Comparing the FDR Administration to the Flavian Dynasty

Anthony Calvelli

The Franklin D. Roosevelt administration (1933-1945) resembled the Flavian model of power. The Flavian dynasty came to power in 69 AD after the fall of Nero, with Vespasian serving as its first princeps for ten years. The Flavian model of power kept the governing structures of the Republic in place but essentially turned the principate into a nepotistic autocracy. The FDR administration has many similarities to this Flavian model of power, the most notable of which are the increase in power of the executive, appointment of relatives to positions of authority, and use of war as a means to maintain power.

After the death of Nero, there was a year-long civil war plagued with regime change. In fact, there were a total of four emperors that year. Vespasian was able to eventually take and maintain power because he had superior military power. The Roman populace were, in general, relatively accepting of the Flavian Dynasty, most likely because there was a need for strong leadership after the turmoil of the civil war. Similarly, the Great Depression and World War II enabled FDR to stay “in power” and maintain the support of the people for four terms, more than any other U.S. president.

Another similarity between the Flavian dynasty and the FDR administration is how they both undermined the power of existing democratic institutions. The rulers of the Flavian dynasty undercut the power of the Senate and the plebeians throughout their reign, much like how FDR bypassed congress and created an exorbitant amount of executive orders. For example, Vespasian set the precedent that one does not even need to be in Rome to be declared emperor. The Flavian Dynasty also expanded the power of the principate to institute military and tax reform (Encyclopedia Britannica). This is very similar to how FDR used executive orders to implement policies such as “The New Deal.” 

Vespasian, the first of three Flavian rulers, gave a great deal of power to his son Titus (who eventually succeeded him). John A. Crook writes in The American Journal of Philology that “from 71 [AD] [Titus] was, in practice if not in theory, co-Emperor.” There was no vote on the delegation of power to Titus: Vespasian simply wanted to spread the wealth and make his family more powerful. In fact, in 73 AD he appointed Titus to the “praetorian prefecture and the joint censorship” (Crook 164). The FDR administration was also fraught with such nepotism. FDR gave his son James a position as a secretary in the Oval Office. In this position, James “coordinated the activities of twenty federal agencies” (Eleanor Roosevelt Papers Project). While the FDR administration was not exactly an autocracy, it certainly had some undemocratic characteristics and striking similarities to the Flavian model of power.

 

Works Cited

Crook, John A. “Titus and Berenice.” The American Journal of Philology, vol. 72, no. 2, 1951, pp. 162–175. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/292544.

“Flavian Dynasty.” Encyclopædia Britannica, 30 May 2018, http://www.britannica.com/topic/Flavian-dynasty.

“James Roosevelt (1907-1991).” Eleanor Roosevelt Papers Project, www2.gwu.edu/~erpapers/teachinger/glossary/roosevelt-james-son.cfm.

Word Count: 459

Alexander’s Lessons for Presidential Sucession

An inevitability has shadowed every civilization’s leader throughout history in a cycle that repeats itself in a pattern as true as the sun setting; eventually, there must be someone to take their power and carry on the leadership of a nation. Phillip II recognized this natural inevitability and groomed Alexander “the great” to step into the power role as King of Macedon. Alexander ignored this cycle preparation and when the regime change was initiated by his early death, the empire, spanning from Western Europe to eastern Asia, underwent a drastic regime change placated with uncertainty. Similarly, as every four years, a new President is sworn into office in the United States, the struggle of the transition of power plays out on a global stage just as the change after Alexander redefined the world they lived in.
When Alexander died an heir needed to be named by the Babylon council that could utilize Alexander’s legacy to lead effectively. Since there was no designated successor there was a degree of uncertainty about the future of the empire that was unprecedented in Macedon. Similarly, when a new regime takes over the Presidency, there exists a degree of uncertainty about the leader taking over from another political party as a result of the new policy vision. Power shifts in the Presidential respect are stark contrasts of each other typically, resulting in clashing in political philosophies with their new power. In ancient Macedon, the new ruler could shift slightly on policy issues from the predecessor, but a majority of their outlook was already shaped though by their appointer, resulting in a form of stability.
Even though the modern Presidency is determined by votes, the sitting President can sway voters to vote a certain way, promoting his/her legacy, just as Ancient Macedonians made sure an heir would continue their legacy. The difference lies in the fact that the power shift is determined by the voters in America rather than the committee to fill the open vacuum created by Alexander’s Death. The authority to lead granted by the people is in stark contrast to the political heir policy of ancient times. As modern nation-states undergo shifts in power, it is imperative that everyone understands that uncertainty from the lack of a clear plan to build on the previous ruler’s progress is harmful a nation. In order to maintain stability, current leaders should seek to find an heir that can continue to build on their work during their tenure. The President should understand that not having a successor elected that won’t build upon their work is detrimental to the smooth transition of power.

