Alexandria Historical Review Issue 2 Volume 2

Alexandria Historical Review Issue 2, Volume 2 Spring 2018

Alexandria Historical Review, Page 1

Alexandria Historical Review A Publication of the History Students of Patrick Henry College Volume 2 – Issue 2 – Spring, 2018

Editor-in-Chief:

Nathaniel Mullins

Editor:

Mark Van Matre

Editor:

Shane Keenan

Editor:

Olivia Cockley

Editor:

Rosalie Blacklock

Faculty Advisor:

Dr. Douglas Favelo

Faculty Advisor:

Dr. Robert Spinney

Patrick Henry College Purcellville, VA www.phc.edu Alexandria Historical Review, Page 2

Table of Contents Letter From the Editor .............................................................................................. 4 Nathaniel Mullins

Muhammad’s Political Motivation in Interactions with Jewish Tribes of the Arabian Peninsula ............................................................................................................. 5 Sarah Henry

Jihad in the Path of Allah: An exploration of Greater and Lesser Jihad............17 Hannah Esther Katz

Judaism and Christianity in the Roman Empire: Analyzing the Various Roman Reactions to Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries.........................26 Hannah Blalack Emperor Aurelian: Restoring and Renewing Rome.....................................................38

Coleman Raush

Alexandria Historical Review, Page 3

Letter from an Editor Welcome to the third issue of the Alexandria Historical Review! The editing team has reviewed papers largely revolving around the three great Abrahamic religions—Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. We hope that as you read through the research of these students, you will come to realize the rich history surrounding these religions and perhaps come to a greater understanding of the beliefs held by a majority of humanity.

In the first paper, Sarah Henry explains clearly and concisely the early relationship of Islam and Judaism, arguing that Muhammad initially changed his religion to appeal to the monotheism of the Jews before ultimately turning against them.

This paper serves to explain what may be a blind-spot for many readers: the early interactions between Islam and Judaism.

The second essay, by Esther Katz, also examines the history of Islam. Her research reveals the development of the meaning of jihad, in particular its steadily growing implications of physical violence. This paper does not view Islam in isolation, making concluding remarks contrasting Islam and Christianity.

Hannah Blalack, in the third paper, completes the triangle of interactions between the three Abrahamic religions, focusing on the relationship between Judaism and Christianity. Her paper particularly focuses on how Rome viewed each religion in the first centuries AD. Although Rome may have initially viewed Christianity as just another sect of Judaism, it was quickly forced to confront the difference between the two beliefs.

The fourth paper is an outlier. Instead of writing about the Abrahamic religions, Coleman Raush draws attention to the Roman Emperor Aurelian. He argues that this excellent emperor has not been given sufficient attention and that Aurelian’s actions should earn him a better respected place in history.

Nathaniel Mullins, Editor in Chief of the Alexandria Historical Review

Alexandria Historical Review, Page 4

Muhammad’s Political Motivation in Interactions with Jewish Tribes of the Arabian Peninsula Sarah Henry

Editor’s Summary: This essay tracks the rise of Islam in Late Antiquity as the religion split from polytheistic and Judaist influences. It tracks the emergence of Islam from the polytheism of the Banu Quraysh. As Muhammad’s influence spread, he adapted his new religion to draw in fellow monotheists among the Jews.

Initially, Muhammad used this syncretism to gather some religious acceptance within the Jewish community, but his political aspirations caused Muhammad to rapidly change his attitude towards the Jewish people.

The origin of the Jewish tribes who occupied the Arabian Peninsula during the lifetime of Muhammad is uncertain due to the absence of information regarding them. While scholars do not know how the Jews came to live in the Arabian Peninsula, they do generally agree that a large population occupied land that stretched from Palestine into Hijāz.1 According to early Muslim scholarship, Jewish tribes were the first inhabitants of Hijāz, and, more specifically, Yathrib.2 Cultural differences between the Jews inhabiting Hijāz and their nomadic Arab neighbors were mainly agrarian—the Jews planted date palms, farmed, and settled permanently in certain areas while the Bedouin did not. The Jewish tribes spoke a Persian-originating language distinct from their neighboring Bedouin tribes.3 This Jewish population is relatively unimportant culturally in Jewish history, but they are immensely important in creating the framework for Jewish-Muslim relations post-632 CE.4 In his treatment of the Jewish tribes of Arabia, Muhammad created a distinctly political religion that allowed changes in doc1. Bernard Lewis, The Arabs in History (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 27.

2. Gil Moshe, The Jews in Muslim Lands, translated by David Strassler, (Boston, MA: Brill, 2004), 4.

3. Moshe, 5.

4. Bernard Lewis, The Jews of Islam (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press), 74-75.

Alexandria Historical Review, Page 5

trine to assist in conquering and assimilating Jewish peoples into a larger version of society.

Initially, Islam seems to be a religion that shared distinct practices with Judaism and Christianity. Muhammad claimed that these similarities were due to Islam being the pure form of the religion Judaism had perverted.5 However, a more reasonable explanation is that Muhammad synthesized monotheistic beliefs he encountered while traveling into a new, hybrid religion capable of fitting his political agenda.6 According to Islamic tradition, Muhammad received the first verses of the Quran when he was 40, far into his career as a merchant responsible for the caravans of his wife, Khadija.7 The Quran explains that Muhammad was familiar with Jews and Christians, he most likely encountered Jewish and Christian doctrine on his travels synergizing these teachings into his new monotheism.8 Islam’s foundational concepts were similar to Judaism in its belief of a single god, but unlike Judaism, Islam immediately became the driving force behind a new political movement. Muhammad taught that he was one in the line of multiple prophets called by God to proclaim that humans should return to the true worship that they had forgotten. All previous prophets, Muhammad claimed, taught that humanity should submit to God’s will. Submission required believers to identify nothing physical with god. Shirk, the idolatry that comes from associating anything with God, was the primary sin of the people of the Arabian Peninsula.9 Muhammad’s new religion was a dramatic departure from the paganism practiced by his native tribe, the Banu Quraysh.10 In pre-Islamic Arabia, tribal religion consisted of paganism centered around a tribe’s power and prestige. A tribe’s god represented the tribe itself, and to worship the tribe’s god was to be5. Tom Holland, In the Shadow of the Sword: The Birth of Islam and the Global Arab Empire (New York: Anchor Books, 2012), 18.

6. Albert Hourani, A History of the Arab Peoples (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991), 21.

The Arabs in History, 35.

7. Holland, 16-18.

8. The Jews of Islam, 68.

9. Holland, 18.

10. The Jews of Islam, 12

Alexandria Historical Review, Page 6

long in the tribal community.11 To reject the tribal deity was to reject the tribe, an act that cut an individual out of communal life. Muhammad’s denial of his tribe’s gods, and his proclamation of monotheism, was treason against the Banu Quraysh.

The Banu Quraysh controlled Mecca, the location of the Kaaba, the cult center of Arabian tribal paganism. Banu Quraysh’s control of the Kaaba granted them immense power over their fellow tribes. The Kaaba was a site of an annual pilgrimage for the Bedouin tribes, and Quraysh benefited from the trade and influence brought in from both pilgrimage and caravan trade. The merchant elite of the Quraysh controlled the city through connections with lesser families who in turn controlled the loosely affiliated tribes living outside the city proper. Muhammad’s condemnation of the polytheistic practices surrounding worship of the idols in the Kaaba threatened the power of the Quraysh tribe by attempting to rob them of the political and economic legitimacy that came with controlling the Kaaba. By threatening tribal paganism, Muhammad threatened the power monopoly held by Quraysh’s elites. Muhammad’s family was a high standing member of the tribe, but not a part of the oligarchic merchant class. To the leaders of the Quraysh, Islam appeared as Muhammad’s play for influence and power over the tribe.12 Muhammad’s first recorded interaction with the Jewish tribes of Arabia occurred after his flight to Yathrib. Due to rising tension in Mecca over his distinct teaching of monotheism, Muhammad fled with his followers to the oasis town after being given an invitation by the population of the town.13 Medina, or Yathrib as it was called at the time, was home to a combination of pagan Arab and Jewish Arab tribes.14 Islamic sources report that the population of Yathrib welcomed Muhammad as a mediator between people and appreciated the social stability he brought. Unlike the tribes of Mecca, those in Medina had no political connection to religion. Muhammad could preach in peace. Here, in Medina, Islamic 11. Martin Gilbert, In Ishmael’s House: A History of Jews in Muslim Lands (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2010), 2.

12. W. Montgomery Watt, “Muhammad,” In Cambridge History of Islam, vol. 1a The Central Islamic Lands from Pre-Islamic Times to the First World War, eds. P.M Holt, Ann K.S. Lambton, and Bernard Lewis, (New York, Cambridge University Press, 1970), 34.

13. Watt, 39.

14. The Arabs in History, 37.

Alexandria Historical Review, Page 7

doctrine changed to reflect Muhammad’s need for popular support of the Jewish tribes of Medina, who he considered the most obvious candidate for a receptive audience.

While the Jewish tribes in Medina neither constituted a majority, nor possessed a large deal of political power in the city, Muhammad vied for their support as he believed they would be most receptive to his message.15 Unlike the pagan tribes that lived in Medina, Muslims and Jews possessed commonality in the basic monotheistic tenants of their faith. Their common ground was increased by a politically motivated shift in Muslim doctrine. Muhammad’s transmissions that required prayer towards Jerusalem, circumcision, days of fasting, and dietary laws all reflected his desire to attract Jewish converts.16 The increasing Jewishness of Islam was partially tied to Muhammad’s adaptation and synthesis of original Judeo-Christian beliefs for his teachings, but was even more so driven by his need for new, politically advantageous conversions.17 Muhammad’s effort to placate and protect the Jewish people extended even to his creation of a military pact promising to keep friendly Jews safe.18 The Jewish tribes of Medina were not responsive to Islam. As Muhammad vied for more power in Medina, his message extended to include himself as a prophet in the Jewish tradition. While both Judaism and Islam were opposed to paganism, the Jewish tribes were unwilling to accept that a prophet could be a gentile.19 Even though Muhammad implemented further changes in Islamic religious practice, namely dietary laws, the practice of circumcision, prayer towards Jerusalem, and fasting on Yom Kippur in hopes of increasing its attractiveness, the Jewish tribes would not accept him. Adding to Muhammad’s disastrous attempts to gain converts, the rabbis of Medina pressed Muhammad to answer questions about Judaism, but he could not respond satisfactorily. The Jewish tribes laughed Muhammad off, knowing that their scriptural tradition had stopped. In response, Muhammad accused the Jewish people of perverting their 15. Watt, 43.

