Roman History General Discussion

[The New Sea Territory]

Objective historians tend to think the empire fell because Constantine embraced Christianity, though I think his banning of gladiator games and killing of one's slave what did it.

Gibbon's theory hasn't been accepted in mainstream historical circles for over a century and a half.

However, it might be that Gibbon identifies another symptom of the actual cause. The conversion might not have cause the downfall, but its historical position certainly cannot remove it from a conversation about the downfall.

[The Parkus Empire]

Yes, Nietszche used airtight reasoning and methodology in support if this thesis, which is why it has never been falsified

Since when are you a fan of the scientific method for discovering truth?

I am not, of course. Nietzsche is a noble religion.

[Shikihara]

I said there was a unified pagan tradition coming from Homer and Hesiod, which subsequently developed and to which various pseudo-Christian philosophical systems (neoplatonism under Julian's reign) were grafted. This mythology represents one of the oldest stages of the religion in literature.

Is there any reason to believe that Neoplatonism and other logos-based philosophies were "grafted" onto Homeric tradition and Hesiod's cosmogony? I think it's more likely that both developed from the indigenous Hellenic pagan beliefs of the time. I've not read much if anything on Hesiod, but Homer doesn't really add any major cosmological themes, or anything that didn't already exist. I also fail to understand why Neo-Platonism should be called "pseudo-Christian."

I think this is very much the opposite of what the lower class predisposition to Christianity and Plato's description of Socrates' teachings would lead me to believe.

Could you elaborate?

Certainly. Although Aristotle is writing already past the break from Homer by Plato. The pre-Socratics might have been logocentric in their own way, but not in the anti-Homeric sense Plato was (situating "aletheia" as outside history, outside the cave, while Homer's "a-letheia" retained an older meaning of the word Heidegger identifies as "unconcealment", characterized by King Alcinous's response to Odysseus's story, roughly "You speak with art but what you say is true").

Heraclitus believed that Homer deserved to be beaten, and that Hesiod lacked understanding. That seems much more extreme than what Plato wrote about Homer. Anaxagoras never made any statements about Homer that I'm aware of, but his pantheistic belief in nous already seemed a major split from Hesiod and Homer.

[Mutz]

Not really true across the board. Ares in Greece, for instance, was hated outside of Sparta. And while pagans were patriarchal, unlike Christians they had female clergy and deities.

No he wasn't. He was worshipped mainly in northern Greece and had a quite prominently placed temple in Athens. Not very well liked? Sure. Hated? That would be a highly anachronistic view. He also had no particular importance for the Spartans. Their patron deity was Athena, with a side-serving of Apollo, like a dozen other poleis.

Christianity could well be argued to have (had) female deities, or at least deity-ish concepts. Be it Mary as Mater Dei or the rest of the host of female saints.

Gibbon's theory hasn't been accepted in mainstream historical circles for over a century and a half.

However, it might be that Gibbon identifies another symptom of the actual cause. The conversion might not have cause the downfall, but its historical position certainly cannot remove it from a conversation about the downfall.

Well, it is historically significant in the sense that the christianisation of the empire, as a process and not a singular event, certainly had a significant impact on the culture and the further course of history. But that hardly makes it unique. If it is brought up in a scholarly conversation regarding the downfall (itself a pretty loaded term btw.), it's pretty much just to dismiss it. Monocausality of any kind is highly suspect at the best of times.

I said there was a unified pagan tradition coming from Homer and Hesiod, which subsequently developed and to which various pseudo-Christian philosophical systems (neoplatonism under Julian's reign) were grafted. This mythology represents one of the oldest stages of the religion in literature.

When you (and others in this thread) talk about a pagan tradition, what is included in that? Is the term "pagan" here used as a synonym solely for Greek mythology or do you include other belief systems under that heading?

[Salus Maior]

Christianity could well be argued to have (had) female deities, or at least deity-ish concepts. Be it Mary as Mater Dei or the rest of the host of female saints.

Not with any real understanding of the concept of Saints, Mary, or the title "Mother of God".

[Minzerland II]

Cato the Younger does not remotely deserve the praise he gets.

And why is that, exactly?

