Northern Neil

I would say that the senator Symmachus was. He managed to carve himself a niche throughout several mid to late 4th century regimes, and survive.

I don't think it is so much defending christianity, so much as dismissing its alleged importance - at least, in my view. The fall of the west came 150 years after the Empire granted Christianity equal status with the existing religion - as much time as separates us from the start of the American Civil War. The eastern part survived in recognisably Roman from until about 650, and continued as a political force until 1453 - despite its total conversion to Christianity. I have come round to the view expressed by another person (PP, I think) on this topic - that the Empire had reached a stage where any number of middle eastern (or otherwise) cults could have materialised into a massive politically backed state religion by the 4th century, and this debate would be exactly the same, but with a different religion being blamed. I entirely agree with you, Primus Pilus, on the subject of Paganism V Christianity. Subject for another thread, perhaps!

PP, I stand corrected on the flat earth business - I have researched a bit and it turns out that some Christian theorists opposed the spherical earth theory, but it was never declared a heresy. Whilst admitting that changes in architectural style was not a result of Christianisation, I felt compelled to summarise what I believed to be the main features of the classical world, and this was simply in my mental list. Artistic depiction and appreciation of the human form was far from the only thing lost with classical culture. Indeed, it became reviled as a cause of sin. You acknowledge that feudal europe was religeously intolerant, and it must be said that the destruction of the Cathars and the presence of the Inquisition ( the mediaeval KGB) was entirely implemented by the Catholic church, a situation the disparate and politically weak pagans could never have facilitated. Scientific enquiry was snuffed out, because its findings often opposed the existing dogma. People who used herbal medicines and ritualistic prayers were burnt as witches. Astrologers (despite the three magi in the bible) likewise. In ancient Greece and Rome there were many people who were practicing atheists. Anyone expressing such sentiments after the 5th century would be on very dangerous ground indeed. Again the constraints of space do not permit me to continue, but the fact that the west endured what is often called a 'dark age' suggests that, in the eyes of many, the loss of the classical world meant a narrowing of thought, the growth of suspicion and an end to widespread long-distance travel - with resulting stagnation of culture. But I do concede that this process was not nearly as profound in the east. Perseveriantus, you may not be an academic, but your analysis is very shrewd and I agree with most of your points. However, the elimination of the Druids was conducted because they were a focus of political dissent, not because their religion was deemed unpalatable. The naming of Aquae Sulis (Bath) and the dedication of Coventina's Well (Hadrians Wall) suggest the Romans were anxious to please the Celtic gods. Again, Pompey's destruction of Jewish holy places was not part of a systematic dismantling of a religion; he wanted cash, and he seized it from political and military opponants. Once Christianity and Government became irrevocably fused, however, Paganism was systematically dismantled in the most brutal way, for a period beginning with Theodosius and ending with Justinian. Subsequent examples of Christian/political purging and extermination of cultures are a matter of record and run right up to the beginning of the 20th century. But I digress: Many things were lost with the end of the classical world - otherwise there would not have been a Dark Age with subsequent Rennaissance. Hardly revisionist!

I refer you to my last - but - one entry on this site. What I think you are bemoaning is the death of classical culture rather than the death of the Roman state, which took centuries to occur after the adoption of Christianity. Just as an aside: The christian persecutions lasted for three brief periods of about 18 months each, during which time few were fed to the lions (films such as the Robe and Quo Vadis enflame this superstition). One thing I agree with you entirely - the attiude to paganism once Christianity took root. For a total period of 5 years Christians were persecuted specifically for being Christian. The dismantling of paganism was brutal, and arguably only ended with the last witch trials of the 18th century.

Given the lack of space for such an immense subject, I would summarise the Classical World which Christianity helped to dismantle thus: Achitecturally: Peristyle houses with collonades, Porticoed temples, Theatres, amphitheatres and Stadia. Artistically: realistic portraits of the human form. Spiritualistic: Polytheism with varying degrees of tolerance for one religion by another. Philosophy and rudimentary science flourished in tandem with this. Socially: Cities in which there were public buildings. Political units which had standing armies. A degree of social mobility within the free part of the population. This very sketchy repesentation is the best I can do given the space available: What is pretty certain to me is that most of the above had radically changed by 500. Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the earth in about 200BC; by 500 it was heresy to suggest it was anything other than flat. In the 1st century women officiated as christian bishops; they were evil seducers of men by the middle of the millenium. In the 5th century, the female philosopher Hypatia was lynched by a mob of 'christian' zealots. Local officials did nothing. In particular for me, the classical world's tolerance of multi - faith societies, the openness to scientific enquiry and the unashamed appreciation of the human form are among the saddest of the many casualties. The onset of the Christian era dispensed with these very positive attributes, heralding in an age of superstition, fear, guilt and repression of women which certainly lasted until the renaissance. In as much as spirituality and science still appear to be at odds - as opposed to working hand in hand - the dark age is still with us. Chrstian and Islamic culture may well have in their make - up remnants of classical culture, just as many European countries speak a language derived from Latin. That does not mean that the parent culture endured.

