ON POPE LEO'S APOLOGY FOR THE PAPACY'S ENCOURAGING SLAVERY

 I am not a Christian, but am currently writing a piece on my blog about the decline of slavery in the Roman

Empire after Constantine. The new, foreign imported religion, beginning with Constantine, will transform

the empire so that it should not even be called the Late Roman Empire, but instead, the Christian Empire.

By the year 400 many of the cultural aspects that had made it the Roman Empire were banned or restricted,

or in decline. The decline of slavery was one important change DUE to the new religion. It was a Christian

Revolution, comparable to the French, Russia, or American, but so far, considerably longer lasting.

Newser just posted an article about the Pope' apology concerning slaveryduring the age of Exploration

and Colonization. But at other times the Christians may have led in trying to curb or end slavery.

Hugh Murray

ROMAN EMPIRE, CONSTANTINE, FRENCH REVOLUTION, PETAIN'S VICHY - DIALECTICS OF HISTORY -NOT PRIMARILY ECONOMIC BUT IDEOLOGICAL

 In a previous blog post, I contended that the Muslims conquered much of the Roman Empire in the early 600s in part, because what we called the Roman Empire was no longer really that.  It was no longer the empire of Caesar, August, the Coliseum, and Olympic Games.  That in the 300s a revolution had occurred, changing forever that nation.  It was no longer the Roman Empire; it was the Christian Empire.  The newly conquering Muslims were creating their own empires, in Spain, all of North Africa, Judeah, Syria, Iraq, Persia. and beyond.  The Christian warriors held most of Europe, and until 1453 Constantinople.

     In France, the Christian world would be challenged by another revolution, with the slogan "liberty, equality, fraternity," make war on the Christian church, and under Robespierre, convert the Cathedral of Notre Dame into a Temple to the Goddess of Reason, with a choir inside to sing to the new era, as Robespierre himself would toss a line to ancient Rome as he wore a toga for the event.  Robespierre, would soon be guillotined, but his revolution would survive in toned down choruses.

And in 1940 an elderly military hero would lead yet another revolution to respond to the liberal, unChristian one of 1789.  Marshall Petain would lead the National Revolution. to cleanse France of the trash of the previous century and a half.  The Roman Catholic church was restored with its former privileges.  The 2nd most popular religion in France, Judaism, was to be put in its place, at the bottom, with many being deported to Nazi Germany where they would lose their arrogance.

     I shall hope to show how these revolutions are connected, but emphasize the one that is most over looked, the Christian Revolution that changed the Roman Empire.  I shall be doing this by adding on to this blog.  Covering a lot of territory in a short space, I will have to leave out much of the story.  But I hope I raise questions in your understanding , and perhaps you can write a better and fuller discussion disagreeing, 0r concurring, or providing a totaly different interpretation.   Hugh Murray

    Part 2

Revolutions, Counter-Revolutions, and the Christian Empire

     In an earlier blog post, I sought to answer Tomas Pueyo's question about how Islam conquered so much territory in such a short time. In this post, I want to stress how the names we currently use—and have used for centuries—distort the reality of what was happening. I want to propose a revision of terminology that may help us better understand the era.

     Civil wars were nothing new to the Roman world. Indeed, the Roman Empire itself rose out of civil war.

     The Roman Republic had existed and expanded for centuries. But many Romans came to believe that the victorious general Julius Caesar intended to destroy the Republic and replace it with monarchy under his personal rule. According to the traditional story, Caesar was assassinated on the Ides of March by members of the Senate.

     This was followed by civil war between the assassins—traditional republicans such as Brutus and Cassius—and the forces aligned with Caesar, led by his ally Mark Antony and his adopted heir and nephew, Octavian.  Brutus and Cassius were defeated and, following the customs of many defeated,  committed suicide.

     Then Octavian and Antony split from one another. Each dominated part of the Republic, but tensions increased as Antony, like Caesar before him, entered into a relationship with Cleopatra, the Pharaoh of Egypt. Cleopatra had already borne Caesar a son, raising unsettling questions about what claims she and her child might assert over the Roman world.

     To settle it, another civil war followed, the soldier Antony with help from Cleopatra's Egypt, against the younger Octavian.  But Octavian skillfully used the threat of Rome being dominated by an Egyptian woman, to undermine Antony's forces.  In the big battle, Octavian won.  Result?  The suicides of both Antony and Cleopatra.

