The role of Christianity in the decline of the Roman Empire

[Alkahest]

I have seen so many arguments for and against this idea that it's hard to keep track of them all, but it seems that if I'm likely to get a better grasp of this issue anywhere, it's here.

So, I'm interested in your opinions about the role of Christianity in the political and cultural decline and loss of influence of the Roman Empire. Does Edward Gibbon's theory hold? Did Christianity have anything to do will the fall of Rome? Would a world without widespread Christianity have a longer-lasting Roman Empire and/or a more "romanized" culture?

 

[Elfwine]

I'm not sure what to vote for. I am sure that Gibbon cannot be taken as anything other than the most prejudiced and biased source including the histories written by the empire's enemies.

Since the "Byzantine" ERE lasted at least until 1204 (which for discussion's sake I'll agree with the members who consider it to have ended there), or over seven centuries after the West expired, I think that has to be counted when weighing Christianity's role.

The West fell for reasons unrelated to Christianity and the East survived for reasons unrelated to Christianity, but that doesn't mean it was irrelevant exactly - it was a part of the empire and it did have consequences.

Question: Who voted for "Greatly contributed" and why?

 

[Finn]

The various issues that led to the Fall stayed put in the transformation of Rome from pagan to Christian, so not much.

 

[Basileus Giorgios]

The Fall of the Western Empire has more to do with political changes in the Germanic world, plus simple bad luck, than it does with Christianity, IMHO. I'd say Christianity was probably pretty much irrelevant to the unravelling of the Western state in the 450s and 460s.

 

[wormyguy]

Certainly was a large part of the political instability of the late Western Empire, although much more a symptom than a cause.

It could be said to be a big reason why the Byzantines fell, given that they often had theological disputes that progressed nearly or all the way to civil war at the absolute worst times possible (and their version of Christianity ended up isolating them from any potential powerful allies).

 

[Basileus Giorgios]

Certainly was a large part of the political instability of the late Western Empire, although much more a symptom than a cause.

It could be said to be a big reason why the Byzantines fell, given that they often had theological disputes that progressed nearly or all the way to civil war at the absolute worst times possible (and their version of Christianity ended up isolating them from any potential powerful allies).

How did Christianity play a part in instability in the fifth century west?

That I can recall, the Byzantines never had a serious civil war over the issue of religious turmoil.

 

[QuoProQuid]

Who voted that Christianity played a major role in Rome's collapse?

 

[Russian]

I'm not sure what to vote for. ... The West fell for reasons unrelated to Christianity and the East survived for reasons unrelated to Christianity, but that doesn't mean it was irrelevant exactly - it was a part of the empire and it did have consequences. ...

Elfwine, then I guess, you should vote for 'No, it didn't make the slightest difference.'

At least that's what I did. And my opinion on this 'Christianity issue' is exactly the same as yours.

Question: Who voted for "Greatly contributed" and why?

Who voted that Christianity played a major role in Rome's collapse?

Do not be shy, people! We won't hurt you!

 

[lothaw]

The 4th Crusade anyone? I'd say Christianity played a rather large role in the fall of the Eastern Empire.

 

[Yorel]

Before the reign of Constantin I the Great, Christianity had no role in the Roman Empire: it was mostly an Underground Religion. A Religion that suffered persecution nevertheless: persecutions against Christians are mentionned during the reigns of Nero, Domitian, Trajan, Marcus Aurelius, Septimus Severus, Valerian, Aurelian and Diocletian. Even Maxence, the predecessor of Constantin the Great, persecuted Christians.

It was only when Constantin rose to the throne and promoted the Edict of Milan, which tolerated Christianity, that the followers of the Christ started to gain influence. We were already in the 300s and the Empire (despite Constantin's worthy efforts) was already declining. I don't see why Christianity would have had an effect on the fall of Rome in 476: not to mention that while it was tolerated with the Edict of Milan, you had to wait the reign of Theodosius the Great before Paganism was banned and Christianity became the State Religion: that was roughly half a century after Constantin.
And considering the Eastern Roman Empire/Byzantine Empire didn't fell before 1453 OTL, I'd say that proves pretty much the contrary.

What lead to the fall of the Western Empire is most likely a combination of political instability and of Barbarian Incursions. I doubt the absence of Christianity in the Empire would have changed a thing... Empires are like human beings: they live and die.

 

[Elfwine]

Elfwine, then I guess, you should vote for 'No, it didn't make the slightest difference.'

At least that's what I did. And my opinion on this 'Christianity issue' is exactly the same as yours.

