Why do edgelords act like Christianity caused the fall of the Roman Empire...

I want to exterminate Muslims as much as the average Kaffir but this is just historically wrong.

>Literature written by pagans was burnt and destroyed which resulted in many works of literature, mathematics, philosophy, engineering being lost, and destroyed centuries of accumulated learning.
I have never read a history book.txt

Can't really be the Roman Empire when:
1.) Doesn't include the city of Rome
2.) Is called the Byzantine Empire

The rejection of the Roman intellectual class was very Christian flavored, so the Christians are viewed as causing the rejection, rather than being created by the rejection.

FPBP

Nice one

>western

Well it certainly didn't help. You need to do some serious mental gymnastics to turn Christianity into a war-like religion, whereas Roman paganism already had wargods and a concept of heroic masculinity.

Read On The Genealogy of Morals for more info.

Are you under the impression that the Western Roman Empire fell because of military reasons?

Daily reminder that the spread of Christianity is all the Greeks' fault.

1.) Rome lose its status as a major captial city 200 years before fall of WRE
2.) It was called Roman Empire, byzatine empire is a term created in XIX century

For most of the Roman Empire's existence the actual city of Rome was a neglected backwater that nobody wanted anything to do with.

And for that matter the "Byzantine" Empire did control Rome for 200 years. Were they Roman then? Just for that period?

>Is called the Byzantine Empire
Nobody actually called it that when it was still around, it was called the Roman Empire by the people who lived there and most of the people who didn't live there.

No, I'm under the impression that morals like "Turn the other cheek" doesn't help when you're trying to defend your nation from invading tribes.

>doesn't help when you're trying to defend your nation from invading tribes.
Can you name 10 battles that the late western Empire lost against invading tribes?

Retard.

hmmmm really makes me think

Their armies literally painted Christograms on their shields and banners. What the fuck are you even talking about. The Roman army continued to win the vast majority of battles it fought. The fall of the western Empire wasn't a military issue.

Zero arguments.

What a surprise. I forgot this was Veeky Forums.

It has everything to do with the "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" by Edward Gibbon. For the 18th century it was revolutionary in terms of quality, but by today's standard the writer was very biassed and a good deal of the facts he cited have been proven wrong. Like since the late 19th century. Also a lot of people in the west have very hard time accepting that there was two Roman Empires pass a certain point and one lived on past 476.

Having said that in a given light Christianity did cause the fall of the Roman Empire in 1204. Namely a holy force conquered it and caused a irreparable damage to its legitimacy. However that means one it fell to the military might of part of Christianity and it was at the hands of a 90 year old blind Venetian that was very mad over the Roman Empire blinding him.

Okay I will have a go at it.

Every notice that in early Christianity saints were a very big deal? They were at the very lest strong remodels that the leadership could pick and choose the right one for the needs at hand. Right around 300 AD there was a lot of people who died and got fast tracked to be venerated as saint who just happened to be of a military bent. Early christian leaders felt violence was fine if diplomacy failed.

However even limiting this to the Gospels they still have room. First Matthew 5:39 and Luke 6:29 may well of been saying that Exodus 21:24-25 should not be used as ground for personal vengeance. Second does...

"I came not to bring peace, but to bring a sword"-Matthew 10:34
"Then he told them, "But now whoever has a wallet must take it along, and his traveling bag, too. And the one who has no sword must sell his coat and buy one."-Luke 22:36

.. sound like a call for peace? Does not really matter what was meant there those are good talking for getting people to take up arms.

Don't forget how they raped the vestal virgins and tore down the statues of the emperors

>what is a bishop of Rome famously defending the killing of migrating Christians

1. That's not Enrico dandalo
2. The bulgars blinded him
3. It was just debts and securing the pretender

Theodosius, a staunch Christian who stamped out paganism for good, divided the empire once and for all between his two retard sons. So literally Rome's fate was sealed thanks to a moronic Christian zealot.

>2.) Is called the Byzantine Empire
What manner of retarded circular logic is this? There's literally no break in continuity until 1204.

It did.

>soldier saints
Most of these are venerated for casting aside violence after their conversion, not for killing others.

>"I came not to bring peace, but to bring a sword"
This isn't a call to violence. It's an announcement of division, much like the whole "the will be divided, father against son..." narrative. There are plenty of other quotes like John 14:27 saying "Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you", confiming the non-violent attitude of Christiantiy.

> "But now whoever has a wallet must take it along, and his traveling bag, too. And the one who has no sword must sell his coat and buy one."
Now try reading what is said afterwards.
>Luke 22:36
>It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors'; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment."
>The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords." "That's enough!" he replied.
The sole purpose of having swords was to be counted among bandits to fulfill prophecy. And it's only two swords, he did not want them to have more neither did he want them to use them, as it can be clearly seen when St. Peter attacks Malchus.

Add to all this things like Byzantine soldiers being denied Communion for two years after they kill anyone, even in defence.

>"I came not to bring peace, but to bring a sword"-Matthew 10:34
>"Then he told them, "But now whoever has a wallet must take it along, and his traveling bag, too. And the one who has no sword must sell his coat and buy one."-Luke 22:36
Well that's so nicely out of context.
In St. Matthew, that is a reference to spiritual warfare against Satan, who had the world under his authority. To fight the leader of vice with weapons of virtue.

For St. Luke, the sword is not literal but the living word of God against sin. The Apostles mis-undststood Chr8st and said here are two swords, to which Christ said, "this is enough!", seeing their mistaken understanding and cutting the conversation abruptly.

Christians banned boipussy. How can you even be motivated to fight with no boipussy in your life?

For the same reason people claim Christianity saved Europe or is the result of its relatively advanced development

>2.) Is called the Byzantine Empire
Retard who have never read a book on the middle age detected

>Is called the Byzantine empire
but that's wrong.

>Christianity a source of stability
Christianity has probably caused more instability and infighting over the smallest of theological details compared to most any other religion.

The ERE where the councils had been held was constantly having issues with the Levant/North African because of Christianity's inability to just let the locals do their own thing the way Paganism was.

But that's arguably true.

>en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_of_Christianity_in_civilization