Christianity and the Fall of Rome

[PerfectimusPrime]

Given the lack of space for such an immense subject, I would summarise the Classical World which Christianity helped to dismantle thus:

 

Achitecturally: Peristyle houses with collonades, Porticoed temples, Theatres, amphitheatres and Stadia.

 

Christianity had nothing to do with the decline of Hellenic architecture, it was the fall of the Roman empire which was caused by economical disasters, civil wars, migrations ETC. During the migrational period European lifestyle was reduced back to the stone ages, back to primitive natural economy with no urbanization. Every one moved to the countryside as the taxation in the cities started to get too hard and trade collapsed, they had to move away into self-sufficient villas (the word village is comes from it). Thus the European feudalism was born.

 

Also, the barbarian sackings of cities also caused enormous damage to the existing infrastructure.

 

In such conditions Greco-Roman architecture had no chance of survival because there simply were no large cities. European architecture was reduced into wooden shacks and houses and the cities were destroyed. When the darkness passed, and renaissance took place, there was enough money, resources, trade and urbanization to return to the Greco-Roman architecture.

 

In the middle-east this was not the case as the Muslims brought peace in time. The Muslim caliphates were vigorous and supportive of science, peace, trade, prosperity ETC. The Urbanization under the caliphates continued and cities like Baghdad probably had more infrastructure than all of the cities in France combined. Science, trade and culture flourished as the Muslims came into contact with the Hellenic culture which they preserved. The Muslim caliphates became a vessel for the Hellenic culture.

 

The Byzantine Empire didn

[Perseverantius]

Good stuff, PP

 

Revisionism has to be spotted and called what it is.

 

Well played.

[Northern Neil]

PP, I stand corrected on the flat earth business - I have researched a bit and it turns out that some Christian theorists opposed the spherical earth theory, but it was never declared a heresy. Whilst admitting that changes in architectural style was not a result of Christianisation, I felt compelled to summarise what I believed to be the main features of the classical world, and this was simply in my mental list.

 

Artistic depiction and appreciation of the human form was far from the only thing lost with classical culture. Indeed, it became reviled as a cause of sin. You acknowledge that feudal europe was religeously intolerant, and it must be said that the destruction of the Cathars and the presence of the Inquisition ( the mediaeval KGB) was entirely implemented by the Catholic church, a situation the disparate and politically weak pagans could never have facilitated. Scientific enquiry was snuffed out, because its findings often opposed the existing dogma. People who used herbal medicines and ritualistic prayers were burnt as witches. Astrologers (despite the three magi in the bible) likewise. In ancient Greece and Rome there were many people who were practicing atheists. Anyone expressing such sentiments after the 5th century would be on very dangerous ground indeed.

 

Again the constraints of space do not permit me to continue, but the fact that the west endured what is often called a 'dark age' suggests that, in the eyes of many, the loss of the classical world meant a narrowing of thought, the growth of suspicion and an end to widespread long-distance travel - with resulting stagnation of culture. But I do concede that this process was not nearly as profound in the east.

 

Perseveriantus, you may not be an academic, but your analysis is very shrewd and I agree with most of your points. However, the elimination of the Druids was conducted because they were a focus of political dissent, not because their religion was deemed unpalatable. The naming of Aquae Sulis (Bath) and the dedication of Coventina's Well (Hadrians Wall) suggest the Romans were anxious to please the Celtic gods. Again, Pompey's destruction of Jewish holy places was not part of a systematic dismantling of a religion; he wanted cash, and he seized it from political and military opponants.

 

Once Christianity and Government became irrevocably fused, however, Paganism was systematically dismantled in the most brutal way, for a period beginning with Theodosius and ending with Justinian. Subsequent examples of Christian/political purging and extermination of cultures are a matter of record and run right up to the beginning of the 20th century.

 

But I digress: Many things were lost with the end of the classical world - otherwise there would not have been a Dark Age with subsequent Rennaissance. Hardly revisionist!

[Primus Pilus]

Once Christianity and Government became irrevocably fused, however, Paganism was systematically dismantled in the most brutal way, for a period beginning with Theodosius and ending with Justinian. Subsequent examples of Christian/political purging and extermination of cultures  are a matter of record and run right up to the beginning of the 20th century.

 

But I digress: Many things were lost with the end of the classical world - otherwise there would not have been a Dark Age with subsequent Rennaissance. Hardly revisionist!

14992[/snapback]

 

Absolutely agreed, calling the purge of paganism revisionist is simply denying the facts that history has presented. Its a known entity regardless of our religious preferences. One might say what goes around comes around, but it still does not change the fact that the Christians brutally purged pagan culture.

 

As for it being a contributing factor to the fall of Rome, how can we deny the overwhelming alteration it had on Roman political, social and even personal life. While we understandably may call the rise of Christianity a sympton of a crumbling social and economic condition, rather than a cause, denying its effect is also failing to look at the entire picture. All IMO of course.

