- This topic has 6 voices and 23 replies.
-
Posts
-
Do you put any stock in Edward Gibbons' account of the fall of Rome, or would you attribute it as a product of mid-18th century socio-political propaganda?
I think Gibbons is correct in many of his statements of fact. He goes wrong in some of his interpretations in my view. That being said, his work is still a classic and should be required reading for anyone interested in Rome. I dont think anybody else has made the Romans come alive as well as he has.
I think he's the only one who credited Christianity as one of the contributing factors associated with the fall of Rome, but from my perspective, it was what saved it. 🙂
I think he's the only one who credited Christianity as one of the contributing factors associated with the fall of Rome, but from my perspective, it was what saved it. 🙂
How so? I would agree that a religion preaching peace contributed to the destruction of the Empire.
I think he's the only one who credited Christianity as one of the contributing factors associated with the fall of Rome, but from my perspective, it was what saved it. 🙂
How so? I would agree that a religion preaching peace contributed to the destruction of the Empire.
Well yes the pacifism of Christianity deflated Rome's aggressive tendancies, but Rome was virtually unchallenged by the time Constantine made Christianity an official religion. What it did was stabilize the Empire from within and helped unify the cultures subjugated under Rome under a new aegis that most could accept. Also, with the ecclesiastical structure of the Church, the makings for a more concise bureaucratic system could be put in place to run the Empire as was the case with the Dioceses. Christianity thus served as a "medical salve" if you will, that slowed the rot that was already occurring inside the Empire. Had Christianity not come on the scene, Rome would have fractured long before 476A.D. since it was conquest that had sustained the Empire before. And remember, I'm counting the Byzantines as being part of the Roman Empire as well, and look how long they lasted. Byzantium would have fallen way way sooner had they not had Christianity to unify them.
The Roman military grew greatly during the 3rd century, to up to some 600,000 soldiers. With that I think came strains that were felt under heavy taxation and bad attempts to curb inflation (e.g. the Edict of Maximum Prices). I think that the economic decay was therefore a contributing factor despite the great military presence seen during the latter years of the Empire.
And remember, I'm counting the Byzantines as being part of the Roman Empire as well, and look how long they lasted. Byzantium would have fallen way way sooner had they not had Christianity to unify them.
Not to mention the fact that Christianity was more prevalent to start out in the Eastern half than in the Western half (at least by the time of Constantine, and probably into the 5th century as well). This suggests that if Christian pacifism were to blame for the fall of Rome, an explanation would have to be given as to why it didn't affect the Eastern Empire in the same way.
OK, I have to concede both of your points. I had not considered those aspects.but I still say that pacifism had something to do with it. Of more effect was probably the growing decadence of the Roman world and the loss of a landed peasantry to serve loyally. The Roman reliance on barbarians hamstrung them later when those barbarians turned on them.
I think that Christian pacifism may have played a role at some level, but to be certain we would need to have some numbers or stories about large chunks of the Roman population refusing to take up arms because of their religion. If someone knows of this happening, please do share.Also, I recall that the cult of Mithra was a popular religious following among soldiers. Whether this was true into the 5th century is something I'm not sure about, but it does at least suggest that the Roman military wasn't necessarily on the same spiritual page as the larger population. And it seems that the Romans turned on the barbarians at least as much, if not moreso, than the other way around. I point to the double-crossing against the Visigoths which led to the Battle of Adrianople....so in a sense the Romans should have expected to have some upset barbarians on their hands. Also from what I recall, the Roman senate's killing of Stilicho was another move which smelled of political corruption. But yes, the reliance on barbarian soldiers did put Rome in a bind.
How so? I would agree that a religion preaching peace contributed to the destruction of the Empire.
I have been thinking about your comment regarding Christian pacifism and the fall of Rome. I am not of the belief that one was directly responsible for the other, but I do think that Rome would not have expanded as it did during the Republic or early Imperial age under Christian rule. Why not? Because that expansion was done in a rather un-Christian way. Seems to me that the model for Roman expansionism was that of pre-emptively striking Rome's opponents, or even just potential opponents. This entailed a lack of justice, a virtue which would likely have been taught and practiced by early Christians. I think it was St. Augustine who said that if a person did what Rome did in its assaults, that that person would be found guilty under Roman law. Of course, there's a difference between defending one's homeland and attacking one's neighbor to expand one's kingdom, so I think by the time Christianity was introduced the limits of the Roman Empire were not going to grow much anyway.
The Romans did not think in terms of Justice when they decided to invade and conquer neighboring territories. The Romans expanded out of purely pragmatic reasons of security and wealth. One of the things I think stopped Roman expansion was the sheer size of the Empire. It became so big that it was almost impossible to centrally govern it. If you will remember, this is one of the reasons for splitting the Empire in two and founding Constantinople.
Agree with you about the reasons for expansion and stoppage. I might add quotes to the word “security”, though, since in certain pre-emptive attacks it seems that such may have been the rationale given to justify the actions.I will also add that even after the Christianization of the empire, Christian ideals didn't seem to be dictating military policy. I point to the pitting of barbarians against one another by Rome and the pragmatic switching of allegiances as evidence of this, as well as the treatment of the Goths by local Roman officials (which led to the loss at Adrianople) and also the approach toward Alaric's demands around 408 A.D..
Rome also defeated all the great adversaries that united its political leaders (Hannibal, Jugurtha etc…). The only other enemy they faced came from within. Constantine came to power by outlasting three other contenders. If anything, Christianity unified Rome before it tore itself asunder.
There is probably some element of competition too. When Roman culture had thoroughly spread about their regions Rome – the city – and her people probably began to lose some of their identity. It wasn't as 'cool' to be Roman when the barbarians have it or something better.
Once Rome achieved true empire the only real competition the emperors faced was from within. I think once the barbarian invasions began in earnest in the 4th and 5th centuries the Romans, particularly their army was no longer in the condition necessary to defend the empire any longer. Rome's fall had more to do with it's lack of an adequate and mobile military than any civil strife.
Rome's fall had more to do with it's lack of an adequate and mobile military than any civil strife.
That is something I had been wondering about...what happened to the regular Roman army during much of the early 5th century? Even in the west, south of Gaul, the Visigoths comprised only a small percent of the overall population in that area. Still, they managed to retain control for centuries.
