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

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.


Tertullian IIRC, though Hippolytus had similar views on this, and Origen too. I didn't say Martin preached for the fall of the empire! From what I've read he served as required by law, since he was the son of a soldier, but would not fight.
 
Tertullian IIRC, though Hippolytus had similar views on this, and Origen too. I didn't say Martin preached for the fall of the empire! From what I've read he served as required by law, since he was the son of a soldier, but would not fight.

Origen claimed the death of Jesus was made as a pact with Lucifer for men’s salvation.
Tertullian claimed the death of Jesus was meant to redeem humanity.
Hippolytus claimed that at the end of the Roman Empire, the Antichrist would come, clearly meaning that Christianity is doomed after the fall of the empire, until salvation comes.

Martin could have abstained from joining the ranks by bribery, he was rich enough for that, and many rich pagans did, that’s rather telling, even his biographer was embarrassed by his tenure with the army.
 
Well there's more than one post to address...

Then quote multiple posts in the same post?

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.

The Sassanids were only quiet because Rome was paying them massive sums of gold.

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.

Not really? There were many more 'heretics' in the East, who as OTL shows in their response to Arab invasions were if anything the least supportive group of the Empire. The West had if anything a much more unified support base from its Christian population.

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

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

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

The Vandals were able to cross the Straits of Gibraltar largely unopposed and from there the conquest of North Africa was mostly a land affair. Meanwhile the Saxons were invited in as Foederati and even then they took decades to conquer England.

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.

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.

Yeah, calling Julian a persecutor in the same category as even Diocletian doesn't really portray him accurately. It was more a preference for Pagans combined with a few largely unenforceable bans on Christians teaching.

At least one influential church father opposed christians serving in the army, based partly on the killing of christ, and not just pacifism.

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. :)

A few isolated examples is not enough to show a causal connection.

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."

Constantine did his best to harness Christian support without fully committing himself personally to the religion until his deathbed. With you not having sourced your quote there, I can't be certain, but I'd guess that this is more propagandistic than anything.

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.

Some does not equal the entire citizenry of Rome. And I think you're drastically overestimating the ability of teachers who were controversial even in their lifetime to spread their ideas across the entire Empire and have them broadly accepted.

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.

Yep, I totally look at the reign of Imp. Caes. Flavius Petrus Sabbatius Justinianus Augustus and think oh yeah, he's a pale shadow of the 3rd Century CE. Oh, wait, no I don't, because the Eastern Christian Empire was indeed able to spring back to a very large extent.

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

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.

Argument from authority is only fallacious when the authority is 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.

If it remained strong until Julian that's a generation or two of a strong Christian army between him and Constantine. Your speculation about the Christian population not increasing until after Julian instead of during and after Constantine as is generally accepted is entirely that, speculation without firm evidence, and thus can be safely ignored.

Tertullian IIRC, though Hippolytus had similar views on this, and Origen too. I didn't say Martin preached for the fall of the empire! From what I've read he served as required by law, since he was the son of a soldier, but would not fight.

Once again, a few isolated examples does not make the case that the entire Army was refusing to take up arms. If anything, these examples probably made it into the records precisely because they were so rare.
 
The Sassanids were only quiet because Rome was paying them massive sums of gold.

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.

Not really? There were many more 'heretics' in the East, who as OTL shows in their response to Arab invasions were if anything the least supportive group of the Empire. The West had if anything a much more unified support base from its Christian population.

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.

The Vandals were able to cross the Straits of Gibraltar largely unopposed and from there the conquest of North Africa was mostly a land affair. Meanwhile the Saxons were invited in as Foederati and even then they took decades to conquer England.

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.

Yeah, calling Julian a persecutor in the same category as even Diocletian doesn't really portray him accurately. It was more a preference for Pagans combined with a few largely unenforceable bans on Christians teaching.

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.

A few isolated examples is not enough to show a causal connection.

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...


Constantine did his best to harness Christian support without fully committing himself personally to the religion until his deathbed. With you not having sourced your quote there, I can't be certain, but I'd guess that this is more propagandistic than anything.

