The Roman Empire and Christendom

[Czone]

I was reading the Last Kingdom(awesome book by the way) and someone in there made a comment about the Romans converting to Christendom, but only losing after that. Can some cool historical peep tell me if it's true that the win/loss ratio of the Romans did go down after the conversion?

If it is true, is it really stupid to say that the old Roman gods had more power in some way than the Christian god? Or are we going to shove that off to human incompetence on the Roman side and competence on the side of their enemies?

And if we conclude that the Roman gods did have more power than the Christian one, is anyone going to convert?

Obviously the last question is kind of mocking, but I'm interested what your opinions on this are.

[motiv-8]

I have seen nothing to suggest that the fighting ability of the Roman army had any corrolation with the religious makeup of the Empire. What hurt the military far more was endemic civil war which, of course, had absolutely nothing to do with Christianity or conversion to Christiany.

That's beside the fact that the statement "only losing after that" isn't even qualified. Roman armies lost regularly throughout history. Teutoburg in 9AD, Abritus in 251, what must have been hundreds of small skirmishes during border wars and civil strife throughout the empire's life... these are notable exampels of defeat before Christianity took real root. And that's just in the Empire -- during the Republican times you had the Allia and Arretium against the Gauls, Cannae, Trebia, and Lake Trasimene against Hannibal, Arausio against the Cimbri... All these long before Christ ever lived.

The only similarity between these and defeats like, say, Adrianople or against the Vandals and Huns in terms of religion would be the firm belief that defeat was due to failure to properly please or worship the gods/God, that some slight against them/Him had been done by the Romans to bring upon their vanquish. However, each side condemned the other for that slight -- the old pagan elite claimed that it was the abandonment of the old gods that brought about disaster, the new Christian elite claiming it was the attachment of some to the false gods that was the cause. Nobody living in the 21st Century with access to the full view of the history, and with a working objective mindset, could seriously consider that either of these could be correct when there were obviously other factors at play.

If it is true, is it really stupid to say that the old Roman gods had more power in some way than the Christian god?

Well, it's not true at all, but yes, that would be so stupid that I'm wondering why it has to be asked.

[Czone]

You took the tone of only lost wrong, I meant that after they converted, they only lost. Of course that's not true, but if there is a difference in their "win/loss", maybe that the Roman gods did have more power. Of course this would have to rely on the theory of those gods actually existing and stuff, but it'd be interesting to talk about in my opinion.

[motiv-8]

You took the tone of only lost wrong, I meant that after they converted, they only lost. Of course that's not true, but if there is a difference in their "win/loss", maybe that the Roman gods did have more power.

No. That's idiotic and doesn't even address Roman political military history in the slightest. It had nothing to do with gods or God. If the Romans lost more battles later on (a false claim IMO) then it was due to the weakening of the army and its supporting economic and political structures due to civil war and other decidedly material factors. Actually, I believe the army performed perfectly adequate given the challenges presented to it and the conditions of the empire up till the 5th Century when it simply began to disintegrate in many places due to physical loss and lack of funds.

[Czone]

Obviously, you don't want to have a discussion which takes something for granted, which is a bit narrowminded and annoying, I was just trying to get a discussion, but you just whine about it being stupid.

[Fiyenyaa]

Obviously, you don't want to have a discussion which takes something for granted, which is a bit narrowminded and annoying, I was just trying to get a discussion, but you just whine about it being stupid.

I'm going to have to agree with motiv, here.
You put out a hypothesis (the Romans lost more after Christianity became the state religion, and that the Roman gods are therefore more powerful than the Christian god) and someone rejected it.

Even assuming gods of any kind exist (already a massive assumption, but I'll accept it for the sake of argument) - there's no evidence to suggest that gods take part in battles, directly or otherwise. Armies comprised of one religion have won and lost battles against armies of the same and different religions - similarly with armies in the service of a religion. The Crusaders won and lost battles against Muslims, and vice-versa. Most religions have had adherents fight adherents of other religions at some point in time (although I'm sure there are exceptions, especially with the smaller religions).

[motiv-8]

The only thing narrowminded and annoying is seriously suggesting long-ignored pagan gods might or might have not been stronger than the Christian God in explaining the military performance of Rome. That's THE definition of narrow-mindedness because it relies completely on the insubstantial, unqualified, and unverifiable claims of godly interference in battle rather than viewing the whole of Roman military and political history.

Nobody in their right mind living in the modern world would seriously try to make this attribution. I answered your question -- Romans lost battles regularly throughout their history, long before the majority of the population or the state converted to Christianity, and continued to lose regularly after the conversion. The seemingly more frequent and disastrous defeats of the post-Christian era are much better and more intelligently explained by the weakening of the army and its support systems through political instability and civil war. If you have an objection, make it more maturely than calling me a "whiner."

