We are witnessing the Revival of the Roman Empire right before our eyes. If you don’t believe it, stay tuned.
This post is really about documenting the TRUTH about the Roman Empire. There is still much of true HISTORY that has not come to light. But, we have enough for you to recognize the horror and gruesome cruelty of ROME.
spacer
spacer
Rome has a glittering history. Its empire lasted for a thousand years, its great emperors are famous still today. But Rome had a bad side to it. If we could time-travel back to Rome today we would not like everything we would see.
The Romans kept slaves. All the hard work all over the empire was mostly done by slaves. They worked the farms, they cleaned the sewers, they were the servants in the wealthy houses. They belonged to their owners as though they were animals. Just like animals they could be bought and sold, punished and whipped by their masters.
Bloody Games in the Circuses
When the Romans went to the circus to watch the games, it was to view a brutal spectacle. Chariot racing was perhaps the least murderous event – although many drivers were hurt in spectacular crashes. But for more gruesome entertainment the Romans watched wild beasts tear each other apart, or gladiators fighting exotic beasts from far away countries, or gladiators fighting each other to the death.
Insane Emperors, Cruel Emperors
Also, some of their emperors were maniacs. The most famous was Nero (see Famous Romans) but there were many others. Sometimes even the good emperors needed first to be utterly brutal in order to take power. Brutality was often the order of the day. More so of course, when mad or just particularly cruel emperors came to power.
Mad emperor Caligula ordered his legions to collect shells on the beach in order to prove that he had “conquered the sea”. Nero killed his mother and his wife. And the cruel emperor Septimius Severus had the body of his dead opponent Clodius Albinus laid out before him, so that he could ride over it with his horse.
These are just some examples of Roman madness and Roman cruelty by its own emperors.
Ordered Suicides and “Proscription”
If an emperor wanted rid of a particular senator, he would simply write him a letter, ordering him to kill himself (or else he would send someone round to kill him). Emperor Nero ordered a great many such suicides.
The dictator Sulla during the time of the Roman Republic invented the “proscription”, by which he would just announce whom he wanted dead. This would be read out in public places and he then would reward anyone who would kill that particular person.
Religious Persecution
Rome was brutal in its enforcement of its religious views. Several wars were fought with the Jews in order to try and get them to accept the worship of the deceased Roman emperors as gods. The fighting was so fierce, the great city of Jerusalem was destroyed, and with it the ancient temple of Solomon was razed. Most famously, the Christians were thrown to the lions by Emperor Nero who blamed them for the Great Fire of Rome.
Later, after the empire had been christianized, the believers in the old Roman gods were equally persecuted by the Christian emperors.
And so too the various heresies (misteachings of Christianity) were persecuted violently by Roman rulers.
So what we always must keep in mind when we read about the Romans is that they were a fairly brutal and sometimes gruesome lot.
spacer
Out of the long catalog of Emperors from ancient Rome, there are those who, for one reason or another, stand out amongst their predecessors and successors. Whilst some, such as Trajan or Marcus Aurelius, have become famous for their astute ability to rule their vast domains, there are others, such as Caligula and Nero, whose names have become synonymous with debauchery and infamy, going down in history as some of the worst Roman emperors we know.
Caligula (12-41 AD)
Caligula’s Origins and Early Rule
Born on August 12 A.D, as Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, “Caligula” (meaning “little boots”) was the son of the famous Roman general Germanicus and Agrippina the Elder, who was the granddaughter of the first Roman emperor Augustus.
Whilst he apparently ruled well for the first six months of his reign, the sources suggest he subsequently fell into a permanent hysteria thereafter, characterized by depravity, debauchery, and the capricious killing of various aristocrats who surrounded him.
It is suggested that this abrupt change in behavior was brought about after Caligula believed somebody had tried to poison him in October 37 AD. Although Caligula became seriously ill from consuming an apparently tainted substance, he recovered, but according to these same accounts, he was not the same ruler as before. Instead, he became suspicious of those closest to him, ordering the execution and exile of many of his relatives.
Caligula the Maniac
This included his cousin and adopted son Tiberius Gemellus, his father-in-law Marcus Junius Silanus and brother-in-law Marcus Lepidus, all of whom were executed. He also exiled two of his sisters after scandals and apparent conspiracies against him.
Besides this seemingly insatiable desire to execute those around him, he was also infamous for having an insatiable appetite for sexual escapades. Indeed, it is reported that he effectively made the palace a brothel, replete with depraved orgies, whilst he regularly committed incest with his sisters.
Outside of such domestic scandals, Caligula is also famous for some of the erratic behavior he exhibited as emperor. On one occasion, the historian Suetonius claimed that Caligula marched a Roman army of soldiers through Gaul to the British Channel, only to tell them to pick up seashells and return back to their camp.
In a perhaps more famous example, or piece of trivia often referenced, Caligula reportedly made his horse Incitatus a senator, appointing a priest to serve him! To further aggravate the senatorial class, he also donned himself in the appearance of various gods and would present himself as a god to the public.
For such blasphemies and depravity, Caligula was assassinated by one of his praetorian guards in early 41 AD. Since then, Caligula’s reign has been reimagined in modern films, paintings, and songs as an orgy-filled time of complete depravity.
Nero (37-68 AD)
The Remorse of Emperor Nero after the Murder of his Mother by John William Waterhouse
Next is Nero, who along with Caligula has become a byword for depravity and tyranny. Like his evil brother-in-arms, he began his reign rather well, but devolved into a similar type of paranoid hysteria, compounded by a complete lack of interest in the affairs of the state.
He was born in Anzio on the 15th of December 37 AD and was descended from a noble family dating back from the Roman republic. He came to the throne in suspicious circumstances, as his uncle and predecessor, the emperor Claudius, was apparently murdered by Nero’s mother, the empress, Agrippina the Younger.
Nero and His Mother
Before Nero murdered his mother, she acted as an advisor and confidant for her son, who was only 17 or 18 when he took the throne. She was joined by the famous stoic philosopher Seneca, both of whom helped to initially steer Nero in the right direction, with judicious policies and initiatives.
Alas, things fell apart, as Nero became increasingly suspicious of his mother and eventually killed her in 59 AD after he had already poisoned his stepbrother Britannicus. He aimed to kill her via a collapsible boat, but she survived the attempt, only to be killed by one of Nero’s freedmen when she swam to shore.
Nero’s Fall
After the murder of his mother, Nero initially left much of the administration of the state to his praetorian prefect Burrus and advisor Seneca. In 62 AD Burrus died, perhaps of poison. It was not long before Nero exiled Seneca and set off on a slew of executions of prominent senators, many of whom he saw as opponents. He is also said to have killed two of his wives, one by execution, and the other by murder in the palace, apparently kicking her to death whilst pregnant with his child.
Yet, the anecdote with which Nero is perhaps best remembered is when he apparently sat watching as Rome burned, playing his fiddle when a conflagration started somewhere near the circus maximus in 64 AD. Whilst this scene was likely a complete fabrication, it reflected the underlying perception of Nero as a heartless ruler, obsessed with himself and his power, observing the burning city as though it was his play set.
Moreover, these claims of emperor-instigated arson were made because Nero commissioned the construction of an ornate “Golden Palace” for himself in the aftermath of the fire, and an elaborate reimagining of the capital city in marble (after much of it had been destroyed). Yet these initiatives bankrupted the Roman empire quickly and helped lead to revolts in the frontier provinces that promptly encouraged Nero to commit suicide in 68 AD.
Vitellius (15-69 AD)
Whilst certainly not as famous to people nowadays, Vitellius was reportedly just as sadistic and wicked as Caligula and Nero, and for much of the medieval and early modern period was the epitome of a terrible ruler. Moreover, he was one of the emperors who reigned during the “Year of the Four Emperors” in 69 AD, all of which are generally considered poor emperors.
Vitellius’s Decadence and Depravity
His primary vices, according to the historian Suetonius, were luxury and cruelty, on top of the fact he was reported to be an obese glutton. Perhaps it is darkly ironic, then, that he apparently forced his mother to starve herself until she died, in order to fulfill some prophecy that he would rule longer if his mother died first.
Moreover, we are told that he took great pleasure in torturing and executing people, particularly those of high rank (although he is also reported to have indiscriminately killed commoners as well). He also went about punishing all those who wronged him before he took charge of the empire, in grossly elaborate ways. After 8 months of such iniquity, a rebellion broke out in the east, headed by the general (and future emperor) Vespasian.
Vitellius’s Gruesome Death
In response to this threat in the east, Vitellius sent a large army to face this usurper, only for them to be decisively beaten at Bedriacum. With his defeat inevitable, Vitellius made plans to abdicate but was prevented from doing so by the praetorian guard. A bloody battle amidst the streets of Rome ensued during which he was found, dragged through the city, decapitated and his corpse thrown in the Tiber river.
