Did Christianity weaken or strengthen the Roman Empire?

[Spiderman]

Do you think the conversion of the Roman Empire to Christianity strengthened the Empire or weakened it?

Just think, if the Roman Empire never converted to Christianity, how much different history would be. Wouldn't you agree that the conversion of the Roman Empire to Christianity had a lot to do with the christianization of Europe and the spread of Christianity throughout the world?

By the way, I had a dream Napoleon Bonaparte called America "Fat Rome". Anyone want to interpret that dream for me

 

[Sunstone]

Well, the Eastern Roman Empire endured for more than a thousand years after the conversion, so there's that much evidence that the conversion at least didn't kill it.

Having said that, adopting a state religion that "explains" why everyone should be content to be ruled by the scoundrels in charge is a time honored means of legitimatizing the state, thus strengthening it.

As a side note, Christianity is an interesting religion because it lends itself both to propping up the scoundrels in power, and to tearing them down, depending on how you interpret it.

 

[Augustus]

Just think, if the Roman Empire never converted to Christianity, how much different history would be. Wouldn't you agree that the conversion of the Roman Empire to Christianity had a lot to do with the christianization of Europe and the spread of Christianity throughout the world?

To some extent, yes, but it is also worth considering that the Roman Empire converted due to the spread of Christianity among its citizens (eventually including the political elite).

Having state support was certainly a benefit and helped propagate the faith, but it was really a 2 way process - the people christianised the state and the state further Christianised the people.

Do you think the conversion of the Roman Empire to Christianity strengthened the Empire or weakened it?

Probably strengthened it because otherwise they would have been ruling over growing Christian populations which would likely have led to uprisings and internal conflicts (well ones that were more severe than the intra-Christian sectarian issues that they also had to deal with).

 

[Enoch07]

Do you think the conversion of the Roman Empire to Christianity strengthened the Empire or weakened it?

Just think, if the Roman Empire never converted to Christianity, how much different history would be. Wouldn't you agree that the conversion of the Roman Empire to Christianity had a lot to do with the christianization of Europe and the spread of Christianity throughout the world?

By the way, I had a dream Napoleon Bonaparte called America "Fat Rome". Anyone want to interpret that dream for me

I voted neither. It's not a faith that can strengthen or weaken a nation. It is it's citizens and how they handle the good times vs the tough times.

This meme comes to mind.

 

[Father]

its one of the reasons the ancient Roman empire fell. since when the Christians got any power they burned down temples and destroyed relics of history. their new ideals split the nation and it undermined all the culture and ideals the people felt so it caused discourse which made it easier for the barbarian invasion to invade. the patriotism if you would call it was weakened and when a nations patriotism is weakened so too is its nation

 

[David T]

Do you think the conversion of the Roman Empire to Christianity strengthened the Empire or weakened it?

Just think, if the Roman Empire never converted to Christianity, how much different history would be. Wouldn't you agree that the conversion of the Roman Empire to Christianity had a lot to do with the christianization of Europe and the spread of Christianity throughout the world?

By the way, I had a dream Napoleon Bonaparte called America "Fat Rome". Anyone want to interpret that dream for me

I like ewoks so it was a trade off that appears to have worked out OK.

 

[Polymath257]

Do you think the conversion of the Roman Empire to Christianity strengthened the Empire or weakened it?

Just think, if the Roman Empire never converted to Christianity, how much different history would be. Wouldn't you agree that the conversion of the Roman Empire to Christianity had a lot to do with the christianization of Europe and the spread of Christianity throughout the world?

By the way, I had a dream Napoleon Bonaparte called America "Fat Rome". Anyone want to interpret that dream for me

I don't think there is a simple answer to that question. I'd say the initial spread of Christianity was a sign of the weakness of the Roman Empire in the 1st and 2nd centuries. Clearly, the old 'moral order' had decayed and was being replaced by a new one.

But, by the time of the official adoption of the new religion, the conversion probably slowed the further decline (and possibly stopped it in the East). Also, the conversion of the Germans helped keep some social stability when they ultimately took over and started running things.

