I don’t think this take is as hot as you think. People admire Rome’s pragmatism and many of its values, and you can do that while acknowledging giving supreme power to a single person is dumb and flawed.
Most historical societies make public spectacle out of executions, tbh. Rome was only exceptional in that the executioners and criminals were sometimes the same people.
I don’t think you understand how much public executions were regarded as entertainment in many societies; nor do I think you understand what a mass (rather than elite) phenomenon attending the gladiator games was, nor do I think you understand that most gladiators who fought to the death were condemned criminals for crimes considered exceptionally heinous.
I think it was usually more of a warning. But I’ve read that this was apparently a thing in Shakespearean England.
a mass (rather than elite) phenomenon attending the gladiator games was
‘Ordinary’ Roman citizens were still above average in the Roman caste hierarchy.
most gladiators who fought to the death were condemned criminals for crimes considered exceptionally heinous
Yeah, like getting caught defending their countries from the Romans.
Imagine if Donald Trump kidnaps a bunch of random Iranians and forces them to fight alligators for the entertainment of ‘ordinary’ US citizens. That would be the modern equivalent. (And why does that sound like something he would actually try to do?)
I think it was usually more of a warning. But I’ve read that this was apparently a thing in Shakespearean England.
Not just Shakespearian England, but also the post-Roman Germanic polities, Celtic societies, Early Modern Europe, Industrial Age Europe, etc.
Public executions used to be an occasion for picnicking even as late as the ‘enlightened’ 19th century AD, when norms regarding death began to get a bit more squeamish.
The notion of death alone as a reason for horror is very modern.
’Ordinary’ Roman citizens were still above average in the Roman caste hierarchy.
It wasn’t just citizens who attended the games, man.
Yeah, like getting caught defending their countries from the Romans.
Noxii were more often bandits, rapists, murderers, etc. There simply wasn’t enough of an influx of war prisoners most years to allow for them to be wasted as arena fodder. Even when war prisoners were used in the gladiator games, it was usually as damnati, who were not expected to die, not noxii, who were expected to die. Why would you waste warriors who had already indicated that they were willing to submit to Rome’s mercy by simply killing them, after all?
Rome is uniquely evil because they invented the practice of using syncretism to commit cultural genocide without requiring a mortal genocide. This practice paved the way for the global dominance of monotheism, and it directly caused the extinction of the European pagan religions.
Europeans used to have so many different religions, so much different culture. Rome took the first steps towards inventing ethnic whiteness by depriving Europeans of their ancestral religions. Without their religions, Europeans had less cultural distinctiveness from one another. Which made it easier for slaver traders to invent the concept of whiteness during the colonial age.
My ancestors came from England. If it hadn’t been for Rome, I could have grown up as a practicing Celt. Or maybe My parents would have worshipped Odin. Or I could have trained to be a druid. England has cultural ties to a lot of different pagan groups. But instead, the English are bland cultureless christian colonisers, because of Rome.
Rome is uniquely evil because they invented the practice of using syncretism to commit cultural genocide without requiring a mortal genocide. This practice paved the way for the global dominance of monotheism, and it directly caused the extinction of the European pagan religions.
Europeans used to have so many different religions, so much different culture. Rome took the first steps towards inventing ethnic whiteness by depriving Europeans of their ancestral religions. Without their religions, Europeans had less cultural distinctiveness from one another. Which made it easier for slaver traders to invent the concept of whiteness during the colonial age.
Roman syncretism in no way included the extermination of traditional religions, and native religious practices all across the Empire are recorded as maintaining great independence and uniqueness all the way up to the arrival of Christianity, which was not a phenomenon limited to Rome, which largely rejected syncretism, and which exterminated native Roman religions as well.
The Roman Empire was not what killed traditional paganism. Roman syncretism was not a means of exterminating native religions, but of creating an environment for pluralism; worship of Wodan on the Germanic border was considered just and proper, especially since Romans respected the continuation of native traditions as ‘traditional’ and thus respectful to one’s ancestors, a trait the Romans highly valued. Even the Emperor Septimius Severus worshipped traditional Punic gods of his home province, and was considered largely unexceptional for it, despite said Punic gods not being widespread in the Empire and the ancient enmity between Carthage and Rome,
I think the Romans are responsible for Christianity’s problems. Judaism was and still is a very tolerant religion, and there are plenty of other gods in the Torah/Bible. Jesus sure wasn’t the cause of the exclusionism; he was a very kind and accepting person. No, I blame Paul and the rest of the Romans, for the evolution of Christianity into a culturally genocidal religion.
You take the Romans, who are used to converting barbarians into their religion, and you give them a henotheistic religion? They’re gonna change it into monotheism and demand that everyone convert or die. Syncretism created the slippery slope that lead to mass monotheism. Monotheism existed before the Romans, but it was the Romans who prosecuted it with such hate as to destroy European paganism.
