Did Christianity Bring Down the Western Roman Empire?

Question

It seems that as Chriatinaity spread that Rome began to decline, eventually being tax exempt and bishops (Especally the Bishop of Milan) gaining too much influance over the emperors. Finally the Alter of Victory being removed from the Senate. Any opinions?

Answer 1

I think Christianity contributed to the cultural decline of Rome, but the geo-political decline was detached from it (in other words, neither accelerated nor delayed the inevitable)

Rome's fall actually started with it's roots; too many problems failed to be addressed in the Republic.

For example, rich and well connected families were using slave labor to artificially lower their prices, driving small farms out of business, forcing them to migrate into the city for work. Unemployment hovered around 10% at this time, roughly analguous to modern Europe. The masses were placing incredible pressure on the political class to take action.

Caesar Augustus solved this problem by creating a welfare state. But in order to do that, he first had to seize absolute executive authority in order to wrestle power from his conservative political opponents. Nonetheless, Augustus was an excellent leader, who was modest (he wore priests robes in public) and generally let the senate run the empire, acting more as a Speaker of the House than absolute monarch.

Augustus began using the state coffers to pay for public works aimed at the people. He build public hospitals, public housing, began distributing food to the public, and commissioned many marvels of engineering. This made him immensely popular with people, but was placing a heavy strain on Roman finances. Augustus levied the debt through conquest. He himself was not an able soldier, but he had an eye for talent, and all of his generals were splendid military commanders.

Juvenal lamented these problems, noting how the state was using "bread and circuses" to keep the people complacent and distract them from the real issues.

Two other problems he failed to address were the problems of succession, and the problem of limitations. Augustus's authority was absolute, even though he was modest enough not to act on them.

None of these three problems were addressed. By the reign of Nero, war booty alone was not enough to float Roman finances, so they turned to money depreciation. Throughout the four dynasties of the Principate, the Julio-Claudians, the Flavians, the Antonines, and the Severans, the power of the senate gradually waned (Septimius Severus advised Caracalla to ignore the senate and focus on gaining favor with the army), the financial problem grew more desperate (Marcus Aurelius had to pay for a military campaign by pawning palace decorations), and succession lasted only as long as people pretended it did. After the last Severan, Alexander Severus, was assassinated, no one could quite decide who the emperor was. The 3rd century was a period of crisis which nearly saw the Empire collapse, as over 25 barracks emperors ascended to the throne and met violent ends.

During the third century, classical Rome ceased to exist. Constant strife broke down the vast and intricate trade network. Hyperinflation destroyed the currency. Unemployment was rampant, and a broke state could no longer pay for the public social network.

The Rome that emerged was a different beast altogether. Diocletian reformed the empire in the style more reminiscient of the authoritarian Persian Empire than the old Principate. Its government was top heavy, bureaucratic, and absolute. Government administration alone was crushingly expensive, and the Roman middle class was saddled with the cost. The onerous taxation crushed it out of existence, and people began fleeing the cities en masse into the country, selling themselves into indentured servitude to the great families in exchange for food, which served as the basis for the formation of feudalism. Currency also completely broke down, so the barter system became the way people did business, which was incredibly frustrating for a state looking to collect taxes.

In the end, it wasn't that Rome was too large (the Persian and Han Empires were bigger, land-wise), but that there were too many problems happening at the same time; the state was broke. The frontiers were under constant attack, from Germans in the West, and from Persians in the east. The army had degenerated from the classical heavy legions of old to massed citizen-levies and federated German tribes, and By 400 A.D, the entire army was literally a collection of federated tribes, paid for with land in exchange for military service. The problem of succession still hadn't been resolved, so insurrections were frequent and brutal. 400 A.D was the 11th hour for Rome.

