Is this image accurate? Did Christianity really destroy the Roman Empire?

>tfw crisis of the third century was done by Pagan Europe
>tfw East Rome stood strong for 1000 years despite being Christian
>tfw all the barbarians that "destroyed the Roman empire" were all Christian
>tfw all the "glorious perfect reasonable" nations of Europe was born from Christian origins
>tfw the biggest threat to Europe in late antiquity/middle ages was basically Christianity 2: Arab edition
>tfw between the 2 all of the "stronk Pagan world" was crushed underfoot by them

tickles the synapses

>tfw crisis of the third century was done by Pagan Europe
Right, because pagans caused the century of pestilence, and Europe saw no civil war after christianixation.
Go eat dicks user.

Just saying that if Pagan Rome was so damn STRONK then they wouldn't have faced the brush of death that was the crisis.

>tfw East Rome stood strong for 1000 years despite being Christian
Let's not go too far, East Rome had several centuries

>nix
>dicks

What does Watergate have to do with this

>would Brazil be Portugal?
It already was?

>Would portuguese speaking indios be portugueses?
Literally 0.1% of the Roman Empire was "Roman" by your standards.

>476 - 1453

so a couple of decades short of a thousand

on one hand you can say it was dead by the fourth crusade (1204) on the otherhand you can also say it began when Constantine made Constantinople the capital (330) making it for close to 900.

it was destroyed in the jewish war

Sorry I left out the bad part, some centuries sucked dick in the ERE, but I guess that's the price you pay when wogs are fighting over whether or not images of a saint is idolatory while Muslims are kicked the shit out of you. They really had great priorities

Religious affiliation alters your immune system?

>It already was?
It was a fucking colony. It was a portuguese territory called Brazil. It wasn't Portugal anymore than the Thirteen Colonies were Britain.

>Literally
No. Italy held something between 10 and 20% of roman population throughout the imperial period. 0.1% my ass.
Besides it was an empire. Working definition of empire being "one ethnic group dominating others". It follows that if there's no romans in the empire anymore, the empire stops being roman.

>No. Italy held something between 10 and 20% of roman population throughout the imperial period.
How many of those do you think were Greek considering most of Sputh Italy was Greek colonists? Let alone other citizens visiting.

>How many
Nowhere near 99.9% you utter fool.

I'm a different poster. Way to doge the question though.

How many of those Greek settlers do you think were latinized at the time?
How big part of the population may the visitors have been at a time when only a minor part of the population could travel like that?

>How many of those Greek settlers do you think were latinized at the time
Not a majority. Most latins were hellenized desu

How do people not understand that "Byzantine" is just a historiographical term and to the vast majority of their contemporaries they were called "Romans"?

>Right, because pagans caused the century of pestilence
The Antonine Plague happened during the reign of Marcus Aurelius nearly a generation before the crisis of the third century.

While it was, in fact, horrible and totally fucked the Roman economy, it wasn't as devastating as the Black Death, more than a thousand years later.

The difference is that in the aftermath of the black death, virtually all productivity gains were flowing into the pockets of workers who suddenly found their labor a lot more valuable than it was before, and in the process creating history's first true middle class.

The Roman Empire, however, was much cruder and totally over-centralized: the fate and fortune of the Romans rested on the fate and fortune of the court of the Emperor and into the hands of a tiny land-owning aristocracy, who horded and monopolized all of the productivity gains.

So while the warfare triggered by the Black Death lead to technological wonders and eventually colonialism, the warfare triggered by the Antonine Plague created a negative feedback loop where war devastation fueled unrest which fueled usurper generals proclaiming themselves God-on-Earth, which created further war devastation, and the only ones getting wealthy were aristocrats and mercenaries, and everyone else was being driven into the ranks of serfdom.

All of that took place well before the Christian religion amounted to more than a tiny fraction of the overall population. By the time Constantine decriminalized Christianity, only about 10% of the empire was Christian, and that was well after the decline had begun in earnest

No. In many ways it strengthened the loyalty of Romans towards their imperator.

No. The last picture is Alexandria, not Rome.

you didn't really expect /pol/tards to be up to date on their art history, did you?

no
Constantine and Christianity revitalized the Empire

Yes, user. That image is 100% correct and accurate. It was most likely made by a historian with keen knowledge on Rome.

Christianity saved Rome.

what is that sword supposed to be?

nordicaboos WE WUZING about MUH GOLDEN HURRED ROMANZ NOT LIKE SMELLY HALF TURK GAYREEKS

ITS NOT A REAL CITY ITS FICTIONAL

That's not what /pol/ told me

/pol/ is the roach board now, Erdogan is doin what Hilshill couldn't

The establishment of the Christian church witnessed a massive transfer of wealth to the elites coupled with an aggressive centralization of political power.

This is why gibbon describes the advent of Christianity as an "awful scene"

/pol/ is wrong.

It's one of several pictures depicting the rise and fall of a fictional city.