16. The Arabs in History, 39.

17. Hourani, 18.

18. Martin, 3.

19. The Arabs in History, 39.

Alexandria Historical Review, Page 8

religion and scriptures to the point that they could not recognize a prophet. 20 Furthermore, Islamic doctrine immediately changed to reflect a deliberate Arabization. Scholars of Judaic studies point to Muhammad’s sudden change in doctrine as indicative of an attempt to separate the small Muslim community from the Jews.21 The Sabbath was no longer observed on Saturday, but rather on Friday. The faithful no longer faced Jerusalem in their prayers but faced the Kaaba in Mecca. Contemporaneous verses shunned the Jews for being unable to recognize their prophet and cursed them repeatedly for their stubborn disobedience to God’s will. 22 Muhammad’s initial reaction to the Jewish tribes’ response was religious, as reflected in his change of ceremonial practices, but his subsequent response was political. He increasingly placed more of Medinan culture under his control with the creation of the Umma, a governmental structure that abandoned tribal loyalties and made Muhammad the sole arbiter of disputes. This change removed tribal association as the primary method of interaction and replaced it with religious practice.23 Instead of being associated with tribes and bloodline, people were identified by the faith they practiced. The Jewish tribes were distinctly other. The Umma retained the tribal structure’s strong correlation between religion and loyalty, and now rejection of Muhammad and his message was analogous to treason.24 After Muhammad’s victory over the Meccans at the Battle of Badr (CE 624), his revelations became increasingly more martial. Outward action, rather than inward observance, directly corresponded to Muhammad’s increase in political power and the morale boost afforded by the Muslim victory over the Meccans.25 Armed conflict against those who rejected the message of Muhammad was permissible and actively pursued, and the Jewish tribes were prime targets due to their outward rejection of Muhammad’s message as ludicrous. The Umma no lon 20. The Jews of Islam, 72.

21. Schama, Simon. The Story of the Jews, Vol. 1 (New York: Harper Collins, 2013), 238.

22. Watt, 44.

23. The Arabs in History, 40-41.

24. Holland, 21.

25. Martin, 12.

Alexandria Historical Review, Page 9

ger was a social institution—it was now a martial one as well, one that benefitted economically from the destruction of enemy tribes.

Muhammad’s sudden change in attitude towards the Jewish tribes of Medina can be attributed to his continually turbulent relationship with the Quraysh tribe. A Jewish-Arab poet, Ka’b ibn Ashraf, wrote poetry rebuking Muhammad, poetry that encouraged the Quraysh tribe to fight, and, after the Battle of Badr, avenge themselves. Banu Qaynuqa, one of Medina’s Jewish tribes, allied themselves with Quraysh after the Battle of Badr in response to ibn Ashraf’s exhortations. Muhammad likewise exhorted the Qaynuqa, urging them to accept him as a prophet in the tradition of Abraham and Moses. 26 Qaynuqa did not accept Muhammad based on their rabbinic teachings to say that God would not give another prophet to the Jewish people until they returned to Zion. Previously, upon questioning by the Jewish scholars of the community, Muhammad failed to give satisfactory answers. Instead, Muhammad angrily accused the Jews of hiding the word of God from him. The Jewish tribes once again were satisfied that Muhammad was not a prophet.27 Muslim tradition holds that this was the second time the Jews blasphemed God.28 Open armed conflict with the Qaynuqa tribe was directly caused by an incident where a Muslim woman was harassed by a Jewish man in a Medina marketplace. Riots ensued, and two men died—a Muslim and a Jew.29 According to Islamic tradition, the Qaynuqa refused to negotiate with the Muslims, and barricaded themselves in a fortress.30 Muhammad attacked, and the Jews quickly surrendered. Muhammad expelled the Qaynuqa from Medina on the condition that they leave the majority of their personal property behind.31 This property fell to the Muslims and greatly enriched the population.32 Ka’b ibn Ashraf returned to Medina and continued to incite the Jewish peo26. Martin, 12.

27. Ibid., 13.

28. The Jews of Islam, 14.

29. Martin, 13.

30. Watt, 46.

31. Martin, 14.

32. Ye’or, 37.

Alexandria Historical Review, Page 10

ple against Muhammad. He gained social prominence among the Nadir and became one of their primary community leaders.33 In 625 CE, he was murdered by Muslims, and the Nadir came to Muhammad in protest. Muhammad’s answer was unsatisfactory, and in response the Nadir allied themselves with a pagan tribe.

Upon the defeat of the pagan tribe at the Battle of Uhud, Muhammad sought to negotiate a cessation of hostiles with the Nadir. Rather than accept a truce, the Nadir allied themselves with another enemy of Muhammad, Ibn Ubayy. Upon a betrayal by Ibn Ubayy, the Banu Nadir found themselves under siege by Muhammad’s forces.34 In an attempt to end the siege, the Muslim forces burned the Nadir’s date palms. This removed their primary source of livelihood and food. This action marks another departure of Islam from its initial Jewish roots. The destruction of fruit trees is forbidden under Jewish law, but it is not under Islamic law, thanks to a revelation received by Muhammad shortly after the destruction of Nadir’s palms. The continued pattern of revelation that directly corresponds to Muhammad’s actions or requirements points towards Islam as a tribal political ideology masquerading as a religion.35 The Banu Nadir surrendered shortly after the destruction of their livelihood and were expelled from Medina with only the belongings they could carry on their camels. Some continued to the community of Khaybar, a trading city northwest of Medina. Others, led by Huyayy ibn Akhtab, allied themselves with a prominent member of the Quraysh tribe, declaring that paganism was superior to Islam. They subsequently joined the alliance of Meccan tribes who sought to fight Muhammad.36 Muhammad’s drastic actions against the Banu Qurayza tribe departs from his treatment of the two other Jewish tribes of Medina. Rather than expelling them, Muhammad slaughtered the men of the tribe and sold the women and children into slavery.37 Such action was not religiously motivated over anger that the Qurayza had not accepted Muhammad as a prophet. Rather, the slaughter 33. Martin, 14.

34. Watt, 48.

35. Martin, 15-16.

36. Ibid., 16.

37. Martin, 17.

Alexandria Historical Review, Page 11

was because the Qurayza had allied themselves with the Quraysh tribe in a Meccan alliance bent on destroying Muhammad. Political motivations, rather than religious belief, caused their downfall. 38 Some sources report that the Qurayza were simply accused of collaborating with the Quraysh tribe by providing them with intelligence. Because the only sources for this event are biographies of Muhammad, it is uncertain whether the Qurayza were providing information to the Quraysh or not.39 Muhammad, however, did successfully drive the Qurayza to abandon the Meccan alliance by leading the Qurayza to believe that Quraysh was treacherous. The Qurayza kidnapped several members of the Quraysh tribe to force the Quraysh tribe to uphold their word, but they were unsuccessful. The Quraysh abandoned the Qurayza because of their inability to feed their army or horses. Upon the departure of the Quraysh tribe, Qurayza found themselves besieged by Muhammad’s army. 40 For over three weeks the Qurayza withstood the siege but surrendered due to starvation. They appealed for the same fate as the Nadir and Qaynuqa, but Muhammad denied them. They countered with the appeal to just leave with their families and abandon their possessions. Muhammad refused, and took the Qurayza captive in order to mete out justice to them as he saw fit. The fate of the Qurayza was, according to Muhammad, a divine revelation given independently to both himself and Sa’d ibn Mu’adh.41 The women and children of the Qurayza would be sold into slavery while the men would be beheaded. The entirety of their possessions was partitioned out among Muhammad’s army as spoils, strengthening Muhammad financially.42 Muhammad’s violent, genocidal treatment of the Qurayza tribe was not indicative of his treatment of Jewish tribes in other areas of Arabia. His slaughter of the Qurayza tribe was not because they were Jewish, rather, it was because they were allied with his enemies and posed a political threat.43 While Muslim 38. Ye’or, 37.

39. The Arabs in History, 42.

40. Martin, 17.

41. Ibid., 17-19.

42. Ye’or, 37.

43. Watt, 49.

Alexandria Historical Review, Page 12

scholars placed importance on Muhammad’s action against the Banu Qurayza as the means by which all Muslim rulers should deal with enemies, Muhammad’s treatment of the Jews dwelling in Khaybar does not reflect this sentiment. His treatment of the Jewish tribes in Khaybar reflects his actions against the Banu Qaynuqa and Nadir, not the Qurayza.

The military campaign against the Jewish population of Khaybar was once again politically driven. Muhammad sought to disrupt any potential alliance the Quraysh tribe could make, understanding that the precedence of Jews allying with pagans could prove disastrous to his rule. In 628 CE, his military murdered the leaders of the Jewish community in Khaybar, and captured the Jewish farmers stuck outside the city walls. Once again, the Muslim army burned down the date palms farmed by the Jewish tribes, driving the city to surrender within a month of Muhammad’s arrival.44 Muhammad’s treatment of the Jews of Khaybar cemented the Muslim practice of allowing certain minorities protection and religious freedom upon payment of a large tax.45 In Khaybar, the Jewish minorities were allowed to continue practicing their religion but were taxed on their produce. All of their lands were given to Muslims, but the Jewish people could still farm their previous plots. The practice of granting certain minorities dhimmi status grew out of Muhammad’s actions against the Khaybar Jews. They were allowed to practice their religion but were humiliated and heavily taxed.46 Islamic action against the Jews of Khaybar was not because they were Jewish. The possibility that the Jews of Khaybar could ally with the Quraysh and hinder Muhammad’s progress in conquering Mecca prompted his attack. Rather than condemn them for practicing the incorrect religion, Muhammad acted against them to cement his own political power in the Arabian Peninsula. The humiliation of a dhimmi was meant to keep them subject to Muslim rule. The jizya tax required of all dhimmi populations acted enriched Muhammad and his followers.47 Muslims were able to keep land and divide the possessions of conquered people among themselves, and still have a population of workers to tax.

44. Martin, 20-21.

45. The Arabs in History, 43.

46. Ye’or, 37.

47. Martin, 20-24.

Alexandria Historical Review, Page 13

The dhimmi status of the Jewish people combined the fates of the Nadir and Qaynuqa with the Qurayza. By allowing a population to live as dhimmi, Muhammad suspended his right to slaughter them while subsequently claiming their possessions and land.48 Muhammad’s interactions with Jewish Tribes in Arabia occurred in three distinctive waves. His first interaction with the Jewish population consisted of encounters with Jewish beliefs on his trade routes, beliefs that he would eventually modify and combine to form a new religion, Islam. His second interaction with Jewish tribes were directly connected to his interactions with his own tribe, the Banu Quraysh. Because his hostility with the Banu Quraysh affected his political movements, when Jewish tribes sought to undermine Muhammad’s authority they allied with the Quraysh. Subsequently, Muhammad’s response consisted of direct military assaults against the Jewish tribes of Medina as a means of solidifying political authority. Muhammad’s third interaction with Jewish tribes in Arabia set a precedence for all future interactions between Muslims and Jews. The Jewish people were forced to become dhimmi, second-class citizens who gained protection by paying a high tax called the jizya.

The direct correlation between Islam’s changed religious practice in correspondence with Muhammad’s need for more followers seems to suggest that Muhammad’s interactions with the Jewish people were political in nature, and not religious. Because of this, Muhammad’s ultimate relationship with the Jewish people also reflects political necessity because of the economic benefit rendered by jizya. While the Jewish tribes in Arabia did not provide any long-lasting contribution to Jewish culture, they directly affected a large percentage of the global Jewish population by creating the system Muslims would use to interact with Jews for over a millennium.

