Irreplaceable by History

[Snake Featherston]

But doesn't that precisely point to Jesus as being unique? He was pushing his claim to be the messiah just like everybody-and-their-brother; but people actually believed it was true for Jesus, and in a very lasting way.

Sure many other after him were very important in the spread of christianity, St. Paul for one, and indeed Constantine's official sanction of christianity eventually made it the prominent religion in Europe.

However, I think your point that many claims to being the messiah fell flat just go to show you that Jesus was a unique personality, able to say the right things at the right time and strike a proper balance between conservative and charismatic; of course being martyred helped things along. Really though, I have to question if another individual would have been able to become the focal point of the world's largest religion.

I suppose I don't know enough about it to make a strong claim. Just thinking out loud.

Only in the sense that he succeeded where other claimants did not. That there were other claimants means equally some other (as Jews of the time would have seen it) heretical Messiah wannabe winning is not at all out of the realm of plausibility. Given how Jesus was less instrumental in the spread of his own religion than Paul, another Messianic claimant could just have easily had another charismatic second-founder of the religion that shifted it. The Early Modern Sabbateans actually illustrate how Christianity was not even a unique phenomenon in Jewish history, as does the Bar Kochba Revolt. And even then Christianity did not rise until it could use the full power of the Roman state to propagate itself.

 

[Snake Featherston]

1) Or alternately just a convenient boogeyman to target given it was still an illegal religion under Roman law at the time, which Church history embellished and exaggerated into something more than it was in the same fashion as they invented a number of Empire-wide persecutions that made good hagiography but bad history.

2) It could easily have something to do with shelving it for the duration of a civil war where Constantine seemed an unstoppable juggernaut.

3) Yes, given this particular minority was directly hostile to the established tradition of the state.

To this I would add 4) if Christianity was as strong as you say it was, the Emperors would not have deliberately in the wake of a century of endemic civil war turned to something powerful enough to serve as a counterbalance to what was to be an Imperial unification project. By itself this is the single most damning indictment of any argument that Christianity was natively powerful *before* it started using the Roman state to yoke itself to what was already an authoritarian and repressive system, transforming it into a totalitarian one that sought to regulate all aspects of life, public and private.

 

[willbell]

Irreplaceable by History:

• Militaides.
• Darius the Great.
• Gautama Buddha.
• Philip of Macedon.
• Alexander the Great.

to be con5inued.

 

[Russian]

Snake Featherston,

I advise you to read the letters of Pliny the Younger to emperor Trajan on Christians.
That's a reliable source.

It might somehow change your point of view.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Do you really think though; that someone else could have done what he did? Risen from abject poverty, living in the streets of Vienna, to being the dictator of europe?

Not endorsing the guy, but, hard to argue he wasn't necessary for certain events to transpire.

Who would have replaced him?

Well, there are people who might have pulled the above off -- but none of those who could have were anywhere near as crazy as Hitler, so they wouldn't give us the Holocaust or (anywhere near as bad a version of) WWII.

 

[Benjamin XVIII]

Well, there are people who might have pulled the above off -- but none of those who could have were anywhere near as crazy as Hitler, so they wouldn't give us the Holocaust or (anywhere near as bad a version of) WWII.

I suppose I just think things turning out like that would have been unlikely without his unique (and insane!) personality. Perhaps there would be some WWII analogue, but I think the implications would be more than just "some other guy" being the dictator.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

I suppose I just think things turning out like that would have been unlikely without his unique (and insane!) personality. Perhaps there would be some WWII analogue, but I think the implications would be more than just "some other guy" being the dictator.

Right, that's what I'm saying.

 

[historyfelon]

Jesus?

Snake! "Given how Jesus was less instrumental in the spread of his own religion than Paul, another Messianic claimant could just have easily had another charismatic second-founder of the religion that shifted it."

You beat me to it. Exactly. Unless you are a true believer (and thank god, I'm not) there was nothing 'divinely inspired' about the teachings of Jesus, everything he preached is a rehash of other's philosophies. Paul (Saul) is the PR genius behind Chritianity. If there is an "Indespensible" person in this situation, it is him..he..damn..whichever.

 

[Wolfpaw]

Genghis Khan, Peter the Great, Napoleon, Lenin.

Napoleon is only on the list because he's the one that turned "Defend France!" into "CONQUER EUROPE!"

 

[Easterling]

Do you really think though; that someone else could have done what he did? Risen from abject poverty, living in the streets of Vienna, to being the dictator of europe?

Not endorsing the guy, but, hard to argue he wasn't necessary for certain events to transpire.

Who would have replaced him?

Maybe not rise the same way as he did, but far right nationalist leaders were a dime a dozen in weimar germany. Some of them could have replaced Hitler. There obviously was a 'demand' for his brand of politics. And demand will eventually create supply. Just like on the market.

Allso, there are strong arguments that ww2 was pretty much inevitable after the end of ww1, so Hitler is not the only one to blame for it.

 

[Mikestone8]

2) It could easily have something to do with shelving it for the duration of a civil war where Constantine seemed an unstoppable juggernaut.

No obvious reason to do that unless

a) Continuing the persecution would cause disaffection in the army, or

b) Pursuing it would involve detaching important sections of the army from other duties.

Neither sounds likely unless Christians were a pretty powerful force.

3) Yes, given this particular minority was directly hostile to the established tradition of the state.

