What role, if any, did Christianity play in the fall of the Western Roman Empire?

[Caligula's_Horse]

Now, I'm sure we've all heard this theory at one point or another that the conversion from paganism to Christianity is what did the empire in. I believe the theory stems from much later European historians who were writing at a time when Europe's religious wars were still a recent memory, so their opinion is obviously quite biased, and yet, even bias and lies often have a grain of truth to them.

So, the question stands, just how much truth is in the claim that Jesus indirectly extinguished the light of (western) Rome?

The most obvious place to start looking is the cult of the emperor, that partially deified the office and helped give it legitimacy, which was obviously undermined by Christianity. The thing is though, given how many emperors were assassinated or usurped, and how many civil wars Rome has suffered over the years, combined with the fact that it was obvious to even the simplest of peasants that at least the current emperor was but a man of flesh and blood (the first man to be deified, the original Caesar, was stabbed to death, after all), I'm not all that sure the cult of the emperor was all that effective to begin with.

The next thing that springs to mind is that the church's social organization, mostly their tithes and authority figures, slowly, and quite possibly accidentally, undermined the position of the state which had previously enjoyed a stranglehold on the market for such things. We certainly know the church took over many of these responsibilities that traditionally belonged to the state once the government was gone, but the question is, were they moving in to fill a vacuum, or did the takeover being much sooner? Unfortunately its a theory that even if 100% spot on, wouldn't leave behind much evidence.

Finally there's the theory that's probably least obvious to a modern person. Early Christianity took the "turn the other cheek" business a lot more seriously then most modern versions of the faith; its one of the reasons that the army was at least for a time, a pagan holdout even as the empire converted around it. Perhaps Christianity played a role in the decline of the Roman legions through the subtle demilitarization of populace's mindset, thereby forcing the empire to rely more heavily on foederati, which while capable fighters, were of questionable loyalty, and many of which eventually turned on Rome.

So, any bright ideas, sources, or just plain speculation to sway the argument one way or another?

[abaris]

I would rather say, the rise of christianity was a symptom of the decline. The emperors were desperately seeking a unifying factor for the empire. Theodosius, with the Edict of Thessalonica in 380, made it state religion.

And the turn the other cheek business was already cold coffee back then. They already made a 180 degree turn in the times of Constantine to get into his good graces. Before that, many christian scholars were against military service, capital punishment or even extraditing a criminal to the authorities. These positions didn't sit well with the emperor of course and so they changed them.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

The problem with Christianity is that it ate up the pool of capable bureaucrats and generals, with the attractive lifestyle of being a monk or whatever. The Roman people began looking to the bishops for guidance instead of military and administrative leaders, which caused problems with adminsitration as well.

Also families were giving their daughters away to become nuns which was getting so bad with population decline that the Romans passed a law against it.

[KEA]

Certainly none. The Eastern Empire was even more Christian than the Western one but did live for another millennium. Christianity also didn't come overnight in the 5th Century to cause the sudden collapse of the West, but was the result of a process over several centuries in which Roman had its ups and downs. And not to forget: the Goths were in large parts Christian too when overrunning Rome.

So, while the change from a polytheistic religion to a monotheistic one certainly causes massive social changes, I cannot see inhowfar Christianity would be the or a cause for the collapse of the Western Rome Empire.

[abaris]

So, while the change from a polytheistic religion to a monotheistic one certainly causes massive social changes, I cannot see inhowfar Christianity would be the or a cause for the collapse of the Western Rome Empire.

It was a mix actually. A less educated society flooding the peninsula and a faith that was highly suspicious towards any scientific advance, fully expecting the end of times being around the next corner. It was quite a radical change, but the downfall wasn't accelerated by religion, it happened because the Romans could no longer defend their borders and were losing their provinces to supply the homeland rather quickly.

[KEA]

a faith that was highly suspicious towards any scientific advance,.

