A New Faith

 

A New Faith

Was the new imperial religion a net negative for the Roman civilization?

Introduction

This write up aims to critically analyse the impact of the abrahamic religion on the trajectory of the Roman Civilization (~753 BCE - 1453 CE) and make an argument for why I believe it to have ultimately been a net negative. It is worth noting that historian Edward Gibbon had also made a similar case when he first wrote his seminal work 'The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' (1776 CE). However, it is now considered by many to be outdated and operating on faulty assumptions, though I believe it still has some merit, on the whole I admit that it is a flawed assessment. I seek to articulate a more modern position based on new research as well as my own logical analysis of the circumstances of the empire and how its new faith influenced its decision-making for the worse. The body of this essay will be divided into three sections. The first would explore my primary argument, that is the ceaseless heresies and schisms caused by the new religion. The second would briefly delve into the secondary arguments which include the wastage of imperial resources, the encroachment of monasteries on citizens' lands and properties, and finally the irksome yet ever-present relationship with the hostile priest in Rome. The third and final section would address a few common arguments in favour of christianity.

Body

Primary Argument: Ceaseless Strife

The Roman Empire had scarcely ever been renowned for its unity of purpose. Divisions, strife and conflicts were common due to the meritocratic structures of government and lack of any formal succession system. The occasional civil war was a fact of life to the romans as the sporadic poor weather is to us. For most of its early history, the empire had never seen roman blood being shed for religious reasons. The Greco-Roman faith was content to remain in the background and was for the most part irrelevant to the political scene. This changed entirely with the advent of christianity.

The bloody reign of Emperor Theodosius I (379 - 395 CE) saw the first roman to ever be executed for the 'crime' of heresy. He engaged in devastating civil wars against the western half of the empire for the temerity of not persecuting the practices of their ancestral religion. He began persecutions against all those who disagreed with his dogma and codified it as the state religion. This was but the beginning, a mere taste of the turmoil that their ancient civilization would face over the next millennium. Over the ages, places of learning would be torn down, intellectuals butchered in the streets, wars fought against neighbours in the name of Yahweh, old roman mythology overtaken and twisted to christian purposes, xenophobia intensified, loyal citizens persecuted and alienated for lack of orthodoxy, et alia.

This essay will first address the latter of the above points as I believe it to have been particularly detrimental. To that end, I would like to highlight a few examples on which to bring our focus. The monophisite schism, the iconoclast controversy, and the paulician and boglomist heresies. Each of these examples saw the romans descend to meaningless theological disputes and murder their fellow citizens over them all the while the greatest foes the empire had ever faced reached the very gates of New Rome.

Monophistism

The monophisite heresy existed primarily within the eastern provinces of the empire, that is the wealthiest and most densely populated regions. Such was its popularity with the local citizenry that followers of this sect continue to exist to this day. However, due to the uncompromising and unbending nature of the orthodox church and its teachings, attempts at peaceful co-existence were few and far between. Between the 5th and 7th centuries many emperors attempted to convert the schismatics to the orthodoxy of Constantinople, often through the use of persecution and even violence. This resulted in the citizens of the east, loyal for centuries, to grow alienated from the empire and felt that their interests were not being considered in the capital. This hostility culminated in the Byzantine-Sassanian war of 602-628 during which Persian forces were able to persuade Roman cities to voluntarily surrender, in large part due to the prosecutions faced by the monophysites allowing the Shahanshah to, for the first time since the days of the Achaemenids, conquer the entirety of the imperial east. 

Evidently, the romans failed to learn their lesson as even after eventually driving the Persians back following two decades of constant and brutal war, Constantinople renewed its oppression of the off-shoot religion in the five years of peace that they managed to enjoy. Ultimately, the romans ended up losing the levant once more, this time to the first Caliphate, and for good. It is worth noting that there was barely any resistance in Syria and Palestine from the citizens and what little fight was put up in Egypt was largely centred around the culturally roman stronghold of Alexandria. Of course, the friction between the monophysites and New Rome was far from the sole or even primary cause behind this collapse of imperial fortunes; but it is not hard to imagine that the locals were simply done fighting for the empire which offered only oppression and persecution. 

