Christianity appeared just when the Roman Empire was at its peak, and grew as the Empire declined.?

Question

Did the growth of Christianity cause the decline, or did it prolong the life of an Empire that would have failed sooner without it?

I have decided that Christianity led to the empire's decline, it de-motivated Roman citizens to be involved with politics and such, money was spent on churches instead of the military, etc.

What else can I say to back up this side of the argument?

Answer 1

The empire was already having trouble. As it weakened, though, Constantine went ahead and made practicing of Christianity legal. Before him, Christians were persecuted.

I agree with the above answer, though, that one didn't have much to do with the other, other than that the weakening of the Empire perhaps made it possible for Christianity to grow, not vice versa.

Answer 2

You are "somehow mistaken". But so was Gibbon.
When we speak of the Fall of the Roman Empire, we mean the empire in the West. The Eastern Empire continued for over a thousand years.
Now, the Eastern Empire was more strongly Christianised than the Western Empire. So the fall of the West can't have been through Christianity.
I don't think Christianity prolonged the life of the Empire, but it did provide a protection without which the culture of ancient times wouldn't have survived at all.
I think it's interesting that the conversion of Constantine came just at the right time for Christianity. If the Emperor had been converted earlier, he wouldn't have been able to take the rest of the empire with him - if later, Christianity wouldn't have taken such deep root and would have been swept away in the barbarian invasions.

Answer 3

we have no way to prove the EITHER ELSE clause in history lol..
many people argue what would have happened if such a thing would or would not have happened, But we have no way of knowing that for sure.. We can just think about the possibilities.

personally though, I think yes.
when religion & priests gained unnecessary importance, the military might suffered. & anyways , christianity can be credited with the wiping off of original roman & greek cultures & pagan traditions..
maybe that did cause the downfall..

Answer 4

You could easily argue that Christianity allowed the Roman Empire to survive until falling to Turkish invaders around 1450. Only the Western half of the empire actual fell in the late 5th century. Christianity could have been used to unite the Empire, as Charlemagne later did in central europe.

Answer 5

No to both your questions... Romans incorporated many gods from the Mediterranean and Near East regions. Imperial Rome didn't have a problem with foreign religions so long as you worshiped at the cult of the emperor. Jews and then the Christians were persecuted periodically because of their refusal to worship the Roman emperor as a god. Monotheism was a peculiarity to most in the classical pagan world as well as a convenient scapegoat for others.

Julian the Apostate, the last pagan Roman emperor(361-363AD), tried to reinvigorate the traditional paganism of the Mediterranean, but his efforts were cut short by his death. Would Julian have succeeded if he was able to rule as long as an Augustus? Unlikely. Many emperors before him had tried unsuccessfully to eliminate Christianity.

By the 4th century, Christianity, with its egalitarian message and promise of an afterlife, was too firmly entrenched in Roman society. Christianity also co-opted many local pagan ceremonies, traditions, and temple sites to increase the devotion and participation of the empire's pop. which I believe contributed to its success.

I believe a more disatrous problem was the incessant civil wars that occured throughout Rome's history, especially the disastrous 3rd century A.D. Civil wars not only undermined Rome's military power, but Rome's political and bureacratic machine, as well.

Civil wars was an inescapable problem that plagued Rome from the beginning i.e. the supposed mythical dispute between the brothers, Romulus and Remus. This "problem" was not only due to ambiguity of succession in the principate, but the age old Roman tradition of patronage.

According to Phillip Spann, “Marius and Sulla learnt the Arcanum rei publicae, the secret of the Republic . . . that power and honors lay not in law and traditions of the Republic . . . but in a loyal army made up of men whose experience in war and devotion to their commander had been forged in extended provincial command, of men who were eager for farms and retirement, men ready to conquer Rome and kill Romans for their general and their price.”

In the end, the early principate was an effective form of administration. It survived the likes of Caligula, Nero, and Domitian. However, by the 3rd century AD. and onwards, with imperial incompetency becoming the norm and not the exception, Roman generals saw oppurtunities for usurpation. For example, there were approximately fourteen "barracks" emperors between 235-284 AD. The Germanic invasions and a resurgence of the Parthian empire did not help the situation.

You might want do some research on the subject before you completley make up your mind. Many Roman historians and classicists have debated this subject for years.

Answer 6

Actually I think neither had anything to do with the other. Political scientists all agree that there is always a new order to replace the old. It just happened that way. The Romans replaced the Greeks, etc.

Answer 7

Christianity is escapism. The Romans had other ways to escape their duty, so the Christian detour aggravated the situation; it didn't cause it. Emperor Julian the Apostate wanted to return to the old Roman virtues, but he died too young. He would have been the real Redeemer, not that wimpy fanatic from Nazareth.

Answer 8

Still, some Romans are pagans.