time the Romans got serious about stamping out Christianity (rather than merely using them as convenient scapegoats, as Nero had done), it was already too late.


From what I've read, when the real showdown came, c 304 CE under Diocletian, christians made up only about 10% of the population of the Empire. But even that would amount to several million so it was indeed too late.


By the time Constantine threw in the towel, about a third of the population of the Roman Empire were already Christians.


It's impossible to know how many people were christians at any given time, though a third c 330 is plausible. I'm under the impression christian numbers reached a "takeoff" point right after Julian or by 370. In a recent work, Ehrman wrote that christians didn't make up 50% of the empire's population until c 400 CE. I dunooo…it seems they had to have reached majority status by 381 when all forms of pagan worship were banned.

The Roman authorities just didn't take Christianity seriously enough until it was no longer possible to eradicate it. A bit like Mormonism then. Lol.


As far back as the second century, they were well aware of the danger posed by the new faith and tried more than one approach to combat it. But there just wasn't yet a serious, systematic attempt to eradicate it.
#15162574
starman2003 wrote: I dunooo…it seems they had to have reached majority status by 381 when all forms of pagan worship were banned.


Subsidies were still being paid by Rome to pagan rituals in 391 and Theodosius was responsible for the massacre of 7000 Christians in Thessaloniki.

In Theodosius we observe the drive for monopolistic orthodoxy.

wiki wrote:The emperor Theodosius, who had been reigning in the East, had been relatively tolerant towards pagans in the early part of his reign.[13] Theodosius dealt harshly with Arians, heretics and Christian apostates. Laws were directed against Christians who sought to convert back to the old religions[10][15] and against private divination.[16][17] He is known to have appointed various pagans to office in the earlier part of his reign. For example, he appointed the pagan Tatianus as the praetorian prefect of Egypt.[14] His tolerance for other religions is indicated by his 388 order for the reconstruction of a Jewish synagogue at Callinicum in Mesopotamia, which had been destroyed by a bishop and his Christian flock.[a]

After the death of Maximus, Valentinian II, under the aegis of Theodosius, once again assumed the office of emperor in the West. Valentinian II, advised by Ambrose, and in spite of pleas from the pagans, refused to restore the Altar of Victory to the Senate House, or their income to the priests and Vestal Virgins.[25]

Valentinian was murdered, possibly by agents of Arbogast whom he had tried to dismiss, and Eugenius, a professor of rhetoric, was proclaimed emperor.[26] The ancestral religious rites were once again performed openly and the Altar of Victory was restored.[27]


By decree in 391, Theodosius ended the subsidies that had still trickled to some remnants of civic paganism too. In 394 the eternal fire in the Temple of Vesta in the Roman Forum was extinguished, and the Vestal Virgins were disbanded. Taking the auspices and practicing witchcraft were to be punished. When pagan members of the Senate in Rome appealed to him to restore the Altar of Victory in the Senate House, he refused.

The apparent change of policy that resulted in the "Theodosian decrees" has often been credited to the increased influence of Ambrose, bishop of Milan. In 390 Ambrose had excommunicated Theodosius, thereafter he had greater influence with a penitent Theodosius.[7]

Only after what is commonly known as the "massacre" of Thessalonica (in 390) was Ambrose able to gain influence with Theodosius. Ambrose accomplished this by excommunicating Theodosius and thereby forcing him to obey him.[citation needed] Ambrose had a council of the Church condemn this act. Theodosius submitted himself to Ambrose and agreed to do penance. Theodosius' penance apparently included his promise to adopt a new role as the champion of the Christian faith.[citation needed]

The excommunication was due to Theodosius orders which resulted in the massacre of 7,000 Christians of Thessalonica,[28] in response to the assassination of his military governor stationed in the city, and that Theodosius performed several months of public penance.
#15162592
Potemkin wrote:Christianity existed in the Middle East long before it spread to Europe. The OP's question, as I interpret it, is to ask what would have happened if Christianity had not spread specifically to Europe before the Islamic conquests? In my opinion, it's a valid question, since there was nothing inevitable about the Christianisation of Europe.

The North of Africa used Christian, today it is Muslim. Saint Augustine one of the greatest figures in Catholicism was a North African.

Judeo Christian values are an integral part of Western Civilization. A muslim Europe would still be stuck in the middle ages.
#15162594
Julian658 wrote:The North of Africa used Christian, today it is Muslim. Saint Augustine one of the greatest figures in Catholicism was a North African.

Indeed. The Arab Conquests of the 7th century onwards changed everything, which is why they are usually taken as the dividing line between the Ancient world and the Medieval world. For example, the Islamic conquest of North Africa cut off Africa from Europe's sphere of influence, and eventually led to the creation of a specifically European civilisation and culture, whereas previously the region had been dominated by Mediterranean civilisations. In this sense, Europe, as we now conceive it, was created by Islam.

Judeo Christian values are an integral part of Western Civilization. A muslim Europe would still be stuck in the middle ages.

