The First Disaster of Wu:
China has had several such incidents over the course of its long, long documented history. I can go into detail over one in particular, though it is less an inter-faith “war,” per se, than a purge of the imported beliefs of Buddhism in favor of native Daoism.
Setting:
It is the the mid-5th century, and China is divided – vying states wage bloody conflict over who should rule as the true Son of Heaven, but the state of multi-front civil war has now been a reality for more than a century. The area of what had once been the unified Han Empire north of the Yangtze River is now dominated by a people known as the Xianbei, a proto-Mongolic coalition of tribes hailing from the Central Asian Steppes. Nevertheless, the Xianbei Dynasties have taken fully to Chinese traditions and culture, seeking to out-Chinese the Chinese. Meanwhile the ethnically Chinese Han Peoples retain their center of power at the capital-in-exile, Jiankang (mod. Nanjing), along the Yangtze southern banks, ever-seeking – though as of yet never able – to reclaim their lost home territories along the Yellow River Basin.
The Contenders:
The native religion of China – or at least the belief system that achieved an empire-wide prominence and official recognition – was Daoism. Dao (or Tao) literally translates as “path,” but in this instance it more completely means “The Answer to the Great Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything” … essentially the central premise of every religion, ever. Daoism had been a central component of Chinese society since probably at least the 6th century BCE, the purported lifetime of the religion’s founder and one of its central revered “immortals,” Lao Tzu (Laozi)… incidentally, the mid-6th century is also right about the time that a fellow names Siddartha Gautama will begin his own teachings in noth-central India, resulting in him ultimately being hailed as the “Enlightened One,” or Buddha. These 6th century BCE ideologues will never meet, but their respective faiths will come to intermingle in the latter stages of the Han Dynasty in the 2nd and 3rd centuries… and once the Han collapsed at the end of the 3rd century, and its associated kicking of Confucianism philosophy to the curb, that co-mingling would from time to time become violent repression from one side toward another. This is one of those times.
The rise of Buddhism had been, and continued to be, particularly meteoric since the arrival of the Monk Kumarajiva and the holy sutras he had translated into Chinese had found a home, for a time, in one of several extant northern states known as Later Qin. From there, the teachings of Buddha had begun to spread like wildfire throughout virtually every level of society. I say almost, because the ruling class – and particularly the emperors of both Liu Song in the South and Wei in the North – would resist the imported teachings in favor of more local philosophies. For some among the Chinese and Northern tribes’ elite, the Western teachings were a curiosity to be at times, studied, ignored, or even emulated to an extent… but for others, the foreign ideas were dangerous, its practitioners untrustworthy, and its spread viewed as a cancer to be stamped out at any cost.
The southerners mainly tolerated Buddhism and allowed it to have its place. Eventually several of its monarchs in the Age of Disunion would become fanatical adherents to the faith, but at least for now they kept it at arm’s length… neither seeking to drive the alien faith out, nor embracing it.
It was in the North of China that the true drama would unfold in the 5th century… the birth of a truly Chinese-style Buddhist thought would be a trial by ordeal, and nowhere would that be more true than the North of China. Because though Wen of Liu Song kept Buddhism at arm’s length, his counterpart in Northern Wei, Emperor Taiwu, was not nearly so tolerant toward this strange, foreign religion. And it wouldn’t take too terribly much for him to decide it was little more than a disease that he needed to root out from his empire altogether.
The Lines Are Drawn:
Taiwu had long been an ardent Daoist, and indeed had back in 423, as one of his first acts in office, he had proclaimed the founder and leaders of the Way of the Northern Celestial Masters, a fellow named Kou Qianshi, declared by imperial decree to be among those tianshi, those “celestial masters.” Kou Qianshi had since at least 415 – during the reign of Taiwu’s father, Emperor Mingyuan, - been essentially shouting at any and everyone who would listen that he had been appointed by Master Laozi himself the divine task of reforming Daoism on Earth and had declared that he had been ordered by the great-grandson of Laozi, to take his new scriptures and go “assist the True Lord of Great Peace from the North” … AKA Emperor Taiwu. Clearly, Kou Qianshi knew that flattery will get you everywhere.
That said, Kou had spent the bulk of his life in monastic seclusion. Thus knowing he was out of his element in public affairs, he would turn to a follower of his – a more worldly and cunning disciple than himself, a man named Cui Hao. Master Kou asked of his disciple Cui, “I was living in seclusion [and] practicing The Way, not involved in world affairs, when suddenly I received divine instructions […] to go assist the True Lord of great peace and perpetuate the way of rule that has been cut off for a thousand years. But I am not well versed in [such] ancient matters and feel quite ignorant in the face of this task. Would you kindly write about the [past] ages and provide an encapsulating commentary?” Cui Hao agreed, and wrote what amounted to 20 essays on Chinese history within which he and Master Kou reached a consensus as to their political opinions: new = bad; old = good.
