>>510996472
>>510998778
Now, I won't write any further because this takes a lot of time. But I have to elaborate on the:

>did christianity lead to the fall of Rome?

Here are arguments against Christianity dooming Rome:
>Rome had a 2nd golden age after Constantinus I legalized Christianity in the edicts of Milan. So people who say christianity doomed Rome needed to cope with the time distance between Rome's fall and the legalization of christianity
>the Catholic Church was mostly a safeheaven for influential politicians to escape the nightmare dangerous political / military career of Rome. This led to some political leadership that was actually competent Per example, Pope Leo was instrumental in convincing the Huns to not sack Rome. But then he was backstabbed and assassinated by an immigrant background general Ricimer (who was christian, by the way)

Here are the arguments FOR christianity dooming Rome:
>weakening roman identity. Rome had am idea of 'the farther from the Mediterranean, the more likely you are a barbarian'. Christianity (which the goths quickly realize) was accepting of all willing to baptize. Alaric, the man who sacked Rome, was not a pagan, but a christian
>dividing romans and antagonizing those who still were pagan. Theodosius was blackmailed by a bishop into making all forms of paganism illegal and put pagan temples to the torch, which eventually rallied the romans against the government and gave Eugenius power to rally against Theodosius in the Frigidus river war. Paganism was part of Rome's foundation and identity (and it excluded the barbarians). Christianity was willing to accept the barbarians

Christianity's good will was exploited by barbarians to infiltrate roman society at the same time that it was weaponized by the elites to further bully their population.

Sadly, I'll give you this: the fanaticism for christianity (like the modern cult of diversity and inclusion, including civic nationalism) did no favors to Rome.