Christendom and Late Roman Empire

[PSEUDO ROMANUS]

Some people say that the adoption of Christianity by the Roman state was a bad move and started the process of her own destruction; some other people say that that is not the case. Did Christendom have an impact mainly negative or positive on the Late Empire? (A totally negative or positive impact is not real, IMO). Support your stance. Please, refrain from letting your position on matters of faith change the purpose of this thread. This is not a debate on the validity (or lack of it) of any particular religion, or the metaphysics of their doctrine; but the effect that their secular dimension had on the fate of the Late Roman Empire.

[Lord Willy]

absolutely not

[andrewmc]

I would say its a positive, could the east have lasted as long without christianity

[PSEUDO ROMANUS]

absolutely not

Why not? Would you mind elaborating, please?

I would say its a positive, could the east have lasted as long without christianity

Based on your statement, how is that the Eastern Empire had lasted shorter without Christianity? Or how is that the Empire lasted that long with it?

[andrewmc]

Why not? Would you mind elaborating, please?

Based on your statement, how is that the Eastern Empire had lasted shorter without Christianity? Or how is that the Empire lasted that long with it?

Mine was just a general comment i should have put a question mark on thew end of it. As i am not sure if would have made any difference at all. One benefit is less sacraficing of animals.

[Lord Willy]

Why not? Would you mind elaborating, please?

Based on your statement, how is that the Eastern Empire had lasted shorter without Christianity? Or how is that the Empire lasted that long with it?

In general I would say that had negatives effects in the struggles of the empire and on the solidity of the army but positive in the mainly context so i said 50-50.

[Gäiten]

Positively.

[Athenogoras]

Negative
- Christianity drained the military of "cader". Lower nobility could now be preasts instead of officers
- A drain on the economy. Although there might be priests who actually tilled the land I would suspect they were in absolute minority. It was actually another secter to be supported by the peasantry(who were already in a serf-like state from the late 3 century) apart from the imperial administration and the military.
- Negativ influence on public debate. Opposing sides accusing each other of heresy, trying to get the emperors ear and then slaughter the infidels in the name of orthodoxy.

[Kaiserjagen]

Negative
- Christianity drained the military of "cader". Lower nobility could now be preasts instead of officers

Plenty of good generals existed in the late empire. The military was large, expensive but by no means ineffective.

- A drain on the economy. Although there might be priests who actually tilled the land I would suspect they were in absolute minority. It was actually another secter to be supported by the peasantry(who were already in a serf-like state from the late 3 century) apart from the imperial administration and the military.

Previous pagan religions had already been heavily supported by the state.

- Negativ influence on public debate. Opposing sides accusing each other of heresy, trying to get the emperors ear and then slaughter the infidels in the name of orthodoxy.

Real public debate died with the republic. People were sentenced to death on a regular basis for speaking out against the emperor's views.

[Athenogoras]

Plenty of good generals existed in the late empire. The military was large, expensive but by no means ineffective

This was purely speculation on my side. Of course there were good generals but I would suspect the military would have benefitted if that was the only "career"-choice.

Previous pagan religions had already been heavily supported by the state.

I dont think to such an extent as late roman empire(say 300-1200AD)

Real public debate died with the republic. People were sentenced to death on a regular basis for speaking out against the emperor

Well, I think christianity made it worse than it could have been,

Edit: I love this forum. There are so many knowledgeble people here. I just wanted to add my two cents. Please dont take it as a flame against christianity in its current form.

[Juvenal]

I think Christianity had a positive effect on the integrity of the Empire. It created a theological justification for the status-quo: one Faith, one God, one Empire. I think that this was such a powerful and attractive world-view that the barbarian conquerors of the Western Empire found themselves creating the Holy Roman Empire and portraying the Eastern Empire as a heretical schism of the true faith.

Christianity as adapted by Constantine was almost the perfect State Religion. The religious and secular hierarchies fitted together nicely and orthodoxy was enforced from the top.

If barbarians rejected Christianity, then they were by definition evil, if they adopted it, then to avoid heresy, they needed to become subservient to the Empire.

