Past Roman Emperors in the Byzantium History Section

[classicist]

Interesting concept. Are you alluding to the common "pagan" practice of worshiping one, superior god for whom they would declare war for (Monotheism)? The idea being, "my god is better than yours."

The conceptual roots of pagan monotheism/henotheism probably lie with Platonistic thought (with Stoic universalism as a reinforcing paradigm), as well as the long-lived tradition of cultural relativism in terms of religion (equally met in e.g. Herodotus and Tacitus), which envisioned every nation worshiping the same powers under different names (the so-called 'interpretatio Romana'). Combined, these two modalities would have made it quite easy for Late Antique pagans to co-opt the exclusive monotheism of Jewish and Christian apologists - simply disagreeing on their rhetoric and claim for being the sole retainers of the divine favour. The grammarian Maximus of Madauros (a pagan henotheist or monotheist), in a debate against Augustine, seems quite typical: "Yet who would be so foolish, so touched in the head, as to deny there is one supreme god, without beginning, without natural offspring, like a great and powerful father? His powers, scattered throughout the material world, we call upon under various names, since (of course) none of us knows his true name." (Aug. Ep. 16.1) - Maximus' notion, as well as the Platonic roots of pagan monotheism, are examined more fully in Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity by Athanassiadi & Frede (OUP, 1999). Robin Lane Fox's Pagans and Christians, 190-97 also contains a good introduction to the mentalities in question.

EDIT: Hm, there is also a rather striking oracular response from Apollo, 3rd or 4th century if memory serves, which would illustrate this pagan henotheism well. I'll try to dig it up.

ADD: Yes, haha, it was actually in Lane Fox p. 169, though it has also seen much more study since. From Oenoanda, re-used block of masonry close to the altar to Theos Hypsistos (The God Most High). Seems like an answer to the oracular question "What is God?" or "Are you God?". In translation, the verse goes: "Self-born, untaught, motherless, unshakeable / Giving place to no name, many-named, dwelling in fire, / Such is God: we are a portion of God, his angels. / This, then, to the questioners about God's nature / the god replied, calling him all-seeing Ether: to him, then, look / and pray at dawn, looking out to the east." The interesting thing is that this response is quoted also in Lactantius' Divine Institutes 1.7.1-3, with the alleged provenance from Apollo's oracle at Claros. Lactantius, a Christian, naturally uses this as a proof that even the pagan gods admit to being just angels (or, as he argues, demons) acting under a supreme god. A good indication that basically the shared ideology between pagan and Christian thinkers was largely interchangeable, though contested.

 

[Actalo]

The conceptual roots of pagan monotheism/henotheism probably lie with Platonistic thought (with Stoic universalism as a reinforcing paradigm), as well as the long-lived tradition of cultural relativism in terms of religion (equally met in e.g. Herodotus and Tacitus), which envisioned every nation worshiping the same powers under different names (the so-called 'interpretatio Romana'). Combined, these two modalities would have made it quite easy for Late Antique pagans to co-opt the exclusive monotheism of Jewish and Christian apologists - simply disagreeing on their rhetoric and claim for being the sole retainers of the divine favour. The grammarian Maximus of Madauros (a pagan henotheist or monotheist), in a debate against Augustine, seems quite typical: "Yet who would be so foolish, so touched in the head, as to deny there is one supreme god, without beginning, without natural offspring, like a great and powerful father? His powers, scattered throughout the material world, we call upon under various names, since (of course) none of us knows his true name." (Aug. Ep. 16.1) - Maximus' notion, as well as the Platonic roots of pagan monotheism, are examined more fully in Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity by Athanassiadi & Frede (OUP, 1999). Robin Lane Fox's Pagans and Christians, 190-97 also contains a good introduction to the mentalities in question.

I get it, the interwoven pantheons, the co-opting of different pagan religions upon each other and even monotheism. No better example than that of Catholicism itself. It's funny that the word "Pagan" became so ubiquitous in the realm of "dirty words."

I like the Maximus of Madauros quote about a "supreme being," it certainly begs the question that if all the various "pagan" gods were simply fractured aspects or branches of one whole personality, there could be only one true God. Darn monotheism!

 

[classicist]

I like the Maximus of Madauros quote about a "supreme being," it certainly begs the question that if all the various "pagan" gods were simply fractured aspects or branches of one whole personality, there could be only one true God. Darn monotheism!

I like his argument, too. Noteworthy is how he's insinuated a barb there against the anti-Arian stance of Augustine: the true highest god would have no natural offspring. It's no wonder that the Arian Adoptionist stance (that the 'Son of God' became so only due to being 'adopted' in his baptism) appealed to many of the pagan converts more than the Nicaean version.

 

[Actalo]

I like his argument, too. Noteworthy is how he's insinuated a barb there against the anti-Arian stance of Augustine: the true highest god would have no natural offspring. It's no wonder that the Arian Adoptionist stance (that the 'Son of God' became so only due to being 'adopted' in his baptism) appealed to many of the pagan converts more than the Nicaean version.

That is quite interesting, I hadn't quite thought of it in that way. The idea that it's not so much how you're born (lineage-wise) but how or what you do in the name of your chosen theology determines merit or in that case "adoption."

 

[Pilot00]

The forums had experts in history, now it has experts in theology too I see...


Anyway back on topic. I seem Unable to find Maurice in the history files. Or is it that I am blind?

 

[classicist]

That is quite interesting, I hadn't quite thought of it in that way. The idea that it's not so much how you're born (lineage-wise) but how or what you do in the name of your chosen theology determines merit or in that case "adoption."

