Day of Empire_ How Hyperpowers Rise to Global Dominance--And Why They Fall - Amy Chua [35]
Some historians have argued that the conflict between the Romans and Jews was primarily political in nature. Others stress religious and cultural factors. In any event, the Jews’ fortunes varied widely over time, often turning on the opinions of the particular emperor in power.28
Christianity presented a different set of challenges to Roman tolerance. Like the Jews, Christians denied the gods of Rome and refused to swear oaths to the emperor. The Jews, however, were essentially exempted from these requirements because of the “ancient cult” status extended to them when they were first conquered by the Roman legions. Christianity, a “new cult” with growing adherents from all over the empire, had no such status and thus no right to violate the implicit bargain that the Romans would tolerate other religions unless they publicly disrespected the Roman authorities.
As a result, there were sporadic clashes between the early Christians and local Roman officials. Christians also faced hostility from Jews, who viewed them as heretics within their own faith. Nevertheless, as a practical matter, Christians during the High Empire were largely left alone. As Gibbon wrote, “The indifference of some princes and the indulgences of others, permitted the Christians to enjoy, though not perhaps a legal, yet an actual and public, toleration of their religion.”29
INTOLERANCE, CHRISTIANITY, AND THE FALL OF ROME
When did the Roman Empire begin to decline? Historians disagree widely, depending on the particular theory of decline they champion—and there have been dozens of these theories. Imperial overstretch, economic crisis, barbarian invasions, and military weakness are frequently cited and no doubt all played a role. More idiosyncratic explanations include lead poisoning; moral corruption; soil exhaustion; a proliferation of hermits, monks, nuns, and other “drop-outs;” and dilution of the “pure” Roman stock.30 Assessing the totality of the causes of Rome's collapse is beyond the scope of this chapter. But two points are clear, and both exemplify the thesis of this book.
First, while tolerance was essential to both Rome's rise to world power and its maintenance of the Pax Romana, it also sowed the seeds of Rome's eventual disintegration. As we have seen, Rome was far more successful than Achaemenid Persia in assimilating diverse conquered peoples through the inducements of citizenship, participation in the empire, and the appeal of Roman culture. Whereas most of the peoples under Achaemenid rule never “Persianized,” stunning numbers of Roman subjects “Romanized.”
But not all. Particularly in the Hellenic east and the “barbarian” north, the empire sought to absorb peoples whose varying traditions and cultures were, for one reason or another, more at odds with Rome's and more resistant. The great early emperors tolerated this heterogeneity, and their tolerance undoubtedly worked to Rome's advantage throughout the High Empire. But precisely because of Roman toleration, the peoples of the east and north were permitted to remain socially intact, relatively autonomous, and relatively un-Roman; over time, they chafed at imperial rule and began agitating for independence.
The historian Anthony Pagden explains, “As the empire grew and the diversity of the peoples it included increased, so its sheer heterogeneity became more difficult to handle.” In the fourth century, the divide between the Latin-speaking west and the Greek-speaking east deepened, and in 395 the empire was permanently split in two. At the same time, the empire “began slowly but inexorably to be hollowed out from