# Talk:Historiography of the Christianization of the Roman Empire

hello!
after reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Christianity_and_homosexuality, this article brought up significant viewpoints on early christianity's relationship with homosexuality. is it insightful to add a section on said relationship in this article though? 98.59.80.64 (talk) 19:24, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid that would be a digression rather than an explanation of anything pertinent to this article imo. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:59, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
cool! that sorta makes sense on how just analyzing christian ethics doesn't relate to the article. however, personally, it could be interesting/noteworthy/important in the history of christianized europe to see the attitudes for and against homosexuality evolve before and after religious change. does this make sense? and if its unnecessary then 100% understand, Homosexuality in medieval Europe does give a few sentences on the change of tolerance 98.59.80.64 (talk) 02:07, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
98.59.80.64 Please forgive the long delay in my response here. My computer died and had to be replaced - after an appropriate mourning period of course.  That was sarcasm over how these blankety-blank things have taken over our lives! At any rate, I am back.
In this article, there is an allusion to Paul's teaching, but no discussion over homosexuality specifically, because it would be a rabbit hole that is off topic for how the Roman Empire was converted. It was asceticism - celibacy - that impacted the empire so hard, it wasn't about homosexuality as such. Paul lumped all sexual behaviors that weren't marriage into one category, and only advocated for marriage or celibacy.
However, I have included a more detailed discussion of ancient attitudes in two other articles that might interest you, here: [1] and here : [2]. Or not, which is also fine. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:26, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Marriage and the rest. Simple, I'll give him that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
hello! sorry for the late reply, it turns out that there is actually a cool article here:
https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1074&context=younghistorians
, and although i agree that it shouldn't be on this article (probably more on History of homosexuality and the other articles you've mentioned), it, and the article sections referenced, scratched my itch on, to really put it informally "girl what happened to the greeks and romans to reverse stances on homosexuality"
so yay! tysm and have a nice day, also sorry for my own late reply :DD  98.59.80.64 (talk) 03:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
No problem! Hope you have a happy holiday season. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:25, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

It would, I think, be helpful if the lead image was "animated" in 3 stages, pink dots, pink + blue dots, pink + blue + black dots. I think there are people around who can do this if they want to. Somewhere. Otoh, perhaps it would just be distracting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:42, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

LOL!! That would be entertaining! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:15, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I read this article a few years ago when it was still the “Decline of Greco-Roman Polytheism.”
I looked through the talk history, and there may have been some merit in making the topic more neutral. It looks like someone had proposed calling it something like, “Religious Change in the Late Antique Roman Empire.”
However, the focus has not only gone completely in the other direction –focusing on the spread of Christianity rather than the decline of traditional polytheism– but it's also become a meta commentary on the history of how this history of the spread of Christianity has been told.
The original article was an important topic in its own right with a straightforward recounting of historical events from the standpoint of polytheism rather than Christianity.
I would add that this article now covers territory that is very similar to a number of other articles on early Christianity, and no longer covers the original topic with any specificity.
I have no issue with this article remaining as it is, but I believe the original topic deserves being revived in a separate article. Livius Plinius (talk) 18:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

The article Persecution of pagans in the late Roman Empire may largely cover the topic you're saying is absent, albeit perhaps in a slightly different fashion. Aza24 (talk) 19:21, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
In that case, it may make more sense for the redirect from “Decline of Greco-Roman Paganism” to point to that article. Livius Plinius (talk) 19:27, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Indeed. I've just changed it as such and it seems the redirect originally went there anyways. Aza24 (talk) 05:42, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Shouldn't the title of this article be Historiography of the Christianization of the Roman Empire? I think the current title is ungrammatical. I noticed  that in September 2022, the article title was briefly moved from Historiography of the Christianization of the Roman Empire to Christianization of the Roman Empire, before being moved back by Rosguill to the current title. The initial renaming was brought up previously on this talk page by Jenhawk777. Rosguill, did you mean to exclude "the" from the title when you moved the page back? Malerisch (talk) 04:25, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

No objections, I think this was an oversight on my part. signed, Rosguill talk 14:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Rosguill, If there are no objections, could you move it back? I'm unable to because the current redirect page Historiography of the Christianization of the Roman Empire has more than one edit in its page history, and I'm not a page mover. Malerisch (talk) 23:24, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Currently the article reads as follows:
"The Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon in 449 and 451, convened by Theodosius II (407–450) and Marcian (450–457) respectively, were unacceptable to the papacy. Pope Leo attempted to challenge the imperial decisions taken at these councils."
This needs more explanation, because the traditional account of Chalcedon is that Leo fully supported the Chalcedonian line and in fact was an instigator of that council, in opposition to Second Ephesus, which he did oppose. Can someone who has access to the full text of Gratsianskiy please clarify what is meant here? Because at the moment, this assertion seems to be plainly against the orthodox history of those councils. Ikuzaf (talk) 05:48, 28 September 2025 (UTC)