Some absolute political genius sometime in the 4th century worked out that Rome could not survive as a military power, but could survive as a church.
For the next thousand years, Rome effectively controlled much of Europe.
Today, 1500 years later, billions of people all over the world look to Rome for guidance, and Rome still has political sway over large areas of the world.
[The Empire Never Ended](https://www.splicetoday.com/writing/the-empire-never-ended)
Such dribble.
Let's ignore that Rome had been in decline since at least the Gracchi brothers over 500 earlier. Endless civil wars ended the Republic replaced by a tyranny with only short periods of stability. Rome kept on for 500 years only because they'd conquer their neighbors between civil wars.
Let's ignore that "tolerant" Rome had slaughtered countless Christians starting with Jesus himself (as pagan and Jewish sources also claim).
About cruxifixction. Pagan, yet tolerant, Rome was a slave society built on brutality. Nietzsche's sneers that Christianity is a slave religion are true and Christianity's triumph over Minerva et al. is the conclusion of a slave revolt started by Spartacus whose cruxifixction foreshadows Christ. That or the Romans really loved to impale people.
And anyway, did Rome really fall? Never mind that the Eastern half lasted an other 1000 years; after centuries of Romans using German troops Rome faced Alaric's Roman trained armies. There was no stopping the kraits this time.... and yet the Germans today use the Latin script. They model their bodies and minds under Roman ideals. To this day king in Germans is "Cesar". They worship the God decreed by the Roman Emperor.
>Let's ignore that "tolerant" Rome had slaughtered ... Jesus himself (as pagan and Jewish sources also claim).
Cite? I'm completely unaware of any non-Christian sources that mention the execution of Jesus of Nazareth.
> Such dribble.
Please avoid swipes like this on HN. Your comment makes good points but is spoiled by this opening and the fulminating tone. Please take care to observe the guidelines, particularly these ones:
Be kind. Edit out swipes.
When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer.
If the Christians offered to the emperor and participated in state rituals they wouldn’t have been persecuted and executed. There were plenty of cults and religions and most were absolutely fine. The problem was that the Christians placed themselves outside of the normal structures. That was a Big Deal.
The rest, I dunno what happened but you seem to have some chip on your shoulder about the Romans. Nothing they did was out of the ordinary considering the times, or even compared to very recent times.
> In fact, Rome’s legendary founder, Romulus, was the son of a Vestal priestess—Rhea Silvia.
This is far from fact, it is, with near certainty, a legend (which also tells us that the father is the god Mars, btw; or Aeneas, or unknown, depending on the version). The illustrations are from a completely different era that projected a lot of its own politics into its reading of Rome's history and the article does not provide this contextualization.
Not sure what to make of the parts of the article that are new to me, when parts I know about are at least debatable.
The phrasing is slightly ambiguous, but I don't think the author is saying that Rhea Silvia's son was Romulus as a fact.
I think the author is using the fact that the Roman's had a legend/myth that their founder who was the son of a Vestal priestess (even amongst other, perhaps mutually contradictory legends) as evidence that the Roman's held the Vestal priesthood in high regard.
This would be akin to the whole Washington cutting down the tree thing. It's a myth, but you could also use it as evidence that Americans for centuries admired honesty in their leaders.
The word "legendary" explicitly tells you that the author is referring to a legend. That the legend tells this is, indeed, a fact.
The ‘fact’ is that the legend claims Romulus is the son of a Vestal priestess, not that he was in reality. Calling Romulus the ‘legendary founder’ implies his mother is also legendary.
> Rome’s legendary founder, Romulus, was the son of a Vestal priestess—Rhea Silvia.
I note that she was a vestal priestess, not a vestal Virgin. Though around that time such a thing was supposedly possible.
Aeneas is several generations removed from Rhea Silvia, as the founder of the ruling dynasty of Alba Longa whence Rhea Silvia emerged.
"In fact" is a turn of phrase, it does not literally mean "in factuality."
No, it does literally mean "in factuality". Anyone using it as a fanciful turn of phrase is using the phrase incorrectly.
In fact, it turned out that Darth Vader was Lukes father.
Contextual fictional facts are really common in language. I remember doing it in philosophy first year. It conundrum-y philosophically, but usually understood effortlessly in normal discourse.
