Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

en43rs t1_j8hjgpq wrote

Reply to comment by ImMemeLord in Weekly History Questions Thread. by AutoModerator

I think there is a mistake in your question. The Holy Roman Empire was a medieval state that existed in Germany from the 9th century onward. It was a Christian kingdom, the Holy in its name refer to the fact that pope crowned the Emperor.

So no persecution there. unless you refer to the wars of religions between catholics and protestants in the 16th century. If that's the case say so and I can answer that.

​

Now. What I think you mean is the Roman Empire when it was still Pagan (before emperor constantine converted in the 4th century), right?

​

In that case the answer is very interesting. Rome had a public religion, the religion was the religion of the state/government. All Romans participated in its rites (and no one else. You were Romans because you participated in the cult, you participated because you were Roman). The idea is that if all the citizens worship the gods of Rome, the gods are happy and Rome stays a world power. Often you hear that Rome was tolerant of other religions, it's usually true but the idea is that they literally didn't care about your religion as long as: as a Roman you still participate in the official religion and your foreign faith is not done inside the limit of the city of Rome... as a Roman if you do that you can worship Isis or Mithras or whatever on your own, that's no problem at all.

Now the problem with Christianity is that it claims to be the one true god and one true faith (which while not new is not the norm at this time for other religions) and explicitly forbids the worship of other deity. So Christians didn't go to the temple of Jupiter to do their yearly sacrifice and didn't participate in the city wide worship of Venus and all the other religious duties expected of Roman citizens... and that's a problem for Rome. The citizens needs to participate in the official religion for the gods to help Rome. But not participation you are endangering Rome. And that's they were persecuted.

Add to that that the Roman society is extremely hierarchical, and that Christianity is very egalitarian, this is also seen as an attack against Rome. So persecution too.

​

Christianity was not the first religion to be persecuted that way, the Bacchanalia (a mystery cult that also forbid the official religion and blurred hierarchical lines) was persecuted violently in 200BC. But it's important to keep in mind that it wasn't really about the religion itself. There were a lot of Roman Monotheists at the time or Romans who practiced other faiths... but also the main city cults.

In conclusion: The main problem was that Christianity forbid the practice of the official religion, which was a religious duty. So the state persecuted them for violating the law pretty much as if they refused to pay taxes. It's wasn't religious discrimination in itself but actions against the fact that Romans refused to do their legal obligations.

3

quantdave t1_j8hzaft wrote

I'd add that a further issue was that Christianity sought converts. Judaism was also emphatically monotheistic, but Christianity sough to extend its flock, and was doing so among the classes who might threaten the social order should the religious element of their allegiance to the empire be eroded. Christianity's growth presented a threat that older religious minorities didn't: as it turned out, church and state found a modus vivendi, but that evidently wasn't perceived in the early centuries.

2

en43rs t1_j8i02tl wrote

>. Judaism was also emphatically monotheistic

It was also a very old religion (which is something the Romans respected) and during the Temple era the Jewish authorities had a deal with Rome: they would not sacrifice to Roman Gods... but will make a sacrifice to their god for the emperor, which, as far as the Roman were concerned, was good enough.

1

quantdave t1_j8i3v8d wrote

Interesting. Do you know if early Christians were willing to do likewise? It seems a pragmatic compromise, and in accordance with the notion (if not the meaning) of "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's".

1

en43rs t1_j8i506l wrote

Christians (when they became important enough to be noticed) did not practice sacrifices, which were essential for the Roman religion (it's not about faith, it's about the correct actions, a simple prayer wouldn't do), so the question is moot. Also if you read Pliny's letter to Trajan (written around 112) some things are pretty clear: he has to discover who is and who is not a Christian and he notes this

>Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ--none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do--these I thought should be discharged

This is confirmed by other sources: Christians absolutely refused anything to do with the Roman Religion, which as I said was a crime in itself.

2

quantdave t1_j8i6h4z wrote

Interesting again: I was thinking of a non-blood sacrifice, but Pliny indeed suggests that no offerings were acceptable to this obstinate minority.

1

unnamedussr t1_j8i7kyp wrote

Yeah, my apologies for the mishap, I was referring to the one between 303-313, which is what I'm assuming you've answered. Thanks, by the way. My takeaway is:

  1. Persecuted because they were endangering Rome by not partaking in events honouring the Roman Gods.
  2. The fact that Roman society was hierarchical rather than egalitarian. This part I'm a little foggy on, if you wouldn't mind shedding some more light, why was this a reason for persecution?
  3. And it wasn't religious discrimination but rather persecuting "criminals" for breaking the law – the law being that they had to worship the Gods for their grace upon the empire.
1

en43rs t1_j8ibjg5 wrote

  1. exactly. Keep in mind that up until 299 Rome had been at war with Persia. Defending Rome wasn't an abstract idea, the empire was threatened.
  2. We live in a society where we consider that humans all have the same fundamental rights and value. This is not the norm in antiquity. Roman society is extremely hierarchical. There are actual legal distinctions between categories of people, and not just between free people and slaves. The rich, powerful and from old Roman families are supposed to be on top of every hierarchy. Then lowborn citizens. Then non citizens. Then slaves. This hierarchy is part of Roman society. In Roman religion the powerful ones hold the priesthoods, they are the superiors of lowborn and foreigners. Christianity has for its main tenets that everyone is equal and also gave a lot of importance to women (which for Romans always have a subordinate role). In Christian communities you could have non citizens/citizens of low birth, or even slaves (to not even talk about women) in position of authority over good roman citizens. This is unthinkable for Romans. This is an actual danger for them because it reject the traditional hierarchy. It is seen as "destroying the essence of Roman society", an attack against their society (to simplify a lot they see it as a conspiracy to destroy what makes Rome Rome).
  3. Yes, more or less. The persecution of 303 is maybe when it starts to be a systematic persecution of the religion itself (it is still debated by historians), but even then because it seen as a dangerous cult: it is a cult that endanger Rome's relations to gods... but it's also a religion that goes against Rome social structure.
2