For his part, Emperor Taiwu had begun his reign with much the same religious policy as had his father and grandfather: toleration for a wide swath of religions, and parallel support for Daoism, Confucianism, and yes even the relatively new addition Buddhism. In fact, by some accounts he may have initially actually preferred Buddhist rituals to those of Daoism. Li Gang writes, “He would, for example, invite eminent monks in order to discuss with them. On the eighth day of the fourth month, he used to mount the “buddha images” on carriages and march them through the wide streets. The emperor would go personally to the gate tower to watch and from there scatter flowers to show his reverence. […] In the year 425, Emperor Taiwu ordered the performance of Buddhist rites for the celebration of his own birthday [… and] in the year 428, the emperor decreed that these rites be executed on his birthday in Buddhist temples all over the country.”
Over time, however, he seems to have been suitably taken in my Master Kou and Cui Hao’s brand of Daoism, his imperial sanction had the dual effect of instating Daoism as the official state religion, and with Master Kou as the Way of the Northern Celestial Masters’ absolute spiritual ruler – for comparison, one might view him as akin to the Roman Catholic Pope: the prime Vicar of, and ultimate conduit to the Divine. This act was due in no small part to the machinations of one of Master Kou’s more influential followers named Cui Hao, who on Master Kou’s behalf had successfully lobbied the Wei Emperor to officially endorse his title, grant his sect permission to proselytize throughout Wei, and granting the Church – for lack of a better word – of the Northern Heavenly Masters a huge stipend with which to expand itself. And eventually Cui Hao would land the prestigious position of Prime Minister of Northern Wei, where he could further convince the Emperor of Wei of the dangers Buddhist thought presented to his empire, and the very idea of Chinese culture.
[Continued in Pt. 2]
Citations:
Sima, Guang. Zizhi Tongjian, Vols. 119-126
Wei, Shou. Book of Wei, Vol. 4
Li, Gang. “State Religious Policies – Northern Dynasties” in Early Chinese Religion: The Period of Disunion (220-598 AD). Ed. John Lagerway and Lü Pengzhi
If you're interested in more on this and more Chinese history, consider given The History of China Podcast a listen! We're now at the tail-end of the Period of Disunion, and gearing up for the Duke of Sui to do what no one has been able to do for more than 400 years - reunify the Middle Kingdom!
Historically, Judaism has been a religion that stresses resistance to foreign conquerors, and thus Judea would frequently rebel against the various empires that conquered it. After the Romans annexed Judea in 6AD, the Jews revolted several times- once from 66-73AD, and another time in the Bar Kokhba Revolt from 132-135AD. The Jewish temple in Jerusalem was burned down at this time, and Jewish dominance in the Southern Levant would not be regained until the 20th century. While these may not have been massive Alexander and Caesar scaled epic wars around the world, they certainly weren't small conflicts either.
In the 4th century, Diocletian's Tetrarchy fell apart, and the Roman Empire fell into civil war. Constantine converted to Christianity upon his victory against Maxentius and gaining control of the Western half of the Empire, although his battles against Licinius over the next decade were not so much religious as civil. Julian the Apostate tried to reverse Christian domination of the Roman Empire, but never resorted to open conflict or fighting any wars over it- though it is possible that his massive invasion of the Sassanid Empire where he would lose his life was partially justified by trying to restore faith in the pagan gods.
After the fall of the Western Roman Empire, the line between ancient and medieval grows fuzzy. The Arab Conquests certainly had some important religious elements to them, as did most of the following wars between Christian and Muslim states, although this is perhaps a more medieval conflict.
When it comes to cultures you described they were never exclusive towards one another. Each of those peoples most likely believed that all the gods worshiped in Mediterranean and beyond do exist, but specific individuals or communities would usually worship one, or a few.
Romans for example (and earlier Sumerians) had a habit of bringing statues of local deities home after conquests believing that they would gain their favor in expense of original worshipers.
Romans were very interesting in another way as well. They believed to have been chosen by the gods and that they will always prevail as long as they act accordingly and keep Pax Deorum. Act of auspicia, often misrepresented as fortune-telling, was in essence question to the gods if a specific deed should be performed on that day. There are numerous mentions of Roman Armies staying put for days and days due to unfavorable auspicia or outright prodigia (various omens signaling broken pax deorum. Ranged from few dead fishes to a lost battle).
All in all gods were beings you tried to get on your side, rather than fight against.
