Did Christianity cause the fall of Rome?
Did Christianity contribute to the decline?
What else contributed to it?
If Christianity didn't cause the fall, what did?
no
yes, inasmuch most things contribute to most other things
loads of factors
loads of factors
>implying massive events like the falling of an entire empire have singular, simplistic causes
>implying these causes aren't far too complex for anyone to ever understand
>>909295
but muh immigration
Based Julian was right
Christianity wasnt the cause for the fall of Rome. It was a factor but it wasn't a direct cause.
Rome fell for many reasons over the course of hundreds of years piling on top of each other until it created a cascading systems failure.
The single greatest factor were the Romans themselves, I'd say.
>>909310
do you ever get tired of chasing ghosts?
>>909266
>implying christianity didn't help eastern rome to survive as long as it did after western rome fell.
>implying the chatolic church didn't conquer europe as a direct successor of the roman empire. Helping to unite europe under one faith and keeping the roman spirit alive
>>909266
>Did Christianity cause the fall of Rome?
No
>Did Christianity contribute to the decline?
Yes, mostly because it caused instability between pagan's and the Empire and also because it caused changes in the power structure and culture in the Empire that further weakened it.
>What else contributed to it
The migration of the German tribes, exhaustive wars with Atilla and the Sassanids, constant internal strife over the Imperial throne due to poor succession standards and concentration of military power, increased decentralization and changes in the economy that contributed to the establishment of the feudal system and thus made local landowners more powerful and self-sufficient, corruption and that weakened the state and reduced it's coffers, and probably a few other factors that I'm missing.
>If Christianity didn't cause the fall, what did?
Rome winning the Punic Wars.
It didn't cause it, but it sure contributed. The survival of the Roman Catholic Church past the collapse says nothing about its truly detrimental effect upon the Roman Empire.
>>909386
The occasional plague didn't help either.
>>909386
>Rome winning the Punic Wars.
This. The cult of personality is one of the leading causes.
I also might add that German legions started relying more and more on troops with no vested interest in protecting Rome.
>>909266
Go read about it cause I'm too lazy to give a long-winded essay on the fall of rome.
>>909518
It set a whole lot of shit in motion that ultimately led to the fall of the empire. It's a bit of a stretch but here is a general idea.
Firstly, Roman culture is focused on two things; personal ambition and loyalty to the state. Now for a while this was perfect because personal loyalty meant fighting Rome's rivals while also proving loyalty to the state. However after Carthage fell, Rome no longer had a direct rival to compete against. Thus Romans had to compete against other Romans in manners of ambition, often times to the detriment of the state and that's how it would stay all the way to the end. (a tear shed for Majorian)
Secondly, the end results of the second punic war gave way to the rise of Marius and Sulla. A lot of Roman land owners died fighting Hannibal. This opened up a lot of land. This land was scooped up by wealthy arostocrats back home while most of the men were off fighting so when they returned huge chunks of farmland were owned by a few wealthy individuals.
Made even worse is the fact that these lands were mainly worked by slaves rather than Romans. With the increase in urban population and with few ways to advance themselves in life, romans flocked to Marius' new professional army promising them good pay and chance for promotion.
The Marian reforms, while creating a brilliant professional army, made soldiers personally loyal to their leaders rather than to the State. And by leaders I mean leaders who would specifically promise to pay them more than anybody else.
This is seen throughout the rest of Roman history with the Rise of Caesar and Pompey all the way to the dozens of 1 year emperors that would pop up. This led to a fuckton of instability as you can guess and it was made worse by the absolute shit show that was Roman succession laws.
So there's two correlations between the aftermath of the Second Punic war and the fall of the empire that were both pretty big.
>>909580
What was it like before the Marian reforms? Each soldier has to provide for their equipment, right? Did they have an annual salary or were they conscripted and given the unofficial right to loot following their conquests? The reform in a nutshell was giving the general (often wealthy consuls?) the responsibility of providing for their men, right?
>>909266
>Rome fell for one simple reason
When will this meme end?
>>909601
>What was it like before the Marian reforms? Each soldier has to provide for their equipment, right?
Yep, each soldier brought his own gear, and the formations were drawn up based on age and wealth, youngest/poorest men up front, wealthiest/oldest men at the back.
> Did they have an annual salary or were they conscripted and given the unofficial right to loot following their conquests?
Soldiers pre-Marian were levied, and all men of property were legally obligated to serve for one campaign in the army at the Senates request, some times men would volunteer for longer terms of service. They weren't paid, though they did get to keep what ever loot they took usually.
>The reform in a nutshell was giving the general (often wealthy consuls?) the responsibility of providing for their men, right?