Iconoclasm

The collapse of the eastern frontier and the loss of the empire's wealthiest provinces had a substantial impact on the roman perception of their civilization as well as their place in the world. Christianity had long promoted the view that the romans were Yahweh's chosen people and destined to spread their religion across Terra. Such a perspective became harder to believe in as their people suffered calamity after calamity for centuries. Indeed, if there does exist a deity then it wouldn't be farfetched to assume that it despised the romans given that their empire remained in a state of near constant crisis from the 3rd century to the 15th but we have embarked upon a digression. As a consequence of this upheaval, the romans self-identity began to evolve in face of the Caliphal onslaught. 

They came to believe that their god was punishing them for their sins and that their civilization needed to somehow repent. Some amongst them concluded that it was the worship given to the icons that was the root cause of the divine wrath. It is beyond to scope of this particular point to elucidate why one might find such logic to be entirely nonsensical but hopefully that is self-evident to the reader.

The concern lies in the timing of this theological revelation. The iconoclast ideology brought unnecessary and unproductive division to the empire while the Umayyads assailed the borders of the Politea. This is made stranger by that fact that the emperor who introduced this policy, Leo III (717 - 741 CE) had seen first hand and led the defence against the Arab siege of the capital in 717 CE; it is highly irrational to bring strife to Rhomania while the state faced an existential threat, perhaps the most potent in all of its history. This superstitious behaviour was specifically induced by christianity. There was no such petty squabbling over theology during the crisis of the 3rd century as the Greco-Roman faith was not as conducive to degenerating into disputes regarding fiction while their civilization faced extinction.

Now, I acknowledge that modern scholarship casts doubt on the magnitude of division brought about by iconoclasm. However, it is clear that even if it was not quite as ruinous as our contemporary sources suggest, it undoubtedly sowed discord within the Res Publica during a period when unity and stability were of paramount importance. Especially given the roman tendency towards descending into civil war at every opportunity, the new faith adding an additional point of animosity was a clear net negative.

Paulicianism and Boglomilism

This investigation will address these heresies together as the arguments here are going to be comparatively brief. Firstly, with regards to Paulicianism, in order to escape imperial persecution, its adherents eventually chose to migrate to the region of Tephrike (modern Divrigi) and lived independent of the empire. This marks one of the few instances in roman history up until this point of regions seeking secession from the central government. Such cases tend to be extremely rare for the romans and the first occurrence of this phenomenon in centuries was caused due to theological disputes. Disputes which I would like to emphasise are utterly unproductive and don't benefit the Politea in the slightest.

With respect to the issue of Boglomilism, during the reign of Emperor Alexios I (1081 - 1118 CE), a boglomil leader, Basil the Physician, was burnt at the stake for the 'crime' of heresy. This during a period when the situation of the Res Publica were described as follows by the Emperor’s daughter Anna Komnenos “No other state in living memory had reached such depths of misery”. I would like to highlight that the romans were in truly dire straights at this point. Their heartland in Anatolia had been lost, territories under the control of the nomadic Turks could be seen from the walls of the capital. The Roman civilization teetered on the precipice of total annihilation.

And under such circumstances, the central government saw it fit to waste time and resources on heresy trials and burning individuals at the stake for not following the imperial dogma. I don't believe that it would be necessary to elaborate on why this is detrimental to the empire.

Auxiliaries

Wastage of Imperial resources.

This section will address the often extravagant spending of the government on the construction of churches and monasteries, as well as the exemptions, privileges and grants given to them. I contend that these resources were largely wasted and did not result in any productive gains for the empire. They would've been better spent elsewhere such as the army or public works which might actually be somewhat beneficial to society. 

It is also worth noting that this is not a purely modern secularist perspective, Procopius of Caesaria in the sixth century and Michael Psellos in the eleventh both criticised emperors for overspending on ecclesiastical projects while resources were direly needed elsewhere. In case of the former, the wars in Italy and against Persia and for the latter the against the Pechenegs, Normans, and Turks. We can see the government expending vast sums of gold on the construction of buildings that have absolutely no productive value to the empire during periods when the Politea was being threatened from all sides. 

