Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;GinoLR, post: 8353331, member: 128351&quot;]I am sure many historians would beg to differ regarding Roman emperors called &quot;bigots&quot;. This vocabulary is not History&#039;s language, it belongs to contemporary political debate. </p><p><br /></p><p>Of course bigotry has existed for long, and existed in ancient times, but Roman emperors were not solitary men, the Roman Empire had laws, and decisions taken by emperors had been previously discussed, at least by the emperors&#039; closest collaborators. Political debate existed in Rome: it was strictly forbidden to disobey or even openly criticize the living emperor&#039;s orders, but when the emperor was dead or toppled it was permitted to speak one&#039;s mind about his policy and deeds. </p><p><br /></p><p>Was Nero a bigot? Or were those who hated him bigots themselves? And what about Caracalla? It is possible that ancient authors who wrote about him after his death did exaggerate things to make their point. And the Christian traditions, much, much later, are highly suspected of not being objective. </p><p><br /></p><p>What we call &quot;bigot&quot; today maybe meant nothing in Antiquity. I would say that the whole society was &quot;bigot&quot;, for the strongest laws, either in democratic Athens of the classical period or in the later Roman Empire, were laws regarding the sacred, and the piety towards the gods. If you were accused of impiety, or of contempt of traditions, your case was almost desperate. Desecration of any kind was regarded as the highest crime, a little like in today&#039;s Islamic countries if you are accused of blasphemy. Such a behaviour was seen as undermining the whole social order - and disorder, civil unrest, was feared most.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in