When did the Roman Empire fall (your thoughts)?

[starman2012]

I suspect most would've turned out more like Constantine rather than Augustine. Remember how he and his sons tended to present the Christian God to the army, it was in terms of a bringer of victory - a god of battles - which would be very appealing to soldiers.

Sure christianity would be appealing if presented that way, to those who knew little or nothing about it. As people became more informed about it fewer may have thought it consistent with soldiering or service to Rome.

[M. Demetrius]

There is no anti-soldiering rule in Christianity, and Christians are to be obedient to their governments, so long as they do not order the citizens to violate Biblical laws. I guess I don't understand where you get basis for your "as people became more informed" thought.

[Marja]

There was an anti-soldiering principle, and in some cases disobedience, in early Christianity [before Constantine]. I don't have any direct citations handy though.

P.S. I recall some mention of Cyprian stating that Christians should not become soldiers in similar discussions elsewhere. In later periods, someone mentioned that Augustine tried to convince someone that Christians *could* become soldiers, and of course, Wulfila chooses his religious and often political terms to avoid associating Christianity with warrior religions.

[M. Demetrius]

I'm not saying there were not/are not disobedient people in Christianity, I'm saying there is no Biblical Christian premise that forbids a person being a soldier.

[Marja]

Well, I think bible interpretation would be a bit off-topic. But can anyone suggest early Christian sources which address this and might clarify what people believed at the time? Or even later Christian sources through, say, the 6th century?

[D B Campbell]

There was an anti-soldiering principle, and in some cases disobedience, in early Christianity [before Constantine]. I don't have any direct citations handy though.

You're maybe thinking of the Acta Maximiliani (2.8-9), where Maximilianus says that he cannot serve in the army because he is a Christian, but the proconsul of Africa (who is "interviewing" him) replies that there are other Christians in Diocletian's "sacred retinue".

[M. Demetrius]

The New Testament, of course, was "old" by the 6th Century, but that was not the point raised, nor did I offer any intent to quote Bible sources (though if the subject were a little earlier, it would not be off topic). While the principles of Christianity are, of course, found in that source, and while I'm not a 4th-6th Century church teaching expert, the fact remains that Christianity does not forbid military service, now or then.

Odd how anti-christian statements are acceptable, but pro-christian are not. And by the 6th C, with Christianity being the Official State Religion of Rome, clearly there was not an apparent conflict for them. But I'm not trying to hijack the thread, so we can let it pass.

Never mind.

[Theodosius the Great]

Sure christianity would be appealing if presented that way, to those who knew little or nothing about it.

Christ was presented as such and there was nothing lowbrow about it. He was the ultimate conqueror who conquered death. Take this fifth century mosaic, for example, of Christ as soldier/conqueror. It's from the Archbishop's chapel in Ravenna, Italy.


There's much more militant imagery. Imperial coinage never stopped showing the emperor in full armor.

And here's a sixth century missorum showing David fighting Goliath. So, Christians were quite aware of the Old Testament battles and accepted it as part of their heritage. "A time for war, a time for peace..." (Ecclesiastes)

As people became more informed about it fewer may have thought it consistent with soldiering or service to Rome.

First of all, soldering was a hereditary occupation in the Late Empire. Second, I see a more militant movement within Christianity after Constantine. The monks that Alanus mentioned a while ago were not all what you or I might consider monkish in their behavior. Many were willing to fight for their faith. You should rent the movie "Agora" which takes place in 4th century Alexandria.

~Theo

[Epictetus]

Well, I have no idea about doctrine, but I do know that some early Church Fathers strongly discouraged service in the army.

To begin with the real ground of the military crown, I think we must first inquire whether warfare is proper at all for Christians. What sense is there in discussing the merely accidental, when that on which it rests is to be condemned? Do we believe it lawful for a human oath to be superadded to one divine, for a man to come under promise to another master after Christ, and to abjure father, mother, and all nearest kinsfolk, whom even the law has commanded us to honour and love next to God Himself, to whom the gospel, too, holding them only of less account than Christ, has in like manner rendered honour? Shall it be held lawful to make an occupation of the sword, when the Lord proclaims that he who uses the sword shall perish by the sword? And shall the son of peace take part in the battle when it does not become him even to sue at law? And shall he apply the chain, and the prison, and the torture, and the punishment, who is not the avenger even of his own wrongs? Shall he, forsooth, either keep watch-service for others more than for Christ, or shall he do it on the Lord’s day, when he does not even do it for Christ Himself? And shall he keep guard before the temples which he has renounced? And shall he take a meal where the apostle has forbidden him? And shall he diligently protect by night those whom in the day-time he has put to flight by his exorcisms, leaning and resting on the spear the while with which Christ’s side was pierced? Shall he carry a flag, too, hostile to Christ? And shall he ask a watchword from the emperor who has already received one from God? Shall he be disturbed in death by the trumpet of the trumpeter, who expects to be aroused by the angel’s trump? And shall the Christian be burned according to camp rule, when he was not permitted to burn incense to an idol, when to him Christ remitted the punishment of fire? Then how many other offences there are involved in the performances of camp offices, which we must hold to involve a transgression of God’s law, you may see by a slight survey.

