The Theology of Empire And The Imperial Creation of Religions

Related: 

The Emperor Julian and the last stand of the old gods (331 – 363).

Emperor Julian On The Social Value of Reading The Classics.

The Royal Court In History.

The Roman Imperial Cult.

The Gospel of Caesar And Caesar’s Messiah.

Review of “Empires and Gods” by Sitta von Reden, BMCR, January 29, 2025:

This book contributes to the growing literature on comparative empire studies that seek to understand how empires functioned under different historical circumstances. It is the second volume of a series that compares imperial practices across a wide geographical space and a long period of time: from the Mediterranean to Manchuria, and from the Macedonians to the Mughals. The volume is organized along three “waves of empire”, ancient (chapters 1 to 4), medieval (chapters 5 to 8), and Mongol to post-Mongol (chapters 9 to 11). A broad definition of empire is adopted, leaving aside core-periphery relationships or multi-ethnic composition, and concentrating instead on their universalistic pretensions, and ability to dominate a macro-region. Not all chapters relate imperial religion to the idea of universal empire, especially as the editors rightly note that religious space was not, and never became, coterminous with imperial space. Local elites and populations were in most cases not attuned to the idea of universal empire, though local religions adapted to the interpretational and organizational challenges that imperial expansion posed.

The stellar team of contributors succeeds well in cashing in their aim to show how imperial religious policies integrated a range of social, political and ideological factors. Especially helpful is the editorial introduction that draws out the benefits of the comparative exercise. For example, rulers can always be shown to have tapped into divine patterns of power distribution or into the agency attributed to divine support. Rulers also typically relied for their approval on religious intermediaries that validated their claims. Constantine, for example, co-opted bishops as his council, restored Church property, and conveyed privileges onto the organization. Similar conversations between rulers and local religious specialists or powerholders, of course, are found in other empires, and played a particular role under the Sassanians (see below). Total religious unity, by contrast, was never an imperial goal; and even when missionary religions came along, proselytism did not become a reason for imperial expansion. There were, however, different forms and degrees of interdependence between political and religious institutions. In contrast to its Roman predecessors which were important to its self-definition, the Byzantine empire was inseparably intertwined with its dominant religious institution, the Church. The great support which the Church offered to the idea of imperial authority was rather more similar to the Chinese idea of Heaven’s Mandate. Islam, furthermore, was far more tolerant of Jews and Christians than vice versa. The Mongols successfully integrated several belief systems, and unlike the Chinese, never demanded an imperial cult. No complete set of comparative conclusions can be drawn, but the editors emphasize that at least from the medieval period onwards, there was always a tension between the imperial co-optation of, and accommodation with religious powers.

. . .In his wide-ranging and multifaceted chapter, Rüpke argues that the Roman empire was more important for religious development than religion for imperial development. There was never an imperial religious koine, but there gradually developed empire-wide media of expression, and the sacralised emperor became a focal point. Common ideas about the purposes of religion emerged, guiding group identities and political legitimacy. Instead of confronting competing ‘religions’ or ‘cults’, many political and religious actors appropriated and modified signs deemed religious for their purposes, while religious professionals worked towards establishing and securing group boundaries. In the end, it was the empire that produced religions, not vice versa.