The ERE paid the Huns lots of gold. In any event the ERE was spared major conflict on its eastern front at a critical time.
People keep forgetting that the christian pacifism I refer to was of limited duration--fourth, fifth centuries--and after that the ERE, in a more favorable position to attract christian support from the start, did not have that problem, perhaps because Augustine's view had spread.
Sure, but the goths or others could probably even more easily have crossed the dardenelles and ransacked the rich provinces of the ERE like Syria and Egypt. But they ultimately headed west.
Of course he wasn't as harsh as Diocletian. But he was obviously anti-christian, and this obviously didn't help state efforts to win christian support; it probably set them back.
As if the two examples of men
refusing to fight because of their christian faith, coupled with church fathers opposing soldiering for christians, and "thou shalt not kill' and chronic weakness coinciding with christian triumph were not evidence enough, consider the words of Origen. He made it clear that "
we do not fight for him (i.e. the ruler)...but
form an army of piety...." This, coming soon after the opposition of other, renowned christians to fighting,
is clear evidence for just what it indicates--
generally christians DID NOT FIGHT. At least not at the relevant time--200-500 CE or so.
On the basis of what christians clearly indicated in the third century, it may be predicted that if christianity won out, the empire's defenses were shot.. This in fact is exactly what a pagan warned would happen...
Why doubt it? If he wanted christianity to become a strong unifying force why not create a new more christian capital?
Lol it sure seemed like the entire citizenry of the empire, with few exceptions, were following the example of those two and the church fathers...
There's no doubt whatsoever that Tertullian was very influential in the early church. Those with heretical views "all fell under the lash of his pen." His trinitarian view prevailed and I'd assume other views of his did too....
Sure, AFTER christianity was no longer opposed to war.
I don't think those historians expressed an opinion on the role of christianity either way. AFAIK they just avoided a touchy subject.
Of course the christian population increased between Constantine and Julian! I once saw an estimate of the growth of christian population in the empire. IIRC it was about 1% c 200, 10% c 300 and about 50% around mid fourth century. But even if half the people in Julian's time were christian, and wouldn't fight or do so willingly, there would've still been an adequate pool of manpower for the army--without having to recruit too many barbarians. But, if as I suspect, christianity really "took off" by c 370-80 or so it was maybe 90% or even more, then there'd be issues....
Given the citizen unwillingness to fight by c 400, it seems more reasonable to believe they were representative of the populace at the time. Especially in view of christian attitudes at the time christianity won out....
@Sertorius126: It is true that the death of jesus was meant to redeem humanity or for salvation,
but that did not make the perpetrators popular, or acceptable!! In one of Ehrman's books he mentioned a story about the Roman who speared jesus being tortured for eternity--killed by a lion every day before reviving to face the ordeal the next day....The stigma of being a "christ killer" was why there were attempts to shift the blame to the jews.