While it is tempting to view current Jewish-Muslim relations through the early actions of Muhammad, this is a gross oversimplification. Current Jewish-Muslim relations are not primarily influenced by economic needs, but rather by anti-Zionism and distinctly European flavors of anti-Semitism. The shift from treating Jews per Muhammad’s precedence slowly declined starting with increased European Imperialism. Bernard Lewis argues that Western influences on Islamic cultures detrimentally affected Muslim-Jewish relationships because Western influences removed dhimmi status from Jewish people and provided violent intellectual fodder for anti-Semitism. As Jewish people lost dhimmi sta48

Ye’or, 41.

Alexandria Historical Review, Page 14

tus, their political status declined as cultural protections disappeared. The late 19th and early 20th centuries saw Muslim nations adopt truly anti-Semitic beliefs influenced by cooperation from Middle Eastern Christians. Charges of blood libel (a European idea accusing Jewish people of using sacrificed Christian children’s blood in matzo preparation) grew popular with the Muslims.49 Because of the ideological shift in Islamic opinions of the Jews, it is inaccurate to apply Muhammad’s interactions with the Jewish tribes of Arabia to current events.

49

The Jews of Islam, 184-185.

Alexandria Historical Review, Page 15

Bibliography Gilbert, Martin. In Ishmael’s House: A History of Jews in Muslim Lands. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2010.

Holland, Tom. In The Shadow of the Sword: The Birth of Islam and the Rise of the Global Arab Empire. New York: Anchor Books, 2012.

Hourani, Albert. A History of the Arab Peoples. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991.

Lewis, Bernard. The Arabs In History. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. ____. The Jews of Islam. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1984.

Moshe, Gil. Jews In Islamic Countries in the Middle Ages. Translated by David Strassler. Boston, MA: Brill, 2004.

Schama, Simon. The Story of the Jews. Vol. 1. New York: Harper Collins, 2013.

Watt, W. Montgomery. “Muhammad.” In The Cambridge History of Islam, vol. 1a, The Central Islamic Lands from Pre-Islamic Times to the First World War, edited by P.M. Holt, Ann K. S. Lambton, and Bernard Lewis, 30-57. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1970.

Ye’or, Bat. Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide. Translated by Miriam Kochan and David Littman. Cranbury, NJ: Associated University Presses, 2002.

Alexandria Historical Review, Page 16

Jihad in the Path of Allah: An Exploration of Greater and Lesser Jihad Hannah Esther Katz

Editor’s Summary: Muslims have historically interpreted the Islamic duty of jihad in two distinct ways: spiritual struggle and physical violence. By examining Muslims’ views and applications of jihad from the ninth century onward, this essay tracks a transition from nonaggressive attitudes to militant policies. Properly understood as the duty to spread Islam through force, jihad gives Islam an intrinsic connection to violent conversion methods that stand in contrast with the core principles of Christianity.

In the Qur’an, the Arabic word jihad often connotes the idiomatic expression of “striving in the path of Allah.” In all literature concerning jihad, the term implies disconnecting oneself from the world. It means dying to the world, whether spiritually or physically. Jihad manifests itself in two earthly forms: the greater jihad (al-jihad al-akbar) and the lesser jihad (al-jihad al-asghar). Over the course of its first five hundred years of existence, jihad transformed from a primarily peaceful practice to a primarily violent one. During the early stages of Islam’s development, Muslim ascetics embraced the greater jihad, peaceful and nonviolent. They defined jihad as the practice of pursuing spiritual purity, converting people to Islam, and defending the faith. This initial theory of jihad transformed when ascetics moved more classical texts into consideration. As a new influx of jihadist ideas were introduced, ascetics adopted a different title: Sufis. When the Sufis examined classical texts, including the Qur’an, hadith, and other Muslim holy documents, they began understanding that militancy was imbedded in jihad. Not only was it jihad’s most scripturally supported form, but was also its most historically accurate form. Consequently, this militant form of spreading the Islamic faith as contained in the Qur’an starkly contrasts with the Biblical conversion philosophy of Christianity.

During times when Islam was the predominant religion of the Middle East, Muslims adopted jihad as a peaceful “struggle” or “striving” toward spiritual purity. Muslims looked inward without feeling compelled to convert an unbelieving world through militant jihad. Undistracted, they were more introspective as a

Alexandria Historical Review, Page 17

whole. By pointing to verses in the Qur’an, they supported the argument that spiritual self-betterment was a proper form of jihad. In Chapter (surah) 22, verse 78, the Qur’an instructs Muslims to strive (jihadu) as they ought to strive (haqq jihadihi), to “perform the prayer, give the alms and hold fast to Allah.” In this case, the word for jihad is included in its original tense, providing support for the conviction that one of the appropriate forms of jihad is spiritual development. Early ascetics believed that if jihad was warfare at all, it belonged to the inner soul.

According to one of the passages of the Qur’an most commonly cited by ascetics, A number of fighters came to the Messenger of Allah, and he said: “You have done well in coming from the ‘lesser jihad’ to the ‘greater jihad.’” They said: “What is the ‘greater jihad’?” He said: “For the servant [of God] to fight his passions.” 1 For ancient Muslims, the only successful means of obeying this injunction to fight sinful passions was to purge their souls by the pursuit of spiritual purity. The first attested Muslim to purport this viewpoint was an early moralist named Al-Muhasibi (d. 857 A.D.). Speaking under the authority of the Abbasid Caliphate, he exhorted Muslims to combat the passions that drove them toward secular success.2 Al-Muhasibi focused on the purification of the heart and the human psyche and encouraged Islam’s adherents to eradicate negative emotions such as fear, sorrow, and lust. Ibn Abi al-Dunya (d. 894 A.D.), also circulated books and pamphlets on moral and ethical issues. He inspired Muslims to examine themselves. Both figures urged their Muslim contemporaries, as well as the Middle Eastern populace as a whole, to pursue jihad as a means of attaining spiritual purity during times of Islamic hegemony.3 As Islamic society reigned supreme, Muslims pursued another peaceful form of jihad: promoting social welfare through spiritual activities. Again, they deemed unnecessary the violent forms of jihad against entire foreign civilizations. To worship Allah, they needed only to serve those within their immediate 1. David Cook, Understanding Jihad (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005), 35, accessed November 15, 2015, eBook Collection (EBSCOhost).

2. Gavin N. Picken, “Spiritual Purification in Islam; The Life and Works of Al-Muhasibi,” Reference and Research Book News 26, no. 4 (August 2011), accessed December 12, 2015, http://search.proquest.com. ezproxy.phc.edu/pqrl/docview/880282640/ 220554AD338B4390PQ/1?accountid=13113.

3. Cook, 35-36.

Alexandria Historical Review, Page 18

circles of influence. Moving beyond the practice of purifying their personal spiritual states, Muslims pursued jihad by providing for one another and thereby promoting public morality. Primarily, they engaged in charitable practices. They provided alms for the poor; they fed, clothed, and cared for the less fortunate. In doing so, Muslims believed themselves to be practically embracing the Qur’an’s fundamental axiom of “enjoining the good and forbidding the evil.” Muslim leadership actually required religious adherents to adopt this proactive attitude toward public morality. Jihad’s form of spiritual practice logically flowed from spiritual purity; Islamic conviction flowed from the head to the hand.

In geographical areas where Islam was not the most popular religion, Muslims proselytized unbelievers through an additional peaceful form of jihad. Chapter 25, verse 52 of the Qur’an commands: “So, do not obey the unbelievers and strive (jahidhum) against them with it [the Quran] mightily.” Classical Muslims were convinced that it was imperative for their most holy text be preached to unbelievers who lived vapid lives, awaiting an impending doom. This form of jihad was pursued in borderlands and coastlands along the Islamic empire. Qazwin was one such territory. This region lined the then-wild and un-Islamized region of Tabaristan. It was an area where countless unbelievers called for conversion.

During eras of Islamic persecution, Muslims developed another peaceful pattern of jihad by openly speaking to unaccommodating and unbelieving rulers. In doing so, they defended their faith and demonstrated a level of devotion which they believed would earn benefits in the afterlife. They struggled against rulers who shared opposing outlooks and sometimes faced execution. This concept of martyrdom was married to the fourth form of nonviolent jihad as Muslims peacefully opposed their rulers.

These four peaceful forms of jihad all fall under the category of “greater jihad.” Within this category, a man’s worst enemies are the sinful factors in his life that secure him to the mundane world. These ties hinder him from entering path of Allah. They prevent him from taking risks of internal and external spiritual advancement. They inhibit him from pursuing spiritual purity and practice, converting people to Islam, and defending the faith. A man in this position faces spiritual danger comparable to the physical peril faced by his colleagues on the battlefield. He must struggle, on his own and without outside aid, against worldly influences that inspire cowardice. He must strive through peaceful jihad and overcome.

As Islam continued impacting lives along its historical course, classical asAlexandria Historical Review, Page 19

cetics who had once conformed to peaceful jihad transformed into radical Sufis who adhered to militant jihad. This alteration was inevitable as conquest shifted into Islamic focus. Early ascetic fighter Ibn al-Mubarak was clearly familiar with this violent form of jihad. He catalogued his views on jihad in his work Kitab al-jihad and demonstrated his commitment to jihad through the evidence of his lifestyle. Ibn al-Mubarak is remembered today as the man who challenged the caliph for not applying himself energetically enough to the violent spread of Islam. Ibn al-Murabak resolved not to make the same mistake. Originally from the eastern region of modern-day Iran, he immigrated to Syria in order to slaughter the infidels within the Christian Byzantine Empire. To Ibn al-Murabak and his contemporaries, the Christian civilization’s mere presence posed an imminent threat to Islam. Therefore, the militant form of jihad to which Ibn al-Murabak exclusively devoted his life was especially prevalent in places such as Cilicia where the Byzantines proliferated. From the eighth through eleventh centuries, this border area was a hotbed of militant clashing. Similarly, in the Byzantine-dominated Tarsus, eighth-century ascetic Mu’awiya al-Aswad participated in raids whenever he was not practicing extreme self-denial. Thus, classical peaceful ascetics suddenly transformed into radical Sufis who embraced previously dormant doctrines of militant jihad against the Byzantines.

Muttatawi’a volunteer fighters, composed of both ascetics and Sufis, flocked to the battlefront of border regions. They relished the idea of receiving significant eternal rewards by becoming martyrs. To early Muslims, this breakthrough of unbridled violent behavior was completely logical. It was a frenzy that flowed from emulating the example of the Prophet Mohammad and his companions, who both initiated and participated passionately in Islamic conquest. Sufi military units endured well into the thirteenth century and only started to disappear with the creation of standard Muslim armies during medieval times.

