Jump to content
UNRV Ancient Roman Empire Forums
bovismaximus

Christianity and the Fall of Rome

Recommended Posts

These are the two extremes that threaten peace and security of our world !

 

I as a centrist (at least I like to think of myself as a centrist) must chime in.

 

In my opinion Christianity is the cause of the total collapse of the Roman Empire. The simple reason for this is it does not allow for critical thinking or the questioning of its authority. Maintaining the faith also directly conflicts with philosophies that could undermine it. My secondary reasons are that this type of ideology doesn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christianity and the church had absolutely nothing to do with the fall of the Roman empire. The Roman Empire collapsed on itself, by itself. Paganism, inflation, civil wars, immorality, wickedness, barbarian attacks, no established appointment of emperors, corrupt government and politics etc. Everyone knows that Rome and it's empire got worse and worse as it expanded, and then it just imploded. If you think long and hard about the subject of Rome and it's empire, a lot of outsourcing went on in the realm of agriculture and goods, eventually the Empire had become so dependant on other nation's goods that when the wars stopped and the expansion stopped, things went downhill. One might think that God had enough of the Roman Empire and just let them be destroyed. People think that Christianity would make the Roman's pacifists and would make the waring stop...please! People try and find scapegoats for the problems they read or study, Rome fell because of it's sheer wickedness and corruption. I would venture forth to even say that Christianity would have been a good thing for the Romans, and I also would venture to say that I am surprised that the Roman Empire lasted for as long as it did.

Edited by Gloria Exercitus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Christianity and the church had absolutely nothing to do with the fall of the Roman empire. The Roman Empire collapsed on itself, by itself. Paganism, inflation, civil wars, immorality, wickedness, barbarian attacks, no established appointment of emperors, corrupt government and politics etc. Everyone knows that Rome and it's empire got worse and worse as it expanded, and then it just imploded.... Rome fell because of it's sheer wickedness and corruption.

 

IF Rome fell because of it's "sheer wickedness and corruption", then why didn't the whole Empire "collapse on itself, by itself" simultaneously? Why did the Empire in Britain "collapse on itself, by itself" so much sooner than the Empire in Italy and North Africa? Why did the Empire in Italy and North Africa "collapse on itself, by itself" so much earlier than the Empire in the Aegean World? Why did the the Empire in the Aegean World "collapse on itself, by itself" so much earlier than the Empire in the Levant? Are you seriously suggesting that the British were just that much more guilty of "sheer wickedness and corruption" than were the Italians, Africans, Athenians, and Byzantines??? If not, then your theory is bunk. If so, then your premises are bunk. Either way, the theory that "sheer wickedness and corruption" caused the Empire to "collapse on itself, by itself" is bunk.

 

What of the rest of your laundry list of causes--paganism, inflation, civil wars, barbarian attacks, no established appointment of emperors, corrupt government and politics, etc? How many of these factors can explain the fact that the Empire in the East lasted for 100s of years longer than the Empire in the West? One and only one--barbarian attacks. And falling due to barbarian attacks is certainly not an example of an Empire "imploding" or "collapsing on itself, by itself".

 

If you think long and hard about the subject of Rome and it's empire, a lot of outsourcing went on in the realm of agriculture and goods, eventually the Empire had become so dependant on other nation's goods that when the wars stopped and the expansion stopped, things went downhill.

Outsourcing caused the fall of the Roman Empire??? Now I've heard everything. I guess we should call this the Lou Dobbs theory of history. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If not, then your theory is bunk. If so, then your premises are bunk. Either way, the theory that "sheer wickedness and corruption" caused the Empire to "collapse on itself, by itself" is bunk.

 

 

"bunk"?, man i must not know anything about history then cuz my theory just got shot down by a kid who clearly spends too much time on this site. You sure do argue like you know the answer to this topic. Last time i checked there were many reasons for the fall, and i just listed numerous ones. But since your acting like they are total "bunk" then who knows, maybe they aret, but i have read on the subject and i have based my worthless oppinion on it. Maybe you have the one-and-only answer, maybe you were there, witnessing the fall. That sure would be cool to have a real, live Roman on this forum. I'm not even going to argue about it cuz i just dont know enough on the subject, I just posted what I thought. But if you have the one and only answer to why the empire fell, then please share it. I sure would like to hear your oppinion cuz im sure its fabulous and far more accurate than my oh so "bunk" theory.