I chose Late Empire. My personal view is that the Army was more flexible in this period. The Legions fared better against the Persians as they now had effective cavalry to guard their flanks. Illyrian mounted infantry had the capacity to rapidly assemble a force just where the enemy didn't want it, and field armies did not degenerate due to being tied to a fortification for generations.

I do not believe that the rise of Christianity had anything whatsoever to do with the fall of Rome. Christianity was adopted, edited and then defined in its current form by Romans, and subsequently acted as a unifying force. Christian emperors such as Valentinian and Justinian were fanatical Romans, and used military might just as liberally as Caesar or Marcus Aurelius if it furthered the interests of the State. Christianity had nothing to do with the rise of the Persian Sassanian dynasty or the Hunnic-and subsequent German migrations, both of which had massive repercussions on the Empire and its fortunes. I think what is often under discussion here is not wether Christianity contributed to Rome's fall, but wether Christianity contributed to the extinction of the Classical World, which it undoubtably did. The Roman Empire and the Classical World are not, as some people believe, synonymous: Rome adopted Classical culture from the Greeks sometime around 350BC and rejected it, by degrees, as Christianity took hold. By 500 the classical world was dead, but the actual Roman state carried on.

...What, not one mention of Julian??!

Of course, there were problems in 300 AD - just as there were problems in 180, and in Augustan times. But in 300 there was no sign of the huns pushing germans into the confines of the empire, the struggles between pagan and christian ideology were yet to get off the ground, and the army had successfully transformed itself to adequately match new developments by the Persians and Germans. When I said that there was nothing in 300 AD to forewarn of the impending probems of the fifth century, I was actually quoting Professor Averil Cameron, one of the leading historians of the late Roman period. I would say she has a pretty good grasp of her subject.

Yes, but in the context of this debate and in its original, correct form, the word 'civilisation' implies civic organisation with public buildings, culture and central government, not wether or not people commit 'barbaric' acts or are nice to each other. The original context of the words 'barbarian' and 'barbaric' meant someone who was unshaved - therefore implying a lack of culture and intelligence. It is interesting to note that this term was used despite the Antonines and Severans being bearded, along with most philosophers!

To pick up on an earlier point, it seems to me that the Celts (far from being barbarians) were civilised in every sense of the word. Their organisation of minor kingdoms centred on large hillforts seems, to me, to be similar to the Greek system of city states. Given that there are indications that the larger hillforts had public buildings and acted as a central distribution point for food and supplies, the similarity grows stronger still. The only difference, I suggest, is that literacy was not widespread. Indeed, the Romans kept the existing tribal administration, centering it on towns such as Verulamium, Lyons and Paris. Back to the point, it is still widespread to regard, like Gibbon, the end of the Antonine period as being the start of the 'decline'. Far from it - In 300 AD there was absolutely nothing to indicate that the West would start to fragment a century later. Indeed, 'Romania' was flourishing. The 'golden age' was an anomalous time in which the Parthians / Persians constituted no significant threat, and power was centralised into one regime. It could be said that the 3rd century 'anarchy' and the resulting system of rule by two or more emperors was a return to form, echoing the days when Sulla, Crassus, Pompey, Caesar and others jointly ruled the republic with their rivals. The 'super - tribes' such as the Visigoths and Allemanni had, by the 5th century, acquired a lot of adherents who were indeed former slaves, and even disaffected Romans. I believe that the partial Romanisation of the Barbarians was instrumental in bringing about the collapse of the West. They wanted to be an active part of it, rather than to destroy it. Problem was, as tax revenues from the lost provinces dried up (along with the grain, which was diverted to the east by the Romans themselves) the western empire suffered an economic collapse, which in turn between 406 and 476 increasingly rendered the state unable to cope with the financial burden of maintaining an army capable of defending the empire against the barbarians. The only solution was to employ the barbarians themselves, which led directly to the formation of the independent germanic kingdoms. Peter Heather in his recent book 'The Fall of the Roman Empire' champions this theory.

