Eugenius Pagan Revival More Potential than Julian?

. Even among the Senators, their paganism often seems to have been a matter of upholding the mos maiorum rather than particularly strong religious conviction, and there's no evidence that any significant number wanted to revive the Julianic policies, much less take them further.


This is a small point but I’d contest the idea that personal religious conviction mattered to pagan Romans at all.Public observance and ritual was entirely more important to them than actually “believing it”. I’d say roman paganism would survive only if it could be reformed to give better incentives to continue practising it.

Also roman religion being so intimately tied to government would mean that even if senators were cynically evoking old traditions to gain power, that would easily fit in with the religious tradition of supporting religion for political gain.



On a larger scale I’d like to ask an open ended question andboit the future of a pagan western rome

Let’s say that the franks are brought in but at some point western rome does collapse.
How does this affect the latinisation and cultural assimilation of groups like the franks?

Would the lack of Latin as a liturgical language mean that german tribes would retain a distinct religion they imported or would they try and emulate roman religion to try and fit in with the gallo roman elite?
 
This is a small point but I’d contest the idea that personal religious conviction mattered to pagan Romans at all.Public observance and ritual was entirely more important to them than actually “believing it”. I’d say roman paganism would survive only if it could be reformed to give better incentives to continue practising it.

Also roman religion being so intimately tied to government would mean that even if senators were cynically evoking old traditions to gain power, that would easily fit in with the religious tradition of supporting religion for political gain.
I totally agree with this part. People often accuse the pagans of being interested to the traditional religion only for political gains, but they tend to categorically exclude the possibility that lots of christians did the same with their own faith. Both sides, in my opinion, had their share of opportunist and true believers, however today we tend to label the entire christian movement as the one of true believers while the pagan movement as the one of passive/uninterested believers waiting to be christianized.
 
I totally agree with this part. People often accuse the pagans of being interested to the traditional religion only for political gains, but they tend to categorically exclude the possibility that lots of christians did the same with their own faith. Both sides, in my opinion, had their share of opportunist and true believers, however today we tend to label the entire christian movement as the one of true believers while the pagan movement as the one of passive/uninterested believers waiting to be christianized.

Well, Christianity had a well-established martyr cult, as well as an organised system of doctrine and a belief that all other religions were at best mistaken, and at worst worshipping demons. So whilst it's no doubt overly simplistic to suppose that all Christians and no pagans were "true believers", it would actually be rather surprising if Christianity didn't have a higher proportion of true believers than paganism did.
 
Well, Christianity had a well-established martyr cult, as well as an organised system of doctrine and a belief that all other religions were at best mistaken, and at worst worshipping demons.
The common peasant christians tended to interpret the cult of a martyr the same way a peasant pagan would interpret the cult of a hero: lots of fantasy elements like martyr not dying after being condemned, destroying temples with their own hands, taming wild animals ecc. Why would these stories be more efficient at keeping christians believers loyal to the christian church that pagan stories?
About the organised system I agree with you, but I think that in this thread its implied that Eugenius and his supporters somewhat reform the pagan religion. If they follow the Julian way or an other alternative it's unknown.
 
The common peasant christians tended to interpret the cult of a martyr the same way a peasant pagan would interpret the cult of a hero: lots of fantasy elements like martyr not dying after being condemned, destroying temples with their own hands, taming wild animals ecc. Why would these stories be more efficient at keeping christians believers loyal to the christian church that pagan stories?

Firstly, I don't think the analogy is a good one -- even where martyrdom accounts did contain the sorts of elements you suggest (and most of them didn't), the point was that they died for God, not that their deaths were accompanied by flashy miracles. Anybody could die for God, and hence anybody could become a martyr; and indeed, the Christian Church taught that everybody should be willing to choose death over apostasy. The pagan heroes, on the other hand, were super-human demigods, and so not really amenable to emulation; and anyway, their myths didn't generally include them laying down their lives for the sake of the pagan gods (who frankly weren't really the sorts of deities you'd want to die for anyway).

About the organised system I agree with you, but I think that in this thread its implied that Eugenius and his supporters somewhat reform the pagan religion. If they follow the Julian way or an other alternative it's unknown.

I don't think there's any evidence that Eugenius et al. ever contemplated any reformation of the pagan religion. At most, they'd probably want to give back the temple lands which had been appropriated by the government, and maybe reduce the privileges given to Christian clergy.
 
Firstly, I don't think the analogy is a good one -- even where martyrdom accounts did contain the sorts of elements you suggest (and most of them didn't), the point was that they died for God, not that their deaths were accompanied by flashy miracles. Anybody could die for God, and hence anybody could become a martyr; and indeed, the Christian Church taught that everybody should be willing to choose death over apostasy. The pagan heroes, on the other hand, were super-human demigods, and so not really amenable to emulation; and anyway, their myths didn't generally include them laying down their lives for the sake of the pagan gods (who frankly weren't really the sorts of deities you'd want to die for anyway).
To emulate their death is not something so easy to ask to anyone. Therefore their deeds could be considered as hard to emulate as that of some pagan hero (probably a little less as you rightly noted that usually they were demigods, still not something easy to perform). The fact is that christian stories tended to reply to certain need ( the need of salvation and a new opportunity after death), while pagan stories tended to satisfy "different needs" ( the need to keep "demons" away or to keep land fertile or even the need of a better destiny after death). Both replied to different needs in different ways and it was up to the population to choose the belief that they thought would benefit them more: so christians stories could be very effective at keeping christians loyal to their church while rejecting people with different needs. However about the "fantasy" elements that I mentioned, probably they were not contained in most of these stories, yet their presence, in my opinion, would prove that the mentality of certain christians was not so different from that of a pagan: what was the non emulable pagan hero now is the christian saint.