Commodus (161-192 AD)
Bust of Commodus as Hercules, hence the lion skin, the club, and the golden apples of the Hesperides.
READ MORE: The Complete Roman Empire Timeline: Dates of Battles, Emperors, and Events
Commodus in Power
Like many Roman emperors on this list, he also seemed to show a lack of care or consideration for the administration of the Roman state, instead preferring to fight in gladiatorial shows and chariot races. This left him at the whim of his confidants and advisors, who manipulated him to eliminate any rivals or execute those with lavish riches that they wished to acquire.
He also began to increasingly suspect those around him of conspiracy, as various assassination attempts against him, were foiled. This included one by his sister Lucilla, who was later exiled, and her co-conspirators executed. Similar fates eventually awaited many of Commodus’s advisors, such as Cleander, who effectively took over control of the government.
Yet after several of them died or were murdered, Commodus began to take back control during the later years of his reign, after which he developed an obsession with himself as a divine ruler. He bedecked himself in golden embroidery, dressed as different gods, and even renamed the city of Rome after himself.
Finally, in late 192 AD, he was strangled to death by his wrestling partner, on the command of his wife and praetorian prefects who had grown tired of his recklessness and behavior, and afraid of his capricious paranoia.
Domitian (51-96 AD)
Like many of the Roman emperors on this list, modern historians tend to be a bit more forgiving and revisionist for figures like Domitian, who was severely rebuked by contemporaries after his death. According to them, he had carried out a series of indiscriminate executions of the senatorial class, aided and abetted by a sinister coterie of corrupt informers, known as “delators”.
Was Domitian Really So Bad?
According to the dictates of what made a good emperor, in line with senatorial accounts and their preferences, yes. This is because he made an effort to rule without the senate’s help or approval, moving the affairs of the state away from the senate house and into his own imperial palace. Unlike his father Vespasian and brother Titus who ruled before him, Domitian abandoned any pretension that he ruled by the senate’s grace and instead implemented a very authoritarian type of government, centered on himself.
After a failed rebellion in 92 AD, Domitian also reportedly carried out a campaign of executions against various senators, killing at least 20 by most accounts. Yet, outside of his treatment of the senate, Domitian seemed to rule remarkably well, with astute handling of the Roman economy, careful fortification of the empire’s borders, and scrupulous attention to the army and people.
Thus, while he seemed to have been favored by these sections of society, he was most definitely hated by the senate and aristocracy, who he seemed to despise as insignificant and unworthy of his time. On the 18th of September 96 AD, he was assassinated by a group of court officials, who apparently had been earmarked by the emperor for future execution.
Galba (3 BC-69 AD)
Turning away now from Roman emperors who were fundamentally evil, many of Rome’s worst emperors, were also those, like Galba, who were simply inept and completely unprepared for the role. Galba, like Vitellius mentioned above, was one of the four emperors who ruled or claimed to rule the Roman empire, in 69 AD. Shockingly, Galba only managed to hold onto power for 6 months, which, up to this point, was a remarkably short reign.
Why Was Galba So Unprepared and Considered One of the Worst Roman Emperors?
Coming to power after the eventually calamitous reign of Nero, Galba was the first emperor who was not officially part of the original “Julio-Claudian Dynasty” founded by the first emperor, Augustus. Before he was able to enact any laws then, his legitimacy as a ruler was already precarious. Combine this with the fact that Galba came to the throne at the age of 71, suffering from severe gout, as well as the fact that he was beset by rebellions immediately, which meant that the odds were really stacked against him.
However, his biggest flaw was the fact that he allowed himself to be bullied by a clique of advisors and praetorian prefects who pushed him towards certain actions that alienated most of society from him. This included his vast confiscation of Roman property, his disbanding of legions in Germany without pay, and his refusal to pay certain praetorian guards who had fought for his position, against an early rebellion.
It seemed that Galba thought the position of emperor itself, and the nominal backing of the senate, rather than the army, would secure his position. He was gravely mistaken, and after multiple legions to the north, in Gaul and Germany, refused to swear allegiance to him, he was killed by the praetorians who were supposed to protect him.
Honorius (384-423 AD)
Emperor Honorius by Jean-Paul Laurens
Like Galba, Honorius’s relevance to this list lies in his complete ineptitude for the role of emperor. Although he was the son of the revered emperor Theodosius the Great, Honorius’s reign was marked by chaos and weakness, as the city of Rome was sacked for the first time in 800 years, by a marauding army of Visigoths. Whilst this in itself didn’t mark the end of the Roman Empire in the west, it certainly marked a low point that accelerated its eventual fall.
How Responsible Was Honorius for the Sack of Rome in 410 AD?
To be fair to Honorius, he was only 10 when he assumed full control over the western half of the empire, with his brother Arcadius as co-emperor in control of the eastern half. As such, he was guided through his rule by the military general and advisor Stilicho, who Honorius’s father Theodosius had favored. At this time the empire was beset by continuous rebellions and invasions of barbarian troops, most notably the Visigoths who, on a number of occasions plundered their way through Italy itself.
Stilicho had managed to repel them on a few occasions but had to settle with buying them off, with a massive amount of gold (draining the region of its wealth). When Arcadius died in the east, Stilicho insisted that he should go to shore up affairs and oversee the accession of Honorius’s younger brother Theodosius II.
After consenting, the isolated Honorius, who had moved his headquarters to Ravenna (after which every emperor lived there), was convinced by a minister called Olympus that Stilicho planned to betray him. Foolishly, Honorius listened and ordered the execution of Stilicho upon his return, as well as any of those who had been supported by him or close to him.
After this, Honorius’s policy towards the Visigoth threat was capricious and inconsistent, in one instant granting the barbarians promised grants of land and gold, in the next reneging on any agreements whatsoever. Fed up with such unpredictable interactions, the Visigoths finally sacked Rome in 410 AD, after it had been intermittently under siege for more than 2 years, all the while Honorius watched on, helpless, from Ravenna.
After the fall of the eternal city, Honorius’s reign was characterized by the steady erosion of the western half of the empire, as Britain became effectively separated, to fend for itself, and rebellions by rival usurpers left Gaul and Spain essentially out of central control. In 323, having seen over such an ignominious reign, Honorius died of enema.
READ MORE: The Fall of Rome: When, Why and How Did Rome Fall?
Should We Always Believe the Presentation of the Roman Emperors in the Ancient Sources?
In a word, no. Whilst an impressively colossal amount of work has been carried out (and still is) to ascertain the reliability and accuracy of ancient sources, the contemporary accounts we have are inevitably plagued by certain problems. These include:
- The fact that most of the literary sources we have were written by senatorial or equestrian aristocrats, who shared a natural inclination to criticize the actions of emperors that did not correspond with their interests. Emperors like Caligula, Nero, or Domitian who largely disregarded the concerns of the senate, will likely have had their vices exaggerated in the sources.
- There is a noticeable bias against emperors who have just passed away, whereas those who are living are rarely criticized (at least explicitly). The existence of certain histories/accounts over others can create a bias.
- The secretive nature of the emperor’s palace and court meant that rumor and hearsay proliferated and seem to often populate the sources.
- What we have is only an incomplete history, often with some large gaps missing in various sources/writers.
In reality, this meant that their statues were defaced, their names edged out of inscriptions and their reputation associated with vice and disrepute in any later accounts. Caligula, Nero, Vitellius, and Commodus all received damnatio memoriae (along with a large host of others).
Did the Office of the Emperor Naturally Corrupt?
For some individuals, like Caligula and Commodus, it seemed as though they already showed predilections for cruelty and avarice before taking up the throne. However, the absolute power that the office endowed somebody with, naturally had its corrupting influences that could corrupt even the worthiest of souls.
Moreover, it was a position that many surrounding the emperor would envy, as well as being one of extreme pressure to placate all the elements of society. Since people could not wait for, or depend on the elections of heads of state, they had to often take matters into their own hands, through more violent means.
As mentioned about some of these figures above, many of them were the targets of failed assassination attempts, which naturally made them more paranoid and ruthless in trying to root out their opponents. In the often-arbitrary executions and “witch-hunts” that would follow, many senators and aristocrats would fall victim, earning the ire of contemporary writers and speakers.
Add to this the recurrent pressures of invasion, rebellion, and rampant inflation, it’s no surprise that certain individuals committed terrible deeds with the immense power they possessed.
spacerpacer
Rome was a society that was preoccupied with war, and the Romans were known for their military prowess. They were a well-disciplined and well-trained fighting force, and they were able to reap great rewards from their military success. However, defeats could also have a devastating impact on Rome.
