Gibbon summarized his feelings on the fall of the Empire ina document titled General Observations On TheFall Of The Roman Empire In The West. This essay not only addresses the fall ofRome, but relates that history to the future of modern society. We’ll ignorethe latter in this post and focus on the former.
The role of Christianity is adifferent matter, however, requiring us to look further at Gibbon’s statementsabout its role in the empire. He wrote seven chapters about the Christians. Twostand out as the most controversial.
![]()
Below are someexcerpts from the document, intended to summarize Gibbon’s conclusions.
“The rise of a city, which swelled into an empire, maydeserve, as a singular prodigy, the reflection of a philosophic mind. Butthe decline of Rome was the natural and inevitable effect of immoderategreatness. Prosperity ripened the principle of decay; the causes ofdestruction multiplied with the extent of conquest; and as soon as time oraccident had removed the artificial supports, the stupendous fabric yielded tothe pressure of its own weight. …The victorious legions, who, in distantwars, acquired the vices of strangers and mercenaries, first oppressed thefreedom of the republic, and afterwards violated the majesty of the purple. Theemperors, anxious for their personal safety and the public peace, were reducedto the base expedient of corrupting the discipline which rendered them alikeformidable to their sovereign and to the enemy; the vigor of the militarygovernment was relaxed and finally dissolved by the partial institutions ofConstantine; and the Roman world was overwhelmed by a deluge of barbarians.
The decay of Rome has been frequently ascribed to thetranslation of the seat of empire but this history has already shown that thepowers of Government were divided ratherthan removed. …Thisdangerous novelty impaired the strength and fomented the vices of a doublereign: the instruments of an oppressive and arbitrary system were multiplied;and a vain emulation of luxury, not of merit, was introduced and supportedbetween the degenerate successors of Theodosius. Extreme distress, whichunites the virtue of a free people, embitters the factions of a decliningmonarchy. The hostile favorites of Arcadius and Honorius betrayed therepublic to its common enemies; and the Byzantine court beheld withindifference, perhaps with pleasure, the disgrace of Rome, the misfortunes ofItaly, and the loss of the West.
As the happiness of a future life is the great object of religion, we mayhear without surprise or scandal that the introduction, or at least the abuseof Christianity, had some influence on the decline and fall of the Romanempire. The clergy successfully preached the doctrines of patience andpusillanimity (cowardliness); the active virtues of society werediscouraged; and the last remains of military spirit were buried in thecloister: a large portion of public and private wealth was consecrated tothe specious demands of charity and devotion; and the soldiers' pay waslavished on the useless multitudes of both sexes who could only plead themerits of abstinence and chastity. Faith, zeal, curiosity, and more earthlypassions of malice and ambition, kindled the flame of theological discord; thechurch, and even the state, were distracted by religious factions, whoseconflicts were sometimes bloody and always implacable; the attention of theemperors was diverted from camps to synods; the Roman world was oppressed by anew species of tyranny; and the persecuted sects became the secret enemiesof their country.
…Religious precepts are easily obeyed which indulgeand sanctify the natural inclinations of their votaries; but the pure andgenuine influence of Christianity may be traced in its beneficial, thoughimperfect, effects on the barbarian proselytes of the North. If the decline ofthe Roman empire was hastened by the conversion of Constantine, his victoriousreligion broke the violence of the fall, and mollified the ferocious temper ofthe conquerors.”
At this point, Gibbon ponderswhether the political systems of his time could fall prey to the same problemsthat doomed the empire. Answering his own question, he describes threedifferences between Rome and the modern age.
“I.The Romans were ignorant of the extent of their dangers and the number of theirenemies. The flying tribes who yielded to the Huns assumed in their turn the spirit ofconquest; the endless column of barbarians pressed on the Roman empire withaccumulated weight; and, if the foremost were destroyed, the vacant space wasinstantly replenished by new assailants.
II. Theempire of Rome was firmly established by the singular and perfect coalition ofits members. The subject nations, resigning the hope and even the wish ofindependence, embraced the character of Roman citizens; and the provinces ofthe West were reluctantly torn by the barbarians from the bosom of their mothercountry. But this union was purchased by the loss of national freedom andmilitary spirit; and the servile provinces, destitute of life and motion,expected their safety from the mercenary troops and governors who were directedby the orders of a distant court. The happiness of an hundred millions dependedon the persona merit of one or two men, perhaps children, whose minds werecorrupted by education, luxury, and despotic power. The deepest wounds wereinflicted on the empire during the minorities of the sons and grandsons ofTheodosius; and, after those incapable princes seemed to attain the age ofmanhood, they abandoned the church to the bishops, the state to the eunuchs,and the provinces to the barbarians.
III.Cold, poverty, and a life of danger and fatigue fortify the strength andcourage of barbarians. In every age they have oppressed the polite and peacefulnations of China, India, and Persia, who neglected, and still neglect, tocounter-balance these natural powers by the resources of military art. Thewarlike states of antiquity, Greece, Macedonia, and Rome, educated a race ofsoldiers; exercised their bodies, disciplined their courage, multiplied theirforces by regular evolutions, and converted the iron which they possessed intostrong and serviceable weapons. But this superiority insensibly declined withtheir laws and manners: and the feeble policy of Constantine and his successorsarmed and instructed, for the ruin of the empire, the rude valour of thebarbarian mercenaries.”
I have no argument with these points.As we have discussed in recent posts, the emperors of the late empire were weakand they employed German commanders and barbarian soldiers.
The role of Christianity is adifferent matter, however, requiring us to look further at Gibbon’s statementsabout its role in the empire. He wrote seven chapters about the Christians. Twostand out as the most controversial.
Volume 1 Chapter 15 – Progress of the Christian Religion
Volume 1 Chapter 16 - Conduct Toward the Christians, from Nero to Constantine
In chapter 15, Gibbon gives his opinion on the reasons forthe triumph of Christianity.
“To this inquiry, anobvious but satisfactory answer may be returned; that it was owing to theconvincing evidence of the doctrine itself, and to the ruling providenceof its great Author.”
Gibbon asserts that Christianity developed out of Judaism byco-opting the Old Testament, defining a new covenant to replace Jewish law, andattacking the Jews. The latter was an artifact of the competition between GentileChristians and Jewish Christians, before the latter were destroyed inthe ashes of Jerusalem.
Chapter 16 has been criticized for its bias and unevenapproach. In spite of the chapter’s shortcomings, Gibbon's conclusions are thoughtprovoking. He speculates about the reasons why the antiquarian tolerance forreligious diversity was suddenly suspended in the case of the Christians. Gibbon characterizesthe Jews and Christians as similar in behavior – both seeking social isolationand refusing to pay homage to their sovereign - yet the Jews were not persecuted. Why? His answer follows:
“The differencebetween them is simple and obvious; but, according to the sentiments ofantiquity, it was of the highest importance. The Jews were a nation; theChristians were a sect: and if it was natural for every community to respectthe sacred institutions of their neighbors, it was incumbent on them topersevere in those of their ancestors.
By embracing the faithof the gospel, the Christians incurred the supposed guilt of an unnatural andunpardonable offence. They dissolved the sacred ties of custom andeducation, violated the religious institutions of their country, and presumptuouslydespised whatever their fathers had believed as true, or had reverenced assacred.”
The development of Christianity and its effect on the empire is a topic we must pursuefurther in order to place it in the correct context. Once we havethat established, we can decide for ourselves whether Gibbon was correct.
