History Questions Not Worth Their Own Thread VI

[Plotinus]

Christianity, on the other hand, was obviously spreading mostly with active conversions - at first, in early Roman times, through teachings of the Apostles and their continuators, then in late Roman times in a state-sponsored way (it became the state religion of the Empire), and later during Medieval times also in a state-sponsored way (monarchs were Christianizing their subjects) or in an otherwise imposed way (like for example conquest by crusaders).

I think that during the Roman Empire much of the spread of Christianity within the empire was actually down to population movement rather than conversion. There isn't much evidence for substantial conversion during this period, but attacks against Christians were sometimes motivated in part by the fact that they were foreigners. E.g. the famous persecutions in Lyons in 177 were directed against Christians who had migrated there from Asia Minor, one of the major Christian population centres. Remember that at this stage Christianity was a primarily Greek-speaking religion even in the western empire, because most western Christians were actually easterners.

Also, don't forget that later, in the fourth and fifth centuries, Christianity spread throughout the Sassanids' empire and on into central Asia primarily through forced population movement. The Sassanids captured huge numbers of Christians from the Roman Empire and resettled them in empty territories of their own.

 

[timtofly]

Where did the huge number of Christians come from that the Sassanids captured?

 

[Louis XXIV]

I think that during the Roman Empire much of the spread of Christianity within the empire was actually down to population movement rather than conversion. There isn't much evidence for substantial conversion during this period, but attacks against Christians were sometimes motivated in part by the fact that they were foreigners. E.g. the famous persecutions in Lyons in 177 were directed against Christians who had migrated there from Asia Minor, one of the major Christian population centres. Remember that at this stage Christianity was a primarily Greek-speaking religion even in the western empire, because most western Christians were actually easterners.

Do you mean prior to Constantine or during the Empire all the way to the end?

 

[Phrossack]

Where did the huge number of Christians come from that the Sassanids captured?

A lot of them came from Antioch. Shahanshah Khusro I captured the city and carried off much of its population, then resettled them in what was essentially a copy of Antioch he had built for them in Mesopotamia.

IIRC it was called something like "Khusro-veh-Antioch," meaning "Khusro (built this) better than Antioch."

 

[Plotinus]

Do you mean prior to Constantine or during the Empire all the way to the end?

This was mostly after Constantine. In the fourth century, the Sassanid policy towards Christians was mostly to slaughter them by the thousand.

 

[say1988]

This was mostly after Constantine. In the fourth century, the Sassanid policy towards Christians was mostly to slaughter them by the thousand.

I think that question was in reference to:

"I think that during the Roman Empire much of the spread of Christianity within the empire was actually down to population movement rather than conversion."

 

[Plotinus]

I misread. I meant before the time of Constantine.

 

[Louis XXIV]

OK. That makes more sense.

 

[timtofly]

My point was how was it possible to even have thousands of Christians to slaughter or even transplant for population needs? How could they grow to the thousands if they were all be killed or persecuted all the time?

 

[SeekTruthFromFacts]

There is substantial evidence for conversion in Rodney Stark's The Rise of Christianity. An extract is available online.

 

[Plotinus]

My point was how was it possible to even have thousands of Christians to slaughter or even transplant for population needs? How could they grow to the thousands if they were all be killed or persecuted all the time?

They weren't, though. Previously, Christians had not been subject to persecutions under the Sassanids or their predecessors, so they were able to grow there, although we know next to nothing about these communities. The transplantations were of Christians captured from the Romans, who had given up persecuting them by this stage (and indeed the Roman persecutions, when they happened, probably involved the deaths of relatively few people, unlike the Sassanid persecutions).

There is substantial evidence for conversion in Rodney Stark's The Rise of Christianity. An extract is available online.

What Stark gives there is evidence that pagan piety was in decline. But elsewhere in precisely that same book, which was my source for my comments before, he argues that Christianity didn't grow very much in the second and third centuries, and constituted perhaps only 10% of the empire by the time of Constantine's conversion.

 

[nokmirt]

I was wondering if Louis XVI had used his military could he have stopped or at least impeded the onset of the French Revolution? Or at least have fought back somehow militarily? This whole thing boggles my mind. I realize the discord and economic situation, but it seems to me the king sat on his hands. He should have mounted a horse!

 

[gay_Aleks]

Far as I believe, the army was either on the side of the Revolutionaries, or was too busy looting the countryside.

Besides, Louis XVI doesn't strike me as a monarch capable of moving his butt to do anything. In other words, he's bloody incompetent, and his escape from Paris proves that.

 

[jackelgull]

I was wondering if Louis XVI had used his military could he have stopped or at least impeded the onset of the French Revolution? Or at least have fought back somehow militarily? This whole thing boggles my mind. I realize the discord and economic situation, but it seems to me the king sat on his hands. He should have mounted a horse!

The thing is though, the French Revolution was not only not inevitable, but also highly preventable. There hadn't been a need for a military response.

The French revolution was not just a result of one cause but a thousand causes, whether they be petty or legitimate, for injuries real and imagined and for reasons noble and ignoble that the current system was not able to address.

Possibly, the king could have come up with a proposal to tax an estate besides the third estate. Before calling the houses, he could have garnered support from the church and the third estate to force the aristocracy to heel, then tax them and alleviate the debt crisis. He could then have lightened the tax on the third estate, and the French Revolution might not have happened or at least be put off for a couple of decades.

 

[Tee Kay]

That requires many of the central actors including the King to be different people than who they were IRL

 

[Louis XXIV]

Far as I believe, the army was either on the side of the Revolutionaries, or was too busy looting the countryside.

Besides, Louis XVI doesn't strike me as a monarch capable of moving his butt to do anything. In other words, he's bloody incompetent, and his escape from Paris proves that.

Certainly his escape from Paris showed that he didn't believe his army would be able to defeat the Revolutionaries. He was seeking Austrian help instead. Of course, the new French army managed to defeat the Austrians (and many others) anyway so he may have been wrong about that.

Actually, while we're on the subject. How much of the army of the French Revolution's early years comprised of the same French army of the Monarchy, how much were new recruits, and how much was manned through conscription?

 

[gay_Aleks]

A better question would be: How big was the Royal Army, pre-Revolution? Due to the tight economical situation and the starvation, I'm quite sure quite a bit of soldiers were laid off/fired or something.

 

[Cutlass]

A better question would be: How big was the Royal Army, pre-Revolution? Due to the tight economical situation and the starvation, I'm quite sure quite a bit of soldiers were laid off/fired or something.

Not to mention that they had commitments many places, and France was far more of a priority than the colonies.

 

[nokmirt]

A better question would be: How big was the Royal Army, pre-Revolution? Due to the tight economical situation and the starvation, I'm quite sure quite a bit of soldiers were laid off/fired or something.

I can't seem to find any info on the state of the Royal Army or its size. Although in several passages, it has been stated that Royalist forces surrounded Paris and Versailles. After the call for mobilization on July 1st, 1789, ordered by Louis. The King gave in too easy after the Bastille fell to the demands of the National Assembly. Louis had plenty of troops massing around the capital. He could have made a fight of it, but we are talking about a man who abhorred violence and bloodshed. If he had some balls and was not such a pacifist things may have went differently. This is the way I see it.

 

[gay_Aleks]

If he had some balls, he would have avoided the entire situation that would require the use of the Royal army.