Would Christianity have been nearly as successful without persecution?

Just a little question that popped into my head as I was writing something. If Christianity had been more accepted during the first 340 or so years of the Empire, do you think it would have spread nearly so prevalently without the martyr aspect that often brought them sympathy especially from the slave classes?
 
What about once they were in power, would Christianity have been as successful if it hadn't spread by force?

Christianization was often an excuse for other expansion reasons, but does it spread as well with a 'live and let live' attitude toward other religions instead of forcing conversion?
 
What about once they were in power, would Christianity have been as successful if it hadn't spread by force?

Christianization was often an excuse for other expansion reasons, but does it spread as well with a 'live and let live' attitude toward other religions instead of forcing conversion?

Well, that's rather hard to estimate. Contrary to what you'll see in nonsensical movies like Agora, the Romans were pretty lackadaisical when it came to forced conversion when compared to the later Western Medieval States. For example, even though they had a few anti-Zionist laws during their first few centuries, these were almost never enforced, and later on many Jews served in some pretty high offices.

The Empire had Muslim vassals during the 10th and 11th centuries (Aleppo, for example), and so long as they paid their tribute and didn't go against Roman interests (like, you know, a vassal), they treated them well.

It was only in western Europe that you had really hardcore attempts at conversion like that. The East Romans managed to get Kievan Rus to convert without hardly even touching them. So, I think Christianity could have still spread with a more "live and let live" policy.

In fact, it might have been more successful if they had given it a try in the west. The Germanic and Irish peoples, after all, converted willingly despite many of them having never been a part of Rome. Check out Germanic and Celtic Christianity if you're curious on the matter.
 
Erm... except that really happened to Hypatia of Alexandria. :(

Not as they showed it. In fact, the ONLY thing they got right is that Hypatia was a philosopher, and she was lynched. That's it.

Hypatia was a Neo-platonist, and had utterly no problem with the Christian Church. She wasn't some Psuedo-Athiestic Humanist like the movie presents her. She had many Christian students, and even a few Bishops included themselves in her circle of friends.

The likes of Augustine and Ambrose were major supporters of philosophy, including Neo-Platonism. Roman Christians LOVED the Greek classics, and went to extensive lengths to preserve them, which is why we still have them today.

Hypatia wasn't even killed for religious reasons! She was caught in the middle of a power struggle between the Bishop of Alexandria and the Governor of Egypt. The governor had sent some of his supporters to attack some of the Bishops, and they retaliated. Hypatia was one of the governors supporters, and she tragically was one of the targets of that retaliation. She wasn't killed for being an Apostate, however, she was killed for supporting the 'wrong' side in a political struggle.

The thing about the burning down the Library of Alexandria is complete and utter nonsense. You know why? Because Julius Caesar destroyed it in 48 BC, when he defended Cleopatra from her brother's attempt to seize power. It was never rebuilt.

It is just slander based upon the writings of Edward Gibbon, who notoriously just pulled stuff out of his ass when it suited his agenda.
 

Abhakhazia

Banned
Yeah, IIRC, Trajan and Hadrian had a kind of "don't ask, don't tell" thing going on with Christianity, which may have inspired medeval rumors of his Christianity, which were untrue, but Christianity did comparitively flourish under his reign.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
The persecution of Xtianity [sic] is hugely exagerated.

This is quite true. It is also quite irrelevant.

Yeah, IIRC, Trajan and Hadrian had a kind of "don't ask, don't tell" thing going on with Christianity, which may have inspired medeval rumors of his Christianity, which were untrue, but Christianity did comparitively flourish under his reign.

IIRC, the first non-Christian writings to mention Christianity are an exchange of letters between Trajan and a provincial governor, in which the latter asks the former for advice about how to deal with the Christians. Trajan's reply is essentially to say that if the Christians don't cause any trouble they should simply be left alone.
 

Abhakhazia

Banned
This is quite true. It is also quite irrelevant.



IIRC, the first non-Christian writings to mention Christianity are an exchange of letters between Trajan and a provincial governor, in which the latter asks the former for advice about how to deal with the Christians. Trajan's reply is essentially to say that if the Christians don't cause any trouble they should simply be left alone.

Basically what I was saying.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
But even if the Christians were not as persecuted as their later writings suggested, it doesn't change the fact that there were probably some persecutions by the Emperor Nero (though perhaps limited to the city of Rome itself) and heavy persecutions by the Emperor Diocletian. This gave the early Church Fathers sufficient "ammunition" with which to inspire their flocks.
 