That directly links to the issue with Judaism and then Christianity. Monotheistic religions by design claimed that there is only one god and, unlike all the other faiths, that all the other gods are fake. As you can imagine that didn't bode well. Jews were mostly ok due to falling under another well respected category - their customs were recognized as ancient.
Christianity on the other hand? Nope. Most of so called "Christian prosecutions" stem from that root. Most famous Decian prosecution of 249 for example is very well documented both in Christian as well as Pagan literature and physical evidence. It occurred when Rome's military situation was beyond dire and augustus tried to regain favor of the gods by ordering all the citizens to make a sacrifice to the Roman gods. it wasn't the issue for anyone except particularly fanatical Christians (as well as few other sects) and we know for a fact that faith of a citizen was of no interest to the sacrificial tribunals.
So Christians weren't prosecuted for their faith. They were prosecuted for their atheism that offended the gods bringing misfortune.
Ziolkowski A. "Storia di Roma"
EDIT: Somehow mixed up auspicia and prodigia. Fixed now.
The problem with this question is that "religion" as a category had not yet been invented in the ancient world. 'Religion,' as we tend to understand it, is a modern European invention which became reified through colonial interactions. Therefore, one cannot say that "religion" was the "cause" of warfare; like all human phenomena, the causes of wars are messy and cannot be aligned neatly to one thing.
Edit: I really don't care that people are downvoting this comment, but I do care that people take seriously what scholars have argued forcefully and, in my opinion, persuasively regarding "religion." I should add that nothing that I said above is even controversial among scholars in Classics, Religious Studies, History, and I suspect, other departments as well. In fact, there is a broad academic consensus that what we call "religion" is not easily mappable unto what the ancients "did" and "believed," and a critical engagement with categories you take at face value is the first step in producing good scholarship.
If you want better explanations on this subject, read the helpful expansions below, and if you want to be a serious scholar regarding the category of religion instead of an online dilettante, read the following:
Chidester, David. Savage systems: Colonialism and comparative religion in Southern Africa. University of Virginia Press, 1996.
Masuzawa, Tomoko. The Invention of World Religions: or, how European universalism was preserved in the language of pluralism. University of Chicago Press, 2005.
Smith, Jonathan Z. "Religion, religions, religious." Critical terms for religious studies (1998): 269-284.
Smith, Wilfred Cantwell. The meaning and end of religion. Fortress Press, 1963.
Religion and politics in the ancient world had a different relationship than today. We can imagine a war fought solely for political ends (say, WWI), or one fought only because of religion (ie, the simplistic explanation for recent conflicts in the middle east).
But in the ancient world, the church and state were never that far removed from one another. Every ancient ruler, almost without exception, cited religious motives along side politics for the conflicts he began. The Assyrians, for example, would tell the people they were about to conquer that Assur, their god, demanded to be recognized as better than the local gods. If the city refused, the Assyrian army would annex it to their empire, make a brutal example of its leaders, and sometimes carve the name of Assur onto the statues of the local gods to put everyone in their place. If they accepted, they'd be annex and the local gods might not be tattooed. But either way, Assur - and the Assyrians - demanded to be recognized as the big men on the block.
Is that a religious war based on different beliefs in the gods? Not exactly. The Assyrians weren't conquering their neighbors because their neighbors believed that, say, Jesus had two distinct natures (a divine and a human) rather than one nature which was both fully divine and fully human. The fight wasn't about theology. Assur and the Assyrians didn't care what you believed. Assur cared about having the whole world as his hunting vista to rampage over, and the Assyrians cared about making their neighbors pay them tribute. Fighting a war for God, in their case, meant growing the empire.
This attitude crops up again and again in the ancient world. The Romans always brought the gods into their wars, but they didn't conquer their enemies because their enemies were pagans or heretics. But they did invoke the help of the gods, and Livy tells myths about Rome's past where the gods gave super human strength to Roman generals that allowed them to cut through their enemies like a bowling ball in a china factory. Polybius, a Greek historian writing on the side of the Romans, argued that Tyche - the godess of fortune - was pushing Rome on to her victories, and Augustus and the emperors after him were both military leaders and high priests.
So you can't ever say that a Roman conquest was 'secular'. The very idea of fighting a war without having religion involved would make a Roman very uncomfortable (indeed, the big accusation made against Christians early on seems to have been that, by denying the existence - or the power - of the Roman gods, they were trying to bring down the political strength and health of the empire; take away Rome's religion, and the whole thing might come toppling down!).
When Islam rolls onto the scene and begins building an empire in the name of God, it's doing something that's, at that point, not only completely traditional, but also completely normal. Religion and politics weren't separate or separable in the ancient world; they were almost always two sides of the same coin.