No, Judeo-Christian values are an integral part of European civilisation. Western civilisation got along just fine without those values for thousands of years; indeed, it could be argued that it reached its cultural peak under paganism, in Athens c.400 BC.
#15162777
starman2003 wrote:I believe the correct term is persecuted. ;)
Haha, perhaps it was a Freudian slip. :D

You are correct, but in the view of the Romans persecution was perhaps a valid form of prosecution against those who committed blasphemy/sacrilege against the customs of the Roman state and against public order. :excited:

Where in the empire did persecution stop or marginalize christianity on a lasting basis? Under Galerius and Maximinus II Daia anti-christian policy continued a little longer in the East, but it made little if any difference.
I didn't argue that the Romans succeeded, but they could have, as it did happen with for example Mithraism.
#15162784
Potemkin wrote:Indeed. The Arab Conquests of the 7th century onwards changed everything, which is why they are usually taken as the dividing line between the Ancient world and the Medieval world. For example, the Islamic conquest of North Africa cut off Africa from Europe's sphere of influence, and eventually led to the creation of a specifically European civilisation and culture, whereas previously the region had been dominated by Mediterranean civilisations. In this sense, Europe, as we now conceive it, was created by Islam.
The beginning and the end of ages, and the ages themselves, are often a subjective conventions, and perhaps it is the effect of my education, but I would stick to the fall of the Western Roman Empire as the start of the Middle Ages. Early Arab conquests didn't have much impact on Europe other than the struggles of the Eastern Roman Empire. By the time the Arabs conquered Spain and threatened France it was well into the Middle Ages.

No, Judeo-Christian values are an integral part of European civilisation. Western civilisation got along just fine without those values for thousands of years; indeed, it could be argued that it reached its cultural peak under paganism, in Athens c.400 BC.
Honestly, I don't see how Judeo-Christian values were an integral part of European civilisation since such concept didn't exist for much of Europe's history. It's more how we interpret Europe's history in retrospect. And as such, it seems more of a way to reconcile with Europe's history of persecuting and marginalising Jews, a way of saying "we are sorry and you are part of us", while at the same time setting the boundaries for the new group to fill up the historical place of the Jews to be deemed as the "others among us".
#15163046
Cookie Monster wrote:The beginning and the end of ages, and the ages themselves, are often a subjective conventions, and perhaps it is the effect of my education, but I would stick to the fall of the Western Roman Empire as the start of the Middle Ages.


Just like most historians.

Early Arab conquests didn't have much impact on Europe other than the struggles of the Eastern Roman Empire.


In fact the arab conquests had a big impact on Western Europe. Loss of Mediterranean trade deprived the central monarchs of the wealth they needed to defend their territories and people (from "Hagar the horrible" :) ). Unable to rely on central governments for protection the common people (i.e. the peasants) had to turn to local barons for protection. This led to the classic medieval situation in which Europe effectively splintered into many fiefdoms.

By the time the Arabs conquered Spain and threatened France it was well into the Middle Ages.


But not the "classic" or high Middle Ages, when political decentralization was the norm. From the 6th century to about the 9th western Europe still had decent state actors; they even emulated Rome to an extent. By c 900 CE things were different...
#15163047
starman2003 wrote:Just like most historians.

But not all. :)

In fact the arab conquests had a big impact on Western Europe. Loss of Mediterranean trade deprived the central monarchs of the wealth they needed to defend their territories and people (from "Hagar the horrible" :) ). Unable to rely on central governments for protection the common people (i.e. the peasants) had to turn to local barons for protection. This led to the classic medieval situation in which Europe effectively splintered into many fiefdoms.

Which is precisely why I would place the beginning of the Medieval period at the Arab Conquest, particularly the conquest of North Africa. It was, after all, Charles Martel who founded the feudal system, and he founded it precisely so that he could push back the Caliphate. When Otto crawled on his belly towards Charles Martel and touched his shoe in submission, Charles Martel became the first feudal lord.

But not the "classic" or high Middle Ages, when political decentralization was the norm. From the 6th century to about the 9th western Europe still had decent state actors; they even emulated Rome to an extent. By c 900 CE things were different...

Indeed; the loss of North Africa and the disruption of Mediterranean trade changed everything. It created a European world rather than a Mediterranean one.
#15163050
Potemkin is obviously correct.

The feudal system that defines the Middle-Ages was created as a result of the Muslim conquests of the Byzantine domain in North Africa and the Middle-East.

The Middle Ages essentially begin with the Byzantine-Arab wars.
#15163080
Cookie Monster wrote:Honestly, I don't see how Judeo-Christian values were an integral part of European civilisation since such concept didn't exist for much of Europe's history. It's more how we interpret Europe's history in retrospect. And as such, it seems more of a way to reconcile with Europe's history of persecuting and marginalising Jews, a way of saying "we are sorry and you are part of us", while at the same time setting the boundaries for the new group to fill up the historical place of the Jews to be deemed as the "others among us".