In fact, Santa Claus is a man
Well, you can be a descriptivist all you want, but it's commonly understood to not mean "in factuality" even if people use it "incorrectly."
Bret Devereaux wrote a good introduction to the scholarly debate between the "decline and fall" camp and the "change and continuity" camp. Christianity was at this point the Roman state religion and the survival of the Church as an institution is considered as a point in favor of change and continuity.
https://acoup.blog/2022/01/14/collections-rome-decline-and-f...
I've read this series before and I still don't buy part I saying this[0] is artistically just as skillful as this[1], only the artist intentionally idealized the depiction of the tetrarchs. To me this is clearly more primitive art.
[0] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/67/Ve... [1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/eb/St...
It’s because we have been taught over and over and over that realism matters and that the Greeks and Romans were the zenith of art and civilisation. We’re basically still living with renaissance propaganda.
They could have made statues more like the one of Augustus. But art is more than realism, and it had to represent other things at this point in time.
I'm still blown away by Roman statues whenever I see them in museums. They have the presence of living, breathing people.
I also had this thought, until I then saw the Greek statues in museums that the Romans were trying to emulate!
I posted this article because it's an interesting read. The blog seems to exist to promote the author's novel which I haven't read and may be terrible, for all I know.
> The issue with Christianity was that it didn’t play nice with the Roman state religion or customs, and worse, it actively sought to convert people, saying its god was the only god. That undermined Roman social order and the way the state had functioned for centuries.
The writer clearly has an axe to grind. This is nothing new; it is somewhat cliché to blame Christianity for breaking the Roman social order and somewhat cause its downfall, at least since Gibbon. But this claim it's just not true.
The issue with Christianity was that, in fact, Roman state religion didn't play nice with it. Christians refused to make sacrifices to the Caesar and this effectively made them outlaws. Rome was tolerant of almost anything provided that adherents of any religion are willing to offer sacrifices to the Emperor. This was not optional; it was a requirement.
Such a demand collided with beliefs of both Christians and Jews, but Jews had rules allowing them to practice their religion. Christians did not.
The story of the last Vestal is interesting enough without needing to resort to this misrepresentation of facts.
One interesting idea is that we do not actually know when Rome fell in the West. We can pinpoint some events, but the fall was probably long and slow. The people there still had Roman identity, institutions, etc, they were just not politically as unified as before. The Visigoths had Roman Emperors on their coins even in 580 for example.
I think it would be more correct to say that the concept of "the fall (or end) of the western roman empire" is insufficiently defined.
If one imagined an alternative US Civil War, where the war ended in stalemate, the Union and CSA coexisting for decades, before an miraculously resurgent Mexican Empire swept through and engulfed the territories of both, before allowing the original 13 states to continue to exist as a subservient, but nominally independent state that still had nominal local democratic republicanism, and the inhabitants on those states will called themselves "Americans".
When would you say "the United States of America fell" in that scenario?
Arguments about the "when did the Roman Empire fall in the west" are actually arguments about what are the most important aspects to Rome to us, here today in the modern world (particularly in the western world).
The Roman Empire in the east at the time did just fine, though.
The Goths in a (very technical) way "unified" the empire after they took Italy since they got rid of the western emperor and declared that they are now vassals of the one in Constantinople.
In a couple of generations Romans were on the verge of retaking the entire Mediterranean, without the issues with the climate and especially the plague they might have done just fine and we'd be talking about the "crisis of the 5th century" instead of the fall.
Yeah. I wasn't so much arguing about the facts on the ground, but rather commenting on how the study of history tends to just be a mirror for our current, modern day concerns.
I wonder what future historians will say about the fall of the Russian Empire which currently seems to be underway.
I suspect if China took over Taiwan and throttled down exports of rare earth elements, high end chips, and manufacturing in general, we would be triangulating back to the point that the US began hemorrhaging credibility as a nation capable of being serious about its own and its allies well being.
As the onset of a US fall.
Personally, I didn't understand the Biden principle of helping Ukraine "not lose", but not helping it win. How was that ever going to produce a desirable result? And now, the US reputation for stalwart support of friends, and friends willingness to support the US, are both fading faster.
Well, I can't predict the future. At least I very much hope I can't.