The persecution of early Christianity

During the rule of the Roman Empire, Christianity was born and developed through its early stages. The practice of Christianity within the empire began to cause fear among both the subjects of the empire as well as its leadership. This fear in the early centuries C.E. is both understandable and justified from the Roman’s perspective. However, the persecution of the early Christian Church was without justification. The fear of the Christians was caused by their refusal to submit to Roman cultural practices and the mystery that surrounded their beliefs. The Christian’s persecution was a response to the fear the Romans had of them, but generally there were no crimes committed to warrant this persecution, so it was unjust.

The early Christians were opposed to many of the customs of the Roman culture. For instance, they rejected the gods worshipped by the Romans and they refused to participate in festivals and ceremonies honoring these gods. The Christians also rejected any relation between divinity and the emperor. The Christians also tended to follow many of the Jewish traditions which were similarly alien to the Roman people. These clashes with the accepted culture of the empire stirred up a great deal of animosity and anxiety among the population at large, who were not Christian.

Much of what Christians actually believed and practiced was not known or understood by the Romans, and this mystery was a great source of suspicion. Since the Christians at the time were actually relatively secretive with outsiders about their masses and celebrations, not much of what Christians did was known by most people. What small parts that were known were generally taken out of context and created more confusion. For instance, to have no idea what Christianity is, and to hear that every week they get together to celebrate someone’s crucifixion and eat his flesh and drink his blood would probably give you a bad impression of Christians. Apart from this radical idea of cannibalism, Christianity and Judaism are the only two monotheistic religions in the empire, and both are a small minority, so even the premise that there is one unimaginably perfect and powerful God as opposed to many gods with human faults and traits would be rejected by many. The mystery that surrounded the Church as well as its differing beliefs caused a great deal of suspicion and unrest among the people.

While Christianity did attract a great deal of attention and suspicion to itself in the Roman Empire, this in itself did not justify persecuting the religion. Christians were being persecuted and put to death for no crime, but simply due to their beliefs, as shown in Pliny’s letter to the Emperor Trajan when he states “I interrogated these as to whether they were Christians; those who confessed I interrogated a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; those who persisted I ordered executed.” This blanket persecution was seen as being in the best interest of the empire since civil unrest was stirring up over Christianity, but not due to crimes committed, rather simply because of their beliefs. So no matter how virtuous a person a Christian was, they could be put to death for their faith. There is nothing further from justice.

So, the fear that the Romans had of Christianity was understandable and justified, but their decision to persecute the Christians was without legitimate justification.

(563 Words)

Imaginary Insidious Invaders

Ryan Franco

          A firm believer of any religion will believe that anything contrary to their own belief system is wrong. The moral guidelines of every major religion are very similar, but the differences are enough to make people hate each other. The Roman disdain of the rise of Christianity was based off the disagreements is religion along with the fear of revolt. The Roman people and armies, had to deal with uprisings throughout the empire since its foundation.  These insurrections were usually well defined, it was different groups and tribes of people who lived along the outskirts of the empire, a formal army led by a new general, or even the peasants revolting in a small area, but in all these examples, they could easily tell who they were fighting. The Christian problem was much different from all previous foreign invasions. This uprising came from hidden inside the people of the empire. Rome had become a xenophobic nation state and the fear they felt towards this new group of invaders is very understandable.

The area north of the Mediterranean was controlled by polytheistic religions hundreds of years before the Romans ruled the lands. First the Greeks, then the Romans ruled with their large pantheon of gods and goddesses who controlled every aspect of their life, small and large. The Christians believed in the superiority of one God, an idea, even by itself, seemed like blasphemy. It was easy for the Roman government to villainize the Christian, they were a new and radical belief system that had a good reason to hate the Romans. The Romans killed Jesus and it didn’t matter if the Christians were actually vengeful about the action. The only thing that mattered was the idea that some of the Christian might be mad enough about it to form up, however these fears were largely unfounded. There was no major movement by the Christians to overthrow the Roman emperor or the empire, because of this inaction, the Romans had no right to attempt to stamp out the rise of Christianity. A preemptive strike on a group of mostly peaceful people would have never been justifiable. The justification to wipe out a complete group of people usually arises from retaliation for a larger action. I believe the Romans had a right and the reason to fear Christianity. The possibilities of an organized and unified group of people with different ideals that the established government could very well have been insidious. Luckily for the Romans their fear was mostly the fear of change and the unknown.

