Right Wing Discussion Thread X: Pol's closed

[Grand Britannia]

Rome was never "reasonably certain to conquer the world."

neighbouring neighbors

Really gets the almonds working out

[Sanctissima]

neighbouring neighbors

Really gets the almonds working out

Oy vey, typo.

[The Parkus Empire]

When was the turning point of the Empire, when it went from 'reasonably certain to conquer the world' to 'unable to stop itself from disintegrating'?

Rome went down the shitter as soon as conquest became an end in itself. Cicero observes this, remarking that wars to defend oneself and one's allies are fine, but conquest for itself is morally despicable, and marks the decline of Rome.

[Genivaria]

When was the turning point of the Empire, when it went from 'reasonably certain to conquer the world' to 'unable to stop itself from disintegrating'?

Rome went down the shitter as soon as conquest became an end in itself. Cicero observes this, remarking that wars to defend oneself and one's allies are fine, but conquest for itself is morally despicable, and marks the decline of Rome.

In a way you actually have a point, not for the right reasons but you still have a point.
Ever since the Marian Reforms made citizenship and a plot of newly conquered land a reward for legionary service expansion for new territory became almost a requirement simply to keep the recruitment high.

Once the empire stopped expanding and citizenship was later given out universally then the foundation the empire was built on began to collapse.

[The East Marches II]

This is your daily reminder that Marius was a mistake and he didn't even bring in most of the reforms to the system. He just took the credit as he did for most of his career.

[Genivaria]

This is your daily reminder that Marius was a mistake and he didn't even bring in most of the reforms to the system. He just took the credit as he did for most of his career.

I wonder how the German invasions and slave uprisings would've gone differently without the Marian Legions.
If we use the year that Marian became pro-Consul (107 BC) as the standard for the Marian Reforms (probably not exactly but whatever) then that would put us in the Late Republic era.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Rep ... 80%9330_BC)

[The East Marches II]

This is your daily reminder that Marius was a mistake and he didn't even bring in most of the reforms to the system. He just took the credit as he did for most of his career.

I wonder how the German invasions and slave uprisings would've gone differently without the Marian Legions.
If we use the year that Marian became pro-Consul (107 BC) then that would put us in the Late Republic era.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Rep ... 80%9330_BC)

Sulla wouldn't have had to carry to the team? Maybe even the Republic would have been saved. Marius was shit. Never forget he nearly cost them the Social War too!

[Genivaria]

I wonder how the German invasions and slave uprisings would've gone differently without the Marian Legions.
If we use the year that Marian became pro-Consul (107 BC) then that would put us in the Late Republic era.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Rep ... 80%9330_BC)

Sulla wouldn't have had to carry to the team? Maybe even the Republic would have been saved. Marius was shit. Never forget he nearly cost them the Social War too!

Ironic. The blame here seems to fall on Sulla.

The internal unrest reached its most serious state, however, in the two civil wars that were caused by the clash between generals Gaius Marius and Lucius Cornelius Sulla starting from 88 BC. In the Battle of the Colline Gate[86] at the very door of the city of Rome, a Roman army under Sulla bested an army of the Marius supporters and entered the city. Sulla's actions marked a watershed in the willingness of Roman troops to wage war against one another that was to pave the way for the wars which ultimately overthrew the Republic, and caused the founding of the Roman Empire.

[The East Marches II]

Sulla wouldn't have had to carry to the team? Maybe even the Republic would have been saved. Marius was shit. Never forget he nearly cost them the Social War too!

Ironic. The blame here seems to fall on Sulla.

The internal unrest reached its most serious state, however, in the two civil wars that were caused by the clash between generals Gaius Marius and Lucius Cornelius Sulla starting from 88 BC. In the Battle of the Colline Gate[86] at the very door of the city of Rome, a Roman army under Sulla bested an army of the Marius supporters and entered the city. Sulla's actions marked a watershed in the willingness of Roman troops to wage war against one another that was to pave the way for the wars which ultimately overthrew the Republic, and caused the founding of the Roman Empire.

Entirely untrue. The first time Sulla went to Rome after Marius turned the city upside down with murders and robbery, he restored everything as it was. They failed to kill Sulla as they did with Caesar after his big pardon fest. Sulla then marched back and put the criminal scum on trial. They were proscribed for a reason. Marius and his animals doing all of this while Rome faced war on two fronts! He was and always will be the greatest traitor. Marius should have had his memory destroyed.