     A more surprising result - the Roman Republic and the beginning of the Roman Empire under Emperor Augustus, with this grand new title bestowed upon Octavian by the Senate.

     The Empire experienced both triumphs and crises, but for centuries it generally won its wars. Conquest brought slaves into Rome in vast numbers, enabling cheap workers to help the construction of monumental public works, many of which still stand today.

     The Empire displayed its wealth proudly. Aqueducts carried water from distant mountains into the cities. Public latrines had running water and communal sponges. Amphitheaters such as the Colosseum combined religion, spectacle, gladiators, and exotic animals into mass entertainment. Egypt, now a province of the empire, supplied wheat and other foods for Rome's growing population.  “Bread and circuses” kept the populace satisfied.

     Not all emperors possessed Augustus’s discipline. Some were devoted hedonists; others may well have been insane. Yet the Empire endured and continued winning battles.

     From the death of Augustus in 14 AD until the sole rule of Constantine, the Empire experienced repeated civil wars. There was the Year of Four Emperors in 69 AD, the Year of Five Emperors in 193 AD, and what modern historians call the Crisis of the Third Century (235–284 AD), during which dozens of military rulers seized power, often by murdering their predecessors.

     Emperor Diocletian believed he had solved the problem by creating a system of shared imperial rule. But once he retired, the men meant to share authority wanted more than their allotted share, and the Empire again descended into civil war.

By the early fourth century, two principal rivals remained: Licinius in the eastern half of the Empire and Constantine in the west.  In 313 they jointly issued the Edict of Milan, which decriminalized Christianity and ordered the restoration of churches, lands, and other Christian property confiscated during earlier persecutions. Constantine’s daughter married Licinius, and for a time peace prevailed.

But new disputes soon rose, followed by war between the 2 rival emperors..

Constantine defeated Licinius in a series of battles between 316 and 324 and eventually ordered the execution of both Licinius and his son, who was also the son of Constantine’s own daughter.

     Constantine now became sole ruler of the Roman Empire and began constructing his new capital at Constantinople.

My purpose in reducing three centuries of Roman history to a few pages is not simply to repeat what can be found elsewhere. My point is that Constantine’s final victory over his rivals was not merely the end of another civil war in which one military faction triumphed over another and life returned to normal.  Rather, Constantine initiated a revolution.  It was a revolution as significant as the American Revolution, the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, or Mao’s Communist Revolution in China. Indeed, Constantine’s revolution may have proved even more far-reaching and certainly longer lasting than those later revolutions.

     It is time, I believe, to abandon the terminology “Late Roman Empire.” In fact, it may be time to stop calling Constantine’s project the “Roman Empire” at all.

It was no longer simply the Roman Empire. It had become the Christian Empire.

Two or three centuries later, a similar revolution emerged in the deserts of Arabia under Muhammad: the Muslim Revolution. Beginning in the seventh century, these two revolutionary civilizations would struggle against other powers—and against each other—for dominance across much of the known world.

    more to come   ---- Hugh Murray

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

EUNUCHS, HOMOS, CHRISTIANS, MUSLIMS, DEATH PENALTY

 Closing the Circle

Some time ago I posted on a contrast between China and the West - the role of eunuchs.  I suggested that Chinese emperors and leading bureaucrats were interested in protecting the government from pillage, even by those employed by the government.  That they feared "family values" were a threat to an employee thinking first of doing what was best for his employee, the government, the empire.  I recall seeing an old movie about a British government employee in one of its colonies in Africa.  He hires a young Black African.  Next week, the lad brings in a relative, asking the Brit to also hire this cousin.  And the following wee another relative.  It was a comedy, but I suspect there was considerable nepotism in large empires.

    I suggest that the way the Chinese empire sought to cut out such "family values," was by cutting off the balls of the employee.  He would work for government, and not have any children to pester him for more favors and would be more distant to relatives.  It is interesting that perhaps the most important Admiral in the Chinese navy, Admiral He, was a eunuch.  He led a fleet of some 30,000 sailors who sailed from China to East Africa with stops along the way.  This in the 1430s, before Portugal and Spain sent out their expeditions.  The first one of Columbus with 3 ships and about 100 sailors.  Eunuchs were an important part of Chinese government until the early 1900s and the last emperor.  

