So Veeky Forums Lets start another best Empire thread

Song got swindled by Goryeo, Choked by Jin and stomped by Mongols. Keep believing that Yuan is chinese btw.

>Judging an empire for its military might only.
You need to be over 18 to use this site, kid.

>Empire
>Not Imperial Nor August
>m-muh medieval industrialisation!

>Nah. The military was one of the most conservative institution in the empire and it stayed polytheist the longest. A pacifist religious cult that condemned violence for any reason had no real appeal to roman soldiers.
This is literally the opposite of what happened, the popularity of Christianity among the Roman soldiery is well-attested, even earlier than user said, it actually started gaining traction in the army in the second century.

Sources:

Bede, Historia Ecclesiastica, edited by Francis William Garforth, p. 42
Earle E. Cairns, Christianity Through the Centuries: A History of the Christian Church, p. 41
Bernard Green, Christianity in Ancient Rome: The First Three Centuries, p. 128
John F. Shean, Soldiering for God: Christianity and the Roman Army, p. 36

For me. it's the

Good job for not choosing the sassanids user.

>reading books written by (((historians)))
Take your propaganda elsewhere Christcuck

>>a few books written that say this that means it's true.
No.
>>Bede a biased christian historian
Also no.
>>These other authors stating a thing on a few pages as though it proves something.
Even more no.
Christianity was a pacifist religious sect and it was not popular with the Roman military, stuff like the cult of Mithras was popular though, these guys are likely confusing the christian subversion of Mithraic rituals in an attempt to gain converts with Christianity being popular with the legions.

You'll forgive me if I take the opinions of professional historians over an anonymous Veeky Forums poster

Did you get your degree in Classical Studies from Oxford or Cambridge?

>An argument

You wouldn’t want a Suiyang spam now would you user?

Professional historians are not unbiased and I genuinely don't care if you believe me or not.

I hardly need one to know the proposition being put forward is nonsensical. No soldier in their right mind is going to join a religion that forbids and condemns violence, because their entire profession is ultimately about violence or the lead up to violence.

user the First makes an unsubstantiated argument

user the Second makes an equally unsubstantiated counter-argument

user the First substantiates his initial argument with citations from accredited sources who specialise in the field of Roman religious history

user the Second continues his unsubstantiated argument, makes a complete fool of himself

>No soldier in their right mind is going to join a religion that forbids and condemns violence
But we have mountains of archaeological and textual evidence that Christianity was immensely popular with the army. What sources do you have to suggest it wasn't?

I would recommend that you read the chapter 'Early Christian attitudes to warfare' in Paul Stephenson's excellent book Constantine: Unconquered Emperor, Christian Victor (2011, Hachette UK). It does a pretty good job of explaining why Christianity appealed to the army.

I'm not saying christian soldiers didn't exist in the latter days of the empire, but rather that the miltary as whole was more polytheist then the rest of the empire even in later years. I'm also saying there were at best very few of these christian soldiers in the third century.

Christanity as a whole was a pacifist sect that condemned violence until much later then the third-century and a book about constantine, an emperor from the fourth century is not even remotely capable of disproving this.

>No soldier in their right mind is going to join a religion that forbids and condemns violence

Tell me more Prof. Brohistory.

>Christanity as a whole was a pacifist sect that condemned violence until much later then the third-century and a book about constantine, an emperor from the fourth century is not even remotely capable of disproving this.
If you would read the chapter, which discusses Christianity earlier than Constantine, you would understand why what you're saying isn't true

>>Crusaders, from over a thousand years later when the idea of a just war had been thoroughly solidified as an idea by catholic theologians
Do I really need to explain this to you? Medieval christianity was no longer pacifist.

I'm not wasting my time looking for this book when I see no reason to believe one guy over the consensus to the contrary about early christianity abhorring violence.

I know how much controversy this stirs up

>but rather that the miltary as whole was more polytheist then the rest of the empire even in later years.
But all the historical evidence we have suggests the opposite, that Christianity was disproportionately popular among the army as early as the end of the second century. Tertullian, writing in 197, observed that it seemed Christians made up almost the majority of the army. Tellingly, a few years earlier, before he had started his research on the army, he assumed as you do that Christians would never serve because of their aversion to idolatry. Novatian writing in the 250s, describes himself as being shocked at the "sheer number" of Christians serving in the army, and again repeats the charge of idolatry.

