Collapse Of The Roman Empire/ Consequences For The Church

[Guest Prof. Wallach]

The year is 511. You are among the Gallic bishops who have been summoned by Clovis to a Council at Orleans. Assess the consequences for the church with respect to the collapse of the Roman Empire in the West and its replacement by "barbarian" successor kingdoms.

[Primus Pilus]

Egads, Professor, are we being tested? At any rate, I'll start the ball rolling.

 

I'm taking an initial angle of opportunity here rather than one of challenge...

 

The fall of imperial rule allowed a unique opportunity to continue the spread of the church not only as a religious authority but also as replacement governing authority. Much like the emperors of days gone by the 'successor kingdoms' needed to prove their own legitimacy not only through military force and capability but through connection to previous authority. Uniting the pre-existing structured establishment that the church provided with that of the successor nobility allowed the church to continue providing a single stabilizing and nostalgic effect on the populace.

 

The nobility were also provided with the connection that they needed in the shape of a pervasive institution to help mold the citizenry.

 

OK, you caught me... I'm a bit jaded

[DanM]

I would agree. The biggest result of the fall of the Roman Empire in the west was the political vacum in created and the opportunity for the church of Rome to assert political authority. Obviously the political independence led to an independence with respect to matters of dosctrine as well. If the Empire had held together somehow, then it is highly unlikely the church of Rome could have had any serious independence on issues of doctrine. So there is a strong possibility that any scenario where the western empire survived would also have to include a very different Christian church in western and central Europe.

 

Since the Franks were Catholics, I do not think there were many issues related to theology in Gaul, but the Vandals in North Africa seriously persecuted the Catholics of their provinces. The Arians of Gothic Italy, Illyria and Spain, on the other hand, treated their Catholic subjects with respect and consideration.

Edited December 9, 2005 by DanM

[Emperor Goblinus]

I agree to some extent. However, with the collapse of imperial military authoirty, I would think that in fact the Germanic tribes would be able to exert some force in the reverse direction. The implosion of imperial authority did benefit the Pontifex Maximus, but it also gave the Germans more leeway in deciding their own fate.

[DanM]

I agree to some extent. However, with the collapse of imperial military authoirty, I would think that in fact the Germanic tribes would be able to exert some force in the reverse direction. The implosion of imperial authority did benefit the Pontifex Maximus, but it also gave the Germans more leeway in deciding their own fate.

 

Of course the implosion of the imperial authority in the west gave the germans more leeway. No one would ever argue that point.

 

But the germans were a thinly spread ruling class in a much larger sea of latin culture, language and religion. They could not impose their will on the population with nearly the same force as the previous Roman emperors. Thats why the Gothic leaders in Italy and Spain made an effort to accomodate and work with the church instead of imposing their will upon it. In areas such as Gaul where the population differences were not so drastic, they could behave with a little less caution.