Wow... am I the only Brit here? No military experience, but used to be a cop...

Until about 1450, French was the official language of the English Royal Family. Roman catholicism was the official religion of England until the reign of Henry VIII. The act of union between Scotland and England in the 18th century gave rise to 'Britain'. The army fielded by Wellington in 1815 was radicaly different than the army that went to Iraq, but it is the same army. In 1948 the independence of India marked the end of the British 'Empire'. Despite the many differences between William I'st Norman kingdom of England and modern day Britain, most Brits are adamant that it is the same state. In just the same way, The Roman Empire of Constantinople was the same political entity that was founded by Augustus. Perhaps it is more useful to regard the empire as passing through the Republican, Imperial, Dominate, East Roman and Byzantine culrtural phases, rather than perpetuate the -in my view- stale argument that an arbitrary date, based on hindsight, can be given as the end of the Roman Empire and the start of the Byzantine. In any case, which one do we go for? 325? 476? 625 0r 1204?

Has anyone read 'The Jesus Mysteries' by Freke and Gandy? Heres a link: http://www.vexen.co.uk/books/jesusmysteries.html Like other observers on this thread, it seems to come to the conclusion that Christianity was a summary of a lot of other myths and stories going on in the east Med. from about 1000BC up to the first century. It was simply repackaged in a coherent (perhaps!) form and crystallised via the ecumenical councils. My hunch is that there was a Jesus, but that he was the storyteller - not the actual guy these things in the new testament actually happened to.

I think that christianity was rather incidental as regards the Roman Empire - the western bit fell, the eastern bit carried on a further 1000 years. My hunch is that, although it possibly helped - to a degree - the continuity of a recognisably Roman state in the east, it also hastened the death of its cultural roots - classical civilisation. The state that persisted until 1453 was the same one as was founded by Augustus, but its culture was radically different.

I think rather more inventions have been credited to Edison than he actually personally invented. He took out patents on things which were on the verge of being invented, and when someone finally invented it, he took the credit because he had the patent. For example: I believe that a French guy invented cinematography, but Edison got the credit because he took out a patent on a 'moving picture camera' which anyone with any sense must have forseen being invented sometime in the late 1800's.

I think its perhaps because he actually founded Constantinople. The Western, or Catholic church, always maintained a view that he had too much blood on his hands to be actually sanctified. In addition, there has always been considerable debate as to wether he actually converted to Christianity at all. But as far as the eastern church is concerned, I believe the cultural (foundation of the Byzantine state, etc) aspect swayed them.

Yes - 'They all laughed at Christopher Columbus when he said the world was round' (Frank Sinatra). No: they had re adopted the idea the world was round at least 200 years before Columbus. What they actully said was, that no ship of that era was capable of sailing all the way to China via the western route. And they were right.

So far as I am aware, the Christian persecutions (i.e. the times when christians were persecuted purely for their religion) lasted for three brief spells of about 18 months each, in particular under Decius and Diocletian. At other times, people arrested and put to death for subversion against the state may have been christian, but were not treated any different from other serious dissenters, and certainly not just because of their religion. I feel that the persecutions have been greatly exaggerated under subsequent Christian emperors (particularly Theodosius) in order, initially, to turn people away from a then shrinking paganism. History is, after all, written by the winners. This view has been compounded by Hollywood movies such as Quo Vadis, The Robe and Barabbas, in which the fanatical persecution of Christians is further exaggerated. On the accession of the emperor Gratian, pagans suffered a persecution that lasted until the empire was entirely christian in nature (and, admittedly stretching a point, up until the final 'witch trials' of the later middle ages), and this involved the burning and dismantling of temples, lynching of female philosophers, confiscation of property if citizens refused to convert, and, yes, on occasion being thrown to wild beasts in amphitheatres. This particular persecution was constant, was related purely to religion, and lasted until well after the reign of Justinian. I have no particular religious leanings myself, but I do believe this subject needs to be treated with objectivity. Rather than (some people) retrospectively condemning the Roman state for being anti Christian, I think we should remember that the empire was eventually the champion of christianity, and through the councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon, actually defined it in the way most conservative Christians now observe the religion. It is also worth pondering a thought as to wether or not the Christians actually killed in the persecutions would be defined, in subsequent centuries and now, as non-christians, due to 'heretical' ideas later edited out of the religion?