Here are some other things to know about Roman warfare and culture:
-
Entertainment
The Romans enjoyed violent entertainment, such as chariot races and gladiatorial battles, in the grand stadiums built by their emperors.
-
Gladiators
Gladiators were often ex-soldiers or desperate men who signed contracts with gladiator schools to compete in violent battles for prize money and glory.
-
Battle strategy
The Romans knew the importance of charges in winning battles, and they would place their most skilled and experienced warriors in the front ranks.
-
The Battle of ActiumThis battle was a defining moment in Roman history, as it marked the end of Mark Antony’s control of the empire in the east and the beginning of Octavian’s rule. Octavian’s victory at Actium led to him becoming the first emperor of Rome, Augustus.
spacer
Why did the Romans love the wars? – Quora
spacer
A Gruesome History of Rome
The violent entertainments enjoyed by the Romans are famed throughout the world, but these were not the only gruesome feature of ancient Rome.
The Roman Empire is remembered as one of the most significant examples of the development of human civilisation. With its roads, temples, baths, and palaces it can be viewed as a time of unparalleled advancement and new, exciting pleasures. However, the reality was not so pleasant. Despite the societal development, the Romans lived in relative squalor and their favourite past times often centred around brutal violence.
Rome was built on violence
Rome’s very beginnings are rumoured to have centred around violence according to the legend of the rape of the Sabine women. When Romulus first founded Rome in the 8th-century BC, he had many followers, but most of them were men. They needed women to increase their population and so they approached the Sabines and asked to take some of their women for wives. When the Sabine men refused, the Romans knew they had to take what they wanted by force. Romulus, as an act of friendship, staged a chariot race. While the races distracted the Sabine men, Romulus’s followers abducted many of the women. According to some historians, no actual sexual assault took place but, even so, this is one gruesome way to forge an empire.
Violence as entertainment
Probably the most famous aspect of Rome’s gruesome history are the events that took place in the Circus Maximus and later in the Colosseum. Emperors built these grand stadiums to entertain the masses and keep them happy and the most popular forms of entertainment were undeniably gory.
Chariot races were one of the most popular forms of entertainment in Roman times, but they were notoriously dangerous, which added to the excitement for the crowds. Gladiatorial battles were also a big draw for audiences. Thousands of spectators would pile into the stadiums to catch a glimpse of two gladiators compete in an epic, violent battle that normally ended in death.
Romans also involved animals in the brutality, with exotic animals such as lions, tigers, and elephants being brought into the amphitheatre to either face each other or a human competitor.
The site of Circus Maximus, the first and largest stadium of ancient Rome, can still be viewed today however very little of the original structure remains. The Colosseum remains impressively intact and offers visitors a chance to step into the famous amphitheatre.
The gruesome life of the emperors
Gory violence occurred not only within the Colosseum; many emperors experienced it as a part of their everyday lives. Emperor Caligula was famed for his love of violence and disregard for human life. One story goes that as he was about to sacrifice a bull to the gods, he changed his mind at the last minute and swung a mallet at the head of the priest instead. Far from feeling bad about this, Caligula laughed at the dying priest. And when Caligula watched a battle in the stadiums, it was not only the gladiators and slaves that were at risk of death; the crowd was too. Because of a lack of slaves during one animal fight, Caligula apparently offered up a large section of the crowd to be fed to the beasts!
In 2003 the Palace of Caligula was unearthed at the Roman Forum. The emperor famously believed himself to be a god and so he attached his Temple of Caster and Pollux – a move that would have enraged many Roman citizens. Unsurprisingly, he met a gruesome end – stabbed 30 times by Praetorian guards.
Caligula is not the only emperor to experience a brutal death. Many other emperors ended their reigns after being assassinated. 5 emperors were appointed and subsequently killed in 193 AD, 6 came and went in 238 AD, and from 238-285 AD there were no less than 25 different emperors!
The difficult lives of slaves
Up to one third of Italy’s population was made up of slaves in ancient times and their lives weren’t easy. Roles could range from maids to construction workers to miners to gladiators. While gladiators may have experienced the most dramatically violent ends, even house maids could experience a brutal existence. Failure to carry out their master’s wishes appropriately could result in a thrashing and if one slave decided to kill their terrible boss, then all the slaves could be put to death, whether or not they were involved.
Developers of hygiene?
The ancient Romans are famous for developing aqueducts, baths, sewage systems and toilets, but with this technology in its infancy, the life of the citizens of Rome was far from hygienic. The sewage systems, unlike today’s, were not made to remove excrement from the streets – their main purpose was to drain water. This meant that the streets were basically a toilet, filled with parasites and disease, but the Romans were so used to it they probably didn’t see it as a problem!
Urine also had multiple uses in ancient Rome. Citizens used it to clean clothes, whiten their teeth, and to grow juicier pomegranates. And if that hasn’t shocked you, then their use of faeces as fertiliser might. Even though we use animal faeces as fertiliser today, the human excrement used by the Romans could have been so filled with disease that it spread to the plants. Not nice.
Toilets were widely developed and used during the Roman times, which you may think was a great move, however the conditions were less than hygienic. Not only did people share a cleaning sponge but the toilets could become so filled with methane that they eventually exploded!
You can discover much of this gruesome past on a visit to Rome. Though beautiful, every epic building, monument, and artefact also tells a tale of a brutal civilisation that saw bloodshed and brutality as a normal part of life.
Related article: Why do we say, When in Rome, Do as the Romans Do?
spacer
the war room
Hardouin Mansart started building the War Room in 1678. The decoration, completed by Le Brun in 1686, pays tribute to the military victories which led to the peace treaties of Nijmegen. The walls are covered with marble panels decorated with six trophies and weapons in gilded bronze. The wall adjacent to the Apollo Room bears an oval stucco bas-relief depicting Louis XIV on horseback trampling his enemies. At the top of this masterpiece by Coysevox are two sculptures of Pheme, and two captives in chains huddle beneath it.
In the innermost circle of the copula we see, in the center, a medallion with the image of Emperor Charles VI, held by Hercule and Apollo, two of Jupiter’s (Zeus’) sons. The divinities embody courage, strength, and the love of art, virtues attributed to Charles VI and that show him in the State Hall as “Hercules of the Muses”.
|
Pheme – Wikipedia |
Below, in the bas-relief in the fake fireplace, Clio, the muse of history, is recording the king’s great deeds for posterity. In the centre of the cupola ceiling is a personified depiction of France, armed and sitting on a cloud and surrounded by Victories. Her shield is decorated with a portrait of Louis XIV. Her three defeated enemies are depicted in the arches: Germany kneeling down with an eagle; Spain making threats with a roaring lion; Holland overturned on another lion. The fourth arch depicts Bellona, the goddess of war, in a rage of fury between Rebellion and Contention.
