Why was Christianity so successful?

[Nick]

In the pagan parts of Roman and Dark Ages Europe, what was it about an alien, Jewish sect that made the population abandon the ancient religion of their ancestors? (did they even fully abandon it, some pre-Christian superstitions survive today)
Was it through choice, or forced conversion (influence of chief, for example) Why did Christianity appeal to them?

[Belisarius]

Haven't we had a similar question before? Nutshell answer: Constantine and Charlemagne. Rulers define the religion of their subjects.

[Nick]

Haven't we had a similar question before?
Did we? I've been here since July and don't remember seeing one.

[Belisarius]

Haven't we had a similar question before?
Did we? I've been here since July and don't remember seeing one.

Might have cropped up inside another thread as I can't find it either. It's still an interesting subject worth exploring.

PS Just found it. The thread is called Christianity posted by Lord Cronos in July

[Fromage]

In the pagan parts of Roman and Dark Ages Europe, what was it about an alien, Jewish sect that made the population abandon the ancient religion of their ancestors? (did they even fully abandon it, some pre-Christian superstitions survive today)
Was it through choice, or forced conversion (influence of chief, for example) Why did Christianity appeal to them?

People were drawn to Christianity because it emphasised humility, IE being poor and having little, as opposed to the pagan religion where building expensive temples etc. was admired. Also, Christians gave each other support, whether it was caring for the sick and hungry within the sect or travelling across the Roman empire to help rebuild the homes of Christians whose homes had been burnt by angry pagans. And remember that the poor in Rome often led miserable lives. Christianity promised a beautiful, painless afterlife for all believers, and that was really the most they could hope for.

Had it not caught on then, it would have caught on later, because science proved the pagan gods weren't gods at all... the sun, the seasons, lighting... all would come to have scientific explanations. People needed a god to believe in that was harder to disprove, even if they didn't realize this way back in the days of the Roman empire.

[Melisende]

It basically appealled to the masses - and as Fromage pointed out above, it promised an afterlife. It was only when Constantine accepted Christianity (though he was still a pagan himself) did it gain "legitimacy".

But this is how all the major religions began life.

[PADDYBOY]

Was it ?

As far as I know, all religions offer an afterlife, even the early pagan ones ?
Humans being the only species on planet Earth who are aware of their own inevitable death, religion of one sort or another must have been comforting to people, folk don't like the idea of dying, end of story!

If Christianity was so successful, why didn't it spread further afield and take over all other religions, why was it only, "so successful amongst Europeans? " why didn't other peoples in the world accept Christinity the same way European peoples did?

[Edgewaters]

In the pagan parts of Roman and Dark Ages Europe, what was it about an alien, Jewish sect that made the population abandon the ancient religion of their ancestors? (did they even fully abandon it, some pre-Christian superstitions survive today)
Was it through choice, or forced conversion (influence of chief, for example) Why did Christianity appeal to them?


There were forced conversions but most importantly was that pagan practices were outlawed on pain of death, and atheism was frowned upon, leaving citizens nowhere to go but to go Christian. Also recall that once Christianity became the state religion, it became the public religion of Rome, and it had always been very important to show obeisance to the public religion. Failing to participate in the public religion was seen as something sort of treasonous, kind of like burning the flag is seen today. It wasn't exactly illegal not to, but ...

How Christianity came to get influence in the state is more interesting - many think it was because it was already followed by the majority in Constantine's time but it simply wasn't. It had grown from a tiny obscure sect to one of the larger mystery cults, but that's a long, long way from a majority.

[Comet]

If Christianity was so successful, why didn't it spread further afield and take over all other religions, why was it only, "so successful amongst Europeans? " why didn't other peoples in the world accept Christinity the same way European peoples did?

I think the reason why it was successful in Europe and the Middle East (until the rise of Islam) was because of it's similarities to the pagan religion. For instance, the date for Christmas, December 25, comes from the cult of Mithras which was popular amongst Roman legions toward the tail end of the empire. My guess is that Christianity adopted the date as means to attain more followers. There is a book by Marvin Meyer called Ancient Christian Magic. In the book, there are many spells and remedies that were once used by pagans and adopted by many "Christians" who believed they were practicing a form of Christianity. I think I have the book in my library and I will see if I can post an example when I find the book.