Even after the Sufi military was replaced with more uniform units and became less sought after, Muslim civilizations still centered their systems on militant jihad. Both in northern Africa and in Muslim Spain, a revivalist movement surfaced between 1091 and 1145, spearheaded by the Murabitun, also known as the Almoravid, dynasty. This was a militant Sufi dynasty that utilized combative jihad to prove its legitimacy. The Safavids served as another example of militant jihad’s proponents, existing in Persia between the 1500s and the 1700s. Southern Asia, including modern-day India and Pakistan, particularly swarmed with warrior Sufi holy men. Throughout the southern Asian subcontinent, the Sufi order of the Alexandria Historical Review, Page 20

Naqshbandiyya-Mujaddidiyya also closely associated itself with militant Muslim revivalism. Between the years of 1657 and 1707, a man named Baba Palangposh entered into the army of Moghul ruler Awrangzeb. There, he participated in the campaign to subdue the region of southern India. To legitimize his jihadist activity, Palangposh claimed to have witnessed a vision of Mohammad’s uncle Hamza, “the Prince of Martyrs.” In the vision, Hamza handed Palangposh a sword with an accompanying command, “Take this sword... and go to the army of Mir Shihab al-Din in the land of the Deccan [southern India].” Hama wasted no time in fulfilling his commission. As for western jihadist activity, Sufi descendants conducted resistance movements against Europeans during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Examples of these resistance efforts included the Qadiris and Tijanis who supported Usaman Dan Fodio in western Africa, the movement of Imam Shamil in the Caucasus, the Mahdist movement in the Sudan and Somalia, and the Sanusis in Libya.4 Though Sufi militant units became less sought-after when they were replaced with more uniform Muslim fighting units, they continued to impact the Islamic world for centuries.

Ascetics initially underwent this conversion when they regrettably recognized that jihad was, in its purest form, militant. For years, they had neglected the primary texts of the Qur’an that emphasized physical combat. Most of the verses in the Qur’an concerning jihad vehemently praise those who believe, emigrate, and fight in the path of Allah. Though the Arabic syntax for jihad in its full form of actual fighting is only used four times in the Qur’an (2:218, 8:72, 49:15), its verbal derivative appears quite frequently with regard to fighting or fighters (mujahidin). Most of the previously-mentioned traditions of peaceful jihad are included in the Qur’an as proverbs, completely absent from official canonical collections (besides the earlier reference to “passions.”) Ascetics dramatically transformed their practices when they realized that spiritual jihad was merely a derivative of militant jihad. Likewise, Sufis argued that the hadith – the compiled writings about the Prophet Mohammad’s life – contradicted the theory that striving for spiritual purity was equivalent to aggressive jihad. On the verge of becoming Sufis, ascetics finally recognized that classical sources, considered in the entirety of their contexts, correctly presented militancy as the highest form of jihad.

It was the eleventh-century Sufi theologian al-Ghazali who first officially formulated the idea that militant jihad was of more importance than its peaceful 4. Cook, Understanding Jihad, 46.

Alexandria Historical Review, Page 21

counterpart. Modern jihadist doctrine owes its success to al-Ghazali. While he argues in favor of spiritual jihad, he emphatically focuses on its military version.5 In a section of his Ihya, where he encourages enjoining the good and forbidding the evil, he adduces an example of a jihad fighter. The Muslim sacrifices himself for the greater good and leads a charge against a large number of the enemy in an attempt to cause them distress. This passage of al-Ghazali’s Ihya has proved to be the foundation a Muslim’s justification of suicidal attack or martyrdom operation. Muhyi al-Din Ibn al-Arabi, who lived in the thirteenth century, took up the Sufism baton as al-Ghazali’s successor. He emphasized military jihadist means to an even greater extent and popularized the phrase, “I was ordered to fight people until they bear witness that there is only one God….” 6 According to modern twentieth-century writer Ayatullah Ruhallah al-Khumayni, the progression from an ascetic form of spiritual jihad to militant jihad made complete sense: Those who engaged in jihad in the first age of Islam advanced and pushed forward without any regard for themselves or their personal desires, for they had earlier waged a jihad against their selves. Without the inner jihad, the outer jihad is impossible. Jihad is inconceivable unless a person turns his back on his own desires and the world. For what we mean here by “world” is the aggregate of man’s aspirations that effectively constitute his world... it is the world in this narrow, individual sense that prevents man from drawing near to the realm of sanctity and perfection.7 Though spiritual jihad formed the foundation for a lasting militant jihad, the latter correctly established itself in Muslim circles as being of more importance than its peaceful counterpart.

Fighters for the Muslim faith who engaged in combative jihad were universally considered spiritual superiors to noncombatants. Though both were engaged in the struggle for furthering Islam and strived to be “in the path of Allah,” the former was believed to acquire more rewards in the afterlife than the latter.

5 Farouk Mitha and Institute for Ismaili Studies, Al-Ghazali and the Ismailis: A Debate on Reason and Authority in Medieval Islam (London: I.B. Tauris, 2001), 80, accessed November 15, 2015, eBook Collection (EBSCOhost).

6

Cook, Understanding Jihad, 38.

7

Ibid., 39.

Alexandria Historical Review, Page 22

This hypothesis is made clear by Chapter 4, verse 95 of the Qur’an: Those of the believers who stay at home while suffering from no injury are not equal to those who fight for the cause of Allah with their possessions and persons. Allah has raised those who fight with their possessions and persons one degree over those who stay at home; and to each Allah has promised the fairest good. Yet Allah has granted a great reward to those who fight and not to those who stay behind.

Thus, the Qur’an, the Muslim’s most revered and respected classical text, implies that militancy for the sake of spreading the faith is the most properly interpreted form of jihad.

In conclusion, the Muslim practice of spreading the Islamic faith through militant jihad starkly contrasts with the conversion philosophy of Christianity that appears in the Bible. This is an essential distinction when considering how the two religions ought to be approached and addressed. Scholars often place Islam and Christianity as though they were on similar moral ground regarding the issue of violent proselytization. They contest that Islam and Christianity ought to be equally regarded as having had eras of religious terror. Proponents of this view point to the Crusades in medieval times as evidencing Christianity’s militant guilt in spreading the gospel message. Where Islam and Christianity split concerning violence associated with the spreading of their faiths, however, is where their holy documents discuss concepts of militancy. Clearly, as has been exposed throughout the previous paragraphs concerning militant jihad, the Muslim Qur’an adamantly bolsters the spreading of Islam through violence. On the other hand, not once does the Christian Bible challenge believers to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ through the sword. The Crusades were a distortion of Biblical doctrine; Islamic jihad is a pillar of the Muslim faith. Instead of including commands to eliminate the infidel, the Bible challenges Christians to love everyone, even enemies (Matt. 5:43). According to the classical texts of Islam, militancy for the sake of spreading the faith “in the path of Allah” is the most properly interpreted form of jihad. Though it is labeled as “lesser jihad,” it is valued as more rewarding than greater jihad and is therefore more pursued. This method of proselytizing serves as a polarizing contrast to that contained in Christianity.

Alexandria Historical Review, Page 23

Bibliography Al-Ghazālī. 1356–57 (1937–38). Ihyā ‘ulūm al-Dīn (The Revival of the Religious Sciences). Cairo: Lajnat Nashr al-Thaqāfa al-Islāmiyya. Accessed November 15, 2015. http://www.ghazali.org/site/ihya.htm.

Blankinship, Khalid Yahya. The End of the Jihad State: The Reign of Hisham Ibn Abd Al-Malik and the Colla (Suny Series in Medieval Middle East History). State University of New York, 1994.

Cook, David. Understanding Jihad. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005.

“Economic Thought of ‘Abd Allah Harith al-Muhasibi.” In Islamic Economics on Islamic-World.net. Accessed Novemeber 15, 2015. http:// www.islamic-world.net/Archives/economics/harith_al_muhasibi.htm.

Firestone, Reuven. Jihād: The Origin of Holy War in Islam. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.

Halloran, Richard. 2003. “The True Meaning of Jihad.” South China Morning Post (Hong Kong), April 1. Accessed November 15, 2015. Lexis Nexis Academic.

Mitha, Farouk, and Institute for Ismaili Studies. Al-Ghazali and the Ismailis: A Debate on Reason and Authority in Medieval Islam. London: I.B. Tauris, 2001.

Picken, N. Gavin. “Spiritual Purification in Islam; The Life and Works of Al-Muhasibi.” Reference and Research Book News 26, no. 4 (August 2011).

Alexandria Historical Review, Page 24

“The Concept of Jihad.” Kashmir Monitor (India), August 16, 2013.

Accessed November 15, 2015. Lexis Nexis Academic.

Alexandria Historical Review, Page 25

Judaism and Christianity in the Roman Empire: Analyzing the Various Roman Reactions to Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries Hannah Blalack

Editor’s Summary: This paper examines the relationship between Judaism, Christianity, and the Roman authorities. The author argues that, while Roman officials disliked the Jews, their feelings towards Christians reached a new level of distrust and hatred because of their ideology which so directly opposed imperial Roman traditions. The first part of the paper focuses on the relationship between Romans and Jews, arguing that Rome feared the Jews as a dangerous political minority. The second part of the paper focuses on Rome’s treatment of Christians.

Because little was known about Christianity until the late second century AD, strange rumors regarding Christian traditions circulated throughout the empire.

The unknown aspect of the religion, combined with the speed at which it spread, garnered a much harsher response from Roman officials than Judaism did.

There is much debate surrounding Rome’s response to Judaism versus Christianity. Many historians are uncertain as to the motivations behind Rome’s acts that negatively affected these two religious groups. Although adherents to both Judaism and Christianity suffered under the Roman Empire, the Romans’ response to Christianity was often more severe than their response to Judaism. While a fear of insurrection affected their behavior towards traditional Jews and Christians alike, the Romans saw Christianity as even more dangerous and divisive, leading them to persecute many Christians. Although the Romans experienced some division in their opinions of the Jews and Judaism, their reaction to Christianity was stronger, harsher, and far more divisive.

Although the Romans sometimes mocked and criticize the Jewish faith, the main reason for any hatred or distrust they harbored against the Jews was based more on fear for the stability of the empire than upon Jewish ideology.

Rome first began to exert control over Judaea in the first century B.C. The empire became increasingly involved in Jewish affairs, appointing a series of kings over Judaea before stepping into an almost uninterrupted period of direct rule

Alexandria Historical Review, Page 26

in A.D. 6.1 Initially, Rome’s relationship with the Judaeans was similar to their relationship with peoples in their other provinces. However, Jewish relations with Rome “grew steadily more fraught.”2 Both Tiberius and Claudius expelled Jews from Rome on an apparently large scale. There is much debate as to why Jews in Rome were expelled, but since the Romans were generally reluctant to intervene in Jewish religious affairs, their expulsion of the Jews seems to be directly related to their desire to maintain the stability of the empire. As Donfried and Richardson convincingly argue, most Roman actions that negatively affected the Jews were based upon Rome’s desire to keep the peace by suppressing any unrest rather than any specific prejudice against Judaism.3 When the Jews adhered to Roman law, Rome generally left them alone and allowed them to continue practicing their religion. This is not to say that Rome believed the Jews had a right to practice their religion. Rather, “Roman magistrates treated the Jews the way they did, not because they were consciously tolerant, but simply because they had no reason to hinder the free exercise of Jewish religious practices.”4 However, Rome increasingly found reasons to oppress the Jews in their desire to maintain peace and order, which often led them to hinder the Jews’ ability to practice their religion.5 After the Jewish uprising ended with the burning of the temple in A.D. 70, Rome’s military presence in Judaea increased exponentially. Various articles from the temple were paraded through the streets during the triumph of Vespasian’s son Titus in celebration of Rome’s victory—a travesty in the eyes of the Jews.6 Soon after their failed revolt, Rome chased down Jews in Egypt and Cyrene, destroyed a Jewish temple in Egypt, and imposed a new tax on all Jews. The Romans’ behavior towards the Jews had changed radically since Judaea became part of the empire. Whereas before the Romans typically left the Jews to practice 1. Martin Goodman, “Trajan and the Origins of Roman Hostility to the Jews,” Past and Present 182 (Feb. 2004): 6-7, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3600803 (accessed December 6, 2017).

