Europe without Christianity

[Paradoxer]

That is almost what happened IOTL. The Germans who took over the Roman Empire were largely Christians integrating themselves into the Roman system. Christianity spread because it was the religion of Rome, therefore it conferred political legitimacy. Odoacer, the guy who sacked Rome for the final time, had the backing of the Senate and paid lip service to Julius Nepos, who was the de jure emperor of the Western Roman Empire at the time in opposition to Romulus Augustulus who Odoacer deposed. His position was usurped by Theodoric, who was acting the name of the eastern emperor Zeno and therefore likewise an ostensible subject of Rome and thus himself arguably a Roman. This pattern fizzled out slowly, but was revived by the Church with the creation of the "Holy Roman Empire".

So did the Romans, as the post you quoted mentioned. It just happened that they pretended it was a one-time thing so they could continue using it to demonize their enemies, even sometimes using it as an accusation against fellow Romans. Augustus was accused of committing human sacrifice at Perugia when he had the city's senators and equites murdered in front of an altar to his deified uncle Julius Caesar.

You just admitted they committed genocide and burned books because they didn't like the culture of conquered enemies or other petty reasons.

How is social science or abstract/empirical foreign book useful to Romans? They just want material science at times. You know useful stuff like engineering. They even found one primitive steam powered factory as ruins.

On genocide look at Jews. They actually showed them bit of leniency even those they did not like religion they respected for being old one and two they provided useful services to empire. After third rebellion they kicked them, killed, or enslaved much of population. Made temple in pagan and looted it and to add insult on top injury renamed place after their historical rivals.

Now let’s say they did to jews or at least priesthood the same they did to Druids from get go. That’s one less rebellious people to deal with and likely butterflies away any off shoot religions. The Romans did assimilate many people. Celts while many got killed or women brought back to Rome they did assimilate and work with people who worked with them.

The would literally walk into places and say “either submit to Roman willingly or we kill, enslave, and salt earth of this land. Any opposition?”

 

[Paradoxer]

Are you aware Julius Caesar used to be called the Queen of Bithynia by the plebs and the Roman Senators because he took it up the ass from King Nikomedes the 4th of Bithynia when a young man? The best way to skewer a dictator is to remember they are only human.


You have no idea how many people died in Rome as a result of the laws of Maiestas in the Late Republic. I will leave it there as you clearly have no desire to learn either.

I’m open to learning we just don’t have same worldview. Also I did know that why be homophobic lol/jk. Romans had some very colorful politics and polemics exchanges.

Also with those laws you mentioned that dealt with treason and sedition. Many places will still execute for that. What’s your point?

 

[Paradoxer]

Are you aware Julius Caesar used to be called the Queen of Bithynia by the plebs and the Roman Senators because he took it up the ass from King Nikomedes the 4th of Bithynia when a young man? The best way to skewer a dictator is to remember they are only human.


You have no idea how many people died in Rome as a result of the laws of Maiestas in the Late Republic. I will leave it there as you clearly have no desire to learn either.

Also many societies see nothing is lower then traitor or rat. The Romans had different worldview and values then us now. They even execute and killed traitors who betrayed their own people to help Rome like with ones in Iberia. Or how Alexander killed that guy who assassinated the leader of Persian. Alexander made his death painful

 

[9 Fanged Hummingbird]

Mongols and Germanic tribes were brutes and barbarians who destroyed a lot.

Yet you consistently heap praises on Romans and Greeks who do the same and lament what you erroneously believe Christianity did to them.

Also citizens and people in Rome were not peasants. They had slaves for that. Farmers and every citizen was expected to be self sufficient and soldier and preferably own some land. These are often closer to yeoman then peasants.

By the end of the Republican era the bulk of the Roman soldiery were landless citizens, the proletariat. The word comes from how they owned nothing but their own children, which was their contribution to warfare. In earlier times they couldn't participate in warfare as they had no means to own weapons. In the Late Republic their numbers were so large that forward thinking generals paid out of their own pocket to arm and enlist proles. This was the genesis for the professional Roman legion, one which didn't really exist before the epoch of Gaius Marius or thereabouts. Land was the expected reward for these soldiers, not something they generally possessed before enlisting.

Also with those laws you mentioned that dealt with treason and sedition. Many places will still execute for that. What’s your point?

