>>507104547
>implying correlation = causation
>implying Rome fell because of Christianity
Let’s clear this up. Rome didn’t collapse because it embraced Christ. It was already hollowed out: decay in leadership, economic breakdown, and barbarian pressure were well underway before Constantine ever saw a cross in the sky. Christianity didn’t kill Rome. If anything, it gave the dying empire a soul worth saving.

>99% pagan
Cute number, but paganism didn’t give Rome a unified worldview. You had state rituals, yes, but also a chaotic mess of cults, imported deities, emperor worship, and eventually outright nihilism. The Sibylline Books weren’t saving anybody from plague or invasion. Religion was transactional and falling apart, just like the Empire. Christianity, by contrast, offered moral clarity, metaphysical grounding, and a community that crossed ethnic and class lines. That’s why it spread, not because of "weakness," but because people were starved for truth and stability.

Don’t mistake aesthetic nostalgia for spiritual substance. Lighting a fire to Jupiter didn’t exactly stop the Visigoths. I'm open to hearing counterpoints, but let’s get beyond surface-level history memes, ffs.