[Riothamus]

Some people say that the adoption of Christianity by the Roman state was a bad move and started the process of her own destruction; some other people say that that is not the case. Did Christendom have an impact mainly negative or positive on the Late Empire? (A totally negative or positive impact is not real, IMO). Support your stance. Please, refrain from letting your position on matters of faith change the purpose of this thread. This is not a debate on the validity (or lack of it) of any particular religion, or the metaphysics of their doctrine; but the effect that their secular dimension had on the fate of the Late Roman Empire.

Ahhh you little bugger PSEUDO ROMANUS, you did it again. Another thought provoking topics

:hmmm: I say it prolonged and strengthened the Roman Empire. Constantine I, saw the advantages of using the able Christian administrators who were rising in their well organized political status throughout the empire. Now do I think it was a good thing?? That's another question

[Antiochos VII Sidetes]

I would say 50-50. The conversion to Christianity was long and bloody, with tons of seemingly needless deaths. However, I think that it did a great deal to cement the People of Rome together under one common cause.

[julianus heraclius]

As much as I like Paganism, Christianity as a social movement certainly helped to be the glue that kept the empire together, especially the eastern empire.

The problem with Paganism at the time of the third century crisis was that it was seem as a "state" religion but didn't really offer any personal salvation. That is why mystery cults became so popular during the mid to late third century.

With such impending doom around it was only natural that individuals would seek solace in the form of a special initiate cult or religion.

No doubt Christianity gave this to people, as did other cults of course, but it seems that early christianity was very much a grass roots social revolution. They were the first to look after the poor and disadvantaged for example, something that pagan religions didn't really look at.

It's no surprise that Julian in his attempt to revive paganism was going to base his new neopagan church on the christian model. he could see the value of the more socially minded christians. Now If he had survived then perhaps we may be talking about whether neopaganism kept the empire together but that is another story.

The key probably came with the linkage of christianity and the State. This was something that was occurring under Diocletian and enhanced with Constantine's "with this sign you shall conquer" which at the time related to all religions, not just christianity. A very shrewd political move from Constantine if nothing else, as it enable all of his soldiers from different religious backgrounds to feel that they had support from their own deity.

So the advantage that christianity gave was more of a social political and philosophical relvolution that gave a new sense of order for an empire who's own culture was tired. It has been said that with the death of Julian there was the death of the classical period of civilisation. It may well have been one of the turning points in history.

[Nikos]

Positive. As others have said it held the East together for another thousand years.

[PSEUDO ROMANUS]

So, roughly so far we have that the impact of Christianity on the Late Empire was basically positive because it joint people in a 'social program' system. Any arguments to support this position or against it? Could any other religious system, if properly supported by the State, have had the same effect than that caused by Christianity?

[seriousbusiness]

Rome's issues were predominately secular, certainly by 410 at least. I would argue both Roman Paganism and Christianity were effective in their social roles to a similar extent. The only thing against Christianity is its establishment caused civil strife, otherwise the changes it brought were not major, IMO. If anything, for that reason, it was a net negative

[Emperor Domitianus]

I am a catholic man but also must be realistic to hystorical facts.
I study those things at university so I think I can say something...
Well the odoption of Christian religion has had a really bad impact. It would has been better if the Paganism would have remained the main religion. This is because while Pagans where more tolerant towards other religions, Christians like Judes in that period, were not tolerant. Infact there were responsible for the destruciton of many temples in Rome and everywhere in the Empire. More over you must consider the problems which raised with the new faith. Infact the problem of which were the natures of Christ were the main problem. If you have a little knowledge of Late Roman Empire hystory and Byzantium, you will surely notice that the differents believes (Monofisim, Duofism, Nestorianism, Arians ect) caused many problems during all the time. Not to mention the problems the Pope of Rome caused during all the time. The strugle for being the most important with the Costantinople Pathriac until the final division which still nowdays stays.
So you can draw your conclusions yourself people...

[PSEUDO ROMANUS]

Interesting argument, Emperor Domitianus. But what can an emperor of the past know about future events? Just kidding . Thank you for your contribution .

[invictus1991]

Hi long time lurker, first time poster. I agree with Emperor Domitianus the Empire would have been better off if it was pagan. I believe the reason Constantine "converted" (on his deathbed) to Christianity was to unify the empire under one god.