I think the Romans are responsible for Christianity’s problems. Judaism was and still is a very tolerant religion, and there are plenty of other gods in the Torah/Bible.
… this the same Judaism whose main commandment is “Thou shalt not have any other gods before Me?” This the same Judaism whose holy book is full of ethnoreligious genocide? This the same Judaism which openly regarded the worship of any other god as worth murdering their fellow Hebrews over? This the same Judaism who regarded a minor heresy (Samaritanism) as worth a religious war over? This the same Judaism who massacred ‘pagans’ during the reign of the Maccabees before the arrival of the Romans? This the same Judaism who massacred pagans during the First Jewish-Roman War? This the same Judaism who massacred each other during the First Jewish Roman War, for following the wrong sect of Judaism?
Judaism only became a ‘tolerant’ religion because it lost all worldly power.
You take the Romans, who are used to converting barbarians into their religion,
… Romans weren’t used to ‘converting’ anyone into their religion. That’s not in any way a serious or realistic idea of traditional Roman religio.
and you give them a henotheistic religion? They’re gonna change it into monotheism and demand that everyone convert or die.
The trouble with that is that the Romans practiced numerous henotheistic religions before Christianity, and never did anything of the like that Christianity did with those henotheistic religions. Or, for that matter, that Christianity’s violence largely started outside of the Roman cultural heartland and before its adoption by the Roman state.
Syncretism created the slippery slope that lead to mass monotheism. Monotheism existed before the Romans, but it was the Romans who prosecuted it with such hate as to destroy European paganism.
In Exodus, the Egyptian priests summon snakes by praying to their gods. Then Moses summons a bigger snake by praying to Elohim. The implication is that Elohim and the Egyptian gods both exist, but Elohim is more powerful. That’s henotheism.
The first commandment isn’t “thou shalt have no other gods”, because that would be monotheism. The first commandment is “Thou shalt have no other gods before Me”, which is explicitly henotheistic.
At the end of the day, any monotheistic Abrahamist is a fool who doesn’t read their own scripture, or even their own commandments.
In Exodus, the Egyptian priests summon snakes by praying to their gods. Then Moses summons a bigger snake by praying to Elohim. The implication is that Elohim and the Egyptian gods both exist, but Elohim is more powerful. That’s henotheism.
That doesn’t at all change the fact that that very same text forbade worship of any other gods. Does it matter if they believe other gods exist, if they regard worshipping other gods as grounds for murder?
At the end of the day, any monotheistic Abrahamist is a fool who doesn’t read their own scripture, or even their own commandments.
That doesn’t at all change the facts that Judaism, before the arrival of the Romans, even, was a deeply intolerant religion in practice, that Romans didn’t ‘convert’ others to their religion, that Romans practiced henotheistic religions before Christianity and didn’t spiral into fuckwit intolerant insanity with them, that Christianity largely rejected syncretism, and that Christian violence against non-Christians predates Roman acceptance of the religion and was largely centered in a Hellenized and Middle-Eastern context, rather than the Romanized areas of the Western Empire.
More of a Shogun: Total War fan then?
Oh, I’ve only played Warhammer Total War, and I found the tutorial a bit too handholdy to be fun.
I was actually talking about Rome the empire.
I don’t think this take is as hot as you think. People admire Rome’s pragmatism and many of its values, and you can do that while acknowledging giving supreme power to a single person is dumb and flawed.
Even by empire standards, (Western) Rome was particularly barbaric. Not many empires made people fight each other to the death for sport.
Most historical societies make public spectacle out of executions, tbh. Rome was only exceptional in that the executioners and criminals were sometimes the same people.
Some historical societies had public executions, but it was a punishment, not a ‘game’ for the rich and powerful to enjoy.
I don’t think you understand how much public executions were regarded as entertainment in many societies; nor do I think you understand what a mass (rather than elite) phenomenon attending the gladiator games was, nor do I think you understand that most gladiators who fought to the death were condemned criminals for crimes considered exceptionally heinous.
I think it was usually more of a warning. But I’ve read that this was apparently a thing in Shakespearean England.
‘Ordinary’ Roman citizens were still above average in the Roman caste hierarchy.
Yeah, like getting caught defending their countries from the Romans.
Imagine if Donald Trump kidnaps a bunch of random Iranians and forces them to fight alligators for the entertainment of ‘ordinary’ US citizens. That would be the modern equivalent. (And why does that sound like something he would actually try to do?)
Not just Shakespearian England, but also the post-Roman Germanic polities, Celtic societies, Early Modern Europe, Industrial Age Europe, etc.
Public executions used to be an occasion for picnicking even as late as the ‘enlightened’ 19th century AD, when norms regarding death began to get a bit more squeamish.
The notion of death alone as a reason for horror is very modern.
It wasn’t just citizens who attended the games, man.