The Church of the post-medieval times was against scientific advance because that came along with emanzipation from the mediavel clerical monopoly on education and science. This hardly was the issue in 5th Century Rome.

[Roma_Victrix]

As a Third Wave Feminist, I think Christianity certainly played its part, but so did the slave-owning patriarchy, and of course the biggest culprits are men in general, even the enslaved ones (who should have checked their privilege while revolting against not only wealthy, Latifundia-owning patriarchs, but also against wealthy Roman women, usually the wives of the latter). #KillAllMen.



In all seriousness, and aside from what Machiavelli would have us believe, the adoption of Christianity didn't really sap the military spirit of the Roman citizenry, which had already been missing for centuries since the fall of the Republic. There was no more incentive for Rome's senators and the wealthy to lead and command, to follow military careers, not like in the last days of the Republic. On top of that, the Romans simultaneously had a lot of Germanic barbarians doing their fighting for them. Sometimes this was done out of necessity, such as when a large barbarian tribe moved into Roman borders seeking protection, and then promised to fight Rome's enemies when called upon. This worked well in some cases, such as the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains when the Romans had the Visigoths, Franks, Alans, Saxons, and Burgundians fighting alongside them to defeat Attila. It was also the same policy that allowed these Germanic barbarian groups to gain greater territorial authority and autonomy within Rome's borders once the Western Roman Empire started to collapse. The Franks are a good case in point.

To be honest, all of that would have happened with or without Christianity, because the adoption of that ideology had nothing to do with the colossal movement of populations of Germanic barbarians into Rome during the Migration Period (376 - 800 AD).

[abaris]

This hardly was the issue in 5th Century Rome.

Yet it was. Up until the 15th and 16th century, the writings of Galen were still the standard when it came to medicine. Because the church forbade any form of intrusive examination of the human body. In most fields, people relied of classic authors and discoveries with hardly any new discoveries being made. Within the realm of the Roman church anyway.

That only started to change with the Crusades and the exchange between the muslim and the christian world. The muslim nations back then weren't nearly as dogmatic as the christian ones and had a lot of knowledge to offer.

Once again, the rise of (Roman) christianity didn't bring the downfall of the empire, but it's power helped prolong what we call the Dark Ages.

[Caligula's_Horse]

Yet it was. Up until the 15th and 16th century, the writings of Galen were still the standard when it came to medicine. Because the church forbade any form of intrusive examination of the human body. In most fields, people relied of classic authors and discoveries with hardly any new discoveries being made. Within the realm of the Roman church anyway.

That only started to change with the Crusades and the exchange between the muslim and the christian world. The muslim nations back then weren't nearly as dogmatic as the christian ones and had a lot of knowledge to offer.

Once again, the rise of (Roman) christianity didn't bring the downfall of the empire, but it's power helped prolong what we call the Dark Ages.

On the one hand, the church did hamper original thought and enforce stagnancy, but on the other, without a series of monks and monasteries that took it upon themselves to preserve manuscripts (which is really quite remarkable once you stop and think about it; religious institutions don't normally spend their time endlessly copying secular texts), much would have been lost when Rome fell, or at least, remained thoroughly unavailable in western Europe for centuries.

But we've strayed off topic. The church did not hamper Rome's progress before the empire fell, at least, not directly. As Flavius Aetius mentioned, its quite possible that many a promising inventor, philosopher and engineer instead chose a career in the priesthood and theological discourse instead.
Not that there was much technological progress in the ancient world anyway. Before the scientific method came along, it was all so painfully slow that if you gave Scipio Africanus a tour of the empire in 400 BCE, he would have likely been shocked by the economic, military and political side of things, and may have had trouble understanding the dialects spoken, but hardly anything would have surprised him on the technological front; a better alloy of steel here, and a new method of manufacturing glass there, but nothing really game changing, in more then 500 years. In the two hundred years or so Christianity was dominant in the western Empire, hardly any of what we'd today call scientific progress was made, but then, hardly any would have been made anyway even if everyone stayed pagan.

