Whose non-existence would have changed history the most?
- Thread starter Aquilonian
- Start date
- Status
Crispus, eldest son of Constantine the Great, would've been a bigger change. Crispus was intelligent and successful militarily, but his father had him executed. As a result, when Constantine died the empire was split between his three younger sons (cunningly called Constantine, Constans and Constantius), who almost immediately went to war with one another.
Crispus might've been a great emperor like Aurelian and really improved things for the empire, so that the West wasn't doomed to fail.
Crispus might've been a great emperor like Aurelian and really improved things for the empire, so that the West wasn't doomed to fail.
The actions Julius of Caesar and his nephew Octavian, killed the Roman Republic and sealed Rome's long term fate.
Not so sure about that. The Republic was already on its last legs, it was only a question of how it ended and what replaced it.
Augustus could've formalised power better. With power effectively being delivered by whoever the army backed it was a recipe, later, for continual civil war. A hereditary or (better) an adoptive principle set down in law would've helped stabilise the Empire.
Augustus could've formalised power better. With power effectively being delivered by whoever the army backed it was a recipe, later, for continual civil war. A hereditary or (better) an adoptive principle set down in law would've helped stabilise the Empire.
If I remember correctly Augustus did keep all the trappings of the Republic which was a rather brilliant PR move to lull the Roman Populace into believing that he was saving the Republic. He was not willing to set down any kind of laws that would in any way hinder his autocratic rule . He was not willing to share power with any person or Institution. He didn't seem to really give the hereditary issue enough thought. One biggest mistakes was adopting Tiberius and making him successor, which forced him to divorce his wife. That likley embittered him to fair degree.He was competent administrator but he was neither a good nor likable or trustworthy emperor .
Last edited:
Extollager
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2010
- Messages
- 9,099
Unfortunately, you have to pay to read the full-page review, in the Times Literary Supplement of 6 April 2007, of Richard Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. It really is worth tracking down if one has any interest in the "historical Jesus," etc. You might be able to get hold of it at your library. Reviewer A. E. Harvey concluded,
--...Richard Bauckham’s careful and eloquent presentation of his argument, supported not just by careful scholarship but by admirable common sense, deserves earnest consideration by all who have the training and the perseverance to pursue the elusive explanation of one of the most tantalizing literary relationships in ancient literature, appropriately known since the nineteenth century as "the Synoptic problem".---
If one's interested enough to read not just a review but a brief book on the topic, one can get Bauckham's Jesus: A Very Short Introduction in Oxford University Press's series of concise monographs.
http://www.veryshortintroductions.c.../9780199575275.001.0001/actrade-9780199575275
Jesus is my nomination for the person whose non-existence would have made the most difference for world history, whether one is a Christian of some sort or not. Without Jesus, no Christian transformation of the Greco-Roman world, no Islam, no universities (the university is the creation of the Christian Middle Ages), no Carolingian civilization, possibly no Byzantine preservation for a thousand years of Greek classics such as all of the works of Plato except the Timaeus (which the West did have), no universal missions, etc. The religious element in the "Wars of Religion" would be different or absent, although since secular considerations were so prominent in them, I suppose there'd have been plenty of territorial wars in Europe anyway. Without Jesus there would not have been the writings of St. Paul, which, it should be recognized, did much for improving the status of women in the ancient world; for this claim, see Sarah Ruden's Paul Among the People. Here's what the Washington Post reviewer said about this book:
Just where do the Scriptures fit into contemporary lives? The Bible remains a global bestseller, resonating with people in many cultures. Yet it is also widely viewed as a difficult book to engage with on one's own. In the United States, where the great majority call themselves religious, studies show an astonishing lack of knowledge about the Good Book. Sixty percent of Americans can't name five of the Ten Commandments, and fewer than half can name the four Gospels or even the first book of the Bible. While most Christians view it as either the inspired or inerrant word of God, many are reading it less. Even some seminaries are falling short in biblical preparation for those entering the ministry.
The difficulties seem to involve more than busy lives. Some people have been shaken by research that raises doubts about the historicity of biblical narratives. Others find it difficult to relate the Bible's agricultural idiom to their urban experience. And some are anguished over traditional teachings on the role of women in the church and homosexuality.
