What caused the fall of the (Western) Roman Empire?

Except there’s no solid proof that Christians didn’t fight.


Of course there is. As I wrote earlier, at least two examples can be cited of men who opposed service or fighting because of their faith. Besides Martin the best example, there is an account of a guy in North Africa who objected to service saying "I am a christian I can do no evil" e.g. kill. To my knowledge nobody was ever recorded as saying "I refuse to fight for this empire that has made poor peasants out of my family."

As the old rule goes, a line from an ancient historian is better than a whole book of speculations from us, and as Insaid before, if Xiphilinus believed that Christians could fight in the second century for Rome, when the empire wasn’t even remotely Christian, then why wouldn’t they fight later on, when it did become Christian?

As I tried to explain earlier, christians who served in the second century had not yet been exposed to the admonitions of church fathers c 200 who opposed this. And in addition to inherent pacifism, the historical baggage had become much worse in the fourth century--even after the great persecution of c 304 CE, there was Maximinus II Daia and Julian.


As I said, sporadic and localized, every religion had its martyrs, it doesn’t mean it was actively persecuted. The general attitude of the Roman Empire prior to Decius towards Christians is best represented by Pliny’s letters. From time to time, he’d ask Trajan “what am I supposed to do with this damn Christians?” And he’d say “If they don’t cause too much of a fuss, let ‘em go, they aren’t worth the trouble”. And they weren’t, since they weren’t even that widespread until the late third century.

But many Romans saw them as a threat as early as the second. In fact if you read Christianity the first three Thousand Years, you'll see that christian pacifism was already alarming to Roman authorities by c 200. Origen's response to a pagan critic is an indication of that.
In any event, the State had a big, clear role in anti-christian activity in the fourth century, down to Julian, and this may have played an important role in christian abandonment of the State--in the sense of refusing to fight for it-- when they won out.


And why should we suppose that Eusebius and Lactantius were hypocrites? There were a lot of Christians that didn’t necessarily agree with Constantine and lived to tell the tale, although disgraced and branded heretics.

Lol, well not everybody has the guts to endure that.

Besides, it’s not like Goldsworthy doesn’t blame the great estate owners same as Heater and Hughes do.

Heather blamed the Huns, in part for driving the goths into the empire, but Rome had dealt with terrible external threats before. Goldsworthy blames increased corruption. The latter made some interesting observations about the weakness of the empire, though, as did Ferrill.


Yeah, and that large army, also composed of Christians like Valentinian and his brother, got trounced,

It failed in a strategic sense, but tactically it remained proficient and the point is, the Romans down to the time of Julian retained the ability to raise huge armies despite earlier setbacks.


and then another large army got trounced at Adrianople,

Yep and by that time it was a christian army, which had to be implored to fight, and was ridiculed by Zosimus.

Christians aren’t to blame for these gigantic losses, except maybe in the regard that the fighting armies were led by Christian generals.

I didn't say they were to blame for tactical errors just the chronic weakness due to loss of martial spirit and willingness to fight.
 
Of course there is. As I wrote earlier, at least two examples can be cited of men who opposed service or fighting because of their faith. Besides Martin the best example, there is an account of a guy in North Africa who objected to service saying "I am a christian I can do no evil" e.g. kill. To my knowledge nobody was ever recorded as saying "I refuse to fight for this empire that has made poor peasants out of my family."

It means that he wouldn’t kill, period. He could have been under Roman rule, Berber rule, Vandal rule, this guy refused to kill, not to serve the empire because it was evil. And he was one guy. There’s no example of Christians ever objecting to serve because the empire was the source of evil.



As I tried to explain earlier, christians who served in the second century had not yet been exposed to the admonitions of church fathers c 200 who opposed this. And in addition to inherent pacifism, the historical baggage had become much worse in the fourth century--even after the great persecution of c 304 CE, there was Maximinus II Daia and Julian.