Why doubt it? If he wanted christianity to become a strong unifying force why not create a new more christian capital?

Some does not equal the entire citizenry of Rome. And I think you're drastically overestimating the ability of teachers who were controversial even in their lifetime to spread their ideas across the entire Empire and have them broadly accepted.

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....

Yep, I totally look at the reign of Imp. Caes. Flavius Petrus Sabbatius Justinianus Augustus and think oh yeah, he's a pale shadow of the 3rd Century CE. Oh, wait, no I don't, because the Eastern Christian Empire was indeed able to spring back to a very large extent.

Sure, AFTER christianity was no longer opposed to war.

Argument from authority is only fallacious when the authority is irrelevant.

I don't think those historians expressed an opinion on the role of christianity either way. AFAIK they just avoided a touchy subject.

If it remained strong until Julian that's a generation or two of a strong Christian army between him and Constantine. Your speculation about the Christian population not increasing until after Julian instead of during and after Constantine as is generally accepted is entirely that, speculation without firm evidence, and thus can be safely ignored.

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....


Once again, a few isolated examples does not make the case that the entire Army was refusing to take up arms. If anything, these examples probably made it into the records precisely because they were so rare.

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.
 
Last edited:
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.

Yeah, the guy’s name was Longinus, and guess what, he’s a saint of the Christian Church. All you’re giving us is speculation, no solid fact that Christians were overwhelmingly opposed to serving in the army, or to the Romans.

Also, it’s blatantly obvious you never read anything from Peter Heater, and yet you pretend to know of what he wrote. He dedicates several chapters in his “the fall of Rome” explaining us how Christians supported the empire and the emperor, well before Augustine. And believing that such scholars would be afraid of “ruffling Christian feathers” because they don’t share your opinion is outrageously arrogant. Objectivity and intellectual honesty are the prime traits of every good historian, if they had believed Christianity was to be held responsible for the fall of Rome, they would have said so loud and clear.
 
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.

What is your basis for believing that passion plays had an impact on support for the empire. If you cannot cite contemporary documents (e.g. a Western Roman saying gee I don't want to join the army because that passion play says the empire is bad) you are merely engaging in conjecture and my criticism stands.
 
To answer OP's question I would probably start with Rome's failure to fully recover from the Crisis of the Third Century, and then from there go on to discuss the impact of climate change, the faults of the Roman economy, the rise of the Sassanids as a peer power, the development of Barbarian kingdoms along the Empire's northern frontier, the over extension of the roman army, the failure to fully reign in infighting, the reliance on foreign troops brought about by the expansion of citizenship, the decline of the Roman Navy, ect...

The fall of the Western Roman Empire was an event with more than one contributing factor.
 
The Sassanids were only quiet because Rome was paying them massive sums of gold.
Only on the mid of the 5th century, from 399-420 Persia was ruled by Yazdegerd I which swore to never go to war during his reign (which he did so), why nobody knows, but from his policies it seems it was probably to "clean the house" as royal authority in Iran has been declining since Shapur II. After the chaos that followed Yazdegerd's murder Bahram V took the throne and his first act was... war with Rome, in which the Christian troops of Rome... fought against the invaders. No one scored anything significant and the Empires signed a white peace... until 20 years later the Persians attacked again and once again the Christian troops of Rome fought against the invaders and only then the Sasanians scored a tribute to stay quiet, plus the Hephtalites were growing stronger in Khorasan and the Sasanians would stay busy there until Kavadh I in the early 500s.
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.
Two out of how many? If it 2 out of 5 that is quite a significant sample worth a correlation, if that is 2 out of 500 those are outlining opinions that doesn't necessarily translates in public opinion
 
Lot of good points made here but I'd like to add a few what I see are inherent structural weaknesses to the empire that made a fall likely barring massive reforms which have to take place at a much earlier date to be successful.

