At first, Christianity wasn't super successful. There were many other mystery religion in circulation at the time. In the Roman Empire, there was something called "Roman syncretism", various religions were tolerated as long as they didn't disrupt the social order.

Christianity was persecuted at times, but there wasn't a sustained campaign of annihilation over the centuries it took before Christianity became the Roman state religion.

Why Christianity succeeded were other religions failed is an interesting question. Mithraism was another mystery religion that was popular around at the same time, but Mithras was a war god at a time when Rome was consistently getting its butt kicked on the battlefield. By contrast, Christianity was a apocalyptic religion at a time when it seemed to Romans that the world really was ending. So the message of Christianity resonated more with the peoples of the Roman empire I think. Plus it appealed to the broad masses for whom other religions like the Greco-Roman pantheon offered little (slaves and women were more likely to convert in the early days).

Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity and gave it favored status in the empire. Once the Christians had become powerful enough the struck out at the other religions, sending black-robed monks to ransack pagan temples and destroy statues. Other religions were ultimately banned, but as others have pointed out a lot of beliefs were incorporated into Christianity (e.g. Christmas was originally Saturnalia) making the transition smoother.

Rich people could sometimes buy chronicles and history books but apart from that it was mostly just common knowledge and stuff your dad told you

Yeah, that struck me as a pile of bollocks. In fact if you want something to hang flat in a particular orientation then two holes like that possibly the best way to go. You can have a single thread enter from the back, cross to the other, and leave to the back again. It can't easily rotate without twisting together the two end of the thread, and the separation between them makes that harder.

Maybe the holes were for something else, but this logic sounds like they wanted to find an excuse to reject the simpler explanation.

[removed]

My paternal family line begins in Normandy (Bertram/Felton)and they were soldiers and servants with William when he came to England. I’m a huge history lover and had heard of William and many other people in history,but didn’t know at the time that my own family was part of the historical events I had read about. After reconnecting with a long lost Aunt, I discovered so many amazing people and connections to historic places. She spent decades gathering information,visiting the places they lived and died,churches and cathedrals,castles and battlefields. From the information she gathered,Williams life was just like a tv drama!

[removed]

Where did their support come from? Try reading this book for an answer... https://books.google.ca/books/about/Miners_and_Steelworkers.html?id=dhkEAAAAMAAJ&redir_esc=yr

Coalminers and steelworkers by Paul McEwan Nova Scotia MLA and member of the Cape Breton Labor Party.

Win, lose, or draw, they tried...

Don't leave out the second season genocide he does!

Yes, the office of the tribune was used by the Gracci to destabilize the politically fragile late Roman republic; though I doubt they were meaning to do so.

Clodius was a contemporary of Caesar in the same vein, famously giving up his patrician status and being adopted into a plebeian family to run for the office.

Was more likely a power consolidation thing, Constantine likely was not a true believer, but it allowed him to cement his hold on the throne.

Christianity became the official religion of Rome after Constantine saw the Chi Rho in a vision before the Battle of Milvian Bridge.

Before that, it was a widely persecuted cult, and wasn’t even considered a religion by contemporary Romans. The thinking at that time was that religions belonged to different ethnic groups/nations; since Christianity was open to all individuals, it was seen as a cult, like that of Mithra.

Christianity was persecuted because 1. It’s always nice to have a scapegoat and 2. Christians wouldn’t offer burnt offerings to the health of the emperor. In contrast, the Jews in the empire would do so on behalf of hashem, but Christians were not permitted burnt offerings by their beliefs. Not burning an offering for the emperor was seen as treason. Roman religion was much more intertwined into its politics than any modern system.

Well TBF both of the Graccus brothers and Gaius Marius, the political vector that leads to Caesar and the Empire, were tribunes of the plebs. And Caesar was above that, he was Pontifex Maximus (basically the pope) well before becoming dictator.

Julius Caesar was never tribune of the plebs.

Your post has little merit to the topic at hand in general; Roman religion was rife with new cults at all times.

No worries, thanks for that rabbit hole, it's distracting me from working on my finals and I'm loving every second of it lol.

His funeral was also out of a comedy (and gruesome as well):

https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofEngland/William-The-Conqueror-Exploding-Corpse/

I grew up in harlan. My grandfathers worked those mines in the early 1900s from seven years old. It was not a happy time. My parents were born in the coal camps in the 40s. Further, the strikes in the 70s, shown in the movie harlan county usa, have people in it who remember the war. Excellent topic to research, write an essay, and bring again to the forefront. Bloody Harlan should never be forgotten. Harlan always had rebels. Courthouse was burned down around seven times.

Wait until you hear about the obviously made-up life of Sir Frances Drake.

But I think that alone doesn’t explain it’s early success. If anything Christianitys insistence on being an exclusive religion is comparatively harsh. A pagan had no problem with you joining several religions on the side, but Christians needed you to leave all other cults. For an ancient believer, this was quite a commitment.

There’s even a word for this: syncretism, the amalgamation or attempted amalgamation of different religions, cultures, or schools of thought.

A historically minded viewpoint is one that bases their conclusions and statements off of the available evidence. I'd argue that past historians did present certain figures, like Richard, in a positive light and as a result of that history textbooks present them in the same way. It's only been in the last 20 years that we've a shift in the academic community, a shift which has caused a reexamination of certain points in time (ex. Dark Ages weren't dark) or certain historical figures (Richard II's reputation was largely tarnished by Tutor bias in the historical record).

To briefly touch on your last sentence, would you rather have an interesting conversation or one that is based off of evidence?

My responses may slow, I have class.

Believe it was Constantine, not 100% though.

[deleted]

[removed]

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but from what I understand about Christianity is that they allowed people to continue their own traditions and celebrations but just with a new twist. So it wasn't like people had to abandon their previous belief system. That's why Christians today celebrate the pagan holidays of Christmas and Easter.

Well what exactly qualifies as a historically minded viewpoint? We don’t see these people glorified in textbooks, but we do in the history subreddit while talking about how a historical figures life was movie-like. Is this making its way into academic publications or is it more casual history conversations? Because the latter is rightfully affected by pop culture, we want interesting conversation topics, not to quote a phd thesis