Welcome to the debate. We are examining an unprecedented
historical and intellectual shock today. And
that is the sack of Rome by the Goths under Alaric
in the year 410. Right. And for some context
here, Rome had not been breached by a foreign
enemy in exactly 800 years. So the psychological
devastation of this event, it reverberated across
the known world. It was basically the ancient
equivalent of the world ending. It really was.
And it raised a profound central controversy
that emerges directly from our source material.
The question is, did Rome fall because the empire
abandoned its traditional pagan gods for Christianity,
or was the disaster the result of an inherent
moral decay that the old gods utterly failed
to prevent. This discussion really hinges on
conflicting interpretations of history, civic
virtue, and the very nature of divine protection.
I will be representing the Augustinian perspective,
arguing that the traditional gods were powerless,
morally bankrupt entities. and that Rome fell
due to its own internal moral corruption, while
Christianity provided unprecedented mercy and
true spiritual resilience. And I will be representing
the Roman traditionalist perspective, arguing
that the ancient civic religion, its rituals
and its emphasis on earthly honor, provided the
cohesive foundation that built the empire, and
the Christianity's rejection of this framework
fundamentally weakened the state. Okay, so to
understand this collapse, we really have to look
closely at the foundation, specifically what
the traditional Roman gods actually provided
for their citizens. When you analyze the historical
rites, it is, well, it's abundantly clear that
these deities never offered a healthy moral framework.
Instead of issuing laws to guide their devotees
toward a virtuous life, they demanded obscenity.
They require theatrical rites, stage plays, and
sacrifices that that essentially celebrated their
own shameful acts. So, the ruin of Rome was,
fundamentally, a moral ruin that long preceded
the physical sack of the city by the barbarians.
I come at it from a different way, because we
need to define what a moral ruin actually means
in the context of an empire. The greatness of
Rome was inextricably linked to its traditional
religion, but not because it was a religion of
personal morality. That's a later framework.
It fostered robust civic virtues. We are talking
about honor, duty, martial strength, and just
an absolute commitment to the state. But can
those civic virtues truly sustain a society if
they are completely divorced from personal morality?
If you look at the histories of Sallust or the
writings of Cicero, They openly admitted that
the Republic had become utterly wicked and dissolute
long before Christ was even born. Well, they
lamented corruption, yes, but they also celebrated
the foundational virtues that built Rome. Take
Marcus Atilius Regulus, for instance. Right.
Here was a man who was captured by the Carthaginians,
sent back to Rome to negotiate peace, and instead
he advised the Senate to keep fighting. He then
willingly returned to Carthage, to face exquisite,
horrifying torture rather than break an oath
he had sworn to his gods. That demonstrates how
the traditional religious system cultivated a
supreme, unbreakable civic loyalty. By replacing
this earthly, state -focused religious framework
with a faith that views its adherents merely
as pilgrims passing through this world, looking
toward a heavenly city, the practical interests
and the very survival of the Roman Empire were
fundamentally undermined. An empire that rules
the world cannot survive on the virtues of a
pilgrim. The virtues of a pilgrim? That's a brilliant
way to frame the divide. But doesn't empire deserve
to survive if its foundational virtues are fundamentally
corrupt? You mentioned the cohesive power of
the religion, but we must acknowledge that these
pagan gods took absolutely no steps to improve
the morals of their worshippers. Consider the
Rites of Sibylle. the so -called Mother of the
Gods, or the theatrical games instituted by divine
command to stay a pestilence. The games you are
referring to were a public spectacle. They were
a way of appeasing complex supernatural forces.
A public spectacle of gross obscenities. And
there is a profound hypocrisy inherent in the
Roman system here. Roman law strictly punished
any citizen for slander or for bringing infamy
upon another person. Yet, the gods explicitly
demanded to be honored by theatrical plays featuring
their own disgraceful and criminal acts. How
can a society maintain its moral compass when
its highest objects of reverence demand the public
exhibition of depravity? I acknowledge the theatrical
obscenities, but we have to evaluate them through
the Greek and Roman civic lens. Applying a Christian
standard of purity to ancient Roman rituals is
anachronistic. The primary purpose of the ancient
religion was not personal moral purity. Its purpose
was state cohesion and the maintenance of the
Pax Deorum, the peace of the gods. It was a contractual
relationship. We perform the rites, you protect
the city. So the gods were merely transactional
entities, unconcerned with the actual goodness
of the people they protected? Personal moral
reasoning was not the domain of the priests.
