What was the role of Christianity in the fall of the Roman Empire?

Nothing.

If anything, helped to stabilize birth/abandonment rates which started to cripple the Empire's population growth through the 2nd and 3rd centuries. Christians don't do the baby abandoning thing.

Rome was already fucked by Constantine's day.

File: 1488684586227.png (117KB, 384x420px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 384x420px

>the Christian ERE survived for a thousand years after the fall of the Western half
>Italians prevented Europe from descending into total barbarism through Christendom due to being the base of the Catholic Church
>Snowniggers who stayed pagan were more barbaric and less advanced than the rest of Europe

>>2507276
The Christian Roman Empire's ability to raise troops was pathetic for a realm of its size.

>>2507255
Hard to say, but once the Imperial government got involved in autistic Church politics it probably became a net negative.

As much as people claim that Christianity acted as a unifying force, the death of nominal freedom of religion and consequent religious infighting brought by Christianity as the state religion eroded the legitimacy of the Imperial gouvernement. This is especially evident in the Muslim conquest of Egypt, where the inhabitants preferred being ruled by Muslims rather than by the Emperor.

You also have the whole Arianism thing, iconoclasm, nestorianism, etc.

>>2507328
How exactly were Nordics less advanced than say, Anglo-Saxon and Celtic Christians of the same period?

>>2507332
Raising troops is not birth rate, friendo. It's actually a benifit to have a religion which forbids infanticide. Who knew?

>>2507332
>The Christian Roman Empire's ability to raise troops was pathetic for a realm of its size.

Due to centuries of plague, baby abandonment as I stated earlier, civil war, and invasion, declining birth rates and devaluation of the currency (NO MONEY = NOTHING TO PAY SOLDIERS).

Most of which happened in the centuries leading up to Constantine, not after.

File: 1280px-382-21.1.-Aksum-Maria_Zion.jpg (264KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

264KB, 1280x960px

>>2507345
Nordics were less advanced than Ethiopians even.

>>2507369
That doesn't answer my question.

How were they less advanced than contemporary British Christians?

File: St_peters_sunderland.jpg (48KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 800x533px

>>2507392
Built in 670 AD. Meanwhile, Vikings never learned how to build anything like this until they were Christianized.

It was already on its way down; Christianity didn't do that. But it did rebuild after Rome fell, gradually transmitting the best of greco-roman culture to civilize the germanics throughout the middle ages

>>2507332
There were definitely issues but it was still a net positive. It opened the first universities, funded research, created the scholastic system, opened up orphanages, hospitals and much more. Your argument is similar to ancaps who say that government did X, Y, Z bad so therefore government is a net negative. Like no, yes many mistakes were made but the institution itself was vital for so many functions . And I'm talking post-WRE collapse here.

File: Aachen_Germany_Imperial-Cathedral-01.jpg (275KB, 1280x914px) Image search: [Google]

275KB, 1280x914px

>>2507427
inb4 they only built stuff made of wood because of the cold

>I'm going to build everything made of wood so my fortifications are non-existent and no examples of my architecture will survive through the age t. 'Genius' Vikang 'architect'

>>2507369
>less advanced than Ethiopians even
>a trading empire sitting on the edge of the red sea having the maritime route between Rome and India nearby

>>2507392
British Christians had scholars who could record the their history and religion with detail which the Nordics didn't have at the time
They also had a coinage industry and far more cities than the Scandinavians had until after the conversion to Christianity
whenever that was because of Christianity or proximity to Rome and different climate is up to debate though


>>2507427
besides when building walls, what's the use of having stone for building things when you live in a cold northern climate?

File: woodcut-depicting-the-Temple-at-Uppsala[1].jpg (69KB, 610x290px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 610x290px

>>2507427
>Vikings never learned how to build anything like this until they were Christianized

>implicating

>>2507255
>Cathedral
It's a fucking Minster not Cathedral

>>2507255
Not much really. Rome was already fucked during the Third Century. The shift from the Principate to the Dominate also drastically changed the Empire politically for the worse.

>>2507500
Fortifications you nigger. If anyone bothered to raid their shitty cities everything would be burned to the ground instantly. In fact, I think this happened multiple times. And they never learned from their mistakes.

>>2507503
>some legendary account of what a temple might've looked like being reliable

>>2507255

It was a structure of social organization and support that moved to fill in the vacuum of the declining Roman state.

>>2507545
>The Cathedral and Metropolitical Church of Saint Peter in York, commonly known as York Minster, is the cathedral of York, England,

you sure showed him

>>2507605
If its a minster it trumps cathedral

>>2507746
Cathedral just means its the seat of a bishop. They are not exclusive.

>>2507332
>Christian Roman Empire's ability to raise troops was pathetic for a realm of its size.
The fuck are you on about. The Late Roman army was more than twice as large as the early Imperial army

>>2507774
Everyone calls it the minster
everyone
ever

>>2507255
Same in the Fall of the West


They're welcoming rapefugees and tell us to submit to them

>Christianity destroying Evil Empire
>bad
The so-called 'dark ages' only had one fault: fidelity to disgusting monarchs idolizing disgusting emperors. Everything else was a result of that.

>>2507255
Nothing, quite frankly it's remarkable they lasted as long as they did.

>>2507904
What about the [collapse] in the late 4th/5th century.