Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rome before Christianity

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Rome before Christianity

    The more I look around at Islamic types wanting to blow themselves up etc, the nutter in Norway and his ilk of Islamaphobes, the Serbia/Albania problem, the Greek/Turkish hatred in Cyprus, the India/Pakistan problem etc etc etc... I wonder how it was that ancient Rome did not encounter these religious/cultural problems when it built it's Empire in it's pre-Christain days.

    I know various sects were banned from Rome from time to time but they were not hunted down in other parts of the Empire; just banned from Rome. The Druids are about the only ones who got hunted down for specificly religious practices that I can recall.

    I wonder therefore if Christianity and the adherence to 'one true faith' (dogma) was and is an impediment to the creation of a super-state?

  • #2
    Originally posted by snapper View Post
    The Druids are about the only ones who got hunted down for specificly religious practices that I can recall.
    Dionysians too, at least officially. There was some scare around 186 BC accusing them of sexual abuse as part of their initiation rites, leading to the cult being banned from the Empire and members jailed or executed. Modern historians think it was some sort of political maneuver.

    Comment


    • #3
      Dacian organized religion was persecuted and its priests were hunted just like the druids and for the same reasons.

      Roman religion,like all ancient religions was very pragmatic.Gods were expected to give their favors in exchange for gifts.
      Religious troubles weren't encountered because these pragmatic men didn't fought for a pretext(religious, ideological,etc...)like modern men do,but for very practical reasons.Athenians democracy decided by vote,after a long debate to invade Sicily because it's conquest would give them power and wealth.Every Roman benefited directly from the conquests,some more,some less,but benefited anyway.

      Roman did faced cultural differences.What was needed was adopted.Everything else was destroyed.Rome wasn't multicultural in the modern meaning,but pragmatic.Romans themselves were the elite in the Empire and citizenship wasn't granted in haste.Every Roman citizen thus had a direct interest to preserve his status.
      Strangely(or not so) when the Roman empire ceased to have an elite dependent on the center,regional differences started to manifest and secessionist provinces appeared.Roughly 2 generations after Caracalla granted every free man Roman citizenship you have the first break-ups.They failed,but only temporarily.There were of course many other factors,like plagues,barbarian invasions,economic failure,but all these showed that the core was no more.It lost its power by diffusing it.
      Those who know don't speak
      He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

      Comment


      • #4
        "Roman did faced cultural differences.What was needed was adopted.Everything else was destroyed.Rome wasn't multicultural in the modern meaning,but pragmatic."

        I will accept this and largely correct but my initial question still stands: Did Christianity preclude such 'pragmatism' and are monotheistic faiths today still facing this same problem?

        Basicly when dogma becomes a cultural matter, whether it shia or sunni Islam or Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox Christianity, it would seem to me that the pragmatism of pre Christian Rome - that alowed it to build an Empire - becomes lost.

        The last two major Empires - Ottoman and British didn't force religious conformity. The Ottomans ruled Christians and many forms of Islam and the British everything from Hindus to the (forgotten the word) tribal natives of Australia and N.America who believe there is a spirit in everything.

        My arguement then is that far from helping the Romans their adoption from top down of Christianity and enforcement of an accepted dogma preculed their previous ability to adapt pragmaticly. Why could the Gauls be absorbed in the pre-Christian era and the Huns not in the Christian era? Now that Christianity is 'culturaly ingrained' in Europe do the Balkan problems that Versus and others refer to stem from this same inability to be 'pragmatic' as was pre-Christian Rome?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by snapper View Post
          The last two major Empires - Ottoman and British didn't force religious conformity. The Ottomans ruled Christians and many forms of Islam and the British everything from Hindus to the (forgotten the word) tribal natives of Australia and N.America who believe there is a spirit in everything.
          Tell this to the Serbs and Croats who accepted Islam in Bosnia, to the Albanians, To the Muslim Macedonian.
          While they weren't converted by a brutal force it was a state policy.

          Also they were conscripting the young kids to serve Ottoman Army and in the process they (the kids) were converted Islam.
          No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

          To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

          Comment


          • #6
            I am well aware of the Janissarie recruitment policy but Britain doesn't force Gurkas to be Christian.