Tertullian, Of the Soldier’s Garland, XI.

Clement of Alexandria, a contemporary of Tertullian, suggests that those who die in battle do not “yield up the soul pure” (Miscellanies, The Praises of Martyrdom) and may put their afterlife at risk by serving in the army.

[Alanus]

Theo and David,

Agora is a very good movie and it's in my collection. However, the Christian sect depicted in that movie was not representative of the "monks" I was referring to. More on the "other side," yet just as crazy, we find the Saint Anthony and Prophet John types, who basically destroyed their bodies to enhance the soul... many "living" atop pillars and in solitary caves. Christians were not all militant. And I'll stick to my original prognosis that the church, by funneling huge sums of moola into itself, could not have been an advantage to the secular coffers of the late Western establishment.

[Theodosius the Great]

Clement of Alexandria, a contemporary of Tertullian, suggests that those who die in battle do not “yield up the soul pure” (Miscellanies, The Praises of Martyrdom) and may put their afterlife at risk by serving in the army.

Both of their views are understandable in the context of their time. Joining the army was fraught with spiritual dangers since it was saturated with pagan rituals. Yet, we know of eight military grave stones belonging to Christians who served at the time of Tertullian.

However, this situation must have been changing considerably during the fourth and fifth centuries as the empire was being christianized.

Here is a letter from Saint Basil of Caesarea, a contemporary Church Father (330-379 A.D.), to a soldier:

I have many reasons for thanking God for mercies vouchsafed to me in my journey, but I count no blessing greater than the knowledge of your excellency, which has been permitted me by our good Lord's mercy. I have learned to know one who proves that even in a soldier's life it is possible to preserve the perfection of love to God, and that we must mark a Christian not by the style of his dress, but by the disposition of his soul. It was a great delight to me to meet you; and now, whenever I remember you, I feel very glad. Play the man; be strong; strive to nourish and multiply love to God, that there may be given you by Him yet greater boons of blessing. I need no further proof that you remember me; I have evidence in what you have done.

Agora is a very good movie and it's in my collection. However, the Christian sect depicted in that movie was not representative of the "monks" I was referring to. More on the "other side," yet just as crazy, we find the Saint Anthony and Prophet John types

I see. You're referring to Stylites and I'm sure they were even less common than the militants I cited. AFAIK, they were exclusively found in the eastern provinces. I'm skeptical that monasticism had a deleterious effect on the eastern army which was very healthy by the turn of the sixth century.

As for the late Western establishment, Monasticism didn't really take off until after it had already "fallen". Saint Benedict of Nursia (480–543) is often thought of as the father of western monasticism.

And I'll stick to my original prognosis that the church, by funneling huge sums of moola into itself, could not have been an advantage to the secular coffers of the late Western establishment.

I think the coffers dried up with the loss of Africa. After that I doubt there was anything to allocate to non-military expenditures.

~Theo

[starman2012]

First of all, soldering was a hereditary occupation in the Late Empire.

In theory but note the fourth century St Martin who, IIRC went AWOL. Hereditary citizen soldiering must've broken down fairly soon afterwards, given widespread reliance on barbarians. Btw the name is Tim not Tom. mile:

[Theodosius the Great]

In theory but note the fourth century St Martin who, IIRC went AWOL. Hereditary citizen soldiering must've broken down fairly soon afterwards, given widespread reliance on barbarians.

Technically, Martin seems to have been dishonorably discharged for lack of a better term. He had served faithfully for years in the cavalry. Apparently he developed priestly aspirations and indeed became the bishop of Tours. And since he came from a family of influence I'm sure he was able to arrange his dismissal. So, his case seems exceptional to me and not simple desertion. However, there's no denying that desertion from the army was a problem. Being an infantryman in the Late Empire didn't have the attraction it once did during the principate. The pay was low, the danger greater, and the prospect for loot was rare.

Btw the name is Tim not Tom. mile:

Apologies, Tim. Some genius decided to place the "O" key next to the "I". :x ;-)

~Theo

[Robert Vermaat]

I thought Hugh Elton had disproven the idea that the late Roman army was mostly composed of 'barbarians.'

I have Warfare in Roman Europe and while Elton may be right that the regular Roman army wasn't barbarized it still seems to have practically disappeared even prior to the loss of African revenue in 439. Aetius had to hire Huns, evidently because the regular forces no longer amounted to much. Not too many citizens wanted to serve anymore...

I don't see why Aetius hiring Huns 'evidently' means the regular forces no longer amounted to much. For one, Aetius had a special relation with the Huns and seems to have used this to aquire a personal army (which gave him political power). Such personal armies are new for the 5th century, Stilicho may have started the practise.
But even if not, Germanic forces and other non-Roman troops had been hired even during the time of Roman conquests. Ceasar used Germans in Gaul and in Britain - surely no sign that his legions did no longer 'amount to much'?!
Constantine hired tens of thousands of barbarians in his civil war against Licinius - such troops were hired to get numbers, they do not tell us anything about the quality of the Roman forces.

[starman2012]

Joining the army was fraught with spiritual dangers since it was saturated with pagan rituals.

A law of 409 forbidding pagans to serve in the army must have been intended to address such concerns, hence make service more appealing to christians. Dunno if it worked well...