In addition to work as bureaucrats, eunuchs were also employed to guard the harems.  The number of women could vary, but some emperors had a different woman for each night of the year.  To prevent full males from getting to them, eunuchs had that job.

Harems were not limited to China.  With the expansion of Islam, and into nations at the cross roads of trade between the Orient and distant Europe and wherever.  True, a wealthy Muslim might have 4 wives, but if he were wealthy, he might want greater variety, so harems, though not as large as an emperors.  The East Africa slave trade had developed, and some of the strong men would be castrated to guard the harems of the Middle East, strong even after surgery.

My premise, one reason European kings had not harems was Christianity permitted them only one wife.  Now, of course, with wealth and power, they could have more women, but a large harem would bring condemnation.  Better a few extra girl friends on the side, small enough number to keep an eye on them keeping them behind bars.  So Europe did not need eunuchs for harems.

But what about "family values" encouraging bureaucrats to steal from the nation?  Were not eunuchs the best way to solve that problem?  Perhaps, but NOT in Europe.  Why?  With the fall of the Roman Empire there were various nations in Europe, and most were Christian, working with the church.  The church provided the most literate people who could help the government.  The best were probably priests.  Better yet, they would have no children of their own, no overly close relatives, they could devote their lives to the church and its ally, the Christian nation.

CLOSING THE CIRCLE

With the victory of Constantine over the Pagans in a civil war, Christianity was on the road to becoming the official religion of the empire.  One major change, Google AI gave 2 answers for the first anti-homosexual laws of the new regime: Constantine in 320, or Constantine II, somewhat later.  I do not know precisely how they defined it, or even if it was defined in the new laws.  However, the punishment for homosexuality was death.  This was an enormous change, for the Greco-Roman world was generally quite tolerant on the issue of homos.  Even the statues of gods and goddesses were often naked, to make the appeal to humans in various ways.  The Christians were, however, out to change things.  In the 500s, Emperor Justinian sought to collect and organize Roman law so it could be used and passed on to new Christian countries.  There was a slight change, homosexuals were to be tortured before being executed.  Justinian ordered the building of the beautiful Hagia Sophia in the then Roman capital of Constantinople.  (It is still a terrific building, changed into a mosque in the 1400s. into a museum after WWI, and a mosque again under Turkey's Pres. Erdogan.)

The Roman Empire, once Christian, stopped subsidies to pagan temples.  No one learnt to write or read Egyptian hieroglyphics, and for nigh 2 millennia, no one could tell what was written.  Justinian's code made it clear, Jews and pagans were 2nd class citizens.  Homos to be killed.  Now if you were a young guy growing up, and you are suddenly aware that you are homo, what are you to do?  To earn a living?  To not be denounced? ?  There was one profession where you did not have to marry a woman - indeed, they did not want you to do so.  You would learn to read, be around other men, be respected.  I suspect the death penalty for homos, in reality made many of them slaves inside the church as priests.  Some probably advanced quite high in the organization.  I certainly would not be surprised to hear about gay popes along the way.  On the other hand, I do not mean to imply that all priests were or are gay.  In 1,800 years, the percentage of gay priests might vary greatly, also depending on place, and bureaucratic leadership at the time.  I did see one survey suggesting about 33% were gay in parts of 20th century America.  But take surveys with a grain of salt.

And while this was happening in Christian Europe, something similar was occurring among the Muslims.  Not immediately, but they too learnt how to "enslave' a homo community.  Around the age of 14 young Christian boys had to show up for examination by their Muslim overlords.  Over time, rules said the authorities could not take the only son of a family; the one they would take would have to be healthy, intelligent, handsome, etc.  They were to be slaves of the sultan, called Janissaries, though this is usually the term for those selected into the Ottoman army.  The others would be bureaucrats for the state, or perhaps boy friends of important men, or...They would be quickly broken in, taken on the back of a soldier's horse, given a new name, forced to become Muslim, beaten and probably forced by the man on the horse to do other things.  They were told they could never marry or have a family.  Many of these may never have been homo to begin with, just like some criminals in jails for long terms may also discover the joys of same sex (compared to no sex).  Interestingly, The Janissary troops gained the reputation as the best soldiers of the Ottoman Empire.