[Sanctissima]

Ironic. The blame here seems to fall on Sulla.

The internal unrest reached its most serious state, however, in the two civil wars that were caused by the clash between generals Gaius Marius and Lucius Cornelius Sulla starting from 88 BC. In the Battle of the Colline Gate[86] at the very door of the city of Rome, a Roman army under Sulla bested an army of the Marius supporters and entered the city. Sulla's actions marked a watershed in the willingness of Roman troops to wage war against one another that was to pave the way for the wars which ultimately overthrew the Republic, and caused the founding of the Roman Empire.

I'm generally both a Marius and Sulla fanboy who considers one of the great travesties of the Late Republic to be that the two men were so bitterly at odds; but that's patently false. Or at least, it distorts the truth considerably.

Prior to the battle of the Colline Gates and Sulla's march on Rome, he was continuing the war against Mithridates (and kicking his Pontic ass, I might add), despite having been unceremoniously declared a traitor in absentia, and suffering repeated attempts by the Marians to hamstring his war effort against the Pontic Greeks. The man literally squashed two invading armies in battle whilst suffering so few casualties he earns the title of greatest military tactician Rome ever had (whilst simultaneously being harassed by Roman expeditionary forces sent by the Marians to fuck with the war effort, I might add), then crossed the Otranto into Italy to deal with the Marians in Rome a second time (as TEM already pointed out, he already had to deal with their shit on a prior occasion, in the aftermath of which he showed quite a deal of clemency, but was betrayed anyway), was so beloved the Marian legionaries in Italia defected to him en masse, and finally mopped up some minor Marian resistance outside the walls of Rome before proscribing and executing the traitors in the Senate.

The only precedent he set was the righteous slaughter of traitors who were willing to hamstring their own Republic just for the sake of fucking with a political rival.

[The Parkus Empire]

Rome went down the shitter as soon as conquest became an end in itself. Cicero observes this, remarking that wars to defend oneself and one's allies are fine, but conquest for itself is morally despicable, and marks the decline of Rome.

In a way you actually have a point, not for the right reasons but you still have a point.
Ever since the Marian Reforms made citizenship and a plot of newly conquered land a reward for legionary service expansion for new territory became almost a requirement simply to keep the recruitment high.

Once the empire stopped expanding and citizenship was later given out universally then the foundation the empire was built on began to collapse.

Marius turned Rome into the biggest pyramid scheme in history

[Conserative Morality]

In a way you actually have a point, not for the right reasons but you still have a point.
Ever since the Marian Reforms made citizenship and a plot of newly conquered land a reward for legionary service expansion for new territory became almost a requirement simply to keep the recruitment high.

Once the empire stopped expanding and citizenship was later given out universally then the foundation the empire was built on began to collapse.

Nyet tovarisch. Land lack wasn't a problem. It was simply the nature of a more defensive strategy - the enemy picks the time and tempo; inevitably, you lose.

[Herskerstad]

Continuing the cult of the emperor would hardly be something that would be a long lost practice by that point. You are correct that he had enemies in the elite, though the Christian population at that time certainly composed a significant group in Rome at that point and he had no popular support among those, and he was not going to be any unifying figure.

As far as being popular with the army? Well . . . maybe enough to merit a spear in the back. :' )

Resident Romaboo checking in.

You're considerably more knowledgeable than myself in regards to Christian theology, so I can't argue terribly much about Julian's popularity with the Christians (although it is worth noting they accepted him as Constantius' heir, despite him being relatively open about his paganism, so their sentiments were at the very least ambivalent), in regards to the last point, Julian died from a spear wound he sustained during the Battle of Samarra. During the initial skirmish, the Roman army was taken by surprise, and Julian rushed from his tent without donning his armour to quickly organize troop placements and rally his men. In the thick of battle, a throwing spear pierced his liver and mortally wounded him, with Julian unfortunately dying a few days later. It is highly unlikely that Julian was assassinated, and this particular view is generally written off as part and parcel of the confusing mess that ensued after Julian's death. It was not immediately apparent after Julian had initially been injured that his wounds were fatal (with a particularly prominent point being that he never named an heir during the three days in between being mortally wounded and his actual death, thus reinforcing the idea that he probably didn't think he was going to die), and when the emperor finally gave up the ghost, so to speak, it came as a bit of a shocker to his generals and legionaries. Which, inherently, gave rise to several conspiracy theories regarding what actually transpired, although Ammianus (the main go-to historian for the period) stated rather conclusively that Julian simply died as stated above, with no foul play having occurred.

