Diocletian got sent out to pasture when he got even a hair too old to lead. Our innovation is to just keep people in office until pieces start to fall off.
This was really excellent. It's great to see Aurelian Restitutor Orbis get the attention he deserves. He's one of my most-admired historical figures. I wrote a spec pilot for a TV series about him but 'Make Rome Great Again' didn't sell in Hollywood....
I think someone could pick back up with the HBO Rome series set now in the 4th century and it would be amazing, provided they get the same caliber of actors and don’t DEI it.
Really enjoyed this piece, and this just as I'm working on a Japanese history article about the Asuka period of Japan hahaha.
As to Rome, I've been debating internally about publishing an article regarding the Punic Wars and going forward from that period up through the Medieval.
Nicely told history. I did want to point out that Constantine's delayed baptism was not unusual. An interesting fact about ante-Nicene Christianity is that they were very confident that past sins were washed away in baptism but substantially less confident about what happened to future sins, leading to very late baptisms. As a bonus point, they strongly favored baptism on feast days with Easter being the favorite. Constantine never seems to have grasped the essence of Christianity. He was as offended at the mad Arianism of Eusebius of Nicomedia as the Nicene bishops but under the influence of more subtle Arians kicked Athanasius out of his see.
As I read your piece, I thought about The City of God. Famously after Alaric sacked Rome, it was blamed on the Christians for ending the rites of divine sacrifice which were felt to have protected the city. I think that would have been Theodosius but I am not looking it up. You suggest about Diocletian that, 'With his contrived traditionalism, he simply viewed the faithful as deluded, obstinate, and unpatriotic' but what I think that what you leave out is dangerous. Diocletian believed, with the ardour of a convert and the fervor of a pragmatist. Sacrificial religion worked. All great cities had been built on it. The Christian disdain for the gods was atheistic at a time when Rome needed a big tent they were casting out the defenders of old Rome.
>Famously after Alaric sacked Rome, it was blamed on the Christians for ending the rites of divine sacrifice which were felt to have protected the city.
This seems to have a parallel with the accusations leveled at Christians today for being the forefathers of liberalism.
My take is that Christianity was and is a major vehicle driving the Concern for Victims. Now that is a very good thing. If you look at the B.C. Era victims are pretty much universally cast as monsters or witches and oppressors as heroes. Before Moses(or Job whichever has priority) there isn't a single writing in the victim's voice.
Now, living in 2024 America you probably don't like where this seems to be going, but that is because the Concern for Victims has been swamped by the Ultras. Ultras are people who take a good cause, especially one that is hard to complain or object to, and get out in the front of the cause and push it in places and ways that it never should have been pushed. Ultras aren't really concerned for victims they are concerned for 'the cause'.
They don't actually love the victims the way that Christians do. They hug them for the cameras to advance the cause and have the help see them out once the camera is off. Ultras are activists. They don't encounter or interact with victims or the needy organically and naturally.(except their own victims) They are activists who seek out the needy. To them the needy and the victims are commodities, they are fuel for the cause. And yes, much activism wraps Christianity around it like sheeps wool to hide what is within. I won't say that there is no genuine Christian activism but much less than is commonly supposed.
Excellent article. Not enough write about Late Antiquity (my favourite period - hence the name), but for me it is a profoundly inspiring era. Despite the fall of the Empire in the West, it solidified and spread Roman civilisation and mores to areas far outside, which became Christendom.
It’s not over. The enemy doesn’t have to win, even if one’s civilisation must undergo a type of death only to be reborn.
Relatedly, I would recommend the Final Pagan Generation by Edward Watts. It handles the post-Constantinian generation very well, following the lives of four highly lettered and important men - Praetextatus, Ausonius, Themistius, and Libanius.
Awesome piece. I've listened to podcasts on and read a decent bit of Roman history, but the Religion is something the often gets pushed to the back and isn't talked about, as people seem to not want to touch sensitive areas if they don't have to. Which is too bad, as it simply loses a lot of what really was going on as well.