The Reform basically turned being a soldier into a full-time job rather than a state obligation. Soldiers were now paid a salary and equipment was provided and paid for by the state ( the Senate), the ranks were opened up to all men regardless of wealth or land ownership, and were promised a land allotment at the end of service. General's were essentially union bosses and would negotiate with the Senate to ensure that their got their land allotment and would often make contributions and promises of wealth to their troops to ensure that the troops had their back militarily and politically.
>>909601
Before the Marian reforms it was a general conscript of able bodied, land owning citizens. They brought their own equipment and they were arranged in order of status/what armor you could afford and no they weren't paid. I'm pretty sure they could loot.
The Marian reforms are as follows:
1. All roman citizens could enlist, regardless of wealth or status. Armor and supplies were provided by the state.
2. Non-Romans could enlist as an auxiliary and gain citizenship after their service.
3. The legions would be a standing army, training and fighting all year round instead of forming during a crisis.
4. Upon completion of service, retired soldiers would be given a pension and land to move into farming life.
Rich consuls didn't always pay out of pocket for their troops but if you had the money you could, like in the case of Marcus Crassus.
>>909386
Decentralization was necessary. I read somewhere that most of the time by the end of the empire, the central goverment at Italy had no idea what was happening in the provinces or if they even had control over them due to poor communications (I don't know how that came to be though)
>>909661
Barbarian raids maybe? Or corruption
>>909601
If I recall, before the Marian reforms, you needed to be officially recognized as a landowner and supply your own equipment in order to serve in the military.
Marius created armies from the capite censi (headcount, non-landowners) and offered them a portion of the loot. They grew reliant on Marius and became his clients because, not having any land of their own, they needed some means of making money. Marius scandalized the Senate by passing laws to give his headcount soldiers land as well.
>>909661
Funny enough, that's almost exactly how it was during the fall of the republic too. The Senate had no fucking clue and the provincial governors were running the show abroad.
Caesar centralized it to stop the empire from fracturing.
Rome had been christian for centuries
It was a mixture of lead piping, overextending the reach of the empire, lack of western imperial trade, disgruntled soldiers and mercs.
for the east it was centuries of complacency and the Seljuk turks fucking just about everything.
>>909661
Well yeah it was, but it was still one of the direct causes for the decline of the Empire. I think it's important to remember that their really wasn't any saving the Empire unless you some how magically eliminate all the outside threats to it and the internal strife and corruption that plagued it.
>>909266
Empires fall because the cost of projecting power at a distance is both mandatory and ruinously expensive.
>>909580
>The victory that made Rome a superpower was also what caused its collapse
At last I see
>>909685
RIP America
>>909686
Hannibal got his vengeance in the end.
No.
Civil wars did.
>>909688
Yup. 250 years seems to be the shelf life of empire. So, 2026.
Did the Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire do the same things regarding Christianity? Or were the Romans the only ones who massacred pagans?
>>909679
>Rome had been christian for centuries
Constantine only became Emperor in 306 and Christianity really only became the state religion with Theodosius 70 years later, by the time the Western Empire fell Christianity had only been in vogue for about a 100 years and their were still tons of pagans around.
>>909678
It would have been cool if it had fractured back then and we'd have a dozen different roman republics all over the mediterranean. Like what Sertorius did in Spain
>>909706
>Did the Roman Empire and the Roman Empire do the same things regarding Christianity?
???
Seriously though, pagans weren't really persecuted in Rome due to the fact that a lot of the wealthy elites were still pagans, Christianity was mostly popular among the poor and then later among those looking to get ahead in the Empire under the Christian Emperor's. There was very little massacring of pagans going on since going on a religious crusade against your own people is usually not a good way to maintain a stable government.
>>909715
That would actually be a pretty cool alt history.
>>909725
I thought that pagan temples were seized and that pagan practices were made illegal.
Yes Christianity ruined Rome. Rome was never sacked while the Altar of Victory still stood in the Senate house. It's removal doomed Rome.
>>909700
American "empire" started after WW2 desu
>>909733
Yeah but being pagan wasn't made illegal ( though the ERE did eventually get around to it) in the 5th and 4th century most temples were no longer funded with government funds, and public pagan rituals were slowly done away with and the festivals were Christianized, pagans were barred from government positions, but there were never any large scale government sanctioned massacres of pagans, eventually it just made more sense to be Christian in the Empire than to be a pagan.
>>909765
There was a revolt in 804 when the empire tried to forcibly convert the last greek pagans
>>909790
>804
>The Roman Empire existing
good one, m8
