You must have grown tired of them in your 3 months long 72 post existence on this board (most of which are one liner posts, and all but 7 of which are from the last month). I don't actually care, but your status as a 2nd account for someone has been obvious almost as soon as you started posting.
On the substance I agree though, which is why I said I wasn't going to get sucked into a Rome/Christianity thread beyond observing that we shouldn't credit the spread of Christianity as a point in Constantine's favour.
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.
Rubbish. ERE sometimes provided help and other time did not, and other time even came in conflicts with WRE. As stated the fact remains that Roman Empire was ONE STATE in the 200s while in 400’s the state was divided in a West and an East (and often with animosity between them).
Aurelian had just ONE state out of THREE yet managed to reunite the empire, AND beat invaders.
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...
Just because the world financial crisis did coincided with a black president doesn't mean that it was Obama's race that caused it. Obvously you lack some knowledge on some basic scientific theory.
No. The Roman military did experience “military weakness”. It adopted to a new style of warfare giving the geopolitical conditions started already in 200's. When the Roman Empire was divided in two and ERE did not provide help to WRE the latter one collapsed.
Your personal "judging" is totally irrelevant as the academia doesn't care about your feelings.
Church fathers were not a problem for the heavily Christian Byzantine state that lasted for 1000 years, and nor was it a problem when Heraclius asked them to become soldiers. Again, you are relying on outdated myth already debunked by the academia.
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.)
Augustine precisely argues for correct cause for war.
Yes. The lesser Christian of Western Roman Empire was pathetically weak unlike the more Christian Eastern Roman Empire that experienced an amazing span of 1000 years with success in military and culturally terms.
When I said the ERE was the only empire of late antiquity to survive I meant down to c 700 CE.
It still doesn’t hide your ignorance and make no sense at all. Until ca 700 there were still Vesigothic Spain, Ostrogothic Italy, Vandal Empire, Slavs, Avars, Hunnic Empire, Persian Empire, Rashidun Caliphate.
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."
Obviously you are much more than just ignorant on this topic, and taking into consideration that you are an eager Gibbon-reader who rely on outdated works and theories, then that is not surprising at all
To your education: Balkan did in fact come AGAIN under Byzantine control after that barbarian pagan Hunnic state disappeared, and Balkan actually did become a wealthy province again in the 500s and even struck coins to circulate.
Hunnics simply withdrew because they could not defeat and hold on Balkan for a long time despite the earthquake and an incredible military leader like Atilla. – Gibbon’s filthy lapdog of Julian the Apostate in contrary did not experience any earthquake nor such a deadly foe like Atilla, yet that Pagan prick failed utterly to your and other Gibbon-fanboys dismay.
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.
No, it would not. They would just have moved the capital to another city.
The Huns were truly filthy uneducated barbarians. The Christian Byzantines in contrary did study Aristotle, made complex monumental buildings by incorporating Euclid’s mathematic, and studied and improved law and physics. An inconvenient fact for you.
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.
He erred much much much more than that, and you need better apology for defending the failures of that Pagan emperor that failed militarily and suppressed learning. I have already provided David Potter’s description, and I trust him more than I trust an eager Gibbon-reader.
No. Learn basic history and get your facts in first place. Christianity was more spread in Eastern Roman Empire than in its Western counterpart as archelogy and written sources all state that. That is no surprise taking into consideration that Paulus mainly lived and organized the first organizations in the eastern part.
...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.
Christian Byzantines survived for amazingly 1000 years and made incredible contribution scientifically, culturally and militarily. Simply because your Gibbonic assumption that Christianity caused Roman Empire to fall is an outdated and debunked idea. Just as that Yale course and the vast academia state.
Then don’t start with stating idiotically that “And spreading Christianity for future generations was a good thing?” alongside spouting out some plain wrong myths like that Christian Romans don’t do philosophy and law and all other assorted myths.