1. Tribal loyalty. In early days, Roman citizens felt tribal loyalty to the state and fought despite the uncertain economic benefits in return. Even after Marius reforms they signed up knowing that only victory and the general's purse would pay and supply them. In a multi-ethnic empire however, soldiers expect regular wages and pensions, otherwise motivation drops, conscripts are unreliable. Previously Auxilia fought for citizenship but the perks of citizenship vs peregrini/provincial became less and less as the empire wore on, and by 212 everyone had citizenship. The barbarians on the other hand fought out of tribal loyalty, for "free", with only success determining economic reward. That's a serious structural advantage mitigated only by size and numbers, but once the Migrations began and Persia strengthened that factor was increasingly lost for Rome.

2. The need to have so many troops at the frontiers creates problems with usurpation which are inherently difficult to overcome. This was less of a problem in the early days and in the Republic when Romans could readily be recruited to fight against outsiders again once the civil war was over (tribal loyalty), but by the late empire this was impossible, civil war losses could not be readily replaced.

3. In the early days of the empire, the concept of Italy as the master nation kept the provincials in line who didn't try to usurp imperial authority by making a hopeful power play themselves. As emperors increasingly came from the provinces, and Italy lost its central importance, and even the role of the Senate became inferior to equestrians, the psychological authoritative hierarchy broke down, leading to a loss of unity, paradoxically as Rome was becoming a melting pot of ethnicities.

4. In the Republic's days, Rome relied on tax revenue mostly from Italy and safe/rich provinces of the Mediterranean, however by late empire frontier provinces were economically more important to revenue because of development, while Italy and safe provinces saw lower taxes as a consequence. Thus barbarian raids and incursions had a more marked impact on imperial revenues than before, thus while previously Romans didn't particularly care if Gaul was ravaged by the Germans, they could deal with it in a few years time, now the loss was damaging. This forced the Roman army to transition into mobile frontier troops which could deal with small-time raids and skirmishes, fundamentally weakening its ability to fight large scale battles/wars (both logistical and training factors), as well as increasing the ratio of cavalry to infantry which bankrupted the treasury, ect.

5. The rapid incorporation of foreign troops into the legions diluted the effectiveness of the troops, including the loss of engineering expertise (previously a massive Roman advantage) as well as the patient/disciplined fighting approach that saw the Romans effectively conquer their empire, in favour of mostly Germanic fighting techniques, including the adoption of their weaponry.

6. The weakness of the imperial succession system which everyone knows about is compounded by the loss of previously harmonious relationship between the state and the military. The problem of course was that you had no long lasting political dynasties that inspired automatic legitimacy like the Julio Claudians did, directly descended from Augustus and Caesar. Better emperors managed to precariously balance the two, mediocre ones failed. Thus you had either soldier emperors that none of the politicians/elites trusted, or you had political elites as emperor that none of the soldiers trusted. The military and political establishments thus being divided, is going to produce serious instability.

7. In the aftermath of the Mid Third Century Crisis and Diocletian's reforms massively expanding the size of the state, this led to over-centralization, with local elites growing resentful of Rome, both for increased meddling in their local affairs, as well as the higher tax burden needed to support such an administration. The laissez-faire approach of the early Principate was all but abandoned, and taxes became crippling, all because Rome couldn't resist the temptation to centralize everything under the emperor's direct control. Centralized administration is also inefficient for an empire Rome's size.
 
Last edited:
What is your basis for believing that passion plays had an impact on support for the empire. If you cannot cite contemporary documents (e.g. a Western Roman saying gee I don't want to join the army because that passion play says the empire is bad) you are merely engaging in conjecture and my criticism stands.

I said passion scenes not plays. At least as far back as the early third century a very prominent and influential christian opposed christians serving in the Roman army because of what had happened in the passion--the spearing or killing of christ by Roman troops.
Considering his influence it wouldn't be surprising if some christians wouldn't serve on that basis--they saw passion scenes often enough--though just pacifism sufficed for others.
I have cited two examples of men who opposed fighting in the army because they were christian. To my knowledge, nobody has cited examples of men c 200-450 who stated they would not fight for economic or social reasons.
 