[The Parkus Empire]

Not really true across the board. Ares in Greece, for instance, was hated outside of Sparta. And while pagans were patriarchal, unlike Christians they had female clergy and deities.

No he wasn't. He was worshipped mainly in northern Greece and had a quite prominently placed temple in Athens. Not very well liked? Sure. Hated? That would be a highly anachronistic view. He also had no particular importance for the Spartans. Their patron deity was Athena, with a side-serving of Apollo, like a dozen other poleis.

Christianity could well be argued to have (had) female deities, or at least deity-ish concepts. Be it Mary as Mater Dei or the rest of the host of female saints.

However, it might be that Gibbon identifies another symptom of the actual cause. The conversion might not have cause the downfall, but its historical position certainly cannot remove it from a conversation about the downfall.

Well, it is historically significant in the sense that the christianisation of the empire, as a process and not a singular event, certainly had a significant impact on the culture and the further course of history. But that hardly makes it unique. If it is brought up in a scholarly conversation regarding the downfall (itself a pretty loaded term btw.), it's pretty much just to dismiss it. Monocausality of any kind is highly suspect at the best of times.

I said there was a unified pagan tradition coming from Homer and Hesiod, which subsequently developed and to which various pseudo-Christian philosophical systems (neoplatonism under Julian's reign) were grafted. This mythology represents one of the oldest stages of the religion in literature.

When you (and others in this thread) talk about a pagan tradition, what is included in that? Is the term "pagan" here used as a synonym solely for Greek mythology or do you include other belief systems under that heading?

Saints fulfill a role similar to the mother of Achilles did in the Iliad, they are intercessors. Although the mother of Achilles is a deity, thus function is not innately divine.

All poetry I have read portrays Ares negatively and hateful. I did not suggest he was the patron of Sparta, but that Sparta held him in higher regard.

[Shikihara]

Does anyone think that Buddhism could've spread through the Roman Empire instead of Christianity?

[The New Sea Territory]

I said there was a unified pagan tradition coming from Homer and Hesiod, which subsequently developed and to which various pseudo-Christian philosophical systems (neoplatonism under Julian's reign) were grafted. This mythology represents one of the oldest stages of the religion in literature.

Is there any reason to believe that Neoplatonism and other logos-based philosophies were "grafted" onto Homeric tradition and Hesiod's cosmogony? I think it's more likely that both developed from the indigenous Hellenic pagan beliefs of the time. I've not read much if anything on Hesiod, but Homer doesn't really add any major cosmological themes, or anything that didn't already exist.

I don't think this follows the timeline. Both developing from Hellenic belief would not account for the shift in the meaning of "aletheia". One, the latter, developed in response to, in rejection of, the established traditional mythology which is typified by Homer and Hesiod.

Homer adds a major theological theme: the imperfection of the gods. The gods' imperfection directly contradicts a Platonic concept like "the Good", which is the basis for Socrates' argument against Homeric poetry: the gods are perfect and are consonant with the "Good" for Socrates, thus they could not be depicted this way justly. Other implicit contradictions would be between Homer's depiction of death, the various souls Odysseus meets in the underworld, and Socrates' theory of recollection, which is predicated on rebirth (there are ways both reincarnation and Homer's depiction of death could be true, but that requires division of soul, which Socrates says is impossible in Phaedo), or Socrates' "rational" ambivalence towards death in iApology juxtaposed with Achilles' radical, spirited affirmation of death in the Iliad.

I also fail to understand why Neo-Platonism should be called "pseudo-Christian."

It's the philosophical system of Christianity. It is the framework Christian theologians used to develop their own religion. In its latest non-Christian incarnations, Julian's for example, it had already developed into a sort of henotheism.

I think this is very much the opposite of what the lower class predisposition to Christianity and Plato's description of Socrates' teachings would lead me to believe.

Could you elaborate?