The reelection of Trump would be the point that the USA started losing its credibility. No need for an external enemy, America turned out to be more than willing and capable to kill itself.
The idea of "a fall" is a universal bug in our thinking, I believe.
Most of what we learn has been from dramatization. There is, maybe, slightly less now, offset by more technical text, but that's a really recent change in human history. And even then, how many people's ideas of history are entirely formed from television shows and movies, or even stories told to each other?
We talk about what makes stories compelling. Compelling stories have a beginning, a climax, and an end. History thus also has a beginning, climax, and end.
So we think of the Roman Empire as a thing in history that had a beginning, and a rise, and then a fall.
Yet Rome still exists.
I see this a lot in discussions about businesses. Somebody will do something dumb, and then immediately two camps form: those that throw darts at the exact date that the business will cease to exist, and those that mock the first camp's predictions of timely demise.
So we get these really repetitive, entirely pointless debates after the fact about whether the business is "dead" or not, so everybody can try to figure out which camp was right.
But, in the general case, it never works that way. For every WebVan, there are a hundred Reddits: persistently spectral businesses, online and still making money, occasionally bolstered by some CEO whose job it is to convince everyone that the business is still as full of verve as ever it was, and yet, when people think of it, they think of it nostalgically, if they do at all.
Slashdot is still online and posting stories every day.
Rome never fell; its story changed. It stopped being the main character of historical storytelling for a certain period, but of course that leaves us wondering what happened to that character, and when exactly did that character die?
> Yet Rome still exists.
A city exists in the same place, yes, but you'd be insane to fail to note the centuries of economic decline and the nearly complete disappearance of the bureaucratic state.
> idea of "a fall" is a universal bug in our thinking
Occasionally it did happen that way though. e.g. the Soviet Union was seemingly fine (or not much worse that before) and suddenly it and its empire was in a couple of years.
Their style of communism/socialism went down with them and is pretty much dead.
Ironically this is a pretty good point in favor of GP, since the “powers that were” in Soviet Russia retained a great deal of their power and connections, as sibling comment noted. That said, I don’t think there is even a remote resemblance between the imperial might of Old Rome and its remnants in Italia. What did and does remain are the lineage of Romanized nations that succeeded it in Western Europe, and as many others have noted, the Church, which is a whole other subject in itself.
> between the imperial might of Old Rome and its remnants in Italia
After more than a thousand years that's true.
But Rome remained the "universal [Christian] Empire" well into the middle ages. In a way didn't really matter if its capital was in Constantinople or Aachen or Rome. Or if its ruler spoke Latin, Greek or even German.
Its ~35 years since the the collapse of the USSR, its cultural identity has pretty much disappeared.
I would consider Old Rome and the Holy Roman Empire to be two distinct entities.
Perhaps, yet a reasonably educated person in the Frankish Empire or the early Holy Roman Empire probably wouldn't. It wouldn't even make much sense to them.
> Their style of communism/socialism went down with them and is pretty much dead.
Arguably the absolute worst aspects of it are preserved under the state that exists there today. There's certainly a solid through-line through Putin himself.
Is it? Putin's regime seems like a mostly generic pseudo-fascist dictatorship, except that they have nukes and stuff which they inherited from the USSR.
> absolute worst aspects of it are preserved
While it's obviously horrible, lets not downplay what the USSR was.
Even as late as the 80s when they were pretty much exterminating entire towns and villages in Afghanistan. Of course there are tactical and strategical reasons why they can't do something close in scale to that in Ukraine.
One could argue that it still hasn’t fully fallen, since there is still the Vatican and the Catholic Church.
If we define a country as distinct from a nation, we can certainly say that Rome ceased to be with taking of Constantinople by the Ottomans. For the Western Empire, this would be the overthrow of Romulus Augustulus by Odoacer. A nation would be an identity shared by a people, while a country would be a geographic territory in which a ruling body has a monopoly on the use of force. If we do away with definitions this all gets quite messy.
But did WE ceased to exist. The countries back then were only loosely defined. Odoacer was additionally appointed by the Eastern Emperor to rule over Italy in his name, and he also had the support from Roman Senate. Was this really a country that ceased to exist, or was it just management overhaul?
the sultans of Ottoman empire still had the title of kayser-i rûm (Caesar of Rome) until the _sixteenth century_.