Now, in regards to his popularity with the legions, it's worth noting that, prior to his campaign against the Persians, Julian had only really been involved with the Gallic and Rhine legions (amongst which he was immensely popular due to his stunning victories against the Alemanni). It can reasonably be asserted that the Eastern legions may have been somewhat ambivalent towards him (especially considering how they were preparing to march against him prior to Constantius II's sudden illness and death), but they willingly accepted him as their emperor after his predecessor kicked the bucket, which is saying quite a lot considering how volatile successions to the imperial throne could be in the 4th century. Julian was, suffice to say, a reasonably popular emperor with the legions, even if some segments of the military probably liked him considerably more than others. At any rate, he was most certainly popular enough with the legions in general so that foul play can be ruled out as a cause of death.

Oh the latter bit was a normally banter, but to put things more into perspective.

One of the effects of Constances's not merely making Christianity licit, but also advancing it as something required for regional administration and certain offices made Christianity, which prior to this was very much a religion that would at the very least be a huge risk adopting due to societal pressures and persecutions, into something that was rather fashionable and not merely as intensive for the groups and populations that after it adopted it. A somewhat intresting offshot from this new and more open world to the Christians is monasticism, which, while the types and forms varied, had at least some general ethos that almost missed the old days where martyrdom not at all would be unlikely. Though, with this new and fashionable take came more lax standards, less educated converts, and all the troubles that bring with some forms of syncretism, sometimes even imperial nature. Julian arriving to the stage in this new world, and being quite the character that he was, made it rather evident early he was not a Christian. That would not be enough at the time to inspire a huge controversy or immediate disloyalty among the very young and now extended Christian populace, but Julian became increasingly aggressive and had clear favouritism in his treatment of the pagan and Christian groups. In particular in regards to situations where Christian temples were destroyed and pagan ones. He would very much enact edicts and ordinances against the one, but not the other.

Furthermore there is just this tendency Julian had where he acts in a way that comes from an Anti-Christian intellect. When he confiscated property and goods he would turn around and be shocked that the followers of such a poor man would need these large treasures. And while not to the Diocletian level of giving false mercy by requiring just a small sacrifice being given, he still would enact policies that were designed to destroy Christian unity, such as recognising all forms of Christianity as licit, and there were quite a few offshoots that he through some politicking brought if not to prominence then at least to the forefront with political power behind them. He would certainly be less popular in Illyria, Greece and Antioch than say Rome and Alexandria, but regardless of what one thinks about the philosophical nature of Julian, it's bad politicking and frankly egocentric. He was by no means an incompetent ruler, but he was more concerned about a design of sorts than the political realities and public image as a whole.

We do know that the Christians did claim responsibility for Julian's death, but there is no hard evidence to suggest that was more than the group going more or less. " Yeah, we took him out, what are you going to do about it?" Though it might as well have been from a Sassanid raid or even court intrigues. All we know was that he had not donned the army and picked speed over precaution. There is a legend the legend of the saint being interceeded to kill Julian through a statue, but it is true that the new Christian class at least celebrated his end to the point they cared. Part of the irony of Julian's anti-Christian ethos was that a relatively new and less than rigorously doctrinal population, which would have been easy to convince one way or the other, gained an increasing dislike of Julian from his policies that affected them, and associated with that paganistic favouritism, and it would come back to bite the pagans which had not really been at least in an organised way attempting to curtail the Christian concerns in the same way Julian did.

[HMS Barham]

This is your daily reminder that Marius was a mistake and he didn't even bring in most of the reforms to the system. He just took the credit as he did for most of his career.

If only Sulla had crowned himself king.

[Herskerstad]

You know, lets stop talking about this failed state and go to something interesting.

Jan Žižka, best east European wartime leader or no?

[Salus Maior]

You know, lets stop talking about this failed state and go to something interesting.

Jan Žižka, best east European wartime leader or no?

What about Alexander Nevsky?

Russian, saint, kicker of the Teutonic Order's butt.

Or John III Sobieski? Venimus, Vidimus, Deus vicit, also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWkrQQly6xU

[The East Marches II]

You know, lets stop talking about this failed state and go to something interesting.