The other two paragraphs were explaining my position. Put simply, the distinction between "muthos" and "logos" existed in Greek culture, and I speculated that Latin "religio" and "superstitio" could have been seen as running parallel to the previous muthos-logos" distinction. If so, then the Platonic distinction already was commonplace in Roman society. Christianity simply changed positions with paganism when it became "religio", the public and civic religion of the Empire, while paganism was forced into the "superstitio" category, which is analogous to "muthos" and thus "irrational". This could account for the attraction of the common people to Christianity. Couple this with Socrates' charge in Apology and his actions in Gorgias, we see the Socrates' critique of rhetoric as targeting elites who were fearful this criticism in public (the entirety of Republic is a private conversation, which is why it lasts as long as it does; Gorgias flees because common people watch Socrates critique him).

Certainly. Although Aristotle is writing already past the break from Homer by Plato. The pre-Socratics might have been logocentric in their own way, but not in the anti-Homeric sense Plato was (situating "aletheia" as outside history, outside the cave, while Homer's "a-letheia" retained an older meaning of the word Heidegger identifies as "unconcealment", characterized by King Alcinous's response to Odysseus's story, roughly "You speak with art but what you say is true").

Heraclitus believed that Homer deserved to be beaten, and that Hesiod lacked understanding. That seems much more extreme than what Plato wrote about Homer. Anaxagoras never made any statements about Homer that I'm aware of, but his pantheistic belief in nous already seemed a major split from Hesiod and Homer.

That's doesn't specify a fundamental disagreement about a theory of Truth, which is the difference between Homer and Plato.

Disagreement about particulars within a religion are nowhere near as extreme as Plato's fundamental philosophical shift: situating "aletheia" independent of history, very much the opposite of Heraclitus' "all things in flux" fragment and something diametrically opposed to Odysseus's tale to Alcinous in the court of the Phaiakians.

[Salus Maior]

Does anyone think that Buddhism could've spread through the Roman Empire instead of Christianity?

From what I remember there were some Buddhists who tried, and at least got as far as Judea.

I might be remembering wrong though.

[Shikihara]

Does anyone think that Buddhism could've spread through the Roman Empire instead of Christianity?

From what I remember there were some Buddhists who tried, and at least got as far as Judea.

I might be remembering wrong though.

There's records of a Śramaṇa (who might've been a Buddhist) setting himself on fire in Athens in a display of his faith, and Ashoka apparently sent missionaries as far as Greece and Egypt.

[Salus Maior]

From what I remember there were some Buddhists who tried, and at least got as far as Judea.

I might be remembering wrong though.

There's records of a Śramaṇa (who might've been a Buddhist) setting himself on fire in Athens in a display of his faith, and Ashoka apparently sent missionaries as far as Greece and Egypt.

I think that's what I was thinking of.

[The New Sea Territory]

When you (and others in this thread) talk about a pagan tradition, what is included in that? Is the term "pagan" here used as a synonym solely for Greek mythology or do you include other belief systems under that heading?

Here we're talking about Greco-Roman polytheism specifically. At least, that's what I intend.

Other mythologies and the inter-related mythologies through syncretic religious practice (say, Gallo-Roman or Frankish polytheism) were not included in my statements.

[Astrolinium]

Just look at traditional Roman civic religion -- which was what we would call "pagan". The male paterfamilias literally had life and death power (rarely exercised in practice) over his household, and while women did have comparatively more freedom and rights in practice than some neighboring cultures, they were still considered in many ways the property of, until marriage, their fathers, and afterwards, their husbands. Hell, they didn't even get their own names, really.

By the time of the late Republic manus marriage had fallen out of favor. And tbh in terms of naming conventions no one really got their own names. Do you know how many Romans named 'Gaius' there were? What about naming your children "First, second, third"?

Okay, but compare names like "Quintus Caecilius Metellus Pius Cornelianus Scipio Nasica" to "Tullia Ciceronis". There's a pretty stark difference there (even if the first example is an extreme). And fine on manus marriage, that's not that big a difference in terms of my actual point.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Objective historians tend to think the empire fell because Constantine embraced Christianity, though I think his banning of gladiator games and killing of one's slave what did it.

Rome fell for a million different reasons. That Christianity was at times an inadequate replacement for some of the specific civic roles of traditional Roman religion is but a drop in that bucket.

[Khanastan]

Was Constantine really Christian? Did he just interpret Christ as a version of Sol Invicta? Or was his adoption of Christianity just a ploy to homogenise and control the Empire through the church?

These are the questions that keep me up at night.

