Quote:
Originally Posted by afc wimbledon
I have to disagree with you here, christianity was only divisive to the empire if kept outside, once it became a state religeon its very stubbornness became its strength to bind a devisive empire together, you have to recognise the Roman Empire was in chaos in this time, the ruling structures that had worked reasonably well for a city state had brocken down under the pressure of an eastern and western dual empire, with 2 potential emperors most of the time.
Christianity had soime huge advantages over other faiths at the time, it proslytised for a start, which was unsual, what would be the point of a state religeon that didn't attempt to or even banned allowing converts in, it was the speed that it spread and the fact that it didn't preach anything for this life that made it very desirable for the state to coopt.
The fact that it also preached chastity and poverty was a good thing, it was in line with traditional roman society as opposed to the weirder and wackier sects coming out of the east and Egypt.
Embracing early christianity would make perfect sense assuming an emperor was looking for a unifiying faith, what better way to prevent the christians themselves from spreading disent within the empire, they would also spread the faith themselves enthusiastically and there really wasn't anything about the church that was likley to offend conservative roman sensabilities, no drunkenan bachanalian rights involving little boys or the like (that, it would appear, would have to wait)
|
Fair enough. From an emperor's point of view, though, if Constantine took the Christian position as a unifying act, as opposed to an honest conversion, it must have been a bitter pill to swallow. Hence the previous emperor's not just mistrust, but active dislike of the early Christian church. The perfect sense you mention would be seen best in hindsight.