Jan Žižka, best east European wartime leader or no?

What about Alexander Nevsky?

Russian, saint, kicker of the Teutonic Order's butt.

Or John III Sobieski? Venimus, Vidimus, Deus vicit, also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWkrQQly6xU

Mongol Puppets don't count, that gets filed under Mongol wins :^)

[Herskerstad]

You know, lets stop talking about this failed state and go to something interesting.

Jan Žižka, best east European wartime leader or no?

What about Alexander Nevsky?

Russian, saint, kicker of the Teutonic Order's butt.

Or John III Sobieski? Venimus, Vidimus, Deus vicit, also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWkrQQly6xU

I find Nevsky to be more of a composite figure, that's to say, his shining military career and thrifty political control make him certainly a more noticable character historically.

But Zizka had a knack at making farmhands into soldiers in days if not hours, and castles out of wagons. The guy ensured Bohemia would survive no less than five crusades, and the last one he won blind. Now East europe certainly has extensive military figures and there may be someone more impressive that I am overlooking, but, I don't think the ones mentioned above rank above him militarily.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

I find Nevsky to be more of a composite figure, that's to say, his shining military career and thrifty political control make him certainly a more noticable character historically.

But Zizka had a knack at making farmhands into soldiers in days if not hours, and castles out of wagons. The guy ensured Bohemia would survive no less than five crusades, and the last one he won blind. Now East europe certainly has extensive military figures and there may be someone more impressive that I am overlooking, but, I don't think the ones mentioned above rank above him militarily.

I'm currently wondering how it is I've never heard of the guy until now, from what I'm reading of him on the wiki.

[Northern Davincia]

You know, lets stop talking about this failed state and go to something interesting.

Jan Žižka, best east European wartime leader or no?

England?

[Herskerstad]

You know, lets stop talking about this failed state and go to something interesting.

Jan Žižka, best east European wartime leader or no?

England?

Last I checked England is still on the map and still under the protection of Saint Cromwell. (PBUH)

[Sanctissima]

You know, lets stop talking about this failed state and go to something interesting.

Jan Žižka, best east European wartime leader or no?

*triggered latin shrieking*

Resident Romaboo checking in.

You're considerably more knowledgeable than myself in regards to Christian theology, so I can't argue terribly much about Julian's popularity with the Christians (although it is worth noting they accepted him as Constantius' heir, despite him being relatively open about his paganism, so their sentiments were at the very least ambivalent), in regards to the last point, Julian died from a spear wound he sustained during the Battle of Samarra. During the initial skirmish, the Roman army was taken by surprise, and Julian rushed from his tent without donning his armour to quickly organize troop placements and rally his men. In the thick of battle, a throwing spear pierced his liver and mortally wounded him, with Julian unfortunately dying a few days later. It is highly unlikely that Julian was assassinated, and this particular view is generally written off as part and parcel of the confusing mess that ensued after Julian's death. It was not immediately apparent after Julian had initially been injured that his wounds were fatal (with a particularly prominent point being that he never named an heir during the three days in between being mortally wounded and his actual death, thus reinforcing the idea that he probably didn't think he was going to die), and when the emperor finally gave up the ghost, so to speak, it came as a bit of a shocker to his generals and legionaries. Which, inherently, gave rise to several conspiracy theories regarding what actually transpired, although Ammianus (the main go-to historian for the period) stated rather conclusively that Julian simply died as stated above, with no foul play having occurred.

Now, in regards to his popularity with the legions, it's worth noting that, prior to his campaign against the Persians, Julian had only really been involved with the Gallic and Rhine legions (amongst which he was immensely popular due to his stunning victories against the Alemanni). It can reasonably be asserted that the Eastern legions may have been somewhat ambivalent towards him (especially considering how they were preparing to march against him prior to Constantius II's sudden illness and death), but they willingly accepted him as their emperor after his predecessor kicked the bucket, which is saying quite a lot considering how volatile successions to the imperial throne could be in the 4th century. Julian was, suffice to say, a reasonably popular emperor with the legions, even if some segments of the military probably liked him considerably more than others. At any rate, he was most certainly popular enough with the legions in general so that foul play can be ruled out as a cause of death.

Oh the latter bit was a normally banter, but to put things more into perspective.