Julian’s “persecution”, which mainly consisted in prohibiting Christians to teach, was so unpopular that even his supporters were embarrassed by it. As for Maximinus, his persecution was more reactive than proactive. Pagans went to him asking him if they could slaughter a few Christians and he’d say “by all means folks, I won’t stop you”. If Christians living under a Christian emperor would really blame the whole empire for what those two guys did in the past, than they’d sure be a petty bunch.




But many Romans saw them as a threat as early as the second. In fact if you read Christianity the first three Thousand Years, you'll see that christian pacifism was already alarming to Roman authorities by c 200. Origen's response to a pagan critic is an indication of that.
In any event, the State had a big, clear role in anti-christian activity in the fourth century, down to Julian, and this may have played an important role in christian abandonment of the State--in the sense of refusing to fight for it-- when they won out.

For one thing, there is and never was any unique Christian faith. Some Christians contemporary to Origen would have quickly kept their distance from him, and indeed later on, he was branded as heretic. There surely were some Christians who didn’t want to fight, in general, not because they loathed the empire, same as I bet there surely were pagans who didn’t want to serve, in general. In the same way, there are Christians who fought for the empire, so I honestly fail to see how the empire, in its prime, was supposed to be worried by a few of its citizens refusing to take up arms. Annoyed perhaps, but threatened is too much of a stretch.

In the fourth century, Julian was the only emperor who actively persecuted Christians in the whole empire for the grand total of what, two years? And his persecution wasn’t even that aggressive, since he knew that he’d have gotten lynched for anything too harsh. The State, on the contrary, played an active, testified and supportive role for Christianity.




Lol, well not everybody has the guts to endure that.
Or they could simply shut up and live an uneventful life safely ensconced in a Christian empire. The point is, they didn’t need to say anything in support of the emperor, if they did, it’s because they wanted to.



Heather blamed the Huns, in part for driving the goths into the empire, but Rome had dealt with terrible external threats before. Goldsworthy blames increased corruption. The latter made some interesting observations about the weakness of the empire, though, as did Ferrill.

One doesn’t exclude the other, but neither mention Christians as relevant to it. Heather makes a point of proving us that Christians were supporting the empire same as pagans.




It failed in a strategic sense, but tactically it remained proficient and the point is, the Romans down to the time of Julian retained the ability to raise huge armies despite earlier setbacks.

Yes, as I mentioned, there were several battles after that were huge armies got mauled in late fourth century, when Christians were the majority.




Yep and by that time it was a christian army, which had to be implored to fight, and was ridiculed by Zosimus.

Bud, you can’t take a Christian hater like Zosimus at face value same as you can’t take Christian pagan haters at face value. Zosimus’ history alternative title was basically “how Christians ruined everything”, we gotta use him with caution.



I didn't say they were to blame for tactical errors just the chronic weakness due to loss of martial spirit and willingness to fight.

I know, it was ironic, since the Christians wouldn’t fight because of loss of martial spirit and willingness were the ones leading and composing the armies in the late fourth century.

Look, you’re championing an idea that’s been long abandoned by contemporary consensus, but if you want to believe that Christians hated the empire and refused to fight for it, that’s fine, everybody’s entitled to its opinion. You have to admit though, if we all actually believed that Christians wouldn’t fight because they were pacifists, then the Middle Ages wouldn’t make any sense.
 
Unfortunately this thread seems to have been hijacked by Starman who is using to make largely discredited and conjectural arguments that Christianity caused the fall. Let's assume for the moment that he is right that military weakness correlated with the increasing prominence of Christianity (I actually think he's off by 50 years but let's set that aside). Even if this is true a basic rule of any analysis is that correlation does not equal causation. Further, the Christianity caused the fall argument has been widely rejected by scholars studying this issue. Simply asserting that they are wrong is actually not a particularly compelling approach. A couple of basic issues that continue to be ignored by your colleague. First, the empire continued in the East despite the east being the intellectual center of Christianity. Two, the successor states to the Western Empire were both Christian and extremely militaristic.
 
Right the fact that Constantine had designed it to be christian friendly--free of the pagan associations of Rome--meant that the new christian population could better relate to it, hence was somewhat more willing to fight for it, although it was still very lucky to be less heavily targeted than the west in the 5th century.