I don't think there's any evidence that Eugenius et al. ever contemplated any reformation of the pagan religion. At most, they'd probably want to give back the temple lands which had been appropriated by the government, and maybe reduce the privileges given to Christian clergy.
We don't know much about Eugenius and his supporter except maybe Symmachus who was probably favourable to religious freedom rather than the enforcement of one faith. Surely you can't deny that the non application of the Theodosian edicts to the west would definitely improve the pagans situation in addition to limiting the privileges of the clergy (during this period religious career tended to be excessively tempting for members of local aristocracy) and restoring the imperial patronage to the temples: the state official stance played a key role in religious matters especially with such decisive emperor like Theodosius.
 
To emulate their death is not something so easy to ask to anyone. Therefore their deeds could be considered as hard to emulate as that of some pagan hero (probably a little less as you rightly noted that usually they were demigods, still not something easy to perform). The fact is that christian stories tended to reply to certain need ( the need of salvation and a new opportunity after death), while pagan stories tended to satisfy "different needs" ( the need to keep "demons" away or to keep land fertile or even the need of a better destiny after death). Both replied to different needs in different ways and it was up to the population to choose the belief that they thought would benefit them more: so christians stories could be very effective at keeping christians loyal to their church while rejecting people with different needs. However about the "fantasy" elements that I mentioned, probably they were not contained in most of these stories, yet their presence, in my opinion, would prove that the mentality of certain christians was not so different from that of a pagan: what was the non emulable pagan hero now is the christian saint.

Sure, dying for the faith is by no means easy, and we know from accounts of the time that lots of people gave in to persecution. But Christianity, which held up martyrs as examples to emulate and considered apostasy a grave sin, should probably be expected to produce more people willing to die for their religion than would paganism, which didn't really have much of a concept of martyrdom; and indeed it seems that there were comparatively more Christian martyrs during this period than pagan ones, even if many Christians weren't willing to go that far.

We don't know much about Eugenius and his supporter except maybe Symmachus who was probably favourable to religious freedom rather than the enforcement of one faith. Surely you can't deny that the non application of the Theodosian edicts to the west would definitely improve the pagans situation in addition to limiting the privileges of the clergy (during this period religious career tended to be excessively tempting for members of local aristocracy) and restoring the imperial patronage to the temples: the state official stance played a key role in religious matters especially with such decisive emperor like Theodosius.

I certainly agree that a repeal of the Edict of Thessalonica and a restauration of temple lands would benefit paganism; I just don't think that this would result in any large-scale conversions from Christianity back to paganism. After all, Christianity in the West seems to have been doing fine before Theodosius, so whilst leading churchmen would no doubt complain at any return to the status quo ante Theodosium, I think the Church itself would do OK.
 
Sure, dying for the faith is by no means easy, and we know from accounts of the time that lots of people gave in to persecution. But Christianity, which held up martyrs as examples to emulate and considered apostasy a grave sin, should probably be expected to produce more people willing to die for their religion than would paganism, which didn't really have much of a concept of martyrdom; and indeed it seems that there were comparatively more Christian martyrs during this period than pagan ones, even if many Christians weren't willing to go that far.
For this reason christian stories are good at keeping people christian, not for converting the pagans who will just look at these stories with suspect ("look at those stubborn christians dying for no reason"). Without active persecution you won't see further mass conversion, the christians already converted by peaceful means what they could of the roman population, what is left is people who don't care about what christianity has to offer, people loyal to traditions, and people who for personal reasons despise christians way. Probably you will only see the conversion of some opportunist in the case of a eastern christian emperor, something that can be balanced by a pagan western court.
I certainly agree that a repeal of the Edict of Thessalonica and a restauration of temple lands would benefit paganism; I just don't think that this would result in any large-scale conversions from Christianity back to paganism. After all, Christianity in the West seems to have been doing fine before Theodosius, so whilst leading churchmen would no doubt complain at any return to the status quo ante Theodosium, I think the Church itself would do OK.
We don't seek to eradicate christianity from the west or from the entire roman empire, we just want to see the pagan ways survive, maybe in a reformed way and in a dominant position in the west. Even the christians can't oppose the power of the emperor especially after this alternate Frigidus. So no mass revert from christians to pagan but also strong pagan presence in Italy Gaul Britain and maybe later Africa. We need to know what Eugenius will do now: a persecution of pagans in the east could prompt an analogue reply from the west (which would be easy to justify in front of the population) and under this conditions the western church could be forced to partially retreat.
 
One more thought to revive the thread for a bit...
If Eugenius and Arbogast win and Theodosius dies, then i bet that the Goths in Thrace, seeing the death of the man who negotiated their stay in the empire, will revolt and perhaps even seize the entire province.
 
One more thought to revive the thread for a bit...
If Eugenius and Arbogast win and Theodosius dies, then i bet that the Goths in Thrace, seeing the death of the man who negotiated their stay in the empire, will revolt and perhaps even seize the entire province.
The goths would be on the loosing side along with Theodosius. Probably after Frigidus they won’t be able to pose any threat for a while.
 
Might he become Regent of the East instead?
I think he would be the only one who could to try to protect the right of Arcadius to succeds his father. In that case you could have an eastern Stilicho, but I think it s more probable to see the end of the Theodosian dynasty after this defeat.
 
Top