One of the effects of Constances's not merely making Christianity licit, but also advancing it as something required for regional administration and certain offices made Christianity, which prior to this was very much a religion that would at the very least be a huge risk adopting due to societal pressures and persecutions, into something that was rather fashionable and not merely as intensive for the groups and populations that after it adopted it. A somewhat intresting offshot from this new and more open world to the Christians is monasticism, which, while the types and forms varied, had at least some general ethos that almost missed the old days where martyrdom not at all would be unlikely. Though, with this new and fashionable take came more lax standards, less educated converts, and all the troubles that bring with some forms of syncretism, sometimes even imperial nature. Julian arriving to the stage in this new world, and being quite the character that he was, made it rather evident early he was not a Christian. That would not be enough at the time to inspire a huge controversy or immediate disloyalty among the very young and now extended Christian populace, but Julian became increasingly aggressive and had clear favouritism in his treatment of the pagan and Christian groups. In particular in regards to situations where Christian temples were destroyed and pagan ones. He would very much enact edicts and ordinances against the one, but not the other.

Furthermore there is just this tendency Julian had where he acts in a way that comes from an Anti-Christian intellect. When he confiscated property and goods he would turn around and be shocked that the followers of such a poor man would need these large treasures. And while not to the Diocletian level of giving false mercy by requiring just a small sacrifice being given, he still would enact policies that were designed to destroy Christian unity, such as recognising all forms of Christianity as licit, and there were quite a few offshoots that he through some politicking brought if not to prominence then at least to the forefront with political power behind them. He would certainly be less popular in Illyria, Greece and Antioch than say Rome and Alexandria, but regardless of what one thinks about the philosophical nature of Julian, it's bad politicking and frankly egocentric. He was by no means an incompetent ruler, but he was more concerned about a design of sorts than the political realities and public image as a whole.

We do know that the Christians did claim responsibility for Julian's death, but there is no hard evidence to suggest that was more than the group going more or less. " Yeah, we took him out, what are you going to do about it?" Though it might as well have been from a Sassanid raid or even court intrigues. All we know was that he had not donned the army and picked speed over precaution. There is a legend the legend of the saint being interceeded to kill Julian through a statue, but it is true that the new Christian class at least celebrated his end to the point they cared. Part of the irony of Julian's anti-Christian ethos was that a relatively new and less than rigorously doctrinal population, which would have been easy to convince one way or the other, gained an increasing dislike of Julian from his policies that affected them, and associated with that paganistic favouritism, and it would come back to bite the pagans which had not really been at least in an organised way attempting to curtail the Christian concerns in the same way Julian did.

Not to change the subject from Slavic war heroes, but I would like to point a few things out.

Notably, that while Julian did introduce several unnecessary and ultimately idiotic reforms that did more harm for the average Roman than good (repossessing old temples that had been repurposed into shops and tenements for decades being a prime example), his attempts to revive Roman paganism were not at all just some vain personal philosophical pursuit that did little to help the empire. Not to get too polytheistic on you, but Roman paganism was, for all intents and purposes, the heart and soul of the empire; and when it was replaced with Christianity and gradually persecuted by Constantine and his heirs, it was akin to other such major blows to imperial integrity as the abandonment of Rome as the empire's capital and introduction of the Tetrarchy and groundwork for dividing the empire in halves by Diocletian. Christianity was all well and good as a religion in and of itself, but its usurpation of Roman paganism inevitably mired the Empire in unnecessary and increasingly destructive dogmatic disputes, inability to tolerate or work with other religious groups and internal heresies (which actually played quite the major role in future conflicts with the Sassanid Persians that ultimately only served to weaken the empire), and a very peculiar obsession with an extreme form of centralization which, while present long before the rise of Christendom, became amplified by the faith's adoption as state-religion, especially in the Eastern Empire.

Julian sought to rectify this by returning the paganism of old to prominence. Naturally, his intentions were not always pure, and many of the policies he enacted during his short reign were rather short-sighted and unnecessary, but the man was truly the last emperor of the princeps variety, and given how utterly dismal most of his successors' track records were, it goes without saying that he might have had a point in trying to curtail the rise of a state-church that was more interested in rooting out heretics and converting the masses than improving and expanding the empire.

[Hakons]

You know, lets stop talking about this failed state and go to something interesting.

Jan Žižka, best east European wartime leader or no?

*triggered latin shrieking*

Oh the latter bit was a normally banter, but to put things more into perspective.