Something like that, yes. It also would have made Jesus appear uncomfortably close (to the Christian mind) to other holy men of antiquity, as well as the Neoplatonists who could 'become divine' by theurgic practices.

But as to the OP's subject, I have nothing to add to the few points made by the first posters. The holder list seems pretty okay, especially if usurpers are cut out as a matter of principle. The personality traits of the past imperial personages of the title history, however, are amusing to read. Gibbon and J. J. Norwich seem to wield certain influence there, still - with some refreshing reinterpretations.

The forums had experts in history, now it has experts in theology too I see...

Sarcasm aside, would you consider this surprising, taking into account the subject matter of the game? Besides, Christian-pagan relations in late antiquity and the early heresiological struggles of Nicene Christianity are pretty well-trodden ground in what it comes to scholarship, I'd say. Even so, it is a pleasure to be able to earn a (meagre) living by studying such pointless details.

Anyway back on topic. I seem Unable to find Maurice in the history files. Or is it that I am blind?

He's there, as Maurikios. The only thing amiss is his alleged 'natural death'... Then again, those have not been calibrated in the case of other emperors, either.

 

[LumberKing]

Ahem! If possible, could we get back on topic? This is getting way off...

 

[ObadiahtheSlim]

Whack job? That would probably hurt if you weren't partially correct in your earlier statement. The council of Nicaea was called to consolidate the plethora of Christian sects existing/fracturing Rome at the time and canonize a specific (Biblical) volume according to the preeminent bishops of Christendom. The idea was far more political than theological. To say Constantine suddenly became a true believer in monotheistic Judeo-Christianity is subjectively inferred by religious/historical texts written by the same people promoting the idea of monotheistic unification.

Council of Nicaea did not have anything to do with the canonization of any books of the bible. I don't know why this myth keeps getting repeated? The process of the canonization took place over 2 centuries of writings and debates between church leaders about the authenticity of certain books. By the end of the 2nd century, 21 of the 27 were commonly accepted and only a handful were even being disputed. Read up on Irenaeus and his works.

 

[omega20056]

The history doesn't really take the western emperors into account since it doesn't exist in the game itself.

 

[LumberKing]

Is it just me or are the last Western Emperors, Julius Nepos and Romulus Augustulus missing?

 

[omega20056]

Is it just me or are the last Western Emperors, Julius Nepos and Romulus Augustulus missing?

They are. There's no WRE title, so there was never any need to add them.

The ERE title includes both ERE and WRE emperors until it branches off into just the ERE.

 

[LumberKing]

They are. There's no WRE title, so there was never any need to add them.

The ERE title includes both ERE and WRE emperors until it branches off into just the ERE.

But aren't the first few Western Roman Emperors (Honorius, Constantine, Constantius, et cetera) included in the Byzantium history titles?

 

[killerbee256]

The forums had experts in history, now it has experts in theology too I see...

I think this type of game tends to attract intellectuals in general.

 

[omega20056]

But aren't the first few Western Roman Emperors (Honorius, Constantine, Constantius, et cetera) included in the Byzantium history titles?

They are, but it ignores the rest after them.

 

[LumberKing]

They are, but it ignores the rest after them.

It looks like I'm gonna have to request some Character IDs...

Anyone know the full list of the missing emperors?

 

[classicist]

If the missing Western Emperors would be included in addition to their Eastern colleagues, wouldn't that cause problems in the title history? Does the game support two simultaneous holders of the title? Because I cannot see other options for expressing this parallelism, unless the regnal years are adjusted (i.e. twisted into something incorrect).

 

[LumberKing]

If the missing Western Emperors would be included in addition to their Eastern colleagues, wouldn't that cause problems in the title history? Does the game support two simultaneous holders of the title? Because I cannot see other options for expressing this parallelism, unless the regnal years are adjusted (i.e. twisted into something incorrect).

Did I say that? If so, my bad. I was just wondering who were missing so that I could take it into consideration for a mod I am working on.

 

[unmerged(540854)]

Will you include the period pre-constantine when there were 4 people claiming to be emperor? It started out with 2 emperors and 2 respective 'subordinates' under them but for some reason Diocletian's views were not shared by the subordinates . Constantine himself did not even start out as emperor of Rome he had the other half of the western empire.

 

[Pilot00]

Something like that, yes. It also would have made Jesus appear uncomfortably close (to the Christian mind) to other holy men of antiquity, as well as the Neoplatonists who could 'become divine' by theurgic practices.

But as to the OP's subject, I have nothing to add to the few points made by the first posters. The holder list seems pretty okay, especially if usurpers are cut out as a matter of principle. The personality traits of the past imperial personages of the title history, however, are amusing to read. Gibbon and J. J. Norwich seem to wield certain influence there, still - with some refreshing reinterpretations.



Sarcasm aside, would you consider this surprising, taking into account the subject matter of the game? Besides, Christian-pagan relations in late antiquity and the early heresiological struggles of Nicene Christianity are pretty well-trodden ground in what it comes to scholarship, I'd say. Even so, it is a pleasure to be able to earn a (meagre) living by studying such pointless details.



He's there, as Maurikios. The only thing amiss is his alleged 'natural death'... Then again, those have not been calibrated in the case of other emperors, either.

Blind fool that I am, thanks for the pointer, I found him Mayrikios is the Greek name and I didnt bother to search for it

 

[LumberKing]

Will you include the period pre-constantine when there were 4 people claiming to be emperor? It started out with 2 emperors and 2 respective 'subordinates' under them but for some reason Diocletian's views were not shared by the subordinates . Constantine himself did not even start out as emperor of Rome he had the other half of the western empire.

No way! The Tetrarchy is difficulty to implement as it is, with contentions it will quite miserable, lol.