[Scipio Africanus, Julius Caesar or Constantine the great]

Yes, but think if the fellow roman was a bad ruler, as Maxentius, perhaps the bad treated people gladly would have fighted against him

 

The ruler might be bad, but the legionaries would still be forced to cut up their comrades who probably had absolutely no say in the politics of the time. That probably was not a pleasant experience.

[Emperor and Titles]

concerning Liutprand, if i remember correctly Rice explained that the bulgarian diplomats were given precedence of Liutprands party at certain banquets which resulted in outrage amongst the westerners

 

Which just showed how ignorant Liutprand was of Byzantine regional politics. The Bulgarians were given precedence because they were in closer proximity to the empire, and were more closely aligned to Byzantium culturally than to the German Empire.

 

And I think that the Byzantine emperors didn't start using the official term "Emperor of the Romans" until after Charlemagne. Before then, it had just been a given. Afterwards, they felt that they needed to defend their romanitas against the Franks and Germans. Ironically, their eastern enemies continued to refer to the Byzantines as "Romans" up until the empire's collapse, with one of two exceptional instances. It as only in western Europe where Byzantium's status as the heir to the Roman Empire was questioned.

[Greatest Roman Generals?]

Scipio is definitely up there, as well as Caesar. For later individuals, I might put down Aurelian. He may not have been Rome's greatest military mind, but he just may have saved the empire from a permanent split. Also, Belisarius was a military genius, though I argue in my Justinian thread that his Italian campaign may have been the most disastrous that Rome ever undertook.

[Roman Battlefield Found In Germany.]

Hundreds of arrows heads have been found, dozens of scorpio bolts being also found. Which to me is a bit surprising by the way, because it means that the romans did not try to collect all those precious ammo back from the field : maybe they were somewhat in a hurry with a larger barbarian force in their back ?

 

That's a real possibility; it may explain why they didn't take any territory even though they pierced so deeply into Germania. We may not be ever sure, but it could possibly been one of Rome's first encounters with the large Germanic confederations that plagued the empire from the third century onward. The Romans may have expected only scattered resistance from various tribes, but ended up biting off more than they could chew.

[Why are there no Romance actors that play as Romans?]

For the last few decades, Romans on screen have been repeatedly played by either British or American actors. While there have been some stellar performances by these actors, it's beginning to wear on me. Why can't we have moreactors from Romance language countries to play as Romans? Maybe I'm being too picky, and the general public probably doesn't care, but I think it would be nice to have some shows or movies about the Romans where the actors sound somewhat like the ancient Romans would have sounded. The only examples that I can think of are The Passion, some French show about Vercingetorix, and a brief drama on the History Channel. Does anyone else here agree with me?

[North Of Hadrian's Wall]

I am reading the book Roman Britain: A New History, and during the late 1st Century, the author states something like this:

1) Roman army foritified Scotland but then dismantled all forts and withdrew.

2) Roman army built Hadrian's Wall.

3) Roman army fortified Scotland (again) and built Antonine Wall then withdrew (yet again).

But it doesn't state why the Roman frontier kept moving up and down before finally resting at Hadrian's Wall. Is anyone able to elaborate on what was going on in Scotland?

 

The Romans came close to conquering Scotland during Domitian's time, but due to climate and military problems, it was never completed. Scotland's terrain made it quite difficult for the Romans to establish a firm hold on the region, especially during the winter. A millenium later, the English had the same problem. The peoples of the region were also largely decentralized, and thus Rome couldn't just march into a particular city and take over the government. Combine that with the fact that the Scots and Picts just weren't receptive to romanization, it just made things more difficult for the Romans. I do believe that the Antonine Wall was rebuilt once, but by and large, the Romans ignored Scotland.

 

You have to remember that northern Britain was an extremely peripheral region of the empire, and that the Romans often couldn't afford to spend lots of time pacifying the Scots when they had far more dire problems closer to the imperial center, especially in the third and fourth centuries. Expending copious amounts of resources in Scotland just wasn't worth it.