If you visit the old town section of European cities you can palpate the mark of Christianity. It shows in architecture, art, music, etc. At one time the lingua franca of Europe was Latin, the language of the Church. Isaac Newton wrote in Latin.
#15163085
Cookie Monster wrote:
Honestly, I don't see how Judeo-Christian values were an integral part of European civilisation since such concept didn't exist for much of Europe's history. It's more how we interpret Europe's history in retrospect. And as such, it seems more of a way to reconcile with Europe's history of persecuting and marginalising Jews, a way of saying "we are sorry and you are part of us", while at the same time setting the boundaries for the new group to fill up the historical place of the Jews to be deemed as the "others among us".



If you spend some time in Europe, you will eventually notice how christianity was added on top of the local culture. You see odd celebrations and rituals that are called christian, but the locals were doing them before christianity was imposed on them.

I have the feeling this is a bigger story that can be easily handled in a casual forum.

But... the evolution of capitalism and science is, for me, one of the most interesting parts of history. And that's the slow crawl toward the Modern, and secular, world.

Science, capitalism, and all that happened despite religion, not because of it.

I know we have some deliriously goofy posters, but they can't be taken seriously. Granted, there was a flurry a decade ago (roughly) about how monks preserved manuscripts, and had others translated. But most of that would have happened eventually, by other means.
#15163086
late wrote:Science, capitalism, and all that happened despite religion, not because of it.


Your polemics are ridiculous. You cannot separate the 2 and secularism literally means religious tolerance, not intolerance.

Your brand of atheism is just another religion, not secularism. You are a religious atheist and have no difference whatsoever to a religious christian, jew, muslim, intersectionalist, buddhist. You are not secular in any way shape or form.

late wrote: I know we have some deliriously goofy posters, but they can't be taken seriously. Granted, there was a flurry a decade ago (roughly) about how monks preserved manuscripts, and had others translated. But most of that would have happened eventually, by other means.


Oh dear god.

Without Greek and Latin Christian monks preserving and expanding on the scientific writings of the Greco-Roman world meticulously, there would be nothing today. There is no "eventually". There is simply nothing.

The Universities of Constantinople, Italy, Cambridge, Oxford, France which were founded by Christian monks did not just preserve Greco-Roman science, they expanded on it as well, without them, that thing you call 'science' does not exist at all, not even as a concept that you could potentially imagine.

Julian658 wrote:If you visit the old town section of European cities you can palpate the mark of Christianity. It shows in architecture, art, music, etc. At one time the lingua franca of Europe was Latin, the language of the Church. Isaac Newton wrote in Latin.


Latin predates christianity by a long time.
Newton wrote in Latin, Greek and English.

Christianity is a part of what we collectively call Western or European civilisation indeed.

Whether it is an 'integral part' -that is a part that is required for the functioning of the west- is a matter of debate as the west did very well before Christianity came very late to the party and has been doing very well today after the Enlightenment which was an outright rejection of Christianity.

As such it is dubious on whether it can be called "integral".
#15163098
noemon wrote:

Latin predates christianity by a long time.
Newton wrote in Latin, Greek and English.

Christianity is a part of what we collectively call Western or European civilisation indeed.

Whether it is an 'integral part' -that is a part that is required for the functioning of the west- is a matter of debate as the west did very well before Christianity came very late to the party and has been doing very well today after the Enlightenment which was an outright rejection of Christianity.

As such it is dubious on whether it can be called "integral".


Sure, Latin is older, however, it was the language of the Catholic Church and at one time European society was regulated by the church. The Monarchs of Europe had to bend the knee to the Popes and could not get married without the papal blessing.

But, you are correct, the Greeks were not Christian. The Romans up to the time of Constantine were not Christian. However, I don't think you can dismiss Christianity as just a side note in European history.

From a Quora reader:

Few people outside of England understood English at the time. Those who did were more likely to be traders than philosophers or scholars.

Newton was writing for all European scholars, not only English people, so he used the language that all European scholars understood.

As others have pointed out, the highly-structured nature of Latin made it a better fit for scientific and philosophical writing.


In any event, just visit any European city and go to the old town area. You will palpate the influence of catholicism in society in that era. The progression to the Reform and the enlightenment was natural, The Enlightenment could not have developed ex-nihilo without the previous history.
#15163105
Newton wrote in Latin & Greek for many reasons.

1) They have historically been the languages of education, in Newton's time and well into the modern day you could(can actually but whatever) not call yourself educated unless you were(are) proficient in Greek & Latin, this has been true since Rome was still a village.
2) They have better structure and by using Greek & Latin he was publishing for a wider audience indeed.

Christianity is a major part of European and western civilisation indeed, whether it is necessary for western civilisation remains dubious.

I think it has become quite obvious that it's not that necessary and there is a big chance it will not be with us in the next century.

A new film has been released destroying the offic[…]

Sounds like perfect organized crime material ex[…]

Since you keep insisting on pretending that the I[…]

Commercial foreclosures increase 97% from last ye[…]