You're using quite a broad brush with "non-conformist," so I'll assume you're referring to Roman Christian martyrdom. The perception of Christians in that era was more or less that they were being coerced to libel Christ and suppress his memory, who moreover had the vital Answer for humankind; and to dissolve their brotherhoods as conspiratorial organizations, including by incriminating friends and family and (in time, certainly by Diocletian) to libel their ancestors. This is quite different from the modern, essentially Reformation, view of them, which is that they were ideologues with an obstinate disinclination to lose the argument. Another misconception is that they were under continuous persecution, when in fact Roman enforcement was more like a limited number of notorious showdowns well spread out over time and terrain; however, this one is not just a modern view but was also promoted by fairly early hagiographers[0]. Finally, resisting even per the rationale I've described was quite controversial, and not all Christians refused to capitulate, even after it had become an established religious concept and practice. For example, see the Donatist controversy in re traditores[1].

0. https://classics.cornell.edu/news/roman-historian-views-earl...

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donatism