Christianity as a Mitigating Influence?
A final question which warrants brief consideration is whether another distinctive feature of late antiquity - the increasing impact of Christianity - extended its influencing attitudes to, and the use of, violence in warfare.
With the brief exception of the pagan Julian (361-3 ce), emperors from Constantine in the early fourth century onwards gave their official support to the Christian church, and demonstrated that support in various ways, including material resources for charitable activities and church construction. However, that support did not extend to embracing the pacifist elements evident in the New Testament (Old Testament warrior heroes like King David were more appealing role models), nor did church leaders expect emperors to relinquish their military role. Besides, in this phase of Roman history the emphasis was much more on defence than on imperialist expansion, which made it possible to view warfare as a justified activity defending a Christian empire against pagan enemies; but even when there were opportunities for expansion, as with Justinian’s sixth-century expeditions to regain the west, religion could be co-opted in justification, with Justinian presenting his campaigns as quasi-crusades against barbarian incomers who had meanwhile misguidedly embraced Arianism, a heterodox version of Christianity. Nor did Constantine’s adoption of Christianity initiate a thoroughgoing Christianisation of the military establishment. Soldiers’ religious loyalties during the fourth century seem to have been conservative, and emperors were more concerned to retain their political loyalties than to impose a new religion on them. The religious complexion of the army gradually changed after the fourth century, but obviously not in such a way as to take the violence out of warfare or out of soldiers' behaviour towards civilians.[528]There are two areas where it could be argued that Christianity did play a positive role in the context of warfare, although the first of these is perhaps ultimately less convincing. This is the role of Christianity in bolstering morale, whether it be a general encouraging troops about to face the enemy in battle by parading a holy icon, or a bishop reassuring defenders resisting a siege by leading them in prayers.[529] However, this is not really so different from the use of pagan religious rituals to strengthen morale in the Roman army of the Republic or the Principate, or the introduction of new deities to encourage the inhabitants of Rome during the darkest days of the Hannibalic War.
A stronger case for Christianity making a difference in late antique warfare is the role of bishops and clergy in mitigating some of the worst effects of warfare, whether it be their increasingly prominent role in acting as negotiators for their communities when Persian kings or barbarian rulers besieged their city, their important part in facilitating the ransom of prisoners of war (often through the use of church resources), or their provision of food to noncombatant refugees dislocated by the impact of war.[530] It is in these areas above all that one can see the sorts of developments highlighted by the approach to late antiquity popularised by Peter Brown - the increasing role of bishops in society at large and the charitable activities of the church - intersecting with the consequences of the undoubted violence which arose from the much greater incidence of warfare in late antiquity.