Imperator, a member of the patrician class has been accused of slandering your noble family name in the public forum. What shall you do?
A: Crucify him
B: Sacrifice a goat at the great temple of Jupiter and pray for the gods justice to be done
C: Enslave his wife and daughters
D: Do nothing and drink more wine
E. Drag him through a long and painful lawsuit accusing him of unspecified inuria, wherein your Syrian lawyer publicly destroys his reputation (ironically inuria itself) and nets you a hefty cash payment for 'damages'.
... then drink wine bought with his money. 😎
Oh I don't know, at least the leaders of the Roman empire were routinely assassinated. Wish that'd happen to the current guy.
I recommend "M: Man of the Century" as a cinematically gorgeous and scary portrait of Mussolini and his rise to power.
Explanation: When the awareness of the GLORY of ROME was reawakened in the Renaissance, conscience imitations of the Roman Empire by polities became common. However, as the rationalist impetus of the Enlightenment began to eclipse the cultural and material achievements of the Roman Empire, this began to fall by the wayside.
... only for the mass-idolization of the Roman Empire to be revived by right-wing nationalists in the early 20th century, who could then perceive the Roman Empire not simply as a time of cultural refinement and material marvels, but as a time of centralized and chauvinist rule over a geographically vast polity, three qualities which the dominant cultural currents had increasingly rejected in the late 19th and 20th century. Fascists, unfortunately, still attempt to appropriate Roman iconography, once common across all political leanings, to this day. It's a near-guarantee that major political figures invoking the Roman Empire are far-right cretins, and the success of creatures like that never bodes well for a nation's future.
... we love Rome here, but not more than we love modernity and democracy. Rome was great insofar as it was better than its contemporary peers - Rome is not great in comparison to nearly any modern country.
Eh, the Romans plagiarized nearly everything from the Greeks, only replacing the gayness with chauvinism. Two stars. Out of ten.
Nah, the Romans were just as gay, and arguably less chauvinist, depending on how you define chauvinism. Certainly, the Romans were less sexist than the Athenians, more accepting of freedmen than any major Greek society, and more accepting of outsiders and foreign ideas.
Only If I get to use the communal sponge first!
the loudest farter gets the sponge
Fuck Rome. They spread the plague of christianity all over Europe and exterminated nearly all the European religions
Other way around. Christianity spread itself through Europe, and exterminated both Rome and Roman religion.
There's a reason that the religious conflict with the invading Germanic tribes in the Late Empire was overwhelmingly not "Pagan vs. Christian", but "Arian Christian vs. Nicene Christian"
So you're saying that Christianity didnt have its big break when the empire interpreted the bible in 320CE?
I'm saying that Christianity at that point had already spread its tendrils as far south as Ethiopia, as far east as India, as far west as Scotland, and as far north as Germany. It was not the adoption of Nicene Christianity by Rome which decided the dominance of non-native religions in the region's history; only the dominance of Nicene Christianity specifically in Christianity of the region.
Traditional European religions lacked the philosophical and cultural defenses necessary against the proselyting of Christianity, whose appeal, furthermore, intensified in times of worldly crisis. The Empire itself adopting Christianity sped up the process - and empowered Christians to act with impunity in the last ~150 years of the dying Empire's life - but was not a fundamental turning point, especially as Christianity at that point had already established church structures which gave it the power of a state within a state.
If Christianity was so virulent, why didn't Judaism do the same thing? Christianity is just a Jewish cult, after all. I blame Rome!
If Christianity was so virulent, why didn’t Judaism do the same thing?
Because Judaism actively discourages converts, even (or even especially) at that early point; while Christianity has proselytization as one of its highest and most important values.
Judaism's conception of the afterlife is often unclear; Christianity always posited a very clear conception of heaven and eternal torture, with the latter reserved for everyone who did not accept Jesus Christ.
Judaism is an extremely chauvinist ethnoreligion which regards belonging to the ethnic group as necessary to (and often synonymous with) participation in the faith; Christianity is a theoretically culture-neutral faith which regards personal participation and association as the main signifier.
The core faith of Christianity is contained within a fairly small number of fairly simple holy texts written for the purpose of outreach which claim to be divinely inspired, while the core faith of both Temple and Rabbinical Judaism is predicated on an extensive corpus of legal and philosophical disputes which are not immediately intuitive to outsiders or newcomers.
Christianity always posited a very clear conception of heaven and eternal torture, with the latter reserved for everyone who did not accept Jesus Christ.
Nah. Jesus said the only path to eternal life is through Him. That implies that if you die a sinner, you go to Sheol and just burn up into nothing.
A lot of people think Christianity has eternal torture because the King James Bible translates the words Sheol and Hades both as Hell. But Jesus was saying two different words. Now, there are multiple different ways to interpret the word Hades, and My take is not a popular one. But since the Bible is polytheistic, I believe that when Jesus says Hades, he actually fucking means Hades. The Greek underworld, ruled over by the god of death. Which already had eternal torture for many thousands of years at that point.