1. Tribal loyalty. In early days, Roman citizens felt tribal loyalty to the state and fought despite the uncertain economic benefits in return. Even after Marius reforms they signed up knowing that only victory and the general's purse would pay and supply them. In a multi-ethnic empire however, soldiers expect regular wages and pensions, otherwise motivation drops, conscripts are unreliable. Previously Auxilia fought for citizenship but the perks of citizenship vs peregrini/provincial became less and less as the empire wore on, and by 212 everyone had citizenship. The barbarians on the other hand fought out of tribal loyalty, for "free", with only success determining economic reward. That's a serious structural advantage mitigated only by size and numbers, but once the Migrations began and Persia strengthened that factor was increasingly lost for Rome.

But the Empire was still able to fight effectively late in the third century after these factors, and more, had become felt.

2. The need to have so many troops at the frontiers creates problems with usurpation which are inherently difficult to overcome. This was less of a problem in the early days and in the Republic when Romans could readily be recruited to fight against outsiders again once the civil war was over (tribal loyalty), but by the late empire this was impossible, civil war losses could not be readily replaced.

I beg to differ. Prior to the late 4rth century, the Empire had always been able to recover fairly rapidly from setbacks. The civil wars of the 190s didn't prevent Severus from taking Ctesiphon in 198. The terrible losses of the mid third century didn't prevent the victories of 268-98. And look at the very costly civil war c 350-53. Not one decade later, Julian led a huge army against Persia. He didn't fare well, but that's beside the point.

5. The rapid incorporation of foreign troops into the legions diluted the effectiveness of the troops, including the loss of engineering expertise (previously a massive Roman advantage) as well as the patient/disciplined fighting approach that saw the Romans effectively conquer their empire, in favour of mostly Germanic fighting techniques, including the adoption of their weaponry.

Ferrill claimed this long ago but his view was challenged by e.g. Elton. I don't think the problem was a decline in the quality of the army. It was a lack of sufficient soldiers, especially after 408. Even if the roman army had become "barbarized' that didn't necessarily mean it was no good. Goths, vandals, Huns and others proved that barbarian forces could be very effective.

7. In the aftermath of the Mid Third Century Crisis and Diocletian's reforms massively expanding the size of the state, this led to over-centralization, with local elites growing resentful of Rome, both for increased meddling in their local affairs, as well as the higher tax burden needed to support such an administration. The laissez-faire approach of the early Principate was all but abandoned, and taxes became crippling, all because Rome couldn't resist the temptation to centralize everything under the emperor's direct control. Centralized administration is also inefficient for an empire Rome's size.

Maybe so, but hardly fatal.
 
Yeah, the guy’s name was Longinus, and guess what, he’s a saint of the Christian Church.

Generally "christ killer" was a terrible stigma. The fictitious longinus may have been a saint in the eyes of some but....being killed by a lion every day for eternity gives some idea of the intense dislike people felt for those who killed christ (i.e. Roman soldiers depicted on passion scenes, despite attempts to blame the jews).

All you’re giving us is speculation, no solid fact that Christians were overwhelmingly opposed to serving in the army, or to the Romans.

It is a "solid fact" that highly influential figures in the early church opposed military service, that the commandments included "thou shalt not kill," that chronic military weakness coincided with the triumph of christianity in the west, and two examples can be cited of men who opposed fighting because of that faith. I know that none of these, individually, may be "solid" proof. But in the aggregate they constitute a strong case that no intellectually honest person should ignore.

Also, it’s blatantly obvious you never read anything from Peter Heater, and yet you pretend to know of what he wrote.

Lol, I've had his book on the fall of the empire for years. The name is spelled Heather btw.:)

He dedicates several chapters in his “the fall of Rome” explaining us how Christians supported the empire and the emperor, well before Augustine.

I saw that, and never said Heather blamed christianity! But I think you have it wrong. The empire was doing its best to win christian support, not that there was much reciprocity. If christians really "supported the empire" it would've been militarily much stronger than it was with no need to hire barbarians.

And believing that such scholars would be afraid of “ruffling Christian feathers” because they don’t share your opinion is outrageously arrogant. Objectivity and intellectual honesty are the prime traits of every good historian, if they had believed Christianity was to be held responsible for the fall of Rome, they would have said so loud and clear.