I do wonder Christianity's effect on slavery. I know they opposed it initially, and largely dropped the issue once they became mainstream (much like the non-violence, come to think of it); the question is, did they manage to harm the institution enough to have a lasting impact on Rome's economy?

Another point worth mention is the church's effect on the Eastern Empire, which ended up leveraging the church to its advantage in a manner that benefited the government by granting it legitimacy. Did the Eastern government better capitalize the opportunity presented by the church from the get go, or did this come about at a later phase, after the West was gone?

[abaris]

I do wonder Christianity's effect on slavery. I know they opposed it initially, and largely dropped the issue once they became mainstream (much like the non-violence, come to think of it); the question is, did they manage to harm the institution enough to have a lasting impact on Rome's economy?

They didn't really oppose it at any stage. The Roman Catholic church is the church of Paul more than the church of Jesus. And Paul was pretty explicit in saying that slaves should obey even a cruel master.

Another issue entirely would be the fact that slaves ultimately made up such a large portion of the general population that it became a security risk.

[KEA]

Once again, the rise of (Roman) christianity didn't bring the downfall of the empire, but it's power helped prolong what we call the Dark Ages.

In how far is that relevant to the topic of this thread?

BTW, and that's as much off-topic, the "Dark Ages" are a period of the Early Middle Ages, the 10th and 11th Century, from which we are lacking sources; compared to Carolingian times and the High and Late Middle Ages. This has nothing to do with the Church but with changes in administration and the collapse of the Frankish Empire.

[Ludicus]

To be honest, all of that would have happened with or without Christianity, because the adoption of that ideology had nothing to do with the colossal movement of populations of Germanic barbarians into Rome during the Migration Period (376 - 800 AD).

Peter Heather agrees
rep +
---
Well -probably a small part, who knows?

According to Augustine, God sanctioned no state, not even a Christian empire. In the book The City of God St. Augustine of Hippo: The City of God Augustine said that people were divided in two groups: those who lived for God and those who resided in this world and where doomed to hell. The individuals ought to live as peaceful Christians, while the barbarians attacked. Curiously, coincidence or not- shortly after Augustine's death, the Germans destroyed the city of Hippo, over which he was bishop,near Carthage.
According to Gibbon's masterpiece, the values of pacifism undermined the Roman spirit,
"As the happiness of a future life is the great object of religion, we may hear without surprise or scandal that the introduction, or at least the abuse of Christianity, had some influence on the decline and fall of the Roman empire"
But he adds, (Chapter LXXI)
After a diligent inquiry, I can discern four principal causes of the ruin of Rome, which continued to operate in a period of more than a thousand years. I. The injuries of time and nature. II. The hostile attacks of the Barbarians and Christians. III. The use and abuse of the materials. And, IV. The domestic quarrels of the Romans.

Today, there are plenty of explanations for the fall of the empire (Peter Heather, Michael Grant, Chris Wickham, Goldsworthy, Ward-Perkins, etc ad nauseam).

I know we must resist apparently simple explanations- but this still is one of the best explanations,
"The decline of Rome was the natural and inevitable effect of immoderate greatness. Prosperity ripened the principle of decay; the cause of the destruction multiplied with the extent of conquest; and, as soon as time or accident and removed the artificial supports, the stupendous fabric yielded to the pressure of its own weight. The story of the ruin is simple and obvious: and instead of inquiring why the Roman Empire was destroyed we should rather be surprised that it has subsisted for so long" (Gibbon)

[Roma_Victrix]

Indeed, the arguments penned by Gibbon are timeless and mainly irrefutable, even if some of his views are outdated.

[EmperorBatman999]

It would seem to me that Christianity's contribution to the Fall of Rome was in the fact that it was contrary to a lot traditionally Roman ideals. Christianity is (and was perhaps even more so in those days prior to the politicization of the Church) centered around humility and pacifism. It was popular at first with the underclasses, like the slaves and the poor, whom saw it as a means to salvation. To be a good Christian meant accepting your current social lot, submitting to your superiors and a single Higher God, and abstaining from violence while loving your neighbors.