spacer
Bellona (goddess)
Bellona (IPA: [bɛlˈloːna]) was an ancient Roman goddess of war. Her main attribute is the military helmet worn on her head; she often holds a sword, spear, or shield, and brandishes a torch or whip as she rides into battle in a four-horse chariot. She had many temples throughout the Roman Empire.[1] She is known for her temple outside of Rome being the official decision making centre in regards to war and for her bloodlust and madness in battle.[2] Her iconography was extended by painters and sculptors following the Renaissance. The name of the goddess of war Bellōna stems from an earlier Duellona,[3] itself a derivative of Old Latin duellum (‘war, warfare’), which likewise turned into bellum in Classical Latin.[4] The etymology of duellum remains obscure. Linguist Georges-Jean Pinault has proposed a derivation from *duenelo- (‘quite good, quite brave’), a reconstructed diminutive of the word duenos, attested on an eponymous inscription as an early Old Latin antecedent of the word bonus (‘good’). According to linguist Michiel de Vaan, the use of *duenelo- “in the context of war (bella acta, bella gesta) could be understood as a euphemism, ultimately yielding a meaning ‘action of valour, war’ for the noun bellum.”[4] Cult, beliefs, and templesBellona was originally an ancient Sabine goddess of war identified with Nerio, the consort of the war god Mars, and later with the Greek war goddess Enyo. Her temple in Rome was dedicated in 296 BCE near the Circus Flaminius by Appius Claudius Caecus, during the war with the Etruscans and Samnites.[3] This temple was the first location to have decorative shields dedicated to mortals hung in a holy place. Appius Claudius hung the shields and dedicated them to his family.[5] Her festival was celebrated on 3 June, and her priests were known as Bellonarii and used to wound their own arms or legs as a blood sacrifice to her.[6] These rites took place on 24 March, called the day of blood (dies sanguinis), after the ceremony. In consequence of this practice, which approximated to the rites dedicated to Cybele in Asia Minor, both Enyo and Bellona became identified with her Cappadocian aspect, Ma.[7] The Roman Campus Martius area, in which Bellona’s temple was situated, had extraterritorial status. Ambassadors from foreign states, who were not allowed to enter the city proper, stayed in this complex. Since the area of the temple was outside the pomerium, the Senate met there with ambassadors and received victorious generals prior to their triumphs. Beside the temple was the war column (columna bellica), which represented non-Roman territory. To declare war on a distant state, a javelin was thrown over the column by one of the priests concerned with diplomacy (fetiales) in a modification of the archaic practice, from Roman territory toward the direction of the enemy land and this symbolical attack was considered the opening of war.[8] The first enemy declared in this fashion was Pyrrhus in 280 BC.[9] There were many people willing to assist in the upkeep and improvement of her temples and shrines.[9] In addition, they were also willing to incur the cost upon themselves.[9] Because she was widely believed to be a volatile goddess, she was rarely worshipped openly and most of her worshippers preferred to quietly assuage her.[10] Despite their subtlety, evidence of her worship can be found throughout Rome. At least seven inscriptions that are affiliated with the worship of Bellona have been found.[9] An early inscription in the Forum of Augustus harkens back to the time of the war with Pyrrhus.[9] Five of the inscriptions are found around the Aedem Bellonae (a shrine of Bellona’s) and the other two inscriptions are damaged.[9] The worship of her was not limited to Rome, however. Bellona had a temple as far north as York, England, where the church of St. Peter currently stands.[11] The worship of Bellona and beliefs about her were often gory or frightening. It was believed that when she went to war, Discordia, Strife, and the Furies would accompany her and terrify her enemies.[10] The belief in her bloodlust and madness in battle is widely accepted and is one of the more prevalent beliefs.[2] According to Ammianus Marcellinus, the Scordici people believed in the violent worship of Bellona. They were brutal and they worshipped both Mars and Bellona with savagery.[12] They would offer up human sacrifices and drink blood from the skulls of their victims.[12]
In the military cult of Bellona, she was associated with Virtus, the personification of valour. (Hmm, Virtue and Valour sounds like a cult of “Chivalry” to me. Ring any bells? lol Bellona. So in Versailles we have Chivalry, WAR and Luxury.) She then travelled outside Rome with the imperial legions and her temples have been recorded in France, Germany, Britain, and North Africa.[1] Often in poetry, the name Bellona is used simply as a synonym for war, although in the Thebaid of Statius the goddess appears as a character, representing the destructive and belligerent aspect of war. There she is described as carrying a spear and a flaming torch or riding in a chariot and waving a blood-stained sword.[13] Classical allusions to Bellona later appear in Shakespeare‘s plays in the appropriate context of warrior characters: Hotspur describes the goddess as “the fire-eyed maid of smoky war”, for example,[14] and Macbeth is referred to as “Bellona’s bridegroom”,[15] that is to say, the equivalent of Mars. Bellona is commonly portrayed wearing a plumed helmet and dressed in armour, or at least a breastplate with a skirt beneath. In her hand she carries a spear, shield, or other weapons, and occasionally, she sounds a trumpet for the attack. Anciently, she was associated with the winged Victory, holding a laurel crown in her hand, a statue of whom she sometimes carries; when she appears on war memorials she may hold that attribute. Examples of such an armoured figure appear in the 1633 painting attributed to Rembrandt in the Metropolitan Museum of Art,[22] and statues by Johann Baptist Straub (1770) and Johann Wilhelm Beyer (1773–80). In the latter, she appears with the god Janus, since both were associated with the Roman ceremonies of declaring war. In the case of Janus, the doors to his temple were left open during the whole period of hostilities. Straub’s statue (below) has a gorgon head on her shield to instil terror in her enemies,,,  Another common innovation was Bellona’s association with cannons, as in the drawing by Hans Krieg (1590–1645) [25] and the 1700 ceiling fresco at Hammerschloss Schmidmühlen by Hans Georg Asam (1649–1711).[26] An early Dutch engraving in a series of prints depicting Personifications of Industrial and Professional Life suggests that it is this goddess who inspires the invention of war materiels, showing her seated in a factory workshop with all manner of arms at her feet (plate 6, see the Gallery below). In the fresco by Constantino Brumidi in the U.S. Capitol (1855–60), her image is updated. There she is shown standing next to an artillery piece and has the stars and stripes on her shield. Public statements As well as having a decorative function, representations of the goddess had a public function too. Batholomaeus Spranger’s “Bellona Leading the Imperial Armies against the Turks” played its part in Austria’s anti-Turkish propaganda during the Long Turkish War. A later phase of the continuing conflict, culminating in victory at the battle of Zenta in 1697, is marked by Jean Cosyn’s celebratory doorway in Brussels in what now is known as the Maison de Bellone, at the centre of which presides the helmeted bust of the goddess surrounded by military standards and cannons.[31] A dynastic political statement is made in “Marie de Medici as Bellona” (1622/5), designed by Peter Paul Rubens for her public rooms in the Luxembourg Palace. He represents her there as a wielder of political power at a time when it, in fact, had waned.[32] She is standing with armour, cannons, and muskets at her feet, and her triumphs are underlined by emblems of victory. She carries a small statue of the winged goddess (Nike) in her right hand, a smaller winged figure is mounted below the plumes of her helmet, while cupids hover above her, holding a laurel crown. Her portrayal contrasts with Rembrandt’s depiction of Bellona with the homely features of an ordinary Dutchwoman. This makes an anti-imperial statement, with the assurance that the new Dutch Republic is ready to defend itself, particularly against Spain, during the Thirty Years’ War.[23] The Bellona on the First World War victory archway at Waterloo station is particularly memorable, however. Beneath the demonic sword-brandishing wraith with her gorgon necklace, cower and mourn, not the dead, but the overlooked living victims of war.[41]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
spacer
The Roman goddess of war, Bellona, was worshiped in a number of ways, including:
-
Temple
Bellona was worshiped in a temple located in the Campus Martius, or Field of Mars, outside of the city gates. The temple was near the Circus Flaminius and the temple of Apollo.
-
Columna Bellica
A stone slab outside the temple where war declarations were made. The fetiales, a group of priestly officials, would declare war by throwing a spear from the column towards Rome’s enemies.
-
Festivals
Bellona was often worshiped at festivals like the Feriae and the spring equinox.
Sacrifices were a common part of the ancient Roman festival days known as feriae, when the gods were honored and business was suspended:
- Feriae Latinae: This festival was dedicated to the Roman god Saturn and included the sacrifice of a white heifer that had never been yoked. The delegates of the league communities would consume the flesh of the heifer.
- Suovetaurilia: This was a triple offering of a pig, ram, and bull to Mars.
- October Horse: This was the only known horse sacrifice in ancient Rome.
Other aspects of feriae included:
- Prayers: People would visit temples to pray and offer sacrifices.
- Feasts: Feriae stativae and feriae conceptivae often included feasts.
- Entertainment: Games, athletic competitions, races, feats of strength, combat, music, performances, and theatrics were common.
- State sponsorship: The state would often sponsor larger feriae so that all could participate.
The Romans believed that regular and correct rituals were necessary to maintain the favor of the gods -
Sacrifices
Bellona’s priests, the Bellonarii, would wound themselves and offer their blood or drink it to become inspired for war. This sacrifice took place on March 24, which was called dies sanguinis.
-
Beliefs
Bellona was associated with bloodshed, violence, and rage. It was believed that she was accompanied by Strife, Discordia, and the Furies when she went to war.
-
Names
Bellona was also known as Duellona, which emphasized her association with duels and battles, and Bellatrix, which signified her as a fierce warrior.
spacer
2.21M subscribers
spacer
While the Roman Empire officially condemned human sacrifice and considered it a barbaric practice, historical accounts suggest that some forms of ritual killing, particularly burying individuals alive during times of crisis, may have occurred in ancient Rome, although this practice was outlawed by a senatorial decree in 97 BCE, making it extremely rare by that time;.
-
Officially condemned:Romans generally viewed human sacrifice as a practice of “barbarian” cultures and actively denounced it.
-
Senatorial decree:A decree in 97 BCE under Pliny the Elder officially abolished human sacrifice in Rome.
-
Distinction between sacrifice and ritual killing:While Romans considered burying someone alive as a form of human sacrifice, other ritual killings like the burial of unchaste Vestal Virgins were not viewed as such.