The point is that you don't seem terribly interested in actual Roman history, instead preferring to idolize a fantasy version of them as a counterweight to your impression of Christianity and Islam.

 

[Paradoxer]

Yet you consistently heap praises on Romans and Greeks who do the same and lament what you erroneously believe Christianity did to them.

By the end of the Republican era the bulk of the Roman soldiery were landless citizens, the proletariat. The word comes from how they owned nothing but their own children, which was their contribution to warfare. In earlier times they couldn't participate in warfare as they had no means to own weapons. In the Late Republic their numbers were so large that forward thinking generals paid out of their own pocket to arm and enlist proles. This was the genesis for the professional Roman legion, one which didn't really exist before the epoch of Gaius Marius or thereabouts. Land was the expected reward for these soldiers, not something they generally possessed before enlisting.

The point is that you don't seem terribly interested in actual Roman history, instead preferring to idolize a fantasy version of them as a counterweight to your impression of Christianity and Islam.

I have my personal preference don’t take my language to heart. I speak bluntly. I understand every point you make and understand history find.

But Romans for all its brutish force had empire/republic that lasted centuries, built Roads, running water(amazing for that time), bath houses, cities, and great buildings. Everything they destroyed they often built something great in its place.

I don’t like when people hype up mongols. There empire and even cultural influence did not last at all. They also spread diseases intentionally(throwing sick bodies over walls) and unintentionally(rats but that’s can’t be blame on them). They killed much of people in Northern China so they had land to graze and destroyed farms and settled areas. They weaken China greatly. They also burn down Baghdad the center of Islamic. The mongols contribute a net negative especially in Asia and only benefited Europeans(help them catch up somewhat). Germanic civilization before romanization and Christianity was often not much better but at least later on they contributed a lot to world. China maybe should have done what Romans did to Celts to Mongols when given chance.

Romans invaded Celts because they invaded Rome and raided it before. If they United they are major threat so that took “preemptive” measures instead of building wall.

Also slavery and large estates did deprive or drive much of smaller and yeoman and freeman jobless and landless. One reason many went to cities and they built entertainment like the gladiators(some were volunteers and renown). Slavery deprives freemen and citizens work especially before mass industrialization

 

[Gortian]

I’m open to learning we just don’t have same worldview. Also I did know that why be homophobic lol/jk. Romans had some very colorful politics and polemics exchanges.

Also with those laws you mentioned that dealt with treason and sedition. Many places will still execute for that. What’s your point?

I was referring to Roman interpretation of relationships, those who give and those who take. The Romans looked down on those who take and preferred a dominant position so it was a matter of embarrassment that Caesar was the submissive, not who he had a relationship with.

Maiestas laws were not for treason and sedition. They became that much later. If you learned about Late Republican Rome and the Proscriptions you would know how they were applied. They were introduced to destroy political opponents for "Breaking the Traditions of Our Fathers" which could be anything the one imposing the laws wanted it to be. It was a malleable tool to enforce authority and keep people in line.

 

[Nebuchadnezzar]

Noticed how farther an area was from Rome the less church grip over them was especially culturally. Celts and Slavs great example of that and did retain more pre Christian elements. Same goes for Germanic people to lesser extent especially in northern parts. These groups would not so un coincidentally turn into some of major powers military powers and centralized/innovate at faster rates then Catholic south/Mediterranean. Italy division for centuries being due to existence of papal state.

Their are valid reasons enlightenment thinkers bashed Christianity for weakening Europe. Many were classical but saw society Christianity created. The crusades were largely a failure and they got lucky on first one. Voltaire was pacifist and off put by violence and states himself that pagans were cut throat and brutal by pragmatic in “primitive” way. Unlike Christians who he honestly saw as irrational idiots who played on masses of illiterate or weak for support.

Nietzsche describes perfectly issue with Christianity in western history so it is not just enlightenment. The book the Prince also shows more classical mindset(many 2000th century fascist and dictators took ideas from that very book).

Who often makes up clergy and monks or nuns? Many from lower classes. They are likely not for raiding and “brute” mindset. Peasants were often some of biggest supporters of church especially when it opposed state or monarch or warrior class.