Consider how history might have changed had the resources poured into the Hagia Sophia or the Mangana complex been instead invested in the army to win the war in Italy, or used to build fortifications in Armenia to better defend against the nomads. Even if the tide of history isn't changed by these alterations, I would posit that at the very least, fewer roman lives would've been lost. And consequently, the roman state corrupted by the influence of its new faith had become prone to wasting money on frivolous and unproductive projects that did little more than stroke the ego of the emperors and patriarchs while not advancing imperial interests in the slightest.

Encroachment of Monasteries

What many are unaware of regarding imperial monasteries, and perhaps monasteries in general as I am only familiar with the roman variety, is that far from being minimalist houses of contemplation and prayer, they were often closer in resemblance to vast corporations with lavish headquarters and extremely deep reserves of gold. 

They often leveraged their comparatively higher level of education and connections within the court to gain imperial favour and continually expanded their holdings encroaching onto the lands and properties of the average citizenry. Who did attempt to resist however were often outmatched by the greater resources, contacts, and ability to gain promises and grants from the capital or simply forge them when necessary. Furthermore, the monks tended to often use their perceived moral superiority to their benefit to sway imperial governors and judges in their favour, all to satisfy their avarice. This of course, while paying no taxes to the government and denying valuable manpower to the army.

Multiple emperors under the Macedonian dynasty tried to curb this expansion by establishing laws to protect the rights of the citizenry. However, due to the influence of the monasteries at court as well as their ability to appeal to divine legitimacy, new emperors looking to solidify their position often restored the monks' privileges or even granted new ones. 

Obviously, the concept of a monastery did not exist before christianity and therefore this entire issue is solely the fault of the new faith.

Priest in Rome

Under imperial Christianity, there were supposed to be five patriarchs at the highest level of the ecclesiarchy. In Rome, New Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. And while this system worked it was largely stable. However, when the imperial fortunes turned in the seventh century, the flaws of this model were made apparent. The latter three cities were lost to the romans leaving only the eternal city and the capital.

It is from this point onwards that tensions that had always existed between the priest in Rome and the emperor in Constantinople begin to reach a breaking point. The former chafed under the authority of his lawful sovereign and continually agitated for greater independence. This came to a head in 754 CE when the excharcate of Ravenna collapsed, the bishop took advantage of this opportunity to invite in and seek aid from the Franks, using his divine legitimacy to gain their favour and protection, now with far greater independence than under the empire and its doctrine of caesaropapism. Consequently, forever depriving the romans of their home city.

Relations remain poor from this point onwards as the pope crowns Charles of Frankia the emperor of the romans in 800 CE. A completely unprecedented and illegal move as he had no authority to crown anyone as emperor. A fictitious and thoroughly discredited document called 'the donation of Constantine' was used to grant this authority to the pope and the excuse that a woman was currently on the imperial throne to justify crowning Charles, as the Franks believed that a woman could not rule though there was no such law within the empire.

The Frankish empire had already been powerful, but bolstered with papal legitimacy and a false imperial mandate, their ambitions expanded considerably. Imperial positions in Venice, Italy, and the Balkans were put under pressure and resources had to be diverted there from the critical caliphal frontier. This iteration of the german empire would collapse soon after the death of Charles's son, however it would be put back together again by Otto I in 962 CE, who was once again crowned roman emperor by a pope who had no authority to do so. This 'Holy Roman Empire' would continue to challenge imperial interests for centuries and would remain a recurring rival. In addition to this, pope would also constantly challenge roman control in Italy.

It is also worth considering the impact of the crusades, initiated by the papacy, at the behest of Emperor Alexios Komnenos however the events that ultimately unfolded were certainly not what he had wanted. The crusades initially did result in some small gains for the empire, however the negatives severely outweighed the positives. The creation of several hostile states in levant, the unwillingness of Bohemond to return Antioch (a key step in Komnenos's plans), the antagonistic attitude of western Europeans as they passed through imperial territory which inevitably resulted in the crusaders aiding imperial enemies such as the Bulgarians and Serbians or simply taking roman lands such as Cyprus.