What I think proves you wrong is that these early Christian writers like Tertullian, Novatian and Cyprian never based their surprise at Christians in the army on their pacifism, but on their opposition to participation in traditional military rituals, considered by some to be Pagan. But they all note that Christians were present in the army in large numbers.

Surely you're not so stubborn that you would disagree with people who were actually there?

>>christian theologians and writers
Are terrible sources for an unbiased picture of the late roman military.

>>What I think proves you wrong is that these early Christian writers like Tertullian, Novatian and Cyprian never based their surprise at Christians in the army on their pacifism, but on their opposition to participation in traditional military rituals, considered by some to be Pagan. But they all note that Christians were present in the army in large numbers.
These writers don't know their own religion very well then, because christianity was a pacifist sect until much later then the third century and if you have roman soldiers who are supposedly christian participating in polytheist rituals in the roman army then they aren't really christians, but rather polytheists who also worship jesus or whatever in addition to other deities.

>Are terrible sources for an unbiased picture of the late roman military.
How? They didn't want Christians in the military, if they had been willing to lie about it they would've said that they didn't find any Christians in the military, rather than saying that they found an abundance of them. It's called the Criterion of Embarrassment, historical sources which present information to the reader that undermines their own position are probably telling the truth. If anything, they probably understated the amount of Christians. It's not like Christian writers were the only people who noted the unusually large proportion of the army that was Christian anyway. Everyone who wrote on the subject mentioned it. Why would Pagan writers say there was an abundance of Christians in the army if it wasn't true?

>These writers don't know their own religion very well then
Yes user, you know more about Christianity than fucking Tertullian. Jesus Christ.

You keep making these claims, that early Christianity was inerrantly pacifist and that there were very few Christians in the Roman army, but you're not offering any evidence for them. You keep saying that it should be obvious, but none of the writers, Christian or Pagan, who lived at the time agree with you.

>if you have roman soldiers who are supposedly christian participating in polytheist rituals in the roman army then they aren't really christians
Two points
1. The "polytheist rituals" mentioned are things like wearing the colour red and receiving awards after distinguishing themselves in battle. Not exactly offering a sacrifice to Mars.
2. They mostly didn't participate. They were admonished for it by their peers but usually weren't formally punished because the army was quite religiously diverse anyway.

user you should read Christians and the Roman Army A.D. 173-337 by John Helgeland. The first five pages, even. you could reach a page a minute. five minutes out of your day to see why your arguments don't hold any water.

This is literally the first Veeky Forums thread I've seen where someone has cited sources to support their argument, and it had to be arguing with a complete fucking retard who refuses to read them.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_pacifism
>>Put your sword back in its place… for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. (Matt. 26:52)
Note that this article also makes mention of this nonsense about large numbers of christians serving in the military and that too is subject to what I said above about adherence to rituals and such.

>>How? They didn't want Christians in the military, if they had been willing to lie about it they would've said that they didn't find any Christians in the military, rather than saying that they found an abundance of them
Firstly, it makes perfect sense to lie and claim that a problem is more serious then it is if you want something to be done to address that problem.

>>It's not like Christian writers were the only people who noted the unusually large proportion of the army that was Christian anyway. Everyone who wrote on the subject mentioned it. Why would Pagan writers say there was an abundance of Christians in the army if it wasn't true?
Define unusually large proportion. Furthermore, the polytheists also didn't want christians in the army so they too have reasons exaggerate the extent of the problem so that someone might do something about it.

. The "polytheist rituals" mentioned are things like wearing the colour red and receiving awards after distinguishing themselves in battle. Not exactly offering a sacrifice to Mars.
. They mostly didn't participate. They were admonished for it by their peers but usually weren't formally punished because the army was quite religiously diverse anyway.
And the source for this is again people who have every reason to lie and exaggerate for the sake of something being done to reverse the trend of polytheists who worshipped Jesus in addition to their other deities. Not saying there were absolutely no christian soldiers in the third century roman army mind you, but rather that there were a lot less of them then these particular historians would like to claim.

Here’s mine

Oh wow a wikipedia article man you sure showed him

>the trend of polytheists who worshipped Jesus in addition to their other deities
u wot m8

A wikipedia article that quotes the words of the supposedly divine figure who is central to the christian religion admonishing his followers to not engage in violence. Are going to say that "he who lives by the sword dies by the sword" is not a christian statement?

someone in this thread needs to go back to r*ddit/pol

This is precisely what happened. There was even a Roman Emperor who wanted to build a temple to Jesus at some point IIRC.

