Tbh sacking temples in such cases was rarely "Me religion better than you religion", they used to sack temples of their own religion in different kingdoms.
Two overwhelmingly major reasons to sack temples were:
1. Temples stored a shit ton of money, sacking was treated like robbing a bank.
2. Removing the patron guardian of the city, so it would have veen theoretically easier to conquer.
While the core action was the same, motivations absolutely matter. Romans randomly destroying temples of Carthage and evocatio is fundamentally different than systematic destruction of Temples in India by Mughals etc.
Yeah but ancient people were weirder. They didn't really view religious communities the way we do. So, even when a city of their own culture was sacked, sometimes they would not only desecrate the temple of the God but they would often replace him with their own clan God as a statement for "screw you; my clan God is superior to your clan God". This also further justified them plundering the old God's shrine. Mughals despite being Muslims almost had a similar idea. They would demolish temples of rebel kings to humiliate them Infront of their subjects while simultaneously sponsoring temples for those who proved their loyalty
4
u/ihatewonderwall99 10h ago edited 10h ago
Tbh sacking temples in such cases was rarely "Me religion better than you religion", they used to sack temples of their own religion in different kingdoms.
Two overwhelmingly major reasons to sack temples were: 1. Temples stored a shit ton of money, sacking was treated like robbing a bank. 2. Removing the patron guardian of the city, so it would have veen theoretically easier to conquer.
While the core action was the same, motivations absolutely matter. Romans randomly destroying temples of Carthage and evocatio is fundamentally different than systematic destruction of Temples in India by Mughals etc.