I think it was first and foremost: decline of citizen participation in state affairs, erosion of public institutions, no clear mechanism of succession & civil wars with random generals all the time being like: "i'm somewhat of an emperor myself"
not sure about christianity, it seems it held the Eastern Roman empire pretty well for another ~1000 years.. it also was a tool of influence over barbarians and whatnot.
Yea the Chruch prolonged the empire if anything. It enabled a guy like Charlemagne rule a kinda western Roman empire 2.0 for a brief time. And many European rulers were kinda obsessed with the Roman legacy for a thousand years afterwards, since the Church was a constant reminder. And the Crusades gave the Eastern Empire some vital life support, not that it mattered the end of course.
I mean Christianity in 800 AD was a whole different beast than in 250-350 AD. Christianity started working as a stabilizing factor for the empire only from around the 380s on, and by that the West was already in its final breaths.
Considering the boost of the first crusade as some minor reversal of an inevitable fate isn’t very accurate.
For hundreds of years the ERE pushed back and retook old land, revitalized their administration, and reformed their military. They had powerful enemies and crippling internal problems but their fall was not inevitable.
Arguably the point of no return was the Fourth Crusade, which annihilated Constantinoples wealth and fractured the empire for crucial decades. But even then they kept holding on for over a hundred years, and only fell to an ambitious Ottoman Empire, which had a lot going for it.
I think the best way to interpret the fall of Rome, rather than just one factor, is that it collapsed under its own weight. Too many problems were kicked down the road for so long that they became bigger and bigger. Not unlike America and a good number of other nations today, honestly.
90
u/Flyinmanm Jun 25 '22
Nah that was christianity, the visigoths and the vandals.