WC:424

The Threat of Christianity in the Roman Empire

Christianity is a monotheistic religion. This means that Christians believe in one god, and one god only. This god is all powerful and has control over everything that happens. The Romans were not monotheists, but polytheists. They believed in a pantheon. All of the gods and goddesses of the pantheon had different jobs and each one had an influence on the daily lives of all mortals.

Christianity posed a threat to the Romans because their entire culture was rooted in their interactions with the gods. They believed that by pleasing the gods in some manner, they could help influence more favorable outcomes of certain situations. Roman polytheism was a religion that allowed for deals with the gods because, like the mortal world, the world of the gods was also full of corruption and greed. The gods had selfish desires and would aid in fulfilling a mortal’s wishes if the mortal pleased them. Everything that the Romans experienced was believed to have been caused by one of the gods. If it was a bad occurrence, then the explanation for its cause was that the gods were angry. If something good happened, then the Romans believed they had pleased the gods. This also played into political situations. People would pray to the gods to curse their opponents so that they could be victorious during elections.

Christianity’s beliefs, on the other hand, would not allow for a divine being to have behavior like this. Christians believed that their god was perfect and all powerful. He didn’t want anything that they could offer because he had created everything and nothing could be withheld from him. Nothing that any person could do would cause him to alter what he had already planned in the beginning. Christians also believed that other gods weren’t real, and that the worship of anything other than the christian god was considered idol worship.

This severe difference between these religions did not sit well with the Romans. It threatened everything that they had built their cultural foundations upon. If Christianity became a widely accepted religion throughout the Roman Empire, then the polytheistic foundations of the empire could crumble. The Roman authority figures who were polytheists would have no credibility among the Christians and would eventually become powerless. The Christians would have the ability to take control, elect new officials who weren’t bred into Roman politics, and get rid of traditional Roman customs and religion. The possibilities of what the Christians could accomplish was a great threat to the Romans’ way of life and they were fearful.

 

425 Words

Christianity in the Ancient Roman Empire

Early Christian practices incited suspicion in the Romans before the 3rd century AD, and for a few good reasons. I certainly would have been suspicious of the Christians if I lived in that time, as it is not unlike the feelings we have towards the fringe religions of today like Scientology or Satanism. Some reasons to give the Romans suspicion are their practice of monotheism, isolation, and their specific rites.

Christianity preached exclusive monotheism, forbidding its members from participating in the state religious cult. To the Romans of the time, these rituals were understood to be essential to the survival of the Empire. The Christians were actively undermining the Empire by not participating. This put Christians in a hard spot as they were viewed by the Romans as being traitors.

What really drove negative opinion of them was their self-isolation and secretiveness within Roman society, while this makes sense from the Christian belief system at the time. Christians were noted for largely avoiding public baths. The impact of this is bigger than you may think, since the baths were massive centers of social and city life, and a subset of people that refused to participate would have garnered hostility from other Roman subjects.

Christians also jealously guarded their rites, especially the Eucharist. They spoke of things such as eating the body of God and calling everyone brother and sister. The New Testament contains descriptions of these events, but no real record or process for how the believers were performing them: Christian talk of “love-feasts” and eating body and blood led many Romans to conclude that Christian meetings were incestual or cannibalistic orgies! This might sound ridiculous with all we know of modern Christian worship, but Rome was a place of varied beliefs and eccentric, violent practices like animal sacrifice and self-mutilation, so was this really out of the question for an unwashed band of weirdos? Others assumed that the quick rate of Christian converts was partially caused by their use of erotic magic, to seduce spouses from the beliefs and relationships of their partners. This was considered perverse due to the fact that Roman wives always followed the belief system of their husbands in the household.

All of these differences led to negative popular sentiment and even anti-Christian mobs, and from the perspective of the Roman authorities, the Christians were the instigators of this unrest. And if there’s one thing Rome had consistently proved to be intolerant of, it was those who willingly caused civil instability. Little wonder that the authorities came down so hard on Christians when they intervened.

Works Cited

Hansen, Valerie. “Chapter 7: The Roman Empire and the Rise of Christianity.” Voyages in World History, Wadsworth/Cengage Learning, 2016, pp. 144-148.

