Greatest ruler of antiquity

Mar 2013
1,341
Escandinavia y Mesopotamia
#51
I know but that still appears to have its effect anyway.
At least not negative affect in term of developments giving the progression of Medieval Europe which turned from a primitive Pagan continent into a wealthy Christian continent that generated The Scientific Revolution and Industrial Revolution.

The idea that Christianity halted science and caused decline is one of the most stupid assumption, and which is refuted convincingly by sholars and academia exemplified by the modern academic sources I provided.

Neo-atheistic losers are of course entitle to have their own personal opinion, but they are not entitle not to be informed and corrected about what the historians think.


Momigliano was still a pro historian, Grant wrote many books--he seemed scholarly enough--and with regard to some matters like the fate of Valerian, Gibbon made far better sense than some of the most modern authors.
What is “pro historian”? – Perhaps you should not use self-invented term if you don’t know how the academia and professional historians work.

Grant is not professional historian and his expertise are numismatic coins. In the academia they would ask you to provide better sources for your assertions and better arguments to convince the historians and students of history.

Gibbon is outdated and from 1700’s, but taking into consideration your howlers it is not surprising you rely on this Jew-hater.



Being a minority doesn't mean wrong. I suspect some are reluctant to blame christianity because it has the potential to "ruffle feathers."
The academia is a secular place and when the vast historians and specific Roman historians have debunked this outdated myth then it is most likely your neo-atheistic prejudice that are preventing you to acknowledge you don’t have a strong case.



Yes it did, or at least it tried its very best, for example after the big expedition of 468 the ERE was broke for years....
No, they often came in conflict with each other and the ERE often did deflect some barbarian armies by encouraging them to go to WRE.


No, the WRE collapsed because of its own chronic weakness. Forced to rely on barbarian recruits after its own citizens refused to serve or fight, it stupidly alienated the barbarian soldiers in 408. After that it was too weak to prevent gradual inroads...
That is speculation and some of your assumptions are just plainly wrong. Roman Empire was ONE STATE in the 200s. In 400’s the state was divided in a WRE and a ERE, and this was the difference. Your assumption that ERE collapsed because of Christianity because the Christianity was in charge is just as weak as if one claims that Obama caused the Financial crisis of 2007–2008 because the president was black when the Financial crisis escalated.


In fact Julian marked the last time prior to the fall of the WRE that Rome still had potent offensive capability. The fifth century empire could scarcely even defend.
Utterly rubbish. The empire had no problem with “potent offensive capability” prior and after Julian the Apostate’s failure. Gibbon’s lapdog did not fail because the state lacked potency, he failed simply because he was completely abysmal. You need to explain why this faithful Pagan emperor was such a failure in term of militarily and culturally matters as he lost battles and worsened the empire’s status and strength and at the same time suppressed learning. Obviously, this prick of Julian’s failures are undermining your and others Gibbon-readers’ assumption, and that is the reason why I brought him in. :D


:lol: It may have lasted a lot longer but it sure lost a lot of territory long before 1453.
ALL empires/states do lose area and are eventually shut down. ERE was the most successful of all states in Middle Ages in Eurasia because you will not manage to find a state around Eurasia that did it better than Byzantines.

ERE was an universal “vast” empire from 395-636. For 240 years it was a vast Empire, that is much better than for example Ptolemaic Kingdom which never reached the same size.

From 717-1204 ERE was a state with a population of 8-12 millions which was still “top 2” in Eurasia if not then top 1 in most of its time. That is pretty good numbers for a state in Medieval period.

The Latin Sack of 1204 destroyed much of it, and even here they lasted until 1453, and even carried out classical learning to Italy which fueled the Reanasisaince.

Here a map so you better can grasp it:


Can you find a state that did better than ERE? – No, you cannot.


Come on didn't you ever hear of its defeat by the Huns that year? The ERE had to pay a lot of gold as "protection money" i.e. Attila successfully extorted it from the militarily less than stellar ERE.
The Hunnic Empire could not do much to destroy ERE, and Theodosius II after all managed to lead the state trough a hard time against a formidable enemy with mobility. That was unlike the Pagan dumbass of Julian the Apostate who brought shame over his name, character and legacy by raping his own state’s strength.