2. Ibid., 3.

3. Karl P. Donfried and Peter Richardson, eds., Judaism and Christianity in First-Century Rome (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eeerdmans Publishing Company, 1998), 98-115.

4. Ibid., 115.

5. Ibid., 115-116.

6. Goodman, 15-17.

Alexandria Historical Review, Page 27

their religion in peace, now they eyed all Jews warily —regardless of whether or not they took part in the revolt—viewing them as a threat to the stability of the Roman Empire.7

Naturally, the Romans’ opinions of Jews and their monotheistic religion deteriorated further after the Jewish rebellion, raising more criticisms and accusations against Jews. The Romans already viewed Judaism with skepticism and even disgust. The idea of worshipping one sovereign, invisible God—neither made of stone or wood—was completely foreign to them, as well as many Jewish customs and rituals. While Romans saw nothing wrong with adding non-Roman gods to their pantheon, the fact that the Jews limited their worship to one God astounded them. However, both Judaism and Roman paganism shared a similarity that Roman religion did not share with Christianity: Many Jewish practices, such as the circumcision of males and cessation from work on the sabbath, struck at least some outsiders as bizarre, but the main form of Jewish worship, the offering of sacrifices, libations and incense in the Temple in Jerusalem, was one of the elements of Judaism least alien to the pagan world.8 This point of identification was further suppressed after the temple itself was destroyed.

Increasingly, the Romans began to view the Jews as seditious. In their eyes, this recent uprising was directly linked to the Jewish priests’ decision to stop making sacrifices to Yahweh for the emperor, which further lowered their opinion of Judaism to an impious, anti-Roman religion.9 In his discussion of the empire during the reign of Nerva, historian Cassius Dio exhibited his belief “that adopting a Judean life results in impiety with respect to Roman tradition.”10 Celsus, a Roman cit7. Goodman, 26.

8. Ibid., 12.

9. Goodman, 15-16.

10. Leif E Vaage, ed., Religious Rivalries in the Early Roman Empire and the Rise of Christianity (n.p.: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2006), 143-144, http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.phc.edu/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=155726&site=ehost-liv (accessed December 6, 2017).

Alexandria Historical Review, Page 28

izen and proponent of Greek philosophy,11 saw the Jews as religious rabble-rousers. He compared them to “‘a flight of bats or to a swarm of ants issuing out of their nest, or to frogs holding council in a marsh, or to worms crawling together in the corner of a dunghill, and quarrelling with one another as to which of them were the greater sinners….’”12 The historian Tacitus held further criticism for the Jews and their religion, even though there is no evidence that he ever had direct contact with Jews in the East. Most of his information was apparently derived from books, which makes his perception of Judaism even more telling of the Roman perception of Judaism.13 Tacitus noted with derision Jewish laws banning the setting up and worshipping of images in Jewish cities and temples: “[t]his flattery is not paid to their kings, nor this honor to our Emperors.”14 Additionally, the historian implied a tendency towards laziness among the Jews in his discussion of the Sabbath.15 Tacitus also claimed that the Jews were hypocritical in their moral standards; while they rejected sexual relations with foreign women, they remained “singularly prone to lust,” for “among themselves nothing is unlawful.”16 Perhaps Tacitus’ strongest criticism of the Jews is his description of many of their customs as “perverse and disgusting” and their religion as “tasteless and mean.”17 Since Tacitus’ opinions about Judaism were no doubt affected by the books he read and were comparable to those of other Roman historians, it is likely that many Romans held some similar negative view of Judaism. Although Christians’ beliefs and customs were harshly attacked during the early Roman Empire, the Jews also suffered 11. Roger E Olson, The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition and Reform (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 34, https://books.google.com/books?id=zexBAwAAQBAJ&printsec =fro ntcover#v=onepage&q&f=false (accessed December 9, 2017).

12. Bart Wagemakers, “Incest, Infanticide, and Cannibalism: Anti-Christian Imputations in the Roman Empire,” Greece and Rome 57, no. 2 (Oct. 2010): 346, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40929483 (accessed December 6, 2017).

13. Ronald Mellor, The Historians of Ancient Rome: An Anthology of the Major Writings, 3rd ed. (New York: Routledge, 2013), 380.

14. Ibid., 383.

15. Mellor, 382.

16. Ibid., 382.

17. Ibid., 382-383.

Alexandria Historical Review, Page 29

some level of vocal abuse.

However, a minority of Romans found parts of the Jews’ religion appealing, with some even going so far as to convert to Judaism. Unlike Tacitus, some Romans saw an appeal to the unique religion, likely because of its “‘lofty moralism with high moral codes.’”18 Even Tacitus acknowledged the Jews as “inflexibly honest and ever ready to show compassion,” although he believed they possessed hatred for all the rest of mankind.19 Additionally, authors of literature during the early Roman Empire imply that Judaism attracted pagans, which could very well include Romans. Seneca, Horace, and Celsus all reflected the assumption that sympathizers to Judaism were common, although it is less clear whether many Romans converted to Judaism. Epitaphs from non-Judaean tomb sites indicate that there were four metuentes—or “reverers”—of Judaism buried there. One of these reverers was a Roman knight. Seven Jewish epitaphs also appear to be those of proselytes, converts who were accepted by the Jews and given a Jewish burial.20 Other mentions of supposed sympathizers and converts to Judaism appear in works of history. Josephus—a Jew as well as a Roman citizen—claimed that Emperor Nero’s wife, Poppaea, was a Jewish sympathizer and begged her husband to show leniency to the Jews.21 He also mentioned Fulvia, the wife of a senator during Tiberius’ reign, as having been defrauded of gifts which she intended to give to the Jerusalem temple. She appeared to have been either a Jewish sympathizer or a convert to Judaism. Cassius Dio also claimed that the consul Flavius Clemens and his wife were accused of atheism, stating that Domitian had Flavius killed and his wife exiled. At this time, Domitian appeared to have also charged others with atheism “‘who had drifted into Judaean customs.’”22 While it is impossible to estimate how prevalent Roman sympathizers and converts to Judaism were, the evidence does not indicate the same degree of division among the Romans regarding Judaism is it does concerning Christianity.

The principles and practices of the Christian sect were even more unfamil18. Donfried and Richardson, 101.

19. Mellor, 382.

20. Vaage, 142.

21. Stephen Benko, Pagan Rome and Early Christians (Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1984), 20.

22. Vaage, 143.

Alexandria Historical Review, Page 30

iar to the Romans than Judaism, which contributed to the divisiveness it caused among them. The majority of Romans knew little about Christianity until the late second century, which left plenty of time for vicious rumors and accusations to circulate.23 The Jewish revolts had given Rome greater cause to be suspicious of any sign of unrest in Judaea; this tendency worked against the cause of Christianity, predisposing the Romans to be wary of this new religion. Most Romans saw Christianity as “weak and ineffective,” viewing Christians themselves as “anti-social, atheistic and depraved.”24 Like most Jews, Christians refused to participate in the Roman state cult—an automatic strike against them.25 Still, they shared many similarities with the Jews. Why then did Rome focus on persecuting Christians? Unlike Judaism’s status as an established religion, the Romans saw Christianity as a mere superstition. While they often tolerated superstitions from other minority religious groups, the Romans would not tolerate groups “whose proceedings necessarily involved anti-social or criminal behavior.”26 Christian churches tended to meet in private homes—often at night—to avoid detection by both secular and religious authorities. Romans were very suspicious of this behavior.27 Christians also repeatedly defied both Roman and Jewish authorities in their efforts to evangelize.

Since Judaism had long been an established religion with which the Romans were somewhat familiar, they were naturally less fearful of it. They knew that criminal behavior—aside from an occasional revolt—did not characterize the daily lives of most Jews. A more pervasive fear and hatred of Christians would dominate Roman society, further enhancing the divide between the Romans who despised Christians and those who understood Christianity for what it was—divisive, difficult, and founded upon truth.

The Romans’ greater hatred for Christianity can be seen in their criticisms and accusations of Christians. As was mentioned above, the fact that Christians often held their meetings in private homes after dark greatly concerned the Romans, 23. Wagemakers, 342.

24. Michael Green, Evangelism in the Early Church, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003), 50.

25. Green, 57.

26. Ibid., 60.

27. Wagemakers, 343.

Alexandria Historical Review, Page 31

leading to speculation and malicious rumors among them concerning what actually went on in those meetings. In his letter to Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Aurelius Commodus, Athenagoras, a Greek Christian, complained about the “crowd of accusations” with which Christians were surrounded.28 In addition to being “robbed, and plundered, and persecuted,”29 Athenagoras stated the three accusations with which they were faced: “atheism, Thyestean meals, and incest like that of Oedipus.”30 He quickly put down the charge of atheism as unfounded, since belief in God is foundational to Christian doctrine.31 Those who accused them of atheism, he said, were hypocritical in that they desired Christians to worship pagan gods, even though they themselves did not agree on which gods to worship.32 Athenagoras also addressed the charges of incest and holding Thyestean meals, which “revolved around liberal sexual relations and the eating of human flesh.”33 Interestingly, Athenagoras believed that these accusation were devised by their accusers, that they “may seem to hate [them] with reason” and incite fear.34 Christian writers Origen and Tertullian also complained of Christians being falsely accused of infanticide and eating their murdered children in connection with these Thyestean feasts.35 While these accusations were partially the result of malicious rumors, the Christians’ practice of communion probably contributed to the rumors concerning the Thyestean feasts. Although it is uncertain to what extent Romans were involved in making these accusations, they doubtless played a part in spreading such rumors.

28. Athenagoras et al., The writings of the early Christians of the second century; namely, Athenagoras, Tatian [and others] collected and tr. by dr. Giles (n.p.: John Russell Smith, 1857), 2, https://books.google. com/ books?id=jcYCAAAAQAAJ&pg=PR3&lpg=PR3&dq=athenagoras+2nd+century+AD+writings (accessed December 7, 2017).

29. Athenagoras, 2.

30. Ibid., 4.

31. Ibid., 5.

32. Ibid., 12.

33. Wagemakers, 340.

34. Athenagoras et al., 37.

35. Wagemakers, 340.

Alexandria Historical Review, Page 32

The Roman elite certainly played a role in fueling a widespread dislike for and persecution of Christians. Nero’s blaming of the Christians for the burning of Rome is one of the most well-known examples. Tacitus said that Nero put the blame on the Christians in order to suppress a rumor that the fire had been set on purpose. In the process of describing how Nero ordered for the arrest and execution of self-proclaimed Christians, Tacitus derided the “deadly superstition” held by those commonly known as “depraved Christians.”36 Many were martyred for their faith, being either set on fire, mauled by dogs, or crucified. Despite his own belief that they deserved to suffer for identifying with Christianity, Tacitus indicated that many pitied them.37 Additionally, Suetonius, one of the educated intellectuals in Trajan’s court during his reign,38 called Christianity a “‘new and mischievous superstition.’”39 In his use of the word malefica, he appeared to associate Christians with terrible offenses against Roman law. Malefica might also imply the use of magic or sorcery. Morton Smith argues that the Romans and other groups initially persecuted Christians primarily because of their belief that Christians practiced magic.40 While it is unclear whether a majority of Romans believed these various accusations, it is nevertheless clear that they fostered an adamant dislike for Christians, continuously utilizing them as scapegoats for heinous crimes and atrocities.

