*Citation needed*I put hastened ita decline for 2 simple reasons. Because of the religious differences it may have been harder for the germanic tribes to be brought into the empire and assimilate, which would have saved the romans some wars, however that arguement is imo not rhe most sound.
The bigger issue was that the church at the time tried to prevent people from joining the army, and openly spoke against fighting some of the invading tribes, i read this somewhere cant remember the source.
The bigger issue was that the church at the time tried to prevent people from joining the army, and openly spoke against fighting some of the invading tribes,
*Citation needed*
There is no evidence that religious differences made it harder for the Germans to integrate. In point of fact it was their shared Christianity that led Alaric to be far less destructive in his sack of Rome than might otherwise occurred, with his orders to spare churches and those who sheltered inside them. Had his hopes for his royal prisoner panned out then it also could have laid a foundation for a full Gothic integration, but that sadly was nipped in the bud.
Furthermore, its not like the Christian barbarians were treated better by the Roman elite. Its pretty clear that by the 400s the Italians could not stand to be ruled by "German barbarians" regardless of their religion. Stilicho was treated with intense suspicion because of his religion, which incidentally was actually Nicene Christianity, but because as a "barbarian" it was thought he had to be in league with Alaric, who was also a barbarian and therefore "logically" had to be working with Stilicho.
As for the idea that the Church tried to prevent people from joining the army, bullcrap. This is Gibbonesque nonsense. The problem that the Romans had was that NO ONE wanted to join the army. The Emperors had had to make service hereditary and mandatory because frankly being a soldier in the Roman army was hard, dangerous, and an utterly crappy experience. The Empire had been dependent on a handful of border provinces to provide most of their troops for a long time, notably places like Illyria. The barbarians had taken up the biggest chunk of the Roman army because no one else wanted the job. The citizens of the Empire didn't want to serve in the army, and this was a problem from long before Christianity became dominant.
True. Even in the height of the Roman Empire, the Empire was becoming near wholly dependent upon Germanic warriors and or other sorts of warriors from Northern parts of Europe. Tacitus bemoans this even during the reign of Trajan, whose pillars make clear references to the high roles the Germanic hosts were playing in the Roman army.
Adrianople happened, and that's the big thing. After that the Empire's policy of disarming and settling barbarians inside the Empire was over. The Romans could not keep the Goths under control after that point. Previously such groups would have been met by overwhelming Roman force, disarmed, settled, and then recruited under ROMAN officers and under the power of the Emperor. When Adrianople was lost the Goths were not disarmed, they were not settled by the Romans, and they were not broken up into smaller and more easily controllable groups. That gave the Goths basically an independent power structure inside the Roman Empire. You want a reason why the West fell that's it. The barbarians were no longer fighting for the Romans under the Roman's terms.Suggesting perhaps that they no longer admired the Empire as much as they used to. Perhaps as they played a more prominent role they became less deferential, and the mid-4C marked a "tipping point" of some kind .
But if Toynbee is correct, there was a change of some kind around 350 AD.
In his Study of History, he states that around then the Germanic soldiers stopped Latinising their names, as they had mostly done hitherto. Suggesting perhaps that they no longer admired the Empire as much as they used to. Perhaps as they played a more prominent role they became less deferential, and the mid-4C marked a "tipping point" of some kind .
But was (lack of) Christianity the source of that conflict?Battle of Frigidus
Important battle in 394 because (or on the excuse ) that the Western Emperor was Pagan sympathetic or a closet pagan. Heavy losses on the western side was heavy, but lets say 15-25k highly trained legionares is a big deal. 20k more loyal and trustworthy soilders (partially veterans, partially trained successors) rather than barbarian foederati on the limes or behind them as a field army might make a big difference twelve years later in the winter of 406-407.
So the I'd say that's some good evidence the Christianity hurt.
But was (lack of) Christianity the source of that conflict?
Except of course what ACTUALLY happened was that Arbogast either murdered Valentenian, or caused the boy to commit suicide, and then went into rebellion against the senior Augustus, Theodosius. He selected an acceptable puppet and elevated that man to the purple. Theodosius was never, and I mean NEVER going to let Arbogast off for the death of his brother-in-law, nor would he tolerate the elevation of a Western Emperor without his approval. Civil War was going to happen religious problems or no religious problems. Because that's what happened in the Roman Empire in these situations.It was the excuse and for many a motive. It is hard to tell exact motives 1625 year after the fact, but the expressed motive of the Eastern Legions was to prevent a pagan revival and they did serious damage to the Western Military.
To me pretending it isn't evidence that Christianity weakened the west is seriously like pretending that layer of iridium had nothing to do with the lack of dinosaurs.
It was the excuse and for many a motive. It is hard to tell exact motives 1625 year after the fact, but the expressed motive of the Eastern Legions was to prevent a pagan revival and they did serious damage to the Western Military.
Though the Goths were Christian by that point.And at the Frigidus, didn't *both* sides rely on German mercenaries? I always understood that it was Gothic ones on one, side, and Frankish on the other.
Though the Goths were Christian by that point.
But anyway how is it relevant?