Do not be shy, people! We won't hurt you!

I wouldn't say something as important as Christianity didn't make "any" difference, but I wouldn't list it as specifically a cause for collapse.

A nonChristian empire (in the East, the West was doomed, I think, or as close to such as makes no difference for my point) would be so different than OTL its hard to weigh.

My guess is it was a slight positive there, in the sense it could and was used as a political tool. Even with all the theological controversies, the closest to a real civil war is Iconoclasm, and that was more shifting between Iconoclasts and Iconocludes than the actual debate.

 

[Snake Featherston]

Christianity actually offered a means to reconstruct the Empire and it in one sense preserve all the evils of its system that people of later generations admire such as the rule by the legions without it necessarily going to pot. The survival of the ERE as a Christian Empire with a system unbroken into the 13th Century indicates that as with everything else in the collapse theories this can no more explain the fall than any other theory that reflexively refuses to admit rule of the armies was the major factor. Christianity or no Christianity, civil war as a succession policy will kill the Empire, the ideology has nothing to do with that core factor.

 

[Elfwine]

Christianity actually offered a means to reconstruct the Empire and it in one sense preserve all the evils of its system that people of later generations admire such as the rule by the legions without it necessarily going to pot. The survival of the ERE as a Christian Empire with a system unbroken into the 13th Century indicates that as with everything else in the collapse theories this can no more explain the fall than any other theory that reflexively refuses to admit rule of the armies was the major factor. Christianity or no Christianity, civil war as a succession policy will kill the Empire, the ideology has nothing to do with that core factor.

I don't know if I'd say that civil was as a succession policy was the sole and exclusive cause, but it undermined the state and gave its external enemies opportunities.

Bad combination for something which was never as deep rooted in the west as the ERE proved to be in the east (to put it more clearly, look at how fast the West is barbarian and not Latin after the Western Roman Empire blows away. Its as if it was never there in Britain, for instance.).

 

[Sevarics]

Well, in the context of the Byzantines, the dispute over doctrine, ie the Monophysite/Miaphysite controversy, helped play a role in the North Africans welcoming the Arabs, didn't it?

 

[Snake Featherston]

I don't know if I'd say that civil was as a succession policy was the sole and exclusive cause, but it undermined the state and gave its external enemies opportunities.

Bad combination for something which was never as deep rooted in the west as the ERE proved to be in the east (to put it more clearly, look at how fast the West is barbarian and not Latin after the Western Roman Empire blows away. Its as if it was never there in Britain, for instance.).

Without addressing the civil war-succession factor none of the rest of the factors can or will be changed. Refusal to address it while changing everything else will lead to no ultimate change.

 

[Maur]

The Fall of the Western Empire has more to do with political changes in the Germanic world, plus simple bad luck, than it does with Christianity, IMHO. I'd say Christianity was probably pretty much irrelevant to the unravelling of the Western state in the 450s and 460s.

In my opinion, it was because of Hannibal that Rome fell.

 

[Elfwine]

Without addressing the civil war-succession factor none of the rest of the factors can or will be changed. Refusal to address it while changing everything else will lead to no ultimate change.

Can't agree more.

So long as power comes from the barrel of a gun (to use an anachronistic metaphor), those with the guns will make the only rules that stick.

How the ERE avoided this, I have no idea. It seems to have developed a better administration faster and went from there.

 

[Errnge]

I'm pretty much in line with Elfwine here.

Still no one willing to come forward and say Christianity played a large role?

 

[Snake Featherston]

Can't agree more.

So long as power comes from the barrel of a gun (to use an anachronistic metaphor), those with the guns will make the only rules that stick.

How the ERE avoided this, I have no idea. It seems to have developed a better administration faster and went from there.

It avoided that by changing the basis of the army. Diocletian's reforms in this regard and the policies of the ERE's first emperors enabled them to finally contain Tacitus's "Secret of Empire." Had the legions remained the form they had in the megastate-empire that empire would have ceased to exist at the same time the Western one did.

 

[Basileus Giorgios]

Well, in the context of the Byzantines, the dispute over doctrine, ie the Monophysite/Miaphysite controversy, helped play a role in the North Africans welcoming the Arabs, didn't it?

It played a role, yes, but it's questionable how great the role was, and the extent to which the Syrians and Egyptians "welcomed" Islamic rule is generally over-stated here. I think, based on what I've read, that the "welcoming" was more of a lack of overt resistance to Islamic conquest. Islamic rule was generally no less oppressive than Imperial, though.