Christianity and the Legions

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

Ursus, I have a question. When Constantine defeated Maxentius, did his soldiers immediately convert to his new cult(Christianity) because of this decisive win even though the majority were all pagans? I think my question might be wrong, but you know what I mean.

[Princeps]

Ursus, I have a question. When Constantine defeated Maxentius, did his soldiers immediately convert to his new cult(Christianity) because of this decisive win even though the majority were all pagans? I think my question might be wrong, but you know what I mean.

 

It was a definate advantage to be Christian, so many citizens looking for advancement would have definately converted, both quickly and over time. However Constantine did not make the mistake of forcing his religion on anyone (I think it's debatable that Constantine believed Christianity to be superior, his vision of the burning cross was just a tool to help him defeat Maxentius, though witnessing so many martyrdoms would have given him a healthy respect for Christians and their fanaticism).

 

No, the bulk of his soldiers would not have immediately converted.

 

Good post Ursus, I'll most likely re-read that one tommorow.

[Primus Pilus]

The complete 'conversion' of Constantine and the symbolism of Christianity at Milvian Bridge is also debatable. However, even allowing that the events occured according to Christian tradition, the legions were readily accustomed to the very similar cult of Mithras and those similarities certainly would've made Christianity an acceptable practice.

[M. Porcius Cato]

If Christian Romans were loathe to serve in the military, am I correct to infer that the advance of Christianity would have also advanced the reliance of the army on pagan provincials and 'barbarians'? Is there any evidence for this? For example, if there were large geographic differences in the adoption of Christianity, were there also large geographic differences in the number of 'barbarians' serving in the military?

[Primus Pilus]

If Christian Romans were loathe to serve in the military, am I correct to infer that the advance of Christianity would have also advanced the reliance of the army on pagan provincials and 'barbarians'? For example, if there were large geographic differences in the adoption of Christianity, were there also large geographic differences in the number of 'barbarians' serving in the military?

 

Absolutely in theory. However, as Christianity evolved into a common public practice in the 4th century, the idea of the original pacifist Christians was beginning to become deluded. A common soldier practicing Christianity would've been less concerned over his 'violent occupation' than the earliest Christians who avoided not only the army but public service of any sort. Again with the similarity to Mithraism, the adoption of Christianity within the legions theoretically could have gone off without a noticeable change. And indeed the legions were already becoming heavily reliant upon provincials and 'barbarians' because of numerous factors.

 

Its been estimated that Italian recruits made up less than 1% of the Roman army as early as the late 2nd century AD and early third century (Severus through Caracalla), which, considering that Christianity's massive growth came considerably later, would lead us to believe that Christianity played little part in forcing the Romans to use 'barbarian pagan' recruits.

[M. Porcius Cato]

If Christian Romans were loathe to serve in the military, am I correct to infer that the advance of Christianity would have also advanced the reliance of the army on pagan provincials and 'barbarians'?

Absolutely in theory. However, ...

Its been estimated that Italian recruits made up less than 1% of the Roman army as early as the late 2nd century AD and early third century (Severus through Caracalla), which, considering that Christianity's massive growth came considerably later, would lead us to believe that Christianity played little part in forcing the Romans to use 'barbarian pagan' recruits.

This is very interesting, and I regret I don't know more about this period. If it's not too much of a digression, How do we know how much Christiantiy spread during the 2nd century CE? Also, if the rise of Christianity only explains a small part of the de-Italicization of the military, what explains the larger part?

[Primus Pilus]

Quite frankly, we don't know just how widespread Christianity was at any given point, but there are indicators and of course many educated guesstimates. The famous letters between Pliny the Younger and Trajan in the early part of the 2nd century indicate that Christianity is not much more than a nuisance. However, the increase of Christian writers in the middle to later part of the same century clearly indicates a corresponding increase in popularity. Still Christianity's earliest success came mostly in the east which was not the favored recruiting ground of Roman legions (though auxilia was plentiful in their own geographic regions).

 

The initial barbarization of the legions is much more dependent on economic and nationalistic conditions than anything else. In the early Republic the armies were made up of landowners and service to Rome was a deeply ingrained civic responsibility. In effect, to serve Rome was to prove one's own honorable status. As Rome expanded, slavery increased and with it the vast number of landless/unemployed 'peasantry', the army turned to these masses to fill its ranks. Not only were soldiers then offered a chance for land and a pension based on service, but the spoils of war offered fabulous opportunity for wealth that these men never could've had in civilian affairs. With the advent of the imperial standing army, legions began to find themselves in near permanent stations throughout the empire. No longer were they necessarily mobile armies raised as needed, but permanent garrisons to guard Rome's slowly stagnating borders.

 

Trajan offered the last real expansion of imperial borders, though others certainly went on campaigns across these lines, but with this end to expansion, the opportunity for spoils through conquest slowly disappeared. Without these opportunities, and a sense of nationalistic honor and glory for the traditional Italian/Latin recruit, the army had to turn to other sources for recruiting purposes. The permanent garrisons, along with the local familiarity of both the army and the civilians, recruiting at the point of origin became much more commonplace. By the time Caracalla offered citizenship to all free male inhabitants within the imperial borders in AD 212, the concept of citizenship, honor and service to the greater glory of Rome was all but lost.

 

Over the course of the next couple of centuries, military recruiting among provincials was slowly supplemented and then replaced with the tactic of appeasing Rome's aggressive neighbors. By bringing potentially dangerous Germanic neighbors into the imperial fold by giving them an opportunity for military spoils and regular payments once afforded to Italians and then provincials, Rome was able to delay the inevitable for some time.

 

Obviously this is a quite watered down version of a fairly mammoth cultural and social shift, but I hope it conveys the general idea.

[Primus Pilus]

Btw, sorry to hijack the thread Ursus.. though I suppose its all related.

[Ursus]

It's a great conversation, but I think I'll split the topic for convenience sake.