Hunnic Empire was also a pagan inferior entity unlike the ERE which was a high civilization who studied Plato and Euclid. Just saying. :lol:


It had an awful hard time. Even before the arabs relieved it of over half its territory the Sassanids nearly broke it c 600 CE.
And the reason they “lost” to the Arabs has more to do with the exhausting Byxantine-Sassanian war which crippled both empires than it has to do with ineptitude unlike the Julian the Apostate’s failure :lol:

ERE was an universal “vast” empire from 395-636. For 240 years it was a vast Empire. I don't complain, and you will not find a state that did it better in Eurasia.
 
Last edited:
Mar 2013
1,341
Escandinavia y Mesopotamia
#52
but the emphasis emphasis was on schools of philosophy, logic, law and rhetoric; not theology.
This is a classic Edward-Gibberish assumption which is utterly debunked by the historians of science.

Christians also have emphasis on “schools of philosophy, logic, law and rhetoric”. And the Pagan Romans also had emphasis on religion as well.
 
Nov 2017
789
Commune
#53
If Christianity caused the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the weakening of the Eastern one, then it only makes Christianity look even better. So terrible that a slaver authoritarian government ruled by an absolutist monarch fell!

Of course, Christian kingdoms could be just as absolutist, but just the fact that natives could assert themselves and create their own nation and their own state, causing a balance of power and forcing monarchs to minimise their authoritarian absolutism, is a development we should all praise.

Edit: Philosophy was basically the Greek word for religion. Should be pointed out that those Greek "philosophers" that held a rather atheistic worldview (this being the reason why their works didn't survive even before Constantine) never called themselves "philosophers" and Greek writers like Diogenes Laertius were simply trying to validate their religious worldview by saying even these impious atheists had to rely on divine knowledge from Zeus. Plato outright excluded atheists from his definition of philosopher, this being the reason he called them "sophists" instead.
 
Last edited:
Jan 2015
3,347
Australia
#54
Not wanting to get into such a big topic on this unrelated thread, so briefly:
1) I called Christianity "a cause" not "the cause" of the decline. There were a tonne of causes, and Christianity isn't close to the biggest.
2) It's still nonsense to credit the spread of Christianity as "an achievement" for the reasons given (no casual relationship, etc, would have worked for another brand of superstition too), and
3) To call the Roman Empire terrible is to apply modern standards to them, instead of comparing them to the worse societies around them.
 
Nov 2017
789
Commune
#55
2) It's still nonsense to credit the spread of Christianity as "an achievement" for the reasons given (no casual relationship, etc, would have worked for another brand of superstition too), and
3) To call the Roman Empire terrible is to apply modern standards to them, instead of comparing them to the worse societies around them.
To call the Christianity superstition is to apply modern standards to them, instead of comparing them to the worse religions around them.
 
Mar 2013
1,341
Escandinavia y Mesopotamia
#56
1) I called Christianity "a cause" not "the cause" of the decline. There were a tonne of causes, and Christianity isn't close to the biggest.
That is a far lesser stupid assertion than the prior one where some less-gifted debaters assert that Christianity caused the decline, but become agitated when they are corrected and being told that the vast academia refutes this hoary myth and that they are relying on outdated works.

Your assumption is still only an assumption.

2) It's still nonsense to credit the spread of Christianity as "an achievement" for the reasons given (no casual relationship, etc, would have worked for another brand of superstition too), and
No one is doing it either. Just because you cannot refute my point doesn’t mean you can distort it. – What is stated is that Christianity did not halt the progressions as you asserted indirectly. Because it is utterly nonsense and refuted by the historians of science. My academic sources are alreasy provided.


3) To call the Roman Empire terrible is to apply modern standards to them, instead of comparing them to the worse societies around them.
Don’t have a clue what you are talking about.

But you are not well-informed with regard to Roman history and Medieval history. And that is no surprise indeed as Gibbon-readers should never delude themselves to think they have learned history by resorting to some 1700s outdated works inflicted with tall tales.

For example you assert idiotically that Christian Romans did not have emphasis on “schools of philosophy, logic, law and rhetoric” but on “theology”.

Us historians who had Roman history and Medieval history as lesson at uni would tell you that “philosophy” and “logic” was adopted and loved by the early Christians, because it could be combined to understand the nature of Christianity, and very often they used the philosophical arguments and logic from Plato and Aristotle and combined it with Christianity. Augustin is one example. Actually the Christian Roman, John Philoponus, was a heavily gifted man who questioned the philosophy of Aristotle’s flawed physics, and for first time ever someone realized Aristotelian physic was wrong, and even Galileo was indebted to John Philoponus’ works – That was unlike the Pagan “barbarians” in Europe who never ever have heard of Greek philosophy until they converted into Christianity during 800-1200 CE.

