When did the Roman Empire fall (your thoughts)?

[starman2012]

Gosh, Tim, calling them "holy joes"? What does that mean, anyway? :unsure: We might get the impression you have an antichristian mindset. :wink:

Bingo!

By 45-50, there existed a significant population of Christians in the city of Rome itself, as indicated by Paul's epistle to the same from around that date.

The epistle to the Romans doesn't imply a very big christian population. There may have been several hundred or a few thousand but I doubt they were over 1% of Rome's population, if that, at the time.

There were many forces acting on the demise of the empire, not the least of which was the continued expansionist notions of the government making it impossible to send "Roman" soldiers to guard all the frontiers,

This wasn't a problem in the second century, the Empire's territorial high water mark.

Empires take money to continue, and money came from expanding and looting neighboring nations. There was nowhere else they could easily find anyone to extract more funds to keep things running.

But they had plenty of money coming in from provinces in the early Imperial period and even later.

[starman2012]

Orosius, writing around the 420s after being driven from his native province in Iberia by barbarians, makes quite clear his sympathies for the Roman Empire from a Christian perspective. He saw the Empire as the primary instrument for disseminating Christianity since its founding by Augustus and up to his present day.

OK that's one man's opinion but there were fifth century christians who saw the barbarian attacks as "god's punishment for the sins of Rome." In The City of God Augustine said Rome was imperfect and couldn't last. Some saw the crumbling of empire as a prelude to the "second coming" i.e, something they looked forward to, as well as felt was deserved.

Ever since the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem the Christians made great efforts to distinguish themselves from the Jews by disavowing violent rebellion against the state to avoid suspicion and persecution. So, one could argue that being pro-Roman was the traditional Christian position.

That was because they had no choice but to look that way. Rome was at its height and seemed invincible and eternal. The degree of persecution suffered by early christians was bad enough with this "pro-Roman" attitude; it might've been fatal without it. But even early on, not everybody shared it. Look at revelation. The "great harlot" meant Rome; "666" meant emperor Nero.

[M. Demetrius]

So, one could argue that being pro-Roman was the traditional Christian position.

Maybe, but simply not being "against" doesn't require being "for" in a political sense, Mt. 12:30 notwithstanding. It would be hard to make the case of their being pro-Roman to Christians living in Rome under Nero or Domitian, I'd reckon.

As a slight aside, there is a book titled How the Irish Saved Civilization which gives an account of Patricius' youth and education, and his subsequent efforts to preserve literature around the time we generally consider the "Fall" to have taken place. It gives some good insight into how some of the people living at that time viewed things, even though it doesn't claim to be a scholarly work of history, it's a good read, and most everything said there pertains to the times we're discussing here.

[Shaddix1980]

Just a desire to serve the Roman State. That's one thing most citizens had in common prior to the fifth century.

I agree that is one of them.

One thing all Romans had in common until the end was a unifying spirit - that defiance that they would never yield to an enemy that made them different than many nations in history prior to the modern era. That drive was lost towards the end. The empire became a name as the city lost its value, and the people lost their will to fight (Italians and Roman). Their armies, if they could be called that were filled with barbarians with promise of land if they fought for Rome. This made Rome more like Carthage, in my opinion, and giving away land meant that Rome was giving away its taxes. When the army it self no longer cares for the Standards, nor does the legionaries holds loyalties to the emperor and is more identified with the local tribes, than Rome lost its most important asset.

[Marja]

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

And the land issues rather complicated. It's common for newcomers to settle marginal land. For example, in the Balkans, both the Goths and Slavs followed this pattern, with early settlement on the foothills of the Balkan mountains and of what's now Sakar.

I think agricultural specialization might explain this. The Roman Empire was most focused on Mediterranean agriculture, with certain climates and soil types, and may have been less efficient at other styles of agriculture for other climates and soil types. So large areas [such as forested uplands, marshes, forests] might have been sub-marginal from the Roman point of view and slightly above marginal from newcomers' points of view.

Another complimentary issue is the tax system. A.H.M. Jones discusses it in depth, and suggests, if I'm not mistaken, that the Roman system overtaxed marginal land relative to valuable land, and had quite dysfunctional policies regarding abandoned land. The high relative taxation actually made some marginal land too expensive to cultivate, and the abandonment policies could result in cascading crises after major plagues [such as those of Marcus Aurelius].

[Theodosius the Great]

*** warning: big post below :| ***

Just a desire to serve the Roman State. That's one thing most citizens had in common prior to the fifth century.