Even longer than that. Up to the middle of the 16th century, many Ottoman sultans considered it their most important title. After that, it quickly fell in importance and was supplanted by Islamic claim to legitimacy, but it was still used sporadically in the 18th century.
And Queen Victoria was the Empress of India. More or less equivalent situations.
Anyone who's played the Crusader Kings series of games knows how important these titles are to a dynasty on the rise.
This is also the origin of the Russian title of Czar or Tsar depending on the spelling you prefer.
Well the Roman emperor granted the title of Caesar to a Bulgarian in 705 which quickly turned into something that sounds like "tsar".
A bit over 840 years before the first Muscovy Tsar of Russia.
The Ottoman sultan just took it for himself because he conquered the territory and the people living there.
Many Greeks used to call themselves Romioi well into the 20th century.
Reminder that the modern pronunciation of "Caesar" has almost nothing to do with the original Latin, and that the German "Kaiser" is actually a fairly good phonetic transcription of the latter.
Which modern pronunciation? :)
It was a big highlight of my adult life to learn that each country pronounces latin their own way cause they map their spelling over it.
E.g. Italians read the "c" in Caesar as the ch in 'chair", Hungarians as ts in tsar, Americans (anglophones ?) as s in sea.
But yeah the German pronunciation of kaiser is probably closer to classic latin.
Yah I guess the delineation is fuzzier, not exactly a single “Rubicon” moment. But you can usually find multiple “starting points” for any event.
For the republic, the crossing of the Rubicon is when it failed. But really even the first triumvirate was technically a “failure” of a republic (centralizing power in 3).
> For the republic, the crossing of the Rubicon is when it failed.
I would agree with that, though I wouldn't say it was Caesar crossing that did it. It was Sulla crossing the Rubicon that broke that particular seal. And of course, the foundations were laid even before that.
> The Visigoths had Roman Emperors on their coins even in 580 for example.
The Franks had them even longer.
Even the Muslims did for a while despite their ban on portraying humans.
The Carolingians considered themselves Romans too. So the idea lasted until at least the ninth century.
I've always been fascinated by the transition from paganism to Christianity in ancient times and how it was even possible. It's hard to imagine a society as conservative and honor-bound as Rome abandoning their ancient traditions for some upstart religious cult. I understand a lot of it was a top-down change driven by converted emperors like Constantine, but even then you'd think there would have been a greater resistance to shuttering old temples and tossing out household shrines, especially when they were so tied to the glory and power of Rome. I wonder what the mood and discourse was like on the ground when Christianity was clearly on the upswing but not yet in a position to displace paganism. Did it feel like a modern culture war, or even like the specter of religious fascism? Or were most people indifferent and just going with whatever religion the emperor mandated for pragmatic reasons?
To build on sibling's points about how Constantine was simply throwing official weight behind a true grass-roots movement, you can look at what happened to Elagabalus for an example of top down religious change that blew up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elagabalus#Religious_controver...
The 2009 film Agora, starring Rachel Weisz, has a portrayal of the period. Of course it's not a historical document and subject to interpretation, but it is one perspective at least. Also there's a novel about Julian by Gore Vidal — I haven't read it but Julian was the last pagan emperor who unsuccessfully tried to receive Hellenic religion and stem the tide of Christianity.
> I understand a lot of it was a top-down change driven by converted emperors like Constantine
No, it was actually driven from the bottom up, as many people converted due to the appeal of a universal savior regardless social class. Christianity however was just one of the many death cults around during that time (meaning they are concerned with offering salvation when you die) such as Mithras or Isis worship.
Constantine legalized it because it was already so popular, especially among the upper classes, that would've been strange to continue to pretend it doesn't exist. The story of his conversion where he saw a cross in the sky and painted the (chi rho, first two letters of Christ in Greek) symbol is likely untrue and just a form of state propaganda.
Also Christianity was a Levantine religion, growing fast in Greece, Asia Minor, Egypt, Syria, and the Levant. The Eastern Roman Empire at the time was far richer, more urbanized, closer to the grain supply, and closer to Silk Road and Black Sea trade access.