[athanaric]

The introduction of Christianity is just one of many factors which may (or may not) have caused the fall of the Empire. It certainly had no stabilizing effect, but I think it can only be viewed in context of the rapidly changing situation in Europe.
Also, a change of religion is usually precipitated by a situation where the society in question is already in bad shape, and the people are seeking for new answers. If the Roman citizens and the rest of the empire had all been self-confident and optimistic, not to mention loyal and devoted to the general idea that was Rome, Christianity would probably have remained a marginal phenomenon.

[Czone]

The only thing narrowminded and annoying is seriously suggesting long-ignored pagan gods might or might have not been stronger than the Christian God in explaining the military performance of Rome. That's THE definition of narrow-mindedness because it relies completely on the insubstantial, unqualified, and unverifiable claims of godly interference in battle rather than viewing the whole of Roman military and political history.

Nobody in their right mind living in the modern world would seriously try to make this attribution. I answered your question -- Romans lost battles regularly throughout their history, long before the majority of the population or the state converted to Christianity, and continued to lose regularly after the conversion. The seemingly more frequent and disastrous defeats of the post-Christian era are much better and more intelligently explained by the weakening of the army and its support systems through political instability and civil war. If you have an objection, make it more maturely than calling me a "whiner."

Yeah, sorry for being immature, I just got war declared on me by about the whole world in Empire Total War, so I was annoyed
I know that gods probably have no real influence on battles, although I think it's funny to talk about if it incidently seems to do.
What I was aiming at mostly, was the last question, because just take hypothetically that we conclude that the Romans DID lose more after they converted, would anyone have changed to the old gods?

[empr guy]

they had already been in decline for a while. i think it was constantine who converted correct? By that time the empire had split so the west had no chance.


still, motive-8 makes some good points, and correlation does not mean causation. If i found that exports of olive oil dropped right before the empire split into two, then it wouldnt mean olive oil destroyed the roman empire.

[motiv-8]

i think it was constantine who converted correct? By that time the empire had split so the west had no chance.

Some of the seeds of Rome's fall had been sown decades before that moment as well, and it was longer still (the reign of Theodosius) when Christianity was made the legally official religion of the Empire. As anybody who knows anything about the history of the late empire knows, it was the weakness of Theodosius's sons Arcadius and Honorius and their domination by the royal family's women and prelates that sent Rome plummeting to its final depths, not the former's edict on Christianity.

What were those seeds? Well, the most significant that I've discovered would be the devolution of power during the Third Century from the relatively small Senatorial elite to the larger and more widespread equestrian order, which splintered the power bases of old families and magistries but which enabled an even larger to class to use fortune in battle or distress at the top to claim the purple. This disruption meant that the emperor had to spend much more time on personal security than in administering the empire, resulting in a reliance on an ever-increasing, ever less efficient bureaucratic giant to run things. The civil war also gravely weakened the military by regularly pulling frontier troops from the borders to fight in fraternal bloodbaths, which barbarians took advantage of to migrate or pursue favors in the form of office and/or land. These were all inter-connected and had a snowball effect that brought down the empire after decades of struggling on thanks to the essential strength of its presence and internal systems.

These are but a few of many theories put forth by modern scholars on the weakening of Rome. One that is hardly taken seriously nowadays is, "they converted to Christianity and forgot how to fight." That's just stupid.

What I was aiming at mostly, was the last question, because just take hypothetically that we conclude that the Romans DID lose more after they converted, would anyone have changed to the old gods?

I addressed that as well, but if you'd like further explanation, just ask:

The only similarity between [earlier Roman losses] and defeats like, say, Adrianople or against the Vandals and Huns in terms of religion would be the firm belief that defeat was due to failure to properly please or worship the gods/God, that some slight against them/Him had been done by the Romans to bring upon their vanquish. However, each side condemned the other for that slight -- the old pagan elite claimed that it was the abandonment of the old gods that brought about disaster, the new Christian elite claiming it was the attachment of some to the false gods that was the cause.

[Czone]

These are but a few of many theories put forth by modern scholars on the weakening of Rome. One that is hardly taken seriously nowadays is, "they converted to Christianity and forgot how to fight." That's just stupid.

I never said that. Neither did I say I think that's true. I know a bit of Roman history, and I know that the empire was in decline, but I was just wondering if anyone would convert to something if there seemed to be a big difference between the win/loss ratio in the time of the old gods and that of the time of God. Obviously, you thought I was saying that this was actually true, while I was just laying down a hypothetical situation.
So, let's make this totally historically inaccurate and make it purely hypothetical. If you only know that the Romans won 80% of their battles before they converted to Christianity, and after said conversion they won 30%, would you even think about worshipping the old gods?

[Fiyenyaa]

I never said that. Neither did I say I think that's true. I know a bit of Roman history, and I know that the empire was in decline, but I was just wondering if anyone would convert to something if there seemed to be a big difference between the win/loss ratio in the time of the old gods and that of the time of God. Obviously, you thought I was saying that this was actually true, while I was just laying down a hypothetical situation.
So, let's make this totally historically inaccurate and make it purely hypothetical. If you only know that the Romans won 80% of their battles before they converted to Christianity, and after said conversion they won 30%, would you even think about worshipping the old gods?