There's precisely zero evidence that even a noticeable minority of fourth-century Christians thought that Rome/the West/the Empire in general was too tainted by paganism to be worth defending. Indeed, they were more likely to think that the Empire was God's instrument for spreading Christianity throughout the world.

Also, Rome was the head of the Church as well as of the pagan Empire, Constantinople was officially called New Rome, the Bishops of Constantinople based their claims to importance on their city's status as the New Rome, and the east continued to call itself the Roman Empire down to 1453. So not only did Rome have strong Christian associations as well as pagan ones, but the East had strong Roman associations as well as strong Christian ones.

Not the fault of the state and this was not anti-christian but an internal issue.

It was the fault of the state; Arianism got a huge boost from Imperial patronage, and withered away pretty quickly after Theodosius switched the Empire to supporting Catholicism over Arianism. And why would a random Catholic being persecuted by Arian heretics be any more likely to fight than a random Catholic being persecuted by pagans?

But even in the third century the Goths and others had raided far and wide in the Aegean, eastern Mediterranean and Asia Minor as well as in the balkans. Had it not been for the Classis Alexandrina and Classis Syriaca (sp?) there's no telling what might've happened. It would've been infinitely worse.

Yes, but it's much harder to launch large-scale invasions by sea than by land. That's why even at the height of the Gothic raiding it was just that, raiding, rather than invading and permanently occupying territory.

Btw I noticed in Heather's book at one point the Huns did cross into Asia Minor, but apparently decided not to go that way; the point is they could've, like preceding marauders, but just didn't.

Heather's explanation is that the Huns were still located much further east than they would be under Atilla. So in a TL where they remained there and kept threatening Asia, perhaps the East would do worse, but as it was, they soon ended up moving somewhere where they couldn't do so much damage.

Lol, unfortunately, the christian triumph c 370-80 or so correlates with the onset of chronic military weakness. There is excellent grounds for believing most citizens didn't want to serve or fight in the late 4rth century, the same time they turned to christianity. Put two and two together.

Temporal coincidence doesn't necessarily equal causation. Also, I think the Christian triumph would be more accurately dated to 300-360 or so; by Julian's time, even pagans thought his attempts to revive civic paganism quixotic.
 
Of course there is. As I wrote earlier, at least two examples can be cited of men who opposed service or fighting because of their faith. Besides Martin the best example, there is an account of a guy in North Africa who objected to service saying "I am a christian I can do no evil" e.g. kill. To my knowledge nobody was ever recorded as saying "I refuse to fight for this empire that has made poor peasants out of my family."
So...do you have any evidence that’s not anecdotal? Because what you’re giving is not evidence.

But hey, since the US had conscientious objectors in WWII I guess that explains why the population refused to fight. Wait...
 
Yeah, @starman, you really ought to stop posting several times in a row like that. It's annoying, and it makes you look like you're trying to win by volume rather than quality of argument.
Yes, but it's much harder to launch large-scale invasions by sea than by land. That's why even at the height of the Gothic raiding it was just that, raiding, rather than invading and permanently occupying territory.
Also, your citation of the Classes provides evidence that the state apparatus of the Christian empire was in fact able to repel barbarians in the East. The fact that the East was more Christian, and would have had more 'conscientious objectors' by your speculation, is shown to have no bearing on the ability to repel barbarians.


If we were talking about the Muslim Conquests, there might be a broader point to be made (though even then I would argue that the religious disputes and persecutions in the early Byzantine empire were essentially political disputes cloaked in religious ones--religion became a simple metric of judging someone's politics the way, say, abortion is in the US today) about Christianity weakening the Empire...but we're not.
 
It means that he wouldn’t kill, period. He could have been under Roman rule, Berber rule, Vandal rule, this guy refused to kill, not to serve the empire because it was evil. And he was one guy. There’s no example of Christians ever objecting to serve because the empire was the source of evil.