Also Rome failed less then century after converting to Christianity. It survived similar issue crisis in 3 century while pagan and did not fall. Christians destroyed ethos of Roman civilization like communist often do with “pre revolutionary” traditions. The statue of victory in Milan, the eternal flame, and library of Alexandria. Islam often similar on that and finishes up destroying legacy of Roman influence in Africa. But Islam is not “turn other cheek” like Christianity.

It creates identity and value crisis from below before growing to top which is really basis of any argument for Christianity influence over downfall of Rome. Also Bible propaganda and exaggerated or straight lies about Roman civilization likely did not paint ideal image of that society to people later on because it bashes it at multiple points.

Think of identity and cultural value crisis in Eastern Europe due to communism impacted that society or how Islam completely redid cultural sphere of its area(use to be Persian, Greeks, and Egyptians). Honestly this is why many Europeans had more negative view of Islam or “semitic”(Jews and Arabs) people even when they hated Christianity because they honestly don’t like any influences they had on their society and find them as bad. Even secular Marxist writers now curse success of the maccabees for being reactionary and negative in that society.

They actually lived in that world and experience so their advice might be better then ones who have not.

Also feudal system was a glorified warring states period for Europe. Absolutism is when they centralized more and broke away from Catholic Church. It did not really take off until nationalism after French Revolution. That system is arguably not even best for that era it was in.

Muslims bitch slapped Christendom for centuries. Europeans started doing better and expanding more when it “rediscovered” classics in 1200 century(which leads to the renaissance to reformation to enlightenment then to French Revolution/nationalism.

The current world superpower is one based on neo classical ideas while ancien regimes largely died out with world wars and revolutions.

I will give you example of why pagans might be better at conquest. They don’t care what you believed. Only wanted your loyalty and tribute while leaving me to their own vices. Now if you screwed up or rebelled they had zero issue with mass genocide of men while taking women as their own(rape of Sabine women) and raising the orphans as Romans. While church cares more about having blind fanatics and followers. The church wants control and dogma is one main difference. The pagans just wanted to rise above being beast/animals by seeking glory and success(often in combat during that time. Military was great mobility tool for lower class in classical world). That vanity in the highest in the abrahamic religions especially when many seek to achieve cults of personality like Caesar or Alexander or to be recognized as “Demi gods” after they die. That does not appeal to many or more modest or weak which church plays on

This is one of the most skewed comments I've seen on this page.

 

[9 Fanged Hummingbird]

I have my personal preference don’t take my language to heart. I speak bluntly. I understand every point you make and understand history find.

Historical truth doesn't care for your personal preferences.

China maybe should have done what Romans did to Celts to Mongols when given chance.

That sounds a little too close to advocacy of genocide.

Romans invaded Celts because they invaded Rome and raided it before. If they United they are major threat so that took “preemptive” measures instead of building wall.

Caesar invaded Gaul for glory and gold, the Gauls had a very wealthy gold-producing society, as well as a lot of people to enslave. And the conquest would enhance Caesar's prestige and thus his political career. Nobody in Rome took the Gauls seriously as a threat any more, references to the Gallic "threat" and practices of human sacrifice were only made to justify a long war to the Roman people. Especially as Caesar's opponents condemned his avarice and accused him of what even Romans could consider crimes against humanity.

 

[Paradoxer]

I was referring to Roman interpretation of relationships, those who give and those who take. The Romans looked down on those who take and preferred a dominant position so it was a matter of embarrassment that Caesar was the submissive, not who he had a relationship with.

Maiestas laws were not for treason and sedition. They became that much later. If you learned about Late Republican Rome and the Proscriptions you would know how they were applied. They were introduced to destroy political opponents for "Breaking the Traditions of Our Fathers" which could be anything the one imposing the laws wanted it to be. It was a malleable tool to enforce authority and keep people in line.

I already knew that. Your not telling me anything I don’t already know. The Romans preferred to be penetrator instead of penetrated. It relates to dominance. They would even shove stuff up other guys asses or rape them as show dominance if they wronged. I even think they put them in pillory to do so in public.

By your use of word proletariat you probably not fan on Rome personally. Many people had no problem with execution or strict punish for disrespect of one’s traditions. Also constant civil wars, coups, populism, and ambitious generals gave that law good reason to exist.