Ultimately leading to the destruction of the Empire at the hands of christians in the fourth crusade.

Consequently, I conclude that the hostile relationship of the empire with the papacy, a relationship which existed solely due to christianity, was a net negative for Rhomania.

Church Influence

The church wielded a substantial amount of power and influence within the empire, to a degree that religious institutions never had before. It was theoretically subservient to the emperor, the god's viceregent on earth but as one of the major factions within the empire it was often appealed to for legitimacy and support or could turn hostile. It is a minor point, but this is simply unacceptable. The government should never have to kowtow to any institution. It represents the public interests and should be supreme within its domain.

The most appalling example of this unearned power wielded by the ecclesiarchy can be seen in the case of Emperor Leo VI. Lacking an heir from his first three wives (there had already been quite a fuss over the third as it was illegal by canon law for some absurd reason), he needed to remarry and produce one for the sake of the stability of the Politea. He married his mistress after she produced a son but was forced to do penance to the church.

The Emperor of the Romans, representative of the roman civilization, head of the government and the commander of the imperial legions, was forced to do penance before a bunch of priests for the grave 'crime' of a fourth marriage. This incident demonstrates how much irrationality, superstition and plain idiocy had been introduced into the Res Publica through its conversion to the abrahamic religion.

Counters

Social Services

It is commonly claimed that the churches served a valuable social function by providing charity services such as, medical treatments, food, and housing. However, most of these facilities could have been provided by the government via secular means, had they had access to the vast sums of money hoarded within church coffers. Even without that though, the romans had separate medical services such as hospitals, and prior to losing Egypt, the grain dole which provided food for the poorest in the city.

Consequently, since the state could and did fulfil the same functions without the need for all of the abhorrent baggage of the church, this small positive is negligible in comparison to the negatives discussed prior in the essay.

Continuity and Cultural Support

It is argued that the new religion brought unity and provided cultural support and continuity to the roman people in highly tumultuous times. I think I have sufficiently addressed the matter of unity, however with regards to cultural identity, religion simply wasn't necessary. The roman culture, government, and civilization stretched back into antiquity. The ancient nature of the empire as well as the fact that citizens of the Politea had known nothing but Rhomania for countless generations. By the 13th century, regions such as Greece or Asia Minor had been part of the empire and considered themselves romans for over 1300 years. It would've been inconceivable for them to be anything other than roman and therefore that was a sufficiently strong identity to facilitate national cohesion and societal unity without the need for the irrationality, strife, and political encroachment of christianity.

Literature and Education

Some claim that the churches and monasteries were centres of learning, education and literary works. That they preserved knowledge and encouraged its spread. However, while this argument may or may not hold merit in western Europe, the variables are substantially different in the urbanized roman empire. It had a long history of a vibrant and highly educated intelligentsia and philosophers which remained prominent throughout its history. It had universities, schools, and an extremely high literacy rate for the time period. The church simply wasn't necessary for this purpose as far as the Res Publica is concerned.

Note: Plans have been made to expand this article to include a section on Leo III's Ecloga. A new law code which drew on biblical morality rather than ancient roman law and tradition, with predictably regressive consequences. Divorce by mutual consent was outlawed, third marriages were now taboo and forbidden, sex before marriage was outlawed and draconic punishments set for it, etc. Once, this section has been added, there will also be a proper conclusion.

Bibliography

• Kaldellis, Anthony. The New Roman Empire. 2023.
• Pierson, Robin. The History of Byzantium. Apple Podcasts, June 2012 - Ongoing (as of Januray 2024), thehistoryofbyzantium.com/about/, episodes 1-280. Podcast
• Comnena, Anna, translated by Elizabeth Dawes. The Alexiad. e-book, Masterworks Classics, 2015.
• Procopius of Caesaria. History of the Wars Constantinople, Roman Empire, 553.
• Procopius of Caesaria. Secret History. Constantinople, Roman Empire.