            Comment


            • #7
              Well you put the Ottomans in the same league. I am saying they are not.
              No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

              To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

              Comment


              • #8
                Did they force their brand of Islam on others? No.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I told you ask the Croats and Serbs in Bosnia, Albanians and Muslim Macedonians
                  No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                  To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by snapper View Post
                    "Roman did faced cultural differences.What was needed was adopted.Everything else was destroyed.Rome wasn't multicultural in the modern meaning,but pragmatic."

                    I will accept this and largely correct but my initial question still stands: Did Christianity preclude such 'pragmatism' and are monotheistic faiths today still facing this same problem?

                    Basicly when dogma becomes a cultural matter, whether it shia or sunni Islam or Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox Christianity, it would seem to me that the pragmatism of pre Christian Rome - that alowed it to build an Empire - becomes lost.

                    The last two major Empires - Ottoman and British didn't force religious conformity. The Ottomans ruled Christians and many forms of Islam and the British everything from Hindus to the (forgotten the word) tribal natives of Australia and N.America who believe there is a spirit in everything.

                    My arguement then is that far from helping the Romans their adoption from top down of Christianity and enforcement of an accepted dogma preculed their previous ability to adapt pragmaticly. Why could the Gauls be absorbed in the pre-Christian era and the Huns not in the Christian era? Now that Christianity is 'culturaly ingrained' in Europe do the Balkan problems that Versus and others refer to stem from this same inability to be 'pragmatic' as was pre-Christian Rome?
                    The British did not always force (or 'persuade') people to convert, but not always isn't the same thing as not ever. In Australia people acting with either the authority or encouragement of the state did most definately convert aborigines under conditions I would equate to force -compelling them to live on church run missions & attend church schools which usually worked hard to strip them of their cultures & languages (religion included). I'm pretty sure similar things happened in canada. I would also be prepared to bet that similar things happened in other parts of the empire to varying extents.
                    sigpic

                    Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by snapper View Post
                      I wonder therefore if Christianity and the adherence to 'one true faith' (dogma) was and is an impediment to the creation of a super-state?
                      Am a bit confused by this question because i don't see common faith as an impediment at all. Its culture that is the biggest impediment and is capable of overcoming common faith regardless of monotheism or not. In my country in the north they all speak hindi, should they have one big state ? no, they want their own. In fact over the last ten years a few more hindi speaking states were created that broke off from bigger ones. There is a quirk here, its ok for hindi speaking states to break up but its not ok for ones in the south where they do not speak hindi and have their own language and culture. That is seen as breaking up the culture.

                      Look at the arab world, all muslim but will not unite into one despite what Islamists dream of. The only time they were united was during the Ottoman empire and once that was removed after WW1, cultural directives took over. The moment people realised they could be king of their own independent territory they did not want to defer to somebody, somewhere else.

                      Could states with different religions come together as one country. Indonesia is one example, Bali is Hindu, the rest is muslim. Nigeria could be another example of a mix of Muslim & Christian. The common bond in both countries being a shared culture.
                      Last edited by Double Edge; 19 Sep 11,, 05:54.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by snapper View Post

                        I will accept this and largely correct but my initial question still stands: Did Christianity preclude such 'pragmatism' and are monotheistic faiths today still facing this same problem?

                        Basicly when dogma becomes a cultural matter, whether it shia or sunni Islam or Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox Christianity, it would seem to me that the pragmatism of pre Christian Rome - that alowed it to build an Empire - becomes lost.

                        The last two major Empires - Ottoman and British didn't force religious conformity. The Ottomans ruled Christians and many forms of Islam and the British everything from Hindus to the (forgotten the word) tribal natives of Australia and N.America who believe there is a spirit in everything.