Edited by Gloria Exercitus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

 

I agree with you Cato

here are the definitions of Fundamentalism I am working off of from Dictionary.com

 

1)A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.

 

2)strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles.

 

For the purposes of this post I was referring to religious extremeism. But as far as being principled some explanation is necessary. Being principled is a good thing.

but blind adherence to a set of principles without room for introspection and questioning leads to trouble

 

Such societies have problems thinking and growing in new ways. Therefore they fail to find new solutions.

 

thankfully Western Civilization (has for the most part) given up the principles of Racism, Sexism, and Ethnocentrism.

 

Are you including Virtue Ethics to the list of detriments?

 

No, but I believe that virtues and ethics must be open to change.

Certainly the virtuous wife of the 50's stayed home to cook roasts. Of course she had to no time for her own career. Perish the thought of a Man picking up a vacuum!

 

Change bring about new problems sure

 

Change can be for the worse yes but it can also be for the good.

But what is certain is that it always happens.

 

I hope I havent made everyone hate me ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"bunk"?, man i must not know anything about history then cuz my theory just got shot down by a kid who clearly spends too much time on this site.

 

No need to be insulting Gloria Exercitus, just remember, he's attacking your theory - not you as a person. Cato lacks subtlety, but makes up for it well with knowledge, and he's certainly not a "kid".

 

You've listed "wickedness" as one of your main reasons for the collapse. Wickedness according to who ?

 

You've also said

I would venture forth to even say that Christianity would have been a good thing for the Romans
- If this was the case - why didn't Christianity save the western empire ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thankfully Western Civilization (has for the most part) given up the principles of Racism, Sexism, and Ethnocentrism.

Actually, though there's good progress in those becoming widespread principles, at the same time, those acts of racism, sexism, and ethnocentrism are all too common and rampant in society, kinda like a subconscious thing. And Lord knows, after September 11, exempli gratia, we haven't looked too kindly with the Middle-Eastern world. As another example of racism, there is always the case of double standards.

 

If this was the case - why didn't Christianity save the western empire ?

 

Are you suggesting that Christianity was entirely harmful to the Western half then Germanicus?

Edited by FLavius Valerius Constantinus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

I agree with you Cato

here are the definitions of Fundamentalism I am working off of from Dictionary.com

1)A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.

2)strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles.

For the purposes of this post I was referring to religious extremeism. But as far as being principled some explanation is necessary. Being principled is a good thing.

but blind adherence to a set of principles without room for introspection and questioning leads to trouble

Ah, OK. I see where you're coming from. Yes--blind adherence to any policy or idea is simply the essence of stupidity and dogmatism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christianity brought advantages and disavantages to the roman empire.

It gave a sense of religious unity, but also spured religious conflicts inside christianity.

Christianity was a factor of romanization for germans, but also created a new identity in wich barbarians were no longer perceived as such.

Clergy got very powerfull fast and this helped political stabilisation of the empire but also was sometimes a problem.

 

For the West of the empire christianity did not stop the fall but at least thru church preserved language, culture, cities, diocesal organisations and wide scale political relations.

Surprisingly enough, after the fall of the roman empire in the West his culture, religion, law etc started an expansion that the mighty legions failed to do (Ireland and W. Germany C V-VI).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you suggesting that Christianity was entirely harmful to the Western half then Germanicus?

 

I suggest no such thing, like Kosmo says above, I agree that it brought both advantages and disadvantages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember something called Pax Romana, that brought much needed peace to an empire that has gone over the top with killing.

 

Although the Western Empire could have fallen from Christianity as a miniscule reason, lets not forget the Eastern Empire's golden age came with Christianity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assuming that Christianity was the key to the Fall of the Roman Empire, can it then be said that this same Christianity was the key to the rise of Great Britain, Germany, France, Russia, Spain, and the USA? The Renaissance? The Modern European World?

 

This 'virus', this 'disease' of Christianity, reeks of a conspiracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Map of the Roman Empire

×