I can assure you the guy was in Roman North Africa. He refused to serve, not because he hated the empire but because he "could do no evil" e.g. kill. Same was true of Martin later. There may not be no citable examples of christians refusing to serve or fight because they thought the empire was evil but it's quite likely some did feel that way. Every time they looked at a passion scene they saw Roman soldiers abusing and killing christ. The book of revelation referred to Rome as "the great harlot." And a key church father of c 200 not only opposed military service in general but evidently opposed service in the Roman army specifically.

Julian’s “persecution”, which mainly consisted in prohibiting Christians to teach, was so unpopular that even his supporters were embarrassed by it. As for Maximinus, his persecution was more reactive than proactive. Pagans went to him asking him if they could slaughter a few Christians and he’d say “by all means folks, I won’t stop you”. If Christians living under a Christian emperor would really blame the whole empire for what those two guys did in the past, than they’d sure be a petty bunch.

But the long history of persecution and martyrdoms was still fresh in christian memory, and it's noteworthy that even after Constantine the empire produced someone like Julian, which may have indicated the empire just couldn't be trusted; it wasn't their natural ally.

There surely were some Christians who didn’t want to fight, in general, not because they loathed the empire,

I think some did; it depended on the individual.

same as I bet there surely were pagans who didn’t want to serve, in general. In the same way, there are Christians who fought for the empire, so I honestly fail to see how the empire, in its prime, was supposed to be worried by a few of its citizens refusing to take up arms. Annoyed perhaps, but threatened is too much of a stretch.

But even c 200 christianity was growing. Even a pagan critic said in effect it appealed to "impressionable young people."

In the fourth century, Julian was the only emperor who actively persecuted Christians in the whole empire for the grand total of what, two years?

Only because he fell in battle, he wasn't overthrown because of his anti-christian views.

And his persecution wasn’t even that aggressive, since he knew that he’d have gotten lynched for anything too harsh. The State, on the contrary, played an active, testified and supportive role for Christianity.

Generally the fourth century state tried to win christian support but there appears to have been inadequate reciprocity....

One doesn’t exclude the other, but neither mention Christians as relevant to it. Heather makes a point of proving us that Christians were supporting the empire same as pagans.

Lol, well it's remarkable then that the empire by c 400 relied heavily on barbarians not (christian) citizen soldiers...

Bud, you can’t take a Christian hater like Zosimus at face value same as you can’t take Christian pagan haters at face value. Zosimus’ history alternative title was basically “how Christians ruined everything”, we gotta use him with caution.

Well, he must've been fairly near the mark considering that the State seems to have given up on citizen recruits.

I know, it was ironic, since the Christians wouldn’t fight because of loss of martial spirit and willingness were the ones leading and composing the armies in the late fourth century.

Lol sure, the ones who had to be implored to fight just before Adrianople and who the state soon gave up on...

Look, you’re championing an idea that’s been long abandoned by contemporary consensus,

In one of his works, Michael Grant included christianity among the factors responsible for the fall; I understand Momigliano did the same.

... but if you want to believe that Christians hated the empire and refused to fight for it, that’s fine, everybody’s entitled to its opinion. You have to admit though, if we all actually believed that Christians wouldn’t fight because they were pacifists, then the Middle Ages wouldn’t make any sense.

Yet again....christian pacifism seems to have lasted down to the fifth century, except to an extent in the ERE, yet was eventually abandoned in part due to the views of Augustine.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, @starman, you really ought to stop posting several times in a row like that. It's annoying, and it makes you look like you're trying to win by volume rather than quality of argument.

Well there's more than one post to address...

The fact that the East was more Christian, and would have had more 'conscientious objectors' by your speculation, is shown to have no bearing on the ability to repel barbarians.

As I wrote before the ERE just wasn't as heavily targeted. Notwithstanding the possibility of more christians being willing to fight for it, it was quite lucky in that barbarians didn't attack very deeply into it and the sassanids were quiet.
 
A couple of basic issues that continue to be ignored by your colleague. First, the empire continued in the East despite the east being the intellectual center of Christianity. Two, the successor states to the Western Empire were both Christian and extremely militaristic.