Gibbon did so, in an age of anticlerical rationalism. But no scholar lives and works in a vacuum. Inevitably the existing milieu has a bearing on their conclusions, or at least makes them reluctant to pursue certain ideas.
 
.... the reliance on foreign troops brought about by the expansion of citizenship,

If by "foreign troops" you mean men from the Danube area, they were a great asset not a liability.

The fall of the Western Roman Empire was an event with more than one contributing factor.

Oh I don't doubt it. It's noteworthy, though, that the Empire bounced back admirably from the many disasters of 250-60-- rampant inflation, plague, massive defeats, plundering, civil war....Everything went wrong at the time but the (prechristian) Empire still revived.
 
Generally "christ killer" was a terrible stigma. The fictitious longinus may have been a saint in the eyes of some but....being killed by a lion every day for eternity gives some idea of the intense dislike people felt for those who killed christ (i.e. Roman soldiers depicted on passion scenes, despite attempts to blame the jews).

Point is, some venerated him, some damned him, there was no general consensus, and it was about the man, not the empire.



It is a "solid fact" that highly influential figures in the early church opposed military service, that the commandments included "thou shalt not kill," that chronic military weakness coincided with the triumph of christianity in the west, and two examples can be cited of men who opposed fighting because of that faith. I know that none of these, individually, may be "solid" proof. But in the aggregate they constitute a strong case that no intellectually honest person should ignore.

And it’s a solid fact Christians fought in the army. Were there pacifists? Sure, as there were pagan pacifists, does it mean that Christians were universally opposed to the empire? Nope. Now as before, Christians were a lot more pragmatic than you think. If they wanted to fight, they’d fight, biblic mumbl jumbo aside.



Lol, I've had his book on the fall of the empire for years. The name is spelled Heather btw.:)
Blame that on the phone. In any case, why did you say he avoided the topic then? He clearly didn’t.



I saw that, and never said Heather blamed christianity! But I think you have it wrong. The empire was doing its best to win christian support, not that there was much reciprocity. If christians really "supported the empire" it would've been militarily much stronger than it was with no need to hire barbarians.

Except it was split in half, and the western half had suffered tremendous losses, and the wealthy estate owners wouldn’t provide the recruits. Still, the Christians senators complained every time pagans were employed, and as a matter of fact, barbarians like the Goths were Christians.


Gibbon did so, in an age of anticlerical rationalism. But no scholar lives and works in a vacuum. Inevitably the existing milieu has a bearing on their conclusions, or at least makes them reluctant to pursue certain ideas.

Please. I’m an atheist, I’ve got no love for religion, and yet I’m defending Christianity on this. It doesn’t have to be the “existing milieu”. Mere objectivity.
 
Last edited:
I think the whole question is a bit of a historiographical error. In all honesty, if Justinian's occupation of the West persisted there is a good chance that by the time of Heraclius the legal language of Byzantium would have remained Latin. Have one other POD, such as the Bishop of Rome not having primacy in the Church, and you might have what is perceived as a continuation of Rome, with a hiccup between Augustus Romulus and Justinian.

rBB_0525_0565.gif

Roman Empire under Justinian

rBB_0633_0633.gif

Roman Empire at its max under Heraclius

As we can see, the West, even at its peak under Heraclius, was mostly lost.

So, the real question is NOT what avoid's WRE collapse in the 5th century, but what boosts up the ERE in the 6th century. There is an easy answer to this: Justinian's Plague. Worse than "no taxes," "Christians didn't want to fight," "the crop yields dropped due to climate change," was the sudden and precipitous drop of demographics by almost 50 percent. There is a reason why ancient Rome fielded larger armies than the Byzantines. If we avoid the plague (i.e. some boat from india with a rat on it sinks before making it to Egypt) then the Roman world probably perists for a few more centuries. At that point, with PODs, who knows what happens. But, you will maintain a Latinized, Roman Empire with its capital in Constantinople, but with historiography being totally different. A bunch of English guys in the 1700s writing Roman history are not going to view the Byzantines as "not Rome" if Italy was part of the Byzantine Empire for another 3-4 centuries.
 