“Law” was a common feature among Christian Romans: Theodosius II launched Codex Theodosianus, and when we compare it with Salic Books, we can clearly see a superior and more complex society of Christian Roman State in comparison to the lesser-Christian West. Justinian, who himself was jurist, ordered Corpus Juris Civilis which simplified and codified the whole Roman laws in a much easier manner: today it is the background for all the Western Civilization’s jurisprudence. Later an alternative version found place under later emperors which made it the background for the jurisprudence for the Slavic nations today.

“Rhetoric” continued and the works of Cicero, Tacitus, Libanus etc etc were studied. When we see Procopius’ works or Anna Komnena’s works we will clearly see that they use the narrative- and rhetorical style of Herodotus and Thucydides.

And to your dismay I can reveal that from Constantine the Great and onwards none emperors ever issued a ban to prohibit Christians from teaching classical leaning… apart from Julian the Apostate who was Pagan:

“His single most offensive action, which offended the pagan Ammianus as much as it offended Christians, was to forbid Christians from teaching classical…(…)”

(Source: David Potter’s “ROME IN THE ANCIENT WORLD” in page 287-290)

:lol:



And unlike what you think Pagan Rome was not “liberal” inflicted with “secularism”. The Pagan Romans also had “emphasis” on religion. Just ask the Bacchanals, Druids, Jews, Christians and Manicheans plus some others who were persecuted/genocided under Pagan rule. And If a Hindu popped up in Roman Empire then he would be persecuted also. It is only if he recognizes to worship the Cult of Emperors and when the Romans accept his religion and incorporate it into their sphere(like for example by turning Krishnare into a Regulus) that he would be allowed to live. Augustus ordered the destruction of the Sibylline Books because he was afraid that people could use it to make prophecy and magic. And the Christians were accused of being atheists because they refuted to worship the cult of Emperors. - So your assumption that Pagan Roman Empire had religions freedom or were rational like we are today, and that people were allowed to have their own religion and being atheist, is just false.

All this you would have easily known if you had just consulted some few academic works of Late-Antiquity scholar like Wickham or historian of science like David. C. Lindberg.

You don't have to be an educated histrian who used 3 years in an university to get it. All this is basic history.
 

starman

Ad Honorem
Jan 2014
3,771
Connecticut
#57
The idea that Christianity halted science and caused decline is one of the most stupid assumption,
I don't subscribe to that view!


Gibbon is outdated and from 1700’s
Nevertheless he showed better judgment on at least one issue than some of the most recent works. I understand Momigliano, a jew IIRC, also considered christianity in part responsible.

No, they often came in conflict with each other and the ERE often did deflect some barbarian armies by encouraging them to go to WRE.
The ERE tried to help in c 430, 440 and 468, by sending troops to help the WRE; its effort in 468 was so big it left the ERE broke for years afterwards....


That is speculation and some of your assumptions are just plainly wrong. Roman Empire was ONE STATE in the 200s. In 400’s the state was divided in a WRE and a ERE, and this was the difference.
So what there was still mutual assistance.

Your assumption that ERE collapsed because of Christianity because the Christianity was in charge
:lol:I didn't say the ERE collapsed because of christianity...In fact there is much more to the argument that christianity led to military weakness than just the apparent temporal correlation. Surely you realize leading authorities in the church opposed military service....So when the population became predominantly christian...



Utterly rubbish. The empire had no problem with “potent offensive capability” prior and after Julian the Apostate’s failure.
In fact already in the late 4rth century--after Julian-- it could neither fully control the goths nor expel them. Compare that with the third century achievements of c 268-69.



ALL empires/states do lose area and are eventually shut down. ERE was the most successful of all states in Middle Ages in Eurasia because you will not manage to find a state around Eurasia that did it better than Byzantines.
:lol: I don't think that's much to brag about because it was the only empire of late antiquity to survive.


ERE was an universal “vast” empire from 395-636. For 240 years it was a vast Empire, that is much better than for example Ptolemaic Kingdom which never reached the same size.
It had inherited its territory from the original pagan empire.

