4 ms·

Of course it was not a novel idea but the application of it to break a centuries long death spiral of civil war was pretty inspired. I didn't mean to imply he h

by orf 8y ago

Of course it was not a novel idea but the application of it to break a centuries long death spiral of civil war was pretty inspired. I didn't mean to imply he had the idea first! He also switched the entire persona of the Emperor from someone of the people to someone inaccessible to the common person. Again, not a unique idea, but the application came at a great time. From what I have read the Romans where pretty dismissive of so-called barbarians (anyone not within the Empire), so I'm sure some people where aware of these ideas but turned their noses up at them, so to speak.

hutzlibu 8y ago
Hm, you make it sound like it is a good idea, to establish a theokratie? Order for the empire, but death to the nonbelievers? I mean, for him as a emperor it surely paid out, but for freedom of thought, which was a thing at that time ... not so much. Dark ages followed ...
- orf 8y ago
  At the time it was the perfect anecdote to the problems facing the empire. I don't think you can judge an idea like that based on what happened after, sure it was not great after the western empire fell but that is a separate issue. That was not exactly the plan! It surely caused a much softer landing for the Empire when it did fall. And to be clear, there was no 'death to the nonbelievers'. Sure, there where sporadic religious purges as the empire transitioned to Christianity but I don't believe the empire became what we call a theokratie at any point. It was an empire spanning a huge huge area with a lot of different conflicting religions. In short, I don't think you can singly blame this decision on causing the dark ages and repressed freedom of thought. It stopped a hundred year death spiral, brought stability and did a lot of good. What really did no good was the consolidation of wealth to huge estate owners who had perverse insentives to withhold men from the armies, not pay taxes and retreat into their own little semi-kingdoms. There lies a greater blame for what happened than this decision. That and ridiculous, ridiculous amounts of corruption.
  - hutzlibu 8y ago
    "In short, I don't think you can singly blame this decision on causing the dark ages and repressed freedom of thought." I would never say that, neither that the empire under Constantin was a full theocracy with death to the nonbelievers - yet. But he set the base to it and yes, you can judge a idea to the consequences. Because he could have also went back to republic ideas to stabilize the state. Distribute power, justice system, etc. But no, they were all obsessed by the idea of becoming the ultimate ruler. And if you want to be that, than sure, the best thing is to declare yourself a god, or chosen by the allmighty god to rule. All the little semi kingdoms had the same ideas, but were just weaker, not worse nor better than the big emperor.
  - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
    As vondor pointed out above, this started with Diocletian. There was definitely a "death to the nonbelievers" in Diocletian's reign. It's just that the "nonbelievers" were Christians.
- FranzFerdiNaN 8y ago
  The “dark ages” never happened. It’s a myth invented in the Renaissance to boost their own ego.
  - hutzlibu 8y ago
    Well, I would call a time where monks controled thought based on a old book, indeed pretty dark. In the Renaissance this thought control got fought back ... an progress happened
  - waterhouse 8y ago
    An essay to the contrary: http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/10/15/were-there-dark-ages/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/10/15/were-there-dark-ages/

by orf 8y ago

hutzlibu 8y ago

Hm, you make it sound like it is a good idea, to establish a theokratie? Order for the empire, but death to the nonbelievers? I mean, for him as a emperor it surely paid out, but for freedom of thought, which was a thing at that time ... not so much. Dark ages followed ...

orf 8y ago
At the time it was the perfect anecdote to the problems facing the empire. I don't think you can judge an idea like that based on what happened after, sure it was not great after the western empire fell but that is a separate issue. That was not exactly the plan! It surely caused a much softer landing for the Empire when it did fall. And to be clear, there was no 'death to the nonbelievers'. Sure, there where sporadic religious purges as the empire transitioned to Christianity but I don't believe the empire became what we call a theokratie at any point. It was an empire spanning a huge huge area with a lot of different conflicting religions. In short, I don't think you can singly blame this decision on causing the dark ages and repressed freedom of thought. It stopped a hundred year death spiral, brought stability and did a lot of good. What really did no good was the consolidation of wealth to huge estate owners who had perverse insentives to withhold men from the armies, not pay taxes and retreat into their own little semi-kingdoms. There lies a greater blame for what happened than this decision. That and ridiculous, ridiculous amounts of corruption.
- hutzlibu 8y ago
  "In short, I don't think you can singly blame this decision on causing the dark ages and repressed freedom of thought." I would never say that, neither that the empire under Constantin was a full theocracy with death to the nonbelievers - yet. But he set the base to it and yes, you can judge a idea to the consequences. Because he could have also went back to republic ideas to stabilize the state. Distribute power, justice system, etc. But no, they were all obsessed by the idea of becoming the ultimate ruler. And if you want to be that, than sure, the best thing is to declare yourself a god, or chosen by the allmighty god to rule. All the little semi kingdoms had the same ideas, but were just weaker, not worse nor better than the big emperor.
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  As vondor pointed out above, this started with Diocletian. There was definitely a "death to the nonbelievers" in Diocletian's reign. It's just that the "nonbelievers" were Christians.
FranzFerdiNaN 8y ago
The “dark ages” never happened. It’s a myth invented in the Renaissance to boost their own ego.
- hutzlibu 8y ago
  Well, I would call a time where monks controled thought based on a old book, indeed pretty dark. In the Renaissance this thought control got fought back ... an progress happened
- waterhouse 8y ago
  An essay to the contrary: http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/10/15/were-there-dark-ages/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/10/15/were-there-dark-ages/