Traditional Roman ideals were far different, and they had a much different sense of morality and identity. Romans loved dominance and lusted after victory, and being superior and carving a legacy (as well as living up to the legacy of your ancestors) was important. This is what allowed them to grow into a large, military-driven empire. The love of strength and power is also seen in how the Romans enjoyed blood sports like Gladiators. These are things that the Christians would've been contrary to, but somehow for opposite ideals, Christianity would replace Roman traditions. This caused divisions within Roman society as the higher echelons began to embrace Christianity. The flashpoint of multiple Civil Wars, from Constantine to Theodosius, was over the question of Christianity in the Empire. Even though Christianization was a gradual process, this still must've affected the core foundations of Roman culture which in turn led to the demilitarization of Roman society, and so increased the vulnerability of an empire that was already weakening on all other fronts.

Of course, the old sense of Roman principles started eroding since the end of the Republic, and we cannot forget how corruption and internal strife also began tearing away at the old Empire until it finally crumbled. Christianity sped up these processes in some areas, or at least contributed to them.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

I answered this already:

The problem with Christianity is that it ate up the pool of capable bureaucrats and generals, with the attractive lifestyle of being a monk or whatever. The Roman people began looking to the bishops for guidance instead of military and administrative leaders, which caused problems with adminsitration as well.

^^This was the issue.^^

Christianity did not "degrade" Roman morals or weaken its lust for perpetual warfare, in fact in many respects I'd say the opposite considering the Christians would spend 2 centuries murdering each other over which version of their religion was right. Christianity contributed to the breakdown of administrative and military authority.

[War lord]

Are people still non-critically accepting Gibbon? The man had very clear and strong biases, he didn't like Christianity, he didn't like anything that departed from "classic" Rome and he didn't like what he termed the "barbarians". While he's still useful as a historian, his interpretations of the hows and why's are old fashioned and tinged with unsupported personal opinion.

Rome fell because it wasted its dwindling resources on internal conflict when it was surrounded by external foes who where becoming more and more organised. The Army didn't fail, the tax base and the administration failed.

[Revan The Great]

I think the argument that Christianity sapped capable men from military/political pursuits by channeling them towards church careers is a persuasive one. I'm also reminded of something I read where Romans tended to send their daughters to convents rather than paying out dowries or letting their family estates be broken up, to the point that Honorius or Valentinian III (one of those two, if memory serves) had to pass a law to curb that.

I think also that Christianity contributed to a lot of internal turmoil that was unnecessary. The earlier, Pagan Romans didn't really care what religion you followed, although the Jews and early Christians were notable exceptions. Yet when Christianity came to power, much effort and many resources were spent trying to enforce religious uniformity, even among Christian sects - let alone persecuting Pagans.

So unfortunately, I don't think that Christianity had a very positive effect on the Roman Empire. Although, my personal opinion is that the Fall of the Romans came from so many different directions, and from so many different causes, that ultimately you can't point to a single element as being critical to the Fall.

[Sir Adrian]

The problem with Christianity is that it ate up the pool of capable bureaucrats and generals, with the attractive lifestyle of being a monk or whatever. The Roman people began looking to the bishops for guidance instead of military and administrative leaders, which caused problems with adminsitration as well.

Also families were giving their daughters away to become nuns which was getting so bad with population decline that the Romans passed a law against it.

I don't know how starving half naked in the Palestinian or Egyptian dessert could be seen as more attractive than owning a villa, lots of land and not starving. The problem regarding competent generals and bureaucrats dates back to Marius and Augustus, as both of them opened the door to corruption and nepotism in the army/administration. Augustus was worse because by destroying the cursus honorum he basically gave more power to the generals and c emented thier ability to buy soldiers and a crown.