If by "foreign troops" you mean men from the Danube area, they were a great asset not a liability.



Oh I don't doubt it. It's noteworthy, though, that the Empire bounced back admirably from the many disasters of 250-60-- rampant inflation, plague, massive defeats, plundering, civil war....Everything went wrong at the time but the (prechristian) Empire still revived.

There’s a good deal of reasons for that that have nothing to do with Christianity, the two most important factors were competent leadership and the unity of the empire.
 
There’s a good deal of reasons for that that have nothing to do with Christianity, the two most important factors were competent leadership and the unity of the empire.


But even after Stilicho the leadership (as opposed to emperors) of the WRE was often quite good. Constantius, Aetius, Boniface and Majorian did the best they could under the circumstances. Unfortunately they didn't have regular Roman armies remotely equal to the challenges they faced.
As for unity, just because the WRE was separate from the ERE didn't mean it was limited to its own resources. Repeatedly, the ERE did what it could for the west, most notably in North Africa.
 
But even after Stilicho the leadership (as opposed to emperors) of the WRE was often quite good. Constantius, Aetius, Boniface and Majorian did the best they could under the circumstances. Unfortunately they didn't have regular Roman armies remotely equal to the challenges they faced.
As for unity, just because the WRE was separate from the ERE didn't mean it was limited to its own resources. Repeatedly, the ERE did what it could for the west, most notably in North Africa.

Yes, they were good, but their resources were heavily limited, because at the end of the day the ERE had its own stuff to deal with it. They pulled back reinforcements in 434 CE and 441 CE cause of the Persians and the Huns. Money from the East wasn’t shared with the West, and grain from the East wasn’t shared with the West. The East did help quite a lot, but a United empire would have achieved a lot more.
 
Point is, some venerated him, some damned him, there was no general consensus, and it was about the man, not the empire.

He and Pilate represented the empire. Or he represented the army.

And it’s a solid fact Christians fought in the army. Were there pacifists? Sure, as there were pagan pacifists, does it mean that Christians were universally opposed to the empire? Nope. Now as before, Christians were a lot more pragmatic than you think. If they wanted to fight, they’d fight, biblic mumbl jumbo aside.

Yet again, I didn't say christians were opposed to the empire... Just that most wouldn't fight for it, a problem which became serious when they became the great majority.

Blame that on the phone. In any case, why did you say he avoided the topic then? He clearly didn’t.

Of course he mentioned church state relations, I commented on that.

Except it was split in half, and the western half had suffered tremendous losses, and the wealthy estate owners wouldn’t provide the recruits. Still, the Christians senators complained every time pagans were employed, and as a matter of fact, barbarians like the Goths were Christians.

Estate owners were obligated to provide recruits and sons of soldiers were supposed to serve. True some estate owners wouldn't provide good men or any. But as I wrote before....for the most part, the problem was unwillingness to serve. Men often cut off their thumbs to avoid service--a problem that Goldsworthy says became worse in the fourth century than previously. (I don't recall if he tried to explain why, but he did note evidence for increasing avoidance of service.) Christian senators may have complained about pagans being employed, but what choice did the state have if not enough christians would fight? There's no doubt the new christian empire by c 400 was heavily dependent on barbarians. The clear implication is that most christians would not fight.
Yet again, barbarians didn't have the historical baggage of Rome nor the admonitions of pacifistic church authorities not to fight.

Please. I’m an atheist, I’ve got no love for religion, and yet I’m defending Christianity on this. It doesn’t have to be the “existing milieu”. Mere objectivity.

Well it's great to hear you're an atheist, welcome to the club. :) But unless you're a prof yourself, you don't have such things as tenure to worry about; too much controversy can be detrimental to one's career. And I'm not blaming christianity just because I don't believe in it. I think christianity played an important role in western civilization; in some ways it had a very positive effect. But I think the evidence for christianity sapping the strength of the empire is quite good.:)
 
Top