To make a long story short, early Christianity sought to convert by convincing pagan worshipers they were, in a sense, practicing a form of Christianity. That was one of the major reasons why Christianity was so successful. The were able to adopt or adapt pagan religious practices and concepts (i.e. Saint worship=God and goddess worship of ancient Rome and Greece).

Hopefully this partially answers your questions. I think the main reasons why Christianity did not spread any further than it did was because it simply wasn't "compatible" to the religions of the Far East (although Hindu and Buddhist ideology is sometimes argued as similar to that of Christianity).

[Comet]

How Christianity came to get influence in the state is more interesting - many think it was because it was already followed by the majority in Constantine's time but it simply wasn't. It had grown from a tiny obscure sect to one of the larger mystery cults, but that's a long, long way from a majority.

I think Constantine understood the ramifications of what Christianity's ideology was implying and he implemented that message into a political entity. Christianity was monotheistic in nature, preaching one true God. I believe Constantine thought that one true God also meant one true emperor. Take what you will about his famous story before the battle of Milvian bridge, but it does make sense to think that the Christian God was the decisive factor in his victory as well as his rise to power. One God, one emperor, one empire. It's a vague explanation but one that I think should be taken into consideration.

[PADDYBOY]

I think the reason why it was successful in Europe and the Middle East (until the rise of Islam) was because of it's similarities to the pagan religion. For instance, the date for Christmas, December 25, comes from the cult of Mithras which was popular amongst Roman legions toward the tail end of the empire. My guess is that Christianity adopted the date as means to attain more followers. There is a book by Marvin Meyer called Ancient Christian Magic. In the book, there are many spells and remedies that were once used by pagans and adopted by many "Christians" who believed they were practicing a form of Christianity. I think I have the book in my library and I will see if I can post an example when I find the book.

To make a long story short, early Christianity sought to convert by convincing pagan worshipers they were, in a sense, practicing a form of Christianity. That was one of the major reasons why Christianity was so successful. The were able to adopt or adapt pagan religious practices and concepts (i.e. Saint worship=God and goddess worship of ancient Rome and Greece).

Hopefully this partially answers your questions. I think the main reasons why Christianity did not spread any further than it did was because it simply wasn't "compatible" to the religions of the Far East (although Hindu and Buddhist ideology is sometimes argued as similar to that of Christianity).


Thanks for the reply Comet, :)

[Lucius]

Olav Tryggvason made Norway a Christian nation (starting in the summer of AD 995 and ending four decades later) in order to gain equality with the rest of Europe (equality, that is, in the eyes of the rest of Europe).

I think a similar sentiment might have been in operation regarding the spread of Christianity in Europe prior to that date as well. Modern-day, secular humanists, etc, might not see that much difference (in the "believe-abilty department") between being born of a virgin and being born full-grown out of a rock. But it might not have been so cut and dried back then. On the one hand, a god who can't do the impossible is not god at all, at any time or place on the planet. On the other hand, no one wants to be regarded as an ignorant bumpkin. I think in the long run, Christianity's advantage lay in that it had book accepted by it's adherents as more or less authoritative. Major centrifugal tendencies were sublimated into different interpretations of the book. The others were small and could be killed off.

Why didn't other peoples in the world accept Christianity the same way European peoples did? Maybe European people gave Christianity a bad name?

[Edgewaters]

I think Constantine understood the ramifications of what Christianity's ideology was implying and he implemented that message into a political entity. Christianity was monotheistic in nature, preaching one true God. I believe Constantine thought that one true God also meant one true emperor. Take what you will about his famous story before the battle of Milvian bridge, but it does make sense to think that the Christian God was the decisive factor in his victory as well as his rise to power. One God, one emperor, one empire. It's a vague explanation but one that I think should be taken into consideration.

Yes. Although early Christianity was anything but homogenous in doctrine, none of the other mystery cults were either. Constantine was looking for one that he would be able to impose a standardized doctrine upon, and monotheism fit the bill - there's only one deity (well, sort of, I suppose you have trinitarianism) which cut down alot on the complexities of issuing a standardized dogma. It was difficult enough to resolve disputes surrounding the nature of Jesus, imagine the same process for an entire pantheon! He had to find a way to stop syncretism from generating new beliefs constantly, as the mystery cults were a force of disunity in that the society no longer held to a common religion or common traditions.