One of the effects of Constances's not merely making Christianity licit, but also advancing it as something required for regional administration and certain offices made Christianity, which prior to this was very much a religion that would at the very least be a huge risk adopting due to societal pressures and persecutions, into something that was rather fashionable and not merely as intensive for the groups and populations that after it adopted it. A somewhat intresting offshot from this new and more open world to the Christians is monasticism, which, while the types and forms varied, had at least some general ethos that almost missed the old days where martyrdom not at all would be unlikely. Though, with this new and fashionable take came more lax standards, less educated converts, and all the troubles that bring with some forms of syncretism, sometimes even imperial nature. Julian arriving to the stage in this new world, and being quite the character that he was, made it rather evident early he was not a Christian. That would not be enough at the time to inspire a huge controversy or immediate disloyalty among the very young and now extended Christian populace, but Julian became increasingly aggressive and had clear favouritism in his treatment of the pagan and Christian groups. In particular in regards to situations where Christian temples were destroyed and pagan ones. He would very much enact edicts and ordinances against the one, but not the other.

Furthermore there is just this tendency Julian had where he acts in a way that comes from an Anti-Christian intellect. When he confiscated property and goods he would turn around and be shocked that the followers of such a poor man would need these large treasures. And while not to the Diocletian level of giving false mercy by requiring just a small sacrifice being given, he still would enact policies that were designed to destroy Christian unity, such as recognising all forms of Christianity as licit, and there were quite a few offshoots that he through some politicking brought if not to prominence then at least to the forefront with political power behind them. He would certainly be less popular in Illyria, Greece and Antioch than say Rome and Alexandria, but regardless of what one thinks about the philosophical nature of Julian, it's bad politicking and frankly egocentric. He was by no means an incompetent ruler, but he was more concerned about a design of sorts than the political realities and public image as a whole.

We do know that the Christians did claim responsibility for Julian's death, but there is no hard evidence to suggest that was more than the group going more or less. " Yeah, we took him out, what are you going to do about it?" Though it might as well have been from a Sassanid raid or even court intrigues. All we know was that he had not donned the army and picked speed over precaution. There is a legend the legend of the saint being interceeded to kill Julian through a statue, but it is true that the new Christian class at least celebrated his end to the point they cared. Part of the irony of Julian's anti-Christian ethos was that a relatively new and less than rigorously doctrinal population, which would have been easy to convince one way or the other, gained an increasing dislike of Julian from his policies that affected them, and associated with that paganistic favouritism, and it would come back to bite the pagans which had not really been at least in an organised way attempting to curtail the Christian concerns in the same way Julian did.

Not to change the subject from Slavic war heroes, but I would like to point a few things out.

Notably, that while Julian did introduce several unnecessary and ultimately idiotic reforms that did more harm for the average Roman than good (repossessing old temples that had been repurposed into shops and tenements for decades being a prime example), his attempts to revive Roman paganism were not at all just some vain personal philosophical pursuit that did little to help the empire. Not to get too polytheistic on you, but Roman paganism was, for all intents and purposes, the heart and soul of the empire; and when it was replaced with Christianity and gradually persecuted by Constantine and his heirs, it was akin to other such major blows to imperial integrity as the abandonment of Rome as the empire's capital and introduction of the Tetrarchy and groundwork for dividing the empire in halves by Diocletian. Christianity was all well and good as a religion in and of itself, but its usurpation of Roman paganism inevitably mired the Empire in unnecessary and increasingly destructive dogmatic disputes, inability to tolerate or work with other religious groups and internal heresies (which actually played quite the major role in future conflicts with the Sassanid Persians that ultimately only served to weaken the empire), and a very peculiar obsession with an extreme form of centralization which, while present long before the rise of Christendom, became amplified by the faith's adoption as state-religion, especially in the Eastern Empire.

Julian sought to rectify this by returning the paganism of old to prominence. Naturally, his intentions were not always pure, and many of the policies he enacted during his short reign were rather short-sighted and unnecessary, but the man was truly the last emperor of the princeps variety, and given how utterly dismal most of his successors' track records were, it goes without saying that he might have had a point in trying to curtail the rise of a state-church that was more interested in rooting out heretics and converting the masses than improving and expanding the empire.