Based on some of his other actions (like moving the capital), I'd speculate Constantine's conversion was part of a deliberate pivot to focus on the East (which paid off, as the centralized Byzantine state went on to survive much longer than its Western counterpart). I'm speculating because inferring his intentions has no historical evidence afaik.
It was bottom-up driven in the urban city centers, in the rural villages it was top-down (“pagan” means provincial villager).
https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/book-review-the-rise-of-chr...
> The rise of Christianity is a great puzzle. In 40 AD, there were maybe a thousand Christians. Their Messiah had just been executed, and they were on the wrong side of an intercontinental empire that had crushed all previous foes. By 400, there were forty million, and they were set to dominate the next millennium of Western history.
> Imagine taking a time machine to the year 2300 AD, and everyone is Scientologist. The United States is >99% Scientologist. So is Latin America and most of Europe. The Middle East follows some heretical pseudo-Scientology that thinks L Ron Hubbard was a great prophet, but maybe not the greatest prophet.
> This can only begin to capture how surprised the early Imperial Romans would be to learn of the triumph of Christianity. At least Scientology has a lot of money and a cut-throat recruitment arm! At least they fight back when you persecute them! At least they seem to be in the game!
How did Christianity win? Pro-natalism won over generations against the Roman elite:
> By the Imperial era, Roman fertility was plummeting. Partly this was because the Romans practiced sex-selective infanticide, there were 130 men for every 100 women, and so many men would never be able to find a wife. But partly this was because the men who could find wives dragged their feet. (Male) Roman culture took it as a given that women were terrible, that you couldn’t possibly enjoy interacting with them, and that there was no reason besides duty that you would ever marry one.
> but no amount of love or money could make them have children. Dense cities discouraged large families, Roman children were expensive … Nor did the sex drive force the matter. Horny Roman men had their choice of a wide variety of male and female slaves and prostitutes - despite Augustus and his spiritual heirs’ fuming about monogamy, this was never really enforced on the male half of the population. When men did have sex with women, it was usually oral or anal sex, specifically to avoid procreation. When they did have vaginal sex, they had a wide variety of birth control methods available, including the famous silphium but also proto-condoms and spermicidal ointments. If a child was conceived despite these efforts, abortion was common albeit unsanitary (maternal death rates were extremely high, but this was not really a deal-breaker for the Roman men making the decision). If a baby was born in spite of all this, infanticide was legal and extremely common.
> Christians followed the opposite of all these practices.
> They recommended that men love their wives, and held this as a plausible and expected outcome. This was not exactly unprecedented, but it was a dramatic reversal of Roman custom. The Christians banned adultery (and, unlike the Roman bans, gave it teeth), meaning that married men who wanted sex had no choice but to go to their wives. They held that sex had to be procreative, banning anal sex, oral sex, homosexual sex, and birth control. And obviously they banned infanticide
> The end result is that while pagans delayed marriage, cheated, had nonprocreative sex, used birth control, performed abortions, and committed infanticide, Christians did none of these things.
> This section gave me a new appreciation for conservative Christian purity culture: it was obviously suited for the environment in which it evolved, and it’s also obvious why its founders would etch it so deeply into its memetic DNA that it’s still going strong millennia later.
That's a great story, and I'm glad to have read it.
However, I find that it takes a rather sympathetic view of Rome.
The more I learn about the Roman empire, the more I see how incredibly brutal it was.
I don't think that level of brutality is actually sustainable, but it had a long, long run.
Amongst ancient civilizations, the Romans were pretty average on the brutality scale.
This debate is basically the subject of St. Augustine’s classic work “Of The City of God Against the Pagans”.
Memes have been a part of humanity for a very long time and they have been powerful the whole time.
Among the Emperor's titles was "Pontifex Maximus", a pagan title still in use today.
I sometimes wonder if it is the oldest title still in use
Augustus did this first, to legitimize his rule as both head of state and head of the faith. Before that it was two separate people.
Had read somewhere that Julius, too, claimed this.
First emperor that did this, per the comment I was replying to
> The sacred fire of Vesta burned for over a thousand years in the same spot. Within 15 years of it being extinguished, Rome did a hard pivot toward decline, and began, basically, a freefall. The ancient prophecy—that Rome would fall if Vesta’s fire went out—thus came true.