Despite Rome’s overall hatred of the Christians, some Romans were drawn to the unique sect. While Tacitus indicated that they sometimes pitied the severe persecution of Christians, Romans’ sympathies sometimes ran even deeper. The pagan writer Caecilius was astounded by Christians’ behavior: “‘they know one another by secret marks and insignia, and they love one another almost before they know one another!’”41 Similarly, Luke wrote of a God-fearing centurion—one who necessarily identified himself with Rome due to his position in the Roman army— showing Christ-like qualities of faith in his interaction with the Christian Messiah. The centurion’s faith in Jesus’ power was so strong that he believed if 36. Tacitus: The Annals of Imperial Rome, rev. ed. (London: Penguin Books, 1989), 365.

37. Ibid., 364-365.

38. Mellor, 395.

39. Benko, 20.

40. Ibid., 20-21.

41. Green, 176.

Alexandria Historical Review, Page 33

Jesus just said the word, his ailing servant would be healed. Additionally, Luke recorded the conversion of a group of Roman citizens at Pentecost.42 Paul, a Roman as well as a Jew, also converted to Christianity after establishing himself as a fierce persecutor of Christians. In Philippians 4:22, Paul indicated the growing influence of Christianity in Rome: “All the saints greet you, especially those of Caesar’s household.” Despite much persecution, the Christian church had sprouted and grown in Rome—even including members of the emperor’s own household. Acilius Glabrio, a distinguished member of the Roman elite, also appeared to have converted to Christianity. Additionally, Pliny—a pagan provincial governor—observed that Roman citizens were a part of Bithynia’s Christian church. A man named Hermas also indicated that rich men were part of the early Roman church.43 Despite the negative portrayal of Christianity by many Romans, a significant number of Roman men nevertheless left the emptiness of their pagan religion to become Christians.

Christianity was also no doubt appealing to many Roman women. While they enjoyed some power in the emperor’s household, most Roman women “were entirely under the potestas of their husbands.”44 Christian doctrine does not hold women as inferior; within the relationship of marriage, both the husband and wife have duties to one another. Though strange from a Roman perspective, this idea likely drew Roman women to the Christian religion. In the second century, Justin reported the conversion of a woman in Rome whose husband dodged her many attempts to convince him to become a Christian. Instead, he distressed her with all manner of sinful practices, finally denouncing her publicly for her beliefs, leading to the further oppression of the church.45 Both Christian and non-Christian men and women felt the divisive nature of the Christian faith, which continued to produce a far greater hatred among Romans for Christians than they felt towards Jews.

For the Romans, Jews posed a danger to Rome mainly in their occasional revolts against Roman rule. It was only after these revolts that Rome’s fear of uprisings sharply increased, resulting in harsher regulations that sometimes affected the Jews’ religious freedom. While the Romans tended to poke fun at the Jews and their strange monotheistic religion, they generally punished them not for their 42. Green, 170.

43. Ibid., 170.

44. Ibid.,169.

45. Ibid., 230.

Alexandria Historical Review, Page 34

status as Jews but out of a desire to maintain control over the empire. The Jews did convert some Romans to Judaism, but the smaller number of Roman converts to Judaism compared to Christians helped to curb Roman distaste for Judaism.

Contrastingly, Christianity elicited a stronger and harsher response from the Romans. The gulf dividing Christians and God-fearers from pagan Rome was even wider than between Jews and Romans, as the conversion of Romans to Christianity was far more widespread. Still, Roman hatred for Christians still dominated Roman culture. The Romans feared further unrest from this new religious sect, being largely uninformed about its nature. As Athenagoras implied, Romans sometimes purposefully crafted accusations against Christians in their efforts to hinder their evangelistic efforts. However, some Romans’ harsh responses to Christianity may have stemmed from a deeper reason—the realization of the truth of Christian teaching. Perhaps a particular Roman’s subtle attraction to Christianity led him into fear and anger at his “weakness,” even to the point of lashing out at the entire sect. At the very least, the severer response of Rome to Christianity—compared to Judaism—shows that there was something different about Christians that disturbed the Romans.

Alexandria Historical Review, Page 35

Bibliography Athenagoras, Tatian, Theophilus, Hermias, Papias, Aristides et al. The Writings of the Early Christians of the Second Century; Namely, Athenagoras, Tatian [and Others] Collected and Tr. by Dr. Giles. N.p.: John Russell Smith, 1857. https:// books.google.com/books? id=jcYCAAAAQAAJ&pg=PR3&lpg=PR3&dq=athenagoras+2nd+century+AD+writings (accessed December 7, 2017).

Benko, Stephen. Pagan Rome and Early Christians. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1984.

Donfried, Karl P, and Peter Richardson, eds. Judaism and Christianity in First-Century Rome. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eeerdmans Publishing Company, 1998.

Goodman, Martin. “Trajan and the Origins of Roman Hostility to the Jews.� Past and Present 182 (Feb. 2004): 3-29. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3600803 (accessed December 6, 2017).

Grant, Michael, trans. Tacitus: The Annals of Imperial Rome. Rev. ed. London: Penguin Books, 1989.

Green, Michael. Evangelism in the Early Church. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003.

Mellor, Ronald. The Historians of Ancient Rome: An Anthology of the Major Writings. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge, 2013.

Olson, Roger E. The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition and Reform. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1999. https://books.google.com/books?id= zexBAwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false (accessed December 9, 2017).

Alexandria Historical Review, Page 36

Vaage, Leif E, ed. Religious Rivalries in the Early Roman Empire and the Rise of Christianity. N.p.: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2006. http:// search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.phc. edu/login .aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=155726&site=ehost-liv (accessed December 6, 2017).

Wagemakers, Bart. “Incest, Infanticide, and Cannibalism: Anti-Christian Imputations in the Roman Empire.� Greece and Rome 57, no. (Oct. 2010): 33754. http://www.jstor.org /stable/40929483 (accessed December 6, 2017).

Alexandria Historical Review, Page 37

Emperor Aurelian: Restoring and Renewing Rome Coleman Raush

Editor’s Summary: This essay argues that the often overlooked Roman Emperor Aurelian should be considered a success in light of his performance in his prime.

In the aftermath of the Crisis of the Third Century and following several inept leaders, he reunited a fractured Roman Empire by putting down the Gallic rebels and the Palmyrans. Further, he was surprisingly lenient towards Christianity for his time, helping pave the way for Constantine. Had he not been assassinated in his prime, he may have been remembered as one of the great emperors.

It is natural to want to rank things. People rank their favorite baseball, football, and basketball players, their favorite restaurants, and even their favorite cars to see who or what was the best of all time. Historical figures such as heads of state and generals are often ranked as well. However, when creating these rankings a distinction must be made between career value and peak value. Are the leaders’ entire lives being considered or just their performance at their peak?

When looking at lists of Roman emperors, it is common to see men like Augustus, Diocletian, Trajan, and maybe even Marcus Aurelius at the top; however, these emperors all had one thing in common. They all had very long reigns which gave them ample time to put their plans into practice and then see them to fruition.

This was not the case for Lucius Domitius Aurelianus. However, between the years 270 and 275 A.D., Aurelian, as he is often called, successfully reunited a fractured Roman Empire and began to implement changes which would be pursued further by subsequent emperors such as Diocletian and Constantine. Duncan argues that between these years, Aurelian was unstoppable. Had Aurelian not been assassinated in 275, it is likely that he would have gone on to be ranked as one of the all-time great emperors and given credit for his achievements rather than being given barely a mention in Roman history classes.

However, in order to discuss the events and reforms of Aurelian’s reign, it is important to understand the times in which he ruled. Aurelian was born in the early 210s A.D. near Sirmium (modern Sremska Mitrovica, Serbia) at the begin-

Alexandria Historical Review, Page 38

ning of the Crisis of the Third Century.1 Many historians date this time period as lasting from the assassination of Severus Alexander in 235 to the reign of Diocletian in 284.2 During this time, the empire suffered defeat after defeat, whether from barbarian invasions along the Danube River, a resurgent Sassanid Persian empire, or even from within, as large chunks of the empire began to break off from Rome to create their own domains. It could not have been a very encouraging time to be a Roman, and the situation only seemed to be getting worse.

In the year 260, the Emperor Valerian was captured while fighting against the Sassanid Persians.3 Led by Shapur I, the Persians had been on the offensive against the Romans for decades ever since Shapur’s father, Ardashir, had overthrown the existing Parthian Empire following Caracalla’s campaign in 216.4 This embarrassing defeat left Valerian’s son and co-Augustus Gallienus as the sole ruler of the empire. However, rather than attacking the Persians to rescue his father, Gallienus was forced to retreat to Italy to defend the home provinces against Gothic invasion. These invasions kept the Romans busy defending the provinces closest to the capital for many years. However, during this time, the defeat at the hands of the Sassanids further weakened the empire’s reputation in the provinces, and some were doubting its ability to protect them at all. For that reason, both the provinces in the west, led by the general Postumus, and the provinces in the east, led by Queen Zenobia of Palmyra, began to assert their own authority rather than deferring to Roman control.

Postumus was the governor of lower Germany when he was proclaimed emperor by his troops around 260, according to historian Pat Southern.5 In control of the provinces in the west, he ruled all of Gaul, the two Germanies, Britain, and Spain, with his capital at Cologne. The provinces which followed him did so 1. Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (New York: AMS Press Inc, 1974), 313.

27.

2. John F. White, Restorer of the World: The Roman Emperor Aurelian (Staplehurst: Spellmount, 2005),

3. Pat Southern, The Roman Empire: From Severus to Constantine (London and New York: Routledge, 2001), 79.

4. Alaric Watson, Aurelian and the Third Century (London and New York: Routledge, 1999), 6-7.

5. Pat Southern, The Roman Empire, 97.

Alexandria Historical Review, Page 39

out of concern for their own safety. The absence of the Roman legions, who were busy fighting off Goths and Sassanids, left them vulnerable to attacks from the barbarians who lived across the Rhine. Southern argues that initially Postumus sought this security as well, at least superficially. He gave himself titles such as Restitutor Galliarum (Restorer of Gaul) and Salus Provinciarum (bringer of security to the provinces) in order to celebrate his victories over the tribes which repeatedly attacked the western provinces.6 However, after Gallienus’ son Saloninus mysteriously died in Gaul, Postumus could not reunite with Gallienus’ empire without being executed for Saloninus’ murder. After ruling for seven years, Postumus’ own troops killed him after he kept them from looting a city. His successor, Victorinus, ruled well for a short time, but was eventually killed by one of his generals because of his poor morals.7 After his death, control of the Gallic empire fell to Victorinus’ mother, Victoria, who appointed the governor of Aquitaine, a man named Tetricus, to the purple.8 Overall, life under the Gallic emperors would not have been much different for the average citizen than life under the Romans. The emperors minted coins in their image and kept Roman institutions such as annual consular elections and the Praetorian Guard in place.9 On the other side of the empire, the city state of Palmyra ruled in place of the Romans. Founded by Solomon as the city of Tadmor, Palmyra was born on the intersection of trade routes running along the Silk Road through Asia, Africa, and Europe, and profited greatly from taxing the caravans that ran through it.10 During the Crisis of the Third Century, Palmyra grew to prominence after its ruler, Odenathus, successfully fought off the Sassanid Persians following the defeat and capture of Valerian in 260. After this point, Odenathus supposedly was given the titles of dux Romanorum and corrector totius orientis by Gallienus, who begrudgingly accepted his help protecting the empire.11 6. Ibid., 98.