Ignored?? I already addressed those points. The ERE yet again, survived because it wasn't as heavily targeted in the fifth century and perhaps, because it already had more christian support than the WERE, where pagans continued to exert influence on government to c 400. As for the barbarian successors, they didn't have the anti-military admonitions of c 200 church fathers nor the historical baggage of the Empire. Passion scenes didn't depict goths or Alans killing christ.
 
There's precisely zero evidence that even a noticeable minority of fourth-century Christians thought that Rome/the West/the Empire in general was too tainted by paganism to be worth defending.

Lol, regardless of their reasons, the bottom line is that the new christian population of the empire c 400 was not willing to fight for it.

Indeed, they were more likely to think that the Empire was God's instrument for spreading Christianity throughout the world.

Lol, but not something to defend by fighting it seems.....

Also, Rome was the head of the Church as well as of the pagan Empire, Constantinople was officially called New Rome, the Bishops of Constantinople based their claims to importance on their city's status as the New Rome, and the east continued to call itself the Roman Empire down to 1453. So not only did Rome have strong Christian associations as well as pagan ones, but the East had strong Roman associations as well as strong Christian ones.

But it's noteworthy that Constantine felt the need to create Constantinople as a new capital free of the pagan associations of Rome...

Yes, but it's much harder to launch large-scale invasions by sea than by land.

But the vandals and anglo-saxons did precisely that in the fifth century.

Temporal coincidence doesn't necessarily equal causation. Also, I think the Christian triumph would be more accurately dated to 300-360 or so; by Julian's time, even pagans thought his attempts to revive civic paganism quixotic.

I don't think the christians really won out until c 370-80. Had they really been in a commanding position by 360, Julian probably would've been overthrown.
 
Lol, regardless of their reasons, the bottom line is that the new christian population of the empire c 400 was not willing to fight for it.

You can't just say "regardless of their reasons". If you're going to claim that Christianity was responsible for the fall of the Roman Empire, you need to show that the Empire's subjects were unwilling to fight because they were Christian. If there's no causal connection between their being Christian and their being unwilling to fight, then there's no meaningful sense in which Christianity caused the fall of Rome.

But it's noteworthy that Constantine felt the need to create Constantinople as a new capital free of the pagan associations of Rome...

Not necessarily. Emperors had based themselves closer to the frontiers for decades by Constantine's time, and often chose to expand and beautify their new bases. Constantine's building projects in Constantinople were an unusually large-scale version of this, but were fundamentally no different to the improvements made to other Imperial capitals such as Trier, Antioch, Nicomedia, etc.

But the vandals and anglo-saxons did precisely that in the fifth century.

I said "much harder", not "impossible". Though even these aren't good examples: the Vandals only crossed the few miles across the Straits of Gibraltar and walked the rest of the way, so by the time they reached Proconsular Africa they were acting as a land force rather than a naval one; and the Anglo-Saxons were initially invited to settle in Britain as foederati, meaning that they didn't have to fight to become established on the island. Even then, the Saxon conquest of England took much longer than the barbarian conquests of most of continental Europe, so it's quite probable that Britain would have been conquered more quickly if it had been part of the mainland.
 
I can assure you the guy was in Roman North Africa. He refused to serve, not because he hated the empire but because he "could do no evil" e.g. kill. Same was true of Martin later. There may not be no citable examples of christians refusing to serve or fight because they thought the empire was evil but it's quite likely some did feel that way. Every time they looked at a passion scene they saw Roman soldiers abusing and killing christ. The book of revelation referred to Rome as "the great harlot." And a key church father of c 200 not only opposed military service in general but evidently opposed service in the Roman army specifically.

What I meant is, he could have been born anywhere, and still he wouldn’t have fought the way I see it. Unless you’re going to provide factual evidence, it’s all speculation on your part.

Babylon was referred to as the great harlot, not Rome. And no matter what Origen said, as I mentioned, there were lots of Christians who fought nonetheless, there’s proof of that, while there’s no proof whatsoever of Christians refusing to serve the Roman Empire because of its evil nature.