[DanM]

The question of Christianity and why Romans quit serving the Empire is really a chicken or the egg kind of question.

 

Did the Romans quit serving in the army and the local city councils because of Christianity or was Christianity a means of escape for people who already wished to avoid public service?

 

When you look at the evidence, I think its hard to see Christianity as the source of the problem and much easier to see it as one of the means of escape from an already motivated population.

 

Roman history from the later Empire is filled with references to laws exempting or requiring people to serve on their local city councils. When was a newly appointed senatorial family exempt from future decuruial service? When was an Imperial appointment to a position such as govenor of a province (even for a day), the basis for being exempted from public service? People would pay enormous bribes for a bogus appointment that exempted them from any meaningful public service. Members of the Imperial entourage made huge fortunes this way.

 

And yes, people could aslo avoid public service if they joined the clergy.

 

To put all of the blame on the church, however, is to ignore the fact that everyone was already moving away from public service anyway.

 

As for military service, the biggest blows the army took were the monetary crisis preceding the reign of Diocletian that effectively made it a poor paying job and the incredible corruption that saw govenors and military officers plunder the funds allocated for equipment, supplies and pay. This later of course resulted in poor equipment, pay and supplies for the men.

 

Under those conditions, is it any wonder that able bodied Roman men did not want to serve when other options offered a better life?

 

Using the rise of the Christian church as a cause for the decline seems really simplistic. To me, it was obviously nothing more than a means to an end for many of the people who wished to avoid being consumed by a corrupt system that offered insufficient rewards for participation.

[Primus Pilus]

I'm not sure why there is such a rush of defense for Christianity in this thread. Nobody seems to have blamed it for the fall of Rome, but simply pointed it out as a single contributor among many. Perhaps I should have been more clear in my initial reply that I see it well down the list of these contributors, but it still has a place in the unraveling of the social system.

 

I can easily and willingly agree that invasions, incompetent leadership, economic collapse, barbarization of the legions, etc. can far outweigh the 'blame' of Christianity, but I can never be convinced that it played no part, or that is wasn't a symptom of a collapsing society.

[PerfectimusPrime]

Once Christianity and Government became irrevocably fused, however, Paganism was systematically dismantled in the most brutal way, for a period beginning with Theodosius and ending with Justinian. Subsequent examples of Christian/political purging and extermination of cultures are a matter of record and run right up to the beginning of the 20th century.

 

Roman polytheism had long time ago lost its breath, it could no longer answer the spiritual needs of the people. So, hundreds of new cults were on the rise, even before Christianity.

 

People often say that it was Christianity which did those horrors in Rome. Well, for example the systemtic purging of Pagan temples was not a Christian policy, it was Roman policy. Christianity got strong, Romans needed money, they allied with Christianity; they got money. You see, Roman empire was desprade (sp?) for money, the hyperinflation and economical disasters dried out the Roman treasury. The Comitatenses - Limitanei system with large cavalry corps was enormously expensive.

 

The Pagan temples were rich and there were plenty of them, for example, Augustus built or repaired 82 temples in one year, or at least so it was said, nevertheless, there were alot of pagan temples. Abusing Christianity and its message allowed the Romans to exploit the wealth of these temples and to use it to feed their nearly collapsed economy.

 

Also, the Roman bureocratic system was suffering from rampant corruption (which also affected the amount of recruits), Christianity did have a positive impact upon that too as it justified absolutism and the emperor became a demi-god.

 

The European Feudalism was the cause of the intolerant ages. Because the feudal lords were use to being at the top, they were

[DanM]

do you feel that the fall of rome enabled the rise of the church? if so, then why?

13936[/snapback]

 

I really didn't feel like I was defending the church so much as explaining why it was not so much a cause as a symptom.

 

Going back to the original question of the thread, I was explaining why I did not think it was a cause for the fall of Rome. It was just a means of escape for a people who were already abandoning their state.

[barca]

One more thing: I think the state adoption of Christianity was far more damaging to Christianity than to the culture; indeed, as I've said, Christianity revivified a moribund culture and received nothing but the stifling patronage of 'The Equal to the Apostles" (One of Constantine's titles) in return.

 

A bad deal for the faith.

14957[/snapback]

 

i would venture to say that this whole thing is a very controversial topic. Most individuals have emotional reasons to support their viewpoints.

 

I can remember way back when in my High School history noting the sequence of events in Roman History, seeing the large bust of Constantine's head with those huge eyes, and on the next page was the fall of Rome. I was surprised that the history book made no connection with the adoption of Christianity and the fall of Rome. Now I'm not saying that Christianity led to Rome's fall, but the timing is such that one has to ask the obvious question.