Christianity may have played a roll in creating devision in some cases, but the generally accepted consensus is that it was nowhere close to being the main cause of the Roman collapse. The eastern half of the empire, the more Christian half, survived for a thousand years under Christian autocracy.

[Sanctissima]

*triggered latin shrieking*



Not to change the subject from Slavic war heroes, but I would like to point a few things out.

Notably, that while Julian did introduce several unnecessary and ultimately idiotic reforms that did more harm for the average Roman than good (repossessing old temples that had been repurposed into shops and tenements for decades being a prime example), his attempts to revive Roman paganism were not at all just some vain personal philosophical pursuit that did little to help the empire. Not to get too polytheistic on you, but Roman paganism was, for all intents and purposes, the heart and soul of the empire; and when it was replaced with Christianity and gradually persecuted by Constantine and his heirs, it was akin to other such major blows to imperial integrity as the abandonment of Rome as the empire's capital and introduction of the Tetrarchy and groundwork for dividing the empire in halves by Diocletian. Christianity was all well and good as a religion in and of itself, but its usurpation of Roman paganism inevitably mired the Empire in unnecessary and increasingly destructive dogmatic disputes, inability to tolerate or work with other religious groups and internal heresies (which actually played quite the major role in future conflicts with the Sassanid Persians that ultimately only served to weaken the empire), and a very peculiar obsession with an extreme form of centralization which, while present long before the rise of Christendom, became amplified by the faith's adoption as state-religion, especially in the Eastern Empire.

Julian sought to rectify this by returning the paganism of old to prominence. Naturally, his intentions were not always pure, and many of the policies he enacted during his short reign were rather short-sighted and unnecessary, but the man was truly the last emperor of the princeps variety, and given how utterly dismal most of his successors' track records were, it goes without saying that he might have had a point in trying to curtail the rise of a state-church that was more interested in rooting out heretics and converting the masses than improving and expanding the empire.

Christianity may have played a roll in creating devision in some cases, but the generally accepted consensus is that it was nowhere close to being the main cause of the Roman collapse. The eastern half of the empire, the more Christian half, survived for a thousand years under Christian autocracy.

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it was the main cause of the empire's collapse (in fact, churches and monasteries played a rather prominent role in preserving Roman culture, literature and linguistics to some extent), but rather one of several. That being said, the dogmatic rigidness of Christianity was a major factor in Rome's worsening condition upon the religion's adoption as state-church, and caused severe internal religious turmoil that was rarely seen during the prior pagan administration. The Eastern Empire is a prime example of this, considering how said divisions ultimately led to the relative ease with which the Islamic Caliphates were able to gobble up and maintain control over vast swaths of Roman territory (notably control over Egypt, the Levant and North Africa, as well as intermittent control over areas of Anatolia). The early Muslim conquerors would not have been nearly so effective at gutting the Eastern Empire had the local populations in the conquered provinces not considered the religious oppression of their Muslim overlords preferable to the prior oppression experienced under the reign of their fellow Christian counterparts (notably the Miaphysites and Eastern Christians, as well as various other groups; all of which opted for Muslim rule rather than rule by the Orthodox Christians in Constantinople).

[Holy Tedalonia]

Christianity may have played a roll in creating devision in some cases, but the generally accepted consensus is that it was nowhere close to being the main cause of the Roman collapse. The eastern half of the empire, the more Christian half, survived for a thousand years under Christian autocracy.

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it was the main cause of the empire's collapse (in fact, churches and monasteries played a rather prominent role in preserving Roman culture, literature and linguistics to some extent), but rather one of several. That being said, the dogmatic rigidness of Christianity was a major factor in Rome's worsening condition upon the religion's adoption as state-church, and caused severe internal religious turmoil that was rarely seen during the prior pagan administration. The Eastern Empire is a prime example of this, considering how said divisions ultimately led to the relative ease with which the Islamic Caliphates were able to gobble up and maintain control over vast swaths of Roman territory (notably control over Egypt, the Levant and North Africa, as well as intermittent control over areas of Anatolia). The early Muslim conquerors would not have been nearly so effective at gutting the Eastern Empire had the local populations in the conquered provinces not considered the religious oppression of their Muslim overlords preferable to the prior oppression of their fellow Christian counterparts (notably the Miaphysites and Eastern Christians, as well as various other groups).

While I agree with you for the most part the start of the fall of Rome, started before the christian faith was the state religion dating back to 200 AD where Commodus took the spot of Emperor