[Khanastan]

Does anyone think that Buddhism could've spread through the Roman Empire instead of Christianity?

Personally, I don't think it could have. The culture of the Roman world at large would probably not have blended particularly well with Buddhist ideals. And with the exception of a few leading figures (Marcus Aurelius for example), I don't think the powerful people of the Roman world would have readily adopted Buddhism legitimately.

[The Parkus Empire]

Was Constantine really Christian? Did he just interpret Christ as a version of Sol Invicta? Or was his adoption of Christianity just a ploy to homogenise and control the Empire through the church?

These are the questions that keep me up at night.

Considering he refused a triumph and refused to sacrifice to pagan gods after winning the crown, I am inclined to believe his sincerity. Although accounts suggest he was not seriously observant until after he murdered his wife and son (for sleeping together, supposedly), which gave him an extremely guilty conscience and a dread he would be punished.

[Khanastan]

Was Constantine really Christian? Did he just interpret Christ as a version of Sol Invicta? Or was his adoption of Christianity just a ploy to homogenise and control the Empire through the church?

These are the questions that keep me up at night.

Considering he refused a triumph and refused to sacrifice to pagan gods after winning the crown, I am inclined to believe his sincerity. Although accounts suggest he was not seriously observant until after he murdered his wife and son (for sleeping together, supposedly), which gave him an extremely guilty conscience and a dread he would be punished.

Call me cynical, but I think he was a little more calculated with his 'adoption' of Christianity.

Having just taken control of the empire after the civil war, I believe he looked to the church as more of an ally than anything else. Correct me if i'm wrong, but wasn't he only baptised on his deathbed? I know that was a pretty common thing to do, but if he was in search of repentance then it makes sense to me that he would have been baptised after he had his family killed, instead of waiting until the last minute.

[The Parkus Empire]

Considering he refused a triumph and refused to sacrifice to pagan gods after winning the crown, I am inclined to believe his sincerity. Although accounts suggest he was not seriously observant until after he murdered his wife and son (for sleeping together, supposedly), which gave him an extremely guilty conscience and a dread he would be punished.

Call me cynical, but I think he was a little more calculated with his 'adoption' of Christianity.

Having just taken control of the empire after the civil war, I believe he looked to the church as more of an ally than anything else. Correct me if i'm wrong, but wasn't he only baptised on his deathbed? I know that was a pretty common thing to do, but if he was in search of repentance then it makes sense to me that he would have been baptised after he had his family killed, instead of waiting until the last minute.

The church was not any substantial ally.

If he did not believe, he would have been baptized either earlier or not at all. People waited until deathbed to be 100% assured of heaven, which otherwise you cannot be

[Monsters and Humans]

It amazes me that the Roman Empire was so strong in military and yet they lost to small tribes.

[Khanastan]

It amazes me that the Roman Empire was so strong in military and yet they lost to small tribes.

Those 'small tribes' were composed of whole populations of people, hundreds of thousands strong.

It also didn't help that they had no money and a sizeable chunk of their armed forces were made up of warriors from those tribes.

[Cedoria]

A thread for discussion of the Roman Republic as well as Empire.

During the late years of the Roman Republic, there the tension between the aristrocrats (who controlled the senate) and the plebians (and non citizens) increased more regularly into violence, which reached an apogee under the populist consul Marius, who had no qualms about inciting mob m action and widespread murder to support his cause. Sulla, a military commander, marched on Rome to restore law, ironically destroying one of Rome's most important laws (armies are to stay out). He did restore order but, alas, Marius, after fleeing, returned, and was even worse. Sulla again marched on Rome, and the senate this time made him dictator; he used his power to proscribe (murder) those whom he consideres the ringleaders of the trouble (hundreds of men); when order was restored, he stepped down as dictator. So, for an opening topic, I ask: were Sulla's murders justified? I would say they harmed more than helped, since in the long run they paved the way for Caesar by setting an "above the law" precedent.

No, Sulla was a monster.

I personally suspect Marius had some kind of mental degradation after he returned from exile (stroke I suspect), but Sulla was that way for starters.

Sulla also made a mistake by not staying Dictator until he was sure his constitution could not be overturned.