But the long history of persecution and martyrdoms was still fresh in christian memory, and it's noteworthy that even after Constantine the empire produced someone like Julian, which may have indicated the empire just couldn't be trusted; it wasn't their natural ally.

It almost looks like you interviewed them personally the way you’re so sure about what they had in their minds. Thing is, speculation aside, there’s no proof that any Christian felt like the Roman Empire after Constantine was their enemy, only proof to the contrary, and that’s a fact.



I think some did; it depended on the individual.

I bet you lots of pagans did too. It’s got nothing to do with religion.



But even c 200 christianity was growing. Even a pagan critic said in effect it appealed to "impressionable young people."

Growing, yes, but it still had to find its identity, and guess what, it never truly did. Some Christians championed pacifisism as other championed defending the empire. What they never championed, however, was the destruction of the empire, another fact.



Only because he fell in battle, he wasn't overthrown because of his anti-christian views.

Lybanius and Ammianus, hard core fans of his, were embarrassed by his actions against Christians, and they were pagans. That says pretty much everything. And you keep ignoring that said persecutions were significantly milder than anything seen in the past.



Generally the fourth century state tried to win christian support but there appears to have been inadequate reciprocity....

Proof? Facts?



Lol, well it's remarkable then that the empire by c 400 relied heavily on barbarians not (christian) citizen soldiers...

There’s a lot of economical, social and political reasons for that that I’ve listed above. Also, hold onto something, cause this might come as a shocker. Some Barbarian chiefs were Christian themselves.



Well, he must've been fairly near the mark considering that the State seems to have given up on citizen recruits.

Nothing to do with religion.

Lol sure, the ones who had to be implored to fight just before Adrianople and who the state soon gave up on...

Ammian, the most reliable source, makes no mention of that.



In one of his works, Michael Grant included christianity among the factors responsible for the fall; I understand Momigliano did the same.
Historiography of the past century. Averil Cameron, Peter Heater, Ian Hughes, Goldsworty himself, historians still alive and breathing, none of them blame Christianity.


Yet again....christian pacifism seems to have lasted down to the fifth century, except to an extent in the ERE, yet was eventually abandoned in part due to the views of Augustine.

Yeah, before Augustine Christians were like “Yay folks, come along, spoil our land, sack our home, kill our families, rape our women, all on the house”. Christians fought as hard as pagans if their homes were in any real danger, whether on their own or in an imperial army it’s irrelevant.
 
Ignored?? I already addressed those points. The ERE yet again, survived because it wasn't as heavily targeted in the fifth century and perhaps, because it already had more christian support than the WERE, where pagans continued to exert influence on government to c 400. As for the barbarian successors, they didn't have the anti-military admonitions of c 200 church fathers nor the historical baggage of the Empire. Passion scenes didn't depict goths or Alans killing christ.

Proof that any Christian held Rome responsible for killing Jesus and saw it as inherently evil? Because unless you questioned those Christians yourselves, I don’t see any.
 
I think it doesn't make much sense to blame one factor and exclude all the other ones. As soon as the sum of bad factors is bigger than the sum of good factors, a society will break down.
 
I can assure you the guy was in Roman North Africa. He refused to serve, not because he hated the empire but because he "could do no evil" e.g. kill. Same was true of Martin later. There may not be no citable examples of christians refusing to serve or fight because they thought the empire was evil but it's quite likely some did feel that way. Every time they looked at a passion scene they saw Roman soldiers abusing and killing christ.
I'm not sure why this is so hard to comprehend but, one person is not evidence for the behavior of a group. You continue to provide supposition, but no actual EVIDENCE for the claim.
 
I'm not sure why this is so hard to comprehend but, one person is not evidence for the behavior of a group. You continue to provide supposition, but no actual EVIDENCE for the claim.


Didn't I say "Same true of Martin later?"
 
Proof that any Christian held Rome responsible for killing Jesus and saw it as inherently evil? Because unless you questioned those Christians yourselves, I don’t see any.


At least one influential church father opposed christians serving in the army, based partly on the killing of christ, and not just pacifism.
 