That was the domain of the philosophical schools,
like the Platonists, Religion was the domain
of the state. Furthermore, the Roman Senate deeply
understood the political utility of this. Take
Scipio Nazica, for instance. He was such a respected
traditionalist that the Senate actually deemed
him their best citizen, and he actively fought
against building permanent theaters. He did,
but why? Not out of moral outrage at the plays
themselves. Exactly. He opposed them because
he understood that fear and discipline kept the
populace unified. He knew that a population without
fear would become soft and divided. The religion,
with all its rituals and requirements, was a
mechanism for binding the people together. And
it was a mechanism that worked phenomenally well
for centuries. I see why you think that, but
let me give you a different perspective on that
very history. If we look at historical causation
and the fall of the Republic, it becomes clear
that the traditional gods did not oversee a continuous,
stable prosperity. They oversaw the expansion
of Rome from a single settlement on the Tiber
to the mistress of the known world. It is entirely
logical for a Roman traditionalist to suggest
that the sudden, catastrophic disasters that
befell the empire, like the sack by Alaric, were
a direct result of the Christian emperors explicitly
prohibiting the ancient sacrifices. When you
dismantle the foundational pact between the state
and the divine, you invite ruin. That argument
ignores the Romans' own historical records, though.
Let's draw on Salist again. He points out that
Rome was actually corrupted by its own prosperity.
The real fall happened much earlier, after the
destruction of Carthage, when the fear of a great
external enemy was finally removed. Avarice,
ambition, and luxury swept away the primitive
Roman manners like a torrent. So you are saying
that success was their downfall? Uncheck success.
Without a more foundation, yes. And where were
the gods during this internal rot? I'm not convinced
by the idea that the gods built the empire because
they did absolutely nothing to stop the horrific
civil wars of Marius and Scylla, which tore the
Republic apart long before Christianity was a
factor. Civil strife is a reality of any massive
political entity. But it wasn't just strife.
It was a bloodbath. And rather than preventing
it, the gods often appeared to actively encourage
the bloodshed. When we look at the historical
accounts of Sylla, we see the pagan priest actually
offering prophecies and reading signs in the
entrails to promise him victory and power. These
supposed guardians of the state abetted a man
who ruthlessly slaughtered his fellow citizens.
The Republic was already destroyed morally and
politically by these internal conflicts. To blame
Christianity for a collapse that was seeded centuries
earlier by unchecked ambition is to ignore the
historical record entirely. We must look at how
the citizens themselves responded to those calamities
and conflicts, which brings us to the core of
Roman civic virtue, and that is honor. The traditional
Roman concept of honor and magnanimity in the
face of disaster is something profound, and frankly,
it is something the Christian framework struggles
to replicate in the earthly sphere. I completely
disagree with the premise that the Christian
framework lacks fortitude. But tell me, how are
you defining this Roman honor? Let us look at
Lucretia, a foundational figure in Roman history.
She was a noble Roman matron who, after being
violently outraged by the son of King Tarquin,
made the crime known, demanded vengeance, and
then killed herself out of shame. Or consider
Cato, who committed suicide rather than live
under the dictatorial rule of Julius Caesar.
In the traditionalist view, these are not acts
of despair. What are they then? They represent
a noble, supreme refusal to compromise one's
dignity. They demonstrate a spirit that values
honor and freedom above mere biological survival.
Lucretia's act was a definitive, undeniable proof
of her lack of complicity, which mobilized the
expulsion of the kings and the founding of the
republic itself. That is the spirit that builds
an unconquerable republic. I strongly reject
that interpretation of those events. because
it reveals a deeply flawed understanding of true
fortitude, and it highlights a critical philosophical
clash, external reputation versus internal intent.
The Christian perspective argues for a vastly
superior form of resilience. Let us examine Lucretia.
Purity is a virtue of the soul and of the will.
If a body is violated without the mind's consent,
Purity is absolutely not lost. But in the Roman
worldview, external reputation, civic standing
and bodily autonomy were intimately tied to one's
moral worth in the community. You're applying
a completely foreign metaphysical framework to
evaluate her actions. But reason itself demands
we separate the act of the aggressor from the
innocence of the victim. If she did not consent,
she was innocent. Therefore, her suicide was
not an act of nobility. It was an act driven
by pride and an overwhelming fear of human suspicion
and shame. She was terrified of what people would
think of her. By killing herself, she effectively
murdered an innocent woman. She was proving her
honor to the state. And as for Cato, his suicide
was not an act of strength, but an act of weakness.
He was unable to bear the hardship of his circumstances
or the judgment of others under Caesar's rule.
True strength of spirit. True magnanimity is
demonstrated by enduring profound hardship, captivity,
and even physical violation without committing
the sin of self -murder. I'm sorry, but I just
don't buy that. Let me tell you why. You are
demanding that individuals endure degradation
for the sake of an abstract, invisible purity,
while sacrificing the very real, tangible honor
that holds a society together. But let us move
from individual responses to calamity to the
broader nature of the sack of Rome itself. This
is the climax of the disaster we are discussing.
Exactly. Alleric at the gates. Right. If the
Christian God's protection is so superior, how
do we explain the horrific realities of the sack?
We cannot sanitize history. The historical accounts
acknowledge the brutal captivities, the massive
loss of wealth, the starvation, and the multitudes
of unburied bodies left in the wake of the Goths.