I submit as further evidence the fable of Lazarus and the rich man. Jesus says the rich man died and went to Hades, and then asked the angel of the Lord if he could come to heaven instead. But the angel said "nah fam, can't do it. It's against the rules". I think Yahweh couldn't save the rich man after death, because he had passed into Hades' realm.
Anyway, the point is Christianity didn't invent the eternal torture thing, and actively rejected it in other places.
Nah. Jesus said the only path to eternal life is through Him. That implies that if you die a sinner, you go to Sheol and just burn up into nothing.
That directly contradicts numerous lines about a negative afterlife even in the Gospels alone. Unless "nothing" can weep and gnash their teeth, at which point "nothing" starts to sound an awful lot like "something".
But since the Bible is polytheistic, I believe that when Jesus says Hades, he actually fucking means Hades. The Greek underworld, ruled over by the god of death. Which already had eternal torture for many thousands of years at that point.
That would have additional problems, both in that the New Testament was written at a point when Judaism had become aggressively monotheistic, not merely monolatrous, that Hades is not innately a place of punishment, and that traditional Greek religion was not thousands of years old at that point.
Anyway, the point is Christianity didn’t invent the eternal torture thing,
But it was a core piece of the faith and its holy texts, and, unlike previous religions, posits the existence of eternal torture to punish non-believers, not those who committed evil.
and actively rejected it in other places.
What.
These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
Matthew 25:46. The righteous go to heaven and live forever. The cruel suffer a punishment that is eternal and is not life. Id est: eternal nonexistence. That's the rejection of the eternal torture narrative, which comes from Greek religion.
And yes, the Hellenic religion was a little under a thousand years old at that point. But the Mycenaean religion also featured an underworld presided over by a god of the dead (and, perhaps a goddess of the dead for even longer than that). In the Hellenic interpretation of this underworld, at least, everyone goes down under when they die, but one's deeds in life and one's funerary rites determine their place within the underworld. Those whose deeds in life violated the Hellenes' most important moral values were tormented forever in Tartarus. Notable examples include Sisyphus and Tantalus.
Matthew 25:46. The righteous go to heaven and live forever. The cruel suffer a punishment that is eternal and is not life. Id est: eternal nonexistence.
That presumes that the opposite of life is nonexistence, whereas the widespread notion of an afterlife in the period and region posits that the opposite of life is death, not nonexistence. Furthermore, that, again, does not address the question of how "nothing" can weep and gnash its teeth; and, on top of that, is in direct contradiction to Your assertion of Hades as a destination for unbelievers.
That’s the rejection of the eternal torture narrative, which comes from Greek religion.
That is not in any way supported by Biblical or historical scholarship. For that matter, Greek religion is very often, like Judaism, hazy on the question of an afterlife, and this is an issue often discussed by Greek philosophical musings of the period.
Those whose deeds in life violated the Hellenes’ most important moral values were tormented forever in Tartarus.
It's extremely questionable to insist on an interpretation based on the exact terminology of "Hades" and then admit that "Tartarus" is the term for what You are describing.
While I am by no means terribly well read on the subject it seems to me that at least part of the problem here is probably that the bible isn't, and never really has been, internally consistent. So what exactly are it's statements on the afterlife? It depends on which parts you want to cherry pick and how you want to interpret them. Of course some arguments are stronger than others and some have the backing of one orthodoxy or another at various points in time but there is no one unassailably correct answer (I suspect by design). That's not to disagree with you though, just to interject that it's all sort of nonesense.
Tartarus is in Hades. Anyone who goes to Tartarus goes to Hades.
Anyway, riddle Me this: If the opposite of life is death and the afterlife, then how are Christians who go to heaven getting eternal life like Jesus said? No, in this specific context where Jesus is talking about moral deserts, he's constructing heaven's afterlife as a form of eternal life. So why is Jesus promising eternal life, if everyone gets eternal life anyway?
My interpretation is that Hades and Sheol are two different places. Jews go to Sheol, Greeks go to Hades. The rich man in the parable is a Greek so he goes to Hades, and since he was a prick, big man H puts him in Tartarus to be tortured, probably with some kind of ironic punishment. Maybe he gets the generic Tantalus package, since he loved food and wine so much. On the other hand, the Jews Jesus is talking to in Matthew 25 are gonna be going to either Heaven or Sheol, since they're Jewish.
If they go to Sheol, then it gets really hot and maybe they gnash their teeth for a bit, and then they finish dying. Their bodies died on Earth, and then their spirit dies in Sheol. You know, good old ka and ba metaphysics. On the other hand, the ones who were nice to Jesus (and all poor people) go to Heaven and get their bodies restored forevermore up in Jesustown.
Jesus was a really nice guy, so I'd think he'd be a polytheist and respect other religions. On the other hand, being tortured in Tartarus really sucks, so I can see him trying to convert Greek sinners to save them from that bullshit. Unfortunately, his attempts to help the Greek sinners backfired, because now there are 1.4 billion Romans following a Jewish cult that says they're going to be tortured forever if they don't give the Vatican money.