It was really a very Roman decision, looking for that thing most amenable to standardization.

[Melisende]

So basically, Christianity offered the most simplist choice (ie: one God, one set of worship guidelines, etc) over the many choices offered by the pagan religions.

[Lucius]

Well, in the event, once Rome starting worshipping past emperors as gods, the cat was out of the bag. A lot of people would have regarded such a thing as, well, ludicrous. They became "ready for a better idea."

The two contenders on the ground were Mithraism and that Jewish sect with that book. Saint Vincent DePaul (1581 – 1660) said that the future of Christianity lay in Africa and in Asia. He didn't mention Europe or America. It's starting to look like he might have been right.

[PADDYBOY]

Lucius

Just noticed your new signiture, it's a good one. :)

[Tudor chick]

People were drawn to Christianity because it emphasised humility, IE being poor and having little, as opposed to the pagan religion where building expensive temples etc. was admired. Also, Christians gave each other support, whether it was caring for the sick and hungry within the sect or travelling across the Roman empire to help rebuild the homes of Christians whose homes had been burnt by angry pagans. And remember that the poor in Rome often led miserable lives. Christianity promised a beautiful, painless afterlife for all believers, and that was really the most they could hope for.

Had it not caught on then, it would have caught on later, because science proved the pagan gods weren't gods at all... the sun, the seasons, lighting... all would come to have scientific explanations. People needed a god to believe in that was harder to disprove, even if they didn't realize this way back in the days of the Roman empire.

I agree with Fromage here. Jesus’ teachings were/are for everyone and included groups that other regions at the time (Jewish) did not e.g., the poor, the sick, widows, people that society shunned. Also Jesus’ teachings did not have the burden of a lot of study that the Jewish region had.
Jesus said,
Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light." Matthew 11:28-30
I also agree that Christianity would have caught on sooner or later. Then having it become law in Rome would have also made it more popular once people understood what it was all about.

[Tudor chick]

Was it ?

As far as I know, all religions offer an afterlife, even the early pagan ones ?
Humans being the only species on planet Earth who are aware of their own inevitable death, religion of one sort or another must have been comforting to people, folk don't like the idea of dying, end of story!

If Christianity was so successful, why didn't it spread further afield and take over all other religions, why was it only, "so successful amongst Europeans? " why didn't other peoples in the world accept Christinity the same way European peoples did?

Just a little added note here. It was illegal and still is in many Asian countries to follow or convert to Christianity. People are still being thrown into goal to day for having a bible or talking about Christianity in some countries.

[Comet]

So basically, Christianity offered the most simplist choice (ie: one God, one set of worship guidelines, etc) over the many choices offered by the pagan religions.

I wouldn't say that it was the most simplistic because there were still a lot of issues that the early Church had difficulty defining and it did effect the way missionaries went about converting others. Hence, one of the reasons the Council of Nicea was called. Spiritually, the early Church knew that it had to solve its own internal problems with a solid or concrete set of guidelines as well as a belief system. I'm sure without a solid foundation of Church doctrine conversion was a bit difficult. This is why early missionaries used paganism to their advantage. They assimilated many pagan practices so that it would be easier to see the similarities between the two religions; ultimately leading to conversion.

By the time Islam arrives on the scene in the 7th century, it became the most simplistic monotheistic religion; which is why Islamic had such great success in converting Christians. (yes there were some forced conversions, however, the majority of Islam allowed Christians to remain so as long as they paid a special tax)

[Comet]

I think in the long run, Christianity's advantage lay in that it had book accepted by it's adherents as more or less authoritative. Major centrifugal tendencies were sublimated into different interpretations of the book. The others were small and could be killed off.


I agree to some extent Lucius. The bible was certainly important, but by the time of the late middle ages it was hardly authoritative. This is one of the reasons why there was a rise in popular heretical movements. The Church deemed tradition and physical authority (pope) more authoritative. Those who opposed the Church, such as Wycliffe, Hus, and Luther, believed true authority to be with the bible. Protestantism actually brought the bible back as authoritative (if it ever was authoritative) during the 16th century.