This is by far the most interesting period of Roman history in my opinion: late empire, but not yet collapsing, culturally reviving as the Church finally changed the hearts and minds of many through dialogue and honest purposeful action.
I love the periods of the republic, principate and even the semi-mythical foundation and monarchy periods, but this little time after the crisis of the 3rd century and the dominate is where things seem to come together
Thank you for enlightening and educating me this beautiful Sunday with rich history, so well written! Loved it, One thing I realized is of all these historical figures during that time, Christ is the most known. His presence on earth truly effected the trajectory for much of mankind.
Love this. We moved to Rome last November and have slowly been ingesting all the history; it is truly overwhelming. Constantine has been a recurring subject between my husband and I. I do believe the Roman empire was and will be the greatest in all history. This summer it is the Dalmation coast and Greece, including Diocletian's palace. We cannot wait to get to Istanbul. Thank you so much for this - I can't wait to dive deeper into these people!
Wonderful! I wasn't thoroughly acquainted with point of history. Usually, the facts as presented are thus: "Constantine was Pagan, had a vision, followed the vision, and became Christian." Clearly, reality is more nuanced, a reality you have clarified.
This is the light, well-read and confident way in which history should be told. I'm looking forward to part two.
Thank you very much.
Thanks for this piece! it's informative and entertaining, per usual... and dare I say timely as well?
I'm left excited for part 2 and reminded of Ecclesiastes: outside of Divine intervention, there truly isn't anything new under the sun, is there?
Diocletian got sent out to pasture when he got even a hair too old to lead. Our innovation is to just keep people in office until pieces start to fall off.
The first part reads like someone from the year 2100 looking back at 2025...
This was really excellent. It's great to see Aurelian Restitutor Orbis get the attention he deserves. He's one of my most-admired historical figures. I wrote a spec pilot for a TV series about him but 'Make Rome Great Again' didn't sell in Hollywood....
I think someone could pick back up with the HBO Rome series set now in the 4th century and it would be amazing, provided they get the same caliber of actors and don’t DEI it.
Oh, I agree. It would be a hit. But Hollywood isn’t in the hit business, it’s in the woke business :(
Really enjoyed this piece, and this just as I'm working on a Japanese history article about the Asuka period of Japan hahaha.
As to Rome, I've been debating internally about publishing an article regarding the Punic Wars and going forward from that period up through the Medieval.
There’s a lot there to work with. The era of Justinian is interesting as well.
I like that era, though I blame Theodora for half the problems, Italy did not need to be ravaged the way it was.
I blame Justinian for being a simp.
I guess so, it seems to have been a sincere love on his part though, Belisarius seems to have been more of a simp to my mind.
Nicely told history. I did want to point out that Constantine's delayed baptism was not unusual. An interesting fact about ante-Nicene Christianity is that they were very confident that past sins were washed away in baptism but substantially less confident about what happened to future sins, leading to very late baptisms. As a bonus point, they strongly favored baptism on feast days with Easter being the favorite. Constantine never seems to have grasped the essence of Christianity. He was as offended at the mad Arianism of Eusebius of Nicomedia as the Nicene bishops but under the influence of more subtle Arians kicked Athanasius out of his see.
As I read your piece, I thought about The City of God. Famously after Alaric sacked Rome, it was blamed on the Christians for ending the rites of divine sacrifice which were felt to have protected the city. I think that would have been Theodosius but I am not looking it up. You suggest about Diocletian that, 'With his contrived traditionalism, he simply viewed the faithful as deluded, obstinate, and unpatriotic' but what I think that what you leave out is dangerous. Diocletian believed, with the ardour of a convert and the fervor of a pragmatist. Sacrificial religion worked. All great cities had been built on it. The Christian disdain for the gods was atheistic at a time when Rome needed a big tent they were casting out the defenders of old Rome.