-
Possible exceptions in crisis situations:Some historical accounts suggest that during times of extreme panic or threat, Romans might have resorted to ritualistic human sacrifice to appease the gods.
spacer
Homicide and Roman Superiority
ABSTRACT
Dawn F Carver, Jasmine Watson, Jason Curtiss Jr.
CC-BY Dawn F Carver, Jasmine Watson, Jason Curtiss Jr. Published by the Colorado State University Library, Pueblo, CO, 81001.
The ancient Romans outlawed human sacrifice in 97 BCE after increasing discomfort with the practice, but ritual killing still occurred because it was justified in a way that preserved Roman superiority.
The ancient Romans interpreted the favor of the gods as justification to perform ritual killings. This paper explains the difference between human sacrifice and ritual killing using a wide collection of primary source documents to explain how the Romans felt that their superiority depended on the continued practice of ritual killing. The ancient Romans had to differentiate between ritual killings and human sacrifice to maintain their superiority over other societies, but to maintain the favor of the many Roman gods, they needed to perform ritual killings.
EL RIO: A STUDENT RESEARCH JOURNAL
HUMANITIES
3 SPRING 2018
Colorado State University-Pueblo
If the killing was kept away from Roman citizens or they were killed according to the edicts of the gods, then the Romans were technically not engaging in the barbaric practice of human sacrifice.
Celia Schultz, professor of Classical Studies at the University of Michigan, has a similar definition for sacrifice requiring both a religious link and a human death but notes that sacrifice must have an intended recipient.
Schultz’s definition coincides with the distinction the Romans make between sacrifice and ritual killing. They sacrificed people in a way that tried to encompass a large range of gods and goddesses to get the optimal outcome. The Romans strove to please all of their gods in order to avoid paying for a snub with a particularly harsh winter or bad luck.
The Roman sense of pride associated with the citizen identity developed over time. Romans were favored by the gods and therefore were better than everyone else. This prized position with the gods influenced the Romans’ willingness to accept human sacrifice as a violent necessity and moved to a more reserved state, banning human sacrifice, but allowing ritual killing. Carl Pfluger, author of The Hudson Review, talks about the difference in sacrifice throughout time. He mentions the erasing of human sacrifice from history in multiple cultures. Historic incidences of human sacrifice were manipulated into less violent lights or were portrayed as horrible acts that new generations had the sense to ban or just remove from the record altogether.
The Senate would choose which new religions were accepted. Religions accepted into the pantheon would reflect on the Roman Empire. S arolta Takács studied the origins of Roman religion and had this to say:
Rome was founded by auspicy and augury and its inhabitants thought themselves the most religious people. The well-being of the state [Rome] depended upon discipline and religion (i.e., the performance of cultic rituals). The ever-increasing success of the empire gave proof that the gods, as petitioned through religious observance, were on Rome’s side.
The Romans killed in specific circumstances. Many documents mention a prodigy, which was
a supernatural sign from the gods that they were displeased. Wanting to mend their tainted relationship with the gods, the Romans would search for unnatural phenomena that would be the reason for the gods’ anger. The ancient historian Livy (59 BCE–17 CE), mentioned a series of prodigies or unnatural events that occurred in Rome. The events started with rocks falling from the sky, lightning striking a temple, a river of blood, a wolf attack in the city, and culminates with a deformed infant being born in Rome around 207 BCE. Livy wrote:
There had been born a child as large as a four-year-old . . . it was uncertain whether male or female. Soothsayers summoned from Etruria said it was a terrible and loathsome portent; it must be removed from Roman territory, far from contact with earth, and drowned in the sea.
The Romans became involved in the case of the Vestal Virgins as well, when the relationship between the Romans and the gods was once again put in jeopardy. The Vestal Virgins posed a different challenge to the Romans. Where the deformed children could be dealt with as non-Roman, the Vestals were the pride of Rome. The ritual sacrifice of a Vestal Virgin had to be handled in a very different way.
There were severe punishments for Vestal Virgins who dishonored their vows. If a Vestal Virgin was deemed unchaste she was interred in an underground cell, but because the Romans did not allow burials within the city, the Vestal Virgins were given water and bread. This interment shows that the Romans attempted to avoid what they considered human sacrifice, because they gave the Virgins rations to live for a short time, but with the interment, their lives rested in the hands of Vesta. When the Vestal Virgins violated their vows to Vesta, the Romans had to act to keep Rome in Vesta’s favor. Violating the Vestal vows was dangerous to Rome due to the possibility of losing the favor of Vesta which would affect the Roman view of their own superiority based on their good relationship with the gods. Although the Romans did punish the Vestal Virgins for breaking their vows, there is an example of the Romans punishing two Vestal Virgins following the disastrous Battle of Cannae.
Livy notes in his History of Rome, that after Cannae, the Romans were alarmed which led to two Vestal Virgins being found guilty of being unchaste. One was buried alive, and the other committed suicide before she could be interred. Punishing of the Vestal Virgins was not entirely because of their breaking of their vows, but because the Romans experienced a disastrous loss at the Battle of Cannae. The breaking of their oaths must have meant, to the Romans, that the gods were angry and required payment, in lives, to avoid another disaster. In this same passage, Livy wrote that the Romans would bury Gauls and Greeks alive as well.
Before 97 BCE and the outlawing of human sacrifice, there are three known dates with live burials of Gauls and Greeks: 228, 216, and 114 BCE. The live burials occurred in the Forum Boarium, which is also where the gladiatorial games would have their start. Celia E. Shultz, writes that for these live burials the Romans would consult the Sibylline books, which were books of prophecies dating back to the Romans’ distant past. By consulting religious books, the Romans were looking for divine guidance to maintain their favor with the Gods.The true reason for why the burials occurred has not been completely unraveled, but according to author and historian, Zsuzsanna Varhelyi, a parallel may be drawn between the live burials and the Cyrene ritual. The Cyrene ritual involved an open pit where objects were thrown over a number of days, and when the pit was closed so was the past. If the Cyrene ritual and the live burials of Gauls and Greeks are indeed a parallel, then the Romans used the live burials as a way to close the past. As is an indication of the burials in 216 BCE, when Hannibal defeated the Romans at Cannae, the Romans consulted the Sibylline books and buried a pair of Gauls and Greeks. Although the live burials of 216 BCE were related to war, the other known dates do not offer such evidence, so the purpose of the burials does not seem to be related to war, but rather as way for the Romans to kill the past and move on.
sacrifice, while people in the Roman periphery were continuing to practice human sacrifice. The Romans went as far as forbidding them from participating in human sacrifice. In his Quaestiones Romanae, Plutarch questions why Rome involved itself in stopping the Bletonesii from partaking in human sacrifice when Rome had just buried Gauls and Greeks alive. The link between this incident with Bletonesii and the outlawing of human sacrifice lies with the location of the Bletonesii. The Bletonesii were an Iberian tribe located in Spain, which is also where Publius Licinius Crassus would become governor in 96 BCE, the same consul who issued the decree forbidding human sacrifice. Although there is no certainty that the Bletonesii incident was the reason for outlawing human sacrifice it happened close enough to the decree that it probably influenced it.
According to the Roman historian, Livy, who based his account of the incident on information
gleaned from a young freed woman named Hispala, the Cult of Bacchus had become a den of debauchery and ill intent. Hispala claimed that for many initiates, the process of initiation became a life and death battle that ended in either defilement or death.
There were more lustful practices among men with one another than among women. If any of them were disinclined to endure abuse or reluctant to commit crime, they were sacrificed as victims. To consider nothing wrong, she continued, was the highest form of religious devotion among them.
Religion for the Romans was a contractual relationship with their gods that required the giving of something of value when asking for divine help or special favor. If ritual killing was the price for violating vows, then what vows did the Bacchus initiates violate? Livy states that the initiates had repeated the “prescribed form of imprecation which pledged them to every form of wickedness and impurity.” Presumably the Bacchus initiates were agreeing to do everything the cult asked them to do. By refusing “to endure abuse or be reluctant to commit crime…they were sacrificed as victims,” would be a just way to rectify the violated contractual agreement made to Bacchus. This was similar to the way disgraced Vestal Virgins who had violated their
vows of chastity were sentenced to ritual death by internment. The Vestal Virgins had broken a contractual agreement with Vesta, and for the good of Rome the contractual balance had to be restored by ritually killing those who had broken their vows.