And it was only in 395 A.D when Emperor Theodosius made Christianity the state religion. Long after the start of Rome's decline, but that isn't to say that the Christians were completely innocent. Many of the great works of art were destroyed during this period from Christian vandals. Bathing and personal hygiene broke down, as Christians protested the communal baths that characterized pagan Rome. The Olympics were outlawed for being a pagan event. The gladiator games were outlawed, though many Christians enjoyed the violence (ancient texts confirm this), there was much pagan symbology about the games, hence its outlawing. Pagan temples were burnt to the ground (the only reason the Pantheon was spared was because a Christian priest recognized its architectural genius, and converted it into a church). Jews were driven from the cities by Christian mobs. The Great Library of Alexandria was demolished by the patrician Theophilus due to its repository of pagan religious texts. The Christian religion also acted as a subduing agent for the Roman people. The Gothic sack of Rome in 411 A.D was relatively benign (in fact, the Goths, being Christians, didn't touch churches or anyone seeking refuge in them. Pagans and Jews weren't so lucky), but it was a humiliating experience for the Roman people, whose spiritual capital had not been touched by invaders since 384 B.C. The angry mob was placated by none other than St. Augustine of Hippo, who wrote in his Magnum opus, The City of God, that the Romans should not weep for their material losses, because they still have their heavenly treasures. When Rome was sacked in 384 B.C, it left an indent on the Roman psyche that would harden their hearts for centuries. But this just wasn't the case in the 411 A.D sack, the Romans seemingly accepted it.

So in conclusion, the damage done by Christians was cultural, not political (though there was overlap), because the fall of Rome stemmed from problems that had gone back centuries, long before Christianity as a religion was established.

EDIT: concerning the Byzantine (Eastern Roman) Empire. It was not as successful as people are claiming it was. The Byzantine Empire survived as a dominate-era empire; which was absolute monarchy categorized by a complex, top-heavy, bureaucratic government and a feudalist economy: the market economy of old was long gone, and non too mourned by the Emperor, who at this point was revered as being semi-divine.

The Byzantine Empire stagnated. It was not making money, it had just barely enough for its defense, and nothing more. The only expansion of the Byzantine Empire was during the reign of Justinian, which in the long term drained the resources of the empire and left it vulnerable. The Persian Empire was a nuisance, but the Byzantines could just barely keep them at bay (at the cost of leaving Greece and the Balkans helpless, and that area suffered savagely during the dark ages). Because its middle eastern possessions were initially peaceful, it was regarded as being more successful than war-ravaged Europe.

When Islam came along in the 8th century, the Byzantine empire was impotent, and utterly helpless to survive the onslaught. The latter history of the Byzantine Empire is characterized by a long, slow, steady decline. By 1453, Constantinople was little more than a city-state.

Answer 2

all aspects of Roman life affected the Empire, but religion was not a major factor
The problem was a growing anarchy. Just about everyone felt they could become an Emperor and therefore plotted against the ruler. Perhaps they thought they were morally justified, but in doing so they undermined the stability of the State.
"Humanitarian" issues played a major role- Rome spent huge amounts of money on social issues- eg supplying food to the poor Citizens for free. Of course Circus games were also prepared for the poor citizens. All this drained the state coffers
ANother "humanitarian" issue was the acceptance of immigrants- in this case milions of Visigoths who settled inside the Empire, but did not assimilate, and in the following generations formented rebellion inside the Empire
The Legions were underfunded. Rome in its "old age" had less than half of the army that Julius Caesar commanded. What is more the Legionnaires no longer wore armour and only had a shield for protection. A disaster waiting to happen when facing barbarian horse archers like the Huns
(read Vegetius if you don't believe that)
Add to that a specific form of "posse comitatus" - the Legions were guarding the borders and ONLY the borders. Any enemy who managed to cross the defended border (or an internal revolt) had practically no opposition- because none of the cities inside the Empire had city walls (not needed because of centuries long "pax Romana")

Yes, I am comparing the Roman Empire to the US. The wanton sabotage of the "emperor", the "bread and circus" social programmes and the unchecked immigration are similarities. Thus far you still have the Army- but looking at the Dems waiting to take over, I wonder for how much longer.