Today, I don't believe Christianity to be as successful as it was during the Middle Ages. It's decline can be seen with the development of the university, the rise of the Renaissance, the Protestant Reformation, and ultimately dying with the religiously opposed Enlightenment during the late 16th and 17th centuries. While there were Christian revivals throughout the
world since then, it comes no where near to the political and spiritual power it once held. I'd say that modern Christianity's success is its tendency to survive into the 21st century in spite of all the events the religion has endured since its conception.

[Lucius]

Today, I don't believe Christianity to be as successful as it was during the Middle Ages.

It depends upon how one measures the "success" of a religion. If Church and State get completely dis-entangled from each other, I would count that as a very great success for both.

If one reads the newspapers, he might get the idea that the Church in the US is degenerating into some sort of Political Action Committee. But one must remember that the papers print the exceptional, not the mundane. The more the Church keeps to doing what it's supposed to do (teaching, preaching, baptizing), the more "success" it has, by definition, IMHO.

Mathematically, I think the raw number of Christians is "keeping up" in terms of a percentage of the total population everywhere except in Europe, if one wants to consider it that way. Kinda ironical, isn't it?

[philosalexandros]

or it could just be that it is true:D:p

[Tudor chick]

It depends upon how one measures the "success" of a religion. If Church and State get completely dis-entangled from each other, I would count that as a very great success for both.

If one reads the newspapers, he might get the idea that the Church in the US is degenerating into some sort of Political Action Committee. But one must remember that the papers print the exceptional, not the mundane. The more the Church keeps to doing what it's supposed to do (teaching, preaching, baptizing), the more "success" it has, by definition, IMHO.

Mathematically, I think the raw number of Christians is "keeping up" in terms of a percentage of the total population everywhere except in Europe, if one wants to consider it that way. Kinda ironical, isn't it?

In Australia the more traditional churches, Catholic, Anglican, Uniting Church etc attendances have been deceasing however and they still have larger members than the Pentecostal movement that is becoming increasingly popular with the youth and families.
Just talking from a person who lives in a country area, this decline is a worry as there will not be many young people / families to carry on with these lovely old country churches, that do have a significant role in country towns. As well as doing the more commonly known things that Lucius has mentioned, these little parishes do a lot of welfare work in country towns.
It is a shame to see these beautiful old buildings become B & B's and all this work lost because people see the church in an old fashion view, and often is not be the case with some types of churches.

[Comet]

It depends upon how one measures the "success" of a religion. If Church and State get completely dis-entangled from each other, I would count that as a very great success for both.

If one reads the newspapers, he might get the idea that the Church in the US is degenerating into some sort of Political Action Committee. But one must remember that the papers print the exceptional, not the mundane. The more the Church keeps to doing what it's supposed to do (teaching, preaching, baptizing), the more "success" it has, by definition, IMHO.

Mathematically, I think the raw number of Christians is "keeping up" in terms of a percentage of the total population everywhere except in Europe, if one wants to consider it that way. Kinda ironical, isn't it?

Your absolutely right Lucius. It truly depends on what you are talking about when it comes to "success". I agree about the disentanglement of Church and State...that can be considered a success. I think Tudor Chick and I are thinking along the same lines...the influence of Christianity, particularly the older established sects are starting to fade a bit. Not saying that the influence is completely gone, but historically compared to what it was, it just is not the same. However, as long as the Church keeps doing what you have mentioned (teaching, preaching, etc.) it's survival will continue and, like I mentioned before, is a success in itself :)

[Belisarius]

From Constantine onwards, the Church has been used as a tool of social control and a prop to the legitimacy of the ruling class. In late antiquity and in later eras, the religion of the king/chief/headman became the religion of the country/tribe. Once established as the state religion of Rome, Catholicism spread Christianity by converting such rulers and then relying on them to enforce the will of the Church onto their people. As others have said, the church found it expedient to superimpose Christian myths over Pagan practices to make the pill more palatable; but those who stubbornly clung to their beliefs were almost always persecuted and killed as witches or heretics. Charlemagne took this one step further by conferring primacy onto the Pope in allowing him to crown him as Emperor, so in effect giving the Church sovereign power over secular rulers, and the concept of "Divine Right" was born. Christianity was spread more by terrorising the populace than by wholeheartedly convincing them of any fundamental religious truths.

[PADDYBOY]

Just a little added note here. It was illegal and still is in many Asian countries to follow or convert to Christianity. People are still being thrown into goal to day for having a bible or talking about Christianity in some countries.


