Late Roman empire sources

[Maladict]

what about....

 

Honorius and his inability to prevent the sack of Rome in the early 5th century AD?

 

btw my heads going all over the place atm about the subject to choose >< im not a great deicision maker

 

Sounds fine to me. Since this thread started with a question on ancient sources I'd have to warn you that there aren't a whole lot of them on this particular subject. Answering this question, as of course has been attempted before, usually involves a lot of conjecturing, which is fine but if you want your work to be solidly grounded in (and backed up by) the ancient authors you'd better move it elsewhere.

Still, I'd say go for it, it's a great, if complicated, subject

[Philhellene]

Could anyone please name a few good later roman sources like Johannes.

 

You write the articles on Late Roman emperors and don`t even know late Roman primary sources?! I think that means that you don`t know secondary sources as well, because they all have many references to ancient authors. So... Maybe you should start from Gibbon?

Edited February 25, 2007 by Philhellene

[Honorius]

'the adoption of christianity in the 4th century AD by Constantine the great was the main catalyst for the fall of the western roman empire in the 5th century AD'

 

this is my final question/debate sorry fopr taking so long to reply to the topic but my computer recently died and its only getting fixed now... it died liek 2 weeks ago..anyway do you guys think this is a better question debate then the ones i put forward earlier?

 

thanks for all the help again.

[Primus Pilus]

'the adoption of christianity in the 4th century AD by Constantine the great was the main catalyst for the fall of the western roman empire in the 5th century AD'

 

It's a theme that's been done in various forms before so there is plenty of material to work with, however, it may be a bulkier subject than you intend. The nature of Constantine's relationship with Christianity is likely to fill an entire paper before even approaching the subject of the fall of the west. The idea has merit though, despite being difficult to prove. The more difficult issue is that you will have to study and dissect the course of several centuries of events to prove the 'adoption of Christianity' was a catalyst, rather than focusing on the events of Constantine's reign alone.

[Kosmo]

"Shortly after Diocletian, the emperor Constantine converted to Christianity, and all the charming archaic features of paganism, naked athletes at the Olympics, priestesses of Apollo in trances, ithyphallic Hermae on street corners, priests of Astarte cutting off their genitals, orgiastic Dionysiacs, etc., began to disappear.

 

The empire of 476 was therefore, except for philosophers and yokels (paganus, "pagan," means "rural"), in an official Christian hammerlock. Steady political and legal pressure would eventually eradicate the old religions and gods. The Roman army, which had previously been strongly Mithraic, showed its sympathies by electing the Christian Jovian on the death of the pagan Julian in 363, and then the Christian Valentinian I, who would remove the Altar of Victory from the Senate in Rome, in 364. Indeed, at the time, the accusation was that Christianity itself was the cause of the empire's problems. What did they expect when they scorned Victory herself? St. Augustine of Hippo answered this charge in the City of God by denying that it even mattered -- only the City of God was eternal -- even as the Vandals took Hippo in the year of his own death. The charge was later taken up by Edward Gibbon, who saw religious superstition as more enervating than the antics of any Caligula or Elagabalus. Such a charge was still being repeated by James G. Frazer in his classic The Golden Bough [1890, 1900, 1906-15, note]. "

 

Some clues about this ideea you can find here starting with the above quote

http://www.friesian.com/decdenc1.htm

 

As you know the christian roman empire continued, centered in the East, for another 1000 years. That thesis is not original (1700 years old) and it is very hard to prove.

[Maladict]

'the adoption of christianity in the 4th century AD by Constantine the great was the main catalyst for the fall of the western roman empire in the 5th century AD'

 

this is my final question/debate sorry fopr taking so long to reply to the topic but my computer recently died and its only getting fixed now... it died liek 2 weeks ago..anyway do you guys think this is a better question debate then the ones i put forward earlier?

 

No, to be honest I don't think it is.

First off, the subject is too big to handle in a single paper if you want it to have any depth.

Secondly, you won't be able to make an overly convincing case (you won't be able to 'proof it').

Though scholars from Gibbon to the present have been arguing in support of 'your' hypothesis, it is at present not widely accepted. In current research the adoption of Christianity is generally being downplayed as a reason for the collapse of the western empire. If you intend to pursue this question, by all means go ahead, but expect an uphill struggle, and a vast body of literature to work with. Quoting Gibbon just won't do anymore.

[Gaius Octavius]

Quoting Gibbon just won't do anymore.

 

Yes, he was a Protestant who converted to Roman Catholicism and then returned to Protestantism before (as?) he wrote his tome. His attitude was anti- R.C., and not so much anti-Christianity.