7. Gibbon, Decline and Fall, 323.

8. Ibid., 324.

9. Southern, The Roman Empire, 97-98.

10. Watson, Aurelian and the Third Century, 26.

11. Ibid., 32.

Alexandria Historical Review, Page 40

Historian Pat Southern disagrees, however, arguing that there is little evidence to conclude that the title dux was given to Odenathus and that it was instead fabricated by Odenathus’ wife Zenobia to give her son legitimacy after the death of Odenathus.12 Corrector, on the other hand, is attested by statues found in Palmyra, although the translation is unclear.13 Odenathus then went on to launch a massively successful campaign against the Persians, even reaching as far as the Persian capital of Ctesiphon.14 Despite his great success in defending the eastern part of the empire, he did not die the noble death that he deserved. He, along with his oldest heir, was assassinated by a bitter nephew after embarrassing him during a hunting trip.15 After the death of Odenathus, his wife Zenobia acted quickly to legitimize their son Vaballathus’ claim to the throne. Acting as his regent, Zenobia granted him the titles Lord of Palmyra, King of Kings, and corrector totius orientis. According to historian Alaric Watson, while Vaballathus certainly did hold a claim to the first two titles, he had no claim whatsoever to the last due to the fact that it was a Roman military position.16 This severely damaged relations between Rome and Palmyra, and began a period of Palmyrene aggression against the Roman empire.

Within a few years, Zenobia had expanded her authority militarily as far as Bithynia in Asia Minor, and even captured Egypt from the Romans.17 Egypt in particular was critical to the empire due to its abundant flood plains which provided grain for the entire empire. This caused added pressure on top of the external enemies that the empire was facing at the time.

Not only was Rome suffering from the formation of the Gallic and Palmyrene empires, it was also plagued by almost constant barbarian invasions from across the Danube frontier. Gallienus fought a protracted war against the Goths 64.

12. Pat Southern, Empress Zenobia: Palmyra’s Rebel Queen (London and New York: Continuum, 2008), 13. Ibid., 68.

14. Southern, The Roman Empire, 101.

15. Gibbon, Decline and Fall, 326.

16. Watson, Aurelian and the Third Century, 60.

17. Simon Hornblower, Antony Spawforth, and Esther Eidinow. The Oxford Classical Dictionary. 3rd Edition, Revised ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003).

Alexandria Historical Review, Page 41

which consumed a large portion of attention for a long time after the capture of his father. Eventually, however, he was assassinated by a group of his own generals, and was replaced by Claudius II, or Claudius Gothicus as he would later be called. It is speculated that Aurelian, who was one of the top cavalry commanders at the time, may have played a part in this assassination, but this story may have been created to shift blame away from Claudius, who was an ancestor of the Emperor Constantine, to which this portion of the Historia Augusta is dedicated.18 Claudius then continued to fight on for a long time against the Goths in the Balkans, winning many great victories. Claudius earned the title Gothicus Maximus after Aurelian successfully defeated the Goths following a long period of heavily casualties.19 Eventually Claudius died of illness in Sirmium which opened the door for a new emperor.20 Aurelian, who was second-in-command of the military, was stationed in the Balkans fighting the Goths at the time. Upon hearing of the death of Claudius, he immediately marched west to don the purple. However, he was not the only one trying to become emperor. Claudius’ brother Quintillus was appointed emperor by the senators back in Rome, who clearly understood that Aurelian was the most likely to succeed Claudius. They sought to get Quintillus to be named emperor because he was not nearly as strict as Aurelian, according to Watson.21 Aurelian had a reputation for strict policies, almost to the point of cruelty. According to the Historia Augusta, he was nicknamed “Sword-in-Hand” by the legions to describe his discipline and severity.22 Despite Quintillus’ attempt, Aurelian quickly marched towards Italy where he found that Quintillus was dead, either by his own hand or that of his troops’, according to Watson.23 The senators quickly accepted him as the rightful emperor.

Aurelian then marched back to the Balkans to fight against the invading 18. Watson, Aurelian and the Third Century, 41.

19. Ibid., 45.

20. Gibbon, Decline and Fall, 312.

21. Watson, Aurelian and the Third Century, 46-47.

6.1-2.

22. ‘Vopiscus of Syracuse’ et al. Scriptores Historiae Augustae. (Boston: Harvard University Press, 1932), 23. Watson, Aurelian and the Third Century, 48.

Alexandria Historical Review, Page 42

Goths and Vandals. He won a great victory, but was forced to return to the Italian peninsula after he received word that a large group of Juthungi tribesmen were invading. He marched his troops hard for days in order to meet the enemy at the Battle of Placentia. The exhausted Romans were crushed, and the Juthungi continued to rampage down the Italian peninsula. This was not the ideal battle for a new emperor to endure. However, he quickly regrouped and drove the Juthungi invaders out in the battles of Fano and Pavia.24

After witnessing the danger which the capital had faced as a result of these invasions, Aurelian set to work building a new wall around Rome. At this time, the city had completely outgrown the old walls which had stood for centuries.

This had never been a concern in the past because Rome was considered invincible, and the idea that a group of rioting tribesmen could reach the Eternal City was inconceivable. Since Aurelian’s soldiers were busy preparing to retake the lost portions of the empire, he had civilian architects build the walls instead.

Although the Historia Augusta claims the walls were fifty miles long, in actuality they were about twelve, often incorporating existing civilian buildings into them.25 These walls were not so much for defending against a protracted siege as they were for warding off marauding barbarians. The Juthungi and Goths often employed guerilla warfare and were not organized enough at this time to mount a serious siege of a city, a factor that would change within the next two centuries.

After the walls were completed, Aurelian set to work on what he is most well-known for: reconquering the lost provinces controlled by Palmyra and the Gallic Empire. He faced Palmyra first, most likely because they were expanding the most aggressively, controlled Rome’s grain supply by controlling Egypt, and were on the border with the Sassanids. The Gallic Empire, on the other hand, was relatively unimportant economically and logistically, and was not expanding quickly. In order to muster the troops necessary to conduct such an invasion without putting the frontiers at risk of barbarian invasion, Aurelian took a drastic step. He evacuated the province of Dacia. Conquered by Trajan in the second century, Dacia sat across the Danube river near the provinces of Moesia and Thrace.26 As time went on it became more and more difficult to protect the province 24. Gibbon, Decline and Fall, 320-321.

25. Southern, The Roman Empire, 115.

26. Thomas Hodgkin, “The Roman Province of Dacia,” The English Historical Review 2, no. 5 (1887): 100-03.

Alexandria Historical Review, Page 43

against Germanic invaders and so Aurelian decided that its garrison would be best spent doing something more important than fighting off invaders for relatively little gain.27 With his troops in order, Aurelian set off to the east to reconquer the lost lands from Palmyra.

Despite his reputation for discipline within his own ranks, Aurelian demonstrated remarkable clemency to rebels throughout his reign. This is most clearly demonstrated through his actions when confronting the city of Tyana in Asia Minor. On the emperor’s eastern campaign, Tyana was the first major city to refuse him entrance. Though almost certainly apocryphal, the Historia Augusta recounts the siege. Aurelian, enraged that the city would close its gates to him, exclaimed to his troops that he would not leave a dog alive within the city once they had conquered it. That night when Aurelian entered his tent he had a vision of Apollonius of Tyana, a dead philosopher, who told him “Aurelian, if you wish to rule, abstain from the blood of the innocent.”28 When they finally did conquer the city, Aurelian’s troops requested that he allow them to loot the city, reminding him of his exclamation about not leaving a dog alive. Rather than allowing his troops to sack the city, Aurelian instead told them to kill all the dogs but leave all of the people and their belongings intact.29 This act of clemency set a precedent for Aurelian’s campaign against Palmyra. For the rest of the reconquest, cities that were not occupied by Palmyrene forces would willingly open their gates to greet the liberating emperor.

The next major event of the campaign took place outside the town of Immae, near Antioch. Aurelian’s troops finally confronted the Palmyrene troops under the command of the general Zabdas. Aurelian, well aware that his Dalmatian cavalry were weaker than the Palmyrene clibanarii, set up a trap to help turn the tides. He explicitly instructed his cavalry to retreat when faced with the heavy Palmyrene cataphracts in order to bait them into chasing after the Romans. Once the heavy Palmyrene clibanarii were worn out, the Roman cavalry were to wheel around and hopefully eliminate them, leaving the Roman troops free to crush the Palmyrene infantry which was largely composed of archers. It was a massive success; the Romans were able to successfully beat back the Palmyrenes, who were forced to retreat back south. After the victory at Immae, Aurelian defeated 27. White, Restorer of the World, 95-96.

28. Vopiscus, Scriptores Historiae Augustae, 23-24.

29. Ibid.

Alexandria Historical Review, Page 44

the garrison at Daphne, effectively removing Palmyrene control from Antioch, according to Zosimus.30 While many ancient sources mention that there was a battle at Immae, Zosimus is the only source to mention it by name and give an account. This had led many historians to either suggest that the Battle of Immae in Zosimus’ account was the same as the Battle of Daphne, which also took place near Antioch, or to hypothesize that Zosimus had confused the town of Immae with the city of Emesa, where there was also a major battle later in the war. However, historian Glanville Downey, in an article cited by many of the modern works on Aurelian, suggested that there is a good reason for the lack of a name for the battle in the ancient sources. He postulated that this is because the battle took place between Antioch and Emesa, and the only reason Zosimus mentions Immae is because the feigned Roman cavalry retreat led them towards that town.31 Following the battle of Immae, the last major battle of the war came at Emesa, and the same strategy was used by Aurelian to beat the Palmyrenes. Following this battle, Zenobia finally claimed imperial authority for herself and her son.32 She then retreated to Palmyra and then escaped towards Persia where she was later captured along the Euphrates. Rather than being executed, Zenobia was spared and carried back to Rome. According to historian I.A. Richmond, Aurelian’s conquest of Palmyra marked the end of the Palmyrene golden age which had lasted for centuries.33 Although Palmyra would briefly revolt after Aurelian had marched back west, it would never rise to greatness again.

Once Palmyra had been defeated, Aurelian was able to reconquer the Gallic Empire. In truth, Tetricus may have wanted the Gallic Empire to be a part of Rome as much as Aurelian did. According to Edward Gibbon in his titanic work The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, “[Tetricus] reigned four or five years over Gaul, Spain, and Britain, the slave and sovereign of a licentious army, whom he dreaded and by whom he was despised.”34 He quickly realized that ruling over 30. Zosimus, Zosimus, Historia Nova: The Decline of Rome (San Antonio: Trinity University Press, 1967), 31.