If the Old Gods are to be mocked for failing
to protect the physical city, surely the Christian
God must face the exact same scrutiny. Where
was the physical protection for his followers?
The distinction lies in understanding the nature
of what is truly valuable and the completely
unprecedented events that occurred during the
sack. It is true that the physical devastation
was immense. However, the sanctuary provided
during the sack of Rome was entirely novel in
the history of warfare. Novel in what way? Sacks
are always brutal. Because of the restraint shown,
let us look at historical precedent. When the
Greeks took Troy, a city that worshipped the
exact same gods as its conquerors, those gods
could not protect their own shrines. Priam was
slaughtered right at the altar, and the Temple
of Juno was looted and used as a holding pen
for captives. The gods of antiquity offered no
sanctuary. The rules of war were absolute. Exactly.
Until 410 AD. During the fall of Rome, the name
of Christ compelled the bloodthirsty invading
barbarians to halt their slaughter. The Goths
spared vast multitudes of people, both Christians
and pagans, who simply feigned Christianity out
of fear, who fled into the massive basilicas
of the apostles. This restraint in the midst
of a sack, this concept of universal sanctuary,
was previously unheard of. Yet you cannot deny
that many devout Christians were still tortured
to reveal hidden wealth, many were killed, and
many were left unburied. The sanctuary was not
absolute, and for a Roman citizen whose entire
worldview is built on the security and glory
of the earthly city, the loss of temporal goods
and the denial of proper funeral rights are profound,
tangible failures of divine protection. That
is precisely where the Christian paradigm completely
shifts the understanding of human existence.
The loss of temporal goods is ultimately meaningless
to the eternal soul. Wealth that can be stolen
is not true wealth. True wealth is the inner
treasure of faith and godliness. And the unburied
dead? Denying a Roman a proper burial was considered
one of the ultimate tragedies. But it is a tragedy
born of a materialistic worldview. The lack of
a funeral pomp does not hinder the resurrection
of the flesh. The earth is the Lord's. These
physical hardships and temporal disasters serve
a distinct purpose under divine providence. They
act as a test of faith for the good, detaching
them from earthly greed and schooling them for
eternity, while serving as a chastisement for
the wicked. A societal collapse does not destroy
the Christian's true citizenship, which is not
rooted in the shifting sands of an earthly empire.
And that brings us exactly back to the core tension.
The earthly city operates on human realities.
It operates on physical borders, on tangible
wealth, and on the projection of strength. The
martial virtues, the fierce honor culture, and
the civic religion of the past were what actually
built the Roman Empire. When a society begins
to view physical losses, the destruction of wealth,
and even the subjugation of its citizens as meaningless
to the eternal soul, it loses the vital animus
required to defend itself. I would argue it gains
a resilience that transcends borders. But at
what cost to the state? It leaves it as an open
question whether any earthly state can survive,
let alone flourish, and maintain global dominance
without the very frameworks your perspective
so thoroughly deconstructs. You cannot build
a Roman legion out of men who believe that worldly
defeat is just a spiritual test. In summarizing
our discussion, we must conclude that a society
cannot be truly saved or sustained by false gods
who not only fail to protect it, but actively
encourage its moral decay through their own scandalous
examples. The history of Rome shows that its
internal collapse was well underway due to rampant
avarice and luxury. long before the barbarians
breached the walls. Avarice and luxury are human
failings, not divine commands. But the divine
commands offered no cure. True justice and lasting
peace are not products of theatrical propitiations
or a superficial civic religion. They are found
only in the heavenly city. The temporal afflictions
that befall us in this world are not evidence
of a failed God, but rather the necessary discipline
that schools us for eternity. proving where our
true loyalties lie. To summarize my position,
we must acknowledge that an empire exists in
the material world and must be governed by material
and civic realities. The ancient Roman framework,
for all its complexities and so -called obscenities,
provided an unparalleled mechanism for state
cohesion. It fostered a people whose loyalty
to the state, driven by an intense culture of
honor and the fear of the gods, allowed them
to conquer and civilize the known world. The
introduction of a theological framework that
fundamentally devalues the earthly city in favor
of a heavenly one, undeniably alters the civic
DNA of a state, making its survival against fierce
external pressures incredibly difficult, if not
impossible. This debate ultimately illuminates
the profound and enduring tension between the
demands of maintaining an earthly empire and
the pursuit of a heavenly citizenship. By examining
this historical catastrophe through multiple
perspectives, we gain a much deeper understanding
of the complexities of human society, the nature
of morality, and the true meaning of resilience
in the face of collapse. Indeed. Exploring these
conflicting views reveals that the questions
raised by the fall of Rome are not just historical
trivia. They are fundamental inquiries into what
holds any society together when the pressure
mounts. It forces us to ask what we truly value
when the walls are breached. There is certainly
much more to explore in the source material regarding
the intertwined history and the ultimate destiny
of these two cities. Thank you for joining us
for this intellectual exchange.