The "Greater" Empire - Rome or China?

Rome or China?


  • Total voters
    210
As others have said before me Rome had a much larger impact on the world at large as in its later stages it endorsed Christianity boosting to a status of a major world religion. Another major influence was the effects of Latin on the formerly Germanic languages of Areas such as France and England. Also Rome gets some credit for surviving in some for a lot longer (1480 Years for the Roman Empire (Including East Rome and Byzantium of course) compared to 426 Years for the Han Dynasty).
 
I was saying they were more in line with the Roman tradition. I don't really view either as being overly linked to the late Empire and definitely don't thing the late and early empires can be compared as equivalent to one Chinese dynasty.
Fair, but the point I'm making is a refutation to the simplistic numbers-based argument presented by someone else "Chinese is more widely spoken, ergo China" to which I presented Christianity as a counter to that. Some disputed Christianity as a Roman product, but I don't think you're heading there.

I don't think the numbers argument for Christians vs. Mandarin speakers holds up regardless.
 

Sabot Cat

Banned
Fair, but the point I'm making is a refutation to the simplistic numbers-based argument presented by someone else "Chinese is more widely spoken, ergo China" to which I presented Christianity as a counter to that. Some disputed Christianity as a Roman product, but I don't think you're heading there.

I don't think the numbers argument for Christians vs. Mandarin speakers holds up regardless.

Agreed. A better comparison is Latin or Romance speakers vs Mandarin or Chinese speakers.

I mean, Christianity largely spread without the help of the Roman Empire, so it really can't be pointed to as a sign of Roman influence. If the Roman Empire had collapsed before adopting it as the state religion in say, the 1st Century AD, there still would have been Christianity throughout Europe and the world.
 
Last edited:
I mean, Christianity largely spread without the help of the Roman Empire, so it really can't be pointed to as a sign of Roman influence. If the Roman Empire had collapsed before adopting it as the state religion in say, the 1st Century AD, there still would have been Christianity throughout Europe and the world.

That's highly questionable.
 
Not at all. Christianity spread just fine for more than 200 years despite the Roman Empire's opposition, and in places where Rome wasn't entirely dominant.

Christianity lived and died in Roman society in terms of a vast, vast majority of the Christian population. It really took off, though, and became a world religion after adopted by the Empire.
 

Sabot Cat

Banned
Christianity lived and died in Roman society in terms of a vast, vast majority of the Christian population. It really took off, though, and became a world religion after adopted by the Empire.

Not really. It was already spreading out to Algeria, Sri Lanka and Arbil by c. AD 100, as well as to the Parthia, Morroco, et. al. in the next century. The reason why the Roman Empire tolerated and eventually adopted Christianity was because it was already powerful without the help of the Roman Empire, and despite its persecution.
 
Not really. It was already spreading out to Algeria, Sri Lanka and Arbil by c. AD 100, as well as to the Parthia, Morroco, et. al. in the next century. The reason why the Roman Empire tolerated and eventually adopted Christianity was because it was already powerful without the help of the Roman Empire, and despite its persecution.
Plus Buddhism did plenty good for itself without an empire spreading it (though had help from time to time).
 
Not really. It was already spreading out to Algeria, Sri Lanka and Arbil by c. AD 100, as well as to the Parthia, Morroco, et. al. in the next century. The reason why the Roman Empire tolerated and eventually adopted Christianity was because it was already powerful without the help of the Roman Empire, and despite its persecution.

Algeria was part of the Empire.

I'm not saying Christianity exists because of Rome. But Christianity as it is formed today is a distinctly Roman-based institution, even the non-Catholic variants. Under the organization of the Emperor, the modern nature of Christ, the modern Bible, the modern Trinity, were all formulated. To claim that Christianity today can be distinguished is, frankly, nonsense.
 
Algeria was part of the Empire.

I'm not saying Christianity exists because of Rome. But Christianity as it is formed today is a distinctly Roman-based institution, even the non-Catholic variants. Under the organization of the Emperor, the modern nature of Christ, the modern Bible, the modern Trinity, were all formulated. To claim that Christianity today can be distinguished is, frankly, nonsense.

Christianity was never really a roman thing, just as Buddism was never a chinese one.
 
Christianity was never really a roman thing, just as Buddism was never a chinese one.

I don't buy that. Even the Gospel story involves Rome, substantially so. Christianity itself took a form appealing to the gentile Romans.
 
I don't buy that. Even the Gospel story involves Rome, substantially so. Christianity itself took a form appealing to the gentile Romans.
Rome was influential, but the ideas were not at their heart Roman. If a new branch of Hinduism had formed in 1890 and somehow spread to Britain it would still clearly not be a British religion. A British influenced segment of Indian culture yes, but not British, even if the Brits converted and created the English Matha it would still clearly be of Indian origin. Christianity is similarly Israeli/Hebrew, it comes from a totally different paradigm of religious thought from Roman beliefs.
 
Yes. Christianity today is defined and shaped by the initial decisions made through its involvement in Rome.
A lot of places under European rule in the 16th-20th centuries had new philosophies emerge during their occupation and were shaped to a degree by European rule. We those new philosophies European?
 
A lot of places under European rule in the 16th-20th centuries had new philosophies emerge during their occupation and were shaped to a degree by European rule. We those new philosophies European?
The new developed ones? Yes, I'd say they're European in character.
 
The conversation seemed to have generally concluded in a debate over the definition of Christianity and whether or not it counts as a "Roman" influence later in history.
But does it really matter when discussing the greatness of an empire?
 
Top