IIRC, the first non-Christian writings to mention Christianity are an exchange of letters between Trajan and a provincial governor, in which the latter asks the former for advice about how to deal with the Christians. Trajan's reply is essentially to say that if the Christians don't cause any trouble they should simply be left alone.
Not exactly he said that the goverment shouldn't actively look for Christains but if someone accused someone of being a Christain he should follow the matter up and execute them if it they refused to recant. Anonymous accusations however were not to be followed up. And the governer mentions that he has recently executed several in precisely those circumstances so persucution was accuring even under the more tolerant rulers.
 
The persecution of Xtianity is hugely exagerated. Most of the time Xtian's had to virtually insist on being martyred. Reasonable article:

http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/history/persecution.htm

I don't know whether persecution was exaggerated, but that article doesn't provide any evidence of it. It just describes various persecutions of Christians in the Roman Empire. the Roman era, and it doesn't show wildly more or less persecution than what I would expect. It says the Roman Empire persecuted Christians about 50% the time between the founding of Christianity and the year they legalized Christianity permanently, and that they only killed Christian laypeople in a fraction of these years. Overall, they did kill a lot of Christians, and that is what Christians have been saying ever since. Yes, it is fewer than the number of Christian-killings in the 20th century, but that says more about cruelty in our time than it does about tolerance in the Romans' time.


Now, for another thought.
I tended to think that persecuting a religion just makes the religion stronger, but than I realized that sometimes persecution has the intended effect. Soviet persecution of Christians did make a lasting reduction in the number of Christians in those countries, and Spanish persecution of Jews in the Inquisition did have a lasting reduction in the number of faithful Jewish people in Spain.
 

PhilippeO

Banned
it would be hard for any government to not persecute the christians. christians frequently attack and looting temple, so roman have no choice but to persecute them.

I tended to think that persecuting a religion just makes the religion stronger, but than I realized that sometimes persecution has the intended effect. Soviet persecution of Christians did make a lasting reduction in the number of Christians in those countries, and Spanish persecution of Jews in the Inquisition did have a lasting reduction in the number of faithful Jewish people in Spain.

about persecution and religious growth, persecution works if applied ruthlessly and consistently.

little bit of persecution actually encourage growth. Roman persecution of christians apparently not too severe, not all provinces persecute christians at all times, so christians here and there are persecuted, but majority of them is ignored, migrate, or managed to persuade local official.

What about once they were in power, would Christianity have been as successful if it hadn't spread by force?

Well, that's rather hard to estimate. Contrary to what you'll see in nonsensical movies like Agora, the Romans were pretty lackadaisical when it came to forced conversion when compared to the later Western Medieval States. For example, even though they had a few anti-Zionist laws during their first few centuries, these were almost never enforced, and later on many Jews served in some pretty high offices.

while Romans did not actively encourage persecution of non-christians, after constantine, Romans authority also frequently turn blind eye when christians loot and destroy pagan temple. so christianity success helped greatly by state assistance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persec...ian_Roman_Empire#Beginning_of_anti-Pagan_laws

In fact, it might have been more successful if they had given it a try in the west. The Germanic and Irish peoples, after all, converted willingly despite many of them having never been a part of Rome. Check out Germanic and Celtic Christianity if you're curious on the matter.

not sure of using Germanic, Celtic and Kievan Rus is good example on this. there are satellite states at the orbit of older, stronger, more civilized romans, so they gained benefit by converting. it would be different case on spread of religion inside roman state.
 

PhilippeO

Banned
Eusebius mentions street-fighting in Alexandria between Christians and non-Christians as early as 249
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ...I#Christian_actions_against_major_Pagan_sites


At a Spanish council held at the turn of the 3rd and 4th centuries the bishops denied the crown of martyrdom to those who died whilst attacking pagan temples. According to Ramsey MacMullen the provocation was just “too blatant”. Drake cites this as evidence that Christians resorted to violence, including physical, at all times.[36]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_early_Christians_in_the_Roman_Empire


Constantine and the Bishops: The Politics of Intolerance”, H. A. Drake, John Hopkins University Press, 2002
 

This is quite late, though. By the third century, the mythology of persecution is already in place, and Christians will on occasion actively seek martyrdom by attacking the Roman state or its official religion. Without the early persecutions, you would not have this desire. Of course, this would be so early that there is practically no reliable material on what, if anything, Christianity was back then, so it is hard to say whjat impact no persecution would have.
 
Top