Word count: 430

Roman Empire and the Fear of Christianity

Most religions in the current world revolve around the idea that only one god exists, but it was the exact opposite in ancient Rome. If someone today would approach people with the idea of there being multiple gods who hold favor for certain people over others, most people would think that is completely absurd. However, in ancient Rome, that is exactly what they believed. The idea of there being only one god, who loved everyone the same and would give forgiveness to anyone who asked for it was simply unbelievable.
The easiest way to understand the skepticism and curiosity of the Romans towards
Christians is to look at how most people today would look at someone who believed the same things the Romans did. Today if a person would come out claiming that there are multiple gods that rule this world, and these gods had their favorite groups of people that they protected and helped them rise to success, the world would call them crazy. People today, that believe in a god, believe that there is only one god, and Christians believe that this god is all loving and all forgiving. The idea of multiple gods goes against everything that most people believe. The things that people believe about polytheism would be similar to what the Romans would have believed about monotheism.
Looking at the way people today would view someone with polytheistic views, it is easy
to see why the Romans would be so skeptical of Christians. Although it might be a little bit unrealistic to fear Christians, it is easy to understand why they would think that these people could cause a lot of harm to their way of life. A god that forgives and loves everyone is much more appealing than many gods that punish those who offend them and protect those who worship them. To the Romans, the idea of a religion that believes in a single god that created everything and still loves every person equally would be a major threat to their own religion. Because no one knows the exact truth and what religion is actually true, people tend to gravitate towards the most appealing one. Christianity, at this time, is much more appealing to people because it means that you do not have to be rich or powerful to go to heaven. The introduction of Christianity into Roman society could mean that many Romans would switch from their current beliefs to the beliefs of Christians, causing a lot of turmoil and debate within society, which generally leads to the fall of an empire.

Word Count = 430

Roman Empire Scared of Change

Similar to today, religion played a major role in everyday life back when the Roman Empire was in the height of its power. However, unlike today where we view most religions in the context of the Judeo- Christian model of monotheism, the Roman Empire had very different beliefs. When new beliefs and ideas, such as the concept of Christianity, started to arise the Romans became very suspicious and fearful as they viewed it as a threat to their political power which in their defense was a valid reaction.

The Romans practiced polytheism in which they would pray and worship multiple major gods and deities, with most originating from the Greek culture. For example, they would worship Jupiter, who was thought to be the most powerful god and Mars who was the god of war. They made regular sacrifices and would contribute some of their livelihood in the form of taxes to support cults that worshipped these gods. They chose to honor these gods in the hope of receiving certain benefits that the gods would grant such as immortality and a closer link to the divine.

During this era, people started to travel around the Mediterranean with greater ease and as they went from place to place they would share their religious practices. When a small group of Jewish people in Judaea started to profess their faith Christianity began to form. It quickly expanded in 313 when Emperor Constantine decided to support this young religion. Christians practiced monotheism where they worshipped a single God and followed the teachings of Jesus. The Christian religion practiced certain traditions that the Romans did not understand. For example, the Eucharist and holy communion were extremely important to Christians as they believed that it was the body and blood of Christ. However, the Romans feared this tradition as they thought it resembled cannibalistic habits.

The Romans started to persecute Christians because they were scared of the Christians differing views. For example, the Roman Governor Pontius Pilate sentenced Jesus to death because he feared that Jesus would lead a revolt against the Roman Empire. The Romans were aggressive in their persecution going so far as to blame Christians for the great fire that occurred in Rome. This persecution was rooted in the fact that religion was closely linked to the government and the Roman political system. When Christianity started to spread Romans were fearful that it would threaten their way of life. Christians refused to comply with the Roman religion which was viewed as a form of disobedience that would undermine the power of the Empire and taint the relationships the Romans had with their many gods. It is understandable that the Romans reacted in this way as Christianity was unfamiliar and the Romans were unsure of how it would impact their ruling and culture.

 

References

Hansen, Valerie. “Chapter 7: The Roman Empire and the Rise of Christianity.” Voyages in World History, Wadsworth/Cengage Learning, 2016, pp. 144-148.

Word Count: 468

Similarities between The 3rd Century Crisis and the Syrian Civil War

        The current Syrian Civil War and the 3rd Century Crisis share a lot in common. The 3rd Century Crisis was a period in which the Roman Empire fell into chaos and civil war following the failure of the Severan Dynasty and lasting until reunification and reformation under Aurelian and Diocletian. Following the death of Severus Alexander, there was a 50 year period of “barbarian invasions, civil wars, usurpations, increasing economic difficulties, and natural catastrophes” (Geza p. 94). During this period, internal trade broke down, resulting in financial disaster and localism, where cities became more isolated and Rome lost its power as the center of the empire. The result was the inability of the empire to defend against invasions from barbarians from the North. Landowners and the rich began to grow their own armies and rule their own land, further taking power from any central Roman authority. This period was characterized by civil war, plague, and invasion.