The reason for vagueness of it is because it gives more “free hand”. The empire also became increasingly Authoritarian. The Caesar death was tragedy because he likely could reform republic better then his successors. He wanted dynasty and legacy like Alexander but not to end republic which was propaganda by enemies and political rivals. Now he might start some in foreign lands like Egypt maybe with cleopatra(Alexander bloodline) but not in Rome itself officially.

It’s same reason US has vague laws with law enforcement or certain things. It leaves it to interpretation of individual or group discretion. Also help cut through unnecessary red tape and bureaucratic nonsense. Basically if I “know” or “think” your plotting against I could act. Same applies to any perceived threats to republic/empire, the people, or emperor.

This is literally BC and often a “den of snakes” in politics where you might get dagger to back. They don’t have technology and means to have more “professional” and calculated legal system. There success for that time alone is impressive. The US or governments can just spy on people online activities. The Romans have to go find people old fashion way and shake them down for information and less accurate.

Like I said you don’t have agree but I’m stating their view which many don’t understand or point out. Doesn’t even I think everything they did is great. Also mortality and world then is lot different then now.

 

[Paradoxer]

Historical truth doesn't care for your personal preferences.

That sounds a little too close to advocacy of genocide.

Caesar invaded Gaul for glory and gold, the Gauls had a very wealthy gold-producing society, as well as a lot of people to enslave. And the conquest would enhance Caesar's prestige and thus his political career. Nobody in Rome took the Gauls seriously as a threat any more, references to the Gallic "threat" and practices of human sacrifice were only made to justify a long war to the Roman people. Especially as Caesar's opponents condemned his avarice and accused him of what even Romans could consider crimes against humanity.

Historical truth is relative to your mortality. I am speaking on their behalf and their understanding of world. Ever hear saying “excuses are like assholes, everyone got one”. You can’t impose modern morality on any ancient people. You can only look at survival, success, and legacy along with innovation and develops.

They aren’t far removed from animals or beast especially further you go back. To them since their founding war, raids, looting, and rape was common. Nature brutal. They don’t have our understanding or context to morality. You are literally taking your personal views into account and not for just what it is. The ancients could care less about our current morality. It was doggie dog world. And survival of fitness

 

[Gortian]

I already knew that. Your not telling me anything I don’t already know. The Romans preferred to be penetrator instead of penetrated. It relates to dominance. They would even shove stuff up other guys asses or rape them as show dominance if they wronged. I even think they put them in pillory to do so in public.

The ultimate test is if you know how the Greeks conducted relations.

By your use of word proletariat you probably not fan on Rome personally. Many people had no problem with execution or strict punish for disrespect of one’s traditions. Also constant civil wars, coups, populism, and ambitious generals gave that law good reason to exist.

The reason for vagueness of it is because it gives more “free hand”. The empire also became increasingly Authoritarian. The Caesar death was tragedy because he likely could reform republic better then his successors. He wanted dynasty and legacy like Alexander but not to end republic which was propaganda by enemies and political rivals. Now he might start some in foreign lands like Egypt maybe with cleopatra(Alexander bloodline) but not in Rome itself officially.

Like I said you don’t have agree but I’m stating their view which many don’t understand or point out. Doesn’t even I think everything previously.s great. Also mortality and world then is lot different then now.

I believe you have mistaken my use of Proscription for Proletariat. I used Pleb previously in some of my comments, so I am unsure what you are trying to infer. The Proscriptions were lists of people to be tried and executed as traitors (their guilt was always debatable) in the Roman Republic which started under the dictators.

The Maiestas laws were introduced in the Republic to deal with people such as the Gracchi and their attempts at land redistribution and then abused by the likes of Sulla and those who came after. Julius Caesar was almost added to one of Sulla's lists before he was shipped off to Bithynia by his extended family. These laws were introduced as vaguely defined so they could be abused, mainly due to the fact that the Gracchi utilised the proper procedures to veto laws they didn't like as a threat to the plebs and ticked off the wealthy patricians in the process. Maiestas was introduced as vague way to murder people who tried to repeat what the Gracchi brothers did, it didn't became about treason until much later.

The Republic was effectively dead by Caesars tenure and no reformation could fix the damage done. Autocracy was inevitable by that point, by an individual or a small group such as the Triumvirs.

I agree it was a different time and different morals were in play, but I don't share the reverence people seem to hold for either Rome or Christianity. Its like sausages. If you like sausages, don't look into how they're made.