31. Glanville Downey, “Aurelian’s Victory over Zenobia at Immae, A.D. 272,” Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 81 (1950): 57-68.

32. Watson, Aurelian and the Third Century, 99.

33. I.A. Richmond, “Palmyra under the Aegis of Rome,” The Journal of Roman Studies 53 (1963), 43-54.

34. Gibbon, Decline and Fall, 324.

Alexandria Historical Review, Page 45

the troubled Gallic Empire was nothing like being Governor of Aquitania. He was constantly plagued by invading Franks and unhappy soldiers. There was little power behind his emperorship. Watson observes that “The fact that Aurelian felt secure enough to venture as far as eastern Syria on a campaign full of risks, leaving Tetricus on his flank in Gaul, speaks eloquently of Aurelian’s assessment of the risk Tetricus posed.”35 Aurelian quickly moved into Gaul after returning from the east and successfully shattered the Gallic force at the Battle of Chalonssur-Marne, successfully bringing the west back under imperial control.36 He also spared Tetricus and led him and Zenobia back through the streets of Rome as a conquering hero.37 While historians today look back on this moment as Aurelian’s crowning achievement, it likely would not have seemed that way to him. With the empire now unified, Aurelian prepared to mount a campaign against the Persians to avenge the capture of Valerian which occurred fifteen years prior. Shapur I, the scourge who had plagued the empire for the last thirty years, was finally dead, and a succession crisis was occurring which would further weaken the Persian Empire. However, it was not to be. According to Parker and Warmington, in the summer of 275, while on the way to Persia, Aurelian was killed by his generals at the town of Caenophrurium. This was not due to his generals being unhappy with his leadership or due to his personal conduct, but because one of his closest secretaries, Eros, had been caught in a lie and, fearing punishment, counterfeited a decree ordering the death of Aurelian’s top generals. The selfish fear of one man stopped what could have been one of the greatest conquests of late antiquity.38 However, Aurelian’s contributions to Roman society did not stop at his conquests. Throughout his reign he set precedents which would be pursued by later emperors like Diocletian and Constantine. These precedents included policies such as monetary reform, cultural shifts towards the Dominate over the Principate, and attempts to introduce a new religion to the city of Rome.

Ever since the reign of Nero, the debasement of coinage had been a signif35. Watson, Aurelian and the Third Century, 91.

36. Watson, 93.

37. Ibid., 95.

38. H.M.D. Parker and B.H. Warmington. A History of the Roman World From A.D. 138 to 337, vol. 7 of MacMillian’s History of the Greek and Roman World, (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1958), 211.

Alexandria Historical Review, Page 46

icant problem for the empire.39 On the accession of a new emperor, it was customary to give the legions a donative or bonus to ensure their loyalty. However, during the third century, emperors came and went quickly, and it became very expensive to continue this practice. Rather than stopping it, the emperors would instead reduce the silver content of the coins that they gave the troops. According to Yale professor Dr. Paul Freedman, this debasement of the coinage led to rampant inflation as citizens opted to hoard their high-quality coins and spend the debased ones instead.40 By the end of the reign of Claudius II, the silver coating was so bad that it could be easily rubbed off to reveal the metal inside.41 In order to solve this crisis and restore confidence in the economy, Aurelian launched the greatest reform of the monetary system since Augustus, according to Watson.42 Along with his mint master Gaius Valerius Sabinus, Aurelian undertook a massive overhaul of the empire’s mints. Aurelian heavily increased the silver content in the coins and then moved the mint at Mediolanum to the nearby town of Ticinum, revived the mints at Lugdunum and Antioch, and established new mints in Serdica and Tripolis.43 He even cancelled all outstanding debts in an attempt to promote economic activity.44 However, these reforms were not entirely effective, since outside of Italy and Greece, many preferred to continue using the debased coinage that they were familiar with instead of Aurelian’s new coinage. The empire’s economy would not recover entirely until Diocletian’s Edict on Prices around 30 years later.45 Aurelian also continued the ongoing cultural shift which began to portray the emperor in a more autocratic light than had been seen previously during the Principate. Just as Gallienus and Severus Alexander had before him, Aurelian is 39. Watson, Aurelian and the Third Century, 125.

40. Paul Freedman, “The Crisis of the Third Century and the Diocletianic Reforms” (lecture, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, Fall 2011).

41. White, Restorer of the World, 118.

42. Watson, Aurelian and the Third Century, 128.

43. Harold Mattingly, “The Mints of the Empire: Vespasian to Diocletian,” The Journal of Roman Studies 11 (1921), 254-264.

44. Watson, 137.

45. Mattingly, 254-264.

Alexandria Historical Review, Page 47

said to have often worn a bejeweled diadem and regal clothes.46 In addition, he is also referred to on some of his coins as being deo et domino nato or “god and master from birth.” These changes are in a similar vein to the changes that Diocletian and Constantine would later make during their reigns, which would see the emperor go from a public figure who associated with the common people to a very dignified and reclusive master who stayed in his palace.

Aside these reforms, Aurelian also influenced Roman religion through his worship of the god Sol Invictus. Although he began his reign traditionally by depicting Jupiter and Mars as his preferred gods on coins, he suddenly switched his emphasis to Sol following his reconquest of Palmyra in 273. Watson writes that this shift occurred rapidly across the entire empire beginning in the Balkans.47 However, Aurelian’s worship of the new god was not monotheistic. In fact, priests of Sol were often priests of other cults as well.48 Aurelian’s Sol worship seems to have been a personal matter which he encouraged others to adopt by, as White notes, building an ornate temple in the Campus Agrippae and creating a new order of priests to organize worship.49 In addition to being tolerant of traditional Roman cults, Aurelian seems to have been remarkably tolerant of Christianity for his time as well. The church historian Eusebius records that Aurelian stepped in to resolve a church dispute concerning a bishop named Paul of Samosata. Paul, who was from Antioch, had been excommunicated from the church by the pope for heresy, but refused to vacate his church building. The other Christians in the area petitioned Aurelian for help resolving the matter, but rather than killing or arresting all the Christians, as one might expect from an emperor of the third century, Aurelian returned the church building to the pope and the other bishops.50 This was the first time that an emperor had been directly involved in church affairs according to Watson51, and it shows that Aurelian was, at the least, not openly hostile to Christians.

46. Watson, Aurelian and the Third Century, 181.

47. Ibid., 189.

48. Ibid., 197.

49. White, Restorer of the World, 133-134.

50. Eusebius, The History of the Church: From Christ to Constantine, ed. Phillip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Arthur McGiffert, (Buffalo: Christian Literature Publishing Company, 1890), 7.30.19.

51. Watson, Aurelian and the Third Century, 199.

Alexandria Historical Review, Page 48

Southern, however, notes that Paul was being protected by Zenobia in exchange for his support, and so it is possible that Aurelian was only trying to remove Palmyrene support from Antioch after the Battle of Immae.52 Whatever the reason, clearly Aurelian did not actively persecute the Christians during his reign.

Eusebius, however, does note that Aurelian was in the process of launching a persecution but was kept from it through divine intervention.53 Whatever the case, in the time that Aurelian reigned, there was no mass persecution of Christians like under Decius, who came before him, or Diocletian, who came after. Instead, Aurelian treated the Christians in Antioch like the citizens of the empire that they were.

Throughout his reign, Aurelian showed that despite his low birth he was an eminently qualified and capable emperor. He successfully reunited the parts of the empire that had broken away from Italy and drove off invading barbarians, while enacting necessary coinage reforms and preparing the empire for the increased bureaucracy of Diocletian. Had Aurelian not been assassinated prematurely and successfully conquered the Sassanid Persian empire, it is possible that the costly wars between Justinian and Khosrow I and between Heraclius and Khosrow II could have been avoided which would have left the Byzantine Empire better funded and better able to resist the Arab conquests of the 600s. In addition, countless people could have become Christian rather than remaining Zoroastrian.

Had God not used Aurelian to reconquer and reform the empire, it is possible that there never would have been a Diocletian or Constantine to carry Rome into the fourth century, and Christianity may have taken longer to spread within a fractured empire. Although he may have not been a good man personally, Aurelian acted as the strong and guiding hand that the empire needed to get through one of the most difficult periods in its history. For that reason, he deserves to be remembered among the all-time great emperors such as Constantine and Augustus.

52. Southern, Empress Zenobia, 138.

53. Eusebius, The History of the Church, 7.30.20-21.

Alexandria Historical Review, Page 49

Bibliography Cary, M. and H.H. Scullard. A History of Rome: Down to the Reign of Constantine.

3rd ed. New York: Palgrave, 1975.

Downey, Glanville. “Aurelian’s Victory over Zenobia at Immae, A.D. 272.” Transac

tions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 81 (1950):

57-68. doi:10.2307/283569.

Duncan, Mike. “Aurelian’s Walls,” Episode 117. The History of Rome. Podcast Audio.

28 Nov. 28, 2010. http://thehistoryofrome.typepad.com/the_history_of_ rome/2010/11/117-aurelians-walls.html.

Eusebius of Caesarea. Historia Ecclesiae. Translated by Arthur McGiffert. Buffalo:

Christian Literature Publishing Company, 1890.

Freedman, Paul. “The Crisis of the Third Century and the Diocletianic Reforms.”

Lecture at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, Fall 2011. https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=2B9b9mUPJik. Gibbon, Edward. The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. New York: AMS Press

Inc, 1974.

Hodgkin, Thomas. “The Roman Province of Dacia.” The English Historical Review 2,

no. 5 (1887): 100-03.

Hornblower, Simon, Antony Spawforth, and Esther Eidinow. The Oxford Classical Dictionary. 3rd Edition, Revised ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.

Mattingly, Harold. “The Mints of the Empire: Vespasian to Diocletian.” The Journal

of Roman Studies 11 (1921): 254-64. doi:10.2307/295905.

Alexandria Historical Review, Page 50

Parker, H.M.D. and B.H. Warmington. A History of the Roman World From A.D. 138

to 337, vol. 7 of MacMillian’s History of the Greek and Roman World. New

York: The MacMillan Company, 1958.

Richmond, I. A. “Palmyra under the Aegis of Rome.” The Journal of Roman Stud ies 53 (1963): 43-54. doi:10.2307/298363.

Southern, Pat. Empress Zenobia: Palmyra’s Rebel Queen. London and New York:

Continuum, 2008. ______. The Roman Empire from Severus to Constantine. London and New York:

Routledge, 2001.

‘Vopiscus of Syracuse’ et al. Scriptores Historiae Augustae. Loeb Classical Library,

Harvard University Press, 1932.

Watson, Alaric. Aurelian and the Third Century. London and New York: Routledge, 1999.

White, John F. Restorer of the World: The Roman Emperor Aurelian. Staplehurst:

Spellmount, 2005.

Zosimus. Zosimus, Historia Nova: The Decline of Rome. San Antonio: Trinity Uni

versity Press, 1967.

Alexandria Historical Review, Page 51

Alexandria Historical Review, Page 52

Alexandria Historical Review, Page 53