From 717-1204 ERE was a state with a population of 8-12 millions which was still “top 2” in Eurasia if not then top 1 in most of its time. That is pretty good numbers for a state in Medieval period.
Right in the medieval period....


The Hunnic Empire could not do much to destroy ERE,
It absolutely ravaged the balkans, slaughtered ERE armies, extorted vast suns and could've done much worse if it chose. For some reason the barbarian invasions tended to fall on the WRE; they could have gone the other way. The barbarians could have invaded Asia minor, like in the third century, but this time with a real army, and deprived the ERE of its richest territories.
The ERE was just sooooo lucky. Around 447 an earthquake wrecked part of the wall of Constantinople which was fixed just in time....

Hunnic Empire was also a pagan inferior entity unlike the ERE...
:lol:In terms of fighting power the Hunnic empire was anything but inferior.

And the reason they “lost” to the Arabs has more to do with the exhausting Byxantine-Sassanian war which crippled both empires than it has to do with ineptitude unlike the Julian the Apostate’s failure
Julian did well tactically, on the Rhine on 357 and in the east. The campaign in the east was a strategic failure which owed much to logistical issues not sassanid power. Julian's army was tactically capable, it wasn't defeated in battle.
 
Last edited:
Mar 2013
1,341
Escandinavia y Mesopotamia
#59
I don't subscribe to that view!
A lot of idiots and suckers, often those who rely on such outdated works of Gibbon, do.


Nevertheless he showed better judgment on at least one issue than some of the most recent works. I understand Momigliano, a jew IIRC, also considered christianity in part responsible.
This doesn’t mean the academia and vast scholars of Roman history in the 21th century agree as they have debunked this old theory.

As stated: "If one can find a scholar in the field he is covering that states that Christianity was to blame(and there probably are some), then they would be a minority with their view in the academia. Of course."


The ERE tried to help in c 430, 440 and 468, by sending troops to help the WRE; its effort in 468 was so big it left the ERE broke for years afterwards....
And other times ERE did not. Fact remains that Roman Empire was ONE STATE in the 200s while in 400’s the state was divided in a WRE and a ERE, and this was the difference.


So what there was still mutual assistance.
Not as effective as when the Roman Empire was ONE STATE in the 200s.


:lol:I didn't say the ERE collapsed because of christianity...In fact there is much more to the argument that christianity led to military weakness than just the apparent temporal correlation. Surely you realize leading authorities in the church opposed military service....So when the population became predominantly christian...
Not really as this is just some stupid Gibbonic-assumption :lol:

Christianity certainly did not lead to “military weakness”. This outdated theory is no longer accepted in the academia for obvious reason, and nothing suggest that a Christian cannot fight and be a good soldier as a Pagan can.


In fact already in the late 4rth century--after Julian-- it could neither fully control the goths nor expel them. Compare that with the third century achievements of c 268-69.
Here my former post to illustrate what a gigantic Pagan fiasco he was:

A lot of other rulers were also “philosopher” without being such a fiasco as Gibbon’s little darling.

Julian was a truly failure and his little fame are only caused because of some Edward Gibberish works which is no longer used among students of history as they are outdated.

He failed utterly to install Paganism although he had everything with him to succeed and the Christians were in minority and Pagans in majority. Also his military campaign against the Persians was so abysmal that he completely neglected siege equipments which halted his plan as the Persians were safe within their fortress and it caused hunger in his army with that result that when he retreated very cowardly the Persians could very easy slaughter that Pagan dumbass’ army with that result that a large chunk of land, that was conquered by previously emperors some few decades before, were giving back to the Persians. – And Julian was against the science as he ordered prohibition of Christians from teaching philosophy, mathematic, history and rhetoric in such way that it also caused disgusting among not only from Christians but also from pagan Ammianus.

