The Romans put a third (1/3) of the population of Gaul to the sword during the 7 year course of the Gallic Wars. The pagan, open-minded, Romans. The excesses of Nero were done in a pagan, open-minded Rome. Have the Abrahamic religions done bad things? Sure. But so have all the other religions. In fact, people even do bad things based on no religious context at all (ethnic cleansings during '90s). People do bad things to each other. Most of the Roman Empire's worse excesses were done under pagan Consuls, proconsuls and Emperors. I think its rather ridiculous to pin the blame for atrocities committed after the adoption of Christianity on Christianity.
I think we're arguing about different things. Yes there were massacres such as those by Cesear in Gaul. However later the Gauls were largely integrated into the Roman state. The problem with religious divisions, when the religion in question claims absolute and unique is that they tend to become permanent and indivisible. This can start for partially political reasons but is very difficult to reverse, at least not without far more brutal massacres. Not saying that Christianity was more brutal per-see but that the divisions it generated were far deeper and more difficlt to bridge. Islam completed the destruction of the classical Medeterranean world but its reforming after the rise of Christianity would have been very difficult even if everything had gone right for a Justinian type figure. Once you start saying your view is the only valid one and anything else is not just wrong but evil then it compromise very difficult as there are always extremists who will insist on purity of doctrine.
Does the religious unity demonstrated at the Nicean Council mean anything? Was there religious dissession? Sure. But the Nicean Creed remains the basic tenet of both the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthdox Churches. I think that this group tends to ignore the ability of both the Eastern and Western branches of Christiandom to maintain theological and political unity, and the importance of that support in the survival of both the European West and the Byzantine Empire.
From what I've read there was a hell of a lot and it caused a lot of problems. Not just the clashes between empire and pope over primarcy. All the disputes with the Egyptians and Syrians not to mention the Donaists in N Africa. Also I think the hostility towards German settlers, who had often been accepted before, was at least in part because of the hostility between Orthodox and Arianist sects.
I'm arguing this based on the performace of the European West and the Byzantine Empire. The Persian Empire and Byzantine Empire fought for generations, but the Byzantine Empire survived and the Persian Empire fell. Did the Christian Church have something to do with that? I would argue it did. The internal cohesion and legitimacy leant to Byzantine regimes through the support of the Church was important in the Empire's ability to bounce back, even after catastrophic defeats.
To a degree. The money and support Heraclius got from the Orthodox church in the 610's which was so important in throwing back the Persian/Avar alliance has been called the 1st crusade. At the same time the doctrinal split between the sects made the initial Persian conquests markedly easier and even more so the latter Arab conquest. [Not saying the empire would have been sweetness and light with a more classical religious mix but you wouldn't have had the same degree of division and embitterment without it I think.
In the European West, the Church provided political stability in an age where the Germanic tribes had laid waste to the Western Empire. It served as a replacement for the fallen Western Empire, and its monasteries served to maintain literacy and protect some of ancient Rome's intellectual legacy.
To a degree yes. However by gaining a monoploy on literacy it might also have delayed later recovery. Also how much did the Germans, or probably more accurately the suppressed locals, lay waste to western Europe. Many of the Goths and other early german tribes sought to fit into the empire and admired much of its institutions and history. In earlier times, while Italy had initially been very important leading figures and later emperors themselves had come from all parts of the empire. In its last days there was a much deeper split between the 'old' Romans and the newcomers.
If the POD doesn't butterfly away the 3rd Century Crisis then I don't see how one could avoid the logical next step, which is that the Roman Empire would respond to the 3rd Century Crisis in exactly the same way- by turning to the Christian Church.
Possibly although it went through a hell of a lot and had at least partially recovered before the acceptance of Christianity as the state religion. The major persecutions were only really in the times during and after the 3rd centrury crisis.
Anyway, I don't mean to start any kind of flame war, but could the importance of the Christian Church in Roman and European political history please be acknowledged?
It was very important. However I think that the best chance for long term survive of the Roman empire would have required a rejection of Christianity and similar monodeistic system. True, without this Rome might have formed the basis of a western China type system which lacked the divisions and hence the development of ideas and individual rights which occurred in a divided society. Like you I don't want a flame war but I don't think the rise of Christianity was favourable to the continuation of the empire and classical civilisation.
Steve