History is full of ironies, and this is surely one.  2 religions that despise homos officially, basically enslaved them if the homos wanted to live.  In both, the homos contributed to the growth of the organizations that enslaved them, and how many there were and how much contributed never permitted to surface.  Yet, I would contend both Abrahamic religions have provided the rationale for hatred of homos and individual beatings and murders of homosexuals for centuries, - some called witches, demons, Sodomites, Fidel Castro preferred gusanos, or whatever, religions providing foundations for murder.

Another irony, neither the Christians nor Muslims invented the death penalty for male homo  behavior.  They simply took it from the Jews, Leviticus, states that a man who sleeps with another man as he would with a woman, then both those men are to be condemned to death.

The irony is when Christians and Muslims came to power, at times they were angry with Jews and wanted to kill them, so both Jews and homos were on the death lists of different eras suffering together.  In 1933 it is well known that Hitler began a boycott of Jewish stores, with Storm Troopers outside painting stars of David on shop windows, and talking to potential customers not to go into such shops, instead by from Germans (meaning Jews could not be real Germans).  The Nazis also moved quickly against homos, closing the famous ElDorado bar/club, stopping use of the mail by homo publications, raiding Dr. Magnus Hirschfeld's building (he was away in France at the time, the British writer, Christopher Isherwood, stayed on the premises, and his experiences led him to write Berlin Stories, which eventually was the film Caberet).  Hirschfeld was a social scientist and activist for homo rights.  He appeared in the 1919 film Anders als die Anderen (Different from the Others, asking for repeal of the homo criminalization statute #171.  The Nazis tried to destroy every copy of that film.)  In early 1933 the Nazis raided the Hirschfeld premises, gathered all his books, and research materials, and conducted one of the first major burning of the books for the movie capers to teach German movie-goers what was to happen to un-German books.  Later they would also do the same to un-German people, like Jews and homos.  Then German science proved a connection - Jewish women were more masculine than most women; and Jewish men more feminine.  And who would bother to question the results of German science, except "frauds" like Albert Einstein.

My main point, I am convinced the Leviticus assertions are wrong, and dangerous.  I think Levi took us all for a ride.  Levi took us in the wrong direction.  If there had been a democratic vote of the Gods of that era, say 2,700 years ago, most gods and goddesses would have found nothing wrong in homo love, and instead of calling for the death penalty, might have encourage the love.  And it was practiced in their countries.  Even Zeus carried a baby in his thigh.  The Indian Kama Sutra depicted love scenes on walls in India, both hetero and homo.  No condemnation by the gods.  Some African tribes initiations of boys included homo acts.  Amerindians had an institution, the berdache, a kind of same sex marriage.  J don't think China had laws against homos until the Western influence of Mao.  It was part of Japanese culture, including among the samurei.  Homo love was found all over the world BECAUSE it is natural to humans.  Perhaps not as natural as reproductive sex, but natural anyway.  Of course, when covering near 3,000 years of human history, there would be changes.  The British Empire imposed its Christian, anti-homo laws on colonies, even India in the age of Victoria.  Happily, France had a revolution, and the horrific Justinian Code was revised freeing Jews, Protestants, and homos in France, where Napoleon's army conquered, and in French colonies.  The French colonies did not impose Levi's laws.  (It is possible things in the French colonies may have changed, as they did in the home country during the early 1940s under Martial Petain as his collaborationist government in Vichy sought to undo the reforms of the French Revolution in many areas. The horrible irony, jn early 1940s in Germany and other parts of Europe, Jews and homos wound up in the same camps, the concentration camps, and in the death camps.  Tell your gods to repeal the Leviticus laws.

PBS SECRETS OF THE DEAD, WERE THERE WOMEN GLADIATORS? MISSED AN IMPORTANT QUESTION

 I watched the PBS program, Secrets of the Dead, which asked the question, were there any women gladiators in the Roman Empire?  I found it interesting, BUT GREW MORE ANNOYED AS THE PROGRAM CONTINUED.  IT FAILED TO ASK A MAJOR QUESTION.