Unlike you, who are slave of non-academic works from 1700’s such of Gibbon and Voltaire, I am in contrary servant of modern scholarships, so let see what David Potter, a scholar of ancient Rome, says about the failure of Gibbon's little pagan prick of Julian:

From David Potter’s “ROME IN THE ANCIENT WORLD” on page 287-290:

On his failure of restoring the Paganism:
“(…)Julian combined a variety of different traditions to such a degree that he put himself well outside the mainstream of contemporary pagan belief. It is this that may help explain why, as he tried to restorethe worships of the gods – reopening temples and appointing provincial priest to oversee the renewed cults – he found that his reception by pagans was at best lukewarm”

On his anti-science approach towards the Christians:
“His single most offensive action, which offended the pagan Ammianus as much as it offended Christians, was to forbid Christians from teaching classical…(…)”

On his abysmal military preparation and his loss to the Persians:
“In addition to the people of Antioch Julian also seems to have alienated powerful groups within the bureaucracy. Immediately after his occupation of Constantinople at the end of 361, he ordered trials of some of Constantius’s leading official all of which resulted in death sentences(…) It was therefore against a background of considerable tension that Julian launched his attack on Persia in the spring of 363.(…) But he had not brought adequate siege equipment, so there was nothing Julian could do when he arrived in front of Ctesiphon and found that the Persians were unwilling to negotiate and that, as they had flooded the area behind him, he would have to withdraw up the valley of the Tigris.(…) Julian managed to hold his increasingly bedraggled and hungry army together as the Persian army began to launch attacks designed to delay the retreat. Finally, however, on morning of June 26, he was mortally wounded.(…).”


Later when Jovian succeeded he had to negotiate on unfavorable conditions giving Julian’s mistreatment of Roman Empire:
“Jovian duly negotiated terms for the Roman withdrawal, which involved the surrender of all the territory that Diocletian had won from the Persians, together with the fortress city of NIsibis, which resisted several attacks by Sapor in Constantius’s time”

Not quite surprising that David Potter concluded that Julian’s reign was “a total catastrophe”

While Julian failed utterly in restoring Paganism when they were majority and as well worsened the strength of Roman Empire due to his military incompetence and as well oppressed the science by banning the Christians from practicing it, Constantine the Great was a big success: he paved the way for his religion that prior was persecuted under Pagan rule and was a minority, he won his battles successfully, and his city became the capital of an outstanding Greco-Romano state that preserved ancient legacy for the eternity, and he ruled much more than Julian paltry briefly 2 years reign where he cancelled the successful expansion of previous emperors in just a short period and abused the Roman state and its strengh. How embarrassing of Edward Gibbon's little lapdog.
What a Pagan resurgence, and what a Pagan attempt to revive the virtues of the Roman Empire when he in fact only succeeded in raping his own state. :lol::lol::lol:



:lol: I don't think that's much to brag about because it was the only empire of late antiquity to survive.
Then I suggest you to consult the map and learn some basic thing:lol:

Here: “Sassanid Empire”, “Italian Ostrogoths”, “Spanish Vesigoths”, “Vandal Empire”, Hunnic Empire(short lived and low-intellectual pagan state by the way), Rashidun Caliphate, Umayyad Caliphate, Abbasid Caliphate.


It had inherited its territory from the original pagan empire.
Just as many many many other states did. For example the Ptolomaic Kingdom inherited it from Alexander’s gain, and that state had only about 4-7 million population of its 300 years existence. In contrary the second/middle Byzantine state just from 700-1200 CE had about 7-12 million of population. And here we have even ignored the period prior when it was a vast universal empire from 395-636 CE for nearly 250 years in addition. – As I told you: you cannot find a better state that did it better than the Byzantines.


Right in the medieval period....
Fatimids, Seljuqs, Ayyubides, Bulgarian Empire, Crusader States, Slavs, Avars, Persians....

When will you start to learn your history proper. :lol:


It absolutely ravaged the balkans, slaughtered ERE armies, extorted vast suns and could've done much worse if it chose. For some reason the barbarian invasions tended to fall on the WRE; they could have gone the other way. The barbarians could have invaded Asia minor, like in the third century, but this time with a real army, and deprived the ERE of its richest territories.
The ERE was just sooooo lucky. Around 447 an earthquake wrecked part of the wall of Constantinople which was fixed just in time....
Hunnic Empire eventually dismantled and they "only" raided Balkans, and even here the ERE managed to win it back. Hunnic Empire was a short lived low-cultural Pagan state unlike the rich and oustanding ERE. The ERE was just soooooooooo a strong state that managed to win, repulse, and to readapt to various situations which explains why it lasted for an amazing time of 1000 years unlike the other primitive and low-cultural pagan states like the Hunnic Empire.