I am not a superstitious person, and so of course I don't actually think the Flame had anything to do with anything...
...but wow is that spooky!
I think you misunderstand. Those who wrote the prophesy understood that freedom of belief was key to the existence of the empire. They knew that the flame would only be extinguished if that very freedom was extinguished. The flame would thereby be the canary in the coal mine, and they were right. In this sense, there’s nothing superstitious about it - it only makes sense that the empire should fall after the flame is extinguished.
> Those who wrote the prophesy understood that freedom of belief was key to the existence of the empire
No. Don’t project American ideals on the past.
There was no freedom of belief like we would consider it. You were mostly free to belief what you wanted, but certain rituals and offers were a huge deal that had to be done. If you didn’t do that or participated in it you were considered a danger to the stability of society. It’s what the Christians found out.
> Those who wrote the prophesy understood that freedom of belief was key to the existence of the empire.
I find that a little hard to believe, you think that's true?
It was not a continuously burning fire, sometimes it would go out and the Vestal virgin who was responsible at that time would be punished. The Zoroastrian flame is thought to be neverending but that's not verifiable of course.
Correlation is not causation.
Oh I know, but some correlations are fun. Like a good ghost story.
A much better date for the fall of Rome the city would probably be 395 when it stopped being the capital and pretty much stopped having any importance.
At this point the empire had outgrown the city to such an extent it managed to last a millennium after losing the city until 1453.
I bet the Romans didn't think by crucifying Jesus that they'd also be crucifying their empire.
Considering that for almost a millennium Roman and [the right type of]Christian were basically synonyms that's maybe not that straightforward.,
Almost a millennium?
According to the article the Roman Empire fell in the last decades of the 4th century. That's 400 years from the death of Christ, and includes the 100 years or so where Christians were badly persecuted. A fact, I might add, the author leaves out of her analysis.
It's the basic thesis of the article. Did you read it?
You mean the linked article:
https://debramaymacleod.com/blog/the-last-vestal-virgin-and-...
?
If anything its implying the opposite?
You think it's implying that the Christian religion (started with the crucifixion of Jesus) is not responsible for the fall of Rome?
Yes exactly. My point was the complete opposite, though.
By the time of the "fall of Rome" and for the succeeding 500+ years during which the Roman empire had many ups and down, being the Roman effectively became the equivalent of being [the right kind of] christian.
It's not at all obvious that it wouldn't have survived as long without christianity.
OK but the article is saying Christianity destroyed the Roman Empire because of its religious intolerance.
Which is sort of rich considering the crucifixion was religious intolerance from the Romans/Jews
Alexander tied Bessus between two trees to dick him down -- Babylonian Chronicle One. But the Akkadian chronicles have the older stories.
While the Greek custom was to tie between trees ("Between Two Ferns"), the Romans and the East did crucifixion.
The Israelite Jews - who had invaded the pristine land of Canaan per the circum covenant of Abraham but really without the consent of the Canaanites - asked the Romans to handle Jesus Christ, a Jewish reformer who had trained to fish with John the Baptist. The Romans asked Herod to handle Christ. Herod was neither Jewish nor Roman (but Canaanite).
20 years later Paul - from a temple to Corinth, Greece - decided it was a love story; it's about love.
So, the gist is, adoption of intolerant christianity doomed the roman empire 8-/
Not too surprising really, given that religion has been central to almost every war since then.
I would refer once again to Ernest Cline:
Well the empire was in deep shit in the 100 years preceding its adoption of Christianity (and in no way was it particularly tolerant before that). The next 100 after Constantine were a bit of a mixed bag. Then in the 500s it seemed like everything might go back to normal but climate change, plague and Islam intervened..
want to learn from whom did Christians learnt burning witches? (even though that was almost never a think until the late middle ages):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch_hunt
> In 331 BC, a deadly epidemic hit Rome and at least 170 women were executed for causing it
> another epidemic hit Italy, and about 5,000 people were brought to trial and executed for veneficium
That was pretty regular until Christians took over and brought their own ideas of whom to persecute instead..
I don't know about you, but if Im fleeing persecution, Im probably fleeing towards a Christian country.
Just sayin'
I'm fleeing towards a democratic country.