[Did Justinian I destroy the Roman Empire?]

A pretty harsh accusation, right? But I personally think that in some ways, he's one of the most disastrous emperors next to Honorius and Romanus IV Diogenes.

 

First, when it came to his foreign policy, I feel that it was lacking in some area, and totally idiotic in other areas. While his initial policy of peace with the Persians and building up the eastern defenses was good, his ignoring of the East for his western conquests spurred the Persians into attacking again and Antioch being sacked. In his western wars, the taking of Africa may have been justified and well-thought out, but not Italy. By the time the Italian Wars were over, the place was a wreck and all of the Roman institutions of the last millenium were either gone or permanently weakened. I know that he tried to preserve the old Roman civic institutions with the Pragmatic Sanction, but the Roman Italian adiminstration was a complex organism that couldn't be turned on and off at will. The only big players left standing in Italy were the exarch and the pope, and this weakness would allow the Lombards to invade, and to prompt the Italian political division that lasted until the 19th century. Many of the old cities, including Rome, were as left burnt-out, depopulated husks that didn't recover for centuries. And the Spanish campaign was totally pointless in all ways, with a number of Spanish nobles senselessly slaughtered in the initial landing of troops. The soldiers used there and in Italy should have been on the Danubian frontier trying to keep the Slavs out. Also, Narses and Belisarius were excellent generals, but even there, Justininian couldn't help but screw up. In the initial phase of the Gothic Wars, had Belisarius been kept in Italy for another month or so, the Germanic resistance probably would have been defeated, the province would have been fully secured, and the old Roman way of life would have continued. As it was, Justinian's removal of him to the East stalled the Byzantine momentum, allowed for the coronation of Totila, and led to the devastating trench warfare that wracked Italy for another decade.

 

For his religious policy, there was nothing good about it. While Justinian's religious laws were largely continuations of what had been happening for the last century and a half, his quest for a monolithic Orthodox empire succeeded in just about pissing off everybody, both East and West. One of Rome's great strengths had been its ability to absorb and tolerate different peoples and religions, thus promoting loyalty. By the end of his reign, Justinian had estranged most of the empire's religious minorities through his harsh religious laws, thus taking away this social glue. This is a reason why Monophysites and Jews were so receptive to the Persians when they briefly conquered large stretches of the empire. Later, it is believed by some that it is this belief that the government in Constantinople had become too tyrannical that caused many Byzantines to put up no resistance to the Muslim armies, and sometimes even welcoming them.

 

When it came to other policies, I don't think that Justininian was all that competent there as well. Buildings like the Hagia Sophia might look pretty, but the massive amount of money and resources poured into them could have been used for more practical matters. Moreover, during the Nika Riots, he showed an absolute lack of nerve initially, and would have left the city to anarchy if his wife hadn't had more balls than he.

 

The empire may have been physically bigger on Justinian' death, and had some new nice buildings, but it was strained to the breaking point both militarily and economically, and many of its people's loyalty had been severely tested. I honestly feel that had Justinian followed the more conservative policies of his ancestors, the East Roman Empire may have remained large and strong for a much longer time and the ancient Roman culture of the West may have continued.

 

Anyone agree or disagree?

[The East of the West]

I believe that a portion of Illyricum was ceded to the Lombards after they aided Narses in Italy. During the Gothic Wars, there were a number of confrontations in that region, but most battles were in Italy. Also, some cities near the Danube were briefly ceded to the Avars during the reign of Maurice in the late sixth century, but I couldn't give you anymore information beyond that.

[Resurrection of a Dead Language?]

I was a beast at the National Latin Exam. Sadly, I think that much of the language has gone out of me.

 

I did thoroughly enjoy Latin until about eleventh grade. That year, all we had to read were the tediously idiotic poems of Catullus, and that killed my interest in the language for the next few years.

[Why didn't the Arabs conquer Asia Minor in the 8th century?]

Perhaps it was because the turks were too tough a nut to crack? The arabs would have known of any reputation they had.