                        My arguement then is that far from helping the Romans their adoption from top down of Christianity and enforcement of an accepted dogma preculed their previous ability to adapt pragmaticly. Why could the Gauls be absorbed in the pre-Christian era and the Huns not in the Christian era? Now that Christianity is 'culturaly ingrained' in Europe do the Balkan problems that Versus and others refer to stem from this same inability to be 'pragmatic' as was pre-Christian Rome?
                        Christianity wasn't adopted to help them assimilate others,but to try to unite what was already theirs and drifting away.Elsewhere Christianity was adopted to help cetralize the state by stregthening the ruler and in many cases was imposed top down at the point of the sword.It's not that the religion was violent,it's mortal promoters were.To assimilate the Huns you need first to crush them,but you don't go crushing people without gaining something.And by that time the Spanish,Gauls and even Romans proper(what's left of them) can't be united on a common purpose.They've yet to invent the idea of crusade.
                        Political manifestations of Christianity are pragmatic at their core,but it all becomes convoluted.To reach the real meaning of an action you need to dig the BS first.The dogma itself has little to do with al these.
                        For eample,if you dig deep enough,the cultural clash between Islam and Christianity is nothing but the continuation of the ancient clashes between East and West.Greece vs Persia,Rome vs. Carthage,Rome vs. Parthia&Persia(once again) .But since monotheistic religions are centered on the afterlife,you can't have a public debate where the main argument is ''we could gain something by jumping these guys,rob them and sell them as slaves''.You have to go other way around-''it's pleasing to Allah if we bring new beilevers into the fold;we could,of course,sell a few infidels as slaves and plunder their wealth''.
                        So I think,you're right that monotheism and pragmatism don't go well.
                        Btw,Britain did not forced conversion at gunpoint.But you did had the motto ''let's make the world England''.You first awed them,sometimes you beat them,than you made sure your missionaries gave them another reason to stay loyal.Or viceversa,but the end result was similar.
                        The Ottomans made sure they have enough muslims among Christians to cause troubles.

                        But you forgot the last great Empire,Russia.This is different,because the core population,the Russians themselves and other slavic peoples had a somewhat different worldview than the ruling elite.The rulers themselves were pragmatic.The people had a certain mesianism inside them.
                        Those who know don't speak
                        He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Indeed Russia was the Last Great Empire and I am extremely remiss but that, apart from its econonics, was largely 'culturaly homogenous' and viable in Christian terms.

                          The question is still in the ponder phase of my little grey cells and I perfectly admit that I have not thought the entire theory through... I thank all for replies on which the small brain must alowed to ponder before I can defend my case.
                          Last edited by snapper; 19 Sep 11,, 11:21.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            culturally homogenous is a bit wrong description - Russian Empire Census - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

                            you go tell in ukrainian bar that they are culturally homogenous with russia, you walk out holding your ears and teeth in your hat
                            If i only was so smart yesterday as my wife is today

                            Minding your own biz is great virtue, but situation awareness saves lives - Dok

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              OK... The main objection seems to be whether religion is culture. Certainly for srtict Muslims it is. It dictates every part of their life and sometimes deaths. I am a Catholic and to a lesser extent my religion is part of me... I go to Church at least once a week and confess, I disagree with abortion, I don't need halal meat to enjoy supper etc etc. In a country where the overwhelming majority are Christian this becomes a culture very different from a country where 97% are Muslims; it shapes the laws and the frames the potential choices.

                              Certainly the British colonists in Australia forced aboriginal adoption in the 1950s but this was not an 'imperialist plan', merely a misguided attempt at homogenisation; 'education is profitable' etc.

                              My main point is that in pre-Christian Rome Jupiter could be identified as Zeus as Alexander recognised Zeus Ammon in Egypt. Hercules could be recognised in virtualy every culture. All pan theistic cultures found some correlations nor were there any 'hard' rules - every City had its own 'mysteries' in ancient Greece and all were recognised. Pantheism, by it's very nature, is able to find more similarities with alien cultures/religions.

                              The adoption of Christianity (or Islam) makes one lot of people 'chosen' and if you're not with us you are a baddie! Thus before Christianity war was about 'the glory of Rome' or some other platitude for power. After cultures became monotheistic they became duty bound almost NOT to assimilate others but to conquer and 'convert' them, 'teaching' aborigional Australians being one example, as we 'know better' being 'chosen'.

                              Monotheism is less tolerant of other cultures and therefore has less room for the pragmatism of the Roman Republik.

                              BD1: A Ukrainian girl could perhaps pass for a Russian, a Polish girl is by definition almost, Catholic... Either the orthodox are right or the Catholics. It seperates.
                              Last edited by snapper; 19 Sep 11,, 22:32.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X