If the only change between the time when they won 80% of battles to 30% was a change of state religion, it may be worth investigating (although it still wouldn't neccesarily be the reason) - however, we know that a hell of alot of other things changed in the period between Rome being an unbeatable military force to it being constantly on the defensive and being defeated with ever-greater frequency. We also know that other Christian countries have fought and been successful.

[empr guy]

Some of the seeds of Rome's fall had been sown decades before that moment as well, and it was longer still (the reign of Theodosius) when Christianity was made the legally official religion of the Empire. :

oh whoops im getting my emperors mixed up, although i suppose christianity would have to be legal for constintine to convert (although whoever had the army did what ever they wanted)

[motiv-8]

oh whoops im getting my emperors mixed up, although i suppose christianity would have to be legal for constintine to convert (although whoever had the army did what ever they wanted)

It was Constantine who made Christianity a state-sanctioned religion of the empire, it was Theodosius who made it the state-sanctioned religion of the empire.

[empr guy]

It was Constantine who made Christianity a state-sanctioned religion of the empire, it was Theodosius who made it the state-sanctioned religion of the empire.

i guess i misread your post, this thread is just confusing me now...

[Tankbuster]

Some of the seeds of Rome's fall had been sown decades before that moment as well, and it was longer still (the reign of Theodosius) when Christianity was made the legally official religion of the Empire. As anybody who knows anything about the history of the late empire knows, it was the weakness of Theodosius's sons Arcadius and Honorius and their domination by the royal family's women and prelates that sent Rome plummeting to its final depths, not the former's edict on Christianity.

What were those seeds? Well, the most significant that I've discovered would be the devolution of power during the Third Century from the relatively small Senatorial elite to the larger and more widespread equestrian order, which splintered the power bases of old families and magistries but which enabled an even larger to class to use fortune in battle or distress at the top to claim the purple. This disruption meant that the emperor had to spend much more time on personal security than in administering the empire, resulting in a reliance on an ever-increasing, ever less efficient bureaucratic giant to run things. The civil war also gravely weakened the military by regularly pulling frontier troops from the borders to fight in fraternal bloodbaths, which barbarians took advantage of to migrate or pursue favors in the form of office and/or land. These were all inter-connected and had a snowball effect that brought down the empire after decades of struggling on thanks to the essential strength of its presence and internal systems.

These are but a few of many theories put forth by modern scholars on the weakening of Rome. One that is hardly taken seriously nowadays is, "they converted to Christianity and forgot how to fight." That's just stupid.

It's an extremely stupid myth but for some reason, it just won't die.

The easy answer to the idea that the Romans suddenly forgot how to fight in the Third or Fourth Century for some weird reason (converting to Christianity, dropping the lorica segmentata, becoming weak and feminised,...) is that they simply didn't forget how to fight.
The Late Roman Army was just as effective, efficient, and succesful as its earlier counterparts: the Romans had learned from their past mistakes, had anticipated and reacted on other nations' changed strategies and battlefield tactics, and had created an extraordinary flexible and powerful military machine.
What we see in history is that up to the very end of the Western Roman Empire, the Roman armies remained highly succesful fighting forces: whenever they were dealing with a significant threat and had the time and energy to overcome it, they won. Always. There's no sudden series of losses to be explained because these losses don't exist.
When the Roman Army moved against Alaric, it beat him three times in a row.
When the Roman Army moved against Atilla at the Catalaunian Fields (just mere decades before its collapse), it won.
When they moved up against the God (EDIT: amusing typo, I meant to say Goths ), the WRE almost always won as well.

Now I can hear you thinking "But Tank, if the Army was so effective at dealing with foes, why did the WRE eventually collapse?" Well, the fact of the matter is that the Empire collapsed around the Army. For mainly economic reasons (and some political ones, like the ones motiv-8 detailed), the WRE simply didn't have the money, resources and manpower to sustain a sizeable Army.
When the Romans weren't fighting each other (which happened almost all the time during the last centuries, though Diocletian had a relatively stable period) the WRE was too economically feeble to deal with all the troubles that were caused whilst they had been fighting civil wars.
They didn't have the manpower to stop the Huns while they were rampaging in Gaul, or to stop the Vandals, or to stop Alaric from sacking Rome. During these episodes, the Empire watched almost powerlessly because it couldn't afford to send an army to deal with the troublemakers.
Whenever they were able to get an army together, they consistently beat the invaders.
As for the Eastern Roman Empire, due to their superior economy and higher population density they were still able to field large armies and that's why they managed to survive for centuries more while the WRE soon dwindled and collapsed.

So no, becoming Christians definitely wasn't what killed Roman warfare abilities. If you look at history you'll see that Christians have always been pretty good at taking down their enemies anyway

[Czone]

I think I'm just in love with the Norse idea of gods fighting

[removeduser_487563287433]

Um, this is an old theory from the rise and fall of the roman empire. That the focus of passivity and spirituality of christianity was the driving force behind the fall of the roman empire. I don't hold to it, myself.