 

I'm not referring to later when the Turks invaded, but in the eighth century when the Arabs had conquered most of Byzantium, and were raiding deep into Asia Minor. Even though they caused alot of damage, leaving it in Byzantine hands allowed the Byzantines to put together an effective army and stop the Arabs. I'm just curious as to why the Arabs didn't take the region in the same period that they took Judae, Syria, Egypt, and Africa?

[Why didn't the Arabs conquer Asia Minor in the 8th century?]

It just strikes me that if they had conquered Asia Minor the way that the Turks did, they could have strangled the Byzantine Empire, and have easily conquered it. Taking Constantinople proved an impossibility, at least at the time, but if they had taken Asia Minor, or even landed troops in Greece itself, Constantinople would have been totally cut off and would have had to eventually surrender. As it was, the Arabs' ignoring of Asia Minor allowed the Byzantines to regain their strength, reorganize their armies, and successfully fight back. I know that the Arabs did deep and devastating raids into Asia Minor, but I just don't see why they didn't conquer it and surround Constantinople. Any theories as to why this didn't happen?

[The Deterioriation of Rome after 312 A.D.]

 

It looks like the inscriber started out quite well, but then started to screw up. He probably wasn't paid too well, and started drinking.

[The Deterioriation of Rome after 312 A.D.]

Thank you so very much for this information. Very enlightening indeed.

[The secular administration of medieval Rome]

From the mid-6th thru the 8th centuries Rome's population shrank tremendously. Betrand Lan

[Nubians]

Salve, Amici

I would just like to add I would love to know why the Romans didn't push further south into Nubia or for that matter further south along the Atlantic coastline. If anyone has any information on this, I would be very grateful.

 

Wasteland. It just was not worth it. Anyway most emperors had a anti-conquering mindset by the empire with a few rare exceptions like Trajan. An emperor generally didn't have anything to prove like Roman Republican statesmen did, and was more interested in maintaining the status quo. Spending money and allocating troops to dubious annexations of empty lands full of myth and barbarians endangered that status quo.

Claudius certainly didn't think so regarding Brittania; neither did Augustus regarding Nubia, where he actually pushed further south.

Judging by his Res Gestae Divi Augusti, he had a lot to prove, dubious annexations included (cp. XXVI):

 

Meo iuss

[What did the Greeks ever do for the Romans?]

While I see what you're getting at, and while the world would definitely be more empty without Greco-Roman culture, whose to say that those Celts and Germans wouldn't have been able to create their own separate cultural legacies that might have become something just as advanced as what the Greeks and Romans created? A Europe without classical culture would definitely have been radically different, but whose to say that it would have necessarily been doomed to perpetual barbarism?

 

It's probably a topic in its own right, but I'm skeptical the Northern tribes could have developed a culture as advanced as the Hellenistic world, due to their differing cultural values and experiences.

 

It might have taken a bit longer, but it's not impossible. There have been a number of non-hellenic ancient civilizations which were as advanced as the Greeks and Romans, such as the Chinese, Persians, the Kingdom of Kongo, and the Aztecs. I don't see why the northern Europeans might not developed their own advance cultures. If I'm not mistaken, right before being by Rome, Gaul and Britain were starting to progress. Although they moved along more rapidly as Roman subjects, I think that it's somewhat sad that they weren't allowed to develop their own unique cultures. Gaul especially seemed to have potential.

[The secular administration of medieval Rome]

Salve, EG

Everyone knows that from the seventh century onwards, the pope was increasingly the chief secular official in Rome. But besides him, does anyone here know anything about the civil administration of the city during the Middle Ages? I'm not talking about the outisde Byzantine or German imperial officials, but the day to day bureaucratic mechanisms of the city. I know that the Senate never fully recovered from destruction Justinian's reconquest, but the pope could not have run the city entirely by himself. Can anyone illuminate what other civil officials managed the city?

As a general pattern there was a progressive shift of administrative and executive functions toward the Church all along the Western Empire during its last days; eg, the appointment of provincial governors was committed to the bishops.