Are people getting the help they need to engage with the sacred texts as spiritual and moral guides for today's complicated lives? Two new books address this predicament from different angles, while aiming to breathe new life into the encounter with the Bible. In each case, the author unlocks meaning and relevance by offering a deeper understanding of the context in which the narratives were written.
In "Paul Among the People," Sara Ruden brings a unique perspective to the teachings of the apostle most responsible for spreading Christianity throughout the Greco-Roman world. As an accomplished translator of classical literature, Ruden offers a wholly fresh reinterpretation of Paul's most controversial writings -- on slavery, the role of women in the church, homosexuality, love -- by examining them alongside the writings of the polytheistic culture of his day.
Ruden viewed Paul negatively before undertaking this effort. But she developed a profound appreciation for what he was saying as he grappled with a pagan society that "deified violence and exploitation," while he called people to a radically different way of life. Quoting from Aristophanes, Petronius, Juvenal and others, she provides startling insights into the prevailing values regarding the status of women and slaves and the widespread practice of raping young boys. While some of her examples are more definitive than others, she shows how the apostle encouraged cultural progress regarding people's status. For example, he called on Philemon to take in a runaway slave who had become a Christian and treat him as a Christian brother.
"More than anyone else," she says, "Paul created the Western individual human being, unconditionally precious to God and therefore entitled to the consideration of other human beings." Yet his writings still stir controversy among Christians today. Some denominations, for instance, use his letters to argue against letting women serve as church leaders. With this provocative reconsideration of his words, Ruden is urging those on both sides of the issues to reexamine their assumptions.
Last edited:
The Republic was already dead thanks to Marius and Sulla.
The corpse simply hadn't stopped twitching by the time Caeser and Co came along.
Null Zone, not quite my period, but I thought Sulla tried restoring the republic?
Only after proving that rich people with personal armies could manipulate the law, ignore anything and anyone they didn't like and slaughtering their opponents in the street. Restoring the resemblance of the republic when you tore the thing apart in your own interests isn't all that easy. Especially when you provide first hand lessons to Pompey and Caesar.
Of course Marius deserves his share of the blame.
Wasn't a precedent set for 'important' people flouting tradition/law when Scipio Aemelianus got given the... (let me try and recall...) command of the army in Iberia, I think, to put down a rebellion? I believe he should've had to wait for the office. Under him fought Jugurtha, who rebelled as King of Numidia and was put down by Marius/Sulla (much to the annoyance of the Metelli, who sponsored Marius' rise and then found themselves usurped in popular affection by him).
Michael Colton
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2014
- Messages
- 1,027
Aristotle would be my vote.
Gramm838
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2012
- Messages
- 591
If you mean Scipio Africanus, he only came to the fore due to his battles with Hannibal, so no Hannibal, no Scipio
Aristotle and Plato. one of the consequences of the their writings and philosophies was that they contributed to the stagnation of empirical science.
Last edited:
I think this is totally unfair on those two. What scholars did with their works well after their deaths was decided by the latter system not something that either of these two philosophers said. So I disagree
If none of A&P's works had survived, the church would have continued being just as stagnant with respects to science in that period, they just would have different poster boys as their primary works and been as fiercely dogmatic about them.
I think this is totally unfair on those two. What scholars did with their works well after their deaths was decided by the latter system not something that either of these two philosophers said. So I disagree
If none of A&P's works had survived, the church would have continued being just as stagnant with respects to science in that period, they just would have different poster boys as their primary works and been as fiercely dogmatic about them.
Fair enough.
But it did take a long time for them to finally disprove Spontaneous Generation.Now let's talk about Ptolemy and his novel contributions to Astronomy.
Last edited:
Michael Colton
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2014
- Messages
- 1,027
I'm sorry, but did you just say the person that invented logic hindered empirical science? Wat.
Aristotle may have invented Logic but he also came up with Spontaneous Generation?
- Status
Similar threads
-
N Scott Momaday whose work is considered the starting point for contemporary Native American literature- Started by Snicklefritz
- Replies: 0
-
Where do you stand if you want to use an famous character whose out of copyright?
- Started by DAgent
- Replies: 13
-
-
PDFs whose printouts omit things that are shown in Acrobat Reader- Started by Ursa major
- Replies: 5