Because of the violated vows, the leaders of the Bacchus cult were justified in performing ritual homicide as a means of maintaining the favored status of the gods. This justification would explain why the Senate did not react to the ritual murders said to be performed by the Bacchus cult while debauchery and bearing false witness brought such a large Senatorial response. This contractual relationship made the violation of vows a serious matter putting the cult and Rome at risk with Bacchus. Ritually killing those who violated their vows to Bacchus was the only way for the cult to restore the contractual balance. The chronicling of the Bacchanalian incident by Livy exposed the relationship cult members had with Bacchus and the seriousness with which the violation of vows made to Bacchus were taken. The severe Senatorial response to the cult further illustrates the importance of Roman superiority expressed through the discomfort with the acceptance of ritual killing.
Sarolta Takács, argues that the Senate acted in the Bacchus incident not because of the murders
of families or ritual killings, but because the cult was taking the place of the traditional father figure. Young men were being initiated into the cult by their mothers, in direct conflict with the paternal Roman power structure where fathers held ultimate power over their children.
In a speech to the Senate, Consul Postumius demonstrated the true outrage the Bacchanalian
incident caused the Romans; young men were becoming unworthy in the eyes of the Roman government, to protect Roman women and children due to the debaucheries they performed in the cult.
Bacchus cult posed to the view of Roman superiority. The executions of the cult members could be seen as ritual killings, but instead of deformed infants, this time it was of deformed adults who lacked the characteristics that made the Romans superior to others. The only way to maintain superiority was to dispose of those who were not ideal Romans through the state’s version of ritual murder: execution.
The gods occupied a unique place in Roman society which gave the Romans the divine authority to rule over others. With the approval of the gods, the Romans viewed themselves as superior to other people and, to maintain that superiority, the Romans had to mark themselves as more civilized than those other people. In 97 BCE, the Romans officially outlawed human sacrifice, but they went to great lengths to justify ritual killing by differentiating it from sacrifice. In each case, the Romans had a justification that preserved their superiority.
-
OriginsThe practice of crucifixion likely originated with the Assyrians and Babylonians. The Persians used it systematically in the 6th century BC, and Alexander the Great brought it to the eastern Mediterranean in the 4th century BC. The Phoenicians introduced it to Rome in the 3rd century BC.
-
Roman useThe Romans refined crucifixion for 500 years, and it was considered one of the most brutal and shameful ways to die. The Romans reserved it for the worst offenders, such as slaves, disgraced soldiers, Christians, and foreigners.
-
Roman executionCrucifixions were carried out in public to deter others from crossing the Roman government. The bodies were left on the crosses until they decomposed or were eaten by wild animals.
-
Cultural powerThe Romans were aware of the cultural power of crucifixion. For example, when Julius Caesar was kidnapped by pirates, he told them he would live to see them crucified.
-
AbolishedConstantine I abolished crucifixion in the 4th century AD.
-
Ideological conflictChristianity’s beliefs conflicted with the Roman Empire’s imperial cult and polytheistic religion. Christians did not worship the Roman gods or the emperor, who was considered quasi-divine.
-
Social tensionChristians did not participate in Roman state-sponsored feasts and celebrations (which was mandated), which caused tension with other Romans.
-
Threat to social orderChristians’ beliefs in equality threatened the Roman social order, which was hierarchical.
-
ScapegoatingChristians were easy targets for emperors and were often used as scapegoats. For example, after a fire destroyed much of Rome in 64 CE, Emperor Nero blamed Christians for the fire and killed a large number of them.
069: HOW EMPEROR CONSTANTINE CORRUPTED CHRISTIANITY
“Welcome to Zingcreed, the Christian/Atheist blog where there are no banned thoughts. In this personal polemic, I think aloud about religion and life. I hope you get something from it!” Peter Turner, M.A. M.Sc.
The fourth century Roman Emperor, Constantine the First, was not a Christian, far from it; he worshipped the pagan sun god Mithras. How he came to effectively take over the early followers of Christ and point their church in a totally different direction to that in which it had been travelling is quite a story. It shows the church up as a human institution like any other: looking to survive and increase its fan-base at all costs, even though it meant compromising its principles and selling its soul to the devil.
Constantine destroyed early Christianity of the sort we read about in Acts and the church fathers. In exchange for their support he offered them tax breaks, imperial protection and more in a package the persecuted church hierarchy could not resist. Like the Mafia he made them an offer they couldn’t refuse! Although it was a total betrayal of what Jesus stood for, it could be argued that if they hadn’t caved in, the church would not have survived at all! His influence is still pervasive today. The only Christians to opt out of his brave new church were the persecuted minority sects like the Hussites and the Anabaptists a thousand years later which I have described in some of my “Red Christians” blogs. Leo Tolstoy pointed out the corruption of the mainstream faith in his later writings, and showed a way back to the original message.
So what was the church like before Constantine’s intervention?
- the church did not support the state
- Christians were generally persecuted and excluded from public affairs
- though some Christians were in the Roman army, the church advocated pacifism and was a force for peace
- the church was heavily taxed and received no state funds
So what happened?
Constantine’s dream
In 312 C.E., Constantine was about to fight the Battle of Milvian Bridge (over the River Tiber which flows through Rome). The empire was run as two separate halves, and while Licinius was installed as the Emperor of the eastern half, a rival contender Maxentius had to be defeated if Constantine was to headup the western half. Like his rival, Constantine believed in omens and black magic. In a dream, he saw Jesus who told him to carry the sign of the cross into battle. (A generation earlier this would have been outrageous to Romans and blasphemous to Christians.) The cross was duly painted on all his troops’ shields and banners. This may have been the traditional + sign, or more likely the greek letter Χ (chi) the first letter of the word “Christ” in Greek. Most Christians at that time used the symbol of the fish rather than the cross anyway.
Before the battle, Constantine had a second vision; he saw a flaming cross in the sky and the latin words “In hoc signo vinces” (In this sign you shall conquer) – a contradiction of Christianity and unutterable by Jesus himself.
He won and became emperor of the western half of the Roman empire. Henceforth:
- persecution and taxation of the church stopped. With fellow emperor Licinius he issued the Edict of Milan which legalised Christianity, without making it the official state religion
- he promoted christianity and used it to solidify his power, using state funds to establish and control the clergy
- the church became a major force in everyone’s daily life
- the church now supported the state and its wars. God now sanctioned killing! God took sides to help one band of killers triumph over an other, as the church prayed for victory
- conscientious objectors were excommunicated
- the prayer day of Mithras (sunday) was declared the official day of prayer and rest for the whole empire
- he built the church’s 3 greatest centres of pilgrimage which still stand to this day: St Peter’s in Rome, Hagia Sophia in Constantinople and the church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem.
His mother, the Empress Helena, went to the Holy land where she claimed to discover relics of the true cross buried at Calvary. The cross came to replace the fish as the symbol of the religion.
Consider in conclusion the words of two men, the first a Mexican Liberation Theologian and sociologist, the second a leading French communist:
“It is …necessary to approach the image of Christ as a ‘protestor’, a ‘subverter of the economic and political order’, a ‘political liberator.’ Indeed these are the traits that are most fascinating for the so-called implicit Christians of today, or at least for those men and women who, though outside the visible boundaries of the churches, are committed to liberation and feel somehow near to Christ and Christians, as witness Roger Garaudy:
‘You concealers of the great hope of which Constantine robbed us, give it back! His (i.e. Jesus’s – P.T.) life and death are ours too! They belong to all of us for whom they have meaning – to all of us who have learned from him that the human being has been created a creator.’ ” (iv) (v)
Sources:
(i) Kurlansky, Mark “Non-violence. The history of a dangerous idea” Vintage (2006)
(ii) Murray Stuart “The naked Anabaptist. The bare essentials of a radical faith” Paternoster (2011)
(iii) Stephenson, P. “Constantine. Unconquered emperor. Christian Victor” Quercus (2009)
(iv) Vidales, Raúl “How should we speak of Christ today?” in “Faces of Jesus. Latin American christologies” ed J. Bonino Orbis (1977)
(v) Garaudy, Roger ‘Le Monde’ (Paris) 25/12/1969 p.7
Also probably worth reading:-
Carroll, J. “Constantine’s Sword” Houghton Mifflin (2001)
Frend, W.H.C. “The rise of Christianity” Fortress (1984)
spacer
Crucifixion in the Roman World: Ideology Behind the Brutal Practice
Recently, I found myself in the company of several people. At one moment the discussion moved toward the question of crucifixes in schools and other public buildings. Should we allow crucifixes to be hung in public school classrooms or other public buildings? Is that a breach of secularism? Does that negate the separation of church and state? While they were at each other’s throats arguing for and against, I started thinking about the cross as a symbol. Today, the cross symbolizes Jesus, Christianity, and the victory of life over death. On the cross, according to Christian belief, the Son of God died so that others could live. However, all symbols gain meaning in context. In the pre-Christian era, the cross was understood in a completely different way. In this post, I would like to present the cross as a tool of unimaginable suffering and humiliation because, in the Roman world, it was precisely that!