@Tim and Christopher

In what way? Certainly not by chosing a military career. Augustus had to resort to conscription in Italy in the wake of the Varus disaster. So much for Italian patriotism.

Now there are other ways "to serve the Roman state", of course. Civil administration, for example, became separated from military affairs during Diocletian's reign. Starting with Constantine these roles began to be taken up by Christian bishops. He allowed them to serve as arbitrators for lawsuits involving Christians. Later they began to hold political office. Saint Ambrose was still prefect of Milan when he was made bishop and probably continued to function in that capacity for a time.

If one wanted to serve in the imperial goverment in the 4th and 5th centuries it certainly was advantageous to become a Christian first. This helps explain the rapid increase of Christian converts.
So, one can see this religious trend as evidence of strong Roman identification, at least among the elite.

OK that's one man's opinion but there were fifth century christians who saw the barbarian attacks as "god's punishment for the sins of Rome."

Yes, one of the most influential thinkers of the time. As Augustine's student it stands to reason that his sympathies mirrored his own. Augustine was simply saying that empires can't last forever. Nothing anti-Roman about that. As for his statement about divine punishment, I think you've grossly misinterpreted what he was saying. He was simply echoing the Old Testament prophets about ancient Israel. The prophets called on the kings to repent, not for the kingdom's destruction.

Another influential contemporary was St. Jerome, a westerner, who lived in the eastern provinces. He was greatly disturbed hearing about the sack of Rome. He's what he wrote at the time:

Whilst these things were happening in Jebus, a dreadful rumour came from the West. Rome had been besieged and its citizens had been forced to buy their lives with gold. Then thus despoiled they had been besieged again so as to lose not their substance only but their lives. My voice sticks in my throat; and, as I dictate, sobs choke my utterance. The City which had taken the whole world was itself taken; nay more famine was beforehand with the sword and but few citizens were left to be made captives. In their frenzy the starving people had recourse to hideous food; and tore each other limb from limb that they might have flesh to eat. Even the mother did not spare the babe at her breast. In the night was Moab taken, in the night did her wall fall down. “O God, the heathen have come into thine inheritance; thy holy temple have they defiled; they have made Jerusalem an orchard. The dead bodies of thy servants have they given to be meat unto the fowls of the heaven, the flesh of thy saints unto the beasts of the earth. Their blood have they shed like water round about Jerusalem; and there was none to bury them.”

Notice how he quotes scripture, he compares the importance of Rome to Jerusalem.

The city became even more important to Christianity when Valentinian III recognized papal primacy. When Attila marched on Rome he was intercepted by Pope Leo along with other officials to dissuade another sack of the defenseless city. According to your logic, wouldn't it have been easier for the church to switch sides and accept Hunnic rule at that point? Clearly, the city was still important and worth defending even at this date.

Some saw the crumbling of empire as a prelude to the "second coming" i.e, something they looked forward to, as well as felt was deserved.

FYI, the second coming is always something to look forward to in Christianity. OTOH, divine punishment is reserved for wicked Christians and enemies of Christianity. In Christian Rome, it wasn't something to be wished for but something to be avoided. So, it's a red herring to this discussion. It has no bearing on Roman identity.

That was because they had no choice but to look that way. Rome was at its height and seemed invincible and eternal.

Of course they had a choice. The Jews repeatedly proved that. And the Britons. And the Gauls. All to their regret.

The degree of persecution suffered by early christians was bad enough without this "pro-Roman" attitude; it might've been fatal without it. But even early on, not everybody shared it. Look at revelation. The "great harlot" meant Rome; "666" meant emperor Nero.

For whatever reason and even though not universal it was the prevailing attitude. Look at the Gospels. "Render unto Caesar..."

It would be hard to make the case of their being pro-Roman to Christians living in Rome under Nero or Domitian, I'd reckon.

Under Nero, of course. That's why I said the post-Temple period. Under Domitian, I'm not so sure. I think his reign has been recently reevaluated especially regarding the treatment of Christians. IIRC, there's no contemporary evidence of aggressive persecution of Christians during his reign. Later Christian accounts accuse him but I'm skeptical and suspect it's a mistake. Nonetheless, we know Christians prayed for the well-being of both the (pagan) emperors and empire even in times of fierce persecution.

From St. Cyprian (258 A.D.): "We pray to God, not only for ourselves, but for all mankind, and particularly for the emperors."

From Tertullian (c. 200 A.D.): "We pray for all the emperors, that God may grant them long life, a secure government, a prosperous family, vigorous troops, a faithful senate, an obedient people; that the whole world may be in peace; and that God may grant, both to Caesar and to every man, the accomplishment of their just desires."

