Tacitus’ Annals, with respect to Nero, speaks of a great multitude torn by dogs, nailed to crosses, or tormented by flames, but I’m sure his historical writings are dismissed as nonsense by the deniers of Christian persecution by Romans. Gibbons speaks with frustration at the lack of specific numbers of Christian deaths at the hands of the Romans (or by their leave), but one would think that the lack of specific numbers of Christian deaths casts as much doubt on “exceedingly small” as it does it does on “large numbers.” Apparently not.
“The "persecutions" were a series of laws demanding pagan worship and loyalty to the Caesar the way we expect allegiance to the country.”
And was not death the penalty for refusal? My point was that in the persecution of Christians, Roman Might did not prevail. I guess the Deniers’ response is that the Romans didn’t really try very hard.
“Christian persecutions mostly affected the eastern side of the empire.”
And this means that since it was in the East, it doesn’t count for much?
Of course, we can only presume, but not claim as historical fact, that's what Tacitus wrote in the 2nd century about the 1st century events—or that any of it is historically accurate, given that the oldest extant copies of Tacitus' Annals (chapters 1-6) were written by Christian scribes in the mid 9th century AD (Codex Mediceus), and the other (Mediceus II), in the early 11th century (chapters 11-16).
If Tacitus were a valuable source of Christian history he surely would have been used more extensively. But this is not the case. Tacitus was all but forgotten until the Renaissance. Between the 5th and the 15th century, there is simply hardly any mention of Tacitus.
It's a matter of reconstructing a circumstantial picture, based on a variety of factors, such as Roman census reports, politics, and sidebar references made by various authors.
First, in Nero's time (60's AD) Christians were indistinguishable from the Jews, especially to Romans. Any persecution of Christians would have automatically involved other Jewish sects congregating in synagogues.
Second, Roman laws that directly affected Christians (and similar sects) do not appear before 240 AD, and all punishment exacted on uncooperative Christians ceases in 311 AD with one period of a few years under Dioclecian's rule as being the "worst" with an estimated 20,000 deaths.
Third, we don't know which Christians were targeted, as there were any, many sects (Christianity was entirely heterodox until the first Nicene Council in 325 AD).
Fourth, there is no evidence that Christians represented anything but an insignificant albeit somewhat unorthodox mystery cult.
Fifth, all indications are that the Christian congregations were not targeted but their leaders, the clergy.
Sixth, rumor mills and oral transmission of "what happened" have a known characteristic for distortion and exaggeration.
Seventh, textual corruption of original manuscripts by Christian scribes is a well-documented phenomenon. I cold go on, but I am sure you get the picture.
Roman might did not seek to convert Christians to pagans but to make them obey Roman law. In that Roman might of course succeeded, either by having some Christians show their obedience or by punishing those who didn't. Those who refused to obey the law were punished. Our society is no different than Rome was in that respect )in principle). The Romans could care less what Christians believed in or whom they called God; they did consider burning incense to Caesar a matter of pledging loyalty to the Roman state, and refusing to do so as a statement of treason.
Roman might did prevail, again, in making Christianity the state religion, because it sought to accomplish that. No matter how you turn it around, it was how the Roman might saw things fit.
No, it simply means that it was not something that affected the whole Empire and shows the extent to which the whole thing is overblown by Christian apologetics.
Thank you oh so very much, dear YHAOS, for all of your insights shared on this thread!