        In 2011, the Syrian government began to crack down on peaceful protests that had spread to Syria via the Arab Spring. After the government began torturing and killing innocent protests, revolution broke out with rebels demanding democratic reforms, the release of prisoners, an increase in freedoms, and ending corruption. The civil war was starkly religiously divided on the Shia Sunni divide.  However, soon after the onset of the civil war, ISIS, YPG, and FSA are battling against the Assad government and with each other. The result is chaos and death as Syrians are invaded by terrorist groups like Hezbollah, YPG, and ISIS. The Assad regime is using chemical weapons on Syrians. The result of all of this is famine and disease breaking out among Syrians, as well as a decentralization of power as the Syrian government has been delegitimized.

        These two regime changes are very similar. Although Assad was not assassinated, he was removed from power. His absence led to invasions from terrorist groups, just as barbarians invaded Rome in the 3rd Century Crisis. As civil war tore apart both Rome and Syria, the result was decentralization of power, famine, and disease. The 3rd Century crisis ended once one single ruler was able to conquer all of the surrounding regions. The people were content enough to settle for whoever was in power, so long as life was stabilized. This current civil cannot be solved in the same way. Modern power struggles are much different than those of the 3rd Century, wars are no longer won with larger armies, but widespread guerrilla warfare. We don’t have single generals leading an army, but a loose, decentralized band of goons with guns. Modern weapons, communication, and war strategy have made today’s conflicts much different than those before. For this reason, the past cannot inform us of ways to solve modern power vacuums.

Alfoldy, Geza. “The Crisis of the Third Century.” Duke Library. October 1973. Accessed October 15, 2018. https://grbs.library.duke.edu/article/viewFile/9021/4625.

462 Words

Christianity in the Roman Empire

Before the 3rd c. CE, Romans feared the expansion of Christianity because they saw them as a threat to the stability of the empire. I believe that the fear that the Romans felt was valid because of the impact Christianity had in the empire and the outbreaks caused by different provinces who opposed Christianity. The imperial government was very susceptible of any rising society and the officials always made sure to monitor these societies very closely. Christians met privately at night and early in the mornings to sing hymns and worship Christ. That behavior was very unusual for the Romans; they usually control everything that happens within the empire, but Christianity was becoming out of their reach because of their privacy. Romans began to doubt the loyalty of the Christians and feared that they were conspiring against the Roman Empire. While the Christian leaders confirmed their loyalty to Rome, they still bound themselves to keep certain commands and refused to worship the traditional gods of Rome. Romans were unfamiliar with monotheism, and they characterized that behavior as stubbornness. The Eastern provinces were disturbing the peace to show their discontentment with the Christians and they wanted Christians to be legally punished for their stubbornness.

Christians were feared because not only they were very committed to their religion practices and boundaries, but they were also expanding the religion by converting other habitants of Rome. Traditionally, a wife has to follow the religion and worship the gods of her husband. She is expected to ignore any other foreign religion that surfaces in Rome. However, many wives were converting to Christianity. In addition, Christians were also reaching out to slaves. When slaves attended the Christian meetings, they felt powerful because they were treated fairly with respect and were able to find their identity through Christianity (Russell). In Corinthian, St. Paul suggested that if slaves have the opportunity to gain their freedom, they should do so. While Paul is not trying to abolish slavery, he is telling slaves that it is okay to turn against their masters and break the rules of the Empire. Due to the Christian expansion and their beliefs, Christians were blamed for many things that went wrong in Rome. Romans felt as if Christianity was a poison for Rome, and it was ruining the traditional way that Romans rule the empire.

Finally, Christians condemned the pagans. Christians were preaching against the pagans, and that behavior was not welcomed in Rome because traditionally, Romans were welcome to practice the religion of their choice, as long as it did not interfere with Roman practices, or threaten the peace. However, that did not stop the Christians to do what they believed was right. When Roman officials try to stop them, Christians were relentless and chose prison, torture, and even death rather than rejecting their religion. Facing that kind of determination, the Romans felt threatened because they feared that they were losing the control of the empire. While they were able to abuse the body of Christians, but they felt powerless because they could not control what they do, or who they influence.

  1. G. Russell. “The Jews, the Roman Empire, and Christianity, A. D. 50-180.” Greece & Rome, vol. 6, no. 18, 1937, pp. 170–178. JSTOR

Page count : 545