Answer 3

I agree with an earlier questioner who suggested that Christianity specifically the Roman Catholic Church extended the Roman Empire..... Sadly enough Empires fall, there were many factors that caused the reign of Dictators to collapse under the weight of nefarious schemes & treascherous dealings. It is amusing that while 'Rome' fell after adopting Christianity, it was Christianity that 'saved' and revitalized the Eastern Roman/Byzantium Empire.

Utilizing a network of Bishops such as the Bishop of Milan and Cardinals, Rome ruled over Europe untill the 1500s, albeit with an exile in France for a decade or so (too lazy to double sheck but heck your smart enough to know what I mean), and Rome is still powerful in 2007......

Peace..........

Answer 4

If you haven't already done so, reading Wikipedia's "Decline of the Roman Empire" will help to support the answers that almost everyone here has given. However, you'll find little reference to Christianity on the whole page.

Among serious scholars, the 19th century historian Edward Gibbons seems to be one of the few to have considered the rise of Christianity to be one of the factors contributing to the decline of the empire, going by wiki's references at least, and J.B Bury "presents the classic "Christianity vs. pagan" theory, and debunks it, citing the relative success of the Eastern Empire, which was far more Christian." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_the_Roman_Empire )

I hope this helps. I think one of the other contributors should read it too, and maybe that will help her understand that the Roman Empire was not 'all catholic' until 'this new religion (Christianity, I presume) came into play'. In fact, she might also like to read a little on the history of Christianity. And the history of Rome, for that matter!

Answer 5

The fall of the Roman empire cannot be attributed to only one factor. Poor administration, in-fighting amongst the contenders for the throne, the generals of the army who constantly interferred in the succession, too few "Romans" left to keep good order with more and more "barbarians" streaming into the empire from the north, invading Roman territories and settling there but refusing to conform to Roman law and administration. These "barbarians" were themselves pushed south by other invading tribes. And then the final blows, the adoption of christianity as state religion and the split of the empire into the Western and Eastern empires. The lack of support from Byzantium [Eastern empire] was also a driving factor in the fall of the Western empire. As to christianity specifically, the power and wealth of the church continued to grow and the later persecution of the pagans also lend itself to dissent and unrest, further weakening the internal structure of the empire, driving another rather large nail in its coffin.

Answer 6

Rome was already in decline as Christianity grew. Maybe that's why Christianity attracted so many people, because they were disillusioned with Roman society.

Physically, Rome was destroyed by barbarians. The empire got too big and the outlying lands could no longer be controlled by the central government.

Answer 7

You have to be an atheist: right? The Roman Empire at that time had spread into the far parts of Europe, it had gone as far as the Asian empire and far into Africa.
Stop and think about that, Constantine did the same thing, so did Alexander the Great. They all had so much power at hand, they soon lost control.

How do you control an Empire that you cannot hold on to that is thousands of miles away. If a message takes months to both send and receive, how can you control power?

The Roman Empire was stretched so far into the corners of the globe, with so many nations in charge and supposedly allied to them, they just soon lost control.
It was greed, lack of control. Simple.

Answer 8

Cowboydoc is a bit quick with his gun in calling someone an atheist because of a question.

There is a nice book by Chadwick, published by Penquin, on early church history which will answer that question sufficiently. I will say, however, that amongst the response, no one got it right.

Answer 9

Absolutely not. Gibbon got it wrong there.
The Eastern Roman Empire, where Christianity was more highly developed, survived - how to explain that on your thesis?
The empire fell in the west because it had a longer frontier to defend.

Answer 10

It was the lack of strong defenses as the army had become too spread out, more management of money, lack of solid leadership, invasions from other armies, decay of codes and ethics that permeated from the leadership on down.

Answer 11

in my mind it's little bit the other way around,

the western roman empire was already well on the decline when they adopted christianity. no longer able to as efficiently control the populace (especially all the diverse groups of subjegated peoples) as they had in the past, the roman empire co-opted christianity, piggy-backing on it to extend the empire's life, but not saving it.