Feeding Christians to the lions didn't stop people believing, why would sending them to gaol work ? :confused:

I don't think you can stop a religion from spreading, just by making it illegal, can you ???

[Edgewaters]

I don't think you can stop a religion from spreading, just by making it illegal, can you ???

In essence it's alot like political movements. Simply declaring it illegal is not enough. To prevent any sort of movement like that, a government must counter it early in a rapid, consistent, and determined action. There was simply no great will to wipe out Christianity, to the Romans it was just another mystery cult that happened to cause a bit of trouble.

The Romans did what they always did with hostile groups. Their view was that any hostile group was made so by a small fanatical element within it, and their persecution of any particular group was aimed at destroying the fanatical element, or, undermining its support. So they obliged the most radical elements - in particular the Montanists (who fared even worse under Nicean Christianity) - when they proclaimed their determination to achieve martyrdom. But not consistently, not with any great will to stamp out the religion.

Had they wished to stamp it out, they could have done so. They demonstrated this ability after Constantine saw in Christianity the key to re-establishing a new standardized public worship, by wiping out heretical groups like the Montanists and Arians, along with numerous pagan religions and fellow Eastern mystery cults.

The Romans therefore demonstrated that they could wipe out not just one but dozens of popular religions simultaneously without a great deal of effort. They simply did not have the will to do so prior to the adoptation of Christianity as the state religion.

[Comet]

From Constantine onwards, the Church has been used as a tool of social control and a prop to the legitimacy of the ruling class. In late antiquity and in later eras, the religion of the king/chief/headman became the religion of the country/tribe. Once established as the state religion of Rome, Catholicism spread Christianity by converting such rulers and then relying on them to enforce the will of the Church onto their people. As others have said, the church found it expedient to superimpose Christian myths over Pagan practices to make the pill more palatable; but those who stubbornly clung to their beliefs were almost always persecuted and killed as witches or heretics. Charlemagne took this one step further by conferring primacy onto the Pope in allowing him to crown him as Emperor, so in effect giving the Church sovereign power over secular rulers, and the concept of "Divine Right" was born. Christianity was spread more by terrorising the populace than by wholeheartedly convincing them of any fundamental religious truths.

This is exactly what happened to the Coptic Christians to point that they went underground for centuries...in some instances, they allowed Muslim rulers to come in and protect them. Same with the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. It is slightly different from the Orthodox Church...there is a lot more tradition and myth involved.

Belisarius couldn't have said it any better. By the latter part of the medieval period, the Church terrorized and forced conversions through the threat of heresy. Those items I mentioned before, about what led to the Church's downfall....the university, the Renaissance, the Reformation, and the Enlightenment all had one thing it common...it openly challenged the Church's power; both spiritually and politically.

[FIRE STORM]

was it marx who said religion is the opium of the people, it may have become successful as people looked for something to ease their burden , and why it is on the decline in some places

[Tudor chick]

Feeding Christians to the lions didn't stop people believing, why would sending them to gaol work ? :confused:

I don't think you can stop a religion from spreading, just by making it illegal, can you ???

Yes you are right. I haven't explained myself correctly. To answer your question as to why it had not spread to other places besides Europe I was giving one maybe reason - that in Asia Christianity was against the law. Perhaps this did stop some from converting - perhaps not. However today, right now, there are people in goal for their Christian beliefs.
I agree if some one has faith making it illegal should not stop that faith. :)

[Lucius]

They demonstrated this ability after Constantine saw in Christianity the key to re-establishing a new standardized public worship, by wiping out heretical groups like the Montanists and Arians, along with numerous pagan religions and fellow Eastern mystery cults.

Well, Constantine certainly didn't want to wipe out the Arians; he was one himself. He just wanted everyone to be the same thing; to counter the dis-integration of the empire. But I wonder about the phrase, "wiping out." I know some bishops were let go and exiled to Gaul (and later returned). Is that what one means?

[Rob Matter]

what was it about an alien, Jewish sect that made the population abandon the ancient religion of their ancestors?

Calling Christianity an “alien, Jewish sect” is a vast oversimplification. Christianity, even in its most basic forms, combines elements of Judaism, paganism, and Zoroastrianism, to name a few. Everyone in the ancient would already identified with some aspect of Christianity; it had a wide appeal.