Yet that had not stopped Constantius Chlorus - married to a Christian - from becoming an Emperor. Nor did it stop Constantine from being proclaimed as his successor. That being so, there's no reason why it should have stopped another pro-Christian figure from doing so. Is there the slightest reason to suppose than Constantine was the only Roman general with a Christian mother?

Nor, incidentally, does it seem to have handicapped him in the ensuing civil wars, which would seem to indicate that most soldiers - the only "public" in 4C Rome whose opinions mattered a hoot - had no particular objection to his religious policies.

 

[Mikestone8]

One other might be Woodrow Wilson, not so much for what he did as for what he prevented.

In Feb 1913, the Senate passed an Amendment extending the President's term of ofice to six years, but at the same time limiting him to a single term. Only one Democratic Senator voted nay, while Republicans were about equally divided.

Given that the House was nearly two to one Democratic, passage there seemed a foregone conclusion - until President-elect Wilson wrote to Representative A Mitchell Palmer opposing it (despite its being part of the 1912 Democratic platform) with the result that it was pigeonholed in the Judiciary Committee and never came to a vote.

Since Champ Clark and WJ Bryan, Wilson's main rivals for the Democratic nomination, were both on record in favour of the measure, there would seem every likelihood that without him it would have been enacted. It would still have to be ratified, of course, but half the Reps plus 90% of the Dems would probably constitute a majority in most of the State Legislatures. So take away Mr Wilson and America probably has six-year Presidents to this day.

 

[Snake Featherston]

No obvious reason to do that unless

a) Continuing the persecution would cause disaffection in the army, or

b) Pursuing it would involve detaching important sections of the army from other duties.

Neither sounds likely unless Christians were a pretty powerful force.

Again, after a century of civil war, why would the Emperors at all concede some new power center other than their own, given that this is how that long civil war had started in the first place? Why would they pick an actually powerful religion, thus?

Yet that had not stopped Constantius Chlorus - married to a Christian - from becoming an Emperor. Nor did it stop Constantine from being proclaimed as his successor. That being so, there's no reason why it should have stopped another pro-Christian figure from doing so. Is there the slightest reason to suppose than Constantine was the only Roman general with a Christian mother?

Nor, incidentally, does it seem to have handicapped him in the ensuing civil wars, which would seem to indicate that most soldiers - the only "public" in 4C Rome whose opinions mattered a hoot - had no particular objection to his religious policies.

That they did not was primarily because at the time Roman politics was engaging in its tradition of succession through civil war and they had other matters on their mind. And frankly put given that Galerius and Licinius rallied armies under Paganism.......

 

[Mikestone8]

Again, after a century of civil war, why would the Emperors at all concede some new power center other than their own, given that this is how that long civil war had started in the first place? Why would they pick an actually powerful religion, thus?

There'd be even less point in picking a weak one. After all, they are looking for one whose support will strengthen them, not one that needs propping up.

That they did not was primarily because at the time Roman politics was engaging in its tradition of succession through civil war and they had other matters on their mind. And frankly put given that Galerius and Licinius rallied armies under Paganism.......

IOW, playing the power game as normally played was a higher priority than concern about Constantine's religious policy - so presumably would have neen the same vis a vis any other pro-Christian contender who happened along.

Licinius, Iirc, was perfectly happy to ally with Constantne until his other Pagan rivals had been seen off. Then, surprise surprise, he tried to appeal to the defeated Pagans who now had nowhere else to go. Not too surprisingly, he failed.

And of course, at any time during all those goings on, the Roman soldiers could have killed Constantine and rallied to another Emperor whenever they felt like it. They didn't, which hardly sounds as though Christianity's supposed incompatibility with Roman tradition was really bothering them very much - if indeed at all.

 

[Snake Featherston]

1) They're looking for loyalty. A religion that actually is a rival power center won't be loyal to them. A religion they make into a power center will be loyal, in theory. Otherwise the Emperors remain locked in the eternal war.

2) That's because Constantine was trying for the theoretically impossible, namely one-man rule of the entire Empire.

 

[willbell]

More:

• Brutus
• Hamilcar Barca
• Hannibal Barca
• Scipio Africanus
• Pompey
• Julius Caesar
• Octavian
• Mark Antony
• Vespasian
• Nero
• Caligula
• Theodosius 1
• Constantine the Great

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

More:

• Brutus
• Hamilcar Barca
• Hannibal Barca
• Scipio Africanus
• Pompey
• Julius Caesar
• Octavian
• Mark Antony
• Vespasian
• Nero
• Caligula
• Theodosius 1
• Constantine the Great

You mean Brutus the elder, right? If so, agree. Hannibal and Scipio definitely belong as well. Also, pretty sure I agree with Caligula -- his unique mix of power and crazy definitely had an impact that'd be nigh impossible to replicate with someone else. The rest, either disagree or can't say...

 

[Mikestone8]

1) They're looking for loyalty. A religion that actually is a rival power center won't be loyal to them. A religion they make into a power center will be loyal, in theory. Otherwise the Emperors remain locked in the eternal war.

But loyalty is of rather limited value unless accompanied by strength. However loyal it may be, a body which is wholly dependent on you, and has no power or influence of its own, is an additional liability, not an asset.

2) That's because Constantine was trying for the theoretically impossible, namely one-man rule of the entire Empire.

Well, if one-man rule is impossible, then he has to have a partner, and that partner will want a slice of the power. Is partnership with a powerful Church likely to present any worse problems than parthership with a co-Emperor?