 

Paradoxically, the Germanic conquest improved the administrative status of the still extant Roman Senate, as a real partner and helper of the barbarian chieftains/kings at Ravenna, like the Heruli Odoacer and the Goth Theoderic (always as patricians under the nominal Imperial authority from Constantinople), presumably largely because those Arrian kings didn't trust the regular Christian clergy.

 

As you rightly pointed out, the fierce subsequent struggle between the Germanic kingdoms and the Empire ravaged all that; there are only four known references to the Roman Senate after the restoration of the Imperial rule on Italy, mostly reduced to a municipal status.

Both sides now considered Rome and its region as an early feudal administrative unit, a "duchy".

 

The last senatorial decree ever was a 603 acclamation of the emperor Phocas and wife's statues, where it was made clear the real power at Rome was then Pope Gregory I.

It is not known when the Senate actually disappeared.

During the first half pf the VII century, the lessened Imperial influence was nevertheless still extant, and most Popes were actually Greek.

 

We're now talking on the darkest of the Dark Ages. The administrative status of the city of Rome seems to have been nothing less than chaotic most often than not; the general impression given by ecclesiastical sources is the gangs and mobs' rule.

 

That's interesting. I knew that outside of the city, there was much chaos, with Lombards and Arabs ravaging the countryside. Inside, the only real violence that I've read about was the power jockeying between those who wished to be pope, and those who supported them. I've also read that the nobles of the city were in constant competition with each other (which, if you think about it, was nothing new to Rome), but that it was centered arund the papacy. The nobles would sometimes use mob violence against popes that were disgreeable to their interest. While it never grew as bad as in places like Renaissance Florence, it did cause noticeable disturbances.

 

As to the popes being Greek, that's correct. As John Moorhead's The Roman Empire Divided: 400-700 points out, the seventh century was indeed the papacy's most "oriental" century. Since these Greeks were probably more beholden to the Byzantine emperor than to the Italian nobility, there probably wasn't as much jockeying around the papal throne. That only seemed t really settle in during the ninth and tenth centuries. You mention that Rome became a duchy of both the Byzantine and Holy Roman Empires, but wasn't that a creation of Late Antiquity, not the Middle Ages, since it was Diocletian and Constantine who created the position of duke, and was originally not supposed to be feudal at all? I'm just wondering. Also, while Rome was an imperial territory, it was not like other provinces. Since the time of Pepin, the papal lands had a certain amount of autonomy not granted to other regions. Yes, Rome was subject to imperial domination, such as when Otto blockaded it when a pope was appointed that he didn't like, but it still as just not another imperial possession, and had ot be dealt with carefully. Also, I think that the Roman militia was not directly under imperial control.

 

I do remember that in the tenth century, there was a secular position called the Senator of Rome. Despite the name, his duties were very different than that of a classical senator. He was basically in charge of the city guard and militia. I remember reading about this position in a book about the Ottonian dynasty where Pope John IX apparently fell dead while banging the Senator's daughter in a back alley. The book didn't say much, only that he was the head of the city guard, that he was close to the pope, and that it was a coveted position. Beyond that, I don't know much about the city's medieval magistracies, and like DDickey, was wondering if their were any holdovers from antiquity.

[What did the Greeks ever do for the Romans?]

If the Roman elite has not adopted strands of Hellenistic culture, Rome would still have had a historical impact as the power that united three continents for centuries of relative peace under its soldiers, laws and roads.

 

But the fact that educated Romans, and provincial notables who were to become Romans in time, did adopt strands of Hellenic culture seems to me to have ennobled Rome from a simple imperial power into a cultural power - bringing the uplifting culture of the East into the formerly savage lands of Western Europe.

 

 

I try to think of a Europe without Hellenism and its arts. A world of Celtic and Germanic barbarians living in hill forts, not cities as we know it. A world of crude geometric art rather than life like marble statues. A world of oral poetry rather than written history. A world where Aristotle had not inspired the scientific method. It is quite horrid to contemplate.