Around 447 an earthquake wrecked part of the wall of Constantinople which was fixed just in time....
:lol: And even an earthquake in a time when a furious enemy lead by a strong warrior like Atilla could not destroy the ERE. Julian the Apostate in contrary did not experience an earthquake yet and nor a strong warrior-leader like Atilla, yet Julian the Apostate was still a gigantic failure. What a shame in his paltry 2-3 years of reign indeed.

:lol:In terms of fighting power the Hunnic empire was anything but inferior.
Yet they could not hold on Balkan and had just to raid before it disappeared in its short reign that did not leave any cultural impact on the continent. - Christian ERE in contrary was not just more successful in term of military, but it was also a deeply high-cultural entity as they studied Plato, Aristotle, Euclid etc. and even improved classical learning and jurisprudence. That was indeed in contrast to that primitive pagan state of the Huns that you like :lol:


Julian did well tactically, on the Rhine on 357 and in the east. The campaign in the east was a strategic failure which owed much to logistical issues not sassanid power. Julian's army was tactically capable, it wasn't defeated in battle.
Defeating some small barbarians in West is not the same as fighting the harder enemy of Persians in which Julian the Apostate failed utterly. It was not "logistical issues" that caused that Pagan dumbass to lose, it was sheer military and tactically ineptitude where he took some risky decisions that caused him to assault his own state, just as explained in my post with reference to David Potter with yellow letters.


The biggest problem was military weakness. Christianity appears to have played a big role in that.
Not really. As mentioned earlier the more Christian ERE did a far far far better job than the lesser-Christian WRE, and this not to mention that ERE was the most stabile and successful state that overshadowed other Pagan areas.

Let's hear what the academia states rather than relying on your assumption based on old theory and old works:

From 28:03 in the Yale University:

 
Last edited:

starman

Ad Honorem
Jan 2014
3,771
Connecticut
#60
And other times ERE did not. Fact remains that Roman Empire was ONE STATE in the 200s while in 400’s the state was divided in a WRE and a ERE, and this was the difference.
But it didn't prevent major attempts at mutual assistance. The ERE could not have done more than what it did in 468. The problem was, since the ERE had its own problems and the WERE couldn't survive on its own, the latter was doomed.

Not as effective as when the Roman Empire was ONE STATE in the 200s.
Aurelian had just ONE state out of THREE yet managed to reunite the empire, AND beat invaders.

Christianity certainly did not lead to “military weakness”.
Its rise coincided with precisely that...which was perfectly logical as christians of the late empire had been told not to fight. Judging by the decreased efficiency of the late 4rth century army, and reliance on barbarians, it seems they obeyed their church fathers...

This outdated theory is no longer accepted in the academia for obvious reason, and nothing suggest that a Christian cannot fight and be a good soldier as a Pagan can.
But only after Augustine and his concept of the "just war." The christian WRE of the fifth century was pathetically weak. (I know it didn't seem as christian as the ERE as the elite was still partly pagan to c 400 CE. But the fifth century WRE was fully christian, essentially.)

Here: “Sassanid Empire”, “Italian Ostrogoths”, “Spanish Vesigoths”, “Vandal Empire”, Hunnic Empire(short lived and low-intellectual pagan state by the way),
When I said the ERE was the only empire of late antiquity to survive I meant down to c 700 CE.

Hunnic Empire eventually dismantled and they "only" raided Balkans, and even here the ERE managed to win it back.
:lol:Win it back? The balkans was utterly devastated and never recovered economically under the ERE. The Huns withdrew after the ERE agreed to pay big sums in gold as "protection money."

And even an earthquake in a time when a furious enemy lead by a strong warrior like Atilla could not destroy the ERE.
Had the wall not been fixed in time, the ERE would've been toast.....

Btw, I didn't say I liked the Huns just that they were militarily stronger than the ERE.

Defeating some small barbarians in West is not the same as fighting the harder enemy of Persians in which Julian the Apostate failed utterly.
He erred by not bringing siege equipment, but as I wrote he was tactically proficient. The Persians were reluctant to engage him in a big battle and when they tried he won, at least tactically.

Not really. As mentioned earlier the more Christian ERE did a far far far better job than the lesser-Christian WRE,
The WRE was essentially just as christian and the ERE failed disastrously in 447 and 468. Survival of the ERE wasn't due to christianity but good fortune (fewer invasions that didn't go as far as in the WRE) and greater wealth.
 
Last edited:

Similar History Discussions