Christianity's role in weakening the Roman Empire's military strength

Christianity as a Prime Reason for the Fall of the Roman Empire

Some scholars place the founding of Rome to April 21, 753 B.C., but others dispute that date. As to Rome's demise, one scholar of note, historian Edward Gibbon, places the date of the fall of Rome on September 4, A.D., 476. Gibbon, who published what is considered the most authoritative book on Rome's downfall (The History of the Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire, Volume 4), has credibility that few historians have, so his date could be considered close to reality. Notwithstanding the exact date of Rome's fall, this paper delves into why Rome fell.

This paper asserts that a major reason for the fall of the Roman Empire was Christianity's emphasis on a spiritual kingdom, which weakened Roman military virtues and led to the demise of the Empire.

Several Reasons for the Fall of Rome

To be sure, there were other reasons that contributed to Rome's demise. There is ample scholarship to point to other events and trends in Rome that made contributions to the fall of Rome. At first Rome was kind to barbarians, referred to by N.S. Gill as "a variety and changing group of outsiders" and in fact Rome used barbarians as "…suppliers of tax revenue and bodies for the military," even giving them promotions to higher positions in the military (Gill, 2010). But in time, Rome lost territory to the barbarians and the Vandals.

In fact Vandals took territory from Rome in Africa, and other barbarians (the Sueves, the Alans and Visigoths) took Spain from the Empire, so one can see the narrowing of Roman territory had something to do with its fall. The Roman army grew "weak," according to Vegitius, writing in the 5th century, and the soldiers stopped wearing protective armor (Gill). Hence the Roman soldiers were "vulnerable to enemy weapons and to the temptation to flee from battle" (Gill). Moreover, many military leaders became "incompetent" and rewards for courage in battle were not distributed fairly, according to Vegitius (Gill).

Other reasons noted by Gill include: a) inflation (the government issued money that was inflated to the point of almost worthlessness); b) lead in drinking water (along with glazes that were on containers, lead was leached from water pipes and make people sick, killing many people); and c) division of the Empire (yes, Rome was split geographically, but also it was split culturally, causing divisions in values and approaches to holding on to power) (Gill).

As to the reasons given by iconic historian Edward Gibbon, he writes that the decline was "…the natural and inevitable effect of immoderate greatness. Prosperity ripened the principle of decay; the causes of destruction multiplied with the extent of conquest" (Gill). Gibbon also mentions that when the Roman army conquered people and territories in distant lands, the army "…acquired the vices of strangers and mercenaries…" and the emperors back in Rome were "…reduced to the base expedient of corrupting the discipline which rendered them alike formidable to their sovereign and to the enemy" (Gill). Hence, the readiness of the military government was "relaxed, and finally dissolved," due in part to the liberalizations brought into government by Constantine (Gill).

History Professor Peter Brown on Christianity and Rome

New "notions" about the use of wealth in Rome between the years 500 and 650 "proved decisive," according to Princeton University History Professor Peter Brown. Those notions had to do with the "destiny of the Christians"; and when the wealthy, upper class inhabitants of the Roman West become involved in the church (they had previously shunned the church and the poor), they stepped into leadership positions as bishops and Christian writers. This entry of "new wealth and talent into the churches from around the year 370 onward, rather than the conversion of Constantine in 312," was the true turning point which resulted in the "Christianization of Europe" (Brown, 2012, p. 528).

Once the Christian religion in Europe was bolstered by wealthy, powerful people (in addition to the poor and downtrodden that were already believers) the Christian community could begin to "think the unthinkable -- to envision the possibility of a totally Christian society" (Brown, 528). The Christian tradition of giving helped to break down some of the boundaries that had previously existed because "…all believers of all classes were encouraged to contribute to the care of the poor and the upkeep of the church and the clergy" (Brown, 528).

Along with the growth of the Christian community in the fifth century A.D. there was also the fading of the Roman world, Brown explains on page 529. Indeed, the "central institutions" of Rome lost "…much of their mystique," and in fact the tensions that resulted over the loss of income resulting from the "…widespread weakening of its authority in large areas of the West" contributed to the strain on Roman power and influence. But the imperial powers of Rome showed that they had "…no intention of surrendering" their authority to Christian bishops and in fact they were belligerently and stubbornly focused on survival at any cost (Brown, 529).

At the local level of Christianity there began to emerge a "consolidation," and the radical critiques of wealth were tossed out of the churches; for the writers of that time, they eschewed the previous denunciation of the "evil origins of wealth and insisted instead on total renunciation," emphasizing how wealth might be used to consolidate the Christian community in the face of Roman resistance. Hence, in cities like Rome, Christian churches reached out to the poor, and as the traditional aristocracies left the church, those remaining realized that "…at last," they were "truly wealthy" in a spiritual and monetary sense (Brown, 530).

This new "collective wealth," which, when combined with the support of a "new constituency of lay donors" -- drawn from many levels of society at the time -- that "exerted a discreet and continuous pressure on the churches of Latin Europe around 600 A.D. That pressure from the Christian community had a great influence on people who were now turning to that "other world" rather than the secular world of Rome, which was crumbling (Brown, 530).

In conclusion, as mentioned earlier in this paper, there are a number of reasons given by scholars and historians as to the fall of Rome. But clearly, based on the literature available, Christianity had a powerful influence on Rome's demise. Rome may have been on the verge of toppling due to the crush of barbarians and the anger of citizens over outrageous taxes -- and the corruption which affected the quality of the military -- but Christianity can be said to have given the final push over the cliff into obscurity.