>Famously after Alaric sacked Rome, it was blamed on the Christians for ending the rites of divine sacrifice which were felt to have protected the city.
This seems to have a parallel with the accusations leveled at Christians today for being the forefathers of liberalism.
My take is that Christianity was and is a major vehicle driving the Concern for Victims. Now that is a very good thing. If you look at the B.C. Era victims are pretty much universally cast as monsters or witches and oppressors as heroes. Before Moses(or Job whichever has priority) there isn't a single writing in the victim's voice.
Now, living in 2024 America you probably don't like where this seems to be going, but that is because the Concern for Victims has been swamped by the Ultras. Ultras are people who take a good cause, especially one that is hard to complain or object to, and get out in the front of the cause and push it in places and ways that it never should have been pushed. Ultras aren't really concerned for victims they are concerned for 'the cause'.
They don't actually love the victims the way that Christians do. They hug them for the cameras to advance the cause and have the help see them out once the camera is off. Ultras are activists. They don't encounter or interact with victims or the needy organically and naturally.(except their own victims) They are activists who seek out the needy. To them the needy and the victims are commodities, they are fuel for the cause. And yes, much activism wraps Christianity around it like sheeps wool to hide what is within. I won't say that there is no genuine Christian activism but much less than is commonly supposed.
It is the Ultras, the Activists of every stripe, who are the enemies of real charity. I wrote about it from the Sermon on the Mount here:https://comfortwithtruth.substack.com/p/charity-and-your-social-credit-score
Thanks for this. Christian antiquity is indeed woefully understudied. Most of what I know about it I learned from Gore Vidal's novel Julian.
Vidal’s novel is not the worst, and I’ll be covering Julian in part III.
Excellent article. Not enough write about Late Antiquity (my favourite period - hence the name), but for me it is a profoundly inspiring era. Despite the fall of the Empire in the West, it solidified and spread Roman civilisation and mores to areas far outside, which became Christendom.
It’s not over. The enemy doesn’t have to win, even if one’s civilisation must undergo a type of death only to be reborn.
Relatedly, I would recommend the Final Pagan Generation by Edward Watts. It handles the post-Constantinian generation very well, following the lives of four highly lettered and important men - Praetextatus, Ausonius, Themistius, and Libanius.
Great book.
Awesome piece. I've listened to podcasts on and read a decent bit of Roman history, but the Religion is something the often gets pushed to the back and isn't talked about, as people seem to not want to touch sensitive areas if they don't have to. Which is too bad, as it simply loses a lot of what really was going on as well.
This is by far the most interesting period of Roman history in my opinion: late empire, but not yet collapsing, culturally reviving as the Church finally changed the hearts and minds of many through dialogue and honest purposeful action.
I love the periods of the republic, principate and even the semi-mythical foundation and monarchy periods, but this little time after the crisis of the 3rd century and the dominate is where things seem to come together
An instant Friday afternoon classic! Very well told. Thank you.
Fantastically written Celaeno. You write history in a way that makes it entertaining. Look forward to the other parts of this series.
This was very timely as I am also writing about the way that Christianity impacted the arc of history. Well written.
Great story telling. I kept wondering where you were going with it/ what the thesis is.
Thank you for enlightening and educating me this beautiful Sunday with rich history, so well written! Loved it, One thing I realized is of all these historical figures during that time, Christ is the most known. His presence on earth truly effected the trajectory for much of mankind.
Love this. We moved to Rome last November and have slowly been ingesting all the history; it is truly overwhelming. Constantine has been a recurring subject between my husband and I. I do believe the Roman empire was and will be the greatest in all history. This summer it is the Dalmation coast and Greece, including Diocletian's palace. We cannot wait to get to Istanbul. Thank you so much for this - I can't wait to dive deeper into these people!
Wonderful! I wasn't thoroughly acquainted with point of history. Usually, the facts as presented are thus: "Constantine was Pagan, had a vision, followed the vision, and became Christian." Clearly, reality is more nuanced, a reality you have clarified.