From Origen: "We pray for kings and rulers, that with their royal authority they may be found possessing a wise and prudent mind."

So, ostensibly their position was pro-Roman.

BTW, here are some links you may find interesting:

Tertullian on Christian loyalty to the Emperor - Latin Text with English translation

Christians in the Roman Army: Countering the Pacifist Narrative

~Theo

[sonic]

When Attila marched on Rome he was intercepted by Pope Leo along with other officials to dissuade another sack of the defenseless city.

I think that Leo's 'interception' of Attila is a twisting of events to fit later Christian propaganda. If you look at the chronology and the places mentioned it's more likely that Leo was sent to act as an emissary when Attila was already withdrawing from Italy.

[starman2012]

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...

The high relative taxation actually made some marginal land too expensive to cultivate, and the abandonment policies could result in cascading crises after major plagues [such as those of Marcus Aurelius].

Interesting but it's noteworthy that plague doesn't seem to have been much of a problem after mid third century (to the fall of the west). In fact, from what I've read, there was a serious plague during the reign of Titus in the first century i.e. before the second century "apogee of Empire" as Grant put it.

[Theodosius the Great]

When Attila marched on Rome he was intercepted by Pope Leo along with other officials to dissuade another sack of the defenseless city.

I think that Leo's 'interception' of Attila is a twisting of events to fit later Christian propaganda. If you look at the chronology and the places mentioned it's more likely that Leo was sent to act as an emissary when Attila was already withdrawing from Italy.

That's interesting. I still need to buy thebook on Aetius. Nonethess my only point was that the pope went to meet Attila on behalf of the city.

I'm curious though, if you're correct about the chronology, what would have been the point of sending the embassy in your view?

[Flavivs Aetivs]

When Attila marched on Rome he was intercepted by Pope Leo along with other officials to dissuade another sack of the defenseless city.

I think that Leo's 'interception' of Attila is a twisting of events to fit later Christian propaganda. If you look at the chronology and the places mentioned it's more likely that Leo was sent to act as an emissary when Attila was already withdrawing from Italy.

Agreed, Attila withdrew because of lack of logistical support - he didn't have the logistical capabilities to supply on the long term, and his men suffered disease and lack of food because of it. Couple that with Aetius' harassment of the Huns with the western and eastern field armies, and Marcian's campaign on top of that, and Attila had no choice but to withdraw.

[starman2012]

In what way? Certainly not by chosing a military career. Augustus had to resort to conscription in Italy in the wake of the Varus disaster. So much for Italian patriotism.

It was said that c 138 BCE "Spain aroused such fears in Rome (due to the successful resistance of Viriathus) that levies were hard to raise." Sometimes guys got scared. But Italian or Roman patriotism persisted as it did after Augustus.

So, one can see this religious trend as evidence of strong Roman identification, at least among the elite.

Maybe. But for the masses it was another matter. After all, the elite had a much bigger stake in the system.

Of course they had a choice. The Jews repeatedly proved that. And the Britons. And the Gauls. All to their regret.

At least they had weapons; the Jews also had a history of successful rebellion, under maccabeus. The christians were practically defenseless. No wonder their leaders made proRoman pronouncements, to mitigate pagan anger at those who supposedly put Rome in danger by refusing to venerate State gods.

So, ostensibly their position was pro-Roman.

The christians may not have been against the Empire; most were probably honest, taxpaying, lawabiding people. But I don't think they could identify very strongly with Rome, to the point of fighting like crazy to keep it going. Now of course you posted a link about christian soldiers. But they must have been more the exception than the rule. My guess is that some did it because they tended to be poor and a soldier's career was more renumerative than most others open to them. But I note that Augustine had to tell one it was OK for a christian to be a soldier. Add to that the memory of persecution, the killing of christ by Roman soldiers (awareness of which was exacerbated by the phony Pilate gospel of Maximinus II Daia) and it's little wonder that not many of the new christian population were willing to serve. Even in the east, which made considerable effort to win christian support by portraying the emperor as the champion of nicene christianity, it seems to have taken time for this to work i.e. for more citizens to serve reducing need for barbarians.

[sonic]

I'm curious though, if you're correct about the chronology, what would have been the point of sending the embassy in your view?

As to the chronology, Leo met Attila in the north-eastern region of Italy when Attila was already on his way home. If Attila had wanted to attack Rome, he would have done it earlier, before his men had lost casualties due to disease and the ongoing famine in Italy.

