Rome was both. The mongols raped and slaughtered. The Romans were too civilized to do that as much, instead they just enslaved some of your village so they could die in the mines or fields or construction projects. And then there’s the internal atrocities. Rome had three servile wars and then without easing up even a bit never had another.
The Kahns were more like the Shahs, conqueror emperors seeking to hold the great titles of the world like emperor of China or pharaoh and in doing so became one. The Romans were like America “we’re different snd our own thing” before being a different kind of brutal
Strangely enough I feel like that crucification isn’t much associated with the Romans. Even though the Romans were the ones who carried it out Judas gets almost 100% of the ire.
Even Jews are given more blame by antisemitic Christians. Like, no one is starting up a pogrom against Italians because their great great great grandpa might’ve been the guy who stabbed Jesus in the ribs.
I think I read somewhere that in order for the Romans to abnegate their role in killing Jesus, as they transitioned to Christianity, they scapegoated the Jews. Although, it was the people who demanded to crucify Jesus. But of course, anti-semites focused on the ethnicity, instead just ascribing the mob justice to just-- on people.
My guess is that because Jews reject the divinity of Jesus, the Christians found it fair to oppress the Jews. It is not different though to the crusading missions of later Christians in the medieval Europe. The non-Christians refuse to recognise Jesus Christ as both the son of God and god himself, the either they convert, or else be killed or ostracised.
When people think about Rome they usually imagine the roads and the aquaducts and not so much the crucifixions and the slavery.
Yeah, the Mongolians front-loaded most of their atrocities. Rome was more of a slow burn
(paraphrasing a guy whose name I don’t remember)
Rome was both. The mongols raped and slaughtered. The Romans were too civilized to do that as much, instead they just enslaved some of your village so they could die in the mines or fields or construction projects. And then there’s the internal atrocities. Rome had three servile wars and then without easing up even a bit never had another.
The Kahns were more like the Shahs, conqueror emperors seeking to hold the great titles of the world like emperor of China or pharaoh and in doing so became one. The Romans were like America “we’re different snd our own thing” before being a different kind of brutal
Well, they might imagine one specific crucifixion
Strangely enough I feel like that crucification isn’t much associated with the Romans. Even though the Romans were the ones who carried it out Judas gets almost 100% of the ire.
Even Jews are given more blame by antisemitic Christians. Like, no one is starting up a pogrom against Italians because their great great great grandpa might’ve been the guy who stabbed Jesus in the ribs.
Theologically, all mankind was to blame because of their sins.
But it’s far easier to blame a minority and it had the added benefit of pushing whatever agenda the ruling class had.
I think I read somewhere that in order for the Romans to abnegate their role in killing Jesus, as they transitioned to Christianity, they scapegoated the Jews. Although, it was the people who demanded to crucify Jesus. But of course, anti-semites focused on the ethnicity, instead just ascribing the mob justice to just-- on people.
My guess is that because Jews reject the divinity of Jesus, the Christians found it fair to oppress the Jews. It is not different though to the crusading missions of later Christians in the medieval Europe. The non-Christians refuse to recognise Jesus Christ as both the son of God and god himself, the either they convert, or else be killed or ostracised.