Noxii were more often bandits, rapists, murderers, etc. There simply wasn’t enough of an influx of war prisoners most years to allow for them to be wasted as arena fodder. Even when war prisoners were used in the gladiator games, it was usually as damnati, who were not expected to die, not noxii, who were expected to die. Why would you waste warriors who had already indicated that they were willing to submit to Rome’s mercy by simply killing them, after all?
Rebels were sometimes condemned as noxii, though.
Rome is uniquely evil because they invented the practice of using syncretism to commit cultural genocide without requiring a mortal genocide. This practice paved the way for the global dominance of monotheism, and it directly caused the extinction of the European pagan religions.
Europeans used to have so many different religions, so much different culture. Rome took the first steps towards inventing ethnic whiteness by depriving Europeans of their ancestral religions. Without their religions, Europeans had less cultural distinctiveness from one another. Which made it easier for slaver traders to invent the concept of whiteness during the colonial age.
My ancestors came from England. If it hadn’t been for Rome, I could have grown up as a practicing Celt. Or maybe My parents would have worshipped Odin. Or I could have trained to be a druid. England has cultural ties to a lot of different pagan groups. But instead, the English are bland cultureless christian colonisers, because of Rome.
Roman syncretism in no way included the extermination of traditional religions, and native religious practices all across the Empire are recorded as maintaining great independence and uniqueness all the way up to the arrival of Christianity, which was not a phenomenon limited to Rome, which largely rejected syncretism, and which exterminated native Roman religions as well.
The Roman Empire was not what killed traditional paganism. Roman syncretism was not a means of exterminating native religions, but of creating an environment for pluralism; worship of Wodan on the Germanic border was considered just and proper, especially since Romans respected the continuation of native traditions as ‘traditional’ and thus respectful to one’s ancestors, a trait the Romans highly valued. Even the Emperor Septimius Severus worshipped traditional Punic gods of his home province, and was considered largely unexceptional for it, despite said Punic gods not being widespread in the Empire and the ancient enmity between Carthage and Rome,
I think the Romans are responsible for Christianity’s problems. Judaism was and still is a very tolerant religion, and there are plenty of other gods in the Torah/Bible. Jesus sure wasn’t the cause of the exclusionism; he was a very kind and accepting person. No, I blame Paul and the rest of the Romans, for the evolution of Christianity into a culturally genocidal religion.
You take the Romans, who are used to converting barbarians into their religion, and you give them a henotheistic religion? They’re gonna change it into monotheism and demand that everyone convert or die. Syncretism created the slippery slope that lead to mass monotheism. Monotheism existed before the Romans, but it was the Romans who prosecuted it with such hate as to destroy European paganism.
… this the same Judaism whose main commandment is “Thou shalt not have any other gods before Me?” This the same Judaism whose holy book is full of ethnoreligious genocide? This the same Judaism which openly regarded the worship of any other god as worth murdering their fellow Hebrews over? This the same Judaism who regarded a minor heresy (Samaritanism) as worth a religious war over? This the same Judaism who massacred ‘pagans’ during the reign of the Maccabees before the arrival of the Romans? This the same Judaism who massacred pagans during the First Jewish-Roman War? This the same Judaism who massacred each other during the First Jewish Roman War, for following the wrong sect of Judaism?
Judaism only became a ‘tolerant’ religion because it lost all worldly power.
… Romans weren’t used to ‘converting’ anyone into their religion. That’s not in any way a serious or realistic idea of traditional Roman religio.
The trouble with that is that the Romans practiced numerous henotheistic religions before Christianity, and never did anything of the like that Christianity did with those henotheistic religions. Or, for that matter, that Christianity’s violence largely started outside of the Roman cultural heartland and before its adoption by the Roman state.
No^2.
In Exodus, the Egyptian priests summon snakes by praying to their gods. Then Moses summons a bigger snake by praying to Elohim. The implication is that Elohim and the Egyptian gods both exist, but Elohim is more powerful. That’s henotheism.
The first commandment isn’t “thou shalt have no other gods”, because that would be monotheism. The first commandment is “Thou shalt have no other gods before Me”, which is explicitly henotheistic.
At the end of the day, any monotheistic Abrahamist is a fool who doesn’t read their own scripture, or even their own commandments.
That doesn’t at all change the fact that that very same text forbade worship of any other gods. Does it matter if they believe other gods exist, if they regard worshipping other gods as grounds for murder?
That doesn’t at all change the facts that Judaism, before the arrival of the Romans, even, was a deeply intolerant religion in practice, that Romans didn’t ‘convert’ others to their religion, that Romans practiced henotheistic religions before Christianity and didn’t spiral into fuckwit intolerant insanity with them, that Christianity largely rejected syncretism, and that Christian violence against non-Christians predates Roman acceptance of the religion and was largely centered in a Hellenized and Middle-Eastern context, rather than the Romanized areas of the Western Empire.