Anyway, riddle Me this: If the opposite of life is death and the afterlife, then how are Christians who go to heaven getting eternal life like Jesus said?
Many Christian sects reconcile it by asserting resurrection and then heaven.
No, in this specific context where Jesus is talking about moral deserts, he’s constructing heaven’s afterlife as a form of eternal life. So why is Jesus promising eternal life, if everyone gets eternal life anyway?
Most people would not regard eternal torture after death as a form of life.
My interpretation is that Hades and Sheol are two different places. Jews go to Sheol, Greeks go to Hades. The rich man in the parable is a Greek
Why do you say he's a Greek? And again, this goes against the fact that Judaism at the time of the New Testament had been aggressively monotheist, not just monolatrous, for several hundred years. This also contradicts the fact that Jesus asserts that any man who does not follow him will suffer in the afterlife, not just Jews.
Jesus was a really nice guy, so I’d think he’d be a polytheist and respect other religions.
Is this the same Jesus who said that people who felt lust should tear out their own eyes? The same Jesus who asserts his followers must despise everyone except for him? The same Jesus who proclaimed to bring not peace, but a sword, and to fulfill the brutal Old Testament law?
On the other hand, being tortured in Tartarus really sucks, so I can see him trying to convert Greek sinners to save them from that bullshit.
Then it would be extremely curious that he spent all of his time preaching in Iudea if he sought to convert Greeks.
Why do you say he’s a Greek?
Because he went to Hades, and that's where Greeks go
The same Jesus who asserts his followers must despise everyone except for him?
Nah, he said this:
“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ [...] “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
If you did not recognise the divinity of the least of the gods, then you did not recognise the divinity of Jesus.
Because he went to Hades, and that’s where Greeks go
This may be a shock, but the entirety of the Gosepels were written in Greek.
Nah
“If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be My disciple”
If you did not recognise the divinity of the least of the gods, then you did not recognise the divinity of Jesus.
That line is explicitly in reference to mortal poor, referencing the hungry, the homeless, and those imprisoned.
Don't forget they wiped out the cultural heritage of the Gauls and Brits.
Wiped out most of the Gauls outright, really. Estimates of Caesar's conquest was 1 in 4 Gauls dead, 1 in 3 enslaved.
Don’t forget they wiped out the cultural heritage of the Gauls and Brits.
These the same Gauls whose culture and language remained vibrant and present in archeological finds until the arrival of the migrating Germanic tribes?
The same Brits whose culture, likewise, survives until the Anglo-Saxon migrations pushed them into enclaves in Wales and Cornwall?
Wiped out most of the Gauls outright, really. Estimates of Caesar’s conquest was 1 in 4 Gauls dead, 1 in 3 enslaved.
No, accepting Caesar's numbers ("Caesar considered that a million Gauls had been killed, and a million enslaved.") with modern estimates of the Gallic population (~6 million) results in 1/3 dead or enslaved. The issue is that mixing-and-matching numbers like that is highly questionable, even if you want to take Caesar's conveniently round estimate as literal and accurate.
ngl, guy who brags about killing a million people and enslaving another million sounds like a piece of shit. Even if he's lying, he still wanted to be seen as a genocidal oppressor of holocaustic scale. Any society which would approve of such supposed actions is evil.
I stand with the barbarians.
ngl, guy who brags about killing a million people and enslaving another million sounds like a piece of shit.
If saying "I won over a large number of enemies" is all that it takes to count as a piece of shit, I have really bad news about the Gauls for You.
Even if he’s lying, he still wanted to be seen as a genocidal oppressor of holocaustic scale.
That's not even close to the message, especially considering the rest of the Commentarii.
Any society which would approve of such supposed actions is evil.
... how do You think Gallic societies reacted to their leaders murdering and enslaving others?
I stand with the barbarians.
Of course. What's a little human sacrifice and executing the slowest member of each tribe for 'disloyalty' between friends?
This is not to assert moral superiority of Rome over the Gauls, only to point out that extreme violence and its celebration are not particularly Roman. They're simply pre-modern.
What’s a little human sacrifice and executing the slowest member of each tribe for ‘disloyalty’ between friends?
Is this stupidity-slow or velocity-slow? Whatever it is, does this act have a name or term?
Velocity-slow. The stragglers from each tribe called to war were tortured or executed. I don't think there's a specific term for it, though I vaguely remember a few similar events in history.
Megaopolis
A place to share history memes!
Rules:
No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, assorted bigotry, etc.
No fascism (including tankies/red fash), atrocity denial or apologia, etc.
Tag NSFW pics as NSFW.
Follow all Piefed.social rules.
History referenced must be 20+ years old.
Avoid posting AI-generated content whenever possible.
Banner courtesy of @setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world
OTHER COMMS IN THE HISTORYVERSE:
