Christianity In The Roman Empire

[size=200]CHRISTIANITY IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE[/size]
[size=150]AN ESSAY BY SAGESOUND[/size]

[size=75]Author’s Note: I would like the reader to keep in mind that this paper is a first draft and that any discrepancies to be found are on the account of my own error. Also, I don’t expect you to read this whole thing. In fact, I have my doubts about anyone bothering to read half-way through it. However, if you are seriously interested in this topic, I hope you enjoy reading it.[/size]

[size=75]P.S.- I abused Wikipedia… doesn’t everyone?[/size]

It is believed that Christianity would not be where it is today if it were not for the Roman Empire. It is also believed that the Roman Empire would not have died out when it did had Christianity not existed. In this essay, I will discuss what factors in the beliefs and social structure of the Roman Empire contributed to the rise of Christianity, what role this religion played throughout the years of the empire, its contributions to the downfall of Rome, and the ideas and actions of emperors that affected the fate of Rome.

The Roman Empire: one of the greatest kingdoms of all antiquity starting with Augustus (Octavian) in 27 BCE, and ending as a whole into the split Eastern and Western Roman Empires with the death of Theodosius I in 395 CE― the Western Roman Empire would end in 476 with the deposition of Romulus Augustus by Odoacer, marking the decided end of the Roman state itself [1]. At its peak, the Roman Empire covered 2.3 million square miles; nearly one-quarter of the world, and contributed to advancements in technology that have stood the test of time to influence every facet of modern-day living [1].

Christianity: a monotheistic religion that revolves around the figure of Jesus Christ, his words and actions, and the salvation of the soul from sin through him [2]. Spanning over 2000 years in the making, it has an estimated 2.1 billion adherents in 2005; an estimated 33% of the world population, making it the largest organized religion in the world [2].

Before the coming of Christianity, the Roman Empire celebrated a polytheistic paganism as its state religion― a Roman Pantheism. Prayers and sacrifices were practiced, omens and superstitions were observed, and festivals were held to appease the gods [3]. The pantheon of gods and goddesses, as well as every other aspect of the belief system, reflect influences from Etruscan and Greek mythology [4]. The Romans required this looseness in their belief structure to allow for renewal and adaptation to the changing of the times, leading to the introduction of religious cultism throughout Rome [3].
The first popular cult to invade Roman belief was the worship of an Earth Goddess named Cybele, starting in 203 CE, which found its origins in Anatolia; traveled to Syria, then to Greece through Crete, and finally Rome [5]. The Romans welcomed the Earthly goddess with devoted worship [5]― perhaps due to the fact that she shared common traits with the Minoan Gaia, Greek Demeter, and Roman Ceres.
Around the time when Augustus (31 BCE-14 CE) took control of Rome, a goddess from Egypt named Isis was well known and rising in popularity― she too shared traits with other Earth goddesses like Cybele before her. After Julius Caesar was assassinated, a temple had been built in the name of Isis [6]. In an effort to maintain Roman virtues and moral sense and sensibility, Augustus, now in complete control, shut down the temple because he found the pornographic nature of Isis worship corrupting to the official state gods and goddesses [6]. It is this act of the Roman Empire that distinctly marks a change from the once open-mindedness of the Roman Republic, effectively suspending the absorption of other religions into Roman Paganism. Christianity would later be seen to have similarities between Isis and Mary, the mother of Jesus. Augustus even had political motives for banning other gods, specifically Isis. He felt that the championing of Roman gods over Egyptian gods was an affirmation of Roman power and might over Egypt itself [7].
Augustus succeeded in his efforts to solidify the Roman belief system, and with that, strengthened the societal ideal to his liking. He set the standards by which the empire would follow. Having become emperor, he fixed the pay scale of military personnel, created the Praetorian Guard, set up a civil service system which gradually weakened the authority of the Senate, developed trade routes with other foreign powers, enacted laws that strangely rewarded child-bearing and punished celibacy, and engaged the Imperial Cult, which entailed the deification of Caesar, himself, and the emperors who would follow him [1].
Augustus was so busy revamping Rome into a paradigm of efficiency and new-age wonder; that he forgot, or at least never got around to, having a son that would succeed him. After the reign of Tiberius (37-41 CE), and sometime between the reign of Caligula (37-41 CE) and Claudius (41-54 CE), it can be suggested that Paul of Tarsus― also known as St. Paul by Christians― may have done most of his traveling around the Roman Empire, as a citizen of the state, spreading his message of a new religious cult― Christianity [3].
After Augustus died, the restrictions on outside religious influences must have loosened, especially with poor emperors during the Julio-Claudian Dynasty, as Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and Nero (54-68 CE). Although the Christian belief system had some time to spread through parts of the empire, it wasn’t until 64 CE that they began to be targeted by the Roman Empire. The Great Fire of Rome took place during the night of July 18th, 64 CE, leaving the confused citizens of Rome to point the finger at someone [8]. Nero knew his name was rumored to be the cause of the fire as he had already designed new building plans in his vision― with that in mind; he made the Christians his scapegoat [8]. It was a perfect set-up. The Christians, having the belief in only one god, already made the Roman aristocracy shaky and nervous, but more importantly, the fact that most Christians rejected the Imperial Cult― refusing to worship the superior divinity of the Roman Emperor, sealed their obvious fate [3]. Nero had all known Christians either fed to the lions in the arena, crucified, and as Tacitus wrote, put on display for amusement [8]. Nero ran the empire so poorly, many plotted and conspired against him, and on June 9th, 68 CE, he committed suicide after the Senate deposed him [8]. After his death, it wouldn’t be until December of 69 CE, when a clear emperor would take the throne and bring some sense of peace back to Rome. During what is known as The Year of the Four Emperors, Galba, Otho, Vitellius, and Vespasian fought in a civil war over the scraps of what Nero left behind― an empire on its knees [1]. Vespasian eventually came out on top, ushering in a new era for Rome― the Flavian Dynasty.
The repeated successes of Vespasian (69-79 CE) had not been seen since the reign of Augustus, and while the Christians were left in peace, a new cult emerged. Mithraism, which traveled via Roman soldiers from Persia to the heart of the empire around 71-72 CE, was a monotheistic mystery religion; and while there really aren’t any details about Mithraism, it is clear that it was very popular among the soldiers, and women were not allowed to join [9]. It can be assumed that Mithraism and Christianity were in bitter competition with each other.
While Vespasian and Titus (79-81 CE) appeared to have no qualms against Christianity, Domitian (81-96 CE) had a problem with Christians not accepting his divinity through the Imperial Cult [10]. Although Domitian never went to any extremes as Nero, he did have his governors enforce the Imperial Cult belief to ensure the loyalty and patriotism of the citizens of Rome― an affect that would cause many Christians to question the value of sustaining their belief in Christianity [10]. It is thought that around 95-96 CE, John of Patmos wrote the Revelation― a religious text that details the apocalypse and second coming of Christ [10]. It can be argued that John wrote the Revelation as a response to Domitian’s self-glorifying, anti-Christian policies.
Ending the Flavian Dynasty came the Antonine Dynasty (96-180 CE), which featured the so-called Five Good Emperors: Nerva (96-98 CE), Trajan (98-117 CE), Hadrian (117-138 CE), Antoninus Pius (138-161 CE), and Marcus Aurelius (161-180 CE) [1]. During this period, Christianity saw a change of tolerance from the Roman Empire, especially from Trajan and Hadrian who could be said to have been too busy running the empire than to care about the “silly” Christians. Despite the contributions to philosophical thought and Stoicism made by Marcus Aurelius with his book, Meditations, he was the only emperor of the five to have qualms with Christians― the extent of the persecutions and executions is not known, but it did happen [11].
Upon Aurelius’ death in 180 CE, there began a slow decline with the power of the once great Rome of Augustus and Vespasian. It would seem that the works of Trajan and Hadrian would slowly become undone. Commodus (180-192 CE), Pertinax (192-193 CE), and Didius Julianus (193 CE), led the empire down a slow decline (Commodus moreso), despite no actual known dealings with Christians [1].
In an attempt to set things straight for Rome, Septimius Severus (193-211 CE) took power, ushering in the Severan Dynasty (193-235 CE). Severus, a soldier at heart, ruled with an iron fist to turn Rome into a stable military dictatorship― thereby rooting out all the corruption and moral degeneration caused mainly by Commodus [12]. This stability in the empire, though brief, came at a cost to Christians as they were persecuted by the same laws enforced by Aurelius and so many before him― however, there was peace.
The brief prosperity with Severus thrived with Caracalla (211-217 CE), but once again began to fall with Macrinus (217-218 CE), Elagabalus (218-222 CE), and Alexander Severus (222-235 CE) [1]. Although Christianity saw a steady rise through the years of its first inception in Rome, Roman Pantheism still remained the dominant religion of the state. However, classic Roman belief was compromised by Elagabalus when he set up his god, El-Gabal (which was renamed Deus Sol Invictus or God the Invincible Sun), over Jupiter [13]. This controversy upset the stable prosperity of Rome. His changes in the state religion, not to mention his eccentricity and acts of decadence, led to his downfall, taking Rome with him.
Following the weakness of Alexander Severus, Rome underwent a “military anarchy,” popularly known as The Crisis of the Third Century, in which a series of 25 “soldier-emperors” ruled the boiling chaos between 235 and 284 CE [1]. During this time, the emperor Aurelian (270-275 CE) strengthened the worship of the sun god, Sol Invictus, in Roman Pantheism, which not only has traits similar to Mithras, but attributes that are later applied to Christianity as well [14]. Sol Invictus continues to remain an unchanged constant in Roman belief and culture until the end of the empire [14].
This madness of anarchy ended with the rise of Diocletian (284-305 CE), who managed to reconstruct and stabilize some sense of what Rome once was by making sound reforms in the military, civil administration, and state bureaucracy [15]. However, despite this sudden stabilization after so many years of chaos, the Christians faced their final and biggest persecution on a scale that rivals the atrocities of Nero. Diocletian’s “Edict Against the Christians” in 303 CE included such atrocities as removing Christian soldiers from the army, confiscating church property, and burning books [14]. Angered after two fires in his palace, he went even further and basically decreed that all Christians must renounce Christianity or die [15].
A group of emperors follow after Diocletian, rapidly undoing the sudden stability that was just previously installed. However, in 312 CE, Constantine I (306-337 CE) converted to Christianity after having a vision before the Battle of Milvian Bridge and subsequently decreed the Edict of Milan in 313 CE [16]― a set of laws that made it legal for Christians to profess their faith, compensate for losses and stolen property over the years, and the legalization of Christianity throughout the empire [17]. Constantine I appeared to believe in Christianity and Sol Invictus (what he had been practicing before his conversion) until 324 CE, seeming to not have made up his mind about which belief was above the other [3]. However, by 325 CE, he seemed to have made a decision by convoking the Council of Nicea― the first meeting of bishops to discuss the nature and orientation of Christianity [18].
It would appear that what Constantine I was setting out to do was to do to Christianity what Augustus and Vespasian had done for the Roman Empire. Perhaps, it could be thought that Constantine I thought to revitalize the empire he must first revitalize religion. Around the time before the Council of Nicea convened, there were many different factions of Christianity, a great deal of confusion about what was divine truth or heresy about the religion, and no centralized orthodoxy. In short, Christianity was an unorganized religion. Constantine I changed this.
His sudden strict adherence of Christianity led him to enact several laws specifically aimed at Judaism, such as keeping Jews from owning Christian slaves, circumcising them, and the conversion of anyone from Christianity to Judaism [17]. Other laws including the abolishment of crucifixion, ending of gladiatorial games, setting Sunday as a day of rest for businesses (except to free slaves), granting favors to Christians over non-Christians, and restricting the lifestyle privileges of pagans [17]. It was practically as if the roles of Roman Pantheism and Christianity switched places in the Roman Empire. However, the Romanization of Christianity was clear. The birth day of Christ was moved to the 25th of December to fall in accord with that same day of Mithras and Bacchus, and the dates of Christian holidays were altered to conform to the dates of previous Roman festivities, such as the winter solstice celebration of Saturnalia [19]. It could be suggested that because Constantine I was never baptized, despite rumors stating he was on his deathbed, was due to his consistent ties with Sol Invictus― one instance demonstrated at a dual Christian-pagan celebration in 330 CE that displayed Sol Invictus with the Cross of Christ above him [17]. The fact that Constantine I never officially recanted his position as High Priest of Mithras Sol Invictus [19] may suggest that politically, he desired a smooth transition of acceptance between Roman paganism and Christianity. After all, two-thirds of his upper government officials were pagan [17], which may suggest some level of tolerance during the transition. Although the pagan temples were pretty much abandoned, Christianity was never technically installed as the state religion.
While Constantius II (337-361 CE) perpetuated Christianity to a lesser degree as Constantine I, Julian (361-363 CE) is coined as the last pagan Roman Emperor, as each emperor after him proceeds to remain Christian [20]. The Christians called him Julian the Apostate, although he was also known as Julian the Philosopher, because he rejected Christianity by converting back to paganism and attempted to reinstall the Rome of old back into the empire [20]. His edicts removed the previous bias against pagans by Constantine I, reopened and restored pagan temples, restricted power among Christian officials, and called back exiled Christian bishops of differing sects (possibly to cause further schism in Christianity as a whole) [20]. In an attempt to further alienate Christianity, he intended to assist Judaism by attempting to rebuild Solomon’s Temple in Jerusalem, although he never succeeded due to possible sabotage and natural disaster [20].
Jovian (363-364 CE) apparently did nothing to undo what Julian enacted, although he remained Christian, while Valens (364-378 CE) juggled theological disputes between the differing Christian sects and a largely pagan Roman military [21]. The growing schism between Roman paganism and Christianity that was fostered by Julian came to a sudden halt with the rise of Theodosius I (379-395 CE). Theodosius I pretty much finished what Constantine I started by ending the disputes between the Christian factions (the Gnostics, Nicene, and Arians to name a few), and establishing Nicene Christianity as the official state religion of Rome [22]. Theodosius I worked to expunge paganism in Rome by decreeing the temples closed and abandoned, making many aspects of paganism illegal to practice, put an end to the Olympic Games, and even went as far as to officially sanction the destruction of the Sarapeum in Alexandria [22]― the most elaborate pagan temple in Alexandria, constructed by Ptolemy III in honor of Serapis [23]. Although Diocletian split the empire into its Eastern and Western counterparts [15], they were still managed in unison until the death of Theodosius I, when the split was made official between his two sons― Honorius (395-423 CE) controlling the West, and Arcadius (395-408 CE) in the East [23].

Following the official split, the weakening of Rome led to an inability to deal with internal wars, external wars, plague, slavery, economic problems, unstable political systems, the lack of technological advancement, poisoning and mental illness by the use of lead piping, the devaluation of Roman values through the prominence of non-Italians in the empire, and most importantly, the devaluation and undermining of Roman military virtues and patriotism brought on by Christianity [24]. In the end, it was a combination of all of these things that contributed one way or another to the ultimate downfall of Rome. However, it can be argued that Christianity was the single biggest trigger to set things in motion.
Edward Gibbon, the first scholar to use the term Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, believed that the mob mentality created through Christianity led the Romans to think less of their life in this world and more about the life to come in the next [25]. This mentality compromised the once glorious and patriotic mind-set of Roman virtues that were set into stone by Augustus and Caesar before him. The Roman Empire, like any empire, required the principal need to conquer. In order for one to conquer, one must make war, and a religious cult that preaches love can work towards preventing this; naturally.
Usually, at times when Rome conquered, there was a period of peace and progress, which underlined the ideation that war; although bad, is peace and progress itself. A perfect example of this ideation not taken into action is what happened during the Crisis of the Third Century. With the advent of Christianity becoming the official state religion, the need to make war and conquer was slowly abolished, and when the time came to defend against war, the Christianized Romans found themselves incapable to deal with one defeat after another; leading them to be conquered. In essence, the Roman Empire and Christianity were incompatible in the long term.

In conclusion, it can be said that the fate of Rome was truly vested in the emperors that ruled it. It was the emperor who made all the decisions, all the decrees, and all the reforms. When you come right down to it, an empire is only as good as the person leading it. Strong emperors of Rome that were firm in their belief of what Rome really was; made it a point to maintain the image of Rome― no matter the costs. Weaker emperors proved to let the empire succumb to outside influences that had no connection with the idea of Rome. Christianity, the strongest outside influence, slowly disintegrated the idea of Rome. Its adherents made it a point to reject many aspects of Rome, and though they were punished accordingly, their numbers eventually grew too big for Rome to deal with. If Christianity never existed, Rome most certainly would have survived much longer than it did; and just perhaps, would have conquered much more of the world than it did.

[size=150]SOURCE CITATIONS[/size]

  1. Wikipedia. The Roman Empire. 29 March 2006. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire

  2. Adherents.com. Major Religions of the World. 28 August 2005. http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

  3. Roman Empire.net. Roman Religion. http://www.roman-empire.net/religion/religion.html

  4. Wikipedia. Religion In Ancient Rome. 27 March 2006. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Paganism

  5. Wikipedia. Cybele. 24 March 2006. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybele

  6. Wikipedia. Isis. 29 March 2006. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isis

  7. Wikipedia. Augustus. 28 March 2006. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus

  8. Wikipedia. Nero. 28 March 2006. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nero

  9. Wikipedia. Mithraism. 28 March 2006. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithraism

  10. Wikipedia. Domitian. 28 March 2006. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domitian

  11. Wikipedia. Marcus Aurelius. 29 March 2006. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Aurelius

  12. Wikipedia. Septimius Severus. 28 March 2006. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septimius_Severus

  13. Wikipedia. Elagabalus. 24 March 2006. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elagabalus

  14. Wikipedia. Diocletian. 28 March 2006. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diocletian

  15. Wikipedia. Sol Invictus. 12 March 2006. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sol_Invictus

  16. Wikipedia. Constantine I (emperor). 29 March 2006. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_I_(emperor)

  17. Wikipedia. Edict of Milan. 19 March 2006. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edict_of_Milan

  18. Wikipedia. First Council of Nicea. 24 March 2006. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

  19. Wikipedia. History of Christianity. 26 March 2006. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Christianity

  20. Wikipedia. Julian the Apostate. 29 March 2006. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_the_Apostate

  21. Wikipedia. Valens. 29 March 2006. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valens

  22. Wikipedia. Theodosius I. 27 March 2006. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodosius_I

  23. Wikipedia. Serapeum. 15 January 2006. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serapeum

  24. Duiker / Spielvogel. World History: Fourth Edition. Thomson, 2004. Chapter 5: The World of the Romans, pg. 146.

  25. Wikipedia. The Decline of the Roman Empire. 22 March 2006. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_the_Roman_Empire

POSTDATE: 03.29.06.1269

I don’t mean to be the bearer of bad news,
but you pretty much said what every single historian
has said over the last 200 years. I see nothing new
in your piece. Now tell us why this is important might
mean something, but for now, not much here.

Kropotkin

03.30.06.1270
Cave quid dicis, quando, et cui…

Us? Of whom else do you speak of besides yourself— for you are the only one making a comment. I would take it the time your post was made, you probably skimmed my essay at best, if not to read a couple paragraphs. It is clear you really did not read it, and even if you did; just because you don’t get anything out of it, does not mean someone else won’t either.

Do tell me, how many historians are there registered on ILP? Would my paper at least serve as a simple reference— a vade mecum if you will, to the relationship between the Roman Empire and Christianity? Also, not every historian has stated what I have put down on paper. Some have, but not all. This is why there is still decidedly no final answer on what caused the decline and fall of Rome— too many differing ideas, too many possible causes. I have given my personal conclusion— my own opinion on the matter. If you don’t agree with it, then say something. If you do, disturb this thread no more.

Finally, it may not be important to you, but it is to me— a possible reflection of what may come for the Empire of American Christiandom.

Dixi…

Sagesound:
Finally, it may not be important to you, but it is to me— a possible reflection of what may come for the Empire of American Christendom.

K: now if you make this connection, that would be worth it.
You yourself quoted gibbon, and much of what you say, is in
gibbon. Now if you can connect, then I take back what I said.
I hope you can.

Kropotkin

03.31.06.1271
A fly in my soup…

You hope I can? The question is not if I can, it is— do I feel like wasting my time telling you something you probably already know? Your unnescessary commentary has already upset the balance of this thread— so it must come down to some rediculous notion of me proving my worth to you. Tell me Kropotkin, why should I bother? To what end would it suffice to pleasure you with my rhetoric?

Regardless, I will make one simple point— to make a connection.
(But that still does not excuse you from explaining yourself and taking back what you said.)

In my opinion, the Christians outlined in the essay are Muslims in today’s world. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world, and the more it gets stepped on, the stronger it becomes. In a manner of speaking, Bush could be thought as Nero.

I will say no more, for what I have said should suffice for anyone, even you Kropotkin. Now take back your words and explain yourself.

Sagesound
You hope I can? The question is not if I can, it is— do I feel like wasting my time telling you something you probably already know? Your unnescessary commentary has already upset the balance of this thread— so it must come down to some rediculous notion of me proving my worth to you. Tell me Kropotkin, why should I bother? To what end would it suffice to pleasure you with my rhetoric?

K: you don’t need to do anything. I gave you my two cents.
take it or leave it. It won’t hurt my feelings if you dismisse it.

Sag: Regardless, I will make one simple point— to make a connection.
(But that still does not excuse you from explaining yourself and taking back what you said.)

K: the proof is in the pudding. Upon reflection, what the hell does
that mean anyway. Proof is in the pudding? UMMMMMM.

S: In my opinion, the Christians outlined in the essay are Muslims in today’s world. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world, and the more it gets stepped on, the stronger it becomes. In a manner of speaking, Bush could be thought as Nero.

K: ok, show me and I will be happy to retract anything and
everything.

Kropotkin

A few questions:

  1. How do you respond to the assertion that the Holy Roman Catholic Church is nothing more than a continuation of the Western Roman Empire? It is quite commonly argued that it is.

  2. I still fail to see ‘why Christianity’. As you said, there were many mystery cults at the time and even trends towards monotheism and quasi-monotheism. Isn’t it reasonable to assume that any one of these could have easily done the same “damage” as Christianity?

  3. The Eastern Roman Empire lasted for a long time after your essay ends and it seems to have done quite well for itself until the Fourth (I believe) Crusade. Why, if Christianity is so damaging to Romanitas?

04.01.06.1272
…arguendo…

Congrats Pot… you’ve made yourself look the fool in my eyes. Next time you decide to devaluate your words, and present your comments in an unfashionable manner, don’t waste my time doing it.

Thank you Xunzian, for posting something of value. Before I answer questions 1 & 3, I’d like to point out that they stray from the main topic of the essay, which focuses purely on the relationship between Christianity and the Roman Empire as a whole. Regardless, I will answer them.

  1. If you consider the change in the method of conquering others, this assertion would apply. The old Romans relied on the might of their armies to conquer their enemies; Catholicism relies on conquering through spirituality. However, Catholicism doesn’t embody the spiritual and cultural values of the old Rome, sustaining the argument that the real Rome— the military might of Rome— is long gone. On the other hand, as a spiritual empire, Catholicism is probably the largest empire the world has ever seen.

  2. Let us assume for a moment that Christianity never existed— what would that entail for the Roman Empire? Well, while we cannot truly expound on the details of Mithraism, it is known that the religion of Sol Invictus is centered around a warrior god— a conquering god; and by all means, a Roman god. Before Christianity truly took over, we saw Sol Invictus take a prominent role in the direction of Rome. Rome embodies the ideal: aut vincere aut mori! Any religion that would have sprung up to take the place of Roman Pantheism and still harbor, endorse, and feed the ideal of Rome surely would have helped prolong the life of the empire. Christianity corrupted Rome— denied it, devaluated it, and revaluated it.

  3. If Domitian knew that splitting the empire a pars Orientis and a pars Occidentis, would spell an ultimate doom for the might of Rome, he may not have done it. My essay focused on the Roman Empire as a whole, to the point where it was officially broken apart by the death of Theodosius I. To answer your question though, I will say that the Eastern Roman Empire, better known as the Byzantine Empire, survived through a stable economic system.
    Rome, being a military power, relied on conquering other nations to pillage and plunder. With the slow advance of Christianity, weakness set in and less was done to maintain the pomp and splendor of lavish Roman spending. Not only this, but when Constantine I came to power and declared Byzantium to be renovated into his capital of Constantinople, this action surely set in a low self esteem for Rome. Rome— the beating heart of the empire, was denied!
    While the Byzantines already had an economic system stable enough to sustain their empire up until 1453 when the Ottomans conquered them, Rome struggled for the remainder of its days, never making any economic reforms. Constantine I did more to hurt Rome than any emperor before him. Rome was denied its rich pagan tradition, its patriotic spirit, its glorious military virtue— it was beaten to death by Christianity!

Hum,

Sage, I enjoyed your essay. …??? I thought the Visogoths were the ones who really nailed Rome. Again, I see your point regarding Muslims and how the Christians weaked the empire.

With regards,

aspacia

Christianity already had a strong eccleisatical organization before Constantine as they would have to in order to endure the persecutions. they were highly organized.

Christianity could not be subdued by the state and the whole issue of church and state came to the forefront and was pretty much settled at that time by pope Gelasius with the church being concerned with the spiritual and the imperial with the temporal.

The Roman Empire collapsed because it was over stretched and over run by barbarians. Its time had come. it was the christian world which would be the survivor and advance the Western world.

Your paper is well documented as far as historical data is concerned. What is needed is a more keen observation of the social, moral, cultural impact of Christianity in the Roman society. What you are saying is that the moral and social ethos of Roman pagan culture was overshadowed by the new social ethos of Christianity that ravaged morally and spiritualy the last centuries of the Roman Empire. That is correct. The impact of Christianity was strong and long lasting in the Hellenized world and the Rome could not fight its ravaging effects throughout the empire. Maybe you should discuss more in depth the coming of the new social ethos, that desintegrated the forma mentis of Antiquity and announced the new era, the Middle Ages.

Nothing to do with it but, in the school I go to Wikipedia is not an acceptable source because they have found that some of the information is distorted.

.

I agree with kropotkin actually when he mentioned ;

As Im sure many others would . Nonetheless you are right when you say ;

Of course , Its a matter of perspective , and not a big issue

.

This is an interesting article.

It got me thinking about an argument Nietzsche made about Christianity. Namely that it was a system created by Paul to revenge the plight of the jewish people and lands at the hands of romans. So basically paul crafted christianity to carry out the task you believe it did.

All commentary; verbal, written or digitally transmitted; by this poster is expressly a matter of personal opinion, individual belief, personal experience, and is not intended to purport necessity of change(s), implied/perceived, to other posters; physical, mental or emotional. Any attempt to treat this post in a manner contradictory to what has been thusly stated, is erroneous, and is the fault, entirely, of the reader of said post.

A large number of strange replies … ?

Not the point though.

The essay by Sagesound is actually a great deal more concise, and less laden with subjective interpretations, than the largest majority of material written on the subject.

My only point of quibbling with the venerable one, would be that although the given example of Christianity and Rome is poignant and precise with regards to the … LOL … “American Empire” … (I knew you were hiding your sense of humor) … the relevance of the matter in my perspective is the nature of organized religion and its’ effects upon nations.

One could easily argue the same effects were seen in the once great Ottoman empire, which suffered its’ real defeat at the hands of institutionalizers and fundamentalists and religious constructionists.

The argument could also be made, in my opinion, which I really hadn’t considered before reading this, that the longevity of Judeaism is more directly related to activities of Roman tolerance, and the subsequent Christian movement.

[i]Bene eu venerabilis eumenides[/i]

Yes, that’s exactly what I got from the essay. If it is true that Christianity was the nail in the coffin for the Roman empire, this signals the birth of what Nietzsche called a “slave morality”- an inversion of values based upon deep-seated reactionary resentment. Apparently this is still with us today in the form democracy.

Me, Phi Alpha Theta, Old Bean. Yes, really.

I enjoyed your essay… Just a side note, spruce it up and add more of your insights so it does not read like an encyclopedia. I know, it is a first draft, and firsts are usually just composit of facts found.

Sure, when finished. Ignore the trolls who believe if they slam another they look more intelligent, when, in fact, they do not.

So many years, but how about how some early Christian writings (Nag Hamandi) may have impacted the empire. Just a thought.

No Joke!!! So much was written, so much is still unknown. Hum, but many have made the same or similar implications.

Including lead water pipes causing infertility? More circuses, more bread for the Roman masses.

Ignore the trolls, and if as homs are thrown, report them.

Yes, the USA as the New Rome. But are we really. Most of our laws are not from the Roman Empire, but from the Torah … Magna Carta, …John Locke. These are a few of the reasons why we and Canada differ so much from Mexico, Central Americal and South America. They do not have the same sorta kinda democratic roots at we do. They stem from tyrannies. Also, Rome was bascially a tyranny.

You are discussing a very different civilization. Sure they had a Senate of land owners, similar to how the USA started, but we changed, the Roman Empire really did not.

With regards,

aspacia =D>

Sage,

There is quite a bit of difference between Christian and Islamic doctrine. Read up, then make the connection if you can.

USC has a very insightful source for the Qur’an and the hadiths, complete with three translations. If you cannot see the difference after reading I will be happy to reply.

The first being that the Qur’an is a huge jumble and is not in chronological order. Explanation: God does not think as we do. You want more?

With regards,

aspacia

A Deist