[Christianity and the Fall of Rome]

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.

[Best ancient generals]

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

[The Fall Of Rome Was By Barbarians]

I cannot remember a string in which such blatant misconceptions and gross misunderstandings of Roman -- indeed, all of ancient history -- have been so misconstrued and mis-stated.... No sign of problems in 300AD?  And all this time I thought we we discussing history as it occured back here on planet Earth.

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.

[The Fall Of Rome Was By Barbarians]

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!

[The Fall Of Rome Was By Barbarians]

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.

[Anyone Here In The Military?]

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

[Roman Empire/Byzantine/Romanion]

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?

[Historical Jesus Found!]

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.

[How Christianity Helped Rome.]

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.

[History Falcifications]

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.

[The Pagan Front Of Christianity.]

It is important to remember that 'Paganism' was not a unified religion - it is a name given by Christians, Jews and Muslims to any religion which does not conform to one of the three main books. Some Irish Catholics even go as far as calling English protestants 'Pagans' even though they are members of the same religion.

 

Some pagan religions undoubtedly had lost all vestiges of spirituality by the time of the Romans, and were indeed linked into the state and politics (like the 'big three' are today). However, some pagan religions of that date also advocated loving ones neighbour, a scorn of money, a series of commandments, and a prayer very similar in context to the Lords Prayer. Some of them even had a deity who was born of a virgin at the end of the year, had three wise men visiting him who were skilled in astrology - or following stars, who rode to his execution on a donkey and died hung on to a tree/cross/piece of wood. Which was the original one? Now, THERE'S a question!!

[Emperor/saint Constantine.]

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.

[History Falcifications]

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.

[Christian Persecution]

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?