They aren’t far removed from animals or beast especially further you go back. To them since their founding war, raids, looting, and rape was common. Nature brutal. They don’t have our understanding or context to morality. You are literally taking your personal views into account and not for just what it is.

If you read anything about the Gauls or ancient peoples you are severely underestimating them.

 

[9 Fanged Hummingbird]

Historical truth is relative to your mortality.

No it is not.

I am speaking on their behalf and their understanding of world.

No you are not, you seem to understand relatively little about how the Romans saw the world, instead preferring to describe them as "noble savages" who lacked anything close to the scruples of empathy. This is ridiculous and were you not obviously fanboying for Rome I'd have assumed you hate them. I made a reference to how contemporaries of Caesar opposed his invasion of Gaul on moral grounds. You ignored this because it didn't advance your goal of proving the Romans were "manlier" than Christians.

The ancients could care less about our current morality. It was doggie dog world. And survival of fitness

It's "dog eat dog", your knowledge of English idioms is about as strong as your expertise in Roman and Christian history.

I agree it was a different time and different morals were in play, but I don't share the reverence people seem to hold for either Rome or Christianity. Its like sausages. If you like sausages, don't look into how they're made.

I'm the opposite, I've become far more fascinated with Roman history the more I look into the details, warts and all, whereas the constant praises and acclamation from fanboys on the internet turned me away in the past. It's a shame how little so many people who profess to love Roman history actually know about it. Romans were people like us. Their values and outlooks were different, but they weren't utterly removed from the same general concepts of morality anybody else had. Their civilization wasn't some apogee of human progress either for that matter, which doesn't make it any less interesting.

 

[Paradoxer]

The ultimate test is if you know how the Greeks conducted relations.


I believe you have mistaken my use of Proscription for Proletariat. I used Pleb previously in some of my comments, so I am unsure what you are trying to infer. The Proscriptions were lists of people to be tried and executed as traitors (their guilt was always debatable) in the Roman Republic which started under the dictators.

The Maiestas laws were introduced in the Republic to deal with people such as the Gracchi and their attempts at land redistribution and then abused by the likes of Sulla and those who came after. Julius Caesar was almost added to one of Sulla's lists before he was shipped off to Bithynia by his extended family. These laws were introduced as vaguely defined so they could be abused, mainly due to the fact that the Gracchi utilised the proper procedures to veto laws they didn't like as a threat to the plebs and ticked off the wealthy patricians in the process. Maiestas was introduced as vague way to murder people who tried to repeat what the Gracchi brothers did, it didn't became about treason until much later.

The Republic was effectively dead by Caesars tenure and no reformation could fix the damage done. Autocracy was inevitable by that point, by an individual or a small group such as the Triumvirs.

I agree it was a different time and different morals were in play, but I don't share the reverence people seem to hold for either Rome or Christianity. Its like sausages. If you like sausages, don't look into how they're made.


If you read anything about the Gauls or ancient peoples you are severely underestimating them.

I’m not underestimating them. There behavior has context and logic to period. Given our knowledge and experience they likely would use better means to get their ends. I don’t say animals as insult. I say it in their understanding of world. People often did what they must or thought best.

Also yes republic had corruption which Caesar did seek to undo but reason they tried to hinder populism of Gracchi brothers sets bad precedents. The masses are often not much better then elite and impulsive which saids a lot compared to people who lead Rome(Latin temper isn’t completely unjustified one reason they encouraged stoicism).

The do take influence from Plato and fear “mob rule” of populism or democracy which they demeaned as undoing of Athens. A republic like described by Plato was ideally supposed to be balance of all best elements of governance and society in cooperation with each other. Cicero even wrote his own version of Republic that builds off Plato and critical of certain aspects of it those. Pro Private property being major difference.

A expansive bureaucracy and increasingly centralized and regulated empire especially in era of empire I would argue hinder it somewhat at times. Emperors often depended of bribing masses with food, slaves, and entertainment when “Barracks emperor” became thing. Basically legion didn’t know it’s place or needed to be put in line when they became more loyal to general then republic itself.

Also “republic” did not officially end for few centuries in name. The emperor of Rome was often just most popular and powerful generals. Also senate power did vary through even empire element and did not stop doing so until Christianity.

Poor, desperate, disgruntled, and self interest masses or soldiers often don’t make best people to trust with wealth or influence of any kind.