CRUCIFIXION IN THE ROMAN WORLD: A PAINFUL AND HUMILIATING PUNISHMENT
The Appian Way was one of the first great Roman roads. If you were one of the thousands of people to walk this road in 73 BCE, you might have seen a truly horrific sight. Around 6 000 people were suspended from crosses lining either side of the road. The very public fate of these poor souls was a warning for everyone to see. The dead and dying were rebellious slaves from Spartacus’ revolt. As traitors, the Roman state elected to punish them with their harshest method of execution: crucifixion. The message was plain and simple: This is the fate that waits for all who would dare to defy Roman power. The horrendous spectacle would not end after their death. The bodies were left posted on the crosses until they fully decomposed or were entirely consumed by wild beasts. For months one of the busiest streets in the Roman Empire was a highway of death and suffering. The message that the death spoke at the Appian Way was evidently taken to heart as there was never another slave revolt anywhere near the scale of Spartacus’ rebellion. Rome had achieved peace through brutality. Romans didn’t invent the crucifixion. The practice came to them from Carthaginians, but its origins seemed to run back to the Assyrian Empire of the Bronze Age! Despite the antiquity of the practice, people today tend to associate it with Rome more than any other civilization because of how eagerly the Romans embraced the practice. Romans themselves were fully aware of the cultural power of crucifixion. When a young Julius Caesar was kidnapped and ransomed by Pirates, he told them that he would live to see them crucified. The source reports that the Pirates laughed at the audacity of this young man. However, Caesar wasn’t kidding. He did indeed live to see all of the Pirates killed. But they were not crucified. Why? After having spent so much time among them, they became too human in Caesar’s eyes and he couldn’t even accept the thought of them suspended from crosses for days and weeks with insects and birds picking away at their bodies. He opted for the relatively more “human” execution by slit throat. Caesar’s decision makes it clear that the Romans knew crucifixion really was that bad. Cicero was so afraid of the practice that he didn’t even want to think about it. So, he wrote in the 1st century BCE: Let the very word ‘cross’ be far removed from not only the bodies of Roman citizens, but even from their thoughts, their eyes, and their ears. Cicero’s words represent a notable pattern in Roman literature marked by the avoidance of the topic! The same people who would visit gladiator shows and dangerous chariot races avoided even speaking about the crucifixion. It was truly the worse phenomenon in the Roman world. And they knew it!
It is not surprising that our best sources about the practice come from non-Romans like Josephus and the authors of the Gospels. For the condemned crucifixion must have been agony. However, we have to bear in mind that the practice was not just about execution. After all, there are much quicker ways to kill somebody. Crucifixion was, first and foremost, a weapon of psychological warfare and a tool of propaganda. It was a means of enforcing the domination of Rome’s ruling class and their ideology. The crucifixion broadcasted the impunity of the Romans while reminding the subjects of their second-class status and perpetual vulnerability. In fact, Roman citizens were legally protected from crucifixion until the 2nd century CE! The practice of crucifixion was most widespread between the 1st century BCE and 1st CE – a period that notably includes the life of Jesus of Nazareth. Moreover, Romans embraced (like almost all ancient civilizations) the idea of collective punishment. In other words, they didn’t always try to establish the individual guilt of those who would be crucified. Indiscriminate execution of family, associates, friends, and even bystanders happened with some regularity. Josephus, for example, informs us that Romans crucified anyone who happened to live in a rebellious province. Consequently, crucifixion was an instrument of terror designed to cow a population into submission because for all they knew, even if they never picked up a weapon, they could be the next to die in agonizing fashion if anyone else did. In a nutshell, this was a broad overview of the social and political context of crucifixion. How did the actual process itself look? What did it include?
Crucifixion in Detail: What did the crucifixion process look like?
Crucifixion ended on a cross, but it sure didn’t begin there. First, on the morning of the execution, the condemned individual would be stripped naked and scourged. He would be whipped across the back and chest with a multi-ended leather whip called flagellum (see the picture below!).
Depending on the force used by the executioner, scourging could remove significant amounts of flesh and sometimes kill the individual even before the cross. After that, the condemned was driven naked through the city and forced to carry the heavy cross to the place of execution. Meanwhile, he would be whipped and pelted with stones from the cheering crowd! Romans wanted as many people as possible to see the dehumanized victim to maximize humiliation. Eventually, the condemned was led to a prominent public location. In Jerusalem, it was a hill outside of the city called Golgotha (Γολγοθᾶ). Finally, the condemned would be attached to the Cross by nails or rope. There are scholarly debates about how often nails were used because iron was expensive and few iron remains of crucifixion have been discovered by archaeologists. However, most evidence suggests that nails were used more often than you would think. One nail through the overlapping feet and a nail through each wrist between the bones of the forearm. Unlike the common depiction, a crucified person would not have typically had nails through the palms of the hands because the tissue and bones of the hands are too weak to support the weight of an adult. None of this could have been accomplished easily or quickly. Driving a nail through flesh and bones would have taken repeated swings of the hammer. The process would have been slow, clumsy, and agonizing. For the victim, of course. With the victim affixed to the cross, crucifixion entered its final stage when the victim would be left to die slowly over a period of several days. The physical pain during this process would have been unimaginable as the entire weight of the exhausted individual pulled on the nails or ropes that bound them to the cross causing excruciating pain in the arms, legs, and torso. Not only were they subjected to the elements such as the sun, rain, and wind, but each individual breath was sheer agony. To allow a full inhalation, victims had to raise themselves up against the beam of the cross increasing pressure against their ropes or nails thus scraping the bare flesh of their flayed back against the wood of the cross. By the time thirst and hunger set in, the victim had doubtlessly long been wishing for death. But that could still be days away. The process pushed the human body to the bring meaning that the causes of death among crucifixion victims could vary widely. Some died due to blood loss from the scourging. It was a common killer and may have been the ultimate cause of Jesus’ death as he died after only several hours on the cross. Others died of asphyxiation due to the difficulty of inhaling while suspended. Some even perished due to the buildup of carbon dioxide in the blood from an inability to properly exhale. The unimaginable stress that this process placed on the body was such that it could and at least once did prove fatal even to a person who’d been taken down from the cross alive. Josephus reports that he was once able to convince Emperor Titus to free three men who had been crucified, but two of them eventually died from their wounds. The crucifixion was designed to last for as long as possible, but if the Romans wanted to grant a degree of mercy, they would break the legs making it impossible for a victim to breathe. That would result in a much faster death. Despite the disdain of aristocrats like Cicero, there was never a social movement to abolish the practice. Romans believed that the crucifixion was indispensable because of its effectiveness as a tool for social control that served the interests of the ruling class. The crucifixion would ultimately be stamped out entirely by the first Christian emperor Constantine (4th century CE). He replaced it as a form of capital punishment with hanging by the neck.
In the end, the memory of one victim of crucifixion changed the moral arc of an entire Empire. Knowing all that we know about the practice of crucifixion, I believe that Christianity, if it is true, is the most amazing religion in the history of mankind. The astonishing idea of a God who gave his Son to be crucified and killed in such a humiliating and painful way is, in my humble opinion, absolutely amazing. It is the ultimate expression of unconditional love. If, on the other hand, Christianity is not true, then the crucifixion of Jesus could be historically placed among thousands of other unfortunate victims who felt the cruelest element of the Roman civilization on their skin.
The Colosseum in Rome, Italy is still being restored, with plans to add a retractable floor and restore the underground area:
-
Retractable floor
The Colosseum is planning to install a retractable wooden floor that will allow visitors to stand in the center of the arena. The floor will also feature replicas of mechanical elements used in Roman times, such as trapdoors and lifts. The project is reversible, so the floor can be removed if plans change.
-
Underground area
The Colosseum’s underground area, known as the hypogea, was restored in 2021. The hypogea includes underground passages, cages, and rooms where prisoners, animals, and gladiators were kept. The restoration included a 160-meter walkway that allows visitors to explore the hypogea for the first time.
-
Other restorationThe Colosseum’s exterior facade was restored in 2016. The restoration also included cleaning the exterior of the structure and fixing fractures.
spacer
The Rebuilding of the Colosseum is the Pioneering of Public Private partnership. When businesses leaders and Government entities unite the wonders of the world can be saved! (According to the Narrator)
355 subscribers
space
Rome’s Colosseum revives animal lift
528K subscribers
spacer
1,500 Years Later, Killer Animal Elevator Returns to Colosseum
The Colosseum was not only ancient Rome’s largest amphitheater, it was perhaps the empire’s goriest slaughterhouse. For approximately 450 years after its completion in A.D. 80, the Colosseum—officially known as the Flavian Amphitheatre—hosted Roman blood sports such as gladiators fighting to the death, crucifixions and even mock sea battles in which hundreds of prisoners of war were killed or drowned.