You can't just say "regardless of their reasons". If you're going to claim that Christianity was responsible for the fall of the Roman Empire, you need to show that the Empire's subjects were unwilling to fight because they were Christian. If there's no causal connection between their being Christian and their being unwilling to fight, then there's no meaningful sense in which Christianity caused the fall of Rome.

Of course there's a causal connection. I already showed that christians were unwilling to fight because of their religion. At least two church fathers told them not to serve in the army or fight for precisely this reason. And sure enough, when christianity became predominant, the Empire grew much weaker. (This in fact, was precisely what a pagan philosopher had once warned would happen.) Again put two and two together. :)



Not necessarily. Emperors had based themselves closer to the frontiers for decades by Constantine's time, and often chose to expand and beautify their new bases. Constantine's building projects in Constantinople were an unusually large-scale version of this, but were fundamentally no different to the improvements made to other Imperial capitals such as Trier, Antioch, Nicomedia, etc.

Constantinople was selected partly for strategic considerations, but also as a new capital "where the new christian religion could grow and develop without the pagan associations of Rome."
 
At least one influential church father opposed christians serving in the army, based partly on the killing of christ, and not just pacifism.

Who? Quote? Source? Besides, you keep mentioning Saint Martin, but some actually believed that he served in the army for the 25 years required. And he never preached for the fall of the empire.
 
What I meant is, he could have been born anywhere, and still he wouldn’t have fought the way I see it. Unless you’re going to provide factual evidence, it’s all speculation on your part.

The North African guy who objected to serving in the army said "I am a christian I can do no evil" e.g. kill.

Babylon was referred to as the great harlot, not Rome.

Among early christians "Babylon" was synonymous with Rome. In the first century they felt it prudent to use "code words."

And no matter what Origen said, as I mentioned, there were lots of Christians who fought nonetheless, there’s proof of that, while there’s no proof whatsoever of Christians refusing to serve the Roman Empire because of its evil nature.

But proof that two did because they opposed killing due to their faith. And we should expect that at least some refused to fight because they viewed the Roman army as anti-christian because this is what a very influential man in the church told them.

It almost looks like you interviewed them personally the way you’re so sure about what they had in their minds. Thing is, speculation aside, there’s no proof that any Christian felt like the Roman Empire after Constantine was their enemy, only proof to the contrary, and that’s a fact.

I didn't say they felt the Roman Empire was their enemy. Just the army, in the view of some. Or they just wouldn't
serve.

I bet you lots of pagans did too. It’s got nothing to do with religion.

As long as the empire was pagan it could bounce back very well. After christianity won out it became a pathetic pussycat, compared to its former self. Correlation by itself may not be causation. But it's so logical and reasonable. It's predictable that if a religion long persecuted by the state and believing in pacifism at the relevant time wins out, the State will suffer a considerable loss of critical backing.

Some Christians championed pacifisism as other championed defending the empire.

By far the most influential christians opposed service and their view wasn't countered until after it was too late for the WRE.

who seems to have been What they never championed, however, was the destruction of the empire, another fact.

I never said they wanted the destruction of the empire just didn't support it enough.

There’s a lot of economical, social and political reasons for that that I’ve listed above. Also, hold onto something, cause this might come as a shocker. Some Barbarian chiefs were Christian themselves

Had other factors been decisive Rome would've fallen in the third century when many problems were as bad or worse. Yet again, church father pacifism and historical baggage were problems for just the Roman army.

Historiography of the past century. Averil Cameron, Peter Heater, Ian Hughes, Goldsworty himself, historians still alive and breathing, none of them blame Christianity.

It might cause problems if they did like ruffling christian feathers and affecting tenure or something. In any event one shouldn't argue from authority.


Yeah, before Augustine Christians were like “Yay folks, come along, spoil our land, sack our home, kill our families, rape our women, all on the house”. Christians fought as hard as pagans if their homes were in any real danger, whether on their own or in an imperial army it’s irrelevant.

Down to the time of Julian the army remained big and strong. The christian empire especially post 408 was pathetically passive in the face of barbarian incursions.
 
Last edited:
Top