(no subject)
eww, essays. give me pointers...i've got till friday to pass it in and i bullshitted the last half
In Edward Gibbon’s theory pertaining to the decline of Rome, he states that the introduction, as well as abuse of Christianity, had a large influence on the empire’s downfall. Although Gibbon does convincingly describe Christianity’s affect on many topics, such as pacifism, abstinence, lack of devotion to the military and lack of funding for the military, he fails to cover multiple other grounds. His theory lacks information taking into consideration the egos of the leaders, the “inconclusive campaigns in far away lands,” unfair taxes, the unstable economy, and the general lack of faith among the public. The conversion of the empire to Christianity did in fact have a powerful influence on the Roman Empire, but there were many other causes equally as consequential.
Christianity posed many problems for the Roman Empire. Violence was no longer acceptable; pacifism was popular. In The Theory of Edward Gibbon he states that “the clergy successfully preached the doctrines of patience and pusillanimity; the active virtues of society were discouraged; and the last remains of the military were buried in the cloister.” This pacifist way of thinking distracted the military from the battlefield and lured it into the sanctuary. Devotion came before the fight. Wealth was no longer spent on building up the outer walls and securing the military, but much to the contrary was “consecrated to the specious demands of charity and devotion.” With the barbarians moving in, this clearly was a huge weakness for the Romans, greatly impacting its decline.
Another point that Gibbon’s theory covered was that of abstinence. Naturally, abstinence is the choice to forgo a vice or forbearing from an indulgence, whether it is from sex, food, etc. In the case of sex, or rather the lack there of, it’s easy to assume that the population would greatly decline. If the population were to give up something such as meat, the strength of the soldiers and general public would dwindle. Clearly, abstinence only added to Rome’s Achilles’ heel.
Yet, there were many things that Gibbon failed to mention in his theory, one of the first being the extreme power that the Roman leaders felt they had. They “usurped the powers of the Senate, signed treaties, waged wars and spent public funds as they saw fit.” By doing so, battles were constantly being fought, endless money pits for the Romans. Soldiers began to lose faith in their empire, disobeying orders, thus making a need for mercenaries, another expense to add to the empire’s pile. The emperor was not the only one constantly sending money out of the empire. The wealthy constantly imported goods from other countries, sending more and more precious metals out of the empire. Unfair taxing laws caused the richer to grow richer and poorer to grow poorer. Eventually the debts grew to be unbearable, only to be worsened by an inflation of currency. In an attempt to spread out the decreasing amount of gold and silver left in the empire, the government tried to put smaller amounts of precious metals in larger amounts of money, causing the prices to go up and the value of money to go down. When the common people questioned the government, yet another festival or athlete covered up their worries. But soon enough the public could see through the expensive games and get a clear view of its corrupt leaders. The public lost faith. “They lost faith in their leaders, their currency, their rockets, their postal system, their armies, their religion, their laws, their moral values, their country, and eventually themselves.”
Therefore, although Gibbon’s theory does arise many interesting thoughts pertaining to Christianity and its impact on the decline of Rome, it is also missing many key causes. It is undeniable that the conversion of the empire to Christianity played a major role in its downfall, but there is always more to the picture. Whole-heartedly blaming Christianity for the decline of Rome is unfair, but ignoring its impact is equally as erroneous.
In Edward Gibbon’s theory pertaining to the decline of Rome, he states that the introduction, as well as abuse of Christianity, had a large influence on the empire’s downfall. Although Gibbon does convincingly describe Christianity’s affect on many topics, such as pacifism, abstinence, lack of devotion to the military and lack of funding for the military, he fails to cover multiple other grounds. His theory lacks information taking into consideration the egos of the leaders, the “inconclusive campaigns in far away lands,” unfair taxes, the unstable economy, and the general lack of faith among the public. The conversion of the empire to Christianity did in fact have a powerful influence on the Roman Empire, but there were many other causes equally as consequential.
Christianity posed many problems for the Roman Empire. Violence was no longer acceptable; pacifism was popular. In The Theory of Edward Gibbon he states that “the clergy successfully preached the doctrines of patience and pusillanimity; the active virtues of society were discouraged; and the last remains of the military were buried in the cloister.” This pacifist way of thinking distracted the military from the battlefield and lured it into the sanctuary. Devotion came before the fight. Wealth was no longer spent on building up the outer walls and securing the military, but much to the contrary was “consecrated to the specious demands of charity and devotion.” With the barbarians moving in, this clearly was a huge weakness for the Romans, greatly impacting its decline.
Another point that Gibbon’s theory covered was that of abstinence. Naturally, abstinence is the choice to forgo a vice or forbearing from an indulgence, whether it is from sex, food, etc. In the case of sex, or rather the lack there of, it’s easy to assume that the population would greatly decline. If the population were to give up something such as meat, the strength of the soldiers and general public would dwindle. Clearly, abstinence only added to Rome’s Achilles’ heel.
Yet, there were many things that Gibbon failed to mention in his theory, one of the first being the extreme power that the Roman leaders felt they had. They “usurped the powers of the Senate, signed treaties, waged wars and spent public funds as they saw fit.” By doing so, battles were constantly being fought, endless money pits for the Romans. Soldiers began to lose faith in their empire, disobeying orders, thus making a need for mercenaries, another expense to add to the empire’s pile. The emperor was not the only one constantly sending money out of the empire. The wealthy constantly imported goods from other countries, sending more and more precious metals out of the empire. Unfair taxing laws caused the richer to grow richer and poorer to grow poorer. Eventually the debts grew to be unbearable, only to be worsened by an inflation of currency. In an attempt to spread out the decreasing amount of gold and silver left in the empire, the government tried to put smaller amounts of precious metals in larger amounts of money, causing the prices to go up and the value of money to go down. When the common people questioned the government, yet another festival or athlete covered up their worries. But soon enough the public could see through the expensive games and get a clear view of its corrupt leaders. The public lost faith. “They lost faith in their leaders, their currency, their rockets, their postal system, their armies, their religion, their laws, their moral values, their country, and eventually themselves.”
Therefore, although Gibbon’s theory does arise many interesting thoughts pertaining to Christianity and its impact on the decline of Rome, it is also missing many key causes. It is undeniable that the conversion of the empire to Christianity played a major role in its downfall, but there is always more to the picture. Whole-heartedly blaming Christianity for the decline of Rome is unfair, but ignoring its impact is equally as erroneous.