Roman emperor lives longer

Julian was hardly interested in religious freedom and religious tolerance, he was interested in the triumph of a particular pagan sect - and had no problems discriminating against Christians.

I beg to differ good sir. Julian's reign is probably the best documented reign since Augustus.

"On February 4th, 362 AD Julian promulgated an edict to guarantee freedom of religion. This edict proclaimed that all the religions were equal before the law, and that the Roman Empire had to return to its original religious eclecticism, according to which the Roman state did not impose any religion on its provinces."

Hero of Canton
 
I beg to differ good sir. Julian's reign is probably the best documented reign since Augustus.

"On February 4th, 362 AD Julian promulgated an edict to guarantee freedom of religion. This edict proclaimed that all the religions were equal before the law, and that the Roman Empire had to return to its original religious eclecticism, according to which the Roman state did not impose any religion on its provinces."

Hero of Canton

It just interfered with Christianity because Julian was an anti-Christian pagan. Or does interfering with Christians teaching (the classics, I believe) not count because the idea that Julian was a model of tolerance is so much cooler than the idea that he was a fanatic?


"
On leaving Antioch he appointed Alexander of Heliopolis as governor, a violent and cruel man whom the Antiochene Libanius, a friend of the emperor, admits on first thought was a "dishonourable" appointment. Julian himself described the man as "undeserving" of the position, but appropriate "for the avaricious and rebellious people of Antioch".[57]



  1. ^ See Letter 622 by Libanius: "That Alexander was appointed to the government at first, I confess, gave me some concern, as the principal persons among us were dissatisfied. I thought it dishonourable, injurious, and unbecoming a prince; and that repeated fines would rather weaken than improve the city...." and the translator's note upon it: "This is the Alexander of whom Ammianus says (23.2), "When Julian was going to leave Antioch, he made one Alexander of Heliopolis, governor of Syria, a turbulent and severe man, saying that 'undeserving as he was, such a ruler suited the avaricious and contumellious Antiochians'." As the letter makes clear, Julian handed the city over to be looted by a man he himself regarded as unworthy, and the Christian inhabitants, who had dared to oppose his attempt to restore paganism, to be forced to attend and applaud pagan ceremonies at sword-point; and be 'urged' to cheer more loudly." "


As well. Some tolerance.
 
Last edited:
Jan Gronvik: If Christian emperors could take gold and silver from Christian temples (as we see of Heraclius and Alexius I later), why can't a pagan one do something about it with pagan temples, if nothing else?

I think Maximinius Thrax did loot Pagan temples.
 
Not all monarchy is either absolute or specifically constitutional.

Or we can say these states made progress because the type of government doesn't matter, which is what history actually supports instead of the idea that progress is linked to the rule of the masses.

of course it does Elfwine ... for example in 1436 by imperial decree in china all international trade was forbidden , the construction of seagoing ships was made illegal and you're telling me that this didn't affect the economic progress of this country at all?
 
China is exclusive economically? This is news to me. China is probably the largest capitalist nation on the planet.

the less inclusive is the political system the easier is to practice corruption to get rid of unwanted competitors and resist change when the next wave of innovations will require creative destruction:
The theory is that china rise won't continue forever given its current political system but we'll see.
 
The Republican Constitution of Rome was never intended to deal with a huge empire. It was created instead for a city-state. Yes, in theory as a method of governing in the abstract it was FAR superior to the sort-of-hidden military autocracy of the Principate and the naked absolutism of the Dominate. But it could not be "upscaled" due to the very limited speed of communications among other things.

Hero of Canton
I guess that a Republic limited to the italian peninsula was strong enough to fend off foreign invasions , still able to retain its Republican Constitution and be provided with an economy less dependent on slavery
 
of course it does Elfwine ... for example in 1436 by imperial decree in china all international trade was forbidden , the construction of seagoing ships was made illegal and you're telling me that this didn't affect the economic progress of this country at all?

We're not talking about whether or not monarchy/non-representative government can hinder progress (economic or otherwise). We're talking about whether or not it is inevitably or inherently going to.

And the evidence of thousands of years of history: No, it isn't.
 
Last edited:
I guess that a Republic limited to the italian peninsula was strong enough to fend off foreign invasions , still able to retain its Republican Constitution and be provided with an economy less dependent on slavery

The empires of Athens and Sparta were dependent upon slavery despite being even smaller geographically than the Italian peninsula is, so I don't think keeping the Republic small keeps slavery down.
 
the less inclusive is the political system the easier is to practice corruption to get rid of unwanted competitors and resist change when the next wave of innovations will require creative destruction:
The theory is that china rise won't continue forever given its current political system but we'll see.

Right, and America couldn't continue forever on it's exponential economic growth experienced in the late 19th-20th century either. Yet, surprise, surprise America is a democracy.
 
The empires of Athens and Sparta were dependent upon slavery despite being even smaller geographically than the Italian peninsula is, so I don't think keeping the Republic small keeps slavery down.

Well at least there would have been less enslaved cheap prisoners of war available
 
Well at least there would have been less enslaved cheap prisoners of war available

Would that have speeded up the technological development?
Was the Roman Empire a technological and scientific backwater?
And if so, could a prolonged life of any of the emperors have changed that?
Was any of the emperors interested in in that kind of progression?
 
Would that have speeded up the technological development?
Was the Roman Empire a technological and scientific backwater?
And if so, could a prolonged life of any of the emperors have changed that?
Was any of the emperors interested in in that kind of progression?

It's not really relevant what the emperor thinks, or at least it goes beyond what he thinks.
 
Was the Roman Empire a technological and scientific backwater?

Not particularly by the standards of the age. Technological and scientific advance was pretty glacial everywhere.

And if so, could a prolonged life of any of the emperors have changed that?
Was any of the emperors interested in in that kind of progression?

Almost certainly not, especially if the research were apt to cost money, of which the Treasury was always short..
 
Last edited:
Not particularly by the standards of the age. Technological and scientific advance was pretty glacial everywhere.

It would be interesting to know if there is the potential in this age to see the raise of an Athens like state and see the repetition of its political,scientific and cultural feats without it being swallowed by a large empire like the Roman, the Sassanid the Maurya and the Han .

Maybe Rhodes , Carthago , Syracuse or a reduced Roman state could fill the role
 
It would be interesting to know if there is the potential in this age to see the raise of an Athens like state and see the repetition of its political,scientific and cultural feats without it being swallowed by a large empire like the Roman, the Sassanid the Maurya and the Han .

Maybe Rhodes , Carthago , Syracuse or a reduced Roman state could fill the role

Syracuse in the time of Archimedes would be an interesting choice if possble.

Rhodes with its technological skills (Antechytera mechanism) would also be an interesting choice.
 
Top