The purpose of the embassy was to secure the release of captives, as revealed in a letter from Eastern bishops to Pope Symmachus, dated to 512/513 (Patrologiae Latina, 52, 59-60).

[Theodosius the Great]

It was said that c 138 BCE "Spain aroused such fears in Rome (due to the successful resistance of Viriathus) that levies were hard to raise." Sometimes guys got scared. But Italian or Roman patriotism persisted as it did after Augustus.

Yes, I remember reading about that. I also seem to remember the fear was deliberately caused by the returning general in order to hamper his successor's task of winning the war. In any event, I only meant to demonstrate that from the time of Augustus onward that the emperors had to resort to conscription and relaxing military discipline regarding legionaries taking up common wives and raising children in order to maintain the ranks. Things were very different during the Republic.

During the Marcomannic Wars Italy itself was invaded. Marcus Aurelius was so desperate to raise troops he drafted gladiators into the army. Granted there were other problems like plague and the Parthian War but conscription was and had been the norm for raising new legions.

At least they had weapons; the Jews also had a history of successful rebellion, under maccabeus. The christians were practically defenseless.

There were three Jewish-Roman wars during the principate: The Great Revolt of 66 A.D., the Kitos War of 115-117 A.D., and the Bar-Kokhba Revolt of 132-135 A.D..

The second one, Kitos War, began outside of Judea by the diasporic Jews living in Egypt, Cyrenaica, and Cyprus where they massacred many civilians and destroyed pagan temples and imperial buildings.

Given the opportunity and some careful planning I don't think procuring weapons would have been much of a problem for the Christians, especially the Jewish-Christians who could have joined the revolt.

The christians may not have been against the Empire; most were probably honest, taxpaying, lawabiding people. But I don't think they could identify very strongly with Rome, to the point of fighting like crazy to keep it going. Now of course you posted a link about christian soldiers. But they must have been more the exception than the rule.

I agree. And I think what you said also applies to the pagan populace during the principate.

But I note that Augustine had to tell one it was OK for a christian to be a soldier.

You're right. This shows that Christians as a group were not monolithic in their views which is what the author of the link stated. He also stated there was a host of military saints already being venerated both during and before Augustine's time.

Some examples are: Saints George, Demetrius of Thessaloniki, Sebastian, Theodore of Amasea, and Theodore Stratelates.

Even in the east, which made considerable effort to win christian support by portraying the emperor as the champion of nicene christianity, it seems to have taken time for this to work i.e. for more citizens to serve reducing need for barbarians.

Hard to say one way or the other. According to Libanius, Julian was killed by one of his own Christian soldiers.

But I think it's safe to say that the army was almost purely Christian by the sixth century. This army was able to reconquer many of the Western provinces and stand up to Persia.

~Theo

[starman2012]

I only meant to demonstrate that from the time of Augustus onward that the emperors had to resort to conscription and relaxing military discipline regarding legionaries taking up common wives and raising children in order to maintain the ranks. Things were very different during the Republic.

And they became even more different in the late Empire, judging by the frequency of laws against self-mutilation to avoid service.

Given the opportunity and some careful planning I don't think procuring weapons would have been much of a problem for the Christians, especially the Jewish-Christians who could have joined the revolt.

One problem was they didn't have a home turf or territorial base like the Jews, who were the majority in some areas.

I agree. And I think what you said also applies to the pagan populace during the principate.

Citizens willing to become soldiers were really exceptional in the fifth century when paganism was practically gone.

According to Libanius, Julian was killed by one of his own Christian soldiers.

I have doubts. They could've made that up to avoid the embarrassment of an emperor killed by the enemy.

But I think it's safe to say that the army was almost purely Christian by the sixth century. This army was able to reconquer many of the Western provinces and stand up to Persia.

Sure. I guess by then, a whole new generation had grown up long removed from memories of the persecutions or original pilate gospel. Sort of like the Illyrians by the third century--long enough after the (re)conquest of Illyria by Augustus. mile:

[Theodosius the Great]

I have doubts. They could've made that up to avoid the embarrassment of an emperor killed by the enemy.

As do I but that's beside the point. The reason I mention the accusation is because it may indicate a large Christian presence in the army by 361 A.D., even if Libanius was lying an effective lie has to be plausible.

Sure. I guess by then, a whole new generation had grown up long removed from memories of the persecutions or original pilate gospel. Sort of like the Illyrians by the third century--long enough after the (re)conquest of Illyria by Augustus.

Have you considered the possibility that many converts were made in the army since the time of Constantine. What kind of converts could we expect from men with a military background? 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.


~Theo