How did Christianity effect the fall of Rome?
352738
Well start with research into Constantine, he was the first Christian Roman emperor and he introduced/forced Christianity into the Empire.
175876
All of them.\n\nBut more specifically it was much of the Iberian peninsula that is actually conquered by Arab and Berber Muslims, this starts almost eight centuries of Muslim presence there. Gaul (present day france) was also threatened\n\nChristianity and Europe were well into the Dark Ages (complete socio-economic collapse resulting in loss of technology and most centrelized government.) The Roman Empire was gone and many of the barbarian tribes that had moved into lands formerly held by the Romans were technologically inferior to the large religiously unifed forces of the Berbers.  \n\nA ruler named Charlemange who you may want to look up was responsible for unifying a relativly large area of Christian europe and halting the muslim advance.
384679
this is the explanation of the downfall of Rome. they kept expanding the amount the land they occupied, much like how Hitler took over Europe one country at a time.\nwhen they took over each country, they had to use their forces to keep the peace. but if that country wasn't earning them a profit (through taxes, produce, etc), they spent more on controlling it than it was worth, so the areas started going bankrupt. the rich countries had to support the poor countries, which meant hard times for everyone.\nas the areas started going belly-up one by one, the savages around swooped in. the closer they got to Rome, the easier it was to attack the capitol. eventually, the city of Rome was set on fire by a band called the Visigoths. that marked the official end of the empire.
732864
Well, after Constantine conquered Rome, he legalized Christianity.  You could make the case that he's directly responsible for the Dark Ages, which began a little over a century later, a thousand years of superstition, ignorance, and repression of the arts and sciences, under religious rule.   More like de-civilzation and cultural devolvement.
423657
Yeah that was cool. Also I liked when the Romans crucified everyone. stuck them on crosses along the roads.
40315
Christianity officially began in 325 AD.  That is when the Roman Emperor Constantine made it legal.
749407
The Edict of Milan (AD 313) declared that the Roman Empire would be neutral with regard to religious worship, officially ending all government-sanctioned persecution, especially of Christianity. The Edict, by two Augusti (senior tetrarchs) Constantine the Great and Licinius gave to Christianity and other religions a status of legitimacy alongside Paganism. It initiated the period known by Christian historians as the Peace of the Church. The document itself does not survive.
988644
Gaius Flavius Valerius Aurelius Constantinus[1] (February 27, 272–May 22, 337), commonly known as Constantine I, Constantine the Great, or (among Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic[2] Christians) Saint Constantine, was a Roman Emperor, proclaimed Augustus by his troops on July 25, 306 and who ruled an ever-growing portion of the Roman Empire until his death.\n\nConstantine is best remembered in modern times for the Edict of Milan in 313, which fully legalized Christianity in the Empire, for the first time, and the Council of Nicaea in 325; these actions are considered major factors in the spreading of the Christian religion. His reputation as the "first Christian Emperor" has been promulgated by historians from Lactantius and Eusebius of Caesarea to the present day; although there has been debate over the veracity of his faith because he was baptized only on his death bed.[3]\n\n\nHis victory in 312 over Maxentius at the Battle of Milvian Bridge resulted in his becoming Western Augustus, or ruler of the entire Western Roman Empire. He gradually consolidated his military superiority over his rivals in the crumbling Tetrarchy.\n\nIn the year 320, Licinius, emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire, reneged on the religious freedom promised by the Edict of Milan in 313 and began another persecution of the Christians. This was a puzzling inconsistency since Constantia, half-sister of Constantine and wife of Licinius, was an influential Christian. It became a challenge to Constantine in the west, climaxing in the great civil war of 324. The armies were so large another like these would not be seen again until at least the 14th century. Licinius, aided by Goth mercenaries, represented the past and the ancient faith of Paganism. Constantine and his Franks marched under the Christian standard of the labarum, and both sides saw the battle in religious terms. Supposedly outnumbered, but fired by their zeal, Constantine's army emerged victorious. With the defeat and death of Licinius (Constantine was known for being ruthless with his political enemies: Constantine had publicly promised to spare his life, but a year later he accused him of plotting against him and had him executed by strangulation), Constantine then became the sole emperor of the entire Roman Empire.[4]
1126225
Why did Rome fall ?\nWell, the old-fashioned, traditional explanation for the fall of Rome points out the mass migration as the biggest reason for the collapse of Rome. \n\nIn ancient European history it happened two or three times that huge migrations took place, hundreds of thousands, even millions of people set out to find new homelands. \nThe fact that such a mass migration took place whilst the Romans were still in power, must be seen as at least a major contributor to their fall. For as we see in modern days too, armies can fight other armies, but they cannot fight entire peoples. The Romans were overwhelmed in a human deluge.\n\n\nBut today one tends not to rely so much on the idea of mass migration and rather understands Rome as having suffered from an entire list of problems. \n\nRome had always had its fair share of bad emperors. Caligula, Nero, Commodus are such examples. But there always followed good emperors to correct their errors. At Rome's end however, there was really no good rulers. For example great generals like Stilicho were killed because the emperor feared losing his throne to them. If you kill your best generals, your army will never be as good as it could be.