Early Christians considered serving in the Roman army to be an act of defense

To whatever extent these people existed, they were acting contrary to what their religion teaches regardless of what they personally believed.

>christianity is inherently pacifist!
>ignore the crusades, religious league war, any conflict of any sort between christians
>ignore american imperialism and americans being one of the worlds most jingoist states while being a christian nation
user.....

CAPE TO CAIRO
A
P
E

T
O

C
A
I
R
O

>they were acting contrary to what their religion teaches regardless of what they personally believed
you could say this about basically every codified religion in history at some point

Christianity doesn't completely forbid all violence in an absolutist way

Early christianity was inherently pacifist.

>>ignore the crusades, religious league war, any conflict of any sort between christians
Most of this happened after christianity wasn't pacifist anymore.

>ignore american imperialism and americans being one of the worlds most jingoist states while being a christian nation
This happened over a thousand years after christianity stopped being pacifist.

>fucktard refuses to read literally four pages of information that would defeat all of his arguments
This could've been a good thread

>Early christianity was inherently pacifist.
You keep saying that but you don't offer any evidence to support it

This thread is why Veeky Forums sucks, someone provides sources to support their claim and the other party just completely ignores them and doesn't offer any sources of their own.

reminder for us all, one of the most important attributes of a good historian is being able to take in new information, even if it contradicts one of your current beliefs on the topic.

True, but not really relevant to the idea that there were very few christian soldiers in the third-century roman army.

>>Christianity doesn't completely forbid all violence in an absolutist way
In what sense? I assure you that wars of conquest and reconquest against rival states and barbarian tribes were absolutely forbidden, and the Roman Empire was still doing these things during the third century and pretty much all the way up to the 5th century in the west and even later for the east.

No it's much better to stick to my beliefs even when they're contradicted by the research of professional historians and the observations of people who actually lived during the time period.

Ministry of Jesus

Jesus appeared to teach pacifism during his ministry when he told his disciples:[10]

You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. (Matt. 5:38-39)

Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. (Matt. 5:43-48, Luke 6:27-28)

Put your sword back in its place… for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. (Matt. 26:52)

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. (Matt. 5:9)

The words of the guy christians are supposed to worship don't count?

I already explained above why I have very good reasons to doubt these sources.

Do you not think that historians who have dedicated decades of their lives to studying this precise topic and have written hundreds of thousands of words on it are in a better place to make judgements about it than you are?

>If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
This is an instruction on how to reject servitude and force someone who comes against you to treat you as an equal, based on Jewish beliefs about the use of the right and left hands. It was probably meant as a message to Jews who were repressed by the Roman government.

In some sense, yes. But the data set they are working with is inherently flawed. When some ancient writer claims things like a "a great multitude" was this or that you have to ask, what does great multitude mean precisely since the source in question is not mentioning specific numbers. If the roman military has a whole is 5% either christian or polytheist who also worships christ, then that could very easily count as a great multitude while simultaneously being a clear and obvious minority of the roman military as a whole.

You haven't fucking read them. One of the first posts in this thread is giving you a page each from four books that showed you were wrong, and you couldn't even be bothered to engage with them. Four pages. You've probably typed more than four pages by this point.

So why don't you read the primary and secondary books that have been recommended to you instead of presuming what they're saying and then dismissing that presumption as if you've defeated their argument?

>this thread
At least I got some new books to read out of it

I don't really need to in order to counter the arguments that are being made here.

How about instead of telling me to do this or that you explain how an inherently subjective phrasing like "a great multitude" or a large number rather is somehow proof that the Roman army was majority or even plurality christian (not polytheist who also worships jesus mind you, but christian) during the 3rd century?

>Third Century Legions
>muh Lorica Segmentata
It wasn't used anymore in 3rd century ad roman returned to using Lorica hamata and lorica squamata for armor.
segmentatafaggots should get out of here.

Confederate States of America

fuck the haters

An underrated empire

It was still in use then though, they didn't just destroy all the sets of it that existed, they just stopped making new ones and the armor gradually faded out of service.

I like this one too

and that one

and this

...

