I expect this is not your work directly, Thomas, rather quoting Ehrman or someone else:
Even if Constantine had not converted, Christianity would still have gone from a relatively low percentage of the population in 312AD to over half of the Empire by 400, by the same organic growth it had seen in the previous three centuries.
This is fallacious reasoning akin to "slippery slope." There is no way to justify this assertion. We are back to looking at Galerius' persecutions and if they had come to full fruition.
Judaism, Christianity was an exclusive religion, where paganism was not. A pagan usually worshipped any number of gods and might do so at different times for different reasons. Family deities, local divine spirits, sacrifices to Neptune, say, before a sea voyage or to Mars before marching to war.
I think this too is based on assumptions, erroneous at that. I would think if we had a classical Pagan to ask, he or she would make an absolute distinction among the gods s/he preferred over the remainder. Another way to look at it, is superstitious people: a person with an aversion to black cats will absolutely make a distinction over that compared to spilled salt or walking under ladders or breaking mirrors.
“Suppose two persons were each promoting a new cult, one the worship of Asclepius and the other the worship of Jesus. A crowd of a hundred pagan polytheists gathers to hear each devotee extol the glories of his god. In the end, the two prove to be equally successful: fifty of the crowd decide now to worship Asclepius and fifty others decide to worship the Christian god. What happens to the overall relationship of paganism and Christianity? If our two hypothetical speakers are equally persuasive, paganism has lost fifty worshippers and gained none, whereas Christianity has gained fifty and lost none.” (p126)
And what of the people who are swayed by neither one? How do we account for them?
It is this accidental but ultimately highly effective combination of exclusivity and outreach that proved the key combination for Christianity and which drove the demographic exponential curve that saw it conquer the Roman Empire.
I don't buy this argument.
, then, Constantine motivated by politics and saw the Christians as a substantial power base?
Hypothetically, presuming there is some element of merit to the argument...then perhaps Galerius saw the growing Christian population as a threat to the Pax Romana from within... A threat I might add that seems borne out but a couple hundred years later with the sack of Rome.
It seems very clearly not. All the evidence indicates that, at least prior to Constantine and his successors, Christianity was substantially a lower class cult. While it had a few aristocratic and learned adherents – and they were prominent because their writings are our main sources of information – the majority of Christians were slaves, 'foreign' non-citizens and the urban plebeians. That Christians were so low class was a perennial comment by pagan observers as well as a source of satire and a basis for at least some anti-Christian polemic (such as Celcius). The popular support from the lower classes played very little or no role in bolstering the claim of a Roman emperor. In Constantine’s time, an emperor stayed on the throne via the support of the army, the senators and the equestrian class. Not the hoi-poloi.
In a society with 80% slaves, it makes sense that *at least* 80% of the converts were slaves. In a society where that percentage of poor Christians is also persecuted, they are even more likely to keep their heads down and mouths shut and keep to themselves...unlike in the West of the Empire where the persecution was not enacted, said slaves might be more willing (I should say *would* be more willing) to step forward and volunteer for military service primarily because it was about the only path to citizenship and full rights and benefits of citizenship in the Empire available to a poor person. Not all would qualify, and not all that stepped forward would be accepted...but the percentage of poor *Christians* that would step forward would necessarily be greater where there was no threat of persecution.
Constantine emerged as the sole ruler largely because he had the support of the Roman army’s officer class, at least enough to give him an edge over his competitors. That support came from the western legions’ devotion to his father and then from his own proven skill as a general. The other key to keeping the throne in this period was the support of the equestrian class. These were the educated administrative elite who kept the Empire running.
Interesting, this seems to fly directly in the face of the *fact* that Constantine disbanded and executed or exiled all of the remaining Praetorian Guard after Milvian Bridge. The vaunted Guard of Emperors, who by that time held the power to make or break Emperors (indeed, the very reason Maximian's son Maxentius courted their favor in Rome). The *fact* that Constantine stepped foot in the borders of Rome exactly twice: on his victory over Maxentius, and the twentieth anniversary of his rule - Constantine could care less about the political bickering among the Senate. Constantine ascended to the throne by virtue of his army, arguably among the, if not the, most well trained soldiers of the day. Constantine enacted several new military strategies leading up to his victory over Maxentius, notably the introduction of a light, rapid deployment force while leaving the bulk of his armies to defend the Northern borders where incursions were a constant threat.
The key point here is that both the military officer class and the equestrians were mostly pagans. There were some Christians in both echelons, but far fewer than in the lower strata.
But the key point is moot, borne out by the facts. Yes, the bulk of the officer class *across the Empire* was Pagan, not necessarily within Constantine's armies. Stated better - the percentage of Christians in Constantine's officer corps was most likely higher than in other armies by virtue of the lack of persecution and general tolerance of that faith among the men in his ranks.
Now - one lesson to consider is that Maximian, in his failed bid to regain power, on two occasions in the period leading up to Constantine's victory over his son, swayed the opposing army to join his side. The first time was a march to rescue his son from Severus, sent by Galerius to punish the usurper. Maximian was able to turn Severus' forces against him by bribery, ending in his capture and eventual execution, a stunning blow that signalled the end for Galerius. Shortly after Father and Son had a falling out, and Maximian fled to Constantine for protection. The second time recorded, Maximian was able to sway some of Contantine's troops with the lie that he had been killed on the battlefield, which when Constantine learned he immediately turned his forces from the task at hand and returned to confront Maximian - which ended in the house arrest and eventual suicide of Maximian. Which became fuel for Maxentius to foment hostilities towards Constantine that led ultimately to Milvian Bridge. This is all readily available Roman History.
Point being, whoever commanded the military, particularly during these periods of civil war, were in the catbird seat to tell the Senate how it was going to be...the Senate did not dictate to the armies, they were not in a position to do so unless with bribery.
So - coming from the Western Empire, Constantine's forces would have had a higher percentage of openly Christian soldiers, both officers / Equestrians *and* enlisted, compared to any other army in the Empire. That percentage still may have only been 10% or less, but it was monumentally higher than in every other army in the Empire by virtue of the purges of the military ranks...St Florian for example.
