How was the Catholic Church able to succeed in where the Roman Empire failed the most, subjugate and even civilize the warlike Barbarians Tribes like the Germanics and Picts (modern Scotland)?

[EvaWolves]

When I was a lurker,  I saw this link.

https://www.unrv.com/forum/topic/18854-the-catholic-church-as-the-beacon-of-order-and-stability-even-peace-after-the-fall-of-the-roman-empire-the-church-as-the-light-of-the-brutal-dark-ages-of-europe/

Along with a question I had about barbarians, its what inspired me to sign up in this UNRV forum.

So I have to ask why? Why did the Romans fail even with use of their mighty armies as the OP pointed out while Church missionaries and priests eventually converted entire regions and barbarian peoples Rome could never subjugate like the Picts of Scotland even with military force (often suffering immense defeats when they entered regions like Northern Netherlands)? Yet the Catholic Church was not only able to convert these various regions and barbaric tribes through peaceful means yet also make even the most backwards and warlike of them like the Germanics of Northern Germany submissive to the Church and adopt order and civilization! How did the Church do it despite advocating a religion that condemned violence esp war and advocated order and stable civilization where as mighty armies of the most powerful civilization to have ever existed in Europe have failed so miserably?

It just doesn't make sense that the Germanics north of the Rhine who did human sacrifices and killed and killed each other for fun would eventually find a religion where a God sacrifices himself for mankind appealing to convert to! The Picts committed preying of the weak because much of their culture vouched the rule of the strong and violence as the prime laws-yet all of Scotland would convert through peaceful missionaries to Christianity which is a religion that ruled for the rich and strong to aid the poor in poverty.

The Irish clans practised nature worshipping but some how Catholic priests convinced them that it is better to live in villages and have a strong organized government than to live as random settlements in the woods and other uncultivated wilderness.

Its simple to miraculous that the Catholic Church didn't have to send knights to convert Northern Germany but did this with a couple of martyred saints! And that the Picts could be convinced by hermits wandering around to start sending charity to the poor and convert to a religion advocating responsibility to watch over the weak and needy! And for people who lived in the wild for centuries in Ireland to throw away their old Gods and follow a Church that encourages a more urban livelihood!

All without needing to send massive armies! The Romans tried to civilize these warlike savages through conquest and subjugation but they failed (often facing mass slaughter of their military forces sent to these barbarian areas they can never actually colonize). But the Church did it through peaceful means with just a couple of preachers voluntarily going across Europe!

How did this unbelievable miracle happen?

Edited March 13, 2021 by EvaWolves

[barca]

"It's simple to miraculous that the Catholic Church didn't have to send knights to convert Northern Germany but did this with a couple of martyred saints!"

Charlemagne instituted forced conversions of the Saxons. Those who refused were beheaded.

[caldrail]

The Romans tried to civilize these warlike savages through conquest and subjugation but they failed (often facing mass slaughter of their military forces sent to these barbarian areas they can never actually colonize)

No. The Romans used military force to subdue problematic tribes on their borders when they felt it was necessary but 'civilising' the neighbour was never on the agenda. They did offer Roman culture as a superior form of society but this was only going to work if the barbarian was receptive. In cases where the tribes were conquered the Romans had a policy of inclusion, and a wise one at that. It is true their leaders would be under pressure to adopt Roman ways, so the tribe could be easily plugged into the Roman system, but remember that free will and self determination were important themes to Romans. If a barbarian wanted to carry being a barbarian under Roman aegis, fine, that was their choice, just as long as they observed Roman allegiance and taxation. A Roman governor wasn't there to rule the province, he was there as Rome's representative and the last word in both Roman and native law.

There were cases where it all went wrong. Quintus Publius Varus made the mistake of assuming that the Germanic tribes under Roman occupation were starting to see the benefits of Roman law - but it was merely the calm before the storm as Arminius plotted to rebel (with some justification)

Or take the case of the Judaea, which was eventually dissolved as a result of their rebellious actions. Can't behave? Then you can't have your own province.

Also one should bear in mind that the Romans were crafty. Their diplomacy was about division among their neighbours to prevent tribes combining forces though this was exactly what happened in the late imperial period, and if you read Tacitus, you will find a sneering approval of the technique of 'softening' a neighbour by the export of Roman luxuries.

[barca]

3 hours ago, caldrail said:

technique of 'softening' a neighbour by the export of Roman luxuries.

It seems to me that the Church did the same thing: softening those barbarians with Christian Morality.

[caldrail]

Modern christian morality is soft. Ancient versions tended to be more austere. Also I note that early christian missionaries were as likely to wield a sword as holy texts.

[barca]

On 5/29/2021 at 2:25 AM, caldrail said:

Modern christian morality is soft. Ancient versions tended to be more austere. Also I note that early christian missionaries were as likely to wield a sword as holy texts.

As you probably know, Catherine Nixey received much negative criticism for presenting Early Christianity as violent and intolerant in her book, The Darkening Age.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/davidtinikashvili.wordpress.com/2017/11/29/cameron-blame-the-christians-review/amp/

[caldrail]

Criticism from who I wonder? If christians are responsible, then they need an education. Christianity has always reflected the society it thrived within. Bear in mind that around the end of the eleventh century Pope Urban II was building a pan-european religious empire and the hold over common people was frightening. Luckily the Crusades happened. For all the grief and bloodletting they caused, it certainly defused the Roman Catholic move toward continental domination and a good thing too (we might even of ended up with a medieval holocaust).

But then worldly matters had been important for many Roman christians from the beginning. Not for nothing did the christians attempt to unite under the patronage of Constantine The Great (a warrior emperor if ever there was one and a life long pagan).

[barca]

On 6/1/2021 at 5:18 PM, caldrail said:

Criticism from who I wonder?

There are 2 groups who criticize:

One group is known as the Religious Right, who see everything from a faith-based perspective. They have no interest in Ancient Rome and view the Bible as the answer to everything.

The other group is made up of many modern historians who think that the Classical World was overrated by Renaissance and Enlightenment Scholars. These modern historians hate Gibbon's views, and they assert that there was no Dark Age with the Fall of Rome. They prefer to use the term Late Antiquity for the early Middle Ages.

Here is a good example of someone who denigrates the Classics:

https://slate.com/human-interest/2015/07/the-renaissance-what-prompted-the-western-cultural-rebirth.html

[caldrail]

These modern historians hate Gibbon's views, and they assert that there was no Dark Age with the Fall of Rome.

They're correct. In strict terms, the period should be termed the 'Early Medieval Period' or if you want to, the 'Sub-Roman Period' to indicate the immediate post-Roman world in western Europe. However, the term 'Dark Age' does refer - correctly, in my view - the Early Medieval period in Britain for which literary sources are rare to say the least. The reality is that literature was being imported into Britain even in those turbulent tribal days, but so little survives that we can call it Dark.