Okay, here's what the archaeological record has to say

Of the memorials, tombs etc. of Scholares in the 4th and 5th centuries
15% of them have only Christian decoration
60% of them have Christian and secular decoration
8% of them have only Pagan decoration
17% of them have Pagan and secular decoration
>Total Christian: 75%
>Total Pagan: 25%

Of course the Scholae were elite troops and might not be representative of the entire army, so

Of the memorials, tombs etc. of the Auxilia in the 3rd, 4th and 5th centuries
5% of them have only Christian decoration
54% of them have Christian and secular decoration
5% of them have only Pagan deocration
33% of them have Pagan and secular decoration
3% of them have other religious trappings (eg. Zoroastrian, Germanic Pagan, etc.)
>Total Christian: 59%
>Total Pagan: 38%
>Other 3%

Of the memorials, tombs, etc. of high-ranking officers in the 3rd, 4th and 5th centuries
71% of them have Christian decoration
28% of them have Pagan decoration
1% of them have other religious trappings

Of the memorials, tombs, etc. of regular field troops in the 3rd, 4th and 5th centuries
76% of them have Christian decoration
23% of them have Pagan decoration
1% of them have other religious trappings

Of the memorials, tombs etc. of mid-ranking officers in the 3rd, 4th and 5th centuries
83% of them have Christian decoration
13% of them have Pagan decoration
4% of them have other religious trappings

Of the memorials, tombs etc. of low-ranking officers in the 3rd, 4th and 5th centuries
82% of them have Christian decoration
14% of them have Pagan decoration
4% of them have other religious trappings

Of the memorials, tombs etc. of Imperial Guardsmen (Protectores Domestici) in the 3rd century only
85% of them have Christian decoration
15% of them have Pagan decoration
None of them have other religioust trappings

>>Of the surviving memorials and tombs
Fixed. The christians were in the habit of smashing and destroying polytheist religious sites and graves after Theodosius came to power, so the discrepancy in graves/memorials etc is not surprising to me.

Rule Britannia

Why are the percentages all so similar in that case?

Similar in what sense? These numbers mention the 3rd 4th and 5th centuries together, for example. In any event the reason why they weren't as thorough as you expect is likely because Theodosious, even in the late 4th/early 5th century couldn't actually always get his rules enforced.

>What is Occam's Razor
why not just admit that the Roman army might've been more Christian than you supposed

Are any of you even trying?

>The christians were in the habit of smashing and destroying polytheist religious sites
sure
>and graves
find five examples of this happening, I'm pretty sure it didn't and you're making it up to try and save face

Because it wasn't. Not during the Third Century anyway, and the evidence in favor of this not being the case is flimsy and Theodosius really did order precisely what I said he did.

Find a rule in Roman legal record that says Pagan graves should be destroyed

Dude, every time they built over a cemetery, they were destroying it. There's a lot more then five.

Throughout the thread you've had evidence spoonfed to you from professional historians, archaeologists, contemporary Christian writers, contemporary Pagan writers, and just about every other relevant authority that's written on the subject that your initial assumptions were wrong, why are you so dead-set against the idea

It's not that he specifically said go out and destroy all the old cemeteries, it's that they were gradually destroyed and built over.

>There's a lot more then five.
then mention some

No, evidence and opinion based on biased sources were provided and I explained why those aren't reliable. Now we have people going on about the surviving cemeteries from the time while blissfully ignoring that polytheist graves and memorials were the ones most likely to be destroyed by being built over.

>DUDE THERE WERE LOADS OF EXAMPLES TRUST ME
>provides none
hmmmmmmmmmmmm

Dorothy Watts wrote a book on this. Interestingly the only evidence she could find for the building over of graves was medieval churches being built upon Roman Christian gravesites

>>describe in detail all these ancient graveyards that were built over during the passage of time
Fuck dude and you're the one telling me to read a book?

>>emperor diocletian had his remains dumped in a ditch by an angry mob of christians
>>but they totally wouldn't build over and destroy cemeteries you guiz

>Song got swindled by Goryeo
This is what gooks actually believe....

>Keep believing that Yuan is chinese btw.
It's what Kublai and his successors believed, and your little Goryeo was his vassal as well.

Think about this shit for a minute. If somebody has their house, or even worse an entire town built over an old burial site do you really think that they would just let this Watts women dig everything up without a substantial amount of money first? How many such payments could she afford exactly?

That's a pretty unreasonable request, we don't even have surviving copies of the 12 tables

The only thing shittier than Bolivia and Peru by themselves is a mix of the two.

>gets conquered by FYROM

>Koreans.
>Relevant.