As to whether his reforms were good, well I don't really think muzzling the Tribunes of the Plebs and preventing them protecting the rights of the lower classes was a good idea. The Roman aristocracy was so bloated and corrupt at that point the Tribunes were needed more than ever. The system Sulla was trying to protect was rotten.

[Cedoria]

Sulla internet defense force reporting in. Sulla did nothing wrong. Marian scum had overthrown the Republic, they were stabbing him in the back as he fought possibly the greatest foe Rome ever faced in the form of Mithridates. A war on two fronts. The Marian scum took advantage of Sulla's mercy the first time. He did not make a mistake the second time in a mass pardon. Marius didn't even bring in most of the reforms to the system. He just took the credit as he did for most of his career.

Sulla marched on Rome first, committing the greatest sacrilege imaginable.

The fact that it was the supposed traditionalists who also started the process of murder through public violence by killing the Gracchi Brothers is richly ironic. The conservatives began the violence they later condemned in others in that stage.

No, Marius was a military reformer, not a political one. Sulla was explicitly attempting to reverse the changes and go back to the mos maiorum, the ways of the ancestors. That's why his reforms mostly didn't last.

There's a reason why he was hated, even by conservatives like Cato, after his death. His policies depended on the most untraditional method, overthrow of the state with armed troops, in order to be implemented.

[Cedoria]

In a much better place. Augustus' interests lay more with the nobility than the common people, unlike Caesar.

Caesar's interest in the common people was nothing more than a popular grasp at power. He was a pandering tyrant in every sense of the word. He would have run the state into the ground.

I absolutely can and will condemn Augustus for practicing the kind of nepotism that would later define and destroy the Empire. Rome wasn't overextended, and the subjugation of Germania both for its amber and the pacification of the Germanic tribes would have been immensely useful.

Later define? I'm pretty nepotism was a cornerstone of Roman political life since its inception, especially during the republic. It would have been useful to hold all of Mesopotamia and Dacia too, but still unrealistic. I don't think its a coincidence that Rome was never able to maintain any conquests of land outside of that achieved at the end of Augustus' reign. Dacia has to be abandoned. Mesopotamia had to be abandoned. Armenia was constantly being taken and lost. The only exception to this was Britannia, and even then that was tedious. Rome had gotten as big as it could possibly hope to maintain.

She was a fellow Christian intensely interested in the persecution of the religious minorities within their borders. The actions and attitudes of Justinian and Theodora were more becoming of eastern despots and monarchs than Roman leaders of the res publica.

Persecution of religious minorities within Christianity was already commonplace, going back as far as Constantine I to preserve the homogeny of the church. Like Constantine before them, Justinian and Theodora took steps to try and solve these schisms diplomatically. It didn't work, obviously, but at least they tried.

Just on Caesar, actually he was far less nepotistic than most. By the time he was Dictator, whose crotch you were yanked from didn't mean much to him. He appointed quite a lot of New Men on his staff for his planned Parthian Campaign, and certainly had no problem ticking off idiotic aristocrats (like Tiberius Nero in Egypt) when they did stupid stuff.

Caesar was no snob, whatever else you might say of him. And I think he could've conquered Parthia, he had a pretty good method worked out of beating them.

[Cedoria]

I am well aware of them, but they certainly did not include giving the poor a greater voice in government anymore than Putin does.

His interest was in weakening the aristocracy of the Senatorial and Equestrian orders who had dominated the republic for their own benefit. This weakening necessarily implies a strengthening of the plebs and poor. If he wasn't assassinated in the midst of his reforms, which included land redistribution to the poor and jobs programs, debt relief, reformation and REDUCTION of the grain dole, etc etc, his reforms would have left the Republic better off in the manner of a Sulla rather than an Augustus.

He weakened them not to increase their democratic power, but because they were HIS powerbase.

He didn't really want them to become more politically inclined, he just wanted his power base strengthened and the voting base of the First Class (the boni or Optimates) weakened. You're correct about the fact that his reforms would've undoubtedly worked better than most others. Augustus's largely worked too with the exception of the moral ones (don't know where Augustus got the ideas for those weird moral reforms. Caesar certainly wouldn't have favoured laws against adultery.)