 

The German philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche was an ardent anti-christian. He wrote numerous works including The Antichrist, Twilight of the Idols among others. His basic tenet was that christianity made men less competitive, less daring, and more like sheep in a herd. He blamed the ultimate fall of Classical civilization on the rise of Christianity. Here are some examples of his quotes:

 

"Egoism is the very essence of a noble soul."

"What is good? All that heightens the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself in man."

"The Christian resolution to find the world ugly and bad has made the world ugly and bad. "

"He that humbleth himself wishes to be exalted."

"The word "Christianity" is already a misunderstanding - in reality there has been only one Christian, and he died on the Cross."

"Two great European narcotics, alcohol and Christianity."

"Morality is the herd-instinct in the individual."

"From the start, the Christian faith is a sacrifice: a sacrifice of all freedom, all pride, all self-confidence of the spirit; at the same time enslavement, and self-mockery, mutilation."

"it is the oriental slave who revenged himself in this way on Rome and its noble and frivolous tolerance, on the Roman "catholicy" of faith..."

 

These are only some of his quotes. I will search my recollection to find others that may be more applicable to the late classical world. He believed that Christianity made men say "no" life and focus on the spiritual. He felt that christian morality was like chains holding great men down. These individuals could not be the "supermen" like Caesar or Napoleon who could rise above and accomplish great things unless they broke away from these chains (their christian morality)

 

Whether Nietzche was right is certainly open to debate. The reality is that many so-called christians didn't really act like christians. Constantine, for example was ruthles tyrant.

[Northern Neil]

I'm not sure why there is such a rush of defense for Christianity in this thread.  Nobody seems to have blamed it for the fall of Rome, but simply pointed it out as a single contributor among many. 

 

I don't think it is so much defending christianity, so much as dismissing its alleged importance - at least, in my view. The fall of the west came 150 years after the Empire granted Christianity equal status with the existing religion - as much time as separates us from the start of the American Civil War. The eastern part survived in recognisably Roman from until about 650, and continued as a political force until 1453 - despite its total conversion to Christianity. I have come round to the view expressed by another person (PP, I think) on this topic - that the Empire had reached a stage where any number of middle eastern (or otherwise) cults could have materialised into a massive politically backed state religion by the 4th century, and this debate would be exactly the same, but with a different religion being blamed.

 

I entirely agree with you, Primus Pilus, on the subject of Paganism V Christianity. Subject for another thread, perhaps!

[DanM]

I'm not sure why there is such a rush of defense for Christianity in this thread.

[Ursus]

The values expressed in Christianity are indeed at odds with the Heroic values of earlier pagan times (eg, Homer). This indeed probably did have an effect on Roman society.

 

However, my problem with this thread is that my studies in philosophy and religion lead me to a blunt conclusion. There isn't anything in Christianity that isn't in a variety of pagan cults and Greek philosophy. Particularly the neoplatonics. The only thing that Christianity did differently is say that their God was the only god and that their way was the only way ( something they inherited from the Hebraic influence). The problem thus is that if some pagan cults and Greek Philosphers were saying things very close to Christianity centuries before Christianity, do we blame Christians for the Fall of Rome?

 

It seems to me the world was gradually shifting in that direction for a long time. Christianity was the fulfilment of this shift rather than its instigator. It was a symptom of Roman decline rather than a cause. Methinks if the empire had been more stable and prosperous, Christianity would have been simply one cult among many rather than the new universal religion.

[DanM]

All very good points Ursus.

 

I think you hit the similarities to other religions and schools of thought right on the head. Augustine of Hippo was one of the most influential early Christian thinkers and he borrowed heavily from neoplatonic thought. I know he isn't the only example, but he is an easily recognizable one.

 

And I believe Peter Brown talked a bit about how Christianity was opposed by the conservatives somewhat because it brought ethical values to the masses where neoplationic values an ethics had previously been a way to seperate the upper classes from the masses. Its been at least a year since I have read anything by Peter Brown so I might be a little fuzzy here.

 

As for Christianity and the fighting spirit of the citizens, thats just BS. First, look at great Christian Emperors of the later period like Heraclius and Nicephorus Phocas (I seriously doubt I spelled his name correctly).

 

Second, you have to look at he reduction in pay, supplies and equipment that also contributed to the lower desire of men to join the army.

 

Finally, there was a manpower shortage and many wealthy Roman landowners would not let their coloni join the army and would do anything possible to prevent their joining.

 

Using Christianity as a scape goat is just a weak attempt to find a simple solution to a complex problem.

[tribunician power]

I personally am a rank amateur in the study of Roman history. I have spent my time to date studying the fall of the republic and the early empire. It always struck me as odd however, that such a culture based on self promotion, violence and "peace through victory" could possibly transition into such a strict and entirely opposite religion. Which leads to my question,"Did Christianity hasten the fall of the empire?"

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

No offense, but there's already a topic on this a long time ago. Oh, I think it also falls under the category of what brought down the Roman Empire thread, don't know which thread though.