In Nietzschian terms, Christianity offered a moral upheaval favorable to the masses. Before Christ, what was morally good was exactly what a highschool atmosphere views as morally good: those that were rich, beautiful, and aggressive were the righteous. Christianity turned morality on its head. Now, wealth and power were evil; submission, weakness and poverty were righteous. This worked for most people, because most people—in the ancient world, as now—were weak and poor! In addition, Christianity offered an otherworldly paradise for those who were, in fact, the weak and the poor! Wow, what a deal—not only will I be smiled upon in this life for my inferiority, but I’ll be rewarded for it materially after I die!

Constantine and Charlemagne. Rulers define the religion of their subjects.

Actually, I believe the opposite is true. Constantine’s conversion was not the beginning of the Roman Empire’s adopting Christianity; it was the climax of it. From its inception in the early centuries AD, Christianity gradually pervaded the upper echelons of Roman society. When it reached the elites, those independent sources of power became a threat to the emperor unless he himself converted. The traditional tale is that Christianity was a peripheral, persecuted ideology up until Constantine instituted it from the top-down—this is only a myth.

Once Christianity and Rome became one entity, the wealth and prestige of the Roman Empire attracted outsiders to the faith—the Germanics are a prime example.

One God, one emperor, one empire.

That is also a very good point. All acts boil down to wealth and power.

Conversely, how monotheistic is Christianity? First, you have the trinity—3 gods in 1—okay, maybe I’ll buy that. But then, you have this legion of saints that people idolize and pray to; the saints take up offices (patron saint of this, that, and the other thing) the same way pagan gods do.

Christianity can be monotheistic or polytheistic, depending on how you look at it. But who was the first to draw the artificial distinction between monotheism and polytheism, anyway? What were their interests? Bet the farm it was the dogmatic monotheists who were only seeking to contrast their faith to the pagan faith, even though both were blatantly interconnected!

If Christianity was so successful, why didn't it spread further afield and take over all other religions, why was it only, "so successful amongst Europeans? " why didn't other peoples in the world accept Christinity the same way European peoples did?

To a huge extent, Christianity has affected civilizations on all continents. The traditional obstacle until the Age of Exploration was Islam, which Christianity failed to pervade because Islam is supposedly the upgraded form of Judeo-Christianity. For Muslims, Christianity is a step backwards. For everyone else—Native Americans, Africans, Asians—Christianity continues to have a huge appeal.

[Comet]

Conversely, how monotheistic is Christianity? First, you have the trinity—3 gods in 1—okay, maybe I’ll buy that. But then, you have this legion of saints that people idolize and pray to; the saints take up offices (patron saint of this, that, and the other thing) the same way pagan gods do.

Christianity can be monotheistic or polytheistic, depending on how you look at it. But who was the first to draw the artificial distinction between monotheism and polytheism, anyway? What were their interests? Bet the farm it was the dogmatic monotheists who were only seeking to contrast their faith to the pagan faith, even though both were blatantly interconnected!

This is a great point. You have mentioned everything that I have either taught or written over the past couple of years in a few paragraphs. I would tend to jump on your bandwagon about the dogmatic monotheists seeking to contrast with the pagan faith. I'm one to think that the development of early Christian dogmatics were partly the result of the weakening of Roman political power.

[Rob Matter]

I'm one to think that the development of early Christian dogmatics were partly the result of the weakening of Roman political power.

That’s true; the opposite is also true. As they became more zealous they cared less and less about maintaining the material wealth and power of the empire. Romanitas was replaced by ideals of stoic monasticism and the afterlife. Rome reached the height of its glory under Marcus Aurelius (180AD), and by 476AD Rome as we know it was gone; it is no coincidence that the Edict of Milan was issued right in the middle of those years of decline: 313AD.

[NomadBard]

That’s true; the opposite is also true. As they became more zealous they cared less and less about maintaining the material wealth and power of the empire. Romanitas was replaced by ideals of stoic monasticism and the afterlife. Rome reached the height of its glory under Marcus Aurelius (180AD), and by 476AD Rome as we know it was gone; it is no coincidence that the Edict of Milan was issued right in the middle of those years of decline: 313AD.

I thought Rome peaked under Trajan.