Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Niall Ferguson - the guy who thought the Iraq War was a great idea, because we had to go find those 'vast stockpiles of WMD' (you know, the ones that didn't actually exist?) before Saddam used them to attack us (which, of course, he had no capacity to do) and that it would result in a flowering of Middle East democracy (instead, it resulted in a power vacuum which ISIS has been more than happy to fill) - opines on the idea that 21st century religious fundamentalists are like... Goths attacking Rome in the 5th century.
I'm trying to figure out what's more absurd - the analogy, or that anyone takes the serially-wrong Ferguson seriously anymore.
Gibbon blamed Rome's decline and fall on Christianity.
I mean if you truly read his work rather than a op-ed piece.
That is not true at all.
"As the happiness of a future life is the great object of religion, we may hear without surprise or scandal that the introduction, or at least the abuse of Christianity, had some influence on the decline and fall of the Roman empire." - Gibbons
Change is nearly always bad for a civilization, so since Rome had a lot of non Christian ways it is very true that Christianity would be hurtful to it. Just like Christianity is now hurtful to the West. Of course correcting ungodly ways changes things for the better where souls are concerned.
The link requires a log-in which I don't have, but some other responses here gives the impression that the author believes it was due to the rise in Christianity.
Here's what one instructor from Utah University has to say about it:
"Population. First of all, there's strong evidence of a steady decline in population across the entire Empire from the second century CE on. For example, peaking at around a million or so in the Classical Age, the population of the city of Rome gradually dropped over the course of the next few centuries, reaching a low point of a mere six thousand by the 500's.The reasons for this drastic if incremental reduction in human resources are not clear, though many Romans' luxurious lifestyle and their concomitant disinterest in producing and raising children must have played some part. So did plagues, no doubt, as well as constant warfare on the frontiers and perhaps even lead-poisoning, evidenced in human skeletal remains recovered from Pompeii which show that the Romans there were indeed exposed to high concentrations of the lethal element. Nevertheless, it's unclear how widespread this problem was.
Economics. Second, economic data point to other factors which doubtlessly contributed to the situation. Well-documented among the travails of third-century Rome—a full two centuries prior to its notorious "fall"—is a particularly long period of financial crisis which inaugurated the slow collapse of the economy in the West. This economic depression was due in large part to the failure of the Romans' system of conquest and enslavement. When the flow of cheap slaves began to dry up, estates throughout the Empire could no longer live off the abuse of human resources on which they had formerly depended. So without any real industry or much agricultural machinery to work the land—Roman land-owners did know about water wheels and windmills but archaeologists have found evidence of very few being used in this period—the aristocrats of late Rome apparently watched the collapse of their economy and disdained practical matters such as retooling their farms to ensure their viability.
Politics. Finally, political affairs contributed to the difficulties plaguing late Rome. The general incompetence of emperors and the failure of traditional politics in the West led to a wretchedly corrupt political structure, characterized by an oppressive burden of taxation levied to support the growing army of soldiers (barbari!) who were bribed—"employed" is too sophisticated a term for this practice—to fend off Rome's foes. This, in turn, led to inflation and debasing of Roman coinage, which bred a lethal mix of apathy and angst that inspired many Romans to flee politics and later the poleis ("city-states") of the Empire, the urban foundation on which rested most of ancient life. With that, actual power in Rome fell into the hands of local lords, and the concept of shared Roman civilization itself came under siege."
He says, to paraphase, that these issues still do not explain why Rome fell since there were worse things than this that happened to kingdoms and others still survived.
Even so, there seems to be some parallels to what happened there and what is going on here, and there is much, as there always is, to be learned from history. However, to attempt to avoid such an occurrence instead of blindly walking into it (as we seem to be doing) assumes 1) that those in power have the mental capacity to actually learn lessons from history and 2) they possess moral consciences that will allow them to adjust their behaviour based on what is learned from these lessons. I think we will find the leadership of this nation to be greatly lacking in these departments. After all, they've got their kicks and can flee the country if they see it becomes necessary; what do they care about the suckers that are left behind?
The instructor also states why he believes that the Fall was not due to the rise of Christianity:
"...Edward Gibbon, the pre-eminent classical historian of England in the later half of the eighteenth century. Brilliant though it was, the thesis he expounded in his monumental and highly engaging magnum opus The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire—he argued that the rise of Christianity emasculated the native vigor of Rome, leaving it open to more virile conquerors, i.e. barbarians—is a proposition full of holes and inconsistencies, saying in the end less about the Roman Empire than its British counterpart, the hidden target of Gibbon's book. For example, if Christianity so weakened the Roman West in late antiquity, why didn't it weaken the other half, the staunchly orthodox East which survived nearly a millennium after the collapse of the West? Perhaps it's true that Christianity redirected the attention of many Romans away from affairs of state, but it did not undermine their civilization. To the contrary, it was as natural an outgrowth of their culture, as "Roman" as all sorts of other things they did: theatre, epic poetry, gladiators, ship-building, all of which were imports, just like Christianity".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