Another popular Roman pastime was to release wild animals into the Colosseum to fight with each other or human combatants in front of 50,000 cheering fans. Specially trained warriors known as “venatores” and “bestiarii” staged elaborate hunts of a menagerie of exotic beasts culled from the far ends of the Roman Empire such as lions, tigers, panthers, bears, wolves, boars, crocodiles and even elephants captured in north Africa. Sometimes Roman authorities released the snarling animals into the arena to render capital punishment by mauling and eating criminals and prisoners of war tied to stakes in what was called “damnatio ad bestias” (“condemnation to beasts”).
1st century A.D. mosaic depicting “bestiarii.”
Scholars believe hundreds of thousands of animals were sacrificed to quench the blood thirst of Roman audiences. According to one contemporary account, 9,000 animals were slaughtered during the 100-day festivities ordered by Emperor Titus to mark the opening of the Colosseum.
The Romans caged the fierce animals inside the Colosseum’s torch-lit labyrinth of chambers and passageways, known as the hypogeum, underneath the arena’s wooden floor, which was covered with sand to soak up the blood of combatants. A sophisticated system of 28 lifts, powered by slaves, hoisted the caged animals 24 feet up to the Colosseum’s floor where the lid of the cage and a trap door opened simultaneously to allow the animal to run up a ramp into the amphitheater to the roar of the crowd. When closed, the trap door could support the weight of gladiators and animals above. In addition to wild animals, the elevators could have been used to lift props and pieces of scenery for Roman productions.
The functional elevator lift system on display at the Colosseum.
spacer
Last Friday, Italian officials unveiled an exact replica of one of the elaborately engineered contraptions that released the wild animals into the amphitheater. The replica, constructed by the producers of the documentary “Colosseum: Roman Death Trap,” was based on the research of archaeologists who studied the Colosseum’s construction and the deep cuts and rope marks that still remain in the hypogeum. The project team harvested timber from the mountains outside Rome using the same tools employed by the ancient Romans such as an axe, two-man saw and wedge. The wooden lift and trap door were constructed in a workshop and transported to the Colosseum. Since the ancient arena is protected as a World Heritage site, the system was pre-assembled outside of the Colosseum and dropped into place as a self-contained unit by an enormous crane that lifted it over the amphitheater’s exterior walls and delicately placed it on the hypogeum floor.
The elevator system is powered by eight men on two decks who turn a huge wooden shaft connected by a series of ropes, pulleys and lead weights to a wooden cage capable of holding more than 600 pounds. The manpower slowly raises the cage to the arena floor where the trap door opens.
The elevator lift system and trap door.During the filming of the documentary, the producers selected a wolf to be the first animal to successfully make the ascension in the replica. “It was the first time that a wild animal had been released into the Colosseum in 1,500 years,” director Gary Glassman told London’s Telegraph newspaper. “I would love to have used a lion, but there were obvious safety issues involved. In the end we chose a wolf because it is the symbol of Rome.” Once released into the Colosseum, the wolf met a much better fate than its ancient forebears. According to the Telegraph, the beast was rewarded with a biscuit after running to its handler.
Once filming had concluded, the documentary producers donated the replica to Italian officials, and it was unveiled inside the Colosseum last Friday. During the ceremony, a contemporary dance artist “who twisted and turned in animal-like fashion” according to the New York Times, was hoisted to the floor of the Colosseum and released through the trap door.
The replica is now a permanent exhibit that can be viewed by visitors to the Colosseum’s hypogeum. “It will help people understand exactly what the Colosseum was like,” senior Rome cultural heritage official Francesco Prosperetti told the Telegraph.
spacer
The Colosseum: Power, Brilliance, and Brutality
written by jimkuo2 / 09.08.2004
The Colosseum has always been a monument surrounded by mystery and legend. In researching this monument, I found it interesting to be able to corroborate or dispel some of these legends and see the extent to which they have been exaggerated.
Were Christians really fed to the lions? Yes, Christians were fed to half-starved lions, burned alive, and hacked to death, but the most interesting aspect of this was that the Christians who died in the Colosseum wanted to die there as martyrs. At that time in the Roman Empire, Christians had a choice to sacrifice to the Roman gods or even have one of their slaves sacrifice to the Roman gods and avoid persecution. St. Ignatius, the first Christian who died in the Colosseum, chose to die for his religion in front of tens of thousands of people rather than escape persecution or die in a less public place. About 3000 Christian martyrs in all died in the Colosseum. (The largest number died in Circus Maximus, others were crucified)
An image of the Colosseum that many of us remember is from the Jean Leon Gerome painting where vestal virgins and the rest of the crowd are screaming with their thumbs down asking the gladiator to put his defeated opponent to death. However, the thumbs down gesture may not have been entirely accurate. Some scholars believe that the gesture may have been a thumb to the throat, mimicking the path of the dagger that the gladiators would use for a swift, relatively painless execution.
Commodus, played by Joaquin Phoenix in the movie Gladiator, had his arrogant and self-important personality portrayed accurately in the movie. Commodus loved to join in the games; he would don a royal crown and cloak to make himself look like Hermes. He slaughtered thousands of animals and boasted of winning over 620 matches as a Secuter, a type of gladiator. Commodus’ fascination with strength and combat even led him to erect a statue of himself to resemble Hercules.
However, much like the movie, Commodus was a coward that was never in any danger. There would often be a large, yet inconspicuous fence separating him from the lions and tigers that he slayed. When a gladiatorial opponent managed to wrest his sword away from him and challenge him to a battle of fisticuffs, Commodus had him taken away rather than fight him.
Another mystery of the Colosseum is the flooding of the area for the staging of large naval battles. Martial describes a large naval battle being held during the inauguration. The water was 5-7 feet deep and the wooden stage was removed to flood the underground area. Recent studies give good evidence that these battles actually took place. Waterproof mortar was not used in the current underground of the Colosseum. However, there are large, unused square holes in the underground providing evidence that a different underground preceded the one we see today. Hydraulic analysts calculated that the aqueducts could not provide water fast enough to fit Martial’s description of the Colosseum filling in just one day. Historians postulate that the water was taken from a lake or river that used to be in the area. Most of the participants of the naval battle were prisoners already sentenced to death. Most of the ones that died are said to have drowned and the survivors were given mercy.
| http://www.saintignatiuschurch.org/ignatiusLion.jpg |
| The First Martyr |
| St. Ignatius was the first Christian to be martyred in the Colosseum. |
spacer
| www.goodart.org/ jgglad.jpg |
| Jean Leon Gerome’s Rendition of the Colosseum |
| The famous thumbs down gesture may not have been entirely accurate. |
| www.altix.cz/wwwdeti/ tomas2/obrzk.htm |
| Commodus |
| Commodus’ personality was well portrayed in the movie Gladiator. However, contrary to popular belief, he Russell Crowe did not kill him. |
| http://www.vroma.org/images/mcmanus_images/naumachia.jpg |
| Naumachia |
| This is an artist’s rendition of a mock naval battle, or the Greek word naumachia, that could have taken place during the inaugural games of the Colosseum. |
spacer
13.4K subscribers
spacer
Ancient Rome in 3D – Detailed virtual reconstruction. Real colors. 2023 year progress.
79.9K subscribers
#ancient #Rome #3D Explore our virtual 3D reconstruction of ancient Rome as it looked in the mid-4th century CE, around year 360, at the turn of the Pagan and Christian eras. We are the “History in 3D” team and our goal is to create the most detailed, accurate and complete 3D reconstruction of ancient Rome. In this video we show the most significant places in the center of the Eternal City and speak about the progress of our project during 2023. Particular attention was paid to the details of the Colosseum, the Capitoline hill, as well as the luxurious interiors of the Basilica of Maxentius and the Temple of Venus and Roma. We are adding more colorful realistic elements – painted statues, reliefs and ornaments, colored plaster, rich varieties of marble. 0:00 Introduction 0:33 Ancient Sites Girl 0:58 Capitoline hill 2:07 Via Sacra 3:23 temple of Venus and Roma interior 4:03 basilica of Maxentius interior 4:39 fly around Colosseum 6:08 Colosseum facade in detail 6:38 Ludus Magnus and Gallicus from air 7:29 Ludus Magnus arena 7:52 Residental area to the east of Colosseum 8:52 Imperial forums and Subura Ancient Sites Girl: 
/ @ancientsitesgirl “HISTORY IN 3D” creative team:
spacer
spacer