The even murder people in senate after they heard news of Caesar death. It actually speak well of Caesar that when senate claimed “tyrant” is dead and expected their favor turned into them getting murdered by a pissed off mob who chanted Caesar name in streets after killing some of them carrying around their blood togas in hand.

Not to get into modern but think how similar things would be view now. Many would fear populism for same reason because elites actually are often very tone death to people actual grievances and interest then act shock when they show no fear of them.

Unlike Christian world clergy can’t ease masses with “turn other cheek“, “give Caesar what his and god his”, “divine right”(it’s literally sin to oppose “holy” institution of monarch), and “violence is not answer for you will get salvation in after life”.

To pagans screw afterlife they lived more in now and demanded action. To many of them might equals right.

You underestimate Christianity ability to induce passive populations and obedience even if resisted somewhat. Damnation/hell and reward of eternal paradise is good incentive once you get people believe it.

While in pagan world people made “their own mortality” and see violence/force as natural as nature or animals in it. Just fact of life. Why dread over it. That’s probably why Christianity appealed more to outclassed and poor masses. It at least pays them lip service and give them “reinsurance” of afterlife of peace instead of glory seeking elements of paganism or certain philosophies.

 

[Gortian]

Also yes republic had corruption which Caesar did seek to undo but reason they tried to hinder populism of Gracchi brothers sets bad precedents. The masses are often not much better then elite and impulsive which saids a lot compared to people who lead Rome(Latin temper isn’t completely unjustified one reason they encouraged stoicism).

One of the reasons the Patricians came after the Gracchi was that they were advised by a Stoic philosopher called Blossius of Cumae who was later killed by the Romans when he led an anti-Slavery uprising in Anatolia. Its hard to say they encouraged Stoicism when they saw it as a threat in the late Republic.

A expansive bureaucracy and increasingly centralized and regulated empire especially in era of empire I would argue hinder it somewhat at times. Emperors often depended of bribing masses with food, slaves, and entertainment when “Barracks emperor” became thing. Basically legion didn’t know it’s place or needed to be put in line when they became more loyal to general then republic itself.

Also “republic” did not officially end for few centuries in name. The emperor of Rome was often just most popular and powerful generals. Also senate power did vary through even empire element and did not stop doing so until Christianity.

The Senate was a jumped up dinner society for quite some time during the Empire. Caligula, contrary to the image of a madman, threatened to elect his horse as Consul as an insult to what they actually did in the city, which was not much. The Senates last recorded action in Rome was the overthrow of Maximinus Thrax, first of the Barracks Emperors in favour of Gordian III, a malleable child. This action was the beginning of the Crisis of the Third Century and directly led to the decline of Rome in the West. There was absolutely no input from Christianity, which was still some odd cult among many.

Unlike Christian world clergy can’t ease masses with “turn other cheek“, “give Caesar what his and god his”, “divine right”(it’s literally sin to oppose “holy” institution of monarch), and “violence is not answer for you will get salvation in after life”.

To pagans screw afterlife they lived more in now and demanded action. To many of them might equals right.

You underestimate Christianity ability to induce passive populations and obedience even if resisted somewhat. Damnation/hell and reward of eternal paradise is good incentive once you get people believe it.

While in pagan world people made “their own mortality” and see violence/force as natural as nature or animals in it. Just fact of life. Why dread over it. That’s probably why Christianity appealed more to outclassed and poor masses. It at least pays them lip service and give them “reinsurance” of afterlife of peace instead of glory seeking elements of paganism or certain philosophies.

You pool all pagans into one vague group to fit your notions and set them against this imaginary behemoth. Paganism as a catch all term is ill suited for comparing a Zalmoxian cultist of Dacia to a Mandean marsh arab. They had and have very different ideas about the world. Christianity was not some master plan to neuter the West, it was a hodgepodge of ideas blended together from all the best bits of the regional cults of the Roman Empire in an attempt to unify a large empire under one creed and even then they argued about the interpretation. A lot of people died over the ratio of humanity/divinity of Jesus. At the Council of Nikea Arius got punched in the face by Jolly Old St. Nick for saying Jesus was entirely human.

I wonder how you feel about Jainists if you are this aggressive against pacifists.

