Abendlaender
Assistant executioner
In two of my stories, I have dealt with late Roman times which are very worth to be looked onto as these times involved notable changes, not least by the influence of the spreading Christian belief. The Christian teachings were surely not passing by without traces onto the mindset of people.
Emperor Constantin has surely not favoured the Christian faith and forbidden crucifixion in 320 AD out of humanitarian reasons. He was as well a man with the aim to fasten and restore Roman power as the emperors before him. While Nero could still stir up riots against Christians by the folks, the persecution edict of emperor Diocletian has not be acted upon to the same measure everywhere in the Empire. This had probably not met with approval of a majority of Romans any more and had lead surely to hatred towards Diocletian by some Romans. As well, slaves have been granted legal rights, slowly beginning with the time of emperors until slavery shifted to serfdom with duties to assure the basic needs of the bondsmen.
I believe that Constantin had forbidden crucifixions not only for the reason that the cross has become a symbol of the church, but as well as an acknowledgement to the spirit of time to win loyalty from within the Empire. The disgust towards crucifixion had certainly grown as well within the military.
The Roman power was not as strong as in former times so that the danger of uncontrollable uprisings had grown. If Constantin had not done so, the Roman Empire in the West would propably have collapsed sooner. I believe that there have arisen controversies from the second half of the 3rd century onwards. While the Romans did crush down uprisings like the Spartacus uprising or those in Judaea overly cruel around 70 and 132 AD without any hesitation, I do not know of something like that in the 4th and 5th century AD. They did probably fear growing anger of babarian peoples.
Greetings, Alex
Emperor Constantin has surely not favoured the Christian faith and forbidden crucifixion in 320 AD out of humanitarian reasons. He was as well a man with the aim to fasten and restore Roman power as the emperors before him. While Nero could still stir up riots against Christians by the folks, the persecution edict of emperor Diocletian has not be acted upon to the same measure everywhere in the Empire. This had probably not met with approval of a majority of Romans any more and had lead surely to hatred towards Diocletian by some Romans. As well, slaves have been granted legal rights, slowly beginning with the time of emperors until slavery shifted to serfdom with duties to assure the basic needs of the bondsmen.
I believe that Constantin had forbidden crucifixions not only for the reason that the cross has become a symbol of the church, but as well as an acknowledgement to the spirit of time to win loyalty from within the Empire. The disgust towards crucifixion had certainly grown as well within the military.
The Roman power was not as strong as in former times so that the danger of uncontrollable uprisings had grown. If Constantin had not done so, the Roman Empire in the West would propably have collapsed sooner. I believe that there have arisen controversies from the second half of the 3rd century onwards. While the Romans did crush down uprisings like the Spartacus uprising or those in Judaea overly cruel around 70 and 132 AD without any hesitation, I do not know of something like that in the 4th and 5th century AD. They did probably fear growing anger of babarian peoples.
Greetings, Alex