 

While I see what you're getting at, and while the world would definitely be more empty without Greco-Roman culture, whose to say that those Celts and Germans wouldn't have been able to create their own separate cultural legacies that might have become something just as advanced as what the Greeks and Romans created? A Europe without classical culture would definitely have been radically different, but whose to say that it would have necessarily been doomed to perpetual barbarism?

[The secular administration of medieval Rome]

Everyone knows that from the seventh century onwards, the pope was increasingly the chief secular official in Rome. But besides him, does anyone here know anything about the civil administration of the city during the Middle Ages? I'm not talking about the outisde Byzantine or German imperial officials, but the day to day bureaucratic mechanisms of the city. I know that the Senate never fully recovered from destruction Justinian's reconquest, but the pope could not have run the city entirely by himself. Can anyone illuminate what other civil officials managed the city?

[Which Roman Emperors never did battle?]

After Theodosius I and until Maurice, which was about the end of the fourth century until the late sixth, there was a long line of emperors who did not go into battle...

Majorian was an excepction,

Regarding the aforementioned period (450 to 582) here are some other exceptions (please note that information on many "shadow" emperors is too scarce to define if they actually were or not at the battlefront):

 

WEST:

Constantine III (407-411) was described by Orosius as a soldier.

Constantius III (421) defeated the previous one.

Avitus (455-456) had a distinguished civil and military career previous to 455.

 

EAST:

Marcian (450-457) served as personal assistant (domesticus) to the emperor's commander-in-chief (magister utriusque militiae) before 450.

Leo III (457-474) had reached the rank of tribune in the regiment of the Mattiarii by 457.

Zeno (474-491) had a military career under Leo III.

Justin I (518-527) in 518 was commander of the excubitors.

 

I didn't know about that, but were any of them of them military leaders while they were on the throne. I'm not knocking their accomplishments, but I was under the impression that the original poster was referring to miltary experience while on the throne.

[Which Roman Emperors never did battle?]

After Theodosius I and until Maurice, which was about the end of the fourth century until the late sixth, there was a long line of emperors who did not go into battle. This was especially detrimental to the western empire, as the emperors increasingly became detached from the workings of the government and became figureheads, with the real power falling into the hands of Germanic kings and generals. Majorian was an excepction, but despite his best efforts, he couldn't accomplish do much. In the east, the Romans were able to expel the Germans, rely on a native army, and the emperors effectively ruled from the throne, even if they didn't go into battle. You mention Justinian. He never led an army personally, but he had a number of top notch generals that were highly effective, and he was always in total control of the government through his active governance. Maurice was the one who gradually brought back the habit of soldier emperor by leading his men in some expeditions against the Avars. His almost-immediate successor, Heraclius, was a full-time soldier emperor, who spent most of his reign fighting relentlessly against the Persians. After that, most emperors did do campaigning of some sort, mostly out of bare necessity, since the empire was almost in constant danger from then on.

 

As for earlier emperors, some sort of victory on the battlefield was usually necessary for an emperor to keep the respect and loyalty of his soldiers, especially during the third century. Elagabalus was one emperor who did not campaign, and because of that, the soldiers rebelled against him for his supposed weakness. Commodus also largely ignored the battlefield, and he too did not meet a nice end, although not all because of that.

 

Basically, except for the two hundred year period, it was generally expected for an emperor to lead an army into batlefield. I would argue that while he technically was in control of every aspect of the empire, the emperor's most important job was keeping the borders safe.

 

Some sources that you might want to look at are:

 

From Rome To Byzantium by Michael Grant

The Severans: The Changed Roman Empire by Michael Grant

Commodus: An Emperor At The Crossroads by Olivier Hexter

The Emperor Justininian and the Byzantine Empire by James Allan Evans

A History of Byzantium by Timothy Gregory

[Had it not been for the persecutions...]

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.

[Had it not been for the persecutions...]

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.

[Had it not been for the persecutions...]

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.

[Had it not been for the persecutions...]

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.