The Roman Empire lasted several centuries, and was quite large.  How does one attempt to find the answer?  The program did a good job, showing a statue of a woman athlete, which they contended was really a gladiator instead.  The program distinguished between female athletes, more for fun, leisure, and no stigmas attached, compared to gladiators, male or female.  The program did find female gladiator who fought animals, and some may have been part of the program doing what the men did.

I was annoyed because the program never mentioned Galen.  Galen was a physician to the gladiators for a number of years, so he had considerable experience with the wounds suffered by the contenders.  It is one reason his work was cherished long after his death, into the transformed Christian empire, and also into the rising empire of Islam.  Galen had not only been doctor to gladiators, after all many of them were slaves, but he was physician to some Emperors too.

I asked GoogleAI if he had ever serviced a woman gladiator.  The AI reply, in his writings Galen refers to a;ll of his patients as masculine.  This does NOT PROVE that there were no women gladiators.  But if the AI had answered the reverse, it would have proven that there were women gladiators.  By neglecting perhaps the most renowned physician of the Roman Empire, I thought they ignored a major source, one who, if his writings had included women gladiators, would have settled the question   As it turns out, Galen did not mention women gladiators at all, so the program did provide the other evidence they had compiled.  BUT THEY SHOU;D HAVE ASKED GALEN.   Hugh Murray

MORE TO CONSIDER.  I mention the transition of the Roman Empire to a Christian one, and imply Christian Europe, a common association.  But the Roman Empire was Britain and some of Western Europe and the Balkans, all of North Africa, and Turkey and parts of the Middle east.  Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Empire, and the new capitol, Constantinople, was not even in Europe!  Not part of the Roman Empire - much of Germany, Poland, Scandinavia, H7ngary, Scotland, Ireland.  Still, it was a vast empire.  In this empire, Jews and pagans were now 2nd class citizens, and pagan priests no longer paid by the state.  In Egypt, the priests of Amon and the other gods and goddesses lost their income.  Time to get new jobs.  One result, those who read and wrote the pictures on the walls, now did other things, and people forgot how to read the ancient script and pictures.  Not until the early 1800s with discovery of the Rosetta Stone, did the modern world discover a key to the ancient writings.

     Next, as Christianity dominated the Roman Empire, it was not limited to Europe.  One of the most important figures of the early church, Augustine was from Hippo, near old Carthage in North Africa.  Turkey, Judea, Palestine, Syria, Egypt, all became Christian, as did all of North Africa.  In the 400s. though connected to the Library of Alexandria, the female mathematician Hypatia, was killed by fanatical Christian mob.  Her crime; she was a pagan.  (As a child growing up in New Orleans, warm weather, we kids often went barefoot.  When we wanted to cross the street, there was a problem - the street was paved with oyster shells.  Sharp shells.  We crossed slowly and gingerly, trying to avoid a cut.  In high school, I was showing a few Canadian visitors around and took them for a short trip to my neighborhood.  We got out the car, and one remarked, "You pave your streets in souvenirs of the sea?"  He made it sound wo exotic.  I should have suggested he remove his shoes and socks and cross the street, and it would seem far less exotic.)  Hypatia was pulled from her carriage and taken to a church, where she was stripped of her clothing and the used oyster shells to remove her skin, before butchering her to death.  Of course, during the pagan Roman Empire, there were times when in the Arena, Christians were fed to the lions and other animals.  

    In the 600s the new religion of Islam began to expand in a warlike way.  From the Arabian Peninsular is spread, conquering Judea, Syria, Egypt, Libya, Tunis Algeria, Morocco, and on into Europe, most of Spain and Portugal, and even a battle inside France.  The Muslims in power gave tax and other advantages to their co-religionists, and the number of Muslims expanded.  They did not occupy Ethiopia, which remained Christian.  It took until the 1450s, but then the Muslims even conquered Constantinople, renamed it Istanbul, and Turkey became Muslim too.  /the Balkans became mixed, while northern Europe joined the Christians.  In 1492 the last of the Muslim states fell, Spain (and Portugal were free).  That same year the Spanish monarchs issued a decree, all Jews and Muslims in Spain had to convert to Christianity or leave the kingdom.  Some left; some converted, Jews became Moranos; Muslims, Moriscos.  To insure they were true converts. the Grand Inquisitor became a prominent figure in Spain.