I think you’re the one who is confused, because you’re projecting the arguments you’re used to responding to in my very brief posts that make no such claims. I am well aware of the value that the fall of Byzantium played triggering much of the enlightenment. It’s very clearly a major, major factor. But when scholars discuss the sorts of material that triggered said intellectual flowering, they talk of writers like Cicero and Seneca; humanists and scholars whose works was not dogmatic in nature. They don’t say “that dissertation on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin really was a conversation starter in Western Europe”, etc (and no, that’s not a literal example). The point is the material and knowledge that helped was not “Christian” in nature, and the intellectual aspects of Rome’s earlier period that still flourished in the Eastern Roman Empire was not marked for its uniquely Christian origins. Academics do not look back and say “Christianity was a unique form of superstition that really let Rome’s intellectual tradition flourish, we can only wonder where they’d have been without it”. It was rather an incidental coincidence; if it hadn’t been Christianity, it’d have been something else. It was not unlike the colour of the Romans skin. They happened to be white, but it wasn’t the reason for their achievements. Later Rome happened to be Christian, but there’s no evidence of a causal relationship between their religion and their advancement over Dark Ages Western Europe. Ancient Rome of 44BC wasn’t Christian, and would have been similarly superior. In addition I think there are many compelling arguments I don’t want to get into that Christianity hindered Rome’s existing greatness, and that Rome would have been even further ahead of Western Europe without it. It wasn’t even close to the biggest reason for the collapse of the Empire though, West or East.
Unlike you I don’t promote historical myths, like that one where you idiotically asserted that Christians Romans don’t do philosophy, logic, law and rhetoric, which is completely bollocks and refuted by the historians and especially historians of science.
...But when scholars discuss the sorts of material that triggered said intellectual flowering, they talk of writers like Cicero and Seneca; humanists and scholars whose works was not dogmatic in nature. They don’t say “that dissertation on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin really was a conversation starter in Western Europe”...
Don’t confuse the “scholars” with your own personal opinion.
Because the "scholars”, such of Late-Antiquity scholars like Peter Brown and Chris Wickham or such of renowned historians of science like Ronald Numbers, Edward Grant and David Lindberg would all refute your nonsense, simple because there were numerous numerous numerous Christian Ciceros and Senecas onwards, and just because you haven’t consulted basic modern scholarships about history of science and Middle Ages don't mean that your nonsenses are facts accepted by the historians.
Like for example the Pagans killed Socrates because he questioned to much questions that made the Athenians to fear potential reaction of the gods, and Julian the Apostate was superstitious as he believed in prophecy, and Augustus even burnt the works of Sibylline Books because he was afraid that people could make prophecy, and not to mention that the romans forced almost everyone to believe in the imperial cult of emperors as they thought they were or would turn into Gods! – So, your nonsense that Christians Romans were illogical idiots who spoke about angels while Pagans Romans were intellectuals who debated only logic, is completely nonsense and unsupported by the academia.
...Academics do not look back and say “Christianity was a unique form of superstition that really let Rome’s intellectual tradition flourish, we can only wonder where they’d have been without it”....
No one is saying it. Just because you have failed to refute my point doesn’t mean you can distort it.
I suggest you to start to learn history and confine yourself to academic sources instead of relying on popular myths and outdated theories.
"Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion" by Ronald L. Numbers is very good and easy to read, and some chapters precisely deal with the myths you are believing it. - If you do a simple googling you will find that work on the net.
There's no point replying to you, because you're not even reading my posts at this point, you're just having an argument with yourself. Nobody suggested Rome no longer had philosophy or rhetoric once it became Christian; however I'd certainly argue the effect of Christianity on these things was bad (in another thread, when I have time, because I'm not going to derail this one for the sake of your personal crusade). To explain it in the most basic terms, because you seem to have not followed the nuance above at all; let's say Christianity caused those things to degrade by 20%. They can still have a tonne of those things, and be way ahead of Dark Ages Western Europe, without what I said being wrong. For reference, I am not suggesting "Christianity caused a 20% decrease in X", I am trying to knock the concept into your head.
Then why did you come with some plain wrong assumptions and speculations like these two:
"... the emphasis emphasis was on schools of philosophy, logic, law and rhetoric; not theology..."
"... But when scholars discuss the sorts of material that triggered said intellectual flowering, they talk of writers like Cicero and Seneca; humanists and scholars whose works was not dogmatic in nature. They don’t say “that dissertation on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin really was a conversation starter in Western Europe”, etc.."
; however I'd certainly argue the effect of Christianity on these things was bad...
Then don't ask stupid rhetorical questions like "And spreading Christianity for future generations was a good thing?" or assuming myths like that the Christian Romans did not have emphasis on “schools of philosophy, logic, law and rhetoric”.
To explain it in the most basic terms, because you seem to have not followed the nuance above at all; let's say Christianity caused..... degrade by 20%.... without what I said being wrong.... For reference, I am not suggesting "Christianity caused a 20% decrease in X"..... I am trying to knock the concept into your head....