 

[Gortian]

I the opposite, I've become far more fascinated with Roman history the more I look into the details, warts and all, whereas the constant praises and acclamation from fanboys on the internet turned me away in the past. It's a shame how little so many people who profess to love Roman history actually know about it. Romans were people like us. Their values and outlooks were different, but they weren't utterly removed from the same general concepts of morality anybody else had. Their civilization wasn't some apogee of human progress either for that matter, which doesn't make it any less interesting.

The sausage thing is a local saying that was not of disinterest, but disillusionment. Like "Dont meeting your heros". I am continually fascinated by Rome and Christianity, but cannot see either as faultless or ordained from heaven given how messy both were coming into being. I have a lot of criticisms for both, like the people who endlessly praise the Legions without knowing the Empire was built by a 50/50 combination (at first) of Polybian reformed military (Hastati, Principles, Triarii, etc) and the Socii (the allies), such as the Marsic Swordsman. The allies get shafted by history.

 

[Paradoxer]

One of the reasons the Patricians came after the Gracchi was that they were advised by a Stoic philosopher called Blossius of Cumae who was later killed by the Romans when he led an anti-Slavery uprising in Anatolia. Its hard to say they encouraged Stoicism when they saw it as a threat in the late Republic.


The Senate was a jumped up dinner society for quite some time during the Empire. Caligula, contrary to the image of a madman, threatened to elect his horse as Consul as an insult to what they actually did in the city, which was not much. The Senates last recorded action in Rome was the overthrow of Maximinus Thrax, first of the Barracks Emperors in favour of Gordian III, a malleable child. This action was the beginning of the Crisis of the Third Century and directly led to the decline of Rome in the West. There was absolutely no input from Christianity, which was still some odd cult among many.


You pool all pagans into one vague group to fit your notions and set them against this imaginary behemoth. Paganism as a catch all term is ill suited for comparing a Zalmoxian cultist of Dacia to a Mandean marsh arab. They had and have very different ideas about the world. Christianity was not some master plan to neuter the West, it was a hodgepodge of ideas blended together from all the best bits of the regional cults of the Roman Empire in an attempt to unify a large empire under one creed and even then they argued about the interpretation. A lot of people died over the ratio of humanity/divinity of Jesus. At the Council of Nikea Arius got punched in the face by Jolly Old St. Nick for saying Jesus was entirely human.

I wonder how you feel about Jainists if you are this aggressive against pacifists.

True especially about pagan part. I just use that for convenience. I prefer term “traditional faiths”. Also philosophy, syncreticism, and various cults are numerous. Many are honestly like Freemasons of their era but more open at times(many were more inclusive and secretive too but they could bring suspicion from government at times).

But remember they did come out of third century barely holding on but did. Vs more Christian dominated empire who did not. They were far from ideal but we each pick our poison as they say. The Romans survived third century which was basically “warring states” type of event mix with barbarians invasion and mercenaries.

The list of civic duty and institutions among all classes in society was bad. The elite became soft and high on its success and wealth while keeping masses at home somewhat satisfy with the scraps they offered them and gladiator matches. “Give them bread, water, and entertainment and they should never rebel” to roughly paraphrase one Roman. Like I did factors that play in Rome downfall are vast and numerous I just think Christianity is one of them but more so in very late empire.

Some Roman politicians warn of Germanic threat going back to Caesar. They knew danger they presented. Also Rhineland rivers do freeze over and aren’t always deep. Not best defense position.

Also the senate in empire was still more influential then it was during Christianity or Byzantium is more of point. The senate is great idea in theory just not best people always in it.

I actually respect many of elements of Indian culture but their pacifist has screwed them at times like it did against Muslims. I look at Jain not entirely in bad light and much less hypocritical or full of oxymorons like Christianity but they get “high on their own farts” and can create an Aurora of arrogance in ones ways while being presented as opposite or humble.

That’s why I mentioned Far East cultures while it good on how much they focused on within/domestic at times and economics they at times sat around.

Indian kingdom could possibly spread more west if it desired too. Same with China to north and west. Instead of waiting for mongols or steppe people to unite along its borders it better to just invade them while their weak and divided them flood place with empire large population to displace them. Even if they can’t keep it make it into client or buffer state. Also make remaining locals assimilate to Chinese culture and leave nomadic ways in past. If client state rebels sweep in immediately and brutally to pretend them from uniting disgruntled elements there and moving south.