That said, it could be a question whether a conversion to, say, Mithraism, might have strengthened the morale of the army more and thereby helped keep things stable. On that note, I'd have to defer to the emperor of the time who decided that Christianity was better politically than Mithraism.

On the other hand, the battle over the Arian variant of Christianity certainly weakened the state during a time when it could ill afford such. How different would the world be if the Arians had the power to choose the books of the Bible?

 

[Kemosloby]

Neither, They were already at the top, only place to go is down.

 

[LuisDantas]

"What if" questions are difficult to answer.

In this case, we would have to attempt to decide how much of a departure from established history would be necessary. Hard to tell.

Christianity is very much a proselityzing (sp?) doctrine, so it is likely to insinuate itself to some extent to societies that do not make a point of resisting it for some reason or another.

The highly individualistic and barely ideological Roman Empire was probably tender soil for such a doctrine, so the two most likely scenarios to avoiding its eventual adherence to Christianity would seem to be the absence of Christian doctrine and the presence of a somewhat comparable, competing doctrine.

A third possibility would be changing the social reality of the Empire itself so that it would not be quite so receptive to Christianity, but that is even harder to speculate about.

Personally, I think that Christianity is not a very natural nor necessary doctrine, and its absence would be the most likely scenario in this exercise of alternate history.

What would happen if Christianity had not been invented? Probably a better spread of forms of paganism, I would wager. Monotheism would remain an oddity, an infrequent belief iwith no political pulll. Rome and later regimes would have little interest in claiming divine right to rule, and people would only rarely care when it happened.

So overall it would probably be a better world, perhaps a far better one. It might not be quite so receptive for imperial ambitions, I suppose.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

It was far simpler to assimilate conquered people into the Roman Empire before Christianity, as there were no religious conflicts. Any new Gods were simply added to the pantheon.
The only exclusive religion before Christianity was Judaism. and we all know how that turned out.

 

[LuisDantas]

It was far simpler to assimilate conquered people into the Roman Empire before Christianity, as there were no religious conflicts. Any new Gods were simply added to the pantheon.

On the other hand, Christianity has a way for motivating people into military action that non-Abrahamics rarely approach.

The only exclusive religion before Christianity was Judaism. and we all know how that turned out.

And that was so mostly due to other exclusive religions that were also proselitizers - namely, Christianity and Islaam. So it is doubtful that it would have turned out so troublesome without those other two.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

On the other hand, Christianity has a way for motivating people into military action that non-Abrahamics rarely approach.



And that was so mostly due to other exclusive religions that were also proselitizers - namely, Christianity and Islaam. So it is doubtful that it would have turned out so troublesome without those other two.

They were troublesome to the Romans. who promptly dispersed those that they did not kill.

 

[metis]

I voted "Neither" as well for reasons some here have already covered.

 

[Glaurung]

On the other hand, Christianity has a way for motivating people into military action that non-Abrahamics rarely approach.

Rome hardly needed Christianity to go to war, neither did the Germanic raiders who helped destroy it.

The idea that Christianity is uniquely warmongering or that a pagan world would be a peaceful world is nonsense. Great empires are forged with blood, and pagan powers had no problem spilling that blood. (Imperial Japan if you want a recent example) Hellenistic, Asian (the mongols anyone?) Mesoamerican (there was a reason the Aztecs were hated by their neighbors), or whatever else, war is a human universal. Power, land and loot are all the motivations you need.

 

[Glaurung]

What would happen if Christianity had not been invented? Probably a better spread of forms of paganism, I would wager. Monotheism would remain an oddity, an infrequent belief iwith no political pulll. Rome and later regimes would have little interest in claiming divine right to rule, and people would only rarely care when it happened.

Eh, from Rome to China ancient pagan empires typically calmed that their rulers were divine. Heck, Rome even resorted to killing people who refused to burn incense to the emperor's idol. And I'm willing to bet that public denial the divinity of the Ming emperor would have landed you in similar trouble

So overall it would probably be a better world, perhaps a far better one. It might not be quite so receptive for imperial ambitions, I suppose.

Empire isn't a Christian invention. Tolerant Pagan utopia is a naive, ideological view of history.