\nAlso important to the weakening of the Romans was that they began to get more and more civilized. Civilized people were not as good warriors on the battlefields as barbarians. For a long time the Romans had their own barbarians. Gauls, Illyrians, Belgians, Helvetians, Germans, etc.; they all joined the Roman legions. But soon they too were living like Romans. They enjoyed the fruits of Roman civilization and hence became less barbarous, - and less able to fight the barbarian Goths, Vandals, Sueves, etc..\nAnother important reason is perhaps that of Roman unity. The early Romans who built the empire stood united. By the end of course Rome had two capitals, Rome and Constantinople, each with its own emperor. But to the earlier Romans, Rome had been something special, something they served. But the later Romans only sought power for themselves. Almost every military commanders secretely had his eye on the throne and was ready to overthrow the emperor and take power himself. The armies spent a lot of time fighting each other for power in Rome, rather than fighting the enemy.\nTo this cataolgue of troubles one needs also to add economic problems. Rome was spending more than it could afford. The free food rations for the poor of Rome and Constantinople were costing a fortune. The Purchasing of exotic spices and silk from the orient ment that over time Rome was spending its gold on overseas luxuries. Gold which didn't return. Soon Rome didn't have enough gold to produce coins with.\nAnd then there were the plagues. Deadly diseases brought in from the east swept across Europe, killing vast numbers among the population of the empire.\nEven if the mass migration of the wild, Germanic people of the eastern plains is no longer seen as the all-important reason for Rome's demise, it naturally still is seen as one of the capital problems which caused the empire to fall.\nAs a last reason I'd also see the disastrous decision of emperor Valens (who was emperor of Constantinople) to allow the Visigoths to settle in Moesia.\nThe Roman empire's borders to the north had been the river Rhine and the river Danube. They are wide streams and therefore hard to cross. This means, the border was easy to defend. But when the Huns from the east attacked the Visigoths on the other side of the Danube, emperor Valens let them settle on the Roman side of the river. True, the Visigoths then were friends of the Romans. But that soon changed. It didn't take long and bad living conditions, poverty and starvation led the Visigoths to revolt. In the following war, the Romans no longer had a protective river from behind which to defend themelves. The enemy was settled within their own empire. - And it should be the Visigoths who eventually sacked the city of
108158
This is quite complicated.  The History Channel has a good show on this topic called Julius Caesar's Rome, which tells about the rise and fall of the roman empire.  \n\nCheck this site for a brief history:
421748
Christianity, as opposed to Judaism, originated in the Roman Empire. Christ was born and died in the Roman Empire, his followers began there teachings there, and Rome was the first to declare Christianity its official religion.
1035838
Okay, back in the day when the first set of pagans under Constantine converted to Christianity, a group of clergies and etc...got together and collected all the books every written by those who lived in that era of Jesus.  They sat in a council and decided which books they wanted to include in the bible and which ones they would throw out.  The people who wrote the current books of the bible read many of the ones who were not included, thus leaving us with a half written story of the bible.
346681
From the fall of the Roman Empire to the Renascence.  It has been broken into smaller periods by different historians.\n\nFrom about 300 to 500 AD the great migrations of peoples into and through Europe lead to the end of the Pax Romana and the beginnings of the medieval ages.  From then until about 800 AD and the rule of Charlemagne was often called the Dark Ages.\n\nFrom about 800 AD to 1000 AD, the power of the Church increased and lead to Latin becoming a language for scholars and trade across most of the continent.  The next 300 years or so, which are often called the High Middle Ages saw the building of cathedrals,  an increase in trade and the beginnings of the Crusades.\n\nFrom 1300 AD to the Renaissance is considered the Late Middle Ages ushering a decline in the feudal power of the land holders and a rise of the merchants.
1119770
The major military reason for the fall of the Roman empire was the invading Germanic tribes which began to encroach by about the mid 4th century AD (mostly the Goths who wanted to be more like the Romans-which is a social reason).   Pax Romana began to disintigrate as the army had fewer people joining and this small force had to face the Goth threat.  Once the empire became so large and supply lines so stretched, it began to cave in on itself and had little power to stop Alaric & the other Goth invaders.Political demise began, after Constantine split the empire into two (East becoming Byzantium with capital at Constantinople) virtually separate kingdoms and increased with a series of ineffective leaders during the 5th century.   Economically, the major issue was a lack of a tax base and increasing demand for the government to pay for more.  Gibbon blamed the fall of Rome on the social aspect, Christianity, whereas I feel it had much to do with a snobbery (we're better than you) among its people that helped to make it vulnerable.  I hope this answers your question.  That's it in a nutshell.
576191
Nice use of Rome as an example. Only that you left out the part where the Romans treated the Goths and Visigoths as a source of cheap but more often as slave labor. \n\nSounds very familiar.
720134
peter was upside down on the cross. and it was in rome.\nthe word babylon is your past.and it doesn't say who was killed first peter or paul.
354200
I would say that Paul's ministry was on of total submission to his Savior , Jesus.  He went where he was sent, no matter the risk.  He knew he was destined to go into the heart of Rome.  He was arrested and had the ability as a roman citizen to immediately tell his captors who he was.  He would have been released from captivity, by the Judge.  Instead he appealed to Caesar even though it could mean his ultimate demise.  Now that is submission.